Talk:Menachem Begin/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Changes and citations 2 Deir Yassin 3 NPOV 4 Criminal? 5 Iron Wall 6 'Headshot' 7 The Opening Paragraph Needs to be Revised 8 Some Fixes 9 Introduction 10 Debate over Irgun's role in ending the Mandate 11 More on the Introduction/Contested Legacy 12 Shouldnt he be in a category "terrorists" 13 Changes to In the British Mandate of Palestine 14 Use of terrorist/criminal 15 Still missing 16 Attempted murder of Konrad Adenauer 17 AWOL Polish Army 18 Quote at end of article 19 Bounty 20 Slight hick-up when accessing this page with the FIREFOX browser

Changes and citations

I have made some changes to this article in the middle section, mostly relating to the Irgun and Stern Gang, and Begin's period as opposition leader. I felt that these paragraphs were generally very messy, not in chronological order, and in places inaccurate and clearly biased. In editing I have tried to stick to the facts, put them into some sort of order, and added a bit of additional information for interest and clarification.--steveajg 16:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I would agree to call Irgun objectively a terrorist organization, had not SJK denied Fatah was on Ariel Sharon. Or I would describe both as "considered by X". But no double standards. --Uriyan

I removed "mostly British soldiers" from the description of the King David hotel bombing because it isn't true. There were military offices in the building, including that of the British commander General Baker (though his office was not destroyed), but the main occupants were the British Secretariat (a branch of the civil administration) and the CID (police). I'm pretty sure that even in the military areas the main casulities were civilian employees. -- zero

About the famous "two-legged beasts" quotation: The online archive of New Statesman does not go back past 1995. I will look at the original paper edition and report on what is there. I don't understand the comment "not a pub". --Zero 11:48, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I checked. The citation is accurate. On page 12 of New Statesman, June 25, 1982, is an article "Begin and the 'beasts'" by Amnon Kapeliuk. The subject is the on-going Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Here is the relevant paragraph:

The war in Lebanon cannot be interpretted, even by its most devoted proponents in Israel, as a war of survival. For this reason, the government has gone to extraordinary lengths to dehumanise the Palestinians. Begin described them in a speech in the Knesset as 'beasts walking on two legs'. Palestinians have often been called 'bugs' while their refugee camps in Lebanon are referred to as 'tourist camps'. In order to rationalise the bombing of civilian populations, Begin emotively declared: 'If Hitler was sitting in a house with 20 other people, would it be correct to blow up the house?'

I will leave it for others to argue over whether any of this should be in the article. --Zero 09:27, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

When police in Pakistan confiscated an al-Qaeda desktop computer in the summer of 2004 they found that: "The computer's manuals also focus on the broader history of partisan warfare and refer to an eclectic collection of role models, among them [...] the Israeli leader Menachem Begin, whose book The Revolt (1951), about his days as a terrorist fighting British rule in Palestine, is quoted approvingly at great length. " (from The Atlantic, Sept. 2004.) Should these newer students of mr. Begin be mentioned? (Or perhaps it should be under the al-Qaeda entry?) Huldra 01:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

It looks like speculative trivia in either case. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Speculative? No. Trivia? Prehaps; that is a matter of opinion. To my knowledge it is undisputed that al-Qaeda (or some parts of it: it is such an amourphous organization) use Menachem Begins book The Revolt as a "textbook". Trivia? Well, the content of that al-Qaeda computer was taken seriously enough to raise the security level in the US; is that also trivia? If not, why should we not note what/who inspires/teach them? Regards, Huldra 19:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

To claim that al-Qaeda is substantively influenced by Begin's book, as opposed to the many other sources that in fact strongly influence them (e.g the Qur'an), is both trivia, and a POV-pushing attempt to create an equivalence between Begin and al-Qaeda. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

--And who has claimed "substantively influenced"? Please quote your sources. Thanks.
--Actually, fundamentally the issue is this: I believe you have to differentiate between goals/targets of an organization/group, and the methods/strategies it employs to achieve these goals/targets. The influence/"teachers" in the two cases might, of course, be very, very different. But both are relevant, IMO.
The last part of your statement is quite interesting: ("a POV-pushing attempt to create an equivalence between Begin and al-Qaeda") If I should apply the same logic with your statement, then you have just "attempted" to "create an equivalence" between the Qur'an and al-Qaeda? Have you not? Regards, Huldra 22:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
--PS: I find your response quite facinating: seems to have hit a raw nerve? Btw, are you familiar with the book (="The Revolt")? It is quite .....eeeeh......interesting (for lack of a better word.)

To state that a fundamentalist Islamist group like al-Qaeda is primarily influenced by its understanding of the Qur'an is a truism; they would insist on it themselves. And if they haven't been substantively influenced by Begin's book, but it was merely found on a computer somewhere, then it is trivia. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I wish people would stop arguing against things which nobody has claimed, while avoiding answering questions which have been raised. It´s an ancient tactics, but that doesn´t make it more pretty. People going through this discussion can see for themselves.
A couple of points here: there is a level between "substantial influence" and "trivia", IMO. And to say that the quote from "the Atlantic" (about al-Queda quoting Menachem Begin´s The Revolt approvingly) is "trivia", is in itself a POV statement. And I definitely object to any statement saying that this was "merely found on a computer somewere"; the finding of this hard-disk (belonging to al-Queda "communication" master as it was termed) was feted a a major setback for al-Q. at the time (it was front-page news on all major US magazines, e.g. Time mag., Newsweek, The Atlantic); and it actually managed to RAISE the danger level in the USA (to orange). Actually, the more I think of it, there more I´m convinced that it deserves to be quoted, but NOT here (under M.Begin) -but on the al-Q. page, (together with other influences/"teachers" of the group.) The reason it should not be quoted here is that it would be a rather impossible situation if one should list all ideological "offsprings" of certain books/ideas. (Just think of the mass of "offspring" (ie people/groups influenced by) one would then have to list on the pages of Machiavelli, Sun Tsu, The Bible, The Qur'an...) Regards, Huldra 04:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Deir Yassin

This page says Begin and Irgun were not responsible for the Deir Yassin massacre. That page, says they probably were. Is there a consensus among non-partisan historians? -- GWO

NPOV

I have added the NPOV notice becuase this article has biased material from both sides of the issues. The article also includes links to questionable websites. --Mb1000 03:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• HI Mb: I am removing your NPOV sign as you do not give any reasons or explanations to justify your arbitrary move. Are you disputing facts? Please name them here. Which points are "POV" in your opinion? What are the links you disagree with and why? Etc. Thanks IZAK 05:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe that this article could benefit from having an NPOV warning. This article is bound to attract biased material from both sides of the issue, and has in fact contained biased links and wording, and even if these are removed they will soon creep back in. --Mb1000 20:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV warnings are for actual, specific POV issues in the text. They are not for articles which have biased links, or which will be likely to "attract biased material". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Mb1000? You have said twice now "both sides of the issue[s]"...yet you haven't yet said what either the issues or the sides are. Also, articles do not "benefit" from NPOV warnings, they benefit from good editing. Tomer ^TALK 19:19, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Criminal?

Should Begin be included in the Category: Israeli criminals? See the talk page for this category. PatGallacher 15:46, 2005 July 21 (UTC)

Of what crime was he convicted? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you will find that with the large majority of categories under Criminals by nationality there is no requirement that the person was actually convicted by a court. PatGallacher 18:53, 2005 July 21 (UTC)

Will I? If so, that will obviously have to be fixed, since if they're not convicted, then their status as a "criminal" is purely subjective. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Pat, you're obviously very keen to have Begin classified as a criminal. Do you think George W. Bush be placed in the category U.S. criminals? How about Fidel Casto; Cuban criminal? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, should e.g. the accused in the Moscow show trials all be classed as Russian/Soviet criminals? I flag NPOV since some artificial lines are being drawn see under "Polish criminals". PatGallacher 19:10, 2005 July 21 (UTC)

Artificial? Hardly. Objective is more like it. I'd like to try to stop these categories from being playgrounds where POV warriors get to classify their favorite boogeymen (usually leading politicians) as "criminals". One would think, given your devotion to NPOV, that you would support me in that. Say, why don't you create a category "Palestinian criminals", and add Yasser Arafat to that? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Should George Washington be an "American criminal" or Joseph Stalin a "Russian criminal" because they built their states at a time of war? etc... IZAK 09:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Stalin would definitely have to be a "Georgian criminal"... :-p Tomer ^TALK 18:35, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

It's a bad idea to characterize Begin as a criminal. This being wikipedia, we do have NPOV issues to consider. Dictionary.com defines "criminal (n.)" as: "One that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime." Since Begin was never convicted, this issue is fairly irrelevant. That means no more using it as sounding boards for your thinly veiled POV on the conflict. ApathyInternational

Perhaps this section should be archived (that is, laid to rest)? There is plenty of work to do on this article, and nothing productive will come out of this discussion. --(Mingus ah um 20:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC))

Iron Wall

There are several citations to "Iron Wall", but no reference is given that identifies this source. --Delirium 02:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The citations were not mine, but here's the book's info:

Title: The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World, Author: Avi Shlaim, SBN: 0393321126, Publisher: W. W. Norton & Company, Publication Date: January 2001, More info: http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-0393321126-3 -- (Mingus ah um 20:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC))

'Headshot'

It would be nice to have a 'headshot' (preferably one that was taken during his term in office as Prime Minister) at the top of the article. --(Mingus ah um 20:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC))

The Opening Paragraph Needs to be Revised

If one merely glanced at the opening paragraph, he or she would believe that Begin is one of Israel uncontested heroes. As such, the opening paragraph should be revised to include a brief explanation of the controversy which engulfed him in his latter years in office (e.g., the domestic drama which followed his decision to authorize 1982 Invasion of Lebanon). Regardless of how one views Begin, there is no question that the war in Lebanon has gone down as one of the most--if not the most--controversial development in Israeli history. --(Mingus ah um 20:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC))

This problem has since been addressed. --(Mingus ah um 19:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC))

Some Fixes

I have fixed some errors I came across when reading the article, as well as unproven myths (e.g. Irgun fighters were first to open fire on Altalena). I have also added a (short) mention of some battles Irgun was active in during the 1948 war, for informational purposes, as well as preventing the impression that Deir Yassin was the only military action the Irgun took part in during the war.

