Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
He blames the "fog of war" for Israel's attack, and calls it understandable Israeli pilots could mistake the Liberty for an Egyptian ship.
A former attack-jet pilot and ex-commander of the Israeli Air Force who fought in all Israeli wars, Ivry was in the air over the Middle East on June 8, 1967, when the Liberty was nearly sunk by Israeli planes and boats.
Ivry, in an interview at the Israeli embassy, said he first heard of the Liberty attack in a briefing room between missions and recalls that "there was concern ... we thought we would be getting into a big mess with the superpowers."
The Liberty attack also cut into Israeli morale at the time when they were scoring their big victory over the Arabs. "It was a very frustrated feeling," recalled Ivry. "We felt we were doing a great job, the war was a success, and now we make this mistake."
Ivry said Israel would officially take no position if Congress or the Pentagon reopened the matter for a public investigation, but Israel would not participate.
A little more information about the attack from the crew's point of view:
An Ambushed Crew Salutes Its Captain
Leader of USS Liberty Remembered
Saturday, April 10, 1999
One by one, they approached the grave to leave a single white rose, then stood ramrod straight, gazed off from the top of the cemetery's hill and snapped a crisp salute. Most of them were portly men, graying old sailors in baseball caps and blue jackets that read "USS Liberty . . . Remember . . . 8 June 1967." Beneath another tombstone at the bottom of the hill lay the remains of shipmates who had died that day. Yesterday, the faithful survivors brought their long-dead comrades at Arlington National Cemetery the body of their captain-- a reunion of seamen eternally bound by one of the most bloody and bizarre peacetime encounters in U.S. naval history.
Captain William L. McGonagle won the Medal of Honor for valiantly commanding the USS Liberty when the American spy ship was attacked by Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats in the Mediterranean during the 1967 Arab-Israeli War.
Thirty-four U.S. sailors were killed, and 171, including McGonagle, were wounded, among the crew of 300. Thirteen of the dead -- including the remains of six in the mass grave at the bottom of the hill -- were buried at Arlington.
The Israelis later apologized. But Liberty survivors, and some former U.S. officials, believe the attack was deliberate, staged to conceal Israel's pending seizure of the Golan Heights, which occurred shortly thereafter.
McGonagle, who died of lung cancer March 3, 1999 at the age of 73 in his Palm Springs, California, home, held his silence for years, torn by loyalty to the Navy and love for his crew and his ship. But even he, in recent years, came to conclude the attack was deliberate. Yesterday, as six gray horses pulled a black caisson bearing a gold box of his cremated remains through flurries of spring blossom petals -- and as four gray Navy F-14 fighters thundered overhead in tribute -- most talk was of "Captain Bill."
"Captain McGonagle was an honorable man," Richard J. Brooks, 63, of Moyock, N.C., who was a 32-year-old master chief machinist's mate in the engine room on the day the Liberty was attacked, said as he stood near the grave yesterday.
Ernie Gallo, 54, of Dunn Loring, a baker's son from North Philadelphia who was a 22-year-old communications technician, gestured toward McGonagle's grave and then at his buddies:
James Smith, 52, of Virginia Beach, who was a damage control worker that day, said:
McGonagle, born a sharecropper's son in Wichita, was a child of the Dust Bowl, who had joined the Navy to get out of poverty and the vegetable fields of Southern California. He had risen through the ranks and had assumed command of the Liberty on April 25, 1966.
Originally a freighter built as a World War II "Victory" ship, the Liberty had been pulled from retirement and outfitted with millions of dollars of electronic eavesdropping gear, according to a former ship's officer, James M. Ennes Jr., who has written a book about the attack.
In December 1964, the Liberty was put to work as a spy ship. Three years later, with McGonagle now in command, it was hurried to the eastern Mediterranean, where the Arab-Israeli war had erupted.
Despite the deep concerns of McGonagle and his crew about their proximity to the war, the ship, armed only with a few .50-caliber machine guns, began a slow patrol 12 miles off Gaza.
The Liberty, code-named "Rockstar," had been denied the protection of a destroyer by superiors who said it was "not a reasonable subject for attack," according to Ennes.
But about 2 p.m., after being buzzed by Israeli scout planes, the ship suddenly was assailed by Israeli jets firing rockets and dropping napalm.
Liberty sailors were gunned down as they scrambled for cover. The machine gun crews were tossed into the air like dolls. Flaming napalm blanketed parts of the ship.
Sailors radioed frantically:
All the while, McGonagle, his right leg riddled with shrapnel, maintained command, hollering orders --
Yesterday, as people hugged and reminisced, many said a priceless bond was forged that afternoon aboard the ravaged old ship.
William Loren McGonagle, 73, a retired Navy
captain who received the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest award for
valor, for his conduct in commanding the ill-fated intelligence ship USS
Liberty in 1967 when Israel unleashed a deadly attack on the vessel, died
March 3, 1999 at his home in Palm Springs, California.
He had lung cancer.
In one of the most controversial events in U.S. military history, the lightly armed Liberty was attacked by Israeli planes, three torpedo boats and helicopters and was bombed with napalm, torpedoed and shelled on June 8, 1967, while sailing in international waters in the eastern Mediterranean Sea.
Of the 294 men aboard the Liberty, 34 were killed and 171, including Captain McGonagle, were wounded.
Though the captain managed to dodge four of five torpedoes, one struck, smashing a 40-foot hole in the ship's side.
A total of 821 rocket and machine-gun holes were later counted in Liberty's hull.
Captain McGonagle had shrapnel wounds in his leg.
The attack, which occurred during the Six-Day War between Israel and Arab states, was blamed by the Israelis on a mistaken identification.
They maintained they thought the Liberty was an Egyptian ship.
Israel apologized to the United States and paid more than $12 million in compensation.
The events, shrouded in tragedy and conflict, have never been resolved.
Many of those aboard the Liberty, as well as many senior U.S. officials, have taken issue with the Israeli version of events.
Some have accused both the U.S. and Israeli governments of concealing vital information about the incident.
Captain McGonagle, years after the attack, demanded that the two governments release all details of the attack.
During a 1997 reunion of Liberty survivors
in Washington, the Associated Press quoted him as saying:
James M. Ennes Jr., a deck officer aboard the Liberty during the attack, later wrote the best-selling "Assault on the Liberty" that told of the attack and some reasons he and others thought the Israelis attacked the ship.
The book and other publications told how the Liberty had flown a large, brand-new American flag, how it carried Navy markings, and how in appearance it was unlike any Egyptian ship.
The book and later press reports tell of Israeli pilots calling to their base to say that the Liberty was obviously a U.S. ship and being ordered to continue their attack.
Some have speculated that Israel, preparing to launch an attack on the Golan Heights, did not want Americans monitoring their military communications.
After the attack, Liberty crewmen were kept away from reporters, and the incident was minimized. But the ship received a Presidential Unit Citation.
Members of the crew received a Navy Cross, several Silver Stars and 205 Purple Hearts (34 posthumously). And in 1968, Captain McGonagle received the Medal of Honor.
The award citation pointed out that
The citation goes on to say that
CONGRESSIONAL MEDAL OF HONOR SOCIETY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CHARTERED BY THE CONGRESS
FROM THE DESK OF:
CAPTAIN WILLIAM L. McGONAGLE, USN (RET.)
MEMBER, CMOH SOCIETY
October 24, 1998
AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT CLINTON
Re: Jonathan POLLARD
Please DO NOT release Jonathan POLLARD, a convicted traitor of the United States, to the Government of Israel, as part of the Middle East peace process, or for any other reason.
Please DO NOT release Jonathan POLLARD to the Government of Israel where he could continue to cause irreparable security harm to the United States of America.
Please DO NOT release Jonathan POLLARD to the Government of Israel until and unless the Government of Israel acknowledges, in writing and publicly, that the Government of Israel's armed forces (air and naval) deliberately attacked USS LIBERTY (AGTR-5) (A Technical Research Ship) on June 8, 1967.
Israeli aircraft conducted surveillance of the ship within moments of our arrival on station off the coast of the Sinai on the morning of June 8, 1967.
The ship was soon identified as USS LIBERTY by Israeli Naval Headquarters, by referring to "JANE'S FIGHTING SHIPS" 1966 OR 1967 issue, which showed a photograph of the ship and listed in detail its characteristics.
In fact, an identification "tower" was placed on their Battle Plot with an "A" on the tower to identify the ship as an American ship.
The plot was not kept up to date, and was removed when the watch changed at noon that day.
The ship was overflown on several occasions before the attack commenced.
An Israeli Naval Officer went to the American Embassy Naval Attache' to obtain information that the ship was indeed USS LIBERTY, but the US Naval Attache' did not have our operating schedule, so he could neither confirm or deny that the ship was the USS LIBERTY.
When the attack began about 2:00 p.m. (local time) the ship was subjected to relentless and repeated murderous fire from the attacking aircraft (which were unmarked - a violation of international law).
The gun crews of the two (2) bow .50 cal. machine guns were killed during the initial strike on the ship.
We could not man the starboard bridge level .50 cal. machine gun, because our life boat was burning (1) deck below and the heat did not allow anyone to approach the gun.
We could not man the port bridge level .50 cal. machine gun, because two (2) 55 gallon gasoline drums were burning furiously one (1) deck below.
Again the heat of the flames prevented anyone from approaching the gun.
WE WERE DEFENSELESS against the onslaught of eight (8) or more firing passes by at least four (4) aircraft, and the strafing and launching of five (5) torpedoes by three (3) motor torpedo boats.
That a larger number of casualties was not reported is a tribute to the fighting spirit of the officers, crew, civilians, and Marines, when they had nothing to defend themselves with, during our awesome hours of peril.
ADDITION BACKGROUND:
USS LIBERTY (AGTR-5), a Technical Research
ship was sailing legally and peacefully, in international waters in the
Eastern Mediterranean Sea, twelve and one-half (12.5) nautical miles from
the nearest land off the coast of Sinai, during the Arab-Israeli SIX Day
war, when it was attacked, without warning or provocation, by four (4)
unidentified jet fighter aircraft, firing rockets, machine guns, and napalm.
The ship was then strafed and torpedoed by three (3) Israeli motor torpedo boats.
One (1) torpedo exploded in the Research spaces of the ship, where it caused the majority of the fatalities.
The Government of Israel shortly after the attack acknowledged that their armed forces conducted the assault.
The apology for the attack was accepted, but the reason for the attack as "misidentification" was never accepted by the US Government.
Thirty-four (34) officers, sailors, a civilian, and a US Marine were killed or died of their wounds as a result of the attack.
One hundred seventy-one (171) additional crew members received wounds as a result of the attack.
The Government of Israel did compensate the families of those killed, the individuals that were wounded, and eventually paid reparations for the damage done to the ship and its equipment.
The ship remained afloat, in spite of the extensive hull damage from the torpedo explosion, and after hull repairs in Malta, the ship returned to Little Creek, VA, apparently to avoid undue publicity that the ship probably would have received had it returned to its home port of Norfolk, Virginia.
No high level Executive Branch members welcomed the ship home to the USA, as was the practice in later years, such as the Battleship IOWA, and other incidences.
Except for a few high ranking naval officers, no one has felt our pain of not knowing exactly why the ship was attacked.
Over thirty-one (31) years after the attack, the crew is entitled to know the details concerning the attack by the Government of Israel and also the details of the role the US Government in the entire affair.
Why were our aircraft recalled to their carriers on two (2) occasions before they reached our location to assess the situation, and what official ordered the recall after "Hot Line" communication was established with Moscow to alert Nasser that the planes were being sent to see what the condition of USS LIBERTY was?
None of the planes ever reached our location.
For over seventeen (17) hours we received no assistance from US forces in the Mediterranean.
This is the only US Navy ship attacked by a foreign nation, involving a large loss of life and so many personnel injured that has never been accorded a full Congressional hearing.
About a year after the attack, USS LIBERTY was dismantled and scrapped.
The ship was awarded the Combat Action ribbon, and the Presidential Unit Citation, and many crew members received individual combat awards (Navy Cross, two (2) posthumously, Silver Star, Bronze Star, etc.).
I was the Commanding Officer, USS LIBERTY (AGTR-5) at the time of the attack, and was presented the Medal of Honor, by the Secretary of the Navy, at the Navy Yard on June 11, 1968, for my performance of duty during the attack and post-attack recovery period.
Please DO NOT delay release of Jonathan POLLARD, until after the elections on November 3, 1998, if it is your intention to release him, with or without due consultation with US military and security experts.
If you are going to release him in any case, please let the people know of your intentions and executive action before they vote in the upcoming elections.
Very respectfully,
William L. McGonagle
Captain, USN (Ret.)
To read more, please click on this link: Arlingtoncemetery
For those of you that would like to read more about this story, go to the U.S.S. Liberty web site.
