Peeler
2022-10-30 04:39:56 UTC
June 29, 2022 at 11:30 am
Fifty-five years ago in June, Israel declared war on the United States
of America. Unofficially and not in so many words, of course, but what
else can it be called when Israeli armed forces launched a two hour
sustained attack on a clearly marked US Navy ship in the Eastern
Mediterranean during the Six Day War?
The USS Liberty was attacked by Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats off
the coastline of northern Sinai and the Egyptian-controlled Gaza
Strip, in international waters. According to the surviving crew
members, it was easily identifiable as an American ship and, as an
intelligence-gathering vessel, it was only lightly armed. It was on
station to monitor events in the region, particularly in and around
Egypt and Syria which were the front lines of the war.
The Israeli attack killed 34 US sailors, and wounded 171. As the
casualties mounted, Israel blocked the ship's distress signals. When
communications were eventually possible, US Secretary of Defence
Robert McNamara ordered twelve fighter jets and four tanker aircraft
to abort their mission to defend the Liberty and return to their
aircraft carrier.
As napalm and armour-piercing rounds were fired at the ship before
torpedoes were used to try to sink it, survivors were shocked when
they saw that it was Israelis who were attacking them. Their allies
were killing them, but they did not know why.
To this day, the exact reason for the Israeli attack is not entirely
clear, but some US officials and survivors believe that the Israelis
were attempting to stop the ship's listening devices overhearing that
Tel Aviv was planning to seize and occupy Syria's Golan Heights, which
happened the next day.
Others theorise that Israel aimed to draw the US into the war by
conducting the attack while posing as Egyptian or other Arab forces.
Israel and its supporters, of course, claim that it was a friendly
fire incident after the Israelis mistook the USS Liberty for an
Egyptian ship, despite the fact that it was flying the American flag
and had clear identification on the hull. The survivors insist that it
would have been impossible for the ship not to be identified as a US
Navy vessel during the many waves of the attack.
Israel later apologised as good friends do after killing allies
and offered $6.9 million in compensation. With suggestions that the
Israelis and US colluded to create a casus belli against President
Gamal Abdel Nasser's Egypt, and survivors insisting that there has
been a US government cover-up of the incident, it has been revisited
countless times over the past five decades.
In all that time, however, the relationship between Washington and Tel
Aviv, with the latter receiving unqualified and unquestioned support
from the former, has also been revisited. An unprovoked attack on a
naval vessel is, after all, a very serious issue. Enough, indeed, to
be classed as a declaration of war.
While this "special relationship" continues officially, cracks have
appeared in the narrative in recent years and mainstream perceptions
are shifting. This shift is currently taking place on multiple fronts.
First of all, there is open and growing scepticism and at times
public opposition about Israel's policies among US citizens. This is
obvious from polls and studies. There has also been increasing
condemnation of Israeli actions by members of the US Congress, which
is surprising as they are far from the usual lip service paid to
"concerns" about human rights violations.
There is also a shift on the media front, albeit it on smaller but
influential platforms. Many were surprised a few months ago, for
example, when retired Navy Seal officer and author Jocko Willink
hosted veterans and survivors of the USS Liberty on his podcast. Even
for a former and well-connected member of the armed forces this was a
bold move; viewers joked that it might be the last episode he would
host. It was duly censored by YouTube with a warning about "context".
In an even bolder move, Foreign Policy magazine viewed as a
reflection of and advisor to policymakers in Washington and beyond
published an article last year written by Harvard Professor Stephen M.
Walt, which questioned why the US still has a special relationship
with Israel. Walt proposed demoting it to a normal relationship
alongside other allies.
In a normal relationship, wrote Walt, "The United States would back
Israel when it did things that are consistent with the United States'
interests and values and distance itself when Israel acted otherwise.
No longer would the United States protect Israel from condemnation by
the UN Security Council, except when Israel clearly merited such
protection."
That treatment would extend to the public discourse on Israel, too:
"No longer would US officials refrain from direct, plain-spoken
criticism of Israel's apartheid system. US politicians, pundits and
policymakers would be free to praise or criticise Israel's actions
as they routinely do with other countries without fear of losing
their jobs or being buried in a chorus of politically motivated
smears."
