Second-Guessing
I’m watching Chris Matthews and he’s reminding me that Sarah Palin repeatedly said that in her Charlie Gibson interview that it would be inappropriate for an American President to “second-guess” Israeli policy vis-à-vis Iran or, it seems, any other actor in the region. I assume this won’t play a big role in the campaign because, in political terms, I guess you can never be too pro-Israel.
But it’s worth being clear: This doesn’t make any sense at all.
Israel and the United States are separate countries. It’s conceivable that Israel would do something to advance its interests that’s bad for the United States. It’s also conceivable that Israel would do something to advance its interests that’s immoral. And of course it’s conceivable that Israel would do something that’s simply a mistake and likely to backfire. The President of the United States needs to make independent judgments about the merits of Israeli policy and respond accordingly. It makes sense, of course, to show some deference to Israeli politicians’ ideas about what Israel needs to do, but extending infinite deference is absurd — no country extends absolute deference to American policy decisions and no country should extend that kind of deference. Palin was, I suppose, doing what someone who probably hasn’t dealt with these issues before needs to do to try to get certified as kosher, but her statements reflect some very troubling underlying ideas and, if implemented, would represent an enormous abdication of responsibility.
62 Responses to “Second-Guessing”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 12th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
She was referring to Israel taking out Iran’s nuclear program, not some hypothetical bizarre action like nuking Cairo. We would “second-guess” that.
September 12th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Matthew,
Given your position, I suppose this sort of parsing is necessary. But you are missing the forest for the trees. These people are deranged psychopaths who fully intend to blow up the world. Who cares about the nuances of their polices vis a vis Israel?
September 12th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
O’Neal, you evil freak,
Even the Bush administration, which has been happy to commit thousands of war crimes in pursuit of their evil goals, has “second guessed” Israel on that issue and told them upon no uncertain terms that we would not support such an atrocity.
Why don’t you go fuck your sister/wife instead of annoying the readers of this blog?
September 12th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
How about Israel’s attacking and nearly sinking the USS Liberty during the Six-Day War. Obviously Israel thought it was in their best interest. I would like to think the Sarah Palin might take exception.
September 12th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
LarryM,
I suspect E. O’Neal most intimate moments are reserved for his right hand.
September 12th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
These extreme views merely show that Palin is in accord with McCain and Bush on foreign policy. Unlimited deference to Israel would be no less an affront to our national security than turning over the command of the United States military to the Iraqis, which George W Bush is attempting to negotiate right now in the Iraqi defense agreement.
September 12th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
How about Israel’s attacking and nearly sinking the USS Liberty during the Six-Day War. Obviously Israel thought it was in their best interest.
Well, US leadership at the time thought it was fine, they even went out their way to cover it up.
Sarah, might not be able to find Israel in the map, but even her knows who calls the shots.
September 12th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Israel took out Syria’s nuclear program last year, and everyone who’s not a nut applauded. Years ago they destroyed Saddam’s reactor. Now, it’s Iran’s turn. What’s there to second-guess?
September 12th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Re R Evans & Henry
As I have commented on this blog previously, the attack on the Liberty was the result of a screwup between the Navy and the CIA. The Liberty was not spying on Israel, contrary to popular belief, it was spying for Israel by listening in on Egyptian military communications. The Israeli military attache in Washington was informed by his contact in the CIA the night before the attack that the Liberty would be pulling out that evening as the IDF was already approaching the Suez canal. Unfortunately, somebody in the CIA neglected to inform the Navy department that they should order the Liberty to be withdrawn. Thus, the next day, it was spotted by Israeli fighter jets who were informed by their command that it was an unfriendly ship, probably Russian (the ship was not flying a flag). Subsequently the attack took place. The resulting cover up was not to protect Israel but to cover up the fact that the CIA and the Navy Department weren’t communicating (same thing happened to the USS Pueblo). The IDF agreed to carry the can as a part of the coverup in order to give the US Navy plausible deniability as to its acting as a spy ship for Israel (of course the Egyptians were well aware what was going on but chose for their own reasons not to make a fuss over it).
September 12th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
c’mon matt…it makes perfect sense when you realize she was briefed in part by joe lieberman, the senior senator from isreal. so of course she thinks you shouldn’t ever question isreal.
September 12th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
I rather doubt a Republican administration would second-guess Israel.
After all, when Ariel Sharon used US-supplied F16s in June 2001 to bomb Palestinians, George W Bush blocked State Department protests and sold Sharon 52 more F16s.
And when Bin Laden attacked the US on Sept 11 , 2001 and said it was in retaliation for US support for Israeli aggression, George W Bush lied to the country and said the attack “occurred because they hate our freedom”.
And the 911 Commission was careful to avert its eyes from the whole issue, as Harvard consultant Ernest May has acknowledged.
Nah, the Republicans are competing with a faction in the Democratic Party in whoring for Israel. Actually, for the compaign donations of billionaire supporters of the Israel Lobby. Haim Saban. S Daniel Abraham. Sheldon Adelson. etc etc.
