The Attack on the Liberty

by James Scott

  Beyond the riots, the war in Vietnam slogged on and President Johnson’s approval ratings plummeted. An August 13 poll showed that only 39 percent of Americans approved of the president, down nine points from May and marking Johnson’s lowest approval rating during his forty-five months in office. A poll released a week later revealed that potential Republican presidential candidate George Romney boasted an eight-point lead over the president in the race for the White House. Johnson’s political future appeared dim. At his Texas ranch a few weeks later, the president confided in his friend Texas governor John Connally that he would not run again.

  The president, a virtual prisoner in the White House and at his ranch because of the Vietnam War protesters, watched as his team of advisers continued to unravel. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, who popped sleeping pills some nights and faced mounting doubts over the winnability of Vietnam, stepped down in November after nearly seven years at the head of the Pentagon. McNamara, who became president of the World Bank, would later write that he was not sure whether he resigned or was fired. One thing was clear: the two men had grown apart. Johnson felt isolated. “I have seldom felt as sorry for him,” Lady Bird confessed in her diary. “The sense of loneliness and separation is deep.”

  Against this backdrop of dour news, the Liberty faded.

  Newsweek, which broke the story that many senior American leaders believed Israel had deliberately targeted the ship, reported in August on McNamara’s closed-door session with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The magazine noted in a one-paragraph column that the defense secretary was “satisfied that the strafing of the U.S. ship Liberty by Israeli pilots during the Mideast war was unintentional.” The article failed to mention McNamara’s efforts to stifle debate in the contentious session, the frustrated questions of the senators, or Hickenlooper’s declaration that he believed the attack was a “deliberate assault.”

  The magazine reported the next week that Israel’s investigation had exonerated the attackers. The Israeli report merited only a four-sentence brief. The magazine printed the Israeli claims that the Liberty had refused to identify itself and that the attackers mistakenly confused it with an Egyptian cargo ship, claims that had been discredited by the American government. “An Israeli court of inquiry has just concluded that the Liberty was attacked because she greatly resembled an Egyptian supply ship known to be in the area,” Newsweek wrote. “Moreover, the Israelis say that when the Liberty was asked to identify herself, she replied: ‘Identify yourself first.’”

  Newsweek printed a follow-up story in May 1968, explaining in more detail Israel’s account of the attack, but the magazine again failed to question what many in Washington viewed as serious discrepancies. U.S. News & World Report, in a story that also appeared that month based on diplomatic accounts, took a more tempered approach, spotlighting the differences between the Israeli and American investigations. Neither article questioned why no one was ever punished. “Why didn’t the Israelis take more time to confirm the ship’s identity?” the article asked. “Military experts make this point to explain: One of the reasons Israel is alive is that it strikes quickly, asks questions later.”

  Several congressmen rallied for answers as 1967 waned.

  The day after the mass burial at Arlington, Republican representative H. R. Gross demanded to know if American taxpayers were bankrolling Israeli reparations or had provided the weapons used against the Liberty. Unbeknownst to the Iowa congressman, a preliminary Navy analysis two months earlier found that torpedo boat gunners had targeted the spy ship with 40-mm tracer rounds made in the United States. “Is this Government now, directly or indirectly, subsidizing Israel in the payment of full compensation for the lives that were destroyed, the suffering of the wounded, and the damage from this wanton attack?” Gross asked. “It can well be asked whether these Americans were the victims of bombs, machine gun bullets and torpedoes manufactured in the United States and dished out as military assistance under foreign aid.”

  On September 19, Louisiana Democratic representative John Rarick protested the failure of the government and national press to investigate the Liberty. He inserted into the record a couple of articles that raised questions about the attack and a resolution approved at the American Legion’s recent national convention in Boston that demanded the government “conduct a complete and thorough investigation.” “The more the case is studied the more questions occur. Who planned the attack on the Liberty, and why was it made? Why has the report of the naval court of inquiry not been made public?” Rarick asked. “I submit that the attack on the Liberty warrants a full and complete investigation by the Congress.”

