On US television, Zuckerman, Ross and Remnick all refer to Israeli prime minister as ‘Bibi’ on first reference

On Wednesday night, Charlie Rose did a segment on the Israeli elections, featuring Dennis Ross, Mort Zuckerman, and David Remnick, and Remnick, the New Yorker editor, distinguished himself by harshly criticizing the occupation and, just as important, showing detachment from the Israeli mindset in taking on two Israel lobbyists who parrot the Israeli talking points on everything. My enthusiasm for Remnick is tempered by the fact that he too is deeply attached to Israel, as he states openly below, and so the American discourse on these issues is tightly circumscribed. But his analysis is a breath of fresh air: he continues to counter ideology with facts about a racist, rightwing society that is veering toward a “great tragedy.” 

Some of Remnick’s commentary. Did Yair Lapid’s smashing success signal that Israel is moving to the left?

“It has not, it has not…. I think we need to have a more tragic sense of what’s going on with the Palestinian question… There’s not going to be dramatic movement on that at all… This election is not going to change that peril [of a third intifada]…. “

Of Likud: Netanyahu made an alliance with “an out and out xenophobic racist,” in Avigdor Lieberman. And Remnick called for negotiations with Hamas:

I bow to no one in my dismay and anger at what the Hamas charter is. It is antisemitic and eliminationist. But the history of diplomacy is filled with two sides negotiating at even greater odds than that… Throughout history! Remember who the party in power is here. Israel is immensely more powerful than Hamas… We are not talking about a relationship between two equally powerful European states. We are talking, And to my great grief, because I have an enormous feeling for the purpose of Israel, we are talking about a state that is occupying another, which is an immensely tragic thing, and extraordinarily wearing to both sides. this is not just causing great Palestinian suffering, it is undermining the state of Israel.

Remnick even speaks of the right of return with respect, he seems to know its importance to Palestinians, and describes the spiritual rot of Israel when he mentions all the Tel Aviv liberals with two passports whose children have moved to New York. He knows that the situation in Israel/Palestine is desperate:

“Great tragedy lies ahead, great tragedy lies ahead… Great tragedy awaits.”

As to my headline: How distressing that all three guests’ first references to Netanyahu were by his nickname, Bibi:

Zuckerman: “I also think that the appeal of Bibi has diminished.”

Remnick: “Israelis expect the Israeli prime minister to have a good relationship with the American president. It’s lost on no one that the relationship between Bibi and Obama is at best cool and distant.”

Dennis Ross: “…the fact is, Bibi made a deal with Kadima…”

This is appalling. James North wrote here last year:

The media should stop calling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by his nickname, Bibi.

A nickname humanizes a politician. It makes them seem more affectionate. Very few if any politicians are referred to by their nicknames. Do the media call Prime Minister Cameron David? Do they say, Francois, the president of France? They don’t.

When Joe Biden repeatedly called Netanyahu Bibi last night in the debate, yes it bothers me, because our politicians are way too soft on Israel…

Bibi, to an English speaker, sounds a little childish. “Bibi” makes him out to be more benign than he actually is. He’s not benign. And when they call him Bibi– and again this is all unconscious and inadvertent– it gives the impression that this is a goofy guy who holds up a Wile E Coyote picture of a bomb at the U.N.; he seems a little bit of a bumbler;  he seems the equivalent in the political sphere of those two thieves who were foiled by Macaulay Culkin in Home Alone —  bad but inept and goofy.

Instead of a liar who presides over a nuclear powered colonial state that people are killed for opposing, where thousands are imprisoned and many of them, according to international human rights agencies, are tortured, and where the death of Rachel Corrie, a 23-year-old innocent young woman, was recently whitewashed.

P.S. All Rose’s guests are Jewish, and the one who shows any balance proffers that he is deeply attached to Israel. The piece began with Charlie Rose’s quote of veteran “Israel watcher” Jeffrey Goldberg. Goldberg is not just a watcher, he moved to Israel and joined the army because he feared anti-Semitism in the U.S. This is what I mean by the Jewish establishment. As I wrote long ago, Don’t the goyim get to register an opinion, ever? Where is Yousef Munayyer? Where is Stephen Walt? Neither of them would call Netanyahu Bibi.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Israel/Palestine

{ 69 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Mooser says:

    Interesting sidelight on the Israeli elections, notice the shared values.. As the old Yiddish bon mot says: “Who’s zoomin’ who?”

