Please Hit

Folks, This is a Free Site and will ALWAYS stay that way. But the only way I offset my expenses is through the donations of my readers. PLEASE Consider Making a Donation to Keep This Site Going. SO HIT THE TIP JAR (it's on the left-hand column).

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

65 Yrs Ago President Truman Led From the FRONT When Israel Declared Independence

Sixty-five years ago (by the Hebrew calender) Israel declared her independence. That independence may have been very short lived were it not for the strong will of President Harry S Truman, who became the new Jewish State's first international supporter.

Truman recognized Israel not because of any political stance, but because he thought it was the right thing to do.

When Israel’s Chief Rabbi, Isaac Herzog, visited the White House after Israel declared her independence he told Truman, “
God put you in your mother’s womb so that you would be the instrument to bring the rebirth of Israel after 2000 years.”
Over and over since he took office President Obama has said he had Israel's back. It saddens me to say I cannot believe that statement.

I doubt whether Barack Obama would not have made the same decision as Truman. Over the past four years he has tossed aside allies such as Great Britain, Honduras and Israel solely to score points with the socialist and Muslim parts of the world.

If Barack Obama was president 65-years ago Israel would have been cast aside in deference to the King of Saudi Arabia. He would have tried to negate the UN Partition Plan the same way he tried to pressure Honduras to ignore her constitution.

"What I am trying to do is make the whole world safe for Jews," Harry Truman wrote as he agonized over his decision to recognize a Jewish state in Palestine.

Secretary of State George Marshall (Time’s 1947 Man of the Year) was just as opposed to the creation of Israel as Truman was for it.

Clark M. Clifford, Special Counsel to President Truman at the time, remembered the internal US fight regarding the recognition of the Jewish State--- the final discussion in the oval office. The meeting turned out to be an angry battle with Clifford and the President on one side, Marshall and Undersecretary of State Robert Lovett on the other. 

The argument used many of the same memes as used today.

Lovett first argued that Truman was supporting Israel was solely for political gain and he warned the president that the move would lose more votes than it would gain. When that didn't work, Lovett tried another approach the red scare (because you know all of those Jews are commies). As Clifford recalls:
"Mr. President, to recognize the Jewish state prematurely would be buying a pig in a poke," Lovett continued. "How do we know what kind of Jewish state will be set up? We have many reports from British and American intelligence agents that Soviets are sending Jews and commu­nist agents into Palestine from the Black Sea area." Lovett read some of these intelligence reports to the group. I found them ridiculous, and no evidence ever turned up to support them; in fact, Jews were fleeing communism throughout Eastern Europe at that very moment.”

When Lovett was done speaking it was the "hero" Marshall’s turn:
“With barely contained rage and more than a hint of self-righ­teousness, he made the most remarkable threat I ever heard anyone make directly to a President: "If you follow Clifford's advice and if I were to vote in the election, I would vote against you."
Everyone in the room was stunned. Here was the indispensable symbol of continuity whom President Truman revered and needed, making a threat that, if it became public, could virtually seal the dissolution of the Truman Administration and send the Western Alliance, then in the process of creation, into disarray before it had been fully structured. Marshall's statement fell short of an explicit threat to resign, but it came very close.”

General Marshall's position was grossly unfair. Just like to day opponents of the Jewish State believed the sole reason for the president’s support was politics.

But Truman's mind was made up-- he was going to do the right thing. At 4 p.m. Friday May 14, 1948 just before the start of Shabbos, David Ben-Gurion read a 979-word declaration of independence in front of a small audience at the Tel Aviv Art Museum.

He finished in his usual terse manner. "The state of Israel is established! The meeting is ended." At midnight, British rule over Palestine lapsed; 11 minutes later White House spokesman Charlie Ross announced U.S. recognition.

In 1961 long after was out of office, Truman met with Israeli PM David Ben Gurion in NY. Ben Gurion said this about the meeting.

“At our last meeting, after a very interesting talk, just before [the President] left me - it was in a New York hotel suite - I told him that as a foreigner I could not judge what would be his place in American history; but his helpfulness to us, his constant sympathy with our aims in Israel, his courageous decision to recognize our new state so quickly and his steadfast support since then had given him an immor­tal place in Jewish history. As I said that, tears suddenly sprang to his eyes. And his eyes were still wet when he bade me goodbye. I had rarely seen anyone so moved. I tried to hold him for a few minutes until he had become more composed, for I recalled that the hotel corridors were full of waiting journalists and photographers. He left. A little while later, I too had to go out, and a correspondent came to me to ask, "Why was President Truman in tears when he left you?"
I believe that I know. These were the tears of a man who had been subjected to calumny and vilification, who had persisted against powerful forces within his own Administration determined to defeat him. These were the tears of a man who had fought ably and honorably for a humani­tarian goal to which he was deeply committed. These were tears of thanksgiving that his God had seen fit to bless his labors with success.”

How times have changed. In 1948 our president used a moral compass to decide foreign policy. Truman was a President who judged not whether things would make us popular in Europe and the Arab world, but whether it was the right thing for the US. Truman felt that the best thing for America's future was for our country and our president to grab the leadership position of the entire world.

Our President today sees the US as nothing special, not a leader but one of many countries on the planet. He has described his strategy as "leading from behind” Doing the right thing is not as important as finding favor among those countries that hate us because of what we represent. And if that means we have to throw our historical allies under the bus, so be it. The morality behind Truman's direction helped to make America strong. 
Like most of his agenda, Obama's "lets be friends with the people who hate us," will only serve to drive this country towards mediocrity and put our children and grandchildren in danger. Would Barack Obama have had the moral courage to recognize the new Jewish State the way that Harry Truman did 65 years ago? What do you think?


Edgehopper said...

Forget Obama--would FDR have had the moral courage to recognize Israel?

I doubt it. It's a very lucky thing for FDR's historical reputation that he died when he did, and had the excellent Harry Truman as his then vice president to wrap up WW2. Jewish Americans were deluded for decades, and in many cases still are, into believing that FDR was some sort of great man for the Jews because of World War II. Well, the US won it on his watch, but subsequent historical evidence showed that he didn't care about the Jews, and didn't take the easy steps that would have saved hundreds of thousands.

Too bad they don't make Democrats like Truman any more.

Otajaho said...

Wonderful post. The only problem was that Truman did nothing to actually support Israel after that, and in fact, the US has done many things over the years, from 1956 and '67, to the sale of AWACS to the Saudi's, refusal to provide aid at the onset of the Yom Kippur war, etc, that have actually exacerbated the situation. Most times, Israel does not need physical support, i.e. military eqpt, etc, but rather unvarnished philosophical and political support, and THAT has been absent in times of real need.