DOCSLIB.ORG

The London School of Economics and Political Science

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The London School of Economics and Political Science The London School of Economics and Political Science Normalizing the Israel Asset. The Reagan Administration and the Second Cold War in the Middle East: Leverage, Blowback and the Institutionalization of the US-Israel ‘Special Relationship’ Andrea T. Dessí Thesis submitted to the Department of International Relations of the London School of Economics for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, London, May 2018 1 Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. I warrant that this authorization does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. I declare that my thesis consists of 107,560 words. This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (grant number 1510562) I confirm that my thesis was copy edited for conventions of language and grammar by Carol Ross of Hyperlife Editing Services. 2 Abstract The US-Israel relationship reached a critical, institutionalizing juncture during the 1980s. Measurable in qualitative and quantitative terms, the Reagan administration had a transformative impact on bilateral ties, institutionalizing ad hoc forms of cooperation while modifying prevailing discourse to recognize Israel as an ‘ally’ and a ‘strategic asset’ in the Cold War. New bureaucratic agreements were signed, bilateral working groups formed and joint military exercises held throughout a decade that capped a long familiarization process between societies and political elites in the two countries. By the end of the 1980s, many of the bureaucratic frameworks that today still govern the US-Israeli relationship were institutionalized, as were those elements of preferential treatment commonly cited as proof for the ‘special’ or ‘unique’ nature of US-Israel ties. This study focusses on the institutional and bureaucratic dimensions of US support for Israel, examining the changing rationalizations for this support and the way this relates to the salient theme of a mutual struggle for influence and leverage over the policies of the other. Drawing on recently declassified documents, complimented with high-level interviews and other materials, the research answers three interrelated questions as to ‘why’ this institutionalization process was carried out, ‘how’ it would materialize and ‘what effects’ these processes would have on future US policy towards Israel and the Middle East. While predicated on an effort to enhance US leverage over Israel, the study argues that the institutionalization of the relationship would formalize interdependence between the two countries, consolidating a ‘policy straitjacket’ that has constrained presidential freedom of action towards both Israel and the broader Middle East. This has furthered the US’s ‘entrapment’ in a quasi-exclusivist relationship with Israel that has enhanced a process of ‘Israelization’ of US approaches and viewpoints on Middle East developments, harming US influence while transforming the US into an active participant and major obstacle to a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the broader stabilization of the Middle East. 3 Table of Contents Introduction 7 Chapter 1 21 Framing US Foreign Policy Chapter 2 40 Anatomy of a ‘Special Relationship’: Domestic Constraints, Power Asymmetries and the Struggle for Leverage Chapter 3 66 The Reagan Revolution Chapter 4 84 The Second Cold War in the Middle East: Strategic Outreach to Israel and the Arab States in the 1980s Chapter 5 106 ‘Strategic Dissensus’: Debates and Dividends of US-Israel Strategic Cooperation Chapter 6 133 A Baptism of Fire: The Lebanon War and the Rebirth of US-Israel Strategic Cooperation Chapter 7 161 From Theory to Practice: Institutionalizing the US-Israel ‘Special Relationship’ Conclusion 188 Bibliography 201 Appendix 216 4 For Mom & Dad In memory of Tom Boyden 5 Acknowledgments This manuscript is the product of many years work and would not have been possible without the support and encouragement of family, friends and colleagues. Inspiration comes in many shapes and forms and the list of people who have helped me along the way is sadly too extensive to include in its entirety. My heartfelt appreciation goes to my supervisor, Prof. Fawaz Gerges, whose encouragement and insights have been irreplaceable in the long road towards submission. The many discussions, meals and exchange of views on the Middle East have been a constant source of inspiration and motivation and will be fondly remembered for many years to come. I owe a debt of gratitude to the Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI) in Rome and in particular to my colleagues and the present and former Directors, Nathalie Tocci and Ettore Greco, who opened the doors of the Institute to a young researcher in 2011 and have since been