The Expulsion and Extermination of Eastern European Germans: An Overview

More of Senator Homer Capehart’s remarks to the US Senate on February 5, 1946:

“Since the end of the war about 3,000,000 people, mostly women and children and over-aged men, have been killed in Eastern Germany and south-eastern Europe; about 15,000,000 people have been deported or had to flee their homesteads and are on the road. About 25% of these people, over 3,000,000 have perished. About 4,000,000 men and women have been deported to Eastern Europe as slaves. It seems that the elimination of the German population of Eastern Europe – at least 15,000,000 people – was planned in accordance with decisions made at Yalta. Churchill had said to Mikolakczyk when the latter protested during the negotiations to Moscow against forcing Poland to incorporate eastern Germany; ‘Don’t mind the five or more million Germans. Stalin will see to them. You will have no trouble with them; they will cease to exist.’

“The fact can no longer be suppressed, namely, the fact that is has been and continues to be, the deliberate policy of a confidential and conspiratorial clique within the policy-making circles of this government to draw and quarter a nation now reduced to abject misery…”

“In this process this clique, like a pack of hyenas struggling over the bloody entrails of a corpse, and inspired by a sadistic and fanatic hatred, are determined to destroy the German nation and the German people, no matter what the consequences…”

“At Potsdam the representatives of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Socialist Republics solemnly signed the following declaration of principles and purposes: ‘It is not the intention of the Allies to destroy or enslave the German people.’ Mr. President, the cynical and savage repudiation of these solemn declarations which has resulted in a major catastrophe, cannot be explained in terms of ignorance or incompetence. This repudiation, not only of the Potsdam Declaration, but also of every law of God and men, has been deliberately engineered with such a malevolent cunning, and with such diabolic skill, that the American people themselves have been caught in an international death trap…”

“For nine months now this administration has been carrying on a deliberate policy of mass starvation without any distinction between the innocent and the helpless and the guilty alike…”

“The first issue has been and continues to be merely humanitarian. This vicious clique within this administration that has been responsible for the policies and practices which have made a madhouse of central Europe has not only betrayed our American principles, but they have betrayed the GI’s who have suffered and died, and they continue to betray the American GIs who have to continue their dirty work for them…”

“The second issue that is involved is the effect this tragedy in Germany has already had on the other European countries. Those who have been responsible for this deliberate destruction of the German state and this crimimal mass starvation of the German people have been so zealous in their hatred that all other interests and concerns have been subordinated to this one obsession of revenge. In order to accomplish this it mattered not if the liberated countries in Europe suffered and starved. To this point this clique of conspirators have addressed themselves: ‘Germany is to be destroyed. What happens to other countries of Europe in the process is of secondary importance.’”

 

 

 

 

 

.At the peak of the expulsions in July of 1946, 14,400 people a day were still being dumped over the devastated and famished frontier into an equally devastated and famished Germany which had been reduced to a smaller size than it was in the 11th century.

Most countries which once had a substantial ethnic German presence no longer do. Entire ethnic German cities and regions vanished in the aftermath of the war. When Stalin promised a “modest reduction in the German population” to Churchill and Roosevelt, his homicidal plans were greeted with a wink and a nod, and that goal was accomplished with lethal zeal.

Agreeing to Stalin’s murderous plans to uproot both Poles and Germans, Churchill said in the House of Commons in 1944: “Expulsion is the method which, in so far as we have been able to see, will be the most satisfactory and lasting. There will be no mixture of populations to cause endless trouble. A clean sweep will be made. I am not alarmed by these transferences.” In November 1944, Roosevelt agreed, and chief advisors to both Roosevelt and Churchill argued for a solution to the “German problem” as calculated and as chilling as Stalin’s. In December, 1945, The New York Times noted that the number of people the Allies proposed to transfer in just a few months equalled the total of all the immigrants admitted to the USA since the beginning of the 20th century!

Aside from countless German civilians who fled in advance of the Red Army and were bombed, drowned or shot at, since the British and Americans agreed at Yalta to redraw historic German borders, they abetted, authorized and encouraged the deportation of millions of ethnic German civilians and gave to vengeance-fueled communist governments the power for who, where and how these citizens would be deported, a power which would inevitably be greatly abused. Among the Allies, who insisted that they nobly fought the war to uphold the dignity and value of all humanity, were thousands of officials, servicemen and politicians who took active roles in carrying out a program that was contrary to all principles of humanity, a program which, had it been perpetrated by their wartime enemies, would have been considered a criminal violation of human rights.

Chaos, kidnapping, rape, thievery and mass murder were the order of the day in the regions where Germans were expelled. Poles, Czechs and others, with the assistance of the Red Army, sometimes gave the populations of whole German villages only minutes to vacate their homes. The Germans were either collected by force or ordered to gather at a central location where selected individuals were ripped from the group and beaten, executed, or dragged off for slave labor in a ruthless process which even tore children from their mothers’ arms.

The evicted Germans were methodically stripped of their most personal and dearest possessions before being taken to train stations where they were indecently prodded for hidden valuables, shoved aboard cars without adequate food, water or sanitation facilities, and speedily shipped to occupation zones in Germany where they were simply dumped. Others were forced to walk hundreds of miles to destinations which were often in rubble, and few of them reached these destinations with even a handbag left in their possession. Many died on the roadside from disease, exposure or starvation. Forbidden to ever return home, all of their worldly goods were confiscated.

Many taken for slave labor were deported to the USSR after Secret Order 7161 of 1944 issued by USSR State Defense Committee made possible the internment of all adult Germans from Romania, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Bulgaria. About ten per cent of the victims died just in the course of transportation to Russia as a result of hunger, murder and cold. Half of the remaining ‘repatriated displaced persons’ died in camps, one of the worst being the Kolyma Camp. The numbers of deaths and expulsions sky-rocketed at war’s end. In the USSR, over 75% of German civilian slaves worked the mines in Ukraine and 11% worked in the Urals. By 1946, out of the German “arrested internees,” 39% died, and of 875,000 other German civilians who were abducted and transported to the camps, over 50% perished.

Labor camps for Germans existed not only in the Soviet Union, but in almost all the regions from which Germans were displaced, the last ones not being closed until 1950. In Poland and areas under Polish administration, there were 1,255 camps: 6,048 out of about 8,000 people died in Lamsdorf camp alone. In Czechoslovakia, 2,061 camps existed: in the Mährisch-Ostrau camp around 350 people were tortured to death by early July 1945. In Yugoslavia, the Red Cross found 1,562 gruesome camps and prisons. By May of 1945, practically all of the Yugoslav Germans who did not flee in time were living and dying in camps.

The standard estimates which stood unrevised for sixty years stated that between 1945 and 1950, from 11,730,000 to 15,000,000 German civilians fled and/or were expelled from the eastern territories of Germany proper and from the Eastern European countries and other estimates were much higher. Although, as in the case with mortality figures from Allied bombing, the number of victims is relentlessly downsized, that these violent expulsions displaced and murdered millions of innocents is undeniable. “Population transfers,” from highest to lowest, were from former eastern Germany, then Czechoslovakia next, then Poland, Danzig, Yugoslavia, Romania, Hungary, the Baltic states and, lastly, the USSR. And besides the forced expulsion and murder of millions of these people, at least another 3.1 million simply “disappeared” during the expulsion/liquidation process.

Even after a murderous bombing campaign eliminated a large part of their population, five times as many Germans, both civilians and soldiers, perished in the first year after World War Two than died during the course of the entire war, and they died at the hands of others directly as a result of revenge policies inflicted upon a thoroughly dehumanized enemy. 15 to 20 million homeless people, many half insane from shock and grief, wandered amid rotting human bodies dotting the bleak roadsides and paper thin orphans aimlessly navigating through the charred and broken remnants of mercilessly bombed cities.

The Allied Control Council had worked out procedures in advance for taking into the occupied territory 6,650,000 “racial Germans” who were among those they expected to be expelled from Poland, Hungary, Austria and Czechoslovakia under their plans. The US zone’s share was to be 1,750,000 from the Sudetenland and 500,000 from Hungary. They were scheduled to come at a rate of a quarter million a month in December, January, and February of 1945 and even larger numbers in the spring. But they came at greater rates, and the Allies were in no way prepared or eager to deal with the situation humanely. In a British camp at Kleve, for instance, thousands of civilians died from hunger, disease and starvation.

25 percent of former German farmland had been given to Poland making food scarce in Germany after the war and there was already a disastrous famine in the many urban areas where refugees were dumped since the Allies were not yet letting food through. Health and medical services could not possibly handle the additional millions of starving, homeless and ill German refugees. Half of the children under a year old died during the first months in cities like Berlin. By the summer of 1945, 20,000 weak, starving, homeless people were dying every day, their bodies piling up on roadsides, by train tracks and in empty fields. When winter arrived, the Allies relented and finally allowed some private international relief agencies to provide food and clothing, but it was far too late for many.

In communist-occupied Koburg, 3/4 of the people were dead by starvation by the spring of 1947. The children died like flies of diseases such as Diphtheria which ran rampant. The greatest deaths were reported in the Neumark area in Eastern Brandenburg. Out of a 644,834 pre-war population, by 1945 there were 257,000 dead. Out of sheer desperation, people all over Germany shot, hanged, drowned and poisoned themselves and sometimes their entire families.

Within the Eastern German regions which were hacked up and turned over to communist rule, “liberation” led to enslavement for decades. Subjected to brutal policies calculated to break their will, thousands upon thousands of innocent people were murdered, oppressed or tortured. “Crimes” such as singing an old regional folk song could be punishable by prison, and the brutality used to obliterate German “nationalism” extended to executions, prison or life in the far away gulag. Many people simply disappeared. Those who didn’t comply with the degrading re-education process inflicted by their new communist masters were enemies of the state.

Refugees in the Eastern Cities after the War: One City’s Story

The refugee problem was of a momentous proportion and what took place in Leipzig is typical of many eastern cities. Families having lost their homes and farms were split up and scattered into unfamiliar areas, children torn from their mother’s arms and fathers and sons missing or dead. Refugees with friends or relatives to rely upon were lucky if they had the capacity to make the journey and if their contacts were still alive and in surviving houses themselves. Others faced long stays in crowded, harsh refugee camps. The plight of the desperate refugees began first with a severe shortage of housing. From 1943, thousands of Leipzig houses had been destroyed by bombing.

Of 221,178 dwellings, 28,178 were completely destroyed and 93,000 were damaged, thus 20 per cent of the native Leipzig inhabitants had become homeless themselves and had to be accommodated in the dwellings of others or in emergency shelters and camps. Sizable buildings still standing, such as the university, were seized, and the evacuation of a large number of dwellings was demanded, but it was not enough. The old Leipzig mansions were also seized, but proved impractical for conversion. There was not only a housing crisis, but an absence of urgently needed clothing, food, furnishings as well as a lack of furnaces, fuel and cooking stoves.

The first refugee camps in Leipzig developed in January, 1945 when Central Germany was affected for the first time by the escape waves of people fleeing East Prussia. Later, exiled Silesian and Sudeten Germans flocked to cities for help. They were put up in private homes, zoos, high schools, auditoriums and restaurants.

Americans were greeted in Leipzig on April 18, 1945 with white flags. Nobody realized at the time that they had been “sold out” to the Red Army. The Allies immediately issued regulations that, among other things, imposed curfews and closing hours and forbade the publication of newspapers and the use of cameras, which were confiscated. Under the Americans, bread rations for the population was only 200 grams for young people, 170 grams for adults and 100 grams for children.

As the Americans prepared to end their occupation and leave July 2, 1945, the corralled refugees, created by Allied bombing and Allied policies set at Yalta, were stunned to hear that Russian troops were about to arrive in the city the next day. Because of the two zones of occupation, traditional supply lines to Leipzig had been cut off and the infrastructure was destroyed per day. There was no escape from a future of brutal communism.

Conditions worsened in the entire Soviet zone of occupation until a uniform food map system was inserted much later, which consisted of categories. The assignment of the food maps was graduated mainly by work status, so non-laboring housewives and pensioners had a diet containing neither fat nor meat. Among the refugees, there were many old people and women who, because they had to supply small children, were exempted from the forced work details and therefore had very little to eat. A “dwelling law” put forth by the temporary Allied occupation forces had decreed that “victims of fascism” and immigrant workers were to be given first preference to housing and the needy second preference, while the refugees did not even rank among the groups privileged by the law! Average floor space was calculated for eight square meters per person, with children under fourteen years old ranked as “half a human” by the Americans, who were given strict orders to destroy or otherwise render inedible their own leftover surplus so as to ensure it could not be eaten by German civilians, a policy in US zones throughout all of Germany.

Within the Soviet zone of occupation, some refugees were sent over the borders, resulting in strong objection from adjacent provinces who were battling their own refugee crisis. Usually the neighboring authorities sent the refugees back to Saxony, some numerous times, ostensibly to prevent the spread of epidemic disease. This resulted in even more trauma for the exhausted refugees. When the surrounding frontier was closed, certain cities such as Leipzig were subjected to the in-pouring of thousands of frightened and weary human beings who had accumulated in the area. Where they would they live and how they would they eat was a horrible problem.

A decree was issued on August 2, 1945 prohibiting the further influx of refugees, and on August 7th, the Leipzig welfare office suggested that any future refugees should receive accommodation of only one night in the Leipzig transit camp. The Red Cross tried to supply these people with at least with one warm meal and bread and jam for their forthcoming travels. Some refugees walked aimlessly for months in hunger, pain and confusion.

Typhus broke out and there was a malaria epidemic in the damp Leipzig camps from 1945-49 where some refugees languished in old, swampy prison camps. The forlorn refugees were afflicted with scourges such as lice, ringworm, bedbugs and transmittable diseases, while the formerly rich and the once poor struggled together for survival. The whole social order had broken down with nothing of substance to replace it and lift the sagging spirits and weary bodies. Stress, grief, illness and pain took a devastating toll, especially in the very young and aged.

One of the linguistic rulings of the Communist regime turned the refugees into “re-settlers,” and after the establishment of a central administration for “re-settlers” at the end of September, 1945, efforts were undertaken to end the chaotic situation in Saxony and to settle thousands of refugees in a more orderly manner. To enforce this, a halt was called to refugee movements from October 1, 1945.

At the same time, the naturalization of all refugees in Saxony was arranged. For the city of Leipzig this meant naturalization of almost 28,000 additional people during a time of incredible hardship for everyone. Worse was to come. The “arranged evacuation” of the remaining Germans who were forced out of their homes in Poland and Czechoslovakia began in summer, 1946, and turned a crisis into a calamity. Saxony alone was assigned 400,000 more refugees. Since most refugees came in the last months of the year, winter was already upon them and many wanted to remain in the camps where, despite disadvantages, at least there was heat and meagre food.

Churchill’s final solution to the German problem was proving deadly. After 1947, another 25,000 people gained admission to Leipzig, and then another 38,000. Leipzig’s standard of 8.8 square meters of floor space had to be lowered. The catastrophic housing conditions caused already traumatized people to become more ill. Strangers shared housing, and often five or more persons had to live in one or two rooms without a kitchen and with a continuing shortage of food, heat, sanitation and private sleeping places. Most refugees had no money. Despite the emergency housing dilemma, in July, 1947 the Soviet military administration demanded the evacuation of approximately one thousand dwellings north of the city to be handed for use by Soviet commercial enterprises.

Only in 1948 was a slow improvement in the living conditions of the refugees finally discerned. Until the stop of all refugee movements in Leipzig, 71,324 “re-settlers” had gone through the Leipzig camp. In 1950, more than half of the Leipzigers were still not in their own home, but in officially assigned dwellings, and 78,000 out of 93,707 refugees still lived in the city. The situation did not begin to remedy itself until the early 1960s. Information from the State Ministry, Saxony.

 

 

 

 

At the peak of the expulsions in July of 1946, 14,400 people a day were still being dumped over the devastated and famished frontier into an equally devastated and famished Germany which had been reduced to a smaller size than it was in the 11th century.

Most countries which once had a substantial ethnic German presence no longer do. Entire ethnic German cities and regions vanished in the aftermath of the war. When Stalin promised a “modest reduction in the German population” to Churchill and Roosevelt, his homicidal plans were greeted with a wink and a nod, and that goal was accomplished with lethal zeal.

Agreeing to Stalin’s murderous plans to uproot both Poles and Germans, Churchill said in the House of Commons in 1944: “Expulsion is the method which, in so far as we have been able to see, will be the most satisfactory and lasting. There will be no mixture of populations to cause endless trouble. A clean sweep will be made. I am not alarmed by these transferences.” In November 1944, Roosevelt agreed, and chief advisors to both Roosevelt and Churchill argued for a solution to the “German problem” as calculated and as chilling as Stalin’s. In December, 1945, The New York Times noted that the number of people the Allies proposed to transfer in just a few months equalled the total of all the immigrants admitted to the USA since the beginning of the 20th century!

Aside from countless German civilians who fled in advance of the Red Army and were bombed, drowned or shot at, since the British and Americans agreed at Yalta to redraw historic German borders, they abetted, authorized and encouraged the deportation of millions of ethnic German civilians and gave to vengeance-fueled communist governments the power for who, where and how these citizens would be deported, a power which would inevitably be greatly abused. Among the Allies, who insisted that they nobly fought the war to uphold the dignity and value of all humanity, were thousands of officials, servicemen and politicians who took active roles in carrying out a program that was contrary to all principles of humanity, a program which, had it been perpetrated by their wartime enemies, would have been considered a criminal violation of human rights.

Chaos, kidnapping, rape, thievery and mass murder were the order of the day in the regions where Germans were expelled. Poles, Czechs and others, with the assistance of the Red Army, sometimes gave the populations of whole German villages only minutes to vacate their homes. The Germans were either collected by force or ordered to gather at a central location where selected individuals were ripped from the group and beaten, executed, or dragged off for slave labor in a ruthless process which even tore children from their mothers’ arms.

The evicted Germans were methodically stripped of their most personal and dearest possessions before being taken to train stations where they were indecently prodded for hidden valuables, shoved aboard cars without adequate food, water or sanitation facilities, and speedily shipped to occupation zones in Germany where they were simply dumped. Others were forced to walk hundreds of miles to destinations which were often in rubble, and few of them reached these destinations with even a handbag left in their possession. Many died on the roadside from disease, exposure or starvation. Forbidden to ever return home, all of their worldly goods were confiscated.

Many taken for slave labor were deported to the USSR after Secret Order 7161 of 1944 issued by USSR State Defense Committee made possible the internment of all adult Germans from Romania, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Bulgaria. About ten per cent of the victims died just in the course of transportation to Russia as a result of hunger, murder and cold. Half of the remaining ‘repatriated displaced persons’ died in camps, one of the worst being the Kolyma Camp. The numbers of deaths and expulsions sky-rocketed at war’s end. In the USSR, over 75% of German civilian slaves worked the mines in Ukraine and 11% worked in the Urals. By 1946, out of the German “arrested internees,” 39% died, and of 875,000 other German civilians who were abducted and transported to the camps, over 50% perished.

Labor camps for Germans existed not only in the Soviet Union, but in almost all the regions from which Germans were displaced, the last ones not being closed until 1950. In Poland and areas under Polish administration, there were 1,255 camps: 6,048 out of about 8,000 people died in Lamsdorf camp alone. In Czechoslovakia, 2,061 camps existed: in the Mährisch-Ostrau camp around 350 people were tortured to death by early July 1945. In Yugoslavia, the Red Cross found 1,562 gruesome camps and prisons. By May of 1945, practically all of the Yugoslav Germans who did not flee in time were living and dying in camps.

The standard estimates which stood unrevised for sixty years stated that between 1945 and 1950, from 11,730,000 to 15,000,000 German civilians fled and/or were expelled from the eastern territories of Germany proper and from the Eastern European countries and other estimates were much higher. Although, as in the case with mortality figures from Allied bombing, the number of victims is relentlessly downsized, that these violent expulsions displaced and murdered millions of innocents is undeniable. “Population transfers,” from highest to lowest, were from former eastern Germany, then Czechoslovakia next, then Poland, Danzig, Yugoslavia, Romania, Hungary, the Baltic states and, lastly, the USSR. And besides the forced expulsion and murder of millions of these people, at least another 3.1 million simply “disappeared” during the expulsion/liquidation process.

Even after a murderous bombing campaign eliminated a large part of their population, five times as many Germans, both civilians and soldiers, perished in the first year after World War Two than died during the course of the entire war, and they died at the hands of others directly as a result of revenge policies inflicted upon a thoroughly dehumanized enemy. 15 to 20 million homeless people, many half insane from shock and grief, wandered amid rotting human bodies dotting the bleak roadsides and paper thin orphans aimlessly navigating through the charred and broken remnants of mercilessly bombed cities.

The Allied Control Council had worked out procedures in advance for taking into the occupied territory 6,650,000 “racial Germans” who were among those they expected to be expelled from Poland, Hungary, Austria and Czechoslovakia under their plans. The US zone’s share was to be 1,750,000 from the Sudetenland and 500,000 from Hungary. They were scheduled to come at a rate of a quarter million a month in December, January, and February of 1945 and even larger numbers in the spring. But they came at greater rates, and the Allies were in no way prepared or eager to deal with the situation humanely. In a British camp at Kleve, for instance, thousands of civilians died from hunger, disease and starvation.

25 percent of former German farmland had been given to Poland making food scarce in Germany after the war and there was already a disastrous famine in the many urban areas where refugees were dumped since the Allies were not yet letting food through. Health and medical services could not possibly handle the additional millions of starving, homeless and ill German refugees. Half of the children under a year old died during the first months in cities like Berlin. By the summer of 1945, 20,000 weak, starving, homeless people were dying every day, their bodies piling up on roadsides, by train tracks and in empty fields. When winter arrived, the Allies relented and finally allowed some private international relief agencies to provide food and clothing, but it was far too late for many.