  2. gazacalling says:

    Yeah, Rose should interview Stephen Walt. The Bibi thing is disgusting. Use formal titles when you are in a position of high responsibility, either as an elected leader or a journalist.

    On the “peril of the third Intifada,” that is real. I was in Ramallah last month and saw a Hamas demonstration supporting Fatah. Israel agreed to a ceasefire Nov. 21 right after the Tel Aviv bus bombing because of US and European pressure and the knowledge that everything could really blow up if Fatah and Hamas start supporting each other.

    • pabelmont says:

      One or more of these guys (guyim) said “Obama” which is a last name rather than a nickname, but not at all formal. They should say “President Obama” on the first reference? And after that, “Mr. Obama.”Did they? After all, he is OUR president. (I call thay Israeli fella “N’yhu”. And other things.)

  3. Mooser says:

    “P.S. All Rose’s guests are Jewish, and the one who shows any balance proffers that he is deeply attached to Israel.”

    How deeply? Compassion-for-a-misguided-and-misinformed-and-brutalised-people attached (that is extending his humanism to the Israelis, nothing wrong with that, IMAO) , or fudge-the-facts attached? Who knows. We won’t be able to trust each other again, intellectually. Not for a long time.

    “Don’t the goyim get to register an opinion, ever?”

    Well, we would need Dr. Doolittle to translate anything the “goyim” told us, huh?

  4. Citizen says:

    Bibi is Bambi. It’s so nice. The 98% non-jews of America should be so happy, like in a Disney cartoon.

  5. seanmcbride says:

    I caught that Charlie Rose show while channel flipping and had these reactions:

    self-congratulatory, cozy, clubby, smug, treacly, incestuous, intensely ethnocentric, in a bubble, on a tiny ice floe drifing inexorably away from reality and the Western political mainstream, utterly oblivious.

    Why is anyone treating Dennis Ross as a serious person at this point? Why is he in politics at all?

    Ross and his associates are hoping to run the liberal Zionist con game for another decade or longer, while Israel continues to expand racist Jewish-only settlements in the illegally occupied territories to the full extent of biblical Eretz Yisrael.

    By the way, what are Dennis Ross’s core ideological drivers?

    • LeaNder says:

      I can’t stand Ross, he’s unbearably slick. Mort Zuckerman leaves no impression. Distinguished to the point of turning faceless. Ross is his servant: Here’s hope “bibi” does what Dennis tells him. ;)

      David Remnick definitively was a breeze of fresh air on the scene.

      Ross core drivers? Simple, no? Elite consent? His master’s servant. Can’t we sent this guy to retirement? No chance?

      Who took over his job in the administration, anyway?

    • Citizen says:

      @ seanmcbride
      For the same reason Bill Kristol is treated as a serious person by mainstream media?

      • seanmcbride says:

        Citizen,

        For the same reason Bill Kristol is treated as a serious person by mainstream media?

        If American political culture were not so thoroughly corrupt at this point, all the neoconservatives who led us into the disastrous Iraq War would be barred from any further access to the mainstream media or to the levers of government power. They would be pariahs. Some of them might even be in prison.

        • JeffB says:

          @sean –

          I’m rather happy that we have peaceful transitions of power and people don’t go to prison because their party lost power. Whether one agreed with the Iraq war or not. 75% of the American people agreed with Bush ( link to 1.bp.blogspot.com ) on Iraq. I don’t think it is a sign of corruption that we don’t scapegoat people whose opinions the current ruling party disagrees with and throw them in jail.

        • Citizen says:

          @ seanmcbride

          Yes, exactly. Otherwise, more Americans would know about simple facts re their own government’s priorities and spending: http://www.ifamericansknew.org

  6. W.Jones says:

    LOL, the media doesn’t call Obama “Barak”, Clinton “Bill”, or Bush “George”, unless it is one of their close friends coming on to comment about them.

