Benjamin 1

Nancy Benjamin
Professor McKeever
English 1020
June 30, 2016
Anonymous Soldiers:
The Struggle for Israel, 1917 1947
Bruce Hoffman
New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 2015
In Anonymous Soldiers, Professor Bruce Hoffman explores the use of terrorism as
an effective means to influence a Nations policy to accommodate the respective rebel
groups cause. Professor Hoffman is not an advocate of terrorism, but he is conscious of
the fact that it remains a means for the underdog to pursue his fight against larger powers
and to get the worlds attention, whether for good or evil. He uses the fight for Palestine
between the Jewish people, the indigenous Arab people and Britain to illustrate his points
about terrorisms sometimes-effective means of strategy. The Jewish people ultimately
prevailed in 1948 with the United Nations officially declaring Israel an independent
nation within Palestine.
Professor Hoffman is the director of the Center for Security Studies and director
of the Security Studies Program at Georgetown Universitys Edmund A Walsh School of
Foreign Service. Within his book jacket, Professor Hoffman is also credited with being
Americans leading expert on terrorism. His studies look at how the role of terrorism
can shape the foreign policy of governments. He asks the question at the beginning of his

Benjamin 2
Preface, Does terrorism work? Its targets and victims steadfastly maintain that it does
not, while its practitioners and apologists claim that it does. (Hoffman ix)
Why indeed? Statesmen and scholars may trumpet terrorisms ineffectuality, it is
nonetheless widely accepted that terrorist violence is neither irrational nor desperate but
instead entirely rational and often carefully calculated and choreographed. (Hoffman x)
We are now all too aware of this reality at this moment in time.
Professor Hoffman goes on to quote various world leaders response to the terrorist
attacks aimed at their countries. Each claim that their country will not succumb to the
blackmail of terrorism; in that it is a futile attempt that does not work. But the question
Professor Hoffman ponders is Yet if terrorism is so ineffective, why has it persisted for
at least the past two millennia and indeed become an increasingly popular means of
violent political expression in the twenty-first century? (Hoffman x)
Professor Hoffman illustrates his point above by retelling the methods used by the
underground Israeli Defense soldiers to achieve the goal of creating a self governed
homeland within Palestine, as first promised by the British in the Balfour Declaration of
1914. Assassinations, bombings and counter attacks give the real story all the earmarks
of a modern day theatrical thriller. Told with intimate detail that only someone who was
able to do extensive research on newly released British state documents could.
I found Anonymous Soldiers: The Struggle For Israel, 1917-1947, to be highly
engrossing with many details of the backroom politics that influence the international
policy of Nations. Prof. Hoffman has spent years of research on this particular subject
matter regarding the creation of the State of Israel in Palestine. Using highly classified
intelligence reports, analyses, interrogations, intercepts, diaries and handwritten notes by

Benjamin 3
Winston Churchill, Professor Hoffman gives us the compelling history of these organized
Zionist militant groups who emerged out of self preservation necessity and waged war
and terror on those who would deny them their right to exist within their once ancient and
promised land.
Coming out of World War I, victorious Britain made two promises to two different
sets of people to a land they both laid claim to. The Balfour declaration made by Britain,
promised displaced Jewish people fleeing anti-Semitism in Europe a homeland within
Palestine. Britain also made the McMahon-Hussein commitment to their Arab Allies in
return for their military assistance in the fight against the Ottoman Empire, to support
them in their self-determination within the newly conquered territories. Although
Britain would later claim that Palestine was not apart of this agreement. (7) They had
their own plan for this strategic strip of land that bordered the Suez Canal and ensure
passage into the needed oil fields of the Middle East as well as a shortened passageway to
its holdings in India.
The Arab population became worried that Palestine would become a Jewish state
as more and more Jewish immigrants arrived. They needed assurance from the British
that the tide of immigration would be curtailed. But due to anti-Semitism prevailing in
Europe, many Jews were turned out of homes and countries. They had nowhere else to
go but to eight America or their ancient homeland. Britain had not yet made the decision
to control the influx immigration into the area. The population of Jews continued to grow
increasing the tensions seething beneath the surface of the Arabs.
Attacks on Jewish settlers started in the countryside then progressed into the cities
with the largely Arab police force being of little use to keep order and attacks from

Benjamin 4
happening. The British military also seemed to exhibit an anti-Zionist sentiment in their
ineffectiveness to also curtail the violence.
Born out of the necessity for self defense against Arab attacks on Jewish
settlements Vladimir Zeev Jabotinsky, a brilliant orator, essayist, ideologue, and poet,
emerged as among the most vociferous and militant of the Zionist leaders and thinkers
during the period between the two wars. (Hoffman 8). A Russian Jewish immigrant,
Jabotinsky served in a Jewish legion that participated with the British forces in the War
against the Ottomans. Jabotinsky helped form the Haganah (Defense). He served as its
commander and insisted that the group be an official paramilitary force with full
recognition and cooperation of the British. But events on April 4th, 1920 instigated by
Arabs resulting in a deadly clash between Arabs and Jews in which Jabotinsky and 19
other Hagnah members became the scapegoat. Jabotinsky was sentenced to 15 years in
prison and ordered deported from Palestine upon his release by the British OETA
(Occupied Enemy Territory Administration) even though he acted in self-defense of his
people.
Following the imprisonment of Jabotinsky, the remaining Haganah leaders
decided to establish the Irgum ha-Haganah ha-Ivrith bEretz Yisrael (Hebrew Defense
Organization in Palestine). The creation of an independent, armed Jewish underground
represented its founders belief that only by relying on themselves would the Jewish
population of Palestine ever be secure. (Hoffman 12) The goal of this newly formed
defense force was to eventually become a future Jewish army within their own state.
Britains difficult role in trying to keep order within the continuing chaos while
trying to avoid showing favoritism to either side failed its goal of presenting an unbiased

