The Third Way: A Different View of the Middle East

This is the first time I’ve ever written publicly about the issue of the USS Liberty, the American espionage vessel that was attacked by Israeli forces during the Six-Day War.

I’ve never written about it before because there was scant substance to write about. The facts we have don’t extend much beyond this: Israeli planes attacked the Liberty, followed by a sea attack by an Israeli ship. The incident left 34 American sailors dead and 170 more injured, some severely. Two US squadrons were mobilized after the attack on the Liberty started and were then called back. Israel claimed the attack was a case of mistaken identity and apologized, and a US investigation was pursued, but only a quick one, which ended with American acceptance of Israel’s excuse and the matter was closed. USS Liberty in 1966

Today, we really don’t know much more than that. But the Chicago Tribune brought the incident back up this week, and so, despite the fact that the article really doesn’t shed any new light on the episode, I feel the urge to say something about this.

The attack on the Liberty has provided great fodder for conspiracy theorists for the past four decades. The surviving sailors who have spoken publicly have all been unanimous in rejecting the Israeli claim that they did not see the American flag flying on the ship. The one major point the Tribune article provides is much more conclusive evidence that indeed, the Israeli pilots were fully aware that they were attacking an American ship. This isn’t a big surprise, frankly; Israel’s explanation on this score was never all that credible. The Liberty was not off-course or in an unexpected place and there was no reason ever offered as to why the ship would not have been flying its colors.

But the conspiracy theorists have repeatedly used this incident to prove how much fealty the US gives to Israel, and frankly, that doesn’t make a lot of sense. The US commitment to Israel in 1967 was a lot more tenuous and more slender than it is today. There is no credible evidence that Israel would be able to get away with an intentional attack on an American ship in those days, even if one wants to argue that their influence is so great today that they could (a claim I would not agree with, as is obvious from my recent post on the Israel Lobby).

But the fact is, Israel’s explanation for the incident is not credible as it stands, and the lack of serious investigation by the United States is also inexplicable based on the evidence we have now. The question, in particular, of why two squadrons were scrambled in response and then recalled (likely on direct instructions from Washington, possibly from as high a source as Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara) is an open one, not explained by any facts we have at hand, other than the mere fact of the event.

The mystery around this issue invites the worst kind of anti-Israel venom. It is obvious to anyone who looks at this incident with even a modicum of critical thinking that a secret or secrets are being kept. The conspiracy theorists have, fortunately, not come up with any explanations that are any more credible than the official ones. Just as the official version of the story has gaping holes, no one has explained what could possibly be of such great importance to Israel that they would risk making an enemy of the US by attacking the Liberty. This was, after all, an obvious possibility if Israel did indeed know that the ship was American.

The ongoing shroud of mystery about the Liberty is a real danger to Israel. Despite the Tribune article, most Americans are unaware that Israel attacked and crippled an American ship forty years ago in an unprovoked attack. It goes without saying that if this incident becomes public with the information we have now, Israel’s standing in the eyes of the American public will take an enormous hit. Maybe it should, but we don’t have anything approaching the full story, and thus any backlash in any direction is not justified. It would, nonetheless, happen if the story was public.

The truth about the Liberty needs to come out. It is obvious form the behavior of the two squadrons of fighters from the US Sixth Fleet that someone somewhere in the American chain of command was as complicit in this as anyone in Israel. Moreover, Israel was at war and the way the Israeli military works, a great deal of power is in the hands of commanders of lesser stature especially during a war. It is entirely possible that whatever happened here was the result of decisions made well below the level of the Prime Minister, Defense Minister and even the most senior military officials. It’s equally possible that Israeli leaders up to and including Prime Minister Levi Eshkol were involved.

The point is we don’t know. Neither the official story nor any of the alternatives offered pass the laugh test. We should know what happened here. Should this story get more public traction, as it might, whether now or some day later, it will be explosive. The families of the sailors who were killed, those survivors who are living with the after-effects of this attack and the American and Israeli publics deserve more than they have gotten. The secrecy around the Liberty invites speculation of the rankest sort. Those involved are mostly dead or near the end of their lives. It is hard to imagine that the truth here will be as harmful as the cover-up has the potential to be.

