‘Foreign Policy’ undermines Oren argument with graphic straight out of the ‘ZOG’ archives

on 50 Comments

Did Foreign Policy think it was doing Michael Oren a favor when it pasted the following graphic at the top of a long piece by the ambassador explaining why Israel is the “ultimate ally” of the United States? I don’t think so. I have to think some shmendrick in the art department has an anti-Zionist agenda.fp

Oren’s piece is an attack on the realist idea that the U.S. might have distinct interests from Israel (including a desire for Palestinian freedom) and is rooted in Oren’s potted history of Zionism being rooted in the American revolution. But I think that flag image will make a lot of Americans gag. It makes me gag. It’s frightening, could have come off a hate site, and only underlines the realist wisdom that no two countries have congruent interests… The piece repeats two weak talking points: that Arab leaders only care about Iran and that the Arab revolts have had little to say against the U.S. or Israel… Both are misrepresentations. Thanks to Matt Duss.

50 Responses

  1. Bumblebye
    April 25, 2011, 9:32 am

    Why is it frightening?
    It graphically displays what the politicians of both countries declare on an almost daily basis.

  2. Arnon Shwantzinger Too
    April 25, 2011, 9:46 am

    That image is iconic.
    The fact that you would attribute it to satire on the part of the art department speaks volumes of that image’s potency to illuminate.

    Within a certain context it would be considered anti-Zionist. And in Philip’s case it makes him gag. But within the political climate of today it simply reinforces Oren’s point – using today’s images and operating within today’s context (if not only).

    When one cannot be sure if a statement is satirical or not – it probably isn’t passing judgmentental – it simply is. That image just states an agreed-upon truth.

  3. clenchner
    April 25, 2011, 9:53 am

    It is not frightening in the sense that this image is incomprehensable or that it slams home something despicable. It is frightening because of the use of this imagery by neo-nazi and white power groups that demonize the US Congress and American government in general as being merely fronts for the Jews, often referred to as ‘Zionists’ in the sense of ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion.’

    Of course, it is perfectly understandable why actual modern day Zionists would actually promote this view. Modern, political Zionism has roots in the language of and messages of 19th Century anti-semitic thought.

    • Citizen
      April 26, 2011, 9:02 am

      Will the USA be replacing that white star on its fighter jets with the new one so proudly hailed in the image accompanying Oren’s hasbara? Is Oren’s basic point represented by the sixth point added to the original five pointed star? If a new five pointed star was added to Old Glory, what that be a better design? Or would the new star be so big it would disorientate those rising to salute New Glory? Do we need Hedi Klum to help us out here?

  4. Ellen
    April 25, 2011, 10:19 am

    Phil, I think you have read to much into finding an agenda.

    The art director was doing what they are supposed to do: Illustrate the accompanying article. And this gag-inducing image perfectly fits the text of Oren’s piece, which is enough to make any informed same person ill.

    “Israel may be one of a handful of countries that fully fits the definition of ally, but its willingness to support the United States unwaveringly makes it the partner par excellence, America’s ultimate ally. ”

    Israel does not have a alliance with the US. For one, it cannot until it has established borders.

    Not only whipping out the tired old argument of Gallup Poll numbers to “prove” how much Americans are dedicated to Israel, but even this sickening revision:

    “Their roots extend further than Israel’s creation 63 years ago — rather, they took hold with the Pilgrims’ arrival in North America. “

    • RoHa
      April 26, 2011, 1:51 am

      “Israel may be one of a handful of countries that fully fits the definition of ally, but its willingness to support the United States unwaveringly makes it the partner par excellence, America’s ultimate ally. ”

      And I still want someone to show me an occasion when Israel gave real support to the U.S.

  5. yourstruly
    April 25, 2011, 10:33 am

    at first glance anyone else see those stars as swastikas? Yeah, and back in the thirties there were people in America who said that what was good for th Third Reich was good for America too.

    • Antidote
      April 26, 2011, 12:14 pm

      “anyone else see those stars as swastikas?”

