Did Israel play a role in JFK’s assassination? Controversial or true?

The assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) in 1963 has been subject of extensive investigation and speculation worldwide for decades.

While the official narratives attribute these tragic event to lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, alternative theories have emerged over the decades.

And with President Donald Trump declassifying the JFK and RFK files, conspiracy theorists and people who buy into the mainstream narrative may get some answers.

However, one such theory posits that Israel may have been involved in orchestrating or facilitating these assassinations.

What are some of the key arguments supporting this perspective? Examining JFK’s opposition to Israel’s nuclear ambitions, alleged Mossad involvement, shifts in U.S.-Israel relations, and the broader geopolitical context of the 1960s.

JFK’s Opposition to Israel’s Nuclear Program and CIA, FBI links

President John F. Kennedy’s administration took a firm stance against the nuclear proliferation occurring in the Middle East, particularly Israel’s secretive nuclear weapons program.

By the early 1960s, U.S. had become increasingly concerned about Israel’s nuclear ambitions. The Dimona nuclear reactor, located in the Negev Desert, was at the center of this concern. Officially, Israel claimed that Dimona was a peaceful research facility, but American intelligence sources believed otherwise.

JFK sought inspections of the Dimona facility in 1963, a move that put him at odds with both the Israeli government and elements within the U.S. intelligence community.

Ben-Gurion, as Israel’s Prime Minister, was especially protective of the country’s nuclear program, viewing it as essential to the nation’s security.

At the heart of the controversy was Israel’s nuclear program, which many believed was focused on developing nuclear weapons. The Dimona plant, which was built illegally in the 1950s, was suspected of manufacturing nuclear weapons-grade material.

It was a known fact that obtaining uranium for such weapons was no easy task, and reports from U.S. intelligence sources indicated that weapons-grade uranium was being stolen from a nuclear facility in Apollo, Pennsylvania, and smuggled out of the country.

The theft of such sensitive materials raised alarm bells, particularly for Kennedy, who was already monitoring the situation in Israel and its nuclear intentions.

While the thefts were serious, what stood out was the lack of action from U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Kennedy, a seasoned leader, understood that the CIA was working against him.

His suspicions grew as he connected the dots: Dimona’s illegal nuclear activities and the theft of uranium were not isolated incidents but linked to a broader, more sinister network.

The theft of uranium from U.S. soil suggested a coordinated effort, and the implication that high-level officials could have been involved raised further concerns.

Kennedy’s political foes, especially those entrenched in the military-industrial complex, were uncomfortable with his approach to nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.

The issue of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East was particularly sensitive during the Cold War, when the Cuban Missile Crisis had already shown the dire consequences of unchecked nuclear weapon expansion.

At the same time, the CIA’s obsession with deposing Cuban leader Fidel Castro, which went beyond ideological differences and into the realm of economic interests, further complicated matters.

The U.S. intelligence community’s intense efforts to eliminate Castro were fueled by his disruption of organized crime networks and their operations in Cuba, including the arms and drug trades. Castro’s efforts to curb these illegal activities and redistribute wealth to the Cuban people made him an enemy of the CIA, Mossad, and even the Mafia, who lost significant profits when he came to power.

Kennedy, recognizing the deep interconnections between Israel, the CIA, and other covert operatives, reportedly took steps to dismantle the CIA’s influence, which had grown out of control. His attempt to rein in the agency’s rogue activities and prevent a potential nuclear conflict was part of his broader effort to ensure U.S. security.

However, those who benefitted from the status quo, including powerful Israeli figures and CIA operatives, saw Kennedy’s actions as a threat to their interests.

Once Lyndon B. Johnson assumed the presidency following Kennedy’s assassination, these obstacles disappeared. Under Johnson, U.S.-Israel relations grew closer, and Israel’s ability to acquire uranium and further develop its nuclear weapons program went largely unchecked for decades.

It wasn’t until 1986 that Mordechai Vanunu, a whistleblower and former top scientist at Dimona, exposed Israel’s nuclear weapons program to the world.

The theory that Israel, with the assistance of the CIA and FBI, played a direct role in Kennedy’s assassination has long been circulated by certain researchers and former intelligence insiders.

They argue that Kennedy’s growing efforts to thwart Israel’s nuclear ambitions, combined with his opposition to the CIA’s covert operations, made him a target for elimination. The assassination of Kennedy, they suggest, was a calculated move to protect Israeli interests and maintain the status quo in global nuclear politics.

