Mark Stapleton

I know very little about Leonard Bernstein's music or career, although I knew he was a famous conductor. If he was prepared to risk earning the wrath of the sneering defenders of the Warren Commission, it proves he was a class act, and not just musically. And he was right--America still hasn't confronted the implications of that crime and its subsequent coverup. America is still too frightened to disturb the memory of some of its icons of politics, business, philanthropy and the media.

We now learn that Israel made heavy use of cluster bombs in the final hours of the Lebanese conflict, knowing full well the conflict was headed for mediation. Nice one, Israel. For those who are unaware of cluster bombs and their effects, here's a brief outline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_bombs Under the circumstances, I would consider this to be a war crime. The political and military leadership which approved this atrocity should be tried.

Nice to see that even rabid neocons can maintain a sense of humor. They're gonna need it.

Thanks for posting that, Mike. When journalists are describing CT'ers, I always detect a trace of patronising pity in their words. However, it's those who are unwilling or unable to face the unpleasant truth about events like JFK's murder who are deserving of pity. The naive and childish assumption that the Government and media always act in the interests of the people and that conspiracies don't really exist is truly pitiful.

What makes you think Ahmaninejad is deserving of that honor? Do you think the director of the California penal system is obligated to debate Charles Manson? Ridiculous. If you bothered to read a newspaper today (big if), you'd know that Iran failed yesterday to comply with a United Nations deadline to halt its uranium enrichment work. This is a global problem, not just a US problem. If anyone should be debating Ahmaninejad, it's Kofi Annan. I can't see the relevance of your analogy. Are you placing Ahmaninejad in the same category as Charles Manson? Why? And why do you state that debating George Bush is an 'honor'? Is he royalty or something? Why wouldn't the US President jump at the chance to state his case before a global audience, if he thinks he is right? It seems a bit strange given that the US sells itself globally as the bastion of freedom and liberty. Why run from a free and open debate? Are there things the US doesn't want the world to know?

I agree with you about Bush but I think that adding 'even by American standards' is harsh. All countries contain people who are ignorant and easily led. America probably has more, by dint of the fact that they have a larger population than other western nations. Further, they have been the subject of relentless propaganda from their media, constantly being told of the righteousness of their foreign excursions. America's 'democracy' is not democracy at all. It's a corporate oligarchy, jealously preserved and protected by a corrupt and venal media. America's failure to accept Ahmaninejad's challenge to debate is highly embarrassing and very telling, IMO. What can be lost by laying your case before the world? I believe the Iranian leader would probably not object to his opponent being wired up, given that his argument is a very strong one, IMO. Why can't Iran posess a nuclear weapon when America has 10,000 nuclear warheads? Is America the master race or something? Why doesn't America show the same concern about Pakistan's nuclear programme? This is a nation which reportedly harbors terrorist training schools. Other nations have nuclear weapons, so why must Iran be prevented from accessing this technology? There's no rational reason, none.

Even hardline conservatives are getting worried about President Bush's stewardship of the war they wanted, as this recent article explains. BTW, Bush was recently challenged to a public debate by Iranian leader Dr. Ahmaninejad. Of course, Bush and his supporters declined. Why? Are they scared? http://www.alternet.org/story/41086/