      Uh, yes. Oren’s remarks on the history of the Great Seal brought to mind James Bradley’s “Imperial Cruise” and the history of Aryanism in the US from the 18th c to WW II:

      “On the original Fourth of July – July 4, 1776 – the Continental Congress tasked Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson with suggestions for the design of the Great Seal of the United States. […] Franklin suggested the image of Moses extending his hand over the sea with heavenly rays illuminating his path. Adams preferred young Hercules choosing between the easy downhill path of Vice and the rugged, uphill path of Virtue. Jefferson suggested the two Teuton brothers who had founded the Anglo-Saxon race. Adams wrote to his wife, Abigail, that Jefferson had proposed ‘Hengst and Horsa, the Saxon chiefs from whom we claim the honor of being descended, and whose political principles and form of government we have assumed.’ (Congress rejected all three recommendations, and committees eventually worked out the present Great Seal of the United States.)

      Meanwhile, the laws of the new nation followed the path of White supremacy. The legislation defining who could become an American citizen, the Naturalization Act of 1790, begins: ‘All free white persons…’. While Congress debated whether Jews or Catholics could become citizens, ‘no member publicly questioned the idea of limiting citizenship to only ‘free white persons.’

      Many Americans concluded that if the course of empire was westward and the United States the westernmost home of the Aryan, they were a chosen people with a continental, hemispheric, and global racial destiny. Even when the United States was a young country hugging the Atlantic, many dreamed of the day the American Aryan would arrive on the Pacific coast. From there he would leap across the Pacific and fight his way through Asia, until he reached the original home of his Aryan parents in the Caucasus and a White band of civilization would bring peace to the world. […]

      The 1800s saw the emergence of ‘social sciences’ in America. Not surprisingly, they validated Aryan supremacy. One after another, White Christian males in America’s finest universities ‘discovered’ that the Aryan was God’s highest creation, that the Negro was designed for servitude, and that the Indian was doomed to extinction. […]

      Such beliefs ruled America. As the California governor, Peter Burnett, put it in his 1851 Governor’s Message, ‘That a war of extermination will continue to be waged between the two races until the Indian race becomes extinct must be expected…The inevitable destiny of the [White] race is beyond the power and wisdom to avert.’ ”

      Madison Grant’s “The Vanishing of the Great Race” was a bestseller in the 1920s and beyond, and taught at the Ivy League. Hitler called the book his ‘Bible’. But somehow Aryanism became synonymous with Nazi ideology, as if they had invented, rather than copied it?

  6. eee
    April 25, 2011, 10:47 am

    Did you even take time to read Oren’s extremely well argued piece?

    For example, is Mullen lying when he says the following:
    “Understandably, the most sober assessment of American interests is conducted by the U.S. military. The alliance with Israel, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen told Congress in March, “is of extraordinary value.” Israel, according to America’s highest-ranking officer, is “absolutely critical” to U.S. national security.”

    • Ellen
      April 25, 2011, 11:03 am

      Yes, Mullen is lying. It is his job. He has to grease everyone.

      There is a reason he was sent in to replace Patraus, and in February even gave the Bahrainian King full support after their murder of its own civilians.

      “Mullen “reaffirmed our strong commitment to our military relationship with the Bahraini defense forces,” said Navy Capt. John Kirby, the admiral’s spokesman. The Crown Prince also serves as commander in chief of Bahrain’s defense force….”

      link to defense.gov

      • eee
        April 25, 2011, 11:24 am

        Discussions with people like you are always entertaining. When a US official says something that supports your point of view, he isn’t lying, but when they don’t support your point of view, he is lying. And why is it a lie that the US Navy is committed to its military relationship with the Bahraini defense forces? How could it be otherwise with the Fifth Fleet based in Bahrain?

      • Robert
        April 25, 2011, 12:33 pm


        Mullen and Oren aren’t lying, but they are both speaking in a highly politicized environment that could just as easily have been the Soviet Politburo regarding independence of the commentary.

        Take a look at Oren’s comments about how Israel’s kibbutz industry provides armor for US troops. That industry was specifically set up by US government policies that allow for weapons to be sourced from the US….or Israel. That armor is specifically outsourced to Israel so that 1) business goes to Israel, 2) it is trumpeted as part of the US-Israeli defense relationship.

        They have a circular relationship here. Lobby pressure -> US sourcing weapons from Israel –> Claims that Israeli defense industries save US lives –> More lobby pressure. Where does the threat to American lives from an enraged Palestinian and Arab population come into play here?

