Israel and America at war...in 1967?

Had the following New Republic article dropped in my laptop yesterday about the American ship, USS Liberty, that was fired on by Israel in 1967. Thirty four US seamen died in the attack.

As a long-time supporter of Israel, I've also been the the long time mail-recipient of copious 1-inch thick packets of photocopied hate mail from people all over, regarding the Liberty.

This article by A. Jay Cristol is a fascinating, since it meets head-on the long-stated accusations by the John Birch society and many others about the incident.

Read it and tell me what you think.

Den

USS Liberty: Israel Did Not Intend to Bomb the Ship

By A. Jay Cristol

Mr. Cristol is the author of the forthcoming The Liberty Incident.

Editor's Note: This summer HNN devoted a special edition to Israel's attack on the USS Liberty in 1967 during the Six Day War, which resulted in the deaths of 34 Americans. Israel insists the attack was an accident. Many others contend it was deliberate, among them, James Bamford, author of Body of Secrets., which has attracted a great deal of attention. A. Jay Cristol, a federal bankruptcy judge in Florida, has spent 14 years researching the incident and has been allowed exclusive access to Israeli archives and officials. His long-awaited book, The Liberty Incident, will be published in March by Brassey. In the piece below, Judge Cristol critiques the claims advanced by Mr. Bamford. The judge's conclusion? Mr. Bamford is guilty of telling "tall tales." Bamford: Describes the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty as "unprovoked."

Fact: He completely ignores that the United States had publicly announced to the world at the United Nations Security Council only two days before June 8, 1967 that it had no warships within hundreds of miles of the combat zone. The chain of reactions were started by an Israeli army report of explosions at El Arish. Since Israel controlled the air and the ground, they made the assumption that they were being shelled from the sea and a warship was in eye view. In view of the U.S. public announcement, it seems more logical for the Israelis to have assumed that a haze grey warship sailing within eye view of the ongoing combat was an enemy vessel rather than a U.S. ship.

Bamford: "Israel fighters and torpedo boats assaulted the ship for more than an hour."

Fact: The air attack lasted about 12 minutes and was terminated as soon as the Israel Air Force determined the ship was not an Arab ship. While the Air Force was initiating rescue operations, the torpedo boats approached, stopped, and began signaling to the Liberty. The response of the Liberty was to begin shooting at the torpedo boats which thereupon began the torpedo attack. It lasted less than 15 minutes during which time the navy torpedo boats believed they were facing an enemy who initiated the shooting at them.

Bamford: The Israeli attackers used "cannon fire, rockets, heavy bombs, burning napalm and five torpedoes"

Fact: No rockets were fired at Liberty. No bombs, "heavy" or otherwise, were used. The attacking aircraft were not armed to attack a ship. Had they dropped the standard 500 pound iron bombs normally used against ship targets, the Liberty would very likely have been sunk in minutes. (During the battle of Midway in World War II, U.S. Navy dive bombers using standard 500 pound iron bombs sank three Japanese aircraft carriers in ten minutes.) Four napalm canisters [bombs] were dropped by the attacking aircraft. At least three and possibly all missed. The Liberty's doctor reported no treatment of any crew member for napalm burns.

Bamford: "Israeli reconnaissance planes had positively identified the ship"

Fact: A routine Israel Navy reconnaissance flight at dawn on June 8 sighted Liberty at about 6:00 A.M. steaming southeasterly and south more than 70 miles further west of El Arish. Positive identification was made and the information passed to Naval Intelligence Headquarters and the Liberty was marked on the battle control board at Naval Headquarters. Five hours later, the Liberty mark was considered old information and removed from the battle control board. At 11:00 A.M., shifts changed and the information about the Liberty was not known to the officer who assumed command. At about 1:00 P.M., when the presence of a ship steaming west, 14 miles off the coast of the Sinai and reported to be shelling Israel Army positions from the sea became a tactical issue, the Navy Officer in command did not know about the dawn sighting of Liberty many miles to the west.