The 'USS Liberty': Case Closed Michael B. Oren Early in the afternoon of June 8, 1967, Israeli jets and missile boats opened fire on the USS Liberty, an American surveillance ship opera-ting off the coast of Gaza. Struck by rockets, cannons and torpedoes, the vessel suffered extensive damage and over 200 casualties. Israeli forces were then engaged in the fourth day of what would soon be called the Six Day War, which would result in a devastating defeat for the combined armies of Egypt, Syria and Jordan. At first overshadowed by Israel's stunning victory, the attack on the Liberty was destined to become a recurring source of tension between Israel and the United States. Although Israel apologized for the attack and paid compensation to its victims, many American officials rejected Israel's claim that the Liberty incident had been an honest mistake. Rather, they blamed Israel for what was at best inexcusable negligence, or at worst the premeditated murder of American servicemen. Such charges persisted in the face of successive inquiries by a broad range of American agencies and Congressional committees, as well as a full Israeli court of inquiry, all of which found no proof whatsoever that Israel knowingly attacked an American ship. On the contrary, the evidence produced by these investigations lent further support to Israel's claim that its decision to attack was, given the circumstances, a reasonable error. These findings notwithstanding, the case of the assault on the Liberty has never been closed. If anything, the accusations leveled against Israel have grown sharper with time. In recent years, an impressive number of former American officials have gone on record insisting that the Israeli action was, in fact, deliberate. These include Adm. Thomas H. Moorer, who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) at the time of the Liberty incident, who has labeled the episode a "cover-up," adding that he "cannot accept the claim by the Israelis that this was a case of mistaken identity."1 Paul C. Warnke, then Under Secretary of the Navy, has written that I found it hard to believe that it was, in fact, an honest mistake on the part of the Israeli air force units.... I suspect that in the heat of battle they figured that the presence of this American ship was inimical to their interests....2 Similarly, former Secretary of State Dean Rusk has called the attack "outrageous," adding in a 1990 radio interview that "the Liberty was flying an American flag. It was not all that difficult to identify, and my judgment was that somewhere along the line some fairly senior Israeli official gave the go- ahead for these attacks...."3 David G. Nes, who at the time served as deputy head of the American mission in Cairo, puts it more bluntly: "I don't think that there's any doubt that it was deliberate.... [It is] one of the great cover-ups of our military history."4 And George Ball, then Under Secretary of State, has called the American government's response to the assault an "elaborate charade.... American leaders did not have the courage to punish Israel for the blatant murder of its citizens."5 Support for these charges can be found in a wide range of publications on the Liberty incident. Assault on the Liberty, a 1979 memoir by former Liberty officer Jim Ennes, Jr., describes the attack as intentional and malicious, and argues that the truth has been obscured by a massive cover-up conducted by Israel and its advocates abroad. This allegation has been repeated in Richard Deacon's The Israeli Secret Service (1977), in John Ranelagh's The Agency: The Rise and Decline of the CIA (1986), and in Andrew and Leslie Cockburn's Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israel Covert Relationship (1991). The cover-up theory is also central to Stephen Green's Taking Sides: America's Secret Relations with a Militant Israel (1984), one of the best-selling of all anti-Israel polemics. Nor is the charge of Israeli premeditation confined to books aimed at a popular audience. It also features prominently in academic works such as The USS Liberty: Dissenting History vs. Official History by historian John E. Borne (1993), as well as Donald Neff's Warriors for Jerusalem: The Six Days that Changed the Middle East (1984), considered by many scholars a standard text on the Six Day War.6 Indeed, so powerful is the trend towards acceptance of Israeli guilt for having planned the attack that a 1995 issue of the International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence was able to carry the assertion of Reverdy S. Fishel that "all serious scholarship on the subject accepts Israel's assault as having been perpetrated quite deliberately...."7 The claim that Israel's attack on the Liberty was premeditated has also appeared persistently in the press. In 1992, nationally syndicated columnists Roland Evans and Robert Novak dedicated a column, "Twenty-Five Years of Cover-Up,"8 to this charge. Similar accusations have been aired on television programs such as ABC's 20/20 and Geraldo Rivera's Now It Can Be Told.9 The claim is particularly widespread on the Internet, where a search for the "USS Liberty" yields dozens of sites, from those of Arab propagandists (Birzeit.edu, Salam.org, Palestine Forever) and anti-Semitic hate mongers (The Tangled Web, Jew Watch) to the award-winning USS Liberty Homepage, posted by Ennes and other veterans. But while the tenor of these pages may differ - the veterans abjure any anti-Semitism, stressing that several of their crewmates were Jewish - their conclusions are indistinguishable: Israel wantonly attacked the Liberty with the intention of killing every man on board, and then thwarted attempts to investigate the crime.10 Refuting this accusation was difficult if not impossible in the past, when the official records on the Liberty were designated top-secret and closed to the general public. With the recent declassification of these documents in the United States and Israel, however, researchers have gained access to a wealth of primary sources - Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and U.S. military records, Israeli diplomatic correspondence, and memoranda from both the State Department and the White House. With the aid of these materials, the attack on the Liberty can now be reconstructed virtually minute-by-minute and with remarkable detail. The picture that emerges is not one of crime at all, nor even of criminal negligence, but of a string of failed communications, human errors, unfortunate coincidences and equipment failures on both the American and Israeli sides - the kind of tragic, senseless mistake that is all too common in the thick of war. The USS Liberty was cruising from Norfolk, Virginia to Abidjan on the Ivory Coast when, in mid-May 1967, crisis erupted in the Middle East. Without warning, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser sent thousands of troops into the Sinai desert, ousted the UN peacekeeping forces stationed there and then closed the Straits of Tiran - the critical waterway leading to Israel's southern port of Eilat - to Israeli shipping. In weighing its response, the Israeli government consulted with President Lyndon Johnson, who, though preoccupied with the Vietnam War, was sympathetic to Israel's plight. The President proposed to challenge the Tiran blockade with an international maritime convoy and on May 24, in preparation for this plan, he ordered the U.S. Sixth Fleet to advance into the eastern Mediterranean. Aware of the danger of becoming embroiled in an Arab-Israeli war, however, Washington cautioned the fleet to remain, until further notice, "outside an arc whose radius is 240 miles from Port Said," on the Egyptian coast.11 At this time, the Liberty was formally under the command of the Sixth Fleet, although in practice its orders came directly from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, operating under the aegis of the National Security Agency (NSA). Code-named "Rockstar," the 455-foot "Auxiliary General Technical Research Ship (agtr)," as it was euphemistically called, was in fact a signals intelligence vessel (sigint) equipped with cutting-edge listening and decoding devices. Among its 294-man crew were several dozen members of the Naval Security Group, who worked below the starboard deck in an area strictly off-limits even to the Liberty's skipper, Cmdr. William L. McGonagle. The ship sported large antennas and radar discs, but apart from four .50-caliber machine-gun mounts, it had no visible armaments. The markings "GTR-5" were freshly painted on its bow, and from its mast flew a standard, navy-issue American flag. As the Sixth Fleet steamed toward the eastern Mediterranean, the Liberty headed for Rota, Spain. There, in addition to supplies, it took on three Marine Corps Arabic translators, augmenting the three NSA Russian-language experts already on board. Then, on May 30, McGonagle received new instructions to sail "at best speed" to a point just half a mile outside Egyptian and Israeli territorial waters, which extended twelve and six nautical miles, respectively, from the coast. The order, originating with the JCS, superseded a request by the U.S. Naval Command in Europe (cinceur) to hold the Liberty in Rota "until directed otherwise." Neither cinceur nor McGonagle was aware of the Liberty's objective, later described by the Defense Department as "assuring communications between U.S. government posts... and assisting in... the evacuation of American citizens." Though the exact nature of its mission remains classified, the Liberty was most likely sent to track the movements of Egyptian troops and their Soviet advisors in Sinai - hence the need for Arabic and Russian translators.12 Johnson's idea of a convoy aimed at breaking the blockade came to nothing, and Nasser's troops remained mobilized in the Sinai. Syrian and Jordanian forces were also poised to attack. On the morning of June 5, with diplomatic options exhausted, the Israeli government went to war.13 The IDF launched lightning air and ground strikes against Egypt, quickly gaining the initiative, and repulsed attacks from Syria and Jordan. Yet the Israelis remained highly concerned about threats to their coastline, along which most of the country's major industrial and population centers were situated. The Egyptian navy outnumbered Israel's by more than five to one in warships and, in a crisis, could call on the support of some seventy Soviet vessels in the vicinity.14 The failure of the Israeli navy's attacks on Egyptian and Syrian ports early in the war did little to assuage Israel's fears. Consequently, the IDF Chief of Staff, Gen. Yitzhak Rabin, informed the U.S. Naval Attaché in Tel Aviv, Cmdr. Ernest Carl Castle, that Israel would defend its coast with every means at its disposal. Unidentified vessels would be sunk, Rabin advised; the United States should either acknowledge its ships in the area or remove them.15 Nonetheless, the Americans provided Israel with no information on the Liberty. The United States had also rejected Israel's request for a formal naval liaison. On May 31, Avraham Harman, Israel's ambassador to Washington, had warned Under Secretary of State Eugene V. Rostow that "if war breaks out, we would have no telephone number to call, no code for plane recognition, and no way to get in touch with the U.S. Sixth Fleet."16 Before dawn on June 8, three days into the war, the Liberty finally reached its destination, barely within international waters north of the Sinai coast. Plying at a speed of five knots between Port Said and Gaza, the Liberty entered a lane rarely used by commercial freighters, which Egypt had declared closed to neutral vessels. Anxious about his proximity to the fighting, McGonagle asked the Sixth Fleet commander, Vice-Adm. William Martin, for permission to pull back from the shore, or else to be provided with a destroyer escort. Martin rejected these requests, noting that the Liberty "is a clearly marked United States ship in international waters and not a reasonable subject for attack by any nation." Unbeknownst to both Martin and McGonagle, however, the JCS had repeatedly cabled the Liberty the previous night with instructions to withdraw to a distance of one hundred miles from the Egyptian and Israeli coasts. The transmission was delayed, however, by the navy's overloaded, overly complex communication system, which routed messages as far east as the Philippines before relaying them to their destinations. The JCS' orders would not be received by the Liberty until the following day, June 9, by which time they would no longer be relevant.17 At 5:55 a.m. on June 8, Cmdr. Uri Meretz, a naval observer aboard an Israel Air Force (IAF) reconnaissance plane, noted what he believed to be an American supply vessel, designated GTR-5, seventy miles west of the Gaza coast. At Israeli naval headquarters in Haifa, staff officers fixed the location of the ship with a red marker, indicating "unidentified," on their control board. Research in Jane's Fighting Ships, however, established the vessel's identity as "the electromagnetic audio-surveillance ship of the United States, the Liberty." The marker was changed to green, for "neutral." Another sighting of the ship - "gray, bulky, with its bridge amidships" - was made by an Israeli fighter aircraft at 9:00 a.m., twenty miles north of El-Arish, on the Sinai coast, which had fallen to Israeli forces the day before.18 Neither of these reports made mention of the 5-by-8-foot American flag which, according to the ship's crewmen, was flying from the Liberty's starboard halyard. The crew would also testify later that six IAF aircraft subsequently flew over the ship, giving them ample opportunity to identify its nationality. Israel Air Force reports, however, make no further mention of the Liberty.19 There may indeed have been additional Israeli overflights, but the IAF pilots were not looking for the Liberty. Their target was Egyptian submarines, which had been spotted off the coast. At 11:00 a.m., while the hunt for Egyptian submarines was on, the officer on duty at Israel's naval headquarters, Capt. Avraham Lunz, concluded his shift. In accordance with procedures, he removed the Liberty's green marker on the grounds that it was already five hours old and no longer accurate.20 Then, at 11:24, a terrific explosion rocked the shores of El-Arish. The blast was clearly heard by the men on the Liberty's bridge, who had been navigating according to the town's tallest minaret, and who also noted a thick pall of smoke wafting toward them. In El-Arish itself, Israeli forces were convinced they were being bombarded from the sea, and the IDF Southern Command reported sighting two unidentified vessels close offshore. Though the explosion probably resulted from an ammunition dump fire, that fact was unknown at the time, and both Egyptian and Israeli sources had reported shelling of the area by Egyptian warships the previous day. There was therefore good reason to conclude that the Egyptian navy had trained its guns on Sinai.21 Minutes after the explosion, the Liberty reached the eastern limit of its patrol and turned 238 degrees back in the direction of Port Said. Meanwhile, reports of a naval bombardment on El-Arish continued to reach IDF General Staff Headquarters in Tel Aviv. Rabin took them seriously, concerned that the shelling was a prelude to an amphibious landing that could outflank advancing Israeli troops. He reiterated the standing order to sink any unidentified ships in the war area, but also advised caution: Soviet vessels were reportedly operating nearby. Since no fighter planes were available, the navy was asked to intercede, with the assumption that air cover would be provided later. More than half an hour passed without any response from naval headquarters in Haifa. The General Staff finally issued a rebuke: "The coast is being shelled and you - the navy - have done nothing."22 Capt. Izzy Rahav, who had replaced Lunz in the operations room, needed no more prodding. He dispatched three torpedo boats of the 914th squadron, code-named "Pagoda," to find the enemy vessel responsible for the bombardment and destroy it. The time was 12:05 p.m. At 1:41 p.m., Ensign Aharon Yifrah, combat information officer aboard the flagship of these torpedo boats, T-204, informed its captain, Cmdr. Moshe Oren,23 that an unidentified ship had been sighted northeast of El-Arish at a range of 22 miles. The ship was sailing toward Egypt at a speed, Yifrah estimated, of 30 knots. Yifrah's assessment, twice recalculated and confirmed by him, was pivotal. It meant that the ship could not be the Liberty, whose maximum speed was 18 knots. Moreover, the Israelis had standing orders to fire on any unknown vessel in the area sailing at over 20 knots, a speed which, at that time, could only be attained by fighting ships. This information, when added to the ship's direction, indicated that the target was an enemy destroyer fleeing toward port after having shelled El-Arish. The torpedo boats gave chase, but even at their maximum speed of 36 knots, they did not expect to overtake their target before it reached Egypt. Rahav therefore alerted the air force, and two Mirage III fighters were diverted from the Suez Canal, northeast to the sea. When they arrived, the vessel they saw was "gray with two guns in the forecastle, a mast and funnel." Making two passes at 3,000 feet, formation commander Capt. Spector (IDF records do not provide pilots' first names) reckoned that the ship was a "Z" or Hunt-class destroyer without the deck markings (a white cross on a red background) of the Israeli navy. Spector then spoke with air force commander Gen. Motti Hod, who asked him repeatedly whether he could see a flag. The answer was "Negative." Nor were there any distinguishing marks other than some "black letters" painted on the hull. IAF Intelligence Chief Col. Yeshayahu Bareket also claimed to have contacted American Naval Attaché Castle at this point in an attempt to ascertain whether the suspect ship was the Liberty, but the latter professed no knowledge of the Liberty's schedule - a claim later denied by Castle but, strangely, confirmed by McGonagle.24 One fact is clear, however: After two low sweeps by the lead plane, at 1:58 p.m., the Mirages were cleared to attack. The first salvos caught the Liberty's crew in "stand-down" mode; several officers were sunning themselves on the deck, unaware of the Israeli jets bearing down on them. Before they could take shelter, rockets and 30-mm cannon shells stitched the ship from bow to stern, severing the antennas and setting oil drums on fire. Nine men were killed in the initial assault, and several times that number wounded, among them McGonagle. Radio operators on board found most of their frequencies inoperable and barely managed to send an SOS to the Sixth Fleet. The Mirages made three strafing runs and were then joined by two additional aircraft, Israeli Super-Mysteres returning from the Mitla Pass with a payload of napalm. After fourteen minutes of action, the pilots reported having made good hits - over eight hundred holes would later be counted in the hull. The entire superstructure of the ship, from the main deck to the bridge, was aflame. Throughout these sorties, no one aboard the Liberty suspected that the planes were Israeli. Indeed, rumors spread that the attackers were Egyptian MiGs. After the first strike, the visibility that had enabled crewmen to identify IAF reconnaissance craft earlier in the day was lost to the smoke of battle. One of the Israeli pilots, curious as to why the vessel had not returned fire, made a final pass at ninety feet. "I see no flag," he told headquarters. "But there are markings on the hull - Charlie-Tango-Romeo-five."25 While Egyptian naval ships were known to disguise their identities with Western markings, they usually displayed Arabic letters and numbers only. The fact that the ship had Western markings led Rabin to fear that it was Soviet, and he immediately called off the jets. Two IAF Hornet helicopters were sent to look for survivors - Spector had reported seeing men overboard - while the torpedo boat squadron was ordered to hold its fire pending further attempts at identification. Though that order was recorded in the torpedo boat's log, Oren claimed he never received it.26 It was now 2:20 in the afternoon; twenty-four minutes would pass before the squadron made contact with the Liberty. During that interval, the ship's original flag, having been shredded during the attack, was replaced by a larger (7-by-13-foot) holiday ensign. As the crew labored to tend to the wounded, extinguish the fire, and burn classified papers, contact was finally made with the Sixth Fleet. "Help is on the way," replied the carrier America, which quickly unleashed eight of its most readily available warplanes - F-104s armed with nuclear weapons. Before they reached their objective, however, the jets were recalled by Vice-Adm. Martin. If Rabin feared that the ship was Russian, Martin suspected that its attackers were Russian, and without authorization from the highest level, he did not want to risk starting a nuclear war.27 Meanwhile, the Israeli torpedo boats came within range. The Liberty was shrouded in smoke, but even so, Oren could see that it could not be the destroyer that had supposedly shelled El-Arish. Rather, he believed, it was a slower-moving vessel that had either serviced that destroyer or evacuated enemy soldiers from the beach. At 6,000 meters, Oren's T-204 flagship paused and signaled "AA" - "identify yourself." Due to damaged equipment, McGonagle could only reply in kind, AA, with a hand-held Aldis lamp.28 Oren remembered receiving a similar response from the Egyptian destroyer Ibrahim al-Awwal, captured by the Israeli navy in the 1956 war, and was sure that he now faced an enemy ship. Consulting his naval intelligence manual, he concluded that the vessel in front of him - its deck line, midship bridge and smokestack - resembled the Egyptian freighter El-Quseir. The officers of the other two boats reached the same conclusion independently, and followed Oren into battle formation.29 Any lingering doubts were soon dispelled as the Israeli boats came under sudden fire from the Liberty. Unaware of McGonagle's order not to shoot at the approaching boats, a sailor had opened up with one of the Brownings. Another machine gun also fired, apparently on its own, triggered by exploding ammunition. Oren repeatedly requested permission from naval headquarters to return fire. Rahav finally approved. 