So Who’s Afraid of the Israel Lobby?
By Ray McGovern on October 6, 2007 at 12:15 AM in Current Affairs
October 5, 2007
So Who’s Afraid of the Israel Lobby?
By Ray McGovern
Virtually everyone: Republican, Democrat—Conservative, Liberal. The fear factor is non-partisan, you might say, and palpable.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) brags that it is the most influential foreign policy lobbying organization on Capitol Hill, and has demonstrated that time and again—and not only on Capitol Hill.
Seldom has the Lobby’s power been as clearly demonstrated as in its ability to suppress the awful truth that on June 8, 1967, during the Six Day War:
o Israel deliberately attacked the intelligence collection ship USS Liberty, in full awareness it was a U.S. Navy ship, and did its best to sink it and leave no survivors;
o The Israelis would have succeeded had they not broken off the attack upon learning, from an intercepted message, that the commander of the U.S. 6th Fleet had launched carrier fighters to the scene; and
o By that time 34 of the Liberty’s crew had been killed and over 170 wounded.
Scores of intelligence analysts and senior officials have known this for years. That virtually all of them have kept a forty-year frightened silence is testament to the widespread fear of touching this live wire.
Even more telling is the fact that the National Security Agency apparently has destroyed voice tapes and transcripts heard and seen by many intelligence analysts, material that shows beyond doubt that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing.
The Ugly Truth
But the truth will out—eventually. All it took in this case was for a courageous journalist (of the endangered species kind) to listen to the surviving crew and do a little basic research, not shrinking from naming war crimes and not letting senior U.S. officials, from the president on down, off the hook for suppressing—even destroying—damning evidence from intercepted Israeli communications.
The mainstream media have now published an exposé based largely on interviews with those most intimately involved.
A lengthy article by Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter John Crewdson appeared in the Chicago Tribune and Baltimore Sun on Oct. 2 titled “New revelations in attack on American spy ship.”
To the subtitle goes the prize for understatement of the year: “Veterans, documents suggest U.S., Israel didn’t tell full story of deadly 1967 incident.”
Better 40 years late than never, I suppose. Many of us have known of the incident and cover-up for a very long time and have tried to expose and discuss it for the lessons it holds for today.
It has proved far easier, though, to get a very pedestrian Dog-Bites-Man article published than an article with the importance and explosiveness of this sensitive story.
A Marine Stands Up
On the evening of Sept. 26, 2006, I gave a talk on Iraq to an overflow crowd of 400 at National Avenue Church in Springfield, Missouri.
A questioner asked what I thought of the study by John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard titled “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.”
The study had originally been commissioned by The Atlantic Monthly. When the draft arrived, however, shouts of “Leper!” were heard at the Atlantic. The monthly wasted no time in saying thanks-but-no-thanks, and the leper-study then wandered in search of a home, finding none among American publishers.
Eventually the London Review of Books published it in March 2006.
I had read that piece carefully and found it an unusual act of courage as well as scholarship. That’s what I told the questioner, adding that I did have two problems with the study:
o First, it seemed to me the authors erred in attributing virtually all the motivation for the U.S. attack on Iraq to the Israel Lobby and the so-called “neo-conservatives” running our policy and armed forces. Was Israel an important factor? Indeed. But of equal importance, in my view, was the oil factor and what the Pentagon now calls the “enduring” military bases in Iraq, which the White House and Pentagon decided were needed for the U.S. to dominate that part of the Middle East.
o Second, I was intrigued by the fact that Mearsheimer and Walt made no mention of what I believe to be, if not the most telling, then perhaps the most sensational proof of the power the Lobby knows it can exert over our government and Congress. In sum, in June 1967, after deliberately using fighter-bombers and torpedo boats to attack the USS Liberty for over two hours in an attempt to sink it and kill its entire crew, and then getting the U.S. government, the Navy, and the Congress to cover up what happened, the Israeli government learned that it could—literally—get away with murder.
I found myself looking out at 400 blank stares. The USS Liberty? And so I asked how many in the audience had heard of the attack on the Liberty on June 8, 1967. Three hands went up; I called on the gentleman nearest me.
Ramrod straight he stood:
“Sir, Sergeant Bryce Lockwood, United States Marine Corps, retired. I am a member of the USS Liberty crew, Sir.”
Catching my breath, I asked him if he would be willing to tell us what happened.
“Sir, I have not been able to do that. It is hard. But it has been almost 40 years, and I would like to try this evening, Sir.”
You could hear a pin drop for the next 15 minutes, as Lockwood gave us his personal account of what happened to him, his colleagues, and his ship on the afternoon of June 8, 1967.
He was a linguist assigned to collect communications intelligence from the USS Liberty, which was among the ugliest—and most easily identifiable—ships in the fleet with antennae springing out in all directions.
Lockwood told of the events of that fateful day, beginning with the six-hour naval and air surveillance of the Liberty by the Israeli navy and air force on the morning of June 8.
After the air attacks including thousand-pound bombs and napalm, three sixty-ton torpedo boats lined up like a firing squad, pointing their torpedo tubes at the Liberty’s starboard hull.
Lockwood had been ordered to throw the extremely sensitive cryptological equipment overboard and had just walked beyond the bulwark separating the NSA intelligence unit from the rest of the ship when, he recalled, he sensed a large black object, a tremendous explosion, and sheet of flame.
The torpedo had struck dead center in the NSA space.
The cold, oily water brought Lockwood back to consciousness. Around him were 25 dead colleagues; but he heard moaning.
Three were still alive; one of Lockwood’s shipmates dragged one survivor up the hatch. Lockwood was able to lift the two others, one-by-one, onto his shoulder and carry them up through the hatch.
This meant alternatively banging on the hatch for someone to open it and swimming back to fish his shipmate out of the water lest he float out to sea through the 39-foot hole made by the torpedo.
At that Lockwood stopped speaking. It was enough. Hard, very hard—even after almost 40 years.
What Else We Know
John Crewdson’s meticulously documented article, together with the 57 pages that James Bamford devotes to the incident in his book “Body of Secrets” and recent confessions by those who played a role in the cover-up, paint a picture that the surviving crew of the USS Liberty can only find infuriating.
The evidence, from intercepted communications as well as testimony, of Israeli deliberate intent is unimpeachable, even though the Israelis continue to portray the incident as merely a terrible mistake.
Crewdson refers to U.S. Navy Captain Ward Boston, who was the Navy lawyer appointed as senior counsel to Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, named by Admiral John S. McCain (Sen. John McCain’s father) to “inquire into all the facts and circumstances.”
The fact that they were given only one week to gather evidence and were forbidden to contact the Israelis screams out “cover-up.”
Captain Boston, now 84, signed a formal declaration on Jan. 8, 2004 in which he described himself as “outraged at the efforts of the apologists for Israel in this country to claim that this attack was a case of ‘mistaken identity.’” Boston continued:
“The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack…was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew…Not only did the Israelis attack the ship with napalm, gunfire, and missiles, Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned three lifeboats that had been launched in an attempt by the crew to save the most seriously wounded—a war crime…I know from personal conversations I had with Admiral Kidd that President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of ‘mistaken identity’ despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.”
Why the Israelis decided to take the draconian measure of sinking a ship of the U.S. Navy is open to speculation.
One view is that the Israelis did not want the U.S. to find out they were massing troops to seize the Golan Heights from Syria, and wanted to deprive the U.S. of the opportunity to argue against such a move.
Another theory: James Bamford, in “Body of Secrets,” adduces evidence, including reporting from an Israeli journalist eyewitness and an Israeli military historian, of wholesale killing of Egyptian prisoners of war at the coastal town of El Arish in the Sinai.
The Liberty was patrolling directly opposite El Arish in international waters but within easy range to pick up intelligence on what was going on there. And the Israelis were well aware.
As for the why, well, someone could at least approach the Israelis involved and ask, no?
The important thing here is not to confuse what is known (the deliberate nature of the Israeli attack) with the purpose behind it, which remains a matter of speculation.
Other Indignities
Bowing to intense pressure from the Navy, the White House agreed to award the Liberty’s skipper, Captain William McGonagle, the Medal of Honor…. but not at the White House, and not by the president (as is the custom).
Rather, the Secretary of the Navy gave the award at the Washington Navy Yard on the banks of the acrid Anacostia River.
A naval officer involved in the awards ceremony told one of the Liberty crew, “The government is pretty jumpy about Israel…the State Department even asked the Israeli ambassador if his government had any objections to McGonagle getting the medal.”
Adding insult to injury, those of the Liberty crew who survived well enough to call for an independent investigation have been hit with charges of, you guessed it, anti-Semitism.
Now that some of the truth is emerging more and more, others are showing more courage in speaking out. In a recent email, an associate of mine who has followed Middle East affairs for almost 60 years, shared the following:
“The chief of the intelligence analysts studying the Arab/Israeli region at the time told me about the intercepted messages and said very flatly and firmly that the pilots reported seeing the American flag and repeated their requests for confirmation of the attack order. Whole platoons of Americans saw those intercepts. If NSA now says they do not exist, then someone ordered them destroyed.”
Leaving the destruction of evidence without investigation is an open invitation to repetition in the future.
As for the larger picture, visiting Israel this past summer I was constantly told that Egypt forced Israel into war in June 1967. This does not square with the unguarded words of Menachem Begin in 1982, when he was Israel’s prime minister. Rather he admitted publicly:
“In June 1967, we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that [Egyptian President] Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”
Israel had, in fact, prepared well militarily and mounted provocations against its neighbors, in order to provoke a response that could be used to justify an expansion of its borders.
Israel’s illegal 40-year control over and confiscation of land in the occupied territories and U.S. enabling support (particularly the one-sided support by the current U.S. administration) go a long way toward explaining why it is that 1.3 billion Muslims “hate us.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. He was a CIA analyst for 27 years and is now on the Steering Committee of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). He spent some time in Israel and the West Bank this summer.
This article was first posted on Consortiumnews.com.
on sale for only $16.95.
also comes with a special spatula.)
(List Price: $27.95 - Your Price: $15.47)
“The story of poker is that of risk-loving America ... a crazy ride in unparalleled detail, driven by wit, wisdom, true love, and sizzling style. As analyst, historian, devotee, and no mean player, James McManus is poker’s most eloquent advocate.”
By Sarah Palin (Release date: November 17. 2009)
You are, like Mearsheimer and Walt, a brave man, Ray McGovern. Thank you for speaking out with the truth. For others there have been consequences.
Some examples:
http://www.counterpunch.com/avnery10042007.html
http://articles.citypages.com/2007-10-03/news/banning-desmond-tutu/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-gardels/jimmy-carter-takes-on-isr_b_36134.html
Sandy, I have read over on TPM about this book review and the accusations of many that these men are antisemitic and it is truly unbelievable the language they have used against them.
There are a couple good books out on the Liberty attack..which happened in INTERNATIONAL Water..One is “Attack on USS Liberty”..and edited version of SRH 256..which was a report written by a NSA Operations officer..
The other Book is “Assault on the Liberty”..in paperback..both good read and I know friends who were career Navy who carry the Books and talk about the incident to anyone who will Listen..and there is still much anger over the incident..
Wikipedia has a good Article on the Incident with references and pictures of the Damaged ship..
People need to know or be reminded that this incident happened..and how it was handled politically..
The Captain was given the Medal of Honor later on..but not by the President and not in the Whitehouse….and there is some information that
they asked the Israelis first if they would mind if the Captain got a Medal of honor..
Thabnks Ray..There is allot to read into what your Article and its title are Stating..
I have long wondered what the Israelis really knew about the 9/11 incident also..and if they withheld known Intelligence from Us..
TO PROTECT Thier SOURCES..or exposed how deeply there operate inside the United States..
Hs anyone else in the Intel Community Rasied THAT Issue too..??
It is part of public record that Israel was one of the dozen or so countries that warned the US of a possible attack.
“Since the dawn of the Zionist movement, suffering has not ceased to exist in the world. All the warnings of the Torah have been fulfilled in their details among our People all over the world. For a believer it is no surprise that the Zionists are the same as the heretics at the time of the Destruction of the Temple. Thus, divine judgment has been unleashed on the entire world.” — Rabbi Shaul Brach
….and the U.S. STILL gives “foreign aid” to Israel. 40 years later. Now, Israel demands that it be paid in Euros.
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/3689
Two other interesting articles for you to scroll through.
http://www.wrmea.com/us_aid_to_israel/index.htm
No date of publication on this one:
http://www.hotpolitics.com/tax4israel.htm
Very good Ray! I am so glad you finally or that someone finally has had the intestinal fortitude to come forth and make public the reality of what has and still is going in with Israel! This should not be happening in our country. This alone should rise a red flag to what Israel has been up to for so many years now. I do not hold grudges towards the people of Israel, but I do hold the Nation of or the political factor of Israel responsible for many illegal acts towards the Palestinian ppl and other nations for their own greed. They continue, to this day, doing such illegal acts that will make their ppl pay a price that should not even be thought of paying. I have read articles about the USS Liberty. I too have wondered why the hush hush about all of this. I detest the AIPAC! Period. They are a corrupt bunch of ppl that now has succumb the neocons that they are truly the very most bad ppl on this earth with their willingness to kill and disrupt peace and the lives of others. They instigate fear and murder. They should all be taken to the Hague for their behaviour, period! As an American, I do not want these ppl in my country, period! I never have!
What I truly can not understand is why/how they have gained so much power. I have read some of their history and they have evolved with the knowledge of our government and this is the most truly sad thing for us, as a nation.
Thank you for your article and publication of this. It is truly needed in the worlds worst way!
PS, I got out of the Navy in Aug of ‘66 and heard of this afterward and could not believe our friend did this to us, but they did!!!!!!!! Friends, like this, do not do things like this to their friends. So this tells me they are not friends. Simple logic. Stop all monies from going to them and then see what happens to them..I seriously doubt that they will have a leg to stand on…This money is my and your tax dollars and I do not wish my $$$$ to go to them.
Look at how they can and will destroy nations other than their own, which is questionable, top get what they want. They are truly evil. They betray our trust every chance they get. To think they root themselves into our government to get what they want , is way beyond belief. To make our senators and congresscritters afraid of them and do their bidding is unbelievable on its own merit!
What an amazing [and unknown] story! It throws us into the middle of an impossible dilemma. The plight of the Jews in Europe in World War II is the unspeakable atrocity of modern times - the Holocaust. It weighs heavily on all of mankind, not just its perpetrators, because the world ignored the rising antisemetism that came before and should have warned us. Now, we’re is a situation where Israel, carrying the scars of that atrocity, has become a major force in our Middle Eastern policies - in the opinion of many, an active negative force. But to criticize Israel is to be immediately labeled an antisemite.
Enough of this. Israel stands to be judged by the same standards as any other country on the Planet. We have a subpopulation of former soldiers with P.T.S.D. Traumatized men whose world view has been forever altered by their wartime experience. While we owe them whatever treatment we can muster to help them, and we owe them our respect, in a court of law, their crimes are just that - crimes.
Having spent a career as a Psychoanalyst dealing with traumatized people, the hardest thing they have to learn in their psychotherapy is that they must find a way to consciously shoulder the burden of the difficult past and learn to live with its scars on an everyday basis. If they don’t, they become the perpetrators of the very thing that happened to them. They have to learn that there is no “pay-back” for the horrific past other than the sympathy and respect of others and the possibilities of the present and future. When they allow themselves to become “special,” they’re headed for a fall. Traumatized people without constant vigilance, can waste the remainder of their lives trying to “prevent the past” - an obviously impossible enterprise - or worse, becoming the very thing they hate.
This story highlights the paradigm of “victim” turned “perpetrator.”
so are you saying the military who are with ptsd are the ones responsible for themselves and they do nto deserve tx??!!
Listen man, you are way off base, if this is what you are saying!!!!! Could you clarify your meaning here for me, at least?!
BTW, how dare you say enough of this. I take this as a threat. Am I wrong here.
I am an old military nurse and I have personally and up close seen ptsd in its truest form.
