On September 4, 1955, during Eisenhower’s Presidency, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles visited the Council on Foreign Relations — one of the most respected centers for U.S. foreign policy.
There he gave a speech outlining U.S. terms for peace in the Middle East. He stated: “It is possible to solve the Palestinian refugee problem, and if Ben Gurion wants to help America diplomatically, politically, and militarily, Israel must demonstrate their intentions for peace by helping find a solution to this sensitive issue.”
On November 9, 1955, Eisenhower reiterated Dulles’ position in an official statement.
Eisenhower identified an important principle in foreign policy, which today clashes with the obstacles Netanyahu has put in front of peace, such as his conditions regarding the Jewish state and the recent promotion of a bill requiring an oath of loyalty from non-Jews living in Israel.
Eisenhower was the first U.S. President to take a stance resisting pressure from Israel and its supporters, to protect the national security interests of his country.
Eisenhower’s position was based on a commitment to an established principle in U.S. foreign policy, which George Washington, first President of the United States, established in his farewell address of 1796. Washington warned of a danger he called the “Passionate Attachment,” any emotional attachment or position based on emotional relationships with other countries. Washington urged Americans to distance themselves from the allure of foreign influence, and from any excessive bias for foreign countries at the expense of others.
Amongst the most prominent people who encouraged a return to this principle of not establishing positions based on emotions was George Wildman Ball, Undersecretary of State in the Kennedy and Johnson governments. In his book in 1994, he explained what happens when this principle is violated, specifically in U.S. foreign policy practices with Israel. He wrote that violating this principle is not in the interests of either the United States or Israel. In response to the book the Jewish Lobby organized a huge campaign to prevent newspapers from writing about it or reviewing it, in an attempt to diminish its effect on U.S. public opinion.
George Ball was one of the most prominent U.S. foreign policy experts, and had been nominated by President Carter for Secretary of State. However, this appointment never happened because of vehement opposition from Jewish forces, due to Ball’s frank public opinions over the danger of bias towards Israel from a strategic perspective. He also faced opposition after the publication of his 1977 article in “Foreign Affairs” titled, “How to Save Israel in Spite of Herself.”
Ball took up a key theme from George Washington’s Farewell Address in his writings, building on this foundational text of American foreign policy. Many try to disregard this idea, and avoid referencing it — especially in the case of Israel — no matter how many celebrations of George Washington’s birthday take place on the 22nd of February year after year. And that idea is this: The starting point for any foundation of American foreign policy is respect for and commitment to the principles established by the founding fathers of the United States.
According to the understanding of political experts in the U.S., the basis of foreign policy-making is a kind of political engineering. This foundation guides policymakers in constructing a framework of basic principles of foreign policy, building on established and deep rooted foundations and guidelines. Accompanying them, and working in their service, are a limited number of adjustable or changeable policies, equipped with the flexibility to react to what may be new or changing in world affairs, even as the basic framework of the foreign policy remains unchanged.
This foundation, therefore, is the basis for the continuity of foreign policy, through its vision and means; it protects national security interests in the long run.
This means that one of the cornerstones of the foundation has been broken for the sake of emotional bias for a foreign state which is a detriment to the core interests of the country.
What many have observed is that this represents a breach of the strategic vision of U.S. policy at the global level.
Recent studies written by a number of U.S. negotiators, among them Aaron David Miller, point to the fact that the policy failures that U.S. presidents have been afflicted by when trying to solve the Israel–Palestine crisis are due to their compliance with the positions of the Israeli government. It is also due to a lack of serious review of these positions, while adopting policies that are opposed to the declared foundational principles of U.S. foreign policy. For example, there is an official moral and political commitment within the U.S. presidency, declared by Presidents Bush (Senior) and Clinton, to reject Israeli settlements, considering them illegal and an obstruction to peace.
The issue then is not just bias, or the U.S. turning a blind eye to Israeli excesses when threatened. Instead it is U.S. negligence, representing a departure from the established principles of U.S. foreign policy, rather than a conscious striving to scorn these principles and render them inoperative.
This is my comment:
Every crisis creates a crises manager. America’s new young President has opened himself to the people of all nations for a direct contact to him through his White House personal website. Here is a suggestion that has been conveyed to him. He has a challenging opportunity to become partners in the transition of two blockbuster regions in the Muslim world. These constitute the Arab world spanning Morocco to Oman. And the other is similar potential region constituting Pakistan and Afghanistan providing the gateway to Central Asia. This transition of both adjacent regions is expected to weed out all negative elements. There is a plausible and a palpable solution of the Palestine conflict conveyed to President Obama. Similar feelers have sent to both President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It may be interesting to note that China has built a strategic seaport in Pakistan as a gateway to central Asia. Afghanistan has a crucial role to serve as a conduit in this transition. The whole world would have a big opportunity to participate in this transaction. Obama needs some fireworks to ensure his two terms in the White House. Americans would envisage plums in both regions and the pressure on American economy would be eased gradually. Democracy’s introduction would entail infrastructures of new Assembly building just like the British built in India. Colleges and universities would start imparting modern knowledge and technical trainings. Bulldozers and construction cranes would start moving from Pakistan’s Gwadar port to central Asia via Afghanistan’s land route. Here the picture of India conjures up in mind. Just when the British started modernization of India, the menace of the terrorist Marathas disappeared without a whimper. Britain is much chastened now and would avoid the mistakes it made in India in trying to deny the benefits of liberty and freedom to the natives. Obama possesses an open mind. It is time for America to shed its outdated and much disliked approach of “American self interests.” From now on let all participants in these ventures come out with “mutual interests.” The bottom line is it will open new vistas replacing old decaying order with a vibrant new one. You might witness Pakistan’s Tribal Belt humming with college students and marketplaces. Taliban and their mentor disappear like the tail of a snake. Islam would get a fusion of fresh new blood. With the Palestine issue no more a headache Iran is likely to revert to its image of what Britain described it “a honey pot.” Indo-Pak relations will become mutually beneficial and trains would start running from Dacca via India to Pakistan’s borders of Turnham and Chaman for onward movement to central Asia. This vision was envisaged by President Eisenhower. Barrack Obama can verify it from the records. There are suggestions for India to replace its narrow focus on the opening new horizons that would be dominated by the Muslim world.