Legendary Jerusalem mayor ratted out fellow Jews

WND ^ | April 1, 2007 | Aaron Klein

[American in Israel]

You wrote: "He was killed for sending Jews back to Jewish blood drenched Europe and to interment camps."

Odd. The gunman's boss claimed it was for "national liberation."

And both positions were true. Odd that you cannot see that, or refuse to.

[KantianBurke]

ROTFLMAO! Are you for real? Waging war against the Jews? During WWII? Umm have you picked up a history book lately? You might recall that it was the Brits who were liberating Jews in the death camps, not placing them in them. One shouldn't be surprised however. If you're willing to denote sainthood to murderers, why not charge the British with participation in the Holocaust!

[American in Israel]

It is interesting the charges against the soldiers hung as you listed them. Most were against the betrayal of the British, but the charge of spying in civilian clothing is quite interesting along with the fact that the charge was only put against two of them, not three.

Perhaps the trial had a bit more substance than you are crediting it.

The murder and torture by the British has been well documented by History, as the arming of the Arabs and disarming of the Jews in the Area left to the Jews by the Trans Jordan treaty. You know, the one put forth by the league of Nations that states that the land on the West Bank of the Jordan belongs to the Jews.

Not the Arabs, or the British. Who both by the way were killing Jews in that land from the point of the treaty 1929 till the present date of the open rebellion in 1945.

Can you imagine the patience of a people, who are slaughtered daily in their own land, for 15 years that they do not openly rebel until after the holocaust?

Despite the fact that International Law made the land theirs and not the British or the Arabs?

International law that never apples to Jews, as the West Bank is claimed by the United Nations as "disputed territory's" and under international rule till the "dispute" is finished?

Trans Jordan, or the land across the Jordan was a diplomatic betrayal of the lowest sort by the British, but to then crush the Jews in the tiny 17% of the land that was left was STATE SPONSORED TERRORISM.

But now, years later not 15 but over 50 years later, to not honor the treaty that created Jordan by clearly ruling that the WEST BANK of that river does not belong to Israel which is clearly stated in the treaty, is INTERNATIONALY SPONSORED TERRORISM AND REPRESSION.

Just the facts, because the facts is what any arugment stands or falls on.

[dfwgator]

I think you forget what sons of bitches the Brits were back then.

Just ask the Irish.

[sheik yerbouty]

Bury him in a Muslim cemetary..

[M. Espinola]

"I don't understand your question. I was merely pointing out that the Irgun kidnapping and murder of British soldiers was an act of terrorism."

You understand the question perfectly that's why you continue harping against the Irgun, while you continue ignoring the reprehensible actions against the Jewish people during the final era of British control over 'Palestine'.

The Irgun, many of them Holocaust survivors, played a key role in the founding of the Jewish homeland, while Arabs were being trained by Nazi SS advisor's to the Grand Mufti, determined to 'Kill all of them!' & 'Drive them into the sea!'

Are you aware that in 1947 the British attacked the ship 'The Exodus' with 4,515 Jewish immigrants, including 655 children, on board while in the Mediterranean and sent the refugees, many who had suffered in the Holocaust, back to Germany on prison ships in the worst of conditions?

The London correspondent for Haaretz, Aryeh Felbaum, described what he saw on one of the three British prison ships: "On approaching the Ocean Vigour I witnessed the most terrible spectacle I have ever seen in my life. It was a spectacle I shall never forget. On the deck, in narrow, very high cages, worse than those in a zoo, surrounded by barbed wire, were crowded together my brothers and sisters of all ages. There the sun had beaten down on their heads for 18 days at sea. They had not even been able to lie down at night. Between the cages stood red bereted guards isolating each cage."

The Jewish refugees refused to disembark in Europe -- it was Eretz Yisrael (the land of Israel) or nothing. After three weeks, the British sailed the prison ships to Hamburg, Germany, the very same country which had organized the horror's of the Shoah! The British stated they would force the refugees off the boats with tear gas and bring in troops if they had to. The Jewish refugees went ashore peacefully, back to the land of the Nazis and temporally prevented from reaching Eretz Yisrael.