30 Of the five torpedoes fired at the Liberty only one found its mark, a direct hit on the starboard side, killing twenty-five, almost all of them from the intelligence section. The Israeli craft closed in, their cannons and machine guns raking the Liberty's hull and, according to the crew's testimony, its life rafts as well. One of those rafts, picked up by T-203, was found to bear U.S. Navy markings - the first indication that Oren had that the ship might be American. His suspicions mounted when while circling the badly listing ship, Oren confronted the designation GTR-5. But still no flag was spotted, and it would take another half an hour, until 3:30 p.m., to establish the vessel's identity.31 "I must admit I had mixed feelings about the news - profound regret at having attacked our friends and a tremendous sense of relief [that the boat was not Soviet]," Rabin later recalled.32 News of the ship's American nationality had arrived during an emergency meeting of the General Staff to discuss possible Soviet reprisals. An apology was immediately sent to Castle, and none too soon, as eight conventionally armed warplanes had been launched from the USS Saratoga and sanctioned to "use whatever force required to defend the Liberty." As the American jets returned to their carrier, the two Israeli Hornets reached the Liberty and offered assistance. Oren, shouting through a bullhorn, also tried to communicate with the ship. But McGonagle refused to respond. Realizing, finally, that his assailants had been Israeli, he flagged the torpedo boats away and gestured provocatively at the Hornets. Even Castle himself, arriving just before dusk in another Israeli chopper, was denied permission to land. By 5:05 p.m., the Israelis had broken off contact, and the Liberty, navigating virtually without systems, with 34 dead and 171 wounded aboard, staggered out to sea. 33 The center of the crisis then shifted from the Mediterranean to Washington. It was only at 9:50 a.m. eastern time - nearly two hours after the first shots were fired34 - that the White House received word from the JCS that the Liberty, "located 60-100 miles north of Egypt," had been torpedoed by an unknown vessel. Johnson assumed that the Soviets were involved. To forestall further escalation, he hotlined the Kremlin with news of the attack and of the dispatch of jets from the Saratoga. But then the Israelis informed the Americans of the "mistaken action," and Johnson, like Rabin before him, breathed a sigh of relief.35 While "strong dismay" was conveyed to Ambassador Harman, so too were the Administration's thanks for the speed of Israel's notification. Apologies soon came in from Prime Minister Levi Eshkol ("Please accept my profound condolences and convey my sympathy to all the bereaved families") and Foreign Minister Abba Eban ("I am deeply mortified and grieved by the tragic accident involving the lives and safety of Americans"), as well as from the Israeli chargé d'affaires in Washington, Efraim Evron, a personal friend of Johnson's ("I grieve with you over the lives that were lost, and share in the sorrow of the parents, wives and children of the men who died in this cruel twist of fate"). Within forty-eight hours, the Israeli government offered to compensate the victims and their families.36 At first, Israeli expressions of regret and offers of restitution seemed to satisfy the Administration, whose initial reaction was to downplay the incident. Of particular concern was the danger that the Liberty's presence in the area might reinforce Nasser's charge that the Sixth Fleet had aided Israel in the war - what Washington called "The Big Lie."37 These reservations soon faded, however, as senior officials began to ask pointed questions: Why did the Israelis attack a neutral ship on the high seas, without the slightest provocation? How had they failed to see the Liberty's flag or the freshly painted markings on its hull? How could they confuse the Liberty with the El-Quseir, a far slower, smaller boat, with no distinctive antennas? And finally, how could a ship sailing at 5 knots, whose maximum speed was 18, be gauged at 30? "Beyond comprehension," fumed Secretary of State Dean Rusk. "We cannot accept such a situation." Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board chief Clark Clifford, known for his pro-Israeli views, reported to Johnson that the attack was "inexcusable... a flagrant act of gross negligence for which the Israeli government should be held completely responsible." While no official could explain what motivation Israel might have had for assaulting an American vessel, neither did the facts seem to square. Either the Israelis had exhibited rank incompetence - in the midst of a victory that was nothing short of brilliant - or they had struck the Liberty on purpose. Indeed, many in the Administration had already concluded that the attack was intentional and that Israel's explanations were entirely disingenuous. Increasingly, the charge of negligence gave way to one of cold-blooded murder.38 The Israelis moved to dispel these accusations with two preliminary reports on the incident. These admitted the IDF's culpability in erroneously reporting a naval barrage on El-Arish, miscalculating the Liberty's speed, and confusing the ship with the El-Quseir. Yet both studies insisted that the attack was an "innocent mistake," with no malice or gross negligence involved.39 "This makes no goddamned sense at all," remarked Under Secretary of State Eugene Rostow when presented with these findings on June 10. The attack, wrote Rusk, was "quite literally incomprehensible... an act of military recklessness reflecting wanton disregard for human life." Further umbrage was taken at the Israeli reports' suggestion that the Liberty had no business being where it was, had failed to inform Israel of its presence, and had failed to use all means (semaphores, flares, flags) to identify itself to the torpedo boats. The United States now demanded that Israel not only pay compensation but admit wrongdoing and court-martial those responsible for the attack "in accordance with international law."40 Israel rebuffed these demands, but at the same time it launched a third and even more comprehensive investigation. Headed by military jurist Col. Yeshayahu Yerushalmi, the commission delved into the question of the control-board markers, the pilots' testimonies and the orders given to the torpedo boats. Yet, while critical of the same intelligence failures noted in the earlier reports, as well as the awkward command relationship between the air force and the navy, Yerushalmi's findings were identical to those of his predecessors. "For all my regret that our forces were involved in an incident with a vessel belonging to a friendly state," he wrote, "I have not discovered any deviation from the standard of reasonable conduct which would justify a court- martial."41 The top-secret Yerushalmi report was conveyed to the Americans, who rejected it with the same mix of incredulity and indignation that had marked their responses to the previous reports. But the United States was holding its own investigations into the affair, beginning with the Navy Court of Inquiry held in Malta shortly after the attack. The hearings revealed basic contradictions in the testimonies of McGonagle and other officers regarding the length and sequence of the attack, and raised the possibility that, due to light winds, the flag might well not have been visible to Israeli pilots. Furthermore, Rear-Adm. Isaac C. Kidd, Jr., the presiding officer, found no evidence that the attack was in any way intentional, calling it "a case of mistaken identity." Subsequent closed-door inquiries were conducted by the CIA, the NSA, the JCS, as well as by both houses of Congress. All reached the same conclusion: That the Israeli attack upon the USS Liberty had been the result of error, and nothing more. Yet suspicions of Israel's duplicity in the incident, even among high officials, lingered. As Rusk asserted many years later in his memoirs, "I didn't believe them then, and I don't believe them to this day."42 The American and Israeli investigative reports go a long way toward disproving the charge that the Israelis maliciously opened fire on a ship they knew to be American. In the three decades prior to their declassification, however, numerous theories were posited to explain why Israel, engaged in war and internationally isolated, would willingly attack its only superpower ally. Now, with the aid of the recently released documents, it is possible to determine whether any of these hypotheses had a basis in fact. Among the more far-fetched theories that have been suggested is the possibility that the Liberty was attacked because it had learned of the Israeli execution of Egyptian POWs; or that it had picked up Israeli attempts to draw Jordan into the war so that Jerusalem might be brought under Israeli control.43 But no document, American or Israeli, contains any reference to prisoner executions; neither are they mentioned in any Arabic source that has come to light to date.44 By the same token, the Jordanian attack on Israel on June 5 and the fall of Jerusalem to Israeli forces on June 7 took place well before the Liberty's arrival off the Gaza coast, and none of the documents now available in any way link the Liberty incident on June 8 to these events. Far more serious has been the claim that the Israelis attacked the Liberty because it had been eavesdropping on Israel's plans for capturing the Golan Heights. Thus Adm. Thomas Moorer, writing in the July-August 1997 issue of The Link magazine, has speculated that Israel was preparing to seize the Golan Heights from Syria despite President Johnson's known opposition to such a move.... And I believe [Israeli Defense Minister] Moshe Dayan concluded that he could prevent Washington from becoming aware of what Israel was up to by destroying the primary source of acquiring that information - the USS Liberty.45 Historian Donald Neff takes the supposition a step further, presenting it as fact: If the ship could listen in on Israeli military communications, as it could, then the United States could discover Israel's plans to attack Syria. Foreknowledge of the attack might bring an ultimatum from the United States, an ultimatum that could not be ignored because Israel desperately still needed Washington's support both in the United Nations and to fend off any threats from the Soviet Union. Without the United States, the Soviet Union might directly intervene if Israel took on its last, comparatively unscathed, client, Syria. Indeed, Neff goes so far as to posit that Israel actually delayed its attack on Syria until after the Liberty was neutralized.46 The theory that the attack on the Liberty was motivated by a desire to conceal the impending Israeli attack on the Golan Heights is not, then, confined to the extremist fringe, but has made headway in important political and academic circles. In the past, refuting it was dependent largely on appeals to common sense, such as that made by Ernest Castle, the former U.S. naval attaché, in an interview with British television: Let us presume the Israeli high command was... fearful that the United States would learn of what was an evident Israeli plan to take the Golan, or any other plan on the part of the Israelis. Would they say, "my golly, that will irritate the United States, our great friend. We'd better not... let that happen - so let's sink their ship instead"?47 Common sense would also dictate that the Israelis, in the process of handily defeating three Arab armies, could have easily sunk a single, lightly armed ship if they had wanted to. In such a case, they would not have attacked the Liberty in broad daylight with clearly marked boats and planes - submarines could have done the job - nor would they have ultimately halted their fire and offered the ship assistance. But it is no longer necessary to decide the argument on the basis of common sense alone. Like the other claims for Israel's alleged motive in attacking the Liberty, the one linking the assault to the Golan Heights campaign cannot withstand the scrutiny of the newly declassified documents. These confirm that Israel made no attempt to hide its preparations for an offensive against Syria, and that the United States government, relying on regular diplomatic channels, remained fully apprised of them. Thus, on June 8, the American consulate in Jerusalem reported that Israel was retaliating for Syria's bombardment of Israeli villages "in an apparent prelude to large-scale attack in effort to seize Heights overlooking border kibbutzim." That same day, U.S. Ambassador Walworth Barbour in Tel Aviv reported that "I would not, repeat not, be surprised if the reported Israeli attack [on the Golan] does take place or has already done so," and IDF Intelligence Chief Aharon Yariv told Harry McPherson, a senior White House aide who was visiting Israel at the time, that "there still remained the Syria problem and perhaps it would be necessary to give Syria a blow."48 Similarly, the United States National Archives contain no evidence to suggest that information obtained by the Liberty augmented Washington's already detailed picture of events on the Golan front and of Israel's intentions there. The Israeli records, for their part, reveal no fear whatsoever of American opposition to punishing Syria, but only of possible Soviet military intervention. (It was this fear that led Israel to delay its decision to capture the Golan until the morning of June 9.) Nor do they suggest that there was any danger of an American ultimatum. On the contrary, from his conversations with presidential advisor McGeorge Bundy and other administration officials, Foreign Minister Abba Eban understood that "official Washington would not be too aggrieved if Syria suffered some painful effects from the war that it had started...."49 Once again, there is no indication in the archives that the Israelis were troubled by the Liberty, much less considered it worthy of attack. Indeed, there is no evidence that anyone in the Israeli government, or the IDF Chief of Staff, knew of the ship's presence at all.50 The USS Liberty was decommissioned in 1968 and later sold for scrap. That same year, William McGonagle received the Congressional Medal of Honor for gallantry displayed during the attack, and Israel paid over $6 million in restitution to the families of those wounded and killed. An additional $6 million in damages was paid under a 1980 agreement in which Israel and the United States consented "not to address the issue or motive or reopen the case for any reason."51 But the case remained open nonetheless. While the controversy surrounding similar incidents would subside - the Iraqi missile attack on the USS Stark in 1987 and the downing of an Iranian jetliner by the USS Vincennes in 1988 come to mind - the bitterness over the Liberty incident endured. The release of hitherto classified papers on the incident, however, now enables us to dispel spurious theories about the incident, and to conclude that Israel's assault upon the USS Liberty was a tragic error, and nothing more. In light of the new documents, it is now possible to reconstruct the chain of mishaps on the part of both sides that led to the unintended Israeli attack. The incident began with the ill-conceived decision to send the Liberty to the crisis-torn Middle East, a mere half-mile beyond Egyptian waters, in an area not used by commercial shipping and which Nasser had declared off-limits to neutral vessels. The Americans did not accede to Chief of Staff Rabin's request for the identification of all U.S. ships in the area or Ambassador Harman's request for a strategic liaison between Israel and the Sixth Fleet. The Liberty's dispatchers, meanwhile, overrode naval orders to keep the ship in Spain, and then failed to inform the U.S. attaché in Tel Aviv of its presence near the war zone. These mistakes were compounded by the navy's communications system, which delayed by as much as two days orders to the Liberty to withdraw 100 miles from the coast.52 Even after it was hit, the Americans had difficulty locating the Liberty, the JCS placing it at "60-100 miles north of Egypt." If neither Castle, nor cinceur, nor even the President of the United States could know where the Liberty was, it seems unreasonable to expect that the Israelis, in the thick of battle, should have been able to locate it. The Israelis, too, committed their own share of fateful errors, as the Yerushalmi report points out: The erroneous reports of bombardment at El-Arish, the failure to replace the Liberty's marker on the board after it had been cleared, the over-eagerness of naval commanders, and worst of all, Ensign Yifrah's miscalculation of the ship's speed. Though Yerushalmi's report suggested reasons for these errors - inflexible naval procedures, the inaccuracy of speed-measuring devices - one is still left with a sense of poor organization and sloppy execution. Moreover, there were breakdowns in communications between the Israeli navy and air force stemming from inadequate command structure and the immense pressures of a multi-front war. To these factors must be added Israel's general sensitivity about its coastal defenses, and the exhaustion of its pilots after four days of uninterrupted combat. Yet none of these amount to the kind of gross negligence of which the Israelis have been accused. And then there were "bad breaks" that are unfortunately commonplace in war: The U.S. planes that were called back because of their nuclear payload (their mere presence might have warded off the torpedo boats); the Liberty's inability to signal the approaching Israeli boats, and the machine gunner who fired on them; and the smoke that hid the identities of both the attackers and the attacked. All of these elements combined to create a tragic "friendly fire" incident of the kind that claimed the lives of at least fifty Israeli soldiers in the Six Day War, and caused 5,373 American casualties in Vietnam in 1967 alone.53 Obviously, these findings can do little to lessen the suffering of those American servicemen who were wounded in the incident, nor can they be expected to offer comfort to the families of the dead. But they should at least permit us to bring to a close what has for a generation remained one of the most painful chapters in the history of America's relationship with the State of Israel. Michael B. Oren is a Senior Fellow at The Shalem Center in Jerusalem, and a Contributing Editor of Azure. Notes The author wishes to thank Mihal Tzur, Director of the Israel Defense Forces Archive, and Judge A. Jay Cristol for their assistance in researching this article. 1. Thomas H. Moorer's foreword to James M. Ennes, Jr., Assault on the Liberty: The True Story of the Israeli Attack on an American Intelligence Ship (New York: Ivy, 1979), p. ix. 2. Cited in USS Liberty Internet site (www.halcyon.com/jim/ussliberty/liberty.htm). 3. Wisconsin Public Radio station wlfm interview of Dean Rusk by Tom Clark, February 1999, cited in USS Liberty Internet site. 4. Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library (hereafter "LBJ"), Oral History of David G. Nes, p. 31. 5. Cited in USS Liberty Internet site. 6. Donald Neff, Warriors for Jerusalem: The Six Days that Changed the Middle East (Brattleboro, Vt.: Amana Books, 1984). 7. Reverdy S. Fishel, "The Attack on the Liberty: An 'Accident'?" in International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence 8, no. 3, 1995. 8. June 1992. See also Evans and Novak's "Remembering the Liberty," in The Washington Post, November 6, 1991; "The Liberty Quotes," in The Washington Post, November 11, 1991; Mark Genrich, editorial page column, The Phoenix Gazette, June 5, 1996. 9. ABC's 20/20, May 21, 1987, and NBC's The Story Behind the Story, January 27, 1992, cited in A. Jay Cristol, The Liberty Incident, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Miami, 1997, pp. 145-148. Cristol, a federal judge in Miami, is the leading expert on the Liberty incident, having devoted years to its study. 10. Anyone in doubt about the nature of the USS Liberty Internet site can follow its links to any number of rabidly anti-Israel sites, among them Palestinian Geocities and Paul Findley's Council for the National Interest. 11. LBJ, National Security File, History of the Middle East Crisis, Box 18, Joint Chiefs of Staff: Military Actions - Straits of Tiran, May 24, 1967. 12. LBJ, Box 1-10, The USS Liberty: Department of Defense Press Release, June 8, 1967; Box 19: CINCUSNAVEUR Order, May 30, 1967; Box 18, Joint Chiefs of Staff: Military Actions - Straits of Tiran, May 25, 1967; Box 104/107, The National Military Command Center: Attack on the USS Liberty, June 9, 1967. 13. For a discussion of Israel's considerations in going to war, see Michael B. Oren, "Did Israel Want the Six Day War?" Azure 7, Spring 1999, pp. 47-86. 14. United States National Archives, Middle East Crisis Files, 1967, Record Group 59 (hereafter "USNA"), USUN, Box 6: CINSTRIKE to AIG, June 2, 1967. Ben-Gurion Archive, Diary, Entry for May 26, 1967. See also Cristol, Liberty Incident, pp. 25-26. 15. British Public Record Office, FCO17/498, Israel - Political Affairs: Tel Aviv to Foreign Office, June 5, 1967. See also Yitzhak Rabin, The Rabin Memoirs (Berkeley: University of California, 1996), pp. 100, 110; Hirsh Goodman and Ze'ev Schiff, "The Attack on the Liberty," The Atlantic Monthly, September 1984, p. 81. 16. LBJ, National Security File, History of the Middle East Crisis, Box 20: United States Policy and Diplomacy in the Middle East Crisis, May 15-June 10, 1967, pp. 87-88. 17. LBJ, National Security File, History of the Middle East Crisis, Box 19: JCS to USCINCEUR, June 8, 1967; Box 104/107, The National Military Command Center: Attack on the USS Liberty, June 9, 1967; Department of Defense: USS Liberty Incident, June 15, 1967. usna, Chairman Wheeler Files, Box 27: The Court of Inquiry Findings, June 22, 1967. 