JFK's American University Speech

[Kevin Balch]

5 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The lead up to the 1967 included Nasser militarizing the Sinai and blocking the Gulf of Aqaba, considered an act of war (blockading a a an important civilian harbor is an act of war). So who started he war? Depends who you ask. Tel Aviv says they warned Cairo that blocking Eilat was an act of war. 

"on May 14, 1967, Nasser mobilized Egyptian forces in the Sinai; on May 18 he formally requested the removal of the UNEF stationed there; and on May 22 he closed the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping, thus instituting an effective blockade of the port city of Elat in southern Israel. On May 30, King Hussein of Jordan arrived in Cairo to sign a mutual defense pact with Egypt, placing Jordanian forces under Egyptian command; shortly thereafter, Iraq too joined the alliance.

Main events of the war

In response to the apparent mobilization of its Arab neighbours, early on the morning of June 5, Israel staged a sudden preemptive air assault that destroyed more than 90 percent Egypt’s air force on the tarmac. A similar air assault incapacitated the Syrian air force. Without cover from the air, the Egyptian army was left vulnerable to attack. Within three days the Israelis had achieved an overwhelming victory on the ground, capturing the Gaza Strip and all of the Sinai Peninsula up to the east bank of the Suez Canal."

https://www.britannica.com/event/Six-Day-War

---30---

As you point out, the Arabs attacked Israel in 1973.  

But back to my point; JFK was known as a strong supporter of Israel through his brief presidency, and loved in Tel Aviv as he was through much of the world. 

I believe JFK would be today too.

JFK did not want Israel to have nukes. That is a reasonable concern, and non-proliferation is a good idea. 

This is a link to a 1960 JFK speech. Granted it is a speech, and all pols say things in speeches. But JFK sure sounds like an Israel supporter. https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-kennedy-speeches/new-york-ny-19600826

 

Was a preemptive and total war a justifiable response? Further, Israel retained the lands captured which violated international law regarding territorial acquisition through aggressive conquest.

[James DiEugenio]

5 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

So if it had succeeded, he would still be disappointed? He knowingly changed the plan to guarantee it would not succeed?

Can you walk me through the logic here?

Its pretty simple.

There were to be no Americans involved.  Period.  Kennedy announced that a week before. 

Secondly, Kennedy pulled back on the D Day air strikes.  They were only to be done  from a landing strip inside the beachhead. Since there was no beachhead, since there was no surprise element--I mean it was in the Ny TImes-- there were no D Day air strikes.

Without those three elements, the project was doomed.  And Dulles and Bissell knew it.

They thought Kennedy would cave when he saw it failing and order air strikes and Marines to go in.

He did not, thus making sure it would fail.

 

Edited Monday at 10:06 PM by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

See, as Fletcher Prouty said,  Kennedy was willing to accept failure at the Bay of Pigs and in Vietnam.

The first was a precursor to the second.

This goes back to a hallmark of his developed early.

America should not use its military to beat up on Third World countries.

[Kevin Balch]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Its pretty simple.

There were to be no Americans involved.  Period.  Kennedy announced that a week before. 

Secondly, Kennedy pulled back on the D Day air strikes.  They were only to be done  from a landing strip inside the beachhead. Since there was no beachhead, since there was no surprise element--I mean it was in the Ny TImes-- there were no D Day air strikes.

Without those three elements, the project was doomed.  And Dulles and Bissell knew it.

They thought Kennedy would cave when he saw it failing and order air strikes and Marines to go in.

He did not, thus making sure it would fail.

 

But there were Americans involved, even before JFK took office.

He got the worst of both worlds - an operational failure AND exposure of US involvement.

Are you suggesting he might have deliberately sabotaged the operation to discourage similar ideas in the future?

[Benjamin Cole]

9 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

Was a preemptive and total war a justifiable response? Further, Israel retained the lands captured which violated international law regarding territorial acquisition through aggressive conquest.

KB-

Thanks for your collegial response. 

Israel's response in 1967 to having its major (only) southern port blocked (an act of war by international law) by Egypt, and Egypt moving troops close to its borders...Egypt announcing major military alliances...after years of Arab nations vowing to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews...was it justified?

Certainly the Israelis will say so. I tend to agree with them. 

Nor, in 1967, did Israel respond with "total" war.  Israel did not bomb Cairo or Damascus, though neither city had any air defenses. Though the Arabs had vowed to kill all the Jews, the Jews in 1967 did not kill Arab civilians. 

Total war is what happened in WWII. Firebombing Tokyo, Dresden, etc. The US firebombed Tokyo, and nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, after Japan bombed a military installation (Pearl Harbor).  

