Elder of Ziyon - Comments here do not necessarily reflect the opinions of EoZ
The article is cut off on the right side and can't be read.
It seems to work OK in Firefox, looks like an IE problem with wordwrap. I'll try to fix it.
Try it now.
The same British government that banned Jews from living in Transjordan today complains about Jews living in Yesha. At least its being consistent.
Elder,
I need your antidote against the the deadly Amy-Goodman.
http://www.democracynow.org/
2009..._maguire_speaks
Please read this transcript, this is what this sick self-hating Jew delivering to millions almost on daily basis.
http://www.aljazeera.com/vote/vo...voteid=396&
sr=1
Is Israel justified in its blockade of Gaza? Currently 78.8% vote yes
Just for the hell of it I just voted 10 times "Yes". Had to delete a cookie every time.
Jordan has the equivalent of Israel's Right Of Return Law. But only Israel is censored for being "racist" for giving only Jews the privilege to obtain immediate citizenship upon arrival in Israel. Go figure.
NormanF - Can you cite the equivalent regulation?
veet - Amy's web site doesn't seem to have anything for feedback or comment, so I guess it should be called Democracy Later. She doesn't ask hard hitting questions such as how the conditions of her prisoners differs from that of Gilad Shalit or the close to 1000 Fatah prisoners held in Gaza, or can they compare the contents of their boat to what gets into Gaza via Israel. How much aid did they bring for the poorer people of Rafah in Egypt is a good one to ask as well.
This kind of information will never make it to the ones who should know about it. And if it does, they never make the connection with Israel and realise the differences of their approach to the whole Middle East conflict.
Btw on freedom of religion in Jordan (200
:
c. Freedom of Religion
The constitution provides for freedom to practice the rites of one's religion, provided that religious practices are consistent with "public order and morality"; however, the constitution also restricts freedom of religion in stipulating that Islamic law, which forbids the conversion of Muslims to another religion, governs Muslim citizens' personal status. The government also continued to impose some restrictions on religious freedom in practice.
The state religion is Islam, which effectively restricted others' rights, especially in terms of family law. For official recognition, the government required Christian denominations to have citizens among their constituency and to be recognized by the Middle East Council of Churches. Christian religious leaders stated that the MOI also conducts background investigations of church leaders. The government did not recognize the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Church of Christ, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the Druze, but each of these denominations conducted most religious services and activities without interference. The government did not recognize or permit Baha'is to hold religious councils, did not recognize marriages by the Baha'i Assembly, and did not permit Baha'is to register properties or endowments in the name of the Baha'i community. The government continued to stigmatize the Baha'is by recording "dashes" in the religion field of their national identity cards and categorized Druze as Muslims on these documents. Atheists must associate themselves with a recognized religion for official identification purposes.
In December 2007 the government required MOI approval for old and existing places of worship, after which several Christian churches reported being ordered to close. Representatives of a few evangelical churches reported that the MOI ordered landlords who previously rented them properties for church services and offices not to renew those leases.
There are no restrictions on collective worship as long as worship practices do not violate the law; however, several religious workers and pastors stated that authorities prevented them from conducting meetings or conferences during the year in hotels or public venues on security grounds.
Public schools provide mandatory religious instruction for all Muslim students during which Christian students are allowed to leave the classroom. Christian students in private and public schools must learn verses from the Koran and Islamic poetry in Arabic and social studies classes in preparation for mid-year and end-of-year exams. The constitution provides that congregations have the right to establish schools for the educatio
@L.King, from the same report I mentioned above:
"There were three groups of Palestinians residing in the country, many of whom faced some discrimination. Those who migrated to the country and the Jordan-controlled West Bank after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war were given full citizenship, as were those who migrated to the country after the 1967 war and hold no residency entitlement in the West Bank. Those still residing in the West Bank after 1967 were no longer eligible to claim full citizenship but were allowed to obtain temporary passports without national numbers, provided they did not also carry a Palestinian Authority travel document. Refugees who fled Gaza after 1967 were not entitled to citizenship and were issued temporary passports without national numbers."
Interesting, and historically understandable, that they made the distinction between Westbankers and Gazans.
Btw Elder, on the religious freedom report on Jordan from 2008 - a more extended report on this subject, I found the following:
"The Government recognizes Judaism as a religion; however, there are reportedly no citizens who are Jewish. The Government does not impose restrictions on Jews, and they are permitted to own property and conduct business in the country."
