Conference taveng::bagels

>>    How about a discussion of the Israeli attack, in 1967,
>>    on the US Navy ship "USS Liberty"?

	Why :-) 

	This is not a debating society. If you want to
	debate the issue their are some "excellent" forums
	on USENET :-) :-)
>>    
>>    Is the USS Liberty (wartime) incident discussed elsewhere
>>    in this conference?
>>    
	Possibly try the much underused "DIR" or "SEARCH" command.
	
>>    I'd be interested to hear how the incident was covered
>>    in Israeli newspapers etc., at the time, and since.

There have been many articles that have written about this incident.
A lot of them normally have a specific axe to grind.  How about
you giving a *well documented* precis and seeing how the replies
from around the world review it.  

							... M

    Also, does the USS Liberty incident show up in Israeli
    history textbooks? How is the episode portrayed?
    
re .1:    Yes, by all means, let's not degenerate into a
    debating society.

    Re .0:
    
    Whenever you have a ship/aircraft on a mission like the USS LIBERTY (or
    the USS PUEBLO) was, you are taking certain risks. Because of
    the nature of the mission, the LIBERTY was configured as an ordinary
    US Navy transport which meant no armament heavier than a .50 caliber
    machine gun and no armor plate to speak of if any.
    
    Also, because of the mission, if anything went wrong, the standard
    US government line was disavowal of any knowledge of the ship's mission.
    This has happened many times before in the period from 1945. More
    than a few US aircraft on "surveillance" missions of the Soviet
    Union were shot down. With the exception of the U-2 incident, the
    US government for the most part let the incidents drop.
    
    I've ignored some of the other issues relating to the LIBERTY incident
    because I don't really have enough knowledge to comment on them
    in depth and also because I don't want to start a flame war.
    
    Just some opinions......
    
    Mark
    

    A couple of questions:
    
    Where (in what waters, etc.) was the USS Liberty when it was
    attacked? Was the location of the Liberty at the time
    disputed later by any parties involved?
    
    Was there a Saudi aspect to the Liberty's mission?
    
    

    To shed some light on the subject: we have forgotten to ask
    
    	When did the incident take place?
    
    Alex
    

    	When did the incident take place?

I believe in 1956, during the Suez war.

Martin.
    

        No, 1967.

    Re .4:
    
    As far as I know (and someone can correct me if I'm in error), the
    USS Liberty was in international waters. Supposedly the Israeli's
    at the time mistook it for an Egyptian ship. The US disputed that
    claim saying US flags were displayed prominently on the upper decks.
    
    I don't think (but again I might be wrong) there was a territorial
    dispute as there was at the time of the capture of the USS Pueblo.
    
    The US had aircraft ready to respond (A-1 Skyraiders supposedly
    for those of you who may be aviation buffs) to the Israeli attacks.
    Unfortunately, they were initially armed with nuclear weapons, so the
    story goes, so they to off-load the nukes and attach conventional ordnance
    to the Spads. By the time this was accomplished, the Liberty had
    been hit a second time and there wasn't much to do except escort
    her back.
    
    I also heard but can't confirm that US aircraft were in the air after
    the attacks on the Liberty but were recalled by very high authority
    for whatever reason (we'll probably never know).
    
    As far as any Saudi aspect of the Liberty's mission, I don't have
    enough specific knowledge of the mission to comment on that other than to
    say whenever a major shooting war starts some place you can be sure
    the US is probably keeping an eye on things in some way or another
    so that we don't have any surprises.
    
    Hope that helps a little bit.
    
    Mark
    RMC USNR

I have to agree with .1 on this matter. What is the specific motivation
for bringing this up? What about it piqued your interest? Is there a reason
you ignored .1?

Jem

    Re .9:
    
    I have to agree with Jem......Not that I have the inside track on
    historical events (because I don't), but it's almost like the original
    note writer is perhaps picking up our replies but not responding
    for whatever reason.
    
    Re .0 et al:
    
    Do you have an alternative point of view? If so, hop in. Like I
    said above, I certainly haven't cornered the world market on historical
    facts.....if I'm wrong or you have another viewpoint, let me/us
    know!
    
    Mark

    Sorry but....I haven't formed "my own viewpoint" re USS Liberty yet.
    What is the "safe way" to pick up a scorpion?
    I've seen some source material re Liberty, and may post it,
    or other NOTESFILES discussions here, in the future.
    
    re .1: I repeat, let's not degenerate into debate.  :^)
    

    I do not understand why is that incident should be so mysterious.
    Given the circumstances of that week, I find it hard to term the event 
    anything else than a tragic miscalculation/mistake by both sides.
    
