"Add to that this recent classic photo of Israel's chief of staff looking (repeatedly) through binoculars, with the lens caps over the lenses"

Peretz isn't the chief of staff.He's the defence minister(who is usually a politician,not a military man).

The Chief Of Staff actually has the binoculars put on the right way(the guy to the left)

Interesting. I actually just happened to read, an hour ago, a part of Robert Fisk's new autobiography (The Great War for Civilization; a surprisingly good read so far, given that I'm normally no fan), where he talks about a somewhat similar incident in the Iran-Iraq war. An Iraqi jet rocketed a US ship, the USS Stark, causing 37 killed (note: a couple more than on the Liberty).

According to Fisk, who turns disturbingly polemical, the US was not interested in making a fuss about this, but instead started shifting the blame towards Iran, for carrying the moral responsibility etc etc, even though Iraq confessed and apologized (in a teary-eyed letter by Saddam personally, no less). There were disagreements about whether the ship was inside what Iraq had proclaimed a no-fly zone, or not, and some conspiracy theories were making the rounds about this being a botched attempt to frame Iran; it seems the thing was never investigated properly, partly because of Iraqi restrictions on investigators.

Fisk thinks it really was an error, and tried to find the pilot after 2003, but with no luck. He's mostly interested in the US reaction to the incident, seeing it as basically sweeping 37 dead under the carpet to save an undeclared ally from embarrassment. Looks like he's right on that count -- it would certainly be in the headlines still today (or today especially), had Iran been responsible.

It's page 267 and onwards in my hardback English edition, if anyone's got the book. Also some on Wikipedia, with links to the US report. I haven't read that, and I won't, but for Liberty buffs who want to move on, tafaddal.

Bravo.

What possible motive would make risking a shooting war with the United States, armed with nuclear weapons, while it is one's chief supporter in a war one is winning? ...It had better be a damn good one, speculative or otherwise, and most likely, an obvious one if it so big.

Perhaps this bit from p. 367 of Leo Rosten's The Joys of Yiddish will shed some light on Israeli military motivations, though sadly it was much more apt when the book was first published in 1968 than it is now:

"The Israeli Cabinet was discussing the endless and seemingly insoluble problems that Israel confronted...Whereupon one member of the Cabinet said, 'I have an idea. Let's declare war on the United States!'

His colleagues looked at him incredulously. 'Declare war on the United States? Israel? Are you crazy? A war like that would last half an hour!'
'Exactly,'said the minister. 'And the United States, having won, would do what she always does: rebuild the vanquished country, build roads, harbors, hospitals; lend money, give free aid, send food, remodel everything! What better fate for us than to be beaten by the United States?'

'But,' said a cynic, 'suppose we win?'

USS Liberty Incident (along with many other military misadventures) is something that I'd been deeply fascinated by for a long time. I will say that Matt's account is probably one that's closest to my own suspicions: military tends to attract (and to a degree, encourage) shoot-first-ask-questions-later types. They often make mistakes and shoot the wrong people at the wrong time--which are seized upon by their enemies as evidence of unspeakable atrocities (a prima facie example of this is the Rape of Belgium during World War I, where stupid although tragic actions by trigger-happy German conscripts fed the British propaganda machine for years.) Their superiors try to cover up their actions because letting the mistakes become public knowledge would risk undermining the prestige of the military--a big no-no in countries where military virtues are extolled over civilian ones, like Imperial Germany or modern day Israel (and, I'm most saddened to see, the present day United States). Yet, the cover up gives the air of something much more sinister and planned...feeding even more conspiracy theories. I've always wondered how much of various Balkan "atrocities" in recent years were really mistakes of this sort--not too unlikely considering many militiamen were probably drunken undisciplined louts with automatic weapons.....but this is a digression, of course.

Saim -- will correct asap, thanks. Pedantry welcomed on this type of topic.

There really is no direct evidence of any Israeli foreknowledge of the identity of the ship.

Are you suggesting here solely its American identity? It would be reckless under any conditions to attack a naval vessel sailing in international waters without some effort to establish its flag.

One interesting fact also: no credible Israeli has come forward saying "we knew what we were doing, hitting an American ship" etc.

Weak ground here. The stakes involved, i.e. fatal damage to Israeli interests among the US public due to unprovoked murder of American sailors, would be awfully higher than the outing of the odd spy, no? If the evidence for motive and intent is plausible, then Israeli contrariness is a weak counter argument.

The general tone of incredulity is also weakened by the notion that the US would have ever, for whatever reason, abandoned or attacked Israel. The Israelis could have sunk an aircraft carrier and nothing would have happened.