1. The nuts and bolts of quoting and replying using the tools of this specific forum, and, 2. (Briefly) Conventions of courtesy and consideration for others when using those tools ("netiquette") 1. NUTS AND BOLTS OF QUOTING ANOTHER MESSAGE Here is the simplest way to quote any text from anywhere, at any time. Just type the following into any message editor, and type it exactly the way you see it in the "CODE" box below: [quote]This is the piece of text I want to quote.[/quote] The code word "quote" inside the square brackets at the beginning of the text turns quoting ON. The code word "/quote" (with a forward slash in front of "quote") inside square brackets at the end of the text turns quoting OFF. These are simple ON/OFF switches using simple "programming" code that the forum understands. If you go into a message editor and type just what you see inside the CODE box above, then use the "Preview Post" button at the bottom of the message editor, you will see this: It really is just that simple. There is nothing else to it at all. But there are just a few important things to keep in mind, or you will have trouble with it: The single most important thing to keep in mind is that the "quote" and "/quote" codes inside square brackets are ON/OFF switches, and for every ON quote code there must be a matching OFF quote code (and vice versa—for every OFF code, there must be a matching ON code). If you have even one unmatched ON or OFF quote code anywhere in a message, it will screw up the the rest of your matched pairs, and nothing you tried to quote will appear properly in quote boxes. Instead you will see a lot of "quote" and "/quote" codes (in square brackets) scattered all over the posted version of the message like bugs on a windshield. That's difficult to reproduce here without destroying this message, but if you've spent any time in these forums, you've seen it. To identify the member you're quoting, the ON quote code takes a slightly more complex form, described below. But it isn't really complex, since the forum software creates it for you when you hit the "Reply" button on a posted message. Let's look at that: Here's an example of the first line of text you normally see in a message editor when you hit the "Reply" button on any forum message: [quote name='Ashton Gray' post='72030' date='Aug 12 2006, 10:04 AM'] If it starts to seem awfully complex, take a deep breath and notice that it is nothing whatsoever but a longer form of the simple ON "quote" code above. It still keeps it inside square brackets, but adds information that identifies the member you're quoting, gives a unique "post" number to the message you're replying to, and adds a date and time. The OFF quote code, described earlier, never changes. So here's how to use that "long form" ON quote code above to quote some text: [quote name='Ashton Gray' post='72030' date='Aug 12 2006, 10:04 AM']This is some text that isn't really from a real Ashton Gray post.[/quote] If you copy and paste that into a message editor exactly as you see it in the CODE box above, then use the "Preview Post" button at the bottom of the message editor, this is what you'll see: This the point that brings me undone. It won't let me copy and paste inside the message editor. Unless I'm supposed to do it differently from the usual right click method. And that really is all there is to it! If you're quoting and replying to several passages in the same message from one member, you can use the "long form" quote ON code for the first passage you're replying to, then use the "short form" quote ON code from there on out in your message, like this nonsense example: [quote name='Ashton Gray' post='72030' date='Aug 12 2006, 10:04 AM']This is some text that isn't really from a real Ashton Gray post.[/quote] If you aren't who you say your are, why are you saying you are? [quote]This is some MORE text that isn't really from a real Ashton Gray post.[/quote] Adding "MORE" to your nonsense only makes it MORE nonsense! That would look like this when posted (the lines and indenting are just so designate beginning/ending of posted message, and would not appear): ______________________________ If you aren't who you say your are, why are you saying you are? Adding "MORE" to your nonsense only makes it MORE nonsense! ______________________________ And yes, that really is all there is to it even when quoting people quoting other people. In that case, you merely are "nesting" pairs of ON/OFF quote codes inside each other, as in this example (all using just my own Ashton Gray "long form" ON code): [quote name='Ashton Gray' post='72030' date='Aug 12 2006, 10:04 AM'] [quote name='Ashton Gray' post='72030' date='Aug 12 2006, 10:04 AM'] This is Ashton Gray quoting something else Ashton Gray said [/quote] [/quote] Notice that there are TWO ON QUOTE CODES and TWO OFF QUOTE CODES. Copying and pasting the above into a message editor and hitting the "Preview Post" button will give you this: No matter how many such quotes you "nest" inside of each other, the only thing that you must keep in mind is that for every ON quote code there must be a matching OFF quote code Your little mini-seminar was quite helpful, Ashton--thanks. At least I understand the on/off quote codes now, which I was previously unaware of. Sadly, I still can't seem to master the long form quote so for the moment I'll have to remain an 'in the box' replier. That's it. That's all there is to it. So if you see the codes themselves showing up in your messages after they are posted, hit the "Edit" button at the bottom of your own posts, and go in and find where you have either an ON quote code without a matching OFF quote code, or vice versa. That is the ONLY REASON why quoting fails. So having covered the nuts and bolts, here are a few conventions of "netiquette" that have developed over many years in many forums and USENET groups: 2. CONVENTIONS AND COURTESY Although the following points are derived from conventions that more or less prevail across the 'net, obviously there are no hard-and-fast laws governing such conventions, and there are no "Posting Police" that are going to enforce anything written below. It's up to users to try to do what they can to make the forum as pleasant and functional as possible. The guidelines below are purely my own observations of conventional usage. When replying to a message, quote only what's precisely pertinent to what you are replying to. If the message you're replying to is four yards long, don't quote all four yards in order to ask a specific question about something in the second sentence of the fourth paragraph. Quote the second sentence of the fourth paragraph ONLY. DO quote specifically what someone else has said if you're taking issue with it. DO NOT rewrite the person and take issue with your own alteration of what they purportedly said. If you're only adding a non-critical and general comment about something someone else posted, DO NOT quote the message at all. What they said is already in the thread. That's why forum messages are arranged in continuing threads, so there is a record of the discussion. The exception to that, of course, is when a number of messages have intervened between what you're responding to and your response. Just use judgment and quote only what's necessary to have your message make sense in the context of the thread. DO NOT use color, bold, lines of asterisks, chevrons, quotation marks, or other hacks to quote people. It makes reading difficult enough, and makes standard quoting-and-replying to your messages damned near impossible for others. Just learn how to quote using the tools that are provided. It's really not that hard, and helps everyone. Using a separate text editor like NotePad (PC) or TextEdit (Mac) can help quite a lot when creating a message with lots of quote-reply sequences, or nested quotes. When finished editing it, just copy and paste it into the forum message editor. And I hope all that helps someone. Ashton Gray

