There is a rather lively debate going on over at Meryl's in the comments section of this piece she wrote last week. The debate concerns the nature of the actions of groups like the Stern Gang and the Irgun, two of the organizations that, along with the Hagganah, were the precursors of the first Israeli Defense Force.
The debate began when one Alan E. Brain made the claim that the Stern Gang collaborated with the Nazis in order to attempt to secure a Jewish homeland in the area then known as Palestine and governed by the British.
Mr. Brain's exact words, in fact, are as follows:
""There were a vanishingly small but still non-zero number of Jews who were Nazi sympathisers or at least collaborators (see history of the Stern gang)."
Once he made this claim, I led off subsequent calls by many, including Meryl, to name his source for such a preposterous claim. Calling such requests a "dirty trick of debate", Mr. Brain cited the following excerpt from the Jewish Virtual Library:
Stern formed a radical splinter opposition group, known as Lehi, an acronym for “Lohamei Herut Yisrael.” He maintained that, even in the face of the Nazi threat, it was the British who posed the major threat to the Jews; doubting the Allies could win the war, he even advocated an alliance with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, believing these ties would assist the nationalist effort in Eretz Yisrael.
In all fairness, Mr. Brain has made the comment that under the circumstances, advocation of such an alliance by the Stern Gang would not seem so unreasonable. I would tend to agree. We must remember that this was pre-World War II and that the British Mandate was not exactly helping to advance the cause of the establishment of a Jewish homeland.
However, and as I pointed out to Mr. Brain, to advocate a possible alliance with the Nazis and to actually collaborate are two completely different animals. Further, I am disturbed by an attitude that allows one to recoil when asked to cite legitimate sources. Journalistic integrity should be the basis of blogging, especially as regards sensitive subjects such as the history of the founding of Israel. In fact I posted commentary on this very subject less than two weeks ago.
Further, to advance unsubstantiated claims such as this in today's climate of Israel-bashing can do irreparable harm to the reputation of Jews and Israel in general.
Cui bono? "Who benefits (from making statements such as Alan's)?" I ask, even if they are wholly true, partly true, or in the same city as true after twisting them around and adding ribbons.
Reminds me of nothing more Pat Buchanan sitting on some talk show going on about how, logically, the ovens couldn't have burnt up *that* many bodies, but he isn't an antisemite, nooooooooooo, not good old Pat.
WHY would Alan make the statement? Was he trying to start some clumsy "argument" along the lines of, well, if the Yurpeens are bigoted, then it's the Jews' own fault cuz see...blah de blah.
Posted by: UV at February 9, 2005 01:52 PMI think the best defence is to ask you to actually go over to Meryl's place and read what I actually said.
Oh, and in answer to UV's rhetorical question, the answer is "No".
He does bring up a good point though : Who benefits, even if the assertations are true, partly true, or have a few molecules of truth in a mountain of bull?
Sometimes by emphasising minor pebbles, and not mentioning the mountain they're on, it's possible to totally distort and misrepresent a situation while still not saying a single word of untruth.
I've tried not to fall into that trap. Trying /= succeeding, of course.
The fact that you have remained polite, despite seeing me (wrongly) as some miserable example of Judenhass says a lot for your civility. I'll try to live up to your example, despite being quite upset at your insinuation.
Posted by: Alan E Brain at February 9, 2005 07:18 PM"despite being quite upset at your insinuation."
If anyone has a right to feelings of upset, it is I and any other Jew that you claim to "represent" with your repeated misinformation. Keep in mind that I merely quoted you verbatim. You can let your remarks stand if you wish, but, in the end, they are your words, not mine.
Mark, you are doing a wonderful job of bringing out the truth. There is a great deal of difference, as you said, between something being proposed and something being initiated. And as you point out the timing was pre-WWII.
Thank you for keeping to the truth, and setting the record straight.
Posted by: Rachel Ann at February 11, 2005 03:35 AMThanks Rachel Ann. I'm about done with the idiot. He's been hammerng the post above the one I referenced with crapola that actually contradicts the idea that he advanced about the Stern Gang. But he still won't come around to the idea that he has his history caterwompous. It's one thing to have a working knowledge of a subject, as Tony, I, and Meryl (and many others) obviously do, and quite another to make stupid statements based on something one reads at Wikipedia, and then stubbornly try to find more internet sources after the fact that don't exactly shore up one's misinformation, as "Brain" is doing. I guess he suffers from HUAS (Head Up Ass Syndrome).
Posted by: Mark at February 11, 2005 08:18 AM