Lieberman pulls "Israel" card on Dean......

[sarettah]

Ok, the gist of this is that Lieberman accused Dean of breaking with a 50 year record "in which presidents, Republicans and Democrats, members of Congress of both parties have supported our relationship with Israel."

That comment ignores the actual history of U.S.- Israeli relations. While the U.S. and Israel have usually voted together in the U.N., the U.S. has far from supported Israel during the past 50 years. Prior to 1964, the U.S. provided little if any actual support to Israel. There was money coming, but it was private money, not government money. The U.S. did not provide arms or material support of any kind. The French were Israel's primary supplier of arms etc. http://hnn.us/articles/751.html

Following World War II and the Holocaust, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 181 on November 29, 1947, which devised a plan to partition the British mandate of Palestine. The Jewish community of Palestine accepted the plan, but the Arabs rejected it. Britain withdrew from mandatory Palestine on May 14, 1948, and Israel declared itself a State. Upon Israel's declaration of statehood, both the United States and the Soviet Union immediately recognized the state of Israel.

President Harry Truman, with the urging of his executive assistant, Clark Clifford, acted because he felt "it was the right thing to do." The Soviet motive was less altruistic. Because the government of Israel was controlled by the Labor Party, the Soviets believed Israel would become part of the Soviet Bloc and provide a Soviet entree into the Middle East. Israel chose the West and the Soviets were disappointed. The Soviets then courted favor with Arab countries and developed a hostile position to Israel.

Although the United States immediately recognized Israel, it also strictly enforced the Neutrality Act which prohibited the sale or transfer of any military weapons to Israel. The 1948 War of Independence established the state of Israel. No official assistance was provided by the United States. For the first 17 years of its existence, Israel did not receive any military or economic aid from the United States government. In 1948, individual U.S. citizens attempted to send arms to Israel in violation of the Neutrality Act. Some efforts were successful. Some efforts failed and individuals were prosecuted in federal courts. Some were treated sternly, and others were treated more sympathetically. (The first U.S. military weapons sold to Israel by the U.S. government were a few defensive Hawk antiaircraft missile batteries in 1964.)

Still, in the late 1940s, the majority of American Jews were not in favor of a Jewish state in Palestine.Israel shopped for arms around the world and acquired a varied inventory of military hardware. During this time frame, France was fighting Arabs in Algeria and thus, according to the ancient Middle East adage, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," France became Israel's friend and primary supplier of military hardware.

Israel bought jet fighters from France. First the Ouragan, then Mysteres, Vatours, Super Mysteres, and finally, the Mirage IIIC, which the French manufacturer Desault developed in cooperation with Israel and with the loan of Israel's chief test pilot, Colonel Danny Shapira.

In 1956, President Nasser of Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal and closed the Strait of Tiran. Israel joined England and France in operation Musketeer, a military action which swiftly captured the Sinai and the Suez Canal.

Following their military success, England, France, and Israel were coerced to withdraw from the canal and the Sinai by the United States under the policy of President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles.

At this point, the relationship between the U.S. and Israel became strained and cold.

The Israelis continued to rely on their French military arms supplier until the 1960s, when Charles de Gaulle came to power. De Gaulle made peace with the Arabs and gave up the French claim to Algeria. DeGaulle then began to mend fences with the Arabs and the first victim of this new reality was the French-Israel connection.

By 1966, Israel had purchased and taken delivery of 76 Mirage IIIC jet aircraft and had purchased and paid for 50 more. DeGaulle refused to deliver the 50 additional jets and he also refused to refund the purchase price, which Israel had paid in full. France also constructed some missile boats for Israel at the Port of Cherbourg for which Israel had also paid in full. DeGaulle refused to deliver the boats but they ultimately found their way to Israel by way of an incredible Israeli intelligence caper. (That fascinating story is told in The Boats of Cherbourg by Abraham Rabinovich.)

In fact, prior to Johnson getting into office in 1964, the U.S. administrations were not in particular support of Israel at all : http://www.washington-report.org/backissue...196/9611096.htm

"Up to Johnson’s presidency, no administration had been as completely pro-Israel and anti-Arab as his. Harry S Truman, while remembered as a warm friend of Israel, was more interested in his own election than Israel’s fate. After winning office on his own in 1948 with the support of the Jewish vote, he seemed to lose interest in the Jewish state.2

Dwight D. Eisenhower was distinctly cool toward Israel, seeing it as a major irritant in America’s relations with the Arab world and U.S. access to oil. There were no powerful partisans of Israel in his administration and his secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, was a frequent critic of Israel. Kennedy was considerably warmer toward the Jewish state and became the first president to begin providing major weapons to it, breaking an embargo in place since 1947.3 Yet he valued the U.S. position in the Arab world, particularly with Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser, and as a result maintained a fairly even-handed policy despite having a number of pro-Israel officials in his administration.