Under the supervision of British troops, Exodus 1947 passengers are transferred from trains to trucks, on the last leg of their journey back to German displaced persons' camps. This group will be temporarily resettled in the Poppendorf DP camp. (September 1947)

Around the world, public sympathy was with the Jewish refugees, and the British endured a storm of disapproval. Worldwide reaction to the plight of the Exodus refugees was instrumental in persuading the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine to recommend partitioning Palestine and establishing a Jewish state, which happened in the spring of 1948.

[piasa]

The League of Nations and the UN did not, do not, and cannot confer legitimacy on anything. They cannot give what they do not first posess, and they cannot posess legitimacy without first earning respect, and after the oil for food rape and pillage of the Iraqi people -about which the UN made no effort to come clean- they don't have any respect due them.

That said, the US presence in Iraq is legitimate in the real sense of the word; this is, after all, a continuation of a war begun years ago by an Iraqi invasion of a sovereign country that was no threat to Iraq and did not seek to be annexed. The war seemed complete to the most shallow among us when Iraq had its arse handed to it but nevertheless continued when Iraq repeatedly broke the cease fire terms it had agreed upon. It repeatedly engaged in acts of war ranging from attempted assassination of a former American president, his entourage and an allied leader, to the assassination of former Iraqi citizens inside their home in the United States. Iraq harbored and trained terrorists who, among other things, specifically and somewhat successfully targetted thousands of innocents who were neither military nor in the civilian chain of command... even before the 911 wake-up call. Iraq also murdered civilian hostages and prisoners of war of various nationalities it was obligated to return unharmed. It failed to account for them in any way, and no amount of UN preaching, whining or moaning was ever going to secure their release or even the release of the bodies.

The UN's opinion on these matters is invited as a courtesy to our more politically hamstrung friends whose help is certainly desired, not out of any need on our part for additional "legitimacy" to wage what is in fact an already legitimate war.

[philetus]

By any reasonable definition, the Irgun was a terrorist group. I see nothing wrong with him ratting out terrorists."

By your definition, the french underground was a terrorist group and should have all been ratted out.

[American in Israel]

Taking away the arms of the people of the land under occupation, while giving arms to the people who are killing them, supporting their rage partys slaughering the Jews and turning back the ships with Jewish refugees, at the same time allowing and even supporting un limited arab immigration is waging war.

Perhaps you should read other than British history books. For a lot of Jews that were liberated, were liberated from life, not to it.

Yes, I am for real, as was and is the Jewish blood spilled today. I however am not rolling on the floor laughing.

While the history books can print in nice neat type about how America helped the peace initiative, it does not take an IQ of two to realize that handing 50 million dollars to the "Palestinians" this last trip into the land is going to cost a lot of lives.

The truth of the matter is that the British darn near destroyed Israel before they were driven out. Too bad it did not happen before they gave most of it away to the Saudi's.

It is funny how America is now following the same path. Next time you have to pay your income tax, think of what percentage of it will be used by Muslims to buy the weapons to attempt to keep you from having to pay taxes next year... to America.

[American in Israel]

The British occupation of Palestine was not a form of sainthood. And the British freed the Jews from the concentration camps not as a campain target, but because they stumbled across the camps. It was not a goal, it was a byproduct of fighting the Nazis.

Of course the Brits were good people and helped the Jew, what sane human would not.

But what they did there did not excuse the torture, betrayal and killing of the Jews in the land of Israel. If the Brits occupied the United States and disarmed the population putting them under martial law and then gave the weapons to Muslim Radicals who were killing Americans would they be Saints? If they began to turn away Americans fleeing persicution abroad by Islamic terrorists, and inviting the same Muslims to immigrate to America at the same time would they be heros?

