"The USS Liberty: Dissenting History VS Official History"
   By John Borne, Ph.D., doctoral dissertation published June 1995

                  To order call 718 857-1743

                  Excerpts from Introduction


    On June 8, 1967, the American naval intelligence ship USS LIBERTY
  was attacked by Israeli air and naval forces off the coast of Gaza.
  Thirty-four crewmen were killed and 171 wounded. Beyond these two
  brief statements almost everything concerning this event is a matter
  of controversy.

    The controversy arises because the crewmen of the ship believe that
  the attack was deliberate, and that the United States Government and
  the Israeli Government cooperated to hide this fact, with false and
  rigged investigations and with untrue official accounts.

    The crewmen were ordered to keep silent on the matter, and as
  military men they had to obey. Fourteen years later, retired and no
  longer silenced, many of them formed the LIBERTY VETERANS ASSOCIATION
  to wage a campaign to tell their version of events, a dissenting
  history opposed to the official history. The most important of the
  crewmen in this campaign was Commander James Ennes, Jr., an officer of
  the ship. His book Assault on the Liberty presents the story of the
  attack as seen by the crewmen, and of the "coverup" which they
  believed had been organized to hide the truth about the attack.

    The men have waged a remarkable campaign for attention and have
  gained the backing of important public figures and journalists. Their
  views are largely ignored by officials of the United States
  Government. The Israeli Government and its supporters, who at first
  also ignored them, have been forced to reply and have denounced the
  disssenting history presented by the LIBERTY men as false and
  untruthful.

    This study will examine the controversy and insofar as possible
  judge the truth of the matter. There are six basic questions which
  will be considered:

    (1) What actually occurred during the attack?

    (2) Does the evidence we possess enable us to decide whether the
      attack was accidental or deliberate?

    (3) Why were the Sixth Fleet rescue flights recalled?

    (4) When a government (or in this case, two governments, American
      and Israeli) attempt to present as truth the official history of
      an event, and to deny a dissenting history, what actions do they
      take? What are the mechanisms and methods used to maintain the
      official view and to prevent the issue from becoming controversial
      and a part of public debate?

    (5) When a small group of citizens such as the LIBERTY men tries to
      reopen a "closed" question, and to force an issue into the realm
      of public debate, what methods and tactics do they use?

    (6) What was the role of the press in either promoting or
      denigrating an official or a dissenting history, and in setting
      the terms of the debate?
  
  
  SOME PROBLEMS IN DISSENTING HISTORY VERSUS OFFICIAL HISTORY. 

    An official history almost always represents, until challenged, a
  kind of consensus, based in part on its near-monopoly of the public
  agenda. The official history of events, if not entirely believed by
  all the public, is at least accepted as the probable truth in the
  absence of any serious reason to challenge the official view. The
  dominance of official history will usually last for a long time, for
  those who dissent have to organize, find resources, investigate
  issues, and try to present their own version of the past. When the
  dissenters do challenge the official consensus, this effort will take
  time, sometimes even several generations.

    In this case, the dissent was crushed in earlier years because the
  dissenters were military men who could be forced into silence. In the
  last dozen years the LIBERTY men have been able to make their case
  publicly. Nevertheless we are considering events which have occurred
  over a generation. Because this argument extends over such a long
  period of time, we can best clarify the matter by giving a brief
  history of the controversy.

    The account is made more complicated by the fact that there were
  three parties to the dispute: the United States government, the
  Israeli government, and the LIBERTY men. In reality, as we shall see,
  the dispute between the two governments was minimal and, despite a few
  indignant protests over the attack, the U.S. government largely agreed
  with the Israeli Government concerning the event. (There is one
  important and interesting exception to this general statement, as will
  be discussed.)

    The issue, then, was largely between the LIBERTY men and the two
  governments. The controversy can best be described as occurring during
  three periods.

