Talk:King David Hotel bombing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

King David Hotel bombing is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
Israel Portal
King David Hotel bombing is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

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, Bethell refers to it as having been "released in 1978", which makes it sound as though it was officially disclosed, under the 30-year-rule, presumably, rather than leaked. Does anyone have any information which contradicts that? --ZScarpia 19:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Bethell also refers to the results of a military investigation which was also released in 1978. -- ZScarpia 01:33, 28 July 2007 (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.
Alithien 21:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Note that I find the article is globally very good ! Alithien 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. Alithien 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. Alithien 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.
Alithien 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.
Alithien
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 :-) Alithien 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 (In actual fact the Jewish Agency was attacked. On the 11th of March 1948, an arab chauffeur of the US consulate parked a consulate car containing a bomb outside the agency. The explosion killed thirteen people. --ZScarpia 02:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC))?
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 (in fact, the Associated Press Bureau Chief in Palestine, who was in the area from the beginning of 1946 through to November, 1948 -- ZScarpia 12:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)) 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)


Sangil - It's nice of you to be pleased that I've taken an interest in the subject.
Using your numbering scheme:
    • You say: "The British denied any warning had been given before the King David Hotel bombing." According to Arthur Koestler, in 'Promise and Fulfilment, Palestine 1917-1949', published in 1949, what the British Government said was that, 'no such warning had been received by anyone at the Secretariat "in an official position with any power to take action."' They weren't denying that a warning had been sent, just that it hadn't been received by anyone with the power to act on it.
    • You say: 'The British accused Irgun of planning the assassination of Bevin, when in fact it was Lehi which planned it.' Who exactly do you mean by the British? Articles about Zionist plans and attempts to assassinate British politicians started appearing after the release of documents to the UK National Archives in March, 2006 (see [4] and [5] for details of Security Service files of Jewish Interest released that month). The summary for the files states: 'The files also record fears that the Stern Group was planning to mount assassination attempts in the UK; a telegram records a "reliable source" claiming that the organisation was "training to assassinate members of His Majesty's Government, especially [Foreign Secretary] Mr [Ernest] Bevin."' The released Official documents are, therefore, claiming that the it was the Lehi, rather than the Irgun, that was planning the assassination. On the Internet, you can find various articles which discuss the contents of the report such as the ones at URLs [6] (The Independent) and [7] (BBC Radio). These appear to be accurate. However, at least one article, one appearing in the Times ([8]), a generally pro-Israeli paper, gets the attribution wrong. So, is some inaccurate newspaper reporting sufficient to condemn "the British" as less reliable information sources than the Irgun in general or Begin in particular? Do you think that nobody could turn to Irgun-related sources and turn up plenty of inaccuracies? At least some of the articles go on to report that there is also a claim in the released documents that: 'both Begin’s group and Stern were sending five terrorist cells to the capital to mirror IRA tactics of bombing and assassination.' From Irgun-supporting websites, it's possible to see that the Irgun was indeed involved in trying to mount terrorism in the UK. For instance, the webpage at URL [9] describes how Yoel, an Irgun member who was involved in the bombing of the British embassy in Rome, was sent to the UK. The same site also describes how the Irgun attacked, or prepared to attack, British targets elsewhere in the world: an Irgun cell in Shanghai prepared to bomb British shipping ([10]) and Samuel Katz, the English-language Propaganda Director of the Irgun, referred to elsewhere on this Talk Page, transported orders for bombing the British embassy in Rome in his shoes ([11]).
    • You say: '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.' Presumably the reports you're referring to are, again, the ones which appeared in public for the first time when they were placed in the UK National Archives in March 2006. File KV 2/2251-2252 ([12]) is the one which deal specifically with Menachem Begin. It is described thus: 'the Security Service file on Menachem Begin consists largely of a collection of reports on his movements, contacts and activities culled from various sources. The Service was interested in building a detailed picture of his career, and the file includes much detail about his early life.' Rather than making claims, it discusses the available, good or bad, intelligence. It claims that he was a communist agent? 'The possibility of Soviet control of Begin´s Irgun organisation is one of the key concerns of the file.' The April 1953 case summary discusses 'details of the possible connections between Begin and the Russian intelligence service.' It concludes: 'the answer would appear to be that Begin was probably not a Soviet agent in the sense that he was working for the RIS…but that there is some slight possibility that during 1947 he might have accepted or even sought Soviet financial assistance for the terrorist organisation.' It claims that he fought in the Spanish Civil War? 'There is debate in KV 2/2251(1939-1949) as to whether or not he had been in a position to serve in Spain with the International Brigade. The file includes a photograph purportedly of Begin with comrades in Spain, but also information from other sources suggesting that he was elsewhere for the duration of the Civil War.' Perhaps it would have been better if he'd done something useful like fight in the Spanish Civil War during the 1930s. Instead he was presumably in Poland, ironing creases in his Nazi-like Betar brownshirt uniform, practising his fascist-type Betar salute ([13]) and indulging in Betar, SA-emulating, breaking -up of public meetings. As for whether the file claims that Begin lived in Paris, I don't know - the summary doesn't say anything about that.
