JFK Speech to Zionists of America, 1960

[Benjamin Cole]

 

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/speech-senator-john-f-kennedy-zionists-america-convention-statler-hilton-hotel-new-york-ny

Insightful, intelligent speech from a historian and thinker. 

Speech by Senator John F. Kennedy, Zionists of America Convention, Statler Hilton Hotel, New York, NY

August 26, 1960

Prophecy is a Jewish tradition, and the World Zionist movement, in which all of you have played so important a role, has continued this tradition. It has turned the dreams of its leaders into acts of statesmanship. It has converted the hopes of the Jewish people into concrete facts of life.

When the first Zionist conference met in 1897, Palestine was a neglected wasteland. A few scattered Jewish colonies had resettled there, but they had come to die in the Holy Land, rather than to make it live again in greatness. Most of the governments of the world were indifferent.

But now all is changed. Israel became a triumphant and enduring reality exactly 50 years after Theodore Herzl, the prophet of Zionism, had proclaimed the ideal of nationhood. It was the classic case of an ancient dream finding a young leader, for Herzl was then only 37 years of age. Perhaps I may be allowed the observation that the Jewish people - ever since David slew Goliath - have never considered youth as a barrier to leadership, or measured experience and maturity by mere length of days.

I first saw Palestine in 1939. There the neglect and ruin left by centuries of Ottoman misrule were slowly being transformed by miracles of labor and sacrifice. But Palestine was still a land of promise in 1939, rather than a land of fulfillment. I returned in 1951 to see the grandeur of Israel. In 3 years this new state had opened its doors to 600,000 immigrants and refugees. Even while fighting for its own survival, Israel had given new hope to the persecuted and new dignity to the pattern of Jewish life. I left with the conviction that the United Nations may have conferred on Israel the credentials of nationhood; but its own idealism and courage, its own sacrifice and generosity, had earned the credentials of immortality.

Some do not agree. Three weeks ago I said in a public statement: "Israel is here to stay." The next day I was attacked by Cairo radio, rebuking me for my faith in Israel, and quoting this criticism from the Arabic newspaper Al-Gomhouria:

As for the question of the existence and the nonexistence of Israel, Mr. Kennedy says that Israel has been created in order to exist. Time will judge between us, Mr. Kennedy.

I agree. Time will judge whether Israel will continue to exist. But I wish I could be as sure of all my prophecies as I am of my flat prediction that Israel is here to stay.

For Israel was not created in order to disappear - Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and the home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom; and no area of the world has ever had an overabundance of democracy and freedom.

It is worth remembering, too, that Israel is a cause that stands beyond the ordinary changes and chances of American public life. In our pluralistic society, it has not been a Jewish cause - any more than Irish independence was solely the concern of Americans of Irish descent. The ideals of Zionism have, in the last half century, been repeatedly endorsed by Presidents and Members of Congress from both parties. Friendship for Israel is not a partisan matter. It is a national commitment.

Yet within this tradition of friendship there is a special obligation on the Democratic Party. It was President Woodrow Wilson who forecast with prophetic wisdom the creation of a Jewish homeland. It was President Franklin Roosevelt who kept alive the hopes of Jewish redemption during the Nazi terror. It was President Harry Truman who first recognized the new State of Israel and gave it status in world affairs. And may I add that it would be my hope and my pledge to continue this Democratic tradition - and to be worthy of it.

What is needed now is leadership - impartial but firm, deliberate but bold - leadership instead of rhetoric. There has been enough rhetoric in recent years about free transit through the Suez Canal - but there has been no leadership. Our policy in Washington and in the United Nations has permitted defiance of our pledge with impunity - indeed, with economic reward.

If America's word in the world community is to have meaning - if the mutual security amendment which I cosponsored with Senator Douglas is to have meaning - and if the clear, thoughtful language of the Democratic platform is to have meaning - the influence of this Nation and other maritime powers must be brought to bear on a just solution that removes all discrimination at the Suez Canal for all times. And the White House must take the lead.