Coming relatively close to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, an 'unprovoked' attack on US warships in international waters that led to what was already an unpopular war, I further doubt the US government's inclination to assert deliberate intent. people were wondering why North Vietnam would provoke the US into a war. Apparently they did.

This is a super job. But I can't help but cringe a little when my Persian friends remind me of how the USS Vincennes, an ultra-modern ship with state of the art electronics, managed to mistake a commercial Iranian airliner for a military fighter and shoot it down in Iranian airspace killing hundreds, including dozens of children.

The US and Israel are always afforded the "Hey, shit happens" defense, while the darker skinned versions of humanity get to glow in the dark.

Are you suggesting here solely its American identity? It would be reckless under any conditions to attack a naval vessel sailing in international waters without some effort to establish its flag.

No, the very opposite, that it is clearly culpable, probably criminal, negligence.

Me: One interesting fact also: no credible Israeli has come forward saying "we knew what we were doing, hitting an American ship" etc.

Comment -- Weak ground here. The stakes involved, i.e. fatal damage to Israeli interests among the US public due to unprovoked murder of American sailors, would be awfully higher than the outing of the odd spy, no? If the evidence for motive and intent is plausible, then Israeli contrariness is a weak counter argument.

I only advance the lack of a leak as a supportive indication of the absence of a preplanned attack on an American ship. The absence of evidence IS evidence of absence (just not conclusive evidence), contra Rumsfeld, and whoever thinks otherwise is at war with common sense.

Generally controversial things leak over time, through inadvertence, gossip, carelessness etc. Hard to keep a hot secret. Things embarassing to Israel's core policies - nuclear secrets, role in forcing out Palestinian refugees, cruelty of the occupation, attacking friendly countries -- do leak out and have leaked out. Something like the Liberty incident, where there were dozens of Israeli witnesses and alot of reason to assume not all involved would have agreed to the action, or even have been disciplined enough to keep it under wraps (ordinary soldiers and sailors), something would have slipped out by now.

But also you are reversing the burden of proof in the overall analysis. Plausible theories are not evidence, just cool things to think about. Advancing the idea that Israel would act counter to apparent interest requires very hard proof, not merely plausible explanation.

And Israel still did have reason to fear a strong US response. Nuclear-armed planes nearly did arrive. 11 years earlier the US came down hard in response to an attack on Egypt (in 1967 the sentiment was quite different). The overt and quite deadly attack on a US military target still has repercussions today.

Most important, assuming Israel felt so safe in its status that it could attack an American ship with impunity, there is certainly nothing the ship could have found out in the first place that would not have been able to be hushed up through use of the same popularity, without an attack on the ship.

In other words, if one felt safe enough to sink a shipful of American sailors, one would also not be too worried worry if that ship had discovered plans to attack Syria, or picked up indications of an anti-Arab atrocity, or needed to trick the US into siding against Egypt by sinking a ship.

I see your points. However, I can also see how the investigations could lead a person to cry foul.

For example, on P. 33 (i.e. the pdf number, not the actual doc) visibility is reported at 10 miles, while the ship's position is 13 nautical miles from the coast. From this position, it can 'visually sight' the minaret at Al-Aria but somehow cannot identify a jet flying at 5,000 feet at a distance of 3-5 miles. Not even with an electronic signature? This a US Navy intelligence gathering ship in a war zone, btw.

For no other reason than being in 'the current situation and shallow water' (13 miles from the coast) the Captain decides to destroy superceded intelligence materials. Why? Seems like a strange order to give under less than pressing circumstances. Besides, the attack began with the ship at 25.5 miles from shore, even though the report states that the ship had been cruising at 5 knots. The Israelis believed that it was an Egyptian ship that had been shelling their troops. A battleship might reach a range of 26 miles; even if it had been at 13 miles, the position of the ship at first sighting, that would be far out of range of the Egyptian ship's guns.

More interesting is page 34 where Terry McFarland, the manual morse code operator is...what? Whatever he was doing is boxed out from the document (with the exception of some names, I think it's the only place where the box-out deletion occurs).That was at c1400. In the Israeli review it states that at c.1420 the Israeli torpedo boat commander asked the ship to identify itself and received a signal in return: "Identify yourself first". What kind of signal? In what language? Even in Morse code the question of language applies. Curious.

Numerous questions emerge from even a cursory reading. The JCS asks: Was there any SIGINT reflection from the ship? That's an important question that's never answered. Almost 50' elapsed between the attack and an order from 6th Fleet to assist the ship. Where's the ship's radio traffic? I could go on but there are certainly enough question to warrant a complete investigation, as you suggest. Seems like a case of 'single bullet' theory or Occam's Razor. The real maguffin, I think, is the preoccupation with all the lost intelligence material.

