Talk:List of Irgun attacks during the 1930s

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

These incidents may be accurate or not; may be attributable to Etzel or not; may have been authorized by Etzel leadership or not; may involve non-combatants or not. Much more work needs to be done to assess them and bring them to an encyclopedic level.

And since you're doing this work, what about a listing of all attacks against Jews in the same time frame?

--Leifern 17:19, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

The book from which I took this list was written in 1951 by sympathizers of the Irgun and Lehi, with cooperation with Aba Ahimeir, and a few other Revisionists, based on the Etzel Archives. The book is a chronology of all events related to these organizations (as well as the Hagana during the brief period of cooperation) from 1936 to 1948, including arrests, illegal immigration, "executions" of suspected colaborators and attacks against Arab and British targets, for which they claim responsibility and take pride of.
The book does not list attacks on Jews, except for when they are directly related (i.e., the Irgun/Lehi response was immidiate). The wording of the book does not indicate whether the victims where civilian or combatants in most of the cases listed (the exceptions being when the victims where policemen, as I have specified, e.g., April 12, 1938), and during the late 1940's attacks against Arabs are usually described as attacks against "gangs" or "rebels", which might suggest that in the absense of other adjectives, the victims were civilians. Also, one would immagine that attacks on markets and cafe's are aimed at civilians.
Based on this book, I can also compile a list of their attacks during the 1940's, as well as Lehi attacks, arrests, illegal immigration, etc., when I have the time. Alas, there are no comperhensive lists of Arab attacks in this book, but the challange is interesting and I'll look it up if I find the time. Of course it would be quite discouraging to bother to do such research only for you to slap the TotallyDisputed patch on what I have painstakingly written.
Now tell me what exactly are you disputing? The patch you added says that you totally dispute the neutrality and the factual accuracy of the article. If it is not neutral, it is biased towards the Irgun (whose sympethizers wrote it), which I can't see any reason to think. If you dispute it's truth, then why? Are you aware of any dispute regarding it? Can you bring up any argument at all against it?
I suggest you remove the "TotallyDisputed" template until you have reasonable arguments against it.--Doron 08:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I see no reason to take your word for the idea that your source is "sympathetic" to Etzel, and I can't even find mention of several of these incidents on the web. Hence, I dispute the factual accuracy. This should also include mention of the incidents that sparked the Etzel retaliation, which it doesn't, so it's biased. --Leifern 11:47, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
  • Don't take my word, you can look the book up for yourself if you can read Hebrew. Next time I get to the National Library, I can photocopy and put on the web some pages that would demonstrate the style in which the book was written, including praising of the militants' courage to retaliate to Arab aggression and words of poetry by Uri Zvi Greenberg. Will this satisfy you?
  • Surely you don't take seriously your argument that some of these attacks, which took place almost seventy years ago, are not mentioned on the world-wide-web?
  • Right now it's just a list of deads, there's nothing biased about it. A list of dead Jews doesn't have to be accompanied by a list of dead Arabs, and vice versa, in order to be unbiased. But you are more than welcome to contribute a background note to this list, if this is what stands in the way of making this NPOV.--Doron 13:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's not simply a list of casualties; it's a list of incidents that resulted in casualties. I don't doubt that you've derived these from a book you found, but I haven't had time to ascertain whether this book is accurate. For one thing, a lot has been uncovered sine 1951; such as who perpetrated what attacks. I think it's highly relevant to explain what provoked the attacks. As for my point that things aren't on the web, you're kidding, right? There are countless fraudulent, false, and slanderous allegations against Israel on the web - I can't imagine that the many enemies of Etzel (which, btw, include Israelis on the left wing) would let any opportunity go by to document allegations of Etzel atrocities/attacks. --Leifern 13:50, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

