I like Arabs, they loved us JW,s they loved the way we wouldnt tolerate women, We were so alike, we loved football and we had a hirearchy like them, involving men, and we all agreed in only one god, and we had a moral code that we stuck to, unlike other (christians) JW,s and Muslims are so alike
Should Israel cede Land to Palestine at the pre 1967 markers and recognize Palestinian Statehood.
by designs 82 Replies latest social current
-
-
cofty
Recognize their statehood, but cede them no land.
The land was promised and given to Abraham's descendants through Isaac, not Ishmael.Religion spoils everything. Decency, fairness and common sense is trumped by a 3000 year myth
-
leavingwt
"Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sat alongside President Obama in the Oval Office Friday and flat-out rejected any attempt too convince Israel to withdraw to its 1967 borders to allow for an adjacent Palestinian state, a move Obama had suggested in a major speech just the day before."
-
botchtowersociety
Uh oh!
Head of state deathmatch in the Octagon! Two men enter, one man leaves!
I'm starting the betting. Who wins?
Netanyahu looks like someone peed on his matzo.
-
botchtowersociety
Before you start the betting, let's look at both the contenders from before they were politicians.
-
Justitia Themis
The US wasn't involved
Wow. Garbage in...garbage out. If you obtain you information from garbage sites, your conclusions will be garbage. I struggled to decide which article to post, and decided on this one because 1) the author is a Republican Congressman, which would likely carry weight with the pro-Israel people, and 2) it tells also the story, largely unknown outside the college educated in political science, of how Israel, with full intent and knowledge, fired upon one of our ships in the Strait killing U.S. soldiers. I encourage everyone to read this sad story in full and give your respect to those poor soldiers whose story is still largely unknown.
- Washington Report on Middle East Affairs; Aug2005, Vol. 24 Issue 6, p16-19, 3p
Israel's war crimes against the USS Liberty and its crew on June 8, 1967 — midway in the Six-Day War Israel launched against its Arab neighbors — provoked a startling, profound U.S. response, a cover-up that signaled the beginning of America's 38 years of Israel-centric foreign policies. It marked a costly, radical turn for the worse that sent America's prestige and credibility plunging and imposed on the American people ever-growing new burdens — even war — with no end in sight.
Perplexing as the assault remains to the few Americans aware of its details, it is no less so than the strange behavior of President Lyndon B. Johnson while the attack was still underway.
When attacked, the Liberty, an unarmed reconnaissance ship of the U.S. Navy, was moving slowly in international waters off the coast of Gaza and the Sinai. The day's horrors are detailed in a report filed on behalf of the ship's survivors by James R. Gotcher, general legal counsel for the USS Liberty Veterans Association, with the Secretary of Defense on June 8, 2005, the 38th anniversary of the assault. Among the Israeli crimes cited in the report are the following:
- sustained rocket, cannon and torpedo fire from air and sea that killed 34 U.S. sailors, wounded 173 others, and riddled the defenseless ship with holes, one of them 40 feet wide;
- gunfire that destroyed rubber lifeboats that were put in the water when the ship's captain ordered preparations to abandon ship; and
- the firing of napalm on the open deck where defenseless sailors were attempting to protect the ship.
The assault was deliberate. It was committed in broad daylight during a two-hour span in the afternoon, following a series of close-in aerial surveillance flights by Israeli aircraft hours earlier. The attack began three hours after Israel's naval command precisely identified the target as an unarmed U.S. Navy reconnaissance vessel. The American flag flew in a brisk breeze at the ship's stern. The large U.S. Navy insignia was clearly visible on the ship's hull.
When General Moshe Dayan issued the order to destroy the Liberty, one of the generals on his staff remonstrated: "This is pure murder." Several Israeli pilots, knowing the target was American, refused to take part. Testimony of survivors leaves no doubt that Israel's military high command intended to sink the ship and kill all personnel aboard, leaving no trace of Israel's responsibility.
It was a monstrous example of ingratitude, let alone murder.At the very moment Israeli forces were killing U.S. sailors, President Lyndon B. Johnson was secretly providing unmarked U.S. military aircraft and personnel to aid Israel in its war against neighboring Arab states.
It is difficult to imagine a goal that would lead the government of Israel, a beleaguered nation whose only substantial international support came from the United States, to attempt to destroy a military vessel and crew of its only benefactor.
Liberty survivors believe Israel's most likely goal was to lure the United States into joining the Jewish state as a fighting partner in its war against Arab states. The goal would be tempting. With America's mighty military forces battling at its side, Israel could reasonably expect that its nation's security would be guaranteed far into the future. Another motivation might have been the concern that the Liberty crew would learn that Israel planned to invade Syria the next day, and transmit that information to Washington.
