Mark Stapleton

Gerry Hemming has reminded me that his primary contact for access to the Kennedy White House was a New York financier named Theodore Racoosin who was very close to the Kennedys. Racoosin was known as one of the five founders of the State of Israel.

There is a professional "chair" named for Racoosin at the respected Weizmann Institute for Science in Rehovet, Israel.

There is also a Theodore Racoosin Chair of Talmud and Rabbincs at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City.

New York University has a program of Theodore Racoosin scholars.

Clearly Mr. Racoosin was a remarkable man.

Does it make any sense whatsoever that Israel would kill a President who was so closely affiliated with one of its founders? Of course not.

Now it's TWO books demolishing Piper's book? It's becoming a virtual avalanche. Excellent timing, I must say. No coincidences there.

Theodore Racoosin, eh? Gerry's point man at the White House, was he? So this means Racoosin and JFK were like blood brothers, eh? In the same way that C Douglas Dillon and JFK were like blood brothers, is that what you mean?

I've heard his name before so I did a search on Google to refresh my memory. He gets a mention in Hinckle's "The fish is red" and William Turner's "Rear Window". If anyone has read these I would be keen to know in what context he is mentioned. He is also mentioned in the book which is the title of this thread.

The most interesting thing was that I checked in Dallek's bio of JFK, "JFK-An unfinished life"---800 pages long and a great read if you're a fan of JFK like me, and guess what? That's right, nothing. Not a sausage. Not even a passing mention of JFK's recently discovered dear friend.

p.s. Way to cause confusion and misunderstanding, Tim. Just post all these new discoveries on three different threads, using different bits on each thread. Kind of like immersing the Forum in a fog. However, some can see through it.

So our resident anti-Israeli "expert" Mark Stapleton deems himself qualified to rebut the works of prominent scholars e.g. Herbert M. Druks and Warren Bass, both of whose books have received positive reviews from other mid-East scholars: that is, people who study and teach mid-east politics for a living.

What do you think, Len, do you think Mark has actually read either book? I seriously doubt it.

It is interesting that the premise of both books is essentially the same: that the close relationship between Israel and the United States really began with President John F. Kennedy. That, in my opinion, is a very important foreign policy development for which JFK deserves great credit.

Len, I have a number of books in my library about the Kennedy administration, written by insiders. Tomorrow (per your suggestion in a previous post) I will try to research what those books say about changing US policy toward Israel under JFK.

Finally I have a title, "the resident anti-Israel expert". Does that supercede "liberal" and "socialist"? What took you so long. I thought you might come up with something like that much earlier.

Er, no I haven't read the book. But yes I do have the temerity to challenge it's assertions. The one about the reasons for the sale of Hawk missiles is wrong so why wouldn't I challenge other elements of the book? Any book that would seriously have a section entitled, "Overated Jewish Lobby" has to be highly suspect. Does it have other sections like "Meagre, Underfunded, US Military"?

The reason I challenge that book by a real mid-East scholar is because I, too, have a book written by a real mid-East scholar. I must sound like I have a financial interest in this book but, once again, it's "Israel and the bomb" by Avner Cohen (1998). And I'm saying my book says your book is rubbish. I'll back it's credibility over your book, or any other you can throw up against it.

What do you think, Len--do you think Tim's read my book?

Tell you what, why don't we ask 10 or 20 of the most scholarly members to read both books (and I respect that some on the Forum don't want to get involved in this issue) and tell us which one has more credibility. I'll risk my credibility on Avner Cohen's credibility. Do you accept this challenge? Providing we can garner enough interested members, of course.

Cohen's book is an interesting read. It traces the entire history of Israel's nuclear procurement in a very accessable style. What's yours about? Oh yeah, how JFK was the best buddy Israel ever had (but we're sure glad we got that goddam bomb).

BTW, I have to ask. Tell me what it was Tim, my curiosity is killing me. Was this revelation that JFK was Israel's greatest ally just a recent breakthrough with very fortunate timing or did you know about all this before? If it was the latter, why have you kept it to yourself until now?

I think it pretty clear that the German audience knew what JFK was trying to communicate. IMO JFK's speech in West Berlin was one of his greatest (of course many of his speeches WERE great but I should say his Berlin speech was outstanding. In many ways Berlin and Germany came to symbolize the conflict between the two great Cold War adversaries. I think the JFK speech in Berlin can be compared to Ronald Reagan's speech where he uttered his famous challenge: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

