Would you do this in 1931?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Let's say you are magically transported to 1931. You now have the opportunity to easily kill all of the leaders of the Irgun, and effectively destroy them. They commit no terrorism, and Zionism becomes a discredited joke ideology. And as a result the state of Israel is never founded, but all the victims of the Irgun's terrorism live.

I would do it of course. The Irgun were nothing more than terrorist scum with no redeeming value whatsoever.

[dead0man]

I probably would, but I'm guessing (that's all anybody can do here) is the "Zionist" movement would have still happened.

But if I could go back in time to kill groups of "bad guys", these people wouldn't even make the top 50.

[RosettaStoned]

To prevent the creation of Israel? You bet!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't see how destroying Irgun would discredit, or even damage, Zionism. The Haganah (and related political movements) was much more important.

[Lief 🗽]

I don't know, probably not. Utilitarianism is a pretty dangerous philosophy, even if I occasionally subscribe to it. There's never really any way to know the exact effects of your actions, especially in a situation like this. Who is to say that by killing these people, you don't bring about something worse?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Let's say you are magically transported to 1931. You now have the opportunity to easily kill all of the leaders of the Irgun, and effectively destroy them. They commit no terrorism, and Zionism becomes a discredited joke ideology. And as a result the state of Israel is never founded, but all the victims of the Irgun's terrorism live.

I would do it of course. The Irgun were nothing more than terrorist scum with no redeeming value whatsoever.

First of all, that's cool to imagine all of this but that's useless, as long as what you're is a result from the past. Change the past, you change what you are, so the question can't be asked. Maybe the precision was useless, as much as thinking about such a question!

Then, yes, sounds Zionism was a too deep movement to have been stopped by the murder of a bunch of guys. But, anyway, one more time it's useless to remake the past.

So, what could be interesting to wonder about is: Can the murder of some guys kill a movement?

Depends of cases, but when we wonder about a human movement, if you want to break it, you have to wonder how it works, how it lives, how it spreads, what can be its perspectives, and then, after a good analysis, you can set a strategy that takes all that parameters in count.

A very good analysis should show that you can't stop some movements or at least that what you can try has just a very few chances to succeed (we call it lucidity, and sounds that the biggest leaders have been the most lucid). In that case, instead of uselessly trying to breaking it you have to prepare yourself to deal with it on the long time, and to let the movement progress to see what you can do with or against it.

Yes, that's for sure, thinking that killing a few persons to stop a big movement demands less efforts!

[The Mikado]

At risk of triggering Godwin's law, you're transported to 1931, decide to take out the leaders of a dangerous political movement, and target The Irgun?

[Purple State]

At risk of triggering Godwin's law, you're transported to 1931, decide to take out the leaders of a dangerous political movement, and target The Irgun?

Seriously, I'm hitting Hitler, Tojo, and Stalin...

I don't see how destroying Irgun would discredit, or even damage, Zionism. The Haganah (and related political movements) was much more important.

This, and would a solidly sultanistic Middle East be a good development for the world? I don't really mind having a democratic, technologically advanced, nuclear ally in the region.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This, and would a solidly sultanistic Middle East be a good development for the world? I don't really mind having a democratic, technologically advanced, nuclear ally in the region.

Was the King David Hotel bombing a good development for the world?

[Purple State]

This, and would a solidly sultanistic Middle East be a good development for the world? I don't really mind having a democratic, technologically advanced, nuclear ally in the region.

Was the King David Hotel bombing a good development for the world?

Better than, say, a solid bloc of land serving as a haven for terrorists and extremist, oppressive regimes. Having Israel there as a check on these kinds of things is definitely a plus.

What if Israel was never there and never bombed Osirak? Or Syria's recent attempt at building a nuclear facility. I'm happy we have something there.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

What if Israel was never there and never bombed Osirak? Or Syria's recent attempt at building a nuclear facility. I'm happy we have something there.

One more example of the uselessness of such debates.

Would have Osirak existed without Israel? Would have Syria tried to have nuclear facilities? Would have Arabs been hostile toward West? And would, and would, and would...