All this changed dramatically under Johnson. Not only was he personally a strong supporter of the Jewish state but he had a number of high officials, advisers and friends who shared his view. These included officials within the administration such as McGeorge Bundy, Clark Clifford, Arthur Goldberg, Harry McPherson, John Roche, the Rostow brothers, Walt and Eugene, and Ben Wattenberg."

In 1967 (the six day war) the U.S. stated it was neutral and NOT an ally of Israel.

In 1967, Israel was threatened with destruction by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and other Arab countries and the June 1967 war occurred. An excellent account of this war, commonly called the "Six Day War," was recently published by Michael Oren - Six Days of War (Oxford Press, 2002). Prior to the Six Day War, the continued existence of Israel was in doubt. The U.S. relationship was becoming warmer but at best the U.S. was a friendly neutral. Dean Rusk said that being neutral was not an expression of indifference, but Israel was not an ally. At the outbreak of the Six Day War, State Department Spokesman Robert McClosky announced on behalf of the United States: "Our position [on the war] is neutral in thought, word, and deed."

and the Liberty incident in 1967 added strains to the relationship
http://ussliberty.org/cliffor2.txt

f. The unprovoked attack on the Liberty constitutes a flagrant act
of gross negligence for which the Israeli Government should be held
completely responsible, and the Israeli military personnel involved
should be punished

It was not until after 1967 that the U.S. warmed up to Israel in any significant manner.

Following Israel's stunning victory in the Six Day War, a euphoria set in around the world and strong support for the state of Israel developed in the United States. American public opinion swung dramatically in favor of Israel and for the first time in history, a majority of American Jews became Zionists, that is they supported the concept of a Jewish state.

Under Nixon U.S. support to Israel was in question at first. The U.S. wa providing arms to the various Arab nations while continuing some support for Israel. The administration also refused to recognize the territory gained by Israel in 1967. http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/20th/nixon...on-mideast.html . But during the 1973 war, Nixon authorized an airlift that is credited with saving Isareal from destruction. In June 1974, Nixon became the first president to actually visit Israel.

Nixon and the Mideast
pictures
support for the "dual pillar" of Saudia Arabia and Iran, but also support for Israel

Nixon Doctrine caused increase in foreign aid, arms exports

U.S. did not recognize territory gained by Israel in 1967 Six-Day War

Russian missiles to Egypt after Six-Day War

Jordan crisis Sept. 1970 - Syrian tank invasion - PLO blow up 3 airliners - Hussein expels PLO

Nassar died Sept. 28, 1970 - Anwar Sadat planned next war with Faisal of SA and Assad of Syria - Russian aid increased - SCUD missiles with 200-mile range by 1973 - Russian advisers expelled July 18, 1973, when Russia refused increase in aid to Egypt after Nixon's trip to Moscow in May and the USSR-US.grain deal 7/8

Yom Kippur War began Oct. 6, 1973 - Egypt and Syria attack Israel

huge Israeli losses Oct. 6-7 - 2000 dead, 340 captured, 49 planes, 500 tanks

Nixon approved massive airlift to Israel, over objections of Secretary of Defense John Schlesinger and Secretary of State Kissinger who feared Arab oil embargo and Russian intervention

Oct. 11 - C5A cargo jets began to deliver 200 tons per day to Israel

Oct. 12 - War Powers Act passed

Oct. 13 - UN passed resolution for ceasefire based on resol. 232 from 1967

Oct. 15 - Israel crossed Suez and attacked West Bank in Egypt

Oct. 18 - Russia supported UN ceasefire

Oct. 19 - SA asked U.S. to support resol. 232, but Nixon asked Congress for $2.2b emerg aid for Israel

Oct. 20 - SA began oil embargo - but U.S. imports continued from other countries

Kissinger flew to Moscow Oct. 20 with the "full authority" to negotiate a ceasefire

Oct. 22 - U.N. approved Russian. ceasefire-in-place, but ignored by Israel, esp. by Gen. Ariel Sharon, hero of the war and opponent of peace with Arabs - Israel seeking to surround and trap the Egyptian 3rd Corps of 35,000 on the East Bank and isolate Suez City

Oct. 24 - Brezhnev ultimatum - ceasefire must be enforced by joint US-USSR force to save Egyptian army, Or Russia would intervene unilaterally - Russia went on military alert and began to resupply Egyptian 2nd Army in the north, supposedly with nuclear warheads on SCUD missiles.

Oct. 25 - Nixon order DEFCON 3 alert and sent note to Brezhnev urging UN solution

Oct. 26 - Russian alert ended - UN resol 338 to create 7000-man buffer zone force from non-nuclear members

Kissinger began "shuttle diplomacy" 1973-75

Since the Nixon administration, the U.S. support for Israel has pretty much continued with some ups and downs (pollard for instance) but you can hardly call it 50 years of clear support for Israel....

