COMMENTS FROM STREET TALK NETWORK ABOUT THIS POST-

1. Do your own research on the information provided and then come up with your own conclusions.

2. This article contains many names and other information that can be researched.

3. Trust your gut feeling on information provided as this post may contain slanted information.

USS Liberty (AGTR-5) was a U.S. Navy signals-intelligence ship operating in international waters north of Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula during the Six-Day War. On June 8, 1967, Israeli fighter aircraft repeatedly strafed and bombed the ship, after which three Israeli motor torpedo boats attacked it with gunfire and launched five torpedoes. One torpedo struck the intelligence spaces.

The attack killed 34 Americans and wounded 171. Of approximately 294 people aboard, about 260 survived, many through extraordinary damage-control work.

Israel apologized and maintained that its forces mistook Liberty for an Egyptian vessel. U.S. investigations officially accepted that the attack was a mistaken-identification incident, although American officials described Israel’s conduct as extraordinarily reckless or grossly negligent. Many survivors—and some former senior American officials—have insisted that the ship’s American identity was unmistakable and that the attack was deliberate.

No publicly released document proves a specific deliberate-attack motive. The principal theories are that Israel wanted to prevent the United States from monitoring Israeli military communications, conceal preparations to attack Syria and seize the Golan Heights, or conceal events around El Arish. These remain disputed interpretations, not established conclusions.

1. What kind of ship was USS Liberty?

Despite occasionally being called a “Liberty ship,” USS Liberty was not one of the mass-produced cargo vessels known as Liberty ships.

It began as the Victory-class cargo ship Simmons Victory, built during World War II. The Navy acquired and converted it into a technical-research ship and commissioned it as USS Liberty on December 30, 1964.

“Technical research” was a cover description. Its real work was signals intelligence—intercepting, locating and analyzing military radio and electronic communications. It carried ordinary Navy personnel, Naval Security Group cryptologists, Marines and civilian technical specialists.

Basic characteristics included:

• Designation:
  AGTR-5
• Former
  name: Simmons Victory
• Length:
  approximately 455 feet
• Speed:
  approximately 17 knots under favorable conditions
• Armament:
  four .50-caliber machine guns intended principally for defense
• Mission
  in June 1967: collect communications and other electronic intelligence
  concerning the Arab-Israeli war
• Commanding
  officer: Commander William L. McGonagle

The Navy ordered Liberty toward the eastern Mediterranean after tensions rose between Israel and neighboring Arab states. Orders directing it to remain at least 100 nautical miles from the belligerents’ coasts were transmitted too late and did not reach the ship before the attack. It was therefore still approximately 25 nautical miles from the nearest land—outside Egypt’s territorial waters—when attacked. State Department/CIA chronology

2. The Six-Day War background

The attack occurred on the fourth day of the June 5–10, 1967, Arab-Israeli war.

By June 8:

• Israel
  had destroyed much of the Egyptian air force.
• Israeli
  ground forces had moved across the Sinai Peninsula.
• Israeli
  forces had captured East Jerusalem and most of the West Bank from Jordan.
• Egyptian
  forces were retreating toward the Suez Canal.
• Israeli
  leaders were deciding whether to attack Syria and capture the Golan
  Heights.
• The
  United States and Soviet Union were monitoring the conflict closely and
  attempting to prevent it from becoming a superpower confrontation.

Liberty was positioned where its antennas could intercept communications from Egypt, Israel and other forces in the region. That intelligence role is central to the controversy over why it was attacked.

3. Reconnaissance before the attack

During the morning of June 8, Israeli aircraft repeatedly observed the ship. Some crewmen remembered aircraft passing low enough that they waved at the pilots.

A CIA memorandum recorded that two delta-wing aircraft orbited Liberty at approximately 9:50 a.m. local time. Other American records concluded that several reconnaissance passes occurred during the morning.

The ship was sailing slowly in clear weather. It displayed:

• “GTR-5”
  in large white characters on both sides of its bow
• its
  name across the stern
• distinctive
  communications antennas
• an
  American flag

The flag’s visibility is disputed. Survivors said it was plainly visible. Israeli pilots later reported that they did not see it. American diplomatic officials concluded that the flag and hull markings should have been visible under the prevailing conditions.

