1956 and all that
Last night, Bill and I hosted a fun little dinner party with some old friends (and one new one) in Washington DC. The conversation turned to 1956. Firstly, in the context of how, during the Suez crisis of that year, Pres. Eisenhower had "persuaded" Anthony Eden to back off from continuing his imperialistic aggression against Egypt by pulling the plug on Washington's support for the pound sterling.
That, in the earlier context of our having discussed the fact that the amount of US federal debt that the People's Bank of China now holds is almost exactly the same dollar total that the US war in Iraq has cost until now...
I interjected that I had actual memories of the British war effort. "You were only four at the time!" Bill said. But I do. We lived very near RAF Abingdon, the main base for the British paratroopers as they flew out to invade Egypt; and for nights on end I heard the very scary drone-drone-drone of aircraft taking off. Actually, I was a few weeks shy of four.
Then a little later, we were talking about the ongoing prosecutions against former AIPAC officials Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman-- in which, as you can see here, the lawyers for the accused are now playing some politically intriguing hardball against current and former Bush administration officials, including Rice, Hadley, Douglas Feith, etc etc.
So that reminded me that the whole idea of AIPAC itself really dated back to 1956... To Morris Amitai deciding then, with his friends, that he wanted to build a political machine in this country that would ensure that never again would a US president be able to "dictate" the terms of a peace settlement to Israel.
I wrote a whole chapter on the US-Israeli relationship in my 1991 book The Superpowers and the Syrian-Israeli Conflict, tracking many of the themes that Walt and Mearsheimer would later expand upon including the shifting balance between the "shared values" rationale for tyhe relationship and the "strategic asset" rationale...
Anyway, 1956: an intriguing year, in many respects. And yes, I realize the US-Chinese relationship is a lot more complex, and probably at this stage symbiotic, than the US-UK relationship was in 1956.
The high point of American civilization was the 1956 chevie hard top.
Why on earth would China want to weaken the dollar when it is benefiting from a $250 billion trade deficit with the U.S.?
In 1956, the top marginal federal income tax for individuals was 91%.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/histaba.pdf
Today, it's 35%.
That might well be the nominal rate, but how many pay it? Not many, is my guess.
What intrigues me is - what happened between 1956 and 1967 to affect so drastically the relationship between the USA and Israel. In 1956 Eisenhower reined in Israel (and Britain and France) very swiftly. In 1967 Israeli forces attacked the USS Liberty, and America just rolled over.
The U.S. did indeed reign in Israel and Britain and France in 1956. And that did not help in any regard whatsoever. Nasser continued to support a Pan-Arab Soviet leaning empire that demanded complete hegemony over the region. And even though Israel did everything demanded of it, the Arab nations still refused to recognize Israel and prepared for the next war.
The lessons of 1956 are indeed important. Particularly for those who insist that taking a hard line and pressuring Israel is what would solve all of the U.S.'s woes in the region. It didn't work then, and likely would not work now.
As for the USS Liberty. It has been investigated by over both sides a dozen times and determined to be an accident. Israel nevertheless paid millions of dollars in reparations.
"Reign"? Really? What an amazing take on history.
Almost as amazing: some of the assertions that follow that one.
Ah well, what can we say. "Welcome back, Joshua"?
As usual, without any factual basis to back her up, Helena mistates the record, and when called on it, resorts to personal attacks.
What a pathetic excuse for a writer.