Sid Walker

Interesting comments Nathaniel A general, rather obvious remark about the structuralism v ‘conspiratorialism’. They need not - and should not - be considered as mutually exclusive alternatives. Both approaches are needed to understand history. Structural factors influence how behaviour - but groups and individuals are also able to sieze intiiatives - to make history (even though it may not be quite as they please). It’s like the difference between the operation of competing firms within a given market sector in economic theory – and what actually happens in the ‘real world’ of business. I can't be so generous in my interpretation of Chomsky’s behaviour over the years. Serious anomalies have been picked up by a growing number of critics in two main areas. The first of these is Chomsky’s ‘blind spot’ on topics such as the JFK assassination and 9-11. By extension, he’s also served as a gatekeeper on a range of other cases where there’s at least a prima facie case for a conspiracy and bogus ‘official story’. These events have been going on throughout the entire period of Chomsky’s infuence on the left – for over four decades. Examples include the assassinations of RFK, MLK and JFK junior, the first WTC attack; the OKC bombing; various suspicious deaths of prominent people in aircraft – such as Wellstone, Ron Brown and Hale Boggs. By keeping his fans fixated on getting the structural analysis right while routinely dismissing ‘conspiracy theories’, he’s discouraged many, many people within the left-leaning intelligensia from looking seriously a string of crimes that have taken place in front of their noses. Chomsky has been influential within the left as a whole – but I think his role is particularly important for the non-Marxist left. That’s where one might expect ‘conspiratorialist’ analysis to be stronger. In general, Marxists lean more naturally to structural analysis - and did so long before the ‘anarchist’ from MIT hit the scene. On the odd occasions he’s been cornered about why he believes the official versions of the JFK assassination and 9-11, he seems (to me) to dissemble, waffle and evade. He has, however, made influential contributions to public debate about the real significance of the JFK Administration - tending to denigrate JFK and downplay his radicalism, especially re: foreign policy. Regarding 9-11, he backs up the offical legend and skips over all evidence that the ‘Arab hijackers’ were merely patsies in a flase flag operation – while providing an ‘explanation’ that has appeal to the left (although it’s considered risque outside the left). It’s an ‘expalanation’ along the lines of: “they hate us because they have good reason to hate us!” So yes, if Chomsky has been an ‘asset’ for dark forces – and I do believe that’s the case - he’s been a very effective asset for a very long time. The second topic on which a number of left-wing critics have noticed anomalies in Chomsky’s behaviour concersn the US – Israel relationship. Chomsky essentially argues that Israel is a quasi-colony of the USA and that the pro-Israeli bias in US foreign policy is borne of US and Smerican corporate self-interest. Over the years, a growing number of thoughtful observers of affairs in Washington have come to believe that’s plain nonsense. One could much more plausibly make the reverse argument. I don’t want to clog up this thread with excessive detail that’s peripheral to the main argument, but on request can post Chomsky’s recent appraisal of the Walt-Mearsheimer paper – and rebuttals from various other authors. I find the rebuttals devastating. To his credit, Chomsky has consistently and (as far as I know) without exception argued in support of free speech. I acknowledge that and respect it. Chomsky has been prolific. Much of his contribution to public discourse has, I have no doubt, been quite positive and has helped to expose the wrongdoings of the US Government and corporate capitalism.. But none of that, for me, outweighs the negative contribution he has made to public debate on the key issues of conspiracies and Israel – through what appears to be deliberate promulgation of faulty analysis and conclusions..

Yes, it's a very fine article John. I'd like to recommend a 9-11 site - Physics911.net It takes a science-based approach, has a section critiquing the official account (what did not happen) - and also advances a few hypotheses regarding what may have happened.

