Talk:Menachem Begin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Menachem Begin article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Past Discussions

  • Archive 1:
    • Changes and citations
    • Deir Yassin
    • NPOV
    • Criminal?
    • Iron Wall
    • 'Headshot'
    • The Opening Paragraph Needs to be Revised
    • Some Fixes
    • Introduction
    • Debate over Irgun's role in ending the Mandate
    • More on the Introduction/Contested Legacy
    • Shouldnt he be in a category "terrorists"
    • Changes to In the British Mandate of Palestine
    • Use of terrorist/criminal
    • Still missing
    • Attempted murder of Konrad Adenauer
    • AWOL Polish Army
    • Quote at end of article
    • Bounty
    • Slight hick-up when accessing this page with the FIREFOX browser

[edit] Begin and Polish Army

There is a contradiction in articles Polish II Corps and Menachem Begin:

Polish II Corps article states:

After being relocated to Palestine, the Corps faced the problem of increased rate of desertions of soldiers of Jewish nationality, most of whom defected en masse to the Haganah. The most noted among them was Menachem Begin, the future Prime Minister of Israel. General Anders decided not to prosecute the deserters.

But Menachem Begin article states

...he joined the Polish army of Anders, but was unofficially discharged from that army along with many other Jewish soldiers.

Begin (and other Jewish soldiers for that matter) can’t be a deserter and unofficially discharged at the same time. (This comment is posted on both talk pages, since I can’t tell which article contains incorect facts) -- Obradović Goran (talk 23:25, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From what I've read, he refused to desert and he was released - but I have to chech my sources. Szopen 09:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm adding a 'citation needed' tag.--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] not sibiria

he was in the 40 in russia but not sibiria.

As far as I know, Begin was at Vorkuta, so the author of the remark above is right.

(Anyway, the spelling is Siberia, not "sibiria." Das Baz 16:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Re Begin as a Fictional Character

The subject of debate: "In the graphic novel, as in real life, Begin's concern is primarily for the lives of his men."

My first comment (can be found in the history page): I agree with the anon; the statement is non-NPOV and not realistic--no effective guerrilla leader places humanism over strategy (and Begin was certainly effective).

Sangil's reply: rv - had you the slightest acquientance with Begin as a leader, you would have known how he held dear the lives of his men. So mauch so, he asked to be buried next to his fallen comrades

Current reply: Sangil, countless military leaders have gone down in history for being extremely protective of the lives of their troops, but, to be successful as a military leader (of any nation and in any theater), one must be able to send soldiers to their death without a second's hesitation for a cause that is purportedly more important than anything else. Begin had such a cause: the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. Consequently, it is ridiculous for an article to suggest that "in real life" Begin's concern was "primarily for the lives of his men". His primary concern was to win the war as he saw it, and to do so at any cost. As for being buried with his troops, that is very noble. However, it is by no means unusual--at least in America. Check out the Notable burials section of Arlington National Cemetery. If you're going to persist on this issue, you may as well call for arbitration now... --(Mingus ah um 07:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC))

  1. I have no idea why, but you removed my sourced edit in the intro regarding Irgun. Please do not do so again without good reason.
  2. regarding 'Begin as fictional character'- Begin was concerned with the lives of his men to such a degree that he was regarded as a 'too humanist' by other underground leaders, such as Nathan Friedman-Yellin (for example see the case of the Irgun traitor Hilowitz, which he refused to execute - a common underground practice - even though the treachery was clear to everyone). If it's the word 'primarily' that bothers you, I have no problem with 'deeply' etc. If you insist in deleting the whole phrase completely, you are welcome to invite arbitration.
-Sangil 21:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

1) "you removed my sourced edit in the intro regarding Irgun. Please do not do so again without good reason." No, I did not. I haven't touched the intro recently, if at all. Someone else has to answer for that. 2)"Begin was concerned with the lives of his men to such a degree that he was regarded as a 'too humanist' by other underground leaders" You mean, he was considered 'too humanist' by other underground leaders in Irgun or Lehi... It is well known that the leadership of the vast majority of the underground (the Haganah) considered Begin to be a dangerous extremist hellbent on fighting the war by his own terms.