  7. seanmcbride says:

    # Dennis Ross: associations
    1. Aaron David Miller
    2. ADL (Anti-Defamation League)
    3. Afghanistan War
    4. Afpak War
    5. AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee)
    6. attacks on John Mearsheimer
    7. attacks on Stephen Walt
    8. Bilderberg Group
    9. Bush 41 administration
    10. Bush 43 administration
    11. Carter administration
    12. CFR (Council on Foreign Relations)
    13. Clinton administration
    14. Conservative Judaism
    15. Daniel Pipes
    16. David Makovsky
    17. Democratic Party
    18. Fouad Ajami
    19. Fox News
    20. Global War on Terror
    21. Haim Saban
    22. Iran sanctions
    23. Iran War
    24. Iraq War
    25. Israel
    26. Israel lobby
    27. James Woolsey
    28. Jewish lobby
    29. Jewish nationalism
    30. Jewish religious Zionism
    31. Jonathan Pollard
    32. JPPI (Jewish People Policy Institute)
    33. Lewis Libby
    34. Libby Legal Defense Trust
    35. liberal Zionists
    36. Martin Indyk
    37. Martin Peretz
    38. Masorti
    39. MERCAZ USA
    40. Michael Rubin
    41. Middle East Forum
    42. Middle East Quarterly
    43. neoconservatives
    44. neoliberals
    45. New Republic
    46. Obama administration
    47. Paul Wolfowitz
    48. PNAC (Project for the New American Century)
    49. pro-Israel gatekeepers
    50. Reagan administration
    51. Republican Party
    52. Robert Satloff
    53. Saban Forum
    54. Thomas Friedman
    55. UANI (United Against Nuclear Iran)
    56. WINEP (Washington Institute for Near East Policy)
    57. Zionism

    Quiz: how many links can you turn up between “liberal Zionist” Dennis Ross and neoconservatives? Have fun.

    • Mooser says:

      “Association”? what on earth does that mean? Call me anti-Semantic, if you like, but what does “associations” mean in this case which makes the list useful?
      Or are they “free associations” in which case, it’s Liberty Hall for lists.

    • Tobias says:

      58. Seanmcbride

      • Mooser says:

        “58. Seanmcbride”

        Yup, you’re right. By virtue of making this list (and it was indeed, an act of virtue) Seanmcbride is now “associated” with Dennis Ross. And I think it’s only three more degrees to Kevin Bacon!

        • hi everyone. i’ve consulted adam and phil over the best way to deal with this developement between mooser and sean. we won’t be posting any more of it.

        • Bumblebye says:

          An OT distraction, then:
          link to davidward.org.uk
          LibDem MP David Ward (member of the junior party in govmint) has caused a storm in zio teapots around the land (well, mostly the torygraph/ziograph/telegraph) for what he said after signing the Holocaust Memorial Day Book of Commitment:

          “Having visited Auschwitz twice – once with my family and once with local schools – I am saddened that the Jews, who suffered unbelievable levels of persecution during the Holocaust, could within a few years of liberation from the death camps be inflicting atrocities on Palestinians in the new State of Israel and continue to do so on a daily basis in the West Bank and Gaza.”

          So much so , that he’s already updated with a non-apology:

          “For my entire political career I have fought prejudice. I have just returned from Bradford’s Holocaust Memorial event where people across cultures and faiths joined together to say “We bear witness to the horrors of the Holocaust and will never forget its lessons.””In the words of the Holocaust survivor, Elie Wiesel, as quoted in the booklet ‘Holocaust Memorial Day – Learning Lessons from the past to create a safer, better future’:
          “I swore never to be silent whenever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”

          Oh dear! Wiesel won’t be best pleased!

        • Bumblebye says:

          Bah!
          This thing’s going soooooo sloooowwwlllyyyy the edit timed out before I could correct the link:
          link to davidward.org.uk

          more edit
          While his terminology is tasteless, it’s indicative of his internalizing the Israeli government message that it represents ‘all Jews’.

  8. Sin Nombre says:

    Phil Weiss wrote:

    “Don’t the goyim get to register an opinion, ever?”

    And of what even unimaginably microscopic importance would that be?

    • Mooser says:

      I admit, I was once addicted to the word myself, but then I got married. Now I just call them “Ma’am” or “Sir” (she has three big brothers)

  9. rose keeps calling him bibi too. over and over. i am so sick of dennis ross. someone who is deeply complicit in the failure of these negotiations for decades. why do people keep listening to him? his recipes for this (talking to hamas: no) have gotten us no where. ross just makes sure nothing moves. rose has a responsibility to interview at least ONE analyst who will advocate the US do something besides standon the sidelines and ‘urge’ israel while we’re shoveling money at them year after year and giving them weapons and ammo to plumment palestinians and manage their brutal occupation. the US could do something to make it’s own actions more equitable. unless it will, the US should not be allowed to be involved. all we do is add more power to israel. even as we nag or ‘urge’ them we overwhelming continue to support them. i’m sick of it. denis ross is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

    • seafoid says:

      Dennis Ross is like one of those Goldman Sachs bankers drafted into government to advise on financial reform. Class A procrastinator.

