Re: "But they were against that on principle. Not by necessity. So you are not really presenting a realistic hypothetical in context of historical reality. "
Of course they were against that on principle!
They wrote that in their own autobiographies, long after the fact.
Actually they wrote it and said it
at the time of the events in question.And their actions reflected the policy. So there's not really a grounds for questioning it unless you have some new facts to present.
That is why we must believe them because they were good and principled while others were bad and unprincipled.
Not really. Both sides were principled, but the question is which side had more worthwhile and justified principles. That can easily be judged.
They wrote it, I read it, I believe it!
(Because I want to believe it.)
Case closed.
So they stole guns from British officers and used attacks on British installations in order to threaten them to leave Israel, simply for fun? Even though at the time they openly stated the reasons for their actions?
It is not a case of "they wrote it, I believe it" because these are documented historical events that all the newspapers recorded and wrote about. The people at that time also experienced the carnage of the bomb blasts and other attacks on the British. This is not some mystery of physics.
Better do a little more fact checking - like how Yitzhak Shamir had one of his own men quietly and secretly murdered by the other men under his command because Shamir felt he lacked a proper level of discipline.
Not relevant to anything I said.
They were against the British military and govt presence in Eretz Yisrael. That was the purpose of the underground movement. You denied this.
Jabotinsky left Israel and returned to die in Europe, presumably disillusioned with his own struggle for Zionism.
He was forced out many times and imprisoned by the British, and often he was running around Europe trying to get Jews to either rally support or come themselves to Israel. It doesn't seem from the people who knew him that he was disillusioned.
You can believe the official autobiographies if you so choose, but it's just as easy (although a little more depressing) to realize that political people always make every attempt to make themselves look good by conveniently avoiding mention of their all too human negative behaviors.
Tell me which autobiography I read and why it's incorrect. What facts support your point of view and what facts dispute mine?
Again, the shamir thing you quoted above does not contradict that the underground were against british presence and control of Israel. They fought, bombed, killed, went to jail, and many even died for this prime cause.
Just because they are merely men and not "superheroes" does not lessen themselves in my eyes for the many great things they accomplished.
They are merely men in my eyes as any man is. What you're suggesting with this statement is simply imaginative. Let's focus on the actual arguments.
I seriously doubt that Begin and Shamir and Stern would have allowed themselves to be defeated and sent back to Germany and Poland rather than take the lives of fellow Jews.
Are you trying to justify the Altalena affair with this statement?
Like I said above, the Altalena was not designed for "Defeat" - it was actually designed to help the war efforts by bringing in much needed weapons and supplies during the ceasefire that had just started but everyone knew was sure to end in a matter of time.
This "willful suspension of disbelief" practiced by some here is itself the perfect answer to the previous post asking the question:
What disbelief? Present a fact, please.
The only disbelief here is that I cannot believe you've bought the ridiculous lies that have been told about the Altalena for the political benefit of a faction of zionists. The truth has been uncovered and the facts are known, so why live in the past and in delusion?
