Talk:King David Hotel bombing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Mode of attack

I can't seem to find a reference to it, but was the form of attack a "planted" bomb, as the article says? I seem to remembe reading about a metal barrel filled with explosive (and perhaps with a car tyre or two around it) rolled down a hill). Was this the King David operation, some other Irgun attack, or just my fevered imagination? - John Fader


--- It is not Alfonso VIII, but Alfonso XIII the Spanish monarch in 1931. I'll change it.

[1] Sneaky vandalism or a correction? Mgm|(talk) 12:43, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hotel vs. Bombing

Something entirely different: I believe the bombing and the Hotel each deserve a seperate article. Any takers? gidonb 16:18, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mythology

I tried to recover from some of the damage this article has suffered in the past few months. One example is this:

  • Menachem Begin quotes one British official who supposedly refused to evacuate the building, saying: "We don't take orders from the Jews."

It was a propaganda claim that was thoroughly debunked by a journalist. It is staying out. --Zero 15:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

[edit] External link

removed external link http://www.etzel.org.il/english/index2.html Attack on the King David Hotel. This is a page of a website dedicated to memory of the Irgun organisation and must be considered highly biased. Matt.

[edit] Memorial

I heard that there is now a memorial in the hotel to Menachem Begin, the man that ordered its bombing. Is it true? --Error 5 July 2005 01:18 (UTC)

[edit] Barker's memorandum

Footnote to Barker's memorandum: When the Irgun got hold of a copy they duplicated it and posted it up all over the country. However first they changed the wording from "dislikes as much as any" to "dislikes more than any". It was such a successful propaganda trick that the doctored version is still widely quoted. --Zero 15:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed changes

ZScarpia 16:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC) :

I propose that links to the following pages be added (I thought that it would be politer to invite discussion first rather than just diving in and making changes to a sunstantial piece of somebody else's work). Also, I think that detail about the smaller bomb that went off outside the Hotel beforehand and the gunfights that went on in the street and in the Hotel should be added. This would correct the mistaken impression that many Web accounts about the bombing give that the bombers managed to plant their bombs and escape undetected and that life went on as normal in the Hotel because a telephoned warning was ignored.

1. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,690-5826,00.html - the contemporary Times report of the bombing. It includes interesting details about such things as the diversionary bomb set-off outside the Hotel, shooting, how people in the hotel were ordered to open windows, how one of the hotel workers slipped away to raise the alarm and how a search of the basement of the Hotel was going on when the bomb went off. It is clear that, if the Hotel had been evacuated, people would still not have been safe as, when the large bomb went off, people who were in the street or, even, in neighbouring buildings were hurt. Presumably, knowing that a bomb had just gone off and there had been shooting in the street, people would have felt safer staying in the Hotel.

By the way, even though it says July 22, the article actually appeared on July 23 (page 4). --Zero 12:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

2. http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Palestine/Kingdavid.htm - from a site whose purpose is to record details about fighting by British service people since 1945, it gives details about the shooting in the basement of the Hotel, including the name of the officer from the telephone exchange who first confronted the bombers.

Menachem Begin's claim that the telephoned warning to evacuate the Hotel was met with the reply, "We don't take orders from Jews," is posted all over the Web. Zero states above that a journalist later discredited the truth of this story. Does anyone know anything about this? My own searches haven't uncovered any information about it.

I'm pretty sure this can be found in Bethel, "The Palestinian Triangle". Also, you should ask yourself how Begin could be in a position to know such a thing. The warning was copied down by the hotel telephone operators and hand-delivered to the officer in charge. It was not delivered by phone directly to a British officer, so any remark like this could only have been made in the privacy of the officer's quarters. --Zero 01:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


ZScarpia 20:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC) :

Thanks Zero, I'll have to try to get hold of a copy of the book. I've now had a look at the edit history of the article and realised that it's been the site of quite an ideological battle. Sadly, I found that material about some of the events described in the Times article has already been added, then immediately deleted by others, a couple of times. Also, a link to the britains-smallwars.com site has also been added and deleted. In fact, the last time, it was deleted by you. Any particular reason why?

I don't remember deleting that link. Now I put it back. What information from the Times did I delete that isn't already in the article? For example, that fact that three warnings were given (that someone just added) is there already. --Zero 23:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Text about the shooting between guards and the raiders, which I think is an important part of the story, has been added, then deleted by someone else, at least once. I think that the same may be true about the smaller external bomb or bombs. I don't remember who the parties responsible were, but am pretty sure that it wasn't you. When I was looking at the edit history, I tended to look more closely at changes made by you because I'd just read your answer to my first question. I hope that it doesn't look as though I'm singling you out for attention. --ZScarpia 03:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The information about the bombs outside the hotel is important and should be included, yes. The best source I know for that is Bethel again. I'll get it out of the library in the next few days. There is also interesting information in Silver's biography of Begin - if I recall correctly, he interviewed the woman who phoned in the warning. If you send me email via the link on my user page (don't just write on my talk page), I'll try to get you scans of these two sources. --Zero 12:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I would be really interested to have a read of those. If I remember rightly, the Etzel website says that the telephone warnings were made as soon as the bombers left the basement of the hotel. As the bombers hadn't managed to place the bombs in the hotel undetected, it would be interesting to know what then went on in the basement until the explosion occurred. --ZScarpia 02:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Another question: you added material about the the 'leaking of the secret police report.' To my mind, as police reports would probably not normally be intended for publication, the use of the adjective, secret, implies that the report was deliberately suppressed, presumably to avoid having to make embarrassing admissions. Was that the case?

