Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Don Jeffries]

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.

[Mark Stapleton]

Well, it holds as much water as LHO being the lone nut who just decided to go to work that day with his rifle because he wanted to be famous. A perfectly good scenario can be made to fit this theory too. But it is all supposition and no more based in reality than yours. The lone nut theory is disproved and so is the Israeli theory. Nothing to either of them.

What garbage. The Israeli theory has never been disproved. Just ridiculed.

[Magda Hassan]

Israel was a pissant country with a rag tag military surrounded by angry disorganised Arabs. Kennedy's concern was to limit the influence of the Soviets in the region and keep Israel there for western interests. Ultimately he was on Israel's side regardless. No need to kill friends and make un-necessary difficulties for yourself.

That's the point. As far as Ben-Gurion and his inner circle were concerned, preventing Israel from acquiring the nuclear deterrent was not the act of a friend. By the time he resigned in June 1963, Ben-Gurion didn't consider JFK a friend of Israel. He refused to read JFK's final letter to him which arrived the day he resigned.

LBJ was their friend. He showed it during the Suez crisis and he would reinforce it again when Israel attacked the USS Liberty.

And though you describe Israel as a pissant country, they still had very powerful friends and sympathisers in the US, media owners and business leaders included. They didn't like Kennedy either.

Kennedy couldn't prevent them from doing any thing. Didn't matter what he wanted. They had everything they needed. They were not dependent on the US for any of their nuclear material. They had everything from the UK, France and Norway and through their own ingenuity, beg borrow or steal, and the black market. Plus they already had the know how. Who cares who was Ben Gurion's favorite President. The US could not and did not stop Israel getting the bomb because Israel already had it and the means and material and the US was going to stand by Israel regardless. They were never going to let them be run over by the neighbouring Arab states. Because that was not in the US interests.

The Cubans wanted their Texan in the White house too. And they had good friends in the US too. They didn't kill Kennedy either even though his removal benefited them and they had a better ride with LBJ than Kennedy too and a huge influence in the US congress too.

[Magda Hassan]

Well, it holds as much water as LHO being the lone nut who just decided to go to work that day with his rifle because he wanted to be famous. A perfectly good scenario can be made to fit this theory too. But it is all supposition and no more based in reality than yours. The lone nut theory is disproved and so is the Israeli theory. Nothing to either of them.

What garbage. The Israeli theory has never been disproved. Just ridiculed.

Yes, the LN theory is garbage too. You yourself have said it is all just supposition. There is little to show for it. Other theories have far stronger legs to stand on than this one. Outside the lone nut theory it is one of the weakest theories around so I suppose that is enough for some to ridicule it but it is not your baby Mark. Why are you so wedded to it? It's like it is personal with you. Why not go for some thing stronger with more substance to it? Why aren't you looking at other theories?

[Magda Hassan]

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.

I don't think any one has 'such an aversion to the very mention' of it Don. As you can see the thread is quite long. it is being mentioned and mentioned and mentioned. Ad nauseum. The point is, does Israel stand up to scrutiny as a viable sponsor of the assassination? No. They had their nuclear material and there was nothing Kennedy could do. Israel was strategically important for the US (and others) and no one was going to ever leave them to be taken over by the Arabs especially Arabs under the Soviet auspices. Were there Jews involved in the assassination? Yes. Were there Cubans involved in the assassination? Yes. Doesn't mean their respective countries were the sponsors behind the assassination. The sponsors are above nation states. Why didn't Israel kill Vanunu who was a much bigger real threat to Israel than Kennedy could ever hope to be?

[Don Jeffries]

Magda,

Israel imprisoned Vanunnu for nearly 20 years, for nothing more than being a whistleblower. He was in solitary confinement for over a decade. Maybe that was considered a more powerful punishment than death, to both the Israelis and Vanunnu.

[Seamus Coogan]

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.

Don bro so to could have Kennedy's support of Patrice Lumumba. Yet, I don't hear about Mobutu planning a hit on JFK. Eisenhower was pretty staunch with Israel on numerous issues including the nuclear one. Yet, Ike never got deep sixed. The only angle on Dimona I could possibly see is American hawks in the administration adding this issue to a long list of things Kennedy was stalling them on. If this is the case Dimona is but a pin prick. Anyhow as Maggie says the horse had already bolted by the time Kennedy got there.

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.

[B]So what are you suggesting mate? That Israel were the ones pushing, shaping and influencing this relationship? Next your gonna tell me it was the mob who were running CIA ops in Cuba. Now, I know by your conclusion in this post that you make some sense about Israeli involvement, but why even bring this above point up in such a manner? Sure they welcomed the assistance like the mob did, big deal no point making a silk purse out of a pigs ear. Further, I'm not scared of being labelled anti-semitic for calling someone an ass if they are Jewish or whatever. Everybody can be an asshole. Nor do I think established JFK researchers are pussies for not discussing the issue. Like I hope you are not implying here. The fact of the matter is quite simple Don, the evidence is very scant. And if you have not taken the time to read or have noticed the list of problems I linked in a previous thread, concerning Piper and this Israeli's did it stuff, then I really hope you do.[/B]

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.

What the hell lol. Israel an undisclosed possibility and Cuba a red herring!!! There are a number of factors at play here. You obviously don't understand a little thing called Kennedy building up a lot of enemies as a direct result of his bailing out of the Cuban equation. Further ties between the Cubans and Russians though tense and deteriorating, funnily enough by the end of Kennedys life (hence his envoys to Castro) were still militarily close for awhile after his death. The Cubans were and still are very loyal to Castro, hence the idea of an invasion like the Bay of Pigs invariably would mean heavy casualties and bad press. Another factor was the admins becoming distracted by Vietnam. Not to mention choosing softer targets in Latin America like Chile, were their leader got sold out by his own people. Tell me Don about the continued attempts by the likes of Orlando Bosch and his friends on Castro and their murder of numerous Cubans. These were well after JFK's death? Don't tell me that there was no operational tie to the agency, though they deny it. Tell me about the Cuban 5. Why is there still an economic embargo on Cuba? I really could go on. While there maybe some distractions pertaining to Cuba, to say the US isn't interested in those cigar munching commies is extremely naive.

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.

Naivety is the word here. I think its very naive and a tad arrogant to assume people have dismissed the issue of Israel so cavalierly. You will see this in the piece I shall do for CTKA, next year. Which again I really hope you will read. What's apparent from this discussion is not that people have shied away from the Israeli issue. It's clear that there has not yet been a well presented critique of the Israeli's did it disinfo, false sponsor BS for people to view. I likely won't sway the likes of Mark, but for those JFK folk on the margins I hope it will be a wake up call.

[Magda Hassan]

Magda,

Israel imprisoned Vanunnu for nearly 20 years, for nothing more than being a whistleblower. He was in solitary confinement for over a decade. Maybe that was considered a more powerful punishment than death, to both the Israelis and Vanunnu.

Well it wasn't. It was a finite imprisonment and the death penalty applies in Israel but he is out now if not exactly free to leave the country. Plus they could have just assassinated him in a dark alley or pushed him down the stairs before he got to London and saved themselves the trial and all that publicity which they didn't want. Vanunu was a principled man. They would have known this from their psychological profiling of him what sort of stuff he was made of. But Vanunu's expose also threatened billions of dollars of military and other aid which the US would no longer be able to supply to Israel under their laws. Nothing like the amount they were receiving in Kennedy's day even accounting for inflation, NIS etc. The big money never even came until after the 6 day war in 1967 after LBJ was on the way out. But on the same basis why would they assassinate the president of the US who could do nothing to them? Why not ignore him like they have every other country that tells them what to do? It is their modus operandi after all not to give a shit and just do their own thing.

[Phil Dragoo]

The thesis, that Israel assassinated JFK, is not proved.

The assertion, that Israel owns, controls, directs U.S. policy is belied by its exclusion from the recent counterterrorism conference as the series of events in the Arab Spring work against its interest.

Secular regimes are replaced by Islamist ones. Witness the remarks of the General Guide of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood Mohammed Badie on June 14:

"How happy would be the Muslims if all Muslim rulers made the Palestinian cause a pivotal issue, around which Muslims, rulers and the ruled, would line up," he stated. According to Badie, they would ally to make "the sole goal for all of them the recovery of al Aqsa Mosque, freeing it from the filth of the Zionists, and imposing Muslim rule throughout beloved Palestine."

This is a government installed with the congratulations of the current U.S. president. Shall we expect per the extant thesis that the congratulator is now persona non grata to Israel's "psychopathic leaders" and its "murderous Mossad"?

Placing "Zionists" as Sponsors in the assassination of JFK is tantamount to granting them Sponsorship status in the long-view business model rather than the primitive and simplistic ad hoc model revolving around one day in the Autumn of 1963.

Are these Zionists then universal catalysts of evil or simply another in a series of pathetic false sponsors.

We have had Blakey and North and others crying out that organized crime, Marcello, Trafficante, et al, are the killers.

For Zirbel, and McClellan, and Nelson, and Morrow, it is LBJ.

The never-boring Frank Fiorini-Sturgis floated the KGB using Oswald.

The Israel-Zionist-Mossad thesis is not the final judgment.

It is speculation driven by palpable hatred.

This wasn't personal. This was business.

[Vasilios Vazakas]

Ok let's say for the shake of the argument that Israelis were involved at the Facilitator-mechanics level.
Again they would have been junior partners in the crime not the prime movers. Piper tried to convince us that Israel and Ben Gurion were the big sponsors of the conspiracy which is a different game all together. It is classical disinformation that mixes facts with fiction, concentrates in a detail blown out of proportion and the end result is to discredit anything that might be true. It is pointless to discuss this any further, we'll end up repeating ourselves, saying the same things in another 100 posts and we 'll never convince Mark or Albert about the fallacy of the Piper book.
The main thing is that Israel is a false sponsor that provides cover and alibi to the real sponsors, and this were this thread should end. We have a difference in opinion and there is no way that we'll ever agree. This is the democratic way.
Besides if anyone wants to become a tool that will help the sponsors to perpetutae the big lie, it's their right to do so. History will judge us all, no question about that.