(Redirected from Talk:USS Liberty)
Hi, I added some major points for the non-conspiracy theory arguments, as well as a link to the web site belonging to some of the survivors of USS Liberty. I recognize that I am biased, to some extent, due to my being an Israeli. However, when (and if) points are added to the pro-conspiracy theory arguments, I'd like them to be based on facts (mentioned in the body of the article), or refer to a reliable source (that is a source which takes into account the structure of the Israeli army, wittness accounts etc.) -- Uriyan.
Hoo boy! This page needs some NPOV lovin'. I can tell this is going to as contentious as some of our other fun topics like abortion and who shot JFK. -- ansible
(Abortion and JFK? child's play. Try writing up the Nurse Nayirah hoax, or pointing out that fluoride is not a good thing to drink, not even for your teeth. But I guess there will always be those who bleeve anything their gummint tells 'em. -- Driven Underground by Profluoridationists)
All right, sir, several things. First of all, I have nothing against you trying to issue your view. But in Wikipedia we don't do this at the expense of deleting other people's opinions, no matter how inane they seem to you. Indeed, among us it is popular to try to get into other people's argument. I will try to be considerate of your argument - but I will not be silenced. --Uriyan
My apologies. I didn't intend for my changes to become contentious. I saw some incorrect information in the posting that I changed and corrected. I thought the easiest thing was to recreate it from scratch.
I also included some information that you left out -- like the actions of the Israelis during the attack.
Feel free to add or modify it as long as your changes reflect the facts and not merely conjecture.
I'd be interested in learning your background as it involves the USS Liberty attack and where you acquired your interest and expertise in USS Liberty research. As for me, I am a USS Liberty survivor and have been on the Board of Directors of the USS Liberty Veterans Association for most of the past 20 years since the organization was formed. --Jmeadors
First of all I'd like to thank you for stopping this flamewar and deciding to talk, as I see this as a first step in making the article better (i.e. equally representative of the two main points of view). Generally, in Wikipedia it is considered extremely impolite to delete someone else's individual comments (as you did with my criticism of Ennes), and it is even more impolite to replace an existing point of view with your own entirely. See neutral point of view and Wikipetiquette for more details about that.
I added my points to the article and changed their order to chronological. I also described the attack according to the Navy Court transcripts and moved some of your points to "controversy". You should note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - that is, as editors we're not supposed to have opinions. In order to state the opinions that every man obviously has, we state the appropriate fact (e.g. "no markings were seen on the Israeli aircraft") and then the particular opinions, mentioning their bearers ("The survivors of the ship claim that the attacking aircraft were unmarked").
My personal background is not as big as I could hope - which does not, however, invalidate my claims. I am an Israeli student fond of history; I've come across several mentioning of the USS Liberty incident in articles and books during the years. Several months ago, I saw a discussion at kuro5hin, and read some more. What I do have is some familiarity with the Israeli and Middle Eastern politics and history, and an Israeli perspective on things. --Uriyan
Would it be possible for me to "take advantage" of your interest in the Liberty? I'd like you to do some research for me. If you don't have any problem with it please email me at joe@ussliberty.com. --Jmeadors
For about 25 years we have had a copy of the IDF Preliminary Report 1/67 prepared in September, 1967 by a gentleman named Yerushalmi. It has come to be known as the Yerushalmi Report.
Since the account related by that report is so at odds with our recollections and in places defy the laws of physics we have been attempting to obtain a copy of the evidence and testimony that support the report. Unsuccessfully, I'm afraid.
If anyone has been able to obtain a copy of that evidence and testimony we'd appreciate it if you could provide us with a copy.
By the same token, if someone could pursue a course that would result in its being released and then provided to us we would be most appreciative. --Jmeadors
After having come back to this page after a couple days, I see that it is much improved! Kudos to everyone involved. -- ansible
With apologies in advance, it might be doing a disservice to readers of your synopsis not to let them know your account is being written from your recollections of the Army Encyclopedia and from a brief mention in an Army Lexicon.
I won't touch your wording and will adjust mine as appropriate.
You might want to see if you can get a copy of the "Preliminary Inquiry 1/67" (the Yerushalmi Report) prepared in September, 1967 and a copy of the IDF History Department Report of the attack published in 1982 as a direct result of the publication of Jim Ennes' book Assault on the Liberty. Both of those are "straight from the horse's mouth" so you won't have to depend upon the interpretation of intermediaries.
