« The NAACP and the Tea Parties | Main | Bibi Unchained »

17 July 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Maybe this is not hubris but provincialism. In 1960 almost all Knesset members would have grown up somewhere other than Israel; even in 1980 this would have been true of senior politicians. Now, how many really know (as in, have spent time in) the rest of the world? And many have grown up in the post-67 world in which the US has indeed been an unquestioning supporter--they don't know any other.



“I know what America is,” Netanyahu replied. “America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won’t get in their way.”
Sounds about right.

From the article Fibi Netanyahu - In 2001, PM boasted of manipulating Oslo accords:

[Netanyahu said that] the only way to deal with the Palestinians is to “beat them up, not once but repeatedly, beat them up so it hurts so badly, until it’s unbearable”
... [He] went on to belittle the Oslo peace accords as vulnerable to manipulation. Since the accords state that Israel would be allowed to hang on to pre-defined military zones in the West Bank, Netanyahu told his hosts that he could torpedo the accords by defining vast swaths of land as just that.

“They asked me before the election if I’d honor [the Oslo accords],” Netanyahu said. “I said I would, but … I’m going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the ’67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I’m concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue.”

Smiling, Netanyahu then recalled how he forced former U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher to agree to let Israel alone determine which parts of the West Bank were to be defined as military zones. “They didn’t want to give me that letter,” Netanyahu said, “so I didn’t give them the Hebron agreement [the agreement giving Hebron back to the Palestinians]. I cut the cabinet meeting short and said, ‘I’m not signing.’ Only when the letter came, during that meeting, to me and to Arafat, did I ratify the Hebron agreement. Why is this important? Because from that moment on, I de facto put an end to the Oslo accords.”

Smug, callous bastard.

Just for the fun of it, Jonah Goldberg on Netanyahu and the Oslo Accords:

Did Netanyahu Reject the Oslo Accords? ... Peter Beinart, in our dialogue, said he did. Yaacov Lozowick says he didn't. Yaacov is right:
Once he won he never (never: not once) rejected the Oslo process. He slowed it down, he added conditions, he did all sorts of things. But the leader of Likud was elected in 1996 on a platform that explicitly accepted the principle of partition.
Indeed, how dare Beinhart say Netanyahu 'rejected' Oslo, when all Netanyahu did was to de facto put an end to the Oslo accords, implicitly destroying the principle of partition.

Add to that reports that the Israeli government is adopting a habit of ignoring inconvenient Israeli supreme court decisions - and that they for years, have been violating their own laws in the context of settlements - and it becomes clear that Netanahu is indeed quite a handful of nasty.


I think it also points to a system problem with the parlamentary style of government in that very small groups can wield significant influence in shapping policy, beyond what the general population would normally support.



I don't know your dentist, but when any Virginian starts talking about the USS liberty it should give the Likudniks pause.
I'm interested in how changing facts, realities will affect the Christian Zionists/Dispensationalists. As a voting block and as a movement, they are still an impressive force, and while I find people like John Hagee repugnant, the man's political and logistical talent can't be denied.
But it's been 60 years since Israel was established. Most Christian Zionists believe that the generation that saw Israel become a nation again would also see the end time. This seems less and less likely. Of course there has always been debate about what a generation means: 20 years, 40 years, a lifetime, or what does Israel being reborn mean: 1948, driving the Palestinians out, the empire of David and Solomon, or Israeli control to the Euphrates. I've been out of the religious loop for a good 20 years so I'm not sure what they are thinking these days. I was there, however, for the heady days of the 1980s. I was young, but the excitement/fear was palpable. In 1989, however the Gog and Magog idea was transferred away from Russia/Soviet Union to a Middle-Eastern state. The collapse of the USSR did make people rethink their prophetic positions, but luckily Saddam Hussein was trying to do some rebuilding in Babylon. That fact was seized on, I can tell you.


USS Liberty theory: "the theory that the attack was intended to mask ongoing Israeli maneuvers."

I heard that the IDF was also busy slaughtering Egyptian POWs and didn't want the USS Liberty to hear about it and let the word out.

Today, they probably would not even care. Instead they would probably regard it as some bizarre proof of their manliness, or simply as a tool, part of their concept of deterrence.


Regarding "careless", according to the Tablet Magazine and Gideon Levy of Haaretz there is a video tape now available of Netanyahu telling a West Bank group in 2001 "I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won't get in our way." He then goes on to say that though he agreed to the Oslo peace accords, "I said I would, but...I'm going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the '67 borders... the only way to deal lwith the Palestanians is to beat them up, not once but repeatedly...until it's unbearable" He then adds that the "military zones" were left undefined, so he will interpret the "entire Jordan Valley as a defined military zone. Go argue."

