À la fin de ce chapitre, nous aimerions souligner un signe important qui indique le caractère véridique de l'islam. C'est un fait connu qu'aux États-Unis, l'islam est la religion dont l'expansion est la plus rapide. Voici quelques observations sur ce phénomène:
n "L'islam est la religion dont l'expansion est la plus rapide en Amérique, c'est un guide et un pilier de stabilité pour plusieurs de nos citoyens..." (Hillary Rodham Clinton, Los Angeles Times).1
n "Les musulmans constituent le groupe qui prend de l'expansion le plus rapidement dans le monde..." (The Population Reference Bureau, USA Today).2
n "...L'islam est la religion dont l'expansion est la plus rapide au pays." (Geraldine Baum; Rédactrice de la chronique religieuse de Newsday).3
n "L'islam, la religion dont l'expansion est la plus rapide aux États-Unis..." (Ari L. Goldman, New York Times).4
Ce phénomène indique que l'islam est vraiment une religion provenant de Dieu. Il ne serait pas raisonnable de penser qu'autant d'Américains se soient convertis à l'islam sans l'avoir soigneusement considéré et profondément médité, avant de conclure que l'islam est la vérité. Ces Américains proviennent de différentes classes, races et conditions sociales. Il y a parmi eux des scientifiques, des professeurs, des philosophes, des journalistes, des politiciens, des acteurs et des athlètes.
Les points mentionnés dans ce chapitre ne constituent que quelques-unes des preuves en faveur de la croyance selon laquelle le Coran est la parole de Dieu, Mohammed est vraiment un prophète envoyé par Dieu, et l'islam est véritablement une religion provenant de Dieu.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Les prophéties bibliques sur la venue de Mohammed , le prophète de l'islam
Pour ceux qui croient à la Bible, les prophéties bibliques sur la venue du prophète Mohammed constituent des preuves que l'islam est une religion véridique.
Dans Deutéronome 18, Moïse rapporte que Dieu lui a dit: "Je leur susciterai, du milieu de leurs frères, un prophète semblable à toi, je mettrai mes paroles dans sa bouche et il leur dira tout ce que je lui commanderai. Si un homme n'écoute pas mes paroles que ce prophète aura prononcées en mon nom, alors c'est moi-même qui en demanderai compte à cet homme." (Deutéronome 18:18-19).1
De ces versets nous pouvons conclure que le prophète dont il est question dans cette prophétie doit avoir les trois caractéristiques suivantes:
1) Il sera comme Moïse.
2) Il sera issu des frères des Israélites, c'est-à-dire les Ismaélites.
3) Dieu mettra Ses paroles dans la bouche de ce prophète et ce dernier dira tout ce que Dieu lui commandera.
Étudions ces trois caractéristiques de plus près:
1) Un prophète comme Moïse:
Il n'y eut guère deux prophètes qui se ressemblèrent autant que Moïse et Mohammed . Ils reçurent tous deux une loi et un code de vie détaillés. Ils affrontèrent tous deux leurs ennemis et obtinrent la victoire de façon miraculeuse. Ils furent tous deux acceptés comme prophètes et hommes d'état. Ils émigrèrent tous deux suite à une conspiration pour les assassiner. Si nous faisions des analogies entre Moïse et Jésus, elles ne pourraient inclure celles mentionnées ci-dessus, pas plus que d'autres similarités cruciales telles que la naissance, la vie familiale et la mort de Moïse et de Mohammed, qui ne s'appliquent pas à Jésus. De plus, Jésus était considéré par ses disciples comme le Fils de Dieu et non comme un simple prophète de Dieu, comme l'étaient Moïse et Mohammed , et tel que les musulmans considèrent qu'il était. Donc, cette prophétie s'applique au prophète Mohammed et non pas à Jésus, car Mohammed ressemblait plus à Moïse qu'à Jésus.
Par ailleurs, on remarque que dans l'Évangile selon Jean, les Juifs attendaient la réalisation de trois prophéties distinctes. La première était la venue du Christ. La deuxième était la venue d'Élie. Et la troisième était la venue du Prophète. C'est ce que nous comprenons lorsque nous considérons les trois questions qui furent posées à Jean le Baptiste: "Voici quel fut le témoignage de Jean, quand les Juifs envoyèrent de Jérusalem des prêtres et des lévites pour lui demander: "Qui es-tu?". Il confessa, il ne nia pas, il confessa: "Je ne suis pas le Christ.". "Quoi donc? lui demandèrent-ils. Es-tu Élie?". Il dit: "Je ne le suis pas.". "Es-tu le Prophète?" Il répondit: "Non.". (Jean, 1:19-21). Si nous consultons une Bible qui contient des renvois en bas de pages, nous trouverons, dans les notes au sujet du mot "le Prophète", dans Jean 1:21, que ce mot fait référence à la prophétie de Deutéronome 18:15 et 18:18.2 Nous en concluons donc que Jésus-Christ n'est pas le prophète dont il est fait mention dans Deutéronome 18:18.
2) Issu des frères des Israélites:
Abraham eut deux fils, Ismaël et Isaac (Genèse 21). Ismaël devint l'aïeul du peuple arabe, et Isaac devint l'aïeul du peuple juif. Le prophète dont il est fait mention n'était pas censé venir des juifs, mais de leurs frères, c'est-à-dire les Ismaélites. Mohammed , qui est un descendant d'Ismaël, est vraiment ce prophète.
De plus, dans Isaïe 42:1-13 on parle du serviteur de Dieu, Son "élu" qui apporte la loi aux nations. "Il ne vacille ni n'est découragé, jusqu'à ce que le droit (la loi) soit établi sur terre, car les îles attendent ses instructions." (Isaïe, 42-4). Le verset 11 associe celui qui est attendu aux descendants de Qédar. Qui est Qédar? Selon Genèse 25:13, Qédar était le second fils d'Ismaël, l'ancêtre du prophète Mohammed .
3) Dieu mettra Ses paroles dans la bouche de ce prophète:
Les paroles de Dieu (le Coran) furent vraiment mises dans la bouche de Mohammed . Dieu a envoyé l'Ange Gabriel à Mohammed pour lui enseigner Ses paroles exactes (le Coran), et Gabriel a demandé à Mohammed de les dicter telles qu'il les entendait à son peuple. Les paroles n'étaient donc pas les siennes. Elles n'étaient pas l'expression de ses propres pensées, mais furent mises dans sa bouche par l'Ange Gabriel. Du vivant de Mohammed , et sous sa supervision, ces paroles furent mémorisées et mises par écrit par ses compagnons.
De plus, cette prophétie que l'on retrouve dans le Deutéronome mentionne le fait que ce prophète prononcera les paroles de Dieu en Son nom. Si nous regardons dans le Coran, nous verrons que tous ses chapitres, sauf le chapitre 9, sont précédés ou commencent avec la formule "Au nom de Dieu, le tout miséricordieux, le très miséricordieux."
Un autre signe (en plus de la prophétie dans le Deutéronome) est qu'Isaïe associe le messager relié à Qédar avec un cantique nouveau (une écriture dans un langage nouveau) qui sera chanté à Dieu (Isaïe, 42:10-11). Cela est mentionné de façon plus claire dans la prophétie d'Isaïe: "... et en langue étrangère qu'il va parler à ce peuple" (Isaïe, 28:11). Un autre point connexe est que le Coran fut révélé en plusieurs sections sur une période de vingt-trois ans. Il est intéressant de comparer cela avec Isaïe 28 qui parle de la même chose: "... quand il dit: "ordre sur ordre, ordre sur ordre, règle sur règle, règle sur règle, un peu par-ci, un peu par-là." (Isaïe, 28:10).
Remarquez que Dieu a dit, dans la prophétie du Deutéronome 18: "Si un homme n'écoute pas mes paroles que ce prophète aura prononcées en mon nom, alors c'est moi-même qui en demanderai compte à cet homme." (Deutéronome 18:19). Cela signifie que quiconque croit à la Bible doit nécessairement croire ce que ce prophète dit, et ce prophète est le prophète Mohammed .
Dans Deutéronome 18, Moïse rapporte que Dieu lui a dit: "Je leur susciterai, du milieu de leurs frères, un prophète semblable à toi, je mettrai mes paroles dans sa bouche et il leur dira tout ce que je lui commanderai. Si un homme n'écoute pas mes paroles que ce prophète aura prononcées en mon nom, alors c'est moi-même qui en demanderai compte à cet homme." (Deutéronome 18:18-19).1
De ces versets nous pouvons conclure que le prophète dont il est question dans cette prophétie doit avoir les trois caractéristiques suivantes:
1) Il sera comme Moïse.
2) Il sera issu des frères des Israélites, c'est-à-dire les Ismaélites.
3) Dieu mettra Ses paroles dans la bouche de ce prophète et ce dernier dira tout ce que Dieu lui commandera.
Étudions ces trois caractéristiques de plus près:
1) Un prophète comme Moïse:
Il n'y eut guère deux prophètes qui se ressemblèrent autant que Moïse et Mohammed . Ils reçurent tous deux une loi et un code de vie détaillés. Ils affrontèrent tous deux leurs ennemis et obtinrent la victoire de façon miraculeuse. Ils furent tous deux acceptés comme prophètes et hommes d'état. Ils émigrèrent tous deux suite à une conspiration pour les assassiner. Si nous faisions des analogies entre Moïse et Jésus, elles ne pourraient inclure celles mentionnées ci-dessus, pas plus que d'autres similarités cruciales telles que la naissance, la vie familiale et la mort de Moïse et de Mohammed, qui ne s'appliquent pas à Jésus. De plus, Jésus était considéré par ses disciples comme le Fils de Dieu et non comme un simple prophète de Dieu, comme l'étaient Moïse et Mohammed , et tel que les musulmans considèrent qu'il était. Donc, cette prophétie s'applique au prophète Mohammed et non pas à Jésus, car Mohammed ressemblait plus à Moïse qu'à Jésus.
