|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
VTR
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 11:01 pm Post subject: Dutch support for Israel eroding |
 |
|
Dutch support for Israel eroding
By Michel Hoebink
13-05-2008
The Netherlands has always headed the list of European countries that support Israel. Since
1982, however, public opinion has grown ambivalent. The Dutch still admire Israel as a nation,
but they frown on its policies toward the Palestinians.
Israel and the NetherlandsPerhaps the Dutch have a guilty conscience. During World War Two, the
Nazis deported about 100,000 Dutch Jews, meeting little resistance from the non-Jewish
population. This may be one reason why the Netherlands has always had more sympathy for Israel
than most other European countries.
During and after the 1967 Six Day War, Dutch support for Israel was almost unanimous. Secondary
school pupils sang the battle songs of the Israeli army and many Dutch cars sported bumper
stickers that read 'We support Israel'.
David and Goliath
Dutch Christians upheld the concept of Israel as the 'Holy Land'. The more progressive, secular
Dutch population saw Israel as a small, enlightened nation that brought European ideals of
socialism and democracy to a 'backwards' Middle East. Hundreds of idealistic Dutch youths
traveled to Israel to work on the collective farms, the Kibbutzim.
The wars of 1967 and 1973 confirmed the Dutch perception of the Israelis as the underdogs. The
small nation fighting the armies of the surrounding Arab countries was compared to the biblical
hero David who defeated the giant Goliath. The plight of the Palestinians was ignored.
Middle East expert Bertus Hendriks remembers how difficult it was in those days to express a
balanced viewpoint including a Palestinian perspective. He was the president of the General
Students' Union of Amsterdam (ASVA), which supported Israel's right to exist in peace and
security. But it also criticized the one-sided approach to the conflict which was so pervasive
in the Netherlands at that time. The union also disputed anti-Arab rhetoric, says Hendriks.
"This standpoint brought us strong condemnations from all sides."
Massacres
Dutch public opinion began to change during the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Palestinian
terrorist attacks in the preceding years had only boosted sympathy for Israel, but Israeli air
strikes on Palestinian civilians and Israel's indirect involvement in the massacres at the
Sabra and Shatila refugee camps met with condemnation. Israel went from victim to perpetrator.
According to political scientist Fred Grünfeld, who wrote a book on Dutch perceptions of
Israel, public opinion grew ambivalent after 1982.
"On the one hand, the basic attitude is pro-Israel, but at the same time there is a growing
irritation with Israeli policies."
From 1982, the idealized image of Israel became tarnished, explains Bertus Hendriks.
"The first intifada played a prominent role in this process. The Israeli military firing at
stone-throwing Palestinian youths; Prime Minister Rabin vowing to 'break the bones' of the
stone-throwers."
The allegory of David and Goliath was reversed in favour of the Palestinians, says Hendriks.
"A helpless people fighting their oppressor with stones. That image lent an enormous legitimacy
to the Palestinian cause in Dutch public opinion."
After the Oslo agreements of 1993, Dutch development workers traveled to the occupied
territories and came back with stories about the daily life of the Palestinians.
"They saw the harassments, the illegal expansion of Jewish settlements. The image of liberal
occupation, carefully projected by Israel, was further undermined."
Support fades
The emergence of the fundamentalist Hamas movement and a wave of suicide attacks against Israel
did not help the Palestinian cause in the Netherlands. All the more because these developments
coincided with the global tension between the Islam and the West after 9/11. But according to
Bertus Hendriks, sympathy for Israel continued to erode.
Until today, however, Dutch governments have always stuck to their pro-Israeli stance. The
present coalition of Christian Democrats and Labour supports the Israeli boycott of Hamas as a
partner in peace negotiations. Speaking in January this year, Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen,
a Christian Democrat, blamed Hamas for the crisis in Gaza. But Dutch Development Minister Bert
Koenders, from the Labour Party, caused commotion by calling the Israeli blockade of Gaza a
"collective punishment and a transgression of international law". With this statement, Koenders
expressed a growing call within his party to take a firmer stand towards Israel.
http://www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/region/netherlands/080513-netherlands-israel-mc |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
JSM
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 11:01 pm Post subject: Re: Dutch support for Israel eroding |
|
|
On May 14, 11:01 am, VTR <vexjo...@gmx.us> wrote:
| Quote: |
Dutch support for Israel eroding
By Michel Hoebink
13-05-2008
The Netherlands has always headed the list of European countries that support Israel. Since
1982, however, public opinion has grown ambivalent. The Dutch still admire Israel as a nation,
but they frown on its policies toward the Palestinians.
