It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Pentagon’s doubts about Israel began with its creation

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 02:46 PM
With the recent furore over General Petraeus comments on the Israeli-Palestinian /Arab conflict

Speaking to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Petraeus explained that "enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the area of responsibility." "Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples [in the region]," Petraeus said

I thought it would be interesting to analyse the historical position of the Pentagon over Israel and her creation.

In the period between the end of World War Two and Marshall’s meeting with Truman, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had issued no less than sixteen (by my count) papers on the Palestine issue. The most important of these was issued on March 31, 1948 and entitled “Force Requirements for Palestine.” In that paper, the JCS predicted that “the Zionist strategy will seek to involve [the United States] in a continuously widening and deepening series of operations intended to secure maximum Jewish objectives.”

The JCS speculated that these objectives included: initial Jewish sovereignty over a portion of Palestine, acceptance by the great powers of the right to unlimited immigration, the extension of Jewish sovereignty over all of Palestine and the expansion of “Eretz Israel” into Transjordan and into portions of Lebanon and Syria.

This was not the only time the JCS expressed this worry. In late 1947, the JCS had written that “A decision to partition Palestine, if the decision were supported by the United States, would prejudice United States strategic interests in the Near and Middle East” to the point that “United States influence in the area would be curtailed to that which could be maintained by military force.” That is to say, the concern of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was not with the security of Israel — but with the security of American lives.

I really suggest a reading of the whole article to anyone interested in the American decision to side and ally herself with Israel in the Middle East, and the reasons given for the not doing so by the likes George Marshall.

Marshall (An American war hero) clearly believed that Truman's decision over recognising Israel and givng her diplomatic support was due to the ''Jewish vote'' and not out of any analyse of how this decision could effect the U.S. in the Arab world.


[edit on 4-4-2010 by Peruvianmonk]

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 03:04 PM
Nice find and presentation.

Ancient jewish texts are a wonderful resource for military historians - guess the military has long understood the machinations of power and conquest. The historical context is enlightening being prior to the creation of Israel in 1948. Thought provoking - thanks!


posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 03:12 PM
reply to post by ganjoa

Thanks. Yes it really is illuminating isn't it?

In particular in regards to Marshall. A man accused of anti-Semitism when all it seems he was guilty of to me is concern over American interests in the region. He was pretty clearly appalled over Truman's domestic political take on the Palestinian crisis.

I would love to go to the Zionist archives one day in Jerusalem and have a trawl through. However if their security forces ever saw some of my critical posts on Israeli policy on this borad i doubt i would be allowed in.
(I'm actually not joking)

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 03:50 PM
The sad reality is America will never break free from IsraHELL because if the government do then they'll all disappear overnight

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 03:58 PM
And so many thought the whole alliance was nothing but a zionist conspiracy... This underlines the lengths a politician will go to ensure a seat in parliment, forever damning a nation. Well hopefully not forever.

Is it in America's best interests to allign itself with Isreal given the current circumstances? Will it save American lives?

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 04:28 PM
Yes. The formation of Israel is not in any way a conspiracy. Follow the money, and yes, the political motivations of a first-term President, and there you have it.

Two term limitation is so problematic for the people, it's sick. How about one six year term limitation?

The choice to advocate for, and design and implement a sovereign country for a group of people based solely on their religion, especially in a region of vehement opposing despotism was and is A BAD IDEA! Not only a bad idea, but totally out of spirit with the philosophies used to form OUR more perfect union.

Doesn't matter, foreign policy is inherently unconstitutional.

The only think conspiracy I can think about it is that perhaps 'they' wanted to promote an environment conducive to 'Armageddon', which if actually occurs, can be seen in posterity as a clear cut case of self-fulfilling prophecy.

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 05:02 PM
Some more on the top-level discussion over the acceptance of the new state of Israe. This timel from a more conservative and establishment based source, The Washington Post.

Beneath the surface lay unspoken but real anti-Semitism on the part of some (but not all) policymakers. The position of those opposing recognition was simple -- oil, numbers and history. "There are thirty million Arabs on one side and about 600,000 Jews on the other," Defense Secretary Forrestal told Clifford. "Why don't you face up to the realities?"

On May 12, Truman held a meeting in the Oval Office to decide the issue. Marshall and his universally respected deputy, Robert Lovett, made the case for delaying recognition -- and "delay" really meant "deny." Truman asked his young aide, Clark Clifford, to present the case for immediate recognition. When Clifford finished, Marshall, uncharacteristically, exploded. "I don't even know why Clifford is here. He is a domestic adviser, and this is a foreign policy matter. The only reason Clifford is here is that he is pressing a political consideration."

Marshall then uttered what Clifford would later call "the most remarkable threat I ever heard anyone make directly to a President." In an unusual top-secret memorandum Marshall wrote for the historical files after the meeting, the great general recorded his own words: "I said bluntly that if the President were to follow Mr. Clifford's advice and if in the elections I were to vote, I would vote against the President."

Marshall was angry that Clifford had been involved in discussions on the subject, that much is clear. But the Post article itself sides more with Clifford than it does with Marshall, suggesting, above in the first parargraph, he was an anti-Semite.

