The 100 year betrayal of Israel by the West

By Ted Belman  Mar 26/17

One hundred years ago the British government published the Balfour Declaration which stipulated,

“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors 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.”

In 1920, the WWI  victorious allies met in San Remo for the purpose of allocating the captured Ottoman Empire. It was decided, among other things, to put Palestine under British Mandatory rule. Thus the Allies confirmed the pledge contained in the Balfour Declaration concerning the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine and made it a legal obligation on Britain and a legal entitlement for the Jews.

When the Palestine Mandate was drafted by the League of Nations pursuant to the San Remo Resolution, it added this important recital,

“Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”

This addition was of great importance as it affirmed the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine, which, by the way, the PA and the UN today are doing their best to deny.  In addition, the Jewish right to “reconstitute” their national home was recognized. Thus the Jews were in Palestine as a matter of right and not sufferance.

The Mandate provided,

“The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co¬operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.“

The first betrayal of that promise and right came in 1921 before the Mandate was signed.  The Arabs had rioted and Britain decided to reduce Jewish immigration to “absorptive capacity” and  told Chaim Weizmann that the mandate wouldn’t be signed if the Jews didn’t agree to delete temporarily,  the east bank of the Jordan. The Jews had no choice but to agree and the Palestine Mandate was signed in 1922.  This territory amounted to 78% of what was promised to the Jews and it ultimately became Jordan. The deletion of the east bank became permanent contrary to Article 5 which prohibited any removal of land from the Mandate.

While the British Cabinet was generally sympathetic to the Zionist project, the Civil Administration appointed by it to manage the mandatory was antisemitic. It restrained the Jews and emboldened the Arabs thereby violating its pledge to use its best efforts to facilitate the creation of a homeland. Whenever the Arabs rioted, the Jews were made to pay the price. Sound familiar?

After the Arab riots of 1929. A White Paper was issued by Britain that stated that because of the shortage of arable land, Jewish settlement would be permitted only under stringent government supervision. Thus, another betrayal.

From 1936 to 39, The Arab Revolt against the British took place which led to the Peel Commission being appointed to study the matter and make recommendations. The Commission recommended that the Mandate be partitioned between Arabs and Jews thereby further diminishing what was promised to the Jews and what they had the legal right to.  This recommendation was passed by the British Parliament but ultimately abandoned.

In and by virtue of the 1939 White Paper, Jewish immigration to Palestine was limited to 75,000 for the first five years, subject to the country’s “economic absorptive capacity”, and would later be contingent on Arab consent. Stringent restrictions were imposed on land acquisition by Jews.

This betrayal was all the more egregious as Hitler, who had been in power for six years had systematically denied Jews their rights and their property and removed them from their jobs and their professions. The Jews were is dire straits and needed to emigrate.

The Jewish Agency for Palestine issued a scathing response to the White Paper, saying the British were denying the Jewish people their rights  in “darkest hour of Jewish history. It was to no avail.

During WWII, Hitler attempted to exterminate the Jews, by first transporting them to extermination camps, like Auschwitz, and then killing them with the use of poison gas. Britain still refused to allow more Jews into Palestine.

In effect, Germany was herding the Jews into barns before setting fire to them and Britain was guarding the burning barns to make sure no Jews escaped, metaphorically speaking.

The British also bombed and torpedoed many ships of refugees, with the express purpose to kill Jews.  Thus continuing the work of Nazi Germany upon those that had escaped the Nazis.

Tens of thousands of ‘additional’ Jews were murdered intentionally and with malice aforethought by the Government of Britain.

After the war, Britain still wouldn’t let the survivors in. Instead they were housed in “displaced persons” camps in Europe until Israel’s declaration of Independence on May 19. 1948.

Just imagine the millions of Jews who would have emigrated to Israel during the holocaust had Britain adhered to her obligation in the Mandate.

But before leaving Palestine, Britain once more betrayed the Jews by turning over all their military equipment and police stations to the Arabs. This was after they had confiscated all weapons in the hands of the Jews that they could find.