September 12th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
SLC is of course incorrect. As has been recently confirmed by a number of individuals that saw the translated intercepts
http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/tuesday/chi-liberty_tuesoct02,0,1050179.story , the Israelis knew that the Liberty was an American ship and were under instructions to leave no survivors. It’s clear that the pilots did not want to do this and had to be repeatedly ordered to do so. The motive is not known.
September 12th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Um, aren’t we already “second-guessing” Israel’s desire to at least plan a strike on Iran’s nuclear program?
For instance, check out this Haaretz article on how the Bush administration is refusing to give Israel the bunker-busters it wants, or allow IAF planes to pass through Iraqi airspace.
It seems that Palin’s statement was not only silly & wrong-headed; it was also at odds with Bush administration policy.
September 12th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
September 12th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
We did not second guess Georgia, and we are all Georgians, but is Georgia better off?
Actually, the Georgian war ended up to be highly beneficial. In the aftermath, attacking Iran is verging on absurd and suicidal (economically). While Russia is peeved, and Iran promisses to close oil shipping from the Gulf if attacked, Iran will surely have the weapons to deliver on the threat, so surely nobody will be so stupid to actually bomb Iran, so predictions of such an attack evaporated and the price of oil dropped like a stone.
But if we elect batshit insane Administration, all bets are off.
I guess this should be a follow-up question:
If we should not ever second guess Israel, which course of action is more advisable: for the Israel to become the 51st state, or for the USA to become the 13th tribe?
September 12th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
This is potentially good news for Jonathan Pollard, anyway…
September 12th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Sorry, here’s the link to the Haaretz story referenced in post #13:
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1019989.html
September 12th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Aloysius, McCain is not Bush. The wimpy State Department-dominated foreign policy that has accomplished so little will be replaced by one that doesn’t countenance endless negotiation. Democrat support of Israel is indeed “whoring”, as one poster described it, because the Dems aren’t sincere. Republicans actually support Israel’s right to exist and to deal with existential threats.
September 12th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
This comment section is way too civil. No, I’m serious. Animals like O’Neal should be driven from the comments section with a outpouring of invective. And we need to take the gloves off with regard to the monster-traitor McCain and the loathsome creature that he choose for the VP slot.
Let’s make a game of it. How far can we go without saying something that will get us arrested?
I’ll start - O’Neal, I hope you are ass raped to death by 50 250 pound convicts.
September 12th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Re gcochran
The following excerpt from the Chicago Tribune article demonstrates the fatuousness of Lockwoods’ claims.
For Lockwood and many other survivors, the anger is mixed with incredulity: that Israel would attack an important ally, then attribute the attack to a case of mistaken identity by Israeli pilots who had confused the U.S. Navy’s most distinctive ship with an Egyptian horse-cavalry transport that was half its size and had a dissimilar profile. And they’re also incredulous that, for years, their own government would reject their calls for a thorough investigation.
Mr. Lockwood doesn’t see how Israeli pilots could make such a mistake. Well, lets turn the clock back to 1940 when British naval pilots flying off the aircraft carrier Ark Royal mistakenly attacked a British 8000 ton heavy cruiser, the Devonshire, mistaking it for a 40000 German battleship, the Bismarck. And the Devonshire was in the same Navy as the attacking pilots and, in fact, was identical to heavy cruisers in Admiral Somervilles’ task force which included the Ark Royal and the battlecruiser Repulse. And this was pilots flying 90 mph Swordfish biplanes, not 400 mph jet aircraft. The bottom line is that identifying a ship from a fast moving aircraft, particularly when the pilot hasn’t been trained to do so, is a chancy business.
Furthermore, the article validates my claim that the ship was spying for Israel, not against Israel.
This entire episode has been covered up from the getgo, just like the Pueblo incident to which it has many resemblances has been covered up by the Government.
September 12th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Re Bismarck episode
Actually, the sinking of the Bismark occurred in 1941, not 1940.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Matt, please try to avoid framing reflexive hawkishness as “pro-Israel.” Call it what it is: belligerence, hostility, aggression, any of these as appropriate. None of these are pro-Israel any more than Michael Jackson is pro-children.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
69% of white evangelicals like Palin, and 42% of Americans, believe that “Israel was given to the Jewish people by God.” So it’s not surprising that Palin won’t second-guess Israel. That would be like questioning God.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Larry M, listen to me! Get help. Now. You don’t have to suffer like this. There is hope for you.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
The GOP talked incessantly about “putting country first” at their convention. From their post-convention talking points, it seems that the country they meant was either Georgia or Israel.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Here’s another example of misidentification of surface ships by aircraft pilots.
During the battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944, aircraft from Admiral Halseys’ carriers attacked the Japanese task force under Admiral Kurita heading for San Bernadino Straits. The pilots reported that they had sunk 2 battleships, among others. In fact, they had sunk the superdreadnaught Musashi and an 8000 ton heavy cruiser, mistaking the heavy cruiser for the Musashis’ sister ship, the 63000 ton Yamato. At least, in this case, the ships were in the opponents navy.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Re Don Williams
Boy, old Don Williams sure gets bent out of shape about Israels’ beastly treatment of the Palestinians. The Palestinians don’t know how lucky they are. If Hafaz Assad were the prime minister of Israel, they would really know what beastliness is all about. At the current rate of attrition, it will take the IDF about 100 years to catch up with the late dictator Assads’ butchers’ bill in Hama which took him only 2 days.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
“And of course it’s conceivable that Israel would do something that’s simply a mistake and likely to backfire.”