Israel and the NetherlandsPerhaps the Dutch have a guilty conscience. During World War Two, the
Nazis deported about 100,000 Dutch Jews, meeting little resistance from the non-Jewish
population. This may be one reason why the Netherlands has always had more sympathy for Israel
than most other European countries.
During and after the 1967 Six Day War, Dutch support for Israel was almost unanimous. Secondary
school pupils sang the battle songs of the Israeli army and many Dutch cars sported bumper
stickers that read 'We support Israel'.
David and Goliath
Dutch Christians upheld the concept of Israel as the 'Holy Land'. The more progressive, secular
Dutch population saw Israel as a small, enlightened nation that brought European ideals of
socialism and democracy to a 'backwards' Middle East. Hundreds of idealistic Dutch youths
traveled to Israel to work on the collective farms, the Kibbutzim.
The wars of 1967 and 1973 confirmed the Dutch perception of the Israelis as the underdogs. The
small nation fighting the armies of the surrounding Arab countries was compared to the biblical
hero David who defeated the giant Goliath. The plight of the Palestinians was ignored.
Middle East expert Bertus Hendriks remembers how difficult it was in those days to express a
balanced viewpoint including a Palestinian perspective. He was the president of the General
Students' Union of Amsterdam (ASVA), which supported Israel's right to exist in peace and
security. But it also criticized the one-sided approach to the conflict which was so pervasive
in the Netherlands at that time. The union also disputed anti-Arab rhetoric, says Hendriks.
"This standpoint brought us strong condemnations from all sides."
Massacres
Dutch public opinion began to change during the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Palestinian
terrorist attacks in the preceding years had only boosted sympathy for Israel, but Israeli air
strikes on Palestinian civilians and Israel's indirect involvement in the massacres at the
Sabra and Shatila refugee camps met with condemnation. Israel went from victim to perpetrator.
According to political scientist Fred Grünfeld, who wrote a book on Dutch perceptions of
Israel, public opinion grew ambivalent after 1982.
"On the one hand, the basic attitude is pro-Israel, but at the same time there is a growing
irritation with Israeli policies."
From 1982, the idealized image of Israel became tarnished, explains Bertus Hendriks.
"The first intifada played a prominent role in this process. The Israeli military firing at
stone-throwing Palestinian youths; Prime Minister Rabin vowing to 'break the bones' of the
stone-throwers."
The allegory of David and Goliath was reversed in favour of the Palestinians, says Hendriks.
"A helpless people fighting their oppressor with stones. That image lent an enormous legitimacy
to the Palestinian cause in Dutch public opinion."
After the Oslo agreements of 1993, Dutch development workers traveled to the occupied
territories and came back with stories about the daily life of the Palestinians.
"They saw the harassments, the illegal expansion of Jewish settlements. The image of liberal
occupation, carefully projected by Israel, was further undermined."
Support fades
The emergence of the fundamentalist Hamas movement and a wave of suicide attacks against Israel
did not help the Palestinian cause in the Netherlands. All the more because these developments
coincided with the global tension between the Islam and the West after 9/11. But according to
Bertus Hendriks, sympathy for Israel continued to erode.
Until today, however, Dutch governments have always stuck to their pro-Israeli stance. The
present coalition of Christian Democrats and Labour supports the Israeli boycott of Hamas as a
partner in peace negotiations. Speaking in January this year, Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen,
a Christian Democrat, blamed Hamas for the crisis in Gaza. But Dutch Development Minister Bert
Koenders, from the Labour Party, caused commotion by calling the Israeli blockade of Gaza a
"collective punishment and a transgression of international law". With this statement, Koenders
expressed a growing call within his party to take a firmer stand towards Israel.
http://www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/region/netherlands/0805...
|
Just think how pissed they would be if the Israelies attacked a Dutch
ship. www.ussliberty.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
VTR
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 11:03 am Post subject: Re: Dutch support for Israel eroding |
|
|
JSM wrote:
| Quote: |
On May 14, 11:01 am, VTR <vexjo...@gmx.us> wrote:
Dutch support for Israel eroding
By Michel Hoebink
13-05-2008
The Netherlands has always headed the list of European countries that support Israel. Since
1982, however, public opinion has grown ambivalent. The Dutch still admire Israel as a nation,
but they frown on its policies toward the Palestinians.
Israel and the NetherlandsPerhaps the Dutch have a guilty conscience. During World War Two, the
Nazis deported about 100,000 Dutch Jews, meeting little resistance from the non-Jewish
population. This may be one reason why the Netherlands has always had more sympathy for Israel
than most other European countries.
