Why Was JFK Killed?

[Jon G. Tidd]

Kenneth Drew,

How do you think Israeli power guys in 1963 viewed JFK?

How do you think Arab power guys in 1963 viewed JFK?

[Jon G. Tidd]

delete

Edited August 5, 2015 by Jon G. Tidd

[Kenneth Drew]

Kenneth Drew,

How do you think Israeli power guys in 1963 viewed JFK?

How do you think Arab power guys in 1963 viewed JFK?

As I said earlier, I hadn't thought much about Middle East Policy at that time, even tho I was actually there in 58-59- 60-61. but I based my answers on these comments:

The Middle East was a big deal during JFK's administration. JFK resisted Israel's request to be sold Hawk anti-aircraft missiles; pressed David Ben Gurion on the Dimona nuclear plant;

Kennedy was, pro Nasser--reversing Dulles and EIsenhower and Nixon--and anti Saudi Arabia, anti the Shah.

And he was adamant that Israel get no atomic weapons.

He was working on setting up moderate to progressive democratic countries there,

based on those comments, I'd say Israel was not happy with JFK and Nasser was happy with JFK.

Those comments imply that the US did not want Israel to get nukes or to get defensive anti aircraft missles to defend themselves. And were interested in improving Egypt's offensive capabilities. I guess had both those plans have been implemented, there may not be an Israel today.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Kenneth Drew

[James DiEugenio]

When JFK died, Nasser went into a month long depression.

He ordered Kennedy's funeral to be shown four times on national television.

Kennedy's policies were very far sighted and very fair in the Middle East.

The idea of compensating Palestinian victims of the 1947-48 war is something that no American president has even talked about in the last 35 years.

Ken: socialist does not mean communist. Dulles and Ike screwed over Nasser on Aswan Dam. Kennedy wanted to mend that rift. Because he saw Nasser as a way of channeling Arab nationalism into a forward looking and progressive policy. More pro west and less backward looking Islamicism.

The US support for the Shah was an utter disaster backed by Ike, Dulles and Nixon. Mossadegh was very similar to Nasser in his beliefs. The Shah was a brutal despot who had to be forced into making reforms by Kennedy. Then they lost all steam after Kennedy was killed. Resultng in the revolution Kennedy feared.

Brzezinski was so enslaved by Rockefeller and McCloy, that he had Carter in Tehran several months before the revolution with demonstrations going on.

Yes, the revolution had started, but the militants did not invade the embassy until Carter let the Shah into the country. That was a turning point. Very, very stupid.

Edited August 5, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Jon G. Tidd]

Jim Di,

Why do you think JFK was killed?

[Kenneth Drew]

When JFK died, Nasser went into a month long depression.

He ordered Kennedy's funeral to be shown four times on national television.

Kennedy's policies were very far sighted and very fair in the Middle East.

The idea of compensating Palestinian victims of the 1947-48 war is something that no American president has even talked about in the last 35 years.

Ken: socialist does not mean communist. Dulles and Ike screwed over Nasser on Aswan Dam. Kennedy wanted to mend that rift. Because he saw Nasser as a way of channeling Arab nationalism into a forward looking and progressive policy. More pro west and less backward looking Islamicism.

The US support for the Shah was an utter disaster backed by Ike, Dulles and Nixon. Mossadegh was very similar to Nasser in his beliefs. The Shah was a brutal despot who had to be forced into making reforms by Kennedy. Then they lost all steam after Kennedy was killed. Resultng in the revolution Kennedy feared.

Brzezinski was so enslaved by Rockefeller and McCloy, that he had Carter in Tehran several months before the revolution with demonstrations going on.

Yes, the revolution had started, but the militants did not invade the embassy until Carter let the Shah into the country. That was a turning point. Very, very stupid.

Most of your statements fairly well fit my assessment based on your earlier comments yesterday. I would expect Nasser to not like losing the support of the US. As you well know, Nasser's intent was to take over Israel. He tried numerous times.

The idea of compensating Palestinian victims of the 1947-48 war is something that no American president has even talked about in the last 35 years.

Why should they? Shouldn't that be a subject for the UN? I don't know what JFK's position was, but I hope he wasn't for setting up a new Palestine next to Israel. They couldn't build a fence high enough and Israel would not exist today (in my opinion)

socialist does not mean communist. True, but 'progressive democratic countries' does

The US support for the Shah was an utter disaster backed by Ike, Dulles and Nixon. True, but the alternative, which we have today, is much worse and that came under JImmy Carter. I guess there might have been a 'different alternative', a kinder, gentler Shah. (I do believe that if the shah had survived that the country would have substantial freedom today and not be fundamental Islamists.)

