Final_Judgment

526 The Continuing Cover-Up [429]
the merits—by reviews, rebuttals, debates and books of their own. The
marketplace of academic ideas is wide open . . . Eventually truth will out.
That is what a university is all about." 1089
I can't help but wonder if Dershowitz shared the same concerns about
the attack on my research by the ADL. But Dershowitz was right about one
thing: eventually truth will out. And the fact that no one, thus far, has been
able to refute Final Judgment is very telling indeed.
What is interesting is that, evidently, the allegations made in Final
Judgment don't seem to be anything new to people in the Arab world.
According to one Arab-American, M. M. Ali, writing in the December 1997
issue of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs: "While Americans
endlessly toy with new theories about the 1963 assassination of John F.
Kennedy, to Arabs it's an open-and-shut case. They feel certain the young
U.S. president was killed because he was reassessing America's pro-Israel
policy in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute." 1090
WHAT ABOUT THE JFK 'RESEARCHERS'?
In retrospect it may well be that Oliver Stone's stunning success with
the film JFK may have done research into the JFK assassination
controversy more harm than good. As we noted in Chapter 17, Stone's film
focused new public interest on the controversy and gave millions of
Americans and people worldwide a new perspective on the affair. The
impact of the film was probably more significant, in the end, than a dozen
best-selling books on the assassination combined.
However, because of Stone's apparent determination to avoid the socalled
"French connection" (as documented in Chapter 17), and because of
the multiple ties to the Israeli-Lansky combination on the part of Stone's
corporate backers, we must indeed question the real motivation behind the
decision to publicize an edited and factually skewed representation of the
facts surrounding the JFK assassination controversy.
Indeed—since Stone's financial angel, Arnon Milchan, just happened
to be Israel's biggest arms dealer—one might conclude that Stone's film
was nothing more than slickly-packaged and heavily-promoted black
propaganda and propaganda-for-profit at that!
Because so many prominent and respected JFK assassination
researchers took money from Stone and his backers—Jim Marrs, in
particular, who received $300,000 for the rights to his book Crossfire—they
may have been unwittingly compromised. They are in an unpleasant
position in which they will look rather bad if they choose to criticize Stone.
Can the researchers now honestly criticize Oliver Stone? Can they
admit that Stone's version of the assassination conspiracy is off-base? Can
they acknowledge that Stone's backers have intimate ties to the very
powerful forces that stood to benefit by JFK's removal from the White
House? These are questions that truth seekers must ask of the researchers.