IMHO of course


*************************************************
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...emocrats_debate

Presidential Elections - AP

Lieberman Accuses Dean Over Israel
40 minutes ago

By RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer

BALTIMORE - Sen. Joe Lieberman (news - web sites) accused Howard Dean (news - web sites) in a campaign debate Tuesday night of turning his back on Israel, and the Democratic presidential front-runner shot back that he and former President Bill Clinton (news - web sites) held the same view on the issue.
..............................
The 2000 Democratic vice presidential candidate, Lieberman said comments Dean made last week about the Middle East "break a 50-year record in which presidents, Republicans and Democrats, members of Congress of both parties have supported our relationship with Israel."



Last edited by sarettah at Sep 10 2003, 07:35 AM

[Wizzo]

Supporting Isreal is less important now that we have our own states in the Middle East.....Iraq and Afganistan!


lol:P

[Almighty Colin]

So very true and this demonstrates the weakness of the argument that the US has been anti-Arab and pro-Israel since the inception of Israel. In fact the US has courted Arab nations all along and offered to supply Arab countries with weapons. There were a number of proposals in the 1950s that were rejected by Arab nations.

Another point. It was the USSR that supplied weapons to Israel in 1948 through Czechoslavakia.

[sarettah]

Whats funniest about all this to me is that if Dean knew his history, he could have wacked Lieberman over the head with it pretty hard and made Lieberman look like a fool for not knowing either U.S. or Israeli history....

But he didn't............ Which makes me wonder how much either of them really knows about history..........

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by sarettah@Sep 10 2003, 08:49 AM
Whats funniest about all this to me is that if Dean knew his history, he could have wacked Lieberman over the head with it pretty hard and made Lieberman look like a fool for not knowing either U.S. or Israeli history....

But he didn't............ Which makes me wonder how much either of them really knows about history..........

Probably pretty patchy knowledge. I don't think most politicians have much of a knowledge of history. Lots of time politicking means not so much time reading books.

Know who George Bush's tutor was during the last election? Condoleeza Rice.

[PornoDoggy]

and the Liberty incident in 1967 added strains to the relationship

Huh? When did that happen?

[sarettah]

http://ussliberty.org/cliffor2.txt

June 8, 1967

SC No. 07445/67

THE WHITE HOUSE

- WASHINGTON -
PRESIDENT'S FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE ADVISORY BOARD

July 18,1967

The Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty

The Attack

On the afternoon of June 8 (2:05 p.m., Israeli time), the USS Liberty
while in international waters in the Eastern Mediterranean suffered an
attack by Israeli aircraft and motor torpedo boats. When attacked the
Liberty was approximately 15.5 nautical miles north of Sinai and was
traveling in a westerly direction at a speed of five knots.

The initial attack consisted of five or six straffing runs by jet
aircraft and was followed twenty-four minutes later with an attack by
three motor torpedo boats.

The attack was executed with complete surprise, remarkable efficiency,
devastating accuracy and deeply tragic results.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by sarettah@Sep 10 2003, 11:41 AM
June 8, 1967

It's not the Liberty he doesn't know about .. it's the "strained relationship" part.

[Danny_C]

Stupid argument anyway. Should we be basing our foreign policy on record and tradition, or should we be progressive and think about the future, and the right thing to do?

I think it's more important to do the right thing to improve the future, personally. But then again, maybe that's why I'm not president.

[PornoDoggy]

I served with a Radioman First Class on duty in the communications center of the Liberty when they sustained a 4+ hour attack by Israeli aviation and surface units. The Liberty, btw, was more lightly armed than the USS Pueblo that the North Koreans captured almost two years later. Israeli forces attacked a U.S. ship flying the U.S. flag (several - they shot increasingly larger flags off the ship as the day went on) in International waters.

Why, the "strain in the relationship" was so profound that it took YEARS of pressure by survivors to get any kind of explanation from the U.S. Government - and the responses to this day by the government of Israel make RMN's "I am not a crook" look like he bared his soul.

It must have been the tremendous strain on the relationship between the two countries that caused the surviving crew to be threatened with Courts-Martial if they talked about what happened to them. That so-called strain must explain the tremendous lengths to which the Johnson (and subsequent) administrations went to keep this story from seeing the light of day.

Strain on the relationship? Bullshit.

[sarettah]

Well, I agree that history should not control our future...

History is important because, as the old adage goes (misquote here I am sure) "those that ignore the failures of history are doomed to repeat them".. Meaning, history can teach us a lot....

Rarely though is foreign policy based upon "the right thing to do"....

Foreign policy should usually be based upon what is the best thing to do for us... What serves our national interest the best.. What is important to us strategically.......

It is often though based upon the political aspirations and agendas of various powerful individuals or groups.......

In the case of Israel........