      • Ellen
        April 25, 2011, 12:43 pm

        What are “people like me?”

        And when did I cite an official that supports “my point of view?”

        A US Military official supporting a repressive leader in his murdering of pro democracy protest is living a lie.

        He is lying to keep the base there. Like I said, it is his job.

      • Chaos4700
        April 25, 2011, 12:45 pm

        Meanwhile the US unemployment rate remains elevated and stagnant (at best).

      • Dr Gonzo
        April 25, 2011, 1:06 pm

        “Understandably, the most sober assessment of American interests is conducted by the U.S. military. The alliance with Israel, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen told Congress in March, “is of extraordinary value.” Israel, according to America’s highest-ranking officer, is “absolutely critical” to U.S. national security.”

        Adm Mullen’s views on this while instructive, don’t appear to be held as a consensus view within the military leadership. General Petraeus of course famously briefed the White House and included the line “Israeli policy endangers the lives of US troops”.

        Link to CNN video discussing Gen Petraeus comments.
        link to youtube.com

        This is also in the same vein as Biden’s comments when he visited Israel.

        People who heard what Biden said were stunned. “This is starting to get dangerous for us,” Biden castigated his interlocutors. “What you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace.”

        Source: Laura Rozen: link to politico.com

      • eee
        April 25, 2011, 2:04 pm


        Ok, you are a little more subtle, they are not “lying” but are telling the truth like Soviet politburo members. Very little difference. Mullen is speaking clearly and truthfully. Why are you doubting his integrity? Based on what? Again, is this the best you can do? If some evidence does not fit your world view, you invent some conspiracy why the person is not speaking the truth?

        The fact of the matter is that the kibbutz developed the technology for Israeli consumption and it proved useful for the USA.

        How about the quote by an American official saying that Israeli intelligence is more valuable than 5 CIAs?

        Israel is in fact useful for the US. That is one reason the Israel Lobby is strong. But it is certainly not true that Israel is useful because the lobby is strong, as you are trying to imply.

      • Les
        April 25, 2011, 2:08 pm

        Jeffrey Blankfort asked “Why is 85% of a $17m Marine Corps contract being spent in Israel?” link to mondoweiss.net

        The Oshkosh Corporation, and god knows how many US companies, have been turned into Israeli shell companies thanks to a Congress that is just as happy to export US jobs (and taxpayer dollars) to Israel as GE is to China.

      • eee
        April 25, 2011, 2:08 pm


        Let’s assume what Biden and Petraeus was true. So what? Israel is still a very valuable ally to the US just as the Brits were in WWII even though the US was infuriated with the policy Churchill and Montgomery employed for the British troops after D-Day. Eisenhower believed that the Brits were endangering US soldiers and prolonging the war. Allies can disagree on policies yet they are still valuable allies.

      • Sin Nombre
        April 25, 2011, 2:35 pm

        It might be considered that it’s policy that determines whether an ally is important. Indeed, even determines if they are an ally.

        Yes, that is, so long as U.S. policy in the ME is so tremendously canted towards serving the ends of Israel, then Israel is going to be a hugely important ally. When, after all, you say that the enemies of X are your enemies, then X is very likely to be very helpful to you.

        On the other hand consider the idea of Israel not existing. Before it did, after all, we never seem to have had any great problems with the moslem/islamic/arab states, and indeed they looked upon us with much affection given that we were anti-colonialist unlike France and GBz.

        I’d also note that per clear and indeed accepted practice simply being one’s “greatest ally” in the international relations sense is very different from being one’s “greatest friend.” GB was clearly our “greatest ally” back decades ago. But that didn’t stop Churchill form moving heaven and earth trying to get us into his little war with Hitler.

        And look not just at those dancing Israelis spotted celebrating as they watched the twin towers come down on 9/11, but indeed at Netanyahu himself after same where he openly exulted about how good that event was for Israel in terms of drawing the U.S. closer to it.

        An “alliance” is a matter of convenience. A friend is not gonna stand by and cheer when they see you burning.

