US once threatened sanctions/tax deductions when Israel occupied land by force

Henry Norr urges Obama to study the Suez war, when an American President and Sec'y of State actually used the UN General Assembly as a bully pulpit, and threatened sanctions, and took on the lobby too, to force Israel out of Gaza. At the end of this account, you will see that Israel didn't leave without devastation. This is also chronicled by Joe Sacco in his book, on the right side of this site. Plus ca change. Norr's analogy here is obviously to the Obama capitulation on the West Bank, also occupied, also supported by tax deductible contributions. Norr:

Eisenhower and his Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, forthrightly condemned the attack. At the United Nations, where Britain and France held veto power in the Security Council, the U.S. joined the Soviet bloc -- even as Soviet tanks rolled through Hungary -- as well as emerging third-world governments in taking the matter to the General Assembly and approving resolution after resolution calling for a ceasefire, then withdrawal of the aggressors.

Within days the British and French gave in and began pulling out their troops. A few weeks later Israel grudgingly agreed to withdraw from the Sinai. But Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion adamantly refused to give up the Gaza Strip as well as an area along the Gulf of Aqaba, despite personal pleas from Eisenhower and a sixth UN resolution calling for withdrawal. Israel's parliament, the Knesset, formally proclaimed the country's intent to keep Gaza.

Meanwhile, in the U.S., Israel mobilized its lobby -- already a formidable political force, if not quite as dominant as it is today -- to pressure the administration to back off on its demands.

Senate majority leader Lyndon Johnson, with support from his Republican counterpart, William Knowland, led the campaign, with support from such luminaries as Eleanor Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Time Inc. publisher Henry Luce. Noting the "terrific control the Jews have over the news media and the barrage the Jews have built up on congressmen," Dulles complained that "The Israeli Embassy is practically dictating to the Congress through influential Jewish people in the country."

"I am aware how almost impossible it is in this country to carry out a foreign policy not approved by the Jews," he told Luce, but "I am going to have one. That does not mean I am anti-Jewish, but I believe in what George Washington said in his Farewell Address that an emotional attachment to another country should not interfere."

Eisenhower agreed. On Feb. 11, 1957, he sent another message to Ben Gurion, offering to guarantee Israeli access to the Gulf of Aqaba but demanding "prompt and  unconditional withdrawal" from Gaza. Ben Gurion again refused, replying that "there is no basis for the restoration of the status quo ante in Gaza."

At that point, instead of an Obama-style cave-in, Ike decided to take the gloves off. On Feb. 20 he sent another cable to Ben Gurion threatening to support a UN call for sanctions against Israel and warning that such sanctions could apply not only to U.S. government aid to Israel (then modest) but also to Israel's lifeline at the time, tax-deductible private donations and the purchase of Israel's bonds. That same evening the president went on national television specifically to address the dispute with Israel. "We are now," he told the American people, "faced with a fateful moment as the result of the failure of Israel to withdraw its forces behind the Armistice lines, as contemplated by the United Nations Resolutions on this subject."

"I would, I feel, be untrue to the standards of the high office to which you have chosen me, if I were to lend the influence of the United States to the proposition that a nation which invades another should be permitted to exact conditions for withdrawal," he continued. "I believe that in the interests of peace the United Nations has no choice but to exert pressure upon Israel to comply with the withdrawal resolutions."

Ben Gurion's initial response was continued defiance, but with no indication that Eisenhower would back down, and the General Assembly about to vote for sanctions, he had no choice but to capitulate. On March 1 Israel's foreign minister, Golda Meir, announced that her government would withdraw from Gaza after all, and by March 16 the pull-out was complete. On the way out, the Israelis systematically destroyed all surface roads, railway tracks, and telephone lines in the area, as well as several villages. But at least the occupation of the Gaza Strip came to an end -- until the Israelis came storming back 10 years later.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Israel Lobby, Israel/Palestine, US Politics

{ 14 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. potsherd says:

    The tax-deductible contributions are still a vulnerable point, but the stranglehold of the Lobby has only gotten stronger.

  2. RE: Ben Gurion again refused, replying that “there is no basis for the restoration of the status quo ante in Gaza.”
    MY COMMENT: I guess Condi Rice was ‘channeling’ Ben Gurion during Israel’s Cheney-approved 2006 invasion of Lebanon. “We cannot return to the status quo ante.” “We cannot return to the status quo ante.” “We cannot return to the status quo ante.” “We cannot return to the status quo ante.” “We cannot return to the status quo ante.”….[ad nauseam]

    • RE: “We cannot return to the status quo ante.” – Condi
      MY COMMENT: Thereby giving Israel plenty of time to litter a large part of Lebanon with more than a million cluster ‘bomblets’ (which, nearly four years later, are still detonating, injuring and occasionally killing innocent children and other civilians in Lebanon).

  3. jimby says:

    Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers sure screwed the pooch in Iran by fomenting and accomplishing the overthrow of Mohammed Mosedegh.

  4. Brewer says:

    It is one thing to wish the U.S. administration would grow a spine and face Israel down diplomatically. It is not actually necessary however.
    As a non-American I am often astonished at the disregard for existing American Law and the tacit approval it garners both among Legislators and the public.

    “The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 as amended by the Symington Amendment of 1976 and the Glenn Amendment of 1977 prohibit US military assistance to countries that acquire or transfer nuclear reprocessing technology outside of international nonproliferation regimes. Israel, unlike Iran, is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. If Congress wishes to provide US taxpayer funded foreign aid to Israel in compliance with US law, it may do so only under a special waiver from the office of the President as in the case for Pakistan. “

    link to news.prnewswire.com

    I am not certain but have seen no sign of a “special waiver” in Israel’s case. No doubt legal activists like Paul Balles have looked into it. I’d be interested if anyone has any info on efforts to invoke the amendment.

  5. Chaos4700 says:

    See, now, that would require Obama to cross swords with Rahm Emmanuel and, very probably, David Axelrod too. And therefore kiss campaign financing goodbye.

    Anyone holding their breath? I’m not.

Leave a Reply