Posted on 08/31/2002 4:48:31 AM PDT by gunnyg
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0395/9503079.htm
Middle East History?It Happened In March
Israel Charged With Systematic Harassment of U.S. Marines
By Donald Neff
March 1995, pgs. 79-81
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. 23On 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.33On 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.
RECOMMENDED READING:
Ball, George, Error and Betrayal in Lebanon, Washington, DC, Foundation for Middle East Peace, 1984.
*Cockburn, Andrew and Leslie Cockburn, Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship, New York, Harper Collins, 1991.
Cooley, John K., Payback: America's Long War in the Middle East , New York, Brassey's U.S., Inc., 1991.
*Findley, Paul, Deliberate Deceptions: Facing the Facts About the U.S.-Israeli Relationship, Brooklyn, NY, Lawrence Hill Books, 1993.
Fisk, Robert, Pity the Nation: The Abduction of Lebanon, New York, Atheneum, 1990.
Frank, Benis M., U.S. Marines in Lebanon: 1982-1984, History and Museums Division, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, Washington, DC, 1987.
*Friedman, Thomas L., From Beirut to Jerusalem, New York, Farrar, Strauss, Giroux, 1989.
*Green, Stephen, Living by the Sword, Amana, 1988.
*Jansen, Michael, The Battle of Beirut: Why Israel Invaded Lebanon , London, Zed Press, 1982.
MacBride, Sean, Israel in Lebanon: The Report of the International Commission to enquire into reported violations of international law by Israel during its invasion of Lebanon , London, Ithaca Press, 1983.
Ostrovsky, Victor and Claire Hoy, By Way of Deception, New York, St. Martin's Press, 1990.
Peck, Juliana S., The Reagan Administration and the Palestinian Question: The First Thousand Days , Washington, DC, Institute for Palestine Studies, 1984.
*Randal, Jonathan, Going all the Way, New York, The Viking Press, 1983.
Schechla, Joseph, The Iron Fist: Israel's Occupation of South Lebanon, 1982-1985 , Washington, D.C.: ADC Research Institute, Issue Paper No. 17, 1985.
*Schiff, Ze'ev and Ehud Ya'ari, Israel's Lebanon War, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1984.
Timerman, Jacobo, The Longest War: Israel in Lebanon, New York, Vantage Books, 1982.
Woodward, Bob, Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA 1981-1987, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1987.
* Available through the AET Book Club.
NOTES:
1 New York Times, 3/18/83. For a detailed review of these clashes, see Green, Living by the Sword, pp. 177-92, and Clyde Mark, "The Multinational Force in Lebanon," Congressional Research Service, 5/19/83.
2 See "NBC Nightly News," 6:30 PM EST, 3/17/86; also, George C. Wilson, Washington Post, 2/5/83.
3 Ball, Error and Betrayal in Lebanon, p. 51; Cooley, Payback, pp. 69-71.
4 Frank, U.S Marines in Lebanon: 1982-1984, p. 137.
5 Frank, U.S. Marines in Lebanon: 1982-1984 , Appendix F.
6 New York Times, 10/1/82. Also see Cooley, Payback, p. 71; Green, Living by the Sword, pp. 175-77
7 The text is in New York Times, 9/30/82. Also see Peck, The Reagan Administration and the Palestinian Question, p. 76.
8 Schiff & Ya'ari, Israel's Lebanon War, p. 225.
9 "Chronology of the Israeli Invasion of Lebanon," Journal of Palestine Studies, Summer/Fall 1982, p. 189.
10 Green, Living by the Sword, pp. 178-80.
11 Frank, U.S Marines in Lebanon: 1982-1984, pp. 45-46.
12 Ibid.
13 Green, Living by the Sword, p. 182.
14 Frank, U.S Marines in Lebanon: 1982-1984, p. 56.
15 New York Times, 2/9/83; "Final Report of the Israeli Commission of Inquiry," Journal of Palestine Studies, Spring 1983, pp. 89-116.
16 Frank, U.S Marines in Lebanon: 1982-1984, p. 56.
17 New York Times, 4/22/83 and 4/26/83. For more detail on CIA victims, see Charles R Babcock, Washington Post, 8/5/86, and Woodward, Veil, pp. 244-45.
18 Ostrovsky, By Way of Deception, p. 321.
19 Cooley, Payback, p. 76.
20 New York Times, 8/30/83.
21 Ball, Error and Betrayal in Lebanon, pp. 75-77.
22 New York Times, 9/5/83.
23 Fisk, Pity the Nation, pp. 489-91; Friedman, From Beirut to Jerusalem, p. 179.
24 New York Times, 9/6/83.
25 Fisk, Pity the Nation, p. 505.
26 New York Times, 9/14/83.
27 New York Times , 9/13/83.
28 Philip Taubman and Joel Brinkley, New York Times, 12/11/83. Also see Cockburn, Dangerous Liaison, p. 335; Fisk, Pity the Nation, p. 505; Friedman, From Beirut to Jerusalem , p. 210.
