Kissinger complained of ‘Jewish lobby’ but yielded to Israeli ambassador’s threat of ‘mutiny’ by American Jews and press during ’73 war

Israel/Palestine
on 62 Comments

President Richard Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger worried about the Israel lobby more than they did about strategic interests during the 1973 Yom Kippur war, though both men complained about the “Jewish lobby,” which Kissinger once described as the “Jewish league.”

And five days into the war, Israeli ambassador to the US Simcha Dinitz met with Kissinger at midnight and threatened a “mutiny” of American Jews and the press and the labor movement unless the U.S. did more to support Israel. Kissinger then chewed out Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger over the telephone as Dinitz stood at his side. 

These are some of the findings in a great new piece of scholarship by Eric Grynaviski posted at Duck of Minerva. Grynaviski, an assistant professor of political science at George Washington University, says he was highly skeptical of the Israel lobby theory of American foreign policy in the Middle East till in preparing a book on detente, he read recently-released official documents: Foreign Relations of the United States volume on the 1973 war.

“[T]hese archival documents pretty clearly provide direct evidence that Nixon and Kissinger were influenced by at least their perception of the Lobby’s influence. And, at least for Nixon and Kissinger, I am unaware (after reading quite a bit about the administration) of another lobby exercising the same inordinate influence,” Grynaviski writes.

“[T]hey emphasize Nixon and Kissinger’s concerns about the Lobby over strategic considerations,” he adds.

I have long said that journalists have failed to look into the Israel lobby and left the hard work to scholars, notably Walt and Mearsheimer. Well this story is another demonstration of that dereliction. Long before the lobby was twisting the president’s arm on Israel’s colonization of the West Bank, it was jumping in on war policy. 

Grynaviski focuses on four incidents. Here’s the first, and most enlightening:

Early in the war, Nixon had authorized an airlift to resupply Israeli forces, but there was a delay in getting the flights organized because charters were difficult to find.  On October 12-13, around midnight, Dinitz comes to Kissinger to tell him that Israel cannot conduct an offensive because of a lack of weapons: he needs to start the airlift. Kissinger picks up the phone while Dinitz contines:

“So help me, there will be a mutiny here if there are no planes. The Jewish community, and many friends, and the labor movement and the press. I’ve been making no comment. I can’t do it. I have no right, not historical right; we are dealing with the destiny of the people. (461)”

Kissinger waves Dinitz silent because he is talking to Schlesinger, the Secretary of Defense and he wants to keep Dinitz presence secret from Schlesinger. After chewing out Schlesinger, even claiming at one point he was intentionally slowing the resupply operation, Kissinger hangs up the phone telling Dinitz:

Kissinger: [hangs up, turns to Dinitz]: “They’ll give you ten C–130’s immediately, and will load them with ammunition. And probably fly them with American pilots.”

I am not aware, at least in the context of the Nixon administration, of another case where an ambassador listens as one cabinet member chews out another in the presence of a foreign ambassador, especially after a direct political threat.

The next day Kissinger complains to Schlesinger that the Israelis have “screwed up every offensive they’ve conducted. And they are not about to take responsibility themselves.” And so they are going to blame the U.S. for “their own failures.”

In a second document, Kissinger is about to push a plan to offer the Soviet Union favorable trade terms, but because the Soviets opposed Israel during the 1973 war, he says to Dinitz: “I hope to God this is not a week when the Jewish League will start attacking me on this position.”

Dinitz replied by asserting some degree of control over Jewish pressure on the Nixon administration:

“To a degree I can speak in the name, that I don’t think it will happen this week in any way. (371)

Then there’s this incident. Kissinger sought to get the lobby’s support for his Vietnam War policy by linking aid to Cambodia to aid for Israel during the 1973 war.

Kissinger explains this policy on October 15:

[Deputy Defense Secretary William] Clements: We will need a supplemental.

K: Let’s get the Jewish lobby to get us the money. And let’s wrap some other things in it too. Go see [Connecticut Senator Abraham] Ribicoff. …. Yes and don’t be modest. They have been screaming for it—let [Washington Senator Henry] Jackson put it through. And get Cambodia taken care of in the package. It’s an absurdity that we have to lose our war. If we had put one F-4 into Cambodia they would have screamed bloody murder. (534)

The next day, Kissinger, suggests 3 billion for Israel and 500 million for Cambodia. On the linkage between funding for both, K remarks:

“I’d like to see some of these great patriots [Senators] put to the test. …. I’ll tell (Israeli Ambassador) Dinitz to turn loose his Senators. I’ll tell him it’s a package deal. If we can’t get something for others, we will drag our feet on Israel. (555)”

So the Israeli ambassador was able to mobilize U.S. Senators, the press, the labor movement, and the American Jewish community to his side during a crisis for Israel. Or he was perceived by Henry Kissinger, a student of power politics, to be able to do so.

Grynaviski begins his account by saying that 1973 is a “hard case” for the lobby theory, because it’s before the lobby really took off. Yes, and what pressure did it apply on Truman 25 years before? Or on Johnson when Israel got nukes and the USS Liberty was destroyed?  Notice that Washington Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, beloved of the neoconservatives, and harboring ambitions to be president one day, is a patsy for the lobby.

Oh and one other thing: Our press won’t touch this. The Times won’t, Chris Matthews won’t, David Remnick won’t. They’ll read about it, but they won’t touch it.

Finally, note that Kissinger and Nixon use the words “Jewish lobby.” Chuck Hagel was rotisserie’d on Capitol Hill for using that term to describe the pro-Israel lobby. As if it was Christian Zionists that Kissinger was fearful of…

62 Responses

  1. pabelmont
    July 9, 2013, 11:46 am

    Weiss: “Oh and one other thing: Our press won’t touch this. The Times won’t, Chris Matthews won’t, David Remnick won’t. They’ll read about it, but they won’t touch it.”

    So likely to be true.

    As I recall, Kissinger once advised Israel that they could do anything they liked (fighting in WB? in Lebanon?) so long as they kept the press away while they did it.

