I see.

So, at what point does an ex-terrorist become politically acceptable?

It happened for a variety of reasons. Mostly political reasons.

Why even debate any of this anymore. We all have our opinions and who cares what they are really? Our opinions are irrelevant because unfortunately Israeli civilians are dying and Lebanese civilians are being used as shields by their “protectors.”

We debate this because Israel is not alone in this world. Most of the members who post here live in democratic nations. I believe that if they won’t be exposed to other opinions other than their own, this will eventually effect their countries to adopt more radical policies against Israel.

Only proplem is that IDF is not able to do it…It’s different to shoot schoolkids throwing stones but when faced up against real soldiers fighting like in their situation should be done, the mighty IDF is running home with his wag between his legs…

The only thing which stopped Israel from eradicating Hizballah was its presence among civilan population.
Trust me, Israel could have destroyed Hizballah, it’s just a question of how nasty it wants things to get.

No, with respect, you actually said (my underlining, for emphasis):
While I am certainly prepared to accept the first part of your statement, I believe the fact that Mr Shamir and Mr Begin both subsequently achieved the highest political office in the land does, at the very least, throw doubt upon the second part of your statement.

But that only happened after the establishment of Israel. The Zionist institutions were democratic to begin with. The large majority of the Jewish public elected the socialist Mapai before 1948.
Mapai has also dominated the Israeli politics for almost three decades after 1948.

What I said is that the Zionist leadership did not support terrorism as a way of fighting in any way (which you agree), and that the then Jewish public elected that leadership, and thus did not support terrorism as well. That is all really.

Perhaps it would have been more accurate for me to say that the two groups in question subscribed to the Zionist vision of a Jewish state rather than with the Zionist movement, and to that extent I stand corrected.

However, none of this alters the fact that both of those gentlemen were members of clandestine groups that carried out bombings and assassinations, or the fact that both of those gentlemen did become Prime Minister of Israel.

Or perhaps you contend that this is not the case?

No, but it does mean that terrorism was not viewed by the Zionist leadership and most of the Zionist public as a legitimate way to fight for the creation of Israel, and that’s what I went out to prove.

Lehi (aka the Stern Gang) and Irgun were militant clandestine terror groups associated with the Zionist movement.

Yitzhak Shamir was a member of Lehi and later became Prime Minister of Israel.

Menachem Begin was a leading member of Irgun and later became Prime Minister of Israel.

The facts hardly bear your statement out, Erez.

The Zionist leadership (the Mapai party, The Party of the Workers of the Land of Israel) had no connection to these organizations. The only military organization that was related to that leadership was the Hagannah.
The Lechi (Fighters For The Freedom of Israel) and Irgun (aka Etzel, National Military Organization) were both made of people who retired from the Hagannah and were right wingers, unlike the socialist leadership. They remained right wingers even after Israel’s establishment, with Yitzhak Shamir & Menachem Begin both being shining examples for this.

I’m not implying that all of them were violent, just pointing out that it was acceptable to use terrorism to help establish Israel. If it was good enough for them, it’s good enough for the Palestinians.

The question is – acceptable by who?
Certainly not the Zionist leadership, as well as most of the Jewish public in the land.

This is unlike both Lebanon and the Palestinians. The Lebanese government accepted the Hizballah terrorism, and some of the Lebanese public supports it, while most of the Palestinian public accepts terrorism. And I’m not even talking about their elected leadership, a terror organization itself.

….so that the israelians can feel safe….

Among many other things, such as Lebanon excercising its sovereignty as a normal country is expected to do.

And why is it so unacceptable for you that Israelis demand to feel safe in their country?

And by the way, I’ll say it clearly once and for all for you, it’s Israeli, not Israelian. I don’t know if there’s a reason for to you say it differently, but it’s not right. It’s like calling a citizen of the US Americani instead of an American. Sorry but I just had to say it for once.

Belive or not most of people tend to look things form their own perspective and usually fails to see their enemies reasons to their actions. So I bet there is as much of those lebanese who thinks israelians are good when they bomb their nation as there is israelians who think Hezbollah is good when they fire rockets upon them…

That’s not what I said. I said that there are enouh Lebanese people who realize that Israel bombed their country because of Hizballah. There’s a difference.

Hizballah arn’t been investigate for the indiscrimate use of cluster bombs on civilian targets though..

and before someone starts screaming about indiscrimate rockets falling on Isreal…once again….Isreal is a state….with an elected government…it is meant to a Civilised state…..it shoudnt act like a bunch of mindless terrorists…

1) The actions of these so called “mindless terrorists” kill people too. Hizballah is a guerilla army, nothing less. It has weapons, it has soldiers and it has commanders. They are calculated adults, not the mindless childlish assholes you’re trying to make them look like. As such they are responsible for their actions.
2) More than I hold a terror organization such as Hizballah responsible for its actions, I hold the Lebanese government responsible for letting it work freely in its country. Lebanon is a state. With an elected government. It is meant to be able to control its population and make sure that the only military force that exists in its boundaries is its own. It is expected to have the responsiblity for attacks which are carried out from inside a territory that the whole world recognizes as Lebanon, not as Hizballaland.

It’s always been that way. People forget the acts committed by Zionist terrorist groups. It was justifiable for the Zionists to use terrorism to get what they want, but if somebody who’s not a Zionist/Israeli/etc. tries it, then they’re villified. Not that any of it was justified in the first place, but it is a very interesting double standard.

You constantly mention unimportant extremist groups of Jews before the foundation of Israel as representatives of Zionism during that time.
If you think that these groups are comparable to Hizballah/various Palestinian terror organizations, then please, be my guest and compare them. Statistically. The number of attacks, the amount of casualties, the identity of casualties, the ideology which motivated the attackers, and so on.

Usually people take attacks such as the one that happened in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem as an example for “Zionist terrorism”. Without even debating that particular case, such actions were the exception, not the standard. Or you might want to prove otherwise.

I invite you to consider the meaning of the word “everyone”, Erez…….. 🙂

Yes, I know that you include Israel there, but then again, when you think of it, Israel has nothing against the Lebanese, and the only reason Lebanese are being killed by Israel is Hizballah.

The average Lebanese probably just wishes that everyone would leave them alone to get on with re-building their country.

True, but then again, they have Hizballah as an internal problem to deal with, and it’s not going away.