Le WTC (11 Septembre 2001) et Pearl Harbor (7 décembre 1941)
Durant les élections de 1940, FDR avait promis (comme Woodrow Wilson l’avait fait avant lui durant la Première guerre mondiale) qu’il n’enverrait pas les jeunes Américains se faire tuer dans une nouvelle guerre…
Pour convaincre le peuple américain (jugé rétrospectivement « antisémite » par de nombreux historiens!) d’entrer en guerre, il aura fallu la provocation -suivie de l’attaque- de Pearl Harbor.
Non seulement le peuple américain voulait rester en dehors de cette guerre, mais exactement comme le Canada et le reste de l’ancien Commonwealth, il refusa catégoriquement d’absorber des centaines ou des milliers de migrants juifs européens persécutés. (Voilà qui en dit long sur le niveau de popularité des juifs à cette époque auprès de la population des pays dits démocratiques anglos et américains!)
Writing in Britain’s New Statesman on December 12, 2002, journalist John Pilger described, in disturbing terms, how William Kristol’s Project for the New American Century had determined that America needed a “new Pearl Harbor” as the pretext for launching a bid for global dominance. The theme laid forth by Kristol and his associates was that should such a catastrophic event take place, it would give America the opportunity to once again build up its military forces.
On June 3, 1997—three years before George W. Bush assumed the presidency and installed the neo-conservatives in power—a host of neoconservatives including Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz signed their names to a “statement of principles” issued by Kristol’s organization.
The statement laid forth a goal of building up American military might to ensure that the United States could pursue global hegemony, unfettered by any nation or nations that might dare to resist the agenda of America’s ruling elite—unquestionably a declaration of imperial aims.
A subsequent design—dated September 2000—by Kristol’s Project for the New American Century, entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century,” laid forth a plan for the United States to take military control of the Gulf region whether Saddam Hussein was in power or not. It stated frankly that the American need for a presence in the Persian (i.e. Arabian) Gulf transcended the question of whether or not Saddam Hussein remained in power.
In order to fulfill that dream, Kristol and his associates said, the United States must be prepared to be able to do battle in multiple places, at one time, around the globe. To achieve that ability, they declared, America must engage in a major transformation of its military, accompanied by massive arms buildups. However, they concluded, “The process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”
Given that the tragic events of September 11, 2001 provided precisely the “new Pearl Harbor” that sparked a massive build-up, accompanied by the “war on terrorism” that transformed—through neo-conservative influence—into an imperial war, first targeting Iraq and thence the rest of the Arab and Muslim world, there are many Americans and others who question whether the 9-11 attacks were either instigated and/or sponsored by the United States and/or the government of Israel, acting either together or alone. Such people are denounced as “conspiracy theorists” and/or as “hatemongers”—facts notwithstanding.(…)
[AFP was one of the first journals] to reveal that key neo-conservatives had actually proclaimed a “new Pearl Harbor” could provide a pretext for the U.S to launch a drive for a global imperium. This indeed became the case when “Dubya” Bush launched war against Iraq, having deceived many Americans, through outright lies, that Iraq had played a part in the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Actually, as far back as 1975, infamous intriguer Henry Kissinger was suggesting a Middle East war could provide the foundation for establishing a realigned world of the type of which the neo-conservatives dream.
75 Years: Pearl Harbor and the Jewish Question The world marked the 75th anniversary this week of arguably the single most pivotal international event of the 20th century: The Japanese surprise attack on the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, in 1941. It was this that triggered the United States’ entry into World War II, leading to the defeat of the Nazi empire in Europe and, ultimately, to the end of the Holocaust – and even the establishment of the State of Israel. Volumes have been written about the Pearl Harbor attack, what led up to it, and what it led to. Isolationism in the United States carried the day at the time, and it is likely that the Americans would not have entered the war for at least many more months, if at all, had not the Japanese attacked. Yisrael Medad, Director of Educational Programming and Information Resources at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center in Jerusalem, says that, from a Jewish-Israeli viewpoint, it must be emphasized that « the US policy of neutrality that was being pushed by anti-Semites (who called the European war the ‘Jewish war’) was literally killing Jews in Europe. » The Pearl Harbor attack meant that « finally, a non-Jewish reason to join the war made itself available. »
Not long after the 9-11 attacks, a prominent attorney was visiting Washington, D.C. with his 18 year old son, preparing to register the boy for college. The attorney happens to be a long-time close friend of mine, and during their visit, my friend and his son joined me for a casual lunch at Union Station on Capitol Hill.
The attorney is conservative, politically and culturally, and instinctively a patriot in the truest sense. In addition, it should be noted, he had several family members who were active members of the elite media, including one who, during his heyday, was a very well-known journalist.
So my attorney friend is quite well-informed (more so than most Americans, perhaps), but he, too, relies almost entirely on the media monopoly for his news and information. (…) unfortunately, he has become addicted to the Zionist-controlled Muslim-bashing Fox News—controlled by billionaire Rupert Murdoch, a front man for even wealthier Jewish families in the sphere of the Rothschild banking dynasty—for the “news” that he digests.
In any case, during our lunch, the subject of the 9-11 terrorist attacks and their aftermath was a major topic of discussion.
Pointing out that AFP had published numerous stories that presented a stark contrast to the “official” stories about 9-11 that had been handed down by the federal authorities and presented as “fact” by the media monopoly, I noted that, at the very least, there was a lot of information suggesting that, in order for 9-11 to have happened as it did, that there had to have been some foreknowledge (even cooperation) by persons in key places inside the U.S. defense establishment.
I added my opinion that most of those involved were undoubtedly willing assets of Israel and its “neo-conservative” lobby in Washington.
My friend expressed absolute horror at the thought.
“I absolutely refuse to believe,” he said firmly, his eyes flashing in indignation, “that anybody inside our own government would collaborate in those terrorist attacks or simply sit back and allow them to happen, knowing that thousands of people would die.”
I responded: “But don’t forget: those 3,000 lives were considered the necessary cost of getting us into a war that these people wanted to fight. And the only way they could get the American people riled up enough to support such a war was to have an incident like 9-11.”
My attorney friend shook his head.
“No, I don’t buy it. I just don’t buy it,” he insisted.
I responded:“It’s not something that anybody wants to be true, but that’s how these things work.These things do happen.”
At that moment, my friend’s 18-year-old son, who had been sitting quietly, listening, absorbing our exchange, piped up: “ Yeah,” he said, “What about Pearl Harbor?” You could have heard a pin drop.
My friend’s son looked a bit embarrassed for a moment, but his father looked even more embarrassed, since—in fact—his son had hit the nail on the head. The boy had made my point precisely: in two simple words: “Pearl Harbor.”
Needless to say, I smiled from ear to ear and nodded my head and I said, “That’s right. What about Pearl Harbor?”
I charged forward, invigorated by the young man’s perspicuity:
“FDR wanted to get the United States into the war. He needed an incident like Pearl Harbor, and the Japanese gave it to him. Many historians now say not only that FDR knew, in advance, of the impending Japanese attack and precisely where it would happen, but that, in addition, FDR helped provoke the attack in the first place.”
My attorney friend—who is otherwise articulate and quick on his feet—was hard-pressed to respond.
But it was clear that his son had made my point all too well.
So, diplomat that I am, I said, “Well, enough of that. Let’s talk about the horse races.”
There are a number of things that can be said about this simple story, but one thing is clear, at least to me, anyway: Young people in America are a lot smarter than a lot of world-wise adults might think.
Although young people have been subjected to a great deal of mindbending propaganda programs in the schools and targeted by the brainwashing techniques of Hollywood and the Jewish-controlled major media, they still—when presented with facts and logic—have some capacity to make sound judgments.
As for those who—like my attorney friend—want to think the best of the people in “our” government and refuse to believe anyone inside that government played a part in 9-11, those two simple words—“Pearl Harbor”—point in a direction that truly does raise real questions about 9-11 that do need to be answered.
And one day they will be. Some call it Judgment Day. (…)
Dans son célèbre discours du 11 septembre 1941 (l’intégrale en format texte, extrait traduit en fr.) contre les fauteurs de guerre (quelques mois à peine avant les événements de Pearl Harbour), Charles Lindbergh, le célèbre patriote américain et leader de l’organisation antiguerre America First Committee, accusait: 1)les Juifs, 2) les Britanniques (Churchill, que l’on sait avoir été dirigé par la clique de financiers juifs The Focus), et 3) l’administration (juive) de Roosevelt (qui avait pourtant promis « pas de guerre »)
d’avoir trahi et mené le peuple américain à l’abattoir en faisant pression pour que les États-Unis envoyent leur jeunesse se faire tuer dans une guerre en tous points contraire aux intérêts de la nation états-unienne.
Shocking Revelations Emerge in New Book
• Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh and America’s Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941
By Michael Collins Piper
Until a few years ago, most patriots fondly recalled aviator Charles Lindbergh for his leadership of the America First movement that fought to prevent Franklin D. Roosevelt from steering the United States into war against Adolf Hitler’s Germany.
However, in recent times, pernicious Internet agitprop has convinced many patriots that heroes like Lindbergh and his “isolationist” colleagues were actually traitors doing the work of the New World Order.
One broadcaster in particular promotes this nonsense by constantly harping about “the Nazis,” hyping writers who smear Lindbergh and claim Hitler’s heirs are today plotting the “rise of the Fourth Reich.”
Those conned by this garbage fail to see this is really a ploy to keep the image of “the Holocaust” alive, thereby advancing the interests of Israel, which benefits from the Holocaust in multiple ways, without ever mentioning the word “Israel” even once. And that’s propaganda at its most deceptive and calculating.
