On Wednesday, EIE went to prison. No, we didn't break the law (at least not all of us ;) ). On this tiyul, we learned about the various resistance agencies that came in retaliation of the British Mandate.
The Museum of the Underground Prisoners was the central prison during the British Mandate. Here, various people were held in the cells here. Whoever the British deemed a "criminal" was sentenced here with various punishments. Arabs and Jews alike were imprisoned. Many of the Jews that were imprisoned were members of resistance forces like Haganah, Etzel, or Lechi, or Jews that disobeyed the White Papers. The White Papers were a set of restrictions against Aliyah to Palestine and against settlements in certain places (like east of the Jordan River). Those living in Palestine under the British Mandate were caught in a continuous cycle: Aliyah --> riots --> commissions --> White Papers. This cycle happened multiple times, and didn't end essentially until the British left in May 1948. As you can imagine, the Jews were unhappy with this.
In order to stand up for themselves, Jews started underground resistance forces. The first force (and the inspiration for the current IDF) was HaHaganah. Haganah means defense. HaHaganah was the mainstream defense force that began in the beginning. The people in HaHaganah made many efforts to try and resist the Brits. Two main acts that they helped out with were Aliyah Bet and Midnight Settlements. Aliyah Bet was secret Aliyah. Jews would be brought in by boat, and members of Palestine already would sneak onto the boats (before the Brits could check) and switch clothes with the new arrivals. They would also teach the new arrivals how to say "I am a Jew from the land of Israel" in Hebrew, so that the British didn't realize they were new. Midnight Settlements were another act of resistance. Midnight Settlements were when Jews would build a tower and a wall overnight in all the areas that they wanted land. The British could not destroy settlements that had a tower and at least one wall.
HaHaganah was focused primarily on defense, while other Jews believed we needed to also be on the offensive. This group of Jews broke of as Etzel. They were a more offensive version of HaHaganah. They were also known as The Orginization, as they were focused on being proactive.
One other group of Jews believed that the two resistance forces before them weren't doing enough. They broke off to form Lechi, the most extreme of the three groups. During World War 2, the British fought against the Germans in Europe. Because of this, David Ben Gurion (the leader of HaHaganah at the time) stated that the Jews should not take violent measures against the British while they are fighting for us in Europe. We should continue Aliyah Bet and building Midnight Settlements, however. Lechi and some members of Etzel strongly disagreed with this, and decided to continue violent resistance.
I personally connect with HaHaganah the most, because I think that focusing on defense was the smartest move for the Jews at the time. We were outnumbered by Arabs, and the British were also very prominent and in control at the time.
I think the museum portrayed the struggle of the Jewish people by showing the hardships that we had to go through. Any member of a resistance force that was caught was imprisoned in extremely uncomfortable situations. They were forced to work for the British, and had harsh punishment at times. The Jews resorted to digging a hole into the sewage system to sneak out in order to join the war that was raging and to feel useful.
Questions!!!!
1.) Which of the three resistance forces did you relate to most? Why?
2.) Did you agree with David Ben Gurion's statement regarding the method of resistance during World War 2? Why or why not?
Because I wouldn't consider myself a radical person in the slightest bit I relate most to the HaHaganah. Although what the British was doing was wrong, I couldn't imagine myseld taking action so radical as the other resistance forces. What Hahaganah did was brave and they should be looked up to for not using the same violence the others did yet saving so many people rather than killing. I agree with Ben Gurion's statement regarding the method of resistance because I think that violence did not have to be used to have the British allow aliyah. You can't fight fire with fire or war with war and I think that's what Ben Gurion was saying when he made that statement and I definitely agree with it.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly to Sarah, I dont think i would go to the extremes that the other resistance forces went to. Like my group said in our presentation, at this time, the British were fighting nazi forces in Germany and therefore I dont think the extent to which the other forces were using violence was necessary. Therefore I also agree with Ben Gurions statement because the enemy of our enemy (germany) is our friend. Since in another part of the world, Brits were saving lives of Jews, and therefore we dont need to take unnecessary violent measures for resistance.
ReplyDeleteI don't think of myself of a physical person, but I am part of more diplomatic type protest currently. I am part of a lot of human rights protest and spend my time doing petitions and working in small areas where I live to increase the rights of different groups. I feel like I would not be part of any of these groups, but would be a leader of a more peaceful group who practiced more diplomatic ways. I do think diplomacy was important if we wanted to gain independence but keep the British fighting on our side.
ReplyDeleteThe Brits were treating the Jews unfairly in the Palestine area, but they were saving lives in Europe. The debate on how to treat the Brits in Israel is a tough one. We didn't want to upset the Brits so they would still help us in Europe and Israel, but it was tough to not try to resist them when they were treating the Jews unfairly. I think that the extremist actions were not moral but they did help the struggle for the Jewish state. I would agree with what Ben Gurion said, but I don't believe we would have earned our state if we would have followed what he said.
