The Liberty Affair and the Problem with the Truth of History
There is no mystery about the reason for President Johnston’s decision to order a cover-up. It was entirely in keeping with an earlier decision he made. Less than 15 minutes after the start of the Israeli attack, Captain Joseph Tully launched planes from the American aircraft carrier USS Saratoga to go to the aid of the Liberty. Johnson ordered the planes to be recalled. There was to be no engagement with the Israelis, even if that meant letting Americans die.
Johnson didn’t want any kind of confrontation with the Zionist state of Israel and its awesomely powerful lobby in America. He knew better than anybody else that if the lobby mobilised American Jews against him and the Democratic Party, he and it would be in very deep trouble. Very many Democrats who run for election are dependent on campaign funding organised by the Zionist lobby and, in six states in close election races, they can also be dependent on organised Jewish votes. (One problem with what passes for democracy in America is that it’s for sale to the highest bidders; and Zionism is one of the highest, if not the highest, bidder. An eminent Jewish American said recently that the Democratic Party would not be able to come up with a foreign policy different from that of Bush and Cheney “unless it ends its intellectual and financial dependency on the Israel lobby.”)
But why, really, was the media a party to the cover-up of an Israeli act of war on America?
I think there are four parts to the answer.
One is that many columnists and commentators who have regular and prime access to the most influential American media organs are Jewish and pro Israel right or wrong. (That observation is not a criticism of the fact that there are a disproportionate number of Jews in positions of media power and influence. That reality is a tribute to the fact that Jews are, generally speaking, the intellectual elite of the Western world).
Another is that editors and other media managers who are hostages to commercial pressures fear that if they offended Zionism too much, they would be punished by the withdrawal of advertising, which in terms of lost revenue would be catastrophic for many media institutions. The bottom-line is that rather than risk offending Zionism too much, the media censors itself.
Another is that media people in general (excluding only those who peddle Zionism’s line) don’t want the hassle of being accused of anti-Semitism. The false charge of anti-Semitism is the blackmail card which the obscenity of the Nazi holocaust enables Zionism to play to silence criticism of Israel and suppress informed and honest debate.
But in my view a main motivation for media complicity in Zionism’s suppression of the truth of history is the unspeakable belief that the truth about Israel’s behaviour (from the first round of its ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948) could provoke Holocaust II, shorthand for another great turning against Jews everywhere. This is a general point as I make it in the Preface to Volume Two of Zionism, The Real Enemy of the Jews. But let’s now take that general point and ask a particular question.
What would have been the reaction in America in June 1967 and after IF Americans had been told the truth about Israel’s attack on the Liberty?
There might well have been a manifestation, even an explosion, of classical anti-Semitism. And that’s the problem with telling the truth of history as it relates to the making and sustaining of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It could provoke classical anti-Semitism.
In the mainly Gentile Judeo-Christian or Western world, where most of the world’s Jews live by choice as citizens of many nations, the term anti-Semitism is used as though it had only one meaning – prejudice against, and loathing or even hatred of, Jews just because they are Jews. In fact, Arabs are Semites and to be anti-Semitic is actually to be anti Jews and anti Arabs. That’s why I use the term classical anti-Semitism to indicate that I am referring to prejudice against Jews.
The obvious next question asks itself.
If the truth of history could provoke classical anti-Semitism, does this mean that it, the truth, should not be told?
My answer to this question begins with a statement of what I think is most likely to happen if the truth of history is not told. I mean if it does not become available to more than a small number of citizens. The Zionist state of Israel, which has already become its own worst enemy (because its policies are counter-productive), will remain above and beyond the law and will pose an increasingly serious threat not only to the peace of the region and the world, but also to the best interests of Jews everywhere and the moral integrity of Judaism itself.
Page 4 of 6 | Previous page | Next page