Finkelstein Flunks History

In the London Times, one Daniel Finkelstein writes in his op-ed piece entitled, Triumph of those who dare to resist violence that Obama's victory is one not just over the white supremacists, but also the black separatists - for democracy over terrorism.

Fine.

Then, at the end, he writes:

...the election of Mr Obama is a rebuke to people like Malcolm X, a symbol that Martin Luther King was right with his patience, and his give and take and his belief in democracy. For, in the end, democracy triumphed. In the end, non-violence worked. In the end, moderation and self-discipline and restraint worked.

The election of Mr Obama is a rebuke too, to the Eta Basque separatists who put bombs in shopping centres, to the IRA with their pub bombs, to the Baader-Meinhof gang with their abductions and killings. It is a rebuke to the Irgun terrorists whose terrible crime was to blow up the King David Hotel and to the murders and missiles of Hamas and Fatah. It is a rebuke to all those who abandon law and peace in favour of the gun.

And it is an affirmation that sometimes it is the moderates who are the boldest, the slow route that is the quickest, and the man who refuses to raise up his arms who is the most courageous.

Let's read that again slowly and I'll comment:

It is a rebuke to the Irgun terrorists whose terrible crime was to blow up the King David Hotel and to the murders and missiles of Hamas and Fatah. It is a rebuke to all those who abandon law and peace in favour of the gun.

Mr. Finkelstien, I presume you meant to insinuate that

a. the Irgun attacked a civilian target

and that

b. it is a parallel group to the Hamas and Fatah.

In the first instance, the hotel's southern wing was taken over by the British Army starting in 1938 and then the mandate's secretariat moved in so that by 1946, the entire five-floor wing was a legitimate target representing British oppression and participation in aiding the Nazis in their 'final solution' as well as reneging on the League of Nations decision to establish the reconstituted Jewish National Home, to facilitate close settlement on the land and to aid Jewish immigration to that territory - which they had already whittled down by partitioning TransJordan away and suggesting, in the Peel Commission report and that of the Woodhead Commission, to commit another criminal partition.

That reference to Nazis may be a bit harsh for your ears but I suggest you read this book, "Britain and the Jews of Europe, 1939-1945", to understand Britain's role in World War II as a result of caving in to Arab terror in Palestine during the 1930s and adapting the 1939 White Paper policy.

As for the second point, Fatah started operations in 1964-65. What "Palestine" were they "liberating" then? It wasn't the Israel that "occupies territories"? There was no occupation at that time. It wasn't the Israel of "settlements" for there were no Jewish communities in the area at the time. It was Israel. All of it. Tel Aviv, Beer Sheba and Haifa.

And isn't it a bit odd, if not downright funny, that your "terrorist" Begin made peace with Egypt and tried to reach peace with the Arabs of the Land of Israel through an autonomy plan, one they rejected? And received a Nobel Prize for Peace?
(Okay, I will admit that it isn't funny at all that Yasser Arafat received one after all that has happened since the Oslo process kicked in).

I think you understand why I think you failed history.