Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Tomorrow night on Black Op Radio, I will be discussing my watershed article in garrison magazine.  Entitled, "Kennedy Faces the Middle East", it is a review of what Kennedy's foreign policy was in that area.  I would be willing to wager no one here even knows he had a foreign policy there.  Everyone is obsessed with Cuba and Vietnam.  

Well he did.  And it was really bold and far seeing.  He wanted to become friendly with Nasser, who Foster Dulles had dumped since he would not join the Baghdad Pact. Kennedy liked him since he was a secularist, socialist and opposed to the Muslim Brotherhood.

You will learn things that the MSM will not touch and the Alternative Media will not either.  Especially Amy Goodman and Democracy Never. Kennedy was much more than just an anti colonialist.  He was the most far seeing president in foreign policy since FDR.  No one has touched him since.

Just ask yourself:  what other president forced the resignation of Israel's PM?  Well, Kennedy did.  Its all been one giant suck up since.  Which resulted in Golda Meir loading up the jets with atomic missiles during the Yom Kippur war.  Which would have not have happened had Kennedy lived.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 39
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I didn't know anything about his Mid East policy other than he opposed Israeli development of nuclear weapons until you wrote the article in Garrison.  Nasser as a moderator.  Trying to Imagine Peace?

https://www.bing.com/search?q=give+peace+a+chance&form=PRUSEN&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&refig=35b20d8493244ef3af149c20658c1a75&sp=1&ghc=1&qs=AS&pq=give+peace+&sc=8-11&cvid=35b20d8493244ef3af149c20658c1a75 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kennedy was so far ahead of everyone else on this subject that its a little mind boggling.

He was trying to use Nasser as an outlet to the moderates in the Middle East in order to avoid the extremes.  Which, of course, is all you have there now.  

He really thought that Foster Dulles made a  huge mistake in switching over to Saudi Arabia and against Nasser.

In Robert Deryfuss' book, Devil's Eye, he says that Nasser was probably the last guy who you could have formed a comprehensive peace plan with.

What surprised me in doing the research for that article is just how opposed to him the Israelis were.  When I read that stuff, I began to lose my illusions about the Israeli agenda in the Middle East according to Likud. Likud is the worst thing opposing a peace plan there.

BTW, did you know the Mossad created Hamas?

Know why?

To undermine the PLO.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites

My discussion of JFK, Nasser and Israel begins at about the 24 minute mark, but I deal with some other interesting topics before that.

 

http://www.blackopradio.com/pod/black937a.mp3

 

BTW, isn't it something how far ahead K and K is on things, in addition to this in relation to the above linked  article, by Anthony, there was the death of McCord.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2019 at 3:08 PM, Anthony Thorne said:

You beat me to it! I saw that online today and was going to come & share it here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it nice to know how far ahead K and K is before anyone else?

First, McCord, and how this.

BTW, for me the payoff in that interview is near the end.

Golda Meir had atomic bombs loaded up and ready during the Yom Kippur war when Egypt crossed the Sinai with a tank battalion.

Do you believe that?  The Israelis were holding the keys to World War III and atomic warfare in their hands because the Egyptians were crossing the Sinai!!  It was theirs since ancient times.

But this is how crazy the Middle East got after Kennedy died.  LBJ just buckled under.  And Nixon pretty much continued in that vein.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps useful for Nasser background.  Complete knowledge and veracity are other matters.

Interesting how Eisenhower and Foster Dulles refused to back Anthony Eden and Britain in the Suez invasion, which the US was invited to do before the Brits parachuted in (not mentioned in the film).  The ploy seems yo have been to force a Beitish loss, so the US could rise as the uber-colonialists.  Which led us to the Congo and Lumumba.

Interesting that Khruschchev threatened to nuke London and Paris, but not Tel Aviv.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks so much Stephanie.

I have come to agree with Robert Dreyfuss, author of Devil's Eye.

Nasser was the last guy you could have consolidated an overall agreement with in the Middle East.  He was a really fascinating figure.  Not just because he was a socialist, secularist and progressive. But because he was a pan Arabist. By far, the most charismatic and appealing ruler for all Arabs in the Middle East.  That is why you could have forged an overall agreement around him. Kennedy favored him because unlike the Saudis, he was not a fundamentalist. He actually fought the Muslim Brotherhood.  There is a funny video on You Tube where he makes fun of them advocating everyone wear the hajib.