29 Friedman, From Beirut to Jerusalem, pp. 200-01. Also see Green, Living by the Sword, pp. 190-92.
30 New York Times, 9/29/83.
31 New York Times, 9/25/83; David Koff, "Chronology of the War in Lebanon, Sept.-November, 1983," Journal of Palestine Studies, Winter 1984, pp. 133-35.
32 Philip Taubman and Joel Brinkley, New York Times, 12/11/83. Also see Cooley, Payback, pp. 80-91; Fisk, Pity the Nation, pp. 511-22; Friedman, From Beirut to Jerusalem, pp. 201-4; Woodward, Veil, pp. 285-87.
33 New York Times , 1/4/84; Cooley, Payback, pp. 95-97.
34 New York Times, 12/4/83.
35 New York Times, 1/19/84. Also see New York Times, 1/29/84, and Cooley, Payback, p. 75. For a chronology of attacks against Americans in this period, see the Atlanta Journal, 1/31/85.
36 Fisk, Pity the Nation, p. 533.
37 New York Times, 4/16/84. Also see Cooley, Payback , p. 111; Fisk, Pity the Nation, p. 565.
38 Cooley, Payback, p. 102; Fisk, Pity the Nation, p. 533; Friedman, From Beirut to Jerusalem, p. 220.
Donald Neff is author of the Warriors trilogy on U.S.-Middle East relations and of the unpublished Middle East Handbook, a chronological data bank of significant events affecting U.S policy and the Middle East upon which this article is based. His books are available through the AET Book Club. <./back.gif> <./current.gif> <./dailynews.gif> <./wrmeanews.gif> <./resources.gif> <./activists.gif> <./subscribe.gif> <./contact.gif> <./about.gif> <./home.gif>
Because we have always supported them against everyone else. Israel made sure that their enemies became our enemies.
And the Pollard case an isolated incident? Please! Israel has been spying on us for years and still does. This is what really bothers me - that no matter what Israel does, or how much they betray our interests to promote their own, people still think they are on our side. They use us and we love them. Go figure.
And we spy on Israel. Been doing it for years, will continue to do it in the future.
I've attended a meeting at a NATO facility and was warned about not saying ANYTHING of a "NOFORN" variety, even if the only people in the room were Americans--because everyone (including us Americans) was bugging the place (there were so many wireless bugs that they interfered with celluar phones).
It's called "international intercourse" for a good reason--because the process consists of nations trying to screw each other, including their friends.
Earlier you stated that Washington Report was funded by the Saudis...are you confused now or were you lying earlier? I have repeatedly asked on this thread for you or one of your brothers to point out the "lies about Israel" on the Washington Report website. I have gotten nothing but B.S. back. It appears that you just can't handle the truth.
While the PC hamstrung USMC played boy scouts, the IDF was not in a fooling around mood. When they wanted to occupy a piece of property, they roared up to it with a column of armor. This caused some problems with the pencil neck USMC field grades. (The same pencil neck field grades who would not permit their troops loaded weapons on "jeep patrol" through Beirut, and who put the jeep patrols on 3 routes which were never varied. The only reason the terrorists never wiped out a jeep patrol was they were saving their hit for the big one later. Now Marine enlisted and officers up to Captains were great, but the field grades were a pack of neutered Wally Coxes. The hardcorps O-3s were all passed over or otherwise driven out by the senior corps castratos. I sat on daily staff briefings on the ships and on the beach, and I saw it first hand.)
What? You mean Sharon didn't try to send his tanks through Marine lines? Marine Captain Charles Johnson didn't have to climb up on one tank and threaten the commander with his revolver to make him stop (an action for which Johnson was commended by President Reagan)? The Commandant of the Marine Corps didn't send a formal protest letter to the Secretary of Defense, complaining that the Israelis were "harassing, engandering and demeaning" American marines?
You say that the Washington Report is "a well known Arab mouthpiece." Fine, then would you accept information from the History and Marines Division of the United States Marines Corps? What about a study called "Tactical Lessons for Peacekeeping: U.S. Multinational Force in Beirut 1982-1984," by Major Ronald F. Baczkowski, USMC, who relied on oral histories from some 18 U.S. Marine and Army officers and a dozen or so officer theses from Naval, USMC, Army and Air Force war colleges, command colleges and staff colleges. Is it your contention that all these officers were suckered too?
You can find A LOT of information about the problem our Marines had with Sharon's forces in Lebanon from this site: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/docs/baczkow.htm.
There is a war college research study posted there called "Tactical Lessons for Peacekeeping: U.S. Multinational Force in Beirut 1982-1984. Author: Major Ronald F. Baczkowski, USMC."
Among other things Major Baczkowski writes as follows:
As an interposition force, the USMNF was primarily concerned with keeping the Israelis away from the city of Beirut, especially from areas inhabited by Palestinians. Major Farmer said,
The nature of the mission was one of presence, it was peacekeeping just to provide a stabilizing factor basically with us being there in the general location of the IDF, to provide the local indigenous population a feeling of security against the Israelis because of the recent military events and political events that had Israelis involved with Sabra, Shatilla massacre and just the general military nature of the Israeli disposition on the ground.
The likelihood of Israeli attack against the USMNF was virtually nonexistent, but the Israeli reaction to sniper fire and terrorist threat posed a significant problem to Marines. Israeli response would often spill over into U. S. lines. When this happened, Marines were sent scurrying for cover. In addition to spill over fire, it seemed as if the Israelis were constantly testing the legitimacy of the USMNF. Diplomatic agreements clearly specified where the Israelis could and could not go. However, on several occasions, the Israelis would try to enter unauthorized areas. At first, these attempts were made under the guise of poor land navigation. Other times they were overt attempts to force or intimidate their way into the USMNF's sector. The perimeter at the Lebanese University was the site of the most overt attempts. . . .
A week after this incident, on 17 January 1982, an IDF vehicle patrol approached the combined U. S. and LAF checkpoint near the university and demanded access. The Marine on duty denied access and called the company commander. Captain Johnson went to the checkpoint to investigate. A reporter who had been doing a story on Lima Company came along. When Captain Johnson arrived, he repeated to the IDF patrol leader he could not pass. A Marine stood in front of the lead vehicle to block the way. The Israeli driver lurched forward by popping the clutch, hit the Marine, and then braked the vehicle after knocking the Marine back. Meanwhile, a U. S. Marine M60 machinegun squad and a reaction squad set up just down the road from the Israeli patrol. Although Captain Johnson insists they did not load their weapons, the reporter wrote his story as if they had. The Israelis left with no further confrontation, but this incident created a heightened awareness of tensions between the USMNF and IDF. . .
The next week, Captain Johnson was on the roof of the library building showing the Advance party for the British contingent to the MNF some key points of the surrounding area. He observed tanks moving down through the city, which struck him as unusual because tanks were vulnerable to attack in the narrow streets. He immediately went down to the edge of his perimeter and stopped where the APCs had stopped the previous week. The tanks came within 30 meters of the same spot when he flagged down the lead tank. As Captain Johnson stood with pistol drawn in front of the tank, he informed the tank commander he could not enter the perimeter and would have to run over him to do so. The commander seemed to acknowledge and spoke into his microphone to the other tanks. While the lead tank stopped, the other two tanks raced forward. Captain Johnson jumped on the stopped tank, pulled the tank commander to him, and told him to stop the other tanks or he would kill him. The tank commander complied, and the tanks stopped. He informed Captain Johnson he was Lieutenant Colonel Lansberg, the battalion commander of the Israeli force positioned at Khalde, and then he departed.
UNTRUE.
I said in post #27:
"Duh! The place is Arab funded. Probably Saudi mostly. They are an organization and also publish a magazine"
I have repeatedly asked on this thread for you or one of your brothers to point out the "lies about Israel" on the Washington Report website.
Bullshit. I addressed that in post #77. I said they distort by omitting why Israel did such and such. A game of pretend. They do not outright lie (like the Arabs) as far as I know
I have gotten nothing but B.S. back. It appears that you just can't handle the truth.
Stop talking and start reading. I answered your "concerns" previously.
Amusing how you are so concerned with this, whether it's true or not. While you never mention the Arab bombing of our Lebanon Marine Corps barracks and our embassy there. Back in 1983. About 300 US citizens were killed.
Arab scum killed hundreds of Americans while all you care about is the static Ariel Sharon was giving the USA.
Like Great Britain, Israel does not march in lockstep with the USA. But they are both allies. This is what drives you Israel haters crazy.
What say I, gunny? I wonder if perhaps your anti Jewish bent isn't showing? Now if you don't have an axe to grind against the Jews let me be the first to offer my apology, but it sure appears to be the case.
Ah, the conditioning is strong.
Also, my special thanks to The Few responses in contrast to the majority--as always, The Few are there!
Semper Fidelis!
Dick Gaines
Actually, Dick loses. :-]
Well, your screen name certainly fits, boy. I merely asked that you point out the relevance of the book you mention, i.e. the "lies about Israel". It is apparent that none of you folks who claim that Washington Report "lies about Israel" can back up your B.S. I knew that at the beginning of the thread, but thought I'd give you a chance...complete waste of time. None of you can handle the truth being put out at Washington Report so you try to kill the messenger....a very old and boring tactic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.