CAN WE EXCLUDE BEN-GURION / HIS ISRAELI GOVERNMENT FROM THE JFKA SUSPECTS?

[Ron Bulman]

I don't take kind to bullying Ron . . .  like you are doing by acting like a childish brat calling form MOD! Instead of being a man an replying back like one.  

Bullying?  I thought that's what you were trying to do to me in the PM.  Intimidate me in a PM which you well know no one on here, including the moderators would see.  A childish brat?  Do you have a mirror?  Name calling behind others backs seems like a grade school tactic to me.  Being a man, and replying back like one?  In a PM?  You want me to reply back one on one in an ongoing trading of insults?  What an unmanly waste of time.  I thought the more manly thing to do was go public with your comments so all here can see them.  Be transparent, so they can see what you're doing and saying and decide for themselves what kind of man you are.

[Allen Lowe]

On 7/27/2023 at 12:23 PM, Matthew Koch said:

Sorry Allen I've got to disagree with about your" loss of Jewish life" theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

Here's a very good documentary of the subject of the White Vans and the Dancing Israelis the reality is that they did have prior knowledge but didn't have explosives in the van stopped on the George Washington Bridge just tested positive for explosives.. 

The connection to the JFK Assassination comes from the Permindex/WTC Organization purchasing the land during the same time JFK is killed which involves people suspected to be involved with he plot. (The Trade Marts would later become the World Trade Organization)

 

1) there was no Israel when the King David Hotel was bombed. So it doesn't defeat my point that the Israeli state would not perform an operation that killed Jews.

2) I did err at the number of Jews killed in the WTC, but there were plenty:

https://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/archives/the-jewish-victims-of-sept-11/article_6271d354-13ab-5051-9a80-4ea156b4ad48.html

[John Cotter]

There seems to be a most unpleasant element of mobbing, of ganging up against one member, @Matthew Koch, by some members on this thread.

Please desist.

Edited August 2, 2023 by John Cotter

[Matthew Koch]

38 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

There seems to be a most unpleasant element of mobbing, of ganging up against one member, @Matthew Koch, by some members on this thread.

Please desist.

John did you know that Jack Ruby visited Israel in May of 1962?

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32279950.pdf

[Robert Montenegro]

6 hours ago, Matthew Koch said:

John did you know that Jack Ruby visited Israel in May of 1962?

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32279950.pdf

 

Read the document properly, Mr. Koch—the man mentioned in the document is Jacob A. Rubenstein, who was a famous union organizer for the textile industry in New York, and formerly the owner of Security Mills Inc.—a company which concerned itself with the production of knitted jersey.

 

Your rant is not even close—not by a million light years.

 

The man that shot Lee Harvey Oswald did not visit Israel in 1955.

 

International businessman Jacob A. Rubenstein, did, as a point of fact, visit Israel, in 1955.

 

Please, do not abuse documents in such a fashion that it promotes a false narrative—there are document hounds on this forum that will not stand for this kind of nonsense.

 

PS: On top of abusing a document to promote a false narrative, you read it wrong—the document refers to a trip in 1955, not 1962.

 

Edited August 2, 2023 by Robert Montenegro

[Matthew Koch]

JFK’s 1939 Letter to His Father After Visiting Palestine

JFK wrote a letter to his father in 1939 after a visit to Palestine.[1] He gives an outline of the historical situation and his experience there:

1939

Dear Dad:

I thought I would write you my impressions on Palestine while they were still fresh in my mind, though you undoubtedly, if I know the Jews, know the “whole” story. It is worth while looking at it in its entirety.

