Friday, October 24, 2008

Attack on the U.S.S. Liberty & Israel’s Original Plans for World War III Liberty torpedo damage

For significant reasons, which even a casual perusal of this piece will reveal, I decided to publish this part of the U.S.S. Liberty section from “Wired for TerrorPart Four now. In “Wired for Terror” Part Three (now in progress), the central theme is the history of Zionist terrorism directed against the British in Palestine from 1930-1948 by two specific terror groups—Irgun Zvai Leumi (the IZL, pron. “Etzel”) and the even more fanatical Lohamei Herut Israel (LeHI, the Stern Gang, or the F.F.I. – ‘Freedom Fighters of Israel’). Part Four of “Wired for Terror” will cover all the major state-sponsored false flag terror operations launched against the U.S., both internationally and domestically, by the state of Israel, beginning with 1954’s “Operation Susannah” (the Lavon Affair) in Egypt. Much of the history presented in this piece before you contains information of high significance and relevance to the current precarious situation that the Middle East, and indeed the whole world, finds itself in, and because this information, to my knowledge, has not hitherto been made available on the internet, I decided to post this information now, rather than later when it may not be possible to do so.

Attack on the U.S.S. Liberty
& Israel’s Original Plans for World War III

Dr. Lazlo Toth

Nine years after the June 8, 1967 Israeli attack on the American communications ship U.S.S. Liberty, Anthony Pearson, a Middle East reporter who covered the “Six Day War” (June 5-10, 1967), presented his many years of research on the incident in a two-part article entitled “A Conspiracy of Silence,” published in the May and June 1976 issues of Penthouse magazine. This was after having his book on the subject rejected by every American publisher he contacted (surprise, surprise).

Pearson’s two-part article revolved around two questions: 1) Why did the Arabs continue to fight on when their armies were being so badly beaten? And 2) Why did the Israelis viciously attack a military communications vessel belonging to their ally – the United States of America?

After many years of research into the attack on the Liberty, Pearson had come to the conclusion that Israel’s attack on the U.S.S. Liberty was “not an accident but a deliberate, ruthless, well-planned attempt to sink a U.S. spy ship that had uncovered the secret machinations by which Israel helped to prolong the Six-Day War.”

After presenting the full chronology of Israel’s attack on the Liberty, Pearson then provided some highly interesting background information on the situation in the Middle East as it had been developing since 1965:

“For two years, the CIA had been deeply committed to reshaping events in the Mideast to suit a whole new State Department policy calling for a reduction of Soviet influence in the area, the discouragement of leftist nationalism, and the re-instatement of American influence.

“Richard Helms, the CIA chief, was still pursuing a policy of over ten years’ standing that allowed for all intelligence operations inside Israel to be conducted through Mossad (the Israeli intelligence agency). There was no CIA station chief in Tel Aviv, and officers working under cover in the American Embassy there acted in full consort with officers of Israeli intelligence—each side supposedly having total access to the information of the other. [In reality, however, military and intelligence relations with Israel are, and always have been, a one-way street only.]

“In 1965, after President Nasser had exposed an illegal American arms deal to Israel, James Angleton (head of CIA counter-intelligence), conducted a number of meetings with Mossad officers to decide how and when to get rid of Nasser. It was impossible to overthrow the president within Egypt by any sort of coup. First, his charisma had to be undermined and his popular support destroyed. Nasser’s constant and increasing threats against Israel, and his assurances to his people that the Israeli menace would be defeated, suggested to the CIA that an Egyptian loss of face could be achieved by calling Nasser’s bluff—by actually making him confront Israel.

“At a series of secret meetings in Tel Aviv and Washington between CIA officers, the Israeli General Staff, selected Israeli politicians, and inner members of the Johnson Administration, it was decided to promote a contained war between Israel and Egypt—a war that would not affect the territorial lines between Israel and Syria and Jordan.

