Talk:Lehi (militant group)

Terrorist Organization

LEHI was/is a terrorist organization and it should include the appropriate template. Reasons? King David Hotel Bombing, for starters.

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

Terrorism Template

I think this should be added to the article.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC) {{terrorism}}

Why? It presents NPOV problems. The article currently says that Lehi was described as terrorist, and it attributes those descriptions. How does the template help the reader? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 02:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Your argument seems to be against the template itself, rather than the addition of the template to this article. Lehi is a fine example of not only a terrorist group, but the success political violence can bring (case in point, the creation of Israel). CapitalElll (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There does not seem to be a case for applying this template here. We do not apply the template to organizations which are even callest terrorists by most of the world. Cases in point: Palestine Liberation Organization, Hamas. Aside from that, I am categorically opposed to navigation templates of this type, but that of course has nothing to do with the NPOV issue. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If Lehi was not a terrorist organisation, then there have been no terrorist organisations. But I am also opposed to templates like this so I am not going to insert this one here. Zero^talk 00:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent revert

I recently made this edit [1] which was reverted with a summary calling it "a massive copyright vio" and Mike Shabazz put a huge template on my talk page. This is simply not true. I put up material that was sourced and relevant and NOT plagiarized. The reversion erased important context. Stellarkid (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I might add that the entire section Foundations and Founding contained not one reference prior to my edit, so was on the face of it WP:OR. If there were some wording that was too like the original, it would have been better to change it than to simply dump the material with a terse edit summary and then plaster a nasty template on the editor's talk page. Stellarkid (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:COPYVIO. Nearly everything you added to the article was copied verbatim from Colin Shindler's The Land Beyond Promise: Israel, Likud and the Zionist Dream.

If you look below the edit window, you'll see a sentence that says "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." Per policy, I deleted the offending material. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 17:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That's simply not so. Stellarkid (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you really want me to go through the article and highlight every sentence you copied? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 00:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Stellarkid: While Jabotinsky had hoped that diplomacy and Britain would prevail for the Jewish cause, Stern argued that the era of Zionist diplomacy had come to an end and the time had come for armed struggle against the British.

Shindler: [Jabotinsky] put his faith in diplomacy and Britain ... Avraham Stern, a leading Irgun militant, argued that the era of Zionist diplomacy had come to an end. ... the only way forward was armed struggle against the British.

Stellarkid: In 1940, the idea of the Final Solution was still "unthinkable," and Stern believed that Hitler wanted to make Germany judenrein through emigration, as opposed to extermination.

Shindler: ... the very idea of the Final Solution was unthinkable in 1940. ... Stern believed that Hitler wanted Germany to be judenrein through emigration.

Stellarkid: In December of 1940, he initiated contact with Nazi authorities, in order to enlist their aid in establishing the Jewish state in Palestine open to Jewish refugees from Nazism. He proposed to recruit some 40,000 Jews from occupied Europe with the intention of invading Palestine to oust the British.

Shindler: Thus, in December 1940, Stern sent an emissary to meet a representative of the German Foreign Office in Beirut. ... requested the recruitment of 40,000 Jews from occupied Europe for a purposed invasion of Palestine to oust the British.

Stellarkid: The Germans did not take this proposal seriously, however, and nothing was to come of it.

Shindler: The Germans did not take the proposal seriously.

Stellarkid, what do you propose we do about your plagiarism? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 03:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Bad footnote reference?

It appears to me that the footnote provided in the three main goals (under section Goals and methods) given as footnote[10] - Heller, p. 112, quoted in Perliger and Weinberg, 2003, pp. 106-107 is bad. I don't see it in the Heller book on the page given, but I do see it here, Religious fundamentalism and political extremism -- By Leonard Weinberg, Ami Pedahzur [2] pg 106. I don't like to mess around with other people's footnotes but ... Maybe the originator might want to correct or clarify? Stellarkid (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If the source is wrong and you found an alternative, by all means change it. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 03:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Text of offer to the Nazis

The text of the Lehi offer to the Nazis has only been completely published in David Yisraeli's thesis. However, there is a transcription of it (in the original German) on the web here. This web site is arguable as a "reliable source", but since I have just now compared the text there word by word against Yisraeli's thesis without finding any differences, I have added the site as a convenience link. I can send a copy of pages 315-317 of Yisraeli's thesis to anyone who asks by email. There is also, here, a transcription of the English translation that appeared in Lenni Brenner's book "The Iron Wall". Zero^talk 03:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Deir Yassin Myth

Deir Yassin was a myth perpetrated by the arabs to entice their hatred for Israel and Jews. http://www.hirhome.com/israel/milstein-deir-yassin.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.233.94 (talk) 07:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Milstein's theories, which are not widely accepted, are mentioned at Deir Yassin massacre. They don't justify deleting sections of this article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 08:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Myth or not - writing that the fact that Lehi's Jewish political rivals denounced the results of the battle there "lends credence" to the allegation of massacre is not exactly an academic argument... Ben Gurion had a very good reason to tarnish the reputation of the Lehi and IZL in the political struggle between his political party and theirs. I therefore submit that you should change the wording - state the fact that Ben Gurion etc denounced the alleged massacre, delete the "lends credence". Whether there was an actual massacre as claimed by the Arabs or only a battle in which civilians were killed accidently as claimed by the Lehi and IZL, or something in between, will never be known. All of the participants in those events, Jews and Arabs, those directly involved and those indirectly involved (which adds also the British authorities occupying the region) had incentives to lie in order to further their political goals, and that remains true today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.81.212 (talk) 08:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Just on correct usage. one does not 'entice'(hatred for Israel, or any other hatred). You mean 'incite', a verb with a very particular history in I/P political discourse.