In discussing Palestinian questions one naturally goes back to before the war. Palestine was at that time under Turkey, inhabited by Moslem Arabs with a scattering of Christians. There were also a few thousand Jews, though at that time the Zionists’ movement had not assumed great proportions. During the war, the British government, desiring both the assistance of the Jews and the Arabs, made separate promises to both, one in the MacMahon, the other in the Balfour declaration. The terms in the MacMahon letters guaranteeing an independent Arabic state were quite vague and the territorial delineation was equally vague. The Balfour declaration was also indefinite, giving with one hand what he took back with the other. In considering the whole question now, it is useless to discuss which has the “fairer” claim. The important thing is to try to work out a solution that will work, not try to present a solution based on these two vague, indefinite and conflicting promises. This is my objection to the White Paper. It theoretically presents a good solution, but it just won’t work. Returning to the background from 1922 when mandate was given favoring the establishment of a national home for the Jews, the situation has been difficult, however, it really assumed serious proportions during the depression and growth of the refugee problem. With the coming of these new Jewish immigrants, new capital poured into Palestine. This capital, while economically a poor investment as it only brought in a fraction of a percent on the original, nevertheless enabled the Jews to acquire about 15% of the land which included the most fertile. The Arabs naturally objected to the Jewish encroachment. They felt that the Jews, if permitted, would dominate in their country numerically as well as economically. The British endeavored to settle the situation and sent out several commissions. A partitioning plan was presented in 1936 which advocated the break up of Palestine into two independent states, with Jerusalem and those cities such as Haifa with an approximately equal Arabic and Jewish population, and incidentally the territory through which the oil from Iraq flows; all this was to be under British control. Because of the difficulties that this presented, because both sides refused to sign it, because of the fact that it would leave two small states which would not be able to subsist independent of England, and lastly, and probably most importantly, because Mussolini objected to this change in the Status quo, this plan was not put through. In 1939 a conference was held in London in which the two groups tried to reconcile the differences. As this was impossible the British government stated that it felt free now to present its own solution. This they did in the White Paper which was rejected by both sides. The Jews were particularly angry as they saw all hope of their Zion’s state disappearing and their indignation was increased by the fact that the problem had a religious as well as an economic background. They felt that the Jews were now fated to be a minority and that now that the immigration was going to be limited they felt that the Zion’s movement might collapse and that the funds which were pouring in any support of this would be stopped, bringing economic disaster, for these funds are the only method by which Palestine can come anywhere near balancing her exports and imports.

The Arab’s objections to the White Paper are: (1) the objection to the indefiniteness of the period that the British government will hold control, as the formation of an independent state depends on Jewish cooperation, something they believe impossible; and (2) they say that there is no provision for an elected assembly under their own leadership which has been the first step in Iraq towards the formation of an independent state. They also want all immigration stopped; they feel that the Jewish problem is not their problem. They also fear that while there are 450,000 Jews in Palestine, only 250,000 of them have become citizens. Why, therefore, should they be entitled to be counted as members of the state?

 

  However, while these are for purposes of publication the chief objections of the two groups, there are fundamental objections which, while they are not stated publicly, are nevertheless far more important.

                On the Jewish side there is the desire for complete domination, with Jerusalem as the capital of their new land of milk and honey, with the right colonize in Trans-Jordan. They feel that given sufficient opportunity they can cultivate the land and develop it as they have done in the Western portion. The Arab answer to this is incidentally, that the Jews have had the benefit of capital, which had the Arabs possessed, equal miracles could have been performed by them. Though this is partly true, the economic set up of Arabic agricultural progress with its absentee landlords and primitive methods of cultivation, could not under any circumstances probably have competed with the Jews. However, this very fact lies in the background of the Arabic objection to the Jews. They realize their superiority and fear it.

The political angle of the Arabic objection to the White Paper is that it does not permit the return of the Grand Mufti, the religious and political leader made, incidentally, that, by the British, who is now in exile in Syria. He naturally wishes to return and therefore is unwilling to compromise and, as the minority group of Arabs, composed of about 100,000 Christians and moderate Moslems, constitute a weak opposition at the present time, it looks as if the situation will continue.

                I see no hope for the working out of the British policy as laid down in the White Paper. As I said above, theoretically it sounds just and fair, but the important thing and the necessary thing is not a solution just and fair but a solution that will work. As the British interest must and will be naturally safeguarded, and bearing in mind the pressure that has been given privately by the Arab states and publicly by the various Jewish organizations to the press and radio, it seems to me that the only thing to do will be to break the country up into two autonomous districts giving them both self-government to the extent that they do not interfere with each other and that British interest is safeguarded. Jerusalem, having the background that it has, should be an independent unit. Though this is a difficult solution yet, it is the only one that I think can work. This is a development of the British proposal of 1936 favoring partition. At present, situation still seems to be difficult as far as outrages and bombings. There were 13 bombs set off my last evening there, all in the Jewish quarter and all set off by Jews. The ironical part is that the Jewish terrorists bomb their own telephone lines and electric connections and the next day frantically phone the British to come and fix them up. Incidentally I have become more pro-British down there than I have been in my other visits to England as I think that the men on the spot are doing a good job. This roughly, in fact very roughly, is an outline of the situation. It will be interesting to see it develop and see what form the solution takes, as a definite solution has not been found yet. I thought Dansig was a tough problem, but I have never seen two groups more unwilling to try and working out a solution that has some hope of success than these two groups.

