JCPA Memorandum

Jewish Council for Public Affairs

August 13, 2001

To:       JCPA and UJC Member Agencies

From:  Martin J. Raffel, Associate Director

Attached, as a follow-up to last week’s History Channel documentary on the USS Liberty, is an unofficial and unedited response to the program prepared by Dr. A. Jay Cristol.  Cristol, as you will recall from last week’s JCPA e-mail alert, is the retired U.S. Navy pilot and Miami bankruptcy judge who has done extensive research into Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty. 

Response to the History Channel Program on the USS Liberty

Prepared by Dr. A. Jay Cristol

The History Channel program on the USS Liberty, 9 Aug. 2001, is a biased propaganda piece done with inadequate research and infected with errors, misrepresentations, and charges not supported by any evidence.  Many claims have been refuted or discredited or disproved years ago.

The program lacks balance because the producers interviewed only Liberty crewmembers.  Not a single Israeli who was involved was interviewed.  Interviews of numerous Israelis with first hand knowledge were available from the Thames TV program and the 20/20 program but not used.

The stories told by the survivors 34 years after the event were not checked against their prior sworn testimony given to the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry a few days after the event.  It varies widely from these stories.

Although there have been 10 official U.S. investigations, including 5 by congress and three official Israeli investigations, all of which concluded the event was a tragic mistake, and 7 U.S. presidents (Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton) have endorsed that position, not one of hundreds of available Americans was presented to state the official U.S.  position.

In particular, the narrator, Arthur Kent, talks about actions by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, but McNamara was not interviewed nor was his testimony in a congressional investigation presented. Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations - United States Senate - Ninetieth Congress - First Session on S. 1872 - A Bill To Amend The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, As Amended, And For Other Purposes - June 12, July 14 and 26, 1967:

Secretary McNamara: But I have examined the record of the investigation, and I find no intent by the Israeli Government, and no intent by any representatives of the Israeli Government to attack a U.S. vessel.

Senator Aiken: Was it an individual rather than a governmental error?

Secretary McNamara: Yes, sir... (P. 266) In the case of the attack on the Liberty, it was the conclusion of the investigatory body headed by an admiral of the Navy in whom we have great confidence that the attack was not intentional.  I read the record of the investigation, and I support that conclusion, and I think this, therefore... It was not a conscious decision on the part of either the Government of Israel - To attack a U.S. vessel.  (P. 267)

Secretary McNamara: No, there is no evidence that the individuals attacking the Liberty knew they were attacking a U.S. ship, and there is some evidence, circumstantial, that they did not know it... but it is thoroughly clear, based on the investigation report, that it was not a conscious attack on a U.S. vessel.  (P. 268)

Senator Mundt: You mean by the pilots?

Secretary McNamara: By the pilots.  They did not identify the vessel as a U.S. vessel prior to the time of attack.  You may consider this inconceivable.

Senator Mundt: On the part of the attackers, yes. It seemed to be broad daylight.

Secretary McNamara: They definitely did not.  As far as we can tell.  All of the evidence points to the contrary.

Senator Mundt: You take their word for it!

Secretary McNamara: My conclusion is based on the investigation report which did not discuss the identification with the Israeli pilots or Naval personnel involved, but did examine all of the circumstances of the attack and did discuss it with the commander and even the men on the Liberty.... (P. 269)

The producers picked a target and produced not history, but hogwash.  It is not a professional program; it is a professional hatchet job.

The most outrageous, false statement is:

Arthur Kent “Unidentified torpedo boats suddenly began firing.  McGonagle sent a man to the ship’s machine gun to fire back.”

The sworn testimony of Commander McGonagle at the Court of Inquiry was:

“The boats appeared to be in a wedge type formation with the center boat the lead point of the wedge.  Estimated speed of the boats was about 27 to 30 knots.  They appeared to be about 150 to 200 yards apart.  It appeared that they were approaching the ship in a torpedo launch attitude, and since I did not have direct communication with gun control or the gun mounts, I told a man from the bridge, whose identity I do not recall, to proceed to mount 51 and take the boats under fire.  The boats continued to approach the ship at high speed and on a constant bearing with decreasing range.  About this time I noticed that our Ensign had been shot away during the air attack and ordered [sic] DAVID, signalman, to hoist a second Ensign from the yardarm...  When the boats reached an approximate range of 2,000 yards, the center boat of the formation was signaling [sic] to us.  Also, at this range, it appeared that they were flying an Israeli [sic] flag.  This was later verified.  It was not possible to read the signals from the center torpedo boat because of the intermittent blocking of view by smoke and flames.  At this time, I yelled to machinegun 51 to tell him to hold fire.  I realized that there was a possibility of the aircraft having been Israeli [sic] and the attack had been conducted in error.  I wanted to hold fire to see if we could read the signal from the torpedo boat and perhaps avoid additional damage and personnel injuries. The man on machine gun 51 fired a short burst at the boats before he was able to understand what I was attempting to have him do.  Instantly, on machine gun 51 opening fire machine gun 53 began firing at the center boat.  From the starboard wing of the bridge, 03 level, I observed that the fire from machine gun 53 was extremely effective and blanketed the area and the center torpedo boat.  It was not possible to get to mount 53 from the starboard wing of the bridge.  I sent Mr. LUCAS around the port side of the bridge, around to the skylights, to see if he could tell QUINTERO, whom I believed to be the gunner on machine gun 53, to hold fire until we were able to clarify the situation.  He reported back in a few minutes in effect that he saw no one at mount 53.  As far as the torpedo boats are concerned, I am sure that they felt that they were under fire from USS LIBERTY.  At this time, they opened fire with their gun mounts and in a matter of seconds, one torpedo was noted crossing astern of the ship at about 25 yards.  The time that this torpedo crossed the stern is believed to be about 1426.  About 1427, without advance warning, the ship sustained a torpedo hit starboard side forward.”