ReplyDeleteJust as Sarah and Celia made a point of saying, I also would not consider myself to be very radical at all. So I would fit most closely with the HaHaganah. I completely agree that the British were very wrong, but I also think that using violence is not always what is needed to get your point across which is why I would have sided with the HaHaganah. I definitely agree with Ben Gurion and his statement about resistance because you cannot fight war with war. It will not get either side to a solution
ReplyDeleteI don't think I can relate to any of the three groups because that requires a type of national pride and desire that I lack. I don't know about anyone else, but I am fairly provincial in my ethics. I'm not one for fighting the large-scale fight and being a small cog--I'd much rather fight to protect my village or my home rather than my country and do so effectively. I don't think that large-scale zionism can apply to me, so I don't think I can identify with any of the groups.
ReplyDeleteWith that, I entirely agree with Ben Gurion's statement on not antagonizing the British during the war. To do so would be to hurt the children that were smuggled into Britain from Continental Europe, and to actively hurt the Allied war effort. The faster the war is over, the fewer Jews die, and hindering the British out of a desire for officially recognized land and rights seems trivial against genocide.
-Noah Arnold
Merely because I disagree with the terroristic methods used by both Lechi and Etzel, I would have to say that I agreed most with the Haganah. I think history has shown that peaceful resistance can be very effective, and that the Haganah's policy of primarily peaceful resistance was the morally correct path of action. Because of this, and because Britain was an international ally of the Jews during WWII, I believe Ben Gurion made the right decision in not harming the British. However, Ben Gurion was also right to state that overnight settlement building and illegal aliyah should continue. Without this resistance, the State would not have been able to maintain growth and provide refuge to those who so desperately needed it.
ReplyDeleteI don't think I can relate to any of these groups above another because while I feel that my personality would land me somewhere in Haganah territory, I think that the formation of the three drastically different groups was essential to the ultimate formation of Tzahal and the eventual creation of the state of Israel. If any of the groups had not been around to take the actions they did, we might still wind up at the state of Israel, but even today these separate factions have left their mark on society in the form of political parties. They have helped to diversify the political spectrum of Israel. That being said, Ben Gurion's statement about not hindering the British during the war does not strike a chord with me. It seems that the actions taken in Israel against the British would not do anything to impede Britain's progress in Germany. If anything, it would speed the expulsion of the British from Israel after WWII ended. That was not the actual historical case, but to desist from the fighting off a foreign presence seems rather absurd.
ReplyDeleteI find that I relate best to the Hagana. I think that even though the British rule was oppressive, they made the right decision not to fight them. I also don't agree with some of the radical actions taken by the other two groups. I do agree with David Ben Gurion's statement. The British may not be the best in "Israel", but they are certainly helping the Jewish people in the Holocaust. Without a real sense of unity we cannot expect to be able to drive the British forces out without a large number of casualties. I think doing what we could, like building overnight settlements, was enough.
ReplyDeleteI think I relate to the Haganah because I think that the Aliyah Bet was a good idea and also those ideas of the overnight settlements. I do agree with Ben Gurions statement saying that the Jews should not take violent measures against the British while they are fighting for us in Europe. I think it is important to remember that everything can be fixed with words and not every situation needs to end in violence and violence is most likely never the solution.
ReplyDeleteI know I'm gonna get a lot of hate for this but I agree the most with etzel because they believed we shouldn't only be defensive. They saw the Arabs as a threat to the Jewish people and we needed to stop be kicked around. It was time to show them the power of the Jewish people and similar to Hagahdna they did not attack British but still fought with Arabs at the time. I thought what Ben Gorion was really smart with smart with the desicion to fight the white papers. Doing this didn't hurt the British but made the Jewish people stronger
ReplyDeleteI think personally I find the most relation to the people in Etzel. This because Etzel was like the middle ground beetween the Lechi (extreme) and the hagganah (only defense) which is like a common middleground between the two. I don't think the whole no offense part would go over well and nor do I think that total and extreme offense was a good way to handle things either. Secondly I do agree with Ben Gurion's statement because if the British are fighting in WWII and helping the Jews, why would we attack them? They're helping our people on a front where even we aren't doing that so why in the world should we have been attacking them then, it makes no sense.
ReplyDeleteI think that I would fit in with the Haganah because I feel that the other organizations were too violent with Israel's situation during the war at the time. I also think that David Ben Gurion's decision to not make violent measures against the British was smart because he wanted to keep the possibility of the British acknowledging the state of Israel.
ReplyDeleteIn all honesty, I have no idea which underground movement I would of been a part of; because, I could see myself being a part of any of the three- which kind of scares me.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Ben-Gurion was correct in his way of treating the British. But my opinion is also with 20/20 hindsight support. I like to think though that if I were living here in Israel at this time, I would agree with him. But I am not sure for certain.
I agree mostly with Etsel, due to the fact that while i am mostly a pacifist, I have nothing wrong with fighting people in the defense of something I love, and I am not scared to strike first to protect those I care about. I do agree with Ben Gurion, and his idea of not attacking the British troops. The British supported the Palestinians more than the Jews, and I don't think it would have been smart to repeatedly attack the British when they could have turned on us and supported the Palestinians.
ReplyDelete