-Sangil 14:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

These |new edits by Amirig do not seem particularly NPOV to me, especially as the introduction to the article. They also make the intro pretty long. (Another editor has now made it even longer, but I am referring to the original version by Amirig.) My first reaction was to revert the whole thing but I hesitated because, quite frankly, the writing is pretty darned good. It would be fine as the intro to an article about Begin in a historical journal, where perspective and analysis are expected. I am not so sure that it is appropriate as the intro to an encyclopedia article. I would be interested in hearing anyone else's opinion. 6SJ7 19:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't they seem NPOV to you?

-Sangil 22:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I don’t think the introduction isn’t neutral. It uses non-judgmental adjectives and tries to succinctly capture the essence of Begin’s complex and controversial political legacy. It addresses the following main issues: 1. His 1977 victory as a watershed moment in Israel’s socio-political history. 2. The peace with Egypt. 3. The war in Lebanon. 4. His unprecedented loss of control over the government in his latter days.

I don’t find this list to be particularly controversial. I do agree that the text is a bit too journalistic, so I edited out the closing sentence (which was indeed too melodramatic for an encyclopedic entry), and toned down the wording around the war in Lebanon. I also moved the text about the Irgun to the body of the article, where I think it fits better.

Amirig 13:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sangil – I am afraid I disagree. The question of the Irgun’s contribution to forcing the British out of Palestine has been a source of heightened political debate, especially in the few decades immediately after Israel’s establishment, and was manipulatively used as a political tool by both leading parties (Begin continuously accused Mapai of marginalizing the Irgun’s historic role). This remains a contested issue to this date. Your citation, which presents the opinion of one low-ranking official - merely an assistant to the chief-secretary (and not the chief-secretary as you have stated, that was John Shaw) - taken from a book written by Begin (who obviously had a personal interest in this matter), does little to shed new light on this. Moreover, one can claim that in the climate of decolonisation of the late 1940’s, the fate of the British mandate was sealed regardless of local resistance.

Don't be afraid, it's OK to disagree :)

As I said before, I think one phrase mentioning Irgun (which is highly relevant in an article about Begin), in an intro of two paragraphs, is not too long, nor is it out of place. Regarding my source- I have indeed failed to mention that Archer-Cust was assistant to the Secretary-General. I do think the quote is very relevant, as Shaw's assistant, like all the British administration of the period, despised Irgun, and this makes such a statement from a member of this administration carry much more weight. You are welcome to bring British sources claiming the contary.

Also, I am puzzled why you think Irgun's crucial role in ending British rule is questioned by anyone except staunch Mapainiks. What else could have been the cause? Illegal immigration? Clearly the net effect of this on Britain's resolution had been minimal in comparison to armed attacks, killing of British personnel, bombing of facilities, and the insuing effect these had on British prestige, moral, public opinion, and expenditure. And the "climate of decolonisation" you refer to existed in the 1960's, not the 1940's. During the 1940's Britain did not "decolonise", but rather was "kicked out" by force (military or otherwise) from places such as Palestine and India, or remained as a virtual overseer, like in Transjordan.

-Sangil 19:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that today it is generally accepted that Mapai went to great pains to belittle the Irgun’s role, however the debate about how important it was in forcing the British out of Palestine still persists.

In any case – I think this discussion should be held within the article about the Irgun. Surely it does not befit the first sentence of an article about Begin. Moreover, presented without the context of the Irgun’s history and the controversy around it, and wrongly attributed to the Chief-Secretary, this is a misleading quote. I think it should be removed and appear within the article on the Irgun. Amirig 13:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sangil – I don’t want to get into an endless discussion about the Irgun. We are in perfect agreement that it played an important role in ending the British mandate.

I simply think that your reference is superfluous in the introduction, and should definitely not appear within the article’s first sentence. The first sentence should provide the highlights of Begin’s history, as is the case in many Wikipedia articles about historic figures.

I suggest that the first sentence should read:

“the 6th Prime Minister of Israel, Nobel Peace Prize laureate and head of the Zionist Irgun underground group during the British Mandate of Palestine”, and that your reference be integrated into the “Forcing the British out of Palestine” section.

Any thoughts?

Amirig 01:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think my reference is superfluous regarding the intro as a whole. I don't oppose your suggestion regarding the first sentence, but I think Irgun played a pivotal enough role in Begin's life (as well as in the history of Israel) to deserve at least a phrase describing its main achievement in the intro (it certainly deserves more than a mere mention of its name). I will try to think up some compromise tomorrow. If you have any suggestions I will be happy to see them.

Layla Tov!

-Sangil 01:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the Irgun section of the article which discuss the issue of the Irgun’s role in ending the British Mandate, however without privileging a specific interpretation of it. I think the best solution – especilly given the heated debate about whether or not Begin was a terrorist – would be to remove this sentence from the introduction. Any other suggestions? Amirig 12:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

'Avoiding debate' is not a satisfactory reason for removing reference to Irgun in the intro. It played a prominent part in Begin's life and it should remain there. The only considerations should be factual accuracy (or if it's lacking - an NPOV approach). What's more, the fact that Irgun was a major factor in ending the British Mandate has nothing to do with whether one considers Begin a "terrorist" or not. Whatever label you choose, the end result is still the same.

-Sangil 17:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Amirig and Sangil, here is a possible alternative (let me know whether you consider this sentence to be acceptable): "...head of the Irgun (1944 to 1948), the second largest Jewish underground group to resist the British occupation of Palestine." Hopefully, some variation of this sentence will please both of you, for it removes the fairly POV "one of the main reasons for their withdrawal from Palestine" (a statement which could be later made and defended in the body of this article) with a sentence which clearly implies that the Irgun played an important role in the resistance. Sangil: I know that you do not personally consider the Haganah to be an "underground group", so we could substitute "paramilitary" or "guerrilla" for "underground". Anyway... What do the two of you think? --(Mingus ah um 20:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC))

I don't see why you consider the "one of the main reasons.." statement to be POV - is it seriously contested by anyone? Regarding your suggestion, I would avoid "giving grades" (e.g. second largest) as I don't think size is an important aspect of underground groups, and Haganah had almost no role at all in the resistence. other than that I think it's a good basis for a compromise - maybe something like "...head of the Irgun (1944 to 1948), one of the Jewish underground groups to resist the British occupation of Palestine and effectively bring it to an end."

-Sangil 20:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Mingus’s suggestion is a good solution, and accept Sangil’s amendment regarding ‘grading’. However I strongly disagree with the “effectively bring it to an end” part, as it suggests that the overwhelming factor in British withdrawal was Jewish resistance, while other factors may very well have played a similar if not greater part (such as the impact of the Holocaust, Zionist diplomacy, British Imperial demise, the mandate’s economic unsustainablility). Tom Segev for example, in One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate claims that the Arab rebellion played a definitive part in British withdrawal. He writes (p. 490): "For many years thereafter, Israelis conducted an agitated and sensitive debate over who had really gotten rid of the British ... All the warring parties completely ignored the role played by the Arabs in sending the British packing"(I’m glad this debate forced me to look this up, as I can now add this to the article :-) ). I think this demonstrates that the contention that the Irgun “effectively brought the mandate to an end” is, at best, unsubstantiated (and one can claim, privileging a ‘Zionist’ reading of history). So I think this suggestion, without the last bit, is a good compromise.