(well, it makes it easy not to impose restrictions on religion when that religion is not being practised in that country, does it? 
)
heres the link, btw:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/i...2008/
108485.htm
Thanks Suzanne. I didn't have confirmation that there were zero Jews in Jordan.(And parts of Jordan were in ancient Israel; there are many archaeological sites of interest to Jews.)
The most moderate Arab nation is Judenrein! At least Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt have a few Jews.
Yea I know:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/
wiki...d_12_Tribes.jpg
In this article dated 1899 a 'settlement' is mentioned east of the Jordan river (in current Jordan)- which was then part of the region Palestine, which was part of the Ottoman Empire:
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/
arc...9679C94689ED7CF
Also interesting:
"Colonization of Palestine" 1881:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&s...GefguBylf1-
Hhog
The Sultan apparently agreed to the plan to settle east of the Jordan.
Also interesting:
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/
arc...96E9C94669ED7CF
in which the east of Jordan is mentioned as being the ideal place for wheat, cotton and tobacco. But that the transfer of goods is problematic at the moment as its done on camels, but that when the Railway will be established, it'll all be fine and dandy. It sounds so promising in this article, which dates from 1897.... The whole population would benefit from it.
If only.
I believe that the stupid Great War (WWI) destroyed much of these optimistic plans.
Brilliant post - thanks
I've linked to it here:
http://ajewwithaview.wordpress.c...7/03/judenfrei/
It is rank hypocrisy; as others have pointed out, we never hear tirades against Jordan yet Israel is frequently denounced as 'racist'.
Seems there is no end to the hypocrisy involved where Israel is involved.
Incidentally, one of the problems is that Palestinian Jews have a generational problem in that only the PLO Charter offers only pre-Balfour Jews citizenship by succession to the Mandate. So Israel is the only successor state that offers Mandate Palestine-born Palestinian Jews--by which I mean samech-tets or Ashkenazis who lived in majority-Arab areas of the Mandate, were fluent in the local Arabic, and whose birth areas and residencies were not included in the Jewish State of 181 etc--citizenship. This is an abdication of a potential Arab state's duty as a successor to the Mandate and an indication of its unfitness to assume jurisdiction over Israelis or Palestinian Jews in a one-state or two-state solution.
Your article is full of half-truths and assumptions which paint a very false picture.
Firstly, in relation to the law you cite, its 2nd article clearly states that (2)Any person who, not being Jewish, possessed Palestinian nationality before 15 May 1948 and was a regular resident in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan between 20 December 1949 and 16 February 1954. This clearly does not exclude all Jews, but refers to citizens of Palestine who lived in what became part of Jordan that were of Arab origin. I think the law is more than justified considering those Jews excluded by the law in place were the very same ones who took over a neighbouring Arab countries, and for a while set what was Transjordan in their sights as a potential Zionist home in addition to Palesitne. And for the claim that this is arbitrary and excludes those Jews who lived there before the immigration, lets not forget the arbitrary expulsion and ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from what became Israel.
Secondly, in relation to land ownership, do not make it seem to be like Jews are excluded exclusively - you yourself stated that this is a blanket law that includes more than just Jews, so stop twisting the truth. And when the law was passed, Israel were very much the enemy - their aggressivness in the region is unprecidented, and very well documented, and they had cost Jordan, a country which is made up of millions of Palestinian refugees/people with Palestinian origins, very much in terms of stability, territory and water resources, something very scarce in Jordan.
The British for political reasons, detached the eastern half of the Palestine Mandate from the Jewish national home to create a home for a dispossessed Arab prince. A two state solution could have been created had the British wanted to do so then and there and a century's worth of blood, sweat, tears and suffering might have been averted.
@Jordanian, thanks for your input. This is how I understood your law as well.
Anyhow. Do you know if there are currently Jordanian Jews? And do you know what happened to the places in current Jordan mentioned in the articles in my comments above?
btw, Jordanian, I wonder what you mean when you state "people with Palestinian origins". After all, your country was founded on Palestine.
Suzanne, it is Palestine. There is already a Palestinian state so Israel being asked to create a second state for people who already have a homeland. It doesn't make sense.
