June 1948- Jewish civil war after ALTALENA affair

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

Is there any way that, despite the threat posed by Arab forces, the HAGANAH and IRGUN could've fought against each other in armed conflict after the June 1948 ALTALENA incident and soldiers from these opposing Jewish defence groups firing on each other while attempting to secure that ship and the arms aboard ? Could their political differences have caused the YISHUV to lose the war of independence, in the same way that Arab divisions (ie between the Egyptians, Jordanians, Syrians, and Iraqis, or between Hajj Amin el-Husseini and Fawzi al-Kaukji on the Palestinian side) undermined their collective effort to crush the Jews ?
 
1948 Jewish Civil War

The Jews in Israel were outnumbered 50 to 1 by their hostile Islamic neighbors. That tends to keep you focused. I do not see this incident escalating into a Jewish civil war.
 
In all honesty, no.

The Irgun was good at intimidation, the incidental bombing or killing et al but the Irgun's effectiveness went to pieces the moment they were suddenly involved in regular military operations. Due to their limited man power and the inability to actually enforce military organization/discipline, they would have been unable to compete.

Question: The Irgun was able to field a few thousand men in 1948 but does anyone know if they actually won a battle?
 
Deir Yasin

I believe the Irgun was responsible for seizing Deir Yasin in April 1948. A small but strategically located village over looking the Jewish main supply route. Unfortunately their military victory was marred by the slaughter of about 70 villagers after the battle ended.
 
Dave Bender said:
I believe the Irgun was responsible for seizing Deir Yasin in April 1948. A small but strategically located village over looking the Jewish main supply route. Unfortunately their military victory was marred by the slaughter of about 70 villagers after the battle ended.

Walking in a village and killing civilians in it is hardly military victory. Massacre yes, military victory no. And number of dead is higher. 100-120 range being most often quoted.
 
Hardly a military victory

It is my understanding that Deir Yasin was defended. Neither side was using "conventional" military forces, but that was typical for almost all battles during the first part of the 1948 conflict.
 
There is, as always, considerable and vitriolic debate. The accounts of the Irgun members in on the attack were that a number of women and children were in fact engaging the attackers from the cover of houses, and that being ill-trained and ill-prepared for forced entry into what were apparently much sturdier buildings than they'd been informed (and thus prepared for), they were unable to neutralize these snipers save by killing them. They also testified that, acting not under official command, a number of their members then shot an undetermined but large number of those who had surrendered; the specific cause of this is disputed among the accounts.
 
Dave Bender said:
It is my understanding that Deir Yasin was defended. Neither side was using "conventional" military forces, but that was typical for almost all battles during the first part of the 1948 conflict.

I heard these claims as well. Didn't see much proof supporting them though.
 
Didn't see much proof

In a war fought between irregular forces proof is difficult to find. Especially in a battle this small involving only a couple hundred people on either side.
 
Top