(a) 'Milstein argues that there was no organised, largescale massacre in Deir Yassin.'

(b)'Milstein admits (History IV pp.382-88) that whole families were gunned down in the course of the fighting.'Benny Morris, The Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, Cambridge University Press, 2004 p.294 n.564.

(c) Read Morris's account of the facts and the controversy (pp.237ff.). His view, that a massacre took place, draws on Irgun, Palmach, Haganah and Lehi reports.Nishidani (talk) 10:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

reconcile the two positions, and then reread what you wrote.Nishidani (talk) 10:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Polish Support

It is not clear why Polish Army trained Lehi members. What was the reason? Olegwiki (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

They wanted to get rid of the Jews too. They trained them in hopes that they would be successful and all the Jews would leave Poland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.77.78.17 (talk) 06:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ernst Blevin Plot

I could not find any mention of this in the article, it seems like a fairly significant plot on their part.

https://gloucestershirepsc.wordpress.com/2010/08/ (BBC source) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.108.46 (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"In Purple"

The references to Ada Amichal Yevin, "In Purple," were added by an editor who regularly lied about sources and was eventually banned after doing a lot of damage. Since I don't have access to that Hebrew book (which seems to be a Lehi apologia), I'm replacing the citations by tags until the words can written on the basis of sources provided by editors in good standing. Zero^talk 06:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

"Terrorist group"

The article already specified who considered Lehi a terrorist group, same standard applied to Hamas and other militant organizations. This edition is arbitrary and POV.--Sonntagsbraten (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

considered Lehi a terrorist group,' i.e., 'terrorist' is a subjective term. Well, in common and political usage, it certainly often is, meaning a non-state actor which behaves like a state actor which has no problems resorting to terror. A 'militant' is how we describe neutrally people whom, in one POV, are terrorists, but in another are simply people who take up arms to fight for the dignity of their people and an autonomous state. I don't like that term myself, but that's how this place works. But when you have, as in this case, numerous legal documents and otherwise level-headed historical works which call them terrorists, one goes with that. Note 22 cites a source which has them defining themselves as terrorists. If they self-defined as terrorists, they had no disagreement with the British on how to describe what they were.Nishidani (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Fully agreed.

NPoV doesn't mean we have to use neutral words. It means we have to use give the right weight to each point of view.

Eg :Haganah was considered terrorist by some but we talk about this as the Yishuv army because this is current point of view widely accepted. On the contraty, all historians refer to Lehi as a terrorist organisation nowaydays.

Pluto2012 (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

See WP:WTA. We don't use this term in Wikipedia's voice to describe the PLO, the PFLP or any of the other dozen Palestinian terrorist organizations, and we sure as hell aren't going to use it here. Dixy flyer (talk) 04:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read the discussion above. Lehi described themselves as terrorists (see note 22), which makes them much different from the Palestinian groups you mention. So we "sure as hell" don't have to do the same thing here as we do elsewhere, because the situations are not entirely analogous. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It's already specified in the article why Lehi considered terrorism to be "necessary" at the time... so why suddenly you have the need to change a neutral term (militant) in the lead? It's simply POV. After all, if I quote a Hamas leader admitting they deliberately attacked civilian population in Israel... are you willing to replace the word "militant" for "terrorist" as an objective term? What about behaving like a terrorist group but not admitting it?--Sonntagsbraten (talk) 05:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

How can it be POV when they acknowledge they were terrorists themselves, and it is agreed upon by other parties at the time (such as the British authorities) as well as historians who cover the topic? Dlv999 (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

reason for nazi 'alliance'

According to the people quoted in this news report: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=INGR2wzEuZA

reason for the alliance with germany was to save the Jews from Hitler. (as opposed to defeating the British).

Should be added in the article somewhere? Unchartered (talk) 08:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You have the wrong page, you need Haavara Agreement. Zero^talk 09:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

And even there, this unidentified YouTube extract is apparently a copyright violation, and not a reliable source. RolandR (talk) 09:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

There is an interview with Israel Eldad on youtube that says the same thing. The idea was to throw the British out as quickly as possible in order to remove the restrictions on immigration as fast as possible in order to save the jews of europe. Eldad explains the debate between Stern, Jabotinsky, Begin, and Raziel that they had at the final meeting of the Irgun central command in Poland http://youtube.com/watch?v=EgAvGE21Mds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.2.37.85 (talk) 09:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Mail bombs to Truman?

