These findings notwithstanding, the case of the assault on the Liberty has never been closed. If anything, the accusations leveled against Israel have grown sharper with time. In recent years, an impressive number of former American officials have gone on record insisting that the Israeli action was, in fact, deliberate. These include Adm. Thomas H. Moorer, who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) at the time of the Liberty incident, who has labeled the episode a “cover-up,”

This is simply not true. If anything the debate of what happened ,and the discourse have been suppressed in media. USS Liberty Memorial Main Page :

“Yet despite these things a few Americans seem to accept the preposterous claim that the attack was a mistake and that firing stopped with the torpedo explosion. One can accept and understand this attitude from an Israeli, as he would have a natural tendency to believe his country’s version of events and to disbelieve contrary versions — especially since he has no personal experience to draw upon. But how can an American disbelieve the virtually identical eyewitness reports of scores of surviving fellow Americans and accept instead the undocumented claims of the foreign power that tried to kill them? That is very difficult to understand or to accept.

History is never closed. Classified documents are made available, bones are dug up,new technology makes different roads open for exploration.
Of course I understand Orens motives. He is an apologist for the zionist regime and a whitewasher of their crimes.

Albert Einsteins differs fr. you in far more than opposing the Irgun. He certainly would’ve opposed all aggressive Israeli actions such as the Suez war, the 67 attack on Egypt, the settlement venture, the current Occupation. All of it. I am a Zionist. Why would I argue w. you over whether A. Einstein was a Zionist or not? It’s immaterial. What matters is that he would differ from you in every major judgment about Israeli policy toward its Arab neighbors.

Regarding Israel’s 67 pre emptive attack I find it interesting that virtually every time in its history Israel has a choice bet. a belligerent, aggressive act and a more nuanced, less militant one–it virtually always chooses the former. And so it did in 67. Closing the Strait gave Israel an option: to pre-emptively strike or to see how events might play out & test whether the Arabs really intended to go to war. Israel chose not to wait & strike first. The Arabs did NOT fire the first shot.

it’s that Chomsky trumped up THEIR work as if THAT neo-nazi tripe was credible scholarship

You are one lazy-ass commenter. I’ve told you 3 times now if you want to claim anything regarding Chomsky you’ll have to quote chapter & verse about it for it to have any credibility. Again, you haven’t done so. Your word alone is worth NOTHING here. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. Either provide real evidence or go somewhere where your ripe prejudices will be more welcome.

You don’t have to worry about how your scholarship would be received. Judging by yr contributions here you’d be welcomed w. open arms by David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes, Alan Dershowitz, Steven Plaut, maybe Michael Oren & maybe even Ken Stein. Beyond that, I’m afraid you wouldn’t have much in the way of credibility.

MEMRI…merely translates arab/muslim media. What’s wrong with this, unless they’re trying to mislead people by falsely translating arab/muslim transmissions?

Bingo. You hit the nail on the head. They misleadingly & sometimes falsely translate Arab sources. Sometimes they just translate out of context. Sometimes they twist a word or phrase. Sometimes they just plain mess up their translations. At any rate, they cherry pick items that make Arabs look as bad as possible & never translate anything that would have a neutral or positive connotation. Look up my comment rules: MEMRI is a treif source for this site.

1. I realize sources cited by both sides of this debate can be biased. Many articles on both sides of this debate are biased. The problem isn’t bias, however, it’s whether such bias leads to false, omitted, or created facts, superficialities, hyperbole, or outright distortion. Rather than reject a source due to the political affiliation of the author, it’s far more sensible to show how/why the author is disingenuous or wrong and THEN reject their work out of hand. What I’ve noticed here is that whether I quote from Ken Stein, a proIsrael source, or Michael Oren - these guys are rejected wholesale solely on the basis of their presumed political affiliation, not on the content of their works. This is anti-intellectual.

2. I brought up a proIsrael source that proves beyond dispute that Einstein was a zionist, but it’s as if I’ve presented no evidence whatsoever - solely due to the source from which the information comes. Again - if any information from that source is wrong, you have good reason to suspect all other information from that source - but short of that, you’re just in denial. There’s no question Einstein was a zionist. Whether he was like me is another issue entirely. I’d have sided with Ben Gurion against Irgun/Stern just as he and Einstein did, so I’m not certain why it’s assumed I’m not lke Einstein.

3. To say that Israel was not provoked in 1967 is absurd. The casus belli of the 1967 war was Egypt’s blockade of the straits of Tiran, a clear act of war - and the primary cause of the 1956 Egypt/Israel Suez Canal war. If that wasn’t enough, the very fact that this act of war coincided with Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon lining their forces and armory along Israel’s borders (similar to 1956 when Egypt’s tripartite agreement put Nassar in charge of Jordan and Syria’s troops) goes to show Israel only had 2 choices. Enjoy the Suez blockade and wait to be attacked and then fight within their own borders - risking massive civilian casualties, or attack. For Chomsky and followers to not only claim that Israel started the 1967 war (as if not provoked) and Jordan and Syria only joined later (like the allies of WW2) is ridiculous - and calls into great question Chomsky’s scholarship.