Amirig 22:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Tom Segev, to put it politely, is not an academically-recognized historian. As for the "alternative reasons" you give for British evacuation:

• The "Arab Revolt" had ended 8 years before Britain's decision to leave. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that Britain had the slightest intention to leave (unless you provide some, and Tom Segev's opinion is hardly hard evidence).
• The Holocaust was hardly a direct factor, as the British couldn't care less about the fate of the refugees (e.g. Exodus). It did serve as a focal point for public opinion against Britain, but that alone is hardly sufficient to make a colonizing power leave.
• Zionist diplomacy had achieved virtually nothing since the early 1930's. The later years of the Mandate were marked by one diplomatic failure after another - culminating with the 1939 White Paper, and Britain's refusal to open the gates of Palestine to Jews desperate to escape Europe. If anything, Britain beacame more and more anti-Zionist.
• British Imperial demise (i.e. Britain leaving a colony of its own "goodwill") - this demise occured in the 1960's not the 1940's. As I stated earlier, in the 1940's Britain was always either kicked out by force (Palestine, India), or remained as a political overseer (Jordan).
• the mandate’s economic unsustainablility - this was a direct result of Irgun's and Lehi's military actions, and the ensuing need to maintain a huge army of 100,000 troops in Palestine.

All this is of course in addition to the quote I had previously provided. In short, Britain would never have left had it not been for Irgun's military struggle. They had too many reasons to stay (Baghdad-Haifa oil pipeline, vicinity to Suez canal, numerous military bases, etc). The “effectively brought the mandate to an end” 'bit' is accurate, relevant, and should remain where it is.

-Sangil 23:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sangil, a few quick responses (quotes in italics):

• I don't see why you consider the "one of the main reasons.." statement to be POV - is it seriously contested by anyone? Actually, yes... There are many people who do not believe that the Irgun were as important as you clearly believe they were. That is why I suggested we replace "one of the most important" with a fact (they were the second largest mobilized group). But this is addressed in my next bullet point.
• I have to disagree with your statement that you don't think size is an important aspect of underground groups. There was a reason why the Haganah consumed the Irgun at the end of the war, why the leaders of Haganah were the first leaders of the Israeli state: because they had the men necessary to consolidate power. The same story can be seen in Palestinian affairs (Hamas v. Islamic Jihad, Fatah v. the PFLP), or Lebanese (Hisbollah v. Amal). I think you downplay the importance of Haganah far too much.
• Tom Segev, to put it politely, is not an academically-recognized historian. As far as I can tell, this is a fairly outrageous assertion. I have never seen Segev's credibility contested; if you have links or sources to back up your statement, I'd be happy to read/see them. Just because a man writes history books for the general public does not mean that he is any less a historian.
• In short, Britain would never have left had it not been for Irgun's military struggle. They had too many reasons to stay (Baghdad-Haifa oil pipeline, vicinity to Suez canal, numerous military bases, etc). The “effectively brought the mandate to an end” 'bit' is accurate, relevant, and should remain where it is. Unfortunately, Sangil... Not all historians (not even all Israeli historians) subscribe to this point of view. Case in point: there is a rather large "revisionist" movement in Israeli history, and none of them place all of the credit on the back of Irgun and Lehi.

In any event, I wash my hands of this... I can only debate about Begin for so long before I begin to lose interest. If the two of you are still fairly set in your opinions, maybe you should leave a message for a couple other active Middle East members (on both sides of the spectrum) to see if they have any opinions. --(Mingus ah um 00:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

Sangil, on what basis do you claim that Tom Segev is not academically recognized? Boston University recognizes him and even awarded him with a PhD in History. The fact that he is controversial doesn’t make him dismissible. Moreover, what makes your opinion more valid than his (and by the way, he wrote a 500-page book full of primary sources in support of his claims)? I think there is no point in continuing the debate about what caused the British to leave (though some of your claims are highly debatable). The bottom line is: this is a controversial issue, that is, there is no consensus over it (as you can see, we don’t agree on it). As such, adhering to Wiki NPOV guidelines, there is no room for the part about "effectively bringing the mandate to an end". I am not suggesting that we write that the Irgun had no or little role in forcing the British out (which is also a controversial claim) but merely insist that contestable contentions either be put in their debatable context, or not be included at all. I believe that most people would agree with me on that. Hopefully, you as well. Amirig 00:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Amirig- Well, on what basis do you state that "some of my claims are highly debatable?" Which ones for example? The Arab Revolt did indeed end 8 years before the end of the Mandate, whereas Jewish military action continued up to (and including) the war of independence. Claiming it had any effect on the British (besides their repeating appeasement attempts) is pure speculation, unless sources are provided to support this claim. Just saying "Tom Segev said so and so, and he has sources in his book to prove it" is not a valid argument in WP. Please provide a quote, prefereably with the reference, that supports your case.
• Mingus ah um - your statements that "Haganah consumed the Irgun" are debatable to say the least. Irgun, as well as Lehi, chose willingly to disband and join the newly-created IDF (which was not Haganah, although Haganah provided most of the men). Irgun at no point became part of, or consumed by, Haganah. In fact, in Jerusalem where initially Israel had no sovereignity long after it was declared, Irgun continued an independant existence. But than no point debating with someone who "lost interest"...

In short, I have provided a quote from a high ranking British official, and I'm not sure why you do not consider this a valid source. If Tom Segev claims somethings to the contrary, please provide a relevant source from his book.

-Sangil 06:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sangil, I do not wish to endlessly continue the debate on the reasons for British withdrawal as we obviously disagree. Your opinion is valid but not consensual. The quote from Segev is but one example of other, well-argued interpretations (and just to add to that, please refer to Ritchie Ovendale, The Palestine Policy of the British Labour Government 1947: The Decision to Withdraw, published in International Affairs, 1979. Ovendale argues that Britain’s decision to withdraw was a result of its post-war geopolitical position, and especially pressure from the US. According to him, the Jewish insurgency reduced British morale but was not a major factor). If you still believe that your position is not in any way controversial, please provide a convincing explanation to that effect. Otherwise you will have to recognize that your addition, or the reference to the Irgun in the intro as it currently stands, are not acceptable. I believe Mingus’s solution is an elegant compromise.

Amirig 10:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

What would you accept as a "convincing explanation to that effect"?

-Sangil 13:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

My point was that such an explanation is practically impossible. Are you happy with the compromise suggestion (without the "effectively ..." suffix) or do you have an alternative suggestion?

Amirig 15:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Some more evidence, taken from The Revolt:

• From a Reuters account of a debate in the House of Commons, March 1st 1947 (after an Irgun operation in Jerusalem earlier the same day):
  • "Shouting angrily and thumping a dispatch-box in front of him, Mr. Winston Churchill demanded in the House of Commons today to know how long this state of 'squalid warfare' in Palestine, with all its bloodshed, would go on before a decision was reached. He said it was costing thirty to forty million sterling a year and keeping 100,000 Englishmen away with the military forces".
  • Mr. Churchill was not satisfied. "How long is this to go on?" he demanded and repeated the words in a louder voice. "Is there no means of accelerating the appeal to the UN, or are we just to drift on, month after month, with these horrible outrages and counter-measures..."
• From a report by General Cunningham, the High Commissioner, regarding the break out from Acre prison, June 4th 1947:
  • "No mere numbers of troops or police can guarantee security against attack on many thousands of buildings, bridges and civil undertaking, such as post-offices, hundreds of miles of roads....Complete defence of all these installations against organized attacks which are liable to be carried out anywhere and at any time of the day or night for years on end, is not a practical proposition".

I think I have provided enough evidence to back the claim that the military resistance was the main factor in ending the Mandate. Or maybe you still think it was the Arab revolt that drove the Brits back home?

-Sangil 17:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sangil, we are going nowhere. Obviously we will be unable to adequately discuss this complicated topic within the limitations of a Wiki talk page. Despite your conviction in the Irgun’s crucial role in ending the British Mandate, various historians disagree with you (and have provided evidence in support of their claims). Once again, please either accept the proposal that has been put forward, or suggest one that recognizes this disagreement. Amirig 19:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sangil, this is madness... Why do you think the British were stressed out over issues of manpower and finances in June 1947--they were just a month away from losing the one colony which was literally worth more to them than all of the rest of their colonies combined (the Indian subcontinent)! Do you seriously think that it was the Irgun and Lehi who were stressing out Churchill, et al.? Or have youy considered the possibility that something far, far more costly and disturbing (for fans of Empire, as Churchill was) had taken place a fourth of the way around the world from Palestine? Whenever you're ready, you should consider the perspective that the British Empire was mainly built--and lost--through geopolitical developments, and not a simple series of isolated guerrilla struggles. There are many historians who would be willing to walk you through that one.

As for your previous response to me (quotes in italics):

• Irgun, as well as Lehi, chose willingly to disband and join the newly-created IDF (which was not Haganah, although Haganah provided most of the men). Irgun at no point became part of, or consumed by, Haganah. In fact, in Jerusalem where initially Israel had no sovereignity long after it was declared, Irgun continued an independant existence.

Sangil, who are you trying to fool? Everyone knows that Haganah was the precursor for the IDF, that the IDF was effectively built and led by former members of Haganah. The civilians who authorized the IDF's development were friends and allies of members of the Haganah. Irgun eventually negotiated its way into the organization, but its members were only let in after the Irgun's leadership openly embraced the leadership of the IDF. And it's a bit of a stretch to simply say that Lehi chose to willingly disband... But if you're based in Israel, you probably know more about that than I.