Regardless, I think that your suggestion that we replace "primarily" with "deeply" is a perfectly acceptable solution. I haven't checked your new edits, but, if you have not made the substitution, I will give it a shot. If you do not like what you see, revise at will... --(Mingus ah um 23:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC))

It was I who removed your sourced edit in the intro, and moved it into the body of the text. I think it fits better there, rather than in the intro, as this is an entry about Begin and not the Irgun. It is as if you would write in the intro: "Beign was the 6th prime minister of Israel, the world's only Jewish state established in 1948 following a UN resolution in 1947". It is perfectly legitimate to provide such context within the text's body, where it refers to Begin's history as the Irgun leader, however in the intro it is superfluous. Moreover, I think the wording is a bit too strong as one can argue about whether the Irgun was one of the "main" reasons or not, so I would suggest writing that it "played a significant role" in forcing the British out of Palestine. I hope you agree. Amirig 08:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Mingus ah um - I apologize for "blaming" you for the move. As for the "Begin as fictional etc", I don't think Haganah was undergraound at all. Its leaders were well known to British authorities, and occasionaly the British would actually support it. Haganah took arms against the British only for a relatively brief period of 10 months. the most one can say is that it was a "semi-legal" group.
Amirig - I think one short phrase referring to Irgun in an intro of two paragraphs is not too long. As for being the "main reason" - that's exactly why I added the citation.
-Sangil 14:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Back to Menachem Begin as fictitious character: The best source of course is the first edition of Tintin au Pays de l'Or Noir. Herge often updated his Tintin stories. The one story he never updated was Le Lotus Bleu - The Blue Lotus - because it just would not fit any historic context outside of its original context of the Japanese-Chinese conflict of the late 1930's. With Le Pays de l'Or Noir, on the other hand, the sub-plot involving Begin and the Irgun was a minor one that could be eliminated without harming the main story in the least. Das Baz, 19 May 2006, 10:50 AM.

See article Khemed for more about the transformation of Herge's story. Das Baz 16:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] this man was a terrorist

he committed acts of terror just like the insurgents in Iraq and just like Hamas. he killed people boasted about it.

but god help you if you say it here on wikipedia or they accuse you of being anti-jewish. tell the truth and you get banned. so much for it being the online encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

when an arab blows up a hotel, he is a terrorist. when a jewish person does it he is a hero.

america wasnt attacked becase we are a free country. we were attacked because of our unwavering support for jewish terrorism against the palestinian people. if i am wrong, i beg to be told how.

and isnt it interesting when i changed some things in this article and referred to Begin's actions as "terrorism" i was reprimanded for it. but the 9/11 attacks are referred to as just that. so i guess when an arab does it, it is called "terrorism", but yet when a jew does it it is "freedom fighting".


==The Irgun attack over the king david hotel was an attack over the brithish headqourters, which was esteblieshed in the hotel, and was not intended to delibertly attack civiliens. And more then that, as it was proven, the intentions to blow-up the king david hotel were sent to the brithish along with the request to evecuate the hotel.

oh here we go with a zionist double standard. because it was an attack on the british headquarters it wasnt a terrorist attack? that is typical of the zionist. Keltik31 22:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The bombing of the King David Hotel is the single largest terrorist attack (most civillians killed) in the history of the Middle East. But unlike virtually every Palestinian leader, Begin is not catagorized as a terrorist. (Neither are Yizhak Shamir, Avraham Stern, or the latter day Jewish underground). So much for the neutrality and objectivity of Wikipedia. Abu ali 10:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Whether Begin was or wasn't a terrorist, the bombing of King David Hotel was NOT the single largest terrorist attack (most civillians killed) in the history of the Middle East. In the 2005 Sharm el-Sheikh attacks more civilians died. But if you consider this a terrorist attack despite the fact that the target was military, why do you measure the size of an attack by the civilian death toll only? Amirig 04:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

you can forget about neutrality and objectivity here. even if you say that the zionist state commits acts of terror, which they do, just like Bin Laden, which they do, you will get barred from editing. Keltik31 16:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

i think the term jewish military resistence is bias, he was a terrorist in the same way the IRA were Terrorists. Capt JD

[edit] anti-begin quotes???