Sir, with all due respect, I want to say this to you. I respect your profession. As a woman who was in the military and who had a spouse in the military who had ptsd, I too suffer from some of it myself. I have gone throughout my life doing what gratifies me most and that is healing the sick in the very best manner that I could. I do not sit on a daily basis saying woe is me and neither does the ex-spouse, and so many more of my friends that suffer the aftereffects of war. They go on and do what has to be done to have a good life and try hard not to make others feel sorry for them/us. However, there are times when this becomes more of a burden that one can hardly bare. This is when we take ourselves to the sideline and mourn or re-hash our woes in private and no one will ever know the difference.
….and another thing, this is way off topic here. That of which you are interjecting. We need to stay on the topic at hand, if you ask me. All I can say for the Israelis is, if the shoe fits then…..
The people doing the complaining about anti-semitism are not Semites because they don’t come from the Desert. Zionists from Eastern Europe have no connection whatsoever to land in the Mediterranean. As an Italian-American descended from the Romans (who happened to settle the city of Jerusalem), I have more right to live in Palestine with other Mediterranean people than do those from Eastern Europe who call themselves “Jews” and “Semites”.
“enduring” military bases in Iraq, which the White House and Pentagon decided were needed for the U.S. to dominate that part of the Middle East.”
well, why do they need these? for the military industrial complex AND for Israel. neo cons and libs from podhertz to Scoop Jackson have always been in favor of amassive massive military spending , mainly because they want a US presence in the middle east.
Also, I have to admit, mr mgoverns certitude on the Liberty issue is somewhat undermined by his appearence at a 9/11 truth forum I saw on C Span. I have an open mind but it ain’t THAT that open.
One of the 34 dead in USS Liberty was a good friend, Steve Toth. It is a shame to see his memory desecrated here by the anti-Semitic rantings of a certified nutball.
I grow very tired of this overused and misused term.
Just who is the “certified nutball” that you speak of? Proof of certification please or is it your personal opinion?
Also, I really want to know why it is that every time that anyone speaks of Israel, they are instantly labelled ‘anti-semitic’. It’s a crutch. It’s overplayed and it’s done. Furthermore, Jews are not a race of people. It’s a religion. As in Judaism. The article by Ray Mc Govern is speaking of Israel, the country and it’s policies and not any religion or language is mentioned therein.
Furthermore, I wish that those who use the terminology (you), actually understood that it is not a term that describes negativity towards Jews. It’s been adopted as a matter of convenience.
The word ’semitic’ has a long history. The late 19th century term ‘anti-Semitism’ refers specifically to hostility toward Jews, further complicating the understood meaning and boundaries of the term. When you label someone an ‘anti-semite’, you are calling in a whole host of languages and countries that someone might be speaking negatively against. Being ‘anti-semitic’ is not about religion.
You calling Ray Mc Govern, without responsibly citing any proof, is saying that Mr. Mc Govern is anti-Hebrew, which is a language spoken by both Jews and non-Jews. Also, Israel is made up of 4 religions; Jewish, Muslim, Christian and Druze. Jewish is predominant.
So, tell me what ‘anti-semitism’ is? Again, it’s a word adopted by one religious group’s need and use to label others that are not of that religion who speak or write about it’s host country. And it’s hogwash.
Without getting into this any further, read what ‘Semitism’ is;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic
Sorry, but Steve Toth doesn’t sound at all like a Mediterranean name to me so how can Mr. Toth be Semitic?
Centrocita, Semitic does not mean of Mediterranean origin. Broadly, Semitic refers to speakers of Semitic languages. In another context it can refer to purported descendants of Noah’s son, Shem. However, in its narrowest sense it refers specifically to Jews.
Gee, where’s Shirin when you need her. She has all the answers.
Ray,
I have undying respect for your opinions and experience, but I think you’re falling into a common trap here. While I would be the first to say that there are too many American Jews who believe themselves to be Knights of Israel, defending Israel from every perceived affront, these people are bluster, much as Rush Limbaugh is bluster. The only power they have is to distract, and only so far as we give them our attention. They are not nearly as powerful as the Evangelical lobby, for example, which has both money and numbers and has been a staunch supporter of the Iraq war under the banner of “war on terror (and let’s rebuild the temple so we can all ‘go home’).”
On the Liberty, I honestly don’t know what happened. Whether high-level Americans were complicit in the cover-up or whether they gave their permission before the attack is not clear. But it is clear that Israel would not risk antagonizing their only ally without the understanding that the risk was “acceptably low.” And so it’s completely unfair to characterize it as Israel somehow having control of American will on this issue. We have to take responsibility for our own role in the tragedy. We are responsible for what we do, as they are for their actions.
On the issue of anti-semitism, criticism of Israel is NOT anti-semitic — despite what you might hear from some Americans, Israelis take and give criticism freely, and are more genuinely critical of their own government than perhaps anyone (I’m ignoring those who are cynically critical). The Israeli government is in fact secular. And where this discussion does cross into anti-Semitism is where Israel is equated with “The Jews” and where it’s evident that the speaker (the “Israel Lobby” book, in this case) is eager to bash Israel for something that he is not even willing to acknowledge about other countries in the region or elsewhere.
It’s convenient for Americans to be angry with Israel for the problems of the region. And Israel bears a great deal of responsibility. But we can’t ignore our own American role in what’s happened around the world (we and the former USSR are the probably #1 and #2 causes of chaos in the last 50 years). And we can’t ignore the role of Europe in setting the stage and then turning its back on these crises.
What it amounts to is scapegoating, by and large, a concept which was actually invented by Jew, literally throwing our sins off the cliff on the back of a goat. But while Jews don’t practice that ceremony anymore, the rest of the world is more than happy to oblige. Don’t fall into the trap, Ray. The sins do disappear, and all you get is a bloody goat.
But, I-A, how much power does Rush Limbaugh have here? He is a Republican power broker because of the votes and donations he can direct into the political system. I suspect too that some of the Knights of Israel here are Limbaugh-esque blowhards - but if they can direct for example LOTS and LOTS of political money into elections of interests, then they have disproportionate power.
The backbone of the Lobby here is campaign and other forms of donations and payoffs, the backbone is financial.
Also, IA, though I wish to state it respectfully, I need to blunt: to describe the Israeli government as “secular” is in fact an absolute joke. To state that Israel is not Jewish is to ignore its reality. Carter called it an apartheid regime, or at least made a comparison. Israel is radically Jewish in character. You can support that or not support it but it is quite undeniable.
anon,
Please allow me to butt in and refine a bit what you have stated.
Israel is, by definition, a secular state because it is not a state based on religion. In fact, the majority of Jewish Israelis are secular, not religious people. Jewishness is not defined only by religion. That is, an atheist Jew is still a Jew by some combination of ancestry, culture, ethnicity, whatever, and is still entitled to all the rights and privileges officially and unofficially granted by the Jewish State to its Jewish citizens.
Despite the fact that Orthodox rabbis DO hold an inordinate amount of power over many aspects of the country, it is still a secular state and by no means a theocracy. Due to the clear and often official preferential treatment the Jewish State provides its Jewish citizens over its non-Jewish (and most blatantly its Palestinian) ones, it is not a full-fledged democracy as most people like to think of democracy. It is more accurate to to describe Israel as an ethnocracy.
Shrin, I am sorry, but Israel IS a theorcacy.
1) The definition of a Jew is a religous one (yes, an Atheist Jew is still a Jew, but ONLY because one is born by Jewish mother).
2) ALL Jewish pupil have to study Bible and there is impossible to get a high school certificat without passing the exam (I know it too well, my dougher had to do it)
3)non-religious marriage is impossible for Isrel Jew (they could marry abroad, but not in Israel)
An
Lidia, I understand your point, and I agree that the Orthodox rabbis have a strong hold on certain aspects, but Israel still does not fit the definition of a theocracy.
And I don’t think the official definition of who is a Jew is really a religious one. I say this because Jews are not required to be religious in order to qualify for citizenship or to be entitled to all the benefits of being a Jew in the Jewish state. Most Israeli Jews are, I believe, not religious, in fact, and many are atheists, but their ID’s still identify them as Jews, and they are still entitled to their privileged status as Jews.
Hm, Shirin, it might be because I was born in USSR, my definition of secular state is “separation of the state from religion and the school from chirch (synagoga)” - and in Israel it is not a case
But you are right, the case of Israel is a tricky one. It is because Zionism needs a definition of Jew, and it is impossible to do it by language, or by origin or even by religion. So “secular” Zionists because of their racist need for “pure Arian” (i.e. Jew) had to use definition of Jew by Halaha (Jewish religious law)- i.e. a Jew is one born from Jewish mother. Because of it the laws of Israel are more or less based on Halaha (marriage, divorce and so on). And because of it rabbies are powerful, not the other way around.
Lidia, are you sure the Israeli state uses the Halachic definition of a Jew? I thought I recalled that the definition was much broader than that. I was sure I had known people who became Israeli citizens who did not have a Jewish mother.
Well, OK, Israel is secular in comparison to, for example, Iran. However, there is a major comparison easily made between the power and disposition of Iranian Ayatollahs and Israeli Rabbis. Different sides of the same coin.
IA: you make reasonable claims that Israel should not be seen as the SOLE driving force behind the legendarily stupid and self-destructive US policies in the Middle East. Without oil being rich in that region, the US and Britain would never have created Israel. The US would have left the widespread colonial occupation of the Middle East to the unhappy British post- WWII and the British would have been left with a much less useful baggage wagon hanging around from their imperial past.
But the Lobby in the US is demonstrably capable of shifting elections in its favor. And this is a threat to every officeholder and prospective officeholder who has not already been bought off in some way.
two typos: “the sins DON’T disappear” and I lost an ’s’ on Jew. Oh well.
I think people need to know about the Lavon Affair
too.
In 1954, Israeli agents working in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including a United States diplomatic facility, and left evidence behind implicating Arabs as the culprits. The ruse would have worked, had not one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to capture and identify one of the bombers, which in turn led to the round up of an Israeli spy ring.
Some of the spies were from Israel, while others were recruited from the local Jewish population. Israel responded to the scandal with claims in the media that there was no spy ring, that it was all a hoax perpetrated by “anti-Semites”. But as the public trial progressed, it was evident that Israel had indeed been behind the bombing. Eventually, Israeli’s Defense Minister Pinhas Lavon was brought down by the scandal, although it appears that he was himself the victim of a frame-up by the real authors of the bombing project, code named “Operation Susannah.”
I’m not speaking for Ray McGovern when I say I want to know every detail about the the Mossad being in the US and tracking the 9-11 hijackers. I haven’t forgotten them being seen celebrating when the WTC towers were on fire. Yet they were allowed to return to Israel and went on televsion to say they were sent here to DOCUMENT THE EVENT!!
I also haven’t forgotten that an Israeli company named Odigo was warned prior to the attack.
Zim moved out of the WTC and more
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&geopolitics_and_9/11=israel
Cee, add to the Lavon affair the scandalous actions of the Zionist underground in Iraq in 1950-51, which resulted in the majority of Iraq’s very important Jewish community immigrating to Israel. That Jewish community had been in Iraq continuously since the Babylonian exile, and predated Christians and Arabs. In the late ’40’s and early ’50’s the Zionist underground in Iraq undertook a program of terrorism against the Jewish community with the goal of inducing Iraqi Jews to immigrate to Israel. The leaders of this effort have admitted to it, and it was well-publicized in Israel in the ’70’s. In particular there was a series of articles exposing the Zionist actions in Iraq in the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahranot. Ben Gurion believed that this kind of thing - he called it “cruel Zionism” - was sometimes necessary to achieve Zionism’s goals.
Among the actions of the Zionist underground (which consisted almost entirely of foreigners and very few Iraqis - Iraqi Jews were by and large not Zionists) was a bombing at the Mas’uda Shem Tov Synagogue, which killed a couple of Muslim Iraqis, blinded one Jewish man and killed a twelve year old Jewish boy. The blinded man, who eventually immigrated to Israel, has remained very bitter against Israel for what they did to him (he was still alive five or so years ago - I do not know whether he is alive now or not).
The Jews of Iraq included many very prominent families consisting of professionals, scientists, academics, musicians and other artists, and business persons. Those people, accustomed to living in great comfort and as respected members of society, found their status reduced in Israel to that of second-class citizens, or worse. They were subjected to enormously humiliating treatment, including being sprayed with DDT when they arrived because it was assumed that since they were “Arabs” they would have lice. They were isolated from the European mainstream, looked down upon, and formerly prosperous doctors, lawyers, professors, engineers, scientists, teachers, and businessmen were forced, when they could get work at all, to work as street sweepers and such. Many Iraqis who immigrated to Israel became outspoken anti-Zionists.
I have had contact over the years with a number of Iraqi Jews in Iraq, outside Iraq, and also in Israel, and all of them, even those born in Israel, feel strong ties to Iraq. I have one friend in Israel, who is a first generation Israeli born Iraqi Jew, and we talk often about Iraq.
I should add for the record that as a result of the situation in Palestine in the ’40’s and ’50’s, the Iraqi government made certain restriction on Iraqi Jews which were completely wrong. Some of them, such as restriction on external travel and prohibiting of emigration, were understandable, but nonetheless wrong.
I should also say that those Jews who emigrated in the ’50’s were forced, as a condition of their emigration, to relinquish their Iraqi citizenship, and turn over their property and fortunes to the state. This, too, was completely wrong, and I fully support compensation for these Iraqi citizens who were so robbed of their property and money.
In fairness, I must point out, though, that not only Iraqi Jews have been robbed in this way when they emigrated, or even when they left the country and stayed out beyond the permitted time period. Every Iraqi citizen who has left the country for any length of time during certain periods has faced this issue.
Trying again
Shirin,
Giladi was one of those who were outspoken.
I became aware of what happened in Iraq after reading Ben Gurion Scandals.http://www.amazon.com/Ben-Gurions-Scandals-N-Giladi/dp/0964237903
When I began to meet Muslims who told me these things I didn’t believe it. I know better now.
I should have added that Jews in Egypt were harmed and driven out because of the Lavon Affair. Many still didn’t go to Israel.
The same thing may happen to the remaining Jews in Iran.
I found some parts of Giladi’s book very convincing, and others less so. Much of what he presents there, and most of the key information, is confirmed by other sources.
Political Zionism is a European construct that has never been popular among Middle Eastern Jews. While it is never a good situation to be a minority religion in a theocracy - particularly one run by fundamentalists or fanatics - religious minorities in Iran, including Jews, have religious freedom, receive government funding for their religious institutions, and are represented in the government. The exception to this is the Baha’is, who do not have any religious freedom at all and are quite persecuted. Sunni Muslims in Iran also do not have as good a situation there as do Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians.
I believe that if you compared the relative rights, freedoms, and privileges of Iranian Jews to those of Palestinian citizens of Israel - that is if you used the freedoms, rights, and privileges of the majority as a baseline and compared those of the specific minority to that baseline - you would not find that Iranian Jews were worse off in comparison to Iranian Muslims than Palestinian Israeli citizens are in comparison to Israeli Jews.
PS I should have also stated that in some respects Iranian Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians are better off relatively speaking than are Palestinian citizens of Israel given that, last I heard, there were no restrictions on religious minorities in Iran regarding land ownership, religious minorities in Israel receive, to the best of my knowledge, equal education opportunities with Muslims, and government funding if they desire for their own schools, their land is not being confiscated by the state for the use of Muslims, there are no “unrecognized” Jewish, Christian, or Zoroastrian villages whose residents pay taxes yet receive zero government services, and regions of Iran are not being cleansed by the government of Christians, Jews, or Zoroastrians so that they can be “muslimized” (Google, for example, Judaization of the Galilee, or check out some of the actions regarding Negev Bedouins, or judaization projects in and around Jerusalem, or “gentrification” projects in cities such as Jaffa, which are in reality designed to evict Palestinian residents and replace them with Jewish residents).