The Berlin Wall certainly made for good Cold War theater, serving as a moving symbol of communist oppression for a quarter century. The circumstances that led to the building of the Wall are seldom discussed. It's good to remember how the NATO countries were prepared to launch all-out nuclear war to defend West Berlin, a half city located over one hundred miles inside of East Germany. Khrushchev was in a bind over the flood of skilled professionals escaping to the West through that city. It had to be stopped, but if he stopped it, as he claimed at the Vienna Summit to be his intention, there was no form of conventional warfare to contest it. Kennedy deftly sent the subtle signal that there would be no violation of Western interests if the East Germans constructed a Wall on their own territory. The Wall calmed the Berlin Crisis, backfired profoundly as a propaganda symbol, and ultimately bought the time needed to avoid a nuclear war. It's also good to remember how many asserted that Kennedy's refusal to knock the Wall down was a sign of weakness. Berlin demonstrated the efficacy of Kennedy's kind of leadership, in contrast to the solutions preferred by militarists. The euphoria in the streets of Berlin that day of the Ich Bin Ein Berliner speech showed how much people all over the world recognized how Kennedy had brought everyone through the moment of maximum peril.

T.C.

Nice summary, Tim. Some interesting points, there.

JFK's performance in defusing the Cuban Missile Crisis was a huge hit in Germany and the rest of Europe. The American public appreciated it but the JCS, oil and arms industries thought it stank.

See my thread in the JFK debate: "The Book That Demolishes 'Final Judgment.'"

It is over, Piper. Your entire premise for Israeli motive to kill Kennedy has been conclusively demolished by the scholarly work of a true historian.

Also note that according to Robert Kennedy's daughter, it was RFK's support for Israel that led to HIS assassination.

See my reply to your post on that thread.

The author cited four reasons why the U.S. sold Hawk missiles to Israel in the early '60s and failed to get it right.

From your excerpts, that book demolishes nothing.

By the way, Ron, have you no shame in accepting something of value (well, maybe not) from a man who is not deeply disturbed by the horrors of the Holocaust?

That's a fine statement coming from someone who supports the Bush/Cheney regime, which gave us the horrors of 9/11 and the obscenity in Iraq.

You look out for your financial affairs and I'll look out for mine.

Nicely put, Ron.

Tim, MCP is sending me a copy, too. Don't try to use moral arguments to dissuade people from reading a book. If it's rubbish I'll dismiss it and I'm sure Ron will too. The day I tell you what to read is the day you can tell me what to read.

Here is a review of "Support Any Friend" by a diplomat who served in both the Bush AND Clinton administrations, Dennis Ross, the director and Ziegler distinguished fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy:

President John F. Kennedy, in his inaugural address, declared that the United States would "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, [and] oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Borrowing from that speech, Warren Bass, a former senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, has written a book titled "Support Any Friend: Kennedy's Middle East and the Making of the U.S.-Israel Alliance." It is the story of the Kennedy administration's policy toward the Middle East, and it is exceedingly well told.

That the story is also interesting may come as a surprise, especially to most observers of the

Middle East. Other presidents and their administrations are associated with particular events that encapsulate their policies. Harry Truman is known for his quick recognition of Israel, despite the opposition of his senior foreign policy advisers. Dwight Eisenhower is known for his opposition to the Israeli attack — coordinated with the British and French — against Gamal Abdel Nasser's Egypt in the Suez War of 1956, and his successful pressure to get Israel to withdraw from the Sinai after the war. Lyndon Johnson is known for his vacillation in response to Nasser's blockade of the Straits of Tiran and Egypt's deployment of six divisions to Israel's border in May of 1967 — events that immediately led to the Six Day War in June 1967. But he is also known for his readiness to provide weapons to Israel and the framing of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 in November 1967. Richard Nixon and his administration are known for the critical support provided to Israel during the war in 1973 and Kissinger's shuttle diplomacy following the war.

From Gerald Ford's "reassessment" and subsequent assurance letter to then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1975 to Clinton's shalom chaver in 1995 following the assassination of Rabin and his summit diplomacy in 2000, each administration is known for something when it comes to the Middle East. But there has not been an easy handle to describe President Kennedy's administration.

While there may not have been dramatic events during the Kennedy tenure, Bass points out that the Kennedy presidency shifted America's approach to the Middle East, making possible a "full-blown U.S.-Israeli alliance." It was, he says, the Kennedy administration that "broke the taboo on arms sales to Israel... fudged a compromise that smoothed over the nuclear issue... set the precedent of professionalized security talks...and began the process of minimizing the costs of friendship with Israel by discovering the limits of friendship with the Arab states." If, as Bass writes, "Harry Truman was the father of the U.S.-Israel special relationship, John Kennedy was the father of the U.S.-Israel alliance." [Emphasis supplied.]

Bass does not simply assert these conclusions; he demonstrates their validity by describing the legacy of policy that Kennedy inherited, and by providing extensive detail on Kennedy's efforts in three areas: reaching out to Nasser's Egypt, selling Hawk anti-aircraft missiles to Israel, and trying to get David Ben-Gurion to permit inspections of Israel's nuclear plant at Dimona.