90% of the quotes that are on this article are sourced from an anti-israel palestinian website. How about putting some good quotes about begin and not making him look like a terrorist.

because he was a terrorist. someone who bombs a hotel is a terrorist. if it is terrorism when arabs do it, then why not when jews? Keltik31 22:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The word Terrorist is now (righlty in my opinion) discouraged on Wikipedia as POV pushing. Unfortunately our Arab bashing friends get round this by adding large sections to the beginning of articles on Arab Leaders and organisation detailing their designation as "Terrorist" by various western powers. There are many of them on Wikipedia and they seem to have vast amounts of free time to blank my edits and push their particular form on "neutrality". sigh... Abu ali 15:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

wikipedia is a joke when it comes to be neutral. begin was a terrorist and so was Sharon. israel is a terrorist state and does it's evil deeds with the consent and taxpaer dollars of american citizens who are kept in the dark as to the facts by the zionist-controlled media. if americans knew what was going on there would be a demand. http://www.ifamericansknew.org/ tells a lot of interesting facts that you will never hear on ABC News or from the Assoicated Press. but if you say these things, the Wikitards call you Anti-Semetic as if you hate all jewish people. Keltik31 15:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Begin and terrorism

At reading all above comments I am compelled to introduce historic and grammatical truths. Begin should be considered an "insurgent" as he fought the occupying (British) army. He blew up a wing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, at that time the Headquarters of that army. His intention was never to kill civilians which would be the definition of "terrorist". Moreover, evidence shows that he would have preffered not to even kill British soldiers as he notified them well in advance about his intentions and adviced the British Command to evacuate the Hotel. Terrorism implies the indiscriminate killing of civilians on the other side, and worse -as we have seen lately- of civilians on your own side! The word terrorist has been used repeatedly to define Begin wrongly and in the same fashion the opposite occurs as well, such as today's expression "Iraki's Insurgents" which is a wrong one: they kill civilians with premeditation and that makes the Iraki "insurgents" nothing but terrorists. --Healkids 15:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

actually he faught against the British whow ere legally there supported by the UN mandate. He was a simple terrorist no better than the IRA. And so what if he advised peopel to leave the hotel-it wasnt right for him to blow it up anywayGashmak 10:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

this article should read that Begin was a terrorist. so he notified of the attack in advance, what is he? a terrorist with manners? Keltik31 15:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

the IRA used to notify the Brits before blopwing up their children-it didnt make them any less terrorists Gashmak 11:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism does not imply the targeting of civilians. Terrorism is "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious or ideological in nature through intimidation, coercion or instilling fear". Begin was a terrorist whether you like it or not.

I know you Pro-Israel people hate admitting to these facts however terrorism is a huge policy in Israel. The use of terror/fear against the Palestinian civilians everyday shows this. The amount of times the IDF have targeted civilian buildings claiming insurgents were within shows the terorism they create and use. I couldn't care less if you believed an insurgent to be in the civilian building. If it's a civilian building you don't target it.

I'm ranting now but in conclusion Menachem Begin was a terrorist as was his successor Yitzhak Shamir. Tonezz 01:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] =Factual error

Herut won 14, not 18, seats in the First Knesset. knesset website is a source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.92.157.195 (talk) 04:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] minor typo

Noticed a minor typo. Under Menachem_Begin#Begin_as_a_fictional_character, it says "Begins has been mentioned in [...]". —AldeBaer 04:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reagan

I'm not sure if this should be added or not, but from the excerpts released from Reagan's diaries it seems he was highly critical of Begin especially for bombing Iraq and invading Lebenon.

[edit] A terrorist-from one who believes in the state of Israel.

The UN was the successor to the League of nations, and thus took over the responsibility for tha mandate system-they didnt end it. Thus Britains presence in Israel/Palestine was legitimate. Menachem Begin was a terrorist by any definition of the word-he conducted a murder campaign against thge legitiamte British authorities. And yet he is admired by many Israelis.

Why?

He is guilty iof, yet admired for, doing exactly what Israel condemns Palestinians for doing-committing terrorist attacks. Israel was founded in acts fo terrorism, yet wallows in national hypocrciy in regard to Palestine

For shameGashmak 10:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Not only did he practise terrorism against the British and against the native Muslims, he practised it against the native Jews of Palestine too. Jews For Justice for Palestinians - Extracts from the letter signed by Albert Einstein and many other prominent Jews, letter to The New York Times December 4, 1948 "Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model. During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute." PalestineRemembered 14:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Factual Error

Herut won 14, not 18 seats, in the first Knesset. Someone please fix this.