“The plan was organized in Israel by a group that included Yigal Allon, Intelligence Chief Meir Amit, Aharon Yariv, head of Army Intelligence, Shimon Peres, Ezer Weizmann, Air Force Chief Mordechai Hod, David Hacohen and Moshe Dayan. Their liaison officer in Washington was Eppy Evron, who dealt directly with Angleton at the CIA and Eugene Rostow at the State Department.

“In principle, they agreed that the situation of an increasing hardline by Nasser combined with the Soviet build-up in Egypt and Syria, should be exploited to rouse maximum public opinion for war, and that the Israeli army should be placed on full alert to induce action by either Damascus or Cairo. In these circumstances, the Kenesset [sic] would have to give its approval for war. And when this war was launched—the Israelis assured the Americans—it would be fought to a pre-designed American plan for containment.”

[Sure, sure, you can totally trust us. We would never ever use this provoked war for territorial expansion purposes. Wanna buy a bridge, cheap?]

On June 1, 1967 the Israeli Knesset voted in the majority for a pre-emptive war against the Arab states. On the same day, the “hero” of the 1956 Sinai-Suez War, Major General Moshe Dayan, was appointed Minister of Defense.

Anthony Pearson, commenting on the reason the USS Liberty was sent to the Middle East, as well as on the con game being played by Eppy Evron (Israel’s liaison officer in Washington), goes on to explain:

“The joint Israeli-CIA plan for war had aimed for an initial strike date in the second week in June. And the USS Liberty had been dispatched by the CIA to arrive off Sinai before the planned hostilities began—in order to make certain that the Israelis didn’t overstep the objectives of the containment plan.

“Right up to the moment of attack, Eppy Evron was assuring his Washington contacts that Israeli troop movements were simply a precautionary measure against the build-up of Arab troops. Evron believed he could tell the American government anything he liked. He didn’t know about the Liberty and her mission.

“Thus, as war began, the listening devices on the Liberty were tuned to transmissions from both the Arabs and Israelis. With radar monitoring, it was possible to carefully map the movements and positions of troops, armor, and aircraft, showing the true progress of battle. All this information was being transmitted in full to the National Security Agency in Washington. Selected parts were also passed on to the United Nations in New York.”

In the initial installment of his two-part 1976 article “Conspiracy of Silence,” Pearson explains one of the real secrets behind Israel’s success in the 1967 Six-Day War:

“It was clear to the observers on the Liberty that the decoding capabilities of the Arabs had failed to crack Israeli codes. But the Israelis had penetrated Egyptian and Jordanian codes from the moment the war began . . . Somewhere between Amman and Cairo, in a relay station in Sinai, the messages were being blocked by the Israelis, then reconstructed and passed on so swiftly and effectively that there was no apparent break. In the language of intelligence, this type of interference is called ‘cooking’.

“The first batch of these messages transmitted from Cairo advised [Jordanian King] Hussein of a bad military situation on the Egyptian front. The Israelis blocked these and recorded them by misinforming the King that three-quarters of the Israeli Air Force had been destroyed over Cairo and that the 300-plus aircraft he was now picking up on radar approaching Jordan were Egyptian jets raiding targets in Israel...

“Throughout the first day of fighting [June 5], the Israelis continued to cook messages in order to give both sides the impression that the war was going favorably for the Arabs...

“Another group of cooked transmissions on June 6 and 7 falsely informed Hussein that the Egyptians were counter-attacking in Sinai and needed support from Jordan in the form of an attack against the Israeli positions in the Hebron area. To make this attack, Hussein had to withdraw his forces from a planned offensive that had been designed to cut Israel in two [in the Tulkarm-Natanya area, just north of Tel Aviv]. The Egyptians were also misled into believing the Jordanians were making a successful attack in Hebron, and they in turn counter-attacked during the early hours of June 8 and ignored a United Nations call for a cease-fire. The Israelis gained enough time from this to enable them to capture all the Jordanian territory they needed to finish off the Egyptians in Sinai, and to move their troops right up to the east bank of Suez, immobilizing the Canal.”