 The sympathy of the people on the spot seems to be with the Arabs. This is not only because the Jews have had, at least some of their leaders, an unfortunately arrogant, uncompromising attitude, but they feel that after all, the country has been Arabic for the last few hundred years, and they naturally feel sympathic. After all, Palestine was hardly Britain’s to give away. The question is further complicated by the fact that both groups are split among themselves. There is the strongly orthodox Jewish group, unwilling to make any compromise, who wished to have a government expressing this attitude, there is the liberal Jewish element composed of the younger group who fear these reactionaries, and wish to establish a very liberal, almost communistic form of government, and there are the in betweens who are willing to make a compromise. There are even further lines cutting these groups, but they do manage to present a united front now; if and when they get their claims, then the breakup will start. As for the Arabs, while most of them are heartily sick of the whole business which is playing hell with their economic life, yet so strong is the hold of the Mufti by reason of his religious grip and because of the strength of the new nationalism, that it is going to be extremely difficult to effect a solution without bringing him back. He of course feels that if the Arabs accepted the White Paper he would be all through, as the Paper calls for the Arab officials to be appointed by the British during the transition period, and they will naturally appoint Arabs that will be in their camp. That is why they insist on an elected assembly, although considering the general standard of the country, it would naturally be a farce. That is what makes the whole situation so impossible. All three sides have such great interests all in a great measure conflicting, and all three sides have great means of putting on pressure. Poor Malcolm McDonald. Thus as I have said, the only thing to do now that a theoretically fair and good solution has been presented and is failing, after a period of time, they can say that they have done the best they could under the circumstances and then arbitrarily force the partition plan to be accepted.

                Leaving now for Bucharest. Love to all,

JACK

 

 

https://eclecticanecdotes.com/2021/03/jfks-1939-letter-to-his-father-after-visiting-palestine

Edited August 2, 2023 by Matthew Koch

[Matthew Koch]

5 hours ago, Robert Montenegro said:

 

Read the document properly, Mr. Koch—the man mentioned in the document is Jacob A. Rubenstein, who was a famous union organizer for the textile industry in New York, and formerly the owner of Security Mills Inc.—a company which concerned itself with the production of knitted jersey.

 

Your rant is not even close—not by a million light years.

 

The man that shot Lee Harvey Oswald did not visit Israel in 1955.

 

International businessman Jacob A. Rubenstein, did, as a point of fact, visit Israel, in 1955.

 

Please, do not abuse documents in such a fashion that it promotes a false narrative—there are document hounds on this forum that will not stand for this kind of nonsense.

 

PS: On top of abusing a document to promote a false narrative, you read it wrong—the document refers to a trip in 1955, not 1962.

 

Rant? 

Robert did you forget to take your meds.. 

 

[Paul Brancato]

Maybe you forgot your meds too. That doesn’t look like the Jack Ruby from Dallas does it? Btw interesting letter.

Edited August 2, 2023 by Paul Brancato

[Ed Berger]

33 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

Rant? 

Robert did you forget to take your meds.. 

 

This doesn't seem to be the same guy—this Jack Rubenstein was born 1905, so an incorrect year, and as far as I know Dallas Jack Ruby wasn't married, much less had a wife named Minnie? 

On the flip side, I don't think it's the textile Rubenstein either, who was born in the late 1880s and had a wife named Anna. 

[Robert Montenegro]

8 hours ago, Matthew Koch said:

Rant? 

Robert did you forget to take your meds..

 

Since the moderators (Mr. Knight, Mr. Speer, Mr. Larsen? ANYBODY MINDING THE STORE HERE AND SEEING ALL OF THE ANTI-JEWISH RHETORIC) have allowed your libelous bippy to stay on the forum, I'll just say this much:

 

The Department of Veterans Affairs currently prescribes me two medications for nerve damage caused by combat action, three for traumatic brain injuries caused by combat action, a special type of ear-drops to treat tinnitus, caused by combat action, and five different kinds of medication for "shell-shock" AKA combat-induced Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. 