    • Shingo says:

      i am so sick of dennis ross. someone who is deeply complicit in the failure of these negotiations for decades. why do people keep listening to him?

      Even worse, at the end of the debate, Zuckerman says that everyone should take Ross’ advice.

      Seriously, I couldn’t decide who was more nauseating to listen too, he or Ross.’ At least twice, Kuckerman babbled about how Israel gave money to the PA even though they didn’t have to. Can anyone get their head around how tone deaf this idiot is? How about the fact that Israel DOES have to end the occupation or how the bulk of PA budget is security for Israel?

  10. a blah chick says:

    What I would have said had I been on Rose’s show:

    Remnick: “I bow to no one in my dismay and anger at what the Hamas charter is. It is antisemitic and eliminationist. But the history of diplomacy is filled with two sides negotiating at even greater odds..”

    Me: They had an election and the Hamas people won. Hamas is no better or worst than some Israeli parties. If Israelis can vote for bigots and rejectionists to represent them than Palestinians have the same right.

    Also I’m really fed up with that whole “oh, look what this occupation is doing to us” liberal Zionist schtick. If ever you are lucky to get any account of Palestinian suffering on American TV it MUST be accompanied by accounts of Israeli troubles. Last time I checked no one in Ramallah was sitting around a big table deciding how many calories people in Acre were going to get.

  11. W.Jones says:

    O’Bama says he has to talk with NetanYahu every day, so he must be on first-name terms with Papa Bear too by now.

  12. Sin Nombre says:

    Phil Weiss wrote:

    “P.S. All Rose’s guests are Jewish….”

    Hey man, it’s tikkun olam. Tikkun olam, man. Who *else* is qualified to be around the table? Indeed, given from whom it sprung, isn’t everyone else positively *dis*qualified from being around the tikkun olam table?

  13. seanmcbride says:

    Regarding Dennis Ross’s neoconservative connections, these are a few that catch my eye:

    # Dennis Ross: neoconservative connections
    1. Afghanistan War
    2. Afpak War
    3. Daniel Pipes
    4. Fouad Ajami
    5. Fox News
    6. Global War on Terror
    7. Iran War agitation
    8. Iraq War
    9. James Woolsey
    10. Lewis Libby
    11. Libby Legal Defense Trust
    12. Michael Rubin
    13. Middle East Forum
    14. Middle East Quarterly
    15. Paul Wolfowitz
    16. PNAC (Project for the New American Century)
    17. Reagan administration
    18. Republican Party
    19. UANI (United Against Nuclear Iran)
    20. WINEP (Washington Institute for Near East Policy)

    Numbers 10 and 11 are especially interesting: Lewis Libby and the Libby Legal Defense Trust — Libby was one of the most influential warmongering neocons in the Bush 43 administration.

    What’s the issue here? Ross presents himself to the world as an enlightened and progressive “liberal Zionist,” who has been a champion of the Mideast peace process and the two-state solution, but he is richly tangled up with neoconservative players who have been adamantly opposed to the two-state solution.

    And of course Ross’s efforts to achieve a successful outcome for the Mideast peace process have been an abject failure — if he were an executive for a high tech company where results matter, he would have been fired a long time ago. One strongly suspects that this failure was the product not of incompetence, but of skill, misdirection and deviousness — he managed to help stall and drag out this process for years while Israel continued to build new settlements in the occupied territories — and he gives the impression that he would like to play this game indefinitely. We are already close to the point (probably past it) where a two-state solution will be possible to realize. Mission accomplished.

  14. seanmcbride says:

    More on Dennis Ross, from Wikipedia:

    Ross was born in San Francisco and grew up in Marin County. His Jewish mother and Catholic stepfather raised him in a non-religious atmosphere. Ross graduated from University of California, Los Angeles in 1970 and did graduate work there, writing his doctoral dissertation on Soviet decision-making. He later became religiously Jewish after the Six Day War. In 2002 he co-founded the Kol Shalom synagogue in Rockville, Maryland.

    During President Jimmy Carter’s administration, Ross worked under Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz in the Pentagon. There, he co-authored a study recommending greater U.S. intervention in “the Persian Gulf Region because of our need for Persian Gulf oil and because events in the Persian Gulf affect the Arab-Israeli conflict.”

