America’s Israel: The Moral Cost of Complicity

The foisting of a Jewish state in the heart of Palestine was an arrogant imperial decision that has left a trail of carnage in West Asia; most recently, the genocide in Gaza. How much bloodletting will satiate Israel and its American enabler?

In his lawless rabid tirade of 1 April, President Donald Trump threatened even more savagery and crimes against humanity.  He made it clear that the U.S. is not a bystander but a direct accomplice in Israeli atrocities and war crimes.  

What was absent from Trump’s speech was any mention that a courageous insider came forward on 17 March 2026 to tell the truth.  Joseph Kent, a veteran with 11combat deployments, and former director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was that person.  In his resignation letter to Trump, he poignantly wrote:

“Early in this administration, high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media deployed a misinformation campaign that wholly undermined your America First platform and sowed pro-war sentiments to encourage war with Iran.  This echo chamber was used to deceive you into believing that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States, and that you should strike now, there was a clear path to swift victory.  This was a lie and is the same tactic the Israelis used to draw us into the disastrous Iraq war that cost our nation the lives of thousands of our best men and women.  We cannot make this mistake again.”

It should be noted that previous U.S. presidents have faced comparable pressures and made similar mistakes since the “American father of Israel,” President Harry S. Truman, gave his blessing to the European Zionists’ illegal claim to Palestine in May 1948.  For the first time, on that date, Israel appeared on the world map.

The consequences of Israel’s century-long project to reshape West Asia in its image have been tragic. Genocide in occupied Gaza and the West Bank, wars on Lebanon and Iran are its current bids to disfigure the region, to gain dominance no matter the cost.  

Iran has, since 1979, challenged Israel’s expansionist project to control territory “between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River,” which is written into the 1977 election manifesto and electoral platform of the Likud Party; the dominant party for 49 years.  

The U.S.-Israel war, “Operation Epic Fury,” is being fought to degrade Iran as a West Asian power. The war has unveiled to the world Tel Aviv’s dependence on Washington to secure regional hegemony, as well as its outsized influence over American politicians and policymakers.  

In retrospect, it is alarming to realize that, over these many years, we have learned very little from our history with Israel.  

Much like Joe Kent, who cited the war’s casus belli as undue “pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby,” most U.S. presidents have experienced similar impositions.  None more so than President Truman.

After the Second World War, influential American Zionists were merciless in their efforts to persuade Truman to commit American prestige and power on behalf of Zionist aspirations, even though they most often compromised U.S. interests.

Jewish immigration to Palestine was a pivotal issue for the Truman administration in 1947 due to the intensifying immigration crisis and mounting pressure for the United States to support the Zionist goal of a Jewish state.  Also, Britain announced in February of that year that it would end its mandate of Palestine and refer its future to the newly created United Nations.

Approximately 250,000 Jewish Holocaust survivors were among the nearly 6 million displaced persons (DP) languishing in Allied administered refugee camps across Europe in 1947. 

In that year, American Zionists fiercely lobbied Truman to pressure the British government to allow 100,000 more Jewish refugees into Palestine, where their numbers had been swelling since the 1930s.  

During the waning years of its mandate, Britain struggled to manage the mounting violence between Zionist colonizers and Palestinian resistance forces and maintain stable relations with the Arab states who opposed further Zionist expansion. 

Truman was sympathetic to the Jewish plight and Zionist cause. He was, however, annoyed that Americans were violating international law, financing illegal immigration, and complicating sensitive U.S.-British diplomatic relations. 

One particular event, the July 1947 Exodus voyage—the “ship that launched a nation” —has had historical consequences for West Asia.  

The Exodus, illegally carrying 4,515 Holocaust survivors to Palestine was forcibly intercepted by the British navy.  The widely publicized forcible return of the refugees to DP camps in British-occupied Germany sparked worldwide outrage and sympathy for the Zionist cause.  