Bamford: "Throughout the attack, according to survivors, the Liberty was flying a large American flag,"

Fact: Immediately prior to the air attack, the Liberty had a 5 by 8-foot American flag hoisted but because of the light wind conditions it probably was not extended. This is the Finding of Fact number 2. of the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry of June 18, 1967. As a matter of fact, a reference to the formula for visual acuity reveals that a flag that size, if fully extended in good light would not be identifiable beyond 1323 feet and the attacking aircraft never came that close. It is also the undisputed testimony of the Commanding Officer of the Liberty that the 5 by 8-foot flag was shot away on the first strafing run. A second, larger, 7 by 13 foot flag was hoisted after the air attack and prior to the torpedo attack but it was engulfed in smoke and thus was not an identification factor during the attacks. The first actual sighting of an American flag on the Liberty was made by an Israeli helicopter pilot more than 30 minutes after both air and sea attacks were over.

Bamford: "Nowicki heard both the pilots and the torpedo boat crew members referring to the American flag during the attack,"

"Nowicki also heard the pilots talk about the American flag."

Fact: No reference to an American flag was made on any radio intercept until 1512, approximately 30 minutes after the attack was over. I have obtained transcripts of the Israel Air Force tapes which confirm this. I have an appeal pending before the National Security Agency for release of their tapes, which are the tapes described by Bamford. Release of these tapes by NSA will corroborate both what Nowicki originally told Bamford as well as the transcripts of the Israel Air Force tapes. That is the attack was a mistake.

Bamford: [The Liberty] "had its name painted in English in ten-foot letters across the stern."

Fact: The name Liberty on the curved stern of the ship was not larger than 18 inches and because of the curvature of the stern, was extremely difficult to read under any circumstances. The ships identifier, "GTR-5" was painted on both sides of the ship near the bow and near the stern but only the number "5" was ten feet tall. The "GTR" was substantially smaller. It was the sighting of these markings by the second wave of aircraft that identified the ship as not an Arab ship and resulted in immediate termination of the air attack.

Bamford: "Among those who never believed Israel's explanation are the survivors and the captain of the ship."

Fact: The captain of the ship, William L. McGonagle, testified under oath before the U.S. navy Court of Inquiry on June 13, 1967 "I realized that there was a possibility of the aircraft having been Israeli and the attack having been conducted in error." [emphasis added] [Court of Inquiry Record, p. 39] Bamford attributes rejection of the Israel explanation of mistaken identity to "The Survivors." This infers all the survivors. Again, this is not a true statement.

Bamford: "Among those who never believed Israel's explanation are ... Secretary of State, Dean Rusk and Chief of Naval Operations (and later Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) Admiral Thomas Moorer;"

Fact: Dean Rusk never accepted the Israeli explanation but when I asked him in an interview at Athens, Georgia on April 5, 1989 on what evidence he based his opinion, he conceded that he never read the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry findings, the CIA Report, or the Clark Clifford Report. When pressed further, he said, "I did not make a career of studying the evidence."

Admiral Moorer was Commander in Chief Atlantic on the day of the attack on the Liberty and became Chief of Naval Operations on August 1, 1967. In two interviews in Washington, D.C. on February 10, 1989 and May 3, 1990, he explained that the Liberty's identity could not be mistaken because she was the "Ugliest ship in the Navy" and was larger in size than the Egyptian ship for which she was mistaken. The CIA Report concludes the opposite, that the two ships could be mistaken. Ironically, the findings of the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry were approved by Moorer's office while he was the Chief of Naval Operations.

Bamford: [The Liberty] never fired a shot."

Fact: This statement is a lie. The evidence has been undisputed for more than three decades that when the torpedo boats approached, stopped, and began signaling, the Liberty began shooting at them. Captain McGonagle, the commanding officer, testified to this under oath at the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry and reconfirmed it in a videotaped press conference on board Liberty when the ship returned to the United States. He may be observed on videotape telling of the Liberty firing at the torpedo boats in the Thames TV documentary, Attack on the Liberty, aired on British television on January 27, 1987.

Bamford: "The evidence that Israel's attack was deliberate is overwhelming." [He refers to] "the mountain of evidence in my book indicating that Israel knew the ship was American."

Fact: All attacks are inherently deliberate. The question is: did the Israelis attack knowing that it was an American ship. Ten official U.S. investigations and three official Israeli investigations have all concluded that the attack was a tragic mistake or that there is no evidence to establish that it was not a tragic mistake. Seven U. S. Presidents, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Regan, Bush, and Clinton have all accepted the conclusion that the attack was a tragic mistake. Still, more than two dozen conspiracy theories, most of which like Mr. Bamford's conspiracy theory, are based on false or erroneous premises, and have been circulating for years. They all start from the assumption that all the above investigations were wrong or a deliberate cover up; that the Israelis knew they were attacking an American ship; and the only question is: "Why". Bamford's book presents a mountain of allegations but no credible evidence to prove the allegations.

