Oh my. New mood on campus. Sunday's Washington Post runs a review of The Attack on the Liberty, a new book by James Scott, the son of a survivor of the Israeli attack on a Navy ship during the Six day War in '67 that killed 34 Americans and that has never been adequately explained. Pro-Israel types always say, It's an accident, then a conspiracy theory. Not reviewer John Lancaster:
Scott cites transcripts of conversations between the Israeli pilots and air controllers in Tel Aviv to show that at least some Israeli commanders were aware of the Liberty's identity before the attack. He also shows that many U.S. officials — including then-CIA director Richard Helms — were privately scornful of Israel's explanation. Some believed the attack may have been ordered by a battlefield commander who feared that Israel's combat orders, if detected by the Liberty, might somehow leak to the Arabs.
Scott clearly has his own suspicions, though he produces no smoking-gun evidence to support the charge of a deliberate attack, perhaps because none exists. In that sense, his book is likely to disappoint the conspiracy theorists as much as it angers proponents of the "fog of war" defense offered by Israel. But Scott is wise to leave the speculating to others. The story is shocking enough as it is.
Related posts:
- ‘Washington Post’ columnist ends the occupation with stroke of pen
- Washington Post Says Netanyahu Got 3/4 of His Campaign Donations From U.S. Right Wingers
- o happy day… ‘Washington Post’ covers racist Israeli current, and mentions the word ‘Nakba’
- Washington Post fingers Perle as ‘ideological architect of Iraq War’
- ‘Washington Post’ erases Palestinian population in Israel twice (Imagine if they tried this with blacks in U.S.)
{ 139 comments }
← Previous Comments
Let the man speak, Shingo. Neither he, you nor I is going to convince the world of what we individually believe and thus cause its downfall if we're wrong, or save it if we are right. And we'll all die believing the world is nuts for not believing as we do about all kinds of things. Besides that, he's saying something new and interesting which at least is better than saying something new and uninteresting. If he's lying then you aren't going to break him and he's gotta live wondering about the validity of a cause that you gotta lie for. And if he's simply mistaken at worst he's merely being foolish and flogging him isn't going to accomplish anything.
I am letting him speak Sin. You yourself have picked up the glaring holes in his "thesis" so by all means, I am all for giving the guy enough rope to hand himself. He hasn't passed up an opportunity to do it thus far.
Doppler, Israel is renowned for showing extreme contempt for it's allies. In 2006, Israel celebrated the 60th anniversary of a terrorist attack in it's name, the bombing of the King David Hotel. This was a huge insult to Britain, but that was of no concern to Israel's celebration of a terrorist attack in it's name, that killed Jews as well as British servicemen. In fact, Israeli terrorists tried to bomb London, but the plot was exposed before the stern gang members could carry it out. That's the kind of gratitude that Israel shows to it's "friends".
Shingo lies… and accuses me, too! 1-a) Syria held the high ground before the Six Day War. This is why it is called the Golan HEIGHTS. They were shooting down onto Jewish farmers in the valley below. 1- b) The attack on the Liberty had nothing to do with real-time attacks on the Syrian forces. Where do you get your ridiculous info from anyways? 2) The Egyptian blockade was a causus belli by any standard of international law. Your deliberate misunderstanding of same only betrays your bigotry and intellectual dishonesty, Shingo. Hamas has declared, proudly, that they will wage Jihad for ever and ever. Your claim of Hamas peace is false. And you call other people liars??? 3) Muhren was in another country and at the wrong end of the war to comment on things on the other front. So much for your sources. Keep going Shingo. I"m happy to embarrass you in public as long as you wish to make a fool of yourself.
