Talk:Irgun

From Academic Kids

They claimed that all land "between the Nile and the Euphrat" rightfully belonged to the Jewish people.

Although this view was at times raised by some extremists (in particular, following the Six-Day War), to my best knowledge, the Irgun has not pursued these views. Yair Stern, the founder of the Stern Gang has (again, to my best knowledge), but from a discussion that I'd heard with the participation of a former Stern Gang man, the organization had not adopted this view, and Mandate of Palestine was seen, even by it, as a reasonable approximation of the Promised Land. --Uri

Elian, your attempt to paint me as an extremist on the mailing list won't wash. As I said before, the main point of my deltion was this line -- Its most well known activity was the bombing of King David Hotel in Jersualem in 1946, killing close to a hundred innocent people. Calling victims "innocent people" is hardly NPOV. -- Zoe

So why didn't you just remove the word "innocent" if that's not NPOV? Is this reason enough for a wholesale revert including deletion of substantial content? BTW, my intention of the post on the mailing list was not to attribute any extremist views to you, but to issue my seriuos doubts if you would handle edit conflicts in this field in a fair way. Please don't interprete this as a personal attack, I have just watched several edits of you in this field and I miss a readiness on your side to discuss stuff and trying to settle conflicts instead of just deleting and reverting. If you promise me that you will never use your sysop powers in anything which has to do with arab, israeli and islamic stuff, I have absolutely no objection against you becoming sysop. --Elian

I'm not going to promise you anything, because I don't believe you have any veto power on the subject. -- Zoe

There is no veto except for Jimbo AFAIK. so what do you want to do then? I would really appreciate if you addressed my questions. --Elian

---

Things missing: the connection with Betar; role in 1948 war; split which created Lehi.

---

Uri Avneri is not a pacifist. He is radical leftist and heads Gush Shalom but he do supports violence as a legitimate mean to achieve goals. MathKnight 15:24, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Contents

1 Jayjg - your reverts 2 Incomplete 3 Terrorists? 4 Re: rv most of User:Guy Montag's changes 5 "Terrorist" categories 6 NPOV 7 Cleanup started March 20, 2005 8 Article name 9 Question data 10 Facing genocide 11 Attacks on British targets 12 Lehi 13 Numbers 14 Caption on Irgun poster

Jayjg - your reverts

Why did you revert the additions? Are they incorrect? Josiah 23:58, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They were completely unsourced (unlike the original article, which was fully sourced), and obviously written by someone whose first language was not English. I think there could be at least a reference or something before adding that much information to the article, don't you think? Jayjg 03:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable--Josiah 03:16, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Incomplete

I'm new to this encyclopaedia, so forgive me if there is a more appropriate way to add comments, but upon reading this article, it seems woefully incomplete. The articles on Hagana and Menachem Begin give good information about Etzel. There is no mention in this article about the Altalena! The Altalena affair is a pivitol piece of Etzel history. The wikipedia article on it is pretty good, and contradicts the statement in your article here that Etzel was simply "merged" with Tsahal. And what of Dier Yassin? It is a big debate if it was simply a pitched battle followed by unfortunate killings or if it was a massacre, but there is little question that Etzel and Lehi were the main Jewish participants. Again, the wikipedia article on the battle contains good information that should at least be mentioned in Etzel's history. --Avik 06:22, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Editors are welcome to add information to Wikipedia articles. Please try to ensure that they have valid sources, and that the information is presented in a NPOV way. If you are unsure whether this is the case, it is recommended you bring them to the Talk: page first. Jayjg 15:56, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Terrorists?

Jayjg, you have recently reverted an edit by one A. Khalil in which the 1937-1939 attacks were called "terrorist attacks". Do you mind explaining why they cannot be considered terroristic? --Doron 01:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In general in Wikipedia I've seen a trend to avoid the word "terrorist" wherever possible, since it just gets people arguing about the meaning of "terrorist". Instead the actions are described, and people can decide for themselves whether or not they are terrorist. It's not a hard and fast rule, but it has been used quite a number of times to exclude the word "terrorist" from articles describing various Palestinian groups and their actions. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