During and after the 1967 Six Day War, Dutch support for Israel was almost unanimous. Secondary
school pupils sang the battle songs of the Israeli army and many Dutch cars sported bumper
stickers that read 'We support Israel'.
David and Goliath
Dutch Christians upheld the concept of Israel as the 'Holy Land'. The more progressive, secular
Dutch population saw Israel as a small, enlightened nation that brought European ideals of
socialism and democracy to a 'backwards' Middle East. Hundreds of idealistic Dutch youths
traveled to Israel to work on the collective farms, the Kibbutzim.
The wars of 1967 and 1973 confirmed the Dutch perception of the Israelis as the underdogs. The
small nation fighting the armies of the surrounding Arab countries was compared to the biblical
hero David who defeated the giant Goliath. The plight of the Palestinians was ignored.
Middle East expert Bertus Hendriks remembers how difficult it was in those days to express a
balanced viewpoint including a Palestinian perspective. He was the president of the General
Students' Union of Amsterdam (ASVA), which supported Israel's right to exist in peace and
security. But it also criticized the one-sided approach to the conflict which was so pervasive
in the Netherlands at that time. The union also disputed anti-Arab rhetoric, says Hendriks.
"This standpoint brought us strong condemnations from all sides."
Massacres
Dutch public opinion began to change during the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Palestinian
terrorist attacks in the preceding years had only boosted sympathy for Israel, but Israeli air
strikes on Palestinian civilians and Israel's indirect involvement in the massacres at the
Sabra and Shatila refugee camps met with condemnation. Israel went from victim to perpetrator.
According to political scientist Fred Grünfeld, who wrote a book on Dutch perceptions of
Israel, public opinion grew ambivalent after 1982.
"On the one hand, the basic attitude is pro-Israel, but at the same time there is a growing
irritation with Israeli policies."
From 1982, the idealized image of Israel became tarnished, explains Bertus Hendriks.
"The first intifada played a prominent role in this process. The Israeli military firing at
stone-throwing Palestinian youths; Prime Minister Rabin vowing to 'break the bones' of the
stone-throwers."
The allegory of David and Goliath was reversed in favour of the Palestinians, says Hendriks.
"A helpless people fighting their oppressor with stones. That image lent an enormous legitimacy
to the Palestinian cause in Dutch public opinion."
After the Oslo agreements of 1993, Dutch development workers traveled to the occupied
territories and came back with stories about the daily life of the Palestinians.
"They saw the harassments, the illegal expansion of Jewish settlements. The image of liberal
occupation, carefully projected by Israel, was further undermined."
Support fades
The emergence of the fundamentalist Hamas movement and a wave of suicide attacks against Israel
did not help the Palestinian cause in the Netherlands. All the more because these developments
coincided with the global tension between the Islam and the West after 9/11. But according to
Bertus Hendriks, sympathy for Israel continued to erode.
Until today, however, Dutch governments have always stuck to their pro-Israeli stance. The
present coalition of Christian Democrats and Labour supports the Israeli boycott of Hamas as a
partner in peace negotiations. Speaking in January this year, Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen,
a Christian Democrat, blamed Hamas for the crisis in Gaza. But Dutch Development Minister Bert
Koenders, from the Labour Party, caused commotion by calling the Israeli blockade of Gaza a
"collective punishment and a transgression of international law". With this statement, Koenders
expressed a growing call within his party to take a firmer stand towards Israel.
http://www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/region/netherlands/0805...
Just think how pissed they would be if the Israelies attacked a Dutch
ship. www.ussliberty.org
|
The AIPAC is the reason why Israel is getting away with a lot of crimes.
Declaration of Ward Boston, Jr., Captain, JAGC, USN (Ret.)
I, Ward Boston, Jr. do declare that the following statement is true and complete:
1. For more than 30 years, I have remained silent on the topic of USS Liberty. I am a
military man and when orders come in from the Secretary of Defense and President of the United
States, I follow them.
2. However, recent attempts to rewrite history compel me to share the truth.
3. In June of 1967, while serving as a Captain in the Judge Advocate General Corps,
Department of the Navy, I was assigned as senior legal counsel for the Navy’s Court of Inquiry
into the brutal attack on USS Liberty, which had occurred on June 8th.
4. The late Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, president of the Court, and I were given only one week
to gather evidence for the Navy’s official investigation into the attack, despite the fact that
we both had estimated that a proper Court of Inquiry into an attack of this magnitude would
take at least six months to conduct.