• But than no point debating with someone who "lost interest"... Oh, yes... My appologies... It was unfortunate, but I finally realized how much time I've been wasting on wiki debating with zealots and cleaning up after vandals... In all honesty, I'd rather be reading. --(Mingus ah um 19:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

Anyway, look to Amirig's most recent response (a half minute before mine) for something more constructive... I guess I haven't drank enough coffee today not to issue yet another pointless (but reasonable) rebutal--(Mingus ah um 19:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

Debate over Irgun's role in ending the Mandate

The previous section was getting too long... Anyways-

Amirig - various historians disagree with you (and have provided evidence in support of their claims)...- that may be true. Call me a pedantic, but I refuse to relate to any such evidence until I have seen it. Please provide the references you talk about, as I have, and than we'll be able to discuss this issue in a fair manner. So far I am the only one to have actually provided any sources to back my claim.

Mingus ah um -

• Do you seriously think that it was the Irgun and Lehi who were stressing out Churchill, et al.? - of course, and you would too, had you read the excerps I had provided above. They make it quite clear that Churchill, and not only him, were indeed quite stresses about Palestine (after all in India there was no military resistance causing constant damage to manpower and installations, as well as moral and prestige).
• the possibility that something far, far more costly and disturbing (for fans of Empire, as Churchill was) had taken place a fourth of the way around the world from Palestine? - why are you so intent in belittling the strategic value of Palestine? I doubt any serious historian would back your claim it was trivial to the British. I had already mentioned the Suez canal and the oil pipelines. Again, it was Churchill himself who admitted keeping a hold on Palestine required an army of 100,000 men and an expenditure of 30-40 million(!!) sterling (quite a lot in those days). For some curious reason they were quite reluctant to let go of this tiny piece of land "a fourth of the way around the world" from India.
• you should consider the perspective that the British Empire was mainly built--and lost--through geopolitical developments, and not a simple series of isolated guerrilla struggles - in the long run you may be right (it is my personal belief that the horrible attrition of WWI had caused the British to lose the willpower to maintain their Empire). The Jewish resistence, however, served as a catalyst, speeding up a process which may have taken 20 years to about 4. Quite an achievement IMHO.
• Everyone knows that Haganah was the precursor for the IDF, that the IDF was effectively built and led by former members of Haganah... - yes I know this too. But for some inexplicable reason you continue to insist that Haganah and the IDF are the same thing, when in fact they were very different. Haganah served effectively as the military arm of the Jewish Agency, and as such was a highly political organization, hardly representing the whole of the Yishuv. The Jewish Agency (read - Ben Gurion) actually considered the Irgun (= Begin) a political rival. The IDF, on the other hand, is by definition a non-political organization, being the army of a sovereign state, and representing the whole population. Can you make the distinction? Naturally Begin refused to be "consumed by" Haganah, despite immense pressure to do so ("The Hunting Season"). He felt quite differently regarding an army of all the Jews in the Yishuv, serving an independant Jewish state. (sorry for the response being so long..:P)
• And it's a bit of a stretch to simply say that Lehi chose to willingly disband - Why? It is in fact what happened.
• but I finally realized how much time I've been wasting on wiki debating with zealots and cleaning up after vandals - which category do I belong to?

Regarding the intro, I will be away for the weekend without any access to Wiki (yes it will be difficult). Please do not make any unilateral changes....

regards

-Sangil 23:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sangil, I am not concerned with you being pedantic, but rather with your dogmatism. This discussion is no longer about the Irgun, but rather your unwillingness to accept others’ right to hold an opinion different from yours. I have no wish in persuading you that you are wrong. I merely want you to accept that I think you are (and the more I read your arguments the more I realize how delusional your theory is, but that’s just my opinion).

As for your ‘call for evidence’: you seem to have a very simplistic and populist understanding of what constitutes an informed historical debate. History is about the careful and systematic analysis of documents (i.e. primary sources), while taking into account the interests and motivations of those who produced them, the documents cumulative interpretation within a broader social/historic/political/demographic (etc.) context, and perhaps most importantly, their incorporation into a well-argued historiographic discussion. The mere flaunting of selective quotes is bad practice, if not propaganda.

Relying on previous works and conclusions of historians is the bedrock of historical academic exchange. Rather than repeating the whole narrative of a fellow historian (which in Segev’s case took up 500 pages), it is perfectly acceptable to refer to other’s works without having to reproduce their argumentation. I am not making new claims, rather simply pointing out that your position is controversial by referring to books/articles which provide an explanation different from yours. In that sense, I think I have provided far more ‘evidence’ than is required. Unless of course you are claiming that in fact I, and the historians I referred to, actually think like you do, but merely fail to realize that.

Your meager and tendentious selection of quotes proves little, if any:

• Churchill quote from March 1947: at the time Churchill was in opposition (the government was headed by Attlee from the Labour party), so this quote does not at all reflect government policy. Moreover his talk about the cost of ‘’bloodshed’’ may very well refer to controlling violence between Arabs and Jews, not just Jewish terrorism (which, incidentally, is what Segev writes about Churchill’s words, p. 492).
• Cunningham, June 1947: in June 1947, the British government had already handed the Palestinian question to the UN (UNSCOM was in session), and had effectively decided to end the mandate, though it was unclear in what way and when at that stage. Furthermore, even if this statement were made months beforehand, this doesn’t necessarily imply that that was the main reason for British withdrawal.
• Colonel Archer-Cust (in the main article): this seems like your most solid argument however, this statement was made a by a low ranking official in Palestine, oblivious of the governments international dealings and far removed from influencing national policy. Moreover, the fact that this remark, allegedly given in a lecture, is quoted in Begin’s book, hardly an impartial bystander, basically empties it of any validity.

This is not to say I think Irgun played no role (it may very well have helped encourage the British to hasten their retreat), but that in the greater scheme of things had little influence. I find your argument fundamentally flawed and biased (especially when you belittle the Haganah and political Zionism, as well as totally disregarding the Arabs), but you have a right to produce it. Just don’t present it as an inalienable truth.

I will not continue to debate this. I respect your opinion, and therefore did not make any unilateral changes. Please respect mine. Either produce an acceptable alternative, or I will assume you have none and change the text accordingly.

Enjoy your weekend (maybe try and read Segev’s book – its really good).

Amirig 11:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• This discussion is no longer about the Irgun, but rather your unwillingness to accept others’ right to hold an opinion different from yours - where in this whole discussion did I show "unwillingness to accept others’ right to hold an opinion different from yours"? I am debating the facts, and their implications. What on earth (or rather on this talk page) made you think otherwise?
• The mere flaunting of selective quotes is bad practice, if not propaganda - I agree. I did no such thing, however. Begin brings the entire "Churchill exchange" in his book, I mainly refrained from quoting the entire thing, preferring to bring excerpts, in an attempt to be brief.
• Rather than repeating the whole narrative of a fellow historian (which in Segev’s case took up 500 pages), it is perfectly acceptable to refer to other’s works without having to reproduce their argumentation - you don't have to quote the whole thing. It is, however, entirely possible to quote the certain phrase or even paragraph that you are referring to.
• I am not making new claims, rather simply pointing out that your position is controversial by referring to books/articles which provide an explanation different from yours. In that sense, I think I have provided far more ‘evidence’ than is required - No, actually you have relied on one book only. This is hardly "far more ‘evidence’ than is required" to call my point of view "delusional" or whatever.
• Your meager and tendentious selection of quotes - I see no justification for attacking me personally. I have certainly not attacked your views, which I believe to be equally "delusional", in a similiar manner.
• at the time Churchill was in opposition (the government was headed by Attlee from the Labour party), so this quote does not at all reflect government policy - I never said he was part of the government. But he did express the prevailing public opinion at the time, and although he was no longer PM, his opinion was held in extremely high esteem by everyone in England, for obvious reasons.
• Moreover his talk about the cost of ‘’bloodshed’’ may very well refer to controlling violence between Arabs and Jews, not just Jewish terrorism - during 1947 there had been no significant bloodshed between Arabs and Jews for over 8 years. The Irgun, on the other hand, was causing the British forces in Palestine severe agony and humiliation on an almost day-to-day basis (enough to impose martial law on several occasions). Is it really me who is being "delusional" here?
• British government had already handed the Palestinian question to the UN etc - So? It shows what Cunningham's opinion was of being able to maintain security in Palestine. There is no reason whatsoever to think he was referring to the Arabs, who had been docile since 1939, or that he had only developed this view between April and June 1947.
• Moreover, the fact that this remark, allegedly given in a lecture, is quoted in Begin’s book, hardly an impartial bystander, basically empties it of any validity - Why? I could understand your argument had you said Begin did not quote accurately. The mere fact that Begin made the quote in no way renders it 'empty of any validity'. If Archer-Cust had indeed said it, than it's valid.
• I find your argument fundamentally flawed and biased (especially when you belittle the Haganah and political Zionism, as well as totally disregarding the Arabs)' - But you don't say why they are flawed and biased, other than the fact that I don't agree with Segev. This does not make them flawed and biased. I have already mentioned numerous times why I disregard the Arabs (e.g. they didn't do anything since 1939), as well as political zionism. You are entitled to your own opinions, of course, but it seems you are intent in marginalizing mine with no reason better than the fact Segev said so-and-so. Segev has a well-known political agenda, and is hardly considered less biased than Begin.

