It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
On the first day of July 1947, a small group of British soldiers, Jewish residents,
and newspaper reporters was making its way through a thicket of eucalyptus trees at the
outskirts of Netanya, a small town north of Tel-Aviv.4 They were searching the woods to
find the dead bodies of two British sergeants, Clifford Martin and Marvyn Paice, who
were killed several days earlier by the “Etzel”, the National Military Organization
(NMO) a dissident Zionist underground movement. As they approached their target ,a
horrifying sight appeared. The corpses of the two soldiers were hanging from a tree, their
shirts covering their heads, dry blood that had dripped from their open mouths staining
their close, and a short statement attached to their chests. The note explained that the two
were executed after an NMO court had heard them testify to their crimes and added that
the two asked for pardon but the court rejected their plea. The note neither mentioned nor tried to hide the vengeful character of this deed. The execution of three NMO members
several days earlier by a British military court left little room for doubt.
Since the 1930’s and especially after the end of WWII, the Jewish community in
Palestine was divided in its relation to the British rule. The mainstream Zionist
Organization, “Ha'histadrut Ha’Zionit,” was determined to replace the British rule and
found a Jewish State, but limited its struggle to diplomacy rather than combat. Military
force was used, at least in theory, only for defense against Arab attacks, as the name of
the Organization’s military unit The Hagana, literally “The Defense,” suggests.
The NMO, a dissident organization, which broke off from the Hagana as early as
1931, took a more militant approach. Its members believed that the Jews, especially after
WWII, should take control over their lives and political destiny. Thus, the NMO refused
to accept the Hagana’s “Restrain Policy” (mediniut havlaga) and declared “open season”
against all British military presence in the land. In addition, the NMO made use of more
extreme “terrorist” measures in its struggle with the Arabs.
For the NMO, the killing of the two British sergeants had a different significance.
It was clearly not an extraordinary crime of violence, but nor was it an ordinary attack
against British military targets. The British soldiers were kidnapped in an attempt to deter
the British authorities from executing three NMO members who were caught during a
previous operation – the break-in to the most guarded prison-house in Akko and the
release of its Jewish inmates.
Five years after the episode Menachem Begin, the head of the NMO at the time
and later Israel’s first right-wing prime-minister, explained how he understood the
kidnapping and hanging in Netanya.
“None of the British that were caught, up to that point, and there were many
British prisoners along the years, was used for the purpose of revenge. We have never
executed the method of revenge against the British in response to the death of one of our
warriors in battle during combat. We have taught our men that they have the role of
warriors, which might lead to their imminent death. Only in one single case did we
announce in advance that we would use that cruel rule, which is part of the laws of war
the name of which is retaliation. We have proclaimed” – continued Begin, “that if the
British will not treat our soldiers as war-prisoners but rather treat them as criminal
offenders and hang them, we will respond with a guillotine for a guillotine.”
In the above passage, Begin lays out the basic structure of revenge as an unjust
but justifiable act. The tone is apologetic precisely because it is clear to the leader of the NMO that it is unjust to kill an unarmed soldier outside of the battlefield. He
nevertheless, attempts to justify the action, distinguishing it from a brute act of violence.
To do so he first suggests that the act of revenge was merely a response to an already
established act of violence. The British are those who started the cycle of non-combative
violence when they decided to put on trial prisoners of war as if they were criminals. This
violent act of injustice called for a response in kind. Thus revenge appears as an unjust
act of violence, which can nevertheless be justified as a retaliation to a similar unjust act
It is significant however, that the NMO did not simply avenge the death of their
brothers-in-arm by killing two British soldiers. Rather, they set a formal judicial process:
pressed charges, tried according to procedure, and only then ordered the execution of the
Moreover, it was of essential importance for the NMO to turn the execution into a public spectacle. So much so that the Jewish establishment feared that the corpses of the two would be hung for display of an electric pole in one of the busy streets of Netanya.
Approximately twenty-four hours after the sergeant’s execution, the NMO
broadcasting station, “The Combative Voice of Zion”, delivered the following
announcement:16 “The two British spies, Martin and Paice, that were held in underground
arrest since July 12th 1947, were put on trial after the completion of the investigation of
their criminal anti-Hebrew activity. Martin and Paice were convicted for the following
A. Illegal entrance to our homeland.
B. Membership in the British criminal-terrorist organization know as
“The British Occupation Army in the Land of Israel” which is
responsible for negating the right of life from our people, acts of
repression and cruelty, torture, the murder of man, women and
children, the murder of war prisoners, the murder of wounded
prisoners and the expulsion of Jewish citizens from their
C. Illegally holding weapons designed to uphold oppression and
Zionist Terrorist Menachem Begin Murdered 100 Arabs
In Cold Blood at Deir Yassin on April 9, 1948
Surprise: The World Tribunal Never Prosecuted Begin
Early in the morning of April 9, 1948, commandos of the Irgun (headed by Menachem Begin) and the Stern Gang attacked Deir Yassin, a village with about 750 Palestinian residents. The village lay outside of the area to be assigned by the United Nations to the Jewish State; it had a peaceful reputation. But it was located on high ground in the corridor between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, and according to Plan Dalet, it was to be destroyed and the residents evacuated.
In all over 100 men, women, and children were systematically murdered. Fifty three orphaned children were literally dumped along the wall of the Old City where they were found by Miss Hind Husseini and brought behind the American Colony Hotel to her home which was to become the Dar El-Tifl El-Arabi orphanage.
The Bombing of the King David Hotel
The King David Hotel was the site of the British military command and the British Criminal Investigation Division. The Irgun chose it as a target after British troops invaded the Jewish Agency June 29, 1946, and confiscated large quantities of documents. At about the same time, more than 2,500 Jews from all over Palestine were placed under arrest. The information about Jewish Agency operations, including intelligence activities in Arab countries, was taken to the King David Hotel.