Suzanne, no, I don't think there are currently any Jordanian Jews, but to my knowledge there aren't any Jordanian Buddhists, Hindus or Rastafarians either.
And no, Jordan was not founded within Palestine. People of Palestinian origins are those east of the River Jordan, who form a seperate cultural entitey based on their customs, heritage, accent, national identity and the land the identify with.
The belief that Jordan was somehow part of Palestine stems from the fact that for administrative purposes, Transjordan and Palestine formed one mandate for the whole of three years during the beginning of British rule, prior to 1922. Before the British Mandate came along, the Ottomans did not rule the two territories together - Much of what is Jordan today was part of the Vilayet of Damascus, which can readily be confirmed with a simple Google search.
Palestinians and Jordanians are two distinct groups however, who are not the same, just as they are not the same as all other Arabs, contrary to what many Zionists like to think to justify the expulsion of Palestinians to themselves. I am proud to be both Jordanian and Palestinian, and that is why I had to comment on this article which is full of holes.
NormanF, apart from what I have already said above, by that logic, there are already 50 states in the US, so why not give Texas or California to the Mexicans? I mean, they are a large immigrant group, and have history in the area, don't they?
My family, like many others, was expelled from Palestine and will never, ever forget its origins or the crimes committed against it by the founders of Israel. My grandparents weren't told to leave by Arab forces, as i'm sure you believe - they were forced out of their homes with what they could carry at gunpoint by the Haganah. So please, spare me the bullshit about how "we already have a State", etc, because nothing in the world justifies the expulsion and transfer of 700,000 human beings for the benefit of an immigrant population.
We were punished for a crime we did not commit, the Holocaust, and we paid the price for Europe's mistakes. There is nothing right about that. I would have thought that most Jews would be sympathetic with mistreatment, persecution, and such blatant mistruths about a population's culture - apparently not.
*Meant to say West of the River Jordan above.
Thanks for the clarifications, Jordanian, although my update included your points. I do admit that the article I originally quoted was inaccurate.
And while Jordanian law doesn't explicitly exclude "Jews" as becoming new citizens, it does restrict new citizens to being Arab (unless the king gives his direct approval,) which is in some ways even more bigoted.
It amazes me that Arabs have no compunction about calling Israel racist for favoring Jews in becoming citizens and yet they cannot admit that their own citizenship laws are far more exclusionary against non-Arabs.
Jordanian, the difference is Jews have always lived in the Land Of Israel for over 3500 years and there has always been a continuous Jewish presence even when Jews were a minority in the country. And they are a minority in parts of Israel even today. The League Of Nations Mandate and Zionism preceded the Holocaust and had nothing to do with it. Emergence of Jewish and Arab states was the logical end result of the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and its autonomous religious communities which gained independence: Greek Orthodox, Maronites, Muslims and Jews. The Western powers merely ratified this historical development and it was not imposed upon any one.
Palestinians are no different than Jordanians nor any other Arabs. Jordanians, Syrians, Lebanese, Palestinians are all Arabs.
So-called Palestinians were never expelled. Arabs started wars with Israel that had consequences of population displacement, which happens in all wars. If you didn't want to lose your homes, you shouldn't have tried to kill Jews. Now, just suck it up.
Jordan was viewed as Eastern Palestine by the League of Nations, which had included that territory for the Jewish National Home. The Zionist Organization, too, viewed Jordan as Eastern Palestine as did many historians.
Jordanian, face it, Jordan excludes Jews from becoming citizens. Palestinian Jews are specifically excluded, so, you're suggesting what, that Jordan will extend citizenship to Jews from the US, Paris and London, just not from Palestine? Don't make me laugh.
Jordanian, you neglected to mention Jordan's law that forbids Arabs from selling land to a Jew, punishable by death. I have the law. It's the same law that Hamas and Fatah have modeled their own laws after, which punish Arabs by hanging for selling land to a Jew. Arabs are savages.
David,many were expelled. And as I've pointed out before,the war wasn't started solely by Arabs. Even if it had been,exile of the whole population was too severe a punishment.
No Aaron - most Arabs moved only a couple of miles outside Israel and they were not sentenced to die. They are still in camps to this day due to a deliberate decision by Arab leaders to use them as a propaganda weapon against Israel. The Arabs do not want the Palestine issue to ever disappear from the international agenda. They do not want it solved.