The point is that it was not a report designed for public consumption, so it wasn't subject to the same pressures to propagandise as public reports always are. It was a report for internal use only. I don't think it had any embarrassing admissions, with the exception that it reported that a warning had been given which would have contradicted various public statements made by politicians. --Zero 23:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
So, would you have any objections to the text being changed to read "leaking of the police report" or "leaking of the internal police report"? --ZScarpia 03:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
"internal" is fine, I changed it. --Zero 12:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Assuming that the police report we are talking about is the one signed by Assistant Inspector-General J. P. I. Fforde, Bethel refers to it as having been "released in 1978", which makes it sound as though it was officially disclosed, under a 30-year-rule, presumably, rather than leaked. Does anyone have any information which contradicts that? --ZScarpia 19:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know anything about the incident where an MP made a statement about an officer in the Hotel who left after hearing others laughing about a bomb threat? I've searched through online newspaper archives, but haven't managed to turn anything up.

Why bother? "I heard at the pub" sort of evidence is evidentiary worthless. Anyway, the British were always receiving bomb threats. Making threats whether or not there was really a bomb was an effective tactic that the Irgun employed against the British. --Zero 23:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not there was a warning and, if there was, whether or not it was given far enough in advance in order to evacuate the hotel have been hotly debated parts of the story of the bombing. The reason why people are so keen to edit this article is because the bombing is still seen in some quarters as a terrorist outrage of the first order. Articles on terrorism quite often use the King David Hotel bombing as their starting point (at least, ones in English, especially those published in the UK, do). The way that the bombing was viewed globally may be seen from the fact that it was condemned immediately even by the Jewish Agency, which also felt it necessary to order the Irgun to release a statement which denied the Jewish Agency's involvement. Now, being seen as the villains of the peace clearly didn't appeal to Irgun and its leader Menachem Begin. They put the blame for all the deaths on the British for failing to evacuate the Hotel, claiming that a warning had been sent, a claim that the perfidious Brits denied (by the way, as you've probably guessed, I'm British). Also, a year later, they put out a statement retracting the previous one which had absolved the Jewish Agency of any blame. Now, to answer your question, "Why bother," when it comes to apportioning the blame, two unsubstantiated stories are published all over the Web. The first is the one about the "we don't take orders from Jews" reply given to the warning. This implies that the death toll was down to the anti-semitism and arrogance of the British. The second story was about how an officer escaped death by leaving the Hotel after hearing a group of other officers in a bar of the Hotel joking about a bomb threat. The implications of this story are that the deaths were down to the arrogance and stupidity of the British and, secondly, that there was plenty of time to leave the Hotel. If the stories aren't true, they are quite nasty slurs. The problem with the story about the officer who escaped is that the details are so sketchy that there's little to go on when it comes to forming an opinion about its truth. We aren't given the name of the MP, so it is hard to check the facts and to form an opinion about the reliability of what he or she has said. Not knowing the name of the MP, we have no idea about the motives involved. On the one hand, it could have been someone who was trying to right a historical wrong; on the other it may have been someone with extremely dubious intentions (if it had been earlier than 1979, I would have suspected the involvement of someone like Robert Maxwell). When it comes to the removal of the "we don't take orders" story, it would have been good to have been given enough details about the journalist who did the debunking and the investigation that was carried out in order to feel assured that the change was justified. As I say, these stories appear as a rash across the Web. If you do a Google search on the bombing, this Wikipedia article is one of the first references given. Therefore, and also because a lot of other reference sites make use of Wikipedia material, this site will probably be the source for a lot of what is further disseminated and therefore it is important that what is written is accurate, which means verified and verifiable. That is why I've been asking all the questions that I have. I don't particularly have an axe to grind, but I would like people to properly justify the edits they've made. It sounds as though the leaked police report has put the question of whether a warning was issued pretty much beyond doubt. I'd be interested to know if has also pretty well put beyond doubt whether there was enough time to safely evacuate everybody. Obviously, the area of street in front of the bombed wing of the Hotel would have been a pretty bad place to be standing, so people would have had to have been evacuated well clear of the area in order to avoid casualties. Equally obviously, most of the people in the areas of the Hotel that didn't collapse were better off where they were rather than out in the street. Given that at least one bomb went off outside the hotel beforehand and there had been gunfire in the street would have given extra reasons not to evacuate. What you say about the Irgun having frequently used false bomb warnings as a tactic before the King David Hotel bombing is interesting from the point of view that they would have known that, if the previous response had been to ignore the warning, there would have been a good chance that the same would happen again. --ZScarpia 03:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Propaganda is an integral part of all conflicts, and this was no exception. British propaganda included the claim that there was no warning. Irgun propaganda included circulating a doctored version of Barker's memorandum (see higher on this page), and the claim about "don't take orders from Jews". The British claim is no longer believed by any historian and even if you can find it repeated on the web the case on it was conclusively closed by the police report. We should just report that. There is no longer any purpose in repeating the unverifiable anecdote that someone heard something in a pub when we have an official document confirming the same thing. The "don't take orders from Jews" claim was investigated and could not be verified; so it fails the verifiability test. --Zero 12:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid my last comment got very long-winded and even I can't follow the thread of what I was trying to say. I started re-writing it this morning, but didn't have the time to finish. The gist of what I was trying to say was that whether or not there was a warning and whether or not there was time to evacuate are hotly debated issues and are seen as crucial because they determine how culpability for the deaths is shared. The two stories that I've been asking for extra details about are widely published on the Web. Although the question of whether a warning was sent has been settled by the contents of the leaked report (backed up by the person who made the call being known and having been interviewed), the two stories still have a bearing on whether there was enough time to evacuate and what caused the officers in charge to not order an evacuation (the stories imply the cause was a mixture of things like arrogance, contempt, anti-semitism, condescencion and complacency). You've said that the statement of Menachem Begin has been discredited by a journalist. I asked for more details, both because I was interested to know more and I thought others would be as well, and also because it will help stop someone re-adding the story here and publishing it elsewhere as a statement of fact in the future. With the story about the MP, what I was trying to say was that the details are so vague that it is very difficult to verify it and, without knowing who the MP was, impossible to know how much credibility to give it. I agree with you that what the MP said should just be considered hearsay, meaning that if this was a court of law it wouldn't be used to determine the truth of anything. However, this isn't a court of law and clearly people are using the story to set their own and other people's opinions. Having more details, everybody, including me, would be in a better position to know whether the story has any worth. Anyway, hopefully I've made my answer to the question, "why bother," a bit clearer. --ZScarpia 02:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello.why not just add : it is also claimed that "..." and "..." but this could not have been verified until now and is therefore controversial or maybe just propanda. Without writing this, people will not know what to think about that and given these anectodes are well known (I think there are in "O Jerusalem" of Lapierre and Collins - I check...
It is an information to write that this is controversial. If is wasn't, ZScarpia would not have asked the question and Zero would not have answered...
More we are not professionnal of the field. Today it is controversial but maybe tomorrow somebody reading wiki claims this is controversial will come with sources.
Ttoday this is not an unknow information or an information known as untrue but an information known as controversial.
Christophe Greffe 21:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Note that I find the article is globally very good ! Christophe Greffe 22:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