Par ailleurs, on remarque que dans l'Évangile selon Jean, les Juifs attendaient la réalisation de trois prophéties distinctes. La première était la venue du Christ. La deuxième était la venue d'Élie. Et la troisième était la venue du Prophète. C'est ce que nous comprenons lorsque nous considérons les trois questions qui furent posées à Jean le Baptiste: "Voici quel fut le témoignage de Jean, quand les Juifs envoyèrent de Jérusalem des prêtres et des lévites pour lui demander: "Qui es-tu?". Il confessa, il ne nia pas, il confessa: "Je ne suis pas le Christ.". "Quoi donc? lui demandèrent-ils. Es-tu Élie?". Il dit: "Je ne le suis pas.". "Es-tu le Prophète?" Il répondit: "Non.". (Jean, 1:19-21). Si nous consultons une Bible qui contient des renvois en bas de pages, nous trouverons, dans les notes au sujet du mot "le Prophète", dans Jean 1:21, que ce mot fait référence à la prophétie de Deutéronome 18:15 et 18:18.2 Nous en concluons donc que Jésus-Christ n'est pas le prophète dont il est fait mention dans Deutéronome 18:18.
2) Issu des frères des Israélites:
Abraham eut deux fils, Ismaël et Isaac (Genèse 21). Ismaël devint l'aïeul du peuple arabe, et Isaac devint l'aïeul du peuple juif. Le prophète dont il est fait mention n'était pas censé venir des juifs, mais de leurs frères, c'est-à-dire les Ismaélites. Mohammed , qui est un descendant d'Ismaël, est vraiment ce prophète.
De plus, dans Isaïe 42:1-13 on parle du serviteur de Dieu, Son "élu" qui apporte la loi aux nations. "Il ne vacille ni n'est découragé, jusqu'à ce que le droit (la loi) soit établi sur terre, car les îles attendent ses instructions." (Isaïe, 42-4). Le verset 11 associe celui qui est attendu aux descendants de Qédar. Qui est Qédar? Selon Genèse 25:13, Qédar était le second fils d'Ismaël, l'ancêtre du prophète Mohammed .
3) Dieu mettra Ses paroles dans la bouche de ce prophète:
Les paroles de Dieu (le Coran) furent vraiment mises dans la bouche de Mohammed . Dieu a envoyé l'Ange Gabriel à Mohammed pour lui enseigner Ses paroles exactes (le Coran), et Gabriel a demandé à Mohammed de les dicter telles qu'il les entendait à son peuple. Les paroles n'étaient donc pas les siennes. Elles n'étaient pas l'expression de ses propres pensées, mais furent mises dans sa bouche par l'Ange Gabriel. Du vivant de Mohammed , et sous sa supervision, ces paroles furent mémorisées et mises par écrit par ses compagnons.
De plus, cette prophétie que l'on retrouve dans le Deutéronome mentionne le fait que ce prophète prononcera les paroles de Dieu en Son nom. Si nous regardons dans le Coran, nous verrons que tous ses chapitres, sauf le chapitre 9, sont précédés ou commencent avec la formule "Au nom de Dieu, le tout miséricordieux, le très miséricordieux."
Un autre signe (en plus de la prophétie dans le Deutéronome) est qu'Isaïe associe le messager relié à Qédar avec un cantique nouveau (une écriture dans un langage nouveau) qui sera chanté à Dieu (Isaïe, 42:10-11). Cela est mentionné de façon plus claire dans la prophétie d'Isaïe: "... et en langue étrangère qu'il va parler à ce peuple" (Isaïe, 28:11). Un autre point connexe est que le Coran fut révélé en plusieurs sections sur une période de vingt-trois ans. Il est intéressant de comparer cela avec Isaïe 28 qui parle de la même chose: "... quand il dit: "ordre sur ordre, ordre sur ordre, règle sur règle, règle sur règle, un peu par-ci, un peu par-là." (Isaïe, 28:10).
Remarquez que Dieu a dit, dans la prophétie du Deutéronome 18: "Si un homme n'écoute pas mes paroles que ce prophète aura prononcées en mon nom, alors c'est moi-même qui en demanderai compte à cet homme." (Deutéronome 18:19). Cela signifie que quiconque croit à la Bible doit nécessairement croire ce que ce prophète dit, et ce prophète est le prophète Mohammed .
(1) Les miracles scientifiques
Le Coran est la parole de Dieu, qu'Il a révélée à Son prophète Mohammed par l'intermédiaire de l'ange Gabriel. Il a été mémorisé par Mohammed , qui l'a ensuite dicté à ses compagnons. Ces derniers l'ont à leur tour mémorisé, mis par écrit et révisé en compagnie du prophète Mohammed . De plus, une fois par année, le prophète Mohammed révisait tout le Coran avec l'ange Gabriel; la dernière année de sa vie, il l'a révisé deux fois. Depuis le moment où le Coran a été révélé jusqu'à nos jours, il y a toujours eu un très grand nombre de musulmans l'ayant mémorisé en entier, lettre par lettre. Certains d'entre eux ont même réussi à mémoriser tout le Coran avant l'âge de dix ans. Pas une seule lettre du Coran n'a été modifiée à travers les siècles.
Le Coran, qui a été révélé il y a plus de quatorze siècles, fait mention de faits qui n'ont été que récemment découverts ou prouvés par les scientifiques. Cela démontre, sans l'ombre d'un doute, que le Coran est la parole de Dieu, révélée par Lui au prophète Mohammed , et qu'il n'a pas été écrit par Mohammed , ni par aucun autre être humain. Cela prouve également que Mohammed est un véritable prophète envoyé par Dieu. Il serait déraisonnable de croire qu'une personne aurait pu avoir connaissance, il y a quatorze siècles, de faits qui n'ont été découverts ou prouvés que récemment à l'aide d'équipements de pointe et de méthodes scientifiques hautement perfectionnées. En voici quelques exemples
The US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation
The US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation is a coalition of anti-Israel groups that promotes divestment from Israeli companies, organizes anti-Israel events and lobbies the U.S. Congress to end American support for Israel as long as it occupies the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem.
In June 2007, it organized its first major anti-Israel event with United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ), a two-day gathering in Washington DC, called “The World Says No to Israeli Occupation.”
The US Campaign has grown to encompass over 200 member groups in six years through its partnerships, resources and activity. Its major allies include Friends of Sabeel-North America, one of the driving forces behind a campaign by mainline Protestant churches to divest from Israel; UFPJ, the anti-war coalition whose rallies have included anti-Israel messages; and the Council for the National Interest (CNI), an anti-Israel organization behind many inflammatory anti-Israel ads in major national newspapers.
The US Campaign further solidified its relationship with the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) in June, when attendees of its demonstration joined a related teach-in hosted by ADC.
The organization serves as an informational clearinghouse for its member groups, organizing conferences, educational events and protests to further its anti-Israel platform and attract those who appreciate its propaganda value.
Through its Annual National Organizers’ Conference (ANOC), the US Campaign attracts new members and formulates its strategies to combat U.S. support of Israel and its practices in the Palestinian territories.
The annual conferences are often sponsored by regional anti-Israel member groups and attract speakers whose views on Israel echo their positions. Speakers have included Mazin Qumsiyeh, divestment activist Will Youmans, and Nihad Awad, Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). These speakers have also held workshops on issues ranging from divestment tactics to congressional advocacy.
In order to further understand its positions, the US Campaign urges its members to travel to Israel with the International Solidarity Movement (ISM).
The group was founded in 2001 by several anti-Israel activists during meetings in New York and Washington DC, including Josh Ruebner, its Grassroots Advocacy Coordinator. Ruebner, an American-born Israeli citizen, often likens Israeli practices in the Palestinian territories to “ethnic cleansing
In June 2007, it organized its first major anti-Israel event with United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ), a two-day gathering in Washington DC, called “The World Says No to Israeli Occupation.”
The US Campaign has grown to encompass over 200 member groups in six years through its partnerships, resources and activity. Its major allies include Friends of Sabeel-North America, one of the driving forces behind a campaign by mainline Protestant churches to divest from Israel; UFPJ, the anti-war coalition whose rallies have included anti-Israel messages; and the Council for the National Interest (CNI), an anti-Israel organization behind many inflammatory anti-Israel ads in major national newspapers.
The US Campaign further solidified its relationship with the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) in June, when attendees of its demonstration joined a related teach-in hosted by ADC.
The organization serves as an informational clearinghouse for its member groups, organizing conferences, educational events and protests to further its anti-Israel platform and attract those who appreciate its propaganda value.
Through its Annual National Organizers’ Conference (ANOC), the US Campaign attracts new members and formulates its strategies to combat U.S. support of Israel and its practices in the Palestinian territories.
The annual conferences are often sponsored by regional anti-Israel member groups and attract speakers whose views on Israel echo their positions. Speakers have included Mazin Qumsiyeh, divestment activist Will Youmans, and Nihad Awad, Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). These speakers have also held workshops on issues ranging from divestment tactics to congressional advocacy.
In order to further understand its positions, the US Campaign urges its members to travel to Israel with the International Solidarity Movement (ISM).
The group was founded in 2001 by several anti-Israel activists during meetings in New York and Washington DC, including Josh Ruebner, its Grassroots Advocacy Coordinator. Ruebner, an American-born Israeli citizen, often likens Israeli practices in the Palestinian territories to “ethnic cleansing
Al-Awda, The Palestine Right to Return Coalition
Al-Awda, The Palestine Right to Return Coalition, is a grassroots organization that opposes Israel’s right to exist and has openly supported terror groups that target Israelis during demonstrations and elsewhere.
In response to Israel's military action in Gaza to staunch the barrage of Hamas rockets hurled at Israeli towns and cities, Al-Awda helped organized a “National Day of Action” on December 30, 2008, in more than 30 locations around the country. Many of the demonstrations, which were held in front of Israeli embassies and consulates, U.S. Federal buildings and elsewhere, were marked by offensive Holocaust imagery likening Jews and Israelis to Nazis, anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic rhetoric, as well as expressions in support of terror.
