PDA

View Full Version : Who's Afraid of the Israel Lobby?


mhgaffney
10-07-2007, 02:50 PM
Ray McGovern worked at the CIA for 27 years. In recent weeks he has participated in sit ins on Capital Hill -- to try and increase pressure on Congrss to end the war and to impeach Bush/Cheney.

McGovern knows of what he speaks. I only disagree on one point -- as I suspect Israel's 1967 attack on the US LIberty was a false flag operation carried out by Israel with the full approval of LBJ. MHG

So Who’s Afraid of the Israel Lobby?

By Ray McGovern

10/06/07 "ICH" -- -- Virtually everyone: Republican, Democrat—Conservative, Liberal. The fear factor is non-partisan, you might say, and palpable. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) brags that it is the most influential foreign policy lobbying organization on Capitol Hill, and has demonstrated that time and again—and not only on Capitol Hill.

Seldom has the Lobby’s power been as clearly demonstrated as in its ability to suppress the awful truth that on June 8, 1967, during the Six Day War:

o Israel deliberately attacked the intelligence collection ship USS Liberty, in full awareness it was a U.S. Navy ship, and did its best to sink it and leave no survivors;

o The Israelis would have succeeded had they not broken off the attack upon learning, from an intercepted message, that the commander of the U.S. 6th Fleet had launched carrier fighters to the scene; and

o By that time 34 of the Liberty’s crew had been killed and over 170 wounded.

Scores of intelligence analysts and senior officials have known this for years. That virtually all of them have kept a forty-year frightened silence is testament to the widespread fear of touching this live wire. Even more telling is the fact that the National Security Agency apparently has destroyed voice tapes and transcripts heard and seen by many intelligence analysts, material that shows beyond doubt that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing.

The Ugly Truth

But the truth will out—eventually. All it took in this case was for a courageous journalist (of the endangered species kind) to listen to the surviving crew and do a little basic research, not shrinking from naming war crimes and not letting senior U.S. officials, from the president on down, off the hook for suppressing—even destroying—damning evidence from intercepted Israeli communications.

The mainstream media have now published an exposé based largely on interviews with those most intimately involved. A lengthy article by Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter John Crewdson appeared in the Chicago Tribune and Baltimore Sun on Oct. 2 titled “New revelations in attack on American spy ship.” (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/world/chi-liberty_tuesoct02,0,6015776.story) To the subtitle goes the prize for understatement of the year: “Veterans, documents suggest U.S., Israel didn’t tell full story of deadly 1967 incident.”

Better 40 years late than never, I suppose. Many of us have known of the incident and cover-up for a very long time and have tried to expose and discuss it for the lessons it holds for today. It has proved far easier, though, to get a very pedestrian Dog-Bites-Man article published than an article with the importance and explosiveness of this sensitive story.

A Marine Stands Up

On the evening of Sept. 26, 2006, I gave a talk on Iraq to an overflow crowd of 400 at National Avenue Church in Springfield, Missouri. A questioner asked what I thought of the study by John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard titled “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.” The study had originally been commissioned by The Atlantic Monthly. When the draft arrived, however, shouts of “Leper!” were heard at the Atlantic. The monthly wasted no time in saying thanks-but-no-thanks, and the leper-study then wandered in search of a home, finding none among American publishers. Eventually the London Review of Books published it in March 2006.

I had read that piece carefully and found it an unusual act of courage as well as scholarship. That’s what I told the questioner, adding that I did have two problems with the study:

o First, it seemed to me the authors erred in attributing virtually all the motivation for the U.S. attack on Iraq to the Israel Lobby and the so-called “neo-conservatives” running our policy and armed forces. Was Israel an important factor? Indeed. But of equal importance, in my view, was the oil factor and what the Pentagon now calls the “enduring” military bases in Iraq, which the White House and Pentagon decided were needed for the U.S. to dominate that part of the Middle East.

o Second, I was intrigued by the fact that Mearsheimer and Walt made no mention of what I believe to be, if not the most telling, then perhaps the most sensational proof of the power the Lobby knows it can exert over our government and Congress. In sum, in June 1967, after deliberately using fighter-bombers and torpedo boats to attack the USS Liberty for over two hours in an attempt to sink it and kill its entire crew, and then getting the U.S. government, the Navy, and the Congress to cover up what happened, the Israeli government learned that it could—literally—get away with murder.