Conceivable? I think the word you looking for is ‘guaranteed.’ When Israel manages to go ten years without doing something really stupid, I’ll be willing to change my opinion. But until then, it would be wise for us to assume they will do something stupid and we should make it clear that we won’t necessarily back it.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
I read the whole article. We intercepted and translated the radio messages from the ground controller to the Israeli planes. They knew it was an American ship, and the instructions were to leave no survivors.
The transcript published by the Jerusalem Post bore scant resemblance to the one that in 1967 rolled off the teletype machine behind the sealed vault door at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha, where Steve Forslund worked as an intelligence analyst for the 544th Air Reconnaissance Technical Wing, then the highest-level strategic planning office in the Air Force.
“The ground control station stated that the target was American and for the aircraft to confirm it,” Forslund recalled. “The aircraft did confirm the identity of the target as American, by the American flag.
“The ground control station ordered the aircraft to attack and sink the target and ensure they left no survivors.”
Forslund said he clearly recalled “the obvious frustration of the controller over the inability of the pilots to sink the target quickly and completely.”
“He kept insisting the mission had to sink the target, and was frustrated with the pilots’ responses that it didn’t sink.”
Nor, Forslund said, was he the only member of his unit to have read the transcripts. “Everybody saw these,” said Forslund, now retired after 26 years in the military.
Forslund’s recollections are supported by those of two other Air Force intelligence specialists, working in widely separate locations, who say they also saw the transcripts of the attacking Israeli pilots’ communications.
One is James Gotcher, now an attorney in California, who was then serving with the Air Force Security Service’s 6924th Security Squadron, an adjunct of the NSA, at Son Tra, Vietnam.
“It was clear that the Israeli aircraft were being vectored directly at USS Liberty,” Gotcher recalled in an e-mail. “Later, around the time Liberty got off a distress call, the controllers seemed to panic and urged the aircraft to ‘complete the job’ and get out of there.”
Six thousand miles from Omaha, on the Mediterranean island of Crete, Air Force Capt. Richard Block was commanding an intelligence wing of more than 100 analysts and cryptologists monitoring Middle Eastern communications.
The transcripts Block remembered seeing “were teletypes, way beyond Top Secret. Some of the pilots did not want to attack,” Block said. “The pilots said, ‘This is an American ship. Do you still want us to attack?’
“And ground control came back and said, ‘Yes, follow orders.’”
Gotcher and Forslund agreed with Block that the Jerusalem Post transcript was not at all like what they remember reading.
“There is simply no way that [the Post transcript is] the same as what I saw,” Gotcher said. “More to the point, for anyone familiar with air-to-ground [communications] procedures, that simply isn’t the way pilots and controllers communicate.”
Block, now a child protection caseworker in Florida, observed that “the fact that the Israeli pilots clearly identified the ship as American and asked for further instructions from ground control appears to be a missing part of that Jerusalem Post article.”
September 12th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
You’re the one who’s advocating the application of “Hama Rules” to the situation in the West Bank.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Even the pussy-footing way that MY phrases this post shows the real problems in the US of even expressing any idea of preventing Israel from imposing negative externalities on the United States.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Re gcochran
The article is total bullshit. My information, which comes from an inside source and not the Jerusalem Post, definitely states that the Liberty was supposed to be ordered out of the area the night before the attack took place but the captain of the ship never received the order. The discussion the article is referring to between the ground commanders and the pilots was that the pilots eventually identified the Liberty as an American ship but that the ground commanders, being well aware of the difficulty of pilots identifying surface vessels, were convinced that the identification was erroneous because their information was that the ship had been removed from the area the night before.
Since, according to the article, the ship was, in fact spying on Egyptian communications, as I stated previously, what was the motive in the ground commanders knowingly ordering such an attack? It makes no sense, except to pro Arab spin doctors. The fact is that the Liberty, like the Pueblo, was a victim of miscommunication between the CIA and the Navy.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
It makes no sense, except to pro Arab spin doctors.
No, not really, the Arab line was that the U.S. and the U.K. were spying for Israel. You seem to be confirming this. Weird.
Just having dealt with “pro-Israel” people for a long time, I’m inclined to believe you don’t really have any sort of moral problem making things up for Israel and think your inside source got made up today. If he exists he would actually be proof of a school of thought that is supposed to be Arab perfidy.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Re SLC’s comment “The article is total bullshit. My information, which comes from an inside source and not the Jerusalem Post, definitely states that the Liberty was supposed to be ordered out of the area the night before the attack took place but the captain of the ship never received the order”
——————
1) Oh, bullshit. Is your “inside source” the New York Times 1967 article by Neil Sheehan? That chickenshit, implausible cover story is pretty damm shopworn. See http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0D14FB345C14738DDDA00A94DE405B878AF1D3&scp=1&sq=%22USS%20Liberty%22&st=cse
2) In my opinion, the New York Times is a pack of lying shitheads when it comes to protecting Israel. Examples available on request.