Intensified international and domestic pressure and sympathy for the plight of Jewish refugees influenced a number of events:

+  sped up Truman’s support for Jewish immigration; 

+  increased American support for a Jewish homeland; 

+ made it difficult for Britain to maintain restrictions on Jewish immigration;

+ forced it to abandon its mandate of Palestine in November 1947; 

+  led to pressure in the UN General Assembly (UNGA) to pass a resolution partitioning Palestine into separate independent Jewish and Arab states.

There were compelling reasons for Truman to have concerns and misgivings about the high-profile Exodus event.

For one, the Exodus voyage was organized by Mosad Le’Aliya Bet, an agency that had been smuggling Jews illegally into Palestine for years.  The ship was purchased and operated by the Haganah, an underground Jewish paramilitary operating, often violently, to drive the British from Palestine.  In addition, they had established branches in European DP camps, where they trained thousands of Holocaust survivors to fight for a Jewish state once they reached Palestine.

According to the American Council for Judaism, founded in 1942, the voyage of the Exodus was “pure political theater and guerrilla warfare designed to sabotage President Truman’s declared call for restraint by all sides in the growing conflict in Palestine….; and that, “The Exodus was a former Chesapeake Bay Ferry purchased by American Zionists associated with Henry Morgenthau, to smuggle illegal arms into Palestinian Jewish communities. Its full name in 1947 was Haganah Ship Exodus 47, and its 4,500 passengers were mainly able-bodied military-aged young men and women, who were both disciplined and dedicated to conquer Palestine.”

The massive ship seemed calculated to provoke a crisis, as it had been overhauled for direct confrontation with the British.

The significance of the Exodus episode cannot be understated.  It was quickly transformed into the “heroic mythology” of the newly created state.  The David v. Goliath myth, dramatized in a 1958 novel and award-winning movie of the same name, cemented American public support.

Like numerous other refugee ships, the Exodus was financed by wealthy Jewish American donors, among them, key fundraiser, Henry Morgenthau Jr., former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury (1934-45).  

Truman also clashed with Morgenthau over his intrusion into U.S. post-war policy toward Germany, particularly over what came to be known as the “Morgenthau Plan.”  

Morgenthau’s 1944 “Suggested Post-Surrender Program for Germany,” was designed to permanently deindustrialize it; to remake the country into a primarily agricultural economy.  His deindustrialization program, initially adopted by the U.S. and Allies, was abandoned once it became obvious it was obstructing European economic revival. 

The U.S.-Israel strategy in its war against Iran to eliminate the country as a regional power by destroying its industrial infrastructure bears a striking resemblance to the old Morgenthau Plan to neutralize post-war Germany.  

President Truman vented his frustrations on 21 July 1947 in three diary pages, discovered in 2003.  He was especially angry over Morgenthau’s persistence that he force the British to allow the Exodus into Palestine; he wrote: “ The Jews have no sense of proportion nor do they have any judgment on world affairs. Henry brought a thousand Jews to New York on a supposedly temporary basis and they stayed.”  He continued: “The Jews, I find are very, very selfish. They care not how many Enians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as D[isplaced] P[ersons] as long as the Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political, neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the underdog. Put an underdog on top and it makes no difference whether his name is Russian, Jewish, Negro, Management, Labor, Mormon, Baptist he goes haywire. I’ve found very, very few who remember their past condition when prosperity comes.”

Since its launch and because of America’s unquestioned support, Israel has been allowed to act outside the “decencies of modern civilization.”  It has with impunity broken all protocols of decency; and in the process, neutered the United Nations, its organizations and the international legal system.

The erosion of America’s international credibility was lost when the Oval Office became a revolving door for Israeli “agents of war” and its oil-rich Arab proxies. 

Seventy-nine years separate the resignation letter of Joe Kent and the ruminations of President Truman.  One thing, however, has not changed.  When Israel and its lobby call it matters little who sits behind the Resolute Desk. 

The post America’s Israel: The Moral Cost of Complicity appeared first on CounterPunch.org.