Pardon me, but I keep remembering ways that Iranian Jews are relatively better off than their Palestinian counterparts in Israel. Another one is freedom of movement within their own country, and treatment when leaving and re entering their own country. Ordinary Palestinian citizens of Israel have been and continue to be restricted and harassed when flying between cities within Israel, and what they are generally subjected to when leaving or re entering Israel would anger even the most mild-mannered person.
I think it is very valuable to hear from Israeli Americans…and Israelis…too. I appreciate Israeli-American’s comments….even though I disagree with some of his or her opinions.
What is especially important in such inevitably emotional discussions of such topics is — first and foremost — considering the established FACTS of events or issues that are in dispute. That is why — when it comes to a discussion of the Mearsheimer/Walt book about The Israel Lobby — the FACTS presented….though opinions vary widely….the FACTS are hard to deny. Or spin….to make one’s point for this or that.
WRT American foreign policy in the Bush/Cheney administration the FACTS are indisputable wrt what happened during these years. During these years — despite Karl Rove’s and the White House Iraq Group’s S-P-I-N, helped along by the mainstream media…and the likes of the Victoria Toensings and the like — some established FACTS have emerged not only from the collected intelligence reports — unaltered by biased Rethugs covering up — but also by the Downing Street Memo(s), public testimony by those involved, etc. etc.
To me, though, the most irrefutable EVIDENCE is the NEO-CONs Proejct for a New American Century (PNAC), 1996 — again 1 9 9 6 — in which they laid out EXACTLY what “the plan” was. Cheney and Rumsfeld were co-signers — not much question where they stood — and, our foreign policy was co-opted from then on by the Neo-cons. Then the paper A CLEAN BREAK written by cronies for Bibi Netanyau — STATED WHAT THE INTENT WAS. America would help ISRAEL take over the MIDDLE EAST….and all that goes with it, the power, the oil, the bases, the threats, etc. THESE ARE THE FACTS surrounding America’s foreign policy under Bush/Cheney. Spelled out — you can read those documents on the Internet….and never again can you say the AIPAC was no more important to this administration than the evangelical movement with their Bible passages about THE RAPTURE, the Left-Behind books selling in the millions of Kool-Aid drinkers. Oh, yeah, they tagged along…but that was LATER. Riding on the Neo-Con coattails. WHEN Karl Rove deigned it’d be good for elections….and winning over their “base” (in every sense of the word).
Elsewhere here Larry Johnson speaks of a glimmer of hope that the POWER-MAD Bush/Cheney won’t bomb Iran…after all. I’m not convinced. It’s their last chance and it isn’t likely they’ll squander it. They are getting more and more desperate as more and more FACTS come to light…and the Ray McGoverns and others are beginning to speak so openly….and fearlessly….about the role of the Israel Lobby, etc.
Here’s an Israeli American I respect — I cited one of his articles in my first comment. This is another — this is what he says about our widening the war by attacking Iran:
“If the American attack turns into a long war of attrition, and if the American public comes to see it as a disaster (as is happening right now with the Iraqi adventure), some will surely put the blame on Israel. It is no secret that the Pro-Israel lobby and its allies - the (mostly Jewish) neo-cons and the Christian Zionists - are pushing America into this war, just as they pushed it into Iraq. For Israeli policy, the hoped-for gains of this war may turn into giant losses - not only for Israel, but also for the American Jewish community.”
good going Ray,
It’s about time America has an honest debate of what it means to TRULY support Israel. I watched Bill Moyers last night on PBS and watched a frightening show about an Evangelical televangelist (JOHN HAGEE) and his followers lobbying congress to Attack Iran. I know it sounds nuts….
my background, I was raised in this faith ( Pentecostal) that gives un-shakable support for Israel ( onward Christian soldiers) and have been recovering ever since thanks to education.
According to the Hagee’s of “end days” prophesy, Attacking Iran is the right thing to do. wasn’t that what they said about Iraq? I ask you all…where does this hillbilly preacher get his intel from, God? These same preachers have been repeating the same “end of days” rhetoric since I was a small child the 70’s . back then it was the Soviet Union who was the great satan WE needed to stand up and fight, now since that prophesy of the future Armageddon didn’t pan out they moved on to the new fight du jour , “islamofascism” . These nuts wouldn’t bother me so much if they didn’t have such a huge voting block and money to back it up. They SAY they are a friend of Israel but their prophesy also includes the destruction of that state. So are they supporting Israel out of true LOVE or to further their own agenda of bringing Christ back ? i would guess the later. Evangelicals are actively sending money to EXPAND the settlements ( the main bone of contention in the area) so either way It is not good for Israel. If they get in bed with these “end of dayers” it will bite them in the end. These useful idiots will be very useless friends when the shit hits the fan.
i agree with Israeli american, it is not anti Semitic to question Israel’s policy just as we question Our own. My point of is Israel is NOT America and visa versa, we need to stop combining the two in the same sentence. Their enemies are not automatically ours and the reverse.
“It’s about time America has an honest debate of what it means to TRULY support Israel”
And why to “support” Israel at all? Were in USA honest debate about meaning of “truly support” aparteid SA? Or it was simply about the end of such state?
Another very real reason for worry about the attack on Iran, IMHO, is the upcoming (in January…unless it is delayed once again…as it already has been several times) trial of the indicted Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, of the AIPAC. Diverting attention of still more examples of TREASON (as is the case with Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson) by these criminals:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11695
October 1, 2007
THE LOBBY ON TRIAL
Upcoming legal battle dramatizes rising concern about the Israel lobby
It seems to have fallen down the memory hole or been consigned to the purgatory of forgotten news stories: the indictment of Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, two top officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). More than three years ago, the news that Rosen, the number-one lobbyist for Israel in Washington, and his sidekick Weissman had been indicted for violating the Espionage Act, for handing over top-secret intelligence to Israeli embassy officials, broke like a thunderclap over official Washington. Today, its echoes have petered out almost entirely, as news of the case has sunk so far beneath the media’s radar that developments in what is an important and fascinating story are no longer reported. I’ll do my best to rectify that.
But first, one has to wonder, why is the veil of silence being drawn over this extraordinary affair? After all, the story involves what Time magazine called “among the most politically charged espionage cases in years” – surely a newsworthy topic. Why no follow-up?
It’s very odd. Don’t forget that AIPAC, the premier pro-Israel lobby in the country and one of the most powerful and feared of Washington’s movers and shakers, was subjected to no less than two humiliating FBI raids on its Washington offices: desks were searched and emptied and computers carted away, while a cordon of agents prevented anyone or anything from leaving or entering the area until the operation was over. All AIPAC employees were, presumably, questioned. You don’t see that kind of action unless there is something very substantial behind it.
Reports that the case originated in an investigation that dates back to the 1990s were backed up by the indictments [.pdf], which trace the defendants’ treason to meetings with Israeli officials “between in or about April 1999 and continuing until on or about August 27, 2004.”
The Rosen-Weissman case grew out of a comprehensive, long-standing investigation into Israeli covert activities in the U.S., that much is clear. The probe was in place when the astonished FBI counterintelligence squad – engaged in routine surveillance of Rosen, Weissman, and Israeli embassy officials, including Naor Gilon, former head of the political affairs department at the Israeli embassy in Washington – spotted Larry Franklin walking into a luncheon in an Arlington, Va., restaurant. The eavesdropping guardians of our national security were shocked when Franklin, who worked for Douglas Feith at the Pentagon’s policy shop, where he presided over the Iran desk, openly offered to hand over vital intelligence to Gilon, Rosen, and Weissman.
The Feds put a tail on Franklin and recorded his every treasonous act until they were ready to strike, and when they moved, they caught him with a veritable library of classified documents hidden away in his home, some dating back many years – a veritable treasure trove of U.S. secrets. Caught red-handed, and faced with the prospect of a long jail sentence, Franklin agreed to cooperate with the authorities: he wore a wire to his next meeting with his AIPAC overseers, subsequently compiling mountains of incriminating evidence against his co-conspirators.
Franklin pled guilty and was sentenced to 12 years and seven months in prison. His conviction set the stage for the upcoming trial of the AIPAC duo – scheduled to commence Jan. 14 – where he will be a key prosecution witness. It looks like the day the Israel lobby in Washington has dreaded – no less than the two defendants – is finally about to dawn. The three-year delay has been the cardinal achievement of the defense, which has done everything in its power to drag the process nearly to a grinding halt….” (excerpt)
In my mind, this all leads to the present day question; who will attack Iran as a proxy for the other, Israel or the United States?
Even though Ray McGovern clearly listed three causes for the Iraq War, the hyper-sensitive “Israeli-American” comments as if he had not. Which in itself might hint at the somber implications involving dual loyalism as it politically manifests itself in contemporary America.
I remember the news accounts of the attack on the USS Liberty, and how it was totally not credible that the Israeli pilots did not know what ship they were attacking.
Look at a photo of the USS Liberty:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USS_Liberty.jpg[/url]
The navy designation is clearly visible, GTR-5. The many antennas and lack of guns are clearly visible. To anyone trained in ship identification, the type of ship, a converted WWII Victory-Class cargo ship is clearly visible.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RedOakVictory2.JPG[/url]
There is no doubt in my mind that the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was intentional.
From what I have seen of coverage of the new details on the USS Liberty attack, it is clear that the giyus.org Megaphone software is in action. That, and the Hasbara propaganda model instructions. I am glad that Ray and Larry value truth-tellers and that most see in regards to Zionist lies, “That dog won’t hunt.”
Thanks for this article, Ray. The offensive actions of the Israeli government, any government, should indeed be questioned and condemned, but without condemning the Israeli people. There’s nothing anti-Semitic about it. After all, how many in the world have said they despise the actions of bu$hCo, yet still do not condemn us as a people? (OK, that’s slipping the longer nothing is done about cheney/bu$h, but you get the idea.) They, and we, are labeled anti-American blame-America-firsters whenever we question THE POLICY. It’s SOP with bu$hCo, of course, but has been used over and over in the past to effectively kill the message.
And indeed it IS probable that you become the thing you hate after being victimized. Look at the US after 9-11! We’ve been Sovietized, Stalinized, by the present-danger freaks paranoiacally clamoring for an uncertain “safety” by implementing all the despicable things we hated about the USSR; torture, secret prisons, renditions, wholesale spying on the populace.
My dear friend, the late Richard (Dick) Stanford Thompson, a true patriot and a generous heart who bailed out our pet adoption newspaper after the Florida hurricanes tore apart our offices 3 years ago, was the man who introduced me to the USS Liberty tragedy. He was convinced it was a false-flag operation to draw the US into the Arab-Israeli war and even wider conflict in the ME. We spent many hours discussing other US false-flag ops and what they drew attention AWAY from.
Dick had produced by the BBC a documentary DVD on Liberty titled “Dead in the Water,” which lays out the attack on USS Liberty from the testimony given by the surviving crew, testimony that was NOT permitted to be heard by any investigative committee. I urge you to watch this documentary here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3319663041501647311&q=dead+in+the+water&hl=en
and I join BFT, above, citing http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/1948
on “Operation Cyanide”, “Frontlet 615″ and the real purpose of the “303 Committee.”
In June of this year, Dick Thompson died in a single-car accident on the drive home to FL from DC after attending the 40th Annual USS Liberty Survivors’ Reunion. USS Liberty survivor Ernie Gallo gave the eulogy at Dick’s funeral. http://www.wrmea.com/archives/August_2007/0708023.html
There’s also a trackback to Ray’s article at wrmea.com, recent blog posts.
Bear hugs, Dick. R.I.P.
Man, this thread is a firestorm. There’s so much here, both in the McGovern article and in the comments.
I don’t know where to start, but I guess I’ll start with the “on topic” subject and move to the “off-topic” stuff, which is also important.
Some people have to come together and defuse AIPAC. They are completely out of control. It’s great to disseminate info across the web, making sure that no one agency can destroy all the evidence or silence all the witnesses. That is vital to everything that America is SUPPOSED to stand for (truth, justice, commitment to the rule of law and its equal application to all people, regardless of their wealth and political clout).
That leads us off-topic to net neutrality - but you get the point - if we allow the censorship of the internet by the likes of telecom companies and big portals like MSN, Yahoo, and so on, these vital stories will never emerge.
Next is the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job. And like most of you, I rolled my eyes when I heard this for five full years. Slowly, slowly info that I couldn’t easily discount kept poking through my defense of disbelief that any American - no matter how odious - would orchestrate a major attack on other Americans. Even to say it now sounds loopy.
But more and more people, people who were there, people who played specific roles in the aftermath, people whose responsibilities on that fateful day led them to seeing things that do not fit the official story we have been given, are saying it.
That’s off-topic too, but very important - so here’s one link to get you started -
Top Politicians, Economists, Other Leaders
State 9/11 Possibly an Inside Job
http://www.wanttoknow.info/050908insidejob911
Some of the people who have come out publicly saying they have doubts about the 9/11 story believed by most Americans (that the attacks came out of the blue, that the fires caused by the plane impacts were the sole heat source capable of melting the all the steel and near completely vaporizing the towers, that the collapse of the towers was completely uncontrolled) has serious flaws in it, are:
Former Chief Economist under President Bush, Morgan Reynolds
Assistant Secretary of Treasury under Pres. Reagan, Paul Roberts
Head of Advanced Space Programs, Dept. of Defense, Dr. Robert Bowman
UK Minister of Environment (1997 - 2003), Michael Meacher
U.S. Senator Mark Dayton
U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney
Renowned Theologian Prof. David Ray Griffin
Assistant Secretary of Housing For Pres. Bush, Catherine Austin Fitts
9/11 statement signed by 100 prominent Americans, 40 9/11 family members
just so you know who the dirty hippies and whacko conspiracy nuts are…
These are really important matters.
AIPAC and the Neocons could sure use another 9/11 before those 2008 elections - in fact there’s probably not much else that can save their plan for world-domination.
It would be better if we didn’t find out the truth 50 years later (as with the USS Liberty), but dug it out now, don’t you think?
Seems to me that’s why Consortium News, No Quarter, and the books you see plugged on these sites have come out in the past few years.
We owe it to ourselves to do whatever research we can as laypeople to get the most informed opinion we can. We can then better judge what full-time researchers, “experts”, and yes, even “talking heads” are presenting us with on a daily basis. That would be our civic duty as citizens of a democratic republic, it seems to me.
Happy researching! You have the tools, now make the time…
Just wanted to add, to tie my earlier comment together:
The USS liberty incident shows us that people who are charged with protecting our interests, can and will launch attacks on American targets when their charged responsibilities conflict with their power interests.
And the Oklahoma City bombing shows that an American who considers himself a patriot will attack other innocent Americans due to extremist beliefs.
I believe that in today’s White House, we have exactly that unfortunate combination: vested power interests and extremist belief systems.
The victims are, of course, innocent people.
Thank you Ray for speaking the truth so many need to hear. I have followed your work with VIPS, and on Consortium News for some time. Your wisdom is truly a gift from God, and you have so much to share with all of the world. I thank you for sharing your insights with us; I learn so much.
This is an interesting discussion by everyone here. I do not think I have given as much thought to the term ‘anti semitism’ as I had thought. although I understand the concept of hate in any form is wrong, I had thought anti semetism referred specifically to the Jewish nation, and Israel as an extention. I see it is more than this, and that I had some generalizations in my mind that were not complete.
I have to wonder about the connection between the AIPAC group and the power they seem to hold over our Govt… In light of the rise to poweerr of the neocons on the back of fundamentalist christian groups, I think it is something to be looked at. I still have nightmares about some of the comments that were made by some folks that are actively seeking confrontation, to bring about the second coming… are there dots to be connected???
Last, thank you Brenda Stewart, for both your service to this Nation, but for speaking out for those who suffer from ptsd, and those who love them… I hope the person who wrote those words truly misspoke. If so, he should apologize to those whose lives have been changed forever by the lies of this cabal in power.
Brenda and Prchrlady,
I can’t say for sure, since he hasn’t come back to speak for himself, but I don’t think the person who spoke about people who have suffered trauma or evil was specifically talking about veterans who suffer from PTSD. I’m not a psychologist, but I know, for example, that it’s a sad fact that people who suffered abuse as children are at increased risk to become abusive adults themselves. Not that all do, but that that they sometimes have a tendency to perceive threats to themselves where none were intended and strike out when they shouldn’t. The way I took the poster’s piece, he was talking about how the inheritance of the Holocaust has shaped Israeli perceptions of threats to their existence in the present day.