3) In his 2001 book on the NSA, James Bamford says there are some recordings at NSA of Israeli pilot transmissions made before the attack which indicates the pilots saw the American Flag that Liberty sailors always claimed they were flying.
Recordings were supposedly made by an undetected American recon plane flying overhead. Lyndon Johnson buried them because ..well, because the Democratic Party has been whores for billionaire supporters of Israel going back at least to Jacob Schiff and Woodrow Wilson. Hell, British PM David Lloyd George frankly admitted he CREATED Israel in order to pander to those wealthy men.
See http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B06E3D91E30F930A15757C0A9679C8B63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/S/Ships%20and%20Shipping&scp=8&sq=%22USS%20Liberty%22&st=cse
September 12th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
It’s a little hard to have faith in an anonymous poster’s unnamed ‘inside source’. I hope you’ll understand.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
In his 2005 book, CIA officer Floyd Paseman noted that the USS Liberty files are still locked up in the Johnson Library:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/10/books/chapters/0310books-paseman-excerpt.html?pagewanted=4&sq
I wonder why.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
The key here is that she’s indicating that whenever Israel decides they want to blast the shit out of some targets in Iran, we’ll back them fully, by which I mean we’ll actually carry out the strikes ourselves, even if the rationale for the strike is something like “puppet leader says mean things about jews”
September 12th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
The October 2007 Chicago Tribune article notes that John McCain’s father handled the USS Liberty coverup.
Remember that when Honest John talks about his “honor”.
See http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/tuesday/chi-liberty_tuesoct02,0,1050179.story?page=7
“Rather than investigating how and why a U.S. Navy vessel had been attacked by an ally, the Navy seemed interested in asking as few questions as possible and answering them in record time.
Even while the Liberty was still limping toward a dry dock in Malta, the Navy convened a formal Court of Inquiry. Adm. John McCain Jr., the commander of U.S. naval forces in Europe and father of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), chose Adm. Isaac Kidd Jr. to preside.
The court’s charge was narrow: to determine whether any shortcomings on the part of the Liberty’s crew had contributed to the injuries and deaths that resulted from the attack. McCain gave Kidd’s investigators a week to complete the job.
“That was a shock,” recalled retired Navy Capt. Ward Boston, the inquiry’s counsel, who said he and Kidd had estimated that a thorough inquiry would take six months.
“Everyone was kind of stunned that it was handled so quickly and without much hullabaloo,” said G. Patrick March, then a member of McCain’s staff in London.
Largely because of time constraints, Boston said, the investigators were unable to question many of the survivors, or to visit Israel and interview any Israelis involved in the attack.”
Note that our spineless whores in the US Congress also refused to investigate the incident.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Looks like the NSA tape that Bamford mentioned in 2001 has gone missing, according to the CHicago Tribune article.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Russell Kirk nailed it 20 years ago:
Here’s one indictment from a lecture he gave at the Heritage Foundation(1):
(1)December 15, 1988
The Neoconservatives: An Endangered Species
by Kirk, Russell
Heritage Lecture #178
September 13th, 2008 at 12:19 am
The Chicago Tribune article has one paragraph that is hilarious if you are in the know:
———–
“The transcript published by the Jerusalem Post [in 2004] bore scant resemblance to the one that in 1967 rolled off the teletype machine behind the sealed vault door at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha, where Steve Forslund worked as an intelligence analyst for the 544th Air Reconnaissance Technical Wing, then the highest-level strategic planning office in the Air Force….
Gotcher and Forslund agreed with Block that the Jerusalem Post transcript was not at all like what they remember reading.
“There is simply no way that [the Post transcript is] the same as what I saw,” Gotcher said. “More to the point, for anyone familiar with air-to-ground [communications] procedures, that simply isn’t the way pilots and controllers communicate.”
Block, now a child protection caseworker in Florida, observed that “the fact that the Israeli pilots clearly identified the ship as American and asked for further instructions from ground control appears to be a missing part of that Jerusalem Post article.”
————-
It might help to know who owned the Jerusalem Post at that time: Conrad Black. Yes –he was sent to prison for massive theft at Hollinger Inc –see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Black
And Conrad’s Director at the Jerusalem Post? His buddy Richard Perle.
Now where have I heard that name before? Ah yes:
From http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/11/26/perle/index1.html
“The sale of the Jerusalem Post would also rob Perle of one of his most reliable media outlets, where — being tossed softball questions — he’s often interviewed at length about current events. (”How does Bush compare with your idol Ronald Reagan in defending the free world?”) The paper though, rarely informs readers that Perle sits on the board of directors of the company that publishes the Post. In fact, just last week, the Post conducted a lengthy sit-down with Perle, but failed to ask him about the key role he may have played in the burgeoning Hollinger scandal. In fact, the issue was never addressed. “
September 13th, 2008 at 12:21 am
SLC Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Re R Evans & Henry
As I have commented on this blog previously, the attack on the Liberty was the result of a screwup ..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are a liar or either all your research comes from the Israeli Cult Center.
