Below is a riveting story about Eisenhower and Ben Gurion. But first a comment.
If you read the history of the special relationship, the same patterns of political pressure exerted by the Israel lobby to nullify national policy re Israeli expansionism that we see today with Obama's capitulation on Jerusalem and the West Bank occurred 50 and 60 years ago over other borders-- Partition's and Egypt's-- and the return of the refugees, too. And the resistance to this simple political understanding on the left is one of our greatest obstacles to doing anything about it in the U.S. discourse, indeed why the same story has repeated itself over and over for decades of Palestinian dispossession.
The story about President Eisenhower's insistence that Israel withdraw from Egypt, which it had invaded in 1956, comes from The Passionate Attachment (1992) by the late George W. Ball, a former Under Secretary of State, and Douglas Ball. Eisenhower was of course a Republican; which brings up one more point about the discourse on the left: I grew up in a Democratic household, being told that John Foster Dulles was a bastard and maybe an anti-Semite, too. In fact, his position below is a stirring one; but I have had to overcome a lot of cultural/political programming to say as much.
Jewish American organizations tried hard to generate congressional resistance to Eisenhower's position. On February 1, [1957] Senator William Knowland, the Republican minority leader, protested to [Secretary of State John Foster] Dulles against the administration's stand. Knowland agreed that the policy might be right in theory, but pointed out to Dulles the domestic political implications and threatened to revolt. Dulles answered Knowland by noting, "We cannot have all our policies made in Jerusalem," and he justified the American position on the following grounds:
"First, sanctions would be necessary to compel Israel's withdrawal and a withdrawal was needed to maintain the American position among the Arabs...
"[Second] I am aware how almost impossible it is in this country to carry out a foreign policy not approved by the Jews. [Former sec'y of state under Truman George] Marshall and [first Defense Secretary James V.] Forrestal learned that. I am going to try 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."
On February 20, Eisenhower called a meeting of the congressional leadership. When the lawmakers, ever sensitive to the pro-Israeli lobby, refused to help, Eisenhower resorted to television that same night.
Eisenhower did more than talk. He issued an ultimatum to Ben Gurion to pull Israel's forces back to the Israeli border. He also laid plans with Dulles that, if the Israelis did not comply, the United States would cut off the flow of all aid to Israel, including not only development assistance but technical assistance and shipments of agricultural products under Public Law 480. He would also delay the disbursement of an already arranged Export-Import Bank loan and terminate all forms of military assistance, including those in the pipeline. He canceled export licenses for the shipment of munitions or other military goods. Finally, he ordered Secretary of the Treasury George Humphrey to draft a change in U.S. tax regulations so that the Jewish American organization benefactors would no longer be entitled to a federal income tax deduction for contributions that benefited Israel.
In spite of further efforts by Israel's supporters to deflect White House pressure from the Jewish state, Eisenhower did not cave in; so, as the Israeli government began to run out of money, Ben Gurion, on March 5, 1957, grudgingly capitulated. On March 16, Israel withdrew from almost all the territory it had occupied in the Suez offensive.
Eisenhower had faced the full power of the German war machine. He had nothing more to fear.
And these are the things that Obama could do, too, except that he’s afraid to. We have a wimp in the White House. And, just like they respected Eisenhower, the American people would respect him if he’d only stand up to Israel and the lobby. I can think of nothing that would so rehabilitate his image.
I agree completely. Take a stand. You’ll make some enemies, but you’ll make allies. Besides, the US looks foolish caring for every whim of the Jewish state, especially after their embarrassing military maneuvers, that we continue to sweep under the rug.
I think Obama may have a plan against Yahoo. To make a speech in Cairo, all lofty, makes him the fool. Obama will need to take a stand one day, so do it quick.
“I can think of nothing that would so rehabilitate his image”
I can, but it’s related: Stopping the American War on Iraq and War on Afghanistan. And after that the Israelis would be easier to deal with, I think. But his chance to do that is past.