In communist-occupied Koburg, 3/4 of the people were dead by starvation by the spring of 1947. The children died like flies of diseases such as Diphtheria which ran rampant. The greatest deaths were reported in the Neumark area in Eastern Brandenburg. Out of a 644,834 pre-war population, by 1945 there were 257,000 dead. Out of sheer desperation, people all over Germany shot, hanged, drowned and poisoned themselves and sometimes their entire families.

Within the Eastern German regions which were hacked up and turned over to communist rule, “liberation” led to enslavement for decades. Subjected to brutal policies calculated to break their will, thousands upon thousands of innocent people were murdered, oppressed or tortured. “Crimes” such as singing an old regional folk song could be punishable by prison, and the brutality used to obliterate German “nationalism” extended to executions, prison or life in the far away gulag. Many people simply disappeared. Those who didn’t comply with the degrading re-education process inflicted by their new communist masters were enemies of the state.

Refugees in the Eastern Cities after the War: One City’s Story

The refugee problem was of a momentous proportion and what took place in Leipzig is typical of many eastern cities. Families having lost their homes and farms were split up and scattered into unfamiliar areas, children torn from their mother’s arms and fathers and sons missing or dead. Refugees with friends or relatives to rely upon were lucky if they had the capacity to make the journey and if their contacts were still alive and in surviving houses themselves. Others faced long stays in crowded, harsh refugee camps. The plight of the desperate refugees began first with a severe shortage of housing. From 1943, thousands of Leipzig houses had been destroyed by bombing.

Of 221,178 dwellings, 28,178 were completely destroyed and 93,000 were damaged, thus 20 per cent of the native Leipzig inhabitants had become homeless themselves and had to be accommodated in the dwellings of others or in emergency shelters and camps. Sizable buildings still standing, such as the university, were seized, and the evacuation of a large number of dwellings was demanded, but it was not enough. The old Leipzig mansions were also seized, but proved impractical for conversion. There was not only a housing crisis, but an absence of urgently needed clothing, food, furnishings as well as a lack of furnaces, fuel and cooking stoves.

The first refugee camps in Leipzig developed in January, 1945 when Central Germany was affected for the first time by the escape waves of people fleeing East Prussia. Later, exiled Silesian and Sudeten Germans flocked to cities for help. They were put up in private homes, zoos, high schools, auditoriums and restaurants.

Americans were greeted in Leipzig on April 18, 1945 with white flags. Nobody realized at the time that they had been “sold out” to the Red Army. The Allies immediately issued regulations that, among other things, imposed curfews and closing hours and forbade the publication of newspapers and the use of cameras, which were confiscated. Under the Americans, bread rations for the population was only 200 grams for young people, 170 grams for adults and 100 grams for children.

As the Americans prepared to end their occupation and leave July 2, 1945, the corralled refugees, created by Allied bombing and Allied policies set at Yalta, were stunned to hear that Russian troops were about to arrive in the city the next day. Because of the two zones of occupation, traditional supply lines to Leipzig had been cut off and the infrastructure was destroyed per day. There was no escape from a future of brutal communism.

Conditions worsened in the entire Soviet zone of occupation until a uniform food map system was inserted much later, which consisted of categories. The assignment of the food maps was graduated mainly by work status, so non-laboring housewives and pensioners had a diet containing neither fat nor meat. Among the refugees, there were many old people and women who, because they had to supply small children, were exempted from the forced work details and therefore had very little to eat. A “dwelling law” put forth by the temporary Allied occupation forces had decreed that “victims of fascism” and immigrant workers were to be given first preference to housing and the needy second preference, while the refugees did not even rank among the groups privileged by the law! Average floor space was calculated for eight square meters per person, with children under fourteen years old ranked as “half a human” by the Americans, who were given strict orders to destroy or otherwise render inedible their own leftover surplus so as to ensure it could not be eaten by German civilians, a policy in US zones throughout all of Germany.

Within the Soviet zone of occupation, some refugees were sent over the borders, resulting in strong objection from adjacent provinces who were battling their own refugee crisis. Usually the neighboring authorities sent the refugees back to Saxony, some numerous times, ostensibly to prevent the spread of epidemic disease. This resulted in even more trauma for the exhausted refugees. When the surrounding frontier was closed, certain cities such as Leipzig were subjected to the in-pouring of thousands of frightened and weary human beings who had accumulated in the area. Where they would they live and how they would they eat was a horrible problem.

A decree was issued on August 2, 1945 prohibiting the further influx of refugees, and on August 7th, the Leipzig welfare office suggested that any future refugees should receive accommodation of only one night in the Leipzig transit camp. The Red Cross tried to supply these people with at least with one warm meal and bread and jam for their forthcoming travels. Some refugees walked aimlessly for months in hunger, pain and confusion.

Typhus broke out and there was a malaria epidemic in the damp Leipzig camps from 1945-49 where some refugees languished in old, swampy prison camps. The forlorn refugees were afflicted with scourges such as lice, ringworm, bedbugs and transmittable diseases, while the formerly rich and the once poor struggled together for survival. The whole social order had broken down with nothing of substance to replace it and lift the sagging spirits and weary bodies. Stress, grief, illness and pain took a devastating toll, especially in the very young and aged.

One of the linguistic rulings of the Communist regime turned the refugees into “re-settlers,” and after the establishment of a central administration for “re-settlers” at the end of September, 1945, efforts were undertaken to end the chaotic situation in Saxony and to settle thousands of refugees in a more orderly manner. To enforce this, a halt was called to refugee movements from October 1, 1945.

At the same time, the naturalization of all refugees in Saxony was arranged. For the city of Leipzig this meant naturalization of almost 28,000 additional people during a time of incredible hardship for everyone. Worse was to come. The “arranged evacuation” of the remaining Germans who were forced out of their homes in Poland and Czechoslovakia began in summer, 1946, and turned a crisis into a calamity. Saxony alone was assigned 400,000 more refugees. Since most refugees came in the last months of the year, winter was already upon them and many wanted to remain in the camps where, despite disadvantages, at least there was heat and meagre food.

Churchill’s final solution to the German problem was proving deadly. After 1947, another 25,000 people gained admission to Leipzig, and then another 38,000. Leipzig’s standard of 8.8 square meters of floor space had to be lowered. The catastrophic housing conditions caused already traumatized people to become more ill. Strangers shared housing, and often five or more persons had to live in one or two rooms without a kitchen and with a continuing shortage of food, heat, sanitation and private sleeping places. Most refugees had no money. Despite the emergency housing dilemma, in July, 1947 the Soviet military administration demanded the evacuation of approximately one thousand dwellings north of the city to be handed for use by Soviet commercial enterprises.

Only in 1948 was a slow improvement in the living conditions of the refugees finally discerned. Until the stop of all refugee movements in Leipzig, 71,324 “re-settlers” had gone through the Leipzig camp. In 1950, more than half of the Leipzigers were still not in their own home, but in officially assigned dwellings, and 78,000 out of 93,707 refugees still lived in the city. The situation did not begin to remedy itself until the early 1960s. Information from the State Ministry, Saxony.

 

 

 

This scene soon played out in West Prussia, Pomerania, Silesia, the Sudetenland and other areas of eastern Europe. The Red Army was cajoled to behave in Germany “as Mongolian hordes of old” by Stalin’s propagandists, among whom was the grand master of hate, Ilya Ehrenburg, who encouraged troops to injure, torture, rape and kill all German civilians. As the violence spread, the only option for the endangered East Prussians was to flee, and they would face uncounted scenes of terror.

In an article of March 3, 1945 Ehrenburg emphasized that the “historical mission of the Soviet army consists in a modest and honorable task of reduction of the population of Germany.” Ehrenburg whipped the Red Army into such a pathological fury of hatred that by the time they arrived in East Prussia it was easy to rape and kill the mostly female population. There were reports of young women in East Prussia having been crucified on barn doors, tied up by their legs and torn in two by cars, or groups of naked girls being tied to a rope like fish on a line and dragged behind wagons, or of small groups of children being found with their tongues nailed to tables and lifeless babies discovered with their skulls broken and bodies punctured by bayonets. It is said that every captured woman between eight and eighty was violently raped, most multiple times and many were killed after.

“The Germans are not human beings. From now on the word German is for us the worst imaginable curse and strikes us to the quick. We shall not get excited. We shall kill. If you have not killed at least one German a day,you have wasted that day…. for us there is nothing more joyful than a heap of German corpses.” IIya Ehrenburg.

In the winter of 1945, East Prussia was cut off from the west, the only escape route for many being from the small port of Pillau and over the Baltic Sea toward the west. Throngs of desperate Königsberg civilians had only one way out, a frigid walk over half frozen lagoons to Frische Nehrung, a narrow slice of land, from where they hoped to reach Danzig. Almost a million people are said to have tried this perilous crossing. Survivors later recounted the hopelessness and horror of making this deadly trek in the dark as whole families pulling carts and sleds filled with children and the elderly slid into holes in the ice and plunged into the unforgiving sea.

In daylight, Soviet planes circled overhead and intentionally cut off large ice floes with artillery fire, sending them hopelessly adrift. Those who escaped on land joined an endless parade of stunned, bereaved people on overflowing roadways. They witnessed whole cartloads of people crushed and mowed over by advancing Russian tanks, with wailing children and frantic mothers stretched for mile after mile of human misery. Unprepared for the 60 degree below zero wind chill and deep snow, some turned back home in despair. Blazing farms lit up the horizon, burned by the Red Army or set on fire by hopeless owners who then committed suicide.

This was the “orderly and humane expulsion” of Germans that Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin shook hands to. More than 1.9 million of nearly 2.4 million East Prussians joined by Germans from central Poland fled westward under horrible conditions. 173,000 people could not or would not leave. Later, researchers of the Federal Archives counted 3,300 locations just in areas they had access to where at least 120,000 German civilians were either shot or beaten to death by the Red Army.

“The German ‘good fellows,’ those who at home give way to sentimentalities, piggy-backs to their kiddies and feed the German cats with morsels of their rationed hamburgers, murder Russian children with the same pedantry as do the bad Germans. They murder because they have come to believe that only people with German blood are worthy of living on this earth of ours.” Ehrenburg

The Germans initiated “Operation Hannibal” to withdraw German civilians and troops from East Prussia. Beginning on January 21, 1945, it ended up being one of the largest emergency evacuations by sea in history and one of the German Navy’s most significant achievements. In a period of about 15 weeks, between 500 and 1,080 merchant vessels of all types and numerous naval craft, including Germany’s largest remaining naval units, transported about 900,000 refugees and 350,000 soldiers across the Baltic Sea to Germany and occupied Denmark. But not all rescues were successful.

The Wilhelm Gustloff was a 25,000-ton passenger liner. On January 30, 1945, when it steamed out of Gotenhafen, it carried a crew of 1,100 officers and men, 73 critically wounded soldiers, 373 young women of the Women’s Naval Auxiliary and more than 6,000 desperate refugees, most of them women and children who had reached the safety of the ship after grueling personal ordeals.

The Gustloff was 13 miles off the coast of Pomerania when 3 torpedoes from a Soviet sub under the command of Captain A.I. Marinesko, struck the ship. 90 minutes later it sank under the icy waves of the Baltic. Barely 1,100 survived. At least 7,000 Germans died. A few days later, on February 10, Marinesko struck again and sank the German hospital ship the General von Steuben carrying 3,500 wounded soldiers and another 1,000 refugees.

Only 650 people survived. Hailed as a hero despite a record of drunkenness and desertion, Marinesko was later awarded the Combat Order of the Red Banner for his record in sinking the most tonnage in a single cruise. He would later be demoted for other offenses and he died in prison. On May 6, 1945 the German freighter Goya, also part of the rescue fleet, was torpedoed by another Soviet submarine, and more than 6,000 non-combatant refugees fleeing from East Prussia also died. Below: Wm.Gustloff; Marinesko. There is a monument glorifying him in ‘Kalingrad.’

 

 

 

Two Allied air raids were carried out on the old city of Königsberg on August 26/27 and August 29/30, 1944 based on “misinformation” from Churchill that it was a “a modernised heavily defended fortress.” 90% of the city of Kant was absolutely destroyed and it burned for several days. The entire historic city center, including the cathedral, the castle, the old churches, the old and the new universities and the old shipping quarter were entirely destroyed.

After the Red Army’s capture of Königsberg under General Chernyakhovsky, the wreckage of the city was cordoned off and turned into a giant internment camp, then a mass grave. The Red Army immediately and methodically set about erasing any trace of former German presence, starting with the human beings who did not or could not get out in time. Out of Königsberg’s prewar population of 316,000, an estimated 50,000 to 75,000 people were still present in the ruins of the devastated city on the day of capitulation and thousands did not survive the communist orgy of bloodshed and revenge. Many that did survived murder soon met their end by starvation, disease and freezing to death. Probably no other German city paid so cruel a price for defeat. 90,000 German military prisoners were also taken, almost none of whom were never heard from again.

During January and February of 1945, the “evacuation” of surviving German began, including those who had returned to reunite with or save their families. Almost two years later, in October of 1947, there were still 30,000 Germans in the city and they were shipped by trains to the future GDR or sent to Soviet gulags. In February of 1948, the Ministerial Council of the USSR decided to “resettle” all remaining Germans they discovered in East Prussia to the GDR, officially declaring them illegal residents. According to Soviet sources, 102,125 persons were “resettled” to the GDR in 1947 and 1948, but only 99,481 arrived (GDR authorities attributed this to “perhaps a Soviet calculation error.”) In May 1951, another 3,000 East Prussian were shipped to the GDR. These last remaining German residents were expelled in more ethnic cleansing of 1949-50. Thousands totally vanished and are presumed murdered.

 

Top, below: Victims of Allied bombing; Kalinin, Ehrenburg; Street sign in today’s Rostock, Germany; Victims of the Red Army. Bottom: The monument in Gumbinnen, East Prussia honoring Prussian King Friedrich Wilhelm 1, who offered a homeland to thousands of refugees from all over Europe, was replaced by a monument to a Red Army general.

 

 

 

.The German inhabitants who settled these deserted plague and famine devastated lands and made the area their home for centuries, working the land, raising their families and building canals, villages, homes, schools, churches and businesses, were brutally driven into exile with their farms and properties all stolen by force. They are referred to in contemporary Russian and Polish travel guides as “the German invaders.” Any evidence of the region’s long Germanic heritage was carefully obliterated. Russia even claims the great German philosopher Kant as “one of their own.”

In the late 1980’s some ethnic Germans arrived, most driven out of other parts of the USSR, and by 1991, 5,000 ethnic Germans inhabited the city and 13,000 the region. Closed off to foreigners since WWII, the Kaliningrad region, about one half the size of Belgium and some 200 miles away from the border of Russia proper, was reopened on January 1, 1991 when the first direct train since 1945 ran from Kaliningrad to Berlin. After the fall of the USSR when neighboring Lithuania and former Soviet republics gained their independence, Kaliningrad had been cut off from Russia. Although railroads connect Kaliningrad to Russia though Lithuania and Belarus, high tariffs in Lithuania make importing food and supplies from Russia prohibitively expensive.

Kalingrad was declared a ‘free economic zone’ in 1992 in a futile attempt to revive the economy. It never developed into a “Hong Kong of the Baltic” as some desired, and corruption keeps most investment away. Approximately 400,000 people live in metropolitan Kaliningrad and a total of one million are in the “oblast” but not those people who bravely settled the land hundreds of years ago.

The name “Prussia” was formally expunged from international language by order Number 46 of the Allied Control Commission on February 23, 1945 because, as it incorrectly stated: “Since time immemorial it has been the pillar of militarism and reaction in Germany.” Lost in this heroic rhetoric was the fact that Prussia was also the “pillar” of historical religious tolerance lacking in its European neighbors, and a pillar of hospitality in its offering of a new, free, undiscriminating homeland for persecuted refugees from Scotland, France, Austria and elsewhere throughout its history. Prussia was also a “pillar” of musical genius, the arts, science, philosophy and medicine. Prussia as a state was far less aggressive and warlike than Britain, France or Russia, and certainly less adept at gobbling large areas of the earth and subjugating native populations by enforcing blood thirsty colonial rule on anywhere near the scale of her neighbors. Prussia’s history did not include murderous suppression of minorities, profiteering from slave trading or using hunger blockades and enforced famine to inhumanly starve out its enemies. Nor did Prussia ever encourage the exile, rape or burning alive of millions of women and children non-combatants in wartime.

———————————————————————————

A forgotten genocide: the ethnic German cleansing. Germans migrated down the Danube in three major waves beginning more than 700 years ago, and settled in mountainous areas of Bohemia and Moravia. These Ethnic Germans became very prosperous and those in Hungary, Romania and Yugoslavia were known as Danube Swabians.
1939 the Czech President expelled German minority to be executed with utmost brutality resulting 1 million sudeten Germans losing their lives.
Many Ethnic Germans settled in St. Louis, USA

Through interviews with survivors, the memory of this sad period in human history is preserved, and hopefully provides peace to the almost 15 million souls lost.

Ethnic Germans: A Forgotten Genocide

Joshua Bonehill Charged with Thoughtcrime for Organizing Anti-Jew Protest

As we see multiculturalism imploding in on itself a British Patriot has been arrested for thought crimes by the British Stasi. As we are very busy with other matters we used this article by Andrew Anglin.
Article by Andrew Anglin of the Daily Stormer website.

Joshua Bonehill: Unrepentant thought criminal

In Orwellian Britain, yet another man who thinks differently from the establishment has been charged with a hate crime.

Joshua Bonehill had been legally organizing a legally allowed protest against the parasite Jews when the cops swooped him up.

Metropolitan Police:

Officers from the Metropolitan Police Service Public Order branch continue to work with Barnet borough officers and their partners ahead of a proposed demonstration in the Golders Green area on 4 July.

As part of that work, officers from Avon and Somerset Constabulary together with Met officers arrested Joshua Bonehill, 22 (7.12.92) of Hudson Road, Yeovil in Somerset on Thursday, 25 June.

He was taken to a central London police station where he was charged on Saturday, 27 June, with inciting racial hatred contrary to the Public Order Act 1986.

He will appear in custody at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Monday, 29 June.

Officers continue to assess all information and intelligence available in relation to the proposed demonstration and speak with the organisers to ensure an appropriate policing response is in place.

We are aware of concerns in the local community about the negative impact this proposed demonstration may have on them. We are working with residents to ensure that people can exercise their rights in a way that is lawful, while minimising this impact.

I was very surprised to hear that the government would not be ordering the demonstration banned, so this makes sense: allow the demonstration but arrest its organizer for organizing it.

This new wave of thoughtcrime arrests which has been intensifying across Europe over the last two years demonstrates very clearly how on edge these Jews are about a mass awakening of the people. Arresting someone for their beliefs is the last act of a desperate government.

The question is, will they be able to fully destroy our countries with immigrants before enough people become aware and stand up that they can’t arrest all of us?

Find more information on the Golders Green demonstration on Joshua Bonehill’s official website.

img627

CAMPAIGN: Anti-Globalisation Internet Meme Storm

Written by Cigpapers

Memes created by Watt Tyler

Anti-Globalisation Internet Meme Storm

With the internet now the main location for the alternative media and anti-Globalisation struggle, memes have become a very valuable tool. Memes can be endlessly put out on social network sites (Twitter, Facebook etc.) and many other parts of the internet. There are many free sites for making memes after obtaining the required photo or picture from Google Images:

https://imgflip.com/memegenerator

http://www.imagechef.com/meme-maker

Here are some of the memes we’ve been putting out which are free to use if you don’t want to make your own:

img818

img809

img803img752

img535

img804

img508img831

img754

img469

img599

img857

img519

img655

img794

img533

img565

img527

img664

11111111

img567

img722

img760

img569

img741

$(KGrHqN,!jME665(QLbIBO5zFNKvmQ~~_35

img741

img741

IMG522

img537

21092011576[1]

img627

IMG396

img488

img487

img486

img443

img287

img284

img285

img282

img278

img268

img106

img096

pic012

Picture 9

Picture 9

Picture 9

Picture 9

attachment

attachment

attachment

pic004

pic005

pic005

img640

img641

sun

SCAN

img779

SCAN

SCAN

untitled31

27092011583[1]

!Bw7b-h!!Wk~$(KGrHqN,!hEEv1+zyBfNBMLN9YlcZw~~_12

27092011583[1]

$(KGrHqF,!hkE7SmTE+7bBPGVh+itRw~~60_3

11111

$(KGrHqN,!jME665(QLbIBO5zFNKvmQ~~_35

15092011573[1]

img741

Picture 9

NWO – The Telegraph: “Secretive Elite Created EU to Build World Government”. Finally the Great Deception Is Published

ADDENDUM:  Press TV 27 Nov. 2015:  Dutch Prime Minister. Mark Rutte , whose country gears up to be the next EU president: “The first step is to make sure the border is controlled. As we all know from the Roman Empire, big empires go down if the borders are not well protected.

*

The Telegraph 27 Nov. 2015  by Alan Sked, the original founder of Ukip and professor of International History at the London School of Economics.

Why would the UK want to enter the EEC?

The answer is that Harold Macmillan and his closest advisers were part of an intellectual tradition that saw the salvation of the world in some form of world government based on regional federations.

The Canberrra Times 13 Oct. 2015Freemason Winston Churchill worked for a United Europe (EU father) and one-world government

churchill_world_governmentMacMillan was also a close acquaintance of Jean Monnet, who believed the same. It was therefore Macmillan who became the representative of the European federalist movement in the British cabinet.

In a speech in the House of Commons he even advocated a European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) before the real thing had been announced. He later arranged for a Treaty of Association between the UK and the ECSC, and it was he who ensured that a British representative was sent to the Brussels negotiations following the Messina Conference, which gave birth to the EEC.