  • I haven't had time to ascertain anything you have written, still I don't put a TotallyDisputed label on everything you write. An article isn't "disputed" just because someone doesn't like it, s/he should bring up reasonable arguments.
This is a long list of attacks that bears no resemblance to anything else I've seen; there's a difference, and you know it.
Have you seen other lists? Do they claim to be exhaustive? Did you see an estimate that contradicts this list? What you think you "know" is of no interest to wikipedia, only facts.
  • The book was written by Irgun- and Lehi-affiliated writers, based on the Etzel Archives. A second edition was printed in 1981 by the Israel Ministry of Defense, with essentially the same contents. The book specifies who perpetrated what attack based on its sources.
Fine; when someone else who has access to these books can confirm them, they're welcome to remove the tag.
I am willing to scan pages from the book and put them on the web for your judgement. Will this satisfy you?
  • As I said before, if you think that explaining what provoked the attacks would contribute to the article, by all means you are welcome to contribute, I'm sure no one would do it better than you.
There is a difference between unprovoked, gratuituous attacks and those that were a retaliation for another specific event.
If you still find the article biased, improve it.
  • The fact that something is not on the web does not indicate it is false (and vice versa), surely you realize the absurdity of your argument. I'll just note that I originally heard of the book in a reader's response in the Ha'aretz newspaper a couple of months ago. Also I remember that Uri Avnery quoted a brief list of attacks from this book, in an article that was actually on the web, but I can't seem to find it now.--Doron 14:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Uri Avnery is not an unbiased source; the reason I search on the web is to cross-reference information. I generally like to see dissimilar and unrelated sources before I consider something on the web to remotely trustworthy.
I never said Avnery was an unbiased source. You said you've never seen anything like this and I have told you how I came across the list. I did not attribute the list to Avnery, I attributed it to its authors who were Irgun members.
Also you might want to have a look here at the March 19 entry. This is no pinko website.--Doron 14:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is a group that advocates terrorism as a political strategy - why would they understate the number of Irgun attacks?
Don't distort this - the kahane webpage does not understate the number of Irgun attacks, it does not claim to be giving an exhaustive list and it states that "this is only a small part of the list".
Yaakov 'Amrami, one of the authors, was the head of Irgun intelligence in the mid 1940's.--Doron 14:57, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The other author, Arie Melitz (nom de guerre of Menahem Meletzky) was a commander in the Irgun.--Doron 15:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The totallydisputed tag stays - I keep consulting several works and can not find anything approaching the number of attacks you're attributing to Irgun.
The totallydisputed tag goes. I am willing to make the effort of photocopying and scanning pages from the book for your judgement to prove its authenticity, if you accept; until you can provide evidence that refute this list, you have no case.
You should know that it's hard to prove that something didn't happen; in any event, I'll put in the NPOV tag, because this is ridiculously biased. --Leifern 01:44, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
I agree it's hard to prove that something didn't happen. That makes your job more challanging, it doesn't mean you can automatically dispute any evidence you don't believe in. The truth is that neither of us know for fact what happened then (I wasn't born until decades later, I'm guessing that so were you) and we have to rely on information produced, collected and processed by others. You seem awefully convinced that this list is false, (hence trying to "prove they didn't happen"), if you have concrete information that contradicts or refutes the list then bring it forward. Otherwise, one may think that you are only against it because it dishonors Irgun, which you seem to sympethize with. I'll just have you know that the authors of the book took pride in these attacks.
Regarding the NPOV tag, I'll accept it for now. I see your point that the list only tells one side of the story (though it does not pretend to tell both sides, given the title). The book I quoted only gives Arab attacks when they provoked an immidiate Irgun attack, so one thing I can do to make the article more balanced is to mention these attacks next to the corresponding Irgun attack; however, there are only a few of these Arab attacks, which might create a false impression that those are the only Arab attacks that took place. I am yet to come across a comperhensive list of Arab attacks during the years of the mandate. What do you think?
It should be everyone's goal to have as little as possible NPOV tags in Wikipedia, so I would like to know what you suggest should be done with this article to make it NPOV.--Doron 12:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let me stipulate a few facts here, just so you understand my skepticism:

  • Irgun members admit that they committed bomb attacks against Arab targets, such as marketplaces, train stations, etc. I am not disputing the nature of their methods, only the magnitude of their activities.
  • On the other hand, there were a lot of incidents during this time, and I'm not convinced they've all been fully accounted for
  • Irgun is one of the most controversial historical organizations in Israel - it is viewed by many as the predecessor to Likud, the training ground for several prominent Israeli politicians and leaders, and the largest of the non-Socialist groups in the mandatory era. As a result, its legacy is hotly contested - detractors want to make it into something evil; supporters want to highlight its methods as effective. Pretty much everyone has an axe to grind.
  • Anti-Zionists never hesitate to highlight any alleged Israeli misdeeds, often to the point of distortion, exaggeration, and outright fabrication. It seems highly unlikely that they would lose the opportunity to post a list such of yours all over the place, again and again.