Like I said, I can’t be certain, since I’m not him, but I understood him differently than you. It seems to me it’s quite a different issue than PTSD. I certainly don’t want to demean or dishonor any vet who is is struggling with this condition.
I also want to thank Ray for posting this article here. I had heard something vague about the Liberty, but not the full extent of the scandal. I also appreciate finding out more about the hidden details of the Six Day War. I was very young when all that happened, and we were just given the standard narrative of little Israel attacked by all the Arab states. To hear that Israel may have struck preemptively is also upsetting.
But the fact is, all nation-states are inherently amoral, and if not constrained will act in reprehensible ways (power corrupts, etc.) This free pass that the US gives Israel is very unhealthy for all the parties concerned. If we would treat Israel as a normal nation-state, instead as one that’s morally privileged, the long-term result would be that Israel would have to act in a more constrained way and would be viewed more positively in the world community.
Thanks for having the courage to post this information. I have been aware for a few years now of the dreadful injustice that has been done to the officers and crew of the USS Liberty. It’s high time and then some that those responsible for the crime and those responsible for the subsequent cover-up of that crime be identified and sanctioned by means of a genuine court of inquiry. Enough with the lies, enough with the frantic ass-kissing; let the chips fall where they may. If the reputations of prominent actors in the U.S. are damaged by the truth coming out, so be it. If the revelation of perfidious and murderous actions of the Israeli government or some group of rogue officials acting under the color of authority damages relations between our countries in a fundamental way, so be it. I’m tired of the arrogance of those Israeli bastards who feel that they can just keep on siccing agents like Jonathan Pollard and Larry Franklin on the U.S. And I don’t want to hear that we shouldn’t be upset when highly classified information or methods or sources are stolen by our dear, dear bosom buddies the Israelis. We have no way of knowing to what uses such information may be put once it is no longer in our exclusive custody; what would restrict the Israelis from using this information as bargaining chips with powers such as the Russians or the Chinese in furthering THEIR own agenda? And there is no guarantee that Israeli intelligence may not itself be compromised by moles working for hostile nations. Nuh, uh. No more horseshit from that quarter. No more carrying water for these bastards. No more lives of Americans being cynically tossed away for the purposes of Israeli or Israeli-worshipping neocon fascists.
More grist for the mill here:
http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair06082007.html
And how big a deal was made over the Chinese scientist, accused and tormented but innocent of spying; and how domestic terror is swept under the rug unless a foreign face can be put on it, eg, VA Tech, or never even investigated at all, eg, the DC anthrax attacks.
Quarter IS given all the time, just not to democractic ideals. I believe we have never been pro democracy. It’s 200+-year-old PR.
“…I was constantly told that Egypt forced Israel into war in June 1967. This does not square with the unguarded words of Menachem Begin in 1982, when he was Israel’s prime minister. ”
Even without Begin’s (and other Israeli officials’) very revealing statements it does not square with the sequence of events as they occurred, or the facts and on-the-ground realities as they developed and existed at the time. One very valuable - and difficult to find - source of information is a small book by Maj General Indar Jit Rikhye, who was the UNEF commander in Gaza at the time.
“Israel had, in fact, prepared well militarily and mounted provocations against its neighbors, in order to provoke a response that could be used to justify an expansion of its borders.”
Israel has a well-documented history of using provocation to create a pretext for its aggressions against its neighbors and depredations on the Palestinian population going back to the beginning of its existence as a state and extending until today.
“Israel’s illegal 40-year control over and confiscation of land in the occupied territories and U.S. enabling support (particularly the one-sided support by the current U.S. administration) go a long way toward explaining why it is that 1.3 billion Muslims “hate us.” ”
It is not only Muslims who “hate us” in part due to U.S. support of Israel in its progressive obliteration of Palestine and Palestinians. Among Israel’s victims are many, many Christians who also “hate us” for the same reasons, as do most other Middle Eastern Christians
Well, Shirin, I have a story to tell on this topic. In the early 1990s I belonged to a small Episcopal parish in Long Beach, CA. The rector of our church took a three-month sabbatical to fulfill a long-cherished goal to study in Jerusalem and tour the Biblical lands. He was a very fair-minded man, had never said anything about politics, but when he came back he was absolutely furious at the Israelis. The Anglican church in the region may include a few ex-pat Brits and Yanks, but the hierarchy and most members are Palestinian. So when he was in Jerusalem, he lodged with Palestinians and experienced the way they were treated by the Israelis and heard their stories. When he came back he gave slide shows at several church functions, but he also enlightened the congregation about the realities of the Israeli occupation and the role the US plays. I’m embarrassed to say I, like Cee, I had swallowed a lot of the mainstream propaganda and had to start enlightening myself.
There has been more baloney written about the U.S.S. Liberty than is good for anyone. The U.S. inserted a neutral Naval Auxiliary vessel into international waters that had been declared a War Zone by Egypt without warning either Egypt or Israel. The ship failed to receive any of the FIVE separate signals ordering it to move to safety 100 miles out to sea. Israel admits to having identified the ship as exactly what it was, but declares that the plot was later removed because it was outdated and personnel changes at Naval Headquarters removed any institutional memory that a U.S. ship had been seen in the area. A chain of events occurred in which the Army sicced the Navy, which sicced the Air Force on the ship sight unseen. The Israelis didn’t look very hard to identify it before attacking because the ship’s nationality had been “confirmed” as Egyptian by another service!
The Liberty Survivors actually agree with the Israelis that the attacking aircraft never dropped explosive bombs, but only napalm cannisters, which are never ordinarilly used in anti-ship warfare because they’re unlikely either to hit the ship or to structurally damage it, which was the case with the Liberty.
The Marine’s account actually proves how inept the surface attack was as well. Torpedo boats don’t ordinarilly “line up” to attack a target. SOP is to attack from different sides and directions, so as to lessen the ability of the target to dodge the torpedoes. The Israeli boats attacking the Liberty were commanded by a Cmdr. Oren who was also too incompetent to correctly identify the target before he attacked it. The fact that the Israelis were unable to sink a converted freighter which was too marginally armed to defend itself and too slow to escape seems to indicate that they had one arm tied behind their back because of constantly second-guessing the actual nationality of the target. Even the Liberty Survivors admit that one of the boats stopped and retrieved a liferaft during the attack. Why would the Israelis retrieve only ONE liferaft? Well, if you suddenly realize that you’re no longer sure of the nationality of the ship you’re attacking, the best way to confirm its nationality would be to read the markings on one of the liferafts which it has discarded, would it not?
Israel’s Navy was only a 20-year-old White Water coastal defense force which made a lot of rookie errors during the Liberty attack. In fact, within months they lost two of their own ships–the destroyer Elat (Oct. 22, 1967) and the submarine Dakar (Jan. 28, 1968) with their entire crews more or less–due to negligence.
Montag, it is rather difficult to understand how the nationality of the Liberty can have been in doubt after five hours of surveillance, and all during two hours of attacks given that it was prominently flying the American flag, and the large and clear markings on the vessel made it clear it was an American ship. One would think that during the first pass or second by the attacking planes someone would have noticed.
I am not professing any military knowledge - as I have stated before I am an admitted military ignoramus - but common sense tells me that someone would have noticed the flag and the ships identification some time before two hours had passed.
Assertions that the vessel’s US colors were not prominently displayed are unequivocally disputed by USS Liberty survivors.
Why would attacking vessels not line up to shoot at and torpedo a targeted vessel “too slow to escape”?
Seizing a life raft, if it occurred, would have prevented its use for its intended purpose in any eventuality and could have removed a problematic piece of evidence.
I am also reminded of the intercepted transmissions in which one or more Israeli pilots stated the target was an American ship, and asking for confirmation that this was, indeed the ship they were supposed to attack.
This is also not the only, or even the first time that Israel has stabbed its American or other benefactors in the back.
“if you suddenly realize that you’re no longer sure of the nationality of the ship you’re attacking, the best way to confirm its nationality would be to read the markings on one of the liferafts which it has discarded, would it not?”
Discarded? What a curious choice of words, Montag! Why would the crew of a ship that was badly damaged and in danger of sinking discard their liferafts? Come to think of it, why would the crew of a ship discard liferafts under any circumstances?
I would also suggest that a better way to confirm the nationality of a ship might be to look at the flag it is flying, and to read the clearly visible insignia on the bow of the ship itself.
Again, not claiming any military or maritime knowledge, just applying a small modicum of common sense here.
Shirin,
You are underestimating the stupidity of the Israelis–these are the people who think that if they just kill enough Arabs the Arabs will stop hating them, are they not? Israelis are like Martians, their thought processes have no relationship whatsoever with common sense.
The liferafts were hung along the outside bulkheads of the ship for ease in getting them into the water when needed. During the aerial attack they were in the line of fire and were damaged and/or set on fire. The easiest way to dispose of them was by throwing them over the side.
On the morning of the attack Adm. Shlomo Erell, commander of the Israeli Navy, noticed a marker representing an “Unidentified Ship” on the map-table representing waters off the Egyptian Coast. He inquired about it and was told that a dawn reconnaissance flight had identified it as the U.S.S. Liberty by its I.D. letters (GTR5). Even though the U.S. hadn’t warned Israel that the ship would be in the War Zone–under International Law a neutral ship entering a War Zone is subject to attack unless the combatant nations have been warned that it will be there, but Israel also violated IL by failing to declare the waters a War Zone–Erell only ordered that the marker be changed to “Neutral Ship,” and like Pontius Pilate washed his hands of the matter.
Several hours later a subordinate officer removed the marker from the table because it was SOP to remove OUTDATED info from the table to reduce clutter. Soon afterwards there was a shift change at Naval Headquarters, so that the above officer was the only member there who knew that the Liberty had been seen in the area (Adm. Erell was temporarily away). When the call came in that an Egyptian ship was shelling the Israeli Army, this officer neglected to warn anyone because the Egyptian ship was obviously a combat ship and the Liberty wasn’t, so it COULDN’T be the Liberty. The officer fatally assumed that the Liberty had probably left the area anyway, since the Israelis had no way of keeping track of the ship’s position between the dawn and dusk reconnaissance flights.
This is all part of the Israeli narrative of the attack, by the way.
I’ve read a lot of military history and stranger things have happened. But this is thoroughly consistent with the way Israelis think. If they had objected to the ship’s presence in a dangerous area the U.S. would gladly have removed it, because it had been ordered safely 100 miles out to sea anyway. IT WASN’T SUPPOSED TO BE THERE because the start of the war had cancelled its mission. The Israeli Navy had accomplished nothing in the war and was unwilling to look a gift horse in the mouth when given the opportunity to justify its existence.
For the record Shirin, I’m as contemptuous of the Israelis as you are. Please remember that it’s historical record that Israel ignored both Syria and Egypt mobilizing their forces for a concerted attack in 1973 because, “The monkeys will never dare to attack us.” Martians!
I dunno. That doesn’t really wash for me. The Israelis’ reputation is that they are quick, practical thinkers, and I think there’s quite a bit of evidence of this. This seems like a curious way to attack their intelligence and let them off the hook at the same time.
Delia,
During the 1956 War Ariel Sharon was leading some Israeli troops in front of the Mitla Pass. He had been ordered NOT to attack the Pass because it wasn’t needed. He attacked it anyway without prior reconnaissance. He lost 34 dead capturing the pass, and then abandoned it to the enemy again.
When his superiors found about this they covered it up. Sharon’s military career stalled for six years not because he had scragged 34 of his own men against orders and for nothing, but because he had watched through binoculars in safety as his men were run through a meat grinder. Israeli officers are supposed to lead from the front.
Also during the 1956 War Israeli soldiers would drive captured Egyptian vehicles without marking them as Israeli, and couldn’t understand why their own Air Force kept attacking them! Moshe Dayan was riding in an Egyptian car when he met oncoming Israeli soldiers–they almost killed him.
I’m not saying this sort of thing happens all the time to the IDF, but when it DOES happen, the Israeli Army, Navy and Air Force can be about competent as the Three Stooges. Do you think the Israeli Propaganda Machine is going to admit this? The U.S. Government reports on the Liberty Incident are SCATHING AND DERISIVE of the Israeli claim that their actions against the Liberty were reasonable and proper under the circumstances. Our government’s position is still that the Israeli officers involved should have been prosecuted for dereliction of duty. It wasn’t until 1980 that the USG finally accepted that this wasn’t going to happen and dropped the matter in exchange for Israel paying $6 million for the ship in addition to the $6.7 million which had already been paid in blood money to the wounded and the families of the dead. The two governments still agree to disagree on who should bear the lion’s share of the blame for the fiasco.
Even if one believes the Israeli narrative on anything at all, including this incident, that still does not explain how they managed to miss the oversized American flag they hoisted right after the two hour attack began, and somehow failed to notice the ships insignia (I think that is what it is called) on the hull of the Liberty.
After decades of intense study and observation of Israel, and its history, I don’t believe a word they say. They’re kind of like the Bush regime in that regard.
And now I am reminded of sitting by the radio during the 1967 war listening in real time to Aba Eban bald facedly lying to the UN. He not only claimed that the Egyptians had attacked Israel, he had the chutzpah to describe the location of the non-existent attacks. That was a signature moment for me, because up to that point silly, young, naive me actually thought that no matter what other terrible things a person would do, no one would actually get in front of the UN and brazenly lie - in front of the entire world, no less, and about something that could so easily be confirmed. And of course, a few weeks later, the Israelis had to admit the fact that they had, indeed, been the ones to attack.
Shirin,
We don’t have to take the Israelis’ word for it. The U.S. Navy survey of the damage and shrapnel recovered from the ship shows only weapons that the Israelis admit to using. The ship’s log indicates that the attacks only lasted 42 minutes in toto, not the 75 minutes that the survivors claim. But most importantly, the Israelis were unable to sink an extremely easy target even with tons of weaponry at their disposal. Remember, they virtually destroyed the entire Egyptian Air Force during their initial sneak attack. Why were they unable to sink a ship that was too marginally armed to defend itself and too slow to escape?
I mean think about it. When have the Israelis been loathe to use overwhelming force even against schoolchildren? This is the one thing that the conspiracy theorists are unable to explain. Whatever else may be said against the Israelis, they are very thorough. The only reasonable explanation for their failure is that these were not the vicious Israelis who crush even ants with sledgehammers. These were the stupid Israelis who had their heads up their own butts. The attacking aircraft were called off when one of them read the ship’s I.D. letters over the radio (CTR5, instead of GTR5). But the Air Force was unable to convince the Navy that the ship was American. The torpedo boats stopped their attack when they read “U.S. Navy” on the liferaft they had retrieved because they had seen indications that the ship might actually be Soviet and they were wetting their pants.
“Israel has a well-documented history of using provocation to create a pretext for its aggressions against its neighbors and depredations on the Palestinian population going back to the beginning of its existence as a state and extending until today.”
Shirin, I’ve noticed a common theme in your thinking and writing…my perspective is that you seem to not let an opportunity go by without ripping Israel a new one, and I’m wondering why that is?
Anyway, the above quote begs specifics…you have sources for “well-documented history”? or perhaps the “history” part is too broad, cause when I see the word “history” it’s the totality of the subject, not just a brief snippet on the time line.
This wasn’t directed to me. I’m jumping in. I know that I don’t miss an opportunity to bring this up because EVERYONE ELSE HAS BEEN AFRAID TO.
When I think back to a time when I used to repeat the myths that I was fed about Israel I feel embarassed.
I wonder how the former governor of New Jersey is feeling about the myths his gay Israeli lover fed him about Israel?
I wonder how his wife feels.
I also wonder who McGreevy’s lover leave the country until the investigation was over. New Jersey? Hmmmmm.
“you seem to not let an opportunity go by without ripping Israel a new one, and I’m wondering why that is?”