So their exile doesn't matter because they aren't that far from what used to be Palestine? Surely the people occupying their former homes bear a share of responsibility for their being in camps.
Aaron, the '48 War was formally launched by the Arabs, by declaration of war, so, please do not revise history. Some Arabs were expelled, mostly, if they were in the way of the military, however, there was no need for Jews to engage in any mass expulsion of Arabs for the simple and logical reason that UN Res. 181 had accorded a state for the Pals and 181 called for an Arab minority in Israel. Had the Jews wanted no Arabs, there would not be 1.5 million Arabs in Israel today.
The Pals started a guerilla war leading up to the '48 War and fought the Jews in that war. Others simply abandoned Israel in time of war, like cowards. Are you seriously suggesting those same Pals, and their descendants, merit some right of return? Nonsense! No right of return has ever been granted to any mass of people and the Pals are not deserving of being the first.
As Aaron knows, in every international conflict other than that between Israel and the Arabs, refugees were resettled rather than repatriated. The Arabs have never tried to hide the reason they demand Israel take in several million hostile Arabs: to destroy the Jewish State through changing its demographic composition what they could not do in several wars. And then there's the issue of the Jewish refugees from Arab countries. No one is talking about repatriating them. So where do the Arabs get to be the exception to the historical rule about resolving a refugee problem that was created, incidentally by the war of aggression they launched against Israel in 1948? A petitioner should have clean hands. The Arabs don't.
The guerilla war David refers to was not started solely by the Palestinians. On Dec 11th,according to the Palestine Post,Irgun attacks on Tireh,Yehuda and Jaffa killed twenty six. The Post did not claim there had been any provocation from Tireh. On the 12th,Gaza and Hebron were attacked. On the 13th,two busloads of Arabs were blown up. On the 15th Arabs were attacked on the roads,including in the Sharon plain where,according to the Post,there had been no violence against Jews. Finally,the Haganah shut down Arab shops and factories. By the way,Norman,refugees were repatriated in Kosovo and Afghanistan,do you object to that?
Yes,that was me.
Anonymous, the Irgun was formed to protect Jews from Arab violence commencing in the 1920s and continuing through the day Israel was reestablished in '48. Arabs massacred Jews in Hebron in 1929 and in a particularly vicious period between 1936--1939. Violence was not limited to Palestine with the Farhud massacre of Jews in Irag in '41. Violence came easily to Pals who were led by the Mufti, a Nazi collaborator with close ties to Hitler, Himmler and Eichmann. The Mufti recruited SS throughout Europe and proposed his own plan for extermination of Jews in the Middle East that the Nazis did not approve. Jewish violence came in the form of self-defense in response to Arab savagery. Yes, even Jews are entitled to defend themselves. Ultimately, it was Arab resistance to Israel that resulted in their invasion of Israel in '48
What David has written does not refute my point;the fighting in 1947-48 was not provoked solely by Arabs. And Irgun killing of civilians in the 1930s and 40s wasn't "protection".
Aaron, the Jews of Palestine accepted partition twice to get a state: in 1937 with the Peel Plan and in 1947 with the UN Plan. Jews are willing to accept another partition today. In every case, the Arabs rejected it because they wanted all the land free of Jews or nothing. That is why in all likelihood, they will wind up again with nothing.
The World Zionist Congress actually rejected the Peel plan(cf. Christopher Sykes,Crossroads to Israel)but at any rate this is a different subject from what I was talking about.
Irgun was formed because the Zionists arrived unarmed and without an army, and, were being massacred by Arab savages. For you to suggest the Jews were complicit in starting the '48 War does not reflect well on your scholarship as the Arab League's declaration of war is readily available, as are the belligerent threats from Arab leaders leading up to the war. You are not going to get away with revisionist anti-Israeli propaganda here. Next thing you'll try to have us believe is the existence of an ancient Palestinian people.
Zionists were amenable to the Peel partition proposal, however, with the stipulation of further negotiations. It is incorrect to suggest Zionists rejected the Peel plan. Arabs rejected it.
See Sykes. The World Zionist Congress declared the plan "unacceptable" and THEN said they would engage in negotiations.
I was talking about the fighting that preceded the Arab invasion. The Arab League's later declaration of war is a different matter. Also,David seems unwilling to acknowledge the Irgun's own record of terrorism.
