In what many view as further evidence of links between convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and Mossad, leaked emails show Israeli spy stayed in his Manhattan home. Newly leaked emails reveal that a senior Israeli intelligence officer with ties to the Israeli military and Mossad stayed at Epstein’s Manhattan residence on multiple occasions between 2013 and 2016.
The documents, reported by Drop Site News, add to growing evidence that Epstein was a key facilitator of sexual exploitation, elite political access and international espionage on behalf of Israeli intelligence interests.
According to the investigation, Yoni Koren—a long-time aide to former Israeli Prime Minister and Defence Minister Ehud Barak and a figure with deep ties to Israeli military intelligence—was hosted by Epstein for weeks at a time.
Koren, who remained active in Israeli intelligence networks long after his formal retirement, was engaged in brokering cybersecurity ventures and coordinating high-level meetings involving former CIA Director Leon Panetta and US defence officials.
Among the documents released are emails showing Barak instructing Epstein to wire funds to Koren’s personal bank account and later coordinating an unusual hand-off of a package involving a bank card. Koren also arranged private access to the Pentagon and White House for Barak’s family, allegedly via his contacts with former CIA and Department of Defence officials.
The revelations form the fourth instalment in a series published by Drop Site News, which has previously reported on Epstein’s alleged involvement in brokering security agreements between Israel and Mongolia, Russia and Côte d’Ivoire. These reports challenge the long-maintained narrative that Epstein’s vast network was confined to financial elites and celebrities, instead pointing toward his role as an informal operator for Israeli intelligence interests.
While speculation around Epstein’s connections to intelligence services has long circulated, including earlier claims that he was protected due to those affiliations, the new material offers a rare glimpse into how deeply embedded he may have been in Israeli intelligence circles. The emails include direct communication between Barak and Epstein, discussions of bank transfers, and requests for covert operational assistance. They also show that Barak used Koren as an intermediary to share information with AMAN, Israel’s military intelligence directorate.
Notably, the US Congress has so far failed to release the full Epstein files. Republican Rep Anna Paulina Luna, who has led efforts to declassify these documents, has accused House Speaker Mike Johnson of deliberately delaying a vote under pressure from President Donald Trump. The files are believed to contain material implicating powerful figures across governments, financial institutions and intelligence networks.
Koren, who passed away from cancer in 2023, was described by Barak in a eulogy as a “talented intelligence officer… with endless loyalty to the state.” Barak has refused to comment on the latest allegations, as has Jeremy Bash, former CIA Chief of Staff and frequent point of contact in Koren’s email correspondence.
A roving reporter who covered Italy’s top politicians explains to The Grayzone how his country was reduced to a joint US-Israeli “aircraft carrier,” and raises troubling questions about an Israeli role in the killing of Prime Minister Aldo Moro.
For years, Israel’s Mossad monitored and secretly influenced a violent communist faction that carried out the March 16, 1978 kidnapping and murder of Italian statesman Aldo Moro, veteran investigative journalist Eric Salerno has documented.
Having worked closely alongside multiple Italian heads of state during his 30-year career as a correspondent, Salerno published an expose of their secret relationship with Israeli intelligence in 2010 called Mossad Base Italy.
The reporter told The Grayzone that Moro, who was arguably Italy’s most important leader, became a thorn in the side of powerful forces who sought to keep his country firmly lodged in the pro-Western bloc. Salerno believes Italy’s long-term foreign policy would have developed differently if Moro had survived, adding, “that’s what they were afraid of in the United States.”
Moro was kidnapped in 1978 by the radical Brigate Rosse, or Red Brigades faction, in a daring and highly-professional daytime operation which left all but one of his bodyguards dead. He was executed two months later. The still-unresolved case shocked the nation, and remains a deeply unsettling chapter in the period of intelligence intrigues and political terrorism known by Italians as The Years of Lead.
For some of Italy’s most knowledgeable sources, the crimes bore strong similarities to those of Operation Gladio, a covert effort which saw the CIA, MI6 and NATO train and direct a shadow army of fascist paramilitary units across Europe that carried out false flag terror attacks, robberies, and assassinations aimed at neutralizing the socialist left.
Moro, who belonged to the progressive wing of the Christian Democrat Party and served five terms as prime minister, threatened to upend the traditional postwar order in Italy by forging a “compromesso storico” (historic compromise) with the Italian Communist Party. “It was something that probably part of the Italian political establishment was afraid of, even in his own party,” Salerno notes.
While this part of Moro’s history is well known among Italians, Salerno has documented a less understood aspect of his legacy: his arrangement with Palestinian resistance groups, likely mediated by Libyan President Moammar Gaddafi, which allowed the PLO and others to smuggle weapons and travel freely through Italy in exchange for the country itself being spared from terror attacks. That deal, which scholars consider to be an evolving and “dynamic process,” came to be known as the “Lodo Moro.”
The pact is widely believed to have been forged in 1973, during Moro’s tenure as foreign minister, when Italy secretly released a group of Palestinian fighters who sought to attack a plane belonging to Israel’s El Al airline as it departed from Rome’s Fiumicino airport. It was spurred in large part by Italy’s desire to maintain a level of independence from the US-led Western bloc, which was targeted by an oil embargo in retaliation for Washington’s support for Israel in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War.
While Salerno stopped short of alleging the Mossad directly ordered the abduction and execution of Moro, he told The Grayzone, “I think their idea was, ‘we’ll see what happens, and if it’s necessary, and we think it’s the right time, we can help one way or another.’”
For over a decade, the Lodo Moro deal insulated Italy from the violence that plagued other nations across the Mediterranean. These plots became increasingly commonplace in the region following the 1967 Six-Day War between Israel and a coalition of Arab states including Egypt, Syria, and Jordan.
But it was only a matter of time before the violence consumed Moro’s life as well.
Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro in Red Brigade captivity, 1978
Mossad Base Italy
Salerno’s book, Mossad Base Italy, is perhaps the most comprehensive chronicle of the intimate and ongoing relationship between Israeli intelligence and Italy’s political leadership. Published in 2010, the book remains almost completely unknown in the English speaking world.
Its author illustrates how the secret Israeli-Italian alliance predated the May 1948 creation of Israel, with Rome providing covert support to Zionist militias like the Haganah. Individuals affiliated with Benito Mussolini and neofascists within Italy’s post-war security apparatus supplied them with weapons and training to crush Palestinian resistance and assist their campaign of ethnic cleansing.
“The Israelis didn’t want Rome to become a satellite of the Soviet Union, and the US had the same position. The country was essentially the West’s front line against the Eastern bloc,” Salerno explained to The Grayzone. “Italy bordered Yugoslavia, was not far from Warsaw Pact nations, and support for Communism and the Soviet Union was strong in the wake of World War II. It was also a kind of aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean, which people would land on and go off to other places.” With nearly 5,000 miles of coastline, and just 90 miles separating the island of Sicily and Tunisia, Italy has often been described as the “gatekeeper” of the Mediterranean Sea.
Salerno concluded that every Italian administration since World War II has secretly aided Mossad and Israeli military intelligence. A review of his book by veteran Haaretz intelligence correspondent Yossi Melman noted, “Israeli espionage agents confirm that Italy’s intelligence services are among the friendliest in the world toward their Israeli counterparts.”
Salerno argues persuasively that both the Mossad and Israeli Air Force were effectively “born in Rome,” and reveals Tel Aviv entrusted Italian intel with conducting “extremely classified missions” on their behalf. Strikingly, his book has never been translated into English.
The reporter attributes the consistent pro-Israel bias of Italian intelligence to a combination of political expediency and lingering collective guilt over Rome’s complicity in the crimes against Jews during World War Two. Since then, Italy’s governments have largely “felt… that they had to help the Jews because the Jews had been suffering under the previous regime.”
“Objective evidence” Mossad downed Italian airliner
The traditional dynamic between Rome and Tel Aviv was challenged by the emergence of Italian Christian Democrat Party governments, including Moro’s. Within months, Israel began responding to this defiance with apparent acts of sabotage inside Italy, according to a variety of well-placed figures.
In late 1973, five members of the Black September Palestinian militant group were arrested thanks to a tipoff from the Mossad, which claimed they were preparing to shoot down an Israeli commercial airliner at Rome’s largest airport with ground-to-air missiles. However, Moro arranged for them to be released a month later, then transported to Libya.
The Black September members were first flown to Malta on an Italian transport plane known as Argo 16 — which was routinely used to ferry Operation Gladio operatives to a secret training base in Sardinia, and deliver CIA/MI6 weapons to secret depots dotted around the country. When Mossad observed the Palestinians there and realized they’d been freed, they became “very annoyed,” according to Rome’s then counterespionage chief, Ambrogio Viviani.
On November 23 1973, Argo 16 crashed shortly after taking off from Venice Airport, killing the entire veteran crew.
An initial probe concluded the tragedy was an accident, but the case was reopened by the Venice prosecutor’s office in 1986. That investigation faltered as well, when security and intelligence officials refused to testify, and began withholding evidence. However, the judge overseeing the case, Carlo Mastelloni, told Salerno there was no doubt, based on “objective evidence,” that the plane’s downing was Israel’s dirty work.
“It’s all tied to the famous ‘Moro agreement,’” Mastelloni asserted. Argo 16’s sabotage was not only “retaliation” for the release of the arrested Palestinians, but a “warning” over Italy’s “concessions” to “Tel Aviv’s enemies,” he stated. Still, Lodo Moro continued to hold despite the implicit threat of violence, which raises the question of whether Mossad felt the need to up the ante.
‘Mossad decided to transfer the Middle Eastern conflict to Italy’
Argo 16 was not the only fatal incident to take place during Italy’s Years of Lead which seemed to bear the Mossad’s fingerprints. When a hand grenade was lobbed at Milan’s police headquarters in May 1973, killing four civilians and injuring 45, the culprit presented himself as an anarchist following his immediate apprehension. However, subsequent investigations revealed the perpetrator, Gianfranco Bertoli, to be a longtime Italian military intelligence informant, as well as a member of numerous neofascist organizations, including the Gladio-linked Ordine Nuovo (New Order).
Bertoli had spent the two years leading up to the attack residing off and on in Kibbutz Karmiya in Israel, where he frequently hosted representatives of French far-right faction Jeune Révolution, while maintaining contact with French intelligence. Such incidents prompt Salerno to ask: “was the Mossad part of the strategy of tension?” This was the precise conclusion reached by Ferdinando Imposimato, an Italian magistrate who oversaw initial trials of Red Brigades operatives regarding Moro’s murder.
“It must be acknowledged the Israeli secret services had perfect knowledge of the Italian subversive phenomenon from its very beginning, engaging in it with constant ideological and material support,” Imposimato noted in 1983. “Mossad had decided to transfer the Middle Eastern conflict to Italy,” he concluded, “driven by the aim of political and social destabilization.” Israel’s purpose was “to induce America to see Israel as the only allied point of reference in the Mediterranean and thus gain greater political and military support,” he stated.
During his March 1999 testimony to a parliamentary inquiry into terrorism in Italy, Red Brigades fighter Alberto Franceschini stated the group was approached by the Mossad through an intermediary after the Red Brigades’ kidnapping of a magistrate named Mario Sossi in April 1974. According to Franceschini, the Mossad made a “disturbing” proposition to finance his group, stating that rather than seeking to control the Red Brigades, Israel sought only to ensure the group continued to operate:
“We don’t want to tell you what you have to do. That is, what you do is fine with us. We care that you exist. The very fact that you exist, whatever you do is fine with us.”
Describing “the political motivations” for Mossad’s position, Franceschini noted: “from the perspective of American relations… the more destabilized Italy was, the more unreliable it became, and the more Israel became a reliable country for all Mediterranean policies” from Washington’s perspective. In his final years, Franceschini revealed Israel “offered weapons and assistance” to the Red Brigade, declaring: “their stated goal was to destabilize Italy.”
As Salerno noted to The Grayzone, “in one of his last interviews,” Franceschini “confirmed to my colleague from Corriere della Serra that the Mossad had been in contact from the very beginning with the Red Brigades,” interactions which the correspondent stresses were “very normal in the way the Mossad acted with all kinds of, let’s call them subversive organizations, all over Europe.”
The notion of a potential Israeli hand in shaping the Moro plot — or hindering efforts to resolve it peacefully — is bolstered by statements from a number of influential Italian politicians, which also indicate Israel both “co-financed” and “influenced” the group which took credit for killing Moro. These disclosures have so far been universally ignored by mainstream English-language outlets.
In July 1998, Giuseppe De Gori, a lawyer who represented Moro’s Christian Democrat party in numerous trials related to the case, told a parliamentary commission on terrorism that Mossad “had always controlled” the Red Brigades, without formally infiltrating the group. He recorded how in 1973, a Mossad major and colonel “presented themselves” to the group, exposing infiltrators in their ranks, and offering “weapons and whatever they wanted as long as they pursued a different policy.”
While the Red Brigades refused, “from that moment on, it was clear Mossad” kept a close eye on the militant faction. De Gori testified that Israeli intel “hated” the “anti-Zionist” Moro, and began taking advantage of its ability to “smuggle” information to the Red Brigades, which could influence their actions.
As the lawyer explained, there was “no need” for the Mossad to directly penetrate the Red Brigades. De Gori hinted the group’s decision to kill Moro after almost two months in captivity resulted from such indirect Israeli intervention. While Italian government officials refused any negotiation with his kidnappers, at a private meeting on May 8, 1978, elements within the Christian Democrats proposed independently brokering a deal to secure Moro’s release.
“Moro was killed immediately afterward, so someone must have been there who reported this news,” De Gori testified. In 2002, the lawyer told author Philip Willan that Mossad made Moro’s execution a fait accompli by enlisting the services of a skilled forger to fabricate a letter from the Red Brigades to authorities in mid-April 1978. The communique claimed the statesman was already dead. “After that… Moro could no longer be saved,” De Gori stated.
Bargain with Palestinian resistance puts target on Moro’s back
De Gori is not the only well-placed source to blame Mossad for Moro’s death. In May 2007, Giovanni Galloni, former vice president of the Italian judiciary’s High Council, boldly proclaimed that “not all participants” in the premier’s abduction had been members of the Red Brigades. That conclusion was spurred by Moro’s bodyguards being executed with “just two weapons, used by exceptionally experienced men.” In addition to never being identified, these assassins displayed a level of shooting expertise no known Red Brigades operative seemed to possess.
Galloni strongly insinuated the killers were hired by Washington and/or Tel Aviv. He revealed that “a few months before his capture,” Moro confided to him that he was “worried” the US and Israeli “secret services had infiltrated the Red Brigades.” Moro reported this to Italy’s US ambassador, prompting an “ambiguous denial” from the State Department, to the effect Washington had always told Italian intelligence “everything we know.”
Galloni enquired: “Which secret services? The real ones, or the ones that were in their hands?” He was clearly referring to the parallel Anglo-American spying and terror nexus in Rome known as Operation Gladio.
Further evidence of an Israeli role in Moro’s murder can be found in testimony delivered to an Italian parliamentary committee in June 2017 by a former magistrate named Luigi Carli, who was intimately involved in the original investigation. Unnoticed in the English-speaking world, and unmentioned in the committee’s official reports, Carli claimed the Red Brigades had been “co-financed” by Mossad.
When asked why Israel would subsidize an armed communist faction in Italy, Carli stated that “several” former Red Brigades collaborators had told him the Mossad had agreed to “take care of co-financing the Red Brigades,” proposals which he considered “strange.”
They explained, however, that any efforts which ended up “weakening, or helping to weaken, Italy’s internal situation” would “enhance Israel’s prestige and authority” in the Mediterranean, Carli testified.
Highly illuminating interviews with former Italian president Francesco Cossiga, published by the Bulletin of Italian Politics in the wake of his death in August 2010, shed further light on Mossad’s motives for assassinating Moro, and for targeting Rome with mass casualty false flag bombings. Cossiga was the first Italian politician to acknowledge the existence of the Lodo Moro. Cossiga stated the US was “of course” aware of the agreement, while he himself and much of Italy’s political class were in the dark.
Cossiga recalled that while he was Prime Minister in November 1979, police in a coastal town intercepted a truck carrying a surface-to-air missile. He subsequently received a telegram from Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine chief George Habbash admitting ownership of the missile, and reassuring the Italian premier it was not intended for use in Italy. Habbash thus demanded the weapon be returned and called for the driver’s release.
Habbash warned that any failure to comply would represent a violation of the PFLP’s “agreement” with Rome. “No one could tell me what this part meant,” Cossiga insisted. Only “many years later” did he learn of the Lodo Moro agreement.
At the time of Cossiga’s interviews, the Italian state reopened investigations into the August 1980 bombing of Bologna Centrale railway station, which killed 85 people and wounded over 200. The probe resulted in convictions in absentia for members of the neofascist, Gladio-tied Nuclei Armati Rivoluzionari. Several chief suspects, including a confirmed MI6 asset named Robert Fiore, escaped to London, where Britain refused to extradite them. The Bulletin of Italian Politicsidentified the missile seizure, and the existence of Lodo Moro itself, as key considerations in the new investigation.
One possibility explored by the inquiry was whether the Bologna bombing was “carried out by the US or Israel to punish Italy for its pro-Arab stance.” Having long complained that Rome “never really had space for its own foreign policy” due to its subservience to US interests, Cossiga acknowledged that Italy “pursued a national agenda” in the Middle East and “took certain liberties towards the Arab world and Israel.”