Viewers can see and hear Commander McGonagle confirm that Liberty fired on the torpedo boats while they were signaling in the Thames TV documentary aired Thursday, January 27, 1987, at 10:30 p.m. in London, Thames TV script, items 92 to 94, pages 18 and 19:

Captain William McGonagle: (Sync) A short time after the air attack had been completed, the three torpedo boats approached us from our starboard quarter at high speed and in an apparent torpedo launch attitude.

Voice Over Captain McGonagle: As they approached to within about one mile (sync) of the ship, I saw what appeared to me to be an Israeli flag on one of the boats, and at one time it appeared that the centre [sic] boat was…

Captain McGonagle: (Sync ctd.) attempting to signal the ship, but because of the intermittent blocking of the signal light by the smoke and flame, we were unable to determine what this boat was attempting to signal.  I had previously directed a man from the bridge to proceed to the forward starboard gun mount and take the torpedo boats under fire in an attempt to defend ourselves.  When I saw what appeared to be the Israeli flag, I yelled to the fo’c’sle because I had no phone communications with the man - and I yelled to him to tell him to hold fire.  But before he was able to understand what I was trying to tell him, he opened fire on the boats as I had directed.

Another gross misstatement attacks the quality of the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry headed by Admiral Isaac Kidd, Jr.

Arthur Kent - During the formal inquiry aboard ship, it becomes apparent to the crew that the Navy is not interested in conducting an in depth investigation.

John Hrankowski - The Court of Inquiry was a farce.

Anyone who examines the hundreds of pages, plus the many exhibits, of the record of the Court of Inquiry would probably disagree with that claim.

There have been complaints that the Court of Inquiry did not take testimony from Israeli witnesses.  This is not unusual.  After the Gulf War, the United States did not permit U.S. military personnel to testify at the British inquiry into the deaths of 9 British military personnel killed by United States friendly fire.

Ennes states Israeli offers of help are baloney.  The program fails to mention that Ennes at the time was wounded and below decks on the Liberty and that the commanding officer, Commander McGonagle, who was commanding the ship from the bridge, read into the record a chronology of events, which he prepared with consultation with the crew:

1503 One MTB returned to ship and signaled (“Do you need help” in English C.O. signaled “Negative”.  (U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry, Testimony of Commander McGonagle, P. 131)

And the Liberty’s log of Thursday, 8 June 1967, reflects:

1503 One MTB returned to ship and signaled [sic], “Do you need help.”

Commanding officer directed that, “Negative” be sent in reply.

Ennes further claims no one in the Court of Inquiry talked to the crew about what happened.  The program neglects to report that the following crew members were called by the Court of Inquiry and testified for the number of pages indicated (In fact, of the 19 witnesses called by the Court, 14 were Liberty crew members.):

Page No.

Ensign D.G. Lucas, USNR, First Lieutenant & Gunnery Officer 12 USS Liberty (AGTR-5)

CDR W.L. McGonagle, USN, Commanding Officer, USS Liberty 31 (AGTR-5)

LTJG L.C. Painter, USNR, Officer of the Deck, USS Liberty (AGTR-5) 55

Ensign J.D. Scott, USNR, Manager Control Assistant, USS Liberty 59 (AGTR-5)

LT G.H. Golden, USN, Engineering Officer, US Liberty (AGTR-5) 63

Page No.

Ensign M.P. O’Malley, USN, Assistant Operations Officer, USS Liberty 68 (AGTR-5)

LTJG M. M. Watson, USNR, Main Propulsion Assistant, USS Liberty 72 (AGTR-5)

LT R.F. Kiepefer, USNR (MC), Medical Officer, USS Liberty (AGTR-5) 74

CTC H.J. Thompson, USN USS Liberty (AGTR-5) 87

CTC C.F. Lamkin, USN, Repair Party Three, USS Liberty (AGTR-5) 91

RMC W.L. Smith, USN, Radio Central, USS Liberty (AGTR-5) 94

CT2 J.P. Carpenter, USN, Communications Division, USS Liberty105

(AGTR-5)

LT. M.H. Bennet, USN, USS Liberty (AGTR-5) 114

CT2 T.L. Long, USN, Communications Division, USS Liberty (AGTR-5)117

CDR W.L. McGonagle, USN, Commanding Officer, USS Liberty 124

(AGTR-5)

The program is spiced by comments by James Bamford, a person well known for his animosity towards Israel who recently has stated in writing more than one time unqualifiedly that there has never been an investigation of the Liberty incident by the United States Government.  The program fails to mention the 10 U.S. official investigations including 5 by Congress.

Many other less significant misstatements of fact and misrepresentations which further support the conclusion that the program was produced without adequate research, fact-checking and attention to detail that in the past has been the hallmark of History Channel programs.