In the late 1950s he pushed negotiations concerning a European Free Trade Association towards membership of the EEC. Then, when General de Gaulle began to turn the EEC into a less federalist body, he took the risk of submitting a full British membership application in the hope of frustrating Gaullist ambitions.

His aim, in alliance with US and European proponents of a federalist world order, was tofrustrate the emerging Franco-German alliance which was seen as one of French and German nationalism.
The French statesman Jean Monnet, (1888 – 1979), who in 1956 was appointed president
of the Action Committee for the United States of Europe (CIA´s ACUE).

macmillan-620_1890654bMonnet met secretly with Heath and Macmillan on innumerable occasions to facilitate British entry. Indeed, he was informed before the British Parliament of the terms in which the British approach to Europe would be framed.

Despite advice from the Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir, that membership would mean the end of British parliamentary sovereignty,Macmillan deliberately misled the House of Commons — and practically everyone else, from Commonwealth statesmen to cabinet colleagues and the public — that merely minor commercial negotiations were involved. He even tried to deceive de Gaulle that he was an anti-federalist and a close friend who would arrange for France, like Britain, to receive Polaris missiles from the Americans. De Gaulle saw completely through him and vetoed the British bid to enter.

ACUE-1969Macmillan left Edward Heath to take matters forward, and Heath, along with Douglas Hurd, arranged — according to the Monnet papers — for the Tory Party to become a (secret) corporate member of Monnet’s Action Committee for a United States of Europe (ACUE).

Left: ACUE 1969

According to Monnet’s chief aide and biographer, Francois Duchene, both the Labour and Liberal Parties later did the same. Meanwhile the Earl of Gosford, one of Macmillan’s foreign policy ministers in the House of Lords, actually informed the House that the aim of the government’s foreign policy was world government.

monnet-1946Monnet’s (right) Action Committee was also given financial backing by the CIA and the US State Department. The Anglo-American establishment was now committed to the creation of a federal United States of Europe.

Today, this is still the case. Powerful international lobbies are already at work attempting to prove that any return to democratic self-government on the part of Britain will spell doom. American officials have already been primed to state that such a Britain would be excluded from any free trade deal with the USA and that the world needs the TTIP trade treaty which is predicated on the survival of the EU.

Fortunately, Republican candidates in the USA are becoming Eurosceptics and magazines there like The National Interest are publishing the case for Brexit.

Most importantly, having been fooled once, the British public will be much more difficult to fool again.

Comment
With Lying, deception  and cover-ups, the EU has been built as a region of the One World State. And the deception continues. After the Dutch and French had rejected the EU Constitution in 2005, the EU cheated the  Europeans once again with Merkel as leader by  the Treaty of Lisbon.

The author of the Constitution was the leading Trilateralist Giscard d’Estaing. In the Danish newspaper  Politiken d. 27. okt. 2007, d´Estaing strongly emphasized that the Lisbon Treaty is identical with the constitution – only they had taken out inedible parts and hidden them  as simple amendments to the already adopted Maastricht and Nice treaties!!  (Le Monde 14 June 2007).

In Denmark it was even more grotesque: Prime Minister Anders Fog Rasmussen had promised the Danes  a referendum on the treaty – but broke his promise, as its  name changed. For this lie he was received with a standing ovation in the European Council – appointed  NATO’s Secretary General and now counselor of the Rothschild Bank Goldman Sachs in the strife over the unfair  give-away of the decisive shares of Denmark´s crown jewel, the energy  group DONG, to this Rothschild Bank.

euromed

The Goal is one-world government – the means is theEuromediterranean Process/Union for the Mediterranean.

In 1992, the Danes rejected the Maastricht Union Treaty in a referendum. To  entice the Danes to not scuttle the concept across the EU  in a second referendum 1993,  the Danes were previously  guaranteed 4 opts-out, namely with respect to: 1) Citizenship. 2) The common currency, the euro. 3) The common defense policy. 4) Transnational cooperation on legal and internal matters.

Since then, the Danish Masonic politicians have been like obsessed in their efforts to abolish the 4 opts-out.

Now they have decreed  a new referendum for December 3 – this time on the legal opt-out.
But surely there is a legal catch, which the politicians cover up to the people:
As Denmark’s Masonic politicians unconditionally wanted to join the Treaty of Lisbon without a referendum they had a problem: There were 9 in elements in the Lisbon Treaty that were incompatible with the Danish Constitution.
They neutralized those problems in part by coverage by the opts-out – the legal opt-out neutralizing 4 of those unconstitutional elements.

Now they want us to abolish this opt-out on 3 December – which is de facto is unconstitutional and illegal. So the referendum is a vote on the continuing validity of the 166-year-old Danish Constitution – without that being told to the people.

THIS IS THE NWO!

Source: NEW.EURO-MED.DK

———————————————————————————-

NWO Spearhead Angela Merkel´s Open Border Immigration Policy a “Stroke of Genius “: EU now Has Reason to Fasttrack Turkey-Dictatorship into EU

Angela-Merkel-turkey-planThe NWO seems to be sending us the message through its controlled MSM: We don´t care what you think, because you cannot stop us! First theTelegraph told us that the EU has one purpose: Part of  elitist World government. Now The Express tells us that the purpose of the Muslim mass immigration was to fasttrack Turkey into the EU.

Europe´evil spirit is at it again.

The Express 30 Nov. 2015:  EU leaders tabled a deal in exchange for help stemming the flood of migrants into Europe.The plan, spearheaded by German chancellor Angela Merkel, will make Muslim-dominated Turkey the EU’s 29th member state.

Nigel Farage said: “This isn’t just a deal to deal with migration across the Mediterranean. What Merkel is proposing is that we fast track Turkey as member of the EU.
“What that will mean is 75 million people who will have freedom of movement to come to the rest of Europe and to this country”.
At the heart of the EU’s proposed deal are Turkey’s promises to tighten border controls in return for £2.1billion plus other benefits including speeding up work on its bid to join the EU and a push to help win visa-free access for Turks.

In exchange, Turkey, which has more than two million Syrian refugees, would increase patrols in the Aegean and at land borders, as well as cracking down on people-trafficking gangs.

Chancellor Merkel gave her blunt assessment of the situation saying: “We will agree on the EU Turkey action plan.

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu called it an “historic day” for his country.
The only barriers to Turkey joining the EU bloc appear to be its human rights record and Cyprus, which refuses to accept its sworn enemy as a fellow member until it recognises the island’s government.

Comments
euromedEuropean politicians suffer from a sick affiliation to Islam – and are doing all they can to destroy Eropean culture through Muslim Mass immigaration . Both occult EU Father Coudenhove Kalergi´s and former Pres. Sarkozy´s racist war on the white race demonstrate it. And there is high suspicion that the American Masonic lodge of very influential white Shriners is the moving force having contaminated all other lodges, apparently. Their tool ist theEuromediterranean Process/The Union for the Mediterranean.

Tony Blair said (all that the Koran just is not): “To me, the most remarkable thing about the Koran is how progressive it is. I write with great humility as a member of another faith. As an outsider, the Koran strikes me as a reforming book, trying to return Judaism and Christianity to their origins, much as reformers attempted to do with the Christian church centuries later. The Koran is inclusive. It extols science and knowledge and abhors superstition. It is practical and far ahead of its time in attitudes toward marriage, women, and governance.

Under its guidance, the spread of Islam and its dominance over previously Christian or pagan lands were breathtaking. Over centuries, Islam founded an empire and led the world in discovery, art, and culture. The standard-bearers of tolerance in the early Middle Ages were far more likely to be found in Muslim lands than in Christian ones(Jihad Watch 28 Dec. 2006).  Most of the Koran preaches war, murder and terror on the infidels.

This sickness was widespread already in the 1970es.
Below is  page 171 from Bat Ye´or´s “Eurabia – The Euro-Arab Axis” 2005. This page among others expresses a deep contempt of us Europeans, disparaging our culture. Especially, “our” politicians suffer from the paranoia of “Golden Andalusia” as Paradise on Earth through the Muslim Terror regime 711-1492. By A.D. 1100, the Muslims had destroyed all Christianity in Andalusia by e.g mass crucifixions .
The page  brings  statements from the Council of Europe and the European Parliament.

This entry was posted in english, euromed. Bookmark the permalink. – NEW.EURO-MED.DK

———————————————————————-

The Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan – The Genocide Of The People Of Europe

Mass immigration is a phenomenon, the causes of which are still cleverly concealed by the system, and the multicultural propaganda is trying to falsely portray it as inevitable. With this article we intend to prove once and for all, that this is not a spontaneous phenomenon. What they want to present as an inevitable outcome of modern life, is actually a plan conceived around a table and prepared for decades, to completely destroy the face of the continent.

The Pan-Europe:

Few people know that one of the main initiators of the process of European integration, was also the man who designed the genocide plan of the Peoples of Europe. It is a dark person, whose existence is unknown to the masses, but the elite considers him as the founder of the European Union. His name is Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi. His father was an Austrian diplomat named Heinrich von Coudenhove-Kalergi (with connections to the Byzantine family of the Kallergis) and his mother the Japanese Mitsu Aoyama. Kalergi, thanks to his close contacts with all European aristocrats and politicians, due to the relationships of his nobleman-diplomat father, and by moving behind the scenes, away from the glare of publicity, he managed to attract the most important heads of state to his plan , making them supporters and collaborators for the “project of European integration”.

The man behind White genocide Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi.

In 1922 he founded the “Pan-European” movement in Vienna, which aimed to create a New World Order, based on a federation of nations led by the United States. European integration would be the first step in creating a world government. Among the first supporters, including Czech politicians Tomáš Masaryk and Edvard Beneš and the banker Max Warburg, who invested the first 60,000 marks. The Austrian Chancellor Ignaz Seipel and the next president of Austria, Karl Renner, took the responsibility for leading the “Pan-European” movement. Later, French politicians, such as Léon Bloum, Aristide Briand, Alcide De Gasperi, etc will offer their help.

With the rise of Fascism in Europe, the project was abandoned and the “Pan-European” movement was forced to dissolve, but after the Second World War, Kalergi, thanks to frantic and tireless activity and the support of Winston Churchill, the Jewish Masonic Lodge B’nai B’rith and major newspapers like the New York Times, the plan manages to be accepted by the United States Government. The CIA later undertakes the completion of the project.

The Essence Of The Kalergi Plan:

In his book Practical Idealism, Kalergi indicates that the residents of the future “United States of Europe” will not be the People of the Old Continent, but a kind of sub-humans, products of miscegenation. He clearly states that the peoples of Europe should interbreed with Asians and colored races, thus creating a multinational flock with no quality and easily controlled by the ruling elite.

Kalergi proclaims the abolition of the right of self-determination and then the elimination of nations with the use of ethnic separatist movements and mass migration. In order for Europe to be controlled by an elite, he wants to turn people into one homogeneous mixed breed of Blacks, Whites and Asians. Who is this elite however? Kalergi is particularly illuminating on this:

The man of the future will be of mixed race. The races and classes of today will gradually disappear due to the elimination of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-negroid race of the future, similar in appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples and the diversity of individuals. Instead of destroying European Judaism, Europe, against her will, refined and educated this people, driving them to their future status as a leading nation through this artificial evolutionary process. It’s not surprising that the people that escaped from the Ghetto-Prison, became the spiritual nobility of Europe. Thus, the compassionate care given by Europe created a new breed of aristocrats. This happened when the European feudal aristocracy crashed because of the emancipation of the Jews [due to the actions taken by the French Revolution]

Although no textbook mentions Kalergi, his ideas are the guiding principles of the European Union. The belief that the peoples of Europe should be mixed with Africans and Asians, to destroy our identity and create a single mestizo race, is the basis of all community policies that aim to protect minorities. Not for humanitarian reasons, but because of the directives issued by the ruthless Regime that machinates the greatest genocide in history. The Coudenhove-Kalergi European Prize is awarded every two years to Europeans who have excelled in promoting this criminal plan. Among those awarded with such a prize are Angela Merkel and Herman Van Rompuy.

The incitement to genocide, is also the basis of the constant appeals of the United Nations, that demands we accept millions of immigrants to help with the low birth rates of the EU. According to a report published on January 2000 in «Population division» Review of the United Nations in New York, under the title “Immigration replacement: A solution to declining and aging population,” Europe will need by 2025 159,000,000 migrants.

One could wonder how there can be such accuracy on the estimates of immigration, although it was not a premeditated plan. It is certain that the low birth rate could easily be reversed with appropriate measures to support families. It is just as clear that it is the contribution of foreign genes do not protect our genetic heritage, but that it enables their disappearance. The sole purpose of these measures is to completely distort our people, to turn them into a group of people without national, historical and cultural cohesion. In short, the policies of the Kalergi plan was and still is, the basis of official government policies aimed at genocide of the Peoples of Europe, through mass immigration. G. Brock Chisholm, former director of the World Health Organization (OMS), proves that he has learned the lesson of Kalergi well when he says: “What people in all places have to do is to limit of birthrates and promote mixed marriages (between different races), this aims to create a single race in a world which will be directed by a central authority. ”

Conclusions:

If we look around us, the Kalergi plan seems to be fully realized. We face Europe’s fusion with the Third World. The plague of interracial marriage produces each year thousands of young people of mixed race: “The children of Kalergi”. Under the dual pressures of misinformation and humanitarian stupefaction, promoted by the MSM, the Europeans are being taught to renounce their origin, to renounce their national identity.

The servants of globalization are trying to convince us that to deny our identity, is a progressive and humanitarian act, that “racism” is wrong, because they want us all to be blind consumers. It is necessary, now more than ever, to counter the lies of the System, to awaken the revolutionary spirit Europeans. Every one must see this truth, that European Integration amounts to genocide. We have no other option, the alternative is national suicide.

Translator’s note: Although the reasons due to which Kalergi made the choices he made are of no particular interest to us, we will try to answer a question that will surely our readers have already asked: Why a European aristocrat with Flemish, Polish, Greek-Byzantine roots and even with some samurai blood in his veins (from his mother) was such body plans and organ in the hands of dark forces? The reasons, in our opinion, are multiple, idiosyncratic, psychological and … women.

We therefore observe a personality with strong snobbish attitudes, arrogance, and, allow me the term, “degenerate elitism.” Also, the fact that his mother was Asian, perhaps created internal conflicts and frustrations, something that can happen to people with such temperament. But the most decisive factor must have been the “proper teenager”, which incidentally of course, was beside him, and became his first woman (at age 13): The Jewess Ida Roland, who would later become a famous actress.

EUROPEAN COUNCIL:

Van Rompuy won the Coudenhove-Kalergi prize for the biggest contribution to White genocide.

The Award Of The Coudenhove-Kalergi Prize To President Van Rompuy

On November 16th 2012, the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, was awarded the Coudenhove-Kalergi Prize, during a special conference in Vienna, to celebrate 90 years of pan-European movement. The prize is awarded every two years to leading personalities for their outstanding contribution to the process of European integration.

A decisive factor that helped him win the prize was the balanced way in which President Van Rompuy executed his duties in the new position of President of the European Council, which was established by the Treaty of Lisbon. He handled this particularly sensitive leading and coordinating role with a spirit of determination and reconciliation, while emphasis was also given to his skilful arbitration on European affairs and unfailing commitment to European moral values.

During his speech, Mr Van Rompuy described the unification of Europe as a peace project. This idea, which was also the objective of the work of Coudenhove-Kalergi, after 90 years is still important. The award bears the name of Count Richard Nicolaus von Coudenhove-Kalergi (1894-1972), philosopher, diplomat, publisher and founder of the Pan-European Movement (1923). Coudenhove-Kalergi was the pioneer of European integration and popularized the idea of a federal Europe with his work.

Among the winners of the award, the Federal Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel (2010) and the President of Latvia Vaira Vike-Freiberga (2006), are included.

This article is a translation of an Italian article, originally posted on Identità.

Good video here on  “Preventing White Genocide:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsjc5CVujrM

img978

img443

Bus Load of Jews arrested for International Organ Trafficking Business

UnoRaza Back Up

——————————————————————

Jewish-American organized crime

10. srpna 2009 v 14:08 |

Jewish-American organized crime (sometimes called the Jewish Mob, Jewish Mafia, Kosher Mafia, or the Kosher Nostra – a pun on the term “Cosa Nostra“), emerged during the late years of the 19th century and early 20th century.
In its earliest form, in New York City in the late 1800s, Jewish gangs under gang lord Monk Eastman competed with Italian and Irish gangs, notably Paul Kelly‘sFive Points Gang, for control of New York‘s underworld. In the early 1920s, stimulated by the economic opportunities of the Roaring Twenties and later,Prohibition, organized crime figures such as Arnold Rothstein rose to dominate more extensive organized crime activity.
According to crime writer Leo Katcher, Arnold Rothstein “transformed organized crime from a thuggish activity by hoodlums into a big business, run like a corporation, with himself at the top.”[1] Rothstein was allegedly responsible for fixing the 1919 World Series.[2]

Origins and characteristics

Jewish-American gangsters were involved in many areas of organized crime, including racketeering, bootlegging, prostitution[3] and narcotics. Their role was also significant in New York’s burgeoning labor movement, especially the garment and trucking unions, as well as poultry workers. Jewish-American organized crime was a matter of obvious concern to the community, because Jewish gangsterism was seen as irreconcilable with the ethics of Judaism[4] It did not exemplify Jewish immigration and its offspring, nevertheless it was exploited by anti-semites and anti-immigration forces as arguments to bolster their prejudices. However, it did exist in large enough reality to permeate the Lower East Side and Brownsville areas in New York City,[5] and other major American cities. and provided fodder for prejudice against Jews.
Jewish American organized crime was a reflection of the ethnic succession among gangsters, which has tended to follow the immigrant waves in the United States: English, German, Irish, Jewish and then Italian. Ethnic involvement in organized crime gave rise to alien conspiracy theories in the US law enforcement community, in which the conception of organized crime as an alien and united entity was vital. It was presented as many-faced, calculating and relentlessly probing for weak spots in the armor of American morality. America had to be protected from this alien threat. The conspiracy theories conveniently ignored the fact that Jewish-American and Italian-American criminals generally co-existed with (even sometimes subordinate to) other criminals, such as Irish-American organized crime networks before the 1920s.[6]
Jewish American organized crime is part of an entire literature, particularly in the United States, on “tough Jews,” mainly gangsters and boxers among whom Jews played a prominent role, often to the delight – even pride – of other Jews, especially Jewish men, who considered them tougher, more aggressive role models to free them from the stigma of defenselessness and powerlessness and the dominant Jewish stereotype: intellectualism and professional legitimacy, not physical aggressiveness and lawlessness, which was more stereotypical of the Irish and Italian immigrants and their mobs. According to Rich Cohen, author ofTough Jews: Fathers, Sons and Gangster Dreams: “if Jewish gangsters still thrived today, if they hadn’t gone legit, if Jews of my generation didn’t regard them as figments, creatures to be classed with Big Foot and the Loch Ness monster, I think the Jewish community would be better off.”[7]
Following Cohen’s line of reasoning, one could say that Jewish American organized crime played a role in the emancipation of the Jewish American community in American society. However, Cohen’s description of Jewish gangsters ignores that they were criminals who made some of their money by extorting and exploiting other members of the American Jewish community, including the trafficking of women,[3] and were generally considered a scourge within their own community. The Yiddish press and literature of the 1920s and 30s was resolute in its condemnation of Jewish mobsters.

