Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 SMI; site sun.uucp Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!sun!cramer From: cramer@sun.uucp (Sam Cramer) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Sinking of the Liberty Message-ID: <3363@sun.uucp> Date: Fri, 14-Mar-86 05:33:23 EST Article-I.D.: sun.3363 Posted: Fri Mar 14 05:33:23 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 15-Mar-86 23:35:17 EST References: <12345@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <98@cad.UUCP> Reply-To: cramer@sun.UUCP (Sam Cramer) Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. Lines: 79 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.arpa