18. Israel Defense Forces Archive, 2104/92/47: "Attack on the Liberty," IDF Historical Department, Research and Instruction Branch, June 1982 (hereafter "IDF, Attack on the Liberty"). The Israeli fighter pilot originally thought that the ship had fired at him, and Israeli destroyers were ordered to find it. The orders were rescinded, however, following further debriefing of the pilot. 19. Israel State Archives (hereafter "ISA"), 4079/26 Foreign Ministry Files, The Liberty Incident; IDF Preliminary Inquiry File 1/67 Col. Y. Yerushalmi (hereafter "ISA, The Yerushalmi Report"). Report by Carl F. Salans, Department of State Legal Advisor, September 21, 1967, to the Under Secretary of State. (Document available on the USS Liberty site.) 20. ISA, The Yerushalmi Report. The Liberty was also sailing near 'Point Boaz,' the location at which Israeli aircraft entered and exited Sinai - another reason for the heavy air traffic that morning. See IDF, Attack on the Liberty, p. 39, note 14. 21. Muhammad Fawzi, The Three Years War (Cairo: Dar al-Mustaqbal al-Arabi, 1980), p. 149 [Arabic]; Cristol, Liberty Incident, p. 30. 22. ISA, The Yerushalmi Report. See also Rabin, Memoirs, pp. 108-109. 23. No relation to the author. 24. Interview with Gen. (ret.) Mordechai Hod, March 9, 1999. Ehud Yanay, No Margin for Error: The Making of the Israeli Air Force (New York: Pantheon, 1993), p. 257. Castle's denial and McGonagle's confirmation of Bareket's claim both appear on the USS Liberty site. 25. The Israeli pilot mistook the "G" on the Liberty's hull for a "C." IDF, Attack on the Liberty. ISA, The Yerushalmi Report. 26. Rabin, Memoirs, p. 108. ISA, The Yerushalmi Report. 27. LBJ, Country Files, Box 104/107, The National Military Command Center: Attack on the USS Liberty, June 9, 1967. See also Cristol, Liberty Incident, p. 55. 28. IDF, Attack on the Liberty. ISA, The Yerushalmi Report. USNA, Chairman Wheeler Files, Box 27: The Court of Inquiry Findings, June 22, 1967. 29. IDF, Attack on the Liberty. ISA, The Yerushalmi Report. 30. IDF, Attack on the Liberty. ISA, The Yerushalmi Report. 31. IDF, Attack on the Liberty. ISA, The Yerushalmi Report. 32. Rabin, Memoirs, p. 109. 33. USNA, Box 16: "Liberty Hit by Torpedo," June 8, 1967; "Inventory of Submarines," June 8, 1967; W. Rostow to the President, June 8, 1967; Box 15: DOS to CINSTRIKE, June 9, 1967. LBJ, Country Files, Box 1-10, The National Military Command Center: Memorandum for the Record of Preliminary Information - USS Liberty Struck by Torpedo, June 8, 1967; Box 104/107, The National Military Command Center: Attack on the USS Liberty, June 9, 1967; History of the Middle East Crisis, Box 19: JCS to USCINCEUR, June 8, 1967. 34. The United States had gone over to daylight savings time, while Israel had not, and the result was a six-hour time difference between Washington and Israel. 35. LBJ, Country Files, Box 104/107, Middle East Crisis: Rostow to the President, June 8, 1967; Note to the President, June 8, 1967; Message to Kosygin, June 8, 1967. See also Lyndon Baines Johnson, The Vantage Point: Perspectives of the Presidency, 1963-1969 (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971), pp. 301-303; Dean Rusk, As I Saw It (New York: Penguin, 1990), p. 388. 36. usna, Box 16: Diplomatic Activity in Connection with the USS Liberty Incident, June 14, 1967. LBJ, Country Files, Box 104/107, Middle East Crisis: Eshkol to Johnson; Memos to the President (W. Rostow), Box 17: Barbour to Department of State, June 8, 1967. ISA, 4079/26 Foreign Ministry Files, The Liberty Incident: Harman to Foreign Ministry, June 10, 1967; Eban to Johnson, June 9, 1967; Evron to Johnson, June 8, 1967. 37. Upon learning of the attack, the U.S. Ambassador in Tel Aviv, Walworth Barbour, warned the State Department that "its [the Liberty's] proximity to the scene of the conflict could feed Arab suspicions of U.S.-Israeli collusion." Similarly, Ambassador-Designate Richard H. Nolte in Egypt wrote, "We had better get our story on the torpedoing of USS Liberty out fast and it had better be good." See LBJ, National Security File, Box 20: United States Policy and Diplomacy in the Middle East Crisis, May 15-June 10, 1967, pp. 143-144; Box 104/107, Middle East Crisis: Cairo to Department, June 9, 1967. 38. ISA, 4079/26 Foreign Ministry Files, The Liberty Incident, Harman to Foreign Ministry. LBJ, Country Files, Box 104/107, Middle East Crisis: Diplomatic Activity in Connection with the USS Liberty Incident, June 14, 1967. See also Clark Clifford (with Richard Holbrooke), Counsel to the President (New York: Random House, 1991), pp. 446-447; Phil G. Goulding, Confirm or Deny: Informing the People on National Security (New York: Harper and Row, 1970), pp. 123-130; Cristol, Liberty Incident, pp. 93-94. 39. ISA, 4079/26 The Liberty Incident: Bitan to Harman, June 18, 1967. 40. ISA, 4079/26 The Liberty Incident: Bitan to Harman, June 18, 1967; Evron to Eban (Rostow quote), June 19, 1967. LBJ, National Security File, Country Files, Box 104/107, Middle East Crisis: Rusk to Harman, June 10, 1967. 41. ISA, The Yerushalmi Report. LBJ, National Security File, Country Files, Box 104/107: Middle East Crisis: Diplomatic Activity in Connection with the USS Liberty Incident, June 14, 1967. Though none of the Israeli officers involved in the incident stood trial, Capt. Rahav, who dispatched the torpedo boats and called on the air force to attack the Liberty, was forced to resign his commission. See Shlomo Erell, Facing the Sea: The Story of a Fighting Sailor and Commander (Tel Aviv: Ministry of Defense, 1998). [Hebrew] 42. USNA, Chairman Wheeler Files, Box 27: The Court of Inquiry Findings, June 22, 1967. LBJ, National Security File, Special Committee, Box 1-10: Why the USS Liberty Was Where It Was. Cristol, Liberty Incident, pp. 86-105. Rusk, As I Saw It, p. 388. 43. See, for example, Anthony Pearson, Conspiracy of Silence: The Attack on the U.S.S. Liberty (London: Quartet Books, 1978). 44. Though Arab archives remain closed, the Six Day (or June) War has yielded numerous memoirs by the civilian and military leaders of Egypt and Jordan. Examples can be found in Mahmud Riad, Mahmud Riad's Memoirs (Beirut: Al-Muasasah al-'Arabiyya Lil'Dirasat al-Nashr, 1987), vol. 2 [Arabic]; Muhammad Hassanayn Heikal, 1967: The Explosion (Cairo: Markaz al-Ahram, 1990) [Arabic]; Abdel-Latif Al-Baghdadi, Memoirs (Cairo: al-Maktab al-Misri al-Hadith, 1977) [Arabic]; Abdel Muhsin Kamil Murtagi, Major-General Murtagi Attests to the Truth (Cairo: Dar al-Watan al-Arabi, 1976). [Arabic] 45. The Link, July-August 1997. 46. Neff, Warriors for Jerusalem, p. 253. Further exposition of the theory appears in Richard K. Smith, "The Violation of the Liberty," in the Institute for Naval Proceedings, June 1978. 47. Thames TV documentary, Attack on the Liberty, cited in Cristol, Liberty Incident, p. 204. 48. LBJ, National Security File, Box 104/107, Middle East Crisis: Jerusalem to the Secretary of State, June 8, 1967; Barbour to Department, June 8, 1967; Joint Embassy Memorandum, June 8, 1967. 49. Abba Eban, Personal Witness: Israel Through My Eyes (New York: Putnam, 1992), p. 423. On Israeli decisionmaking on the Golan, see Hanoch Bartov, Dado: 48 Years and 20 Days (Tel Aviv: Ma'ariv, 1978), pp. 100-102 [Hebrew]; Eitan Haber, Today War Will Break Out (Tel Aviv: Yedi'ot Aharonot, 1987), pp. 244-246 [Hebrew]; Zerah Verhaftig, Fifty Years and One (Jerusalem: Yad Shapira, 1998), pp. 190-191 [Hebrew]; Rabin, Memoirs, pp. 113-116. 50. It is ironic, perhaps, that the force of this logic was upheld not only by Israelis but also by Arab writers who, sticking to the "Big Lie," alleged that the Liberty had been directing IAF strikes in Sinai and was only inadvertently attacked. Suleiman Mathhar, Annals of the June War Issue: Transcript of the Testimony before the Revolutionary Historical Commission (Cairo: Kitab al-Huriyya, 1990), pp. 86-88 [Arabic]; Muhammad El-Farra, Years of No Decision (London: KPI, 1987), pp. 58-68; Riad, Memoirs, p. 312; Heikal, The Explosion, pp. 731-732; Fawzi, The Three Years War, pp. 135-136. The claim also featured prominently in Egyptian radio broadcasts; see BBC World Service, Daily Report, Middle East, Africa and Western Europe B 8, June 16, 1967. 51. Details of the Israeli compensation payments can be found in U.S. Department of State Bulletin, vol. lviii, no. 1512, June 17, 1968, and vol. lx, no. 1562, June 2, 1969, and U.S. Department of State Daily News Briefing, DPC 2451, December 18, 1980. 52. Congressman John Rhodes, a member of the House Appropriations Committee which investigated the Navy's communications network in 1971, called the events surrounding the Liberty incident a "comedy of errors," and then added: "Here we are, with the most sophisticated communications system ever known to mankind, and maybe it is so sophisticated we do not know how to operate it." John J. Rhodes, Committee Hearing Report, p. 394, cited in Cristol, Liberty Incident, p. 98. 53. Friendly Fire Casualty Statistics on Southeast Asia, by Month at the American War Library Internet site.
This story gets me sick every time I read it. Isn't Israel supposed to be our great friend???
Last week we all heard a transcript of how the CIA tracked and was instrumental in shooting down a small civilian plane killing an American mother and her infant. And it wasn't even a war situation.
As none of us believe in tragic miscommunication and accidents, I am convinced that it was done by the CIA's Terminator division. That division comes from the future to kill infants who will in 50 years change the status quo.
A"tragic mistake" that went on for three hours? Give me a damn break. Praise God, but to hell with Zionists. Jerusalem is God's favorite place. When he decides to reclaim it, it will not matter who is squatting on that hill. It will be His again.
Regards
J.R.
MISTAKE; a deliberate act you got caught red-handed perpetrating. Lying bastards. How big does an American flag have to be before the liars can see it. Maybe if it was painted on the cockpit they would have a comparison.
Hi Bert!
Please learn to format your posts ... been there and done that myself.(:^>
This week on "The History Channel"...
The crew's website has an online petition that could force a Congressional Investigation of USS Liberty Attack you can sign that will be sent to Congress to demand an investagation ... please sign it(:^>
Beat me toooooooo it .... thanks(:^>
This comment by the Israeli ambassador is grossly undiplomatic. It adds insult to injury to the surviving crew members and therefore to us all. There is no question in anyone's mind who has investigated this attack that it was deliberate and intentional. Yet Israel persists in baldly lying about it.
I think that the unformatted boilerplate posted with this article was intended to obscure the issue. If so, it was a cheap trick unworthy of the purposes of FR.
(Would someone who knows how please return us to normal type?)
TR>
Please follow the simple HTML formatting above, when posting lengthy articles or replies.
Very few people will read them if you don't!
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 3 | Top | Last ]
Was there a witness?????
The facts are well known. USS Liberty, an American intelligence collection ship operated by the U.S. Navy with 294 men aboard, was attacked by Israeli aircraft and motor torpedo boats in international waters in clear weather during the 1967 Six-Day War. Thirty-four men were killed and 171 wounded. The ship was so badly damaged it had to be sold for scrap.
Israel called the attack a "tragic accident," claiming the ship was mistaken for an ancient Egyptian horse carrier less than half her size. Survivors and many top U.S. officials dismiss the Israeli story as contrived, unbelievable and untrue.
Survivors cite numerous falsehoods in the Israeli account. For instance, Israel claims the attacking jets circled the ship three times looking for a flag and that no flag was flown. They say a cease-fire order was given even before the ship was hit by a torpedo and that no further shots were fired. They call it a very brief case of "friendly fire" that ended when they saw our flag. They say they offered help immediately after the torpedo explosion.
Not true! A large American flag was clearly displayed in a good breeze and the attacking pilots did not circle looking for it. The torpedomen continued firing for another 40 minutes after the torpedo explosion, even firing upon life rafts in the water. Their offer of help did not come until two hours after the torpedo explosion. Many other conflicts exist between the Israeli and American versions.
In fact, the Israeli assault on the Liberty remains the only major maritime event in American history that has not been investigated by the Congress. For comparison, the U.S. committed more than 300 people and seven months to investigating the uncontested single hit by an Iraqi missile on USS Stark in the Arabian Gulf. Yet, even though 250 survivors of the Liberty say Israel is lying about the 75-minute attack on their ship, no member of Congress since Adlai Stevenson II has shown the slightest interest in finding the truth. When pressed, members of Congress generally tell their constituents -- as they have since 1967 -- that an investigation would be impossible because too much time has passed, and because Israel could not be compelled to testify.
Submarine Photography Can Prove What Happened
Moments after the attack, several Liberty crewmen reported seeing a periscope very close to the ship. Then the periscope vanished as quickly as it had appeared.
A few weeks later, Liberty survivor Joe Lentini was approached by another sailor in the cafeteria of Portsmouth Naval Hospital in Virginia. Lentini was in uniform and on crutches. His ship's name, "USS LIBERTY," was embroidered on his shoulder.
"Were you there?" the sailor asked, seemingly astonished. When Lentini confirmed that he was, the man continued. "We were there," he said. "Our submarine. We saw the whole thing. We took pictures. Then we sent an officer back to the Pentagon to deliver them."
Lentini was so stunned by this news that he neglected to get the man's name or the name of the submarine. When he looked for the man again later, he was nowhere to be found.
Further Confirmation
I asked my Liberty shipmate, then-Lieutenant Jim O'Connor, what he knew about a submarine operating near us. Jim's job in the Liberty would have made him among the most likely people to know such things. Before the attack I had seen him plotting what looked to me like a submarine track on a chart.
Jim looked stunned. "I don't know how you learned about that," he said. "Yes, there was a submarine near us. If you ever quote me I'll swear you are lying." From then until he died 25 years later of Lou Gehrig's disease, Jim never mentioned the submarine again. When I asked him about it, he denied the earlier conversation.
During the next few years three other naval officers in key positions to know about such things all told me, "Yes, there was a submarine with you. There were three. They spent most of the war on the bottom, then they got out in a hurry."
Recently one of Liberty's intercept operators, Charles Rowley, told me that just before the attack he had intercepted a very strange, very short radio signal that he had forwarded to Washington. Instead of acknowledging his effort, Washington promptly ordered him to destroy any copies of that signal and to ignore any like it that he heard in the future. He felt he was being scolded for doing his job.
Rowley concluded that he had picked up a submarine signal and asked some other technicians about it. These men mentioned "Project Cyanide" but were unable or unwilling to say more. He concluded that "Cyanide" and the strange track on the chart all were associated with a compartmented submarine project to which only a very few people were privy. Most of those men died in the attack.
Frontlet 615
For the next several years, "Cyanide" and the mystery submarine remained elusive. One Liberty survivor mentioned a submarine to a free-lance reporter who wrote a book about it. Nearly everything he wrote was based on guesswork and was wrong. The book did nothing to advance the story.
Then in 1988 the Lyndon Johnson Library declassified and released an intriguing, highly sensitive document with the rare "Eyes Only" security caveat. This "Memorandum for the Record" dated 10 April 1967 reported a briefing of the "303 Committee" by General Ralph D. Steakley. Members present were Walt Rostow, Foy Kohler, Cyrus Vance and Admiral Rufus Taylor.
According to the memo, General Steakley "briefed the committee on a sensitive DOD project known as FRONTLET 615," which is identified in a handwritten note on the original memorandum as "submarine within U.A.R. waters."* After considering alternatives, "the proposal was approved by the committee principals."
This memorandum was filed in the LBJ Library's USS Liberty archive. Why there? Obviously it has something to do with the Liberty. Could this have been the submarine we have heard about since 1967?
Survivors filed further Freedom of Information Act requests with the Library, Navy, Department of Defense, National Security Council, National Security Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, Joint Chiefs of Staff and elsewhere seeking more information. We sent copies of the declassified memo to support our request. In every case we were told that there is no record within the government of Cyanide or Frontlet 615 or of any submarines operating near the Liberty in 1967.
When we called General Steakley, he told us that his job for nine years with the Joint Chiefs of Staff was to win approval of such projects from the appropriate authorities. He was rarely involved in the projects themselves. He could remember nothing about Frontlet 615.
Breakthrough
In February 1997, we were contacted by a man who, like the first visitor in the cafeteria, told us, "I was there. We watched the attack through the periscope and took pictures." He added, "News reports said Liberty was under attack for only five minutes, but that attack lasted more than an hour."
This person identified himself as a relatively senior member of the crew of the submarine, but he was unwilling to give his name or to talk to us except through a third party, as he feared punishment for telling the story. He did, however, give us the name of the submarine: USS Amberjack SS522, a Guppy (snorkel)-equipped diesel boat built in 1945. He also told us that Amberjack's mission was reconnaissance within U.A.R. waters. Apparently Amberjack was the Frontlet 615 submarine.
This source gained credibility when we obtained Amberjack's official ship's history from the Department of Defense. Amberjack was indeed in the area during the Six-Day War, just as he said.
Further searches of Navy-oriented Web sites on the Internet quickly turned up four more Amberjack crewmen from the "Med Cruise" of June 1967. Some of these were Amberjack's most senior enlisted men. All four of these men, contacted by telephone, readily told us that they were very close to USS Liberty when we came under attack. Amberjack was so close, they said, and the sound of gunfire, missiles and the torpedo explosion so loud, that some of the crew thought Amberjack was under depth charge attack.
These men, all career submariners and all fairly senior at the time, had not seen or talked to one another for many years. Yet they all told the same story. They were very close to or "almost directly under" Liberty when the ship came under attack. Amberjack was specially fitted for periscope photography and was fully capable of photographing the attack, they said, although none of these four was certain that pictures were taken.
All four men told us that Amberjack proceeded from the Gaza Strip to a brief stop at Souda Bay, Crete, where the ship was kept at anchorage and the crew was not allowed ashore. Next, Amberjack went to Malta, where she tied up near the Liberty. All four men told us that Amberjack was only one of five submarines in the Gaza Strip area. Others were USS Trutta SS421, USS Requin SS481, and French and Italian submarines. Any of those might also have photographed or recorded the attack.
Amberjack Skipper Denies Everything
Next we located Amberjack's 1967 skipper, August Hubal. By coincidence, Hubal was an Annapolis classmate of Liberty's Executive Officer, Phil Armstrong, who died in the attack. Hubal's room at the Naval Academy was directly across the hall from that of Liberty's Research Operations Department Head, David Lewis. Hubal knew both men well.
Now a retired Navy captain, Hubal denies everything. Interviewed by telephone, he insists that his ship was nowhere near Liberty. Amberjack was at least 100 miles away, he says. When we told Captain Hubal that several senior members of his crew, including a periscope photographer, have told us they were within sight of the attack, he shrugged that off. "They must be mistaken," he says, apparently still muffled by ancient security restrictions.
Why Is This Important?
These stories matter because they can resolve at last the differences between Israeli and American versions of what happened.
For 30 years Israel and its supporters have denounced survivors as liars and anti-Semites for reporting what happened to their ship. Members of Congress are unwilling even to listen to their stories. These men seek justice.
Recent White House executive orders call for the declassification of virtually every record more than 30 years old. Amberjack photography and other such reports fall in that category.
If the submarine photography can be found, it should show that the ship's flag was clearly visible to the attacking fighters and torpedo boats. Pictures also should show that the Israelis continued to fire from close range with the flag and other markings in clear view long after the torpedo explosion that they claim ended the attack. Pictures may reveal the methodical machine-gunning of Liberty's life rafts in the water. Other Amberjack records, reports and sound recordings should show the duration of the attack and other details denied by the attackers.
