Talk:Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Lord Moyne anti-semite or anti-zionist

There is a contradiction between this article and the one on Lord Moyne. Unless anyone can source info on him being Anti-Semitic I think this article should show him as Anti-ZionistJonathan Cardy (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC).

I suggest you read the article on Lord Moyne through to the end. There is plenty of evidence there to suggest that he was an anti-semite. Telaviv1 (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

By reverting my edit you've left this article contradicting another. Can I suggest you reconsider and revert your last edit? I've reread Lord Moyne, and don't see either of your points, there is plenty of evidence in that article that he was anti-zionist and that Britain's antizionist policy was the motive of his assassins, and specifically that it was the office he held that made him a target.

There are a couple of very anti-semitic points, but both are clearly challenged within the article. His responsibility for Britain operating an Anti-Zionist policy in the mandate is clear as is the motive of his assassins.

As for the relevance in an article on 'British conflict with Zionism of his being a close friend and ally of Churchill, the article on Lord Moyne says: British prime minister Winston Churchill, until then the Zionists' main supporter in London, was deeply disillusioned and his further support for Zionism was greatly subdued.[59][60] Moyne had been sent to Cairo because of their long personal and political friendship, and Churchill told the House of Commons:

"If our dreams for Zionism are to end in the smoke of an assassin's pistol, and the labours for its future produce a new set of gangsters worthy of Nazi Germany, then many like myself will have to reconsider the position we have maintained so consistently and so long in the past".[61]

The Times of London quoted Ha'aretz's view that the assassins "have done more by this single reprehensible crime to demolish the edifice erected by three generations of Jewish pioneers than is imaginable."[62]

In November 1943, a committee of the British Cabinet had proposed a partition of Palestine after the war, based loosely on the 1937 Peel Commission proposal. The plan included a Jewish state, a small residual mandatory area under British control, and an Arab state to be joined in a large Arab federation of Greater Syria. The Cabinet approved the plan in principle in January 1944, but it faced severe opposition from the Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden among others. "Moyne's position differed from that of nearly all the British civil and military officials in the Middle East: the consensus of British official opinion in the area opposed partition and opposed a Jewish state; Moyne supported both."[64] The partition plan was before the Cabinet for final approval in the same week that Moyne was assassinated, but the assassination caused it to be immediately shelved and never resurrected. Moyne's successor in Cairo, Sir Edward Grigg, was opposed to partition.[65] Some historians, such as Wasserstein and Porath, have speculated that a Jewish state soon after the war had been a real possibility.[66][67]

So there is a conflict between these two articles, the one on Lord Moyne spells out that the death of a close ally of the then British Prime Minister led to a major change in British Policy re Zionism, this article merely describes him as an anti-semite and makes no mention of the repercussions of his assassination on British conflict with Zionism.Jonathan Cardy (talk) 07:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Anti semitism and anti-zionism are not the same. To suggest that Moyne was anti-semitic because he may have been anti-zionist is incorrect. It is the equivalent of equating being anti-South African with being anti-Apartheid.JohnC (talk) 06:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

From some historians of the period, speaking only to the anti-semite/anti Zionist issue :

Churchill's promised land by Michael Makovsky, pg 174 -- "In addition, there was a rise of anti-Semitism and xenophobia among the populace during the war, and these sentiments were outright rampant throughout the ranks of the Foreign Office, Colonial Office, military, and other branches of the bureaucracy. Several senior Cabinet ministers, such as Lord Moyne(Walter Guinness), who held various portfolios, and Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, disliked Jews and were anti-Zionist. These officials regularly communicated a cold indifference to the Jews' fate in Europe and elsewhere, and a steely determination to keep them out of Palestine no matter the dire consequences. They did not believe that the Jews deserved a homeland in Palestine and did not wish to upset the Arabs for strategic and other reasons. [2]"

Brother against brother Ehud Sprinzak , pg 36-37 -- "Lehi commanders killed Moyne because they believed him to be anti-Semitic and personally responsible for blocking the entrance to Palestine of Holocaust survivors and other Jewish refugees. [53]"

Jabotinsky and the revisionst movement, 1925-1948 Jacob Shavit pag 234 -- "Moyne was hated because of anti-Semitic remarks he had made, but principally he was murdered because of his contribution to the implementation of the immigration regulations of the White Paper... "

Religious fundamentalism and political extremism , pg 111 By Leonard Weinberg, Ami Pedahzur -- "Lord Moyne was minister of the British colonies at the beginning of the Second World War and was appointed resident minister for the Middle East on 28 January 1944. In the Jewish settlement he was already known for his hostility, expressed both in his long-term support in favor of a Middle Eastern Arab Federations as well as in his anti-Semitic lectures(such as his call for Arab sovereignty in the Land of Israel based on the superior purity of the Arab race compared to the mixed Jewish race).[71]" Stellarkid (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

None of these are anywhere near sufficient to apply the label "anti-semitic" to him personally. Having made antisemitic remarks is not the same as being an anti-semite, let alone such a flagrant, undisputed and prominent one that it is proper to use it as an identifying description in another article. It would involve OR to go from most of these to "antisemitic." The only one that uses "anti-semitic" applying to him is Sprindzak, who says Lehi "believed him to be anti-Semitic" which is the most one could say.John Z (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that, but the original question was labeling him antisemite or anti-Zionist. There is plenty of evidence that he was basically an antisemite, not merely an anti-Zionist. However, I don't believe it is up to WP editors to pin a pejorative label on him. Simply state the facts or what other reliable sources (historians and others) claim the facts are, and otherwise say nothing. However I do disagree about your interpretation of the quotes above. Makovsky says that Moyne..."disliked the Jews," which sounds like a good def of "antisemite," and Weinberg refers to "antisemitc lectures" as well as clear racist remarks ("the superior purity of the Arab race compared to the mixed Jewish race.") An antisemitic comment or two may be made in ignorance or taken out of context, but "antisemitic lectures" would be another think altogether. Stellarkid (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't be attaching labels to names (pejorative or not) unless they are the consensus of reliable sources. If the label is not the consensus, we must either omit the label or note the various non-fringe opinions of the sources. That seems to be what NPOV demands. In this case I think omitting the label is the correct way, since the issue is too complex and peripheral for this article. Incidentally, regarding Weinberg and Pedahzur, what Moybe actually said can be read here (at column number 198). He never actually says Arabs are racially pure, though this interpretation can be forgiven. The mainstream historian Bernard Wasserstein wrote an article that defended Moyne's speech, quoting him as saying that the only pure races on Earth were to be found in the jungles of New Guinea. It should be remembered that at that period of history everyone described populations in racial words. But none of this belongs in this article, imo. Zero^talk 14:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Article Neutrality

This acticle gives a one sided view on the issues and the conflict, using quotes to slant the arguement without evenly balancing the points. Suggest it is re-written balancing both points of view and not using misleading quotations.See WP:WFTE.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.24.184 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 7 January 2009

The title "British conflict with Zionism" is slanted, suggesting as it does British culpability.JohnC (talk) 06:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the quality of this article is exceedingly poor. Zero^talk 08:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I see the article itself as suggesting Zionist culpability. :) Stellarkid (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Large sections of this article are grossly partisan and could almost be a press-release from a right-wing Israeli organisation.

• It is accepted by just about all serious historians that the "Irgun" was a terrorist organsation: there is no need for inverted commas in an attempt to suggest that the description is a matter of opinion. Contemporaries that agreed with that description in the 1940s were David Ben Gurion and The Board of Deputies of British Jews.
• That Irgun did not attack military targets while Britain was still fighting the Germans may be factual, however they attacked more than tax offices--they mounted sustained armed attacks with casualties against police officers and civilians.
• During "Operation Agatha" the British may have confiscated some documents, but more importantly they also found huge quantities of offensive arms, including mortars, heavy machine guns, over 600 military weapons and half a million rounds of ammunition.
• The King David Bombing was carried out by Irgun but was on the orders of Haganah Chief Moshe Sneh, although Haganah tried to disclaim responsibility later after the International (and local Palestinian Jewish) backlash.
• I believe that the statement that the "Two British Sergeants were killed in response.." may be more accurately stated as murdered: for that is what happened. Their torture, mutilation and the mining of their bodies may be too emotive, although it was the callous desecration of the bodies that sparked anti-Zionist(or anti-semitic)violence in Britain.

There are several other inaccuracies and slanted items.

While it is unarguable that anti-semitism existed at most levels in the British military and civil administrations in Palestine and in British society in general at the time, perhaps that, its causes and lasting effects are subjects for a seperate article. Gaptech (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The reference to British immigration holding facilities as concentration camps, as cited by the claimed citation was removed. The Human Rights Watch report, in no way or fashion, backs up the claim made in the article. The report clearly did not even address the issue, much less call them concentration camps. That is a blatant lie and the cited source had absolutely no relevance to the claim. Anyone can read the report and see for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.131.236 (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

lede

Well, again I am having a hard time getting by the first couple of sentences. The first one is alright but the second has issues. "Between 1945 and 1948, the decision of the British government to halt Jewish immigration to the British Mandate of Palestine led to an increasingly bitter conflict between Britain and Palestinian Jews. In particular it resulted in large scale illegal Jewish immigration, "boat people", and Zionist political violence in Palestine." It is true that there was large scale (hmmm...what constitutes 'large scale'?) Jewish immigration to the Mandate, but the cause was WWII, not the conflict between the Brits and the Jews. The result of the British government's making Jewish immigration illegal was to turn people who were trying to escape the death camps into criminals, and not allowing them any refuge; resulting in the deaths of more Jews, and was the direct cause of the bitter conflict and Zionist political violence. It did not result in ... illegal Jewish immigration. The immigration was happening. The British just criminalized it. This is not clear in that second sentence. Stellarkid (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Factually incorrect. Clearly a 300% increase in the rate of immigration could be described as large scale. There are numerous examples in other wiki articles where far smaller percentages are referenced as large scale increases. Blocking immigration does not make one a criminal, period. That is just factually incorrect. Saying survivors of death camps were made criminals is just obviously slanted. Of course a British policy regarding immigration in Palestine in no way makes a Holocaust survivor a criminal. That's just a ridiculous claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.131.236 (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It has never been clear to me what this article is supposed to be about. If the opening "between 1945 and 1948" is to be taken seriously, it is mainly about that period (with earlier periods mentioned only as background). In 1945-1948 there were no people trying to escape death camps. The second sentence seems to be trying to say that illegal immigration (not immigration in general) resulted from British policies. Zero^talk 01:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I just had an edit conflict with you which said: "Also the dates are weird. The Brits had put restrictions on Jewish immigration (not Arab though) much earlier than '45; actually in the 20's. The Struma incident for example happened in 1941 already. You can't define the British-Zionist conflict between those two arbitrary and late years. Stuff happened before then. Stellarkid (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There was the SS Exodus which I believe was '47. No one wanted the Jews but no one wanted to let them go to Palestine either. The survivors sat in the concentration camps now guarded by British soldiers. The article needs serious expansion and certainly not these date restrictions. so yeah I agree with you.Stellarkid (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Though I do think the article is needed and there is much in it that is good. It is not an easy subject to do! Stellarkid (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Utter propaganda. The British did not keep Jews in concentration camps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.131.236 (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

There was no-such nationality as a jew back then. Upon liberation the people in the former concentration camps became legally Displaced Persons (DP's) and citizens of whichever country they had been deported-from, such as Poles, Hungarians, Germans, etc. As such, the British were in no position to say who went where and how, as they were not British Subjects, the people were the responsibility of the respective governments of the countries they were citizens-of, and the British had no legal say in what happened to them once they ceased to be prisoners and became DP's.

Therefore the only jews who the British had any legal obligation to allow into the then-Palestine were British Subjects (as were the Arabs already living there). The rest were 'foreigners' under the control of (and were the responsibility of) their respective national governments.

And of the Zionist criticism of the British in all this, it is as well to remember that if it hadn't been for the British the jewish race/ethnic group would have been extinct in Europe by now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.75.103 (talk) 16:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Where is this page from? Likely copyvio.