So, Jews can't fight back when attacked? Are you unfamiliar with the inherent right of self-defense? Jews in Palestine were tormented by Arab violence for nearly 70 years before the reestablishment of Israel and that they didn't sit back and allow another Holocaust doesn't mean they were complicit in starting the '48 War. Use your head, man.
Yeah, Jewish terrorists. Begin was just like bin Ladin, right? You aren't worthy of a response, you moron.
You must live in a parallel universe, Jordanian as you clearly have a different view on "Palestinian". So, forgive me asking this ignorant question, but how old is this nation of Palestinians really and what kind of people are they? Arabs? Something else?
And what are Jordanians, really?
Jordanian, why so few books on this ancient Palestinian People? I find three on amazon. Thousands of books written on the Jewish people. Maybe you can fill in the cracks: Tell us who are the important historical Palestinian leaders and kings, notable Palestinian writers and philosophers, other great figures who help make Palestinian history so rich and lasting.
David, you can google Israel before the 19th Century. You can google Palestine but it tells you nothing about the inhabitants, their culture and their history. If the PalArabs can point to an instance of sovereign Arab rule in Eretz Israel lasting at least two centuries, they're welcome to mention it to the world.
Norman, exactly. Prior to the reestablishment of Israel, it was the Jews who were referred to as Palestiniains. Arabs were known as Arabs or Syrians, etc. or Muslims/Christians. Arafat appropriated the term Palestinian to create a fictional people who are no different than any other Arabs. It's like Mother Goose, except Mother Goose wasn't a suicide bomber.
Killing civilians is not legitimate "fighting back" and the King David Hotel bombing was not "fighting back".
I offered evidence that Jews were not just "fighting back" in 1947-48 and David has yet to answer it.
Both Aaron and David/NormanF are speaking in convenient half-truths.
The Irgun, by all means, was a terrorist org. in that it employed guerilla tactics and did not restrict itself to British and Arab military targets, but specifically targeted Arab civilians. The infamous King David Bombing is, however, counter-productive for you Aaron since it was a British headquarters and a warning has been issued and a small device detonated in advance to make the people flee. The British failed to heed the warning and payed dearly for their blunder (much like the Americans in Pearl Harbor). The King David bombing was designed to be a showcase attack to undermine british morale, but not to cause mass casualties.
Now, on the other hand, while many Irgun attacks on Arab civlians were of (what they themselves considered) retaliatory nature, some were not, and even those that were still fall under the defenition of terrorism.
It was a hotel that contained a British headquarters;the dead were mostly noncombatants. Phoning in a warning doesn't remove the responsibility from the perpetrators.
"Killing civilians is not legitimate "fighting back" and the King David Hotel bombing was not "fighting back".
Incorrect. Civilian casualties are permitted under int'l law provided they are not intentionally inflicted. Also under int'l law, civilian installations become legitimate military targets when used for military purposes, so, with the King David Hotel having been used as a base for the British army, and with the British army acting as a belligerent in suppressing Jewish immigration during the Nazi extermination of Jews, making th British gov't complicit in the deaths of Jews, the Irgun was morally justified in bombing the hotel and legally compliant in doing so.
"I offered evidence that Jews were not just "fighting back" in 1947-48 and David has yet to answer it."
I just did.
No,you didn't answer what I wrote about the 1947-48 war. If you think the Irgun inflicted civilian casualties "unintentionally" you are remarkably uninformed. Your defense of the King David Hotel massacre is shocking. If Palestinians blew up a hotel that contained an IDF office,I doubt you would have the same attitude.
But David, the Irgun did target civilians INTENTIONALLY as can be seen by the list of its attacks as well as its boasting of these attacks. Regardless, of whether they were of retaliatory nature, they constitute terrorism. You can argue that the King David bombing was not terrorism, especially given the warning, but then you would have to concede that by that same logic Palestinian attacks on Israeli military targets is not terrorism as well.
And Aaron, contrary to what you would have us believe, the fact that Irgun called in with a warning and went to some lengths to make sure as few civilians as possible were hurt, does not make it a "massacre". A massacre is a deliberate slaughter of non-combatants. Moreover, the attack was clearly directed at a military target, and as David rightly notes, in a time where the British curtailment of Jewish immigration brought an untold catastrophe on the Jewish people. One can argue, not without merit, that the British were complicit in the Holocaust by means of doing absolutely nothing to stop it, when in fact they could have substantially reduced the numbers of dead had they lifted the immigration restrictions imposed just before the holocaust.