Anyone with net connection can go to Johnson’s Presidential Library and read the letters, oral testimony and meeting records and comments from the Navy, the CIA the presidents advisors and numerous others involved. NOT ONE single US official believed it was an accident…NOT A ONE SINGLE ONE.
September 13th, 2008 at 12:30 am
BTW….Palin hasn’t said anything Biden hasn’t said regarding Israel. In an interview with Haarezt last week Biden made the same remark about the US not telling Israel what to do…in effect saying it was up to Israel if they wanted to attack Iran.
I am not voting for McCrazy and his moose hunting dolly but everyone must know by now that the dems are so Israeli centric they ought to be in Israel.
In fact I may not vote for the dems either…when it gets to the point that US presidential candidates stand up and swear alleigence to a foreign country like all of them did during their debates, telling us how they were going to use American blood and treasure to ‘unconditionally’ support and protect Israel, a country carrying out an illegal occupation and a slow motion genocide…well ladies and gentlemen its time to burn Orewllington DC to the ground and start over.
September 13th, 2008 at 12:36 am
Are there any circumstances under which the U.S. might some day need a particular loyalty or support from Israel? Historically, speaking even in relatively recent terms, has that ever happened? (Hint: The Gulf War.)
Perhaps that concept ought obtain; perhaps it ought not. Without doubt, at least it ought to be taken into consideration.
If not, why not?
September 13th, 2008 at 12:47 am
We need and we will have another Eisenhower, if it hairlips hell, requires turning congress into ashes, hanging the politicans from lampost all over DC and deporting every zionist in the US to Israel. Enough is a f’ing enough.
http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/first-term/documents/2063.cfm
Document #2063; November 2, 1956
To Edward Everett Hazlett, Jr.
Series: EM, AWF, Name Series ; Category: Personal
——————————————————————————–
The Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower, Volume XVII - The Presidency: The Middle Way
Part XI: The free world’s “sad mess”; October 1956 to January 1957
Chapter 22: On Suez “we do not see eye to eye”
“As we began to uncover evidence that something was building up in Israel, we demanded pledges from Ben-Gurion that he would keep the peace.10
We realized that he might think he could take advantage of this country because of the approaching election and because of the importance that so many politicians in the past have attached to our Jewish vote.
I gave strict orders to the State Department that they should inform Israel that we would handle our affairs exactly as though we didn’t have a Jew in America. The welfare and best interests of our own country were to be the sole criteria on which we operated.11 “
September 13th, 2008 at 12:56 am
It’s conceivable that Israel would do something to advance its interests that’s bad for the United States.
… for example, selling our missile technology to China (circa 1992). I’m not clear on whether this definitely happened or not. Seems like the kind of thing that would have come out in the last 14 years.
September 13th, 2008 at 2:08 am
Just give the Marines and the Navy one shot at Israel and all our Israeli problems will be over. Believe me they are just waiting for an opporunity to settle some scores. I can assure you that the next time Israel makes ‘a mistake’ the military will not be swayed by the politicans enthralled by the Jewish Lobby.
Israel Charged with Systematic Harassment of U.S. Marines
By Donald Neff
Former Time Magazine Bureau Chief, Israel
Washington Report, March 1995
It was 12 years ago, on March 14, 1983, that the commandant of the Marine Corps sent a highly unusual letter to the secretary of defense expressing frustration and anger at Israel. General R.H. Barrow charged that Israeli troops were deliberately threatening the lives of Marines serving as peacekeepers in Lebanon. There was, he wrote, a systematic pattern of harassment by Israel Defense Forces (IDF) that was resulting in “life-threatening situations, replete with verbal degradation of the officers, their uniform and country.”
Barrow’s letter added: “It is inconceivable to me why Americans serving in peacekeeping roles must be harassed, endangered by an ally…It is evident to me, and the opinion of the U.S. commanders afloat and ashore, that the incidents between the Marines and the IDF are timed, orchestrated, and executed for obtuse Israeli political purposes.”1
Israel’s motives were less obtuse than the diplomatic general pretended. It was widely believed then, and now, that Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, one of Israel’s most Machiavellian politician-generals, was creating the incidents deliberately in an effort to convince Washington that the two forces had to coordinate their actions in order to avoid such tensions. This, of course, would have been taken by the Arabs as proof that the Marines were not really in Lebanon as neutral peacekeepers but as allies of the Israelis, a perception that would have obvious advantages for Israel.2
Barrow’s extraordinary letter was indicative of the frustrations and miseries the Marines suffered during their posting to Lebanon starting on Aug. 25, 1982, as a result of Israel’s invasion 11 weeks earlier. Initially a U.S. unit of 800 men was sent to Beirut harbor as part of a multinational force to monitor the evacuation of PLO guerrillas from Beirut. The Marines, President Reagan announced, “in no case… would stay longer than 30 days.”3 This turned out to be only partly true. They did withdraw on Sept. 10, but a reinforced unit of 1,200 was rushed back 15 days later after the massacres at the Palestinian refugee camps at Sabra and Shatila that accompanied the Israeli seizure of West Beirut. The U.S. forces remained until Feb. 26, 1984.4
During their year-and-a-half posting in Lebanon, the Marines suffered 268 killed.5 The casualties started within a week of the return of the Marines in September 1982. On the 30th, a U.S.-made cluster bomb left behind by the Israelis exploded, killing Corporal David Reagan and wounding three other Marines.6
Corporal Reagan’s death represented the dangers of the new mission of the Marines in Lebanon. While their first brief stay had been to separate Israeli forces from Palestinian fighters evacuating West Beirut, their new mission was as part of a multinational force sent to prevent Israeli troops from attacking the Palestinian civilians left defenseless there after the withdrawal of PLO forces. As President Reagan said: “For this multinational force to succeed, it is essential that Israel withdraw from Beirut.”7
“Incidents are timed, orchestrated, and executed for Israeli political purposes.”
