Final_Judgment

[598] Final Judgment 696
I guess Reitzes would have us believe that Permindex, at best, was some
nice little company that exported Italian alabaster that Shaw used in refurbishing
houses in the French Quarter and that all of its ties to the Mossad and the
Bronfman family were just insignificant details of no consequence.
Reitzes then proceeded to engage in a remarkable exercise in
prevarication in which he then blinded his readers with a detailed exposition
in which he summarized a number of varying reports about international
financial transactions involving Permindex. In his review and elsewhere in
discussing Permindex on the Internet, Dave cited a variety of sources that
have alleged differing amounts of money ($100,000 or $200,000) reportedly
transferred between Permindex accounts and a number of other entities
including the Israel-based Bank Hapoalim.
While the microanalysis undertaken by Reitzes may have proved one
thing, that somebody somewhere typed the "1" key on their typewriter
when he or she should have typed the "2" key when writing about the
money transfers, Reitzes failed to refute the fact that Permindex was indeed
part of the global arms and money laundering operations of the Mossad.
Dave actually got a little desperate at one point when he took issue with
my suggestion that it was "well known" that the Bank Hapoalim (referenced
in Final Judgment) was associated with Israel's labor bund, the Histadrut.
Perhaps it is not "well known" to the man of the street, but Reitzes knows
full well that anyone with even a modicum of research skills can easily
document that quite innocent fact—although the fact loses its innocence
when one starts examining the multiple Israeli Mossad connections to the
circles surrounding Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans the summer prior
to the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
CLAY SHAW—MORE MOSSAD THAN CIA . . .
As I told Reitzes in response: "The bottom line is that a better case can
be made for Clay Shaw being a Mossad asset in 1963 than can be made for
him being a CIA asset in that same year. You keep citing CIA documents
that say that the CIA cut off relations with Shaw, but," I added, "you can't
cite any Mossad documents, can you."
"In short," I told the readers of my response, "while Dave says that
nobody can provide that Clay Shaw had CIA connections in 1963, Dave
cannot also prove that Clay Shaw didn't have Mossad contacts in 1963
unless he brings forth Mossad documents which say that 'We have no
contacts with Clay Shaw,' (as though they would be available anyway)."
This brings up another point: Reitzes is adamant in defending not only
Clay Shaw, but also Guy Banister and David Ferrie (also of New Orleans)
of any role whatsoever in the JFK affair, despite a wealth of information
(that Reitzes dismisses arbitrarily) that these three were indeed connected
not only to each other but to the web of intrigue surrounding Lee Harvey
Oswald that fateful summer.