If they announced that everything west of the rockies was to be given to Mexico, even though America had full legal right to its own land, would you feel betrayed, or bless your occupiers.

And for my final question, would you call any American who fought back, to claim our land, and throw out the occupiers and and enemys of the state a terrorist?

Because that has been your standard in this thread. I guess the only question is that is your standard based on international law, and deeds done on the battlefield, or is it based on the race of those involved?

Here I am an American fighting for the rights of the Jews, and I am not a Jew at all. Why do you think I care? Because I am an old fasioned American, and I believe in truth, justice and what once was the America way.

History speaks for itself. The Jews were occupied, betrayed and slaughtered in the streets of Israel by Islamic radicals, and it was with British weapons and support.

Just like today it is done with American weapons, and American support.

And just like the sun finally set on the British Empire, so it WILL set on the America one. God has a set of rules about that...

[Sherman Logan]

And for my final question, would you call any American who fought back, to claim our land, and throw out the occupiers and and enemys of the state a terrorist?

Just about all the anti-British, pro-Jewish comments on this thread have consisted of the old "they couldn't have been terrorists because they were in the right" response. This argument unfortunately works every bit as well for any other cause you care to name, including that of the Nazis, IRA, the Palestinians, al Quaeda and the Iraqi insurgents, or for that matter the SLA or the Black Panthers.

Terrorism (if it is anything) is a method, not a cause. The debate is, or should be, over whether the method is legitimate, not whether the cause is just.

What y'all are doing is conceding the terrorists' main point, that their methods are legitimate because their cause is just. You will, of course, disagree with the second part of their argument, but you have already conceded the first part.

By definition, we will never all agree on who is in the right in every dispute. However, there is some possibility that we can agree on what methods are legitimate to use in the pursuit of those disagreements.

Your basic argument is that a good cause sanctifies any methods, however evil, used to pursue it. In fact, you claim that they cease to be evil when used in such a cause. My argument, on this thread, has been that evil methods contaminate the cause in which it is used. This dispute is a variant of the sterile old debate over whether the end justifies the means.

I think it is pretty obvious that both arguments are true to some extent. Some ends justify almost any means. For instance, the enormous evil represented by a Nazi conquest of the world would justify almost any means, if the means in question was the only effective way to resist.

OTOH, resisting the imposition of a tax increase, while a legitimate cause, would not justify violence of any sort, much less terroristic methods.

I would also like to point out that I recognize that "terrorism" is on a spectrum in its methods, with the Palestinians and Iraq insurgents of today breaking new ground in heinousness. The other end (let's call it the right) of the spectrum is closer to legitimate methods of war making. The Irgun, in most of its operations, was closer to the right end, while Lehi was much farther to the left.

Had y'all ever considered that the British "persecution" of Jews in Palestine might have been partially in response to the attacks on them, rather than because the British just hated Jews? That the attitudes of British soldiers posted to Palestine might have changed as their comrades were murdered while trying to keep the peace?

If you don't think this is a possibility, I suggest you read some of the threads on this site about American soldiers accused of crimes against Iraqis. Most posters seem to believe that any actions by American soldiers are fully justified by the terrorist acts of the enemy. An identical argument could be made for the Brits in Palestine in the '40s.

[Nachum]

Had y'all ever considered that the British "persecution" of Jews in Palestine might have been partially in response to the attacks on them, rather than because the British just hated Jews?

It wasn't that the British hated Jews. It was that they, along with the rest of the west was indifferent to Jewish suffering. While Jews were being attacked by Arabs in the holy land in the decades before WWII, before there was an Irgun, there wasn't any concern. It is only when Jews picked up the gun and fought back that there was concern.

[Sabramerican]

Just about all the anti-British, pro-Jewish comments on this thread have consisted of the old "they couldn't have been terrorists because they were in the right" response. This argument unfortunately works every bit as well for any other cause you care to name, including that of the Nazis, IRA, the Palestinians, al Quaeda and the Iraqi insurgents, or for that matter the SLA or the Black Panthers.

