[dcomplex]

So random bombs in market places and such are OK if the justification is reprisal for some other attack ? They clearly targeted civilians and the British, they are clearly terrorist murderers. Do you support or condemn their actions? How is planting a bomb and randomly killing civilians not a terrorist murder?

Reprisals are justified to deter more murders, especially when the enemy hides among civilians. Modern armies can root out terrorists, but in a low-tech civil war with the other side bent on your destruction, reprisal raids are justified.

Also, the British were fair game, since they violated the terms of the mandate and therefore no longer maintained any legal or moral authority.

If you listened to that interview with LEHI commander Israel Eldad, he notes that the Irgun only removed the policy of "restraint" when the Arab raids became unbearable in 1938.

Also, it is on wikipedia. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun#End_of_restraint

The actions of the Haganah alone will never be a true victory. If the goal of the war is to break the will of the enemy – and this cannot be attained without destroying his spirit – clearly we cannot be satisfied with solely defensive operations.... Such a method of defense, that allows the enemy to attack at will, to reorganize and attack again ... and does not intend to remove the enemy's ability to attack a second time – is called passive defense, and ends in downfall and destruction ... whoever does not wish to be beaten has no choice but to attack. The fighting side, that does not intend to oppress but to save its liberty and honor, he too has only one way available – the way of attack. Defensiveness by way of offensiveness, in order to deprive the enemy the option of attacking, is called active defense.

[pugsville]

This is just a blanket excuse for terrorism by people you support. There is no middle ground either you support terrorism or you do not. The murder of innocent civilians is always a crime.

If reprisals are "justified" who gets to decide what is a "just" reprisal, who? how many?

Who gets to judge IF and HOW the British have violated the terms of the mandate?

And How did the British violate the terms of the mandate ?

By the Way do you support the ICJ or the UN? That the 1948 Refugees should be allowed to return?

You acceptance International organizations appears to be solely based on what is good for your cause. A totally partisan position. What are your Morals?

[dcomplex]

This is just a blanket excuse for terrorism by people you support. There is no middle ground either you support terrorism or you do not. The murder of innocent civilians is always a crime.

If reprisals are "justified" who gets to decide what is a "just" reprisal, who? how many?

Who gets to judge IF and HOW the British have violated the terms of the mandate?

And How did the British violate the terms of the mandate ?

By the Way do you support the ICJ or the UN? That the 1948 Refugees should be allowed to return?

You acceptance International organizations appears to be solely based on what is good for your cause. A totally partisan position. What are your Morals?

In reverse order:

The rulings of the ICJ have no binding authority unless the security council refers a case to the ICJ or the parties submit to its jurisdiction. It is in the charter of the ICJ. The ruling to which you obliquely refer is an advisory decision issued upon request of the General Assembly. The UN General assembly has no legal authority at all.

The British violated the terms of the mandate by canceling the close settlement of Jews on the land. This was determined by the Mandates commission (whose minutes I linked). The commission had binding authority to make this decision, and under the Anglo-American convention of 1925, Britain was also in violation of its treaty obligations with the USA.

The reprisals were justified by military necessity. The Yishuv could not survive without enacting reprisals against the murderous attacks laid upon it by the Arab revolt.

[pugsville]

Piffle.

There is no determination or ruling in the document you linked. It is nothing more than a rambling discussion, no decisions or rulings were made.

The planting of bombs in public places to randomly murder civilians is terrorism. You support these actions. I dont think you have any morals at all.

[dcomplex]

Piffle.

There is no determination or ruling in the document you linked. It is nothing more than a rambling discussion, no decisions or rulings were made.

The planting of bombs in public places to randomly murder civilians is terrorism. You support these actions. I dont think you have any morals at all.

I support their actions the same way I support the bombing of Berlin and Dresden, as well as Bomber Command's nighttime bombing of Germany's civilian population.

Where are your condemnations of the Arabs who had been happily murdering Jews before the Irgun showed them that Jewish blood comes at a price?

[pugsville]

I condemn all terrorist actions and targeting of civilians. Palestinian. Jewish. Allied. Nazi.

You are selective. All sorts of arguments like military necessity and reprisal are used to justify Palestinian terrorism. It's just murder pure and simple.

[dcomplex]

I condemn all terrorist actions and targeting of civilians. Palestinian. Jewish. Allied. Nazi.

You are selective. All sorts of arguments like military necessity and reprisal are used to justify Palestinian terrorism. It's just murder pure and simple.