ZScarpia 12:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) - Reply to Christophe :

Perhaps it would be a good idea to expand the 'Responses to the attack' section to give more detail about the propaganda effort by both sides. Part of my problem is that just about all of my knowledge of the bombing comes from online sources, which aren't particularly detailed or authoritative, so I'm not in the best position to judge what was propaganda or the best person to start editing the article. I think that Zero has made the case that the 'don't take orders from Jews' story is propaganda, though. Perhaps a short account of how the story has been discredited should be included. Details of how the Barker memorandum was misrepresented could also be included as could, if it is felt that this is a propaganda issue, a discussion of the claims about whether an adequate warning time was given. On the British side, it would be good to show how the claim that there was no warning came about and whether this was maintained as a definite ploy to blacken the Jewish side as much as possible.

Hello. I really don't know enough about this to give interesting material. This should be discussed with zero but I agree with your comments and the idea to develop also "propaganda" in this topic but in having in mind this must sound secondary in the article bec. the main points are discussed. Christophe Greffe 12:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

At the moment, the detailed part of the article is divided into the two sections 'The attack' and 'Responses to the attack.' The first is actually mostly about how the attack came about rather than the attack itself, details of which, apart from notes about the construction of the bomb and the telephoned warnings, are totally absent. I would suggest that most of the detail in 'The attack' section is moved to a new section called 'Background to the attack' and that details are added to the 'The attack' section about how the bombing was carried out, such as the two diversionary bombs, how the bomb was delivered and where it was planted and the shootout between the bombers and the occupants of the Hotel. It would be good to add dates to the proposed 'Background to the attack' section so that we can see whether planning for the attack did precede Operation Agatha or not.

ok for me. Christophe Greffe 12:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the initial section should be edited in the following ways. It should read as a general summary.

Perhaps the second paragraph should just mention the organisations involved, with, possibly, who their leaders were. At the moment, it is made to sound as though only two people were responsible for making the decisions and it does rather come across as an attempt to blacken Ben Gurion. I think that the fact that Ben Gurion and Begin later became Prime Ministers of Israel is immaterial and could be left out. The names of the leading bombers can be moved to the 'The attack' section.~

I don't know if it is an attempt to blacken BG but I agree that is sounds as only 2 people were responsible.
I agree with the fact that they become PM is not revelant.
Christophe Greffe 12:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

In the third paragraph, I think that the phrase 'some claim' comes under the classification, weasel words. Perhaps the sentence should just be replaced with one noting the escalating violence, maybe with the added explanation that the Jewish organisations were trying to force the British out of of Palestine as they'd become inimical to the aim of creating a Jewish homeland by severely restricting Jewish immigration. I'm not keen on the use of the word 'retaliation', as it implies that the attack was part was part of some tit-for-tat process. Of course, that could well actually have been the orignal point of the attack, although I would have thought that, in the end, it was more about destroying the documents. 'Response' might be a better word to use than 'retaliation'. The insertion of the description 'mass arrest' just makes the article sound, to me, a bit to much like political propaganda in tone. I would delete that phrase and just leave the description which follows tell people what Operation Agatha was about. In the description of Operation Agatha, I think that the seizure of arms and ammunition should be added to the seizure of documentation and the arrest of people.

I don't know concerning the facts
I agree about your comment "political propaganda in tone".
I don't have mind concerning Agatha.
Christophe Greffe
Since writing my reply to Christophe, my reading about Operation Agatha has tended to indicate that its primary purposes were the searching of Jewish organisations and the arrest of a large number of listed people. I'm still trying to figure out whether the seizure of weapons was part of the reason for searching the organisations or a chance by-product, but, at the moment, the indications are that it was the latter. I've read contradictory views about the aim of the Operation. One view is that the aim of the Operation was the recovery of three kidnapped British officers and the capture of those responsible for the kidnapping. Another is that it was intended as a generalised blow against the Irgun. What does everyone think? -- ZScarpia 11:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

In the 'Responses to the attack' section, I think that it should be noted that one of the reasons that Barker's order was rescinded was that objections were raised in the British House of Commons that it meant that the rule that no favouritism to either the Jewish or Arab side should be shown had been broken. It might also be worth noting that part of the reason that much 'outrage at its "anti-semitic nature"' had been shown was that the memorandum was widely reported to say 'dislikes more than any' rather than 'dislikes as much as any'.