Just an example - "His opinions are so controversial that he is probably the most often quoted journalist in the Israeli media today." [1]. Tom Segev is a well-known "post-zionist", considered more extreme than Benny Morris. -Sangil 16:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

In conclusion, I really don't see what's bothering you in the current intro, which says Irgun was one of the main reasons (not the only reason, nor the most important). I have provided sufficient contemporary quotes to prove this was the sentiment in England as well. There is absolutely no evidence that Segev's opinion is the academic concensus regarding this subject. I don't see why you insist in marginalizing Irgun's (and Lehi's) contribution.

-Sangil 15:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Sangil... While I intended my last post to be my last post on this issue, I came across this excerpt from a speech by Churchill to the House of Commons on October 23, 1946. I believe the speech establishes Churchill's general philosophy toward the Mandate, so here it is for your consideration (italics/bold emphasis mine): Before we separated for the Autumn Recess, I spoke about Palestine. I must refer to that subject, linked as it is with all other questions of the Middle East. If we are not able to fulfill our pledge to the Jews to create a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine—which is our undoubted pledge—we are entitled and, indeed, bound in my view—because it is our duty, to lay our Mandate at the feet of the United Nations Organization. The burden may yet be too heavy for one single country to bear. It is not right that the United States, who are so very keen on Jewish immigration into Palestine, should take no share in the task, and should reproach us for our obvious incapacity to cope with the difficulties of the problem. At present, we have no policy as far as I can make out, nor have we had for more than a year. The amount of suffering which this indecision in regard to a question which, I admit, may well be called the “riddle of the Sphinx,” is causing to all concerned, simply cannot be measured. From the moment when we declare that we will give up the Mandate—giving proper notice, of course—all our difficulties will be considerably lessened, and if other interested Powers wish us to continue, it is for them to make proposals and help us in our work. We have at this moment a large proportion of our overseas Army in Palestine engaged in a horrible, squalid conflict with the Zionist community there. This is a disproportionate exertion for us, a wrong distribution of our limited forces, and the most thankless task ever undertaken by any country. If we stand on the treaty with Egypt about the Canal zone, we have no need to seek a new strategic base of very doubtful usefulness in Palestine, and we can present ourselves to the world organization as a totally disinterested party. Superior solutions may then, for the first time, become open. I strongly commend this course of action to His Majesty’s Government and to the House. (End Quote)

Lastly, while it is certainly true that Tom Segev is a well-known "post-zionist", considered more extreme (interesting word choice) than Benny Morris, it is also true that, in 2006, post-zionism is considered to be a far more rational and honest political philosophy than modern-day zionism by many (non-Israeli, non-Arab) outsiders. That is, many of us happly accept the existance of an Israeli state, but oppose blatantly expansionist policies (be they endorsed by Likud, Kadmia or Labour). In other words, what is radical at home, is not always radical abroad...

Anyway... I'm sure we'll be discussing something else here or on another page soon. Until then, enjoy your wiki-ing. --(Mingus ah um 20:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC))

Sangil, what bothers me with the current intro is that I do not agree with the claim that the Irgun was one of the main reasons for the end of the mandate. In order to show that my opinion is not farfetched, I provided 2 sources, (one is Segev, the other is the 'non-post-Zionist' Ovendale), as well as providing a quote from Segev. So your claim that I rely on one source without quoting is untrue. I do not claim that Segev is the consensus at all, and I accept that some, like you, believe the Irgun had a far more significant role than I attribute to it. So ultimately, it is about your "unwillingness to accept others' right to hold an opinion different from yours" because while I accept your opinion as legitimate (without agreeing with it), you don’t accept mine as such. And in the meanwhile, the current intro continues to impose your POV.

So when will you suggest an alternative (or will we continue to debate this forever)? I believe we can reach an understanding.

Reading my previous post again I realize that it came across as a personal attack on you – that was not my intention and I apologize (and its ok you think I’m delusional, you have every right to).

Amirig 23:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Amirig -

• that was not my intention and I apologize - no problem :)
• I think the Churchill quote brought above by Mingus ah um speaks for itself (although he emphasized the wrong part ;-). Churchill, who I think is much more an authority of contemporary British public opinion, and probably official motives, than Segev, is crystal clear: "We have at this moment a large proportion of our overseas Army in Palestine engaged in a horrible, squalid conflict with the Zionist community there. This is a disproportionate exertion for us, a wrong distribution of our limited forces...". How can you still argue that effects of the Jewish resistence were barely noticeable? Granted, they were not the only factor in convincing the British to leave. But their struggle was clearly in Churchill's opinion one of the main reasons. He makes no mention of the Arab riots, nor of the "Political Zionists". In light of this quote, I think the current wording is quite a compromise on my part. I hope you see that I fully accept your right to have an opinion different than mine, it's just that I think in this case two significant quotes from Churchill, as well as one from Cunningham and another from Archer-Cust (all of them English mind you! Can't quite blaim them of favouring Irgun) trump the opinion of Segev, a "Post-Zionist" new historian with a very obvious political ax to grind.

Mingus ah um -

• Thanks for the Churchill quote! Heck, it even convinced me..:)
• That is, many of us happly accept the existance of an Israeli state, but oppose blatantly expansionist policies - These are not the views of "Post-Zionists". These are the views of the Left-Wing zionist political parties (Meretz etc..). Post-Zionists usually insist on blaming Israel completely for everything - the 1948 war, the Palestinian refugee problem, the current political situation, and usually picture the Palestinians as nothing more than innocent victims, with no blame at all in their tragedy. Some of them also doubt the very right of Israel to exist, and argue that the evil colonialist Jews had better move on back to Europe and leave the poor Palestinians alone. I sincerely hope you do not hold these views as well.

Post-Zionism is not a consistent ideology. It is a term used (often in a derogatory manner) to describe a group of ‘new historians’ whose preoccupation is a critical reappraisal of ‘Zionist narratives’. They do not “insist on blaming Israel for everything”, nor has any of them, to my knowledge, argued that “the evil colonialist Jews had better move on back to Europe and leave the poor Palestinians alone”. ‘Post-Zionism’ accounts are as a legitimate as any other. Amirig 13:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Regards to you both!

-Sangil 22:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm (I try to quit, but I'm too fond of typing :) )... While I am quite happy to have helped you out with my quote (I have a tendency to do that), I do believe that one part of Churchill's statement ("If we stand on the treaty with Egypt about the Canal zone, we have no need to seek a new strategic base of very doubtful usefulness in Palestine, and we can present ourselves to the world organization as a totally disinterested party.") illustrates the fact that Churchill did not believe that Palestine was, in all actuality, all that important for the survival and success of the British Empire. From my point of view, it appears that Churchill considered Palestine to be an unnecessary battlefield--a region which absorbed too much capital and too many men for literally zero projected returns... Quite frankly, it was terrible business, and Churchill, like most "Great Men," knew that an Empire can be lost through wasteful and irrelevant wars. Do you agree (that is, do you agree with my suggestion that this message is conveyed within the exerpt I provided)? If you do, then maybe you see why Amirig and I believe that the role of Irgun, while decisive, may have been overstated in the introduction. And, if that is the case, then you may be able to present us with an alternative which you are happy with...

As for "post-zionism v. left zionism"... I'll leave a little note on your user page... This talk page is already getting a little too long for its own good. --(Mingus ah um 07:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC))

How is the current intro a compromise if it represents your opinion? I do not find it acceptable as I do not agree that the Irgun was a main reason.

Earlier in our discussion, the following compromise has been suggested: "…one of the Jewish underground groups to resist the British occupation of Palestine".

Can you please either approve it or suggest something else? Amirig 09:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

And just a couple of quotes which do not fit with your claims about Irgun’s centrality, Political Zionism's failure or Palestine’s strategic importance for the British:

• "The American Press and American Zionists are responsible more than anyone else for the troubles in Palestine ... The sooner we go the better". Sir Henry Gurney, Chief British Secretary in Palestine.

• "Palestine is not vital to England but England does not want to have to admit failure". Foreign Secretary Bevin, January 1947

Amirig 12:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What about this as the opening paragraph:

Menachem Wolfovitch Begin ... Israeli revolutionary and politician, head of the Zionist militant underground group the Irgun, Nobel Peace Prize laureate and the first right-wing Likud party leader elected Prime Minister of Israel. Though revered by many Israelis, his legacy remains highly controversial and divisive. As Irgun leader, Begin was instrumental in resisting the British Mandate of Palestine but was sidelined by mainstream Zionist leadership. Suffering eight consecutive defeats ...