The discourse about the US-Israel relationship is also an enduring
topic of America's political left and right divide in the ongoing
culture war. Decades ago, criticism of Israel and its interests was a
trademark of right-wing conservatives and Republicans unknown to
many, and not in a neo-Nazi sense while the left and Democrats were
unflinchingly pro-Israel. Over time, due to drastic geopolitical
changes, demographic shifts within and between the two parties, and
significant pressure and influence by the pro-Israeli lobby, support
for Tel Aviv has become a bipartisan trait and necessity for any
politician wanting to stay in office.
Many imagine that politicians and figures critical of Israel are in
the Democratic Party and its newly "progressive" elements, and they
are mostly right in thinking that. However, the elements critical of
Israel on the right wing have also been re-emerging gradually, albeit
largely at the grassroots level; they recognise the contradiction of
"America first" rhetoric while advocating for an alien state upon
which US interests apparently depend.
Such logic will be resisted by political leaders and intellectuals,
with the potential for a serious ideological clash in coming years.
This dichotomy was seen two years ago when conservative activist
Charlie Kirk was asked why the US continues to provide massive
military aid packages to Israel every year despite the USS Liberty
attack. Kirk silenced the questioner and accused him of peddling a
"conspiracy theory".
In short, the Israel-sceptic elements on the American right much
like the Democrats will soon be rejected by the mainstream and their
views will be suppressed by the political leadership. Open criticism
of Israel, though, is also unlikely to make its way into US government
departments and the White House any time soon.
The result is that 55 years after the killing of American sailors on
the USS Liberty by Israel in its direct attack on a US Navy vessel,
and even though Israel is building ties with powers like China as a
potential future patron, Washington is still committed to its special
relationship with its "greatest ally". So when will Washington put its
special relationship aside? When the people of America wake up to the
reality of their government's slavish devotion to the occupation state
and demand change.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20220629-israel-attacked-the-uss-liberty-in-1967-when-will-washington-put-its-special-relationship-aside/
Fifty-five years ago in June, Israel declared war on the United States
of America. Unofficially and not in so many words, of course, but what
else can it be called when Israeli armed forces launched a two hour
sustained attack on a clearly marked US Navy ship in the Eastern
Mediterranean during the Six Day War?
The USS Liberty was attacked by Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats off
the coastline of northern Sinai and the Egyptian-controlled Gaza
Strip, in international waters. According to the surviving crew
members, it was easily identifiable as an American ship and, as an
intelligence-gathering vessel, it was only lightly armed. It was on
station to monitor events in the region, particularly in and around
Egypt and Syria which were the front lines of the war.
The Israeli attack killed 34 US sailors, and wounded 171. As the
casualties mounted, Israel blocked the ship's distress signals. When
communications were eventually possible, US Secretary of Defence
Robert McNamara ordered twelve fighter jets and four tanker aircraft
to abort their mission to defend the Liberty and return to their
aircraft carrier.
As napalm and armour-piercing rounds were fired at the ship before
torpedoes were used to try to sink it, survivors were shocked when
they saw that it was Israelis who were attacking them. Their allies
were killing them, but they did not know why.
To this day, the exact reason for the Israeli attack is not entirely
clear, but some US officials and survivors believe that the Israelis
were attempting to stop the ship's listening devices overhearing that
Tel Aviv was planning to seize and occupy Syria's Golan Heights, which
happened the next day.
Others theorise that Israel aimed to draw the US into the war by
conducting the attack while posing as Egyptian or other Arab forces.
Israel and its supporters, of course, claim that it was a friendly
fire incident after the Israelis mistook the USS Liberty for an
Egyptian ship, despite the fact that it was flying the American flag
and had clear identification on the hull. The survivors insist that it
would have been impossible for the ship not to be identified as a US
Navy vessel during the many waves of the attack.
Israel later apologised as good friends do after killing allies
and offered $6.9 million in compensation. With suggestions that the
Israelis and US colluded to create a casus belli against President
Gamal Abdel Nasser's Egypt, and survivors insisting that there has
been a US government cover-up of the incident, it has been revisited
countless times over the past five decades.