"No,you didn't answer what I wrote about the 1947-48 war. If you think the Irgun inflicted civilian casualties "unintentionally" you are remarkably uninformed. Your defense of the King David Hotel massacre is shocking. If Palestinians blew up a hotel that contained an IDF office,I doubt you would have the same attitude.
Aaron Carine | 07.07.09 - 12:30 pm "
What you wrote about the '48 War is idiocy. The Arabs invaded Israel and if you wish to wallow in delusion, that is your privilege, sad as it may be. The King David massacre was morally justified as the British army stationed there were preventing Jews being sent to the ovens in Germany from immigrating to Palestine. It would have been morally wrong for the Irgun to stand by and watch. Palestinians have no moral right to blow anything up since they are not Palestinians, they are just garden-variety Arabs with 22 states to live in. Jews have only one state.
I know the Arabs invaded Israel,I was talking about what happened in the months before the invasion,which you won't acknowledge. The King David bombing came after the Holocaust,not during it,as you imply. It still would have been murder if it had occurred during the Holocaust. If Jews have the right to practise terror because they are being kept out of Palestine,it is hard to deny the right to Palestinians,who have many complaints of their own.
" I know the Arabs invaded Israel,I was talking about what happened in the months before the invasion,which you won't acknowledge. "
I acknowledge that Arab persecution, violence and massacres involving Jews led up to the '48 War. Jews retaliated in self-defense. Just like today. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
"The King David bombing came after the Holocaust,not during it,as you imply."
Irrelevant as the Holocaust brought greater gravity to the importance of European Jews being allowed unfettered immigration to Palestine. The British gov't's policy was inimical to Jewish immigration in violation of the Palestine Mandate.
"It still would have been murder if it had occurred during the Holocaust. "
The Irgun did not target civilians. Unintentional casualties do not constitute murder. The British army made the hotel a legitimate military target of high value by being based there.
"If Jews have the right to practise terror because they are being kept out of Palestine,it is hard to deny the right to Palestinians,who have many complaints of their own."
Palestinians have no right to Palestine if they do not have legal title to land. The Palestine Mandate called for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, not a Palestinian homeland. Palestinians have Jordan as their homeland.
I provided examples of Jews attacking Arabs in 1947-48 but you just keep repeating that it was all the Arabs.
The Irgun did target civilians,as every history points out. Blowing up a hotel full of civilians isn't "unintentional"and the Irgun killed plenty of civilians in the 30s.
Are Palestinians supposed to surrender all their rights because the Palestine Mandate--imposed on them by a colonial power--didn't say they could have a homeland?
The hotel became a legitimate target under the rules of war. Sorry. The British army was ill-advised to establish a military base in a hotel. As for your incessant claims of Jews attacking Arabs, the cycle of violence started with Arabs in the 1920s. Zionists arrived unarmed as Zionism preaches pacifism and without a military. The Mufti went to Germany and asked Hitler to assist him in the extermination of Jews in the Middle East, so, don't complain to me about Jewish violence. I suppose you feel there was Jewish violence in the Warsaw uprising.
This thread is very interesting, I suppose people could really debate these points to death and what would be the outcome?
The real issue is where to go from here, what to do to go forward.
The tyrants in places Like Egypt and Jordan found it simple to convinve everyone the real problem was Israel.
Things haven't worked out so well for them....
Israel is actually the most diverse country in the ME.
How to reconcile that I wonder with the sad reality of life in much of Jordan.
David seems to have dropped the pretense that there was no Jewish terrorism or Jewish-initiated violence.
Now he just says it was all justified,which is at least an honest stance.
There was Jewish violence, though, no terrorism, from Jews. Violence, however, in response to violence is morally and legally justified.
David, if we are to have a consistent definition of "terror" I don't think that we can classify Irgun reprisals targeting civilian Arabs as anything but terrorism.
I don't regard the King David hotel as a terror attack, but certainly some of their attacks were.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Lis...f_Irgun_attacks
Our sympathy for the Irgun cannot blind us to the facts, and if I am going to argue against terrorism on the blog I need to admit that at least some of these were terror acts as well, unless there is information about these acts, their motivation or targets that I am not aware of.
Commenting by HaloScan
