Final_Judgment

[442] Final Judgment 539
With rare exceptions, one must adopt certain doctrines of the faith
to enter the arena of debate—at least before any substantial segment of
the public . . . 1107
In the case of the debate over the JFK assassination, one of the new
"certain doctrines of the faith" that must be accepted in order "to enter the
arena of the debate" is that—under no circumstances—can one suggest any
of the following:
1) that Israel had reason to be hostile to John F. Kennedy.
2) that U.S. Middle East policy did a 180-degree turnabout upon the
death of John F. Kennedy;
3) that Israel's Mossad had any role whatsoever—any role at all—in the
assassination of John F. Kennedy.
You can believe that there was some sort of "flying saucer connection."
Or that Nazis did it. Or, most popularly, that the Mafia killed JFK. You can
even say that a few "rogue" CIA types were involved. But don't ever say
anything about Israel and the Mossad. That's when you become
"irresponsible" and go "beyond the pale." Don't do it!
If you do, they'll call you an "anti-Semite"—or maybe even a
"Holocaust denier," which is evidently now the latest gimmick in the
ongoing effort to silence those (such as myself) who have dared publicly
pinpoint the role of Israel in the crime of the century. It's something that
just apparently may not be done.
A 'REAL HISTORY' OF THE JFK ASSASSINATION?
The Washington Post—always a defender of the interests of the
CIA and its allies in the Mossad—recently provided its readers with a hint
that, perhaps, there will ultimately be an "official" popular determination—a
"consensus"—as to the "real history of the Kennedy assassination."'" That
is, a "history" that satisfies virtually everybody. In other words, the real
truth about who killed John F. Kennedy—and why—be damned.
In promoting this presumably forthcoming "real history," the Post
published a remarkably revealing "think piece" by one of its staff editors,
Jefferson Morley, in which young Morley opined that "we are closer than
ever to having a firm factual basis for an assassination consensus." 1109
Morley, in fact, is not so much concerned with finding out who was
responsible for the assassination of the American president, but, instead, is
more concerned with restoring the faith of the American people in the very
government whose intelligence agency—the CIA—played a central role in
the assassination and its cover-up. According to Morley, "The Kennedy
assassination is a factor in the crisis of legitimacy that now undermines the
U.S. government's ability to address a wide variety of public ills. The
inability of the government to present a credible explanation of how
Kennedy was killed is not the only nor the most important reason for the
decline. But it surely has played a role. Reaching a common understanding