Whatever the motive, the scheme would work only if Israel could make Egypt, the leading Arab combatant, appear to be responsible for obliterating the Liberty and its crew. That, of course, would require that Israel succeed in destroying all evidence of its own guilt.
Clearly, the risk of disclosure was immense. If only one U.S. sailor survived to tell the true story, or if just one outraged Israeli officer spoke out, the American people would demand severe retribution against Israel. Or so one would think.
The scheme might have worked, except for the ingenuity of Liberty radiomen. It failed because, despite Israel's intense jamming of airwaves and bombardment that wrecked the ship's radio equipment, the crew managed to transmit one lone message — a call for help that was received by a nearby U.S. aircraft carrier, as well as by Israeli intelligence.
The Liberty message spoiled any Israeli plans to blame Egypt. Israeli torpedo boats returned to the scene a few hours after the attack, this time offering help to Liberty survivors — an offer scornfully refused by the ship's skipper, Commander William McGonagle, still on the bridge despite severe leg wounds.Israel also sent regrets to the White House, claiming that Israeli forces believed their target was Egyptian.
Johnson's Astounding Response Just as astounding as the assault itself was the reaction of President Lyndon B. Johnson during that day and those that followed. He acted as if his chief responsibility was to protect Israel from harm and criticism. When he learned that a U.S. carrier had launched fighter aircraft to defend the Liberty, the president ordered the aircraft back to the carrier — the only time in U.S. naval history that rescue aircraft were called back while a Navy vessel was under assault.It was stark evidence that Johnson considered Israeli sensitivities and the well-being of Israeli attack personnel, more important than the lives of the American crewmen under his command.
After the assault, Johnson continued to place Israel's interests above those of Liberty survivors, taking immediate steps to protect Israel from any public protest that might arise. He accepted quickly Israel's excuse of mistaken identity, which his administration knew to be false. He ordered an immediate Navy Court of Inquiry but instructed the chairman, Admiral Isaac Kidd, to absolve Israel of guilt. (In a recent sworn statement, retired Navy Captain Ward Boston, Jr., a member of the Court of Inquiry, declared that he and Kidd were convinced all along that the assault was deliberate, not a case of mistaken identity. See March 2004 Washington Report, p. 10.)
The president also ordered Kidd to keep survivors from talking about their ordeal. As soon as they were brought ashore, Kidd complied with the presidential order by threatening the sailors, some still bedridden, with court martial and imprisonment if they said anything publicly.
When the court completed its quick, limited inquiry and prepared a report, Kidd admitted privately to a colleague that he knew it was misleading. Before it was released to the media, however, its text was further sanitized for Israel's benefit by Department of Defense civilian attorneys. One of the items they deleted was testimony by survivor Lloyd Painter, who told the court he witnessed Israeli forces deliberately shooting lifeboats to pieces.
Medals were issued to survivors, but in quiet ceremonies far from the White House and the president.
Many public documents related to the assault remain classified. Over the years, Liberty survivors have pleaded repeatedly with administration officials, congressional committees, individual members of Congress and the media for full disclosure of the truth. Only a few periodicals and networks responded. Only a handful of individual members of Congress, none in a leadership position, dared to speak out.
The court's false and misleading inquiry was the only official one ever held.Johnson's thorough cover-up was maintained by all of his successors in the presidency.
"An Israel-Centric Foreign Policy"
Three years ago, Condoleezza Rice, now President George W. Bush's secretary of state and then his national security adviser, unwittingly explained in a remarkable burst of candor: "We have an Israel-centric foreign policy." Rice's statement was profound and accurate. Although she spoke nearly four decades after the assault on the Liberty, her words explain why the cover-up began and why it continues to this day.
Since 1967, many people in and out of government have learned the truth about the cover-up. Why were they silent? Why did reporters ignore tips that would surely lead to top news stories?
The sad and simple truth is that most Americans, especially those in public office and even those in the presidency, have a deadly fear of being labeled anti-Semitic. No matter how well documented the charges, they will neither utter nor write anything critical of Israel, for fear it will draw that unwarranted and unwelcome charge. Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. George W. Ball once stated that the most powerful instrument of intimidation employed by Israel's U.S. lobby is the "reckless charge of anti-Semitism."
The fear is endemic, but rarely mentioned. It reaches all government offices and intimidates all levels and sections of our society — business, education, academia, preachers, publishing and other media.
Among those who know the facts about Israeli influence, almost all can supply an excuse to remain silent. The few willing to speak out get little or no attention.
Pro-Israel forces long ago successfully redefined anti-Semitism to mean any criticism of the State of Israel. The new definition is false, malicious and damaging to our national interests, but the Liberty crew and their supporters are among the few willing to risk the anti-Semitic smear.