Come on, Sheerakahn. Since when does simply stating established facts constitute “ripping someone a new one”? I comment on Israel when I feel I have information to contribute. I have never “ripped Israel a new one”. In fact, I am generally careful to just state facts without expressing any judgment one way or the other. I am sorry if you don’t like to hear these facts, but don’t blame me. I am just the messenger in this case.
“Anyway, the above quote begs specifics…you have sources for “well-documented history”? or perhaps the “history” part is too broad, cause when I see the word “history” it’s the totality of the subject, not just a brief snippet on the time line.”
Israel’s use of provocation as a way to create pretexts for its aggressive actions is not “a brief snippet in the timeline”, but is repeated and repeated and repeated in large and small ways throughout the timeline of Israel’s existence.
For one source of documentation of Israel’s persistent provocations of its neighbors during its first years of existence, I can refer you to a book by Leutenant General E.L.M. Burns, who was a United Nations observer in Israel during the ’50’s. Sorry, I don’t recall the title of the book right now, and I am too lazy to go to my library and locate it.
For an account of Israel’s provocations of Syria, I can refer you to Moshe Dayan. Sorry, I cannot recall the specifics, but no doubt if you Google Moshe Dayan, provocation, Golan Heights or Syria or something along those lines you will get lots of hits.
There is lots of material on Israel’s provocative actions leading to its initiation of the 1967 war. Sorry, I just can’t think of any one specific reference at the moment. It is certainly clear that Israel’s government, despite its hysterical claims that its very existence was threatened, did the exact opposite of what was needed to avert armed conflict. And yes, Nasser also stupidly took his share of provocative actions in that case, but his actions were undertaken more to deflect Arab criticism for inaction and to maintain his position as supposed “leader of the Arab world”.
For Israel’s constant provocations of the Palestinians living under its occupation since 1967, while there probably are some analyses in English, I do not know of any. However, there are plenty of instances in which Israel has supposedly retaliated for some action on the part of the Palestinians, but if you take a close look at the timeline you will find that the Palestinians were in fact reacting to an attack by the Israelis. There are in fact plenty of instances of ceasefires (some mutual, some unilateral), which were honoured for long periods by the Palestinians, and ignored by the Israelis.
For Israel’s provocations of Lebanon, I refer you to accounts of the Israelis’ regular violations of Lebanese territory and airspace, including Israel’s habit of flying over civilian areas and terrorizing the people with sonic booms, and crossing over into Lebanese territory, often killing civilians.
For information on Israel’s activities in Palestine and Lebanon, you might try electronicintifada.com. I think they should have some good information there.
Will that do, or do need more?
You don’t need a book
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-12/24/044l-122499-idx.html
Israel and Syria: Correcting the Record
By Stephen S. Rosenfeld
Friday, December 24, 1999; Page A15
Said Dayan: “I made a mistake in allowing the [Israeli] conquest of the Golan Heights. As defense minister I should have stopped it because the Syrians were not threatening us at the time.” The attack proceeded, he went on, not because Israel was threatened but because of pressure from land-hungry farmers and army commanders in northern Israel. “Of course [war with Syria] was not necessary. You can say the Syrians are bastards and attack when you want. But this is not policy. You don’t open aggression against an enemy because he’s a bastard but because he’s a threat.”
About those shellings: Syria shelled and otherwise emanated cold hostility. But, Dayan told his interviewer, “at least 80 percent” of two decades of border clashes were initiated by Israel. “We would send a tractor to plow some [disputed] area . . . and we knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn’t shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that’s how it was.”
http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=18442
It’s really bizarre that Americans are still led to believe that Syria simply started a war against Israel -
Anon, in fact, with two exceptions, each of Israel’s wars has clearly and unambiguously been started by Israel. The first exception is the 1948 war. Though Israel insists that “the Arabs” started that one against “the innocent and fragile new-born Jewish State”, it has always been somewhat unclear who actually initiated it, although the more information and analysis that comes out the more clear is the Zionists/Israelis’ part in bringing that war about, and the more clear it becomes that a war was part of their game plan for increasing their territory over and above that granted by the UN Partition Resolution. Some of the most revealing information about 1948 comes from Israeli scholars. Israeli historian Ilan Pappe’s recent book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” is of interest on this question.
The only one of Israel’s wars that was clearly started by Arabs was the 1973 war, and Arabs initiated that war for a very specific reason and with a very specific goal in mind.
The reason: Six years earlier, Israel had overtaken and occupied significant parts of Egyptian and Syrian sovereign territory. Israel had defied international law and a number of UN resolutions by not only refusing to consider returning that territory, but by ethnically cleansing it, colonizing it and stealing its natural resources (oil in the case of the Sinai, principally drinking water in the case of the Golan) - all serious violations of international law including the UN Charter. By 1973 it was very clear that Israel had no intention of giving up its illegal and illegitimate territorial gains.
The goal: To recapture Egyptian and Syrian sovereign territory from Israel.
Shirin,
There was also the 1969-70 “War of Attrition.” On Oct. 22, 1967, the antiquated Israeli destroyer Elat was blown out of the water by Egyptian guided missile frigates which the Israelis had underestimated. In rataliation the IDF shelled industrial facilities on the Egyptian side of the Suez Canal, forcing the civilian population to refugee out to safety. This allowed the Egyptian Army the carry on low-intensity warfare against the vaunted Israeli Bar Lev Line. In 1969 this intensified, with Israel implementing an Iron Fist (yes, yes, again with the Iron Fist!) policy of aerial bombings deep inside Egypt without forcing an end to the attacks. Israel in frustration accepted an armistice under which Egypt was supposed to remove its anti-aircraft missiles from along their side of the canal, which they had moved in during the conflict–they reneged on this, but Israel was too exhausted to restart the conflict. This meant that when Egyptian forces attacked across the canal in 1973 they were covered for several miles on the other side by these AA missiles.
I wonder sometimes if the ghosts of dead Israel soldiers are still defending the Bar Lev Line, like Roman ghost soldiers defending Hadrian’s Wall–but I grow maudlin.
Yes, this is the Dayan interview that I was thinking of. Thanks Dee.
I recall seeing and hearing numerous other descriptions from other sources of this kind of provocation by Israel before this interview with Dayan became public. They would set up a situation in which the other side simply could not win no matter what they did. If the Syrians (or whomever else they were pulling this on) did nothing, the Israelis would be able, metre by metre, to expropriate more and more land a little bit at a time, and if the Syrians or (fill in the blank) fired at the thieves, the Israelis would play the victim and yell and scream to the world that innocent farmers were being attacked as they innocently tried to plow their fields.
As for complaining to the UN about Israel’s violations, one only has to look at Israel’s perfect record of ignoring UN decisions that are not in its favour (not to mention the US’s amazing record of vetoing resolutions Israel does not want passed) to see how useless that is and always has been.
Cee, unfortunately, your link leads nowhere.
“In fact, I am generally careful to just state facts without expressing any judgment one way or the other.”
hmm, okay, I was just expressing an observation of mine, but I was not judging you, I was curious as to why it was that it seemed like that. However, facts, like other items of information, are not so neat…I have some research to do.
“I am sorry if you don’t like to hear these facts, but don’t blame me. I am just the messenger in this case.”
hmm, interesting…why would you assume that I would not want to hear negative information about Israeli history, and why would you assume that I was “blaming” you for my perspective?
You do know what a perspective is, correct?
There is no blame in a perspective, it is admission on my part that this is what I see, which is based on limited information via the blog, thus it’s more of confession of ignorance. Therefore, by saying this is my perspective, I’m offering you the opportunity to correct it…which you did to a degree.
Interesting…hmmm…well, thank you, and I have some research to do.
Well, Shirakahn, maybe it was your choice of phrases - you know, “never miss an opportunity to rip [fill in the blank] a new one” makes me sound like some kind of mad pit bull eager to attack on the slightest excuse. It does not convey a sense that you see my remarks about Israel as reasoned and realistic, but as driven by some kind of crazed unreasoning hatred or something.
“It does not convey a sense that you see my remarks about Israel as reasoned and realistic, but as driven by some kind of crazed unreasoning hatred or something.”
Interesting perspective of yours…let me reread my comment…
hmm…
I can see how you could interpret it that way…though I think I’m employing my own idiomatic form of communication…however, none of which you can tell because of this confounded mechanism of communication.
My apologies.
BTW, I found that part about Menachem Begin…I believe the term you want to use in future descriptions is “baiting.” He employed baiting to entice the Syrians to attack…and considering the time period it was a successful tactic.
In the 67 war the tactic was used to knock down the Syrian army’s and Eygptian armies down…especially their airforces which were gradually growing larger than Israel’s. Also the Israeli’s were growing concerned about the Golan Heights as the Syrians were currently…er, at that time, using the heights as a military listening /observation post…which was pretty smart on the Syrians part.
Overall, the evidence points to passive/aggressive Israeli posturing to get the Syrians to rise to the bait, and of course when they did Israel, who by this time had vastly improved both their military, their intelligence, and their command and control network were able to accomplish…wow, I would say at least a dozen objectives all at once.
At least now I understand why the current Arab negotiation position is for Israel returning to the pre-1967 borders.
The 1952 war is a bit messier, and several observers basically place the blame squarely on Britain and France who were not keen to Egypt closing of the Suez, which also explains why England and the US’s relationship was a tad bit strained at the time. However, it does not excuse the Israeli’s to be used as proxies in the colonial power flex…which is what the writers felt was the last gasp of attempted European colonialism.
The 1948 war…the primary aggressor there was Jordan, who, if we give it a moments thought…was really dealing with a civil war, albeit, with an unwilling portion of the populace. Again, really difficult to place blame on anyone since most secessions are violent.
The 1973 war…in that one the aggressor appears to be the Arab nations…however…intellectual honesty forces me to ask this question: Did the 67 war have any bearing on the 73 war? I’m still looking that one up…but tangential evidence points to “payback”, and/or pushing the Israeli’s back on the part of the Arab league.
BTW, it’s all there on the net…thank you Shirin for not “ripping” me a new one.
Shirakahn, thanks for the clarification. This medium is tricky that way.
Here are some comments/observations on the rest of your post:
“I found that part about Menachem Begin…”
Moshe Dayan. Menachem Begin is a war criminal of a different colour. :o}
“I believe the term you want to use in future descriptions is “baiting.” He employed baiting to entice the Syrians to attack…”
Sounds like a distinction without a difference to me. In fact, the two words are synonyms. I think I will stick with provoke - thanks all the same.
And let us not be confused about who attacked whom in 1967. The Syrians may have fired on Israelis who were violating the DMZ, encroaching on Syrian territory on a regular basis, forcing Syrian farmers off their land and taking it over for their own farmers, but it was Israel that attacked Syria, not vice versa.
“and considering the time period it was a successful tactic.”
So what? If you provoke (or bait) someone enough for a long enough period it will almost always succeed. That doesn’t make it acceptable.
As a matter of fact, this particular technique was not limited to the period leading up to the 1967 war. The Israelis had a longstanding policy of illegally encroaching into the DMZ, forcing the Syrian farmers out, declaring the land theirs, and farming it themselves. Then they would whine and complain that the Syrians were firing on the poor, innocent Israeli farmers, and use it as an excuse for all kinds of things, including the 1967 invasion and near-total ethnic cleansing, when in fact it was a reaction to Israel’s deliberate provocative violations of the DMZ, and their theft of more and more Syrian farmland.
“Also the Israeli’s were growing concerned about the Golan Heights as the Syrians were currently…er, at that time, using the heights as a military listening /observation post…which was pretty smart on the Syrians part.”
So what? The Syrians were using their own territory in a perfectly legal and legitimate way while the Israelis were acting illegally and illegitimately. You seem to be implying that this justified the Israelis’ aggressions - are you?
And by the way, the Israelis did not originally plan to attack Syria in 1967, and their attack had less to do with security concerns than with a lust for territory. Dayan made the decision to invade the Golan very late in the war because, as he himself said, they were doing unexpectedly well, and they coveted the Golan land, which is water-rich, excellent farmland.
Frankly, it is doubtful that the Israelis would have had much trouble with Syria had they stayed on their side of the boundary and not constantly violated the DMZ.
“Overall, the evidence points to passive/aggressive Israeli posturing”
Is passive-aggressive posturing your term for active provocation, including violations of the DMZ, and land theft, followed by whining that the Syrians were not playing nice? And sorry, I also do not consider deliberately encroaching and taking over another state’s sovereign territory, forcing the legal owners off the land, to be either passive-aggressive or mere “posturing”. I consider it blatant aggression, and an act of war.
“…to get the Syrians to rise to the bait, and of course when they did Israel, who by this time had vastly improved both their military, their intelligence, and their command and control network were able to accomplish…wow, I would say at least a dozen objectives all at once.”
The problem with this analysis is that it does not fit the reality, which is that Israel’s target in 1967 was Nasser, not Syria, and their provocation, DMZ violations, and land theft had been going on for years. Further, Syria had been pretty careful during May and June, and particularly during the war itself, not to invite or justify an Israeli attack.
“At least now I understand why the current Arab negotiation position is for Israel returning to the pre-1967 borders.”
I’m not sure why that was difficult to understand before. The pre-1967 boundaries (not borders, because Israel has from the beginning until now refused to define its borders, for what should be by now obvious reasons) are the internationally recognized boundaries for the State of Israel established in the 1949 armistice. Those are the legal boundaries of Israel’s territory. The United Nations Charter makes it clear that, as the preamble to UNSC Resolution 242 states explicitly, the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible. It is simply not allowed under international law - but then Israel has never been shy about thumbing its nose at international law.
“The 1952 war is a bit messier, and several observers basically place the blame squarely on Britain and France who were not keen to Egypt closing of the Suez…”
The colonial powers always get upset, don’t they, whenever Arabs decide to nationalize their own assets and resources. In any case, it was an act of pure aggression on the part of Britain, France, and Israel.
“…it does not excuse the Israeli’s to be used as proxies in the colonial power flex…”
Oh, I don’t buy that image of a passive Israel naively allowing itself to be used as a proxy. You can bet they had their own agenda for their involvement.
“The problem with this analysis is that it does not fit the reality, which is that Israel’s target in 1967 was Nasser, not Syria..”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570433/Six-Day_War.html
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/history/six_day_war/SixDayWar.html
http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/1967_third_arab.php
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10619929
What it all boils down too is that Israel was baiting Syria, and Nasser got involved, and because Nasser’s military was larger (i.e. his air force) He took priority on the target list. Personal opinions be damned, Shirin, facts, which is what we both must yield too, is that Israel’s original target was with Syria. That Egypt jumps into the picture last minute does not change the Israel’s intent.
My analysis on this has withstood your attempted impeachment.
“Oh, I don’t buy that image of a passive Israel naively allowing itself to be used as a proxy. You can bet they had their own agenda for their involvement.”
Shirin,
I didn’t ask you to buy it, and no where did I indicate a passive image. A proxy is not used unwittingly, nor is it’s goals unlike it’s benefactor, either.
You really should spend more time thinking than off the cuff responding.
Lastly,
“I consider it blatant aggression, and an act of war.”
So do I.
“The 1948 war…the primary aggressor there was Jordan…”
On what basis? What is your source for this? Sound like you got hold of some old-time Israeli propaganda. I can’t think of a single serious historian, including Israeli historians, since the ’70’s who would buy this idea. In fact, there was an agreement between King `Abd Allah and the Zionists that if the Zionists would leave the West Bank for him to take, he would not get in their way. He was assassinated for his collusion with the Israelis.
“who, if we give it a moments thought…was really dealing with a civil war, albeit, with an unwilling portion of the populace.”
If you found that idea in any of your sources, you need to find better sources (I would say you need to do that anyway, - or at least a better variety of sources - but this is really egregiously and unequivocally wrong). The notion that Jordan was dealing with a civil war is completely unconnected with reality. For starters, Jordan was a completely separate from Palestine and an independent, sovereign country with its own internationally recognized government, and a UN member state. Palestine was a completely separate territory from Jordan, and held under British mandate. Palestine was not part of Jordan, and there was nothing like a civil war in Jordan.
