Refuting the Israeli Arguments

"IDF Navy had earlier reports of bombardment of El-Arish from sea."

One the one hand, the Israelis justify their attack on USS Liberty, at least in part, on the allegation that the town of El Arish was being bombarded from the sea. The IDF History Report places this justification in its proper perspective:

"At 1124 hours, the naval representative at Air Command reported to Naval Operation Section/3, on the shelling of E1-Arish from the sea, Commander Lunz passed on the report to Chief of Naval Operations, Captain (Navy) Rahav, and he to turn instructed Lt. Comnder Pinchasi, in no uncertain terms, to check the source of the report.15

The inquiry into the source of the report was ordered because of the many reports which had been received concerning shelling from the sea and which were later proven to be false, The feeling was that this report was probably no different."

Bearing in mind that previously there has been "many reports . . . which had been received concerning shelling from the sea and which were later proven to be false," how does this attempted explanation in any way justify the attack? The IDF commanders knew, before the attack, of "many" false reports. Indeed, this report turned out to be false as well. They knew that it was likely that there was no substance to the report.

The following was the legal opinion on this explanation of the Counsel for the Court of the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry, Captain Ward Boston Jr., as written in Appendix VI to the Court's record:

Comment - It is inconceivable that either the IDF Navy or Air Force would associate LIBERTY with her 4 - 50 caliber machine guns, or EL QUSEIR, armed with two 3 pounders, with a shore bombardment.