    And what have we got today? A WB/G-occupation which excludes UN watchers, makes visits by internationals near impossible, etc. Its information-(mis-)management 24/7 by Israel. And, I suppose, the usual (and less usual) luminaries of the USA’s MSM are quiet on it, even while being noisy on, say, troubles in Syria and Egypt.

    • yonah fredman
      July 9, 2013, 9:23 pm

      pabelmont- You are accurate using the term occupation regarding Gaza (WB/G, the G I assume is Gaza), because Israel’s control of the seas outside of Gaza, but how does the Israeli behavior towards Gaza exclude UN watchers? It does not. And if internationals cannot get their from Egypt, do you believe that all Egyptian policies towards Gaza are dictated by Israel, and not by the security (lack thereof) situation in Sinai?

      • talknic
        July 10, 2013, 1:04 am

        @ yonah fredman “how does the Israeli behavior towards Gaza exclude UN watchers? It does not.”

        Uh huh . Problem with your theory. It DOES! link to commondreams.org

        ” do you believe that all Egyptian policies towards Gaza are dictated by Israel”

        On matters of who, when and what enters Gaza from Egypt, yes. Whenever Israel wants it can demand Egypt close the crossing under the 2005 agreement and under the Egypt Israel Peace Treaty.

        Under the 2005 agreement the crossing observers living quarters are in Israel. Whenever Israel wants it simply prevents the observers from reaching the crossing. No observers, crossings are closed.

      • Citizen
        July 10, 2013, 4:51 am

        @ yonah fredman
        Egyptian policy towards Gaza is greased by USA’s annual military aid to Egypt, which in turn is conditional on Egypt supporting Israel’s desires in the region. That’s why the JP reported a few days ago that Israeli officials were all over the WH phones demanding the US continue its foreign aid package to Egypt. Or do you think Israel gives a crap about the Egyptian Street?

      • Hostage
        July 10, 2013, 6:05 am

        but how does the Israeli behavior towards Gaza exclude UN watchers? It does not

        It did it like this: Israel ‘blocks Tutu Gaza mission': Israel has blocked a UN fact-finding mission to the Gaza Strip that was to be led by South African Nobel laureate Desmond Tutu, the UN says.

        link to news.bbc.co.uk

        That’s a violation of Israel’s obligations under the Charter: Article 104

        The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each of its Members such legal capacity as may be necessary for the exercise of its functions and the fulfilment of its purposes. link to yale.edu

      • Cliff
        July 10, 2013, 6:33 am

        Wondering Jew said:

        […] but how does the Israeli behavior towards Gaza exclude UN watchers? It does not.

        Yes it does.

        Israeli military prevents UN from building new schools in Gaza; 40,000 students without schools
        (2010)
        link to imemc.org

        Israel seals off Gaza; prevents UN aid from entering
        (2008)
        link to imemc.org

        Israeli navy attacks international observers off the coast of Gaza
        (2012)
        link to mondoweiss.net

  2. ah
    July 9, 2013, 11:50 am

    “They’ll read about it, but they won’t touch it.” AND that is the disgrace of the occupied media. They have subverted their role in American evolving democracy becuase of tribal loyalities. I have to take a break from Mondoweiss, my anger is at a boiling point being this aware of facts.

    • James Canning
      July 9, 2013, 7:30 pm

      @ah – – Those in American news media who help to deceive the American public, in matters pertaining to Israel and the best interests of the American people, tend to see their careers benefit.

      • Citizen
        July 10, 2013, 4:59 am

        @ James Canning
        Where’s Teddy Roosevelt when we need him? Both the big news conglomerates and big banks needed to be busted up. Between our news turning into propaganda, with stenographers posing as journalists, and the securitization of our economy replacing industrial production, America needs a new name and a new flag. I suggest a big dollar bill banner be run up the pole–with a made in China tag.

      • James Canning
        July 10, 2013, 6:01 pm

        @Citizen – – I too deplore newsmedia ownership concentration, and over-sized banks. Too much newsmedia is owned by corporations with interests that benefit from the American people being kept in the dark.

  3. ritzl
    July 9, 2013, 12:06 pm

    The Labor Movement, FFS?! A few weeks ago you wrote about the current American Federation of Teachers President doing this, but I had no idea that 40 years ago a meaningful enough chunk of organized labor could be directed (at least in Kissinger’s view, as reported) to apply political pressure in support of Israel. How does THAT happen?

    What could possibly be the benefit to labor from that transaction? Some vague promise of future consideration from the Nixon administration? Heh. More likely the promise of support for the labor agenda from pro-Israel political influencers and pols. So, subtextually, even then the trade was support Israel or you don’t get a minimum wage increase.

    The politics of Israel continue to make less and less sense. More and more divorced from constituent politics. Betrayal, over a long period of time.

    • Citizen
      July 10, 2013, 5:03 am

      Nothing new. Most labor union members have no clue how much of their retirement funds are invested in crappy Israel bonds.

  4. Kathleen
    July 9, 2013, 12:24 pm

    Sending this over to Chris Hayes he might touch the story. So interesting

    • American
      July 9, 2013, 1:59 pm

      Kathleen says:

      Sending this over to Chris Hayes he might touch the story. So interesting” >>>>

      He wont.

      “First we kill all the lawyers”….Shakespeare’s Henry VI.

      In the US case today it would be first we kill (take over )the media….then we kill the Gov, then we kill the Lobby. In that order.

      • Citizen
        July 10, 2013, 5:05 am

        If we take over the media, flush out the Israel lobby, the Gov might actually take an interest in the American people’s best interests re foreign affairs.

  5. American
    July 9, 2013, 1:11 pm

    This is one of many tips of the iceberg…plenty more where this example came from.
    I’ve said many times anyone who wants to understand US Isr policy has only to read thru all the Presidential papers in their libraries…..*all* discussions on Israel issues center on ..quote….*domestic political considerations*… straight from the horses mouth.
    Wonder why Chomsky (and others) never quote the actual decisions makers *motivations* for their Israel policy..

    • James Canning
      July 10, 2013, 6:08 pm

      @American – – Yes, the decisions are driven by domestic politics. Money and power.
      Emanuel Celler told Truman, in the White House, that he would be replaced by Tom Dewey if he did not recognise Israel immediately.

