USS Liberty

Sorry, I don't see US sailers being murdered as equivalent to a friend with a camera getting wet. My lack of insight I guess.


You just don't believe that the US government bears any responsibility for what it chooses to do with the lives of its own soldiers and sailors.

Or, at least, that the US government bears no responsibility in this instance for driving a secret ship into a war zone for the purpose of secretly spying on the warring countries after telling them that they had no ships in the area.
 
I'm kind of nervously waiting for Brits and Canadians to come thundering in. There have been major incidents in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Well, I should explain I mean British and Canadian posters. I don't mean that there is much possibility of hordes coming across the Peace Bridge from Canada nor armed UK mobs taking over the streets of Manhattan. Though with the US dollar low it feels that way sometimes.

I am a Canadian.

The Tarnak Farm Incident which you describe, was indeed a tragedy. The four members of the Princess Patricias Canadian Light Infantry who died were not only my countrymen but one of them was also a member of my faith. As a Canadian, I place more blame on the one trigger happy F-16 pilot than I do the US military or the American people as a whole. The pilot in question was placed on trial by his fellow Americans, publicly reprimanded by a US military court and forced to retire in disgrace. He will never fly a high performance fighter jet or wear the uniform of a US military officer with pride again.

I continue to hold my countries largest economic trading partner and closest ally in time of war in the highest regard.
 
That doesn't really answer the question. That's almost certainly referring to domestic IDF laws. I want to hear how the attack on the Liberty constitutes a breach of the ILAC.

If you could find this report, it might help you:
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51a/023.html

The Liberty attack was a war crime

The attack on USS Liberty was itself a war crime. US Navy Commander Walter Jacobsen, a Navy Legal Officer then doing graduate work at George Washington University, conducted an extensive legal analysis of the attack.

His conclusion, reported in the Winter, 1986, Naval Law Review, was that several aspects of the attack violated provisions of the Geneva Conventions -- war crimes. Specifically, Commander Jacobsen found that the attack was not legally justified, that it constituted an act of aggression under the United Nations Charter, that the use of unmarked aircraft, the wanton destruction of life rafts in the water, the jamming of international radio distress frequencies, and the failure of the torpedo boat commanders to render immediate assistance to a disabled and helpless enemy were all violations of international law.
 
I wish Fuelair would answer, but I guess I am out of luck. Well, if it was a war crime, don't you think the US government should start proceedings? Of course, it would come out that US officials and/ or military authorities bore some significant measure of responsibility for sending a lightly armed intelligence gathering ship into, at least, the fringe of a war zone.

Also, the individual Israelis would need to be punished. Any high officials are almost certainly dead or retired. LBJ, well... OK, how about just an armed strike on Tel Aviv?

Then maybe the Canadians can attack the US, or the Brits can attack the US, over some of those so-called friendly fire incidents. Let's really mix things up!
 
that the use of unmarked aircraft,

This is untrue. At least one member of the crew saw the Star of David on teh planes in his testimony. The boats were also flying the Star of David.

the wanton destruction of life rafts in the water,

Had this happened, it might come close. But the fact is, there is no real evidence that it happened. The torpedo boats never came closer than 2000 yards by sworn accounts and documentation.

the jamming of international radio distress frequencies,

The evidence for this is laughable. the planes that attacked could not have jamming gear, and the sudden 'fix' of the radio was likely from Ennes' screwing up the radio.

and the failure of the torpedo boat commanders to render immediate assistance to a disabled and helpless enemy were all violations of international law.

This is just horsecrap. The torpedo tried to signal the Liberty and was fired upon! They then commenced a torpedo attack, hitting the Liberty. Once they got indications that he Liberty was a US vessel they then signaled asking if the Liberty required assistance. It was refused. What were they supposed to do? Force asisstance on the Liberty?!

It is no surprise the article was written by Ennes. Its also no surprise that the NLR article is widely criticized for using very suspect sources of information. THis is like the Free-Mumia people who declare that Mumia is a 'political prisoner' and not in jail for murdering a cop. IANAL, but I seriously doubt that Jacobsens' claims would stand the test of any courts.
 
To update, I received another interesting email from Col. W. Patrick Lang today (I had asked him about the missing Air Force C130 NSA transcripts he had seen in his intelligence course back in 1967 - 1968).

