Golda said outside pressures would put off peace

June 10, 2013

Doc’s Talk: Golda Meir: Israel would not withdraw to 1967 lines
Former Israeli prime minister Golda Meir. Photo: Wikimedia Commons
Anyone who creates illusions among the Arabs that it is possible to impose an Arab- Israeli solution from the outside is pushing off peace, then-prime minister Golda Meir told German chancellor Willy Brandt 40 years ago, in words that Israeli leaders continue to say to European counterparts today.

The comment was contained in one of the 28 documents that the Israel State Archives released on Sunday to mark 40 years since Brandt’s historic visit to Israel, the first ever by a German chancellor. The visit took place from June 7-11, 1973, some five months before the Yom Kippur War.

According to the documents, Meir told Brandt to relay to then-Egyptian president Anwar Sadat that Israel truly wanted peace.

Meir said he could tell him – according to a document summing up the main points of the Brandt-Meir meeting that focused on the Middle East – that “we don’t want all of Sinai, or half of Sinai, or the major part of Sinai.

Brandt can make it clear to Sadat that we do not request that he begin negotiations in public, and that we are prepared to begin secret negotiations.”
She also made clear that Israel would not withdraw to the June 4, 1967 lines.

German emissary Lothar Lahn relayed the message to Sadat’s senior advisor, Hafiz Ismail, who summarily rejected it. He also rejected Meir’s proposal for personal contact between Israel and Egypt. He said that as long as Israel was not willing to declare its willingness to withdraw, there was no sense in a meeting since it would only serve to concretize the status quo.
German documents, according to a summary narrative provided by the national archive, showed that Brandt was not at all enthusiastic about serving as Middle East mediator, concerned that this would negatively impact on Germany’s relations with the Arab states.
This was the third time Meir sent emissaries to Sadat with a proposal to negotiate.
The first time was in 1971 through US secretary of state William Rogers, and again in 1972 through Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu. All the offers were turned down.
The documents released showed the sensitivity of the Brandt visit, not only because of anti-German feelings in Israel because of the Holocaust, but also because the visit came less than a year after the Munich massacre at the 1972 Summer Olympics, and the German government’s release in September and October 1972 of the remaining terrorists responsible.
During the visit, Meir told the cabinet that there was a “very good atmosphere,” and then added bluntly that there was “much more understanding about the past than about the future – regretfully, I must put it that way.”
According to the summary Archives, Meir spoke of differences of opinion with Brandt, “especially on the issue of European intervention in the Middle East; and expressions by him and other members of the delegation about the need for ‘a balanced policy’ by Germany, which grated on Israeli ears.”
At the time of the meeting, voices were being raised in Germany to “normalize” relations with Israel, instead of the previous concept of “special relations.”
Israel was opposed to this, favoring the “special relationship” because – according to the summary – it enabled Israel to raise issues “such as relations with the Common Market; economic aid and German investment in Israel; and reparations to Holocaust survivors; and to benefit from a favorable attitude.”
Brandt sent a letter to Meir upon returning to Germany, summing up his impressions. In it he addressed a request that he take up the plight of Jews in Arab lands.
“I have also been able to take up, from humanitarian points of view, the problem of Jewish inhabitants of neighboring Arab states with which I was approached during my visit, but surely I need not tell you how hard it often is for humanity to prevail.”
Brandt said that as a result of his visit and talks in Israel, “we have been able, mindful of the burden of the past, to open up a new chapter in the relations between our two peoples.”


Kissinger called American Jews "self-serving…bastards"

November 20, 2011

(EOZ) AP has picked up on YNet’s story late last week about newly-released State Department historical documents where Henry Kissinger complained about the Jewish community who were trying to help get Soviet Jews released.
Here is the entire section of the released document that deals with this. Besides Kissinger’s remarks, it is interesting to anyone who wants to know more about the history of American involvement in the Soviet Jewry issue.