It seems to me like a reasonable compromise. Any thoughts? Amirig 11:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Mingus -

• Churchill did not believe that Palestine was, in all actuality, all that important for the survival and success of the British Empire - this may well have been true. Still it was rather obvious that the British were quite reluctant to withdraw from Palestine, for whatever reason, not necessarily because they thought it strategically important (which in my opinion they did, but it doesn't really matter here). The point is that Churchill's quote makes it clear the Zionist military struggle (= Irgun + Lehi) was one of the main reasons in "convincing" the British to leave.

Amirig -

• Palestine is not vital to England but England does not want to have to admit failure - see above.
• The American Press and American Zionists are responsible more than anyone else for the troubles in Palestine ...
  1. When I referred to "Political Zionism" I meant the Yishuv's diplomatic efforts in general and the Jewish Agency's in particular. I did not include American Zionism in this definition, and I certainly agree they were most effective.
  2. This quote does not contradict the fact that there were other important reasons. Gurney may think this is the most important, Churchill obviously thinks otherwise. Yet in no way does this quote support your claim that Irgun was of minor, if any, importance.
• Regarding the proposed intro, here is my view:
  • Why do you think Begin's legacy remains highly controversial and divisive? I agree it was in the past, but it is certainly not controversial in Israel today.
  • My proposal: "As Irgun leader, Begin had a central role in the successfull military struggle to end the British Mandate of Palestine. Begin is also famous for his declaration "Civil War - Never!", and his reluctance to raise arms against fellow Jews ensured that Haganah's recurring efforts to eradicate Irgun never turned into full-blown Civil War. His contribution marginalized by the mainstream Zionist leadership, he suffered eight consecutive defeats in the years preceding his premiership, and came to embody ...".

I think you both agree that 1) Begin was central in the military struggle, and- 2) this struggle was successful. Maybe the wording can be improved a bit, but you get the idea...

-Sangil 19:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? Your suggestion looks as if it has been taken from the Etzel Veterans Quarterly (if there is such a thing). I don’t agree that the military struggle was successful so we will need to find a different solution.

As for the part about Begin’s legacy being controversial – this is already part of the text and you seemed to think it was NPOV early on in our discussion.

In any case, I have changed the text to be neutral until we reach an agreement over it.

My proposal: As Irgun leader, Begin had a central role in Jewish military resistance to the British Mandate of Palestine, but was strongly deplored for his political violence and consequently sidelined by mainstream Zionist leadership.

Amirig 23:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• I don’t agree that the military struggle was successful - Why not? The objective of the military struggle was to evict the British, and since the British indeed left their objective was fulfilled. It has also been made obvious by the quotes brought above that Irgun , and the effects of its armed struggle, had a major role in convincing British policy makers to reach their decision. Even the quotes you have brought yourself do not contradict this. I don't see any reason to say that the struggle wasn't successful, except (much like Bevin admitted) the difficulty to admit you are wrong.
• As for the part about Begin’s legacy being controversial – this is already part of the text and you seemed to think it was NPOV early on in our discussion - Actually I was just wondering why you think his legacy is still controversial today. I never said it was POV or anything of the sort. I just think it could be phrased a bit more accurately. There's no need to be overly defensive...
• Your suggestion looks as if it has been taken from the Etzel Veterans Quarterly - Perhaps. Yet "even" Etzel Veterans Quarterly (assuming it exists) may occasionaly say the truth. Churchill, Cunningham, adn Archer-Cust all support my position. I think the claim Irgun had little or no part in the withdrawal of Britain has been shown to be quite unsubstantiated.

-Sangil 11:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the intro and added "widely considered" with the Churchill quote as a source. Your revert, completely ignoring the significance of Irgun in an intro about its most famous leader, was not neutral at all.

-Sangil 11:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sangil,

• I previously removed the text as a temporary measure until we reach an agreement, because I find it to be controversial. The change I made was neutral as it did not reflect an opinion others disagree with. Your revert, however, remains POV.
• I accept your point about the Irgun deserving more elaboration in the intro, however this should remain NPOV. In order to maintain neutrality, if we do expand on the Irgun, we should also refer to the fact that some believe it sabotaged efforts for independence, that its action were perceived by many as immoral, that it was cracked down on by Haganah, that it is considered by many a terrorist organization, that it was especially indiscriminate in its violence towards Palestinian civilians and that it is alleged to have committed war crimes in Deir Yassin. But I fear that such a long discussion would overtake the intro as a summary of the article, and therefore believe we should try and find a simple, short text that refrains from engaging in this argument or alternatively manages to capture it succinctly. You also agreed earlier that such an elaboration should not be contained within the first sentence of the article.
• successful: we disagree on the causes of British withdrawal. You may believe the quotes prove your point, however as I have shown my (and Mingus ah um’s) interpretation of them is different from yours.
• widely considered: once again, I disagree. Saying something is ‘widely considered’ is saying there is a general consensus over it. In fact, you have not pointed even to one historian who thinks so. I have provided 2 references of historians who think otherwise. In any case, there is no consensus within academia, or public discourse for that matter, on Irgun’s role (I also point you to the article on Begin in Hebrew Wikipedia, which I did not edit, and which states this). This debate continues boiling down to you trying to impose your understanding as the ‘widely accepted’ point if view. I do not wish to present mine as consensual as I acknowledge that it is not.
• Churchill’s quote: this is starting to look like a research thesis on the Irgun’s contribution to ending British rule, which wiki policy clearly prohibits.
• Begin being controversial and divisive: during his days as PM, people both admired him and despised him with emotions probably no other Israeli PM received, and this continues today, though obviously with less passion. His days in the Irgun, the war in Lebanon, the peace with Egypt, the settlements in the West Bank, his rhetoric – they all continue to be highly divisive to this day.

So I have changed the text again, this time referring to Irgun but in a neutral manner (without qualifying its contribution). I welcome suggestions for improving it.

Amirig 15:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• we should also refer to the fact that some believe it sabotaged efforts for independence, that its action were perceived by many as immoral, that it was cracked down on by Haganah, that it is considered by many a terrorist organization, that it was especially indiscriminate in its violence towards Palestinian civilians and that it is alleged to have committed war crimes in Deir Yassin - Yes, all this is undoubtely very important. Yet it has nothing to do with Irgun's role in ending the British Mandate. And some of it (i.e. "indiscriminate in its violence towards Palestinian civilians") has absolutely nothing to do with Begin, as virtually all the Igun attacks against the Arabs occured before he was commander of Irgun (early 1944).
• In fact, you have not pointed even to one historian who thinks so - No, I have brought quotes from 3 senior British officials, while you rely on the opinion of a fringe Post-Zionist historian. I am completely at a loss as to understand why you think the opinion of Segev is as important as that of Winston Churchill.
• this is starting to look like a research thesis on the Irgun’s contribution - Not quite. Churchill's quote speaks for itself, I have added absolutely no interpretation of my own. It even wasn't me who brought the quote in the first place. Where is the research here exactly? All I have done is bring sources who support my claim, same as you. Only difference is that Churchill and Cunningham are quite more of an authority regarding this subject than Segev is, and being British, they are much more impartial and unbiased since they can hardly be blamed for being Irgun supporters. As stated before, Segev has a quite radical political agenda and in no way can be considered concensual.
• they all continue to be highly divisive to this day - on what basis have you made this claim? What recent controversies have involved Begin, or his legacy? This is a completely unsourced statement.

I see no reason to bring more sources, as it is obvious no number of quotes or references will ever be enough to prove to you that Irgun had a major contribution in Britain's decision to leave. Correct me if this is not true, and I will make the effort to find more academic material which supports my claim. Otherwise either let my addition remain, or request mediation.

Regards

-Sangil 20:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Quick response (w/quote): "Churchill's quote speaks for itself, I have added absolutely no interpretation of my own. It even wasn't me who brought the quote in the first place"

Sangil, do remember that your interpretation of the quote is completely different than mine. Again, Churchill was not simply upset about the cost and casualties of the war, he was upset about the cost and casualties of a war that was being fought over what he believed to be valueless territory ("we (the British) have no need to seek a new strategic base of very doubtful usefulness in Palestine"). He was also an open advocate for the creation a Jewish state in Palestine (check the section regarding a certain "undoubted pledge"), and this was a position which very few of his contemporary British parliamentarians agreed with (be they from the majority or minority party). You are, of course, entitled to your own intepretation, but I believe that you are focusing on one factor of the speech and ignoring other essential elements.

Anyway, I'm essentially on a wikibreak, so I wish the two of you the best of luck working this one out. Peace. --(Mingus ah um 22:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

he was upset about the cost and casualties of a war that was being fought over what he believed to be valueless territory - Nevertheless, it was the "cost and casualties of a war" that upset him- that is fairly clear from the quote. Furthermore- I don't think our interpretations are very different. The point is that the war was a major factor in 'convincing' the British to leave. I am not saying it was the only factor. I am not saying they wouldn't have left by themselves, eventually. But as you yourself say, it was the "cost and casualties" of the military struggle that made them re-think the benefit of remaining in Palestine. The war was what made the whole thing come up for re-evaluation. Otherwise they may have remained for much longer, just like they did in their colonies in Africa, where there was no significant resistance. The military struggle was a "catalyst" in a sense. I think this is not very far from your opinion - correct me if I'm wrong.

