Connect with us


President Harry Truman, known as an anti-Semite, became the champion of Israel



Seventy-five years ago, right on schedule, at midnight, the first Jewish state in nearly 2,000 years was proclaimed in Jerusalem.

Exactly 11 minutes later, the historic announcement was followed by another: the US government recognized this newborn state called Israel.

The first announcement, which coincided with the end of the disputed British Mandate over Palestine, was expected. The second was not even among American officials. Some members of the US delegation to the United Nations were so surprised by President Harry S. Truman’s decision that they laughed:

Why did Truman, a clear anti-Semite, decide to become the American godfather of Israeli statehood?

Yet of all the major decisions that have befallen the 33rd President of the United States—dropping the atomic bomb, unifying the armed forces, starting the Korean War—Truman’s decision to recognize Israel stands out as perhaps the most misunderstood. A decision that marked the beginning of a bitter international alliance that is being challenged today, which, in fact, has been brewing for a long time.

How Harry S. Truman went from racist to military desegregation

The vilification of the Jews and the Jewish people was a recurring theme in Truman’s personal correspondence with his wife and friends, as well as in his conversations, especially when he discussed the Zionist leaders and what he felt was their undue pressure on him as the end of the British Mandate drew near.

“Privately,” writes David McCullough in “Truman“, his Pulitzer Prize-winning biography, “Truman was a man who still, by the old habit of speaking, could use [an antisemitic slur] or, in a letter to his wife, refers to Miami as nothing more than “hotels, gas stations, Jews, and shacks.”

David Harris, former longtime CEO of the American Jewish Committee, argued that simply calling Truman an anti-Semite “would be grossly unfair”, citing Truman’s close friendship with his Jewish “army buddy” Eddie Jacobson, his respect for Jewish history, and his actions as a political leader.

In his biography, McCullough highlights Truman’s speech in Chicago in 1943, when he was still a US Senator from Missouri and the Nazi extermination apparatus was gaining momentum, as evidence of Truman’s pro-Semitic sentiments. The thunderous speech at the United Rally demanding the salvation of the doomed Jews foreshadowed his future actions.

“The history of America in its struggle for freedom and the history of the Jews of America are one and the same. … Just talking about the four freedoms is not enough,” Truman said, clearly criticizing then-President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was to become vice president. “The time has come to act. No one can doubt the terrible intentions of the Nazi beasts any longer. We know that they are planning a systematic massacre throughout Europe, not only of Jews, but also of a huge number of other innocent peoples.

“Today, not tomorrow,” he roared in his final speech, “we must do everything in human power to provide shelter and a safe place for all those who can be wrested from the hands of Nazi executioners.”

The president, whom Truman criticized, also chose him as his running mate in 1944, and Truman became president the following April, just weeks after his tenure as vice president after Roosevelt’s death. Although he presided over the end of World War II, In 1948, Truman and his political advisers were seriously concerned about his chances for re-election, and for good reason. A Gallup poll in February showed he was likely to lose to the New York governor. Thomas Dewey, the future Republican candidate, or any other popular candidate, including General Douglas MacArthur.

Truman’s waning chances, McCullough wrote, further encouraged him to recognize Israel. “Supporting a Jewish homeland was an extremely good policy in 1948,” he said, “perhaps decisive in such large states as Pennsylvania or Illinois, and especially in New York, where there were 2.5 million Jews. There was no doubt that the Republicans were ready to do everything possible for the Jewish cause and for the same reasons.

A Jewish commando who rescued his parents from a Nazi concentration camp.

But beyond the so-called “Jewish vote,” McCullough added, there was widespread popular support for a Jewish homeland in the United States in 1948. “As is sometimes forgotten, it was not only American Jews who were excited about the prospect of a new nation for the Jewish people, it was most of America.”

“Politics, humanitarian concerns and foreign policy were intimately and inextricably intertwined,” wrote McCullough, who died last year. “Nevertheless, for Truman, undoubtedly, humanitarian interests were of paramount importance.”

Secretary of State George Marshall was among those who felt that Truman and his advisers were focusing too much on both political and humanitarian issues in their discussions on Palestine, rather than strategic ones. And Marshall told Truman this at a tense Palestine strategy conference on May 12, two days before the mandate expired.

“It’s straight politics,” an enraged general exploded when Clark Clifford, Truman’s top political adviser, spoke at that historic meeting about the need for American recognition. Marshall dismissed Clifford’s argument that Washington would recognize the new Jewish state ahead of Moscow, which six months earlier had backed a UN initiative to partition Palestine, laying the groundwork for independence.