[*Removed*]If another community is attacking yours and hiding the perpetrators, they will destroy you unless you engage in reprisal. That is what David Raziel is talking about. It is the same reason why Bomber Command targeted German cities. Americans did daylight precision raids. The Brits did nighttime counter-terror bombing as reprisals for the blitz.

[pugsville]

American precision bombing in ww2? Dont make me laugh. Really they were no better at it than anyone else.

As for the League of Nations Mandate of Palestine, If you accept the league of Nations right to grant Mandate the mandate of Palestine, then you have to accept the entire League of Nations framework. This granted the British to more or less administer the Mandate of Palestine as they saw fit. It was up to the British to decide what the mandate meant. Yeah they was some lose League of Nations oversight , but that involved bringing back to the league of Nations. As Britian was a permanent member, and all resolutions required unanimous support in effect Britian could run Palestine as they wanted.

If the League of Nations is a valid authority you accept the League of Nations Framework. If You accept the Framework as being legal, then you MUST accept the British decisions about the administration of the Mandate. If you reject the League of Nations framework, then you are calling the Mandate invalid.

Try being consistent. If you invoke the League of Nations Mandate as some sort of authority you have to accept the league of Nations framework, which means you must accept the British right to interrupt the League of Nations Mandate as they saw fit. If you think thats unjust you can only challenge that British Administration of the Mandate but rejected the League of Nations Framework, then the articles of Jewish Homeland in the Mandate are just words.

[dcomplex]

American precision bombing in ww2? Dont make me laugh. Really they were no better at it than anyone else.

As for the League of Nations Mandate of Palestine, If you accept the league of Nations right to grant Mandate the mandate of Palestine, then you have to accept the entire League of Nations framework. This granted the British to more or less administer the Mandate of Palestine as they saw fit. It was up to the British to decide what the mandate meant. Yeah they was some lose League of Nations oversight , but that involved bringing back to the league of Nations. As Britian was a permanent member, and all resolutions required unanimous support in effect Britian could run Palestine as they wanted.

If the League of Nations is a valid authority you accept the League of Nations Framework. If You accept the Framework as being legal, then you MUST accept the British decisions about the administration of the Mandate. If you reject the League of Nations framework, then you are calling the Mandate invalid.

Try being consistent. If you invoke the League of Nations Mandate as some sort of authority you have to accept the league of Nations framework, which means you must accept the British right to interrupt the League of Nations Mandate as they saw fit. If you think thats unjust you can only challenge that British Administration of the Mandate but rejected the League of Nations Framework, then the articles of Jewish Homeland in the Mandate are just words.

If the mandate document is the constitution of the mandate, British actions after 1939 were unconstitutional. The mandatory was not allowed to do whatever it wanted.

[pugsville]

Yup they were they were responsible for administration and interrupting the document. If anyone was unhappy with that administration the could take it the league of nations. Of course decisions at the league required to be unanimous and Britian was a permanent member.

What actions did the British take that were unconstitutional? The League of Nations is the relevant authority , they had not declared any British actions illegal. IIt needs more than just your opinion. The Fact is the British were in charge of administration of the mandate whose articles were full of vague phrases, and interpretations differ, and many thought the articles could not be reconciled with each other, they were increasingly in a hard place, though of their own making. But they were in charge, their administration, they were free to interrupt the articles.Only determination by the League could declare their actions 'illegal'. And given the league setup that was never going to happen.

[dcomplex]

Yup they were they were responsible for administration and interrupting the document. If anyone was unhappy with that administration the could take it the league of nations. Of course decisions at the league required to be unanimous and Britian was a permanent member.

What actions did the British take that were unconstitutional? The League of Nations is the relevant authority , they had not declared any British actions illegal. IIt needs more than just your opinion. The Fact is the British were in charge of administration of the mandate whose articles were full of vague phrases, and interpretations differ, and many thought the articles could not be reconciled with each other, they were increasingly in a hard place, though of their own making. But they were in charge, their administration, they were free to interrupt the articles.Only determination by the League could declare their actions 'illegal'. And given the league setup that was never going to happen.

The mandates commission ruled it out of bounds, but the league collapsed before the British lost authority over the mandate.

[pugsville]

The Mandates commission did not make rulings. All it could do was refer things to the League. Nothing in what you have posted is a clear ruling that any thing the British were doing was "out of bounds" it's a few ranging discussion and exchange of views, but nothing in it is a judgement or a definite ruling.

[dcomplex]

The Mandates commission did not make rulings. All it could do was refer things to the League. Nothing in what you have posted is a clear ruling that any thing the British were doing was "out of bounds" it's a few ranging discussion and exchange of views, but nothing in it is a judgement or a definite ruling.