Bamford: Refers to Marvin Nowicki plus "another Hebrew linguist" who, he says, "is" confident that the Israeli attack was a deliberate attack.

Fact: Here again Mr. Bamford lies. Dr. Marvin Nowicki, the U.S. Navy Hebrew linguist on the NSA EC-121 aircraft who heard the Israeli Air Force pilots' radio transmissions and supervised their recording, told Mr. Bamford exactly the opposite, that is Nowicki is certain the attack was a mistake. In an e-mail letter dated March 3, 2000, a copy of which was provided to me by Nowicki and which will be published in full in my forthcoming book, Nowicki wrote to Bamford, "...we recorded most, if not all, of the attack. Further, our intercepts, never before made public, showed the attack to be an accident on the part of the Israelis." Dr. Nowicki's letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal published on May 16, 2001 unequivocally contradicts what Bamford attributes to him. Nowicki said in the Wall Street Journal letter: "My position, which is opposite of Mr. Bamford's, is the attack, ..., was a gross error." There are not one, but two other NSA connected Hebrew linguists that, according to Dr. Nowicki, have heard the tapes and share his - not Bamford's - alleged conclusions.

---

ABOUT JUDGE CRISTOL: He is a former U.S. Navy carrier pilot, and a lecturer for the Department of Defense on the Law of Naval Warfare. He retired from my Naval service with the rank of Captain. He is professionally knowledgeable about air combat and naval matters. He has spent fourteen years researching one question about the Liberty incident: did the Israelis attack her knowing she was a U.S. ship ("No") or was it a case of mistaken identity ("Yes")? This study was his doctoral dissertation accepted in 1997 by the Graduate School of International Studies of the University of Miami and is on file in the Library of Congress.

The quotations attributed to Mr. Bamford were taken from a statement he published in the New Republic.

Comments

[Ken]

After spending several years researching and studying the USS Liberty attack, I've uncovered revealing information -- on both sides of the fence. See results of my research at: ussliberty-inquiry.us

Here's quick feedback on A. J. Cristol's comments, using his first "fact" as an example of the way he presents (distorts) information in a manner more like a criminal defense attorney than an historian.

Attorney Cristol would like you to believe that the Israel Defense Force (IDF) had no clue about any US Navy ship being in the area or near the war zone on June 8, 1967. This is simply not true, based on information presented in the IDF's History Report about the attack and other sources.

It's true that several days before June 8, 1967, UN ambassador Goldberger reported no US Naval vessels were near the war zone (a zone that was never defined or declared by either Egypt or Israel). At the time of the statement, it was a true statement -- USS Liberty and the ships of the Sixth Fleet were hundreds of miles away from the "war zone." During the early morning hours of June 8, 1967, USS Liberty approached near the war zone (14 nautical miles north of Egypt's Sinai peninsula coastline) to peacefully perform her signal intelligence collection mission. According to the IDF History Report, as early morning daylight visited USS Liberty, so did an Israeli Air Force (IAF) reconnaissance aircraft. It spotted and reported the ship. By midmorning, the IDF had identified the ship as USS Liberty, a lightly-armed, non-combat type ship, configured as a signal intelligence collection platform. According to testimony and message exhibits in the US Naval Court of Inquiry, USS Liberty was visited several times, throughout the day and before the attack, by IAF aircraft. In other words, on June 8, 1967, as the war was quickly coming to an end in the Sinai, the IDF knew that at least one US Navy ship -- a signal intelligence collector named USS Liberty -- was in the area.

Given the above, it becomes clear that attorney Cristol's statement, "...it seems more logical for the Israelis to have assumed that a haze gray warship...was an enemy vessel..", is pure nonsense.

Also of note, you will find that attorney Cristol constantly uses the word "warship" to describe USS Liberty, in an attempt to place a vision of a combat type ship into the reader's mind. Technically, it's true that USS Liberty was a "warship" (i.e., a lightly armed US Navy ship), but she appeared exactly like a converted cargo ship, with many highly visible antennas on her decks, and four 0.50 caliber machine guns. In fact, the US Navy considered ship's like USS Liberty as "auxiliary" or support type ships, not combat type ships.

