Dying to Forget: Oil, Power, Palestine, and the Foundations of U.S. Policy in the Middle East

DYING TO FORGET

DYING TO FORGET

OIL, POWER, PALESTINE,

& the Foundations of

U. S. Policy in the Middle East

IRENE L. GENDZIER

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS    NEW YORK

Columbia University Press

Publishers Since 1893

New York    Chichester, West Sussex

cup.columbia.edu

Copyright © 2015 Columbia University Press

All rights reserved

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

E-ISBN 978-0-231-52658-6

Gendzier, Irene L.

Dying to forget : Oil, power, Palestine, and the foundations of U.S. policy in the Middle East / Irene L. Gendzier.

pages cm

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-0-231-15288-4 (cloth : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-0-231-52658-6 (ebook)

1. United States—Foreign relations—Middle East. 2. Middle East—Foreign relations—United States. 3. United States—Foreign relations—1945-1953. I. Title.

DS63.2.U5G429 2015

327.7305609' 044—dc23

2015016376

A Columbia University Press E-book.

CUP would be pleased to hear about your reading experience with this e-book at [email protected].

COVER IMAGE: Map no. 103.1(B) February 1956 / United Nations

COVER DESIGN: Martin Hinze

References to websites (URLs) were accurate at the time of writing. Neither the author nor Columbia University Press is responsible for URLs that may have expired or changed since the manuscript was prepared.

For Assaf J. Kfoury

Contents

Acknowledgments

This work has been under way since at least 2008. Research for it was undertaken while I was Professor in the Department of Political Science at Boston University. During this period, I was also fortunate to be an Affiliate in Research at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Harvard University, and a Research Affiliate of the MIT Center for International Studies.

I am grateful for the opportunity to thank those whose assistance and support have been indispensable to the research and writing of this book, for which I remain solely responsible. Individuals are identified by the positions they held at the time they provided assistance.

First to be listed are the archivists and librarians who generously shared their knowledge and made U.S. records and presidential papers accessible. It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of their assistance; quite simply, without it this work, as I conceived it, would not have been possible. Second is the list of individuals and institutions that invited me to share my findings and enabled me to benefit from the questions and criticisms that followed. Third are those whose generous assistance and moral support made a great difference to my understanding of various aspects of U.S. policy and Israeli and Palestinian development. Some shared their own work, which opened doors that proved significant to my research. Others offered critical insights based on their knowledge of different aspects of postwar U.S. foreign policy. Others were helpful in posting my articles and essays at online sites and in publications such as the Israel Occupation Archive (IOA), ZNet, Le Monde Diplomatique, and Bidayat (Beirut). Still others include present as well as former graduate students, many now successful professionals, who in sharing their own work enriched mine. Unnamed in the list below are the many whose support—whether from near or far—gave me the courage to persist in the effort to make sense of the policies and politics

Reflecting on the named and the unnamed is a reminder of the extent to which the production of knowledge takes place in a social context, no matter how solitary is the task of writing and research.

The archivists and specialists at the Harry S. Truman Library and Museum were quite simply indispensable. Jim Armistead, Archivist Specialist, who guided me through the papers of Max W. Ball, Clark M. Clifford, and Ralph K. Davies, was not only consistently helpful and instructive but supportive of my research. In addition, Elizabeth Carrington, Archivist at the Harry S. Truman Presidential Library, provided critical assistance in President Truman’s correspondence with Jacob Blaustein. Archivist-Librarians Ted Benicoff, of the Seeley G. Mudd Manuscript Library, at Princeton University, and Scott S. Taylor, the Manuscripts Processor at the Georgetown University Library, Special Collections Research Center, were similarly generous in providing information on their respective holdings. Nicole Toutounji, UNICEF Photography, Division of Communication at the United Nations, informed me about the Archival Reference Services Unit and the online database of UN documents related to Palestine, including those bearing on 1948. Correspondence and additional findings from related research efforts are incorporated in the body of the text.

The Government Documents section of the Harvard College Library at Lamont, part of Harvard University, also proved to be an indispensable resource to which I repeatedly returned and on whose expert librarians I relied. Among them were John A. Collins, Reference Librarian, Research Services, Government Documents; Vida Margaitis, Government Documents, Harvard College Library; Odile Harter, Research Librarian at the Harvard College Library; and John Baldisserotto, Data Reference Librarian, Harvard College Library.