  6. Dan Crowther
    July 9, 2013, 1:16 pm

    Who cares? That little passage about Cambodia tells it all: the Empire needs help with it’s “plans” for Cambodia – namely, bombing the F out of it- is having some trouble, and calls on the one group who derives ALL their “power” from The State, who in turn get the Empires business done. Yep, that group is “the lobby” – but who cares, the much more pressing fact is that there exists such an authoritarian power that can carry out all sorts of brutalities at will, with no semblance of democracy. The lobby is doing nothing more than holding chocolate cake in front of an over eater; do something about the eating disorder, the lobby has no power.

    Phil, you gotta stop writing your real time version of the first 150 pages of “the origins of totalitarianism” brother man

  7. Chu
    July 9, 2013, 1:34 pm

    Wasn’t Kissenger in a sense, the inside man for Israel? After 2 weeks fresh as Sec of State, the 1973 the Arab Israeli war began, and Kissenger worked to ensure that Israel received an airlift of US military supplies. He was a translator to Nixon on Israeli and Jewish needs.

  8. Krauss
    July 9, 2013, 1:50 pm

    Nixon was a crook, and Kissinger was no better, really, but both knew power politics down to the last inch. Both understood that the Israel lobby, or Jewish lobby in Kissinger’s parlance, had tremendous power in the press(still does) and at that time also in the labor movement before it was destroyed by the Republican-aligned ultra rich(many of whom grew up in Jewish labor households and made it on Wall St and switched sides).

    I remember reading an outraged Forward article on some new declassified cable on Nixon with the editor-in-chief Jane Eisner boiling with rage over Nixon’s words.

    Nixon was an anti-Semite, but he was also a racist in general. The things he said about the Irish is almost unprintable. Still, when he was ranting about the ‘Jewish press’ to Kissinger, they both knew there was some validity because the Israeli ambassador could summon friendly media elements on behalf of Israel with stunning power. They both feared those powers for a reason.

    We’re never supposed to discuss why it is in the American media that although you don’t have to be a Zionist to succeed, you can be neutral, it’s simply very rare(if not impossible) for a staunch anti-Zionist to get to the top of any major newspaper, which it isn’t for the zealous Zionist journalists/editors. Just look at the Washington Post editorial page, look at who owns the LA Times or the Chicago Tribune and who he puts in charge of their editorial work.

    But we’re supposed to pretend that Pastor Hagee runs the show on his own and the ignored(even by the GOP) Christian Zionists.

    • Denis
      July 10, 2013, 9:11 pm

      “. . . staunch anti-Zionist to get to the top of any major newspaper”

      Helen Thomas did. I love Helen Thomas. She articulated the best resolution of all: “Let them go back to wherever the hell they came from.” Which means Russia, mostly.

  9. seafoid
    July 9, 2013, 1:53 pm

    “Israeli ambassador to the US Simcha Dinitz met with Kissinger at midnight and threatened a “mutiny” of American Jews and the press and the labor movement unless the U.S. did more to support Israel”

    They wouldn’t be able to pull that one off today. I bet a lot of Americans in key positions in the unions and the press would be happy to let Israel swing. Even American Jews are turning away now.

    • john_manyjars
      July 10, 2013, 2:08 am

      I hope you are right, seafoid- but I think there is a long road ahead.

      • seafoid
        July 10, 2013, 3:19 pm

        Abusive systems look impregnable until they lose the fear factor that prevents people from exposing them . Zionism has a tendency to destroy anyone who stands in its way, including its allies. Long term this is suicidal.

        The fate of the News of the World tells me that Israel is living on limited time.

        Zionism is just another system of abuse.
        Israel’s weakness is the fact that it needs hasbara to function.
        The gulf between Israel’s actions and Israel’s image is too wide and they can’t convince the world that their abuse is decent.

    • Marco
      July 10, 2013, 9:45 am

      I doubt it.

      American labor unions are *still* heavily invested in Israel bonds as Citizen reminded us above. For example, the President of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Stuart Applebaum, who’s also on the executive board of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, happens to be president of the Jewish Labor Committee.

      Here’s Applebaum speaking in Israel:

      “America’s unions have been — and will always be — some of Israel’s most committed allies. I think that all of us here have an appreciation of the unique bond between Israel and the American labor movement. We all know that unions and union pension funds hold more Israel Bonds than any other institution in this country.

      Of course, the reason isn’t necessarily that it’s the most lucrative investments out there — though, given what’s been happening on Wall Street this past week that may no longer be the case.

      No, the reason we buy Israel Bonds — and the reason why we enthusiastically encourage others to do the same — is because we share the Zionist dream ….

      … it’s because we believe in Israel!

      And, I should add, that labor’s support goes well beyond purchasing Bonds.

      For the last 60 years, the American labor movement has made it its business to support Israel on Capitol Hill.

      We’ve made it our business to remind this country’s leaders that Israel isn’t just the only country in the Middle East that respects workers’ rights; but the only country in that region that respects democratic rights of any kind.”

      • ritzl
        July 10, 2013, 11:33 am

        Thanks, Marco. I guess I never knew the extent of this pro-Israel/Zionist manipulation of labor. It explains a lot about labor’s decline. If one of your main goals is supporting a foreign country, it’s got to be hard to bring your full focus and energy to supporting your own goal making a better life for yourself. If you have two disparate political desires/asks, your efforts in both are diluted. Why would labor dilute itself intentionally?

        If the two conflict, which do you choose? If management is also stridently pro-Israel/Zionist, are you encouraged by your leadership to settle short of what you could achieve in order to not harm Israel? If your job is being sent oversees so that, in the background, some Zionist businessman can make more money to send to Israel, what does your union leadership advise as a course of action? [In the background] Go along because ‘our union supports Israel’?

        The conflicts of interest and avenues for an abrogation of fiduciary responsibility to the union are clear. What’s the benefit for organized labor? There has to be a benefit, doesn’t there?

        Oh and it sounds like organized labor would be a good target for BDS. They have (or used to have, anyway) ‘human uplift’ solidarity sensitivities, and as you point out, considerable financial investment in Israel.

  10. Egbert
    July 9, 2013, 3:01 pm

    Kissinger gives details of the attempt to pressure Russia to allow Russian Jews to emigrate to Israel in the final volume of his memoirs. Kissinger himself writes he was puzzled as to why the US should have any concern with Russia or any country’s emigration policy. He writes that he was personally berated by a fellow Jew as being insufficiently concerned with Israel over this. He describes attempts by those involved in the pressurization of Russia attempting to derail the START talks by raising obtruse and abstract objections. He mentions one key player, who’s name might be familiar – Richard Perle.

    • Egbert
      July 9, 2013, 3:12 pm

      I tried to edit above to include the name of the memoir, but something went wrong. The book is ‘Years of Renewal’ published 1999.

    • Citizen
      July 10, 2013, 5:51 am

      @ Egbert
      In Summer of 2007, a big US delegation went to Russia to pressure the government to give those former Russian Jews pensions in their new land. link to thejewishweek.com

    • James Canning
      July 10, 2013, 6:17 pm

      Richard Perle and the other original neocons used US Senator H M Jackson, to pressure the Soviet Union to allow emigration of “Jews”. Idea was to employ American power to benefit Israel. Kissinger did not like this approach, when it interfered with important American diplomatic initiatives.

  11. Denis
    July 9, 2013, 6:36 pm

    This is absolutely fascinating – anything associated w/ the Yom Kippur war is. Phil’s link to the Foreign Relations documents is to the State Dept Office of the Historian. I didn’t even know there was such a thing. This is a treasure trove.

    The document Grynaviski is quoting from is doc #166, here:
    link to history.state.gov

    Here’s the scene: You’ve got GoI ambassador Dinitz, Minister of GoI Embassy Mordechai Shalev, and Brent Scowcroft in a meeting-on-the-record w/ Kissinger when Henry gets Schlesinger on the hook and starts slapping him around b/c the Israeli offensive against Syria is stalled for lack of ammo that was promised by Nixon. The whole phone conversation is in the document – both sides – presumably on speaker phone. Schlesinger thinks it’s a private conversation with Henry, not knowing that Scrowcraft, Shalev and Dinitz are listening – HK never tells him. [One thing I’ve learned when someone turns on the speaker phone is to ask who else is in the room.] At one point Henry tells Schlesinger:

    “Well, let’s do that. Well, I will call Dinitz and tell him to have his military guy get in touch with you.”

    But Dinitz is sitting right there, so HK is lying to the Secretary of Defense in front of the Israelis and Scowcroft.

    Most of this commotion is b/c Dinitz wanted US private airlines to fly charter planes w/ no US markings into Israel to deliver ammo and supplies, but Schlesinger’s people could not get the private companies to go along. This was before deregulation of the airlines and Kissinger keeps popping off about how the airlines will cooperate if they ever want another rate increase. So the US consumer was ultimately going to pay the price for this Yom Kippur debacle, if HK had his way.

    All through the document Dinitz is repeatedly warning Kissinger of the dire political consequences to Nixon if IDF doesn’t get the ammo in time. Dinitz demands that US C-130’s fly the supplies in.

    Even with the charter [flights], it won’t make it. The only thing now is to get American planes in, without markings. Even with the charter tonight, it won’t make it in time. I warn you again, and I want it on the record.

    A year later, Nixon would be totally destroyed in large part thanks to the j-press.

    I wonder if this meeting wasn’t a bit of play-acting for the Israelis. Nixon and Kissinger, and obviously Schlesinger, didn’t want to be pulled into the YK war and they were dragging their feet thinking the IDF was going to kick some Arab butt – again – without US help. So when IDF started getting seriously punished, especially on the Egyptian front, everybody was surprised and Nixon/Kissinger needed a scapegoat.

    Just try to argue that Jews control the press today and you’ll get knocked on your figurative tush by the anti-semite police. Well, Nixon and Kissinger certainly feared the j-press in 1973. My guess is that goes for every president since then and every one into the foreseeable future.

  12. dbroncos
    July 9, 2013, 7:15 pm

    The ’73 war brought us much closer to a nuclear confrontation with Russia than did the Cuban missile crisis. At least that’s what I remember a retired Russian General saying on 60 minutes years ago. He said Russia was committed to Israel’s defeat in a way that it never was to holding nukes in Cuba. If I remember correctly, he said that when the US intervened in the ’73 war Russia came as close as they ever got to launching nukes at the US. This 60 minutes episode was broadcast close to 20 years ago so I hope I am remembering what he said correctly. Any how, at the time Nixon declared a Defcon 3 status of high nuclear alert whereby our nukes were put on standby for launch. Scary times and not much has changed in so far as Israel’s supporters have since proven over and over that they still have the power to put America’s military in the service of Israel come what may.

    • MRW
      July 10, 2013, 1:55 am

      dbroncos, you’re right, imo. Read my semi-coherent post below.

  13. James Canning
    July 9, 2013, 7:26 pm

    Great piece.

    One might note here that Brezhnev in 1973 pleaded with Nixon and Kissinger to force Israel out of the Sinai, warning that failure to do so would mean war between Egypt and Israel.

  14. James Canning
    July 9, 2013, 7:28 pm

    One might also note here that both Kissinger and Nixon felt Jews had a built-in conflict of interest, in matters relating to Israel. They were cautious about having Jews involved in making American policy toward Israel etc etc.

    Those days are LONG gone.

  15. James Canning
    July 9, 2013, 7:32 pm

    Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson thought rich and powerful Jews might put him into the White House.

  16. MRW
    July 9, 2013, 7:54 pm

    I don’t have time to write it right now and I am dead tired, been up for nearly 36 hours. But the FRUS documents aren’t telling the whole truth. Not by a long shot–I suspect someone has doctored them–and they are hiding that Golda Meir threatened the national security of the US and WWIII by saying she would nuke Russia.

    Let me explain: I came across a whole trove of stuff a few months ago and I’ve been buried reading all these books about it, which I’ll list at the end.