History

19th Century-early 20th Century

Largely originating from the immigration from Eastern Europe during the late-19th and early 20th centuries, Jewish mobsters such as Max “Kid Twist” Zwerbach, “Big” Jack Zelig, and Vach “Cyclone Louie” Lewis, competed with Jewish-American organized crime was not exclusively a New York phenomenon, however, as seen during the early 20th century in other major cities with a considerable Jewish-American population as predominantly Jewish-American gangs operated as well, such as The Purple Gang in Detroit.
As would their Italian counterparts, gangs specializing in extortion began operating in the heavily Jewish neighborhoods of New York’s Lower East Sidemost prominently the so-called Yiddish Black Hand headed by Jacob Levinsky, Charles “Charlie the Cripple” Litoffsky and Joseph Toplinsky during the early 1900s. Early in the century a significant Jewish underworld already existed, giving birth to a litany of criminal slang with Yiddish origins. A pimp was known as a “simcha,” a detective as a “shamus” and a loafer as a “trombenik.”[8] Jewish-American organized crime arose among slum kids who in pre-puberty stole from pushcarts, who as adolescents extorted money from store owners, who as young adults practiced schlamming (wielding an iron pipe wrapped in newspaper against striking workers or against scabs) – until they developed into well organized criminal gangs in a wide variety of criminal enterprises boosted by Prohibition.[9]
For both second-generation Jewish and Italian immigrants, the lure of crime often competed quite successfully with mainstream opportunities. There was a Jewish “crime wave” in early-20th-century New York. About a sixth of the city’s felony arrests were Jews. Many young Jewish criminals gravitated toward the “rackets,” where they met up with the children of Irish, Italian, and other immigrants.[10]
As the 20th century progressed, Jewish-American mobsters such as “Dopey”Benny Fein and Joe “The Greaser” Rosenzweig entered labour racketeering, hiring out to both businesses and labor unions as strong arm men. Labor racketeering or “labor slugging” as it was known, would become a source of conflict as it came under the domination of several racketeers including formerFive Points Gang members Nathan “Kid Dropper” Kaplan and Johnny Spanishduring the Labor slugger wars until its eventual takeover by Jacob “Gurrah” Shapiro in 1927. Other organized crime figures would include Moses Annenbergand Arnold Rothstein, the latter reportedly responsible for fixing the 1919 World Series. [11]
According to crime writer Leo Katcher, Arnold Rothstein “transformed organized crime from a thuggish activity by hoodlums into a big business, run like a corporation, with himself at the top.”[12] According to Rich Cohen, Rothstein was the person who first saw in Prohibition a business opportunity, a means to enormous wealth, who “understood the truths of early century capitalism (hypocrisy, exclusion, greed) and came to dominate them”. Rothstein was the Moses of the Jewish gangsters, according to Cohen, the progenitor, a rich man’s son who showed the young hoodlums of the Bowery how to have style; indeed, the man who, the Sicilian-American gangster Lucky Luciano would later say, “taught me how to dress”.[13]

1920s-1930s

Benjamin “Bugsy” Siegel, driving force behind the development of Las Vegas
During Prohibition (1920-1933), Jewish gangsters became major operatives in the American underworld and played prominent roles in the creation and extension of organized crime in the United States. At the time, Jewish gangs dominated illicit activities in a number of America’s largest cities, including Cleveland, Detroit,Minneapolis, Newark, New York City, and Philadelphia. Numerous bootlegging gangs such as the Bug and Meyer Mob headed by Meyer Lansky and Bugsy Siegel and Abe Bernstein‘s Purple Gang [14] would see the rise of Jewish-American organized crime to its height. Other mobsters included Dutch Schultz,[15]Moe Dalitz, Charles “King” Solomon and Abner “Longy” Zwillman.
During this time, Italian mobster Charlie Luciano began plotting against the Old World Sicilian mafiosi and, enlisting the help of longtime associates Meyer Lansky and Benjamin Siegel, a conference was held at New York’s Franconia Hotel on November 11, 1931 which included mobsters such as Jacob Shapiro,Louis “Lepke” Buchalter, Joseph “Doc” Stacher, Hyman “Curly” Holtz, Louis “Shadows” Kravitz, Harry Tietlebaum, Philip “Little Farvel” Kovolick and Harry “Big Greenie” Greenberg. During this meeting, Luciano and Lansky were able to convince the Jewish-American mobsters to agree to work with Italian mobsters in business following the end of the Castellammarese War – in a consortium known as the National Crime Syndicate. At the meeting’s conclusion, “Bugsy” Siegel supposedly declared “The yids and the dagos will no longer fight each other.”[16]
Those Jewish gangsters hostile to the idea of cooperation with non-Jewish rivals gradually receded, most notably Philadelphia bootlegger Waxey Gordon, who was convicted and imprisoned for tax evasion. Following Gordon’s imprisonment, his operations were assumed by Nig Rosen and Max “Boo Hoo” Hoff.
Under Lansky, Jewish mobsters became involved in syndicate gambling interests in Cuba and Las Vegas.[17] Buchalter would also lead the predominantly JewishMurder Incorporated as the Luciano-Meyer syndicate’s exclusive hitmen.[18]

After World War II

Frank Rosenthal with Frank Sinatra on the Frank Rosenthal Show
For several decades after World War II, the dominant figures in organized crime were second-generation Jews and Italians, often working in concert. As late as the 1960s, Jewish presence in organized crime was still acknowledged as Los Angeles mobster Jack DragnaJimmy “The Weasel” Fratianno: explained to hitman and later government informant
“Meyer’s got a Jewish family built along the same lines as our thing. But his family’s all over the country. He’s got guys like Lou Rhody and Dalitz, Doc Stacher, Gus Greenbaum, sharp fucking guys, good businessmen, and they know better than to try to fuck with us.”
Jewish-American organized crime derived from dislocation and poverty, where language and custom made the community vulnerable to undesirables, the sort of thing that fosters criminality among any other ethnicity in a similar situation. As Jews improved their conditions, the Jewish thug and racketeer either disappeared or merged into a more assimilated American crime environment. American Jews quietly buried the public memory of the gangster past; unlike the Mafia, famous Jewish American gangsters like Meyer Lansky, Dutch Schultz and Bugsy Siegel[19] founded no crime families.
Much like Irish Americans and other ethnicities (with exception to Italian American criminal organizations), Jewish-American presence in organized crime gradually faded after World War II. Jewish-American individuals remained associated with organized crime figures,[20] but the criminal organizations and gangs which once rivaled the Italian and Irish-American mobsters during the first half of the 20th century have long since disappeared.

Late 20th Century

In more recent years Jewish-American organized crime has reappeared in the forms of both Israeli and Russian mafia criminal groups. The Soviet and Russianémigré community in New York’s Brighton Beach contains a large Jewish presence, as does its criminal element. Some of these newer American-based Jewish gangsters, such as Ludwig Fainberg, share more in common culturally with Russia and the Soviet republics than their predecessors such as Meyer Lansky.[21]
Israeli mobsters also have a presence in the United States. Yehuda “Johnny” Attias arrived in New York in 1987 and was ultimately murdered in January 1990, and New York’s Israeli mafia fell apart soon after. Several members such as Ron Gonen had turned informant and the authorities arrested the rest of the gang in September of that year.[22] The Israeli mafia (such as the Abergil crime family) is heavily involved in ecstasy trafficking in America[23]

21st century

In 2009, five Sephardic rabbis, all from orthodox Syrian Jewish communities in New Jersey and Brooklyn, were accused of selling kidneys and laundering tens of millions of dollars through fake charities. [24]

Jewish-American organized crime and Israel

Several notable Jewish American mobsters provided financial support for Israelthrough donations to Jewish organizations since the country’s independence in 1948. As a result, Israel became an option for Jewish-American gangsters fleeing criminal charges or facing deportation from the United States such as Joseph “Doc” Stacher and Meyer Lansky, the latter being denied citizenship by then Prime Minister Golda Meir who had been informed by the United States government of Lansky’s long history in organized crime.[25]
————————————————————————
Dr. David Duke exposes the true figures behind global organized crime and human trafficking (hint – they’re not Italians).

Israel: The Promised Land of Organized Crime – Full Version

—————————————————————————————

Header

Empty styrofoam box used for transporting human organs.(Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

In Jewish law, mutilation of the human body is prohibited. But, Jewish law also holds the utmost responsibility to preserve human life. This paradox sets the scene for the most recent organ transplant debacle.

Haaretz reports that an Israeli organ trafficking ring was uncovered in Costa Rica. On June 19, police announced they learned that doctors were performing kidney transplants to sell to patients back in Israel, or sending Costa Ricans to Israel to have the surgery done:

San Jose police on Wednesday arrested Dr. Francisco Mora Palma, head of nephrology at the large Calderon Guardia Hospital, and raided a number of medical laboratories and clinics suspected of carrying out tests for the network’s doctors. Attorney General Jorge Chavarria said the two people arrested − Mora Palma and an employee at Costa Rica’s Public Security Ministry − were the “tip of the iceberg” of the organ trafficking network. Mora Palma was in touch with Israeli doctors and tested the suitability of the local residents whose organs were to be harvested in Israel, the Attorney General’s Office said.

Israel’s Health Ministry denied knowledge of the illegal surgeries.

Legislation has been initiated to counteract the hesitation in Israel—particularly among the ultra-Orthodox—to consent to organ donation. In 2005, Dr. Jacob Lavee, a cardiothoracic surgeon in Tel Hashomer in Central Israel, had two Haredi transplant patients confide to him that while they would receive an organ donation, they would not return the favor. The experience led him to work on a law that would add nonmedical factors to organ transplant lists, which Danielle Ofri reported on in the New York Times last year:

Working with rabbis, ethicists, lawyers, academics and members of the public, he and other medical experts worked to create a new law in 2010, which will take full effect this year: if two patients have identical medical needs for an organ transplant, priority will be given to the patient who has signed a donor card, or whose family member has donated an organ in the past.

This protocol was added to a 2008 Knesset law that provided an even higher priority to patients with family members who had previously died and donated organs.

Israeli MDs harvesting organs for international trafficking ring [Haaretz]
In Israel, a New Approach to Organ Donation [NYT]

—————————————————————————-

Organ Failure

The arrests of rabbis who trafficked body parts uncover more complicated issues.

Two state legislators and several rabbis were among more than 40 people arrested yesterday in New Jersey.
Two state legislators and several rabbis were among more than 40 people arrested yesterday in New Jersey

With the right ingredients of salaciousness and scandal, the news appeared to be straight out of a Hollywood screenplay: corrupt politicians, money laundering, people being arrested by the busload, raids on synagogues, an Apple Jacks cereal boxstuffed with $97,000 in cash, and rabbis trafficking organs. Allegedly, one paid $10,000 to an impoverished Israeli for his or her kidney and tried to sell it for upward of $150,000 in the United States. The criminal complaint quotes the rabbi as saying he was in the organ business for a decade. (And in a you-can’t-make-this-stuff-up twist, it wasn’t even the day’s only story on Israelis trafficking human body parts.)

The rabbis’ organ trafficking was only one of their many indiscretions. In addition to being against the law, it raises a complex bioethical issue for Jews, one laced in a culture of moral imperatives. Is illegally buying an organ really wrong if it’s saving someone’s life? Is paying for altruism, by definition, counterintuitive? Jews have been battling this quandary for a long time, especially when you consider how little they themselves actually help the cause of transplantation.

“Jews don’t like to donate organs,” says Rabbi Michael J. Broyde, one of the founding members of the Beth Din of America, the equivalent of the Supreme Court of the Jewish justice system. “They don’t donate at the rate of other social groups.” This imbalance—of taking more from organ banks than they are putting in—has put Jews around the world at odds with transplant technology. Israel has suffered for years with an organ shortage, forcing its residents to engage in “transplant tourism” in places across Europe and, most notably, in China. According to statistics from Israel’s transplant authority and the United Network of Organ Sharing, the number of people who hold an organ donation card in Israel is at a paltry 8 percent. Most Western countries hover closer to 35 percent.

In an attempt to repair the disparity, Israel passed a law last year that made it easier to become an organ donor. But it took a while. Earlier versions of the bill failed because people feared it would lead to “rabbinical supervision” of the time of death: They thought doctors and rabbis might conspire to hasten a patient’s death if they knew they could harvest organs. An Israeli organization called Adi, formed by a family who lost their son while he was waiting for a kidney transplant, has worked tirelessly to try to promote awareness among the Israeli populace of the moral imperatives of being an organ donor. But for a religion that prides itself on being a “light unto the nations,” it’s an oddly uphill battle. Some in the ultra-Orthodox community oppose the Adi initiative so fiercely that they have actually created “life cards” that state explicitly that the cardholder does not want to donate organs under any circumstances.

There are a whole host of reasons why Israelis—and Jews in general—don’t wish to part with their anatomy even after they die. For some, it’s simply taboo, yet another guilt-laden stigma in an already guilt-laden religion. Others believe it is a biblical commandment to be buried whole without any missing organs.

Judaism is riddled with hundreds of laws that dictate our daily existence. Interestingly, the Torah itself rarely, if ever, connects a specific commandment to a specific reward; the logic being, if you knew the “value” of each commandment, it would be easy to pick and choose which ones to obey. Only twice in the entire Old Testament are rewards mentioned—by the commandment to shoo away the mother bird before taking her chicks (a mere flick of the wrist) and the commandment to honor your parents (an often lifelong difficult task). The Bible states that the reward for both those commandments is exactly the same: long life. In a sense, what Moses was teaching was that the value of the seemingly simplest commandment and of one of the hardest are actually in the same.

————————————————————–

Jews Arrested over Organ Trafficking Case: US Kids Organs to feed Israel´s Health System

————————————————————————-

NYT Finds ‘Disproportionate Role’ of Israelis in World Organ Trafficking
NYT identifies six patients who underwent kidney transplants in Costa Rica and three Israeli men it says are involved in trafficking.

Haaretz Aug 17, 2014 9:43 PM
2comments   Zen Subscribe now
18  Tweet

Costa Rica police arrest Dr. Francisco Mora Palma.courtesy of OIJ
A globe-spanning illegal industry New details emerge on organ trafficking ring between Israel and Costa Rica
Israeli suspected of luring women into organ traffic ring
Report: Israeli suspected of running Ukraine organ trafficking ring
Orthodox Jew sues Chicago hospital for cremating his amputated leg
Five Israelis charged with organ trafficking
A report Sunday in the New York Times sheds light on the role of Israelis in international organ trafficking. Through the story of Ophira Dorin, a 36-year-old Israeli woman, the report demonstrates how easy it is to illegally buy a kidney in Israel.
Costa Rican authorities announced last year that they had uncovered an international organ trafficking ring that specialized in selling kidneys to Israeli and eastern European patients. The Times said it was able to identify 11 patients – six of them Israelis – who underwent kidney transplants in San Jose, as well as two other Israelis who arrived to the Costa Rican capital with donors for procedures they said would not have been approved back home. The report puts Dr. Francisco Mora Palma, head of nephrology at the large Calderon Guardia Hospital in San Jose, at the center of the operation in Costa Rica.
By following Doris’ story, the Times identified three Israelis it said were involved in the trafficking case – Avigad Sandler, Boris Volfman and Yaacov Dayan – describing them as being “among the central operators in Israel’s irrepressible underground kidney market.”
Doris was originally referred to Sandler, but later changed to Volfman after she was told he could arrange transplants at a lower price. A day after their meeting, Volfman was arrested along with Sandler and others on suspicion of organ trafficking in an unrelated case. Soon after, Dorin was referred by one of her clients to Dayan.
When confronted by the Times reporter to explain his involvement in the case, Dayan said, “We help people,” but refused to elaborate, only adding that he had been out of business for over 18 months at the time.
In a phone interview with the Times, Volfman described himself as a middleman who accompanied patients abroad to organize them accommodation, contacts and medical examinations. He insisted on never having any contact with the organ donors themselves and that it was up to the patients to choose the transplant center and pay them directly.
The story says Dorin wired money to the hospital in San Jose and to Dr. Mora, who then paid some $18,500 to an unemployed 37-year-old man for his kidney. This case is merely one of thousands of illicit transplants that take place around the world each year, experts cited in the report estimate.
Dorin told the Times that she even if what she was doing was illegal, after five years with a kidney disease, she felt she had no choice.
In recent years, more than a few Israelis have been mentioned in media reports involving international organ trafficking, whether in Ukraine, Kosovo, Turkey or Costa Rica.
The Times attributes the “disproportionate role” of Israelis involved in major organ trafficking cases partially to Jewish religious restrictions, which keep donation rates low in Israel.
According to the Israeli Health Ministry, less than 10 percent of the overall population in Israel is registered as organ donors – among the lowest rate among developed countries. The ministry reported an increase in registration after the Knesset passed a law in 2012 granting registered donors priority if they ever need a transplant. Also, in 2010, living donors began receiving compensation of several thousand shekels, which may have contributed to the increase. The compensation is meant to cover lost wages and related expenses.
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.610986

 

Judaizing of Catholicism Proceeds Apace

Monday, July 09, 2012

Judaism’s Strange Gods

Informed by the Secret Gnosis of the Renaissance
By Michael Hoffman  www.revisionisthistory.org
Copyright © 2012

As if we needed any more dreary evidence of the extent to which the Roman Catholic Church under the modern popes has publicly allied with the Talmudists of the Synagogue of Satan (Rev. 2:9), here is more (below), this time focused on Amy-Jill Levine‘s annotated New Testament, which advances the Ratzinger/Wojtyla theology that Jesus Christ reasoned like a Pharisee and would have been horrified by St. John Chrysostom, St. Vincent Ferrer or Johann Andreas Eisenmenger. 

Note that I have qualified with italics the words “modern” and “publicly” in the preceding sentence. In this writer’s estimation, one of the reasons why the “traditional” Catholic movement has been outclassed and out-fought by its enemy is that many traditional Catholics believe the myth that the Judaizing of the Church began with the Second Vatican Council and the popes thereof.
What began with the Vatican II document Nostra Aetate was the public accommodation and blending of the Roman Catholic Church with Pharisaic Judaism. The sub-rosa hybrid process itself has a long history, beginning in the Renaissance era with Judaizing popes such as Leo X, Sixtus V and Clement VIII. One surmises that this secret truth forms the processing of Vatican initiates who are very likely told in private that traditional Catholicism is hopelessly compromised and double-minded, in that it claims to oppose Pharisaic Judaism and yet ignorantly pledges allegiance to all popes previous to Vatican II, when in fact some of these pontiffs were as much in league with the Talmudic/Kabbalistic order as John Paul II or Benedict XVI. This is partly why we see that when “traditional” Catholics like Bishop Bernard Fellay seek to reintegrate into the Vatican fold, the one area in which the pope will not budge is Judaism, since he knows what “traditional” Catholics don’t — that for the past 500 years a clandestine alliance has been forged between the hierarchy of the Church and the Orthodox rabbinate.
I have written an introductory history of these matters in  Revisionist History Newsletter, in issues such as no. 58:”Tracking The Occult Infiltration of The Roman Catholic Church From The Renaissance To The Present;” issue no. 52: “Judaizing Protestantism’ and Neo-Platonic Catholicism in Legend and Reality;” no. 47: On Holocaustianity – “The New Catholic ‘Shoah’ Theology: Alibi for the Revolutionary Overthrow of the Gospel of Jesus Christ;” and most recently, tracing elements of Judaism’s Kol Nidrei rite of oath-breaking in Catholicism: issue no. 62: “Proto-Rabbinic Tactics of Deceit and their Adoption by Churchmen during the Renaissance.”

Until Catholics confront the full reality of the panoply of papal compromise and alliance with Talmudic Judaism, they will be fighting a Vatican that cannot take them seriously philosophically, and accords to itself the task of gradually initiating Catholics in the secret traditions of Catholicism from the Renaissance onward  the traditions of the Pharisees — which Jesus Christ, the Apostles, and the Fathers of the Early Church vigorously challenged and exposed with every fibre of their being.

Imagine what an inside joke it must be in Rome when the “traditional” Catholics come calling and boldly declare that, when it comes to Judaism, they want the Church returned to the way it was before Vatican II. “Boys,” the cardinals and clerics are thinking, “what you wish for is now, and has been, for five long centuries. The only difference is, we went public with it in 1965.”

To win in chess one needs to stay three or four steps ahead of one’s opponent. In the game at hand, the Vatican Cryptocracy is three or four light years ahead of “traditional” Catholics.

Catholic-Jewish Dialogues Explore Economics, Education, Religious Freedom And Jewish Take On New Testament
July 6, 2012 (via Maurice Pinay)
WASHINGTON—Gatherings of two different Catholic-Jewish dialogues explored topics including economics, education, religious freedom and even a Jewish commentary on the New Testament.
The semi-annual consultation of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops/National Council of Synagogues (USCCB/NCS) discussed the publication of Amy Jill Levine and Mark Zvi Brettler’s book, The Jewish Annotated New Testament (Oxford, 2012) at their May 22 meeting in New York City. Bishop Denis Madden, auxiliary of Baltimore, and Rabbi David Straus of the Main Line Reform Temple in Wynnewood, Pennsylvania co-chaired the meeting.
“The publication of Levine’s and Brettler’s comprehensive work on the New Testament represents an important milestone in Catholic-Jewish relations,” said Bishop Denis Madden, chairman of the USCCB Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs. “Never before has a group of Jewish scholars made so learned and technical a reading of the New Testament. Clearly, this new effort reflects the progress we have made since the Second Vatican Council in mutual respect for each other’s sacred Scriptures.”
Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, president of USCCB, joined the meeting to extend his greetings and welcome to all the participants. He made brief remarks on the central importance of Catholic-Jewish dialogue and, in particular, of the work done between the USCCB and National Council of Synagogues. He thanked all of the members present for their continued dedication.
Professor Amy Jill Levine of Vanderbilt University gave a brief overview of her work, co-edited with Professor Marc Brettler of Brandeis University, while Jesuit Father John Donahue, professor of New Testament at Loyola University, Baltimore, offered a Catholic response. Dialogue members then discussed various aspects of biblical studies, as well as how the publication of The Jewish Annotated New Testament marked a deepening of understanding in Catholic-Jewish relations. Levine stressed that it is vital for Jews to study the New Testament to gain respect for their Christian neighbors, even as Christians must do the same with the Hebrew Scriptures.
Rabbi Gil Rosenthal, executive director of the National Council of Synagogues, remarked: “This important volume is testimony not only to the enormous competence of its editors and authors, but to the spirit of dialogue that can allow Jews to read and appreciate the Jewish context of Christian scriptures.”
Reports on other dialogue issues, such as continued progress in the implementation of practical aspects of the Vatican-Israeli accord, and updates on the reconciliation of the Society of St. Pius X with the Vatican filled the second half of the meeting. Plans for a two-day October dialogue were considered, centered around the topic of the role of religion in the public square.
On May 25, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops/Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America/Rabbinical Council of America (USCCB/OU/RCA) met for their semi-annual consultation to discuss global economics, religious education, religious freedom and the state of Israel. Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, New York, and Rabbi David Berger, Ph.D., of Yeshiva University co-chaired the meeting.
The meeting began with a discussion of a religious perspective on financial reform and a vision for a just economic order. The group review of the full text of the Bilateral Commission Meeting of the Delegations for the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, which took place March 27-29, at the Vatican. Both traditions underscored the need for the moral leadership of religious groups to shed light on ethical considerations in economic systems, their failures and possible reforms.
James Cultrara, director of education for the New York Catholic Conference, and Michael Cohen, New York State political director for the Orthodox Union, updated the group on the funding of religious schools in the state of New York, a topic of shared concerns for both communities. “There is a tuition crisis in both of our communities,” Cohen told the group. “The escalating cost of tuition, in some communities it has doubled within six or seven years. We need to find the solution that works.”
Thomas Renker, legal counsel for the Diocese of Rockville Centre, updated the group on developments in the federal HHS contraception mandate and the response of the Catholic community. The group discussed the situation at some length with several noting the inherent threat to religious freedom for all faith traditions which the situation presents.
Rabbi Tzvi H. Weinreb, executive vice president emeritus of the Orthodox Union, gave a brief presentation on current cultural and domestic policy issues in Israel. Bishop Murphy gave a brief report on the new Catholic Catechism for Youth titled “YouCAT.” Of specific interest to the group were sections dealing with Jewish people. Some concerns had previously been voiced surrounding the formulation of some parts of the text, initiating a revision.
Additional Jewish participants in the USCCB/OU/ RCA consultation included: Maury Litwack, director of political affairs, OU; Betty Ehrenberg, executive director of the World Jewish Congress North America; Nathan Diament, director of public affairs, OU; Rabbi Basil Herring, executive vice president, RCA; Rabbi Aaron Glatt, Young Israel of Woodmere; and Mr. Avi Schick, an attorney with experience in both government work and interfaith relations.Additional Catholic included: Msgr. Donald Beckman, ecumenical officer of the Diocese of Rockville Centre; Father Robert Robbins, pastor of the United Nations Parish Church of the Holy Family and New York archdiocesan director for ecumenical and interreligious affairs; Msgr. Robert Stern, Catholic Near East Welfare Association; Father John Crossin, executive director, USCCB Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs (SEIA); Kirsten Evans, program and research specialist, USCCB SEIA.
Jewish participants at the USCCB/NCS consultation included Rabbi Lewis Eron, Cherry Hill, New Jersey; Rabbi Joel Meyers, executive vice-president emeritus of the (Conservative) Rabbinical Assembly; Rabbi Jonathan Waxman, Temple Beth Sholom, Smitonthtown, New York; Rabbi David Straus, Central Conference of American Rabbis; Rabbi Gilbert Rosenthal, National Council of Synagogues; Rabbi Daniel F. Polish of La Grangeville, New York; Ruth Langer, Ph.D., of Boston College; Rabbi David Sandmel, Ph.D. of The Catholic Theological Union, Chicago; Rabbi Alvin Berkin of The Tree of Life Congregation, Pittsburgh; Rabbi Jeffrey A. Wohlberg of Adas Israel, Washington; Rabbi Jerome Davidson of Temple Beth-El, Great Neck, New York; Judith Hertz of the International Council of Presidents of the World Conferences of Religions for Peace and Betty Ehrenberg, executive director of the North American Division of the World Jewish Congress. Catholic participants at the consultation included Bishop Basil H. Losten, former bishop of Stamford for Ukrainians; Brother of the Christians Schools David Carroll, former associate director at Catholic Near East Welfare Association; Msgr. Robert Stern, former director of the Catholic Near East Welfare Association; Father Dennis McManus, USCCB consultant for Jewish Affairs and Jesuit Father Drew Christiansen, editor of America Magazine. (End quote).
Michael Hoffman needs your help: he is nearly 70% of the way through his new book on the theological history of the rise of the Money Power in Christendom. Funds to sustain further writing and research, and the actual publication of the book once it is completed, are very much needed. If you feel led to assist, please click on this link. Thank you.
 