The US recognized Israel after Israel declared itself a state not because it was the right thing to do (although the article I quoted does indicate that) The U.S. recognized Israel to stop Israel from aligning with the Soviets.... The Soviets recognized Israel in an attempt to bring them into the Soviet.

The number one U.S. priority from a naval strategy throughout the cold war was to deny the Soviets a warm water port. One of the top priorities of the Soviet strategy during the cold war was to attain a warm water port. The U.S. had the upper hand strategically because they could float a navy year round without much difficulty.. We had subs and ships running from Groton Ct, Key West, Norfolk, San Diego and various other bases... Most of our bases were open and easily accesible throughout the entire year.

The Soviets however were limited to Vladivostok and Petropavlask, both cold water ports with limited access during the winter months... With only 2 major ports to operate from, the Soviets were easy to watch.. We just had to watch what came out from Vlad and Petro to know what they were up to......

By denying the Soviets a warm water port, we were effectively limiting the effectiveness of their Navy (which throughout the cold war was the largest navy in the world).....

The historians will tell you it was Oil that made the middle east a point of contention between the east and west... But folks from the intelligence field will tell you it was a warm water port.......

and that largely controlled our foreign policy in the region.......

[XXXManager]

hmm...
What’s that smell???
hmm....
I can't put my finger on it...
What's that...
Hard to say..
oh...
well...
I think its all the bullshit around here that makes it hard for me to pinpoint it

If anybody has a point he should post it and make it bold
Since when is it surprising to see politicians not being the best historians in the world? :P

If anything, US has been ambivalent and unclear about its stands regarding the middle east and still is to this day. That is both a necessity (being a superpower and needing to play the role) AND a weakness (weakening their own stand regarding security affairs and the issue of terrorism) of the US.

[wig]

There are many valuable lessons in history that we should learn from. Most tradition and law is based on this. History tends to repeat itself because we do not seem to learn from many of the lessons. The circumstances change, as do the players, but....

The more things change, the more they stay the same!

[XXXManager]

Originally posted by wig@Sep 10 2003, 05:47 PM
There are many valuable lessons in history that we should learn from. Most tradition and law is based on this. History tends to repeat itself because we do not seem to learn from many of the lessons. The circumstances change, as do the players, but....

The more things change, the more they stay the same!

LOL. thats exactly the point
"should"

One thing we learn from history is - that we learn nothing from history.

[wig]

Yes, that is exactly my point.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by XXXManager@Sep 10 2003, 12:47 PM
hmm...
What’s that smell???
hmm....
I can't put my finger on it...
What's that...
Hard to say..
oh...
well...
I think its all the bullshit around here that makes it hard for me to pinpoint it

If anybody has a point he should post it and make it bold
Since when is it surprising to see politicians not being the best historians in the world? :P

If anything, US has been ambivalent and unclear about its stands regarding the middle east and still is to this day. That is both a necessity (being a superpower and needing to play the role) AND a weakness (weakening their own stand regarding security affairs and the issue of terrorism) of the US.

I made the only point I have to make. There has been a "special relationship" between the U.S. and Israel for a long time - longer, IMHO, than that article indicates. I think that's a good thing, personally, and have since the '67 war.

That does not mean that I think that U.S. foreign policy should be determined by the Knesset. That certainly does not mean blind support for any policy that may be adopted by the Government of Israel.

[XXXManager]

Originally posted by Danny_C@Sep 10 2003, 05:12 PM
Stupid argument anyway. Should we be basing our foreign policy on record and tradition, or should we be progressive and think about the future, and the right thing to do?

I think it's more important to do the right thing to improve the future, personally. But then again, maybe that's why I'm not president.

yep. the thing is - that once people get into the political game they start realizing that there is more than the "right thing" to consider. There is the game itself. They become slaves to the sick political game consumed with the ill factor of human nature.

See.. its like this thread.
Its about trying to define in black and white the relations between the US and Israel - or more the approach of the US towards Israel.
It don't work that way.
The relations were good at times bad at others, truthful at certain point and the other way at others.

I found something very useful.. When analyzing the world and people in it I use a very simple principle: Most people do not know shit - and therefore base their descisions and opinions on ignorance.
And as the large numbers rule goes, it doesn't matter if I think I am an exception.. if I am so, I am an anomally
We give too much credit to politicians - that is right. But then again - Politicians are humans, just as us.. which means we give ourselves too much credit just as well

The bottom line is - if you have a point, chances are it is based on ignorance and is useless and baseless (even if you think you have a URLs to sites supporting your point of view [remember - chances are, they are as baseless and useless as your own point of view] <_< )

BTW - by "you" I mean everyone - and noone in particular

[XXXManager]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Sep 10 2003, 06:04 PM
I made the only point I have to make. There has been a "special relationship" between the U.S. and Israel for a long time - longer, IMHO, than that article indicates. I think that's a good thing, personally, and have since the '67 war.