We have also had much rhetoric in recent years about opposing an arms race and a solution by force in the Middle East. The rhetoric has not only been empty and negative. Even more fundamental is the premise that if the United States and the United Nations are to reject a solution based on force, then they must accept the task of finding a solution based on reason and justice.

We can no longer shun this task by pleading that the problem is too difficult. The danger is already acute from delay. Russia's position is more entrenched. The Arab States are more divided and restless. The influence of the Western nations has steadily diminished.

When I talked with Prime Minister Ben-Gurion on his most recent visit to this country, he told me of dangerous signs of unrest beneath the deceptive quiet that has fallen over the Middle East. For there is no peace in that region today - only an embittered truce between renewed alarms.

American intervention, on the other hand, will not now be easy for the record is not one to which we can point with pride:

The humble plea by the George Allen mission to Cairo, to urge Egyptian reconsideration of their acceptance of Soviet arms;

The series of incredible American blunders which led to the Suez crisis of 1956, events in which the role of our Government has never been fully explained;

The so-called Eisenhower doctrine, now repudiated by some of the very nations which accepted our aid, and the cause even at that time of widespread antagonism from Middle Eastern leaders who felt we were cynically trying to use them for our own cold war ends;

And, in general, a deterioration in our relations with all Middle Eastern nations, primarily because neither Israel nor the Arabs knew exactly what to expect from us. At times it must have appeared to many in the area that the shortest route to Washington was through Moscow. At times it must have appeared that champions of democracy and freedom were being punished for their virtues, by being taken for granted by a neglectful administration that suddenly showed concern only when it was displeased by their conduct.

Peace in the Middle East is not one step nearer reality today than it was 8 years ago - but Russian influence is immeasurably greater.

What can a new President do? More weakness and timidity will not do. More stubborn errors redeemed at the last moment by impulsive action - will not do.

Now we must take the risk of leadership, and use our influence to compose this ugly situation before it breaks out in a new threat to peace. And I know we will not be alone in searching for a peaceful settlement - if our aims are high, and if they are centered solely on the genuine needs of the Middle East, and on an honorable end to these ancient quarrels.

First: I propose that the new President reaffirm our sincere friendship for all the peoples of the Middle East, whatever their religion or race or politics.

Second: I propose that we make it crystal clear that the United States means what it said in the tripartite declaration of 1950 - that we will act promptly and decisively against any nation in the Middle East which attacks its neighbor. I propose that we make clear to both Israel and the Arab States our guarantee that we will act with whatever force and speed are necessary to halt any aggression by any nation. And to complete the effectiveness of this guarantee, I propose that we invite all like-minded nations to join with us in signing, registering, and depositing this declaration with the United Nations.

At present the tripartite declaration is too uncertain of execution and effect to be a useful shield for peace. With countries so close to one another in a sensitive tension-ridden area, a delay of only a few days in international reaction to aggression might well be fatal to a nation's freedom and indeed the peace of the entire world. Once the nations of the Middle East have a firm and precise guarantee, the need for continuing the arms race will disappear, the easing of tensions inevitably will follow, and both sides will be able to devote their energies and talents to peaceful pursuits.

Third: I propose that all the authority and prestige of the White House be used to call into conference the leaders of Israel and the Arab States to consider privately their common problems, assuring them that we support in full their aspirations for peace, unity, independence, and a better life - and that we are prepared to back up this moral support with economic and technical assistance.

The offer would be made with equal frankness to both sides; and all the world would be watching the response of each side. I sincerely believe that an American presidential initiative for peace, honestly intended and resolutely pursued, would not be lightly rejected by either side. And I promise to waste no time in taking this initiative.

For I have always believed that there is no real conflict or contradiction between the genuine aspirations of the Arab nations and the genuine aspirations of Israel. The Arab peoples rose to freedom and independence in the very years which saw the rise of Israel. From the cooperation of these two awakened nationalisms could come a new golden age for the Middle East. But from their destructive vendetta can come nothing but misery and poverty and the risk of war.

The Middle East needs water, not war; tractors, not tanks; bread, not bombs. There is already little enough available in the way of financial and physical resources for either side to be devoting its energies to huge defense budgets. The present state of tensions serves only the worst interests of Arab and Israeli alike. But a new spirit of comity could well serve the highest ideals of both.

For the original Zionist philosophy has always maintained that the people of Israel would use their national genius not for selfish purposes but for the enrichment and glory of the entire Middle East. The earliest leaders of the Zionist movement spoke of a Jewish state which would have no military power and which would be content with victories of the spirit.

The compulsions of a harsh and inescapable necessity have compelled Israel to abandon this hope. But I cannot believe that Israel has any real desire to remain indefinitely a garrison state surrounded by fear and hate. And I cannot believe that the Arab world would not find a better basis for unity in a united attack on all their accumulated social problems - an attack in which they could benefit immensely from a closer cooperation with the people of Israel.

The technical skills and genius of Israel have already brought their blessings to Burma and to Ethiopia. Still other nations in Asia and in Africa are eager to benefit from the special skills available in that bustling land. Why should the Middle East alone be cut off from this partnership? And why should not the people of Israel receive the blessings available to them from association with the Arab world?

When we think of the possibilities of this association, an emotion of soaring hope replaces our somber anxieties about the Middle East. Ancient rivers would give their power to new industries. The desert would yield to civilization. Disease would be eradicated, especially the disease that strikes down helpless children. The blight of poverty would be replaced by the blessings of abundance.

But it is a long and painful step from the era of the boycott to the era of partnership - and that step needs the direct encouragement and help of the White House. The next President of the United States should always be personally available to stimulate every experiment in cooperation, from the joint development of a river, to a reconsideration of the Arab refugee problem, to the crowning mercy of the final reconciliation that can be brought only by a true peace settlement.

Peace is our primary objective in the Middle East - and peace is partly our responsibility. "Seek peace, and pursue it" commands the psalmist. And that we must do. With open minds, open hearts, and the priceless asset of our American heritage, we shall seek peace in the Middle East, as elsewhere. And when history writes its verdict, let it be said that we pursued the peace with all the courage, all the strength, and all the resourcefulness at our command.

In this task, I ask for your assistance, your patience, your wisdom, and your support - until we can say to Jew and Arab alike "Peace be within thy walls and plenteousness within thy palaces. For my brethren and companions' sake, I will wish thee prosperity."

John F. Kennedy, Speech by Senator John F. Kennedy, Zionists of America Convention, Statler Hilton Hotel, New York, NY Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/274630

[Douglas Caddy]

 

 

[Douglas Caddy]

 

How the Israelis Hoodwinked JFK on Going Nuclear – Foreign Policy

[Benjamin Cole]

8 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

 

How the Israelis Hoodwinked JFK on Going Nuclear – Foreign Policy

Yes, Israelis got the bomb. 

And despite being seriously warred upon twice---1967 and 1973---Israel did not use the bomb. These were wars that placed existential threats to Israel's survival. They still beat the snot out of Egypt, Jordan and Syria. 

JFK was an ardent admirer of Israel, and had he lived to see those two wars, I think his admiration would have increased. Remember, JFK was no armchair general---he had actually been in battle, and in losing situations. He would have known Israeli victories were hard-won, the result of bravery and dexterity against larger opponents. 

From desert hardscrabble, Israel then built a first world nation---in a region of failed states, despots, delusional theocracies and downward trajectories, where religious and lifestyle intolerance is the norm. You will not find transexuals in Gaza, except perhaps at the base of taller buildings from which they have been thrown off. 

Even in 1960, JFK was expressing his admiration for Israeli industriousness and results. 

 

 

 

[Michael Griffith]

23 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

 

How the Israelis Hoodwinked JFK on Going Nuclear – Foreign Policy

JFK should have helped Israel get the bomb, instead of trying to prevent her from doing so. He was simply wrong on this issue. If any nation on Earth had the right to have the bomb, it was Israel. Everyone understood why France adamantly insisted on having the bomb. It should have been obvious why Israel wanted and needed the bomb.