It is pretty clear that this page is largely copied from somewhere else, but I can't find the source. Maybe it is a translation or copied from a book. Even the earliest version has references to arcane sources like unpublished documents from the British Foreign Office, and is well beyond the knowledge level of the editor who typed it. We aren't allowed to use unpublished documents as sources, nor are we allowed to extract bulk text from another source. What to do? Zero^talk 07:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

At the end of March 2010, this problem persists. Many of the references in this page are obviously just copy-pasted from some unacknowledged intermediate source. That is not permitted. Zero^talk 10:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Uncited statements

There are two statements in this article that need to be sourced. These are 'British foreign policy, as defined by Ernest Bevin, and its military policy, as defined by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was to help the Arabs.', and 'Fearing an invasion of Egypt and Transjordan, and acting on the basis of the mutual defence pacts with these countries, Britain's Ministry of Defence began to prepare for the possibility of invading Israel.' These statements may well be true, but they are not (so far as I can immediately tell) supported by the currently available sources. Robofish (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Enough history revisionism by the paliphiles

Those here on the talk page who wish to delete or whitewash the article are not honest editors and should admit to their exploits and straighten up , or go edit somewhere else. enough is enough looking at history pages there is a grim and consistent change to white wash anything up until it touches the surface of conspiracy theories presented as truth or ideological terminology used freely at literal meaning. oh and please don't delete this talk page entry like you did the last times(read my talk apge of this ip for other posts I made) instead have constructive proposals and reliable sources 79.176.49.28 (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

etzel.org.il as a source

The web page http://www.etzel.org.il is a private initiative by modern supporters of the Etzel, many of them former members of Etzel or their children. It is uniformly adulatory and spins unpleasant facts like the marketplace bombings that in total killed hundreds of random civilians. I don't see any way it can meet the requirements for a reliable source. Is there a case for reliability? Zero^talk 04:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Britain's Small Wars site and the Jewish Virtual Library Lehi article (whose provenance was the Israeli Foreign Ministry) shouldn't be being given as sources either.     ←   ZScarpia   12:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead section - Jewish Resistance Movement

Currently, the Lead says:

The British-Zionist conflict refers to the military conflict between the British Mandate of Palestine and the Jewish Resistance Movement, which eventually led to the creation of an independent Jewish state: Israel.

That statement is unsourced and inaccurate: the Jewish Resistance Movement only existed briefly and only until the King David Hotel bombing and therefore had little bearing on the eventual creation of the state of Israel. -- ZScarpia (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Completely incorrect. By no means did Nationalist or Revisionist Jewish militant movements stop with the King David Hotel bombing. That's utterly and completely wrong. That bombing took place before the nearly 2 year old civil war of 1947 and 1948. You're just completely making up your own facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.131.236 (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

1946, King David Hotel bombing

Reenem, your new wording is fine by me.     ←   ZScarpia   20:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ceasefire with Egypt

From memory, not all the planes shot down were spitfires. They were patrolling to ensure that Israeli forces were complying with a UN Security Council (or an independently given US and UK) order to withdraw. As reconnaissance planes, some of them were not carrying ammunition; some of them that were had not had their guns armed. These were not capable of defending themselves. Ben-Gurion ordered that at least one of the wrecks was towed east to make it appear as though it had been shot down over Israeli, rather than Egyptian, lines.     ←   ZScarpia   14:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right about this though I heard it was Ezer Weizman who had them towed not Ben Gurion.

This seems like a good source for the incident [1] Telaviv1 (talk)

Well done, that's the most detailed account that I've seen. I see that it was four spitfires and a tempest that were shot down. Perhaps it would be worth adding details of the earlier shooting down of the mosquito to the timeline?     ←   ZScarpia   12:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Its a brilliant piece and definitely deserves a mention. Also it shows how the British were caught in the middle. Telaviv1 (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead section: Paul Bagon MPhil Dissertation

Is Paul Bagon so notable or his MPil dissertation so worthy that the dissertation should be mentioned? The Introduction undermines confidence in its reliability. Several times, it makes the mistaken claim that Palestine was partitioned.     ←   ZScarpia   14:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll remove the dissertation. Telaviv1 (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

MPhil/PhD theses that passed examination are normally regarded as reliable sources. I don't see any reason to treat this one differently. I don't understand ZScarpia's objection, Bagon is just referring to the fact that Palestine was partitioned in 1948 between Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. I don't know much more about Bagon, though he has published a book. Zero^talk 10:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for the removal of the reference to the dissertation, as such, just querying whether it is worth having. Up to now I'd not seen the way that Palestine was split between Israel, Jordan and Egypt referred to as partition, but I have now. If you both think that the reference should be re-inserted, I have no objection.     ←   ZScarpia   12:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it matters. there is sufficient reference there already. Telaviv1 (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

British attacks on Jewish civillians

WE need someone to add to the time line British attacks on Jews, otherwise the timeline is entirely one sided.

Most importantly the truck bomb on King George st in Jerusalem which to this day is the largest terror attack in Israeli history also shootings of unarmed holocaust survivors on illegal migration ships (about 2 or 3 per ship) random shooting of civilians in Israel - there were quite a few of these and they will need to be documented.

Telaviv1 (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you are referring to Ben Yehuda Street, which was not a British operation even though it involved some British deserters. Zero^talk 10:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's the one. Telaviv1 (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Zionist Political Violence

This section is clearly just poorly disguised propaganda. The information in it belongs in the timeline and it does not fit where it is located in terms of chronlogy or flow of the article.

Telaviv1 (talk) 09:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The section is highly relevant and factual - as you would expect a section titled "Zionist violence against British targets" to be to an article title "British-Zionist conflict". It doesn't belong in the timeline section because the Zionist violence against British targets is highly important to this article and the pre-eminent reason for the British riots against Jews; stuffing it down among minor incidents does not make sense considering the importance of this events listed. Factomancer (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me for sticking my nose in, but should we try some negotiation?     ←   ZScarpia   14:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much scope for compromise in this dispute; we either have the section or we do not. Unless you had a particular suggestion? Factomancer (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

One thing for sure is that the way it was heading was an edit-warring case on one of the noticeboards, something worth trying to avoid if you can. By being open to compromise and willing to negotiate you should hopefully achieve at least some of your objectives, will make it easier for others to support you and, if it does go to dispute resolution, will be more likely to look like the sinned-against rather than the sinning party.     ←   ZScarpia   19:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Everything in it already exists elsewhere in the article and there is no attempt at balance, organization or relevance to the rest of the article.

More importantly the brritish riots agianst the jews were the product of antisemitism. If you believe the violence was justified then presumably you also believe that violence against moslems in the UK is also justified: in fact the attack in Palestine were taking palce in antoher country and directed at british military personnel while Islamists have attacked within britain itself and targeted civillians. Clearly attacking unrelated moslem civillians would be racism as were the attacks in Britain. Do you agree?

I will move it lower down for the time being.

Telaviv1 (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the facts has no bearing on the facts. The facts should remain, and your moral judgement of the facts has no place in the article.

Here's what my book of the moment (which I've been quoting all over the place), Major Farran's Hat, says about the most serious rioting (including its motivations), which occurred after the revenge hanging of Sergeants Martin and Paice (p148):

"News of this atrocity spread like wildfire through the security forces. British troops and police in Tel Aviv went on the rampage, killing five Jews and injuring fifteen. Back in Britain, grisly photographs and reports were splashed across the newspapers on the eve of the August bank holiday weekend. Over the following four days synagogues and Jewish-owned properties were attacked and damaged by mobs in Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow. Anti-Jewish incidents also occurred in Hull, Brighton, Leicester, Plymouth, Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Swansea, Newcastle and across London. The anti-Jewish riots had been brewing before the atrocity in Palestine and were partly a reaction to continued food shortages and the perceived association of Jews with the black market. Yet the connection with Palestine was tangible and in the wake of the riots, some Jewish traders put notices in their shop windows denouncing Jewish terrorism."

    ←   ZScarpia   20:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Telaviv1: my personal beliefs have no relevance to improving this article and to discuss them is a violation of WP:SOAP. The treatment of Muslims in the UK is utterly irrelevant. The sources clearly state that the riots were a reaction to Zionist violence against the British in Mandate Palestine and not simply a spontaneous outbreak of antisemitism. We should (and must) follow the sources. Factomancer (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

David Cesarani was my dissertation supervisor at Royal Holloway and this incident was mentioned in my dissertation. The point is not to suggest that the riots were in anyway justified, the riots were an antisemitic act and that should be made clear while explaining the background to what happened. The fact that these riots took place at all indicates very high levels of antisemitism in British society. The hangings had equally good reasons. One could go on like that for ever. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. Telaviv1 (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Is explaining the reasons why there was heightened antisemitism the same as trying to justify the attacks?     ←   ZScarpia   22:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It depends how you phrase it. Telaviv1 (talk) 10:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't, justification and causation are two completely different things. Factomancer (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If we all stick to the sources and present facts as facts and opinions as opinions hopefully we should pull through.     ←   ZScarpia   11:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Lord Moyne

(Article)

The decision to kill Lord Moyne had probably been taken some years earlier when as Colonial Secretary he had refused to aid or admit the Jews on the ship "Struma" to Palestine. In addition during a speech in June 1942 he referred to the Arabs as a "pure race" while denigrating the Jews as a "mixed race". The Sturma was a small ship which no country would admit and eventually sunk killing the 800 Jews crowded on board. It was also believed that Moyne was the cause of the failure of the "Blood for goods" plan in which it was proposed that the Nazis release a million Jews in return for 10,000 trucks. The organizer of negotiations, Joel Brand, claimed that Lord Moyne had said "What can I do with this million Jews? Where can I put them?".

• From memory, I think that what I've read said tht Moyne was killed because he was the target whose death would be most spectacular rather than any other reason. I'll have a look in the books I've got.
• What exactly does Heller say about Moyne's speech? I know that figures from both the Zionist left (Ben-Gurion) and right (Jabotinsky) took "blood purity" very seriously, but did the Lehi really decide to target Moyne for calling Arabs a "pure race" and Jews a "mixed one"?
• I thought that it was well established that the Struma was torpedoed by the Soviets and didn't just sink.
• It's probably better to try to source material somewhere other than the www.eretzyisroel.org site.
• Ben Hecht ("every time a British soldier dies, I have a little holiday in my heart") isn't the most neutral of sources.
• The Blood for goods plan (a million Jews in return for 10,000 trucks to use on the Eatern front) was, for obvious reasons, a non-starter. It's failure wasn't due to Moyne.

    ←   ZScarpia   13:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Nobody really knows why Moyne was killed. Heller suggests it was the Struma and the speech, but others suggest it was mostly that Moyne was the most senior British politician in their reach. There is more on this at Walter Guinness, 1st Baron Moyne.
• Heller (p123) does say that Moyne called the Jews 'mixed' and the Arabs 'pure' but it isn't clear if he is writing in his own voice or is describing Lehi's perception of Moyne. You can see from the actual speech that Moyne said Jews are a mixed race (though with a pure culture) but nowhere does he say that Arabs are a pure race. Bernard Wasserstein wrote a spirited defense of Moyne in which he showed that Moyne (an amateur anthropologist) believed that pure races were only to be found in places like the highlands of New Guinea.
• I think it is a mistake to treat Perfidy as a history book. It is a very famous polemic. No serious historian would cite Perfidy as an unbiased source. eretzyisroel.org is of course totally out of the question (and the article being cited is self-published, as Katz is the site manager).
• See Struma (ship). Yes, Soviet torpedo. Katz' apparent ignorance of that underscores his unreliability.

Zero^talk 15:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan ( Telaviv1), what do you think of our comments? Thanks for the link to the Moyne speech Zero. It's interesting to read a debate from 1942 about what would happen after the war.     ←   ZScarpia   18:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of the comment seem fair enough, though I don't think Ben Gurion was into race stuff and I am unware of any evidence that Lehi were into it either. One of Herzl's generation was, can't remember which one right now but being on the whole Jews didn't follow race theory.

While Struma was a torpedo no one knew that until two years ago but I guess that link was a mistake.

I will remove the stuff you have commented on. I tried to find the Wasserstein article which seems like a good source but couldn't find it.

Telaviv1 (talk) 09:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Zionist most famously into racial theory was Arthur Ruppin. For most of them, and for Moyne, we should remember that race was a normal part of discourse in the Western world (and maybe the rest of the world) until the 1940s at least. Eugenics was a popular idea in the Yishuv just as it was in Europe and the US. This stuff only went out of fashion as a reaction to Nazi excesses. The Wasserstein article is "New Light on the Moyne Murder", Midstream, 26(3),30-38 (1980). If you can't find it, send me email and I'll give it to you. Zero^talk 09:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned Ben-Gurion and Jabotinsky by name because I can directly quote them on the subject of blood purity. In the case of Ben-Gurion, there's some fairly shocking stuff in Koestler's Promise and Fulfilment.     ←   ZScarpia   12:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Wasserstein has a clear opinion about the reason why Moyne was assassinated:

That the decision to kill Moyne was not actuated primarily by personal animosity against him was stressed by Eliahu Bet-Tsuri in a statement which he made in the course of his preliminary examination by the Egyptian Procurator-General on November 10, 1944. Bet-Tsuri explained: "No calculations were made as to whether Lord Moyne was a good man or a bad man. It was considered only that he was the key man for Britain in governing the Middle East, and as such is responsible for what is happening in Palestine."