    Al

    Re .12:
    
    Hi Al:
    
    Well, the USS Liberty was on a classified mission in 1967 and as such there
    will be aspects of that mission that will not be de-classified for
    a long time (if ever). This makes sense (although it doesn't help
    the historians much) especially in light of what I percieve
    (correct me if I'm wrong) to be gradually improving US-Israeli
    relations (for example, Israel now has a bilateral defense treaty
    with the US among other things).
    
    We can't change what happened but with closer cooperation we can
    sure try hard to make sure it doesn't happen again.
    
    Just some opinions.....
    
    Mark
    RMC USNR

    re .13              
    
    Mark,
    
    Sounds like a reasonable statement to me. I do not see anything
    incongruent with .12
    
    Al
    ZHL, retired please.

    Apparently James M. Ennes (deck officer of the Liberty
    at the time of the attack) wrote an article printed in
    DEFENSE ELECTRONICS magazine, about the attack. This
    appeared in the October 1981 issue of that trade magazine.
    
    Here's my SELECTIVE distillation of the Ennes article,
    which I read in 1981 (and reread in copy recently) :
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    
    The Ennes article clearly says that the attack was not an
    accident, and was not in any way due to misidentification.
    Ennes also implies that the US Navy board of inquiry
    into the Liberty incident was a total coverup job.
    
    The Ennes article also suggests that after strong complaints
    to the USA by Israel, the US Gvt made attempts (severly botched
    or worse) to direct the ship to move farther from Gaza, a few
    hours prior to the attack by Israeli aircraft.
    
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
    
    Apparently, there's a book by Russel Warren Howe titled
    "Weapons, the International Game of Arms and Money",
    mentioned in DEFENSE_ISSUES note 179.11 .
    [comet::defense_issues.note, press KP7 to add to your notebook.]
    I have NOT read the book and DON'T KNOW what credence to
    give it.
    
    Howe's book, which I haven't read in original, apparently
    suggests that the Liberty had acquired SIGINT/COMINT revealing
    the Isreali method of spoofing Jordan into mounting its
    attack. The source [Howe] states that this was to circumvent
    USA's insistence that Israel not attack Jordan unless
    attacked by Jordan first. And, that this was fundamental
    to the method planned and actually executed by Israel to obtain
    the West Bank territory. Also, that a US nuclear sub was near
    the Liberty and had photgraphed Israel's entire attack thru
    its periscope. And, that the Liberty had intercepted and
    deciphered the Israeli radio deception (perpetrated against
    Jordan); that Walt Rostow confronted Israel's ambassador with 
    this knowledge; that the subsequent Israeli attack on the Liberty
    was a deliberate effort to remove the evidence and source of
    embarrassment i.e. US interference in a pre(Jordanian)-war
    radio-deception.
    
    Although the above isn't my viewpoint (I don't have one
    yet, although I have some questions), it is an alternative one.
    It is obviously radically different from the officially
    prevailing or assumed one, and yet somewhat consistent with
    Deck Officer Ennes's statements. Incidentally, the Ennes
    article appears in DEFENSE_ISSUES note 179.0 .
    
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    
    I'd be interested to hear anyone's opinion about the Ennes
    or Howe materials. Also, I wonder if these materials (or
    such theories) at the time evoked any response from
    the Israeli government, media or academia. Can the above
    materials be dismissed in short order as spurious/falsehoods ? 
     

    Re .15:
    
    The sources you cite may very well have validity. However, as I
    mentioned earlier, the problem is validating them. It is standard
    procedure for the US government not to disclose methods or sources
    of intelligence collection, even if an event occurred over 20 years
    ago.
    
    With improved relations between Tel Aviv and Washington now
    a reality, why disclose information that unfriendly governments
    could use to drive a wedge between Israel and the US or the US and
    pro-US Middle Eastern nations?
    
    To give you an example of how the US protects its intelligence
    collection apparatus, in 1948 a US Navy PB4Y-2 Privateer took off
    from a base in West Germany on an electronic eavesdropping mission
    along the Soviet Baltic coast. Stalin scrambled Soviet fighters
    which shot down the US Navy aircraft. Supposedly, all aboard were
    killed but periodic reports of crew members surviving in the Gulag
    long afterwards still appear. Yet the US will neither confirm nor
    deny the mission of that aircraft even today.
    