Bass's discussion of the legacy reminds us that it was the opposition of George Marshall, Robert Lovett, and Dean Acheson — known as the "Wise Men" — to Truman's recognition of Israel that established one of the myths about American policy toward the Middle East: That U.S. support of Israel is only a function of domestic political factors, not of the shared interests and bonds of two democracies.

Marshall, then secretary of state, was dead-set against U.S. recognition of the state of Israel, believing it would be a disaster for us with the Arab world. In a pivotal meeting held to decide what to do as the British departed from Palestine, Marshall objected to the presence of Clark Clifford — a presidential political advisor — and then, as Bass recounts, boldly said to President Truman: "If you follow Clifford's advice and in the election I were to vote, I would vote against you." For Marshall, Truman's decision was all politics. He ignored Truman's sense of responsibility to the Jewish people after the Holocaust as well as Truman's anger at the State Department for reversing his policy supporting the partition of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state — a shift in policy at the United Nations that caught Truman by surprise.

For Middle Eastern experts in the State Department, the lesson seemed clear: Politics, not our national interests, determine our policy toward Israel. In Bass's words, "The accusation of impropriety in Israel policy was the Wise Men's greatest gift to the Arabists." The guiding assumptions for those who worked on the Middle East were that we had no real interests in Israel, Israel could only complicate our relationship with the Arabs, and the Soviets could exploit that complication. The Eisenhower administration embraced these assumptions, and added one of its own — i.e., Israel was also expansionist: Israel was not so much threatened by the Arabs as it threatened them. As with most mythologies, no one questioned what became the conventional wisdom.

With the advent of the Kennedy administration, there was very little questioning among the specialists about the approach to Israel, but there was much questioning of the efficacy of the policy that Kennedy was inheriting more generally. Kennedy and those around him felt the Eisenhower policies were hidebound. Kennedy was attracted to leaders in the Third World who were independent, progressive, noncommunist and governed largely by national pride. In the competition with the Soviet Union, Kennedy believed, America could be successful if it reached out to such leaders — and Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt was seen as one such leader. Reaching out to Nasser represented a profound departure from the Eisenhower administration's approach.

While Kennedy was prepared to see what an initiative with Nasser might produce, he was not nearly as enthusiastic about the possibilities as the specialists in the State Department and his own specialist at the National Security Council, Robert Komer. Nasser's pan-Arabism was seen less as a threat and more as a reflection of the Arab ethos, giving Nasser a commanding presence in the Arab world — or so the specialists believed. Kennedy was more skeptical but willing to explore what might be possible with Nasser.

One theme that emerges in the book is that Kennedy was hands-on, paid close attention, and often seems to have had a better grasp of the realities than his Middle Eastern experts. He was more dubious of Nasser, was more skeptical of the Johnson plan on refugees that asked Israel to absorb Palestinian refugees without any clear end point, and was instinctively more inclined to see that Israel faced a threat. Unlike the prevailing wisdom in the bureaucracy, which portrayed Israel as expansionist, as early as his presidential candidacy, Kennedy declared that Arab state belligerence to Israel was the "threshold obstacle" to peace in the Middle East. While the political benefits of this posture should not be discounted, it seems consistent with his subsequent approach to Israel.

Until Kennedy's decision to sell Hawk missiles to Israel, there was a taboo on weapons sales or a military relationship of any kind with Israel. Ben-Gurion had felt it essential for Israel to have a security relationship with America, but he had been repeatedly rebuffed by the Eisenhower administration — which, fearing Arab reactions, excluded Israel from the security alliances it sought to forge in the Middle East against the Soviet threat. Those reactions also precluded selling arms to Israel.

Measured against the realities of the current U.S.-Israel relationship and the repeated declarations of "America's ironclad commitment to Israeli security," it is hard to imagine that the sale of anti-aircraft missiles to Israel would be seen as destabilizing. But the argument in the Eisenhower administration and by the State Department in the first years of the Kennedy presidency was precisely that: Selling defensive missiles to Israel would trigger an arms race with the Arabs, give the Soviets an opportunity to fish in troubled waters and whet the Israeli appetite for more arms. That the Soviets had been providing arms to Egypt, Syria and Iraq made no difference to the State Department arguments. The U.S. would not sell to Israel, and the State Department repeatedly said Israel faced no real threat from its neighbors.

So why did Kennedy decide to break the taboo arms sales to Israel? Bass offers several reasons: First, the Defense Department, in the person of William Bundy, made the case that Israel had a legitimate need for the Hawk missiles, given the growing arsenals of its neighbors — effectively providing a Defense Department assessment that undercut the State Department argument. Second, Israel, in the person of Shimon Peres — then Ben-Gurion's deputy in the Israeli defense ministry — met with President Kennedy and convincingly worked the Washington bureaucratic scene to make Israel's case. Third, Nasser's war in Yemen — his Vietnam — roiled the inter-Arab waters, making it clear that the conservative Arab regimes were far more focused on Nasser's threat to them than anything else. (In addition to limiting what would be possible with Egypt, this also signaled that the Arab reaction to the sale was likely to be muted.) Fourth, Kennedy's preoccupation with nonproliferation was paramount, and he felt he would have more leverage over Israel's nuclear program at Dimona if he responded to Israel's request for the Hawk missiles.