As a result of this silence, most citizens are unaware of the startling fact that for years our country's Middle East policy has been crafted not by seasoned experts who are committed to America's basic national interests, but by lobbies for two politically powerful religious communities whose goals are narrowly focused. One community is relatively small in number but powerful in influence. It consists mainly of zealous secular Jews, as well as radical Orthodox Jews. They are perhaps best described as extreme Zionists. The other community is very large, consisting of many millions of Christians who accept a controversial interpretation of the Bible's Book of Revelation.
Both groups believe present-day Israel is a resurrection of ancient Israel and a preeminent part of God's plan. Both believe the Jewish state must be kept strong and united until the arrival on earth of each group's messiah.
They have attained such political power that Congress dutifully appropriates billions to Israel without conditions or serious discussion, much less real debate. Because of this unrestricted aid year after year, Israeli leaders have been able to violate human rights, engage in lawless behavior, abandon the ideals of Judaism, and lure America into damning complicity in this scofflaw conduct.
The complicity reached a fateful peak in 1982, when the U.S. government supplied the arms and material that Israel used in slaughtering 18,000 Beirut civilians, then, adding insult to injury, immediately replenished Israel's supply of weapons and ammunition. Osama bin Laden recently stated publicly that he planned 9/11 as the payback for the supportive U.S. role.
The lobby's grip on our government is unhealthy for both Israel and the United States. It is also unhealthy for both Christianity and Judaism. If our nation is to emerge from today's peril, we must face openly and critically the role of these religious groups and their passionate, dangerous attachment to a single small scofflaw government. If we keep tiptoeing around reality, we risk still greater peril tomorrow.
The Liberty cover-up will someday be recognized as an historic but wrong turning point for America. It convinced Israeli leaders that they could get by with anything — even mass murder of U.S. sailors — with only a helpful reaction from Washington, because that is what actually happened.
It proved ultimately to be a fateful blunder for both Israel and America. It was the first major example of America's Israel-centric foreign policy that has led our people into ever-deepening trouble. It inaugurated endless, ever-mounting U.S. aid to Israel, all of it unconditional and with no accountability required. For Israel, it cleared the path for more aggressive military conquest and abuse. It reinforced its contempt for legal constraints and world opinion.
Had the truth about the assault on the Liberty been officially disclosed in detail at any point since 1967, public outrage would have forced an immediate end to our Israel-centric foreign policy. Unconditional aid to Israel would come to a halt. All future U.S. aid would have been tied to firm conditions and accountability procedures — as demanded of all other recipients. This, I believe, would have protected Israel from law-breaking. Years ago, I heard Moshe Dayan, then Israel's pre-eminent political and military leader, state plainly that Israel would have no choice but to obey U.S. requirements if they were conditions of eligibility for U.S. aid.
As I ponder the awful price paid by the Liberty survivors, I marvel — and recoil — at the grip the government of Israel, a small nation of about five million people, maintains over America, a nation of nearly 300 million. After many years in politics, I am convinced that this is America's greatest burden today. Indeed, the phenomenon reaches far broader and deeper than the fate of the Liberty and its crew, important as their fate is to hundreds of families and in the proud annals of the U.S. Navy.Israel's murderous assault, although an egregious example of how costly this burden can be, is not the only example, nor the most recent one.
The report filed with the Pentagon by Liberty survivors could become America's turn for the better.
The scheme would work only if Israel could destroy all evidence of its own guilt.
~~~~~~~~
By Paul Findley
Former Congressman Paul Findley (R-IL)
-
botchtowersociety
It is difficult to imagine a goal that would lead the government of Israel, a beleaguered nation whose only substantial international support came from the United States, to attempt to destroy a military vessel and crew of its only benefactor.
Difficult to imagine indeed.
Israel claims it hit the Liberty by accident. It thought it was an Egyptian war ship.
Friendly fire does occur in the fog of war, especially when you have been surprise attacked by half a dozen different countries. Israeli aircraft had accidently attacked their own tanks a couple of days earlier. We have tapes from when we eavedropped on the Israeli's radio communications during the time of the action, and they thought they had hit an Egyptian ship. A couple of hours after the attack, when the mistake was discovered, Israel dispatched torpedo boats to assist.
It is much easier to believe that this was a friendly fire accident than to believe Israel would deliberately attack a vessel belonging to one of the only friendly nations it had, and a superpower at that.
If you obtain you information from garbage sites, your conclusions will be garbage.
The author of your citation is hardly a good source you know. His organization disseminates antisemitic cartoons, has supported people like Arafat, and recently praised the antisemitic words caught on video that got Helen Thomas fired.