“People forget” the Christian Democrats were “always a pro-Arab party,” Cossiga stated, pointing specifically to Moro and his associate Giulio Andreotti, another former Italian head of state who famously exposed Operation Gladio in October 1990. Cossiga claimed, “Andreotti has always believed — though he’s never said it,” that the US caused him “judicial problems” over his Arab sympathies.
Though Salerno disputes the characterization of Andreotti as “pro-Arab,” describing him instead as “pro the rights of Arabs,” he told The Grayzone that the longtime Italian leader once personally declared to him: “if I was born in Gaza, I would be a terrorist.”
Moro rescue committee set up to fail
Throughout Moro’s 55 days in Red Brigades captivity, Italian officials declared that the “state must not bend” to “terrorist demands,” making it clear the Italian government would neither negotiate with the Red Brigades nor release any of its jailed members in return for the PM. The former Italian Prime Minister was subsequently bundled into a car trunk, shot 10 times, and left in the vehicle in central Rome for authorities to find.
Today, many Italians view Rome’s inflexible approach with deep suspicion, given the government’s willingness to negotiate with terrorists both before and after Moro’s murder. Magistrate Mario Sossi, whose kidnap by the Red Brigades purportedly prompted Mossad to approach the group, was released in 1974 after one month in captivity in exchange for some of the radical faction’s imprisoned members.
When the Red Brigades kidnapped Christian Democrat politician Ciro Cirillo in April 1981, Italian authorities bargained directly with his abductors, paying a ransom for his release. That December, when the Red Brigades abducted US General James Dozier, he was “located and freed in a blitz” by a joint US-Italian taskforce.
Former Italian general Roberto Jucci contrasted Dozier’s treatment with that of Moro in a 2024 interview. “One of them, they wanted to set free; I have my doubts about the other,” he stated. Jucci was among the few Italians in a position to judge, having been placed in charge of training a special forces squad at a base in Tuscany, which was ostensibly meant to rescue the abducted Prime Minister. Today, he believes “the real goal was to get me out of the way” and ensure Moro was never found. No raids were conducted during his 55 days in captivity.
Jucci told La Repubblica that the formal committee to rescue Moro was “advised by a man sent by the US,” and “composed largely” of representatives of fascist, Gladio-affiliated Masonic lodge P2. These individuals “wanted things to go in a different way from what all honest people were asking for,” and wished for Moro “to be destroyed politically and physically.”
Had Moro survived, “Italy’s politics would have developed differently.” Jucci believed the Italian leader could’ve “been freed if all the institutions had worked in this direction.” Declassified British Ministry of Defence files dating to November 1990 show officials in London were well-aware of the role played by P2 in sabotaging official efforts to rescue Moro. The Masonic lodge was described as just one “subversive” force in Rome, employing “terrorism and street violence to provoke a repressive backlash against Italy’s democratic institutions.”
Those documents further noted “circumstantial evidence” indicated “one or more of Moro’s kidnappers was secretly in touch” with Italy’s “security apparatus,” and investigators “deliberately neglected to follow up leads which might have led to the kidnappers and saved Moro’s life.”
Mossad continues Italian ops amid Gaza genocide
Today, there is little trace of any pro-Arab tendencies in mainstream Italian politics. According to Salerno, the US and Israel no longer have any need to “destabilize Italy” as the country is economically “weak.” Rome’s government now is for all intents and purposes “a continuation, even an extension, of the old fascist regime,” he says, adding, “there are people in the government that have statues of Mussolini in their houses.”
Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has made clear she harbors little sympathy for the Palestinians, and little intention of recognizing a Palestinian state – even after it was revealed in November 2024 the Mossad had been employing a private Italian intelligence firm to target Meloni and her ministers. “I think that basically, the government that we have here in Italy at the moment is a government that would like to criticize many things that are happening,” but “it can’t criticize Israel too much because of what the Italian fascist regime did to the Jews during the war,” Salerno explains.
Regarding recent mass protests and strikes across Italy in support of Gaza, Salerno explains, “What is happening today in Palestine in Gaza is something exceptional.” But “as nothing has been taught or spoken about in Italy about the plight of Palestinians for many years… the great population of Italy and the governments of Italy” have “never done very much to really help the Palestinians.” Now, once again, “all of a sudden, we have discovered we have the Middle East and the Palestinian question.”
To this day, Mossad continues to carry out operations in Italy. The Italian-Israeli intelligence relationship was most recently highlighted in a bizarre incident in May 2023, in which a houseboat capsized in Italy’s Lake Maggiore, killing four people among the 23 aboard. Though legacy media initially framed the case as a tragic accident at a birthday celebration, it quickly became clear everyone on the boat — bar the captain and his wife — were Israeli and Italian spies.
The 10 surviving Israelis were hurriedly flown back to Tel Aviv on a military aircraft before they could be questioned by police, with the apparent blessing of Italian authorities. Subsequent investigations suggested the gathering was a joint intelligence operation into “Iranian non-conventional weapons capabilities,” aimed at either surveilling local industry or wealthy Russians living nearby who were suspected of helping Moscow obtain drones from Tehran.
A eulogy for the dead Israeli spy, whom Italian media named as Erez Shimoni, was personally delivered by Mossad director David Barnea, strongly suggesting he was a significant figure at the intelligence agency. While the captain of the ship has since been convicted of negligent homicide, Italy’s military police immediately announced they would not be investigating the activities of the spies on board.
“Terror is theater… Theater’s a con trick… Do you know what that means? Con trick? You’ve been deceived.”
– John le Carré, The Little Drummer Girl, (1983)
A provision authorizing extrajudicial murder exists within Jewish law. Din rodef — “law of the pursuer,” permits the killing of those who are deemed a threat to individual Jews or the Jewish state, without the benefit of due process.
A dramatic example of this occurred on November 4, 1995, when Talmudic law student Yigal Amir assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin at a political rally in Tel Aviv. During his trial, Amir invoked din rodef as a legal defense in an attempt to justify his murder of Rabin. The basis of Amir’s argument was that Rabin, by signing the Oslo Accords and relinquishing much of the West Bank to Palestinian rule, had endangered Jewish lives and should therefore be considered a ‘pursuer.’
Although Amir was convicted and sentenced to life in prison, many radical right-wing Israelis have campaigned for clemency on his behalf, including Itamar ben-Gvir, Netanyahu’s Minister of National Security.
In the book Torat Hamelekh (The King’s Torah), Rabbis Yitzhak Shapira and Yosef Elitzur explain that din rodef “applies even when the pursuer is not threatening to kill directly, but only indirectly… anyone who weakens our own state by word or similar action is considered a pursuer.” [Emphasis supplied][1]
Is it possible that Charlie Kirk came to be regarded as a ‘pursuer’ by certain Zionist heavyweights, resulting in his untimely death?
Few can say for sure, and those who can surely won’t. However, it’s interesting that a day after Kirk was shot, General Michael Flynn indicated that federal law enforcement suspected the murder may have had a foreign signature:
Which foreign country, pray tell, is notorious for assassinating political figures across the globe, going so far as to gun down a sitting US President in a grisly public spectacle? History itself is reason enough to consider Israeli collusion in Kirk’s assassination plausible, if not entirely demonstrable. Respected scholar Ron Unz reveals in his latest article ‘The Assassination of Charlie Kirk’ how a number of people in and around the Trump Administration seem to agree:
“Earlier this year I’d published an article summarizing Israel’s long history of high-profile political assassinations, a record unmatched in all of world history, and this particular incident certainly fit very well into that pattern… Therefore, a few hours after hearing of Kirk’s death, I very gingerly raised these possibilities with someone well situated in conservative circles who personally knew Kirk, and was shocked by his response. He unequivocally told me that everyone in Kirk’s circle, even including important Trump Administration officials, suspected that Israel had probably killed the young conservative leader.”
I’ve seen many people online ask the question: why would Israel wish to kill one of its most stalwart defenders on the American right?
It’s true that for almost the entirety of his career Kirk was a beneficiary of Zionist largesse, allowing him to grow his Turning Point USA organization into “the largest Conservative student movement in the US, with groups at more than 3,500 universities and high schools.” Kirk would often attribute TPUSA’s success to his friend and mentor David Horowitz, conceding that “without David Horowitz, I’m not sure Turning Point USA would exist.” Relationships like these went a long way towards ensuring Charlie stayed on message whenever the subject of Israel was raised. (Like for example, when he dismissed the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty as a “conspiracy theory.”)
But running interference for a terrorist state engaged in an ongoing genocide will eventually begin to wear on the conscience of any halfway decent man, and in more recent years Kirk had begun to wander off the Zionist reservation. In fact, on his final podcast with Ben Shapiro, recorded one day before his death, Kirk suggested that people ought to be more critical of media reports regarding Israel:
“One thing a friend said to me… is Charlie, we pushed back against the media on Covid, on lockdowns, on Ukraine, on the border… maybe we should also ask a question: is the media totally presenting the truth when it comes to Israel? Just a question. You know, maybe we shouldn’t believe everything the media says because I know I’ve been conditioned to ask a lot more critical questions over the last couple of years.”[2]
Kirk’s statement to Shapiro supports the idea that he may have started reexamining some of the positions he’d been paid so handsomely to embrace.
Having never paid much attention to Charlie Kirk, considering him the archetypical shabbos goy sucking on the teat of ZOG, I was rather surprised this week when I watched numerous videos of the TPUSA founder criticizing Jews as a group, claiming at times that Jewish communities promoted “hatred against whites”; that “Jews control… the colleges, the nonprofits, the movies, Hollywood, all of it”; and insinuating that Israel’s military stood down and allowed the 10/7 Hamas attack to occur. In one instance, Kirk described the intense backlash he received from his Jewish donors after hosting Israel-critical commentators Dave Smith, Megyn Kelly and Tucker Carlson at his TPUSA Action Summit in July, during which the guest speakers “denounced Israel’s blood-soaked assault on the besieged Gaza Strip, branded Jeffrey Epstein as an Israeli intelligence asset, and openly taunted Zionist billionaires like Bill Ackman for ‘getting away with scams’ despite having ‘no actual skills,’” according to The Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal and Anya Parampil.
A few weeks after the conference, a visibly shaken Kirk appeared on former Fox News host Megyn Kelly’s podcast and addressed some of the harassments he’d been subjected to:
“The more that you guys privately and publicly call our character into question — which is not isolated, it would be one thing if it were just one text, or two texts; it is dozens of texts — then we start to say, ‘woah, hold the boat here,’…To be fair, some really good Jewish friends say, ‘that’s not all of us’…But these are leaders here. These are stakeholders… I have less ability… to criticize the Israeli government than actual Israelis do. And that’s really, really, weird…That’s not right.”
Kirk’s increasingly independent statements, coupled with his defense of irredeemable “anti-Semites” Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson, strongly suggests that his time as an obedient goyische dupe was nearing its end. Perhaps this explains why in early 2025, Benjamin Netanyahu tried to purchase Kirk’s compliance:
Charlie Kirk rejected an offer earlier this year from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to arrange a massive new infusion of Zionist money into his Turning Point USA (TPUSA) organization, America’s largest conservative youth association, according to a longtime friend of the slain commentator speaking on the condition of anonymity. The source told The Grayzone that the late pro-Trump influencer believed Netanyahu was trying to cow him into silence as he began to publicly question Israel’s overwhelming influence in Washington and demanded more space to criticize it.
In the weeks leading up to his September 10 assassination, Kirk had come to loathe the Israeli leader, regarding him as a “bully,” the source said. Kirk was disgusted by what he witnessed inside the Trump administration, where Netanyahu sought to personally dictate the president’s personnel decisions, and weaponized Israeli assets like billionaire donor Miriam Adelson to keep the White House firmly under its thumb.
According to Kirk’s friend, who also enjoyed access to President Donald Trump and his inner circle, Kirk strongly warned Trump last June against bombing Iran on Israel’s behalf. “Charlie was the only person who did that,” they said, recalling how Trump “barked at him” in response and angrily shut down the conversation. The source believes the incident confirmed in Kirk’s mind that the president of the United States had fallen under the control of a malign foreign power, and was leading his own country into a series of disastrous conflicts.
By the following month, Kirk had become the target of a sustained private campaign of intimidation and free-floating fury by wealthy and powerful allies of Netanyahu — figures he described in an interview as Jewish “leaders” and “stakeholders.”
“He was afraid of them.” the source emphasized. [Source]
Thirty-three hours after supposedly killing Charlie Kirk with a single .30-06 caliber round fired from a Mauser 98 bolt-action rifle, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson was taken into custody and charged with multiple felonies, including suspicion of aggravated murder, felony discharge of a firearm, and obstruction of justice. The official story claims that Robinson’s father, a registered Republican and supporter of Donald Trump, recognized his son in images released by the FBI, whereupon he confronted the newly minted murder suspect and persuaded him to confide in a youth pastor who also happens to work with the Washington County Sheriff’s Office and the U.S. Marshals Service. Interestingly, Zionist billionaire Bill Ackman, who had reportedly been feuding with Kirk shortly before his death, contributed $1 million to the FBI reward for information leading to the capture of Charlie Kirk’s assassin. That money will apparently go to Tyler Robinson’s father.
Following Robinson’s arrest it was reported that federal authorities were in possession of evidence collected from his roommate showing he had divulged details of his plan to assassinate Kirk over the social messaging platform Discord. His alleged plans included, “a need to retrieve a rifle from a drop point, leaving the rifle in a bush… and a message referring to having left the rifle wrapped in a towel.” Discord, however, claimed that it’s platform was not in fact used by Tyler Robinson either to plan the murder of Charlie Kirk or to hide the evidence after the fact. A Discord spokesman, dispatched to set the record straight, told American tabloid news outfit TMZ:
“In the course of our investigation we identified a Discord account associated with the suspect, but have found no evidence that the suspect planned this incident or promoted violence on Discord… The messages referenced in recent reporting about planning details do not appear to be Discord messages. These were communications between the suspect’s roommate and a friend after the shooting, where the roommate was recounting the contents of a note the suspect had left elsewhere.”
FBI Director Kash Patel has said that although the incriminating note was destroyed, federal investigators have ‘forensic evidence’ proving it existed, and furthermore, they have been able to confirm through an “aggressive interview process” what its contents were. Meanwhile, on September 15 the Washington Post published messages supposedly sent by Robinson on Discord discussing the murder plot, which obviously contradicts the company’s previous position.
Other striking anomalies exist in what has begun to emerge as the official story.
For starters, security camera videos showing Robinson jumping off the roof where the sniper shot was supposedly fired from show no evidence that he was in possession of a high-powered bolt-action rifle. Yet we’re told the murder weapon was found in a wooded area near the campus, fully assembled and wrapped in a towel. Are we to believe that upon shooting Kirk, Robinson disassembled his firearm, fled the scene without being detected, reassembled his firearm, wrapped it in a towel and ditched it in the woods? How does that make any sense?
Equally perplexing is the immediate apprehension by police of an elderly Jewish man who had reportedly confessed to shooting Kirk. The man, 71-year-old George Zinn, is a well-known political agitator with a history of disrupting public events. Attendees who witnessed his arrest claim the obstreperous geriatric was challenging police to shoot him, and was acting in a thoroughly unhinged manner. Shortly thereafter, Zinn was booked by the Utah Valley University Police on an obstruction of justice charge and cleared as a person of interest. It’s possible Zinn’s erratic behavior was a calculated diversion, allowing the shooter to flee the scene in the critical moments after Kirk was shot.[3]
And then there’s the story of the private jet that departed Provo Airport (PVU) — located eight miles from the UVU campus where Kirk was speaking — an hour after the shooting. According to FlightRadar24, a private Bombardier Challenger 300 departed PVU just after 1 p.m. local time and illegally switched off its transponder 30 minutes into flight, rendering itself undetectable by radar. Colson Thayer, a writer for American weekly magazine People, reported:
“Around 1:43 p.m. local time, as the jet approached the northern border of Arizona, the plane turned off its Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B), which provides positioning information between the aircraft and air traffic control. Tracking information for the aircraft reappeared shortly after 2:30 p.m. local time as the plane departed Page Municipal Airport (PGA) in Arizona back towards Provo. The plane landed back in Provo at 3:06 p.m. local time, according to FlightRadar24.”
The jet is registered to “N888KG” LLC, which shares a Lehi, Utah address with the Derek and Shelaine Maxfield Family Foundation, which runs the Saprea non-profit organization to help survivors of sexual abuse. Many have pointed to the foundation’s numerous connections to Israel as a cause for suspicion… X user, @jonnysocialism, added that “It appears the private jet that took off after the assassination and stopped tracking was owned by the Derek & Shelaine Maxfield Foundation. They run a nonprofit called Saprea that focuses on victims of child sex abuse & have pictures of themselves visiting Israel on Facebook.”
In 2022, Saprea also launched its first-ever “kosher retreat” that offers kosher food developed “closely with Rabbi Avremi Zippel at Chabad Lubavitch of Utah.”
It’s unlikely we’ll ever be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt who actually fired the shot that killed Charlie Kirk or why.
When contemplating the many improbabilities and contradictions woven into the unfolding narrative I’m reminded of an episode of 60 Minutes that aired in September 2024, in which Lesley Stahl interviewed a former Mossad case officer identified only as ‘Michael.’ While explaining Israel’s extensive covert action and disinformation campaign vis-à-vis the infamous ‘Lebanon Pager Plot,’ Michael said,
“We create a pretend world… We are a global production company. We write the screenplay, we’re the directors, we’re the producers, we’re the main actors, and the world is our stage.”
“We create a pretend world. We are a global production company: We write the screenplay, we're the directors, we're the producers, we're the main actors. And the world is our stage,” says a retired Mossad agent who was among those who led the pager op. https://t.co/OPYLTLVQ8vpic.twitter.com/Vj49IsWgKx
Counterterrorism expert and former deputy chairman of Kroll Associates, Brian Jenkins, once observed that “terrorism is aimed at the people watching, not at the actual victims.” Thanks in part to British journalist Russell Warren Howe’s 1974 television interview with future Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin (not to mention decades of observable phenomena), it’s no secret who the world leader of terrorism is. Begin, the founder of Israel’s Likud Party, was head of the Zionist paramilitary organization Irgun when it bombed the King David Hotel in 1946, killing 91 people and injuring dozens more. Today the Likud government of Benjamin Netanyahu is orchestrating a genocide in Gaza and a larger regional war of aggression made possible by the rudimentary 10/7 Hamas offensive during which Israeli military forces stood down and allowed the attack to transpire for several hours without any meaningful response.
It’s precisely due to its history of political assassinations and false flag terror attacks that Israel has once again emerged among ‘conspiracy theorists’ as a leading suspect in an historic crime. Having already gotten away with the murder of more than 200 journalists in Gaza since ‘war’ began in October 2023, what would possibly deter them from killing one more?
Notes
[1] For a detailed study on the influence of ultra-Orthodox Judaism inside of Israel, see Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, by Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky.
[2] Ben Shapiro has announced he “will be picking up Charlie’s bloody microphone” and replacing Kirk on the college campus circuit.
[3] George Zinn cuts a suspicious figure. In response to a question about a meme connecting Zinn to 9/11 and the Boston Bombing, Grok AI replied, “Based on my review of multiple sources, George Zinn was a witness to the 9/11 attacks and described seeing the planes hit the towers. He was arrested in 2013 for emailing a bomb threat “joke” to the Salt Lake City Marathon shortly after the Boston bombing, pleading guilty to a terrorism charge and receiving probation.”
Casual onlookers salivate at the supposed brilliance of Israel’s intelligence services. From Mossad’s assassinations abroad to daring sabotage campaigns in hostile territory, the Jewish state has been elevated in popular imagination as a scrappy David with unmatched cunning, capable of pulling off operations that leave even world powers like the United States in awe. Books, films, and mainstream pundits reinforce this myth, presenting Israel’s intelligence machine as self-sufficient and independent.
But when one peels back the layers, the narrative quickly unravels. Israel’s most celebrated operations—from targeted killings in Europe to sabotage inside Iran—were rarely the product of Israeli ingenuity alone. They relied on cooperation with the CIA, NSA cyberwarfare expertise, European intelligence networks, and even covert collaboration with Arab regimes that publicly denounce Israel while privately working with it. Much like its dependence on U.S. military aid and diplomatic cover, Israel’s intelligence empire survives not through independence but through reliance on Western logistics, intelligence sharing, and political approval. What is sold as the story of a bootstrapping nation is a case study in multinational complicity.
According to investigative reporting by Israeli journalists Melman and Ronen Bergman, Israel’s intelligence community relied heavily on intelligence partnerships with Western and allied nations to conduct clandestine activities in foreign territories.
The foundation of this intelligence cooperation traces back to the aftermath of the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre. According to Dr. Aviva Guttmann’s research, which Melman has covered extensively, the Berne Club—a secret European intelligence alliance founded in 1969—provided crucial support for Israel’s subsequent assassination campaign against Palestinian operatives. This multinational intelligence network initially included Switzerland, West Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Luxembourg, Austria, the Netherlands, and Belgium, and later expanded to include the United States, Canada, Australia, and other nations. Through an encrypted communication system called “Kilowatt,” thousands of cables were exchanged among eighteen Western intelligence services after the system was established in 1971. The network functioned as a secret clearinghouse for raw intelligence. Shared reports contained the locations of safe houses, vehicle registrations, the movements of high-value targets, updates on Palestinian guerrilla tactics, and analytical assessments, all of which provided Israel with crucial operational support for its clandestine operations.
Direct American involvement in Israeli operations became particularly evident during the George W. Bush administration. The February 2008 assassination of Hezbollah commander Imad Mughniyeh in Damascus was reportedly approved by President Bush himself after being briefed by then-CIA Director Michael Hayden. This was not merely intelligence sharing but active operational participation. “The Mossad agent would ID Mughniyeh, and the CIA man would press the remote control,” a Newsweek report noted. The CIA designed and built the bomb that killed Mughniyeh, tested it at a secret facility in North Carolina, and smuggled it into Syria through Jordan, while Mossad provided intelligence and logistical support.
When it came to confronting Iran’s nuclear program, the United States and Israel collaborated on the creation of the Stuxnet computer virus in a joint operation codenamed “Olympic Games.” The malware was designed to sabotage centrifuges at Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment facility. According to Ronen Bergman, the virus was developed with input from Israeli cybersecurity experts alongside the U.S. National Security Agency. This operation represented a quadrilateral effort involving the CIA, NSA, Mossad, and Israel’s military intelligence agency, AMAN. It was conceived during the administrations of W. Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and ultimately executed in 2010 under President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The scope of American involvement extended to Israel’s broader targeted killing policies. Ronen Bergman revealed that during Ariel Sharon’s tenure, a secret deal was struck with then-U.S. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice that committed Israel to “significantly reduce the construction of new settlements in exchange for American backing of the war with the Palestinians and of Israel’s targeted killing policy” of high-value Palestinian figures.
American intelligence cooperation facilitated Israel’s campaign against Iran’s nuclear program, with Melman documenting extensive Western knowledge of and potential involvement in the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists between 2007-2012. The Obama administration was aware of the assassination campaign carried out by the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) terrorist organization, which was being financed, armed, and trained by Mossad. Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) reportedly trained MEK members starting in 2005, and U.S. intelligence was providing crucial information for these operations. As one former senior intelligence official told investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, “the United States is now providing the intelligence” for assassinations carried out “primarily by MEK through liaison with the Israelis.”
Israeli dependency on foreign support went beyond Western allies to include collaborationist elements in the Arab world. Bergman revealed extensive details about Mossad’s regional cooperation during Meir Dagan’s tenure (2002-2010) as director of the Mossad, including secret partnerships with Arab intelligence services that publicly condemned Israel while privately cooperating with it. These arrangements involved joint operations with countries that “share more or less the same set of interests” despite public hostility, coordination in counter-terrorism operations across the Middle East, and partnerships that enabled many operations attributed solely to Mossad.
The pattern of foreign dependence continues in contemporary operations. An August 2025 ProPublicareport by Yossi Melman and fellow journalist Dan Raviv showcased Israel’s enlistment of Iranian dissidents for executing missions inside Iran during “Operation Rising Lion.” They specifically outlined Mossad’s strategic shift from using Israeli personnel to cultivating a “foreign legion” of Iranian and regional operatives to carry out activities ranging from support functions to covert action.
This pattern of intelligence reporting by Melman and Bergman reveals that Israel’s reputation for independent intelligence capabilities obscures a reality of extensive foreign dependence, particularly on Western intelligence services, for conducting operations that extend Israeli influence and security interests globally.
Far from being a model of independence, Israel’s intelligence record underscores how deeply its operations are embedded in Western power structures. The myths of self-sufficiency and unmatched brilliance collapse under the weight of evidence: Mossad’s reach is extended only because Washington, European capitals, and even regional neighbors provide the pipelines of intelligence, technology, and manpower that make its operations possible.
The true scandal lies not in Israel’s dependency but in the willingness of other nations to abet its destabilizing campaigns by supplying the bombs, intelligence streams, and diplomatic cover that allow Tel Aviv to operate with impunity. To strip away the mythology is to confront the uncomfortable truth that Israel’s “miraculous” intelligence victories are collective endeavors, outsourced across continents, exposing not a triumph of independence but a parasitic reliance on collaborators who enable its shadow wars.
With speculation mounting that Trump could pardon her, MintPress profiles the family of convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell. From her media baron father, who acted as a high-level spy for Israel, her sister, working to push Tel Aviv’s interests in Silicon Valley, her brothers, who founded a dubious but highly influential anti-Islamic extremism think tank, and nephews in influential roles at the State Department and White House, the Maxwell clan have wide-ranging ties to U.S. and Israeli state power. This is their story.
Releasing Ghislaine, Burying the Epstein Files
Speculation is growing that Ghislaine Maxwell could soon be freed. Despite campaigning on the promise to release the Epstein Files, there are increasing signs that the Trump administration is considering pardoning the world’s most notorious convicted sex trafficker.
Last month, Trump (who contemplated the idea in his first term in office) repeatedly refused to rule out a pardon, stating to journalists that “I’m allowed to do it.” Just days later, Maxwell was transferred across states to a minimum-security facility in Bryan, Texas—a highly unusual practice. Neither women convicted of sex crimes nor those with more than 10 years remaining on their sentences are generally permitted to be transferred to such facilities. The move sparked equal measures of speculation and outrage.
The decision to relocate Maxwell came after somebody—potentially a source within her team itself—began leaking incriminating and embarrassing evidence linking Trump to Epstein. This included a birthday card Trump sent Epstein, featuring a hand-drawn nude woman, accompanied by the text: “Happy Birthday—and may every day be another wonderful secret.”
For years, Maxwell aided her partner Jeffrey Epstein in trafficking and raping girls and young women, creating a giant sex crime ring in the process. Epstein’s associates included billionaires, scientists, celebrities, and politicians, including President Trump, whom he considered his “closest friend.”
In 2021, two years after Epstein’s mysterious death in a Manhattan prison, Maxwell was found guilty of child sex trafficking offenses and was subsequently sentenced to 20 years in prison.
The news that Trump may soon free such an infamous criminal sentshockwaves through his base and drew charges of blatant corruption from the media. “Is there any reason to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell except to buy her silence?” ran the headline of one article in The Hill. Meanwhile, Tim Hogan, senior Democratic National Committee adviser, denounced what he claimed was a “government cover-up in real time.” “Donald Trump’s FBI, run by loyalist Kash Patel, redacted Trump’s name from the Epstein files—which have still not been released,” he said.
Robert Maxwell: Media Tycoon and Israeli Operative
While many of Ghislaine Maxwell’s crimes have come to light, less well-known are her family’s myriad connections to both the U.S. and Israeli national security states. Chief among these are those of her father, disgraced media baron and early tech entrepreneur, Robert Maxwell.
A Jewish refugee fleeing Hitler’s occupation of his native Czechoslovakia, Maxwell fought for Britain against Germany. After World War II, he used his Czech connections to help funnel arms to the nascent State of Israel, weapons that helped them win the 1948 war and carry out the Nakba, the ethnic cleansing of nearly 800,000 Palestinians.
Maxwell’s biographers, Gordon Thomas and Martin Dillon, write that he was first recruited by Israeli intelligence in the 1960s and began buying up Israeli tech corporations. Israel used these companies and their software to carry out spying and other clandestine operations around the globe.
Maxwell amassed a vast business empire of 350 companies, employing 16,000 people. He owned an array of newspapers, including The New York Daily News, Britain’s Daily Mirror, and Maariv of Israel, in addition to some of the world’s most influential book and scientific publishing houses.
With business power came political power. He was elected to the U.K. parliament in 1964 and counted U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev among his closest friends.
He used this influence to advance Israeli interests, selling Israeli intelligence-gathering software to Russia, the U.S., the U.K., and many other countries. This software included a secret Israeli backdoor that allowed the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, to tap into classified information gathered by governments and intelligence agencies around the world.
At the same time, it was expanding its espionage capabilities, Israel was developing a secret nuclear weapons program. This project was exposed by Israeli peace activist Mordechai Vanunu, who, in 1986, leaked evidence to the British press. Maxwell—one of Britain’s most powerful press barons—spied on Vanunu, passing photographs and other information to the Israeli Embassy—intelligence that led to Vanunu’s international abduction by Mossad, and his subsequent imprisonment.
His death was also surrounded by controversy, similar to Epstein’s. In 1991, his lifeless body was found in the ocean, in what authorities ruled a bizarre accident whereby the tycoon had fallen from his luxury yacht. To this day, his children are split on whether they think he was murdered.
The rumors that Maxwell had, for decades, been acting as an Israeli “superspy” were all but confirmed by the lavish state funeral he received in Jerusalem. His body was interred at the Mount of Olives, one of the holiest sites in Judaism, the spot from which Jesus is said to have ascended to heaven.
Virtually the entirety of elite Israeli society–both government and opposition–attended the event, including no fewer than six living heads of Israeli intelligence organizations. President Chaim Herzog himself performed the eulogy. Also speaking at the event was Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, who stated that “Robert Maxwell has done more for Israel than can today be said.”
In the United Kingdom, however, he is remembered less fondly. A man with a fearsome reputation, Maxwell ruled his media business with an iron fist, in a similar vein to Rupert Murdoch (another individual with extremely close links to Israel). After his death, it transpired that he had stolen more than $500 million from his employees’ pension fund to bail out other failing companies in his empire, leaving many of his workforce’s retirement plans in tatters. As the newspaper, The Scotsman, remarked ten years later in 2001:
If [Maxwell] was despised in life, he was hated in death when it emerged he had stolen 440 million [pounds] from the pension fund of Mirror Group Newspapers. He was, officially, the biggest thief in British criminal history.”
Isabel Maxwell: Israel’s Woman in Silicon Valley
Even before it had been published, Isabel Maxwell– Robert’s daughter and Ghislaine’s older sister– managed to obtain a copy of Thomas and Dillon’s biography. She immediately flew to Israel, The Times of Londonreported, where she showed it to a “family friend” and deputy director of Mossad, David Kimche. These actions did little to beat the book’s central allegation that her father was indeed a high-level Israeli “superspy.”
Isabel has enjoyed a long and successful career in the tech industry. In 1992, along with her twin sister, Christine, she founded a company that developed one of the internet’s first search engines.
After the pension scandal, however, she and her siblings shifted their focus to rebuilding every facet of their father’s collapsed business empire. The sisters sold the search engine, netting enormous profits.
As Israeli outlet Haaretznoted, in 2001, Isabel decided to dedicate her life to advancing the Jewish State’s interests, vowing to “work only on things involving Israel” as she “believes in Israel.” Described by former MintPress journalist and investigative reporter Whitney Webb as “Israel’s back door into Silicon Valley,” she has transformed herself into a key ambassador for the country in the tech world.
“Maxwell created a unique niche for herself in [tech] as a liaison between Israeli companies in the initial development stages and private angel investors in the U.S. At the same time, she helps U.S. companies interested in opening development centers in Israel,” wrote local business newspaper, Globes. “She lives intensively, including innumerable flights back and forth between Tel Aviv and San Francisco,” it added.
Israel is known to be the source of much of the world’s most controversial spyware and hacking tools, used by repressive governments the world over to surveil, harass, and even kill political opponents. This includes the notorious Pegasus software, used by the government of Saudi Arabia to track Washington Post journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, before assassinating him in Türkiye.
Isabel built on her father’s political connections. “My father was most influential in my life. He was a very accomplished man and achieved many of his goals during his life. I learned very much from him and have made many of his ways my own,” she said. This included developing intimate ties to a myriad of Israeli leaders, including Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak, one of Jeffrey Epstein’s closest associates.
During the 2000s, she was a regular participant at the Herzliya Conference, an annual, closed-door gathering of the West’s most senior political, security and intelligence officials, in addition to being a “technology pioneer” at the World Economic Forum.
She was also placed on the board of the Israeli government-funded Shimon Peres Center for Peace and Innovation and the American Friends of the Yitzhak Rabin Center for Israel Studies, two organizations closely associated with those former Israeli prime ministers.
In 2001, she became the CEO of iCognito, taking the job, in her words, “because it [the company] is in Israel, and because of its technology.” The technology in question was aimed at keeping children safe online—highly ironic, given that her sister was actively trafficking and abusing minors throughout that period.
Isabel was a much more serious and accomplished individual than Ghislaine. As Haaretznoted:
While her younger sister, Ghislaine, makes the gossip columns after breakfasting with Bill Clinton or because of her ties with another close friend, Britain’s Prince Andrew, Isabel wants to show photos taken of herself with the grand mufti of Egypt, or with Bedouin in a tent, or of visits to a Gaza refugee camp.”
In 1997, Isabel was appointed president of the Israeli tech security firm, Commtouch. Thanks to her connections, Commtouch was able to secure investment from many of the most prominent players in Silicon Valley, including Bill Gates, a close associate of both the Maxwell family and Jeffrey Epstein himself.
Christine Maxwell: Funded by Israel?
Isabel’s twin sister, Christine, is no less accomplished. A veteran of the publishing and tech industries, she co-founded data analytics firm Chiliad. As CEO, she helped oversee the production of a massive “counterterrorism” database that the company sold to the FBI during the height of the War on Terror. The software helped the Bush administration crack down on Muslim Americans and tear down domestic civil liberties in the wake of 9/11 and the PATRIOT Act. Today, she is the leader and co-founder of another big data corporation, Techtonic Insight.
Like her sister and father, Christine has a close relationship with the State of Israel. She is currently a fellow at the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP), where, her biography states,
She works to promote innovative academic research that leverages enabling technologies to empower proactive understanding and combatting the great dangers of contemporary antisemitism, and enhancing the ongoing relevance of the Holocaust for the 21st century and beyond.”
ISGAP’s board is a who’s who of Israeli national security state officials. This includes Natan Sharansky, former Minister of Internal Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister of Israel, and Brigadier General Sima Vaknin-Gil, the former Chief Censor for the IDF and Director General of the Ministry of Strategic Affairs and Diplomacy. Also on the board is Jeffrey Epstein’s lawyer, Alan Dershowitz.
