hfavr@mtuxo.UUCP (a.reed) (03/05/86)
Farzin Mokhtarian writes: > One of the ways of refining terrorism into an instrument of policy was the > demonstration that jewish as well as Arab civilians could become victims of > zionist terrorism if it served a political purpose. > A good example is the blowing up of S.S. Patria in the Haifa harbor on > November 25, 1940, killing 276 illegal Jewish immigrants. The decision was > made by the Haganah (the official arm of the Jewish Agency) General Staff > and was intended to make the British "understand that Jews could not be > driven from their own country". The story was told ten years later by > David Flinker, Israeli correspondent of the Jewish Morning Journal (the > largest Yiddish daily). This is getting to be interesting. The "Patria" was prevented from landing, and the British were about to force it to sail back to Nazi-occupied Europe, where its passengers would face certain death. The Hagana tried to save their lives by blowing a small hole in the hull of the ship, thus preventing their de facto murder by deportation. The hope was that the British, who were still pretending to be civilized, would permit the passengers to land once the ship began to sink. What seems to have happened is that the sapper miscalculated, and the ship sank too quickly. To the mind of any civilized person there is a world of difference between a failed attempt to save lives, as by the Haganah in the "Patria" incident, and the deliberate killing of civilians as practiced by terrorists. We may learn something about the defenders of terrorism from the fact that they ignore this difference. Adam Reed (ihnp4!npois!adam)
salex@rice.EDU (Scott Alexander) (03/10/86)
In article <1372@mtuxo.UUCP> hfavr@mtuxo.UUCP (a.reed) writes: [...] >To the mind of any civilized person there is a world >of difference between a failed attempt to save lives, as by the Haganah >in the "Patria" incident, and the deliberate killing of civilians as >practiced by terrorists. We may learn something about the defenders of >terrorism from the fact that they ignore this difference. > > Adam Reed (ihnp4!npois!adam) I have no opinion formed at this point on the Israelis-as-terrorrists argument. (Such an admission is probably enough to get me run off this list :-) However, I think the Liberty incident shows that the Israelis are willing to attack without due provocation. In this episode (during LBJs term---1968 perhaps), the Israelis sank the US intelligence ship Liberty in international waters during the Six Day War. This action occurred after watching it for several hours. Afterwards, the Israelis claimed to have mistaken it for an Egyptian ship of approximately half the length of the Liberty. Scott Alexander Rice University salex@rice.edu
cramer@sun.uucp (Sam Cramer) (03/12/86)
In article <159@dione.rice.EDU> salex@dione.UUCP (Scott Alexander) writes: > However, I think the Liberty incident shows that the Israelis are >willing to attack without due provocation. In this episode (during LBJs >term---1968 perhaps), the Israelis sank the US intelligence ship Liberty in >international waters during the Six Day War. This action occurred after >watching it for several hours. Afterwards, the Israelis claimed to have >mistaken it for an Egyptian ship of approximately half the length of the >Liberty. The Liberty was sunk in 1967, during the Six Day war, which took place during June of that year. Considering that a war was underway, and that the ship (according to accounts) could have been confused with an Egyptian Navy vessel, how can one reasonably conclude that "the Israelis are willing to attack without due provocation"? Would it be fair to say that the US attacks mental hospitals as a matter of policy because such an incident took place during the invasion of Grenada? Of course not. What would Israel have had to gain by knowingly attacking a ship belonging to it's most important ally? [Aside: although this is rhetorical question, I imagine that we'll soon see lots of amusing answers from the anti-Israel fanatics so active in net.politics - probably backed up with bogus quotations from obscure far-left or pro-PLO sources; "Ink Links", indeed!] By the way, Israel apologized and paid reparations to family members of those killed. It's one thing to say that Israel made a regretable mistake during war-time (recall that this war was one in which Israel's enemies made no secret of their desire to exterminate the State of Israel and it's inhabitants), and quite another to say that it is willing to "attack without due provocation". -- Sam Cramer uucp: {cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,seismo,ucbvax}!sun!cramer arpanet: cramer@sun.arpa
wa18@sdcc12.UUCP (peter messrobian{}) (03/13/86)
