Mark Stapleton

John,

While I'm generally not a big fan of gooey songs, Seventeen is a rare exception for me. A hauntingly memorable standout of the 70's.

It might take me years to go through the information in all these links but sincere thanks to all for providing them.

Owen,

We'll have to agree to disagree on the significance of US aid to Israel, although I do acknowledge that there was probably an element of countering Soviet influence within the Arab states, which may have driven the US into further support for Israel. However, military support is still military support.

The issue of Iran's nuclear intentions is the most dangerous issue in the region at the moment. I actually sympathise with Iran's position here. America has meddled in Iran's affairs for many years now, dating back to the 1953 CIA backed overthrow of Dr. Mossadegh. In 1988, the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian airbus--which was flying in Iranian airspace--killing 290 people. Now the US tells Iran it must not possess nuclear weapons, although Israel has possessed such weapons for decades. In the early sixties, JFK told Ben-Gurion that he was opposed to Israel acquiring nuclear weapons but Israel considered this an unacceptable intrusion into their sovereignty and went ahead and developed the weapons anyway. Why shouldn't Iran feel the same way?

Personally, I doubt if America will use force in Iran. They have so many other problems to deal with at the moment and the last thing they need is further volatility in oil prices. The big question is, will Israel pre-emptively strike Iranian targets, if they can find them? From what I've read, there is still a three to five year window but Iran's intentions are plain. Morover, despite the Security Council's current stalemate over the issue, Iran doesn't seem to fear the imposition of sanctions. Don't you think Iran's acquisition of a nuclear deterrent will bring balance to the region? I ask you to consider this in the context of overall regional stability, and not just from an Israeli security standpoint.

This is a good article on the Mearsheimer/Walt paper.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0428-29.htm

I like what Francis Fukuyama, former neocon (they're jumping ship in droves), says about US/Israel relations:

"Are we, like Israel, locked in a remorseless struggle with a large part of the Arab and Muslim world, with few avenues open to us for dealing with them other than an iron fist? I believe there are real problems in transposing one situation on to the other".

Very interesting. Owen, I don't think you've really addressed the points made by Daniel, especially the issue of America's massive military and financial support of Israel. You seem to dismiss this as incidental to the debate despite the fact that it is central to the debate.

Never mind. How about broadening the debate a little. The issue of Iran's nuclear capabilities will reveal much about America's relationship with Israel, IMO. What do you think about this article? Will America's support of Israel ultimately harm America?

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0430-22.htm

Mark, if YOU had blown -- or acquiesced in a government cover-up of -- THE biggest story domestically in the 20th century, would you be drawing attention to the subject? For anyone with any professional pride, this has to be a matter of great shame.

Further, one could have a robust debate on whether journalists, or politicians, or bureaucrats or more prideful and arrogant as a group. When have you last heard a major media outlet confess, "we were wrong by embracing a fantasy hook, line and sinker" -- much less acknowledge that on a matter of such consequence?

Finally, this is a "profession" that couldn't even press pertinent questions on phantom WMD's in Iraq. And you expect them to make a meaningful contribution resolving the very quagmire they created here, 4 decades after the fact? That these people claim special status as guardians of democracy is a sick joke.

Bruce,

Yes, the mainstream media have a lot to lose. I'm optimistic that the internet will diminish their hold on the public agenda and ultimately pressure them into facing the issue. What an interesting journey that would be.

The fact that this matter isn't being debated in the mainstream media bugs me. They know the official story is a fallacy and it was officially confirmed by the HSCA with a finding of "probable conspiracy".

I'm alluding to the media owners. The media's silence can't be chalked up to National Security because the Cold War and the Soviet Union are gone, so what's the reason for the cone of silence? With all the information now available, evidence of complicity is emerging from surprising places. Why doesn't the media publicly campaign to have all official records made available, so further progress can be made? They like public campaigns: Iraq, Law and Order, the urgent necessity of globalisation, the War on Drugs (some of their best work) and 'Spot the Communist' to name just a few.

I interpret the media's silence as meaning the true story isn't in the public interest. They've obviously discussed the matter when making this decision. They don't want to go there. But there's no way the public can know if it's in the public interest until the public knows what occured in Dallas, who was involved and, for that matter, what was the media's excuse? Of course, all these answers are in the public interest. How can the media argue against it in a free and democratic society? That's what America is--according to the media.

Ron,

Countries are beginning to openly defy the US. As well as Venezuela, Cuba and a recently elected left wing Government in Chile, there's Iran's open defiance of America and Mexico's Congress voting for decriminalising small quantities of a wide variety of drugs, including peyote. The DEA is surely livid about that one. And the Mexicans will be getting a tourism boom into the bargain. President Fox hasn't signed it yet. I think he plans to sign it on Wednesday. Hope he doesn't go hunting with Dick Chaney.

http://hammeroftruth.com/2006/04/29/decrim...-americans-out/

People like Rupert Murdoch argued that the main reason for the Iraq War was that it would result in lower oil prices. This in turn would improve the state of the stock-market and revitalize the American economy.

In fact, the occupation of Iraq has not lowered oil prices. The average price at the pump - $1.46 a gallon when George Bush came to office is now well above $3 in many parts of America. It is therefore not surprising that the latest CNN poll shows George Bush with a record low rating of 32%.