At MIT, Bethanie Pinkus helped me to locate the papers of Freda Kirchwey through Institute Archives and Special Collections, and I also turned to the collection at the Schlesinger Library of the Radcliffe Institute. At Columbia University, Jerry Breeze, Government Information Librarian of Lehman Library, made it possible for me to examine the papers of James McDonald in the Rare Book and Manuscript Library in Butler Library.

Presentations, lectures, and workshops were offered at the Middle East Institute, Columbia University; Department of Political Science, Boston University; The Middle East Center, Harvard University; the Emile Bustani Seminar, MIT; Watson Institute, Brown University; University of Maryland; Kevorkian Center for Middle East Studies, New York University; Tamiment Center, New York University; Graduate Center for Middle Eastern and Middle Eastern American Center, CUNY; and a seminar in the Department of Political Science, American University of Beirut.

Among the many individuals whose work and, in some instances, personal assistance, made a difference are Andrew Bacevich, Nathan Citino, Peter Dimock, Alain Gresh, Rashid Khalidi, Philip Khoury, Michael Klare, Zachary Lockman, Karim Makdisi, David Painter, Robert Vitalis, the late Eric Rouleau, Sara Roy, Steve Shalom, Yair Svoray, Salim Tamari, Fawwaz Traboulsi, and Walid Khalidi, whose pioneering work on 1948 remains unparalleled. Noam Chomsky holds a special place in this study not only because of his support for this undertaking but because his own work on Israel and Palestine has long served as an example of his courageous search for truth, which remains a permanent source of inspiration.

Editor Anne Routon was witness to the different stages of this work in progress and remained patient and steadfast in her support, as did other members of the Columbia University Press editorial staff, including Whitney Johnson, Roy Thomas, Michael Haskell, and Ben Kolstad, for which I am grateful.

Introduction

Open Secrets

GAZA 2014 AND 1948

I completed this study in 2014 in the midst of the Israeli invasion of Gaza. Those familiar with the distant origins of the present conflict will recall the events of 1948.¹

As in past Israeli invasions of Gaza, in 2008 and 2012, the 2014 war in Gaza was enabled by U.S. support. In the summer of 2014, the National Security Agency (NSA) disclosed that Israeli aggression would be impossible without the constant, lavish support and protection of the U.S. government, which is anything but a neutral, peace-brokering party in these attacks.² Subsequent disclosures in the Wall Street Journal exposed the direct link between Israel and the Pentagon, thus bringing to light a relationship that embarrassed the White House, which did not contest it.³

The link between the events of 1948, when Israel was established, and the latest war in Gaza was highlighted by William R. Polk, former U.S. diplomat and author. As Polk wrote in August 2014, the events of today were preordained, adding that only if we understand the history can we hope to help solve this very complex, often shameful and sometimes dangerous problem.⁴ Gaza was directly affected by that history in 1948–1949, when its population was vastly increased as a result of the influx of Palestinian refugees.⁵

The problem transcends Gaza, however, as journalist Rami Khoury pointed out in the fall of 2012 when he asserted that

as long as the crime of dispossession and refugeehood that was committed against the Palestinian people in 1947–48 is not redressed through a peaceful and just negotiation that satisfies the legitimate rights of both sides, we will continue to see enhancements in both the determination and the capabilities of Palestinian fighters—as has been the case since the 1930s.⁶

The connection between Gaza and 1948 was made by other critics as well, including Donna Nevel, who pointed out that the heart of the problem is not Hamas or who the Palestinian leadership is, it is the Israeli occupation, beginning with the expulsion of the Palestinians from their land in 1948 (what the Palestinians term the Nakba or ‘catastrophe’).⁷ The same view was echoed by journalist Steven Erlanger in the New York Times on August 16, 2014, when he reported that Israelis can feel as stuck, in different ways, as the Palestinians themselves. Because of course this is really just another round in the unresolved Arab-Israeli war of 1948–49.⁸

What these varied commentaries left unsaid was that this was but another chapter in U.S. policy in this region. By 1948–49, it was the United States that felt stuck, as it confronted its failed efforts to resolve the very same conflict. U.S. officials engaged in the Palestine question understood then, as now, that they needed to address the core issues of the conflict, including the origin and repatriation of Palestinian refugees, the absence of internationally accepted boundaries, and the fate of Jerusalem.