Interestingly, Bass attributes no role to the "Jewish lobby" in the sale. Indeed, in general terms, he sees the influence of the Israel lobby as being exaggerated, entitling one section the "Overrated Israeli Lobby."

As someone who spent more than a decade in senior positions in the first Bush and two Clinton administrations, I was struck by certain continuities and changes from the past. The most profound change is, of course, the relationship with Israel. While the legacy of fearing the consequences of too close an identification with Israel still exists among many of our diplomatic corps serving in the Arab world, no one questions the U.S. commitment to Israel. Ironically, for all those who bemoan our "bias" toward Israel, Arab leaders always emphasize that the U.S. is the only one capable of influencing Israeli behavior. Whatever their complaints about our policy, they are always asking us to do more, not less on the peace issue.

The most striking continuity is in the bureaucratic battles on Middle Eastern issues. Though far tamer in the Kennedy administration than those we see today, Bass suggests that they were decisive in changing the direction of the U.S.-Israel relationship. This is one area in which I would have liked to see additional discussion in the book: Why the change in the Defense Department attitudes from the Eisenhower administration? Was it only the change of personalities, as Bass suggests? Would that explain why later in the Nixon and Carter administrations the Defense Department was more skeptical of the relationship with Israel? Or, were there other factors at play, like greater preoccupation with the "Arab cold war" at the Defense Department — given relations with the Saudis — than at the State Department? How might that have affected bureaucratic perspectives later on?

While interesting for enhancing our understanding of the roots of bureaucratic dissonance on the Middle East, Bass can hardly be faulted for not delving deeper into these questions. He has written a superb book — one that a scholarly and more general audience will find fascinating and useful for understanding some of today's realities.

Tim,

The sale of the Hawk missiles was tied to Israeli concessions on the Palestinian refugee problem. In mid-August 1962, JFK sent Myer Feldman to Israel to craft the deal*--why didn't Mr. Bass mention this?

Then, according to the fawning reviewer, Bass attributes no role in the sale to the Jewish Lobby! You must be joking. In fact, the Jewish Lobby is "overated" and the author devotes an entire section to this, entitled "Overated Jewish Lobby"! I give the author credit for a keen sense of humor.

Are you going to drown us with this stuff?

*From "Israel and the Bomb"--Avner Cohen, Columbia University Press, 1998 ISBN 0-231-10483-9: The conversation between Ben-Gurion and Feldman is recorded in an outgoing Foreign Ministry cable to the embassy in Washington, dated 20 August 1962 (ISA, FMRG 3377/7. Also, Myer Feldman interview by author 10 June 1992, 14 October 1994 and 14 July 1997.

Indeed Israel had gotten by without arms sales from the US up to that point because thay had found other countries to arm them. The Dimona project counted on help from Britain, Norway and France. If Kennedy had cut off arms sales there is no reason to believe that Israel couldn't have gotten weapons froms it's previous suppliers esp. those nations that were willing to help it develop atomic weapons.

I assume the US knew about the help was getting from Europe, is there any sign Kennedy put pressure on them to stop? If not how serious were his efforts to prevent Israel from developing such weapons?

Is there anything in Kennedy's White House tapes or biographies or memoirs etc of those who served in his administration that supports or contradicts Piper's thesis?

You're wrong, Len. De Gaulle immediately halted French participation in the Dimona project when he was elected in 1960. The Israeli Government then turned to Norway. I'm not sure about Britain, I'll have to check it up.

The US probably did know about Israel obtaining help with the construction of the plutonium separation plant. However, I can assure you JFK was very serious about Israeli non-proliferation.

Most researchers know about Kennedy's letter to Ben Gurion on 15 June, 1963 and to new PM Eshkol on 5 July. Ben Gurion resigned and refused to open his letter and it was returned to Washington. The Eshkol letter has been posted previously, but its language is plain, direct and unambiguous. In part:

"As I wrote Mr. Ben Gurion, this Government's commitment to and support of Israel (my italics) could be seriously jeopardised if it should be thought that we were unable to obtain reliable information on a subject as vital to peace as the question of Israel's effort in the nuclear field."

Avner Cohen, in "Israel and the bomb", describes the language as blunt and threatening.