That does not mean that I think that U.S. foreign policy should be determined by the Knesset. That certainly does not mean blind support for any policy that may be adopted by the Government of Israel.

Hey PornoDoggy
I didn't aim my post at you in particular but at the thread in general.
I get this irritating feeling when people start threads about historical facts. These threads are pointless because nothing that is 1 page long can explain and describe nothing so complicated as relationship between two countries to the point where someone can form an opinion (other than the one he/she already holds).

With threads like that - I just care about what people stand for - rather than why they do and what they base it on (at least at first), since I don't really know what they are driving at.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Sep 10 2003, 01:04 PM
I made the only point I have to make. There has been a "special relationship" between the U.S. and Israel for a long time - longer, IMHO, than that article indicates. I think that's a good thing, personally, and have since the '67 war.

That does not mean that I think that U.S. foreign policy should be determined by the Knesset. That certainly does not mean blind support for any policy that may be adopted by the Government of Israel.

Yes, but the question is since when and why.

I definitely don't think there was in the late 40's.

In the early 1950's there were many agreements and proposals between the US and Arab nations. Then in the mid 1950s those began to fall apart as Nasser gained in popularity and stature.

In '56 the US was pretty neutral.

Somewhere in between there and 1970 the relationship changed and became the special one you mentioned. It's not clear where. Maybe just gradual.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by XXXManager@Sep 10 2003, 01:25 PM
I get this irritating feeling when people start threads about historical facts.

Don't get too irritated. This is what we do around here. No one wants to write a book. We just want to ridicule each other and have a good time in between shows ;-)

[XXXManager]

I know
Im joking... Its all part of the fun

[PornoDoggy]

Holy Toledo ... within 24 hours I've agreed with Buff and XXXManager (at least in part). This is starting to get alarming.

When analyzing the world and people in it I use a very simple principle: Most people do not know shit - and therefore base their descisions and opinions on ignorance.

Case(s) in point. Last week (or thereabouts) some pothead moron refugee from GFY made the profound statement that "Jewish people are the most racist people" blahblahblah. Pure ignorance; I for one didn't buy his later apology/explanation that he was talking about the government of Israel.

Last night some other moron made a post on Oprano comparing Saudis with apes, I believe.

Same shit, different day.

[XXXManager]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Sep 10 2003, 06:35 PM
Holy Toledo ... within 24 hours I've agreed with Buff and XXXManager (at least in part). This is starting to get alarming.

Case(s) in point. Last week (or thereabouts) some pothead moron refugee from GFY made the profound statement that "Jewish people are the most racist people" blahblahblah. Pure ignorance; I for one didn't buy his later apology/explanation that he was talking about the government of Israel.

Last night some other moron made a post on Oprano comparing Saudis with apes, I believe.

Same shit, different day.

MUHAHA
True - BUT - review my post again
I was talking about the ones that banned the barbie because of "the 'jewish' way she is dressed".
Check it out and tell me I am very rarely get hotheaded and lash out on large group of people (all Saudis or the country itself in that case)
Im waiting...

[XXXManager]

Here PornoDoggy... I'll help ya

http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/index.php?a...5af7ce1a7819513
Quoting "this other fella" :

Well, I don't know if she is Jewish but one thing is for sure.. Those Saudis (the ones that banned the barbie) are illiterate apes. (I don't mean anything bad about apes though)

[PornoDoggy]

Well, fuck ... within 24 hours I've agreed with Buff and XXXManager AND BEEN PROVEN WRONG.

I stand corrected - sorry about that. I will go back to my doghouse now.

[Almighty Colin]

I'm amused

[XXXManager]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Sep 10 2003, 07:26 PM
Well, fuck ... within 24 hours I've agreed with Buff and XXXManager AND BEEN PROVEN WRONG.

I stand corrected - sorry about that. I will go back to my doghouse now.

Winds of change are here
Anyway, so who is this Dean?

[sarettah]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Sep 10 2003, 12:30 PM
Strain on the relationship? Bullshit.

I stand corrected.........

I thought I had a ref on the various discussions that had taken place in Congress in relation to the Liberty....

There were those that wanted ties severed, etc......

But cannot find it right now. The Liberty is a sore point with me too... although the NSA is finally releasing some information on it, it is all redacted beyond readability....

anyway...

My point was not necessarilly to give a complete history... I do not agree with one or two things in the articles I posted (Wilson and Balfour for example)... I was just trying to point out that the US has not always, as some people think, supported Israel and that Israel was a point of contention at times with various administrations.

Sorry if I touched a raw nerve PD...........

