« Habakkuk on the neocons' use of intelligence | Main | The Future of South Iraq »

15 December 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Andy

With regard to Jewish-Americans how about some data instead of speculation:

7. Would you support or oppose the United States taking military action against Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons? Support 35 Oppose 57 Not Sure 8

Note that this poll was conducted before the NIE key judgments were released.

Polling for the US population in general shows opposition about 10 points higher, or in the mid-60's.

Clifford Kiracofe

"2- Is this a religious issue for the American people - the Protestants I hasten to add?"

Babak,

The analysis would require some specificity, as Visitor points out.

Israel is by definition, owing to eschatology, a religious issue to a percentage of the US population NOT for all Americans.

Mainline Protestant churches, the Roman Catholic church, the Orthodox church, and a number of small Protestant sects such as the Mennonites reject eschatology and so-called "prophetic" interpretation which asserts Israel is a fulfillment of prophecy. The traditional Christian churches in the Middle East share the same perspective and also reject such interpretation.

Muslim intellectuals whom I know are aware of these distinctions. I will be on an academic panel examining Christian Zionism this coming spring with an old friend who is an American of the Muslim faith.

The Protestant Fundamentalists who believe in "premillennial dispensationalism" (a 19th century eschatology invented in England and used by Palmerston for imperial purposes) would fall into the Israel as a religious issue camp. This
block is part of Karl Rove's "base" for the Republican Party although Jimmy Carter mobilized them for his own campaign back in 1976. When President Carter became too "pro-Palestinian", the Fundamentalists bolted to Reagan in 1980 for this and other reasons. President Carter has done considerable reflection on the state of the Southern Baptist Convention.

The Southern Baptist Convention with about 16 million would be the largest block. You can refer to President Jimmy Carter's analysis of the problems in this sect as it has officially adopted premillennial dispensationalism within the last 30 years. Some analysts add another 10 million in other sects who follow "premillennial dispensationalism." Others add 15 or 20 million. The Fundamentalist leaders such as Hagee claim 50 to 100 million but that is an exaggeration, IMO. A reasonable estimate would be 25-45 million or about 10 to 15 percent of the US public.

[You might wish to make enquiries about such Fundamentalists in Canada, the UK, and Australia as the dispensationalist ideology spread widely.]

However, this block is part of the Religious Right political base. It is roughly estimated by some that Fundamentalists comprise about 40 percent of the Republican Party base these days. In the current primaries, some newspaper reports say that of the Republican activisits who are coming out perhaps 30-50 percent are Fundamentalists.

You should note that not all Evangelicals are Fundamentalists in the sense that they embrace premillennial dispensationalism.

See, Kevin Phillip's book "American Theocracy" for an analysis of this issue in terms of US politics. It will be interesting to see how Rev. Huckabee (Southern Baptist) handles this issue.

President Bush forthrightly called his policy in the Middle East a "crusade." I am convinced that he meant it the way he said it although the spin control folks at the White House danced around it. I do not believe that he "misspoke." He simply said what he believed.

Bush's speechwriter at the time was Michael Gerson who is a "Christian" Right activist. Hence, Bush's speeches were laced with Biblical references to bolster his political base of Fundamentalists. Bush's own parents (albeit old line Protestant Episcopalians) cleared the way for W through their high visibility association with Rev. Billy Graham, the leading Fundamentalist personality in the US. They also had strong links to the late Rev. Jerry Falwell. Good politics, no doubt, for the Bush dynasty.

For a recent piece on Gerson in The American Conservative see,
http://www.amconmag.com/200
7/2007_11_19/review.html
Kara Hopkins, the author, concludes:

"The rubble of our heroic mission to democratize the Middle East stands testament to the power of unintended consequences. But Gerson cannot see it as ruin. The same hubris that drove America to rid the world of evil now stalks this equally abstract drive to do good—and the best intentions don’t diminish the blowback inherent in any global scheme."

My own book on the subject "Dark Crusade: Christian Zionism and US Foreign Policy" (London: IB Tauris) will be out late next year.

