The actions of various Zionist groups during the period leading up to the establishment of Israel involved a range of activities that, by today's standards, would be classified as terrorism. Here's an overview of several notable incidents:

Bombing of the King David Hotel: On July 22, 1946, the Irgun, a Zionist paramilitary group, bombed the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which housed the British administrative headquarters. This attack resulted in the deaths of 91 people, including 28 British, 41 Arabs, 17 Jews, and 5 others. The Irgun had warned about the bomb, but the evacuation was not completed in time. This act is widely considered one of the most significant terrorist attacks of the 20th century, given its scale and impact.

The Sergeants Affair: In July 1947, the Irgun kidnapped two British sergeants, Clifford Martin and Mervyn Paice, in retaliation for the British execution of three Irgun members. The sergeants were later found hanged, which led to significant escalation in tensions and was seen as an act of terrorism due to the deliberate targeting of non-combatants for political leverage.

Bombing of the British Embassy in Rome: On October 31, 1946, the Irgun bombed the British Embassy in Rome, damaging nearly half of the building and injuring three people. This was part of a broader campaign against British interests in response to their policies in Palestine.

Attack on the Military Train from Austria to UK: On August 15, 1946, members of the Zionist group Lehi (also known as the Stern Gang) attacked a military train carrying British soldiers from Austria to the UK. This ambush, which took place near Kufstein, Austria, resulted in several British casualties. The attack was aimed at British forces as part of the resistance against the British Mandate in Palestine.

Bombing of the Hotel Sacher in Vienna: This event, less documented but part of the spectrum of actions, involved the bombing of the Hotel Sacher in Vienna by Zionist groups, though specific details on this incident are scarce in the provided sources. It would fit into the pattern of attacks aimed at British targets or those perceived to support British interests.

Bombing of the Immigration Department in Tel Aviv: While not as widely discussed in the provided sources, similar actions were taken against British administrative targets in Palestine, including attacks on immigration offices, which were aimed at disrupting British control over Jewish immigration to Palestine. Such actions would be considered terrorism due to the use of violence against administrative structures for political aims.

These incidents reflect a pattern of targeting both civilian and military structures associated with British rule over Palestine, with the intent to force British withdrawal and facilitate the creation of a Jewish state. Today, these actions would generally be classified under the broad definition of terrorism due to their nature as violent acts intended to create fear and influence political outcomes. However, it's crucial to understand the historical context in which these acts occurred, where they were part of a broader struggle for national liberation and statehood.

The events of October 7, 2023, where Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups launched a significant attack against Israel, can indeed be viewed within the context of a long-standing struggle for national liberation and statehood. Here's how this context unfolds:

Historical Background: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has roots tracing back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, intensified by the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which supported the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine. This led to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War after the UN's partition plan, resulting in the creation of the State of Israel and the displacement of many Palestinians, known as the Nakba.

Occupation and Resistance: Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has occupied the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem, areas intended for a future Palestinian state according to international resolutions. The occupation, coupled with settlements, blockades, and restrictions on movement, has fueled Palestinian resistance movements, including those by Hamas, which emerged in the late 1980s.

Gaza Blockade: Since Hamas took control of Gaza in 2007, Israel, with Egypt's cooperation, has imposed a blockade, severely limiting movement and access to goods, which has been criticized internationally as collective punishment. This blockade has contributed to economic hardship and a humanitarian crisis, providing a backdrop for resistance actions.

Hamas's Objectives: Hamas has declared its aim as ending the Israeli occupation and establishing an Islamic state in Palestine. Its charter historically includes the rejection of Israel's right to exist, though recent statements have shown a nuanced position on peace negotiations and statehood. The attack on October 7 was framed by Hamas as "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood," suggesting retaliation for actions at Al-Aqsa Mosque and broader Israeli policies.

Violent Resistance: The scale and nature of the October 7 attack — involving rocket barrages, ground incursions, and the taking of hostages — were unprecedented in recent times. These actions are seen by some as part of the resistance against occupation, while others categorize them strictly as terrorism due to the targeting of civilians and the brutality involved.

Global Perspective: Internationally, reactions to the events of October 7 are polarized. Some see it as a desperate act within an oppressed context, while others view it solely through the lens of terrorism, focusing on the immediate violence and its consequences rather than the broader conflict. The response by Israel, involving significant military action in Gaza, has further complicated the narrative, highlighting the cycle of violence in this ongoing struggle.

Legal and Moral Considerations: Under international law, while resistance against occupation is recognized, the tactics employed on October 7, particularly the targeting of civilians, are widely condemned as violations of humanitarian law. The debate often revolves around the proportionality of response and the legitimacy of means used in the pursuit of liberation.

Understanding these events within the historical context of national liberation does not equate to endorsing the methods used but acknowledges the complexity of the conflict, where actions are influenced by decades of political, social, and economic grievances. This perspective does not negate the condemnation of violence against civilians but places it within a broader narrative of resistance against occupation and the quest for statehood.