--Leifern 14:15, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

  • On what grounds are you disputing the magnitude of their activities? Do you have information that contradicts the list? It seems that you think that we're all out there to bash Irgun, but I have no interest in information that is not true (even though I admit I'm no Irgun fan). So please, why did the magnitude of their activity reflected from the list surprise you so much, what did you expect it to be? What do your other sources say about it?
  • What can I say? Aparently these anti-Zionists did not come across this rare Hebrew book. Otherwise you can be sure they would have posted it again and again all over the place. So again, either these anti-Zionists' research did not lead them to this rare Hebrew book, or I am lying and this book does not exist. Do you need proof of its existance?--Doron 17:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Don't know if this works, but this link should show you the catalog record of this book in the National Library.--Doron 17:37, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The archives of the Irgun are available on microfiche in quite a few libraries (published by Zug). There is at least one fairly extensive list of operations in there which I have seen. I will soon look again at the copy in my library, but my Hebrew is not great (a euphemism for bloody awful). I expect the compilation here is pretty close to the facts, since the incidents apparently did occur (I checked a random selection in a newspaper archive) and the Irgun was doing precisely this type of thing at the time. I don't think a dispute tag is appropriate without even a single explicit example of a disputed fact. --Zero 10:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually this list is quite incomplete and the figure of 250 is way too low. There are already 267 listed here despite major operations being missing and the casualty figures for some being too low. I'll add some more with citations. --Zero 05:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

However, my checking (still only covering a fraction of the list) found two death counts exaggerated. In particular, the figure of 78 given in one place was for all casualties, not only deaths. Looking through the newspapers, a considerable number of lesser incidents such as individual shootings, small bombs, etc, can be seen to have caused quite a lot of deaths in total. However, there is no algorithm for knowing which were perpetrated by Irgun members even though probably many were. --Zero 07:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Irgun attacks on Arab targets began in September 1937, not in November. Already on Sep 2 the Palestine Post noted the apparent emergence of Jewish reprisal attacks, and several sources mention an attack which killed 13 Arabs in "early September". All add details if/when I can find them. --Zero 08:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The Bowyer Bell book I added to the references of Zionist Terrorism is an accessible source and confirmation for some of these attacks, with background. I'll add some stuff here tomorrow maybe.--John Z 09:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Well done! I collected the original info from just one source - the book by the Irgun militants, to illustrate the extent of Irgun attacks against Arab civilians. This online searchable Palestine Post site is quite a find!--Doron 08:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Irgun website does NOT cite any of those attacks

The whole attribution is questionable. The Irgun website which takes pride at its actions during the fight for Israel's independence, shows that most of these attacks, if they indeed EVER took place were not done by the Irgun. The whole article is a mere accusation, because Irgun denies those attacks to this very day. 217.132.77.167 17:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The Irgun was disbanded in 1948, so how can it have a website in 2006? Of course the answer is that the website is one that someone has created in memory/honor of the Irgun. What they have chosen to admit or not admit there has no bearing on the truth. Their motivation for not listing the attacks of the 1930s is pretty obvious anyway. But enough of irrelevant websites, the important thing is whether the Irgun did these attacks or not (the fact that the attacks happened at all is easily checked in a newspaper archive). Doron initialised the list based on the Hebrew book he cited in the article and it remains much the same now except that we corrected some of the details from newspaper reports. (Christophe: that is not original research, everything here is based on verifiable published sources.) Doron's book does not give an extreme viewpoint, but the viewpoint long ago admitted by the Irgun and accepted by historians. Now I'll give some sources for this statement.

One place to start in English is Bowyer-Bell's book "Terror out of Zion" which lists many of these attacks based on interviews with Irgun members. An example of an Irgun admission is the book "Years of Wrath, Days of Glory; Memoirs of the Irgun" by Yitshaq Ben-Ami (who was an Irgun member for almost the whole time it existed). Some quotations:

On the 27th [of Feb 1939], which came to be known as "the Black Day," the Irgun set off bombs in Haifa, Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv. The casualties numbered over a hundred. (p229)
Irgun attacks on Arab market places received harsh criticism at home and abroad, but we knew that weapons were being smuggled into Palestine in vegetable trucks. (p231)

Next I'll give some general statements by historians. Yehuda Bauer wrote in "From Diplomacy to Resistance", Jewish Publication Society, 1970:

During the period of command over Etzel by Moshe Rosenberg and David Raziel, a great many assaults (some of them en masse) were carried out against Arab bystanders and shoppers: men, women, and children (November 1937-July 1939). (p14)

Nicholas Bethel wrote in "The Palestine Triangle":

Their [the Irgun's] own pamphlets boast of the indiscriminate killing of Arabs, listed day by day, and go on to claim that the murderers are 'those who saved the honour of Israel', that their acts were 'fighting acts of persons who believe that the Jewish kingdom will be created by force, after having overpowered the Arab enemy in the battle'. (p124)

There are many similar statements in history books, but I'll conclude with a much more explicit statement. The following is from "Jewish Self-Defence and Terrorist Groups Prior to the Establishment of the State of ISRAEL: Roots and Traditions" published in the peer-reviewed journal Totalitarian Movements & Political Religions, Vol 4, 3 (2003) 91-118 by Arie Perliger (Department of Political Science at the University of Haifa) and Leonard Weinberg (University of Nevada):

In fact, the Etzel leaders did choose a terrorist approach, that is, conducting operations that had political goals, intended to establish a reign of terror by carrying out arbitrary attacks on the Arab population, such as the killing of two Palestinian workers in a banana plantation on 20 April 1936, followed two days later by shooting and the throwing of a grenade at Arab passers-by in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Between 1936 and 1939, the Etzel continued to conduct terrorist activities while methodically attempting to provide a rational justification for the violence by calling it retaliation for Arab attacks; for example, the shooting at a passenger train in August 1936 was justified as a response to the shooting at civilian Jews in Tel Aviv a day earlier by Arabs. Soon, however, the Etzel abandoned this policy line and announced a terrorist campaign intended to provide a suitable response to the ‘Arab Uprising’. This approach reflected the Etzel’s world view, which considered political violence and terrorism legitimate tools in the Jewish national struggle for the Land of Israel. The Etzel’s terrorist campaign against the Arab population lasted until the end of the ‘Arab Uprising’ in 1939 and included more than 60 attacks. An attempt to characterise the Etzel’s activities in this period leads us to note its four major tactics: assassination attempts, attacks on transportation routes, shootings, and the use of explosive devices. More specifically, its first course of action was random assassination of Arab labour workers or passers-by. These attacks occurred in various cities (such as the shooting at Arabs in the downtown area of Haifa in June 1938, and a month later at Arabs walking near the Sheari Tzedek Hospital in Jerusalem) as well as at more isolated areas (such as the killing of two Arabs on the beach in Bat-Yam in March 1937, and the killing of two other Arabs in the fields near the Hefer valley that same month). Encouraged by its success and the experience accumulated by its members, the Etzel expanded its range of activities to include ambushes and systematic attacks on major transportation arteries (shooting at a bus with Arab passengers in July 1938, throwing explosives at another bus in September 1937, shooting at a truck with an Arab driver in November 1937), and shooting attacks on Arab population centres (using a semi-machine gun and throwing a grenade at an Arab coffee shop in Jerusalem in November 1937, throwing explosives at another coffee shop in Haifa in April 1937, and the use of a semi-automatic machine gun to shoot at an Arab group in Haifa in May of 1939). The organisation also expanded its tactics to include the detonation of explosives by remote control. The most dramatic act in this regard was the planting of a mine in the Arab market in Haifa in July 1938, an attack which resulted in the death of more than 70 Arabs.