William R. Cumming

It is interesting that both Israel and Iran are doing what the rest of the world has learned. Play your cards with the U.S. closely and do all that you can to influence U.S. policy by lobbying Congress and the Executive Branch. Let's face it the Saudi's (who learned from Israel) and the Israelis are the best lobbyists in the U.S. One uses its co-religionists and one (lacking co-religionists) uses money. There are foreign nationals on Congressional staffs. These are directly influencing U.S. policy. Foreign money openly manipulates U.S. national elections. Since our democracy (what's left) is wide-open to lobbying and sale perhaps some efforts at full disclosure would be helpful. Hey apparently even the Russians and S.Koreans have their own technique. They send beautiful and intelligent women here that may end up indirectly influencing policy with respect to their countries when they marry and become citizens. Washington is a world capitol and the rest of world long ago figured out that if Washington sneezes or does something even out of innocence a lot of people can be killed in a hurry. After all, most Americans despite the militarism of US society have started to figure out that war is revolution. The rest of the world long ago figured this out. This is so evidently the case that it is probably why only U.S. military action remains the last real bastion of non-selective force in the world. Our educational system totally failed to pick up on the changes in the Islamic world despite the Bernard Lewis types and the Samuel Huntington types. So now our cultural and language ignorance is the clear and present danger. And perhaps Texan as a Presidential language should be restricted in the future. The Johnson tapes and Bush posturing long ago indicate that ego not brains was driving decisions. The Eisenhower era decision to establish world-wide base structures should be revisited as we enter the world of 30 ballistic missile, nuclear capable states over the next 30 years. It isn't just nuclear waste that should be examined as an issue for the nuclear power electric generation advocates, but the impact of seeding proliferation efforts. Basically, the tough issues are being avoided by the U.S. and most of the world is happy with that. The rest of the world gladly watches as we sag into our dotage as a state and are neutralized by our ignorance of other cultures and states and nations.

arthurdecco

Andy, In response to your dissemination of this poll, I'd like to offer up the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German theologian who died in 1945:

"Action springs not from thought but from a readiness for responsibility."

So far I've seen no evidence of "a readiness for responsibility" from the greater Jewish American community, their meaningless, private, polled thoughts notwithstanding.

Babak Makkinejad

Clifford Kiracofe:

Thank you for your comments.

You mostly discussed the last 30 years.

Which leaves me wondering why US lobbied UN so hard in 1948 for the establishment of the State of Israel?

And Nixon was born into a Quaker family - if I am not mistaken.

Can you shed some light on these?

Cee

Too bad Eli Zeira was murdered before he could shine some light on war.

Cee

Correction on prior post...Too bad Ashraf Marwan was murdered after his name was leaked by Eli Ziera.

Andy

arthurdecco,

What is "readiness for responsibility" in real terms? What must Jewish Americans do to satisfy you on this point? Do you apply that same standard to all Americans?

Babak,

Any lobbying would have occurred in 1947. Here's a good timeline and a money quote:

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."

Read the whole thing. In light of Truman's private correspondence, it's difficult to see him as one who would lobby the UN hard on the issue.

Will

You say Facts, don't need to show no stinking facts (with apologies to the banditos de Sierra Madre)

stay current by reading the
http://friday-lunch-club.blogspot.com/
he catches English, French, and Arabic sources for MidEast News, concentrating on Lebanon.

I uses Babelfish for the French and Systrans for the Arabic

He also catches all of off the Col.'s Posts

here's two pertinent posts:
"Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Zogby Poll: 52% of Americans Support U.S. Military Strike Against Iran

A Poll by ZogbyInternational shows that despite Bush's 25% approval rate, ... Americans remain "vulnerable" to Big Media ... , here"

...........

"Monday, November 19, 2007
"... we're going to go into Iran and what do we have to do to get you guys to along with it"

Laura Rosen writes in MotherJones, here
"...The client paying for the focus group session, according to Sonnemark, was Freedom's Watch, a high-powered, well-connected advocacy group that launched a $15 million ad campaign this summer in support of the surge of American troops in Iraq. Among the group's leadership: former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer and Bradley A. Blakeman, a former deputy assistant to President Bush. The focus group session suggests that Freedom's Watch may be looking beyond Iraq and expanding its mission to building support for military action against Iran...""

Also stay current w/
Prof. Landis blog
syriacomment.com

Babak Makkinejad

Andy:

Thank you for your URL.

What caused US policy to change between between September 17-th to 11-October of 1947?

In support of the US lobbying for the creation of Israel, a claim made by myself, I note the following sample of more extensive body of historical evidence:

Dean Rusk, head of the State Department's UN desk in Washington, wrote, "when President Truman decided to support partition, I worked hard to implement it....The pressure and arm-twisting applied by American and Jewish representatives in capital after capital to get that affirmative vote are hard to describe."

arthurdecco

"arthurdecco, What is "readiness for responsibility" in real terms? What must Jewish Americans do to satisfy you on this point? Do you apply that same standard to all Americans?" posted by Andy

Andy, you strike me as an intelligent man, so I find your disingenuousness on this subject puzzling and a trifle insulting.