In article <3350@sun.uucp>, cramer@sun.uucp (Sam Cramer) writes: > In article <159@dione.rice.EDU> salex@dione.UUCP (Scott Alexander) writes: > > However, I think the Liberty incident shows that the Israelis are > >willing to attack without due provocation. In this episode (during LBJs > >term---1968 perhaps), the Israelis sank the US intelligence ship Liberty in > >international waters during the Six Day War. This action occurred after > >watching it for several hours. Afterwards, the Israelis claimed to have > >mistaken it for an Egyptian ship of approximately half the length of the > >Liberty. > > The Liberty was sunk in 1967, during the Six Day war, which took place during > June of that year. > > Considering that a war was underway, and that the ship (according to accounts) > could have been confused with an Egyptian Navy vessel, how can one reasonably For a detailed account of the Liberty incident, see the book 'The Puzzle Palace' by James Bramford( I think that's his name). It is a book about the National Security Agency, which the Liberty was operated by, and if the description in the book is true, then several of the above 'facts' are not. The rest of the book is interesting too, and its believeability may be enhanced by the fact that the government attempted to prevent its publication. Peter Messrobian UC San Diego
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (03/13/86)
> In article <159@dione.rice.EDU> salex@dione.UUCP (Scott Alexander) writes: > > However, I think the Liberty incident shows that the Israelis are > >willing to attack without due provocation. In this episode (during LBJs > >term---1968 perhaps), the Israelis sank the US intelligence ship Liberty in > >international waters during the Six Day War. This action occurred after > >watching it for several hours. Afterwards, the Israelis claimed to have > >mistaken it for an Egyptian ship of approximately half the length of the > >Liberty. > > The Liberty was sunk in 1967, during the Six Day war, which took place during > June of that year. > > Considering that a war was underway, and that the ship (according to accounts) > could have been confused with an Egyptian Navy vessel, how can one reasonably > conclude that "the Israelis are willing to attack without due provocation"? > The Liberty was flying an American flag. The Israeli planes made repeated passes over the ship. The planes were close enough for the crew to see Israeli markings on the planes. The American flag looks NOTHING like the Egyptian flag. > Would it be fair to say that the US attacks mental hospitals as a matter of > policy because such an incident took place during the invasion of Grenada? > Of course not. > If it were intentional, as Israel's attack on the Liberty was. > What would Israel have had to gain by knowingly attacking a ship belonging to > it's most important ally? [Aside: although this is rhetorical question, I > imagine that we'll soon see lots of amusing answers from the anti-Israel > fanatics so active in net.politics - probably backed up with bogus quotations > from obscure far-left or pro-PLO sources; "Ink Links", indeed!] > The Liberty was gathering electronic intelligence. Israel didn't trust its favorite sugar daddy to keep the information secret. > By the way, Israel apologized and paid reparations to family members of those > killed. > After a lot of fighting in court, as I recall. > It's one thing to say that Israel made a regretable mistake during war-time > (recall that this war was one in which Israel's enemies made no secret of their > desire to exterminate the State of Israel and it's inhabitants), and quite > another to say that it is willing to "attack without due provocation". > -- > > Sam Cramer uucp: {cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,seismo,ucbvax}!sun!cramer It attacked without provocation. The facts on the Liberty are extremely clear. Is it that hard to admit that Israel is a country that does bad things occasionally? Is it that hard to admit that Israel is run by pragmatic people who look out for Israel's interest first? Clayton E. Cramer
hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) (03/13/86)
In article <3350@sun.uucp>, cramer@sun.uucp (Sam Cramer) writes: > I imagine that we'll soon see lots of amusing answers from the anti-Israel > fanatics so active in net.politics - probably backed up with bogus quotations > from obscure far-left or pro-PLO sources; "Ink Links", indeed!] > It would be more productive for you to actually rebut the arguments and quotes of the "anti-Israel fanatics" with more "respectable" documentation of your own disproving their arguments. I contend that you have no such documentation, so you opt for slander of these contributors to the net, their quoted references, and even their publishers! I for one believe that I can support my arguments, perhaps not to your satisfaction, but to the satisfaction of a large number of subscribers to net.politics. > > (recall that this war was one in which Israel's enemies made no secret of their > desire to exterminate the State of Israel and it's inhabitants), > > Sam Cramer uucp: {cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,seismo,ucbvax}!sun!cramer > arpanet: cramer@sun.arpa A careful reading of the history of events leading to the 1967 Six Day War (one not restricted to the Israeli interpretation) would clearly show that Israel had planned the war years in advance, that it was clearly not a defensive war, and that Israel was engaged in provocation to start a war. The immediate action precipitating the crisis was the threat by Israel's prime minister Levi Eshkol to invade Damascus and topple the Syrian government. Israel had demanded that Syria stop Palestinian guerillas from infiltrating across its border. Guerilla attacks had increased following Israel's raid on the village of Al Samu' in the West Bank in 1966. In that raid, Isarael leveled the village and indiscriminately killed a large number of its residents (including women, children and elderly persons). Nasser felt compelled to come Syria's aid, and declared that an attack on Syria would be considered an attack on Egypt. This ideally set the stage for Israel's 'preemptive strike' in the dawn hours of June 5, 1967, when they destroyed 90% of the Egyptian air force on the ground. The claim that Israel was engaged in a 'war of defense' can only be believed by those who consider news releases of the Israeli War Ministry to be the ultimate reference. Raif Hijab ucbvax!cad!hijab hijab@cad.berkeley.edu
mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) (03/14/86)
In article <3350@sun.uucp>, cramer@sun.uucp (Sam Cramer) writes: > > What would Israel have had to gain by knowingly attacking a ship belonging to > it's most important ally? [Aside: although this is rhetorical question, I > imagine that we'll soon see lots of amusing answers from the anti-Israel > fanatics so active in net.politics - probably backed up with bogus quotations > from obscure far-left or pro-PLO sources; "Ink Links", indeed!] > > By the way, Israel apologized and paid reparations to family members of those > killed. There is some reason to believe (***NOTE***: I am not claiming these points as facts, but as possible scenarios) that the Israelis might actually have had quite a bit to gain by deliberately sinking the Liberty. The Liberty was an intelligence ship, and was known to be montoring the activities of the engagements occurring at the time. It has been speculated (and I might add that the US government hushed up such speculations damned quickly, and none too gently) that the Israelis were up to something that they did not wish observed, and decided to ensure that such observation was thwarted. I suspect that *IF* this were the case, it was not the intent of the Israelis to actually sink the vessle, but to harrass and sufficiently damage the vessle so as to 1) distract the observers from some concurrent activity, and/or 2) to insure that observation would be hindered somewhat over some period of time. The the actual SINKING was accidental I do not doubt. I see *NO* rationaly reason not to accpet the possiblity that this speculation is more or less accurate. I also see no rational reason to suspect that the Israelis claim isn't true. The point here is that most certainly *COULD* have been much the Israelis might have gained by attacking the ship Yes, there are "rabid anti-Israeli" people here. There are also an incredible number of people who are unwilling to consider the possibility that just *MAYBE* some (or most, or all) of what Israel is/has been up to is wrong, or at least questionable. My support for the Israelis has waned considerably. I am not quite ready to write them off, but I have to confess that my faith in them is severely strained. -- ==================================== Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers. tom keller {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (03/15/86)
> [Raif Hijab] > A careful reading of the history of events leading to the 1967 Six Day > War (one not restricted to the Israeli interpretation) would clearly > show that Israel had planned the war years in advance, that it was > clearly not a defensive war, and that Israel was engaged in provocation > to start a war. > The immediate action precipitating the crisis was the > threat by Israel's prime minister Levi Eshkol to invade Damascus and > topple the Syrian government. Israel had demanded that Syria stop > Palestinian guerillas from infiltrating across its border. Guerilla > attacks had increased following Israel's raid on the village of Al Samu' > in the West Bank in 1966. In that raid, Isarael leveled the village > and indiscriminately killed a large number of its residents (including > women, children and elderly persons). > Nasser felt compelled to come Syria's aid, and declared that an attack > on Syria would be considered an attack on Egypt. This ideally set the > stage for Israel's 'preemptive strike' in the dawn hours of June 5, 1967, > when they destroyed 90% of the Egyptian air force on the ground. > The claim that Israel was engaged in a 'war of defense' can only be > believed by those who consider news releases of the Israeli War Ministry > to be the ultimate reference. ------------------- Such distortion of history is incredible. Nasser had ordered the U. N. forces out of Sharm el Sheikh (sp?) and instituted a blockade of the Straits of Tiran, leading into the Gulf of Aqaba and the Israeli port of Eilat, through which more than 90% of Israel's oil supply (imported from Iran) flowed. Nasser rebuffed diplomatic efforts to end the blockade. A blockade is an act of war. Hijab conveniently forgets to mention this. Of course, my news sources were the American media (and to a lesser extent, the British media) which are of course subsidiaries of the Israeli War Ministry. -) Ok, I will say it. Hijab is either 1)ignorant, 2) an out-and-out liar or 3) so convinced of the moral superiority of his side that he believes he is telling the truth when he is not. My guess is mostly 3). By the way, the Israeli raid on As-Samu' (not Al-Samu') was in 1965, not 1966, if my memory is correct. (I could be wrong). -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (03/17/86)