Different subject: In the history page that tells the modifications that have been made to the page it includes your screen name and a brief notation of the change you have made. I spent some time trying to find out how to do that but couldn't find the page telling me how. Could you direct me to it or tell me how? --Jmeadors
"Don't have the time nor the knowledge" on how to conduct some basic research? I don't mean to be harsh, but perhaps you should have waited until you do have time to research the attack prior to writing an article about it. That would prevent your having to write one from your recollections of something you read some time ago.
A simple call to the IDF would be a logical first step.
I did a search of my computer files and came across an ASCII text of the Yerushalmi Report that was prepared many years ago.
I've taken the liberty of putting it up as an autoresponder. You or anyone else is free to obtain a copy of it by emailing yerushalmi@ussliberty.com --Jmeadors
The Yerushalmi Report (along with a lot of other information regarding the attack on our ship and subsequent cover-up) is available through our website at http://www.ussliberty.com -- Jmeadors
The url for the Yerushalmi Report is http://www.ussliberty.org/excuse.txt
In that file there is a reference to a US State Department Legal Advisor's report. The url of that report is http://www.ussliberty.org/salans.txt
As to what to do with your article, I would recommend putting any further changes to the report on hiatus pending further research. You might even make a note on the article to that effect.
Once you have accumulated and closely scrutinized/analyzed a sufficient number of source documents, writing the article would be quite easy since your review of the documents would render you conversant in the various accounts that are floating around.
I have been in occasional email contact with Michael Oren (author of the New Republic article you include in your "See Also" section). I have asked Michael if he could provide the name(s) of people in the IDF you could contact to pursue your research.
Another contact you might make is with the newspaper correspondents or other media who report on IDF activities. They undoubtedly have their contacts/sources as well.
Clearly this will take time -- perhaps months -- to complete.
Please don't get overwhelmed.
After your initial contacts, most of your time will be spent on waiting for things to unfold. Then on following-up on questions you have as a result of your analysis of what has been provided.
I want to make it clear from the outset that should you decide to undertake the research I am describing that it helps us (Liberty survivors) in our efforts to ensure the actions before, during and after the attack are investigated, researched and reported as completely and as objectively as possible. -- Jmeadors
Just received email from Michael Oren with info on whom to contact at the IDF to pursue research on the USS Liberty.
He tells me, "contact Capt. Michal Yizraeli at 03-6942022. She's the officer in charge of such things at the Air Force History Branch. At the IDF History Department, there's Col. Shaul Shai at 03-569-3227." -- Jmeadors
Tell me, why should anyone care what the Arabs think about the attack? It is not known of any Arab observers on the scene; in any other respect, the attack is solely a bilateral affair of Israel and the United States. Moreover, during the years the Arab media has supported a number of rather incredible theories (e.g. Protocols of the Elders of Zion), with the sole purpose of upsetting Israel. In fact, their vehement support of the "deliberate attack" theory only decreases its authenticity. --Uriyan
Notice it claims there were only two torpedoes fired from the Israeli torpedo boats.
The Israelis tell us they fired five. I believe it was in their 1982 History Department report that was prepared as a direct result of the publication of Jim Ennes' book Assault on the Liberty.
To address one point Uriyan raised in his post immediately preceeding this, every known USS Liberty survivor supports the position of the USS Liberty Veterans Association regarding the deliberateness of the attack (indeed, as voting members of the LVA they are the source of the position).
Perhaps he should modify his version of the account to reflect those facts. -- Jmeadors
Secondly, as far as I understand, the Liberty had only one hole shown here. If you claim five torpedos were fired then you've got to conclude that either the Israeli Navy was horrendously incompetent or that it didn't want them to hit the Liberty - and both points contradict what you're trying to prove.
Thirdly, while I've not seen a list of members or a guestbook at the site, I'll take your word for it and update the page accordingly.
Finally, I didn't quite understand what you meant by "let's not forget their use of helo-borne assault troops". --Uri
I am not the one claiming 5 torpedoes were fired. That claim is made in the IDF 1982 History Department Report. How that fact reflects upon the professionalism of the MTB personnel is for the reader to decide.