Through its literature, speaking engagements, public demonstrations and other events, Al-Awda (Arabic for “the return”) advocates for the establishment of a Palestinian state over all of the territory west of the Jordan River, including Israel. While its activity mainly focuses on the Palestinian right of return, which it views as non-negotiable, Al-Awda also promotes the views that Israel is an illegitimate state and that Zionism is racism.
By forming coalitions with other like-minded groups and with the antiwar movement, Al-Awda has been able to promote boycott, divestment, and sanctions campaigns against Israel and introduce its anti-Israel themes to audiences around the country.
In response to Israel's military action in Gaza to staunch the barrage of Hamas rockets hurled at Israeli towns and cities, Al-Awda helped organized a “National Day of Action” on December 30, 2008, in more than 30 locations around the country. Many of the demonstrations, which were held in front of Israeli embassies and consulates, U.S. Federal buildings and elsewhere, were marked by offensive Holocaust imagery likening Jews and Israelis to Nazis, anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic rhetoric, as well as expressions in support of terror.
Through its literature, speaking engagements, public demonstrations and other events, Al-Awda (Arabic for “the return”) advocates for the establishment of a Palestinian state over all of the territory west of the Jordan River, including Israel. While its activity mainly focuses on the Palestinian right of return, which it views as non-negotiable, Al-Awda also promotes the views that Israel is an illegitimate state and that Zionism is racism.
By forming coalitions with other like-minded groups and with the antiwar movement, Al-Awda has been able to promote boycott, divestment, and sanctions campaigns against Israel and introduce its anti-Israel themes to audiences around the country.
The USS Liberty Attack
The tragic assault by Israeli forces during the Six Day War in 1967 on an American vessel, the USS Liberty, has been a source of controversy and conspiracy theories since it occurred. Several government investigations have concluded that the attack, in which 34 American servicemen were killed and many more injured, was carried out in error. Furthermore, every piece of information declassified to date - most recently in June 2004 - has supported this conclusion.
Much of this information is available to anyone with an Internet connection. Nonetheless, many continue to allege that Israel attacked the Liberty knowing that it was an American ship and that they were killing American servicemen. For detractors of Israel, the incident - and the alleged U.S. government cover-up that followed - powerfully demonstrates the treachery and power of the Jewish State and its American supporters. The story, told from this perspective, has become a propaganda tool to undermine the legitimacy of Israel.
This article debunks the leading conspiracy theories suggesting that Israel acted malevolently.
Background
On June 8, 1967, during the Six Day War, Israeli war planes and torpedo boats attacked the USS Liberty, an intelligence gathering ship, while it was on a surveillance mission off the shores of El Arish, in the Sinai Peninsula. 34 Americans died and 171 were injured. Israel claimed it mistook the Liberty for an enemy vessel. Several Israeli and U.S. investigations corroborated that claim.
In 1999, moreover, a National Security Agency report from 1981 was released claiming that "the tragedy resulted not only from Israeli miscalculation but also from faulty U.S. communications practices." Since July 2003, this report has been available on the NSA Web site accompanied by a recording of radio communications between Israeli pilots made by a U.S. spy plane on the scene throughout the episode.
The NSA report and other documents declassified since the incident - including a trove of government materials released in January 2004 - support findings that the bombing was a case of mistaken identity. Some of the different investigations and their conclusions are listed below.
The most thorough non-governmental treatment of the bombing is A. Jay Cristol's The Liberty Incident (2002). Cristol, a U.S. bankruptcy judge and former U.S. Navy lawyer, concludes that "the totality of evidence establishes that the attack on the USS Liberty was a tragic case of mistaken identity that resulted from a compounding of bad mistakes perpetrated by both the United States and Israel, and nothing more." He analyzes, and meticulously debunks, previous books, articles and TV productions that argue that the attack was intentional and government investigations only cover-ups.
Conspiracy Theories
Despite the abundance of evidence that the bombing was a tragic mistake, conspiracy theories alleging that Israel intentionally attacked the Liberty have been a hallmark of conspiratorial anti-Israel propaganda since 1967. (Perhaps unsurprisingly, a number of Liberty crewmen believe the attack was intentional.)
Why is the Liberty incident so popular among anti-Israel conspiracy theorists? The reasons are clear. If Israel knowingly attacked and killed Americans, the views of radical critics of the country are confirmed with graphic clarity. These views include: a) the belief that Israel will turn against the U.S. whenever it suits its interests; b) the belief that Israel's control over the American political and military structure is so great that it can openly kill Americans because it knows that officials at every level will work together to cover up the crime; and c) the belief that Israel is a terrorist state.
What would Israel's motive have been? The argument that Israel knowingly attacked an American ship has always lacked a convincing motive. Possibilities have included:
Keeping U.S. from learning of surprise attack against Syria. In 1976, James Ennes, probably the most active critic of the official account - and one of the ship's survivors - claimed in his book Assault on the Liberty that Israel was then planning a surprise attack against Syria and feared U.S. interference; its bombing of the Liberty, he claimed, was an effort to disrupt American's ability to gather intelligence about the plan. Previously classified material released in 1997 by both Israel and the U.S. demonstrated that Israel had already informed the U.S. of its intentions, however. The theory should have disappeared thereafter, yet it resurfaced in a poorly researched History Channel production that aired in 2001 called Cover Up: Attack on the USS Liberty.
Hiding war crimes. Another possible motive was offered by James Bamford in his 2000 book Body of Secrets. Bamford claimed that Israel mounted the attack because it worried that the Liberty would learn of the nearby killing of hundreds of Egyptian POWs by the Israeli army. In fact, no evidence has been found to corroborate a war crime charge, and Cristol has shown that Bamford's account has little credibility. For example, Bamford quotes Marvin Nowicki, a Hebrew linguist on the U.S. surveillance aircraft that recorded the attacking Israeli pilots, to support his theory that the Israelis knew the ship to be American. Cristol reveals, however, that Nowicki stated in an exchange of letters with Bamford that "our intercepts, never before made public, showed the attack to be an accident on the part of the Israelis."
Drawing U.S. into war. The idea that Israel hoped to draw the U.S. into the Six-Day War has been suggested by Adm. (ret.) Thomas Moorer, a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a leader in the effort to expose the alleged governmental cover-ups of the attack. (He chairs the group whose new "findings" occasioned the October 22, 2003, press conference, below). Moorer has stated that Israel planned to sink the ship and then implicate Egypt, thereby pushing the U.S. to fight with Israel. However, by June 8, 1967 - the day of the attack- Israel had already destroyed most of the Egyptian air force and was advancing rapidly in the Sinai; the country was only days from victory and did not need U.S. assistance. Moreover, the initial Israeli attack could not have sunk the ship (the ordnance fired on the Liberty was inadequate to sink it), and Israel did not make any attempt to conceal its involvement in the attack after realizing the Liberty was American.
Recent Events
September 25-28, 2008: Three USS Liberty Veterans Association members, including Ernie Gallo, the association’s president, embarked on a speaking tour in Connecticut and New York, making several stops at public libraries and churches. At one event in Suffern, New York, Gallo argued that the USS Liberty incident “was a microcosm of what happened in June 1967. Something diabolical changed at that time." The organizer of the Suffern presentation, Rich Siegel, is affiliated with the group We Hold These Truths (WHTT).
September 27, 2008: Philip Tourney, a former USS Liberty Veteran Association president, and Mark Glenn, a contributor to the American Free Press, an anti-Semitic, conspiracy-oriented publication, discussed the Liberty veterans’ tour of Connecticut and New York on their weekly radio show, “Liberty Hour.” The show, which started broadcasting in February 2008 and is dedicated to discussing the USS Liberty incident, is carried on the Republic Broadcasting Network, a conspiracy-oriented Internet radio station. During the broadcast, Glenn denounced the Jewish community for “whining about the Holocaust that went on 60 years ago” while suppressing the truth about what happened to the Liberty, as well as about “inaccuracies of the Holocaust story or the anomalies that took place on 9-11, particularly all of the Israeli spies.” He further claimed, and Tourney concurred, that the Liberty incident was “directly related” to “the price of gas, terrorism, 9-11, the cost of food” and the government plan to bailout troubled banks.
November 3-5, 2007: The USS Liberty Blog was launched, apparently by Mark Glenn’s Crescent and the Cross. The Blog features many anti-Semitic articles, as well as announcements related to activities by members of the USS Liberty Veterans Association and supporters. Its first postings were of two articles by Eileen Fleming, an anti-Israel activist, and a radio interview with Tourney. In her article, Fleming called for a “second American revolution” to free the U.S. from Israel’s hold, which, she argued, was most evident in the Liberty incident and subsequent cover-up. (The month before Fleming and Tourney spoke at an anti-Semitic conference at Irvine, California called No More Wars for Israel, which was organized by Glenn. See below for more details.) Later Blog postings included an article by Tourney (posted on July 2008), in which he argued that U.S. support for Israel is putting America on the path to destruction, claiming that American politicians have put the “right to exist” of “the Jewish state” before any U.S. interest and stating: “No more wars for Israel. No more money, no more nothing.” Tourney further used classic anti-Semitic stereotypes to describe Israel, portraying it as a parasite that consumes the body of its host—the United States. He talked of Israelis as rich and evil, describing “their black hearts” and “vacant souls.” He even blamed the American economic slowdown and foreclosure crisis on American support for Israel, in an apparent attempt to turn popular discontent to hate toward Israel.
October 2007: Phillip Tourney spoke at a conference in Irvine, California, called No More Wars for Israel that was organized by Hesham Tillawi and Mark Glenn and featured several anti-Semitic speakers including Willis Carto, Michael Collins Piper and Kaukab Siddique. Following the two-day event, organizers posted online a videotaped message from Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, supposedly recorded specially for the conference, in which he condemned Zionism as a racist movement and a danger to world peace. The conference was praised on David Duke’s Web site for its contribution to the fight “against world Zionism and Jewish supremacism.”
