USS Liberty Controversy

Any response to this point by KB? It seems there's a lot being said about what the Israelis should have known or done, which is fine. It seems to me, motive is an important consideration.

 

Depends on how much "faith" you put into conspiracy theories...

 

I

I did provide one that I find consistent with similar episodes, there are some far more ourageous ones hanging around the net (mostly inspired on those around USS Maine or USS Maddox, wonder why none ever quotes USS Cole where US reaction was far more contained),

I find fog of war hard to believe in this instance, mistaking a Liberty for a destroyer, despite the pretty impressive electonics suite the hull is clearly merchant, is stretching reality, especially by torpedo boats that are within machine gun range on a good visibility day as all contemporary photos show.

 

There are several that make sense, and some that I feel are more along the lines of as Takao puts it, "conspiracy theories". However, you do not necessarily have to determine the exact reason for the attack, in order for it to have been deliberate.

A good example is the confrontations, harrassment and firing upon US Marines by Israeli Forces in Beirut in 1982-83. There is speculation as to what Israel hoped to achieve by such a risky tactic, many of the outcomes could have been much worse. One of the best known events was a confrontation between Captain Charles B. Johnson, USMC and Israeli Colonel Rafi Landsberg.

From Hyperwar:

"What Captain Johnson had spotted were three tanks moving from the north and three tanks coming from the south. He couldn't see them when they were in the town, but they were spotted shortly after as they left it and broke through the orchard on the western side of the Sidon Road into the buffer zone between the road and the university. The tanks were heading for a section of the fence where Captain Johnson had confronted an APC-mounted Israeli patrol on 20 January. The Company L commander quickly got in his jeep and went to the spot the tanks were approaching. Captain Johnson didn't think that:

. . . they would actually try to come through a joint Marine-Lebanese checkpoint like that. But once it developed, I was very concerned that if the tanks were allowed to move forward, there was a very dangerous situation, because the road they were on . . . went right through the heart of the university . . . divided the Marine company and the Lebanese company.

Johnson feared that if the tanks attempted to pass, a firefight might erupt between the Lebanese and the Israelis. If a fight ensued, the Marines would have to support the Lebanese. He wasn't worried about the Marines' fire discipline, but he was concerned about that of the Lebanese soldiers.

As the Israeli tanks approached the fence, Captain Johnson jumped out of his jeep, ran up to the tanks, and stood in the center of the road. The lead tank stopped about six inches in front of Johnson, would told the Israeli lieutenant colonel in the lead tank, "You will not pass through this position." After a short pause, the Israeli dismounted, spoke with Johnson, and then climbed back aboard the tank, saying that he was going through. Johnson later stated that he replied, "You will have to kill me first." He drew his pistol, chambered a round, and held the weapon at the ready position. There was another pause as the Israeli officer apparently spoke over his radio to his headquarters. The lead tank then pulled slowly to the side of the road with Captain Johnson walking alongside and then the two others suddenly revved up their engines and whipped forward toward the fence.
The young Marine captain jumped on the lead tank, grabbed the Israeli officer, and yelled at him to order his tanks halted. The tank commander complied and then purportedly told Johnson, "One thing we don't want to do is kill each other." Johnson answered, "Yes, but if you keep doing things like this, the likelihood is going to occur."

While the local Arab radio stations were telling and retelling the story of the American who stopped the three Israeli tanks singlehandedly, the Israeli press was accusing Captain Johnson of having liquor on his breath and being drunk. Worse, they called the whole affair a misunderstanding on the part of the Marines. Confronted by evidence, among other things, that Johnson was a teetotaler, the Israelis quickly toned down, and finally stopped such comments when they saw they were not going to be given credence."

One of the unintended consequences for the Israeli's is that Captain Johnson and the Marines became heroes to the local Muslims for confronting the IDF. Relations between the local population and the Marines had been satisfactory prior to the event and now progressed to being friendly. The Israeli government initially tried to blame Capt. Johnson, claiming he was a John Wayne type and drunk. Then when it was revealed that Johnson was a well known teetotaler, they blamed it on a misunderstanding by Marine Corps forces. When Washington and the American public, overwhelmingly took Johnson's side in the incident, Landsberg disappeared and Israel dropped the whole thing. However, the incidents continued and even escalated, resulting in the Commandant going to the Secretary of Defense.

From a March 1995 article in the Washington report:


"But the incidents did not stop. These now included “helicopter harassment,” by which U.S.-made helicopters with glaring spotlights were flown by the Israelis over Marine positions at night, illuminating Marine outposts and exposing them to potential attack. As reports of these incidents piled up, Gen. Barrow received a letter on March 12 from a U.S. Army major stationed in Lebanon with the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organization (UNTSO). The letter described a systematic pattern of Israeli attacks and provocations against UNTSO troops, including instances in which U.S. officers were singled out for “near-miss” shootings, abuse and detention.That same day two Marine patrols were challenged and cursed by Israeli soldiers.
Two days later Barrow wrote his letter to Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger, who endorsed it and sent it along to the State Department. High-level meetings were arranged and the incidents abated, perhaps largely because by this time Ariel Sharon had been fired as defense minister. He had been found by an Israeli commission to have had “personal responsibility” for the Sabra and Shatila massacres."

It should be noted here for those that would use these incidents to indict the Israeli people as a whole, for whatever reasons, instead of a few within their government. Sharon's being forced out over the massacres was the direct result of indignation and protests over the events by the Israeli People.

It should also be noted that there were no such confrontational incidents between the Marines and the military forces of the French, or the Italians or later the British, only with the Israeli's. The point is these incidents did occur, but the motive(s) behind them have never been definatively shown.

The possible reason that TOS' put forward, is plausible, in fact a number of the most plausible theories have root in the USS Liberty's ELINT mission.

Here are the more plausible ones:

-The one that TOS mentioned, that Israel did not want to be seen by the UN or by the world as the aggressor. This is supported by some of the same evidence given below, that it was an effort to hide the planned attack on Syria.

-Israel's attack upon Egypt was in preparation for their primary war aim, an attack on Syria. The potential for Egyptian intervention should Israel attack Syria was high, in the minds of certain government officials. Egypt needed to be removed as a threat prior to an attack on Syria. However, a subsequent attack on Syria, (which the Johnson administration opposed due to fears Russia would be drawn in) would require a redeployment of forces from the Sinai front. US foreknowledge due to electronic intercepts would likely threaten the Syrian attack. Israel was also trying to project the image to the world that it was the victim not the attacker, there was the chance the UN might step in prior to the completion of the attack against Syria.

There is much to support this theory:

"Gideon Rafael, the Israeli Ambassador to the UN, received a message from the Israeli foreign office: "inform immediately the President of the Sec. Co. that Israel is now engaged in repelling Egyptian land and air forces." At 3:10 am, Rafael woke ambassador Hans Tabor, the Danish President of the Security Council for June, with the news that Egyptian forces had "moved against Israel" .

Israel claimed that Egypt had struck first, telling the council that “in the early hours of this morning Egyptian armoured columns moved in an offensive thrust against Israel’s borders. At the same time Egyptian planes took off from airfields in Sinai and struck out towards Israel. Egyptian artillery in the Gaza strip shelled the Israel villages of Kissufim, Nahal-Oz and Ein Hashelosha..."

US Intelligence revealed that Israel had not been attacked, but had itself launched surprise airstrikes agains Egyptian airfields leaving Egyptian ground forces in the Sinai without aircover.

Then Israel changed it's reason to, "it was a preemptive strike in the face of a planned invasion of Israel by the Arab countries."

Israeli historian and former Israeli ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, writes that the Arabs, "had planned the conquest of Israel and the expulsion or murder of much of its Jewish inhabitants in 1967". Oren uses this reasoning to justify Israel's attack on Egypt yet when confronted by US, western, and even Israeli intelligence that Egypt's dispositions were defensive in nature and not offensive, changes his reasoning.
"Oren, has acknowledged that both US and Israeli intelligence indicated that troop movements in Egypt, taken by themselves, had only defensive, not offensive, purposes. However, he notes that the deployed Egyptian troops in the Sinai would move against Israel in the event that Israel undertook an invasion of Syria toward Damascus in response to repeated provocations by Syrian materiel and raids by fedayeen operating in Syrian territory."

There several Israeli policy makers that have since admitted that Nassar and Egypt did not want to, nor intended to attack Israel. Menachem Begin, later Prime Minister and a cabinet member during the 6 Day War; Mordechai Bentov cabinet member; Abba Eban, Israel's foreign minister during the war.
I also find it interesting that the same Michael Oren is the author of most of the articles claiming to debunk the "Israel knowingly attacked the Liberty" position and claiming those unwilling to accept his view, (that it was an accident), including the survivors of Liberty, are anti-semites. To be fair to Mr. Oren, there are a number of websites and authors that do use the Liberty incident for anti-semitic purposes, but this does not mean that everyone or even the majority of those that don't buy the Israeli version is anti-semitic.

Once you dig through all the obfuscation and changing justifications, it appears Syria, for whatever reason, was Israel's primary objective for launching the war. If Liberty threatened this objective???? And here again, we may never know the exact reason for, as with the attack on Liberty, or the attacks on the Beirut Marines, the launching of the 6 Day War.

 

Wow, Bob. What a story of Captain Johnson. I could not have imagined IDF could do such. Not up to speed on Liberty yet. Later. Thanks for sharing that Bob and Strike Eagle.

 

Just chanced upon this forum and hope you don’t mind a few points from a USS Liberty survivor. During the attack USS Liberty crewmen:

• saw the unmarked aircraft as they attacked our ship;
• heard the jamming of our radios on both US Navy tactical and international maritime distress frequencies;
• witnessed the deliberate machine gunning of life rafts we had dropped over the side in anticipation of abandoning ship;
• witnessed the slow circling of our ship by Israeli torpedo boats as they fired from close range at crewmen who were either trapped topside or who ventured topside to help their wounded shipmates;
• saw the Israeli helicopters filled with armed assault troops hover very close to our ship in an apparent attempt to find a place to allow those troops to rappel down to the ship;
• witnessed the torpedo boats immediate departure from the scene of the attack after cessation of hostilities instead of offering assistance as is their obligation under international law.

Additionally:

• testimony from eye witnesses about the deliberate machine gunning of our life rafts in the water has been removed from the record of the US Navy Court of Inquiry Report;
• Findings of Fact in the US Navy Court of Inquiry Report are not supported by evidence and testimony in the record as is required by the rules that govern Courts of Inquiry;
• there is nothing in the Court of Inquiry Report about the recall of two flights of rescue aircraft on orders from The White House;
• statements provided to the Court by some 65 USS Liberty crewmen have disappeared;
• the responsibility for the review of the US Navy Court of Inquiry Report in preparation of submitting it for endorsement by the Convening Authority was removed from ADM John S. the endorsement by the Court’s Convening Authority was conditional and based on information then available to the Court;
• McCain’s Legal Advisor, Capt. Merlin Staring, when Staring found a myriad of significant mistakes committed by the Court, told McCain that his review would take a considerable amount of time and that he refused to conduct the requested cursory examination of the Report for McCain’s endorsement;
• the attack on our ship is the only attack of its kind in US naval history NOT to be the subject of a Congressional investigation;
• the Department of Defense has refused to conduct an investigation based upon the allegations made in the War Crimes Report [see http://www.usslibertyveterans.org/files/wcr.pdf] we submitted to them on June 8, 2005 despite the requirement that they do so;
• the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) has refused to investigate the crimes contained in the War Crimes Report despite the fact that one of those crimes is a capital offense;
• Members of Congress routinely include text provided not by USS Liberty survivors but by Israel or her supporters in their boilerplate responses to their constituents who write to inquiry about the attack;
• Members of Congress refuse to modify their boilerplate responses to one based upon eye-witness accounts;
• no Member of Congress has attended our annual memorial service held on June 8th in Washington, DC; and that,
• [SIZE=12pt]the Department of Defense, Navy Department, American Legion and Navy League likewise have all refused to send an official to our annual memorial service despite the fact that the memorial service is being held in Washington, DC.[/SIZE]

Respectfully,
Joe Meadors
USS Liberty Survivor
Director of Operations, USS Liberty Veterans Association
Email: joe@ussliberty.com

 

With the amount of global bad press the US has taken when backing up Israel day in day out (Lets face it, Most nations are annoyed with Israel and the US constant protection just turning people against the US) only to be treated like this and to this day I reckon it's high time the US say's no more free passes to Israel, Stop spending $3 billion annually in 'civil' aid on Israel (Why an advanced economy has any need for continuous financial support is beyond me) and leave them to their own devices.

 

Thank you for your input Mr. Meadors. I think the US Government owes you, the other survivors and your shipmates that were killed, an open and fair hearing into the incident. I personally believe, that the attack was deliberate, as I am sure you can tell from my posts. I do not see any other rational explaination. Further, there is an established pattern of Israel, (the country not the people) engaging in actions harmful the the US, it's military capabilities and it's personnel. As I stated earlier, it was protests by the Israeli citizenry that forced Ariel Sharon from office, though he initially refused to step down, because of criminal things done in their name.
I would be very, very interested in your opinion as to why your ship was attacked. There is the previous, possible reasons I mentioned. Another possibility if that they feared the Liberty had captured radio traffic concerning the massacre of Egyptian POW's at El Arish. Then the one I've seen several times, that they intended to attack and sink Liberty and kill all survivors, then blame the attack on the Egyptians in order to draw the US into the conflict on their side.

 

Thank you for your service, sir, and I give you and all your fellow shipmates(both dead and alive) my deepest condolences, what Israel did was horrible in itself, but for our own government to abandon you and to kiss Israels sorry @$$ is nothing but a disgrace and a slap in the face to our country and our armed forces, and may those piece of **** politicians burn for their betrayal.

 

Wow. My original question :

Posted 17 October 2014 - 02:38 PM
"Oy, with the facts. A little surprised with the different versions of what happened in the Liberty case.
Surely, there is no mystery today as to what happened back then.
Can we get an unequivocal account?"

That question wound up in the "Kurd" thread. As post #20...Would like an explanation on how that happened.

The question posed here would have been about post # 9. Just before KB's response... Why it was removed is a mystery to me.

 

The moderators just split the discussion out so it could be it's own thread and not to hijack the Kurd thread. Wise decision in my opinion, there was no intent to hijack the other thread, it just happened. To answer you question as to how it initially got into the Kurd thread; Strike Eagle posted: "the only true allies we have in the Middle east are Israel and the Kurds."

I replied;
"Israel isn't our friend either."

Then Bobby (A-58) mentioned the Liberty;
"Yeah, just ask the guys on the USS Liberty about Israeli hospitality and professional courtesy."

As for the different versions, the Liberty crew has maintained since day one what happened, their story hasn't changed. The other versions, in my opinion are attempts at covering up a miscalculation by the Israeli government. The US government should have done the right thing by it's ship and crew, but Johnson was not in the strongest position politically and he didn't want or need the political fallout. What is more surprising to me is that we still don't have the political will to call them out over all the espionage episodes, the selling of our military hardware and technology, and weapons systems that we developed in conjunction with the Israeli government to potential enemies of the US. They need us as a friend more than we need them, if we'd just stand up and confront them, all these things would cease and we could have a more symbiotic relationship with them.

 

By way of a disclaimer I hope it goes without saying that the only way we will know why they attacked us is to ask them and it may be just me but for the past 47 years I have detected a reluctance on the part of the US government to do that. Hell, they won't even ask US what happened.

Another point that should be made is we don't care why they attacked us and an investigation can be considered complete without answering that question. We focus our attention on how they did and the US government's response (or lack thereof) to the attack.

Over the years we have been confronted by people who claim that the attack couldn't be deliberate until and unless we could provide them with a reason for the attack that they considered legitimate.

That said, there have been numerous theories presented over the years. In my opinion the one that may prove to be close to the truth involves the Israeli intention to invade the Golan Heights. Apparently LBJ told the Israelis not to have any territorial ambitions so they wanted to hide their actions from the US until the invasion was complete. They thought we could learn of their plans and inform Washington.

In fact we didn't have any Hebrew linguists aboard so we wouldn't know what was being said on their radios however we were in a position to detect the increased radio traffic that would result from their moving their troops from the Sinai to the Golan.

 

Thanks Mr P. If it looks good to you, it's alright by me...

Salute to Mr Bluedevil...Why this information is not known or available to the world is a little disconcerting.

 

I've been away for a few days and just caught up on the developing and interesting thread here. Seems that all that can be said of the incident and it's progression has been said. And thanks for stopping by Mr. Joe Meadors (Bluedevil) and sharing your harrowing experiences with us. Very seldom do we get a first hand account on incidents that we've read about. I hope that you'll stay with us and continue to contribute to the forum. I've run out of salutes gents, when I get re-supplied I'll start dishing them out where they're needed!

 

BBC's: Dead In The Water. Wonder if Mr Bluedevil was in this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc7sOb7IsPY

 

No, I'm not in that one.

 

Can we request a current explanation from Israel?

Have to agree with Obama's current stance.
Wondering why this issue isn't a "thing" in the US.
How many US citizens even know about the dirty deed.

Pardon me. Don't want to create waves if the issue has been ok'd already. Outside looking in.

 

"The only Medal Of Honor that was not presented by the President of the United States."
That is weird.

 

You'd have to ask Mr. Bluedevil about that one. He'd be the one to know. Really I'd doubt that they'd even acknowledge anyone opening up that can of worms again. Would you if you were them? Not sure if the average Israeli even knows much about the incident, just like very few US citizens know next to nothing about it. Hell, most of them don't even know when the War of 1812 started.

 

A few years ago I contacted every Member of Congress and invited them to attend our annual memorial service in Washington, DC. I suggested that in the event they were unable to attend or send a representative to the memorial service that they provide a statement to be read during the ceremony honoring 34 of our shipmates who were Killed in Action during the attack.

Not a single Member of Congress attended the ceremony. Not a single Member of Congress sent a representative.

Not a single Member of Congress sent a statement to be read during the ceremony.

I also invited the Washington, DC offices of the American Legion and the Navy League to send a representative or provide a statement.

Neither of them sent a representative or provided a statement.

I also searched for and found an Israeli organization that contains in its membership some of those who participated in the attack and invited them to send a representative or provide a statement.

I also sent the same invitation to the Jewish War Veterans.

Of all of the people or organizations that I invited the ONLY ones who sent a statement along with an apology for not being able to attend personally were the aforementioned Israeli organization who counts in its membership some of the Israeli participants in the attack and the Jewish War Veterans.

Everyone else (all "American") totally ignored the invitation.

Thanks for allowing me to vent but to answer the question of the Israeli position, during my correspondence with the Israeli organization containing a number of Israeli participants in the attack it was made clear to me that they still insist the attack was not a deliberate attack and take umbrage at our insistence that it was.

This is in stark contrast to the evidence contained in the recently broadcast new USS Liberty documentary that included a recording of the Israeli controller telling the attacking pilots that the identity of the ship they were about to attack was American. This identification was repeated shortly before the air attack ended.

If you haven't viewed it I highly recommend it. It's available at http://goo.gl/z04YiO

Joe Meadors
USS Liberty Survivor
Director of Operations, USS Liberty Veterans Association
Email: joe@ussliberty.com