Even more disturbing is that—as a consequence of this skewed version of history taking a grip on the minds of so many—a remarkable number of today’s patriots have no idea that roughly 90 percent of the American people agreed with Lindbergh: A war against Hitler was a war America should not fight.
The history of that period has been savagely distorted and those who should know don’t have a clue as to what really happened.
Ironically, however, coming out of an elite publishing giant, Random House, is a new book presenting a fascinating look at the efforts by Lindbergh to stop the push to embroil America in that unnecessary war: Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh and America’s Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941.*
The flagrantly pro-British author, Lynne Olson, clearly holds Lindbergh’s traditional American nationalism in contempt, which explains why former secretary of state Madeleine Albright—who famously said the price of 500,000 dead Iraqi children was “worth it”—hails Olson as “our era’s foremost chronicler of World War II politics and diplomacy.”
Still, though soiled by its pro-New World Order slant, this is a book patriots need to read. Many books from establishment sources contain a lot of valuable facts. This is one such volume. Here are just a few of the author’s amazing admissions:
• Solid data proving that the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and its Wall Street backers did not support Hitler, but vehemently opposed him.
• British intelligence set up shop at Rockefeller Center in Manhattan and collaborated with the pro-war Fight for Freedom—mostly “upper class East Coast Protestants”—and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith, the Jewish espionage agency. All worked closely with FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover who was tapping the phones of those who opposed to the drive for war that Lindbergh said was the work of “the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.”
• The amazing story of how many high-ranking military officers “fiercely opposed” FDR’s efforts to arm Britain. Opposing aid to the British was no less than Gen. George C. Marshall whom the author says is now “regarded as the country’s greatest military figure in WWII.”
•While Americans today believe Britain was always seen as a grand ally, the author reveals that, after World War I, “many Americans came to believe that their country had entered the war not because its own national interests demanded such action, but because it had been tricked by the scheming, duplicitous British.”
• FDR utilized warmongering rhetoric of exactly the type today coming from essentially the same sources, including advocacy of the kind of police-state measures such as the Patriot Act and the concept of “homeland security,” which patriots have become convinced was a “Nazi” invention. Substitute’s today’s Muslim-bashing for German-bashing and it is history repeating itself.
Declaring any criticism of his policies as detrimental to national security, FDR spoke of “clever schemes of foreign agents” on American soil. However, the author admits: “The United States never faced any serious threat of internal subversion before or during the war. But the American people never knew that; in fact, they were told the opposite.”
• And, despite Pearl Harbor, most Americans still didn’t see the need for war against Hitler. The author admits, “the odds are high that Congress and the American people would have pressured the president to turn away from an undeclared war against Germany . . . and focus instead on defeating Japan.” Today, most Americans think Pearl Harbor sparked a nationwide cry of “Defeat the Nazi Beast.” It never happened.
——-Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S. He is the author of Final Judgment, The New Jerusalem, The High Priests of War, Dirty Secrets, My First Days in the White House, The New Babylon, Share the Wealth, The Judas Goats, Target: Traficant and The Golem.
D’autres populistes et patriotes importants tels Ezra Pound et Henry Ford ont été associés à l’America First Committee, qui s’opposait vigoureusement (comme le peuple américian lui-même) à l’entrée en guerre des États-Unis au cours de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, une guerre dans laquelle les États-Unis n’avaient rien à faire et tout à perdre.
Charles Lindbergh était certes antijuif et pro-nazi, tout comme son grand ami et allié Henry Ford (ce même Henry Ford qu’Hitler admirait au point d’accrocher un portrait de lui dans son bureau), or le fait est que le mouvement anti-guerre aux États-Unis était motivé surtout par le non-interventionnisme (et non par des idées nazies). Le mouvement antiguerre états-unien étant fortement enraciné dans des organisations patriotiques telles que l’America First Committee, dont Lindbergh était non seulement le fondateur mais sa plus importante tête pensante et l’un de ses plus fervents militant.
Joseph Kennedy, un autre grand ami de Lindbergh, appuya lui aussi l’idée d’ « America First », car il ne voyait pas l’intérêt de mener une guerre contre les nazis en Europe. Il avait remarqué avec justesse, comme le souligne David Irving :« Et l’objet de la haine était bien les Allemands en tant que peuple, non pas « les nazis », comme on aime souvent à le faire croire aujourd’hui. « Les Anglais ne combattent pas Hitler », avait remarqué l’ambassadeur américain, Joe Kennedy, « mais le peuple allemand » (p.189). » (Source: Churchill’s War, in « David Irving et Churchill » de Joseph Coutelier)
Ford’s actions show that he was opposed to the forces of war. He did not do himself any favors by opposing the “destructive Wall Street.” In 1915 Ford chartered the Oscar II, otherwise known as the Ford “Peace Ship,” in the hope of persuading the belligerents of the world war to attend a peace conference. The mission received mostly ridicule. Those aboard, including Ford, were wracked with influenza. Ford continued to fund the “Peace Ship” as it traveled around Europe for two years, and despite the ridicule was widely regarded as a sincere, if naïve, pacifist. Dr. Sutton does not mention Ford’s “Peace Ship” or his peace campaign during World War I. Therefore, when he was an early supporter of the America First Committee,35 founded in 1940 to oppose Roosevelt’s efforts to entangle the USA in a war against Germany, he was too easily dismissed as pro-Nazi, as was America First.36 Very prominent Americans joined from a variety of backgrounds, including General Robert A. Wood, president of Sears Roebuck, and among the most active, aviation hero Charles Lindbergh. Socialist Party leader Norman Thomas was a regular speaker at rallies. Many Congressmen and Senators resisted the Roosevelt war machine. They included pacifists, liberals, Republicans, Democrats, conservatives. Of Henry Ford, George Eggleston, an editor of Reader’s Digest, Scribner’s Commentator, and formerly of Life, and a major figure in America First, recalled that so far from being a “Nazi,” Ford expressed the hope that there would be a “parliament of man,” “a world-wide spirit of brotherhood, and an end to armed conflict.”37 ( The Myth of the Big Business-Nazi Axis, K.R. Bolton)
Lindbergh et Ford appuyaient sans réserve Adolf Hitler et comme ce dernier ils ne voulaient pas la guerre, cependant leur opposition à cette guerre ne venait pas de leurs sympathies nazies hitlériennes, elle s’enracinait plutôt dans la pensée non-interventionniste des Pères fondateurs des États-Unis tels que George Washington, Thomas Jefferson et plus tard Andrew Jackson, qui craignaient l’emmêlement de leur pays dans des conflits à l’étranger et pour des intérêts qui ne sont pas les leurs.
ADL Urges Donald Trump to Reconsider “America First” in Foreign Policy Approach The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today urged presidential candidate Donald Trump to reconsider his use of the phrase “America First” as a slogan describing his approach to foreign affairs, citing its anti-Semitic use in the months before Pearl Harborby a group of prominent Americans seeking to keep the nation out of World War II.
ADL Targets Trump: Saying « America First » is Anti-Semitic « The most noteworthy leader of the ‘America First Committee’ was Charles Lindbergh, » the ADL said in a press release Thursday, « who sympathized with the Nazis and whose rhetoric was characterized by anti-Semitism and offensive stereotypes. »
Trump Urged to Drop ‘America First’ Slogan Due to anti-Semitic Past According to a statement released by the Jewish watchdog, the most leader of the “America First Committee” was Charles Lindbergh, who « sympathized with the Nazis and whose rhetoric was characterized by anti-Semitism and offensive stereotypes, including assertions that Jews posed a threat to the U.S. because of their influence in motion pictures, radio, the press, and the government. »
Posted inNon classé|Commentaires fermés sur Il y a 75 ans avait lieu l’attaque provoquée de Pearl Harbor, le prétexte de l’administration FDR pour convaincre le peuple américain fermement opposé à la guerre
… [John F.] Kennedy placed the limitation of the nuclear arms race at the center of American foreign policy. . . . Israel’s nuclear enterprise was in direct contradiction with the principles of his policy…. The correspondent for Ha’aretz in Washington during the Kennedy and Johnson presidencies, Amos Elon, filed a report saying that in a background talk with James Reston of The New York Times, Kennedy had said that in nuclear matters [Israeli Prime Minister David] Ben-Gurion was a « wild man. »
—Israeli historian Michael Karpin The Bomb in the Basement: How Israel Went Nuclear and What That Means for the World (in Michael Collins Piper’s The Golem)
The murder of American President John F. Kennedy-brought to an abrupt end the massive pressure being applied by the U.S. administration on the government of Israel to discontinue the nuclear program. [In Israel and the Bomb, Avner] Cohen demonstrates at length the pressures applied by Kennedy on Ben-Gurion … in which Kennedy makes it quite clear to the Israeli prime minister that he will under no circumstances agree to Israel becoming a nuclear state. The book implied that, had Kennedy remained alive, it is doubtful whether Israel would today have a nuclear option.
—Reuven Pedatzer in Israel’s Ha’aretz, Feb. 5, 1999, reviewing Avner Cohen’s Israel and the Bomb. (in Michael Collins Piper’sThe Golem)
« The Letters of John F. Kennedy », by Martin Sandler | Historian Martin Sandler presents a collection of President John F. Kennedy’s personal correspondences. The letters include Kennedy’s private notes and political communiques, from letters sent to his parents from boarding school to secret missives to Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev during the Cold War. Martin Sandler speaks at the John F. Kennedy Museum in Hyannis, Massachusetts. Buy the author’s book from: Amazon | Barnes And Noble | Indiebound
JFK 50 ans après: un livre de référence vient de paraître colligeant la correspondance de JFK, et l’éditeur reconnaît que la thèse du livre de Michael Collins Piper Final Judgment, c’est-à-dire l’implication centrale d’Israël dans l’assassinat de JFK est « des plus intrigantes »! « Final Judgment » est leseul ouvrage conspirationniste mentionné dans ce livre de Sandler. L’auteur ne peut être suspecté d’antisémitisme ou encore de biais contre Israël: c’est un historien juif respecté et la maison d’édition qui distribue son livre est l’une des plus prestigieuses maison d’édition. Ce qui n’empêcherait probablement pas la LICRA d’exiger le caviardage du passage dans lequel l’auteur endosse à peine subtilement la thèse de Piper!