However, did Bush and his cronies really believe that the invasion of Iraq would lead to lower oil prices? Did they ever really think they could get complete control over Iraq’s oil? Pipelines are easy targets for terrorists. This is a story that rarely appears in the media.

What we do know is that oil companies have been making record profits since the invasion. Bush has also rejected calls by Democrats for a windfall tax on oil company profits from the higher prices. Bush was of course heavily backed by the oil industry in the two presidential elections. Maybe he will even bring back the oil depletion allowance.

John, I think they're getting very worried about it. I saw a debate on NBC a couple of nights ago with Government and Industry leaders and it's apparent that pressure is being applied because such oil prices effect every person in the US. Consequently, the media can't avoid this issue. It was interesting watching Corporate representatives try to justify the highest profits in history and $400 million payouts to retiring CEO's. Their stumbling performances were quite funny. Brazil's current 70% energy self-sufficiency was pointed out repeatedly and used to contrast the US oil industry's feeble plan to phase in 25% non-carbon based fuels by 2025. Talk about trying to make the good times last forever. What has the oil industry got? More money than they could ever count. What has the American public got? Manufacturing industry and jobs disappearing offshore, foreign ownership of property fast increasing, draconian laws overriding civil liberties, thousands dead and wounded because of Iraq, the prospect of war in Iran, inflation about to rise (mainly because of the oil), billions wasted annually because of the comprehensively failed 'war on drugs', the world's second highest prison population (with something in the order of 80% non-violent offenders) and an imbecilic oil industry glove puppet as President.

Who do we think will be required to bear the pain of any transition to energy self-sufficiency? Any half-sane respondent would nominate the oil industry for a generous slice. But we can't have that. It would be un-American (play anthem).

There is only one 'unforgivable sin' in American culture and that is to be labeled 'anti-Semitic.'

Untrue. In 1984 Jesse Jackson infamously referred to Jews and New York City as “Hymies” and “Hymietown” but he continued as a player in the Democratic Party and enjoyed widespread support from liberals of all races and etnicities. His Minnesota campaign manager was Paul Wellstone was Jewish. He was a presidential advisor during the Clinton Administration.

Imagine if a politician had used derogatory words like “spic” or “n” I’m sure he (or she) would have justifiably become an instant pariah.

If anything anti-semitism is "the acceptable racism" out there on the streets. The number of blatantly anti-semetic things people will say before hundreds of people is growing more an more pronounced daily. Much of this stuff derives from simplistic federal reservist pap doled out by Republicans in the Midwest during the Great Depression to take the heat of Wall Street. Whenever one of these anti-semitic speakers gets up, the crowds immediately quadruple.

In the world of publishing, on the other hand I would probably agree with Robert. The fear of being labelled anti-semitic is definitely used to cow critics of the fascist Israeli regime.

What accounts for this huge difference between the street and the academy? Sure its always been there, but never to this extent, in my opinion. One thing that has been pointed out is the lack of middle-brow leftists who can have an impact outside of the academy. In the void of street-level left analysis, anti-semititic websites offer a quick fix of understanding, metabolizing fast like sugar into blood.

Are you talking about mainstream or academic publishers? There is no shortage of academics in the US who are stidently anti-Israel

Len,

You're getting a bee in your bonnet, here. Are you going to meticulously examine all posts for this stuff? As far as I'm concerned, Israel and Mossad are suspects in the assassination and they'll be getting a few mentions-especially in my posts. But that's not the subject of the thread. It's an interesting debate about bent journalists. Don't change the subject.

I believe that prior to '64, US policy towards Israel was ambiguous. LBJ cemented the "special friendship" which has continued to the present. I know it's a bit hard for you to agree, and I don't expect you to, but I think some others reading this thread may also believe there is a special relationship there.

Will I cite a truckload of sources to support my belief? No.

That's fine. We can't all be expected to agree on everything, can we? I'm not going to try to convert you to my point of view by force.

I also hope this won't be the cause of any bad blood because, despite our disagreements, I do appreciate and value your presence here and I think we agree on many things that don't relate to Israel.

However, if you or anyone else wants to continue the debate, I'm game.

No bad blood Owen and thank you for the generous comments. I might return periodically to this thread and I hope others will contribute as well. Despite the thread title, it might become the debate America's leaders need to have (one of them anyway).

You are obviously very knowledgeable on Middle Eastern affairs and history, particularly Israel, and I applaud you on this. Of course, at this point we must disagree on both the Gil-White argument and the wider question of Israel's behavior but it's good to have an expert

nearby to filter out claims which are false. Most reading this would probably know that there's a large amount of hardline anti-Jewish/Israel sites, which IMO are too fanatical to be useful for research. Against that, alternative media must be accessed because for some strange reason the US media doesn't seem to disclose all the facts. I'm quite disturbed about this because I always thought they were fearless defenders of truth and liberty.

Avery interesting debate,thanks to all concerned.

Owen, I wonder if you would care to elaborate on the following.....Why would America favour the Palistinians in this situation, given that US foriegn policy, for strategic, and economic reasons always bolsters those administrations best suited to further American interests. Thanks, Steve.