      • yourstruly
        April 26, 2011, 10:31 pm

        sn, notice that after you brought up the topic of Israel’s non-existence, triple e dropped out of the discussion. Seems to me that’s happened before on MW, someone alludes to a world without Israel (either never having existed or the settler entity’s (not its people’s) dissolution, and the hasbarites disappear from the debate.. Perhaps that’s the way they should be “handled”? Thus, no matter what they say, we answer with something like “As far as MW’s anti-Zionist commenters are concerned, the delegitimization of Israel would be one giant step towards peace on earth and goodwill to all living beings.

    • Potsherd2
      April 25, 2011, 2:18 pm

      If Mullen is correct, then whoever is responsible for such a circumstance is guilty of treason. The national security of the US should NEVER be dependent on any foreign nation, which will certainly always put its own interests first.

      • Ellen
        April 25, 2011, 4:17 pm

        Potsherd2, so well said. Exactly. All countries, institutions put their own survival interest above everything.

        If the US Military has made itself utterly dependent upon a foreign country to do it’s job, it is treason. We might as well surrender to Israel. Just hand over the USA to the Zionist enterprise and get it over with.

      • Chaos4700
        April 25, 2011, 4:26 pm

        It will be morbidly amusing to see China take Israel to court to fight over the scraps, huh.

    • MRW
      April 25, 2011, 5:11 pm

      Yeah, eee. Ellen is right. A year ago, it wasn’t the case—McMullen was saying that Israel is harming American interests in the region, and Petraeus said the same before the Senate—and THAT was reported in Foreign Policy, so everyone is getting the pic.

      I think this is hysterical.

      [Edit: I actually didn’t mean the pun, but it works.]

    • Shingo
      April 25, 2011, 11:52 pm

      “Understandably, the most sober assessment of American interests is conducted by the U.S. military. The alliance with Israel, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen told Congress in March, “is of extraordinary value.” Israel, according to America’s highest-ranking officer, is “absolutely critical” to U.S. national security.”

      The same Mullen who visited Israel in 2009 to warn them against any attempt to repeat a USS Liberty type incident to incite a war with Iran.

  7. pabelmont
    April 25, 2011, 10:49 am

    This artwork expresses the failure of the separation of church and state in USA. Israel is inseparably Jewish in the popular mind. The stars may represent military alliance, but to me they declaim command and control. AIPAC and the Pope? How many battalions has the Pope?

    • Citizen
      April 26, 2011, 9:09 am

      Mmmmm, Christianity is inseparably American in the popular mind too. Maybe the flag should sport little crosses rather than Judiasm’s stars?

  8. Kathleen
    April 25, 2011, 1:20 pm

    hat tips are a good thing Phil. Glad you have taken up the practice. Emptywheel over at FDL was always the best I have seen at this practice.

    Great discussion going on at Foreign Policy folks should go join

  9. Les
    April 25, 2011, 1:41 pm

    If people carried such flags to demonstrations against Senators and Congresspeople who work to do the bidding of the Israel Lobby, how many of those politicians would get the point? I think it’s brilliant but I appreciate the use of the pejorative on political banners.

  10. Leper Colonialist
    April 25, 2011, 2:37 pm

    I’ve seen similar images dozens of times, both pro- and anti-Israel in sentiment.

    I think that the US public has been so banboozled for so long on the value of US support for our Israeli “ally” that the image in question no longer even causes an eyebrow to be raised, either in protest or merely incomprehension.

    As one of Israel’s most faithful lickspittles remarked in a different context, the late Senator Moynihan of NY, we’ve merely “defined deviance down.” I daresay in this context we’ve defined dishonesty, if not disloyalty, downward.

  11. annie
    April 25, 2011, 3:51 pm

    the other day i had a daydream the white in the american flag was phasing to a turquoise blue. it was a full israeli blue at the bottom and with each stripe it was a little lesser blue but there was still a full stripe or two of bright white at the top. but with each passing year the rest of the white was eventually phased out completely. and in my daydream only a few of the stars were israeli stars and every year more and more of them were.

    we still had our red and navy tho. it’s horrible isn’t it?

  12. strangefriend
    April 25, 2011, 4:07 pm

    I forget when it was, but Sec. of State Clinton once gave a speech praising Israel as a valuable US ally. Behind her was a banner with the US flag melting into the Israeli flag. An image, I might add, that has been used on antisemitic websites. My mind was blown.

  13. MRW
    April 25, 2011, 4:51 pm

    I think it’s genius. A picture says a . . . .