The think tank was a key player in the U.S. government’s decision to repress the 2024 Gaza protests on university campuses nationwide. The group produced reports linking student leaders with foreign terrorist organizations and promoted dubious claims about a wave of anti-Semitism washing over American colleges. It met frequently with both Democratic and Republican leaders, and urged them to “investigate” (i.e., repress) the leaders of the demonstrations.
ISGAP has continually warned of foreign influence on American campuses, producing reports and holding seminars detailing Qatar’s supposed stranglehold over the U.S. higher education system, and linking that with growing anti-Israel sentiment among America’s youth.
Yet if ISGAP wished to investigate other foreign government influence operations, it would not have to look far, as its own funds overwhelmingly come from a single source: the Israeli state. In 2018, an investigation found that Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs (then headed by Brigadier General Vaknin-Gil herself) channeled $445,000 to ISGAP, a sum representing nearly 80% of its entire revenues for that year. ISGAP failed to disclose that information to either the public or the federal government.
At the height of the concern over foreign interference in American politics, the news barely registered. Since then, the Israeli government has continued to bankroll the group to the tune of millions. In 2019, for example, it approved a grant of over $1.3 million to ISGAP. Thus, in her role as a fellow at the organization, Christine Maxwell is the direct beneficiary of Israeli government cash.
Third Generation Maxwells: Working In the US Government
While Robert Maxwell’s daughters were close to state power, some of the family’s third generation have taken up positions within the U.S. government itself. Shortly after graduating from college, Alex Djerassi (Isabel Maxwell’s only son) was employed by Hillary Clinton on her 2007-2008 presidential campaign. Djerassi drafted memos, briefings, and policy papers for the Clinton team and helped prepare her for more than 20 debates.
The Clinton and Maxwell families are closely intertwined. Ghislaine vacationed with Hillary’s daughter, Chelsea, and appeared prominently at her wedding. Both she and Jeffrey Epstein were invited multiple times to the Clinton White House. Long after Epstein was jailed, President Bill Clinton invited Ghislaine to an intimate dinner with him at an exclusive Los Angeles restaurant.
Although she failed in her bid for the White House, President Obama named Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State, and one of her first actions was to appoint Djerassi to her team. He quickly rose in the ranks, becoming Chief of Staff at the Office of the Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. In this role, he specialized in developing the United States’ policy towards Israel and Iran, although he also worked on the U.S. occupation of Iraq, and accompanied Clinton on visits to Israel and the Arab world.
While at the State Department, he served as the U.S. government representative to the Friends of Libya and the Friends of the Syrian People Conferences. These were two organizations of hardline, hawkish groups working towards the overthrow of those two governments, and their replacement with U.S.-friendly regimes. Washington got what it wanted. In 2011, Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi was overthrown, killed and replaced by Islamist warlords. And last December, longtime Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, fled to Russia and was replaced by the founder of al-Qaeda in Syria, Abu Mohammad al-Jolani.
Djerassi was later appointed an associate at the U.S.-government-funded think tank, the Carnegie Endowment for Peace. While there, he again specialized in Middle East policy, his bio noting that he “worked on matters relating to democratization and civil society in the Arab world, the Arab uprisings, and Israeli-Palestinian peace.” Today, he works in Silicon Valley.
While Djerassi’s fortunes were tied to the Clinton faction of the Democratic Party, his cousin Xavier Malina (Christine Maxwell’s eldest son) backed the right horse, working on the Obama-Biden 2008 presidential run.
He was rewarded for his good work with a position in the White House itself, where he became a Staff Assistant at the Executive Office of the President. Like his cousin, once his time in office was over, Malina also secured a position at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace before pursuing a career in the tech world, working for many years at Google in the Bay Area. He currently works for Disney.
While the actions of parents and grandparents should not determine the careers of later generations, the fact that two individuals who come from a multi-generational family of unrepentant spies and operatives of a foreign power secured positions at the center of the U.S. State is at least worthy of note.
The Maxwell Brothers: From Bankruptcy to Counterterrorism
Much of the Maxwell clan is most influential in American and Israeli politics. However, brothers Ian and Kevin also hold considerable sway over affairs in their native Great Britain. Although being acquitted of charges over widespread allegations that they helped their father, Robert, plunder over $160 million from his employees’ pension fund, the brothers kept a low profile for many years. Kevin, in particular, was known for little more than being Britain’s largest-ever bankrupt, with debts exceeding half a billion dollars.
However, in 2018, they launched Combating Jihadist Terrorism and Extremism (CoJiT), a controversial think tank pushing for a far more invasive and heavy-handed government approach to the question of radical Islam.
In his organization’s book, “Jihadist Terror: New Threats, New Responses,” Ian writes that CoJiT was set up to play a “catalyzing role in the national conversation,” and to answer “difficult questions” arising from the issue. Judging by the content of the rest of the book, this means pushing for even more extensive surveillance of Muslim communities.
Within Britain, CoJiT was a highly influential organization. Its editorial board and contributors are a who’s who of high state officials. Individuals participating in its inaugural conference in London in 2018 included Sara Khan, the government’s Lead Commissioner for Countering Extremism, and Jonathan Evans, the former Director General of MI5, Britain’s domestic intelligence agency.
Like so many Maxwell projects, CoJiT appears to have wrapped up its affairs. The organization has not updated its website or posted anything on its social media channels since 2022.
In fairness, in the past few years, the brothers have had other priorities, leading the campaign to free their sister Ghislaine from prison, insisting that she is entirely innocent. In a manner reminiscent of Robert Maxwell, however, it appears that Kevin may have failed to pay the defense team; in 2022, Maxwell’s lawyers sued him, seeking unpaid fees of nearly $900,000.
The Infamous Mr. Epstein
For years, Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein ran a sex trafficking ring that exploited hundreds of girls and young women. They were also connected to vast networks of the global elite, including billionaire business owners, royalty, star academics, and foreign leaders, among their closest acquaintances, leading to intense speculation about the extent of their involvement in their many crimes.
It is still unclear when Epstein first met with the Maxwells, with some alleging that he was recruited into Israeli intelligence by Robert Maxwell. Others state the relationship only began after Robert’s death, when he saved the family from penury following its financial problems.
Only one month after his 2019 arrest, Epstein was found dead in his New York City prison cell. His death was officially ruled a suicide, although his family has rejected this interpretation.
Perhaps the two most powerful individuals in Epstein’s circle of confidants were Presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. Clinton, already infamous for the numerous accusations of sexual misconduct against him, is known to have flown at least 17 times on Epstein’s private jet, nicknamed the “Lolita Express,” and was accused by Epstein victim, Virginia Giuffre, of visiting Little St. James Island, the multimillionaire’s private Caribbean residence, where many of his worst crimes took place.
Trump, arguably, was even closer to the disgraced financier. “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” he said in 2002, “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it.” Like Clinton, Trump flew on the Lolita Express. Epstein attended his wedding to Marla Maples in 1993, and claimed to have introduced him to his third wife, Melania.
Unfortunately, while Epstein’s ties incriminate the entire political spectrum, coverage has often been framed as a partisan issue. A MintPressstudy of over one year of Epstein coverage on MSNBC and Fox News found that each network downplayed his connections to their preferred president, while emphasizing and highlighting the links to the leader of the other major party. As a result, many in the United States see the affair as an indictment of their political rivals, rather than of the political system as a whole.
There also remains the question of Epstein’s links to intelligence, something that has been openly speculated about in the media for decades, even years before any allegations against him were made public. Throughout the 1990s, Epstein’s biographer Julie K. Brown noted, he openly boasted about working for both the CIA and Mossad, although the veracity of his claims remains in doubt. As Britain’s Sunday Timeswrote in 2000, “He’s Mr. Enigmatic. Nobody knows whether he’s a concert pianist, property developer, a CIA agent, a math teacher or a member of Mossad.” It is possible that there is at least a grain of truth to all of these identities.
Epstein met with U.S. Deputy Secretary of State William Burns three times in 2014. Burns would later be named director of the CIA. Burns’ proximity to Epstein, however, pales in comparison to that of former Israeli Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Between 2013 and 2017 alone, Barak is known to have traveled to New York City and met with the convicted criminal at least30 times, sometimes arriving at his Manhattan mansion incognito or wearing a mask to hide his identity.
Numerous sources have commented on Epstein’s connections to Israeli intelligence. A previous girlfriend and victim of his, referred in court documents as Jane Doe 200 to hide her identity, testified that Epstein boasted about being a Mossad operative and that, after he raped her, she could not go to the police because his position as a spy made her fear for her life.
“Doe genuinely believed that any reporting of the rape by what she believed to be a Mossad agent with some of the most unique connections in the world would result in significant bodily harm or death to her,” reads the court filing.
Ari Ben-Menashe, a former senior official in Israel’s Military Intelligence Directorate, claimed that Epstein was a spy and that he and Ghislaine Maxwell were running a honeytrap operation on behalf of Israel. Four (anonymous) sources toldRolling Stone that Epstein had directly worked with the Israeli government.
Unlike much of the Maxwell family, however, his Israel and intelligence connections are based largely on testimony and unverified accounts. His only known trip to the country was in April 2008, just before his sentencing, a move that sparked fears he would seek refuge there.
Nevertheless, there has been intense public speculation that he could have been working for Tel Aviv. At the Turning Points USA Student Action Summit 2025, former Fox News host Tucker Carlson stated that there is nothing wrong, hateful or anti-Semitic about asking questions about Epstein’s foreign connections. “No one’s allowed to say that the foreign government is Israel, because we’ve been somehow cowed into thinking that that’s naughty,” he said, before expressing his exasperation about the media’s silence on the issue.
What the hell is this? You have the former Israeli prime minister living in your house, you have had all this contact with a foreign government, were you working on behalf of the Mossad? Were you running a blackmail operation on behalf of a foreign government?”
Carlson’s comments drew harsh condemnation from former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett. “The accusation that Jeffrey Epstein somehow worked for Israel or the Mossad running a blackmail ring is categorically and totally false. Epstein’s conduct, both the criminal and the merely despicable, had nothing whatsoever to do with the Mossad or the State of Israel,” he wrote.
“This accusation is a lie being peddled by prominent online personalities such as Tucker Carlson pretending they know things they don’t,” he added, concluding that Israel was under attack from a “vicious wave of slander and lies.”
Whatever the truth about Epstein, it is indisputable that the powerful Maxwell family holds wide-ranging connections to U.S., British and Israeli state power. It is also beyond doubt that if the full story of their activities were ever to reach the public, it would incriminate a significant number of the world’s most powerful people and organizations. Perhaps that is why Trump has, in short order, gone from promising to release the Epstein Files to potentially releasing his accomplice.
Veteran CIA counterintelligence chief James Angleton secretly oversaw a top-level spy ring involving Jewish émigrés and Israeli operatives without “any clearances” from Congress or Langley itself, according to recently declassified documents published as part of the Trump administration’s pledge to disclose all available information on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
The files provide a fresh and often disturbing look at a spy described by historian Jefferson Morley as “a leading architect of America’s strategic relationship with Israel,” detailing Angleton’s role in transforming the Mossad into a fearsome agency with global reach, while assisting Israel’s theft of US nuclear material and protecting Zionist terrorists.
Angleton established the Jewish emigre spying network in the aftermath of WWII, with the apparent goal of infiltrating the Soviet Union. But as the files show, the spymaster considered his “most important” task to be maintaining the supply of Jewish immigrants flowing from the Soviet Union towards the burgeoning Israeli state.
According to Angelton, his Jewish assets were responsible for 22,000 reports on the USSR, generating several intelligence masterstrokes. Chief among them was the publication of Soviet Prime Minister Nikita Kruschev’s famous 1956 secret speech denouncing Stalin, which the spymaster boasted “practically created revolutions in Hungary and Poland.” Elsewhere, Angleton bragged that his arrangement with Israel had produced “500 Polish intelligence officers who were Jewish” who “knew more about Polish intelligence than the Poles.”
Other passages appear to show Angleton taking credit for securing the “release” of several Zionist terrorists affiliated with the Irgun militia before they could be convicted for bombing the British embassy in Rome. Though the group had been captured by Italian authorities, the newly-disclosed files indicate the terror cell was freed on the orders of the CIA.
The information was originally divulged in 1975 to senators serving on the Church Committee, which probed widespread abuses by US intelligence in the decades prior. Congress was particularly interested in claims by New York Times foreign correspondent Tad Szulc, who testified under oath that Angleton had personally informed him that the US provided technical information on nuclear devices to Israel in the late 1950s. The new documents show that Angleton was deceptive under questioning, and evaded questions on Israel’s nuclear espionage efforts on the record.
Additional unsealed FBI documents, which refer to Israel’s Mossad as Angleton’s “primary source” of information, confirm that the CIA’s head of counterintelligence relied heavily on Tel Aviv to solidify his position within the Agency – and also add to the growing body of evidence that Angleton may not have been operating with US interests in mind throughout his 21-year tenure.
Other newly declassified files from the FBI have shown that Angleton maintained a wildly lopsided relationship with the Bureau, which saw federal agents deferring to the CIA counterintelligence chief after they caught him surveilling the correspondence of huge numbers of Americans. The files show Angleton openly admitting he would have been fired if Langley caught wind of his leaks to the Bureau.
A side-by-side analysis of the now-unredacted Church Committee files compared with their previously-released versions from 2018 demonstrates that even after 70 years, Washington felt compelled to conceal details of its real relationship with Israel’s founders. Over a dozen references to “Israel,” “Tel Aviv,” or descriptions of figures as “Jewish,” which were scrubbed from the 2018 release, can now be viewed on the National Archives site.
The documents reveal that Angleton repeatedly lied to multiple Congressional bodies, including the Church Committee, which investigated CIA abuses, and the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which probed the murders of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. Angleton was similarly evasive when interrogated over Israel’s nuclear weapons program, and about CIA knowledge or complicity in the scheme.
Those documents also reveal that Angleton’s CIA counterintelligence staff ordered Lee Harvey Oswald’s removal from federal watchlists six weeks before Kennedy’s assassination, despite his classification as a high security risk. The surveillance of Oswald was personally overseen by a member of Angleton’s intelligence network of Jewish emigres, Reuben Efron, a CIA spy from Lithuania. Angleton had placed Efron in charge of an Agency program called HT/Lingual which intercepted and read correspondences between Oswald and his family.
Numerous historians have questioned why the CIA counterintelligence chief insisted for decades on personally overseeing what he described as the “Israeli account.” Though several off-the-record interactions remain impossible to parse, the documents show that when grilled about his “unusually close” connections to the Israeli Mossad, Angleton acknowledged forming an “arrangement” in which, “in most simplistic terms, [the Israelis] were informed that we would not work with them against the Arabs, [but] that we would work with them on Soviet bloc Intelligence and communism.”
Freeing Zionist terrorists
One of the earliest instances of Angleton’s cooperation with Zionist elements came as Zionist militants embarked on a terrorist campaign to pressure the British colonial authorities to leave Mandate Palestine.
In October 1946, three months after they bombed the British administrative headquarters at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, members of the right-wing Irgun militia planted explosives in the British embassy in Rome in a failed bid to assassinate the UK’s ambassador to Italy.
According to Angleton, after the Irgun “blew up the British embassy in Rome” in 1946, the CIA intervened to ensure they escaped Italy without prosecution.
“We had the members of the group, and then we had the dilemma again as to whether we turned them over to the British authorities,” noted Angleton, who had served as counterintelligence chief for the Italian branch of the Office of Strategic Services, the CIA’s predecessor. “And we were in a position to make the decision one way or the other. And eventually we came down on the side of releasing them.”
A secret deal with the Mossad
As Washington sought to manage the political ruptures caused by the creation of Israel, and monitor the wave of Soviet migrants pouring into the self-proclaimed Jewish state, Angleton framed his takeover of “the Israeli account” as a convenient way for US intelligence to kill two birds with one stone.
“The other side of the Israeli problem was that you had thousands coming from the Soviet Union and you had the Soviets making use of the immigration for the purpose of sending illegal agents into the West and breaking down all the travel control, identifications and so on. And so there was both a security problem and a political problem.”
To manage these “problems,” the US and Israelis brokered a deal involving the secret exchange of “papers and signals, communications intelligence, [and] the other products of intelligence action,” Angleton stated. The spy chief claimed the only records of the 1951 arrangement held by the US side would be in the possession of the Agency, and admitted US Congress had been left in the dark, telling senators, “I don’t think there were any clearances obtained from the Hill.”
Asked by one legislator how it was “possible for succeeding directors of the intelligence agency to understand what the agreements were between” US and Israeli intelligence, Angleton responded: “Very simple. They saw the production to begin with. And they met with directors or the head of Israeli intelligence. And they met with Ambassadors and prime ministers. And they were very much involved.”
Grooming Zionist spies “outside the structure” of the CIA
Angleton was especially protective of what he called “the fiduciary relationship” with Tel Aviv, assembling a close-knit clique of Jewish Americans with dubious loyalties to manage it as World War Two drew to a close. “I started from the south side with two Jewish men who worked with me during the war,” he explained. Having “sent them over as ordinary people under cover” to get their bearings in newly-formed Israel, Angleton “brought over six others and put them through some months of training, outside of the structure” of the CIA.
“To break down the fiduciary relationship – which is after all a personal business – all the men I have had, were men who stayed in it and came back to headquarters and went back to Tel Aviv, they went to the National Security Council, and went back to Tel Aviv, et cetera.”