“In Washington, on the evening of June 7, Avraham Harman, the Israeli Ambassador, had been called to the State Department and told by Eugene Rostow that the Israeli attack on Jordan and Egypt had to stop immediately and that no move was to be made against the Syrians on the Golan. A cease-fire was being implemented at the request of the Arabs by the United Nations.

“Harman argued his country was acting against Arab aggression . . . No mention was made by Rostow of the Liberty, but four hours later, in Tel Aviv, orders were passed from the offices of the Minister of Defence [Major General Moshe Dayan] and the Commander of the Air Force [Mordechai Hod] to undertake a surveillance of an American communications ship operating off the Sinai coast. Then, four hours after the surveillance orders, at 1:30 p.m. Tel Aviv time, further orders were issued from the same sources to attack and sink the ship (Israeli officials, however, say that no written orders were ever issued). [Of course, only a complete fool would ever expect a single word of truth to come out of the mouth of an ‘Israeli official’.] Aircraft were called upon to knock out all communications antennae in the first strike. Subsequent strikes would completely immobilize the ship, preparatory to final torpedo hits from MTB’s [motor torpedo boats]. It was imperative that the ship should be destroyed.

“For the Israelis, Liberty was an unknown factor. On June 8, Israel was still three days away from her final objectives. It was possible that drastic measures might have to be taken at any time. The Israeli leaders were afraid that the continued presence of the Liberty off Sinai, monitoring their activities for both the U.S. government and the United Nations, might wreck their plans. If the ship was sunk with all hands, the attack would be blamed on the Egyptians . . . It would also serve the purpose of involving the Americans directly and committing them totally to Israel’s side. [Through this method of staging a ‘false flag’ attack, the Israelis hoped to inspire the U.S. to attack their Egyptian enemy.] It was a daring plan—a vicious plan—but certainly well-coordinated and well-executed. It seems surprising that it failed. Everything seemed stacked against the Liberty.”

“An hour before the first Israeli air surveillance, U.S. intelligence reported to the Joint Chiefs of Staff that Israeli monitors had broken into the Liberty’s coding banks, deciphered her codes, and had transmitted a warning to Israel’s military-intelligence headquarters. The Americans were informed that the Israelis were reacting badly and might possibly take some sort of action against the ship.

“The Joint Chiefs of Staff immediately ordered a message transmitted to the Liberty warning her to withdraw to the Sixth Fleet at once. This message was rated by Navy intelligence as pinnacle, which meant that it had the highest priority . . . As the pinnacle message left Washington, it became the first of three remarkable communication errors—if indeed they were errors. The Liberty should have received the message by 9 a.m. ship’s time. She never did...

“Within two hours, a second message to the Liberty was misrouted . . . This one was dispatched by the Sixth Fleet Commander . . . advising McGonagle (the Commander) of his dangerous position and ordering him to withdraw. It was a back-up message to the pinnacle . . . This message was misrouted...

“The third and final message lost in this strange tangle of confused misroutings, left the Liberty for the [U.S.S.] Little Rock via Naples, advising the Sixth Fleet Commander of the extent of the attack then taking place . . . In fact, the only message received that day was the open channel Mayday sent immediately after the coded pinnacle to the Little Rock.