“really difficult to place blame on anyone since most secessions are violent.”
Except that this was by no means and in no respect a secession. There was, in reality, nothing from which to secede. It was a handover by the colonial powers, completely against the will of the indigenous majority, of more than 50% - and the best parts - of the land to a group consisting almost entirely of European colonists who constituted a mere one-third of the total population.
The Zionists began their brutally violent ethnic cleansing and takeover of even more land in 1947, almost immediately after the UN signed the Partition Resolution giving one-third of the population more than 50% of the land. By the end of the war the Israelis had a total of 78% of the former Palestine mandate, and had largely ethnically cleansed it, destroying more than 400 villages and towns, and displacing an estimated one million people in the process.
“The 1973 war…in that one the aggressor appears to be the Arab nations…however…intellectual honesty forces me to ask this question: Did the 67 war have any bearing on the 73 war?”
It had absolutely everything to do with it. And what had more to do with it was Israel’s clear intention to continue to colonize and eventually annex the Sinai and the Golan heights. Without the ‘67 war there would have been no reason for the ‘73 war. More importantly, had Israel showed any intention of complying with international law, and its own agreements, specifically UNSC 242 along with a number of other related resolutions, there would have been no reason for the ‘73 war.
“I’m still looking that one up…but tangential evidence points to “payback”, and/or pushing the Israeli’s back on the part of the Arab league.”
It was something much more rational than payback. It was an attempted to get back sovereign territory that Israel clearly had no intention of ever returning.
“BTW, it’s all there on the net…”
Unfortunately, it is not ALL there on the net, and much of what is on the net from both sides is dubious.
Look, I have studied and discussed and debated the Israel/Palestine situation for more decades than I care to admit. I have a personal library with literally hundreds of books, most of which are on the history of Palestine and Israel, and the conflict. The oldest book I have on Palestine was published in the 18th century. That does not mean I know everything there is to know, or that I am always right, but it does mean that I have a pretty good and well-rounded picture of the events and how and why they took place. You can’t get that by reading a few articles on the net. In addition, it appears that you have gotten hold of some questionable, perhaps outdated information.
Probably the most worthwhile books for someone just beginning to explore the history of Israel’s creation, and its first decade or so, were written by Israeli scholars and journalists during or after the ’70’s. The historical scholarship changed radically in Israel during the ’70’s, starting largely as a result of the declassification of documents from the mid-to-late 40’s. This revolution in scholarship began with Benny Morris’s very detailed ground breaking work on the causes and origins of the Palestinian refugee problem, which turned Israeli propaganda about that period completely on its head. Morris’s work is particularly convincing because Morris himself is a disgusting racist who freely admits that he regrets they did not succeed in completely ethnically cleansing Israel in 1948.
Other Israeli authors of interest are Avi Schlaim, Tom Segev, Ilan Pappe, and a very courageous author, Simha Flapan, who dared to challenge the official Israeli narrative before the ’70’s “revolution”.
One of the great ironies is that it was not until the Israeli “new historians” began to publish their work that the Palestinian narrative, which had been marginalized for decades, began to gain credibility. Finally, what we had been saying and writing all along was corroborated and began to be believed.
I also strongly recommend Norman Finkelstein’s Image and Reality of the Israel Palestine Conflict. It is a series of essays on various periods and aspects, and in it he explodes the most dearly held Israeli mythology and propaganda. Finkelstein is controversial, but highly respected for his scholarship by those who do not have a problem with his criticism of Israel and Zionism. You should include him in your reading, and make up your own mind, of course.
It is so good to read this wonderful posting by Mr. McGovern. One thing that is important to remember that there should always be a distinction made between the citizens of a country and the people who run its government. By that, I say: We should not condemn the Jewish/Israeli people for the actions of the Israeli government, just as I hope the people of the Middle East do not condemn the American people for the actions taken by the people who run our government.
I have always believed that what was allowed to happen to the Jewish people during the WW II years was horrific and inhumane. I still believe that. However, over the years, I have found it increasingly difficult to support the actions of the Israeli government.
Over the years, I have come to know many people who are Muslim, and some Palestinians who are refugees of the war by the government of Israel and the Zionists against them. In order to come to a logical conclusion as to what fuels the Arabian/Palestinian anger towards the West, it is necessary to research more fully that history from the formation of the state of Israel to the current time. Out of curiosity I did a search using “un condemnations against israel” and was horrified by how many there have been — many of them towards the Palestinian people.
If we are truly a country that believes we stand up for human rights abuses and crimes against humanity, then we need to be as diligent in our criticism of not only ourselves, but our “allies.” It is only when we have the moral strength to face our own prejudices that we can truly be a great nation.
I am also sick and tired of hearing any criticism of the government of Israel immediately labeled as “anti-Semitic.” This is a twisted perversion of the term “anti-Semite” — check the dictionary. The number one definition of anti-Semite is NOT anti-Jewish, but rather rather anti-Arabic people.
I have been reluctant to state these internally held beliefs because of the risk of being labeled an anti-Semite myself — because I am not. I am anti-government that doesn’t act in the best interests of all of its people — and not just selected supporters of that government’s policy/policies.
We simply cannot ignore the Israeli government’s actions, such as the USS Liberty and the Israeli spies in our own government — Jonathan Pollard comes to mind — and not pay serious attention to it. These are not, as someone else has said, the actions of a “friend”, but rather those of a government that is only concerned about its own goals — everyone else be damned. I cannot and will not support a government that blindly supports the policies of any other government simply because we consider them a “friend.” Not very wise strategy, IMHO.
::: stepping down off soapbox :::
Lisa, I agree with most of what you said, but I must take exception in two places:
“check the dictionary. The number one definition of anti-Semite is NOT anti-Jewish, but rather rather anti-Arabic people.”
In which dictionary is this the case? I own three different English dictionaries, and have examined a total of five or six different dictionaries, and have never seen any dictionary that even MENTIONS Arabs under anti-Semite, anti-Semitic, anti-Semitism. Every definition I have ever seen refers to hatred against Jews, and only Jews. In this case, based on the origin of the term, the dictionaries are correct. The term anti-Semitic was coined by a German in the 19th century specifically to refer to hatred against Jews, not to refer to hatred against Semitic peoples in general, and certainly not Arabs.
I find the argument that anti-Semitism is or includes hatred of Arabs to be a rather silly and useless one because it completely sidesteps the real issue that needs to be addressed. That issue is, of course, the dishonest and false conflation of criticism of Israel/Israelis and even anti-Israelism or anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.
“We should not condemn the Jewish/Israeli people for the actions of the Israeli government, just as I hope the people of the Middle East do not condemn the American people for the actions taken by the people who run our government.”
In a state in which the government is elected by the citizens, you simply cannot separate the actions of the government completely from the citizens of the country. In Israel, where the great majority of citizens clearly support AND TAKE PART IN the commission of crimes by their government (do not forget that with certain small exceptions every Israeli citizen spends most of his/her adult life being part of the machinery that executes the government’s crimes) is particularly the case. I would not go so far as to condemn the Israeli people, but they are also not exactly innocent bystanders.
as a matter of fact about 90% of Jewish Israelis are guilty of supporting/approving the politics of war crimes. I am from other 10%, or it might be even less, I am affraid
I admit to being surprised by my dictionaries.
Webster’s New World Dictionary, copyright 1973: “Semite - a member of any of the peoples whose language is Semitic”, “Semitic - 2. designating or of a group of Afro-Asiatic languages including Hebrew, Arabic, etc.”
The New Comprehensive A-Z Crossword Dictionary, copyright 1995 - “Semite - Jew, Arab, Hebrew, Babylonian, Phoenician”
And my favorite because of the appendixes, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, copyright 1971 - “anti-Semite - a person who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews”
The first two dictionaries cited had NO definition of ‘anti-Semite’. The commonly accepted meaning of the term wouldn’t be easily deduced from the other definitions.
GR3, the meaning of the term anti-Semite does not coincide with the present-day definition of Semite because it did not evolve out of the present-day definition of Semite. The term was coined in the 19th century by a German man (cannot recall his name right now, but it should be easy to Google it), and the man who coined it defined it specifically as hatred against Jews. Therefore, that is the correct meaning of the term.
I really do not understand the reason for debating this point, and in fact find it rather a waste of time that could be spent discussing the fundamental dishonesty and falseness of hurling the anti-Semite epithet at everyone who criticizes Israel.
Shirin is correct. I can’t remember the man’s name, either, but he was basically looking for a scholarly-sounding rationalization to justify hatred of Jews, and it caught on. It has nothing to do with Arabs one way nor the other.
Words like “Semitic”, “Caucasian”, etc., most properly refer to linguistic groupings anyway.
It took less time to Google and find the name ‘Wilhelm Marr’ than it did to write out the dictionary definitions! (And I have dial-up.)
Here is a link -
http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/anti-sem.html
Quote: “it is a fact that the “anti-Semitism” conceit was coined in a half-jocular way by a 19th century Jewish journalist named Wilhelm Marr.”
I can easily recognize a Semitic nose when I see one. Zionists from Eastern Europe do not have Semitic noses. For example, there is nothing Semitic about the nose of Barbara Streisand.
Oh, come ON, Centrocitta! Really! Sometimes your silly stereotyped ideas are almost funny! Semitic nose my aunt Fatima.
Precisely, Shirin. My good friend Kaveh Moshaver has a Semitic nose.
Shirin,
I appreciate reading your comments. Perhaps you believe that: “I find the argument that anti-Semitism is or includes hatred of Arabs to be a rather silly and useless one because it completely sidesteps the real issue that needs to be addressed. That issue is, of course, the dishonest and false conflation of criticism of Israel/Israelis and even anti-Israelism or anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.” I think we are both essentially saying the same thing here except in different ways. The term “anti-Semite” is frequently used to disregard criticism of the Israeli government as being unfounded. My point was that the term “anti-Semite” is much more expansive than it is commonly associated as being.
With regard to: “In a state in which the government is elected by the citizens, you simply cannot separate the actions of the government completely from the citizens of the country. In Israel, where the great majority of citizens clearly support AND TAKE PART IN the commission of crimes by their government (do not forget that with certain small exceptions every Israeli citizen spends most of his/her adult life being part of the machinery that executes the government’s crimes) is particularly the case. I would not go so far as to condemn the Israeli people, but they are also not exactly innocent bystanders.” It had slipped my mind that all Israeli citizens who are of age are required to serve in the defense of their country.
I was attempting to point out that here in this country, as in Israel, there are citizens who are opposed to the actions of their government — just as there are people in this country who are opposed to the Bush administration’s actions in the governance of our country.
In that context, I do believe it is important to distinguish between what a nation’s governmental leaders do as opposed to what the wishes of the people are. We could debate all day long about the validity of the elections of 2000 and 2004. I happen to share the view that both of those elections were plagued with election theft (note: not to be confused with voter fraud) and that this Administration’s legitimacy is highly questionable.
The Bushies have done a masterful job of masking their true intentions from the majority of people. I am proud to say that I did not buy into their BS even before the 2000 election and I knew in my gut they would be big trouble.
Thus: to my way of thinking, our current administration is illegal and illegitimate. I have never supported them and never will. I will NOT be held responsible for something I have never supported and whom I never voted for.
I hope my additional comments clarify some of the points I was trying to make, but may not have worded adequately to make my points clear to others. They WERE clear in my mind as I wrote them. However, what might be clear in MY mind may not be as clear to someone reading them.
Thanks for your courtesy and civility in responding. It is appreciated.
“My point was that the term “anti-Semite” is much more expansive than it is commonly associated as being.”
My point is that by its etymology - that is, the history of the word and its definition - the term anti-Semite was intended to have, and continues to have, a very narrow and specific meaning that is limited to hatred of Jews. As I pointed out, contrary to your claim that dictionaries include hatred of Arabs in the definition of anti-Semitism, I have yet to find a single dictionary that even hints that anti-Semitism applies to any group other than Jews. There is a good reason for that, and that reason is that the word was coined to mean specifically hatred of Jews, and that is its meaning. If you can cite a specific dictionary that DOES give hatred of Arabs as the first definition, or even suggests that hatred of Arabs is an acceptable usage, I would be very interested to see it.
I consider arguing about the word anti-Semitism silly and a waste of time for two main reasons:
1. The argument that anti-Semitic means something instead of or in addition to hatred of Jews is a false argument with no basis in fact. For that reason the argument is invalid. The facts strongly favour the Palestinian argument, therefore why damage your credibility by using arguments that not only have no factual basis, but are actually based on false information? That is something Israel’s defenders do often. We do not have to resort to that because the facts support our position very well.
2. Even if the argument were not based on false information, it is a silly waste of time, and in fact counter productive to argue the meaning of the word anti-Semite and whether it means hatred of Jews, hatred of Arabs, or hatred of Semitic languages when that is simply not the issue at all. In fact, when you engage in such arguments, you are playing right into the hands of those who use this technique to divert the discussion away from the critical issues.
It is even a mistake to allow oneself to be lured into defending oneself or anyone else against the charge of anti-Semitism because that is a diversion from the real issues. The best way to deal with charges of anti-Semitism is to briefly dismiss them for what they are, and stick to the original topic. Any discussion of either the the opponent’s use, or the meaning of the term is playing right into the hands of your opponent by abandoning the issues in favour of what is not even a very valid side question.
Excellent commentary, Shirin. I agree. Let’s find a way to make everyone agree to disagree, and then move forward. Wouldn’t it be easier if we were dictators, to bring on the Peace? At least I would think it easier if anyone besides bushie boy were in power…
Well, PrchrLady, it is one thing to agree to disagree when it comes to opinions, but it is another matter when dealing with facts. If we cannot agree on established, demonstrated facts it is hard to find any basis for further discussion.
At least that is my view. :o}
“It is even a mistake to allow oneself to be lured into defending oneself or anyone else against the charge of anti-Semitism because that is a diversion from the real issues.”
Indeed. Additionally, when I’m making an anti-Zionist argument and am invariably called an anti-Semite, I prefer to wear it like a badge of honor. It is much like having one’s argument compared to Hitler; it is a sort of profoundly ironic adaptation of Godwin’s Law, and usually means your opponent has no further recourse to factual debate, and therefore you have won.
“it…usually means your opponent has no further recourse to factual debate, and therefore you have won.”
Exactly!
It’s the same thing as when in a discussion about Iraq my opponent starts hurling accusations that I am a Ba`thist, or a Saddam-lover or some such. They know they are out of gas, and this is their last resort. In fact, any time an opponent starts focusing on me personally it usually means they know they have nothing left.
“It had slipped my mind that all Israeli citizens who are of age are required to serve in the defense of their country.”
Well, I would not call aggression against neighboring states, ethnic cleansing, or brutal and destructive enforcement of illegal and illegitimate occupation and colonization of territory outside one’s borders defence. :o} However, I think we are very much on the same page here, regardless of the choice of words.
“I was attempting to point out that here in this country, as in Israel, there are citizens who are opposed to the actions of their government — just as there are people in this country who are opposed to the Bush administration’s actions in the governance of our country.”
Good for them - or rather, good for us. However, that does not alter the fact that the overwhelming majority of Israelis not only are not opposed to their government’s actions, in the case of last year’s over-the-top, devastating, completely unwarranted (and, as it turns out, counter-productive) attack on Lebanon, the Israeli people were upset that their government did not do even more than they did. (It also does not alter the fact that the American people gave the Bush regime a second term in office, or that the overwhelming majority of Americans have not made a single effort to accept their responsibility to do anything about their government’s criminal actions.)
“In that context, I do believe it is important to distinguish between what a nation’s governmental leaders do as opposed to what the wishes of the people are.”
Yes, and no. With democracy comes responsibility, and people who elect their governments in free elections are responsible for their choices. In addition, the vast majority of Americans have not roused themselves from their TV-induced stupor to do a single thing about the situation.
As for the Israeli people, as I have said, the majority of Israelis only seem get upset with their government when it is not sufficiently brutal and aggressive on a sufficient number of fronts. You might be shocked to see the results of some of the Israeli opinion polls. And do not forget that the Israeli people have repeatedly chosen to elect people to office who hold very extreme anti-peaceful positions.