    The quickie and convoluted version so I can go to bed:
    Kissinger became Sec of State on September 23, 1973. A year before when he was National Security Adviser to Nixon, K convinced Sadat to get rid of his Russian advisors implying that if Sadat did that he would get the Israelis to negotiate a peace with Sadat. Sadat did as he was told and waited for Kissinger to do his part, but Kissinger couldn’t budge Meir. She didn’t trust Kissinger as far as she could throw him.

    K knew that Sadat could only negotiate with Israel from a position of strength (Sadat couldn’t be seen as a twice-time loser) so he agreed to/suggested a little war in October 1973 that Sadat could win; Sadat got King Feisal’s cooperation and silent participation too, which I dont think Kissinger knew about. Israel was thrown off its pins and didn’t have the weapons. it was losing this war. Golda armed 13 nuclear weapons, aimed one at Cairo, and another at Damascus, and called for weapons from the US. Nixon and Kissinger said no because THEY knew this was just a little power exercise, and K convinced Nixon that Egypt was just rearranging the rug. But the Israelis didn’t know that. They had won the Golan but their southern flank was exposed. Moshe Dyan was telling Meir that they couldn’t make it.

    On October 9, the Arabs cut back their oil production in retaliation and raised the price to $10/barrel, up from $3. Feisal’s doing. The US military had a two-day global supply.

    Nadav Safran, in Israel: The Embattled Ally (1978, p 473) quotes Dinitz saying on October 13, 1973 “If a massive airlift to Israel does not start immediately, then I will know that the United States is reneging on its promises and…we will have to draw very serious conclusions from all this….” That’s when Golda made her veiled threat to Nixon because the Russians said they would protect Cairo and Damascus. We went to Defcon 3.

    October 13, 1973 was, for those of you who remember the drama, one week before the Watergate Saturday Night Massacre on Oct. 20th. Watergate was consuming the nation, not the Yom Kippur War. We didn’t hear anything about it. Kissinger knew this was a mess and met with Nixon the night of the 13th. The following morning Nixon summoned all this advisors in an emergency meeting and said to give Israel all the weapons it wanted, and the airlift happened that day. It seems danger averted.

    Except. Except. Sharon went nuts when he found out about Kissinger’s subterfuge and betrayal and took off with a brigade or two to Egypt to start a war with Sadat on his home turf. Nixon and K told Meir to stop him. She blew them off, saying I can’t control him, nothing I can do.

    The day of the Saturday Night Massacre, Russia moved down into the Bosporus with nukes. Kissinger left that night for Moscow to talk them out of WWIII. All this on October 20th.

    K came back, the Russians seem to have retreated, but Sharon couldn’t be stopped. He wouldn’t listen to Meir, and threatened everything. By October 25th we were at Defcon 5. On October 25th, Nixon and K called Meir at home telling her she had to stop WWIII. They were panic-stricken over what Sharon would unleash after K’s promises made to the Russians. Golda called her helicopter and got in it in her house slippers. She landed in the middle of Sharon’s camp and ordered him as his Prime Minister to get the hell home. That’s how it ended. It was worse than the Bay of Pigs.

    Avner Cohen, Israel and the Bomb
    Seymour Hersh, Hersh, The Samson Option
    Warner D. Farr, The Third Temple’s Holy of Holies: Israel’s Nuclear Weapons
    Counterproliferation Paper No. 2, USAF Counterproliferation Center, Air War
    College, September 1999
    Nadav Safran, Israel; The Embattled Ally
    Alan Hart, his latest three volumes on Zionism (excellent)

    Excuse all typos. Don’t have time.

    • CloakAndDagger
      July 9, 2013, 11:45 pm

      Wow! This is amazing stuff, MRW! And they deride conspiracy theories! This is better than any fiction that I could read!

      Thanks for this!

      • ritzl
        July 10, 2013, 11:13 am

        Great stuff, MRW! Thanks for pulling it together.

      • Taxi
        July 10, 2013, 1:21 pm

        Thank you for your impressive brain zest, MRW.

    • James Canning
      July 10, 2013, 1:39 pm

      @MRW — Nixon and Kissinger refused to accomodate Brezhnev’s pleas that the US force Israel out of the Sinai, because they thought this would bring too much prestige to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was warning the US that failure to get Israel out of the Sinai would mean war between Egypt and Israel.

    • MRW
      July 10, 2013, 2:14 pm

      One more book:

      Mark Gaffney, Dimona the Third Temple?
      The endnotes that follow each chapter are stunningly well-researched. Copious. Detailed. I found in searching and buying the sources Gaffney cites that you can only get these books, many only library sources, on used books sites now. A librarian turned me onto this, saying that someone is releasing these historical books out of the library system.

      Hart’s three-volume Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews contains direct quotes from Meir and Sadat about what was going on; invaluable stuff you won’t find anywhere else. Alan Hart was not only the most significant foreign reporter reporting from the region at the time of the 1967 and Yom Kippur wars, he was close to Meir, and she with him, as best she could be with a foreign reporter, and he had her trust, even though it pissed off her cabinet when she would see Hart and keep her cabinet members waiting. He always sent a huge bouquet of a certain type of flower as his signal that he was back in Israel, and she wouldn’t let her security detail touch them, or take them apart petal by petal. When Meir was in the last days of her cancer, Hart had arranged for someone to let him know in England and he flew to her side.

    • Chu
      July 10, 2013, 4:17 pm

      Although they were only threatening the using of nukes. Nothing ever happened as they got their delivery of aid. I wonder if Meir even tried to stop Sharon in the beginning? She was probably bluffing about Sharon to whip up a frenzy in the white house.

      One question, how did Sharon find about about Kissingger’s subterfuge?

      • jimby
        July 11, 2013, 7:07 pm

        In 1983 Menachem Begin sent Sharon up the Litani River to stop a dam projest. Sharon kept going all the way to Beirut. Maybe Sharon was the personification of the “mad dog”of Israeli policy. Begin said he couldn’t stop him. I didn’t believe it at the time and even less now.

  17. yonah fredman
    July 9, 2013, 9:41 pm

    The US interest in the Yom Kippur War was 1. to back its ally and 2. to teach its ally a lesson, so that in the future it would listen to the US judgment regarding the need for concessions in negotiations with Egypt. Israel was up the creek without a paddle if not for the resupply and they used everything to get it. Kissinger and Nixon would have given Israel what it wanted in any case, because ultimately an Israel that won (but was very wounded by the war and very dependent after the war) was to the American interest. (Richard Nixon was no Zionist, but he was a realist.)