I’ll answer your second question first: I apply the same standards to all humans, no matter their claimed nationality. In terms of this discussion though, I expect the kinds of responses American Jews have been justifiably proud of in their struggles in defense of the marginalized and down-trodden throughout modern American history – at least until apparent hubris and smug self-satisfaction seeped in to infect their well of good will and moral accomplishments.

In response to your first question, "readiness for responsibility, in real terms", should be self-explanatory to any sentient human.

It means having the moral courage to forcibly and loudly protest against evil and injustice - even when that evil is perpetrated by those who claim to lead you or protect you. It means publicly ridiculing the offensive garbage that passes for intellectual thought within the neo-con controlled think tanks and policy-making machinery designed to undermine the cornerstones of the American Constitution and democratic way of life instead of allowing it to be printed as gospel on the front pages and op ed pages of every leading newspaper in the country without ever raising a collective howl of protest in response. It means never attending a “talk” organized to allow moral monsters like Alan Dershowitz a venue to promote and advocate torture that “only uses sterilized needles” shoved under the nails of prisoners never charged with a single crime. It means refusing to turn on Fox News, or to buy any of the products advertised on any of the pro-war channels and always writing in to make their management aware of your boycotts. It means bringing tens of thousands out into the streets PROTESTING Israel’s illegal and never-ending military assaults on the civilian Palestinians in the outdoor prison we call Gaza. It means refusing to send money to Israel where those funds are used to financially subsidize the organized theft of Palestinian lands and the brutal suppression of their people in order to allow even more fanatical religious zealot Zionists to squat there, spewing their racist hate thereby enabling, and ironically, justifying, a world wide rise in anti-Semitism.

I could go on almost forever but I’m sure even a willfully ignorant man like you will have gotten the picture by now of what “readiness for responsibility” means in “real terms”. Unless, of course, you never had any intention of getting the picture.

Clifford Kiracofe

<"Which leaves me wondering why US lobbied UN so hard in 1948 for the establishment of the State of Israel?">

Babak,

There are any number of of academic studies, books and scholarly articles, per the Truman Administration and its policy toward Israel. There is considerable archival material available and of particular note are the declassified US Government docs from State Department etal. bearing on the matter. The declassified official documents available in the FRUS (Foreign Relations of the United States, Office of the Historian, Dept. of State) series are the most essential.
http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/history/frus.html

Given the vast amount of relevant data available to scholars today, there is really no mystery in all this. It is quite clear from the historical record, IMO, that the Zionist Lobby prevailed on President Truman, not to mention Congress. Clark Clifford and David Niles (a Polish Jewish emigre) were the two primary advisors to Truman who, historians record, swung him to the recognition policy etc. Some scholars argue Truman's religious beliefs played a role and that he felt he was a modern "Cyrus." He is quoted as himself saying "I am Cyrus" with respect to his decision and policy on Israel. Some scholars also point out the 1948 Election Year as a spur to action to mobilize the "Jewish vote" for the Dems as Dewey and the Republicans had also been reaching out for it.

As you probably have read, State Department professionals and the Pentagon were opposed to this policy as dangerous to long range US interests in the region. General George Marshall was opposed reflecting the Pentagon view.

The power center of the international Zionist movement had, in effect, shifted from London to New York during World War II so as to be positioned to bring decisive pressure on the US. You will, I am sure, have noted the historic "Biltmore Conference" held in New York City in 1942. The "Biltmore Program" was that of the 1897 Basel Program. The politics of the American Jewish Community with respect to the Zionist movement from 1897 (or earlier) to 1942 were extremely complex and convoluted, and there are are many books and studies on this.
See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biltmore_Conference

The role of Clifford and Niles (in particular) was, in effect, to bring the Truman White House/President Truman into line with the Biltmore Program.

You should also take a look at Atlee's memoirs and other relevant British materials to understand the politics and diplomacy as well as the deep divisions the international Zionist movement produced between the US and the UK on this matter. Kenneth Harris in his "Atlee" (New York: Norton, 1982), which is sitting on my desk at the moment, has some revealing passages.

