u.s.s. liberty - new revelations on 1967 attack by israel

jo mamma, given the strong feelings you have expressed about the nature of the current relationship between the USA and Israel, I have to wonder how much of your outrage on this issue is really a proxy for that.

 

I think they were not enemies. They were just two nations with diplomatic relationship and a tiny bit of aid from the US side before 1968. At that point, we gave way more aid to Syria than Israel.

Anyway, I think we were right to condemn Israel for this incident, to seek prosecution of the perpetuators and also compensation for our loss. My thinking is that even though Israel treat this as some sort of collateral damage but that doesn't minimize their guilt.

I am the type that don't buy this type of collateral damage excuse. So I also condemn Israel's War in Lebanon and our War in Iraq/Afghanistan.

I also read that part. But what I don't understand is how someone in Omaha can know the the ground controller in Israel know that it was a US ship?

But even assume they know it is a US ship, since we were no allies, they just thought we were a legit target per the collateral damage theory and therefore they attacked. Still, we should condemn them because that's what we should do. Our leaders didn't condemn Israel and let it pass, so they were wrong as well.

 

I think Israel should have paid a serious price for this, in 1967.

To put it in perspective, it's like someone getting bent out of shape over the Nazis ... in 1985. The people in power (and the populations and their Nations) are all different ... in fact, sounds like all of the Israeli decision-makers are now dead.

Right or wrong, our leaders apparently made their decision how to react in '67 based on all of the circumstances then. And with all of today's issues, will our leaders revisit all decisions and responses over the last 40 years?

Should we react to it now? If that kind of thinking pervaded, the world would never have any treaties or trade. Everyone would just cut-off ties and hate each other.

You've been one-upped though; Islamic fundamentalists appear to recall and respond to all transgressions since the Crusades.

 

Ok. Let's say you are right. But what should we do now? I don't see what we can do now other than realizing the fact that 40 years ago Israel deliberately attacked our ship and we let it pass.

Both countries are strong allies now and the Israel lobby is running strong here. I don't see any politicians have the balls to do anything about it. If you feel strongly about, write a letter to your representative.

 

From your article:

I doubt we will get anything more than the official conclusions determined by each of the governments involved.

 

C'mon Ottoman. He's pretty consistent. That's why he was FOR the war in Iraq (jo mama has been recently spotted shouting out about Iraq's attack on the USS Stark).

 

I am sorry, but this whole notion that somehow the U.S. is responsible for Israeli expansionist policies in the West Bank is just silly. Sure, there are millions and millions of Evangelical Christians (so-called 'Christian Zionists') who are adament about supporting Israel 'right or wrong', and actually advocate the complete takeover of all 'biblical' Israel. However, Israel is under absolutely NO obligation to listen to these people; the sad fact is that some well-connected Israelis have gladly taken the political and financial 'support' (there is some irony here) of these groups to continue such policies. I have myself seen Israelis on television acknowledging the 'troubling views' of these people, but saying that they will pretty much take any support they can get, regardless of motive.

What? Then why is it that U.S. leaders constantly cite "Israel's security" as one of their chief concerns when it comes to U.S. foreign policy in the ME? Why is it that countless U.S. diplomats (usually former), academics, and intelligence experts have repeatedly bemoaned Israeli influence and 'distortion' of U.S. foreign policy in the region? You can say they don't, but I have ample evidence to the contrary. It's not just Israel itself as a state lobbying for its own interests, but powerful and well-placed (and vocal) supporters of Israel in the Defense Dept, Congress and various think tanks. Sure, these supporters are not Israeli, but the end result is the same: strong support for Israel.

Yes, true...

Not really that close anymore, especially more recently. I remember reading somewhere that cumulative U.s. foreign aid to Israel is almost double that of Egypt's, I will try to look for it. Either way, you can look at the foreign aid we provide the Egyptians with as an additional cost for maintaining Israeli security. So in reality, one might make the argument that aid to Israel and Egypt is a direct cost of U.S. commitment to Israeli security and stability in the region.

Also, the Israelis don't have the same restrictions that come attached with aid to Egypt and Jordan, which usually requires them to in turn 'buy American'. There are other 'costs' associated with U.S.-Israeli relations, but those are not related to aid (more along the lines of military contracts, general trade with other ME states which is estimated at $5 billion a year in losses, etc.)

It's still nowhere near the amount of money/jobs lost over the years in terms of U.S. arms deals not going through in deference to Israeli security concerns. I think we're more than 'even'...

Probably because most Arabs (they don't even have to be 'Islamist', there are numerous liberal/secular 'intellectuals' in the Arab world who feel the same way) still view American foreign policy in the ME as primarily concerned with Israel's well-being. Why so? Because in economic terms, the U.S. doesn't always act 'rationally' in its own self-interests when it comes to its ME policy. Also, many Arabs are still under the impression that they could more easily 'balance' out the Israelis in the region if it wasn't for unconditional U.S. economic and military backing. Of course, the Arab sates would probably just have more time to bicker with one another...

Well, Israel was created by and supported by 'Western' powers throughout its entire existence, to varying degrees of course. But I agree that Israel is often viewed in the region as a mere extension of American 'imperialism' (before that it was European imperialism), and that is an enormous challenge for them moving forward.

Again, completely erroneous. The U.S. has in fact refused arms sales to a number of countries in deference to Israeli security. And those, my friend, were much more lucrative contracts than anything the Israelis had on the table from China or Cuba or anyone else. In some cases, our arms dealers would even have to 'downgrade' equipment sold to Arab states to satisfy concerns regarding Israel's security.

 

OK, that made me laugh

 

I didn't mean to insult you. It strikes me as a legitimate question when you brought up those other issues in a thread on the attack on the Liberty. And I never said you hate Israel.

 

I used to date someone who even though she was born in the US after a trip to Israel became a Likudnic and I also dated an Israeli who sympathized with Labor and they both stated that many Israelis have ambivalent and even hostile feelings about the US. That said though I think you are discounting how much power Israel wields in its relationship with the US and Israel is far more than just a colonial pawn of the US.

Israel in relative recent history has acted independently and against US interests. Israel has frequently thumbed its nose at US calls to halt building of settlements or making incursions into Palestinian territories. More often than not Israel seems to act in its interests rather than the US's. Still even when Israel causes head aches for the US any talk of reducing funding or changing the relationship is strongly squelched.

If I remember that situation correctly Israel did sell some military tech to the PRC anyway and as far as Egypt getting military tech from the US the US also makes sure that Israel gets just advanced military tech from the US too while often what the US sells to Egypt and other countries isn't as advanced. I agree though if the relationship is severed it will be at Israel's behest because few US politicians are willing to take on AIPAC.

That isn't the sign of a colonial puppet.

Back on topic. I find the Liberty case an interesting subject and admit I don't feel I have enough info to have a firm opinion either way, whether this was an informed and planned act on the part of Israel or an unfortunate casualty of the fog of war.

 

Iraq said it was an accident and the US accepted it. Israel said it was an accident and the US accepted it. Of course, the Stark was 20 years later so it's probable that the same type of sources won't come to light anytime soon.

Anyway, you've gotten 4 pages out of a forty year old story. Congratulations.

 

Bet you V-Span will beat that record in 2047.

 

Well fighter jets wouldn't have helped against a missle strike. Anyway, it was a joke - dork.

Actually, it is a forty year old story, which is what I pointed out. But no, it isn't really relevant to current US-Israeli relations, or at least the article nor yourself make any such distinction.