    Mark
    RMC USNR

    Re: .8
    
    I have what might be a dumb question:
    
    What was a US ship doing in those waters with aircraft loaded with
    nuclear weapons?
    
    The only answers I can come up with are real scary.
    
    				Paul
    

    re 759.16 by STARIN:, concerning how the US protects its
    intelligence sources/methods.
    
    Thank you. I don't doubt what you say, although I can imagine many
    other factors requiring mutual concealment of the alleged [by Howe]
    radio deception (and its alleged discovery by the USN's Liberty).
    
    Assume, for the moment, that Howe's version is correct.
    Would the Jordanian government have any net motive to reveal
    (to the world press) its own vulnerability (resulting in a
    resounding defeat and loss of territory) to such an imaginative
    (I almost said clever...) Israeli radio deception? In fact,
    would the Egyptians or Syrians themselves have any desire to
    discuss such a COMSEC failure, in the aftermath/recriminations
    of 1967 defeat?
                  
    Also, can anyone explain the exact timing of Jordan's attack
    during the 1967 six day war, specifically, in relation to the tide
    of the battle already in progress (Egypt & Syria)? What is
    the/any "official" explanation for the delay in entry of Jordan,
    by its attack, until a time when Egypt, Syria etc. were near
    defeat (if that was the case, as alleged) ?
    

    Re .17:
    
    I'll have to defer an answer if that's OK with you.
    
    Thanks.
    
    Re .18:
    
    I'll have to pass on answering those questions as I don't have specific
    enough knowledge of the '67 war to be of much help.
    
    Maybe somebody else could answer them?
    
    Mark
    RMC USNR

re .17:
    
    What was a US ship doing in those waters with aircraft loaded with
    nuclear weapons?

This was/is a time when the major powers assumed they would have to
start a nuclear war with about 5 minutes notice.  All military ships
leave port with their "war loads" (even for training).

Martin.

    
    I would suggest that readers review notes 597, 668, as well as this
    one. It appears to me that Mr. McAllen knows slightly more than he
    lets on and has a VERY SPECIFIC agenda that he's "subtly" pushing.
    A perusal of his postings should make this abundantly clear.
    
    Jem

    I don't agree with Jem (759.21) that "something smells".
    
    There will always be topics governments will wish to conceal
    from the public, domestic and foreign. In wartime (in some
    places that can be a majority of the time) laws and official
    press restrictions suffice. In other cases, unofficial influence
    or pressure will cause episodes to remain unpublicised. For
    military or "intelligence" scandals, much information can be
    cut off, intercepted, or even revised, directly at the source!
                                                   
    In .0, I mentioned what I'd like to hear about. Specifically,
    material from Israeli government, press or academia, etc.
    So far, I've heard some, but not much. Perhaps it's all too boring.
    
    Jem, do you feel topic 759.* requires official deodorization?
    Please don't mistake my curiousity for hostility. I hope I won't
    be receiving any anonymous memo, as in 1.57 .
                     :^)
    		thanks,
    		John
             

    	It's true, John also inquired about C. Hashemi, A. Nir, and all
    other possible conspiracies that I can think of. I think he suspects
    all governments quite sincerely :-)
    
    DG

    Re .20:
    
    Thanks, Martin.
    
    Mark
    RMC USNR

    There is a brief discussion of the [USN ship] Liberty matter
    in conference WORLD_FORUM, topic 31.238 (& .229).
    
    [Cong.?] Pete McCloskey is mentioned as representing a
    group of (American) Liberty veterans who want the congressional
    investigation of the Liberty incident to be reopened.
    
    Perhaps there are some very basic questions about the
    Liberty incident which beg examination. How plausible
    is it the Israeli pilots and their controllers did *not*
    realize this was an American (USN) vessel? This appears
    to be the official position of the US and Israeli gvts.
    
    It would be interesting to hear more about the precise
    timing of Jordan's (delayed ?) entry into the 1967 battle,
    from someone who really knows. Perhaps people who know
    are not in a position to say!
    

    McCloskey has had a hidden agenda vis-a-vis Israel.  I suspect that he
    will seize any excuse to make "war".
    
    --David

    Could author of .26 explain what McCloskey's "hidden
    agenda vis-vis Isreal" might be? Or where could one
    look/read to find some clues about McClockey's
    alleged "hidden agenda"?
    
    From the note pointed to by .25, I got the impression
    that McCloskey may be interested, or willing, to explore
    the possibility (probability?) that the US Navy and/or
    State Dept., through their own "incompetence", contributed
    to the incident.
    