***

The USS Liberty Attack by Israel and the Coverup

The deliberate attack on the USS Liberty by israel pass this video around copy it post it on your pages or link to it here this needs much attention so do your part Thank You

———————————————————————————-

POLITICS

The Day Israel Attacked America

Al Jazeera investigates the shocking truth behind a deadly Israeli attack on a US naval vessel.

Special programme | 30 Oct 2014 20:22 GMT | Politics, War & Conflict, US & Canada, Israel, Spain

In 1967, at the height of the Arab-Israeli Six-Day War, the Israeli Air Force launched an unprovoked attack on the USS Liberty, a US Navy spy ship that was monitoring the conflict from the safety of international waters in the Mediterranean.

Israeli jet fighters hit the vessel with rockets, cannon fire and napalm, before three Israeli torpedo boats moved in to launch a second more devastating attack. Though she did not sink, the Liberty was badly damaged. Thirty-four US servicemen and civilian analysts were killed, another 171 were wounded.

Later Israel apologised for what it claimed to be a tragic case of mistaken identity. It said that it had believed the ship to be hostile Egyptian naval vessel. US President Lyndon Johnson was privately furious but publicly the White House chose not to challenge the word of its closest Middle East ally and accepted that the attack had been a catastrophic accident.

However, as this exclusive Al Jazeera investigation reveals, fresh evidence throws new light on exactly what happened that fateful day – and the remarkable cover up that followed.


FILMMAKER’S VIEW

By Richard Belfield

I was first told about the attack on the USS Liberty in 1980 over dinner with a former analyst from the National Security Agency (NSA) in Washington DC.

Back in 1980, I promised my friend that if I ever got the chance I would make a film about it. Over the years, I pitched the idea to numerous broadcasters and always got the same response: eyes rolled upwards, usually followed by the statement, “Are you completely mad?”

Fast forward to 2009 and I was a guest speaker at the NSA’s biennial conference on historical cryptography, talking about an unsolved code on an 18th century monument in an English stately home.

While there, I went to two other sessions – both about attacks on American signal intelligence naval vessels.

The first was the capture of the US spy ship, the Pueblo (boarded by North Korean forces in 1968 – and never returned). The survivors of that incident were treated like heroes and feted on stage.

The next day there was a session about the USS Liberty. James Scott, who has written easily the best book on the Liberty attack, was on stage and limited to his allotted 20 minutes. Ranged against him were three Israeli apologists, all of whom were allowed to overrun their time. Survivors from the Liberty affair were allowed to sit in the audience, but they were denied any say in proceedings.

As an Englishman, I was brought up with a strong sense of fair play and I thought this was a disgrace. It was gruesome to watch. First, the crew had been attacked in broad daylight by a close ally, then they were betrayed by their government and now they were being humiliated by the same agency many had worked for back in 1967.

Earlier this year, I acquired a copy of the audiotape of the attack as it had unfolded, the real time conversations between Isreali Air Force pilots and their controllers back at base. It had never been broadcast before. I went to talk to Al Jazeera and after careful consideration, the network commissioned the film.

On location, it all started with James Scott (who gets a co-producer credit on this project). When writing his book, he had already interviewed the survivors as well as many of the key people in the Washington political and intelligence machine from that time. The introductions he made would prove invaluable as we began filming interviews.

The veterans were extraordinary. One after another, they were generous with their time, uniformly eloquent and passionate and above all, honest in their recollections.

They all felt betrayed by the American government but were keen to exonerate ordinary Jewish people both in Israel and without, for any responsibility for the incident. Their beef was simply with the senior Israeli officers in the control room and their superiors higher up the command chain who had ordered the attack.

After a few days filming, I rang Elaine Morris, my producer back in London. She asked how things were going. All I could say was that the quality of the interviews was the best I had ever experienced in many decades in this business.

In Texas we interviewed Bobby Ray Inman, an intelligence officer with a glittering track record at the CIA, Naval Intelligence and as a former director of the NSA. My contacts in the UK intelligence world had always told me “he is one of the good guys” and I quickly discovered why. He was frank and clear. The top Israeli commanders, he explained, had known exactly what they were doing when they attacked the Liberty and when it came to holding them to account, the US government rolled over for them.

We filmed an annual memorial ceremony in Washington, D.C. It was emotional, visceral and tense, with survivors, family and friends gathered in the morning sun. Listening to a sole bugler playing the US Navy’s lament, ‘Taps’ is a memory that will never fade.

Years earlier, I had visited the US military graves in Arlington Cemetery but now, following the ceremony, I got to go there again with Dave Lucas, one of the survivors of the attack and a truly wonderful man.

We filmed as he walked up the hill carrying a wreath from the ceremony. Alongside him was a crew member, a Portuguese language specialist, who had left the Liberty in Spain just a few days before it sailed off up the Mediterranean to take up position off the Egyptian coast. He had been temporarily replaced for the mission by an Arab linguist. He wept openly for the comrades he had said goodbye to, never to see again. As we filmed the pair laying the flowers, an interview with one of the other survivors, Jim Kavanagh came suddenly to mind. “I went through hell,” he had said about his shipmates. “But they left this earth.”

Finally, we filmed on a sister ship to the Liberty, now moored in San Francisco. The crew hauled an outsized US flag up a mast for us. The flag – known as the “holiday colours” – was identical to that which was flown from the Liberty on June 8, 1967. It was huge, clearly visible for miles, and I knew immediately that no one could ever have been in any doubt about the nationality of the ship beneath it.

Watching the Stars and Stripes unfurl into the wind, I realised that I had got to keep the promise I first made to my friend in a Washington restaurant 34 years ago.

Source: Al Jazeera

——————————————————–



BBC Documentary on the USS Liberty:
“Dead in the Water”

“If it was an accident, it was the best planned accident I’ve ever heard of” – USS Liberty survivor

Cover-Up Alleged in Probe of USS Liberty

A former Navy attorney who helped lead the military investigation of the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that killed 34 American servicemen says former President Lyndon Johnson and his defense secretary, Robert McNamara, ordered that the inquiry conclude the incident was an accident.

In a signed affidavit released at a Capitol Hill news conference, retired Capt. Ward Boston said Johnson and McNamara told those heading the Navy’s inquiry to “conclude that the attack was a case of ‘mistaken identity’ despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.”

It was “one of the classic all-American cover-ups,” said retired Admiral Thomas Moorer, a former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman who spent a year investigating the attack as part of an independent panel he formed with other former military officials. The panel also included a former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, James Akins.


Torpedo hole in USS Liberty

“Why would our government put Israel’s interests ahead of our own?” Moorer asked from his wheelchair at the news conference. He was chief of naval operations at the time of the attack.

Moorer, who has long held that the attack was a deliberate act, wants Congress to investigate. [Newsday]

Israel claims the USS Liberty was mistaken for the out-of-service Egyptian horse carrier El Quseir – can you spot the difference?


El Quseir


USS Liberty

According to a 1981 NSA report on the incident, the El Quseir “was approximately one-quarter of the Liberty’s tonnage, about one-half its length, and offered a radically different silhouette.”

Photos of attack on USS Liberty
Click images for full sized photos

The assault was initiated by French-built high performance Mirage jets armed with cannons and rockets

After the ship was disabled by aircraft cannon, rockets and napalm, Israeli torpedo boats were sent in

Crews mess hall used as an emergency room

Liberty deck crew resting after recovering bodies of shipmates

30mm cannon holes
GTR 5 USS Liberty

30mm cannon holes
GTR 5 USS Liberty

Fifteen years after the attack, an Israeli pilot approached Liberty survivors and then held extensive interviews with former Congressman Paul N. (Pete) McCloskey about his role. According to this senior Israeli lead pilot, he recognized the Liberty as American immediately, so informed his headquarters, and was told to ignore the American flag and continue his attack. He refused to do so and returned to base, where he was arrested.

Later, a dual-citizen Israeli major told survivors that he was in an Israeli war room where he heard that pilot’s radio report. The attacking pilots and everyone in the Israeli war room knew that they were attacking an American ship, the major said. He recanted the statement only after he received threatening phone calls from Israel.

The pilot’s protests also were heard by radio monitors in the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon. Then-U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Dwight Porter has confirmed this. Porter told his story to syndicated columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak and offered to submit to further questioning by authorities. Unfortunately, no one in the U.S. government has any interest in hearing these first-person accounts of Israeli treachery. [Washington Report]


“Then, inexplicably, at 2 p.m., unmarked Israeli aircraft began attacking the ship.” [Ledger Enquirer]

Israel attacked the USS Liberty using UNMARKED AIRCRAFT. This is the single fact which proves Israel knew exactly who they were attacking. Israel’s story is that they thought USS Liberty was an Egyptian ship and therefore a legitimate target of war. Were that true, there would be no reason to attack a supposedly Egyptian ship with unmarked aircraft. The only possible reason to use unmarked aircraft to attack the ship is that Israel knew it was an American ship and intended to sink it, then to blame the attack on Egypt.

Moorer, who as top legal council to the official investigation is in a position to know, agrees that Israel intended to sink the USS Liberty and blame Egypt for it, thus dragging the United States into a war on Israel’s behalf. This seems to be a common trick of Israel. Starting with the Lavon affair, through the USS Liberty, to the fake radio transmitter that tricked Reagan into attacking Libya, to potentially 9-11 itself, Israel’s game is to frame Arabs and set them up as targets for the United States.

The official US investigation is discredited. And with it, every claim of innocence for Israel that relied on the official investigation as a source.

The real question facing the American people is why the US Government seems more concerned with protecting Israel after they are caught playing these dirty tricks, rather than doing something to convince Israel not to kill any more Americans.

“Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It’s classified information.” — US official quoted in Carl Cameron’s Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring and its connections to 9-11.

 Is Israel blackmailing America?

——————————————————————————————-

Israel’s Attack on USS Liberty – The Full Story

The lesson of the cold-blooded attack on the USS Liberty was that there is nothing the Zionist state might not do, to its friends as well as its enemies, in order to get its own way.

 

by Alan Hart

 

On Thursday 8 June 1967, Israeli air and naval forces attacked America’s most advanced spy ship, the U.S.S. Liberty, killing 34 of its crew and wounding 174.

Forty five years on, thanks to the complicity of the mainstream media, the cover up ordered by President Johnson is still in place.

Two years ago, on New York’s Long Island, I had the pleasure and privilege of being the keynote speaker at the annual dinner of the Liberty Survivors Association. I told them I was aware that if the attack had gone completely according to the plan of the man who ordered it, Israeli Defence Minister Moshe Dayan, none of them would have survived.

I also told them that although I am an Englishman who had not served in any of his country’s armed services (because conscription was abolished by the time I was old enough to have served), we did have something in common –OUTRAGE that could not be expressed adequately in polite words at the continued suppression in America of the truth about Israel’s attack on the Liberty.

On the 45th anniversary of that attack, this post is providing the complete text of Chapter Two of the three-volume American edition of my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews. The chapter is titled The Liberty Affair – “Pure Murder” on a “Great Day”.

My American publisher expressed to me the view that it is “the most revealing, the most riveting and the most important chapter in the whole book.”  My own view is that it assists real understanding of what the Zionist state of Israel is – a monster beyond control.

Here is the chapter, complete with source notes.

Israel insisted (as it still does) that its attack on the Liberty was an unfortunate “accident”, a case of “mistaken identity”.

The attack ought to have been a sensational, headline-grabbing news story, but beyond the fact that an accident had happened and that Israel had apologised, it did not get reported by America’s news organisations. It was too hot an issue for them to handle and pursue. If it had been an Arab attack on an American vessel it would have been an entirely different matter, of course. In that event there would have been saturation coverage with demands for retaliation, with Zionist and other pro-Israeli columnists and commentators setting the pace and tone.

About the attack and its aftermath – the Johnson administration’s cover-up led by the President himself – retired American Admiral Thomas L. Moorer, who was appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) a month after the incident, was subsequently to say to former U.S. Congressman Paul Findley, “If it was written as fiction nobody would believe it.”[i]

The attack itself, Admiral Moorer said to Findley, was “absolutely deliberate.” And the cover-up? “The clampdown was not actually for security reasons but for domestic political reasons. I don’t think there is any question about it. What other reasons could there have been? President Johnson was worried about the reaction of Jewish voters.” (For which read, I add, the awesome power of the Zionist lobby and its many stooges in Congress). The former Chairman of the JCS added: “The American people would be god damn mad if they knew what goes on.”[ii]

As it happened, the institutions of government in America did not succeed in keeping the truth covered up because there were eye-witnesses who would not be silenced. They were the survivors of the Liberty’s crew. The first prime source of the detailed information about the actual attack is the book Assault on the Liberty.[iii] It was written by Lieutenant James M. Ennes. He was the Officer of the Deck on the Liberty throughout the attack.

On 5 June 1982 there was a reunion of Liberty survivors in the Hotel Washington in Washington D.C. The guest speaker was retired Admiral Moorer. He told the survivors that he had “never been willing to accept the Israeli explanation that it was a case of mistaken identity.” He could not accept that Israeli pilots “don’t know how to identify ships.” It followed, he said, that there “must have been some other motive”, which he was confident “some day will be made public.”[iv]

Retired Admiral Moorer’s confidence has not yet been justified. Some of the official documents have been de-classified with the most sensitive (for which read most embarrassing) passages blacked out, but other official documents and reports remain classified, TOP SECRET, and are likely to remain so for as long as America’s pork-barrel politicians are frightened of offending Zionism.

The “motive” for the attack has to be deduced from what happened in the context of the whole war of June 1967 and Dayan’s determination to stop at nothing to create the Greater Israel of gut-Zionism’s mad dream. And the key to complete understanding is knowledge of the Liberty’s capabilities and what its mission was.

A question readers might like to keep in mind is this: When Dayan ordered the attack – he wanted the Liberty to be completely destroyed with the loss of all hands on board – who was the Israeli general who protested and said, “This is pure murder”?

The Liberty’s naval designation was AGTR-5, meaning that it was the fifth ship in a series undertaking “Auxiliary General Technical Research.” It was, in fact, a converted World War II Victory ship – the former Simmons Victory. It had been refitted by the NSA (National Security Agency) for use as a signals intelligence (SIGINT) “platform” – a floating listening post. It had a very sophisticated system of radio antennae including a “Big Ear” sonar-radio listening device with a clear capability range of over 500 miles. Up to that distance the Liberty could intercept virtually any form of wireless communication, including military and diplomatic traffic, telemetry data, rocket guidance and satellite control, among others. It could then decode and process the intercepted messages and relay them back to the NSA at Fort Meade, Maryland, via short-wave radio or through a very special communications system called TRSSCOM, using a 10,000-watt microwave signal bounced off the surface of the moon. The U.S.S. Liberty was America’s most advanced spy ship.

Below decks the communications areas – which housed the computers, listening and decoding devices manned by linguistic experts and other personnel who were changed according to the ship’s mission – were off-limits to the crew, including Captain William I. McGonagle. The communication areas were under the direct control of an NSA technician (managing spook). The on-board NSA controller for the Liberty’s June ’67 mission was known to the crew as “the Major.” With two other civilians he joined the Liberty at Rota in Spain shortly before the spy ship sailed from there for the Middle East on 2 June. The day after Dayan became minister of defence. (A coincidence?)

The Liberty’s movements were controlled by the JCS and the NSA in Washington. With a top speed of 18 knots it was faster than most ships of its kind. On both the forecastle and deckhouse aft of the bridge there were two pedestal-mounted 0.50-calibre Browning machine guns. These four guns, on open mounts without shrapnel shields, were the spy ship’s only defences. Strictly speaking the Liberty was not an unarmed vessel but for all practical purposes it was. Another sitting duck if attacked.

The Liberty’s mission was TOP SECRET and has not been acknowledged to this day.

It was on patrol, listening, because some in the Johnson administration at executive level – perhaps Defence Secretary McNamara especially – did not trust the Israelis to keep their word with regard to the scope of the war.

The Johnson administration had given the green light for Israel to attack Egypt and only Egypt. It was understood that the IDF would have to respond to Jordanian intervention – if it happened, but on no account was Israel to seek to widen the war for the purpose of taking Jordanian or Syrian territory. Apart from President Johnson’s public statement that he was as firmly committed as his predecessors had been to the “political independence and territorial integrity of all the nations in that area”, Washington’s fear was what could happen if the Israelis occupied Syrian territory. If they did there was a possibility of Soviet intervention (for face-saving reasons). Soviet leaders could just about live with the Egyptians being smashed by the IDF but not the Syrians too. Through the CIA the Johnson administration was aware of the IDF’s secret agreement with the Syrian regime. (As revealed in the previous chapter of my book, Syria, in the countdown to war, agreed to put on only a token show of fighting when Israel attacked Egypt). So it, the Johnson administration, was reasonably confident that the Syrians would not seek to widen the war by engaging the Israelis in any serious way. The name of the U.S. counter-intelligence game was therefore preventing Israel from attacking Syria. That was the Liberty’s mission.

When the Liberty was ordered to the Middle East, everybody who needed to know did know that the Israelis would have only a few days in which to smash the Egyptians – because the Security Council would demand a quick end to the fighting and Israel would have to stop when it was shown the international red card. Which meant that when Israel went to war with Egypt, it would be assigning the bulk of its armour to the Egyptian front. The point? If Israel then decided to attack Syria, it would have to re-deploy armour, very quickly, from the Egyptian front to the Syrian front. The orders for any such redeployment would be given by wireless – from Dayan’s Ministry of Defence in Tel Aviv to the commanders in the field and they, naturally, would talk to each other. If there was such radio chatter, the Liberty would pick it up and pass it urgently to the NSA in Washington. President Johnson would then demand that the Israelis abort their intended attack on Syria. So long as the Liberty was on station and functioning, the U.S. would have some control of Israel.

In short the Liberty was the Johnson administration’s insurance policy. It was there to prevent Israel’s hawks going over the top and, on a worst-case scenario, provoking Soviet intervention and possibly World War III. (One could have said then, and one could say with even more point today, that with the Zionist state as its friend the U.S. does not need enemies.)

From Dayan’s perspective… Before he could order an invasion of Syria for the purpose of grabbing the Golan Heights for keeps, the Liberty had to be put out of business.

In what follows it is important to keep two things in mind.

First: It was impossible for the attacking Israelis not to know the identity of their target. From the masthead on the ensign staff the Liberty was proudly flying the standard American flag -five feet by eight feet. The ship’s US Navy markings, GTR-5, were on both sides of its bows in white letters and a figure ten feet high. And the ship’s name was clearly visible on its stern. Not to mention the sophisticated system of radio antennae.

Second: As Stephen Green noted, “The IDF command did not have to consult Jane’s Fighting Ships to learn about the eavesdropping capabilities of the Liberty.”[v] Israeli military intelligence had a very close working relationship with both the CIA and the U.S. Defence Department and knew well that the Liberty could listen to the movement orders for IDF units – movement orders that, on the evening–morning of 7-8 June, would be concerned with rushing units from Sinai to the northern Galilee border with Syria, in preparation for an invasion.

