Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Letter from JFK to israeli prime minister demanding inspections
36 views
Skip to first unread message
Mike
Dec 17, 2011, 11:04:37 AM12/17/11
to
Letter from JFK to israeli prime minister demanding inspections of dimona
nuclear power plant and confirming that the israeli's assured JFK that the
plant at dimona was devoted to peaceful purposes.
Did israel lie to jfk in this letter regarding the entirely peaceful
purposes of the dimona plant?
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/dimona.htm
> Dear Mr. Prime Minister [Eshkol]:
> 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 exchange 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.
>
> I am sure you will agree that these visits should be as nearly as possible in accord with international standards, thereby resolving all doubts as to the peaceful intent of the Dimona project. As I wrote Mr. Ben-Gurion, this Government?s commitment to and support of Israel could be seriously jeopardized if it should be thought that we were unable to obtain reliable information on a subject as vital to the peace as the question of Israel?s effort in the nuclear field.
>
> 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 scientist 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 to 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.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> John F. Kennedy
>
nuclear power plant and confirming that the israeli's assured JFK that the
plant at dimona was devoted to peaceful purposes.
Did israel lie to jfk in this letter regarding the entirely peaceful
purposes of the dimona plant?
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/dimona.htm
> Dear Mr. Prime Minister [Eshkol]:
> 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 exchange 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.
>
> I am sure you will agree that these visits should be as nearly as possible in accord with international standards, thereby resolving all doubts as to the peaceful intent of the Dimona project. As I wrote Mr. Ben-Gurion, this Government?s commitment to and support of Israel could be seriously jeopardized if it should be thought that we were unable to obtain reliable information on a subject as vital to the peace as the question of Israel?s effort in the nuclear field.
>
> 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 scientist 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 to 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.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> John F. Kennedy
>
Pamela Brown
Dec 17, 2011, 7:35:53 PM12/17/11
to
granted by the UN. It was surrounded by enemies, yet told not to
defend itself. The Israeli position in regard to its safety has
always been "Never Again". We can make the assumption that Israel has
done whatever it deemed necessary in order to provide for its own
safety.
JFK's relationship with Israel, especially in regards to Dimona and
the implications involved, is critical to our understanding his
presidency. He took a balanced view. It is fair to ask what effect
JFK's request for inspections at Dimona might have had. Dimona
whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu has been repeatedly sent back to jail
in Israel for speaking up about that possible connection.
Pamela Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Anthony Marsh
Dec 17, 2011, 7:40:07 PM12/17/11
to
On 12/17/2011 11:04 AM, Mike wrote:
> Letter from JFK to israeli prime minister demanding inspections of
> dimona nuclear power plant and confirming that the israeli's assured JFK
> that the plant at dimona was devoted to peaceful purposes.
>
> Did israel lie to jfk in this letter regarding the entirely peaceful
> purposes of the dimona plant?
>
> http://www.jfkmontreal.com/dimona.htm
>
THIS letter is not the letter from Israel. It is JFK's letter to Israel.
> Letter from JFK to israeli prime minister demanding inspections of
> dimona nuclear power plant and confirming that the israeli's assured JFK
> that the plant at dimona was devoted to peaceful purposes.
>
> Did israel lie to jfk in this letter regarding the entirely peaceful
> purposes of the dimona plant?
>
> http://www.jfkmontreal.com/dimona.htm
>
That's one thing we can be sure about with this anti-Semite clique. They
can't keep their documents straight.
Did Israel lie about Dimona? Of course. All the time. To everyone. Even
before it was built.
Maybe you don't know anything about science, but every nuclear power plant
in the world produces fissionable materials. Even Japan which has always
had an avowed policy to never possess nuclear weapons, not even allow them
on their territory (which they let the US violate BTW). The heart of the
matter is what you do with that fissionable material or what you intend to
do with it. Store it, bury it, give it to South Africa or North Korea so
they can develop nuclear bombs.
Right now Israel has about 172 nuclear devices, mainly of small yields.
Israel calls then defensive just as Castro had 196 tactical nukes in 1963
to defend itself against a US attack.
Even the US went through the charade of claiming that its nuclear program
was only defensive to counteract the Russian nukes and maintain world
peace. So we called it a peaceful development. Same with Israel. It is
keeping the peace to them.
claviger
Dec 17, 2011, 7:44:27 PM12/17/11
to
On Dec 17, 10:04 am, Mike <MikeRa.1...@gmail.com> wrote:
That was a very friendly letter. You need to keep in mind international
diplomacy. What is said in a letter on the record may differ from what is
said in private.
claviger
Dec 17, 2011, 10:32:30 PM12/17/11
to
Anthony,
> Right now Israel has about 172 nuclear devices, mainly of small yields.
> Israel calls then defensive just as Castro had 196 tactical nukes in 1963
> to defend itself against a US attack.
Where did you find this information?
> Even the US went through the charade of claiming that its nuclear program
> was only defensive to counteract the Russian nukes and maintain world
> peace. So we called it a peaceful development. Same with Israel. It is
> keeping the peace to them.
MAD has kept the peace between super powers, except for proxy wars.
> Right now Israel has about 172 nuclear devices, mainly of small yields.
> Israel calls then defensive just as Castro had 196 tactical nukes in 1963
> to defend itself against a US attack.
> Even the US went through the charade of claiming that its nuclear program
> was only defensive to counteract the Russian nukes and maintain world
> peace. So we called it a peaceful development. Same with Israel. It is
> keeping the peace to them.
Mike
Dec 17, 2011, 10:41:55 PM12/17/11
to
resolution of the Cuban Missile crisis turned JFK steadfastly against
nuclear proliferation. JFK was not going to allow Israel to acquire a
nuclear weapon.
LBJ did hold that opinion. What happned in 1963 was regime change. LBJ
colluded with a foreign government to implement regime change in our
country.
Mike
Dec 17, 2011, 10:42:57 PM12/17/11
to
in the original post)
Mike
Dec 17, 2011, 10:44:18 PM12/17/11
to
Well Israel had a problem that those other countries did not have , and
that problem was JFK , after the Cuban Missile Crisis, was not going to
permit the nuclearization of the Middle East.
Anthony Marsh
Dec 18, 2011, 8:04:05 AM12/18/11
to
what happens behind the scenes.
Look up Angleton and Israel and nuclear.
Mike
Dec 18, 2011, 4:32:01 PM12/18/11
to
On 12/17/2011 10:04 AM, Mike wrote:
what he did...
"It is the melancholy law of human societies to be compelled sometimes
to choose a great evil in order to ward off a greater evil"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j5xgNH-P6M&feature=related#t=05m05s
Mike
Dec 18, 2011, 4:32:26 PM12/18/11
to
today Israel is suspected of having over 200 nuclear weapons which implies
that LBJ removed the demands on Israel regarding Dimona. I believe that
what happened in 1963 is what today we call "regime change". I believe
that LBJ was a willing participant in a conspiracy to implement this
regime change.
Mike
Dec 18, 2011, 6:59:05 PM12/18/11
to
http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/state-of-the-union/180.html
Anthony Marsh
Dec 18, 2011, 9:26:18 PM12/18/11
to
At the same time Angleton was secretly helping the the Israelis develop
their atomic program.
Anthony Marsh
Dec 18, 2011, 9:26:28 PM12/18/11
to
technology.
Anthony Marsh
Dec 18, 2011, 10:24:06 PM12/18/11
to
Anthony Marsh
Dec 18, 2011, 10:29:33 PM12/18/11
to
prove exactly WHEN they developed the nuclear weapons. They started long
before JFK got into office and did not actually produce any bombs until
the end of LBJ's term.
claviger
Dec 20, 2011, 12:56:33 PM12/20/11
to
Anthony,
> > MAD has kept the peace between super powers, except for proxy wars.
>
> So you agree with the tactic in both cases.
MAD kept Russian Tanks from overrunning Western Europe. As for proxy wars
most ended up being stalemates. I suppose half a loaf is better than
none. Vietnam was a big mistake. Iraq may turn out to be, depending on
which way the Iraqi people decide to go. My belief is Iraq was all about
protecting NATO oil supplies. Russia is friendly with Iran and now
courting Turkey. Had Iraq joined with a Russian coalition the NATO
members would then have to deal with the world's most powerful Oil Baron,
Vladimir Putin.
> > MAD has kept the peace between super powers, except for proxy wars.
>
> So you agree with the tactic in both cases.
most ended up being stalemates. I suppose half a loaf is better than
none. Vietnam was a big mistake. Iraq may turn out to be, depending on
which way the Iraqi people decide to go. My belief is Iraq was all about
protecting NATO oil supplies. Russia is friendly with Iran and now
courting Turkey. Had Iraq joined with a Russian coalition the NATO
members would then have to deal with the world's most powerful Oil Baron,
Vladimir Putin.
claviger
Dec 20, 2011, 12:57:13 PM12/20/11
to
Mike,
> I should have said that LBJ apparently did not hold that opinion because
> today Israel is suspected of having over 200 nuclear weapons which implies
> that LBJ removed the demands on Israel regarding Dimona. I believe that
> what happened in 1963 is what today we call "regime change". I believe
> that LBJ was a willing participant in a conspiracy to implement this
> regime change.
One researcher claims LBJ was the first Jewish President in the US.
Supposedly he had Jewish ancestry on the maternal side of his family.
However, several Presidents have supported Israel who had no Jewish
ancestry we know of. Now we have a President with Muslim ancestry on his
paternal side. Will he throw Israel under the bus? We shall see.
JFK was much more conservative than LBJ. If we search for an answer to
cui bono then JFK's conservative instincts may have been his undoing.
> I should have said that LBJ apparently did not hold that opinion because
> today Israel is suspected of having over 200 nuclear weapons which implies
> that LBJ removed the demands on Israel regarding Dimona. I believe that
> what happened in 1963 is what today we call "regime change". I believe
> that LBJ was a willing participant in a conspiracy to implement this
> regime change.
Supposedly he had Jewish ancestry on the maternal side of his family.
However, several Presidents have supported Israel who had no Jewish
ancestry we know of. Now we have a President with Muslim ancestry on his
paternal side. Will he throw Israel under the bus? We shall see.
JFK was much more conservative than LBJ. If we search for an answer to
cui bono then JFK's conservative instincts may have been his undoing.
Anthony Marsh
Dec 20, 2011, 3:54:19 PM12/20/11
to
On 12/20/2011 12:56 PM, claviger wrote:
> Anthony,
>
>>> MAD has kept the peace between super powers, except for proxy wars.
>>
>> So you agree with the tactic in both cases.
>
> MAD kept Russian Tanks from overrunning Western Europe. As for proxy wars
> most ended up being stalemates. I suppose half a loaf is better than
Sure. Weren't they designed to end as stalemates?
> Anthony,
>
>>> MAD has kept the peace between super powers, except for proxy wars.
>>
>> So you agree with the tactic in both cases.
>
> MAD kept Russian Tanks from overrunning Western Europe. As for proxy wars
> most ended up being stalemates. I suppose half a loaf is better than
> none. Vietnam was a big mistake. Iraq may turn out to be, depending on
> which way the Iraqi people decide to go. My belief is Iraq was all about
> protecting NATO oil supplies. Russia is friendly with Iran and now
> courting Turkey. Had Iraq joined with a Russian coalition the NATO
> members would then have to deal with the world's most powerful Oil Baron,
> Vladimir Putin.
oil has gone over the years?
And where did all those billions of dollars and Euros go which US troops
found hidden all over Iraq by Saddam Hussein?
Where did all the national treasures stolen from the museums go?
Anthony Marsh
Dec 20, 2011, 9:19:57 PM12/20/11
to
chosen as Vice-President because he was more conservative to balance the
ticket. I think it was Papa Joe who best saw the importance of balancing
the ticket.
Gus Russo falsely claims that JFK was trying to kill Castro and that
backfired on him.
claviger
Dec 22, 2011, 10:00:32 PM12/22/11
to
after college taught school in Cotulla, Texas. Most of his students were
poor hispanic kids. Not only did LBJ want to emulate FDR, he wanted to
surpass him by creating the "Great Society". By contrast JFK grew up a
scion of a wealthy family heavily invested in the stock market and
banking. That is why JFK worked for a tax cut to stimulate the economy
and opposed Socialist dictators like Fidel Castro. The Kennedy brothers
took on a powerful corrupt labor union. Except for the wealthy scion part
JFK sounds just like RWR. Sounds like they were cut from the same cloth.
I have no doubt LBJ was sincere in trying to help the poor, but JFK and
RWR did far more to help job creation with tax cuts than LBJ ever did with
government programs.
Anthony Marsh
Dec 23, 2011, 6:21:12 PM12/23/11
to
the JFK-era tax rates of 70%? I thought the Tea Party wanted NO TAXES?
0 new messages