Quote:
Originally Posted by champstark
the overriding concern was that the Soviets would gain influence in the region and the US would be screwed. There was a very real possibility that if Truman didn't back Israel strongly initially, the USSR would have and the Cold War spheres of influence in the Middle East would have been flipped.
I don't think this question of oil is really all that important any more, as Gamblor points out the US doesn't get a ton of oil from that area and there are so many pipelines and alternate routes now Israel's ability to provide a friendly port isn't all that revelent.
The reason the Soviets were a concern was because of the oil. Saying the issue was a "port" is super narrow.
Also, Truman's initial decision to instantly recognize Israel had a strong element of partisan politics. Remember the Dewey beats Truman headline? HST had to have the Jewish vote to win in 1952. Democratic sentiment evaporates without strong interests.
The really significant military support for Israel does not come until after 1967, when Tel Aviv shows its military potential, especially in trouncing Nasser's pan-Arabism. And its ability to stand up to Soviet-backed regimes. (for Hadis especially)
The suggestion the oil is not all that important because it's just 10% of US consumption flies in the face of the stunning amount of military infrastructure. What does Champstark think the archipelago of bases, Iraqi invasion, endless war, support of the Shah and Saudi Arabia and Israel are about? It's to control everybody else's oil.
The suggestion that the US support for Israel is primarily a sentimental one because it is supposedly democratic is very weak. Why does the US support the worst dictatorships in the region? Since when does sentiment trump reasons of state? The State Department's post WWII planning documents referred to the Mideast as the "greatest material prize in history" (quote by memory). That has been the consistent rationale from jump.
As the US deindustrializes, it loses traditional economic clout. For this reason, military control of energy will get more and more important, even if none of it is consumed in the US. The whole military buildup in Africa is for the same reason.
The dominant significance of Mideast oil is foreign relations 101, it is a fundamental observation held by historians left and right. Even the historians with a paragraph about shared values with Israel will have two pages about oil, the Shah, Saudi Arabia, etc.
Michael Klare or Daniel Yergin are good places to learn the basics of post-WWII US policy.
Quote:
Oh yes, the shadowy, infamous, "Israel Lobby".
That's the explanation YOU are left with. My eyes are on the geo-strategic power issues. Lol at Soviet conspiratarding.
Last edited by Bill Haywood; 08-05-2012 at 02:32 PM.