David, that is what Leonard Mosley thought. Foster Dulles did what he did during Suez to show the British that America was now in charge of the Third World. Dulles humiliated Eden to the point that Eden resigned.

 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe JFK was light years ahead of everyone else, but to me that implies he possessed an idealized vision for the Middle East that required a political solution in order to achieve peace in the Middle East. I think JFK had specific and practical goals towards achieving peace and that ascribing a lofty and idyllic motivation to his actions contributed to a pronounced demarcation of political differences that 1) kept all sides entrenched in their specific vision and 2) allowed all sides to argue it out up until the present time.

That is, JFK had the practical and specific goal of keeping Israel from building a nuclear bomb. When JFK took office, it would have been an achievable goal, done quietly or in secret without dragging in the baggage of political and religious differences. Very simplified, JFK says to his advisors (trusted or otherwise) "I don't want Israel to have a Nuclear Bomb, make sure we don't sell them any Uranium." 

On the other hand, if we say JFK has a lofty vision for bringing peace to the Middle East, which includes keeping the bomb out of Israeli hands, all of a sudden, JFK is an anti-Zionist, a Papist, an eventual advocate for a two state solution, maybe even an anti-Semite. The third rail is now electrified.

Whatever JFK’s motivations were, idyllic or specific, the third rail remains an impediment to not only Peace in the Middle East now, but also further research into any concerns JFK might have had about nuclear weapons proliferation, and finding out if those concerns played a part in his assassination. I think there is a better chance of not touching the third rail by asking "who sold Israel the bomb?"

Many of us, including myself, may have pro-Zionist (I’m Catholic and not from Israel) credentials. Right or wrong, I can rationalize why Israel may have wanted or actually needed a nuclear deterrent. If some Israeli spies obtained the means to make a bomb through spy-work and underhanded methods, well that is kind of what spies do. They may be criminals in the US, but they would be heroes in Israel. The same would go for Russian or Chinese spies. It is tough to ascribe some sort of unethical or pernicious behavior to any spy doing spy work in a country not their own. It may be illegal, but not immoral.

A US citizen that decides to sell secrets to a foreign government is certainly unethical on its face. (ignoring complicated whistle blower situations to keep things simple.) That would be treason.

The point of this diatribe is to suggest that it may be possible to steer clear of the third rail by focusing research efforts on who in the US sold bomb materials and technology to Israel. The idea is to shift the discussion away from Israeli motivations, which inevitably results in political arguments that detract from progressing on substantive research into the JFK assassination as it may or may not relate to Israel. Moreover, even if it does relate to Israel in a material and specific way, or only tangentially, the players on the US side of the transaction should be of greater interest, if only for the historical record.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Robert:

i appreciate a different view.

I already wrote about how Israel stole the bomb:

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

As per JFK, he was rabidly non atomic proliferation, as you can see in that article.

 

That article is what got me interested in the Apollo Affair when it popped up in a search a few months ago.

FYI, on duckduckgo, it comes up as the 3rd link using "israel atom bomb"; bing = 5th link; google = too much scrolling to count.

From the article:

In May 1958, Lowenthal merged Apollo Steel with the San Toy Mining Company in Maine. San Toy then changed its name to Apollo Industries, with the main operating officers of this new corporation Morton Chatkin, Ivan Novick and Lowenthal.

San Toy and Apollo Steel (also American Nut Fastener) are interesting. They are old companies (formed around 1900). San Toy, in its early years, was owned by some well known industrialists pre-WWI and was embroiled in some other controversies. They were also publicly traded. Publicly traded shell companies are still used to launder money. It was much easier to launder money with public shells before computers and new SEC laws in the 80's and 90's. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

I think JFK is the only American President to stand up to David Ben-Gurion & Israel . Also Gurion did not like that. Especially when it came to Negev Nuclear Research Center . JFK wanted inspectors to look over the Plant . Gurion said no. Same with its Nuclear Weapons Program. I think Gurion did not like anyone standing up to him. I think he sent a message to the U.S. and the world. No one tells Israel what to do.!!!!

Edited by Mark Wengler
small change.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...