    • eGuard
      July 10, 2013, 6:34 am

      Richard Nixon was no Zionist, but he was a realist.

      He was an anti-Semite (is that why you call him “a realist”?) and a racist. But for Zionists that does not matter.

  18. john_manyjars
    July 10, 2013, 2:15 am

    I never thought that Meir would have used nuclear blackmail, but it sure explains a lot- i.e. the US’s lap-dog relationship to the parasitical ’51st State’.

    • talknic
      July 14, 2013, 11:08 am

      @ john_manyjars

      Just having nukes is nuclear blackmail. Having them is a threat to use them, otherwise there is no point in having them.

  19. Hostage
    July 10, 2013, 6:48 am

    I think one of the biggest issues that people miss is the fact that Kissinger was “more Catholic than the Pope” on the issue of Israel retaining territory it had acquired by war. In that respect, he was the first American official who personally endorsed the idea and advocated taking even more of the Golan from Syria than Israel already had. When Israelis refuse to map any future borders, they are simply adopting tactics that Kissinger recommended:

    Minister Allon: Now the Government decided that we, if I may translate the exact decision, the Government, will do its best to open negotiations with Jordan on a peace agreement. It coincides with our decision on the Palestinians. The Palestinian question is not taboo. You can see already in the program of the Labour Alignment, mention of the Palestinian identity which can find expression in a Jordanian-Palestinian State. Of course, Jerusalem should remain the capital of Israel, but the border between the two states can be negotiated. So if we approach the next steps we can think about Jordan as about Egypt.

    The problem now is all our neighbors now believe they can get anything they want. They all believe—I hope wrongly—that America will give them what they want.

    Dr. Kissinger: I don’t know how anyone who has dealt with you can think they will get everything they want. They’ll be happy to get anything they want.

    Minister Allon: Hm, that’s true. . . .
    link to history.state.gov

    SUBJECT
    The Future Map of Israel

    Allon: Can you try and tell me how would you envisage Israel’s map within the context of peace and security arrangements, so any responsible Government can satisfy its people that this is an arrangement not for a decade, but forever?

    Kissinger: There is no United States opinion. Do you want my personal opinion?

    Allon: Yes.

    Kissinger: My personal opinion is that—and I haven’t thought it through—if we do it in terms of the 1967 frontiers, I don’t think it is impossible to do it with the 1967 frontiers with Egypt; I do think it is impossible to accept the 1967 frontiers with Syria, and I think it is impossible with Jordan.

    Allon: Impossible?

    Kissinger: Yes. That is my conception on frontiers. On the West Bank where the frontiers should be. I don’t know.

    On the Syrian side it can’t be 1967 but it can’t be the present line—because I think it may be necessary to go one more move with Syria. But it will be some clear distance from 1967.

    On the West Bank, I haven’t thought it through.

    With Egypt, it seems not incompatible with Israel’s security, particularly if some special arrangements could be worked out—I don’t understand the obsession with Sharm el-Sheikh—but for some strategic points. But it would be in the context of the substantial demilitarization of the Sinai.

    But I have never discussed it with any of my colleagues—or with any Arab.

    Nor with Sadat. I admit I sometimes talk in an ambiguous way that doesn’t exclude it.

    Allon: What do you foresee with Jordan?

    Kissinger: Jordan is a special problem. One reason I think you shouldn’t go to the final frontier question with Jordan is because you are not ready to discuss Jerusalem.
    link to history.state.gov

  20. irmep
    July 10, 2013, 7:45 am

    It is somewhat surprising that the State Department didn’t “sanitize” all of the cited tidbits out of the released documents.

    Censors excised the word “Israel” from a 1992 United States Department of State Office of Inspector General Report of Audit on violations of arms control laws.

    link to irmep.org

    Everybody knows the report is 100% about Israel, but the stripe-trouser guys and gals think excising the noun serves a purpose.

    Guess four decades have to pass before the unwashed masses get to see how dysfunctional and corrupt policy-making for that region really is.

    • Citizen
      July 10, 2013, 11:28 am

      “Guess four decades have to pass before the unwashed masses get to see how dysfunctional and corrupt policy-making for that region really is.”

      AIPAC and Israel absolutely count on this reality; as do the top entire 1%, e.g., Bush Jr, who bragged he’s a “doer,” (macher in yiddish), and the scribblers can scribble all they want while he and his neocons & the Jewish Establishment make their own reality, at the expense of Dick and Jane. Snowden put a tiny crimp in that lately, eh?
      Too bad, just as that Zionist said, he can get a ton of congressmen in a NY minute, as shown on his dinner napkin, there’s not one Snowden among tens of thousands in America.

    • James Canning
      July 10, 2013, 1:26 pm

      @Irmep – – US officilas cover up Israeli violations of US laws, because doing so advances their careers.

    • Hostage
      July 10, 2013, 7:56 pm

      It is somewhat surprising that the State Department didn’t “sanitize” all of the cited tidbits out of the released documents.

      In fact, the Carter era volumes were overdue during the Bush administration. The Bush appointee to the Office of the Historian was engaged in attempts to conceal or withhold records, until the independent board of scholars and retired diplomats threatened to quit en mass and the State Department Inspector General recommended that another person be appointed to clean-up the mess and end the scandal. The only Carter era volume released to date is the one on China. So the floodgates haven’t exactly been opened on the Middle East conflicts and the Camp David Accords.

      • ritzl
        July 10, 2013, 9:12 pm

        Just out of curiosity, Hostage, where do the originals end up after this editing? Or do the edited versions become the new originals? If someone edited this info, is the deleted info simply gone? Just asking. You may not know for sure and retention could well be part of the scandal.

        It seems like way too important historical info to be left to the vagaries of politics.

      • Hostage
        July 14, 2013, 8:26 am

        Just out of curiosity, Hostage, where do the originals end up after this editing?

        The original documents don’t go anywhere, the public just doesn’t get to read them.