a key to my personal and professional development. Nathalie was instrumental in pushing me to embark on the PhD journey and for this I thank her immensely. This research would not have been possible without the support of a number of academics, former Reagan era officials and diplomats in the United States. Their interest and availability to be interviewed provided priceless insight into the inner working of the Reagan administration. The archivists at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library also deserve a mention of praise and will be fondly remembered. Friends and PhD colleagues at LSE and beyond have also been instrumental along the way. I wish to particularly thank Anissa Haddadi for the long discussions and debates about the Middle East, Richard Morris for kindly hosting me in London during the final phases of the research and Giulio Caperchi for our long and insightful discussions in London, Rome and the US. My deep appreciation and thanks go to Annabella Cuomo, whose patience, warmth and encouragement have carried me through the last years of this PhD journey. From London to Rome, her companionship has been priceless for me to reach this milestone. Finally, I would have never embarked on this journey had it not been for my parents. The love, freedom and encouragement given to me by mom and dad have been instrumental. This thesis is dedicated to them and my late uncle, Tom Boyden, one of the last actions of whom was to send me a book on the Middle East from San Francisco to Rome, a book that has served to deepen my fascination about the region and has in some way led me to this juncture. 6 Introduction The 1980s and the Reagan administration are commonly described as a ‘golden age’ for US-Israel relations. Reagan noted in his diary that Israel ‘never had a better friend’1 in the White House, and Moshe Arens, Israeli ambassador to the US and later defence minister in the right-wing Likud government at the time, agrees, remembering the 1980s as an ‘extended honeymoon’, 2 a decade when the US-Israel relationship reached a level of ‘friendship and alliance unprecedented in previous years’.3 Writing on the eve of Reagan’s death in 2004, Arens recalled how the president’s two secretaries of state were the ‘first to change’ the ‘traditional attitude’ towards Israel in the US State Department, adding that ‘when it comes to friendship for Israel, all occupants of the White House can be measured by the standard’ Reagan set.4 Beyond the pleasantries conveyed by such statements, one might be puzzled to find that the 1980s were marked by severe, even unprecedented, tensions between the United States and Israel. Crises ranged from Israel’s staunch opposition to the sale of US weaponry to ‘moderate’ Arab states, Israel’s bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor and PLO headquarters in Beirut, the annexation of the occupied Golan Heights, the 1982 invasion of Lebanon and the 1985 arrest of Jonathan Pollard, to name but a few. While such events could be expected to severely test and even damage the US-Israel relationship, not least by calling into question the increasingly public portrayals of Israel as a ‘strategic asset’ and ‘loyal ally’ of the United States, disagreements were quickly overcome and the overall trend remained characterized by a profound institutionalization of the relationship and a growing interdependence between the national security policies of the two countries. By the end of the 1980s, many of the institutional frameworks that today still govern US-Israel ties were institutionalized in the US bureaucracy, as were those elements of preferential treatment that are commonly cited as proof for the ‘special’ or ‘unique’ nature of the US-Israel relationship. Adding to the twin pillars of shared Judeo-Christian values and political affinities that had defined US support for Israel since 1948, a third and most controversial pillar would be formally added to the relationship during the 1980s: that of ‘strategic cooperation’. This would represent the climax of a long, incremental process of institutional development that began in the late 1950s, was further augmented by a series of key bilateral agreements signed throughout the 1960s and 1970s, leading finally to the normalization of relations and their formalization during the second Reagan term in the mid-to-late 1980s (see Appendix A-F). An unprecedented number of 31 bilateral agreements were concluded during Reagan’s tenure, covering everything from cooperation in research and development to emergency medical assistance, anti-terror 1 Ronald Reagan, The Reagan Diaries, New York, Harper Collins, 2007, p.14. 2 Moshe Arnes, Broken Covenant. American Foreign Policy and the Crisis Between the US and Israel, Simon & Schuster Ltd., 1995, p.25.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Non-Offensive Defence in the Middle East?