    In the mid-1980s Ross co-founded with Martin Indyk the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)-sponsored Washington Institute for Near East Policy (“WINEP”). His first WINEP paper called for appointment of a “non-Arabist Special Middle East envoy” who would “not feel guilty about our relationship with Israel.”

    Ross was criticized by people on both sides of the conflict. Former Palestinian Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath described him as being more “pro-Israeli than the Israelis.”

    Describing Ross, Roger Cohen wrote that “Balance is something this meticulous diplomat [Ross] prizes. But a recurrent issue with Ross, who embraced the Jewish faith after being raised in a nonreligious home by a Jewish mother and Catholic stepfather, has been whether he is too close to the American Jewish community and Israel to be an honest broker with Iran or Arabs. Aaron David Miller, after years of working with Ross, concluded in a book that he “had an inherent tendency to see the world of Arab-Israeli politics first from Israel’s vantage point rather than that of the Palestinians.” Another former senior State Department official, who requested anonymity … told me, “Ross’s bad habit is preconsultation with the Israelis.”

    In 2008, Time reported that a former colleague of Ross, former ambassador Daniel Kurtzer published a think-tank monograph containing anonymous complaints from Arab and American negotiators saying Ross was seen as biased towards Israel and not “an honest broker”

    Ross was a noted supporter of the Iraq war and he signed two Project for a New American Century (PNAC) letters in support of the war in March 2003.

    Haaretz reported that Ross’s work as a Middle East aide in the Obama administration was burdened by tension with special envoy George Mitchell, to the point that Ross and Mitchell sometimes refused to speak to each other. This report indicated that the tension was caused, at least in part, by Ross’ occasional efforts to conduct negotiations with Israeli government officials without notifying Mitchell.

    Palestinian officials reportedly viewed Ross as beholden to the Israeli government, and not as an honest broker or even-handed facilitator of negotiations. For a significant period, Ross refrained from meeting Palestinian Authority officials, while continuing to hold talks with Israeli officials during his visits to the region.

    Ross wrote part of Barack Obama’s speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee during the 2008 Presidential campaign, and the speech stated that “Jerusalem is Israel’s capital” and that it should not be divided again. The Jerusalem Post reported in November 2008 that, according to Ross, these were “facts.

    link to en.wikipedia.org

    One can draw three conclusions from the above passages:

    1. Dennis Ross has thoroughly entangled Judaism with Zionism (he is a religious Zionist).

    2. Dennis Ross has helped to make a huge mess of American Mideast policy.

    3. Dennis Ross played a key role, along with Paul Wolfowitz and other neocons, in developing the propaganda theme that American aggression in the Mideast would help secure oil supplies (which turned out to be a bogus argument, as many American oil industry leaders knew.)

    Don’t hold your breath waiting for liberal Zionists like Charlie Rose to probe Dennis Ross about these critical questions. They are all playing on the same team.

    • jimmy says:

      the US will eventually pay the price for its allegiance to the zionisits

    • American says:

      “”He later became religiously Jewish after the Six Day War.”

      Wonder how Avigail would explain that—–I think likely she or any psychologist would say it’s a ego thing of needing to vicariously identify with warriorhood and strength or power. An antidote to subconscious feelings of weakness or inferiority.
      The religious part just puts lipstick on the need.

    • MRW says:

      More on Dennis Ross, from Wikipedia

      As a public figure operating within the government, the fact that Ross “entangled Judaism with Zionism” is meaningless. Why should we care? The entanglement is inappropriate in a US foreign policy position. Did you know Chas Freeman’s religion or denomination? Did you know Gary Locke’s? Or Edward Elson’s? Gordon Giffin’s? Anne Patterson’s?

      At worse, as a public official Ross was actively traitorous to the national interests of this country. At minimum, he was the poster boy for dual-loyalty.

      • seanmcbride says:

        MRW,

        As a public figure operating within the government, the fact that Ross “entangled Judaism with Zionism” is meaningless. Why should we care?

        I couldn’t disagree with you more. Ideologies and belief systems drive history and politics. You can’t begin to understand what is going on in the world, and in politics, unless you understand the ideologies that are controlling human behavior.

        The neocons, many of whom possess doctorates from Ivy League universities in fields related to intellectual history, understand this: that is why they been able to engage in effective cultural and social engineering in manipulating the American political system — they are masters of psychological operations on a grand scale.

        How is it possible to understand and effectively respond to Dennis Ross — and the entire political machine in which he is embedded — without understanding the beliefs that drive him and his fellow true believers?

        How do you intend to counter Christian Zionists, who now largely dominate the Republican Party, without understanding the ideology which drives their behavior?

        History is mostly about the clash of ideas.

  15. JeffB says:

    If one were to tune into a show about elections in Japan you would see a bunch of Americans with ties to Japan: often Japanese heritage. Similarly with Russia, similarly with Tanzania similarly with any other country.

    Charlie Rose is doing a news show on PBS, which has a high Jewish viewership. About 1/3rd of PBS’s donors are Jews. When you are talking the Israeli elections the tone is going to be friendly to Israel and Jewish. That’s the way US television works.

    As for humanizing Netanyahu, Israel is a friendly state that’s how friendly states get treated. Canada gets treated a lot better than Iran.

    • Yep, the USS Liberty attack was the actions of a real friendly state.

      • JeffB says:

        justicewillprevail
        Yep, the USS Liberty attack was the actions of a real friendly state.

        Yes it was. My belief is it was an accident. The #1 thing that kills Americans in most of our wars is friendly fire. I don’t think that is troops intentionally shooting each other.

        But if wasn’t an accident then I think the reason was rather clear. The Israelis had made it damn clear to the Americans they were conducting an attack and didn’t want intelligence being gathered which is what the Liberty was doing. They were going to do a lot of damage to the Egypt and Syria and the Americans were not going to have good info. No country likes spying of its troops during an attack. If the Israelis felt that strongly about it, it was likely communicated and ignored by the USA> The USA had no business being there. And given this blog, if the attack had been a hostile country the people where would be applauding it.

        • Shingo says:

          My belief is it was an accident

          I doubt you do believe that, because you would have to be bordering on insanity to realize it was a deliberate attack.

          The Israelis had made it damn clear to the Americans they were conducting an attack and didn’t want intelligence being gathered which is what the Liberty was doing.

          Even if that were true, what authority did the Israelis have to issue this demand? International waters are international waters, whether Israel likes it or not. If Iran were to issue such threats to US ships in the Gulf and then attack them, they would be considered an act of war.

          No country likes spying of its troops during an attack.

          Too bad. That still does not grant Israel any right to attack any ship in international waters.

          If the Israelis felt that strongly about it, it was likely communicated and ignored by the USA

          Pure speculation and if true, it would have been recorded in the ship’s logs, so pure rubbish.

          The USA had no business being there.

          On the contrary. The USA has every business being in any patch of international water it chooses – as does every other country.

          It was Israel that had no business attacking it’s neighbors.

          It’s no myth that Israel went to war in 1967 to defend its right to unmolested freedom of navigation in international waters, and then rather impudently started attacking vessels of other countries in international waters. Even if you are deluded enough to think that the attack was the result of a case of mistaken identity, the deliberate strafing of the life boats and the attack in international waters didn’t have a damn thing to do with the right of self-defense mentioned in article 51 of the UN Charter in the first place. So, please just STFU!

        • Citizen says:

          Attack on USS Liberty was deliberate beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence supports this conclusion, and has been dwelled on at length on this blog many times already. Influential people knew it at the time, and that’s the reason for the cover-up, including the muzzling of the surviving crew and the fact congress never held a full investigation of the incident, the single deviation in US congressional custom in such matters.

        • seanmcbride says:

          JeffB,

          To get a handle on the USS Liberty story, try fleshing out the following lists and data mining them:

          # USS Liberty attack: lists
          1. articles
          2. articles con Israel
          3. articles pro Israel
          4. books
          5. books con Israel
          6. books pro Israel
          7. comments
          8. comments con Israel
          9. comments pro Israel
          10. dates
          11. experts
          12. experts con Israel
          13. experts pro Israel
          14. facts
          15. Google searches
          16. images
          17. quotes
          18. quotes con Israel
          19. quotes pro Israel
          20. topics
          21. USS Liberty survivors
          22. videos
          23. videos con Israel
          24. videos pro Israel

          Two words rise to the surface if you conduct this exercise: “false flag” — try Googling [uss liberty "false flag"]:

          link to google.com“false+flag”

          By the way, this remark of yours — “The Israelis had made it damn clear to the Americans” — gives the impression that you emphatically view the world through the eyes of Israel and Israelis, not through the eyes of America and Americans. Is this the case?

        • seanmcbride says:

          JeffB,

          The USS Liberty attack was almost certainly an Israeli false flag op.

          To get a handle on the context for understanding Israeli false flag ops in general, try browsing and analyzing the results of the following Google searches and extract the key facts and themes:

          # Israel: false flag ops: Google searches
          1. israel false flag
          2. israel false flag 9/11
          3. israel false flag abu nidal
          4. israel false flag achille lauro
          5. israel false flag al qaeda
          6. israel false flag alan sabrosky
          7. israel false flag anthrax
          8. israel false flag arab clothing
          9. israel false flag arab garb
          10. israel false flag ari ben menashe
          11. israel false flag bulgaria
          12. israel false flag entebbe
          13. israel false flag gaza
          14. israel false flag george bush assassination
          15. israel false flag gordon thomas
          16. israel false flag iran
          17. israel false flag iraq
          18. israel false flag justin raimondo
          19. israel false flag king david hotel
          20. israel false flag lavon affair
          21. israel false flag livia rokach
          22. israel false flag lockerbie
          23. israel false flag london bombings
          24. israel false flag mark perry
          25. israel false flag moshe sharett
          26. israel false flag mossad
          27. israel false flag naeim giladi
          28. israel false flag nuclear
          29. israel false flag operation susannah
          30. israel false flag operation trojan
          31. israel false flag passports
          32. israel false flag patrick seale
          33. israel false flag philip giraldi
          34. israel false flag ray mcgovern
          35. israel false flag rocket attacks
          36. israel false flag sacred terrorism
          37. israel false flag samson option
          38. israel false flag sayanim
          39. israel false flag site:911blogger.com
          40. israel false flag site:amazon.com
          41. israel false flag site:antiwar.com
          42. israel false flag site:globalresearch.ca
          43. israel false flag site:informationclearinghouse.info
          44. israel false flag site:veteranstoday.com
          45. israel false flag site:whatreallyhappened.com
          46. israel false flag site:wikipedia.org
          47. israel false flag terrorism
          48. israel false flag urban moving systems
          49. israel false flag uss liberty
          50. israel false flag victor ostrovsky
          51. israel false flag world trade center
          52. israel false flag world trade center 1993

          I will be happy to walk you through the key points in the results of any one of those searches and listen carefully to whatever points you would like to make.

        • seanmcbride says:

          JeffB,

          I meant to write above: The USS Liberty attack was almost certainly a BUNGLED Israeli false flag op — much like Operation Susannah, which produced the Lavon Affair:

          link to en.wikipedia.org

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      “If one were to tune into a show about elections in Japan you would see a bunch of Americans with ties to Japan: often Japanese heritage.”

      And israel is de facto 50% Palestinian, and de jure 20% Palestinian. If israel were a normal country, we would expect a guest or two to reflect that reality. Instead we get pro-zio lies and propaganda.

      “That’s the way US television works.”

      Yes, we get that the U S media is a paid agent of the israeli state. We’re stating that it shouldn’t be acting as an arm of the israeli Ministry for Propaganda and Public Hasbara.

      • JeffB says:

        @Woody –

        Nope you wouldn’t. Generally when there is coverage of other countries political systems you don’t see people with ties to oppressed minorities that have little power joining in the discussion on more than a token basis. Tibet has lots of support among US liberals, but when their are discussions about Chinese economic or military policy no one cares what Tibetans think.

        31% of Saudi Arabia are non citizens when we discuss Saudi policy everyone is interested in the house of Saud. That 31% doesn’t get represented. When we were discussing Iraq for 4 decades the discussions were about Sunni opinion mostly. Shiite opinion only got discussed after the US invasion when it became relevant.

        Israel is a foreign country, not a domestic community. America should be addressing the government and people in power in Israel and their opinions when discussing Israeli politics.

  16. Those interested in the origins of Netanyahu’s nickname might like to explore possible connections with the Bibi family, originally from Jaffa. Another clue is the fact that “Bibi” means “Miss” in Urdu. In South Asia it is added to a young lady’s first name as a sign of respect. Bibi is also the name of an Indian women’s magazine. Do they call Netanyahu Bibi in South Asia?

  17. seanmcbride says:

    # Dennis Ross: Libby Legal Defense Trust co-members
    1. Alan Simpson
    2. Allan Tessler
    3. Bernard Lewis
    4. Bill Paxon
    5. Charles Heimbold
    6. David Flaum
    7. Don Nickles
    8. Edwin Meese
    9. Francis Fukuyama
    10. Fred Thompson
    11. Frederic Malek
    12. Howard Leach
    13. Jack Kemp
    14. James Woolsey
    15. Jeane Kirkpatrick
    16. Lawrence Bathgate II
    17. Leon Wieseltier
    18. Martin Peretz
    19. Mary Matalin
    20. Mel Sembler
    21. Mercer Reynolds
    22. Michael Green
    23. Nina Rosenwald
    24. Richard Carlson
    25. Ron Silver
    26. Sam Fox
    27. Shelly Kamins
    28. Spencer Abraham
    29. Steve Forbes
    30. Stuart Bernstein
    31. Wayne Berman
    32. William Bennett

    How many interesting inferences and insights about the links between “liberal Zionists” and neoliberals (like Dennis Ross and Martin Peretz) and Likud Zionists and neoconservatives (like Lewis Libby and James Woolsey) can one massage and squeeze out of this list? Quite a few, if you work the analysis with other lists.

    See: Libby Legal Defense Trust:

    link to scooterlibby.org

    • seanmcbride says:

      How to work lists to extract insights about political lobbies (or absolutely anything):

      Collect your lists, for instance:

      # a list of lists related to the Israel lobby
      1. AIPAC members
      2. billionaires
      3. CFR members
      4. Christian Zionist leaders
      5. Commentary writers
      6. DNC members
      7. ECI members
      8. Fox News pundits
      9. Iran War ringleaders
      10. Iraq War ringleaders
      11. Jewish nationalists
      12. mainstream media owners
      13. mainstream media pundits
      14. neoconservatives
      15. neoliberals
      16. New York Times writers
      17. PNAC members
      18. pro-Israel activists
      19. pro-Israel billionaires
      20. religious Zionists
      21. RNC members
      22. Wall Street Journal writers
      23. Washington Post writers
      24. Weekly Standard writers
      25. WINEP members

      – except you will use hundreds or thousands of lists — and look for set intersections, patterns and clusters. The entire process can be easily automated to produce a torrent of sophisticated analytic reports in seconds.

      Lists help you see what is really going on in the world in a precise and objective way. Lists are collections of well-organized facts that appeal to speedy brains that like to cut through the noise to the signal as efficiently as possible.

    • Kathleen says:

      Remember seeing that list. Attended the Libby trial for 10 days. Fascinating.

  18. American says:

    “As I wrote long ago, Don’t the goyim get to register an opinion, ever? “..Phil

    Good question. I keep thinking about the fact that Zios dominate a FP that involves and affects all Americans and ask myself the million dollar question—-how long can they get away with doing that, or can they do it forever?
    I think the answer to Americans ever asserting an opinion or the fat lady singing depends on how far they and Israel push us.. Will they maintain their status quo by only going so far and no further or will they over reach in some big way?
    Looking at the attitudes of both US zios and Israel my money is on an eventual over reach. Their increasingly very public bullying and assertions for Israel, as in the case with Hagel, is laying the ground work in public perceptions for a blow back if and when they go too far. The question of an attack on Iran is already indisputable linked to Israel despite the spin so if Israel were to attack Iran and the global and economic fallout was severe enough on the US that might do it…it would definitely elevate the American voices on I-Firstdom.
    Maybe Israel will or maybe they won’t bomb Iran…….but if not Iran now it will be something else later. They can’t help themselves, their hubris is their achilles heel.

    • Kathleen says:

      The goyim have been giving their opinions for decades in the form of petitions to Reps, home meetings with Reps, trips to DC in groups to meet with Reps on this issue. This has been going on for decades just little to no media coverage. Amazing what I have heard in “off the record” meetings with Reps about this issue. Far more fact based and concerned than they have been able to expose over the years. In fear that they would lost their seats

  19. American says:

    “In fear that they would lost their seats”…kathleen

    When and if the politicians ‘fear us’ more than they fear the Lobby things will change. If you can’t buy them then you have to scare the shit out of them.
    Respectful request, appeals to morality?…phftt….that’s a waste of time and effort.

    ”You can’t use tact with a Congressman! A Congressman is a hog! You must take a stick and hit him on the snout!”
    — Henry Brooks Adams, The Education of Henry Adams