This assumes that Israel is best suited to American interests. The Mearsheimer and Walt paper complains about how Israel is a burden to our relations with Arab states (and their oil) that should be done away with. I think it can be safely said that Mearsheimer and Walt, both foreign policy "realists," represent at least a good portion of elite opinion, as they are both Council on Foreign Relations stooges (see here, and here) and their paper comes highly recommended by said Council (see here), calling it a "must read." More in my reply to Ron below.

Excellent question. To put it another way, what in the world do the Palestinians have to offer the U.S., as opposed to Israel with all of its biblical meaning and especially all of its nuclear weapons? Or does the U.S. favor the Palestinians simply out of the goodness of its heart? Yeah, we know how that works. (Like when Clinton and friends helped the people of Belgrade by bombing them, to get Monica Lewinsky off the front pages.)

This assumes that the power elite actually care about Israel's "biblical meaning." Israel's nuclear weapons are about the only asset I can think of that they might like. They do not actually care about the Palestinian people. Many of our Arab allies do, however, and these Arab nations have very important *resources*. Let's read a choice portion of Mearsheimer and Walt:

"Israel's strategic value during this period [note: the Yom Kippur War, one of the few times America *really* helped Israel] should not be overstated, however. Backing Israel was not cheap, and it complicated America's relationship with the Arab world. For example, the U.S. decision to give Israel $2.2 billion in emergency military aid during the October War triggered an OPEC oil embargo that inflicted considerable damage on Western economies. Moreover, Israel's military could not protect U.S. interests in the region." (page 5).

And on and on. One wonders how the Left ever fell for this stuff.

In the 1964 section, when analysing the writing of another Jewish historian he adds:

That up to 1964 the US had been waging a diplomatic attack on Israel, attempting to strip it of territory that Israel had legitimately won, and which was indispenible to its defence against terrorist states pledged to the extermination of the Jewish People.

Whether true or not (and I strongly doubt it), this paragraph seems to ignore the reality that nations are entitled to formulate their own foreign policies as they see fit, even if at times they run counter to what Israel would prefer. Gil-White virtually considers the US an enemy state up to this point. Very hardline, IMO. Moreover, he doesn't stop at claiming US policy favors the Palestinians, he goes further by claiming US policy favors the PLO. Maybe he believes all Palestinians are terrorists.

All of which would tend to indicate that the U.S. isn't run by the "Israel/Jewish Lobby," wouldn't it? As for the information, I don't know what there is to doubt. His source (Anita Shapira) is pretty well respected historian. As for the U.S. and the PLO, I have gone over this evidence, which is, IMO, pretty damning, a few times already in this thread. You have yet to address it.

I don't know where you get the idea that he thinks all Palestinians are terrorists.

I believe that prior to '64, US policy towards Israel was ambiguous. LBJ cemented the "special friendship" which has continued to the present. I know it's a bit hard for you to agree, and I don't expect you to, but I think some others reading this thread may also believe there is a special relationship there.

Will I cite a truckload of sources to support my belief? No.

Why would America favour the Palistinians in this situation, given that US foriegn policy, for strategic, and economic reasons always bolsters those administrations best suited to further American interests.

Excellent question. To put it another way, what in the world do the Palestinians have to offer the U.S., as opposed to Israel with all of its biblical meaning and especially all of its nuclear weapons? Or does the U.S. favor the Palestinians simply out of the goodness of its heart? Yeah, we know how that works. (Like when Clinton and friends helped the people of Belgrade by bombing them, to get Monica Lewinsky off the front pages.)

Two excellent questions (wish I had asked them)

It's hard to fathom how Gil-White could be considered credible. I confess I haven't read it all yet--its repetitive one-eyed narrative makes it a chore--but it doesn't read like a genuine historical account because Gil-White's hardline views garnish almost every paragraph. It sounds more like the writings of some kind of super patriot.

In the 1964 section, when analysing the writing of another Jewish historian he adds:

That up to 1964 the US had been waging a diplomatic attack on Israel, attempting to strip it of territory that Israel had legitimately won, and which was indispenible to its defence against terrorist states pledged to the extermination of the Jewish People.

Whether true or not (and I strongly doubt it), this paragraph seems to ignore the reality that nations are entitled to formulate their own foreign policies as they see fit, even if at times they run counter to what Israel would prefer. Gil-White virtually considers the US an enemy state up to this point. Very hardline, IMO. Moreover, he doesn't stop at claiming US policy favors the Palestinians, he goes further by claiming US policy favors the PLO. Maybe he believes all Palestinians are terrorists.

BTW, were there any significant historical events around the 1964 period?

WHY THE BLOOMFIELD ARCHIVES SHOULD BE OPENED

In 1968, Louis Mortimer Bloomfield, a Montreal prominent lawyer, was named as an associate of Clay Shaw, the New Orleans businessman indicted of conspiracy in the JFK assassination by District Attorney Jim Garrison. According to Italian newspapers articles, Bloomfield would have been the major shareholder of Permindex, a shadowy corporation to which Clay Shaw was related.

Since both Clay Shaw and Bloomfield were intelligence veterans of World War II, and since Permindex was suspected of funneling money for intelligence operations, including assassination attempts on General De Gaulle, Bloomfield eventually became the victim of his supposed association with Shaw, to the point where he was perceived by some as the architect of the assassination plot against President John F. Kennedy.

First of all, it must be stressed that the allegations against Louis Mortimer Bloomfield, even his hypothetical relation with Clay Shaw, never were documented. The more explicit accusations against him (in Torbitt's Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal) was even coming from an unpublished manuscript written under pseudonym and giving for source two anonymous US federal agents. Most of the other speculations about Bloomfield took roots in this unsubstantiated and uncorroborated text, and never bring any solid evidence against Bloomfield.

Why was the rumor mill so hard with Bloomfield? Because, regardless of any JFK assassination connection, he was a character related to the world of espionage during World War II, and that, well after WWII, he still played some important historical part in international politics, that up to the 1980's. In many aspects, Louis Mortimer Bloomfield was comparable to William Stephenson, the man called Intrepid, except that his story was never made public.

Before its death, Bloomfield donated his personal papers to Canada National Archives, under condition that they are made public twenty years after his death. However, nearly two years after the end of this delay, Library and Archives Canada (LAC) refuses to make available the Bloomfield documents, even after legal procedures were taken on this matter in Federal Court.

Even -and furthermore- if Bloomfield have nothing to do with the JFK assassination, it is more than time that his archives become opened to the public and that his true story finally been told.

There is one overwhelming argument in favor of this: that his personal archives been open to the public -twenty years after his death- was the clear expressed will of this eminent attorney. Whatever was Bloomfield intention in giving his archives and in asking that they become open to the public, he deserves this will to be respected, just as much as the public deserves to know the truth about him.

Will the content of his archives clear him of any connection with the JFK assassination? Or will this content show what really happened in Dallas? We don’t know but Louis Mortimer Bloomfield knew and asked for it to be revealed.

This two dimensions conviction is the reason I took action in court to get those papers released, and I convey everyone to support their opening.

Hi Maurice,

Congratulations on your ongoing efforts to get Bloomfield's papers released. The extended restrictions seem rather strange, as I don't see why his widow would object to his clearly expressed intentions. Perhaps another force is at work here. I'm especially interested in the correspondence between Mr. Bloomfield and George Bush Snr., which you alluded to in the "Israel, LBJ and the Assassination" thread.

I'm glad you've acknowledged that the title of this thread is too sweeping. Ridiculous, I would say and definitely not proven by Gil-White's offerings.While occasionally protesting the excesses of the Israeli forces, America has been firmly in Israel's corner since LBJ's tenure. Prior to that, America's policy towards Israel was more ambiguous.

On the issue of Israel's occupation, we can't agree. It's a harsh military regime and while the Palestinian Authority technically controls Palestinians in the occupied territories, Israel controls all the borders and regularly uses troops to enforce its overall authority in the region. That's military rule. Civilians are often killed alongside alleged terrorists in anticipation of terrorist attacks or incursions on the borders. I'm unaware exactly how many Palestinian civilians have died since the occupation began but it would probably be many thousands and to blame the Palestinian leadership for this is a plainly dishonest argument, IMO. I wouldn't expect you to agree as you're too firmly dug in, unfortunately.

The phone warning prior to the King David Hotel bombing is a slightly mitigating factor but it was still a cowardly terrorist attack committed by Jewish extremists and condemned by world leaders. You can try to justify present day killing of Palestinians as an effort to eradicate terrorism but Israel has had Prime Ministers who were former terrorists themselves.

Finally, on the Mearsheimer/Walt paper, you point out errors of history which may or may not be contained within but the point is this--should there be an appraisal of America's current relationship with Israel vis-a-vis the benefit to America of this relationship, or should there not? On this I would appreciate an answer (not a link to "factual errors" contained within the paper). Let's agree to conclude the debate with your response.

The problem you and Dr. Gil White have is one of balance. White's paper is a chronology of Israel's history and relationship with other countries as told from an Israeli perspective. If I read an identical history as told from an Arab/Palestinian perspective it would be markedly different. Perhaps that is what is required to get the full picture, but at this point I don't have the time and am more interested in other things, such as the assassination.

I am aware of Jewish persecution in many parts of the world prior to Israel's partitioning, the pogroms in Eastern Europe and the Nazi persecution and 'Final Solution' being the two most well known examples. However tragic this was (and it was), it doesn't justify what I believe is the brutal repression of the Palestinians which occurs today. The fact that you deny this occurs, to the extent of claiming 'the bit about harsh military rule has been a lie for some time now' proves you are just reading what you want to read and are shutting out the rest. Truth is, the bit about harsh military rule has been a FACT for a long time now. Your failure to acknowledge it doesn't alter that fact.