“The Navy has never satisfactorily explained how three messages of such vital importance, rated red-urgent and sent via the pinnacle code route could all have been misrouted. The vague explanation was bad management. Soon after the attack on the Liberty, one naval statement announced that it had taken place because of misplaced communications [cf. the “incompetence” hypothesis re: the 9/11 attacks.] No known official naval enquiry into the communications incident ever took place. In fact, the strangest part of the whole Liberty affair has increasingly seemed the U.S. government’s anxiety to excuse and cover up an attack on one of its own ships.”(1)

In the second part of his article on the Israeli attack against the U.S.S. Liberty, appearing in the June 1976 issue of Penthouse, Anthony Pearson describes the various ways by which the U.S. “government aided and abetted Israel in sweeping the real facts about the Liberty under the carpet” and the way in which “the communications experts on board had discovered that the Israelis were intercepting messages between the Arab leaders and then changing them and retransmitting them—a procedure known as cooking. These cooked messages led King Hussein of Jordan and President Nasser of Egypt to believe that the war was actually going well for the Arabs and encouraged them to continue fighting. This ploy gave Israel the time it needed to consolidate its growing victory. It allowed the Israelis to destroy the confused Arab armies and seize Arab territory.

“What no one knew—except those at the highest levels of the Israeli and American governments—was that Israel was violating a predetermined plan formulated by the CIA, top officials of the Johnson Administration, the Israeli General Staff, and leading Israeli politicians. According to this plan, Israel should have fought a contained war with the Arabs—which would not have affected the territorial lines between Israel and Syria and Jordan. But the Liberty had discovered Israel’s violation of this scheme, and on the evening of June 7, the Israeli Ambassador in Washington was told that the attacks had to stop. Eight hours later, orders were given in Tel Aviv to destroy the ship.

“The attack would have been totally successful. It failed only because a Mayday distress call from the Liberty had reached the Sixth Fleet, six-hundred miles to the northwest. Two flights of four jet fighters were immediately launched to save the ship. The Israelis intercepted the call and pulled back while there was still time to make the only possible excuse—error and mistaken identity.”

“...On June 10, 1967, they [the Israelis] were masters of Sinai as far as the very eastern banks of the Suez Canal, of the Jordan West Bank, of Jerusalem, and a big chunk of the Syrian Golan Heights. The attack on Syria had been almost as big a shock to the world as was the whole sudden war. It was significant that Liberty was the only neutral voice able to tell the United Nations in New York and the Defence and State Departments in Washington that the Israelis were making moves to conquer the Golan Heights. The transmissions from Liberty exposing the Israeli Golan attack plans could have saved Syria if they had gone through. The Israelis were in violation of a United Nations negotiated cease-fire. [No surprise here, for the Israelis have always had nothing but utter contempt for the international global community as represented by the United Nations.] The attack on the ship, however, stopped communication, and the Israelis had their way.

“The Liberty had been only a small obstacle against a determined Israeli plan for reshaping the Mideast in Israel’s own interests, . . . To achieve their aim, the Israelis were prepared to push aside the restraining arm of their American ally with the same contempt that they felt for the threatening arm of their enemies. America had forbidden the conquest of Jordan. The Liberty attack was the Israeli reply.”

Pearson further reports in his second article on the U.S.S. Liberty incident:

“According to former CIA Patrick McGarvey, who was coordinating intelligence reports from the Joint Chiefs of Staff when the Liberty attack became evident, an order was immediately issued for an air strike against the Israeli torpedo base at Haifa which had launched the torpedo boats. That order was quickly counter-manded by the White House [in which sat the treasonous Lyndon Baines Johnson, a man who participated in the conspiracy to assassinate JFK, and whose wife, “Lady Bird,” being Jewish, held strong Zionist sympathies].”

“The story had received some publicity immediately after the attack, but there was a strange lack of interest shown in any follow-ups. Jack Anderson, the Washington columnist, raised questions about the Liberty’s role as a spy ship, expressed the opinion that the attack was no accident, and exposed the facts that initial congressional hearings on the matter were totally secret and apparently leak-proof, and that there was a good deal of friction among the representatives concerning the issue. On the Hill, and in the White House, the State Department, the Pentagon, and the intelligence community, the Liberty affair was suddenly shrouded in secrecy. A presidential citation was issued for the ship, and Commander McGonagle was cited for the Medal of Honor. Beyond that necessary routine, there was silence.”

