From Dallas to Gaza-- JFK's Assassination and U.S.-Israeli History

[Kirk Gallaway]

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.

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Thesis:  JFK wanted to establish an equitable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  And he was privately wary of militant, right wing Zionists.

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?

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

He also opposed Israel's goal of acquiring nukes, and insisted on inspections of Dimona.

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

 

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

And RFK worked to properly register Israeli lobbyists in the U.S. as agents of a foreign government.

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. Niederhut]

Kirk,

     Let me get this straight...

     Your argument that JFK;

1) failed to establish an equitable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, (as he intended) 

2) failed to prevent Israel from acquiring nukes, (as he intended) and

3) failed to properly register Israeli lobbyists in the U.S. as agents of a foreign government, (as he intended)

BECAUSE HE WAS ASSASSINATED on 11/22/63!!  Voila!!

I agree.   That's what the DiEugenio "Destiny Betrayed" thesis is all about, isn't it?

JFK's assassination resulted in dramatic changes in U.S. foreign policy-- including JFK's approach to the Middle East.

It sounds like we agree on the rest-- i.e., that dramatic alterations in U.S. relations with Israel resulted from the increased power of AIPAC and the rise of the Neocons in the post-JFK era.

Edited January 6 by W. Niederhut

[Kirk Gallaway]

On 12/31/2023 at 5:59 AM, W. Niederhut said:

James DiEugenio's recent Substack essay about Gaza and JFK has inspired me to study the history of U.S. relations with Israel during the past 60 years.

       Last night, I discovered this interesting essay, From Dallas to Gaza, at a website called LA Progressive.  The author, Rick Sterling, is a Canadian American from Berkeley, California.   Probably no accident that a Canadian has a more accurate perspective on U.S. history than most Americans.

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

[W. Niederhut]

Kirk,

     Speaking of "emotional outbursts" and "ignoring the elephant in the room," I noticed that you avoided the standard courtesy of quoting my concise, accurate comment (at the bottom of page 5) about the fact that you seem to have misunderstand the thesis of this thread-- before posting your rambling, emotional pseudo-rebuttals (above.)

     You are also mistaken in your (above) claim that I am "upset" and "emotional" about the debate.  Not true.

     My interest here is solely in historical truth -- in this case, regarding the altered course of the history of the Middle East that resulted from the assassinations of JFK (and RFK.)  IMO, DiEugenio and Sterling are quite correct.  JFK sought an equitable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that respected the fundamental rights of the indigenous Palestinian people.  And he was wary of militant right-wing Zionists, as he indicated in his 1939 letter to his father, during his visit to Palestine (see Sterling's article for details.)

     How would the bloody history of Palestine have differed if JFK had remained President until January of 1969, possibly followed by an RFK Presidency?   Notwithstanding your Hawk missile straw man argument, the evidence indicates that the Kennedy brothers would have worked to achieve an equitable solution to the Israeli-Palestine crisis that respected indigenous Palestinian rights.  JFK was not a colonialist.  He was an Irishman, for God's sake!

      So, here's my concise argument (above) that you neglected to quote.  It can't be said more clearly.

Kirk,

    You and Ben Cole both failed to grasp the essential, accurate theses of the DiEugenio and Sterling essays about JFK and the history of U.S.- Israeli relations before and after JFK's assassination.

     Did you and Ben even read Sterling's excellent essay at the top of this thread?

     Thesis:  JFK wanted to establish an equitable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  And he was privately wary of militant, right wing Zionists.

      He also opposed Israel's goal of acquiring nukes, and insisted on inspections of Dimona.

      And RFK worked to properly register Israeli lobbyists in the U.S. as agents of a foreign government.

      After 11/22/63, AIPAC and the Neocons became increasingly powerful in shaping U.S. foreign policy to serve Israel's interests, while abandoning advocacy for Palestinian rights.

       By 2000, Ariel Sharon accurately boasted that, "Israel controls America, and the Americans know it."

       Zbigniew Brzezinski used the 21st century metaphor of Israel leading America around by the nose, "like a stupid mule."

Edited January 7 by W. Niederhut

[James DiEugenio]

Its pretty obvious that there is a dividing line between Kennedy, and the next three presidents:  

Johnson, Nixon and Ford.  Dimona being one concrete example

Plus, your chart was very demonstrative of this.

The marginalization of Nasser after Kennedy's death is also a factor.

In Pittsburgh, one of the things I mentioned is that the first political triumph of the neocons came under Ford, the Halloween Massacre.