You should also be clear in your understanding of the Neoconservative Movement that it is rooted in what can be described as the Truman Administration's "Cold War Zionism." The core intellectual journal around which the movement was built is, of course, Commentary Magazine (1946-) which is published by the American Jewish Committee est. 1906 for which see their website,
http://www.ajc.org/

You can review President George W. Bush's speeches to the AJC annual conventions via the official White House website. They are revealing and indicative.

arthurdecco

Col. Lang, I would like to apologize to you and to your poster Andy for including a tasteless phrase in the final paragraph of my last submission. It verged on an ad Hominum attack. If you delete my post, I will understand.

It wasn't until I re-read the piece before saving it to disc that I realized that I had not removed a remark that I had typed in the heat of the moment. I should never have allowed it to remain part of my post.

The phrase in question was,

"I could go on almost forever but I’m sure even a willfully ignorant man like you will have gotten the picture by now of what “readiness for responsibility” means in “real terms”. Unless, of course, you never had any intention of getting the picture."

It should have read,

"I could go on almost forever, but I'm almost certain you will have gotten the picture by now of what “readiness for responsibility” means in “real terms”. Unless, of course, you never had any intention of getting the picture."

Again, I apologize for lowering the tone on what is for me a blog where people on opposing sides of the issues come together with both civility and unbridled passion to discuss their differences.


J

Colonel,

removing the pillars of cheney and the nut job's (i.e. avi dichter) in israel's intended war on iran.

russia has taken positive steps to thwart our errant vice prez cheney and his war on iran debacle, russia has delivered uranium enriched to 3.62% on dec 14. the russian atomstroiexport which is a member of the consortium building the nuclear power station at bushehr delivered 'fuel assemblies' that contained the 'peaceful nuclear fuel'.

russian deliveries of the 3.62% will continue until feb 08 and after six months, the power plant will be commissioned.

containers of the 'peaceful fuel' with the iaea seals were delivered and placed in a special storage facility that is subject to international monitoring. the spent fuel will be returned to germany.

Will

you know sometimes
people want to pee on your leg and tell you it's warm tea

it's not jewish-americans as a whole in the aggregate that determine policy, it's the elites

and to see how the elites lead the people into war it has never been better explained better than by Hermann Goering. just google Goering + snopes and it will come up. you will see the link
"Did Hermann Goering proclaim that although 'the people don't want war,' they 'can always be brought to the bidding of their leaders'? "

The best window on the "bomb bomb bomb-iran" (apologies to the beach boys) is how in the words of Pat Buchanan "we invaded [IRAK] a country that neither threatened us nor desired war with us."

from two scholars Walt & Mearsheimer
the link to the short version of their work
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html


------
calling for Saddam’s removal from power. The signatories, many of whom had close ties to pro-Israel groups like JINSA or WINEP, and who included Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Bernard Lewis, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz,
....
We don’t have the full story yet, but scholars like Bernard Lewis of Princeton and Fouad Ajami of Johns Hopkins reportedly played important roles in persuading Cheney that war was the best option, though neo-conservatives on his staff – Eric Edelman, John Hannah and Scooter Libby, Cheney’s chief of staff and one of the most powerful individuals in the administration – also played their part. By early 2002 Cheney had persuaded Bush
....

According to Philip Zelikow, .... the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, ... the ‘real threat’ from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The ‘unstated threat’ was the ‘threat against Israel’, ... ‘The American government,’ he added, ‘doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.’
.......
Although neo-conservatives and other Lobby leaders were eager to invade Iraq, the broader American Jewish community was not. .... opinion polls by the Pew Research Center shows that Jews are less supportive of the Iraq war than the population at large, 52 per cent to 62 per cent.’ Clearly, it would be wrong to blame the war in Iraq on ‘Jewish influence’. Rather, it was due in large part to the Lobby’s influence, especially that of the neo-conservatives within it.
----------------

It is the ELITES, my man- the elites.

Sidney O. Smith III

Babak:

Re: Dean Rusk

You may have mischaracterized Dean Rusk stance on the creation of Israel. From what I have read, Dean Rusk in 1948 was wary that a newly created state of Israel would alienate traditional Arab friends. Here’s one quote I found:

In a New Yorker article (March 25, 1991) [Clark] Clifford recalled that: “Marshall firmly opposed American recognition of the new Jewish state; I did not. Marshall’s opposition was shared by almost every member of the brilliant...group of presidential advisers...who were...creating a post-war foreign policy that would endure for more than 40 years. The opposition, Under Secretary of State Robert Lovett; his predecessor, Dean Acheson; the No. 3 man in the State Department, Charles Bohlen; the brilliant chief of the Policy Planning Staff George Kennan; (Navy Secretary James V.) Forrestal; and...Dean Rusk, director of the Office of UN Affairs.