There is a lot of literature out there written by anti-Semitic crackpots, some of it in these very pages. I advise caution in what you believe. 

 

 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 02:27 AM by Benjamin Cole

[Kevin Balch]

11 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

KB-

Thanks for your collegial response. 

Israel's response in 1967 to having its major (only) southern port blocked (an act of war by international law) by Egypt, and Egypt moving troops close to its borders...Egypt announcing major military alliances...after years of Arab nations vowing to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews...was it justified?

Certainly the Israelis will say so. I tend to agree with them. 

Nor, in 1967, did Israel respond with "total" war.  Israel did not bomb Cairo or Damascus, though neither city had any air defenses. Though the Arabs had vowed to kill all the Jews, the Jews in 1967 did not kill Arab civilians. 

Total war is what happened in WWII. Firebombing Tokyo, Dresden, etc. The US firebombed Tokyo, and nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, after Japan bombed a military installation (Pearl Harbor).  

There is a lot of literature out there written by anti-Semitic crackpots, some of it in these very pages. I advise caution in what you believe. 

 

 

 

 

They were prepared to use nuclear weapons. Weapons I believe were made with uranium stolen from the United States.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/world/middleeast/1967-arab-israeli-war-nuclear-warning.html

Edited yesterday at 02:38 AM by Kevin Balch

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

They were prepared to use nuclear weapons. Weapons I believe were made with uranium stolen from the United States.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/world/middleeast/1967-arab-israeli-war-nuclear-warning.html

KB-

You may be right, that the Israelis stole the uranium. Certainly a lot of people think so. 

On the other hand, maybe the Israelis just bought bought uranium from the always-corrupt Russians, and the US theft story leaked as a cover. 

Before its collapse in 1991, the Soviet Union had more than 27,000 nuclear weapons and enough weapons-grade plutonium and uranium to triple that number. 

Given the tight geography of Israel and its enemies, I wonder what kind of nukes the Israelis planned to use in 1967, or if that was just saber-rattling. 

The US and Russia maintain small tactical nukes, but even that seems unlikely for Israel. 

Anyway, the record shows Israel inflicted very little damage on Egyptian and Syrian populations in the 1967 and 1973 wars, despite having the ability to wipe out both those nations. 

 

[Kevin Balch]

9 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

KB-

You may be right, that the Israelis stole the uranium. Certainly a lot of people think so. 

On the other hand, maybe the Israelis just bought bought uranium from the always-corrupt Russians, and the US theft story leaked as a cover. 

Before its collapse in 1991, the Soviet Union had more than 27,000 nuclear weapons and enough weapons-grade plutonium and uranium to triple that number. 

Given the tight geography of Israel and its enemies, I wonder what kind of nukes the Israelis planned to use in 1967, or if that was just saber-rattling. 

The US and Russia maintain small tactical nukes, but even that seems unlikely for Israel. 

Anyway, the record shows Israel inflicted very little damage on Egyptian and Syrian populations in the 1967 and 1973 wars, despite having the ability to wipe out both those nations. 

 

The uranium was stolen in 1965 from a plant that received highly enriched uranium from the US Navy and used it to fabricate fuel elements for nuclear submarines. The plant had more missing uranium from “processing losses” than all other such facilities combined, which aroused the suspicion of the Atomic Energy Commission. The plant was owned by a stalwart zionist which is why diversion to Israel was suspected. It’s possible that one of the USS Liberty’s objectives was to gather intelligence to confirm whether Israel could have this material and made nuclear weapons from it.

Note that the Israeli nuclear weapons program was based on a plutonium track, not uranium. The Dimona reactor was a heavy-water reactor which does not require enriched uranium. This path was chosen because uranium enrichment facilities are easily detected as well as expensive. It is the path that India and Pakistan used later. Plutonium produced in the reactor is extracted and refined to make bomb-grade plutonium. It appears that Dimona criticality and the plutonium extraction operations were significantly delayed for either cost or technical reasons and as an expedient, a simple, crude uranium bomb would be needed, one that would not need to be tested unlike a more complex plutonium bomb. Which also makes me suspect that Israel was on a timeline to support a 1967 war and that the war itself was premeditated.

In 1968, environmental samples taken around Dimona revealed traces of uranium enriched to the same level of the material missing from the US facility. At the time, Israel had no ability to make this material. They did not get it from the Soviet Union which did not even give its Arab clients such material.

[James DiEugenio]

On 8/5/2024 at 3:26 PM, Kevin Balch said:

But there were Americans involved, even before JFK took office.

He got the worst of both worlds - an operational failure AND exposure of US involvement.

Are you suggesting he might have deliberately sabotaged the operation to discourage similar ideas in the future?

