Tuesday, November 28, 2023
Miles from the Mainstream
D. R. ZUKERMAN, proprietor

U.S. Threats Against Israel
Are Nothing New

June 19, 2015 --

Earlier this month, The New York Times printed a report by Helene Cooper raising the possibility that the Obama administration might support a United Nations Security Council resolution "embodying the principle of a two-state solution that would include Israel's 1967 borders, with mutually agreed swaps of territory with the future Palestine." The New York Times should be advised that U.S. threats to end support for Israel in international organizations go back at least to June 10, 1949, in a State Department memorandum calling for "Immediate adoption of a generally negative attitude toward Israel." [Italics in original.] This memo also included a recommendation to end the tax-exempt status of the United Jewish Appeal because "[s]uch contributions are now of direct benefit to a sovereign foreign state."

This memorandum was prompted by Israel's rejection of Washington's ideas -- as set forth in a May 28 note to the Government of Israel -- on "territorial settlement in Palestine and to the question of Palestinian refugees." The May 28 note stated that the United State Government was "seriously disturbed" by Israel's attitude. The May 28 note warned that rejection by Israel "of the friendly advice offered by the US Gov for the sole purpose of facilitating a genuine peace in Palestine" will force "the US Govt...to the conclusion that a revision of its attitude toward Israel has become unavoidable."

The suggestion by the Obama administration that American Jews better follow the Democratic party line on the Middle East is nothing new. President Truman, according to a State Department"TOP SECRET" memorandum, dated June 9, 1949, warned "a number of Jewish leaders who had called on him that unless they were prepared to play the game properly and conform to the rules they were probably going to lose one of their best friends."

LPR is puzzled that the June 10 memorandum referred to Israel as "a sovereign foreign state." Clearly, the State Department's expectation that Israel should jump when ordered to suggests to LPR that the State Department viewed Israel as not quite "sovereign." The ongoing refusal of the State Department to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel certainly cannot be said to respect Israel's sovereign rights.

In 1948-1949, Washington wanted Israel to give up the Negev, if it retained western Galilee. Will the Obama administration resurrect that demand on Israel as a "conciliatory" peace term? It should also be noted that when Jordan controlled the West Bank, from 1948 to 1967, there was no call for "a two-state solution."

By the way, what with all the emphasis on Israel as "obstacle to peace," does anyone know the peace terms that the Palestinian Authority have in mind? And is it not interesting that Hamas, which kills Israeli civilians, rejects the existence of Israel and intends to establish an Islamic State of Palestine after Israel is destroyed, is never referred to as an"obstacle to peace." Nor does the Obama administration refer to the Moslem Brotherhood -- Hamas is the Palestine branch of the brotherhood -- as an "obstacle to peace," nor is the term applied to Iran and Hezbollah. Not even barbarous ISIS is denounced as "obstacle to peace."

It is to be expected that a UN Security Council calling for" a two-state solution" -- perhaps by November 29, 2017 -- would be precursor to a resolution demanding sanctions against Israel should Israel reject such a resolution. The anti-Israel boycott, divestment, sanctions (BDS) crowd would applaud sanctions against the Jewish State. But there is nothing new to the current BDS movement,either. From the time of Israel's establishment, the Arab world has boycotted Israel, economically as well as diplomatically. The RAND Corporation prediction of an economic benefit from "a two-state solution" is bizarre. Just consider the "cold" nature of peace between Israel and Egypt, and Israel and Jordan. It is to be expected that The New York Times, in a June 13 editorial on the RAND prediction, would cite "the political climate in Israel" why "there is no prospect of a quick revival of peace talks." History instructs, however, that "there is no prospect of a quick revival of peace talks" because the Palestinian Authority is interested only in peace negotiations where Israel is on its knees, begging for mercy.

LPR calls on the RAND Corporation to explain how the anti-Semitic indoctrination of Palestinian children makes likely its prediction of peace dividends. The UN Palestine Partition Plan of November 29, 1949 included a call for economic union of the Arab and Jewish States. That didn't work out either, did it?