Patrick Lang


I have never seen any proof for the prisoner massacre thing. pl


Well, the Zionists either had a reason to attack the Liberty, or they didn't. I'd like to chalk the crime up to malicious, vicious tribalism -- kinda like the stuff we hear from Netanyahu on a pretty regular basis.
Goes back pretty far (Matt 27:25), and is often accompanied by betting on the wrong horse (Barabbas) when push comes to shove. Just how do Hagee & his ilk get around this narrative?

ex-PFC Chuck
I think it also points to a system problem with the parlamentary style of government . .
It's not so much a problem with the parliamentary system per se, as it is with the Israeli system of proportional representation, which has the ridiculously low threshold for participation of two percent. Thus all but the largest of the many parties are single-issue focused ones that can hold the inevitable ruling coalitions hostage to their causes.
William R. Cumming

What are the Haredi (sic)group/party and what is the extent of their membership vis a vis Isral's total resident population?


Former BBC Middle East correspondent Alan Hart posted this on Veterans Today, June 24, 2010. Hart was the first reporter in the region during the 67 War. This was a talk he gave in June to the survivors of The Liberty.
Why Really The USS Liberty Was Attacked by Israel?

Sidney O. Smith III

If I remember correctly, 90 minutes before the attack on the USS Liberty, Dean Rusk sent a cable to the GOI essentially warning the Israelis not to take the Golan Hts.

Also many bitter and intense rivalries at play within the GOI war cabinet at the time.


Here's a radio interview with Hart on May 25, 2010 where he talks about The Liberty and Israel. About 51 min.

Sidney O. Smith III


Not sure Hart is altogether correct, imo. But very excellent analysis nonetheless.

Sidney O. Smith III


You ask, "Just how do Hagee & his ilk get around this narrative?"

They don't if they have to face taking a stand on the USS Liberty incident. Hence part of the historical significance of the USS Liberty incident and the reason it is relevant for national security today.

If Hagee and his followers were faced with taking a stand USS Liberty incident, they would have to break one way or the other. Hagee has to make a choice.

It's an either/or scenario. One must choose between the blood of US military personnel or the strategic goals of Israel. That issue existed in 1967; it exists today and it will exits until people take a stand, one way or the other. Worded differently, if the US foreign policy is geared towards sacrificing the blood of US military personnel for the strategic goals of the Israel, then it needs to be made public and part of the record. Otherwise we will see societal disintegration. Main thing is to take a stand, so the truth will come out.

It’s extremely disappointing that so many people in uniform, particularly at the Pentagon, have not taken a stand on the Liberty. Says a lot. Actually it says all you need to know.

clifford kiracofe

"Virginia dentists are thinking about such things. Perhaps they should be concerned"

Yes indeed. And they should be more concerned that as the middle class is starting to think a little, the working class is not far behind, and perhaps ahead.

There is a lot of anger in our land owing to the economic situation and the foreign wars.

As people begin to connect the dots between the Lobby and the wars/economy, not to mention anti-Americanism/terrorism, the public may begin to sense danger. Hearts will harden (a survival instinct) and no doubt so will politics. It may not be that long into the future when gentile Americans begin to sense a problem from other quarters.

I recently heard an action/thriller type film project is underway relating to the USS Liberty. No, not Hollywood, but rather an independent producer who has done his research.


Hart was interesting.

Sadly the interview took a turn to the very weird when it came to 9/11. I am just commenting on the interview: Controlled explosion? Geez.

The simplest explanation - that it was indeed a terrorist attack - is eminently plausible. Why isn't that good enough? That 9/11 then was used by the Bushmen as a pretext to do all the things they wanted to do all along is by no means a reason to assume that they then must pave planned the pretext. I have never understood the 9/11 truthers.

That there was certainly some cover-up, not necessarily for purposes any more nefarious than to cover vulnerable asses, is another matter and not at all helpful.

The point about Israeli knowledge is another thing: That the Israelis, considering the movers arrested in New York on 9/11, apparently knew something substantial enough to watch the New York skyline that day, and apparently liked what they got to see, is one matter - that doesn't mean they orchestrated the thing. If one considers them cynical enough they may have seen the plot as an opportunity to eventually get the US fully committed to Israel, so they watched and let it happen. If true that'd be damning enough in its own right, more importantly it would be plausible and still keep it simple.

And the Administration knowing about it, more planning it? No way. I think that Condi and Bush with their blathering about crisis being a time of opportunity give a clue. No matter how inept, crooked or outright demented - I don't think that any of the miscreants that handled the levers of power under Bush would have indeed killed some 3.000 American citizens or demolished the twin towers. No way. To them, crises are a time of opportunity, and after 9/11 they were pissed, understandably so, and, shudder, allowed the neo-cons and Dick Cheney to 'think big'.

