|
What
follows is the text of American Free Press
correspondent Michael Collins Piper’s presentation,
on March 10, 2003, before the Zayed Center for Coordination
and Follow-Up in Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates.
At that time, the Zayed Center was the officially-designed
think tank of the Arab League. A major controversy erupted
as a consequence of Piper’s presentation (details
of which appear after the text of the presentation):
 I
would like to thank His Highness Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan
Al Nahyan, the Arab League, the Zayed Centre and its
staff, and all of those gathered here for honoring me
with this opportunity to speak to you today.
My
topic — the reason for the failure of the U.S.
media to accurately portray the conflict between Israel
and the Palestinian people and the resulting impact
on U.S. Middle East policy — is certainly a timely
one, more so than ever.
However,
I would note this: The policies toward Israel and the
Arab world being pursued by those who control the United
States government today are not policies that would
be endorsed by the American people if the American people
had a full understanding of the history of the Middle
East during the past century.
And
this speaks directly to the question of media bias.
It is precisely because of this media bias that Americans
have failed, for so long, to understand the improper
nature of the policies being pursued by their government.
The
American mass media tells Americans, time and again,
that in totalitarian states the governments control
the media. Americans are told that this is wrong.
However,
what Americans are NOT told is that in the United States
today, the small group of tightly-knit families and
financial interests who dominate the major media use
that power to control the government and its policies.
Americans
view television news as some form of entitlement —
a public utility, much like water or electricity. The
average American has no idea that the media is actually
a tool for those who control it to use for the exercise
of political power. Americans are good people, really,
but are in many respects, very, very naïve.
I
am here to tell you — very proudly — that
for the last 23 years, more than half my life, I have
been one of the few independent-minded American journalists
who have attempted to provide balance and truth in reporting
on the Middle East conflict. In fact, it was precisely
because of this concern I entered into journalism in
the first place: to combat the anti-Arab and anti-Muslim
bias on the part of the media in America.
It
hasn’t been easy, needless to say, but it has
been satisfying for I know that I have been on the side
of truth and justice. Frankly, very few journalists
in America can say that.
For
many years, my good friend, Dr. Issa Nakhleh —
the longtime representative in New York at the United
Nations for the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine
— sought to drive home to Americans a very simple
thesis: “The Arabs are your friends. The Zionists
are making them your enemies.”
So
with that in mind, I am also here to bring you some
good news: although the Zionist influence over the American
media—and over American government policy making—is
certainly greater than at any time in history, thanks
to the expansion of the Internet and other independent
media, the numbers of independent journalists in America
who are now daring to speak out are growing by leaps
and bounds.
And,
as a direct consequence, more and more Americans —
really, by the millions — are beginning to understand
that there is more than one side to the story of the
Middle East conflict and that the very cause of the
ongoing crisis with Iraq — not to mention the
tragic events of September 11, 2001, whomever may be
responsible — is the ill-founded U.S. bias against
the Arab (and Muslim) worlds.
So
while, in some respects, I was very much a pioneer in
the field of honest, accurate reporting about the Middle
East — working alongside a relative handful of
other like-minded Americans — I can say with satisfaction:
I was ahead of my time. And now others are finally catching
up.
All
of that having been said, Let me begin the formal part
of my presentation by a very simple example that illustrates
the pro-Israel bias on the part of the American media.
Did
you know that on October 18, 1983 a suicide bomber —
strapped with explosives and threatening to blow up
the U.S. Capitol — was captured by police in the
crowded spectators’ gallery of the House of Representatives
in the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC?
If
none of you assembled here today were aware of this
incident, I would not be surprised — if only for
the simple reason that most Americans themselves are
— to this day — unaware of this very real
threat against the U.S. Capitol and members of the U.S.
Congress.
The
truth is that this terrorist threat hardly made the
news at all.
The
reason, I contend, that this particular event —
a would-be suicide bombing — did not reach a broad-ranging
national and international audience is for one reason
and one reason alone:
The
individual who attempted this suicide bombing was an
Israeli Jew — 22 year old Israel Rabinowits.
To
the best of my knowledge, this remarkable event was
mentioned just once in The Washington Post —
the so-called newspaper of record in the American capital
— and only once, in passing, in The New York
Times.
And
for the record, even though it was certainly qualified
as “big” news, even The Washington Post
buried the story in its local news section — across
from the obituaries.
Evidently
an attempt to by a suicide bomber to destroy the U.S.
Capitol wasn’t worthy of the front page in 1983.
Today,
in fact, if you bother to check on the Internet you
won’t find even a mention of this event.
Wayne
Todd, editor of the National Legislative Service
& Security Association noted in the Nov. 1983
issue of his report that the story about the Israeli’s
attempt to bomb the Capitol was “virtually ignored
by the media.”
Imagine
— dare I say it — if the suicide bomber
had been a Palestinian Arab. The story would have been
on the front page of every newspaper in America. Every
major network and newsmagazine would have devoted additional
time and space to the topic of “Arab terrorism.”
The Israeli lobby would have a field day. By this time
there would have been a Hollywood film about the event.
The officer who caught the would-be terrorist would
have been on the cover of People magazine.
But
the would-be terrorist was not an Arab. He was an Israeli.
And therefore, the story disappeared into the classic
Memory Hole.
Now
this has been just a simple example of media bias, but
it illustrates my point all too clearly.
And
before anyone might suggest that accusations of media
bias in favor of Israel are somehow rooted in so-called
“rumors from the Muslim world” or the work
of “Arab propagandists,” please allow me
to note this:
While
Americans didn’t read about it in their daily
newspaper or hear Dan Rather talking about it on CBS,
on June 1, 2002 Civilta Cattolica—an
influential Jesuit journal sanctioned by the Vatican
— actually fired a volley at the American media
for its obsessive coverage of the ongoing Catholic Church
sex scandals.
What
is significant, for our context here, is that in tracing
the media’s interest in the church’s troubles,
the Vatican hinted at the behind-the-scenes power of
the inter-connected handful of powerful pro-Israel families
and financial interests who dominate the media monopoly
in shaping the media’s news coverage.