Owen, we shall have to agree to differ, for now at any rate. I find Edward Said rather more credible on this topic. In one of his last articles entitled Who's In Charge?, written before his untimely death, he concluded: Democracy traduced and betrayed, democracy celebrated but in fact humiliated and trampled on by a tiny group of men who have simply taken charge of this republic as if it were nothing more than, what, an Arab country? It is right to ask who is in charge since clearly the people of the United States are not properly represented by the war this administration is about to loose on a world already beleaguered by too much misery and poverty to endure more. And Americans have been badly served by a media controlled essentially by a tiny group of men who edit out anything that might cause the government the slightest concern or worry. As for the demagogues and servile intellectuals who talk about war from the privacy of their fantasy worlds, who gave them the right to connive in the immiseration of millions of people whose major crime seems to be that they are Muslims and Arabs? What American, except for this small unrepresentative group, is seriously interested in increasing the world's already ample stores of anti-Americanism? Hardly any I would suppose. Jonathan Swift, thou shouldst be living at this hour.

Hi Len I can’t undertake to deal with all future rebuttals in such detail. There are only so many hours in the day. Nevertheless, you raise some important points, and a reply is in order: OK. I agree with that. People can believe in many things, including a rather obvious fraud such as the Warren Commission report, for a range of reasons. Blind faith in US Government honesty is probably the main reason so many folk believed in the Warren Commission, although there’s not many of them left these days. As I pointed out, Izzy Stone and Noam Chomsky can’t be accused of that. When one picks through the 'logic' they each apply to draw their conclusion that LHO was indeed a 'lone nut' assassin, it seems (to me) strangely out of character with their usual skepticism. In both cases they rely on shooting down straw men to make their case. Yet neither the late I.F. Stone, nor Chomsky. Were or are fools. No one accuses them of that - I certainly don't. Hence my suspicion that in this case, they are not merely suffering from a momentary lapse in standards. Something else seems to be at work. I neither believe that, nor have I claimed it. That's a classic 'straw man' argument. My case doesn't 'play' on stereotypes. In fact, I think both Stone and Chomsky are fascinating contradictions. As, indeed are many people. Jewish identity itself, I would argue, is enmeshed in fascinating contradictions. In my opinion, one thing that critics of Israel and its powerful international Lobby, such as myself, cannot credibility argue is that we’d be “better off without Jews”. Nor have I ever believed or suggested that. I believe all humanity is inextricably interconnected and interdependent. “Ask not for whom the bell tolls…” As you may have noticed, a lot of my own analysis of this specific case relies on Jewish sources such as Jeff Blankfort. I’m not sure I can begin to understand the inner workings of Norman Mailer’s very complex mind. One thing that can be said about Mailer is that he has the ability to mount a very tortuous argument. See this excerpt from ‘Oswald’s Tale’. Note how Mailer dispatches the problem of the impossibility of ‘magic bullets’: “By the logic of such an argument, the proof of the magic bullet is that it happened. One cannot introduce the odds after the fact. So would go the rebuttal.” There, puff, the magic bullet is dispensed with in a couple of sentences. One wonders why it was ever called ‘magic’? Well, I can’t explain all these various anomalies. Who, for instance, is John McAdams, what’s his personal history and what really motivates him? Damned if I know. It would be interesting to find out. The mystery of Cockburn’s position on JFK has been discussed elsewhere – see for instance http://www.rtis.com/reg/bcs/pol/touchstone...y97/worsham.htm I think you do point to a serious objection to the case I’m generally trying to make. It’s hard to believe that so many people are involved in the cover-up. It’s perhaps important to clarify what’s I’m suggesting may have happened and what I’m not. I doubt very much that I.F.Stone or the youthful Chomsky were party to the conspiracy to assassinate JFK. They may, however, have been party to the conspiracy to obscure the truth afterwards. I think they were. How, exactly, that came about, I can only speculate. There are some clues. As I said earlier, both Chomsky and Stone had demonstrable links to Zionism in earlier parts of their lives. Chomsky has spoken of his. Regarding Stone, here’s