Dean Rusk gets a rap -- perhaps with some justification -- for being too much of a go along to get along guy. Nevertheless, he was a man of a diffrerent era. And it should be noted that Dean Rusk, perhaps more than anyone else in the Johnson administration, stood up to McNamara after the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in 1967. From what I can piece together, McNamara deep sixed the NCOI investigation with the help of Sen. McCain’s father -- Adm. McCain. Rusk, I believe, implicity refused to send McNamara the NCOI report when McNamara tangentially brought up the attack in a Congressional hearing (a hearing that was not a Liberty investigation). McNamara was going to rely on the truncated NCOI report to claim the attack was a mistake and not intentional.

Plus, years later, when Rusk, with his son’s help, wrote his autobiography “As I Saw It”, Rusk described the attack as “outrageous“.

Also, if I remember correctly, there is a Rusk cable to the GOI on June 8, 1967 basically telling the GOI not to initiate an offensive attack on the Golan Heights. The attack on the USS Liberty occurred, I believe, about 90 minutes later.

Dean Rusk was well liked within the State Department. For a few years, I dated a woman whose father was career State Department and a former Ambassador (he also was USMC Korean War vet). He spoke very highly of Dean Rusk. In fact, he had nothing but good things to say about him, (unlike Kissinger!). Said he always listened to the little guy.

Dean Rusk died almost penniless in Athens Ga. For years, any time he was paid for making a speech, he simply donated the money to UGA. Contrast that to the Bush crowd and all those that write memoirs today. And every Viet Vet grunt I know with a CIB who got to know him personally liked him very much.

Also, just for the record…from what I know…Dean Rusk wrote the autobiography with his son only because he thought it would bring about a father-son reconciliation before he died. The two became estranged during the Vn war when Rusk’s son took off from GA and lived in Alaska for awhile.

In my opinion, he was a good man during a difficult time. And he very well may have saved the world during the Cuban Missile Crisis because his approach was the exact opposite of what I see from the likes of David Welch today. He believed in diplomacy. I heard him say that one rule to follow is always give someone an honorable exit, as long as US national security interests are satsified.

Will

it is well understood that any country that has mastered nuke power generation can enter nuke weapon development.

that goes for deutschland, japan, italia, brasil, argentina, canada, south africa, & probably on short notice south korea and taiwan.

there's this big hullabaloo about Iran. i'd be worrying more about the Pak nukes, or about radiological bombs which are more compact, can be fitted on now available ballistic missiles and can make large portions of cities uninhabitable for decades.

But Iran is treated differently because it supposedly has weird religious beliefs. It believes in a Messiah in occultation that is coming back at the end of (ordinary) World with Jesus to establish justice. so what? they act rationally nevertheless. Then there's the lies about what he said about Israel vanishing from the pages of time through historical processes as the Soviet Union did- likening it to "Cartago Delenda Est."

Some Xtians believe in end of the world stuff and are perfecting the red heifer and some are helping certain like minded Jewish zealots plot to blow up the Dome of the Rock mosque, rebuild the Temple and reinstate animal sacrifices. I'd be more worried about them.

Mormons believe in the end of the world. Jesus will appear first at Jackson County, Mo. Each LD Saint is enjoined to stock up two years worth of food for the coming hard times and the church has granaries to help mankind make it thru the trying times. Unusual practice but frugal & salutary.

The Iran Arak heavy water facility is not a reactor. There are many kinds of reactors. Some are cooled with regular (light)water and some with heavy (containing deuterium hydrogen) water. A heavy water reactor attains greater neutron fluxes so it can use natural uranium. No need for enriched uranium and thus no need for pesky centrifuges. It can also create medicinal radioactive isotopes. It can also readily create PLUTONIUM. In fact Israel, Pakistan, & North Korea, all make their nukes with heavy water reactors.

Iran has a small research heavy water reactor on the drawing board. The country is a signatory to the U.N. treaties and the reactor would be heavily monitored.

from the wiki
Heavy Water

"There is no evidence that civilian heavy water power reactors, such as the CANDU or Atucha designs, have been used for military production of fissile materials. In states which do not already possess nuclear weapons, the nuclear material at these facilities is under IAEA safeguards to discourage any such diversion.