And in the end the present is still the present.

[k-onmmunist]

Absolutely not!

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Absolutely not!

So you support a terrorist organization that attacked your government and killed your countrymen...

[Associate Justice PiT]

     If I were sent specifically to do that, sure. Otherwise, it wouldn't be my first priority.

[Psychic Octopus]

There is better periods of time to visit and clean up. Like killing Hitler in a trench during during WW1.

[The Mikado]

I'm personally scared to death of the butterfly effect, so even killing Hitler would be a struggle for me.

To BRTD: Wouldn't killing off the Irgun's leadership just make them martyrs and encourage even more extreme groups?  Would you rather the Irgun's rank and file joined the Stern Group instead?

[Psychic Octopus]

The Butterfly effect is not possible in all situations. A "second-order counterfactual" is possible in some. Perhaps Hitler, yes. Perhaps, not losing the "lost order" yes. But If, let's say, we got a Republican President Roosevelt in 1912 it would not have made much of a difference. WW1 might have ended sooner, but we would have got a Anti-Roosevelt Republican in 1920, and they would govern until 1932, when we get FDR.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

The Butterfly effect is not possible in all situations. A "second-order counterfactual" is possible in some. Perhaps Hitler, yes. Perhaps, not losing the "lost order" yes. But If, let's say, we got a Republican President Roosevelt in 1912 it would not have made much of a difference. WW1 might have ended sooner, but we would have got a Anti-Roosevelt Republican in 1920, and they would govern until 1932, when we get FDR.

That's cool to have so much assurance in knowing what would have been the past if...

[Psychic Octopus]

The Butterfly effect is not possible in all situations. A "second-order counterfactual" is possible in some. Perhaps Hitler, yes. Perhaps, not losing the "lost order" yes. But If, let's say, we got a Republican President Roosevelt in 1912 it would not have made much of a difference. WW1 might have ended sooner, but we would have got a Anti-Roosevelt Republican in 1920, and they would govern until 1932, when we get FDR.

That's cool to have so much assurance in knowing what would have been the past if...

It was just a guess, and an example. That scenario would be likely.

[pbrower2a]

There is better periods of time to visit and clean up. Like killing Hitler in a trench during during WW1.

... or locking the door to the Presidential box at Ford's Theater on April 14, 1865.

Or slipping some arsenic into one of Josef Stalin's drinks when he was a young terrorist.

Or slipping a rattlesnake into the prison cell holding Adolf Hitler after the Beer Hall Putsch. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Something all Zionists ought to consider is that eliminating Hitler would mean no Israel today and Zionists would be deservedly regarded as a bunch of kooks. Fair trade off? Sadly many probably wouldn't think so.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Something all Zionists ought to consider is that eliminating Hitler would mean no Israel today and Zionists would be deservedly regarded as a bunch of kooks. Fair trade off? Sadly many probably wouldn't think so.

That's cool to have so much assurance in knowing what would have been the past if...

[pbrower2a]

Something all Zionists ought to consider is that eliminating Hitler would mean no Israel today and Zionists would be deservedly regarded as a bunch of kooks. Fair trade off? Sadly many probably wouldn't think so.

I am satisfied that vibrant Jewish communities scattered all over Europe in every large city and many small ones would have been more than adequate compensation. In view of he great achievements of European Jews in the century before the Holocaust, Europe would be less of a cultural fossil.

It wasn't so much the Nazis that made Israel necessary; it was the commies taking over central Europe. Hostile to both capitalism on any scale (which meant that Jewish entrepreneurs would not get their businesses back and would end up destitute) and to  religion in any form, Jews found themselves with no prospect of lives anything like the pre-Holocaust existence. If they would not be murdered, their distinction from other peoples would likewise disappear in the commie states. 

Heck, murder is always absolutely wrong and the avenging time traveler would have much to account for if caught.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Like killing Hitler in a trench during during WW1.

Hitler In The Trenches

https://www.facebook.com/reel/2333679113472720

[Jim Crow]

No because then we'd disrupt the course of time and something even worse might happen.  These things need to be thought through.