Here is his reply:
CTF

The only reason I ever wrote this down was that one of the ship’s officers asked me to do so. He had heard from a friend that I had seen this material and asked me for a statement. After staying silent about it for so long, I felt it was the right thing to do, but this is in no way a “cause” of mine. It doesn’t really matter to me if anyone believes it or not.

The transcripts were in bound booklet form and were probably only part of the transcript material in the possession of NSA at that time. These transcripts were just one section of the exemplar materials in the book. In other words there were other examples of useful voice intercepts in the booklet. The instructional booklet was brought to the MI school by NSA cryptologic personnel from the NSA School along with other course materials. This particular elective course on cryptology had several sub-courses; traffic analysis, cryptanalysis and voice intercept operations are the three that I remember. They brought their materials and since they were sensitive, took them away with them afterwards.

I was then married to my present wife. She remembers that I came home one day after classes at Holabird and told her that I had seen this material.

Pat

I believe Col. Lang. Here is a man who gave dedicated years of service to his country, and yes, in this instance he did the right thing.

Thanks, Colonel.

Investigating the USS Liberty incident should take a critical look into these missing NSA tape transcripts. What exactly was in them, do any copies still exist, why were they never referenced or mentioned in any of the official reports, and why did they go missing?
 
Here is a synopsis on the missing NSA transcripts captured by the Air Force C130 Jun 8, 1967:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040328/news_mz1e29libert.html

Two former NSA directors – Adm. Bobby Ray Inman, Gen. William Odom – and two ex-deputy directors – Gen. John Morrison and Oliver Kirby – told me that there has never been any question at the agency but that Israel's attack on the Liberty was deliberate.

Kirby, for example, is "absolutely certain" about this. A storied career NSA official, Kirby had founded the ELINT program under which the Liberty and her several sister ships operated. "It was my baby," he said in an interview last year.

In an interview Feb. 24, 2003, retired Air Force Major General John Morrison, the agency's then second in command (and Kirby's successor), said he had been informed at the time of Kirby's findings and endorsed them. William Odom, former NSA Director and retired Army lieutenant general, said on March 3, 2003 that on the strength of such data, the attack's deliberateness "just wasn't a disputed issue" within the agency.

On March 5, 2003, retired Navy Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, NSA director from 1977-81, said he "flatly rejected" the Cristol/Israeli thesis. "It is just exceedingly difficult to believe that [the Liberty] was not correctly identified." Inman said his conclusions were based on his talks with NSA senior officials who had direct knowledge at the time. All four officials said they were unaware of any agency official at any time who dissented from the "deliberate," conclusion, based on the intelligence. These men's comments undergird those recorded by other writers over at least two decades.

USS Liberty Veterans Association historian James Ennes (author of the 1980 book "Assault on the Liberty," now updated) says more apostates to the official Israeli – and United States – position are being heard from in sworn affidavits. For example, two ex-USAF Intelligence personnel state that the damning electronic signals they monitored had been captured by an NSA-operated EC-130 flying near the attack, translated and disseminated worldwide. Hundreds of technicians and intelligence specialists around the world had access to these intercepts {for instance, Col. W. Patrick Lang}. At least a few are now coming forward to discuss what they saw.

Here it's worth reiterating something key to this dimension of the accidentalists vs. deliberates contest. The intercepts referenced by Odom, Helms, Kirby et al (whose existence the NSA officially denies) were real-time intelligence gleaned as the attack commenced. By contrast, the NSA-held material Cristol succeeded in declassifying, which he insists validates his view, appear limited to after-action reports by Israeli helicopter pilots. They'd arrived to survey the damage from the attack and played no role in it.
 
Fuelair, when you say "murder" you have pretty well prejudged your case. How would you respond to my responses, upthread, about treatment of allies, forcing allies to prove their innocence, the apparent explosion (sorry about that word) of friendly fire incidents in modern high-tech warfare, and such? (#135)
I also said (and I have no intention of repeating this anymore because I have already said it multiple times) The word/phrase used several places above was IFF (If and only if). I have also said, multiple times, and will not bother repeating it again either, that I am pretty certain it was not an accident but I am not absolutely certain it was not. Combining those two, you get: I am 90% certain (not 100%) that it was murder. If the chance was 10% it would still be way more serious than being sprayed with water. Wet is wet, death is permanent.

