ERIC BERGERUD
Mr. Bergerud is a professor of history at Lincoln University in Oakland, California and the author of several books on military history.

The July 23 issue of The New Republic includes a blistering attack on James Bamford's recent account of the Liberty incident by an Israeli scholar Michael Oren. Oren is presently writing a book on the Six Day War. If Oren is right, Bamford committed astounding errors in research, and some of Oren's most damaging evidence comes from Bamford's most important sources. I doubt this will be the last word, but anyone interested in the tragedy should check this one out.

[Editor's Note: Click here to read Mr. Bamford's response to the New Republic review.]

EDWIN MOISE
Mr. Moise is professor of history at Clemson University and the author of a book about the Tonkin Gulf incident.

I have read the chapter on the Liberty incident in Bamford's book, and also Oren's article attacking Bamford. I find Bamford more persuasive.

An example of the reasons, starting with Oren's discussion of Bamford's handling of the testimony of Marvin Nowicki, who was aboard a U.S. intelligence aircraft that was listening to, and recording, Israeli radio communications during the incident."...spliced into Nowicki's account are bloodthirsty quotes from Israeli pilots, as if Bamford were in possession of the spy plane's tapes. But the quotes were snipped, out of context, from a transcript of Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) communications made available to a 1987 Thames Television special on the Liberty. That very same transcript proved that the pilots went to great lengths to identify the ship and took considerable risks to rescue its survivors, whom they assumed were Egyptians."

Problems with this passage: 1) I cannot find any quotes from Israeli pilots spliced into Nowicki's account. 2) When Bamford does quote Israeli pilots (in other sections, not spliced into Nowicki's account), he gives source notes clearly indicating that he got these quotes from the Thames Television transcript, not by being in possession of the spy plane's tapes. 3) I don't believe the last sentence of the passage I have quoted.

A topic like the attack on the Liberty really calls for a super-careful author, and Bamford isn't one. (I have not gotten any reply to the e-mail I sent him more than three weeks ago, pointing out a couple of minor errors in other chapters of his book, and also requesting that in future printings of the book my name be given as Edwin Moise, not Edwin Morse.) I would be prepared to consider the possibility that Bamford may be very seriously wrong in his interpretation of the attack. But he is fairly convincing. Oren is far more careless with facts than Bamford is, and not at all convincing.

ERIC BERGERUD

I am not up to picking an argument with Prof. Moise or anyone else concerning the details of the Liberty incident. Perhaps Oren will have more detail when his book about the Six Day War comes out. Perhaps not.

Oren does raise very interesting questions concerning motive, however. Anyone trying to explain the Liberty tragedy has to come up with a logical answer to the obvious question of why Israel would attack an American vessel. The damage done to Israel could have been severe, so what did they hope to gain? If Oren is right (and this does strike me as correct) the theory that Tel Aviv was trying to hide the attack on the Golan does not fit the Liberty chronology. Bamford argued that the IDF was desperate to cover up a massive war crime - the ongoing execution of about 1,000 Egyptian POWs. This strikes me as very unlikely. I doubt an incident of this scale took place at all. And, if it did, why would Israel take such a desperate step to keep the US from learning about it? Did they think Washington was going to release the tapes confirming a massive war crime to the world press? Would IDF or Israeli leaders have time to make such considerations? I have serious doubts.

I admit that the chronology of events as I understand them makes things look very bad for the IDF. But there still does not seem to be an obvious motive for such a brazen attack if done intentionally. From where I sit, we must choose between two very unlikely scenarios. No historian likes that.

PIERO GLEIJESES
Mr. Gleijeses is professor of US Foreign Policy at Johns Hopkins University (SAIS)

In response to the review of Bamford's book in the New York Times I wrote the following letter to the editor. It was not published, but the readers of this thread in H-diplo might find it relevant.

To the Editor:

In his review of James Bamford's Body of Secrets(April 29), Joseph Finder charges that the author sides"rather too credulously" with the" conspiracy theorists" who allege that the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) knew that the Liberty was an American ship before attacking it in 1967, causing the deaths of thirty-four Americans.

In fact, Bamford is in good company.