Take terrorism for example. You immediately rounded on ICAHD founder Jeff Halpin as a terrorism apologist in order to justify criticising his site and his message. Agreed, he's telling the other side of the story but that doesn't mean it has less legitimacy. There was a time when Jewish terrorists wreaked havoc on civilians, such as the 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel, killing 91 people. One of the terrorist leaders was Begin, the future Israeli PM:

http://www.etzel.org.il/english/ac10.htm

How about that. You and Gil-White criticise the US for failing to help destroy the PLO and your own former PM was once a terrorist. The only difference, of course, is back then it was known as the "Noble Hebrew War of Liberation". Think about Halpin's statement which so offends you, "The acts of terrorism most condemned by the US and other states are those of non-state actors, in which legitimate resistance of oppressed people to their oppression gets tragically lumped with loony and pointless terrorism of Bin Laden, Carlos and other professional terrorists". If all terrorism is to be lumped in one basket then you must also condemn Begin and Ben-Gurion, Israel's founder (and perhaps others). Does the fact that Israel was founded and led by former terrorists make Israel a terrorist state? If you lump all terrorism in one basket, I guess it does.

It's pointless you constantly linking sites like CAMERA and IDF because they're only there to justify Israel's side of the debate. Who the hell runs and funds CAMERA anyway?

Your claim that they are heavily factual is heavily subjective.

Your argument pertaining to the Mersheimer and Walt paper is also very weak. You say "surely both sides of the debate should be presented". I agree. Then why have attempts been made by the US Jewish lobby to cut funds to their University Departments and curtail public debate with accusations of bigotry and anti-Semitism? Over in England the Financial Times called the debate "overdue" and the Jewish editor of the LRB denied such a debate was anti-Semitic. Given your foregoing statement, you should be encouraging this debate rather than pointing to "factual errors" and again referring me to a heavily one-sided website.

On LBJ you're unequivocally wrong. Johnson said so himself,"you've lost a friend but found a better one" etc. As Senate leader in 1957, he successfully lobbied against sanctions being imposed on Israel as a consequence of the Suez crisis. On Dimona he did much more. The two inspections which occured during JFK's tenure were brief and unsatisfactory--one lasting just 45 minutes. After the CMC, JFK became much more aggressive with Israel, demanding bi-annual inspections as well as other conditions which, as it turned out, he never got. Israel dragged her feet, giving various excuses. Curiously, because I don't really believe in coincidences, on 5 December 1963, thirteen days after the assassination, Israel invited US representatives to visit Dimona but the groundrules were changed. Under LBJ, only annual visits were required and Israel set the rules. "Sham" inspections were back. Avner Cohen's "Israel and the Bomb" is my source. He's Jewish.

You talk fast but you talk rubbish. It's hard to believe that you could make a statement like "the bit about harsh military rule has been a lie for some time now".

Aren't you aware of housing demolitions, shelling of Palestinian villages and the matrix of control employed by Israel? The following link is to an organisation of Israeli citizens dedicated to ending demolition of Palestinian homes to make way for settlement expansions. Read it. Don't try to say they are merely troublemakers with an agenda.

http://www.icahd.org/eng/

As for the "myriad of errors" in the Mearsheimer and Walt paper, you're wrong again, as usual. They merely make the claim that America's foreign policy vis-a-vis Israel should be debated, insofar as its overall benefit to America is concerned. Naturally, you and the hardline commentators you regularly cite as "references" disagree and want all debate quelled.

I can see why the paper causes such angst among you and your fellow travellers. It's like Daniel Levy says, Israel has been an occupying power for so long now that it has muddied its moral compass. Also, I'm a little tired of reading your links to hardline pro-Israeli sites, claiming them to be justification of your position and "effective rebuttal" of my arguments. "The Commitee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting". Yeah, right.

Back to Gil-White, I see he evaluates the 1964-1967 period and the 1967 period as a "negative" in America's support for Israel (and somehow this indicates American support for the PLO ). What about the massive arms sales which went to Israel in this period and the fact that, in contrast to JFK's position, LBJ allowed the nuclear project at Dimona to proceed unhindered ? (albeit with sham "inspections" added). Did the good Doctor forget this? Can you tell me how this wasn't factored in to his evaluation? The Doctor drones on about how newly acquired territories were "indispensable to Israeli defence" and America put pressure on Israel to relinquish these gains. Wow! America daring to formulate Middle East policy without getting approval from Israel. No wonder he gave it a negative.

Sid,

Welcome to the Forum. I agree with John that your initial post was outstanding. I've always been puzzled by Choamsky's endorsement of something as palpably phony as the WC. Your suggestion that he might be playing a gatekeeper role is interesting. If true, as you say, it shows he serves a higher master than the truth. Very sad.

Thank you for the link to the ICAHD site. It's a fascinating read. I agree they're a great organisation. It shows that many thinking Israelis don't fall for the absurd line that the Palestinians are solely responsible for their sorry plight.

The issue of what JFK meant to the left is also an interesting one. The left probably couldn't accept that a person born into such privilege could share their ideals. They were wrong. I agree that the perception of JFK as a typical politician is a media construct, not an accurate picture. He's the most untypical politician in recent history.

Maybe we could do something productive here on this thread - like considering how to start the process of forcing Bloomfield's files to be released, and ensuring that they don't accidentally get burned in a fire, shredded to make space, or routinely destroyed.

http://somesecretsforyou.blogspot.com/

Louis Mortimer Bloomfield

ARE CANADA NATIONAL ARCHIVES HIDING THE KEY OF THE JFK MYSTERY?