5. Admiral John S. McCain, Jr., then Commander-in-chief, Naval Forces Europe
(CINCUSNAVEUR), at his headquarters in London, had charged Admiral Kidd (in a letter dated June
10, 1967) to “inquire into all the pertinent facts and circumstances leading to and connected
with the armed attack; damage resulting therefrom; and deaths of and injuries to Naval personnel.”
6. Despite the short amount of time we were given, we gathered a vast amount of evidence,
including hours of heartbreaking testimony from the young survivors.
7. The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this
attack, which killed 34 American sailors and injured 172 others, was a deliberate effort to
sink an American ship and murder its entire crew. Each evening, after hearing testimony all
day, we often spoke our private thoughts concerning what we had seen and heard. I recall
Admiral Kidd repeatedly referring to the Israeli forces responsible for the attack as
“murderous bastards.” It was our shared belief, based on the documentary evidence and testimony
we received first hand, that the Israeli attack was planned and deliberate, and could not
possibly have been an accident.
8. I am certain that the Israeli pilots that undertook the attack, as well as their
superiors, who had ordered the attack, were well aware that the ship was American.
9. I saw the flag, which had visibly identified the ship as American, riddled with bullet
holes, and heard testimony that made it clear that the Israelis intended there be no survivors.
10. Not only did the Israelis attack the ship with napalm, gunfire, and missiles, Israeli
torpedo boats machine-gunned three lifeboats that had been launched in an attempt by the crew
to save the most seriously wounded—a war crime.
11. Admiral Kidd and I both felt it necessary to travel to Israel to interview the Israelis
who took part in the attack. Admiral Kidd telephoned Admiral McCain to discuss making
arrangements. Admiral Kidd later told me that Admiral McCain was adamant that we were not to
travel to Israel or contact the Israelis concerning this matter.
12. Regrettably, we did not receive into evidence and the Court did not consider any of the
more than sixty witness declarations from men who had been hospitalized and were unable to
testify in person.
13. I am outraged at the efforts of the apologists for Israel in this country to claim that
this attack was a case of “mistaken identity.”
14. In particular, the recent publication of Jay Cristol’s book, The Liberty Incident,
twists the facts and misrepresents the views of those of us who investigated the attack.
15. It is Cristol’s insidious attempt to whitewash the facts that has pushed me to speak out.
16. I know from personal conversations I had with Admiral Kidd that President Lyndon Johnson
and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of
“mistaken identity” despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
17. Admiral Kidd told me, after returning from Washington, D.C. that he had been ordered to
sit down with two civilians from either the White House or the Defense Department, and rewrite
portions of the court’s findings.
18. Admiral Kidd also told me that he had been ordered to “put the lid” on everything having
to do with the attack on USS Liberty. We were never to speak of it and we were to caution
everyone else involved that they could never speak of it again.
19. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of that statement as I know that the Court of
Inquiry transcript that has been released to the public is not the same one that I certified
and sent off to Washington.
20. I know this because it was necessary, due to the exigencies of time, to hand correct and
initial a substantial number of pages. I have examined the released version of the transcript
and I did not see any pages that bore my hand corrections and initials. Also, the original did
not have any deliberately blank pages, as the released version does. Finally, the testimony of
Lt. Painter concerning the deliberate machine gunning of the life rafts by the Israeli torpedo
boat crews, which I distinctly recall being given at the Court of Inquiry and included in the
original transcript, is now missing and has been excised.
21. Following the conclusion of the Court of Inquiry, Admiral Kidd and I remained in
contact. Though we never spoke of the attack in public, we did discuss it between ourselves, on
occasion. Every time we discussed the attack, Admiral Kidd was adamant that it was a
deliberate, planned attack on an American ship.
22. In 1990, I received a telephone call from Jay Cristol, who wanted to interview me
concerning the functioning of the Court of Inquiry. I told him that I would not speak to him on
that subject and prepared to hang up the telephone. Cristol then began asking me about my
personal background and other, non-Court of Inquiry related matters. I endeavored to answer
these questions and politely extricate myself from the conversation. Cristol continued to
return to the subject of the Court of Inquiry, which I refused to discuss with him. Finally, I
suggested that he contact Admiral Kidd and ask him about the Court of Inquiry.
23. Shortly after my conversation with Cristol, I received a telephone call from Admiral
Kidd, inquiring about Cristol and what he was up to. The Admiral spoke of Cristol in
disparaging terms and even opined that “Cristol must be an Israeli agent.” I don’t know if he
meant that literally or it was his way of expressing his disgust for Cristol’s highly partisan,
pro-Israeli approach to questions involving USS Liberty.