Shingo, are you a fool or just a simpleton liar? Perhaps you are both. Allow me to demonstrate… 1) Israel sought clarification before firing on the Liberty. They asked the Pentagon which declared that there were no US ships off the Gaza coast. See Ennes' account and others and the American cover story about misdirected communications going to the Philipines (Subic Bay?) instead of the Liberty. 2) That you weren't privy to my discussions with Ennes are your problem. This doesn't make me a liar, as you say – it makes you a fool. 3) US jets were dispatched but recalled immediately, first by the Pentagon, then by LBJ and McNamara. They were several hundred miles north with the Sixth Fleet at the time but would take time to get to the Liberty, off Gaza. See any of the Liberty survivor accounts. They were only launched after the Liberty's call for help, by which time the Israelis had left already. You don't know anything about warfare, military procedures, history.. about anything, do you Shingo??? Why do you babble so much? More later…
More foolishness from Shingo, going down the tubes fast… 1) A spy ship could easily masquerade as something else. Ask any undercover cop in the US who has been shot by other cops. 2) Radio jamming was simple; the Liberty was FULL of radio equipment, it was a spy ship, remember? This was a simple manouver and a fairly non-lethal one, at that. 3) Simply explained by battlegound command structures. Hey, according to the the American account, US military communications were a thousand times worse! This is how Liberty commands went to the Philipines! 4) Ha! Radio monitoring? The Liberty was a SPY SHIP and IT WAS MONITORING ISRAELI RADIO COMMUNICATIONS, not the other way around. All Liberty survivor accounts state this clearly. Shingo, you are so mixed up, it is actually humorous! More coming up. I'm not finished yet…
5) What are your sources? More ridiculous stories from Shingo??? 6) Your own quote answers and contradicts point your own point 1) You are such an idiot. But don't stop now… 7) Sources? Was the US ambassador in Lebanon listening in to Hebrew language communications 2 countries south of his station? OF the THOUSANDS of simultaneous radio communications, Porter knows about a specific comversation in a language which he (apparenlty) has no command in? MondoBull? 8) Your source for this silliness? Do you blurt out every stupid thing you find somewhere? Shingo, you are so discredited only a place like MondoLies would tolerate you.
Fool. You still dont' know they were Israeli. And Jim Ennes even thought they were Phantoms, which Israel didn't ahve a single one of at the time! I repeat: that you aren't privy to my discussions with Ennes is your problem. You are free to read his accounts. What I say will jive precisely with his accounts (except where he has changed the text in his book, which is a long-term money-maker for him.) It is the US version which is no credible. This is why the Liberty survivors so much want a Congressional investigation, which Congress has consistently refused. Read ANYTHING they write and you will find this. And these guys are not friends of Israel, clearly. Shingo, your MondoBull just keeps on flowing. Nothinng you say anywhere else is worth listening to…
Shingo lies.. shamelesly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Farran There were other British murders of Jews, including children. As for Abdullah being assasinated by Palestineans for stealing teh East Bank of Palestine, you haven't offered the slightest hint that I said anything untrue. Yet you still call me a "liar". Maybe Abdulllah was abducted by aliens and is still alive? MondoShingo. Don't bother with refernces for your lies. You won't find anything reliable.
Shingo, can you not read English? Or do you have a comprehension problem. Drug-induced??? 1) I never said any such thing. This is why you cannot quote me on it. You are a liar. Serial liar. 2) Even the survivors who got the payments said they got the payments. You are a liar. Serial liar. 3) The payments were made but the source of the funds is the question. Too complicated for you, Shingo. Liar. Check out the survivors' accounts about these and other points. Shingo merely posts here for the heck of posting, without reading or researching the sources. This is how it is so easy for me to demonstrate Shingo's idiotic, duplicitous bigotry. Shingo, you are too easy. Go away…
Intentional means that someone issued orders and someone (else) pulled the trigger. Positive ID on the target might not have been final. This is how wars are waged. So the attack was intentional but mistaken. Happens on battlefields all the time. You have no sources for your foolishness. And your quoting of garbage doesn't make it a source, either. You haven't even read Ennes' account. You are such an uninformed bigot. Shingo, you cannot read English, cannot understand plain logic, cannot post an honest sentence. You are tiresome.
Shingo, you have many problems with plain English. Posting facts to you is a waste of time. I merely post here to show other readers what really happened – and to show them what a fool you are. And because you are so much fun! Shingo, MondoBigot, MondoFool.
Johnson HIMSELF got on the phone to the Admiral of the Sixth Fleet to recall air-cover. Documented in many sources. McNamara was on the phone with him. This is because they had earlier denied knowledge of the Liberty Spy Ship. Liberty sailors themselves describe the ship as a spy ship. As for links, if you can't find Ennes' accounts for yourself, then it merely proves – yet again – what a blithering fool you are, Shingo. All the other anti-Israel idiots here can find it. Moron. Your comment on spying is also based on your own feelings and not on facts. Standard fare from bigots like Shingo.
