Your thesis seems to be that the United States conspired with the Israeli government to cover up a deliberate attack on a US Navy vessel by the IDF.

Just so we are clear between us, nothing like that was in my question. My thesis if I were to construct one now would have to reference one of my two questions? Or at least something I actually did write.

A conspiracy by the United States government would imply malicious or harmful intent of a cover up. I never even alluded to such a thing. US actions can be explained without any malicious intent, just by reviewing historical events. .

sempaiscuba:
It is also not a question of the positions that these people had formerly occupied. The question should be 'Do these people have any direct knowledge of the events in question".

"I feel the Israelis knew what they were doing. They knew they were shooting at a U.S. Navy ship"

means nothing. It isn't evidence one way or the other

That quote is from Captain Ward Boston, Judge Advocate General Council for the US Navy. He was Senior legal counsel for the Navy’s Court of Inquiry into the attack. Clearly he was in a position to hear the complete proceedings as well be aware of all of the evidence still classified about the incident. His opinion should have meaning.

sempaiscuba: In fact, only three of your sources cited any information to support the claim that the attack was deliberate.

I never said the attack was deliberate. All I was out to prove with my quotes was that their is doubt on the American side of the Israeli explanation. Which is all I had to prove to have my question regarded as a history question rather than a conspiracy question. That was my intent on introducing the quotes which otherwise don't relate to my question. As I said in my above quote all the quotes express doubt about the Israeli position. I'll give you Johnson and the Israelis I added in later because someone asked me too.

@sempaiscuba
So, could the original question have been written in a way that was on-topic for this site?

I think so. I'd suggest that the structure of a valid question could be:

All good advice, including the part about editing questions with existing answers, which I was not aware of.

@sempaiscuba
Your new question, or "second wording" as you refer to it, is actually a very different question. bears almost no relation to the original question:

My first question, "why the attack". My second question "historical events had the most influence on relatively cool relations" to me is the same questions. I can see how you would not think of them that way. I was always trying to get at plausible reasons for the attack. But I see your point. To you they are entirely different questions because you would answer them differently than I.

To my mind both questions are answered with reference to the same events.

• Fire Bombing the US Consulate.
• Attempted fire bombing the US Embassy
• Leading an UN Arms embargo against Israel.
• Threatening Israel's private donations from the US.
• Forcing Israel out of the Sinai in 57, the buffer between their largest existential threat, and the objective of the six day war.

@sempaiscuba
Now, as to your first question, In the new question, you also appear to be claiming that the attack on the USS Liberty had a particular significance for US/Israeli relations without providing any clear evidence to support that assertion. Put simply, why would the USS Liberty attack on 8 June 8 1967 act as a fulcrum or pivot?

In truth, given annual US aid to Israel jumped two orders of magnitude in the decade following the attack, or 5 times in the following year(68), I am not claiming it. I am observing it. The attack was a pivotal moment in the two countries relation. Perhaps I should have used pivotal instead of fulcrum. If I went into the details of explaining why, wouldn't I be answering my own question? Maybe I should have done that.

@sempaiscuba The most obvious of which are implicit assumption that US foreign aid to Israel was only contingent on events in the region and that you are quoting average figures over long periods of time which do not appear to reflect the detail in the table on the site from which you are quoting.

Actually I think I was asserting the opposite. That US aid to Israel increased by a factor of 5 from 67 when the attack took place to 1968, demonstrates the United States aid was not contingent on Israel's attack. Your thought on the cold war is what I would go with also.

@SEMPAISCUBA, Thank you again for a very informative discussion on board workings. My take away is perhaps this could be a forum to discuss such topics, but not by me. A relatively new member still trying to prove his chops. Perhaps you or one of the other elite vanguard would be more successful. Anyway I will keep swinging and try to show my worth. Thank You for hearing me out.