I had to go back to my dictionary to make sure that I correctly interpreted Paula's reference to Israel's attack on the USS Liberty as being merely "incidental," and therefore, of no lasting significance, as if the message sent to the US government by its act of embracing Israel rather than punishing it for its deliberate, unprovoked killing of US sailors was a minor matter and had no impact on Israel's further actions vis a vis the Palestinians and their other Arab neighbors. An ahistorical assessment if I ever read one, but when and where Israel is concerned, the exceptions are the rule. I am further bewildered by what I interpret as her saying that it is the business of the Israelis and Palestinians" to develop peaceful and decent relations," and that we in the US and Europe should stay out of it, as if we are discussing an argument between equals and as if the US was not providing the equivalent of $15 million a day plus political cover for Israel. Perhaps we should not have boycotted South Africa, or supported liberation struggles in Latin America. Or did I read your message incorrectly.? Jeff Blankfort Paula wrote: > > Blankfort is concerned his post on this event in June 1967 had no response. > Sorry, wasn't trying to avoid this--I for one found the information > interesting, disturbing, but not needing much comment. Too, perhaps one can > be more concerned by the ongoing actions of Israel toward Palestinians, and > by the need for persons there (as opposed to persons in the US or Europe) to > develop peaceful and decent relations, than by this episodic event. > Paula >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/08/00 EST