[XXXManager]

Well. You don't need an article to prove that the US "wasn't there for" Israel all the time.
They objected Israel's move to bomb the Iraqi nuclear reactor
They supported the creation of armed palestinian authority
They proposed a "peace plan" that has a palestinian state timelined into it regardless of fullfilment of the security requirements
They object the currently discussed deportation of Yasser Arafat
(These are just very few examples that some of them are very relevant and current)

But the thing is, you have to realize..
When you say US and Israel, you are not talking about static entities.
Both countries change over time, both in spirit and policy. That's one of the disadvantages of having a democracy With changing presidents like JFK, McCarthy, Bush, Reagen and others, having presidents and senate majority from both Democrats and Republicans, expecting the two countries to have a static relation is too much to expect.

Also - you are talking or a timespan of 6 decades. A long time to claim the policy has been fixed.

But looking at the bottom line, the main issue is that after filtering all the little issues arising over time, there is a simple common thread connecting the two countries and stems from the people of these countries, their belifs, social and moral values.



Last edited by XXXManager at Sep 10 2003, 09:07 PM

[sarettah]

Hey XXX...

yes there is a common thread....

But again, that is not my point........

Many folks... especially the younger generations... assume that the U.S. and Israel have ALWAYS had a special relationship and that the U.S. has always supported the Jewish people as a whole....

And the fact is that that is not so....

We did not support them in their fight for independence (1948) although we did step on and recognize them....

Prior to 48, prior to and during WWII, we, as a country did nothing for a long long time in answer to the holocaust... In fact, during that period, if I remember my facts right (and I dont want to have to go out and google all over the place) we, and our allies were less than sympathetic to the problems facing the European Jewish population... We cut immigration quotas so that more could not come into the country, etc... Britain was just as bad, not allowing or severely curtailing immigration to palestine during the same period....

To claim that the US has been the primary supporter of Israel (which many claim) is to ignore the facts....

I admire the hell out of Israel... They took a bunch of desert and turned it into something liveable.... In 1948, with no appreciable outside help, they fought back 6 (or 7 can't remember which right now) invading countries.... They have scraped and fought their way to where they are against all reasonable odds with the only real significant help from the U.S. starting with the airlift in 1973 (which is one of the 3 things I give Richard Nixon credit for)....

[XXXManager]

I agree completely.
Note that US approach to the Jewish people in during the holocaust was shocking. Not only the quota issue and blocking Jews immigrant (more like fleeing for their life than immigrating) but also the fact that US bombers flew above the largest of concentration camps fully armed and didnt bomb the hell out of the fuckers.
USS liberty - even if wasn't accident like claimed and being (for some hulicinagenic reason) a deliberate attack of some strange sort - is (imho) an dwarfish issue compared to the events (and immnse life loss) of those days.



Last edited by XXXManager at Sep 10 2003, 09:46 PM

[PornoDoggy]

USS liberty - even if wasn't accident like claimed and being (for some hulicinagenic reason) a deliberate attack of some strange sort - is (imho) an dwarfish issue compared to the events (and immnse life loss) of those days.

First of all, perhaps by some grand geopolitcal standard the 35 sailors on the Liberty are insignificant. To THIS veteran of the U. S. Navy, at least, they remain every bit as important as the 2,000 on the Arizona or the 17 on the Cole. I firmly believe the attack was deliberate, and not based on "hulicinagenic reason[ing]" but instead on protecting vital national secrets. And MAYBE the air attack was an accident - the subsequent WAVES of attacks by Israeli gunboats makes that just about impossible.

I believe that the treatment of those men and the survivors by the U.S. Government was despicable, and that the response by the Israeli government has been most unsatisfactory. I don't think the Liberty is a "defining" issue in the relationship of the two countries, nor should it be.

The USS Liberty was an intelligence ship monitoring battlefield communications during the '67 war. Of particular interest to the U.S. were Egyptian & Syrian tactics and procedures, since the equipment they were using mirrorred what U.S./NATO forces would face in the event of a confrontation in Europe. We were also monitoring for evidence of Soviet personnel involved in combat. In all probability we were feeding much of that information we obtained to Israel (in the same way we provided Intel to Saddam when he fought the Iranians); maybe not all of it, maybe not as quickly as was desired. HOWEVER ...

Obviously, it was not only Arab League communications we were capturing, monitoring, and interpreting. The early days of the '67 war did not go well for Israel.

I tend to think the attack on the Liberty was designed to cripple U.S. ability to pre-detect certain strategies/weapons choices that the Israeli's thought might have to be made/deployed.

It is as close as I come to buying into wild conspiracy theories.

[slavdogg]

""I firmly believe the attack was deliberate, and not based on "hulicinagenic reason[ing]" but instead on protecting vital national secrets.""

PornoDoggy, here it is

"US tapes confirm Israel's '67 attack on 'Liberty' was accidental:[Daily Edition]
JANINE ZACHARIA. Jerusalem Post. Jerusalem: Jul 10, 2003. pg. 05
Abstract (Article Summary)
WASHINGTON - Transcripts of tapes released by the US National Security Agency (NSA) appear to confirm once and for all Israel's contention that the attack on the USS Liberty off the Gaza Strip coast by IAF jets in June 1967 was an accident.

