The very few protests against this consensus were scarcely noticed. This was largely due to Ennes and his book Assault on the Liberty, and to the energetic campaign which the crewmen waged to make the world hear their story. Neither of the questions can be answered with certainty, and neither are crucial to the basic questions with which we are concerned. This question is much more complicated than might be supposed, and there is much evidence on both sides of the issue. Interestingly, this is a dispute entirely between the U.S. government and the Israeli government.
Debate implies too neat and civil an argument, with statements and rebuttals.
We are dealing here with a dispute in which the upholders of official history refuse to dignify as equal opponents those who present a dissenting history. In the period since 1980 the crewmen, assuming the great burden of promoting their dissenting history against the prevailing consensus, have written and spoken at length while their opponents have presented their case more briefly. In each instance I have attempted to give a balanced view of the dispute. The crewmen have been remarkably consistent and assured in presenting their views. The views they hold in 1992 are those they held in 1967, allowing only for the additional information concerning details of events which they have managed to uncover in that quarter century.