The
Vatican-approved article flatly asserted that —
at least in part because the Catholic Church refused
to support the Persian Gulf War against Saddam Hussein
in 1991 — the controllers of the American media
monopoly had nursed a grudge against the church.
And
while the Vatican didn’t say it directly, it is
absolutely beyond question that it was the pro-Israel
lobby that was the prime mover behind the war against
Saddam — then, as today.
Given
that — as the record indicates — the media’s
sudden and intense interest in the church’s problems
did, in fact, evolve after Sept. 11, it is interesting
to note that Civilta Cattolica also cited the
aftermath of 9-11 in its dissection of the media’s
attacks on the church:
The
journal suggested that the Catholic Church’s appeals
against “vendettas” against the Arab and
Muslim world in the wake of 9-11 also offended the media,
which has been heavily promoting an anti-Arab and anti-Muslim
agenda.
Now
while no one excuses either the Vatican or other church
officials for misfeasance, malfeasance or non-feasance
in handling the travesty of sexual abuse by priests,
the truth is that the problem has been one of long-standing
and has really been no secret whatsoever.
It
was only after Sept. 11 — as any content analysis
of daily news coverage will affirm — that the
American media began devoting so much space to the problem.
It
is no exaggeration to conclude that much as the media
has almost made the terms “Muslim” or “Arab”
virtually synonymous with the word “terrorist,”
the term “Catholic” is now almost synonymous
with the term “pedophile
In
fact, the Vatican’s criticism of the media giants
is not a new development. Several years ago, speaking
before Corallo — the consortium of independent
local radio and television channels in Italy, Pope John
Paul II cited the rise of global media monopolies and
emphasized the need for “local information”
— that is, media voices outside the hands of the
powerful media barons.
The
Pope said that “communication has become the soul
which shapes the culture of our time” and stressed
what he called the “dignity” of independent
media.And it is the independent media — of which
I have been a part for my entire career — that
has provided an alternative to the pro-Israel propaganda
and disinformation that has so permeated the self-styled
“mainstream” media in America today.
What
then, is the source of the problem? Why is the media
so skewed in favor of Israel?
In
1937, American muckraker Ferdinand Lundberg created
a stir with a book entitled America’s Sixty
Families. His book was the first comprehensive
look at the rising accumulation of vast wealth and influence
by a small group of Americans — many of them inter-married
families or otherwise connected through business relationships
— who had come to dominate the American republic.
Lundberg
opened that volume by making an assertion that —
while quite true — opened the eyes of the American
reading public to a reality that perhaps few had recognized:
“The
United States is owned and dominated today by a hierarchy
of its sixty richest families, buttressed by no more
than ninety families of lesser wealth.
“This
de facto government is actually the government of the
United States — informal, invisible, shadowy.
It is the government of money in a dollar democracy.
“Under
their acquisitive fingers, and in their possession,
the sixty families hold the richest nation ever fashioned
in the workshop of history . . . .”
At
the time Lundberg was writing, there was a solid core
of substantial Jewish wealth among the “Sixty
Families” listed. Times did change, however, and
Jewish wealth and influence was on the ascendancy. However,
except in limited circles, the discussion of Jewish
wealth and power remained largely a topic very much
unspoken.
In
this context, about the media, Lundberg noted: “The
journalism of the United States, from top to bottom,
is the personal affair — bought and paid for —
of the wealthy families. There is little in American
journalism today, good or bad, which does not emanate
from the family dynasties.” Lundberg called this
phenomenon “the press of the plutocracy”
and what he wrote about in 1937 continues to exist today
— but more so.
In
1968 Lundberg came back with a sequel to America’s
Sixty Families. This new volume, The Rich and
the Super-Rich, was an overview of the then-existing
state of affairs in the secret world of the super-rich
in America. In that second book, Lundberg made the rather
interesting assessment of the situation, concluding
that, in his choice words: “a relative handful
of Americans are extravagantly endowed, like princes
in the Arabian Nights tales.”
Although
Lundberg was quite right in his overall assessment about
the accumulation of wealth and media power in a few
hands, he fell down on one key point: Today’s
elite in America: Princes they are — but they
are not Arabian.
While
the major media tells Americans about the wealth of
the Arab sheikhs and of the oil riches of the Middle
East, Americans have no idea that the accumulated wealth
of the American Jewish community — and the political
influence that comes with it in every major city (and
certainly in small cities and towns across America)
— dwarfs that of those Arabian princes that so
concerned this Jewish-American author.
America’s
“New Elite” today are unquestionably the
wealthy and powerful Jewish families who—unlike
the Rockefellers, the Morgans, the Roosevelts, the Kennedys,
the Vanderbilts and the other “princes”
of previous eras—have a considerably lower public
profile than the non-Jewish American elite of the past.
American
Jews are indeed the modern-day equivalents of the princes
in the tales of the Arabian Nights.
And
while the Jewish elite may not constitute a majority,
per se, of the billionaires or the super-rich on the
famous “Forbes 400,” list, their combined
wealth certainly rivals (most likely surpasses) that
of the non-Jewish elite.
As
such, the Jewish elite have used their wealth to amass
a great deal of media control — and that is putting
it lightly.
Pro-Israel
Jewish families and/or financial interests control all
three of the major news magazines: Time, Newsweek,
and U.S. News & World Report, not to mention
both major national daily newspapers — The
Washington Post and The New York Times.
[And since the time that I spoke those words at the
Zayed Center, even The Chicago Tribune and
The Los Angeles Times now bear the distinction
of being Jewish-controlled, both publications previously
known as bastions of “WASP” publishing power
in America — MCP.]
Even
in the field of tabloid journalism — although
most Americans don’t know it — every single
one of the sensational super-market tabloids is owned
by one media outlet, a tightly-controlled corporation
organized by an influential American Zionist figure,
former Deputy Treasury Secretary Roger Altman.
In
addition, every one of the major television networks
is dominated by Jewish financial interests.