Here I really don't know. It sounds like a pov unless you have information or sources claiming so. I think the interpretation of these events is very hard. We are faced in that problems of sources in other articles. If there is no source but you have good reasons to think this is so, I would suggest this formulation taking all the hypothesis into account : "Maybe that ... or maybe that..., " or "we don't know if ... or if ... but ...". I think zero's mind is important (also) concerning this last point.
good work :-) Christophe Greffe 12:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The obituary for Barker in the New York Times [2] says:
"The bombing, which killed more than 100 Britons, Arabs and Jews, so outraged the general that he forbade his officers from having social contacts with Jews. That order stirred angry debates in the British Parliament, leading the Government to dissociate itself from the general's policy since it contradicted Britain's proclaimed policy of evenhandedness toward the Jews and Arabs of Palestine." Maybe it's not particularly accurate (its claim that more than 100 were killed puts its authority in question), but it gives a different hypothesis for why the order was rescinded which would be worth considering. --ZScarpia 14:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Barker wrote that the whole of the Jewish Community of Palestine bore some of the responsibility of the terrorist acts and therefore should be collectively punished because the underground organisations wouldn't have been able to operate without its active or passive support. One of the reasons that Barker's memo was found repellant according to Bethel, particularly in the US, was because of its collective blame of Jews. --ZScarpia 19:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorist Organization?

It seems rather odd not to consider an political/national organization which uses violence to achieve its ends a terrorist organization. Personally, I have no position in the Arab/Israeli Conflict, what they do to each other is not my concern. Irgun, PLO, IRA, ETA, Shining Path all of these organizations are/were terrorist organizations. While these organizations carried out both peaceful and violent acts towards their goals, it is their use of violence that makes them terrorist organizations. I understand that some will consider the Irgun to be courageous freedom fighters and others to consider them to be cowardly terrorists. But in the contest of an article about the Bombing of the King David Hotel, the fact that the British considered the Irgun to be terrorists [3] does seem quite relevant.

On another note my esteemed fellow wikipedian Leumi noted that there was an extensive discussion on the use of the word terrorist. I was unable to find this discussion but I defer to his word on the matter. May I suggest that somewhere in the article we mention that the British did consider Irgun to be a terrorist organization. I leave it up to others to take up this issue. I for one do not feel like being dragged into an edit war. --M Drusus 23:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with you mentioning that "the British did consider Irgun to be a terrorist organization." I have an issue with WP abeling the organization as a whole "terrorist", and an even bigger issue with labeling an attack against a military target - the British Army Headquarters - as a terrorist attack. Isarig 23:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The [Definition of terrorism] has been debated by many law enforcement and government organizations and no single definition has yet been determined. Even in colloquial use, the definition is debated. However, it seems odd to me that you have an issue with labeling an attack against a military target a terrorist attack. Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism to include premeditated, politically motivated violence (a bombing) perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents(Irgun), usually intended to influence an audience (the United Kingdom). In the Notes, the code goes not to say that 'for purposes of this definition, the term "noncombatant" is interpreted to include, in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed and/or not on duty.'(I am not sure if there were non-military or off-duty personnel at the King David Hotel). Other definitions such as the Webster dictionary define terrorism as violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands. It seems odd to me then how a political organization bombing a military target to achieve their political ends is not a terrorist act. I am not trying to make a judgment on the political goals of Irgun or even Hamas for that matter, only trying to clarify what makes an organization a terrorist one. I will not make the edit though, I am just trying understand your position. Respectfully, --M Drusus 23:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
The definition of terrorism used by Title 22 of the United States Code is acceptable to me, for the most part (I disagree with the requirement that on-duty military personnel be armed - many support functions of the military are often performed while many of the personnel are unarmed, but are guarded by other, armed personnel). I think it quite obvious that the military personnel at a military HQ, during normal "business hours" are "on duty", as well as armed. I don't think this has been disputed by anyone, including the British authorities, who chose to term it "terrorist" for propaganda reasons. I don't think it is unusual for governments to term every attack against them as "terrorist" - the Israelis gov't does it often enough even when Hamas targets Israeli tanks in Gaza, and the US did it when the USS Cole - a warship manned by armed servicemen - was attacked. But the fact that governments do it doesn't mean we should accept their POV terminology. As I said, i don't mind you editing the article to say the British considered this "terrorism", and I think if you wanted to paint the IZL as terrorist you could find better case studies - but this one just does not qualify.
The attack on the King David Hotel wasn't carried out as an attack on a military target as such. In Eric Silver's biography of Begin, the author recounts how Sneh justified the attack as a blow against the British Government in retaliation for the British assault on the Jewish Agency, effectively the Jewish Government in Palestine, which was carried out as part of Operation Agatha. Initially, a three-pronged response was planned: while the Irgun was tasked with bombing the Hotel, the Stern Gang / Lehi would bomb the nearby David Brothers building, which housed the government information office, and the Haganah would raid the British arsenal at Bat Galim, in Haifa, and take back the arms captured at Meshek Yagur. The Hotel was seen as the nerve centre of the Mandate Government and housed the offices of the Secretariat as well as the military headquarters. According to Silver, "more than half the dead were clerks, typists, messengers and other junior staff of the Secretariat and the Hotel." Of the ninety-one dead, by 'national group', the Arabs suffered the largest casualties, with forty-one killed. The remainder consisted of twenty-eight British, seventeen Jews, two Armenians, one Russian, one Greek and one Egyptian. The Hotel bombing wasn't just seen as terrorism by the British. The fact that the Irgun carried it out after the Haganah had asked them to postpone it and the manner in which it was carried out caused the break-up of the Hebrew Resistance Movement and was a central cause of subsequent attempts by the Jewish Agency and Haganah to suppress the Irgun. ZScarpia 13:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems Eric Silver has reached rather 'curious' conclusions, to say the least. The King David Hotel was clearly a military target, considering it was the HQ of the British military as well as the CID - it was the nerve center, as well as a symbol, of the British rule of Palestine. Using the number of civilian casualties as proof that Irgun did not consider it a 'military target' is a quite absurd (if not outright contemptible) claim, since the Irgun was clearly anxious to avoid any civilian casualties- hence the three warnings and the detonation of the small explosive in the street. Listing the statistics of the casualties is a rather crude attempt at "guilt propaganda", as obviously Irgun made no count of who was inside, or intended to harm such-and-such Arabs or Jews. As for Haganah, they were well aware of the action beforehand, as it was coordinated with them, and their later 'denunciations' were a somewhat hysterical response to the large number of civilian casualties, as well as their fear of British reprisal. This type of Jewish Agency/Haganah hypocracy was rather common at the time.
-Sangil 18:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