Secretary of State Dean Rusk’s formal protest declared that the weather was excellent, the hull identification was clearly marked and the American flag was flying. The State Department called the failure to identify the ship “incomprehensible” and, at minimum, an act of “military recklessness reflecting wanton disregard for human life.” Rusk’s June 10 diplomatic note

4. The air attack

At approximately 2:00–3:05 p.m. local time—the difference reflects conflicting time systems in contemporary reports—Israeli Mirage III fighters began attacking Liberty.

The fighters made repeated strafing runs using 30-millimeter cannon fire. Super Mystère aircraft followed, firing cannon and dropping rockets and napalm.

The air attack:

• destroyed
  or damaged communications antennas
• set
  fires on the bridge and superstructure
• punctured
  the ship with hundreds of cannon and machine-gun holes
• killed
  or wounded men working on exposed decks
• damaged
  the American flag
• disabled
  most normal radio equipment
• jammed
  or otherwise interfered with attempts to transmit distress messages,
  according to several crewmen

Crewmen attempted to raise a larger replacement flag after the original flag was shot down or became difficult to see through smoke.

The aircraft conducted approximately six principal strafing runs, although survivors described additional passes and a nearly continuous assault.

5. Terry Halbardier restores communications

Electronics Technician Third Class James “Terry” Halbardier performed one of the attack’s most important acts of courage.

With the ship’s normal transmitting antennas destroyed, Halbardier carried a coaxial cable across an exposed deck while the ship remained under fire. He connected an undamaged antenna to a transmitter, allowing Liberty to send a distress signal to the Sixth Fleet.

His action helped ensure that other American ships learned what was happening. Halbardier received the Silver Star decades later; his citation expressly identified Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats as the attackers. Account of Halbardier’s Silver Star

6. Arrival of the Israeli torpedo boats

Approximately twenty minutes after the air attack began, three Israeli motor torpedo boats approached at high speed.

The Israeli account says the boats were responding to reports that an unidentified ship was shelling Israeli positions near El Arish. Israeli controllers calculated an erroneously high speed for the unidentified vessel. Under Israeli procedures, an unidentified ship traveling above a specified speed could be treated as hostile.

The boats were reportedly told that their target might be the Egyptian destroyer El Qaher. When they approached, however, they saw a much slower and differently shaped vessel. The Israeli commander subsequently decided it resembled the Egyptian horse-transport or supply vessel El Quseir.

This proposed identification has remained controversial because:

• Liberty was approximately
  200 feet longer than El Quseir.
• Liberty had a markedly
  different antenna configuration.
• Its
  hull displayed Latin letters and numbers.
• It
  was not armed like a destroyer.
• It
  was moving at approximately five knots, not the much higher speed
  originally reported.
• The
  weather and visibility were good.

7. Gunfire and the torpedo strike

As the boats closed, signal lamps were used, but misunderstanding followed. Liberty’s equipment had been damaged, and the Israelis interpreted its response as one previously associated with an Egyptian vessel.

A Liberty machine gun briefly fired toward the boats. Captain McGonagle testified that one gun may have fired accidentally after heat ignited ammunition, while another was fired by a sailor who believed he was defending the ship after the boats opened fire.

The Israeli boats fired their guns and launched five torpedoes.

Four missed. One struck the starboard side at approximately 2:35 p.m., tearing a hole approximately 39 feet wide in the hull. It exploded in the Naval Security Group’s intelligence spaces and killed 25 men almost immediately.

The impact:

• flooded
  several compartments
• trapped
  bodies inside the damaged intelligence spaces
• produced
  a severe starboard list
• threatened
  to break the ship apart or cause it to capsize
• destroyed
  sensitive equipment and documents

Watertight doors were closed, sealing some men inside but saving the remainder of the vessel. The surviving crew counter-flooded compartments, fought fires and constructed emergency reinforcements.

A CIA report concluded that the ship survived only because of the crew’s damage-control efforts. Declassified CIA assessment

8. The life-raft controversy

Several survivors, including officers responsible for damage control, said Israeli torpedo boats fired at men and life rafts on deck. They reported seeing the boats shoot at, puncture or remove life rafts that had been placed over the side.

Israel disputes this. Its account says the boats ceased attacking after the torpedo strike, later recovered one floating raft after recognizing U.S. Navy markings and eventually offered assistance.

The available record confirms that most of Liberty’s life rafts were lost or damaged. It does not conclusively establish every circumstance in which that occurred. The CIA’s immediate report noted that virtually all rafts were lost, while the released Naval Court record did not make a definitive finding that the boats deliberately machine-gunned occupied life rafts.

This allegation should therefore be described as consistent and important survivor testimony, but still disputed.

