Post by ZuLU
I researched the literature we have in France about that topic and I
regret to inform you that the most plausible thesis that could be found
out is the one of "deliberate attack".
"we have in France"? As if that really has any meaning, given that the
incident didn't involve France.
Post by ZuLU
Lately, on National radio "France inter" a program related with French
intelligence sources didn't left any doubt about it.
So let's just a quick look at what apparently that means in the way of
Post by ZuLU
The explanation most valuable to that deliberate attack was the planned
Israeli's raid on the Golan on June, 8 at 11h 30 am, the ship was
observed at 6 am. Last orders postponed the assault, USS LIberty's issue
was studied in a special commission and Golan's attack decided a little
Tsahal was afraid about the possible advise of Golan's raid to Syrian
forces because the USA were opposed to that action as they had
previously discussed with Israel.
First, that's the "belief" as put forth by Ennes in his book, based on
a newspaper editorial. That is; since the ship was attacked on 8 June,
then Syria was attacked -- on 9 June, that must be the reason.
Well what are the problems there? How about the established fact that
the ship was operating off the Sinai, and had only shown up that day?
She wasn't off northern Israel, but off the Sinai. Nowehere near
As the then CIA station chief in Israel has stated:
As for the lingering suspicions, mainly among U.S. Navy personnel, that
Israel's attack was deliberate so that America could not monitor a
ground offensive onto Syria's Golan Heights, John Hadden responds:
"That's ridiculous. What's a U.S. ship near Egypt going to find out
FRIENDS IN DEED: INSIDE THE U.S.-ISRAEL ALLIANCE
by Dan Raviv and Yossi Melman
And of course from State Department messages we have this from the
briefing on the morning of 8 June relating to Syria:
P 081640Z JUN 67
FM AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV
TO SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY
1. FOLLOWING IS SUMMARY OF IDF INTELLIGENCE CHIEF'S BRIEFING
OF MCPHERSON OF WHITE HOUSE JUNE 8, 11:30 A. M.
2. GENERAL YARIV SAID THAT THE PRINCIPAL TASK OF THE IDF
NOW WAS TO EXPLOIT ITS SUCCESS. THERE STILL REMAINED THE
SYRIAN PROBLEM AND PERHAPS IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO GIVE
SYRIA BLOW TO GET MORE QUOTE ELBOW ROOM UNQUOTE.
Here, at 1130, 2 1/2 hours before Liberty ends up being attacked, the
IDF intelligence chief is telling US embassy folks about the Syrian
Some friggin' SECRET, right?
And while it's not unexpected, even Abbas Eban has puth forth:
Some American leaders - including Secretary of State Rusk - found
it difficult to assume that the attack had been inadvertent. They
occupied their minds with various scenarios of motivation. All of them
were false. Israel had no interest whatever in preventing the United
States from knowing
what was going on. There was nothing apologetic about our military
[LBJ advisor] McBundy [sic] went on to reflect, in a tentative voice,
that it would seem strange that Syria - which had originated the war
- might be the only one that seemed to be getting off without injury.
Might it not turn out, paradoxically, he said, that less guilty Arab
states, such as Jordan, had suffered heavy loss, while Syria would be
free to start the whole deadly sequence again?
PERSONAL WITNESS: ISRAEL THROUGH MY EYES
By Abba Eban
Also ignored in France (as well as other places) is the fact that the
decision by Israel to take the Golan Heights was not authorized during
the 8 June evening defense committee meeting -- several hours after the
ship had been attacked.
Yes the US State Depart. didn't want there to be any more fighting,
especially a third front against Syria -- but bottom line, Israel
wasn't listening to the US State Depart. and certainly was getting
other signals from the US gov't. So why attack deliberately a known US
ship in the first place? Bet that overlooked detail hasn't been
discussed in France ...