Refuting the Unofficial Israeli Arguments

The attack on USS Liberty was a case of "friendly fire."

The IDF History Report (p. 38) declares the attack an "innocent error":

"An examination of the facts in the "Liberty" incident, in their proper context proves beyond any doubt that the attack on the American intelligence ship came about as a result of innocent error by the forces which operated on the spot and the HQs which supervised them."

Attempts have been made to minimize the nature of the attack on USS Liberty by trying to characterize it as "an innocent mistake," or friendly fire.

This is both a dishonest and offensive characterization.

The term "friendly fire" has never been subject to a universally accepted definition, says Maj. Bradford G. Washabaugh, USMC. "To the Pentagon, friendly fire describes the inadvertent fire by military forces upon their own or allied forces during combat operations--it does not describe deaths from unexploded allied ordnance and mines or non-battle deaths from accidents."

Nonetheless, there are certain characteristics common to all "friendly fire" incidents. One characteristic not present in any definition is a knowing attack in neutral territory against a non-threatening target of unknown nationality. Such an attack may be characterized as many things - as a war crime, for one - but never as "friendly fire."

By invoking terms like "innocent mistake," "tragic accident," and "friendly fire," the Israelis hope to paint a picture of a good faith and wholly excusable mistake. Nothing could be further from the truth.

"Friendly fire" occurs inside combat zones. The strict requirements of absolute identification imposed by international treaty do not apply within war zones, as they do in neutral territory. The attack on USS Liberty took place well out into international waters.

Let's be very clear about the facts:

The Israeli forces fully intended to attack the ship they saw in international waters. ("KISLEV: 'Forget about Menorah. Yigal, you have a ship at 26. Take Kursa over there. If it's a warship, then blast it.'" From the purported IDF transcripts, time 1350.)
The Israeli forces were ordered to sink the ship they saw in international waters. ("'ROBERT: Authorized to sink.' 'KISLEV: You can sink it.'" From the purported IDF transcripts, time 1402)
The Israeli forces knew that the ship they had targeted was in international waters. ("At 1311 hours, the Division detected the target on Its radar - 20 miles northwest of E1-Artsh and 14 miles off the coast of Bardewil." From the IDF History Report, p. 11.)
The Israeli forces had an affirmative legal duty to ascertain the nationality of the ship they planned to attack:

"Belligerents are bound to respect the sovereign rights of neutral Powers and to abstain, in neutral territory or neutral waters, from any act which would, if knowingly permitted by any Power, constitute a violation of neutrality."
Hague Convention (1907)
The Israeli records show that no positive identification was made before the attack took place, and that during the attack there were several instances where the "enemy" status of the target ship was questioned.

The Israelis ask you to characterize a deadly attack where they ignored their legal duty to identify their target in international waters as "friendly fire." The American Secretary of State, Dean Rusk in a diplomatic note to the Israelis characterized their actions as "An act of military recklessness reflecting wanton disregard for human life."

This attack was most definitely not "an innocent mistake," "a tragic accident," or "friendly fire."