9. Rescue attempts and the recall of American aircraft

After Liberty’s emergency message reached the Sixth Fleet, aircraft were prepared or launched from USS Saratoga and USS America.

Those aircraft were recalled. Contemporary records show considerable confusion over whether the attackers were Egyptian or Israeli and concern that an American strike might expand the war or provoke Soviet intervention.

Some survivors later said they were told that President Lyndon Johnson or Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara personally ordered the recall because the United States did not want to confront or embarrass Israel. The public documentary record confirms that American aircraft were recalled, but it does not conclusively prove every dramatic quotation later attributed to Johnson.

Two American destroyers—USS Davis and USS Massey—eventually reached Liberty. Medical personnel and helicopters from USS America evacuated the most seriously wounded.

Israel sent helicopters after the attack and later offered assistance. Captain McGonagle declined the offer, partly because of security concerns and because he did not trust the forces that had just attacked his ship.

10. Casualties

The final toll was:

• 34
  Americans killed
• 171
  officially reported wounded
• approximately
  260 survivors from roughly 294 aboard
• 25
  of the 34 fatalities caused by the torpedo explosion in the intelligence
  spaces

The dead included 31 Navy personnel, two Marines and one NSA civilian employee. A complete official memorial list is maintained by Arlington National Cemetery.

Commander McGonagle remained on the bridge despite serious wounds. He directed damage control and navigation until the immediate danger had passed. He received the Medal of Honor.

11. Survivors and what they reported

There is no single authoritative public transcript containing personal statements from all approximately 260 survivors. The following are the most prominent named witnesses whose testimony, interviews or published accounts are available. Statements below are summarized unless quotation marks are used.

The Liberty Veterans Association’s current survivor page names Phil Tourney, Moe Shafer, Joe Meadors, Larry Bowen, Ernie Gallo, Mickey LeMay, Rodney Dally, Patrick O’Mally, Joe Benkert, Ed Bechtel, Terry McFarland, Wayne Hildebrand, James Smith, George Koromah, Ken Ecker, Billy Casper, James Davidson and Alan Easton. It is a representative list, not the complete 1967 survivor roster. Liberty Veterans Association survivor page

Themes common to survivor testimony

Survivor accounts consistently emphasize:

1. Israeli aircraft observed the ship before attacking.

2. The weather was clear.

3. The American flag was flying before the attack and a larger flag was raised after the first was damaged.

4. “GTR-5” was clearly painted on the hull.

5. Aircraft attacked antennas and communications equipment early.

6. The torpedo boats continued the assault after the air attack.

7. Some boats fired toward rafts or damage-control personnel.

8. Survivors were discouraged or ordered not to discuss the incident.

9. The brief Navy inquiry did not take testimony from most crewmen.

10. Many survivors believe the attack was deliberate.

Those observations deserve to be treated as firsthand evidence. The final conclusion about intent, however, requires weighing their testimony against Israeli operational records, radio communications and the conclusions of government investigations.

12. Israel’s official explanation

Israel said the attack resulted from a chain of errors:

1. Israeli forces received a report that positions near El Arish were being shelled from the sea.

2. An unidentified ship was plotted in the vicinity.

3. An erroneous speed calculation suggested that it was a fast hostile warship.

4. Liberty was removed from an Israeli plotting board after it had not been observed for several hours.

5. Aircraft failed to see an American flag.

6. Pilots and torpedo-boat crews mistook the ship for an Egyptian vessel.

7. Communications and coordination failures prevented correct identification.

8. The attack stopped once the vessel was suspected or recognized to be American.

9. Israel promptly notified the U.S. Embassy, apologized and offered assistance.

Israeli pilot Yiftah Spector later said that he saw no flag and had been told the target was Egyptian. Israeli officers have argued that intentionally attacking the United States would have offered Israel little military advantage while risking catastrophic diplomatic consequences.

13. Findings of American investigations

Naval Court of Inquiry

The Navy convened a Court of Inquiry under Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd. It concentrated heavily on whether Captain McGonagle and his crew had performed properly and why the ship was so close to the fighting.

It did not determine Israel’s political intent, did not question the Israeli attackers and heard from only a small portion of the surviving crew. It concluded that available evidence was insufficient to determine why the Israeli forces attacked but found no culpability by Liberty’s crew.

Critics reasonably point out that the inquiry was completed very quickly and had a limited mandate.

CIA findings

A June 13 CIA memorandum initially concluded that available intercepted communications did not show that the Israelis knew the vessel was American before or during the principal attack. It also observed that the weather was clear, the hull number was prominent and the American flag was flying.