October 2, 2007: The Chicago Tribune published an extensive special report on the USS Liberty by senior correspondent John Crewdson. While the report claimed to include “new revelations” and “documents” that challenge the official U.S. position about the incident, no substantive new information or “documents” were included. The report, which was misleading in its description of the circumstances of the incident, included several testimonies that were not new; most were based on an interpretive recollection of the events, including some that had already been debunked or proven unreliable. For example, the Tribune relied on Andrew Kilgore as a source for what former American ambassador to Lebanon Dwight Porter allegedly said about the incident, not mentioning that Kilgore has a long history of anti-Israel activity. The article also cited an unnamed CIA officer who allegedly quoted a “Libyan naval captain who was listening that day,” as further proof that the attack was not done in error.
April 2007: The Liberty News, newsletter of the USS Liberty Veterans Association, included several articles that attack Israel as illegitimate and Zionism as racism. One article by James Abourezk, former US Senator and founder of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee—a critique of a book by Ilan Pappe—claimed that in 1948, the Palestinians were victims of a meticulously prepared “ethnic cleansing” carried out by the Zionist movement since the majority of them “wanted no part in the violence being introduced into their homeland by the Jewish military.” Abourezk also wrote that the Holocaust “became a bonanza for the Zionist movement” and claimed that the vote in the UN in favor of establishing a Jewish state was an “injustice” and, from a legal perspective, should not be seen as binding. Abourezk quoted a Jewish friend, whose name he withheld: “Israel has nothing to do with Judaism, but it has everything to do with fascism.”
Other articles in the issue included one recommending Jimmy Carter’s book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, and another by a representative from the Council for the National Interest that called on the U.S. to engage with Hamas and claimed that “the Israel Lobby” controls Congress. The newsletter also included a second article by Abourezk, in which he praised the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Asad and claimed that “the Israeli Lobby” has blocked a recent legislation in Congress because it could have become an obstacle to a war against Iran.
September 2, 2006: Tito Howard, USS Liberty survivor and producer of a USS Liberty Veterans Association’s film about the attack, Loss of Liberty, spoke at a conference of the American Free Press and Barnes Review—both newspapers that advance the views of Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites and white supremacists. The conference was attended by many of the leading Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites in the country.
January 30, 2006: The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee sent e-mails to supporters asking that they “contact Congress and the Pentagon” to “support [the] request for war crimes report on the attack on the USS Liberty.”
June 8, 2005: The USS Liberty Veterans Association handed a report on “war crimes committed against U.S. military personnel, June 8, 1967” to the Secretary of the Army. According to the Association, it submitted the report based on a Department of Defense Directive issued in March of the previous year which included some language about investigating war crimes. The 35-page report, which is posted to the Association’s Web site, did not include any new information about the USS Liberty incident, and there were significant omissions in its description of the events. It accused Israel of “war crimes” and claimed that Israel was waging a campaign to vilify the ship’s survivors as “neo-Nazis.” It concluded with the following statement: “The only conceivable reason for this failure [to investigate the attack] is the political decision to put the interests of Israel ahead of those of American servicemen, employees, and veterans.”
June 3, 2004: Based on previously unreleased audiotapes made available by the Israeli Air Force, The Jerusalem Post published a transcript of radio and telephone transmissions between Israeli pilots and air controllers involved in the attack on the Liberty. The transcript gives a minute-by-minute account from the perspective of the Israeli forces - beginning just before the attack and continuing until the Israelis recognize the ship's identity and halt the action. The transcript of the tapes indicates that Israel did not know the ship was American when it attacked.
January 12-13, 2004: To coincide with the release of new documents, the State Department convened a panel to address the Liberty attack. While the panelists, representing both defenders and critics of Israel's intentions, failed to reach a consensus, the previously classified materials revealed no new evidence to cast in doubt the official U.S. position - that Israel did not know the Liberty was an American vessel when it attacked.
October 22, 2003: Capt. Ward Boston, a retired Navy lawyer, released a statement at a Washington, D.C., press conference that appeared to give Liberty conspiracy theorists a strong boost. Claiming that he felt the need to respond to the publication of Cristol's The Liberty Incident, Boston, counsel to the Court of Inquiry in the Navy's investigation into the case, said, "I am outraged at the efforts of the apologists for Israel in this country to claim that this attack was a case of 'mistaken identity.'" His remarks were included as part of an "independent investigation" into the bombing by Liberty Alliance, which convened the press conference and describes itself as "an organization dedicated to obtaining an honest investigation of Israel's attack on the USS Liberty and the official cover-up that followed." Boston also claimed that White House officials at the time - including Secretary of State John McNamara and President Lyndon Johnson - had ordered investigators to conclude "that the attack was a case of 'mistaken identity'" - i.e., that it had been unintentional.
Boston's credibility In the Navy investigation, Boston and Rear Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, who served as president of the Court of Inquiry, were the first to meet the ship's crew and conduct interviews. However, according to his own account, Boston's evidence of a cover-up derives not from his own part in the investigation but solely on alleged conversations with Admiral Kidd, who purportedly told him he was forced to find that the attack was unintentional.
Kidd died in 1999 and there is no way to verify Boston's allegations. However, Cristol argues that the "documentary record" strongly indicated that Kidd "supported the validity of the findings of the Court of Inquiry to his dying day." Responding to Boston, he added: "As a close friend of 'Ike' Kidd, I could also repeat statements made by 'Ike' to me, but those statements would be equally in violation of the dead man statute [in court, testimony about statements of deceased persons is inadmissible]." Cristol dedicated his book to Kidd. Most relevantly, Boston's new statement reveals nothing new about what actually happened during the attack on the Liberty on June 8, 1967.
October 10, 2003: Israeli Brig. Gen. (res.) Yiftah Spector (since retired), who participated in the Liberty attack, agreed to discuss it publicly for the first time. Spector was the first pilot to get to the ship; he identified it as a military vessel that was not Israeli but could not make a specific identification. "My assumption was that it was likely to open fire at me and nevertheless I slowed down and I looked and there was positively no flag. Just to make sure I photographed it," Spector told The Jerusalem Post (Oct. 10, 2003).
The photo is copied in Cristol's The Liberty Incident along with a minute-by-minute analysis of how Israeli forces who had eye contact with the Liberty, including Spector, made several mistakes in reading the markings on the ship and describing its features to command. "This ship was on an escape route from the El Arish area, which at that same moment had heavy smoke rising from it," Spector said.
Because Israel was by then in control of both ground and air venues, it was thought that the war vessel, which could be seen on the horizon from the shore of El Arish, was bombing the Israeli army - explaining the smoke nearby. According to Spector, a U.S. Senate Committee interviewed him twice shortly after the war.
(It may be noted that Spector was recently dismissed from the Israeli air force for signing a letter protesting the Israeli policy of targeted killing.)
July 16, 2003: Ward Boston told the Arab News 1 , an English-language Saudi publication, that after the naval court had reached its conclusions, Adm. Kidd told him: "We have to be quiet. We can't talk to the media," and that President Johnson "had ordered us to put a lid on it."
True or false, this allegation is far less stinging than Boston's October 2003 claims. His remarks do not necessarily suggest that the government acted deceptively, let alone that the president rigged the investigation. It is not clear why Boston later changed his account.
Boston also claimed that he and Adm. Kidd both thought the attack was deliberate and says that Kidd told him: "Those guys knew what they were doing when they killed innocent sunbathing kids. They tried to sink that ship." He went on to explain why he thought the U.S. government still covers up the attack:
Iraq, Vietnam, the Liberty - it's the same old story. When people are in power they don't want to upset people who may help them get re-elected. Maybe people didn't want the world to see that Israelis were slaughtering Egyptian prisoners of war. Maybe Johnson was afraid of upsetting potential voters.
I have strong patriotic feelings. I believe the CIA slogan, "The truth will out," and hate the Israeli Mossad's motto "Win by deception."
Official reports related to the Liberty incident (a sampling, selected from A. Jay Cristol's book The Liberty Incident - uncited statements in quotation marks are from the reports)
U.S. Reports
U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry, June 18, 1967
" Available evidence combines to indicate the attack on the Liberty on 8 June was in fact a case of mistaken identity."
CIA Report, June 13, 1967
The attack was a mistake. In 1978, in a response to an inquiry, Director of Central Intelligence Stansfield Turner wrote: "It remains our best judgment that the Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty was not made in malice toward the United States and was a mistake."
Joint Chiefs of Staff, Russ Report, June 9-20, 1967 General Russ did not make any findings about the actual attack. The report compiled all message traffic and contains no evidence that the attack was not a mistake.
Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, Clifford Report, July 18, 1967
"The information thus far available does not reflect that the Israeli high command made a premeditated attack on a ship known to be American…. "
National Security Agency, 1981
"Liberty was mistaken for an Egyptian ship as a result of miscalculation and egregious errors."
Israeli Report
Ram Ron Commission of Inquiry, June 16, 1967
"[T]he attack on the ship by the Israeli Defense Forces was made neither maliciously nor in gross negligence, but as a result of a bona fide mistake."
Sources
Arguing that Israel did not know the Liberty was an American ship
A. Jay Cristol, The Liberty Incident: The 1967 Israeli Attack on the U.S. Navy Spy Ship, 2002, Cristol's is the most extensive research of the attack on the Liberty; it includes not just research into the incident itself, but also a very effective analysis of the various conspiracy theories regarding the incident. The Web site is also updated with comments on Ward Boston's affidavit.
National Security Agency Web site:
http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/liberty.html
Michael B. Oren, "Unfriendly Fire: Why did Israeli troops attack the USS Liberty?" The New Republic, July 23, 2001.
Michael B. Oren, "The USS Liberty: Case Closed," Azure, Spring 5760/2000. http://www.azure.org.il/9-Oren.htm.
Arguing that Israel did know the Liberty was an American ship
James Bamford, Body of Secrets; Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency, 2001.
James Ennes, Assault on the Liberty, 1976.
Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, "Remembering the Liberty," The Washington Post, November 6, 1991. (Much of the article is based on the testimony of Seth Mintz, who claims to have been inside the Israeli war room during the attack. Mintz responded to the Post in a November 9 letter in which he denies the quotes related to him. Many details about Mintz's story seem questionable.)
Paul Findley, They Dare Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby, 1985 (The book does not deal specifically with the Liberty incident, but it includes a discussion of the incident in which Findley mentions some of the conspiracy theories.)