 

Believe me, Mr. Koch, if I were off my medications, I would gladly make the trip to personally let you be the first to know.

 

Go back and read the document again, you miry reprobate!

 

It clearly states that it was not Jack Ruby who made the trip to Israel:

 

• https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32279950.pdf

 

As for the document that is posted on Twitter, that one clearly states that the Jack Rubenstein in question made the trip to Israel in 1962 with, "...his wife Minnie..."  

 

• https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10220-10054.pdf

 

Strange, I don't seem to remember the man who shot Lee Harvey Oswald having a wife, having been a resident of New York, or being born in Poland!

 

Read the damn document properly, stop your anti-Jewish nonsense, and cease with the personal attacks!

 

All the world can see you for what you really are, Mr. Koch—a hate-filled, slithering little bottom feeder that has nothing of any intrinsic value to contribute to this forum, much less the facts—I say again, FACTS, surrounding the murder of President Kennedy!

 

Now stop manipulating documents to fit your "...Jews killed Kennedy..." narrative!

 

You are a degenerate of the worst order.

 

 

Edited August 2, 2023 by Robert Montenegro

[Matthew Koch]

23 minutes ago, Robert Montenegro said:

 

Since the moderators (Mr. Knight, Mr. Speer, Mr. Larsen? ANYBODY MINDING THE STORE HERE AND SEEING ALL OF THE ANTI-JEWISH RHETORIC) have allowed your libelous bippy to stay on the forum, I'll just say this much:

 

The Department of Veterans Affairs currently prescribes me two medications for nerve damage caused by combat action, three for traumatic brain injuries caused by combat action, a special type of ear-drops to treat tinnitus, caused by combat action, and five different kinds of medication for "shell-shock" AKA combat-induced Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. 

 

Believe me, Mr. Koch, if I were off my medications, I would gladly make the trip to personally let you be the first to know.

 

Go back and read the document again, you miry reprobate!

 

It clearly states that it was not Jack Ruby who made the trip to Israel:

 

• https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32279950.pdf

 

As for the document that is posted on Twitter, that one clearly states that the Jack Rubenstein in question made the trip to Israel in 1962 with, "...his wife Minnie..."  

 

• https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10220-10054.pdf

 

Strange, I don't seem to remember the man who shot Lee Harvey Oswald having a wife, having been a resident of New York, or being born in Poland!

 

Read the damn document properly, stop your anti-Jewish nonsense, and cease with the personal attacks!

 

All the world can see you for what you really are, Mr. Koch—a hate-filled, slithering little bottom feeder and you have nothing of any intrinsic value to contribute to this forum, much less the facts—I say again, FACTS, surrounding the murder of President Kennedy!

 

Now stop manipulating documents to fit your "...Jews killed Kennedy..." narrative!

 

You are a degenerate of the worst order.

 

 

Looks like you can't control your emotions and discuss the info with out accusing other of things that never said and also said they don't believe. See I don't believe the "JoooS" Killed JFK and I don't think NAZIs did either but in your kaleidoscope antica shattered mind that means I pushing Dogwhistles!!  

That's why I think you are a racist "Herr" Montenegro and mentally ill.. 


Thanks for reminding me I'm dealing with someone who has mental health problems who hears dogwhistles like Sarah Silverman!!!!!!!

LOL I bet that's why RFK Jr turned your stupid datebook down because his father worked for the guy that your CID book claims radicalized Donald Trump!! That's how it goes with the six degree of Adolf Hiitler nonsense.. 

 

 

Edited August 2, 2023 by Matthew Koch

[Robert Montenegro]

1 hour ago, Matthew Koch said:

That's why I think you are a racist "Herr" Montenegro and mentally ill..

 

Once again, I am pleading with the moderators of this forum to remove Mr. Koch from the forum immediately (Mr. Knight, you warned me against making personal attacks, so I could continue sharing my research).

 

Mr. Koch has besmirched my reputation by attacking the fact that I suffer from combat-induced "shell-shock" (you know who else suffered from shell-shock, try Orleans Parish District Attorney James Carothers Garrison, who fought in the United States Army Field Artillery Corps, just like me)—and Mr. Koch has accused me again (count that, two times) of being a racist!