Liberty survivors will continue their quest for these records. We believe they exist and we think they can be found.
With those files and photographs declassified, Israel never again will be able to pretend that the survivors of the Liberty attack are lying.
*At that time Egypt was formally known as "The United Arab Republic."
I am sure they will get huge ratings LOL.
You REALLY don't think this is a FUNNY episode, do you?
Remember the USS COLE
You have heard of the USS Cole? No responsiblity or reparations yet....
No responsiblity or reparations yet....
If we sent them a few $billions, maybe they too could see their way to kicking back $12 million for their shills to point to.
FYI.
...It was bad enough in WW2 where jews were as scarse as Hen's teeth and when you saw one he was a supply sergeant cooking deals...
Jews were 3.3 percent of the total American population but they were 4.23 percent of the Armed Forces. Over 550,000 served in the Armed Forces of the United States during World War II. About 11,000 were killed and over 40,000 were wounded. There were two recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor, 157 received the Distinguished Service Medal and Crosses, which included Navy Crosses, and 1,600 were awarded the Silver Star. About 50,242 other decorations, citations and awards were given to Jewish heroes for a total of 52,000 decorations.
"I am proud to join in saluting the memory of fallen American heroes of the Jewish faith."
General Douglas MacArthur
Americans of Jewish faith in the Marine Corps have served with distinction throughout the prosecution of this war. During the past year, many Jewish fighting men in our armed forces have given their lives in the cause of freedom. With profound sympathy and respect, I join you in paying homage to them at this memorial service."
General A. Vandergrift
"Thousands of Americans of Jewish faith are serving under my command, carrying their share of the burden in the battle in Italy. Many of them have been killed in the service of their country. To American soldiers of Jewish faith go my most sincere thanks for their faithfulness, diligence and bravery in battle. To those who have passed on must go a nation's gratitude."
General Mark W. Clark
"The officers and men of the United States Naval Forces in Europe join to honor those gallant Americans of Jewish faith who, during the past year, have laid down their lives for their country ... We mourn them as brothers - brothers who cannot be with us to share this European triumph toward which they gave their lives."
Admiral Harold R. Stark
What could you be thinking that would cause you to poke fun at these 550,000 soldiers, Admiral.
Could you please tell us all how we can better spot and profile these subhuman jews of wich you speak?
Thanx.
Aww, let the Taylor boy post his TV-guide. It's obviously what he has to look forward to, possibly between checks with his PO ;).
Whoops, never mind, I see that your FR membership has been suddly revoked.
The attack on the Liberty was deliberate. The crew are right.
What isn't said is that it was monitoring the Israeli Army's communications. There was no other radio traffic in the El Arish/Gaza area where the ship was operating. Those communications were reaching the Egyptian high command. They were reaching the Egyptians at the critical time when Israel was stripping its forces out of the Sinai. Israel was aware of the Egyptian's receipt of the Liberty intercepts because they had an agent in the Egyptian high command.
The Liberty was attacked because of the intel risk it posed to Israel in the midst of a two front war. When the Liberty's intercepts started reaching the Egyptians, and the Israelis asked that it be pulled out, and it wasn't, the Liberty became a combatant on the Egyptian side of the war.
To those many of you who doubt this scenario, one of the proofs is that the Egyptians sued for peace in the U.N. within 20 minutes of hearing that the Liberty had been put out of action. The other major proof is that the above is the only sequence of events that fits virtually every bit of hard evidence known about the Liberty incident.
To believe the misidentification cover story you have to believe that the Israeli pilots were blind. To believe that the Israelis had NO good reason is to believe that they were willing to bring the U.S. into the war against them just for the thrill of attacking an unarmed U.S. ship. Considering the nature of the Liberty (a spy chip), the only reasonable reason the Israelis would attack the ship is that they knew that its spying activities were being used for the benefit of the Eyptians, and were of an important nature.
S JACKSON SAID }}}} What could you be thinking that would cause you to poke fun at these 550,000 soldiers, Admiral.
ADMIRAL KIMMEL SAYS }}}}} 550,000 soldiers In a pigs eye.
What happen to my other paragraph ???
Magic said }}}}To believe that the Israelis had NO good reason is to believe that they were willing to bring the U.S. into the war against them just for the thrill of attacking an unarmed U.S. ship.
They attacked that ship to convince the Navy that Egypt did it so we would fight Isreals war. Politicians create wars and soldiers fight them. Both Pearl Harbor and the USS Cole stink to high heavens.
The USS Liberty: Dissenting History vs. Official History
By John Borne
Reviewed by James M. Ennes, Jr., 1995
Soon after Assault on the Liberty was first released by Random House in 1980, I began to hear from readers urging me to write a sequel. The new book, they said, should describe all the incredible obstacles, lost orders, harassment, chicanery and just plain dirty tricks that supporters of Israel had used to frustrate sales of the book and to prevent survivors from telling the story.
I resisted those appeals. Having told my story and having seen the result, I had no illusions that a second book would have any better chance of breaking through the resistance. To illustrate, I cited superb books by Don Neff, Paul Findley, Stephen Green, Jim Abourezk and others, all frustrated in the marketplace and rarely displayed in stores. "No," I said, "no such book could ever overcome the resistance."
Now a new author has done the job that I was too timid or too disheartened to do, and has done a better job of it than I could ever have hoped. John Edgar Borne, an adjunct professor of history at Baruch and Pace Colleges in New York City, chose the USS Liberty as his topic of study toward the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History at New York University. Specifically, he chose to study the differences between the "official" version of the USS Liberty story and the very different version told by the surviving crewmen.
"What," Borne asks, "really happened? Is it possible to know? Why were crew members not protected from attack as they had been promised? How in a free society does a government present as fact a version of history that differs markedly from that reported by eyewitnesses? How is the dissenting version squelched? How can the silenced group overcome the tactics of a powerful and motivated government? Where is the press while these things are happening?"
These questions and more were the subject of Dr. Borne's meticulous study. The resulting doctoral thesis, now attractively typeset and printed in traditional book form, tells the story in persuasive, gut-wrenching detail.
Following a brief description of the attack and the world political climate at the time, Borne reviews the actions at home. These include Lyndon Johnson's order to recall aircraft sent to the ship's aid, apparently because he feared "embarrassing an ally" by allowing American pilots to drive off the attacking Israeli aircraft. Other actions include the many appeals for Congress to look the other way because any public review of the facts would only serve the interests of "anti-Semites."
Borne reviews the peculiar performance of the Navy Court of Inquiry, ordered in writing to probe "all aspects" of the attack, yet privately instructed to restrict the inquiry to the performance and training of the crew and the adequacy of communications.
"Diplomatic and political" considerations were to be left to Congress and the Department of State, both of which chose to look the other way. Therefore, left unexamined was the key question of whether the attack was deliberate.
Borne then describes events during the several years immediately following the attack, a period in which the government's official version went publicly unchallenged. It was only after publication of Assault on the Liberty by a major publisher in 1980 that the survivors were able to present their "dissenting history" to the public.
In his book Dr. Borne examines numerous incidents that occurred as the crew presented its "dissenting history" in the 1980s. The efforts of the village of Grafton, Wisconsin, to honor the crew with a town library named in the ship's honor, and the resulting storm of protest from nearby Jewish organizations, is but one of several fascinating stories. He describes the crew's contacts with a former Israeli pilot and an Israeli major who claims to have observed the attack from the war room. Both claims are supported by retired U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Dwight Porter and were fully reported in major newspapers by syndicated columnists Evans and Novak. Yet no member of Congress was willing to meet with the pilot or showed the slightest interest in the powerful new evidence.
Borne reviews the roles played by several individual members of Congress, including the rare courage of Senator Adlai Stevenson III, which some feel subsequently cost him the governorship of Illinois. He reviews the roles played by newspapers, television and radio personalities.
He also examines in detail the many "official versions" of the attack presented by the Israeli government, few of which agree with the eyewitness accounts of survivors or even with one another. And finally Borne answers several key questions: Can we ever know what really happened to the USS Liberty? Who is lying and who is not? Is it possible for a small group of eyewitnesses to make a convincing public case that disagrees with the official story presented by a powerful government?
Borne believes that it is possible, and that to a very large extent the USS Liberty crew has done exactly that. His book stands as a powerful statement, not just in support of the story told by survivors, but as an indictment of the press.
The first real clue that the press was being manipulated may have come a week after the attack when Liberty's Engineer Officer, Lieutenant George Golden, told Colin Frost of Reuter's News Service that a massive cover-up was underway. Frost's story ran in hundreds of major newspapers, but it failed to cause a single reporter to ask a single hard question or to make any serious effort to find and report the truth. Thirteen more years passed before the facts behind the cover-up became widely known.
Borne's carefully documented study of government manipulation, foreign influence and press naïveté should be required reading in every journalism school in America. It should be studied in newsrooms everywhere. It should be on the desk of every media executive and every government official. It should serve as a reminder to every journalist that for every "official history" there may be an even more compelling "dissenting history" and that it is the reporter's job to find and report the difference.
James Ennes retired from the Navy in 1978 as a lieutenant commander after 27 years of enlisted and commissioned service. He was a lieutenant on the bridge of the USS Liberty on the day of the attack. His book on the subject, Assault on the Liberty (Random House, 1980), is a "Notable Naval Book" selection of the U.S. Naval Institute and was "editor's choice" when reviewed in the Washington Post.
"Could you please tell us all how we can better spot and profile these subhuman jews of wich you speak?"
Fifty years ago I would have kicked your ass for saying that. We had a term for you back then > REA or Rear Eschalon a*******.
What is this a Commie chat room where veterans get insulted ??
Your reply is nonsense. The Israelis had already beaten the Egyptians badly and were in the process of pulling their troops out of the Sinai. They didn't need the U.S. to fight its war with Egypt. It was already won.
5 minutes ago you said the jews had to take out the Liberty because they were transferring info to the Egyptians. Now when I show the only logical reason for the jews to kill the Liberty sailors= you say the war was over.
Why don't you get Steven Spielberg to make a movie. You could have the Egyptians attacking and the Isrealians coming to the rescue.
The Egyptians still had one functioning army of some strength. The Israelis were stripping their units out of the Sinai to be transfered to the Syrian front, leaving large holes in their lines. The Liberty arrived at about this time, and started intercepting and retransmitting the Israeli army communications. These landed up in the hands of the Egyptians, and could allow the Egyptians to figure out which units had been pulled out and where the holes in the Israeli lines were.
Like some general once said: "Hit them where they aren't". That was what was being offered to the Egyptians by the Liberty. When the ship was attacked, the Egyptians sued for peace within 20 minutes.
Hey, anyone can fly an American Flag, can't they??
'These landed up in the hands of the Egyptians, and could allow the Egyptians to figure out which units had been pulled out and where the holes in the Israeli lines were."
So Bucky > You got the inside dope ??/ Got a answer for everything (don't you). Everyone of you want to be the next Spielberg with your own version of history.
There has been no determination as to who the terrorists were who attacked the USS Cole.
The Israelis did, in fact, attack the USS Liberty while taking US taxpayers money and claiming to be friends.
Are YOU equating the Israelis with terrorists, or are you just dense, desperate and insulting?
"In his book Dr. Borne examines numerous incidents that occurred as the crew presented its "dissenting history" in the 1980s. The efforts of the village of Grafton, Wisconsin, to honor the crew with a town library named in the ship's honor, and the resulting storm of protest from nearby Jewish organizations, is but one of several fascinating stories."
Interesting.
Your lies never end. Even as I bust them, daily.
Yemen says no extradition of USS Cole suspects
USS Cole
WASHINGTON, (Reuters) -- Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh said his country would not extradite any suspects in the October bombing of a U.S. warship in Aden, which killed 17 American sailors, the Washington Post reported on Sunday.
Extradition of suspects "is not allowed under our constitution," Saleh told the newspaper in an interview, which the Post said took place earlier this week.
Next month, Yemen plans to try six suspects in the case, in which the USS Cole, a destroyer, was attacked in Aden in an apparent suicide bombing.
Saleh said Yemeni authorities were still looking for a key suspect in the Cole incident.
"We are looking for the man who gave instructions to the two people who executed the operation. His name is Muhammed Omar al-Harazi," he said, referring to the man whose name as a suspect was revealed in a Yemeni government newspaper earlier this week.
"He's the main suspect who funded the operation and paid for the safe houses in Aden. He's the mastermind but we believe someone else was behind him," Saleh added.
The president would not speculate on whether Saudi exile Osama bin Laden was connected to the Cole attack, although he said "everything is possible."
Bin Laden, whom the United States accuses of masterminding attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998, has denied involvement in the Cole bombing.
Still, Yemen's Interior Minister Hussein Arab, told Newsweek magazine in an interview released to the news media on Sunday Yemen has uncovered links to bin Laden.
"We think the Cole terrorists have strong links with Afghanistan and we can say, yes, there are links with bin Laden," Hussein Arab told Newsweek.
The October 12 bombing took place amid growing anti-U.S. sentiment in the Middle East over what Arabs see as U.S. support for Israel in the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Yemeni officials have said the six suspects include civil servants who allegedly provided other suspects with forged documents. But Saleh denied high-level government officials were connected. "These are weak stories aimed to create trouble with the U.S. side," he said.
Sad for all of you folks that YOU are the only ones sitting around like little old ladies going over the USS Liberty event. The US govt., and 99.9% of the planet has put it to rest. But feel free to pick and carry on like old biddies at a coffee klatch.
Put the Holocaust to rest instead of cultivating delusions about Christians that lead you ever further into folly and serve your political agenda like some sick, destructive, self-fulfilling prophecy.
LOL. I gotcha again. You make it so easy! You are the one obssessed with the Holocaust - or should I say the denial of.
The givaway is the U.S. failure to respond. That reeks of the typical LBJ politics which forced the deaths of 56,000 kids for CIA power and Texas profits.
We can expect similar under Bush Jr.
We can expect similar under Bush Jr.
Oh come on, GWB is a Good American. Now apologize to all of us Good Americans for your blasphemy.
The King is Dead, Long Live the King,
CATO
Your lies never end. Even as I bust them, daily.
You and everyone else-who bothers-proves her a liar many times a day.
Does the term Sociopath come to mind?
"Does the term Sociopath come to mind?"
Yes, maybe. But I think mindless zombie is more accurate.
Can't argue with Zombie. It is appropriate considering that they continuously return after they are booted (a kind of death)
But then Zombie is not an approved term for a psychological disorder. And there is a psychological disorder here. I'm not even referring to the constant lies. Every time this one posts, with whatever name, someone-from our side- figuratively kicks her teeth in with the truth. She does her side no good. But, she seems totally oblivious. Admittedly subjective opinion but, I believe, proven.
>Sad for all of you folks that YOU are the only ones sitting around
In fact, the thing mainly turns up on neo-nazi sites. It is so bad, and so shameful for the original survivors, that James Ennes has an entry on his website denouncing this stinking nazi misuse of a tragedy.
The case has also been gone over with a fine tooth comb time and agin here on FR - there is a thread covering _all_ aspects already. Still we see nazis like RCW (Hi marc/mark) w**k hysterically off over this perceived opportunity to went their Jew-hatred. It's sad, but it's also funny in a peculiar, not haha way.
The Israelis later apologized. But Liberty survivors, and some former U.S. officials, believe the attack was deliberate, staged to conceal Israel's pending seizure of the Golan Heights, which occurred shortly thereafter.
You're right, I feel sick about this. I was born around that time, and have never heard, or read about this incident which is surpising since I have been in many history classes.
I know we must help Israel because we believe in Gods plans for this state, but there are times when though I have Jewish ancestry, I feel strongly that Israel is only thinking of herself, and is taking advantage of the USA.
Lets hope that someday, Israel will stop selling arms to our enemies, and that we won't ever be killed again by the very weapons we gave her.
I believe that those pilots and ships captians could easily see the US Flag and markings on that ship.
Very interesting and informative post. It's going to throw a heck of a monkey wrench into this to have Ennes mention the ADL in a positive way on his site in his disclaimer.
I have Jewish ancestry
Really?
If there is anyone, anyone at all, on FR who doesn't know it yet, I think you should continue to insert it into all your posts.
Tell us all about your Jewish genealogy, I, for one, am very curious.
Ate a bagel once?
Re: post 20 (retired), 22, 27
S JACKSON SAID }}}} What could you be thinking that would cause you to poke fun at these 550,000 soldiers, Admiral.
ADMIRAL KIMMEL SAYS }}}}} 550,000 soldiers In a pigs eye.
What happen to my other paragraph ???
Clearly it was pulled because of its content. A shame you disrespect for so many american veterans based on their religious beliefs.
Some of you, please visit the post at
USS Evans
Clearly a dissimilar situation, but these sailors need to be remembered too. Admiral Kimmel, please take some time from your next post to write your congressmen on their behalf.
What...you haven't had your 'meds' adjusted yet for that reoccuring delusion you keep having that I am some Nazi, some Marc/Mark and live in Taylor. LOL
What a 'dork'...seek help!
Well Bob, you just lost my vote. I'm tired of reading about the Liberty. Keep up the good work Bob, come election time you will have eliminated all of your potential votes.
It is now, it wasn't then. Neither were we their greatest friend in 1967.
We are no longer angry at the Japanese, Germans, Italians, British or Vietnamese. And after those wars we spent billions to help reconstruct many of these nations. The same logic applies to Israel. America remains consistent.
Font Fixed?
How close were Israel and the USA in 1967. How much aid did we give them? How much support? How did we treat Israel in the war over the Suez?