    • You say: '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.' Dov Gruner was sentenced to death for his part in the attack on the Ramat Ghan police station on 23rd of April 1946. He refused to take part in the proceedings and refused to appeal the verdict or sentence. Unusually, the prosecution appealed for a lesser sentence on the grounds of the record of Gruner's service in the British army. The execution date was set for the 28th of January 1947. On the 26th and 27th of January, a British sergeant and a judge were taken hostage by the Irgun and threatened with hanging. Twelve hours before the set time for Gruner's execution, it was postponed indefinitely and it was agreed to refer the case to the Privy Council. The process of removing non-essential British civilians from Palestine was then begun and completed. Dov Gruner was offered a commutation of the sentence in return for asking for clemency, which he would not do ([14]). On the 12th of April 1947, it was secretly decided to move Gruner to Acre Prison for execution on the 16th. A visitor to Jerusalem Prison was told on the 14th that no date had been fixed for the execution. The execution was carried out on the 16th. So, what would you have done in those circumstances? I hope that my choice would have been to commute the sentence. But, given that the decision had been made to proceed with the execution and that hostages had been taken and threatened with hanging before the previous set date, would you publicise the new decision? For the same reason, the execution time for Saddam Hussein wasn't publicised. (Dov Gruner demanded to be treated as a prisoner of war. He took part in a raid where the Irgun members were dressed as arabs and British soldiers, though. Isn't the normal rule in a case like that in a conventional war to treat the prisoners as spies and have them taken out and shot - see Francs-tireurs ?)
    • You say: 'I challenge you to bring any evidence of Irgun official announcements which were false or deliberately misleading.' Related directly to the King David Hotel Bombing, in the immediate aftermath, the Irgun released a statement saying that they had been acting alone. Granted they were ordered to do so by the leaders of the Resistance Movement, but it does show that the Irgun was prepared to put out false information when it felt the necessity to do so. A year later, after the Irgun had fallen out with the Haganah and the Jewish Agency, the Irgun retracted the statement. As another example, elsewhere on this Talk Page, a description is given of how the Irgun misrepresented the Barker Memorandum in order to make it more offensive. In relation to Begin himself, a lot of what is supposedly his account of the bombing given in the 'The Revolt' is at variance with a lot of other sources, including other Irgun ones, or is misleading. This included details about how the bombers entered the basement of the hotel, how they were dressed, whether anyone was injured by the petard (and whether there was anyone in the street when the main bomb went off). Begin maintained that there was a gun battle, with the bombers having to shoot their way into the Hotel to plant their bombs. His is the only version that states that. Begin maintained that the purpose of the petard was to clear the area around the Hotel of people. He claimed that it managed to do this without harming anyone. Yet, there is evidence of people being hurt by the petard. Also, the petard consisted of TNT covered with inflammable material and tins of petrol. It was an incendiary device rather than something that was just designed to make a noise. Your answer to the conflicts was that Begin's account must be better because he was in a better position to know. But was he? He had no part in the planning or execution of the bombing and was, presumably, in hiding well away from Jerusalem when it was carried out. In an earlier comment, I mentioned a pretty odious fabrication of Begin's which you didn't respond to and which was made in the Knesset on the 2nd of March 1982, during a debate. Begin asked: 'How many people in Parliament are there who had to wear the Star of David? I am one.' This must be a fabrication because Begin was never in Nazi-occupied territory. The claim was reported in an article by David Shipler published in the New York Times on the 3rd of March, 1982.
    • You say: 'I could go on and on.' I think you're going to need to try harder if you want to come up with a convincing case. Also, for someone who is being critical of the veracity and reliability of others, I think that you're doing a pretty bad job of being accurate and faithful to reality yourself.
(I'll try to answer the other points soon) --ZScarpia 02:06, 16 July 2007 (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)
Why not take responsibility for correcting it yourself? You can find the report quoted in 'The Palestine Triangle' by Nicholas Bethell. --ZScarpia 02:06, 16 July 2007 (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)
Despite what Begin claimed about the street outside the Hotel being empty, there is evidence that this was not the case. For instance, the edition of The Palestine Post which came out on the 23rd of July, the day after the bombing mentioned casualties who were outside the Hotel when the bomb in its basement went off. 'A large iron safe was hurled into Julian's Way, killing a passer-by.' 'Mr. Richard Mowrer, "New York Post" correspondent, was walking across the street in front of the hotel when he was hit and suffered a broken leg.' 'Mr. Dan Ben-Dor. R.E. garrison engineer, who was driving by at the time of the explosion, escaped with minor cuts ... The motor of his car was smashed.' That day's edition also mentions minor injuries sustained by ordinary Hotel guests. The edition of The Times [15] which came out on the 23rd mentions injuries to people in the street and in a building opposite the Hotel. 'Several people were in the street and many were thrown violently, others being cut and bruised by masonry. In a small Government building opposite the entrance of the south wing of the Hotel one British official saw the face of clerk next to him almost cut in two by a big piece of flying glass.' --ZScarpia 11:33, 16 July 2007 (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  : [16] 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)