"I see your points. However, I can also see how the investigations could lead a person to cry foul."

Absolutely, which is why there should be a public definitive one in the US.

I do think, though, that you are applying too much thinking. The incident has far more indications of sheer glandular-induced and communications-relay stupidity than complex calculations.

(Personally, my suspicion (glad to retract if wrong) is that the torpedo boats' commander had a psychological point-to-prove related to past performance with an Egyptian ship, and saw a golden opportuity to be part of an historic already-mythic Israel victory, but in which the Israeli navy was an orphan so far. So he disregarded orders to double-check, shot first, and asked questions later, and only pro-forma ones at the time.)

I´ve never doubted that it was a heat of the moment accident on the part of the Israelis. My point in including some of the curiosities was to call attention to what seems to be a bit of an anomaly, namely the ship's position. Simply stated, my own suspicion is that the ship was a lot closer than 13 nautical miles to the coast at the moment it was first buzzed by Israeli aircraft. Either that or the minaret at Al-Ahia is pretty damned tall. And yes, I could think of a lot of reasons why the US would want to deny that the ship was closer than that. The Israelis shot up the ship, so they took the complete fall.

Two years ago I spent quite a bit of time examining the de-classified NSA report on the Gulf of Tonkin incident, in which ships' positions remains a question mark, as it later would with the Pueblo, for which we have another two years to wait before declassification.

My point is that it wasn't just Israeli negligence. The simplest explanation for what turned out to be a series of accidents and mis-communications started with the ship being inside territorial waters.

"My point is that it wasn't just Israeli negligence. The simplest explanation for what turned out to be a series of accidents and mis-communications started with the ship being inside territorial waters. "

That wouldn't surprise me totally and I should add it to the list of questions, if not implied already.

At the time, in 1967, if one reads the newspapers the "Liberty cover-up" referred more to the nature of the ship (at that time publicly said to be a "research ship" investigating the possibility of evacuation of American citizens (tee-hee-hee)) and some questions about where it was exactly.

I do think the Israelis would hammer the point more clearly if it had been in Egyptian territorial waters more definitively. My understanding, perhaps wrong, is that it was outside of Egyptian waters sailing in a circle and heading southwardish toward Egypt at the time of first attacks.

Of course, alot of questions hang on what the US told Israel in terms of warning about the ship; otoh the US didnt want to have to inform foreign governments what its spies were up to in presumably legitimate areas.

Now, come to think of it, that kind of makes sense why the US, at least then, would not pursue the investigation more deliberately (aside from the close political US-Israeli ties) as it might reveal some dangerous carelessness and rule breaking -- especially as a US ship in Egyptian waters would give less deniability to Arab claims of US supporting Israel directly, and in violation of Arab sovereign space.

It would also explain why the US ambassador to Egypt asked the Secy of State for an explanation and "it had better be a good one" as to why the Libery had been torpedoed not far from Egypt's shore.

(OTOH-- there are real time transmissions of Liberty distress messages).

"In the Israeli review it states that at c.1420 the Israeli torpedo boat commander asked the ship to identify itself and received a signal in return: "Identify yourself first". What kind of signal? In what language? Even in Morse code the question of language applies. Curious."

I do believe that was generally agreed to have been an exchange of Aldis lamp-type visual signals, the content of which is still hotly debated I think.

In a bit of a hurry at the moment but later will calculate what the height of the minaret would have to be in order to be visible at 13 nautical miles, given the curvature of the earth and all.

For the geographic range, you can use this table as a shortcut: http://www.vulcanonline.org/georange.php3

Given the stated distance of 13 nautical miles (about 24 km) the minimum height of the minaret would have be about 45 meters. I used two methods to calculate and got more or less the same result.

The report states that the ship used the minaret as a navigational aid, meaning that more than just the very top was visible, I should think. I used the formulas to solve for the height of the minaret, of course, and 45 m certainly is reasonable, at least in my experience. If it's substantially less, than the distance given, 13nm, is incorrect. All depends on the actual height of the minaret then.

Don't forget to factor in the height of the observer on the ship, if you haven't already. That allows the minaret to be shorter but still visible. An observer 6 meters off the ground would see the tip of a 45m minaret 20nm off (at least according to the table I linked). This assumes very clear visibility, so that's also a factor.

Note that the BBC is featuring a story June 8 on the long controversy around the bombing of the USS Liberty. Looks like many are finally more willing to examine the attack and the motivations, perhaps especially as Bush may be preparing something similar to justify US or Israeli bombing of Iran.