24. At no time did I ever hear Admiral Kidd speak of Cristol other than in highly
disparaging terms. I find Cristol’s claims of a “close friendship” with Admiral Kidd to be
utterly incredible. I also find it impossible to believe the statements he attributes to
Admiral Kidd, concerning the attack on USS Liberty.
25. Several years later, I received a letter from Cristol that contained what he purported
to be his notes of our prior conversation. These “notes” were grossly incorrect and bore no
resemblance in reality to that discussion. I find it hard to believe that these “notes” were
the product of a mistake, rather than an attempt to deceive. I informed Cristol that I
disagreed with his recollection of our conversation and that he was wrong. Cristol made several
attempts to arrange for the two of us to meet in person and talk but I always found ways to
avoid doing this. I did not wish to meet with Cristol as we had nothing in common and I did not
trust him.
26. Contrary to the misinformation presented by Cristol and others, it is important for the
American people to know that it is clear that Israel is responsible for deliberately attacking
an American ship and murdering American sailors, whose bereaved shipmates have lived with this
egregious conclusion for many years.
Dated: Jan. 9, 2004 at Coronado, California.
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/March_2004/0403010.html
http://www.gtr5.com/summary_of_events.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
English-Elephant
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 11:51 am Post subject: Re: Dutch support for Israel eroding |
|
|
On 14 May, 19:01, VTR <vexjo...@gmx.us> wrote:
But Dutch Development Minister Bert
Hi,
I don't think it caused commotion with that comment, that was the line
almost all European people and governments took, you can't
collectively punish the population. It's like the sanctions against
Iraq after the first gulf war, the public suffered and the people it
was supposed to target kept on living a life of luxury.
Israel really blundered with that strategy if you ask me.
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Tabby Cat
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 2:42 am Post subject: Re: Dutch support for Israel eroding |
|
|
On May 14, 11:03 pm, VTR <vexjo...@gmx.us> wrote:
| Quote: |
JSM wrote:
On May 14, 11:01 am, VTR <vexjo...@gmx.us> wrote:
Dutch support for Israel eroding
By Michel Hoebink
13-05-2008
The Netherlands has always headed the list of European countries that support Israel. Since
1982, however, public opinion has grown ambivalent. The Dutch still admire Israel as a nation,
but they frown on its policies toward the Palestinians.
Israel and the NetherlandsPerhaps the Dutch have a guilty conscience. During World War Two, the
Nazis deported about 100,000 Dutch Jews, meeting little resistance from the non-Jewish
population. This may be one reason why the Netherlands has always had more sympathy for Israel
than most other European countries.
During and after the 1967 Six Day War, Dutch support for Israel was almost unanimous. Secondary
school pupils sang the battle songs of the Israeli army and many Dutch cars sported bumper
stickers that read 'We support Israel'.
David and Goliath
Dutch Christians upheld the concept of Israel as the 'Holy Land'. The more progressive, secular
Dutch population saw Israel as a small, enlightened nation that brought European ideals of
socialism and democracy to a 'backwards' Middle East. Hundreds of idealistic Dutch youths
traveled to Israel to work on the collective farms, the Kibbutzim.
The wars of 1967 and 1973 confirmed the Dutch perception of the Israelis as the underdogs. The
small nation fighting the armies of the surrounding Arab countries was compared to the biblical
hero David who defeated the giant Goliath. The plight of the Palestinians was ignored.
Middle East expert Bertus Hendriks remembers how difficult it was in those days to express a
balanced viewpoint including a Palestinian perspective. He was the president of the General
Students' Union of Amsterdam (ASVA), which supported Israel's right to exist in peace and
security. But it also criticized the one-sided approach to the conflict which was so pervasive
in the Netherlands at that time. The union also disputed anti-Arab rhetoric, says Hendriks.
"This standpoint brought us strong condemnations from all sides."
Massacres
Dutch public opinion began to change during the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Palestinian
terrorist attacks in the preceding years had only boosted sympathy for Israel, but Israeli air
strikes on Palestinian civilians and Israel's indirect involvement in the massacres at the
Sabra and Shatila refugee camps met with condemnation. Israel went from victim to perpetrator.
According to political scientist Fred Grünfeld, who wrote a book on Dutch perceptions of
Israel, public opinion grew ambivalent after 1982.
"On the one hand, the basic attitude is pro-Israel, but at the same time there is a growing
irritation with Israeli policies."
From 1982, the idealized image of Israel became tarnished, explains Bertus Hendriks.
"The first intifada played a prominent role in this process. The Israeli military firing at
stone-throwing Palestinian youths; Prime Minister Rabin vowing to 'break the bones' of the
stone-throwers."