Liberty News, newsletter of the USS Liberty Veterans Association. The association was formed following a reunion of Liberty survivors in 1982. In 2002, Philip Tourney, the group's president, spoke at a conference held by the Institute for Historical Review, a California-based organization dedicated to promoting Holocaust denial.
Major Web sites implicating Israel:
The USS Liberty Memorial Web Site
If Americans Knew
USS Liberty Court of Inquiry
1 The account in the Arab News also appeared in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs; Boston's revelations were first published a year before in the Marine Corps Times
Much of this information is available to anyone with an Internet connection. Nonetheless, many continue to allege that Israel attacked the Liberty knowing that it was an American ship and that they were killing American servicemen. For detractors of Israel, the incident - and the alleged U.S. government cover-up that followed - powerfully demonstrates the treachery and power of the Jewish State and its American supporters. The story, told from this perspective, has become a propaganda tool to undermine the legitimacy of Israel.
This article debunks the leading conspiracy theories suggesting that Israel acted malevolently.
Background
On June 8, 1967, during the Six Day War, Israeli war planes and torpedo boats attacked the USS Liberty, an intelligence gathering ship, while it was on a surveillance mission off the shores of El Arish, in the Sinai Peninsula. 34 Americans died and 171 were injured. Israel claimed it mistook the Liberty for an enemy vessel. Several Israeli and U.S. investigations corroborated that claim.
In 1999, moreover, a National Security Agency report from 1981 was released claiming that "the tragedy resulted not only from Israeli miscalculation but also from faulty U.S. communications practices." Since July 2003, this report has been available on the NSA Web site accompanied by a recording of radio communications between Israeli pilots made by a U.S. spy plane on the scene throughout the episode.
The NSA report and other documents declassified since the incident - including a trove of government materials released in January 2004 - support findings that the bombing was a case of mistaken identity. Some of the different investigations and their conclusions are listed below.
The most thorough non-governmental treatment of the bombing is A. Jay Cristol's The Liberty Incident (2002). Cristol, a U.S. bankruptcy judge and former U.S. Navy lawyer, concludes that "the totality of evidence establishes that the attack on the USS Liberty was a tragic case of mistaken identity that resulted from a compounding of bad mistakes perpetrated by both the United States and Israel, and nothing more." He analyzes, and meticulously debunks, previous books, articles and TV productions that argue that the attack was intentional and government investigations only cover-ups.
Conspiracy Theories
Despite the abundance of evidence that the bombing was a tragic mistake, conspiracy theories alleging that Israel intentionally attacked the Liberty have been a hallmark of conspiratorial anti-Israel propaganda since 1967. (Perhaps unsurprisingly, a number of Liberty crewmen believe the attack was intentional.)
Why is the Liberty incident so popular among anti-Israel conspiracy theorists? The reasons are clear. If Israel knowingly attacked and killed Americans, the views of radical critics of the country are confirmed with graphic clarity. These views include: a) the belief that Israel will turn against the U.S. whenever it suits its interests; b) the belief that Israel's control over the American political and military structure is so great that it can openly kill Americans because it knows that officials at every level will work together to cover up the crime; and c) the belief that Israel is a terrorist state.
What would Israel's motive have been? The argument that Israel knowingly attacked an American ship has always lacked a convincing motive. Possibilities have included:
Keeping U.S. from learning of surprise attack against Syria. In 1976, James Ennes, probably the most active critic of the official account - and one of the ship's survivors - claimed in his book Assault on the Liberty that Israel was then planning a surprise attack against Syria and feared U.S. interference; its bombing of the Liberty, he claimed, was an effort to disrupt American's ability to gather intelligence about the plan. Previously classified material released in 1997 by both Israel and the U.S. demonstrated that Israel had already informed the U.S. of its intentions, however. The theory should have disappeared thereafter, yet it resurfaced in a poorly researched History Channel production that aired in 2001 called Cover Up: Attack on the USS Liberty.
Hiding war crimes. Another possible motive was offered by James Bamford in his 2000 book Body of Secrets. Bamford claimed that Israel mounted the attack because it worried that the Liberty would learn of the nearby killing of hundreds of Egyptian POWs by the Israeli army. In fact, no evidence has been found to corroborate a war crime charge, and Cristol has shown that Bamford's account has little credibility. For example, Bamford quotes Marvin Nowicki, a Hebrew linguist on the U.S. surveillance aircraft that recorded the attacking Israeli pilots, to support his theory that the Israelis knew the ship to be American. Cristol reveals, however, that Nowicki stated in an exchange of letters with Bamford that "our intercepts, never before made public, showed the attack to be an accident on the part of the Israelis."
Drawing U.S. into war. The idea that Israel hoped to draw the U.S. into the Six-Day War has been suggested by Adm. (ret.) Thomas Moorer, a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a leader in the effort to expose the alleged governmental cover-ups of the attack. (He chairs the group whose new "findings" occasioned the October 22, 2003, press conference, below). Moorer has stated that Israel planned to sink the ship and then implicate Egypt, thereby pushing the U.S. to fight with Israel. However, by June 8, 1967 - the day of the attack- Israel had already destroyed most of the Egyptian air force and was advancing rapidly in the Sinai; the country was only days from victory and did not need U.S. assistance. Moreover, the initial Israeli attack could not have sunk the ship (the ordnance fired on the Liberty was inadequate to sink it), and Israel did not make any attempt to conceal its involvement in the attack after realizing the Liberty was American.
Recent Events
September 25-28, 2008: Three USS Liberty Veterans Association members, including Ernie Gallo, the association’s president, embarked on a speaking tour in Connecticut and New York, making several stops at public libraries and churches. At one event in Suffern, New York, Gallo argued that the USS Liberty incident “was a microcosm of what happened in June 1967. Something diabolical changed at that time." The organizer of the Suffern presentation, Rich Siegel, is affiliated with the group We Hold These Truths (WHTT).
September 27, 2008: Philip Tourney, a former USS Liberty Veteran Association president, and Mark Glenn, a contributor to the American Free Press, an anti-Semitic, conspiracy-oriented publication, discussed the Liberty veterans’ tour of Connecticut and New York on their weekly radio show, “Liberty Hour.” The show, which started broadcasting in February 2008 and is dedicated to discussing the USS Liberty incident, is carried on the Republic Broadcasting Network, a conspiracy-oriented Internet radio station. During the broadcast, Glenn denounced the Jewish community for “whining about the Holocaust that went on 60 years ago” while suppressing the truth about what happened to the Liberty, as well as about “inaccuracies of the Holocaust story or the anomalies that took place on 9-11, particularly all of the Israeli spies.” He further claimed, and Tourney concurred, that the Liberty incident was “directly related” to “the price of gas, terrorism, 9-11, the cost of food” and the government plan to bailout troubled banks.
November 3-5, 2007: The USS Liberty Blog was launched, apparently by Mark Glenn’s Crescent and the Cross. The Blog features many anti-Semitic articles, as well as announcements related to activities by members of the USS Liberty Veterans Association and supporters. Its first postings were of two articles by Eileen Fleming, an anti-Israel activist, and a radio interview with Tourney. In her article, Fleming called for a “second American revolution” to free the U.S. from Israel’s hold, which, she argued, was most evident in the Liberty incident and subsequent cover-up. (The month before Fleming and Tourney spoke at an anti-Semitic conference at Irvine, California called No More Wars for Israel, which was organized by Glenn. See below for more details.) Later Blog postings included an article by Tourney (posted on July 2008), in which he argued that U.S. support for Israel is putting America on the path to destruction, claiming that American politicians have put the “right to exist” of “the Jewish state” before any U.S. interest and stating: “No more wars for Israel. No more money, no more nothing.” Tourney further used classic anti-Semitic stereotypes to describe Israel, portraying it as a parasite that consumes the body of its host—the United States. He talked of Israelis as rich and evil, describing “their black hearts” and “vacant souls.” He even blamed the American economic slowdown and foreclosure crisis on American support for Israel, in an apparent attempt to turn popular discontent to hate toward Israel.
October 2007: Phillip Tourney spoke at a conference in Irvine, California, called No More Wars for Israel that was organized by Hesham Tillawi and Mark Glenn and featured several anti-Semitic speakers including Willis Carto, Michael Collins Piper and Kaukab Siddique. Following the two-day event, organizers posted online a videotaped message from Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, supposedly recorded specially for the conference, in which he condemned Zionism as a racist movement and a danger to world peace. The conference was praised on David Duke’s Web site for its contribution to the fight “against world Zionism and Jewish supremacism.”
October 2, 2007: The Chicago Tribune published an extensive special report on the USS Liberty by senior correspondent John Crewdson. While the report claimed to include “new revelations” and “documents” that challenge the official U.S. position about the incident, no substantive new information or “documents” were included. The report, which was misleading in its description of the circumstances of the incident, included several testimonies that were not new; most were based on an interpretive recollection of the events, including some that had already been debunked or proven unreliable. For example, the Tribune relied on Andrew Kilgore as a source for what former American ambassador to Lebanon Dwight Porter allegedly said about the incident, not mentioning that Kilgore has a long history of anti-Israel activity. The article also cited an unnamed CIA officer who allegedly quoted a “Libyan naval captain who was listening that day,” as further proof that the attack was not done in error.
April 2007: The Liberty News, newsletter of the USS Liberty Veterans Association, included several articles that attack Israel as illegitimate and Zionism as racism. One article by James Abourezk, former US Senator and founder of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee—a critique of a book by Ilan Pappe—claimed that in 1948, the Palestinians were victims of a meticulously prepared “ethnic cleansing” carried out by the Zionist movement since the majority of them “wanted no part in the violence being introduced into their homeland by the Jewish military.” Abourezk also wrote that the Holocaust “became a bonanza for the Zionist movement” and claimed that the vote in the UN in favor of establishing a Jewish state was an “injustice” and, from a legal perspective, should not be seen as binding. Abourezk quoted a Jewish friend, whose name he withheld: “Israel has nothing to do with Judaism, but it has everything to do with fascism.”