an interesting excerpt from a reputable Jewish source, referring to a talk by Zev Meir Siegel in 2001. The speaker is introduced thus: “Siegel, who served in the Haganah, Israel's pre-state military force… was among the first agents of its Mossad,” "Rabbi Greenberg, the head of Hillel at George Washington University, was a recruiter for Haganah. It's as simple as that," Siegel said in a telephone interview this week with The Chronicle. "The crew of the Exodus came right out of his efforts." Siegel said that he and some others attended a meeting at the home of journalist I.F. Stone "and there was the future captain of the Exodus, Ike Aronowitz, and he and a few other people of the Mossad asked us to give up a year of lives to help Jewish people - to get them out of the camps..." So, there were clearly longstanding connections that at the very least are compatible with the theory that Stone and Chomsky may have been influenced by a deep loyalty to Israel throughout their lives – and that this loyalty could explain seemingly anomalous stances they take on matters such as the JFK assassination. ... How, in 1964, and in the case of Chomsky somewhat later, these connections may have been triggered for the purpose of influencing their public stance on the JFK assassination - who knows? I do not claim to have every I dotted and every T crossed. I never had a phone tap on Stone or Chomsky. If I did claim to know every detail, you might reasonably consider me prone to exaggeration. However, if that’s to be the standard for investigative procedure in criminal cases – that a theory should only be explored if the investigator has 100% of the supporting information – then heaven help us in this brave new world. No, that’s your parody of my logic. I think part of the highly successful “magician’s trick” with the JFK assassination was that almost no one at all looked at Israel as a possible suspect until three decades afterwards. That had to wait until archival releases in the early 90s and books that followed such as "Israel and the Bomb" by Avner Cohen No-one outside extremely limited and informed circles knew – until the 90s - that JFK had been in an icy stand-off with Ben Gurion over Israel’s nuclear weapons program and inspections of Dimona. Motive wasn’t established until some thirty years after the killing! Unlike recent, theatrical debates over WMD inspections in the context of Iraq, the inspections that Kennedy was persuaded to demand in the early 60s were secret US (not UN) inspections. He increasingly distrusted the Israeli Government in its dealings. But they were all secret at the time – see this reference for instance. Moreover, as I explained in my initial post that opened this thread, I don’t believe the term ‘anti-Semitic’ itself makes sense – except as an intellectual weapon. You might ask Piper himself for an account of his difficulties in finding a mainstream publisher and distribution channels for his book. I read this account It seems to me that when there’s such an obvious, recurrent campaign to chase the views of Piper to the margins of public discourse, it’s hardly surprising his views only find expression at the margins of public discourse. Why hasn’t the New York Times done a serious review of Final Judgment? Why can’t it be found in high street bookshops? Why does he never get a chance to present his theory on national TV? You tell me. Why doesn't he appear on American University campuses. This story may help explain why. Incidentally, I notice you refer to Mr Piper as ‘Herr Piper’. Is that because you have inside information that Mr Piper has German ancestory? Or do you regard the German honorific as a term of abuse? If so, why? You say that Piper showed up on this forum and “proffered his thesis but had few takers”, making him sound like an aggressive hawker of unwanted goods. Would it not be more accurate to say that he was invited to join, but even before he did, there was a sustained campaign against his participation by folk such as yourself? I recall wading through about 20 pages on one particular thread before he “showed up” at all. By that time, his name, character, associations, bona fides and all had been repeatedly besmirched. He was then treated to a number of unpleasant provocations until he lost patience with the quality of 'debate' he found here. A shame, in my opinion, but understandable. He’s a busy guy. If other authors were similarly treated, there wouldn't be many here at all. Actually, I don’t think it’s surprising that, if the theory is actually correct that clandestine pro-Israeli forces played a coordinating role in the JFK assassination, the first author to pick up on this was not ‘left-wing’. I for one grew up in a left wing culture that reflexively rejected anything that smacked of a ‘Jewish conspiracy’. Indeed, for people like myself, it was almost as though there were not – and could not be – such a thing. I don’t think that was 'accidental'. Some leftist leaders – especially Trots – in the 60s and 70s, led the campaign to deny any platform to ‘anti-fascists’. Some of these left-wing student leaders, incidentally, in later life, turn out to be passionate Zionists – check out the careers of Daniel Cohn-Bendit or British Labour Parliamentarian Mike Gapes. From student Trots to apologists for the policies of Likud. Hmmm. Like many on the left, I was uneasy at the time about pushes to deny free speech, but didn’t object strongly because it seemed the people and the views we were asked to help silence were, indeed, reprehensible in the extreme. However, I probably never actually read what they had to say – except in the form of limited extracts and commentary arguing they were beneath contempt. Well, I’m not a ‘Nazi denier’. For all I know, there may well be people around who fully support the views of Adolf Hitler. I haven't met any, but it's possible. But contrary to what I used to believe, I now think that even if there are such people, they should be allowed free speech. Moreover, I now know for sure that some of the people denied a platform for their views because of allegations they are claimed to be Nazi extremists do not merit that caricature. I also have come to realize that the Zionist movement has succeeded, in part, by a remarkable ability to divide and thus conquer its critics, right wing v left wing, pink v black, Christian v Moslem, Jew v Gentile. Israel Shamir, whom you so dislike, explicitly seeks to create bridges between anti-Zionists of different complexions and backgrounds. I think it’s a worthy project – and necessary, in the circumstances. That’s because I’m anti-Zionist. Of course, I understand that others – such as yourself – are pro-Zionist. The real question, I feel, is whether Zionism can exist as a movement without the supremacist tendency to slience and vanquish critics? I, for one, support free speech for all Zionists. Is that support reciprocated? Len, we haven’t met. I’m not sure what right you have to decide which Jews – or non-Jews – I should and shouldn’t like. Perhaps you could share your credentials for the role of moral guardian and intellectual gatekeeper with the rest of us. I like the work of Israel Shamir and said so. You apparently do not, and argue that my appreciation of his work makes my claim not be 'anti-Jewish' "suspect". You apparently feel you have the right to pick the Jews I should like and the Jews I should not like. If I don't like the same ones you like, I'm anti-Jewish. Interesting argument. I surmise you would not have complained had I expressed respect for Yitzhak Shamir (no relation), despite his well-known and admitted background as a terrorist. Am I correct? If so, perhaps we do share some common ground - we both appear to believe that all God’s children have the potential for redemption. This discussion is a very small part of that 'evidence'. Exposure of what’s happening, of course, is a key tool in preventing such an outcome from running its full course. As Marx argued, we don’t just need to understand the world. We need to change it. I'll add to that, we need to change it for the better. Part of the task of exposure, in my opinion, is using precise and accurate language and, when necessary, taking the trouble to clarify terms. That helps more people escape from ‘straw men’ style counter-arguments that have been accepted by too many intelligent people for too long. You may care to look at the recent Walt and Mearsheimer paper and the ensuing debate – see for instance the following article, quite misleadingly entitled Harvard Takes On the Israel Lobby They never said “Jews rule the world” – yet you’d easily get that impression from much of the response. So if you’re going to play the ‘anti-Semite’ card, I consider myself in good company. I’d rather share a prison cell with Jeff Blankfort than Arlen Specter, although if I had inquisitorial powers, I’d be a lot more interested in interrogating the latter. You do have an interesting bookmarks list. Thanks for the hot tip. I’ll decline the invitation to get involved in a silly distraction from the main theme of this thread, other than to say that I really do believe in free speech on matters of public interest – mine, yours and Fred Toben’s as well – unlike the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council. But this is not the place to discuss free speech. I trust we can feel sure of it here – at least as long as we also support free speech for our peers and eschew uncivilized and destructive behaviour such as irrelevant postings, poor documentation, unjustified ad hominem attacks and bigotry.

I'm surprised that Gil-White didn't also point out the Remarkably disproportionate representation of Arabs among the USA's billionaires (more than 50% according to a Palestinian sociologist and expert on Palestinian power within the USA) Extraordinarily high number of Arabs in positions of influence, authority and control within the US mass media, the publishing industry, banking and the military-industrial complex Fact that more than half of the members of Congress show up, when invited, at American Palestinian Public Affairs Committee (APPAC) meetings Impressively high proportion of both major US political parties funds received from Arab donors Longstanding sweetheart deals between key elements of US 'and Palestinian 'intelligence' agencies Billions of dollars of aid, including high-tech military assistance, that the USA regularly donates to Palestine Constant hyping of the case for Palestine in the US mass media (and in general, the western mass media) Incessant vilification of Israelis as a hapless people responsible for their own desperate plight who have a natural propensity to 'terrorism' Wholly disproportionate coverage given to Palestinian deaths and injuries in the continuing struggle – and contrasting tendency to downplay Israeli deaths and injuries and portray the Israeli victims as ‘militants’ Way the US mass media repeatedly overlooks the blatant injustice to Israelis, for more than 50 years, in view of their uncompensated eviction from their land of origin and / or confinement as second class citizens within an Arab-supremacist State and / or highly restricted freedom under armed occupation by high-handed and heavily armed Palestinian troops Freezing of all US aid to the Israeli Administration, even when its people face economic ruin up to and including starvation, because of Israel's refusal to recognize the State of Palestine and refusal to condemn ALL attacks against Palestinians - even though Israelis themselves are repeatedly subjected to attack by Palestinian troops and far more Israelis are killed in the conflict each year than Palestinians. ... and many other powerful and easily documented arguments that might further assist his case. One must also consider the large number of Arabs in positions of power within the US Administration - not only under Bush II, but Clinton as well and others before him - and the tendency within America to speak of the Palestinian 'Lobby' in hushed tones because it's known to be remorseless when crossed. All in all, Gil-White is a most courageous and patriotic American. I do hope his exceptional courage in speaking on this important but highly sensitive topic out doesn't completely wreck his career.

Thanks Mark. I read through some of the forum contents - just a small fraction - before posting. I appreciate your contributions. Prejudice against JFK because of his wealthy background was probably a factor on the left. It wouldn't have been the first time 'the left' shied away from success. Offered the hand of friendship from someone inside the plutocracy - and all we do is snigger when he's popped :-) Monty Python would have approved. Actually, while I still use the terms 'left' and 'right' and believe they have some utility, I increasingly believe they can obscure as much as they elucidate. Until quite recently, I routinely ignored (or at best skimmed with a condescending attitude) material that I believed emanated from 'right wing' sources. Of course, I wasn't really able to do that. Where I live, the only choice of daily print media is News Ltd... It eventually dawned on me - 9-11 was the trigger - that my self-imposed "ignore the 'right-wing' rule", when applied in practice, meant I was oblivious only to right wing perspectives that Murdoch & co don't like. That's a recipe for ignorance and gross bias. It meant that the work of authors such as M.C. Piper was not available to me. Big mistake. In a democracy - at least in a democracy where votes are counted with some accuracy, as I believe was still generally the case in JFK's America - success is only possible by appealing to a wide range of voters. Kennedy achieved that. He was therefore able to deliver some outcomes for the left from the Presidency. Of course, he'd always have been a disappointment to some sections of the left. He wasn't about to overthrow capitalism. But he did see that capitalism urgently needed managing in the public interest at a global level - and appeared quite successful in taking on that mighty task, in the short period available to him, with the power and authority of the US Administration behind him. He was also interested in co-existence with other forms of governance. I'd thought for decades that there was something 'not quite right' about official story regarding the assassination of JFK. But I also imagined the passage of time would render solving the assassination mystery increasingly difficult. Those behind the assassination and subsequent cover-up, I imagined, had got away with it. It would be harder and harder to spot them with the passage of time and the growing confusion of so much faulty info and outright disinformation. I now think that's incorrect. The villains stand out like proverbial dogs balls - once one reverses the assumption that the task of researchers is to 'prove' one thing or another (the mafia dunnit, the CIA dunnit, the MIC dunnit etc). If, on the other hand, researchers 'assume' there was a conspiracy to kill JFK and cover-up the plot - not a hard conclusion to reach, given the non-existence in the real world of miracles like 'magic bullets' - our task becomes simpler. We need to take a close look at the key individuals who promulgated and sustained the official version of events. Of course, some of them may have made innocent mistakes. It's possible I. F. Stone fell into that category. It possible he was a purveyor of well-intended misinformation, as opposed to a deliberate disinformationalist. However, I find it very hard to accept that Arlen Specter could have made an 'innocent mistake' over the 'magic bullet' theory (I understand he was the originator of this absurd proposition). Certainly, Specter's advocacy of physical impossibilities doesn't appear to have harmed his subsequent career. These days, he's one of the most powerful Senators on Capitol Hill. When the latest Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was anointed, Specter was among the first to shake his hand. Specter occasionally postures as a liberal and teases Bush over his abandonment of civil liberties. The games they play! And yes, like Posner himself, Specter is a committed Zionist with a Jewish background. The kind of guy, as we've been told by Mossad defector Victor Ostrovsky, who'd be asked to 'help out' in times of need.

This is well argued John. I'd respond, however, that the view of JFK as "a typical American politician" was constructed. It was not self-evident. Moreover, as Jim DiEugenio argued persuasively, it was plain wrong - see The Left and the Death of Kennedy I attended university in England in the early 1970s. I rarely heard a good word about Kennedy from friends on the 'left'. I certainly never heard about his remarkable global disarmament initiative. Perhaps we were all fools. At that time, most of us genuinely believed that politics would shift more and more in a progressive direction (how wrong we were!). We didn't have much time for 'has beens' like Kennedy... although come to think of it, Marx and Lenin were very popular, and they'd been dead a lot longer. I'm willing to accept I was a fool - but can't lose the suspicion that I was fooled as well. There was some clever management of ideology at work. Chomsky was one of the key influences. He downplayed the bright side of Kennedy's polices and hyped up the dark side of 'Camelot'. That led to a view - which I shared - that even if JFK was murdered in a conspiracy, it didn't really matter that much. After all, he was just another member of the ruling class, just another crim. Pat Speer's point is also interesting: I'm not familiar with Harold Weisberg and Edward Epstein - I'll have to check them out (references welcome). Mark Lane is certainly a hero I haven't missed. Bertrand Russell worked closely with Ralph Schoenman - also Jewish, I understand. These days, Ralph and his partner Mya Shone maintain the rage on air. Their radio show, Taking Aim covers conspiracies and other evil deeds from a Marxist perspective. An unusual brew. Archives available as free downloads. Schoenman 's Hidden History of Zionism is also a most interesting read.

I'm interested to note that Len Colby quotes Bertrand Russell in his signature. Russell, of course, was an early critic of the Warren Commission Report. Indeed, his rebuttal was published almost at the same time - see 16 Questions on the Assassination Given Lord Russell's authority, one might have expected that his lucid assault on the official version of the assassination would carry a lot of weight. However, Russell's attack was blunted by at least two factors. First, it attracted little mass media attention. What coverage there was - in Time and the Guardian - was hostile to and dismissive of his thesis. Second, even within specialist journals of the left, Russell was vigorously counter-attacked. For more on this, see a brief account of Russell's role in JFK assassination follow-up investigations HERE One of Russell's most prominent critics on the left - not in general, but specifically regarding the JFK assassination - was I.F Stone. Stone was VERY influential within the American left at the time. He has been immortalized, among other things, for his famous comment that 'Governments lie'. However, in this particular case, Stone would not countenance government deception. Read Stone's article of October 5th, 1964 He is every bit as persuasive as Posner! In fact, Stone served as the prototype for a professional Warren Commission ‘true believer’. What a strange role for I.F. Stone to play - Stone, the well-known skeptic of government and all its shenanigans, the prominent and influential critic of corporate crimes and unaccountable US Government agencies such as the CIA.. How out of character! Now, I.F. Stone had a similar background to Noam Chomsky. He was born of Jewish parentage, was sympathetic to Zionism in his youth, and latterly became known as a left-wing intellectual, somewhat unsympathetic to Israel - at least in its more extreme