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.

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.

That is no longer an issue. Anyone who reads the current reports will know that the national identity was never in doubt. Please refer the naysayers to:

Chicago Tribune http://tinyurl.com/2ubzco

Baltimore Sun http://tinyurl.com/2pvpex

Haaretz http://tinyurl.com/ypaujc

For the Tribune’s comment section: http://tinyurl.com/3actpz

And a paranoid view that it is all a plot by Arabists at the
Department of State to hurt Israel:
http://web.israelinsider.com/views/12158.htm

I didn’t get those addresses linked. Sorry.

James M. Ennes, Jr.’s USS Liberty Memorial site is at http://www.gtr5.com/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. }

“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.

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.”

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.

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.