“Jack said it to me sometimes. He said, ‘Oh, God, can you ever imagine what would happen to the country if Lyndon was president.’” (Jacqueline Kennedy, 1964)
“President Kennedy’s unfailing support of the cause of Zion Reborn has enshrined his memory in the hearts of our people everywhere,” wrote Los Angeles rabbi Max Nussbaum, president of the Zionist Organization of America and chairman of the American Zionist Council, in a book published in 1965 by the Theodor Herzl Foundation, under the title John F. Kennedy on Israel, Zionism and Jewish Issues (online here). The book contains a meager collection of the rare friendly words Kennedy spoke about Israel, mostly during his tenure as senator. Nussbaum also wrote:
His staunch friendship for Israel, his concern for its security and for its survival as a beacon of democracy in the Middle East were natural outgrowth of his deep conviction that the rebirth of the State of Israel represents the rectification of the cruel wrong done to a people which suffered oppression and humiliation for two thousand years.
Still today, Zionist Jews keep telling of their reciprocated love affair with Kennedy. Here Kennedy is listed among “the five American presidents who loved the Jewish people,” the evidence being a photo of Golda Meir and Kennedy walking through the same door and two Jewish names in Kennedy’s government (Abraham Ribicoff and Arthur Goldberg), as well as the fact that,
after Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963, the Jewish people reciprocated his love for them by renaming the Synagogue Council of America’s annual peace award “The John F. Kennedy Peace Award,” making him the only U.S. President for whom a national Jewish award has been named.
More “proofs” of Kennedy’s love for the Jews are given by Ron Kampeas on Haaretz. For instance: “In 1961, Kennedy pardoned Herman Greenspun, the Las Vegas Sun publisher who had been convicted in 1950 on charges related to gun running to the nascent Zionist state.” In return, Jews proved their love for Kennedy when, “The night of assassination, nightclub owner Jack Ruby attended a memorial service for the president at Temple Shearith Israel in Dallas” (incidentally, Ruby and Greenspun actually belonged to the same arms-smuggling network of “gangsters for Zion” headed by Meyer Lansky). Moreover the film of Kennedy’s execution “was made by a Jewish Kennedy supporter from Dallas named Abraham Zapruder.” Fancy that! Zapruder, whose office was in the Dal Tex building overlooking Dealey Plaza, loved Kennedy so much that his camera didn’t tremble when Kennedy’s head exploded. Look how shocked he is when interviewed on Dallas TV just two hours later.
Zapruder (right) on Dallas TV two hours after shooting Kennedy’s death
And imagine how he felt when, the next day, he sold his film for $150,000 (more than $1 million today) to Life magazine. A funny book just came out about Zapruder’s “chance encounter with evil”, “by sheer happenstance”, that “ended up destroying the rest of his life”, and caused so much suffering to his family too. Imagine: in 1999 they received $16 million after suing the U.S. government for seizing the film.
But back to Ron Kampeas. He is the Washington bureau chief of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, so unless being an idiot was part of the job description, I assume he is taking the American Goy for a ride. And how are we to take the very title of the article, “John Kennedy: A Martyr Who Worried About the Spread of Nukes,” after reading the concluding paragraph:
Kennedy wanted Americans to inspect the [Dimona] plant; Israel kept dodging the requests. In May 1963, Kennedy threatened to isolate Israel unless it let in the inspectors. Neither he nor Johnson ever made good on the threat, and today, Israel’s nuclear capabilities are its worst-kept secret.
Perhaps Kampeas is an idiot after all. Informed Israelis, I reckon, now understand that the very purpose of Kennedy’s assassination was to prevent him from making good on the threat, and to replace him by Johnson, who “saw no Dimona, heard no Dimona, and spoke no Dimona,” as Stephen Green once wrote. My best guess, though, is that Kampeas is being ironic, for he himself wrote about Johnson, in an article titled “Israel has had no better friend”:
Historians generally regard Johnson as the president most uniformly friendly to Israel … LBJ soon abandoned pressure on Israel to come clean about the Dimona reactor. He increased arms sales to Israel and in 1968, after Israel’s primary supplier, France, imposed an embargo as a means of cultivating ties in the Arab world, the United States became Israel’s main supplier of weapons, notably launching the talks that would lead to the sale of Phantom fighter jets to Israel. … during the [1967 Six-Day] war, he ordered warships to within 50 miles of Syria’s coast as a warning to the Soviets not to interfere. In a speech in the war’s immediate aftermath, Johnson effectively nipped in the bud any speculation that the United States would pressure Israel to unilaterally give up the lands it had captured.
On reflexion, I think the reason why Zionists go out of their way to present Kennedy as a friend of Israel is to conceal the most significant reversal of foreign policy that occurred after his assassination, because that reversal identifies the greatest beneficiary of the assassination. As an example of this distortion of historical truth, University of Haifa professor Abraham Ben-Zvi claimed in an article published in Israel Affairs titled “Stumbling into an Alliance: John F. Kennedy and Israel,” that Kennedy, not Johnson, is responsible for America’s special relationship with Israel, because he “upgraded security guarantees without insisting any longer on a reciprocal Israeli concessions concerning Dimona.” That is demonstrably untrue, and Ben-Zvi must know it. The master of such deception is Noam Chomsky, who repeatedly declared that JFK’s murder is not worth investigating, since it had no effect on U.S. policy and therefore couldn’t possibly be a coup. Here he is quoted by Jim DeBrosse in See No Evil: The JFK Assassination and the U.S. Media:
There is a significant question about the JFK assassination: was it a high-level plot with policy implications? That’s quite important, and very much worth investigating. I’ve written about it extensively, reviewing all of the relevant documentation. The conclusion is clear, unusually clear for a historical event: no. / That leaves the question open as to who killed him: Oswald, Mafia, Cubans, jealous husbands, …? Personally, that question doesn’t interest me anymore than the latest killing in the black ghetto in Boston.
But Chomsky is lying. For, as DeBrosse comments, “there was at least one clear policy change in the transition from the Kennedy to the Johnson administrations: U.S. willingness to supply offensive weapons to Israel and to look the other way as Israel secretly developed a nuclear arsenal in the tinder box of the Middle East.” Chomsky knows this. But he doesn’t want Americans to know it, for if they knew it, their interest in the assassination of President Kennedy would get rekindled, and they would start wondering if Israel had anything to do with it. That is why it is important for Zionists—even for anti-Zionist Zionists, as Gilad Atzmon called people like Chomsky—to keep saying that Kennedy loved Israel and would never have done anything that undermined its security. After all, wasn’t his brother murdered because he loved Israel too?
November 22, 1963 was a coup d’état. That is the premise from which any discussion about JFK’s assassination should start. The coup was invisible at the time, because Johnson created an illusion of continuity. What changed dramatically only became public knowledge in the 1990s. In the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs in 2009, we read that, “Lyndon Johnson Was First to Align U.S. Policy With Israel’s Policies.”
Up to Johnson’s presidency, no administration had been as completely pro-Israel and anti-Arab as his. … Not only was he personally a strong supporter of the Jewish state but he had a number of high officials, advisers and friends who shared his view. … These officials occupied such high offices as the ambassador to the United Nations, the head of the National Security Council and the number two post at the State Department. They were assiduous in putting forward Israel’s interests in such memoranda as “What We Have Done for Israel” and “New Things We Might Do in Israel” and “How We Have Helped Israel.” … So pervasive was the influence of Israel’s supporters during Johnson’s tenure that CIA Director Richard Helms believed there was no important U.S. secret affecting Israel that the Israeli government did not know about in this period.
Although Dimona was probably the most urgent reason for replacing JFK with LBJ, as Michael Collins Piper has shown in his groundbreaking book Final Judgment, it was not the only one. The problem of Dimona cannot be separated from the wider geopolitical context of the Cold War. For the Soviets were as worried as Kennedy about nuclear proliferation. Against Piper’s theory, it has been argued that Kennedy had no power to stop Israel from getting the Bomb, and that there was therefore no necessity for Israel to kill him. That may be true: the real danger for Israel was if both the United States and the Soviet Union joined their effort to thwart Israel’s nuclear ambition. When Khrushchev’s minister of Foreign Affairs Andrei Gromyko visited the White House on October 3, 1963 to discuss ways of expanding the progress of the Limited Test Ban treaty, Kennedy tasked his Secretary of State Dean Rusk to bring up the issue of Israel’s secret nuke program with Gromyko in his evening meeting at the Soviet Embassy. If Americans and Russians agreed to stop Israel from getting the Bomb, Israel would have had to comply.
But worst than the risk of being deprived of their “Samson option”, the nascent cooperation between Kennedy and Khrushchev toward détente presented an even more distressing danger: their common support of Israel’s greatest foe, Egypt. This point is well made by author Salvador Astucia in Opium Lords: Israel, the Golden Triangle, and the Kennedy Assassination (2002, in pdf here):
Both Kennedy and Khrushchev had stronger ties with Egyptian President Nasser than with Israel. Their befriending of Nasser, a living icon symbolizing Arab unity, was a signal to Israel that both superpowers had more interest in the Arab world than in Israel’s continued existence as a Jewish homeland, let alone its expansion into neighboring Arab territories.
“In short,” writes Astucia, “détente would mark the beginning of the end for Israel as a world power because neither superpower had a strategic interest in Israel.” What was urgently needed was to transform Egypt into a ground for confrontation rather than rapprochement.
Astucia published his book in 2002, and lacked hindsight on 9/11 to draw the parallel that can now be drawn between President Kennedy’s assassination and the false flag attacks of September 11th, 2001. The parallel should be clear to those who now understand that 9/11 was both a massive psychological operation and a foreign policy coup aimed at drawing the U.S. on the side of Israel against its Arab enemies (see my previous Unz Review article). As I wrote for the film 9/11 and Israel’s Great Game: “In 2001, Israel’s reputation had fallen to its lowest level in international public opinion. Condemnations were voiced from all sides against its apartheid and colonization policies, and its systematic war against Palestinian leadership structures. The attacks of 9/11 instantly reversed this trend. Americans experienced the attacks as an act of hatred on the part of the Arab world, and thus felt immediate sympathy for Israel. … Overnight, after the 9/11 attacks, Western opinion had amalgamated the Arab world and the Palestinian resistance with Islamic terrorism.”
In 1963, the situation was comparable. Israel was getting strong condemnations from world leaders, and heavy pressure from Kennedy’s administration. In his early months at the White House, Kennedy had committed himself to President Gamal Abdel Nasser and other Arab and African heads of State to support U.N. Resolution 194 for the right of return of Palestinian refugees. In the fall of 1962, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion had reacted to Kennedy’s insistent pressure with a letter to be circulated among Jewish-American leaders, in which he stated: “Israel will regard this plan as a more serious danger to her existence than all the threats of the Arab dictators and Kings, than all the Arab armies, than all of Nasser’s missiles and his Soviet MIGs. … Israel will fight against this implementation down to the last man.” On November 20, 1963, Kennedy’s delegation to the United Nations was, again, urging Israel to implement Resolution 194.
During Kennedy’s presidency, Zionist influence over public opinion was still limited, and Kennedy had enough leeway to implement a balanced policy in the Middle East. Most Americans still had in mind Israel’s unprovoked aggression against Egypt in 1956, backed by France and England.
Incidentally, that crisis had revealed a major difference between Kennedy and Johnson. When Eisenhower backed UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld’s decision to impose sanctions on Israel, Johnson used all of his political muscle as Senate Majority Leader to save Israel from that embarrassment. He even wrote a letter of protest to Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, which made the front page of the New York Times on February 20, 1957.
John Kennedy did not challenge Johnson, a fellow Democrat, openly. But five months later, he came forward on the Senate floor as a strong supporter of Arab nationalism, denouncing French colonial occupation of Algeria. His speech also made the front page of the New York Times. As Astucia writes, “By supporting independence for Algeria, Kennedy had indirectly aligned himself with Israel’s nemesis, Egyptian President Nasser.” This raised a red flag in Israeli circles. It is not farfetched to assume that, from that time, it was decided that, if Kennedy would beat Johnson to the Democratic primaries in 1960, every possible blackmail should be used to place Johnson right behind his back. Contrary to the public story, Kennedy didn’t choose Johnson as his running mate for political reasons: “I was left with no choice … those bastards were trying to frame me,” was Kennedy’s private explanation.
As president, Kennedy remained faithful to his sympathies for Nasser and Arab nationalism. In October 1962, he invited first Algerian president Ahmed Ben Bella to the White House. Historian Philip Muehlenbeck writes in Betting on the Africans: John F. Kennedy’s Courting of African Nationalist Leaders: “While the Eisenhower administration had sought to isolate Nasser and reduce his influence through building up Saudi Arabia’s King Saud as a conservative rival to the Egyptian president, the Kennedy administration pursued the exact opposite strategy.”Since the Soviet Union, standard bearer of anti-colonialism, was also a natural supporter of Arab independence, Israelis grew increasingly distressed at the sight of both Russia and America being friendly to their most fearful foe, and panicked at the prospect of the Middle East becoming the very place were the U.S. and the USSR would finally come to terms and end the Cold War, at Israel’s expense.
Kennedy had become a major threat for Israel. In a culture that has no inhibition against targeted assassinations of troublesome goyim (“Acts that people in other countries might be ashamed to admit to are instead a source of pride for Israelis”, explains Ronen Bergman in Rise and Kill First), JFK’s assassination had become a matter of national security.
The 1963 Dallas ambush was a Zionist coup to replace Egypt-friendly Kennedy by Israel-friendly Johnson. If Americans did not see it that way, it is because Johnson’s pro-Israel record had by then become erased from the news media. “Ironically,” notes Astucia, “the only place where I read anything about Johnson’s 1957 damage control for Israel—other than in the New York Times itself—was from the pen of Louis Bloomfield in his 1957 book, Egypt, Israel and the Gulf of Aqaba, p. 152. Astucia finds it ironic because he identifies Bloomfield as a core member of the conspiracy to kill Kennedy.
Among those Jewish journalists who played a decisive role in supporting the cover story of Lee Harvey Oswald as lone gunman, Astucia mentions Martin Agronsky, Elie Abel, Irving R. Levine, Peter Hackes, Kenneth Bernstein, Lief Ede, Gabe Pressman, and Walter Lippmann. They not only supported the official narrative, they also lost no time in bolstering Johnson’s image as the man of the situation. “As it Happened, a four hour film showing NBC-TV’s live coverage of President Kennedy’s assassination on November 22, 1963, reveals that Agronsky aggressively promoted Lyndon Johnson as an able replacement for the slain Kennedy rather than merely report the tragic events.”
With Johnson in power, the conditions for Israel to overthrow Nasser and annex new territory were much more favorable than in 1956. Astucia writes:
Things had changed a great deal over the ten years leading up to the Six Day War. Israel’s most influential adversaries had either died or left public office. Eisenhower had retired years earlier and was in failing health. John Foster Dulles had died of cancer in 1959. Dag Hammarskjöld had been killed in a mysterious plane crash in the Congolese province of Katanga in 1961. President Kennedy of course had been assassinated in Dallas in 1963. And Israel’s old ally, Lyndon Johnson, had become Commander-in-Chief of the United States. In July of 1965, President Johnson had appointed Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg as US ambassador to the UN. Goldberg—a Jew and ardent supporter of Israel—replaced Adlai Stevenson as US delegate to the UN after Stevenson died suddenly of a heart attack on July 14, 1965. The Yemen War had been eroding Arab unity since the conflict began in 1962. By 1967, Egyptian forces had suffered heavy losses and were weakened after five years of military involvement in the Yemen War.
In June 1967, Israel launched an attack against Egypt, under a false pretext of self-defense. The Six Day War, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin would admit in 1982, had not been a “war of necessity” but a “war of choice. … Nasser did not attack us. We decided to attack him.” The attack had been green-lighted by Johnson, and in a Washington meeting on May 30th, the CIA had provided Mossad chief Meir Amit with photos taken from satellites and spy planes, which enabled Israel to destroy Egypt’s air forces in a day. That was the beginning of a longstanding cooperation between CIA and Mossad, under the supervision of James Jesus Angleton, Israel’s man in Langley.
Johnson authorized Israel’s false flag attack on the USS Liberty. In fact, he most probably planned it in advance together with his gang of sayanim, as Phillip Nelson argues in LBJ: From Mastermind to “The Colossus” and in Remember the Liberty. On May 23, 1967, the USS Liberty was ordered to leave its patrol on the West Coast of Africa into what would soon be a war zone off the Sinai Peninsula, while another spy ship, the USNS Private Jose F. Valdez, was ordered to leave the area. Nelson remarks:
Perhaps the reason that the Liberty was tagged by Johnson as a “sacrificial lamb” was because of its name: As suggested by author Tourney, a survivor, “Remember the Liberty,” like the Alamo, or the Maine, would be a much better battle cry to rally the troops than the name of the ship it replaced.924 “Remember the Private Jose F. Valdez” just did not have the same panache.
When the crew managed to send an SOS after the Israelis had first machine-gunned the antennas, Johnson personally recalled the air rescue, ordering to Admiral Lawrence Geis, commander of the Sixth Fleet: “I want that Goddam ship going to the bottom. No help. Recall the wings.” But the Israeli torpedoes failed to sink the ship. Johnson accepted Israel’s phony excuse of “mistaken identity” and hushed the affair. Five months later, he invited Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol to the White House, and paid him the rare compliment of inviting him to his ranch [top picture].
Besides Israel’s conquest of the Old City of Jerusalem, the Sinai and the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights, the Six Day War had three major consequences. First, it heated up the Cold War and marked Nasser as an enemy of the United States, while elevating Israel as a strategic asset of the United States. Nasser broke off diplomatic relations with the U.S., and ordered all Americans out of Egypt. Although up to this point he had tried to keep a neutral position, he now placed himself entirely under the protection of the Soviet Union. In 1970, the Soviets furnished him with a powerful air defense system, and sent him 1,500 Soviet technicians. The Nixon administration was then pressured to counter the Soviets by supplying Israel with 125 additional fighter planes.
Interestingly, when Nasser died on November 28, 1970, his successor, General Anwar el-Sadat tried to switch side, but to his surprise, his offer was rejected by Henry Kissinger under heavy Israeli influence. Again in February 1973, Sadat sent a private emissary to Kissinger to discuss a United States-brokered deal, with little more success.
Secondly, Israel’s swift victory in the Six Day War rallied the American Jewish community in support of Israel. Jewish scholars Michael Kazin and Maurice Isserman wrote in America Divided: The Civil War of the 1960s:
For many American Jews, the 1967 conflict awakened and inspired passions that did much to transform the meaning of their identity. No longer was Israel just a reason for Jewish pride, a desert miracle of orange groves and thriving kibbutzes, whose creation was romanticized in Exodus — a popular novel and film of the late ’50s and early ’60s. Israel was now the homeland of fellow Jews who had fought alone for their survival and were resigned to living in perpetual danger.
Moreover, as Norman Finkelstein explained, “After the 1967 war, Israel’s military élan could be celebrated because its guns pointed in the right direction—against America’s enemies. Its martial prowess might even facilitate entry into the inner sanctums of American power.”
The third major consequence of the Six Day War was a transformation of Israel’s character. George Ball, former Undersecretary of State, wrote in The Passionate Attachment:
the ultimate lesson of the Liberty attack had far more effect on policy in Israel than in America. Israel’s leaders concluded that nothing they might do would offend the Americans to the point of reprisal. If America’s leaders did not have the courage to punish Israel for the blatant murder of American citizens, it seems clear that their American friends would let them get away with almost anything.
This, and the new escalation of the Cold War in the Middle East allowed for the most hard-core Zionists — those that Prime Ministry Moshe Sharett (1954-55) had blamed for “raising terrorism to the level of a sacred principle” — to seize the leadership of the Jewish State. Israel became a rogue state, the psychopath among nations. Ten years after 1967, Menachem Begin, former commander of the Irgun Zvai Leumi that perpetrated in 1946 the false flag bombing of the King David Hotel, became prime minister (1977-1983). He was succeeded by Yitzhak Shamir, former operational chief of the Lehi (aka the Stern Gang) that assassinated British diplomate Lord Moyne and UN peace mediator Count Folke Bernadotte, bombed the British embassy in Rome, and mailed letter bombs to every senior British cabinet member in London. After Shamir, hope for peace was restored by Yitzhak Rabin, who shook hands with Yasser Arafat and signed the Oslo Accords. He was assassinated for this, and a new generation of Machiavellian extremists came to power: Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, and Ariel Sharon, the instigators of the 9/11 coup.
With John Kennedy as president until 1968, possibly succeeded by his brother Robert until 1976, there would have been no Six Day War, and the Palestinian question may have found a peaceful and lasting solution. The “passionate attachment” between the U.S. and Israel, which started under Johnson and has now morphed into a psychopathic bond, would never have developed. And the road to 9/11 would not have been paved.
This month, two conferences are held in Dallas about JFK’s assassination: one by the Citizens Against Political Assassination (CAPA), the other by the JFK Historical Group. In none of them will Israel’s name be uttered, unless my friend Karl Golovin, who plans to be there, finds the opportunity to raise the issue. He tried to get me invited but was pushed back with the insinuation that my book is anti-Semitic. CAPA call their conference, “the Continuing Search for Truth.” There is an Orwellian twist in their use of “truth”, not so different from when Arlen “Magic Bullet” Specter titled his autobiography, Passion for Truth. As a matter of fact, Cyril Wecht, CAPA’s chairman and keynote speaker at the conference, supported Arlen Specter for U.S. Senate in 2004. That is not a unique case of a half-truther working hand in hand with a full liar. You also have Mark Lane, the earliest critic of the Warren report (Rush to Judgment, 1966), working for Gerald Posner, the latest apologist of the same report (Case Closed, 1993).
The case against Israel in JFK’s assassination is so clear and simple that self-proclaimed truthers who censor it deserve to be called hypocrites, cowards, or Israeli shills.
But things are moving, and hopefully, they will be different next year, for the 60th anniversary of the coup that transformed America into a client state of Israel (as Philip Giraldi just wrote). Can we start to imagine an international JFK conference exploring specifically the Israeli connection? Ron Unz would be the best keynote speaker. Phillip Nelson should be asked to give a talk on Lyndon Johnson and Peter Janney could speak on James Jesus Angleton. Salvador Astucia and Jim DeBrosse should be invited too. A tribute to Michael Collins Piper would have to be on the program. A contribution by the heroic Mordechai Vanunu would be welcome too (he has expressed the view that Kennedy was assassinated because of his opposition to Dimona), although we don’t want him to get in any more trouble. I will make the trip, if I can fly from France unvaxxed.
 On Kennedy’s plan for world nuclear disarmament, you want to read James Douglass’s JFK and the Unspeakable, while asking yourself why Douglass omits Kennedy’s most serious concern in 1963: Israel’s determination to become the first nuclear power in the Middle East.
 For example, Jim DeBrossse in See No Evil, op. cit., p. 150: “But could JFK have prevented a nuclear-armed Israel? Perhaps not, not when Israel had a decisive start at Dimona by 1963, and an iron-willed determination to see it through. But there can be little doubt that Kennedy, up to the moment of his death, intended to try.”