Cornelius Trollstein Says:
October 6th, 2007 at 6:55 pm

There are two possible and one impossible explanations.
The impossible one has been regurgitated constantly for the past 40 years by Jew-haters of many sub-categories. Namely, that “for NO good reason, Israel deliberately attacked an allied vessel (The Liberty) at significant cost of life and limb of US servicemen.” To these people, since there is no definite explanation, the worst must be so. But it completely lacks sense.
The two POSSIBLE remaining explanations are:
1. It was a mistake. While this may sound far-fetched, “friendly fire” remains a major component to all sorts of warfare, even today with sophisticated electronic tagging devices. I know of a U.S. Marine who is in prison for life because one of his (trainee) subordinates landed a live artillery shell on the CO’s house, killing his wife. If one does the math, wrongful targeting occurs frequently, even in 2007. If the readers will please recall, during the Bosnian military action, the Chinese Embassy was mistakenly flattened.
2. The other possible explanation is that the USA was playing both sides of the street and jeopardizing an Israeli victory. This theory is explored in great depth on “The Secret War Against the Jews” by Loftis and Aarons. http://www.amazon.com/Secret-War-Against-Jews-Espionage/dp/0312156480/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-2621369-2977455?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191713546&sr=8-1
The index lists no less then 26 pages which deal with this incident. It is hardly a secret that the US and England were courting favor with various Arab nations and former Nazi war criminals. It is also hardly denied that the USA and England favored a scenario whereby the Israelis would act Christ-like and accept some measure of defeat and death (like good Christians should.) The remaining questions are:
A) Did this two-faced desire rise to the level of the Liberty assisting certain Arab military, as Loftus and Aarons claim to have evidence suggesting?
B) Is this explanation more plausible then the accidental friendly fire story?
C) Would this also explain why the USA never made much of a fuss? As the purported truth would be more embarrassing then the consequences?
Explanation number one is ridiculous. That Israel would just be compelled to kill some Americans, for no reason, other then their thirst for innocent blood. I find it no coincidence that the rehashing of this incident has been publicized in the Chicago Tribune, home to Columnist Robert Novak and basically, the eternal home of the Nazi movement in America. These same people seem to have lost all venom for Germany, who nearly took over the entire world and was responsible for about 100,000,000 deaths in WW2. They have no animus for France, who orchestrated the Oil of Food Scandal. Israel teeter-totters on the precipous of destruction. Certain people can’t seem to get that point and won’t be happy until (may God kindly forbid) Israel looses a significant portion of its population.

John Baker Says:
October 6th, 2007 at 7:09 pm

Whatever the truth is, nothing is served by replacing one conspiracy theory with another one. The problem is that now there are two questions to be answered, what happened and also why the cover-up? The answer to the second may be more interesting than the first, but probably best to assume nothing at this point.

Cornelius Trollstein Says:
October 6th, 2007 at 9:09 pm

John:
“Whatever the truth is . . . ”
Its not “whatever”.
There are a finite number of logical possibilities.
Either:
Accident (story should end)
Intentional and without cause (makes no sense)
Intentional with reasonable cause (story ended to bury the reasonable cause.)
You got a 4th explanation?

John Baker Says:
October 6th, 2007 at 9:58 pm

2. The other possible explanation is that the USA was playing both sides of the street and jeopardizing an Israeli victory.

THE other??? It sounded like you were saying it was either a mistake or a response to an anti-Israeli conspiracy.

I agree it was either an accident or intentional, although it could also be both. In the heat of battle chaos reigns supreme (”the fog of war” it is called). Stuff happens and sometimes nobody really knows for sure. Gulf of Tonkin Incident was like that, I’m told (by someone on the Maddox). Maybe something was intended (unknown) and also something happened accidentally or got out of control. I doubt it was purely accidental, but beyond that there are a number of possibilities. Could be there was intent to intimidate, for example, which somehow went awry. Needs to finally be investigated if still possible. Meanwhile, keep an open mind.

Cornelius Trollstein Says:
October 7th, 2007 at 12:02 am

“THE other??? It sounded like you were saying it was either a mistake or a response to an anti-Israeli conspiracy.”
That is exactly what I am saying.
You and your ”fog of war”. This is now the second time you have used that concept to submit the otherwise implausible is really the most likely.
How could it be both accidental and deliberate?
What type of “fog” overwhelms the basic building-blocks of human reasoning?
Slightly pregnant?
Multiple versions of conflicted reality all being true?
You ‘lefties’ must be so-named because you “left” your common-sense at the door when you came in.
I know this is a strong response to your otherwise un-combative postings but I am striving to unravel misteries not yet solved, while you are trying to unravel those already quantified.