    UNIDIR/98/23 UNIDIR United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research Geneva Non-Offensive Defence in the Middle East? Bjørn Møller Gustav Däniker Shmuel Limone Ioannis A. Stivachtis UNITED NATIONS New York and Geneva, 1998 NOTE The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. * * * The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Secretariat. UNIDIR/98/23 UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION Sales No. GV.E.98.0.27 ISBN 92-9045-129-7 Table of Contents Page Preface—Ioannis A. Stivachtis .................................. vii List of Acronyms............................................ xv Part I Chapter 1 Non-Offensive Defence in the Middle East Bjørn Møller ............................................. 3 I. The Basic Idea of NOD ................................ 3 II. The Middle East and Europe Compared................... 34 III. Common Security and NOD for the Middle East? ........... 49 IV. The Role of External Powers ........................... 80 V. Perspectives ........................................ 87 Part II Chapter 1 Non-Offensive Defence in the Middle East: Necessity versus Feasibility Ioannis A. Stivachtis ...................................... 93 I. NOD and Related Concepts ............................ 93 II. NOD in the Middle East: Is it Feasible? .................. 106 III. Conclusion ........................................ 113 v vi Non-Offensive Defence in the Middle East? Chapter 2 Cooperative Security and Non-Offensive Defence in the Middle East Gustav Däniker ......................................... 115 I. NOD and the Middle East Challenge ...................
    [Show full text]
  • Turkey and Iraq: the Perils (And Prospects) of Proximity
    UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE www.usip.org SPECIAL REPORT 1200 17th Street NW • Washington, DC 20036 • 202.457.1700 • fax 202.429.6063 ABOUT THE REPORT I RAQ AND I TS N EIGHBORS Iraq’s neighbors are playing a major role—both positive and negative—in the stabilization and reconstruction of “the new Iraq.” As part of the Institute’s “Iraq and Henri J. Barkey Its Neighbors” project, a group of leading specialists on the geopolitics of the region and on the domestic politics of the individual countries is assessing the interests and influence of the countries surrounding Iraq. In addition, these specialists are examining how Turkey and Iraq the situation in Iraq is impacting U.S. bilateral relations with these countries. Henri Barkey’s report on Turkey is the first in a series of USIP special reports on “Iraq The Perils (and Prospects) of Proximity and Its Neighbors” to be published over the next few months. Next in the series will be a study on Iran by Geoffrey Kemp of the Nixon Center. The “Iraq and Its Neighbors” project is directed by Scott Lasensky of the Institute’s Research and Studies Program. For an overview of the topic, see Phebe Marr and Scott Lasensky, “An Opening at Sharm el-Sheikh,” Beirut Daily Star, November 20, 2004. Henri J. Barkey is the Bernard L. and Bertha F. Cohen Professor of international relations at Lehigh University. He served as a member of the U.S. State Department Policy Planning Staff (1998–2000), working primarily on issues related to the Middle East, the eastern Mediterranean, and intelligence matters.
    [Show full text]
  • Iraq: Differing Views in the Domestic Policy Debate
    Order Code RL31607 Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Iraq: Differing Views in the Domestic Policy Debate October 16, 2002 name redacted, Meaghan Marshall, name redacted Research Associates Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division name redacted Specialist in National Defense Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress Iraq: Differing Views in the Domestic Policy Debate Summary The debate over whether, when, and how to prosecute a major U.S. military intervention in Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein is complex, despite a general consensus in Washington that the world would be much better off if Hussein were not in power. Although most U.S. observers, for a variety of reasons, would prefer some degree of allied or U.N. support for military intervention in Iraq, some observers believe that the United States should act unilaterally even without such multilateral support. Some commentators argue for a stronger, more committed version of the current policy approach toward Iraq and leave war as a decision to reach later, only after exhausting additional means of dealing with Hussein’s regime. A number of key questions are raised in this debate, such as: 1) is war on Iraq linked to the war on terrorism and to the Arab-Israeli dispute; 2) what effect will a war against Iraq have on the war against terrorism; 3) are there unintended consequences of warfare, especially in this region of the world; 4) what is the long- term political and financial commitment likely to accompany regime change and possible democratization in this highly divided, ethnically diverse country; 5) what are the international consequences (e.g., to European allies, Russia, and the world community) of any U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Making of a Special Relationship: the United States and Israel, 1957-68 Author(S): Douglas Little Source: International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol
    The Making of a Special Relationship: The United States and Israel, 1957-68 Author(s): Douglas Little Source: International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 25, No. 4 (Nov., 1993), pp. 563-585 Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/164535 Accessed: 19/05/2010 14:39 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Journal of Middle East Studies. http://www.jstor.org Int. J.