 

 

On 7/10/2023 at 5:17 PM, Pat Speer said:

People who yell and/or whine about others, who are madly in love with their opinions on this or that--whether it be Jews, the Deep State, this or that hoax, or this or that conspiracy, end up in the corner.

It's pretty much like kindergarten. 

 

What say you, Mr. Speer?

 

Are you really just going to let Mr. Koch attack a United States Army combat veteran because that veteran is suffering from "shell-shock"?!

 

Or do you, Mr. Speer, just enjoy watching all of the disinformation that Mr. Koch has posted in the past twenty-four hours?

 

It seems to me that your inaction, Mr. Speer, towards Mr. Koch, is a clear signal that attacking the disabled (disabled combat veterans, no less), is acceptable behavior on this forum.

 

Not to mention, unfounded accusations of racism, which Mr. Koch has done twice now.

 

Is calling someone a racist acceptable behavior on this forum now?

 

Once again, I'd like to note, that everyone can see this, Mr. Speer—your reputation is on the line here.

 

 

Edited August 2, 2023 by Robert Montenegro

[Leslie Sharp]

9 hours ago, Ed Berger said:

This doesn't seem to be the same guy—this Jack Rubenstein was born 1905, so an incorrect year, and as far as I know Dallas Jack Ruby wasn't married, much less had a wife named Minnie? 

On the flip side, I don't think it's the textile Rubenstein either, who was born in the late 1880s and had a wife named Anna. 

Agree.

 

[Matthew Koch]

16 minutes ago, Robert Montenegro said:

 

Once again, I am pleading with the moderators of this forum to remove Mr. Koch from the forum immediately (Mr. Knight, you warned me against making personal attacks, so I could continue sharing my research).

 

Mr. Koch has besmirched my reputation by attacking the fact that I suffer from combat-induced "shell-shock" (you know who else suffered from shell-shock, try Orleans Parish District Attorney James Carothers Garrison, who fought in the United States Army Field Artillery Corps, just like me)—and Mr. Koch has accused me again (count that, two times) of being a racist!

 

 

 

What say you, Mr. Speer?

 

Are you really just going to let Mr. Koch attack a United States Army combat veteran because that veteran is suffering from "shell-shock"?!

 

Or do you, Mr. Speer, just enjoy watching all of the disinformation that Mr. Koch has posted in the past twenty-four hours?

 

It seems to me that your inaction, Mr. Speer, towards Mr. Koch, is a clear signal that attacking the disabled (disabled combat veterans, no less), is acceptable behavior on this forum.

 

Not to mention, unfounded accusations of racism, which Mr. Koch has done twice now.

 

Is calling someone a racist acceptable behavior on this forum now?

 

Once again, I'd like to note, that everyone can see this, Mr. Speer—your reputation is on the line here.

 

 

If anyone cares to look at the record it's you attacking me and I'm responding, which then you cry about. 

Here is a tip Monte, treat people how you want to be treated, I warned you we would butt heads and you proceeded to accuse me of White Supremest Dog whistles.. You started this not me, I have only replied with true things where you have used inaccurate insults.. Like that Fletcher Prouty is secretly a limited hangout Nazi and anyone who defends him is also.. Your research seems to be build on a stack of cards which can't be disturbed or else it falls apart.. that why I've pointed out people like Bernard Weissman who aren't Nazis... Sorry you can't understand that! 

[Leslie Sharp]

@Matthew Koch I bet that's why RFK Jr turned your stupid datebook down because his father worked for the guy that your CID book claims radicalized Donald Trump!!

Matthew, Robert Montenegro has nothing to do with the Lafitte datebook, nor our M/s of Coup in Dallas or its subsequent publication November 19, 2021.

Please, do elaborate on RFK Jr. turning down the datebook. What is your basis for that declarative statement?

For the record, which you seem utterly oblivious of, RFK Jr. left McCarthy's staff BECAUSE of Roy Cohn, Trump's future business and political mentor. Years later, on November 22, Robert Kennedy  was in a luncheon meeting with Morgenthau to discuss the pending indictment of  Roy Cohn when he received Hoover's call.  

Why don't you get your facts straight.

Edited August 2, 2023 by Leslie Sharp