Nevertheless, after the event, it was clearly to the interest of Lehi to portray Moyne in its propaganda as a supremely wicked exponent of British imperialism and enemy of the Jewish people. A Hebrew flysheet circulated by the group immediately after the murder pronounced Moyne "a sworn enemy of the Hebrew nation and of its land." It cited a speech on Zionism delivered by Moyne in the House of Lords in June, 1942, at a time when he had been temporarily out of office. It further accused him of having been responsible for the British government's refusal to admit to Palestine the Jewish refugees on board the S.S. Struma in February, 1942, and for the subsequent death by drowning of most of those on the ship. Another count in the Lehi indictment against Moyne was his alleged responsibility for the deportation by the Palestine government in December, 1940, of over 1,500 Jewish refugees to the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius, where they remained interned until after the end the War. Later Lehi repeated and expanded on these themes.

According to Wasserstein, Benjamin Budovsky wrote:

Lord Moyne had assiduously studied and imbibed the Hitlerian theories of race. The Jews, he maintained, are a mixture of many races, a melange of various peoples under the sun, unlike the Arab tribes who are of pure Semitic blood .

Budovsky based this on a speech in which Moyne said:

The tragedy of the Palestinian question is, as was said by the Royal Commission, that it is a conflict between two rights. When Jerusalem was destroyed and its site ploughed up in the year 135 A.D., the Jews had occupied the country for about 1,300 years. Since the Mahomedan invasion of 632 the Arabs have occupied Palestine for practically the same period. To these Arabs the Jews are not only alien in culture but also in blood. It is very often loosely said that Jews are Semites, but anthropologists tell us that, pure as they have kept their culture, the Jewish race has been much mixed with Gentiles since the beginning of the Diaspora. During the Babylonian captivity they acquired a strong Hittite admixture, and it is obvious that the Armenoid features which are still found among the Sephardim have been bred out of the Ashkenazim by an admixture of Slav blood.

Wasserstein comments:

These words were seized upon by the Lehi propagandists as evidence that Moyne believed in an ideal purity of race after the Nazi fashion, and that he regarded the Jews as impure and therefore in some sense inferior. In fact, Moyne's speech, when placed in the context of his known views on matters of race can be shown to contradict this interpretation totally. Moyne was himself an anthropologist and ethnographer of some note.

On the question of whether Moyne said, "What would I do with' a million Jews," Wasserstein says:

Brand admits that his interlocutor was not, in fact, Moyne at all, although he mistakenly thought so at the time. In spite of this retraction the remark continues to be widely attributed to Moyne, most reacently on the occasion of the transfer to Israel for state burials with full honors of the bodies of Moyne's assassins. Of course, on such an occasion the story served a useful purpose for Lehi's latter-day champions: however, it may safely be dismissed as baseless.

Wasserstein sums up:

The Moyne murder was not an act of mindless vengeance, but a meticulously planned operation with an overriding purpose of propaganda for the political ideology of the Lehi group, an ideology whose primary aim was the destruction of British power in Palestine by any means, including collaboration with Hitler. The character of Lord Moyne and his political views were irrelevant as motives for the killing: Moyne was selected merely because of the office he held; indeed the murder of the Minister Resident was decided upon by Abraham Stern long before Moyne assumed office as Minister in Cairo. It was only after the murder and in the face of shocked indignation among the Yishuv as well as elsewhere that a formidable indictment of alleged crimes against the Jewish people was publicized by the Stern group supporters.

    ←   ZScarpia   00:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

File:KD 1946.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:KD 1946.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 6 September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Peel Commission

I'm adding the Peel Commission as I can't see it here or in the main article.86.42.221.74 (talk) 11:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Rename (2012)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

---

British–Zionist conflict → Jewish insurgency in Palestine – The title is not supported as WP:COMMONNAME and is highly misleading. The title seemingly implies that there was a general "Zionist conflict against the British", which is far from reality - only 2 small groups engaged in limited warfare against British forces and officials within Mandatory Palestine, whilst the main Zionist underground group Haganah kept neutrality. Not speaking that Zionist organizations abroad were largely unrelated with the insurgency in Palestine. If we go to Google Books, the title "British Zionist conflict" gets 34 results ("Zionist British conflict" gets only 6 results); while the "Jewish insurgency in Palestine" gets 750 results ("Zionist insurgency in Palestine" gets just 6 results).--Relisted Cúchullain ^t/c 15:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)Greyshark09 (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC). Relisted. --regentspark (comment) 20:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with your general sentiment, but I would suggest Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine as a more accurate title which avoids confusion with present-day Palestine (state). --BDD (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree, this would be more precise.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• Relisting comment We need more input on how the subject is referred to in the sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I would suggest to base this on the academic approach, here are some examples:

Eyes of the underground: Jewish insurgent intelligence in Palestine, 1945–47. [2]

The British Army and Jewish Insurgency in Palestine, 1945-47. [3]

Comrades and Enemies: Arab and Jewish Workers in Palestine, 1906-1948. "Jewish insurgency of 1945-1947" [4]

The only title i can think as better title for this article is "Zionist insurgency in Palestine", but it seems to be less frequently used.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The common name for the conflict. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. "British-Zionist conflict" seems quite WP:ORish indeed. An alternative to the suggested title would be "Jewish Revolt", or as to make the name unique: "Jewish Revolt in Mandatory Palestine". Sorces: [5], [6], [7], [8]. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support I was initially inclined to oppose because I wasn’t sure the title was WP:NPOV. However, the reliable source material seems to most often refer to an insurgency.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - most editors agree with "Jewish insurgency in Palestine", though also "Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine" and "Jewish revolt in Palestine" were alternatively suggested.Greyshark09 (talk) 04:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Start date of insurgency

The timespan covered by this article has since its creation been quite problematic. The insurgency did not start in 1938/1939 according to the mainstream view, as far as I know. Rather, it started in 1945 when Haganah took up arms against the british, or possibly in 1944 when Irgun did the same. To put the start date to 38/39 is a WP:FRINGE view which we're not allowed to adopt. I suggest we change the start date to 1945 as to comply with what reliable sources say. --Frederico1234 (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

...And I know realize that User:Greyshark09 has already made this change! Obviously, I applaud this change. --Frederico1234 (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Frederico, i guess we have a telepathy :) Greyshark09 (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Irgun started an armed revolt against the British before the outbreak of WWII, suspended it after the outbreak, then resumed it again after Menachem Begin became the leader of the Irgun. Therefore, even though there were two separate campaigns, Irgun insurgency did begin around about 1938/39. That accords with the part of the article which says, "Jewish underground ceased all anti-British activities with the outbreak of the war." Currently, it looks as though there is a contradiction in the article. One the one hand the article says that Jewish insurgency refers to events which began in 1944; on the other, for example, it says that Lehi attacks began in 1942 and lists the first British deaths due to the activities of the Irgun as being in 1939. My guess would be that the contradiction was introduced by the change made by Greyshark referred to above.     ←   ZScarpia   14:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

From The Arabs, A History (2009), Eugene Rogan: p247-258:

After the White Paper was approved by the British Parliament in May 1939, however, Irgun members came to view Britain as the real enemy. The Irgun launched a series of bomb attacks on British government offices and police stations in Palestine before suspending hostilities in June 1940. With Britain at war with Germany, the Irgun leadership decided to comply with Ben-Gurion's policies of working with the British to fight Nazism.

One faction in the Irgun dissented and continued its attacks on the British. The splinter group, which came to be known in Hebrew by the acronym Lehi (for Lohamei Herut Yisrael, or Freedom Fighters of Israel), are better known in the West as the Stern gang, after the leader of the faction, Abraham Stern. Stern and his followers believed that the Jewish people had an inalienable right to the land of Israel and that it was their duty to redeem the land - by armed force, if necessary. For Stern, the 1939 White Paper cast Britain in the role of an illegitimate occupier. Rather than siding with Britain against Nazi Germany, Stern actively approached the Nazis to make common cause against the British.

...

For his overtures to the Germans, Stern was roundly condemned by both the Irgun and the Jewish Agency, which provided intelligence to the British to assist them in their crackdown on the Lehi. The mandate authorities were in hot pursuit of the Stern Gang for a series of attacks and bank robberies in Palestine. In February 1942, British officers killed Stern in a raid on a Tel Aviv apartment. Its leadership in disarray after Stern's death, the Lehi lapsed into inactivity. A fragile truce prevailed between the Yishuv and the British between and 1942 and 1944, while the Second World War raged.

The Irgun began to reorganize itself as a resistance movement against British rule in 1943.

...

By 1944, the Irgun and Lehi were no longer willing to be bound by the general truce and resumed attacks on the British in Palestine.

So, Jewish insurgency against the British started before the outbreak of the Second World War, was continued until around 1942 by the Lehi, then restarted by the Irgun and Lehi in 1944, the year prior to the end of hostilities in Europe.

    ←   ZScarpia   00:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

What you said is true, but Jewish attacks before 1944 were minor and very few. In 1944 Menachem Begin proclaimed "The Revolt" and in 1945 Haganah joined the struggle against the British. I think it's not the same the period between 1939 and 1944 (resistance against White Paper), and the period from 1944/45 to 1947 (when the attacks were a systematic armed insurgency to end British rule).--Sheilub (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with said by Sheilub, the violence prior to 1944 was sporadic and was mainly linked with the 1936-1939 Arab revolt. The actual "Zionist revolt" began with Begin's announcement on February 1944. Even then the attacks were at first on facilities not related with the British war efforts and only later transformed into a full-scale insurgency. Charters puts the timeline to 1945-47 [9]; it is evident that 1944 can also be included in the scope; but certainly not 1938-1939 events, primarily directed on Arabs.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Notes:

1. Greyshark, can you quote from Charters' book anything which states when Jewish insurgency began? Its title is The British Army and Jewish Insurgency in Palestine, 1945-47. That alone, though, cannot be used to infer that Jewish insurgency against the British only began in 1945, not that you want to take 1945, rather than 1944, as the start point. Given that we know that the insurgency began before then, the title should surely be read to mean only that the book covers the period from 1945 to 1947?
2. My source states: "The Irgun launched a series of bomb attacks on British government offices and police stations in Palestine before suspending hostilities in June 1940." When the Irgun decided to desist, "One faction in the Irgun dissented and continued its attacks on the British." So, Jewish attacks on the British started in 1939 after the White Paper was published and continued until the killing of Stern. The fact that the Irgun may have been mounting reprisals against Arabs during that period, though the major violence, which occurred during the Arab Revolt, would have ended by then, doesn't change that fact.
3. The attacks before 1944 may have been sporadic, but it doesn't change the fact that there were attacks before then. In fact, the Irgun and Lehi being small organisations, the attacks from 1944 were also pretty sporadic. The Haganah's involvement in attacks on the British was limited to a brief period in 1946. Outside that period, the Haganah actually tried to suppress the other underground organisations, measures used including killing their members.
4. The article's title is Jewish insurgency in Palestine. The title doesn't limit the scope of Jewish insurgency to a particular target, such as the British, or to a particular period. Currently, the Lead gives the incorrect impression that Jewish insurgency against the British didn't start until 1944. If the article is supposed to be about Jewish insurgency against the British from 1944 to 1947, I recommend that the article title is changed to reflect that.

    ←   ZScarpia   14:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

There are many examples of insurgency in the world, and they are all limited in time windows. The sources are very much clear on that the Jewish revolt began in 1944 and spread in 1945. The 1930s events came within the scope of the Arab revolt, which is also limited in time to 1936-1939, even though Arab insurgency was evident since at least 1933 (the black Hand activity) and maybe even 1929 events.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

See a number of sources i've provided in Talk:Jewish_insurgency_in_Palestine#Rename - all referring to 1944/5-1947.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with ZScarpia. Even though many sources focus on Begin's 1944 "revolt", more careful sources note it as the recommencement, not the beginning, of Irgun action against the British. For example, Perliger and Weinberg, Jewish Self-Defence and Terrorist Groups Prior to the Establishment of the State of Israel: Roots and Traditions: "In 1939, the Etzel changed its goals and shifted its focus to actions aimed against the British forces in Palestine. ... The Etzel's anti-British activities included the use of explosives against British targets and assassination attempts on British soldiers. For example, the British government's broadcast centre in Jerusalem was blown up in August 1939 by detonation envelopes that had been smuggled in. A few days later, the Etzel killed a high-ranking British official who was accused by the organisation of torturing Etzel prisoners." Then there was the Lehi, who commenced anti-British actions in 1940/1. These things happened and are relevant; I don't see a valid reason for excluding them. Zero^talk 03:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

<sorry not to provide sources>During WWII, LHI was 200 people. I think that what they did remains really fringe and cannot be counted in the Jewish (500,000 people in the Yishuv) insurgency against the British. Even less that the Jewish Agency offically supported the allies : "We will fight the White Paper as if there is no war, and fight the war as if there is no White Paper". And they don't really started to fight the "White Paper" before IZL started his attacks back when the war was won.</sorry>

Pluto2012 (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm with you Pluto, few incidents between 200 men-strong Lehi and the British through WWII cannot be seriously counted as part of general Jewish insurgency, which sources generally associate with 1944 declaration by Irgun; Pre-1939 events are clearly related to the Arab Revolt of 1936-39, and not the Zionist rebellion of 1944-1947/8.Greyshark09 (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

So you didn't notice that the quotation I brought from a reliable source is entirely about Etzel? Zero^talk 23:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Zero,

I didn't understand what you meant with this quote and I thought that you was refering to the fact that during WWII LHI went on hostilities against the British.