    [Show full text]
  • The Iranian Dilemma Challenges for German and American Foreign Policy
    THE IRANIAN DILEMMA t CHALLENGES FOR GERMAN AND AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY Washington, D.C. 21 April 1997 Conference Repor American Institute for Contemporary German Studies The Johns Hopkins University Conference Report THE IRANIAN DILEMMA CHALLENGES FOR GERMAN AND AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY Peter Rudolf Geoffrey Kemp Washington, D.C. 21 April 1997 American Institute for Contemporary German Studies The Johns Hopkins University The American Institute for Contemporary German Studies (AICGS) is a center for advanced research, study, and discussion on the politics, culture, and society of the Federal Republic of Germany. Established in 1983 and affiliated with The Johns Hopkins University but governed by its own Board of Trustees, AICGS is a privately incorporated institute dedicated to independent, critical, and comprehensive analysis and assessment of current German issues. Its goals are to help develop a new generation of American scholars with a thorough understanding of contemporary Germany, deepen American knowledge and understanding of current German developments, contribute to American policy analysis of problems relating to Germany, and promote interdisciplinary and comparative research on Germany. Executive Director: Jackson Janes Research Director: Carl Lankowski Director of Development: William S. Stokes IV Board of Trustees, Cochair: Steven Muller Board of Trustees, Cochair: Harry J. Gray The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) alone. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies. ©1997 by the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies ISBN 0-941441-21-0 Additional copies are available from the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies, Suite 420, 1400 16th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • American Policy and Changing Alignments in the Middle East
    American Policy and Changing Alignments in the Middle East Adam Lammon American Policy and Changing Alignments in the Middle East Geoffrey Kemp, John Allen Gay, Adam Lammon Center for the National Interest The Center for the National Interest is a nonpartisan public policy institution established by former President Richard Nixon in 1994. Its current programs focus on American defense and national security, energy and climate security, regional security in the Middle East, and U.S. relations with China, Japan, Europe, and Russia. The Center also publishes the bimonthly foreign affairs magazine The National Interest. The Center is supported by foundation, corporate and individual donors, as well as by an endowment. Copyright 2018. Center for the National Interest. All Rights Reserved. American Policy and Changing Alignments in the Middle East By Geoffrey Kemp, John Allen Gay, Adam Lammon Center for the National Interest 1025 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 1200 Washington, D.C. 20036 Phone: (202) 887-1000 E-mail: [email protected] www.cftni.org Cover design by Gabriella Turrisi Photographs from Reuters: From top (front to back): Yannis Behrakis, Reuters, Erik de Castro, Azad Lashkari Acknowledgments This study was supported by a grant from the Smith Richardson Foundation and with encouragement from the Center for the National Interest’s Executive Director, Paul J. Saunders. The Center for the National Interest would like to thank Henri Barkey, Fiona Hill, Dennis Ross, James Dobbins, Steven Szabo, and Charles W. Freeman for their participation in a series of seminars that were invaluable in structuring the research and argumentation, as well as the Center’s former Program Assistant, Luke Hagberg, and interns Bradley L.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Iran.Indd
    ABOUT THE AUTHORS GENEIVE ABDO has reported from numerous Islamic countries for a decade. She is currently the religion writer of the Chicago Tribune. Before that, she worked for the Boston Globe and was the correspondent in Iran for The Guardian and a frequent contributor to The Economist and the International Herald Tribune. She is the author of No God but God: Egypt and the Triumph of Islam (Oxford University Press, 2000) and most recently, with Jonathan Lyons, of Answering Only to God: Faith and Freedom in Twenty-First-Century Iran (New York: Henry Holt Company, 2003). PATRICK CLAWSON is deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and senior editor of Middle East Quarterly. He has published numerous scholarly articles on the Middle East in Foreign Affairs, International Economy, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics and Middle East Journal. Also, he has published opinion articles in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post. Mr. Clawson was co-convenor of the Presidential Study Group organized by The Washington Institute, which published its recommendations to the new Bush administration in the form of a monograph, Navigating Through Turbulence: America and the Middle East in a New Century (The Washington Institute, 2001). His most recent authored and edited works include: How to Build a New Iraq after Saddam, editor (The Washington Institute, 2003) and The Last Arab-Israeli Battlefi eld? Implications of an Israeli Withdrawal from Lebanon, co-editor (The Washington Institute, 2000). MICHAEL EISENSTADT is a senior fellow at The Washington Institute. He is a specialist in Persian Gulf and Arab-Israeli security affairs and has published on U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Camp David's Shadow
    Camp David’s Shadow: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinian Question, 1977-1993 Seth Anziska Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2015 © 2015 Seth Anziska All rights reserved ABSTRACT Camp David’s Shadow: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinian Question, 1977-1993 Seth Anziska This dissertation examines the emergence of the 1978 Camp David Accords and the consequences for Israel, the Palestinians, and the wider Middle East. Utilizing archival sources and oral history interviews from across Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, the United States, and the United Kingdom, Camp David’s Shadow recasts the early history of the peace process. It explains how a comprehensive settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict with provisions for a resolution of the Palestinian question gave way to the facilitation of bilateral peace between Egypt and Israel. As recently declassified sources reveal, the completion of the Camp David Accords—via intensive American efforts— actually enabled Israeli expansion across the Green Line, undermining the possibility of Palestinian sovereignty in the occupied territories. By examining how both the concept and diplomatic practice of autonomy were utilized to address the Palestinian question, and the implications of the subsequent Israeli and U.S. military intervention in Lebanon, the dissertation explains how and why the Camp David process and its aftermath adversely shaped the prospects of a negotiated settlement between Israelis and Palestinians in the 1990s. In linking the developments of the late 1970s and 1980s with the Madrid Conference and Oslo Accords in the decade that followed, the dissertation charts the role played by American, Middle Eastern, international, and domestic actors in curtailing the possibility of Palestinian self-determination.
    [Show full text]
  • Jeremy Pressman CV
    JEREMY PRESSMAN [email protected] http://jeremy-pressman.uconn.edu/ Education Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Political Science, 2002 B.A., Brandeis University, Politics and Near Eastern and Judaic Studies, 1991 Experience Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Connecticut Co-director, Crowd Counting Consortium (crowdcounting.org), 2017-present Director, Middle East Studies, 2008-present Alan R. Bennett Honors Professor, 2010-2013 Project Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, DC, 1991-96 Books The sword is not enough: Arabs, Israelis, and the limits of military force (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2020). Warring Friends: Alliance Restraint in International Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2008). Part of Cornell Studies in Security Affairs. Point of No Return: The Deadly Struggle for Middle East Peace, with Geoffrey Kemp (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1997). Arabic translation published in 1999. Articles (Refereed) “Carter, the Autonomy Talks, and a Middle Pathway to Palestine,” Diplomacy & Statecraft, accepted. “Gender Imbalance in Expert Testimony at U.S. Senate Hearings,” The Forum 18:2 (2020), 197-205. “The Science of Contemporary Street Protest: New Efforts in the United States,” Science Advances 5:10, October 23, 2019, https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/10/eaaw5461. (with Dana R. Fisher, Kenneth T. Andrews, Neal Caren, Erica Chenoweth, Michael T. Heaney, Tommy Leung, and L. Nathan Perkins) “History in Conflict: Israeli-Palestinian Speeches at the United Nations, 1998-2016,” Mediterranean Politics 25:4 (2020), 476-498. Published online: March 28, 2019. “Foreign Cues and Public Views on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict,” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 21:1 (February 2019), 169-188.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training Foreign Affairs
    The Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training Foreign Affairs Oral History Project ARNOLD DENYS Interviewed by: Self Copyright 1998 ADST TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements A out the Author Note to the Reader Preface A Crisis in the Life of a Foreign Service Officer My Beginnings (S Citi)enship Return to Civilian Life Panama Assignment Crisis in Panama London Egypt Athens Mexico Canada ,ashington, DC Antwerp ,ashington to Tijuana Tijuana Tijuana to Retirement Conclusion DIARY Son of Flanders The Making of a Consul. Diary of an American Foreign Service Officer In Memory of Emiel Denys 01103411767 8odelieve Maria Denys 01101411117 AC9NO,LED8MENTS 1 I feel deep gratitude to my late parents for their encouragement to write this memoir. The late Mrs. 9atherine McCook 9nox, an art historian from ,ashington, DC, was in great part responsi le for my efforts in compiling letters and notes on the American Foreign Service. My thanks also go to Rhoda Riddell, Ph.D., a writer and teacher, who transcri ed and edited my handwritten account, which was taken from my diary. I also wish to thank Art Drexler, who completed the editing and prepared the book for printing. I wish also to thank the following persons, whom I have known in the long course of my foreign service career, and who have meant so much to me both personally and professionally, and deserve special acknowledgment. Consul 8eneral John D. Barfield Vice Consul 0Ret.7 Frank J. Barrett Miguel Angel 8arcia Charles Stuart 9ennedy, Director of the Association for Diplomatic Studies, who inspired me with his work on the Foreign Affairs Oral History Program.