OSS veteran, Louis-Mortimer Bloomfield is perceived by some as the architect of the assassination plot against President John F. Kennedy. Before its death, this Montreal lawyer donated his personal papers to Canada National Archives, under condition that they are made public twenty years after his death. However, more than one year after the end of this delay, Library and Archives Canada refuses to make available the Bloomfield documents. Will a legal battle carry out revelation of new information on the JFK assassination?

posted by youshouldknow @ 12:41 AM 0 comments

Good idea, Lee. Personally I doubt if Bloomfield, if involved, would include any mention of it in his papers but they would sure be an excellent read.

I knew you would revert to attacking the reporter. Never mind.

I was about to discuss how I believe Dr. Gil-White has a strangely skewed view of how allies should behave. Apparently he believes that Israel's allies have a duty to assist Israel to destroy its enemies. Also, I would like to know the actual method by which he attaches positive, negative, mixed etc to the US's behavior vis-a-vis Israel and if there is any scientific method employed. However, I discovered this article in today's "The Australian" newspaper. I believe it has relevance here:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...73-7583,00.html

DON'T LET LOBBY SHUT DOWN DEBATE:

Two distinguished US International relations experts are being demonised for criticising Washington's close relationship with Israel, laments Anthony Loewenstein:

A recent academic study on the "Israel lobby' by political scientists John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government has caused a political storm in the US.

Their article was accepted, but then rejected, by The Atlantic Monthly; it was eventually published in the London Review of Books.

The study says the US has been "willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state" and that the Israel lobby has managed to convince Americans that "US interests and those of Israel are essentially identical", when they are not.

The authors argue that the Israel lobby has every right to pursue its interests in the political arena and through the media. However, they also note that one of the "most powerful weapons" against honest debate is the perennial accusation of anti-Semitism.

The carefully reasoned study concludes that by blindly supporting Israel's agenda--a brutal occupation and desire for war against Iraq and Iran--the US has aided an aggressor state in the heart of the Middle East. US support is underpinned by a loose affiliation of journalists, politicians and lobbyists who operate on the assumption that the only language understood by Arabs and Palestinians is force.

The extraordinary reaction to the Mearsheimer-Walt article suggests that the Israel-US relationship is out of bounds. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz has labelled the authors bigots and compared their study with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Leading neo-conservative intellectual Eliot Cohen has called the academics "anti-Semitic". The Anti-Defamation League sees a "classical conspiratorial anti-Semitic analysis invoking the canards of Jewish power and Jewish control".

The American Enterprise Institute's resident scholar Michael Leeden argues that the study gave comfort to "Ayman al-Zawahiri and his buddy, the Ayatollah Khamenei" because it tells the "Big Lie" and is "anti-Semitic in the grand tradition". He further calls for donors to cease granting funds to the two professors' university departments. Harvard University has removed its logo from web version of the study. Overwhelmingly hostile commentary has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The New Republic, The New York Sun, LA Times and The Boston Globe.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, more nuanced responses have appeared in Europe and Israel. The Financial Times in Britain has described the debate on US-Israel relations as overdue and defended the academic thesis. LRB editor Mary-Kay Wilmers told Britain's The Observer that, being Jewish, she is very alert to anti-Semitism "and I do not think criticising US foreign policy, or Israel's way of going about influencing it, is anti-Semitic".

Daniel Levy, a former prime ministerial advisor in Israel, writes in Haaretz that "defending the occupation has done to the American pro-Israeli community what living as an occupier has done to Israel--muddied both its moral compass and its rational self interest".

Public debate on the subject is routinely curtailed by intimidation and slander initiated by the Zionist lobby. In a healthy democracy, Israel's policies should not be immune to criticism. However, this seems to be the status quo: Israel remains a blind spot of the US Administration.

Take the example of US Jewish historian Norman Finkelstein. His recent book, Beyond Chutzpah, alleges that Dershowitz lifted some passages in his work The Case for Israel from another book, From Time Immemorial, and challenges the Harvard professor's claims about Israel's outstanding human rights record. Dershowitz, well known in the US as a fighter for human rights, attempted to prevent publication of the book, even urging California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to intervene and demand that Finkelstein's publisher, the University of California Press, abandon the project. This supposed free speech advocate appears to believe some subjects are beyond debate.

The situation in Britain is more enlightened. In mid-2004, 347 British Jews wrote to the Board of Deputies of British Jews and said the time had come to "distinguish the interests of the community in Britain from the policies adopted by the Israeli Government. These issues must be brought into the open. Silence discredits us all". Mearsheimer and Walt are merely calling for an appraisal of a key US relationship that has remained a no-go zone for too long.

For those who seek a just and peaceful solution to problems in the Middle East, it is disheartening to witness the attack on a reasoned paper analysing the US-Israel relationship. Beyond the vilification of two distinguished US academics lies the more disturbing question of why a healthy democracy fears a frank analysis. It would be an indication of an ailing democracy if interest groups prevailed in the public sphere.

Anthony Loewenstein is author of My Israel Question, to be released in August by Melbourne University Press.