-
botchtowersociety
Oct. 10, 2003
Pilot who bombed 'Liberty' talks to 'Post
By ARIEH O'SULLIVAN
An Israeli pilot who mistakenly attacked the American intelligence ship USS Liberty during the 1967 Six Day War said they were lucky he had no bombs - otherwise he would have sunk her.
"There was a mistake. Mistakes happen. As far as I know, the mistake was of the USS Liberty being there in the first place," said Brig.-Gen. (res.) Yiftah Spector.
After 36 years Spector, who this week was dismissed by the IAF for signing the pilots' refusal letter protesting the policy of targeted killings, agreed to speak to a reporter for the first time on his role in the attack on the Liberty, an American spy ship strafed on the fourth day of the war.
Flying a Mirage III fighter jet code named "Kursa" or couch, Spector was the first pilot to reach the ship, which was about 20 nautical miles west of Gaza. He had been on an air-to-air mission and was not loaded with bombs.
Spector, now 63, went on to become a triple ace, shooting down 15 enemy aircraft, and take part in the 1981 raid on the Iraqi nuclear reactor, earning himself a place in the pantheon of Israeli fly boys. This week he ended a 20-year stint teaching new generations of pilots.
Spector had always refused to discuss the attack on the USS Liberty, which killed 34 US sailors and wounded 172, or even be revealed as the pilot who led the attack on her. Until now.
"I did not fire on the Liberty as a human target. I was sent to attack a sailing vessel. This ship was on an escape route from the El Arish area, which at that same moment had heavy smoke rising from it," Spector said.
"It was thought to be an Egyptian vessel. This ship positively did not have any symbol or flag that I could see. What I was concerned with was that it was not one of ours. I looked for the symbol of our navy, which was a large white cross on its deck," he told The Jerusalem Post. "This was not there, so it wasn't one of ours."
The concern of the IAF was that Spector and his wingman, who had been diverted from the Suez Canal, would strike one of the Israel Navy ships in pursuit of the vessel, which was assumed to be Egyptian. IAF archival recordings of the pilots' radio transmission of the actual attack obtained by the Post show that Spector was specifically requested to verify that the ship was a military vessel and not Israeli.
According to the June 8, 1967, radio transmission, Spector said: "I can't identify it but in any case it's a military ship."
Speaking of the event 36 years later may have caused Spector to mix what he remembered with what he may have read and his testimony does not always match archival facts.
"I circled it twice and it did not fire on me. My assumption was that it was likely to open fire at me and nevertheless I slowed down and I looked and there was positively no flag. Just to make sure I photographed it," said Spector, who retired from active duty as a brigadier-general in 1984.
Experts intimately acquainted with the incident said that the only photos Spector took were from his gun-sight camera during his strafing run. Regardless of whether the 455-foot ship bristling with eavesdropping antennas flew a US flag, which it evidently did from its starboard halyard, that banner was shot off in Spector's first strafing pass.
"I was told on the radio that it was an Egyptian ship off the Gaza coast. Hit it. The luck of the ship was that I was armed only with light ammunition [30mm] against aircraft. If I had had a bomb it would be sitting on the bottom today like the Titanic. I promise you," Spector said.
The 30mm rounds were armor piercing, which to this day led Liberty survivors to believe they had been under rocket attack. Spector's first pass ignited a fire which caused the ship to billow black smoke. Ironically, Spector transmitted he suspected the Liberty was putting out smoke to deliberately mask itself.
"Every order is given by commanders and the last one to receive it has to decide whether he will pull the trigger or not. In this instance I was the fighter. I checked what I had to check [i.e. that it was a military ship and not one of ours] and pulled the trigger," Spector said.
"The crew should be thankful for their luck [that I was on an air-to-air mission and did not have any bombs]. It is a pity we attacked. I'm sorry for poor Capt. (William Loren) McGonagle, who was wounded in the leg and the other guys who were killed and wounded."
"I'm sorry for the mistake. Years later my mates dropped flowers on the site where the ship was attacked," Spector said. "I'm the last guy who has a problem with admitting mistakes and asking for forgiveness. There was a mistake, but it wasn't my mistake."
He added he remains baffled that the conspiracy theories live on that Israel deliberately attacked the US intelligence ship. He suggested it might be due to anti-Semitism, or anti-Israeli sentiments.
"I know that after the war one of the first things that was done was the establishment of a [US] senator's inquiry. I know this personally, because I was called upon to testify before it. They came to the country and I was questioned. I told them what I told you just now - that there was a mistake. I am sorry for the mistake. In war mistakes happen," Spector said.
He said that he had never in the past 36 years ever met with any of the Liberty survivors, but has no qualms about doing so now.
"They must understand that a mistake was made here," Spector said. "The fool is one who wanders about in the dark in dangerous places, so they should not come with any complaints." -
-
Chariklo
That says it all, Terra Incognita. Thanks.