Thought it might give forum readers a chuckle in these grim times.

I don't know if this has been posted previously, but its an article by Michael Scheuer, dated April 8, 2006. Very interesting article, IMO: http://www.antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=8827 This is how it ends: ...covert political action campaigns are almost always directed by one nation against another nation that it considers an enemy, or whose leaders it judges to be gullible, venal, none too bright, unreliable, or all four. That surely gives one pause for thought, but it truly is the way the world works. Any world leaders spring to mind who fit that description?

FWIW, the new Sir Vivian Richards Stadium in Antigua is currently under construction and will be completed in time for the opening ceremony of the 2007 cricket World Cup in March. How do I know? Because it's being constructed in partnership with the People's Republic of China. Nations like Venezuela and the PRC appear to be building strong global alliances at present. Contrast this with the USA, which behaves like a power-drunk global bully--even to its allies.

Hi Greg, From Mark Lane's 'Rush to Judgement', Clemons is quoted in an interview with Shirley Martin in August 1964 as saying she saw two men standing near the police car just before the shooting. The fact the WC refused to interview or even mention her gives her a large boost in credibility, IMO. Ditto Domingo Benavides, who refused to identify LHO as the killer and was not shown a lineup by the DP. Scoggins: Like Helen Markham, another star WC witness. Doesn't see the shooting because of shrubbery between himself and the police car, but witnesses Tippit crashing to the ground on being shot. Testifies that Tippit's assailant was walking west (contradicting Markham and making it difficult to believe it could have been LHO, who was apparently heading east to the Texas Theatre). Then he identifies LHO as the gunman after an agent of either the FBI or SS shows him some pictures of Oswald beforehand. "I think I picked the wrong picture", Scoggins tells the WC, "he told me the other one was Oswald", he adds. Low credibility, IMO. Alas, I don't agree with you on the description of Tippit's killer. I go for the "kind of short, kind of heavy" man described by Clemons. Your description fits Oswald and I don't think he shot anybody. p.s. Where can I locate some of Don Willis's research--maybe he'll sway me. Great to have met you and John in Sydney earlier this month--wish I could've stayed longer.