There's also NSAM 231, issued by JFK in March, 1963:

"The President decrees, as a matter of urgency, that we undertake every feasible measure to improve our intelligence on the Israeli nuclear program as well as other Israeli and UAR advanced weapons programs and to arrive at a firmer evaluation of their import. In this connection he wishes the next informal inspection of the Israeli reactor complex to be undertaken promptly and be as thourough as possible....."

JFK knew that Israel were planning to produce nuclear weapons at Dimona, despite repeated assurances from Shimon Peres and other Israeli officials that they were not.

On April 2, 1963 JFK by chance happened to run into Peres and Myer Feldman in a White House corridor (Peres was in Washington on Hawk related missile business). JFK hastily arranged a twenty minute meeting with Peres which included the following exchange:

JFK: You know that we follow very closely the discovery of any nuclear development in the region. This could create a very dangerous situation. For this reason we kept in touch with your nuclear effort. What could you tell me about this?

PERES: I can tell you most clearly that we will not introduce nuclear weapons to the region and certainly we will not be the first. Our interest is in reducing armament, even in complete disarmament.

Peres and other officials reassured Kennedy repeatedly. They lied. They did introduce nuclear weapons to the region and they were the first. JFK was determined to stop them.

Was JFK a jelly doughnut?

A language teacher's thoughts:

In JFK’s famous speech in Berlin in 1963 he announced in German to his audience “Ich bin ein Berliner”, which was greeted with rapturous applause and cheers. However, what JFK did not appear to know was that he was actually saying “I am a jelly doughnut” (in British English “I am a jam doughnut”), which is how the phrase is usually interpreted if you leave in the indefinite article “ein” (“a”).

“I am a citizen of Berlin (Berliner)” is normally expressed as “Ich bin Berliner” – without the indefinite article "ein". “Hamburger”, “Frankfurter” and “Wiener” (Viennese sausage – or something quite rude but sausage-shaped) work the same way. However, Berliners don’t call a doughnut a “Berliner”. “Berliner” is the word for “doughnut” that is used outside Berlin in many parts of Germany. Berliners call a doughnut “Krapfen”, as do the Austrians, for example. So maybe the Berliners were quite clear about what he meant to say.

How about this as an essay title?

“JFK claimed in Berlin in 1963 that he was a jelly doughnut. Did this have anything to do with his subsequent assassination?”

That should keep you guys busy for a while. I won’t be around much to read your replies, however, as I am about to enter hospital for major abdominal surgery that will put me out of action for at least four weeks.

I always had a suspicion about Dunkin' Donuts role in the assassination. They hate competition.

Good luck with the surgery.

John,

I agree with the other members that you have put together the pieces nicely to establish a very interesting argument. Perhaps 1960 should be regarded as the date when control of the Executive by Suite 8F Group interests really began. The group's watchdog was installed as VP in preparation for bigger things to come.

Makes one wonder whether JFK's removal would have been necessary if he had "played the game" in regard to issues such as military expenditure, cold war rhetoric and largesse to oil and other big business. I think they might have left JFK alone, leaving LBJ to cry into a pitcher of warm spit.

And Mr piper, all joking aside you need help. seek it out now, while its not to late...

Piper, that is the opinion of a professional. Steve is a psychological councilor.

He's a what?

Congratulations, Steve. Election to the local council is only the first rung on the ladder. After that it's Mayor, House of Reps, and Number 10.

Hi Mark

Dr. Findlay might still come up with something useful to further knowledge of the case, depending what he is sent as a result of his appeal to receive artifacts from the case. However, the results to date, I understand, have been disappointing. The following is the way we reported the first results of his investigation in the January issue of Ripperologist (no. 63):

Findlay DNA Results Are Inconclusive

As we reported in December in Ripperologist 62, Prof Ian Findlay at Queensland’s Griffith University has developed a new DNA analysis which he hopes will help to increase knowledge of the Ripper case. On 24 January on the ‘Casebook: Jack the Ripper’ message boards, Prof Findlay reported that unfortunately his analysis of samples obtained from ‘Ripper letters’ and from a braid of hair alleged to be from victim Catherine Eddowes have up to this point been inconclusive.

Findlay stated, ‘We performed two types of forensic DNA analysis: nuclear and mitochondrial. As previously stated, nuclear is more powerful with specificity around the billion to 1 mark. Whereas mitochondrial can be approximately be 20 to 100 to 1. . . .’

‘We tested the hair braid and hairs from known descendants of Eddowes using mitochondrial sequencing. The descendants’ hairs were consistent with both descendant having a common maternal ancestor, in this case likely to be Eddowes. However, the hair braid consistently failed to provide a profile. This could be due to: 1. technique failing. Possible but unlikely as the technique worked well with other hair. 2. As the test looks for human DNA sequences, this could indicate that hair is not human. Nuclear testing on the hair provided several partial DNA profiles, including male, which may simply be from cellular contamination on the hair rather than from the hair. Conclusion: We cannot determine that the hair braid is from Eddowes or not. In fact, it is possible that the hair braid is not human and therefore not from Eddowes.’