To be fair, Ike would rely on his built stature during WW2, so what could Obama rely on–his left-handed b-ball shoots & work as a community organizer?
he could always say I creamed hillary in the elections, and spanked mccain like the old git he is. Yeah, not to convincing…
Has the chance to do that really passed? For his first year or so in office after he returned to power in 1958, de Gaulle fought the war in Algeria with renewed energy (the “Challe offensive”). He didn’t finally end the war until he had been in office for about four years.
Imagine if a president decided to go it on his (or her) own and address the American public from the heart, without the scripted nonsense written by his handlers. Imagine the president deciding at the last minute to tear up the script and tell the public the truth about what goes on with Israel and its lobby and all its operatives here in the U.S.
What would happen? Would he even be able to finish the speech, or would the plug be pulled and the transmission go dead, only to return a minute or two later with the message “we’re sorry viewers, we are experiencing technical difficulties.”
Meanwhile, the president is approached at the podium and the message is whispered in his ear that he’s no longer on air and that if he doesn’t get back to the script he can expect to be victim of an untimely death in the not-too-distant future.
A few minutes later the president is back on air happily talking about how the economy is going to recover and our “unbreakable bond” with Israel. Whatever skepticism the sheeple had is quickly mitigated by the talking heads, and those of use who know damn well what happened are reduced to raving “conspiracy theorists.”
Surely the president would have an answer to that? As soon as he comes back on the air, he tells the American people about the threat he has just received.
“Finally, he ordered Secretary of the Treasury George Humphrey to draft a change in U.S. tax regulations so that the Jewish American organization benefactors would no longer be entitled to a federal income tax deduction for contributions that benefited Israel.”
That was in February-March 1957.
So why isn’t Eisenhower’s order in force 53 years later?
I suspect the drafting of the change in Treasury Regulations was just a threat, and that it was never finalized as a final rule because Israel backed down.
Pity.
Ike didn’t just act against Israel. He also forced Britain and France to quickly terminate their invasion of Egypt over Suez in November 1956 by having the U.S. Treasury mount a run on the pound sterling.
One thing stands out as missing from this account, a definition of “the domestic political implications.” Jews are like 2% of the population so they can’t be talking about the Jewish vote. Christian Zionists/Christian fundamentalists were not a political factor in 1956. Not spelling it out is deceit by omission. Its all about money, like the story that Truman recognized Israel over the objections of Marshall and others who knew better right after getting a big plop of money from Zionists. We give Israel so much money that no doubt some of it is cycled back to the US for campaign contributions. The campaign contribution component is probably built into the appropriation. Nifty.
Bullseye: we bribe ourselves to adhere to policies not in our interest set by the people who are extorting us
New Dawn: A number of fearless, ‘dissident’ Jewish writers such as Alfred Lilienthal, Noam Chomsky and Israel Shahak document the special relationship between Israel and the U.S. How does the Mossad influence U.S. foreign policy, particularly as it relates to the Middle East?
Ostrovsky: Money, money, money. They obtain vast sums of money from the United States, only to use it to buy politicians – and not just in the United States, it happens everywhere. What’s an honest politician? One that’s once bought, stays bought!
link to newdawnmagazine.com
Speaking of Eisenhower, as President he attempted to have Admiral Lewis Strauss become Secretary of Commerce after he had already truned down Eisenhower’s offers to become first White House Chief of Staff and then Secretary of State. The Commerce position proved to be interim when the Senate rejected him 49-46 in 1959.
Of interest to Mondoweiss folk, from Wikipedia:
“Strauss also became a leader in Jewish causes and organizations. For instance, in 1933 he was a member of the Executive Committee of the American Jewish Committee. However, he was not a Zionist and opposed the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. He instead supported assimilation of Jews as equal citizens of the nations where they lived. He recognized the brutality of governments like Nazi Germany; in 1938 he joined with Hoover and Bernard Baruch in supporting the establishment of a refugee state in Africa as a safe haven for all persecuted people, not just Jews.”