    So far, no one has addressed the question about the timing
    of Jordan's entry into combat, during the 1967 War. Perhaps
    the facts are hard to come by. Depending on the theory being
    considered, this might be pertinent information.
    
    Is it possible that the Isreali attack on the US Navy
    ship Liberty was the result of a "diplomatic accident",
    but *not* the result of any misidentification the ship ?
    This would be an "intermediate" explanation of the event.
    

    McCloskey has been a member of the pro-PLO/Anti-Israel lobby in
    Congress for years.  I'm sure that you could find documentation just by
    reviewing his speeches and position papers.
    
    --David

    In 1967, soon after the Six Day War, a Soviet weekly "Za Rubezhom"
    (Foreign Events) published an interview with Jordan's King Hussein.  In
    the interview the King addressed the question of how Jordan got
    involved into the war.
    
    Briefly (from memory, of course), Hussein said that he didn't want to
    get into the war.  During early stages of the war he got many calls
    from Nasser and the Syrian president (I do not remember if it was
    Asad).  They tried to get Hussein to attack Israel.  On the second day
    Nasser lied to him that Israeli army was practically destroyed and if
    Jordan wanted any part of the pie, it should have joined Egypt and Syria. 
    After this call Hussein ordered the shelling of Jerusalem and the 
    invasion.  In that interview Hussein was very angry at Nasser for the lie.
    
    I was amazed reading that interview in the Soviet paper!  At the time
    Nasser was the Russians best friend, usually the censors didn't let
    anything of this sort printed.
    
    Does it answer any of your questions?
    
    Leo Simon

    re 759.29 -
    Yes, that answers my question, and thank you.
    
    Also, to refer back to 759.15, where the question came up
    about Jordan's entry, might be instructive.
    
    Your (.29) explanation seems *consistent* with Howe's assertion,
    although Howe apparently claims this was in fact a radio deception
    practiced by Isreal against Jordan, detected by the USA,
    and not a lie to Jordan by Egypt. Of course Howe's description is
    far more complex (so, perhaps more likely a concoction by Howe, in
    other words).
    
    On the other hand, Howe's explanation may fit with the
    facts Isreali attack on the USN ship and subsequent
    diplomatic coverup. Who knows?
    

    IMO:
    
    I always prefer a simple explanation to a complex one.  I also subscribe
    to the Okkam (Occam?) Razor principle -- to cut off all excesses and
    look for the simpliest reason.  And lastly, I do not remember the
    source but believe in this truth:  Never attribute to malice what can
    be adequately explained by stupidity.  Howe could create many scenarios,
    but the King himself said that the main reason was Nasser's lie.
    
    Leo

>    Briefly (from memory, of course), Hussein said that he didn't want to
>    get into the war.  During early stages of the war he got many calls
>    from Nasser and the Syrian president (I do not remember if it was
>    Asad).  They tried to get Hussein to attack Israel.  On the second day
>    Nasser lied to him that Israeli army was practically destroyed and if
>    Jordan wanted any part of the pie, it should have joined Egypt and Syria. 
>    After this call Hussein ordered the shelling of Jerusalem and the 
>    invasion.  In that interview Hussein was very angry at Nasser for the lie.
    
	It was actually slightly worse than that: Golda Meir
	and Moshe Dayan contacted King Hussein several times before
	he (Hussein) entered the war, asking him to stay out -- and 
	stating that the Israelis would not engage the Jordanians if
	the Jordanians did not engage the Israelis.  They pointed out
	to Hussein that the Nasser statement was a lie ... and, as they
	say, the rest is history.

don feinberg

    
    re .32  That's interesting..
    
    What follows could have been the result of that communication....
    
    Nasser calls Hussein and reportedly says 'we're winning, join the
    party'.  Hussein says 'nope'.  Then Golda/Moishe, with the best of
    intentions since Hussein is a moderate, call and say 'Nasser lied
    to you, stay out'.
    
    Hussein hangs up the phone and says to himself, 'why did they tell
    me to keep out?  Maybe Nasser is right, could it be they are winning 
    and Golda/Moishe are afraid I will join in?' 
     
    Like so many things we may never know the truth, or may never recognize
    it when it appears.
    
    bob
    

    It's hard to know if Hussein received the message 'from
    Nasser' via phone, voice radio, cyphered or military TWX, etc.,
    isn't it?
    
    Perhaps a ground (land) line, by circuitous route?
    

    Re: -.1
    
    That much I remember:  In the interview Hussein mentioned the phone
    call from Nasser.
    
    Leo