Sangil, the bombing was intended as an attack on the whole of the British administration based at the hotel, which consisted mainly of the civilian Secretariat. I quoted the descriptions of the jobs and nationalities of the dead because they help to show the non-military bias in the use of the bombed section of the Hotel. Consider the following. If you're going to argue that the Hotel was clearly a military target and therefore the attack wasn't a terrorist one, then you'd have to argue that these aren't terrorist attacks either: the bombing of the United States Marines barracks in Beirut in 1983; the flying of an airliner into the Pentagon in 2001; the attempt to crash an airliner into the Whitehouse, the base of the Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the United States, in 2001; a suicide bomber walking into a bus shelter containing Israeli soldiers and blowing himself and the soldiers up. The Jewish Agency was involved in planning military attacks. If, say, a group of Arabs had detonated a bomb in the Jewish Agency, would you have said that it wasn't a terrorist attack?
Personally, I believe that the mode and purpose of an act is what determines whether it can be classed as terrorism or not. Here is the definition given by the 1999 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica: terrorism is "the systematic use of terror or unpredictable violence against governments, publics, or individuals to attain a political objective."
It wasn't just the British for propaganda reasons or the Jewish Agency and Haganah who called the Irgun and its acts terrorist. The following is an extract from a letter sent by a group of Jews sympathetic to Zionist aspirations which was published in the New York Times on the 4th of December, 1948. As adjectives such as 'contemptible' occur to you, consider that one of the signatories was Albert Einstein:
"Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our time is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the “Freedom Party” (Tnuat HaHerut), a political party closely akin to its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine ... Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character ... A shocking example was their behaviour in the Arab village of Deir Yassin ... The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the Freedom Party ... they have preached an admixture of ultra-nationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority ... in the light of the foregoing considerations, it is imperative that the truth about Mr Begin and his movement be made known in this country. It is all the more tragic that the top leadership of American Zionism has refused to campaign against Begin’s efforts."
--ZScarpia 04:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
"the flying of an airliner into the Pentagon in 2001; the attempt to crash an airliner into the Whitehouse".... I wasn't aware that the Irgun used airplanes packed with civilians as human missles. Amoruso 05:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

What military headquarters has ever responded to a bomb threat by everyone dashing out the door and abandoning their posts? Three bad things might then happen: 1) Someone might have planted a bomb outside, usually more easily accomplished than planting one inside. This sort of tactic is common today in Baghdad. 2)A sniper might be on a roof across the street to shoot people who run outside willy-nilly. This was done by crazed students at an American high-school 3)It would be easy to obtain classified material left on desks. It would take substantial time to secure all documents in a safe. This is why the claim it was the fault of the British is silly. Edison 04:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some changes to the article

I have made some changes, as stated in the edit summary:

  1. Add more information regarding the attack itself.
  2. Remove the claim that Haganah had withdrew its support of the operation. If anyone has (serious) sources that state the contrary I would welcome a discussion.
  3. Remove the conflict regarding the bombing as retaliation- i.e. in one paragraph it says the bombing was planned before operation Agatha, and in the next it says the hotel was chosen because of Agatha.