Irgun leader Menachem Begin stressed his desire to avoid civilian casualties and said three telephone calls were placed, one to the hotel, another to the French Consulate, and a third to the Palestine Post, warning that explosives in the King David Hotel would soon be detonated.
On July 22, 1946, the calls were made. The call into the hotel was apparently received and ignored. Begin quotes one British official who supposedly refused to evacuate the building, saying: "We don't take orders from the Jews." As a result, when the bombs exploded, the casualty toll was high: a total of 91 killed and 45 injured. Among the casualties were 15 Jews. Few people in the hotel proper were injured by the blast.
For decades the British denied they had been warned. In 1979, however, a member of the British Parliament introduced evidence that the Irgun had indeed issued the warning. He offered the testimony of a British officer who heard other officers in the King David Hotel bar joking about a Zionist threat to the headquarters. The officer who overheard the conversation immediately left the hotel and survived.
Originally posted by khunmoon
Thanks for bringing up the subject, PieMaN.
Let it be suplemented with this one:
Zionist Terrorist Menachem Begin Murdered 100 Arabs
He was out early. Here's the attack that for the first time drew worldwide attention to the term "Terrorism".
May 17, 1938 - An Arab policeman was killed in an attack on a bus in the Jerusalem-Hebron road.
July 5, 1938 - 7 Arabs were killed in several shooting attacks in Tel-Aviv.
On the same day, 3 Arabs were killed by a bomb detonated in a bus in Jerusalem.
December ll, 1947. Six Arabs were killed and 30 wounded when bombs were thrown from Jewish trucks at Arab buses in Haifa; 12 Arabs were killed and others injured in an attack by armed Zionists on an Arab coastal village near Haifa.
April 17, 1938 - An Arab was killed by a bomb detonated in a cafe in Haifa
July 6 1938 - 18 Arabs and 5 Jews were killed by two simultaneous bombs in the Arab Melon market in Haifa.
December 13,1947. Zionist terrorists, believed to be members of Irgun Zvai Leumi, killed 18 Arabs and wounded nearly 60 in Jerusalem, Jaffa and Lydda areas. In Jerusalem, bombs were thrown in an Arab market-place near the Damascus Gate; in Jaffa, bombs were thrown into an Arab cafe; in the Arab village of Al Abbasya, near Lydda, 12 Arabs were killed in an attack with mortars and automatic weapons.
Originally posted by jlc163
I still have a preference for Israel. I always have a preference for an ally.
Originally posted by iqonx
Alot of people don't know the following fact.
FACT : The jews where the first group of people/terrorists to use bus bombings in the jew/arab palestinian conflict.
Originally posted by ThePieMaNAn ally should never bring you problems. An ally should never take the lives of citizens of its allies. An ally as a representative of our morals and values should never fail in presenting that image. An ally should never constantly take advantage of the other monetarily. An ally should never involve itself in the others politics or attempt to sway its representatives, or hold its representatives to blackmail. An ally should not give false information in order to rescue or preserve its own citizens and sacrifice the others in order to hold and keep power over its enemies. An ally does not misuse, abuse or break contracts. Pie
Originally posted by jlc163I still have a preference for Israel. I always have a preference for an ally.
Originally posted by jlc163
As my own country takes it's own citizens lives, I expect allies to take my peoples lives, just rediculously much less often than my enemies.
As an ally partnership is designed to benefit your own country, and ally who doesn't try to tak eadvantage of me is very suspect. As my own country gives out false information to the whole world, why should the whole world, especially allies give us nothing but truth? How in the world do we assume that we don't lie to Israel, for that matter?
There are certain issues that a government decides are required for allieship, and when they are breached, they will posture like peacocks until one backs down or they go to war, no longer allies. An ally who doesn't abuse the allyship ia not seeking the best interest of their own country.
Originally posted by smalllight
I'm impressed by you, Pie man. Please, keep up the amazing work. You actually made the local radio in the US for your find a while back. Which is funny, because I loved this site before then. You know?
I voted you for Way Above too!!!!!
There's no arrr-guing that pirates are in.
As of last weekend, Disney had plundered $1 billion worldwide with "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest," and International Talk Like a Pirate Day -- that's Sept. 19, for you landlubbers -- has gone from an inside joke between two friends to a mock holiday celebrated in more than 40 countries.
Yet tales of Jewish piracy, which stretch back thousands of years, aren't in the public's consciousness, and Hollywood even has been known to remove a pirate's Jewish background. As a result, we're stuck with portrayals of pirates as wayward English seamen on a murderous rampage.
But now a forthcoming book hopes to change that image by focusing on Ladino-speaking Jews whose piracy grew out of the Inquisition. "The Jewish pirates were Sephardic. Once they were kicked out of Spain [in 1492], the more adventurous Jews went to the New World," said Ed Kritzler, whose yet-untitled book on Jewish pirates will be published by Doubleday in spring 2007.
Jewish piracy has been around since well before the Barbary pirates first preyed on ships during the Crusades. In the time of the Second Temple, Jewish historian Flavius Josephus records that Hyrcanus accussed Aristobulus of "acts of piracy at sea."
Kritzler has studied pirates for 40 years, and said that the public is fascinated with them because they're "rugged individuals in a world of conformity. They carved their own identity, independent of the rules and strictures of society."
But determining the exact number of Jewish pirates is difficult, Kritzler said, because many of them traveled as Conversos, or converts to Christianity, and practiced their Judaism in secret.
While some Jews, like Samuel Pallache, took up piracy in part to help make a better life for expelled Spanish Jews, Kritzler said others were motivated by revenge for the Inquisition.