By automatically deleting the word "terrorist" whenever it is applied just because there may be someone out there that may disagree, the word "terrorist" is rendered meaningless. What's the point of having a word that you can never apply? How about deleting the word "terrorist" from the September 11, 2001 attacks article? You must be aware that there are people who do not regard that attack as "terroristic". No - the word should be avoided whenever there is controversy. The controversy should be well founded, not just someone not liking his favorite terrorist group being labeled "terrorist" because it's not a nice word. If there is controversy, there should be given arguments for both sides (Hezbollah, for instance). While I agree there may be controversy regarding the designation of the Irgun as a terrorist group, I cannot see how the attacks of 1937-1939 be regarded as anything but terrorism. This was a series of attacks by shooting and explosions deliberately targeting Arab civilians and causing the lives of dozens, perhaps hundreds of civilians. I'm sorry, but when you're an underground group carrying out attacks which target civilians for the purpose of terrorising them, the least you can expect is being labeled "terrorist", I don't think this is a matter of point of view.

I think Doron has a valid point. One important distinction that needs to be made before we can settle this is the definition of Terrorism (oh no, not again!). In the sense that their goal was to terrorize to make a political and military statement, then yes, some of their actions were terroristic. In the sense that their goal was to indiscriminatly target civilians for the sake of killing civilians, they would not be considered terrorists. Their actions would generally probably fall in the same area as an Arab group who targetted combat soldiers, but not civilians (assuming such a group existed). I actually think the article as written is quite good -- it discusses the Irgun as a terrorist organization in the eyes of the British, but recongnizes their goals were not violence for violence's sake. Mikeage 11:45, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But that's the point, Mikeage, their actions during this period (some of them, at least) were aimed at Arab civilians, not the British authorities. This included bombing places like marketplaces, cafe's, and cinema theatres, which were civilian targets by any standard, and (unsurprisingly) their casualties were mostly Arab civilians. The goal of terrorism is not the killing itself (as you can read in Terrorism), but it is some political goal that may often be legitimate in itself (in this particular case, reaction to Arab violence). Terrorism describes the means to achieve the goal, and in this case I think it is very clear that Irgun's tactics were terroristic, especially during this period.--Doron 12:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The article already describes them as terrorist, and characterizing attacks inevitably leads to definitional and edit wars. If the attacks in question were all on civilians, then the easiest way to solve the problem is to describe them as "attacks on Arab civilians"; then everyone knows exactly what is meant. If the attacks were on armed Arab groups as well, then the description "terrorist" is questionable. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fine, then it should read "attacks on Arab civilians" then?

If there were indeed attacks on civilians only, then that's exactly what I think it should read. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

AgreedMikeage 04:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re: rv most of User:Guy Montag's changes

1. Irgun was a small group, calling it a "paramilitary organization" is a huge exaggeration.

2. Uri Avneri was a member of Irgun 1938-1941. He was never a member of the Stern Gang.

3. The "Lehi" is known in English as the Stern Gang, the link should point to that article, and not to a disambiguation page.

4. Several details were erased for no apparent reason. --Doron 00:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Guy, again, as anybody who knows anything about Avnery knows, he was a member of the Irgun (see, e.g., [1] (http://www.knesset.gov.il/mk/eng/mk_eng.asp?mk_individual_id_t=238)). The source you have was written by the journalist Ari Shavit, and is undoubtedly a mistake. --Doron 10:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll stick with your edit on Avnery.

Guy Montag 22:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Terrorist" categories

First, there's no contradiction between "National Liberation Movement" and "Terrorist Organization", both can describe the same group of people, as the former describes purpose and the latter describes means.

If Irgun is not in the "terrorist" category because some Irgun-sympathizer doesn't like the word "terrorist", then we may as well cancel the whole family of "terrorist organization" categories, as there will always be someone offended by a categorization. One cannot include Hammas, for instance, as a terrorist organization without including Irgun, so either they are both under that category, or they are both not under it. Wikipedia is not the place for expressing your personal political inclination, both these organizations are liberation movements, both target civilians for the purpose of terrorizing them into submission, the fact that you sympathize with one and oppose the other should not reflect on the contents.

