I wrote: > > > (2) Passably polite response: > Truman did no such thing. He supported a partition resolution whose purpose > was the creation of two states, one for the Jews and one for the > Palestinians. He was in fact warned by Secretary of Defense James Forrestal > that creating a Jewish homeland on Arab land in this manner was a formula > for constant conflict, but a mixture of successful lobbying by American Jews > supporting the UN resolution, the importance of Jewish votes and > contributions in truman's past and future elections (he had plans to run for > president himself in 1948) and his own Christian beliefs combined to make > him support the resolution. In addition to the books I mentioned in my > follow-up message to Jerry yesterday (the studies by Sachar and Schoenbaum), > you can get a good sense of Truman's dilemma from Alonzo Hamby, "Man of the > People: A LIfe of Harry S. Truman" (Oxford, 1995), pp. 404-417, which covers > the events surrounding the partition of Palestine. > > And in his inimitable manner, Minoru responded: > > The above statement is not only longer but also much more unclear than JM's > previous statement. which simply stated: > > "Now as far as Israel is concerned..... Well, it is true that Truman > supported > the creation of the state of Israel, and it is likely the UN resolution > would > have failed without US support" > > My comment was, of course, in response to JM's short answer. > > Are you saying now Truman wasn't very effective in creating of the state of > Israel or opposing to it? (I don't think you need to recite the entire > history of Jews to answer that question. Am I ignorant? Of course I am, to a > degree. I am not interested in knowing everything in the world available to > know. A pedantic person is not always wise or intelligent, or can be > insightful. Or even informative. Just try to smoke the issue.) >
Minoru, Hmmmmm.... Let's review the discussion to date. You (someone who, it must be recalled, has never been shy in sharing his, um,. er, what's the right word.... ah, "musings" with the list) wrote an incoherent message trying to make a point about the US-Israel relationship with such examples as the development of the A-bomb and of financial derivatives. After a few more iterations your point finally became clear. I realize you are writing in a foreign language and all that, Minoru, but you could of course write in Japanese here and spare your readers the trouble of guessing at your meaning like this. On top of everything else, that message was prefaced by the title "A clue to understand USA", a heading that one must say was a wee bit portentous and more than a little disappointing given the "musings" that it prefaced. And it was one of many posts that you have made about Israel and Palestine in the last few weeks, so complaining about the length of my one response strikes me as a bit disingenuous. My lengthy response was an effort to put US policy in the region and towards Israel in particular into some historical perspective - that is, it was an effort to address the question that you had repeatedly raised over the preceding two weeks - and was pitched at a level that a general reader with passable knowledge of the post-WWII history of the Middle East could grasp. My own feeling about the discussion up to that point was that it was languishing in what historian's sometimes term an "empirical vacuum"; once the facts are established, one can debate various ways to interpret them, but when the facts are unknown or are simply wrong (Alan), then intelligent debate suffers. As for your current question, which appears to be about the UN resolution (though I am sure I will learn shortly from a subsequent e-mail that this is not it at all; you keep shifting the ground of the debate, Minoru, and it is rather me who should be asking you to exercise some discipline and focus), once again, the short answer is: Go to Wikipedia, or go to a library, and read something about it yourself. It should be abundantly clear from my messages that several factors influenced Truman's decision to support the partition resolution: (1) Lobbying by US Jewish organizations; (2) Truman's sympathy for the Jews, due to his own Christian beliefs and the Shoah; and (3) Truman's own political fortunes. For Christ's sake, next thing you will be asking me to read you "Run Spot Run"! This is ridiculous. Read something about the issue for yourself, I wouldn't have to pitch it at this level if you put in some effort. You now also seem to be blaming Truman for the problem of "terrorism" in the Middle East. But no one foresaw such a problem emerging in 1948, and you would know that if you took the time to read something about the history of the conflict. The problem that Secretary of Defense Forrestal and some in the State Department predicted was rather inter-state warfare between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Palestinian terrorism did not even become a significant problem until the 1970s, long after the partition. And I would question whether the word "terrorism" is actually the appropriate term for much of the violence in Palestine since the first intifadah. Certainly it can be used for suicide bombings targeting civilians inside pre-1967 Israel, but some of the Palestinian violence can also be understood as legitimate resistance to occupation and oppression. Sorry if that is overly pedantic for you, but I would bet others find it relatively concise and to the point. And I will gladly debate it with them if they wish. As for another one of your questions the other day, namely why I write posts to the list, well, you guessed it, Minoru, I am using Not Honyaku as a forum to make friends and influence people. Someone in the Obama campaign did in fact read my posts here, and invited me down to DC last week to nosh with Barry over a game of one-on-one. I shared my thoughts on Gaza and the auto industry with him while kicking his ass with my killer jump shot. Then it was off to the Elysee Palace for a state dinner with Nick and Carla. Nice chance to practice the old parlez-vous over hors d' and bubbly while giving Nick my ideas about that pesky Iranian nuclear program and the global financial crisis. But seriously, Minoru, there are three explanations for why I write my posts to the list. I will let you choose one: (1) The Augustinian Explanation: I cannot bear to see you and Alan wallowing in error, so I have no choice but to correct you and guide you to the Truth. (2) The Freudian Explanation: I am playing the role of superego to yours and Alan's unrestrained and malformed egos (I will omit a discussion of the relationship between poor toilet training as children and the contents of yours and Alan's posts). (3) The Obvious Explanation: I am interested in these subjects. Believe it or not, I took an entire course in college on the history of nuclear weapons in college. I still like to read about it when I can, though I certainly do not claim any expertise. I also have read a lot about Middle Eastern politics and the Israeli-Palestinian issue. This latter issue (like North Korea) interests me greatly, largely because there is a huge amount of misinformation and disinformation put out about it, as anyone who follows it objectively can attest. And it is an important issue as well, because of all the wars it has caused, and also the fact that Israel has nukes and other countries in the region, such as Iran, have intentions to do the same, and that could be big trouble for all of us. And writing about it has an additional benefit, which is that it clarifies the mind. At least it has that effect in my case; I would not want to extrapolate that to a couple the other list members I can think o f. Well, there we have it. I suppose I have once again exceeded my allotted word count, but then again, you are not moderating the list, Minoru, nor are you my schoolmarm, so your opinion about this is just that, another one of your opinions. For my part, I would appreciate it if you toned down your posts. They seem to be seething with various forms of envy and resentment. Not good for the soul, Minoru. John M. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Persons posting messages to not_honyaku assume all responsibility for their messages. The list owner does not review messages prior to posting, and accepts no responsibility for the content of messages posted. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