Lsarig, as a matter of interest then, do you consider the Irgun's bombing of the British embassy in Rome a terrorist act? And as the principal occupant of the south-west wing of the Hotel was the Secretariat, a civilian organ of government in your eyes presumably, shouldn't we say that, 'in the main', it was a terrorist act? I suppose that you're right, though, that the administration was that of a 'foreign power'. Since it was there as a Mandate of the League of Nations, does that mean that you view the Mandate as illegitimate? In which case, as the creation of a Jewish National Home in Palestine was part of the Mandate, wouldn't that make that illegitimate as well? Of course, since the majority of people forming the first Israeli government had been born outside Palestine, wouldn't that make them a foreign power to people who'd lived in the area a bit longer than the likes of Ben-Gurion, Meir, Begin and Shamir et al (all born in ex-bits of the Russian empire)? --ZScarpia 02:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
When Israel's foreign minister, Tzipi Livni (the daughter of Irgun members, her father having been the Irgun's Director of Operations) said in 2006 that Palestinian attacks on Israeli soldiers weren't terrorism ("Somebody who is fighting against Israeli soldiers is an enemy and we will fight back, but I believe that this is not under the definition of terrorism, if the target is a soldier") it produced a storm of outrage, so it seems that, even in the Jewish world, a lot of people would disagree with the definition, that attacks on 'military' targets aren't terrorism, that you've chosed. I think that everybody will have to accept that there are many different definitions of what constitutes terrorism. Even for official purposes in a country like the US, there are multiple ones. My own favourite is the one outlined in the paper 'The Morality of Terrorism' by Theodore Seto: "the killing, disruption, or destruction of something of value for political purposes by someone other than a government or its agents acting overtly." -- ZScarpia 00:54, 28 July 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)
And what if the target contains a military component (the Military Headquarters) and a civilian one (the Secretariat)? And what if someone prefers to use a definition of terrorism that doesn't differentiate between military and non-military targets? -- ZScarpia 00:54, 28 July 2007 (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)
In the literature on terrorism, the King David Hotel bombing quite often features prominently. In fact, it is sometimes represented as the seminal event in modern terrorism. I think that this should be outlined in the article. Of course, any contrary views should be outlined as well. Something that I'd like to stress is that the event wasn't only viewed as terrorism by the British mainstream, it was also viewed as terrorism by others including many Jewish groups (List of designated terrorist organizations -- Irgun (1931-1948) - regarded as a terrorist group by the British authorities and mainstream Zionist organisations). --ZScarpia 02:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Regardless of the debate about Wikipedia use of terrorism/militancy, the input in the lead was WP:OR, unrelated to the article. JaakobouChalk Talk 05:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As the original author of the deleted section, obviously I disagree that it was unrelated to the article. A significance of the attack in many quarters is that, for a long time, it was viewed, because of the death toll, as the worst terrorist outrage, which is what I tried to convey. Also, the statement wasn't Original Research. Although it didn't have a citation (since I thought that it was easily verifiable by checking lists of the death toll from other, so called, terrorist incidents), it was taken from a valid source, though, unfortunately, I can't remember which particular book or article that was. If you're going to start deleting things because they don't have citations (and I realise that, under Wkipedia guidelines, they should have them) then, if you want to do a thorough job, you're going to have a lot of work to do. For starters, how about deleting the sentence previous to the one you deleted. It has no citation and, as far as I'm aware, that statement was pure speculation. By the way, in the form I wrote the statement, I tried to satisfy the people who don't view the bombing as terrorism:
"If classed as terrorism, the attack was the deadliest one of its kind anywhere until the 1980s, when two other purported terrorist attacks which caused greater loss of life, the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing and the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which blew up over Lockerbie in Scotland, occurred.[citation needed]"
-- ZScarpia (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
No luck finding the original source so far; I fear it was in a book that's been returned to the library. Web-wise, what I can find in the way of comparisons are an MSN Encarta article on Terrorism which states, "the bombing ranks among the most deadly terrorist incidents of the 20th century," and Wikipedia's List of terrorist incidents article, which lists the death toll for each attack. If you're unhappy with the incidents from the 80s with a greater death toll being mentioned because you feel a non-valid comparison is being made, would you be happy with the following:
"Viewed as terrorism, the attack was the deadliest anywhere until the 1980s."
-- ZScarpia (talk) 11:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NPOV