Shortly after 2030 hours local time on the evening of Wednesday 7 June, Israeli aerial reconnaissance reported to IDF Central Coastal Command in Tel Aviv a change in the Liberty’s course. The spy ship was now steaming toward a point on the Israeli coast midway between Tel Aviv and the naval base at Ashdod. The change of course was noted on the Israeli control table. The Liberty was represented by a green symbol indicating a neutral craft – neither foe nor friend. It may or may not have been a coincidence (I think not) that the Liberty’s course change came shortly after the Johnson administration had withdrawn its opposition in the Security Council to a resolution demanding a cease-fire. (The demand meaning that Israel was expected by the U.S. to comply).

At about 2200 hours the Liberty’s sophisticated radar-sensing equipment detected Israeli jets circling the ship. That was not surprising given where the vessel was. The surprise was that fire-control radar was being directed at it. The Israeli jets were homing their rockets as though for an attack.

The small group gathered around the Liberty’s radar screen playfully employed the ship’s electronic countermeasure (ECM) to “spoof” the Israeli pilots. The Liberty’s ECM equipment was of the latest and most sophisticated type and enabled the ship to distort its radar image and send it back to the Israeli planes – making the Liberty appear to be much smaller and then much bigger than it was. First Class Petty Officer Charles Rowley was subsequently to recall that no one took the contact seriously. The Israelis, it was assumed, were only playing games.

They were not; and there was a link between the directing of fire-control radar at the Liberty and what had happened an hour or so earlier. The Office of the U.S. Defence Attaché in Tel Aviv had sent a startling message to the U.S. Army Communications Centre in Washington. By telegram in code the message was that the IDF was planning to attack the Liberty if the ship continued to move closer to the Israeli coast! 

It can be assumed that it was only a matter of minutes before everybody in Washington who needed to know did know about Dayan’s threat. (Everybody in Washington’s war loop knew that it was Dayan’s war).

In retrospect two things seem to me to be obvious.

The first is that Dayan ordered the leaking (to the U.S. Defence Attaché) of his intention to attack the Liberty in the hope that the threat alone would cause the controlling American authorities to abort the spy ship’s mission, and thus remove the need for it to be attacked.

The second is that Dayan ordered the jets which circled the Liberty at 2200 hours to direct fire-control radar at the vessel to underline the fact that he was not bluffing – that the spy ship would be attacked if it did not move away. Dayan was assuming that the Liberty would report to its controllers in Washington the fact that Israeli jets had gone through the motions of preparing to attack the vessel.

As it happened the Liberty did not report its 2200 hours contact because of the assumption that the Israeli pilots were playing games. But the Liberty’s failure to report the incident was of no consequence because the report of the U.S. Defence Attaché had weight enough on its own. Washington knew that Israel’s one-eyed warlord was not a man who made empty threats.

There can surely be no dispute about what President Johnson ought to have done given that the lives of 286 Americans on board the Liberty were at stake. He ought to have telephoned Prime Minister Eshkol and said that an Israeli attack on the Liberty would be regarded as a declaration of war on the United States of America, and would provoke an appropriate U.S. response.

But for obvious domestic political reasons Johnson was not going to do that. Instead, and no doubt at the urging of Walt Rostow and others with influence who were for Zionism right or wrong, the President approved the sending of an order for the Liberty to get away from Israel as fast as possible.[vi] Over the course of two and a half hours, three frantic messages to that effect were sent, each rated “Pinnacle”, which meant highest priority. Incredibly, none were received by the Liberty.

To this day the U.S. Navy has not offered an explanation, so those of us who don’t like mysteries have to speculate. There are, I think, only two possible explanations.

One is that the messages were inadvertently misrouted and delayed in the convoluted channels and procedures of the Defence Department’s worldwide communications system. That supposes an astonishing degree of inefficiency and incompetence. (The subsequent TOP SECRET Naval Board of Inquiry – “Review of Proceedings on the Attack on the U.S.S. Liberty” – asserted that nobody in the Defence Department was to blame for anything).

The other possible explanation is that somebody in high authority was enraged by President Johnson’s surrender to Dayan for domestic political reasons, and took the necessary steps to see to it that the messages were not transmitted to the Liberty – because he believed that the spy ship’s mission was vital; in turn because he believed that the peace of the world might be at stake if Israel attacked Syria and provoked a Soviet response. This explanation supposes that there was in the Johnson administration one hell of a fight between those who supported Zionism right or wrong – even when doing so was not in America’s best interests, and those who put America’s own interests first.

Does anybody know, really know, which of those two possible explanations is the correct one?

The fact that President Johnson, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA and the NSA had advance notice of Dayan’s intention to attack the Liberty meant that, when the early reports of the attack arrived, they had a choice. In Taking Sides, Stephen Green put it this way: The choice was “either to take retaliatory action against Israel, or to become an accessory after the fact by promoting the fiction that it was somehow an accident.”[vii]

Out of fear of offending Zionism and its child it was, of course, the second option that the pork-barrel Johnson administration took, making a cover-up inevitable.

At this point I must pause to acknowledge that I, like most others (the few) who write about the cover-up, would know little that was worth knowing without Stephen Green’s original research. In Peering Into Dark Corners, the title of the first chapter of his book, he told of his epic struggle to make use of the Federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to get access to declassified files from 22 different U.S. government agencies, mainly civilian and military intelligence agencies.

“The FOIA process,” he wrote in 1984 (how appropriate), “has in the past few years become an adversarial one with strong political overtones. Initial requests (for de-classified documents and files) may be simply ignored for months until repeated follow-ups elicit pro forma responses. Once a researcher’s request reaches an active pile, he or she may be threatened with exorbitant search and duplication fees.” He gave an example. In response to one particular request he was informed in writing that servicing it would require “13,000 hours of search time at $16 per hour. If I would just send along the $208,000, they would get cracking on the matter.”[viii]

To my way of thinking Green’s most chilling revelation was about the existence of Executive Order 12356. This was promulgated by President Reagan in mid-1982 to permit the re-classification of previously de-classified documents! “The Reagan Justice Department has encouraged a number of federal agencies to avail themselves of this new ‘opportunity’ to return to an era when the processes of government were none of the American people’s business.”[ix]

In passing it is also worth noting that Green’s credentials were beyond reproach because he is Jewish. He dedicated his book as follows – “For my father, who would have understood.” Green’s hope was that his book would encourage debate about the need for America to have a more distant and rational relationship with Israel.

Precisely when on Thursday 8 June Dayan ordered the actual attack on the Liberty has never been revealed.There was however a Congressional leak to Green from a named member – Representative Robert L.F. Sikes – of the intelligence working group of the investigating Defence Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations. The leak confirmed among other things the existence of a suppressed report of a secret CIA briefing in which it was stated that Dayan had issued the order over the protests of another Israeli general who said, “This is pure murder.”[x]

The attack, the murder at sea, was in two main phases lasting more than one hour (as we shall see, an intended third and final phase had to be aborted); and it was launched after aerial reconnaissance of the Liberty, in the sunlight of the eastern Mediterranean, over a period of eight hours. As all television cameramen and still photographers know, the sunlight in the eastern Mediterranean has almost magical properties. It is Mother Nature’s assistance for taking perfect pictures.

Dawn on the morning of Thursday 8 June brought with it the promise of another beautiful and clear day. Calm sea. Light, warm breezes. The off-duty crew of the Liberty could not have had it better if they were holidaymakers on a cruise ship. Many were, in fact, looking forward to some sunbathing on the deck.

The aerial reconnaissance of the Liberty started at 0600 hours when a lumbering Israeli Noratlas (a Nord 2051) slowly circled the ship three times.

On the bridge Ensign John Scott, near the end of his watch as the Officer of the Deck, studied the plane through his binoculars.

The French-built Noratlas was a transport plane but this one had been modified by the Israeli Air Force. It was carrying not fighting men of any kind but photographers – the best the Israeli Air Force had (which probably meant they were second to none in the world) – and, to direct them, specialists from the directorate of military intelligence. The pictures that were being taken of the Liberty on this and several subsequent over-flights would determine the precise plan of attack.

If Dayan was to get away with it, the Liberty had to be totally destroyed with no survivors to tell the tale. And the key to complete success when the attack was launched would be taking out the Liberty’s transmitting facilities before it could get off a call for help to the American Sixth Fleet which was not too far away. If the Liberty did succeed in transmitting an S.O.S. when it was being attacked, there was at least the possibility that fighter planes from the Sixth Fleet would be ordered to take on the attackers. The prospect of an aerial dog-fight between U.S. and Israeli warplanes was unthinkable. But that was what Dayan would be risking if his attack planes failed to take out the Liberty’s transmitting facilities with their first rockets. The Noratlas’s prime task was to get the pictures that would enable Israeli pilots to attack the Liberty’s communications facilities with, literally, pin-point accuracy on their first run.

At 0720 hours Lieutenant James Ennes replaced Scott as the Officer of the Deck. By now everybody on the Liberty was well aware that their ship was being examined very, very carefully. The first thing Ennes did was to order a new flag (measuring five feet by eight feet) to be run up the main mast. The old one had been badly sooted on the journey from Rota.

At 0900 hours, in accordance with its original operating orders, the Liberty made a sharp right-hand turn and reduced speed to five knots. The ship was doubling back in a westerly direction roughly parallel to the Egyptian coast north of El Arish. As Ennes ordered the turn, the Liberty was 25 miles from Gaza and less than 30 miles from the nearest point on the Israeli coast. The ship was now perfectly placed to listen to IDF movement orders – orders for many Israeli units in Sinai to turn around and move north, to assist with the consolidation of Israel’s capture of the West Bank and, more importantly, an attack on Syria. (I was in Sinai at the time reporting for ITN, and I saw some of the Israel tanks that had smashed through Egypt’s defences being loaded onto huge lorry-drawn trailers for transportation northwards).

As the Liberty was turning, a single jet aircraft was watching from a distance. Then, at 1000 hours, two delta-winged jets armed with rockets circled the ship three times. On this occasion the planes came close enough for Ennes and other officers on the bridge to see the pilots in their cockpits through binoculars. The odd thing, or so the Americans on the Liberty’s bridge thought, was that the two planes did not seem to have any markings.

In retrospect, it is obvious that the 1000 hours visit was something of a trial run, to enable the pilots to take a view on whether or not the first set of pictures taken by the Noratlas would enable them to attack the Liberty’s communications facilities with pin-point accuracy.

Events suggest that the two pilots who were to lead the attack were not happy and wanted more photographs to enable them to guarantee such pinpoint accuracy. After their report, the Noratlas made three more over flights: at 1030 hours – this time passing directly over the Liberty at a very low level, probably not more than 200 feet: at 1126 hours; and 1220 hours.

At 1310 hours, with lunch over, the crew of the Liberty conducted a series of drills including fire, damage control and gas attack. That took 40 minutes. Captain McGonagle then addressed the ship’s officers and crew. In the normal course of events he would have confined himself to complimenting them (or not) on the job done in the drills. But on this particular afternoon, the fourth of the war – they could see the smoke of battle on the shoreline, he knew that his men were in need of reassurance. After the Noratlas’s fourth reconnaissance over-flight there had been mutterings of fear. The Israelis had obviously identified the Liberty several times over. What, really, did they want?

McGonagle addressed the concern of his ship’s company by stressing that they had been under surveillance by “friendly” forces. Given that and the fact that they (the friendly forces) could not have failed to identify the Liberty, the captain was implying that his men should dismiss from their minds the possibility of an attack. He was saying – without saying – that the Israelis could not attack the Liberty without knowing it was the Liberty they were attacking.

At 1405 hours the “friends” returned, led by three Mirages each armed with 72 rockets and two 30-mm cannons. This time there was no circling. At high speed they came straight for the Liberty, so fast that between the time they appeared as blips on the ship’s radar and the start of their attack, Ennes and others on the bridge barely had time to grab and focus their binoculars.

For seven minutes the three Mirages made furious, crisscross runs, hitting the Liberty with everything they had. The first rockets fired toppled several of the ship’s antennae. After the Mirages and for about another 20 minutes, the air attack was continued by several Mystere fighters. They were slower than the Mirages and therefore more efficient for staffing and dropping canisters of napalm. (Napalm is a highly inflammable petroleum jelly. In Vietnam I witnessed American ground forces using it in flame-throwers to burn entire villages. It can reduce a human body to a handful of black pulp).The fact that the Israelis resorted to use of napalm for their attack on the Liberty is on its own proof enough that Dayan wanted there to be no survivors to tell the tale.

When the first attack was over the Liberty had 621 holes in its sides and decks, including over 100 rocket holes six to eight inches wide: and not counting the shrapnel damage. As author Richard Smith wrote, Israeli pilots with the greatest ease could “butcher a large, slow moving and defenceless target like the Liberty,” and the Mirages’ ordnance, designed to penetrate the armour of tanks, “punched through the Liberty’s 22 year-old shell-plating like a hammer against an old block of cheese.”[xi]

Within a minute or so of the start of the attack Captain McGonagle had ordered a report be made to the Chief of Naval Operations. It was an order he gave more in hope than expectation of it being executed – because he was aware that the ship’s transmission facilities had been the first priority for the attacking planes. But… At 1410 hours, five minutes after the attack started, the Liberty’s Chief Radioman, Wayne Smith, did succeed in transmitting an open-channel “Mayday” distress call for assistance. He was subsequently to tell the Navy Board of Inquiry that as soon as the attack started, the participating planes and/or shore-based units were jamming the Liberty’s radios. He recalled that five of the ship’s six shore circuits were very quickly jammed and that whoever was doing it “went searching” for the last circuit. It was on this last circuit that Smith was able to transmit the call for assistance. Because it was an open-channel transmission, the Israelis obviously heard it. The question then waiting for an answer was – would any of the warships of the American Sixth Fleet hear it and, if they did, how would they respond?

Correction – would they be allowed by President Johnson to respond?

Phase two of the attack was executed by three Israeli motor torpedo boats (MTBs). The Liberty’s crew were fighting the fires caused by the air attack when the MTBs announced their arrival by opening up with their 0.20-mm and 0.40-mm guns. Their main task was to sink the Liberty. For that purpose – could there have been any other? – they fired three torpedoes. One struck the communications room dead centre in Number 3 hold, killing in an instant 25 of the 34 men who died in the entire attack. The 25, including the “Major”, were entombed in the flooded wreckage.

Ten years later, the consequences of the combined air and sea attacks were summarised by one of the surviving crew members, Joseph C. Lentini of Maryland, in a letter to the editor of the Washington Star. It was published on 4 October 1977. Lentini wrote: “In less than 39 minutes a fine ship was reduced to a bullet-ridden, napalm scorched and helpless floating graveyard. In those 39 minutes boys brought up in the peaceful aftermath of a horrendous world war experienced their first, and for some their last, trial of fire.”

The Liberty was now listing nine degrees and the MTBs were circling slowly, directing their canon fire at the ship’s bridge and any activity that could be seen on the deck and, also, at the ship’s waterline in an apparent effort to explode its boilers.

What happened next was yet more evidence that Dayan wanted no survivors.

The order “Prepare to abandon ship!” was followed, naturally, by the lowering of the first lifeboats. As they touched the water the Israeli MTBs moved closer and shot them to pieces. Among the Liberty crewmen who witnessed this was Petty Officer Charles Rowley. He also observed the concentration of machine-gun fire on the life-boats still stored on deck. After the attack he carefully photographed the shredded boats, thinking that one day his pictures would help to tell a story. When eventually he told it to Stephen Green, Rowley said, “They didn’t want anybody to live.”[xii]

At 1505 or thereabouts (a time to remember) the MTBs suddenly broke off their attack and departed at high-speed in a “V” formation. They went to a distance of about five miles to await further orders.

The Liberty now had no engines, no rudder and no power. And was taking in water.

Nine of its officers and crew were known dead; another 25 were missing and correctly presumed to be dead (in the communications room that had taken the torpedo); and 171 were wounded. Those who were wounded but not incapacitated joined with the other 90 who had survived unscathed and set about collecting bodies, dressing wounds, fighting fires, stringing lights and hand-operated phone sets, repairing the engines and, above all, trying to keep the Liberty afloat.

While they worked on those tasks, two large Israeli SA-321 Super Frelon helicopters put in an appearance and slowly circled the stricken ship. Both were clearly marked with a large Star of David. A rescue mission? No. (Presumably there had not been time to paint out the Stars of David because the attack was not going according to plan. The Liberty was supposed to have been sunk by now).

The cargo bay doors were open and Liberty crewmen could see that both helicopters were crammed with armed troops (Israeli Special Forces). And a machine gun was mounted in each of the cargo bays.

On the Liberty Captain McGonagle gave the order he deemed to be appropriate. “Standby to repel borders!”[xiii]

As reported by Ennes, the next voice was that of an ordinary sailor, hysterical but logical and probably speaking for many. “They’ve come to finish us off![xiv]

The Israelis had come to do just that, but not yet. For the moment the helicopter pilots and the commanders of the Special Forces on board were under orders to look – to take their measure of the target – and pass by. To await, like the MTBs, further orders.

How was it going to end?

At 1536 hours the MTBs returned, accompanied by two unmarked, armed jets. They were coming for the kill. They were to finish off the Liberty, sink it – the MTBs with more torpedoes; the Special Forces on board the Super Frelon helicopters to do the mopping up, shooting dead any survivors bobbing in the water.

That was to have been the third and final phase of the Israeli attack, gut-Zionism’s final solution, one might say, to the problem of the Liberty and its secrets. There were to be no survivors to tell the tale of what had really happened, and, just as critical from Dayan’s point of view, no survivors to reveal to the American authorities any of the information the Liberty’s complex intelligence apparatus had gathered about the IDF’s preparations for an invasion of Syria.

But it did not happen. At the last minute the third and final phase of the Israeli attack was aborted. The MTBs and the two jets disappeared. Why?

The short answer is that eight aircraft from the U.S. carriers Saratoga and America were on their way to assist the Liberty with orders to “destroy or drive off any attackers.”[xv]

The longer answer is the incredible story of the struggle by elements of the U.S. military to overcome the resistance of an American President to go to the assistance of American servicemen who, defenceless, were under attack by a “friend” and ally.

The first attempt to assist the Liberty was what Green described as a “reflexive” one, meaning that it was the instant response – human as well as professional – of the captain of one of the Sixth Fleet’s aircraft carriers, the U.S.S. Saratoga. Its captain was Joseph Tully.

The Saratoga had received the Liberty’s open-channel “Mayday” distress call and enough information to know that the ship was being attacked by what Radioman Smith had described as “unidentified” aircraft.

By chance the Saratoga was conducting an exercise when it picked up the Liberty’s message and four A-1 Skyhawks were launch-ready on its decks. Captain Tully was handed the Liberty’s message by Navigator Max Morris. After a brief discussion with him, Tully ordered the Saratoga to head into the wind. Less than 15 minutes after the start of the Israeli attack, armed U.S. planes were in the air. The estimated flight time to the Liberty was about 30 minutes. The unthinkable – a confrontation between U.S. and Israeli warplanes – was, it seemed, about to happen

Over the Sixth Fleet’s Primary Tactical Manoeuvring Circuit radio network Captain Tully then informed the fleet’s Commander, Admiral Martin, of the Liberty’s predicament and his response. Martin not only endorsed Tully’s action, he used the same circuit to order the U.S.S. America, the other carrier in Carrier Task Force 60, also to launch planes to protect the Liberty. But… The America did not respond immediately.

In Green’s reconstruction of events, that was because it was not in the same state of alert or readiness as the Saratoga. That might not have been the whole story. There is evidence that Captain (later Admiral) Donald Engen was not going to launch any of the America’s planes immediately even if he could have done so – because he was insisting on playing by the rules to protect his own back and career prospects. What were the rules? Years later former Congressman Findley was to quote Engen as saying: “President Johnson had very strict control. Even though we knew the Liberty was under attack, I couldn’t just go and order a rescue.”[xvi]

In any event it was only minutes after the Saratoga’s launch that the Commander of Carrier Task Force 60, Rear Admiral Geis, issued an order for the recall of the A-1s and minutes later they were back on the Saratoga’s deck. They were not to respond to the Liberty’s desperate plea for assistance.

One inference is that Captain Engen communicated with Rear Admiral Geis and said something like, “Should we not clear this with our political masters in Washington?” And that Geis replied, “You bet”, or words to that effect.

President Johnson was very quickly informed – presumably by Defence Secretary McNamara – that the Liberty was under attack and that the Saratoga had launched planes to go to its assistance. Hence the order – from the President to the Defence Secretary – to recall the planes. In Findley’s account the Saratoga’s planes were hardly in the air when McNamara’s voice was heard over Sixth Fleet radios, “Tell the Sixth Fleet to get those aircraft back immediately![xvii]

Initially, President Johnson was – as Green put it – determined “that no U.S. aircraft would be thrust into an adversary role with the IDF, whatever the implication for the struggling U.S.S. Liberty.” Initially, and for the usual domestic political reason – fear of offending Zionism – this President was prepared to sacrifice the lives of 286 of his fellow Americans on board the Liberty.

What was about to happen indicates that for the best part of 30 minutes or so following the political decision to abandon the Liberty and its crew, elements of the U.S. military took on the President and shamed him into changing his mind. Their argument would have been to the effect that not going to the assistance of the Liberty was disgraceful and dishonourable in the extreme. It is reasonable to assume that this struggle with President Johnson (and those of his advisers he was taking most notice of – those who supported Israel right or wrong) was led initially by the Sixth Fleet’s Commander, Admiral Martin, to the cheers no doubt, of Captain Tully. But Martin could not have prevailed without the support of the Chief of Naval Operations and most if not all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

At about 1500 hours (eastern Mediterranean time) President Johnson changed his mind and authorised some action. At 1505 hours a message from COMSIXTHFLT (Commander Sixth Fleet) was transmitted to the Liberty via plain-language radio. (For U.S. Navy file purposes the message was COMSIXTHFLT 081305Z – Z denoting Greenwich Mean Time, which was two hours earlier than eastern Mediterranean/local Liberty/Israeli time.) The message said: “Your flash traffic received. Sending aircraft to cover you. Surface units on the way. Keep situation reports coming.”

