Please read the following short article on an aspect of the Irgun that we have not covered in class: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/irgunill.html and answer the following questions:
1. What aspect of the Irgun does the article highlight?
2. Does this article change your perception of the Irgun in any way? Why or Why not?
3. The argument has been made that there is a difference between a terrorist organization and an organization that carries out terrorist acts. Do you agree or disagree with this distinction? Why? Could this distinction apply to the Irgun? Why or why not?
1. Illegal immigration into Israel
ReplyDelete2. It does not change my opinion because regardless of the good outcomes of the Irgun, it does not change the fact that they also created many irreversible problems for the future state of Israel.
3. I think that it is only a technical difference and only matters when trying to be diplomatic. In all practicality, it makes no difference between whether or not it is a "terrorist group" or a "group that commits terrorist acts", because in the end they are still killing people and your family is at risk. In a life or death situation you are not thinking about the ideals behind the act, but rather the fact that they dared to hurt your family. The Irgun is no different. Yes, they were not directly attacking the Israelis but with a movement like that on their soil, they had the right to be scared they too would eventually be attacked.
This article highlights the aspect of immigration. My opinion is not completely changed by this article. I still feel that what they did was wrong, due to the fact that they killed innocent civilians in the process of trying to kill the British. I do not see though, that they really did a lot to protect their citizens and really tried getting them to safety. I do not really think there is such a difference in terrorists or groups that actually do the terrorizing. People who do the acts are just as liable for the people who plan them or think about them. The people who carry them out may even be worse. I do not think the Irgun was a terrorist organization. I think rather it was a group of people who wanted to protect their land. I think they had to do what they had to do. As always I am conflicted with thinking they are actually right in doing what they did. Even though those innocent people had to die, in the big picture the Irgun saved our state.
ReplyDelete1. This article highlights the Irguns’ role in illegal immigration and how they supported and supplied it. It focuses on an aspect of the Irgun that people often look over: how they helped people. Although the instance with the Patria shows that not everything is seamless, for the most part, this was a very friendly thing which should prove to everyone that at the heart of the Irgun lies a people who want their homeland.
ReplyDelete2. Personally, I do not have many negative feelings towards the Irgun. I know that they have some sore sports, but I appreciate their work in taking the fate of Israel (Palestine at the time) into their own hands. It’s actually pretty sad that the Jewish Agency wouldn’t help them and that it had to be illegal by the British, but it’s good that the Irgun did what it could to get as many people to the land of Israel as possible. What they did was really amazing. I mean, all Zionist leaders agree that if you want to have a Jewish state you need Jews there, and what the Irgun was doing here was bringing Jews into Israel. Somebody with negative feelings towards the Irgun should at least admit that what they did here was brave and right; the Irgun isn’t all that bad.
3. This is a very tricky question. On the one hand, no organization should have the word ‘terrorist’ affiliated with it at all, whether it be ‘terrorist organization’ or ‘terrorist acts.’ It’s just bad. Even just at face level, because image is really everything, if something is seen as a terrorist organization then it has no credibility. Furthermore, carrying out terrorist activity is harmful to innocent civilians- which includes your own people and yes, even civilians on the other side (just as valuable, they’re still innocent people!)- and is wrong.
That being said, I think there is still a different between the two, and it is what separates the Irgun from being a terrorist organization. At some points in history, the Irgun did carry out acts that are seen as terrorist, yes. But that is not what they stood for. Yes, they were trained militarily and took what they had to by force. But at the core of all of this, they were standing up for Israel and they were helping Israel achieve independence and statehood. So people can talk down on them all they want, not give them any credit for anything, and put them down as some radical movement, but they should know that they are making a sweeping assumption that isn’t necessarily true. There are consequences and rewards that come out of everything, in the case of the Irgun people only see the bad. I think it’s sad that people only see the Irgun as being terrorists and don’t see them for the heroes that they were. I suppose that’s the real sign of a hero, though: it doesn’t matter what people think or see, it matters what they believe and what they do. In the case of the Irgun, they did just enough to make the dream of Israel a reality.
1. The article focuses on the part that the Irgun took in illegal immigration to Palestine over the years, and especially in the early post WWII years.
ReplyDelete2. It does and it doesn't. I already knew that the members of the Irgun fought for the immigrants/settlers of Palestine and that they were willing to break the law to get done what they thought needed to be done. It was interesting that almost no violence was used around these settlers. No violence was used to purposefully hurt ANYONE on the ship (as far as I can tell from the article). Some people were killed accidentally by and explosion that was expected to be much smaller and much more confined. There is no mention in the article of even the British soldiers ON the ship being purposefully harmed in any way. There may have been reasons for that such as that the ships being unable to get to shore without the soldiers or problems like that, but the fact does remain that the soldiers were not harmed. From the beginning, when presented with the two views (that of the Irgun and that of the Irgun's opposition), I have been able to see both sides. Overall, this article really hasn't changed my perception of the Irgun. After all, it wasn't like the settlers had done anything against the Irgun. They were the reason the Irgun was there at that point in the first place.
3. I believe that there is a difference between the two, but only in ideology. Usually, a terrorist organization #1: will be proud of their murders, and #2: will not deny that they are murderers vs. people fighting for a cause. In practice, whether an organization calls itself a terrorist organization or not, there is no change in the fact that innocent civilians are dying. Saying that a group is not a "terrorist group" but a "group fighting for a good cause" makes no difference to the victims and their loved ones. I think that this applies to the Irgun, but less so than other organizations might. We know that they mainly attacked British military places, rather than randomly going into cities and homes of civilians and murdering people. They did end up killing some and injuring many civilians however, and at those times they were almost as bad as the terrorists that come to kill innocents.