Benjamin 5
governmental system. Each side, Arab and Jew, accused the British Security forces and
Crown of favoring the other. Each disputed the role of instigator in the riots, even though
the Jewish settlers suffered heavy casualties and destruction of homes, both were held
responsible.
Zionist patience had run its course. They felt it was time for Britain to fulfill its
promise of declaring their right to self govern and form their own state. Britain in need
of the Arab oil resources and continuing support in the Middle East by other Arab nations
would not be moved. They instead issued a letter to Palestine known as the White
Letter reducing the number of Jewish immigrants to be allowed into the territory.
Although this placated the Arab population it did not stop the riots. Especially over the
right to worship at the West Wall, the ruined remains of the Sacred Temple Mount, and
the Mosque
Realizing that the British Security forces and Arab police patrols were either
powerless or negligent in protecting them and their right to worship, the most notorious
underground Zionist extremist group was formed.
The Irgum, without the self-controlled wisdom of Jabotinsky, became an
extremist group in Palestine. Also know as The Stern Gang, named for Abraham Stern a
brilliant classicist from Hebrew University and one of the hard-core junior Haganah-Bet
officers (Hoffman 63) Stern along with Daniel Raziel, another prominent Irgum and
Zionist Revisionist Party member, took the Irgum from targeting Arabs in response to
attacks to retaliating against the British for their lack of commitment to the creation of the
Zionist State in later years.

Benjamin 6
Raziel advocated a more aggressive, offensive strategy to deter Arab violence.
(Hoffman 80) Hoffman writes that Raziels personal philosophy was There can be no
struggle for national freedom that is not accompanied by sacrifices, conflicts and the
slaying of heroes (Hoffman 80) This philosophy fitted in with the Irguns.
The group was split between including Britain as their enemy for the execution of
Ben-Yosef, who was caught during a failed terrorist attack and continuing to curry favor
with the British in the hopes that they would still honor their pledge for a nation. They
instead decided to focus on Arab targets for the time being. Now instead of responding to
attacks they went on the offensive.
The Arabs for their part, consistently used terrorist activities to force their will on
the British as evidenced in 1921 with the British scaling back Jewish immigration visas in
response to Arab rioting. Also in 1929, riots forced Britain to back step on their
commitment to Zionism. Finally Professor Hoffman explains how the Arab Rebellion
prompted the most drastic reformulation of Britains policy for Palestine to date.
Severely curtailing Jewish immigration and after a five year transition period made it
completely dependent upon Arab consent. (474)
The Irgun noting the political victories that the Arabs won from their terror
uprising took a page from their playbook. The Irgun forged ahead in its own revolt in
1944 to force Britain to reverse its decision on Jewish immigration into Palestine and
force the long awaited creation of statehood for the Jewish people.
Before this could happen, England went to war with Germany and the horror that
resulted in the slaughter of millions of Jews kept the Irgun from going to war with Britain

Benjamin 7
in Palestine. They pledged to support the British war effort to fight an even more evil
befalling the Jewish people.
Once Britain and its Allies won the war, The Jewish Irgun now headed by
Menachem Begin, resumed the struggle against British rule. Begin claimed that his
strategy was not to defeat Britain militarily but to use terrorist violence to undermine the
governments prestige and control of Palestine by striking at symbols of British rule.
(Hoffman 475)
The cost of fighting the war, the inability to supply needed number of peace
keeping troops in Palestine and the inability to work out a solution for partition of
Palestine for both people finally brought Britain to the conclusion that it could no longer
manage the Mandate and returned the matter to the new United Nations.
Professor Hoffmans assessment of the role of Jewish terrorism in this outcome he
says is best understood in the context of British policy and decision making for Palestine
through its three decade long rule. Britain never really had a firm or consistent policy
for Palestine. This, in turn, rendered successive British governments susceptible to
terrorist pressure. The impression shared by Arab and Jew alike was that London could
be influenced, intimidated, or otherwise persuaded by violence. (473)
I feel that Professor Hoffman pro-Zionist leaning in his writings, although he does
not neglect to point out where the Zionist Jews became extreme in their argument to
assert their right to the holy places and the land. Each side was not willing to back down
or accommodate the other side. Prof. Hoffman paints the Palestinian Arab as unsympathetic, uncompromising and brutal in their desire to rid themselves of their Jewish
neighbors.

Benjamin 8
As I read this remarkable retelling of the events leading to the destabilization of
Palestine, I cannot help but see how history is repeating itself. The anger over
immigration, the suspicion of those not like ourselves, the impression that another culture
is valued more than another, the fear of terrorist attacks is driving our countries political
rhetoric for policy change. We insist that we will not let fear of terrorism interrupt our
way of life and it will not change us as a country. But I believe it already has. How can
it not, when we come face to face with the horror and carnage is in our backyard. It is not
easy to be so flippant about its unsettling force. But allowing fear instead of strength,
courage and integrity to guide our response to such threats erodes our stability as a
nation. Professor Hoffmans lesson to us is that the government that can be threatened
and coerced by violence into granting political concessions will be the target of such
methods. (20)