After september 1939, IZL collaborated with British and the allies as illustrated by the actions lead by David Raziel. LHI scinded in 1940 because they refused this policy.

This may be described as a "truce" in the revolt but it sounds a little silly to revolt during 4 months (from the publication of the White Paper in May to the War in September), to make this follow by a 5 years truce and to start again hostilities in '44 and during 4 years.

Pluto2012 (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

@Greyshark09 (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC):

• Until recently, the title of this article was British–Zionist conflict. It's subject was the period of armed conflict between Zionist organisations and the British which began in 1939, after the publication of the MacDonald White Paper, and the end of Palestine Mandate in 1948. Randomly taking a point in the recent past as a demontration, this is how the introduction to the article read on 14 February 2012: "The British–Zionist conflict refers to events which occurred between the publication of the MacDonald White Paper of 1939 and the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, when the British government policy of limiting Jewish immigration to Mandate Palestine led to conflict between the British Empire and Zionist organizations in Palestine, some of which resorted to armed revolt."
• First, the title of the article was changed to Jewish insurgency in Palestine, a title which fails to indicate that the article was specifically about insurgency against the British. On your part, you used a WP:COMMONNAME argument, a silly argument as there is no common name for the set of armed attacks by Zionist organisations against the British.
• Second, despite the fact that is fairly clearly documented, including in the Irgun article, that armed attacks began in 1939 (the first attack was a bombing of the government radio station on the day the MacDonald White Paper was announced) you changed the year in which attacks began to 1944. As evidence, you produced titles of books such as The British Army and Jewish Insurgency in Palestine, 1945-47, claiming that, rather than just being about specific periods, that the books demonstrated that Zionist insurgency against the British didn't begin before the outbreak of the last world war. Although the book mentioned covers a period starting in 1945, you claimed that was an aberration and that it should really have covered a period starting in 1944. You were asked to quote from the books to demonstrate that they really did state that Jewish insurgency against the British didn't start until the periods that the books covered, which you didn't do. Have you actually read the books, or do you only know their titles?
• You wrote: "There are many examples of insurgency in the world, and they are all limited in time windows. The sources are very much clear on that the Jewish revolt began in 1944 and spread in 1945." Manachem Begin's "revolt" may have begun in 1944, but the article is supposed to be about Zionist armed conflict with the British in general, which sources show and, before you changed it, the article stated began earlier. As for time limitations, usually titles are used to indicate that. Some events are automatically time limited, such as the Arab Revolt of 1936-1939, which you use as an example. An article titled Arab Insurgency in Palestine would imply, though, that it is about any Arab insurgency, anti-Ottoman, anti-Jewish or anti-British, at any time, within the loose borders of the area considered to be Palestine. If an author wanted to limit its scope to a particular period or target, they would usually indicate that in the title. There are a number of problems with the current article. Firstly, the title doesn't now accurately indicate what the subject of the article has historically been, armed conflict between Zionists and the British during the Mandate period. Secondly, editors who are perhaps ignorant of the full history of Zionist anti-British insurgency are now falsely giving the impression that Zionist anti-British insurgency only began with Begin's revolt. I suggest that both the subject of the article should be confirmed and that a more precise title should be adopted.

    ←   ZScarpia   21:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

But it did begin with Begin's revolt. That is what the sources say, unless you really want to distort it. Arab insurgency didn't last from 1921, through 1929 and into the Arab Revolt - all are separate events as well. You are trying to mix apples and lemons - Arab Revolt and Jewish insurgency are not the same conflict, even though both were directed mainly against the British.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

You've referred to what sources say a few times, but, though asked, not actually quoted any of them yet. Please do. Armed attacks by Zionists, which is what this article was about, didn't begin with Begin's revolt, as has, in contrast, been shown using sources. What, exactly, makes you think that I've been trying to make arguments about the Arab revolt and Jewish insurgency being part of the same conflict? I haven't. My argument is that Zionist insurgency against the British started before the war, as the article stated before you changed it and which has been demonstrated using sources, unless, that is, you're playing semantic tricks with what the word "insurgency" means. If you want to change the subject of the article, which has been about Zionist insurgency against the British in general, to be about Begin's revolt, fine, but obtain consensus to do it and, also, sort the title of the article so that it accurately indicates the subject of the article. The current title, which you are partially responsible for, doesn't indicate that the subject of the article is specifically about anti-British insurgency. Other changes of yours also have the article incorrectly indicating that Zionist insurgency against the British didn't begin until 1944. Those faults should be corrected.     ←   ZScarpia   19:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Very simple - Arab insurgency in Palestine (revolt) lasted 1936-1939; Jewish insurgency (revolt) in Palestine lasted 1944-1947. Few Arab-initiated attacks after 1939 are not included in the Arab revolt; same few Jewish-initiated are not included prior to 1944. I think Arkanasas University put it very well in timelines, see [10].

Firstly, if you're going to pick just one source, it should at least be a reliable one. Secondly, it should solidly back-up what you're claiming. It may start one of what it calls a conflict phase with the beginning of Begin's Irgun revolt in 1944, but it notes British-Jewish conflicts which occurred before that. Irgun and Lehi anti-British bombings and shootings which occurred before 1944 may not have been on such a large scale, but they still count as armed revolt/insurrection/insurgency.     ←   ZScarpia   20:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a reliable academic source. Don't try to synthesize conflict's scope.GreyShark (dibra) 22:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source, let alone a reliable academic source: it doesn't state who the author is (so you don't know whether the the person who produced it has any particular expertise on Mandate Palestine), it's not possible to tell whether it has been reviewed, it's not been published appropriately, it's unlikely to have been cited by proper academic sources as a genuine academic source would have been, and also it's short and lacking in detail. You're synthesising yourself: you're trying to claim that the article shows that there was no anti-British Zionist 'insurgency' prior to Begin's revolt (contrary to what multiple provided sources say), but it doesn't, at least unequivocally, do that. It pushes events in Palestine into its adopted scheme of phases. However, it refers to events related to Zionist attacks on the British in the two phases which precede the one which starts in 1944.     ←   ZScarpia   04:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't push your wikilawyering, the principal statement of yours doesn't hold water, since the "Jewish revolt" is widely attributed to begin with Begin's statement in February 1944 and consequent military operations; trying to merge this with Irgun's actions mainly directed against Arab revolutionaries in 1930s is WP:SYNTH; Lehi hasn't performed any significant actions until 1944 either (your below citation of Gershom, trying to make their letter to German ambassador in Turkey into part of "insurgency" is not serious).GreyShark (dibra) 19:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Widely attributed? Where? There's no argument that the scale of attacks grew with time, but it's not a question of when the attacks grew significant, which wasn't until after 1944 in any case, but when they started, isn't it? Keep your brass-necked accusations of wikilawyering to yourself, particularly if you don't want a dissection of your editing, knowledge and abilities in return.     ←   ZScarpia   12:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

"Unmaking of Israel" (2011) - Gershom Gorenberg. Chapter II 'Remember the Altalena': "The Lehi, an even more extreme break-off from the Irgun, sporadically attacked the British throughout the war; in 1940 and 1941, it sent emissaries to seek an alliance with Nazi Germany against Britain."     ←   ZScarpia   20:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The sources all agree on the timeline of 1944/5-1947; unless you bring a specific citation on the Jewish revolt/insurgency making another timeline, your point is not valid.GreyShark (dibra) 19:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Once again, which sources? So far you only provided one, a non-reliable one, which subverts your case by referring to relevant events which occurred prior to 1944. Nor does it use your word of choice, 'insurgency'. This article is supposed to be about Zionist anti-British violence in general, not Begin's revolt in particular. Perhaps, by changing its title, you think you've managed to stealthily change its subject matter?     ←   ZScarpia   23:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

This is vague, not mentioning that Gotenberg is not an historian. This is not serious to bring a non-academic source (a blogger of history) to show your point.GreyShark (dibra) 21:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Baruch Kimmerling, Joel S. Migdal The Palestinian People: A History, Harvard University Press 2003 p.492 n.26

The three main Jewish underground groups began their revolt against the British at different times and at some points worked against each other. The Lehi, or Stern Gang, fought the British in the early years of World War 11.'

1944 is not an early year in WW2.Nishidani (talk) 12:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.     ←   ZScarpia   12:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

One should look at Anita Shapira's chapter, 'The shift to an offensive ethos, 1937-1945,' in her Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force, 1881-1948, Stanford University Press 1992 pp.217ff. for the background. Of considerable importance there is the intensive commando training Orde Wingate gave Jewish volunteers to help the British suppress the Arab revolt. Nishidani (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a good point to show that Jewish underground activity in 1938 was within the scope of the Arab Revolt.GreyShark (dibra) 21:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Greyshark, as of Nishidani's contribution, you don't have consensus for the change you made to the article in terms of weight of numbers of editors. Of course, consensus is properly a matter of quality of argument; obviously, I don't think that you have that either: you repeatedy make claims about how sources support your arguments, but without being able to back your claims up.     ←   ZScarpia   14:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You don't have here any consensus for your views (me, Frederico and Pluto don't agree). No sources also show your point. I now add some academic sources in the lead.GreyShark (dibra) 21:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Here are some hard sources to show my point:

Prof. Benjamin Grob-Fitzgibbon. Imperial Endgame: Britain's Dirty Wars and the End of Empire. p.12. [11].

Prof. Ian Beckett et. al. Modern Insurgencies and Counter-Insurgencies: Guerrillas and their Opponent. 2001. p1957.

University of Arkansas: Political Science. "9. British Palestine (1917-1948)". [12].

Cheers.GreyShark (dibra) 22:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Try reading the other sources presented, the last such being Nishidani's? Explain exactly how the first two sources you've just listed justify your claim. The third one, which isn't a reliable source, has already been dealt with. The original author of the text you changed, Zero, Nishidani and I don't agree with you, obviously.     ←   ZScarpia   23:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Would this be an acceptable solution ?

Keeping the dates but replacing

• "Though World War II brought relative calm..."

by :

• "Though the benefit of an unformal truce [against the common enemy] was enjoyed [during from World War II] from 1939 to 1944..."

(The content of the brackets is an option.)

Pluto2012 (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The point is that historians put the insurgency beginning to February 1944 ("revolt" by Irgun - by Fitzgibbon) or November 1945 (formation of "United Resistance Movement", joined by Haganah - by David French [13]); trying to make a point "as if" the insurgency began in 1939 is not sourced, trying to present some isolated incidents between Irgun and the British during the Arab Revolt as part of later insurgency in mid-1940s is clearly WP:SYNTH.GreyShark (dibra) 14:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you really trying to say that the Irgun didn't start a violent anti-British campaign in 1939, that the Lehi didn't split from the Irgun in 1940 with the specific intention of continuing that campaign and that sources have not been provided to back that up?     ←   ZScarpia   16:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You are clearly editorializing and most probably engaging in WP:Synthesis. The fact A that there were incidents between Irgun and the British in the final phase of Arab Revolt, and the fact B that Lehi split from Irgun in 1940 due to policy differences doesn't mean that the topic C insurgency started in 1939. No source is saying that.GreyShark (dibra) 16:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

This is the sequence: the Arab Revolt ended, the White Paper was published, then, because of the contents of the White Paper, Zionist anti-British violence started ... all in 1939.

The subject of this article is Zionist anti-British violence. You changed the title. Now you're trying to change the subject of the article to suit your interpretation of your title. That does suggest, does it not, that you should either find another title or live with the incompatibility you perceive between what the subject of the article is and your title?

Hopefully you're not going to start edit warring. Other editors went through a long period of trying to negotiate with you; now it would be nice if you returned the favour.