1. This article highlights the immigration aspect of the Irgun.
ReplyDelete2. The article doesn't really affect my opinion. I still think that killing innocent civilians was wrong, even if it was in the process of trying to kill the British. No matter what the good outcomes, the Irgun created problems for the future state of Israel that far exceeded any accomplishments they might have achieved.
3. I don't think there is a difference - an organization that carries out terrorist acts is a terrorist organization. Yes, an organization implies that there is planning and excess thought that goes into those acts; but the groups that carry out terrorist acts have the same results as a terrorist organization - they're both killing people and putting their families at risk. Personally I really don't think that the Irgun should be considered a terrorist organization, but they were a group of people who were really trying to protect their land and nation - they just chose to go about that in a horrible way.
1. This article explains the Irgun's part in helping illegal immigrants into Palestine.
ReplyDelete2. This article does not change my opinion of the Irgun as a whole, but it does provide some new and different ideas about the sort of organization that they were, and the ideas and morals that they stood for. In other words, I am still deciding.
3. I think there is a difference between a terrorist organization and an organization that carries out terrorist acts. A terrorist organization's aim would be to commit as much terrorism as possible, and not to attempt to help anyone or spread a message. AN organization that commits terrorist actions may be a part of something bigger and stand for other things, and communicate a different message. Even though I disagree with the Irgun's tactics for achieving their goals, I think that they were not necessarily a terrorist organization, but rather an organization that committed acts of terrorism while standing for something else. Even though they killed many people and destoryed many things (which is not exactly okay...), they still were trying to get people's attention and support for their cause, which I think is the main distinction in this scenario.
1.This article focuses on the Irgun's role in illegal immigration and what they provide for the people they are helping immigrate.
ReplyDelete2. I never thought that the Irgun was doing anything bad, for I thought that they were doing what was right to protect the Jewish people of the state of Israel. From this article, we see the Irgun trying to help more and more jews into the land of Israel. It is unfortunate that the Jewish Agency would not help the Jews into Israel. They had to sneak around and be imported illegally which is sad for our state should be flourishing with Jews and jewish culture. The Irgun did what was right and helped import as many jews as possible.
3. Difficult to answer, I think that there is distinction between a terrorist organization and one that carries out terrorist actions. Obviously, neither are a type of group you want to strive to be. The Irgun was a group that carried out terrorist actions. They were just fighting to protect their people but did not do it in the best way possible.Being labeled with the word terrorist is never a good sign. You will get hatred towards you and will not live easily trying to carry out your roles. They did do some activities which hurt themselves and innocent people, but in all they are just trying to help the Jews.
1) The articles portrays the Irgun's position on illegal immigration
ReplyDelete2)The Irgun has both good and bad effects. However, ultimately, the Irgun only has bad effects on Israel and makes Israel have problems that they never would have had to deal with.
3) Both terrorist organization and organizations that carry out terrorist actions kill innocent people and ruin families. The Irgun made terriorist actions to protect their people. But that is no excuse and it should have never happened. It killed innocent people and hurt innocent families.
1. What aspect of the Irgun does the article highlight?
ReplyDeleteThe article talks about illegal immigration into Palestine.
2. Does this article change your perception of the Irgun in any way? Why or Why not?
This article does not and does change my opinion because I still think the Irgun was wrong for killing innocent people but they also helped them. The Irgun killed innocent people but not purposely they did it all in favor of the Jewish people and getting them into the land of Israel.
3. The argument has been made that there is a difference between a terrorist organization and an organization that carries out terrorist acts. Do you agree or disagree with this distinction? Why? Could this distinction apply to the Irgun? Why or why not?
Just because someone carries out terrorist acts, does not mean they are a terrorist organization. The Irgun was doing things totally in favor of the Jews just they way they did things was not okay, such as the King David Bombing. They bombed the hotel for good reason but maybe they shoulve done something less violent. I agree that there is a distinction because the Arabs carried out terrorist acts as part of the terrorist organization. But the Arabs do this simply because they don’t like the Jews. The Irgun actually had a reason for doing some terrorist acts.
1. The article highlights the issue of Irgun helping illegal immigration into Israel.
ReplyDelete2. This does not change my feelings towards the Irgun organization. Of course there have been some negative outcomes of the Irgun's actions, but that comes with any group of this nature. Overall, my opinion remains unchanged that the Irgun has done some beneficial things for Israel, or Palestine at the time. The Irgun essentially worked to get as many people immigrated into Israel, even if it was illegal. There is strength in numbers, so the more people living in Israel and the greater Jewish presence there is in the land, the stronger we will be as a whole. So overall, what the Irgun was for the greater good despite its few downsides.
3. There really is no distinction between the two. Regardless of what an organization may define itself as, if it carried out terrorist activities, it has no integrity and therefore should have no authority. I personally do not see the Irgun as a terrorist group. It may have carried out acts that have killed people, but it was for a good cause. I disagree with those specific acts, but on the whole, the Irgun is a group with goals that are no where near associated with terrorism. Even though some people may have been killed in the process, the Irgun exists for the good of Israel.