While I think Buchanan's book was excellent, the first to propose an alternative to the official story, I don't see LHO murdering Tippit, regardless of how alarmed he was of the events as they unfolded and the probability that he had been decieved about what would occur during the motorcade. Tippit's murder probably occured sometime between 1.06 and 1.14. Police descriptions of LHO were not released until after Tippit's death so Oswald is unlikely to murder a cop before he became aware that he was the subject of a manhunt in connection to JFK's slaying, IMO. The Tippit murder was designed to fit up Oswald with the profile of a desperate assassin on the run. DA Wade confirmed it when he stated that "we know Oswald killed the President because he killed Officer Tippit". Questionable logic from the DA, but that's what he said. I believe Tippit was murdered by the 'bushy haired' man as per the Acquila Clemons account. Oswald stated while in custody that 'I never shot anybody' and I think he told the truth. In fact, it seems to me that while he was understandably reticent about revealing the nature of his clandestine work, he rarely lied at all. The conspirators knew they couldn't rely on him to lie on their behalf, so he was quickly dispatched. Once Oswald was gone, the lies started flowing thick and fast, rebuttals from the 'assassin' no longer possible. 43 years on, they still haven't stopped. FWIW.

The California Assembly recently passed a bill legalising the cultivation of hemp for industrial purposes. Hemp is currently used in the production of paper, clothing, auto parts and building materials and its seeds and oils are used in food products. It is a $270 million industry in the US. However, as Federal laws prohibit its cultivation it must be imported from China, Canada and Europe. Unlike marijuana, industrial hemp contains only trace elements of the primary psychoactive ingredient, THC. The bill, if passed into law, would represent a major economic boost for California farmers. It was passed by a vote of 43-28 in the California Assembly. Some GOP dissenters resorted to Reefer Madness style posturing to explain their opposition to the bill, "as a conservative Republican, I can't have my name attached to hemp", said Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy (R-Monrovia), adding that industrial hemp and marijuana both give off the same heat signal. Assemblyman John Benoit (R-Palm Desert) weighed in with a stunning display of ignorance, claiming that marijuana and hemp are "indistinguishable", despite the fact that law enforcement officials in 30 countries where hemp is legally cultivated have no trouble telling the difference. It now depends on whether Governor Schwarzenegger will sign the bill. The pressure on him from the DEA must be immense. I predict he will buckle under pressure and refuse to sign, using the often quoted excuse that it would send the wrong message about drugs, or similar garbage along those lines. Arnie knows that signing such a bill into law could have an adverse impact on his political career, with a bloodthirsty media eagerly awaiting his decision. I hope I'm wrong: http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/450/ca...emp_bill_passes

A very fair statement, Peter. All these 'wars' have very little benefit for the ordinary American--but they can't see that. The apparent necessity for pursuing these dubious policies is reinforced in the media every day. Some have stated that the 'war on drugs' is the most damaging social experiment in modern civilisation, in that the drug laws are much more harmful to society than the drugs themselves and actually achieve the opposite goals to those they purport to achieve. If ever there was a giant, xxxxting elephant in the living room, this is it.

Hmmm..I guess most Americans don't care about wasting $69 billion a year. It's also a huge waste of resources (ie. people) with 1.7 million being arrested in America on drugs charges each year. If change is to come, it must come from America because America pressures many other nations to conform with these absurd policies. The most recent example of this is the case of Mexican President Vicente Fox, who proposed relaxing prohibition while placing Government restrictions on many banned substances in order to save the lives of young Mexicans and preventing them being tarnished with criminal convictions. However, the threat of economic sanctions from America forced Fox to back down. So once again the drug barons, and their de facto partners, the DEA, breathe a sigh of relief.