I think that the purpose of categorization is to provide a quick link for people who generally know what they're looking for. It is not to pass judgement. The body of the article should elaborate on any dispute regarding the categorization if such exists.--Doron 07:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The categorization in general tends to follow convenient lines; I'm sure there are people who would like to categorize the Salvation Army as a terrorist organization if it suited their purpose. But neither the King David bombing nor the battle at Deir Yassin qualifies as terrorist actions by any reasonable standard. You'll note that I did not reclassify the Stern Gang article. --Leifern 11:57, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

I won't argue about King David Hotel, and "war crime" would probably be more appropriate for Deir Yassin, but what about the dozens of innocent Arab civilians killed in the 30's? Hardly the work of the Salvation Army. I reckon Irgun deserves the "terrorist" classification far more than Lehi. --Doron 08:47, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We've gone over this before. I think that the bombings of markets, etc., qualify as terrorist acts, although more research needs to be done to verify the list. Deir Yassin and King David are not, imho, terrorist acts. Part of the issue is that those bombings were characteristic of one era in the organization's relatively short life. The British classification doesn't impress me at all - any "government" that sends ships with refugees back to be slaughtered has no moral standing to classify a group as "terrorist." --Leifern 21:36, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Would you agree (assuming the information I provided is true) that the Irgun committed terrorist attacks during the 30's?--Doron 07:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I am on record as being in favor of banning the label "terrorist" in most cases, but if we have to use it in category names then the Irgun obviously belongs. To answer Leifern's "objections": (1) No it wasn't just one era, the Irgun returned to indiscriminate killing of Arab civilians in 1947. A few examples I could find easily: Dec 10, 13 killed by bombs in a Haifa cinema and at Damascus gate; Dec 12, 4 killed by bomb thrown at bus; Dec 29, 15 killed by bomb at Damascus gate. (Deaths of Jewish and Arab civilians in that month were about equal.) (2) No, it wasn't the "British classification", it was the classification of practically everyone including the mainstream Jewish organizations and the Jewish press. The Palestine Post story of the King David bombing had "terrorist attack" in the headline, and this was normal. Here is a little something from the Palestine Post of Dec 19, 1947:

WARNING TO TERRORISTS
At an urgent meeting in Jerusalem yesterday, the Vaad Leumi Executive issued a strongly-worded warning to the terrorists that "the Yishuv will not permit them to destroy the new world we are about to build." The Executive stressed that, against its will, the Yishuv had been plunged by the terrorists into a whirlpool of blood which threatened political suicide at a time when the community was deeply concerned with its safety and security and the transition to independence. The statement continued: "In the face of abominable spilling of innocent blood in our streets, which cannot be condoned because of the repressions of an outgoing Government, the Yishuv will rouse itself to a renewed and intensified struggle against its destroyers, to save its honour, existence and future."

(3) About "sending ships with refugees back to be slaughtered", it would be educational to learn the name of one such ship. --Zero 13:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

If there must be a category for Zionist terrorist groups, it seems to me that the Irgun belongs in it. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

In reading more carefully through this article, it is quite apparent to me it's nothing but anti-Zionist propaganda piece. Some of the allegations are at best controversial, and the fact that the Altalena isn't even mentioned speaks volumes. With time I'll do research and clean up, but in the meantime this is a shameful joke of an article. --Leifern 12:04, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

I agree that the article is in neglect, but what are those anti-Zionist propoganda allegations that are controversial at best?--Doron 07:56, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup started March 20, 2005

I'm researching the history of the Etzel and cleaning up the article as I go. As is consistently the case when it comes to these things, the truth is always a bit more complicated than most people realize, so I've focused on a few things:

• Etzel actually went through several distinct phases in its short history, and it's anyone's judgment which should be used to characterize the nature of the organization. I think it is better to describe their actions and the rationale for them and let the reader decide on his/her own.
• It is very difficult to sort out what activities - and especially those perpetrated against Arab targets - were the result of renegade, unauthorized initiatives, and which were directed by Etzel leadership. Former leaders of Etzel are not inclined to discuss these in anything but general terms, and other sources (e.g., the Jewish Agency, pro-Palestinian organizations) have an agenda. I'm not giving up on this, but it will take time to work out. I have written to the webmaster on the Etzel website to get further pointers. I have Begin's autobiography somewhere in my bookshelves.