Shingo lies like diarrhea. 1) No one on board. The NSA. HALF THE CREW ON THE LIBERTY WERE NSA. Moron. 2) I have posted these facts so many times, Shingo still can't read. Ennes and Meadors, among others. 3) Illogical rambling. Typical Shingo. 4) The rest of your posting is so full of obviously fallacious material, you are safely ignored. No one is going to fall for Shingo's stupid baloney. Shingo. What a moron.
Ron, I have expanded on this. Extensively here and elsewhere. I have researched this topic extensively over many years. It's a fascinating case. Too bad you haven't bothered to read anything.
Shingo, YOU haven't discussed this with Liberty survivors. I have. This is why your postings on this topic are so empty… Why do you yell so? Just to show us how ignorant you are? Or how bigoted? Or both?
Sin, You have partly misunderstood. I don't deny that Israel attacked the ship on that day. Israel herself says so. (Liberty survivors who claim they were unmarked aircraft or unmarked Phantoms, which Israel didn't even have at the time, support such a conspiracy, but I haven't yet heard anyone promote that particular conspiracy, especially since Israel immediately admitted to the attack.) However, you are incorrect in suggesting that Israel knew it was a US ship. Israel had every reason to believe that it was Russian or Egyptian, because the US had repeatedly denied having any ships in the area. Thus an attack of some magnitude, not necessarily a sinking, was warranted. Washington's denials were later explained with stories of mis-communication of orders sent to the Liberty which were accidentally routed to the Philipines. This sounds like a cover to explain Washington's denial of knowledge of the ship, which the NSA knew about, full well. Reading accounts by Israeli diplomats Abba Eban and Gad Yaacobi suggest that Israel did not intend for anyone to be killed, no matter who was on the ship. When reading diplomatic language, you have to read between the lines. If I recall correctly, Eban suggested that the orders were to fire over her bows, but the attack got out of hand and people were killed. None of this suggests that Israel believed at the time that the ship was American. Even immediately after the attack, the US itself continued to deny that the ship was American. This is why aircover from the Sixth Fleet was recalled TWICE. When reports of US deaths came in, Johnson could no longer deny that the ship was his and so the cover stories about misdirected orders, mistakes, etc were invented. It is Israel that is covering up for American malfeasance and not the other way around. That antisemites have jumped on this bandwagon is just another cost to Israel of doing Washington's wishes. Unfortunately both for Israel and for the Truth, this kind of story has been repeated again and again. Israel pays every time.
You send it, I will read it. Aaron Cristol has done a lot of research and his book is full of lies. Send me a site and I will read it. I warn you that I have been up against people who have researched and seem to be experts even though they weren't there. Never could figure that one. People who research are great but I do demand facts and something to back them up. I have heard enough rhetoric.
It appears that Jake has some information I need to see and evidently facts to back it up. Your remarks that our eyewitness account is not credible leaves me with not really giving your remarks any more attention. Evidently Jake has brought this up to other Liberty survivors and has some legitimate information. My interpretation of the attack has been backed by other very important officials who have said the attack was no mistake. Dean Rusk for example, and Admiral Thomas Moorer who was the Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Louis Tordella who was the director of NSA and I could go on and on for quite a while.
You say that you have discussed this with Liberty survivors, but a) you haven't proved that you have and b) given that you are a Zionist propaghdist, even if you had discusses this with Liberty survivors, you probably heard what you wanted to hear and are misrepresenting the discussion you had and c) your account conflicts with Israel's official explanation, which makes you a liar, or Israel a liar, or both.
Jake, You are indeed a moron. 1) I never said sanyone on baord was NSA. The NSA intercepted the communications between Israeli pilots and their command. 2) You have not posted any facts, but theories without a single link or reference. 3) Illogical, incoherent and full of contradictions 4) Transaltion. I cannot refute any of the arguments you made so I'll just ramble. >>Shingo. What a moron. Translation:: Shngo just cleaned my clock, so I'll resrt to insults.
