Obama-Netanyahu tensions: Not as bad as 5 other US-Israel low points

Will US-Israel relations fray over Iran? Not likely – they've seen worse. 

2. 1975 ‘reassessment’ of America’s ties with Israel

As elsewhere, many of the United States' moves in the Middle East in the 1970s were shaped by cold-war calculations. When Egypt’s relationship with the Soviets fell apart, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger saw an opportunity to pull Cairo more firmly into the American camp by helping it regain the Sinai, which Israel had recaptured in 1967 and successfully defended in the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

From 1973-75, Mr. Kissinger embarked on a flurry of shuttle diplomacy, securing a cease-fire and an Israeli agreement to pull back from the banks of the Suez. But in March 1975, while trying to negotiate a fuller withdrawal, Kissinger lost his temper with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who refused to cede strategic passes in the Sinai as well as oil fields that provided Israel with roughly 60 percent of its oil

“You don’t understand, I’m trying to save you,” Kissinger reportedly said, according to an account in Commentary Magazine. “You are making me, the Secretary of State of the United States of America, wander around the Middle East like a Levantine rug merchant….Are you out of your mind?”

The President Gerald Ford sent Rabin a letter informing him that “I have given instructions for a reassessment of United States policy in the region, including our relations with Israel…” The US also put the brakes on an Israeli request for F-15 fighter planes and froze scheduled arms deliveries.

But US senators rallied in support of Israel, and while President Ford stood firm on withdrawing from the passes, he added enticements including $2 billion in financial aid to Israel. In September an agreement was reached, under which Israel and Egypt agreed that American “technicians” and the UN would oversee the strategic passes. By the end of the decade, Israel and Egypt signed a formal peace treaty mediated by President Jimmy Carter.

2 of 5

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.