Quote:Ben-Gurion was driven to a nervous breakdown by his negotiations with Kennedy. He resigned office because of it, yet you are trying to suggest this was a product of Hersh's imagination. As is typical of you David, it seems to me like you are trying to hide too much behind that obvious Hersh-association device. You can't defeat this with source defamation. It is obviously well beyond just Hersh alone. Mark has already cited the books referencing this.

Quote:your conclusions, even in your last post, are not supportable by any corroborated evidence....

PLEASE CITE SOURCES...

David Josephs Wrote:Chapter 5 -
By mid-1963 Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurionhated Kennedy with a passion. In fact, he considered JFK a
threat to the very survival ofthe Jewish State.
[FONT=Times New Roman]

Quote:Were there Israeli's and Jews and CIA and,and and intermixed with a common purpose... yes Albert, that is not hard to see.

Albert Doyle Wrote:

Quote:your conclusions, even in your last post, are not supportable by any corroborated evidence....

PLEASE CITE SOURCES...

Exactly what Von Pein would say David. You're ruminating against the obvious again and trying to force it into your contrived strawman nut shells. If I'm not mistaken you are denying that Ben-Gurion had a showdown with JFK through those letters. That destroys your credibility because it's acknowledged fact. Otherwise they wouldn't classify the letters (another point you never seem to get around to in your filibusters)


The sources were already cited. They are also in Piper's footnotes if you bothered to check.

Quote:Using the Jewish Virtual Library on this matter is like using McAdams on the Kennedy Assassination.

Mark Stapleton Wrote:David, the ignorance of that comment shows how little you know about the final years of Ben-Gurion's Prime Ministership.

BG's obsession with protecting and preserving the nuclear deterrent is not just emphasised in Piper's book but also in Cohen's "Israel and the Bomb" and Michael Bar-Zohar's biography of Ben-Gurion, to name just two. The old man was so upset by Kennedy's determination to prevent Israel's acquisition of nuclear weapons that some Cabinet colleagues thought he was losing his mind.

And yes, Israel has played the existential threat card on other occasions (like now with Iran for example), but the point you ignore is that in mid-1963 Kennedy wasn't buying it. That's the point. He couldn't get through to Kennedy no matter how hard he appealed, no matter how many times he invoked the (relatively fresh) memory of the Holocaust.

Kennedy's harsh letter of May 18 causes the most consternation. BG responds with a letter on May 27, which basically stalls for more time. On June 5, after a meeting in El Paso, it is announced that JFK will visit Texas in November. On June 15 Ben-Gurion resigns. He never corresponds with Kennedy again.

Quote:Piper writes yet provides no support for:

"In Israelin 1963David Ben-Gurion certainly looked upon John F.
Kennedy as a modern-day Haman, a son of the Amalekites. As he pondered
the brutal conflict with JFK, Ben-Gurion no doubt remembered the
meditation that is read on Purim:"

Albert Doyle Wrote:

Mark Stapleton Wrote:David, the ignorance of that comment shows how little you know about the final years of Ben-Gurion's Prime Ministership.

BG's obsession with protecting and preserving the nuclear deterrent is not just emphasised in Piper's book but also in Cohen's "Israel and the Bomb" and Michael Bar-Zohar's biography of Ben-Gurion, to name just two. The old man was so upset by Kennedy's determination to prevent Israel's acquisition of nuclear weapons that some Cabinet colleagues thought he was losing his mind.

And yes, Israel has played the existential threat card on other occasions (like now with Iran for example), but the point you ignore is that in mid-1963 Kennedy wasn't buying it. That's the point. He couldn't get through to Kennedy no matter how hard he appealed, no matter how many times he invoked the (relatively fresh) memory of the Holocaust.

Kennedy's harsh letter of May 18 causes the most consternation. BG responds with a letter on May 27, which basically stalls for more time. On June 5, after a meeting in El Paso, it is announced that JFK will visit Texas in November. On June 15 Ben-Gurion resigns. He never corresponds with Kennedy again.

And there's more books than the two listed above. Why deny this commonly-known history, David, with source contrivances?

Except Israel had already begun the project with France... JFK was not stopping anything... he was attempting to keep peace in an area NOT dominated by Israeli's
You cant say that Arabs didn't deserve to live peacefully either... Israel exists in a bigger picture Albert... it was not about JFK not BUYING it, it was some Israelis believing their own agenda superceded world peace and the desires of the HAND THAT FEEDS THEM, the USA.

So let's look at this HARSH letter: would you please HIGHLIGHT what within this letter you find most "harsh" and cause for "consternation"
which in turn would give rise to the assasination of the man at the behest of the harsly treated Ben-Gurion?

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/FRUS5_18_63.html

Verbatim text. You should deliver following letter from President to Prime Minister Ben-Gurion:

"Dear Mr. Prime Minister:

"I welcome your letter of May 12 and am giving it careful
study.

"Meanwhile, I have received from Ambassador Barbour a report of
his conversation with you on May 14 regarding the arrangements for visiting the
Dimona reactor. I should like to add some personal comments on that subject.

"I am sure you will agree that there is no more urgent business
for the whole world than the control of nuclear weapons. We both recognized this
when we talked together two years ago, and I emphasized it again when I met with
Mrs. Meir just after Christmas. The dangers in the proliferation of national
nuclear weapons systems are so obvious that I am sure I need not repeat them
here.

"It is because of our preoccupation with this problem that my
Government has sought to arrange with you for periodic visits to Dimona. When we
spoke together in May 1961 you said that we might make whatever use we wished of
the information resulting from the first visit of American scientists to Dimona
and that you would agree to further visits by neutrals as well. I had assumed
from Mrs. Meir's comment that there would be no problem between us on this.

"We are concerned with the disturbing effects on world
stability which would accompany the development of a nuclear weapons capability
by Israel. I cannot imagine that the Arabs would refrain from turning to the
Soviet Union for assistance if Israel were to develop a nuclear weapons
capability--with all the consequences this would hold. But the problem is much
larger than its impact on the Middle East. Development of a nuclear weapons
capability by Israel would almost certainly lead other larger countries, that
have so far refrained from such development, to feel that they must follow
suit.

"As I made clear in my press conference of May 8, we have a
deep commitment to the security of Israel. In addition this country supports
Israel in a wide variety of other ways which are well known to both of us.
[4-1/2 lines of source text not declassified]

"I can well appreciate your concern for developments in the
UAR. But I see no present or imminent nuclear threat to Israel from there. I am
assured that our intelligence on this question is good and that the Egyptians do
not presently have any installation comparable to Dimona, nor any facilities
potentially capable of nuclear weapons production. But, of course, if you have
information that would support a contrary conclusion, I should like to receive
it from you through Ambassador Barbour. We have the capacity to check it.

"I trust this message will convey the sense of urgency and the
perspective in which I view your Government's early assent to the proposal first
put to you by Ambassador Barbour on April 2.

"Sincerely,

"John F. Kennedy"

Rusk

Quote:Piper writes yet provides no support for:

"In Israelin 1963David Ben-Gurion certainly looked upon John F.
Kennedy as a modern-day Haman, a son of the Amalekites. As he pondered
the brutal conflict with JFK, Ben-Gurion no doubt remembered the
meditation that is read on Purim:"

That's a strawman David (even worse Ben-Gurion did see Kennedy that way as is evidenced by his inferring JFK threatened the future of Israel and having nervous breakdown over it that you are in denial of even though it's common knowledge).


Answer the main argument.

Definition of STRAW MAN

Albert Doyle Wrote:I would think that would be in the Ben-Gurion biography David. You write paragraphs worth of filler, David, but they end up being answered by one or two lines. I'm sure the Ben-Gurion biography confirms this. Piper is well footnoted, so I'm sure that's where he got it. Surely you're not trying to deny this is an accurate description of Ben-Gurion's behavior at the time?




Now let's run over your position once again. You are contending that although this is already well-established in history and in books like those Mark and Piper list, you are saying this didn't occur and was the result of exaggerated accounts? What you are saying is even though there is plenty of evidence Ben-Gurion and JFK were at serious loggerheads over the nuclear issue and Ben-Gurion was witnessed as having a mental breakdown over it, that this is completely unrelated and coincidence and the product of wishful thinking on Hersh's and Piper's behalf? Even though you have no counter explanation for what caused this or why the letters were classified? Hmm.

Also, you are saying that although the persons of deep enough power in America to get involved with the CIA/Cuban nexus could not be unrelated to the assassination cabal that this had nothing to do with anything and the "new jew backers" were altruistically doing a favor for only the Cubans - even though they had major issues that were all directly satisfied by JFK's assassination and proven by Israel's gains following it?

I just want to get your position clear because I'm honestly seeking the truth here..


Oh yeah, I forgot. Also, even though you are admitting involvement that has gotten others excoriated and vilified you are not doing so, while doing so, while saying you are trying to disprove it. You're admitting Israel was involved just like many other interests but wasn't involved?


I'm just trying to clarify your position.


.

David Josephs Wrote:So let's look at this HARSH letter: would you please HIGHLIGHT what within this letter you find most "harsh" and cause for "consternation"
which in turn would give rise to the assasination of the man at the behest of the harsly treated Ben-Gurion?

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/FRUS5_18_63.html

Verbatim text. You should deliver following letter from President to Prime Minister Ben-Gurion:

"Dear Mr. Prime Minister:

"I welcome your letter of May 12 and am giving it careful
study.

"Meanwhile, I have received from Ambassador Barbour a report of
his conversation with you on May 14 regarding the arrangements for visiting the
Dimona reactor. I should like to add some personal comments on that subject.

"I am sure you will agree that there is no more urgent business
for the whole world than the control of nuclear weapons. We both recognized this
when we talked together two years ago, and I emphasized it again when I met with
Mrs. Meir just after Christmas. The dangers in the proliferation of national
nuclear weapons systems are so obvious that I am sure I need not repeat them
here.

"It is because of our preoccupation with this problem that my
Government has sought to arrange with you for periodic visits to Dimona. When we
spoke together in May 1961 you said that we might make whatever use we wished of
the information resulting from the first visit of American scientists to Dimona
and that you would agree to further visits by neutrals as well. I had assumed
from Mrs. Meir's comment that there would be no problem between us on this.

"We are concerned with the disturbing effects on world
stability which would accompany the development of a nuclear weapons capability
by Israel. I cannot imagine that the Arabs would refrain from turning to the
Soviet Union for assistance if Israel were to develop a nuclear weapons
capability--with all the consequences this would hold. But the problem is much
larger than its impact on the Middle East. Development of a nuclear weapons
capability by Israel would almost certainly lead other larger countries, that
have so far refrained from such development, to feel that they must follow
suit.

"As I made clear in my press conference of May 8, we have a
deep commitment to the security of Israel. In addition this country supports
Israel in a wide variety of other ways which are well known to both of us.
[4-1/2 lines of source text not declassified]

"I can well appreciate your concern for developments in the
UAR. But I see no present or imminent nuclear threat to Israel from there. I am
assured that our intelligence on this question is good and that the Egyptians do
not presently have any installation comparable to Dimona, nor any facilities
potentially capable of nuclear weapons production. But, of course, if you have
information that would support a contrary conclusion, I should like to receive
it from you through Ambassador Barbour. We have the capacity to check it.

"I trust this message will convey the sense of urgency and the
perspective in which I view your Government's early assent to the proposal first
put to you by Ambassador Barbour on April 2.

"Sincerely,

"John F. Kennedy"

Rusk