1) Actually it was McNamara who called the air cover. 2) They never denied knowledge of the Liberty Spy Ship. The only sources that claime this were Israelis and the US denied that they were even asked. 3) You are claiming your own debates with Ennes, not his official account. You are too afraid to link to his public statements because they don't say what you claim they said. 4) Caught in one of your own lies again. It was YOU that said the LIbverty was spying in Israel, not me. Like Abraham Lincoln once, said,when you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything. Yor statements are so sull of lies, you keep forgetting what you said 2 sentences earlier.
How would yoiu know if posting facts to me is a waste of time. ? You've never tried. You have popsted here to show what YOU want people to believe happend and guess what? No one believes you. You are so desperate.
1) The Liberty attack was tied to teh impending attack that Israel were about to launch against Israel. 2) The Egyptian blockade onyl affected 5% of goods arriving in Israel. Israel decided to use it as a causus belli by declaring it an act of war. Israel is currently blockaign 100% of goods to Gaza and yet, claims that any retaliation from Gaza is an attack on Israel. 3) Hamas has declared support for a 2 state solution and that the Hamas charter is no longer relevant. Israel refuses to suport a 2 state solution. Hamas have also said they woudl not opposed the Arab peace initiative, which recognizes Isrlea as per the 1967 borders. Isrel has rejected that too. There. I just debunked all those lies. So easy. 3) Muhren was able to look at all the evidence and all the facts. You have just argued that eye witnesses could nto be trusted, and nwo you are arguing that those who investigated the attack can't be trusted eitehr. You can't have it both ways Jake. Keep going Jake, but try to stop soiling yourself in publis. It's pathetic.
You calim that the US version which is no credible, yet your own account contradicts the Israeli account, which is the same as the US account.
Poor Jake, is getting trapped in his own lies and now is throwing a tantrum 1) Here are quotes from your own posts: "This was entirely the fault of the spying, cheating LBJ and NSA (which had taken control of the Liberty from the Navy for this spy mission)." "Spying for Egypt: LBJ wanted the war to end a stalemate, and then he'd come riding in and demand a ceasefire. Changing the balance of power wasn't in his interests." Gotacha Jake!! More proof that you are a lair. 2) The survivors who got the payments received them from the US. Even you put forward this claim you idiot. You're in such a panick, you can't even remember what you are posting. How sad? 3) You can't claim I am a liar when you yourself don't knwo where the money came from. Use a dictionary in future. I have checked out the survivors' accounts about these and other points. You haven;t researched anything. You are desperately trying to present a conspiracy theory and no one believes you. Poor Jake.
Well Jake, I've now not only read your latest argument (replying to my question above in this crappy comment format) and it seems to me that as regards the core question the best that can be said for it is that it puts an enormous and in my view unsustainable strain on some mere negative, indirect and inferential evidence in the face of a literal mountain of unambiguous, positive and direct evidence. That is, we agree that that "core question" is whether Israel knew the identity of the ship it was attacking. And from there you note that it was a spy ship on a spy mission whose presence wasn't made known to Israel. Your further allegation then that it's mission was to aid Egypt is interesting, and although I don't quite see any evidence you cite in support of same that doesn't seem important. It simply doesn't really seem relevant to the core issue now that you aren't arguing that Israel was justified in making the attack. You then go on to focus very much on the American reaction to the attack, and, once again, it's hard to see much relevance to the specifics of same as regards that core issue. Whether the U.S. at first denied the ship was American or not or how it got to where it was certainly raises questions, but you simply fail to explain how they go to supporting the idea that the Israelis didn't know it was American, and that relevance isn't otherwise apparent either. To me then we simply come back to that one assertion of yours that the U.S. didn't tell Israel that we had a ship there and while that sounds plausible it is also seems to me to be of very limited value. After all I somewhat doubt that the U.S. told Israel where *any* of our ships were, and as the Liberty was in international waters it certainly had no duty to do so as regards that ship either. Moreover, even such "negative", indirect and inferential evidence ("negative" in the sense that it doesn't show the opposite that Israel did in fact know the identity of the Liberty and "indirect" and "inferential" in that one has to draw one's own conclusions therefrom) just has to be regarded as a speck of ambiguity amidst the ocean of unambiguous, positive and direct evidence otherwise. And by this of course I mean not only those transcripts or people who read the transcripts that show that at least some Israel controllers knew full well that the Liberty was U.S., but then also all the incredibly and essentially uniform stories from the Liberty survivors of the U.S. as