Thirty-four Americans were killed and 171 injured in the attack on the ship. Israel has always said it attacked what it thought ...""





Last edited by slavdogg at Sep 10 2003, 06:32 PM

[slavdogg]

a good article i just found

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opin...2214594,00.html


and here is something i didnt know about 67 war

"" Israel's weapons came from Europe at the time.
Yes, Israel fought the war not with American but with French weaponry. The French had had a strong alliance with Israel from 1956. But on the eve of the '67 war French President Charles de Gaulle simply informed the Israelis that he was switching sides. ""

[sarettah]

Here is what was released in July by the NSA...

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/liberty.html

They are all transcripts after the attack, not prior to or during.....

They do not (imho) prove an accident....

The Liberty incident is one of those, like the Kennedy assasination that we will probably never have the full story on...

If it was truly an accident the official stuff would have been out pretty quickly and would not have to be forced out 36 years after the fact by freedom of inforrmation act filings.....

Still, it might have actually been an accident... Like us bombing the Chinese Embassy... That was blamed on outdated maps.... Was that fact or was that the story ??

[sarettah]

The US Naval Institute in June 2003 says it was not an accident:

http://www.usni.org/proceedings/Articles03.../PROwalsh06.htm

from the USS Liberty Memorial site....

http://www.ussliberty.org
Israel claims they mistook our ship for the out-of-service Egyptian horse carrier El Quseir and that we brought the attack upon ourselves by operating in a war zone without displaying a flag. Not so. We were in international waters, far from any fighting, and flew a bright, clean, new American flag.

The flag we flew is on display at the National Cryptologic Museum, Fort Meade, Maryland and can be seen there, or in the USS Liberty Images Archive.

Our commanding officer, Captain William Loren McGonagle, received the Congressional Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry and intrepedity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty during the attack.

The Congressional Medal of Honor is the highest award our country can bestow. To avoid embarrassing our attackers, Captain McGonagle's Medal of Honor was presented in a quiet ceremony in the Washington Navy Yard instead of in the White House by the President as is customary.

************************************************** ********

and about the transcripts released in July from the same site:

http://www.ussliberty.org/nsafiles.htm

NSA Releases 1967 helicopter intercept transcripts
Haaretz claims they prove the attack was an accident

They prove no such thing

The NSA intercepts prove only that the helicopter pilots were not aware of the ship's identity until they arrived. Intercept of the attack itself, not released and said not to exist but which has been seen by senior NSA sources we have identified, show that in fact they did know they were attacking an American ship.

The plain truth is that, despite the arguments sent by spokesmen for Israel, most people who look carefully at this attack agree that it was deliberate. Moreover, the top minds in the American intelligence community agree that solid evidence is overwhelming that it was deliberate! Supporters.txt lists some of those names. One really must look carefully when such leading lights as Dean Rusk, Marshall Carter, Richard Helms, Lou Tordella, Tom Moorer, Rufus Taylor, William Odom, Bobby Ray Inman, John Morrison, George Ball, Clark Clifford, Lucius Battle, William Odom, Merlin Staring and others including even LBJs own press secretary George Christian all say almost with one voice that it was deliberate and that the evidence says so. Four former NSA directors agree that deliberateness of the attack was not a debatable issue; it was agreed fact. None of these men are the sort to adopt wild or irresponsible positions.

We survivors say the attack was deliberate because what we saw argues that it was: Prolonged, low-level pre-attack reconnaissance in which the recon pilots were heard telling their HQ that we were American; an extended close air attack with large colors flying throughout; selective jamming of the very frequencies we needed to call for help; torpedo boats that examined the ship and flag from 50 feet away and CONTINUED to fire from close range for another 40 minutes; machinegunning of our liferafts in the water. Then they lied about everything and claimed that they recognized us as American even while the torpedoes were in the water and never fired again. Nonsense. They claim falsely that the boats called in the air attack because they miscalculated our speed from 32 miles away when in fact their maximum radar range was 16 miles and that they judged our speed at 30 knots when we were moving five knots. Nonsense. They claim we flew no flag. Nonsense. If it was a mistake, at least they could tell the truth. If they didn't know we were American, why did they jam American radio frequencies?