As it happened this message was not received by the Liberty because it had no electricity and was off the air.

Question: Was it co-incidence that at about the time the Commander of the Sixth Fleet was sending his message, the Israeli MTBs were ordered to break off their attack and withdraw five miles to await further instructions? I think not. Though the Liberty was unable to receive Admiral Martin’s plain-language radio message, it would have been picked up by IDF monitors. And that would have been enough for those around Dayan who had opposed the attack – in particular the general who had said it would amount to “pure murder” – to press for it to be called off, or, at least, for the situation to be urgently reviewed. It is also possible that President Johnson, desperate in the extreme to avoid a confrontation with the IDF, authorised Walt Rostow to use his network to inform the Israelis that U.S. warplanes were being launched to go to the Liberty’s assistance.

The next sequence of events, military and political, could not have been more dramatic. A writer of fiction would not have dared to invent them.

  • At 1516 hours Carrier Task Force 60 (Rear Admiral Geis now had his backside covered) ordered the Saratoga and the America to launch eight aircraft to assist the Liberty and to “destroy or drive off any attackers.”
  • At 1520 hours Admiral Martin informed the Commander of U.S. Armed Forces in Europe that aircraft were being deployed.
  • At 1536 hours (as previously noted) the Israeli MTBs moved in for the kill.
  • At 1539 Admiral Martin informed the Chief of Naval Operations in Washington of the actions being taken. The eight U.S. warplanes were going to be over the Liberty at about 1600 hours, plus or minus.
  • Minutes later the Israeli MTBs were ordered to abort their final attack and get the hell out of the area.
  • At 1614 the U.S. Defence Attaché in Tel Aviv informed the White House that the Naval Attaché had been called to the Foreign Liaison Office of the IDF to receive a report that Israeli aircraft and MTBs had “erroneously attacked U.S. ship.” It was “maybe Navy ship.” The Israelis, the Defence Attaché reported, “send abject apologies and request info on other U.S. ships near war zone coasts.[xviii]
  • With that message in his hands, the Commander in Chief of all U.S. forces, President Johnson, ordered the eight U.S. warplanes to abort their mission and return to their carriers. And he accepted Israel’s explanation. The attack on the Liberty had been a ghastly mistake.

And that lie became the official American and Israeli truth.

Though it will remain a matter of speculation forever and a day – because the most relevant documents have not been declassified and presumably never will be, I think what really happened in the final minutes of what Findley described as “an episode of heroism and tragedy at sea which is without precedent in American history” was as follows.

  • Shortly before 1536, when the MTBs were ordered to resume the attack and go for the kill, Dayan said to himself, and perhaps others, something like the following: “We’re in too deep to get out now. Let’s finish the job while we still have time, just about, to destroy the evidence… so that we can blame the Egyptians.”
  • When it was clear that U.S. war planes were on their way – the IDF would have detected them – Dayan’s military colleagues (enough of them), led by the general who had opposed the attack when it was only an idea, insisted that the attack be called off, perhaps indicating that they would expose the defence minister if he did not agree. That is one possible explanation. Another is that it was Prime Minister Eshkol himself who spoke to Dayan on the telephone and said, “Stop!”

Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd was assigned the task of presiding over the Naval Board of Inquiry. Confirming a gagging order issued by Defence Secretary McNamara about not speaking to the media, Kidd instructed Liberty survivors who were to give evidence to refer all questions to the commanding officer or executive officer or to himself. He added: “Answer no questions. If you are backed into a corner, then you may say that it was an accident and that Israel has apologised. You may say nothing else.”[xix]

Marked TOP SECRET, the Naval Board’s report was completed on 18 June 1967. It has not been declassified to this day.

But the Defence Department did issue an unclassified summary of the “proceedings” of the inquiry. It was a cover-up. It stated that the Naval Board had had “insufficient information before it to make a judgement on the reasons for the decision by Israeli aircraft and motor torpedo boats to attack.”[xx]

The contribution to the cover-up by Zionism’s apologists in Congress was swift, well co-ordinated but not very well informed. In the House of Representatives Roman Pucinski from Illinois rose to ask for permission to speak for one minute while they were debating saline water. He said:

“Mr. Speaker, it was with a heavy heart that we learned a little while ago of the tragic mistake which occurred in the Mediterranean when an Israeli ship mistakenly attacked an American ship and killed four of our boys and injured and wounded 53 others. These are the tragic consequences of armed conflict: such mistakes happen frequently in Vietnam. It would be my hope that this tragic mistake will not obscure the traditional friendship we in the United States have with the people of Israel. The Israeli government has already apologised… ”[xxi]

The printed version of Pucinski’s statement in The Congressional Record for the day was headlined “Tragic Mistake”.

On the floor of the Senate the performances were more impressive. In the first five paragraphs of his statement, Senator Jacob Javits, pro-Israel right or wrong – and a heavyweight and persistent critic of the State Department – referred five times to the accidental nature of the attack. As Green noted, Javits even explained how such a mistake could occur.

“Mr. President, I must say it is a great tribute to the valour of the troops of Israel that this morning I have heard Senator after Senator say that while they were terribly dismayed and saddened by this accident, they understood how it could take place under the terrible stresses the forces of Israel have been under in these last few weeks.”[xxii] (i.e. because the Zionist state was, allegedly, in danger of being exterminated).

Through its mouthpieces in Congress and elsewhere, and endorsed by the Johnson administration, Zionism’s message to the people of America was, effectively: “Because the attack was a mistake, and because Israel has apologised, let’s forget about it.”

But there must have been a sense of alarm in Zionism’s ranks when, on 19 June, the day after the Naval Board completed its inquiry, the following item appeared in Newsweek’s “Periscope” section.

“Although Israel’s apologies were officially accepted, some high Washington officials believe the Israelis knew the Liberty’s capabilities and suspect that the attack might not have been accidental. One top-level theory holds that someone in the Israeli armed forces ordered the Liberty sunk because he suspected it had taken down messages showing that Israel started the fighting.”

Except in one respect the item contained the essence of the totally shocking truth. In retrospect it can be seen that the item was in error only to the extent that the “someone”, Dayan, was not concerned by any evidence the Liberty had gathered that could prove Israel started the war. Those in Washington’s war-loop knew that. Dayan’s purpose was to prevent the spy ship giving President Johnson warning of his intention to invade Syria.

But the alarm was short-lived. Zionism had enough friends in the mainstream media, and more than enough influence of various kinds to intimidate writers and broadcasters who were not pro-Israel right or wrong, to prevent the matter of what had really happened being pursued in public.

In private the one top-level American official who initially refused to be a party to the cover-up was Secretary of State Dean Rusk. Like all of his predecessors, and because he believed it was his duty to put America’s interests first, he had to live with Zionism’s smears to the effect that he was anti-Israel. Rusk was outraged by the Johnson administration’s collusion with Israel for war. In fact he was so concerned about the damage being done to America’s interests in the Middle East by Johnson’s decision to take sides with Israel that, at a meeting in Luxembourg, he told NATO Secretary General Manlio Brosio and others in attendance some of the truth about the attack on the Liberty.

We know this from a secret telegram that was de-classified in 1983 as a result of Green’s persistence. It was sent by U.S. NATO Ambassador Harland Cleveland to Under-Secretary of State Eugene Rostow, Walt’s brother. Cleveland’s cable said: “Quite apart from Newsweek Periscope item, Secretary’s comments to Brosio and several foreign ministers at Luxembourg about Israeli foreknowledge that Liberty was a U.S. ship piqued a great deal of curiosity among NATO delegations. Would appreciate guidance as to how much of this curiosity I can satisfy, and when.”[xxiii]

It can be taken as read that Walt advised Eugene to do everything he could to shut his boss up.

So far as I am aware, the question nobody has attempted to answer in public is this: Who was the Israeli general who opposed Dayan’s decision to attack the Liberty and said it would amount to “pure murder?

Despite the fact that in his own memoirs he went along with the fiction that Israeli pilots failed to identify the Liberty as a U.S. ship and that the attack was a tragic mistake, I think it was, very probably, Chief of Staff Rabin – the Israeli leader who, many years later as prime minister, was stopped from advancing the peace process with Arafat and his PLO by an assassin in gut-Zionism’s name. And I think so for a number of reasons.

Rabin was at one with Prime Minister Eshkol in believing that Israel could and should live within its pre-1967 war borders. And as we have also seen, Rabin’s own plan for military action in the summer of 1967 was for a strictly limited operation against Egypt, and only Egypt, a strategy Dayan described as “absurd.”

As it was happening Rabin was opposed to the IDF’s gobbling up of the West Bank. At a meeting of senior officers with Dayan present, Rabin had asked, “How do we control one million Arabs?”[xxiv] He meant: “We won’t be able to. The idea of occupation is madness. We could well be sowing the seeds of catastrophe for the Jewish state.” The only response Rabin got was by way of a correction. A staff officer said: “Actually it’s one million, two hundred and fifty thousand.”[xxv] As Shlaim noted, Rabin had asked the question to which no one had an answer. The real point was that nobody in the military high command except Rabin wanted to think about the implications of what the IDF was doing.More Arab land was there for the taking, so take it.

Rabin was opposed to an invasion of Syria. In his memoirs he wrote that Dayan ordered the attack on Syria “for reasons I have never grasped.”[xxvi] In my analysis that was Rabin pulling his punches. He knew why Dayan ordered the attack on Syria – to take the Golan Heights to complete the creation of Greater Israel; but he, Rabin, was not going to say so except by implication.

When the Liberty was being attacked, the insider gossip in Israel was that Rabin had “lost his nerve… cracked under the pressure…  was drinking heavily… was under the table… a disgrace.” I first heard this gossip from Israeli friends I knew to be very close to Dayan. And it was former DMI Herzog who confirmed to me that such rumours were rife. In retrospect I think the gossip was inspired by Dayan to give him scope to discredit Rabin if the need arose – if he so much as hinted to anybody outside the command circle that he had tried to prevent the attack on the Liberty. (Could it not be said that the idea of attacking the Liberty was enough to drive any rational human being, even an Israeli general, to drink?) The idea that Rabin might have been tempted to make trouble for Dayan is not unthinkable if he shared -and he probably did – Eshkol’s private view of Israel’s warlord.

When the prime minister learned that Dayan had ordered the attack on Syria without consulting or informing himself or Chief of Staff Rabin, he thought about cancelling the order and said of Dayan, to his aide-de-camp, “What a vile man.”[xxvii] That quotation was unearthed by Shlaim. What could have made Eshkol resort to such extraordinary language? My guess is that use of the adjective “vile” reflected most of all the prime minister’s horror at Dayan’s ordering of the attack on the Liberty.

As related by Seymour Hersh, Eshkol also had a pungent way of expressing his grave doubts about the wisdom of keeping occupied territory. After the war Abe Feinberg visited Israel and Eshkol said to him (in Yiddish): “What am I going to do with a million Arabs? They fuck like rabbits.”[xxviii]

With the Liberty taken out of the equation, the first indication official Washington had of Dayan’s intentions thereafter was in the form of a “flash” telegram to Secretary of State Rusk from Evan Wilson, the U.S. Consul General in Jerusalem. (“Flash” was the highest precedence designation for State messages). Quoting the UN’s General Odd Bull, the telegram said that Israel had launched an “intensive air and artillery bombardment” of Syrian positions, and that Wilson assumed it was a “prelude to a large-scale attack.”[xxix] That message was sent, flashed, at about 1530 hours local time, just before Dayan ordered the MTBs to finish off the Liberty.

Rusk was furious and wanted to take immediate action. The fact that it took him the best part of an hour to get President Johnson’s permission to read the riot act to Israel suggests that he had a considerable amount of internal opposition to overcome. (I can imagine the Rostow brothers joining forces – Eugene in the State Department, Walt in the White House – to have the President clip the Secretary of State’s wings). Rusk’s eventual response was another “flash” message in the form of an instruction to Walworth Barbour, the U.S. Ambassador to Israel. He was ordered, urgently, to approach the Israeli Foreign Ministry at the highest level to express “deep concern” at the new indication of military action by Israel. The text of Rusk’s instruction to Barbour included the following:

“If reported bombardment correct, we would presume it prelude to military action against Syrian positions on Syrian soil. Such a development, following on heels Israeli acceptance cease-fire resolution would cast doubts on Israeli intentions and create gravest problems for [U.S. government] representatives in Arab countries. You should stress we must at all costs have complete cessation Israeli military action except in cases where clearly some replying fire is necessary in self-defence.”[xxx]

After making his representation as instructed, Ambassador Barbour sought to defend the IDF’s softening up of Syria’s positions by reminding Rusk that Syria had not yet accepted the Security Council’s demand for a cease-fire (as, I add, Jordan and Egypt had actually done and Israel had falsely claimed to have done). It was true that the Syrians were still shooting from fixed positions in their own territory – but in response to the IDF’s bombardment; and, also, because Syria’s leaders were putting on a token show, to enable them to score points against Nasser in the Arab world by claiming that they had held out longer than him. The Johnson administration knew the Syrian regime had honoured its secret pre-war deal with Israel by not advancing its land forces from their defensive positions, so when Rusk flashed instructions to Barbour he knew that the Syrian army posed no threat to Israel.

In reality any hope the Johnson administration had of stopping the Israelis had been destroyed by their attack on the Liberty.

That evening, Thursday 8 June, Nasser intervened to stop the Syrians – in the hope of stopping the Israelis. The Egyptian President sent the following message to his Syrian counterpart, Nur ed-Din al Atassi: “I believe that Israel is about to concentrate all of its forces against Syria in order to destroy the Syrian army and regard for the common cause obliges me to advise you to agree to the ending of hostilities and to inform U Thant immediately, in order to preserve Syria’s great army. We have lost this battle.”

The message ended:

“May God help us in the future. Your brother, Gamal Abdul Nasser.”[xxxi]

That Nasser message, no doubt like all others, was intercepted by Israeli military intelligence. In the margin of a copy of it, Dayan scribbled the following note:

Eshkol,

1.  In my opinion this cable obliges us to capture maximal military lines.

2.  Yesterday I did not think Egypt and Syria would collapse in this way and give up the continuation of the campaign. But since this is the situation, it must be exploited to the full.

A great day. Moshe Dayan.”[xxxii]

The Syrian leadership took Nasser’s advice and announced its acceptance of the cease-fire. It came into effect at 0520 hours the following morning, Friday 9 June. So far as the Arabs and the organised international community represented by the UN were concerned, the war was over.

Six hours and ten minutes later, the IDF invaded Syria.

Dayan had postponed the attack to allow for the redeployment of IDF units from Sinai and the West Bank – a redeployment that could not be completed while the Liberty was capable of listening to IDF movement orders.

Contrary to Dayan’s expectations and his prediction to the IDF’s northern commander, General David (“Dado”) Elazar, who had never been less than gung-ho for war with Syria, the Syrians fought well. Apart from honour – the eyes of the Arab world were upon them – there were probably two reasons why they did so. The Golan Heights were thought to be impregnable and they felt secure in their bunkers and fox holes. But when Israeli paratroops and armour were landed behind them, they were effectively cut-off, with nowhere to run; they had to fight or die. Because the IDF had an audacious enough plan to capture the Golan Heights, they became less of an impregnable fortress for their Syrian defenders and more of a death-trap.

On Friday 9 June 1967, and for the best part of 24 hours, the Syrians fought with all their strength, and there were great and true acts of courage under fire on both sides, not least on the part of those IDF officers who led their men into the jaws of certain death that the bunkers and fox-holes of the Golan Heights were. But by the evening of Saturday 10 June, in defiance of what had been agreed secretly with the Johnson administration before the war, the Golan Heights were in Israel’s hands. The war was over. In six days the creation of Greater Israel was a fait accompli. Dayan had made Zionism’s mad dream come true.

In his conversations with Rami Tal which were not made public until after his death, Dayan was astonishingly honest. At the heart of the great myth about Israel’s actions on the Syrian front in 1967 is the claim – it remains an article of faith among Israelis and most  Jews everywhere – that the IDF seized the Golan Heights to stop the fiendish Syrians shelling Israeli settlements down below. (As we have seen, it was Israeli provocations that provoked Syrian shooting in the countdown to the war). When Tal demonstrated his belief in this Israeli claim, Dayan cut him short and said the following:

“Look, it’s possible to talk in terms of ‘the Syrians are bastards, you have to get them and this is the right time,’ but that is no policy. You don’t strike every enemy because he is a bastard but because he threatens you. And the Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.”[xxxiii]

Israel’s last land grab of the war did provoke the threat, a real and serious one, of Soviet military intervention. For some hours there was the prospect that gut-Zionism’s territorial ambitions and what Lilienthal rightly called “Israel’s unconscionable use of military force” would provoke a superpower confrontation and possibly World War III. But at the brink, catastrophe was averted by use of the White House-Kremlin hot line.

For Israel’s hawks and those in the Johnson administration with whom they conspired, there was one big disappointment. The humiliation the Israelis had heaped on Nasser did not bring about his downfall, but… There was a moment when it had seemed that he was finished.

On the evening of 9 June, live on television from his home and headquarters in Manshiet el-Bakri near Heliopolis on the road to the airport, Nasser resigned. He was looking drawn and haggard and appeared to be a broken man. The explanation he gave his people for the catastrophe Egypt had suffered was short and simple. He had listened, he said, to the warnings of President Johnson and the Soviet Union not to strike the first blow.

That said, Nasser announced he was resigning the presidency in favour of Vice-President Zacharia Mohieddin, (the man who, on Nasser’s instructions, and given the chance by the Israelis, would have made the necessary concessions in discussions with U.S. Vice-President Humphrey to avert war).

Nasser did actually resign but before the next day was out, in response to mass demonstrations in his favour, he was President again.

Israelis, leaders and ordinary folk, had their own explanation for this turnaround in Cairo. The whole thing had been stage-managed. Nasser was not serious when he resigned. He was playing a game. The popular demonstrations in his favour had not been spontaneous. His secret police had bullied and bribed Egyptians to take to the streets to demand that Nasser stayed in power. (Israel’s intelligence chiefs knew that the CIA’s plan for toppling Nasser included paying Egyptians to take to the streets to denounce him. They assumed that Nasser had done the same thing in reverse, so to speak).

My Israeli friends, and many others who said such things, were kidding themselves. It was what they wanted to believe. The truth about what happened in Cairo is this.

Nasser did not inform his chosen successor of his intention to resign and, consequently, he did not ask Mohieddin if he was prepared to take over. Mohieddin did not want to be President in any circumstances, but especially those now prevailing in Egypt and throughout the Arab world because of the scale and speed of Israel’s victory which, for the Arabs, was an even bigger humiliation than that of 1948. Like all Egyptians and other Arabs, Mohieddin did not know that Nasser was intending to resign until he said so live on TV and radio. As soon as the broadcast ended, Mohieddin drove at top speed to Nasser’s home – to refuse the succession for himself and to tell the resigned President that he could not abandon his post while remnants of his army were still trapped in Sinai.

An argument followed. Nasser insisted there was no going back on his decision. “You are now responsible”, he said to Mohieddin, “you cannot refuse.”[xxxiv] Mohieddin gave as good as he got. He told Nasser that he had no right to choose his successor. Only the National Assembly could decide who would be President.

While the two men continued to argue, the cabinet was assembling in another room for a meeting Nasser had called to ratify his hand-over of power to the Vice-President. Meanwhile, in the streets outside, the people were having their say. Contrary to what Israelis believed at the time, it was an entirely spontaneous happening. The best summary description of it was in a report filed to Le Monde by the perceptive Eric Rouleau, one of the best French correspondents of his generation. He wrote:

“In the twilight and semi-blacked-out streets, hundreds of thousands, some of them still in pyjamas and the women in nightgowns, came out of their houses weeping and shouting, ‘Nasser, Nasser, don’t leave us, we need you.’ The noise was like a rising storm. Tens of thousands threatened to kill any deputies who did not vote for Nasser. Half a million people massed along the five miles from Nasser’s home, millions more began to pour into Cairo from all over Egypt to make sure that Nasser stayed.”[xxxv]

The following day, while the IDF was going for the Golan Heights, the National Assembly, by a unanimous decision, invited Nasser to remain as President.

It might have been that he resigned in the hope and even the expectation that his announcement would trigger a popular response in his favour, but there can be no doubt that it was spontaneous. Why, really, did it happen?

In my analysis the best way to explain it is by comparing perceptions.

Zionism had succeeded in selling its lie for the war. As a consequence (generally speaking), Nasser was perceived in America and throughout the Western world as the common enemy in general and, in particular, the Arab aggressor who had gone to war to annihilate the Jewish state. If that’s what you believed, whether you were Jewish or not, the events in Cairo following Nasser’s resignation statement were perplexing. He had led his people to catastrophe. He was a disaster for them. Surely now they would see that and, if he did not quit, they would overthrow him. Or ought to.

The perception of the people of Egypt and almost all Arabs everywhere was rather different and rooted in reality. In it the Zionist state was the aggressor and the Arabs were the victims of aggression. There were, of course, some Egyptians who realised that Nasser had made mistakes and miscalculations which had contributed to the disaster – given Israel’s hawks and their American conspirators the pretext they wanted for war. But such criticism as there was of Nasser for his leadership failings was the small-print on the invoice for catastrophe.

In summary: The vast majority of Egyptians, and very many other Arabs, still saw Nasser for what he really was – the symbol of their wish not to be dominated, not to be controlled and exploited by the combined forces of emerging American imperialism (replacing British and French imperialism) and its Zionist ally.

That’s why Nasser survived.