How amusing. Prior to this you spoke of the "Jews" and "Israel" as if they were one and the same.

oh really? what's amusing is how you continue to dodge the context of this thread and your persistence to insinuate i have a problem with Jews and that i'm an anti semite rather even once adress the theory of this topic.

I think your previous comments and the material on the sites you link to convicts you of anti-semitism. And sorry if I have expressed little interest thus far in the Mossad-did-it theory, as the only evidence I have seen thus far relates to PERMINDEX, whose links to the CIA are much more clearly documented and stronger than the supposed Mossad ones. I've also already had some unpleasant interaction with Mr. Piper, though I confess to not having read his book. After coming across his article that attempted to lower the number of holocaust dead through straw man argumentation, I lost interest in trying to obtain it. If he has some more substantial arguments, I'd like to see them.

Ah yes. The moment has arrived. The self appointed judge and jury now convicts Mark Wilson of that most heinous of crimes. You should have a cup of tea and calm down.

I was going to suggest you read Piper's book but on second thoughts, don't bother.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=7572

Just to bring myself up to speed, I looked up the issue of what is going on in the disputed territories and many sites came up. The above site contains an article written by a journalist who recently visited the occupied territories. Some of the observations are interesting:

1."In the Hebron area, the villagers of Yetta discovered that Israeli settlers had placed poisonous feed and pellets on Palestinian land. Investigated and confirmed by the Christian Peacemaker team, they reported many animals have died".

2. "The Israeli Government is in the process of building another 3500 housing units in the West Bank. The project is designed to make Palestinian claims less viable. Along with settlement expansions, which are in direct opposition to international law and the 4th Geneva Convention, which states that occupying powers must not resettle their populations on occupied land, Israel continues to build the controversial "separation barrier" throughout the West Bank on Palestinian land, annexing thousands of acres into the state of Israel".

3. "Of course the media is generally complicit to uncritical reporting. Most information comes from the Israeli Government itself and few repoters leave Israel proper or Jerusalem. During my 6 week visits to the West Bank, foreign journalists were rarely seen. This should not be considered a surprise. Israel regularly refuses journalists (as well as foreign citizens and human rights workers) from travelling to Palestinian areas. Israel believes part of its' war with the Palestinians is a public relations war. Israeli officials actually speak openly about their need to control the way the conflict is represented in the US and Europe.

People who get all their news about the conflict from the mainstream media in the US and Europe will never be able to understand this conflict. Without searching for alternative news sites that cover events that occur there, most people in the west misunderstand the conflict as a "war between two peoples" or "Israeli response to Palestinian violence" without understanding the basic fact that the Palestinian people live under a harsh military occupation by a foreign army--which today is the longest occupation in history".

Dr. Gil-White cites all his sources. So what? He chooses his sources and then applies his own interpretation on historical events, marking them as positive, negative or mixed, apparently according to how he believes the US should have acted. What weighting scale does he apply? Also, he cites what he believes are injustices against the state of Israel but his references to Israeli injustices against Palestinians during the same periods seem remarkably scarce. He's not a hand waver, is he? Anyway, that's all for the other thread. Put the link to the article on the thread and let the insanity begin. If you can prove that US policy has been pro PLO and anti-Israel, I will declare you the finest debater I have encountered. Don't hold your breath.

Of course he applies his interpretation to historical events. We all do, especially on this forum.

Anyway, I will be more than happy to discuss supposed Israeli injustices toward the Palestinians in the thread. I think you will find that, despite what the PLO or Hamas might say (or various "left-wing" writers), there have been very few.

Er, yes I know that the polls show most Americans support Israel. But do the polls show that by (quite legitimately) arguing the case for Israel/Mossad's possible involvement, this makes me "explicitly anti-Israel"? That's your opinion, not the opinion of "most Americans".

I never said you were "explicitly anti-Israel" for tying the Mossad in with the Kennedy assassination, I said the government doesn't voice an "explicitly anti-Israel" view because it goes against American public opinion. What are you going on about?

I don't find Piper to be a reliable source on anything, as he is a proven Holocaust denier.

Yes, I appreciate your offer to discuss the injustices (alleged or otherwise) perpetrated by the Israelis on Palestinian targets but I'm asking why Dr. Gil-White doesn't mention them in his lengthy piece? Alleged injustices by both sides should be analysed in an even handed article shouldn't they? His article is peppered with references to attacks allegedly made against Israel but mentions nothing of Israel's on Palestine. Anyway, it will be interesting discussing the matter. I'll address future comments about it to that thread.

Your original quote in post #47 was that being explicitly anti-Israel won't fly. Of course it won't. Being explicitly anti-Iceland or anti-New Zealand won't fly either. There's no point. Why would the US Government needlessly voice anti-Israel sentiments? A very confusing comment even when attempting to contrast the US Government's words and actions. Over to the other thread with this also. Better still, forget it altogether.

On Piper, I disagree. I believe he's got a strong argument.

A few points.

Firstly, you've misread my reply to Lee. I'm referring to Piper's book being banned, not books on the Liberty being banned. Do you deny the US Government has tried to silence Piper?

Ah, I see. I did indeed misread your reply. Anyway, yes, I do deny that Piper's book has been banned by the U.S. government. This is an assertion that he likes to make but I haven't seen it backed up. Provide some examples.

