cramer@sun.uucp (Sam Cramer) (03/14/86)
Several postings have addressed the attack on the Liberty during the
1967 Six Day War. The postings range from wacko conspiracy
theories involving electronic impersonation to more reasonable concerns
as to the war-time actions of an American friend and ally.
The most recent, and, to my mind, most reasonable examination of
the matter is found in the September 1984 "Atlantic Monthly" (no,
you won't have to go searching your local far-left bookshop for this
one...). An article entitled "The Attack on the Liberty" by Hirsh Goodman
and Zeev Schiff examines the affair, drawing on recently revealed
evidence. They conclude that the attack on the Liberty was the result
of an escalating series of blunders on both the American and Israeli
sides, which ultimately culminated in the tragic death of 34 American
crew men, an Israeli formal apology, and payment of almost $7 million
in compensation by the Israeli government.
The first point the authors make is that accidents are common during
wars:
"Indeed, just the day before the attack on the Liberty, Israeli
aircraft had bombed an Israeli armored column south of the
West Bank town of Jenin; on November 3, 1956, Israeli war
planes mistakenly attacked a British ship (Britian and France
were allies of Israel in the Sinai campaign) in the Red Sea;
in the June, 1982 war in Lebanon more than twenty Israeli
servicemen were killed by Israeli Phantom jets in the eastern
sector when their tanks were mistakenly indentified as Syrian.
During the battle in Grenada, American jets mistakenly bombed
a mental hospital. Such tragic accidents have happened to
every army in the history of modern war."
Next, they go on to document that the very decision to send the
Liberty into the region was cause for American military concern:
"The ship's captain, Commander William L. McGonagle, was
also uneasy about the assignment. Like other officers on board,
he was convinced that if war broke out, either the ship's
orders should be changed or an armed escort provided.
When war did break out... and neither a change in orders
nor an escort materialized, McGonagle drafted an appeal to
Vice Admiral William Inman Martin [commander of the 6th
fleet] that a destroyer be sent within five miles of the Liberty
to provide protection... Martin denied the request... From then
on, a tattoo of errors, both American and Israeli, commenced
to guide the ship toward catastrophe."
Goodman and Schiff also show that the Israeli goverment was
extremely concerned about their poor naval defenses and was
convinced that the Egyptians would use the sea to shell Israeli costal
cities, where more than 90% of the country's citizens live. Israel
attempted to coordinate with the Americans on this matter. Yitzkak
Rabin, the Israeli Chief of Staff, told Commander Castle, the American
naval attache in Tel Aviv on June 5, 1967 that
"Israel intends to defend its shores from attack by the
Egyptians.... If threatened we will not be able to delay our
response. We request therefore that the United States either
withdraw all its vessels from our shores, or inform us of the
exact location of all vessels close to our shores."
At this point a series of American messages to the Liberty, directing
the ship to steam first at least twenty miles off the coast and then
at least one hundred mile off the coast were lost in the US Military
communications network, the former message being first delayed,
and then misrouted to a US base in the Philippines.
This, of course, is all prologue to the actual attack. If there is
interest among net.politics readers, I will further summarize the
article regarding the Israeli actions leading up to, and including the
attack. I encourage those interested to read the article, however;
Goodman and Schiff are far better writers than myself. If it is
unavailable locally, contact me and I'll arrange to send out a copy.
--
Sam Cramer uucp: {cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,seismo,ucbvax}!sun!cramer
arpanet: cramer@sun.arpaweemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (03/17/86)
In article <3364@sun.uucp> cramer@sun.UUCP (Sam Cramer) writes: > They conclude that the attack on the Liberty was the result >of an escalating series of blunders on both the American and Israeli >sides, ... > "Israel intends to defend its shores from attack by the > Egyptians.... The USS Liberty sitting dead in the water could not be confused with any known Egyptian ship under any circumstances. The attack was not a blunder. Try reading the account of the attack in Bamford, _The Puzzle Palace_. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
cramer@sun.uucp (Sam Cramer) (03/26/86)
Questions have been raised about the sources used by the authors of "The Attack on the Liberty", which I referred to at length in previous postings. According to Goodman and Schiff "The following account of what happened to the Liberty on June 8 is based on unedited, previously unpublished material retrieved by the authors over the past ten years from Israeli naval and air-force archives and on transcripts from two internal Israel Defense Forces investigations into the affair, which remain classified." Matt Wiener, referring to the account, asks > Is it from reality or an official cover up? I am not throwing strange > paranoia claims out. It is certainly in Israel's best interests to > maintain the accident story. Several factors argue against the official cover-up theory. First of all, if there was to be a cover-up, why come out with the story so recently? The public relations damage was done long ago - Israeli-American relations have been very good for a long time, and an officially sanctioned leak in late 1984 would seem to serve no Israeli purpose. Secondly, as any observer of the war in Lebanon will tell you, the Israelis have not been especially concerned with PR. It's hard to imagine that the same people who so totally botched the public relations aspect of the war in Lebanon would be so concerned with the covering up a nearly twenty year old incident. Finally, both authors in general, and Schiff in particular are known as honest and unbiased. The paper that Schiff works for, Ha'Aretz, is Israel's most respected daily. He is the co-author of the critical and definitive account of the 1982 war, "Israel's War in Lebanon." On another point, proponents of the "intentional attack" theory have a difficult time showing sufficient motivation for the attack. Syrian hostile intentions were plenty clear before the war. What did Israel have to hide? If the Liberty was to be monitoring the Israeli-Syrian border, what was it doing down near Egypt? The notion that Israel attacked the Liberty in order to prevent an ally from obtaining information on a front that the Liberty was ill-positioned to monitor seems to me implausible. Finally, Raif Hijab's bizarre statement on the debate over the Liberty ("since I am interested in informational content, I see no point in further defending my point") speaks for itself. -- Sam Cramer uucp: {cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,seismo,ucbvax}!sun!cramer arpanet: cramer@sun.arpa