Please stop abusing sources to say something which is unrelated to the articles. The source, which discusses "the economy of terror attacks", has a one liner which you copy-pasted into the text. However, it makes absolutely no actual comparison or explanation to the meaning of this pointless one liner which only means that the author thinks the event was the first of it's kind. JaakobouChalk Talk 04:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

These are all, in so far as they are comprehensible, subjective assertions of dislike not grounded in wiki policy. It is not an abuse of a source specialising on terror to cite it on a specific act of terror, universally regarded as such.
You note in your edit: 'Just because there's a one liner in a book about this "beying a role model" for chcchen attack in 1990 dosen't mean the relation is correct or due for the lede'.
You are commenting personally on what you take to be a possibly inappropriate 'relation' made by two authorities on terror between two events, one of which forms the subject of this article. Your, and our, job is to cite the relevant literature on a subject, not to behave like judges in a tribunal of academic review, assuming superior knowledge to the academics cited. It is perfectly appropriate for the 'lead', because it is a generalized statement highlighting what the authors consider to be the historic significance of the King David Hotel bombing as a technical example of later mass bombings.
You elided a previous remark of a similar kind, because you rightly noted it was, being unfooted to a reliable source, 'subjective'. Now that I provide a RS, you question the a propriety of judgement of that RS. This smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I would suggest you take great care in providing serious policy references to any eventual objection, and obtaining consensus, therefore, before you attempt to erase the text, as you say you are minded to.Nishidani (talk) 07:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
ps. 'it's' = its Nishidani (talk) 07:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I stated my case, you've stated yours. I'm open to a WP:3O about this by an uninvovled editor giving his review of the source and the text you want to add. Whichever suggestion a 3rd uninvovled mediator makes, I will accept it. Fair enough? JaakobouChalk Talk 08:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If everytime a difference of opinion over one edit, within one day, led to WP:30, wiki would be at a standstill. I suggest that precipitate haste in this is unseemly. There are several editors on this page whose views should be elicited, with a little patience. I would note that I dislike third opinions 'reviewing a source'. That source fits the highest wiki standards, being published by a first-rate university, and being authored by two specialist academics. My suggestion therefore is to festina lente. Decisions made in rash haste are never good, one way or another. I appreciate the suggestion however.Nishidani (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The author's qualifications were not among my concerns if you note my comment. JaakobouChalk Talk 08:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
When you write 'uninvovled editor giving his review of the source and the text you want to add, ' , contextually, the source is the book I cited. The authors, secondly, are two, not one. Grammatically, you are expressing a possible concern about the source, in asking it to be 'reviewed' by a third party. Therefore, ineludibly, you are expressing a 'concern' about the authors' qualifications, since the source is what those two authors wrote. The RS issue inevitably raises the issue of who wrote it. I should add that the son of one of the Arab victims of the King David Hotel bombing, as is well known, was later sentenced to an 18 year jail term in Israel for a terrorist attack, which the youth conducted in revenge for, and along the model of, the attack Begin's men made on the King David Hotel in which his own father was killed (5 part Washington Post article). So the judgement by the authors is by no means arbitrary or unsubstantiated. We have records of terrorists being inspired by that model, just as there is relatively strong documentation that the Irgun/Lehi/Stern groups took a leaf out of the book of the IRA's modus operandi in the 1910s and 1920s. Terrorists are, among other things, copycats.Nishidani (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen any mention in the book that the son of one of the Arab victims of the KDHB was involved in an attack in Chechnia in 1990 which was, supposedly, inspired by the KDHB attack. Your comment that he was arrested in 1947 makes it quite improbable also. I have not seen any well made argument to a connection between the -- 60 plus years apart -- events in the book and all the offtopic stories about Arab "retaliation" to the Jewish terrorists are just that, offtopic.
Cordially, Jaakobou Chalk Talk 10:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Jaakobou. I mentioned that fact off the cuff, to illustrate the point. It was not 'off-topic', it was illustrative, to help you appreciate the implicit point in the cited text. It comes from another book altogether, citing a Washington Post investigation into a Palestinian terrorist who was a child when his father died in the KDHB, and later carried out terror attacks, and was hailed. Again, I didn't mention Chechnya in 1990. The edit I made represents exactly what the authors of the RS say as regards the role model of the KDHB. Chechnya, etc.etc.all the rest is irrelevant. We are to register what informed and reliable sources say, and have no brief or right to equivocate if those sources fit Wikipedia criteria, which the source does. I find your responses, I'm afraid, confusing. Nishidani (talk) 10:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Your illustrations always end up giving justification for Arab violence on Jewish-Israeli targets and it's getting really bothersome. Your on-article text suggested as fact and without any explanation, just as the book does, that there is a direct connection between the 1929 attacks and the 1980s and 1990s attacks. The only connection I've seen thus far, is a superficial one liner from one book. If other reliable sources connect, and explain, this dubiously possible connection - that could very well convince me to adding a paragraph about this in the article. Right now, the connection is extremely suerficial and I'm wholeheartedly unconvinced that this should be in the lead as "fact". I'm also open to dispute resolution. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I happen to think that the historical record must be fully recorded and not just partially edited, which is what a very good number of posters in these I/P articles do. Terrorism played a significant role in the foundation of Israel, as it plays a significant role in the non-foundation of a Palestinian state. One side used it successfully to achieve statehood, and then rigorously suppressed the other side's use of the same tactic to achieve a similar end, a Palestinian state. My function is to note all examples, not to root for good terrorists as opposed to bad terrorists. To remark on these things, parallels, influences, is normal historical work, and does not imply approval. It means simply respect for the full record. I have never edited out, or protested at, instances of Arab terrorism: every edit I have made suggesting that there was and is such a thing as Jewish terrorism is strenuously opposed, and not only by yourself. So I think my approach supranational. What the others are doing in wikilawyering a unilateral historical account of these events is, well, obvious.Nishidani (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