It's not difficult to sort it out as many admissions of culpability (together with excuses) have been made by former Irgun members. For example see Y. Ben-Ami, Years of Wrath, Days of Glory; Memoirs of the Irgun, or heaps of testimony in Bell, Terror out of Zion. Today you can ask almost anyone who belonged to Etzel in the late 1930s and they won't try to deny it. --Zero 15:50, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The history of Etzel is in many ways a microcosm of the war against the British mandate seen from the Jewish perspective. The leaders were affected by the desparation of the situation in Europe both during and immediately after World War II; the relationship with the British fluctuated tremendously; and the leaders were torn between militant "means justifying the ends" and what was later to become "purity of arms."

--Leifern 12:52, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

Brief list of Irgun bombings in the 1938-9 time period. This is "diminished force", Leifern?

1. July 6, 1938 - 28 Arabs killed, more than 60 injured, Haifa Arab market bomb
2. July 25, 1938 - 39 Arabs killed, more than 50 injured, Haifa Arab market bomb
3. Feb 26, 1939 - 33 Arabs killed, 45 Arabs and 2 Jews injured, several incidents
4. Jun 2, 1939 - 5 Arabs killed, 19 wounded, 4 bombs in Jerusalem
5. Jun 19, 1939 - 18 Arabs killed, 24 wounded, Haifa market

There were a few similar things in 1947-1948 too. --Zero 15:50, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I continue to research these incidents and will add as I find more information about them. --Leifern 11:59, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

I replaced "argue" with "assert," for this reason. "Argue" implies that the speaker is making a logical argument, i.e., if A is true, and B is true, then it must follow that C is true. The statement that follow the verb are intended to be assertions of fact. They are certainly not indisputable, so I agree that the original "state" is inappropriate. --Leifern 12:03, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

Article name

I see the article name was changed from Irgun to Etzel. Was this discussed anywhere? I am no native English speaker, but to my best knowledge, "Irgun" is the common English name for the group. I admit that "Irgun" by itself is a strange name (meaning "organization" in Hebrew, the first word of "Irgun Tzva'i Le'umi", meaning "National Military Organization"), but Etzel is also strange, being the Hebrew pronounciation of the group's acronym ITzL, not a name on its own.

• Which is the common English name?
• Is this an attempt to propagate a new English name?
• There are different spellings of the full name, one should be chosen.
• Why is there a hyphen? I haven't seen this spelling anywhere in Hebrew.
• If Etzel is chosen, then the other names ought to be changed in the article.

Former members of the organization now consistently refer to it as Etzel, both in Hebrew and English writing. Irgun is a redirect page, so anyone who writes Irgun in another article will not run into link problems. --Leifern 12:01, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

I'm not worried about redirection, I'm concerned with the name. So again, is "Etzel" the common English name? Not "Irgun"?--Doron 14:15, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Irgun is the common English name, as the over 70,000 Google hits shows. The 3,500 or so Etzel hits (in the context of Irgun) indicated that it is much less common. Wikipedia policy regarding common names indicates this should be moved back to Irgun. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:44, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Etzel is popular amongst Israelis. In English, the most common is Irgun. Ergo, we should use Irgun. We should also remove the non-existent comma in the full name. --Zero 08:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Question data

What is the source of this claim: "During the Great Uprising (1936-1939), in which more than 500 Jews were killed by Arab attacks"? I don't believe it. --Zero 08:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As you'll see, editors of the Great Uprising article are struggling to find accurate date themselves. 400 is OK as a low-ball number; but I took out estimates for Arab casualties, simply because much more research needs to be done about what actions were done by Etzel, which by others, and which were caused by Arabs themselves. (As a corollary to the fact that Israelis these days get blamed even for suicide bombers who only succeed in blowing themselves up). --Leifern 17:48, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

Facing genocide

Read any history book, and you'll see that it was apparent already then that persecution of Jews in Nazi-controlled areas had reached the level that met the common definition of genocide. There is no question that the actions of Irgun were motivated by the need for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Jews, to save their lives. Thanks to the British, they failed. --Leifern 11:41, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