    ←   ZScarpia   17:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Pluto, in 1940 the Irgun decided to halt their anti-British activities for the duration of the Second World War. This caused a splinter group, which considered the British rather than the Germans as their real enemy, to form the Lehi. The Lehi attempted to maintain an anti-British armed campaign throughout the war: if my memory is correct, about 40 deaths due to anti-British Lehi activity occurred during the war years. Thus, it would not be factual to state that a truce existed during the war.     ←   ZScarpia   16:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

User:ZSCarpia, please don't remove reliable sources and change lead version, which has been stable for 1.5 years. You haven't provided a single source, claiming that Jewish insurgency "began" in 1939 - on the contrary. Further more, the sources provided by Nishidani talk about Jewish actions against Arabs during the Arab Revolt (which is a separate event, in which Jewish Haganah and Irgun were fighting against Arab insurgents), and "early years of 1940s" is not 1939.GreyShark (dibra) 14:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Do not re-introduce your changes without consensus to do so. Do not claim that the article was stable just because other editors chose to spend a long period deadlocked in discussion on the talkpage rather than edit warring their preferred version as you now appear to be doing. Do not talk rubbish about other editors not providing sources, particularly when you have not done so yourself. Do not selectively use what Nishidani wrote to claim that he was writing about the Arab Revolt period. Do not rename the article and then try to change the subject of the article. Do not expect editors not to delete cited text you've added if the text represents what you'd like the source to say rather than what it does say.     ←   ZScarpia   16:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You are violating WP:CIVIL ("Do not talk rubbish about other editors"), which may result in sanctions. Note that.GreyShark (dibra) 16:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You in turn are choosing what is convenient to one narrative. This is a general topic, as per the title. Three three main groups, Lehi/Stern, Etzel, Haganah were involved. There is absolutely no shadow of a doubt that Lehi though small kept up a running insurgency from 1940-1942 at least:'Froom 1940 till 1942 Lehi, under the leadership of Stern, committed quite a few anti-British and other (urban) guerilla activities, including robberies of money and acts of personal terrorism. Lehi did not accept the idea that the raging second world war called for a temporary cooperaion with the British occupation army. Its core ideology was focused on a relentless struggle with the Briish, and with a spice of mysticism and elements of messiani sm. Lehi explicitly wanted to chase the British out and reestablish a Jewish state.' Nachman Ben-Yehuda, Political Assassinations by Jews: A Rhetorical Device for Justice, SUNY 1992 p.96

Under Shamir and Yellin-Mor's reorganization 'from the autumn of 1942 till 1944 Lehi committed many acts, focusing again-on personal terrorism' p.97

Your choice of sources to date the insurgency follows Begin's timeline, and he was a sometimes adversary of Lehi. But in doing so, you downcase or make disappear the quite vigorous and early and continuous terrorism of Lehi, which saw itself as working against the British occupation. If you take an occupational perspective, the CID was battling a kind of Jewish insurgency right through 1940 to 1944 and beyond.Nishidani (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Those you operate a double standard for themselves may find themselves hoist by their own petard. Let's see you justify your comments about me ... if you can't, that shows that, as I wrote, you were talking rubbish. When you partially quote something that I wrote in such a way that others may misconstrue its meaning, use punctuation, an ellipsis for instance, to indicate that what you've copied is a partial quote.     ←   ZScarpia   03:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is a longer extract from "Jewish Self-Defence and Terrorist Groups Prior to the Establishment of the State of Israel: Roots and Traditions" by Arie Perliger and Leonard Weinberg [14]. This is a peer-reviewed journal article by two specialists in the subject. I quoted from it above but Greyshark repeatedly claims no evidence was provided so I'm quoting it again in more detail. It shows that (1) the Etzel violence against the British in 1939 was not a part of the Arab Revolt but in fact party because the Arab Revolt had ended, (2) the 1940–1944 hiatus in Irgun activity against the British was the result of an Irgun ceasefire, not because their revolt had yet to begin.

"In 1939, the Etzel changed its goals and shifted its focus to actions aimed against the British forces in Palestine. The change was due both to the cessation of Arab violence on the one hand, and on the other, a list of restrictions imposed by the British on the Jewish settlements regarding various issues, including the number of Jews allowed to enter Palestine and the Jews' ability to purchase land. These restrictions were part of a series of British reforms regarding their policy in Israel (known as the 'White Book'). The Etzel's anti-British activities included the use of explosives against British targets and assassination attempts on British soldiers. For example, the British government's broadcast centre in Jerusalem was blown up in August 1939 by detonation envelopes that had been smuggled in. A few days later, the Etzel killed a high-ranking British official who was accused by the organisation of torturing Etzel prisoners.
However, it was the outbreak of the Second World War that finally caused the Etzel to bring its activities in line with the general consensus of the entire Jewish settlement and to declare a cease-fire in its struggle against the British authorities. This cease-fire was not to the liking of a small radical group of members within the Etzel headed by Yair Stern..."

To be clear, all I'm suggesting is that the article present the facts rather than suppress them. Even if Perliger and Weinberg's opinion was exceptional (but it isn't; it is pure mainstream) their status as experts on the subject requires the inclusion of this opinion under WP:NPOV. Zero^talk 02:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

All of which throws light on why Baruch Kimmerling and Joel S. Migdal made the chronological point I cited earlier in this thread, namely:

The three main Jewish underground groups began their revolt against the British at different times and at some points worked against each other. The Lehi, or Stern Gang, fought the British in the early years of World War 11.' The Palestinian People: A History, Harvard University Press 2003 p.492 n.26.

With Zero's material, this should be then clarified by showing the different operational choices and strategies adoped by all three groups from 1939 at least onwards. Nishidani (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, Zero - the Arab Revolt ended with the outbreak of World War II, or September 1, 1939. I don't see a problem why isn't summer 1939 a part of the Arab Revolt in that sense.GreyShark (dibra) 16:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

In his book "1948", Benny Morris dedicates a sub-chapter named "The Yishuv Rises" to these events. But he do not start with 1939, he starts with 1945: "If the outbreak of the world war had put an almost immediate brake on Jewish resistance to the white paper, its approaching end opened the floodgates. [...] On 27 September 1945 the Zionist leadership proclaimed that the blockade was "tantamount to a death sentence upon ... those liberated Jews ... still languishing in ... Germany" A revolt that had been postponed for years was now about to break out ".

In the same sub-chapter Morris do mention the Lehi, but notes "Nor did LHI's campaign in 1940-1943 in Palestine amount to much". If we were to follow Morris' lead, then 1945 and not 1939 should be the start date for the article. Anti-British activity 1939-1945 could be covered in a Background section. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

But the, whole point is that Zionist anti-British violence, the subject of this article, started in 1939; nobody is arguing that that violence did not increase greatly in scale after the war finished. Morris, refers to resistance prior to 1945 in the quotations you've given above and other sources have been supplied above which verify that a campaign of attacks against the British started after the contents of the White Paper had been announced in 1939, so are you really wanting the article to state as a fact that Zionist anti-British violence began in 1945? You might like to base your arguments on a source which focuses on the period and the combatants in question rather than 1948, A History of the First Arab-Israeli War, which obviously doesn't.     ←   ZScarpia   06:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You say the article is about Zionist anti-British violence; We disagree on that point. It is true that the original article as created by User:Telaviv1 here was about the conflict between Zionism and Britain which erupted following the publication of the White Paper in 1939. However, the scope of the article subsequently changed as both the title and the start date was changed. These changes was made in accordance with Wikipedias editing model, WP:CONSENSUS. As no consensus has been reached to revert these changes, the scope of the article remains as it was before you changed it here. (My advice it that you revert that change as it did not have consensus.) --Frederico1234 (talk) 08:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Year 1939 events are a part of the final chapter of the Arab Revolt, when the relations of Jewish Irgun and the British started to deteriorate. However Irgun and British forces are listed on the same side and some incidents (mostly by the way incidents on mine defuse attempts by British soldiers) cannot be considered a "conflict" on its own right. Arab Revolt scaled down with the eruption of World War II, and i don't think you can take out the mine defuse incidents from summer 1939 and stick them together with post-1944/5 events, because "you think so". We should stick to sources on 1944/5 beginning of the insurgency, though there is no problem to explain all the background in the background. I would once again bring the summary from University of Arkansas: Political Science. "9. British Palestine (1917-1948)". [15] to demonstrate this point (and tertiary academic sources are certainly reliable ZScarpia).GreyShark (dibra) 17:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

@Frederico1234: A change of title shouldn't change the scope. If the new title doesn't fit the scope of the article, that implies that either the title shouldn't have been changed or that a different title should have been chosen doesn't it?     ←   ZScarpia   15:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

@GreyShark: Most of the points you've just raised have been answered previously I think. As far as the incident involving the death of a soldier defusing a mine is concerned, if the target of the mine was Arab rather than British then you're right, the incident doesn't relate to the Zionist-British conflict.     ←   ZScarpia   15:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Defused mine incidents relocated to Arab Revolt article Done.GreyShark (dibra) 19:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Restoring removed text: the mines were aimed at the British; they were planted after the start of the Irgun campaign in response to the MacMillan White Paper. Looks as though the timeline needs filling out: attacks such as the 1939 radio station bombing which kicked off the Irgun campaign are missing.     ←   ZScarpia   11:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

@ZScarpia: Do you agree that the scope changed when the start date changed? --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote above. Absolutely not. If you wanted to change the scope of the article, you should have discussed it first. Also, you should have made more major changes than just fiddling with the start date given in the Lead.     ←   ZScarpia   11:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC) (Extended: 12:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC))

Correct me if I misread but (a) Zero adduced the statement in 'Perliger and Weinberg, Jewish Self-Defence and Terrorist Groups Prior to the Establishment of the State of Israel: Roots and Traditions: "In 1939, the Etzel changed its goals and shifted its focus to actions aimed against the British forces in Palestine.

This unambiguously states that Etzel made a policy move in 1939 to attack the British forces in Palestine.

(b) I gave this as a specific example that the 1944 general Zionist historiographical dateline is not shared by all sources.

The three main Jewish underground groups began their revolt against the British at different times and at some points worked against each other. The Lehi, or Stern Gang, fought the British in the early years of World War 11.' Baruch Kimmerling, Joel S. Migdal The Palestinian People: A History, Harvard University Press 2003 p.492 n.26

(c) Henry Laurens La Question de Palestine Fayard, Paris 2002 vol.2 p.484 writes that:

'(For Great Britain) At the beginning of 1942, the main effort in dealing with the situation inside Palestine consisted in fighting the Stern group' (Au debut de 1942, (La lut(t)e) contre le groupe Stern fait l'essentiel de l'actualité intérieure'

One doesn't ask for consensus against sources, which note the variance in dates, cite 1939 as marking a policy shift against the British, and note that this assumed priority in the Mandatory authority's regulation of internal affairs in 1942. No adequate argument other than a private opinion about numbers in Lehi etc., has been adduced to challenge the authority of these sources. Lehi's actions were quite consistent, and the British from 1939 certainly took them very seriously as a dangerous insurgent force. I therefore concur with Scarpia that the timeline and the text must reflect these sources.Nishidani (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nish, there is a mistake in your translation. Laurens writes that the fighting against the Lehi was the essential part of the news regarding what was happening in Palestine ("actualité intérieure"), meaning that "except that, nothing significant happened in the country or was talked about ". He doesn't say that their main effort was to fight againt Stern.

I will check precisely but I think he just meant that Palestine was quiet.

Pluto2012 (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks indeed. While rushing that, I trusted you'd come back to me precisely on this. Now that I've had a coffee to overcome my post-prandial languour, I see your point clearly. I'm not quite convinced that the singular means 'news', if only because 'la lutte contre' refers in context to what the British were actually doing, not simply what people were talking about the British doing. 'Topicality' suggests whatever receives close attention. Would you be okay with the following

'At the outset of 1942, combating the Stern group was the main topic within contemporary Palestine'?Nishidani (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nish,

It is right that "sujet d'actualité" can be translated by "topicality" but in the current case this meaning would have been expression as follows : "La lutte contre le groupe Stern était le souci principal des autorités" ou bien "La lutte contre le groupe Stern était le sujet de préoccupation principal des autorités" ; "souci principal" or "sujet de préoccupation". At present tense, that could be good too but in the other order: "le sujet d'actualité des autorités Britanniques est la lutte contre le groupe Stern."

I may be wrong but I don't see any other meaning to "actualité intérieure" than News focusing on what happening in Palestine (as opposite to news from Europe or Japan at the time). That is even more reinforced by the expression "faire l'actualité" which is clearly dedicated to the News (at the contrary than "être d'actualité".

Anyway don't worry. The main point (IZL was active in '42) remains right.

Pluto2012 (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Point well taken, and thanks for tipping me off. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Pluto, with regards to the date in the infobox when the Irgun ceased hostilities after the outbreak of World War II, as quoted near the top of this talkpage section, Eugene Rogan, in The Arabs, A History (2009), p247-258, wrote: After the White Paper was approved by the British Parliament in May 1939, however, Irgun members came to view Britain as the real enemy. The Irgun launched a series of bomb attacks on British government offices and police stations in Palestine before suspending hostilities in June 1940.