The allegory of David and Goliath was reversed in favour of the Palestinians, says Hendriks.
"A helpless people fighting their oppressor with stones. That image lent an enormous legitimacy
to the Palestinian cause in Dutch public opinion."
After the Oslo agreements of 1993, Dutch development workers traveled to the occupied
territories and came back with stories about the daily life of the Palestinians.
"They saw the harassments, the illegal expansion of Jewish settlements. The image of liberal
occupation, carefully projected by Israel, was further undermined."
Support fades
The emergence of the fundamentalist Hamas movement and a wave of suicide attacks against Israel
did not help the Palestinian cause in the Netherlands. All the more because these developments
coincided with the global tension between the Islam and the West after 9/11. But according to
Bertus Hendriks, sympathy for Israel continued to erode.
Until today, however, Dutch governments have always stuck to their pro-Israeli stance. The
present coalition of Christian Democrats and Labour supports the Israeli boycott of Hamas as a
partner in peace negotiations. Speaking in January this year, Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen,
a Christian Democrat, blamed Hamas for the crisis in Gaza. But Dutch Development Minister Bert
Koenders, from the Labour Party, caused commotion by calling the Israeli blockade of Gaza a
"collective punishment and a transgression of international law". With this statement, Koenders
expressed a growing call within his party to take a firmer stand towards Israel.
http://www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/region/netherlands/0805...
Just think how pissed they would be if the Israelies attacked a Dutch
ship. www.ussliberty.org
The AIPAC is the reason why Israel is getting away with a lot of crimes.
Declaration of Ward Boston, Jr., Captain, JAGC, USN (Ret.)
I, Ward Boston, Jr. do declare that the following statement is true and complete:
1. For more than 30 years, I have remained silent on the topic of USS Liberty. I am a
military man and when orders come in from the Secretary of Defense and President of the United
States, I follow them.
2. However, recent attempts to rewrite history compel me to share the truth.
3. In June of 1967, while serving as a Captain in the Judge Advocate General Corps,
Department of the Navy, I was assigned as senior legal counsel for the Navy’s Court of Inquiry
into the brutal attack on USS Liberty, which had occurred on June 8th.
4. The late Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, president of the Court, and I were given only one week
to gather evidence for the Navy’s official investigation into the attack, despite the fact that
we both had estimated that a proper Court of Inquiry into an attack of this magnitude would
take at least six months to conduct.
5. Admiral John S. McCain, Jr., then Commander-in-chief, Naval Forces Europe
(CINCUSNAVEUR), at his headquarters in London, had charged Admiral Kidd (in a letter dated June
10, 1967) to “inquire into all the pertinent facts and circumstances leading to and connected
with the armed attack; damage resulting therefrom; and deaths of and injuries to Naval personnel.”
6. Despite the short amount of time we were given, we gathered a vast amount of evidence,
including hours of heartbreaking testimony from the young survivors.
7. The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this
attack, which killed 34 American sailors and injured 172 others, was a deliberate effort to
sink an American ship and murder its entire crew. Each evening, after hearing testimony all
day, we often spoke our private thoughts concerning what we had seen and heard. I recall
Admiral Kidd repeatedly referring to the Israeli forces responsible for the attack as
“murderous bastards.” It was our shared belief, based on the documentary evidence and testimony
we received first hand, that the Israeli attack was planned and deliberate, and could not
possibly have been an accident.
8. I am certain that the Israeli pilots that undertook the attack, as well as their
superiors, who had ordered the attack, were well aware that the ship was American.
9. I saw the flag, which had visibly identified the ship as American, riddled with bullet
holes, and heard testimony that made it clear that the Israelis intended there be no survivors.
10. Not only did the Israelis attack the ship with napalm, gunfire, and missiles, Israeli
torpedo boats machine-gunned three lifeboats that had been launched in an attempt by the crew
to save the most seriously wounded—a war crime.
11. Admiral Kidd and I both felt it necessary to travel to Israel to interview the Israelis
who took part in the attack. Admiral Kidd telephoned Admiral McCain to discuss making
arrangements. Admiral Kidd later told me that Admiral McCain was adamant that we were not to
travel to Israel or contact the Israelis concerning this matter.
12. Regrettably, we did not receive into evidence and the Court did not consider any of the
more than sixty witness declarations from men who had been hospitalized and were unable to
testify in person.
13. I am outraged at the efforts of the apologists for Israel in this country to claim that
this attack was a case of “mistaken identity.”
14. In particular, the recent publication of Jay Cristol’s book, The Liberty Incident,
twists the facts and misrepresents the views of those of us who investigated the attack.