Since you are interested in researching the USS Liberty could you contact the IDF and ask that they release to you a complete set of the gunsight photos their aircraft took? In their 1982 version they included a couple of photos clearly selected to support their position. A review of all of the photos may reveal something else.
Warmest regards,
Joe Meadors joe@ussliberty.com -- Jmeadors
I notice you posted the dimensions and other specifics of the Liberty.
Could you post the same information for the el Quseir as well? I'm sure readers would find that information interesting and useful.
Also, for those of us who live in countries that have not yet moved to the metric system could you post the statistics in feet and inches as well?
Warmest regards,
Joe Meadors
joe@ussliberty.com
Jmeadors 14:51 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)
First of all I'd like to remark that I do not currently engage in research regarding the USS Liberty, nor do I plan it for the nearest future. I do not fully dismiss that opportunity in the long run, however.
As to the subject:
--Uri
Warmest regards,
Joe Meadors
joe@ussliberty.com
Jmeadors 23:00 Oct 30, 2002 (UTC)
"Call for ID: Israel claims to have called the ship on radio several times without receiving an answer while the Americans deny ever receiving a call for identification."
Warmest regards,
Joe Meadors
joe@ussliberty.com
Jmeadors 15:06 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)
"ten reports by the United States, have studied the incident"
or to anyone who subscribes to that position.
Were any of the above referenced reports prepared as a result of an investigation of the attack itself?
Were any of the reports based upon original evidence or just a rehash of already existing evidence?
Which USS Liberty survivors testified before the groups or organizations who collected evidence and testimony during the collection and investigation phase of their inquiry?
Lastly, have you actually read the reports themselves or are you relying upon what others have claimed was the subject matter of and included in the reports?
Warmest regards,
Joe Meadors
joe@ussliberty.com
Jmeadors 18:08 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)
You could save space by asking all questions at once. Also, I must wonder why you write "open requests". We're not having a debate here. We're writing an article. If you have opinions you feel you could add, do so, just make sure you prefix it with "USS Liberty's survivors claim that...".
As to your editing
Sincerely yours, Uri
[Clarification: I never sent "AA" to the torpedo boats as they approached the ship. A number of Israeli reports claim that "AA" means "identify yourself." It does not. Quite the contrary, the ship initiating the signal would be required to transmit her visual call sign first once visual communications had been established. Jmeadors 15:01 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)]
[Clarification: In their 1982 Report the IDF History Department claims the attacking aircraft performed a series of low and slow identification runs over the Liberty immediately prior to commencing their attack. They claim that some of those flights were directly over the ship at an altitude of 500 feet. Proffered testimony of USS Liberty crewmen who were topside at the time (including myself) claim that no such identification runs were made at any time by the attacking aircraft. Indeed, should the US government ever deem it appropriate to actually investigate the attack their testimony will be that when the attacking aircraft arrived on the scene they flew very low up the starboard side of the Liberty and turned left to travel across the bow of the ship. When the aircraft arrived almost dead ahead of the ship they turned sharply left and commenced their straffing runs. I was on the Signal Bridge at the time this was happening. Jmeadors 17:23 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)]
[Clarification: According to the Office of the US Navy Judge Advocate General the USNavy's Court of Inquiry did not investigate the attack so inclusion of the report of that inquiry in a list of reports allegedly into the attack is inappropriate. Jmeadors 17:42 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)]
[Clarification: It is not "some" who claim that Lloyd Painter's testimony has been removed from the official record -- it is Lloyd himself. He has told the story many times and has asked the USNavy why his testimony was removed. No reason has been forthcoming. Jmeadors 17:51 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)]
[Clarification: The paragraph above implies the Liberty had been steaming west from Israel for the 24 hours immediately preceding the attack. Not so. We had been steaming in a southwesterly direction since about 9am and had not gotten closer than about 25 miles to the coast of Israel. When attacked we were some 77 miles from Ashdod. Jmeadors 20:46 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)]
Also, I remove this:
While I'm not acknowledging for a minute that you are in a position to make any rules or demands as to what is or is not posted in the article (because you're not) I took the liberty of applying your "no heresay" rule and deleted all references to the unsubstanted and unprovable claim that there were 10 US government investigations of the attack on the USS Liberty.
