29-06-2012, 06:00 AM
Why is there such strong aversion to the very mention of Israeli involvement in the JFK assassination? Can we really deny that even in 1963 there was a tremendous vested interest on the part of the American elite to maintain and support a strong Israel? Certainly, JFK's opposition to the Israeli nuclear program wouldn't have been the primary impetus behind his assassination, but it could have been one of many contributing factors.
Piper has never been welcomed by any notable figure in the research community, to my knowledge. Again, I think many fear the "anti-semitic" canard. When assessing "false sponsors" vs. actual potential suspects, we ought to look at cui bono- who benefited? There is no question that Israel's influence over American foreign policy grew stronger with the death of JFK.
Cuba, on the other hand, has always been a "false sponsor" in my eyes. After JFK's death, Cuba effectively died as an American political issue. If the goal was to remove someone *(JFK) who was insuficiently anti-Castro, then why was there never another Bay of Pigs-like program? Why no further attempts to kill Castro? Even Nixon paid virtually no attention to Cuba as President.
The Viet Nam situation obviously changed with the assassination. The CIA and Mafia no longer felt threatened. However, General Walker and other right wing extremists had to be disappointed, since LBJ pushed through all of JFK's social legislation, which they violently opposed. Again, cui bono? Not the far right. Not anti-Castro Cubans. Those who wanted war, in Viet Nam and elsewhere, definitely benefited from JFK's death. And Israel's relationship with the U.S. government grew far more cozy. That doesn't mean they sponsored the assassination; I don't believe they had the power to do so, even if they wanted to. However, it's naive to dismiss them so cavalierly.
Piper has never been welcomed by any notable figure in the research community, to my knowledge. Again, I think many fear the "anti-semitic" canard. When assessing "false sponsors" vs. actual potential suspects, we ought to look at cui bono- who benefited? There is no question that Israel's influence over American foreign policy grew stronger with the death of JFK.
Cuba, on the other hand, has always been a "false sponsor" in my eyes. After JFK's death, Cuba effectively died as an American political issue. If the goal was to remove someone *(JFK) who was insuficiently anti-Castro, then why was there never another Bay of Pigs-like program? Why no further attempts to kill Castro? Even Nixon paid virtually no attention to Cuba as President.
The Viet Nam situation obviously changed with the assassination. The CIA and Mafia no longer felt threatened. However, General Walker and other right wing extremists had to be disappointed, since LBJ pushed through all of JFK's social legislation, which they violently opposed. Again, cui bono? Not the far right. Not anti-Castro Cubans. Those who wanted war, in Viet Nam and elsewhere, definitely benefited from JFK's death. And Israel's relationship with the U.S. government grew far more cozy. That doesn't mean they sponsored the assassination; I don't believe they had the power to do so, even if they wanted to. However, it's naive to dismiss them so cavalierly.