15. It is Cristol’s insidious attempt to whitewash the facts that has pushed me to speak out.
16. I know from personal conversations I had with Admiral Kidd that President Lyndon Johnson
and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of
“mistaken identity” despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
17. Admiral Kidd told me, after returning from Washington, D.C. that he had been ordered to
sit down with two civilians from either the White House or the Defense Department, and rewrite
portions of the court’s findings.
18. Admiral Kidd also told me that he had been ordered to “put the lid” on everything having
to do with the attack on USS Liberty. We were never to speak of it and we were to caution
everyone else involved that they could never speak of it again.
19. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of that statement as I know that the Court of
Inquiry transcript that has been released to the public is not the same one that I certified
and sent off to Washington.
20. I know this because it was necessary, due to the exigencies of time, to hand correct and
initial a substantial number ...
read more »
|
Good info, thanks. I put it on my WEB site.. www.dumbellnebula.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
MACK DADDY
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 5:06 am Post subject: Re: Dutch support for Israel eroding |
|
|
On May 19, 7:42 pm, Tabby Cat <ekrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On May 14, 11:03 pm, VTR <vexjo...@gmx.us> wrote:
JSM wrote:
On May 14, 11:01 am, VTR <vexjo...@gmx.us> wrote:
Dutch support for Israel eroding
By Michel Hoebink
13-05-2008
The Netherlands has always headed the list of European countries that support Israel. Since
1982, however, public opinion has grown ambivalent. The Dutch still admire Israel as a nation,
but they frown on its policies toward the Palestinians.
Israel and the NetherlandsPerhaps the Dutch have a guilty conscience. During World War Two, the
Nazis deported about 100,000 Dutch Jews, meeting little resistance from the non-Jewish
population. This may be one reason why the Netherlands has always had more sympathy for Israel
than most other European countries.
During and after the 1967 Six Day War, Dutch support for Israel was almost unanimous. Secondary
school pupils sang the battle songs of the Israeli army and many Dutch cars sported bumper
stickers that read 'We support Israel'.
David and Goliath
Dutch Christians upheld the concept of Israel as the 'Holy Land'. The more progressive, secular
Dutch population saw Israel as a small, enlightened nation that brought European ideals of
socialism and democracy to a 'backwards' Middle East. Hundreds of idealistic Dutch youths
traveled to Israel to work on the collective farms, the Kibbutzim.
The wars of 1967 and 1973 confirmed the Dutch perception of the Israelis as the underdogs. The
small nation fighting the armies of the surrounding Arab countries was compared to the biblical
hero David who defeated the giant Goliath. The plight of the Palestinians was ignored.
Middle East expert Bertus Hendriks remembers how difficult it was in those days to express a
balanced viewpoint including a Palestinian perspective. He was the president of the General
Students' Union of Amsterdam (ASVA), which supported Israel's right to exist in peace and
security. But it also criticized the one-sided approach to the conflict which was so pervasive
in the Netherlands at that time. The union also disputed anti-Arab rhetoric, says Hendriks.
"This standpoint brought us strong condemnations from all sides."
Massacres
Dutch public opinion began to change during the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Palestinian
terrorist attacks in the preceding years had only boosted sympathy for Israel, but Israeli air
strikes on Palestinian civilians and Israel's indirect involvement in the massacres at the
Sabra and Shatila refugee camps met with condemnation. Israel went from victim to perpetrator.
According to political scientist Fred Grünfeld, who wrote a book on Dutch perceptions of
Israel, public opinion grew ambivalent after 1982.
"On the one hand, the basic attitude is pro-Israel, but at the same time there is a growing
irritation with Israeli policies."
From 1982, the idealized image of Israel became tarnished, explains Bertus Hendriks.
"The first intifada played a prominent role in this process. The Israeli military firing at
stone-throwing Palestinian youths; Prime Minister Rabin vowing to 'break the bones' of the
stone-throwers."
The allegory of David and Goliath was reversed in favour of the Palestinians, says Hendriks.
"A helpless people fighting their oppressor with stones. That image lent an enormous legitimacy
to the Palestinian cause in Dutch public opinion."
After the Oslo agreements of 1993, Dutch development workers traveled to the occupied
territories and came back with stories about the daily life of the Palestinians.
"They saw the harassments, the illegal expansion of Jewish settlements. The image of liberal
occupation, carefully projected by Israel, was further undermined."
Support fades
The emergence of the fundamentalist Hamas movement and a wave of suicide attacks against Israel
did not help the Palestinian cause in the Netherlands. All the more because these developments
coincided with the global tension between the Islam and the West after 9/11. But according to
Bertus Hendriks, sympathy for Israel continued to erode.