“One of the most outrageous aspects of this cover-up was the manner in which the American commendations for the ship and McGonagle’s Medal of Honor were submitted to the Israelis. According to a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s staff at the time, the citations were censored by Israel before they were awarded. All reference to the nationality of the attackers was deleted, and McGonagle’s citation read simply jet aircraft and motor torpedo boats. The citation awarded to the ship referred only to foreign jet fighter aircraft and motor torpedo boats.”

With regards to the U.S. military having to get Israel’s approval for the wording to be used in the citations of heroism passed out to the commander and surviving crew of the U.S.S. Liberty, as well as Israel’s editorial input on those citations, it is significant to note that the same thing happened with the plaque honoring UN Palestine Mediator Count Folke Bernadotte. For those in the New York City area, if you pay a visit to the United Nations building, you will find inside a plaque honouring the memory of Count Folke Bernadotte, who was assassinated in Jerusalem on September 17, 1948 by a five-man Israeli assassination team working for the terrorist group Lohamei Herut Israel (LeHI). The wording on the plaque honouring Bernadotte conveniently omits the Israeli nationality of his assassins.

Anthony Pearson ends part two of his Penthouse article “Conspiracy of Silence” by saying, “But what is most significant is that the United States was unable to expose Israel’s connivances without exposing its own.” He surmises that the whole murderous incident was hushed up by the United States because Israel, as is their extortive habit, threatened to expose the CIA’s destabilization programs directed against radical Arab governments in the 1960s.(2)

Subsequent to Penthouse magazine’s publishing of Anthony Pearson’s piece on the U.S.S. Liberty Affair, a British publisher agreed to publish the entire book – Conspiracy in Silence: Attack on the USS Liberty. In his book, Pearson reveals some highly significant information which he gathered from an inside, high-level Pentagon source.

While the Liberty sat in international waters off the northern coast of the Egyptian Sinai, it was closely shadowed by the Andrew Jackson, a U.S. nuclear-powered submarine. A Pentagon general informed Pearson that Israel’s plan, if by some chance they lost the Six Day War, was to initiate a much larger conflict by launching a Doomsday attack on the capitals of Egypt, Syria, and Iraq. They planned to drop tactical nuclear missiles—the possession of which the Pentagon was fully aware of in 1967—on the cities of Cairo, Damascus, and Baghdad. This naturally would have brought the Soviet Union into the conflict, essentially igniting World War III, to the advantage of Israel. This general, who by the mid 1970s had retired from the Pentagon, informed Pearson that if Israel attempted to launch its tactical nuclear weapons against the three Arab capitals, it was the task of the Andrew Jackson to take out all Israeli nuclear missile sites in the Negev (Palestine’s southern half). The general told Pearson that he did not believe the Israelis were aware of the U.S. nuclear submarine shadowing the U.S.S. Liberty. The general also suggests that a highly possible reason that the NSA’s messages did not reach the Liberty was that “the close cooperation of the CIA with Israeli intelligence had reached such a peak in 1967 that our whole intelligence network was thick with people involved in that cooperation—not necessarily agents—just guys who were helping along the close cooperation of the Agency and Mossad.” [The Sayanim Factor](3)

In reviewing Pearson’s book in Middle East International, Peter Mansfield concludes his review by writing, “Of course we cannot be certain about this, but there is enough fact and convincing circumstantial evidence in this book to cause the deepest alarm, not only to Americans but to any citizens of the world, about the consequences of the U.S.-Israeli alliance.”(4)

The “deep alarm” regarding “the consequences of the U.S.-Israeli alliance,” which Mansfield speaks of, should be felt to an even greater degree today in the early 21st century, as old Zionist plans and patterns are continually re-emerging from the past.