Clifford continued his presentation as McCullough recounts. “Regardless of what the State Department or anyone else thinks,” he said, “we are faced with the real fact of a Jewish state.”

Marshall was adamant. In the most exciting moment of the meeting, and most poignant for Truman, who was in awe of Marshall, the latter declared that if the President followed Clifford’s advice and recognized the state, he would vote against it in November.

McCullough wrote that “the expression on the president’s face, serious from the start, did not change one bit.” “He only raised his hand and said that he was fully aware of the difficulties and dangers involved, as well as the associated political risks to which he himself would be exposed.” Truman brushed off the tense meeting, inviting everyone present to “go to sleep about it.”

The nuclear reactor melted. Jimmy Carter came to the rescue.

Hence the uncertainty surrounding Truman’s final decision to recognize the new Jewish state two days later, as well as the shock with which it was received in some diplomatic circles, including the State Department itself. “The American delegation to the UN was stunned,” McCullough said. “Some of the American delegates even burst out laughing, thinking that this announcement must be someone’s joke.”

This is wrong. Then followed jubilation in Jerusalem, dancing in the streets of New York, horror and anger at Foggy Bottom, the Pentagon and other places, including and especially in the Middle East.

Three-quarters of a century later, the decision looms just as important.

“What would happen if Truman caved in to Marshall and denied US diplomatic recognition of the Jewish state?” Harris, the former head of the AJC, wrote in an email to The Washington Post. “Would independence have been declared on May 14, 1948? I believe most likely. The momentum for Jewish sovereignty was in full swing. But recognition added incalculable legitimacy and prestige.”

Rare home movies show the life of Jews in the countryside before the Holocaust

Truman considered the key role he played in Jewish history to be one of his greatest achievements. The Israelis wanted him to do more in the days and months to come, such as lifting the US arms embargo, but no one could deny his role as guarantor of Israel’s independence. When Israel’s Chief Rabbi later called the White House, he told Truman, “God placed you in your mother’s womb to be the instrument that will bring about the rebirth of Israel in two thousand years.”

In an interview filmed at the Truman Library after his retirement, Truman said that he “turned against many people by recognizing the State of Israel as soon as it was formed. Well, I was in Potsdam and I saw some places where the Jews were massacred by the Nazis. The Nazis killed six million Jews – men, women and children.

“And I hope,” he said, “that they will have a homeland.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Dominion V. Fox News libel trial begins this week



What does Fox say?

V letter filed by Foxthe company believed it aired allegations of voting machine rigging because they came from the incumbent and those close to him and were thus newsworthy.

“The incumbent’s attempt to challenge the election results and change the outcome of his re-election bid is newsworthy,” the document says. “Therefore, the media throughout the country and around the world widely covered and commented on the president’s allegations and trials.”

Fox claimed that “Fox News has lived up to its commitment to full disclosure and unbiased commentary,” adding that “some presenters were skeptical of the president’s claims; others looked at them hopefully; everyone recognized them as deeply informational.”

The network claims to have covered Dominion’s denials and given the company a chance to make its point.

“In short, Fox News has done exactly what the First Amendment protects: it has provided the public with access to newsmakers and critical information that would help foster an “uninhibited, active and wide open” debate about fast-moving events of unprecedented importance.” V litigation according to Fox’s lawyers.

Fox also argues that “the Dominion lawsuit is an attack on the First Amendment and the free press.”

Who is expected to take the position?

According to Associated Press, Carlson, Hannity and Murdoch are to testify. Many also believe that Pirro, Scott and former host Lou Dobbs will also take the position.

Can you watch it on TV?

No cameras will be allowed under Delaware court policy, and a judge recently denied media companies’ request to broadcast audio excerpts.

What are the possible outcomes?

If Fox loses, the company is likely to be stuck with big payouts, its stock price could suffer and its reputation damaged. Fox News claims that if it loses, the case would damage press freedom and the First Amendment.

“Free, vibrant American discourse depends on First Amendment protection for news gathering and press reporting,” a Fox Network spokesperson said in a statement. The newspaper “New York Times.

If Dominion loses, not only will it keep the media defamation bar extremely high, it could push Fox News and other networks into even more defamation in the future.

“If Fox misses one thing that it says is that there are limits to propaganda, to lies on TV… to misinforming your viewers,” said Jay Rosen, professor of journalism at New York University. CNN. “If Fox wins, it kind of says otherwise, there are no limits.”

Whatever happens in the Dominion trial, this is far from the end of Fox News’ problems. in 2021, Smartmatic, a London-based global technology company, also filed a $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit. against Fox News and Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo, former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Dobbs.