I disagree with the author, there is no way this attack was not deliberate.

The Liberty was twice as big as the Al Qasir and had a completely different outline. It was one of the few ships in the world that had such anarray of antennas and to include the huge dish antenna on the rear part of the ship. The Egyptians had nothing like it. The Israelis knew all about the Egyptian Navy.

Prior to the attack Israeli reconnissance aircraft had flown over the Liberty repeatedly at fairly close range, our guys waved at the plane.

The Egyptian do not mark their ships with hull numbers the way we do. The recon planes were close enough to see the hull numbers. The sea was calm, the numbers would not have been obscured by waves. The ship was not making enough way to cause a bow wave to obscure the numbers.

The Liberty crew states that their flag was clearly visible when the Israeli fighters attacked. That it was not hanging limply. The day was clear. the Israeli planes could clearly see that the ship was (A) Way bigger than anything they knew was in the Egyptian Navy (B) Possessed of a antenna array that was extremely unique, very obvious and not like anything in the Egyptian Navy (C) Had hull numbers not like anything in the Egyptian navy (D) Was flying a large visible American Flag - I believe the crew (E) Was not behaving like a ship at war (IE moving at high speed, zigzagging, trying to get away from the coast) or doing anything that an Egyptian ship could reasonably be expected to do given Israel's total air supremecy at the time

The Liberty crew reported electronic Jamming as soon as the attack occurred. To Jam someone's radios you must first find the frequency and listen in. There is no way that the Jamming of the Liberty's distress calls could have occurred without the Jamming station having listened in to identify frequencies first. People just don't randomly Jam parts of the spectrum for the hell of it.

When the Israeli Torpedo boats attacked, the Liberty sailors reported seeing 5 torpedo wakes, one of which hit the ship. The Israeli torpedo boats were designed to carry four torpedos but likely were only carrying two because of the excess top weight caused by carrying extra guns. It is likely tha the Israelis fired six torpedos and that one either malfunctioned or its wake simply wasn't seen. This is the most plausible explanation for why the Israelis didn't try to torpedo the Liberty again prior to closing to engage with gunfire. They were most likely simply out of torpedos.

According to the testimony of the Liberty crew, the torpedo boats then closed to within a hundred or so meters and POURED machinegun and automatic cannon fire (20mm and 40mm) into the Liberty. The boats traveled at a relatively leisurely pace to give their gunners a more stable platform. The Israelis shot at anyone on deck and at anyplace on the ships superstructure that looked like it might be holding people. They shot at men trying to launch life rafts and at the life rafts themselves. Numerous witnesses from the crew attest to this.

The withdrawal of the PT boats is co-incidental with the final success of the Liberty in getting a distress call out and the response that the Saratoga was sending planes to help.

Too much for me to swallow as a friendly fire incident. An accident? BS! More like a botched assasination.

To compare this incident to a friendly fire incident in 1991 where a US fighter plane killed some Brits in armored vehicles is ludicrous. There were literally hundeds of armored vehicles in that desert and very few terrain features. The pilots in that incident were at fault to be sure, but it's hardly the same thing as attacking a single ship in the ocean.

Furthermore the ferocity of the attack on the Liberty belies Israeli naval history. In 1956 they captured a fully functional Egyptian destroyer on the high seas after it was disabled in a gun battle with Israeli ships. If the Israelis would do that for a destroyer why was their attack on a supposed "Horse carrier" so overwhelming? The ship was obviously unarmed to any practical purpose, why not just capture it, or attempt to. You can always sink it if it resists. The Israelis had total air superiority as well as PT boats that both outgunned the old freighter and could literally run rings around it. So why the attack like it was the battle of Midway? The ship, if Egyptian, was theirs for the taking.

Sorry, there is just no way the Israelis did not know that this was an American ship.

But I agree with the author of this on one point. There needs to be a REAL investigation of this - as opposed the plethora of whitewashes that have occurred to date.

CDR McGonagle getting his MoH in the WA Navy Yard. That was a goddamned disgrace. Talk about the best traditions of the Naval Serice - DON'T GIVE UP THE SHIP!! - that guy set the standard. He deserved better from his government.

There was a long and intense scholarly debate over the USS Liberty over at H-Diplo circa 2000-2001 which you can access here:

http://www.h-net.org/logsearch/

key word "USS Liberty"

Thanks for that link, may add an update.

Wow, you sir, are a liar and a tool of the Israeli/neo-con propaganda machine. I hope no one listens to your drivel.