For the record: Several sources state that Ira Smith's book "Dear Mr. President ..." The story of fifty years in the White House mail room (1949) claimed that letter bombs from Lehi addressed to Truman were received in 1947, and even that Lehi had claimed responsibility for them. Since Smith was in charge of the White House mail room, that would be an impeccable source. However, Smith's book does not actually make this claim. He describes the letter bombs received by Eden and other British politicians, then says "The same kind of terrorist letters had been found in the White House mail, and as a result the staff had been handling all letters with great care..." (p. 230). He doesn't actually state that the letters to Truman were from Lehi, only that they were the "same kind of terrorist letters". Zero^talk 08:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Good pimpernelling. Sorry, I restored the material in a revert (leaving the page open while shopping) before seeing this. I think this source should be added to the text.Nishidani (talk) 09:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The entire introduction?

Seems like something taking out of a Arafat press release. Their is obviously POV going on here. I think we need to re-edit the main intro or source the claims of lehi trying to make an alliance with the Nazi's? otherwise it tarnishes this page. Palestinewillbefree (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It is extensively sourced in the article. It isn't disputed, either, though the motivation is disputed. Zero^talk 07:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed you are correct. Shortened, per below. Amoruso (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Deir Yassin massacre section

The Deir Yassin massacre section of the article is very poorly written, makes contested claims as if they are facts, gets facts wrong (actually it was the Irgun that claimed 250 Arabs were killed), and so on. Given its extensive coverage in other articles, I propose to reduce this to a few sentences. Zero^talk 07:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Terrorist

Why does it call them a militant group rather than terrorist. They definitely fall under the definition of a terrorist group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmwikiacc (talk • contribs) 19:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:LABEL, the rest of this Talk page, and its archives. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I restored terrorist without noting Malik's point. From memory, admittedly fragile, 'terrorist' could be retained in this case because both the British Mandatory Authority and the new government presided by Ben-Gurion defined them thus, and therefore since they were labelled by others and their own side as 'terrorist', it was more or less an objective bipartisan definition of the group. Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Nazi Offer

Removed some controversial wording from lead regarding this issue. While there is no doubt that an offer was made for an alliance with Nazi Germany, in order to let Jews escape to the Land of Israel from Europe, the specific wording "on a totalitarian basis" may have been invented by sources other than Lehi for different interests, and alleges, with undue weight, that Lehi said so. There is no dispute that Lehi never wrote the letter and there is no other corroboration that this was Lehi's intent other than the attributed letter. Therefore, not the place for in the lead. It is mentioned in the appropriate subsection though. Amoruso (talk) 05:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Sources say otherwise, and leads summarize the article.Nishidani (talk) 09:39, 29

July 2014 (UTC)

Sources question how the letter came to be. You have to bring more sources besides one mention in an alleged letter to make extraordinary claims. Amoruso (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

a 'new totalitarian Hebrew republic'.

This shouldn't have been removed, but simply added to the text on their totalitarian values further down in the lead. As to the rest, your or my personal beliefs about Lehi and the letter are irrelevant. Ample sources state that they sought out contacts with Nazi Germany and that is all that matters.'The memorandum arising from their connversation is an entirely authentic document, on which the stamp of the 'IZL in Israel' is clearly embossed.' Joseph Heller,The Stern Gang: Ideology, Politics, and Terror, 1940-1949,p.85Nishidani (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Amoruso, Please tell us where we can verify that your indef topic ban for multiple offences has been lifted. Zero^talk 12:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand 1R, but under some readings, he broke it this morning.Nishidani (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Sergeant Martin

I suspect the following section of the article may be the result of some confusion:

"Yitzhak Shamir, one of the three leaders of Lehi after Avraham Stern's assassination, argued for the legitimacy of Lehi's actions:

There are those who say that to kill [Clifford] Martin [a British intelligence corps sergeant] is terrorism, but to attack an army camp is guerrilla warfare and to bomb civilians is professional warfare. But I think it is the same from the moral point of view. Is it better to drop an atomic bomb on a city than to kill a handful of persons? I don’t think so. But nobody says that President Truman was a terrorist. All the men we went for individually – Wilkin, Martin, MacMichael and others – were personally interested in succeeding in the fight against us."

In fact there were two people named Sergeant Martin, both British and both killed in Palestine. Clifford Martin was one of two captured National Service conscripts taken hostage by Irgun and later hanged. I believe Shamir was referring not to him, but to Palestine Police Sergeant T.G. Martin, who had arrested Shamir, as a result of which Shamir was deported to Eritrea while his colleagues in Lehi shot and killed Sergeant Martin.

It makes more sense to see Shamir's statement as referring to the police sergeant. Shamir refers to the people "we went for", but Lehi did not go for the army sergeant, who was a victim of Irgun. In addition, Shamir says that Martin was "personally interested" in fighting Lehi. This did not apply to the army sergeant, who was 20 years old and non-political, whereas Shamir said of the police sergeant that he was "emotionally involved in the fight against us."TonyHetherington (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite sure you are correct. The fact that Clifford Martin was not killed by Lehi, together with Shamir's personal interest in the man who identified him, leaves no doubt. "T.G. Martin" was killed on Sep 9, 1946.[3] Also, this quote comes from the source on the same page T.G. Martin's killing is mentioned.Zero^talk 01:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)