Hello Jaakobou. So, what is being or has been said that is unrelated to the article? Is saying that, if the attack is viewed as terrorism (albeit, this qualification was removed before you deleted the statement), it was the most deadly terrorist attack for four decades really saying anything unrelated to the article? And similarly for saying that the bombing was the model for later ones unrelated to the article? You entitled this section WP:NPOV, but then didn't explain why you thought that what had been written wasn't NPOV. Isn't silencing the expression of a particular point of view just a different method of point-of-view pushing? -- ZScarpia (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The note that it is the deadliest terror attack in four decades is a WP:PEA addition. If you have other Wiki-samples of such connections, I'm open to reconsider my position. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:PEA: "In Wikipedia articles, try to avoid peacock terms which merely promote the subject of the article without imparting real information. Examples include describing people as "important" or "among the greatest" in their field without explaining why. Peacock terms often reflect unqualified opinion, and usually do not help establish the significance of an article. They should be especially avoided in the lead section." What exactly are you trying to say? Are you saying that stating that the bombing was the deadliest "terror attack" in four decades doesn't say anything about the significance of the subject? Or are you saying that some kind of explanation or justificaation needs to be given about why it was the most deadly attack (I would have thought that it is pretty self-explanatory: it was the most deadly attack because of the number who died). I hope that you won't be too offended if I give you my opinion, that a lot of the reasons you give for exclusion (unrelatedness to the article, original research, POV and now PEA) are illogical and looks to me like pretty wild grabbing at straws. -- ZScarpia (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe the text is not really important to the event and that Wikipedia policy prefers to just describe the events without connecting them to generic and unrelated events such as bombings 6 decades later. For example, the September 11 attacks article has no mention on how big it was in comparison to other terrorist attacks. However, if you have other Wiki-samples of such connections, I'm open to reconsider my position. I'm also open to WP:RfC or other methods of WP:DR. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The significance of the Empire State Building was that, for many years, it was the World's tallest building. Therefore, someone has written: "It stood as the world's tallest building for more than forty years, from its completion in 1931 until construction of the World Trade Center's North Tower was completed in 1972." The significance of the Titanic sinking was that for many years it stood as the worst maritime disaster. Therefore, in the Titanic article, someone has written: "The sinking resulted in the deaths of 1,517 people, ranking it as one of the worst peacetime maritime disasters in history and by far the most infamous." They haven't mentioned that it stood for many years as the worst disaster and which sinking superceded it as the worst, but, if the author had had the information, do you think it would have been invalid to include it. If a more deadly 'terrorist attack' than the one against the World Trade Center occurs, do you think that someone won't write something about how it was the most deadly until Event X. Why, outside Israel, do you think that the King David Hotel bombing was written about a lot? Don't you think that it had something to do with the death toll and, given that, don't you think it is worth mentioning that? In the Empire State Building article, do you think that mentioning the World Trade Centre is 'connecting' it to a 'generic and unrelated' building? -- ZScarpia (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou. Two things. The ref. to WP:PEA is unintelligible.ZScarpia's original point was quite obvious. The explosion was the deadliest of its kind, until latter terrorist acts. To note this is to note what is true and undisputed. Secondly, the citation of both the book and the authors in the text, only to have the same mentioned in the relevant footnote, is inappropriate to a lead. What the two authors state is succinct. To jam the lead, which by definition must be terse, with book titles (and the title has, by the way, got nothing to do with 'economical' as your edit makes out, or with what you called earlier 'the economy of terror attacks' . Political Economy has nothing to do with 'economical') and authors' names is to waste space with repetitiveness. I still wholly fail to understand why you have bulked out what was a succinct, uncontroversial and RS remark in the lead, unless you think there is something 'suspicious' about my editing intentions? Nishidani (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the book does not explain the connection but you insist that the connection is well cited. I've decided -- despite my belief that the text makes a superficial WP:PEA connection between large events -- to compromise and allow the material on the condition that we give the "fully recorded" context to the Wikipedia reader. i.e. that the Authors consider the event as a notable benchmark to other large attacks (rather than as was previously suggested, a copied event). Your concern that the reference is duplicated in the article is not based on any Wikipedia policy I'm familiar with. In fact, when the material is questioned, it is customary to note on-article who is the person/author that's making the statement. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It's a matter of aesthetics and style.Nishidani (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
When the material is questioned, it is customary to note on-article who is the person/author that's making the statement. I know that the style issue bothers you, but I'm bothered about the source being used to suggest something that the authors did not intend. I believe I've made a large compromise here, accepting a superficial connection being noted on the lead, and it would help end this issue if you make a small one on your part. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