Until today, however, Dutch governments have always stuck to their pro-Israeli stance. The
present coalition of Christian Democrats and Labour supports the Israeli boycott of Hamas as a
partner in peace negotiations. Speaking in January this year, Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen,
a Christian Democrat, blamed Hamas for the crisis in Gaza. But Dutch Development Minister Bert
Koenders, from the Labour Party, caused commotion by calling the Israeli blockade of Gaza a
"collective punishment and a transgression of international law". With this statement, Koenders
expressed a growing call within his party to take a firmer stand towards Israel.
http://www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/region/netherlands/0805....
Just think how pissed they would be if the Israelies attacked a Dutch
ship. www.ussliberty.org
The AIPAC is the reason why Israel is getting away with a lot of crimes.
Declaration of Ward Boston, Jr., Captain, JAGC, USN (Ret.)
I, Ward Boston, Jr. do declare that the following statement is true and complete:
1. For more than 30 years, I have remained silent on the topic of USS Liberty. I am a
military man and when orders come in from the Secretary of Defense and President of the United
States, I follow them.
2. However, recent attempts to rewrite history compel me to share the truth.
3. In June of 1967, while serving as a Captain in the Judge Advocate General Corps,
Department of the Navy, I was assigned as senior legal counsel for the Navy’s Court of Inquiry
into the brutal attack on USS Liberty, which had occurred on June 8th.
4. The late Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, president of the Court, and I were given only one week
to gather evidence for the Navy’s official investigation into the attack, despite the fact that
we both had estimated that a proper Court of Inquiry into an attack of this magnitude would
take at least six months to conduct.
5. Admiral John S. McCain, Jr., then Commander-in-chief, Naval Forces Europe
(CINCUSNAVEUR), at his headquarters in London, had charged Admiral Kidd (in a letter dated June
10, 1967) to “inquire into all the pertinent facts and circumstances leading to and connected
with the armed attack; damage resulting therefrom; and deaths of and injuries to Naval personnel.”
6. Despite the short amount of time we were given, we gathered a vast amount of evidence,
including hours of heartbreaking testimony from the young survivors.
7. The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this
attack, which killed 34 American sailors and injured 172 others, was a deliberate effort to
sink an American ship and murder its entire crew. Each evening, after hearing testimony all
day, we often spoke our private thoughts concerning what we had seen and heard. I recall
Admiral Kidd repeatedly referring to the Israeli forces responsible for the attack as
“murderous bastards.” It was our shared belief, based on the documentary evidence and testimony
we received first hand, that the Israeli attack was planned and deliberate, and could not
possibly have been an accident.
8. I am certain that the Israeli pilots that undertook the attack, as well as their
superiors, who had ordered the attack, were well aware that the ship was American.
9. I saw the flag, which had visibly identified the ship as American, riddled with bullet
holes, and heard testimony that made it clear that the Israelis intended there be no survivors.
10. Not only did the Israelis attack the ship with napalm, gunfire, and missiles, Israeli
torpedo boats machine-gunned three lifeboats that had been launched in an attempt by the crew
to save the most seriously wounded—a war crime.
11. Admiral Kidd and I both felt it necessary to travel to Israel to interview the Israelis
who took part in the attack. Admiral Kidd telephoned Admiral McCain to discuss making
arrangements. Admiral Kidd later told me that Admiral McCain was adamant that we were not to
travel to Israel or contact the Israelis concerning this matter.
12. Regrettably, we did not receive into evidence and the Court did not consider any of the
more than sixty witness declarations from men who had been hospitalized and were unable to
testify in person.
13. I am outraged at the efforts of the apologists for Israel in this country to claim that
this attack was a case of “mistaken identity.”
14. In particular, the recent publication of Jay Cristol’s book, The Liberty Incident,
twists the facts and misrepresents the views of those of us who investigated the attack.
15. It is Cristol’s insidious attempt to whitewash the facts that has pushed me to speak out.
16. I know from personal conversations I had with Admiral Kidd that President Lyndon Johnson
and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of
“mistaken identity” despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
17. Admiral Kidd told me, after returning from Washington, D.C. that he had been ordered to
sit down with two civilians from either the White House or the Defense Department, and rewrite
portions of the court’s findings.
18. Admiral Kidd also told me that he had been ordered to “put the lid” on everything having
to do with the attack on USS Liberty. We were never to speak of it and we were to caution
everyone else involved that they could never speak of it again.
19. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of that statement as I know that the
...
read more »- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
Israel sucks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
