Why was the USS Liberty where it was?

[Felch]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Really? And how did international waters off of Egypt/Israel become a warzone, especially in a war where neither side had a navy worth speaking of?

From Siro's early post:

On June 8, 1967, the fourth day of the Six-Day War, the Israeli high command received reports that Israeli troops in El Arish were being fired upon from the sea, presumably by an Egyptian vessel, as they had a day before.

If Egypt and Israel are at war, then the international waters off of Egypt and Israel becomes a de facto warzone.

Both nations have ships, maybe not huge nuclear powered carriers, but certainly vessels capable of operating near to their home countries. If Israel thought they were being fired upon, and the Americans denied having any warships there, why not assume that the ships they find belong to the country they're at war with?

[chequita guevara]

Felch X, only someone deliberately lying or someone closing his eyes will accept that this was an accident. Both Israel and the US have a motive for the official version. Consider when Iraq smacked one of our ships in the Persian Gulf. They were doing our dirty work in fighting Iran. Can you imagine if Iran had accidentally bombed one of our ships. Reagan would have used it as an excuse to go to war with Iran. Israel does our dirty work, so the ship and the lives that we destroyed were sacrificed for good relations.

The waters of Israel and Egypt were not a decalred warzone. The ships look different. The horse carrier was almost 2/3rds the size of the Liberty. It's smoke stack is behind the control tower, not on it. The Liberty had less obvious life boats. The Liberty had a communications dish.

By the way, Siro, horse carriers don't have communications and electronics sections. They are just frieghters. You cannot delberately attack the electronics and communications section on a horse carrier because it doesn't exist.

We are not suckers. We are not fooled. Our government just thinks that the job that Israel performs for us is worth the stuff that Israel does to us and the American lives that are lost because of Israel.

[Felch]

Everybody's posts still smack of paranoia. Why would Israel deliberately attack a US ship? Why would it divert resources needed during a multi-front war, to attack a staunch ally?

Unless a realistic motive is established, I am left with assuming that it was just an accident. It seems more reasonable that this was Israeli incompetence than some conspiracy to kill Americans.

[chequita guevara]

FelchX, your questions have been answered multiple times, explaining two plausible reasons for it. Please read the thread before asking the same question over and over.

[KrazyHorse]

a) IIRC, the US was making noises at that point about not supporting Israel

b) The ship was gathering ELINT data. Somebody in Israel might well have been frightened that the US would (or was) feed(ing) bits of it to the Arabs

c) As has already been pointed out, the ship was clearly part of the USN, not the Egyptian fleet. Saying that it must have been an accident because it doesn't make sense for Israel to attack the US is like saying that a murderer whose actions are caught on tape should get the benefit of the doubt because you can't fathom his motives.

[David Floyd]

On June 8, 1967, the fourth day of the Six-Day War, the Israeli high command received reports that Israeli troops in El Arish were being fired upon from the sea, presumably by an Egyptian vessel, as they had a day before.

Really? And I assume the Egyptians have ships that can shell from at least 12 miles out, not to mention ones that look like US ELINT ships and fly the US flag?

[chequita guevara]

I find horse carriers with no guns have great range, right Floyd.

[Promethus]

I did not know that this class of ship had any armorements at all.

[David Floyd]

Indeed not, that's why it's funny the Israeli's think that either a horse carrier or an ELINT ship could shell them

[Felch]

Ships can move. And instead of accusing me of not reading a thread I started Che, how about you give me a realistic motive for an Israeli attack.

The only one put forth so far was that they didn't want the US interfering in their prosecution of the war. Of course, because every time Israel pokes its head out, America comes around and plays Wack-a-mole.

The staunchest ally part is significant. For Israel to devote the resources needed to intentionally destroy a US vessel they would need a damn good reason. There is simply no reason to believe that the US would have jumped into the war on the side of the Arabs if Israel went into the Golan Heights. In any event, the potential provocation from Israeli land activity being picked up by the USS Liberty is far less than actually attacking the Liberty intentionally.

[Felch]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
a) IIRC, the US was making noises at that point about not supporting Israel

b) The ship was gathering ELINT data. Somebody in Israel might well have been frightened that the US would (or was) feed(ing) bits of it to the Arabs

If the US was going to switch sides anyways, why would we bend over backwards to let the Israelis atack our own ships? Nothing in the scenario fits. America simply would not have tolerated an attack if the relationship was as rocky as you say it was.

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
c) As has already been pointed out, the ship was clearly part of the USN, not the Egyptian fleet. Saying that it must have been an accident because it doesn't make sense for Israel to attack the US is like saying that a murderer whose actions are caught on tape should get the benefit of the doubt because you can't fathom his motives.

You seem to be right about this. But nations rarely act like random murderers. If they do commit crimes, it's usually because they feel they would stand to benefit. In this situation, nobody has yet demonstrated how Israel would stand to benefit, without stooping to outlandish conspiracy theories.

I don't mean to make that personal, I just find the idea that the US would interfere in a Israeli war to be a remote possibility, and the simple fact that we didn't make much fuss about the USS Liberty attack demonstrates how tightly bound the governments are.

You can't have it both ways people. The idea that the US would be a threat to Israeli ambitions in 1967, but would tolerate a direct attack on its own Navy is ridiculously inconsistent.

[Promethus]

Anyone other than DF want to comment on how an unarmed ship

1. "Shelled IDF Possitions"
2. Fired on the IDF Torpedo Boats "causing" them to "return" fire?

[David Floyd]

Ships can move.

True - I guess they can magically fire shells at coastal positions from their magical guns, right?

[Ecthy]

Let's just face it, guys... Israel was and still is trying to take over the world.

The US should make them face the consequences...

[Ecthy]

Could someone point me to the post in this thread where the reason/motive for the attack, if deliberate, are explained? Thank you.