Someone might like to sort out the categories. Some restoration has been done, so the article has been included in both Zionist Terrorism and Terrorism in Mandatory Palestine, when the former is a subcategory of the latter (have to say, I think they should be entirely separate or the order should be the other way round, with Terrorism in Mandatory Palestine being a subcategory of Zionist Terrorism - the Lehi and Irgun both operated outside Palestine).

    ←   ZScarpia   15:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you on both points. I correct my mistake. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Variety of English used

It might be a good idea to fix which variety of English is used in the article in order to regularise spellings and grammar. Among other things, that would affect whether to use the definite article when writing about, for example, the Irgun.     ←   ZScarpia   13:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Foreign Policy article

I suspect that it contains at least one error and it shows signs of having used Wikipedia as a source, but the following may be useful: Foreign Policy - Calder Walton - How Zionist Extremism Became British Spies’ Biggest Enemy, 2 January 2014. The article is adapted from the book "Empire of Secrets", Calder Walton, 2013, The Overlook Press.     ←   ZScarpia   16:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

In this article, only looking at the template I found many inaccuracies, Avraham Stern was included as a commander even though he was murdered by a policeman 2 years earlier, some of the Olei Gardom were considered commanders, even though they were warriors, not commanders of the entire conflict. Lord Moyne was included as a British commander, he absolutely didn't have anything with commanding the British police against the Jews in Israel of that time. Flags are used for Britain but not for the Jewish organizations, even though the flag was the official flag of the Zionist movement, if you include flags you must include all of them. The forces of each side weren't noted, Palmach wasn't noted and so on... אשכנזישעיידן (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, what are the long additions concerning militry events between Israel and other countries after May 1948 to do with the title of the article. Jewish Insurgency in Palestine?. The declaration of the State of Israel put an end to Jewish insurgency in Palestine, and thus that material should be excised.Nishidani (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Jewish Resistance Movement

The Jewish Resistance Movement dissolved in 1946 in the aftermath of the King David Hotel bombing (see the Jewish Resistance Movement article). The article incorrectly states that it lasted into 1947 and lists attacks carried out by the Irgun and Lehi subsequent to the dissolution as having been carried out under the aegis of the Jewish (or Hebrew) Resistance Movement.     ←   ZScarpia   13:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Reenem, note, in connection with this, that your reversion of my edit broke the 1RR rule.     ←   ZScarpia   22:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Plus the JRM didn't exist before 1945, while the insurgency began in 1939 or 1944.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@AmirSurfLera: The beginning of insurgency in 1939 is WP:OR by ZSarpia, since he has never provided a source for such timeline.GreyShark (dibra) 15:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The subject of this article was (and is) anti-British violence by Zionists. That violence started and ended within the range of dates given. You changed the article title. If you want to claim that the earlier violence wasn't part of Jewish insurgency, then change the title back to what it was originally. As far as I could tell, the only justification you could produce for using different dates involved misusing a book title and some unpublished notes wherein some non-specialist academic was trying to force the events in Palestine into some kind of general conceptual framework that they didn't fit well into. That is, you could not produce any really valid justification at all. Against that, we have sourced proof that the Irgun and Lehi mounted anti-British campaigns earlier than the date you want to use.     ←   ZScarpia   23:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Part of the problem created by Greyshark is that, having changed the article title to include the word 'insurgency', he appears to now be insisting that the only valid sources use that exact term. Of course, most sources use the less Wikipedia-neutral term "terrorism" (e.g.: [16], [17]). For a source on the early anti-British actions of the Irgun see, for example, p.39 and after of Inside Terrorism by Bruce Hoffman: "The group expanded its operations to include British targets in 1939 following the government's promulgation of a White Paper in May ... But the Irgun's inchoate revolt against British rule was short-lived. Less than three months after it began, Britain was at war with Germany. Confronted by the prospect of the greater menace of a victorious Nazi Germany, the Irgun declared a truce and announced the suspension of all anti-British operations for the war's duration. ... On December 1, 1943, Begin formally assumed command of the group and finalized plans for the resumption of anti-British operations." For details of the Lehi's split from the Irgun over the issue of it's suspension of anti-British operations, and its attempts to keep those operations alive, see, for example The Stern Gang: Ideology, Politics and Terror, 1940-1949 by Joseph Heller.     ←   ZScarpia   12:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

For some reason, the termination date for Zionist anti-British violence has been changed to read 1947 in the first sentence of the Lead. As the body of the article shows, British personnel were still being killed in 1948. The Lead also contradicts the infobox.     ←   ZScarpia   12:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Acre Prison Break

Reenem has just deleted apparently sourced text which stated that three guards died during the Acre Prison break, the source being the timeline section of The Tapestry of Israel by Neil W. Taylor. My feeling is that Taylor, or the editor who originally added the text, was confusing one incident with another, perhaps the attack on the Ramat Gan police station. Coincidentally the chapter from Bowyer Bell's Terror out of Zion describing the break also begins on page 204. Unfortunately the text given in the Google Books preview has sizable gaps. On the subject of British casualties, page 214 states that five troops were injured by a mine placed by one of the irgun diversionary groups.     ←   ZScarpia   17:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Jewish Virtual Library

The British Rule in Palestine section of the Unrest & Realignment in the Middle East section of the Timeline for the History of Judaism article of the Jewish Virtual Library has been extensively cited in the current article. That JVL article is not a reliable secondary source; for one thing the author is not listed. Looking at it's description of the 22 July 1946 King David Hotel Bombing, for example, it's riddled with errors and distortions: it gets the time of the bombing wrong; the hotel didn't have a west wing (what was bombed was the southern wing, of which the western half collapsed); there was no cellar (the bombs were planted above ground in what might be called a basement); the military headquarters were concentrated in the body of the hotel; the proclaimed target of the Irgun was not the military headquarters, but the Secretariat, where the Irgun, mistakenly, thought that the documents taken during the raid on the Jewish Agency were being held; it could easily given the final casualty figures, but doesn't, masking the death toll; the order of the nationalities/ethnicities given masks the fact that by far the largest number of fatalities were suffered by Arabs. The 'facts' obtained from the JVL should be verified against other, better, sources I think.     ←   ZScarpia   15:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Not reliable. The lack of an author is especially damning. Also, much too abbreviated and cherry-picked to be useful. Zero^talk 02:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. JVL is not reliable. Most of time no information is given about the authors, so that is not acceptable. And if it would be given, the source would be the author and not JVL. The only exception that I found is an article of Yoav Gelber only published in the JVL but that is an exception among the hundreds of unreasonnable reference to the JVL. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Results box

To ascribe to Zionist insurgency the British withdrawal from Palestine, the UN Partition Plan, the Creation of Israel and the 1948 Palestine war is pretty debatable. Therefore I have deleted the Results box. The Haganah illegal immigration campaign, Zionist lobbying and the Arab resistance would probably have led to the same outcome. Zionist insurgency decreased international sympathy rather than increased it. Therefore, the Jewish Agency had to resort to black propaganda in the wake of events such as the King David Hotel bombing in order to direct opprobrium away from the Zionist paramilitary organisations.     ←   ZScarpia   02:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that all these events are complex and eg the British withdrawal was not only due to the insurgency. On the other hand there is not a single event in history that had a single cause and in this case, it is quite sure that without the Zionist insurgency the British would probably not have left. (But this is alternative and speculative history.) Pluto2012 (talk) 07:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

On the question of whether the British would have left in 1948, it's worth noting that the policy contained in the White Paper of 1939 was for an independent Palestine to be created within 10 years. On the Zionist side, Ben Gurion wanted the restrictions on Jewish immigration to be removed, but he didn't want the British to withdraw when they did because he thought that the Yishuv wasn't strong enough to face the Arab forces at that point. Except for the short period of the Jewish Resistance Movement, which ended in 1946, the Haganah was actually trying to foil the Revisionist groups. Hence you have episodes such as the Altalena one.     ←   ZScarpia   16:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Wlglunight93, please quote exactly what Peter Weiler wrote on p.172 of Ernest Bevin which supports the contention that the acts of the Irgun and Lehi resulted in a "Jewish victory". For me, at least, Google Books doesn't display the last half of the book, which includes the relevant page. Something to bear in mind is that the book was published in 1993, which, I suspect you'll find, is before many of the British government papers relating to relevant events in the Middle East were released.     ←   ZScarpia   16:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we could remove the "Jewish victory", but we should leave the facts: British withdrawal, UN partition plan, creation of Israel, 1948 war.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote before, it's debatable that Jewish insurgency was the primary factor or even a factor at all in any of those outcomes. Obviously, the Irgun claimed to have caused the British withdrawal, but the only fact you can derive from that is that the Irgun made such a claim. I recommend that the Result box is removed.     ←   ZScarpia   00:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was. But that's not the point. Insurgency stopped when the British left. We should state facts like that.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

1. So, we should clearly state that insurgency against the British, the subject of this article, stopped when the British left? Perhaps what you really want to say is that Zionist insurgency against the British persisted right up until the end of the Mandate (through the period after the date for the termination of the Mandate was announced)?

2. Where's your proof that Zionist insurgency was the cause of all the things you've listed?

    ←   ZScarpia   04:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I will bring the sources precisely but both Tom Segev and Henry Laurens report that the British left due to the cost (in human lifes and money) of the situation in Palestine where they had to keep 100,000 soldiers to maintain the order. So they definitely left because of the insurgency. (Let me bring the sources.) Pluto2012 (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The breaking point came at the London meetings where Zionist and Arab representatives prevaricated and failed to reach an agreement about the future of Palestine, after which the UK handed the problem over to the UN and announced that it would withdraw from the mandate. The troops you mention weren't there solely because of Zionist insurgency, they were there in part because of Arab opposition to Zionism; one reason for their presence was to keep miliants from two communities apart. The cost of maintaing the large garrison in Palestine wasn't the only one. Combatting illegal immigration entiled the naval costs of patrolling the Mediterranean and of maintaining internment camps, the largest of those being in Cyprus. There was also the intangible cost in the form of a tarnished reputation from publicity given to the force used against immigrants. It would be as well, if you're researching sources, to look at announcements made by the UK government after the failure of the London meetings for indications of why the British decided to withdraw from the Mandate. Unquestionably, Zionist insurgency was one factor, but it was certainly not the only one and quite probably not the most important. Arab opposition was also also a significant factor. The British were under intense pressure to allow large scale Jewish immigration to Palestine, something which could not be achieved without using armed force against the Arab population, which was contrary to British interests. For their own political reasons, the US, France, Italy, the USSR and Soviet satellite countries were all either applying pressure to allow immigration, assisting illegal immigration, or both. The Jewish Agency wanted the British to reverse its policy on immigration and then stay in Palestine long enough for the Yishuv to build itself to the point of being strong enough to resist Arab opposition. To that end, the Jewish Agency used violence by the Irgun and Lehi as a lever, suppressing it in exchange for British co-operation, permitting it if the British did not. So, as you wrote, the situation was very complicated, with the British caught between opposed communities and competing political interests. In addition, the wider geopolitical situation, with events such as the beginning of the Cold War and the commencement of the dismantling of the British Empire, with the independence of India being particularly important, affected the situation: the beginning of the Cold War increased the need for having good relations with Arab states; Indian independence removed the principle value of the Mandate to the British. To say that it was anti-British insurgency by the Zionists on its own which caused the outcomes listed in the info box is a distortion of reality. When the London meetings failed to produce an Arab-Jewish agreement, the British were caught in an impossible situation. In addition, as I've pointed out, it had been British policy since 1939 that Palestine would become independent by 1949, and that had absolutely nothing to do with anti-British Jewish insurgency; it was, rather, the result of the Arab Revolt which began in 1936.     ←   ZScarpia   17:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The book of Weiler mentioned here (which seems like quite a good book) highlights the failure of the USA to support the British in Palestine as a major factor in the British decision. That seems to be correct. In general I agree with ZScarpia that the cause was multifaceted. Zero^talk 01:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello ZScarpia,

• "The breaking point came at the London meetings where Zionist and Arab representatives prevaricated and failed to reach an agreement about the future of Palestine, after which the UK handed the problem over to the UN and announced that it would withdraw from the mandate." -> I don't agree. They didn't leave because they could not find a solution. The violence made mandatory to find a solution and they could find any (see Morris here below).
• "The troops you mention weren't there solely because of Zionist insurgency, they were there in part because of Arab opposition to Zionism; one reason for their presence was to keep miliants from two communities apart.". -> I don't agree. Even if they fear an Arab involvment, these later were clam. The 100,000 were there to take care of the Jewish insurgency and all were involved and were not enough to succeed. If the Arab had revolted even more would have been required.
• "The cost of maintaing the large garrison in Palestine wasn't the only one. Combatting illegal immigration entiled the naval costs of patrolling the Mediterranean and of maintaining internment camps, the largest of those being in Cyprus. There was also the intangible cost in the form of a tarnished reputation from publicity given to the force used against immigrants." -> That's correct. But the illegal immigration is facet of the insurgency. That is not dissociated.
• "(..) Unquestionably, Zionist insurgency was one factor, but it was certainly not the only one and quite probably not the most important. -> I agree it was not the only one but it was clearly the most important as shown eg by the Churchill declaration that British would not make a war to the Jews to give the Palestine to the Arabs after they had left India.
• "(...) The British were under intense pressure to allow large scale Jewish immigration to Palestine, something which could not be achieved without using armed force against the Arab population, which was contrary to British interests. For their own political reasons, the US, France, Italy, the USSR and Soviet satellite countries were all either applying pressure to allow immigration, assisting illegal immigration, or both. The Jewish Agency wanted the British to reverse its policy on immigration and then stay in Palestine long enough for the Yishuv to build itself to the point of being strong enough to resist Arab opposition." -> I agree that the British were under pressure but stating that they leave not to have to fight Arabs (again) seems WP:OR. They may have left to avoid to be part of the civil war. But without Jewish insurgency, there was of course no civil war. They started it.