By the time JFK took office, Israel had already been attacked once by her neighbors in 1948, and eight years later, starting in 1956, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran and the Suez Canal to Israeli shipping and blockaded the Gulf of Aqaba. Only after Israel, with French and British backing, sent forces into the Sinai Peninsula and captured the Gaza Strip and the Sinai did Egypt agree to freedom of navigation and to the demilitarization of the Sinai.

Given these events and the virulent anti-Israeli/anti-Semitic propaganda continually coming from Egypt, Syria, and Iraq through the 1950s and 1960s, Israel had every rational and moral right to arm herself with nukes. 

Although JFK disagreed with Israel's desire for the bomb, he agreed to sell Israel the Hawk missile system, whereas Truman and Ike had refused to sell Israel such advanced missile weaponry.

Edited January 3 by Michael Griffith

[W. Niederhut]

People who haven't studied history in any depth often misinterpret actual Presidential policies on the basis of speeches made during political campaigns.   

That is, certainly, true of Ben Cole's lead post on this thread-- about a campaign speech that John F. Kenedy made during his 1960 Presidential campaign.

To properly understand JFK's policy positions on Israel and the Palestinians, Ben should carefully study the history essays of James DiEugenio and Rick Sterling on the subject of JFK and Israel (in our two recent JFK and Gaza threads.)

Perhaps the most well known example of the Presidential misinterpretation phenomenon is the misperception of Abraham Lincoln's longstanding, private opposition to slavery-- which he was careful to disguise for years, out of fear of antagonizing slave owners in the Border States, and bigots in the North.

Abolitionists, including James Garfield, were angry at Lincoln for dragging his feet on implementation of the Abolitionist agenda-- but Lincoln was deliberately cautious, because he didn't want to sabotage the Union war effort, at home and "abroad" (i.e., in the CSA.)

Columbia University historian Eric Foner published the definitive, accurate history of Lincoln's private opposition to slavery, and his cautious, step-wise approach to ending slavery in his book, The Fiery Trial.

Amazon.com : the fiery trial abraham lincoln and american slavery

 

Another example of the Presidential misinterpretation phenomenon is the longstanding misinterpretation of JFK's Vietnam policy.  JFK was concerned in 1963 about alienating Cold War anti-communists, prior to the 1964 election, by advertising his policy goal of disengaging from Vietnam's anti-colonial war with the CIA.

So, for years, people have misinterpreted JFK's true policy position on getting out of Vietnam on the basis of his public political discretion.

Yet another famous example is President Woodrow Wilson history of successfully campaigning in 1916 with the slogan, "He Kept Us Out of the War," only to abruptly declare war on Germany in January of 1917.

Edited January 3 by W. Niederhut

[Douglas Caddy]

 

This article is relevant to the topic here. If JFK were president today, how would he react to the genocide by Israel being inflicted upon the Gazans? Would he, like President Biden, eagerly send vast armaments to Israel without authorization by Congress, including 2000-pound dumb bombs, to be used upon Gazan civilians, especially upon the hospitals, schools and refugee camps that contain women and children?

Israeli public figures accuse judiciary of ignoring incitement to genocide in Gaza | Israel | The Guardian

[Benjamin Cole]

4 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

 

This article is relevant to the topic here. If JFK were president today, how would he react to the genocide by Israel being inflicted upon the Gazans? Would he, like President Biden, eagerly send vast armaments to Israel without authorization by Congress, including 2000-pound dumb bombs, to be used upon Gazan civilians, especially upon the hospitals, schools and refugee camps that contain women and children?

Israeli public figures accuse judiciary of ignoring incitement to genocide in Gaza | Israel | The Guardian

Israel is not perpetrating a genocide.

Hamas is using its civilians as human shields. Israel has shown over and over again, and then again, tunnels leading to hospitals, mosques, schools, apartment buildings. 

If Israel wanted to commit a genocide, you would see hundreds of thousands dead. They would not leaflet and tell residents to leave war zones before going in---a humane strategy that costs IDF soldiers their lives. 

A genocide is the Tokyo fire bombing of WWII, or the nuke-jobs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, or what he Nazis did, or the Japanese in Nanjing. 

You are entirely deluded, your commentary worthless.  But go to Gaza and you can see for yourself. Advice:  Do not accept any invites to see Gaza from the top of a building.  

 

 

[Douglas Caddy]

29 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Israel is not perpetrating a genocide.

Hamas is using its civilians as human shields. Israel has shown over and over again, and then again, tunnels leading to hospitals, mosques, schools, apartment buildings. 

If Israel wanted to commit a genocide, you would see hundreds of thousands dead. They would not leaflet and tell residents to leave war zones before going in---a humane strategy that costs IDF soldiers their lives. 

A genocide is the Tokyo fire bombing of WWII, or the nuke-jobs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, or what he Nazis did, or the Japanese in Nanjing. 

You are entirely deluded, your commentary worthless.  But go to Gaza and you can see for yourself. Advice:  Do not accept any invites to see Gaza from the top of a building.  

 

 

Rather than go to Gaza, I plan to await the decision of the International Court of Justice on the charge that Israel is committing war crimes, including inflicting mass genocide in Gaza.

South Africa launches case at UN court accusing Israel of genocide | Israel-Gaza war | The Guardian

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

Rather than go to Gaza, I plan to await the decision of the International Court of Justice on the charge that Israel is committing war crimes, including inflicting mass genocide in Gaza.

South Africa launches case at UN court accusing Israel of genocide | Israel-Gaza war | The Guardian

I will provide you with a one-way ticket to Gaza.

Sadly, you will not need the return ticket, so I will contribute that portion to charity. 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

[Douglas Caddy]

Excerpts from a long article in the Wall Street Journal of January 2, 2024, front page:

                                                                  GAZA DESTRUCTION STANDS OUT IN MODERN HISTORY

     The war in the Gaza strip is generating destruction comparable in scale to the most devastating urban warfare in the modern record.

     By mid-December Israel had dropped 29,000 bombs, munitions and shells on the strip. Nearly 70% of Gaza's 439,000 homes and about half of its buildings have been damaged or destroyed. The bombing has damaged Byzantine churches and ancient mosques, factories, and apartment buildings, shopping malls and luxury hotels, theaters and schools. Much of the water, electrical, communications and healthcare infrastructure that made Gaza function is beyond repair.

     Most of the strip's 36 hospitals are shut down, and only eight are accepting patients. Citrus trees, olive groves and greenhouses have been obliterated. More than two-thirds of its schools are damaged......

     The destruction resembles that left by Allied bombing of German cities in World War II. 'The word "Gaza" is going down to go down in history along with Dresden and other famous cities that have been bombed,' said Robert Pape, a political scientist at the University of Chicago and author of a history of aerial bombing. 'What you're seeing in Gaza is the top 25% of most intense punishment in history.'"

 

[Douglas Caddy]

International Court of Justice to hold hearing January 11, 2024

ICJ to Hold First Hearings Against Israel Over Genocide - Palestine Chronicle

[W. Niederhut]

13 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I will provide you with a one-way ticket to Gaza.

Sadly, you will not need the return ticket, so I will contribute that portion to charity. 

 

Ben,

     Perhaps the Education Forum could hold a fund raiser to buy you a one-way ticket to Gaza.

     It would be an opportunity for you to report back to us about your Murdoch-media-based theory that Netanyahu is not guilty of genocide-- i.e., indiscriminate cluster bombing of a civilian population.

      If you go, watch out for white phosphorous, wear a red MAGA hat, and wave a white flag, so the IDF won't mistake you for Hamas, or a human shield.

      Waving a white flag might improve your chances of survival by 1 or 2%.

Edited January 4 by W. Niederhut

[Kirk Gallaway]

On 1/1/2024 at 4:46 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

 

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/speech-senator-john-f-kennedy-zionists-america-convention-statler-hilton-hotel-new-york-ny

Insightful, intelligent speech from a historian and thinker. 

