John Simkin

It seems that Proxmire did not have the full story. The information was going in the opposite direction. Burkett Van Kirk, chief counsel for the Republican minority on the Senate Rules Committee later told Seymour Hersh that Senator John Williams of Delaware was being fed information by Robert Kennedy about the involvement of Lyndon Johnson, Fred Korth, Bobby Baker, etc. in a series of scandals. Williams, the Senate’s leading investigator of corruption, passed this information to the three Republicans (John Sherman Cooper, Hugh Scott and Carl Curtis) on the ten-member Rules Committee. However, outnumbered, they were unable to carry out a full investigation into Johnson and Baker. Van Kirk claimed that Robert Kennedy supplied this information because he wanted “to get rid of Johnson.” This story is confirmed by Carl Curtis (Forty Years Against the Tide). There is only one explanation for Robert Kennedy's behaviour: John Kennedy had decided to ditch LBJ as his vice president. That meant he would lose Texas and therefore could now remove the oil depletion allowance. Combine this with the fact that JFK was considering withdrawing from Vietnam and you have a series of motives why LBJ and his friends from Texas had to remove him from office in November, 1963. Especially when you consider that Don B. Reynolds testified in a secret session of the Senate Rules Committee on the day JFK was assassinated. As Victor Lasky pointed out, Reynolds “spoke of the time Bobby Baker opened a satchel full of paper money which he said was a $100,000 payoff for Johnson for pushing through a $7billion TFX plane contract.” Another interesting point is that after resigning Fred Korth became director of the Bell Aerospace Corporation. The company had been established by Lawrence D. Bell, a key member of the Suite 8F Group. In fact, Bell built the plant in Fort Worth, Texas at the request of LBJ. The Bell Aerospace Corporation went on to become the leading beneficiary of the Vietnam War. By 1969, Bell was selling nearly $600 million worth of helicopters to the U. S. military every year.

I am of the opinion that the TFX scandal is linked to the assassination of JFK. In the last few months of Eisenhower’s administration the Air Force began to argue that it needed a successor to its F-105 tactical fighter. This became known as the TFX/F-111 project. In January, 1961, Robert McNamara, changed the TFX from an Air Force program to a joint Air Force-Navy under-taking. On 1st October, the two services sent the aircraft industry the request for proposals on the TFX and the accompanying work statement, with instructions to submit the bids by 1st December, 1961. Three of the bids were submitted by individual companies: the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, the North American Aviation Corporation and the Boeing Company. The other three bids represented team efforts: Republic Aviation & Chance Vought; General Dynamics Corporation & Grumman Aircraft; and McDonnell Aircraft & Douglas Aircraft. (1) It soon became clear that Boeing was expected to get the contract. Its main competitor was the General Dynamics/Grumman bid. General Dynamics had been America’s leading military contractors during the early stages of the Cold War. For example, in 1958 it obtained $2,239,000,000 worth of government business. This was a higher figure than those obtained by its competitors, such as Lockheed, Boeing, McDonnell and North American. (2) More than 80 percent of the firm’s business came from the government. (3) However, the company lost $27 million in 1960 and $143 million in 1961. According to an article by Richard Austin Smith in Fortune Magazine, General Dynamics was close to bankruptcy. Smith claimed that “unless it gets the contract for the joint Navy-Air Force fighter (TFX)… the company was down the road to receivership”. (4) General Dynamics had several factors in its favour. The president of the company was Frank Pace, the Secretary of the Army (April, 1950-January, 1953). The Deputy Secretary of Defense in 1962 was Roswell Gilpatric, who before he took up the post, was chief counsel for General Dynamics. The Secretary of the Navy was John Connally, a politician from Texas, the state where General Dynamics had its main plant. When he left the job in 1962 he was replaced by another Texan, Fred Korth. He had been appointed by Kennedy after strong lobbying by Lyndon Johnson. Korth from Fort Worth, Texas, was the former president of the Continental Bank, which had loaned General Dynamics considerable sums of money during the late 1950s and early 1960s. Korth later told the McClellan committee that investigated the granting of the TFX contract to General Dynamics “that because of his peculiar position he had deliberately refrained from taking a directing hand in this decision (within the Navy) until the last possible moment.” (5). As I. F. Stone pointed out, it was “the last possible moment” which counted. “Three times the Pentagon’s Source Selection Board found that Boeing’s bid was better and cheaper than that of General Dynamics and three times the bids were sent back for fresh submissions by the two bidders and fresh reviews. On the fourth round, the military still held that Boeing was better but found at last that the General Dynamics bid was also acceptable.” (6) Stone goes on to argue: “The only document the McClellan committee investigators were able to find in the Pentagon in favour of that award, according to their testimony, was a five-page memorandum signed by McNamara, Korth, and Eugene Zuckert, then Secretary of the Air Force.” Zuckert was a close friend of Tommy Corcoran who helped to get him a post with the legal staff of the fledgling Securities and Exchange Commission in 1937. He was also closely associated with John McCone. Zuckert worked with McCone as a member of the Atomic Energy Commission in the 1950s. McNamara justified his support for General Dynamics because “Boeing had from the very beginning consistently chosen more technically risky tradeoffs in an effort to achieve operational features which exceeded the required performance characteristics.” (7) During the McClellan's Permanent Investigations Committee hearings into the contract, Senator Sam Ervin asked Robert McNamara “whether or not there was any connection whatever between your selection of General Dynamics, and the fact that the Vice President of the United States happens to be a resident of the state in which that company has one of its principal, if not its principal office.” McNamara rejected the idea but evidence was to emerge later that Johnson did play an important role in the awarding of the TFX project to General Dynamics. For example, William Proxmire later began investigating the role played by Richard Russell in the granting of the C-5A contract to Lockheed. The C-5A was built in Marietta, Georgia, the state that Russell represented. The Air Force Contract Selection Board originally selected Boeing that was located in the states of Washington and Kansas. However, Proxmire claimed that Russell was able to persuade the board to change its mind and give the C-5A contract to Lockhead. Proxmire quotes Howard Atherton, the mayor of Marietta, as saying that “Russell was key to landing the contract”. Atherton added that Russell believed that Robert McNamara was going ahead with the C-5A in order to “give the plane to Boeing because Boeing got left out on the TFX fighter.” According to Atherton, Russell got the contract after talking to Lyndon Johnson. Atherton added, “without Russell, we wouldn’t have gotten the contract”. (8) Several journalists speculated that Johnson and his friends in Texas had played a key role in obtaining the TFX contract for General Dynamics. (9) When "reporters discovered that the Continental National Bank of Fort Worth, was the principal money source for the General Dynamics plant" in October, 1963, Fred Korth was forced to resign as Secretary of the Navy. (10) Johnson’s role in these events was confirmed when Don B. Reynolds testified in a secret session of the Senate Rules Committee. As Victor Lasky pointed out, Reynolds “spoke of the time Bobby Baker opened a satchel full of paper money which he said was a $100,000 payoff for Johnson for pushing through a $7billion TFX plane contract.” (11) Burkett Van Kirk, chief counsel for the Republican minority on the Senate Rules Committee later told Seymour Hersh that Senator John Williams of Delaware was being fed information by Robert Kennedy about the involvement of Lyndon Johnson and Bobby Baker in a series of scandals. Williams, the Senate’s leading investigator of corruption, passed this information to the three Republicans (John Sherman Cooper, Hugh Scott and Carl Curtis) on the ten-member Rules Committee. However, outnumbered, they were unable to carry out a full investigation into Johnson and Baker. Van Kirk claimed that Robert Kennedy supplied this information because he wanted “to get rid of Johnson.” (12) In his autobiography, Forty Years Against the Tide, Carl Curtis gives an insider view of the attempted investigation into the activities of Lyndon Johnson, Bobby Baker, Walter Jenkins and Fred Black. According to Curtis, Johnson managed to persuade the seven Democrats to vote against hearing the testimony of important witnesses. This included Margaret Broome, who served as Bobby Baker’s secretary before the position was taken by Carole Tyler, who later became his mistress. Tyler did testify but refused to answer questions on the ground that she might incriminate herself. Tyler was later to die in an airplane crash on the beach near the Carousel Motel, owned by Bobby Baker. In his autobiography, Curtis described Baker, Jenkins and Black as “contact men”. He added: “Contact-men existed primarily to obtain for their clients and themselves some share of the vast pool of riches in the possession of swollen centralized political bureaucracies. The more impressive a contact-man’s political connections, the better he and his clients would fare.” (13) Notes 1. Robert J. Art, The TFX Decision: McNamara and the Military, 1968 (pages 62-63) 2. William Proxmire, speech in the Senate, 24th March, 1969 3. I. F. Stone, The New York Review of Books, 1st January, 1969 4. Richard Austin Smith, Fortune Magazine, February, 1962 5. Robert J. Art, The TFX Decision, 1968 (page 5) 6. I. F. Stone, The New York Review of Books, 1st January, 1969 7. Quoted by Frederic M. Scherer, The Weapons Acquisition Process: Economic Incentives, 1964 (page 37) 8. William Proxmire, Report from Wasteland: America’s Military-Industrial Complex, 1970 (pages 100-102) 9. See “Missiles and Rockets” (11th February, 1963) and Aviation Week & Space Technology (25th February, 1963) 10. Peter Dale Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, 1993, (page 220) 11. Victor Lasky, It Didn’t Start With Watergate, 1977 (page 144) 12. Seymour Hersh, The Dark Side of Camelot, 1997 (page 407) 13. Carl T. Curtis, Forty Years Against the Tide, 1986 (page 248)