LEAP is a great organisation. It has grown from five to over five thousand members in just four years. It consists of police officers, prosecutors, FBI agents, DEA officers and others who have spent their careers fighting the War on Drugs. So far it has been largely ignored by the mainstream media. However, the growth of this organisation, the unquestionable credibility of its members and the appalling failure of the War on Drugs in achieving any of its goals, means this organisation can't continue to be ignored. http://www.leap.cc/ A good look through this site is highly recommended for those unfamiliar with the facts and figures behind the present charade being played out by the Government and the media. In the US, the War on Drugs currently has a price tag of $69 billion per year and is rising. That's taxpayers money. How much of a flogging can taxpayers be expected to take? When considered in the light of America's multi billion dollar overseas military excursions, rapidly rising oil prices and economic uncertainty, surely the question must now be debated--is it worth spending this much money when all it achieves is an artificially bloated crime rate and actually INCREASES illicit drug use? There are 1.7 million arrests per year in the US for nonviolent drug crimes. Prohibition is a stupid, stupid policy. Those involved in this massive gravy train will never admit this because it is their meal ticket. When will the American public tell legislators to end the charade? The only way to put drug traffickers out of business is to legalise the drugs. Criminal sanctions can never work when such a colossal profit margin exists--something like 3000 times the farm gate price in the case of heroin. Any elimination of a dealer from the distribution network is always quickly replaced, like the multi-headed Hydra. As Jack Cole stated, "It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on people and it must end". It's also a war on common sense.

The following is from Leap's Jack Cole: IT'S NOT ABOUT SAYING YES TO DRUGS, IT'S ABOUT MAKING THEM LEGAL To the editor: On reading the David L. Harris Aug. 3 article, "Just say yes to drugs," I was once again struck by the inaccuracies of information reaching the public. Law Enforcement Against Prohibition ( leap.cc ) is a nonprofit international education organization consisting of more than 5,000 police, judges, prosecutors, prison wardens, DEA and FBI agents, and others who fought the War on Drugs for their entire careers. The last thing we want to do is, "Just say yes to drugs." LEAP's mission is to reduce the multitude of harms resulting from fighting the war on drugs and to lessen the incidence of death, disease, crime and addiction by ending drug prohibition. This 36 years of war has accomplished none of its stated objectives. Instead, we have already wasted more than a trillion dollars, and each year we continue the war we spend another $69 billion tax. And today, drugs are cheaper, more potent and far easier for our children to access than they were in 1970 when I started buying them as an undercover narcotics officer. All we have to show for this war is we now arrest 1.7 million people each year in the U.S. for nonviolent drug offenses - destroy all hope they may have for a productive future - and then wonder why they haven't stopped using drugs. You can get over an addiction, but you will never get over a conviction. It will track you every day of your life. There is a better way. If we end drug prohibition, we can stop the violence and crime just as we did when we ended alcohol prohibition in 1933. The next day Al Capone and all his smuggling buddies were out of business and off the streets, no longer shooting each other, police or innocent children caught in crossfire. Other countries do a much better job. Switzerland has had a program since 1994 where they treat heroin users by giving them free government heroin. Their results: not one overdose, AIDS and hepatitis dropped to the lowest per capita rate in all of Europe; crime was cut by 60 percent; and an there has been an 82 percent decrease in the expected cases of new heroin users. If we treat drug abuse as a health problem rather than a crime problem, we can actually save most of those folks whose lives we destroy every year. There are more than 110 million individuals in the U.S. who have tried an illegal drug. This is not a war on drugs, it is a war on people, and it must end. Jack A. Cole Mystic Avenue Executive Director of LEAP ( Retired a detective lieutenant after 26-year career in the New Jersey State Police, 14 of them as an undercover narcotics officer. ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake

Looks like I'm not the only who thinks the power of the Lobby is over-hyped. Owen, Try as I might, I couldn't get your link to the article to come up, but it doesn't matter--I get the gist. Fiery anti-US rhetoric indeed, but where does Nasrullah explicitly state that, in his opinion, the power of the Israeli lobby in the US is over-hyped? I believe this is your conclusion, not his. Does anyone not remember Scott Ritter? Yes, the former weapons inspector who resigned in 1998, claiming that Iraq had no WMDs. He has just written a piece about the current war in Lebanon ("Grave consequences of supporting war in Lebanon") which I believe is a very sobering wake-up call for all US citizens. Here's an excerpt, dealing with Hezbollah: Contrary to popular opinion, Hezbollah is not an "international terrorist organisation". It has not been linked to any acts of terror outside the borders of Lebanon (the current shelling of Israel notwithstanding, Hezbollah claims these are legitimate military actions in response to Israeli aggression). The US and Israel often speak of Hezbollah terror attacks outside of Lebanon but in the end cannot trace these attacks to Hezbollah with anything stronger than circumstance and rhetoric. The reality of Hezbollah is that it is a decidedly nationalistic organisation that has gone on record condemning the September 2001 attacks on the US, rejecting Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda as well as any killing of innocent civilians in the name of Islam. If it were not for the Israeli angle, the irony is that Hezbollah actually represents the kind of home grown political party the US should be supporting. Hezbollah is very much a political reality. It is woven into the lives of Lebanese Shi'a, providing medical and education support to impoverished citizens who otherwise would have to go without. Hezbollah has participated in the legitimate political processes of the Lebanese democracy, winning over a dozen seats in the Lebanese Parliament and holding several Cabinet level positions. The Lebanese Government itself recognises the unique character of Hezbollah, rejecting the notion that it is an illegitimate militia, but rather a legitimate national resistance movement that will continue to exist until Israel stops meddling in Lebanese affairs. http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/40033/

Hi Peter, Yes, it's true that the welcome afforded to Michael Piper by some on the Forum was less than couteous. It is, of course, a very sensitive subject. While this topic would be more suited to the assassination section of the Forum, I will briefly say that I agree with your comments about Ruby and Angleton. Angleton's connection to Israel is rarely discussed, even though he ran the CIA's 'Israel desk' for many years. He spent most of his career accusing almost everyone of being a Russian spy, never missing an opportunity to fan the flames of US/Soviet mistrust. Piper claims that his CIA Mossad liason desk were central to the CIA's deep cover alliances with the Lansky crime syndicate, a claim I find quite plausible. In the photo section of the 6th edition of 'Final Judgement' there is a photograph of a monument, erected in Israel in honor of Angleton, inscribed 'in memory of a dear friend James J Angleton 1917-1987'. Piper claims it is the only known photograph of this monument ever to be published.

It looks like Israel and its underwriter, the US, might be headed for defeat in their latest adventure, if these observations are on the money: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34271