I've read tons of history books and you are wrong. In 1937 Jews were fleeing from persecution but not (as far as any of them knew, and as far as anyone suggested at the time) from genocide. You can prove me wrong by quoting something different directly from 1937. --Zero 13:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Zero, have you read Wikipedia's genocide article? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:23, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but it's a question of conveying information to the reader. If we write that a Jew fled Europe in 1937 to escape genocide, everyone will read it as that the Jew was fleeing from the coming Holocaust. They will not interpret the word according to broader definitions adopted later on. In 1937 not even most leading Nazis knew the Holocaust was coming. We should state motivations in 1937 in terms that would have made sense to those people at that time. --Zero 22:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, the word didn't have any definition in 1937, it wasn't even coined then, but I see your point. Leifern has changed the phrase from "genocide" to "discrimination, murder and pogroms". Is that better? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's better, but he wants this page to read like an Irgun propaganda pamphlet. The Irgun was tying up thousands of British soldiers during 1944 and 1945 while the war against the Nazis was raging. Think about it. --Zero 23:01, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Etzel would have been delighted if those tied-up soldiers had left to fight the Nazis while allowing unrestricted Jewish immigration. And it's worth noting that Etzel fighters fought bravely on the British side for several years during World War II. On a more personal note, I don't have an axe to grind for either Etzel or the Haganah; but I do think that even this organization deserves a full description what they wanted to accomplish, what they did, and what they ended up accomplishing. --Leifern 23:33, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

Well, let's work through the various issues so it stays NPOV. Are there any remaining issues with that particular segment? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Attacks on British targets

The mandate was under British military authority, so it's a bit silly to talk about "civilian" British targets. --Leifern 11:43, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

No it wasn't. The British High-Commissioner was a civilian. There was a period of martial law in 1938 and a very brief one covering a few cities in 1947, otherwise the administration was civilian. It wouldn't make any difference anyway, since martial law does not turn civilian bodies like the tax department in to military bodies. For a summary of Irgun activities in 1944, see [2] (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/anglo/angap05.htm); you will see my summary is accurate. When Begin announced his 1944 revolt, he said (rather ingenuously, imo) that he was going to attack only civil targets so as to not harm the British war effort. And that's what he did. --Zero 12:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"The King David Hotel was the site of the British military command and the British Criminal Investigation Division" - is that not correct? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The rooms that were destroyed were used by the Secretariat of the Palestine Government and the Defence Security Office of British Military Headquarters. The former was part of the civil administration and the latter was part of the military administration. There was also a CID (police) branch in the hotel but I don't think it was destroyed. At this stage (1946), the Irgun was attacking any and all British targets. The idea that they restricted themselves to military targets is a myth. --Zero 22:32, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was just trying to find out which kind of target the King David Hotel was. It was a mixed British administrative/military/police headquarters? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it was mixed. According to normal standards, it was a military target due to the military offices there. However, one should not describe the Irgun's action as an attack on the military headquarters. They were perfectly happy to blow up the civilian government offices too. Their target was the Mandate government, not just the Mandate military. --Zero 23:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I didn't understand that argument. Are you saying it was a military headquarters, and a military target, but it should not be described that way, since they would have attacked it even if it wasn't a military headquarters? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On the assumption that I must have a point in there somewhere.., I'll rephrase. We can agree that the hotel was a military target. However, it was not attacked because it was a military target. It was attacked because it was a major administrative center of the Mandate government (both its civil and military wings). If there were no military personnel in the building, it still would have been attacked. Evidence for that is that the Irgun attacked plenty of government buildings which housed no military personnel at all. --Zero 15:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

O.K., but aren't you still making an assumption here ("it still would have been attacked"). And, regardless of what they might haven't done if it weren't a military target, doesn't the fact remain that it was? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:35, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of Etzel's attack against British targets was to create publicity around the fact that the British mandatory government was ineffective and under siege. The attack against the King David Hotel was limited to the wing of the hotel that housed the military headquarters. I'll look through it and see how I can reflect this better, but Zero's edits are tendentious. --Leifern 18:31, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

Leifern's edits might as well have been written by Menachem Begin. --Zero 22:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lehi

There's much more to what "Yair" Stern said than that the British are worse than the Germans; in any event, it belongs in the article on Lehi, not the one on Etzel. --Leifern 17:45, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