In 1967, the US naval attache in Tel Aviv expressed utter"incredulity" at the Israeli claim that the IDF had confused the Liberty with the Egyptian ship El Queir. (Office of the Defense Attache to White House, June 18, 1967, LBJ Library)

Admiral Thomas Moorer, who was Chief of Naval Operations in 1967 and later chair of the JCS, agreed."To suggest that they [the IDF] couldn't identify the ship is ... ridiculous. ... Anybody who could not identify the Liberty could not tell the difference between the White House and the Washington Monument." (Washington Post, June 15, 1991, p. 14)

Johnson's biographer Robert Dallek writes that"the highest officials of the [Johnson] administration, including the President, believed it 'inconceivable' that Israel's 'skilled' defense forces could have committed such a gross error." (Flawed Giant, Oxford University Press, 1998, pp. 430-31)

Clark Clifford was asked by LBJ to chair a special investigation of the attack. His report, which is still classified, concluded that"it was impossible" that the Israelis had mistaken the Liberty for the El Queir."Having been for so long a staunch supporter of Israel," Clifford wrote in his memoirs,"I was particularly troubled by this incident. ...Somewhere inside the Israeli government, somewhere along the chain of command, something had gone terribly wrong -- and then had been covered up." (Counsel to the President, Random House, 1991, pp. 446-47) Perhaps Finder is mistaken when he suggests that Bamford's analysis was"skewed by his palpable distaste for the Israeli state."

ROBERT HANKS
Mr. Hanks is the manager of the H Diplo listserv.

In spite of the cult of precision bombing that pervades military thinking, there have been numerous examples of"friendly fire" or"mistaken identities" in modern military history.

These include:

cliff stick - 8/27/2003

Hi Director,

How are you ? my name is cliff stick i am a young boy of 23 year old,i am a student of Nigeria unversity lagos . am studing law ,i am in 200 level .but now am have a problem now in school ,due to financial problem ,to compelite my education carry please sir am bengging you to help me. please sir,
may God bless you as you do.
thanks,
your faithfully,
cliff.

R Etting - 7/21/2003

Researcher: Tapes show attack was accident
Obtains transcripts in '67 Israeli strike on US spy ship

By Peter Enav, Associated Press, 7/10/2003

JERUSALEM -- Newly declassified transcripts back up Israel's claim that its attack on a US spy ship during the 1967 Middle East war was an accident, a Florida judge who has been investigating the case for 16 years said yesterday.

Israel has always maintained it thought the USS Liberty was an Egyptian military supply ship when it ordered its forces to attack on June 8, 1967, killing 34 American sailors and wounding 171. But critics charge Israel knew the ship was American. Questions about the case have long dogged US-Israel relations.

Miami Judge A. Jay Cristol received transcripts of transmissions from two Israeli helicopter pilots, sent to check for survivors after the attack. The pilots referred to the ship as Egyptian and were surprised to discover it was flying an American flag.

The recordings, in Hebrew, were made by a US spy plane hovering over the site.

Cristol told the Associated Press he received the transcripts after submitting a Freedom of Information request to the US National Security Agency, which had kept the recordings secret. After his request was denied, Cristol filed suit in federal court and forced their release.

Agency spokesman Patrick Weadon confirmed Cristol had been sent the transcripts.

''We provided the tapes as part of the historical record,'' Weadon said. ''The agency takes no official position on what happened to the Liberty.''

Cristol, who has written a book about the case, said, the tapes ''show both the helicopter pilots and their controller believed the Israeli Air Force had targeted an Egyptian ship.''

A National Security Agency summary of the incident says the Israelis were confused over the stricken ship's identity more than an hour after the attack.

Cristol provided the summary and full transcripts of the pilot and tower recordings to the Associated Press.

Israel has long maintained the attack was the result of a tragic mistake during the heat of battle. Israel was at war with Egypt, Syria and Jordan at the time.

An Israeli commission of inquiry concluded the Israeli Air Force believed the targeted ship was an Egyptian cargo vessel ferrying supplies to Egyptian troops fighting Israeli forces.

However, some of the Liberty's survivors and some officials in the US defense establishment have rejected this view, contending that Israel deliberately targeted the ship to keep the United States from learning that Israel was planning to attack Syria as part of its strategy during the war.

The Israeli daily Ha'aretz, which first reported the disclosures in yesterday's edition, quoted Cristol as saying the tape transcripts were the last classified intelligence about the Liberty.