Regarding the ‘Ripper letters,’ Findlay said, ‘The good news is that we obtained nuclear DNA forensic profiles from the Openshaw [letter] envelope seal samples (and hence possibly from the sender) and blood stains from two [other ‘Ripper’] letters. This demonstrates that nuclear DNA exists and that our techniques can detect it. I understand (though may be wrong) that [Patricia] Cornwell’s team failed to obtain nuclear DNA profiles but did obtain a mitochondrial profile from the envelope seal.’

He continued: ‘[The] bad news is that unfortunately all the profiles are partial and inconclusive and may originate from multiple persons. This isn’t very surprising considering that the letters etc would have been handled dozens to hundreds of times over the last 120 years – often without gloves etc. In conclusion – although DNA profiles from letters were obtained, they are inconclusive.’ Prof Findlay concluded: ‘Although our DNA techniques have worked, it appears that the notoriety of the Ripper case may have worked against us as the letters and hair braid have been handled multiple times thus contaminating the samples.’

For more on the DNA technique used by Prof Findlay see http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20051...ripper_tec.html

Chris,

Thanks for that. It's disappointing.

I had my hopes pinned on the saliva on the envelopes as I thought it could only be that of the sender. Of course, who knows how many others handled the envelope. It was also probably re-sealed quite a few times.

. Again I think you misunderstood what pissed everyone off. Instead of defending his thesis he insulted the forum as a whole, kept on throwing in new Jewish conspiracies and repeatedly accused other members of lying or as I said before he "shat on the forum".

Start the new thread and I'm sure you will get people to comment.

Remember Piper wasn't a victim, he intentionally antagonized people and left of his own volition.

Len

Len,

Well I read all his posts and those of his correspondents and I don't agree that he did all those things. His book hasn't been dismissed by everyone and there appears to be a significant minority, including Mark Lane, who think he might be on to something. It's in its sixth edition, so obviously some people want to read it.

Mark I suggest you re-read both threads esp.the other one

I don't think many serious JFK scholars take him seriously. As for Mark Lane he seems to have gone over the deeped a long time ago. There's nothing wrong with a Jew being anti-Israel but you gotta wonder when one becomesone of the top cheerleaders for America's leading purveyor of anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial and pro-Hilter litrature you have to wonder about self-loathing.

Len

I've read both threads quite carefully but thanks for the gratuitous advice.

Maybe you're right in suggesting most researchers don't take him seriously. Maybe we should have a poll. In any case, Piper's book is in its 6th edition and if the sales figures he stated are accurate, then someone's reading it. Just because it doesn't get a lot of publicity in the mainstream press doesn't mean people aren't reading it. It seems that others are looking closely at this issue--Piper cited other recent books such as The Case against Israel and Bomb in the Basement. It's a little early to write him off, IMO.

I have no idea if Mark Lane supports MCP's theory, I'm only taking MCP's word for it. But if he does, that doesn't mean he's gone over the deep end. Lane's written books and made significant contributions to the public understanding of this case. What have you done?

Forum Member's:

Has anyone emailed Piper to request a free copy of his book? Just curious about the intellectual curiosity of JFK researchers here.

I have to admit that after reading up to half way through chapter five, I'm still looking for substantiated hard evidence about Mossad invoilvement?

Has anyone read either of the two chapter's that Piper posted from his book for members to read as part of the substantial issues raised?

Jeff D.

I did Jeff. I mean I E-mailed Mr. Piper and requested a copy (offered to pay of course), and I read those attachments in the book review thread (excerpts from chapters 11 and 12). I noticed that when I downloaded the attachment, the latter had only had 3 downloads.

I don't think there'll be any hard evidence. Its a circumstantial case--just like every other theory about the assassination. There's never been any proof to back up any theory about the assassination and this one's no different, IMO.

Len,

It interesting that those who expressed such outrage at Mr. Piper's theory about the assassination are silent about the incredible largesse granted to Israel by the American Government over many years.

Tim Gratz has conspicuously failed to respond to my post.

You're right that this matter should really be in the politics subforum but since this thread has already covered such a wide range of topics, I thought I might as well throw another one in.

Perhaps they agreed with me that it would take the thread too far off topic or perhaps they didn't think they were knowledge enough to comment. Again I think you misunderstood what pissed everyone off. Instead of defending his thesis he insulted the forum as a whole, kept on throwing in new Jewish conspiracies and repeatedly accused other members of lying or as I said before he "shat on the forum".

Start the new thread and I'm sure you will get people to comment.

Remember Piper wasn't a victim, he intentionally antagonized people and left of his own volition.