While anyone can make an argument that they are in the right, it takes a sick soul to believe or to argue, that the claim by Nazis (as one example) and the wronged Jews, or Americans in Iraq against child sacrificing barbarians, are morally equivalent.

Some claims are legitimate and some are not. Some fight for liberty taking care to be a moral as possible and some for tyranny without human mercy. Many people can tell the difference. Some- you prove- can't.

[Sherman Logan]

I must admit I have been quite surprised by how many on this forum believe any method is moral if your cause is just.

No method is moral when fighting for an unjust cause.

Almost any method can be moral under some circumstances. For instance, to prevent an even greater evil. But each needs to be examined case by case, which is exactly what is thrown overboard when the blanket theory is proposed that a just cause means you need give no thought to whether your methods are moral.

Carried to its logical conclusion, this would result in the just cause no longer being just, as it would be invalidated by the methods used to pursue it.

Thanks to all for their contributions. I have found this thread highly educational.

[SauronOfMordor]

Irrespective of his political views, killing an unarmed civilian for political purposes is by definition terrorism.

A soldier is a legitimate target regardless of whether he's carrying a weapon at the time that he's targeted. A government official who gives orders to soldiers should likewise be considered a legitimate target

[Sherman Logan]

A soldier is a legitimate target regardless of whether he's carrying a weapon at the time that he's targeted.

So the attack on the USS Cole was legit?

How about Gadaffi's bombing of the dance hall in Germany aimed at off-duty GIs?

What about American soldiers on leave in the US? Can they be legitimately targetted?

Most Israeli men are in the reserve. Are they legitimate targets at any time?

[SauronOfMordor]

So the attack on the USS Cole was legit?

A military vessel of a power that al-Queda is officially and openly in hostilities with? Yes.

How about Gadaffi's bombing of the dance hall in Germany aimed at off-duty GIs?

Gadaffi was not openly and officially in hostilities with the US, so no. Otherwise it would have been at least as legitimate as the US dropping a bomb on his house

What about American soldiers on leave in the US? Can they be legitimately targetted?

At least as legitimately targeted as Dresden and Hiroshima were

Most Israeli men are in the reserve. Are they legitimate targets at any time?

To an enemy in open hostilities with Israel? Yes

And before your head explodes, I will add that I consider those wealthy Muslims who give financial support to al-Queda, and the radical imams who cheerlead the bombers, should be considered legitimate targets of the US as well. I would love to see a Phoenix Program targeting the ultra-rich members of the Golden Chain. And I would not condemn the Israelis if they engaged in ethnic cleansing of hostiles out of the West Bank

War is not a gentle little playground game, with lots of little rules -- not if you want to be the side that's still alive at the end. You kill the enemy and by whatever means necessary you destroy their will to continue the fight

[Sherman Logan]

I generally agree with what you say.

For instance, I’ve always thought those “hate America” parades make a really dandy target for a cruise missile or MOAB. Anybody who attends such a demonstration has, IMHO, declared war on us and invites an appropriate response.

With this exception: “by whatever means necessary.”

This implies that any and all tactics are legitimate. I disagree. I have absolutely no trouble with killing those who want to kill us. Where I have a problem is with the idea of killing those who look vaguely like those who want to kill us on the not particularly well-supported theory that this is a way of pressuring them to stop trying to kill us.

[SauronOfMordor]

One advantage the Islamists have over us is that they take advantage of our current desire to avoid "collateral damage"

The US did not always have this attitude. During WW2, we were willing to kill civilians by the hundreds of thousands, during the strategic bombing campaigns on Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc

During the Cold War, we had thousands of nukes ready to be launched to incinerate half the world if the Soviets attacked us

[SunkenCiv]

Note: this topic is from April 2007.

Thanks Nachum.

Kollek tried to help the British capture one of their most wanted men: Menachem Begin, who commanded the Irgun from 1944 until he helped found the Jewish state and served as its first prime minister in 1948.