4 ms·

Do you really think something from 1946, before the current state of Israel was even founded, is really relevant in this discussion? If we judged every country

by edanm 2y ago

Do you really think something from 1946, before the current state of Israel was even founded, is really relevant in this discussion? If we judged every country based on its 1946 behavior, we'd have to write off pretty much everyone.

dredmorbius 2y ago
Yes. Most particularly given the responses made to similar methods used currently against the party which had executed KDH, as it turns out that there is in fact precedent. The personnel in the KDH event are significant both historically and politically, one later serving as head of state. And I find most people are entirely unaware of the incident, as I was until the past decade or so. (That's "recent" for me.) I don't recall the specific inspiration for my search in which I'd learned of the event, but I think it was simply looking for what the first modern use of terrorist-type explosive attacks was. There are of course many earlier instances, and the notion of the bomb-throwing anarchist is reduced to cliche. But in terms of a significant planned attack intended to inflict mass casualties against an asymmetric foe, the KDH instance is an exemplar. As I've said in several recent comments on pager/radio threads, I'm not a partisan to either side, I both condemn actions taken by both, and have a deep sympathy for uninvolved civilians (which is not, of course, all civilians). What I do believe is that a deep understanding is best served by a realistic view, understanding that most hats are at best grey, and that there's more history than many people are aware of. I'm trying to help spread that awareness.
- edanm 2y ago
  I have no complaint with the idea of spreading more awareness, and think that's a good thing. That said, you were specifically responding to this comment: > Too bad militants don't really follow those same rules regarding uniforms etc. Trust was lost long ago, before even the first suicide bomber wearing civilian clothes set themselves off in a crowded market. My point was that this is long enough ago, and before Israel was even founded, so bringing it up as a counter-example of Israeli behavior, which is what you seemed to do, is very fraught. Israel didn't even exist at that time!
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    The meta-context is that "suicide bomber" tends now to be strongly associated with Islamist / Palestinian groups. At least in the post-WWII middle-eastern context, that's not where the practice of bombing as a terror tactic began. Again, it surprised me to learn this, and I find many others are similarly unaware. And again: the situation is complex and nuanced.
    - edanm 2y ago
      That's fair, though there was a lot of violence against Jews before this, things like the Hebron massacre, though they weren't terror attacks. Also, I'd point out that the attack on the King David Hotel was widely condemned by almost all mainstream Jewish and Zionist organizations, including the official Porto-army of Israel which turned into the IDF, and including by Ben Gurion, Israel's first Prime Minister. Btw, if you want a fact that's sure to wow people - I'm fairly certain that, to date, the KDH bombing was the deadliest terror attack in the Palestinian/Israeli territory. (Excluding October 7th, of course, which I'd personally categorize as an invasion, not as a single terror attack.)
      - dredmorbius 2y ago
        I hadn't thought of casualty count, though the 1983 Marine Barracks bombing (Beirut, Lebanon, not occupied Palestine) was > 3x as deadly: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombings> (As I've said: all sides here.) NB: Skimming that article right now, the bombing seems to have pre-dated Hezbollah (generally given to have formed in 1985), though Iran's hand in affairs is fairly likely, and "Islamic Jihad" may have been a label adopted by Hezbollah or a nascent precursor group. The event is somewhat coupled to events in Palestine given the PLO's involvement in Beirut.

by edanm 2y ago

dredmorbius 2y ago

Yes. Most particularly given the responses made to similar methods used currently against the party which had executed KDH, as it turns out that there is in fact precedent. The personnel in the KDH event are significant both historically and politically, one later serving as head of state. And I find most people are entirely unaware of the incident, as I was until the past decade or so. (That's "recent" for me.) I don't recall the specific inspiration for my search in which I'd learned of the event, but I think it was simply looking for what the first modern use of terrorist-type explosive attacks was. There are of course many earlier instances, and the notion of the bomb-throwing anarchist is reduced to cliche. But in terms of a significant planned attack intended to inflict mass casualties against an asymmetric foe, the KDH instance is an exemplar. As I've said in several recent comments on pager/radio threads, I'm not a partisan to either side, I both condemn actions taken by both, and have a deep sympathy for uninvolved civilians (which is not, of course, all civilians). What I do believe is that a deep understanding is best served by a realistic view, understanding that most hats are at best grey, and that there's more history than many people are aware of. I'm trying to help spread that awareness.

edanm 2y ago
I have no complaint with the idea of spreading more awareness, and think that's a good thing. That said, you were specifically responding to this comment: > Too bad militants don't really follow those same rules regarding uniforms etc. Trust was lost long ago, before even the first suicide bomber wearing civilian clothes set themselves off in a crowded market. My point was that this is long enough ago, and before Israel was even founded, so bringing it up as a counter-example of Israeli behavior, which is what you seemed to do, is very fraught. Israel didn't even exist at that time!
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  The meta-context is that "suicide bomber" tends now to be strongly associated with Islamist / Palestinian groups. At least in the post-WWII middle-eastern context, that's not where the practice of bombing as a terror tactic began. Again, it surprised me to learn this, and I find many others are similarly unaware. And again: the situation is complex and nuanced.
  - edanm 2y ago
    That's fair, though there was a lot of violence against Jews before this, things like the Hebron massacre, though they weren't terror attacks. Also, I'd point out that the attack on the King David Hotel was widely condemned by almost all mainstream Jewish and Zionist organizations, including the official Porto-army of Israel which turned into the IDF, and including by Ben Gurion, Israel's first Prime Minister. Btw, if you want a fact that's sure to wow people - I'm fairly certain that, to date, the KDH bombing was the deadliest terror attack in the Palestinian/Israeli territory. (Excluding October 7th, of course, which I'd personally categorize as an invasion, not as a single terror attack.)
    - dredmorbius 2y ago
      I hadn't thought of casualty count, though the 1983 Marine Barracks bombing (Beirut, Lebanon, not occupied Palestine) was > 3x as deadly: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombings> (As I've said: all sides here.) NB: Skimming that article right now, the bombing seems to have pre-dated Hezbollah (generally given to have formed in 1985), though Iran's hand in affairs is fairly likely, and "Islamic Jihad" may have been a label adopted by Hezbollah or a nascent precursor group. The event is somewhat coupled to events in Palestine given the PLO's involvement in Beirut.