I found myself looking out at 400 blank stares. The USS Liberty? And so I asked how many in the audience had heard of the attack on the Liberty on June 8, 1967. Three hands went up; I called on the gentleman nearest me.

Ramrod straight he stood:

“Sir, Sergeant Bryce Lockwood, United States Marine Corps, retired. I am a member of the USS Liberty crew, Sir.”

Catching my breath, I asked him if he would be willing to tell us what happened.

“Sir, I have not been able to do that. It is hard. But it has been almost 40 years, and I would like to try this evening, Sir.”

You could hear a pin drop for the next 15 minutes, as Lockwood gave us his personal account of what happened to him, his colleagues, and his ship on the afternoon of June 8, 1967. He was a linguist assigned to collect communications intelligence from the USS Liberty, which was among the ugliest—and most easily identifiable—ships in the fleet with antennae springing out in all directions.

Lockwood told of the events of that fateful day, beginning with the six-hour naval and air surveillance of the Liberty by the Israeli navy and air force on the morning of June 8. After the air attacks including thousand-pound bombs and napalm, three sixty-ton torpedo boats lined up like a firing squad, pointing their torpedo tubes at the Liberty’s starboard hull. Lockwood had been ordered to throw the extremely sensitive cryptological equipment overboard and had just walked beyond the bulwark separating the NSA intelligence unit from the rest of the ship when, he recalled, he sensed a large black object, a tremendous explosion, and sheet of flame. The torpedo had struck dead center in the NSA space.

The cold, oily water brought Lockwood back to consciousness. Around him were 25 dead colleagues; but he heard moaning. Three were still alive; one of Lockwood’s shipmates dragged one survivor up the hatch. Lockwood was able to lift the two others, one-by-one, onto his shoulder and carry them up through the hatch. This meant alternatively banging on the hatch for someone to open it and swimming back to fish his shipmate out of the water lest he float out to sea through the 39-foot hole made by the torpedo.

At that Lockwood stopped speaking. It was enough. Hard, very hard—even after almost 40 years.

What Else We Know

John Crewdson’s meticulously documented article, together with the 57 pages that James Bamford devotes to the incident in his book “Body of Secrets” and recent confessions by those who played a role in the cover-up, paint a picture that the surviving crew of the USS Liberty can only find infuriating. The evidence, from intercepted communications as well as testimony, of Israeli deliberate intent is unimpeachable, even though the Israelis continue to portray the incident as merely a terrible mistake.

Crewdson refers to U.S. Navy Captain Ward Boston, who was the Navy lawyer appointed as senior counsel to Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, named by Admiral John S. McCain (Sen. John McCain’s father) to “inquire into all the facts and circumstances.” The fact that they were given only one week to gather evidence and were forbidden to contact the Israelis screams out “cover-up.”

Captain Boston, now 84, signed a formal declaration on Jan. 8, 2004 in which he described himself as “outraged at the efforts of the apologists for Israel in this country to claim that this attack was a case of ‘mistaken identity.’” Boston continued:

“The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack...was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew...Not only did the Israelis attack the ship with napalm, gunfire, and missiles, Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned three lifeboats that had been launched in an attempt by the crew to save the most seriously wounded—a war crime...I know from personal conversations I had with Admiral Kidd that President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of ‘mistaken identity’ despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.”

Why the Israelis decided to take the draconian measure of sinking a ship of the U.S. Navy is open to speculation. One view is that the Israelis did not want the U.S. to find out they were massing troops to seize the Golan Heights from Syria, and wanted to deprive the U.S. of the opportunity to argue against such a move. Another theory: James Bamford, in “Body of Secrets,” adduces evidence, including reporting from an Israeli journalist eyewitness and an Israeli military historian, of wholesale killing of Egyptian prisoners of war at the coastal town of El Arish in the Sinai. The Liberty was patrolling directly opposite El Arish in international waters but within easy range to pick up intelligence on what was going on there. And the Israelis were well aware.

As for the why, well, someone could at least approach the Israelis involved and ask, no? The important thing here is not to confuse what is known (the deliberate nature of the Israeli attack) with the purpose behind it, which remains a matter of speculation.