  Republican representative Craig Hosmer of California—one of only two lawmakers to challenge the Navy’s censored report when it was first published—in October inserted into the Congressional Record a letter he wrote to the State Department and Defense Department, demanding answers about the attack and the status of Israel’s reparations. “Inasmuch as American lives were lost, American sailors were injured, and an American naval vessel was severely damaged by the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, it seems to me that the U.S. Government by this time should be in a position to say something definitive about the whole affair,” Hosmer said. “The U.S.S. Liberty incident is, at this point, by no means satisfactorily closed.”

  When lawmakers considered spending nearly $6 million to build schools in Israel in November, Representative Gross interrupted the debate and returned to his previous concerns over Liberty reparations. “Does the gentleman mean to tell me that we are going to embark upon this multimillion-dollar program in Israel before there is a settlement for this loss of life, pain and anguish to the wounded, and damage to the vessel,” Gross demanded of his colleague, Representative Otto Passman, a Louisiana Democrat. “I will say to the gentleman that as far as I am concerned not one dollar of U.S. credit or aid of any kind would go to Israel until there is a firm settlement with regard to that attack and full reparations have been made.”

  Gross introduced an amendment the next day to block aid to Israel until it “provides full and complete reparations for the killing and wounding of more than 100 United States citizens in the wanton, unprovoked attack.” Passman objected and demanded Gross explain his amendment.

  Gross countered that his amendment was “self-explanatory.” “It simply means that none of the funds provided in this bill shall go to the State of Israel until that Government provides full and fair reparations for the more than 100 U.S. servicemen who were killed and wounded—I believe some 34 or 35 were killed and another 75 or 80 were wounded—in the unprovoked attack by Israel’s military forces upon the U.S.S. Liberty.”

  Democratic representative Clarence Long of Maryland defended Israel, arguing that the Jewish state had promised to pay the families and should be given time to do so. “Is it not the purpose of the gentleman’s amendment simply to give a slap in the face to a friendly country that has already admitted it made a mistake and has offered to make full reparations?” Long demanded. “I ask the gentleman if he is willing to give them time and not to insult somebody gratuitously.”

  “This is not an insult,” Gross replied. “Let them first compensate those to whom they caused so much pain and anguish.”

  Long refused to relent. “If this is not an insult, I would like to hear from the gentleman what he regards as an insult.”

  “I wonder how you would feel if you were the father of one of the boys who was killed or maimed on that U.S. naval vessel,” Gross replied. “I do not know what kind of descriptive word you would use to express your feeling in that connection—or perhaps you do not have any feeling with respect to these young men who were killed, wounded and maimed, or their families.”

  Moments later, Gross’s amendment failed.

  Long’s confidence in Israel’s willingness to pay its debts for the Liberty proved premature. At 10:30 A.M. on March 25, 1968—more than nine months after the attack—Israeli Ambassador to the United States Yit
zhak Rabin arrived in the seventh-floor office of Nicholas Katzenbach, the State Department’s second in command. After serving as the chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces during the Six-Day War, Rabin had replaced Avraham Harman as ambassador to the U.S. in February 1968. Many Israelis believed that Rabin “incarnated the narrative of Israel’s courageous fight for independence.”

  State Department lawyers sensed trouble with Rabin’s visit. Washington lawyer David Ginsburg accompanied him. Throughout the summer and fall of 1967, U.S.-government lawyers had calculated claims on behalf of the wives, children, and parents of the thirty-four men killed on the Liberty. The American Embassy in Tel Aviv had presented the Israeli government with a bill for $3.3 million on December 29. In its accompanying note, the State Department urged Israel to promptly pay in “view of the substantial economic hardship suffered by these claimants.” Israel responded by hiring Ginsburg.