"To that end, the Jewish Agency used violence by the Irgun and Lehi as a lever, suppressing it in exchange for British co-operation, permitting it if the British did not." -> I agree. But this makes the Jewish insurgency a cause.

• "So, as you wrote, the situation was very complicated, with the British caught between opposed communities and competing political interests. In addition, the wider geopolitical situation, with events such as the beginning of the Cold War and the commencement of the dismantling of the British Empire, with the independence of India being particularly important, affected the situation: the beginning of the Cold War increased the need for having good relations with Arab states; Indian independence removed the principle value of the Mandate to the British." -> Yes. That is part of the context.
• "To say that it was anti-British insurgency by the Zionists on its own which caused the outcomes listed in the info box is a distortion of reality." I don't agree. It is clear that one event has many causes but that doesn't prevent to state of the result of one of these causes was the event.
• " When the London meetings failed to produce an Arab-Jewish agreement, the British were caught in an impossible situation. In addition, as I've pointed out, it had been British policy since 1939 that Palestine would become independent by 1949, and that had absolutely nothing to do with anti-British Jewish insurgency; it was, rather, the result of the Arab Revolt which began in 1936." -> Yes. But that means that thanks to the Jewish revolt, instead of making Palestine an independant Arab state under British protectorate, they left and abandonned their mandate. The Jewish insurrection is the cause of that. That's the point.

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I can see p172 of Weiler's book, but I do not find there a clear statement that supports the statement in the info box. The text clearly attributes the events to both Jewish and Arab parties, with the USA getting a mention too. The closest wording is "Jewish terrorism and Arab resistance" — I wonder if Wlglunight93 wants to argue that "Jewish terrorism" is the same as "Jewish insurgency". Zero^talk 01:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you got an opinion about the best solution? 04:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of sources being provided which justify the contents of the Results infobox, I'm going to delete that infobox.     ←   ZScarpia   10:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Wlglunight93 has not been accepting the removal of the Results infobox. His grounds appear to be that it is a fact that the British left Palestine. That is a fact. However, it is not an incontestible fact that the withdrawal was a direct result of Jewish insurgency, as the infobox implied. As discussed, the reasons for the withdrawal as described by sources appear to be complex and, as I have pointed out, British policy was that the mandate would end in 1948 in any case. In the absence of sources, Wlglunight93 should not re-instate the Results box. However, I believe the only sources Wlglunight93 will manage to find which support the contention that the withdrawal was the result of Jewish insurgency will be partisan claims by supporters of the Irgun and Lehi. As other sources contradict that, the only factual claims that Wlglunight93 will be able to make will be along the lines that the Irgun and Stern Gang claimed that their acts brought about the withdrawal.     ←   ZScarpia   16:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources about the reasons of the evacuation

Hello, Sorry for the delay to answer (I am very busy IRL):

Segev

• Tom Segev in One Palestine. Complete., Holt Paperback, 1999 has a full chapter (#22 - Give me a country without a war) describing the violence and the British reaction ot this (evacuate). The conclusion of this chapter p.486 summarize the whole chapter : "Jock Jardine, of the British Council, was sick of the country. (...) "Give me a country without wars and fighting and threats and barbed wire," je wrote. "I want a ret from war tand talk of war and above all from emotionalism and nationalism and all the isms which go with immaturity and outh and muddled education!" (...) "And so we left," the last high commissioner wrote". -> the link between the violence and the reason to leave is clear. That is the only one given in this whole chapter.
• Tom Segev chapter #23 "The last salute", p.489 refers to the pressure: "The British left the country because more and more of them had come to realize that the Balfour Declaration had been a mistake -something various officials had said twenty years earlier. (...) This was a widespread feeling. (...) "The American press and American Zionists are responsible more than anyone else for the present troubles in Palestine., Chief Secreatery Gurney wrote in his diary, adding "The sooner we go the better.". p.490, he refers to the pressure of the US so that the Britsh leave Palestine: "(...) At one stage America seemed to be trying to force Britain to remain in Palestine and reaffirm its support of the Zionist movement, against its will. This additional pressure from abroad convinced the British that in leaving the country they were saving themselves from sinking even deeper into a quagmire" -> The pressure is given as a catalyst (but not a cause) to leave both to the "troubles" and the "quagmire".
• Tom Segev p.490 studies the question: "For many years thereaftr, Israelis conducted an agitated and sensitive debater over the question of who had really gotten rid of the British." and explains the political and mythical issues related to this debate. He clearly reduces this influence and put forward the arab rebellion of 1936-1939. He writes: "The ARab rebellion (...) had brought hiometo the British that compromise between the arabs and the Jews was impossible. Only war would decided the issue. (...) The arab rebellion had made the British sick of Palstine. [WWII] had delayed their exit, but durig the war they continued to discuss how to rid themselves of the country when the war ended. Terrorism and illegal immigration only served to intensifiy a feeling that had crystallized among many of the Britihs by the end of the 1930s." -> From his point of view Jewish insurrection is not the root of the British departure, which is the Great Arab Revolt.
• Tom Segev p.494 considers the geostrategic reasons to stay in Palestine. His conclusions are that it was not strategic to stay particularly in front of the conflictual situation in Palestine. Referrring to Churchill's mind: "The 100,000 soldiers deployed there were costing the Briths taxpayer £30 million a year. (...) This huge force was necessary not only to suppress Jewish terrorism but to check the growing tension between the Jews and the Arabs." Referring to Clement Attlee: "[if we left India we will not] have a war with the Jews in order to give Palestine to the Arabs". (Nb: I find this quote particulary clear.). Referring to Again: "[The situation] is exposing our young men, for no good purpose, to abominable experiences and is breeding anti-Semites at the most shocking speed." (Nb: here again: the enemy is clear".)

Despite Segev writes that the root was the 1936-1939 rebellion, all the reasons he provides from primary sources are clearly the Jewish insurgency and terrorism, strengthened by pressure and the absence of good reasons to stay.

Henry Laurens

In La Question de la Palestine, Tome 2, chap. XIII: "L'agonie du mandat", he writes p.571 (last paragraph dealing with the reasons and context of the departure of the British:

• "Si le terrorisme juif est un des facteurs essentiels influant sur la politique britannique, la lecture de la correspondance de cunningham montre combien il est préoccupé par la menance d'une nouvelle révolte arabe, qui, selon lui, serait plus dangereuse que la révolte juive." (Translation: "If Jewish terrorism is on the main factors influencing British policy, the reading of his correspondence shows how worried he was by the threath of a new Arab revolt that, accroding to him, would be more dangerous than the Jewish revolt".

Again, the Jewish revolt is given as a main cause of the British departure (and in fact it is the only one he explicitely gives) even if nuanced by what could become the situation would the Arabs revolt too. I think that Laurens makes reference to this to show that the civil war after the partition vote that followed was expected.

Benny Morris

In 1948 (2006), p.36 the last paragraph of the chapter dealing with the background, Morris writes:

• With no acceptable military solution to the Jewish guerrilla-terrorist and illeal immigration campaigns, and with no political solution to the Zionist-Arab impasse, britain had reached the end of the road".

I didn't find a reference to a fear of an Arab revolt there. The conclusion is quite clear regarding the reason why they leave: the impossibility to bring a political or military answer to the situation.

Conclusions

All events have many causes and are multi-faceted but if we follow the reasoning that a cause can only be mentionned if it is the only one that generated a consequence, then no result can be given to any event. The Palestinian exodus is not a result of the 1948 war only and the capitulation of Japan was not the result of Hiroshima and Nagazaki.

In the current case all these three (and for sure all historians) give the Jewish Revolt and/or terrorism as a cause, if not the main cause, of the departure of the British even if the idea has been in the air for 10 years and if other events influenced (economy, pressure) this decision. Of course this violence was accompanied by political attempt to find a compromise in which the Palestinian Arabs were involved and it could be guessed it would explode.

My mind is that a result of the "Jewish insurgency in Palestine" is the "Abandon of the Mandate".

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the hard work you've put into checking sources and writing a reply. I go along with the part of your conclusion which says that Jewish insurgency was a contributing factor in the way that the mandate was terminated and the British left (though British policy was that the mandate should end around 1948 in any case, though without partitioning Palestine). Saying that Jewish insurgency was a contributing cause to the latter is not the same as saying that the latter was the, or a, result of the former, however, though you might say that the latter was partially the result of the former. In cases such as the current one, where the results of the subject of the article are somewhat indeterminant, is there any point in having a Reults infobox?     ←   ZScarpia   18:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Internment.

From the Internment article: "Internment is the imprisonment or confinement of people, commonly in large groups, without trial. Collins English dictionary defines internment as 'the act of interning or state of being interned, esp of enemy citizens in wartime or of terrorism suspects.' Thus, while it can simply mean imprisonment, it tends to refer to preventative confinement rather than confinement after having been convicted of some crime. Use of these terms is subject to debate and political sensitivities."     ←   ZScarpia   19:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

SS Exodus - status of people being carried.

In this edit, Drsmoo changed the description of the people being carried onboard the SS Exodus from 'passengers' to 'refugees', commenting, "Refugees is preferable to passengers. Their status as refugees was one of the reasons the British actions generated controversy." The term 'refugees', is a suitable description for people seeking to escape persecution or danger, for instance Jews fleeing the slaughters occurring in the chaos of postwar Poland. However, the Jews trafficked across Europe by the Mossad Le’aliyah Bet to be carried on the Exodus did not all originate in areas where those conditions applied. Drsmoo's claim that the passengers had refugee status is, in most cases, not true. For a detailed account of displaced persons, including Jews, in Europe after the war, see The Long Road Home, The Aftermath of the Second World War (2011) by Ben Shephard. For s detailed description of the SS Exodus operation, see the work of Idith Zertal (a review of one of her books which refers to people being carried on the Exodus as 'passengers' is here).     ←   ZScarpia   15:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The Exodus was a carefully planned and executed publicity stunt. Nobody was on the ship by accident, and for sure nobody was on the ship primarily to flee from one place to another. So even though some of the passengers selected from DP camps might have been reasonably called refugees in other circumstances, calling them refugees in these circumstances just plays into the publicity game. Zero^talk 23:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I've re-added the accurate refugees text with multiple reliable sources including the US Holocaust Museum, Yad Vashem, Yahoo and The New York Times. Thanks. Drsmoo (talk) 06:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality means that you can't refer to the passengers as refugees unless all the sources agree. You can provide umpteen sources saying that they were refugees, but I've already provided (better quality) sources which say otherwise. Note the claim by the Yahoo source that the passengers were all Holocaust survivors, which is refuted by the New York Times article.     ←   ZScarpia   13:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

All sources describe them as refugees. Incidentally, so does the rest of this article, as does the article on the Exodus ship, as do reliable sources in general. Since you are clearly unwilling to edit constructively on this issue and have demonstrated your bias by reverting reliable sources, I'll be taking this to the edit-warring noticeboard. Drsmoo (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

As you should have been able to figure out from my previous comments, I don't agree with your assertion about what 'all' reliable sources say (and I've listed a couple of good quality sources which contradict the standard Zionist line). Which good quality sources have you referred to? It's up to you whether you go to the edit warring noticeboard, but note that they may not agree that the small number of conflicting edits which have been carried out here constitute an edit war and also note that you have been editng against the views of three other editors (counting the original editor). As you should be aware, what other Wikipedia articles say is a pretty weak form of argument.     ←   ZScarpia   15:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I wrote that the rest of this article describes them as refugees as well. Drsmoo (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The passengers on the Exodus? Really?     ←   ZScarpia   17:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes Drsmoo (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The book you mentioned by Idith Zertal also refers to the people on board the Exodus as refugees. On page 45: "The British indeed deserved the denunciation uttered by the French-Jewish statesman, Leon Blum, himself a Buchenwald survivor, in his daily Le Populaire, when the Exodus refugees were deported back to Germany aboard British vessels from the small port in southern France where they had been anchored for nearly a month." Also on page 46: "The clash between the two dramas, which indeed undermined the enormous impact of the Exodus affair, exposed, among other things, Ben-Gurion's functional and expedient attitude toward the Exodus refugees." and "Ben-Gurion elevated the Exodus refugees even higher than the ghetto rebels, "because they [the rebels] had no choise, but these Jews [aboard the Exodus] had a choice." As well as on page 47: "When Haim Weizmann in London, aided by Leon Blum in Paris, attempted to prevent the deportation of the Exodus refugees to Germany, and tried, against the odds, to find an agreed, provisional, and more humane solution for them on French soil or in some other European country, so as to spare them the nightmare of returning to Germany, Ben-Gurion intervened to prevent him." and then thrice more on page 47 as well. Drsmoo (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I referred to the work of Idith Zertal in general. I gave a link to a review of one of her books above, but the book I have personally is From Catastrophe to Power, The Holocaust Survivors and the Emergence of Israel (1998), which I'll see if I can dig out. When I've had a look at it, I'll get back to you.     ←   ZScarpia   20:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

You wrote "For s detailed description of the SS Exodus operation, see the work of Idith Zertal (a review of one of her books which refers to people being carried on the Exodus as 'passengers'" However the actual book refers to the people on the Exodus as refugees, repeatedly.