Hi Peter You may be interested in some of the earlier debates on this Forum that discuss the hypothesis that Israeli intelligence and its international support network were at the center of the conspiracy to murder JFK. It's a hypothesis most developed in the writings of Michael Collins Piper who writes for American Free Press in the USA. Piper's book 'Final Judgment' has been discussed on this forum and he made a brief appearance here earlier this year. Final Judgment, now in its sixth edition, has never been available in highstreet bookshops and has never been reviewed in mainstream media. First published in the mid-1990s, Final Judgment draws on archival releases from the early 90s which make it clear that JFK was having a major row with Israel's leadership - especially Ben Gurion - in the years preceding his assassination. This stand-off was kept private. The lack of publicty meant there was no reason for most people to suspect at the time that Israeli intelligence would have had any motive for killing JFK. Kennedy was pursuaded not to demand UN inspections of Dimona, but instead to continue US inspections that were outside the public spotlight. After Kennedy's death, the US attempt (begun by Eisenhower and continued by Kennedy) to stop Israel from gaining nuclear weapons was quietly abandoned. By 1967 Israel had developed its first nuclear weapons. On this forum, for instance, these references are relevant: Journalists and the Assassination of JFK Michael Collins Piper: Final Judgment (in JFK Assassination Debate) Michael Collins Piper: Final Judgment (in History Books) Biography: Michael Collins Piper Israel,LBJ and the JFK assassination Warning: Some language used in these threads is not 'family-friendly' and plenty of the dialogue is most unfriendly to Piper. Just a quick note on the Dimona inspections from Avner Cohen's "Israel and the Bomb" (1998) 1st inspection: 20 May 1961--This visit was tightly controlled by the Israeli hosts. The US scientists, Staebler and Croach, prepared a two page memo for McGeorge Bundy, the President's national security advisor, stating that nothing was concealed from them. However, they were not told of the large underground reprocessing plant which was under construction at the time. 2nd inspection: 26 September 1962--This visit was made to look as a spontaneous Israeli idea during a trip by two US nuclear scientists who arrived to conduct a routine inspection at the Nachal Soreq nuclear reactor (a small, pool type research reactor built by the US for Israel in the 1950's). This improvisation had been planned as a way of easing American pressure on Dimona. This visit was unduly restricted by the Israeli hosts to just 45 minutes. Sadly, these were the only two inspections JFK got. In 1963, he ramped up the pressure on the reluctant Ben-Gurion. Kennedy, spooked by the Cuban missile crisis and keen to sign off on the nuclear test ban treaty with the Soviets, wanted proof of Israel's repeated 'peaceful purposes' reassurances and was willing to risk confrontation with Ben-Gurion to get it. Kennedy now insisted on bi-annual visits, which was the only way of ensuring that Israel was not gaining access to all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle. Ben-Gurion protested and stalled, citing a variety of excuses including Egypt's ballistic missile program and the Arab Federation Proclamation. He even put forward an ambitious proposal for a joint US-Soviet declaration to guarantee Israel's territorial integrity and security. Kennedy was not swayed. In the face of Kennedy's dogged persistence, Ben-Gurion resigned in June 1963, citing personal reasons but it was widely believed that his failure to persuade JFK of Israel's security concerns was the real reason. Interestingly, on December 5, 1963,--two weeks after JFK's assassination--Israel invited US representatives to visit Dimona at a convenient date in January 1964. Henceforth, Israel set the ground rules. The link for the book's website, with lengthy excerpts and document citations, below: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/israel/index.htm

Great stuff, Sid. Yes, I get the feeling that the longer this war goes on, the more likely a moral Hezbollah victory (or Israeli withdrawal) becomes. Despite the current casualty numbers (about 1000 Lebanese to 100 Israelis), this has been a turning point for the Middle East geopolitics. Israel is getting a taste of its own medicine. Indiscriminate slaughter is a very nasty thing and while Israel complains loudly about its losses, it continues devastating Lebanon to the brink of yet another humanitarian crisis, which, of course, the rest of the world will have to try and fix. The arrogance of Israel insisting that the UN must step in and administer a buffer zone for its protection is one of the reasons that the Israel/US axis has few friends left in Europe and the Middle East. I like the Shamir article, this passage in particular: ...after all, Americans and Europeans may just get bored with the guys that endlessly preach to others and are never willing to harken to other views. Even the Germans may one day kick their masochistic habit of endless repentance. Israel, as it stands today, will never peacefully co-exist with its Arab neighbours. Nazrullah is now a demi-God, Lebanon has been transformed into a terrorist assembly line and moderates have become hardliners. The only way Israel can guarantee its safety now would be to occupy and declare all its Arab neighbours to be one giant buffer zone (administered by the UN of course). Sadly, this would probably be seen as a viable solution by the crazies in Tel Aviv and Washington. Maybe this is what they meant when they said they were intent on redrawing the map of the Middle East. And I agree--Hezbollah is not a terrorist outfit but rather a resistance force opposed to Israel's brutal occupation. It has just as much if not more legitimacy than the Irgun or Hagannah--those pioneering Jewish groups of yesteryear and the leading forces behind the "noble Hebrew struggle for liberation".

Very interesting discussion. I never thought about it that way, Sid. I think this difference of opinion can be easily solved: Do the Jewish Zionists share the Christian Right's beliefs concerning the end times as written by the prophet Ezekiel, and more importantly, are some of them advocating bringing the end times to bear, as Pastor Hagee is publicly advocating? The Christian Right are citing these prophesies from the Old Testament, so it's a fair question, IMO.