“The Bushies have done a masterful job of masking their true intentions from the majority of people.”
People who elect their governments in free elections are responsible for informing themselves.
“I have never supported them and never will. I will NOT be held responsible for something I have never supported and whom I never voted for.”
That does not absolve the American people as a collective of their responsibility.
I understand your points on this subject, and I am not saying you are entirely wrong. It is not a simple or easy matter. I just see it somewhat differently than you do.
The definition of “semite” that I rely on is posted here (from Dictionary.com): Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
Sem·ite /ˈsɛmaɪt or, especially Brit., ˈsimaɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sem-ahyt or, especially Brit., see-mahyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including the Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs.
2. a Jew.
3. a member of any of the peoples descended from Shem, the eldest son of Noah.
——————————————————————————–
[Origin: 1870–75;
Lisa, you cannot prove something about the definition of one word by giving the definition of a different word, even though the words are related. The definition at issue has not been of the word Semite, but of the term anti-Semite. So, try looking up anti-Semite in the dictionary, and copy and paste that definition here.
The discussion began when you wrote:
“check the dictionary. The number one definition of anti-Semite is NOT anti-Jewish, but rather rather anti-Arabic people.”
I have never been able to find a dictionary that defines anti-Semitic or anti-Semite, or Antisemitism in terms of Arabic people, or in fact in any other way than hatred of Jews. If you have seen such a dictionary I would be interested in knowing about it.
The reason for that is that anti-Semite refers specifically and narrowly to hatred of Jews only. the etymology of the term anti-Semite gives it a narrow and specific definition because it was invented by a particular person for the purpose of carrying the very narrow and specific meaning of one who hates Jews. It was not invented to refer to all Semitic peoples, but only to Jews.
Lisa,
I’m beyond caring about what people say.
The truth must be told but we’re running out of time.
I think something will be staged to stop all further discussion.
British Premier Gordon Brown has agreed to support US air strikes against Iran if Iran were to carry out large-scale attacks by militant proxies against British or American forces in Iraq,
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1191257243582&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Cee,
I do agree that the time for words should be long past, however, until we have government representatives who are willing to take the bull by the horns and effectively take action to stop this abomination there is little else we can do, other than writing and calling our representatives, contributing to “grass roots” that are speaking out for us.
I am truly at a loss as to what other actions we can take. I do think that we may have reached the point where we need to seriously examine the basics of our system of governance and be more definitive in what laws are written and how they are written.
For example: Part of the Oath of Office (same as with the Oath of Enlistment) is the pledge to “uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies — foreign and domestic.” That is clear to me — any and all people shall obey the laws of the land. However, we currently have an administration that advocates that those laws do not apply to them — the “unitary executive” theory.
Apparently, it may be necessary for Congress to pass a law that the “unitary executive” theory is not recognized as valid, legal or Constitutional by the Constitution.
I think most reasonable people would have ever dreamt that we would be saddled with such a whack job as this administration and its sycophants.
Lisa, I agree with you that we have a whack-job regime in power in the U.S., and that few people could have imagined such a thing. I am also at a loss as to what more those of us can do who have been active in our opposition, and it is very, very frustrating.
As for the notion of the “unitary executive” being unconstitutional, it is the judiciary and not the Congress that determines matters pertaining to the Constitution, and I am quite certain that the Congress could not propose or pass such a law as you proposed. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court as it is presently composed is likely to find that the concept of unitary executive is perfectly constitutional.
I can’t see the say out of this mess, really. It is truly frightening.
I know that the judial branch interprets the laws, however, it is the responsible of the legislative branch to pass the laws. Unless the Congress passes a law, there can be no challenge of it.
Please note that I said: Apparently, it may be necessary for Congress to pass a law that the “unitary executive” theory is not recognized as valid, legal or Constitutional by the Constitution.
There’s no doubt it would be challenged but then it would be brought before the judicial branch for interpretation of its legality.
Perhaps my understanding of how bills become laws is wrong and you know something I don’t.
Lisa, I think I did not make my point very clearly. I was not talking about how laws are made, but about questions of what is and is mpt constitutional. I could be wrong, but here is what I think:
Only the Judiciary can decide on what is constitutional and what is not. The law you suggested would be a decision by Congress that the unitary executive is not constitutional. I don’t think that Congress can pass laws saying something is or is not constitutional because that would be usurping the place of the Judiciary.
I guess you could say that it is unconstitutional for Congress to pass a law stating the constitutionality of something. If my thinking on this is correct, then probably no Congress person would even propose such a law, and it certainly would not make it past the first step before it was shot down in flames.
As I said, I could be wrong, but I think I am correct.
Having said this, it WOULD be good to find a way to get the idea of the unitary executive thrown into the garbage heap of history where it belongs!
Shirin,
Oh, you do make your points very clearly. What has become more and more evident to me in reading your comments (not only on this thread — but also other threads) — is that you come across as beliving you are the one whose opinions and facts are valid and accurate.
I will be very frank with you — in many regards, while you are very informative, you also come across as very full of yourself and condescending with regard to other people who have a different perspective and thought process than yours.
That said — this will indeed be my last response to any postings of yours — no matter how good or not good they are.
I do appreciate your “civility” for lack of a better word, but believe your ways of communicating leave a lot to be desired.
Lisa, opinions are one thing, facts are another. My opinions are mine, formed by my experience, the information I have, and the manner in which I process it all. Believe it or not, they are subject to change in the face of new information, or a better explanation of the information I base them on.
My opinion, based on decades of experience and knowledge of the meaning of the term, is that arguing that the definition of anti-Semite includes anti-Arab, is not a good idea. I have explained why. You are more than welcome to believe that it IS a useful argument, and on that we can agree to disagree with no harm done to either of us.
Facts are another issue. In order to establish a fact, one needs to present some kind of evidence and/or a convincing argument. You asserted as a fact that the first dictionary definition of anti-Semite is “anti-Arab people” I have disputed that that based on the definitions I have seen in at least five or six different dictionaries not one of which provides any definition other than hatred of Jews. I also disputed it based on the etymology of the word. I have invited you repeatedly to refer me to a dictionary in which the first - or any - definition of anti-Semite is anti-Arab people, and you have not done so. I believe you have not done so because such a dictionary does not exist.
Some, though not all, facts are indisputable. I believe, absent any evidence to the contrary, that this fact is one of them. I am sorry if my insisting on that, or something about the manner in which I have done so, makes you unhappy with me. I am not here to obtain love, I am here to exchange ideas, to share the information I have, and learn from people who know about things I am less knowledgeable about.
Yes, I am beyond tired too.
This from one of my sons in the military. When in Iraq, serving as a corpsman with the marines, he held the hands of many young men and women who were under his care. He says that the greatest fear of many of the troops, is that they will be left behind when the Military follows out their orders to drop a ‘big one’ in the region. I was reminded of his story with the missing nuke, and all the lead up to war with Iran… could there be a connection??? I am beyond believing otherwise.
yeah the liberty was a mistake. running over rachael corrie was a mistake. the two seperate attacks on Qana ten years apart was a mistake. bombing the beach in gaza was a mistake.
then the IDF does an investigation that totally exonerates themselves. and their supporters blame the victims.
the fact is, israels policy is to go totally nuts and if people get in their way it’s seen as their own fault. I didn’t punch you, you walked in to my fist type of thing. doesn’t hold up in court, doesn’t mean anything to the people whose lives are destoryed. or to people like Mohammed Atta, who wrote his last will and testament the night of the first Qana massacre in 96.
Yes, Lester, and isn’t it a crime the way Palestinian children keep bumping into Israeli bullets. Palestinian childrens’ habit of head-butting Israel bullets is particularly vexing.
Again, thank you, Ray McGovern and Larry Johnson, for opening up an honest discussion of what no one has been allowed to talk about without fear of being unfairly labeled and castigated.
If we can’t talk freely about something as important as our government’s foreign policy decisions and history, we will have allowed ourselves to become nothing more than a police state.
….and, I should have added,
the terrorists will have won.
Well, since 9/11 “changed everything” according to the Bushies and the wingnuts, the terrorists have already won.
Well, 9/11 certainly changed everything, all right. Mainly because the Decider and his gang has made sure that it did.
Of course the Reichstag fire changed everything, too. Depending on how you look at things.
Thanks, Ray and Larry.
I-A postulated: “On the Liberty, I honestly don’t know what happened. Whether high-level Americans were complicit in the cover-up or whether they gave their permission before the attack is not clear. But it is clear that Israel would not risk antagonizing their only ally without the understanding that the risk was “acceptably low.” And so it’s completely unfair to characterize it as Israel somehow having control of American will on this issue.”
Why would anyone up the chain of command give permission for the attack? Why not just re-deploy the ship if Israel asked?
BTW, I was in the US Army in West Germany at the time. One of the sergeants was Jewish, and he described how the Israeli forces would quickly hit one enemy, pull back, then hit another, etc. I think that’s the way it played out, but my only news source in addition to him was the “Stars and Stripes.”
GB
Comment by anon | 2007-10-07 12:27:19
Peter Coyote in a special on Howard Zinn on LinkTV yesterday spoke about blowback. He made quite a point of saying that more often than not we, as Americans, will never know the real reasons behind “why they hate us”; we flat aren’t told, of course, but it’s these underlying incidents - usually covert policy and its actions - that spark attacks against our embassies, the USS Cole, WTC I and II.
When the underlying incidents are never revealed to the people, it’s easy for them to believe the prop that we were attacked out of the blue, and it’s even easier to believe it when we’re told that Syria out of the blue started a war against Israel. The attitude is, Hey, it’s not our country, why care about the facts, why bother to check it out? Now it IS our country and we STILL don’t bother to seek the truth.
In fact, talking about the consequences of blowback is the hottest button around, especially in punditland. Outrage ensues: You are the anti-est of anti-Americans if you bring up this subject, so there must be something of the truth to it.
IMO, Israel’s policies are a mirror image of US policies. If the US condemns Israel, the US effectively condemns itself. That’s why we pussyfoot around them.
The AIPAC and its allies always trot out the “Why would Israel attack an ally?” question for the proposition that Israel couldn’t possibly have intended to attack USS Liberty. The fact is that Israel DID attack USS Liberty. Under international law, no country has the right to attak an obviously non-combatant ship in international waters without first identifying the ship and ordering it to heave to for inspection.
Israel made no effort to order USS Liberty to heave to for inspection. USS Liberty possessed no offensive capability and was no threat to Israeli forces. The ship was barely moving against the current and was in no danger of “running away.” More to the point, the ship was very obviously a United States Navy ship.
The Israeli recon aircraft that first spotted USS Liberty just before five a.m. recognized her as a US Navy ship immediately. Liberty remained on Israeli coastal defense radar for the balance of the day,
We have no way of knowing what the Israelis were thinking or why they attacked USS Liberty, but we do know that they attacked the ship, they knew that it was an American ship, and they continued the attack long after they acknowledged it was an American ship, breaking off only when they knew that US aircraft were on their way to defend her.
Why did they do it? Who knows? They did it and that’s all that matters. We need an accounting and we need it now.
Roger,
The Israeli torpedo boats chasing the Liberty called in the Air Force only because their radar operator misread his screen and said the target was heading for the safety of Port Said at 30 knots. The Air Force didn’t seek to identify the target because they had been told to look for “a military ship” being chased by three torpedo boats. Since the Liberty was painted military Gray and didn’t have Israeli markings, they were told it must be Egyptian. The aerial attack stopped when one of the planes on their last strafing run read the ship’s I.D. letters over the air–the first intimation to the Air Controller that the ship was actually American. People in the room with him report that he slammed down his headphones and swore, “The Navy has F***ed us again!”
When the torpedo boats reached the ship which had already been attacked by the Air Force, they signalled to it to identify itself, because they were surprised to find a Naval Auxiliary vessel instead of a combat ship. But the smoke haze, coupled with the ship’s stationary signal lamp being shot out, made it impossible to either read or respond to the Israeli signal. At this point one of the Liberty’s machinegunners opened fire on the torpedo boats. The Israeli commander figured that this PROVED the mysterious ship was Egyptian and identified it by having his officers look at the silouette book of Egyptian Navy ships. Since the only Naval Auxiliary in the book was the Al Quesar (sp?) they naturally decided that the hostile ship MUST be it, since it was the only horse in the stable.
There is a significant difference between the two ships, however. The Liberty’s single smokestack rises tall through the roof of the deckhouse, while the Al Quesar’s barely tops the roof, because it’s separate from and BEHIND the deckhouse. The problem was that the Israelis weren’t looking for differences, only similarities, because the mysterious ship was clearly hostile by this time. The Israeli commander was so excited by this that he never bothered to compare the silouette for himself and never gave a proper order to attack–he simply made a run at the target with his own boat, leaving the other two to follow suit.
The three boats made a torpedo attack, releasing 5 torpedoes, only one of which hit the ship–the torpedoes were lousey, this was the only one of a batch of 50 that hit the target! The boats then circled the ship, firing 40 mm & 20 mm cannon and .50 cal. machineguns at the ship. When they were on the opposite side however, they saw a “red flag” hanging limply in a haze of smoke. This could only mean the the ship was Soviet. They then tried to read the name of the ship on the stern, but since this was only 18″ tall they found it to be illegible and assumed that was because it was in Russian lettering. Desperate to prove that they hadn’t attacked a Soviet ship, they retrieved one of the liferafts and read, “U.S. Navy.”
This is confirmed by testimony by the Survivors. They saw the Israeli torpedo boats in a line on the same side of the ship, saw they mill about near the stern and retrieve one of the liferafts. Capt. McGonagle testified at the Board of Inquiry that after the aerial attack he stationed a sailor at one of the machineguns, but when he saw that the torpedo boats were Israeli realized that the attack was probably an accident. But his order to the gunner not to fire came too late. He also testified that the Israelis tried to signal him before the attack, but he could neither read nor respond to it. Immediately after the attack the Israelis signalled him to ask if he required assistance. He replied, “Negative.”
On the issue of whether there was any doubt as to the national identity of the USS Liberty, Jim Ennes, via an email reply to me, stated the following:
I didn’t get those addresses linked. Sorry.
James M. Ennes, Jr.’s USS Liberty Memorial site is at http://www.gtr5.com/
The genies must have hooked up those links.
There has been a lot of discussion here which has been very enlightening for me especially about Israel and its somewhat questionable motives in the ME over the last 60 years.
Most of here probably didn’t know what was going on in 1949 when the State of Israel was created where there was none before. While taking a side on the issue of “Israel’s right to exist” which would probably get me called “anti-semantic” by some, I have always questioned the mindset of those in charge in 1949. Has anyone ever wondered what the ME would be like today if Israel had never been established?
Here is a great comment by Mickey that explains it way better than I can.
Comment by mickey | 2007-10-06 08:25:44
“What an amazing [and unknown] story! It throws us into the middle of an impossible dilemma. The plight of the Jews in Europe in World War II is the unspeakable atrocity of modern times - the Holocaust. It weighs heavily on all of mankind, not just its perpetrators, because the world ignored the rising antisemetism that came before and should have warned us. Now, we’re is a situation where Israel, carrying the scars of that atrocity, has become a major force in our Middle Eastern policies”.
Most decisions in life have some sort of analysis of whether the benefits out weigh the negatives.
At the risk of being blasted I wonder if anyone has thought of whether creating the State of Israel is a still a net benefit to the ME after all these years?
We can argue all day as to whether Israel’s actions in the ME has been good,bad up,down, right or wrong or whatever words you choose over these past 60 years but two things are clear to me.
Nothing that happens in the ME happens without input from Israel’s leaders in Israel and its leaders here
There has been a lot of discussion here which has been very enlightening for me especially about Israel and its somewhat questionable motives in the ME over the last 60 years.
Most of us alive today probably didn’t know what was going on in 1949 when the State of Israel was created where there was none before. While taking a side on the issue of “Israel’s right to exist” which would probably get me called “anti-semantic” by some, I have always questioned the mindset of those in charge in 1949. Has anyone ever wondered what the ME would be like today if Israel had never been established?