I have relied mainly on Begin's book 'The Revolt' for this information. Although he is probably not neutral, his accounts are usually much more reliable than those of the British and Haganah, which are often a mix of propaganda, fantasy, and a**-covering. -Sangil 00:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sangil, as you're no doubt aware, an unsupported statement about how Begin's accounts are usually more reliable than those of the British and Haganah is not going to be readily supported by everyone. Perhaps as an example of fantasy on Begin's side, you could take his claim in front of the Knesset that he had been one who was forced to wear the a yellow star during the war, when in fact he'd never been in Nazi-held territory. Of course, I suppose it is always possible that the account I read of that is a piece of British or Haganah propaganda intended to discredit Begin. Or just maybe, Jewish Polish prisoners were required to wear stars in the camp where he was held in Siberia. As an example of a major statement of questionable reliability of Begin's directly related to the bombing, look at his claim about John Shaw, who was acting High Commisioner at the time, that, "a police officer called Shaw and told him, 'The Jews say that they have placed bombs in the King David.' And the reply was, 'I am here to give orders to the Jews, not to take orders from them.'" This source of this story was later traced as Carter Davidson, an American Associated Press reporter who had no determinable way of knowing what had taken place in the Chief Secretary's office on the day of the bombing. either. Silver states, "Shmuel Katz, Begin's propaganda chief, concedes in his history of the Irgun struggle that the story of Shaw's retort 'may be dismissed'." Some other comments:
  1. In a quick scan through the changes you've made, I've picked up some details which may be incorrect. You say that the bombers were dressed as hotel employees when all the accounts I've read say that they were in arab dress, presumably to look right delivering milk churns. Secondly, you say that one small bomb was planted outside the hotel when some accounts say that it was two and that they were large enough to require hand barrows to shift them and that the one that went off was powerul enough to blow out surrounding windows and to injure people on a passing bus. You have the bombers entering by the cafe when in actual fact, although the bombs were planted next to the restaurant, access was gained via a service entrance at the other end of a long corridor. To say that more than 2,500 Jews were arrested in Operation Agatha is a bit vague. One figure I've read is that there were 2,718 arrests. While you were making your changes, lsarig changed the article so that it says the British police report stated that the warning call was made to the officer in charge. The extracts of the report that I've read agree with the original version that the warning had only just been delivered to the Hotel Manager when the explosion occurred. According to 'The Palestine Triangle' by Nicholas Bethell, the report said, "the telephone operator of the King David Hotel was interrogated and states that he received the warning two minutes before the main explosion and that this warning was communicated immediately to Mr Hamburger, the manager of the King David Hotel. This was corroborated by Mr Hamburger, who states that as he was informed, the explosion took place."
  2. Both books by Silver and Bethell agree that, after having caught wind that a major operation was planned, Chaim Weizmann had threatened to resign from the Presidency of the world Zionist movement and publish an explanation of why unless all attacks against the British were suspended, until at least after a meeting of the Jewish Agency executive the following August, Moshe Sneh approached the X Committee, who were responsible for approving all operations of the Hebrew Resistance Movement. As a result they rescinded the authorisations for all three operations planned as a response to Operation Agatha, including the Hotel bombing. Begin agreed to postpone the bombing several times, then decided to go ahead anyway.
  3. The Irgun had originally proposed a bombing of the King David Hotel before Operation Agatha, but it had been rejected. In the wake of Operation Agatha, it was re-proposed and accepted as part of a three-pronged retaliatory response - a strike on the centre of the British Government in retaliation for an attack on the Jewish Agency, the effective Jewish Government in Palestine.
Looking forward to your response, ZScarpia 13:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
ZScarpia- I am glad that you have taken an interest in the subject..as for your comments-
  1. an unsupported statement about how Begin's accounts are usually more reliable than those of the British and Haganah is not going to be readily supported by everyone - it is not unsupported at all. For example, regarding British "reliability":
    • The British denied any warning had been given before the King David Hotel bombing. As you probably know, British secret documents made public in the 70's proved the Irgun's claim was true, and the British were outright lying.
    • The British accused Irgun of planning the assassination of Bevin, when in fact it was Lehi which planned it.
    • In a somewhat eyebrow-raising turn to Fantasy Fiction, British intelligence reports claimed that Begin was a communist agent, had fought in the Spanish Civil war, and had lived in Paris, none of which were even remotely related to the truth.
    • The British repeatedly claimed that Dov Gruner's death sentence was pending the result of the Privy Council which was deliberating on the subject, when in fact they secretly executed him before the Council had reached a conclusion.
    • I could go on and on...
    I challenge you to bring any evidence of Irgun official announcements which were false or deliberately misleading.
  2. a major statement of questionable reliability of Begin's directly related to the bombing - actually Begin only says that
    "I subsequently learned that when the warning to evacuate the hotel reached a high official he exclaimed.." (The Revolt, p. 296)
    It is clear Begin learned of this from a third party and was not present to hear whether or not the saying was uttered. He does not claim otherwise, he only presents what he has heard. I am not saying Begin is some angel who never makes mistakes, or errs, or says something which is not accurate. What I am saying is that he never deliberately as head of Irgun issued an official statement that was knowingly false or misleading. This is much, much more than what the British or the Haganah can ever hope to claim regarding themselves. So yes- I think Begin as a source, while not perfect, is infinitely more reliable than the alternatives.
  3. You say that the bombers were dressed as hotel employees when all the accounts I've read say that they were in Arab dress - why is this a contradiction? many of the employees of the hotel were Arabs. And even assuming one has to be chosen over the other- Begin claimed they were dressed as employees, while the British House of Commons (according to the wiki article) claimed they were dressed as Arabs. I think you can easily guess who was in a better position to know, not to mention the British tendency to distort reality.
  4. Regarding Operation Agatha- I did not introduce any new information regarding this subject into the article. I mostly re-worded what was already in there beforehand, so if you have any concerns regarding the accuracy of the facts in this case I am not the one you should reprimand.
  5. lsarig changed the article so that it says the British police report stated that the warning call was made to the officer in charge - so why are you telling this to me instead of him? And BTW, Begin also claims, according to his book, that the warning had been given to the hotel operator.
  6. The extracts of the report that I've read agree with the original version that the warning had only just been delivered to the Hotel Manager when the explosion occurred - The warning had been given to the hotel operator, as well as to the Palestine Post and the French Consulate. The statement of the "interrogated" operator is interesting- who "interrogated" him? The same British that when it suited them, claimed no warning had been given at all? Why should this 'revelation' be considered even remotely reliable? Begin says that it was given early enough to evacuate the building twice-over (about 30 minutes). Since killing numerous civilians, many Jews among them, would only harm the Irgun- what on earth would they have gained by giving warnings 2-3 minutes in advance? Do you really think Begin was so stupid as to believe these futile warnings, such as you claim they were, would have done him any good after such a bloodbath? The Irgun was always careful with the lives of civilians1 - why would they not want the building to be evacuated??
  7. Both books by Silver and Bethell agree that, after having caught wind that a major operation was planned, Chaim Weizmann had threatened to resign from the Presidency of the world Zionist - well if they both agree than it must be true. Actually what they (or you) forgot to mention is that Sneh never informed Begin as to why he wanted to postpone the operation, nor did he mention any resolution made by the "X Committee". Begin was never made aware, and could not have suspected, that the Haganah withdrew their support. He did as Sneh requested (despite the fact that the repeated delays caused grave operational problems), and postponed it from July 19 to July 22. So saying "he went ahead anyway" is at best a very misleading statement.
  8. The Irgun had originally proposed a bombing of the King David Hotel before Operation Agatha, but it had been rejected. In the wake of Operation Agatha... - If this is the way you want to the King David-Operation Agatha relation to be presented, I have no problem with it.
1 unarmed men, including British soldiers, were never intentionally hurt- except of course the "Hanging of the Sergeants". The British can hardly claim the same.
-Sangil 19:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Some things I had missed-
  • Regarding the "street-bomb"- it seems to me highly unlikely that powerful explosives were used, since it was certainly of no benefit to Irgun to injur innocent bystanders in the street. If you have sources to the contrary you are more than welcome to present them.
  • Regarding the entry- Begin says in his book "The first group took the milk-cans into the basement by way of the Regency Cafe" (p. 293). Again- you are welcome to present sources to the contrary
-Sangil 23:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