Other articles in the issue included one recommending Jimmy Carter’s book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, and another by a representative from the Council for the National Interest that called on the U.S. to engage with Hamas and claimed that “the Israel Lobby” controls Congress. The newsletter also included a second article by Abourezk, in which he praised the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Asad and claimed that “the Israeli Lobby” has blocked a recent legislation in Congress because it could have become an obstacle to a war against Iran.
September 2, 2006: Tito Howard, USS Liberty survivor and producer of a USS Liberty Veterans Association’s film about the attack, Loss of Liberty, spoke at a conference of the American Free Press and Barnes Review—both newspapers that advance the views of Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites and white supremacists. The conference was attended by many of the leading Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites in the country.
January 30, 2006: The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee sent e-mails to supporters asking that they “contact Congress and the Pentagon” to “support [the] request for war crimes report on the attack on the USS Liberty.”
June 8, 2005: The USS Liberty Veterans Association handed a report on “war crimes committed against U.S. military personnel, June 8, 1967” to the Secretary of the Army. According to the Association, it submitted the report based on a Department of Defense Directive issued in March of the previous year which included some language about investigating war crimes. The 35-page report, which is posted to the Association’s Web site, did not include any new information about the USS Liberty incident, and there were significant omissions in its description of the events. It accused Israel of “war crimes” and claimed that Israel was waging a campaign to vilify the ship’s survivors as “neo-Nazis.” It concluded with the following statement: “The only conceivable reason for this failure [to investigate the attack] is the political decision to put the interests of Israel ahead of those of American servicemen, employees, and veterans.”
June 3, 2004: Based on previously unreleased audiotapes made available by the Israeli Air Force, The Jerusalem Post published a transcript of radio and telephone transmissions between Israeli pilots and air controllers involved in the attack on the Liberty. The transcript gives a minute-by-minute account from the perspective of the Israeli forces - beginning just before the attack and continuing until the Israelis recognize the ship's identity and halt the action. The transcript of the tapes indicates that Israel did not know the ship was American when it attacked.
January 12-13, 2004: To coincide with the release of new documents, the State Department convened a panel to address the Liberty attack. While the panelists, representing both defenders and critics of Israel's intentions, failed to reach a consensus, the previously classified materials revealed no new evidence to cast in doubt the official U.S. position - that Israel did not know the Liberty was an American vessel when it attacked.
October 22, 2003: Capt. Ward Boston, a retired Navy lawyer, released a statement at a Washington, D.C., press conference that appeared to give Liberty conspiracy theorists a strong boost. Claiming that he felt the need to respond to the publication of Cristol's The Liberty Incident, Boston, counsel to the Court of Inquiry in the Navy's investigation into the case, said, "I am outraged at the efforts of the apologists for Israel in this country to claim that this attack was a case of 'mistaken identity.'" His remarks were included as part of an "independent investigation" into the bombing by Liberty Alliance, which convened the press conference and describes itself as "an organization dedicated to obtaining an honest investigation of Israel's attack on the USS Liberty and the official cover-up that followed." Boston also claimed that White House officials at the time - including Secretary of State John McNamara and President Lyndon Johnson - had ordered investigators to conclude "that the attack was a case of 'mistaken identity'" - i.e., that it had been unintentional.
Boston's credibility In the Navy investigation, Boston and Rear Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, who served as president of the Court of Inquiry, were the first to meet the ship's crew and conduct interviews. However, according to his own account, Boston's evidence of a cover-up derives not from his own part in the investigation but solely on alleged conversations with Admiral Kidd, who purportedly told him he was forced to find that the attack was unintentional.
Kidd died in 1999 and there is no way to verify Boston's allegations. However, Cristol argues that the "documentary record" strongly indicated that Kidd "supported the validity of the findings of the Court of Inquiry to his dying day." Responding to Boston, he added: "As a close friend of 'Ike' Kidd, I could also repeat statements made by 'Ike' to me, but those statements would be equally in violation of the dead man statute [in court, testimony about statements of deceased persons is inadmissible]." Cristol dedicated his book to Kidd. Most relevantly, Boston's new statement reveals nothing new about what actually happened during the attack on the Liberty on June 8, 1967.
October 10, 2003: Israeli Brig. Gen. (res.) Yiftah Spector (since retired), who participated in the Liberty attack, agreed to discuss it publicly for the first time. Spector was the first pilot to get to the ship; he identified it as a military vessel that was not Israeli but could not make a specific identification. "My assumption was that it was likely to open fire at me and nevertheless I slowed down and I looked and there was positively no flag. Just to make sure I photographed it," Spector told The Jerusalem Post (Oct. 10, 2003).
The photo is copied in Cristol's The Liberty Incident along with a minute-by-minute analysis of how Israeli forces who had eye contact with the Liberty, including Spector, made several mistakes in reading the markings on the ship and describing its features to command. "This ship was on an escape route from the El Arish area, which at that same moment had heavy smoke rising from it," Spector said.
Because Israel was by then in control of both ground and air venues, it was thought that the war vessel, which could be seen on the horizon from the shore of El Arish, was bombing the Israeli army - explaining the smoke nearby. According to Spector, a U.S. Senate Committee interviewed him twice shortly after the war.
(It may be noted that Spector was recently dismissed from the Israeli air force for signing a letter protesting the Israeli policy of targeted killing.)
July 16, 2003: Ward Boston told the Arab News 1 , an English-language Saudi publication, that after the naval court had reached its conclusions, Adm. Kidd told him: "We have to be quiet. We can't talk to the media," and that President Johnson "had ordered us to put a lid on it."
True or false, this allegation is far less stinging than Boston's October 2003 claims. His remarks do not necessarily suggest that the government acted deceptively, let alone that the president rigged the investigation. It is not clear why Boston later changed his account.
Boston also claimed that he and Adm. Kidd both thought the attack was deliberate and says that Kidd told him: "Those guys knew what they were doing when they killed innocent sunbathing kids. They tried to sink that ship." He went on to explain why he thought the U.S. government still covers up the attack:
Iraq, Vietnam, the Liberty - it's the same old story. When people are in power they don't want to upset people who may help them get re-elected. Maybe people didn't want the world to see that Israelis were slaughtering Egyptian prisoners of war. Maybe Johnson was afraid of upsetting potential voters.
I have strong patriotic feelings. I believe the CIA slogan, "The truth will out," and hate the Israeli Mossad's motto "Win by deception."
Official reports related to the Liberty incident (a sampling, selected from A. Jay Cristol's book The Liberty Incident - uncited statements in quotation marks are from the reports)
U.S. Reports
U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry, June 18, 1967
" Available evidence combines to indicate the attack on the Liberty on 8 June was in fact a case of mistaken identity."
CIA Report, June 13, 1967
The attack was a mistake. In 1978, in a response to an inquiry, Director of Central Intelligence Stansfield Turner wrote: "It remains our best judgment that the Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty was not made in malice toward the United States and was a mistake."
Joint Chiefs of Staff, Russ Report, June 9-20, 1967 General Russ did not make any findings about the actual attack. The report compiled all message traffic and contains no evidence that the attack was not a mistake.
Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, Clifford Report, July 18, 1967
"The information thus far available does not reflect that the Israeli high command made a premeditated attack on a ship known to be American…. "
National Security Agency, 1981
"Liberty was mistaken for an Egyptian ship as a result of miscalculation and egregious errors."
Israeli Report
Ram Ron Commission of Inquiry, June 16, 1967
"[T]he attack on the ship by the Israeli Defense Forces was made neither maliciously nor in gross negligence, but as a result of a bona fide mistake."
Sources
Arguing that Israel did not know the Liberty was an American ship
A. Jay Cristol, The Liberty Incident: The 1967 Israeli Attack on the U.S. Navy Spy Ship, 2002, Cristol's is the most extensive research of the attack on the Liberty; it includes not just research into the incident itself, but also a very effective analysis of the various conspiracy theories regarding the incident. The Web site is also updated with comments on Ward Boston's affidavit.
National Security Agency Web site:
http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/liberty.html
Michael B. Oren, "Unfriendly Fire: Why did Israeli troops attack the USS Liberty?" The New Republic, July 23, 2001.
Michael B. Oren, "The USS Liberty: Case Closed," Azure, Spring 5760/2000. http://www.azure.org.il/9-Oren.htm.
Arguing that Israel did know the Liberty was an American ship
James Bamford, Body of Secrets; Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency, 2001.
James Ennes, Assault on the Liberty, 1976.
Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, "Remembering the Liberty," The Washington Post, November 6, 1991. (Much of the article is based on the testimony of Seth Mintz, who claims to have been inside the Israeli war room during the attack. Mintz responded to the Post in a November 9 letter in which he denies the quotes related to him. Many details about Mintz's story seem questionable.)
Paul Findley, They Dare Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby, 1985 (The book does not deal specifically with the Liberty incident, but it includes a discussion of the incident in which Findley mentions some of the conspiracy theories.)
Liberty News, newsletter of the USS Liberty Veterans Association. The association was formed following a reunion of Liberty survivors in 1982. In 2002, Philip Tourney, the group's president, spoke at a conference held by the Institute for Historical Review, a California-based organization dedicated to promoting Holocaust denial.
Major Web sites implicating Israel:
The USS Liberty Memorial Web Site
If Americans Knew
USS Liberty Court of Inquiry
1 The account in the Arab News also appeared in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs; Boston's revelations were first published a year before in the Marine Corps Times
رأي خاص
بصراحة شديدة انا اتخنقت و مطغاز بشدة اي ازداد غيظي من الاخوان ومن اقباط المهجر ومن كل من هو شوكة في ظهر الوطن...