Okay, we should be able to iron out this quickly. Look, my point is that the original phrasing was terse. You have rephrased it and in doing so appear to make inferences which are not explicitly there in the text: The two writers give us this passage:-

'This bombing greatly contributed to the British decision that its occupation was leading to larger costs than the benefits derived. This incident was the role model for the massive bombings of the 1980s and beyond. The 1980 Bologna railway station bombing by right-wing terrorists is one of the largest European bombings in terms of casualties until the late 1990s and the Chechen bombings in Moscow. The Madrid commuter train bombings of 11 March 2004 are the deadliest nonaerial European terrorist attack so far.'p.250

You have added a citation required for the passage attributing the success of the bombing to the British decision to withdraw. But the two authors note what all books on the episode note. I.e. that this bombing tipped the scales for the British decision to withdraw. Since the following line is cited from Sandler and Enders., I don't see why the earlier line requires a separate footnote to the same source and same page, therefore, I doubt you will disagree, I will remove it. The citatio required is here, on p.250.
Secondly you make an inference, glossing the 'role model for the massive bombings' of the 1980s, with the Bologna railway station bombing and Chechen bombings etc. Now, there were many bombings throm the 1980s onwards. Syntactically 8ask around, don't trust me), there is no explicit argument here that the 'role model' lay behind both the Bologna bombing and the Chechen bombings. These two incidents are in the next sentence, but they are adduced, from among many bombing incidents, to make a different point, re the numbers of people killed in 1980s bombings. The way you have rephrased the text suggests that the authors are attributing to the authors (still unknown) of the Bologna bombing a direct imitation of the King David bombing. That suggestion is nowhere in the text. Think this over, and get back to me. I won't adjust until we've thought this through adequately, though I think my original formulation was as close to what the authors wrote, as as succint, as the point being made required.Nishidani (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Nishidani,
  1. I don't mind too much about the cn tag. Let's consider that issue closed.
  2. I understand your perspective but I believe that the citation of both bombings is most probably related to the 1980 point and that the "different point" starts with the deadliest non-aeriel Madrid bombing. I agree that the writing style makes it impossible to fully make out which one of us is correct so either phrasing (mine and yours) are treading on WP:OR. Still, it is more than reasonable to assume that when they use the term "role model" they are discussing the "success" (apologies to the victims) of bombings which were as "successful" as was the KDHB attack rather than a copy-cat/inspiration discussion, which they don't make. Citing that these examples are unrelated is a possibility, I admit. However, they don't make it very clear since they seem to be making a grocery list rather than deep inspection into events and how they relate. I believe my writing of the issue was more accurate to the natural development in the discussion/monologue they are making when citing large scale attacks since a random mention of 1980 bombings without naming any of them (or what part of the globe they are from) is just ridiculous pseudo-scholar babble.
With respect, Jaakobou Chalk Talk 22:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Jaakobou. The cn tag, I think we now agree, was not important, because Sandler and Enders, cited immediately berlow, do make precisely that point. But if you are worried about it, I can fit in several more quotes specifically on that point. The literature does see that bombhing as a turning point in breaking British will, even Begin said so.
