The Etzel Propaganda Trials during the Revolt, 1944-1948

Abstract

In February 1944, the Irgun issued a ‘proclamation of revolt’ that ushered in a new era in the organization's attitude toward the mandatory government. In its publications, the Irgun called for a revolt against the mandatory laws, but in its directives to members, it was more moderate and measured. The legal defense in the weapons trials was centralized and managed by the legal organization of the Irgun, which functioned in conjunction with the law firms of Seligman, whom they considered trustworthy, and with Levitsky. Unable to engage in active warfare, the imprisoned members of the Irgun decided to turn the trial into a propaganda arena as the focus of an alternative struggle. A recommended line of defense was offered after their personal situation had been checked out and their legal status verified by the lawyers. The same considerations that led the Irgun to craft a political line of defense in many of the weapon’s trials led to a legal line of defense for the vast majority of the propaganda trials. The understanding that the propaganda trials did not attract a high degree of resonance in the media, the extreme youth of the defendants, and the possibility of getting them acquitted or at least of largely reducing their sentences, tipped the scales in favor of the decision to adopt a legal line of defense. The decision to continue delegating authority for the propaganda trials to the legal departments of the district was in keeping with the preference for a legal line of defense that did not require centralized and coordinated management. The Irgun's approach in the legal arena was graduated, complex and measured, ranging from adherence to its intrinsic goals and objectives to a concern for the life and freedom of its fighters.