Opening Statement
On June 8, 1967 at about two in the afternoon, Israeli aircraft launched a deadly, unprovoked surprise attack against USS Liberty, an unarmed, unresisting neutral ship sailing in international waters. The aircraft were later joined by torpedo boats and the attack continued for at least 75 minutes. When it was over, of a crew of 293 Americans, 34 had been killed and another 173 were wounded in action. None of these facts are contested by either side.
The case that you are about to consider deals with the facts and circumstances of that attack. The American position is that the attack was planned and deliberate. The Israeli position is that it was an innocent, tragic accident - "friendly fire."
The two sides are going to present you with facts and evidence that they believe supports their position. In evaluating these materials, we ask that you simply apply common sense. What is more likely and what is less likely? Can a fact be explained simply, or must you go through a long, convoluted series of improbable events to explain it?
Throughout this case, when we speak of "Israel" or "the Israelis," we are referring to those in positions of authority in 1967. Our case is not intended as an indictment of the people of Israel, nor should it be understood as such.
The controversy centers on the question of culpability. The Israeli position is perhaps best articulated by the conclusion offered by the Israeli military judge who found no reason to subject any Israeli personnel to any form of discipline:
"To sum up these last counts, my conclusion is that in all the circumstances of the case, the conduct of any one of the naval officers concerned in this incident cannot be considered unreasonable, to an extent which justified committal for trial."
The government of Israel is going to tell you that it did nothing wrong, that what happened was nothing more than an innocent, tragic accident. Indeed, there is no evidence that any Israeli Defence Forces ("IDF") personnel were even reprimanded for their conduct. Clearly, the Israeli government approved of the conduct of its personnel and found no reason to fault any of their actions.
The government of Israel is also going to tell you that, to the extent that fault must be attributed, the captain and crew of USS Liberty were at least equally at fault for being where they were.
When we encounter people who assert different accounts of the same event, the average person seeks to reconcile the different accounts; to see if there are reasonable explanations for the differences. We do this because we prefer not to believe that one party or the other is lying.
In reaching a decision in this case, you are going to find it impossible to reconcile the differing accounts. As unpleasant as it may be, you are going to have to determine which side is lying. The differences between the two accounts cannot be explained without concluding that one side or the other has fabricated their account. In evaluating each side's credibility, again we ask you to apply common sense.
If you are persuaded that lies have been told, ask yourselves "Why would someone lie?" Indeed, why would any innocent party lie about key facts? It is one thing to put the best possible "spin" on the facts, and quite another to fabricate wholly false allegations. As you evaluate the evidence presented, please consider the significance of any lies that you encounter.
We believe that the most plausible explanation for the contradictions, inconsistencies, and outright fabrications presented by the Israelis and their advocates here is simply that they have consciously decided to employ the "Big Lie." You are no doubt familiar with the maxim, widely attributed to Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels that "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
We will demonstrate that the Israelis have not only withheld and distorted evidence, but have also created outright lies and offered them as being true. We will show that they and their advocates in this country have continued to assert these lies even after the lies have been exposed for what they are. We submit that they have engaged and continue to engage in a "Big Lie" strategy with respect to their murderous attack on USS Liberty. We will argue later that this, in and of itself, is evidence of guilt.
We will present evidence to show that the Israeli government (as well as its agents and surrogates in the United States) rarely deign to debate the facts. Rather than deal with the facts, they concentrate on attacking the character of anyone who disagrees with them. Terms like "anti-Semite" and "Nazi" are applied routinely to anyone who dares question the Israeli position - for no reason other than questioning the Israeli position.
When you hear these baseless accusations, ask yourself "What evidence do they offer to support such a claim?" Invariably, the answer will be "None." We submit that these ad hominem attacks are nothing more than attempts to divert the focus of the debate from the facts off onto irrelevant issues. Please do not lose sight of the actual question in this case: Was the attack nothing more than an innocent, tragic mistake or was it a deliberate, malicious act? Was the attack nothing more than "friendly fire"?
Imagine the following hypothetical situation:
A man lives in a neighborhood where he feels that all of his neighbors hate him. He is currently engaged in a highly acrimonious dispute over the boundaries of his land. The dispute has gotten to the point where the neighbors shoot at one another. Not everyone in the neighborhood is involved in this dispute, however. It is limited to just four or five landowners.
First Variation:
One evening, after going to bed, the man hears what he believes to be someone breaking into his house. He gets his gun and goes downstairs to investigate. Just as he arrives downstairs, he sees someone crawling in through his front window. The man shoots the person coming through the window. Later, it turns out that he shot his own son who, having forgotten his house key, was trying to enter the house without waking his father.
This is what we call "friendly fire."
Second Variation:
One morning, the man looks out his window and sees a woman pushing a baby carriage in the public park across the street from his house. She doesn't appear to be in a hurry and she loiters most of the morning in the park with her child. The man regularly looks out his window and sees her in the park.
The man's son reports that the neighbors might be shooting at part of his property. There have been similar reports in the past and all have been false. Nonetheless, the man decides to take action. He takes two handguns and a rifle and walks across the street to the park. There, without warning, he begins shooting at the woman and her child. Fortunately he is a bad shot. This first attack only wounds the mother and the child. Because of her wound, the woman cannot get away from the park.
Out of ammunition, the man goes back to his house and sends his son to finish her off. The son proceeds to the park and begins shooting at the woman and her child. This time the son gets as close as a few feet away from the woman and her baby. He is able to kill the baby and wound the woman to the point where it looks as though she will not survive.
In the distance, he hears police sirens. He returns to his house and his father calls 911 to report that he and the son accidentally shot someone. When the police arrive, they ask the man what happened and he tells them that it was a tragic accident. He assures them that he will investigate himself and let them know the results. They accept his explanation and leave. Later, the police visit the woman in the hospital and admonish her not to speak out about the attack, ever, or she will face criminal prosecution.
The man completes his self-investigation and concludes that he has done nothing wrong. He specifically finds that he was not criminally negligent and that the whole thing was and excusable, tragic accident - an understandable instance of friendly fire. He finds that he believed that someone was shooting at his property from the park and he mistook the woman with the baby for a group of gang members. He further finds that the woman and her baby are at least equally at fault for being in the area, even though they remained at all times in a public park.
The District Attorney convenes a board to investigate the shootings. He allows some of the witnesses to appear, but disallow most of the eyewitnesses. As to those witnesses who are allowed to testify, the board limits their testimony to issues concerning what the woman did to defend herself, but the board does not allow the witnesses to testify at all about the attackers. Not all of the potential evidence is even available yet, but the board very quickly concludes that "on the basis of the available evidence" the attack was a tragic accident.
This is what Israel calls "friendly fire."
In the course of these proceedings you are going to hear quite a bit about the issue of motive. Motive is typically used to establish circumstantially the identity of the guilty party. Please keep in mind that in this case the question of "who did it" is not an issue. There is no dispute as to who committed the attack. The government of Israel admits that its forces carried out the attack on USS Liberty.
We are going to show evidence that will leave you with the inescapable conclusion that the 75 minute, combined air and sea attack was planned and deliberate. We believe that when we are through, you will conclude that there is no doubt but that the Israeli forces made a deliberate attack with the intent to sink USS Liberty and kill everyone on board her.
Thank you.