regards the core issue: E.g., the U.S. flag flying high, the previous sighting of the ship by Israeli plane(s), the ship's U.S. markings being plain, the difference between the Liberty and any Egyptian "horse-carrier," the strange persistence of the attacks, the ferocity of apparently trying to eliminate every Liberty sailor via machine-gunning them in the water and etc., etc. And as to this kind of direct, positive evidence so far as I can see your major point is to suggest that the Liberty personnel feel constrained from blaming Johnson or others, but there seems to me to be more than a bit of illogic in same. After all it's hardly logical that just because (if true) those survivors feel anger at what their U.S. superiors did putting them in harm's way that they would then go and make up stories blaming someone *else*, right? And in fact they seem to be doing exactly what you'd expect people who had been attacked doing and that is blaming the attacker principally, despite that gag order which—without explanation—you imply keeps them from absolving Israel. That is, all your point suggests is that they ought to be *additionally* mad at some *additional* parties; not that they would *falsely* blame someone else. As I said before based on some things you said you seemed to me to be raising a new issue in terms of possibly arguing that Israel not only knowingly but justifiably attacked the Liberty. (Because of the allegation is was aiding Egypt.) But given what you've now further said it seems to me to simply return everything back to the evidence regarding that core question, and I don't see how you find that one bit of negative, indirect and inferential evidence you allege to have any significance really in the face of all that still-standing positive, direct evidence. In short I suspect that in an American court of law at least Israel's knowing culpability would not only be rather easily shown under the civil "preponderance of the evidence" standard, but that there's simply no reasonable doubt even that could keep it from being convicted under our criminal law standard. *Some* doubt yes, but none reasonable enough in the face of all the other evidence that exists.
"Intentional means that someone issued orders and someone (else) pulled the trigger. " And we know it was intentional becasue the Israeli pilot radio's command and told them the ship was a US vessel and was told to hit it anyway. If the attack was mistaken, then Israel woudl have called off the attack after the Liberty sent out an SOS. Instead, Israel continued and sent in their torpedo boats. If you know anything about this case, you would know that. Yes I have read Ennes' account. You are the one claiming to have debated him, which is probably a lie. Mind you, you haven't even provided quotes, just conspitacy theories abotu hiw the USS Liberty was spying for Egypt and how LBJ wanted the '67 war to end in a stalemate. Face it Jake, your conspiracy theory has ben debunked. Better luck next time.
Wonderfully put Sin, Here are some more holes in Jakes arguments. Ennes account of the attack mentions nothing about Israeli F4 Phantoms. However, you are incorrect in suggesting that Israel knew it was a US ship. Even after the initial wave of attacks, Israelis claimed to have learned the ship's identity when they heard its distress signals, which Israel would definitely have intercepted. From that moment on, Israel knew it was a US ship, but continued attacking it. Israel had no reason to believe that it was Russian or Egyptian. According to the US, they never asked the Americans if there were any ships in the area. Apart from the US flag, the ship had 10 foot letters and it’s serial number clearly visible. It also had no resemblance to any Egyptian or Russian ship. The Israelis eventually admitted that before the attack, their commanders had compared reconnaissance photos of the Liberty with Jane's Fighting Ships. But they claimed that before the attack they twice telephoned the U.S. naval attache in Tel Aviv inquiring whether the Liberty was a U.S. ship and were told that there were no U.S. Navy ships in the area. They claimed that having received a negative reply, they decided that the ship had to be the El Quseir. However, the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv, and later the naval attache, emphatically stated that no such inquiries were made. The Israelis not only knew the ship's nationality and that she was an "ELINT" ship; they also knew she was the Liberty herself. Immediately preceding the attack, an Israeli pilot recognized Liberty as a U.S. ship and radioed this information to IDF headquarters. He was instructed to attack anyway. This dialogue was intercepted at the U.S. embassy in Beirut. Former U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Dwight Porter revealed the existence of this intercept in 1991. Abba Eban is a well known propagandist but if Israel did not intend for anyone to be killed, then they would not have fired torpedoes at the ship. Israeli planes had already strafed the deck of the ship, so all personnel well below deck. A torpedo attack would have definitely killed people. Also, the Israelis attacked the small rescue boats carrying survivors. Israel knew this was an American ship and did not want any survivors to tell of the story. The US never denied the ship was American. The U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv, and later the naval attache, emphatically stated that no such inquiries were made.