Btw, From Catastrophe to Power refers to them as refugees as well: On page 244: "In the coming days, however, there was less need for the courage shown by the Exodus refugees." As well as "The shocking fate of the Exodus refugees, about to be returned to Germany after a harsh month on prison ships off France, did not offset the political considerations of the Zionist policymakers at the time" On page 245: "Levine suggested acting quietly and cunningly to smuggle the Exodus refugees out of the camps the British had prepared for them near Lubeck, transfer them to Belsen, and then bring them to Palestine with immigration certificates that he had in stock." On 246: "Humanitarian considerations and the desire to avoid bloodsheet, then, ostensibly guided Ben-Gurion in his decision not to involve the Exodus refugees in any violent reaction to their deportation to Germany." As well as: "How can such humanitarian considerations be reconciled with Ben-Gurion's harsh reaction to Weizmann's efforts to prevent the disembarkation in Hamburg of the Exodus refugees in the first place and to have them returned to France". There are more as well. I'll be using Idith Zertal as a reference. Drsmoo (talk) 00:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, subject to what Zero has to say, I end my objection.     ←   ZScarpia   11:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 25 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. A pleasantly uncontroversial discussion for this topic area. Jenks24 (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Jewish insurgency in Palestine → Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine – The current title is too ambiguous, especially considering the recent reference to State of Palestine as Palestine (see 19th August discussion). Furthermore in current sense, one can confuse Jewish insurgency in Palestine with Israeli settler violence. Therefor, prose the rename. GreyShark (dibra) 14:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support for clarity. bd2412 T 14:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The addition of the work Mandatory is more clear and neutral and gives to the reader a temporal anchor. Pluto2012 (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Zero^talk 23:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support Title should match main article Mandatory Palestine. Number 57 11:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support Debresser (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support Nishidani (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Timespan of the Zionist anti-British insurgency

Zionist attacks on the British started before WWII and carried on until 1948. This edit by Reenem unilaterally changed the scope of the article by restricting the period covered to 1944-1947, ignoring previous talkpage discussions such as this. Given the lengthy discussions which previously have taken place about the scope and the fact that, at creation, the purpose of the article was to cover all Zionist anti-British violence, I am going to go through the article reverting dates. As far as the insurgecies start date goes, editors might like to note what Richard Crossman said in a debate on the subject terrorism in Palestine in the House of Commons on 31 January 1947: "The Irgun declared war in 1937 against the British Empire. With the exception of a short armistice in 1941, it has claimed that there has been a state of war between Great Britain and the people of Palestine ever since." That puts the Irgun's declaration of intent two years earlier, even, than 1939, the year which, prior to Reenem's edit, was given as the start of the insurgency.     ←   ZScarpia   12:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, right, we should follow RS as to the starting point. Zero^talk 11:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Nope, we have talked this over. 1939 is the end of the Arab Revolt (which also included Irgun activity) and it is the background. Nothing to do with the 1944 Irgun revolt.GreyShark (dibra) 07:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

After pushing to change the article title you then proceeded to insist that the scope of the article be restricted to the period after Begin's declaration of a revolt. We did talk this over ... and I told you to change the article title back if you don't think the title and the article's scope now match.     ←   ZScarpia   12:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Reenem: - unfortunately Zscarpia has not asked your opinion. Too bad.GreyShark (dibra) 07:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately ... beforehand, Reenem did not ask anyone's opinion for his change (and I'm guessing he didn't read the talkpage) But then, Wikipedia doesn't prescribe that editors must always ask for permission to make edits or reverts, doesn't it? For that matter, did you pay any attention to my objections to your flimsily-based justifications for changing the long-term version of the article.     ←   ZScarpia   12:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The Irgun actually proclaimed it's revolt in February 1944, after fighting on the British side for a few years. And then there was a series of small-scale attacks and ine high profile assassination until the Hunting Season forced the underground to suspend opeeations for a few months. The serious campaign didn't even begin until late 1945. An insurgency is a conflict, a sustained series of attacks, not a list of individual attacks separated by years. Or should we put the IRA's campaign in the 1920s with the one decades later? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reenem (talk • contribs)

In the previous discussion, multiple excellent sources were brought that the Irgun began its attacks earlier and then suspended them for a few years. Nothing to disprove that was brought. This is all pretty silly, we should follow the sources and that's all there is to it. Zero^talk 09:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

And, of course, the article isn't only about the actions of the Irgun, but also of the Lehi/Stern Gang, which split away from the Irgun largely because of the Irgun's early-wartime decision to suspend its attacks, and later incidents (such as the shooting down of RAF planes).     ←   ZScarpia   12:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

And none of those excellent sources refer to the insurgency period (1944-1947), but to Irgun activity during the Arab Revolt of 1936-9. Unless, you wish to merge this article with List of Irgun attacks, there is no source referring to pre-1944 events as "Jewish insurgency". Apparently both Zero and Zscarpia engage in WP:SYNTH...GreyShark (dibra) 18:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

If you don't think that the word insurgency describes the sporadic early (1939-1940) Zionist attacks on the British, then change the title back to its previous one, or find a new one which you think adequately describes the content of the article. But, don't tinker with the dates given in the article because you don't think the article's contents now match the changed title pushed for by Greyshark.     ←   ZScarpia   13:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC) (Note: by the previous version of the title, I mean the version before the major title change pushed for by Greyshark, not the recent one which inserted the word Mandatory before the word Palestine.)

This article started as a history of the armed conflicts which took place between Zionists and the British (including Zionist anti-British terrorist activity, except, of course, 'terrorism' is a word to a avoid, so an alternative has to be found, 'insurgency' being the latest fixed on in article's title). As far as I'm concerned, that is still its purpose: no explicit, non-covert attempt to change the article's scope, seeking consensus through the talkpage, has ever been made. If you really want to have an article dedicated to Begin's revolt, subverting the current article isn't the way to go; the way is open to you to start a new article if you wish, but I'd suggest that it would not be worthwhile to do so: not only would you be duplicating material already in the current article, you would be duplicating material already in the Irgun article too. You used the IRA as an analogy. If you're writing a history of Irish armed opposition to the Normans/Angevins/English/British, then of course, you start centuries ago. Even if you're writing a history of the IRA, then you don't pretend that its attacks started in 1969 (though attacks by the PIRA did start thereabouts). Nor would you ignore the border campaign of the 50s or IRA activity in wartime Britain on the grounds that they were insignificant compared to later or earlier activity. Only if you're writing a history of the IRA violence which started in 1969 might you start in 1969 and, even then, it would be sensible to start with a description of the civil rights protests, the anti-Catholic reaction (such as house burnings) and the British intervention which led up to the situation.     ←   ZScarpia   13:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

All the detailed histories of the Irgun that I can find have essentially the same account: after the White Paper of 1939, the Irgun decided to start attacks on the British. It was not just the tail end of the Arab Revolt, but a new chapter directly in response to British decisions. The new policy was suspended in September but a faction didn't agree and this internal argument eventually led to the split in the Irgun in 1940. This was only a brief period but the case for suppressing it from the article seems to be nonexistent. Zero^talk 00:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

But you brought no sources naming 1939 tail of the Arab Revolt as some separate event. In fact there was very little activity in summer of 1939.GreyShark (dibra) 18:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

David Levine, David Raziel, 1991, pp.93-94 writes:

The White Paper caused internal dissension and division among the various elements of the yishuv. The "organised yishuv" would, Ben Gurion would later say, "fight the war as if there was no White Paper, and fight the White Paper as if there was no war" - but he referred here only to illegal immigration. The Irgun reacted to the British policy by carrying out attacks on British emplacements, contrary to the previous policy of combating only Arab terrorism. This continued to be the Irgun policy up till the outbreak of the war. (...)

pp.175-176 Levine gives several exemples of attacks against British and Arabs after the 1939 White Paper publication:

[T]he Irgun had (...) undertaken a series of attacks against British military installations and Arab centers. On May 29 a bomb was set off in an Arab movie theather in Jerusalem. On June 4, telephone booths were blown up in Tel Aviv and on the 9th in Jerusalem. On the 12th, bombs were exploded in the central post office. On the 21st, telephone booths were exploded in Haifa. On the 30th an Arab was killed in the Mea Shearim section in Jerusalem, and later 12 Arabs were injured in a bombing of a cafe. On July 30 the radio stating in Jerusalem was attacked.

p.176:

The Irgun began, upon Raziel arrest, to grope for direction. (...) An article by Stern [published after July 29] called for a change of policy, advocating attacks not only against Arabs but also against the British.

Pluto2012 (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Exactly - the word "insurgency" is not used.GreyShark (dibra) 09:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Greyshark, I wonder exactly how many times it is necessary to bring explicit sources against your claim "you brought no sources naming 1939 tail of the Arab Revolt as some separate event" before you will stop claiming there are none. You can start reading in the previous discussion. One source: "After the White Paper was approved by the British Parliament in May 1939, however, Irgun members came to view Britain as the real enemy. The Irgun launched a series of bomb attacks on British government offices and police stations". Another source, incidentally the single source whose authors have the greatest credentials regarding Etzel so far: "In 1939, the Etzel changed its goals and shifted its focus to actions aimed against the British forces in Palestine. The change was due both to the cessation of Arab violence on the one hand, and on the other, a list of restrictions imposed by the British on the Jewish settlements regarding various issues, including the number of Jews allowed to enter Palestine and the Jews' ability to purchase land." (in both cases, fuller quotations and sources above) So not only was it not a part of the Arab revolt but one of its causes was the end of the Arab revolt. Levine's book just quoted by Pluto also makes it clear that the attacks on the British started in consequence to British actions and decisions. They overlapped for a short time with the terrorism against Arabs but these sources make it clear that they represented a new direction that had been avoided before. The book Years of Wrath, Days of Glory by Irgun commander Ben-Ami details how Etzel was planning an open insurrection against the British (not just attacks, but open fighting in the streets) when the leadership was arrested and the war started. Ben-Ami makes it clear that only Jabotinsky's demand that Germany had to be defeated first led to the suspension of this path (see Chapter 3: "From Diplomacy to Rebellion (The 1939 White Paper)"). Zero^talk 22:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

This article is named "insurgency". 1939 events within the scope of Arab Revolt are not referred to as "Jewish insurgency". So far no source mentioned "insurgency" in reference to Irgun's actions in 1939. Attacks is one thing; insurgency is an organized large-scale campaign, which was led by the Arabs in 1936-1939. Only the 1944 revolt of Irgun and later actions of other Jewish paramilitaries came to be referred as insurgency.GreyShark (dibra) 09:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Here are some sources naming the events as "insurgency":

Eyes of the underground: Jewish insurgent intelligence in Palestine, 1945–47. [18]

The British Army and Jewish Insurgency in Palestine, 1945-47. [19]

Comrades and Enemies: Arab and Jewish Workers in Palestine, 1906-1948. "Jewish insurgency of 1945-1947" [20]

UCA - Political Science 9. British Palestine (1917-1948) name the conflict "rebellion" phase as 1944-1948

All refer to 1944/5-1947 events.GreyShark (dibra) 09:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)