On August 30, 1972, Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Haig wrote Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Kissinger: “Earlier yesterday, I had talked to Len Garment, Special Consultant to the President on Minorities and the Arts, about the problem of Soviet Jewry which is apparently growing and which McGovern hopes to exploit. This was complicated yesterday by a letter sent out of the Soviet Union by a group of Soviet Jewish leaders, a copy of which was furnished to McGovern.” Referring to Senator George McGovern, the Democratic candidate for President, Haig wrote that he understood that “McGovern will try to exploit the letter.” Haig had asked Garment to contact Senator Jacob Javits (R–NY) to discuss the matter. Haig informed Kissinger: “I insisted to Garment yesterday and again late last night to tell Javits to reaffirm strongly his conviction that the President and the White House are very concerned about the plight of the Soviet Jews, to reassure him that this matter was discussed during the summit and on his own to urge the Jewish leaders to understand that quiet diplomacy has accomplished far more than an extensive trumpeting so far. Javits, of course, can go much farther on this issue that can any White House official and especially the President.” (National Archives, Nixon Presidential Materials, NSC Files, Box 995, Alexander M. Haig Chronological Files)
On August 31, Haig forwarded Kissinger the text of a letter from Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, received that day, in which she asked President Nixon to send “a direct confidential message to the people in the Kremlin expressing your reaction to the outrage” of the Soviet exit fees for emigrants. Haig wrote Kissinger in a covering memorandum: “Now that the Prime Minister has formally raised this issue in a direct communication with the President, we will have to consider very carefully the best means by which to proceed. Sometimes our Jewish friends know just what not to do at the right moment.” (Ibid.)
On September 6, Garment phoned Kissinger regarding the Soviet exit fee issue. He told Kissinger that “the Russian issue is flooding my desk and phone at this point and I need some guidance.” The relevant portion of the transcript of their telephone conversation continues as follows:
“K[issinger]: Is there a more self-serving group of people than the Jewish community?
“G[arment]: None in the world.
“K: I have not seen it. What the hell do they think they are accomplishing?
“G: Well, I don’t know.
“K: You can’t even tell the bastards anything in confidence because they’ll leak it to all their
“G: Right. Very briefly, what seems to be coming through just dozens of conversations is basically this, and there are political as well as some other dangers involved—that the intellectuals and Jewish community in the Soviet Union are just saying that in a sense they will have their position compromised by the Soviets through a trick of timing and that the Russians feel secure until November in going ahead with the attacks because of the concern on our part of . . .
“K: They’re dead wrong. After November they’re even safer.
“G: That may well be. I think then in any event . . .
“K: You can say—well, what we are doing, we’ve talked in a low key way to Dobrynin. Next week, we’ll call him into the State Department. If the Jewish community doesn’t mind, after I’ve been in the Soviet Union and have done some national business, so we’ll do it on Wednesday [September 13] or Thursday [September 14] next week. Don’t tell them that.
“G: No, I won’t tell them anything.
“K: But next Thursday, we’ll call them in.
“G: And defer any meetings between any of our people and the Jewish groups until after Wednesday.
“K: That’s right. After Wednesday you’ll be able to say that the issue has been raised both with Dobrynin and with the Minister.

“G: I think between now and November a certain amount of theater is needed to keep the lid on. That’s basically what seems to come through to me. After that I just don’t know; there are various people that are talking about forming committees to raise the money and doing a variety of things.
“K: They ought to remember what this Administration has done . . .
“G: Yes, all of that can be pointed out, but nevertheless, here they are subject to presses [pressures?] of this sort and I’m simply asking.
“K: No, no, you’ve been great on it.
“G: Well, I’m doing a job and all I want to know is how to handle it.
“K: Our game plan is that we cannot possibly make a formal protest while I’m on the way to Russia.
“G: Right. I understand that.” (Ibid., Kissinger Telephone Conversations (Telcons), Box 14, Chronological File)
Secretary of Commerce Peterson also raised the issue of Jewish emigration with Kissinger during a telephone conversation on September 7. He told Kissinger that he had heard “from three different sources that there’s a strong movement on the Hill to tie the Soviet Jewry issue with anything that has anything to do with the Soviet Union.” The relevant portion of the transcript of their telephone conversation continues as follows:
“K[issinger]: But that won’t be effective until after the election.
“P[eterson]: Well there’s strong pressure in this one group that I met with that’s been confirmed since then to submit MFN legislation, but to tie the issue to that and then to use the submission of the bill to get extremely vocal about it. Javits and a number of others are very active on it.
“K: Yeah, but they’ll subside after the election.
“P: Yeah, now I don’t know how much it hurts you, however, to do it prior to the election because that’s what they’re going to do. Okay, I just wanted you to know about it.
“K: No, I didn’t know about it; it will hurt me but . . . It will hurt, but what can we do? There’s no sense; you can’t make a deal with Javits on things like this. Don’t you think?
“P: Well, you know him much better than I do. I don’t know what he’d . . . he’s got great respect for you. I don’t know. I’ll tell you what I can do if we can be helpful. I can find out who the Senators and Congressmen are beside him, and if in your absence, you want anybody to try to pacify them so they don’t get out on the floor and create problems for you while you’re over there, that might help. Or I can drop it, whatever you wish.
“K: No, if you could find out in a way that doesn’t draw too much attention to it, that would be very helpful.
“P: All right, you’ll get it in the morning.” (Ibid.)