Anyway, as you can see, when one digs through the shallow topsoil of the neat landscape attorney Cristol presents in his arguments, you will find quickly that the soil below is filled with lots of garbage that attorney Cristol and his "client," the IDF, would not like you to see.

[soccerdad]

I'm not going to through all of Ken's response, but Judge Cristol in no way denies that Israel had placed the Liberty near Egypt prior to the attack.

However naval operation were run in such a way that when shifts changed, previous intelligence was considered out of date and discarded.

Judge Cristol brought expertise from a number of fields to analyze and painstakingly recreate the Liberty incident, including his own experience as a fighter pilot during the Korean war.

He makes no bones about his sympathy for Israel, but that doesn't invalidate his analysis. Maybe someone should be asking the likes of James Bamford how his distaste for Israel drove his analysis of the Liberty incident. Bamford resurrects a libel that Israeli soldiers committed a massacre of Egyptian troops to provide a motive for the attack.

[Ken]

Attorney Cristol was a US Navy pilot, but not a fighter pilot; although, that's what may people believe. There is no evidence that he ever directly engaged in air-to-ground, air-to-sea, or air-to-air combat during the Korean war, nor does he make this claim. (It goes to show that attorney Cristol is, indeed, a skillful wordsmith when it comes to planting bogus information in the mind of the reader.)

I agree that Bamford doesn't always get his "facts" correct; and, likely, he has his own "axe to grind." But Bamford's statement about Egyptian POW's being murdered during the Six Day War was proven by the relatively recent discovery of mass graves, in the Sinai, and the admission of at least one IDF officer involved. Nonetheless, I find doubtful Bamford's theory that this was motive for the attack.

In my opinion, a more likely motive, if the attack was premeditated, is that the GOI did not want information leaking out that its military preemptively invaded Egypt (i.e., fired the first shot), and that it was definitely going to expand the war to capture the Golan Heights. The USG was unhappy with the whole situation, and sternly warned the GOI to not expand the war. When this type of thing happened in the past, during the 1956 war, the USG forced the GOI to back-off, and leave the Sinai. This was only 11 years later, and that memory was still fresh in the minds of the GOI's military leaders. The GOI believed that capturing the Sinai and the Golan Heights was paramount for its security and survival. I believe the GOI was willing to do whatever it took to ensure accomplishment of this goal -- even if it involved harshly ending the perceived interference of an American signal intelligence collection ship in the area.

[Ken]

In one of attorney Cristol's "facts" -- after the one claiming the IDF had no clue the ship was in the area, he states: "A routine Israel Navy reconnaissance flight at dawn on June 8 sighted Liberty at about 6:00 A.M. steaming southeasterly and south more than 70 miles further west of El Arish."

Beside contradicting his initial, previously stated "fact", this statement is interesting because it contains outright misinformation. If you plot the position of USS Liberty, at 6:00 A.M., on a map, you will find that the distance between the ship and El Arish was about 40 nautical miles, northwest of El Arish, not 70 miles west of El Arish as Cristol claims. This position is only about 10 miles north of where the ship was torpedoed, and about 19 miles north of the initial attack position. In other words, at 6:00 A.M., USS Liberty wasn't as far away from her patrol area as Cristol leads you to believe; i.e., she was well on her way to entering the neighborhood and known to the IDF.

On the other hand, the 6:00 A.M. position was about 70 nautical miles west of Ashdod, Israel -- the same distance the initial attack position was from Ashdod; albeit southwest, not west of Ashdod. (Note: Purportedly, the torpedo boats sailed out of Ashdod Harbor, and the attack aircraft came from Hastor Field, southeast of Ashdod.)

Mr. Cristol's book about the USS Liberty attack is peppered with this type of misinformation and half-truths. The most glaring of which are fake gun camera images that don't match the gun camera images in the IDF History Report -- all of which is understandable because the images in the IDF History Report clearly do not show USS Liberty (i.e., they too are fake.)

As I stated before, if you take a bit of time to check under the topsoil of the landscape of innocence that Mr. Cristol paints, you will find lots of garbage -- and a few dead bodies -- that betrays its innocence.