There were supposed to be no Americans in the landing party, but there were.  Against what JFK wanted.

And no I am not suggesting JFK sabotaged the operation.

What I am saying is that he was deceived about its probability of success for many reasons.  For examples Dulles never let Kennedy take the actual drafted plans home with him.  I think that was done since Dulles knew about Kennedy's naval experience.  Kennedy was also lied to about defectors.  Of which there were none.

When Bobby Kennedy and JFK got hold of the Kirkpatrick Report, that was finis for Dulles, Cabell, and Bissell. Kirkpatrick completely riddled the whole operation from start to finish.

Edited 3 hours ago by James DiEugenio

[Benjamin Cole]

12 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

The uranium was stolen in 1965 from a plant that received highly enriched uranium from the US Navy and used it to fabricate fuel elements for nuclear submarines. The plant had more missing uranium from “processing losses” than all other such facilities combined, which aroused the suspicion of the Atomic Energy Commission. The plant was owned by a stalwart zionist which is why diversion to Israel was suspected. It’s possible that one of the USS Liberty’s objectives was to gather intelligence to confirm whether Israel could have this material and made nuclear weapons from it.

Note that the Israeli nuclear weapons program was based on a plutonium track, not uranium. The Dimona reactor was a heavy-water reactor which does not require enriched uranium. This path was chosen because uranium enrichment facilities are easily detected as well as expensive. It is the path that India and Pakistan used later. Plutonium produced in the reactor is extracted and refined to make bomb-grade plutonium. It appears that Dimona criticality and the plutonium extraction operations were significantly delayed for either cost or technical reasons and as an expedient, a simple, crude uranium bomb would be needed, one that would not need to be tested unlike a more complex plutonium bomb. Which also makes me suspect that Israel was on a timeline to support a 1967 war and that the war itself was premeditated.

In 1968, environmental samples taken around Dimona revealed traces of uranium enriched to the same level of the material missing from the US facility. At the time, Israel had no ability to make this material. They did not get it from the Soviet Union which did not even give its Arab clients such material.

KB---

Thanks for your collegial comments.

It may be that Israelis managed to smuggle plutonium out of the US. 

This sentence strikes me a far-fetched: 

"It’s possible that one of the USS Liberty’s objectives was to gather intelligence to confirm whether Israel could have this material and made nuclear weapons from it."

I never heard of a signals-intel ship trying to gather intel on a years-old possible plutonium theft. 

Anti-Semitic crackpots have been going on about why Israelis attacked the USS Liberty since 1967, inventing any number of preposterous reasons, none of which make any sense. 

The real answer: 

Friendly fire happens, and Israelis soldiers and airmen are not giants. 

Her is a mind-boggling friendly fire incident:

The friendly fire over Gela (Italy) would go down as the worst friendly fire incident of the war at the time for the Americans. 318 American soldiers were killed or wounded. Twenty-three transport planes were destroyed or lost. Many planes returned to base heavily damaged.

---30---

US Army soldiers manning anti-aircraft weapons, shot down 23---23!---US Army air transports, C-47s and C-53s, properly traveling in columns towards known objectives. They were the third wave of US planes in formation, following the same flight path.  

"As a result of the friendly fire incident, the airborne assault was widely scattered, missing assigned drop zones and objectives."

"The first two formations of (US Army) transport planes followed their prescribed course and discharged their paratroopers squarely on target. These would be the only airborne soldiers to float down safely to the correct drop zone. When the next (US) formation appeared over the shoreline, a never identified nervous (US Army) gunner on the beach began shooting. Other scared gunners on shore and aboard ships sent volleys of fire lofting into the night sky (at US Army transports)."

So the US Army shot down 23 of their own planes, that were traveling on the same flight path that two previous formations had flown over. Multiple, perhaps even dozens, of US gunners participated in the firing, from land and naval positions. 

No one says anything extra tricky or devious happened at Gela. 

Humans make mistakes, the adrenaline pumps, fear, perhaps even vain hopes for glory. Pilot training and technical assists were not tops in the 1960s. 

There was zero upside for Tel Aviv for an Israeli attack on the US warship. 

 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Benjamin Cole

[Kevin Balch]

51 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

KB---

Thanks for your collegial comments.

It may be that Israelis managed to smuggle plutonium out of the US. 

This sentence strikes me a far-fetched: 

"It’s possible that one of the USS Liberty’s objectives was to gather intelligence to confirm whether Israel could have this material and made nuclear weapons from it."

I never heard of a signals-intel ship trying to gather intel on a years-old possible plutonium theft. 

Anti-Semitic crackpots have been going on about why Israelis attacked the USS Liberty since 1967, inventing any number of preposterous reasons, none of which make any sense. 