In the last few months of Eisenhower’s administration the Air Force began to argue that it needed a successor to its F-105 tactical fighter. This became known as the TFX/F-111 project. In January, 1961, Robert McNamara, changed the TFX from an Air Force program to a joint Air Force-Navy under-taking. On 1st October, the two services sent the aircraft industry the request for proposals on the TFX and the accompanying work statement, with instructions to submit the bids by 1st December, 1961. Three of the bids were submitted by individual companies: the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, the North American Aviation Corporation and the Boeing Company. The other three bids represented team efforts: Republic Aviation & Chance Vought; General Dynamics Corporation & Grumman Aircraft; and McDonnell Aircraft & Douglas Aircraft. (1) It soon became clear that Boeing was expected to get the contract. Its main competitor was the General Dynamics/Grumman bid. General Dynamics had been America’s leading military contractors during the early stages of the Cold War. For example, in 1958 it obtained $2,239,000,000 worth of government business. This was a higher figure than those obtained by its competitors, such as Lockheed, Boeing, McDonnell and North American. (2) More than 80 percent of the firm’s business came from the government. (3) However, the company lost $27 million in 1960 and $143 million in 1961. According to an article by Richard Austin Smith in Fortune Magazine, General Dynamics was close to bankruptcy. Smith claimed that “unless it gets the contract for the joint Navy-Air Force fighter (TFX)… the company was down the road to receivership”. (4) General Dynamics had several factors in its favour. The president of the company was Frank Pace, the Secretary of the Army (April, 1950-January, 1953). The Deputy Secretary of Defense in 1962 was Roswell Gilpatric, who before he took up the post, was chief counsel for General Dynamics. The Secretary of the Navy was John Connally, a politician from Texas, the state where General Dynamics had its main plant. When he left the job in 1962 he was replaced by another Texan, Fred Korth. He had been appointed by Kennedy after strong lobbying by Lyndon Johnson. Korth from Fort Worth, Texas, was the former president of the Continental Bank, which had loaned General Dynamics considerable sums of money during the late 1950s and early 1960s. Korth later told the McClellan committee that investigated the granting of the TFX contract to General Dynamics “that because of his peculiar position he had deliberately refrained from taking a directing hand in this decision (within the Navy) until the last possible moment.” (5). As I. F. Stone pointed out, it was “the last possible moment” which counted. “Three times the Pentagon’s Source Selection Board found that Boeing’s bid was better and cheaper than that of General Dynamics and three times the bids were sent back for fresh submissions by the two bidders and fresh reviews. On the fourth round, the military still held that Boeing was better but found at last that the General Dynamics bid was also acceptable.” (6) Stone goes on to argue: “The only document the McClellan committee investigators were able to find in the Pentagon in favour of that award, according to their testimony, was a five-page memorandum signed by McNamara, Korth, and Eugene Zuckert, then Secretary of the Air Force.” Zuckert was a close friend of Tommy Corcoran who helped to get him a post with the legal staff of the fledgling Securities and Exchange Commission in 1937. He was also closely associated with John McCone. Zuckert worked with McCone as a member of the Atomic Energy Commission in the 1950s. McNamara justified his support for General Dynamics because “Boeing had from the very beginning consistently chosen more technically risky tradeoffs in an effort to achieve operational features which exceeded the required performance characteristics.” (7) During the McClellan's Permanent Investigations Committee hearings into the contract, Senator Sam Ervin asked Robert McNamara “whether or not there was any connection whatever between your selection of General Dynamics, and the fact that the Vice President of the United States happens to be a resident of the state in which that company has one of its principal, if not its principal office.” McNamara rejected the idea but evidence was to emerge later that Johnson did play an important role in the awarding of the TFX project to General Dynamics. For example, William Proxmire later began investigating the role played by Richard Russell in the granting of the C-5A contract to Lockheed. The C-5A was built in Marietta, Georgia, the state that Russell represented. The Air Force Contract Selection Board originally selected Boeing that was located in the states of Washington and Kansas. However, Proxmire claimed that Russell was able to persuade the board to change its mind and give the C-5A contract to Lockhead. Proxmire quotes Howard Atherton, the mayor of Marietta, as saying that “Russell was key to landing the contract”. Atherton added that Russell believed that Robert McNamara was going ahead with the C-5A in order to “give the plane to Boeing because Boeing got left out on the TFX fighter.” According to Atherton, Russell got the contract after talking to Lyndon Johnson. Atherton added, “without Russell, we wouldn’t have gotten the contract”. (8) Several journalists speculated that Johnson and his friends in Texas had played a key role in obtaining the TFX contract for General Dynamics. (9) When "reporters discovered that the Continental National Bank of Fort Worth, was the principal money source for the General Dynamics plant" in October, 1963, Fred Korth was forced to resign as Secretary of the Navy. (10) Johnson’s role in these events was confirmed when Don B. Reynolds testified in a secret session of the Senate Rules Committee. As Victor Lasky pointed out, Reynolds “spoke of the time Bobby Baker opened a satchel full of paper money which he said was a $100,000 payoff for Johnson for pushing through a $7billion TFX plane contract.” (11) Burkett Van Kirk, chief counsel for the Republican minority on the Senate Rules Committee later told Seymour Hersh that Senator John Williams of Delaware was being fed information by Robert Kennedy about the involvement of Lyndon Johnson and Bobby Baker in a series of scandals. Williams, the Senate’s leading investigator of corruption, passed this information to the three Republicans (John Sherman Cooper, Hugh Scott and Carl Curtis) on the ten-member Rules Committee. However, outnumbered, they were unable to carry out a full investigation into Johnson and Baker. Van Kirk claimed that Robert Kennedy supplied this information because he wanted “to get rid of Johnson.” (12) In his autobiography, Forty Years Against the Tide, Carl Curtis gives an insider view of the attempted investigation into the activities of Lyndon Johnson, Bobby Baker, Walter Jenkins and Fred Black. According to Curtis, Johnson managed to persuade the seven Democrats to vote against hearing the testimony of important witnesses. This included Margaret Broome, who served as Bobby Baker’s secretary before the position was taken by Carole Tyler, who later became his mistress. Tyler did testify but refused to answer questions on the ground that she might incriminate herself. Tyler was later to die in an airplane crash on the beach near the Carousel Motel, owned by Bobby Baker. In his autobiography, Curtis described Baker, Jenkins and Black as “contact men”. He added: “Contact-men existed primarily to obtain for their clients and themselves some share of the vast pool of riches in the possession of swollen centralized political bureaucracies. The more impressive a contact-man’s political connections, the better he and his clients would fare.” (13) Notes 1. Robert J. Art, The TFX Decision: McNamara and the Military, 1968 (pages 62-63) 2. William Proxmire, speech in the Senate, 24th March, 1969 3. I. F. Stone, The New York Review of Books, 1st January, 1969 4. Richard Austin Smith, Fortune Magazine, February, 1962 5. Robert J. Art, The TFX Decision, 1968 (page 5) 6. I. F. Stone, The New York Review of Books, 1st January, 1969 7. Quoted by Frederic M. Scherer, The Weapons Acquisition Process: Economic Incentives, 1964 (page 37) 8. William Proxmire, Report from Wasteland: America’s Military-Industrial Complex, 1970 (pages 100-102) 9. See “Missiles and Rockets” (11th February, 1963) and Aviation Week & Space Technology (25th February, 1963) 10. Peter Dale Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, 1993, (page 220) 11. Victor Lasky, It Didn’t Start With Watergate, 1977 (page 144) 12. Seymour Hersh, The Dark Side of Camelot, 1997 (page 407) 13. Carl T. Curtis, Forty Years Against the Tide, 1986 (page 248)

Doug, it has come to my attention that in your youth you spent sometime in New Orleans. I don't suppose you got to know anyone who has been linked to Lee Harvey Oswald while he was in New Orleans?

It is clear that some members have difficulty with using the “quote” feature of the Forum. Therefore, here are some basic instructions on how to do it. Select the post of the person you wish to quote. Displayed below each post on the far right is button that says “REPLY. If you press this button, an extra text field will appear in the main text input box. At the top it will look like this: In order to get the desired effect it is important to make sure that you leave in as this seems to be the main mistake people are making. You then type your reply under quote. Press ADDREPLY when you are finished. Please use this thread to ask for help concerning the use of this Forum.

It is clear that some members have difficulty with using the “quote” feature of the Forum. Therefore, here are some basic instructions on how to do it. Select the post of the person you wish to quote. Displayed below each post on the far right is button that says “REPLY. If you press this button, an extra text field will appear in the main text input box. At the top it will look like this: In order to get the desired effect it is important to make sure that you leave in as this seems to be the main mistake people are making. You then type your reply under quote. Press ADDREPLY when you are finished. Please use this thread to ask for help concerning the use of this Forum.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservi...1720231,00.html Kelly stands firm on schools bill Oliver King Tuesday February 28, 2006 The government gave no further concessions on its controversial schools reforms as it published its long-awaited education bill this afternoon. After giving ground earlier this month on schools admissions and the role of local authorities, the education secretary, Ruth Kelly, today rejected demands to further water down the legislation. Demands by rebel Labour MPs that local authorities should have the power to set up new schools without reference to the education secretary were rejected by the government. But the words "trust schools" - which ministers have adopted as the brand for their plans - do not appear anywhere in the legislation. Trust schools would instead be legally known as "foundation schools with a foundation". As MPs were left to digest the 200-page bill without a Commons statement by Ms Kelly it was unclear tonight how many of the potential 100 Labour rebels had been brought back onside by the government. Rebel MPs opposed to the bill under centre-left Labour thinktank Compass are meeting at Westminster to discuss how to take forward opposition to the bill. Organiser Neal Lawson said: "There are still a pretty substantial figure - 80, 90 even a 100 MPs - opposed to this bill. There have haven't been any fundamental changes. "Tonight's meeting will discuss tactics on where and how we go from here." Before publishing the bill in Westminster, Ms Kelly visited a school in west London. She said: "I'm confident that this is a bill that my colleagues should be able to unite around. "It is a very good bill. It gives schools the freedom they need to raise standards." The education secretary will tonight address the northern group of Labour MPs as ministers undertake a fresh round of lobbying. The proposals cover reforms to the way schools are run, measures to improve classroom discipline and new rules to make school meals healthier. The department for education said every school would have the chance to become a trust school, free from local authority control and able to manage its assets. Trust schools will be backed by businesses, faith groups, universities or other successful schools under the proposals, which were first outlined in a white paper last year. The original white paper proposals set out moves to strip local authorities of their power to create new community schools. Instead, local authorities were to have a new "strategic" role. The bill published today makes it clear that a local education authority in England, may with the consent of the secretary of state set up a new community school. Ms Kelly has insisted she would only use this power of veto rarely, and "will not normally intervene" where the council in question has a good track record and parents in the area want the new community school. Vera Baird, Labour MP for Redcar told Guardian Unlimited: "I wasn't one of the original 100-strong rebels but I was somewhat unhappy at the bill and the concessions have gone some way towards solving that. I'm inclined to think the bulk of the problems are out of the way but I'm still worried about the veto." Clive Efford one of the 100 Labour rebels MPs who signed the alternative white paper promoted by the Compass thinktank, said he wanted time to consider it. "I picked up this bill five minutes ago with the intention of not voting for it. I will now go away and read it, but it is very difficult to confirm that the government have moved as far as it's said it has. I'm still concerned about getting the resources into low performing schools but we seem to have moved a long way away from the free for all disaster it would have been," he said. With the Conservatives indicating they will support the bill with reservations it was left to the Liberal Democrats to officially oppose the legislation. The Lib Dem education spokesman, Edward Davey, said: "Despite the hype, these are limited reforms, containing hidden dangers that ought to alarm parents and schools across England. "We will now study the fine print, but if ministers want the votes of Liberal Democrats they would be strongly advised before second reading to refocus on reforms proven to raise standards. "Schools don't need to become trusts to get the benefits ministers promise, but if your local school adopts Labour's trust model you could find your children don't get a place. Labour wants schools to choose pupils, not parents to choose schools. That's a threat to parental choice." The 25-strong Socialist Campaign group of MPs immediately signaled they were still unhappy with the bill. Chairman John McConnell said: "The bill remains unacceptable to any Labour MP seeking to ensure fair access to a decent education for all their constituents, rich or poor. "Having secured a series of concessions so far, our strategy will be to await further government shifts - as even with those concessions the government cannot be sure of its majority."

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservi...1720231,00.html Kelly stands firm on schools bill Oliver King Tuesday February 28, 2006 The government gave no further concessions on its controversial schools reforms as it published its long-awaited education bill this afternoon. After giving ground earlier this month on schools admissions and the role of local authorities, the education secretary, Ruth Kelly, today rejected demands to further water down the legislation. Demands by rebel Labour MPs that local authorities should have the power to set up new schools without reference to the education secretary were rejected by the government. But the words "trust schools" - which ministers have adopted as the brand for their plans - do not appear anywhere in the legislation. Trust schools would instead be legally known as "foundation schools with a foundation". As MPs were left to digest the 200-page bill without a Commons statement by Ms Kelly it was unclear tonight how many of the potential 100 Labour rebels had been brought back onside by the government. Rebel MPs opposed to the bill under centre-left Labour thinktank Compass are meeting at Westminster to discuss how to take forward opposition to the bill. Organiser Neal Lawson said: "There are still a pretty substantial figure - 80, 90 even a 100 MPs - opposed to this bill. There have haven't been any fundamental changes. "Tonight's meeting will discuss tactics on where and how we go from here." Before publishing the bill in Westminster, Ms Kelly visited a school in west London. She said: "I'm confident that this is a bill that my colleagues should be able to unite around. "It is a very good bill. It gives schools the freedom they need to raise standards." The education secretary will tonight address the northern group of Labour MPs as ministers undertake a fresh round of lobbying. The proposals cover reforms to the way schools are run, measures to improve classroom discipline and new rules to make school meals healthier. The department for education said every school would have the chance to become a trust school, free from local authority control and able to manage its assets. Trust schools will be backed by businesses, faith groups, universities or other successful schools under the proposals, which were first outlined in a white paper last year. The original white paper proposals set out moves to strip local authorities of their power to create new community schools. Instead, local authorities were to have a new "strategic" role. The bill published today makes it clear that a local education authority in England, may with the consent of the secretary of state set up a new community school. Ms Kelly has insisted she would only use this power of veto rarely, and "will not normally intervene" where the council in question has a good track record and parents in the area want the new community school. Vera Baird, Labour MP for Redcar told Guardian Unlimited: "I wasn't one of the original 100-strong rebels but I was somewhat unhappy at the bill and the concessions have gone some way towards solving that. I'm inclined to think the bulk of the problems are out of the way but I'm still worried about the veto." Clive Efford one of the 100 Labour rebels MPs who signed the alternative white paper promoted by the Compass thinktank, said he wanted time to consider it. "I picked up this bill five minutes ago with the intention of not voting for it. I will now go away and read it, but it is very difficult to confirm that the government have moved as far as it's said it has. I'm still concerned about getting the resources into low performing schools but we seem to have moved a long way away from the free for all disaster it would have been," he said. With the Conservatives indicating they will support the bill with reservations it was left to the Liberal Democrats to officially oppose the legislation. The Lib Dem education spokesman, Edward Davey, said: "Despite the hype, these are limited reforms, containing hidden dangers that ought to alarm parents and schools across England. "We will now study the fine print, but if ministers want the votes of Liberal Democrats they would be strongly advised before second reading to refocus on reforms proven to raise standards. "Schools don't need to become trusts to get the benefits ministers promise, but if your local school adopts Labour's trust model you could find your children don't get a place. Labour wants schools to choose pupils, not parents to choose schools. That's a threat to parental choice." The 25-strong Socialist Campaign group of MPs immediately signaled they were still unhappy with the bill. Chairman John McConnell said: "The bill remains unacceptable to any Labour MP seeking to ensure fair access to a decent education for all their constituents, rich or poor. "Having secured a series of concessions so far, our strategy will be to await further government shifts - as even with those concessions the government cannot be sure of its majority."

Interesting article in today's Guardian: http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/st...1719123,00.html It is a familiar scene: mum and dad hunched at the kitchen table, poring over Ofsted reports and brochures, trying to fathom which is the best school for their child. But a new report, obtained by Education Guardian, suggests that these well-meaning parents, and thousands like them, are looking in the wrong place. Instead of trying to decode inspectors' reports or work out whether academies are better than voluntary-aided schools or trusts superior to community comprehensives, they need look no further than the average earnings among parents. A study by academics at University College London (UCL) and Kings College London has given statistical backbone to the view that the overwhelming factor in how well children do is not what type of school they attend- but social class. It appears to show what has often been said but never proved: that the current league tables measure not the best, but the most middle-class schools; and that even the government's "value-added" tables fail to take account of the most crucial factor in educational outcomes - a pupil's address. The report, which uses previously unreleased information from the Department for Education and Skills, matches almost 1 million pupils with their individual postcode and exam scores at 11 and 15. This unprecedented project has revealed that a child's social background is the crucial factor in academic performance, and that a school's success is based not on its teachers, the way it is run, or what type of school it is, but, overwhelmingly, on the class background of its pupils. "These are very important findings, which should change the way parents, pupils and politicians think about schools," says Richard Webber, professor at UCL. "This is the first time we have been able to measure the precise impact of a child's social background on their educational performance, as well as the importance of a school's intake on its standing in the league tables." The findings come at a pivotal time in education with the government determined to push through its education reforms in a new schools bill, expected to be published today. If it is successful, all primary and secondary schools will be encouraged to become independent trusts with control over their own admissions. But many critics have argued that the government should be introducing more rigorous controls over admissions - to ensure as many schools as possible have a balanced intake of middle- and working-class children. The study found that, whatever their background, children do better the more "middle-class" the school they attend, and also that more than 50% of a school's performance is accounted for by the social make-up of its pupils. In affluent areas, such as Dukes Avenue, Muswell Hill, in north London, and Lammas Park Road, Ealing, west London, the study would expect 67% of 11-year-olds to achieve level 5 in the national English tests and 94% of 15-yearolds to get five or more passes at GCSE at grade C and above. Meanwhile, of the children growing up in more deprived areas, such as Hillside Road, Dudley, or Laurel Road, Tipton (both in the West Midlands), just 13% are likely to get the top level 5 in the national English tests for 11-year-olds, while only 24% of 15-year-olds will be reckoned to achieve the benchmark five-plus GCSEs at grade C and above. Put simply, the more middle-class the pupils, the better they do. The more middle-class children there are at the school, the better it does. It is proof that class still rules the classroom. "The results show that the position of a school in published league tables, the criterion typically used by parents to select successful schools, depends more on the social profile of its pupils than the quality of the teachers," says Webber, who, along with Professor Tim Butler from Kings, has devised new school league tables from the data that take the social background of each pupil into account. " As it stands, parents who want to do the best for their children should choose a school according to how middle-class its intake is, rather than on the type of school or the quality of the teaching. "For schools the message is clear. Selecting children whose homes are in high-status neighbourhoods is one of the most effective ways of retaining a high position in the league table. For statisticians, meanwhile, it proves that the existing tables, which ignore the types of home from which a school draws its pupils, are necessarily an unfair and imprecise means of judging a school's achievements." The study looked at 476,000 11-year olds and 482,000 15-year-olds. The data was analysed through Mosaic, a programme devised by the information company Experian, which divides the UK population by postcode into 11 main groups and 61 types, providing detailed insight into the socio-demographics, lifestyles, culture and behaviour of UK citizens. It is being used in key policy areas, such as health and crime, but this is the first time it has been used to assess the link between education performance and social class. The study revealed how pupils from each of the 61 socio-economic groups performed given their background, allowing statisticians to set a benchmark score and measure each school's performance against that, in light of its intake. For this research Mosaic was linked to the Pupil Level Annual Statistics Data (National Pupil Database), provided by the DfES, to enable more accurate and context-based benchmarking of educational attainment. The full report, which has yet to be given a title, will be published later this year and will be available from UCL. Webber and Butler warn that introducing further freedoms for schools, as the government is, may allow middle-class parents and schools to choose each other, leaving those from poorer backgrounds stranded in an increasingly segregated system. "Given the chance, a school will do as well as it can, and, as this research shows, that means attracting as many middleclass pupils as possible. Parentscan see that their children will do better in the most middle-class schools, so they will strive to work the system to get in. So, by giving schools more independence and creating a market in education, you run the serious risk of polarising pupils along class lines," says Webber. He insists the government's attempts to introduce a market in education are also economically flawed: "The beneficial peer group effects caused by the children of highly educated parents means a market will not operate in the usual way. The best educational achievement for the largest number of pupils will be achieved by having a broad social mix of pupils in as many schools as possible. Some schools that currently draw their pupils from privileged social strata would lose out, but education standards would increase overall." Ministers who have gone cold on the idea of banding school admissions by ability in last year's white paper are unlikely to take much heed of the authors' concerns, but the new school league tables created by Webber and Butler are likely to raise further questions about the validity of the existing criteria for measuring success. The tables, which work out how well schools should do in light of the social background of their intake, throw up differences with the scores produced by the DfES. In the primary school table, many previously middling schools come near the top of the pile. For secondary schools, the differences between the DfES's value-added figures and the alternative table are less pronounced. "For the first time, we can see exactly how well schools are doing, taking into account the really crucial factor - the social background of their pupils," said Webber. "Previously even the value-added tables have failed to recognise the success of schools that serve very deprived communities. Conversely, some of the schools that are usually near the top in traditional tables are shown to be not quite as successful when you realise just how privileged their intake is." This is a view echoed - unsurprisingly - by Christine Haddock, headteacher at Larkspur community school in Gateshead -the most successful primary in the country according to the new league table. "This is fantastic news," Haddock told Education Guardian. "We have always known that we are doing a good job for the children here, but the usual league tables rarely reflect that feeling. "We serve a deprived area. In the last three years 46%-59% of our children have been eligible for free school meals [the standard indicator of deprivation]. But these findings reflect what we have always known: that this is a good school that looks after its pupils as well as it possibly can. Many of them are at quite a low level when they arrive, but they make massive strides before they leave. "In the end, it's not about where you come in tables, it's about the difference that we can make to children's lives round here, but this will be a real boost to all the people who work so hard at the school." Another primary headteacher who welcomed the new league tables was Simon O'Keefe, headteacher of The Powell School in Dover, Kent, which came second in the country after not making the top 250 schools in the value-added rankings produced by the Guardian from the DfES performance tables. "It is only in recent years that we are starting to feel we are getting recognition, but nothing like this," says O'Keefe. "It is obviously nice to feel we are successful in what we are trying to do here, but there is always room for improvement and, in the end, league tables are nice, but it is about teaching children to the best of our abilities so that they can reach their potential." The school has around 33% of pupils eligible for free school meals and a similar proportion with special educational needs. "All our children, with perhaps one or two exceptions, come from the local council estate and from a fairly deprived background, but we have high expectations for them. We have high expectations of what they can achieve and of their behaviour. That, along with excellent teaching, is our fairly obvious secret." Among secondary schools, although many community schools with more socially deprived intakes make it into the top 200, some of the more traditional table-toppers still do well, particularly those from the grammar school sector. Webber says this is because there is more selection at secondary schools, so they often cream off the more able pupils from disadvantaged areas while maintaining high results. He adds that the research, including the new league tables, should be seen as the start rather than the end of an ongoing discussion. "There are endless questions that this research throws up for parents and schools and, perhaps most crucially of all, for those making the decisions on where we go from here. Hopefully, this will begin a debate that will lead to a greater understanding of what is actually working in our schools and how best we can help children from all backgrounds achieve their potential."

Focus on... History ICT in Secondary Magazine February 2006 Focus on..., part of the ICT Advice in Secondary Magazine, is aimed at subject teachers in secondary schools, and offers feature articles, reviews and events to provide guidance, support and inspiration for using and embedding ICT in the curriculum. In the winter term issue: Interactive interpretations of the Hungarian crisis: Interpreting the Hungarian crisis with added interactivity Embedding ICT in history: The benefits of the Hands on Support programme for one department Reviews: From good practice to famous faces and musical Tudors Events: Details of a centenary conference and a CPD session Focus on... History: ICT Advice in Secondary magazine is only available to view online, but you can download or print a copy by clicking on the Print Friendly button at the bottom of the web page. Focus on... History: ICT in Secondary online: http://schools.becta.org.uk/index.php?sect...ubsectionid=112

The problem is that many states, especially in the conservative South, do a lousy job of providing the basic services for its citizens. Texas is one of seven states that does not charge any form of personal income tax. The “paucity of tax revenue means that Texas lags behind the other states in virtually every health and human service category, the state’s politicians continue to focus almost exclusively on how they can make the state even more hospitable to business. “ (Robert Bryce, Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, America’s Superstate, page 14). Yet Texas, thanks to oil, is a rich state. However, thanks to absence of a graduated income tax, the rich have kept the money for themselves. I accept that Texas has a corrupt political system but why do people put up with it? People living in Europe were treated like this in the 19th century but we took to the streets and largely got the corrupt politicians under our control. Why does this not happen in Texas and those other states that treat people so badly?

It is true that Bush has failed but he is only the front man. The multinationals that backed him have done very well out of his foreign policy. They are laughing all the way to the bank. What amazes me is that the American public are putting up with this blatant corruption. Why are they not taking to the streets?

That is a great idea. Andy Schofield, head of Varndean School, and head of our project, is one of the few schools in the UK to have student representatives on the school governing council. The idea is based on what is taking place in South Africa. Maybe, Andy could make a documentary film on this?

As you would have seen from the work plan, I have put members down for Special Projects. This was my way of explaining to Socrates how you will be spending your time over the three years of the project. Several members have emailed me with details of what you would like to do in these “Special Projects”. I think it would be a good idea to post it on the Forum so other members know what you intend to do. It might also give members good ideas that they might want to do as a “Special Project”.

Have you read Sidney Lens’s book “The Military-Industrial Complex”? He has an interesting passage on Goldwater and his group of conservatives in Congress. From 1946 to 1967, according to the statistics of Senator J. William Fulbright, the federal government spent $904 billion, or 57.29 per cent of its budget “for military power,” and only $96 billion, or 6.08 per cent for “social functions,” such as education, health, labor and welfare programs, housing and community development. Convincing the American people that they ought to spend nine times as much on guns as on human welfare was an act of mesmerism by the military establishment without parallel… It is no accident that Washington has been almost universally on the side of conservative forces in the developing areas – Syngman Rhee in Korea, Chiang Kai-shek in China, the Shah in Iran, the militarists throughout Latin America, the king in Jordan, the king in Saudia Arabia, the military regimes in Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam. These conservative elements, to secure their own “vested interests,” have been willing to accept American military and economic support in return for concessions to American “vested interests”. Nor is it an accident that by and large the same legislators – Stennis, Russell, Rivers, Mundt, Goldwater, Tower, McClellan, to name a few – who are the fiercest advocates of military spending and military ventures, are also the fiercest opponents of social programs such as medicare, higher minimum wages, antipoverty, social security, and favourable trade union legislation. Lens could also have added that these figures were also opposed to civil rights legislation. It does raise the following question: “What did the conservative movement get right in 1960?”

The fact that you have responded to my posting showing that the above is a lot of nonsense that you now accept my account of these events (based on the CIA files published by Nick Cullather).

I agree that this article provides a lot to think about. Would Richard be willing to join the Forum (by the way Barr has agreed to join). I will be arguing in the next section of Assassination, Terrorism and the Arms Trade: The Contracting Out of U.S. Foreign Policy: 1940-1990 that characters like Douglas Dillon, Walt Rostow and Edward Lansdale do need to be looked at closely in relation to the Kennedy assassination. The reason for this is that they were all key figures in the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence Complex. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5799 Rostow was also a member of the Georgetown Set, a group that met on a regular basis in Washington after the war. This group was led by Frank Wisner and members included Richard Bissell, Desmond FitzGerald, Stewart Alsop, Joseph Alsop, Tracy Barnes, Thomas Braden, Philip Graham, David Bruce, Clark Clifford, Eugene Rostow, Chip Bohlen, Cord Meyer, James Angleton, William Averill Harriman, John McCloy, John Sherman Cooper, James Reston, Allen W. Dulles and Paul Nitze. It was this group that first came up with the idea of the CIA (many of them had served together in the OSS in Europe). Wisner and Graham also established Operation Mockingbird in the late 1940s. Other interesting points is that two members, Phil Graham and Joseph Alsop, persuaded JFK to accept LBJ as his running-mate in 1960. They also pushed very hard for Douglas Dillon to become Secretary of the Treasury. The person who would be responsible for looking at the oil depletion allowance. Something that Dillon had helped maintain when he served under Dwight Eisenhower (Dillon was a passionate Republican who had been Nixon’s main fundraiser in 1960). According to Donald Gibson (The Kennedy Assassination Cover Up) it was Rostow who established the Warren Commission. In fact, he argues it should have been called the Rostow Commission (page 13). Rostow of course selected three members of the Warren Commission from the Georgetown Set (Dulles, McCoy and Cooper). Rostow also selected Richard Russell (chairman of the Senate Committees on Armed Forces and Appropriations, and therefore the most important figure in the MICIC in the Senate).

Have you seen the interview on this thread? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6230 Silvia Cattori: It seems that in the 1960s, President Kennedy asked that inspections be carried out in Dimona, Israel. Do you see any links between that request and his assassination? Mordechai Vanunu: I believe that, at that time, the United States opposed the Israeli nuclear program. Kennedy tried to stop Israel but he was assassinated before he could do it. For me, his assassination had to do with the proliferation of nuclear weapons in Israel and in other countries. Those who killed him were in favour of nuclear proliferation. Thanks to his death, proliferation continued. In fact, presidents Johnson and Nixon, who succeeded Kennedy, saw no inconvenience with that. They let Israel act. We can simply see that there was a change in that direction after Kennedy's assassination.

Have you seen the interview on this thread? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6230 Silvia Cattori: It seems that in the 1960s, President Kennedy asked that inspections be carried out in Dimona, Israel. Do you see any links between that request and his assassination? Mordechai Vanunu: I believe that, at that time, the United States opposed the Israeli nuclear program. Kennedy tried to stop Israel but he was assassinated before he could do it. For me, his assassination had to do with the proliferation of nuclear weapons in Israel and in other countries. Those who killed him were in favour of nuclear proliferation. Thanks to his death, proliferation continued. In fact, presidents Johnson and Nixon, who succeeded Kennedy, saw no inconvenience with that. They let Israel act. We can simply see that there was a change in that direction after Kennedy's assassination.

The common view is that Real Madrid is too old and unwilling to do the running needed. One thing that I have noticed is that British teams seem to be fitter than their foreign opponents. To be successful in the Premiership you need to be extremely fit. It is noticiable that the teams like Blackburn, West Ham, Bolton and Wigan that have all done well this season, are probably the fittest in the league.

Real Madrid seem to be having a bad season. From what I have seen on the television, Barcelona seem to be a very superior team. I was fairly impressed with them against 10 men Chelsea. However, I am not sure their defence will be good enough if Chelsea really take them on. Real Madrid were also very poor against Arsenal. The coach obviously had not been watching Arsenal in our Premiership. The problem for Arsenal is that they have been rumbled. All the teams in the Premiership know how to play against them. Two banks of four, set deep, with a goalkeeper working as a sweeper. They also need to be closed down straight away so they don’t get time to play. Using these tactics, even average teams can beat them (Newcastle, West Ham, Blackburn, etc.) Real Madrid gave them far too much time on the ball. Real Madrid allowed Arsenal to play and they therefore looked impressive. Against Blackburn they looked very ordinary. I think I should warn you Juan Carlos, our new member, Dan Lyndon, is a passionate Arsenal fan. You might get some ribbing if you also lose the second leg.

Good idea to post menus in advance. Menu Maastricht: Saturday March 11 Appetizers Carpaccio beef Very thin raw beef slices with a pesto dressing and slices of parmesan cheese Main Meat Courses Meat duet Combination of steak with a red-wine sauce and fillet of pork with a mushroom sauce

I am afraid the application form was sent off by Varndean School this morning. However, if we get the grant I think I know how to get the money to buy what you are asking for.

From Green Left Weekly, March 1, 2006. Abridged from http://www.voltairenet.org/article129838.html In 1986, Mordechai Vanunu, an engineer at Israel’s Dimona nuclear centre, revealed to the London Sunday Times the existence of the secret Israeli nuclear weapons program. He was kidnapped in Italy by Mossad, the Israeli secret service, following his contacts with the British reporters. Before the publication of the article with his revelations, he was tried in secret and jailed for 18 years. Although he is still banned from contacting reporters, last October Vanunu answered Swiss journalist Silvia Cattori's questions in an exclusive interview for Voltaire Network. What was your job in Israel before the Mossad agents kidnapped you in Rome in October 1986? I had been working for 19 years in the Dimona weapons research centre in the province of Beer Sheva. Just before I quit that job, in 1986, I took photos of the interior of the factory to show the world that Israel was hiding a nuclear secret. I was in charge of producing radioactive elements for the manufacture of atomic bombs. I knew exactly the amount of fissile material produced, the elements used and the kind of bombs that were being manufactured. Wasn't it a big risk for you to reveal to the world that your own country had nuclear weapons? If I decided to do it, it was because Israeli authorities were lying. They constantly said that Israel's political leaders had no intentions of acquiring nuclear weapons. However, they were producing amounts of radioactive substances that could only serve that goal: manufacturing nuclear weapons. They were significant amounts. I calculated that at that time, in 1986, they already had 200 atomic bombs. They had also started to manufacture hydrogen bombs, very powerful ones. So I decided to reveal what they were secretly doing. I also wanted to prevent the Israelis from using atomic bombs and to avoid a nuclear war in the Middle East. I wanted to contribute to peace in the region. Israel, having such extremely powerful weapons, could work for peace. It had no reason to fear a Palestinian or even an Arab threat as it had the necessary weapons to survive. Were you worried about security in the region? Yes, that is right. Of course, I did not do it for the Israeli people. Israelis had elected that government and that government had decided to produce nuclear weapons. All Israelis follow very closely the policy of the Israeli government. But, as far as I am concerned, I was acting by taking into account the point of view of humankind, of a human being, of all human beings of the Middle East and also of the world. Because many other countries could do what Israel had done. So I decided, in the interest of humanity, to reveal the danger that Israel's secret nuclear weapons represented. We were in the middle of the Cold War and nuclear weapons proliferated. They were extending to some countries like South Africa. The danger posed by nuclear weapons was real. Now that danger has decreased. Did you know what you were exposing yourself to? Why did it have to be you and not anyone else who took such a big risk? Of course I knew the risks. No one could have done what I did. I knew I was messing around with the Israeli government. It was not like I was attacking private interests. I knew I was directly messing around with the Israeli government and the Israeli Jewish state. Thus, I knew they could punish me, kill me or do whatever they wanted. But I had the responsibility of telling the truth to the world. I was the only one who could do it, so I had to do it no matter what the risks might have been. Did you have the support of your family? The members of my family were unable to understand my decision. What most disturbed them was the fact that I had become a Christian. For them that was more painful than the fact that I had revealed Israel's nuclear secrets... I respect them and they respect my life. We have maintained good relations but we do not see each other anymore. Do you feel alone? Yes, I am alone here, in St. George Cathedral. But I have a lot of friends who support me. In what conditions were you judged and incarcerated? The trial was kept in the most absolute secrecy. I was alone with my lawyer. I was condemned for espionage and high treason. Authorities took revenge by keeping me isolated during the entire trial process. They would not authorise anyone to talk to me and I was banned from speaking to the press, which published a lot of distorted information about me. The Israeli government used all its media influence to brainwash public opinion and the judges, who were finally convinced that I had to be sent to jail. Therefore the trial took place secretly and the press had no access to the truth, they could not hear me. The people were convinced that I was a traitor, a spy, a criminal. There was not an atom of justice in that trial. But it was not only the trial. The cruellest thing was the isolation inside the prison. They did not only punish me by putting me into jail but also by keeping me completely isolated, by constantly spying on me and by applying vicious and cruel treatments. They tried to make me feel in despair and make me regret what I had done. I was held incommunicado for 18 years and I was in complete isolation for 11 years and a half. The first year, they put cameras in my cell and they kept the light on for three consecutive years! Their spies constantly hit me and they would not let me sleep. I was subjected to a very cruel treatment. They tried to break me into submission. My goal was to survive and I made it! You were very lucky that they did not hang you as then Justice Minister Tommy Lapid wanted. You resisted and you were finally released on April 21, 2004. You were 50 years old! They released me because I had served my 18-year imprisonment. They wanted to kill me. But the Israeli government finally decided not to do it. In April 2004, television channels aired your release from prison. It was then that the world knew what had happened. You looked happy, spirited and determined, looking nothing like a broken man. Leaving prison, talking to the world, to celebrate, after 18 years in prison and under complete prohibition, it was a great moment. Then, they could not break you mentally? Absolutely not. My goal was to get out of there and to speak to the world, letting Israeli authorities know that they had failed. My goal was to survive and that was my biggest victory over all those espionage organisations. They managed to kidnap me, to drag me to their court, to keep me isolated for 18 years. and I survived all that. Of course, I suffered. But I survived. In spite of all their crimes I am still alive. Even my health is excellent! I am strong. Certainly, that is why I went through the test. What helped you resist? My strength. The fact that I was convinced that what I had done was right. My determination to make them understand that, in spite of everything they could do to punish me, I was going to stay alive. What is the biggest obstacle that you are facing now? They do not allow me to leave Israel. They released me from prison but now I am in a bigger cell: Israel. I would like to leave this country and enjoy freedom. I am sick and tired of the Israeli power. The army can come to arrest me and punish me anytime. I feel like I am at their mercy. I would like to live far away from here. Will Israel let you leave the country? I don't know. They said that I could not leave Israel for a year. Then, when a year passed by, they renewed the ban for another year that ends next April. But they can do it as many times as they wish. What is your opinion about the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) knowing that, in the case of Israel, “nuclear ambiguity” is tolerated while Iran is kept under pressure, even when the latter is submitted to inspections? All countries should be open to international inspections and to tell the truth about what they are secretly doing in their nuclear facilities. Israel has not signed the NPT. Almost 180 countries have done it, including all Arab countries. Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan. all Israeli neighbours have opened their borders to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Israel is the worst example. It is the only country that has refused to sign the treaty. The United States and Europe should start to pay attention to the Israeli case. Israel must be treated like any other country. We have to put an end to hypocrisy and to make Israel sign the NPT. Israel has to accept the IAEA inspectors in Dimona. Iran, which complies with its obligations and accepts the UN inspections, is threatened to be sanctioned however. But, nothing is done in the case of Israel that has nuclear weapons and rejects the IAEA inspections. Why are the United States and Europe conducting this “double standard” policy? Yes, and it is even worse than what you are saying. Not only they are not taking any measures but they are also secretly helping Israel. There is a secret cooperation between Israel and the United States, Great Britain and France. These countries have decided to support Israel's nuclear might because they want Israel to be at their service as a colonial country that guarantees their control of the Middle East, to gain access to oil reserves in the region and to keep the Arabs living in underdevelopment and amid fratricidal conflicts. That is the main reason of that cooperation. Isn't Iran a threat, as Israel and the United States claim? Under the control of the IAEA, Iran does not pose any threat. Western experts perfectly know the nature of the Iranian nuclear program, contrary to Israel, which does not let anyone enter its nuclear facilities. That is why Iran decided to take a step forward and to tell the world: “You can not demand more transparency from us while closing your eyes to what is happening in Israel!” The Arabs have known for 40 years that Israel has atomic bombs and nobody does anything about it. As long as the world continues to ignore Israel's atomic weapons, they will not have the moral authority to say anything about Iran. If the world is really concerned, if they want to put an end to nuclear proliferation, then they have to start from the beginning, that is, Israel! It must be very annoying for you to hear Israel, a violator of regulations, say that it is ready to bomb Iran, a country that has not broken any rules thus far! Yes, that drives me crazy. We have no reason to criticise Iran. Before we do anything against any country we have to take care of the Israeli case. If anyone wants to do anything against Iran, first he has to deal with Israel. The world cannot ignore what Israel has been doing over the past 40 years. The United States should make Israel sign the NPT. It is about time that Europe acknowledges that Israel has nuclear weapons. The Arab world should be very concerned about the fact that the entire world is criticizing Iran, which does not have nuclear weapons, while ignoring Israel. What states cooperated with Israel? Israel helped France and Great Britain in their campaign against Egypt in 1956. After the operation of Suez, France and Great Britain began cooperating with the Israeli nuclear program as a way to reciprocate the support that Israel had given them during that war. Didn't South Africa help Israel until 1991? It was precisely in South Africa, in the desert, that Israel carried out its nuclear tests. It seems that in the 1960s, President Kennedy asked that inspections be carried out in Dimona, Israel. Do you see any links between that request and his assassination? I believe that, at that time, the United States opposed the Israeli nuclear program. Kennedy tried to stop Israel but he was assassinated before he could do it. For me, his assassination had to do with the proliferation of nuclear weapons in Israel and in other countries. Those who killed him were in favour of nuclear proliferation. Thanks to his death, proliferation continued. In fact, presidents Johnson and Nixon, who succeeded Kennedy, saw no inconvenience with that. They let Israel act. We can simply see that there was a change in that direction after Kennedy's assassination. Your denunciation did not make Israel change its secrecy around the matter. Israel managed to have all the big power not to act against it. Was Israel's strategy, contrary to transparency, effective? Yes, we have to admit it. Israel is a case that has to be studied. How can a small country defy the whole world and continue with an aggressive policy, and not worry about anyone else? Yes, Israelis were able to do it then. But, today the world has changed. The Cold War is over. Communism was defeated. The world marches toward peace. We can now see that nuclear weapons will not help Israel. Now that Israel has to show that it wants peace and how to attain it, what is the use of nuclear weapons? Israel's nuclear policy was possible in the context of the Cold War. Today we have to make Israel to adopt a new policy, showing the world that it wants peace and that it recognizes that it does not need nuclear weapons. In the 1950s, Israel already had significant armaments. What reason did it have then to acquire the nuclear weapon? A small country such as Israel does not have any valid reason to have such an enormous amount of atomic weapons. It is as though Israel had gone into a frenzy over its nuclear weapons program. It is impossible to use a nuclear weapon in the region! If a nuclear weapon were used against Syria, Egypt or Jordan, the radioactive effects would also hurt Israel. To this day, Israelis have not been able to discuss the issue among them. However, it is a problem that worries everyone in the world. We are waiting for Israel's answer. For Israel, isn't it rather a weapon that allows it to maintain its status quo, as an instrument for political blackmail, to be able to discuss in equal terms with the big powers — starting with the United States — and not to concede anything to the Arabs, that Israel has plundered and who are weak in the military field? That is right. Israel uses the power of its weapons to impose its policies. Israel has a lot of power; it crushes with arrogance all its neighbours. Not even the United States can tell Israel what to do! Europe is now seeing the magnitude of Israel's power. Without using the atomic bomb and not even threatening to use the nuclear weapon, Israelis can impose their power, they can do as they please. They can build a wall; they can build colonies in Palestine. No one can tell them they cannot do it because they are extremely powerful. This is the result of their political blackmail. They can use their nuclear weapons against any country that tries to stop their aggressive policy against the Palestinians. That is the current situation. The whole world knows it. And there is another reason why the United States and Europe do not do anything. They know the magnitude of Israel's power. Thus, the best way to oppose Israel is making the world aware of the truth and to study what is happening in that country with regard to atomic weapons until they give it up. Did Israel consider the possibility of using the nuclear weapon against its Arab neighbours in 1973? Yes. In 1973 Israel was ready to use atomic bombs against Syria. and Egypt. You suffered a lot for having revealed a secret of state. Finally. what was the result? First, the world now has evidence that Israel has atomic weapons. From now on, no one can ignore the truth as to the Israeli nuclear program. After that, Israel was prevented from resorting to that kind of weapons. Another result is that the world became aware of what this small Jewish state was secretly doing. And the world also knew about the lies and misinformation upon which this state lies. Knowing that a small country like Israel was able to manufacture 200 atomic bombs made the world aware of its behaviour. The fear that another small country could do the same made the world think about ways to stop nuclear proliferation and to prevent Israel from helping other countries to use those weapons in the future. When the world became aware of what Israel was secretly doing, the fear of nuclear proliferation increased. The world became aware of Israel's power and began to pressure this country to reach peace with the Palestinians and the Arab world. Israel no longer had a reason to affirm that it feared its Arab neighbours as it had, since the 1950s, plenty of weapons to guarantee its own security. Why does Israel still chase you? What I did was very harmful for all of Israel's political moves! They were forced to change their plans. Israel's secret nuclear policy was created by Shimon Peres. And that policy of secretly manufacturing nuclear weapons was destroyed! After that denunciation, Israel had to change its direction and to make new plans. What we see today is a consequence of what I did. They had to invent other types of weapons. Now, they are building their wall, check points, settlements and they managed to make the Jewish society a more religious one, more nationalist and more racist instead of taking another path, instead of understanding that the only possible solution is peace, instead of recognizing that the Palestinians have the same rights and instead of putting an end to the conflict. What Israel wants is to continue building its wall and its settlements! So, what you did was a great deed! As a human being, I did something for the security and respect of humankind. All countries have to respect us, everyone of us!, as human beings, no matter what our religion might be, whether we are Jews, Christians, Muslims or Buddhists. Israel has a big problem: it is a country that does not respect human beings. The result is devastating for Israel's image. The state of Israel is far from being a democracy. The Jewish state is racist. The whole world should know that Israel practices a policy of apartheid. If you are a Jew, you can do whatever you want and go wherever you want. If you are not a Jew, you have no rights. That racism is the real problem that Israel faces. Israel is completely unable to prove that it is a democracy. No one can accept that racist state, neither the United States nor Europe. In any case, they could accept Israel's nuclear weapons but. how can they justify this state of fascist apartheid? It looks like you refuse to recognise the legitimacy of that state? Of course. That is what I said when I was released from jail: we cannot accept this Jewish state. The Israeli Jewish state is the opposite of a democracy. We need a state for all its citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs. The solution is a sole state for all citizens of all religions, as it is in democracies like France or Switzerland, and not only a state for Jews. A Jewish state has absolutely no reason to exist. Jews do not need a fundamentalist regime like that of Iran. People need a real democracy that respects human beings. Today we have two fundamentalist regimes in the Middle East: Iran and Israel. But, Israel is far more fundamentalist than Iran! Then for you, Israel is a bigger threat than Iran? Of course it is. We all know how much the Israelis have been making the Palestinian people suffer for more than 50 years! It is about time that the world pays attention to the Palestinian Holocaust. The Palestinians have suffered a lot, for a long time, because of that oppression! The Jews do not respect them and not even consider them as human beings. They do not recognize any of their rights and still chase them, putting their lives in danger and, consequently, their future too. What would you say to my country, Switzerland, the repository of the Geneva Conventions? Switzerland should clearly and loudly condemn the racist policy of Israel, that is, all the violations of the Palestinians' rights, let them be Muslims or Christians. All countries must demand that Israel respect non-Jewish people as human beings. In fact, I do not have the right to speak with you; I am not authorized to speak to foreigners. Doing it in spite of the ban is a risk that I am taking. Israel used the compensations for the holocaust to build weapons, to destroy houses and Palestinian assets. I wish your country could grant me a passport and help me out of Israel. Life is very tough here. If you are a Jew, there is no problem. If not, or if you cease to be one, you are treated with no respect.