James M. Ennes, Jr. October 12, 1988 Miss Pamela Atterberry VOICES PO Box 737 Cedarburg, Wisconsin 53012 Dear Miss Atterberry: I must respond to the points raised in your letter of September 19. None of us intends to conduct a war of words or to offend you with what you consider "name calling." That is not our intention at all and I don't think any of us has done that. But your letter does show such a great misinterpretation of what we have said and of what we stand for that I feel I must make another effort. Although you say you have never called anyone an anti-Semite, you have clearly assumed the role of primary spokesman for the anti- library forces, and it is clear to any casual observer that the sharpest arrow in the quiver of the anti-library faction is the cry of anti-Semitism. The charge I see everywhere is that the name USS Liberty is used by anti-Semites and that everything connected with our ship has become tainted and somehow unworthy of serious attention because the name has been "used" by various unworthy people or organizations for their own evil purposes. Usually you point to Liberty Lobby as the primary villain while asserting that Liberty survivors are allied with them or that our failure to somehow turn them off serves as proof that we must share their views. In other words, by innuendo and implication we are charged either with being anti-Semites, or with being the unwitting stooges of anti-Semites. This theme shows up constantly in all the rhetoric by the anti-Library faction including your own many public statements. If you doubt that, please reread some of the press coverage, particularly the articles by Michael Krenn. Respected Jewish scholars recognize and abhor that tactic. For instance, Professor Cheryl Rubenberg writes in the March-April, 1987, Palestine Focus, "...Zionists have no more intimidating weapon with which to discredit their opponents or silence their detractors than the allegation of anti-Semitism." Professor Rosemary Ruether, a theologian not far from Milwaukee, writes in the fall, 1987, Arab American Affairs Journal, "...Zionism has sought, from the late forties, to establish a link between guilt for the Holocaust and support for Israel. ...(This is done) by making symbolic transfers between Nazis and Arabs... Any criticism of Israel is treated as a threat to national security and is referred to as making possible 'another holocaust.'" Thus, because Israel resents being reminded of the attack on our ship, any mention of the ship quickly brings charges of anti- Semitism, Naziism and reminders of the holocaust--all because these things work. It would appear that you are being manipulated. For a better understanding of how that is being done, you really should read the full text of those articles. And while you claim to be unaffiliated and uninfluenced by groups outside of Grafton, that claim is difficult to accept. Spokesmen for Israel routinely recruit others to do their work, and usually there are some clues that this is so. In this case, for instance, we notice that James Fromstein of the Milwaukee Jewish Council commonly misspells words. We notice that Miss Pamela Atterberry misspells some of the same words the same way. One must wonder whether your recent letter was actually drafted by you or by Fromstein. Even the letters you sent to "prove" the supposedly broad opposition to the library came from Milwaukee, not from Grafton. For another example, when we ask library opponents where their information came from, too often they confess that "a rabbi from Milwaukee asked us to sign a statement to stop anti-Semitism." They knew only what they were told on the phone! And while you tell us that your only opposition to the name is that it is "controversial," we find that difficult to believe for at least two important reasons. First, if the name is controversial, it is because the Milwaukee Jewish Council and Pamela Atterberry have made it controversial. There was no controversy until Fromstein and Atterberry created it! Second, if the reasons you cite are valid, then they apply ever more certainly to the Golda Meir library. Here was a publicly funded library, named after a foreign leader whose very name is offensive to many Americans. Did VOICES or MJC object? Do you object now? No. But you do object to a mostly privately funded library named to honor American servicemen who died honorably for their country. Methinks you are too selective in your outrage. You see, Miss Atterberry, ever since the day we were attacked there has been a powerful campaign to give the attack as low a profile as possible. The motive is not to "prevent anti- Semitism," for there is no anti-Semitism in sight. The motive is to protect our attackers from criticism. Anti-Semitism is merely a straw man that is used by spokesmen for Israel to discredit any honest effort to honor our dead shipmates. Regarding your use of the phrase "pro-Arab," you did use that phrase in an offensive manner. I watched the video tape. You did not use the phrase, as you claim, simply to identify a group. You used it to convey a message that the USS Liberty Veterans Association is fatally tainted because its attorney is (ugh) "pro-Arab." (The "ugh" was implied by the inflection in your voice and the revulsion seen on your face.) You cannot now pretend that the message was unintended and you will find it difficult to convince any fair-minded person that this use was not an ethnic slur. As evidence of my own bigotry you present an ad for my book from the September, 1980, Christian Vanguard. (Someone really had to go back a long way to find that one.) Because you can find no evidence that I attempted "to disassociate (myself) from such bigotry," you present this ad as evidence that I am a bigot. This is the same kind of specious reasoning that you use to discredit my shipmates for their presumed association with Liberty Lobby. First, Miss Atterberry, I must tell you that I have never seen the ad before. If you will be fair, I'm sure you understand that authors have no control over how or where their books are advertised. While the ad is more strident than I would like, there is nothing in it that is not true. We were napalmed. Our liferafts were machine-gunned in the water in an apparent attempt to prevent our escape from a ship that appeared to be sinking. We were attacked by Israel. We were not allowed to tell the truth, either to our families or to the investigating bodies. And there was an effort by the United States to keep the story quiet. (Any man on that ship will tell you that these things are true.) Personally, I find the ad distasteful just as I find the white-supremist message on the accompanying page distasteful. Yet I see nothing in the ad that can possibly justify your charge that the ad contains "ethnic slurs" or "bigotry." The fact that you see or claim to see "ethnic slurs" and "bigotry" in a strident and overbearing but ethnically neutral ad simply because it is not flattering to Israel provides yet another example of the misuse and overuse of the charge of anti-Semitism described by the theologians cited above. I do hope you will read those articles. You suggest, here and elsewhere, that I or my shipmates should take various legal actions and that our failure to do so "proves" in your mind that we support or endorse whoever and whatever group mentions our ship or my book. Realistically, Miss Atterberry, you must realize that any such action would render us all bankrupt. Liberty Lobby, for instance, has full time attorneys on its staff and is said to have a $5-million annual budget. The Liberty Veterans Association has no paid help and barely has the resources to print and mail a quarterly newsletter which we prepare with volunteers. We have, in fact, discussed several possible legal actions with our attorney, but for sound legal reasons have been advised to take no action. Instead, we have repeatedly asked Liberty Lobby and other such groups to stop using the USS Liberty issue. As you have seen, however, they refuse to drop it and they cannot be forced to do so. The name is not a trademark like Rice Crispies! Legally, there is no way to prevent anyone from using the name of a United States Ship in any way they wish. If you or VOICES would like to pay the legal bills and guarantee to cover any damages from resulting counter-suits, I think our board of directors would seriously consider such an offer. If you are not willing to do that, in all fairness you should stop suggesting, as you continue to do, that our failure to file suit against Liberty Lobby and others is proof that we are allied with them. We are not and never have been, as I think you are aware. I do hope you will accept this letter in the spirit that is intended. I have no intention of escalating our disagreement. However, since you clearly misunderstand our background and our position, I feel I must make this final attempt to clarify our position. Our position, Miss Atterberry, is that for 21 years we have sought proper recognition for our dead shipmates. From the beginning we have been thwarted at every turn by spokesmen for Israel who claimed, as early as June 8, 1967, that any investigation or any close examination of the circumstances would "cater to anti-Semites" and would "fan the flame of anti- Semitism." Since then, every mention of the ship is squelched by the same charges. As Americans, we wish only to honor our comrades. We think that is an honorable endeavor that should spark pride in the hearts of Americans. Sincerely, /s/ James M. Ennes, Jr.