Secondly, being anti-Israel is not my intention. In pointing out, quite correctly, that Israel gained from the assassination, and that Mossad has form in regard to subversive activities and has been supported in these endevours by the Israeli leadership, I'm making a case for Israel's complicity in the assassination. According to you, being explicitly anti-Israel won't fly with most Americans. I don't see how you can speak for most Americans, but my intention is to highlight the truth about America's policy towards Israel and the Middle East generally. If this makes me explicitly anti-Israel, I'll have to live with such a label but I don't agree with it.

Last I heard, polls show that most Americans support Israel. Gee.

Anyway, I speak of the U.S. government's motivation in saying what it doesn't actually mean, not the anti-Israel views of private citizens. You've done some misreading of your own.

If you want to start a thread about whether or not US policy has favored Israel or the PLO, then I'll be happy to participate in that debate. However, you know that such an issue is not the subject of this thread. I'm eager to see how you can justify the argument that US policy has favored the PLO over Israel. It will take more than simply cherry-picking dubious articles sympathetic to such an absurd claim--you might have to place the argument into some kind historical context. I'd like to see that. BTW, how many times has the PLO leadership been invited to Washington for discussions?

I don't need to list lots of sites which agree with my views in order to justify my arguments. They'll go nowhere if not backed by common sense. I'm happy to debate you on these issues tangential to the main issue (ie. Israel's involvement in the assassination). Just start the thread. I'm keen to see how far out on a limb you will go.

More hand waving. Dr. Gil-White cites all his sources, which are all quite credible. I look forward to seeing your non hand waving efforts in this thread I have just started: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6577

Let's see who comes out looking the most absurd. I prefer dealing with facts, not some arbitrary definition of "common sense."

Dr. Gil-White cites all his sources. So what? He chooses his sources and then applies his own interpretation on historical events, marking them as positive, negative or mixed, apparently according to how he believes the US should have acted. What weighting scale does he apply? Also, he cites what he believes are injustices against the state of Israel but his references to Israeli injustices against Palestinians during the same periods seem remarkably scarce. He's not a hand waver, is he? Anyway, that's all for the other thread. Put the link to the article on the thread and let the insanity begin. If you can prove that US policy has been pro PLO and anti-Israel, I will declare you the finest debater I have encountered. Don't hold your breath.

Er, yes I know that the polls show most Americans support Israel. But do the polls show that by (quite legitimately) arguing the case for Israel/Mossad's possible involvement, this makes me "explicitly anti-Israel"? That's your opinion, not the opinion of "most Americans".

The most reliable source for determining whether Piper's book was banned would be Piper himself, I guess. I'll E-mail him and ask. I don't believe he'll relish the prospect of returning to the Forum himself after the hostile reception he recieved the first time.

Anyway, the thread goes on. Your aggressive pursuit of those who dare suggest Israeli involvement seems to have frightened some people off. Not everyone, though. I've still got a few things to say. Thank goodness for freedom of speech, eh.

You sure know where to find articles to support your ideas. The one by Dr. Gil-White is the most intriguing, IMO. For all these years it appeared to me that America's words and actions indicated they were strong allies, even protectors of Israel. Blow me down, now I find out that the US foreign policy has been pro-PLO all along!

Of course, it's hard to suspend disbelief for too long. It gives me a headache.

U.S. words indicate support of Israel, not actions (and lets not forget the aphorism "actions speak louder than words"). This is achieved by redefining the terms and boundaries of the debate. Being explicitly anti-Israel won't fly with most Americans, as that would be just a little too, you know, blatantly Nazi-esque. I suggest you actually confront Gil-White's documented facts, rather than voicing your disbelief (with nothing to back it up). These articles, by the way, are not things I just found to "support my ideas," rather, they have shaped my thinking on the issues.

Let's start with just the two I have already brought up: Why did the United States rescue the PLO from Lebanon, and then why did they browbeat the Israelis into participating in the Madrid peace talks (with the goal of getting the PLO back into the Occupied Territories) by threatening withdrawal of financial aid? If the U.S. was truly pro-Israel, they would have let the PLO (which was still seen then for the terrorist organization that it actually is) be exterminated, thus ending their supposed "resistance" to Israeli occupation (how interesting that in the PLO's original charter, before the Six Day War, when Israel gained Gaza and the West Bank, they explicitly disavow any interest in these areas, which were then occupied by Arab states and the living conditions were worse than they became under Israeli control).

Also, do you still hold that the Palestinian leadership is not responsible for the living conditions in the territories that they have actually been running for over a decade now?

Let's engage in a real debate here. I have continually cited sources; you have been waving your hands and avoiding issues, seemingly only because you have a prior belief in Israeli villainy and U.S. complicity in said villainy. I started out with this position also (Norman Finkelstein used to be one of my favorite "experts" on the conflict), but reexamined my position and changed. You might not do this, but at least try to support and back up your pronouncements.

Could you please post the link to the article on this thread for all to see.

The article is a truly bizarre exercise in looking at an issue from only one perspective. I intend addressing many of Dr. Gil-White's historical "interpretations" of what constitutes an ally at some length over the coming days but it would be helpful to have the link on this thread.