The problem with these threads IMHO is that people have their history disjointed. Just because we are close allies and supporters of Israel now does not mean that we were in 1967.
The USA now also openly supports the Palestinians and Yassir Arafat, despite the PLO's involvement in killing our Marines in Beirut.
>Mark and live in Taylor
Well, you never answered my question if you were originally from Taylor. Are you?
As for being some nazi - you are :). And you should do somthing about your tensions. Your fonts all come out in bold, for some reason :)).
>Your fonts all come out in bold
Sorry, not your fault after all ;). You still sound a bit strident, though.
Israel's first priority is its own self preservation; they are not our friends. Second, as Americans, we must remember the Neutralitiy Proclaimation of 1793, authored by George Wahington. If we did then their would be no incident; their would have been war between the US and the state of Israel. The brave citizens aboard the Liberty were betrayed by the politicians involved, especially the Americans!
The reason America will stand by Israel and will never let the Arabs throw them out is becuase we are a Christian nation, well Christians, Catholics, Protestants etc, etc. And if you Arabs think were going to stanby while you destroy all the relics from the bible that all these religions are based around, your DEAD wrong. If the Arabs ever take over the only ones aloud to go to Jerusalem will be Arabs as the Arabs teach thier children to be martyrs to Allah and to kill all Jews and Christian. Put that in your houka's and puff on it.
LOL!!! You are correct sir! (or madam?)
ANOTHER MORE REASONABLE EXPLANATION TheGolem webmaster@pnews.org
USS LIBERTY SLANDERS Part 2
It is sufficient to say that Evans and Novak made many other material mistakes in their so-called scoop. They claimed missiles were used, and that this was the worst disaster in military history. Hardly, but it is not for nothing that Evans and Novak have often been referred to as "Errors and No Facts" by other investigative journalists.
None of those claiming Israel's complicity in a conspiracy to murder Americans has been meticulous in their observance of truth and accuracy. It must be emphasized also that if the INTENT of the Israeli military was to destroy the Liberty, then the aircraft would have been so-armed with anti-ship ordnance. It wasn't. If it had been, there would not have been anything left of the USS Liberty.
The problem with Ennes and all the other excuses and attempts at shifting blame for the attack on the Liberty from the US Navy to the the IDF is a lack of accountability for the U.S "spy" ship being there in the first place.
Ennes wants to continue to play the victim and anyone who suggests the Liberty may have been at fault for being in the wrong place at the wrong time is in his eyes, analogous to being a rapist, and a person who victimizes the victims. The circumstances were such that the Liberty was in the middle of a war and running contrary to orders, which they claim they never received. They were victims because they got caught up in something they should have been trained for and they continued to provoke hostilities when they fired on Israeli torpedo boats.
The Liberty fiasco wasn't the first nor the last U.S. military screw-up. There been ample examples of deniability without accountability. The Liberty and the Navy needed their scapegoat and it was logical for them to blame the Israelis, rather than accept blame themselves for the appearance of being a hostile ship in a war zone...and faulting those who put them there.. or, those responsible for the communication's problems. Seems ironic that a communications vessel should have problems with their communications?
The military's failure to fix blame for Air Force F-15 pilots shooting down Army Black Hawk helicopters, plunging 26 people to fiery deaths in Iraq, is an example of military "deniability."
The case made for SOG forces in Laos killing defectors may be another instance of U.S. _coverup_ and military "deniability?." In the past quarter-century alone, there have been at least four _monstrous_ foul-ups, all of which cost lives. Yet no one in our military has been blamed for any of them. Tut-tut letters in someone's service record isn't fixing blame.
Recall that a sailor was shot to death and the nation was disgraced in 1968, when North Korea captured the spy ship USS Pueblo and its 83-man Navy crew. Recall that 241 Marines and sailors were killed in 1983 when a lone terrorist drove through their lines at the Beirut International Airport and detonated his load of explosives. Recall that the USS Vincennes mistakeningly shot down an Iranian civilian airliner in 1988, killing 290 civilians and inspiring the sabotage of Pan American Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing another 270 people. Recall when two F-15 fighter planes shot down in broad daylight two Army Black Hawks in the mistaken belief they were Soviet Hind helicopters, which would have posed no great threat to the highly maneuverable F-15s. What happened? Who was blamed? Where was the accountability? The Air Force ended up putting only one officer in the dock, Air Force Capt. James Wang, and he was acquitted.
The families of those victims are suffering a lack of 'accountability' by the Air Force, just as the families of the victims of the Liberty are suffering the lack of accountability by the U.S. Navy.
The difficulty in fixing blame is that everyone is to some extent responsible; therefore no one person could fairly be held responsible. So everybody get off. But, there is a need for a patsy and with the Liberty, it just happened to be Israel by those who need a scapegoat.
James Ennes accuses Rabin of being a "liar." If Rabin is a liar, so is everyone else who has ever written about Rabin's breakdown. But, he says it is all Israeli propaganda...and we should listen to his "propaganda" and whatever "white paper" was issued by a congressional committee doing an investigation for an incident for which they had to come up with "deniability."
It says it was all Israeli propaganda that Israel was ever in any danger or threat and goes on to even blame Israel for the war. Never mind the annulment of Israel's existence and repeated threats and actions against Israel from across all of its borders.
"We swear to God that we shall not rest until we restore the Arab nation to Palestine and Palestine to the Arab nation. There is no room for imperialism and there is no room for Israel within the Arab nation." [Nasser/1994]
"We shall not enter Palestine with its soild covered in sand, we shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood" [Nasser/1995] On June 7th [my birthday, so I remember it well], it was the third day of the war and the Israeli naval command was underequipped to defend Israel's shores and dependent on the air force and human observation for long range early warning. It would be an understatement to say, the Navy was fearful and frustrated. because of the tension, the loss of an elite frogman commando unit, which was captured by the Egyptians and the sightings of three Egyptian submarines close to the Israeli shore. There was also a report of several Soviet vessels in the area.
An Israeli Nord aircraft took off from an airfield early on the morning of the 8th with an Israeli navy spotter on board to patrol the shore and insure that enemy vessels did not penetrate Israeli waters during the night before. Israel had to have a human spotter for early warning because Israel in 1967 had very limited radar capability.
Almost two hours after the aircraft started its patrol, it notified the duty officer in the navy's war room that a ship had been spotted West of Gaza. It appeared to be a destroyer from the air. The officer orderd a red marker placed on the battle control table. Red was the color used to indicate an "unidentified" ship.
Almost 20 minutes later the Nord sent another report in which the spotter identified the ship as an "American naval-supply vessel. The ship was identified by the spotter and would have then been considered neutral, but the marker was not changed from red to green, to designate a neutral vessel. The Israelis admitted this. They DID NOT DENY it. The reason given by the duty officer at a board of inquiry was the "identification had been vague and uncertain."
And, then from 6 to 9 a.m. the navy's attention in the war room was diverted to an emergency, with the penetration of an enemy submarine west of the town of Atlit, where a huge oil slick had been sighted. At 8:50 the navy dispatched the destroyer MV Haifa to the area. The Haifa detonated five depth charges at 9:02 without success. While the hunt for the enemy sub was ongoing, Admiral Erel entered the underground war room to take personal command and he questioned the duty officer about the red marker west of the Sinai coast. Told that the marker designated what was thought to be an American supply ship, he ordered the marker changed to green and he concentrated on the submarine.
More depth charges were detonated and air bubbles and oil was rising to the surface. At the same time, the war room received a cable from an Israel pilot reporting that he was being shot at by an "unidentified" ship off the Sinai coast. After he landed and in debriefing he said that he was not fired at, but he had seen a ship and it appeared to be "gray" and "wider than usual, and with a bridge in the middle." The information was filed and forgotten.
Then, after 10 a.m. the Nord aircraft returned and in debriefing the navy spotter reported that he had clearly seen a GTR-5 on the side of the vessel. Major Pinhassi at the naval operations room at Naval Headquarters consulted Jane's Fighting Ships and identified the ship as an American intelligence vessel named the "Liberty."
At 11 a.m. the duty cammanders in the navy war room changed shifts and a Lt. Col took over temporary command. He ordered the green marker removed from the battle control table so it would not be cluttered. Standard naval operating procedure dictated that battle control table should be kept as simple as possible, BUT in retrospect, it was a fatal decision for the Liberty because from 11:05 on the Liberty was no longer a known quantity for those who were operationally responsible for conducting a FAST-MOVING THREE-FRONT WAR.., who were feeling the heat of battle decision making. At 11:24 the air force reported to the naval chief of operation, Col Issy Rahav, that the Sinai coast city of El Arish, captured by Israeli forces the day before was being shelled from the sea. And, at 11:27 a.m., a second, independent report ame in, and this time from Southern Command Hqts, that El Arish was indeed being bombarded from the sea.
In his book, Ennis also reported explosions in El Arish. The smoke and explosions were clearly visible to the crew of the Liberty 'WHICH IS HOW CLOSE THEY WERE' to what was presumed to be an enemy attack on the coastal city. Later it was determined that an Egyptian ammo depot had exploded in El Arish. The Israeli general command assumed that the city was under attack from the sea and the Liberty 'JUST HAPPENED TO BE THERE', which made it look an awful lot like the Liberty had been doing the shelling.
Col Rahav at 12:05 p.m. ordered three torpedo boats from the 914 Squadron to leave Ashdod and proceed towards El Arish and at 12:15 captain of the flagship torpedo boat, Lt. Col Moshe Oren was ordered to sail to 20 miles north of El Arish and patrol that area. At 1:07 p.m. he was instructed to call for an air strike upon spotting the target.
At 1:41, 2nd Lt Aharon Yfrach, the radar operator about the flagship, T-204, picked up a target on his scope. The ship was spotted at 20 nautical miles northwest of El Arish, 14 miles off the Bardawil shore, and moving west at a speed of about thirty knots. Standard operating procedure for the Israeli navy in 1967 was that any ship moving faster than 20 knots in a battle arena was to be presumed hostile. A second radar check indicated the target's speed at 28 knots. The Israelis later said the reading was inaccurate, which can be attributed to what is known as "radar jump" or simply an erroneous reading by the radar operator? The radar on torpedo boats were often inaccurate. The conclusions at the time however was, it was moving at faster than 20 knots and the TARGET IN QUESTION WAS PROBABLY A WARSHIP. It also 'APPEARED TO BE SAILING AN EVASIVE COURSE' in the direction of Port Said, at the mouth of the Suez Canal, which would also indicate it was hostile.
At 1:45 p.m. it was decided by Rahav to order an attack on the ship. It would take awhile for the torpedo boats to get there so an air strike was called. Senior air force battle controller, Lt Col Shmuel Kislev, ordered two Mirage III C fighters on their way back to Israel from an air patrol over the Suez Canal to divert to the target. The Mirages reached the target at about 2 p.m. The lead plane dropped to an altitude of 3,000 feet and circled the target twice. The second aircraft circled the target only once. It was reported that the ship was NOT Israeli, it was painted battle-gray and had two cannons in the forecastle, a mast in the front and one funnel.
Major General Mordechai Hod, the commander of the Israeli air force, asked the pilot by radio if any flag was visible. The pilot reported back "I SEE NO FLAG OR OTHER SIGNS OF IDENTIFICATION." Members of the crew find this a point of contention, but regardless of that fact, there must still be ACCOUNTABILITY FOR BEING IN A BATTLE ARENA, and assessments are made by the air force command, based on the pilot's observation, the course of the ship, the reported speed and the evasive running of the ship, location, etc., and the IMPRESSION WAS IT WAS A HOSTILE SHIP.
At 2:06, the pilots began their straffing runs and straffed the Liberty four times. Fire had broken out on the left side of the ship. Two more aircraft were diverted, this time Super Mystere jets en route to a bombing mission over the Mitla Pass in the Central Sinai. The were carrying napalm bombs, which are not suitable for attacking targets at sea but it was decided to use the aircraft anyway. The Mysteres made two bombing runs, but only one bomb hit the ship.
As there was no return fire from the Liberty, the lack of a response was puzzling and the lead pilot flew low enough to notice a P-30 painted on the hull. He then dropped to only ninety feet above the water line and this time noticed CTR-5 on the hull. 'HE SAID HE SAW NO FLAG'. He was told to report on damages and leave the target area. At 2:15 the air force controller in central operation dispatched two helicopters to the area to pick up survivors. Meanwhile the torpedo boats had arrived at the scene. The flagship flahed the message, "WHAT SHIP?" But, the Liberty replied "AA" meaning "Identify yourselves first." That was really dumb. Here they are listing, enveloped in smoke, heavily damaged and their captain is telling the torpedo boats to identify themselves first?
Eleven years before, during the Sinai campaign, exactly the same exchange had taken place between an Israeli destroyer, the MV Yaffo, and an Egyptian ship, the Ibrahim-el-Awal. Oren, who was a young offer on the Yaffo's bridge at the time, 'REMEMBERED THE INCIDENT WELL'. If he had any doubts that the burning vessel ahead of him was Egyptian, they were now dispelled.
While he was deciding whether to attack, a burst of machine gun fire erupted from the ship's forecastle. It seems that a seaman apprentice on board did not hear the Captain's "hold-your- fire order" and fired several volleys at the torpedo boats.
Oren still hestitated until he consulted the Israeli navy's book identifying the ships of the Arab navies and concluded that the ship in question was the Egyptian suppply vessel EL QUSEIR. One of the other captains of another torpedo boat came up with the same identification.
And, at 2:37 Lt Col Oren gave the order to attack the ship. THIS WAS 'AFTER BEING FIRED UPON FROM THE LIBERTY'. At 2:43 advancing with rapid cannon fire, the topedo boats fired torpedos. At least one torpedo his the ship. When the T-204 crossed the ship's bow, one of the officers aboard noticed the letters GTR on the hull of the ship and Oren immediately issued the hold-fire order. It was 2:07.
At 2:51, Oren radioed back to command headquarters that the ship could be Russian. Rabin called an emergency meeting of his adviser to discuss the possiblity of large sacale Soviet intervention but at 3:20 Oren notified headquarters that the ship was NOT Russian, IT WAS AMERICAN. At 3:30 the news was conveyed to Commander Castle, naval atache in Tel Aviv. ISRAEL OFFERED TO HELP WITH THE WOUNDED. The offer was rejected. [One must remember when Marines were wounded in Lebanon Israel offered then also to treat the wounded and that offere was then also rejected, causing additional loss of life. There must be "accountability" for that blunder also.]
The attack on the LIBERTY was not with malice, but a genuine understandable mistake, like many which are often made in battle, and which could have been avoided if the Liberty had stayed out of harm's way [as we learned later was the intention of the State Department and the Chiefs of Staff].
The problem is a lack of accountability, NOT deniability. Take the case of the old cargo ship off North Korea sent to spy. Who sent the Peoblo? It was the skipper who the Court of Inquiry wanted to blame it on. It wasn't the skipper's fault.
And, who recommended the sending in of Marines into the middle of the Lebanese civil war with no clearer mission than to establish a "presence?" It wasn't the Marine Corp, it was President Reagan, and his advisers. And, to his credit, Reagan did take responsibility for the airport bombing.
Adm. William J. Crewe, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the world it was all Iran's fault that the Vincennes shot down the airliner, but failed to mention the ship was in Iranian waters at the time. Deniability, yes; but, what about U.S. Naval "accountability?"
The Golem a/k/a Hank Roth, a cryptologist in the White House for the President of the United States, and in the War Room at the Pentagon for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitchell Bard and Joel Himelbarb - MYTHS AND FACTS The Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was a tragic mistake. But it must be recalled that the incident occurred in the midst of a full- scale war.
On June 8, 1967, the third day of the conflict, the Israeli military command believed an Egyptian vessel had fired on Israeli positions in El Arish. It turned out to be the USS Liberty, an American intelligence ship assigned to monitor the fighting, which was 14 miles off the Sinai coast. Israeli war planes attacked, killing 34 members of the Liberty's crew and wounding 171.
The Liberty was first reported-incorrectly, as it turned out-to be cruising at 22 knots, a rate usually maintained only by warships. The Liberty's flag, according to testimony of crew members, may not have been discernible because there was little wind, and the flag was knocked down after the first assault. Also, after the first attack, the Liberty's commander refused an Israeli request that the ship identify itself. And, according to testimony of its own crew, the Liberty bore at least a surface resemblance to the El Quseir, an Egyptian ship.
The argument that the attack was a horrible error is further reinforced by a biography of Yitzhak Rabin (Dan Kurzman, Soldier of Peace: The Life of Yitzhak Rabin. NY: HarperCollins, 1998), who was Israel's Chief of Staff during the war, which says the Israelis initially were terrified that they had attacked a Soviet ship and might have provoked the Soviets to join the fighting. When they learned it was in fact a U.S. vessel, Rabin was still worried that the mistake might jeopardize American support for Israel.
The misidentification of the Liberty as an enemy vessel was understandable. Three days earlier, Israel had asked that American ships be removed from its coast and that it be notified of the precise location of U.S. vessels. The Sixth Fleet was moved, but the Liberty did not get the message.
In 1991, columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak trumpeted their discovery of an American who said he had been in the Israeli war room when the decision was made to knowingly attack the American ship.(3) In fact, that individual, Seth Mintz, was not in the war room at the time and the man who he said had been with him, a Gen. Benni Matti, did not exist. Also, contrary to their claim that an Israeli pilot identified the ship as American, the transcript of the radio traffic between the attack fighters and air force headquarters contains no such statement.
None of Israel's accusers has been able to explain adequately why Israel would have deliberately attacked an American ship. Confusion in a long line of communications, which occurred in a tense atmosphere on both the American and Israeli sides (a message from the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the ship to remain at least 20 miles off the Egyptian coast never arrived) is a more probable explanation.
Accidents caused by "friendly fire" are common in wartime. In 1988, the U.S. Navy mistakenly downed an Iranian passenger plane, killing 290 civilians. During the Gulf War, 35 of the 148 Americans who died in battle were killed by "friendly fire." In fact, only the day before the Liberty was attacked, Israeli pilots accidentally bombed one of their own armored columns south of Jenin on the West Bank.
As a former highranking Israeli naval officer, Shlomo Erell, told the Associated Press (June 5, 1977): "No one would ever have dreamt that an American ship would be there. Even the United States didn't know where its ship was. We were advised by the proper authorities that THERE WAS NO AMERICAN SHIP WITHIN 100 MILES." [EMPHASIS MINE]
Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara told Congress on July 26, 1967: "It was the conclusion of the investigatory body, headed by an admiral of the Navy in whom we have great confidence, that the attack was not intentional."
In 1987, McNamara repeated his belief that the attack was an accident, telling a caller on the "Larry King Show" that he had seen nothing in the 20 years since to change his mind that there had been no "cover- up."
Israel apologized for the tragedy and paid nearly $13 million in reparations to the United States and to the families of the victims. The last payment was received in December 1989, when the U.S. officially closed the books on the matter.
Notes Yitzhak Rabin, The Rabin Memoirs, CA: University of California Press, 1996, pp. 108-109. Rabin, p. 110. Washington Post, (November 6, 1991). Hirsh Goodman, "Messrs. Errors and No Facts," Jerusalem Report (November 21, 1991). Hirsh Goodman and Ze'ev Schiff, "The Attack on the Liberty," Atlantic Monthly, (September 1984). "The Larry King Show" (radio), (February 5, 1987). TheGolem Subscribe to the PNEWS Network of Forums for indepth coverage of this and other topics. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted on June 10th, 2000. Then Re-Posted and counter Re-Set on May 2nd2001. The commentary here is fully copyrighted literary property. Limitations: Copyleft License You are visitor # 1193
Start- Portal- News- Forums- Archives- Catalog
Page last changed on 06/22/2001 None of those claiming Israel's complicity in a conspiracy to murder Americans has been meticulous in their observance of truth and accuracy. It must be emphasized also that if the INTENT of the Israeli military was to destroy the Liberty, then the aircraft would have been so-armed with anti-ship ordnance. It wasn't. If it had been, there would not have been anything left of the USS Liberty.
The problem with Ennes and all the other excuses and attempts at shifting blame for the attack on the Liberty from the US Navy to the the IDF is a lack of accountability for the U.S "spy" ship being there in the first place.
Ennes wants to continue to play the victim and anyone who suggests the Liberty may have been at fault for being in the wrong place at the wrong time is in his eyes, analogous to being a rapist, and a person who victimizes the victims. The circumstances were such that the Liberty was in the middle of a war and running contrary to orders, which they claim they never received. They were victims because they got caught up in something they should have been trained for and they continued to provoke hostilities when they fired on Israeli torpedo boats.
The Liberty fiasco wasn't the first nor the last U.S. military screw-up. There been ample examples of deniability without accountability. The Liberty and the Navy needed their scapegoat and it was logical for them to blame the Israelis, rather than accept blame themselves for the appearance of being a hostile ship in a war zone...and faulting those who put them there.. or, those responsible for the communication's problems. Seems ironic that a communications vessel should have problems with their communications?
The military's failure to fix blame for Air Force F-15 pilots shooting down Army Black Hawk helicopters, plunging 26 people to fiery deaths in Iraq, is an example of military "deniability."
The case made for SOG forces in Laos killing defectors may be another instance of U.S. _coverup_ and military "deniability?." In the past quarter-century alone, there have been at least four _monstrous_ foul-ups, all of which cost lives. Yet no one in our military has been blamed for any of them. Tut-tut letters in someone's service record isn't fixing blame.
Recall that a sailor was shot to death and the nation was disgraced in 1968, when North Korea captured the spy ship USS Pueblo and its 83-man Navy crew. Recall that 241 Marines and sailors were killed in 1983 when a lone terrorist drove through their lines at the Beirut International Airport and detonated his load of explosives. Recall that the USS Vincennes mistakeningly shot down an Iranian civilian airliner in 1988, killing 290 civilians and inspiring the sabotage of Pan American Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing another 270 people. Recall when two F-15 fighter planes shot down in broad daylight two Army Black Hawks in the mistaken belief they were Soviet Hind helicopters, which would have posed no great threat to the highly maneuverable F-15s. What happened? Who was blamed? Where was the accountability? The Air Force ended up putting only one officer in the dock, Air Force Capt. James Wang, and he was acquitted.
The families of those victims are suffering a lack of 'accountability' by the Air Force, just as the families of the victims of the Liberty are suffering the lack of accountability by the U.S. Navy.
The difficulty in fixing blame is that everyone is to some extent responsible; therefore no one person could fairly be held responsible. So everybody get off. But, there is a need for a patsy and with the Liberty, it just happened to be Israel by those who need a scapegoat.
James Ennes accuses Rabin of being a "liar." If Rabin is a liar, so is everyone else who has ever written about Rabin's breakdown. But, he says it is all Israeli propaganda...and we should listen to his "propaganda" and whatever "white paper" was issued by a congressional committee doing an investigation for an incident for which they had to come up with "deniability."
It says it was all Israeli propaganda that Israel was ever in any danger or threat and goes on to even blame Israel for the war. Never mind the annulment of Israel's existence and repeated threats and actions against Israel from across all of its borders. "We swear to God that we shall not rest until we restore the Arab nation to Palestine and Palestine to the Arab nation. There is no room for imperialism and there is no room for Israel within the Arab nation." [Nasser/1994]
"We shall not enter Palestine with its soild covered in sand, we shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood" [Nasser/1995] On June 7th [my birthday, so I remember it well], it was the third day of the war and the Israeli naval command was underequipped to defend Israel's shores and dependent on the air force and human observation for long range early warning. It would be an understatement to say, the Navy was fearful and frustrated. because of the tension, the loss of an elite frogman commando unit, which was captured by the Egyptians and the sightings of three Egyptian submarines close to the Israeli shore. There was also a report of several Soviet vessels in the area.
An Israeli Nord aircraft took off from an airfield early on the morning of the 8th with an Israeli navy spotter on board to patrol the shore and insure that enemy vessels did not penetrate Israeli waters during the night before. Israel had to have a human spotter for early warning because Israel in 1967 had very limited radar capability.
Almost two hours after the aircraft started its patrol, it notified the duty officer in the navy's war room that a ship had been spotted West of Gaza. It appeared to be a destroyer from the air. The officer orderd a red marker placed on the battle control table. Red was the color used to indicate an "unidentified" ship.
Almost 20 minutes later the Nord sent another report in which the spotter identified the ship as an "American naval-supply vessel. The ship was identified by the spotter and would have then been considered neutral, but the marker was not changed from red to green, to designate a neutral vessel. The Israelis admitted this. They DID NOT DENY it. The reason given by the duty officer at a board of inquiry was the "identification had been vague and uncertain."
And, then from 6 to 9 a.m. the navy's attention in the war room was diverted to an emergency, with the penetration of an enemy submarine west of the town of Atlit, where a huge oil slick had been sighted. At 8:50 the navy dispatched the destroyer MV Haifa to the area. The Haifa detonated five depth charges at 9:02 without success. While the hunt for the enemy sub was ongoing, Admiral Erel entered the underground war room to take personal command and he questioned the duty officer about the red marker west of the Sinai coast. Told that the marker designated what was thought to be an American supply ship, he ordered the marker changed to green and he concentrated on the submarine.
More depth charges were detonated and air bubbles and oil was rising to the surface. At the same time, the war room received a cable from an Israel pilot reporting that he was being shot at by an "unidentified" ship off the Sinai coast. After he landed and in debriefing he said that he was not fired at, but he had seen a ship and it appeared to be "gray" and "wider than usual, and with a bridge in the middle." The information was filed and forgotten.
Then, after 10 a.m. the Nord aircraft returned and in debriefing the navy spotter reported that he had clearly seen a GTR-5 on the side of the vessel. Major Pinhassi at the naval operations room at Naval Headquarters consulted Jane's Fighting Ships and identified the ship as an American intelligence vessel named the "Liberty."
At 11 a.m. the duty cammanders in the navy war room changed shifts and a Lt. Col took over temporary command. He ordered the green marker removed from the battle control table so it would not be cluttered. Standard naval operating procedure dictated that battle control table should be kept as simple as possible, BUT in retrospect, it was a fatal decision for the Liberty because from 11:05 on the Liberty was no longer a known quantity for those who were operationally responsible for conducting a FAST-MOVING THREE-FRONT WAR.., who were feeling the heat of battle decision making. At 11:24 the air force reported to the naval chief of operation, Col Issy Rahav, that the Sinai coast city of El Arish, captured by Israeli forces the day before was being shelled from the sea. And, at 11:27 a.m., a second, independent report ame in, and this time from Southern Command Hqts, that El Arish was indeed being bombarded from the sea.
In his book, Ennis also reported explosions in El Arish. The smoke and explosions were clearly visible to the crew of the Liberty 'WHICH IS HOW CLOSE THEY WERE' to what was presumed to be an enemy attack on the coastal city. Later it was determined that an Egyptian ammo depot had exploded in El Arish. The Israeli general command assumed that the city was under attack from the sea and the Liberty 'JUST HAPPENED TO BE THERE', which made it look an awful lot like the Liberty had been doing the shelling.
Col Rahav at 12:05 p.m. ordered three torpedo boats from the 914 Squadron to leave Ashdod and proceed towards El Arish and at 12:15 captain of the flagship torpedo boat, Lt. Col Moshe Oren was ordered to sail to 20 miles north of El Arish and patrol that area. At 1:07 p.m. he was instructed to call for an air strike upon spotting the target.
At 1:41, 2nd Lt Aharon Yfrach, the radar operator about the flagship, T-204, picked up a target on his scope. The ship was spotted at 20 nautical miles northwest of El Arish, 14 miles off the Bardawil shore, and moving west at a speed of about thirty knots. Standard operating procedure for the Israeli navy in 1967 was that any ship moving faster than 20 knots in a battle arena was to be presumed hostile. A second radar check indicated the target's speed at 28 knots. The Israelis later said the reading was inaccurate, which can be attributed to what is known as "radar jump" or simply an erroneous reading by the radar operator? The radar on torpedo boats were often inaccurate. The conclusions at the time however was, it was moving at faster than 20 knots and the TARGET IN QUESTION WAS PROBABLY A WARSHIP. It also 'APPEARED TO BE SAILING AN EVASIVE COURSE' in the direction of Port Said, at the mouth of the Suez Canal, which would also indicate it was hostile.
At 1:45 p.m. it was decided by Rahav to order an attack on the ship. It would take awhile for the torpedo boats to get there so an air strike was called. Senior air force battle controller, Lt Col Shmuel Kislev, ordered two Mirage III C fighters on their way back to Israel from an air patrol over the Suez Canal to divert to the target. The Mirages reached the target at about 2 p.m. The lead plane dropped to an altitude of 3,000 feet and circled the target twice. The second aircraft circled the target only once. It was reported that the ship was NOT Israeli, it was painted battle-gray and had two cannons in the forecastle, a mast in the front and one funnel.
Major General Mordechai Hod, the commander of the Israeli air force, asked the pilot by radio if any flag was visible. The pilot reported back "I SEE NO FLAG OR OTHER SIGNS OF IDENTIFICATION." Members of the crew find this a point of contention, but regardless of that fact, there must still be ACCOUNTABILITY FOR BEING IN A BATTLE ARENA, and assessments are made by the air force command, based on the pilot's observation, the course of the ship, the reported speed and the evasive running of the ship, location, etc., and the IMPRESSION WAS IT WAS A HOSTILE SHIP.
At 2:06, the pilots began their straffing runs and straffed the Liberty four times. Fire had broken out on the left side of the ship. Two more aircraft were diverted, this time Super Mystere jets en route to a bombing mission over the Mitla Pass in the Central Sinai. The were carrying napalm bombs, which are not suitable for attacking targets at sea but it was decided to use the aircraft anyway. The Mysteres made two bombing runs, but only one bomb hit the ship.
As there was no return fire from the Liberty, the lack of a response was puzzling and the lead pilot flew low enough to notice a P-30 painted on the hull. He then dropped to only ninety feet above the water line and this time noticed CTR-5 on the hull. 'HE SAID HE SAW NO FLAG'. He was told to report on damages and leave the target area. At 2:15 the air force controller in central operation dispatched two helicopters to the area to pick up survivors. Meanwhile the torpedo boats had arrived at the scene. The flagship flahed the message, "WHAT SHIP?" But, the Liberty replied "AA" meaning "Identify yourselves first." That was really dumb. Here they are listing, enveloped in smoke, heavily damaged and their captain is telling the torpedo boats to identify themselves first?
Eleven years before, during the Sinai campaign, exactly the same exchange had taken place between an Israeli destroyer, the MV Yaffo, and an Egyptian ship, the Ibrahim-el-Awal. Oren, who was a young offer on the Yaffo's bridge at the time, 'REMEMBERED THE INCIDENT WELL'. If he had any doubts that the burning vessel ahead of him was Egyptian, they were now dispelled.
While he was deciding whether to attack, a burst of machine gun fire erupted from the ship's forecastle. It seems that a seaman apprentice on board did not hear the Captain's "hold-your- fire order" and fired several volleys at the torpedo boats.
Oren still hestitated until he consulted the Israeli navy's book identifying the ships of the Arab navies and concluded that the ship in question was the Egyptian suppply vessel EL QUSEIR. One of the other captains of another torpedo boat came up with the same identification.
And, at 2:37 Lt Col Oren gave the order to attack the ship. THIS WAS 'AFTER BEING FIRED UPON FROM THE LIBERTY'. At 2:43 advancing with rapid cannon fire, the topedo boats fired torpedos. At least one torpedo his the ship. When the T-204 crossed the ship's bow, one of the officers aboard noticed the letters GTR on the hull of the ship and Oren immediately issued the hold-fire order. It was 2:07.
At 2:51, Oren radioed back to command headquarters that the ship could be Russian. Rabin called an emergency meeting of his adviser to discuss the possiblity of large sacale Soviet intervention but at 3:20 Oren notified headquarters that the ship was NOT Russian, IT WAS AMERICAN. At 3:30 the news was conveyed to Commander Castle, naval atache in Tel Aviv. ISRAEL OFFERED TO HELP WITH THE WOUNDED. The offer was rejected. [One must remember when Marines were wounded in Lebanon Israel offered then also to treat the wounded and that offere was then also rejected, causing additional loss of life. There must be "accountability" for that blunder also.]
The attack on the LIBERTY was not with malice, but a genuine understandable mistake, like many which are often made in battle, and which could have been avoided if the Liberty had stayed out of harm's way [as we learned later was the intention of the State Department and the Chiefs of Staff].
The problem is a lack of accountability, NOT deniability. Take the case of the old cargo ship off North Korea sent to spy. Who sent the Peoblo? It was the skipper who the Court of Inquiry wanted to blame it on. It wasn't the skipper's fault.
And, who recommended the sending in of Marines into the middle of the Lebanese civil war with no clearer mission than to establish a "presence?" It wasn't the Marine Corp, it was President Reagan, and his advisers. And, to his credit, Reagan did take responsibility for the airport bombing.
Adm. William J. Crewe, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the world it was all Iran's fault that the Vincennes shot down the airliner, but failed to mention the ship was in Iranian waters at the time. Deniability, yes; but, what about U.S. Naval "accountability?"
The Golem a/k/a Hank Roth, a cryptologist in the White House for the President of the United States, and in the War Room at the Pentagon for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mitchell Bard and Joel Himelbarb - MYTHS AND FACTS The Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was a tragic mistake. But it must be recalled that the incident occurred in the midst of a full- scale war. On June 8, 1967, the third day of the conflict, the Israeli military command believed an Egyptian vessel had fired on Israeli positions in El Arish. It turned out to be the USS Liberty, an American intelligence ship assigned to monitor the fighting, which was 14 miles off the Sinai coast. Israeli war planes attacked, killing 34 members of the Liberty's crew and wounding 171. The Liberty was first reported-incorrectly, as it turned out-to be cruising at 22 knots, a rate usually maintained only by warships. The Liberty's flag, according to testimony of crew members, may not have been discernible because there was little wind, and the flag was knocked down after the first assault. Also, after the first attack, the Liberty's commander refused an Israeli request that the ship identify itself. And, according to testimony of its own crew, the Liberty bore at least a surface resemblance to the El Quseir, an Egyptian ship. The argument that the attack was a horrible error is further reinforced by a biography of Yitzhak Rabin (Dan Kurzman, Soldier of Peace: The Life of Yitzhak Rabin. NY: HarperCollins, 1998), who was Israel's Chief of Staff during the war, which says the Israelis initially were terrified that they had attacked a Soviet ship and might have provoked the Soviets to join the fighting. When they learned it was in fact a U.S. vessel, Rabin was still worried that the mistake might jeopardize American support for Israel. The misidentification of the Liberty as an enemy vessel was understandable. Three days earlier, Israel had asked that American ships be removed from its coast and that it be notified of the precise location of U.S. vessels. The Sixth Fleet was moved, but the Liberty did not get the message. In 1991, columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak trumpeted their discovery of an American who said he had been in the Israeli war room when the decision was made to knowingly attack the American ship.(3) In fact, that individual, Seth Mintz, was not in the war room at the time and the man who he said had been with him, a Gen. Benni Matti, did not exist. Also, contrary to their claim that an Israeli pilot identified the ship as American, the transcript of the radio traffic between the attack fighters and air force headquarters contains no such statement. None of Israel's accusers has been able to explain adequately why Israel would have deliberately attacked an American ship. Confusion in a long line of communications, which occurred in a tense atmosphere on both the American and Israeli sides (a message from the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the ship to remain at least 20 miles off the Egyptian coast never arrived) is a more probable explanation. Accidents caused by "friendly fire" are common in wartime. In 1988, the U.S. Navy mistakenly downed an Iranian passenger plane, killing 290 civilians. During the Gulf War, 35 of the 148 Americans who died in battle were killed by "friendly fire." In fact, only the day before the Liberty was attacked, Israeli pilots accidentally bombed one of their own armored columns south of Jenin on the West Bank. As a former highranking Israeli naval officer, Shlomo Erell, told the Associated Press (June 5, 1977): "No one would ever have dreamt that an American ship would be there. Even the United States didn't know where its ship was. We were advised by the proper authorities that THERE WAS NO AMERICAN SHIP WITHIN 100 MILES." [EMPHASIS MINE] Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara told Congress on July 26, 1967: "It was the conclusion of the investigatory body, headed by an admiral of the Navy in whom we have great confidence, that the attack was not intentional." In 1987, McNamara repeated his belief that the attack was an accident, telling a caller on the "Larry King Show" that he had seen nothing in the 20 years since to change his mind that there had been no "cover- up." Israel apologized for the tragedy and paid nearly $13 million in reparations to the United States and to the families of the victims. The last payment was received in December 1989, when the U.S. officially closed the books on the matter. Notes Yitzhak Rabin, The Rabin Memoirs, CA: University of California Press, 1996, pp. 108-109. Rabin, p. 110. Washington Post, (November 6, 1991). Hirsh Goodman, "Messrs. Errors and No Facts," Jerusalem Report (November 21, 1991). Hirsh Goodman and Ze'ev Schiff, "The Attack on the Liberty," Atlantic Monthly, (September 1984). "The Larry King Show" (radio), (February 5, 1987). TheGolem Subscribe to the PNEWS Network of Forums for indepth coverage of this and other topics. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted on June 10th, 2000. Then Re-Posted and counter Re-Set on May 2nd2001. The commentary here is fully copyrighted literary property. Limitations: Copyleft License You are visitor # 1193 Start- Portal- News- Forums- Archives- Catalog Page last changed on 06/22/2001
Israel's first priority is its own self preservation; they are not our friends. Second, as Americans, we must remember the Neutralitiy Proclaimation of 1793, authored by George Wahington. If we did then their would be no incident; their would have been war between the US and the state of Israel. The brave citizens aboard the Liberty were betrayed by the politicians involved, especially the Americans!
You raise many issues, let me see if I can address them.
Of course Israel's first priority is self preservation. That is the priority of every nation.
The Neutrality proclamation is not the law of the land. Washington was a good man and a good president, but let us not forget that we begged the French to get involved in our war against the British (and of course, they did, supplying us, fighting with us, and diluting the British army's strength by forcing them to fight on several fronts).
If we did have neutrality, there would have been no incident, BUT we would not have been at war with Israel because the Liberty would not have been there (and perhaps Israel would not be there either).
Neutrality = Isolationism. If we remained neutral, Asia and South America would have fallen to communism. Europe would have fallen to Hitler. Europe would probably have ended up in war with Russia and either communism or nazism would be the major political force in the world.
The trade off we make is that Americans have and will die to preserve our way of life... not just our ideals, but our standards of living. In is because we are involved in the world's affairs that we are able to grow our nation's GDP and our standards of living.
I just don't know the answer to the question of whether Israel knew it was an American ship. I am quite cynical, and I would suppose that at least at the top levels of the Israeli government, they knew it. But the men who executed the attack were given orders to attack, and an American flag on an Egyptian ship would be a nice ruse. The attackers had no choice but to continue the attack.
But this is what I believe actually occured. I believe that the USA was spying on Israel, was relaying information, and that information was ending up in the hands of the Egyptians either deliberately or by espionage. If Israel was to win the war, they needed to stop the flow of information. So they had no choice but to attack the Liberty. The Americans and the Israelis were both thoroughly embarassed by the situation. We were embarassed that 1) we were attacked and 2) our information flow was not secure (or, that we were caught deliberately sending info to Egypt). The State Department was likely extremely embarassed either way. So I agree with you in a sense, it served the political purposes of both Israel and the USA to cover up the truth behind this event.
First off, your not in my district, so I'm not worried ... Second, I'm going to keep this story alive till we find the truth ... those were US sailors that died that day and I will stand up for them in every way I can, so don't stand in my way(:^>
What do you want to know? Tell me about your geneology too. What tribe are you from?
If you check the record, you will find that Israel has been getting foreign aid from the US since 1953.
Please note that for the 2000 years after the Jews left Palestine, the Arabs didn't destroy any Christian sites.
Also, FYI, dried apples are smoked in Hookas.
>to keep this story alive
Well, if you keep it alive the way you keep your BobEvansForCongress page alive....
What happened, too much antisemitic content for your TOS?
Israel attacked that ship with unmarked aircraft so we would think it was Egypt. Israel runs this country and probally the whole world. WHo was the wingnut that said the jews had 550,000 soldiers in WW2. I checked with 6 of my army buddies last night - they never met one. (that includes relatives in different services)
I think I will play the game. For the record I shot down 20 Jap Zeros and was wounded 5 times. In 43 I bagged six german U-Boats. Hell this is fun. All I got to do is write something and it becomes true.
You lousy nazi scumbag. You don't have six friends.
I can't believe you haven't been given the boot yet. You're a real wackjob.
Fifty years ago I would have kicked your ass for saying that. We had a term for you back then > REA or Rear Eschalon a*******.
What is this a Commie chat room where veterans get insulted ??
We have a term for you today, it's called "mentally ill" or possibly, "demonicaly possesed".
By the way newbie, this isn't a chat room but you do more than qualify for a rubber room.
>>> All I got to do is write something and it becomes true. <<<
Are you related to Bill Clinton?
You GD communist bastards. I had plenty of friends but most of them died. And what is the wise crack about the rubber room ? When I think of brave soldiers dying for you goof balls I get sick. If there was a IG around here you would all be standing tall before the man.
Read "Secret War Against the Jews" by Loftus and Aarons. It is the only explanation that holds water when all of the realities are taken into account.
Just ask yourself three questions and see if any of the other stories gives a satisfactory answer:
1. Do you really believe the cover story that the Israelis couldn't identify the Liberty with its numeric identifier and U.S. flag, or that the Israeli Navy doesn't have a copy of Jane's "All the Worlds Ships" (or whatever the exact title is)? They in fact had the PLANS of the ship.
2. Do you believe that the Israelis would take the chance of bringing the U.S. into the war against them for some nonsensical reason?
3. Why did the U.S. Navy recall its aircraft from responding to the Liberty's calls for help? Was Lyndon Johnson afraid that the resulting blowup would reveal that the Liberty had been sent in to spy for the benefit of Egypt and against Israel in time of war?
Typical BS from a "DistantVoice" ... why is it that when anyone challenges Israel they are automatically labeled "anti-Semitic"???????
The third rail of free speech????
Well to heck with ya!
There is no reason to keep my Congressional Campaign web page up during the off years ... that's my choice, not yours!
And If I decide to challenge Israel on its attack on "OUR" ship I will continue to do so despite the "anti-Semitic" bullshit label!
Have a nice day(:^>
>that's my choice, not yours!
Of course :))). I didn't imply anywhere it was my choice or anything, now did I? Geez.
>to do so despite the "anti-Semitic" bullshit label
Good. Nothing can more effectively keep you out of office, you know ;).
>I get sick
You're so right, "admiral". Talking to yourself is a serious symptom, you know. You could at least invent a couple of invisible friends to talk to. Couple of lesser ranks, as it were. It's not important or anything, but it might make the spectacle even more amusing. Now, I believe you're about to be boarded or something. Shouldn't you get your sword and be up in the rigging?
What tribe
I'll tell you mine. You tell me yours? LOL
I'm from the tribe of Sane People. You?
You're so right, "admiral". Talking to yourself is a serious symptom, you know. You could at least invent a couple of invisible friends to talk to. Couple of lesser ranks, as it were. It's not important or anything, but it might make the spectacle even more amusing. Now, I believe you're about to be boarded or something. Shouldn't you get your sword and be up in the rigging?
You no good GD bilge rat. Invisible friends ?? I had plenty of friends.
That crack about (lesser rank) shows how dam stupid you are. Of course I am not a Admiral but clown you had better thank you lucky stars I wasn't the old man on the Saratoga. I would scrambled the entire flight deck and those jew fly boys would have been shark bait. I would have my boys sink those attack heliocopters and let the Liberty crew have target pratice.
And cut the crap of the sword and rigging stuff. I am not looney tune but you sure are.
looney tune
Bon Voyage. When is the good ship lollipop sailing?
>You no good GD bilge rat
Rotfl. You sure have buttons, admiral :). Now, I'm almost afraid to ask, but do you have any habits involving ball bearings?
I'm from the tribe of Sane People. You?
Members of the Sane People tribe don't usually post on this thread.
I have checked the record. I asked for specifics from you. I already know the answer, I just want to know how honest you can be. From 1948-1969, we gave Israel on average between $40-80 million a year. This was humanitarian aid to help resettle refugees who were kicked out of Arab countries. It was not military aid. That commenced in roughly 1974, after Camp David.
The point is, of course, that the USA and Israel were not very close at the time of the Liberty incident. Israel was much closer to Britain and France, who also had their own problems with the Arab/Islamic nationalists (i.e. blockading the Suez). In fact, America sometimes acted hostile towards Israel's interest prior to 1967, a perfect example being protecting Egyptian forces in the war in the Sinai in 1956.
You are correct about the numbers and it was still WAY beyond what the US was spending anywhere else in the world.
Is it your postition that it wasn't enough money to prevent a three hour attack on the USS Liberty?
Kudza >> your postition that it wasn't enough money to prevent a three hour attack on the USS Liberty?
Are you telling me I got to pay those clowns. In the next war lets take a US ship and load it with jew sailors and send it over there. Now that one of 'Fruitcakes' told me there was 550,000 jewish soldiers in ww2.
HAH HAH - Now if we could only find a ship that two sailors could run. Now who is looney Sabreamerican. Ya Distant Voice, who is laughing now. Be easier to find a mermaid than those two.
LOL. Of course not. I've already expressed my opinion on this incident numerous times on this thread. If Israel believed that the Liberty, be it American or Egyptian, was transmitting vital information that put the life of Israel and her citizens on the line wittingly or unwittingly, then Israel had no choice but to take it out. To do otherwise is to fail to be a nation at all.
Is it your position that all nations and all people be subservient to the USA, even if that means the certain death of it's people and possibly the nation itself?
"Admiral" go play with your rubber boats in the tub. It is too bad that someone as low life, piece of garbage as you is still on this hallowed site. This is a site for grown-ups.
Your disparaging remarks about the 500,000 jewish war veterans is beneath the dignity of even a fool.
Go on picking your nose, you teen age delinquent. You are no doubt a fine speciment of vermint.
Nope. I don't expect all nations to be subservient to the US.
I guess the Admiral hasn't gotten the boot out of respect for disabled veterans.
"...How close were Israel and the USA in 1967..."
At the time of the 1967 war, France, not the U.S., was the principle arms supplier to the Israelis. The aircraft came from the French. Most of the tanks were British Centurions, which were particularly well adapted to desrt conditions. This didn't change until the French embargoed the Israelis during the 1967 war, and Israel started buying F-4 Phantoms from the U.S. after the war.
Accept my apologizes about stupid remarks on veterans.
The Leonard Kravitz Jewish War Veterans Act of 2001 -- introduced by Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) with support from Rep. Benjamin Gilman (R-N.Y.), Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) -- instructs the Pentagon to review the records of Jewish war veterans who were awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, the Navy Cross or Air Force Cross to determine whether their acts of bravery should have received the Congressional Medal of Honor, the country's highest award for bravery.
The rationale for the bill are those peculiar numbers. According to the U.S. Army Center of Military History's Web site, more than 3,400 Congressional Medals of Honor have been awarded since the decoration's inception in 1861.
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 91 | Top | Last ]
Apology accepted.
Now it's your turn to apologize, scumbag.
Apologize for what?
Maybe for catching AK in his vicious lies. Maybe for being a Zionist and/or Jew. Who knows.
Let's not forget Admiral Boorda,the recent Chief of Naval Operations,driven to suicide by an anti-semitic efforts of Hackworth and others to blemish his impeccable reputation.
That beloved hero was destroyed by the likes of Kimmel and Col. Hackworth.
The anti-semitism faced by Admiral Rickover, the father of the nuclear navy, must not be forgotten. There are many scumbags like Kimmel in the world.
Marker bump
The U.S.S. Liberty attack (a tragic mistake)= The 'Bay of Pigs' attack (a tragic mistake)
IMHO.......a "BAY-of-PIGS II"
Why were the attacking aircraft 'unmarked'?
( No visual I.D.)?
Why did INTELLIGENCE (The Liberty) NOT-KNOW 'precisely-exactly' who the attacking aircraft were?
( No electronic I.D.)?
IMHO.......a "BAY-of-PIGS II"
??................................ WRONG 'Bay',..............WRONG 'Ship',..............?
A 'plans' failure!?!?
There are many scumbags like Kimmel in the world.
You ought not have said that.
The Wexler legislation directs the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force to review the records of Jewish war veterans who were awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, the Navy Cross, or Air Force Cross to determine whether their acts of bravery should have been recognized with the Congressional Medal of Honor for their bravery. It is believed that lingering prejudice within the Armed Forces following World War II and the Korean War may have deprived deserving Jewish veterans of the nation's highest military honor.
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 98 | Top | Last ]
Let's not forget Admiral Boorda,the recent Chief of Naval Operations,driven to suicide by an anti-semitic efforts of Hackworth and others to blemish his impeccable reputation.
Why did Boorda commit suicide ???? Now answer me that !!
My blood pressure went off the charts the last time your group assualted me. What about your 'Perfumed Prince' that got sent down in Kosovo. Don't screw with a real veteran you REA (Rear Eschelon a*******)
O'HARE, EDWARD HENRY Rank and organization: Lieutenant, U.S. Navy. Born: 13 March 1914, St. Louis, Mo. Entered service at: St. Louis, Mo. Other Navy awards: Navy Cross, Distinguished Flying Cross with 1 gold star. Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in aerial combat, at grave risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty, as section leader and pilot of Fighting Squadron 3 on 20 February 1942. Having lost the assistance of his teammates, Lt. O'Hare interposed his plane between his ship and an advancing enemy formation of 9 attacking twin-engine heavy bombers. Without hesitation, alone and unaided, he repeatedly attacked this enemy formation, at close range in the face of intense combined machinegun and cannon fire.
Despite this concentrated opposition, Lt. O'Hare, by his gallant and courageous action, his extremely skillful marksmanship in making the most of every shot of his limited amount of ammunition, shot down 5 enemy bombers and severely damaged a sixth before they reached the bomb release point. As a result of his gallant action--one of the most daring, if not the most daring, single action in the history of combat aviation--he undoubtedly saved his carrier from serious damage.
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 95 | Top | Last ]
fixed?
The President, in the name of Congress, has awarded more than 3,400 Medals of Honor to our nation's bravest Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen since the decoration's creation in 1861
There were only 3400 MOH given out. Patton - Eisenhower -McCauliff-'Black Jack' Pershing - George Washington didn't get one.
George Washington and 'Black Jack' Pershing were 'General of the Armies of the Unided States' - the highest rank available
This guy didn't get a MOH - Gen McCauliff
He was Commander of Division Artillery of the 101st Airborne Division when he parachuted into Normandy on D-Day and when he entered Holland by glider, 1944. In December, 1944, he was acting Commander of the 101st Airborne Division and other attached troops during the siege of Bastogne, MBelgium. When they became surrounded and the Germans demanded their surrender, he sent back a one-word reply "NUTS." This is probably the most famous quote of World War II. In 1945, he commanded the 103rd Infantry Division until the end of the war in Europe.
. This guy got a MOH----YORK, ALVIN C. Rank and organization: Corporal, U.S. Army, Company G, 328th Infantry, 82d Division. Place and date: Near Chatel-Chehery, France, 8 October 1918. Entered service at: Pall Mall, Tenn. Born: 13 December 1887, Fentress County, Tenn. G.O. No.: 59, W.D., 1919. Citation: After his platoon had suffered heavy casualties and 3 other noncommissioned officers had become casualties, Cpl. York assumed command. Fearlessly leading 7 men, he charged with great daring a machinegun nest which was pouring deadly and incessant fire upon his platoon. In this heroic feat the machinegun nest was taken, together with 4 officers and 128 men and several guns
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 90 | Top | Last ]
You wrote .....
If Israel believed that the Liberty, be it American or Egyptian, was transmitting vital information that put the life of Israel and her citizens on the line wittingly or unwittingly, then Israel had no choice but to take it out. To do otherwise is to fail to be a nation at all. .....
I propose your statement be edited by switching the placement of Israel and the US. .....
If the US believed that Israel was transmitting vital information that put the life of the US and her citizens on the line wittingly or unwittingly, then the US would have no choice but to take it out. To do otherwise is to fail to be a nation at all. ....
Somehow I doubt you'd agree with the edit.
Israel betrayed the US and killed our sailors ..... we should Never Forget their cowardly betrayal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |