Why was the USS Liberty where it was?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Felch X

If the US was going to switch sides anyways, why would we bend over backwards to let the Israelis atack our own ships?

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,

No one said that the US was going to switch sides or interfere with troops on the ground. But the pro-Israeli sentiment was not as strong in 1967 as it was in later years. I have a vague memory that Johnson was actually moderately anti-Israel. It was quite possible that the US would stop supplying arms to the Israeli army. That threat was why the Israelis built up their arms manufacturing (as did the South Africans).

and the simple fact that we didn't make much fuss about the USS Liberty attack demonstrates how tightly bound the governments are.

The fact that theres "no fuss" means nothing. The intelligence community was and probably still are paranoid about their assets. They would not welcome an investigation of what they were doing.

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.

There's nothing inconsistent about it. Read the posts by the Israelis at this site. They're fiercely defensive about their country and they would go to what appear to be extreme lengths to protect it if they thought it threatened. The Israeli government of 1967 may have felt that the had to attack Syria to guarantee their safety. Under those conditions I think they would have attacked the Liberty if they deemed it necessary (and they did). The fact that the Liberty was not sunk gave them "plausible deniability".

[Ecthy]

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

[MOBIUS]

What makes me laugh is that Siro can believe that he can actually get away with claiming the Liberty was attacked accidentally...

This is a completely preposterous claim and merely serves to prove that absolutely nothing that comes from his mouth can be taken seriously - but then we all knew that already...

Give it up Siro, your country is ruled by a bunch of Zionist scum who have sufficient people in the US in their pockets that they can turn a blind eye even when their own countrymen are being murdered mercilessly in a cynical attempt to cover up yet another warmongering action of so kind...

Israel is built on the merciless invasion and ethnic cleansing of another people's land - it is racist to it's very core by espousing a 'Jewish' state!

But then Israel always was friends with South Africa during Apartheid - so it's hardly surprising...

[chequita guevara]

Ecthilion, go to my first post. Also note SpenceH's post.

FelchX, you are reading history backwards. We have not always been Israel's greatest friend. We were the ones who yanked their chain in '56 and made them give up the Sinai. The US only gave Israel a limited amount of arms up until 1967. It was only after the smashing victory that the US decided that we would become their principle supplier of weapons and stand by them no matter what. It's not like the US would want Israel to become a Soviet ally.

Israel has always wanted the Golan, and the 1967 War was primarily about getting the Golan. Everything else was just gravy. The Sinai has been returned, Israel is (sort of) considering freeing the West Bank and Gaza, but the Golan has been annexed and will remain part of Israel. Returning it to Syria isn't even being considered. The headwaters are simply too important to give up.

However, the US was strongly pressuring Israel to halt the war before the attack on the Golan had begun. The UN Security Council had passed a resolution demanding a cease fire. If the US has known that Israel was going to attack the Golan, they might have been able to stop it. That's why the Liberty had to be put out of commission. Once it was over it was a fait accompli. It also very nearly started WWIII, as the Soviets then decided to stop the Israelis by force and sent a task force to the Eastern Mediterranian (another reason the US wanted the war to stop, as it didn't feel like exterminating humanity over Israel).

You also don't realize how politically impossible it would have been to hold Israel to account for the attack on the Liberty. Not only did the Democratic Party depend on Jewish voters, but the incredible victory of the Israelis made Israel the darling of America. For America, it was if the Holocaust had been swept away. America loves an underdog (as long as we're not the one beating up on them). It would have been political suicide to hold Israel accountable. It still is.

[Sirotnikov]

As always, mobius is here and the party starts

What's the matter, ran out of islamic sites to quote?
the guardian didn't ran a story about it?

As always MOBIUS is sure that his mere words are substancial proof of his message.

Obviously no mere mortal is at a position to disagree or prove things otherwise.

And most importantly - with MOBIUS - Fact's Just Don't Matter.

Remember that kids.

of Zionist scum who have sufficient people in the US in their pockets

Yes, as you know the Zionist Elders insisted that all Zionists have big and deep pockets where we can store all our money which we get from controlling the world banks and the world media.