        The State Department Historian selects the contents of entire documents that reflect major policy decisions from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) on behalf of State, Defense, and CIA – and from the Presidential libraries on behalf of the Administration. The FRUS also contains Editor’s notes that occasionally supply extracts from published memoirs of the government officials involved in the decision making process.

        The Historians don’t usually edit-out any information. In recent years, they’ve had to redact a few words from key documents that they couldn’t get fully declassified. Declassification reviews have become the greatest bottleneck in getting the volumes published, e.g.:

        Historians See Crisis in Declassification, July 2, 2013

        Government programs to declassify national security information are not meeting public expectations, the needs of historians, or even the requirements of law, said the State Department’s Historical Advisory Committee (HAC) in a report last week.

        A 1991 statute mandated that the State Department publish the documentary record of U.S. foreign policy (known as Foreign Relations of the United States, or FRUS) no later than 30 years after the events described. That requirement is not being fulfilled and, the HAC said, is unlikely to be met any time soon due to “substantial delays in the declassification and publication processes.”

        link to blogs.fas.org

      • American
        July 11, 2013, 12:19 am

        Hostage says:
        July 10, 2013 at 7:56 pm

        In fact, the Carter era volumes were overdue during the Bush administration. The Bush appointee to the Office of the Historian was engaged in attempts to conceal or withhold records,
        >>>>>>>

        There was a rat in the woodpile somewhere in the Carter presidential .
        Library……there were some very revealing papers on Israel there but they were removed……or ‘deactivated I should say. I had saved them and then lost them in one of my hard drive explosions.. I went back to recapture them and although they were ‘listed in the index they were ‘no longer accessible. I mailed them twice about it inquiring as to why but never got any answer.
        Conspiracy or glitch?…..from accessible to the public to not accessible to the public?

      • James Canning
        July 11, 2013, 1:56 pm

        Some public-spirited billionaire should fund publication of all documents relating to US-Israel. And placement in libraries.

      • American
        July 12, 2013, 5:57 pm

        James Canning says:
        July 11, 2013 at 1:56 pm

        Some public-spirited billionaire should fund publication of all documents relating to US-Israel. And placement in libraries.>>>>>

        It would take a huge, huge team of people working on that and fill a dozen library shelves.
        For all we talk about here, and examples we give, it’s still the tip of the iceberg.
        Grant Smith (CNI and, IfAmericansKnew and others come close but even they cant cover it all.
        The true extent of zionst infilltration into the US gov and our pockets is
        buried under hundred of bills within bills and semi agencies within US………it’s gaint maze and spider web built and woven since the 40’s.
        A few times I have started outlines on some of the lesser known schemes
        but just looking at the 100’s of ways congress is rippng off
        and impoverishing Americans for Israel makes me so mad my head starts exploding and I have to get away from it.

        Ths doesnt even cover it all but should be required readng for all Americans….
        U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel – Page 18 – Google Books Result
        books.google.com/books?isbn=1437927475
        Jeremy Maxwell Sharp – 2010 – Economic assistance, American
        BARD was created in 1978 and supports U.S.-Israeli cooperation in agricultural … Israeli Ministry of National Infrastructures, launched four clean energy projects

        Example…pick out the only thing not cut by congress for US Energy and Water.
        It would be this:…the only thing not cut was 35 million for I and US energy cooperation.
        ”Harris (R-MD) The amendment prohibits funding for the International Program within the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account while preserving funding for U.S-Israel energy cooperation. The amendment passed on a vote of 326-185.”

        Congress has been gutting…..literally ripping the guts out of the US for a long time.

        A summary of amendments to the FY 2012 Energy and Water Appropriations bill that the House approved follows:

        Graves (R-MO) The amendment reduces the Missouri River Fish and Wildlife project by $1.75 million and increases Operations and Maintenance by $1 million for levee repair. The amendment passed on a vote of 216-190.

        Scalise (R-LA) The amendment cuts $6.3 million from supervision and general administrative expenses in the headquarters of the Corps of Engineers, and adds the funds to Army Corps Operation and Maintenance for dredging of waterways. The amendment passed on a vote of 241-168.

        Woodall (R-GA) The amendment cuts $4.9 million from the Army Corps Operation and Maintenance for response to climate change at Corps projects, and transfers the funds to the Spending Reduction Account. The amendment passed on a vote of 218-191.

        Sessions (R-TX) The amendment strikes Section 102 of the bill, which prohibits the use of any funds to convert any functions performed by federal employees to private competition pursuant to a study conducted under OMB Circular A-76. The amendment passed on a vote of 224-196.

        Harris (R-MD) The amendment cuts $6 million from Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and transfers the funds to the Spending Reduction Account. The amendment was adopted on a voice vote.

        Woodall (R-GA) The amendment cuts $200,000 from the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and transfers the funds to the Spending Reduction Account. The amendment was adopted on a voice vote.

        Rehberg (R-MT) The amendment provides $2.2 million for Fossil Energy Research and Development for State oil and gas commissions. The amendment was adopted on a voice vote.

        Reed (R-NY) The amendment cuts Departmental Administration by $21 million and Office of the Administrator by $20 million, and adds the funds to Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup. The amendment passed on a vote of 261-162.

        Schiff (D-CA) The amendment cuts $79.6 million from Departmental Administration, and adds the funds to the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E). The amendment passed on a vote of 214-213.

        Broun (R-GA) The amendment cuts $2.5 million from Departmental Administration, and transfers the funds to the Spending Reduction Account.

        Fortenberry (R-NE) The amendment cuts $35 million from Departmental Administration, and transfers the funds to Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. The amendment was adopted on a voice vote.

        Shimkus (R-IL) The amendment cuts $10 million from Departmental Administration to increase funding for the Yucca Mountain license application. The amendment was adopted on a vote of 297-130.

        Cole (R-OK) The amendment prohibits funds to implement rules, regulations, or an executive order that would require federal contractors to disclose political contributions. The amendment passed on a vote of 249-169.

        Gosar (R-AZ) The amendment bars funding to implement federal regulations prohibiting the public use of firearms and other weapons in a water resource project area administered by the Army Corps of Engineers. The amendment was adopted on a voice vote.