[Paul Rigby]

On 1/6/2024 at 1:43 AM, Kirk Gallaway said:

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

 

The claim that Kennedy’s sale of Hawk missiles to Israel commenced the arms race in the Middle East is risible, and should be seen for what it always has been, a cynical addition to the self-serving narratives of Kennedy failure contrived and peddled by both the US and Israeli deep states. In the work of the CFR’s Warren Bass, Support Any Friend – Kennedy’s Middle –East & the Making of the US-Israel Alliance (2003), we see the fusion of these endeavours, not least in the minimisation of a striking example of an earlier, and arguably more consequential failure, of American diplomacy in the region, Foster Dulles’ Alpha initiative.

The arms race in the Middle East started no later than the late 1940s. The Eisenhower administration’s efforts to restrict Israel’s acquisitions amounted, post the 1955 Egypt-Czech arms-for-cotton deal, to this: Buy what you need off the Europeans, most notably the French, and send us the tab. With the return of de Gaulle and the recentralization of power in the Elysee, this option was effectively foreclosed. In anticipation of this inevitability, Israel began, in February 1960, to push its case in Washington, and launched its first bid for the Hawk system.

So why did Kennedy eventually acquiesce in the sale and then fail to explicitly link the sale to Israeli agreement to the Johnson Plan, even though the link was crystal clear in internal Washington deliberations on the matter?

First, the sale of the Hawk system sought to restore the status quo prior to Moscow’s sale of substantial air assets to Egypt. As William Bundy explained in July 1962:

(a) Israel is vulnerable to UAR air attack and is becoming increasingly so with the arrival of additional Soviet TU-16's.

(b) The addition of the Hawk missile within Israel's air defense system would fill an important gap in their defense.

(c) Acquisition of the Hawk missile system by Israel would not alone act to shift the balance of military power between Israel and its neighbors.

Second, selling a surface-to-air defensive missile system to Israel was preferable to selling it offensive weaponry such as planes and tanks, the preferred armaments sought by the Israeli Air Force leadership, and those within the IDF, who pushed a much more aggressive strategy.

Third, the deal ensured that US money went to US manufacturers (much to the angry frustration of the Macmillan government, which wanted to sell Israel the rival Bloodstone system).

Fourth, the deal offered powerful political cover to Kennedy’s twin pushes to prevent nuclear proliferation and settle Palestinian refugees. Neither the Israeli state nor the American Zionist lobby could henceforth object that Kennedy was indifferent to Israel’s most fundamental security concerns.

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.

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.

In summary, Kennedy’s choices with respect to the Hawk sale were rational, wise, and taken with an eye to the future. That his successors lacked the ability, resolve, and/or opportunities to steer US policy in the direction signposted by his decision was not his fault or responsibility.

[Kirk Gallaway]

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.?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 8 by Kirk Gallaway

[James DiEugenio]

From Monica  Wiesak's book:

"On November 20, 1963, two days before JFK's assassination, the US delegation at the United Nations once again gave its support to Resolution 194, Article 11 [Palestinian refugee repatriation] which triggered fury among Israeli supporters. The Jewish Chronicle (in London) reported the reaction of the Israelis.  "Prime Minister Levi Eshkol summoned the US ambassador...and told him that Israel was shocked by the pro Arab attitude adopted by the US delegation."  Golda Meir, the Chronicle reported, "expressed Israel's astonishment  and anger at the attitude of the US."

As Monica adds, this sympathy was active while he was a senator. As Francis Sayre noted, "Senator Kennedy was one of the people on the Hill to whom I went most regularly because of his deep and sincere concerns, his eagerness to be of practical assistance to this humanitarian problem." (pp. 192-93)

If one combines this with Kennedy's attempt to forge a working relationship with Nasser, who the Israelis genuinely feared, I don't see how one can get much more of a balance, and this leaves out Dimona, and the Russian arms into Egypt. To recall how much Israel feared Nasser, just recall the Lavon Affair of 1954, and then the Suez Crisis of 1956.  After which Hammarskjold sent a peace keeping force into the Sinai, which btw, Kennedy wanted strengthened.

Wiesak also quotes Robert Komer on Kennedy and the Middle East:  "Kennedy was the most knowledgeable man on the Middle East in the top echelon of his administration.  He literally knew more about the matter than the secretary of state...he read everything.  He gobbled up all of the intelligence reports....He really felt we had to have a new balance in our policy, that we had to get away from this overemphasis on alliances [a direct slap at Foster Dulles], this sort of casting into the outer darkness those countries which for one reason or another didn't feel they should be tied to Washington"

This last reference is also another refutation of Foster Dulles, who had no time for the non-aligned movement at all. Of which Nasser was a prime mover.

Edited January 8 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Rigby]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

From Monica  Wiesak's book:

"On November 20, 1963, two days before JFK's assassination, the US delegation at the United Nations once again gave its support to Resolution 194, Article 11 [Palestinian refugee repatriation] which triggered fury among Israeli supporters. The Jewish Chronicle (in London) reported the reaction of the Israelis.  "Prime Minister Levi Eshkol summoned the US ambassador...and told him that Israel was shocked by the pro Arab attitude adopted by the US delegation.  Golda Meir, the Chronicle reported, "expressed Israel's astonishment  and anger at the attitude of the US."

A Time To Cut Bait is the title of the concluding chapter of Warren Bass' Support Any Friend: Kennedy's Middle East & the Making of the US-Israel Alliance, his universally acclaimed tome on the subject.

It opens with a page-long summary of the most significant pre-assassination events concerning the Middle East in the course of November 1963.  Guess what?

Yes, you got it: The UN vote cast by the US delegation on 20 November is entirely omitted.

But then Bass' farrago is "A Council on Foreign Relations Book."

Great quote, and a timely reminder of just how good Wiesak's book is.

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks for that Paul, that is one I will avoid.  CFR?

Kennedy never joined.

[Paul Rigby]

17 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

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.?

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but given it's you, I will just have to grin and bear it. 

The quotes in bold you attribute to me are actually your selections from Asher Orkaby's The International History of the Yemen Civil War, 1962-1968 (2014, 314pp), the Harvard dissertation I recommended, not least because it's online and free, within a different thread. You selected them because you thought them of utility to your argument. 

A second piece of bad news: It's quite common for me to recommend books or articles containing conclusions from which I dissent. Why? Among other reasons, because such works contain evidence that subverts the conclusions, or offer important and/or interesting sources not readily available elsewhere. And so on and so forth.

A small example of the value of Orkaby's work, as found within the expanded dissertation, Beyond the Arab Cold War – The International History of the Yemen Civil War, 1962-68, published by the US arm of Oxford's UP in 2017, answers your opening question:

Quote

 

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?

 

Here's Orkaby on a Soviet example of this standard diplomatic gambit: "In 1955, the USSR signed a Treaty of Friendship with Yemen. Iman Ahmad received enough small arms to encourage more hostile anti-British action, but not enough to start a large-scale war that would drag Soviets into the conflict. Moscow’s logic in this agreement was that the continued use of Soviet weapons would increase Yemen’s dependence on Soviet technicians, spare parts, and additional shipments for the foreseeable future…” (Ibid, 16)

JFK, in agreeing to the Hawk sale to Israel, was, I repeat, merely following a bog-standard gambit, one as familiar to a low-level drug-dealer as a senior diplomat: create dependence to secure control.

Compare and contrast with LBJ, who, in 1965-66, sold Israel the planes and tanks it needed to launch a pre-emptive war on Egypt. Here, the dealer gave the addict an arsenal.

Quote

 

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.

 

The Hawk system was one chip in a lengthier game, one truncated by Kennedy's murder. The notion that by failing to tie the Hawk sale to a specific series of well-publicised and timetabled Israeli concessions, Kennedy effectively lost all hope of ever again influencing Tel Aviv on Dimona inspections or the refugee resettlement issue is belied by subsequent events and represents, on its face, an infantile understanding of dipomacy.

[Kirk Gallaway]

6 hours ago, Paul Rigby said:

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but given it's you, the quotes in bold you attribute to me are actually your selections from Asher Orkaby's

Bad news? I suspected that at the very beginning , and asked you that.

 

On 1/8/2024 at 9:21 AM, Kirk Gallaway said:

Are you taking that out of a book? If so, what 's your source?

 

6 hours ago, Paul Rigby said:

A second piece of bad news: It's quite common for me to recommend books or articles containing conclusions from which I dissent. Why? Among other reasons, because such works contain evidence that subverts the conclusions, or offer important and/or interesting sources not readily available elsewhere. And so on and so forth

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.

On 1/8/2024 at 9:21 AM, Kirk Gallaway said:

Paul Rigby:Nasser was the alternative to the Saudi’s, and the US chose the latter with ongoing devastating effect,

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 9 by Kirk Gallaway

[James DiEugenio]

The lengths that Kennedy was willing to go to in order to back Nasser was like a tightrope he had to balance himself on, because the huge wave was pulling against him, ever since Eisenhower pulled out of the Aswan Dam deal and Nasser refused to join CENTO.

Plus, the fact was that Nasser represented pan Arabism, which the Saudis despised.  Because they knew Nasser was a socialist, and under any kind of confederation set up--which is what he wanted--it would endanger their oil rights.  This is why the Saudis did everything they could to break up the UAR, the union between Egypt and Syria.  Which they succeeded in doing.

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

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