In my original sparse cite, I limited myself to 'role model' because that is clearly what Enders and Sandler say. Anything else, i.e., making that sentence, with its full stop, run into the following sentence (which in English prose style should have involved rather different punctuation (:/;) to create an inferential reading that takes Bologna and Chechnya as illustrative of the role model . .1980s phrase. Now, perhaps the authors intended that. The two sentences are awkward and you did well to point out the problem. But, as you say, to go beyond the text, by linking the two sentences creates an WP:OR problem. It may certyainly be 'reasonable to assume'. But we are not allowed to reasonably assume what authors are saying, because that is WP:OR, or making one of several possible constructions of a text, and then taking this reading as representative of the real (if intuited) intent of the authors. They were clumsy. Their two examples, of the many (I will try and hunt up a large list of terror incidents in the 1980s I came across the other day) look odd. Whoever did the Bologna railway station bombing (Italian fascists of 'New Order'? The Italy's 'deviated' secret services? the KGB?, the CIA?) did so because there was a prior and thick tradition in Italy of public bombings (Piazza Fontana bombing, going back to 1969. We don't know the real authors, and therefore we don't know what 'role model inspired them' specifically. I was speaking to a young economist I ocdcasionally tutor last week, who works for at UN agency, and he told me that he was amazed to find, in his fieldtrips to the Philippine jungle (borderline areas between Christian and Islamic zones) and Peru, that local informants, ex-members of guerilla groups, when they learnt his identity (Italian) could discuss in detail things like these bombings and the murder by the Red Brigades of Aldo Moro. Apparently in these third world areas, guerillas would get word by radio of attacks all over the world, and discuss in reunions whether the strategy adopted by groups otherwise unknown to them was intelligent, tactically sensible or not. I mention the anecdote because it throws light on what our two authors write. Massive bombing incidents by their very nature, being reported worldwide, create a role model, to be used or discarded. That is the point our two authors make. To say, as the wiki text now says, that they impute to the unknown authors of the Bologna bombings, or Moscow Chechnya bombings (we don't even know who is responsible for the latter, since serious literature attributing it to the KGB exists) a direct inspiration from the King David Model, is to force the text. Personally I think the authors were very clumsy. That is why I am for the very sparse quote I first used, limiting the cite to that one line about role model. Thanks for the feedback, and I apologize for the length of my reply. Nishidani (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I understand your perspective on this, but mine was that the text meant to explain the authors think the event was the first of it's kind, a "role model" for "successful" attacks. Since the term "role model" can be interpreted in so many ways, I was unhappy with the inclusion of just the words "role model" as it might imply, as you believed a copycat/inspiration sub-context, which I believe to be false - we cannot assume this from the awkward text. I believe the best solution/compromise on this is to keep the input within the context of the Author's paragraph rather than confine it to it's sentence which forces the reader's imagination go beyond the text... all the way to the Philippines even.
I guess I'm willing to open this for mediation if you insist, but I still believe this source doesn't make a strong case for the material to belong in the lead.
Cheers, JaakobouChalk Talk 09:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] from the front page of the July 23, 1946 edition of The New York Times