manifestations.. Both were lifelong supporters of the Warren Commission's conclusions - despite all the evidence to the contrary. Chomsky has maintained his opposition to 'conspiracy theories' through into the 21st Century. He was one of the first prominent voices on the left to decry those who doubt the official account of 9-11. There is a growing perception in sophisticated left cricles that Chomsky is, in reality, a "left-gatekeeper" - see for instance Jeff Blankfort's critique in this interview. There's an interesting account of Chomsky as a drag on the 'JFK Truth Movement' here. To my knowledge, I. F. Stone has not attracted this kind of criticism until now. As he died more than a decade ago. Stone has been somewhat shielded from debate via the internet - after all, he's no longer a contemporary commentator. But I believe I.F. Stone must also be under suspicion as a deep level Zionist agent / ally. Someone to be called upon in cases of extreme importance only - such as spinning away left-wing interest in the assassination of JFK, back when the truth about the Dallas murders really was a hot issue - in 1964. In my opinion, the strange and anomalous behaviour of both I. F. Stone and Noam Chomsky in relation to the JFK assassination makes sense only if: [a] Final Judgment is essentially correct i.e. pro-Israeli forces coordinated the JFK assassination, co-opting allies outside their immediate network as necessary. Both I. F. Stone and Noam Chomsky have a deep loyalty to the Zionist cause - deeper than their loyalty to the truth. ________________________ In anticipation of the accusation of ‘anti-Semitism’ (a near certainty, I wearily imagine), I’d like to say that I believe the term to be inherently meaningless. Because it lacks precise meaning, an accusation of ‘anti-Semitism’, once levied, cannot be refuted. That’s why it’s so useful to those who deploy it as a weapon. Why should someone, like myself, with strong sympathies for the Palestinian cause be ‘anti-Semitic’? (most Palestinians speak Arabic). Why should someone who admires many of the alleged sayings of Jesus Christ be ‘anti-Semitic’ (he spoke Aramaic), On the other hand, I dislike a number of self-styled Jews who speak barely a word of Hebrew, Arabic - or any other Semitic language. To anticipate a more meaningful accusation, am I ‘anti-Jewish’? The truth is that in some cases, I am. In other cases, I’m not. It depends… I don't hold opinions that attempt to encompass millions of people in a single crass generalization. Jeff Blankfort, for instance, I regard as one of the unsung heroes of our times. I’m also impressed by the writings of Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shamir, Paul Eisen and Israel Shahak. I like the work – and the humanity – of artists such as Daniel Barenboim and Yehudi Menuhin. I could list more – a lot more – Jews for whom I have great respect. Chomsky and Stone I’m inclined to put in a different category, for reasons I've already provided. I might make a similar observation about Jewish organizations. I like some of them. I dislike others. This one I hold in the highest regard. This one disgusts me. There is clearly NOT an evil conspiracy so vast it encompasses all Jewish people. There are, however, quite evidently conspiracies that involve numerous Jewish people. I’d make a similar comment about Brits, Italians or Chinese. There is evidence, however, as our world races headlong towards globalization, that Jewish (and specifically Zionist) conspiratorial networks are increasingly winning out over - or swallowing up - their competitors. The Zionist movement did not invent evil, but taken as a whole, it does seem to be very proficient at it.