I think the best account of the 1967 war by any Jewish writer, Israeli or other, is in Avi Shlaim’s revision of modern Israel’s history: but I think his conclusions about what really happened on the Israeli side in the war miss a fundamental point. (I remain puzzled by the fact that he did not mention the attack on the Liberty, let alone the reasons for it). Shlaim wrote:

“Dayan’s various accounts of the reasons for war against Syria are so alarmingly inconsistent that one indeed needs to be a psychologist to fathom his behaviour. But one thing emerges clearly from all his contradictory accounts: the Eshkol government did not have a political plan for the conduct of the war. It was divided internally, it debated options endlessly, it improvised and it seized opportunities as they presented themselves. It hoped for war on one front, was drawn to war on a second front and ended up by initiating war on a third front. The one thing it did not have was a master plan for territorial aggrandisement. Its territorial aims were defined not in advance but in response to developments on the battlefield. Appetite comes with eating. The decision-making process of the Eshkol government during the war was complex, confused, convoluted. It did not bear the slightest resemblance to what political scientists like to call ‘the rational actor model.’”[xxxvi]

The notion that one needed to be a psychologist to fathom Dayan’s intentions was inspired by a remark made by Eshkol’s aide-de-camp, Israel Lior. He said that, hard as he tried, he was unable to fathom Dayan’s intentions, and thought his decisions needed to be examined by a psychologist no less than by a historian.

In Shlaim’s overview Greater Israel was created by chance. It just happened, was not policy. In my analysis that conclusion is both right and wrong. Right because Israel’s national unity government did not go to war with the intention of creating the Greater Israel of gut-Zionism’s mad dream. Wrong because Dayan did. From the moment he became Defence Minister and consigned to the dustbin of history the Rabin-Eshkol plan for limited military action, it was his war, not the government’s war. It was Dayan who took most if not all of the critical decisions, and in the case of his decision to attack Syria, he took it without consulting or informing Prime Minister Eshkol and Chief of Staff Rabin until after the attack had been launched.

Dayan’s “appetite” for more land came not from “eating” – not simply because the opportunities to eat were there. He was hungry because he was a gut-Zionist,  conditioned by centuries of persecution, traumatised by the Nazi holocaust, driven by the belief that Gentiles were never to be trusted and, above all, convinced that the world would one day turn against the Jews again. I know he was convinced because he told me so. When that day came, Israel had to be big enough and secure enough to serve as the refuge of last resort for all the Jews of the world. Israel confined to its pre-1967 borders was not big enough and did not possess sufficient natural resources, water especially.

I once said the following to Dayan in private conversation: “What you really fear is that a day will come when the major powers will require Israel to be the sacrificial lamb on the altar of political expediency – just as in 1947 and 1948 they required the Palestinians to be the sacrifice on that altar.” Dayan replied, “You could put it like that.” Then, after a long pause, he added, “But we won’t let it happen.” Though he did not say so, he meant, “We have an independent nuclear deterrent and nobody is going to make Israel do what it does not want to do.”

So is there really need to call in the psychologists to explain Dayan’s behaviour, including and especially his truth-telling in conversation with Rami Tal for publication after his death? I think not. If the Syrians “were not a threat to us”, why did he order the IDF to attack them and grab a chunk of their territory – i.e. if not for the sole purpose of completing Zionism’s Greater Israel project? There was a part of the Dayan I knew that wanted to say out loud: “I created Greater Israel. I delivered on the promise our founding fathers made.” But there was also a part of Zionism’s warlord that knew it would not be a good idea to say so – in case the Greater Israel of his creation turned out to be, as it has, a ghastly mistake.

Dayan was never entirely comfortable in the presence of non-Jews and gave me the impression that he was sometimes uncomfortable with himself. I think he went to his grave wondering whether he had done the right or wrong thing for the best interests of Jews everywhere. On that basis the main difference between Moshe Dayan and Golda Meir defines itself. In the privacy of her own conscience (as I indicated in Volume One, Chapter One) she had the courage at the end of her days to consider the possibility that Zionism might have done the wrong thing. Dayan, at times the most charming and most engaging war criminal I ever met, did not have that kind of courage. It was moral courage and he allowed Zionism to rob him of it.

As it happened, the most vivid expression of Zionism’s Great Lie about the 1967 war was given voice by Prime Minister Eshkol himself. In the Knesset on 12 June he asserted that the war had been started by “the Arab invasion of Israeli territory.” He then said: “The very existence of the State of Israel hung upon a thread, but Arab leaders’ hopes of annihilating Israel have been confounded.”

A week earlier, in the first moments of the war, Foreign Minister Eban had launched the lie with an equally remarkable and astonishing statement. In the course of his assertion to reporters (including me) that Israel was acting in self-defence, he said: “Never in history has there been a more righteous use of armed force.”[xxxvii] In retrospect, it could and should be said that never in history has a country’s foreign minister talked such nonsense. Thereafter Israel’s ambassadors around the world spoke from Eban’s script.

We know that our leaders tell lies in war (and peace), and that disinformation is sometimes necessary if right is to triumph over wrong. But why, really, did Israel’s leaders lie, and lie so completely, in 1967?

Prime Minister Eshkol lied after the war because he had no choice. He could not say, “I lost control of events of my side to those who were determined to create the Greater Israel of Zionism’s mad dream.”

And the logic that drove the lie so far as Dayan was concerned can be summarised as follows: the bigger the lie, and the greater the authority with which it was told, the smaller the chance of Israel being branded where it mattered most – in the Security Council – as the aggressor.

Why, really, was it so important that Israel not be branded as the aggressor when it was?

Aggressors are not allowed to keep the territory they take by force. They have to withdraw from it unconditionally. That is the requirement of international law and also a fundamental principle which the UN is committed to uphold, as, for example, President Eisenhower did when Israel invaded Egypt in 1956. That is on the one hand.

On the other is the generally accepted view that when a state is attacked, is the victim of aggression, and then goes to war in self-defence and ends up occupying some or even all of the aggressor’s territory, the occupier has the right, in negotiations, to attach conditions to its withdrawal.

The point?

If in 1967 Israel had been branded as the aggressor, as it should have been, the Johnson administration would have had the choice of:

  • taking the lead in demanding that Israel withdraw unconditionally, which would have required the Johnson administration to confront Zionism; or
  • admitting that the U.S. had taken sides and was irrevocably committed to Zionism right or wrong – whatever the consequences for America’s own longer term best interests. In this case the world would have known, before 1967 had run its course, that the U.S could not be an honest and therefore an effective broker of peace in the Middle East.

In the process of taking sides with Zionism’s child, the Johnson administration not only gave Israel’s hawks the green light for war with Egypt, and not only used its diplomatic clout first to delay a Security Council demand for a cease-fire and then to block calls for an unconditional Israeli withdrawal. The Johnson administration assisted the IDF’s war machine by providing aerial reconnaissance in the form of some very special U.S. aircraft, the American pilots to fly them and the necessary technical support on the ground.

So far as I am aware the only published account of U.S. participation in the war on Israel’s side is in Stephen Green’s book. He stated that his principal source for the story was somebody who claimed to have been involved in the still Top Secret mission from start to finish. Though he had to protect the identity of his deep-throat and therefore did not name him, Green said he had “verified the story circumstantially” by checking “Air Force unit histories, commanders’ names, technical details and so forth.” He also noted that while he was seeking to confirm the story through contacts with other individuals who might have participated in the operation and senior officials in the Pentagon, White House and State Department, Air Force intelligence contacted several members of the units involved “reminding them of their obligations to maintain silence on any previous intelligence missions in which they had been involved.”[xxxviii] (The main reason for Green’s satisfaction that the story was true was, he said, that “certain of the details provided by the source would have been very difficult to learn other than by participation in such a mission in Israel.”)

Assuming Green’s clinically detailed account to be correct – an assumption I make without reservation and not least because of the confirmation in principle I obtained from very high-level Israeli and American sources of my own – the American military contribution to the IDF’s war effort was spearheaded by planes and pilots of the 38th Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron of the 26th Tactical Reconnaissance Wing, U.S. Air Force. The 38th was based in Ramstein, West Germany. Its participating planes (four) were flown from there to the U.S. air base at Moron in Spain where they were joined, before flying to Israel on 4 June, by supporting elements from the 17th Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron of the 66th Tactical Reconnaissance Wing based at Upper Heyford near Oxford in England. At an Israeli air base in the Negev, the 38th’s planes were painted over with a white Star of David on a blue background and new tail numbers corresponding to actual inventory numbers in the Israeli Air Force.

The 38th’s planes were RF-4Cs. They were modified versions of the F-4 Phantom jet fighter. In June 1967 the RF-4C was state-of-the-art military reconnaissance and had been operational for only three years. It utilised cameras of various focal lengths and forward and side-looking radar (SLR) to provide both low and high altitude reconnaissance. Using radar and infrared sensors, which provided a thermal map of the area under reconnaissance, the RF-4C could operate by day or – this was the main reason for U.S. involvement – by night.

Without air cover because their own planes had been destroyed in the first two hours or so of the IDF’s aerial blitzkrieg, the Egyptians had to move their ground forces by night to avoid as much as possible the unopposed attacks of Israeli planes. The Israeli Air Force did not then have the necessary night-time aerial reconnaissance or strike capability. So the main task of the RF-4Cs was to track and photograph the movements of Egypt’s ground forces through the night so that, by dawn the following morning, IDF ground and air forces would know precisely where the enemy was and in what strength, and were positioned to attack without delay. The Sinai campaign of June 1967 was the most one-sided fight in the history of modern warfare. The Egyptians really had no more of a chance than turkeys awaiting the annual Christmas slaughter.

This American military assistance was provided to guarantee that the IDF achieved its objectives on the Egyptian front in the shortest possible time – before the U.S. came under irresistible pressure to stop blocking a Security Council resolution demanding a cease-fire and, initially, an unconditional Israeli withdrawal. The pre-war calculation of those in Washington’s war-loop was that the U.S. would not be able to delay things in the Security Council for probably more than three days. (In retrospect it is not difficult to understand why, before the war, the leaders of America’s intelligence community, CIA director Helms in particular, were so confident in their assurances to President Johnson that the IDF would achieve complete victory on the Egyptian front in three or four days. They had correctly assessed the effectiveness of the contribution the RF-4Cs were to make).

Initially the RF-4Cs were assigned to assist the IDF on only the Egyptian front. But their mission was extended when Israel went to war with Syria. The need then from Washington’s perspective was to help the IDF get that campaign done and dusted before the Soviet Union went over the brink and intervened.

Without American operational assistance it is at least possible that the IDF would have needed more time to destroy the Egyptian army in Sinai, and that in the extra time the U.S. might have come under irresistible international pressure to support a Security Council demand for a ceasefire earlier than it did. In this event the creation of Greater Israel – control of all of the West Bank and the grabbing of the Golan Heights – might not have happened.

For serious seekers of the truth, the record as set down for the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library Oral History Project is a goldmine, especially if the researcher is really focused. Some years after the 1967 war, the previously quoted Harry McPherson made the following contribution to that Oral History. He was reflecting on the nature of the “service” advisers give American Presidents.

“… you tend to view everything in terms of whether it hurts your Administration, your President and that sort of thing; or helps. You look at almost nothing from the point of view of whether it’s true or not. It’s only the sort of PR sense; what effect it will have on public support or lack of support for your Administration. And that’s a terrible way to get. It makes you very efficient. You become very quick. And you become good at offering advice on what your principal should do instantly. But you may miss the boat badly, because you haven’t really understood and taken in what the concern of the country is.”[xxxix]

For “concern of the country” read America’s own longer term and best real interests.

It was the case that the Middle East did not get enough of President Johnson’s quality time because he became increasingly distracted by the prospect of defeat for America in Vietnam; and that and other policy priorities, including his noble fight for the civil rights of black Americans, laid him open to manipulation by the supporters of Zionism right or wrong in his administration.

An example of how Zionism’s power brokers never missed an opportunity to manipulate Johnson was signposted by Macpherson’s recall of a particular comment the President made in an unguarded moment: “Damn it, they want me to protect Israel, but they don’t want me to do anything in Vietnam![xl]

“They” were both the government of Israel and the Jewish Americans who were in the vanguard of the growing anti-Vietnam war movement. The background context revealed by declassified documents makes it clear that Johnson was really pissed off (he undoubtedly would have put it like that in private) by the refusal of Israel’s government to support his “free world effort” in Vietnam, and by the opposition to that war of many Jewish Americans. (Except on the matter of Israel and the Palestinians, many Jewish Americans were and are, like many Jews everywhere, liberal, even left leaning, against injustice and for human rights).

Through 1965 and the early months of 1966, at President Johnson’s request, the State Department made strenuous efforts to get Israel to support the American war effort in Vietnam. The support required by the U.S. was the establishment of diplomatic relations between Israel and the Thieu regime in Saigon and the sending of Israeli rural health teams. In February 1966, when Israel was still saying “no” to American requests, Secretary of State Rusk instructed the American Ambassador in Tel Aviv to give the following message to Israeli Foreign Minister Eban. “Israel would rightly be the first to be frightened if the U.S. were to ‘cut and run’ in Vietnam. You should note that the U.S. is being most helpful to Israel currently, and that reciprocal gestures would be well received in Washington.”[xli]

In April 1966 U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Raymond Hare was sent to Israel to plead with Prime Minister Eshkol. Hare told him that the Vietnam problem was “now the touchstone of American foreign policy”, and that the U.S. government considered closer relations between Israel and the Thieu government to be “important.”[xlii] Eshkol still said “no”. He stuck to the line that Israel’s relations with Asian and African developing nations would suffer if Israel supported America’s war in Vietnam.[xliii]

So it was that President Johnson became increasingly irritated by Israel’s refusal and that of many Jewish Americans to support and be seen to be supporting his Vietnam War policy. (Hence his comment as quoted by McPherson.)

And that gave Zionism’s power brokers an opening to do some manipulating. They chose their moment well. On 7 June, the third day of the war, David Brody, Director of the Anti-Defamation League, was instructed to call at the White House to speak with two of President Johnson’s staffers, Larry Levinson and Ben Wattenberg. The Jewish community of America, Brody said, was concerned that the administration should not force Israel to “lose the peace” after it had won the war, as had been the case with Eisenhower after the Suez war.[xliv] The reality was that Zionism’s power brokers were concerned that President Johnson might not yet be fixed in his determination to prevent Israel being required to withdraw unconditionally from occupied Arab territories. Brody went on to suggest that in future public statements on the war, the President ought to stress the “peace, justice and equity theme”, and should specifically not mention “territorial integrity” (as he had done in his pre-war statements).[xlv] Levinson and Wattenberg then wrote a memorandum to the President quoting Brody’s advice and saying that it was good. “It could lead”, the memorandum stated, “to a great domestic political bonus – and not only from Jews. Generally speaking, it would seem that the Middle-East crisis can turn round a lot of anti-Vietnam, anti-Johnson feeling, particularly if you use it as an opportunity to your advantage.”[xlvi]Translated that meant the Zionist lobby in all of its manifestations would do its best to see that Jewish American opposition to the war in Vietnam was stifled – if President Johnson stuck to his guns and did not require Israel to withdraw without conditions as Eisenhower had done.

On its own the Levinson and Wattenberg memorandum probably did not have a major influence on President Johnson’s thinking, but it was part of a well-executed campaign, inside and outside the White House, to manipulate him by taking advantage of his preoccupation with the war in Vietnam.

True and tragic is that President Johnson knowingly took sides with Israel out of fear of offending Zionism and risking the loss, for himself and his party, of Jewish votes and Jewish campaign funds. And that required him to “miss the boat badly” by putting Zionism’s interests before America’s interests in the Middle East.

The man who had seen it all coming and tried to stop it happening before it was too late was the first U.S. Secretary of Defence, James Forrestal. As we have also seen, President Eisenhower shared Forrestal’s concerns, and for his two terms in office did insist that America’s interests should have priority over Zionism’s interests. And it is reasonable to speculate that a second-term President Kennedy would have followed Eisenhower’s lead. The problem by the time Lyndon Johnson became the leader of the so-called Free World can be simply stated – there was nobody with real influence on U.S. policy who was prepared to argue seriously for putting America’s own best interests first.

Secretary of State Dean Rusk and others knew that support for Zionism right or wrong was bound to have catastrophic consequences for America, eventually. But they also knew they could not buck their pork-barrel system.

Since this book was first published more information has come to light, much but not all of it from Liberty survivors, about who knew what when the spy ship was attacked.

It includes the fact that American intelligence agencies had taped intercepts of Israeli pilots telling ground control that their target was an America ship and asking if they were still required to attack it. The answer was, “Yes, follow orders.” Ray McGovern, 27 years with the CIA under seven presidents and the man who briefed some of them every morning, has confirmed that the NSA destroyed many tapes which proved the Israelis were lying when they said it was an “unfortunate accident” and a “case of mistaken identity”.

In this book I’ll leave the last word on why the Liberty was attacked to a senior IDF officer in conversation with Liberty survivor Don Paegler.

His task after the Israeli attack was to collect and try to re-assemble the bodies of those blown to pieces by Israeli bombs and torpedoes. Don’s own account, which he e-mailed to me, included this:

“The torpedo hit were I worked in the research spaces (commonly called the spook shack).  I had top secret crypto security clearance, and when we reached Malta after the attack and put the ship in dry-dock, I was one of the first to go down to the torpedoed spaces to clean-up.  Within the first 15 to 20 minutes, I picked up a piece of equipment. Under it was an arm.  Although it had been soaked in salt water for a week, I knew whose arm it was. Phil Tiedke was a body builder and I could tell by the muscle structure it was his.  It was like having an out of body experience.  One of the men said, ‘You have to find the rest of the pieces of his body and make sure they all get in the same body bag.’  Another said, ‘They’re all blown apart, just put it in a bag and get on with it.’  Of the two days I spent down there cleaning up that is all I remember. .. When I arrived in Norfolk I was debriefed.  I was told: ‘You have the highest security clearance anyone can get in this country.  Never speak about this to anyone including your family.’”

There reason why Don decided to speak out was to do with his health. The post-traumatic stress caused by keeping the truth bottled up inside him had become a life threatening phenomenon. He put it this way:

“In 1985 I began to lose my vision.  I could no longer see the centre strip in the road while driving.  An optometrist examined my eyes and said I had a physical problem, not an eye problem.  He referred me to a doctor who came in looking as white as a sheet after running his tests.  He told me I should have died a long time ago.  One of my major organs should have popped.  My blood pressure was 240/145.  He said it had been that way for a long time according to the damage to my eyes.  Luckily I was having strokes in the retina of my eyes, instead of my heart or brain, where they could have killed me. I worked with Greg Jarvis who was on the Challenger shuttle when it blew up.  After that I started having nightmares.  Late in that year, balling like a baby, I drove off the San Diego Freeway on my way home to Orange County from work at Hughes Aircraft Co. in El Segundo.  I cried for 10 minutes before I realized I was thinking about the Liberty.  My doctor put me on heavy blood pressure medication for a year and a half. During that time my marriage of 20 years was dissolved.

“In February of 1987, I found out about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) while watching a Simon & Simon episode.  I finally called the VA hospital in Long Beach.  They said they did not do the necessary treatment at their facility. The closest Vet Center to me was 5 blocks north of Disneyland.  Within a month of being able to talk about the Liberty both blood pressure numbers dropped 30 points.  In the late 1990’s I came down with Type II diabetes.  While my doctor says stress is not the cause, he believes stress has contributed greatly to the severity of the disease.

“I attended group therapy from April 1987 to March 1990.  During that time I had to confront many issues.  One night a Marine from Viet Nam looked at me and said, ‘You guys got screwed as bad if not worse than anyone I knew in Viet Nam.  You have every right to be as angry as you can be.  But what are you going to do about your anger?’

“It took me over 4 years to answer that question.  I would never write Congress.  I’m not stupid.  I have a college degree.  I knew they would not do anything about it.  Finally I realized that the only way I was going to get rid of my anger was by giving it to Congress. I wrote a three-page letter with 30 pages of documentation, including my medical charts, to every California and Kansas Congressman and Senator. They all passed the buck back to my local Congressman, Dana Rohrabacher.  He asked me to come in and see him.  He looked at me and said: ‘I have read everything you have written and all the material you sent me.  There is no way I believe this was a mistake on the part of the Israelis.  But I have to tell you, Congress will not touch this until after there is peace in the Middle East.’  That will not be in my life time.  But I succeeded in getting rid of my anger (at least to a great degree).  This man who fancies himself a supporter of Veterans had to face me and say, ‘You’re right and we don’t have the courage to do anything about it.’”

Don still shakes when he is stressed, but he has learned to live with the fact that his memory won’t allow him to recall everything that happened during the Israeli attack and the gathering up of the body parts after it. “This memory failure is only the body’s way of protecting you from pain,” he says.

And so to Don’s recall of his meeting with a senior IDF officer.

“I believe it was the fall of 2003 or 2004. My wife Eva and I (he had married again) were staying at a Best Western hotel in Taos, New Mexico.  While we were walking down the hall, my wife noticed a man looking at my Liberty T-shirt.  She said to him, “Are you interested in that shirt?” I heard her and turned to look at him.  He had a sheepish look on his face and said, “I have to tell you, I was an officer in the Israeli Army in 1967 when you were attacked.”  I was so impressed that he had the courage to say anything to my face that we asked him and his wife to meet us in the bar for a drink.  I showed him my note book of the slide show I had created – 51 pages, 11 word charts and 100-plus photos.  When I finished he looked at me and said: “I never could understand why the U.S. government spent so much time covering this up.  When the Six Days War day war was over, Moshe Dayan briefed the entire officer cadre in the Israeli forces.  When he came to the Liberty he made no bones about it.  He said, ‘We tried to take out the Liberty because we did not want them to find out what our plans were.’”

The lesson of the cold-blooded attack on the Liberty was that there is nothing the Zionist state might not do, to its friends as well as its enemies, in order to get its own way.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/government-corruption-1/the-loss-of-liberty.html