These
media voices shape the American perception of the Middle
East conflict. And aside from the high-level control
of the networks, the newspapers and the newsmagazines,
there remains the significant Jewish presence within
the editorial and news staffs of these media outlets.
In that regard, I will refer, exclusively, to the comments
made by American Jewish writers who have touched on
the subject.
Jewish-American
writer Joel Kotkin, in his book, Tribes, asserts:
“Although
not in control of the media and the arts, as some anti-Semites
suggest, Jews clearly possess a disproportionate influence
in movies, publishing, advertising and theater. In the
media, according to one survey in the 1970s, one quarter
of the leading figures were Jewish, more than ten times
their percentage in the general population.”
J.
J. Goldberg, writing in his book, Jewish Power:
Inside the American Jewish Establishment, declared:
“It
is true that Jews are represented in the media business
in numbers far out of proportion to their share of the
population.
“Studies
have shown that while Jews make up little more than
5 percent of the working press nationwide — hardly
more than their share of the population — they
make up one fourth or more of the writers, editors,
and producers in America’s ‘elite media,’
including network news divisions, the top newsweeklies
and the four leading daily papers (New York Times,
Los Angeles Times, Washington Post,
Wall Street Journal).
“In
the fast-evolving world of media megacorporations, Jews
are even more numerous.
“In
an October 1994 Vanity Fair feature profiling
the kingpins of the new media elite, titled ‘The
New Establishment,’ just under half of the two
dozen entrepreneurs profiled were Jews.
“In
the view of the magazines editors, these are America’s
true power elite, “men and women from the entertainment,
communications and computer industries, whose ambitions
and influence have made America the one true superpower
of the Information Age.”
Goldberg
cites Eugene Fisher, the director of Catholic-Jewish
relations for the National Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Mr. Fisher has commented:
“If
there is Jewish power, it’s the power of the word,
the power of Jewish columnists and Jewish opinion makers.
The Jewish community is a very literate community, and
it has a lot to say. And if you can shape opinion, you
can shape events.”
Goldberg
adds, referring to the Jewish predominance in the Hollywood
film industry:
“Hollywood
at the end of the twentieth century is still an industry
with a pronounced ethnic tinge. Virtually all the senior
executives at the major studios are Jews.
“Writers,
producers, and to a lesser degree directors are disproportionately
Jewish—one recent study showed the figure as high
as 59 percent among top-grossing films.
“The
combined weight of so many Jews in one of America’s
most lucrative and important industries gives the Jews
of Hollywood a great deal of political power.”
Pointing
out, in the mid-1980s, that “Jews play an increasingly
important role in journalism, “ Charles Silberman
noted that:
“In
1982, for example, Jews made up a little less than 6
percent of the national press corps as a whole but 25
to 30 percent of the “media elite”—those
working for The New York Times,The Washington
Post, and The Wall Street Journal; for
Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News
& World Report; and for the news divisions
of CBS, NBC, ABC, and the Public Broadcasting System
and its leading stations. (A 1971 study put the number
of Jews in the media elite at 25 percent.) When one
looks at the key decision-making positions, the Jewish
role appears to be even larger.”
Silberman
adds:
“Jews
are equally influential, if less well known, in the
management of television news. It is the network correspondents,
of course, who have become household names, among them
Jews . . .
“The
greatest concentration of Jews, however, is at the producer
level — and it is the producers who decide which
stories will go on the air, and how long, and in what
order they will run.
“In
1982, before a shift in assignments, the executive producers
of all three evening newscasts were Jewish, as were
the executive producers of CBS’s ‘60 Minutes’
and ABC’s ‘20/20.’And Jews are almost
equally prominent at the ‘senior producer’
and ‘broadcast producer’ levels as well
as in senior management.”
In
his 1995 book, Assimilation and Its Discontents,
Jewish author Barry Rubin also emphasizes how Jewish
concerns permeate American popular culture in the print
media. He pointed out how, for example, on just one
single day — Oct. 18, 1992 — the reviews
section of The Washington Post:
“[Was]
full of books by or about Jews: on sports and the American
Jewish experience; a biography of Bill Graham, a Holocaust
survivor and leading rock & roll impresario; the
story of an upper-class New York family infected by
antisemitism; a South African woman’s group portrait
of her set of Jewish friends; a Jewish couple’s
volume on foreign investments in America, analyzing
problems of multiple loyalties and foreign influence
parallel issues in assimilation; and a Jewish author’s
book on politics in higher education, discussing multiculturalism
in terms drawn from the integration of Jews into American
society.”
Forgive
me if I have belabored an all-too obvious point. There
is a very strong Jewish presence in the media. That
presence bends the American media in a bias in favor
of Israel and against the Arab world.
Professor
Ben Bagdikian, a prominent media critic and author of
the book, The Media Monopoly, has pointed out
the dangers of a select few controlling the mass media:
“The
[media] lords of the global village have their own political
agenda. All resist economic changes that do not support
their own financial interests. Together, they exert
a homogenizing power over ideas, culture and commerce
that affects populations larger than any in history.
“Neither
Caesar nor Hitler, Franklin Roosevelt nor any Pope,
has commanded as much power to shape the information
on which so many people depend to make decisions about
everything from whom to vote for to what to eat . .
.
“Monopolistic
power dominates many other industries and most of them
enjoy special treatment by the government.
“But
media giants have two enormous advantages:
“They
control the public image of national leaders who, as
a result, fear and favor the media magnates’ political
agendas; and
“They
control the information and entertainment that help
establish the social, political and cultural attitudes
of increasingly larger populations . . .
“In
1989, there were 11 major media giants emerging as the
most powerful names in the global media monopoly. Since
that time, those numbers have deceased even as the various
media holdings of the smaller number of media monopolies
have increased”.
The
comments of Bagdikian regarding the growing concentration
of media ownership summarize the matter well:
“When
50 men and women, chiefs of their corporations, control
more than half the information and ideas that reach
249 million Americans, it is time for Americans to examine
the institutions from which they receive their daily
picture of the world.
“Theirs
is a strategy of total control. They buy every possible
means of delivery (print, broadcast, films, etc). They
strive to use their own rather than independently produced
material. Then they convert it to as many forms of media
as they control. Even the world’s scholarly, scientific
and technical journals are now largely controlled by
the big media barons . . .”
Based
upon all of this, it is absolutely precise and fair
to say that — largely because of its influence
over the media, not to mention the vast accumulation
of wealth and power in other realms — Zionist
Power in America Today Is Greater Than in Any Country
at any Time in Recorded History . . .
Jewish-American
Professor Norman Cantor has encapsulated this immense
power. In his controversial book, The Sacred Chain,
widely criticized for its candor, Cantor wrote of Jewish
power and affluence in America today:
“Nothing
in Jewish history equaled this degree of Jewish accession
to power, wealth and prominence. Not in Muslim Spain,
not in early 20th century Germany, not in Israel itself,
because there were no comparable levels of wealth and
power on a world-class scale in that small country to
attain.”
According
to Cantor: “The Morgans, the Rockefellers, the
Harrimans, the Roosevelts, the Kennedys, the titans
of bygone eras, they have been superseded by [the Jew]
as flawless achiever . . . .”
So
the media itself is largely dominated and substantially
influenced from within by pro-Israel forces.
What
happens in America when some independent journalist,
some maverick political figure, or even a newspaper
reporter devoted to the truth dares suggest something
unpleasant about Israel?
It
is then that a powerful force all its own swings into
action. This organization is known as the Anti-Defamation
League of B’nai B’rith — or, “the
ADL” for short.
The
ADL, as many of you probably know, maintains close ties
to Israel’s Mossad and functions as an information
gathering outlet for the Mossad.
The
ADL also functions as a very aggressive public relations
agency on behalf of Israel and against any and all critics
of Israel.
Of
particular interest is the ADL’s use of undercover
operatives to infiltrate and spy upon critics of U.S.
favoritism toward Israel. The ADL maintains massive
spy files on critics of Israel and doesn’t hesitate
to use those files in the most pernicious ways possible.
In
late 1992, a major scandal erupted in San Francisco,
California when — for reasons which remain murky
to this day — both the FBI and the San Francisco
Police Department raided the office of the ADL as well
as the home of its top undercover operative, one Roy
Bullock. The ADL was being investigated for illegal
domestic spying and also the unauthorized use of police
intelligence files.
I
am proud to say that some seven years before Mr. Bullock
was officially exposed as an ADL spy, I was the first
journalist in America to expose Bullock as an ADL undercover
operative, although, at the time, Bullock vehemently
denied the charges.
I
am also proud to say that when the FBI formally unmasked
Bullock, the ADL said under questioning by the FBI that
it was my expose of Bullock as an ADL undercover operative
that set in motion the chain of events that ultimately
led to the FBI-police raid on ADL headquarters in both
San Francisco and Los Angeles.
The
case proceeded so far that it was reported that the
authorities were planning to seek criminal indictments
of top ADL officials. The case was only dropped after
pressure on the San Francisco District Attorney's office
by the Jewish community.
And
I should note this: During the ADL scandal, The
San Francisco Weekly, a small progressive, alternative
weekly, reported something that had never before been
reported and which will be of particular interest to
our audience here today:
This
is the fact that, according to a former ADL employee
in Manhattan, during the 1960's, prior to his assassination,
the late Dr. Martin Luther King was viewed as a "loose
cannon" by the ADL and was the target of its spying
operations. In fact, the ADL turned the fruits of its
"fact finding" over to J. Edgar Hoover of
the FBI.
Suffice
it to say that there have been reports (from sources
close to Dr. King and his family) that prior to his
assassination Dr. King was moving toward taking a public
stand that Zionism is a form of racism.
In
that regard — without pursuing the matter any
further than this, I will tell you that Dr. King’s
alleged assassin, James Earl Ray — whose bid for
exoneration was supported by King’s own family,
said early on that he believed that Israel’s Mossad
was behind Dr. King’s assassination. And that,
of course, is not something the American media ever
reported.
In
any case, despite such revelations, the ADL remains
very much a part of the Zionist power bloc in America
and the American media eagerly reports anything —
repeat ANYTHING — that the ADL asserts without
question.
The
ADL (a unit of the Mossad) is a virtual adjunct of the
pro-Israel media force in America today. You cannot
discuss the American media bias in favor of Israel without
discussing the role of the ADL.
In
fact, since the Sept. 11 attacks, as you well know,
the major media in the United States — particularly
the broadcast media — has waged a continuing propaganda
campaign against the Arab world, and Saudi Arabia in
particular.
Hardly
a week has gone by that there haven’t been commentaries
or questions raised along the line: “Are the Saudis
really our friends?” — Or more, directly,
it is often stated: “The Saudis are really not
our friends. They are our enemies.”
The
media continues to put forth what is actually the Israeli
opinion and propaganda line (disguised as “news”)
regarding Saudi Arabia.
The
media campaign against the Saudis has been so intense
that even the courtly and urbane Prince Bandar, the
otherwise soft-spoken longtime Saudi ambassador to the
United States, recently and correctly described much
of the anti-Saudi propaganda by using a choice word
that refers to barnyard droppings.
Although
the overwhelming majority of the television audience
and newspaper readers don’t know it, many of the
attacks on Saudi Arabia in the major media come practically
verbatim from a 49-page “white paper” issued
by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a key public relations
arm for the Israeli lobby.
Hidden
behind the deliberately ambiguous and indifferent title
The U.S.-Saudi Relationship, the ADL has circulated
perhaps tens of thousands of copies of this propaganda
screed to newspaper editors and reporters throughout
the United States over the past twenty years.
In
doing so, the ADL discreetly suggests that the document
be used by editors and reporters as “background”
in preparation of stories relating to Saudi Arabia.
Finding
a handy “capsule” document at their disposal,
reporters — who generally have no particular axe
to grind one way or the other, or who otherwise know
it is in their best interests to promote the Israeli
propaganda line — quote the document freely and
regularly, never revealing the ADL as the source.
Now,
because of the pro-Israel bias within the media as a
whole, coupled with the additional pressure from the
outside, the work of such groups as the ADL, the media’s
failure to address all aspects of the Middle East question
has had a significant impact in a very broad historical
sense.
The
secret Israeli connection to at least several major
political events in recent American history —
often the real key to understanding these events —
has been deliberately suppressed or ignored by the mass
media in America.
What
I am about to say will be controversial. But I will
say it.
The
three most talked-about and most serious political convulsions
that rocked the American system of government during
the last half of the 20th century century can all be
traced most directly and definitively to the continuing
conflict over Palestine and the aggressive imperial
role of Israel in Middle East affairs. I refer, of course,
to:
•
The assassination of John F. Kennedy,
•
The Watergate scandal and the toppling of President
Richard M. Nixon, and
•
The Monica Lewinsky affair and the impeachment trial
of President Bill Clinton.
And,
needless to say, despite all the media uproar over each
of these crises, the Middle East connection —
that is, the Israeli connection — has gone unreported,
except in independent media, such as, for example, my
own newspaper, American Free Press.
Unfortunately,
of course, I don’t have the time to go into all
of the details here, but I would like to attempt a brief
overview.
Regarding
the Kennedy Assassination — a topic of special
interest to me, as you will see.
In
1992, former U.S. Congressman Paul Findley made the
little-noticed but intriguing comment that “in
all the words written about the assassination of John
F. Kennedy, Israel’s intelligence agency, the
Mossad, has never been mentioned, despite the obvious
fact Mossad complicity is as plausible as any of the
other theories.”
What
Findley did not know was that, at that very moment,
I was in the process of assembling a book, to be titled
Final Judgment, which did indeed contend (and
document) that the Mossad role alongside certain Mossad-allied
elements inside the America CIA was the big secret —
the “missing link”—that explained
the entirety of the JFK assassination conspiracy.
Although
my book Final Judgment has never been in any
major bookstore, some 30,000 copies are in circulation
— more copies than more widely-publicized books
on the topic. It is truly an “underground best-seller.”
And I’m pleased to say that an Arabic-language
translation has been published by the distinguished
firm of Dar El Ilm Lilmalayin, based in Beirut. [As
of 2013, some 50,000 copies of the book are circulating.
See michaelcollinspiper.com for the ebook edition.]
Final
Judgment documents that in 1963 JFK was embroiled
in a bitter secret conflict with Israeli leader David
Ben-Gurion over Israel’s drive to build the atomic
bomb; that Ben-Gurion resigned in disgust, saying that
because of JFK’s policies, Israel’s
“existence [was] in danger.” Then upon JFK’s
assassination, U.S. policy toward Israel began an immediate
180-degree turnaround.
Israeli
historian Avner Cohen’s new book, Israel and
the Bomb, confirms the conflict between JFK and
Israel so powerfully that, Israel’s Ha’aretz,
declared Cohen’s book a “bombshell”
saying its revelations would “necessitate the
rewriting of Israel’s entire history.”
Ethan
Bronner, reviewing Cohen’s book in The New
York Times, called Israel’s drive to build
a nuclear bomb “a fiercely hidden subject,”
and indeed, at the time of the JFK assassination, it
was.
And
this, of course, explains why JFK researchers never
considered an Israeli connection until my book, Final
Judgment, supplied the missing pieces, assembling
what I have called “the hidden picture on the
other side of the jigsaw puzzle.”
Although
the American media has promoted a wide-ranging and often
confusing variety of theories blaming various power
interests for the JFK assassination, the very real Israeli
connection was never once mentioned.
The
Ha'aretz review of the book by Avner Cohen
is quite interesting. It reads in part:
“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.
“Cohen
demonstrates at length the pressures applied by Kennedy
on Ben-Gurion. He brings the fascinating exchange of
letters between the two, 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.”
I
couldn't put it better myself.
According
to historian Stephen Green:
“Perhaps
the most significant development of 1963 for the Israeli
nuclear weapons program, however, occurred on November
22 on a plane flying from Dallas to Washington, D.C.,
Lyndon Baines Johnson was sworn in as the 36th President
of the United States, following the assassination of
John F. Kennedy.”
And
as Green summarized it: “In the early years of
the Johnson administration the Israeli nuclear weapons
program was referred to in Washington as ‘the
delicate topic.’ Lyndon Johnson’s White
House saw no Dimona, heard no Dimona, and spoke no Dimona
when the reactor went critical in early 1964.”
Thus
it was that the critical point of dispute between John
F. Kennedy and the Mossad-dominated government of Israel
was no longer an issue. The new American president,
Lyndon Johnson — so long a partisan of Israel
— allowed the nuclear development to continue.
This was just the beginning.
Now
while all of this presents a strong motive for Israel
to strike against JFK, my book Final Judgment
also documents what even maverick Israeli journalist
Barry Chamish has admitted is “a pretty cogent
case” for Mossad collaboration in the assassination
conspiracy.
The
fact is that when New Orleans District Attorney Jim
Garrison prosecuted trade executive Clay Shaw with conspiracy
in the assassination, Garrison had stumbled upon the
Mossad link.
Although
(after his acquittal) Shaw was revealed to have been
a CIA asset, in 1963 also Shaw served on the board of
a Rome-based company, Permindex, which was actually
a front for a Mossad-sponsored arms procurement operation.
A
primary shareholder in Permindex, the Banque De Credit
Internationale of Geneva, was not only the fiefdom of
Tibor Rosenbaum, a high-level Mossad official, but also
the chief money laundry for Meyer Lansky, “chairman”
of the American organized crime syndicate and long-time
Israeli loyalist.
The
chief executive of Permindex was Louis Bloomfield of
Montreal, a top figure in the Israeli lobby and an operative
of the Bronfman family, intimate Lansky associates and
leading patrons of Israel.
Permindex
was clearly the Israeli link to the JFK assassination,
so much so that Jim Garrison later circulated the manuscript
for a never-published novel in which he fingered the
Mossad as prime mover behind the conspiracy.
The
Permindex link also explains the often-discussed “French
connection” to the JFK assassination.
However,
only my book, Final Judgment, has explained
precisely what the French connection really was:
That
is, that Permindex was also involved in assassination
attempts against French President Charles DeGaulle by
the French “Secret Army Organization” (OAS)
which itself had close ties to the Mossad.
Like
the OAS, the Israelis hated DeGaulle not only because
he gave independence to Algeria, a major new Arab state,
but also because DeGaulle, who had assisted Israel,
had withdrawn support, objecting (as did JFK) to Israel’s
drive for an atomic arsenal.
A
French intelligence officer revealed to me that the
Mossad contracted out one of JFK’s assassins —
probably a Corsican hitman — through a French
intelligence official who was disloyal to DeGaulle and
who hated JFK for supporting Algerian independence.
JFK
was also planning a strike against Red China’s
nuclear bomb program — a plan scuttled by Lyndon
Johnson within a month of JFK’s assassination.
During this same period, in fact, Israel and Red China
were involved in joint secret nuclear bomb research
with a key player in the Permindex web, Shaul Eisenberg,
serving as the Mossad’s liaison with China.
And
again, I should note: the American media has been loathe
to mention the fact that Israel and Red China’s
nuclear arms collaboration goes back to the early 1960s
— another big secret kept from the American people.
My
book Final Judgment was first to point out
that James Angleton, the CIA liaison to the Mossad,
was a devoted partisan of Israel who not only orchestrated
the scenario linking accused assassin Lee Oswald to
the Soviet KGB but who later circulated disinformation
to confuse investigations into the assassination.
I
would submit to you here today that Hollywood’s
Oliver Stone failed to mention these details in his
famous film JFK because that film was financed
by Arnon Milchan, an Israeli arms dealer linked to smuggling
of materiel to Israel’s nuclear program —
the point of contention between JFK and Israel.
Although
Israeli diplomat Uri Palti called the thesis of my book
“nonsense,” and pro-Israel columnist George
Will declared it “vicious intellectual licentiousness,”
The Los Angeles Times grudgingly admitted that
Final Judgment was “novel indeed,”
saying it “weave[s] together some of the key threads
in a tapestry that many say is unique.”
The
very week in 1997 the American Library Association sponsored
“Banned Books Week,” the aforementioned
Anti-Defamation League (the ADL) created an uproar,
forcing cancellation of a college seminar on the JFK
assassination because I had been invited to speak.
The
ADL feared “impressionable” students might
take my thesis seriously. That same ADL feels that American
college students are quite prepared, on the other hand,
to fight and die for Israel.
The
very strength of my book, according to many readers
who are familiar with other data on the JFK assassination,
is that it shows how all of the more familiar theories
about the assassination are connected — and that
connection is indeed the Israeli connection.
To
this day, eight years after the release of the book:
•
No one has been able to rebut the thesis, misquoted
any of my sources or quoted any of my sources out of
context.
•
No one has been able to demonstrate where any of the
key points in my thesis are refuted by other information.
•
No one has cited any specific errors (relevant to the
thesis) that would contradict my thesis.
Considering
the energetic and very public efforts of the ADL to
defame this book, one would think that the ADL would
assemble a crack team of researchers to tear the book
apart. And bear in mind that if the book were so much
nonsense, the ADL would not pay Final Judgment
the attention that they do.
In
light of Israel’s unhindered production of weapons
of mass destruction — and the apparent role of
Israel’s Mossad in the assassination of the one
president who tried to stop it, I would ask those assembled
here to give the Arabic edition of my book the widest
distribution and firmest endorsement possible.
The
world does need to know who really killed John F. Kennedy
and why. The evidence demonstrates that there is a very
strong foundation for my thesis. It is a scenario that
does make sense, much to the dismay of my critics. Final
Judgment encapsulates a thesis that they can't
discredit. The genie is out of the bottle and neither
Final Judgment nor its thesis are about to
go away.
So
much for the JFK assassination.
What
about the media-orchestrated assassination of Richard
M. Nixon — remembered today as Watergate? Again,
we find an Israeli connection but one that the major
media prefers to keep under wraps.
In
March of 1974 President Nixon sent General Vernon Walters,
who was then deputy director of the CIA, as his special
representative for a secret meeting with two PLO leaders,
Khalad Hassan and Majed Abu Sharar, who represented,
respectively the so-called "right" and "left"
wings of Fatah, the largest and most influential of
the Palestinian factions that made up the PLO.
Although
the meeting evidently ended with great promise of working
out a comprehensive Middle East settlement, British
journalist Alan Hart reports that not long afterward,
Henry Kissinger sabotaged that back-channel effort by
President Nixon to achieve peace.
Although
the details are spelled out clearly in Hart’s
biography of Yasser Arafat, few Americans know —
although they should know — that Chairman Arafat
and the two Hassan brothers told Hart, in Hart’s
words, "that they were convinced that the government
of Israel and the Jewish lobby in America had made use
of the Watergate affair to break Nixon before he forced
Israel to make the necessary withdrawals for peace."
Khalad
Hassan also told Hart that he (Hassan) had discussed
Nixon’s continuing back-channel peace initiatives
with then-King Feisal of Saudi Arabia who had played
a part in the effort. Evidently, according to Hart’
rendition, President Nixon himself told King Feisal
this:
“If
[Nixon] found his way blocked by Israel and the Jewish
lobby, he would throw away his prepared text when he
made his next State of the Union report [in January
of 1975] and that he would tell the people of America,
live on TV and radio, the whole truth about how Israel
and its friends in America were the obstacle to peace.”
In
other words, Nixon was preparing to expose the way in
which the Government of Israel and its supporters in
America controlled American foreign policy.
President
Nixon never had the opportunity to make such a bold
move. The media focus on the burgeoning Watergate scandal
drove him from office. Thanks to an inside source today
remembered as “Deep Throat,” The Washington
Post led the the drumbeat for Nixon’s removal
from office.
In
that regard it is interesting to note that former American
diplomat Richard Curtiss, executive editor of The
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, stated
frankly in 1995 that “it’s long been our
opinion that whoever played the role of ‘Deep
Throat’ was in fact only a conduit for information
collected by Israel’s Mossad and used to discredit
Nixon,” and that Nixon’s attempt to reassess
U.S. relations with Israel was “the catalyst that
led directly to his downfall..”
There
is, in fact, evidence that the enigmatic source “Deep
Throat” was, at the least, an indirect operative
of Israel’s Mossad. In her book, Katharine
the Great, a critical biography of Katharine Graham,
the late publisher of The Washington Post,
Jewish-American journalist Debra Davis has almost certainly
provided the real key to Watergate.
Miss
Davis presents a solid case that the Post’s
famed Watergate source — ”Deep Throat”
— was most likely Richard Ober, the right-hand
man of James Angleton, the CIA’s counterintelligence
chief and longtime and Israeli-allied liaison to the
Mossad.
Miss
Davis revealed that Ober was in charge of a joint CIA-Israeli
counterintelligence desk established by Angleton inside
the Nixon White House.
From
this listening post, Ober (at Angleton’s direction)
provided inside information about Watergate that helped
bring down the Nixon administration.
So
despite all that you — and the American people
— have heard from the major media about Watergate,
this information is not something that is in widespread
distribution. Suffice it to say, based on what we have
discussed here today, I think you understand why.
[Although,
in subsequent years, Watergate reporter Robert Woodward
has claimed that his source was actually a former FBI
official named Mark Felt, there are many — including
yours truly — who doubt Woodward’s words
regarding this matter — MCP]
Now
. . . what of Bill Clinton’s impeachment affair
— the third great political crisis to rock the
American system of government during the last quarter
of the 20th century?
Where
in the world could anyone ever divine an underlying
Israeli involvement in that sordid business?
Of
course, Bill Clinton’s problems were very much
of his own making. However, bear in mind that the Israelis
and their powerful lobby — in league with pro-Israel
forces in the major media — took great advantage
of the affair.
As
a starting point, note that it was none other than William
Kristol who was one of the first individuals to float
the Monica Lewinsky story publicly.
Many
of you are probably familiar with William Kristol, now
a prominent media figure who is perhaps the leading
media publicist for the misdeeds of the now-infamous
Richard Perle, the leading Arab-hating fanatic advising
the Bush administration today.
Not
only is young Kristol the front man for media tycoon
Rupert Murdoch — a major ally of Israel’s
hard-line Likud — but Kristol himself is the son
of journalist Irving Kristol and historian Gertrude
Himmelfarb, major “neoconservative” figures
with long-standing close ties to Israel’s right
wing. Like his parents, Kristol is a “Likudnik”
and during the Clinton years he emerged as a prominent
and harsh critic of President Clinton’s decision
— as the hard-line Likudnik’s perceived
it — to “turn his back” on the state
of Israel.
It
should not be forgotten, in this context, that on January
26, 1998, just as the Lewinsky affair began escalating
and engulfing Clinton, Kristol released a letter to
Clinton, pressuring the president to launch a military
attack on Israel’s hated enemy, Iraq.
Signing
the letter along with Kristol were a bevy of other famed
American supporters of Israel’s “right wing”
including notably, Richard Perle, a former deputy secretary
of defense and highly-paid consultant for Israeli arms
interests who now serves as a top advisor to the Bush
administration.
Rupert
Murdoch’s Fox News Channel carried the story almost
non-stop around the clock. Even when other features
were telecast, they were subject to interruption for
any breaking developments in the Clinton scandal, regardless
of how mundane they might be.
One
daytime Fox tabloid show even brought in a reported
specialist in “body language” to view a
videotape of Clinton and Miss Lewinsky meeting in a
receiving line after which the so-called specialist
declared Clinton was treating the young girl as though
she were “the first lady.”
And
please note also that on the eve of the first major
wave of stories linking Clinton to Miss Lewinsky, even
prior to his official meeting with President Clinton,
the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, had
already met with (and appeared at a pro-Likud rally
in the company of) Rev. Jerry Falwell, one of Clinton’s
most vociferous critics.
Even
The Washington Post itself revealed on January
22, 1998 that “a senior Netanyahu official had
said the Israeli leader was prepared to respond to opposition
from the White House by demonstrating his ‘own
ammunition’ in U.S. political circles” —
namely Falwell and the boisterous pro-Zionist “Christian
right.”
In
fact, the Lewinsky scandal forced the president into
retreat as far as pushing Israel was concerned —
much to the delight of Israel’s right.
[Some
years later, just before his death, Jerry Falwell admitted
in an interview with Vanity Fair magazine that,
in fact, he and Israel’s Netanyahu had deliberately
orchestrated the aforementioned meeting at precisely
that time for the very deliberate purpose of putting
pressure on the Clinton administration.
And
that was an interesting admission, inasmuch as, later,
when the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith
and other Jewish lobby forces were denouncing my presentation
at the Zayed Center, they suggested that my claims regarding
Falwell and Netanyahu were a sordid “conspiracy
theory” of anti-Semitic intent — MCP.]
Clinton,
of course, survived the impeachment and the Senate trial
that followed, but there is no doubt that his ability
to pursue any policy that might have stunted Israel’s
hard-line Likud government had been thoroughly sabotaged.
The
Lewinsky scandal — manipulated as it was by the
American media — put the Clinton administration
on the edge for the rest of its days. And that was very
clearly the intent.
So
it is: the power of the media not only to influence
American perception of the Middle East policy of the
United States, but also to influence that policy itself.
It
is all part of the secret history of the 20th century.
There
is much more than can and should be said.
But
I will close with this warning and reminder:
Writing
in Time on Feb. 17, 2003 Charles Krauthammer,
one of the most widely-touted pro-Zionist fanatics in
the American media today announced that the proposed
war against Iraq “is not just to disarm Saddam.
It is to reform a whole part of the world.”
“What
the U.S. needs in the Arab world,” he said, “is
not an exit strategy but an entry strategy. Iraq is
the beckoning door . . .”
Krauthammer
and his like-minded colleagues in the media and in the
“neo-conservative” circles surrounding Richard
Perle and others who are guiding the Bush administration’s
Middle East policy are intent upon waging war on the
entire Islamic world. Krauthammer frankly names their
targets: “Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and beyond.”
Note
those ominous words: “And beyond.”
The
Prophet Muhammad, I am told, once said that “One
learned man is harder on the devil than a thousand ignorant
worshipers.”
I
am here to say that Charles Krauthammer and those of
his ilk represent the devil and not until there is a
truly free press in America will we be able to turn
so many ignorant Americans into learned men.
I
thank you again, with all my heart, for this great honor
of addressing you here today.
There
are indeed many, many Americans who admire the Arab
and Muslim peoples and many more who would do so if
only they knew the truth that is being kept from them
by the major media.
I
encourage the people and leaders of the Arab world to
extend their hands of friendship and support to those
independent-minded journalists and media voices who
do dare to speak out. Working together, we can achieve
a just and peaceful resolution to the ongoing crisis
in the Middle East that threatens to destroy our world.
The
Jewish Lobby Roars:
Zionist Pressure Results in Shut-Down
of the Arab League Think Tank
WHAT
FOLLOWS IS AFP correspondent Michael Collins Piper’s
account of how Zionist pressure resulted in the shut-down
of the Arab League’s think tank, the Zayed Centre,
as a direct response to Piper’s address to the
centre on the topic of Zionist media power . . .
Not
surprisingly, two major units of the pro-Israel propaganda
lobby in the United States were quite exercised over
the fact that I had been a guest lecturer before a scholarly
body in the Arab world — the official think tank
of the Arab League, no less.
And
as a direct result of Jewish lobby demands on the United
States government, the administration of President George
W. Bush pressured the government of the United Arab
Emirates, the primary sponsor of the Abu Dhabi-based
Zayed International Centre for Coordination and Follow-Up,
to cease funding and shut down the think tank.
The
shutdown of the center came after the Anti-Defamation
League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith and the Middle
East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) — founded
by a former Israeli intelligence officer — issued
blustering reports to the press condemning the center
for featuring not only me but other independent voices
among their extensive roster of speakers from around
the world.
The
ADL and MEMRI were particularly concerned about my presence
among the speakers.
Named
up front as a major “villain” both in the
ADL and MEMRI reports was yours truly. The ADL report
named me not once, but three consecutive times. (Earlier
in the opening pages of this volume, I noted some of
the lies and deceptions appearing in the ADL report.)
The
fact that even a wealthy Arab state such as the UAE
would be forced to buckle to Zionist demands —
engineered through the aegis of the U.S. government
— was sad and revealing, to say the least.
And
in light of what happened, I should again note that
while in Abu Dhabi, I was told by the director of the
Zayed Center that the U.S. Embassy in Abu Dhabi had
called the center to complain about my lecture.
Needless
to say, I find it telling that the rulers of the United
States — my country — launched a war against
Iraq in the name of ‘fighting for democracy and
freedom,’ yet an official of my own nation would
dare tell my Arab hosts that they had no right to sponsor
a speaker such as I.
This
was not only an insult to the intelligence of my hosts,
but it was also an affront to my First Amendment right
as an American to speak out and exercise a liberty that
American authorities are constantly saying is violated
by Saddam and other leaders of the Arab world.
Despite
all the lip service by the U.S. government to the concept
of “freedom,” that freedom seems to stop
when criticism of Israel or U.S. policy toward Israel
is concerned. What hypocrisy.
As
long as the Arabs are talking only to each other, the
Israelis have no problem with that.
But
the moment the Arabs, through forums such as the Zayed
Centre, reach out to other peoples, that’s when
the Israelis really get angry. They cannot stand the
thought that anyone anywhere might be exposed to anything
other than a pro-Israel point of view.
In
fact, the ADL-MEMRI assault on the Zayed Centre was
not only part of an ongoing campaign to disrupt the
work of the center and to undermine the conservative,
pro-American regime of Sheik Zayed, ruler of Abu Dhabi,
capital province of the United Arab Emirates, but also
part of a much more broad-ranging campaign by “neo-conservative”
imperialist-minded elements to destabilize the entire
Arab world.
The
ADL and MEMRI joined forces to directly tackle Sheik
Zayed of Abu Dhabi after a Harvard graduate student
in theology raised loud objections to the fact that
the sheik — a generous contributor to academic,
social and cultural causes throughout the entire world
— made a donation to the Harvard Divinity School
to endow a chair in Islamic studies.
In
campaigning against the donation, which she demanded
that Harvard return, the student — who is Jewish
— cited alleged “anti-American” and
“anti-Semitic” statements made by a variety
of speakers who addressed the Zayed Centre, which was
named in honor of Sheik Zayed and chaired by his son,
Sheik Sultan, who was also deputy prime minister.
The
implicit message of the ADL-MEMRI attack on the Zayed
Centre and on the Arab world was that criticism of Israel
is, by its very nature, “anti-Semitic,”
and that criticism of Israel or criticism of U.S. favoritism
toward Israel (said to be America’s “best
ally”) is somehow “anti-American.”
So,
you see, the terms “anti-Semitic” and “anti-American”
have thus become welded in an Orwellian fashion into
one, and those who dare raise questions that offend
Israel in some way are automatically deemed dangerous
and a potential threat to American interests —
perhaps even “supporters of terrorism.”
All
of this is part and parcel of the New World Order linguistics
that have become so central to the rhetoric and discussion
in American society today — and it is coming from
the Jewish community and those who do its bidding.
Considering
this bellicose (and even threatening) behavior on the
part of the organized Jewish community, trampling on
traditional American freedoms, is it really any surprise
that there is, in fact, anti-Semitism, that people are
simply getting fed up with never-ending Jewish pressure
and Jewish hysterics?
There
will come a time of reckoning — of that I’m
sure — and the Jews will have only themselves
to blame.
|