I will also not repeat this one - it is inherent in everything I said above and previous. No matter where the ship was, it was identifiably (no one seems to have explained that away - though some attempts have been made) American. It should never have been fired on by Israelis unless it was A)shelling Israel (I heard no reports of that), B)fired on non-attacking Israeli ships or aircraft BEFORE they fired on it(no reports of that)or C) suddenly ran up an Egyptian flag (nope- not that either). And, going from the exact phrasing of the splashing each other, picture taking friend wet story, that SOUNDS like someone saying it was legitimate for Israel to shoot a non-attacking US ship that was simply gathering information (taking pictures) in an area where Israel and a "friend" were fighting. I could semi-buy that as accidental wetting of the camera guy if there had been Egyptian and Israeli air and/or watercaraft shooting at each other and missed shots (thrown water) hit the Liberty (camera using guy) - but there was just the Liberty (camera using guy) and the Israelis (one of the two guys who were gonna throw water, not both). Ship was in the middle of nothing, did not fire first, was identifiable if any real attempt was made to do so. The example given does nothing to convince me of any errors in my thinking and simply sounds (to me) like saying that the Israelis purposefully attacked the ship (as the two friends might purposefully throw water at their friend with the camera) (oh, and, at least in Florida, if he dies from it it's murder/manslaughter. Your mileage may vary).
 
This is untrue. At least one member of the crew saw the Star of David on teh planes in his testimony. The boats were also flying the Star of David.
I noticed this too and agree. However, the law review report is what I was aiming at specifically in this post (regarding points of law).


Had this happened, it might come close. But the fact is, there is no real evidence that it happened. The torpedo boats never came closer than 2000 yards by sworn accounts and documentation.
From my readings, this is account is debatable; therefore, in substance I would agree with you again.


The evidence for this is laughable. the planes that attacked could not have jamming gear, and the sudden 'fix' of the radio was likely from Ennes' screwing up the radio.
I am not technically savvy on this to comment; however, the Liberty did communicate with the USS Saratoga, and it did communicate via HICOM voice capability throughout the day, so this seems not much of a point, especially in the fog of war. I therefore agree with you again.


This is just horsecrap. The torpedo tried to signal the Liberty and was fired upon! They then commenced a torpedo attack, hitting the Liberty. Once they got indications that he Liberty was a US vessel they then signaled asking if the Liberty required assistance. It was refused. What were they supposed to do? Force asisstance on the Liberty?!

It is no surprise the article was written by Ennes. Its also no surprise that the NLR article is widely criticized for using very suspect sources of information. THis is like the Free-Mumia people who declare that Mumia is a 'political prisoner' and not in jail for murdering a cop. IANAL, but I seriously doubt that Jacobsens' claims would stand the test of any courts.

What I have read validates you correct again about the MTB trying to first signal while the Liberty ended up firing on them. I agree again.

Nevertheless, I posted this to alert gumboot where he might want to look regarding information on war crimes and how this case might be viewed (gumboot is one of the finest investigators here at JREF...and I owe him much). Indeed, when I read the two paragraphs in my post (before I hit the "submit" button), I realized everything you say, kookbreaker.

However, one thing I did not see in my post was any mention about communications captured by our Air Force C130.

If these tapes are discovered and brought to light, and their contents indicate Israeli aircraft knew for certain beforehand they were attacking our ship, then information on laws regarding war crimes may become all to relevant.
 
Fuelair, I said nothing about water-throwing incidents. I was talking about modern war. I'm sorry that you didn't respond to my questions. 'Bye.
 
If you could find this report, it might help you:
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51a/023.html


Few issues there. Firstly, the UN Charter makes no mention of an "act of Aggression" and certainly does not define what one is. So that argument's out.

Secondly, the aircraft were not unmarked, and the Laws of War do not require aircraft to be marked anyway.

Thirdly, the destruction of life rafts is questionable, and again not a violation of the laws of war.

Fourthly, the ship's radio frequencies were not jammed (and they indeed managed to broadcast their distress signals fine).

Fifthly, the Liberty was neither disabled nor helpless - indeed it was firing on the MTBs and assuming some of its monitoring capabilities were still in action, it was still participating in military action.

And sixthly, according to both the MTB crew and the Captain of the Liberty the MTBs did offer assistance, and the Captain turned down their request.

And lastly, the Geneva Conventions are for the care of the sick and wounded and POWs during war time, and do not in any way dictate terms for the waging of war on water.