I'm not sure if this topic has been discussed elsewhere in the forum. If so, I haven't been able to find it. Suggestions for reading material about this subject - whether in the forum or elsewhere - would be very welcome. I was born in the 50s and throughout my adult life have considered myself a supporter of the peace movement. My involvement started in the late 60s. JFK - at that time - was a recent memory. I considered myself reasonably well informed about historical events (the arrogance of youth). I especially took an interest in matters concerning peace and war - and had frequent discussions with friends and teachers of various kinds on these topics. I was - and remain - someone with generally left-wing views. Yet I never, until THIS century, knew that in 1961 JFK had presented a proposal for comprehensive worldwide disarmament to the General Assembly of the UN - a proposal so far reaching that, when I read it a few years ago for the first time, I found it quite breath-taking in its audacity and decency. See Address Before the 18th General Assembly of the United Nations by President John F. Kennedy, September 25th 1961. The speech needs to be read in conjunction with Freedom From War - The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World published by the US Department of State in the same month. Taken together, these documents reflect the most visionary yet practical program for world disarmament that I've ever read. The State Department proposal is not a mass of waffle or doublespeak; it's a quite detailed proposal for staged worldwide disarmament. It entails a worldwide inspections regime - and ultimately, the scaling down of national military forces in favor of a global police force under UN control. ______________ Now, the rights and wrongs of the policy and these documents are, of course, open to debate. I’d be interested to read some debate about them. Some may doubt that the US Government was serious with this proposal at the time. Cynics might claim it was expected to fail. Yet what particularly interests me is that I knew nothing about it at all until recently - nor does Kennedy’s peace initiative seem to feature in discussions I've encountered about JFK on the Internet. What about others? Has Kennedy's peace proposal been discussed on this forum? Were other participants aware of the document "Freedom From War" and its inspiring contents? It seems to me that this aspect of Kennedy's Presidency has been generally overlooked. Instead, there’s been a tendency to focus on events such as the Bay of Pigs or Cuban Missile Crises – occasions when Kennedy was forced to react to crisis – rather than roll out a strategic plan. Yet this was surely that last (and first?) time a US President put a proposal to the world for 'General and Complete Disarmament'. In this era, the idea of this happening is almost unimaginable. How sad the course of history since 1963… Here’s a brief extract from Kennedy’s Speech to the UN General Assembly: The program to be presented to this assembly--for general and complete disarmament under effective international control--moves to bridge the gap between those who insist on a gradual approach and those who talk only of the final and total achievement. It would create machinery to keep the peace as it destroys the machinery of war. It would proceed through balanced and safeguarded stages designed to give no state a military advantage over another. It would place the final responsibility for verification and control where it belongs, not with the big powers alone, not with one's adversary or one's self, but in an international organization within the framework of the United Nations. It would assure that indispensable condition of disarmament--true inspection--and apply it in stages proportionate to the stage of disarmament. It would cover delivery systems as well as weapons. It would ultimately halt their production as well as their testing, their transfer as well as their possession. It would achieve under the eyes of an international disarmament organization, a steady reduction in force, both nuclear and conventional, until it has abolished all armies and all weapons except those needed for internal order and a new United Nations Peace Force. And it starts that process now, today, even as the talks begin. In short, general and complete disarmament must no longer be a slogan, used to resist the first steps. It is no longer to be a goal without means of achieving it, without means of verifying its progress, without means of keeping the peace. It is now a realistic plan, and a test--a test of those only willing to talk and a test of those willing to act. Such a plan would not bring a world free from conflict and greed-- but it would bring a world free from the terrors of mass destruction. It would not usher in the era of the super state--but it would usher in an era in which no state could annihilate or be annihilated by another.

I'm in Australia, and currently 'live on the land' striving for a measure of self-sufficiency in a somewhat remote location. However, I like balance in my life. I get that via the internet and read quite voraciously. I've had a background, over the years, in various occupations, from fruit-picking to environmental advocacy (the latter being my profession for over a decade in the 1980s and '90s). I currently don't have a website of my own, but manage a local Friends of the Earth website - see www.foekuranda.org . Having located a patch of paradise, far from the grey-suited swarm, I now find the enemy plans a 4-Lane Highway disturbingly close to my gate. Worldwide, FoE is committed to social justice as well as environmental sustainability. I like that mix. Academically, I have degrees in Social Anthropology (gained many years ago) and a somewhat more recent degree in Human Ecology. I've never worked as a qualified teacher, but have given very occasional courses at various levels, from primary school to university. I've considered myself left of centre for most of my life, but increasingly believe the terms left/right obscure more than they elucidate. I'm interested in a range of views and have discovered I can learn from many sides in genuine, open debates. I chanced upon your website a week or so ago and found some of the discussions fascinating. It seems you've established a valuable forum for debate on important topics.