    The first period was June and July 1967. During this time the
  crewmen were forcibly silenced and were unable to present their own
  version of the event. There were only two occasions when the crewmen
  managed to claim publicly that the attack was deliberate. Both
  protests by the crewmen were brief and barely noticed by the world at
  large. A few journalists did claim or suggest that the attack was
  intentional, but they were not in contact with the crewmen and in any
  event did not follow up on the story. In this first period the U.S.
  and Israeli governments were successful in establishing their official
  history, without any serious challenge. There were minor differences
  between the official histories as presented by the two governments,
  but they were of little importance.

    In the second period, 1968-1980, the official consensus was
  generally accepted and the matter was largely forgotten. The very few
  protests against this consensus were scarcely noticed.

    In the third period, 1980 to the present, the LIBERTY crewmen
  managed to present a dissenting history and for the first time force
  at least some degree of debate on the subject. This was largely due to
  Ennes and his book Assault on the Liberty, and to the energetic
  campaign which the crewmen waged to make the world hear their story.
  In these thirteen years the LIBERTY men have gained the support of
  important journalists and public figures and have managed to make
  their version of history known to at least a part of the American
  public.

    There are two secondary questions which should be noted for the sake
  of clarity, since there are frequent references to these topics in the
  discussion of the LIBERTY. Neither of the questions can be answered
  with certainty, and neither are crucial to the basic questions with
  which we are concerned.

    First, there is the unsettled question as to whether or not the
  Israeli government asked the American Embassy in Tel Aviv, before the
  attack on the LIBERTY, if there were any American ships in the area.
  This question is much more complicated than might be supposed, and
  there is much evidence on both sides of the issue. Interestingly, this
  is a dispute entirely between the U.S. government and the Israeli
  government. The LIBERTY men have no way of knowing the facts in this
  matter, and they merely note the argument between their two opponents.

    Secondly, there is the matter of the submarine which had made a
  rendezvous with the LIBERTY on June 7, 1967, and which was submerged
  nearby when the attack began. There are frequent references in
  accounts and documents to this (or possibly another) submarine and
  much speculation on its mission, but not enough evidence to give any
  definite answers on the subject.

    In describing the charges and countercharges we should use the term
  "controversy" rather than "debate". Debate implies too neat and civil
  an argument, with statements and rebuttals. We are dealing here with a
  dispute in which the upholders of official history refuse to dignify
  as equal opponents those who present a dissenting history. The charges
  of the LIBERTY men are if possible ignored, or not seriously
  considered. The LIBERTY men, however, with everything to gain from
  open debate and with the confidence that truth is on their side, have
  made a point of dealing with every argument made by their opponents.

    In the first two time periods of this long controversy, 1967 to
  1980, the documents and arguments were provided by the U.S. and
  Israeli governments, while the crewmen had little opportunity to make
  their case. In the period since 1980 the crewmen, assuming the great
  burden of promoting their dissenting history against the prevailing
  consensus, have written and spoken at length while their opponents
  have presented their case more briefly. In each instance I have
  attempted to give a balanced view of the dispute.

    There is one final point to be considered in taking an overview of
  this controversy: the logic and consistency of the positions held by
  the contending opponents. The crewmen have been remarkably consistent
  and assured in presenting their views. The views they hold in 1992 are
  those they held in 1967, allowing only for the additional information
  concerning details of events which they have managed to uncover in
  that quarter century. Their arguments are coherent and detailed. The
  one exception relates to the events in Grafton, Wisconsin, which will
  be described in a chapter of this dissertation. Here, I feel, they
  engage in some rather uneasy rationalizations to justify the fact that
  a memorial library in their honor was financed by two wealthy men of
  right wing views.

    The U.S. government, as represented by the bureaucracy, has also
  been consistent in the sense that it has stood by the Naval Court
  Summary of 1967 as the final word on the matter, and has refused to
  debate the matter further.

    The Israelis and their American supporters have been far less
  consistent. Their accounts of the attack vary greatly, and the LIBERTY
  men have exploited these differing accounts to the greatest degree
  possible. Just why the Israeli explanations vary so greatly is itself
  an interesting question which I will consider in the concluding
  chapter.