        Jackson Lee (D-TX) The amendment prohibits funding from being used in contravention of the Department of Energy Organization Act. The amendment was adopted on a voice vote.

        Hastings (R-WA) The amendment prohibits funding to implement or enforce the recommendations proposed by the Army Corps of Engineers in the final draft of the McNary Shoreline Management Plan. The amendment was adopted on a voice vote.

        Kaptur (D-OH) The amendment cuts $10 million from Departmental Administration, and adds the funding to Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The amendment passed on a vote of 212-210.

        Hastings (R-WA) The amendment prohibits funding to move the Office of Environmental Management under the authority of the Undersecretary for Nuclear Security of the Department of Energy. The amendment was adopted on a voice vote.

        Engel (D-NY) The amendment prohibits funding to lease or purchase new light duty vehicles except in accordance with Presidential Memorandum Federal Fleet Performance dated May 24, 2011. The amendment was adopted on a voice vote.

        Hastings (R-WA) The amendment prohibits funding for the Corps of Engineers for the removal or associated mitigation of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Project number 2342. The amendment was adopted on a voice vote.

        Denham (R-CA) The amendment prohibits funding to reintroduce salmon to the San Joaquin River. The amendment passed on a voice vote.

        Scalise (R-LA) The amendment cuts $1 million from Corps of Engineers Expenses, and transfers the funding to Corps of Engineers Construction. The amendment passed on a vote of 271-148.

        Flores (R-TX) The amendment prohibits funding to enforce the section that prohibits the government from purchasing alternative fuels. The amendment was adopted on a voice vote.

        Young (R-IN) The amendment prohibits funding to pay the salaries of Energy Department employees to carry out the weatherization assistance increases created by the economic stimulus law. The amendment passed on a voice vote.

        Landry (R-LA) The amendment prohibits funding for the salaries of individuals appointed to their positions via recess appointment. The amendment passed on a vote of 227-193.

        Harris (R-MD) The amendment prohibits funding for the International Program within the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account while preserving funding for U.S-Israel energy cooperation. The amendment passed on a vote of 326-185.

        Luetkemeyer (R-MO) The amendment prohibits funding to conduct a study relating to Missouri River Projects required by the FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Law. The amendment was adopted on a voice vote.

        Luetkemeyer (R-MO) The amendment prohibits funding to conduct an environmental study relating to Missouri River. The amendment was adopted on a voice.

        Burgess (R-TX) The amendment prohibits the implementation or enforcement of higher efficiency light bulb standards. The amendment was adopted on a voice vote.

        Cravaack (R-MN) The amendment prohibits funding to expand the authorized uses of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. The amendment was adopted on a voice vote.

        Sherman (D-CA) The amendment prohibits funding for DoE International Programs in China. The amendment was adopted on a voice vote.

        Hastings (D-FL) The amendment prohibits funding from being used in contravention of the Executive Order entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.” The amendment was adopted on a voice vote.

        Final Passage The FY 2012 Energy and Water Appropriations bill passed on a vote of 219-196

  21. American
    July 10, 2013, 12:07 pm

    ”…..yielded to Israeli ambassador’s threat of ‘mutiny’ by American Jews and press during ’73 war”

    Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957
    Volume XVI, Suez Crisis, July 26–December 31, 1956, Document 475

    475. Letter From President Eisenhower to Swede Hazlett11. Source: Eisenhower Library, Whitman File, Eisenhower Diaries. Personal. Washington, November 2, 1956

    (excerpt)

    ”As we began to uncover evidence that something was building up in Israel, we demanded pledges from Ben-Gurion that he would keep the peace. We realized that he might think he could take advantage of this country because of the approaching election and because of the importance that so many politicians in the past have attached to our Jewish vote.

    I gave strict orders to the State Department that they should inform Israel that we would handle our affairs exactly as though we didn’t have a Jew in America. The welfare and best interests of our own country were to be the sole criteria on which we operated.”

    link to history.state.gov

    There will be another Eisenhower, we just have to wait for the last fatal overstep by Israel and the Lobby…..difficult as waiting is. But I doubt it will happen soon enough for Palestine. It will be about something else.

    • James Canning
      July 10, 2013, 1:24 pm

      @American – – Not likely, sadly.

      And let’s remember Eisenhower forced Israel out of the Sinai, after the 1956 war.

      Too bad Israel was not forced out of the Sinai, West Bank, Golan Heights and Gaza Strip, after 1967 war.

    • MRW
      July 10, 2013, 2:51 pm

      See, American, this is the statement I don’t believe: ”…..yielded to Israeli ambassador’s threat of ‘mutiny’ by American Jews and press during ’73 war”

      I remember that time well, as I’m sure you do. I was in school. I was one of the 85% of the country who rushed home to watch the Watergate Senate hearings on TV. There was no oxygen on TV for anything except Watergate. Mutiny by American Jews and press during the ’73 war? Who is he kidding? The Vice-President of the US resigned on October 11, 1973, accepting tax evasion as a deal to close criminal proceedings against him, and nobody gave a shit apart from the NYT headline.

      The number one Jewish reporter at that time was a young Carl Bernstein and he was reporting on…wait for it…Watergate.

      EDIT: This On This Day NYT site is useful:
      link to learning.blogs.nytimes.com

  22. eibieman
    July 10, 2013, 8:49 pm

    JPLO Note: Despite the use of ‘Jewish Lobby’ by Nixon and Kissinger, it remains an ambiguous term since it may mean some members of the Jewish nationality or all Jewish-Americans. The question is one of stereotyping the Jewish People, when in actuality, Jewish-Americans who are more numerous than Jewish-Israelis, are non-Zionist by definition, otherwise they would be living in Israel. The ‘Jewish Zionist Lobby’ while influential is only a portion of the US military-industrial complex which is predominantly not Jewish. To consider the Jewish-Zionist Lobby’ more influential than the MIC ignores the political economy of the USA. In the political field of international relations the MIC may have less to say even though its interests are guaranteed while that of the pro-Zionist lobby is not, which is why it is more active.
    It is to be remembered as well that Truman signed the letter for the recognition of “the State of Israel” after having crossed out “the Jewish State”.

Leave a Reply