It the Jewish community’s noisiness about the Soviet Jews – mass rallies on the White House lawn, recruiting senators to the cause, and especially the Jackson-Vanik amendment – that pressured the Kremlin to allow millions of them to leave, not the “quiet diplomacy” that Kissinger advocated.
UPDATE: Alex points me to an NYT article from last year on newly released Nixon tapes:

An indication of Nixon’s complex relationship with Jews came the afternoon Golda Meir, the Israeli prime minister, came to visit on March 1, 1973. The tapes capture Meir offering warm and effusive thanks to Nixon for the way he had treated her and Israel.
But moments after she left, Nixon and Mr. Kissinger were brutally dismissive in response to requests that the United States press the Soviet Union to permit Jews to emigrate and escape persecution there.
“The emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy,” Mr. Kissinger said. “And if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern.
I know,” Nixon responded. “We can’t blow up the world because of it.”
In his discussion with Ms. Woods, Nixon laid down clear rules about who would be permitted to attend the state dinner for Meir — he called it “the Jewish dinner” — after learning that the White House was being besieged with requests to attend.
“I don’t want any Jew at that dinner who didn’t support us in that campaign,” he said. “Is that clear? No Jew who did not support us.”
Nixon listed many of his top Jewish advisers — among them, Mr. Kissinger and William Safire, who went on to become a columnist at The New York Times — and argued that they shared a common trait, of needing to compensate for an inferiority complex.
“What it is, is it’s the insecurity,” he said. “It’s the latent insecurity. Most Jewish people are insecure. And that’s why they have to prove things.”
Nixon also strongly hinted that his reluctance to even consider amnesty for young Americans who went to Canada to avoid being drafted during the Vietnam War was because, he told Mr. Colson, so many of them were Jewish.
“I didn’t notice many Jewish names coming back from Vietnam on any of those lists; I don’t know how the hell they avoid it,” he said, adding: “If you look at the Canadian-Swedish contingent, they were very disproportionately Jewish. The deserters.”

(h/t Alec)

You can’t say Kissinger was just another Jew with loyalty to Jews


Yacimovich 1st woman since Golda to lead Labor party

September 22, 2011
Peretz – Yacimovich’s former mentor – defeated by nine percent in run-off race for party’s chairmanship; Yacimovich’s election comes after contentious election rife with personal attacks.

The Labor party elected its first female leader since Golda Meir on Wednesday when MK Shelly Yacimovich bested her former mentor, MK Amir Peretz, in a run-off race for the party’s chairmanship.

Yacimovich was expected to give a victory speech at the party’s headquarters at Beit Berl Teachers’ College in Kfar Saba, in which she would call upon Peretz to remain in the party and lead it together with her. She explained that a number of party members had called to congratulate her, including Peretz, MK Isaac Herzog and Amram Mitzna.

“We’ve won,” she told supporters at Dizengoff Center in Tel Aviv on hearing news of the victory. “I promise that we will work together to bring about change. This is just the beginning of a new start for Israeli society.”

Yacimovich won handily by nine percentage points over Peretz. Although not all the votes were tallied, not enough ballots remained for Peretz to make up the differences.

Yacimovich’s victory came after a contentious election which saw the candidates launching personal attacks and claims of impropriety against one another.

On Wednesday, election observers representing Peretz refused to remain at four polling stations while votes were counted, but Labor’s election committee did not disqualify the votes there.

Late Wednesday morning, a Peretz supporter named Dov Shemesh was punched by a Yacimovich supporter outside her headquarters and had to be hospitalized. Yacimovich was present and video of the incident indicates that she must have seen it, but she said she was unaware of what happened, because she was giving interviews. Yacimovich called Shemesh and condemned the incident, but when she said she didn’t see it, he called her a liar.

Peretz said Shemesh “had no connection to violence,” and was “truly the salt of the earth.” He called on all Labor Party members to prevent further violence. “The day after the election,” he said, “we’ll need to unify against the Likud.”

Yacimovich filed complaints with the Labor elections committee against a Peretz organizer who she said set up a table inside a Haifa polling station, and against Peretz’s sister and brother-in-law, Flora and Sammy Shoshan, for allegedly threatening voters at a polling station in Mitzpe Ramon, where Flora Shoshan is mayor.

Earlier, Yacimovich complained that polls at several Kibbutzim and large cities were prevented from opening on time Wednesday morning due to the delayed arrival of Peretz’s election observers. She noted that Peretz’s observers only came late to polling stations in sectors where she had an advantage.

Neutral observers urged Peretz and Yacimovich to do everything possible to keep the party united following the primary. MK Isaac Herzog, who finished a strong third in the first round of voting last Monday said he was concerned that Labor could split again as it did when Defense Minister Ehud Barak and four allies left the party on January 17.

“The party is not the personal property of anyone,” said former Labor candidate Erel Margalit, who like Herzog did not endorse anyone in the run-off race. “We all must unite behind our leader. From today, there are no adversaries in this house.”
(h/t Docs Talk)
GIL HOFFMAN AND JPOST.COM STAFF
09/22/2011