Edited August 5, 2015 by Kenneth Drew

[David Andrews]

Nice quote David. I think ultimately that the left/right model falls short of explaining many things. The 'strategy of tension' is divide and conquer. Having said that, I think the 'center' that Marrs refers to lies to the right of the center line. The 'center' means more simple those in power who find it advantageous to be seen and thought of as 'centrist' when it is clear they are for the most part greedy capitalists. We're the Bundy brothers centrist? Dulles? LBJ?

In its exploitation of both left and right, globalism can be seen as centrist, though I agree it's right-of-center. The idea of one power structure enlisting the aid of diverse groups in carrying out the assassination might also be seen as centrist.

I have no doubt that the money above the people you cite sees itself as centrist, beneficent and progressive, believing that its manipulations of groups,states and economies for profit also produces order. Much of the method is a renovation of the Great Game of empire, as established in Europe and Britain during the centuries when monarchy was enabled by banking.

I think Marrs' comment is wise in the sense that the money above government was able to exploit the hate for Kennedy as an enemy of the state that was held in diverse quarters. That also solved diverse Kennedy problems: Vietnam, Soviet relations, the Middle East, anti-colonialism, nuclear testing, steel, oil, and - at the vulgar level - US race relations.and tolerance of Castro's Cuba.

Edited August 7, 2015 by David Andrews

[James DiEugenio]

KD: Most of your statements fairly well fit my assessment based on your earlier comments yesterday. I would expect Nasser to not like losing the support of the US. As you well know, Nasser's intent was to take over Israel. He tried numerous times.

​Nasser lost US support for two reasons. He wanted to recognize Red China, and he would not sign on to Dulles' Bagdad Pact. He told Dulles, "If I do that, my people will see me as a dupe of the US. And I will lose their faith."

Nasser wanted to eliminate and take over Israel? I don't think so. Nasser backed the 1967 invasion for one reason: Johnson had titled way too far from JFK's policies and was now clearly backing Israel all the way. This is what I mean about JFK being far sighted. He never would have done that and therefore his policy would have prevented the 1967 invasion.

Edited August 6, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

KD: Why should they? Shouldn't that be a subject for the UN? I don't know what JFK's position was, but I hope he wasn't for setting up a new Palestine next to Israel. They couldn't build a fence high enough and Israel would not exist today.

Ken, where have you been? It was very clear by 1967, and definite by 1973 that the USA was not going to allow a successful invasion of Israel. Heck, they were not even going to make Israel give back the occupied territories. Today the American presidents don't even call them occupied territories,

In fact, the USA has tilted so far toward Israel that they have made it clear they will veto any attempt to recognize Palestine in the UN. Even though that resolution would pass.

As per a two state solution, you may not realize this, but that is what Truman wanted before the war broke out. I mean what other fair solution is there? Palestine was a country in 1945. It is not a country today. Israel is.

The idea that Israel is in some kind of danger zone is ridiculous. Just took at their military operations in the last 8 years in the occupied territories. Count up the Israeli casualties, then the Palestinian casualties. Add up the casualties for either side in the Lebnanon war of 1982. Don't even include the massacres after.

​Israel is Goliath today.

Edited August 6, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

KD: True, but the alternative, which we have today, is much worse and that came under JImmy Carter. I guess there might have been a 'different alternative', a kinder, gentler Shah. (I do believe that if the shah had survived that the country would have substantial freedom today and not be fundamental Islamists.)

Ken, I think you are missing the historical causation effect.

​I don't know how you can type a paragraph like the above and not be able to click in the word "Mossadegh".

​That was the alternative, not a kinder gentler Shah. The Iranaian people voted him in. Foster Dulles and his brother Allen and Nixon and Ike voted him out. That is not democracy.

​What was his crime? He wanted more of the money from oil licenses to go to the people of Iran, and not Standard Oil company. Because of that, he was overthrown. (BTW, same thing happened to Lumumba in Congo, about 8 years later. Except they murdered him.)

​If that is the kind of America you like, I guess we have a disagreement.

As you would with JFK, since he backed both Lumumba and Mossadegh.

Edited August 6, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Kenneth Drew]

KD: Why should they? Shouldn't that be a subject for the UN? I don't know what JFK's position was, but I hope he wasn't for setting up a new Palestine next to Israel. They couldn't build a fence high enough and Israel would not exist today.

Ken, where have you been? It was very clear by 1967, and definite by 1973 that the USA was not going to allow a successful invasion of Israel. Heck, they were not even going to make Israel give back the occupied territories. Today the American presidents don't even call them occupied territories,

In fact, the USA has tilted so far toward Israel that they have made it clear they will veto any attempt to recognize Palestine in the UN. Even though that resolution would pass.

As per a two state solution, you may not realize this, but that is what Truman wanted before the war broke out. I mean what other fair solution is there? Palestine was a country in 1945. It is not a country today. Israel is.

