Do the ends justify the means?

[Avrami87]

In Judaism the end doesn't justify the means.

What about the Jewish terrorists (Begin, Shamir, Irgun, Lechi, Stern Gang) who helped establish the State of Israel?

[noahidelaws]

What about them? Who said that what they did was wrong?

[Avrami87]

Then terrorism from moderate palestinians is also good?!

[Gevurah]

There were no terrorists back then.

[Avrami87]

Go check with the British.

[noahidelaws]

Avremi, The arabs were hostile and murdering Jews at the time that these groups started. This was a way of self-defense with the methods they had at their disposal. Whereas if the Arabs would leave the Jews alone, the Jews would not be hostile; if anything, the arabs would be much better off on account of the Jews' prosperity. There is no comparison.

[MahTovChelkeinu]

Noah - The Arabs do not believe that. Regardless of what you believe, or what the truth is, they are motivated by the same combination of self-defense and manifest destiny. Also, both then and now there are those who seek to profit from the hostilities on both sides.

[Torah613]

What about the Jewish terrorists (Begin, Shamir, Irgun, Lechi, Stern Gang) who helped establish the State of Israel?
Without getting sidetracked by all the history etc. - the simple answer is, that if their acts were permitted al pi halocho, then the means are not allowed because of the ends but are allowed in their own right; and if their actions were not allowed al pi halocho, than no, the means do not justify the ends (which is in itself halachikly questionable in the case of the establishment of the State of Israel).

[Avrami87]

Avremi, The arabs were hostile and murdering Jews at the time that these groups started. This was a way of self-defense with the methods they had at their disposal...is no comparison.


This is very similar to what the moderate Palesitinians say regarding modern day Israel(is).

Blowing up an arab shuk with dynamite in containers of oranges and cucumbers is not self defense.

[Gevurah]

sorry. context. They were not terrorists.

[Avrami87]

What were they then "Freedom Fighters"?
:rolleyes:

[Gevurah]

I looked at your posts for 2 minutes and I am not sure you are a troll or not.
Maybe my second coming is not worth it.

[Torah613]

Hmmm ... in the old days you were able to smell them out immediately.

[Gevurah]

in the places I have been between, screen names are not nogaya from either extreme....

[noahidelaws]

MTC, the "destiny" of a non-Jew is to live outside Eretz Yisroel. Eretz Yisroel is ours.
This is very similar to what the moderate Palesitinians say regarding modern day Israel(is).
They say it as a pretext, but it is a full-on lie.
Torah613, the issue raised wasn't establishing the state, it was the method of fighting back against arab terror.

[Avrami87]

If so why did they primarily target British offices?

I am talking about the moderates who want a country etc. Even though Assad told Arafat "there are no Palestians". We are talking about people who are being abused by legendary arab corruption, and racial discrimination from the State.

My problem was the original generalization made "In Judaism the ends don't justify the means".

The essential question is "How was Begin's Irgun and the I.R.A. different?"
A. The I.R.A. focuses primarily on civilians and the Irgun focused on British offices and officers, even though periodicly they terrorized arab civilians. (Which may be frowned upon and condemned, Which Rabin and Ben-Gurion did which results in the story of the Atelena.)

I tried to make this discussion parenthetical.

[Avrami87]

I am not talking about: PFLP, Black September, Hamas, and all the others.
It's impossible to make a generalization and say "all palestinans are card carrying members of these groups".

[Torah613]

Torah613, the issue raised wasn't establishing the state, it was the method of fighting back against arab terror.The issue - as I understood it - was a general question and approach. I think I answered it correctly - if in the topic under discussion it is halachakly mandated, then yes, the means are in themselves justifiable, and not only as a means to an end.

If the topic is history of fighting against the Arabs etc., than the name of the thread should be changed.

[MahTovChelkeinu]

MTC, the "destiny" of a non-Jew is to live outside Eretz Yisroel. Eretz Yisroel is ours.

"Manifest Destiny" is a term that I believe was first coined to describe the nationalist drive of the US to expand until it reached the Pacific Ocean. In a more general sense, it means the collective drive of a nation to control certain land.

As I said in my previous post, your or my opinions do not matter in this context and neither does the truth, the Arabs believe that Israel should (does) belong to them, that is (one reason) why they do what they do.

[FlyingAxe]

Thinking in terms of "ends justifying (or not) the means" is a logical fallacy. The proper way to think about it is in terms of a package. Package A has X, Y, Z. Package B doesn’t have X, but also doesn’t have Z. Which package’s net worth is better?

[Shmeryl]

The essential question is "How was Begin's Irgun and the I.R.A. different?"

The former have a Neshama that is a Chelek Elokal Mimamal Mamash

and the latter do not .:mad:

[Avrami87]

That doesn't make them better. (Kuntres Umayon, Mamar 2 chapter 2)

[ktonton]

my question is whether or not the means justify the ends.

My understanding of history is that this was essentialy the taina of those who later became chassidim.

That the means do not always justify the ends.

Both have to be kosher, and inline with kol darkecha