We’ve had this discussion before. I don’t “hero worship” the Irgun, and certainly not Lehi. But terrorists, the Irgun most emphatically was not. Let’s just examine the charge once and for all, so we don’t have to keep going over this. “Terrorism” has come to mean guerrilla fighters whose main tactic is to target civilian non-combatants for political ends. The Irgun, far from targeting civilians, posted signs before operations warning civilians in Hebrew, English and Arabic to stay out of the area. On the contrary, the Irgun boldly attacked military and police targets and prevailed against incredible odds. They destroyed the CID building twice. They affected daredevil prison breaks and raided munitions depots for arms. They publicly beat British sergeants for abusing their power. That is not terrorism as the term is conventionally understood. As for Lehi, I hold no brief for them. Their assassination of an ambassador was inexcusable.
Terrorism in the past has meant a guerrilla fighting force that refuses to wear recognizable uniforms or have officers, and hides among civilian populations, using them as shields. In other words, violators of the 4th Geneva Convention. Irgunists admittedly did live normal lives in civilian areas, partly as camouflage for their subterranean activities. Menahem Begin writes of his years in Tel Aviv in which he was a bearded congregant in a small synagogue in a poor neighborhood. But that is not the same thing as using civilians as shields, as Hamas now does. In fact, when Yaakov Meridor was captured, he immediately admitted who he was and came along quietly, rather than subject his wife, children and neighbors to the ordeal and dangers of a struggle to evade armed British soldiers.
So did the Irgun violate the Geneva Convention? Yes. But “terrorists, plain and simple” they were not. They were freedom fighters in every sense of the word, not by any stretch comparable with the IRA, Hamas or the PLO.
The Irgun tortured and hung two British soldiers (Sgts Martin and Paice), then bobbytrapped their bodies in order to kill more soldiers. Justify that one.
The Irgun carried out the King David bombing which killed civilian Jews, Arabs and British. Justify that one.
(a bombing that Israelis CELEBRATED in 2006:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing#60th_anniversary_controversy )
The Irgun bombed the British Embassy in Rome, which injured civilian Italians and British. Justify that one.
Yes, the Irgun were terrorists. And I find your justification of them sickening. It would be ironically be more honest if you did admit they were, yet supported what they did.
There is no way, even if you can morally argue for the raids against British military targets (and that itself is another issue where your history is not black and white), that you can justify what was done to the two unarmed and held British sargeants OR the King David bombing OR the Rome bombing.