[edit] Begin has NOT deserted

Online book by Korbonski clarifies it enough.

http://www.antyk.org.pl/teksty/ozydach-08.htm "Armia, której mundur noszę i której składałem przysięgę wojskową, walczy ze śmiertelnym wrogiem narodu żydowskiego, faszystowskimi Niemcami. Nie można opuścić takiej armii, nawet po to, aby walczyć o wolność we własnym kraju." "The army, whose uniform I wear, and to which I plead military pledge, fights with mortal enemy of Jewish nation, nazi Germany. One cannot leave such army, even for fighting for freedom in your own country.". The autor then goes on explaining how Irgun contacted with Drymmer, which then contacted Tokarzewski (who was Begin's friend) who then convinced Anders to give Begin release. Oficially (because British were already enraged by the fact that Polish army refused to follow the Jewish deserters, not to mention fact of military training given to Irgun) he went on military leave without limitation. Harvey Sarney in his book on Anders gave another version, that Begin was simply released, and the "military leave without limitation" document was prepared by one of Irgun leaders closely cooperating with Polish Military Intelligence. Szopen 07:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorist

I am told by 6SJ7 that WP:WTA disallows the use of the word 'terrorist', and the point is raised with reference to the Irgun. The relevant passage runs:-

'Extremism and terrorism are pejorative terms. They are words with intrinsically negative connotations that are generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and whose opinions and actions one would prefer to ignore. Use of the terms 'extremist', 'terrorist' and 'freedom fighter' implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label to a group, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.

In line with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy, the words 'Extremist', 'Terrorist' and "Freedom fighter" should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". In an article the words should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article.

In the present case, X = Y (Irgun calls itself terroristic). Begin belonged to the Irgun, and the Irgun defined its activities as terroristic. Namely the National Military Organization (Irgun Zvai Leumi), in its memorial to the German Reich proposing a a collaborative effort in WW2 against the British, we find the declaration that:-

‘The NMO, whose terrorist activities began as early as the autumn of the year 1936, became, after the publication of the British White Papers, especially prominent in the summer of 1939 through successful intensification of its terroristic activity and sabotage of English properly. At that lime these activities, as well as daily secret radio broadcasts, were noticed and discussed by virtually the entire world press.

Die N.M.O., deren Terroraktionen schon ins Herbst des Jahres 1936 begannen, ist besonders im Sommer 1939, nach der Veroeffentlichung des engl. Weissbuches, durch die erfolgreiche Intensivierung ihrer terroristischen Taetigkeit und Sabotage an englischem Besitz hervorgetreten. Diese Taetigkeit, sowie die taeglichen geheimen Radiosendungen, sind ihrerzeit fast von der gesamten Weltpresse registriert und besprochen worden.Cited Lenni Brenner The Iron Wall 1984 ch.15 and Appendix 2

