Sending those links as evidence of British alliance with Israel and using their air force to help the Jews of Israel was done either because of your poor reading comprehension or it was an attempt at duplicity. The latter is obviously the case considering the content and tone of your posts.
Both of those links explain that the RAF attacked Egyptian planes because they attacked Brits, NOT because they attacked Israel or Jews.
Just to clarify my position. Calling an opposing force terrorists is often controversial. I feel that if the fighters confine their attacks to military personell then they are freedom fighters or an army of sorts. That is what the Irgun did. Just because the Brits didn't like them doesn't make them terrorists. The King David Hotel was a military target, period. They ignored warnings.
1—It was not an attempt at duplicity. It was a point made to counter the ridiculous assertion that Britain tried to help wipe out the new Jewish state in 1948. I pointed out that the British did not fight with the Arabs, and I pointed out that the only air battle involving British planes was one AGAINST an Arab attacker of Israel.
That is fact. Sorry if that shatters your 1948 conspiracy theory. Perhaps it is not evidence of an ‘alliance’, but IS clear evidence that the assertion that the British and Arabs had an alliance is bunkum.
2—’ I feel that if the fighters confine their attacks to military personell then they are freedom fighters or an army of sorts.’
So the men who committed the USS Cole and Riyadh are freedom fighters then?. And the men who blew up the Marine barracks in Beirut?.
And what about when attacks on the military kill civilians?.
As to the Irgun, the KD Hotel bombing killed civilians. The Irgun also murdered a civilian who had spent WW2 SAVING thousands of Jewish lives. So what Irgun acts are justifiable and what ones arent?. Even your ‘justifiable’ acts against the British military contained acts of vileness: the torture and murder of two unarmed British soldiers (Sgts Paice and Martin), whose dead bodies were then boobytrapped. So was the torture and strangulation of two unarmed and bound men A-OK?.
Why is there such an unwillingness to admit that the two groups were terrorists?. If they were Arab, British, American or European this wouldnt even be an issue. Because they were Jewish, there seems to be this stupid idea that to call them terrorists is to negate the validity of the idea of Israel as founded in 1948, or even that to do so is somehow tantamount of anti-semitism.
Utter nonsense. Calling them what they were no more negates or attacks Jewishess or Israel anymore than to call the IRA terrorists negates the idea of peaceful Irish Republicanism or makes all (Catholic) Irish people murdering terrorists.
Your attempt to justify this terrorism and that of the IRA is disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself.