Israel’s Origin: The Balfour Declaration
In the year 1896 Theodore Herzl wrote a pamphlet titled “Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State)”, in which he called upon the Jewish people to establish a Jewish state. According to Herzl, himself Jewish, the attempts to assimilate in the European societies had not resolved the problem of anti-Semitism. According to Herzl, only emigration to a Jewish state, somewhere in the world, could solve the problems of the European Jewry.
Eventually the Zionist Movement was established based on the ideas espoused by Herzl. It worked amongst the European Jewry to get them to support the vision of a Jewish state. In addition, it worked amongst the politicians of the leading nations of the world in order to get them to support the establishment of a Zionist entity.
Herzl had his eyes set on the lands of Palestine and therefore contacted the Ottoman Khalifah Abdul Hamid II who at the time ruled over the area. The Khalifah, however, adamantly refused him an audience. Herzl therefore also contacted the German Emperor Wilhelm II, whose country was in an alliance with the Ottoman Khilafah, hoping he would be able to convince him to support the project. While the German Emperor did agree to meet Herzl, in Palestine even, he too would not provide any meaningful support to the Zionist Movement. [1]
The Zionists then began approaching the leaders of the countries with animosity towards the Ottoman Khilafah, offering Jewish support for their battle against the Muslims if in return the Zionists would be allowed to establish their state in Palestine once the Muslims were defeated. In Britain Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild [2] and Chaim Weizmann [3] led this effort. In the United States two lawyers represented the Zionists, Louis Brandeis [4] and Felix Frankfurter [5]. Brandeis was a close personal friend of Woodrow Wilson (US president from 1913 until 1921) while Frankfurter was friends with Franklin Roosevelt (US president from 1933 until 1945). Both eventually became members of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Rothschild and Weizmann got the British behind their plan. They built links with British politicians such as Lloyd George, a later Prime Minister, Arthur Balfour, a later Foreign Secretary, Herbert Samuel, a later High Commissioner of Palestine, and Mark Sykes, and got them to agree with the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine that would act as a supporter of the British plans for the region. Weizmann told the British politicians: “England … would have in the Jews the best possible friends, who would be the best national interpreters of ideas in the eastern countries and would serve as a bridge between the two civilizations. That again is not a material argument, but certainly it ought to carry great weight with any politician who likes to look 50 years ahead.” [6] In addition, the Zionists promised the British that in return for their support for the Zionist cause, the Zionists would ensure America entered the war against Germany on the side of Britain. [7]
This lobbying effort was successful and got the government of Britain to formally support the plan to establish in Palestine a Jewish state. In 1917 Lord Arthur Balfour, at that moment the British Foreign Secretary, sent Lord Rothschild a letter which said: “Dear Lord Rothschild, I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet. ‘His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country’. I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation. Yours sincerely, Arthur James Balfour” [8]
America and the Balfour Declaration
In 1917 America did not yet have a specific, independent plan for the Middle-East. It wanted to take over Britain’s influence in the world, for which reason president Wilson promoted the idea of “independence for colonized people” around the world, but it had not yet formulated an alternative for British colonialism in Palestine.
However, since the idea of a Jewish state did not necessarily conflict with the idea of “independence for colonized people,” America had no real arguments against it. Especially since the threat to the Arab’s right to independence that the Jewish state could entail was explicitly addressed by the Balfour Declaration when it said that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”
Consequently, America was not explicitly against the Balfour Declaration and the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, although this was part of the British geopolitical plan.
American and Israel during the Interwar Period (1918 – 1938)
Following the defeat of Imperial Germany and the Ottoman Khilafah in World War I, Britain had executed the plan she had developed for the Middle East in 1916. She had agreed with France a partitioning of the area, the so-called Sykes-Picot agreement [9], as part of which Palestine would come under British control. Following the end of fighting Britain and France organized international conferences to gather international support for this agreement between them. In 1919 they therefore organized the San Remo Conference, in order to convince Italy and Japan to accept the plan. [10] America had also been invited to officially participate in the conference, but she refused as she did not want to be part of the British – French plans. Instead, America sent observers to the conference. After having received from the Italians and Japanese the nod to go ahead, Britain and France approached the League of Nations, the predecessor of the United Nations, to get it to approve the Sykes-Picot agreement as well.
America did its best to block the plan of Britain and France. It formed a committee to investigate what the people of the Middle East wanted. The committee was headed by Henry King and Charles Crane, who, during the Versailles Peace Conference of 1919, reported that the Arabs wanted independence. And, King and Crane reported, if for some reason they could not have full independence, the Arabs preferred to be ruled by America rather than come under British or French colonialism. On the side of this fundamental criticism of the British – French plan for the Middle East King and Crane also argued against the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, as according to them this would lead to suppression of the Arab’s right to independence. Through the King-Crane Committee America took a formal stand against a Jewish state in Palestine, in other words. [11]
America’s ability to influence geopolitical decisions was limited at that time, however. So Britain and France were able to make the League of Nations ignore the American opinions and agree to execution of their Sykes-Picot agreement.
American and Israel during World War II (1938 – 1945)
During World War II both Britain and America tried to remain on friendly footing with as many nations as possible.
The British therefore worked to establish an agreement between the Zionists and the Arabs about Palestine, such that the Zionists could establish their state will full agreement from everyone concerned. This plan was first formulated in 1937 by the British Peel Committee lead by Lord Peel. [12]
In part due to the war America did not actively resist this British plan. President Franklin Roosevelt also tried to remain friends with everyone of importance and hence he spoke of American support for establishment of Israel in front of supporters of Zionism, while at the same time promising the anti-Zionist Jews in America as well as the Arabs of the Middle East that America would always support the principles of independence and democracy and therefore not support any resolution regarding Palestine that was not supported by all concerned parties. [13]
Britain and the establishment of Israel
Following World War II it was clear America was the new superpower in the western hemisphere. Consequently, Britain changed its approach to maintain its interests. Its new plan was to be America’s closest and best friend, such that Britain could influence America (whom she considered to be “inexperienced” in the international arena) and through British advice America could be brought to effectively support the British interests around the world. [14]
As far as the Middle East was concerned, Britain was still in control through its influence over the local rulers. Since massive amounts of oil had been discovered in the Middle East, Britain focused on settling the dispute in Palestine between the Zionists and Arabs in a way that would both these parties linked to Britain. As per the recommendation of the Peel Committee Britain wanted to split Palestine between Jewish and an Arab state, but in a way that wouldn’t alienate either party from Britain.
So Britain decided to limit Jewish emigration from Europe to Palestine, such that the power and influence of the Zionist movement could be contained and it would remain dependent on British support. At the same time, it wanted to create a situation of chaos in Palestine that would facilitate establishment of a Jewish state by the Zionists. But, in a way that would not make the Arabs upset with Britain. [15]
Consequently, on the 2nd of April 1947 Britain requested the United Nations to establish a United Nations Special Committee for Palestine (UNSCP) to study and advise on the future of Palestine. On the 3rd of September 1947 the UNSCP recommended a partitioning of Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state, as the British had wanted ever since Lord Peel’s study.
For obvious reasons the Arabs were not happy with this recommendation as it would legitimize the Zionists’ expulsion of Arabs from cities and villages in Palestine. Using the Arab sentiment as a justification, Britain then declared that it could support UNSCP recommendations that were not supported by all sides in the conflict. It formally declared it would no longer cooperate with the UNSCP announced a withdrawal of its troops from the area. [16]
On the 14th of May 1948 the last British soldiers left Palestine, giving the Zionists the opportunity to declare establishment of their Jewish state of Israel. The British trained, equipped and lead army of Trans-Jordan then went into the areas, followed by small contingents of troops from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. [17] Not to liberate Palestine and expel the Zionists, however, but to cement Zionist control over those parts of Palestine that the UNSCP, following the Peel Committee advice, recommended be given to them. In 1947, already, King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan had already agreed this with the Zionists leaders. [18] Consequently, the British commanders of Trans-Jordan’s Arab Legion operated under instructions to bring under their control the areas of Palestine that the UNSCP had assigned to the Arabs, such that no hostilities could be launched from there against the Zionists, and to not proceed any further into Palestine. [19]
Following all this Britain then organized formal ceasefires – armistices – between Israel and the Arab countries Transjordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. [20]
America and the establishment of Israel
After World War II the Zionist movement in America started to work amongst Christian circles as well, in order to get the Christians of America behind the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine. Consequently, the Zionist ideal became not just a matter of foreign policy but also a matter of domestic policy importance, as many American voters began to consider Israel when they casted their votes during elections. [21] This placed American politicians in a somewhat difficult position, since they now had to present themselves as both supporter and adversary of Israel. They wanted to be seen as adversaries of Israel by the foreign public, the Arabs especially, to ensure America could take over the leading role in the Middle East from Great Britain and open the area up for the American oil companies. And they wanted to be seen as supporters of Israel by the domestic public, to ensure they got their votes during elections. This caused the habit of American politicians to say one thing but do another regarding Israel.
America was aware of what Britain tried to do in the Middle East. In 1944 America had cut a deal with the King of Saudi-Arabia regarding oil, which had exposed to America the British conniving and backstabbing to get the deal undone. America was infuriated by this and France used this American sentiment to get America behind its plans for the Middle East. France had lost most of her influence in Syria to the British. She had therefore contacted the Zionists in Palestine with the aim of convincing them that an alliance with France would serve their interests better than an alliance with Britain. When the Zionists showed willingness to join hands with France, France tried to get America to join this pact since she knew she needed the American military and economic power to make the plan against Britain work. For this reason the French president Charles De Gaulle visited Washington DC during August 1945. [22] Immediately after this visit the American president Harry Truman began to pressure Britain to allow more Jewish refugees to immigrate to Palestine, in order to undermine the British plan for the region. [23]
At the same time the French tried to unite the various Zionist militias and form a single front against Britain. In October of 1945, during a visit to Paris, the prominent Zionist David Ben Gurion announced that this unification had indeed been achieved and that a Jewish Resistance had been formed. Ben Gurion then remained in Paris to direct the operations of this Jewish Resistance Force. [24]
America, however, was not in full support of an increase in violence in the region. It wanted a peaceful settlement of the Palestinian issue. She therefore recommended placing Palestine under control of the United Nations. [25] And, she implemented an arms embargo against all countries in the Middle East, including the lands controlled by the Zionists, to prevent a further escalation of violence and to strengthen America’s image of honest and independent peace broker. [26]
However, when in 1948 Israel declared independence, the American president realized that the British plans had been victorious over the French – American efforts. Much to the dislike of the establishment in the American Department of State, he changed the American plan and recognized Israel. The American representatives at the United Nations, who had until then always worked on the basis of the American plan calling for “stability and neutrality,” were so shocked that they resigned en masse. [27]
America and Israel: From establishment (1948) until the Suez Crisis (1956)
After World War II American foreign policy had two main aims. Firstly, America wanted to defeat the communist ideology and spread capitalism around the world. Secondly, within the capitalist world America wanted to take over the influence of the old powers Britain and France.
Due to these twin aims, there was a difference in opinion regarding Israel amongst American policy makers. Some argued that America should not be too close to Israel, since this would anger the Arabs and could make them turn to the Soviet Union. Because of the oil of the Middle East, this was a major concern. Others, however, argued that America should be especially close to Israel, since a successful Israel would effectively promote the secular, democratic capitalist model. President Truman was of the opinion that since the United Nations has supported the establishment of Israel, America did not run a too big risk of upsetting the Arabs if and when it supported Israel, as America could always justify such an action by stating it only followed international opinion as expressed by the UNSCP decision. The US president was therefore in favor of supporting Israel, just not to the detriment of the Arabs. The Middle East policy put in place by America at that time was therefore one under which both Israel and the Arab countries received American support. America thought that this way it could prevent the spread of communism in the region and take over the influence of Great-Britain and France. [28]
When General Dwight Eisenhower became American president this policy of being everyone’s friend in the Middle East was maintained. Israel, in other words, did not receive any preferential treatment from the Americans. She was seen as a state amidst other states in the Middle East and America’s objectives was to control all of them, in particular the oil producing ones. [29]
The Suez Crisis of 1956 made clear what exactly this meant for American – Israeli relations. The Americans had substantially damaged British influence in Egypt by supporting Jamal Abdul Nasser to rise to power. [30] In 1956 he proceeded to nationalize the Suez Canal, which had hitherto been a British possession. Obviously, the British were less than pleased with this loss of control over one of the main choke points for international trade. So she turned to France and Israel in an attempt to give Abdul Nasser a matching reply. The parties met in a place called Sèvres, close to Paris, and agreed to launch a military attack against Abdul Nasser to enable Britain to take the Suez Canal back, to enable Israel to occupy the Sinai desert, and to enable France to block Abdul Nasser’s support for the independence fighters in Algeria. [31] On the 29th of September 1956 the parties launched their assault. The Egyptian army was unable to put up much resistance and Abdul Nasser very quickly found himself at the end of the abyss. America was furious. President Eisenhower not only publicly criticized the military action, through the United Nations he also organized a military intervention to stop the fighting and push the Israeli army back behind the pre-1956 border. [32]
America and Israel: From the Eisenhower Doctrine (1957) until the Camp David Accord (1978)
In 1957 America adopted the Eisenhower doctrine to guide its foreign policy. Because this doctrine promised support for any country threatened by communism, this was in effect a turning point in the relationship between America and Israel. [33] Israel came to be seen by America as an important “forward base,” from which the American military and intelligence services could work against communism in the Middle East. In return for providing this platform for anti-communist operations, America promised Israel that she would help her develop a military might capable of defending herself against any enemy in the region. [34]
This did not mean, however, that America now served Israel. The Six Day War of 1967 proved this. America was aware that her support for Israel could cause her to lose the sympathy of the Arabs, something the Soviet Union could exploit. She needed a plan, therefore, to push the Arabs away from communism. [35] This plan was a war in which the weapons bought by Egypt’s Abdul Nasser from the Eastern Bloc would be defeated by Israel’s American weapons, such that the Arabs would lose hope in communism and choose the side of capitalism once and for all.
Consequently, in May of 1967 Abdul Nasser of Egypt suddenly took on an aggressive position against Israel, after having been patient with Israeli terrorism in the Gaza strip and the Sinai region, suppressing domestic calls for war against Israel, and even engaging her in friendly – yet secret – talks for a considerable amount of time. [36] Abdul Nasser demanded removal of the United Nations peacekeepers in the Sinai, on the border between Egypt and Israel. To the surprise of many, the Americans said nothing in response and the United Nations agreed to his request. Thereafter Abdul Nasser blocked Israeli ships from using the Tiran Strait, which effectively cut Israel off from the Red Sea. Again America did nothing although in 1957 president Eisenhower had guaranteed Israel access to the Strait at all times. Israel felt betrayed and responded in exactly the way America wanted. It launched a surprise attack against Egypt, Jordan and Syria. Now, suddenly, America took a stand in the conflict. She came to Israel’s aid and supplied her with weapons with which Israel could defeat the armies of Egypt, Jordan and Syria and occupy strategic territories such as the Sinai desert in Egypt and the Golan Heights in Syria. The Soviet Union was infuriated by this action and demanded that the United Nations take action to ensure Israel withdrew. This time America used its veto power, however, and blocked the Soviet resolution from going through. [38]
The role of the Soviet Union in the Middle East was now finished as in the eyes of the Arabs she had lost the Six Day War. America was now in a position to build a new Middle East based on capitalism. America thought that if she were to solve the issue of Palestine, the Arabs would open up further to working with America. The new American plan for the Middle East therefore became “Land for Peace”, under which Israel had to return the Golan Heights and the West Bank to the Arabs, who in return would sign formal peace treaties with her and thereby acknowledge and accept her existence. America formalized this plan by submitting it to the United Nations, who adopted it through resolution 242. [39]
America was not afraid to pressure Israel into accepting this plan. The October War of 1973, when the American agents Anwar Sadat (Egypt) and Hafez Al Asad (Syria) launched an attack against Israel, was an example of this. [40] America stood by during and after the first wave of attacks and did nothing meaningful to help the Israelis. After a few days Israel became afraid she would be annihilated, and at that moment America suddenly built an “aerial bridge” to supply her with whatever she needed to win the war. [41] These events made Israel realize that she was completely dependent on America. Since the Six Day War some people in Israel had grown arrogant, thinking that because Israel had been able to defeat the Arabs at that occasion she no longer needed outside support. Consequently, these people called for an independent Israeli foreign policy which ignored whatever America wanted Israel to do. [42] The October War, however, brought Israeli society back to earth, so to say, and back into the American fold.
As far as the Arabs were concerned, America wanted the October War to completely devastate any hope they might still have of eradicating Israel. America wanted the Arabs to think that Israel could never be defeated and that they, therefore, might as well make peace with her. [43] (Britain did its best to block this American plan. On the night of the attack, on the 25th of September 1973, she sent King Abdullah of Jordan to Israel to inform the Israelis of what the British knew was about to happen [44])
The October War enabled America to bring the leading states in the Middle East to the table to agree to peace with Israel as per American terms. First, America arranged an end to the fighting on the basis of UN Resolution 242. [45] Thereafter Anwar Sadat of Egypt took the initiative to start direct talks with Israel for a lasting peace deal. In 1974 the two countries signed a formal treaty, which made Egypt the first Arab country to formally recognize Israel and accept her existence. [46] Then, in the spring of 1975, the American president Gerald Ford had a series of meetings with Anwar Sadat of Egypt, King Hussein of Jordan, Prime Minister Khaddam of Syria (the first assistant of Hafez Al Aasad and Yitzak Rabin of Israel. President Ford threatened the Israelis that if they did not do what America wanted and sign the peace treaties, America would halt all economic and military aid to her. [47] This, in the end, led to a meeting between the concerned parties in Camp David in 1978, during the presidency of Jimmy Carter, at which time Israel promised to hand back control of the lands she had taken during the 1967 and 1973 wars and to allow establishment of a Palestinian state, in return for formal recognition and acceptance of her existence. [48]
America and Israel: From Camp David (1978) until today
After 1978 America so dominated the Middle East that she became more focused on benefiting economically from her power and influence in the region. This required Middle East peace, such that American companies could do business in the area from a privileged position and capture most of the benefit in the natural resources of the area.
This American intention showed itself amongst other ways through the people that made up the American administration at this time. Where earlier career civil servants had taken the leadership roles, now people with a business background came to the forefront, such as Caspar Weinberger [49] who became Secretary of Defense and George Shultz [50] who became Secretary of State. Both had previously been senior managers in the international engineering and construction company Bechtel. [51]
To achieve the desired peace, America wanted all Middle Eastern countries to compromise, as had been the objective of the Camp David meeting. America now wanted to execute what was agreed there in principle. Israel, in other words, lost whatever preferential position she might have had previously. In the eyes of America she became one player amongst many again, and who, as all others, had to give something – space for a Palestinian state – in order to get something – peace and stability.
At the same time America did continue its military and economic support of Israel, as a tool to pressure Israel and the Arab states. All the talk by American politicians about “Israel first” and a “special relationship” between the two countries was just that: talk in order to gather votes in domestic elections. If, namely, Israel did not toe the American line, she was pulled back immediately. For example during the presidency of George H.W Bush. His Secretary of State James Baker publicly criticized Israel in 1989 and told her she had to stop dreaming of a Greater Israel. Shortly thereafter president Bush himself said that America saw Jerusalem as an occupied territory and not as the capital of Israel. [52] Bush then threatened Israel that America would halt its aid if she did not stop blocking the peace plan for the Middle East. [53]
This kept Israel under American control. Consequently, during the 1990 Gulf War Israel did exactly what America wanted when Saddam Hussein fired Scud rockets towards her. Saddam hoped that an Israeli response would trigger an Arab revolt against Israel and America. For this reason America wanted Israel to not respond in any way, and she did so. After the Gulf War, furthermore, Israel halted the expansion of settlements in Palestine as requested by America. [54]
During the presidency of George W Bush the American plan remained “Land for Peace.” In 2002, after the attack on the World Trade Towers, America released an official declaration stating that there could be no peace without freedom, that America remained committed to an independent, democratic Palestinian state, and that she wanted the Israeli colonization of the West Bank to stop. [55]
Conclusion
According to some, America is a puppy on a leash in the hand of Israel. Serious analysts, however, know that this incredible idea – how could the powerful and mighty obey the weak? – is incorrect.
George Friedman of Stratfor, for example, more accurately describes Israel as a “pawn” in the American strategy for the Middle East. An important pawn, but nevertheless just a pawn. A tool for American foreign policy, in other words, not an objective. [56]
For Israel this is a less than ideal situation. She knows that for America she is just a pawn and she knows that as a consequence, her existence is not guaranteed. She knows that America supports her now, because America believes that helps the American interests in the Middle East. She also knows that it is possible that at a certain point in the future America can become of the opinion that Israel is not helping but hurting the American interests in the Middle East, or that someone else can better support the American interests in the Middle East. At that point Israel would lose her American lifeline.
That is why Israel works to prevent positive relations between America and the other countries in the Middle East. An example is the Israeli reaction to the American plan to bring Iran back into the fold of respected nations. [57] As a respectable nation Iran has more freedom to maneuver and consequently can better support the Americans in the Middle East. Israel realizes that this gives America more options and hence her need for Israel will diminish. So Israel tries to block America’s plan with Iran, amongst other ways by inciting the American public against her.
For this reason the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu travelled to America in March 2015 to give a speech in front of the American Congress. [58] The reaction of the American administration to this visit and speech proved beyond any doubt that she sees Israel as just a pawn. Various leading figures in the American administration dealt with the intention behind Netanyahu’s visit by refusing to meet him flat-out. [59] Obama belittled Netanyahu not only by not attending the speech, but by not even listening to it and calling it “irrelevant.” [60] Lastly, in the run up to Netanyahu’s visit media outlets were given access to classified information that proved Israel already knew that Iran posed no real nuclear threat, through which (American) public opinion was in fact turned against Netanyahu’s message 8 days before he was about to deliver it to the American Congress. [61]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Herzl
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Rothschild,_2nd_Baron_Rothschild
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaim_Weizmann
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Brandeis
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Frankfurter
[6] “The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: 1917 – 1988”, United Nations, http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/57C45A3DD0D46B09802564740045CC0A
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration, also: “History of the US-Israel Relationship, Part I”, Alison Weir, www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31706.htm
[8] “The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: 1917 – 1988”, United Nations, http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/57C45A3DD0D46B09802564740045CC0A
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes-Picot_Agreement
[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Remo_conference
[11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King-Crane_Commission
[12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution
[13] “The Uncertain Friendship: The U.S. and Israel from Roosevelt to Kennedy”, Herbert Drucks, 2001
[14] “British Interests in the Korean War (1950-53)”, Major Seow Hwye Min, www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/1999/Vol25_3/4.htm
[15] “The Secret 1947-1948 War Between the British and French Intelligence Services Over The Birth of the State of Israel”, Haaretz, 16 September 2014, via www.matthewaid.com/post/97641384171/the-secret-1947-1948-war-between-the-british-and; en “Uncovered: U.K. intel encouraged Arab armies to invade Israel in 1948”, Haaretz, 14 September 2014, via http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=55085; and “The French Connection”, Haaretz, 26 June 2008, www.haaretz.com/the-french-connection-1.248616; and “Britain’s treachery, France’s revenge”, Haaretz, 1 February 2008, via www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=87416
[16] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Special_Committee_on_Palestine
[17] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Legion
[18] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_I_of_Jordan
[19] “How the stood militarily: The Arab States on the eve of the 1948 War”, Times of Israel, 1 February 2015, http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/how-they-stood-militarily-the-arab-states-on-the-eve-of-the-1948-war/
[20] “Milestones: 1945 – 1952”, US Department of State: Office of the Historian, http://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-war
[21] “History of the US-Israel Relationship, Part I”, Alison Weir, www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31706.htm
[22] “Joint Statement Following the Discussions with President De Gaulle of France”, Truman Library, http://trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/index.php?pid=120
[23] “Statement by the President Following the Adjournment of the Palestine Conference”, Truman Library, http://trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/index.php?pid=1763&st=jews&st1=
[24] “The French Connection”, Haaretz, 26 June 2008, www.haaretz.com/the-french-connection-1.248616
[25] “A Decade of American Foreign Policy 1941-1949 – United States Position on the Palestine Problem – Statement by Ambassador Warren R. Austin, United States Representative in the Security Council, March 19, 1948”, The Avalon Project, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad166.asp
[26] “Milestones: 1945 – 1952”, US Department of State: Office of the Historian, http://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-war
[27] The United States and the Recognition of Israel: A Chronology, Truman Library, www.trumanlibrary.org/israel/palestin.htm
[28] “The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A Hopeless Case for U.S. Policy in the Middle East?”, Colonel Dieter Schmaglowski, 2007, http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA470891
[29] “Eisenhower and Israel: U.S.-Israeli Relations, 1953-1960”, Isaac Alteras, 1994
[30] See, for example, “America’s Great Game: The CIA’s secret Arabists and the shaping of the Modern Middle East” by High Wilford, 2013; and “The Game of Nations: The Amorality of Power Politics” by Miles Copeland, 1970; and “The Game Player: Confessions of the CIA’s Original Political Operative” by Miles Copeland, 1989