Warmest regards,
Joe
I'm less than delighted that this discussion has developed into a personal vendetta. If anything, it testifies to your own disadvantage. Is silencing your opponents your way of proving your case? Are you omniscient? Has it ever occured to you that your anger prevents you from seeing some things? Do you understand that this forum is not your personal soapbox?
As to the 10 committees of investigation: you yourself have named them. Denying their existence is ludicrous and childish. Does your universe exist only from the thing that you approve of? Do things that you don't like disappear magically?
Joe,
What you did stands against community standards. It was not what you wrote, but how. I think it cannot persist. Someone has to keep the article balanced.
Sincerely yours,
No one is disputing the existence of the reports to which you refer.
What is in dispute is the subject of the investigations that support those reports.
Some claim they were investigations of the attack on the USS Liberty yet when asked to prove their position they are unable or unwilling to do so.
You are apparently a member of that camp.
You have obviously not taken the time to read the testimony and evidence that supports those reports. I -- and many others -- have. They are not investigations of the attack on the USS Liberty. The United States Navy Judge Advocate General has even gone to the extent of publicly stating that the USNavy Court of Inquiry that they conducted did not include an investigation of the attack in their inquiry.
I posted a note in the article to that effect and you removed it. For whatever reason you don't want readers of the article to know that fact.
It is even our position that the Yerushalmi Report is merely a work of fiction which is not supported by any testimony or evidence. Have you had occasion to read the evidence and testimony that supports the Yerushalmi Report. I think not. Same with the IDF History Department's 1982 Report. Show us the evidence and testimony that report is based upon. I think you will find there is none.
You admit you know very little about the attack on the USS Liberty yet you continue to present the Israeli side as fact while anything I attempt to post is changed to state that I am the only one claiming it or that what I post is merely "allegations" or are things that I claim to be true.
I've been researching the USS Liberty attack for over 20 years. I'm in daily contact with other survivors who have done more research than I.
Yet, rather than take advantage of the massive amounts of first hand accounts and first hand research at your disposal, you take issue with anything I do in an attempt to more clearly and correctly reflect what happened to us on that day.
It is obvious you are biased toward telling the Israeli version of events. I don't have a problem with that as long as you clearly identify it as such. What I do have a problem with is your demanding that we, survivors, tacitly agree with what you claim happened to us on that day when in many instances it bears no resemblance to the truth.
And please don't for a minute think that I am writing out of anger or rage. That went by the board many many years ago. I simply want an article in Wikipedia to reflect what happened to us on June 8, 1967. Not some biased, whitewashed article that it appears you are interested in producing.
And, yes. If you continue to present biased, slanted information I will do everything I can do to ensure the information presented is changed in such a way to more clearly reflect the truth of what happened.
Warmest regards,
Joe
I've copied your mesage so I might answer it point-by-point.
No one is disputing the existence of the reports to which you refer.
What is in dispute is the subject of the investigations that support those reports.
Some claim they were investigations of the attack on the USS Liberty yet when asked to prove their position they are unable or unwilling to do so.
You are apparently a member of that camp.
You have obviously not taken the time to read the testimony and evidence that supports those reports. I -- and many others -- have. They are not investigations of the attack on the USS Liberty. The United States Navy Judge Advocate General has even gone to the extent of publicly stating that the USNavy Court of Inquiry that they conducted did not include an investigation of the attack in their inquiry.
I posted a note in the article to that effect and you removed it. For whatever reason you don't want readers of the article to know that fact.
It is even our position that the Yerushalmi Report is merely a work of fiction which is not supported by any testimony or evidence. Have you had occasion to read the evidence and testimony that supports the Yerushalmi Report. I think not. Same with the IDF History Department's 1982 Report. Show us the evidence and testimony that report is based upon. I think you will find there is none.
You admit you know very little about the attack on the USS Liberty yet you continue to present the Israeli side as fact while anything I attempt to post is changed to state that I am the only one claiming it or that what I post is merely "allegations" or are things that I claim to be true.
I've been researching the USS Liberty attack for over 20 years. I'm in daily contact with other survivors who have done more research than I.
Yet, rather than take advantage of the massive amounts of first hand accounts and first hand research at your disposal, you take issue with anything I do in an attempt to more clearly and correctly reflect what happened to us on that day.
It is obvious you are biased toward telling the Israeli version of events. I don't have a problem with that as long as you clearly identify it as such. What I do have a problem with is your demanding that we, survivors, tacitly agree with what you claim happened to us on that day when in many instances it bears no resemblance to the truth.
And please don't for a minute think that I am writing out of anger or rage. That went by the board many many years ago. I simply want an article in Wikipedia to reflect what happened to us on June 8, 1967. Not some biased, whitewashed article that it appears you are interested in producing.
And, yes. If you continue to present biased, slanted information I will do everything I can do to ensure the information presented is changed in such a way to more clearly reflect the truth of what happened.
When I arrived on the scene I noted that in the USS Liberty article reference was made to the reports but there wasn't a list provided. Since I had a list of the Reports being discussed I provided them. To NOT provide the list when I had access to it would have been improper since this is an article in an Encyclopedia.
It is not necessary for me to agree with the information I provide else I would not have provided the hyperlinks to Capt. A. Jay Cristol's book which gives people the opportunity of purchasing a copy of his work for themselves. NOT to provide that link when I had it readily available would be doing a disservice to the readers of the article.
Nobody is disputing the fact that they amount to investigations. What they are NOT is investigations of the attack on the USS Liberty. Merely mentioning the attack on the USS Liberty in passing does not make them investigations of the attack itself.
Perhaps you are unaware of a letter from the Office of the USNavy Judge Advocate General which states quite clearly that that is not the case.
That letter (dated September 1, 1989 to Senator Alan Cranston stated, "The Navy Court of Inquiry's investigation focused on the U.S. military communication problems prior to the attack and the heroic efforts of LIBERTY's crew in controlling damage during the aftermath."
They did NOT investigate the attack.
As have I.
What I have NOT been able to read is the evidence and testimony used in the preparation of that report.
Have you?
I have also read the IDF History Department's 1982 Report which was prepared as a direct result of the publication of "Assault on the Liberty" which takes the very same evidence and testimony that is allegedly the basis for the Yerushalmi Report and comes up with a different result.
I haven't? I posted the name and phone number of an IDF spokesperson with a request that you call the lady and ask for information from the IDF. If you will look above this message in the TALK section of the USS Liberty article you will find the message to which I refer.
I haven't provided that information because I don't know it. Perhaps a call by you to the IDF spokesperson would result in their providing that information to you.
While you have them on the phone could you ask that they provide to you a copy of the evidence and testimony that support the Yerushalmi Report and the 1982 IDF History Department Report?
Would you also ask that they provide you with a complete set of gunsight photos? In the 1982 version they included a couple of photos that were apparently carefully selected to support their position.
And, would you ask that they provide you with a complete set of audio tapes of the pilots conversations?
We've been trying to get copies of all of this information literally for decades but for reasons as yet unexplained the Israeli Defense Forces are unwilling to release it to us.
Since I provided the name and phone number of the IDF spokesperson to which to make the request some time ago I was hoping that someone (you?) would have had the time to give her a call. Apparently not.
Actually the jamming was on both USNavy tactical and international maritime distress frequencies. (I'll let readers opine for themselves why you left out the part about USNavy Tactical Frequencies).
That jamming was witnessed by USS Liberty radiomen including Rocky Sturman.
If you were familiar with the Liberty story you would know that we got through to the Sixth Fleet by using an antenna that had been taken out of service prior to the attack and on a frequency that was little used.
I understand the radio broadcasts you refer to might have been the conversations between the pilots and their base which we understand were heard by US listening posts in Germany and Morrocco. Not sure about any stations in Italy but I'll check.
Heavens No!
But one would think that had the attack been investated so many times that all of the questions would have been answered.
But it wasn't.
And they haven't
That's why we're actively advocating for a complete and comprehensive public Congressional investigation of the attack.
Well, they sure weren't sent as a love token.
Thanks for taking the time to write.
Hopefully someone's curiousity will be tweaked enough to make that call to the IDF spokesperson.
Warmest regards,
Joe
When I arrived on the scene I noted that in the USS Liberty article reference was made to the reports but there wasn't a list provided. Since I had a list of the Reports being discussed I provided them. To NOT provide the list when I had access to it would have been improper since this is an article in an Encyclopedia.
It is not necessary for me to agree with the information I provide else I would not have provided the hyperlinks to Capt. A. Jay Cristol's book which gives people the opportunity of purchasing a copy of his work for themselves. NOT to provide that link when I had it readily available would be doing a disservice to the readers of the article.
Nobody is disputing the fact that they amount to investigations. What they are NOT is investigations of the attack on the USS Liberty. Merely mentioning the attack on the USS Liberty in passing does not make them investigations of the attack itself.
They did NOT investigate the attack.
We've been trying to get copies of all of this information literally for decades but for reasons as yet unexplained the Israeli Defense Forces are unwilling to release it to us.
Actually the jamming was on both USNavy tactical and international maritime distress frequencies. (I'll let readers opine for themselves why you left out the part about USNavy Tactical Frequencies).
That jamming was witnessed by USS Liberty radiomen including Rocky Sturman.
If you were familiar with the Liberty story you would know that we got through to the Sixth Fleet by using an antenna that had been taken out of service prior to the attack and on a frequency that was little used.
I understand the radio broadcasts you refer to might have been the conversations between the pilots and their base which we understand were heard by US listening posts in Germany and Morrocco. Not sure about any stations in Italy but I'll check.
Heavens No!
But one would think that had the attack been investated so many times that all of the questions would have been answered.
Well, they sure weren't sent as a love token.
Joe,
I am not presently going to call the IDF History department. I have neither the time nor the skills to do so currently. As I wrote above, I do not reject this opportunity entirely for the future. If I come accross any relevant information (and considering the fact that Middle Eastern history is a hobby of mine, this is quite possible), I will post it to the article.
Could you please answer my points of criticism in my previous letter? They're important for continuing work on the article. In particular, I can find no imaginable way to treat a book's cover as worthwhile historical evidence.
Finally, I wanted to ask you: are you not upset by the fact that the memory of USS Liberty is so often abused in anti-Semitic circles? --Uri
Let me know if I understand the situation and your position correctly.
You either originated the USS Liberty article on Wikipedia or were modifying it within about 90 minutes of its appearance in the Wikipedia Encyclopedia knowing full well that the preparation of such an article that would be in concert with Wikipedia guidelines would require a considerable amount of time and effort to properly research and document the article.
You live virtually -- perhaps literally -- in the shadow of what could very well be the largest and best repository of USS Liberty information in the world.
The information at that source could very well prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Israeli version is correct.
That source could be willing to release to you copies of all of the audiotapes of the pilots conversations proving that they WERE confused as to the correct identification of the ship they were attacking and that the attacking aircraft conducted a series of low and slow circuits of the ship with the specific purpose of identification immediately prior to their commencing the attack.
That source could be willing to release to you copies of all of the gunsight photos confirming their claim that no flag was flying.
That source could be willing to release to you audiotapes of the conversations of the MTB personnel proving that they did not deliberately machine gun our life rafts in the water and that they offered assistance immediately upon termination of hostilities rather than leaving the scene and returning some 90 minutes later with an offer of assistance.
That source could be willing to release to you the evidence and testimony that supports the claims made in the Preliminary Inquiry 1/67 (Yerushalmi Report) as well as the IDF History Department's 1982 Report.
But you aren't going to call them because in the past year since you've been working on the article you haven't found the time to do so or you haven't had a chance to find out how to do it?
It's actually very simple.
All you have to do is call the spokesperson whose name and number I provided and tell them what information you are seeking. I'm sure they'll be more than happy to let you know what form that request must be in.
What's that take? Five minutes if you speak slowly.
What's the upside?
You get to be the one who proves to the world once and for all that we're just a bunch of liars.
What's the downside?
You get to be the one who proves to the world that the IDF is.
Willing to take that chance?
We are.
Have been from the beginning.
Are you?
Warmest regards,
Joe Meadors
Vice President
USS Liberty Veterans Association
joe@ussliberty.com
Jmeadors 17:25 Nov 5, 2002 (UTC)
I think you have a severe misunderstanding of my part in the process of editing the article. Much of my work on it was aimed at providing counter-points to your statements, so to prevent the article from becoming the horrendously biased thing that you have wanted to install from day one.
I consider the question of whether I'll carry out independent research regarding the USS Liberty to be separate from the editing Wikipedia article. Furthermore, it not correlated in any way with my numerous complaints regarding what you were doing to the article. By the way, would you mind address them?
There's a text regarding the Liberty in the IDF Encyclopedia: Navy (it is perhaps based on the 1982 History Department work, although I'm not sure). It also provides a list of features by which the Liberty could have been confused with the El-Quseir, as well a narrative by Micha Limor (with which, I suspect you might be acquainted). I intend to include these details in the article.