4. It’s not that Chomsky was buddies with Shahak and Faurisson and therefore toss out Chomsky, it’s that Chomsky trumped up THEIR work as if THAT neo-nazi tripe was credible scholarship. If I or anyone else were to trump up neo-nazi “scholarship”, that would automatically - and for very good cause - put me on the outside looking in in all scholarly circles.

5. As for MEMRI, this is an organization that merely translates arab/muslim media. What’s wrong with this, unless they’re trying to mislead people by falsely translating arab/muslim transmissions?

I must agree with Richard. You are not a scholar. I’ll go even further..your approach to this debate shows signs of an anti-intellectual attitude. Maybe that explains your dislike of Noam Chomsky. Again and again you are stating his guilt by association, throwing holocaust denials ,even neo-nazism-crap in his direction in hope that some of it will stick.

Advanced systems of criminal law accept the principle that guilt shall only be personal. Assumption of collective responsibility is common for feud. Such systems tend to judge the guilt of persons by their associations, classifications or organizations, which often gives rise to racial, ethnic, social and religious prejudices

Wright, Quincy (1949). International Law and Guilt by Association

Another sign is your selective reading. All of your quotes/links are from biased sources. I understand the temptation to have your own ideological views confirmed again and again, but the result of this “mental masturbation” is reduction to a state of stupidity.

Maybe a reading of the General Assembly’s record of 19 June 1967-meeting can lift the fog from your eyes.
Or Security council resolutions 228

Back to topic.

I see no reason to remind you of all skirmishes and bombings along the Israeli borders in late-66 -early 67,or the mutual sabre rattling ,.it is much the same as US-Iran of today. but from there to an all-out preemptive attack is a giant leap, legal and moral.
That is what the German generals were found guilt of in Nürnberg 1946 -To instigate an unlawful war. As Bush and Olmert should be. Maybe that’s why we see so few Israeli and American generals on vacation here in Europe ?
:-))

Anyways, stop referring to MEMRI when you write—it’s an insult to every thinking man. A good place to start is wikipedia Remember to check the footnotes (that is how Norman Finkelstein exposed Joan Peters fraudulent book : “From Time Immemorial” )

You once again mischaracterize my views. I never said that Einstein wasn’t a Zionist. But if he was he was not the kind of Zionist you are. Period. Full stop.

Once again you have flagrantly violated my comment rules by making unsupported claims back up by nothing more than your own paraphrase of other sources which you neither quote nor link to.

You are not a scholar. Yet you have the unmitigated gall to claim that Chomsky is not a legitimate scholar???! Puh-leeze.

It is not even controversial that in 1967 Israel attacked Egypt

You claim this is a “doozy” w/o describing how this is so. Chomsky is of course describing reality here. Israel began the war pre-emptively by attacking Egypt. Do you dispute this?

Finally, I am giving you a final warning. If you continue to make unsupported charges smearing individuals whose politics you dislike, you may be banned from commenting at this site. I have standards. You may not like them. But if you don’t adhere to them you’ll lose yr privileges here.

Now that’s rich. I don’t believe you for a minute. You’d be willing to retreat to 67 borders AND give up, say, all of northern and southern Israel while retaining say, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem in return for peace???? As the wonderful Yiddish saying goes: “You can’t piss on my back and tell me it’s rain.”

You misunderstood me. My offer is more generous than any offered yet. I’d give 3/4 of Israel within the green lines as well as 100% of the OT without thinking twice if genuine peace would be achieved. That means all OT and 3/4 of the Israel that existed from 1948-1967. Life is more important than land.

1. If you’d look at that link from my May 4 post on Einstein’s zionism, you’d see it’s quite ridiculous to continue to claim he was not a zionist. Or do you guys maybe believe the quotes are fabricated and the link is complete rubbish, just because it comes from a pro-Israel source? Why mock the source, or the politics behind the source, when the evidence against your position is so overwhelming? If you have reason to believe that the site’s quotes and letters attributed to Einstein are hoaxes or forgeries, and can prove the site I referenced is terribly misleading, please let me know and I’ll write immediately to the organization responsible.

2. As for Chomsky and Faurisson, you can easily google information on this episode. It is beyond dispute that Faurisson is a holocaust denier. Chomsky signed a petition written by a known neo-nazi that affirmed Faurisson’s alleged “scholarly” credentials. Chomsky went further and stated that Faurisson’s Holocaust denying work was extensive historical research while giving credence to Faurisson’s outlandish lies (stuff that can be found on Stormfront) as “findings”. When questioned, Chomsky found nothing antisemitic about holocaust denial. Chomsky then called Faurisson an apolitical liberal. This episode alone disqulifies Chomsky as a respected scholar. We all know very well that if some rightwing hack did the same as Chomsky, that person’s literary career would rightly be deemed a joke.