Because the league collapsed.

[pugsville]

British administration of the mandate was never ruled invalid or illegal by the relevant authority. Therefore British administration was legal. You make not like it thing it was wrong or immoral but thats a different argument. British actions were legal within framework of the league of Nations mandate. Your argument is patently wrong, to make your case you need a definite ruling from the league. There is none.

You can argue that it was wrong or immoral, but really as you support might makes right, terrorism and the murder of innocent civilians I dont see how you could now introduce a moral framework. And I would argue the entire Mandate system was morally wrong and racist and the Balfour declaration particularly so,

[dcomplex]

British administration of the mandate was never ruled invalid or illegal by the relevant authority. Therefore British administration was legal. You make not like it thing it was wrong or immoral but thats a different argument. British actions were legal within framework of the league of Nations mandate. Your argument is patently wrong, to make your case you need a definite ruling from the league. There is none.

You can argue that it was wrong or immoral, but really as you support might makes right, terrorism and the murder of innocent civilians I dont see how you could now introduce a moral framework. And I would argue the entire Mandate system was morally wrong and racist and the Balfour declaration particularly so,

We took them out because the league couldn't. When the courts disappear, sometimes you need to make your own justice, and only thus. Rach Kach!

Even the mass murder of Arabs would have been justified to rescue our Jewish brothers being murdered in Europe. The Arabs prevented their rescue. I have no sympathy for their suffering while they collaborated with the Nazis.

Also I hope if Israel is destroyed, we at least will give Europe some parting shots with nuclear weapons, specifically the perfidious English. The Germans at least feel bad for murdering us, while the English maintain that they were right to let us die.

[danholo]

Well that's a quite fervent retort. Living in Israel can make you angry, and maybe for the wrong reasons. It's not very useful to live in the past.

[dcomplex]

Well that's a quite fervent retort. Living in Israel can make you angry, and maybe for the wrong reasons. It's not very useful to live in the past.

I felt this way when I was in America. I want to punch William Hague in his stupid smirking grill.

[pugsville]

The plight of Jewish refugees seeking to leave Europe is a completely separate issue from the right of Zionists to settle palestine. To allow mass Immigration of Zionist settlers into palestine is a increase the division of Palestine and make civil war inevitable.

Almost all nations refused Jewish refugees a haven form the events in Europe. Large nations that could have much much easier assimilated large numbers of Jewish Refugess without the political problems of Palestine. To blame the Arabs for failing to take the refugees is pretty dishonest.

The West democracies, Britain, USA, Canda, Australia could have stepped up and done something for them, in line with their declared principles. They did not. That is were the fault lies. The ability of those nations to accept refugees were far far greater than the small troubled palestine.

You are advocating mass murder. How do you have any morals at all?

So having abandon you legal arguments and admitted defeat in the matter of the legality of mandate. You now claim that it was justice. (though you are fine with mass murder and terrorism directed at innocent civilians, hmm what a sense of justice,)

Why was Zionist immigration to Palestine Justice? Why did Zionists have the right as foreigners to immigrate and impose their rule against the clear will of the vast majority of the population?

[dcomplex]

Because the british made a solemn commitment and broke it in the darkest moment of our history.The Arabs and British bear responsibility for this, and never once have we heard apologetic murmurings.

Whether or not the Arabs were right to object to the mandate, choosing to block off the one supposedly guaranteed exit for the Jews of Europe using murderous violence is unforgivable.

Once the Jews understand what the Arabs did, the Arabs will pray they had left.

[pugsville]

Complete distortion of history and the facts.

The British made a total cynical vague commitment, for their own imperial interests. The whole mandate system was basically just a dress up clothes for colonialism. The Zionist lobby played this game as cynically as anyone else. They repeated lied to and sundry and their very aim was to harness the power of Colonial Empires to force the Palestinian population to accept domination by Zionist settlers. The Zionist were not some do gooders bent of some good works. They were playing a cynical political game for their own political interests, they manipulated the various players. To claim the the British somehow broke the rules of the game when the failed to be total puppets of the Zionists is pretty rich.

Zionist immigration into Palestine was NOT about refugees. And Such immigration was always going have a large impact on the shape of the future of Palestine. Large scale Zionist immigration was a direct threat to the rights of the Palestinians.

Just looking at the Refugee problem why does palestine have to bear the entire burden of the world turing it's back on the suffering and potential for mass murder of the Jewish population in Europe?? Why not the US? Much larger country with a much greater ability to absorb refugees without causing the huge problems in Palestine?