To make matters worse, the US imposed an embargo on all US weapons to either the Arabs or the Jews, making it very difficult for the Jews to get the arms needed to defend themselves.

Upon Israel declaring independence, six Arab countries invaded Israel intent on destroying the state and killing the Jews. Pres Truman believed that the Jews would be defeated within four months but still maintained the arms embargo.  The Jews succeeded in turning the war around and began conquering additional territory.  Only then was it possible to arrange a permanent ceasefire.  In the Ceasefire Agreement with Jordan, Jordan insisted that the ceasefire lines were never to be construed as a border between Jordan and Israel. Israel agreed. This didn’t stop Pres Obama from demanding that the border between Israel and Palestine be the said ceasefire lines.

In 1956, Nasser closed the Straits of Tiran, an international waterway, and Israel, in response to this causes belli, conquered the Sinai in concert with the Britain and France who were interested in reclaiming the Suez Canal.  President Eisenhower forced them all to retreat. Part of the deal was that the US, Britain, France and Russia would guarantee that the Straits would remain open to Israel.

In 1967, Nasser again closed the Straits of Tiran and the Guarantors were nowhere to be found. Another betrayal.

In response to this causes belli and the massing of Arab armies on all Israel’s borders, Israel pre-emptively attacked and defeated Egypt, Syria and Jordan in 6 days.

Considering that this was the third time in 20 years that Israel was forced to defend itself, you would think that Israel would be entitled to keep all land conquered in such a defensive war pursuant to international law. But no, the best it could get from United Nations Security Council  was Res 242 which began by “Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war “ in total disregard to this war being a defensive war which permits it.  It required Israel to withdraw from territories acquired (but not all territories) in exchange for “secure and recognized boundaries free from acts or threats of force”.  Thus it was recognized that secure boundaries would necessitate Israel retaining some of the territories.

Subsequently, the international community has embraced the Arab Peace Initiative, which has no legal standing whatsoever, and which requires 100% withdrawal. Another betrayal.

In addition, the international community interpreted this, ex post facto, to include unsecure borders which can be made secure by arrangements rather than borders which are inherently secure as was originally intended. Again, a betrayal.

In 1973, on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack on Israel and in the first 2 or 3 days came close to destroying Israel. I took Israel this long to fully mobilize.  It quickly ran low on ammunition and parts and appealed to the US for resupply. Henry Kissinger, Pres Nixon’s Foreign Secretary, refused immediate delivery as he wanted Israel to suffer a bloody nose so that she would be more pliable in future negotiations. Fortunately, without this much-needed resupply, Gen Ariel Sharon managed to create a beach head on the west side of the Suez Canal from which he started for Cairo which was undefended.  Most of the Egyptian Army had gone to the east side to fight Israel. Russia threatened to intervene and Nixon stood up to them and ordered Kissinger to affect the resupply immediately and to arrange a ceasefire. The resupply was made more difficult as the various European countries denied the resupply planes with landing rights on their way to Israel. I would say that Kissinger’s delay of resupply and Europe’s withholding landing rights were two more grave betrayals.

President GW Bush put a lot of energy into convening the Madrid Conference in 1991 in which peace negotiations could start.  He tried to have the PLO included in the talks but PM Shamir insisted that only Palestinians from the West Bank could participate as part of the Jordanian delegation. Bush also insisted that Jerusalem be put on the table for final status negotiations. Shamir resisted this as well but in the end agreed. He needed a US guarantee for $10 billion in order for Israel to be able to finance the massive aliya from Russia.

After this, Shimon Peres had an opportunity to negotiate with the PLO in secrecy to see what could be negotiated and PM Rabin gave his approval. This resulted in the Oslo Declaration of Principles for Interim Self Government being signed in 1993. It awkwardly described the Palestinian party to the agreement as “the PLO team (in the JordanianPalestinian delegation to the Middle East Peace Conference) (the “Palestinian Delegation”), representing the Palestinian people,”. Quite a mouthful.

“The aim of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations within the current Middle East peace process is, among other things, to establish a Palestinian Interim SelfGovernment Authority, the elected Council (the “Council”), for the Palestinian people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, for a transitional period not exceeding five years, leading to a permanent settlement based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973)”

What is important to note is that the Council was “for the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza” thereby excluding the refugees outside of the West Bank. Furthermore,  it was intended to lead to “a permanent settlement based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973)”. Nevertheless, the entire world takes the position that the goal of the Oslo Accords is the creation of a Palestinian state. This is a lie and a betrayal.

Of further note, the Accords in no way limited settlement construction, though they did define the settlements as a “final status issue”. Nevertheless, the world demands a freeze on settlement construction because they imperil a two-state solution. But the Accords made no mention of a two-state solution. PM Netanyahu has always said that they are not an impediment because they can always be removed. Besides, the Palestinians have no right to a state.

From day one, the Palestinians have been in default of the Accords because that engaged in incitement and violence which they are committed not to do.

In Sept 2000 they started the Second Intifada in which they murdered well over 1000 Israelis. Pres George Bush sent Sen George Mitchell to the territories on a fact-finding mission and he, in his report, you guessed it, recommended that Israel stop settlement construction. Once again, the West made the Jews pay the price for Arab violence.

Though Saudi Arabia played a major role in the perpetration of the attacks on 9/11 in 2001, Pres Bush felt he had to appease them by calling for a Palestinian state in his vision speech in 2002.  This was a betrayal of Israel who had always rejected the creation of such a state.

He also introduced the Roadmap for Peace which also was a further betrayal of Israel for a number of reasons: 1) It began by reciting the Arab Peace Initiative which called for 100% withdrawal by Israel contrary to Res 242 and 2) It called for Israel to freeze all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements) and 3) for the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state none of which had Israel agreed to. These were included in the 14 reservations raised by Israel to the Plan and Colin Powell insisted that the Plan be accepted, after all it was only a process he said, and promised that the State Department would give serious consideration to them which it never did.

Because of the pressure put on Israel by the US to create a Palestinian state, PM Sharon thought he had to initiate solutions before he was forced to do what the west wanted. Thus he proposed the Disengagement Plan. Bush gave him a letter in 2004 in support which committed the US to certain things including US support for the retention of the settlement blocs and a solution based on Res 242 rather than the API. It also committed the US to not allow any other Plan to be imposed. This letter was carefully drafted as it was considered to be binding on the US. One of the first things Pres Obama did after his inauguration was to disavow this letter so he would be free to impose terms on Israel if not a full plan. I would say that was a major betrayal.

As part of the Disengagement in 2005, Condi Rice negotiated the Rafah Agreement to remove Israel from manning the Rafah Crossing and to replace  them with the Europeans as the arabs had demanded. Shortly thereafter the Europeans hightailed it, leaving no outsider in charge. And thus the smuggling was facilitated.

At the end of the second Lebanese War in 2006, Condi Rice got the UNSC to pass Res 1701 which was intended to prevent Hezbollah from rearming in Lebanon south of the Litani River. It did no such thing due to the lack of commitment and now Hezbollah has stashed 150,000 missies there. A betrayal of massive proportions.

Pres Obama betrayed Israel in many ways during his presidency including forcing Israel to institute a settlement freeze and to support a two-state solution which she wasn’t legally obligated to do. Rather than leave all final status issues to be negotiated directly as had been agreed upon, he attempted to influence the parameters of an agreement by insisting on a division of Jerusalem and the ’67 lines as the borders.

During the last Gaza War in 2014, Obama refused to resupply Israel with needed ammunition and he  ordered that US commercial flights to cease during this war. It only was in force for a day but was very dramatic in its implications. Both actions undercut Israel.

His parting shot was to refrain from casting his veto to UN Res 2334 which thoroughly attacked the settlements and demanded a permanent freeze. If that weren’t bad enough, it went on to apply these demands to communities in Jerusalem east of the ceasefire lines.

The Iran Deal requires special mention as a betrayal of major proportions.

The driving force behind all these betrayals is the desire on the part of the West to appease the Arabs due to their 300 million population, their oil and gas exports and to their one billion co-religionists. It matters not, what the facts, history, agreements, values, guarantees are.

It remains to be seen whether Pres. Trump will put an end to this 100 year betrayal.

September 23, 2018 | 81 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

31 Comments / 81 Comments

  1. I didn’t notice that I am replying to comments that were posted 2 YEARS AGO! Oh, well! Must be the result of aging. But it was great to read the comments.

  2. @ yamit82:
    Israel joining NATO will mean Israel’s participation in the future “quick and victorious” (see 1914 and 1941 except the next one might destroy the planet) European war against Russia which the US is planning to be the sole winner in.
    What does Israel need this for?!
    Keep neutrality as “the people who dwells alone”.
    After WWII almost the only Jews left alive were the ones in the USSR and the US.

  3. @ Sebastien Zorn:
    “a possible explanation of why he failed to act” With my apologies again.
    For the same reason that the US refused to bring the Jewish children from Nazi-occupied Europe to the US because the US couldn’t spare any ships but later bringing almost a million German prisoners of war on the lend-lease ships “so that the ships wouldn’t have to go back empty”, the POWs to be interned in camps on the US soil?
    BTW, the German POWs were treated very nicely in the view of ensuring the post-war German-American relationship.
    The officers weren’t even supposed to work and there were other perks.

  4. @ Sebastien Zorn:
    “murdered Jewish converts to Christianity” Because they get paranoid about the converts and those Jews who try to be “the best Germans” or “the best Russians”, or the best fill-in-the-blanks since they believe that by doing this Jews are just trying to sneak in among them and, thus hidden, rule them in secret (I am not kidding). Also, if someone is Jewish but doesn’t “look Jewish” one may make a mistake and take him for one of his own.
    I am not making this up.

  5. @ Edgar G.:
    I hate to butt in but I think I can clear your confusion somewhat.
    The US always considers its interests first and foremost. This is the way it conducts its foreign policy.
    If it is in the US interests to support Israel (or to appear to support Israel) this is what the US will do.
    If it is no longer in the US interests, the US will throw Israel under the bus, to put it rudely (as an example, watch the US-China relationship).
    Also, if you have noticed, the US (and others) try not to let Israel achieve a decisive victory anywhere – calling for a ceasefire at just the right moment, not letting Israel’s producers enter certain markets, etc. (although Israel itself seems to be pretty good at denying itself such victories, too, all on its own).
    While every US president seems to act unpredictably, in reality he acts in accordance with the current situation in the best interests of the US and on the need to “restrain” Israel (militarily, economically, or politically).
    I think that the current administration wishes to finally end the standstill and to create a “Palestinian” state by deceit, if necessary.

  6. @ yamit82:
    I LOVE!!! your comment!!!
    I have to add 1 small thing: the 1st pogrom in Europe in the last 200 years was in Germany (which wasn’t officially a state yet) in 1819 . The pogrom spread over the German speaking lands and lasted ~3 months.

  7. @ Sebastien Zorn:
    This is to Edgar G. I don’t know why it says I am responding to myself. Yes, I read that LBJ tried to get an international coalition to stop the invasion and failed but then his intelligence people told him that Israel was projected to win in about a week, which is what happened. This article is about LBJ. One thing that confuses me is that it says that he began the serious military aid, 2 years before the Six Day war and, yet I have read elsewhere that Israel mainly used the airforce that it purchased from France in the 50s and the aid began in the 70s. I have also read that RFK was assassinated in 1968 because he voted for aid. Who is right? Otherwise, this is very impressive. Besides Trump, he was clearly the mostly pro-Israel, pro-Jewish president, ever. Ironic, considering that, otherwise, they were opposites, politically, even if they had a lot in common in that they were considered gauche by the liberal elite who looked down on him as they look down on Trump. And, liberal Jews opposed LBJ as they oppose Trump.

  8. @ Sebastien Zorn:

    I never thought it through that deeply. I have played the banjo, and fingered some chords on the guitar. So I know the feeling in the fingering wrist. I also play the piano and know what you mean. I believe that surgery would fix it, although if you’ve had it a long time this mitigates against complete success. I’m sure you’ve enquired into it or spoken to others who’ve had it. A problem about the shoulder is that the joint-the ball and socket- are not deeply seated and are not difficult to put out of joint. It depends on the amount of musculature that;s been built up, as well as, of course the tendons you mention. I’m surprised that one must begin so young.

    I have bad arthritis from a clean upper arm break many years ago. the ball was fractured in 3 places too, and I wish there was an op that could cure it; about 50% use I calculate. can’t lift it much above horizontal, all the time feeling the bone movements in the joint. Bloody awful. No pain if I keep within limits, but the fact I have it, is damned annoying. A cycling accident, my front wheel was trapped in a deep pothole filled with gravel, so was disguised. Must have come down on shoulder and head. Fortunately away from the traffic side-from which the track was only about 3 feet away.

  9. @ Edgar G.:
    I don’t have carpal tunnel syndrome or arthritis in my hands. I have torn rotary cuffs, it’s a shoulder injury. You don’t seem to realize that you have to hold the instrument while twisting your wrist all the way around so that your fingers are always over where they would play and without clutching the instrument. That’s why most people can’t begin learning after the age of 8 at the latest, 6 is average, some start as young as 2 or 3, and for the same reason that Olympic gymnasts begin as little kids. You have to begin training the muscles and sinews to grow in a different direction from the direction they would grow naturally before they harden. Like training a bonzai tree or baking a cake.

    Playing viola is, physically, the same as playing an enormous violin. On the right side, the injury comes from holding the bow up for long periods of time. Bursities, arthritis, tendonitis are also common injuries.


    “Philharmonia Orchestra (London, UK)
    Published on Aug 7, 2013
    In this film, Nicholas Bootiman introduces his instrument – the viola. ”

    If you’ve ever taken piano lessons, you know that the basic hand position is with the fingers curved, the palm not touching the instrument, only the fleshy part of the very tips of the fingers, with every finger over where it would play so that you can just pick it up or put it down, all of the fingers moving independently, just as the two hands move independently (which requires retraining right there.)

    Now imagine doing that over your shoulder and the farther the fingers are away from the shoulder, the more of a stretch it is. Ironically, first position, the most basic musically, is physically the hardest.

    A most unnatural position.
    Now, imagine doing that for many hours every day into ones for 40s, 50s, 60s.

    Pain city, my man, pain city.

    But, when it sings, wow.

    Isaac Stern and Yitzhak Perelman play encore at the end of concert of the Handel-Halvorssen Pasacaglia for Violin and Viola (originally violin and cello). Zubhin Mehta conducting the Israeli Philharmonic in Israel. 1980.

    Itzhak Perlman & Pinchas Zukerman – Handel Halvorsen Passacaglia (HQ)

    Presently, I can’t lift my left arm to play, my elbow is in my side, and have to rest the right constantly. Looking into surgery.

  10. @ Edgar G.:
    Extremely common occupational injury among violinists and violists. Try googling it.

    In reality, nothing beats an eggplant parmigiana hero, at the end of the day.

  11. @ Sebastien Zorn:

    Why do you men about “hero”. I have no heroes other than My dear parents and siblings. So snide remarks are out of place. That Liebler article spells out enough for me. What politician that you know of is not at some time, even most times, an opportunist. He is Russian, and his country comes first. Haven’t we heard that from nearly all the leaders of countries all over the world. So I think much of your comments ans links are extraneous

    Regarding your rotator cuffs. It’m most unusual to find someone sedentary with both cuffs damaged. It’s commonplace amongst boxers for instance and if not extensive, will heal, but usually surgery is required and that also is common. Hve you been doing too much high reaching for that elusive book on the top shelf of your library…?? Use the roller ladder for goodness sake.

    You are a genius as posing unusual problems. 2 rotator cuffs torn by massive PC operations in looking up links for Edgar………. “Ya shuddena done it”.

  12. Edgar G. Said:

    It’s correct that Putin goes out of his way to facilitate Jews and it has always seemed that way.

    I thought so, but now I wonder if it’s just opportunism. What a pity that unlike your hero: Putin, like Arnold’s: Stalin, and Felix’s: Trotsky, Mine: Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte I, alas, is still organically challenged, to date. What do all of these heros have in common, I wonder? Couldn’t be the bread. Hmmmm.

  13. @ Edgar G.:
    I haven’t watched the whole interview. Wade through it and tell me if he really said there was no meddling Russians but it may have been by non-Russian minorities like Jews or Tatars? This from the guy who said there were so many Russians in Israel that he felt at home but whose government voted for Obama’s infamous UN resolution declaring Israel’s holy sites occupied territory and then said what’s the big deal and is allied with Iran? Also read that article. It does list many his philo-semitic accomplishments and sentimental attachments even leaving out that he outlawed using Torah passages out of context to promote antisemitism. But the article says he is allied with antisemites even in his own party. “Ambidexter Philosopher, indeed.” He knows we are a sentimental people. Sadat knew that, too. Sadat completely played us.

    Megan Kelly Interview of Putin (complete)

  14. @ Sebastien Zorn:

    I saw the real facts in Isy Liebler’s article in Israel Hayom and reproduced on this site, on the subject. It’s correct that Putin goes out of his way to facilitate Jews and it has always seemed that way. I remember years ago reading about that old Jewish schoolteacher he had when a kid…he found she wanted to live in Israel and he bought her an apartment in Tel Aviv. I think it must have been when she passed away in 200506 that I read about it. But there was something a few months ago about Putin owning an apartment in Tel Aviv. So he is NOT Anti-Semitic, which is a damned good thing.

  15. While we’re on the subject, I believe this article merits discussion here:

    I was genuinely shocked. It’s a real question now. If so, if Russia were to annex the former, now once again, antisemitic, Soviet or Russian countries, it wouldn’t make any difference for us, would it? Our people really need to get the hell out of that region. With all deliberate speed.

  16. @ jlevyellow:
    Or, put simply:

    “Are you lost daddy I arsked tenderly.
    Shut up he explained.”
    The Young Immigrunts (1920), Chapter 10, “N.Y. to Grenitch 500.0”

    Still, it doesn’t explain why the Germans and their allies murdered Jewish converts to Christianity — or anything else — but spared converts to Judaism.

    In Germany, Spain and the Soviet Union, the prejudice went racial when large numbers of Jews converted to whatever the ruling ideology.

    Bottom line: it’s the oldest racism.

  17. I love the interchange and the erudite grasp of facts, but the overall picture presented by Ted Belman’s article that spans decades cannot be explained by this or that local phenomenon. I would like to say that each example given is just an expression of anti-Semitism, but that is far too facile. Rather, I think it would be fair to say that the elimination of the Jews and Israel simplifies all manner of interaction between parties in the Middle East. All attempts to eliminate us, it seems to me, is only trying to eliminate complexity. The Jews insert “morality” into discussion – very ill-defined unless you are a Jew. The Jews insert existential considerations – much too emotion-laden for a political planner. The Jews cause consideration of cultural and political factors that could otherwise be ignored. In short, the Jews change the terms of discussion all the time. How complicating and confusing! Better they should not be here!

  18. @ yamit82:

    This is one of the most astonishing things I’ve heard. What possible advantage could it be fr the US to prevent Israel moving into the Sinai, where Egypt was deeply involved with the Russians and the cold War was on. Even If Israel HAD taken the Sinai again, it wouldn’t be a causus belli for the Russians, merely a check on their Egyptian proxy. And they could hold a watching brief over the Canal too.

    When a couple of Israeli fighter planes shot down 5-6 Russian top-of -the-line planes over the Golan, they did nothing. And as for expanding east, well, the Jordanians had, 19 years before, expanded west and America was not bothered although they supported Israel even then. So why would that small land area on this side of the River bother them, Even if Israel went on to invade Jordan….which they would not have done as they were not prepared for it, neither had they planned it, They could just have stepped in and called a halt much like Eisenhower did in 1956, That was speedily halted even though close American Allies France and Britain were also involved.

    I’m sure you have the answer which I would be interested to read.

  19. @ Edgar G.:
    It does sound logical though I’m not a military tactician so there may be other considerations of which I am unaware. So, what would be a possible explanation of why he failed to act despite being sympathetic?

  20. @ Sebastien Zorn:

    Yes, because the ships in Vietnam were for the most part warships and supply vessels coming and going, tugs and a few assorted needed types like gunboats, river boats etc a la Kerry/Kohn.

    But the US had a heck of a lot more ships than that, the type of ship actually to break the blockade would not have mattered, only it’s flag would. So 3-4 Coney Island ferries flying the Stars and Stripes would have sufficed, and Johnson had much more than that to use. Even a single American ship along with an Israeli vessel would have done it. Or by itself. Nasser would never dare, Vietnam or not, to molest or hinder an American vessel.

    Does this not sound logical to you…???

  21. Edgar G. Said:

    But I still do not understand why he himself did not put an American flotilla through to break the blockade.

    As I just mentioned in the post you responded to, and to which response this is a counter-response, the conventional explanation is that because of Vietnam, the U.S. couldn’t spare any ships or anything else for that matter. Do you have reason to doubt the veracity of this explanation?

  22. @ Sebastien Zorn:

    Well Johnson’s reputation was that of a hard skinned gangster type when pushed, but in this instance, when Nasser shooed away the UN “Peacekeepers”, and everybody was deservedly accusing U Thant of being too eager to obey Nasser, Israel became extremely concerned, so it was Johnson himself who stepped up at the head of the other countries, and guaranteed free passage to Israel free passage in the straits. America was the big influence in that part of the world and trying to keep Russia out. As you know, Russia backed Egypt, and it was sort of a continuation of the Cold War being played out in the Middle East.

    So I believe that he was sincerely (as much as he was capable of being sincere) upset that none of the other guarantors would join him. He spent about 6 weeks (I think) trying to persuade the group to assemble a convoy.

    But I still do not understand why he himself did not put an American flotilla through to break the blockade. He could even have convoyed Israel ships through to make the point very definite. Anyway T.G. It worked out so well that Israel became overwhelmed in it’s own victory and became overly magnanimous at the disheartened looks of the Arab enemies. Dayan fell victim to this, and Israel felt superior to a degree that they developed a “swagger” and became negligent….. with the result being The Yom Kipur War..

    As I’ve written for so many years, Israel was the world’s “fair-haired boy” then, and could have pushed every Arab in Israel across the Jordan without a single complaint from anyone…except maybe Russia, which for quite a while after was more or less a toothless tiger in that area..

  23. @ YJ Draiman:
    I’d like to get this book. Could you proved the citation please? Title, Author, location, date. There are too many books with similar titles out there.@ Bear Klein:
    Algemeiner didn’t block my comments. I found nine of them though when I post them it tells me to wait for the moderator to approve them and it doesn’t seem to be quick. But, under comments, see if there is a number next to your name, if so, it’s the number of your comments you posted that people responded to and you can see likes or responses. I’ve never contributed money to the Algemeiner. I think Mosaic Magazine is the one that demands money in exchange for posting. No, I’m wrong. One of them does that. Tablet?