  14. justsayin
    April 25, 2011, 8:17 pm

    Everone already knew a long time ago when Kennedy bought the farm, not to mention belfour. At least those name are written down somewhere ….
    along with the addresses

  15. Ellen
    April 25, 2011, 8:39 pm

    Now on the front page of Google News on Oren’s pathetic and strange article:

    “Whiff of Desperation”


    “Unfortunately, the government that Oren serves is more interested in expanding settlements, and its vision of a Palestinian “state” is a set of disconnected and impoverished bantustans under full Israeli control. This is called apartheid, and it is contrary to the position of the past three U.S. presidents, not only because it is not in America’s strategic interest, but also because it contradicts core American values.

    As then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned in 2007, “If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights,” then “the state of Israel is finished.” If this regrettable event were to occur, future historians will render a harsh verdict on anyone who helped derail or delay those peace efforts, including official propagandists like Ambassador Oren.”

    • MRW
      April 26, 2011, 2:11 am


      Good. The little bastard is getting called out.

      • Citizen
        April 26, 2011, 9:13 am

        Last night when I looked, Oren’s article had over a thousand comments, while Walt’s had 24 comments, if memory serves. The Oren comments were significantly critical of Oren’s POV, except the comment section was plagued by an incessant hasbara bot using the pen name US Marine.

  16. American
    April 25, 2011, 11:48 pm

    O.K., I am gagging…..

    “THE FORBEARS WHO LANDED on Plymouth Rock in 1620 considered themselves the founders of a “New Israel.” Committed to studying Hebrew and bridging the Old and New Canaans — the Holy Land and America — they pledged to restore the Jews to their ancestral homeland. Far from peripheral, this “restorationist” movement flourished in colonial America and widely influenced the Founders: Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin wanted the likeness of Moses leading the children of Israel to serve as the Great Seal of the newly independent United States.”

    I wonder if Oren knows how much disgust this stirs in Americans. It’s not enough that they revise their own Jewish history they revise America’s too? It is just this type of crap that sets me off.
    I would be the first to admit there is a lot of myth about America and it’s founding, but this kind of mythical zionist or Jewish claim to America’s founding is insulting in so many ways.
    It seems ( and I know I say this a lot) that there is no respect for real history any more. People just make up whatever suits their agenda or ego.

    I don’t want this to sound elitist or like I or those like me are ‘more’ American or ‘better’ Americans than those who came later or thru Ellis Island because I don’t believe that. The guy who got here yesterday can be just as much American in his dedication to democracy and this country(such as it is right now) as Washington and Jefferson, it depends on the person.
    But….. my ancestor sailed up the James River in 1616, 4 years before the Puritans jumped ship on Plymouth Rock and half my family’s memorabilia is in the NC Museum of History…records and letters, documents and correspondence among the family and to and from citizens, leaders, military commanders, of the time from the American Revolution to the War of 1812 to the Civil War..so I have some intimate knowledge of what the attitudes and ideas were in America’s founding. Was religion important to a lot of settlers? yes…you could find a bible in almost every home. BUT …it was NOT the motivating force for the earliest settlers that came to America or for the Founders.
    In the beginning America was a commercial ‘adventure’ and attracted adventures and the lesser classes to find their fortunes and livelihoods outside of the European strictures imposed by a ‘class system’……NOT by the religious system.
    Sometimes I think it must be plot by the various religions to skip over Jamestown and Roanoke and try to start America at Plymouth Rock with the mixed Dutch and English Puritans instead. ..lol….as if THEIR religious reasons in chartering the Mayflower to escape the Church of England was THE reason America was founded.

    I could go into a long rant but let me just make one thing clear…..the earliest settlers, citizens, the Founders were first and foremost…PRACTICAL, commercial oriented people looking to create lives and livelihoods and yes also wealth. In those times religion was a second place concern that served mostly to bind communities into norms of commonality for the sake of organization and societal benefits….as would have happened any where that people were trying to built some structure in what was then mostly a wilderness. Religious symbols that were used were used because that was all they had, there was no royalty, no royal houses with historical trappings to provide symbols for this new country.
    One of the most important things that I mentioned before…and one of the most telling things to sweep away the notion of religion as ‘the’ founding influence for America, much less Judaism and Israelites..is that the one thing the settlers brought with them to the “new world’ -Jamestown- on the first ship was the book of Black’s Law…the British Common Law that was and still is the basis of the American law and justice system……Secular Law…..not religious law….from the beginning.

    • annie
      April 26, 2011, 12:00 am

      you’ve got to be kidding me?

      is that what the link says?

    • annie
      April 26, 2011, 12:07 am

      i am aghast! omg! i can’t believe they print this crap! on foreign policy blog? this is disgusting. utterly disgusting! i am literally flabberghasted.

    • MRW
      April 26, 2011, 1:53 am


      I feel the same way; moreover, it is just factually and historically WRONG. Dead wrong. The Jews that were here before the Pilgrims were the Spaniards, rich Spaniards who arrived in the South via the Caribbean (slaves and cotton).

      The Great Seal was created in honor of the Continental Congress by John Hanson, the first American President in either 1781 or 1782 in fucking Philadelphia. The same Great Seal that Monica kneeled on. The same Great Seal that Jefferson (I think) cried they could not inaugurate George Washington without in 1789. John Hanson was a freeman, half Swedish, half either black (or mulatto). (He’s the guy who created the first war dept, treasury, post office and something else, and the only President in US history to be elected unanimously.) He came from Maryland and had nothing to do with the Pilgrims; moreover, the Great Seal was his idea. So was proclaiming the third Thursday of November as Thanksgiving. (You can find the original doc online. Clinton was wrong when he said that Lincoln did it.)

      This putz Oren obviously wouldn’t know American history if it hit him on the head.

      [Someone copy my comment over on Foreign Policy. I can’t seem to get in. Claim it as your own.]

      • MRW
        April 26, 2011, 2:20 am

        “THE FORBEARS WHO LANDED on Plymouth Rock in 1620 considered themselves the founders of a “New Israel.” Committed to studying Hebrew and bridging the Old and New Canaans — the Holy Land and America — they pledged to restore the Jews to their ancestral homeland.

        Jesus, this infuriates me. The Jews, the only ones they would have known, were busy running plantations down south, were setting up the first synagogue in New Amsterdam (NYC) and John Smith was proclaiming the land around him as “New England” not New Israel.

      • American
        April 26, 2011, 4:09 am

        I’am not registered there and every time I tried to register it kept saying name in use over and over no matter what I put in …but I sent it to a guy I know who post there regularly and asked him to post it.
        You can check later and see if it went thru.

  17. American
    April 26, 2011, 12:16 am

    I don’t know if I have said this before, but my first interest in Israel, the Jews, Zionist and the ME started when I heard Netanyahu make his slip on MSNBC about how 911 was good for Israel…and then when I started seeing all these lapel pins of the Stars and Stripes entertwined with the Star of David being worn by US politicians. Some politicians even had the Israeli flag on their house internet sites.
    Well, the hairs on the back on my neck stood up and started waving red flags….something was wrong and strange about this I thought.
    Up until then I knew about as much about Israel as Hollywood allowed.
    Thus began my travels into the land of the Zionist, Israel and the ME and the US congress, AIPAC and the US-Isr relationship.
    Now I understand what has happened. And the funny/sad thing is the more I looked into the US-Isr and I/P and ME entanglements, the more I tried to find evidence that it wasn’t what it appeared to be, that it couldn’t be true that everything the US was at least ‘suppose’ to be and stand for was sold out by our own leaders for politics…but it is true.

  18. American
    April 26, 2011, 1:24 am

    Holy S***….the first time I read the article the picture of the flag hadn’t come up before I got to the second page…when I went back to check something I then saw the flag.

    Was this Oren’s or the zionist supporters idea or could have the illustrator stuck it to them with this rendition of the Stars of David on our flag?

    This is so ‘in our face’ it’s hard to believe…but then again I guess not.

  19. kapok
    April 26, 2011, 2:28 am

    Oren calls Truman a “fervid” baptist. Huh?

    • Citizen
      April 26, 2011, 10:16 am

      He certainly was a Baptist. He had read the bible twice by the time he was age twelve, if memory serves, and he was the local “go to” boy when religious debate came up. He had a pattern of adding in biblical references before he approved speeches made for him to say. While in the oval office, he didn’t go to church much as he believed he was too much of a disruption to the church service. He made his decision to unilaterally recognize the state of Israel against the advice of the state department, diplomatic powers, etc because he said normal US strategic reasoning should not be used in the case of Israel, which he thought was a unique situation. He said privately he didn’t care about the Arabs. He said Israel had a biblical right to the holy land and the Arab millions wanted to push the unique and admirable Jews into the sea. He said the problem was simply a matter of numbers. A few Jews compared to tons of Arabs. He viewed the question of recognition as a moral and humanitarian question. I wonder, given what he also said in his private diaries about the Zionists pounding on his door, that they were no better than anyone
      just another case of the underdog morphing into the uberhund when they got the power, what he would say about how the state of Israel turned out to be in fact? Perhaps, he’d take the stance that other Baptist president has done, Carter? Truman also at one time described himself as Cyrus The Great #2 shortly after he left office. Not so humble after all, eh? At any rate, here’s some valuable information on the sentimental, yet hard nosed Truman, kapok: link to byustudies.byu.edu

      PS: You will see that the Christian Zionists predated the Jewish Zionists as a matter of fact.

      • MHughes976
        April 26, 2011, 11:27 am

        Very like Lloyd George, perhaps, in sense of religious mission.
        I don’t think it can be denied that ‘Restorationism’, the early form of Christian Zionism, had emerged distinctly within British Protestantism/Puritanism before the colonisation of America and always had a following thereafter. The major book in its support was ‘The Great Restauration’ by Henry Finch, published in 1621 – though I don’t think it was in the forefront of many minds, at least for a long time, and I think that the link between Restoration and Conversion was very slow to fray. Oren naturally emphasises the American angle. I think we British have more shares in the CZ project than Oren lets on.
        When Oren says that American universities put Hebrew on their curriculum he no doubt tells the truth, but then this was a normal thing in Euro universities as well.
        I suppose that Andrew Marvell, writing to his coy mistress and referring to the conversion of the Jews as a very distant event, is satirising the enthusiasms of some of his fellow Puritans.

      • Antidote
        April 26, 2011, 11:40 am

        October 17, 1947: President Truman writes to Senator Claude Pepper: “I received about 35,000 pieces of mail and propaganda from the Jews in this country while this matter [the issue of the partition of Palestine, which was being considered by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine from May 13, 1947 to August 31, 1947] was pending. I put it all in a pile and struck a match to it — I never looked at a single one of the letters because I felt the United Nations Committee [United Nations Special Committee on Palestine] was acting in a judicial capacity and should not be interfered with.”

        December 2, 1947: President Truman writes to former Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr., encouraging him to tell his Jewish friends that it is time for restraint and caution. “The vote in the U.N.,” Truman wrote, “is only the beginning and the Jews must now display tolerance and consideration for the other people in Palestine with whom they will necessarily have to be neighbors.”

        February 27, 1948: President Truman writes to his friend Eddie Jacobson, refusing to meet with Chaim Weizmann, the president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the World Zionist Organization.

        March 13, 1948: President Truman’s friend Eddie Jacobson walks into the White House without an appointment and pleads with Truman to meet with Chaim Weizmann, the president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the World Zionist Organization. Truman responds: “You win, you baldheaded son-of-a-bitch. I will see him.”

        March 18, 1948: President Truman meets with Chaim Weizmann, the president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the World Zionist Organization. Truman says he wishes to see justice done in Palestine without bloodshed, and that if the Jewish state were declared and the United Nations remained stalled in its attempt to establish a temporary trusteeship over Palestine, the United States would recognize the new state immediately.

        March 18, 1948: The United Nations Special Commission on Palestine reports to the United Nations Security Council that it has failed to arrange any compromise between Jews and Arabs, and it recommends that the United Nations undertake a temporary trusteeship for Palestine in order to restore peace.

        March 19, 1948: United States representative to the United Nations Warren Austin announces to the United Nations Security Council that the United States position is that the partition of Palestine is no longer a viable option.

        excerpted from

        link to trumanlibrary.org

  20. Queue
    April 26, 2011, 11:38 pm

    I think Phil hit the nail on the head here.

    Is it just me or does that burning Star of David remind anyone else of a burning cross at a KKK rally?

Leave a Reply