In conclusion I am left wondering what Lieutenant Commander Walter L. Jacobsen thought he was doing, since he seems oblivious to what the actual Laws of War are.

Interestingly enough, under the Hague Convention on the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Wartime, the Liberty was committing a war crime by monitoring Israeli military action from within the warzone.
 
Here is a synopsis on the missing NSA transcripts captured by the Air Force C130 Jun 8, 1967:

For example, two ex-USAF Intelligence personnel state that the damning electronic signals they monitored had been captured by an NSA-operated EC-130 flying near the attack, translated and disseminated worldwide. Hundreds of technicians and intelligence specialists around the world had access to these intercepts {for instance, Col. W. Patrick Lang}. At least a few are now coming forward to discuss what they saw.


I find this fascinating. An NSA EC-130 in 1967?

I find that remarkable because the EC-130 Commando Solo was first put into service in 1983, only six were ever built, and they're all operated by the 193rd Special Operations Group of the USAF, not the NSA. Further, the EC-130 is a PSYOPS broadcast platform, not a surveillance platform.

Perhaps they meant the EC-121 Warning Star?
 
I find this fascinating. An NSA EC-130 in 1967?

I find that remarkable because the EC-130 Commando Solo was first put into service in 1983, only six were ever built, and they're all operated by the 193rd Special Operations Group of the USAF, not the NSA. Further, the EC-130 is a PSYOPS broadcast platform, not a surveillance platform.

Perhaps they meant the EC-121 Warning Star?

There are EC-121 transcripts linked earlier in this thread, describing communications between two IDF Helicopters and the control tower. These point out towards a mistaken identity. He claims there should have been more transcripts.
 
However, one thing I did not see in my post was any mention about communications captured by our Air Force C130.

If these tapes are discovered and brought to light, and their contents indicate Israeli aircraft knew for certain beforehand they were attacking our ship, then information on laws regarding war crimes may become all to relevant.



The general argument, it appears, is that an EC-130, alternatively either a USAF or NSA aircraft, conducting signals intelligence, intercepted the attacks, and that a second US Navy EC-121M Warning Star of VQ-2, carrying Marvin Nowicki, intercepted only the after-incident efforts of IDF helicopters.

There are issues with this scenario. Firstly, it is implausible that two independent SIGINT aircraft would be in the same airspace, and each by sheer coincidence only capture half of an incident.

Secondly, Nowicki claims his aircraft was present for the entire incident and that it was clear the attack was an accident.

Thirdly, the EC-130 did not exist in 1967, and has never been operated by the NSA, and is not a SIGINT aircraft anyway.

In conclusion, we can assume that the EC130 was in fact Nowicki's EC-121M, that it was present for the entire attack, and that either:

-The NSA only gained recordings of the aftermath of the attack and others are lying about NSA recordings during the attack
or
-The NSA gained recordings of the entire attack but is lying about not having recordings during the attack
or
-The NSA gained recordings of the entire attack but has since lost or disposed of the recordings during the attack.

And further:

-That Nowicki is telling the truth; the attack was accidental as he monitored from his aircraft, and others claiming to have read transcripts otherwise are lying or mistaken.
-That Nowicki is lying and either he did not monitor the actual attack, or did monitor it but it was not an accident.

With certainty, those talking about an EC-130 are unquestionably either lying or mistaken.

It bears comment that I find it utterly unbelievable that an intelligence course for the US army would use sensitive intelligence gathered that same year for the purposes of a classroom exercise. Anyone who has worked in intelligence can no doubt confirm how utterly absurd such a suggestion is. To then take it further and suggest that within a year of the incident the NSA had decided to use this current intelligence as an example in an instruction manual simply defies belief.

In conclusion we have only a single person who claims to have actually been present when these alleged recordings were intercepted. He states clearly that the attack was not deliberate.

No one has been able to provide evidence to contradict this.
 
ETA. A possibility is that the C-130 transcripts refer to intelligence gathered by a C-130A-II Airborne COMINT Recon Platform (ARCP) of the 7406th Special Operations Squadron which was based at Rhein-Main Airbase in Germany and flew recon/intelligence flights over the Middle East (Nowicki mentions their typical flight paths in his account).

A problem is that according to Nowicki the ARDP flights had no Hewbrew linguists.