A later CIA analysis concluded:

• the
  attack was not conducted out of malice toward the United States;
• it
  resulted from error;
• Israeli
  headquarters’ failure to identify the vessel was incongruous;
• the
  torpedo-boat attack reflected gross negligence.

The key point is that even the U.S. intelligence analysis most favorable to the mistake explanation did not describe the incident as an understandable or minor accident.

The NSA maintains a large collection of declassified messages, reports, intercepts and audio associated with the incident. NSA’s USS Liberty document collection

Clark Clifford report

Presidential adviser Clark Clifford examined the evidence for President Johnson. His analysis accepted that the initial air attack may have resulted from misidentification but found the subsequent torpedo attack much harder to explain. He characterized the Israeli conduct as extremely reckless and recommended a forceful diplomatic response.

Ward Boston’s later allegation

Captain Ward Boston, senior counsel to the Naval Court, declared decades later that he and Admiral Kidd believed the attack was deliberate. Boston said political instructions required the court to treat it as mistaken identity.

His statement is important because of his role in the inquiry. However, Admiral Kidd had died and could not confirm it. Critics, particularly author A. Jay Cristol, challenged Boston’s memory and noted that his later account conflicted with the court’s official record.

14. Why was USS Liberty attacked?

Explanation 1: A catastrophic identification failure

This remains the official Israeli and U.S. government conclusion.

Evidence supporting it includes:

• confused
  Israeli command-and-control procedures;
• the
  erroneous report of coastal shelling;
• an
  incorrect speed calculation;
• the
  ship’s removal from the Israeli plotting board;
• Israeli
  communications that appear to show uncertainty about the vessel’s
  identity;
• the
  enormous diplomatic danger Israel would face by knowingly attacking an
  American warship;
• Israel’s
  apology and later compensation.

The strongest version of this interpretation is not that the attackers behaved reasonably. It is that wartime haste, confirmation bias, poor communication and gross negligence caused them to identify every ambiguous observation as confirming an Egyptian target.

Explanation 2: Preventing American monitoring of an attack on Syria

Some survivors and historians believe Israel wanted to prevent Liberty from intercepting preparations for an assault on Syria’s Golan Heights.

Israel attacked Syria on June 9, the day after the Liberty incident, and occupied most of the Golan Heights by June 10. The Johnson administration had concerns about expanding the war into Syria.

This supplies a conceivable motive, but no released order states that Liberty was attacked for this reason.

Explanation 3: Concealing Israeli activity around El Arish

Author James Bamford and others have suggested that Israel sought to prevent Liberty from collecting evidence about the killing of Egyptian prisoners near El Arish.

There is evidence that Egyptian prisoners were killed in some incidents during the 1967 war, but the scale, circumstances and connection to the attack on Liberty remain contested. No public document establishes that Israeli commanders attacked the ship to conceal such an event.

Explanation 4: A false-flag operation to blame Egypt

Another theory proposes that Israel intended to sink Liberty, leave no survivors and blame Egypt, thereby drawing the United States into the war.

This theory appears in survivor advocacy and documentaries. Its principal problem is the absence of documentary proof. Israel also assumed an extraordinary risk: wreckage, weapons fragments, radio intercepts or survivors could identify the attackers.

It should not be presented as established fact.

Explanation 5: Protecting Israeli communications generally

Because Liberty was a sophisticated intelligence ship, Israel may have objected to American monitoring even though the two countries were friendly.

This theory offers a general motive for wanting the ship farther away. It does not, by itself, prove a decision to destroy it.

15. Best evidence-based conclusion about intent

The evidence firmly establishes that:

• Israeli
  forces attacked a clearly marked American ship in international waters.
• Reconnaissance
  aircraft had observed the ship earlier.
• Conditions
  were suitable for identification.
• The
  air and sea attacks involved repeated opportunities to reassess the
  target.
• Israel’s
  identification and command procedures failed at several levels.
• American
  officials regarded Israel’s conduct as reckless and, in some assessments,
  grossly negligent.
• Many
  survivors sincerely and consistently believed that the attackers knew the
  ship was American.

What the public record does not conclusively establish is whether an Israeli political or military authority deliberately ordered the destruction of a known American vessel.