Sincerely yours,
First of all, the majority of historians world-wide agree that the USS Liberty attack was an accident. Secondly, it has been resolved in 1997 (opening of archive documents) that Israel notified the United States about its plans prior to the attack, not even mentioning the impossibility of covering up such an event from the enormous effort the American intelligence must have invested into studying the war. I reverted the old version. --Uri
Quite a sweeping statement.
Can you substantiate that?
FYI, I have emailed Michael Oren to find out if he has someone in his circle of friends who would be willing to contact the IDF on our behalf.
Warmest regards,
Joe Meadors
Jmeadors 18:11 Nov 16, 2002 (UTC)
You could find an explanation to this statement above on this discussion page.
You still haven't addressed my remarks, and the article makes statements (or omissions) which, in my opinion, sound very strange to the impartial reader. Do you consider book covers a legitimate historical source? Also, I find the article lacking in the sense that it doesn't even discuss the 10 American reports, several of which have "the attack was accidential" written in their "conclusions" section. I'd like to discuss this issue before I make any changes to the article.
Sincerely yours,
Depending upon its content perhaps a reflection of a legitimate historical source but not the source itself.
Do you have a copy of or have you read the reports?
I'd like to discuss the contents of the Yerushalmi Report (Preliminary Inquiry 1/67) but feel I cannot since to date I have been unable to obtain the documents and testimony upon which that report is based. All I can do is discuss the Report based upon facts I know to be true.
I'd like to make yet another open plea to anyone reading this message to contact the IDF with a request that they release the information that supports the Yerushalmi Report.
Warmest regards,
Joe
Jmeadors 14:28 Nov 22, 2002 (UTC)
To read the archives, subscribe or modify your subscription you can visit http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/uss_liberty.html
You can also subscribe via email by sending an email message to listserv@maelstrom.stjohns.edu with SUBSCRIBE USS_LIBERTY <Your Name> as the text of the message.
If you have any problems, please don't hesitate to email me at joe@ussliberty.com
Warmest regards,
Joe Meadors
Jmeadors 15:37 Dec 27, 2002 (UTC)
I understand that currently there will be no change on the article due to it being disputed. I however, would like to voice my opinion on the chapter "contoversy". I find there is a strong bias in this chapter.
QUOTE:
Several books and a BBC documentary try to prove that USS Liberty was attacked on purpose. They are allegedly backed in this position by at representatives of the US intelligence community. Critics claim that many of them include incorrect assumptions and a fuzzy system of conslusion making. As examples, they bring the claim that the ship was attacked to prevent the U.S. from knowing about the forthcoming attack in the Golan Heights (information already dispatched to the Americans), and applying a quote describing the execution of 5 Palestinian guerillas wearing Egyptian uniforms (an act allowed under rules of war) to "prove" the mass murder of 150 Egyptians.
COMMENT:
The picture until some years back of official reports and publications in general was, as i perceive it, that the Liberty was attacked by accident. Now, some years ago there emerged several books / documentations which concluded otherwise. Alright. What i have to criticise here is, that in the paragraph above this fact ist mentioned in 2.5 lines, the relativisation however takes 6 lines. Another problem i do have: while the books and documentation which present their view, are BOOKS and implying this, someone has worked on them a year or two, and compiled considerable material and spent working time on them, the belittlement of the books is based on claims, which means basically someone has at most written a short article on it. Given the already mentioned line ratio between the two positions, the different weight of the statements simply due to their elaboration makes the already more than unequal ratio even worse.
QUOTE:
Israeli officials and Jewish organizations world-wide have complained that these materials are often used as a pretext for anti-Semitic declarations and acts. They claim that these reviews often do not give Israel the benefit of the doubt, turning this extremely ambiguous history into a circus for Israel-bashing. Meadors and Ennes have denied an anti-Semitic pretext in their work, and express sharp disapproval at the use of the USS Liberty incident in anti-Semitic contexts.
COMMENT:
First of all, lets notice again the ration between the positions which is 4:2.
