A Deliberate Act of War? The USS Liberty Attack by Israel
June 8, 1967: In the midst of the Arab-Israeli Six-Day War, the USS Liberty (AGTR-5), an unarmed U.S. Navy technical research ship, was attacked in international waters off the Sinai Peninsula. This assault, which killed 34 American servicemen and wounded 171 others, remains one of the most disputed and controversial incidents in American military history.
While the governments of both Israel and the United States officially labeled the incident a tragic case of "mistaken identity," a wealth of physical evidence, survivor testimony, and declassified intelligence points to a deliberate, premeditated attack on a known American vessel. The high casualty rate—one of the highest for a non-combatant U.S. Navy vessel in peacetime history—underscores the ferocity of the two-hour assault.
The Attack: Intent to Destroy and Eliminate Witnesses
The assault by Israeli Air Force (IAF) jet fighters and Navy motor torpedo boats utilized overwhelming, methodical force designed not just to disable the ship, but to sink it and eliminate its crew.
Prior Identification and Isolation
The notion of "mistaken identity" is heavily challenged by several facts:
Repeated Overflights: Israeli reconnaissance planes had overflown the Liberty multiple times in the hours preceding the attack, often flying low enough for sailors to see the pilots. Crew members confirm the ship was flying a large American flag and had its hull number (GTR-5) clearly visible [NSA Declassified Documents].
Sophisticated Jamming: During the assault, Liberty radiomen reported that five of the ship's six communication channels were deliberately and successfully jammed by a sophisticated signal, preventing the spy ship from transmitting a clear distress signal to the U.S. Sixth Fleet. This act suggests the attackers knew they were targeting a high-value intelligence asset and sought to guarantee its isolation. The technical capability required for this jamming (known as ECM, or Electronic Counter-Measures) strongly supports the idea that the attackers were aware they were targeting a U.S. signals intelligence ship [USS Liberty Veterans Association].
Methodical Targeting and Overwhelming Force
The nature of the attack points away from a rushed error:
Extreme Munitions: The attack began with Mirage and Mystère jets firing 30mm cannons, rockets, and, critically, napalm—an incendiary substance rarely used against ships—which turned the decks into a 3,000-degree inferno. This suggests an intent to rapidly and thoroughly neutralize the ship's ability to operate or collect intelligence [Liberty Incident Declassified].
Targeting Intelligence: Naval investigators later counted 821 shell holes in the ship's superstructure. The subsequent torpedo boat strike was devastating, launching a torpedo that ripped a 39-foot-wide hole in the hull and instantly killed 25 National Security Agency (NSA) technicians who were working in the intelligence spaces below the waterline.
War Crime Allegations: The strongest evidence for deliberate intent comes from survivor testimony. Crew members reported that after the devastating torpedo strike, the Israeli torpedo boats circled the crippled ship and machine-gunned life rafts that had been deployed or set adrift. Attacking survivors attempting to escape a sinking vessel is a clear war crime and suggests an objective to destroy any evidence and leave no witnesses.
The Cover-Up and High-Level Dissent
The controversy escalated when the official U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry, despite hearing key eyewitness testimony, rushed its investigation to completion and released a heavily-censored report supporting the Israeli claim of "accident."
The Suppressed Truth: Captain Ward Boston, the chief counsel for the 1967 Navy Court of Inquiry, later signed a sworn affidavit [Affidavit of Ward Boston Jr.] stating that he and the Court's president, Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd, concluded with certainty that the attack "was a deliberate, planned attack on an American ship and its entire crew." Boston claimed they were ordered by President Lyndon B. Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara to cover up the true findings.
High-Level Skepticism: Numerous high-ranking American officials openly rejected the official narrative.
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Thomas Moorer, stated that the attack "was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew."
Former Secretary of State Dean Rusk similarly noted that it was "inconceivable" that the Israeli forces did not know the ship was American [Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Vol.7 XIX].
Political Motivation: The motivation for a deliberate attack, according to these dissenting officials and intelligence analysts, was to prevent the Liberty's sensitive signals intelligence equipment from recording Israeli military communications related to pending operations or alleged actions occurring nearby, thus maintaining secrecy from both Arab adversaries and American allies. The Liberty was positioned to monitor crucial developments, including the pending offensive into the Golan Heights.
For decades, many surviving crew members were subject to gag orders, effectively silencing key eyewitness testimony. This suppression, coupled with the U.S. government's refusal to launch a full, public congressional investigation, fueled the enduring belief that the truth was sacrificed to preserve political alliances. Ultimately, while the official record maintains that the attack was a tragic wartime error, the volume of contradictory evidence confirms that for the 34 Americans killed and the 171 wounded, the attack on the USS Liberty was an intentional and murderous act.
What the U.S. Should Have Done
Based on the evidence and the principles of accountability, the U.S. government should have taken the following actions:
1. Launch a Full, Transparent Investigation
The U.S. Navy should have immediately launched a full, public, and unconstrained Congressional investigation into the attack, utilizing all available intelligence and survivor testimony.