Kennedy’s assassination and the subsequent cover-up, which led to the framing of Lee Harvey Oswald, is one of the most contentious chapters in American history.

But as the details of the U.S.-Israel intelligence relationship and the CIA’s involvement in clandestine operations come to light, the full scope of the political motivations behind the assassination becomes more apparent.

Mossad’s Alleged Involvement

The theory that Israel’s intelligence agency, Mossad, might have played a role in President John F. Kennedy’s assassination is rooted in the belief that his policies posed a direct threat to Israel’s nuclear ambitions.

Some researchers argue that certain elements within Israel’s leadership, particularly Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, might have seen Kennedy’s opposition to their nuclear program as a grave danger. According to these theories, they took drastic action to eliminate this threat by orchestrating the assassination of the U.S. president.

One of the most vocal proponents of this theory is Michael Collins Piper, who explores the idea in his controversial book Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy.

In Piper’s view, the Kennedy administration was on a collision course with Israeli leaders over the latter’s nuclear program, specifically the development of nuclear weapons at the Dimona facility.

Piper argues that Kennedy was resolute in his efforts to prevent Israel from acquiring nuclear weapons. When Israeli officials, including Ben-Gurion, learned that Kennedy planned to impede their nuclear ambitions, they allegedly decided that the only way to ensure their security and the continuation of their nuclear program was to remove him from power.

According to Piper, the conspiracy to kill Kennedy was not just a singular Israeli operation but a multi-faceted collaboration involving several parties with overlapping interests.

Piper claims that Ben-Gurion, fearing that Kennedy’s opposition could thwart Israel’s ability to secure nuclear weapons, secretly orchestrated the assassination.

Ben-Gurion may have believed the removal of Kennedy would facilitate the unimpeded development of Israel’s nuclear arsenal, which had become a cornerstone of its national security strategy.

Furthermore, Piper contends that the assassination was not solely a Mossad operation but rather a complex, multi-agency conspiracy. In his theory, Mossad worked in concert with the CIA and organized crime groups, all of whom had their own reasons for wanting Kennedy removed.

The CIA, with its complex network of covert operations, might have viewed Kennedy as an impediment to their activities, while organized crime—long associated with the CIA and intelligence operations—had its own motives for targeting the president.

Piper’s theory aligns with the broader belief that powerful, shadowy forces within the U.S. government and intelligence community were complicit in the assassination of JFK. The CIA, in particular, has long been suspected of involvement due to its role in various covert activities, especially in relation to Cuba and the Cold War.

The theory suggests that these disparate groups were united by their shared interest in eliminating Kennedy, who, in their view, was a disruptive force to their plans—particularly in relation to Israel’s nuclear ambitions.

While Piper’s book is highly controversial and criticized by mainstream historians, his arguments are part of a broader body of research that questions the official account of JFK’s assassination.

Under President Lyndon B. Johnson, the U.S. adopted a much more favorable stance toward Israel, including allowing the country to develop its nuclear weapons without the scrutiny that Kennedy had pushed for.

Johnson shift in policy is often cited as evidence that Kennedy’s assassination opened the door for Israel to pursue its nuclear program more freely.

While the theory remains highly controversial and lacks conclusive proof, the intersection of Kennedy’s stance on nuclear non-proliferation, Israel’s strategic interests, and the role of intelligence agencies in the assassination continues to fuel debate among researchers and conspiracy theorists.

Ultimately, whether Mossad had a direct hand in JFK’s assassination or whether it was simply a matter of opportunistic advantage remains an open question—one that continues to provoke discussion and research decades after the event.

Shift in U.S.-Israel Relations Post-JFK

After Kennedy’s assassination, President Lyndon B. Johnson shifted U.S. policy to a more supportive approach, which coincided with Israel’s accelerated nuclear program.

Once Johnson took office, he quickly reversed Kennedy’s policies regarding Israel’s nuclear program. The U.S. stopped pressuring Israel for transparency and allowed it to continue its nuclear development.

Many believe this helped Israel secure its position as a nuclear power in the Middle East. The timing of this shift—immediately following Kennedy’s assassination—has fueled speculation that his removal played a key role in facilitating Israel’s nuclear ambitions.

A major example of the policy shift came after the 1967 Six-Day War. During this conflict, the U.S. fully supported Israel militarily and diplomatically, which was a stark contrast to Kennedy’s more cautious approach. Kennedy had been hesitant to involve the U.S. too closely in Israel’s military actions, but Johnson’s administration provided critical military aid and diplomatic backing. This support played a significant role in Israel’s victory, and it solidified the U.S.-Israel alliance for years to come.

The U.S.-Israel relationship grew much closer after assassination of JFK, with arms deals and military cooperation agreements cementing Israel’s position as a strategic ally.

Many analysts suggest that Israel benefitted greatly from Kennedy’s removal, as Johnson’s administration allowed Israel to pursue its nuclear program unchecked, ensuring its dominance in the region.

In conclusion, the shift in U.S. policy toward Israel after JFK’s assassination is a key factor in arguments suggesting that Israel gained from his removal. The transition from Kennedy’s opposition to Israel’s nuclear ambitions to Johnson’s unconditional support allowed Israel to pursue its nuclear program and achieve significant military successes.

Lee Harvey Oswald’s CIA monitor was Jewish spy

Newly declassified documents have revealed a surprising detail in the investigation into President John F. Kennedy’s assassination: Lee Harvey Oswald’s mail was screened by Reuben Efron, a Jewish immigrant from Lithuania and a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army.

Efron, who later lived in Jerusalem, played a role in CIA surveillance operations leading up to the assassination, a revelation that has raised new questions about Oswald’s background and potential intelligence connections.

For decades, conspiracy theorists have wondered about the identity of the person who monitored Oswald’s mail while he was under CIA surveillance before Kennedy’s death. Some speculated that this person could have key insights into Oswald’s relationship with the Soviet Union, possibly revealing a Communist plot or government cover-up.

In August 2023, the truth came to light: Efron, who was involved in espionage work, was the one tasked with this responsibility.

The news, first reported by The New York Times, has fueled further speculation about the potential significance of Efron’s identity. His connection to Oswald could suggest that the CIA had more knowledge of Oswald’s activities than previously acknowledged, or it might be a minor detail that does not directly impact the theory of a lone gunman.

The inquiry into Efron’s background, however, uncovers interesting aspects of his life and career, particularly his deep knowledge of espionage and Jewish traditions related to spying.

Efron, born Ruvelis Effronas in Lithuania in 1911, was highly educated and multilingual, speaking Russian, Lithuanian, Hebrew, Yiddish, and German. After immigrating to the United States in 1939, he worked in various roles before serving in the U.S. Army during World War II as an interpreter.

His work with the U.S. government continued after the war, including serving in intelligence roles. During the 1970s, while living in Israel, he wrote articles for the Jewish Bible Quarterly, offering insights into the ancient practice of espionage, comparing biblical spycraft with modern Israeli intelligence.

His involvement in intelligence continued in his retirement, where he contributed writings that connected ancient and modern practices of surveillance and espionage. In one article, Efron compared the biblical figure Rahab, a spy in the Book of Joshua, to the World War I spy Mata Hari. In another, he critiqued the failure of spies to accurately assess their targets, a theme that mirrors critiques of the CIA’s handling of Oswald.

Efron’s identity as the CIA screener has sparked renewed interest in the events surrounding JFK’s assassination, particularly given his connections to both U.S. intelligence and the Israeli state. His role in screening Oswald’s mail adds a layer of complexity to the narrative, suggesting that the CIA may have had a closer relationship with Oswald than originally believed.

The question of whether Oswald was acting alone in the assassination, or whether there was a broader conspiracy, has persisted for decades. While the revelation of Efron’s involvement does not provide a clear answer, it highlights the extensive surveillance and intelligence operations surrounding Oswald, which have long been a point of contention for those questioning the official narrative.

Ultimately, the revelation of Efron’s identity as the CIA officer who screened Oswald’s mail adds an intriguing element to the ongoing debate over the Kennedy assassination. It also raises further questions about the extent of U.S. intelligence involvement in the events leading up to November 22, 1963, and the role of Israeli intelligence in the broader geopolitical context of the Cold War. Lee Harvey Oswald’s 

Most interesting theory I have come across from aka what really happened (probably)

This one comes from a former CBC TV investigative reporter Brendan Howley who has “been following this case as a murder investigation since the Warren Commission Report was indexed by Sylvia Meagher and Gary Owens some 40 years ago.”

The investigation has always been more complex than what was laid out in the Warren Commission Report. From the moment Oswald was arrested, the cover-ups began.

One of the most telling actions was taken by the CIA station in Mexico City, which scrambled to obscure any connection between Oswald and their operations. Evidence later surfaced indicating that Oswald, in the weeks leading up to the assassination, had extensive links to the CIA—connections the agency worked tirelessly to erase.

The question remains: why was the CIA so desperate to sever ties with Oswald? A deep dive into the records from the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) revealed that the CIA was concerned about Oswald’s connections to their station in Mexico City.

Key telex messages, which were meant to be declassified, suggest a well-documented link. Even more revealing is the involvement of David Attlee Phillips, a CIA officer implicated in Oswald’s activities. This was confirmed by Antonio Veciana, a Cuban exile and CIA asset, who identified Phillips as Oswald’s case officer.

The timing is uncanny—Phillips had been involved in key operations in Latin America and was in close contact with Oswald just before the assassination. What makes this even more chilling is that the CIA station in Mexico City, the largest in the world at the time, was under the command of none other than E. Howard Hunt, a man with deep ties to the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

Hunt’s involvement brings a disturbing layer to the story—suggesting that he was trying to protect the agency from the fallout of previous covert operations in Cuba.

But the CIA wasn’t the only agency with skin in the game. Oswald’s ties to U.S. military intelligence—specifically the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI)—are equally troubling. His case file, packed with vital intelligence, was mysteriously moved from New Orleans to Washington, D.C. the week after Kennedy’s death, only to vanish. Without these critical files, it’s impossible to determine whether Oswald truly acted alone.

Despite the overwhelming evidence pointing toward Oswald being an agent in a larger intelligence operation, the question remains: for what purpose? While some conspiracy theorists have suggested that Oswald was a pawn in a grander plot involving the mob, Cuban exiles, and U.S. intelligence, the truth is even murkier.

Howley proposes that Oswald was likely being manipulated to carry out a mission targeting Fidel Castro. This theory is supported by several intelligence sources, including Cuban operatives, who claim Oswald was being prepped for a mission to Havana—possibly as an attempt to redeem himself after his failed defection to the Soviet Union. But things didn’t go as planned, and Oswald found himself at the center of a much larger web of intrigue.

The portrayal of Oswald as a disturbed loner who acted out of personal grievances with JFK is a misleading narrative. Oswald was highly intelligent, fluent in Russian, and politically savvy—traits that are rarely acknowledged in mainstream accounts of his life. His relationships, particularly with his former Russian friend Ernst Titovets, suggest a different man than the one painted by the Warren Commission’s narrow focus.

Oswald’s role as a potential double agent, playing both sides of the Cold War, begins to explain the desperate actions of the U.S. government to control the narrative. This is further supported by the strange and abrupt cover-up of crucial documents, as well as the lengths to which both the CIA and ONI went to protect their secrets.

The complicity of figures like Jack Ruby, who killed Oswald while in police custody, further complicates the story. Ruby’s actions, rather than stemming from a need to protect Kennedy’s widow, seem instead to reflect a deeper, more urgent mission—to silence Oswald permanently. When Ruby learned Oswald had died, his reaction suggested relief, not remorse.

But perhaps the most glaring flaw in the “lone gunman” theory is the massive body of evidence that has been systematically buried over the decades. Documents related to key figures in the case, such as George Joannides, David Attlee Phillips, and William Harvey, remain sealed in government archives. The fact that millions of pages related to the JFK assassination are still classified or locked away in government vaults raises serious questions about what’s being hidden from the public.

This investigation has never been given the attention it truly deserves. It is not a simple case of “lone gunman versus conspiracy.” Rather, it’s a tale of intelligence agencies, military operations, organized crime, and political maneuvering all converging on one tragic day in Dallas. And with so many unanswered questions and missing pieces of evidence, the story is far from over.

Howley wrote that as a journalist who has worked closely on this case for decades, he is more convinced than ever that the real story behind JFK’s assassination is far more complex than we’ve been told.

Conclusion

It’s been over 60 years since that tragic day in Dallas, but crucial pieces of evidence still elude us—documents remain sealed, key witnesses have never been heard, and one thing is clear: the narrative we’ve been fed about Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

The only remaining documents to be released to the public, unexpurgated, have been withheld by every president since Johnson on the grounds that their release would damage national security and government security agencies.

Will Trump’s release give us the truth?

“The truth?” “You can’t handle the truth,” comes to mind.

Scroll to Top