ZScarpia, WRT the questions you posted on my Talk page, I have little to add beyond what Sangil has already replied. I changed the text form "hotel manger" to officer in charge based on the information Zero has provided earlier on this Talk page. Isarig 22:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Isarig, if you're referring to the comment Zero left on the 1st of January, that is describing an account given elsewhere than the British police report of how the warning telephoned to the Hotel switchboard was handled. However, the section that you edited is referring specifically to the contents of the British police report of the bombing. That report actually claimed that the warning was reported to the hotel manager minutes before the bomb went off, so to change the section to say that it wasn't the hotel manager, but the officer in charge, means that the article now misrepresents what that particular report actually says. In that section, what matters isn't a true account of events, but a true account of the contents of one particular report. --ZScarpia 00:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, you can change it back if you'd like. Where can I read copy of the British police report? Isarig 14:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why celebrate it?

I don't understand why Binyamin Netanyahu celebrates this chapter of history? He recently appeared on the Sean Hannity radio show who was helping him to whip up support for the current Israel/Lebannon conflict. Sean Hannity has a large christian audience, they'd be shocked to learn that someone claiming terrorists are behind the current strife is someone who sickenly celebrates people dressing up as Arabs, planting milk churns in the basement of a hotel then sneaking off to let people suffer an ugly death.

Did Binyamin touch the Divine, or even, feel closer to it? Judging Man according to the customs of Men?

It would be like celebrating Eniskillen, when the I.R.A bombed a church that was packed with ww2 veterans on remembrance sunday, or celebrating Bloody Sunday when British Paras opened fire on unarmed civilians.

Dean1970 July20th, 2006.

p.s Is there a list of the victims?

[edit] Civilian casualties

The article says "91 people were killed, most of them civilians". Was there a simple civilians that for example came to visit government official in the office or government officials that is part Mandate government?Shrike 19:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There were a few bystanders who came in from the street when a bomb exploded out there, but most were people who worked in the building. "More than half the dead were clerks, typists, messengers and other junior staff of the secretariat and the hotel." (Silver, p70). --Zerotalk 08:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
There were no bystanders since a small bomb was detonated in front of the hotel in order to distance people , and the street was empty. The 80 killed included the high ranked british clerks, Jewish clerks and visitors in the offices. Amoruso 00:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Bethel, p260-261: "Between 12.20 and 12.25 a small bomb, previously wheeled into position by another Irgun group on an Arab hawker's barrow, exploded a few yards south of the hotel outside a car showroom owned by Homsi Salameh, a Christian Arab firm. Begin says: 'The petard was meant to make a big noise and disperse the people. We achieved this goal, to disperse the passers-by without anyone being hurt.' The police record shows, however, that this bomb broke windows and damaged a passing Number Four bus, and that several Arabs were taken from the bus into the Secretariat to receive first-aid. Also many people working in the hotel ran to the windows and balconies of the south-west corner to see what was happening in the street, thus placing themselves right on top of the cafe and the churns of explosives." --Zerotalk 10:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
And your point is what? Shrike asked about civilians who were killed. Your initial response implies some of these civilians 'were a few bystanders who came in from the street '. Amoruso correctly responded that none of those killed were 'bystanders ', and your cited source confirms this in great detail. Isarig 19:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Before the bomb planted in the basement of the hotel went off, a smaller device, referred to by Begin as a petard, was detonated in the roadway outside the Hotel. The bystanders referred to by Zero were people who were bystanding in the street when the petard, not the basement bomb, went off. The blast from the petard injured a number of people on a bus who were taken into the Hotel for medical treatment. They were still there when the basement bomb went off. These are the people being specifically referred to by Zero. --ZScarpia 02:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The timing

There is simply no justification in accepting at face value the Irgun claim that they timed the explosion to reduce casualties. The usual verdict of historians is more like the opposite. For example, Silver (p70) writes: "Monday was known to be the busiest day in the secretariat's week, coming as it did after the Moslem, Jewish and Christian sabbaths, and most staff did not leave for lunch before one o'clock. That is why the Haganah had suggested carrying out the operation later in the day, even though it would have increased the risks for Gidi Paglin's team." --Zerotalk 08:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

the known policy of the Irgun was to minimize civilian causalties, which is why the warnings came. Many plans of etzel were dropped because there was no way to carry them without civilian injuries. The idea was to attack exactly before lunch time, so that no one will be in the coffee shop at the bottom floor in the section meant to be destroyed. The precautions were explicit so that the whole section will be evacuated. Your quotation simply is a wrong understanding of the location of the attack and its impact from someone who clearly made it up. It's like saying that it's better to attack a pizzeria at the time people are going to have a pizza. Amoruso 00:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Your faith in your heros is touching. --Zerotalk 11:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Come on Zero, don't be like that.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, Zero seems to be somewhat right here. Couple of Amorouso's edits are hardly more than pathetic whitewash ("Some claim this act should ...", etc). If I had seen Amorouso writing comparable statements into articles dealing with other terrorist attacks (e.g. "The details and the specific hour chosen for the attack were aimed at minimizing civilian casualties...") then I could consider good faith, but this seems not to be the case. Those sentences are presented as *fact* here, not as claims of "one of seven members of the high command of the Irgun" (Shmuel Katz). Hello wikipedians, you can do better than this :) --Magabund 21:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't even write the "Some claim this act should"... and in fact it was present in the article since its creation  : [4] so I don't know what that meant as "some of my edits". I fail to see how anyone can doubt that they tried to minimize civilian casulaties... when other terrorist attacks are also taken in consideration - for example trying to bomb buses when there are no civilians there and attacking only military convoy buses, then I would say the same... Amoruso 02:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorist?