يعني معلش انا عاوز افهم حاجة يعني ايه اخوان مسلمين الله و التانيين ايه يعني مش مسلمين
ولا انت بتحتكر الاسلام على سلوك معين او طائفة معينة و بعدين عاوز اعرف يعني بدل ااتنطيط و شغل حلق قوش اولي عملت ايه للبلد هيقولي يااه ده احنا ياما قدمنا هقولك كل اللي ان عمله ده ميجيش واحد على عشرة من تبرعات واحد زي هشام طلعت مصطفى و بعدين ان كبعا عامل زي الخازوق وواخد الدين مطية عشات وصل للحكم الرشيد طب صلح المجتمع و صلح الافراد و بعدين تعال للحكم ولا ان علطول بصراحة انت خازوق في طيز الوطن اصدي ظهر الوطن
اما بقى بالنسبة لاقباط المهجر فادي حبة ناس مهاجرة ديانتها المسيحية طبعا معاها فلوس بس مفيش حاجة يعملوها فاضين يعني بمعنى ان هما مالهمشي دور في المجتمعات اللي هما هاجرو ليها
وفي نفس الوقت ما بيقدموش حاجة لوطنهم و قمة السفالة و النحطاط و نكران الجميل للوطن طب طالما انت سبت الوطن و قلت يالا نفسي متتجيش بقى تتمسح في كيازه اصدي ترابه
ودمتتتم بخير
يعني معلش انا عاوز افهم حاجة يعني ايه اخوان مسلمين الله و التانيين ايه يعني مش مسلمين
ولا انت بتحتكر الاسلام على سلوك معين او طائفة معينة و بعدين عاوز اعرف يعني بدل ااتنطيط و شغل حلق قوش اولي عملت ايه للبلد هيقولي يااه ده احنا ياما قدمنا هقولك كل اللي ان عمله ده ميجيش واحد على عشرة من تبرعات واحد زي هشام طلعت مصطفى و بعدين ان كبعا عامل زي الخازوق وواخد الدين مطية عشات وصل للحكم الرشيد طب صلح المجتمع و صلح الافراد و بعدين تعال للحكم ولا ان علطول بصراحة انت خازوق في طيز الوطن اصدي ظهر الوطن
اما بقى بالنسبة لاقباط المهجر فادي حبة ناس مهاجرة ديانتها المسيحية طبعا معاها فلوس بس مفيش حاجة يعملوها فاضين يعني بمعنى ان هما مالهمشي دور في المجتمعات اللي هما هاجرو ليها
وفي نفس الوقت ما بيقدموش حاجة لوطنهم و قمة السفالة و النحطاط و نكران الجميل للوطن طب طالما انت سبت الوطن و قلت يالا نفسي متتجيش بقى تتمسح في كيازه اصدي ترابه
ودمتتتم بخير
الإمارات تفتتح أكبر مجمع لسيارات مرسيدس-بنز في العالم
قامت شركة الإمارات للسيارات، الموزع العام الرسمي لمرسيدس- بنز لشركة ديملر الشرق الأوسط وبلاد الشام، والعضو في مجموعة الفهيم، بتدشين أكبر مجمع لسيارات مرسيدس- بنز في العالم، في العاصمة أبوظبي.
وشارك في حفل الافتتاح عدد من المسؤولين الحكوميين وقيادات الأعمال وكبار الشخصيات، وتزامن افتتاح المركز الجديد الذي يمتد على مساحة مليون قدم مربع في منطقة المصفح بأبوظبي، مع الكشف عن سيارات مرسيدس بنز جديدة من الفئة "إي".
وقال "سعيد عبد الجليل الفهيم" رئيس مجلس إدارة مجموعة "الفهيم": تساهم شركة الإمارات للسيارات في استكمال أهداف مجموعتنا لترسيخ مكانة أبوظبي على الخريطة العالمية.. ومما لاشك فيه أن افتتاح أكبر مركز لسيارات مرسيدس بنز في العالم يساهم في تعزيز مكانة الإمارة كوجهة رئيسية لقطاع السيارات العالمي.
وتمتاز سيارات مرسيدس بنز من الفئة "إي" الرياضية الجديدة بالأناقة والتصميم المترف، وتعتبر من خلال العديد من السمات العصرية والحضور القوي، السيارة الرائدة في فئتها على مستوى السلامة والراحة والحفاظ على البيئة.
نعم، لقد حلّ ذلك الوقت من العام الذي اعتاد فيه أريبيان بزنس على نشر قائمة تضم أقوى الشخصيات – إنه دليلنا الخاص إلى أقوى 100 عربي في العالم.
إذن من سيدخل قائمة هذا العام؟ يتصدر القائمة للعام الخامس على التوالي سمو الأمير الوليد بن طلال، ليس لكونه أغنى أغنياء العرب فحسب، بل لأنه في رأينا أكثر العرب قدرةً على التأثير.
ويأتي بعده بمائة مرتبة في القائمة، صاحب المسلسل الكارتوني "فريج" الذي ذاع صيته في المنطقة، محمد حارب.
وتتوسط اسميهما مجموعة منوّعة من الشخصيات التي تنتمي إلى مختلف مجالات الحياة – الإعلام والأزياء والأعمال والرياضة والعلوم والأكاديميين وحتى الأعمال الخيرية، هؤلاء هم الأشخاص الذين كان لهم الأثر الأكبر على المستوى العالمي.
شهد العام الحالي دخول 52 اسماً جديدًا، وكان اسم "منتظر الزيدي" أكثرها شداً للانتباه وأعلاها مرتبةً ليحل ثالثاً في القائمة.
وقبل سنة من الآن كان الاختلاف على أوجه حول القائمة فقد وردتنا مجموعة من الاعتراضات حول بعض الأسماء الواردة فيها. وغني عن القول أن هناك آلاف الأسماء التي تستحق أن تكون في القائمة ولم نتمكن من وضعها، فهناك أقوياء وشخصيات مهمة في كل المجالات، لم يتح لنا أن نصل إليهم أو نقيم مدى تأثيرهم، لأسباب تتعلق بالشفافية وعدم تقديم بيانات أو المعلومات.
لمع نجم الصحفي العراقي على المستوى الدولي في ديسمبر/كانون الأول من العام الماضي حين رشق الرئيس بوش بفردتي حذائه.
وعلى الرغم من أن الزيدي يقبع الآن وراء القضبان ليقضي فترة سجنه لمدة ثلاث سنوات بسبب الحادث، غير أن ذلك لم يضع حداً لظواهر "الزيدي" العالمية – بدءاً من المظاهرات الاحتجاجية التي اجتاحت شوارع العالم تأييداً له إلى ألعاب الحاسوب ومبيعات الأحذية والأغاني التي تكتب عنه والفيلم الذي يجري تصويره وحتى عرضاً للزواج به.. مما لا يدع مجالاً للشك في أن الزيدي أصبح واحد من أكثر الشخصيات العربية تأثيراً في السنة الماضية.
وصعد إلى مرتبة أول خمس شخصيات للمرة الأولى الرئيس التنفيذي لشركة "هيدرا" سليمان الفهيم ليحتل المرتبة الرابعة بفضل برنامجه التلفزيوني "ذا هايدرا إكسكيوتفز" وشراءه نادي مانشستر ستي بكرة القدم.
وبمجيء كل من الدكتور الفهيم والزيدي في المراتب العليا من القائمة، فإن اثنين من أقوى خمس شخصيات هما تحت سن 35 عام من العمر، وهو دليل على أن الجيل الشاب بدأ بتولي زمام الأمور حين يتعلق الأمر بالقوة.
وحلّ في المركز السادس المخرج المسرحي "أمير نزار زعبي" الذي بيعت جميع نسخ مسرحيته "على قيد الحياة من فلسطين: قصص في ظل الاحتلال" في الولايات المتحدة وتلقت إطراءات كبيرة في لندن وأدنبرة.
أما الكاتب "محمد العريان" الذي حققت مؤلفاته أكبر المبيعات فيأتي بعده بمرتبة واحدة، في حين جاء في المركز الثامن الدكتور "محمد نضال الشعار" الذي كان لعمله حول مقاييس المحاسبة في التمويل الإسلامي أثر عالمي كبير على عالم الأعمال. وفي المركز العاشر يأتي "فايز المالكي"، نجم أول فلم سعودي يعرض على الشاشات في المملكة منذ 30 عام.
تضمنت قائمة العام الحالي 23 اسم جديد في مجال الإعلام والفنون، ثلاثة من مجال العلوم والطب واثنين من المجال الخيري. وحازت مقدمة التلفزيون الكويتية "فوزية الدريع" على أعلى دخول نسائي جديد لتحل في المرتبة 11.
وكالعادة، علينا أن نؤكد أن القائمة لم تبنى على أساس علمي، بل على أساس ذاتي تماماً.
وفيما يأتي دليل حول طريقة إعدادها. ونحن نتقبل بصدر واسع تأييد القراء أو معارضتهم لنا حول كل اسم وكل ترتيب، وبدورنا نقدم اعتذارنا لأي شخص شعر بالإساءة بسبب ترتيبه في القائمة (أو بسبب غيابه عنها)، فتلك هي آراء فريق التحرير استناداً إلى أحداث العام الماضي.
طريقة إعداد القائمة
خلال فترة 11 شهراً وبدايةً من أبريل/نيسان 2008، بدأ فريق التحرير بتحديث قاعدة بيانات "أقوى الشخصيات" باحثاً عن الشخصيات العربية التي صنعت لنفسها اسماً على المستويين الإقليمي والعالمي.
نحن نعرّف القوة على أنها التأثير. أي أنها ببساطة تامة قدرة الشخص على التأثير على الآخرين، فكلما كان الأثر أكبر كلما كان أكثر تأثيراً وقوةً.
أخذنا في الحسبان شخصيات عربية من جميع أنحاء المعمورة ومن جميع مجالات الحياة، الأعمال والإعلام والترفيه والقانون والأكاديمي والفنون والأزياء والموسيقى، وأضيفت أسماء تنتمي إلى أكثر من 20 قطاع مختلف.
وانسجاماً مع سياساتنا المتبعة في وضع قائمة أقوى شخصية، فنحن نستثني أي شخصيات من العائلات المالكة أو السياسيين أو علماء الدين. ويعد الأمير الوليد الاستثناء الوحيد لذلك لأننا نرى أنه حاز على قوته وجمع ثروته من خلال فطنته في عالم الأعمال.