"you sir, are a liar and a tool of the Israeli/neo-con propaganda machine. . . ."

Thank you, thank you, thank you. If you are for real, it's been decades since I heard anything like that even remotely directed at me.

Except the "tool" part, I've been called that countless times by itself.

Martin --

A more serious answer for you shortly, perhaps in an update entry. I do think I addressed most of your points, however, the one on jammming is worth pursuing from the experts and the details.

In any event, the Liberty veterans' filing of the war crimes memo certainly should be responded to and acted on; as well, Congress should open up all these issues.

It is disgraceful that there is no public hearing on an attack by multiple forces of a foreign country that inflicted casualties on a US navy ship engaged in lawful presence. Error or done with foreknowledge, they need their "day in court". And the Navy Yard award of the Medal of Honor (in fairness the Navy Yard is a major historic naval place, but still) was a slap.

And where were the Israelis at the memorial events this weekend?

I suspect it was a series of mistakes, which always seems improbable unless one considers how many things are going on, and how many things can go wrong. Armies attack the wrong targets all the time. I think friendly fire injury ratios in war are typically 10 to 15%. Recently in Afghanistan, a US pilot bombed and killed a group of Canadian soldiers, and this is an era with computerized maps, instant communication, clearer zones of action and during a far less desperate one-front war.

As well, the US's close relationship to Israel is quite recent, and although allied at the time, it is quite possible there was intelligence info and details that was not being shared (ie the location and design of the ship).

Either way, I don't think it deserve a congressional hearing, simply because there are so many pressing current matters that the US is not dealing with - including a very large number of questionable activities being performed by the executive branch.

jr786,
Got to take issue with you here, "The US and Israel are always afforded the "Hey, shit happens" defense"".
a) If you mean we are letting Israel off the hook here: It just doesn't make any sense that they would do it on purpose, unless you assume that they are just evil and malicious. Even then, why would they stop the attacks? Wouldn't they just keep attacking until all the Americans/witnesses were dead. Israel has never shown any interest in attacking the US.

b) If you mean Israel was let off the hook too easily by the US, it's extremely common for allies to do that. Neither the UK nor Canada caused any sort of incident about the US's recent accidental killing of their soldiers.

Everyone's who has looked at military history knows that accidents happen. Indeed, it would be really unusual if the only thing people did perfectly without any mistakes whatsoever was to wage war.

A good analysis Mr. Hogan. I am one to look dimly upon conspiracy theories, mainly because they fail at their foundation in that they posit a level of competence from the product of group thought that has no basis in reality. Conspiracy Theories are often enabled by officials after the fact attempting to cover their bare asses, and their incompetence to achieve this provides fuel for the theories.

Case in point: a contributing factor in The WTC-7 collapse was very probably Giuliani's 5th floor emergency command center's basement fed diesel electric generators, which fueled a fire for 5 hours on the fifth floor. Even the very good Popular Mechanics 911 conspiracy theory debunking article danced well clear of the topics who, what and why when they discussed the fifth floor of WTC-7:

-- -- [
"...a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. 'There was no firefighting in WTC 7,' Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: 'Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time.'
]-- --

Yet nobody wants to upset the image of Giuliani, and the theories persist.

One area I do feel you omitted is the possibility of an Israeli fighter pilot cowboy being the cause. Neither the U.s. or the Israeli governments would be likely to publicly admit this, if it were true. Bamford's description (I believe in The Puzzle Palace, but I could be wrong) of the incident seemed to place a lot of his belief in it being deliberate in the differences between a rusting Egyptian horse carrier and a modern US Intelligence gatherer, which I believe can be explained by the bare ass covering I mentioned earlier. Not necessarily indicative of prior intent, but instead a lame attempt to cover-up stupidity.

I.m behind on a promised followup, but quickly --

for pseudocyants --

The point on the fighter pilots is sort of key to what I am saying, the only reason I give the torpedo ships priority is that Israeli sources claim that the ships first reported spotting the Liberty; it all might be that the planes did first. Either way the hotrodding shoot first mentality was there though the torpedo ships did the most damage and probably had the closeness to be the most responsible for the errors and the largest damage.

Dan --

I agree on other priorities for Congressional investigations but the bottom line is that the Liberty may be the most decorated crew percentage wise, suffered the worst post WWII damage and has a lot to teach future events. Most important, the sailors need to get it off their chest.

General --

I dont like calling the "foreknowledge" theory a conspiracy theory because it is not a knee-jerk/prejudiced/paranoid leap of conspiratorial faith to assume that an attack by two separate organized military forces over a space of time on the same target, an espionage center, might not have command level decisions at the root.