This story ran on page A16 of the Boston Globe on 7/10/2003.
© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.

jmeadors - 11/2/2001

Mr. Weeks misstates my position.

I never claimed that the question of motive need not be addressed.

My comment was in response to the position of some that the question of motive must be addressed and resolved prior to any review or analysis of the attack itself.

As to the circumstances under which a Purple Heart is awarded perhaps Mr. Weeks would do well to do a bit of research to determine what those circumstances are rather than misleading readers as he is often inclined to do.

Warmest regards,

Joe Meadors

Mike weeks - 8/23/2001

Of course the possible motive must be addressed. For without it, there's no reason for the GOI to have ordered an attack on the ship, knowing it was American. All possible motives advanced have not withstood research. This includes the latest switch on the part of James Bamfod, when he dropped the "Golan Heights" scenario (w/o explaining why of course), and copied the "massacre" story (w/o conducting any research beyond the initial news stories - which show that the claim of the a "massacre" were w/o foundation.)

Mr. Meadors insists that the tactics must be discussed. Of course, but they are minor in comparison to the possible motive. Besides, the examples given by Mr. Meadors are simply not supported by the testimony, statements and other documents from the crew and others. Some examples:

The over-stating of "Israelis" when mentioning recognizing, or not, the ship. Many components of the IDF were involved, and Meadors makes a far too general, sweeping statement.

Meadors fails to acknowledge that the IAF had indeed attacked their own troops in prior days - despite any PR efforts he wishes to repeat.

Meadors' later-years memories are in direct conflict of the sworn testimony of several crewmen, including the skipper regarding that no further further firing took place by the MTBs following the torpedo attack. The mention of the close-in MTB took place when a series of signals took place - after the attack. This all witnessed by several individuals located on the bridge.

Meadors mis-states the status of the Purple Heart being awarded to those wounded. It has nothing to do with a foreign power being declared "enemy" (which, of course Israel was not), but of US military personnel being wounded by the actions of an "opposing armed force" in a "hositle" environment (see 141737Z JUN 67 from CINCUSNAVEUR to CNO.) It must be remembered that when the Liberty came under attack, it was not known the nationality of the attackers.

It is submited that Mr. Meadors has a very bias and emotional view, understandable to a certain degree but it leads to inaccurate conclusions as well as a somewhat selective understanding of the incident.

Mike Weeks

jmeadors - 8/16/2001

Two issues are routinely raised when discussing the attack on the USS Liberty.

The first is the possibility that the attack was simply a case of "friendly fire."

The second being a demand (for lack of a better word) that a rational explanation for the Israelis to conduct a deliberate attack be presented and unilaterally accepted prior to any discussion of the tactics used during the attack.

Those who support the "friendly fire" theory insist that the Israeli military is so inept that they cannot tell the difference between a freshly painted, clearly marked US Navy ship and a 40-year-old, rusted-out Egyptian tramp steamer that bore no resemblance to the USS Liberty.

They insist this of Israeli pilots who could distinguish between Israeli and Egyptian tanks on the battlefield.

Further, they insist this of Israeli torpedo boat officers whom I personally saw sail to within 100 yards of the target they were attacking and steam very slowly up our port side only to pull back and continue the attack.

Some claim that the awarding of the Purple Heart to the Liberty wounded does not rule out the possibility of Friendly Fire since the Purple Heart is awarded in those instances.

What they fail to note is the fact that the Purple Heart is awarded to victims of friendly fire when the ordinance involved is directed at an enemy of the United States -- and that the US government made no modification that requirement vis-a-vis the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty.

Perhaps because to do so would require them to admit that in authorizing the award of Purple Hearts to the Liberty wounded, the State of Israel was officially declared to be an enemy of the United States for June 8, 1967.

I understand that the only other country in the Middle East that shares that distinction with Israel (i.e., having been officially declared to be an enemy of the US) is Iraq.

As to the insistence that some have made (or, at least implied) that the question of motive be satisfactorily addressed and resolved prior to any discussion of the tactics employed by the attacking force, I respectfully submit that those are two, distinct issues that can be discussed separately.

I further respectfully submit that those who insist on resolving the question of motive first are only doing so to avoid a discussion of the tactics involved by the forces who attacked the USS Liberty.

Joe Meadors