Kirk Gallaway

I hope she does make a race of it. Of course, Matt you're not from New Hampshire so all your conjecture as to Haley having a chance at all is from polling, or from the talking heads that use polling. I'd say barring any watershed event, Trump is the nominee for the Republican Party. Outside of health, the watershed event could be a conviction of one of the major crimes, as a quarter of Republicans have said that would persuade them to not vote for Trump. Of course that's if you think that those polls have any validity. That seems reasonable to me, but right now it doesn't look like any verdicts are going to come by November, though I ' hope I'm wrong, but that doesn't preclude considerable damage being done to Trump in the ongoing trials. Trump could gut the federal cases if he was to become President, except in Georgia, with the most open and shut case with a smoking gun recording, but the prosecutors decided to cast a wide blanket with 19 different indictments of individuals, so that will prolong that case, though some have already turned. Let's hope!

It's a death cult!

Agreed W.! Add to that, wealth inequality and taxation, climate change, universal health care, But in another world, Little Marco endorses Trump!

Sandy, I don't think it's your place as a moderator to start a thread to be an advocate on this issue, or give permission to direct or thwart conversation in either direction,.Or to declare shame and single out other forum members. I personally think some of these fringe issues are discrediting to the forum as well. But I see no point in arguing with advocates for the 1000th time. You can find many such arguments here if you look at past threads. But I don't find these advocates are overbearing and you can usually see from the titles of their threads what their views are and choose to ignore or get involved. There's a certain give and take on a forum like this and everyone must be willing to grant directions of research that are not mainstream. If you don't like these pursuits you can just blow it off if you don't agree or get involved and challenge it. If you hold these beliefs, time has told you, you're going to somewhere along the line have to defend them. And that comes with the territory. It needn't be a traumatic event.

Good article, W.! Of course the question comes up : 1)How can a President remove critical intelligence files? Aren't there backups on everything? 2. ) How can our NSS, which is feared throughout the world not even be aware such files are missing.? 3) In an unrelated matter. How can a President abort an ongoing investigation and turn over most of 91 counts against himself when he reaches office? A potential conviction in court should not be able to be overturned with a vote.That's what separation of powers is all about! There's a lot of BS that's needs to be straightened out when this is all over! Regarding Putin, I've now heard Trump told an EU official in 2020 at the Davos Economic Conference not to expect the U.S. to defend European NATO members from attack, and said that the U.S. will get out of NATO. He could have gotten this by edict from Putin in Helsinki. This is the end all, (keep it simple stupid.) Trump can appear to have his own agenda opposing Putin in smaller matters but when push comes to shove. And say, Putin invaded the Baltics, Trump would use his Presidency and his MAGA following to oppose any U.S. intervention. To be clear, I'm not at all sure if after this embarrassment at getting bogged down in a 2 year war with Ukraine that Putin is ambitious as he once might have been and is more content to just hold on to his present territory seized in Ukraine and declare that victory, and use it to attain re election, and continue his funding and support proxy wars in the Middle East and other possible regions. Which of course, in fairness, we've done as well. Still there should be no doubt, if there was one simple easy command for Putin to direct Trump, promising no intervention in Europe, would be it.

Here's Tony Lyons Leslie, Anybody who runs for President has to devise a campaign strategy. In this interview Lyons keeps being asked what states in the electoral college does RK intend to win, and he's completely evasive 3 straight times! They're just sort of shooting in the dark.

Just to be clear, Leslie, these are 2 separate events. This doesn't support W's article about RK being a VP for Trump, right? Boy RK would be a permanent political pariah if he did that. Still I think some of more MAGA like RK supporters here would go for that while maybe not saying so. So far I notice one who has seen now that RK is a hard core pro Israel, which he doesn't like. Still I don't see any defections in them. It's a blood cult. i really have a hard time believing it. Still he's done about every politically stupid thing he could do. Does he have any idea of the scope of moral revulsion by a solid majority of people he would get for doing that? Allying with Trump is such a cynical move it goes counter to everything the Kennedy's stood for in the public mind.

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?