The idea that Israel is in some kind of danger zone is ridiculous. Just took at their military operations in the last 8 years in the occupied territories. Count up the Israeli casualties, then the Palestinian casualties. Add up the casualties for either side in the Lebnanon war of 1982. Don't even include the massacres after.

​Israel is Goliath today.

It was very clear by 1967, and definite by 1973 True, but we're talking 11/63. And I'm not so sure that Israel wasn't in danger of extinction at that time if the existing policies had continued, such as no defensive weapons/missiles. I think it has always been the intent/desire that Israel survive, but I'm not sure if it's always been the presidents intent. Every thing that was done after the 48-49 war was in trying to make two co-existing countries side by side. Palestine was determined that Israel was not going to survive. They were wrong. I feel as if Palestine had gotten just a little stronger a little sooner with Egypts help, they might have succeeded.

In fact, the USA has tilted so far toward Israel that they have made it clear they will veto any attempt to recognize Palestine in the UN. Even though that resolution would pass. Except it would be vetoed by the US. I don't know what JFK's position on Palestine at that time.

"Mossadegh" was not a factor under JFK. He only had the option at that time to continue with the Shah or put in the radical islamists. Certainly Iran would have been a much better situation had the Coup not have taken place in 53. I would have preferred that the US stay out of the deal in 53. But maintain the shah, after he was in, was preferable to what came after. Iran was pro West under the Shah, but radical muslim since.

I mean what other fair solution is there? Palestine was a country in 1945. It is not a country today. Israel is. Don't you think that Palestine is the reason there is no Palestine today? Once the country/area was partitioned, had Palestine not maintained a state of war attempting to run the Israeli's out, they could still be there.

I guess Eisenhower admin gets credit for Lumumba. As for the US overthrowing other governments. I've never been for that particular activity, but then I'm also not for the US sitting by why someone else overthrows a government that might be more friendly to the US.

Edited August 6, 2015 by Kenneth Drew

[James DiEugenio]

KD : "Mossadegh" was not a factor under JFK.

Yes he was. Unlike Lumumba, Mossadegh was not killed after the coup.

​The Kennedys ordered up a position paper from the State Department on the costs an liabilities of returning Mossadegh to power.

​The reason I equate Lumumba with Mossadegh is this: Mossadegh's was the first democratically elected government to arise from the post WW I mandate system. Lumumba represented the first democratically elected government to arise out of post colonail Africa.

​The USA, over threw the first, and assassinated the second. They did not want either man to set a good example for others to follow.

[James DiEugenio]

Palestine was determined that Israel was not going to survive.

There was no Palestine in 1963. After the war, that country was eliminated. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled their homeland. The ones who stayed behind had no influence in Israel.

​The only way Palestine could hurt Israel at that time was with help from the other Arab countries.

As I said, I do no think this would have happened if Kenendy had lived.

[Kenneth Drew]

KD : "Mossadegh" was not a factor under JFK.

Yes he was. Unlike Lumumba, Mossadegh was not killed after the coup.

​The Kennedys ordered up a position paper from the State Department on the costs an liabilities of returning Mossadegh to power.

​The reason I equate Lumumba with Mossadegh is this: Mossadegh's was the first democratically elected government to arise from the post WW I mandate system. Lumumba represented the first democratically elected government to arise out of post colonail Africa.

​The USA, over threw the first, and assassinated the second. They did not want either man to set a good example for others to follow.

Ok, no problem, you were looking at regime change. I'm not sure what JFK's position would be on that.

There was no Palestine in 1963. Ok, I don't know when they 'officially' ceased to exist. I was only looking at Israel from the point of view that you mentioned. That JFK was pro Nasser and pro Palestinian. That combination doesn't sound favorable to Israeli existence. But, to get Palestine their territory back would be another regime change. I don't think JFK generally was for regime change.

I can't figure out why any US president would be for compensation for Palestine. That was a UN created situation. Palestine has not proven to be a friend of the US.

Edited August 6, 2015 by Kenneth Drew

[Kenneth Drew]

As I said about the Middle East when we started. I didn't know why anyone would consider it important in the context of why JFK was assassinated. If it was even an item, I think it would have been minor. There were certainly much hotter political spots going on around the world at that time and it's not an issue that I have considered important within that context. Cuba, Viet Nam, Berlin, Laos, were hot spots and seem to have been higher on the agenda. I hope that these items were not the primary cause of his death, but then I suspect that the agenda was to get rid of him and they just found a reason.

As i said on one of the comments above, I didn't even think about the fact that I was in the middle east in 58-59-60-61 until I started discussing it. Strange.....(Jordan, Egypt, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, amongst others)

Edited August 6, 2015 by Kenneth Drew