Now, concerning the accusation of anti-semitism: after 6 million jews died due to a policy of antisemitism fulfilled to its ultimate extent, i would recommend to everyone to use the accusation of anti-semitism only with utmost care. This is not to be taken lightly at all. The mentioning of anti-semitism is very much likely to put the accused in a defensive position, as we all know what anti-semitism resulted in, some 60 years ago. For this is such an heavy accusation, i have to condemn even the mentioning of this accusation here in this article. This holds true even more, as Ennes and Meadors are not even accused of anti-semitism directly - the allegation made towards them is that OTHERS are using the material in an antisemitic way. If so, it is certainly not to account to them, what others are doing with material (and experiences !) they collected.
To put it in the NRA-way: It's not guns who are killing, people do kill.
Finally i would like to bring to you attention, that in the positions depicted here, "Israeli officials" and "Jewish organizations world-wide" are standing against [only] "Meadors and Ennes" - not really a depiction of the reality, as i do believe, that it is certainly not only "Meadors and Ennnes" who take this view.
CHris
Strong objection to the article's statement that Various theories are presented at times as to why they claim that Israel carried out this action; one theory was that Israel was trying to get the U.S. involved in the conflict on Israel's side, by convincing the U.S. that Egypt was the aggressor. It is accepted by the majority of historians world-wide that these claims are unsubstantiated.. The second statement is an opinion masqerading as a fact: no survey of 'historians worldwide' is offered to substantiate the claim that most of them believe that the attack was not deliberate.
(Also, it might be useful to examine the Lavon Affair as a precedent for exactly this sort of attack on US interests by Israel, in order to taint the Egyptians.)
The article should present claims pro and con, with little or no editorialising. The pro and con claims should come from different people to prevent bias.
Jon
As noted above, I'm eyeing this article with some reorganization in mind. I'm refreshing my recollection of sources on the incident. It comes to mind that the allegations that Israel intentionally attacked the ship to block the ships involvement in the war was advanced by at least one author who was documenting US actions that were adverse to Israeli interests.
By the reasoning offered in Secret War Against the Jews, the author suggests NSA employees in the Liberty's radio room were providing specific real time order of battle data to Britian, who was in turn supplying it to Egypt. The book asserts it was not to block American knowledge of taking of the Golan Heights, nor to cover up atrocities, but to stop intelligence leaks that could have cost Israel the war.
The author says Israeli and Egyptian tanks were matched across a line in the Sanai that Israel could hold but could not reinforce. If Egypt could locate and exploit a weakness in that line, they could gain tactical advantage and perhaps advance into Israel.
The author says that the Nixon administration was divided in its support for Israel during the war, and that after Israel stopped radio transmissions from the Liberty, pro-Israel factions led by Henry Kissenger secured some 4,000 TOW missles for Israel that let generals use infantry to reinforce their tank line. Israel's army prevailed. The author asserts machine guns were used to drive sailors below deck before napalm was used to destroy antenna arrays. He suggested the torpedo struck in the vicinity of a radio room.
The Pueblo and Liberty were apparently GES ships shared by the Navy and the NSA. NSA radio operators had boarded the ship a few days or hours before the attack - whether their presence was part of the routine change of command or was a unique response to the war is one of the more salient questions arising from the matter.
The other poorly represented arguments might be those explaining the reaction within Israel. My recollection is the internal investigation came down to who was in the war room mainting boards detailing who was where in proximity to the battle field. There ended up being some debate over a shift change and some exchange of information between shifts, per my recollection.
These notes are posted here in the event anyone else can add more detail.
JRT7 22:28, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 How to Get on Radio Talk Shows All Across America w/o Leaving Home |
 This Broad's Life: The Raucous, Riveting Autobiography of the Most Outrageous Radio Talk-Show Host in America Today |
 You Can't Say That : Common Sense From America's Number One Gay Radio Talk Show Host |
 How to Get On Radio Talk Shows All Across America | ||||
 Talk Show Selects 1999: A Guide to the Nation's Most Influential Television and Radio Talk Shows |
 Talk Show Selects 1998: A Guide to the Nation's Most Influential Television and Radio Talk Shows (1998 Edition) |
 Talk Show Yearbook 2000: A Guide to the Nation's Most Influential Television and Radio Talk Shows (Talk Show Selects, 2000) |
 Conduct a National Radio Talk Show Tour Without Leaving Your Home or Office...Without Paying a Cent for Air Time (How to Make People Buy Whatever You) | ||||
