Reply #26: This is interesting. [View All]

[Shaktimaan]

To determine whether or not it was terrorism we really have to define exactly what terrorism is. This attack was not the same as recent suicide bombing or qassam attacks at all, and I think it is ambiguous as to whether or not it qualifies as "terrorism" because of both the Irgun's motives and the details of the event.

First off, it wasn't a non-military building. The hotel at the time being used as the base for the British Secretariat, the military command and a branch of the Criminal Investigation Division. So in terms of it being a military target, it certainly qualified.

Next, the intent was not, as you say, "not simply to kill people," as that implies killing people WAS one of several goals. I would agree that any plan which includes killing civilians qualifies as terrorism. But I'm not so sure that we can consider an event terrorism unless said killing is, in fact, at least one of the objectives. If the attack specifically tries to limit and/or prevent any casualties, and only seeks to inflict material damage, does it still qualify as terrorism? Does the answer change if the attacker's precautions fail, as happened in this case, and many civilians are unintentionally killed?

It's an important distinction because the King David bombers did take several precautions to try and limit, (if not eliminate) casualties. So killing people was NOT one of their goals, it was something they actively tried to avoid. The plan's tactics centered around preventing casualties, which is generally speaking, the exact opposite of terrorism.

A warning message was delivered to the telephone operator of the King David Hotel before the attack and also delivered to the French consulate and the Palestine Post newspaper. According to Irgun sources, the message read "I am speaking on behalf of the Hebrew underground. We have placed an explosive device in the hotel. Evacuate it at once - you have been warned."

Irgun representatives have always claimed that the warning was given well in advance so that adequate time was available to evacuate the hotel. Menachem Begin writes (p. 221, The Revolt, <1951> ed.) that the telephone message was delivered 25 - 27 minutes before the explosion. The British authorities denied for many years that there had been a warning at all, but the leaking of the internal police report on the bombing during the 1970s proved that a warning had indeed been received. However, the report stated that the warning was only just being delivered to the officer in charge as the bomb went off (Bethell). According to Begin, the British had been warned of the bombing but refused to evacuate the building because "We don't take orders from the Jews" <3>. However, according to Shmuel Katz, in his book Days of Fire, "The Haganah radio later broadcast a report that on receiving the warning Sir John Shaw, the Chief Secretary of the British administration, had said: "I give orders here. I don't take orders from Jews," and that he had insisted that nobody leave the building. Katz says that this version may be dismissed because it probably developed from the fact that while some of Shaw's close colleagues and subordinates were killed, he himself was unscathed, and gained credence when Shaw was transferred from Palestine a month later. It is more likely that the British did not take the warning seriously because they did not believe Etzel could infiltrate their HQ that was guarded so well.

The French Consulate did open their windows from fear of a possible blast, and the operator of the Palestine Post called the police after the warning. When the bombing occurred, there were already several reporters in the area because of the leaked warning.

<snip>

Menachem Begin reportedly was very saddened and upset. He was angry that the British did not evacuate and so there were casualties, which was against the Irgun's policy. One of the dead was Jewish and Etzel sympathizer Yulius Jacobs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing