> of the first historic examples of terrorism targeting civilians.

Not only was the KD hotel a military headquarters, it was supposed to be empty at the time of the bombing.

You're either ignorant or lying for some reason.

>Not only was the KD hotel a military headquarters

Partially true... part of the hotel was used by the British for their offices:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel#History

>it was supposed to be empty at the time of the bombing.

Not quite. According to Wikipedia "Warnings were sent by telephone, including one to the hotel's own switchboard, which the hotel staff decided to ignore, but none directly to the British authorities." There's a difference between phoning in a bomb threat in an occupied building and bombing an unoccupied building.

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

>You're either ignorant or lying for some reason.

I suppose it's impossible to discuss anything related to Zionism without one party denouncing the other's character. ;)

Yes the part of the hotel that was bombed was the part of the hotel that was used by the British military thereby invalidating your value judgement that the attack was meant to kill civilians.

The bombing killed many more civilians than they did British: "41 Palestinian Arabs, 15-28 British citizens, 17 Palestinian Jews, 2 Armenians, 1 Russian, 1 Greek and 1 Egyptian" according to WikiPedia. Not a surprising result when setting off a huge bomb in a hotel, even if in a specific area of a hotel. The list of the organization's previous attacks includes many directed against civilians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks). If the killing of civilians was indeed not part of their aim, you would think the organization would treat the operation as a tragic mistake and distance themselves from it rather than coming together to commemorate it in 2006.

We have justification and apologies for violence right here! This is part of the problem, because similar arguments from the other side will probably be grounds for well, you know what.

It is incorrect to classify the attack as an attack on civilians when in fact it was an attack on the headquarters of the British military.

Do not put words in my mouth.

He's not ignorant or lying - you just need to look at Irgun's activities in the '30s and '40s to know that. Those guys were bombing a bus practically every day at some points (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks_during_th...), which makes the hand-wringing from Israel doubly pointless.

Perhaps the problem is that the Palestinians are slacking? They should blow up more things, not less...

I'm not going to defend Irgun because it's indefensible. It is simply a matter of fact that the attack was on the headquarters of the British military.

Edit: Your subsequent edits are quite sick and disturbing. You should consider reverting your text to the original comment.

The attack was on a hotel - that's also a matter of fact, and similarly indefensible.

And I edited about 30 seconds to a minute after my initial post, to make my points clearer. I don't think that's unreasonable, much less "sick or disturbing".