The Wiki reference is to a pejorative judgement laid against one group by another, or a third party narrator. In the instance cited, the Irgun itself defines its mode of operation as one of engaging in ‘terroristic activities’, and therefore the Wiki guideline is not pertinent.Nishidani 19:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the source cited this was a term used by the Stern Gang, a radical faction that split from the Irgun. But regardless, one such anecdotal evidence does not make the Irgun a terrorist organization (people call themselves many names). What matters is that using this term carries an unambiguously pejorative and morally judgmental meaning for contemporary Wiki readers. As such it is in opposition to Wiki guidelines, especially when presented out of context. Amirig 03:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
You're correct that the Stern gang did split from the Irgun before making that proposal, but it defined itself during the split as still being part of Irgun Zvai Leumi. You are wrong on the rest. It is an official document, not 'anecdotal'evidence, of a sub-group of Irgun, whose members briefly disagreed with a temporary official Irgun policy of support for Britain, and as such does not constitute 'anecdotal evidence'. Moreover Irgun historians like Baruch Nadel attest that not only Yitzhak Shamir but all the leaders within the Irgun like Begin were well aware of the manoeuvre. It is no coincidence that on assuming power Begin honoured their leader with the issue of stamps commemorating him, and appointed his henchman Shamir as foreign minister. Thirdly, the use of 'underground group' everywhere on these article when they openly avowed that they assassinated civilians and politicians, is no less 'euphemistic' than 'terrorist' may be adjudged 'morally judgemental.' The latter describes policy, the former cleans murder of all judgemental innuendoes, so I suppose we will have to call Hamas an 'underground militant group', to be coherent, and removed all references to 'terrorism'?Nishidani 07:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you on many counts (I would in fact define the Irgun as a terrorist organization). Also you have a valid point about underground being a euphemistic term. But note that the important issue is how charged the term terrorism is and what it implies. I am not at all convinced that today it carries the same meanings that it did when it was used - in German, mind you (or was it translated from another language?) - 70 years ago. So even if I agree that this is not anecdotal evidence, we still need to look at what it means. But our role here is not being historians. Look at the Wiki article on Hamas. It is never described as a terrorist organization per se (it is defined as a militant organization). The term terrorist is only used when describing how some define it. No claims are made about the extent to which this is true. Look at another famous terrorist-cum-freedom-fighter, Arafat. He too is defined in Wikipedia as a terrorist only in the eyes of Israelis. Referring to the Irgun as a terrorist organization in the first sentence in the article on Begin frames his depiction in a very pejorative context. I agree that he was perceived as a terrorist by the British, and arguably others, maybe even himself at times. But I am sure that Shamir would not have put both him and Arafat in the same category. This doesn't mean that they are or are not, but that the word terrorist carries a variety of contested meanings, and as such cannot be used in Wikipedia as a descriptive term. Amirig 00:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I think Irgun is a special case, they described themselves as terroristic, hence it's not barred under words to avoid. It's not clear to me that the word doesn't mean now what it meant then, throwing bombs into cafes, loading them into milk-churns and on board donkeys etc. And they were a "simple gang", so it's not like defining a mass movement as "terrorists", which may be more problematical. PRtalk 13:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] herut opposition years

i'd be interested in an explanation on why some uncorroborated op-ed notes by "Lilienthal, Alfred M", a known anti-israeli about a Menahem Begin visit to the US qualifies as WP:UNDUE to be inserted [1][2] into "The Herut opposition years" [3], a subsection dealing with the creation of Herut and how israeli politics were affected. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be very interested in an explanation as to why the clip might qualify as UNDUE too.
Perhaps you'd prefer we put in what Ben-Gurion was still saying of Begin 15 years later: "I have no doubt that Begin hates Hitler - but this hatred does not prove that he is different from him. When for the first time I heard Begin on the radio, I heard the voice and screeching of Hitler. ... If, one day, he comes to power, with his political adventures, he will lead the State of Israel to its destruction. [Letter from Bengurion to Haim Guri, 15 May 1963, cited in Michael Bar Zohar, Ben Gurion Vol.III, p.1,547; see Middle East International, August 1977; Kapeliouk, Amnon, Le Monde Diplomatique, June 1977.] PRtalk 13:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Jaakobou.The fact that Lilienthal wrote an anti-Zionist book does not disqualify him as a reliable source. The book, if you have read it, is not a pack of 'uncorroborated op-ed notes'. If 'anti-israeli' is an epithet designed to be attached to critical books and thereby disqualify sources, you'll end up banning a very large part of the academic literature on these subjects.
The charge of WP:UNDUE is grasping at straws. The event is well known, can be corroborated from many sources ('New Palestine Party,' New York Times (4 December 1948) (Letters), p.12.), and was an important failure for Begin's early post-war career and therefore cannot be overlooked. It belongs to the Herut opposition years because the page is organized chronologically, with the rise of Herut covering his early post-war activities, such as his attempt to gain foreign accreditation in the US. Nishidani 16:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the other stuff in that paragraph, but the bit about the letter whose signatories included Albert Einstein is definitely notable - the fact that it is on wikisource is a clear indication. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Insurgency against the British in Palestine

There is no attempt to whitewash acts of violence against civilians. The Dier Yassin Massacre is mentioned later in the text, in its right context (the war of 1948 as opposed to the insurgency against the British). As for the other massacres, as this is very contentious please provide references to substantiate your claims. The term 'massacre' conveys a specific political point of view. Also, are you confident that Begin was implicated in these acts? Amirig (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)