The real answer: 

Friendly fire happens, and Israelis soldiers and airmen are not giants. 

Her is a mind-boggling friendly fire incident:

The friendly fire over Gela (Italy) would go down as the worst friendly fire incident of the war at the time for the Americans. 318 American soldiers were killed or wounded. Twenty-three transport planes were destroyed or lost. Many planes returned to base heavily damaged.

---30---

US Army soldiers manning anti-aircraft weapons, shot down 23---23!---US Army air transports, C-47s and C-53s, properly traveling in columns towards known objectives. They were the third wave of US planes in formation, following the same flight path.  

"As a result of the friendly fire incident, the airborne assault was widely scattered, missing assigned drop zones and objectives."

"The first two formations of (US Army) transport planes followed their prescribed course and discharged their paratroopers squarely on target. These would be the only airborne soldiers to float down safely to the correct drop zone. When the next (US) formation appeared over the shoreline, a never identified nervous (US Army) gunner on the beach began shooting. Other scared gunners on shore and aboard ships sent volleys of fire lofting into the night sky (at US Army transports)."

So the US Army shot down 23 of their own planes, that were traveling on the same flight path that two previous formations have flown over. Multiple, perhaps even dozens, of US gunners participated in the firing. 

No one says anything extra tricky or devious happened at Gela. 

Humans make mistakes, the adrenaline pumps, fear, perhaps even vain hopes for glory. Pilot training and technical assists were not tops in the 1960s. 

There was zero upside for Tel Aviv for an Israeli attack on the US warship. 

 

 

“One night in July 1943, US guns at Gela, Sicily, hurled fire at unseen planes overhead. The result was the war’s worst friendly fire incident.”

http://www.americainwwii.com/articles/friendly-fires-deadliest-day/

By contrast, the USS Liberty was attacked in successive waves in the middle of a clear, sunny afternoon in the open sea by Israeli planes and torpedo boats. Even the life rafts the crew were attempting to deploy were shot up which is a war crime. It was no accident.

If you read my post more carefully, I do not claim the Israelis smuggled plutonium. It was bomb grade uranium. A material so difficult and expensive to produce that Israel did not have the capability to produce it.

Did you ever hear of a uranium theft from a facility doing work for the US government? It was an embarrassment as well as a security concern which is why details were not declassified for over ten years after it occurred.

There was plenty of downside had if the existence of Israeli nuclear weapons had been revealed. For one, it would conclusively confirm that the missing uranium was indeed stolen by Israel. It would also lead to an Arab nuclear weapons program or pressure for the USSR to provide nuclear weapons or security guarantees to it’s Arab clients.

Pointing out verified facts and logical deductions that reflect negatively on Israel’s conduct is antisemitic?

Perhaps if more had been less afraid of being called antisemitic, we wouldn’t have a psychopathic monster loose in the middle east dragging us into a war.

[James DiEugenio]

Ben:

Kevin is correct about Israel stealing uranium in the mid sixties from the USA.

That is proven by clear and convincing evidence.

 

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/09/11/how-israel-stole-the-bomb/

[Benjamin Cole]

22 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Ben:

Kevin is correct about Israel stealing uranium in the mid sixties from the USA.

That is proven by clear and convincing evidence.

 

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/09/11/how-israel-stole-the-bomb/

 

25 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Ben:

Kevin is correct about Israel stealing uranium in the mid sixties from the USA.

That is proven by clear and convincing evidence.

 

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/09/11/how-israel-stole-the-bomb/

JD--

Oh, I don't contest it is possible, perhaps even 50/50 likely, Israel stole uranium the 1960s, or that, possibly, senior officials in the JFK-LBJ administration arranged to ship uranium to Israel, but wanted a plausible cover story denying responsibility. 

Given LBJ's lack of interest to pursuing leads...maybe JFK/LBJ decided an ally needed the weapons. Helms would lie about anything, and so he lied about the transfer of uranium also. Many people say Angleton was tight with Israel, and capable of running his own ops. Who knows? 

There could have also been a program to steal or buy uranium from notoriously corrupt Russia, and that had to be covered up. You need a plausible cover story to protect sources and methods. 

I stand by my statement that Israel deliberately attacking the USS Liberty was just a horrible mistake.  

Friendly fire incidents globally account for 20% of wartime military deaths. 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0001359216.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjliMnYkeKHAxXNzTgGHSNsB4YQFnoECCMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0LuwPY4uTaQNstLidbcywZ

This is an early CIA report on the USS Liberty incident. 6/13/67.

From this report, you can conclude 

1. The CIA works for Mossad, or....

2. The USS Liberty was mistaken as Egyptian vessel.