I hope that in future when Israel is down and has no bridges to cross to “safety” , muslims remeber these great figures of history who wanted a different world and went aginst the plurality of their own kin despite overwhemlming odds and threat to their standings in their own society and religious establishments. Today as was yeserday and before yeseterday there are many prominent and not so prominent Jewish people out there defending the rights of the Palestinians, raising the voices against the enduring wars ,and risking the lives and livelihood on a scale that I dont see in any other religions or societies.
Yep, good old Ike, the last [and only] POTUS to make Te Israel Lobby cry ‘Uncle.”
By Allah, he is indeed missed.
Great post, Phil! As someone noted a while back, Obama is no Eisenhower (unfortunately)…
I re-read Eisenhower’s Crusade in Europe this past winter. Once again, I was struck by how different his WWII memoir is from Gen. Omar Bradley’s, for instance. Eisenhower, in the book, is extremely generous toward many figures who he knew had belittled him or had let the SHAEF HQ down in one way or another. He had a subtlety of mind that probably would have disqualified him from being a politician in early 21st century America.
Eisenhower’s major intervention in the Middle East, the 1958 Lebanon intervention, lasted 102 days, caused four American casualties ( three from an accident, one by sniper fire).
Eisenhower’s great skill was as a political general. He wasn’t very good at tactics, or winning battles, or that sort of thing, but he was very good at getting people to work together and make a pretence of liking it. That was an esential talent for SAC.
He could even get Montgomery to go along. Montgomery was really good at leading armies and winning battles, but he didn’t have the political skills for the job of SAC.
Phil Weiss wrote:
“I grew up in a Democratic household, being told that John Foster Dulles was a bastard and maybe an anti-Semite, too.”
This is interesting to me as it resonates so much with what any number of other jewish commentators and personalties have mentioned in terms of their early years. That is, I too grew up in a Democratic household—perhaps even a fairly strong one with my folks having enthusiastically worked for JFK’s election (and none others before or since)—but at least in my (gentile) experience and those of my gentile friends there never seems to have been as concentrated an early political inculcation as Phil indicates he underwent or as so many other jewish folks and my jewish friends seem to report when they were mere kids.
I dunno; could just be a sampling thing so that it’s not a usual occurrence in jewish homes and Phil and the others I mentioned are the exception and not the rule, or that my upbringing and those of my friends are the exceptions for gentiles too, but I sense not to at least some significant degree. Especially when I read of the “Red Diaper” schools that existed where young jewish kids were sent by their very political parents and etc.
In my once again gentile experience, for me and my friends we might have picked up some general political philosophy or outlook from our folks, but it was more something that “rubbed off” rather than was deliberately implanted to taught. The folks would of course on occasion talk politics (although not all that much, even through the Vietnam and Watergate years), but it wasn’t really directed at us, and instead was just their conversations between themselves or maybe their adult friends.
So was it (and is it still) that much more different—acknowledging that we are speaking generally—in the average jewish home?
Not saying it’s bad or good, as indeed I can see strong arguments both ways, and damn near everything has both its good and bad effects; instead just wondering if there is this indeed this difference. Certainly if it is so I can see tremendous reasons for it with the jewish population either having experienced living through the Holocaust times or remembering same and thus having a helluva reason to be more politically attuned.
If true though wonder about its significance: E.g., if one imbibes one’s fundamental political outlook and priorities early on in life—especially from one’s parents—what does that do? Does it mean a stronger belief and working towards same later on, for instance? As an example look at Phil’s words concerning him viewing Dulles as “a bastard” even when he was just a young boy, and then talking (with his usual honesty) about having to surmount this background belief now to believe something good about Dulles. And indeed the … visceralness of Phil’s early belief seems to me to resonate with the visceralness of so many other jewish political commentators and leaders at least towards things political, with me at least not seeing that same deep depth of feeling about things political in the gentile community. (Once again of course speaking generally, and historically too.
Once again, I dunno. Would love to hear from Phil or other U.S. jewish folks relating whether they feel that their early upbringing was more politically infused than was or is the case with gentiles. Or indeed hear from gentiles relating whether it’s just my experience (and that of my gentile friends) that is an untrustworthy thing?
In any event an interesting subject to me.
Sin Nombre–your experience and thoughts about it are mine also, as well as my four sibs. Additionally, having married a jewish american girl, she surrounded by a large, extended family in Chicago I’ve grown to know intimately, does nothing to contradict your thoughts. It’s been around in the culture for some time; compare Philip Roth’s stuff with, say Thomas Wolfe’s, or more Roth’s contemporary, John Updike.
I’m NOT an Arabist, not an Eisenhaurist.
I get that you learned some things that were different from what you were exposed to early.
The actions of the Israel lobbies are not unusual, illegal, or mean. Anyone that cares about something that is the subject of federal or other policy, has a right to attempt to communicate their perspective, and their constituencies sentiments.
The relationship between Israel and the US was constructed of two broad components.
1. Specific contextual strategic
2. Existential/principled
The arguments over strategic importance at the end of WW2, included polarized relations around the Cold War (it was unknown if Israel would side with Russia or the west until 1949 really, socialist but western allied), and around the pandering for oil.
Marshall, Forrestal, Eisenhaur were each definitively opposed to communism (Soviet Russia), AND considering the military and geo-political strategy for establishing and maintaining the supply chain for oil (at that time in the hands of US and European countries).
There is no Soviet Union. But in the next decades China will be the US’ largest competitor potentially shifting to adversary. The pandering for oil supply access remains.
The support for Israel existentially on the basis of the validity and youthful liberatory ideal spirit of support for Israel remains. Israel is different, but any proposal that results in the predictable dilution of Israel into a bi-national or Arab state is internationally opposed.
I don’t see the chain of logic that would lead one to assert support for Eisenhaur/Marshall/Forestal policies.
Don’t forget that Ike and the Dulles brothers cranked up the cold war and overthrew the democratically elected govt in Iran, that of Mohamed Mosedegh, for the benefit of BP (yes that British Petroleum). Ratcheting up the cold war was probably (imho) a very bad move.
Not to mention, Ike starved to death many thousands of German soldiers who were POWS and also those who surrendered, lots of them mere boys and old men tossed in at the end of the war by the failing Nazi regime. Perhaps he thought they were somehow different that the young US conscripts who had died fighting that regime under his command.
When Operation Ajax toppled Mossadegh in 1953, BP’s name was the “Anglo-Iranian Oil Company”. When Churchill helped to get the company really going in 1913 (and made it a de facto arm of the British state), it was called the “Anglo-Persian Oil Company”.
It ought to be pointed out that the next congressional elections, in 1958, were a disaster for the Republicans. Knowland, for one, lost his seat. However, it is normally thought that the issue that lost the election for the Republicans was their nationwide push for right-to-work laws, which led labor to do all it could to defeat them. There was also a recession in 1958.
I should correct that last posting. I forgot that Knowland didn’t run for reelection to his Senate seat that year. He wanted to become governor of California, so he got the California Republican Party to give him the nomination for that post in place of the Republican incumbent governor, Goodwin Knight. So Knight was the Republican candidate for Knowland’s Senate seat. They both lost to their Democratic opponents. So the Republicans did indeed lose Knowland’s Senate seat that year, but he wasn’t the candidate who lost it. And right to work was a big issue in California that year.
Thanks for posting about this instructive episode, Phil. As it happens, I’ve been fascinated by it ever since I wrote a term paper about the Suez crisis in 1963 (!!), and I wrote my own column about it earlier this year: A History Lesson for Obama. A couple of observations:
a) Your introduction suggests that the dispute between Eisenhower and Ben Gurion was about Israel’s withdrawal “from Egypt,” and the passages you quote from the Balls’ account don’t identify the land in question any more specifically. In fact, by the time they’re writing about, the Israelis had already withdrawn (grudgingly, under pressure from the US, the UN, and everyone else) from most of the Egyptian territory they seized in the Suez war in November, 1956. (As they left, in that oh-so-charming way of theirs, they destroyed much of the city of El Arish, razed several villages to the ground, systematically destroyed telephone and telegraph lines, and broke up the railroad and paved roads with what was described as “an ingenious giant plow-like device.” I wonder whether it was manufactured by Caterpillar?) UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold protested that the destruction was a violation of the cease-fire terms, but that obviously didn’t cut much ice with Ben Gurion.
By the end of January 1957, the Israelis were holding on to just two pieces of occupied territory: one was a small strip along the Gulf of Aqaba, which Ben Gurion wanted to keep until he got strong international guarantees of Israel’s rights of marine access, and the other was the Gaza Strip, which, as he told the Knesset on January 23, Israel intended to keep permanently. (He claimed it was part of the inheritance of the tribe of Judah.) The Knesset even passed a resolution declaring that they were keeping it.
The Aqaba issue was eventually resolved without too much trouble – the US supported Israel’s claim to access, Eisenhower proclaimed that the US was prepared to enforce it, and Ben Gurion accepted that. The real sticking point in February, the period the Balls describe, was Gaza.
b) My only gripe about their account is that they pass so quickly over Eisenhower’s TV address on Feb. 20, 1957, which I think is a critical part of the story: if he hadn’t had the courage and ability to lay out the situation to the American people as plainly and forcefully as he did in that speech, he never would have been able to stand up to the Israel lobby and their allies in the media and the Democratic party (LBJ in particular). Remember that TV was new in those days, and it was a big deal – as I guess it still is – for the president to deliver a live address to the nation. And the demand for Israel’s withdrawal was not just some passing comment – it was the focus of the entire speech. The text is posted here, and it’s well worth a read, particularly in light of arguments (such as those made in Jerome Slater’s recent postings) that a U.S. president can’t really afford to challenge Israel because of the domestic political balance. The amazing thing about Eisenhower was that he didn’t accept that balance as given and immutable, even in the short run – he set out to change it. Would that we had a president of equal courage and integrity today!
c) The Zionists like to claim that Eisenhower soon came to regret standing up to Ben Gurion, not just about Gaza but about all of the Sinai. I don’t know whether there’s any truth to that (I never read his memoirs – anyone know whether he discusses this episode there?) – my suspicion is that they’re making it up. A column in the Jerusalem Post just a few months ago had an alleged quote from Ike about this.
It boggles my mind that this took place in 1957. And Mearsheimer and Walt are antisemites for pointing out the existence of the Israel Lobby fifty years later in 2007?
Henry Norr (post # 27) notes that Israel’s refusal to evacuate Gaza was a central factor behind Eisenhower’s address. Eisenhower told the American people that this refusal challenged the founding principles of the United Nations, and after consulting with Congress, the general feeling was that Eisenhower should raise the matter with the US people. From that address (link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org
“This raises a basic question of principle. Should a nation which attacks and occupies foreign territory in the face of United Nations disapproval be allowed to impose conditions on its own withdrawal?
If we agree that armed attack can properly achieve the purposes of the assailant, then I fear we will have turned back the clock of international order. We will, in effect, have countenanced the use of force as a means of settling international differences and through this gaining national advantages.
I do not, myself, see how this could be reconciled with the Charter of the United Nations. The basic pledge of all the members of the United Nations is that they will settle their international disputes by peaceful means, and will not use force against the territorial integrity of another state.
If the United Nations once admits that international disputes can be settled by using force, then we will have destroyed the very foundation of the Organization, and our best hope of establishing a world order. That would be a disaster for us all.
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.
Of course, we and all the members of the United Nations ought to support justice and conformity with international law. The first Article of the Charter states the purpose of the United Nations to be “the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes.” But it is to be observed that conformity with justice and international law are to be brought about “by peaceful means.”
We cannot consider that the armed invasion and occupation of another country are “peaceful means” or proper means to achieve justice and conformity with international law.
We do, however, believe that upon the suppression of the present act of aggression and breach of the peace, there should be a greater effort by the United Nations and its members to secure justice and conformity with international law. Peace and justice are two sides of the same coin.”
Can anybody imagine Obama (whom I voted for) speaking similar words at this point in time?