Although the Israelis like to portray themselves to the world as being the innocent victims of “unexpected” Arab attacks, in reality, the Israelis—from Day One—have been the pre-emptive aggressors in every Middle East conflict they have been involved in. For manipulative public relations purposes, however, they like to play the emotionally useful role of the eternally persecuted victims of the “holocaust,” while essentially doing to the Arabs what the German government once did to them. The only difference being that the Israelis have been doing to the Arabs far worse things than the Germans ever did to the Jews of Europe, and for a much longer period of time (over ten times longer, in fact).

The American military historian Colonel Trevor N. Dupuy explains in his history of the Arab-Israeli wars that the 1967 Six Day War had been very carefully planned since 1965, and that it was a “planned surprise initiation of hostilities.”(5) This Israeli doctrine of “pre-emptive war” was officially declared as policy before the Israeli Parliament on October 16, 1972 by Prime Minister Golda Meir.

Although the Israelis are still unwilling to admit that they stole nuclear weapons technology from the U.S. and are still unwilling to sign the International Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement, in 1967 we see that they were perfectly willing to use tactical nuclear weapons against Arab cities to start a larger conflict which would ultimately benefit Israel by igniting World War III in the Middle East. In this conflict, the U.S., as Israel’s sucker ally, would be forced to take on the Soviets coming to the defense of their Arab allies who had just been nuked by Israel. This entire scenario from the past is significant to the present because it shows that modern Israel’s current eagerness to drop nuclear weapons on Iran has a past precedent. Launching false flag attacks against the U.S. in 1954 and 1967—both which were to be blamed on Egypt—also demonstrates that, ideally, Israel would rather fight its wars via proxy, i.e. have someone else bloody their hands and take the blame for Israel’s war crimes. Someone else pays the price of war while Israel is there to reap the financial and territorial benefits in the end.

In 1967 the U.S. Congress and Senate, the White House, and the Zionist-owned media aided and abetted Israel’s crimes against the American people and their military personnel just as they have done in the cover-up of 9/11 and all the rest of Israel’s numerous false flag attacks against America. It is also of great importance to note in this history that as far back as 1967 the Israelis had already installed sayanim ‘moles’ inside the Pentagon and CIA to serve the interests and plans of the Zionist state.

Israel’s ability in 1967 to access the backdoors of the U.S.S. Liberty’s code banks to disrupt her communications systems is also very similar to Israel’s accessing FAA and Air Force computer systems to disrupt communications during their 9/11 attacks on America in 2001. Israel’s “cooking” of communications during the Six Day War also follows the media’s similar habit of “cooking” the news. The employment of information censorship, violent aggression, and murder to cover up Israel’s war crimes and lying treachery serves the purpose of continually maintaining their façade of always being the “poor, innocent victims” in any given situation.

In the U.S.S. Liberty Affair, we see the exact same patterns of thinking and behaviour then as we do now; all for the achievement of Israel’s goals through bribery, extortion, deception, and murder. And as the old saying goes, “with a ‘special’ friend like Israel, who needs enemies.”

The U.S.S. Liberty and 9/11 – We Will Not Forget.
Support the International Boycott of Apartheid Israel.

(1) Anthony Pearson, “A Conspiracy of Silence,” Penthouse, May 1976, pp. 54, 56, 58, 137, and 141-47.

(2) Anthony Pearson, “A Conspiracy of Silence,” Penthouse, June 1976, pp. 60, 62, 64, 147-48, and 150-51.

(3) Anthony Pearson, Conspiracy in Silence: Attack on the USS Liberty. London: Quartet Books, 1978.

(4) Peter Mansfield, Review of Anthony Pearson’s “Conspiracy in Silence: Attack on the USS Liberty” in Middle East International, September 1978. London: CAABU.

References 1-4 cited in Sami Hadawi, Bitter Harvest: A Modern History of Palestine. New York: Olive Branch Press. 1991, pp. 226-33.

(5) Trevor N. Dupuy, Elusive Victory - The Arab-Israeli Wars: 1947-1974. Garden City: Military Book Club, 1978, p. 243.

Lazlo Toth's blog

Source with comments:

No comments:

Post a Comment