Len

Len,

Well I read all his posts and those of his correspondents and I don't agree that he did all those things. His book hasn't been dismissed by everyone and there appears to be a significant minority, including Mark Lane, who think he might be on to something. It's in its sixth edition, so obviously some people want to read it.

It's quite incredible that the Bush Administration is still denying its intentions concerning the bases being constructed in Iraq. According to a recent article by Tom Engelhardt, they are starting to resemble mini-cities. There's no doubt these are permanent bases and America's long term intentions are clear.

As recently as Christmas Day 2005, Donald Rumsfeld stated that the US had no plans to construct permanent bases in Iraq. He lied.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/32320/

I'm particularly interested in hearing what Tim Gratz has to say about this. Did Rumsfeld lie?

Even Mark seems to recognize that Piper has his head firmly implanted in his bowels.

I never said that about Piper. He's controversial and forthright, that's what I said. Maybe he has witnessed the American Government's treatment of native Americans and compared that to the Government's especially favorable policy towards Israel, leaving him with a jaundiced view of American foreign policy.

I don't dismiss his theory about the assassination, not by a long stretch. Although he wasn't here long and didn't really address the assassination sufficiently, not one point raised by the howling mob caused me to doubt my suspicion of Israeli Government involvement.

And none of Piper's inquisitors can answer the question first raised by Jeff: What is the justification for the huge annual financial and military aid program for Israel ?

Mark - I read too much into your comments. You said he's "not a debater" and that his evidence was "only circumstantial". Since I wasn't sure I said you "...seem(s) to recognize...". You refer to his critics as "the howling mob" and his “inquisitors” but don't criticize his atrocious behavior. He did of course provoke anger and I suspect that was intentional. I assume he realizes that his case is weak thus he prefers to have his critics focus in him and his controversial views than his evidence.

I propose that we (any interested forum members) read through the chapters he annexed and evaluate them on their merits. The last thing he wants is that people knowledgeable about the assassination find flaws in his research or analysis. This might even draw him back here. Hopefully if he comes back he will return 'toliet trained'. Also if any one finds other excerpts on the Web to post them here.

America's policy in the Middle East is an important issue but really should be debated in another thread. The most appropriate place would be "political conspiracies" but I suggest that a new section be added "politically controversies" for issues like this that don't fit into any of the existing categories in the "Controversial Issues in History" sub forum.

Len

Len,

It interesting that those who expressed such outrage at Mr. Piper's theory about the assassination are silent about the incredible largesse granted to Israel by the American Government over many years.

Tim Gratz has conspicuously failed to respond to my post.

You're right that this matter should really be in the politics subforum but since this thread has already covered such a wide range of topics, I thought I might as well throw another one in.

The other questions raised are relevant, especially America's huge financial support for Israel. If this was more widely known by the American public, would the public still support this policy? What's the justification for such a policy? Is it in America's long term interests? Why don't Americans ask their Government to justify such a longstanding policy?

I'm sure it partly has to do with Judeo-Christian religion. Bible-believing Christians still see Palestine as the "Holy Land," see Jews as God's "chosen people" (as most recently reiterated by Tim Gratz), and see the modern state of Israel as fulfillment of biblical prophecy that Israel would be restored. It naturally follows that Israel is to be supported. Otherwise God will get you.

Ron,

I think you're right about that. I've been doing a little browsing to find out more about this issue. Some of the numbers are staggering:

* One third of all US foreign aid goes to Israel, depite the fact that Israel has only .01% of the world's population.

* From 1973 to 2003, Israel has cost the US about $1.6 trillion, more than $5,700 for every US citizen, depite the fact that Israel ranks 16th highest in income per capita--higher than countries such as Ireland, Spain and Saudi Arabia.

* According to Thomas Stauffer, a consulting economist in Washington D.C., the cost of Israel's drawn out dispute with the Palestinians has cost more than twice that of the Vietnam War.

* US policy and trade sanctions reduce US exports to the Middle East by about $5 billion, Stauffer estimates, which costs America about 70,000 jobs. The requirement that US aid be used to purchase US products is waived in the case of Israel, costing another 125,000 jobs.

* American financial and technical assisstance have helped Israel become a major weapons supplier. Domestic weapons manufacturers have complained about the Israeli lobby influencing Government decisions. In the 1980's the sale of aircraft to Saudi Arabia was blocked by Israel. One half of Israel's exports are weapons sales.

This seems to be an issue that gets insufficient space in the US media, IMO. I'll keep digging. The magnitude of the US sponsorship of Israel appears even greater than I had thought.

There is now reason to believe that Bush had foreknowledge of Cheney's shooting of Whittington.

When the first report reached the White House, Laura was reading Bush's favorite goat story to him. Andrew Card came into the room and whispered in Bush's ear, "Harry Whittington is under attack."

Bush just sat there and did nothing for seven minutes while Laura finished reading the story.