Due to its potential for use in nuclear weapons programs, the possession or import/export of large industrial quantities of heavy water are subject to government control in several countries. Suppliers of heavy water and heavy water production technology typically apply IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) administered safeguards and material accounting to heavy water. (In Australia, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987.) In the U.S. and Canada, non-industrial quantities of heavy water (i.e., in the gram to kg range) are routinely available through chemical supply dealers, and directly commercial companies such as the world's former major producer Ontario Hydro, without special license. Current (2006) cost of a kilogram of 99.98% reactor-purity heavy water, is about $600 to $700. Smaller quantities of reasonable purity (99.9%) may be purchased from chemical supply houses at prices of roughly $1 per gram. "

Babak Makkinejad

Thank you for your informative comments.

What I got from this thread has been that US - as state and polity - have an emotional attachment to the State of Israel.

Since this is an emotional attachment and not an strategic one, one has to surmise that that relationship is not prone to considerations of cost-benefit analysis.

This is almost the parallel of the Iran-Hizbuallah situation with the added historical dimensions - the modern Iranian state's relationship with the Shia of Southern Lebanon goes back 400 years.

It seems to me that both US and Iran have emotional (and historical, in case of Iran) attachments to a religiously-defined vassal population outside of their own borders.

Moreover, both Iran and US have failed to articulate the nature and the extent of their security commitments to their respective vassals – thus leaving everyone in a fog as to what to expect in case of hostilities and further escalation thereof.

I think this is a recipe for endless strategic escalation to nowhere; especially considering the ability of each vassal to tap into the religious sentiments of its own population.

Babak Makkinejad

Sidney O. Smith III:

Thank you for your comments.

I quoted Dean Rusk in order to support my contention regarding intense lobbying effort of US at UN in 1948.

I imagine that D.R. was working at the pleasure of teh President of the United States and had to salute the flag and carry-out his orders.

Curious

that US - as state and polity - have an emotional attachment to the State of Israel.

Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 18 December 2007 at 11:56 AM

----

Babak, this is the part I don't understand about Iran. Iran understand so LITTLE about US politics, despite having been in conflict for 20-30 yrs. This is as oppose to Iran understanding of european politics or middle eastern politics.

Here is a hint:

1. Just because you talk/want peace, does not mean people in DC actually cares even if you can prove it. You have to show the money and the gun.

that is to say, it's active constant lobbying.

2. Washington DC is owned by lobbyist and Israel (AIPAC) is second largest lobbying group in the city. We are talking about campaign money, media support, political ground operation, etc.

3. Iran is a continuous political target. Because it is easy and the promise of return is very high. (terrorism equipments, oil, cheap campaign rhetoric)

Money talk. just like anywhere else in the world. You have to spend money to get what you want. cash talks. There is no democracy.

The Russian mafia or Turkish military have more sophisticated relationship with DC congress than Iran.

Sidney O. Smith III

Babak:

Thank you for your response. Several years ago, I made a commitment to try to shine a different light on Dean Rusk, if the opportunity so arose. In all probability, my view does not represent a majority opinion and, instead, reflects a dissent.

I appreciate your valuable contributions to this website. Your comments offer a different perspective and most assuredly help us all.

“Sid”

Andy

Arthurdecco,

My apologies for my intent was not to offend but to respond to what you originally wrote:

So far I've seen no evidence of "a readiness for responsibility" from the greater Jewish American community, their meaningless, private, polled thoughts notwithstanding.

I simply thought it strange you would single out the Jewish American community for no evidence of "a readiness for responsibility" when it appears the rest of America isn't showing much of it either, their "meaningless, private, polled thoughts notwithstanding."

Babak,

What caused US policy to change between between September 17-th to 11-October of 1947?

Looking at the entirety, there appears to be a lot of conflict and controversy about what to do within the administration. At several points, Marshall's ideas and public statements directly conflict with Truman, which he complains about. To me at least, it appears Truman decided to punt to the UN in 1947 and follow its lead. Truman ended up supporting UNSCOP's recommendations. Lobbying the UN in 1948 doesn't make sense because the vote for partition took place in November 1947.

The real lobbying likely had more to do with US recognition once it became clear the UN plan would fail.

Babak Makkinejad

Curious:

I recall watching a conversation with Richard Nixon during which he observed that the reason these lobbyists are in DC is because "that's where the action is"; i.e. money. And he continued on saying to rectify it USG has to be made smaller - to not take in so much of the wealth of the United States.

Babak Makkinejad

Andy:

My mistake; meant "1947" rather "1948".

Babak Makkinejad

Andy:

My mistake; meant "1947" rather than "1948".

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28            
Blog powered by Typepad