“It was probably the most economical operation that has ever been devised in the U.S. Government,” Angleton crowed. “I don’t think there was [sic] more than 10 people that were hired in the same process.”
Having trained these spies “outside of the structure” of the CIA, it’s unclear how Angleton ensured they remained faithful to US national security objectives, or whether he ever intended to.
Enabling Israeli theft of US nuclear material, spying on America
Angleton’s role in enabling Israel’s wanton theft of nuclear material from an American facility is one of the more shocking episodes in the US-Israeli relationship. The scene of the crime was the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation, or NUMEC, a uranium processing facility in Apollo, Pennsylvania owned by a Zionist financier named David Lowenthal. In 1965, Zalman Shapiro, a fellow Zionist hired by Lowenthal to run the plant, illegally diverted hundreds of kilograms of nuclear fissile material to Israel. Posing as a scientist, the notorious Mossad spy Rafi Eitan visited NUMEC three years later to continue the heist.
As Jefferson Morley documented in his biography of Angleton, “The Ghost,” the late CIA counterintelligence chief made sure the CIA looked the other way as Israel constructed its first nuclear weapon out of the stolen fissile material. According to Morley, “Angleton, it is fair to say, thought collaboration with Israel was more important than U.S. non-proliferation policy.”
A 1977 investigation by the US Government Accountability Office found that the CIA withheld information about the NUMEC nuclear theft from the FBI and Department of Energy, and “found that certain key individuals had not been contacted by the FBI almost 2 years into the FBI’s current investigation.”
The latest batch of Church Committee files add new detail about Angleton’s compromising of US national security to benefit Israel, and his attempts to cover up his betrayal.
During his testimony before the Committee, Angleton was pressed about media reports alleging that he and his counterintelligence unit provided Israel with technical support for constructing nuclear weapons. He strenuously denied the charges, insisting the CIA had never played any role in providing Tel Aviv with nuclear materials. However, when questioned about whether “Israeli intelligence efforts” were ever conducted in the US “aimed at acquiring… nuclear technology,” Angleton equivocated.
First, he blustered, “there have been many efforts by many countries to acquire technical knowledge in this country, and that doesn’t exclude the Israelis.” Asked if CIA counterintelligence had “certain knowledge” of Israeli agents “trying to acquire nuclear secrets in the US,” Angleton pleaded, “Do I have to respond to that?”
The Committee then went “off record” at the senators’ request, making Angleton’s responses impossible to scrutinize.
In a secret 1975 memorandum to the FBI, the ousted CIA counterintelligence chief disclosed that he had “avoided any direct answers” during his Senate testimony on Israel’s spies carrying out “intelligence collection” to gather “nuclear information” in the United States.
Just days later, a Bureau report on “Israeli intelligence collection capabilities” revealed Angleton entertained “frequent personal liaison contacts” with Mossad representatives at Israel’s Washington DC embassy between February 1969 and October 1972. This “special relationship” involved “the exchange of extremely sensitive information.”
Further, the 1975 FBI memo on Angleton disclosed the Israeli embassy’s establishment of a “technical intelligence network” seven years earlier which was directed by an Israel scientist who worked on Tel Aviv’s nuclear program. This may explain why Angleton was so cagey under Senate questioning.
“Israeli matters” trigger Angleton’s downfall
The Church Committee files show Angleton bristled at then-CIA Director William Colby’s efforts to apply a modicum of transparency to the Agency’s activities, especially as they related to Israel. The spymaster warned that if the USSR ever caught wind of Langley’s use of the self-proclaimed Jewish state as a de facto halfway house for communist turncoats, they would almost certainly end their policy of encouraging Eastern European Jews to migrate to Israel:
“This idea of opening the doors and letting the light in, and breaking down compartmentation, and breaking down the need to know, would inevitably put in jeopardy the immigration, if the Soviets should learn the extent of the activities,” Angleton stated.
Colby fired Angleton in 1974 after the New York Times revealed that he devised an illegal program of domestic spying targeting antiwar American dissidents. In his testimony, Angleton framed their clash as an interpersonal conflict, describing Colby as “not my cup of tea professionally or in any other way.”
Yet Angleton also acknowledged to Senate that a “dispute in connection with these Israeli matters” between himself and Colby contributed to his departure from the Agency. Was this a reference to the former spook’s involvement in Israeli theft of US nuclear secrets, enabling Israel to acquire the bomb?
Whatever the case, it was clear why Angleton would be remembered more fondly in Israel than inside the country he ostensibly served.
On December 4, 1987, the director of Israel’s Mossad and Shin Bet intelligence services gathered in secret on a hillside in Jerusalem to plant a tree in honor of Angleton. They were joined there by five former Israeli spy chiefs and three former military intelligence officers.
Despite attempts to keep the ceremony under wraps, two local reporters managed to evade the cordon to record the ceremony for the former CIA counter-intelligence director, who had died seven months prior. Together, the Israeli spooks laid a memorial stone that read, “In memory of a dear friend, James (Jim) Angleton.”
Things are looking up for being able to be honest about Jewish issues in mainstream forums. I couldn’t be happier that this is coming out from a mainstream conservative at a major mainstream conservative conference. It’s been a long time coming, and we are still not there. But there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Carlson is much hated by the ADL which oddly has not commented on this latest faux pas. But they have lots to say about Turker’s endorsement of the great replacement “conspiracy theory.”
Carlson claimed that Epstein had “connections to a foreign government”:
“It’s extremely obvious to anyone who watches that this guy had direct connections to a foreign government.” “Now no one’s allowed to say that that foreign government is Israel because we have been somehow cowed into thinking that’s naughty.”
Lots of Jewish angst about this — and about Carlson’s statement that Jews who served in the IDF should lose their U.S. citizenship. Common sense, but since when has common sense been relevant to anything related to Jewish power. Any accusation of dual loyalty is considered anti-Semitism according to the official definition of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, so I guess Carlson is now officially an anti-Semite, along with Charlie Kirk and a whole lot of people who attended the conference.
From the Forward:
Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News host and a leader in the Republican Party’s isolationist wing, said that Americans who previously served in the Israeli Defense Forces should have their U.S. citizenship revoked over concerns of dual loyalty. At the same time, he also criticized the Trump administration for trying to deport pro-Palestinian students who engaged in anti-Israel activity on campus.are a lot of Americans who’ve served in the IDF — they should lose their citizenship,” Carlson said in a 45-minute speech on Saturday at the Turning Point USA Student Action Summit in Tampa, Florida. “You can’t fight for another country and remain an American, period.”
Carlson, who has promoted antisemitic tropes [simply for saying Zelenskyy is a dictator who has suppressed Christianity] and has been associated with white nationalists [i.e., Darryl Cooper!!], explained that his position is an “obvious recognition of the truth” and applies to all countries. He mocked his critics — “they just write you off as some sort of internet freak, hater, Nazi” — and said it is “fair to demand that the people running my country love it every bit as much as I do.”
The founder of the organization Carlson spoke to is Charlie Kirk, a conservative podcaster who has accused Jews of financing “anti-white causes.” Several Trump cabinet members and Republican officials attended and spoke at the three-day conference.
And of course, Jews in high places deny Epstein had any connections to Mossad.
As a former Israeli Prime Minister, with the Mossad having reported directly to me, I say to you with 100% certainty:
The accusation that Jeffrey Epstein somehow worked for Israel or the Mossad running a blackmail ring is categorically and totally false.
Epstein’s conduct,…
— Naftali Bennett נפתלי בנט (@naftalibennett) July 14, 2025
More recently, he has been at the vanguard of a different divide within the MAGA movement over foreign policy, centering on Israel. Carlson and others heavily criticized Trump’s decision to join Israel’s military offensive against Iran’s nuclear program, with Carlson accusing Trump of being “complicit” in Israel’s “act of war.”
Carlson sends out a daily email to subscribers. This is from the July 14th email and basically summarizes his points at his talk. Notice he highlights Jewish activist Ben Shapiro as wanting to move on.
It seems likely that Jeffrey Epstein worked on behalf of an intelligence service. Probably not an American one.
So which country was it? The fact that so few reporters have bothered to dig into that question could prove to be this century’s most egregious example of journalistic malpractice. How did the notorious pedophile go from being a high school math teacher with no college degree to having a private island and one of the most luxurious residences in Manhattan? Doesn’t that seem weird? What was the source of his money? Why has nobody ever really looked into it?
To anyone paying attention, the obvious conclusion is that Epstein had direct connections to a foreign government. To the Israeli government. That is true even though saying it out loud is forbidden in mainstream political discourse, but there’s nothing wrong with having the gall to do just that. It doesn’t matter what screeching shills like Mark Levin say. Telling the truth is not hateful, nor is it anti-Semitic or even anti-Israel.
Criticizing the behavior of a government agency, any government agency, does not make you a bigot. It makes you a free person. You are allowed to hold them to account because you’re not a slave; you are a citizen. That means you have the right to expect your government to act in your interest and to demand that foreign governments that suck up your tax dollars do the same. Israel using America’s most famous serial sex criminal as an intelligence asset would not fit that description.
So did it happen? A few people have asked the Israeli government that question, but they’ve received no real answers. That is unacceptable. As long as America keeps cutting generous checks to that foreign power, it should have to report to us. If it refuses, no more payments. The rules are simple.
In the meantime, we can’t help but notice a strange new talking point emerging on the Right.
“The Epstein story doesn’t even matter!” the Ben Shapiros of the world now claim. “So shut up about it already!”
That is obvious nonsense. The truth behind Epstein, his death, his connections, and how he got so rich matters a lot. The pedophile wasn’t killed during a walk down the street or even in his own home. He died in a high-security prison in the heart of America’s largest city. It was supposed to be among the most secure places in the world. That means whatever force is responsible for Epstein’s demise orchestrated the killing in among the most difficult conditions possible, and they did it while hardly breaking a sweat. Whoever pulled that off really runs our country. If they could do it to him, they could definitely do it to you, too.
Why would the Shapiro caucus not want to get to the bottom of that? You know the answer. It’s because they have something to hide
The refrain on the right is that Epstein matters because he is a window into who rules the U.S. And one would be forgiven for thinking that the reason for the cover-up is to hide the involvement of Mossad in an elaborate blackmail scheme. We also deserve to know what the deep state is hiding about the JFK assassination—another phenomenally important event in which there is good reason to think that Israel and the CIA were involved, and another incident where Trump said he would be completely transparent.
The stage is set for the retaliatory military operation against the Israeli regime in response to the cowardly assassinations of top-ranking Axis of Resistance commanders in Tehran and Beirut.
Although the nature of the retaliation and its precise timing remains shrouded in mystery, the embattled regime in Tel Aviv, already grappling with an internal political and social crisis, has been paralyzed with fear.
Illegal settlers have also been fleeing the occupied Palestinian territories in panic, anticipating a response that pales in comparison with Iran’s ‘Operation True Promise’ that followed an attack on Iran’s consulate building in the Syrian capital of Damascus in April.
There are scores of military sites in Tel Aviv that could be targeted to punish the Israeli regime for terrorist attacks that claimed the lives of Hamas political bureau leader Ismail Haniyeh and Hezbollah military commander Fuad Shukr.
Our analysis shows the most likely targets in Tel Aviv could be the centers affiliated with the Israeli spy agency Mossad, which had a key role in the assassinations of Haniyeh and Shukr.
This analysis is supported by the fact that the Ramon and Nevatim air bases of the Israeli regime were successfully targeted in the retaliatory military action in April since the warplanes that attacked the Iranian consulate in Damascus had taken off from them.
Taking that into consideration and the fact that simultaneous attacks in Tehran, Beirut and Iraq were carried out with the order and cooperation of the highest Israeli political, military and intelligence structures, their headquarters are primary targets.
The likelihood of these targets is further supported by a report by the Al-Hadath news channel, which revealed that employees of four intelligence and military agencies of the Israeli regime were evacuated on Thursday from their sites in Tel Aviv.
These headquarters are located in the densely populated metropolitan Tel Aviv, known as the Gush Dan, where half of the settler population of the Zionist entity lives, in contrast to the two aforementioned air bases in uninhabited desert areas.
Among them, an area of exceptional importance is Kirya, a district in central Tel Aviv, which is home to many administrative buildings and the military intelligence Camp Rabin that serves command, administrative, communications, and support functions for the Israeli military apparatus.
This camp has served as the headquarters of the armed forces of the Zionist entity since its establishment in 1948 and is encircled on all sides by densely populated civilian areas.
The main building in the camp is the Matcal Tower, which houses the offices of the top brass of the Israeli military, surrounded by other high-rise military facilities, such as the communications office Marganit Tower.
The Kirya district, known as the “Israeli Pentagon,” is much larger in scope than it looks on the map or is officially recognized, due to underground facilities and classified offices in nearby areas.
Beneath the military complex is the Bor (literally pit), the heavily fortified underground national military command center that is located a few blocks away from the former prime minister’s office, which has been moved now to occupied Jerusalem al-Quds.
The Bor is accessed through a large steel door that is sealed shut in the event of a non-conventional attack, and at the entrance, there is a big sign reminding visitors to remove the batteries from their cellphones before entering.
Long stairs lead deep into the operations rooms where regime officers prepare, organize and discuss future wars with their neighbors, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, including the ongoing genocidal war against Gaza.
Even deeper, there is the chief of general staff’s conference room with a U-shaped table and a wall lined with plasma TV screens, where top officers meet almost weekly for highly classified discussions and a review of operational plans.
This facility is relatively well protected from attacks by short-range missiles, cruise missiles and kamikaze drones, but not from larger ballistic missiles with deep penetration power and a one-ton high-explosive warhead, so it is a high-value target.
Headquarters of intelligence services are classified, without official addresses, and most often masqueraded as civil function buildings.
In recent decades, the Israeli regime authorities have started selling land in Kirya, on which many “multipurpose” high-rises have been built, due to its attractive location in the center of the city.
This “multi-purpose” most often implies the regime and some other function, with the former containing multi-levels of the regime, military and intelligence offices.
The wider metropolitan area of Tel Aviv is also home to numerous factories, military bases and other regime buildings that can be the target of retaliatory strikes.
At least three large military facilities on the edges of the Tel Aviv metropolitan area are also possible targets, especially in case of new Israeli attacks and further escalation.
First among them is the operational headquarters of military intelligence unit 8200, located in the north near the city of ‘Herzliya’, where the collected information is processed and further forwarded to military strategists and other Israeli intelligence agencies.
Another site is Palmachim Airbase, located a few kilometers south of the metropolitan area, the main base for the Israeli regime’s drone, missile and space programs.
Finally, there is also a vast military zone around the Tel Nof and Sdot Micha air-missile bases, between Tel Aviv and occupied Jerusalem al-Quds, where numerous squadrons, special forces, missile silos and bunkers, arms warehouses, including nuclear warheads, are stationed.
Turkey’s National Intelligence Organization (MIT) has rescued a renowned Palestinian hacker from the Israeli Mossad spy agency seeking to kidnap or possibly kill him.
MIT rescued Omar A, who was behind the disruption of Israel’s Iron Dome anti-missile system in 2015 and 2016, in an international operation and offered him protection as he was targeted by Mossad in Turkey and Malaysia.
The young Gazan hacker was sought by the Israeli regime for a long time after his hacking of the Iron Dome helped al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas, launch missile strikes against Israel at the time.
Omar, a computer programming graduate of the Islamic University of Gaza, moved to Istanbul in 2020 after Mossad identified him as the one behind the disruptions. MIT was aware of his residence in Turkey due to his background as a hacker.
In an attempt to deceive him, Mossad offered him jobs at software companies several times but Omar, suspicious of Israel’s involvement, rejected the offers.
Omar was about to accept to join a team for an online project in June 2022 and to travel abroad for the project as Mossad was intent on taking him to Tel Aviv for interrogation. But MIT contacted him and warned him against the scheme.
The Palestinian hacker decided to take a vacation in Malaysia in September 2022. The Istanbul branch of MIT’s counter-intelligence department intervened again and installed tracking software on his cellphone after warning him against a possible abduction while abroad.
Indeed, he was kidnapped days later in Kuala Lumpur and was taken to a remote cabin some 50 kilometers (31.06 miles) from the Malaysian capital.
There, he was interrogated and tortured by suspects working for Mossad and was questioned on the methods he employed to infiltrate Iron Dome.
When MIT became aware of the abduction, Turkish officials contacted Malaysian authorities and through tracking software, helped them pinpoint the location where Omar was held.
Malaysian security forces raided the house and rescued Omar. Eleven suspects were arrested in connection with his abduction. Omar returned to Turkey and was taken to a safe house provided by MIT.
Turkey’s MIT has earlier uncovered similar Mossad plots to spy on Palestinians in the country.
Back in July, Turkish authorities said they had uncovered and disrupted a vast “ghost” Mossad spy network centered in Istanbul, following months of surveillance.
The substantial efforts by Turkey’s MIT exposed 56 operatives allegedly spying on non-Turkish citizens in Turkey in the service of Mossad.
The vast network consisted of citizens from various West Asian countries.
The findings by MIT revealed that the Mossad agents would gather information about foreigners through various surveillance methods, vehicle movements using GPS, and hacking into password-protected networks using Wi-Fi and location tracking devices.
These Mossad spies also used several fake websites in multiple languages, mainly Arabic, to secure technical locations and real IP addresses of the targeted individuals.
Also in May, Turkish media outlets reported that local authorities had managed to arrest 11 people accused of being part of a Mossad-led network.
Turkey has also broken Mossad-aligned spy rings in 2022 and 2021.
Dick Russell’s recent biography, The Real RFK Jr.: Trials of a Truth Warrior, contains two chapters on RFK Jr.’s quest for truth on the assassinations of his father and uncle.[1] Here is an excerpt from chapter 28:
He was approaching his midfifties when, in 2008, while preparing to give an environmental talk at the Franciscan Monastery in Niagara, New York, Bobby [RFK Jr.] found a copy of a just-published book “on my greenroom table, left as an anonymous gift for me.” It was titled JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters by Catholic theologian James W. Douglass. Bobby found the book “a fascinating and meticulous dissection of the circumstances surrounding the assassination.” Bobby spent a lot of time examining Douglass’s thorough footnotes. He noted “the extraordinary analysis implicated rogue CIA operatives connected to the Cuban project and its Mob cronies.” Bobby was impressed enough to send the book to President Kennedy’s speechwriter Ted Sorenson [Sorensen], who wrote him back in 2010: “It sat on a table for two weeks and then I picked it up. And once I started I couldn’t put it down. And you know for so many years none of us who were close to Jack could handle ever looking at this stuff and all of the conspiracy books. Well, it seemed that nothing they had would stand up in court. All of us were, you know, ‘it won’t bring Jack back.’ But I read this and it opened my eyes and it opened my mind and now I’m going to do something about it.” Sorenson said he’d spoken to the author and planned to write a foreword for the paperback edition. “Thanks for getting the ball rolling,” he wrote Bobby. However, Sorenson later told Douglass that his wife and daughter had persuaded him that his association with Jack had always been about the president’s life and he should leave it at that. Sorenson died soon after that. Bobby himself “embarked on the painful project of reading the wider literature on the subject.”[2]
I have quoted this paragraph at length because it illustrates the remarkable impact of James Douglass’s book, JFK and the Unspeakable, published in 2008. With the endorsement of some of the most prominent JFK-assassination researchers, including film-maker Oliver Stone, it has become the Gideon’s Bible of every JFK amateur. It is representative of the dominant school — I’ll call them the CIA-theorists — but the author, a longtime Catholic peace activist with a big heart and a poetic mind, gives his book a spiritual flavor, lifting the story to mythical, even mystical level. It is the story of a man who “turned” from Cold Warrior to peacemaker (during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis), and saved the world from nuclear Armageddon; a man who saw death approaching, but lived up to his ideal of nuclear disarmament, and became immortal. A heroic peacemaker. A Christ, almost.
The basic storyline of the book is questionable. According to Jim DeEugenio ,there was no “conversion”, because Kennedy had never been a Cold Warrior, despite his rhetoric in the 1960 campaign.[3] Other specifics in Douglass’s narrative, such as the two-Oswald scenario (borrowed from Richard Popkins’s 1966 book The Second Oswald), have also received criticism. Nevertheless, Douglass is praised for having defended the CIA-theory with unprecedented talent, and explained in eloquent terms “why it matters.”
What’s wrong with Douglass?
I was impressed by Douglass’s book when I first read it in 2011. It set me on the most fascinating intellectual quest, and I am grateful for that. I found a French publisher and helped with the translation.[4] But, within a year, as I became familiar with part of Douglass’s bibliography and explored other lines of inquiry, I became aware of the book’s shortcomings, and puzzled by them. Two thick files are missing entirely from Douglass’s material: Johnson and Israel. This is a common characteristic of most works aimed at indicting the CIA, such as Oliver Stone’s recent documentary written by DiEugenio, which I have reviewed here.
I also find the structure of Douglass’s book artful: interweaving Oswald’s story, to prove that he was handled by the CIA, and Kennedy’s story, to prove that the CIA hated him, maintains a constant sense of correlation between those two stories, and it does constitute strong circumstantial evidence that the CIA was involved in the assassination, but it does not prove that the masterminds of the assassination were in the CIA. Far from it.
First of all, what CIA are we talking about? Certainly not the CIA that CIA director John McCone (appointed by Kennedy) knew about. Most CIA-theorists agree that the CIA’s strings attached to Oswald came from the office of Counterintelligence chief James Jesus Angleton. In the words of John Newman, a respected CIA-theorist, “No one else in the Agency had the access, the authority, and the diabolically ingenious mind to manage this sophisticated plot.”[5] But Angleton was certainly not “the CIA.” Rather, as Peter Dale Scott wrote, he “managed a ‘second CIA’ within the CIA.”[6] According to his biographer Jefferson Morley, Angleton operated on his own initiative, sealed from scrutiny and free of any accountability; his supervisor, Richard Helms, “let Angleton do as he pleased, few questions asked,” McCone had no idea what Angleton was doing. Another biographer, Tom Mangold, notes that Angleton’s Counterintelligence Staff “had its very own secret slush fund, which Angleton tightly controlled,” an arrangement “which gave Angleton a unique authority to run his own little operations without undue supervision.”[7] In fact, Angleton was regarded by many of his peers as a madman whose paranoid obsession with uncovering Soviet moles did great damage to the Agency. The only reason why he was not fired before 1974 (by director William Colby) is because he kept too many files on too many people.
It is inconceivable that Angleton directed the whole operation. But if he was not following orders from Richard Helms — and there is not a single piece of evidence that Helms knew of the assassination —, under whose direction or influence was he operating? That is an easy one: besides Counterintelligence, Angleton headed the “Israeli Desk”, and he had more intimate contacts with the hierarchy of the Mossad than with his own. He loved Israelis as much as he hated Communists — apparently believing that one man could not be both. Meir Amit, head of Mossad from 1963 to 1968, called him “the biggest Zionist” in Washington, while Robert Amory, head of the CIA Directorate of Intelligence, called him a “co-opted Israeli agent.”[8] While Angleton was disgraced in the U.S. after his forced resignation, he was honored in Israel. After his death in 1987, according to the Washington Post, five former heads of Mossad and Shin Bet and three former Israeli military intelligence chiefs were present “to pay final tribute to a beloved member of their covert fraternity.” Among the services he rendered Israel, “Angleton reportedly aided Israel in obtaining technical nuclear data.”[9]
Douglass never mentions Angleton’s Israeli connection. He never mentions Jack Ruby’s Israeli connection either, although Seth Kantor had made them very clear in his book Who Was Jack Ruby? written in 1978. For Douglass, he is just “CIA-connected nightclub owner Jack Ruby.”[10] Only by scrutinizing the endnotes can we learn his real name, Jacob Rubenstein (doesn’t sound so Sicilian anymore). Ruby was not “Mafia”. Like his mentor Mickey Cohen, he was connected to both Meyer Lansky (boss of the Jewish Crime Syndicate), and Menahem Begin (former Irgun terrorist in chief).
Finally, Douglass, like most CIA-theorists, keeps Johnson out of the loop, ignoring the evidence accumulated through 50 years of research that Johnson was in full control before, during and after Kennedy’s assassination. How could Douglass miss Johnson? First, by not asking the most important question: How did they kill Kennedy? In other words: “Why Dallas, Texas?” Texas was a hostile state for Kennedy (“We’re heading into nut country,” Kennedy said to Jackie), but it was Johnson’s kingdom, and Johnson knew all Kennedy-haters there. At the very least, there is no way around the premise that the conspirators knew in advance that Johnson would cover them. But Douglass got around it.
I say “Dimona”, you say “Auschwitz”
Having corresponded with Douglass for the translation, I shared my concerns with him by email and letter. First, I advised him to read Phillip Nelson’s book LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK’s Assassination(2010), and encouraged him to reconsider Johnson’s role. He answered that he bought Nelson’s book, but didn’t find it convincing, without elaborating.
Later, I questioned Douglass about his silence over Kennedy’s determination to forestall Israel’s nuclear ambitions. Kennedy’s effort to lead the world towards general nuclear disarmament is the central and most inspiring theme in Douglass’s book. Kennedy’s resolute opposition to Israel’s secret nuclear bomb factory is the most dramatic manifestation of that effort. For what reason, then, did Douglass choose not to mention it? I asked him in an interview for the French website Reopen 9/11, and in a long, personal letter. In the interview, Douglass answered: “I have found no convincing evidence that Israel was involved in the Kennedy assassination. The story I wrote is about the reasons for his death. For Israel to be included in this story, Kennedy’s resistance to Israel’s nuclear weapons program would have to be linked to the plot against his life.” By letter, he responded to my arguments with a personal testimony of how Jewish writer André Schwarz-Bart, author of the novel The Last of the Just, “helped to liberate me from the Christendom that has so murderous a heritage, and to introduce me to a Jewish perspective that I needed to see from within a boxcar approaching Auschwitz.” From there he stated that he does not work on the assumption of Israel’s responsibility in the Kennedy assassination, 9/11, or any other crime.
His justification struck me as irrelevant and irrational, yet very revealing. If I say “Dimona,” Douglass says “Auschwitz,” implying, I suppose, that Jews should not be suspected of guilt in the JFK assassination since they are, by essence, innocent victims. Or was I to understand that just mentioning Dimona would risk hurting the Jews, who already suffered so much from the hands of Christians? Or that the word “Dimona” has anti-Semitic overtones? Whatever the reason, the troubling fact is that Douglass decided to omit from his book anything that could suggest any complicity of Israel with “the Unspeakable”. We can say about Douglass what Stephen Green wrote about LBJ after 1963: “he saw no Dimona, heard no Dimona, and spoke no Dimona.”[11]
I would not normally share the content of personal letters, but I made an exception because Douglass’s reference to Shwarz-Bart is not confidential (he wrote articles about him), and because it is of public interest, as a candid explanation for the censorship that CIA-theorists consistently impose on themselves regarding Israel in general, and Dimona in particular.
Self-censorship can be strategically justifiable. For example, living in France, I do not openly profess my heretical beliefs on the Holocaust, in order to avoid being put in jail by the powerful French Inquisition. So I can also conceive that Douglass would censor himself as a strategy to minimize the risk of being banned by publishers, and to maximize readership. This is not what Douglass told me, but if this is nevertheless the real reason, I can even agree that it was worth it, since Douglass’s book converted RFK Jr. and other influential people to the falsehood of the official theory.
However, it is one thing to avoid a topic altogether, and another to write a book pretending to have solved once and for all the Kennedy assassination, while concealing the facts that may point to a different solution. It is actually worse than that: Douglass kept silent on Kennedy’s angst over Dimona even though it would have reinforced his main thesis about Kennedy’s determination to stop and reverse nuclear proliferation. For some reason, Douglass made sure he didn’t give his readers the slightest chance to start imagining that Israel had any part in Kennedy’s problem with “the Unspeakable”. Which has led me to say that Israel is the truly unspeakable in JFK and theUnspeakable, and which motivated me to write The Unspoken Kennedy Truth.
The CIA-theory as a shield for Israel
In this article, I will explain in some detail why the CIA-theory is wrong. By the CIA-theory, I do not mean the theory that high-ranking officers of the CIA were involved (I believe that to be the case). I mean the theory that a core group of CIA executives, with a few military top brass, masterminded and orchestrated the assassination. To the question “Who Killed JFK?” we can of course include both the CIA and the Mossad, as well as the FBI, the Pentagon, the Mafia, Cuban exiles, Texan oil barons, and what have you. But the important question is: Which group was the prime mover? Who had conceived the plot long before others were brought into it? Who was leading, or misleading, all others involved? Who, in the distribution of tasks on a need-to-know principle, knew the global scheme? Not who pulled the trigger, but who pulled the main ropes? As we will see, the answer cannot be the CIA. It cannot be Angleton, and it cannot even be Johnson.
I express my gratitude for the work of the dozens of researchers who built up the case against the CIA from the 1960s. Some of them are heroic. They have accumulated enough evidence to prove the conspiracy and the cover-up beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a great success. However, their general CIA-theory must now be recognized as a failure. It was a false lead from the start. Vince Salandria, one of the earliest critique of the Warren Commission (his first article was published in the Legal Intelligence in 1964), held as a teacher by many JFK investigators and by Douglass himself (who dedicated his book to him), became disillusioned by his own CIA-theory, saying frankly to Gaeton Fonzi in 1975: “I’m afraid we were misled. All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. … the interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are dealing now with an international conspiracy.”[12]
The CIA-theory, I will argue, serves as a cover for the real perpetrators, like the KGB-theory. The KGB-theory quickly fell apart because it was meant to and because it contains no truth whatsoever, while the CIA-theory is more resistant because it has some truth. The CIA is deeply compromised, but the masterminds were somewhere else. They needed the CIA to be compromised enough for the U.S. government to be forced to cover the whole affair. At the same time, they use the CIA-theory to shield their own group from suspicion. That is why Israeli sayanim working in the news, book or movie industries have diligently kept the CIA-story alive in public opinion. This was pre-planned limited hangout. In “Did Israel kill the Kennedys?” I have given examples of Zionist agents planting signposts to direct the skeptics towards the CIA and the Mafia (rather than the Mossad and the Mishpucka). The classic example is Arnon Milchan, producer of Oliver Stone’s film JFK released, who, by his own admission, acted as a secret Israeli agent working to boost Israel’s nuclear program — it’s always about Dimona. Another example, which had previously escaped me, is the New York Times revealing on April 25, 1966 that Kennedy “said to one of the highest officials of his administration that he wanted ‘to splinter the C.I.A. in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds,’” an untraceable statement that has now become one of the most quoted by CIA-theorists, who, in this case, show blind confidence in the reliability of the New York Times.[13]
An additional proof that the leading CIA-theorists are less interested in searching for the truth than in covering for Israel’s crimes came to me a two weeks ago, in the form of an email from Benjamin Wecht, son of Cyril Wecht and program administrator for the annual symposium on the JFK assassination organized by Citizens Against Political Action (CAPA) at the Cyril H. Wecht Institute of Forensic Science and Law of Dusquesne University, Pittsburg:
I’m writing to inform you that the poster you’ve proposed for presentation here next month has been rejected, as it fails to meet the academic standards of this institution and, moreover, espouses a position that we feel would be particularly inflammatory – if not outright disruptive – at this time and in this place. Our partnering organization, Citizens Against Political Assassinations, is in full concurrence with our decision.
This was in response to a submission that Karl Golovin and I sent for the “poster session” of the upcoming symposium organized on the occasion of the 60th anniversary (see our poster at the end of this article, and get it in high-resolution here). Considering the speciousness of Wecht’s denial or my “academic standards,” and considering his position that accusing Israel of the crime of the century is “inflammatory” and “disruptive”, I think it is fair to call Wecht and the organization he represents shameless gatekeepers for Israel. Ultimately, accusing Oswald and accusing the CIA of the crime of the century both serve the same purpose. Which explains why CAPA’s chairman Cyril Wecht, the forensic pathologist tirelessly denouncing the lie of the “single bullet,” was a friend of Arlen Specter, the inventor of that lie, whom he helped become U.S. senator in 2004.[14]
Did Johnson foil the CIA plan?
To understand why the CIA-theory is wrong, we have to start with its biggest inconsistency. Almost unanimously, from Mark Lane to James Douglass, CIA-theorists assume that the assassination was conceived as a false-flag operation to blame Castro and/or the Soviets, and to justify retaliation against them.
This is a natural assumption, based on two facts. First, Oswald was clearly set up as a pro-Castro communist. The scheme included the visits and telephone calls by an Oswald impersonator to both the Soviet and Cuban embassies in Mexico City in late September and early October 1963. The day following Kennedy’s assassination, television networks and national newspapers presented the assumed assassin as a “Pro-Castro Marxist.”[15]
Secondly, we know that invading Cuba to topple Castro’s pro-Soviet regime was the CIA’s obsession since the late 50s. Under officers like E. Howard Hunt, the CIA organized, funded and trained some of the hundreds of thousands of anti-Castro Cuban exiles in Miami. As a result, “the CIA’s presence in Miami grew to overwhelming dimensions,” wrote investigative journalist Gaeton Fonzi. “And as pervasive as that presence was before the Bay of Pigs, it was but a prelude to a later, larger operation.”[16] After the Bay of Pigs (April 1961), “a massive and, this time, truly secret war was launched against the Castro regime,” code named JM/WAVE, and involving “scores of front operations throughout the area,” as well as planes, ships, warehouses of weapons, and paramilitary training camps. Even after the Cuban Missile Crisis (October 1962), when Kennedy pledged not to invade Cuba, the anti-Castro Cubans on the CIA payroll tried to provoke incidents with Cuba. In April 1963, for example, the paramilitary group Alpha 66 attacked Soviet ships in order “to publicly embarrass Kennedy and force him to move against Castro,” in the words of Alpha 66’s CIA adviser David Atlee Phillips.[17]
Those two facts — the patsy’s pro-Castro profile designed by the CIA, and the CIA’s anti-Castro war plans — lead to the too obvious inference that the purpose of the Dallas shooting was to forge a false pretext for retaliating against Cuba. That theory has become so dominant in JFK research that most conspiracy-minded people consider it as proven beyond doubt.
However, it has one major flaw: there was no invasion of Cuba following Kennedy’s assassination. This fact is embarrassing for CIA-theorists. Although they don’t like to put it this way, it means that the CIA plan failed. If the conspirators believed that setting up Oswald, a documented supporter of Fidel Castro with links to the Soviet Union, would result in a full-scale war against Cuba, they must have been terribly disappointed. James Douglass credits Lyndon Johnson for defeating their plan:
The CIA’s case scapegoated Cuba and the U.S.S.R. through Oswald for the president’s assassination and steered the United States toward an invasion of Cuba and a nuclear attack on the U.S.S.R.. However, LBJ did not want to begin and end his presidency with a global war.[18]
To Johnson’s credit, he refused to let the Soviets take the blame for Kennedy’s murder; to his discredit, he decided not to confront the CIA over what it had done in Mexico City. Thus, while the secondary purpose of the assassination plot was stymied, its primary purpose was achieved.[19]
Indeed, from November 23, Johnson worked the phone to smother the rumor of a Communist conspiracy, and started hand-picking the members of the Warren Commission with the express mission of proving the lone-nut theory in order to avoid a nuclear war that would kill “40 millions Americans in an hour” (Johnson’s leitmotiv). Johnson never seems to have contemplated invading Cuba. He kept Kennedy’s promise to Castro and Khrushchev not to do so — a promise which the CIA regarded as an act of treason. In short, according to Douglass, Johnson was not part of the conspiracy, he actually frustrated the conspirators who had bet on his following their script. Johnson couldn’t save Kennedy, but he saved us from WWIII. And he saved the conspirators as well: no one was fired.
That is simply not credible. How can someone working on JFK’s assassination so casually exclude LBJ from the suspects, when he should be the prime suspect in terms of motive (the presidency), means (the vice-presidency) and opportunity (Dallas). Just consider the little known fact, revealed by Dallas Parkland Hospital Dr. Charles Crenshaw in his book Conspiracy of Silence (1992), that Johnson called the hospital while Dr. Crenshaw was trying to save Oswald’s life, and insisted that he leave the operating room and come to the phone, while an unknown agent with a pistol hanging from his back pocket was left with Oswald. “Dr. Crenshaw,” said Johnson on the phone, “I want a deathbed confession from the accused assassin. There’s a man in the operating room who will take the statement. I will expect full cooperation in this matter.” The important word, here, is “death,” as Dr. Crenshaw understood. When he came back to the operating room, the agent had disappeared and Oswald’s heart stopped beating. It is clear that Johnson wanted Ruby’s job finished. Despite such outrageous direct interference of Johnson, CIA-theorists claim that Johnson was not involved in the conspiracy, but only in the cover-up.
Douglass’s storyline in a nutshell, again: The CIA assassinated Kennedy under the false flag of Communist Cuba, with the presupposition that Johnson was going to retaliate against it. They worked the media to that effect (because, you know, the CIA controls the media). But Johnson, though taken by surprise on November 22, quickly reacted the next day and took control of all investigations and even of media coverage, to defeat the CIA plan.
It must have been infuriating for the CIA to be cheated of their Cuban invasion after all they had gone through — the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the Cuban Missile “appeasement”, and the trouble of assassinating the president. Wouldn’t they want to assassinate Johnson, now? And yet, there is no sign of tension between Langley and the Oval Office after November 1963. We are asked to believe that the CIA, totally disarmed by Johnson’s unexpected reaction, instantly surrendered and went along with the useless, absurd lone-nut theory, even participating in defeating their own painfully staged false-flag. Allen Dulles himself, the CIA director fired by Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs, joined the Warren Commission tasked by Johnson to quench rumors of a Communist plot. The mainstream media quickly fell in line and the Communist conspiracy disappeared entirely from the news (where is Mockingbird when you need it?).
Think about it and reach your own conclusion as to how credible this scenario is. It comes down to this: Do you think the conspirators’ plan failed or that it succeeded? If it succeeded, then it was not the CIA’s plan as CIA-theorists see it. It was someone else’s plan.
The invisible coup
Why would the CIA want to kill Kennedy, anyway? Why not simply make him lose the election in 1964. Surely the CIA had the means to do that, if their control of the media was as great as CIA-theorists tell us. Did the CIA have an urgent need to kill Kennedy, that could not wait one year? No. In a campaign year, Kennedy wasn’t going to do anything that could give his enemies a reason to call him a Communist appeaser. Regarding Vietnam for example, he told Kenny O’Donnell: “If I tried to pull out completely now from Vietnam, we would have another Joe McCarthy red scare on our hands, but I can do it after I’m reelected. So we had better make damned sure that I am reelected.”[20] He did sign, on October 11, 1963, a cautious executive order NSAM 263 for the withdrawal of “1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963” and “by the end of 1965 … the bulk of U.S. personnel,”[21] but if Kennedy was defeated electorally in 1964, that executive order would be of little consequence. It was, anyway, trashed by Johnson. As Ron Unz has recently repeated,
most of the different groups that wanted to get rid of [Kennedy] would just have waited and concentrated on political means, and that includes Dulles. This included using their media contacts to damage him politically. The only two that desperately needed to get rid of him immediately were LBJ, whom he was about to drop from the ticket and destroy politically, and Israel, because of the immediate efforts to eliminate their nuclear development program at Dimona. That’s why LBJ and Israel are the overwhelmingly logical suspects.
Research on the JFK assassination must start from the premise that it was a coup d’état. CIA-theorists tend to minimize the primal fact that the assassination resulted in a change of president. So let’s repeat the obvious: whoever assassinated Kennedy wanted to put Johnson in power. That is why defeating Kennedy electorally was not an option: Johnson would have fallen with Kennedy (his epic corruption was to be exposed anyway). Kennedy’s death was Johnson’s only chance to become president — and, perhaps, to avoid prison. But Johnson could not do it alone, so let me rephrase: Kennedy’s death was the only way for the conspirators to make Johnson president.
Can we identify those conspirators? If they needed Johnson as president in 1963, they must be the ones who blackmailed Kennedy into taking Johnson as vice-president in 1960. “I was left with no choice, those bastards were trying to frame me,” Kennedy once confided to Hyman Raskin to justify his choice of Johnson, despite strong opposition from his team, especially his brother Robert.[22] Among the “bastards” was Washington Post columnist Joseph Alsop, who considered himself “one of the warmest American supporters of the Israeli cause,” according to the New York Timesobituary. We know from Arthur Schlesinger Jr. that Kennedy made his decision after a closed-door conversation with Alsop and his boss Philip Graham.[23] After Kennedy’s assassination, Alsop was the first to urge Johnson to set up a presidential commission to convince the public that Oswald acted alone. His argument was: “you do not wish to inflict on the Attorney General, the painful task of reviewing the evidence concerning his own brother’s assassination.”[24]
In 1960, the “bastards” needed to put Johnson behind Kennedy’s back, so that if and when necessary, they could knock Kennedy out and have Johnson step into the Oval Office. The purpose of the Kennedy assassination had nothing to do with Cuba; it was simply to replace Kennedy with Johnson. That is all it was supposed to do, and that is all it did. It was a success, not a failure.
It had to be an “invisible coup” so that Americans could be persuaded that nothing would change except the president, and that, under new circumstances, Johnson would act as Kennedy would have acted. There was one thing that Johnson reversed, but Americans did not see it until thirty years later. It concerned U.S. relations with Israel and with Israel’s enemies. Johnson was absolutely indispensable, not for the CIA, but for Israel: no other president would have gone as far as Johnson to support Israel’s invasion of Egypt and Syria in 1967. No other American president, not even Truman, would have let Israel get away with the USS Liberty massacre. Johnson not only let them get away, he helped them do it (read Phillip Nelson’s Remember the Liberty).
Johnson was committed to Israel, financially (through Abraham Feinberg, see below) and spiritually (“The line of Jewish mothers can be traced back three generations in Lyndon Johnson’s family tree”).[25] This explains why he filled the Warren Commission with Israeli agents, such as Arlen “Magic Bullet” Specter, later honored by the Israeli government as “an unswerving defender of the Jewish State.”[26]
David Ben-Gurion
Imagine detective Columbo investigating the assassination of President Kennedy. He would surely want to know if Kennedy had any strong disagreement with someone shortly before his death. In a decent scenario, he would then get his hands on some recently declassified correspondence which shows, in the words of Martin Sandler, editor of The Letters of John F. Kennedy(2013), that “a bitter dispute had developed between Israeli prime minister David Ben-Gurion, who believed that his nation’s survival depended on its attaining nuclear capability, and Kennedy, who was vehemently opposed to it. In May 1963, Kennedy wrote to Ben-Gurion explaining why he was convinced that Israel’s pursuit of nuclear weapons capability was a serious threat to world peace.”[27]
May 12, Ben-Gurion begged Kennedy to reconsider his position on Dimona: “Mr. President, my people have the right to exist… and this existence is in danger.”[28] Reading in that same letter a bizarre reference to the “danger that one single bullet might put an end to [some king’s] life and regime,”[29] Columbo wonders if that was a veiled threat. Reading Kennedy’s next letter (June 15), he can see that Kennedy stood firm and insisted on an immediate visit “early this summer” for “resolving all doubts as to the peaceful nature intent of the Dimona project.” Kennedy made clear that American commitment to Israel could be “seriously jeopardized” in case of failure to comply. Puzzled that the archive contains no response by Ben-Gurion, Columbo soon learns that Ben-Gurion resigned upon receiving Kennedy’s letter. “Many believe his resignation was due in great measure to his dispute with Kennedy over Dimona,” according to Martin Sandler. The insinuation is that Ben-Gurion’s resignation was part of a change of strategy for eliminating the Kennedy obstacle. He would now have to listen to those who had always believed in assassination and terrorism, those whom he had exiled in 1948 but who were now back and pressing him from his right. And he resigned to preserve his place in history. We have to understand Ben-Gurion’s predicament: Egypt, Iraq and Syria had just formed the United Arab Republic and proclaimed the “liberation of Palestine” as one of its goals. Ben-Gurion wrote to Kennedy that, knowing the Arabs, “they are capable of following the Nazi example.” To claim that this was just rhetoric is to misjudge the importance of the Holocaust in Jewish psychology, and in Ben-Gurion’s in particular. In his eyes, Israel’s need for nuclear deterrence was non-negotiable. Since he had failed to overcome Kennedy’s opposition by diplomacy, somebody else would have to take care of it in a different way.
Israel’s nuclear doctrine has not changed since Ben-Gurion. It has two sides: nukes for Israel, no nukes for Arabs or Iranians. Anyone working against one of those two strategic principles threatens Israel’s existence and must be eliminated. There are many examples in Ronen Bergman’s book Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations (2019).[30] Here is an excerpt on how Meir Dagan, appointed by Ariel Sharon to the Mossad in 2002, “in charge of disrupting the Iranian nuclear weapons project, which both men saw as an existential threat to Israel.”
Dagan acted in a number of ways to fulfill this task. The most difficult way, but also the most effective, Dagan believed, was to identify Iran’s key nuclear and missile scientists, locate them, and kill them. The Mossad pinpointed fifteen such targets, of whom it eliminated six … In addition, a general of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, who was in charge of the missile project, was blown up in his headquarters together with seventeen of his men.[31]
Ben-Gurion handed the Kennedy problem to those who had always relied on murder to eliminate obstacles to the Zionist cause. Yitzhak Shamir was possibly the man of the situation. Disgraced by Ben-Gurion after his assassination of U.N. mediator Count Folke Bernadotte in 1948, Shamir had been allowed back into the Mossad in 1955, where he formed a special hit squad with former members of the murderous Lehi (or Stern Gang). This unit was active until 1964, the year after JFK’s assassination. It carried out an estimated 147 attacks on perceived enemies of Israel, targeting especially “German scientists working to develop missiles and other advanced weapons for Egypt.”[32] Yitzhak Shamir had declared in 1943:
Neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat. We are very far from having any moral qualms as far as our national war goes. We have before us the command of the Torah, whose morality surpasses that of any other body of laws in the world: “Ye shall blot them out to the last man.”[33]
Do you think that such a biblical psychopath would have hesitated to assassinate Kennedy if given the go-ahead? He would have enjoyed it! Conscious of committing the crime of the century for his bloodthirsty god, would he not want to have it filmed, for the historical record? And why not, for the fun of it, send a message with the bullet, in the form of a man holding Chamberlain’s black umbrella to his face? If you think that’s irrational, please read “A Conversation in Hell” by John Podhoretz.
Yitzhak Shamir would go on to become prime minister in 1983, just following Menachem Begin, another terrorist responsible for the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946. Obviously, the assassination of Kennedy changed profoundly not only America, but Israel too. No single death, really, has had so profound an effect on world history as Kennedy’s.
Abraham Feinberg
The Kennedy problem had another dimension, which, in my scenario, Columbo discovers by borrowing Seymour Hersh’s Samson Option from his local library. There he learns that, during the 1960 campaign, Kennedy had been approached by Zionist financier Abraham Feinberg, whose business, writes Hersh, was “to ensure continued Democratic Party support for Israel” (in other words, buy Democratic candidates). After Kennedy’s nomination by the Democrats, Feinberg organized a meeting between the candidate and a group of potential Jewish donors in his New York apartment. Feinberg’s message was, according to what Kennedy told Charles Bartlett: “We know your campaign is in trouble. We’re willing to pay your bills if you’ll let us have control of your Middle East policy.” Kennedy was deeply upset and decided that, “if he ever did get to be President, he was going to do something about it.”[34] In the meantime, JFK pocketed 500,000 Jewish dollars and reaped 80 percent of the Jewish votes. Once in office, he made Myer (Mike) Feldman his advisor on the Middle East. According to Alan Hart, “it was a political debt that had to be paid. Feldman’s appointment was one of the conditions of the campaign funding provided by Feinberg and his associates.”[35] Kennedy was aware that Feldman was essentially an Israeli spy in the White House. “I imagine Mike’s having a meeting of the Zionists in the cabinet room,” he once said to Charles Bartlett.[36] Kennedy may have reasoned that it is an advantage to know who’s spying on you, but he probably underestimated the amount of Israeli spying that went on in his White House. He also underestimated the extent to which Feinberg and his Zionist friends held him accountable.
Kennedy never surrendered his U.S. Middle East policy to Israel. Former high-ranking U.S. diplomat Richard H. Curtiss remarked in his book A Changing Image: American Perceptions of the Arab-Israeli Dispute: “It is surprising to realize, with the benefit of hindsight, that from the time Kennedy entered office as the narrowly-elected candidate of a party heavily dependent upon Jewish support, he was planning to take a whole new look at U.S. Mideast policy,” and “to develop good new personal relationships with individual Arab leaders.”[37] The paradox did not escape Feinberg. Kennedy had to be punished. Considering the aggravating circumstance of his father’s appeasement policy during WWII, a biblical punishment was required.
Feinberg was a powerful figure, and one that should be given more attention by JFK researchers. The founder of Americans for Haganah, he was deeply involved in the Israeli arms smuggling network in the United States, of which Jack Ruby had been part. In the 1950s and 60s, besides building up AIPAC, he was actively involved in Israel’s quest of the Holy Nuke.[38] It was Feinberg who organized the only meeting between Ben-Gurion and Kennedy, in New York on May 30, 1961, when Ben-Gurion first begged Kennedy to look the other way from Dimona.[39] Commenting on that meeting, Feinberg said to Hersh: “There’s no way of describing the relationship between Jack Kennedy and Ben-Gurion because there’s no way B.G. was dealing with JFK as an equal, … B.G. could be vicious, and he had such a hatred of the old man.” The “old man,” here, meant the patriarch Joe Kennedy, JFK’s father.[40] It must also be noted that Feinberg had fundraised for LBJ ever since his first stolen election for Senate in 1948.[41]
The Double-Cross scenario
Let us go back to the inner contradiction of the CIA-theory, the failure of the supposed CIA plan to trigger the invasion of Cuba. John Newman, a retired U.S. Army major and Political Science professor, has thought of a solution. In an epilogue added to the 2008 edition of his 1995 book Oswald and the CIA (to which Ron Unz has drawn attention here and here), Newman reasons that the real purpose for setting up Oswald as a Communist was not to trigger the invasion of Cuba, but to create a “World War III virus” that Johnson would use as a “national security” pretext to shut all investigations and intimidate everyone, from government officials down to the average American, into accepting the lone-gunner theory, even in the face of its obvious falsehood; “the World War III pretext for a national security cover-up was built into the fabric of the plot to assassinate President Kennedy.”[42] Oswald’s Communist connections made the headlines just long enough to make everyone panicked, and then salvation was offered by the government to a grateful nation: just pretend to believe that Oswald acted alone, or else the Soviets will Hiroshima you. It worked perfectly, because it was plan A, not plan B.
Newman’s analysis is a fine improvement to the CIA-theory. But it doesn’t solve the problem. Since Newman believes it was a CIA plan, and more precisely Angleton’s plan, that begs the question of why the CIA would set up a plan that would finally frustrate them of an easy pretext to invade Cuba. We also have to consider that Angleton defended the KGB-theory all his life. When the KGB officer Yuri Nosenko defected to the United States in 1964, and claimed to know for certain that the Soviets had nothing to do with the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Angleton was determined to prove him a liar and kept him in custody under intense questioning and deprivation for 1,277 days. He failed to break his will, and Nosenko was ultimately vindicated. Angleton stuck to his KGB-theory much longer than necessary, and was the main source for Edward Jay Epstein’s book, Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald (1978), which laid the blame on the KGB.[43]
Was Angleton keeping the KGB-theory alive as a way to maintain Americans under the obligation to swallow the lone-nut-theory, lest they trigger WWIII? It is possible, but it is quite unlike Angleton, who, according to all testimonies, was genuinely obsessed with blaming the Soviets for every evil on the surface of the earth, and continued to cause massive damage in the CIA with his quest for “the mole”, especially in the Office of Soviet Analysis, where everyone speaking Russian fell under suspicion. I think it is more likely that Angleton had been led to believe, from the beginning, that his plan would lead to an invasion of Cuba, a crackdown on Communist sympathizers, and perhaps WWIII.
This leads us back to hypothesize that there were actually two distinct plans, one incorporating the other. Angleton, as well as Howard Hunt and a few other CIA officers handling the Cuban exiles, were following a plan that included blaming Castro for the Dallas shooting. But they were double-crossed by another group of conspirators, who were not aiming at toppling Castro, and not even interested in Latin America, but had other concerns. That other group monitored and probably even inspired the CIA plan, but diverted it from its original purpose. They were overseeing the whole scheme from a higher vantage point, while the CIA plotters saw only part of it, though believing they saw it all.
Going one step further, some have made the hypothesis that the CIA plan did not include a real assassination, but only a failed attempt, meant not to kill Kennedy, but to put irresistible pressure on him to do something about Cuba. In that hypothesis, the harmless CIA plan was used and modified by a group who wanted to take Kennedy out and put Johnson in.
In Final Judgment, Michael Piper mentions a few JFK researchers who have thought of the possibility that the CIA found itself an unwitting accomplice in an assassination committed by a third party, and was left with no choice but to cover the whole plot in order to cover its part in it.[44] As early as 1968, an author writing under the pen name James Hepburn cryptically hinted at this idea in Farewell America — a book worth reading, well-informed and insightful on Kennedy’s policies. “The plan,” Hepburn wrote, “consisted of influencing public opinion by simulating an attack against President Kennedy, whose policy of coexistence with the Communists deserved a reprimand” (my emphasis). Since things didn’t unfold according to “the plan,” the implication is that there was a plan above the plan, a conspiracy woven around the conspiracy.[45]
Dick Russell, RFK Jr.’s recent biographer, had pondered the possibility of a double-cross in The Man Who Knew Too Much(1992), based on the testimony of longtime CIA contract agent Gerry Patrick Hemming, “a soldier of fortune who eventually ended up training embittered Cuban exiles in Florida for guerrilla warfare against Castro,” and crossed path with Oswald in 1959.[46] Hemming told Russell: “There was a third force — pretty much outside CIA channels, outside our own private operation down in the [Florida] Keys — that was doing all kinds of shit, and had been all through ‘63.”[47] In the words of Russell: “Gerry Patrick Hemming … maintains that some of the exiles who thought they knew the score in 1963 have today become convinced that they were being used. … They took the bait.”[48] Russell cut these passages off in his shortened 2003 edition, possibly out of concern for Piper’s use of them, since his idea of the “third force” differed from Piper’s: “In the end,” he wrote, “we are left with this terrible question: Was the CIA’s relationship with Oswald … usurped by another group? … A group … that was part of a Pentagon/‘ultraright economic’ apparatus?”[49]
Piper also drew attention to a book written by Gary Wean, a former detective sergeant for the Los Angeles Police Department, titled There’s a Fish in the Courthouse (1987, 2nd edition 1996).[50] The full chapter 44 of Wean’s book, dealing with the Kennedy assassination, is included in this pdf document, together with other interesting thoughts by the same author. Wean claimed to have been introduced, through Dallas County Sheriff Bill Decker, to a man he simply called “John”, but later identified as Texas Senator John Tower. “John” told him that CIA man Howard Hunt was involved with Lee Harvey Oswald, but not in planning the President’s assassination. According to “John”,
[Hunt’s] scheme was to inflame the American people against Castro and stir patriotism to a boiling point not felt since the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Enraged Americans would demand that our military invade Cuba and wipe out the two-bit dictator for his barbarous attempt to assassinate President Kennedy. … There was to be an attempt on the life of President Kennedy so realistic that its failure would be looked upon as nothing less than a miracle. The footprints would lead directly to Castro’s doorstep, a trail the rankest amateur couldn’t lose.
However, the plan was hijacked from outside the CIA, by someone who knew “all these minute details [of Hunt’s plan] to pull it off the way they did. Something frightening, horribly sinister had interposed Hunt’s mission.” “Hunt’s wild scheme had created the lunatic effect of positioning Kennedy as the target in a shooting gallery,” and someone else had taken advantage of it.
As Wean interprets these revelations, “Hunt’s scheme of a phony assassination was monitored from the beginning by an insidious enemy”; there was a “conspiracy to double cross a conspiracy.” Wean’s source “John” (Tower) did not identify this “insidious enemy,” but Wean, drawing from his knowledge of organized crime, believes that the CIA plan was hijacked by “the Mishpucka” — as, according to Wean, Jewish gangsters named their ethnic criminal organization (the word means “the Family” in Yiddish). Wean has much to say about the Mishpucka’s ties to the Israeli Deep State. However, like Douglass, he does not see the connection to Johnson, and assumes that Johnson was part of neither the CIA’s nor the Mishpucka’s conspiracy, but only of the cover-up.
Writing in 1987, Wean could not think of a more precise motive for the Mishpucka to assassinate Kennedy than greed for war money. JFK was killed because he “had been on the verge of negotiating World Peace,” and that’s bad for business. We know today that Israel had a more precise and urgent need to take Kennedy out. In short, JFK’s assassination was a coup d’état to replace a pro-Egypt president by a pro-Israel president, one who would let Israel make as many nukes as they want with material stolen from the U.S., and would let them triple their territory in 1967.
Frankly, I doubt that Wean got his double-cross scenario from John Tower (who was dead when Wean identified him as his source). I believe he got it from his own reasoning and imagination.
And all things considered, I find the scenario of a failed assassination staged by the CIA and morphed into a real one by Israel not quite satisfactory, for the following reason: without Israeli interference, such a CIA plan was doomed to fail, because Kennedy would have easily seen through it. He would have known that Castro had nothing to do with it, and he would not have submitted to the pressure. Rather, he would have had his brother conduct a full investigation and would have found out that Oswald was a CIA stooge. His vengeance would have turned against the CIA, not against Castro. Perhaps Angleton was crazy enough to think he could have manipulated Kennedy and get away with it. But then, he was also crazy enough to want to assassinate Kennedy for real.
Either way, the most likely scenario, in my opinion at this stage, is that Angleton had been encouraged or convinced, directly or indirectly by his Mossad “friends” and by Johnson, to stage the Dallas ambush, or contribute to it, with, perhaps, the help of Hunt and a few Cuban exiles, not forgetting the Secret Service (although the latter’s participation to the crime, through agent Emory Roberts and a few others, was certainly supervised by Johnson).[51]
Why would Israel need to hijack a CIA operation, rather than just kill Kennedy themselves? Very simply, as I said, they needed the CIA to be so deeply compromised that the whole U.S. government would want to keep the lid on the whole affair. They needed the CIA not so much for preparing the killing zone as for cleaning it up afterwards and doing the cover-up for them. They also needed evidence of the CIA’s implication as a “limited hangout” to stir the skeptics in that direction — a strategy that has been so successful that the CIA-theory has now gained mainstream exposure.
[1] Russell is no newcomer to the JFK assassination, having written two books about it, The Man Who Knew Too Much (1992), and On the Trail of the JFK Assassins (2008).
[2]Dick Russell, The Real RFK Jr.: Trials of a Truth Warrior, Skyhorse, 2023, p. 329.
[4] James Douglass, JFK et l’Indicible: Pourquoi Kennedy a été assassiné, Demi-Lune, 2013.
[5] John M. Newman, Oswald and the CIA: The Documented Truth About the Unknown Relationship Between the U.S. Government and the Alleged Killer of JFK, Skyhorse, 2008, pp. 613-637. Excerpts on on spartacus-educational.com
[6] Peter Dale Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, University of California Press, 1993, p. 54.
[7] Tom Mangold, Cold Warrior — James Jesus Angleton: The CIA’s Master Spy Hunter, Simon & Schuster, 1991, p. 52.
[8] Jefferson Morley, The Ghost: The Secret Life of CIA Spymaster James Jesus Angleton, St. Martin’s Press, 2017, p. 78.
[9] Glenn Frankel, “The Secret Ceremony,” Washington Post, December 5, 1987, on www.washingtonpost.com. Andy Court’s article, “Spy Chiefs Honour a CIA Friend,” Jerusalem Post, December 5, 1987, is not online.
[10] James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, Touchstone, 2008, p. xxxi.
[11] Stephen Green, Taking Sides: America’s Secret Relations With a Militant Israel, William Morrow & Co., 1984, p. 166.
[12] Gaeton Fonzi, The Last Investigation: What Insiders Know About the Assassination of JFK, Skyhorse, 2013, chapter 3.
[13] Tom Wicker, John W. Finney, Max Frankel, F.W. Kenworthy, “C.I.A.: Maker of Policy, or Tool?”, New York Times, April 25, 1966, quoted in Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, p. 15.
[22] Seymour Hersh, The Dark Side of Camelot, Little, Brown & Co, 1997, p. 126, quoted in Phillip Nelson, LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK’s Assassination, XLibris, 2010, p. 320.
[23] Arthur Schlesinger Jr., A Thousand Days: John Kennedy in the White House (1965), Mariner Books, 2002, p. 56. Also in Donald Ritchie, Reporting from Washington: The History of the Washington Press Corps, Oxford UP, 2005, p. 146.
[24] Donald Gibson gives the full telephone transcript in “The Creation of the ‘Warren Commission’”, in James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, The Assassinations: Probe Magazine on JFK, MLK, RFK and Malcolm X, Ferral House, 2003. Alsop was a vocal supporter of America’s involvement in the Vietnam War, and a strong advocate for escalation under Johnson, as David Halberstam documents in The Best and The Brightest, Modern Library, 2001, p. 567.
[25] Morris Smith, “Our First Jewish President Lyndon Johnson? – an update!!,” 5 Towns Jewish Times, April 11, 2013, no longer on 5tjt.com, but accessible via the Wayback Machine on web.archive.org/web/20180812064546/http://www.5tjt.com/our-first-jewish-president-lyndon-johnson-an-update/ A French version published by Tribune Juive is accessible on www.tribunejuive.info/2016/11/07/un-president-americain-juif-par-victor-kuperminc/
[26] Natasha Mozgovaya, “Prominent Jewish-American politician Arlen Specter dies at 82,” Haaretz, October 14, 2012, on www.haaretz.com.
[28] Avner Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, Columbia UP, 1998, pp. 109 and 14; Seymour Hersh, The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy, Random House, 1991, p. 121.
[29] Monika Wiesak, America’s Last President: What the World Lost When It Lost John F. Kennedy, self-published, 2022, p. 214.
[30] Ronen Bergman, Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations, John Murray, 2019, p. xv.
[32] According to a Haaretz article written by Yossi Melman and dated July 3, 1992, mentioned by Piper, Final Judgment, pp. 118-119. This article cannot be found in Haaretz’s archive, but was quoted the next day by the Washington Times, and by the Los Angeles Times: “Shamir Ran Mossad Hit Squad,” Lost Angeles Times, July 4, 1992 https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-07-04-mn-1072-story.html
[33] “Document: Shamir on Terrorism (1943),” Middle East Report 152 (May/June 1988), on merip.org/1988/05/shamir-on-terrorism-1943/
[34] Seymour Hersh, The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy, Random House, 1991, pp. 93, 97.
[35] Alan Hart, Zionism, the Real Enemy of the Jews, vol. 2: David Becomes Goliath, Clarity Press, 2009, p. 269.
[36] Hersh, The Samson Option, pp. 98-100, quoted in Piper Final Judgment, pp. 101-102.
[37] Richard H. Curtiss, A Changing Image: American Perceptions of the Arab-Israeli Dispute, quoted in Piper, Final Judgment, p. 88. Curtiss’s book is hard to get at a reasonable price, but one speech by him, “The Cost of Israel to the American Public,” can be read on Alison Weir’s website “If Americans Knew”, https://ifamericansknew.org/stat/cost2.html
[38] Michael Collins Piper, Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy, American Free Press, 6th ed., 2005, p. 96.
[41] Hart, Zionism, the Real Enemy of the Jews, vol. 2: David Becomes Goliath, p. 250. On the 1948 stolen election, read Phillip Nelson, LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK’s Assassination, XLibris, 2010, p. 66-74.
[43] As pointed out by Carl Oglesby in The JFK Assassination: The Facts and the Theories, Signet Books, 1992, p. 145, quoted in Michael Collins Piper, Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy, American Free Press, 6th ed., 2005, pp. 166-169.
[51] For the record, Vince Palamara mentioned, without much conviction, the hypothesis of a “security test” by the Secret Service, in response to Edgar Hoover’s intrigue to the take over White House security (the Secret Service was headed by the Department of Treasury): “The original idea of the security tests may have been to cement the Secret Service’s role as the protector of the President, having successfully stopped an assassination attempt. Conversely, the agency (and the tests) may have been compromised by those in the know” (Vincent Michael Palamara, Survivor’s Guilt: The Secret Service and the Failure to Protect President Kennedy, Trineday, 2013, kindle l. 4586). However, considering the numerous breaches of rule and the scandalously poor performance by the Secret Service on that fatal day, I find the hypothesis not credible).
Hamas’ sneak attack on Israel over the weekend prompted speculation among some on social media that the latter knew about these plans in advance but allegedly had an interest in letting them happen. According to proponents of this conspiracy theory, embattled Prime Minister Netanyahu wanted to unite his politically divided people and/or establish the pretext for destroying Hamas, ergo why he supposedly let these attacks unfold. That doesn’t make much sense though if one really thinks about it.
It’s fashionable nowadays to claim that leaders sometimes provoke foreign conflicts to distract from domestic political problems, but that’s arguably not the case with the latest Israeli-Hamas war. In fact, Netanyahu was pursuing the exact opposite approach up until last weekend as suggested by credible reports over the months that he was engaged in secret talks with Saudi Arabia over recognizing Israel. This was aimed at uniting Israelis around him and unlocking their country’s geo-economic potential.
Had these efforts borne fruit, then not only would his fiercest opponents have been forced to praise him for this diplomatic achievement, but Israel could then have profited from its central role in the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) that was unveiled last month. Both goals required Saudi recognition of Israel, which Netanyahu hoped to obtain without recognizing Palestine’s independence, but that’s now in doubt since Riyadh might freeze these talks after Israel’s bombing of Gaza.
Those who claim that he knew about Hamas’ plans in advance but still let them happen are either unaware of his secret talks with Saudi Arabia, downplay their grand strategic importance, or think that they were all a ruse in preparation of this convoluted plot to establish the pretext for destroying Hamas. About that dimension of their conspiracy theory, it’s difficult to imagine that security-obsessed Netanyahu would let his country’s enemies inflict such unprecedented damage to Israel for that purpose.
He could always have simply exploited comparatively minor rocket fire to justify a disproportionate bombing campaign against that group without having to first lose literally hundreds of civilians and soldiers. Hamas’ breaching of the border barrier was also a strong blow to the Israeli psyche from which its people might never recover after having assumed that its construction would forever protect them. The same goes for that group doubling the territory under its control during the climax of its attacks.
Observers can still be opposed to the border barrier in particular, Israeli policy towards Palestine in general, and Netanyahu personally while also acknowledging that he’s such a security-obsessed leader that it doesn’t make sense to claim that he’d let Hamas powerfully undermine all three for any reason. He looks extremely weak after what happened, Israeli policy towards Palestine is now questioned from both sides like never before, and the border barrier is no longer deemed to be a credible defense.
These three outcomes represent the sum of Netanyahu’s worst nightmares, not to mention the likely failure of his plans to obtain Saudi recognition of Israel that would in turn unlock his country’s geo-economic potential via IMEC, all of which indisputably contradict Israeli interests. It remains unclear exactly how all of Israel’s security systems failed at the same time during last weekend’s attacks, nor has anyone explained the intelligence failures up until then either, but that’s indeed what happened.
The conspiracy theory speculating that Netanyahu knew about all this in advance but still let it happen doesn’t stand up to scrutiny as proven in this piece and is pretty much only predicated on the false perception that Israel’s intelligence services are omnipotent. They’re run by humans though and are therefore naturally imperfect, yet those who claim otherwise impart godlike power to the Mossad. This gives Israel too much credit while denying Hamas’ independent ability to organize attacks of this scale.
Martin Sandler, editor of “The Letters of John F. Kennedy,” discussed the possibility that Israel’s Mossad was behind the assassination of President John F. Kennedy during a book talk at the John F. Kennedy Museum in Hyannis, Massachusetts on November 6, 2013.
Sandler is an award-winning author of numerous popular books and textbooks on American history. He has taught at the University of Massachusetts and Smith College.
Sandler’s full Hyannis talk was broadcast on C-SPAN’s Book TV; the segment on the JFK assassination is on C-SPAN here.
Author Michael Collins Piper discusses this subject in his book “Final judgment : The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy,” available on Archive.org, Amazon, and in some libraries.
Although Israel has possessed nuclear weapons since the 1960’s, it maintains a policy of nuclear opacity, never officially confirming the existence of its nuclear program. Accordingly, Israel has never signed the NPT.
For information on Israel’s nuclear weapons see this and this and this and this and this.
The video is also on YouTube. For related videos go here.
By Professor Roger Watson and Dr. Niall McCrae | The Daily Sceptic | November 15, 2021
As scholars at leading British universities over recent decades, we witnessed the replacement of critical thinking and debate by narrative: facts are discrimination and scientific method is imperialism; truth, instead, is derived from ‘progressive’ values. This educational trend may be a major contributory factor to the ease in which society has been inculcated to the Covid ‘new normal’ of masking, testing, and repeated doses of vaccines for a disease of similar risk to severe influenza.
One doesn’t need much critical reasoning to observe the flawed logic of some vaccination enthusiasts, such as people who respond to experiencing any side effects, however debilitating, by saying “at least I know it’s working”, or, after contracting the disease despite their promised inoculation (over 90% effective, according to initial drug company claims), “I’d have been worse off without the jab.” … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.