John Baker Says:
October 7th, 2007 at 6:06 am

I am striving to unravel misteries not yet solved, while you are trying to unravel those already quantified

Just the opposite, if I understand you correctly. You are saying there are only two possibilities, one of which most people think is wrong. If you are right, then what mystery is there? I am saying it is not as cut-and-dried as you assert. There are other possibilities, one of which is that it was both intentional and accidental. This is not a leftist position, btw, nor one that assaults the “building blocks of human reasoning.” It merely suggests maybe there are some things Isidor has not thought of. [gasp]

As to your dismissal of “the fog of war,” if you think everything always goes like clockwork and according to plan in combat, you’d better check with someone who has been there. The reality is that when all hell is breaking loose, communications can be imperfect at best and people get confused. Actions can be interpreted as provocative or hostile sometimes when they are not. You’ve also never heard of “friendly fire”? That’s something that occurs regularly due to confused communications in combat, the fog of war. Things happen, and they can be partly intentional and partly accidental. Humans screw up on a regular basis.
“Military intelligence” is an oxymoron a Groucho Marx pointed out. The hotline to Moscow was put in the Oval Office after the Cuban Missle Crisis because of the realization that confused communications could lead to mutual catastrophe through one side misreading the intentions of the other side.

Cornelius Trollstein Says:
October 7th, 2007 at 8:31 am

“the fog of war. Things happen, and they can be partly intentional and partly accidental.”
Not really. An attack on a ‘friendly’ is not both. The 100% intent was to attack an enemy, not a friend. This would not be ‘accidental’ in the sense of say, for example, accidentally stepping into an open elevator shaft. But for the example being discussed, the only important issue in the INTENT. In that sense, there can be no ambiguity and suggestions to the contrary only feed the mongers of hate against Israel and Jews.
“You are saying there are only two possibilities, one of which most people think is wrong.”
I am saying that only three possibilities exist of which one is HIGHLY unlikely because the only way it makes any sense is if the Hebrews deliberately targeted friendly USA forces for no other reason then why they {Jews} poison gentile wells, drink gentile’s baby blood and crucified Jesus. Namely, they remain eternal enemies of God and mankind.
The other two possibilities are:
Accident -or
The “Liberty” became a necessary military target in order to win that war, for reasons suggested above (by Loftus and Aarons).
I don’t really care which is the truth. I only care to stop the people who keep throwing this incident up in my face (40 years later) to try and prove the first suggestion.
“It merely suggests maybe there are some things Isidor has not thought of. [gasp]”
I am sure there are many such things [double gasp]. You have merely failed to identify one.
If you would really like a good gasp, write the following down, which I suspect will be published in the next few years:
Gravity is the result of the slight negative mass of space.
Science yet assumes that “space” is the mere lack of any measurable “mass”. This is Einstein’s most significant blunder. Space contains a slight negative bias, which produces “surface tension” and what we know as “gravity”. This is due to the fact that Space is actually a very diluted (expanded and weakened) form of “anti-matter”. This also explains why science tabulates a huge amount of missing “anti-matter” in the universe. Its not missing. Its just been stretched to the stage where it does not kill the opposing matter on contact. This point may be “discovered” by the super-particle-collider in Switzerland, if that device does not punch a hole in the fabric of the universe. Now, would such an event be “deliberate” or “accidental”?

John Baker Says:
October 7th, 2007 at 11:06 am

Particularly in naval engagements, there are maneuvers that are intended to intimidate or threaten. The position and speed of a vessel may itself be interpreted as hostile even if not intended as such. Fighter aircraft very often play chicken with each other and with ships. Very easy to intimidate when you are flying at Mach 1 straight at someone and coming within 300 yards before turning. I don’t know what happened. It is possible that someone in the Israeli command was not happy about the location / bearing / speed of the American ship or took it to be provocative. It could be that actions were taken in the air with the intent to intimidate (not to attack). And it is possible also that at point one or more screw-ups took place, in which case there was both intent and accident involved. An investigation would have to show what the rules of engagement were at the time, who violated them, why, and how.

I said this basically in post #4.

I personally do not believe that Israel intended to attack the USS Liberty deliberately for any reason, whether provoked or unprovoked. I suspect they intended to intimidate it into changing course and that somehow somebody lower in the chain of command screwed up. I don’t know. Needs to be investigated.

John Baker Says:
October 7th, 2007 at 11:10 am

there are maneuvers that are intended to intimidate or threaten.

As for example the proverbial “shot across the bow.”

So what happens if the deck gunner screws up and puts one right into the bridge instead? Then both ships commence firing on each other at close range and all hell breaks loose. Think this has never happened?

John Baker Says:
October 7th, 2007 at 6:47 pm

Having looked at the transcripts (as reported), it is clear that the Israeli pilots were sent to sink the ship but did not know till they got there that it was American. They seem to have been surprised to see an American flag flying. In light of that, I would speculate that someone on the ground had misidentified the ship on radar based on faulty intelligence, perhaps believing it was Egyptian and remaining convinced of that even after the pilots reported the American flag. Hence the go-ahead order when the pilot checked to see if he should proceed. “Military intelligence” is an oxymoron. Now go find the moron.

Time For the Truth About the USS Liberty

10 Responses to “Time For the Truth About the USS Liberty”

Leave a Reply

Archived Entry