From my point of view there are two interesting aspects of the front page article about the bombing in the July 23, 1946 edition of the New York Times. Firstly, it gives specific details about people who were injured outside the Hotel when the main bomb went off, which contradicts those Irgun supporters who write that there were none because of the effect of the small 'petard' which went off first. Secondly, it explains that the damage done to the part of the hotel being used as a military headquarters was comparatively minor:


" JERUSALEM BOMB KILLS 41 IN ATTACK ON BRITISH OFFICES

Zionist Terror Raiders Accused of Blast in King David Hotel

SHOOT BRITISH OFFICER

Strict Curfew Imposed In Hunt for Killers—Jewish Groups Urge End of Violence

By Julian Louis Meltzer JERUSALEM. July 22

- An en-tire six-story comer and basement at the southwestern wing of the King David Hotel were destroyed and at least forty-one British, jew-ish and Arab Government officials were killed and fifty-three were injured soon after midday when terrorists, belived to belong to either Irgun Zval Leumi or the Stern gang, blew up a large part of the offices of the chief secre-tary of the Palestine Government. Prominent Britons, including British Jews, are among the casu-alties. The dead include eight uni-dentified bodies, according to the latest semi-official figures, and fifty-two missing persons are buried under a huge pile of debris. They include twelve senior British civil servants and four senior Palestinian civil servants. I was on the scene, outside the fashionable hotel - a Jerusa1em landmark overlooking the Old City — just after the heavy explosions shattered the southwestern corner. Rescue operations had already been begun by Brtish troops and police sweating under the hot July sun. They were bringing out bodies on stretchers, leaving a trail of blood over the rubble.

Postmaster General Killed

People standing outside or just entering or leaving the building were among the casualties, Post-master General Gerald Donald Kennedy was killed outside the southern wing. The Superintend-ent of Police, Kenneth Page Had-ingham, was badly injured. Rich-ard Mowrer, correspondent of The New York Post, suffered a leg fracture. The corner was destroyed by a heavy charge of gelignite planted in the basement by four or five armed gunmen. The six floors in-cluded a well-known basement cafe called LA Regence and con-sisted of thirty or thirty-five rooms, mostly occupied by the chief secretary's offices. British Army headquarters has the entire top floor or the hotel and only a small section is situated at the southwestern comer. This explains the comparatively small casualties among the British military. The first detonation occurred at about 12:10 P. M., when a small smoke-bomb exploded near a, parked automobile on Julian's Way about fifty yards south of the hotel. It was intended to hold up all cars. Then came several shots from automatic guns.

Grenade Is Thrown

The second explosion came al-most immediately as a man dressed in Arab clothing alighted from a blue limousine and threw a small grenade along a lane on the north-ern end of the hotel. A military sentry fired at him and the man threw away a submachinc gun and limped to the car, which sped off toward the Jaffa Gate—one of the main gates of the walled Old City. The car was found abandoned later at the foot of the Tower of David, not far from district police headquartcrs. Five minutes later came a third, shattering cxplosion. It was pre-ceded by a mysterious telephone warning to tho hotel's switchboard operator by a woman caller who said: "Tell everyone to leave the hotel. It is going to be blown up in a few minutes." A few minutes before this third detonation a truck drove down the sunken driveway at the northern end of the hotel and four or five men jumped out at the service en-trance to the kitchens. They as-sembled all the hotel staff—-cooks, waiters and kitchen boys—below stairs at gunpoint as one man laid several milk cans full of explosives with fuses, wires and detonators. Then the men dashed off and the ...

Continued on Page 3, Column 2 "

-- ZScarpia (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)