That is the other thing that irks me about the matter - on the one hand Bush and his crew are often characterised by the same people who pursue 9/11 theories as a bunch of bumbling idiots - with their bungling of the response to Katrina, or of aftermath of the Iraq war (no rose petals?). Yet on the other hand they ascribe to him and his goons the qualities of brilliant evil masterminds, who pull off the crime of the century - and get away? Bah.


Pat - Since you brought up the subject of the USS Liberty I thought you might find this recap of the Israeli reasoning and motivations interesting.



Apparently James Bamford was the source of the theory that the attack on the USS Liberty was to cover up the massacre of Egyptian POWs.

More interesting is Russell Warren Howe's report that the USS Liberty was accompanied by the Polaris armed Lafayette-class submarine USS Andrew Jackson, which filmed the entire episode through its periscope but was unable to provide assistance. According to Howe: "Two hundred feet below the ship, on a parallel course, was its 'shadow'—the Polaris strategic submarine Andrew Jackson, whose job was to take out all the Israeli long-range missile sites in the Negev if Tel Aviv decided to attack Cairo, Damascus or Baghdad. This was in order that Moscow would not have to perform this task itself and thus trigger World War Three."

It seems that these events roughly coincided with the start of Israel's use of nuclear blackmail (Mearsheimer), resulting in Johnson's decision to supply weapons to Israel to prevent its using its nukes.

Could the blinding of the USS Liberty have been part of that chain of events? Was it necessary to have the USS Liberty blinded to make Israel's threat to use its nukes credible to Washington?



Watch as the Zionist movie mogul types try to squash the independent USS LIBERTY film from reaching the mainstream American public. Doubt that Zionist controlled CNN's Wolf Blitzer will push advertising the film.

FB Ali

Sidney O. Smith III,

This is completely off-topic (I hope Col Lang will pardon me), but it’s the only way I can reach you!

It’s about your query on the other thread regarding the Bhuttos. In case you haven’t read it, I would urge you to read William Dalrymple’s review of Fatima Bhutto’s recent book on the family (she is Zulfiqar’s grand-daughter). It’s available at:


It’s been around for a while but I saw it only now.


A couple of points concerning John Hagee if I may. Hagee has said over and over that Israel can do no wrong, that they are closer to God then anyone, but might I suggest something to you. May I suggest that the Liberty had little armament, that every aspect of putting the Liberty to the bottom was on the Israeli side. Israel had it all, jet planes,torpedo boats, napalm,rockets,machine guns, and torpedos. They had plenty of time to get the job done. Now to top it all off we were sent 1000 miles to Malta for repairs after the attack. I believe very strongly that someone high up thought the Liberty would go down before getting to Malta, and it didn't. So my question to Hagee and his bunch is this? They had it all and we had nothing, SO if you are a believer just where do you think God was that day? I am a survivor and the enlisted man who had charge of the body recovery and identtification. One does not have to think very hard on what I just stated to realize where I think God was that day. Think about it!


Lots of motive theories exist for the USS Liberty attack; but, at best, the supporting evidence is circumstantial.

The lesson learned by the USS Liberty incident is that the rule-of-politics trumps the rule-of-law; and no matter the degree that one may be harmed, if the state chooses not to adequately investigate and prosecute, you're screwed.

clifford kiracofe


Well yes, Hollywood was created by those people and interlinked to organized crime back in the 1920s. The original film industry was gentile dominated and New York based.

1. A fascinating and sympathetic account is given in Neal Gabler, An Empire of Their Own. How the Jews Invented Hollywood (New York: Crown, 1988). This is essential reading for anyone with a serious interest in US politics. As it is sympathetic it is revealing.

2. A quick read, although from a negative viewpoint, is offered at:

3. With the Internet and other marketing methods Hollywood's continued grip is not so certain. Alternate marketing and distribution can be more easily organized these days.
Also, developments in video production technology and HD allow a work around the usual studio camera apparatus.
It is technically possible to produce a good film for under a couple million these days. So even the finance side is not insurmountable.
And foreign markets can also offer some good opportunities. I would think a film about the USS Liberty would go over well in the Arab world for example, and elsewhere.
So there can be a future for independents, IMO. Not easy to be sure but...

Roy G

Uri Avnery has a good piece on the degeneration of the Knesset, and the reasons behind the downfall. Ironically, the nationalist, fascist sentiment is coming out of the Russian emigre sector:

"One could not imagine a greater contrast than that between the two MKs. While Haneen Zoabi belongs to a family whose roots in the Nazareth area go back centuries, perhaps to the time of Jesus, Anastasia Michaeli was born in (then) Leningrad. She was elected “Miss St. Petersburg” and then became a fashion model, married an Israeli, converted to Judaism, immigrated to Israel at age 24 but sticks to her very Russian first name. She has given birth to eight children. She may be a candidate for the Israeli Sarah Palin, who, after all, was also once a beauty queen..."


The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad