The USS Liberty is in the news. A former Navy signalman on the spy ship bombed to hell by the Israelis in 1967 was on the Gaza freedom flotilla, and John Mearsheimer has argued that the Liberty case shows that when the Israelis kill Americans, nothing happens. (Mearsheimer also cited Rachel Corrie's killing in Rafah in 2003 and Furkan Dogan's killing on the Mavi Marmara on May 31).
I like the Liberty story because it's so grotesque: 34 Americans killed and dozens wounded in daylight on the Mediterranean during the Six-Day War in a savage and repeated attack on an intelligence vessel. Officially described as a mistake, but few of the survivors believe it. Didn't the Israelis know what they were doing?
But if it was deliberate, what was the motive?
Lately I've been reading The Passionate Attachment, by the late former under secretary of State George W. Ball and his son Douglas Ball, and it argues that the Israelis were fearful that the U.S. would report on continued Israeli hostilities at a time when the U.N. had voted for a ceasefire. On June 8, 1967, the fourth day of the war, they say, Israel still wanted to conquer the Golan Heights.
"[T]he United Nations had adopted a cease-fire resolution and they [the Israelis] feared there might not be enough time to accomplish this objective without, as it were, going into overtime.
"The Liberty's presence and function were known to Israel's leaders. They presumably thought it vital that the Liberty be prevented from informing Washington of their intentions to violate any cease-fire before they had completed their occupation of the Golan. Their solution was brutal and direct. Israeli aircraft determined the exact location of the ship and undertook a combined air-naval attack...
[B]y permitting a cover-up of Israel's attack on the Liberty, President Johnson told the Israelis in effect that nothing they did would induce American politicians to refuse their bidding. From that time forth, the Israelis began to act as if they had an inalienable right to American aid and backing.
Yes I know: presumably. Still it's an interesting theory.
{ 107 comments… read them below or add one }
Someone here devoted a long post to this theory a week or so ago.
Unfortunately, the crippleware on this site has no search function.
Philip,
Its even more grotesque than you wrote: The New York Times did not put it on the front page!
“According to a memoir by then-CIA director Richard Helms, President Johnson’s personal anger was manifest when he discovered the story of the Liberty attack on an inside page of the next day’s New York Times. Johnson barked that “it should have been on the front page!”‘
page 5 of Chicago Tribune October 2007 on Liberty
Why would Johnson want it on the front page at the same time he was covering it up?
Oh, he probably didn’t want it on the front page. Its just the contradictory nature of the man that he knew right from wrong – it should have been on the front page – at the same time as he’d wanted to allow the Israelis to kill every sailor on board.
When Johnson twice called back Navy planes to follow up on the Liberty’s SOS, he committed treason as Commander In Chief. He also empowered the Israel Lobby.
THAT should have been on the front page, but I doubt Johnson would have been happy.
There has been a lot of treasonous activity in the White House in the last 1/2 century, and most of it can be linked in some way to Israel.
Well, you’re right. If it’s true that Johnson did actually complain that the NYT didn’t put the story on the front page (i.e. publicize the attack) Johnson could have easily done far more than that himself–recall the American ambassador, seize Israeli assets, fire a few warning shots off the bow of an Israeli ship, cut off aid or, best of all, hold the kind of investigation that would take six months, involve hundreds or thousands of interviews, examine ever tape or document and publish a comprehensive report assessing blame and recommending action against the guilty parties. Of course he’d have to imprison not only Israelis but his own secretary of defense (and he along with him).
absolutely correct
we have let the parasite take control and it weakens us and puts us in harms way every minute of every day
I’m assuming most have seen it but Dead in the Water is a documentary about the incident available online.
Bingo!
Just use google. For instance, here is a search of mondoweiss for funny comments.
Avi, explained in a previous post, that Israel was planning to take the Golan heights and the liberty’s intelligence collector devices would detect Israeli plans to invade Syria’s Golan Heights.
“* Finally, there is evidence, circumstantial but clear, of a relationship between the attack on the Liberty and a postponement of Israel’s planned attack on the Golan Heights. The Golan attack was scheduled for 11:30 a.m. on 8 June; the Liberty was spotted by 6 a.m. or earlier; last minute orders delayed the Golan attack; the Liberty was put out of commission; and the Golan attack occurred shortly thereafter. The vaunted IDF made very few mistakes in that war.”
http://www.rense.com/general39/pilot.htm
Chu,
Thanks for the credit.
I would also like to add that there is an another interesting aspect to this.
During the 1967 war, Israel executed Egyptian POWs held at the city of Al-Arish.
It’s possible that Israel did not want the USS Liberty to find out. However, given the historical support Israel received from the US, coupled with the knowledge that Israel feared no international condemnation, I find the explanation regarding the invasion of the Golan to be the most plausible one to-date. Israel simply did not want the US to stop it from invading the Golan.
Note that the historical record shows that the US government was keen on maintaining the relative calm that prevailed in the region circa 1966. The US sought to maintain that calm and Israel’s actions acted as the spark that ignited the region again for the first time since 1956 when Britain, France and Israel invaded Egypt due to the nationalization of the Suez Canal.
One more important detail:
I have listened to the radio traffic that was recorded by a US reconnaissance aircraft shortly after Israel attacked the USS Liberty.
The radio traffic was between an Israeli Base station and two helicopters sent out to sea toward the Liberty.
The most notable part about the exchange was that the two helicopter pilots are repeatedly told that if the prisoners/survivors are Arabs, to take them to Al-Arish, if they are American, to take them to Ashkelon.
However, once the helicopters arrive, they are instructed to circle around and then return to base. When the two pilots start to inquire and wonder “What’s going on down there?”, Base comes on the channel and vulgarly orders the two to cease communicating.
Note, also, that Base was aware of what was going on at the scene of the attack on the Liberty; at one point he informs the two helicopter pilots that (paraphrased) “There should be four ships there, three smaller ones and a fourth bigger one. The three smaller ones are ours.”
So, if there were already Israeli navy ships there, what’s the point of sending the two helicopters to survey the scene and see to whom the attacked ship belonged?
My conclusion is that the two helicopters were sent after the fact, knowing that a US reconnaissance aircraft was keeping a close eye on the area. In other words, the helicopters and the radio exchange with Base was staged to satisfy a later claim that “We thought it was an Egyptian ship, and we have the radio traffic to prove it”.
Source
The audio is available in its original form, in Hebrew.
The transcripts are in English.
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/uss_liberty/recordings.shtml
Note that as with any text, the transcript cannot convey the various meanings of tone inflection, pitch etc..
try this: http://mondoweiss.net/2010/05/the-u-s-s-liberty-and-the-culture-of-impunity.html
btw, InAntalya, an American, resident in Turkey, blogs on DailyKos. InAntalya has interviewed Furkan Dogan’s father twice, and posted diaries to inform the Kos community.
InAntalya’s reporting is heartbreaking.
there are some comments to the diaries that make one wonder why ziocaine is not listed as a WMD.
http www dot dailykos com/story/2010/7/22/94015/1518
How Furkan Dogan, an American Citizen, was Killed by Israelis on the Mavi Marmara
One positive shift I’ve noted on DKos is that the majority of commenters on I-P diaries tend to be dismissive of Zionist claims–a majority, not all.
I’ve long been partial to the theory put forward in Peter Hounam’s book Operation Cyanide: How the Bombing of the USS Liberty Nearly Caused World War Three , that Israel and the LBJ administration were together in a plot to engineer the U.S.’s entry into the Middle East war by blaming a false-flag attack on and sinking of the Liberty on the Egyptians.
However, Alan Hart’s recently released third volume of his Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews provides additional details that make something like the Balls’ explanation more plausible. Apparently, the U.S. had given Israel the green light for launching the ‘67 war only on the understanding that the attack would be limited to Egypt. The Liberty was put on station to make sure Syria was not attacked. Hart blames the attack on the Liberty on Moshe Dayan, who was also going behind the back of Prime Minister Eshkol in launching an attack on Syria after Egypt’s defeat. The attack on the Liberty prevented U.S. intelligence from observing the troop movements.
The Liberty isn’t an isolated incident of Israel getting off scot free, for sure (while theres a TV ad running lately calling Iran our “enemy” despite that Iran has never attacked us and I don’t recall that any of the embassy hostages died and we did keep those people under the thumb of the megalomaniac Shah for 25 years).
Why did Democrats do such a lame job on Iran Contra when they had the goods to impeach Reagan? Why did Democrats drop the October Surprise investigation? Israel was involved; they wanted to protect Israel.
Democrats were probably also involved.
The Americans had witnessed Israel torturing and murdering bound and gagged Egyption POWs. And, wanted to make a bold statement that they wouldn’t tolerate ANYONE looking over their shoulder.
And after all of this the Americans still went along with the Israelis it just goes to show how extremely pathetic American governments can get.
some off-topic good news:
The growth of Israeli offensive capability is meeting some roadblocks.
Germany and Israel fail to agree on submarine sale
RE: “A former Navy signalman on the spy ship bombed to hell by the Israelis in 1967 was on the Gaza freedom flotilla…”
ANTIWAR RADIO (18:48) – Scott Horton Interviews Joe Meadors, 07/21/10 – http://antiwar.com/radio/2010/07/21/joe-meadors/
Joe Meadors, former US Navy signalman and survivor of both the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty and on the Gaza Peace Flotilla, describes the details of the Liberty assault, why they believe it was intentional, the recall of the USS Saratoga‘s fighters twice that day from assisting the Liberty on orders from Lyndon Johnson, the massive cover-up, why the Israelis were unable to sink the ship despite their best efforts, different theories on the Israeli’s motivations, his motive for participating in the Gaza Peace Flotilla, the violent, though not deadly, raid on the ship he was on, the mistreatment of the kidnapped while in Israeli custody, the murder of American Farouk Dogan and the American politicians’ silence.
MP3 here. (18:48) – http://dissentradio.com/radio/10_07_19_meadors.mp3
Joe Meadors resides in Corpus Christi, Texas. He is a survivor of the June 8, 1967 attack on the USS Liberty and for decades has been in the forefront of the effort to persuade the U.S. government to conduct an investigation of the attack.
All of the above commenters are right:
- Israel had so many Egyptian POWs after taking the Sinai that they had nowhere to put them. So they murdered them.
- An attack on the Golan was planned: the USS Liberty knew about it. Israel still has the Golan 43 years later.
When asked about possible war crimes before the first war against Iraq, a retired admiral, who opposed the war, replied that if there will be war there will be war crimes. The killing of captured soldiers when there are too many to deal with is more common than you might imagine. Compare that with the criticism of the military prisons and of prisoners’ treatment by the relatively impoverished South compared to the North during our Civil War.
Compare the Malmedy massacre.
However the Commanding Officers of some of the more heinous Confederate Prison Camps were executed for War Crimes or whatever the nomenclature was at the time.
the nuclear connection: the WHY of the 1967 war:
Yeah the U.S. sets up sanctions against N Korea for sinking a S Korean ship.
But nothing happens to Israel when they bombed the USS Liberty and kill and injure U.S. military .
http://antiwar.com/radio/2010/07/21/joe-meadors/
Scott Horton Interviews Joe Meadors
Scott Horton, July 21, 2010
Email This | Print This | Share This | Comment | Antiwar Forum
Joe Meadors, former US Navy signalman and survivor of both the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty and on the Gaza Peace Flotilla, describes the details of the Liberty assault, why they believe it was intentional, the recall of the USS Saratoga‘s fighters twice that day from assisting the Liberty on orders from Lyndon Johnson, the massive cover-up, why the Israelis were unable to sink the ship despite their best efforts, different theories on the Israeli’s motivations, his motive for participating in the Gaza Peace Flotilla, the violent, though not deadly, raid on the ship he was on, the mistreatment of the kidnapped while in Israeli custody, the murder of American Farouk Dogan and the American politicians’ silence.
MP3 here. (18:48) Transcript below.
Joe Meadors resides in Corpus Christi, Texas. He is a survivor of the June 8, 1967 attack on the USS Liberty and for decades has been in the forefront of the effort to persuade the U.S. government to conduct an investigation of the attack.
Someone else has posted this analysis by Alan Hart on Mondoweiss :
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/06/24/why-really-the-uss-liberty-was-attacked-by-israel/
Liberty survivor interviewed :
http://antiwar.com/radio/2010/07/21/joe-meadors/
From Chu’s link, quoting :
Same link, Reverdy S. Fishel :
Now, from Alan Hart’s analysis, who says that the US wanted to avoid an outright confrontation with the USSR by an Israeli attack on the Soviet client Syria :
This seems contradictory, as Hart claims the spy ship was there to monitor Israeli communications, but Fishel says there were no Hebrew speakers on board. What language were Israeli military communications in? But then, Meadors in his interview says this :
Now I so respect Uri Avnery but in this interview he says something like everyone was surprised that Israel won the 67 war. That it was as if it was an ‘act of god’ Christ with the U.S. steady supply of arms etc. How did they expect anything else
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/61616
Kathleen- the US only became a major supplier of weapons to Israel after 67. Until 67 most Israel acquired most of its weapons from France and in the run up to the war, De Gaulle had announced an embargo on arms to the region.
You seem to be forgetting that a lot of Israel’s initial military equipment was second hand German military hardware, too. (Nowadays of course, Germany just effectively donates modern hardware, like nuclear-capable submarines, whenever Israel threatens to call the German government “neo-Nazi”)
Ironic, that. I’m sure if that old equipment had sentience and a voice, the torment it would express at being used for the same sort of awful purpose twice.
Avnery was talking about the Israeli population there, as they were surprised. On the other hand, the establishment knew damned well that the Arab states didn’t have a chance, as Avnery explains here.
Thanks, Kathleen, I couldn’t find that post.
“very incestuous, huh?” I’d say. Can never quite figure out what Kornblut had or has going for her anyway? Did she know someone or something?
Most significant line from the Raw Story interview with Joe Meador:
“The Liberty incident remains the only maritime attack in which American forces were killed that was never investigated by the US Congress.”
A strange thing about the USS Liberty is that it makes little or no sense from either the intentional or accident angle (though I think it was arguably intentional).
It is near impossible to see how the Israelis could have taken the ship as hostile — or as anything but American. And we know the Israelis have been found of testing the Americans for a long time. We also know that the Israelis have no qualms at all about killing Americans (as long as they’re not “important” ones) and that Israel has had no qualms about spying on the US.
The most obvious parallel to the Liberty was the 1987 Iraqi attack on the USS Stark, killing 37 US sailors. That was one Iraqi fighter firing two Exocet missiles in two attack runs.
By contrast, the Israeli attack was unambiguously coordinated, involving both sea and air forces — no way it could have been a single rogue pilot.
As many have noted (and as stated on the Wikipedia entry), the attack on the Liberty “remains the only major maritime incident in U.S. history not to be investigated by the U.S. Congress.”
That alone tells us volumes.
So many conspiracy theories. In fact many Jew haters wear sackcloth and ash for the U.S.S. Liberty but really wouldn’t bat an eyelash for the U.S.S Cole.
I request to not be moderated any longer as I have never broken the comments policy, the prior reason given was that my comments are a “waste of time” though that is an opinion and no reason to censor anyone.
Come out and admit it, you censor my comments because I am a zionist.
the point about wasted time is another reason for censorship on a site: because people hijack threads or put up disinformation.
Moderators do not moderate in order to see who is a “waste of time” or air or living space or anything.
They are there to enforce a comments policy.
If you want to add “The poster is deemed as a “Waste of Time”, in the estimation of the moderator”
Then put it in the official policy. Methinks you think a lot of Jews that live in your hated settlements are “wastes of time” that should be “removed”
euphemisms
actually i have removed several commenters who just hijacked threads. yes, change in policy; but it was a form of obstructionism
Why are you bothering to argue with this guy, Mr. Weiss? I respect your tenacity but you might as well be trying to convince Witty to actually care about all of the Palestinian children who are starving in Gaza.
MN – I, for one, am glad to see you are moderated. As well you should be, given your tendency to use immoderate name calling with the obvious intent of thread-napping. Exhibit #1 is “jew haters” in the above post. Using this kind of pointless ad-hominems would be ground for banning on most other blogs. Bringing up the USS Cole, which, BTW, was amply investigated and made a huge deal of, in the manner you did, is an obvious attempt of trying to sideline the discussion from the topic at hand (a perfect example of exercising the “You suck” clause of apologetic 101). Especially as it is exactly the contrast between the two levels of investigation that’s the theme behind this post.
But looking at the rest of your post above, here’s the best reason to keep you moderated – for all eternity if need be – the resort to primitive, thread-bare emotionalism rather than fact, as implied in the “hate” and “wouldn’t bat an eyelash” descriptors. i.e, forget the issue at hand – which you did not even bring up, or a measured opinion, which you did not offer; just use the “you all hate Jews” epithet hurled off-handedly to provoke, much a a 2-year old yells out ‘you hate me!” while in the midst of a temper tantrum over being denied a candy. This to be followed no doubt by – what – the tried and true “you love terrorists more than you love jews”?
The comments pages in the Walt article of recent note were choke-full of this level of “discourse”, and Phil and Adam are right to put the brakes on here. People took you on already more than you deserved to be, using substance, not emotion, and all to no avail. There are other places where you can put kindergarten antics on full display, seeing that’ you preferred MO, without having being sentenced to much-deserved “Time Out”s. Would you care for some some tips?
Maximalist Nuttery
It would be only fair that you get, not only moderated, but kicked out squarely, once and for all. Do you think we’re any closer to forgetting your “You’re hurting our side”con job, trying to pass for someone who sympathises with the Palestinians just before you had a melt down and blew your cover? Have you no shame or dignity?
No maximalistNarrative,
You’re censored becauser you are a repugnant human being with extremist view. Be grateful that you are not completely banned.
maximal, I love how some people refer to “conspiracy theories” in the attack on the Liberty. Conspiracy theories have a questionable reputation because they speculate that something other than the obvious can account for an event — Oswald having other gunmen; controlled demolitions bringing down the WTC, etc. Here, the obvious, even undisputed fact is that Israel attacked the Liberty. It is not a speculative “conspiracy theory” if one believes the attack was intentional. The accident excuse was always infinitely more suspicious than deliberate attack. Your conclusion that only “Jew haters” fall prey to the evil conspiracy theory that Israel intended to do what it did is rather amusing.
On the other hand, you redeem yourself by raising the Cole incident in this discussion. That offers excellent evidence that the Israelis really were mistaken in the Liberty attack 30 years earlier. I have never seen that connection made before. Your imaginative contribution is greatly appreciated, and no doubt will be well used by the Israeli hasbara community.
Whoops, I see Danaa already made some of these points. It’s so hard to be original these days.
David Scroll the thread, see if you can find any conspiracy theories in the comments section. If you still can’t find any, try again with some fresh eyes, or better yet ask a rational friend.
Around six hours this comment has been waiting. This method of delaying comments serves as censorship against Zionists
Try being a Palestinian waiting in line at an Israeli “flying” checkpoint. That might give you some actual respect for what it means to be delayed and oppressed.
No, conspiracy theories are theories of two or more people conspiring together to commit a crime, like “al Qaeda operatives were behind 9/11″ or “the Bush admin was behind 9/11,” or whatever. On the other hand, the controlled demolition of the WTC buildings is a scientific theory, constructed from the available evidence and the laws of physics. People just dismiss the controlled demolition of the WTC buildings by falsely branding it “conspiracy theory” because it debunks the “al Qaeda operatives were behind 9/11″ conspiracy theory which people such as yourself have ignored the laws of physics to misplace your faith in.
As for JFK, there was most certainly more than one gunman, as evidenced most notably by a proper analysis of the medical/autopsy evidence. However, again it’s not a conspiracy theory until one starts speculating as to who the conspirators might have been.
kyle, I disagree with you completely. As you say, “conspiracy theories are theories of two or more people conspiring together to commit a crime.” But then you oddly require that the theory identify the conspirators before qualifying as a conspiracy theory. If there were controlled demolitions, then there must have been people who planted those explosives, and the theory involves a conspiracy of the hijackers and the bombers, even if the latter were never identified.
Conspiracy theories are often wrong, but certainly that is not a rule. They are sometimes right as well. The term itself might very well be loaded, as is the term “terrorism,” and used selectively. I evaluate theories, conspiracy or not, based upon what I know combined with common sense. I truly believe that there were no controlled demolitions, that it was a plane and not a missile that struck the Pentagon, and that the 19 hijackers were properly identified. Sorry to be so conventional. As for JFK, I used to be into that controversy decades ago but no longer care too much. I think Oswald was a gunman, and that if he had help, there might have been one other as well who was never caught. I don’t think LBJ was involved either in that or in the Liberty planning.
Yep, that’s the a logical hypothesis, and the only logical hypothesis when considering the video evidence of the rate and scale of the destruction of the WTC buildings with respect to the laws of physics. But again. it’s not a conspiracy theory until one starts speculating as to who planted the explosives.
Well, only the second of your three proclamations of faith is reasonably supported by the publicly available evidence, while the third is tenuous at best, and the first stands in flagrant contradiction to the laws of physics.
The publicly available evidence simply can’t be squared to support the notion of a lone gunman, there’s no solid evidence to suggest Oswald was among the shooters, and the notion that it could have been pinned on Oswald absent a high-level conspiracy is patently absurd.
I suspect you are correct on both counts there, though one can’t rightly rule out such possibilities, as he allowed the cover-ups of both.
I havn’t the patience to argue these things, it gets tedious. But I think I had to register my concorrence with your rebuttal. Aside from all you mention, to believe Oswald was the “lone-asassin” one would have to ignore the laws of physics and enter the reralm of meta-physics which is the “magic-bullet” theory concocted by Arlen Specter. This would also entail not taking into account Oswalds Intelligence MOS. In the Marine Corp. I won’t even get into 911 other than to say the same Deep-State entities where surley operative. Operation Gladio, Operation Artichoke, Operation Paperclip, Operation Northwoods etc. These are documented conspiricies need I be a theorist to know that they were indeed carried out?
The assumption of this post (besides that the attack was intentional) is that the US had a single policy regarding the war. I don’t think this was true. Probably LBJ had given a green light to the war, whereas the State Department and Rusk were opposed to it and who knows where the Pentagon stood. I read somewhere that the US wanted Israel to attack the Golan heights. Syria started this, was the US argument, it would be a shame if they would emerge from the war without a loss. Egypt and Jordan who had suffered major losses until the last day of the war were not Soviet clients in the same way that Syria was and the US wanted to hurt the Soviet client.
It is also a fact that deserves to be mentioned that the Liberty had been ordered out of the area, but because of the teletype machine this order was not received until after the Israeli attack. (I realize I am adding ammunition of a different sort to accusers of Israel here, but what:) If Israel had spies in the US war department they could have assumed that the order to remove the Liberty from the area was sent and received and thus the solid assumption (which was wrong) that this was not an American ship.
(A question that I’d like to ask, is it unheard of in the time of war for some one to fly somebody else’s flag. It happens in movies all the time, did it or does it happen in the real world?)
when Israel bombed Osirik they flew UNMARKED planes of US provenance. False flag? certainly not advertising for Brand Israel.
US put US flags on Kuwaiti ships in Persian Gulf during Iraq’s war on Iran, in order to protect Kuwait from attack by Iran: Iran would be loath to tangle with US. Not exactly false flag, but not completely above-board, either.
War certainly does bring out the best of uman beans, doesn’t it?
Blaming the victims…? WJ, do you even consider yourself American? Honestly?
I think, the explanation that Israel attacked the USS Liberty, to prevent the ship from getting evidents for the Israeli attack on the Golan Heights, isn’t plausble with a well-known detail of the story. It is the detail, that the White House didn’t allow a defense and rescue mission.
Source: Moorer commission
http://www.gtr5.com/evidence/moorer.htm
As reason for not allowing rescue and defense of the ship the “Moorer commission” says, White House was “fearing conflict with Israel”.
This part I doubt. I doubt, it was a suprise attack at all. I suspect Israels friend Lyndon B. Johnson – remember how he changed US policy in Israels favor after JFK was dead – to have allowed the attack in advance.
Here is my question with what I challenge the ideas of Hart and Ball, that the reason was preventing the Liberty from spying Israels war against Golan heights:
If LBJ didn’t allow Israel the attack in advance, how could Israel have assumed in advance, that LBJ would forbid the U.S. Military to defend the Liberty while the attack occured?
The decision not to defend the USS Liberty, was something very special. I think, nobody could have known in advance – if he had not asked LBJ before. But without the knowledge, that US fighters won’t help the Liberty, the attack would have been far too risky. But when it is assumed, that LBJ had given permission for the attack on the USS Liberty, than the theory, that it was done to prevent the ship from spying makes absolutely no sense.
So my theory is, that the USS Liberty
- was attacked with full permission of LBJ and
- had the aim to blame it onto Egypt and
- by this way shift public opinion to Israels favor
was it because Israel failed to finish the job, that is, completely destroy Liberty & crew, that the next step, of blaming the attack on Egypt, did not come about?
In you hypothesis, how was that supposed to work, Bandolero; how was the blame to be shifted to Egypt?
@PG
Yes, exactly that is my hypothesis. Israel didn’t manage to kill all on board though – as far as I remember from what I have read the investigations – Israel tried hard not only to sink the ship but to to kill all possible witnesses.
With so many suvivors being able to contradict claims that Egypt did it, it would have been hard to blaim Egypt. So I assume this failure was reason just to put as much silence as possible over the incident.
One factor that favors the Hounam theory that there was a conspiracy including LBJ to blame a false-flag attack on Egypt is the fact that the first thing the Israelis went after on the Liberty was the comms. They jammed its radio frequencies (U.S. Navy radio frequencies and the International Distress Frequency). The first attack was by the planes with heat-seeking missiles which homed in on the Liberty’s radio antennas. Fortunately for the Liberty, one of its transmitters was down for repairs, was thus emitting no heat, was not hit by the missiles, and so could be brought back on line to send of the ship’s SOS.
In fact I have read the account of that Radio Operator who brought that shack back online. I am on my phone so I don’t have access to the link but it shouldn’t be to hard to find. It was a real act of heroism under fire.
here’s part of an account re the russians. i’ve read it’s possible a plan was averted because it was witnessed by the soviets.
@lysias
I think, the argument, that it has to be, that LBJ knew before, because Israel went for the communication equipment first, has two ends.
First end: If the attack was carried out with LBJs support, comms would be attacked, so that they couldn’t call for help other Navy ships and spread the message of who was attacking. Secrecy matters in such a case.
Second end: If the attack was carried out without LBJs support, comms would be attacked, so that LBJ wouldn’t know who it was. Secrecy matters in such a case, too.
My conclusion: I think it’s a routine procedure to go first after the communication equipment, if one wants to do something, nobody shall know truth about, is a standard military procedure. Destroying comms doesn’t reveal anything about LBJ having approved it before or not. Destroying comms just says, the attacker doesn’t want to have the truth come out.
From what I understand from Operation Cyanide that was precisely the case. The Fact that the crew of a lightly armed vessel were able to survive that onslaught was not counted on. I understand also that that one or several Tactical bombers were scrambled and then recalled from their mission to drop their payload on Cairo when sigint was received that there “friendlys” who had survived.
I think it is just as plausible to believe that LBJ was taken aback by the Israeli attack and refused to believe it at face value, and called off a counter-response for that reason.
@pineywoodslim
Yes, I agree, such behaviour of LBJ is imaginable. But I think, if Israel hadn’t known this in advance, the whole attack would have been very risky? What coulld have happened, if the nearby US Navy came to defense of the liberty? Just imagine, they would have shot down an Israeli attack plane, captured the pilot, presented him to the public?
If that was not coordinated with LBJ in advance, it would have been even possible that the US might declare war on Israel in such a case. If Israel carried out a deliberate act of war against the US – and the attack on the Liberty was an act of war – retribution might have been very heavy.
At least it would have been very reasonable for Israel to fear that. How many times did it occur in the last decades, that another country committed a deliberate act of war against the US – and the US did nothing, not even defend itself while the attack was ongoing?
The scenario Alan Hart suggests is that Moshe Dayan was a loose cannon, and did things to assure his ambition of a Greater Israel that the rest of the Israeli government — Prime Minister Eshkol, Chief of Staff Rabin, the diplomatic establishment — did not want but were unable to overrule.
@lysias
Yes, I know. He put the blame on “loose cannon” Moshe Dayan. And with that he supports the theory that the USS Liberty was attacked to prevent it from spying. But I think, that makes no sense, even if “loose cannon” Moshe Dayan didn’t care about going to war with the U.S.
But the question is the same: how could Moshe Dayan have known in advance, that LBJ would decide to order the U.S. navy that their fighter jets will not come to help the Liberty? I think, if an Israeli soldier would have been captured by U.S. Navy and presented to the public, Moshe Dayan would have had a really big problem.
And there is another point, that it makes little sense trying to prevent the U.S. from spying by sinking the USS liberty. The U.S. had some good spying devices in their embassy in Israel, so there was little additional information, what the Liberty could have collected. If Israel – or Moshe Dayan – wanted to prevent the US from collecting radio information, he would have needed to bomb the US embassy in Israel as well.
under freedom of info act cia papers reveal:
i rec the link, they offer a timeline wrt the first press and then the silencing and when (during the 80’s) certain memes were added to the story.
Dayan certainly was a loose cannon and essentially started the war on his own initiative. It’s not a stretch of the imagination to suppose he ordered the attack.
The real secrets lie in the US, with the Johnson administration. We can only hope some old Democrat has written his memoirs and will reveal the truth after he is safely dead. If it’s allowed to be published.
I eagerly await the next volume of Robert Caro’s biography of LBJ, which is supposed to cover all the rest of his life after the 1960 election: the vice presidency, the presidency, and the postpresidency. I wonder both how he will cover the JFK assassination, and how he will cover the attack on the Liberty, and everything else about the ‘67 Middle East war.
I think Caro has said it won’t be out until 2012 at the earliest.
@potsherd
“The real secrets lie in the US, with the Johnson administration.”
I totally agree with that. And I suspect that LBJ has something to do with what is called “The CIA’s Family Jewels”, where the position number one is – as far as I know – still a secret. It could be LBJ involvement of murder of JFK, could be the USS Liberty, could be something else, or could be both of this – like a file on LBJ.
I have no opinion, whether Peter Hounam’s “Operation Cyanide” WWIII story is true. I’m not convinced. But I have the impression, that LBJ had given his OK for the attack on the USS Liberty in advance, and I suspect the goal was to blame someone else – probably Egypt – to shift public opinion.
I’ve often thought the Israeli hold over the US has all the flavor of blackmail. They know a secret that the US governments – all of them – don’t want to get out and will do anything to keep from getting out. Treason in the presidency would fit that.
Phil Weiss wrote:
I know of no survivors who believe the attack was a mistake. Which survivor or survivors do you mean?
I was on leave from the Army on June 8th, 1967. I was with my best friend, who was on leave from the Navy. He had gone to school with two of the members of the Liberty crew. We listened to the news of the attack from a portable radio, as we were camped on the shore of Hood Canal in Washington, diving for oysters and trolling for salmon.
When my friend heard the news, he said, sounding very angry, “This was no mistake!”
In 1971, I engineered an interview for KRAB radio in Seattle with Liberty crew members. I’ve met other crew members at events over the succeeding 39 years. I have never met or heard of a Liberty crew member who believed the attack was a mistake. I could be wrong, but unless somebody comes forth with the name or names of doubters among the crew, you might consider correcting that line. It is an important point.
When I confront people who claim the attack was a mistake, I ask how they can believe the word of the foreign government who attacked our men over the word of the men who suffered the attack.
My last confrontation on this was early last spring at a luncheon in Anchorage, where I asked David Gottstein, the chairman of the Alaska AIPAC office that same question. His answer, that in many cases of “friendly fire” the people who have been fired upon are “deluded” upset me so much I had to leave.
On a side note, if you go to the link Phil gave for the James Scott book on amazon, it seems many of the survivors are giving reviews for the book. This is great, they’re not going to shut up, good for them.
I just read through all the reviews in the link provided by Phil Weiss. Indeed, some survivors reviewed the book in the link. I didn’t find any comments from survivors that would indicate they believe the attack to have been a mistake. One states that doubts will remain until all the facts come out, but he himself expressed no doubt.
Yes, Phil says “few of the survivors believe it.” No doubt this is a phrase that means that he doesn’t claim to be an authority on the matter, doesn’t pretend to know what EVERY survivor has said about it, but generally expressing the notion that they believe that it wasn’t an accident. I’m sure that he simply didn’t want to commit himself to being sure that there was absolutely no one who had any doubts, without knowing everything about it. Maybe?
Probably right. However, if no survivors are claiming the attack was an error, then it is inaccurate to write “few of the survivors believe it [was].”
Correct. On a purely linguistic level, you’re right, of course.
I’m sure that Phil does not claim to know that NO survivors are claiming the attack was an error, since he has not talked to every single one of them, so, he cannot say truthfully that he knows that “NONE of the survivors believe it [was an accident].”
But we get the gist of the statement.
Part of my concern is that I’m on record repeatedly as having stated that no living survivors believe the attack to have been a mistake. If I’m wrong, I need to revisit that.
Part of my concern is that I’m on record repeatedly as having stated that no living survivors believe the attack to have been a mistake. If I’m wrong, I need to revisit that.
You may be absolutely right.
I notice a lot of people use the term “spy ship” to refer to the USS Liberty. the word “spy” most commonly refers to something done secretly. There was nothing secret about the USS Liberty. Our flag was flying. The ship’s ID numbers were painted on the hull. It was broad daylight on a clear bright day. The Liberty was an intelligence ship operating in international waters, no different than a US embassy (or any country’s embassy) picking up signals with antennas on the roof.
just in the last week reading some st department person (can’t remember who) it said the liberty was attacked 90 minutes after the US had specifically called israel to asked them not to attack the golan. my guess is it was to preoccupy the US while they did their pre planned dirty work.
It has to be remembered that Syria was really the primary target. Syria goaded Egypt into goading Israel because of the constant hostilities on their border. Egypt’s armed forces were a potentially greater threat to Israel, but Syria was considered the real problem. Dayan never would have agreed to end the war before doing in Syria.
I see no reason at all why any good American should not pester his reps in congress for a real investigation of this incident. http://www.rense.com/general39/pilot.htm
Why go along with what was said back then, that “no good will come of it”? Just look at the bad that has come of not doing a real congressional investigation. Ever since the cover up the Israel Lobby has owned congress and the upper reaches of our government.
If the good American looks forward to getting a canned pile of weasel-language in reply, go for it.
These people don’t listen to their constituents on such issues, only the lobbyists.
So, postsherd, what is one to do?
A few quick observations on the Liberty attack. When the Liberty was first ordered to proceed to station by the Joint Chiefs of staff, the Liberty requested an escort. The request was denied. I assume that the Joint Chiefs didn’t think it necessary. Two days before the attack, the Joint Chiefs redirected the Liberty to a station away from the combat zone. What changed? Did the US receive a massage from Israel that they would not tolerate a spy ship in the area and would attack it? Did the US decide to pull back rather than jeopardize the war which the US supported? Why did Admiral McCain not follow orders? Did he on his own decide that he was going to call Israel’s “bluff” (they wouldn’t DARE attack a US ship)? I find the “snafu” excuse unconvincing, to say the least. Faced with the possibility of so much deception and double-dealing being revealed, did the US decide that a cover-up was the least damaging alternative? As for recalling the US
fighters, they were out of range to assist AND return (ditch at sea), and , more significantly, they were nuclear armed, creating the potential for catastrophic consequences.
I find it fascinating that the only time the “Peace Movement” criticizes anyone for killing Americans, it’s when Israel did it in 1967.
Of course, over the last 43 years, some people have concluded that a 24 year old pilot who flying a plane manufactured in the early 1960’s couldn’t make a mistake because of course, the Israeli military is both evil AND PERFECT.
And also, an American spy ship must have had a big sign on all sides saying, “DON’T TELL ANYONE WE ARE HERE, WE ARE AN AMERICAN SPY SHIP”.
Israeli aircraft flew several times over the Liberty and over a period of several hours on the morning of the attack. So it wasn’t a split-second decision, but a preplanned attack.
Furthermore, the ship had huge antenna masts, a big satellite dish that could be seen from a distance and it flew a large US flag.
Obviously, facts mean nothing to you when you jump to your conclusions, much in the same way facts don’t matter when you blindly defend Israel’s barbaric policies in the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza.
Thanks for showing your true face.
No, we criticize Israel anytime they kill US citizens, which is often.
Remember Rachie Corrie. Remember Furkhan Dogan.
I find it hard to believe the american guv was not in on the attack plan. The recall of the american aircraft sent to investigate goes against all normal logic if the americans did not already know what was going down. They knew what was happening, so didn’t need those air crews seeing it for themselves, and radioing back, and adding to the already mounting evidence of the israeli crime. If the israelis attacked the ship out of the blue withno prior american knowledge, there is no way those aircraft would have been recalled. No way. They wanted the israelis to finish the job killingall the witnesses on board Liberty, and still thought the operation could be a success. It’s possible an unexpected Soviet presence is what finally called the operation off, since israeloamerica could not prevent the Soviets broadcasting the truth, like they could their own military people.
I think a central question to be asked in finding out why the Liberty was supposed to be sunk with all hands is why the usa went along with this. There had to be some sort of gain expected. But what was it?
Johnson always sucked up to the Israel Lobby, even as a young politician.
He gave Israel the green light, coupled with a few vague conditions, but sans any sufficient micromanagement of the on-going US military directives, and Israel pushed the vague envelope–the USS Liberty was simply part of the on-going US military directives–it was a spy ship to gain intelligence data on a hot area–Israel risked not sinking it & lost that gamble–the incident was covered up as to unearth the sloppy horrid details would have spelled the end of Johnson’s political career quickly & severely tarnished Brand Israel. In the cover-up words of the time: “Nothing good would come of it,” that is, of revealing the details honestly to the American public. The same reasoning applies now to
the details of the “special relationship” that bloomed in the wake of that cover-up. Two Americans basically blew the lid off this emeshed treason by our own government: Walt & Mearsheimer.
I realise johnson was in the zionist pocket, so were a lot of other politicians. But quite a few at that time were not. The Vietnam war was not a particularly zionist project, though zionists jumped on the wagon and profited immensely (some also quickly jumped off that wagon later when the war got unpopular – so that war not critical to zionist interests outside of being a money maker). There is no denying johnson was into that war crime deep from the beginning of his regime. The fact johnson was zionist, and a good deal of his cabinet was, reinforces the speculation that they and the israelis planned for the ship to be attacked and sunk with all hands. Both israelis and americans have a long history of falseflag attacks and inventing pretexts. The Tonkin Gulf fraud was still fresh and undiscovered and had worked extremely well. It’s his, and that of his people’s, kneejerk reaction in calling back the aircraft, preventing even basic investigation of the status of the ship and it’s crew, that shows there was something planned between israel and the u.s. guv upper layer. It’s obvious they didn’t want the ship to survive, that’s not something that would happen if the Liberty had been genuinely attacked by accident or without the u.s. guv’s connivance. Look at the way the Liberty was treated after, the navy took their sweet time getting to the ship to help the survivors. Those orders had to come from on high. It’s like they continued to try and see the ship and her crew off, even after the operation got exposed. Like they were still hoping she might sink. The info I’ve seen seems to indicate that the local usn brass in the region were not in on the Liberty falseflag and were not especially pleased with their post incident assigned roles and the way they were prevented from helping the crew of that ship. This leads me to believe that only the very top brass were informed the falseflag would take shape and most of the remaining high level brass were deliberately kept in the dark. Since the israelis were to do the wet work, there was no need for any one but the top leadership to know.
The israeloamericans usually use falseflags to start or expand wars. Rather than the israelis trying to hide their actions from the americans, I speculate it’s likely the falseflag sinking could have been used to get the americans more directly involved in helping israel fight its neighbours and expand at their expense. Perhaps using the americans to occupy Egypt eventually for israel. And the falseflag sinking of the ship would be used to bring the u.s. congress on board, just like the Tonkin Gulf falseflag was used to get them to OK expansion of the Vietnam war. There would have been a lot of resistance to an american presence there without a major falseflag providing an excuse.
For people who are puzzled by the weirdness of the story of Israel attacking its main ally’s ship, I like to mention the analogy of someone raising a pitbull and then getting bitten by it. It’s embarrassing getting bit by your own pitbull. You don’t really want to acknowledge it.
Metaphors aside, the story has been slow to sink into public consciousness for a few reasons not mentioned by the good commentators so far. One was that the sailors themselves, by virtue of being on this ship, had been selected for top secret clearances. They were of the highest loyalty and discretion. They were not the type to dissent or spill beans easily. They had taken oaths never to speak in their lifetimes about the secrets they learned while on this ship. In fact after the event, many went on to complete careers loyally and then retire from the Navy – including Joe Meadors. It took the passage of time for them to speak out, and there are many secrets they still won’t tell. In the early days their “dissent” was within the confines of the military – for example getting a memorial built at the cryptography base (or museum?) in Fort Meade. Now they do things like join Veterans for Peace or show up Iraq Veterans against the War conventions.
A second factor in all this was that the story fit the paradigm of very few people in America. In ‘67 Americans who were against the war in Vietnam might be sympathetic to American casualties but also felt that American soldiers shouldn’t be sent to Asia where they were getting shot and the Vietnamese shooting at them had a right to do so. Such people didn’t have empathy for loyal spook sailors at the top of their agenda. People who supported America’s war against Vietnam, on the other hand, tended to be even more supportive of Israel’s war. They were quick to accept the Israeli version of events.
Who did this leave to be making an issue of the Liberty attack? Quite often it was right wing anti-Semites. There was even a Holocaust denying organization which happened to be called “The Liberty Lobby” which took up the cause and confused the issue for some time until the Liberty sailors convinced them to bugger off.
It’s wonderful that the story is being discussed and researched more vigorously now.
The fact that Israel attacked and tried to sink the USS Liberty is acknowledged by all. The conclusion that Israel knew that it was attacking an American intelligence gathering vessel is supported by massive evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the notion that Lyndon Johnson was in cahoots with Israel to sink the Liberty is absurd. The scenario that the US conspired to sink a US vessel and blame a hapless Egypt, who had just had it’s air force destroyed, hence, was operationally incapable of attacking and destroying the ship is the type of conspiratorial fantasy which gives conspiracy theory a bad name.
@Keith
“the type of conspiratorial fantasy which gives conspiracy theory a bad name”
Thanks for the flowers. Your argument:
“Egypt, who had just had it’s air force destroyed, hence, was operationally incapable of attacking and destroying the ship”
I have two objections to your argument.
First: My understanding is, that while Israel destroyed most of Egypts air force, Egypt still hold minor air capacities.
Second: It wouldn’t be neccessarily the Egyptian air force to be blamed for this. Since the USS Liberty was to be sunk by torpedos, it would have made more sense to blame the Egyptian navy.
It’s pretty obvious that for whatever the reasons the israelis sank the Liberty, it was planned to have nobody survive from the ship and that somebody else would then be blamed for the sinking. That alone shows keith’s argument in defense of johnson & co. above is based upon emotional attachments rather than upon logic. Regardless of who knew the attack would take place, Egypt was most likely going to be blamed for it. Claiming there could have been no american involvement in the falseflag because Egypt couldn’t have sunk the ship is just plain silly – much like claiming israel is a colony of the usa, btw.
BANDOLERO, HAYATE- I’ve already spent too much time on this, however, your persistence in pursuing your illogical scenario intrigues me. Let me begin by reviewing the basic facts leading
up to the attack. For starters, the US knew of Israel’s plans and supported their attack on the Arab states. Both the US and Israel were adamantly opposed to secular Arab nationalism and, in particular, Pan-Arabism, which had the potential to radically alter the balance of power in the Middle East. US intelligence had already concluded that Israel would easily and quickly defeat the Arab states in any war, regardless of who initiated it. A smashing Israeli victory would mean the realization of US geo-strategic objectives without direct US involvement, which would have entailed risks.
Two days prior to the attack, the US joint chiefs of staff ordered the Liberty out of the combat zone, one assumes because they became aware that the ship could be in danger. Hardly the actions of a false flag set-up. For whatever reason, this order was not carried out. One may choose to believe a telefax malfunction (unlikely in my view), or one may choose to believe (as I do) that Admiral McCain intentionally sat on the orders, for whatever reason.
It is generally believed that Moshe Dayan, who once said that Israel should be seen as a mad dog- too dangerous to bother with, ordered the attack on the Liberty. Remember, the Liberty should have out of the combat area had orders been followed. The attack was efficient, massive and sustained. Only one power in the Middle East had such a capability, and only one the Chutzpah to launch such an attack knowing in advance that the US would likely back down for geo-strategic reasons. Sailors are expendable to empire, geo-strategic dominance of the Middle East essential.
US naval combat forces were not in the immediate vicinity to offer support, and I assume that this was intentional as a means of keeping the US out of the conflict, and to avoid any confrontations.
It was probably assumed that Israel didn’t need any help, and that our proxy would easily defeat the Soviet proxies. Israel was to become the US enforcer in the Middle East, not fully reliable, but
valuable from a geo-strategic perspective, at least at that point in time. Any open confrontation with Israel would jeopardize US strategic plans. Beside, there were no naval combat forces in the
immediate area. The carrier fighters that were launched were beyond their effective combat range, hence, would have had to ditch at sea. Also, they were nuclear armed, assigned to fleet defense, not conventional combat. There was no possibility of capturing Israel airmen/sailors, nor would that have been desired. The US wanted to support Israel, not go to war with Israel.
As for your “false flag” contention, I cannot conceive of any possible motivation for yet another “mission impossible” operation. As for the notion of blaming it on Egypt to “…shift public opinion to Israel’s favor.”, I am unaware that American public opinion has ever been pro-Arab and anti- Israel. Was AIPAC weak and ineffectual? In sum, the notion of a false flag operation is an illogical, fact free fantasy.
The idea that the intention of the attack was to utterly destroy the ship and blame it on Egypt has simplicity in its favor, and also it is characteristic of Israel, not only on the level of a general fondness for false flag ops, but specifically on the level of doing false flag ops and blaming Egypt for them (the ‘Lavon Affair’). The Israeli military planners are, I suppose like military planners elsewhere, very given to repeating patterns. It is also possible that powerful hawkish elements in the US were sold on this by the argument that demolishing Nasser would be doing the world a favor, but that unfortunately you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs and a pretext was necessary. The US ruling class has shown willingness on quite a number of occasions to sacrifice numbers of its own servicepeople to provide itself with a casus belli against someone or other.
Although I have heard both concepts about trying to sink the Liberty because of the killing of Egyptian POWS and trying to bring the US into the war, I believe at the time most Navy personnel at that time believed the latter theory. My father was in the Navy at the time, and had a friend that was killed on the Liberty. Although our government did everything in its power to bury the incident, word did get out slowly but surely. The sailors that my father knew believed that the only reason so much fire power was used against the Liberty was to sink it, so Egypt would be blamed. It is unfortunate that the US will never acknowledge the heroic efforts of the sailors aboard the Liberty that although badly damaged, kept it afloat, thus foiling Israel’s plans. But I also believe that Israel didn’t want the world to know how they treated POWs. After the US did absolutely nothing, Israel knew it owned our government.
Not all dogs are called “Bello”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-10752746
You must log in to post a comment.