> [Tom Keller] > Yes, there are "rabid anti-Israeli" people here. There are also an > incredible number of people who are unwilling to consider the possibility > that just *MAYBE* some (or most, or all) of what Israel is/has been up to > is wrong, or at least questionable. ----------- Bullshit. Almost no one (including Israelis) thinks that everything that Israel does is right and unquestionable. Even in Israel itself, a sizeable number opposed the invasion of Lebanon, even before the Israeli casualties started to mount. Israeli policy on the West Bank is also highly controversial. Most of the pro-Israel traffic in this newsgroup has been confined to responses to accusations and denunciations of Israel that the responder feels to be distorted and inaccurate. I have made many such responses, and I assure you, I am far from an unquestioning supporter of every Israeli action. This was especially true when Likud was in power. ----------- > My support for the Israelis has waned considerably. I am not quite ready > to write them off, but I have to confess that my faith in them is severely > strained. ----------- Personally, I think the Israelis are more interested in their own security than in your faith in them. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) (03/17/86)
In article <1706@ihlpg.UUCP>, tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: > > [Raif Hijab] > > Nasser felt compelled to come Syria's aid, and declared that an attack > > on Syria would be considered an attack on Egypt. This ideally set the > > stage for Israel's 'preemptive strike' in the dawn hours of June 5, 1967, > ------------------- > Such distortion of history is incredible. Nasser had ordered the > U. N. forces out of Sharm el Sheikh (sp?) and instituted a blockade > of the Straits of Tiran, leading into the Gulf of Aqaba and the > Israeli port of Eilat, through which more than 90% of Israel's oil > supply (imported from Iran) flowed. Nasser rebuffed diplomatic > efforts to end the blockade. A blockade is an act of war. > Hijab conveniently forgets to mention this. Of course, my news sources > were the American media (and to a lesser extent, the British media) > which are of course subsidiaries of the Israeli War Ministry. -) The reasons I did not mention the straits of Tiran were: 1) I was not reciting a total history of the events of the war, but the precipitous reasons for the escalation of tensions. 2) The blockade of the straits of Tiran and the Israeli strike have been well publicized, whereas the preceding causes have conveniently receded in the background, thanks to the selective memory of Israel's protagonists. > Ok, I will say it. Hijab is either > 1)ignorant, > 2) an out-and-out liar > or > 3) so convinced of the moral superiority of his side that > he believes he is telling the truth when he is not. > My guess is mostly 3). No Comment. > By the way, the Israeli raid on As-Samu' (not Al-Samu') > was in 1965, not 1966, if my memory is correct. (I could be wrong). > -- > Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan The Israeli attack on As-Samu' (as pronounced, or Al-Samu' as written) occured on November 13, 1966, nearly six months before the war of June 5, 1967. Regarding this attack, U.N. security council resolution #228 states "The Security Council .... 1. Deplores the loss of life and the heavy damage to property resulting from the action of the Government of Israel on 13 November 1966; 2. Censures Israel for this large-scale military action in violation of the United Nations Charter and of the General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan; 3. Emphasizes to Israel that actions of military reprisal cannot be tolerated and that, if they are repeated, the Security Council will have to cinsider further and more effective steps as envisaged in the Charter to ensure against the repitition of such acts." As to the immediate involvement of the Syrians prior to the war, we can refer to the events of April 1967 as recited by David Hirst in "The Gun and the Olive Branch" (Futura Publications, London, 1983). Regarding developments on the Syrian front, he states, "Every year brought its shooting season; naturally enough, it began, in a fertile valley like this, with the ploughing, and went on through the sowing and harvesting. It was then that the Israeli farmers ventured forth with their armour-plated tractors to plow a few more furrows of Arab-owned land. On 3 April 1967 it was reported in the Israeli press that the government had decided to cultivate all areas of the demilitarized zone (between Israel and Syria), specifically lots 51 and 52, which, the Syrians insisted, belonged to Arab farmers. At eight o'clock on the morning of 7 April a tractor began work on a little strip of Arab land south of Tiberias. The Israelis waited for the Syrians to open up with mortars as they knew they would- and then struck back with artillary, tanks and aircraft. Seventy jet fighters pounded the enemy (i.e. the Syrians) with napalm and high explosives. ... (This) was the curtain raiser of the June war."