[coolestuk]

That is the kind of ignorant idea I used to have. It is time you got beyond the media failing to provide a true historical context for what is probably the most over-reported region of the planet.

Already in 1929 in Hebron "Palestinian" Arabs were massacring jews in Hebron. Jews who had live in Hebron for some thousands of years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre The way the media presents this story, the jews arrived in Palestine after WW2. There's never any mention of the Muslim Brotherhood joining forces with the principle muslim leader of the area and with the Nazis in the 1930s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haj_Amin_al-Husseini#In_Nazi-oc...

The media bear a terrible responsibility for their failure to provide any kind of historical context to the problems in Israel/Palestine.

[GiraffeNecktie]

Yuck. Wikipedia on the Middle East. I tried helping out with editing that area once and gave up in frustration. Lots of crazies on both sides, but I got the distinct impression that the pro-Israeli side was better organized, perhaps even funded. In any case, it looked to me like they were gaming WP for propaganda purposes (yes the other side was doing it too, but not in the same disciplined way) I'd never cite Wikipedia on anything controversial.

[Estragon]

Benny Morris's book Righteous Victims seems to be a reliable source of information about the conflict. He's a an Israeli history professor, not exactly a virulent antisemite. It's worth noting that he describes the trigger for unrest leading up to the 1929 massacre as the growing understanding among Arabs that "...the disproportionate growth of the [Jewish community in Palestine], nurtured and sustained by [British colonial] measures, promised to turn them into a minority in their own land."[1]

Anyway, bringing up the 1929 massacre in this context seems like a non sequitur. You might as well justify the second Arab-Israeli war in terms of the massacre innocent Palestinians by Israeli militants at Deir Yassin[2], a considerably more cold-blooded, treacherous, strategically terrifying, blatant war crime that played a critical role in driving Palestinians off their own lands. (But I'm not making this justification.)

[1] http://books.google.com/books?id=M7tr9_rCwD0C&lpg=PP1&#3...

[2] http://books.google.com/books?id=M7tr9_rCwD0C&lpg=PP1&#3...

[why-el]

Great point. I also think Israelis are a lot more disciplined in this regard. You should check out Mepi, a website that takes the craziest and most fanatical of muslims and translates what they say to the Americans. Its a principal source of "information" to a lot of news outlets in the US. Engaging, constructive Arabic debate never makes it the US.

[mcantelon]

Jews had lived in the region for thousands of years, but there was a Zionist mass migration to Palestine (the Jewish population in Palestine doubled from 1922-1931) that likely increased tensions.

There has been violence from both sides of the conflict. On the Zionist side, there's another incident I've never heard mentioned in the media: the 1946 David Hotel bombing in which a Zionist terorist organization bombed a hotel in a strike at the British, killing 91 in one of the first historic examples of terrorism targeting civilians. This bombing was commemorated in 2006 by Benjamin Netanyahu and former members of the terrorist organization and a plaque was put up that effectively blamed the British, rather than the terrorist operation, for the deaths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing#60th_a...

[tkahn6]

> of the first historic examples of terrorism targeting civilians.

Not only was the KD hotel a military headquarters, it was supposed to be empty at the time of the bombing.

You're either ignorant or lying for some reason.

[mcantelon]

>Not only was the KD hotel a military headquarters

Partially true... part of the hotel was used by the British for their offices:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel#History

>it was supposed to be empty at the time of the bombing.

Not quite. According to Wikipedia "Warnings were sent by telephone, including one to the hotel's own switchboard, which the hotel staff decided to ignore, but none directly to the British authorities." There's a difference between phoning in a bomb threat in an occupied building and bombing an unoccupied building.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

>You're either ignorant or lying for some reason.

I suppose it's impossible to discuss anything related to Zionism without one party denouncing the other's character. ;)

[tkahn6]

Yes the part of the hotel that was bombed was the part of the hotel that was used by the British military thereby invalidating your value judgement that the attack was meant to kill civilians.

[mcantelon]

The bombing killed many more civilians than they did British: "41 Palestinian Arabs, 15-28 British citizens, 17 Palestinian Jews, 2 Armenians, 1 Russian, 1 Greek and 1 Egyptian" according to WikiPedia. Not a surprising result when setting off a huge bomb in a hotel, even if in a specific area of a hotel. The list of the organization's previous attacks includes many directed against civilians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks). If the killing of civilians was indeed not part of their aim, you would think the organization would treat the operation as a tragic mistake and distance themselves from it rather than coming together to commemorate it in 2006.

[baltcode]

We have justification and apologies for violence right here! This is part of the problem, because similar arguments from the other side will probably be grounds for well, you know what.

[tkahn6]

It is incorrect to classify the attack as an attack on civilians when in fact it was an attack on the headquarters of the British military.

Do not put words in my mouth.

[anthonyb]

He's not ignorant or lying - you just need to look at Irgun's activities in the '30s and '40s to know that. Those guys were bombing a bus practically every day at some points (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks_during_th...), which makes the hand-wringing from Israel doubly pointless.

Perhaps the problem is that the Palestinians are slacking? They should blow up more things, not less...

[tkahn6]

I'm not going to defend Irgun because it's indefensible. It is simply a matter of fact that the attack was on the headquarters of the British military.

Edit: Your subsequent edits are quite sick and disturbing. You should consider reverting your text to the original comment.

[anthonyb]

The attack was on a hotel - that's also a matter of fact, and similarly indefensible.

And I edited about 30 seconds to a minute after my initial post, to make my points clearer. I don't think that's unreasonable, much less "sick or disturbing".