cramer@sun.uucp (Sam Cramer) (03/14/86)
Raif Hijab's posting regarding the USS Liberty is a fine example of
the weird lengths some are willing to go to in order to smear Israel.
First, let's recall one thing: Raif's interest in the affair is only in
how it can be used to discredit Israel. He clearly gives not a whit
for the American lives involved, as he has already treated us to a
lengthy rationale for anti-American terror:
"It is important to realize that the targeting of Americans by
Palestinian terrorists stems from the identification of the U.S.
with every atrocity commited by Israel. The Palestinian
people know the extent of financial, military and political
support Israel gets from the U.S..."
and "The U.S. is implicated directly in the terror..."
In other words, the next time the PLO murders an elderly American
invalid and dumps the body out of his wheelchair into the sea,
America is the real villian.
In his posting Mr. Hijab quotes approvingly from Ennes' book
"Assault on the Liberty". In these quotes Ennes alleges that Israel
secretly persued a policy of expansion in June 1967 under the guise of
self-defense.
Thus, President Johnson supposedly told an Israeli government
minister that
"the United States would not support Israel if Israel initiated
hostilites... 'The central point, Mr. Minister, is that your nation
not.. bear responsibility for any outbreak of war.'"
The all-caps claim is next made that the "LIBERTY WOULD HAVE TO
GO" so Israel could decieve the Americans, continuing the "illusion"
that this was a war of self-defense.
Next Raif quotes Lilienthal who, in turn, quotes Anthony Pearson.
Before we go one, please note that Pearson is the author of a theory
(published in, among other places, that noted political journal
"Penthouse") that the Israelis had, by some feat of sneaky Zionist
magic, managed to intercept and distort Nasser's conversations with
King Hussein. This was allegedly in order to convince Hussein that
the war was going well for the Egyptians. The story goes that the
Israelis attacked the Liberty because they feared that this Rich Little
act would be discovered by the US.
Lilienthal says that Pearson says that the Six Day War was the
result of a CIA/Israeli/Johnson Administration plot. The Americans
drew up a war plan which the Israelis were to follow. Then, on
June 7, Eugene Rostow (head of the US State department) warned the
Israeli Ambassador that the attack had to stop (which attack is a bit
unclear here, but no matter), and then four hours later the Israelis
ordered the sinking of the Liberty.
If it is possible to make any sense of this at all, it seems that the
claim is that
1) The Americans told Israel they must not start a war.
2) The Americans conspired with the Israelis to start a war.
3) Israel attacked the Liberty because it threatened to reveal
to the Americans the progress of the war.
4) Israel attacked the Liberty after Gene Rostow informed
the Israeli ambassador of the US knowledge of, and
disapproval of, Israeli progress in the war.
Gibberish like this sheds little light on the fate of the USS Liberty.
It does, however, conform to what seems to be the guiding principle
of the opponents of Israel on the net - any argument, no matter
how ludicrous and false, is to be used in a vitriolic attempt to
delegitimize the State of Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East,
and the only stable US ally in the region.
--
Sam Cramer uucp: {cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,seismo,ucbvax}!sun!cramer
arpanet: cramer@sun.arpahijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) (03/16/86)
In article <3363@sun.uucp>, cramer@sun.uucp (Sam Cramer) writes: > First, let's recall one thing: Raif's interest in the affair is only in > how it can be used to discredit Israel. He clearly gives not a whit > for the American lives involved, as he has already treated us to a > lengthy rationale for anti-American terror: > > "It is important to realize that the targeting of Americans by > Palestinian terrorists stems from the identification of the U.S. > with every atrocity commited by Israel. The Palestinian > people know the extent of financial, military and political > support Israel gets from the U.S..." > > and "The U.S. is implicated directly in the terror..." > > In other words, the next time the PLO murders an elderly American > invalid and dumps the body out of his wheelchair into the sea, > America is the real villian. > Instead of focusing on the issues I am presenting, Mr. Cramer insists on attacking my ethics and concern for American lives. It should be clear from my posting that I am discussing the motivations behind terrorist actions. I am neither advocating nor approving of terror, whatever its source. > In his posting Mr. Hijab quotes approvingly from Ennes' book > "Assault on the Liberty". In these quotes Ennes alleges that Israel > secretly persued a policy of expansion in June 1967 under the guise of > self-defense. > Since I am interested in informational content, I see no point in further defending my point. I believe netters can discern for themselves by referring to my original posting, or better yet, to the references I cited. They can judge for themselves the weight or lack thereof of the evidence mentioned. For those who may want to pursue this, the two references I quoted are: (1) "Assault on the Liberty," by James M. Ennes Jr., Random House, New York, 1979. (2) "The Zionist Connection II," by Alfred Lilienthal, North American, New Brunswick, 1982. > > Gibberish like this sheds little light on the fate of the USS Liberty. > -- If a first-hand account by an officer who was on the Liberty at the time it was attacked is gibberish, I am not sure what isn't. BTW, In you are interested in the difficulties faced by American critics of Israel , such as Ennes and Lilienthal, I suggest you look up the book by ex-congressman Paul Findley, "They Dare to Speak Out" (Lawerence Hill & Co., Westport, CT. 1985). The book speaks of the targeting by AIPAC (American-Israel Public Affairs Committee) and ADL (B'nai Brith Anti- Defamation League) of such people as former senator Adlai Stevenson III, former chairmen of the Senate Foreign Relations Comittee William Fullbright and Charles Percy and former undersecretary of state George Ball. Others in disfavor include Jewish leader Philip Klutznik, journalist Georgie Anne Geyer, dean of Washington's National Cathedral Francis Sayre, as well as Findley, Ennes and Lilienthal.
weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (03/17/86)
In article <3363@sun.uucp> cramer@sun.UUCP (Sam Cramer) writes: >Raif Hijab's posting regarding the USS Liberty is a fine example of >the weird lengths some are willing to go to in order to smear Israel. > >First, let's recall one thing: Raif's interest in the affair is only in >how it can be used to discredit Israel. So what? >[analysis of RH's position deleted] >Gibberish like this sheds little light on the fate of the USS Liberty. Why don't YOU shed light on the attack then? Or do you knee-jerk oppose ANY stain on the Israeli record as being mere anti-Semitism? >It does, however, conform to what seems to be the guiding principle >of the opponents of Israel on the net - any argument, no matter >how ludicrous and false, is to be used in a vitriolic attempt to >delegitimize the State of Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, >and the only stable US ally in the region. Again, what relevance does this have to the fate of the USS Liberty? Are you calling the very mention of the attack on the Liberty ludicrous and false? Just because you find your opponents are fools doesn't give you the right to be one. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720