If you’ve heard of Israel Shahak, you’d know of Shahak’s screeds against the Talmud, jewish kids supposedly taught to curse when passing nonjewish cemetaries, washing hands = worshipping Satan, etc. You can easily google this information and find it. Of Shahak, Chomsky wrote: “Shahak is an outstanding scholar, with remarkable insight and depth of knowledge. His work is informed and penetrating, a contribution of great value.” All this can be googled.

I ask you, what is a respected scholar doing by endorsing antisemitic tripe like that? Why is it Chomsky gets a free pass for this when no one should? As for Chomsky’s ridiculous claims, there are many that can be googled under keywords Chomsky and lies. Since we mentioned the 1967 war, here’s a doozy:

“It is not even controversial that in 1967 Israel attacked Egypt. Jordan and Syria entered the conflict much as England and France went to war when Germany attacked their ally Poland in 1939. One might argue that the Israeli attack was legitimate, but to convert it into an Arab invasion is rather audacious — or would be, if the practice were not routine”. What’s not controversial, in reality, is that Syria, Jordan, and Egypt all had their infantry and armor positioned at Israel’s borders. Nasser himself stated just days before the war: “The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel…to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations”. (May 30, 1967 - Nasser)

I don’t see how anyone can take Chomsky seriously.

Read my comment rules carefully. If you wish to make a serious charge against someone you MUST provide proof of yr claim. Otherwise, you have zip credibility. That is what you have done. Claiming that Chomsky fabricates evidence is a far cry fr. actually proving it. So prove it or don’t claim it. I don’t know that Faurisson has written a Holocaust denying book and I don’t know that Chomsky has endorsed it. Frankly, it’s not a subject that interests me very much. But the fact that you claim it doesn’t make it so.

I don’t give a hoot who Michael Oren worked for 13 yrs ago or more. He now gets paid by people who fund Bibi Netanyahu which would make him a Likud partisan. The fact that he publishes in the Wall Street Journal does NOT indicate he is a serious, non-partisan scholar. Just the opposite. I always laugh when rightists think they’ve proven something by using Benny Morris as proof. They seem to think that Benny Morris is a legitmate source for a progressive like me because he ONCE was on the left. Benny Morris is just as much a right wing ideologue as Michael Oren. THe former has certainly written important scholarly works, but mostly before he had his ideological conversion.

You’re mischaracterizing Einstein’s views. I believe a good part of the reason he refused the presidency of Israel is because he felt deep discomfort with Israel’s hostile relations with its Arab neighbors. He was a pacifist after all. Not an unqualified pacifist since he supported the resarch that led to the atom bomb. But Israel’s relationship with its neighbors had to have made him extremely uncomfortable.

I’d gladly hand over 3/4 of all Israel including the OT if it resulted in genuine peace

That’s mighty generous of you. But considering it will take the return of far more than 3/4 of the conquered territory Israel has appropriated, there isn’t a hope in hell that you will ever have to be tested. Israel will end up returning more like 95-98%, while retaining a few major settlement blocs, in any final peace agreement. You’ll have to think more than twice about it since you’ll hate the idea so much. But it will happen.

Chomsky did of course not endorse Robert Faurisson’s book. How can any sane person endorse holocaust or naqba denial ? What Noam Chomsky did, and rightly so, was to write ” Some Elementary Comments on the Rights of Freedom of Expression”, as an introduction to Faurisson’s book.

The french philosopher Voltaire emphasized the human rights of criminal suspects, saying to a suspect who was in custody on charges of murder, “I do not agree with your ideas but I will fight for your right to state your opinions.”
To make holocaust denial illegal when blasphemy is legal makes a mockery of the legal system and obscure ordinary peoples sense of justice. Jews might be “The Chosen People”–at least according to their own “folie de grandeur”, but to place themselves above God is to stretch it too far,dont you think ?

I disagree with Chomsky. Writing the introduction was not a good idea. But Im no anarchist,neither am I thirsting for a fight with the zionist nomenklatura in USA.
It is important that freedom of speech is absolute,and not at the whim of the ruling elite. So we need more Chomskys ,people who can breach the compact stupidity,ignorance and compliance of an outfoxed public.

We are ,dear friend,straying away from the issue at hand. Your assertion was that Chomsky was a liar writing what the leadership in Israel have told of the events leading up to the war in 67. You have failed to prove your case-even worse, you prove again and again that you are a liar. You need some self-examination. Ask yourself,” do you want to find the truth, or are you wasting your time defending a failed state and a lost case ?

2. Your proof of Einstein’s love for zionism is zionism-israel’s website ?
You must be joking.