A further problem is that according to Nowicki their aircraft and the ARDP were taking turns at providing coverage of the warzone, and as such when they were covering the warzone during the Liberty attack there were no ARDP flights on station.

And a final problem is that Nowicki quite clearly claims to have heard not just the recovery operations, but the attack on the Liberty by the MTBs, although at the time he wasn't aware that's what was happening.

ETA.

In June 1967 the 7406th only had two C-130s to call on - 56-0484 and 56-0535 according to the history of the squadron. This would support Nowicki's account and explain why their aircraft was deployed to the same mission - the 7406th had insufficient aircraft to maintain surveillance during the war.
 
Last edited:
Excellent, remarkably thorough work, Gumboot. It's a perspective on the case which seems to have been ignored; the actual, technical facts. Like your work on 9/11.
 
I find this fascinating. An NSA EC-130 in 1967?

I find that remarkable because the EC-130 Commando Solo was first put into service in 1983, only six were ever built, and they're all operated by the 193rd Special Operations Group of the USAF, not the NSA. Further, the EC-130 is a PSYOPS broadcast platform, not a surveillance platform.

Perhaps they meant the EC-121 Warning Star?

"EC-130" has to be a mistake.

It is claimed that the "missing" intercepts were almost simultaneously translated and broadcast from a US Air Force C130 near the scene to an intelligence site at Crete where they were sent to Washington and to other stations as "Critical Intelligence," the fastest and most secure means available. Known as CRITICs, these reports routinely arrived in the White House, State Department and Pentagon within ten minutes or less.
http://www.ussliberty.org/smoking.htm
 
The general argument, it appears, is that an EC-130, alternatively either a USAF or NSA aircraft, conducting signals intelligence, intercepted the attacks, and that a second US Navy EC-121M Warning Star of VQ-2, carrying Marvin Nowicki, intercepted only the after-incident efforts of IDF helicopters.

There are issues with this scenario. Firstly, it is implausible that two independent SIGINT aircraft would be in the same airspace, and each by sheer coincidence only capture half of an incident.

Implausible? Maybe not. It was not an EC-130 but an Air Force C130, and it was in the local area, and this was a newly instigated war by our ally, Israel, so the decision to use both planes at the same time does not seem beyond the realms of possibility.

The following is from Nowicki's report upon his arriving in Athens just before the incident:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone...start=10&sid=1aea29f7c900f04b13dfda48fada5a4d
We--the Evaluator, one or two VQ officers, and I--were still on the base, having made our way to the USA-512J compound to stow mission materials and receive an intelligence update from the US Air Force.

USA-512J was a US Air Force Security Service (AFSS) station set-up in 1966 in conjunction with DIRNSA on the Greek Air Force side of the Athens international airport to process, at least preliminarily, the SIGINT collected from USAF ACRP C130 and US Navy VQ-2 EC121M and EA3B aircraft operating in the East Med.


This C130 Nowicki mentions must be the one referred to that was on station Jun 8, 1967 that intercepted communications made before and during the air attacks, messages that proved at the time that Israel knew the Liberty was American but decided to attack her anyway and gave orders to sink her and destroy all hands on board. This is what is reported to have been in these intercepts by those who read them, people from all around the world at the time (these were sent as CRITICs).


It bears comment that I find it utterly unbelievable that an intelligence course for the US army would use sensitive intelligence gathered that same year for the purposes of a classroom exercise. Anyone who has worked in intelligence can no doubt confirm how utterly absurd such a suggestion is. To then take it further and suggest that within a year of the incident the NSA had decided to use this current intelligence as an example in an instruction manual simply defies belief.

I believe Lang. Why on earth would he lie and make up such a story, and such a story it is; it seems highly unusual, enough so to be the truth. Besides, he comes across as credible; I have nothing indicating otherwise, and we have other witnesses who state they also saw these same damning transcripts from this C130.


In conclusion we have only a single person who claims to have actually been present when these alleged recordings were intercepted. He states clearly that the attack was not deliberate.

No one has been able to provide evidence to contradict this.

Are you talking about Nowicki? If you are, he was only involved in the MTB attacks and the helicopters on their rescue mission, which are entirely different from these all-important missing transcripts of the air attacks.
 
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9531&highlight=Liberty

http://www.chicagotribune.com/servi...tuesday/chi-liberty_tuesoct02,1,3803697.story

Bryce Lockwood, Marine staff sergeant, Russian-language expert, recipient of the Silver Star for heroism, ordained Baptist minister, is shouting into the phone.