Numbers

The article about Irgun currently (following Leifern's edit) does not state a number of Arabs killed by Irgun in the 1930's, although it did state a number of Jews killed . Since the article is about Irgun, one would think that the number of people killed by Irgun would be more relevant than the number of people killed by the Arabs, since the former describes Irgun's actions while the latter describes Irgun's pretext for its actions, thus being of secondary importance to the article. Yet Leifern feels perfectly fine with quoting the number of Jewish victims, and uneasy with the mentioning of Arab victims. Quoting just a number of Jewish victims in an article about a Zionist military organization is unbalanced, and obviously reflects Leifern's personal POV.

Therefore I have removed the number of Jewish victims for now, so that this matter is discussed. The least an article about Irgun should have is the consequences of their actions, i.e., its victims. During the 1930's, Irgun attacked Arab civilian targets, including restaurants and markets, killing more than 250 Arabs. I have provided a list of attacks against Arabs which was compiled and published by Irgun's intelligence officer, based on Irgun's archives, shortly after the War of Independence (see reference in that article; second edition published in 1981 by the Israel Ministry of Defence). I see no reason to doubt it, and I think it can be considered as reliable almost as if it were an official Irgun document. That is to say, it is almost as if Irgun claimed responsibility for killing those 250 or so.

Your count seem factual enough, I've taken the text from your article and inserted it here. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Caption on Irgun poster

The term on the cartoon is "Eretz Israel," which refers to the "Land of Israel." This is not the same as "Medinat Israel" (State of Israel") or for that matter "Malchut Israel" (Kingdom of Israel). It can certainly be argued that Irgun thought that a future Jewish state should cover all of what they considered Eretz Israel, but this does not translate to "territorial aspirations." The caption under the caricature of the Six Day War merely describes the contents of the caricature. The equivalent caption under this caricature would be: "Irgun poster showing a fist and rifle over 'Eretz Israel' encompassing the entire British Mandate of Palestine." By all means, you can make that the caption and I won't object the least. --Leifern 21:18, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

Agreed with Leifern. Whether secular or religious, many recongnize that the historic kingdom of Israel / Judah extended to the "East Bank" of the Jordan and beyond. Religeous Jewish tradition teaches that the future messianic borders of Israel will extend (roughly) to the area in the poster, but no one currently advocates wars of conquest against, say, Jordan. Although the Irgun's ultimate goals may have included the full area shown in the picture, it would be misleading to caption it as "territorial ambitions," which implies a plan for conquest. An accurate description of this poster would probably note that the area shown represented an ideal, although not necessary a realistic goal. I think Leifern's caption represents a more accurate portayal of the reality at the time. Mikeage 08:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are both wrong on factual grounds. The Irgun aspired to create a Jewish state on the whole of the area labelled "Eretz Yisrael" on the poster. Their writings were full of this territorial claim. That is the plain meaning of "territorial ambition". Leifern's phrase "thought ..should cover all" and Mikeage's phrase "goals .. included the full area" are also both within the plain meaning of "territorial ambition". I wonder if either of you have English as a first language. --Zero 10:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First, that would be "if either of you has English as a first language." The issue relates to the intended message of the poster, and whether one can infer from it that the map refers to "territorial aspirations" in the sense that it advocated territorial conquest, or whether it was merely intended to point out that all of the mandatory area was Eretz Israel, as determined by the San Remo Conference. I read the poster to mean that a) the Jewish homeland is not limited to what the British government feels is appropriate; b) armed resistance is the only way to further our cause. The proposed caption leaves the reader with the impression that Etzel was all about capturing land; which it clearly wasn't. --Leifern 15:17, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

Nevertheless, now I want to wonder about the source of this particular poster. The poster says "Irgun Zvai Leumi be-Yisrael". If the poster dates from 1940-1943, this poster is from Stern's group almost certainly, since "Irgun Zvai Leumi be-Yisrael" is exactly what it was called then. If so, it belongs in the Lehi article. If the poster is from before 1940, and plausibly after 1943, the writing is still reasonable for an Irgun poster since "be-Yisrael" can be just "in Israel" appended to the organization name instead of part of it. I will look in a few places... --Zero 11:06, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)