Therefore, the most defensible historical conclusion is:

The attack was indisputably Israeli and extraordinarily negligent. The official finding is mistaken identification, but the number of identification opportunities and the experiences of the crew leave serious, legitimate questions about whether every phase of the attack was accidental. A specific deliberate motive has never been proved by a publicly released operational order or contemporaneous decision document.

16. Diplomatic settlement and compensation

Israel apologized and paid compensation in stages:

• approximately
  $3.3 million to the families of Americans killed;
• approximately
  $3.5 million to those wounded;
• approximately
  $6 million for damage to the ship, settled later.

The combined payments were approximately $13 million, without a formal Israeli admission that the attack was deliberate.

The United States’ June 10 protest demanded compensation and disciplinary action. Israel’s inquiry ultimately did not impose the type of punishment American officials expected. Official American diplomatic protest

USS Liberty reached Malta with assistance, underwent temporary repairs and eventually returned to the United States. The ship was decommissioned in June 1968 and later sold for scrap.

17. What happened in the Middle East afterward?

June 9–10, 1967: The Golan Heights

The day after the attack, Israel began its major assault against Syrian positions on the Golan Heights. Israeli troops captured most of the heights before the ceasefire took effect on June 10.

This timing is why the “conceal the Syria operation” theory remains central to deliberate-attack arguments.

Territorial transformation

By the war’s conclusion, Israel controlled:

• the
  Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip, taken from Egypt;
• the
  West Bank and East Jerusalem, taken from Jordan;
• the
  Golan Heights, taken from Syria.

The territory under Israeli control increased dramatically. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and Syrians were displaced or brought under Israeli military occupation.

Breakdown in U.S.-Arab relations

Several Arab governments believed or alleged that the United States had directly assisted Israel. Although the United States denied participating in Israel’s attacks, the war damaged American relations across the Arab world.

Egypt and several other Arab states broke or downgraded diplomatic relations with the United States. The Soviet Union strengthened its position as a major arms supplier and political partner to Egypt and Syria.

The Khartoum Resolution

In August–September 1967, Arab League leaders met at Khartoum. The declaration became known for the “three noes”:

• no
  peace with Israel;
• no
  recognition of Israel;
• no
  negotiations with Israel.

At the same time, Arab states began rebuilding their armed forces and developing longer-term strategies for recovering lost territory.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242

On November 22, 1967, the Security Council adopted Resolution 242. It emphasized:

• the
  inadmissibility of acquiring territory by war;
• Israeli
  withdrawal from territories occupied in the conflict;
• termination
  of belligerency;
• respect
  for every state’s sovereignty and right to live within secure and
  recognized boundaries;
• the
  need for a just settlement of the refugee problem.

Disagreement over the precise extent and sequencing of withdrawal became a central issue in subsequent diplomacy. United Nations record of Resolution 242

War of Attrition, 1967–1970

Egypt began a sustained military campaign along the Suez Canal. Artillery exchanges, air raids and commando attacks escalated into the War of Attrition.

The Soviet Union supplied Egypt with aircraft, missiles and advisers. The United States increased its military relationship with Israel, contributing to a regional alignment that lasted through the Cold War.

The 1973 Arab-Israeli War

Egypt and Syria attacked Israeli positions on October 6, 1973, seeking to reverse the territorial consequences of 1967.

The war produced another dangerous U.S.-Soviet confrontation but also created conditions for diplomacy.

Egypt-Israel peace

The process eventually led to:

• the
  1978 Camp David Accords;
• the
  1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty;
• phased
  Israeli withdrawal from Sinai, completed in 1982.

The status of Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights remained unresolved or contested.

Final assessment

The attack on USS Liberty was one of the most lethal attacks ever carried out against a U.S. Navy vessel by the armed forces of a country friendly to the United States.

The physical facts are not in dispute: Israeli planes and boats attacked the vessel in daylight, killed 34 Americans, wounded 171 and nearly sank the ship. The courage of Captain McGonagle, Terry Halbardier and the rest of the crew prevented a far greater loss of life.

The central controversy is intent. Israel and successive U.S. administrations classified it as a disastrous mistake. Survivors argue that the flag, hull number, earlier surveillance, length of the attack and alleged firing at life rafts make that explanation impossible. Declassified records demonstrate astonishing negligence and confusion but have not produced an uncontested document proving a deliberate order.

The incident did not determine the outcome of the Six-Day War. Nevertheless, it occurred at a decisive moment immediately before Israel attacked Syria, and it became permanently intertwined with unanswered questions about intelligence collection, U.S.-Israeli diplomacy, government secrecy and the treatment of the surviving crew.