In all that time, however, the relationship between Washington and Tel
Aviv, with the latter receiving unqualified and unquestioned support
from the former, has also been revisited. An unprovoked attack on a
naval vessel is, after all, a very serious issue. Enough, indeed, to
be classed as a declaration of war.
While this "special relationship" continues officially, cracks have
appeared in the narrative in recent years and mainstream perceptions
are shifting. This shift is currently taking place on multiple fronts.
First of all, there is open and growing scepticism and at times
public opposition about Israel's policies among US citizens. This is
obvious from polls and studies. There has also been increasing
condemnation of Israeli actions by members of the US Congress, which
is surprising as they are far from the usual lip service paid to
"concerns" about human rights violations.
There is also a shift on the media front, albeit it on smaller but
influential platforms. Many were surprised a few months ago, for
example, when retired Navy Seal officer and author Jocko Willink
hosted veterans and survivors of the USS Liberty on his podcast. Even
for a former and well-connected member of the armed forces this was a
bold move; viewers joked that it might be the last episode he would
host. It was duly censored by YouTube with a warning about "context".
In an even bolder move, Foreign Policy magazine viewed as a
reflection of and advisor to policymakers in Washington and beyond
published an article last year written by Harvard Professor Stephen M.
Walt, which questioned why the US still has a special relationship
with Israel. Walt proposed demoting it to a normal relationship
alongside other allies.
In a normal relationship, wrote Walt, "The United States would back
Israel when it did things that are consistent with the United States'
interests and values and distance itself when Israel acted otherwise.
No longer would the United States protect Israel from condemnation by
the UN Security Council, except when Israel clearly merited such
protection."
That treatment would extend to the public discourse on Israel, too:
"No longer would US officials refrain from direct, plain-spoken
criticism of Israel's apartheid system. US politicians, pundits and
policymakers would be free to praise or criticise Israel's actions
as they routinely do with other countries without fear of losing
their jobs or being buried in a chorus of politically motivated
smears."
The discourse about the US-Israel relationship is also an enduring
topic of America's political left and right divide in the ongoing
culture war. Decades ago, criticism of Israel and its interests was a
trademark of right-wing conservatives and Republicans unknown to
many, and not in a neo-Nazi sense while the left and Democrats were
unflinchingly pro-Israel. Over time, due to drastic geopolitical
changes, demographic shifts within and between the two parties, and
significant pressure and influence by the pro-Israeli lobby, support
for Tel Aviv has become a bipartisan trait and necessity for any
politician wanting to stay in office.
Many imagine that politicians and figures critical of Israel are in
the Democratic Party and its newly "progressive" elements, and they
are mostly right in thinking that. However, the elements critical of
Israel on the right wing have also been re-emerging gradually, albeit
largely at the grassroots level; they recognise the contradiction of
"America first" rhetoric while advocating for an alien state upon
which US interests apparently depend.
Such logic will be resisted by political leaders and intellectuals,
with the potential for a serious ideological clash in coming years.
This dichotomy was seen two years ago when conservative activist
Charlie Kirk was asked why the US continues to provide massive
military aid packages to Israel every year despite the USS Liberty
attack. Kirk silenced the questioner and accused him of peddling a
"conspiracy theory".
In short, the Israel-sceptic elements on the American right much
like the Democrats will soon be rejected by the mainstream and their
views will be suppressed by the political leadership. Open criticism
of Israel, though, is also unlikely to make its way into US government
departments and the White House any time soon.
The result is that 55 years after the killing of American sailors on
the USS Liberty by Israel in its direct attack on a US Navy vessel,
and even though Israel is building ties with powers like China as a
potential future patron, Washington is still committed to its special
relationship with its "greatest ally". So when will Washington put its
special relationship aside? When the people of America wake up to the
reality of their government's slavish devotion to the occupation state
and demand change.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20220629-israel-attacked-the-uss-liberty-in-1967-when-will-washington-put-its-special-relationship-aside/