Both of these forum threads on Mr. Piper's book demonstrate that this topic is NOT covered by the first ammendment in the USA and common courtesy is totally irrelavent for truth seekers when it comes to Israel's actions.

Jeff D.

Jeff I think you live a parallel universe with a different Ed. Forum and 2 different Piper threads. The First Amendment does not apply here because this is a private forum based in England. Piper however was granted free speech rights and basically shat on this forum. He revealed himself to be the bigot that he is and left because he choose too and is free to return until John or Andy say otherwise. Interestingly some of the most furious reactions to him didn't come from the Jewish/pro-Israeli members of the forum but from members that are neither. Even Mark seems to recognize that Piper has his head firmly implanted in his bowels.

His version of events of course will be that he was hounded out of here by the Jews and "Israel lobby" and you to for reasons unknown echo that "Twilight Zone" version of reality.

Len

I never said that about Piper. He's controversial and forthright, that's what I said. Maybe he has witnessed the American Government's treatment of native Americans and compared that to the Government's especially favorable policy towards Israel, leaving him with a jaundiced view of American foreign policy.

I don't dismiss his theory about the assassination, not by a long stretch. Although he wasn't here long and didn't really address the assassination sufficiently, not one point raised by the howling mob caused me to doubt my suspicion of Israeli Government involvement.

And none of Piper's inquisitors can answer the question first raised by Jeff: What is the justification for the huge annual financial and military aid program for Israel ?

I guess MCP is not really the debating type.

His views are controversial and cause ill feeling. By now he obviously knows where these debates end up.

It must be remembered that his theory is just a theory, offering no more than circumstantial evidence, not proof. Just like every other theory about the assassination.

The other questions raised are relevant, especially America's huge financial support for Israel. If this was more widely known by the American public, would the public still support this policy? What's the justification for such a policy? Is it in America's long term interests? Why don't Americans ask their Government to justify such a longstanding policy?

Mr Gratz,

In an attempt to provide the "proper syllogistic reasoning" you have conveniently shifted the discussion to your interpretation of John Simkin's reasoning rather than my discussion of your reasoning.

You make the claim that obviously neither Williams nor Sowell are racists. Is that because of your interpretation of their statements on racial issues? Or is your claim in any way based upon the fact that the color of their skin happens to be black? Are you saying that therefore "intellectual blacks" cannot have views that are racist?

Getting back to the point, please note that I was referring to your lack of syllogistic reasoning in your original post and not your "syllogistic" interpretation of John Simkin's reasoning. Is it so hard for you to see that?

I realize that this is a forum pertaining to the debate on the assassination (murder) of JFK. I will attempt to keep my future posts on topic. In that vein, this is my last comment on this particular thread.

Michael, sorry, here is the proper syllogism and syllogistic reasoning:

MAJOR PREMISE: All economic conservatives are racist because the policies they espouse hurt blacks.

MINOR PREMISE: Armstrong Williams and Thomas Sowell, among many others, are black intellectuals who support conservative economic policies.

CONCLUSION: Armstrong Williams and Thomas Sowell are racists.

The absurdity of the conclusion demonstrates that the major premise is wrong. Obviously neither Williams nor Sowell are racists. When a syllogism produces an absurd conclusion, it demonstrates that one of the premises of the arguments is wrong.

Is it so hard for you to see the absurdity of the proposition that all economic conservatives are racists? I did note in your bio that you have enough sense to move to Florida!

This is what I mean about you, Tim. As Michael has pointed out, this exercise in self-promotion is disingenuous and entirely in error, both in premise and conclusion. You're much more than merely an economic conservative, BTW. Even though you pretend to be socially progressive, you're a social conservative and a religious fundamentalist as well. Why didn't you expand your major premise to include those facts?

Duke,

No need to worry about a re-enactment. Many facts including Oswald's behavior in custody and his assassination by Ruby means he didn't do it as far as I'm concerned. LN theories are not credible, IMO.

Tom,

Even though I've never shot anything except ducks in a sideshow alley, you must be wrong about the horizontal headshot being harder than elevated headshots from behind. As the Craig Roberts piece says, it's much closer and no adjustment is needed for elevation. It was like shooting ducks in sideshow alley.

Mr. Piper,

I would like to know if you could address Ron Ecker's question on the other thread (post#237).

So far I haven't found your views to be overtly racist. Forthright, but not racist. I also agree with your concern about the US spending many billions of dollars in aid to Israel. There's no explanation given to the public for this. Shouldn't there be an explanation?

It was Tim Gratz who, typically, claimed Bobby was a big supporter of Israel. As I pointed out to him, there's no proof that Bobby would have followed the strongly pro-Israel policy of LBJ. More likely, he might have followed his brother's impartial policy towards the Middle East.

Well, so much for my question about Rabin.

Exactly. I thought that was a good question, too. Maybe in thread in the book review section.