Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 SMI; site sun.uucp
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!sun!cramer
From: cramer@sun.uucp (Sam Cramer)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: USS Liberty
Message-ID: <3405@sun.uucp>
Date: Wed, 26-Mar-86 04:04:52 EST
Article-I.D.: sun.3405
Posted: Wed Mar 26 04:04:52 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 29-Mar-86 09:26:15 EST
References: <12345@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <98@cad.UUCP> <3364@sun.uucp> <3381@sun.uucp>
Reply-To: cramer@sun.UUCP (Sam Cramer)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Lines: 50
Summary: Sources, motivation, withdrawl from debate

Questions have been raised about the sources used by the authors
of "The Attack on the Liberty", which I referred to at length in
previous postings.  According to Goodman and Schiff 

	"The following account of what happened to the Liberty on
	June 8 is based on unedited, previously unpublished material
	retrieved by the authors over the past ten years from Israeli
	naval and air-force archives and on transcripts from two 
	internal Israel Defense Forces investigations into the affair,
	which remain classified."

Matt Wiener, referring to the account, asks
> Is it from reality or an official cover up?  I am not throwing strange
> paranoia claims out.  It is certainly in Israel's best interests to
> maintain the accident story. 

Several factors argue against the official cover-up theory.  First of all,
if there was to be a cover-up, why come out with the story so recently?
The public relations damage was done long ago - Israeli-American
relations have been very good for a long time, and an officially
sanctioned leak in late 1984 would seem to serve no Israeli purpose.

Secondly, as any observer of the war in Lebanon will tell you, the Israelis
have not been especially concerned with PR.  It's hard to imagine that the
same people who so totally botched the public relations aspect of the
war in Lebanon would be so concerned with the covering up a nearly
twenty year old incident.

Finally, both authors in general, and Schiff in particular are known as 
honest and unbiased.  The paper that Schiff works for, Ha'Aretz, is 
Israel's most respected daily.  He is the co-author of the critical and 
definitive account of the 1982 war, "Israel's War in Lebanon."

On another point, proponents of the "intentional attack" theory have
a difficult time showing sufficient motivation for the attack.  Syrian
hostile intentions were plenty clear before the war.  What did Israel
have to hide?  If the Liberty was to be monitoring the Israeli-Syrian
border, what was it doing down near Egypt?  The notion that Israel
attacked the Liberty in order to prevent an ally from obtaining
information on a front that the Liberty was ill-positioned to monitor
seems to me implausible.

Finally, Raif Hijab's bizarre statement on the debate over the Liberty
("since I am interested in informational content, I see no point in
further defending my point") speaks for itself.

-- 

Sam Cramer	uucp:	{cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,seismo,ucbvax}!sun!cramer
		arpanet: cramer@sun.arpa