    [Show full text]
  • Interview with Ambassador Alfred H. Moses
    Library of Congress Interview with Ambassador Alfred H. Moses The Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training Foreign Affairs Oral History Project AMBASSADOR ALFRED H. MOSES Interviewed by: Charles Stuart Kennedy Initial interview date: February 16, 2005 Copyright 2008 ADST Q: Today is February 16, 2005. This is an interview with Alfred H. Moses. What does the H stand for? MOSES: Henry. Q: Henry. This is being done on behalf of the Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training, and I am Charles Stuart Kennedy. I notice by listening to conversations you have had that you have been able to hang on to the name Alfred. With people this must have been a battle in early years. MOSES: Well it was Al early on and Al still. I don't really care. My family always called me Alfred. Q: Well to begin with, could you tell me when and where you were born? MOSES: Sure. July 24, 1929 in Baltimore, Maryland. Q: Then could you tell me a little bit about the family. Let's take your father's side. Where did it come from? Interview with Ambassador Alfred H. Moses http://www.loc.gov/item/mfdipbib001605 Library of Congress MOSES: My father's family, the Moses's, came from Germany, from a small town called Grobropperhausen in the Rhine valley. I have been there. The family lived there for three to four hundred years. Q: What were they doing? MOSES: They were dealers in cattle hides. My grandfather came to this country in 1872 as a boy of 15, after German Unification.
    [Show full text]
  • Kahane Was a Shared Asset of ADL
    Click here for Full Issue of EIR Volume 17, Number 26, June 22, 1990 Couldenhove-Kalergis all represent. The author uses his interviews and background research In a similar vein, Livingston takes pains to portrayTeddy into Kahane's family to show both the psychological motiva­ Roosevelt as a great friend of the Jews. Colonel Roosevelt, tion as well as the political-messianic quality of Kahane. after San Juan Hill, gives commendations to Jewish officers; Friedman goes through great detail to show how every major President Roosevelt sends petitions to the Czar to stop a U.S. and Israeli intelligence agency not only played with bloody pogrom. Never mind the WASP supremacy ofTR's Kahane, but actively supported his effortswhen it suited their support for eugenics. Never mind his hatred for classical needs. German culture, which was the world's model for true reli­ For instance, the little-known story about how one of the gious toleration among Jew, Catholic, and Protestant. And Mossad's top officials in the late 1960s, Yitzhak Shamir, certainly never mind TR's "gun-boat diplomacy" in defense now Israel's prime minister, actively initiated and promoted of usury, against the emerging South American republics. Kahane's terrorist actions against the Soviet Union as part of With an ideological pedigree like this, it is no surprise to the Zionist effort to get Soviet Jews to emigrate. Shamir's find the Anti-Defamation League of Sigmund Livingston to support for Kahane's activities involved training and recruit­ be one of the most fanatic enemies of the LaRouche move­ ing both young American Jews and Israelis in the deadly ment worldwide.
    [Show full text]