Yet the evidence goes far beyond those things; it is virtually absolute. Recently I called Oliver Kirby, a former NSA Ops boss who was called back to NSA in 1967 to look into the circumstances of the attack. He has never before discussed this with anyone outside the confines of the NSA complex, but the first words out of his mouth were, "I can tell you for an absolute certainty that they knew they were attacking an American ship." How did he know? He saw transcripts of Israeli communications during the attack. There was a Navy EC121 overhead (reported recently by Jim Bamford) and an Air Force C130 a few miles away. Both were recording communications. The Navy intake was merely recorded; the Air Force product was sent securely in real time via the CRITICOMM system to Air Force intelligence centers worldwide where it was seen by hundreds of people. Now many of those people are coming forward to describe what they saw. These are the same intercepts that were seen by Oliver Kirby and other top analysts and officials at the National Security Agency. These transcripts are the reason so many top intelligence officials are certain that this attack was no accident.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by sarettah@Sep 10 2003, 06:53 PM
Still, it might have actually been an accident... Like us bombing the Chinese Embassy... That was blamed on outdated maps.... Was that fact or was that the story ??

I repeat what I said earlier ... if you are willing to transcend "benefit of the doubt" to "suspension of the ability to reason" you can characterize the initial air attack as an accident.

The subsequent wave of attacks (3 distinct, if I remember correctly) by torpedo boats kind of render that moot.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by slavdogg@Sep 10 2003, 06:28 PM
""I firmly believe the attack was deliberate, and not based on "hulicinagenic reason[ing]" but instead on protecting vital national secrets.""

PornoDoggy, here it is

"US tapes confirm Israel's '67 attack on 'Liberty' was accidental:[Daily Edition]
JANINE ZACHARIA. Jerusalem Post. Jerusalem: Jul 10, 2003. pg. 05
Abstract (Article Summary)
WASHINGTON - Transcripts of tapes released by the US National Security Agency (NSA) appear to confirm once and for all Israel's contention that the attack on the USS Liberty off the Gaza Strip coast by IAF jets in June 1967 was an accident.

Thirty-four Americans were killed and 171 injured in the attack on the ship. Israel has always said it attacked what it thought ...""

Yes ... I know that the NASA released selective transcripts this year that support the Israeli position. There have always been folks within the U.S. Government who are willing to overlook or accept the Israeli version; the current political environment may have contributed to the release of that information at this time.

We're talking here about a military with intelligence skills and capabilities that should serve as role model for military services everywhere - the overflights conducted a dozen times or more in the 24 hours leading up to the attack provided enough data for a one-eyed color blind drunken intelligence weenie to determine what the ship was. There is no way to portray the followup attacks by surface vessels as a mistake. Maybe the glorified egos of flyboys got in their way of identification procedures they were trained to perform; don't tell me that same shit about sailors.

But instead of punishing the attackers, Israel honors them in a museum. Told of the display, retired Air Force Major General John Morrison, NSA deputy director for operations at the time, commented, "I am offended by that." And retired Army Lieutenant General William Odom, NSA director from 1985 to 1988, and also unaware of the display, remarked, "I am astonished that Israel should put glory on the people who killed my SigInt-ers [signals intelligence personnel]."10 The Liberty's blood-stained flag is exhibited at the National Cryptologic Museum in Fort Meade, Maryland.

For want of a cruise missle ...



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Sep 10 2003, 09:19 PM

[sarettah]

It Grows !!! Now there is criticism from the House Dems over the fact that Dean says that the Isaraeli-Palestinian issue must be handled in an "even handed" manner.....

These idiots.... He is exactly right... If you want honest, open negotiations to occur, you can not be displaying a bias towards one side or another....

*****************************************
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/.../091008957.html

House Dems Criticize Dean's Israel Remarks
By NEDRA PICKLER
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -

Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean drew fire from House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and several Jewish lawmakers on Wednesday over his remarks concerning Israel.

"This is not a time to be sending mixed messages," Dean's critics said in a letter circulated by Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., and signed by Pelosi and more than two dozen other Democratic House members who are supporting other candidates. "On the contrary, in these difficult times we must reaffirm our unyielding commitment to Israel's survival and raise our voices against all forms of terrorism and incitement."

Last week at a rally in Santa Fe, N.M., Dean said an "enormous number" of Israeli settlements must go to make progress in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "It's not our place to take sides," he said.

....................................

During the debate Tuesday night, Dean defended himself by saying he and former President Bill Clinton held the same view on the issue - that the United States must have the trust of both sides to negotiate between the two countries. He repeated that argument during an appearance Wednesday on CNN's "Wolf Blitzer Reports."

"I believe the position that I take on Israel is exactly the position the United States has taken for 54 years," he said on the show. But he acknowledged that saying there should be an "evenhanded policy" toward the Israelis and the Palestinians may have been a poor choice of words.

[XXXManager]

Quote:

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Sep 11 2003, 02:00 AM-->

Thread Tools

Show Printable Version

Email this Page

Display Modes

Linear Mode

Switch to Hybrid Mode

Switch to Threaded Mode

Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is On

Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Main Board Rebooted The Business Of Porn - Closed For Posting     Legacy Archived Main Board     Vesuvio

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:53 AM..