Other Indignities

Bowing to intense pressure from the Navy, the White House agreed to award the Liberty’s skipper, Captain William McGonagle, the Medal of Honor....but not at the White House, and not by the president (as is the custom). Rather, the Secretary of the Navy gave the award at the Washington Navy Yard on the banks of the acrid Anacostia River. A naval officer involved in the awards ceremony told one of the Liberty crew, “The government is pretty jumpy about Israel...the State Department even asked the Israeli ambassador if his government had any objections to McGonagle getting the medal.”

Adding insult to injury, those of the Liberty crew who survived well enough to call for an independent investigation have been hit with charges of, you guessed it, anti-Semitism.

Now that some of the truth is emerging more and more, others are showing more courage in speaking out. In a recent email, an associate of mine who has followed Middle East affairs for almost 60 years, shared the following:

“The chief of the intelligence analysts studying the Arab/Israeli region at the time told me about the intercepted messages and said very flatly and firmly that the pilots reported seeing the American flag and repeated their requests for confirmation of the attack order. Whole platoons of Americans saw those intercepts. If NSA now says they do not exist, then someone ordered them destroyed.”

Leaving the destruction of evidence without investigation is an open invitation to repetition in the future.

As for the larger picture, visiting Israel this past summer I was constantly told that Egypt forced Israel into war in June 1967. This does not square with the unguarded words of Menachem Begin in 1982, when he was Israel’s prime minister. Rather he admitted publicly:

“In June 1967, we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that [Egyptian President] Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

Israel had, in fact, prepared well militarily and mounted provocations against its neighbors, in order to provoke a response that could be used to justify an expansion of its borders. Israel’s illegal 40-year control over and confiscation of land in the occupied territories and U.S. enabling support (particularly the one-sided support by the current U.S. administration) go a long way toward explaining why it is that 1.3 billion Muslims “hate us.”


Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. He was a CIA analyst for 27 years and is now on the Steering Committee of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). He spent some time in Israel and the West Bank this summer.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18514.htm
This article was first posted in Consortiumnews.com

W*GS
10-07-2007, 03:08 PM
America's pro-Israel lobby

Powerful, but not that powerful
Sep 27th 2007
From The Economist print edition

The thesis that the Israel lobby was critical in persuading George Bush to invade Iraq doesn't quite stand up

The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy
By John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt
Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 484 pages; $26; Allen Lane; £25

From the forged “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” in the 19th century to the charter of Hamas, the Palestinians' Islamist movement, a common claim by anti-Semites has been that Jews trick great powers into needless wars. That is why an article published in March 2006 by two American academics, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, caused such outrage. Writing in the London Review of Books, they argued that the activities of Israel and its supporters were the “critical” reason for America's invasion of Iraq. George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld may have thought that they were acting in America's interests, but were in fact acting in Israel's. Like previous American governments, the Bush administration had been turned by clever lobbying into what Lenin would have called Zionism's useful idiots.

This startling thesis is, to say the least, provocative. Since it implies that American boys are dying in Iraq for the sake of Israel, the authors must have known that it would stir up painful questions about the true loyalties of American Jews and therefore attract fiery criticism. But there is no evidence that Mr Mearsheimer and Mr Walt were motivated by any anti-Jewish prejudice. They say they want only to discuss a legitimate subject: the influence of the pro-Israel lobby on American foreign policy. Indeed, now that their article has grown into a book, they claim not only that they are not anti-Semitic but also that they are “pro-Israel”, in the sense that “we support its right to exist, admire its many achievements, want its citizens to enjoy secure and prosperous lives, and believe that the United States should come to Israel's aid if its survival is in danger.”

That a powerful pro-Israel lobby influences American policymaking in the Middle East, often for the worse, is indisputable. This book does a fair job of explaining how AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, along with like-minded lobbying groups and think-tanks, help to shape, and sometimes stifle, American thinking about the region. The authors have won plaudits for taking on this supposed “taboo” and enduring the inevitable opprobrium. Yet this portion of their argument is hardly groundbreaking: in Washington, the power of the lobby, so far from being a secret, is legendary. What is new is to accuse Israel's supporters of dragging America into Iraq. Here the authors are on much thinner ice.

Their thesis advances as follows. America and Israel enjoy an extraordinary special relationship. This cannot be because Israel is a strategic asset. Although there may have been a time during the cold war when Israel was a help, it has long since become a liability, because by supporting the Jewish state America alienates Arabs and makes itself into a target for terrorists.

Nor, they say, can American support be explained by some moral claim. Israel's existence is no longer in danger: far from being an underdog, it is the neighbourhood bully, denying statehood to the Palestinians and discriminating against its Arab minority. Since Israel is not useful to America and its behaviour is beastly, “something else must be behind the striking pattern of ever-increasing support”. That something, the authors conclude, must be the Israel lobby. By the same token, the lobby is the something that explains Mr Bush's otherwise “deeply puzzling” decision to topple Saddam Hussein in 2003. But for the lobby, “the war would almost certainly not have occurred”.

To contend that there can be no strategic or moral reason for Americans to support Israel is controversial on its own, but here at least the authors make a robust case. The same is not true of their attempt to blame Israel for the invasion of Iraq. The accusation is plain enough; but on further reading the clarity dissolves by stages into a muddle.

The muddle begins when the authors concede that those who pushed for the Iraq war genuinely expected it to benefit America as well as Israel. So the eye-catching implication in the headline—that Israel's supporters knowingly got America into a war that was in Israel's interest but not its own—is withdrawn in the fine print. Next, the authors admit that Israel, considering Iran the bigger threat, did not initiate the campaign for war against Iraq; it fell into line only after it realised that Mr Bush was already leaning that way, and that he would probably go on after Iraq to clobber Iran too. As for who persuaded Mr Bush to lean towards war, the authors say in a final confusing twist that the real driving force was not in fact the Israel lobby but “a small band of neoconservatives”.

Now if the small band of neoconservatives and the Israel lobby were the same thing, this might begin to make some sense. But they are not. At most, the two groups overlap. Many neocons are Jewish and most are favourable to Israel, but there are some who are neither. And a lot of the people whom the authors assign to the Israel lobby, such as former Clinton administration officials like Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk, would probably have conniptions on being called neocons.

How plausible, anyway, is blaming the war on the neocons? The Walt-Mearsheimer argument is that a lot of the neocons favoured an invasion even before 2001, but only after September 11th could they talk Mr Bush round, by offering a ready-made approach to the world at a time when he was trying to make sense of an unprecedented disaster. All the familiar suspects are marched out, among them Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, then at the Pentagon; Scooter Libby at the White House; John Bolton at State; academics such as Bernard Lewis at Princeton and Fouad Ajami at Johns Hopkins University; journalists such as Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol; and think-tankers such as Kenneth Pollack at Brookings.

Others did their bit
These people, it is true, argued in favour of the war. But so did others who were neither neocons nor Jewish nor any part of the Israel lobby—Britain's Tony Blair, say. The book makes no attempt to provide the principal actors' view of how the decision-making unfolded inside the Bush administration. And without a detailed account of this, the authors have no hard evidence on which to hang their central claim that the neocons' voices were the decisive ones.

As the Pentagon's number two, Mr Wolfowitz's views no doubt counted for something. But his boss, Mr Rumsfeld, was not a shrinking violet, no neocon and harboured no special love of Israel. Mr Lewis, a Jewish historian of Islam, may have enjoyed the odd meeting with Mr Bush, but it can be assumed that his vote did not outweigh that of Vice-President Cheney, a hard-headed “realist”. What tipped the balance for the president must be conjecture, but even after 484 pages it is hard to agree with Messrs Walt and Mearsheimer that it was Israel's interests that did it.

At one point the authors complain that Israel and its supporters in America are now rewriting history “to absolve Israel of any responsibility for the Iraq disaster”. But it was not Israel that invaded Iraq. Their own book feels like an attempt to absolve America of responsibility for a decision it took by, and for, itself.

Copyright © 2007 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.

mhgaffney
10-07-2007, 09:39 PM
Just the other day new evidence emerged about the sinking of the USS Liberty. Old documents have turned up proving that Israel knew the ID of the ship when they attacked.

This was reported not in some anti Semitic rag -- but in Israel itself in the paper Ha'aretz. Here is the link.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/909552.html