Israel’s siege of Beirut during the summer of 1982 had been brutal and bloody, reaching a peak of horror on Aug. 12, quickly known as Black Thursday. On that day, Sharon’s forces launched at dawn a massive artillery barrage that lasted for 11 straight hours and was accompanied by saturation air bombardment.8 As many as 500 persons, mainly Lebanese and Palestinian civilians, were killed.9
On top of the bombardment came the massacres the next month at Sabra and Shatila, where Sharon’s troops allowed Lebanese Maronite killers to enter the camps filled with defenseless civilians. The massacres sickened the international community and pressure from Western capitals finally forced Israel to withdraw from Beirut in late September. Troops from Britain, France, Italy and the United States were interposed between the Israeli army and Beirut, with U.S. Marines deployed in the most sensitive area south of Beirut at the International Airport, directly between Israeli troops and West Beirut.
It was at the airport that the Marines would suffer their Calvary over the next year. Starting in January 1983, small Israeli units began probing the Marine lines. At first the effort appeared aimed at discovering the extent of Marine determination to resist penetration. The lines proved solid and the Marines’ determination strong. Israeli troops were politely but firmly turned away. Soon the incidents escalated, with both sides pointing loaded weapons at each other but no firing taking place. Tensions were high enough by late January that a special meeting between U.S. and Israeli officers was held in Beirut to try to agree on precise boundaries beyond which the IDF would not penetrate.10
No Stranger to the Marines
However, on Feb. 2 a unit of three Israeli tanks, led by Israeli Lt. Col. Rafi Landsberg, tried to pass through Marine/Lebanese Army lines at Rayan University Library in south Lebanon. By this time, Landsberg was no stranger to the Marines. Since the beginning of January he had been leading small Israeli units in probes against the Marine lines, although such units would normally have a commander no higher than a sergeant or lieutenant. The suspicion grew that Sharon’s troops were deliberately provoking the Marines and Landsberg was there to see that things did not get out of hand. The Israeli tactics were aimed more at forcing a joint U.S.-Israeli strategy than merely probing lines.
In the Feb. 2 incident, the checkpoint was commanded by Marine Capt. Charles Johnson, who firmly refused permission for Landsberg to advance. When two of the Israeli tanks ignored his warning to halt, Johnson leaped on Landsberg’s tank with pistol drawn and demanded Landsberg and his tanks withdraw. They did.11
Landsberg and the Israeli embassy in Washington tried to laugh off the incident, implying that Johnson was a trigger-happy John Wayne type and that the media were exaggerating a routine event. Landsberg even went so far as to claim that he smelled alcohol on Johnson’s breath and that drunkenness must have clouded his reason. Marines were infuriated because Johnson was well known as a teetotaler. Americans flocked to Johnson’s side. He received hundreds of letters from school children, former Marines and from Commandant Barrow.12 It was a losing battle for the Israelis and Landsberg soon dropped from sight.
But the incidents did not stop. These now included “helicopter harassment,” by which U.S.-made helicopters with glaring spotlights were flown by the Israelis over Marine positions at night, illuminating Marine outposts and exposing them to potential attack. As reports of these incidents piled up, Gen. Barrow received a letter on March 12 from a U.S. Army major stationed in Lebanon with the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organization (UNTSO). The letter described a systematic pattern of Israeli attacks and provocations against UNTSO troops, including instances in which U.S. officers were singled out for “near-miss” shootings, abuse and detention.13 That same day two Marine patrols were challenged and cursed by Israeli soldiers.14
Two days later Barrow wrote his letter to Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger, who endorsed it and sent it along to the State Department. High-level meetings were arranged and the incidents abated, perhaps largely because by this time Ariel Sharon had been fired as defense minister. He had been found by an Israeli commission to have had “personal responsibility” for the Sabra and Shatila massacres.15
Despite the bad taste left from the clashes with the Israelis, in fact no Marines had been killed in the incidents and their lines had been secure up to the end of winter in 1983. Then Islamic guerrillas, backed by Iran, became active. On the night of April 17, 1983, an unknown sniper fired a shot that went through the trousers of a Marine sentry but did not harm him. For the first time, the Marines returned fire.16
The next day, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was blown up by a massive bomb, with the loss of 63 lives. Among the 17 Americans killed were CIA Mideast specialists, including Robert C. Ames, the agency’s top Middle East expert.17 Disaffected former Israeli Mossad case officer Victor Ostrovsky later claimed that Israel had advance information about the bombing plan but had decided not to inform the United States, a claim denied by Israel.18 The Iranian-backed Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility. Veteran correspondent John Cooley considered the attack “the day [Iranian leader Ayatollah] Khomeini’s offensive against America in Lebanon began in earnest.”19
Still, it was not until four months later, on Aug. 28, that Marines came under direct fire by rocket-propelled grenades and automatic weapons at International Airport. They returned fire with M-16 rifles and M-60 machine guns. The firefight resumed the next day with Marines firing 155mm artillery, 81mm mortars and rockets from Cobra helicopter gunships against Shi’i Muslim positions. Two Marines were killed and 14 wounded in the exchange, the first casualties in actual combat since the Marines had landed the previous year.20
From this time on, the combat involvement of the Marines grew. Their actions were generally seen as siding with Israel against Muslims, slowly changing the status of the Marines as neutral peacekeepers to opponents of the Muslims.21 Israel could hardly have wished for more. The polarization meant that increasingly the conflict was being perceived in terms of the U.S., Israel and Lebanon’s Christians against Iran, Islam and Lebanon’s Shi’i Muslims.
Accelerating the Conflict
Israel accelerated the building conflict on Sept. 3, 1993 by unilaterally withdrawing its troops southward, leaving the Marines exposed behind their thin lines at the airport. The United States had asked the Israeli government to delay its withdrawal until the Marines could be replaced by units of the Lebanese army, but Israel refused.22 The result was as feared. Heavy fighting immediately broke out between the Christian Lebanese Forces and the pro-Syrian Druze units, both seeking to occupy positions evacuated by Israel, while the Marines were left in the crossfire.23 On Sept. 5, two Marines were killed and three wounded as fighting escalated between Christian and Muslim militias.24
In an ill-considered effort to subdue the combat, the Sixth Fleet frigate Bowen fired several five-inch naval guns, hitting Druze artillery positions in the Chouf Mountains that were firing into the Marine compound at Beirut airport.25 It was the first time U.S. ships had fired into Lebanon, dramatically raising the level of combat. But the Marines’ exposed location on the flat terrain of the airport left them in an impossible position. On Sept. 12, three more Marines were wounded.26
On Sept. 13, President Reagan authorized what was called aggressive self-defense for the Marines, including air and naval strikes.27 Five days later the United States essentially joined the war against the Muslims when four U.S. warships unleashed the heaviest naval bombardment since Vietnam into Syrian and Druze positions in eastern Lebanon in support of the Lebanese Christians.28 The bombardment lasted for three days and was personally ordered by National Security Council director Robert McFarlane, a Marine Corps officer detailed to the White House who was in Lebanon at the time and was also a strong supporter of Israel and its Lebanese Maronite Christian allies. McFarlane issued the order despite the fact that the Marine commander at the airport, Colonel Timothy Geraghty, strenuously argued against it because, in the words of correspondent Thomas L. Friedman, “he knew that it would make his soldiers party to what was now clearly an intra-Lebanese fight, and that the Lebanese Muslims would not retaliate against the Navy’s ships at sea but against the Marines on shore.”29
By now, the Marines were under daily attack and Muslims were charging they were no longer neutral.30 At the same time the battleship USS New Jersey, with 16-inch guns, arrived off Lebanon, increasing the number of U.S. warships offshore to 14. Similarly, the Marine contingent at Beirut airport was increased from 1,200 to 1,600.31
A Tragic Climax
The fight now was truly joined between the Shi’i Muslims and the Marines, who were essentially pinned down in their airport bunkers and under orders not to take offensive actions. The tragic climax of their predicament came on Oct. 23, when a Muslim guerrilla drove a truck past guards at the Marine airport compound and detonated an explosive with the force of 12,000 pounds of dynamite under a building housing Marines and other U.S. personnel. Almost simultaneously, a car-bomb exploded at the French compound in Beirut. Casualties were 241 Americans and 58 French troops killed. The bombings were the work of Hezbollah, made up of Shi’i Muslim guerrillas supported by Iran.;32
America’s agony increased on Dec. 3, when two carrier planes were downed by Syrian missiles during heavy U.S. air raids on eastern Lebanon.;33 On the same day, eight Marines were killed in fighting with Muslim militiamen around the Beirut airport.;34
By the start of 1984, an all-out Shi’i Muslim campaign to rid Lebanon of all Americans was underway. The highly respected president of the American University of Beirut, Dr. Malcolm Kerr, a distinguished scholar of the Arab world, was gunned down on Jan. 18 outside his office by Islamic militants aligned with Iran.;35 On Feb. 5, Reagan made one of his stand-tall speeches by saying that “the situation in Lebanon is difficult, frustrating and dangerous. But this is no reason to turn our backs on friends and to cut and run.”;36
The next day Professor Frank Regier, a U.S. citizen teaching at AUB, was kidnapped by Muslim radicals.;37 Regier’s kidnapping was the beginning of a series of kidnappings of Americans in Beirut that would hound the Reagan and later the Bush administrations for years and lead to the eventual expulsion of nearly all Americans from Lebanon where they had prospered for more than a century. Even today Americans still are prohibited from traveling to Lebanon.
The day after Regier’s kidnapping, on Feb. 7, 1984, Reagan suddenly reversed himself and announced that all U.S. Marines would shortly be “redeployed.” The next day the battleship USS New Jersey fired 290 rounds of one-ton shells from its 16-inch guns into Lebanon as a final act of U.S. frustration.;38 Reagan’s “redeployment” was completed by Feb. 26, when the last of the Marines retreated from Lebanon.
The mission of the Marines had been a humiliating failure?not because they failed in their duty but because the political backbone in Washington was lacking. The Marines had arrived in 1982 with all sides welcoming them. They left in 1984 despised by many and the object of attacks by Muslims. Even relations with Israel were strained, if not in Washington where a sympathetic Congress granted increased aid to the Jewish state to compensate it for the costs of its bungled invasion, then between the Marines and Israeli troops who had confronted each other in a realpolitik battlefield that was beyond their competence or understanding. The Marine experience in Lebanon did not contribute toward a favorable impression of Israel among many Americans, especially since the Marines would not have been in Lebanon except for Israel’s unprovoked invasion.
This negative result is perhaps one reason a number of Israelis and their supporters today oppose sending U.S. peacekeepers to the Golan Heights as part of a possible Israeli-Syrian peace treaty. A repeat of the 1982-84 experience would certainly not be in Israel’s interests at a time when its supporters are seeking to have a budget-conscious Congress continue unprecedented amounts of aid to Israel.”
Donald Neff has been a journalist for forty years. He spent 16 years in service for Time Magazine and is a regular contributor to Middle East International and the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. He has written five excellent books on the Middle East.
September 13th, 2008 at 3:26 am
Stupid netroots stole my party. Can’t wait for Obama to lose, Howard Dean and Donna Brazille to get fired, and Markos to go back to defragging hard drives or whatever he did.
Anyway, here’s the actual transcript for anyone who wants to think for themselves. It was pretty obvious what Gibson was trying to get Palin to go on record as agreeing to or cooperating with an Israeli strike, which she wisely did not do. She stuck to a very narrow script saying we are Israel’s allies, and their security decisions are their responsibility.
CHARLES GIBSON (ABC NEWS)
(Off-camera) What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?
GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN (REPUBLICAN VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE)
Well, first, we are friends of Israel, and I don’t think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves, and for their security.
CHARLES GIBSON (ABC NEWS)
(Off-camera) So if we wouldn’t second guess it and they decided they needed to do it, because Iran was a threat, we would be cooperative or agree with that?
GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN (REPUBLICAN VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE)
I don’t think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.
CHARLES GIBSON (ABC NEWS)
(Off-camera) So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right?
GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN (REPUBLICAN VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE)
We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.
September 13th, 2008 at 5:10 am
We might also note just how far Joe Biden’s head is up Israel’s ass:
Biden and Israel
http://www.counterpunch.com/weitzel09022008.html
Money Quotes:
Biden: Israel’s decisions must be made in Jerusalem, not D.C.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1017891.html
Money Quotes:
September 13th, 2008 at 5:50 am
Yes. Quite. Let’s move away from the famously calm, reasoned, diplomatic approach of George W. Bush Jr. and adopt the tougher, off-the-cuff, true grit policies of, say, a John Bolton.
Because, you know, the problem with our foreign policy over the last few years has been our reticence to quickly resort to hostilities without diplomacy.
That, and our lack of chasing secretaries down halls and throwing staplers at them.
Could you nutballs stop running countries like the United States into the ground and just go find a laser-tag shop to play “tough guy” in, or just have neighborhood “Sopranos” watching festivals where you can all dress up like your favorite mafia character and play tough where it doesn’t hurt anyone?
September 13th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
“And of course it’s conceivable that Israel would do something that’s simply a mistake and likely to backfire.”
Mmmmm. You mean like where to establish a homeland?
September 14th, 2008 at 9:27 am
I can think of a reason why the Israelis would attack the USS Liberty knowing it was a US vessel-to blame the sinking on the Egyptians, and ensure US support. Think of it as being a larger scale version of the Lavon affair.
It doesn’t even have to be as sinister as it seems. Say, just for the sake of argument, that it was the scheme of someone fairly high up in the Israeli government, but not that high up. Then, in the aftermath, his superiors find out about it.
Let’s go further-those superiors go to the US government and explain things, and make some kind of restitution in back channels, and the US government accepts that, but also keeps things under wraps as much as possible because they don’t want to lose the alliance with Israel, which is providing intelligence benefits, like the personal participation of King Hussein of Jordan (who was getting money from the CIA) in claims that the US had sent planes to shoot down Egyptian aircraft.
I think that explanation best fits the public facts.
March 1st, 2009 at 7:40 pm
cialis
I want to say - thank you for this!
March 8th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Dies ist ein gro
March 11th, 2009 at 5:11 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:53 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:36 am
Great site. Good info
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:33 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:45 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:30 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 8:15 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Good morning. It’s the soul’s duty to be loyal to its own desires. It must abandon itself to its master passion.
I am from Malaysia and bad know English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “Find your cheap airline tickets pictures at picsearch.”
Regards
Grant.