In article <1993Apr28.020434.14265@Virginia.EDU> rj3s@Virginia.EDU ("Get thee to a nunnery.....") writes: >hm@cs.brown.edu  writes: >> In article <1993Apr26.234331.7303@Virginia.EDU> rj3s@Virginia.EDU ("Get thee to a nunnery.....") writes:  >> rj3s, you say that there is no evidence that what motivated the Irgun >> to attack Dir Yassin was its strategic importance. In fact, Begin, >> who was in charge of the Irgun, wrote that Dir Yassin was attacked for >> its military significance.  >> Dir Yassin was merely a battle in the War of Liberation. People died. >> But the thing was never intended to be a masacre. That this hapenned >> is a tragedy of war - not a crime of the Irgun.  >I agree with you Harry, however you must also concede then that >Arab terrorism is also a tragedy of war.  	No one is forced to blow up airplanes.  Terrorism is a choice made by people because they do not want to work for peace.  >remember that the >Palestinians have no other effective target but civilians in >order to further their cause.  	There are *lots* of military targets in Israel.  There are lots of legitamate targets in Israel.  Old ladies, children, and civilians in general are not acceptable targets.  	If the only person you can kill is a civilian, you hold your fire.  If that means you can't kill anyone, then you can't kill anyone.  Claiming that civilain targets are acceptable because they are easy kills is rediculous.  >If Irgun had to attack civilian targets to terrorize in order that >they might obtain some objective, I'm sure they would have done so.  	Did they make a policy of it?  >I also don't >exclude Irgun's action against British soldiers as terrorism.  	Did you mean excuse? :)  Killing a soldier and killing a civilian are two very different acts.  >The British were showing signs of favoring a compromise with >regards to Palestine, and the Irgun and branch off groups made >a point to kill young British recruits so that mothers and >fathers back in Britain would get angry at Britains continued >presence in Palestine.  	No, they killed soldiers so that the British government would leave.  The objective was not to scare civilains, but show that the cost of staying was way too high.    	In contrast, a terrorist kills civilains to scare other civilains.  They use random violence against people to make a point that no one is safe until their demands are met.  An analogy would be the Irgun blowing up Harrods or 10 Downing.  >  Sounds like a form of terrorism to me, and not much removed from >Arab terrorism.  	Thats because you missed the essential point of arab terrorism, which is to scare civilains away from Israel, by killing those who have something to do with Israel.  It is to kill Jews because they might be Zionists.  It is to kill people who live in Israel because of where they live.  The targets are rarely soldiers, or other people who understand they might be attacked in the line of duty, but innocent civilians, to underscore the message that no one who deals with Israel is safe.  >	I'll reiterate again.... both sides are screwy, but >I'll favor the underdog in this case because I do think they >were a bit screwed.  	Oh, you mean you favor the Israelis, outnumbered 2 to 1, outgunned, surrounded by hostile states only one of which has signed a peace treaty in 45 years?  You favor the Jews, people like Leon Klofhinger, a cripple who was thrown off a boat because he was Jewish? You support the right of the Jewish people to live in peace?  	Why, thank you for your support.  Adam  Adam Shostack 				       adam@das.harvard.edu