"I'm angry! I'm seething with anger! Forty years, and I'm seething with anger!"

Lockwood was aboard the USS Liberty, a super-secret spy ship on station in the eastern Mediterranean, when four Israeli fighter jets flew out of the afternoon sun to strafe and bomb the virtually defenseless vessel on June 8, 1967, the fourth day of what would become known as the Six-Day War.

For Lockwood and many other survivors, the anger is mixed with incredulity: that Israel would attack an important ally, then attribute the attack to a case of mistaken identity by Israeli pilots who had confused the U.S. Navy's most distinctive ship with an Egyptian horse-cavalry transport that was half its size and had a dissimilar profile. And they're also incredulous that, for years, their own government would reject their calls for a thorough investigation.

"They tried to lie their way out of it!" Lockwood shouts. "I don't believe that for a minute! You just don't shoot at a ship at sea without identifying it, making sure of your target!"

Four decades later, many of the more than two dozen Liberty survivors located and interviewed by the Tribune cannot talk about the attack without shouting or weeping.

Their anger has been stoked by the declassification of government documents and the recollections of former military personnel, including some quoted in this article for the first time, which strengthen doubts about the U.S. National Security Agency's position that it never intercepted the communications of the attacking Israeli pilots -- communications, according to those who remember seeing them, that showed the Israelis knew they were attacking an American naval vessel.

The documents also suggest that the U.S. government, anxious to spare Israel's reputation and preserve its alliance with the U.S., closed the case with what even some of its participants now say was a hasty and seriously flawed investigation.

In declassifying the most recent and largest batch of materials last June 8, the 40th anniversary of the attack, the NSA, this country's chief U.S. electronic-intelligence-gatherer and code-breaker, acknowledged that the attack had "become the center of considerable controversy and debate." It was not the agency's intention, it said, "to prove or disprove any one set of conclusions, many of which can be drawn from a thorough review of this material," available at http://www.nsa.gov/liberty .

An Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mark Regev, called the attack on the Liberty "a tragic and terrible accident, a case of mistaken identity, for which Israel has officially apologized." Israel also paid reparations of $6.7 million to the injured survivors and the families of those killed in the attack, and another $6 million for the loss of the Liberty itself.

But for those who lost their sons and husbands, neither the Israelis' apology nor the passing of time has lessened their grief.

One is Pat Blue, who still remembers having her lunch in Washington's Farragut Square park on "a beautiful June afternoon" when she was a 22-year-old secretary for a law firm.

Blue heard somebody's portable radio saying a U.S. Navy ship had been torpedoed in the eastern Mediterranean. A few weeks before, Blue's husband of two years, an Arab-language expert with the NSA, had been hurriedly dispatched overseas.

As she listened to the news report, "it just all came together." Soon afterward, the NSA confirmed that Allen Blue was among the missing.

"I never felt young again," she said.

Aircraft on the horizon

Beginning before dawn on June 8, Israeli aircraft regularly appeared on the horizon and circled the Liberty.

The Israeli Air Force had gained control of the skies on the first day of the war by destroying the Egyptian air force on the ground. America was Israel's ally, and the Israelis knew the Americans were there. The ship's mission was to monitor the communications of Israel's Arab enemies and their Soviet advisers, but not Israeli communications. The Liberty felt safe.

Then the jets started shooting at the officers and enlisted men stretched out on the deck for a lunch-hour sun bath. Theodore Arfsten, a quartermaster, remembered watching a Jewish officer cry when he saw the blue Star of David on the planes' fuselages. At first, crew members below decks had no idea whose planes were shooting at their ship.

It's quite a long article, from the Chicago Tribune.

You can even write to one of the survivors, if you want. I did. He was very bitter about being called an anti-semite for years.
 
The US and Israel were not allies, in any formal sense, in 1967. That is a kind of backwards historical projection by the newspaper writer. Which may seem a minor point but is not, in fact.

Anger is not a historian's friend. Dispassion is.

ETA: OK, I'm not a historian of this event and I don't plan to become one. This is a topic in which there is much more heat than light being generated. Many rumors apparently about who said what to whom which then get endlessly repeated.

What I don't understand is the lack of anger at the US government from the survivors. The Israelis admitted the attack and paid compensation. What about LBJ?

'Bye.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom