Kirk Gallaway

There's a quiet movement going on in Israel to never let Gazans resettle and pawn them off on the rest of the world, never to return! https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/07/opinion/israel-gaza-war.html?smid=url-share

Paul: lest you think that the omissions I'm talking about refer solely to Sperling and Jim Di make no mention of the JFK's sale of Hawk missiles to Israel. Let's deal with more omissions and maybe some fallacies.. Let's go to Jim's Gaza and JFK. It's cool. He has me on ignore anyway. ***** Jim Di: Kennedy also made it clear that he did not like having to deal with the dissolute Saud and his extremist monarchy. For him, Nasser represented the hopes and aspirations of Arab nationalism. He was the reformer who could lead into a new and different future. Consequently, JFK wanted to disconnect America from the relic of the past, namely the Saud family. Yes JFK made it so clear, he ended up betraying Nasser and supplying military assistance to the Saudis against Nasser in their War in Yemen. This is what I mean by a "glaring omission." And as I said, I looked into this 5 minutes and I found out about the JFK/Nasser relationship concerning the War in Yemen just prior to JFK's death. Perspectives on power -Summit: This left the Kennedy Administration with a decision: support Nasser or support alliances with the conservative Arab countries. Kennedy ultimately chose to defend the conservatives and break with Nasser. And you contributed Paul! Paul Rigby:Nasser was the alternative to the Saudi’s, and the US chose the latter with ongoing devastating effect, And then from Paul Rigby's text: Despite concurrent Cold War tensions, Americans and Soviets appeared on the same side of the Yemeni conflict and acted mutually to confine Nasser to the borders of South Arabia. ------- Now Jim's misunderstanding of the true conflict between Nasser and the Sauds. Jim Di,--- Gaza and JFK: Kennedy understood that Nasser stood in opposition to Saudi Arabia. Not just the fact that the Saudis practiced an extreme form of Islam promoted by the terrorist group the Muslim Brotherhood, but also because it was an oligarchy and a monarchy. Nasser was a socialist who thought that the oil in the Middle East belonged to all the Arabs. This is why he decided to fight a war against the Saudis for control of Yemen, Jim:Nasser was a socialist who thought that the oil in the Middle East belonged to all the Arabs. Yes, Jim, the Socialist. Easy for Jim to say. But this is precisely why Jim's dream of JFK and Nasser unifying the Middle East would never have gotten off the ground. A factor that's seldom taken account on this forum is economics. Egypt has no oil! I don't care if you're a Secularist , Religious fundamentalist or a Monarch, no country gives away their national treasures, to in this case be Santa Claus to Egypt, a country with 5 times their population! And the oil rich gulf states didn't, and have enjoyed many generations of wealth since, whether we like them or not! I assume everyone here no matter what country they're from, no longer likes colonialism. But why in the world would the West want a revolution in oil country? With those goals, an eventual JFK betrayal was inevitable! Never once in Jim's piece does he address the oil in his piece!. The elephant in the room! That Nasser was a very popular figure in Egypt, as Jim pointed out is obvious, because 1) what Egyptian wouldn't want the Arabs oil? and 2)why wouldn't they want a Pan Arab league lead by their own countryman? While Jim has played up the potential of the JFK Nasser relationship. Here's what eventually happened! , Paul Rigby's text: Despite concurrent Cold War tensions, Americans and Soviets appeared on the same side of the Yemeni conflict and acted mutually to confine Nasser to the borders of South Arabia. Of course the U.S.primary goal was 1) to keep a presence in the Middle East for their oil. and 2) to keep the Soviet's out. So if Rigby's text is true here, the Americans temporarily allied with their ideological enemies together against Nasser, which is an even greater double cross! But it doesn't stop there! Jim omits that JFK sold Israel Hawk missiles, which is even a triple cross of Nasser by JFK! Perspectives on power - Summit: Why Kennedy decided to sell HAWK missiles to Israel is frequently debated. It is clear that the President hoped to use the missile to gain Israeli cooperation on the refugees and the Dimona reactor. In both cases, this policy failed. His willingness to sell the missiles before Israel signed any agreements, however, leads one to believe that he would have sold the missiles anyway Ok, the situation involving the Missiles is complicated. But actions speak louder than words. So when push came to shove, JFK chose to ally with the oil rich interests and Israel over Nasser. (Please don't tell me that JFK had no free will, and was again the victim of the CIA, MI6, or the Dulles Brothers. He is the POTUS , and makes his own decisions,) and it's based on economics! Mission of omission Forget it Jake! It's Chinatown!, heh heh

Bad news? I suspected that at the very beginning , and asked you that. So do I. For example, I don't make any claim that JFK's sale of Hawk missiles to Israel started an arms race in the Middle East. But asserting an escalation I think is less ridiculous than some of these claims or omissions in these 2 JFK, Gaza, Israel threads. You've explained this further which is good. But honestly this just sounds like a straining, long winded rationalization with the sole purpose to convince the yanks they didn't give the store away. You sure Orkaby's not a Mossad agent? That could be a standard reaction here. heh heh Not that I think they gave the store away. I just don't think Kennedy was going to make any progress on Dimona and maybe some progress in his second term with the refugees. But some of this is more unclear now that you're saying these may not be your opinions. KIRK: So the Kennedy administration chose the Sauds. And how was it devastating in your opinion? But concerning Nasser: What were you hoping Nasser to accomplish? Thanks

One of Meidi Hasan's finest moments came when Matt Taibbi approached Hasan to be on his show with his Twitter files. I also use to like Matt Taibbi but I have enough critical faculty to change my opinion when they've changed their stripes. Full MSNBC interview here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a597e6Wv_xg&t=1528s&pp=ygUYbWVoZGkgaGFzYW4gbWF0dCB0YWliYmkg

So you're a tactician, and your saying JFK's move was tactically smart. Paul: Sixth, and finally, by attaching Israel directly to the American warfare state teat, Kennedy offered both himself – in the overwhelmingly likely event he won a second term – and his presidential successors the opportunity to strengthen its control of Israel’s military, and thus political, options. Are you taking that out of a book? If so, what 's your source? Please explain exactly how does that strengthens U.S. control? Paul:Fifth, it was essential to the above that the sale was NOT explicitly linked in negotiations with Israel, a crass move that would have exposed the White House to the charge of cynical calculation. Yes, my God! how crass to link that sale of missiles to the inspection of Dimona and the Palestinian refugee situation. That would be so cynical! And yet you say in point 4. the Hawk Missile deal offered powerful political cover to Kennedy’s twin pushes to prevent nuclear proliferation and settle Palestinian refugees. So you're saying that indeed was JFK's intention, but he had to be more subtle about it? So as not to be crass, let Israel have it's Hawk missiles without any strings attached. Right? So your author thinks the U.S. giving away a bargaining chip in good faith to Israel will produce good results in the future with Dimona and the Palestinian refugees? Good karma!, Right? To that I would say he's/ you are dreaming! Israel had no intention of allowing us to inspect Dimona or buckle with the Palestinian refugee situation. **** Paul , I was asking you about your earlier statements, and you didn't respond.. You said this. Paul Rigby:Nasser was the alternative to the Saudi’s, and the US chose the latter with ongoing devastating effect, So the Kennedy administration chose the Sauds. And how was it devastating in your opinion? What were you hoping to have accomplished? Paul Rigby's : Despite concurrent Cold War tensions, Americans and Soviets appeared on the same side of the Yemeni conflict and acted mutually to confine Nasser to the borders of South Arabia. So you're saying the Americans allied with their ideological enemies together against Nasser, in the Yemen War. Again, And in your opinion, what was the effect.?

Organized plot? You don't think that just naturally happened? I could have predicted this in my sleep. It wouldn't surprise me, I'm sure they get funding. That 2007 meeting does sound pretty manly! Then that means, he's liable to do anything?

Unfortunately the most hard hitting news anchor on MSNBC, Meidi Hasan demoted and is now leaving. The reason is obviously that he's too pro ceasefire, and not enough pro Israel for MSNBC. It's too bad, for MSNBC, because even before Israel's War on Hamas, he was by far, the best interviewer, who would let the least sh-t slide. I was sent this by Chris Hayes twitter feed.

Wow, that is quite a story Sandy! I assume that was real spooky for awhile. So you were half a days distance from Tehran, out in the country? Then you moved down to Sea level closer to the gulf.? And you were there as part of a volunteer service for your church?.So did the administrators tell you where to go? How long were you in Iran? Most Iranians I know, including a woman who cuts my hair, fled the Shiites. They don't like the Shah but much preferred the life under the Shah, and wish there was some other answer. I remember you saying you were out in the Bay Area. The Shah's son lives in Atherton.. I do remember for a while hearing of Khomeini as an exile in France before returning after the Revolution.

No. W. JFK's Mideast policy was not a success at his death, and the future didn't look promising. But you're ignoring the elephant in the room. Here you cite Jim's "Gaza and JFK", piece as inspiring you to find Sperling's piece. i think you've praise both these about 3 times and went into an outburst assuming I hadn't read your Sperling piece when I had. Both pieces extol JFK as having a vigilant, hard line toward Israel and the Israeli Palestine question at the time. As I say, JFK on the issues, sound good. But in neither Sperling or Jim's piece is there a single mention that JFK ended up stoking the fire by selling Israel Hawk missiles! That is a glaring omission. Obviously neither of them researched this very well, or if they purposely omitted it, that's much worse. We already have enough JFK fluff fanboy pieces here being passed off as accurate. As I said earlier, Jim's piece "Gaza and JFK" highlighted a rehash of JFK and his relationship with Nasser that I'd heard several times before but I did acknowledge was probably good for new people coming here to read for the first time. But after only 5 minutes of researching further. I would suggest that any who might rely solely on one source, (such as K&k for example) should diversify their sources. When appropriate, seek sources outside of conspiracy community. Find out what the world is thinking. There's no secret information here, (except omissions?) All this stuff is public information. Yes, people may interpret it differently and have different opinions. You can usually tell by their writing if they have huge axes to grind. Perspectives on power The problem was, of course, Israel. Why Kennedy decided to sell HAWK missiles to Israel is frequently debated. It is clear that the President hoped to use the missile to gain Israeli cooperation on the refugees and the Dimona reactor. In both cases, this policy failed. His willingness to sell the missiles before Israel signed any agreements, however, leads one to believe that he would have sold the missiles anyway. " How many ears must one man have? Do you need a further explanation of this W.? You've seen it now 3 times, from me and Michael informed you the other day that JFK was selling hawk missiles to Israel. And read further. "It is clear that the President hoped to use the missile to gain Israeli cooperation on the refugees and the Dimona reactor." "The result of this reasoning was two-fold: the creation of an arms race in the Middle East,and a tip in the balance o f U.S. policy toward Israel." Does that sound desirable?. Does that sound like a good policy, W.? Though this is more detailed. I'm not saying that's this piece is the last word on this like you're claiming Sperling and Di Eugenio is, (probably even after their omissions?) But I'll warn you, IMO she's more vigilant about 60's Israel than you guys apparently are and is capable of dispassionately assessing how JFK handled Israel which you guys aren't. "In both cases, Israel continued its own policies while giving lip service to American interests. Kennedy’s fear that Israel would develop nuclear weapons became a valuable tool Ben-Gurion used, along with the refugee negotiations, to obtain HAWK missiles." What this is saying, is JFK was "played," something you've never heard here before . " In layman's terms that means he was forced to give up something and get nothing from Israel. And if you read my post, that was true for the Saud's and Egypt as well. He gave Nasser money and gave the Sauds a squadron to combat Nasser! How about this? "Circumstances had forced Kennedy to choose between loyalty to conservative Arab regimes and a new openness and friendship with Nasser’s form of Arab nationalism. The choice to sell HAWK missiles to Israel also completely dashed any hope for a solution to the Arab refugee issue or of demonstrating a tough hand with Israel. " You can take form that, that the policy was muddled. There wasn't any progress made in settling the Palestinian issue, or getting any co operation from the Israeli's concerning refugees, or the Dimona reactor, as result of his policies, but he did end up selling the Israeli's Hawk missiles! Understand now? And the overall effect was like in Vietnam, things were not getting better, or peaceful or fruitful at the time of his death, and the future didn't look promising. Lots of mistrust, It's a tough job! Voila!, So let me ask you. W. Do you think any written piece that extols the virtues and applauds JFK's "get tough" policy toward Israel and omits the fact that he sold Hawk missiles to Israel is anything but a fluff piece? How about your reaction to this text about Kennedy's policies.:W. "The result of this reasoning was two-fold: the creation of an arms race in the Middle East,and a tip in the balance of U.S. policy toward Israel. The country that benefited most from Kennedy's Mideast policy was Ben Gurion and Israel." Of course you should never demand that people should read your submitted article when you completely ignore their post, that they obviously spent some time on. But that's cool! I've actually got a few other quotes you might find similarly disruptive. heh heh heh

I don't know what kind of diet could produce such an orange pos! He even puts Epstein to shame! Matt, I believe that. He is becoming more of an embarrassment.with every passing day. Could Nikki Haley actually have a chance of beating Biden.? It seems completely absurd! It looks like it's Donald Jr. walking him with Kimberly Guilfoyle. And speaking of Donald Jr. Now that we know Trump has been on Epstein's plane 7 times. This was his previous tweet.

Whew! W. you seem upset. W. said: Did you and Ben even read Sterling's excellent essay at the top of this thread? I did and it told me nothing I didn't already know. Ok, there was a little more detail on the timetable of the failed attempt to inspect Dimona. In fairness some of what I had learned previously was from Jim. Yes but it was never accomplished. So did Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama! Who talks about them? In a non related issue: Bill and Hilary Clinton wanted to establish health care for all Americans 30 years ago and didn't accomplish it either. Who talks about them? So did about everyone else on the planet W., and JFK failed! JFK wanted to stop the number of nations that had nuclear weapons to around 5. A good goal. Now they're , what 8-10? I don't buy Sperling's assertion that JFK could have done anything to stop it had he lived. And what would that be, a military operation?, Sperling doesn't even say. BS speculation walks! JFK attained none of his objectives on Israel and ended up selling Ben Gurion HAWK missiles? Did you read my post on this. Not the same old stuff. Israel:The problem was, of course, Israel. Why Kennedy decided to sell HAWK missiles to Israel is frequently debated. It is clear that the President hoped to use the missile to gain Israeli cooperation on the refugees and the Dimona reactor. In both cases, this policy failed. His willingness to sell the missiles before Israel signed any agreements, however, leads one to believe that he would have sold the missiles anyway. If Israel maintained, not just military equality, but superiority, then Arab countries might think twice before attacking. The result of this reasoning was two-fold: the creation of an arms race in the Middle East,and a tip in the balance o f U.S. policy toward Israel. In both cases, Israel continued its own policies while giving lip service to American interests. Kennedy’s fear that Israel would develop nuclear weapons became a valuable tool Ben-Gurion used, along with the refugee negotiations, to obtain HAWK missiles. Kennedy and Nasser, a failed relationship Again so what? he failed. RFK quit as Attorney General. Woulda, coulda, shoulda, -3 strikes you're out! The rest of what you wrote, we're pretty much in agreement. I agree, good intentions. But speculating that JFK was in any position to have pulled all this off is just dreaming! And if you're going to award JFK for just having good intentions, I bet Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama would feel the same way about these issues too! Who talks about them? If you remember, Netanyahu years back, came to Washington to talk to Republicans and bypassed Obama!

W; Kirk's meme has assigned precisely the wrong genders to the U.S. and Israel. What w.? i assigned the wrong genders? i didn't make the meme! Besides it's called a joke! Lighten up! I suppose you could say the U.S. is the male in that in that it's the world's dominant superpower. But to change you're view of us being in a subservient position. I hope you're not advocating sending U.S.troops in there. First you have no support from Congress, nor the American people. But getting back on topic, and this knee jerk acceptance that JFK would have an instant answer to this problem. But did JFK ever really buck his Congress? JFK's backing of Nasser was no revolutionary act but was backed by Congress with funds. W. you, Robert and I can huff and puff about the atrocities in Gaza. But a political reality you're ignoring is that Congress is solidly behind Israel. Though I expect that will change in time. Besides, I'm gender neutral! heh heh

It's that GW, religious thing again. There's a lot of talk here about Hamas cooperating with Iran. That could be just propaganda to circle the wagons. Both groups see one another as apostates. The Iranian and Iraq Shia's are not popular in the Arab world. Now maybe they could come together with the Sunnis in Syria and Lebanon in this crisis. I don't know. But I don't necessarily believe in our claims of them being a united front.

Sean, from the other thread:Silly question(s) maybe….WHY does the US prop up Israel? Isn’t it a big boy now? Can’t it fight it its own battles on its own? Has this not created the (ongoing) anti US resentment in the Middle East? Domino effect? Dunno. Madness. Good question, Sean!, I think some of this fascination with Israel is Cold Warish in origin, and has to do with Israel having a very successful capitalist system that the U.S. can point out as an example to other fledgling countries. (You see? you can do this too!. You can start from nothing , and live your own dream! ) It's primarily about their exemplary Capitalist economic system, and not Democracy as we were supporting puppet dictators as long as they had a free market capitalist system. And what sustains it is , I don't know what kind of sordid Israel/U.S.lobbying practices. But in the case of this illustration, I can't blame us too much! But in reality, we're not getting near as much out of this as our man below! heh heh

I agree. Time will judge whether Israel will continue to exist. But I wish I could be as sure of all my prophecies as I am of my flat prediction that Israel is here to stay. For Israel was not created in order to disappear - Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and the home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom; and no area of the world has ever had an overabundance of democracy and freedom. It is worth remembering, too, that Israel is a cause that stands beyond the ordinary changes and chances of American public life. In our pluralistic society, it has not been a Jewish cause - any more than Irish independence was solely the concern of Americans of Irish descent. The ideals of Zionism have, in the last half century, been repeatedly endorsed by Presidents and Members of Congress from both parties. Friendship for Israel is not a partisan matter. It is a national commitment. Yet within this tradition of friendship there is a special obligation on the Democratic Party. It was President Woodrow Wilson who forecast with prophetic wisdom the creation of a Jewish homeland. It was President Franklin Roosevelt who kept alive the hopes of Jewish redemption during the Nazi terror. It was President Harry Truman who first recognized the new State of Israel and gave it status in world affairs. And may I add that it would be my hope and my pledge to continue this Democratic tradition - and to be worthy of it. What is needed now is leadership - impartial but firm, deliberate but bold - leadership instead of rhetoric. There has been enough rhetoric in recent years about free transit through the Suez Canal - but there has been no leadership. Our policy in Washington and in the United Nations has permitted defiance of our pledge with impunity - indeed, with economic reward. If America's word in the world community is to have meaning - if the mutual security amendment which I cosponsored with Senator Douglas is to have meaning - and if the clear, thoughtful language of the Democratic platform is to have meaning - the influence of this Nation and other maritime powers must be brought to bear on a just solution that removes all discrimination at the Suez Canal for all times. And the White House must take the lead. We have also had much rhetoric in recent years about opposing an arms race and a solution by force in the Middle East. The rhetoric has not only been empty and negative. Even more fundamental is the premise that if the United States and the United Nations are to reject a solution based on force, then they must accept the task of finding a solution based on reason and justice. We can no longer shun this task by pleading that the problem is too difficult. The danger is already acute from delay. Russia's position is more entrenched. The Arab States are more divided and restless. The influence of the Western nations has steadily diminished. When I talked with Prime Minister Ben-Gurion on his most recent visit to this country, he told me of dangerous signs of unrest beneath the deceptive quiet that has fallen over the Middle East. For there is no peace in that region today - only an embittered truce between renewed alarms. American intervention, on the other hand, will not now be easy for the record is not one to which we can point with pride: Peace in the Middle East is not one step nearer reality today than it was 8 years ago - but Russian influence is immeasurably greater. What can a new President do? More weakness and timidity will not do. More stubborn errors redeemed at the last moment by impulsive action - will not do. Now we must take the risk of leadership, and use our influence to compose this ugly situation before it breaks out in a new threat to peace. And I know we will not be alone in searching for a peaceful settlement - if our aims are high, and if they are centered solely on the genuine needs of the Middle East, and on an honorable end to these ancient quarrels. First: I propose that the new President reaffirm our sincere friendship for all the peoples of the Middle East, whatever their religion or race or politics. Second: I propose that we make it crystal clear that the United States means what it said in the tripartite declaration of 1950 - that we will act promptly and decisively against any nation in the Middle East which attacks its neighbor. I propose that we make clear to both Israel and the Arab States our guarantee that we will act with whatever force and speed are necessary to halt any aggression by any nation. And to complete the effectiveness of this guarantee, I propose that we invite all like-minded nations to join with us in signing, registering, and depositing this declaration with the United Nations. At present the tripartite declaration is too uncertain of execution and effect to be a useful shield for peace. With countries so close to one another in a sensitive tension-ridden area, a delay of only a few days in international reaction to aggression might well be fatal to a nation's freedom and indeed the peace of the entire world. Once the nations of the Middle East have a firm and precise guarantee, the need for continuing the arms race will disappear, the easing of tensions inevitably will follow, and both sides will be able to devote their energies and talents to peaceful pursuits. Third: I propose that all the authority and prestige of the White House be used to call into conference the leaders of Israel and the Arab States to consider privately their common problems, assuring them that we support in full their aspirations for peace, unity, independence, and a better life - and that we are prepared to back up this moral support with economic and technical assistance. The offer would be made with equal frankness to both sides; and all the world would be watching the response of each side. I sincerely believe that an American presidential initiative for peace, honestly intended and resolutely pursued, would not be lightly rejected by either side. And I promise to waste no time in taking this initiative. For I have always believed that there is no real conflict or contradiction between the genuine aspirations of the Arab nations and the genuine aspirations of Israel. The Arab peoples rose to freedom and independence in the very years which saw the rise of Israel. From the cooperation of these two awakened nationalisms could come a new golden age for the Middle East. But from their destructive vendetta can come nothing but misery and poverty and the risk of war. The Middle East needs water, not war; tractors, not tanks; bread, not bombs. There is already little enough available in the way of financial and physical resources for either side to be devoting its energies to huge defense budgets. The present state of tensions serves only the worst interests of Arab and Israeli alike. But a new spirit of comity could well serve the highest ideals of both. For the original Zionist philosophy has always maintained that the people of Israel would use their national genius not for selfish purposes but for the enrichment and glory of the entire Middle East. The earliest leaders of the Zionist movement spoke of a Jewish state which would have no military power and which would be content with victories of the spirit. The compulsions of a harsh and inescapable necessity have compelled Israel to abandon this hope. But I cannot believe that Israel has any real desire to remain indefinitely a garrison state surrounded by fear and hate. And I cannot believe that the Arab world would not find a better basis for unity in a united attack on all their accumulated social problems - an attack in which they could benefit immensely from a closer cooperation with the people of Israel. The technical skills and genius of Israel have already brought their blessings to Burma and to Ethiopia. Still other nations in Asia and in Africa are eager to benefit from the special skills available in that bustling land. Why should the Middle East alone be cut off from this partnership? And why should not the people of Israel receive the blessings available to them from association with the Arab world? When we think of the possibilities of this association, an emotion of soaring hope replaces our somber anxieties about the Middle East. Ancient rivers would give their power to new industries. The desert would yield to civilization. Disease would be eradicated, especially the disease that strikes down helpless children. The blight of poverty would be replaced by the blessings of abundance. But it is a long and painful step from the era of the boycott to the era of partnership - and that step needs the direct encouragement and help of the White House. The next President of the United States should always be personally available to stimulate every experiment in cooperation, from the joint development of a river, to a reconsideration of the Arab refugee problem, to the crowning mercy of the final reconciliation that can be brought only by a true peace settlement. Peace is our primary objective in the Middle East - and peace is partly our responsibility. "Seek peace, and pursue it" commands the psalmist. And that we must do. With open minds, open hearts, and the priceless asset of our American heritage, we shall seek peace in the Middle East, as elsewhere. And when history writes its verdict, let it be said that we pursued the peace with all the courage, all the strength, and all the resourcefulness at our command. In this task, I ask for your assistance, your patience, your wisdom, and your support - until we can say to Jew and Arab alike "Peace be within thy walls and plenteousness within thy palaces. For my brethren and companions' sake, I will wish thee prosperity." John F. Kennedy, Speech by Senator John F. Kennedy, Zionists of America Convention, Statler Hilton Hotel, New York, NY Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/274630 I remember when Ben first came here, he was endlessly preaching to us about the dangers of the MIC, and the necessity to cut their budget. Like we' weren't sufficiently vigilant! I told him he was preaching to the choir. Now with 2 wars in the last 2 years, I see Ben has never met a war he didn't like. How could any funding be cut when he dived headlong into U.S. involvement in both Ukraine and Israel? ****** Interesting hearing Ben and Michael's slant. i don't think Ben's take on this is as improbable as people may think. It's this age old practice here of projecting our own idealism on JFK. The middle of the road forum response is JFK was a great fighter for peace who would have ended the Cold War. But JFK's popularity in the U.S. at the time of his death was very macho. It was because he stood down the Russians. in the CMC, and people were relieved that it looked like the worst of their near 20 year Cold War fears were over. With the 2 major superpowers , people were feeling more secure, but that doesn't automatically transfer to smaller fires going on throughout the world. RK's super hawkishness about Israel is not that great an aberration. What do we have to go on historically with JFK? In the Middle East intramurals JFK ended up betraying Nasser and siding with the Saud monarchs on the War in Yemen. So that tells you when push comes to shove, despite all his rhetoric and good intentions, he's siding with the status quo, stability and order. And politically American Jews were much more wedded to the Democratic Party in the 60's, than they are now. And there was much less U.S. Arab population, and their influence was nothing to speak of, compared to today. There were almost no Arab elected politicians. . I see JFK as a politician first. If he was around now, he'd face the same Congress Biden is, who are super gung ho Israel! I think most people here would be disappointed. That's because JFK knows, all the idealism in the world doesn't mean anything if you don't get re elected. Remember?

Interesting W. Now I'm getting all sorts of conflicting info. That combined total of aid since 1948 at 254 billion is probably the highest total I've seen. The most common consensus is around 150 billion total over the 75 years. There's no doubt about it, a huge spike came in the 70's, never to return. And that outrageous spike in the late 70's is probably us paying Egypt and Israel to abide by the Mideast Peace Accords. There is an increase during the JFK years, but it looks puny compared to what happened in the 70's, as a lot of U.S. spending charts do. . I like to use Reuter's for stats, but they show an overall total up to 2010 about half yours. That seems to be the range of an eighth to a quarter trillion in total aid. I don't know why there's such a spread. Sandy posted: Fears of a Wider War The first week after the attack was the most volatile and dangerous. Mr. Biden’s biggest fear, according to advisers, was an expanded war in which Iran would empower proxies in addition to Hamas to attack Israel, or Israel would launch a pre-emptive war against such forces. I get it Sandy. I'm not asking you to be sole defender of Joe Biden, but the Israeli unilateral operation last night going into Lebanon to kill that Hamas leader in Beirut is doing exactly what this is saying is Joe Biden's greatest fear. If anything should make him put a foot down, that should be it.

You're ignoring that there's an escalation Sandy. I thought Biden's response is milquetoast. How far do we go with them? Of course it was a unilateral "precision" "surgical" drone attack that we weren't informed of beforehand. .Since you watch CNN. I checked it today. They seem to be preparing us for a greater war. Head story: Trump, Nikki Haley, and Claudine Gray! Of course there's this bombing in Iraq on the Soleimani anniversary. It's probably not the Israelis. I guess we'll find out. Sandy: Kirk suggested that maybe it would have been better had Biden condemned Netanyahu instead, I didn't say "condemned " or anything like that involving rhetoric at all. Sandy: I'll just say that saving lives is more important than saving face. Saving face?, saving face with who? The vast majority of Congress agrees with you. You're in the vast majority. What is the gain here? Do you have hopes of wiping out Hamas, without having creating more Hamas in some form later? I agree that there's no appetite here for U.S.active involvement by American troops, including me.So Joe's hands were always tied. But it's too late anyway. It's already a human disaster on the scale of Putin's invasion of Ukraine and the Iraq War. It will take decades to rebuild and relocate all these people. Of course Israel knew that. This was no surprise to anybody. So the gravy train funding of Israel started 60 years ago, under JFK. Is it so revolutionary to use our only real bargaining chip as negotiation, to stop funding this? Why is that off the table?

Bernie Sanders calls on Congress to block funding to Israel https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/02/bernie-sanders-reject-aid-to-israel Looks like Bernie finally read my piece last night. heh heh I've been a bit disappointed with him about the Ceasefire action, but it's a start. And now they start attacks in Beirut! So Israel is escalating, and are we along for the ride? Let's see what Joe's got? WASHINGTON—President Biden urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to halt a pre-emptive strike against Hezbollah forces in Lebanon days after Hamas militants' Oct. 7 assault on southern Israel, warning that such an attack could spark a wider regional war. Oooooooo!- Yeah, no sh-t Joe!! Like no one's ever considered that before? It looks like Joe's better shift into Operation Trojan Horse phase 2 pronto! Only 15% of Israelis want Netanyahu to keep job after Gaza war, poll finds Interesting W. I know it went down in the 20's a week after the Hamas attack. The only problem with that is Bibi determines when the war is over. I don't know enough about the prospects for change in their Parliamentary system. But we extol Israel as being the only Democracy in the region, and honestly I don't have a lot of faith that the path to self rule for the Palestinians will be easy because they've historically miscalculated their support and made every existential bad choice they could make, and then make them over and over again!. But how good is Israeli self rule? They've had a right wing wacko as Prime Minister for 17 of the last 27 years!! Imagine having Trump for that long? It's time for the good people of Israel to stand up.

Sandy, In November, We sent them 14.5 billion in aid among our own spending cuts for us! Plus about 4 billion every year. And they have a higher standard of living than we do! Just last week Biden bypassed Congress for the second time to giving them another $147.5 billion! Why is he going so far? Is this a clever charade! Obviously I don't know everything on the ground., and I don't pretend to. Under the current circumstances, without a expanded regional War. I'd bargain hard and threaten to pull it. But even if the U.S. were to pull all it's Defense support. i don't think that would stop the IDF. But at least they'd have to completely own their actions in the world of public opinion. That's more of a lonely road to take then people think. And there are already a lot of people in Israel who throughout the past have wanted a Palestinian state. Not that that's really popular there now! But sometimes exceptional times do require exceptional actions. Though it won't happen soon! But as far as U.S. policy is concerned , why not stop the cycle of supplying them arms to necessitate our humanitarian efforts and just pursue the path of blamelessness? And be as involved as we can be, in humanitarian efforts. That's a good article. I have noted Biden playing up the extremity of Bibi's cabinet, knowing he does have sympathy among a good number of the Israeli public. He's also criticized violence by settlers on the West Bank. Did you see he lost his Supreme Court battle to further consolidate his power? That's a good sign. It's true Biden has to be nuanced about it. The first goal is to get Bibi out of office. He's been around since the 80's. He's like the Israeli Trump, but much more sophisticated ,super slick and super intelligent, and speaks English like I thought maybe a guy from Ohio. He could be like Putin, waiting for a better deal with Trump. The truth is, support for Israel is much more popular in Congress than aid to Ukraine now. But that's not going to last forever.

Finally someone sticking up for Ben! I didn't think about this... but....yeah

Sperlin: Kennedy was not biased in favor of Israel That's true, JFK kept asking for inspections at Dimona . But Ben Gurion shut him down. But the bottom line is this: In fact, while American military aid to Israel between 1953 and 1961 had only amounted to slightly less than a million dollars total, by the end o f 1963 it reached nearly 13 million each year. Money talks, and bullsh-t political rhetoric walks! JFK , effectively started the historic escalation of military aid to Israel.!The whole purpose of this column is congratulating JFK for being concerned, but essentially doing nothing about Israel. ." Perspectives on power" by April Summit." Israel:"The problem was, of course, Israel. Why Kennedy decided to sell HAWK missiles to Israel is frequently debated. It is clear that the President hoped to use the missile to gain Israeli cooperation on the refugees and the Dimona reactor. In both cases, this policy failed. His willingness to sell the missiles before Israel signed any agreements, however, leads one to believe that he would have sold the missiles anyway. If Israel maintained, not just military equality, but superiority, then Arab countries might think twice before attacking. The result of this reasoning was two-fold: the creation of an arms race in the Middle East,and a tip in the balance o f U.S. policy toward Israel. In both cases, Israel continued its own policies while giving lip service to American interests. Kennedy’s fear that Israel would develop nuclear weapons became a valuable tool Ben-Gurion used, along with the refugee negotiations, to obtain HAWK missiles." Performance wise, Isn't this really a low bar to set for JFK? ****** Joe Biden is at such a crossroads now, but the stakes are much higher. Netanyahu now says the war on Hamas will go way into 2024! On Oct. 12th, I said this; You do have to wonder what Hamas was thinking. Sure they have lot of hostages, but they murdered so many innocent people! They had to know that Israel will be so mad they'll be quite willing to lose some hostages, and wreak 20 times the destruction and kill considerably more people first. I predicted this and Joe Biden couldn't? The Israeli's accomplished that in about 2 weeks. I think they exacted a death of 4100, while initially losing 1400 in the Hamas attack. (Now some estimate 20,000!) At first Biden had to show the gravity and his awareness and respect for the magnitude of the atrocity committed to our ally. But the war events of the last almost 3 months have been predictable! We don't really know what Biden's said, in private to Netanyahu, but he should have escalated the pressure much sooner than he has. At a certain point , BS walks again! He's had 3 months now!

It's good to get a number of views. This is a bit academic.Not that I like academic writing that much, but it tries to be balanced. " Perspectives on power by April Summit." One recurring theme among others, is that JFK paid off a number of countries in the Middle East, as many countries in the region tried to exploit the general U.S. fear of Soviet influence in the region. But the country that benefited most was Ben gurion and Israel. It doesn't necessarily say that was by design, or we could infer that RK's Jrs current very Pro Israel War policy was an extension of JFK's. I don't think that's the central message about JFK's policy. It's more that JFK, given time effort and money was being played. Other Presidents are criticized as well. I start with some bullet points that shed a different light but are a bit critical of JFK in the assorted categories. Then a pro and con summary, which uses historian quotes that are generally all over the map. This is dual topic thread, the first being the JFK/ Nasser relationship and then the future under Heny scoop Jackson and then a title referring to a third topic, the present day war in Gaza,which has turned out to be a huge focus of response. I I then focus on some paragraphs about JFK/ Nasser.relationship that Jim has mentioned before. At the end. There's a repetition. . The Legacy of Kennedy’s Approach to the Middle East, by country and issue Saudi Arabia---Of the major players, Saudi Arabia probably needed American money the least. However, it did need Kennedy’s support in view of the growing tides of pan-Arabism and Nasser’s rhetoric campaigns against what he considered a corrupt regime.Their oil and location, however, were enough reasons for Kennedy to preserve the royal regime. In spite of efforts to stay out of the fight over Yemen, the U.S.sent an air squadron to help bolster Saud and persuade Nasser to back down. While American military support to Saudi Arabia did not force Nasser out of Yemen, it did ensure the stability of the Saudi royal family and kept the conflict from spreading. In the end, the Saudis did little except preserve Western access to oil in return for American support. Nasser:/Egypt The fact that both superpowers wanted his cooperation meant that Nasser could take from both and give little or nothing to either. He was, in many ways, the most appealing consort, fending off rival suitors while accepting their gifts. Although Kennedy would sometimes complain to Nasser about anti-American rhetoric in the Egyptian press,or his later involvement in Yemen, there seemed little the president could do besides give or withhold money. In the end, however, Kennedy was not able to push Nasser toward economic or democratic reforms that he thought Egypt needed. Nor was he able to persuade Nasser to eschew all Soviet aid or disengage from Yemen. While it is not certain what direction the relationship would have taken if Kennedy had lived, Congress was already withdrawing aid to Egypt before Kennedy died and Lyndon Johnson would later give up completely on Nasser. . The third prong of Kennedy’s plan - the Arab Refugee Problem - was another failure. In the beginning, Kennedy had high hopes for the Johnson Refugee Plan, and while talks continued, Nasser, Hussein, and Ben-Gurion all pretended to cooperate. In fact, Joseph Johnson probably did make significant headway with Arab leaders, but both he and Kennedy failed to understand that Israel was only pretending cooperation. This plan was doomed from the beginning because Israel would never agree to repatriation of any Arabs, nor would it ever agree to give up any amount of land in exchange for peace. Thus ended Kennedy’s biggest hope for an Arab-Israeli peace. Israel:Circumstances had forced Kennedy to choose between loyalty to conservative Arab regimes and a new openness and friendship with Nasser’s form of Arab nationalism. The choice to sell HAWK missiles to Israel also completely dashed any hope for a solution to the Arab refugee issue or of demonstrating a tough hand with Israel. In fact, while American military aid to Israel between 1953 and 1961 had only amounted to slightly less than a million dollars total, by the end of 1963 it reached nearly 13 million each year. Israel:The problem was, of course, Israel. Why Kennedy decided to sell HAWK missiles to Israel is frequently debated. It is clear that the President hoped to use the missile to gain Israeli cooperation on the refugees and the Dimona reactor. In both cases, this policy failed. His willingness to sell the missiles before Israel signed any agreements, however, leads one to believe that he would have sold the missiles anyway. If Israel maintained, not just military equality, but superiority, then Arab countries might think twice before attacking. The result of this reasoning was two-fold: the creation of an arms race in the Middle East,and a tip in the balance o f U.S. policy toward Israel. In both cases, Israel continued its own policies while giving lip service to American interests. Kennedy’s fear that Israel would develop nuclear weapons became a valuable tool Ben-Gurion used, along with the refugee negotiations, to obtain HAWK missiles. The Legacy of Kennedy’s Approach to the Middle East Not many historians or even the policy-makers themselves have assessed Kennedy’s Middle East strategy, but among those who have, there are differences o f opinion. On the one hand are the positive assessments. No one should be expected to perform miracles, they argue. Improving the U.S.-Middle East relationship is probably the best anyone could do. Mordechai Gazit argued that when Johnson cut aid to Nasser and he turned for help to the Soviets, it only demonstrated the fact that Kennedy’s aid to Egypt had been a good decision.20 Herbert Parmet argued that even though military ties with Israel increased under Kennedy, so did “a better dialogue.. .with the other side.”21 He suggested that these small beginnings would eventually lead to the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty. Douglas Little argued that in spite of many failures, Kennedy “came closer than any other American president to solving the bloody riddle that has bedeviled the Middle East for more than a generation.”22 Unfortunately for Kennedy, the war in Yemen derailed his best intentions. Others are less generous in their evaluation o f Kennedy’s policy. Bruce Miroff argued that Kennedy’s legacy was largely negative because he “made the central philosophy o f his presidency the idea o f a monolithic communist drive, headed by the Soviet Union, to achieve world domination.”23 Arie Shpiez charged that Kennedy failed in the Middle East because of his support o f conservative regimes. This support only radicalized some regimes further and eroded Arab support for Western policies.24 Richard Walton accused Kennedy o f misunderstanding the nature o f Arab nationalism in the region, thinking he could “manipulate” it for Western purposes.25 Tura Campanella further accused Kennedy of creating an arms race in the Middle East that would eventually lead to more war.26 Perhaps the most balanced view o f Kennedy’s legacy came from Thomas Patterson. He assessed Kennedy’s foreign policy in the following way: At times there seems to be two John Kennedys: the confrontationist and the conciliator, the hawk and the dove, the decisive leader and the improviser, the bellicose politician and the cautious diplomat. Kennedy’s foreign policy was a mixture o f sincere idealism and hard-headed pragmatism, o f traditional anti communist fervor, on the one hand, and weariness over the constraints o f knee- jerk anti-communism on the other.27 Perhaps this view o f Kennedy’s dual-character is not surprising, since American aims in the Middle East were also often conflicting and confusing. Any assessment of Kennedy’s policy toward this region needs to consider this fact. Kennedy had a unique opportunity to change American policy toward the Middle East. Unlike the two presidents before and the two after him, Kennedy did not have to deal with an Arab-Israeli war during his tenure. This factor made it easier for him to take a fresh approach to the region. The problem was, however, that there remained the age- old conflict: the clash between what might appear to be a fair and "even-handed” approach to both Israel and Arab states, and what might have to be done to suit the immediate wishes and interests of the United States. Kennedy, no less than the presidents before and after him, struggled with this dilemma. His second prong, however - to draw Nasser closer to the West - was at least partially successful. Nasser did appreciate Kennedy’s attempts to communicate with him and understand his viewpoints on the region. He also was happy to receive American assistance and assured Kennedy that he would never allow the Soviets to direct his policies. His willingness to keep the issue o f Israel “in the ice-box” was partly to encourage the American relationship, and mostly because he could not afford a war. For a while, then, Kennedy and Nasser’s aims coincided enough to create a working relationship. In the end, however, Kennedy was not able to push Nasser toward economic or democratic reforms that he thought Egypt needed. Nor was he able to persuade Nasser to eschew all Soviet aid or disengage from Yemen. While it is not certain what direction the relationship would have taken if Kennedy had lived, Congress was already withdrawing aid to Egypt before Kennedy died and Lyndon Johnson would later give up completely on Nasser. Thus, Kennedy’s second prong was also an eventual failure. The third prong o f Kennedy’s plan - the Arab refugee problem - was yet another failure. In the beginning, Kennedy had high hopes for the Johnson Refugee Plan, and while talks continued, Nasser, Hussein, and Ben-Gurion all pretended to cooperate. In fact, Joseph Johnson probably did make significant headway with Arab leaders, but both he and Kennedy failed to understand that Israel was only pretending cooperation. This plan was doomed from the beginning because Israel would never agree to repatriation of any Arabs, nor would it ever agree to give up any amount of land in exchange for peace. Thus ended Kennedy’s biggest hope for an Arab-Israeli peace.

Yeah, I know Nate. The guy is pretty entertaining and it's not just about Trump's physical liabilities, but about Trump as human being. You're right Sandy. I'm a little tongue and cheek. This is not a campaign issue. That's why the Democrats have been silent. But once again, we deal with incredible hypocrisy. He's called Republican candidate Carly Fiorina "ugly" in 2016. Calls Marco Rubio, "little Marco." He called Ted Cruz's wife "ugly". Crazy Joe Biden, Crooked Hilary. He's never hesitated to put people down for their looks or disabilities .He's never showed one ounce of compassion for people's ailments, and actually brags about his physical prowess. Of course he's an admitted "pussy grabber", and he's a rapist. This information is getting out without the Democrats being behind it. Is it a coincidence the person who brought this up is is a Republican, Adam Kinzinger? Naturally nobody would want their incontinence be public information, but you can't be surprised if you run for the most powerful office on earth. And of course, the problem is result of his own drug abuse. Voters are entitled to know that, and see if candidates have acknowledged and atoned for past problems and have made a clean sweep of it , like Hunter Biden recently did, at least apart from any possible charges of financial wrongdoing.

How about POTTYGATE? Obviously this is all hearsay. But apparently the Democrats know but are too civilized to use this information. "When they go low, we go high"! But you'll never get Trump supporters to defect by talking about issues! Maybe the best way is to fight fire with fire or in this case, feces with feces. Maybe let it slip out after Trump gets the nomination. heh heh This first got out more recently by Adam Kinzinger. I hadn't heard Trump takes adderall and speed. Answer: The comic Noel Casler worked on Celebrity Apprentice for six seasons. Unlike his colleagues, Casler thwarted his nondisclosure agreement, enabling him to tell us the unvarnished truth about Trump: He's [Trump] incontinent from all the speed, all the Adderall he does, the cocaine that he has done for decades. All that stuff has a laxative effect on your bowels and his are uncontrollable. Casler said that Trump has been wearing 'diapers since probably the 90s'. Adding that they often had to stop the show in order for Trump to change his diaper, Casler said that Keith Schiller's job was to take Trump offset and wipe him down. "Our nickname for Keith was wet wipes." Casler added that Trump does it and he almost sits there unaware of it, and one time he saw Ivanka have to kind of go whisper in his ear and then Keith came and took him offstage. Trump not cleaning himself when changing out Depends, it is because he wears a hard plastic girdle and he doesn't have the freedom of movement. It's why you see him turn his body from the waist so strangely when standing. He would soil himself often after flying into a rage and cursing out the Script Dept because he couldn’t read a word. One time there was the word 'arbitrage' on a cue card and he freaked out and started screaming that the script department was setting him up then very loudly evacuated his bowels and you could smell it. I should also mention that Casler originally came out about this in 2019 (around the start of the pandemic), but the story was mostly buried. This discourse was reignited by a recent tweet from former Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger: I’m genuinely surprised how people close to Trump haven’t talked about the odor. It’s truly something to behold. Wear a mask if you can. **** Whoa! Again, obviously all hearsay. This guy is really funny. It's 1:17 long , I started it at 15:00 when he started talking about people on the Apprentice staff changing Trump's diapers which involves taking off his plastic girdle. But I couldn't put it down. It's validation of every ugly thing you wanted to believe about Trump. This guys a comedian and is very entertaining. He says Hilary's people in 2016, approached him about Trump and he told them everything! And on the set of the Apprentice, as has been reported, he used the "n' word many times, but the tapes are guarded by producer Mark Burnette.

Ok, Paul, But your article doesn't really support your narrative, except maybe here, it does support your conclusion about motives of the British imperialists.: "The last remnants of the British Middle East Empire fought with Nasser to maintain a mutually declining level of influence in the region." Paul: The subsequent Western response had the happy, and in my view, entirely intentional outcome, of reuniting British imperialists (the "Suez group") with their US counterparts in a way not seen since the overthrow of Mossadeq in 1953. Ok, in your view. But your article doesn't support your view. In fact it sites the fall of Egyptian and British regional influence, due to the fact that Americans and Soviets appeared on the same side of the Yemeni conflict and acted mutually to confine Nasser to the borders of South Arabia. "Despite concurrent Cold War tensions, Americans and Soviets appeared on the same side of the Yemeni conflict and acted mutually to confine Nasser to the borders of South Arabia. This internationalized conflict was a pivotal event in Middle East history as it oversaw the formation of a modern Yemeni state, the fall of Egyptian and British regional influence, another Arab-Israeli war, Saudi dominance of the Arabian Peninsula, and shifting power alliances in the Middle East." I'm sure Jim would be very disappointed just how greatly JFK double crossed Nasser according to your narrative. But how is the "the fall of Egyptian and British regional influence" result in your assertion that it "reunited British imperialists (the "Suez group") with their US counterparts in a way not seen since the overthrow of Mossadeq in 1953." How did your article support your narrative?