Action Taken vs. Action Due: Instead of a six-day, politically constrained Navy Court of Inquiry, a thorough and impartial inquiry was required. The U.S. government had an obligation to the 34 dead and 171 wounded to establish the truth without regard for geopolitical considerations.
Logical Outcome: A public finding of deliberate action would have been required by law and moral obligation, forcing a genuine diplomatic confrontation rather than a rushed cover-up.
2. Demand Full Diplomatic and Legal Accountability
The U.S. should have treated the deliberate attack as a profound breach of sovereignty and a hostile act.
Action Taken vs. Action Due: The U.S. accepted Israel's immediate payment of compensation for the victims and the ship's damage, treating it as a standard accident settlement. It did not invoke international legal measures.
Logical Outcome: The U.S. should have demanded an official, unambiguous, and public apology from the highest level of the Israeli government that acknowledged intent, not mistake. Furthermore, the U.S. should have pressured Israel to court-martial the commanders responsible for ordering and executing the attack, including those who ordered the machine-gunning of life rafts (a clear war crime).
3. Reject Political Expediency
The Johnson administration should have prioritized the lives of American service members over strategic alliance preservation.
Action Taken vs. Action Due: The cover-up prioritized avoiding confrontation with a key ally and preventing potential Soviet escalation, effectively valuing geopolitics over the lives of U.S. personnel.
Logical Outcome: Adherence to principle, even in a crisis, would have reinforced the integrity of the U.S. government and military chain of command, rather than resulting in decades of mistrust among veterans and intelligence communities.
How Israel Should Be Labeled
If the evidence suggesting premeditation, sophisticated jamming, and the targeting of life rafts is accepted, the attack on the USS Liberty should be officially labeled as:
1. A Deliberate Act of War
Given the overwhelming evidence that Israeli forces knew they were attacking a U.S. Navy vessel (due to repeated overflights, clear flags, visible hull numbers, and sophisticated communications jamming), the attack transcends "mistaken identity."
Hostile Intent: The goal—to sink the vessel and eliminate its crew to suppress intelligence collection—indicates a hostile military objective against a U.S. sovereign asset. This meets the criteria for an act of war, albeit one conducted by an ally attempting to preserve secrecy rather than initiate a wider conflict.
2. A War Crime
The documented action of machine-gunning deployed life rafts after the torpedo strike is a specific violation of the laws of armed conflict.
Violation of Hague Conventions: This action constitutes a war crime because it is the deliberate targeting of non-combatant survivors, reflecting an intent to destroy evidence and leave no witnesses.
Current Legal Status: Despite the evidence, neither Israel nor the U.S. has ever formally opened an investigation into war crimes related to the Liberty incident.
The most accurate and morally honest label, based on the non-official evidence, is a Deliberate, Hostile Act Resulting in War Crimes.
FAQs on the USS Liberty Cover-Up
1.Which high-ranking U.S. officials were involved in suppressing the investigation into the USS Liberty attack?
The suppression of a full investigation and the defense of the "mistaken identity" narrative were orchestrated primarily by figures at the highest level of the U.S. executive branch:
President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ): As Commander-in-Chief, Johnson is widely cited in testimony for issuing the order to recall rescue aircraft and prevent the U.S. Sixth Fleet from intervening. He is alleged to have personally ordered that the attack be attributed to "mistaken identity" to avoid a military confrontation with Israel and preserve the U.S. strategic position during the Cold War.
Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara: McNamara directed the Pentagon and is named as directly involved in limiting the Navy's Court of Inquiry, ordering it to be completed in less than a week and ensuring its findings aligned with the political narrative of an accident.
Secretary of State Dean Rusk: Although Rusk later expressed skepticism, the State Department initially deferred to the White House's political decision to accept the Israeli apology, resulting in muted diplomatic pushback.
2.What role did the Navy's own Court of Inquiry play in the official cover-up?
The Navy's own investigatory body, the 1967 Navy Court of Inquiry, played a central role in formalizing the cover-up, despite contradictory evidence:
Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd and Captain Ward Boston: As the President and Chief Counsel of the inquiry, respectively, they were the operational military figures who signed off on the official finding that the attack was an "accident."
Dissent and Orders: Both men later disavowed their own findings, stating in sworn affidavits that they concluded the attack was deliberate but were ordered by political superiors (including President Johnson and Secretary McNamara) to censor their true conclusions and attribute the attack to mistaken identity.
3.What was the primary motivation for the U.S. government to cover up the truth?
The motivation for the cover-up was overwhelmingly geopolitical and strategic, not based on religious or personal affiliation. The key objective was to:
Prevent Conflict: Avoid an immediate and potentially devastating military confrontation with a crucial Middle Eastern ally (Israel) while the Six-Day War was underway.
Preserve Alliances: Maintain the U.S.-Israel strategic relationship as a necessary bulwark against the expansion of Soviet influence in the region during the height of the Cold War. The U.S. prioritized diplomatic stability and alliance preservation over transparency regarding the attack.