[Believer]

My question is more related to the hostile tone of the responses. I do not understand why one would feel the need to be snotty and rude in the defense of their position rather than simply defend the position in a tone of imparting genuine information. The tone of the responses makes me wonder what axe the author may have to grind. I also note that at no time does the responder deal with the fact that Mr. Bramford lied. Doesn't that cast doubt on his entire position? It certainly does to me.

[Laura]

Hey ken, you worthless troll, you have obviously made up your mind and don't want to be confused with facts. Screw you and all like-minded bigots. Your blind obssesive hatred of Israel will never allow you to accept the truth. It is simply a waste of time to debate the likes of you.

[Ken]

Believer: Hostile tone? Folks who find the evidence and facts I present disturbing or against their beliefs, then they may view my tone as hostile. Admittedly, I sarcastically referred to Mr. Cristol as "defense attorney Cristol", but he has only himself to blame. It's Mr. Cristol who has set himself up as being an expert, and willfully published half-truths and a few outright lies.

As to Bamford, I addressed the points made about him in a previous comment.

Laura: Actually, I have not made up my mind about whether the attack was premediated or or not, but I know the difference between right and wrong, and how to distinguish facts from fiction.

Your belief that I somehow hate Israel is wrong. I don't hate Israel, or anybody who lives in Israel. If it had been the UK that attacked the ship, I would be just as interested in seeking the truth, and exposing those who distort the truth.

Ultimately, the evidence speaks for itself. Whether or not the ship was known or unidentified, the attack with deadly weapons was willful, reckless and wanton, and resulted in the death of 34 American citizens; i.e., 34 counts of murder. But considering that LBJ was sending Americans to die in Vietnam by the thousands, the wrongful death of 34 was minor by comparison -- an annoying situation that was quickly swept under the rug, etc...

[Ken]

In a previous comment, I stated: "...the aircraft came from Hastor Field...". I meant to write: "...the aircraft came from Hatzor Field..." In other words, I misspelled the name of the airfield.

[Ken]

Another correction from a previous comment: the UN ambassador's name was "Goldberg," not "Goldberger."

[Ken]

Re: Claims about mass execution of Egyptian POWs by the IDF during 1967 war.

I've done a bit more research on this and found, from various Israeli news sources (perhaps biased?), and found claims that there were scattered cases of a few POW executions during the Six Day War, but no evidence has surfaced to support claims of large numbers of POWs being executed. On the other hand, the Egyptians claim to have found mass graves, but I could not find photographs or other evidence to support this claim. Also, it appears that this type of thing occurred during other Arab-Israeli wars as well, on both sides.

Admittedly, I haven't followed or greatly researched this aspect of the Six Day War, thus, I don't have information to prove Bamford claims wrong or correct on this point, but it appears he was wrong.

Anyway, based on the lack of evidence, I retract my claim that the Egyptians found mass graves and there being an admission from an IDF officer about the execution of a large number of POWs.

[Ken]

How timely, I just found this two-day old article, from an Egyptian news source, about a recent mass grave finding.

http://egyptianpows.net/2008/01/05/a-possible-egyptian-pows-mass-grave-in-eilat/

Note: Eilat is nowhere near El Arish; thus, USS Liberty would not have been in position to intercept UHF or VHF communications in that area, but may have intercepted HF communications to or from Eilat.

[Ken]

Apparently another mass grave of Egyptian soldiers was recently found. This one is near El Arish:
http://egyptianpows.net/2008/01/10/more-updates-about-the-new-sheikh-zowaid-mass-grave/

No information yet as to whether or not any of these graves contain the reamins of executed POWs, but residents of the area claim they were POWs.

[James Walke]

Lavon Affair, King David Hotel Bombing, USS LIBERTY

All were Deliberate, False Flag attacks to be used by Israel as a pretext to expand their wars & unleash their attack pit bull, in the USA.

Similar to the Gulf of Tonkin, which we all know now, never happened, but yet was used by the Pentagon to escalate Vietnam.

[Believer]

I guess I simply have too much to do making sure that I am right with God to point fingers and look for conspiracy theories everywhere. It is easy to find blame in the actions of others. And to some extent we are doomed to repeat history if we are not aware of it. However, if we are more concerned with OUR walk with God, we won't have to worry about repitition of others mistakes. It's called non-judgment. We should all try a bit of it.