1) ) Israel NEVER sought clarification before firing on the Liberty. The US denied receiving any requests, nor did the US deny there were US ships off the Gaza coast because they were never asked. 2) The fact that you haven't proven that you had any discussions with Ennes is your problem. Until you do, you are a liar. 3) The Israelis continued to attack the Liberty 6 minutes after the Liberty sent out it's SOS.
Correction to more of Jake's lies: 1) You can't masquerade a ship the size of the USS Liberty. It's not the same as putting on a Groucho Marx diguise. Yuo haven't got a clue. 2) The USS Liberty had state of the art comms and thus jamming it woudl not have been simple. 3) No Liberty commands went to the Philipines. 4) Irrelevant. The Liberty was in international waters and could have been listening to Israel from anywhere. 5) My sources are part of the record. Do some research and cure your ignorance. 6) There is no contradiction. The Libverty had a US flag and 10 foot high identification markings. 7) What has Hebrew got to do with anything? 9) Also part of the record. Do some research and cure your ignorance. This is much too easy . Haven't you got anything better?
So you linked to ONE alleged murder by a British national and this is supposed to be proof that the British were murdering Jews? You seem to have a problem with understanding the difference between singular and plural and the one crime vs policy. Is that why the Israelis bombed the King David Hotel, which killed Jews? to avenge the all edged murder by Farran? I didn't deny that Rabin was assassinated by a Israeli settler.
"The real issue is the use of the Libery incident by antisemites- as evidenced here on this thread. " That's called a sleazy diversion from the topic researchok. Get your act together and stop being so lazy. "If an attack on a US vessel really were of such concern, then what happened on the Stark would be front and center. " The US attacked, invaded and occupied Iraq. are you suggesting they do the same to israel?
Well thank you for the compliment Shingo but once Jake took the position not that Israel was justified in the attack but that it was mistaken he was really facing a steep uphill climb in terms of making that case. And indeed once it was clear that was his case others like you were actually better to engage him for obviously knowing more of the details of the issue than I who only remembers the bigger undisputed facts of the matter. Not that it matters all that much though in my opinion: I suspect that amongst those in the U.S. military and diplomatic and intelligence communities there really isn't much respect paid to arguments that Israel was mistaken: the facts on the one side are just so overwhelming and the matter is so old now that the kind of striking, surprising evidence needed to raise serious doubt is hardly likely to exist given that it most certainly would have been unearthed by now. Especially since it would have been in Israel's interest to do so. And that I think was reflected in that recent news story about our Admiral Mullen I think who told the Israelis point blank vis a vis the Iranian situation that the U.S. military at least would not sit still for another Liberty incident. You don't do that unless you want to communicate that you know full freaking well that no mistake was made, and I suspect when Mullen said that the Israelis didn't even really bother to object much beyond some brief noting of their "official" version that it was a mistake. I also think however that amongst our pros in the foreign relations field they tend not to be quite so excitable about the Liberty thing as American civilians. The former know that once you cut through all the high-flown verbal crap that countries produce about their motivations states always reserve the right to act out of cold, hard and unsentimental "reasons and interests of state," and that's what Israel was doing when it bombed the Liberty, albeit to an unusually cold and hard degree given it was a U.S. ship. What I suspect grinds them about it especially however—which is something I suspect helps keep the Liberty incident alive in certain governmental circles—is the nakedness of the hypocrisy on Israel's part constantly reflected in its pushing of the idea that somehow the U.S. owes it some cosmic obligation and that it would be the height of immorality for the U.S. to follow its own "reasons and interests of state" in the Middle East. Again it's realized that so advancing that idea is Israel's naked right, but the extremity of the idea and the invocation of moral superiority, especially in the face of the Liberty, provokes a reaction that's never going to go away I don't think. (For good reason.) Yet another case it seems to me where Israel's silly and weird obsession with constantly painting itself as having some superior morality than everyone else comes back to haunt it. I don't think it has any conception of the different and deeper kind of dislike this engenders for it in the world compared to people's reactions to other countries' behavior. It's one thing to act beastly, since at different times everyone has. It's quite another to essentially say that only everyone else acts beastly. I would say however that I think one has to have some understanding of where people like Jake come from. The Liberty thing *is* exactly the kind of thing true, hard-core anti-semites are drawn to and, contrary to their protestations, just love. And nutcases like that can just utterly delegitimize causes left and right and have to be watched out for and repudiated by people of good faith. On the other hand the Israeli partisans too have to realize that … just because Hitler liked dogs doesn't make all dogs bad, and just because anti-semites love the Liberty incident don't make it a phony one. And as I said here originally I think they have to consider the backlash from constantly trying to paint everyone who is outraged by any Israeli action as anti-semitic. Again, what they are tempting is institutionalizing the to-me devastating response of "oh yeah just like the Liberty survivors are anti-semites, huh?" And that's because Israel simply can never come clean about the Liberty issue, and thus the Liberty issue is never really going to die.