Seems kind of crass of the Post to label Marshall as an anti-Semite 50 years later, soley becasue he put America first over the issue of the recognition of Israeli state.

The primary document signed by Truman recognising the state of Israel. Note how 'Jewish state' was crossed out and 'State of Israel' inserted.

[edit on 4-4-2010 by Peruvianmonk]

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 05:44 PM
reply to post by DeltaChaos

I agree with your statement on Foreign policy being unconstiutional.

It doesn't seem to matter who is in charge in the U.S, and i can put my own country the U.K. in that bracket as well, FP seems to remain unchanged.

[edit on 4-4-2010 by Peruvianmonk]

posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 08:49 PM

Originally posted by spearhead
And so many thought the whole alliance was nothing but a zionist conspiracy... This underlines the lengths a politician will go to ensure a seat in parliment, forever damning a nation. Well hopefully not forever.

Is it in America's best interests to allign itself with Isreal given the current circumstances? Will it save American lives?

To truly understand what was with the Muslim situation for the US and its allies just under 10 years ago - we began to learn about their religion, their books and their teachers and teachings.

The same should be done with the Jewish people of Israel. Here we typically fail to truly understand the situation. Three entities must be considered ->The government, the general population and the settler populations (which are 'extreame' i believe) and WHAT THEY BELIEVE??

Check this on the Jewish Talmud

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 03:03 AM
reply to post by Caveat Lector

And people 'THINK' Islam is extreme! Thanks for the heads up on this. How do you think it may link to Marshall and his allies thoughts on the matter?

Mabye Marshall and his supporters were aware of this text. He certinley would have been aware of how Zionism was based on extremisim.

What i find most interesting about the document is that Forrestal was well aware that the Israelis would not be satisfied with what was given to them in a partition scheme. And would look to expand as soon as partition was offical.

Zionism all along looked to control Jordan or TransJordan as it was known then and parts of Syria to createa Greater Israel. However these sections were denied to them by the British and French (Who were given a mandate in Syria by The League Of Nations) from the 1920's onwards. The creation of their Jewish National Home was confined to Palestine. This was something the likes of Weizmann (the suposed moderate in the Zionist Executive) Jabotinsky and Ben-Guerion never accepted.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by Peruvianmonk]

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 08:47 PM
[edit on 6/4/10 by Caveat Lector]

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 08:59 PM

And people 'THINK' Islam is extreme! Thanks for the heads up on this. How do you think it may link to Marshall and his allies thoughts on the matter?

Marshall seemed to have solid understanding of the region (as standards were with cultural understanding back then). I don't believe it was until General Patton was tasked with removing blonde german families out of their homes and onto the streets of Berlin - that they began to realise the pandara's box.

Here's some excerts of General Patton writting to his wife:

"Actually, the Germans are the only decent people left in Europe. it's a choice between them and the Russians. I prefer the Germans." And on September 2: "What we are doing is to destroy the only semi-modern state in Europe, so that Russia can swallow the whole."

"There is a very apparent Semitic influence in the press. They are trying to do two things: first, implement communism, and second, see that all businessmen of German ancestry and non-Jewish antecedents are thrown out of their jobs.

"They have utterly lost the Anglo-Saxon conception of justice and feel that a man can be kicked out because somebody else says he is a Nazi. They were evidently quite shocked when I told them I would kick nobody out without the successful proof of guilt before a court of law . . .

"I have been just as furious as you at the compilation of lies which the communist and Semitic elements of our government have leveled against me and practically every other commander. In my opinion it is a deliberate attempt to alienate the soldier vote from the commanders, because the communists know that soldiers are not communistic, and they fear what eleven million votes (of veterans) would do."

[edit on 6/4/10 by Caveat Lector]

[edit on 6/4/10 by Caveat Lector]

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:26 AM
reply to post by Caveat Lector

Interesting quotes from Patton there. Are they from 1945? In particular

"What we are doing is to destroy the only semi-modern state in Europe, so that Russia can swallow the whole."
He clearly understood the Cold War had begun.

In regard to his comments on the Jewish element in Communism he was hardly known for his toleration of people's other than the American's was he? Perhaps a touch of anti-Semitism? However i do not think that was the case with the more sober Marshall.

Churchill also blamed Jews squarely for the coming to power of Communism in Russia, singalling out Trotsky in particular. However he failed to mention that Lenin was a gentile. This was one of the main reasons Churchill supported Zionism, so to funnell Jewish ambition and aspiration into a 'National' mood rather than an ideological one with Communism.

Some thoughts and quotes from Churchill on the Jews in 1920.

International Jews influenced the French Revolution and that they were ''the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century''.

M Makovsky, 'Churchill's Promised Land', p 86.

He manipulated and used the Zionists to fight against his percieved threat of a Communist spread around the world and in particular in Palestine when he became Colonial Secretary in 1921.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by Peruvianmonk]

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 07:33 AM
Just thought i would bump this thread of mine as Israel has become a hot topic on this board as a result of recent events.

Just a reminder that American support for Israel has not always been so slavish and many powerful leaders such as George Marshall were against any support.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by Peruvianmonk]

top topics


log in