[Sirotnikov]

Israel has always wanted the Golan, and the 1967 War was primarily about getting the Golan. Everything else was just gravy. The Sinai has been returned, Israel is (sort of) considering freeing the West Bank and Gaza, but the Golan has been annexed and will remain part of Israel. Returning it to Syria isn't even being considered. The headwaters are simply too important to give up.

There was a reason we wanted the Golan.

THE SYRIANS WERE ****ING SHELLING OUR CITIES FROM THE GOLAN.

Sorry.

And we're not "sorta" considering. We always intended to. The fact is, that the Barak govt. had a majority until the Intifada.

The fact is that even today polls show some 60% support for the Saudi proposal.

And the fact is, and was, that about 50% of Israelis were ready to return the Golan.



Furthermore, as I've said, your convictions why America chose to stand down are weak. I'm sure that had Americans were let known that Israel did this, they would immediatelly cease support.

[Pythagoras]

Isnt it tradition to blow up an American ship before the beginning of a war between Israel and Arab states?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
There was a reason we wanted the Golan.

Yes, it's the source waters for much of the Jordan valley. If it's in Arab hands, you can't keep it all to yourselves.

And we're not "sorta" considering. We always intended to. The fact is, that the Barak govt. had a majority until the Intifada.

Until I see a serious proposal, and not that insult that Barak waved under the Arabs noses, you're just sorta considering giving it back.

The fact is that even today polls show some 60% support for the Saudi proposal.

And the fact is, and was, that about 50% of Israelis were ready to return the Golan.

Well, if you were a real democracy that might mean something.

[Ned]

Look at the flag in the picture. It is almost entirely obscured from this vantage point. From a plane at a higher angle, it might be totally obscured.

[chequita guevara]

That's really reaching.

Multiple runs from multiple approaches by multiple planes for 45 minutes couldn't have missed that flag. That's not the flag that was flying during the attack, either. After the attack started they pulled out the big flag. No way they coulda missed that flag.

[*End Is Forever*]

I got bored halfway through this thread, but here's my tuppence anyway. And no, I couldn't give a flying **** whether any of this has been said before.

1. A number of the US posters have suggesting that the USS Liberty was "doing nothing wrong" but then have accepted that she was spying. This doesn't add. Suggesting that spying is justified is a fair argument, but if you're spying, and the other side finds out, then you have to accept that you might get shot at. That's reality, people... wherever you happen to be floating at the time
2. If the USS Liberty was spying, then the Israelis had every right to sink her. That doesn't mean that they were right to sink her (assuming it was deliberate) - it would've been an incredibly stupid thing to do.
3. Any diplomatic gain Israel got from concealing information would've been more than lost by attacking an American vessel. Pretty straightforward, really. There really doesn't seem to be any motive for the attack, other than possibly stupidity.
4. Those two ships look nothing like each other. However, I don't know how close the pilots would've got to find this out.

[Felch]

So do Pythagoras, Ned, Che, and EiF get the "Beating a very dead horse even more" award?

[chequita guevara]

*EiF*, ELINT spying is perfectly legal. If you broadcast your communications into space, you have no right to get upset if someone in international waters listens to them.

Israel got what it wanted out of wounding the Liberty, time to attack Syria. Had the US known that Israel was going to attack Syria anyways, they would have yanked their leash.

Israel's attack very nearly started WWIII, btw, as the Soviets sent a fleet to attack Israel. The US sent a fleet to attack the Soviet fleet. If the Israelis hadn't finally stopped their war, it's possible none of us would be here to discuss this.

[*End Is Forever*]

Oh, okay, fair enough. Point taken. I think I'll avoid these threads in future.

[TCO]

EIF, pull your head out. Having a ship or plane intercept electronic signals is perfectly legal. Soviets had AGIs off our coast all the time doing this. Would have been real easy to rack up some peace time tonnage if blowing up AGIs was considered ok.

Israili officials have always said the attack was a mistake. They have never said that it was a deliberate attack on a spy.