[31] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_of_Sèvres; for more on the French interest in the partnership see “The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World”, Avi Shlaim, 2001
[32] “Eisenhower 1956: The President’s Year of Crisis, Suez and the Brink of War”, David A. Nichols, 2011
[33] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower_Doctrine
[34] “Eisenhower and Israel: U.S.-Israeli Relations, 1953-1960”, Isaac Alteras, 1994
[35] “Lyndon Johnson and Israel: The Secret Presidential Recordings”, Robert David Johnson, 2008, www.tau.ac.il/humanities/abraham/publications/johnson_israel.pdf
[36] “Britain, Nasser and the Outbreak of the Six Day War”, Robert McNamara, Journal of Contemporary History, October 2000, www.jstor.org/stable/261063
[37] “The 1967 Arab-Israel War”, US Department of State – Office of the Historian, http://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/arab-israeli-war-1967; also “Controversies relating to the Six Day War”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_relating_to_the_Six-Day_War; en “Britain, Nasser and the Outbreak of the Six Day War”, Robert McNamara, Journal of Contemporary History, October 2000, www.jstor.org/stable/261063
[38] “LBJs Secret Israel Tapes”, Robert David Johnson, 2008, www.nysun.com/opinion/lbjs-secret-israel-tapes/78712/
[39] “Eisenhower and Israel: U.S.-Israeli Relations, 1953-1960”, Isaac Alteras, 1994
[40] “In July 1972, Sadat expelled almost all of the 20,000 Soviet military advisers in the country and reoriented the country’s foreign policy to be more favorable to the United States”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War; Regarding Hafiz Al Asad, the best indications for his closeness to America are his support for America during the 1990 Gulf War, America’s desire for his son Bashar to replace him at his death (as expressed by Madeline Albright at the time and for which the Syrian government quickly had to change the constitution), and America’s insistence during the current uprising in Syria that the state institutions built by the Al Asads must be maintained.
[41] “The Impact of American Arms Transfers to Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur War”, David Rodman, Israel Council of Foreign Relations, www.israelcfr.com/documents/7-3/7-3-6-DavidRodman.pdf
[42] “Remembering the 1973 War”, Efraim Inbar, www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Remembering-the-1973-war-327600; also “The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A Hopeless Case for U.S. Policy in the Middle East?”, Colonel Dieter Schmaglowski, 2007, http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA470891
[43] “US Foreign Policy in the Yom Kippur War, 1973”, Steve Jones, http://usforeignpolicy.about.com/od/middleeast/a/U-S-Foreign-Policy-In-The-Yom-Kippur-War-1973.htm
[44] “Account of King Hussein’s 1973 war warning still deemed too harmful to release”, Times of Israel, 12 September 2013, www.timesofisrael.com/account-of-king-husseins-1973-war-warning-still-deemed-too-harmful-to-release/
[45] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_338; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_339; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_340
[46] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War
[47] “Foreign Relations”, Gerald R. Ford Library, www.ford.utexas.edu/library/document/factbook/foreign.htm
[48] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_Accords
[49] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspar_Weinberger
[50] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Shultz
[51] “Israeli – United States Relations”, Clyde R. Mark, 2002, http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/14820.pdf
[52] “Israeli – United States Relations”, Clyde R. Mark, 2002, http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/14820.pdf
[53] “The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A Hopeless Case for U.S. Policy in the Middle East?”, Colonel Dieter Schmaglowski, 2007, http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA470891
[54] “Israeli – United States Relations”, Clyde R. Mark, 2002, http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/14820.pdf
[55] “The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A Hopeless Case for U.S. Policy in the Middle East?”, Colonel Dieter Schmaglowski, 2007, http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA470891
[56] “The Complex History of the U.S.-Israel Relationship”, George Friendman, www.realclearworld.com/articles/2015/03/04/the_complex_history_of_the_us-israel_relationship_111012.html
[57] “A History of Iran-US Relations”, Revolution Observer, www.revolutionobserver.com/2014/03/historyiranusrelation.html
[58] “Transcript of Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress”, New York Times, 4 March 2015, www.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/us/politics/transcript-of-netanyahus-remarks-to-congress.html
[59] “Some U.S. leaders to refuse meeting with Israeli PM during Washington trip”, www.juancole.com/2015/03/leaders-israeli-washington.html
[60] “Obama: Netanyahu’s speech ‘nothing new’ “,3 March 2015, www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2015/03/03/tsr-dnt-kosinski-white-house-reaction-to-netanyahu-speech.cnn
[61] “Al Jazeera publishes leaked intelligence files showing Netanyahu lied about Iranian nuclear threat”, Mondoweiss.net, http://mondoweiss.net/2015/02/publishes-intelligence-netanyahu
