ANDREW SULLIVAN: Anti-semitism sneaks into the anti-war camp

The Sunday Times ^ | October 20, 2002 | Andrew Sullivan

[aristeides]

And I'm not the one who's defending killing American sailors. Just which of us is the ugly-minded one?

[summer]

Interesting article. Thanks for the ping.

[Man of the Right]

Jew baiting didn't creep into the anti-war movement.

It's integral to the left ideology.

[quidnunc]

Cachelot wrote: The Liberty was piping battle-control data to the Arabs. It was, in effect, a combattant on the Arab side. More, when the US was asked rather urgently to stop that activity, the reply was for all intents and purposes "scr*w you".

At the time, the US was leaning more toward the Arabs than towards Israel, and Tel Aviv suspected that Liberty was passing intercepted communications to the Arabs.

Whatever the case, the incident is now water long under the bridge and has NO RELEVANCE to the present situation in the Middle East.

The only reason someone would bring it up at all in this day and age is to smear some stink on Israel.

[Nix 2]

*Could you please point out to me one place where I have lied?

Try this for starters.

"And I'm not the one who's defending killing American sailors."

Then please find a post, any post, ever, where I have ever defended the killing of any American, let alone American Sailors or any other American Military.
You should be so ashamed of yourself, but people like you don't feel shame as a rule. How utterly sad you must be.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

[Cachelot]

Whatever the case, the incident is now water long under the bridge and has NO RELEVANCE to the present situation in the Middle East.

Exactly right.

Which makes the frantic re-posting on the subject all the more pathological.

[aristeides]

At the time, the US was leaning more toward the Arabs than towards Israel

As far as I know, that's untrue. We might not have become full-fledged allies of Israel at that point, but American public opinion was very much in favor of Israel, and I find it very hard to believe that LBJ's administration did not reflect that bias. Think of the extent to which LBJ was beholden to Abe Fortas throughout his political career, for God's sake. Before I accept this claim, I want to see some evidence.

The only reason someone would bring it up at all in this day and age is to smear some stink on Israel.

I know that's untrue, because I know what prompted me to bring the matter up. It was germane to the discussion. Why don't you look at the reply to which I was replying?

I was making the point that people make charges of anti-Semitism for awfully flimsy reasons, just to stop discussions. And I think the further course of this thread has proved my point.

[Cachelot]

Naval Security Group

Naval Security Group? Why, they look like a consulting firm. "Advising on crypto solutions", hehe - glorified office supply consultant?

[aristeides]

What about this:

Nope. The Israelis fired the shots, but the NSA made an unknowing crew sitting ducks by disobeying orders to move 20 miles out to sea. Who do you think you are playing with, aristdeides? Your 2 year old kid brother?

That's not defending killing the sailors?

[aristeides]

You can look up the function and organizational ties of the Naval Security Group by reading Bamford. But you're not going to bother to do research, are you? It might point out to you how wrong you are.

[rdb3]

The Joint Chiefs of Staff wanted accurate information on what the h*** was going on in the Middle East.

Wasn't that a job for the State Department instead of hte Department of Defense?

They knew the Israelis were lying to them.

About what?

So they ordered the Liberty in, a highly unusual action for any ship, but an unparalleled one for what was really an NSA asset.

Hello! Now it's getting really confusing.

[aristeides]

And what about this:

I don't know, dude. Ask their officers in command. As for being in international waters, you aren't paying attention. They were ordered into international waters but never went. They were smack in the middle of a war zone.

That's not defending killing the sailors?

By the way, I may get carried away by an argument, but, if I say what turns out to be incorrect, in general it's because I allowed myself to believe it at the time. I won't say I never lie -- given a strong enough motive, I do occasionally, like most people. But I am reasonably honest. And I am unaware of having committed any lies on this thread.

Can you say the same?

[aristeides]

The Joint Chiefs wanted their own sources of information. They didn't trust the State Department (rightly so, in my opinion.) Remember, a few years later, in the Nixon administration, the Joint Chiefs had that yeoman in the White House spy on the administration for them.

Sure, there was murky bureaucratic politics going on. But that doesn't excuse killing the sailors.

[aristeides]

They knew the Israelis were lying to them. About what?

About just about everything having to do with the Middle East war in '67. Read the chapter in Bamford.

[Nix 2]

You are certifiable, aristeides. It was a condemnation of the commanding NSA officers who put that ship deliberately in harm's way, and then tried to lie out of it. Don't you even make such a gross mistatement and assign your own twisted meaning to it unless you can prove to me with certainty that you read minds. As of now, your Naval Security group has little but cryptology in common with NSA. And since you were reserve, I can't see where you have so much experience either. If Bamford is your only source, you are screwed.

[quidnunc]

Aristeides wrote in reply to me: (Quidnunc Wrote: At the time, the US was leaning more toward the Arabs than towards Israel.) As far as I know, that's untrue. We might not have become full-fledged allies of Israel at that point, but American public opinion was very much in favor of Israel, and I find it very hard to believe that LBJ's administration did not reflect that bias. Think of the extent to which LBJ was beholden to Abe Fortas throughout his political career, for God's sake. Before I accept this claim, I want to see some evidence.

The impulse to reply "prove it" to an assertion which counters a point under discussion is one of the trappings of childhood that true adults outgrow.

Public opinion and governmental policy did not swing solidly behind Israel until the 1967 war and a reasonable amount of objective reaearch by you will establish the fact beyond question.

And isn't it funny how the USS LIBERTY incident just happens to be germaine to every thread having to do with Israel or Jews?

[aristeides]

If you think that the primary blame for the attack on the Liberty rests on the NSA, you are the one that is certifiable.

[aristeides]

Name me one thing that LBJ did that hurt Israel.

[quidnunc]

Quidnunc wrote: Public opinion and governmental policy did not swing solidly behind Israel until the 1967 war and a reasonable amount of objective reaearch by you will establish the fact beyond question.

Quidnunc should have wrote: Public opinion and governmental policy did not swing solidly behind Israel until after the 1967 war and a reasonable amount of objective reaearch by you will establish the fact beyond question.

[aristeides]

Public opinion and governmental policy did not swing solidly behind Israel until the 1967 war and a reasonable amount of objective reaearch by you will establish the fact beyond question.

I was 20 years old at the time. I remember the state of U.S. opinion.