Remember my children, 
that all the Earth must belong to us Jews, 
and that the Gentiles, 
being mere excrements of animals, 
must possess nothing. 
~ Mayer Amschel Rothschild on his deathbed, 1812

Thank you Northerntruthseeker and Whitewraithe for finding and posting this amazing article by John Kaminski.

I have long said that as a true student of real history, I am sickened by the lies that are being taught to our children in our failed education
system... It has therefore been one of my primary goals to bring real historical facts forward in this blog for everyone to see for themselves....

I came across the following article, from my friend Whitewraithe, who writes the blog,
Pragmatic Witness, at
  It is written by John Kaminski, and is entitled: "Assassination Monopoly".   It contains some very important and truthful history of
some of the major assassinations of major world leaders carried out over the last few centuries, and the real reasons why these men
were murdered.  I have that entire article right here for everyone to see for themselves, and I have my own thoughts and comments to follow:

Posted on June 15, 2012

They murdered 8 U.S. presidents, 5 Russian czars, the kings of England, France and many other
countries, and are still killing. Who are they? THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE OBVIOUS ANSWER!

By John Kaminski

The official history of presidential assassinations depicts them as random events performed by lone nuts who blow
their tops and start shooting. But when we look at the pattern of murdered U.S. presidents, a disturbing pattern emerges.

All the U.S. presidents who died in office were all killed by the same mysterious
people for the same mysterious reason ~ control of the money supply.

John F. Kennedy, in 1963, was jacked for challenging the hegemony of Israel, the mob, and the Federal Reserve; William McKinley,
in 1900, was gut shot for opposing creation of the Federal Reserve; James Garfield, in 1881, was shot in the back shortly after
uttering the assessment that bankers controlled everything; and Abraham Lincoln, in 1865,
was unceremoniously terminated for creating an independent currency, as Kennedy did a century later.

In addition to the four well-known murders of American presidents, four other assassinations ~ William Henry Harrison (1841),
Zachary Taylor (1850), Warren Harding (1926), and Franklin Roosevelt (1945) ~ are well documented
outside the mainstream record of history, which is controlled by the people who hire these assassins.

All were liquidated for opposing the plans of the international
bankers who have controlled the world since history began.

When you correlate the corpses of national leaders and their cause of death to their public statements, you discover the identity
of the killers in every single case is Jewish, even if the actual assassins are non Jewish proxies. This even
includes the killing of promising presidential candidate Huey Long in 1935, by a Jewish doctor named Carl Weiss. 

When it comes to non presidential assassinations committed by Jews, the numbers run into the thousands. Some significant Judeo hits,
all of which involved control of the money supply or suppression of other Jewish crime schemes, include Rep. Lewis McFadden in 1933,
Treasury Secretary James Forrestal in 1949, and pop superstar Michael Jackson in 2009, all for trying to warn us about the Jewish takeover of the world.

But this horrible phenomenon extends far beyond the United States.

Four of five Russian czars of the 19th century (as well as a fifth in 1917) were
assassinated by Jews ~ the same perfect record Jews own with American presidents.

Track this recurring political tool back as far as you like in history and you’ll find the same circumstances pertain to the assassinations of
King Charles I of England and King Louis XVI of France, as well as innumerable kings of countless other countries, as far back in history as you care to look.


The first attempted U.S. presidential assassination occurred in 1835, when our 7th president, Andrew Jackson, successfully shut down
the national bank, by which the European Jewish bankers controlled America. Would be assassin
Richard Lawrence fired twice, but both shots misfired. Jackson promptly beat him with his cane.


Our 9th president, killed by doctors. 
An official report at the time stated Harrison died not of pneumonia, which is the mainstream story, but really died from the treatment
he was subjected to for “an ordinary winter cold.” In the Currier lithograph depicting Harrison’s death bed scene, Daniel Webster is
shown giving an enthusiastic thumbs up. The August 1841 edition of the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, published just a
few months after Harrison’s death, suggests that it was the medical treatment that Harrison received, and not any virus or bacteria,
which caused his demise. Vice President Tyler then broke all Harrison’s campaign promises and became a pariah to both parties.


Our 12th president, poisoned by a bowl of cherries and milk.
Hero general of the Mexican war, Taylor disagreed with the Democrats over the concept of a strong national bank and opposed the
extension of slavery. They exhumed Taylor’s body in 1991 and found traces of arsenic in his bones. Vice President Fillmore reversed all his policies.

Remember, 1848 was the year Karl Marx wrote the Communist manifesto and didn’t mention the Rothschilds.


Our 16th president, was shot in the head and murdered in Ford’s Theater, Washington. The popular mainstream version is that Lincoln
was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth (a Jew) for opposing the plans of Rothschild bankers who were funding the Confederacy.
Alternative versions of the story include the Jesuits had him killed out of revenge, Secretary of State Edwin Stanton arranged it,
and the Lincoln was really the son of a North Carolina Jew named Springsteen. The key fact seems to be the Greenbacks currency
Lincoln created when the bankers wanted 36 percent interest on loans to finance the North in the War Between the States.

Our 20th president was shot down in a Washington railroad station,
after saying bankers ran everything from behind the scenes. “
Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce.”
Two weeks later, Garfield was shot in the back by a delusional named Charles Guiteau, who supposedly was miffed about not being
named ambassador to France. By the time Garfield died after 2 1/2 months of agony, his doctors had turned a three-inch-deep,
harmless wound into a 20-inch-long contaminated canyon stretching from his ribs to his groin and oozing more pus each day. After
Garfield’s death his physicians submitted a bill of $85,000 to the Senate. The Senators authorized a payment of only $10,000.
Many of them referred to the doctors as quacks.

Our 25th president was shot at point blank range in Buffalo, N.Y, by a Jewish anarchist who got his gun from the notorious Emma Goldman
in a Brooklyn Workingman’s Hall. Polish Jew Leon Czolgosz pumped two slugs into the president’s stomach at the World’s Fair
while the president shook hands with citizens. Afterwards, a speech by Goldman was found in the assassin’s pocket.
Bro. Nathanael Kapner writes:
”McKinley was known as a “hard money” man. This was because he advocated a gold standard. Unlike his opponent,
William Jennings Bryan, McKinley was against “easy money” with no backing ~ printed by Jewish lenders at interest to
the borrower ~ namely the US government. But by fighting against “easy money,” (translate Jew-coined & printed-at-interest
money) McKinley sealed his death warrant. A death warrant signed, sealed, and delivered by the powerful
House of Rothschild, criminals in bankers’ suits.”

Our 29th president died in San Francisco after being poisoned for opposing Simon Guggenheim’s oil-related land grab in Alaska.
Robust and healthy at age 57, Harding was the first U.S. president to visit Alaska. On the way back, he developed food poisoning.
After lingering for a week in a San Francisco hotel room, he suddenly died. Four doctors attending to him could not agree on his cause
of death. He was embalmed within the hour. Rumors blamed his jealous wife for avenging her husband’s infidelity, but Harding is
most infamous for his complicity in the Teapot Dome scandal, after which his Interior secretary Albert Fall went to jail for selling multibillion dollar
oil rights to oilman Harry Sinclair.

Our 32nd president was murdered by his top adviser, Henry Morgenthau, for refusing to drop atomic bombs on Japan and his
alleged reluctance to support the creation of the state of Israel. One week before his death, in a letter dated April 5, 1945, Roosevelt
promised King Saud that he, as president of the United States, would take no hostile action against the Arabs and that the
United States would not change its basic policy toward the Palestine issue without prior consultations with both Arabs and Jews.
Roosevelt’s policy was reversed by his successor, Harry Truman, who later recognized the State of Israel 11 minutes after it declared itself a nation.

Other numerous reports claimed FDR shot himself.
“My mother always claimed that she was shopping in Bloomingdales in NYC at the time the news of FDR’s death was announced.
She said that the announcement over the store intercom that day, right after it happened, clearly stated that he’d shot himself in
the head. She also said that not long after, the story given out by the news media suddenly changed to his death having been
of natural causes.”
Our 34th president was gunned down in Dallas by multiple unknown assailants. The nation’s only Catholic president, Kennedy
was snuffed by a corrupt coalition of many (including Lyndon Johnson and George H.W. Bush) for Israel, the mob and the
Federal Reserve. Jennifer Lake writes: “Suggested reading on the JFK assassination: the book FINAL JUDGEMENT
by Michael Collins Piper (downloadable) 
Piper makes a case that JFK was thwarting the nuclear-weapons ambition of Israel. He writes
“Israel achieved its nuclear weapons capabilities precisely because of the assassination of President Kennedy.”

He notes an American Free Press headline: “New Evidence Ties Israel’s Nuclear Weapons Program to the New Orleans Connection
in the JFK Conspiracy“.” And then there was also the not-so-little matter of his creating currency in an attempt to
disempower the Federal Reserve.”

In addition, there were failed assassination attempts against presidents Andrew Johnson,
Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan, all attributed to ‘lone nuts.’

But this well-documented historical pattern of Jewish homicidal mania against leaders who refused
to knuckle under to bribes and blackmail extends across much of the world throughout history.

After the U.S., the second-most glaring example of the persistence of Jewish killers is what happened to Russia in the 1800s. Jewish anarchists
killed all but one of five Russian czars in the 19th century, and culminated their murderous rampage by butchering the last czar and his
whole family during the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, which was wholly the work of Jews funded by well-known Jewish bankers,
principally Jacob Schiff, an agent of the Rothschilds. 

1801: PAUL I

Catherine the Great was a German woman who engineered the killing of her husband Tsar Peter III and birthed Paul, whose
father was her court lover. Paul first married the daughter of the Landgrave of Hesse, who furnished troops to
England to suppress the American Revolution.

Nevetheless, Paul was a sincere king, who was eventually killed by his mother’s corrupt co-conspirators, as well as his own son.
His big mistake appears to have been changing the rules of succession, depriving the nobility of its privileges, and prohibiting women from
ever again being named monarch.