« Je vais vous dire une chose: j’ai trouvé des articles–pas dans des publications disjonctées mais dans des publications très sophistiquées–qui disaient: « Oubliez Lyndon Johnson, oubliez la CIA, oubliez Fidel Castro–le Mossad a tué JFK parce qu’ils étaient bouleversés à cause de ce qu’il avait fait à Ben-Gourion. » Alors, vous voyez, on lâche quelques petites bombes comme celle-ci dans le livre, non prouvées… »
I’ll tell you one thing: I found articles – not tripped in publications but in very sophisticated publications – saying, « Forget Lyndon Johnson, forget the CIA, forget Fidel Castro—Mossad killed JFK because they were upset by what he had done to Ben-Gurion. » So you see, we drop a few bombs like this in this book, unproven …(Historian Martin W. Sandler, Author of The Letters of John F. Kennedy, lecture at the JFK Museum; Nov 16, 2013, CSPAN2 | BookTV @51 min : 21 sec)
—-Excerpts from the last few pages of the book mentioning Israeli nukes (p.333-341):
In March 1992, Representative Paul Findley of Illinois, wrote in the Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs, “It is interesting. . . . to notice that in all the words written and uttered about the Kennedy assassination, Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad, has never been mentioned.” Two years later in his book Final Judgment, author Michael Collins Piper actually accused Israel of the crime. Of all the conspiracy theories, it remains one of the most intriguing.
What is indisputable is that, although it was kept out of the eye of both the Press and the Public, a bitter dispute had developped between Israeli prime minister David Ben-Gurion who believed that his nation’s survival depended on it attaining nuclear capability and Kennedy who was vehemently opposed to it. In May 1963, Kennedy wrote to Ben-Gurion explaining why he was convinced that Israel’s pursuit of nuclear weapons capability was a serious threat to world peace.
May 18, 1963
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.
John F. Kennedy
In his reply to Kennedy, Ben-Gurion defended his country’s development of a nuclear reactor for both peaceful and military purposes and suggested a time when Dimona would be ready for inspection.
Kennedy was far from satisfied with Ben-Gurion’s reply, particularily his attempt to stall any inspection in Dimona. In secret private conversations with the prime minister and in the following letter, Kennedy pressured Ben-Gurion for earlier and more frequent inspections of the nuclear site.
16 june 1963
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
I thank you for your letter of May 27 concerning American visits to Israel’s nuclear facility at Dimona. I know your words reflect your most intense personal consideration of a problem that is not easy for you or for your Government, as it is not for mine.
I welcome your strong reaffirmation that the Dimona will be devoted exclusively to peaceful purposes. I also welcome your reaffirmation of Israel’s willingness to permit periodic visits to Dimona.
Because of the crucial importance of this problem, however, I am sure you will agree that such visits should be of a nature and on a schedule which will more nearly be in accord with international standards, thereby resolving all doubts as to the peaceful intent of the Dimona project.
Therefore, I asked our scientists to review the alternative schedules of visits we and you have proposed. If Israel’s purposes are to be clear to the world beyond reasonable doubt, I believe that the schedule which would best serve our common purposes would be a visit early this summer, another visit in June 1964, and thereafter at intervals of six months. I am sure that such a schedule should not cause you any more difficulty than that which you have proposed. It would be essential, and I take it that your letter is in accord with this, that our scientists have access to all areas of the Dimona site and to any related part of the complex, such as fuel fabrication facilities or plutonium separation plant, and that sufficient time be allotted for a thorough examination.
Knowing that you fully appreciate the truly vital significance of this matter to the future well-being of Israel, to the United States, and internationally, I am sure our carefully considered request will again have your most sympathetic attention.
John F. Kennedy
On June 16, 1963, Ben-Gurion, who had been Israel’s leader since its inception in 1948, resigned from his office. Many believed his resignation was due in great measure to his dispute with Kennedy over Dimona. In a letter to Ben-Gurion’s successor, Levi Eshkol, Kennedy left no doubt as to what the U.S. response would be if « we were unable to obtain reliable information » about the intent of the Dimona project, a threat that according to one conspiracy theory lead to Israel’s role in Kennedy’s assassination.
July 4, 1963
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
It gives me great personal pleasure to extend congratulations as you assume your responsibilities as Prime Minister of Israel. You have our friendship and best wishes in your new tasks. It is on one of these that I am writing you at this time.
You are aware, I am sure, of the exchanges which I had with Prime Minister Ben-Gurion concerning American visits to Israel’s nuclear facility at Dimona. Most recently, the Prime Minister wrote to me on May 27. His words reflected a most intense personal consideration of a problem that I know is not easy for your Government, as it is not for mine. We welcomed the former Prime Minister’s strong reaffirmation that Dimona will be devoted exclusively to peaceful purposes and the reaffirmation also of Israel’s willingness to permit periodic visits to Dimona.
I regret having to add to your burdens so soon after your assumption of office, but I feel the crucial importance of this problem necessitates my taking up with you at this early date certain further considerations, arising out of Mr. Ben-Gurion’s May 27 letter, as to the nature and scheduling of such visits.
Therefore, I asked our scientists to review the alternative schedules of visits we and you had proposed. If Israel’s purposes are to be clear beyond reasonable doubt, I believe that the schedule which would best serve our common purposes would be a visit early this summer, another visit in June 1964, and thereafter at intervals of six months. I am sure that such a schedule should not cause you any more difficulty than that which Mr. Ben-Gurion proposed in his May 27 letter. It would be essential, and I understand that Mr. Ben-Gurion’s letter was in accord with this, that our scientists have access to all areas of the Dimona site and to any related part of the complex, such as fuel fabrication facilities or plutonium separation plant, and that sufficient time be allotted for a thorough examination.
Knowing that you fully appreciate the truly vital significance of this matter to the future well-being of Israel, to the United States, and internationally, I am sure our carefully considered request will have your most sympathetic attention.
John F. Kennedy
New Book of Kennedy Letters Supports Thesis:
JFK Opposed Israel’s Nuclear Aspirations
“Threat” in president’s personal correspondence to Israeli leaders cited by respected author
By Richard V. London
Pro-Israel agitators are in a frenzy. A forth-coming book—the first ever collection of the late President John F. Kennedy’s correspondence—dares to suggest the theory that Israel’s intelligence service, the Mossad, played a part in JFK’s assassination “remains one of the most intriguing” of the many scenarios relating to that crime. The book cites AFP correspondent Michael Collins Piper’s out-of-print underground best-seller, Final Judgment, as the source of that allegation.
Entitled The Letters of John F. Kennedy —and scheduled for November release by Bloomsbury (a “mainstream” publishing house)—the new 352-page volume was edited by respected historian and television producer Martin W. Sandler. Sandler put together this work with the cooperation of the Kennedy Presidential Library at Harvard. But the tome is already under attack, even prior to publication.
Having obtained advance copies and discovering Sandler’s references to Piper’s thesis, influential pro-Israel propaganda voices—such as National Review (founded by ex-CIA operative William F. Buckley Jr.) and The Washington Free Beacon, edited by the son-in-law of neoconservative power broker William Kristol—promptly launched an Internet cannonade savaging Sandler and Piper.
Here’s what was considered so outrageous: In the final chapter of the book—after noting the multiple theories surrounding JFK’s death—Sandler reprinted nine pages of undeniably contentious correspondence between JFK and Israeli Prime Ministers David Ben-Gurion and Levi Eshkol, pointing out that JFK was convinced, in Sandler’s words, “that Israel’s pursuit of nuclear weapons capability was a serious threat to world peace.”
As if highlighting these little-known letters were not enough, Sandler inflamed Israel’s partisans by his candid introduction to that selection of letters, writing:
In March 1992, Rep. Paul Findley of Illinois wrote in The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, “It is interesting [to note] that in all the words written and uttered about the Kennedy assassination, Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad, has never been mentioned.” Two years later in his book
According to author Martin W. Sandler, Israel’s Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion (left) and Prime Minister John F. Kennedy were at bitter ends over Israel’s desire to develop a nuclear arsenal of mass destruction.
Final Judgment, author Michael Collins [Piper] actually accused Israel of the crime. Of all the conspiracy theories, it remains one of the most intriguing.
What is indisputable is that although it was kept out of the eye of both the press and the public, a bitter dispute had developed between Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, who believed that his nation’s survival depended on its attaining nuclear arms capability, and Kennedy, who was vehemently opposed to it.
Noting that Ben-Gurion quit his post in what Sandler notes “many believed . . . was due in great measure to his dispute with Kennedy,” Sandler reprints a July 4, 1963 letter to Levi Eshkol (Ben Gurion’s successor) in which JFK warns American “commitment to and support of Israel could be seriously jeopardized” if the United States felt it was being denied “reliable information on a subject as vital to peace as the question of Israel’s effort in the nuclear field.”
Sandler comments that this letter from JFK was a “threat” that “according to one conspiracy theory, led to Israel’s role in Kennedy’s assassination.”
The book closes several pages later, reprinting friendly letters to and from Kennedy’s widow in the wake of JFK’s murder, which—although Sandler doesn’t say this—resulted in a 180-degree turn about in U.S. policy toward Israel, giving Israel the opportunity to assemble its nuclear arsenal unimpeded.
What makes this volume so difficult for Israel’s advocates to contend with is that the editor cannot be dismissed as a “fringe writer” or “conspiracy theorist.”
A former professor of history at Smith College and at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Sandler is author of some 80 non-fiction books on a wide variety of historical topics, a number of which were published by the Library of Congress as part of its “Young People’s American History Series.” A five-time winner of television’s Emmy award, Sandler was co-creator of the popular “This Was America” series (with William Shatner) and executive producer of such acclaimed documentaries as “American Image” (with Hal Holbrook), “American Treasure” (with Gene Kelly) and “The Entrepreneurs” (with Robert Mitchum).
Patriots: LBJ Killed JFK
• Ignored are Mossad’s numerous connections to assassination
by Michael Collins Piper
Patriots seem to have reached a “consensus” and decided Lyndon Johnson was the mastermind of the JFK assassination: LBJ launched the conspiracy and covered it up, utilizing renegades in the CIA, the military, the FBI and the Secret Service.
Under no circumstances—so patriots say—was there involvement by Israel’s intelligence service, the Mossad. The fact of numerous intimate Mossad connections (at multiple levels) to the conpiracy—not to mention JFK’s bitter dispute with Israel over its nuclear weapons program—is not considered relevant (or ever even referenced).
Now that my book, Final Judgment—documenting Israeli involvement (alongside the CIA) in the crime—is out of print, I am able to reflect candidly upon all of this, since no one can now accuse me of “hawking” my book.
A forceful proponent of the theme that “LBJ Killed JFK” is Alex Jones, who loudly touted Barr McClellan’s book Blood, Money and Power, which actually claims Lee Oswald was one of the gunmen who killed JFK.
(An AFP reader once called Jones’s radio program and mentioned Final Judgment, but Jones shouted him down, and Jones’s guest slammed the book as “anti-Semitic” and to be ignored.)
The response to Final Judgment has been complex and interesting.
A top Council on Foreign Relations figure—Christopher LeFleur (then U.S. ambassador to Malaysia)—tried to bribe booksellers in Malaysia not to distribute Final Judgment (or my other books), but they wouldn’t be compromised.
A lot of self-described “white nationalists” rejected the book since they didn’t like JFK’s racial policies. Others were angry a black nationalist wrote the introduction to the book.
Some critics of Israel wouldn’t endorse the book because they were afraid of being called “conspiracy theorists.”
A pro-Arab magazine (quite hostile to Israel) refused to accept advertising for Final Judgment because, the editor said, it might upset “those [expletive deleted] defamation groups,” referring to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), an intelligence and propaganda arm of the Mossad.
For its part, the ADL orchestrated energetic campaigns to suppress the book and deployed violent thugs from the Jewish Defense League to disrupt my speaking engagements and threaten my life.
The ADL actually said college students were not mature enough to hear my thesis, although, of course, the ADL did consider those kids old enough to join the U.S. military and die in wars to ensure Israel’s survival.
JFK “research” groups denounced me or refused to even mention Final Judgment, despite the fact it sold far better than some more widely publicized JFK assassination books.
Deb Conway from the assassination information group known as JFK Lancer vowed to join pro-Israel groups in picketing one of my lectures.
Probe’s Jim DiEugenio—who claims a “WASP plot” was behind JFK’s death—maliciously misrepresents Final Judgment (perhaps because his publishers were funded by a family who bankrolled Israel’s nuclear arsenal).
But I did get some good endorsements from historian Eustace Mullins, ex-Pentagon official Col. Donn de Grand Pre, author William Gill, researcher Brian Quig, Hollywood screenwriter Bill Norton and a powerful nod from former high-rankng State Department official Herbert L. Calhoun.
But don’t forget: “LBJ Killed JFK.”——
Michael Collins Piper is a world-renowned author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and, of course, the United States. He is the author of Final Judgment, The New Jerusalem, The High Priests of War, Dirty Secrets, My First Days in the White House, The New Babylon, Share the Wealth: Huey Long vs Wall Street, The Judas Goats: The Enemy Within, Target: Traficant and The Golem: Israel’s Nuclear Hell Bomb.
Comme le montraient il y a plus de 25 ans déjà Andrew et Leslie Cockburn, Israël est économiquement dépendant de ses contrats d’industrie militaire, en particulier envers le Pentagone, en raison de la part très importante que représente l’ensemble de ces contrats dans les revenus de l’État israélien. Paradoxalement, cette dépendance économique de l’État israélien vis-à-vis ces contrats militaires avec le Pentagone est presque toujours entendue et défendue comme pouvant assurer l’indépendance et l’autosuffisance économique d’Israël »!
Bien entendu la collaboration entre Israel et les États-Unis s’étend bien au-delà des contrats militaires… Ells s’étend aussi, notamment, jusqu’aux plus hauts échelons des services secrets (Mossad et CIA) et se cache ainsi derrière de nombreuses opérations secrètes des États-Unis à travers le monde: que ce soit contre les communistes (comme dans l’entraînement par le Mossad des soldats Moudjahidines anti-soviets en Afghanistan avec l’argent de la CIA) ; la vente d’armes et l’entraînement par le Mossad des commandos « antiterroristes » de Medellin en Colombie ; l’entraînement des Contras (contrarrevolucion) au Honduras et d’autres troupes d’élite au Guatemala ; le rôle des États-Unis dans le développement nucléaire militaire israélien ; la coopération nucléaire entre Israël et l’Afrique du Sud, les opérations de subversion contre Nasser en Égypte et Hussein en Irak, etc.
Les liens entre l’appareil sécuritaire d’Israël (le Mossad), la CIA et le crime organisé sont connus et documentés (pas seulement par des auteurs conspirationnistes). Les médias officiels en parlent peu, probablement parce que ça serait plutôt gênant de devoir admettre au public que la CIA et le Mossad ont travaillé et travaillent toujours ensemble dans le cadre d’un certain nombre d’opérations secrètes illégales à travers le monde, et, qui plus est, contre des gouvernement légitimement élus. (Rappelons que, depuis la création d’Israël, le Mossad et Tsahal opèrent secrètement avec la CIA et le Pentagone, car ce dernier doit préapprouver toutes les opérations militaires israéliennes. James Jesus Angleton, ce parano anti-soviet notoire qui était le deuxième en importance à la tête de la CIA, est devenu le symbole de cette collaboration au sommet entre la CIA et le Mossad. Alors que certains auteurs conspirationnistes tels Peter Dale Scott (qui fait remonter l’assassinat de JFK à des réseaux nazis!) ont complètement ignoré ces liens en ramenant tout à la CIA (ou un vague « État profond ») et à un « crime organisé » mal défini, d’autres comme Michael Collins Piper ont insisté à juste titre sur les liens entre la CIA et le Mossad, sur la place centrale des juifs dans le crime organisé aux États-Unis, ainsi que sur les rapports entre Israël et le crime organisé. Plus de détails: Cspan Book Discussion: Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of US-Israeli Covert Relationship, with Andrew and Leslie Cockburn).
Dual Loyalty By Victor Mallet REVIEWS OF TWO BOOKS: The Samson Option: Israel, America and the Bomb by Seymour Hersh, and Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the US-Israeli Covert Relationship by Andrew Cockburn and Leslie Cockburn
A Special Relationship By David Schoenbaum. Review of DANGEROUS LIAISON The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship. By Andrew Cockburn and Leslie Cockburn.
In Bed With the Israelis? DANGEROUS LIAISON: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship, By Andrew and Leslie Cockburn September 01, 1991 | Dan Raviv | Raviv, a CBS News correspondent based in London, is co-author of « Every Spy a Prince: The Complete History of Israel’s Intelligence » (Houghton Mifflin.)
HAARETZ: ‘But Sir, It’s an American Ship’ ‘Never Mind, Hit Her! When Israel Attacked USS Liberty « The authors’ bottom line is that then-U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson was behind the attack, in an attempt to blame then-Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser – an excuse that would then enable the United States to join the Six-Day War. » The truly nauseating thing about this whole issue is that the men of the LIBERTY who cooperated in writing this book have given their imprimatur on something which in the end is going to result in their murderers getting off scott-free. Not coincidentally, the author of this book also penned a work* whereby the assassination of JFK–proven slam dunk to have been an Israeli operation from top to bottom by the irreplaceable Michael Collins Piper in his book Final Judgment–was actually the handiwork of–drum role please–the same Lyndon Baines Johnson who is now being blamed for the attack on the LIBERTY.
*LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK’s Assassination by Phillip F. Nelson La thèse de ce livre c’est de la merde à 100%, c’est du même auteur qui tentait récemment de blâmer LBJ pour l’attaque du USS Liberty afin de disculper Israel et d’en faire un simple pion (« On a tiré le Liberty mais c’était pour obéir aux ordre du méchant Président des États-Unis — LBJ! »). C’est exactement le discours de ceux qui font de la désinfo dans le but de partager la responsabilité de l’assassinat de JFK entre Israel, la CIA, la mafia et LBJ. Ceux qui propagent cette désinfo sont aussi ceux qui attaquaient Piper quand il était encore en vie. Alex Jones n’est que le plus célèbre d’entre eux.
Posted inNon classé|Commentaires fermés sur Collection audiovisuelle sur la guerre israélienne contre JFK dans sa course à l’arsenal nucléaire. Pendant que les désinformateurs cherchent encore à nous distraire en blâmant « l’État profond » ou « LBJ » autant sinon plus qu’Israël !