And sorry for interrupting your wikibreak...

-Sangil 23:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sangil, we can continue and debate this forever and indeed bringing more quotes and academic sources will lead us nowhere. I think it would be fair to say we agree on the following:

• The Irgun, and Begin as its leader, played a central role in Jewish armed resistance to the British Mandate.
• This resistance had an impact on British public opinion and was a factor in Britain’s decision to withdraw.
• The debate on the Irgun’s role is politically charged – one example of this is Mapai’s attempts to belittle its contribution.
• The Irgun deserves an elaboration in the introduction to this article.

However, we disagree on:

• The extent of the Irgun’s role in precipitating British withdrawal, and specifically the assertion that it was one of the main reasons for this withdrawal.
• The importance of other factors (political Zionism, Arab-Jewish tensions, decolonization, Arab resistance etc.) in bringing this about.
• What aspects of the Irgun require mentioning in the introduction, and how to categorize them (for example, Begin’s commitment to preventing civil war, can Irgun’s political violence be defined as terrorism, etc.).

So we should be able to reach a compromise on the basis of what we agree upon. The current version seems to me to be doing that, however I accept that you are unhappy with it and would welcome any other solution. Amirig 16:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As it's my day off, I may as well jump back into the fray. Sangil, you are, of course, correct to assume that our interpretations of Churchill's speech are far closer than what I conveyed in my last message. I think my hardline stance grew out of the fact that I believe that the current sentence ("As Irgun leader, Begin had a central role in Jewish military resistance to the British Mandate of Palestine, but was strongly deplored and consequently sidelined by mainstream Zionist leadership") states everything we should state about the struggle within the introduction of Begin's article. While I think that your arguement (that "the military struggle was a 'catalyst' in a sense") does, in fact, have a place within the body of the article, I also believe that the introduction should be relatively brief (that is, I do not believe that it should actually dwell on the nature of the struggle itself).

In the end, I would suggest we revise the current sentence to: As the leader of Irgun, Begin played a central role in Jewish military resistance to the British Mandate of Palestine, but was strongly deplored and consequently sidelined by mainstream Zionist leadership. Further down, in the In the British Mandate of Palestine section, we can relate the arguement that the struggle provided a catalyst for the British withdrawl from the region. Is this an acceptable solution to this debate? And how do you feel about it, Amirig? --(Mingus ah um 22:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC))

I accept this proposal.

-Sangil 19:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just revised the sentence in question... As for the rest of the story, well... I think that is up to the two of you. --(Mingus ah um 20:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC))

I’m glad we are in agreement. What about this sentence added to the end of the 2nd paragraph of "Forcing the British" section:

The increasing violence added to mounting British dismay with its mandate over Palestine, resulting in growing hostility toward the Zionist cause and calls for Britain to end its unsustainable occupation.

I think the next paragraph elaborates on the debate over the Irgun’s role. Amirig 16:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

More on the Introduction/Contested Legacy

"Though considered by many to be Israel’s greatest prime minister, Begin’s legacy remains highly controversial and divisive to this day."

I'm not a big fan of the first half of this sentence, for he is the only Israeli Prime Minister to have such a statement in his introduction... Of course, I would like to avoid another edit war, so here is one suggested alternative: "Though Begin is highly regarded by conservative Israelis, his legacy remains highly controversial and divisive." Any thoughts? --(Mingus ah um 01:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC))

You have a valid point. How about: "Though revered by many Israelis, his legacy remains highly controversial and divisive." (still conveying that by some, not only conservatives, he is regarded Israel's greatest PM)? Amirig 08:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that is perfect, Amirig... Does anyone have any problems with Amirig's alternative? --(Mingus ah um 19:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC))

Gidonb, I would be interested to know who organized the poll (discussed at the beginning of the Contested Legacy section) if you have access to that information... I would also be interested in the margin of Begin's victory, for if he only won with 20 something percent--or even 30 something if there was one other strong contender (Ben-Gurion, for example)--I still do not think the statement above (from the introduction) should remain in the article. As for the Contested Legacy' section, I think your additon is substational, as long as we are able to cite the poll and provide people with the actual data. --(Mingus ah um 19:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC))

I have no info on this poll. Sorry! gidonb 23:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that now... for some reason I thought that you had added to the paragraph instead of fixing links within the paragraph... --(Mingus ah um 01:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC))

Lately I have only moved texts, changed titles and wikified here. Just some grey work that also needs to be done. I am very content with the advancement of this article. Regards, gidonb 10:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Shouldnt he be in a category "terrorists"

Let me quote this very article:

"He planned the bombing of the British administrative and military headquarters (at the luxurious King David Hotel) in Jerusalem that killed 91 people, including British officers and troops as well as Arab and Jewish civilians. The Irgun under Begin was also responsible for the escape from Acre Prison, and the hanging of two British sergeants."

This is a desciption of a terrorist to meDzoni 06:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Irgun gave 3 warnings to British authorities before the King David explosion, so that everyone (including military personnel) could have been evacuated (you should read the relevant articles before judging the actions). The 2 sergeants were hanged in response to the hanging of 3 Irgun members (and anyways they were not civilian), and regarding the escape from Acre prison, my response would be rather obvious.

What exactly do you consider terrorist here?

-Sangil 12:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

ETA in Spain is always giving warnings,so that everyon can evacuate,but they are still terrorists.

If Menachem Begin wasnt a jew,he would have been considered a terrorist.But off course,if Palestinians have done something like that,they would be also considered as terrorists?Dzoni 13:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If Hamas had refrained from intentionally harming civilians, and had given warnings before attacks, I don't think it would have been labeled "terrorist". As you surely know, Hamas never gives warnings from any kind, and in fact targets civilians almost exclusively, their favorite course of action apparantly being the slaugter of women and children in restaurants and buses (as opposed to Irgun's military and government targets). Your comparison is rather offensive. I suggest you go read Terrorism to see what are the criteria. Hamas meets all of them.

-Sangil 15:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It is because Zionists took their home land.Anyways,I still agree that they are terrorists,there is no doubt about that.But,answer me this:

ETA from Spain is also giving warnings in front of every explosion?Are they terrorists or not? Because if they are,then Menachem Begin was to.Plus,most Wikipedias on other languages also got him in "terrorist" category.

So,is ETA terrorist organisation or not,in your eyes?Dzoni

In the end, I think this line of argument is going to get us nowhere. Consequently, I have to agree with Sangil. We all know the saying, that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," and... the honest truth is that, if we're going to be kind to Yasser Arafat and catagorize him as a Palestinian nationalist, then we're going to have to be kind to Menachem Begin and call him a militant Zionist. Not everyone is going to agree with this arrangement, but, in the end, it will help keep the peace on wiki. If you want to explore the darker side of Begin, there is room for that in the article--just try to bring in some citations to back any controversial edits. --(Mingus ah um 19:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC))

Let us step out of those Zionist views.For Yasser Arafat it was never(at least to my humble knowledge)proven that he was part of any terrorist attack.For Begin it is widely known that he made attack ot civilians.If he wasnt a Jew,he would have been in category "terrorists".

But no one answerd my question: Is ETA a terrorist organisation?How come they are,when they also give out warnings before their terrorist attacks?

Let us look on Begin same as we look on ETA,either they are all terrorist,either ETA arent terrorist at all.We cant that ETA are terrorist,and that Begin is not a terrorist just because he is a jew.

"Not everyone is going to agree with this arrangement, but, in the end, it will help keep the peace on wiki."

And let me ask you:What is more important,so called "peace on Wiki" or the Truth on Wiki?????Dzoni 20:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Dzoni, let's go through this point by point:

• Let us step out of those Zionist views.

I am hardly a Zionist (just look at my userpage--there are not many Zionists who believe that East Jerusalem should be in the hands of a future Palestinian state).

• For Yasser Arafat it was never(at least to my humble knowledge)proven that he was part of any terrorist attack

On the contrary, it is well known that the two main leaders of Black September were two of Arafat's closest men in Fatah (one a trusted friend, the other the son of one of the Palestinian resistance's "greatest heroes"), and Arafat gave them permission to go fight the war in any way they felt necessary--as long as they did not drag him into anything (see: The Quest for the Red Prince). Simply put: Black September would have never formed if Arafat had gone out of his way to contact his men and order them to drop the idea. Unfortunately, he did not.

• If he wasnt a Jew,he would have been in category "terrorists".

Come on now. The same kind of issues pop up every day on pro-Greek Cyprus and pro-Turkish Cyprus wiki articles. Zionists do not have a monopoly on whatever you are accusing them of.

• Is ETA a terrorist organisation?

Well, they have currently renounced violent resistance, so, if they stick to their word, then, at worst, they are well on their way to becoming a former terrorist organization. In the end, nearly every militant nationalist movement could be categorized as an (ethnic-based) terrorist organization. Should that be our primary objective in wiki history articles? I don't think so.