Outstanding post Sin, Very thought provoking indeed. With regars the suggestion that anti semites are drawn to the Liberty incident, there might be some truth to it, but one can't help but feel that fundamentalists like Jake cynically manipualte that argument to insist that only an anti Semites would be outraged by the incident. The suvivors who have spoken out have all been branded anti Semites and indeed, Jake even accuses the survivor he claims to have contacted, of being an anti Semite. What Israel, and it's amen corner doesn't get, is that it's credibility and it's prestige in the world would be massively improved if it came clean about it's sins and put to bed the constant spin and never ending damage control, which only serves to dig them further into their bunker and feeds their sense of persecution, becasue no one belives their BS anymore. They're not even good at it.
Shingo wrote: "no one belives their BS anymore." Well in that same vein I saw a couple of things of interest lately, only one of which Phil mentioned here. Firstly, some Israeli peace group essentially saying "save us from ourselves" and then another article Phil noted in Haaretz talking about what it said was somewhat of a national trait of afraid of being taken for suckers. (With the logical result of same with such individuals of course being extremely chary of ever making any firm final long-term deals because you can never know how they turn out.) And then, lastly, not noted by Phil but very significantly I thought was Javier Solana the EU foreign minister essentially saying that if a peace deal is not reached between the I's and the P's within some short time certain the world ought to just go ahead and declare the terms of such a settlement, recognize a Palestinian state, recognize its borders and etc. I.e., no longer accept the idea that the answer is a negotiated settlement given that the negotiations never seem to result in anything other than more settlements. I thus think you are on to something about the world just not really listening anymore to the mere words that are spewed in the ME and instead looking at facts and results and reality. From what I've seen Israel has acted very negatively to Solana's call, and you can just imagine their anger at the idea that Solana has just given Obama an option to latch onto too possibly if things don't start moving.
"When Egypt and Jordan invaded …." Ha! You've got to be kidding. Israel was NOT invaded during the June 67 war be any country. They did all the invading.
"A spy ship could easily masquerade as something else. Ask any undercover cop in the US who has been shot by other cops." That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard and pretty much proves that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. A spy ship's purpose is to intercept radio communications. It isn't in the business of playing undercover cop and pretending to be some other ship. A spy ship needs antennae to receive the intercepted signals and back in the late 60s that meant a lot of big antennae all over it. That's exactly what the Liberty looked like. It didn't look like an Egyptian horse transport and it wasn't trying to look like one. "Radio jamming was simple; the Liberty was FULL of radio equipment, it was a spy ship, remember? This was a simple manouver and a fairly non-lethal one, at that." Again, a stupid comment. The radio jamming that the Israelis did had to be of specific but multiple frequencies that the Liberty could receive and transmit on. It required both a knowledge of those frequencies and the sophisticated equipment to jam those specific frequencies. It didn't get easier because the ship "was FULL of radio equipment", it got harder. If you understood what you were talking about you would know that.
"The Israelis initially believed the ship was Egyptian, fraudulently flying an American flag." No, the Israelis initially claimed that the ship was not flying a flag. Later they claimed that there was no wind and the flag was impossible to see. They never claimed that they thought that an Egyptian ship was flying an American flag.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.