  Deputy State Department legal adviser Carl Salans, who drafted the earlier analysis highlighting the myriad discrepancies between the reports of the Israeli and American investigations, dashed off a memo to Katzenbach days before the meeting with Rabin. Salans was blunt. “We clearly do not want to encourage a protracted nit-picking and haggling exercise. An extended ‘negotiation’ over the death claims would result in considerable delay and added hardship for the claimants and would, we think, be severely criticized in Congress,” he advised Katzenbach. “We should again urge the Israelis to proceed expeditiously with payment of the death claims.”

  Rabin began by stating that Israel “accepted in principle the obligation to pay the claims, but that more than half the compensation claimed related to shock and emotional anguish.” Rabin said the Israeli government wanted to know how the United States quantified emotional anguish. Ginsburg then elaborated. The veteran lawyer said Israel was willing to pay $1.54 million for loss of support, but described shock and mental anguish as an “arbitrary figure.” He also pointed out that Israel still faced claims for the injured and the Liberty repairs, figures the American government had not yet calculated.

  Katzenbach responded “that the death claims had been presented first out of humanitarian considerations.” Some of the families, the undersecretary said, had a “genuine financial need.” The remaining claims for the injured demanded more time to compile. The government still did not know the full extent of the injuries in some cases or did not have long-term medical care estimates. Katzenbach again “urged that the Government of Israel not hold up the death claims.” Congress was concerned most, he warned, with compensation for the families of the dead.

  If Israel agreed to pay an “arbitrary figure” for emotional anguish, Rabin said he feared it might set a precedent forcing it to “accept other arbitrary figures, such as that for pain and suffering in the personal injury cases.” Ginsburg said he wanted details of how the United States determined the figures for emotional anguish in the death cases and asked for the formula the government planned to use for the personal injury cases and an estimate of the Liberty repair bill. The embassy’s lawyer added that federal statutes don’t recognize payments for emotional anguish in claims against the United States. Why should Israel have to pay?

  Katzenbach again emphasized that Israel should pay the death claims immediately rather than wait for the other claims. State Department officials warned Rabin after the meeting that any delays would spark victims to “redouble efforts through congressional and other channels to insure their claims not being sidetracked. This could seriously agitate issue of Liberty attack at time when it has generally subsided.” The threat didn’t sway Rabin, who “seemed unimpressed by political risks involved.”

  State Department lawyers outlined on several occasions in the following weeks how the United States calculated the $3.3 million claim. Israel still waffled. As the one-year anniversary of the attack approached, the Jewish state proposed a compromise. Israel wanted to use the same formula the American government used to pay death claims for service members. State Department lawyers calculated that Israel’s proposal slashed its total compensation to $1.25 million. The proposal would hit the parents of unmarried sailors the hardest, cutting payments from $20,000 each to $5,000 each.

  State Department officials fumed. The Liberty men didn’t die in a combat zone or a war in which the United States was involved. The Liberty sailed in international waters with an American flag on a clear day. Liberty sailors had a reasonable expectation of safety. “We think this proposal entirely misconceives the legal situation,” the State Department’s top lawyer wrote in a memo to Katzenbach. “The payments provided for in United States legislation are in no way related to liability of another government under international law to pay compensation for wrongful death.”

  Some in the State Department advocated that if necessary, the United States could have a “public airing” of Israel’s refusal to pay. Pressure mounted as the days passed and the first anniversary of the attack approached. The public and members of Congress continued to harass the State Department, demanding to know if Israel had paid its reparations. On May 27—354 days after its pilots and skippers strafed and torpedoed the Liberty—Israel relented and wrote a check to the United States treasurer for $3,323,500. The two-paragraph press release issued at noon the next day stated that as soon as the check was deposited in the treasury, families would be paid.