Speech by Senator John F. Kennedy, Zionists of America Convention, Statler Hilton Hotel, New York, NY

August 26, 1960

Prophecy is a Jewish tradition, and the World Zionist movement, in which all of you have played so important a role, has continued this tradition. It has turned the dreams of its leaders into acts of statesmanship. It has converted the hopes of the Jewish people into concrete facts of life.

When the first Zionist conference met in 1897, Palestine was a neglected wasteland. A few scattered Jewish colonies had resettled there, but they had come to die in the Holy Land, rather than to make it live again in greatness. Most of the governments of the world were indifferent.

But now all is changed. Israel became a triumphant and enduring reality exactly 50 years after Theodore Herzl, the prophet of Zionism, had proclaimed the ideal of nationhood. It was the classic case of an ancient dream finding a young leader, for Herzl was then only 37 years of age. Perhaps I may be allowed the observation that the Jewish people - ever since David slew Goliath - have never considered youth as a barrier to leadership, or measured experience and maturity by mere length of days.

I first saw Palestine in 1939. There the neglect and ruin left by centuries of Ottoman misrule were slowly being transformed by miracles of labor and sacrifice. But Palestine was still a land of promise in 1939, rather than a land of fulfillment. I returned in 1951 to see the grandeur of Israel. In 3 years this new state had opened its doors to 600,000 immigrants and refugees. Even while fighting for its own survival, Israel had given new hope to the persecuted and new dignity to the pattern of Jewish life. I left with the conviction that the United Nations may have conferred on Israel the credentials of nationhood; but its own idealism and courage, its own sacrifice and generosity, had earned the credentials of immortality.

Some do not agree. Three weeks ago I said in a public statement: "Israel is here to stay." The next day I was attacked by Cairo radio, rebuking me for my faith in Israel, and quoting this criticism from the Arabic newspaper Al-Gomhouria:

As for the question of the existence and the nonexistence of Israel, Mr. Kennedy says that Israel has been created in order to exist. Time will judge between us, Mr. Kennedy.

I agree. Time will judge whether Israel will continue to exist. But I wish I could be as sure of all my prophecies as I am of my flat prediction that Israel is here to stay.

For Israel was not created in order to disappear - Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and the home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom; and no area of the world has ever had an overabundance of democracy and freedom.

It is worth remembering, too, that Israel is a cause that stands beyond the ordinary changes and chances of American public life. In our pluralistic society, it has not been a Jewish cause - any more than Irish independence was solely the concern of Americans of Irish descent. The ideals of Zionism have, in the last half century, been repeatedly endorsed by Presidents and Members of Congress from both parties. Friendship for Israel is not a partisan matter. It is a national commitment.

Yet within this tradition of friendship there is a special obligation on the Democratic Party. It was President Woodrow Wilson who forecast with prophetic wisdom the creation of a Jewish homeland. It was President Franklin Roosevelt who kept alive the hopes of Jewish redemption during the Nazi terror. It was President Harry Truman who first recognized the new State of Israel and gave it status in world affairs. And may I add that it would be my hope and my pledge to continue this Democratic tradition - and to be worthy of it.

What is needed now is leadership - impartial but firm, deliberate but bold - leadership instead of rhetoric. There has been enough rhetoric in recent years about free transit through the Suez Canal - but there has been no leadership. Our policy in Washington and in the United Nations has permitted defiance of our pledge with impunity - indeed, with economic reward.

If America's word in the world community is to have meaning - if the mutual security amendment which I cosponsored with Senator Douglas is to have meaning - and if the clear, thoughtful language of the Democratic platform is to have meaning - the influence of this Nation and other maritime powers must be brought to bear on a just solution that removes all discrimination at the Suez Canal for all times. And the White House must take the lead.

We have also had much rhetoric in recent years about opposing an arms race and a solution by force in the Middle East. The rhetoric has not only been empty and negative. Even more fundamental is the premise that if the United States and the United Nations are to reject a solution based on force, then they must accept the task of finding a solution based on reason and justice.

We can no longer shun this task by pleading that the problem is too difficult. The danger is already acute from delay. Russia's position is more entrenched. The Arab States are more divided and restless. The influence of the Western nations has steadily diminished.

When I talked with Prime Minister Ben-Gurion on his most recent visit to this country, he told me of dangerous signs of unrest beneath the deceptive quiet that has fallen over the Middle East. For there is no peace in that region today - only an embittered truce between renewed alarms.

American intervention, on the other hand, will not now be easy for the record is not one to which we can point with pride:

The humble plea by the George Allen mission to Cairo, to urge Egyptian reconsideration of their acceptance of Soviet arms;

The series of incredible American blunders which led to the Suez crisis of 1956, events in which the role of our Government has never been fully explained;

The so-called Eisenhower doctrine, now repudiated by some of the very nations which accepted our aid, and the cause even at that time of widespread antagonism from Middle Eastern leaders who felt we were cynically trying to use them for our own cold war ends;

And, in general, a deterioration in our relations with all Middle Eastern nations, primarily because neither Israel nor the Arabs knew exactly what to expect from us. At times it must have appeared to many in the area that the shortest route to Washington was through Moscow. At times it must have appeared that champions of democracy and freedom were being punished for their virtues, by being taken for granted by a neglectful administration that suddenly showed concern only when it was displeased by their conduct.

Peace in the Middle East is not one step nearer reality today than it was 8 years ago - but Russian influence is immeasurably greater.

What can a new President do? More weakness and timidity will not do. More stubborn errors redeemed at the last moment by impulsive action - will not do.

Now we must take the risk of leadership, and use our influence to compose this ugly situation before it breaks out in a new threat to peace. And I know we will not be alone in searching for a peaceful settlement - if our aims are high, and if they are centered solely on the genuine needs of the Middle East, and on an honorable end to these ancient quarrels.

First: I propose that the new President reaffirm our sincere friendship for all the peoples of the Middle East, whatever their religion or race or politics.

Second: I propose that we make it crystal clear that the United States means what it said in the tripartite declaration of 1950 - that we will act promptly and decisively against any nation in the Middle East which attacks its neighbor. I propose that we make clear to both Israel and the Arab States our guarantee that we will act with whatever force and speed are necessary to halt any aggression by any nation. And to complete the effectiveness of this guarantee, I propose that we invite all like-minded nations to join with us in signing, registering, and depositing this declaration with the United Nations.

At present the tripartite declaration is too uncertain of execution and effect to be a useful shield for peace. With countries so close to one another in a sensitive tension-ridden area, a delay of only a few days in international reaction to aggression might well be fatal to a nation's freedom and indeed the peace of the entire world. Once the nations of the Middle East have a firm and precise guarantee, the need for continuing the arms race will disappear, the easing of tensions inevitably will follow, and both sides will be able to devote their energies and talents to peaceful pursuits.

Third: I propose that all the authority and prestige of the White House be used to call into conference the leaders of Israel and the Arab States to consider privately their common problems, assuring them that we support in full their aspirations for peace, unity, independence, and a better life - and that we are prepared to back up this moral support with economic and technical assistance.

The offer would be made with equal frankness to both sides; and all the world would be watching the response of each side. I sincerely believe that an American presidential initiative for peace, honestly intended and resolutely pursued, would not be lightly rejected by either side. And I promise to waste no time in taking this initiative.

For I have always believed that there is no real conflict or contradiction between the genuine aspirations of the Arab nations and the genuine aspirations of Israel. The Arab peoples rose to freedom and independence in the very years which saw the rise of Israel. From the cooperation of these two awakened nationalisms could come a new golden age for the Middle East. But from their destructive vendetta can come nothing but misery and poverty and the risk of war.

The Middle East needs water, not war; tractors, not tanks; bread, not bombs. There is already little enough available in the way of financial and physical resources for either side to be devoting its energies to huge defense budgets. The present state of tensions serves only the worst interests of Arab and Israeli alike. But a new spirit of comity could well serve the highest ideals of both.

For the original Zionist philosophy has always maintained that the people of Israel would use their national genius not for selfish purposes but for the enrichment and glory of the entire Middle East. The earliest leaders of the Zionist movement spoke of a Jewish state which would have no military power and which would be content with victories of the spirit.

The compulsions of a harsh and inescapable necessity have compelled Israel to abandon this hope. But I cannot believe that Israel has any real desire to remain indefinitely a garrison state surrounded by fear and hate. And I cannot believe that the Arab world would not find a better basis for unity in a united attack on all their accumulated social problems - an attack in which they could benefit immensely from a closer cooperation with the people of Israel.

The technical skills and genius of Israel have already brought their blessings to Burma and to Ethiopia. Still other nations in Asia and in Africa are eager to benefit from the special skills available in that bustling land. Why should the Middle East alone be cut off from this partnership? And why should not the people of Israel receive the blessings available to them from association with the Arab world?

When we think of the possibilities of this association, an emotion of soaring hope replaces our somber anxieties about the Middle East. Ancient rivers would give their power to new industries. The desert would yield to civilization. Disease would be eradicated, especially the disease that strikes down helpless children. The blight of poverty would be replaced by the blessings of abundance.

But it is a long and painful step from the era of the boycott to the era of partnership - and that step needs the direct encouragement and help of the White House. The next President of the United States should always be personally available to stimulate every experiment in cooperation, from the joint development of a river, to a reconsideration of the Arab refugee problem, to the crowning mercy of the final reconciliation that can be brought only by a true peace settlement.

Peace is our primary objective in the Middle East - and peace is partly our responsibility. "Seek peace, and pursue it" commands the psalmist. And that we must do. With open minds, open hearts, and the priceless asset of our American heritage, we shall seek peace in the Middle East, as elsewhere. And when history writes its verdict, let it be said that we pursued the peace with all the courage, all the strength, and all the resourcefulness at our command.

In this task, I ask for your assistance, your patience, your wisdom, and your support - until we can say to Jew and Arab alike "Peace be within thy walls and plenteousness within thy palaces. For my brethren and companions' sake, I will wish thee prosperity."

John F. Kennedy, Speech by Senator John F. Kennedy, Zionists of America Convention, Statler Hilton Hotel, New York, NY Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/274630

I remember when Ben first came here, he was endlessly preaching to us about the dangers of the MIC, and the necessity to cut their budget.  Like we' weren't sufficiently vigilant! I told him he was preaching to the choir. Now with 2 wars in the last 2 years, I see Ben has never met a war he didn't like. How could any funding be cut when he dived headlong into U.S. involvement in both Ukraine and Israel?

******

Interesting hearing  Ben and Michael's slant. i don't think Ben's take on this is as improbable as people may think. It's this age old practice here of projecting our own idealism on  JFK. The middle of the road forum response is JFK was a great fighter for peace who would have ended the Cold War. But JFK's popularity in the U.S. at the time of his death was very macho. It was because he stood down the Russians. in the CMC, and people were relieved  that it looked like the worst of their near 20 year Cold War fears were over. With the 2 major superpowers , people were feeling more secure, but that doesn't automatically transfer to smaller fires going on throughout the world.

RK's super hawkishness about  Israel is not that great an aberration. What do we have to go on historically with JFK? In the Middle East intramurals JFK  ended up betraying Nasser and siding with the Saud monarchs on the War in Yemen. So that tells you when push comes to shove, despite all his rhetoric and good intentions, he's siding with the status quo, stability and order. And politically American Jews were much more wedded to the Democratic Party in the 60's, than they are now. And there was much less  U.S. Arab population, and their influence was nothing to speak of, compared to today. There were almost no Arab elected politicians. .

I see JFK as a politician first. If he was around now, he'd face the same Congress Biden is, who are super gung ho Israel!

I think most people here would be disappointed.  That's because JFK knows, all the idealism in the world doesn't mean anything if you don't get re elected. Remember?