Here is a great comment by Mickey that explains it way better than I can.
Comment by mickey | 2007-10-06 08:25:44
“What an amazing [and unknown] story! It throws us into the middle of an impossible dilemma. The plight of the Jews in Europe in World War II is the unspeakable atrocity of modern times - the Holocaust. It weighs heavily on all of mankind, not just its perpetrators, because the world ignored the rising antisemetism that came before and should have warned us. Now, we’re is a situation where Israel, carrying the scars of that atrocity, has become a major force in our Middle Eastern policies”.
Most decisions in life have some sort of analysis of whether the benefits out weigh the negatives.
At the risk of being blasted I wonder if anyone has thought of whether creating the State of Israel is a still a net benefit to the ME after all these years?
We can argue all day as to whether Israel’s actions in the ME has been good,bad up,down, right or wrong or whatever words you choose over these past 60 years but two things are clear to me.
First nothing that happens in the ME without the blessing from Israel’s leaders in Israel and its leaders here in the US AIPAC, et al. and that is the heart of the so called “criticism of Israel” problem. Israel may have the “right to exist” but they DO NOT have the right to dictate what happens in the Middle East. If so who gave it to them??
Secondly as has been pointed out many times by others for more knowledgeable then me that America’s unquestionable, unconditional, and blind support for Israel and its action’s in the ME for all these years is the root cause of where we are today, the biggest f##king mess in the history of the world.
I leave you with a true story that forever changed by opinion of Israel’s so called “right to exist”.
About 10 years ago I was flying home from Europe when the plane I was on sat on the runway in NYC from 2 1/2 hrs, before heading to St Louis where I lived Since my wife was several seats in front me I decided to strike up a conversation with the woman beside me. She was probably about my age. Anytime I travel I always like to talk to people from other parts of the world to get a different perspective of issues facing the world. When i asked where she was from she said lived in the US but was born and raised in Palestine but had to leave in 1952. When I asked why she told her a chilling story as a child how they came to her home and gave her family 24 hours to pack up and leave and then confiscated everything their house land etc.
That story which she told with a lot of sadness in her voice has haunted me for years. Were those in charge justified in evicting them in the name of creating a state for Israel? What did the Palestinian’s do to deserve this fate and the resulting misery and suffering they have had to put up with all these years? Why has America and the rest of the non-Muslim world turned a blind eye to this all all these years?
We are outraged by genocide everywhere else it has occurred, why are we not by what has happened to the Palestinians for lo these many years and is still going on?
And is genocide not what’s is going on in Shirin’s homeland? God forbid it should continue in Iran?
How many millions of innocent human beings will have to die before the arrogance of the war mongers and war profiteers and merchants will be stopped?
“The answer my friend is blowing in the wind”……….Bob Dylan
I am sick, tired and disgusted by what my country has done in the name of democracy, national security and all those other justifiable catchy phrases our leaders keeping shoving down our throats.
Go on people tell me to ‘love it or leave it” and then sit there in the comfort of your nice suburban house and watch football on your hi-def tv while millions of people are starving in our country as well as the rest of the world, millions are not free especially in the ME because of our arrogant empire building foreign policy.
There will be a day of reckoning soon, because the creator of all we have God muhammad, budda or who ever you choose to call him (or her) rent the earth of the impure once in the past, and it may not be long before it happens again, global warming, rising seas, coastal flooding, get it?
Be afraid people be very very afraid.
Thanks for listening
Sorry about the double post the second one is the whole post.
This may appear twice.
Bill, I believe that no group of people who think they are more deserving of life than another will prevail.
The world ignored the plight of the Jews but the leadership that caused much of this misery can never say they didn’t know what was happening.
Mickey must have read Zionism In the Age of Dictators and The Hidden History of Zionism.
I know I was stunned to learn a number of things.
Look up a rabbi named Michael Weissmandlel.
I looked up that Hidden History of Zionism on google. I have to say, I don’t think the site looks very reliable. It links up to all sorts of Holocaust revisionist stuff that looks really dicey. I’m all for a fair and honest reappraisal of the US-Israeli relationship, and justice for the Palestinian people. But the fact is, there are all sorts of people with shady motives who jump on the anti-Israeli bandwagon, and you have to judge your sources critically. From what I can see, this one doesn’t pass the test. Ray McGovern certainly does.
I agree Delia. I am not familiar with that website specifically, but it does not sound like a source I would want to rely upon, and it is true that there are a lot of groups and individuals out there that are motivated by anti-Semitism and cannot be trusted to present accurate information. At the same time there are also groups and individuals on the other side who are motivated primarily by racism and bigotry against Arabs and Muslims.
And that reminds me that as long as I have been involved in these things there have been American anti-Semites who try to attach themselves to Palestinian and other Arab causes on the assumption, apparently, that Arabs and Palestinians are motivated by a hatred of Jews and will therefore welcome them as fellow Jew-haters. Most of the time they are in for a rude awakening.
We have one here in our area who is quite notorious, and whose escapades have even reached the Israeli press. My antennae picked up on his anti-Semitism within weeks of his involvement in the anti-sanctions coalition that we formed here in the ’90’s, and I immediately alerted some of the people and organizations in the coalition. Not everyone saw it at first, but it was immediately obvious to me. It is interesting that the Americans were far more tolerant of this anti-Semite in our midst because “you know, he works so hard, and is creative, and makes a big contribution to our activities”. The Arabs, on the other hand, as soon as I made the reality clear to them, agreed that we had to shut him out and get rid of him as soon as possible. Naturally, the Jewish people in the coalition were with us 100%. It took the non-Jewish Americans a lot longer and many blatant anti-Semitic diatribes to finally understand that no matter how “committed” he was, or how hard he worked, his presence was a liability.
Of course, over time he revealed just how virulent his anti-Semitism was, and became increasingly marginalized until now he is mostly shunned, and has actually been kicked out of some marches and demonstrations. He still shows up, though, everywhere, and makes himself a very prominent presence. It is almost sad that he still shows up at Arab events, and is always by himself with no one to talk to or listen to him.
I thought so at first too. I now believe some claims he made. Here is an example.
As late as 1943, while the Jews of Europe were being exterminated in their millions, the U.S. Congress proposed to set up a commission to “study” the problem. Rabbi Stephen Wise, who was the principal American spokesperson for Zionism, came to Washington to testify against the rescue bill because it would divert attention from the colonization of Palestine.
This is the same Rabbi Wise who, in 1938, in his capacity as leader of the American Jewish Congress, wrote a letter in which he opposed any change in U.S. immigration laws which would enable Jews to find refuge. He stated:
It may interest you to know that some weeks ago the representatives of all the leading Jewish organizations met in conference … It was decided that no Jewish organization would, at this time, sponsor a bill which would in any way alter the immigration laws.
You should listen to his radio program sometime
Ralph Schoenman and Mya Shone
http://takingaimradio.com/shows/audio.html
Well, Cee, you know what they say about that. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. If the information on that site is factual and valid it will be available from more reliable sources, so I stay away from sources like that.
Ironic how convenient the disabling of theUSS~Liberty incident was for the Israelis and the Russians in 1967 since it was followed by the Capture of the USS Pueblo a few months later on Jan 23rd..1968 by the North Koreans after it was also attacked in International waters..and taken to North Korea where its crew was beaten and tortured..
The USS Pueblo remains one of the most popular Tourist attractions in North Korea..
Both Incidents Happened on someones orders and the United States government responses Politically to both Incidents is Intriguing Indeed…
Which was followed by the Unprecidented “SURRENDER”and rapid withdrawl of the United States from Viet Nam..A Surrender to the already defeated North Vietnamese Government..and its coalition of North Korean..Chinese and Russian Forces.. leaving Millions of Dollars of American weapons..supplys ..Bases..and American Blood behind..
All…Under the Guidance of that great American Patroit ans Statesman.. Secretary of State for Richard Nixon.. “Dr.” HENRY KISSINGER..Speaking
of “STRANGE~LOVE..”
All of this was immediately followed by the Lebonon Civil War and Ronald Reagans responses to that Conflict under the “Guidance” of of the “Advisors..”.. in His Administration..
HMMM..Who could that be..??
I think if we were all “Bohemians” we would have a better understanding of how “deciders”..Decide..and why the Biggest “SHOW” on Pennsylvania Ave is “Masters and Mates”..and who the Producers and Directors Are..
Someone needs to write a new “Play” ..and bring in a new Cast..and show the OLD BOHEMIANS…what ‘ARTS and CRAFTS” are really all about…
Anyone have Ideas for a Title to the new “PLAY”??
I am the author of the Secret War Against the Jews. I went over this info ten years ago, and concluded that the attack was intentional, but the Israelis were exercising their lawful right of self-defense. The Liberty was spying for the Arabs in time of war.
Yeah, right, John. They were spying for the Arabs.
Remind me to read your book - it ought to be good for a few guffaws.
John,
I’ve read your book. Your claim did not give Israel the right to try to murder US soldiers.
The Israelis were exercising their lawful right of self-defense. The Liberty was spying for the Arabs in time of war.
Well, I don’t know anything at all about any of that…except what I’ve read and heard here and there.
But given Bush’s family’s ties to the Saudis — and cover-ups wrt drugs back in the first Bush administration (remember Iran/Contra?) Remember Sibel Edmonds and what she learned about Hastert and others ….Turkey…drugs, etc.– I don’t find it impossible …at all…that the U.S. could have been spying for Arabs. Look at the bail outs for W’s failed Harken…..and all the other stuff — flying the bin Laden family out on 9/11! What? Flying THEM out! When all other planes were grounded? Bin Laden on the board of Carlyle. What?
Let’s face it…..corruption is everywhere. Certainly not confined to the Israelis!
Sandy, the U.S. spying for the Arabs against Israel makes no sense at all in the context of the June, 1967 war. For starters, Johnson, not Bush, was president, so there is no logical connection to either Bush administration, or to the Bush relationship with bin Laden.
I suggest you obtain some basic information about John Loftus before you are tempted to buy into his stories. You might find reason to question his credibility.
A serious follow-up question is; what about the nuclear elephant in the living room?
If AIPAC can help Israel get away with a full attack on a U.S. intelligence gathering ship, why can’t AIPAC help Israel get away with a pre-emptive attack on a foreign nation such as Iran?
Briefly comparing what’s widely known:
Iran has no publicly known proven history of nuclear weapons, is a signatory to NPT, is a member of IAEA, is in an IAEA inspection program still in progress, and is accused of nuclear weapons ambitions which are largely based on speculation and conjecture. I would say given the devastating potential of nuclear weapons, a healthy cautious suspician is warranted, but AIPAC is pre-mature in outright accusations, and pre-emptive U.S. military action at this point would essentially amount to an armed force fishing expedition.
Meanwhile Israel denies the long held but widely believed suspicion that they have nuclear weapons, won’t sign NPT, refuses IAEA inspections, is not shy about military action against neighbor nations, and as recently as 9/25/07 it’s reported by AP that Israel Seeks Exemption From Atomic Rules by NSG nations governing imports (in this case by Israel) of atomic material.
Let’s see a show of hands.
1. Who feels confidently certain that Israel won’t attack Iran with a nuclear weapon?
2. Who feels that if Israel does, that AIPAC will pull out all the stops to go to bat for Israel?
3. Who’s history shows a greater threat to world security, Iran’s or Israel’s?
Well, let’s see, on question number three…..let me think………..let me think……..
Ok, let’s see….welllllllll…….ummmmmmmm….
OK…..let me give this a try……
Israel has nukes - probably at least a couple of hundred - but disingenuously denies it.
Iran has no nukes, is at least several years from having the technology to develop nukes, has a good, rational reason for developing nuclear technology to produce electrical power, and there is no evidence that it ever intends to develop nuclear weapons.
Israel has a rich history of often vicious and brutal aggression against neighboring states.
Iran has no history of aggression against neighboring states.
Israel has invaded, occupied, and colonized territory outside of its borders - oh wait, we have a problem here because Israel has no borders because it refuses to define or declare them - ok, its internationally recognized boundary (i.e. the 1949 “green line”), ethnically cleansing the indigenous population, and stealing natural resources (oil in the Sinai, and water in the Golan Heights and the Occupied Palestinian Territories).
Iran has never invaded, occupied, or colonized territory outside of its borders. Oh yes - and Iran actually has borders.
Israel has used military violence to expand its territory starting almost immediately after the 1947 Partition Resolution allocated more than 50% of Palestine for the Jewish state.
Iran has kept its territory within its borders.
Israel habitually takes military and other actions that inevitably result in often catastrophic destabilization of neighboring countries (Lebanon, for example) and the region in general.
Gosh! I guess Iran really IS the greatest threat to world security of the 21st century!
ybnormal,
You’re really not going to like this part…There is “speculation” and I use that word loosely because I have no proof…if only I did…that Israel’s earlier nukes were made with “borrowed” US materials…and oh, btw, I use the term “borrowed” loosely as well.
My own personal opinion is that Iran really is just using their nuke technology for energy research, and that they have every right to tell the US to go pound salt.
Our two nations have no diplomatic ties, no economic ties, and no cultural ties therefore we have no assumed rights with them as we would have with nations say England, or Japan, or any of the other nations we are associated with.
Iran doesn’t have to explain themselves to us, and we have no right to ask for one. Just as we don’t have to explain ourselves to Iran, and Iran has no right to ask one of us.
And to further it, if Iran wants to build a bomb…well, there isn’t much we could do about it anyway, our adventure in Iraq made sure of that, and if we think we can do something about it…we’re a lot dumber than the Iranian mullah’s suspect.
Excellent, pertinent bit today on DemocracyNow!
Akiva Eldar, chief political columnist and a senior analyst for the Israeli daily “Ha’aretz,” calls for a nuclear-free Middle East and questions whether the Israeli lobby in Washington is contributing to the security of Israel.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/08/1341205
Akiva Eldar can be pretty awesome at times. I have been a fan of his for decades.
Other completely awesome Israeli journalists:
Amira Hass at Haaretz, who actually lives in the Palestinian city of Ram Allah in the West Bank, and who lived in Gaza during the first Intifada. She believes that the job of a journalist is to monitor and hold accountable the centers of power.
Gideon Levy also at Haaretz, who writes heartfelt accounts of the plight of Palestinians living under Israeli occupation. He has had his car shot up by the Israeli military while driving in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Wonderful. Obama is calling for the same thing.
The lobby is not contributing to the security of anyone!
Regarding the definition of an anti-Semite, I like Bernard Lewis’s definition best: “An anti-Semite is a person who criticizes Israel while refusing to acknowledge other countries have similar flaws.”
The Neocons run AIPAC today. Its members include heavyweights with close ties to the Bush administration and Israel’s Likud, such as Goldman Sachs, Joshua Bolten, Elliott Abrams, David Wurmser, Dick Cheney, and many other Bush officials.
As a result, AIPAC hasn’t prevented the Bush administration from selling first-rate weapons to Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, which Israel vehemently opposed. AIPAC hasn’t prevented the Saudis, Egyptians and oil companies from also effectively lobbying Washington, DC. Plus, the last three administrations favor returning almost all of the Palestinian territories for the purpose of creating a Palestinian state, which the Likud wouldn’t favor.
Most American Jews, close to 80%, don’t agree with AIPAC and never voted for Bush. There are many Israelis who don’t support the Likud either, and don’t support AIPAC.
When people say that AIPAC is this omnipotent force driving US foreign policies toward the Middle East, more powerful than any other lobby…and ….shhhhh…no one is supposed to talk about it…it makes me feel as if I’m part of a 5th column. Only I never received the invitation, and have no desire to join. In this sense, I agree with the Israeli-American above who says people are looking for a scapegoat.
Well, the real driving force behind the Iraq war and the push to bomb Iran leads directly to Bush and Cheney. They’re in the pockets of the oil lobby, not Israel.
[...] Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern with his take. [...]
http://pillsbargains.info/tramadol/side-effects-from-tramadol-tab-50mg.php