Catherine’s favorite grandson conspired in the murder of his father and, according to official records eventually died of typhus.
But Count Cherep Spirodovich reveals that he was poisoned during a lunch with Jews, and never recovered. (p. 114, The Hidden Hand).
Shortly thereafter, Nathan Rothschild tried to foment revolution in Russia, as his children did in 1830 and 1855.

England, France and Germany (by this time, all taken over by Jews: Disraeli in England, the poseur Napoleon III in France, and
Bismarck in Germany) all joined together to prosecute the Crimean War in the south of Russia. It failed, but two years
later, the czar, who had been called a demigod by a number of English writers, was poisoned by his own Jewish doctor.


Perhaps the saddest of all was the fate of a handsome prince known as the Tsar Liberator. He freed the Russian serfs in 1861,
four years before Lincoln did the same. Most notably, he answered President Lincoln’s call for help and sent ships to
San Francisco and New York to help save the Union during the War Between the States.

Later he gave Alaska to the U.S. for practically nothing. He survived seven assassination attempts before being blown up by
the Jews he did his level best to liberate. And it took two bombs to do it: while Alexander was riding in his carriage, a bomb
went off devastating a whole neighborhood. The king leapt out to help the survivors, and as he did, another bomb killed him.


Russia’s last czar and his family were foully murdered by the Jews who were sent from America by the Jewish banker Jacob Schiff.
It was the same thing the Jews had done to Russia for hundreds of years, only this time they succeeded in taking over the whole country.
They created the Soviet Union, which killed (ED: at LEAST) 66 million Russian natives. The moral nature of Judaism is so insane that
almost a hundred years after the man called a demigod, Nicholas I, was poisoned by his Jewish doctor, the very savage who killed
more Russians than any other, Joseph Stalin, was himself poisoned by a Jewish doctor when he was of no more use to the Hidden Hand.
In practically every nation on this Earth, the Jewish Hidden Hand has killed legitimate leaders and replaced them with Rothschild-manipulated
phonies. This story does not even include most of the world and the sabotage of legitimate governments and monarchies.
The list would be too long for one story.  As much as I’d like to write more about the Jewish subversion of the 500 year old Habsburg Dynasty,
or the intrigues of ancient Greece, Rome and Egypt, let’s just consider two more signal examples of this unending Jewish murder scheme.


The ugliest revolution of all was the French Revolution, in which people all over France killed each
other for reasons they themselves did not understand (a situation about to happen today in the United States).
International Jewish money-lenders plotted and planned the Great French Revolution of 1789,
exactly the same way as they had plotted and planned and financed the English Revolution of 1640-1649. 
The descendants of these same International Jewish Financiers have been The Secret Power behind every war and revolution
from 1789 onwards. The king and his wife, the much maligned but thoroughly slandered Marie Antoinette,
were eventually beheaded by Rothschild’s subversives, and France has never been the same since.
A recent president of France, Sarkozy, was an actual CIA Mossad agent.


Jews were expelled from England in 1290, both for typical usurious criminality and for killing Christian children and draining them
of their blood for Talmudic rituals. But in the 1600s, Dutch Jewish bankers bribed Oliver Cromwell to overthrow
a weak King Charles I, and by manipulating the parliament, Cromwell succeeded. Charles was beheaded.

The financial takeover of the world by Jews had begun, and the principal Jewish
criminals of the world set up shop in the City of London, where they
now coordinate the ruination and enslavement of the entire world.

Count Cherep-Spirodovich, who had been a major general in the czar’s army, reveals
many things in his 1926 book, “The Secret World Government,
or ‘The Hidden Hand’”. Among those secrets were:
“The first Jesuits were Jews; that mysterious Russian Diplomacy, which so alarms Western Europe, is organized and carried on by Jews ;
that mighty revolution (of 1848) which is at this moment preparing in Germany, is entirely developing under the auspices of Jews, who
almost monopolize the professional chairs of Germany”.
“From all these numerous proofs that the Jews are the organizers of all the bloodshed, as CHRIST pointed it out (St. John, VIII,44)
could we not deduce without the smallest doubt, that it will be Jews, who will plunge the United States into an ocean of blood in the
nearest future, unless the Americans open their eyes and drop their blind groundless optimism….”
“Since the American Revolution the Jews have also been the real rulers of America and their power is constantly growing and
becomes deadly in every sense, as the Jews themselves confirm it.”
So there you have the basic story of the greatest assassins the world has ever known,
who have destroyed all the great nations of the world by their manipulations and corruptions.

Today, under the white noise coma of public media completely controlled by Jews, we have two U.S. presidential candidates whose staff
are dominated by warmongering Israeli Jews and corrupt Hebrew bankers. The world has been poisoned,
and most societies destroyed, by the most evil people ever to walk the Earth ~ Talmudic Jews.

Until the Jews are utterly destroyed, and all traces of their perfidy
and perversions totally erased, the world will never know peace.

John Kaminski is a writer who lives on the Gulf Coast of Florida, constantly trying to figure out why we are destroying ourselves, and
pinpointing a corrupt belief system as the engine of our demise. Solely dependent on contributions
from readers, please support his work by mail: 250 N. McCall Rd. #2, Englewood FL 34223 USA.

Principal footnotes:

Major General Count Cherep-Spirodovich,
The Secret World Government, or ‘The Hidden Hand’,
Sons of Liberty Books, ISBN: 0-89562-166-5

William Guy Carr, Pawns in the Game

NTS Notes:  I want to thank John Kaminski for this fabulous
article, and his tireless work in this fight for our very survival...

It does appear, readers, that if you dig deep enough into some of the greatest murders
and criminality in human history, you always find members of the "Chosen ones" involved....

When will people ever learn?  These criminals have always wanted the world for themselves,
and have no qualms in carrying out acts of murder to achieve their long sought goal..

Please take these facts and show them to everyone so that they can see for themselves exactly
who is responsible for the murder of important world leaders over the last few centuries...



Mossad's Bloody Trail of Assassinations of Leading Americans

...and Others Should Infuriate You


By Ron Unz



Another extraordinary article from Ron Unz. It looks like the Soleimani murder is just part

of a decades long pattern, as American statecraft blends indistinguishably with Israel's penchant

for the underhanded and bloody.


9/11, the Kennedys, senior American polticians and bureaucrats - they even seriously

considered assassinating the elder George Bush in 1991, when he was president! J

aw dropping stuff.


"The sheer quantity of such foreign assassinations was really quite remarkable, with the

knowledgeable reviewer in the New York Times suggesting that the Israeli total

over the last half-century or so seemed far greater than that of any other nation."


"I might even go farther: if we excluded domestic killings, I wouldn’t be surprised if the

body-count exceeded the combined total for that of all other major countries in the world.

I think all the lurid revelations of lethal CIA or KGB Cold War assassination plots that I have

seen discussed in newspaper articles might fit comfortably into just a chapter or two of

Bergman’s extremely long book."


"The extent to which the agents of the Jewish state and its Zionist predecessor organizations

have engaged in the most rampant international crime and violations of the accepted rules

of warfare is really quite extraordinary, perhaps having few parallels in modern world history."


"Their use of political assassination as a central tool of their statecraft even recalls the notorious

activities of the Old Man of the Mountains of the 13th century Middle East, whose deadly techniques

gave us the very word “assassin.”"

From the Peace of Westphalia to the Law of the Jungle


The January 2nd American assassination of Gen. Qassem

Soleimani of Iran was an event of enormous moment.


Gen. Soleimani had been the highest-ranking military figure in his nation of 80 million,

and with a storied career of 30 years, one of the most universally popular and highly regarded.

Most analysts ranked him second in influence only to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s elderly

Supreme Leader, and there were widespread reports that he was being urged to run for the

presidency in the 2021 elections.


The circumstances of his peacetime death were also quite remarkable. His vehicle was

incinerated by the missile of an American Reaper drone near Iraq’s Baghdad international

airport just after he had arrived there on a regular commercial flight for peace negotiations

originally suggested by the American government.


Our major media hardly ignored the gravity of this sudden, unexpected killing of so

high-ranking a political and military figure, and gave it enormous attention. A day or so

later, the front page of my morning New York Times was almost entirely filled with

coverage of the event and its implications, along with several inside pages devoted to

the same topic. Later that same week, America’s national newspaper of record allocated

more than one-third of all the pages of its front section to the same shocking story.


But even such copious coverage by teams of veteran journalists failed to provide the incident

with its proper context and implications. Last year, the Trump Administration had declared 

the Iranian Revolutionary Guard “a terrorist organization,” drawing widespread criticism and

even ridicule from national security experts appalled at the notion of classifying a major branch

of Iran’s armed forces as “terrorists.” Gen. Soleimani was a top commander in that body,

and this apparently provided the legal figleaf for his assassination in broad daylight while

on a diplomatic peace mission.


But consider that Congress has been considering legislation declaring Russia an official

state sponsor of terrorism, and Stephen Cohen, the eminent Russia scholar, has argued

that no foreign leader since the end of World War II has been so massively demonized

by the American media as Russian President Vladimir Putin. For years, numerous agitated 

pundits have denounced Putin as “the new Hitler,” and some prominent figures have even

called for his overthrow or death. So we are now only a step or two removed from undertaking

a public campaign to assassinate the leader of a country whose nuclear arsenal could

quickly annihilate the bulk of the American population. Cohen has repeatedly warned that

the current danger of global nuclear war may exceed what which we faced during the

days of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, and can we entirely dismiss his concerns?


Even if we focus solely upon Gen. Solemaini’s killing and entirely disregard its dangerous

implications, there seem few modern precedents for the official public assassination of

a top-ranking political figure by the forces of another major country. In groping for past

examples, the only ones that come to mind occurred almost three generations ago during

World War II, when Czech agents assisted by the Allies assassinated Reinhard Heydrich

in Prague in 1941 and the US military later shot down the plane of Japanese admiral Isoroku

Yamamoto in 1943. But these events occurred in the heat of a brutal global war, and the Allied

leadership hardly portrayed them as official government assassinations. Historian David Irving

reveals that when one of Adolf Hitler’s aides suggested that an attempt be made to assassinate

Soviet leaders in that same conflict, the German Fuhrer immediately forbade such practices as

obvious violations of the laws of war.


The 1914 terrorist assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne of

Austria-Hungary, was certainly organized by fanatical elements of Serbian Intelligence,

but the Serbian government fiercely denied its own complicity, and no major European power

was ever directly implicated in the plot. The aftermath of the killing soon led to the outbreak

of World War I, and although many millions died in the trenches over the next few years,

it would have been completely unthinkable for one of the major belligerents to consider

assassinating the leadership of another.


A century earlier, the Napoleonic Wars had raged across the entire continent of Europe for

most of a generation, but I don’t recall reading of any governmental assassination plots during

that era, let alone in the quite gentlemanly wars of the preceding 18th century when Frederick

the Great and Maria Theresa disputed ownership of the wealthy province of Silesia by

military means. I am hardly a specialist in modern European history, but after the 1648

Peace of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years War and regularized the rules of warfare,

no assassination as high-profile as that of Gen. Soleimani comes to mind.


The bloody Wars of Religion during previous centuries did see their share of assassination

schemes. For example, I think that Philip II of Spain supposedly encouraged various plots

to assassinate Queen Elizabeth I of England on grounds that she was a murderous heretic,

and their repeated failure helped persuade him to launch the ill-fated Spanish Armada;

but being a pious Catholic, he probably would have balked at using the ruse of peace-negotiations

to lure Elizabeth to her doom. In any event, that was more than four centuries ago, so America

has now placed itself in rather uncharted waters.


Different peoples possess different political traditions, and this may play a major role in

influencing the behavior of the countries they establish. Bolivia and Paraguay were created

in the early 18th century as shards from the decaying Spanish Empire, and according to

Wikipedia they have experienced nearly three dozen successful coups in their history,

the bulk of these prior to 1950, while Mexico has had a half-dozen. By contrast, the U.S.

and Canada were founded as Anglo-Saxon settler colonies, and neither history records

even a failed attempt.


During our Revolutionary War, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and our other

Founding Fathers fully recognized that if their effort failed, they would all be hanged as

rebels by the British. However, I have never heard that they feared falling to an assassin’s

blade, nor that King George III ever considered such an underhanded means of attack.

During the first century and more of our nation’s history, nearly all our presidents and

other top political leaders traced their ancestry back to the British Isles, and political

assassinations were exceptionally rare, with Abraham Lincoln’s death being one of

the very few that come to mind.


At the height of the Cold War, our CIA did involve itself in various secret assassination

plots against Cuba’s Communist dictator Fidel Castro and other foreign leaders considered

hostile to US interests. But when these facts later came out in the 1970s, they evoked

such enormous outrage from the public and the media, that three consecutive American

presidents—Gerald R. FordJimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan—issued successive

Executive Orders absolutely prohibiting assassinations by the CIA or any other

agent of the US government.


Although some cynics might claim that these public declarations represented mere window-dressing, a March 2018 book review in the New York Times strongly suggests otherwise. Kenneth M. Pollack spent years as a CIA analyst and National Security Council staffer, then went on to publish a number of influential books on foreign policy and military strategy over the last two decades. He had originally joined the CIA in 1988, and opens his review by declaring:


One of the very first things I was taught when I joined the CIA was that we





conduct assassinations.


It was drilled into new recruits over and over again.


Yet Pollack notes with dismay that over the last quarter-century, these once solid prohibitions

have been steadily eaten away, with the process rapidly accelerating after the 9/11 attacks of

2001. The laws on our books may not have changed, but

Today, it seems that all that is left of this policy is a euphemism. We don’t call them assassinations

anymore. Now, they are “targeted killings,” most often performed by drone strike, and they have

become America’s go-to weapon in the war on terror.

The Bush Administration had conducted 47 of these assassinations-by-another-name,

while his successor Barack Obama, a constitutional scholar and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate,

had raised his own total to 542. Not without justification, Pollack wonders whether assassination

has become “a very effective drug, but [one that] treats only the symptom and so offers no cure.”


Thus over the last couple of decades American policy has followed a disturbing trajectory

in its use of assassination as a tool of foreign policy, first restricting its application only to

the most extreme circumstances, next targeting small numbers of high-profile “terrorists”

hiding in rough terrain, then escalating those same such killings to the many hundreds.

And now under President Trump, the fateful step has been taken of America claiming

the right to assassinate any world leader not to our liking whom we unilaterally

declare worthy of death.


Pollack had made his career as a Clinton Democrat, and is best known for his 2002 book

 The Threatening Storm that strongly endorsed President Bush’s proposed invasion of Iraq

and was enormously influential in producing bipartisan support for that ill-fated policy.

I have no doubt that he is a committed supporter of Israel, and he probably

falls into a category that I would loosely describe as “Left Neocon.”


But while reviewing a history of Israel’s own long use of assassination as a mainstay of

its national security policy, he seems deeply disturbed that America might be following along

that same terrible path. Less than two years later, our sudden assassination of a top

Iranian leader demonstrates that his fears may have been greatly understated.


 "Rise and Kill First" 


The book being reviewed was Rise and Kill First by New York Times reporter Ronen Bergman,

a weighty study of the Mossad, Israel’s foreign intelligence service, together with its sister

agencies. The author devoted six years of research to the project, which was based

upon a thousand personal interviews and access to an enormous number of official documents

previously unavailable. As suggested by the title, his primary focus was Israel’s long history

of assassinations, and across his 750 pages and thousand-odd source

references he recounts the details of an enormous number of such incidents.


That sort of topic is obviously fraught with controversy, but Bergman’s volume carries

glowing cover-blurbs from Pulitzer Prize-winning authors on espionage matters, and the

official cooperation he received is indicated by similar endorsements from both a former

Mossad chief and Ehud Barak, a past Prime Minister of Israel who himself had once led

assassination squads. Over the last couple of decades, former CIA officer Robert Baer has

become one of our most prominent authors in this same field, and he praises the book as

“hands down” the best he has ever read on intelligence, Israel, or the Middle East.

The reviews across our elite media were equally laudatory.


Although I had seen some discussions of the book when it appeared, I only got around to

reading it a few months ago. And while I was deeply impressed by the thorough and

meticulous journalism, I found the pages rather grim and depressing reading, with their

endless accounts of Israeli agents killing their real or perceived enemies in operations that

sometimes involved kidnappings and brutal torture, or resulted in considerable loss of life

to innocent bystanders. Although the overwhelming majority of the attacks described took

place in the various countries of the Middle East or the occupied Palestinian territories of

the West Bank and Gaza, others ranged across the world, including Europe. The narrative

history began in the 1920s, decades before the actual creation of the Jewish

Israel or its Mossad organization, and extended down to the present day.


The sheer quantity of such foreign assassinations was really quite remarkable, with the

knowledgeable reviewer in the New York Times suggesting that the Israeli total over the

last half-century or so seemed far greater than that of any other nation. I might even

go farther: if we excluded domestic killings, I wouldn’t be surprised if the body-count

exceeded the combined total for that of all other major countries in the world. I think all

the lurid revelations of lethal CIA or KGB Cold War assassination plots that I have seen

discussed in newspaper articles might fit comfortably into just a chapter or two of

Bergman’s extremely long book.


National militaries have always been nervous about deploying biological weapons, knowing

full well that once released, the deadly microbes might easily spread back across the

border and inflict great suffering upon the civilians of the country that deployed them.

Similarly, intelligence operatives who have spent their long careers so heavily focused

upon planning, organizing, and implementing what amount to officially-sanctioned murders

may develop ways of thinking that become a danger both to each other and to the larger

society they serve, and some examples of this possibility leak out here and there in

Bergman’s comprehensive narrative.


In the so-called “Askelon Incident” of 1984, a couple of captured Palestinians were beaten

to death in public by the notoriously ruthless head of the Shin Bet domestic security agency

and his subordinates. Under normal circumstances, this deed would have carried no consequences,

but the incident happened to be captured by the camera by a nearby Israeli photo-journalist,

who managed to avoid confiscation of his film. His resulting scoop sparked an international

media scandal, even reaching the pages of the New York Times, and this forced a governmental

investigation aimed at criminal prosecution. To protect themselves, the Shin Bet leadership

infiltrated the inquiry and organized an effort to fabricate evidence pinning the murders upon

ordinary Israeli soldiers and a leading general, all of whom were completely innocent. A senior

Shin Bet officer who expressed misgivings about this plot apparently came close to being

murdered by his colleagues until he agreed to falsify his official testimony. Organizations

that increasingly operate like mafia crime families may eventually adopt similar cultural norms.


Israeli operatives sometimes even contemplated the elimination of their own top-ranking

leaders whose policies they viewed as sufficiently counter-productive. For decades,

Gen. Ariel Sharon had been one of Israel’s greatest military heroes and someone of

extreme right-wing sentiments. As Defense Minister in 1982, he orchestrated the Israeli

invasion of Lebanon, which soon turned into a major political debacle, seriously damaging

Israel’s international standing by inflicting great destruction upon that neighboring country

and its capital city of Beirut. As Sharon stubbornly continued his military strategy and the

problems grew more severe, a group of disgruntled officers decided that the best means

of cutting Israel’s losses was to assassinate Sharon, though the proposal was never carried out.


An even more striking example occurred a decade later. For many years, Palestinian leader

Yasir Arafat had been the leading object of Israeli antipathy, so much so that at one point

Israel made plans to shoot down an international civilian jetliner in order to assassinate

him. But after the end of the Cold War, pressure from America and Europe led Prime

Minister Yitzhak Rabin to sign the 1993 Oslo Peace Accords with his Palestinian foe. Although

the Israeli leader received worldwide praise and shared a Nobel Peace Prize for his peacemaking

efforts, powerful segments of the Israeli public and its political class regarded the act as a

betrayal, with some extreme nationalists and religious zealots demanding that he be killed for

his treason. A couple of years later, he was indeed shot dead by a lone gunman from those

ideological circles, becoming the first Middle Eastern leader in decades to suffer that fate.

Although his killer was mentally unbalanced and stubbornly insisted that he acted alone,

he had had a long history of intelligence associations, and Bergman delicately notes that the

gunman slipped past Rabin’s numerous bodyguards “with astonishing ease”

in order to fire his three fatal shots at close range.


Many observers drew parallels between Rabin’s assassination and that of our own president

in Dallas three decades earlier, and the latter’s heir and namesake, John F. Kennedy, Jr.,

developed a strong personal interest in the tragic event. In March 1997, his glossy political

magazine George published an article by the Israeli assassin’s mother, implicating her

own country’s security services in the crime, a theory also promoted by the late Israeli-Canadian

writer Barry Chamish. These accusations sparked a furious international debate, but after

Kennedy himself died in an unusual plane crash a couple of years later and his magazine

quickly folded, the controversy soon subsided. The George archives are not online

nor easily available, so I cannot easily judge the credibility of the charges.


Having himself narrowly avoided assassination by Israeli operatives, Sharon gradually

regained his political influence, and did so without compromising his hard-line views,

even boastfully describing himself as a “Judeo-Nazi” to an appalled journalist. A few years

after Rabin’s death, he provoked major Palestinian protests, then used the resulting violence

to win election as Prime Minister, while once in office, his very harsh methods led to a

widespread uprising in Occupied Palestine. But Sharon merely redoubled his repression, and

after world attention was diverted by 9/11 attacks and the American invasion of Iraq, he

began assassinating numerous top Palestinian political and religious

leaders in attacks that sometimes inflicted heavy civilian casualties.


The central object of Sharon’s anger was Palestine President Yasir Arafat, who suddenly

took ill and died, thereby joining his erstwhile negotiating partner Rabin in permanent

repose. Arafat’s wife claimed that he had been poisoned and produced some medical

evidence to support this charge, while longtime Israeli political figure Uri Avnery published

 numerous articles substantiating those accusations. Bergman simply reports the categorical

Israeli denials while noting that “the timing of Arafat’s death was quite peculiar,” then

emphasizes that even if he knew the truth, he couldn’t publish it

since his entire book was written under strict Israeli censorship.


This last point seems an extremely important one, and although it only appears just that

one time in the body of the text, the disclaimer obviously applies to the entirety of the long

volume and should always be kept in the back of our minds. Bergman’s book runs some

350,000 words and even if every single sentence were written with the most scrupulous

honesty, we must recognize the huge difference between “the Truth” and “the Whole Truth.”


Another item also raised my suspicions. Thirty years ago, a disaffected Mossad officer

named Victor Ostrovsky left that organization and wrote By Way of Deception, a highly

critical book recounting numerous alleged operations known to him, especially those

contrary to American and Western interests. The Israeli government and its pro-Israel

advocates launched an unprecedented legal campaign to block publication, but this

produced a major backlash and media uproar, with the heavy publicity landing it as #1

on the New York Times sales list. I finally got around to reading his book about a decade

ago and was shocked by many of the remarkable claims, while being reliably informed

that CIA personnel had judged his material as probably accurate when they reviewed it.


Although much of Ostrovsky’s information was impossible to independently confirm, for

more than a quarter-century his international bestseller and its 1994 sequel The Other Side

of Deception have heavily shaped our understanding of Mossad and its activities, so I naturally

expected to see a detailed discussion, whether supportive or critical, in Bergman’s exhaustive

parallel work. Instead, there was only a single reference to Ostrovsky buried in a footnote on

p. 684. There we are told of Mossad’s utter horror at the numerous deep secrets that

Ostrovsky was preparing to reveal, which led its top leadership to formulate a plan to assassinate

him. Ostrovsky only survived because Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, who had formerly

spent decades as the Mossad assassination chief, vetoed the proposal on the grounds that

“We don’t kill Jews.” Although this reference is brief and almost hidden, I regard

it as providing considerable support for Ostrovsky’s general credibility.


Having thus acquired serious doubts about the completeness of Bergman’s seemingly

comprehensive narrative history, I noted a curious fact. I have no specialized expertise

in intelligence operations in general nor those of Mossad in particular, so I found it quite

remarkable that the overwhelming majority of all the higher-profile incidents recounted

by Bergman were already familiar to me merely from the decades I had spent closely reading

the New York Times every morning. Is it really plausible that six years of exhaustive research

and so many personal interviews would have uncovered so few major operations that had

not already been known and reported in the international media? Bergman obviously provides

a wealth of detail previously limited to insiders, along with numerous unreported assassinations

of relatively minor individuals, but it seems strange that he came up with so few surprising revelations.


Indeed, some major gaps in his coverage are quite apparent to anyone who has even

somewhat investigated the topic, and these begin in the early chapters of his volume, which

include coverage of the Zionist prehistory in Palestine prior to the establishment of the Jewish state.


Bergman would have severely damaged his credibility if he had failed to include the i

nfamous 1940s Zionist assassinations of Britain’s Lord Moyne or U.N. Peace Negotiator

Count Folke Bernadotte. But he unaccountably fails to mention that in 1937 the more

right-wing Zionist faction whose political heirs have dominated Israel in recent decades

assassinated Chaim Arlosoroff, the highest-ranking Zionist figure in Palestine. Moreover,

he omits a number of similar incidents, including some of those targeting top

Western leaders. As I wrote last year:


Indeed, the inclination of the more right-wing Zionist factions toward assassination, terrorism,

and other forms of essentially criminal behavior was really quite remarkable. For example, in 1943 Shamir had arranged the assassination of his factional rival, a year after

the two men had escaped together from imprisonment for a bank robbery in which bystanders had been killed, and he claimed he had acted to avert the planned assassination of David Ben-Gurion, the top Zionist leader and Israel’s future founding-premier. Shamir and his faction certainly continued this sort of behavior into the 1940s, successfully assassinating Lord Moyne, the British Minister for the Middle East, and Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN Peace Negotiator, though they failed in their other attempts to kill American President Harry Truman and British Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin, and their plans to assassinate Winston Churchillapparently never moved past the discussion stage. His group also pioneered the use of terrorist car-bombs and other explosive attacks against innocent civilian targets, all long before any Arabs or Muslims had ever thought of using similar tactics; and Begin’s larger and more “moderate” Zionist faction did much the same.


As far as I know, the early Zionists had a record of political terrorism almost unmatched in world history, and in 1974 Prime Minister Menachem Begin once even boasted to a television interviewer of having been the founding father of terrorism across the world.


In the aftermath of World War II, Zionists were bitterly hostile towards all Germans, and

Bergman describes the campaign of kidnappings and murders they soon unleashed, both

in parts of Europe and in Palestine, which claimed as many as two hundred lives. A small

ethnic German community had lived peacefully in the Holy Land for many generations, but

after some of its leading figures were killed, the rest permanently fled the country, and their

abandoned property was seized by Zionist organizations, a pattern which would soon

be replicated on a vastly larger scale with regard to the Palestinian Arabs.


These facts were new to me, and Bergman seemingly treats this wave of vengeance-killings

with considerable sympathy, noting that many of the victims had actively supported the

German war effort. But oddly enough, he fails to mention that throughout the 1930s, the main

Zionist movement had itself maintained a strong economic partnership with Hitler’s Germany,

whose financial support was crucial to the establishment of the Jewish state. Moreover,

after the war began a small right-wing Zionist faction led by a future prime minister of Israel

attempted to enlist in the Axis military alliance, offering to undertake a campaign of espionage

and terrorism against the British military in support of the Nazi war effort. These undeniable

historical facts have obviously been a source of immense embarrassment to Zionist partisans,

and over the last few decades they have done their utmost to expunge them from public

awareness, so as a native-born Israeli now in his mid-40s, Bergman may simply

be unaware of this reality.


 "Who Killed Zia?" 


Bergman’s long book contains thirty-five chapters of which only the first two cover the

period prior to the creation of Israel, and if his notable omissions were limited to those,

they would merely constitute to a blemish on an otherwise reliable historical narrative.

But a considerable number of major lacunae seem evident across the decades that follow,

though they may be less the fault of the author himself than the tight Israeli censorship

he faced or the realities of the American publishing industry. By the year 2018, pro-Israeli

influence over America and other Western countries had reached such enormous

proportions that Israel would risk little international damage by admitting to numerous

illegal assassinations of various prominent figures in the Arab world or the Middle East.

But other sorts of past deeds might still be considered far too damaging to yet acknowledge.


In 1991 renowned investigative journalist Seymour Hersh published The Samson Option,

describing Israel’s secret nuclear weapons development program of the early 1960s,

which was regarded as an absolute national priority by Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion,

There are widespread claims that it was the threatened use of that arsenal that later

blackmailed the Nixon Administration into its all-out effort to rescue Israel from the brink

of military defeat during the 1973 war, a decision that provoked the Arab

Oil Embargo and led to many years of economic hardship for the West.


The Islamic world quickly recognized the strategic imbalance produced by their lack of

nuclear deterrent capability, and various efforts were made to redress that balance,

which Tel Aviv did its utmost to frustrate. Bergman covers in great detail the widespread

campaigns of espionage, sabotage, and assassination by which the Israelis successfully

forestalled the Iraqi nuclear program of Saddam Hussein, finally culminating in the long-distance

1981 air raid that destroyed his Osirik reactor complex. The author also covers the destruction

of a Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007 and Mossad’s assassination campaign that claimed the

lives of several leading Iranian physicists a few years later. But all these events were reported

at the time in our major newspapers, so no new ground is being broken.

Meanwhile, an important story not widely known is entirely missing.


About seven months ago, my morning New York Times carried a glowing 1,500 word tribute 

to former U.S. ambassador John Gunther Dean, dead at age 93, giving that eminent diplomat

the sort of lengthy obituary usually reserved these days for a rap-star slain in a gun-battle

with his drug-dealer. Dean’s father had been a leader of his local Jewish community in

Germany, and after the family left for America on the eve of World War II, Dean became

a naturalized citizen in 1944. He went on to have a very distinguished diplomatic career,

notably serving during the Fall of Cambodia, and under normal circumstances, the piece

would have meant no more to me than it did to nearly all its other readers. But I had spent

much of the first decade of the 2000s digitizing the complete archives of hundreds of our

leading periodicals, and every now and then a particularly intriguing title led me to read the

article in question. Such was the case with “Who Killed Zia?” which appeared in 2005.


Throughout the 1980s, Pakistan had been the lynchpin of America’s opposition to the

Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, with its military dictator Zia ul-Haq being one of our

most important regional allies. Then in 1988, he and most of his top leadership died in

a mysterious plane crash, which also claimed the lives of the U.S. ambassador and

an American general.


Although the deaths might have been accidental, Zia’s wide assortment of bitter enemies

led most observers to assume foul play, and there was some evidence that a nerve gas

agent, possibly released from a crate of mangos, had been

used to incapacitate the crew and thereby cause the crash.


At the time, Dean had reached the pinnacle of his career, serving as our ambassador

in neighboring India, while the U.S. ambassador killed in the crash, Arnold Raphel, had

been his closest personal friend, also Jewish. By 2005, Dean was elderly and long-retired,

and he finally decided to break his seventeen years of silence and reveal the strange

circumstances surrounding the event, saying that he was

convinced that the Israeli Mossad had been responsible.


A few years before his death, Zia had boldly declared that the production of an “Islamic atomic bomb”

was a top Pakistani priority. Although his primary motive was the need to balance India’s small

nuclear arsenal, he promised to share such powerful weapons with other Muslim countries,

including those in the Middle East. Dean describes the tremendous alarm Israel expressed

at this possibility, and how pro-Israel members of Congress began a fierce lobbying campaign

to stop Zia’s efforts. According to longtime journalist Eric Margolis, a leading expert on South

Asia, Israel repeatedly tried to enlist India in launching a joint all-out attack against Pakistan’s

nuclear facilities, but after carefully considering the possibility, the Indian government declined.


This left Israel in a quandary. Zia was a proud and powerful military dictator and his very close

ties with the U.S. greatly strengthened his diplomatic leverage. Moreover, Pakistan was 2,000

miles from Israel and possessed a strong military, so that any sort of long-distance bombing raid

similar to the one used against the Iraqi nuclear program was impossible. This left assassination

as the remaining option.


Given Dean’s awareness of the diplomatic atmosphere prior to Zia’s death, he immediately

suspected an Israeli hand, and his past personal experiences supported that possibility.

Eight years earlier, while posted in Lebanon, the Israelis had sought to enlist his personal

support in their local projects, drawing upon his sympathy as a fellow Jew. But when he

rejected those overtures and declared that his primary loyalty was to America, an attempt

was made to assassinate him, with the munitions used being eventually traced back to Israel.


Although Dean was tempted to immediately disclose his strong suspicions regarding the

annihilation of the Pakistani government to the international media, he decided instead to

pursue proper diplomatic channels, and immediately departed for Washington to share

his views with his State Department superiors and other top Administration officials.

But upon reaching DC, he was quickly declared mentally incompetent, prevented from

returning to his India posting, and soon forced to resign. His four decade long career in

government service ended summarily at that point. Meanwhile, the US government refused

to assist Pakistan’s efforts to properly investigate the fatal crash and instead tried to convince

a skeptical world that Pakistan’s entire top leadership had died because of a simple mechanical

failure in their American aircraft.


This remarkable account would surely seem like the plot of an implausible Hollywood movie,

but the sources were extremely reputable. The author of the 5,000 word article was Barbara

Crossette, the former New York Times bureau chief for South Asia, who had held that post at the

time of Zia’s death, while the piece appeared in World Policy Journal, the prestigious quarterly

of The New School in New York City. The publisher was  academic Stephen Schlesinger, son

of famed historian Arthur J. Schlesinger, Jr. One might naturally expect that such explosive

charges from so solid a source might provoke considerable press attention, but Margolis

noted that the story was instead totally ignored and boycotted by the entire North American

media. Schlesinger had spent a decade at the helm of his periodical, but a couple

of issues later he had vanished from the masthead and his employment at the New School

came to an end. The text is no longer available on the World Policy Journal website,

but it can still be accessed via, allowing those so interested to read it

and decide for themselves.


The complete historical blackout of that incident has continued down to the present day.

Dean’s detailed Times obituary portrayed his long and distinguished career in highly

flattering terms, yet failed to devote even a single sentence to the bizarre

circumstances under which it ended.


At the time I originally read that article a dozen or so years ago, I had mixed feelings about the

likelihood of Dean’s provocative hypothesis. Top national leaders in South Asia do die by

assassination rather regularly, but the means employed are almost always quite crude,

usually involving one or more gunman firing at close range or perhaps a suicide-bomber.

By contrast, the highly sophisticated methods apparently used to eliminate the Pakistani

government seemed to suggest a very different sort of state actor. Bergman’s book

catalogs the enormous number and variety of Mossad’s assassination technologies.


Given the important nature of Dean’s accusations and the highly reputable venue in

which they had appeared, Bergman must certainly have been aware of the story, so I

wondered what arguments his Mossad sources might provide to rebut or debunk them.

Instead, I discovered that the incident appears nowhere in Bergman’s exhaustive

volume, perhaps reflecting the author’s reluctance to assist in deceiving his readers.


I also noticed that Bergman made absolutely no mention of the earlier assassination attempt

against Dean when he was serving as our ambassador in Lebanon, even though the serial

numbers of the anti-tank rockets fired at his armored limousine were traced to a batch sold

to Israel. However, sharp-eyed journalist Philip Weiss did notice that the shadowy organization

which officially claimed credit for the attack was revealed by Bergman to have been a Israel-created

front group used for numerous car-bombings and other terrorist attacks.

This seems to confirm Israel’s responsibility in the assassination plot.


Let us assume that this analysis is correct and that there is a good likelihood that Mossad

was indeed behind Zia’s death. The broader implications are considerable.


Pakistan was one of the world’s largest countries in 1988, having a population that was already

over 100 million and growing rapidly, while also possessing a powerful military. One of America’s

main Cold War projects had been to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan, and Pakistan had played

the central role in that effort, ranking its leadership as one of our most important global allies.

The sudden assassination of President Zia and most of his pro-American government, along

with our own ambassador, thus represented a huge potential blow to U.S. interests. Yet when

one of our top diplomats reported Mossad as the likely culprit, the whistleblower was immediately

purged and a major cover-up begun, with no whisper of the story ever reaching our media

or our citizenry, even after he repeated the charges years later in a prestigious publication.

Bergman’s comprehensive book contains no hint of the story, and none

of the knowledgeable reviewers seem to have noted this lapse.


If an event of such magnitude could be totally ignored by our entire media and

omitted from Bergman’s book, many other incidents may also have escaped notice.


 "By Way of Deception"


A good starting point for such investigation might be Ostrovsky’s works, given the desperate

concern of the Mossad leadership at the secrets he revealed in his manuscript and their

hopes of shutting his mouth by killing him. So I decided to reread his work after

a decade or so and with Bergman’s material now reasonably fresh in my mind.


Ostrovsky’s 1990 book runs just a fraction of the length of Bergman’s volume and is

written in a far more casual style while totally lacking any of the latter’s copious source

references. Much of the text is simply a personal narrative, and although both he and Bergman

had Mossad as their subject, his overwhelming focus was on espionage issues and the

techniques of spycraft rather than the details of particular assassinations, although a certain

number of the latter were included. On an entirely impressionistic level, the style of the

Mossad operations described seemed quite similar to those presented by Bergman, so

much so that if various incidents were switched between the two books, I doubt that anyone could

easily tell the difference.


In assessing Ostrovsky’s credibility, a couple of minor items caught my eye. Early on,

he states that at the age of 14 he placed second in Israel in target shooting and at 18

he was commissioned as the youngest officer in the Israeli military. These seem like significant,

factual claims, which if true would help explain the repeated efforts by Mossad to recruit him,

while if false would surely have been used by Israel’s partisans to discredit him

as a liar. I have seen no indication that his statements were ever disputed.


Mossad assassinations were a relatively minor focus of Ostrovsky’s 1990 book, but it is

interesting to compare those handful of examples to the many hundreds of lethal incidents

covered by Bergman. Some of the differences in detail and coverage seem to follow a pattern.


For example, Ostrovsky’s opening chapter described the subtle means by which Israel

pierced the security of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear weapons project of the late 1970s,

successfully sabotaging his equipment, assassinating his scientists, and eventually destroying

the completed reactor in a daring 1981 bombing raid. As part of this effort, they lured one

of his top physicists to Paris, and after failing to recruit the scientist, killed him instead.

Bergman devotes a page or two to that same incident, but fails to mention that the French

prostitute who had unwittingly been part of their scheme was also killed the following

month after she became fearful at what had happened and contacted the police. One

wonders if numerous other collateral killings of Europeans and Americans accidentally caught

up in these deadly events may also have been carefully airbrushed out of Bergman’s

Mossad-sourced narrative.


An even more obvious example comes much later in Ostrovsky’s book, when he describes

how Mossad became alarmed upon discovering that Arafat was attempting to open

peace negotiations with Israel in 1981, and soon assassinated the ranking PLO official

assigned to the task. This incident is missing from Bergman’s book,

despite its comprehensive catalog of far less significant Mossad victims.


One of the most notorious assassinations on American soil occurred in 1976, when a

car-bomb explosion in the heart of Washington D.C. took the lives of exiled former

Chilean Foreign Minister Orlando Letelier and his young American assistant. The Chilean

secret service were soon found responsible, and a major international scandal erupted,

especially since the Chileans had already begun liquidating numerous other perceived

opponents across Latin America. Ostrovsky explains how Mossad had trained the Chileans

in such assassination techniques as part of a complex arms sale agreement, but Bergman

makes no mention of this history.


One of the leading Mossad figures in Bergman’s narrative is Mike Harari, who spent some

fifteen years holding senior positions in its assassination division, and according to the

index his name appears on more than 50 different pages. The author generally portrays

Harari in a gauzy light, while admitting his central role in the infamous Lillehammer Affair,

in which his agents killed a totally innocent Moroccan waiter living in a Norwegian town

through a case of mistaken identity, a murder that resulted in the conviction and imprisonment

of several Mossad agents and severe damage to Israel’s international reputation. By contrast,

Ostrovsky portrays Harari as a deeply corrupt individual, who after his retirement became

heavily involved in international drug-dealing and served as a top henchman of notorious

Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega. After Noriega fell, the new American-backed government

gleefully announced Harari’s arrest, but the ex-Mossad officer somehow managed to escape

back to Israel, while his former boss received a thirty year sentence in American federal prison.


Widespread financial and sexual impropriety within the Mossad hierarchy was a recurrent

theme throughout Ostrovsky’s narrative, and his stories seem fairly credible. Israel had been

founded on strict socialistic principles and these still held sway during the 1980s, so that

government employees were usually paid a mere pittance. For example, Mossad case

officers earned between $500 and $1,500 per month depending upon their rank, while

controlling vastly larger operational budgets and making decisions potentially worth millions

to interested parties, a situation that obviously might lead to serious temptations. Ostrovsky

notes that although one of this superiors had spent his whole career working for the

government on that sort of meager salary, he had somehow managed to acquire a huge

personal estate, complete with its own small forest. My own impression is that although

intelligence operatives in America may often launch lucrative private careers after they retire,

any agents who became conspicuously wealthy while still working for the CIA would be

facing serious legal risk.


Ostrovsky was also disturbed by the other sorts of impropriety he claims to have encountered.

He and his fellow trainees allegedly discovered that their top leadership sometimes staged

late-night sexual orgies in the secure areas of the official training facilities, while adultery was

rampant within Mossad, especially involving supervising officers and the wives of the agents

they had in the field. Moderate former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was widely disliked in

the organization and one Mossad officer regularly bragged that he had personally brought

down Rabin’s government in 1976 by publicizing a minor violation of financial regulations.

This foreshadows Bergman’s far more serious suggestion of the very suspicious circumstances

behind Rabin’s assassination two decades later.


Ostrovsky emphasized the remarkable nature of Mossad as an organization, especially when

compared to its late Cold War peers that served the two superpowers. The KGB had 250,000

worldwide employees and the CIA tens of thousands, but Mossad’s entire staff barely numbered

1,200, including secretaries and cleaning personnel. While the KGB deployed

an army of 15,000 case officers, Mossad operated with merely 30 to 35.


This astonishing efficiency was made possible by Mossad’s heavy reliance on a huge network

of loyal Jewish volunteer “helpers” or sayanim scattered all across the world, who could be

called upon at a moment’s notice to assist in an espionage or assassination operation,

immediately lend large sums of money, or provide safe houses, offices, or equipment.

London alone contained some 7,000 of these individuals, with the worldwide total surely

numbering in the many tens or even hundreds of thousands. Only full-blooded Jews were

considered eligible for this role, and Ostrovsky expresses considerable misgivings about a s

ystem that seemed so strongly to confirm every traditional accusation that Jews functioned

as a “state within a state,” with many of them being disloyal to the country in which they held

their citizenship. Meanwhile, the term sayanim appears nowhere in Bergman’s 27 page index,

and there is almost no mention of their use in his text, although Ostrovsky plausibly

argues that the system was absolutely central to Mossad’s operational efficiency.


Ostrovsky also starkly portrays the utter contempt that many Mossad officers expressed

toward their purported allies in the other Western intelligence services, trying to cheat their

supposed partners at every turn and taking as much as they could get while giving as little

as possible. He describes what seems a remarkable degree of outright hatred, almost

xenophobia, towards all non-Jews and their leaders, however friendly. For example, Margaret

Thatcher was widely regarded as one of the most pro-Jewish and pro-Israel prime ministers

in British history, filling her cabinet with members of that tiny 0.5% minority and regularly praising

plucky little Israel as a rare Middle Eastern democracy. Yet the Mossad members deeply hated

her, usually referred to her as “the bitch,” and were convinced that she was an anti-Semite.


If European Gentiles were regular objects of hatred, peoples from other, less developed parts

of the world were often ridiculed in harshly racialist terms, with Israel’s Third World allies

sometimes casually described as “monkeylike” and “not long out of the trees.”


Occasionally, such extreme arrogance risked diplomatic disaster as was suggested by an

amusing vignette. During the 1980s, there was a bitter civil war in Sri Lanka between the

Sinhalese and the Tamils, which also drew in a military contingent from neighboring India.

At one point, Mossad was simultaneously training special forces contingents from all three

of these three mutually-hostile forces at the same time and in the same facility, so that they

nearly encountered each other, which surely would have produced a huge diplomatic black

eye for Israel.


The author portrays his increasing disillusionment with an organization that he claimed was

subject to rampant internal factionalism and dishonesty. He was also increasingly concerned

about the extreme right-wing sentiments that seemed to pervade so much of Mossad, leading

him to wonder if it wasn’t becoming a serious threat to Israeli democracy and the very survival

of the country. According to his account, he was unfairly made the scapegoat for a failed

mission and believing his life at risk, he fled Israel with his wife and returned to his

birthplace of Canada.


After deciding to write his book, Ostrovsky recruited as his co-author Claire Hoy, a prominent

Canadian political journalist, and despite tremendous pressure from Israel and its partisans,

their project succeeded, with the book becoming a huge international best-seller, spending

nine weeks as #1 on the New York Times list and soon having over a million copies in print.


Although Hoy had spent 25 years as a highly successful writer and this book project

was by far his greatest publishing triumph, not long afterwards he was financially bankrupt

 and the butt of widespread media ridicule, having suffered the sort of personal misfortune

that so often seems to visit those who are critical of Israel or Jewish activities. Perhaps

as a consequence, when Ostrovsky published his 1994 sequel, The Other Side of Deception,

no co-author was listed.


 "The Other Side of Deception"


The contents of Ostrovsky’s first book had mostly been rather mundane, lacking any

shocking revelations. He merely described the inner workings of Mossad and recounted

some of its major operations, thereby piercing the veil of secrecy that had long shrouded

one of the world’s most effective intelligence services. But having established his reputation

with an international bestseller, the author felt confident enough to include numerous bombshells

in his 1994 sequel, so that individual readers must decide for themselves whether these

were factual or merely a product of his wild imagination. Bergman’s comprehensive bibliography

lists some 350 titles, but although Ostrovsky’s first book is included, his second is not.


Portions of Ostrovsky’s original narrative had certainly struck me as rather vague and odd.

Why had he supposedly been scapegoated for a failed mission and drummed out of the

service? And since he had left Mossad in early 1986 but only began work on his book

two years later, I wondered what he had been doing during the intervening period. I also

found it difficult to understand how a junior officer had obtained such a wealth of detailed

information about Mossad operations in which he himself had not been

personally involved. There seemed many missing pieces to the story.


These explanations were all supplied in the opening portions of his sequel, though they are

obviously impossible to verify. According to the author, his departure had occurred as a

byproduct of an ongoing internal struggle at Mossad, in which a moderate dissident faction

intended to use him to undermine the credibility of the organization and

thereby weaken its dominant leadership, whose policies they opposed.


Reading this second book eight or nine years ago, one of the earliest claims seemed

totally outlandish. Apparently, the director of Mossad had traditionally been an outsider

appointed by the prime minister, and that policy had long rankled many of its senior figures,

who preferred to see one of their own put in charge. In 1982, their furious lobbying for such

an internal promotion had been ignored, and instead a celebrated Israeli general had

been named, who soon made plans to clean house in support of different policies. But instead

of accepting this situation, some disgruntled Mossad elements instead arranged his assassination

in Lebanon just before he was scheduled to officially take office. Some evidence of the

successful plot immediately came to light and was later confirmed, igniting a subterranean

factional conflict involving both Mossad personnel and some members

of the military, a struggle that ultimately drew in Ostrovsky.


This story came towards the beginning of the book, and struck me as so wildly implausible

that I became deeply suspicious of everything that followed. But after reading Bergman’s

authoritative volume, I am now not so sure. After all, we know that around the same time,

a different intelligence faction had seriously considered assassinating Israel’s defense minister,

and there are strong suspicions that security operatives orchestrated the later assassination

of Prime Minister Rabin. So perhaps the elimination of a disfavored Mossad director-designate

is not so totally absurd. And Wikipedia does indeed confirm that Gen. Yekutiel Adam,

Israel’s Deputy Chief of Staff, was named Mossad Director in mid-1982 but then killed

in Lebanon just a couple of weeks before he was scheduled to take office, thereby becoming the

highest-ranking Israeli ever to die on the battlefield.


According to Ostrovsky and his factional allies, powerful elements within Mossad were

transforming it into a dangerous, rogue organization, which threatened Israeli democracy

and blocked any possibility of peace with the Palestinians. These individuals might even

act in direct opposition to the top Mossad leadership, whom they often regarded as

overly weak and compromising.


Early in 1982, some of the more moderate Mossad elements backed by the outgoing

director had tasked one of their officers in Paris to open diplomatic channels with the

Palestinians, and he did so via an American attache whom he enlisted in the effort.

But when the harder-line faction discovered this plan, they frustrated the project by assassinating

both the Mossad agent and his unlucky American collaborator, while throwing the blame

upon some extremist Palestinian group. I obviously can’t verify the truth of this remarkable

story, but the New York Times archive does confirm Ostrovsky’s account of the mysterious

1982 killings of Yakov Barsimantov and Charles Robert Ray, puzzling incidents that left

experts searching for a motive.


Ostrovsky claims to have been deeply shocked and disbelieving when he was initially informed

of this history of hard-line Mossad elements assassinating both Israeli officials and their own

colleagues over policy differences, but he was gradually persuaded of the reality. So as

a private citizen now living in Canada, he agreed to undertake a campaign to disrupt Mossad’s

existing intelligence operations, hoping to sufficiently discredit the organization that the

dominant factions would lose influence or at least have their dangerous activities curtailed

by the Israeli government. Although he would receive some assistance by the moderate

elements that had recruited him, the project was obviously an extremely dangerous

one, with his life very much at risk if his actions were discovered.


Presenting himself as a disgruntled former Mossad officer who was seeking revenge against

his past employer, he spent much of the next year or two approaching the intelligence

services of Britain, France, Jordan, and Egypt, offering to assist them in uncovering

the Israeli espionage networks in their countries in exchange for substantial financial payments.

No similarly knowledgeable Mossad defector had ever previously come forward, and although

some of these services were initially suspicious, he eventually won their trust, while the

information he provided was quite valuable in breaking up various local Israeli spy-rings,

most of which had previously been unsuspected. Meanwhile, his Mossad confederates

kept him informed of any signs that his activities had been detected.


The detailed account of Ostrovsky’s anti-Mossad counter-intelligence campaign occupies well

over half the book, and I have no easy means of determining whether his stories are real or

fantasy, or perhaps some mixture of the two. The author does provide copies of his 1986 plane

tickets to Amman, Jordan and Cairo, Egypt, where supposedly he was debriefed at length by

the local security services, and in 1988 a major international scandal did erupt when the British

very publicly closed down a large number of Mossad safe-houses and expelled numerous Israeli

agents. Personally, I found most of Ostrovsky’s account reasonably credible, but perhaps

individuals who possess actual professional expertise in intelligence

operations might come to a different conclusion.


Although two years of these attacks against Mossad intelligence networks had inflicted

serious damage, the overall political results were much less than desired. The existing

leadership still held a firm grip on the organization and the Israeli government gave no

sign of taking action. So Ostrovsky finally concluded that a different approach might be

more effective, and he decided to write a book about Mossad and its inner workings.


His internal allies were initially quite skeptical, but he eventually won them over, and they

fully participated in the writing project. Some of these individuals had spent many years

at Mossad, even rising to a senior level, and they were the source of the extremely detailed

material on particular operations in the 1990 book, which had seemed far

beyond the knowledge of a very junior officer such as Ostrovsky.


Mossad’s attempt to legally suppress the book was a terrible blunder and generated the

massive publicity that made it an international bestseller. Outside observers were mystified

that the Israelis had adopted such a counter-productive media strategy, but according to

Ostrovsky, his internal allies had helped persuade the Mossad leadership to take that approach.

They also tried to keep him abreast of any Mossad plans to abduct or assassinate him.


During the production of the 1990 book, Ostrovsky and his allies had discussed numerous

past operations, but only a fraction of these were ultimately included in the text. So when the

author decided to produce his sequel, he had a wealth of historical material to draw upon, which

included several bombshells.


The first of these came with regard to Israel’s major role in the illegal sales of American

military equipment to Iran during the bitter Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, a story that eventually

exploded into the headlines as the notorious “Iran-Contra Scandal,” although

our media did its utmost to hide Israel’s central involvement in the affair.


The arms trade with Iran was an extremely lucrative one for Israel, soon expanded to the

training of military pilots. The deep ideological antipathy that the Islamic Republic held

for the Jewish State required that this business be conducted via third parties, so a smuggling

route was established through the small German state of Schleswig-Holstein. However, when

an effort was later made to enlist the support of the state’s top elected official, he rejected

the proposal. The Mossad leaders were fearful that he might interfere in the business, so

they successfully fabricated a scandal to unseat him and install a more pliable German

politician instead. Unfortunately, the disgraced official raised a fuss and demanded public

hearings to clear his name, so Mossad agents lured him to Geneva, and after he rejected

a large bribe to keep quiet, killed him, disguising the death so that police ruled it a suicide.


During my original reading, this very lengthy and detailed incident, which ran over 4,000

words, seemed quite doubtful to me. I’d never previously heard of Uwe Barschel, but he

was described as a close personal friend of German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, and I found

it totally implausible that Mossad had so casually removed a popular and influential European

elected official from office, then afterward murdered him. My deep suspicions

regarding the rest of Ostrovsky’s book were further magnified.


However, in recently revisiting the incident, I discovered that seven months after the book

appeared, the Washington Post reported that the Barschel case had been reopened, with

German, Spanish, and Swiss police investigations finding strong indications of a murder

committed exactly along the lines previously suggested by Ostrovsky. Once again, the

surprising claims of the Mossad defector had apparently checked out, and I now became

much more willing to believe that at least most of his subsequent revelations

were probably correct. And there were quite a long list of those.


(As an aside, Ostrovsky noted one of the crucial sources of Mossad’s growing internal

influence in Germany. The threat of domestic German terrorism led the German government

to regularly send large numbers of its security and police officials to Israel for training,

and these individuals became ideal targets for intelligence recruitment, continuing to collaborate

with their Israeli handlers long after they had returned home and resumed their careers.

Thus, although the topmost ranks of those organizations were generally loyal to their country,

the mid-ranks gradually became honeycombed with Mossad assets, who could be used

for various projects. This raises obvious concerns about America’s post-9/11 policy of sending

such large numbers of our own police officials to Israel for similar training, as well as the

tendency for nearly all newly elected members of Congress to travel there as well.)


I vaguely recalled the early 1980s controversy surrounding UN Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim,

who was discovered to have lied about his World War II military service, and left office

under a dark cloud, with his name becoming synonymous with long-hidden Nazi war-crimes.

Yet according to Ostrovsky, the entire scandal was fabricated by Mossad, which placed

incriminating documents obtained from other files into that of Waldheim. The UN leader

had become increasingly critical of Israel’s military attacks on South Lebanon, so the

falsified evidence was used to launch a smear campaign in the media that destroyed him.


And if Ostrovsky can be credited, for many decades Israel itself had engaged in activities

that would have occupied center-stage at the Nuremberg Trials. According to his account,

from the late 1960s onward, Mossad had maintained a small laboratory facility at Nes Ziyyona

just south of Tel Aviv for the lethal testing of nuclear, chemical, and bacteriological compounds

upon hapless Palestinians selected for elimination. This ongoing process of deadly testing

allowed Israel to perfect its assassination technologies while also upgrading its powerful

arsenal of unconventional weapons that would be available in the event of war. Although

during the 1970s, the American media endlessly focused on the terrible depravity

of the CIA, I don’t ever recall hearing any accusations along these lines.


At one point, Ostrovsky had been surprised to discover that Mossad agents were

accompanying Israeli doctors on their medical missions to South Africa, where they

treated impoverished Africans at an outpatient clinic in Soweto. The explanation he

received was a grim one, namely that private Israeli companies were using the unknowing

blacks as human guinea-pigs for the testing of medical compounds in ways that could not

legally have been done in Israel itself. I obviously have no means of verifying this claim,

but I had sometimes wondered how Israel eventually came to dominate so much of world’s

generic drug industry, which naturally relies upon the cheapest and most efficient

means of testing and production.


Also quite interesting was the story he told of the rise and fall of British press tycoon Robert Maxwell,

a Czech immigrant of Jewish background. According to his account, Maxwell had closely

collaborated with Mossad throughout his career, and the intelligence service had been crucial

in facilitating his rise to power, lending him money early on and deploying their allies in labor

unions and the banking industry to weakened his media acquisition targets. Once Maxwell’s

empire had been created, he repaid his benefactors in ways both legal and illegal, supporting

Israel’s policies in his newspapers while also providing Mossad with a slush fund, secretly

financing their off-the-books European operations with cash from his corporate pension account.

Those latter outlays were normally meant to be serve as temporary loans, but in 1991

Mossad was slow in returning the funds and he grew financially desperate as his fragile

empire tottered. When he hinted at the dangerous secrets he might be forced to reveal

unless he were paid, Mossad killed him instead and disguised it as suicide.


Once again, Ostrovsky’s claims cannot be verified, but the dead publisher was given a

hero’s funeral in Israel, with the serving Prime Minister deeply praising his important services

to the Jewish State while three of his predecessors were also in attendance, and Maxwell

was buried with full honors in the Mount of Olives. Most recently, his daughter Ghislaine

reached the headlines as the closest associate of notorious blackmailer Jeffrey Epstein,

and the woman is widely believed to have been a Mossad agent, now hiding in Israel.


But Ostrovsky’s most potentially dramatic story occurred in late 1991 and filled one of

the last short chapters. In the aftermath of America’s great military victory over Iraq

in the Gulf War, President George H.W. Bush decided to invest some of his considerable

political capital in finally forcing peace in the Middle East between Arabs and Israelis.

Right-wing Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir was bitterly opposed to any of the proposed

concessions, so Bush began placing financial pressure upon the Jewish State, blocking

loan guarantees despite the efforts of America’s powerful Israel Lobby.

Within certain circles, he was soon vilified as a diabolical enemy of the Jews.


Ostrovsky explains that when faced with strong opposition by an American president,

pro-Israel groups have traditionally cultivated his Vice President as a backdoor means of

regaining their influence. For example, when President Kennedy fiercely opposed Israel’s

nuclear weapons development program in the early 1960s, the Israel Lobby focused their

efforts upon Vice President Lyndon Johnson, and this strategy was rewarded when the

latter doubled aid to Israel soon after taking office. Similarly, in 1991 they emphasized

their friendship with Vice President Dan Quayle, an easy task since his chief of staff and top advisor

was William Kristol, a leading Jewish Neocon.


However, an extreme faction in Mossad settled upon a much more direct means of solving

Israel’s political problems, deciding to assassinate President Bush at his international peace

conference in Madrid while throwing the blame upon three Palestinian militants. On

October 1, 1991, Ostrovsky received a frantic call from his leading Mossad collaborator

informing him of the plan and desperately seeking his assistance in thwarting it. At first

he was disbelieving, finding it difficult to accept that even Mossad hard-liners would consider

such a reckless act, but he soon agreed to do whatever he could to publicize the plot and

somehow bring it to the attention of the Bush Administration without being dismissed as

a mere “conspiracy theorist.”


Since Ostrovsky was now a prominent author, he was frequently invited to speak on

Middle East issues to elite groups, and at his next opportunity, he emphasized the

intense hostility of Israeli right-wingers to Bush’s proposals, and strongly suggested

that the president’s life was in danger. As it happened, a member of the small audience

brought those concerns to the attention of former Congressman Pete McCloskey, an

old friend of the president, who soon discussed the situation with Ostrovsky by phone,

then flew to Ottawa for a lengthy personal meeting to assess the credibility of the threat.

Concluding that the danger was serious and real, McCloskey immediately began using

his DC connections to approach members of the Secret Service, finally persuading them

to contact Ostrovsky, who explained his inside sources of information. The story was

soon leaked to the media, generating extensive coverage by influential columnist Jack

Anderson and others, and the resulting publicity caused the assassination plot to be abandoned.


Once again I was quite skeptical after reading this account, so I decided to contact a few

people I knew, and they informed me that the Bush Administration had indeed taken

Ostrovsky’s warnings about the alleged Mossad assassination plot very

seriously at the time, which seemingly confirmed most of the author’s story.


Following his publishing triumph and his success in foiling the alleged plot against the

life of President Bush in late 1991, Ostrovsky largely lost touch with his internal Mossad

allies, and instead focused on his own private life and new writing career in Canada.

Furthermore, the June 1992 Israeli elections brought to power the much more moderate

government of Prime Minister Rabin, which seemed to greatly reduce the need for any

further anti-Mossad efforts. But government shifts may sometimes have unexpected

consequences, especially in the lethal world of intelligence operations,

where personal relationships are often sacrificed to expediency.


After the publication of his 1990 book, Ostrovsky had become fearful of being abducted or

killed, so as a consequence he had avoided crossing the Atlantic and visiting Europe. But

in 1993, his former Mossad allies began urging him to travel to Holland and Belgium to promote

the release of new translations of his international bestseller. They firmly assured him that

the political changes in Israel meant that he would now be perfectly safe, and he finally

agreed to do so despite misgivings. But although he took some reasonable security

precautions, an odd incident in Brussels convinced him that he had narrowly escaped a

Mossad kidnapping. Growing alarmed, he called his senior Mossad contact at home, but

instead of getting any reassurance, he received a strangely cold and unfriendly response,

which included a reference to the notorious case of a individual who had once betrayed

Mossad and then been killed together with his wife and three children.


Rightly or wrongly, Ostrovsky concluded that the fall of Israel’s hard-line government had

apparently given the more moderate Mossad faction a chance of gaining control of their

organization. Tempted by such power, they now regarded him as a dangerous and expendable

loose end, someone who might eventually reveal their own past involvement in

anti-Mossad intelligence activities as well as the highly damaging book project.


Believing his former allies now wanted to eliminate him, he quickly began work on his

sequel, which would put the full story into the public record, thereby greatly reducing the

benefits of shutting his mouth. I also noticed that his new text repeatedly mentioned his

secret possession of a comprehensive collection of the names and photos of Mossad’s

international operatives, a claim that whether true or not might serve as a life-insurance

policy by greatly increasing the risk of Israel taking any action against him.


This short description of events closed Ostrovsky’s second book, explaining why the volume

was written and contained so much sensitive material that had been excluded from the previous one.


 "Final Judgement" on the JFK Assassination


Ostrovsky’s sequel was released late in 1994 by HarperCollins, a leading publisher.

But despite its explosive contents, this time Israel and its allies had learned their lesson,

and they greeted the work with near-total silence rather than hysterical attacks, so it received

relatively little attention and sold only a fraction of the previous number of copies.

Among mainstream publications, I could only locate one short and rather negative

 capsule review in Foreign Affairs.


However, another book published at the beginning of that same year on related issues

suffered from a far more complete public blackout that has now still endured for over a

quarter-century, and this was not merely because of its obscure source. Despite the

severe handicap of such a near-total media boycott, the work went on to become an

underground bestseller, eventually having over 40,000 copies in print, widely read

and perhaps discussed in certain circles, but almost never publicly mentioned. Final Judgment 

by the late Michael Collins Piper set forth the explosive hypothesis that Mossad had played

a central role in the most famous assassination of the twentieth century, the 1963

killing of President John F. Kennedy.


While Ostrovsky’s books drew upon his personal knowledge of Israel’s secret intelligence

service, Piper was a journalist and researcher who had spent his entire career at Liberty

Lobby, a small activist organization based in DC. Being sharply critical of Israeli policies and

Zionist influence in America, the group was usually portrayed by the media as part of

the far right anti-Semitic populist fringe, and almost entirely ignored by all mainstream outlets.

Its weekly tabloid Spotlight, which usually focused on controversial topics, had once reached

a remarkable circulation of 300,000 in the unsettled times of the late 1970s, but then declined

substantially in readership during the more placid and optimistic Reagan Era that followed.


Liberty Lobby had never much delved into JFK assassination issues, but in 1978 it published

an article on the subject by Victor Marchetti, a prominent former CIA official, and as a result

was soon sued for defamation by E. Howard Hunt of Watergate fame, with the lawsuit

threatening its survival. In 1982 this ongoing legal battle attracted the involvement of

Mark Lane, an experienced attorney of a leftist Jewish background who had been the

founding father of JFK conspiracy investigations. Lane won the case at

trial in 1985 and thereafter remained a close ally of the organization.


Piper gradually became friendly with Lane and by the early 1990s he himself had grown

interested in the JFK assassination. In January 1994, he published his major work, Final Judgment,

which presented an enormous body of circumstantial evidence backing his theory that Mossad

had been heavily involved in the JFK assassination. I summarized and discussed the

Piper Hypothesis in my own 2018 article:


For decades following the 1963 assassination, virtually no suspicions had ever been directed


towards Israel, and as a consequence none of the hundreds or thousands of assassination


 conspiracy books that appeared during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s had hinted at any role for the Mossad, though nearly every other possible culprit, ranging from the Vatican to the Illuminati, came under scrutiny. Kennedy had received over 80% of the Jewish vote in his 1960 election, American Jews featured very prominently in his White House, and he was greatly lionized by Jewish media figures, celebrities, and intellectuals ranging from New York City to Hollywood to the Ivy League. Moreover, individuals with a Jewish background such as Mark Lane and Edward Epstein had been among the leading early proponents of an assassination conspiracy, with their controversial theories championed by influential Jewish cultural celebrities such as Mort Sahl and Norman Mailer. Given that the Kennedy Administration was widely perceived as pro-Israel, there seemed no possible motive for any Mossad involvement, and bizarre, totally unsubstantiated accusations of such a monumental nature directed against the Jewish state were hardly likely to gain much traction in an overwhelmingly pro-Israel publishing industry.






However, in the early 1990s highly regarded journalists and researchers began exposing

the circumstances surrounding the development of Israel’s nuclear weapons arsenal.

Seymour Hersh’s 1991 book The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American

Foreign Policy described the extreme efforts of the Kennedy Administration to force Israel

to allow international inspections of its allegedly non-military nuclear reactor at Dimona,

and thereby prevent its use in producing nuclear weapons. Dangerous Liaisons:

The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship by Andrew and

Leslie Cockburn appeared in the same year, and covered similar ground.


Although entirely hidden from public awareness at the time, the early 1960s political conflict

between the American and Israeli governments over nuclear weapons development had

represented a top foreign policy priority of the Kennedy Administration, which had made

nuclear non-proliferation one of its central international initiatives. It is notable that John

McCone, Kennedy’s choice as CIA Director, had previously served on the Atomic Energy

Commission under Eisenhower, being the individual who leaked the

fact that Israel was building a nuclear reactor to produce plutonium.


The pressure and financial aid threats secretly applied to Israel by the Kennedy Administration

eventually became so severe that they led to the resignation of Israel’s founding Prime

Minister David Ben-Gurion in June 1963. But all these efforts were almost entirely halted

or reversed once Kennedy was replaced by Johnson in November of that same year. Piper

notes that Stephen Green’s 1984 book Taking Sides: America’s Secret Relations With

a Militant Israel had previously documented that U.S. Middle East Policy completely reversed

itself following Kennedy’s assassination, but this important finding had attracted little attention at

the time.


Skeptics of a plausible institutional basis for a JFK assassination conspiracy have often

noted the extreme continuity in both foreign and domestic policies between the Kennedy

and Johnson Administrations, arguing that this casts severe doubt on any such possible

motive. Although this analysis seems largely correct, America’s behavior towards Israel

and its nuclear weapons program stands as a very notable exception to this pattern.


An additional major area of concern for Israeli officials may have involved the efforts of

the Kennedy Administration to sharply restrict the activities of pro-Israel political lobbies.

During his 1960 presidential campaign, Kennedy had met in New York City with a group

of wealthy Israel advocates, led by financier Abraham Feinberg, and they had offered

enormous financial support in exchange for a controlling influence in Middle Eastern policy.

Kennedy managed to fob them off with vague assurances, but he considered the incident

so troubling that the next morning he sought out journalist Charles Bartlett, one of his

closest friends, and expressed his outrage that American foreign policy might fall under

the control of partisans of a foreign power, promising that if he became president, he would

rectify that situation. And indeed, once he had installed his brother Robert as Attorney

General, the latter initiated a major legal effort to force pro-Israel groups to register themselves

as foreign agents, which would have drastically reduced their power and influence. But after

JFK’s death, this project was quickly abandoned, and as part of the settlement,

the leading pro-Israel lobby merely agreed to reconstitute itself as AIPAC.