The lawsuit was filed after a series of false claims about Smartmatic voting machines and the 2020 elections were posted online. About a month ago, the New York State Supreme Court Manhattan gave the go-ahead to keep the Smartmatic business going.

Continue Reading


First came the sports betting boom. Now there is a backlash.



WASHINGTON. Legislators and regulators, who began the rapid spread of gambling legalization in the United States, are now moving across the country to tighten their oversight of the gambling industry, especially with regard to advertising that can reach underage players.

The crackdown extends to the players themselves, as at least three states have responded to the surge in offensive behavior. transition to the players bar if they threaten or harass athletes after losing a bet.

This more aggressive approach to online betting is evident in countries around the world, including Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands and the UK, where officials have introduced or proposed new restrictions on online betting in recent months, in some cases banning celebrity sponsorship and nearly all advertising.

nationally, 33 states and the District of Columbia offers legal sports betting, followed by Kentucky, Maine, Nebraska and Florida. This means that more than half of Americans live in countries where sports betting is legal, five years after the Supreme Court overturned a law preventing most states from legalizing the practice. Collectively, the Americans legally relied on $220 billion in sports with legal action in 2018.

In the United States this winter, states including New York City began adjusting regulations and state laws where mobile sports betting earned $16.5 billion in staking and an extraordinary $909 million in new tax and licensing revenues. in the first year it was legal.

But the explosive growth of legally sanctioned online sports betting has also raised concerns that it could be harmful. New York responded with an offer new rules What ban any advertising on college campuses or “aimed at those under the minimum age”, which is 21 in New York, and enforcement has increased in Ohio.

“People are realizing the need to intervene rather than wait a decade and bear the brunt of the detrimental consequences of it, especially for minors,” said Matt Schuler, chief executive of the Ohio Casino Control Commission, who said he was utterly disappointed. with advertising content in its state since betting began this year. “The industry will certainly never control itself.”

According to BIA Advisory Services, an industry data aggregator, about $1.8 billion was spent on advertising online gambling in local markets in the U.S. last year, up nearly 70 percent in just one year, raising feelings among some government officials. regulators — and many sports viewers — that the airwaves had become too saturated with sports betting ads.

over the past six months, Maryland, Maine, Massachusetts, Ohio another Connecticut adopted or proposed new rules regarding sports betting, some of which are already in force or are awaiting final approval. Measures vary by state, but most are designed to prevent deceptive marketing or promotions targeting underage players.

Meng proposed rules this would have allowed television advertisements for sports betting to be shown only during live game broadcasts, which would have been the most restrictive policy in the country. They will also ban ads that offer wagering bonuses and ban the use of “cartoon characters, professional or Olympic athletes, celebrities or entertainers” in ads.

Massachusetts last month officially banned marketing on college campuses; and prohibited advertising directed at minors. This month, he also joined New York to ban sports betting marketing companies from receive a commission on bets placed by visitors that they deliver to sports betting platforms out of concern that these mechanisms may contribute to gambling problems.

Brian O’Dwyer, chairman of the New York State Gaming Commission, said sports betting in his state generates windfall tax revenue. But he added, “We need to make sure we don’t recruit people, we don’t promote gambling, and we certainly don’t promote underage gambling.”

Maryland and Connecticut are separately going to ban betting companies from signing agreements with state universities in which they pay schools to help promote their sports betting platforms.

“I think it’s outrageous,” Connecticut State Representative Amy Morrin Bello, a Wethersfield Democrat, said of agreements some betting companies have signed with eight universities across the country. Her no-deal bill was passed this month by a vote of 142 to 0.

Ms. Morrin Bello and Mr. O’Dwyer said their regulatory actions were prompted by The New York Times’ report last year about the explosive growth in sports betting in the United States, including marketing on college campuses.

The Ohio Casino Control Commission has imposed more than $800,000 in fines on sports betting companies since January. . Among the perpetrators was DraftKings, one of the most notorious betting platforms, which has admitted that it illegally claimed that players can place “free” bets and misplaced it in the mail. 2582 ads residents of the state under the age of 21, encouraging them to download the mobile app and receive $200 in free bets.

Penn Entertainment, another major betting company operating under the Barstool brand. which I found separately in February. Late last year at the University of Toledo campus, Barstool played a college football game a show that promoted the company’s mobile sports betting app despite a ban on under-21 ads.

Both companies declined to comment.

Mr Schuler said that law enforcement led to greater acceptance by advertisers. But he said that he still has problems, such as the betting company. logos attached on the jerseys of players on a professional football team based in Columbus, Ohio, a practice he called “downright offensive” given that these players are heroes to many young people. “Their greed trumps the common sense they should have when harming minors,” he said, adding that he does not currently have the authority to ban betting sponsors from appearing on shirts.

The surge in abusive behavior towards college athletes and professional players has drawn the attention of coaches and players themselves. Anthony Grant, men’s basketball coach at the University of Dayton condemned verbal and online attacks on its players from irate gamblers in January, just days after Ohio legalized sports betting.

At a hearing last month in Illinois, Josh Whitman, athletic director of the state’s top university, asked lawmakers continue to ban state bookmakers from accepting sports betting at state colleges. He presented legislators with a letter signed by representatives of many universities in the state, in which five pages rude and sometimes racist remarks made online against players and teams.

Chris Boucher, NBA forward for the Toronto Raptors, described one of the hateful messages he received from a bettor on a March podcast. “I picked the wrong slave today,” the man wrote to Mr. Bush on social media after losing the bet.

“Purely, the players feel offended that sometimes the fans act as if the players are playing for them to place bets,” said David Foster, deputy general counsel for the union representing NBA players. “When it crosses the line and becomes a harassment and a threat, it’s even worse.”

Although specific wording varies, changes in legislation or regulations proposed or approved in Ohio, West Virginia another Massachusetts This year will allow government officials to prohibit betting by those who threaten or chase athletes.

The industry backed the proposals, saying they abhor such behavior towards athletes.

“There is absolutely no room for that,” said Casey Clark, senior vice president of the American Gaming Association, whose members include most major casino companies, as well as FanDuel and DraftKings. “And anyone who takes their reaction to losing a bet to the extreme I think has a gambling problem and should seek help.”

The gambling industry and professional sports leagues have announced their efforts to combat harmful practices and prevent further mandatory tightening of rules.

This includes revisions to the American Gaming Association’s Code of Responsible Marketing, which approves a ban on the term “risk-free” betting and prohibits marketing partnerships with colleges. Professional sports leagues and some TV networks have teamed up to create what they call Coalition for Responsible Sports Betting Advertisingmaking statements such as “sports betting should only be offered to persons who have reached the age of majority”.

Mr. Clarke said the industry has taken steps to address emerging concerns with regulators, reflecting a commitment to “provide adequate consumer protection that will ensure a sustainable legal sports betting market.”“.

Brianna Dura-Shawol, a lobbyist for the National Council on Gambling and others, said the decision to tighten the rules was a response to state officials’ sloppy work to pass laws legalizing sports betting in many states since 2018.

“These are discussions that should have taken place before legalization,” she said.

According to Ms. Dura-Shawol, the actions of regulators abroad reflect what could happen next if the U.S. sports betting industry does not move quickly to prevent problems that have arisen in countries where, in some cases, sports betting has been legal for many years. .

Australia is getting ready ban the use of credit cards to place online bets, which currently account for about 20 percent of bets. Belgium And Netherlandsfrom this summer will ban advertising of gambling on television, radio, newspapers and in public places.

“If you have non-targeted advertising – billboards and TV commercials – you have no control over who sees them, including young people and those with gambling problems,” said Frerik Althof, a spokesman for the Minister of Legal Protection Netherlands.

Canada’s largest province, Ontario proposed last month a ban on the use of athletes and celebrities in advertising, concluding that “the potential for harmful effects on the most vulnerable population, minors, remains high.” And in the United Kingdom, the government agency dealing with overseas gambling released a long-awaited study last month, which concluded that “change is needed now” because “gambling poses a risk of becoming clinically addicted”, offering “financial risk checks” for players who lose more than $160 a month and endorsing a step to remove the gambling logos from the front. players jerseys.

Mr. Clark of the American Gaming Association said the gambling industry would object if some of these moves were proposed in the United States, as is the case with Maine’s expected restrictions on sports betting advertising, which considers excessive.

“We’ve always wanted to learn from more mature markets,” he said, but added, “We don’t support restrictions on when we can sell legitimate, regulated businesses.”

Continue Reading


The most vulnerable actors of 2024 so far



It’s a roll call tradition: identifying the most vulnerable members of the House of Representatives and the Senate in each election cycle. And for our first look at the franchise for the 2024 cycle, we’ll be discussing with roll call policy editor Herb Jackson about the 20 Hot Spots we’ve included on the list.

Show notes:

  • The list of the most vulnerable homes runs through New York, California.
  • A year and a half later, these are the most vulnerable senators of 2024
  • Biden blows up New York County debt-limiting plan that upended the GOP
  • At the Races: Advertisers (Heart) New York
  • Does Colin Allred stand a chance against Ted Cruz in Texas?

The message “Most Vulnerable Actors of 2024” has so far appeared on roll call for the first time.

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2023 Millennial One Media.