(The last one had 70 casualties, not 70 deaths.) Perliger and Weinberg's sources for this section are informative: one is volume 2 of the 6-volume "official history" by former Irgun member David Niv: "Battle for Freedom: The Irgun Zvai Leumi" (Tel Aviv: Klausner Institute, 1966). The other two are published by organizations associated with the Irgun: Joseph Kister, "The National Military Organization, 1931–1948" (Tel Aviv: Etzel Museum, 1998) and Yitzhak Alfasi, "The National Military Organization Sources and Documents" (Tel Aviv: Jabotinski Institute, 1992). In other words, their information comes directly or indirectly from Irgun sources, and it is simply not true that the Irgun denies these attacks. --Zerotalk 12:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I found that a version of Perliger and Weinberg's article is free online at [1]. I didn't check if it is the same as in the journal, though I noticed some trivial differences. --Zerotalk 14:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Begin on terrorism

Menachem Begin, The Revolt, page 100.

Our enemies called us terrorists. . . . And yet we were not terrorists. The original Latin word “terror” means fear. If I am not mistaken the term “terror” became current in political terminology during the French Revolution. The revolutionaries began cutting off heads with the guillotine in order to instill fear. Thenceforward the word “terror” came to define acts of revolutionaries or counter-revolutionaries, of fighters for freedom and oppressors. It all depends on who uses the term. It frequently happens that it is used by both sides in their mutual exchange of compliments. The historical and linguistic origins of the political term “terror” prove it cannot be applied to a revolutionary war of liberation. A revolution may give birth to what we call “terror” as happened in France. Terror may sometimes be its herald, as what happened in Russia. But the revolution itself is not terror, and terror is not the revolution. A revolution, or a revolutionary war, does not aim at instilling fear. Its object is to overthrow a regime and to set up a new regime in its place. In a revolutionary war both sides use force. Tyranny is armed. Otherwise it would be liquidated overnight. Fighters for freedom must arm; otherwise they would be crushed overnight. Certainly the use of force also awakens fear. Tyrannous rulers begin to fear for their positions or their lives, or both. And consequently they begin to try to sow fear among those they rule. But the instilling of fear is not an aim in itself. The sole aim on the one side is the overthrow of armed tyranny; on the other it is the perpetuation of that tyranny.

Therefore the much discredited study of perlinger is removed from the LEAD as strict well-poisoning and wrong factual information, and restore to the previous correct version. Amoruso 21:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Very funny. A thoroughly sourced study of terrorist acts is disallowed because one of the chief terrorists doesn't like it! Now I've heard everything. --Zerotalk 11:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
So you admit it's an opinion of this writer perliger ? Therefore it's irrelevant and removed. It's obviously not the opinion of the people he claims to hold these opinions. At any case, it's of course in violation of wikipedia:lead. Amoruso 12:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Let's get this straight. Are you saying that Etzel did not believe at the time that acts like those listed here were "legitimate tools in the Jewish national struggle for the Land of Israel"? --Zerotalk 15:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying Begin and leaders before him didn't call it "terrorism" as the reference suggests , and yes, acts in the 30's depicted in the article, weren't directed at all for the "liberation of the land". The acts directed for the liberation of land were the acts directed against the British acts during the 1948 war and its early stage. The acts directed against Arabs were retliatory in nature to scare Arabs and to deter them from attacking Jews showing that there will be responses when such attacks occur. They were violent and against innocents no doubt but that was their motive. This is called in hebrew "peulot tagmul" and were also performed by Israel in the early 1950's for exactly the same purpose against fedayeen. Amoruso 12:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Menachem Begin, The Revolt, page 70 (in my 1952 English edition), ch.VI;

  • "Hands up, quick. I´m not a bloody British officer, I´m a terrorist of the Irgun Zvai Leumi." ..according to Begin, this was said by the Irgun "captain" Gideon (=Giddy) when they attacked the British military base Akir. Regards, Huldra 09:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_Irgun_attacks_during_the_1930s_642f.html"