وبحلول يناير/كانون الثاني من العام الحالي، بدأ فريقنا المكوّن من 12 شخصًا أول سلسلة من الاجتماعات لدراسة أكثر من 500 اسم موجود في قاعدة البيانات (بما في ذلك قائمة أقوى 100 شخصية للعام الماضي).
وجرى تقليص عدد الأسماء مع حلول شهر مارس/آذار ليصبح 100 اسم، واختار فريق التحرير الأسماء من المرتبة 11 وحتى المرتبة 100، أما بالنسبة للأسماء العشرة الأولى، فقد حددنا أول الأمر الأسماء التي يجب أن تكون ضمن المراتب العشرة الأولى.
ثم تم اتخاذ قرار بشأن ترتيب الأسماء عن طريق نظام التصويت – ووضع كل فرد من الفريق الأسماء العشر الأولى حسب تفضيله الشخصي. المركز الأول = 10 نقاط والمركز الثاني = 9 نقاط، انتهاءً بالمركز العاشر = نقطة واحدة.
ومن ثم تم أخذ مجموع النقاط التي حصل عليها كل اسم في المراتب العشرة الأولى، لتحل الشخصية التي حازت على أعلى نقاط في المركز الأول ومن ثم تتبعها الشخصية التي حازت على ثاني أعلى نقاط في المركز الثاني وهكذا.
والأشخاص الذين تولوا مهمة البحث في قائمة القوة هم: أنيل بويرول وأندي سامبدج وأندرو وايت وجوان بلاد وجوانا هارتلي وروب موريس وكلير فريس- لاي وسورين بيلنج وأليكس دلمار- مورجان وتوم أرنولد ونيراج جانجال وإدوارد ليمزون وأنيس ديوب وحسن عبد الرحمن وبشار باغ وأحمد شهم شريف والسيد العزوني.
أقوى 10 شخصيات عربية
1. الوليد بن طلال
2. محمد العبار
3. منتظر الزيدي
4. سليمان الفهيم
5. عصام جناحي
6. أمير نزار زعبي
7. محمد العريان
8. محمد نضال الشعار
9. سلطان بن سليم
10. فايز المالكي
لمزيد زوروا الموقع
http://www.arabianbusiness.com/arabic/ar-power100
مجلة أمريكية تدعو أوباما لتخصيص المعونة لفقراء مصر
دعت مجلة نيوزويك الأمريكية الرئيس الأمريكى باراك أوباما إلى تحويل المعونة المخصصة إلى مصر إلى الفقراء والفلاحين، معتبرة أن هذه أفضل وسيلة لتعزيز الديمقراطى وتحقيقها فى مصر والشرق الأوسط.
وقال ستيفن كوك الكاتب بالمجلة، إنه فى وقت مبكر من الشهر القادم، يخطط الرئيس الأمريكى باراك أوباما لإلقاء خطاب من القاهرة إلى العالم الإسلامى ، بحسب ما نشر موقع اليوم السابع .
وحسب ما قال الكاتب الامريكي سيستغل المصريون المناسبة من أجل الضغط عليه للإبقاء على المعونة الأمريكية. وفى وقت ما، كانت مصر التى لا تزال ثانى أكبر متلقٍ للمعونة الأمريكية بعد إسرائيل، تتعامل مع هذه المعونة على أنها من المسلمات، ولا يزال الأمر كذلك
وأضاف الكاتب، منذ عام 2005، وكجزء من مساعى إدارة الرئيس السابق جورج بوش لنشر الديمقراطية فى الشرق الأوسط، هددت واشنطن بجعل أجزاء من المعونة إلى مصر التى تقدر بـ1.7 مليار دولار مشروطة بجهود الرئيس مبارك لتحقيق الإصلاح السياسى، وقامت إدارة بوش بتحويل 450 مليون دولار من المساعدات الاقتصادية إلى برامج الحكم الرشيد. لكن التهديدات والتحويلات هذه لم تؤد إلى تحسين السياسات فى مصر كثيراً، ومن غير المرجح أن تنجح فى هذا. وإذا كانت الولايات المتحدة تريد حقاً مساعدة المصريين، فعليها أن تنفق هذه الأموال فى برامج تساهم بجدية فى تحسين الحياة اليومية لهم. وهذا الأسلوب سيساهم فى تقديم مزيد من الدعم للتغيير الديمقراطى أكثر من أى وسيلة أخرة يمكن أن تلجأ إليها واشنطن.
ورأى الكاتب أن أسلوب دعم الديمقراطية "الأخرق" لا يؤدى إلى كثير من الخير، بل يمكن أن يزيد الأمور سوءاً ليس فقط فى مصر بل فى غيرها من الدول ذات النظم السلطوية التى تقاوم الإصلاح. فما بين عامى 2004 و2007، زادت إدارة بوش من المساعدة الاقتصادية إلى مصر، والتى كرستها من أجل الديمقراطية والحكم، بمقدار 133%، من 37 مليون دولار إلى 86.5 مليون دولار وهو ما يعادل 20% من إجمالى المعونة السنوية لمصر.
لكن هذه الزيادة جاءت على حساب البرامج الخاصة بالزراعة والبيئة والرعاية الصحية وتنمية البنية التحتية والتى تعرضت لقطع التمويل تتراوح نسبته بين 44 إلى 100%، ونتيجة لذلك تم إنهاء عدد من البرامج التى كانت تحقق نجاحاً كبيراً مثل تلك التى ساعدت على تحسين حالة المزارعين فى المناطق الفقيرة. وبدلا من هذه البرامج وضعت واشنطن برامج جديدة مثل هذا الخاص بإدارة مؤتمرات الإصلاح السياسى فى المحافظات والتى لا جدوى لها، بالنظر إلى أن هؤلاء الأفراد "المحافظين" موالون لمبارك وأكثر من نصفهم ضباط شرطة أو جيش.
وقال الكاتب إن الولايات المتحدة سوف تحصل على أفضل عائد لاستثماراتها إذا حولت مساعدتها لمصر إلى مجالات تقنية مثل الزراعة والصحة والوقاية من الأمراض، خاصة أن مصر بها أعلى معدلات الإصابة بفيروس "سى" فى العالم، وهو المسبب لمرض الالتهاب الكبدى الوبائى. وأظهرت استطلاعات الرأى أن المصريين يكرهون أن يتم توجيههم من الخارج، ومن ثم فإنه لا يوجد وسيلة أفضل لكسب العقول والقلوب أكثر من المساعدة فى ضمان صحة الأطفال الذين يولدون فى المناطق الفقيرة فى القاهرة. وكما أظهرت الاستطلاعات أيضا، فإنه إذا أرادت الشعوب فى العالم العربى أى شىء من أمريكا، فإن أنماط المساعدة التقنية هى التى ستشكل فارقاً فى حياتهم اليومية. فعندما يكون الشعب المصرى أكثر صحة وأكثر ثراء وأفضل تعليماً، فمن المرجح جداً أن يبدأ فى المطالبة بحرياته الشخصية والسياسية، وهى نفس المطالب التى ربما تؤدى يوما ما إلى نشر الديمقراطية فى مصر والحفاظ عليها.
وأكد الكاتب أنه إذا تم الحد من التركيز على برامج تعزيز الديمقراطية، فإن هذا من شأنه أن يؤدى أيضا إلى تقليل التوتر بين القاهرة وواشنطن والذى زادت حدته خلال سنوات بوش. ورغم كل أوجه القصور، فإن مصر لا تزال تمثل أهمية كبيرة للولايات المتحدة فى دعم القوات الأمريكية فى العراق وأفغانستان، كما أن إدارة أوباما ستكون فى حاجة إلى مبارك عندما تطلق جهودها الدبلوماسية لإقامة السلام بين الفلسطينيين والإسرائيليين.
ويخلص كوك إلى القول: يمكن للولايات المتحدة، وينبغى عليها، أن تلعب دوراً بناءً فى تشجيع التغيير فى مصر والشرق الأوسط، ولكن بشكل أخف. والمبادرات التى تساعد الشعب بالفعل هى التى ستخدم مصالح الجميع أفضل من الوعظ فيما يتعلق تعزيز الديمقراطية والذى لن ينتج عنه الكثير على الأرجح.
source: www.arabianbusiness.com
قطر تبدأ مشروعاً قيمته 5.5 مليار دولار لتطوير قلب الدوحة
قال مسؤول الأحد إن قطر بدأت مشروعاً باستثمارات 20 مليار ريال (5.5 مليار دولار) لإعادة بناء قلب العاصمة بأكبر بلد مصدر للغاز الطبيعي المسال في العالم.
وفي تصريحات لرويترز من الدوحة، قال "عيسى المهندي" الرئيس التنفيذي لشركة دوحة لاند التابعة لمؤسسة قطر غير الهادفة للربح، والتي أنشأها أمير البلد العربي الخليجي: إن الشركة تعتزم إعادة بناء مساحة 35 هكتاراً في قلب الدوحة على خمس مراحل تنتهي في العام 2016.
وقال: إن من المتوقع أن تبلغ تكلفة المرحلة الأولى نحو 2.2 مليار ريال ستمولها مؤسسة قطر، مضيفاً أن تمويل المراحل التالية قيد البحث.
وقال "المهندي": الهدف الرئيسي هو إنشاء وقف لمؤسسة قطر يدر ربحاً.. الاعتماد الكامل على دخل النفط والغاز خطر.. نريد أيضاً بناء شيء تضرب جذوره القطرية في الماضي وفي نفس الوقت ينسجم مع الواقع والعولمة.
وتنفق قطر، التي تقبع فوق ثالث أكبر احتياطيات من الغاز في العالم مليارات الدولارات، على مشاريع عقارية ومالية لتعزيز نمو الاقتصاد والحد من الاعتماد على عائدات النفط والغاز.
وستضم المنطقة وحدات سكنية ومكاتب وفنادق ومدارس وخط ترام ومرافق أخرى.
وقال "المهندي": إن المرحلة الأولى من المشروع تشمل هدم بعض المناطق وهو ما بدأ بالفعل وتوسعة بعض البنايات الحكومية.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