• What is more important,so called "peace on Wiki" or the Truth on Wiki?????

The two go hand in hand, Dzoni. If both sides of the arguement continue to do nothing but add and remove terrorist categories, we'll be left with a handful of pathetic articles. If you want to challenge Begin, then drop the act, pick up a reputable source and come up with some quotes/data which will challenge his legacy. --(Mingus ah um 21:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC))

Changes to In the British Mandate of Palestine

Forcing the British out of Palestine: I added information about the Irgun’s complex relationship with mainstream Zionist leadership – the Hunting Season, the cooperation under the Hebrew Resistance Movement, and then its break from the Jewish Agency’s authority. This provides some context about its activity. Also added Begin’s reaction to the UN Partition plan and tried to convey how the Irgun’s history became a political debate.

Altalena and Independence: Moved the reference on the Altalena to the end of the section, to coincide with the chronology. Elaborated a bit about the controversy about Deir Yassin, as well as highlighting Altalena as a struggle over authority in the wake of the establishment of the state of Israel. I removed the reference to Ben Gurion wanting Begin dead as it is controversial.

Amirig 12:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Use of terrorist/criminal

The Irgun were a terrorist group not an "underground movement" or whatever else you want to call them. It certainly appears that history is being rewritten by the victors!GiollaUidir 13:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

As already mentioned numerous times in this Talk page, Irgun were not nearly as terrorist as Hamas/PLO etc, since they did not target civilians and in fact did everything possible to avoid harming innocent bystanders. Hamas and PLO as you probably know intentionally target civilians with the aim of slaughtering as many as possible.

So please, before changing anything here, change first the Hamas/PLO articles to use "terrorist". Since there is an "across-the board" Wikipedia decision to refrain from using the term "terrorist" anywhere (except the article about terrorism), you will find this is not possible.

Regards

-Sangil 14:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"Not nearly as terrorist" lol. Priceless!! Fair enough then on the whole not using the word "terrorist." GiollaUidir 16:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

When someone close to you is murdered on a passenger bus, it is indeed "priceless". Irgun never targeted civilians. It is sad indeed if you cannot make that distinction.

-Sangil 16:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

What about the dozens of civilians (Arab, Jewish and British) who were killed in the King David Hotel bombing? And, before you say it, giving a warning of a terrorist attack does not alter the fact that a group has carried out a terrorist attack. Just because you may think Irgun's cause and/or methods were justified, that does not alter the fact that they committed terrorist acts. Irgun were a terrorist group, just as Hamas and Islamic Jihad are. It is inconsistent to denounce these groups for terrorism and then claim Irgun was not a terrorist group.

BetterDeadThanRed 17:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If the targeting (or not) of civilians is all it takes to clasify a group as terrorist then the IDF should be added to it.GiollaUidir 16:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it's all it takes, but it is one of the main criteria - see Terrorism. Neither Irgun nor the IDF would qualify, Hamas and PLO would. As for IDF - unless you consider Hamas activisits to be "civilians", it has never targeted civilians directly, which is something the RAF can hardly claim regarding itself (e.g. Drezden). Or maybe the RAF is terrorist too? Please.

-Sangil 17:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Giolla, face the facts. --DLand^TALK 17:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. From palestinian's point of view, Haganah, IDF and Irgoun are terrorists and PLO, Hamas, Hizbollah, not. From the israeli's point of view, Hamas, Hizbollah are, PLO was, the Haganah and the IDF were armies and there is a debate about Irgoun. All that means that for WK, ie the "neutrality of point of view", we cannot use that word without specifying clearly who uses this and who doesn't it. In practice, we cannot write Begin/Arafat/Sharon is a terrorist or that Irgoun/Hamas is a terrorist organisation. Alithien 09:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that this article wants to have its cake and eat it:

The Irgun under Begin’s leadership continued to carry out military operations such as the break in to Acre Prison, and the hanging of two British sergeants, causing the British to suspend any further executions of Irgun prisoners.

If they were military operations, then killing prisoners of war is a war crime. If they were not military operations, then their killing was murder. Either way AFAICT a crime was committed, and the man in charge was guilty at the very least of of conspiracy to commit a serious crime. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The hangings were a retaliation for the hanging of 3 Irgun members by the british - so according to your logic the British executed POWs and so commited war crimes themselves, and on a much greater scale (17 hung by the British vs. the 2 hung by Irgun). Unlike Irgun, they hung irgun members despite an explicit promise to wait for a conclusion of a Privy Council regarding the verdict. It is obvious who the criminal is in this case.

-Sangil 20:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes- Irgun. The British hanged the Irgun members for acts of terrorism and murder, which is hardly a crime. The two British sergeants hanged by Irgun had committed no crime, however. And what about the bombs planted on the dead bodies of the British victims by Irgun. How was this anything other than an evil act of terrorism? BetterDeadThanRed 13:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Sangil, the British did not think that they were hanging POWs, they thought of their prisoners as terrorists who had committed criminal acts as civilians, and the British had the right to try the men as civilians, as they were the UN mandated occupying force. If the British had thought themselves as fighting a war, then enemy POWs would not be executed if their actions were within the law of war (which allow soldiers to do all sorts of things that under civilian laws would be a criminal offence). The point I am making is that if Irgun thought that they were fighting a war, then they should have treated their military prisoners as POWs and not executed enemy soldiers, to do so unless they had personally committed an offence which warranted hanging after a judgement made court violated Geneva Convention (1929) (Art. 2) [... They shall at all times be humanely treated and protected, particularly against acts of violence, from insults and from public curiosity. Measures of reprisal against them are forbidden.] which was a war crime. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment He was a terrorist pure and simple, but the answer to the problem is to ignore all Wikipedia articles on controversial topics, especially any involving Israel and Palestine. I'm sorry I temporarily forgot that and wasted two minutes of my time. Chicheley 01:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Still missing

Here are some thoughts about topics which are still missing or inadequately addressed in the article:

• Negotiating a majority for the Knesset: I think this focuses a bit too much on election technicalities and specifically the DMC/Dash (Begin actually had a majority without them, and they had little influence and eventually disintegrated). More elaboration on the implications of ending Labor hegemony and why this was a political and structural ‘earthquake’ is required.
• Isn’t the note about the procedure of forming a government redundant (in the beginning of the ‘Negotiating a majority’ section)? I think that briefly mentioning that it is a system of proportional representation, and a link to the Israeli electoral system would be enough.
• Economic policies: there is no mention of Likud’s ‘economic revolution’, its mismanagement end eventually the spiraling into hyper-inflation (also worth mentioning is 3 weeks after Begin’s resignation the stock market collapsed).
• Jewish ethnic tensions: the 1981 elections, considered by many Israel’s most violent, centered on tensions between Mizrahi and Ashkenazi Jews. Begin famously gave his ‘chahchahim speech’ and condemned the kibbutzim for being ‘millionaires with swimming pools’.
• The Litani operation, an IDF incursion into southern Lebanon in 1978 (in many ways a precursor to the 1982 invasion) isn’t mentioned. Should that be part of the ‘Lebanon invasion’ section, or perhaps mentioned earlier in a chronologically appropriate location?

Amirig 13:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Attempted murder of Konrad Adenauer

Apparently Frankfurter Allgemeine reports on Tuesday 13 June that Begin was behind the attempted assasination of the German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer in 1952. Article in De Standaard (Dutch), article in FAZ (German), Haaretz (English)

AWOL Polish Army

It is an undisputed fact that once Begin reached Palestine with the Polish Army, he did go AWAOL. This is supported by the fact that he was able to visit Poland as the PM of the State of Israel but was subject to potential arrest if he visited Poland as a private citizen due to his awol status.

Anon, this page is subject to intense debate, and, as such, any controversial unsourced edits which call into question the beliefs of the pro-Begin or anti-Begin factions will probably be removed by whichever side has been offended. As such, any edit related to this specific subject will need a citation, and if you have the time/resources to provide two or three, your arguement in support of this addition will be that much stronger... --(Mingus ah um 19:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

Quote at end of article

The 'master race' quote is cited from a clearly anti-semetic website, which provides no evidence of Jimmy Carter's supposed statement of Begin's 'Nazi-like racial views'. If no source can be found to support the clearly inflammatory quote and Carter's apparant claim then they should be removed.Robuk 07:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Bounty

I don't mean to pick a raw nerve, but didn't Menachem Begin have like a five thousand pound bounty on his head for the King David hotel bombing? -- SFH 21:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Slight hick-up when accessing this page with the FIREFOX browser

At the point "Contested Legacy", Firefox doesn't show the "Edit" tags properly (and they cannot be clicked on). (MS Internet Explorer not affected).

It looks as if the photograph in the previous paragraph "Final Years in seclusion" is rather too big, and crosses between sections.

I don't want to mess anything up, but maybe if someone added text to the previous paragraph, it would sort itself out.

(Actually, Wikipedia itself has a problem if you Google a WP article and hit "cache", which is normally a very useful way to get in quickly and find the reference words you were looking for!).

PalestineRemembered 11:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)