  On July 3 the United States billed Israel $7,644,146 for the Liberty’s repairs. Lawyers still calculated injury claims. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz ran an article stating that Israel expected America to reconsider whether it owed further reparations since the Pentagon had failed to order the Liberty farther from shore. “It has become clear that the U.S. Naval Command realized that a ship that is virtually in the midst of a battle zone endangers herself and therefore the order was given to the ship to get away,” the article read. “It is believed in Jerusalem that the U.S. is likely to take that fact into account when she submits further claims to Israel.”

  The article, immediately translated and forwarded to the State Department, foreshadowed Israel’s new legal theory to avoid claims, a theory it formally presented two weeks later in a note to the American Embassy in Tel Aviv. Israel now stated that various investigations of the attack exonerated the Jewish state of any liability. The previous $3.3 million payment to the families of the dead, Israel now claimed, “was motivated by humanitarian considerations relating to the economic hardship suffered by the families of the deceased.”

  Israel’s posture outraged Rusk, who called it “totally unacceptable.” The United States refused to accept Israel’s claim that it was “not legally liable for death and material damage resulting from attack.” Furthermore, Rusk wrote that no evidence had arisen in any inquiry exonerating Israel from paying. The secretary of state threatened that the United States would release Israel’s note to the press. “We have not made either fact of receipt or contents known to public or to Congress,” he warned. “If necessary, we will respond formally.”

  Israel backtracked. Its Foreign Ministry asked that the note be returned and forgotten. In March 1969 the United States presented claims on behalf of injured sailors. Israel paid the full $3,566,457 a month later, a figure that included $92,437 to reimburse the government for medical care and $21,745 to pay for ruined personal property. Awards ranged from a few hundred dollars for sailors with minor wounds to some in excess of $100,000 for more severe injuries, which included brain damage in one case and the loss of a kidney in another. Then the United States returned to the $7,644,146 bill for the Liberty’s repairs.

  Israel ignored it.

  Various memos and telegrams reveal the frustration the State Department faced, describing Israel as “evasive” and “petulant.” A telegram to the American Embassy in Tel Aviv urged the diplomats to remind Israel that its “unresponsive attitude towards this claim will not lead to its being forgotten.” In August 1971, Israel secretly offered the United States the token sum of $100,000, about 1.5 cents on the dollar.
Walworth Barbour, the American ambassador to Israel, urged that the United States accept the deal. Others disagreed. Israel’s lowball offer was an insult. “The suggested sum is so small as to call clearly for a courteous rejection out of hand,” wrote Heywood Stackhouse, then the State Department’s country director for Israel and Arab-Israel affairs. “We think it better to keep the claim outstanding than to make a settlement unsatisfactory in so many ways. It would not be a serious irritant in our relations, and it would be a continuing reminder we are not that easy a mark.”

  The issue dragged on for years. Lawmakers and the press finally began asking questions in 1977 when the Liberty repair bill showed up as outstanding debt on the annual claims report of money owed by foreign governments submitted to Congress. The State Department hustled to come up with a deal, but negotiations stalled again as the United States soon focused on the Camp David peace process. By 1980, Israel’s bill had climbed to $17,132,709, a figure that included $9,488,563 in interest. Democratic senator Adlai Stevenson of Illinois, chairman of the Senate select subcommittee on the collection and production of intelligence, threatened a congressional investigation. “Since this ship was on an intelligence mission, I intend to use the subcommittee as a means of looking into this matter further, to try to determine belatedly what the truth is,” he told a reporter. “Those sailors who were wounded, who were eyewitnesses, have not been heard from by the American public.”

  Israel offered to settle for $6 million, payable in three annual installments of $2 million. The final offer was less than the original bill for damages. The United States, weary of the negotiations, accepted the deal in December 1980. Thirteen years had passed since the attack and nearly eight years since President Johnson had died of a heart attack at his Texas ranch. The New York Times wrote in a front-page story that the United States and Israel “had finally closed the book on one of the most divisive issues between the two countries.” Stevenson dropped his proposed investigation.