Why is the word terrorist not used in the intro? Its used in other similar articles. --SandyDancer 01:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

So, first of all, it is most certainly NOT used in articles that involve clear cut terrorist attacks. See for example Munich massacre, 2002 Karachi bus bombing or 2005 Bali bombings. This is primarily due to Wikipedia's position that the word "terrorist" must never be used, no matter how appropriate it is (see WP:WTA). But this particular incident is an attack against the military HQ of a foreign power - why on earth would it be a terrorist attack? Isarig 03:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
By that argument the attack on the Pentagon in 2001 wasn't a terrorist attack either, nor the attack on the US Marine base in Lebanon in the 1980s, nor various attacks on Israeli soldiers in recent years. Hashomer 20:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
No, the attack on the Pentgon was carried out by using a hijacked civilian airliner full of civilains - so it is clearly a terroist attack. had it been carried out by suicide bombers blowing up only themsleves it would not be a terrorist attack, and nether are attacks on Israeli soldiers or US Marines. Isarig 20:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Please explain why attacks on embassies are included in Category:Terrorist incidents and if they are listed why shouldn't this attack be? Hashomer 20:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
embassies are civilain organs of government, whilst ths was the HQ of a military organization. Do I really have to explain the difference to you? Isarig 07:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
That's one (rather twisted) way of looking at it I suppose. --SandyDancer 13:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Please remain civil and try to avoid the condescending remarks.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
During the first Intifada raising a Palestinian flag was considered by the Israeli authorities to be a terrorist offence. But in this case the killing of 91 people, including a fair number of Jews is not terrorism because it was carried out by the Irgun. If we examine Isarig's contibutions, we can find that they are totally consistent, i.e. lableing any arab possible action terrorism, while deleting the lable from any Zionist actions. Abu ali 23:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I've already placed one warning on your user page for personal attacks in your edit summaries. Please cease them. This article is not about the first intifada, but about a military action in 1946 against the military HQ of the British forces - that is not a terrorist action. As described above, when even clear cut terrorist action such as the 2002 Karachi bus bombing or 2005 Bali bombings are not labeled as "terroist" actions on WP, you can't lable this one that way. Isarig 23:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
But you have been blocked twice for personal attacks and edit waring in the past. Abu ali 23:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I have learned my lessons from those blocks, and it appears you have not. Oh well, just a matter of time. Isarig 23:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, Isarig, but can we be consistent about this, and rename List of terrorist attacks against Israel before 1967 and remove the Terrorist Attack category from the Hebron Massacre? Abu ali 10:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
No, becuase attacks on citizens ARE terrorist attacks.Isarig 16:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
And most of the 91 killed in the King David Hotel Bombing were civilians, so if the Hebron massacre is a terrorist attack, then so is the King David hotel bombing. Do you not agree? Abu ali 16:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't agree. The criterion is "what is the target of the attack", not "how many civilians were killed". If I attack a military base, and 20 vivilains are also killed - it's not a terrorist attack. If I attack a religious community, and only 1 worshipper is killed, it is a terrorist attack. Isarig 16:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
So presumably you would see the Kfur Kana massacre as a terrorist attack? Abu ali 16:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
If Isarig arugument is correct then i think that a attack on some american HQ in i think jordan was also not a terrorist attack.Yousaf465
And also many other attacks against U.S Military installtion on forgein soil e.g Iraq are also not terrorist attacks.Yousaf465
Yes, i agree with you. Attacks on American militray facilities are not terrorist attacks. Specifically, no matter what you may have herad or read elswhere, the attack on the USS Cole, a military ship on active duty, in Yemen, was not a terrorist attack. And, if you take a look at USS Cole bombing - surprise! it is not called a terrorist attack. Isarig 06:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Isarig, your view on what is and isn't a terrorist attack is original research and is not shared by most reasonable people. Since other attacks on military installations are referred to as terrorist there is no reason not to identify this attack as such. Hashomer 18:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not about my view, but about Wikipedia policy, which I've pointed you to several times. Please read WP:WTA. Isarig 21:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, you are misinterpreting WP:WTA. Regardless of whether you are or are not, you need to stop removing valid categories. The introduction Hashomer used is also correct, and does not violate WP:WTA in any way. KazakhPol 06:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not. WP:WTA is quiote explcit on this topic:

"Encyclopedic:

X is on the U.S. Department of State's "Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations" list. X, identified by the Y government as responsible for the Z suicide bombings [or "who claimed responsibility for the Z suicide bombings"], is classified as a terrorist group by A, B and C [countries or bodies]. Countries A, B and C regard X as a terrorist group [because...] Not encyclopedic:

X is a terrorist group.

The article already states that the British gov't considered this a terrorist act, and that can stary, but WP:WTA is explict that you can't term this a terrosit act as if it this is fact. Isarig 19:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Isarig. I've primarily been involved with watching Hezbollah and related pages to keep the "terrorist" pejorative out of the into and such, and in my opinion it seems like this is no different. Describing it as a "terrorist act" seems to run afoul of WP:WTA's "Non-encyclopedic" section. Describe why some consider it a terrorist attack (which I personally agree with) and who does, etc...in the body of the article. Tarc 23:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/i/n/Talk%7EKing_David_Hotel_bombing_6268.html"