Despite its avowed support for consensus between Arab and Jew as the essential prerequisite for a resolution of the conflict in Palestine, U.S. policy subverted such a goal. Washington’s support for Israel’s policy of transfer, which meant the coercive expulsion of Palestinians from their towns and villages to ensure a largely homogeneous Jewish population, was incompatible with this objective. It intensified the refugee problem that the United States repeatedly criticized, as it repeatedly announced its support for United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 194 and its recommendation for the repatriation of Palestinian refugees.

This was not the product of caution or confusion. There was no conspiracy involved. There was no wavering at the top. The United States was not ambivalent about what policies to pursue. On the contrary, the decisions to stop pressuring Israel to take action on the refugee question and to lay low in opposing Israel’s territorial expansion were unmistakable signs that there was a shift in priorities.

U.S. officials recognized the Israeli reliance on force to expand and control territory. They appreciated the political efficiency of the Israeli leadership and its military superiority as compared to that of surrounding Arab states. On the basis of such developments, and, notably, in response to Israel’s ability to alter the regional balance of power, Washington calculated that Israel could be useful in the protection of U.S. regional interests. While successive U.S. administrations continued to identify the core issues in the conflict in terms of refugee repatriation, territorial expansion, and Jerusalem’s status, they did not move to implement changes. On the contrary, the United States deferred to Israeli policy while insisting on the need for Arab-Jewish consensus.

More than sixty years later, as U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry attempted yet another effort to broker peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, the Israeli daily Ha’aretz observed that everyone knows that the condition for reaching a deal is through agreements on the real core issues of the conflict: the refugees, the status of Jerusalem, borders and security arrangements.⁹ The same editorial added that any attempt to avoid dealing with these issues, or investment of energy in other issues, is as if no negotiations are taking place.

Seldom were the reasons for the failure of such efforts as starkly stated in the U.S. media, or in many parts of academia. The habit of deferral and denial was deeply ingrained in both circles, where the lingering effects of past struggles on present confrontations were ignored.¹⁰ Yet as Eugene Rogan and Avi Shlaim reminded readers in considering the war over Palestine,

no event has marked Arab politics in the second half of the twentieth century more profoundly. The Arab-Israeli wars, the Cold War in the Middle East, the rise of the Palestinian armed struggle and the politics of peace making in all of their complexity are a direct consequence of the Palestine War.¹¹

WHY THIS BOOK?

The role of the United States in the Arab-Israeli conflict is an inextricable part of history in this region. Confronting that role is indispensable to understanding both U.S. policy in the conflict and its course.¹² A knowledge of the foundation of U.S. policy in the Middle East in the postwar years is indispensable to an understanding of current U.S. policies in the Middle East in which oil, Palestine, and Israel play such significant roles.

The record of U.S. policy from 1945 to 1949 challenges fundamental assumptions about U.S. understanding and involvement in the struggle over Palestine that continue to dominate mainstream interpretations of U.S. policy in the Middle East. Coming to grips with the U.S. record and its frequently mythified depiction of the struggle over Palestine is critical. Those engaged in the creation of the Common Archive, a project of Zochrot, the Israeli NGO, in which Israelis and Palestinians have joined to reconstruct the history of Palestinian villages destroyed by Israel in 1948,¹³ clearly understand the importance of this record. Palestinian historians have long written about this history, and Israel’s New Historians have confirmed it in their challenge to the dominant Israeli narrative of the war of 1948.

The Middle East in 2014 is not a mirror image of what it was in 1948, when the struggle over Palestine was at its height. In the immediate postwar years, the United States defined its policy in the Near and Middle East in terms of assuring unimpeded access and control by U.S. oil companies of its great material prize, petroleum. Congressional hearings on the role of petroleum and the national defense envisioned petroleum as a weapon of war. It followed that ensuring the presence and stability of compatible regimes was an essential dimension of policy, as was containing and crushing those whose nationalist and reformist orientation rendered them suspect.

At once undermining and inheriting Britain’s imperial mantle, the American state was widely viewed by political leaders in the area as an anti-imperialist power, albeit driven by petroleum and political ambition. Its footprints were found in widely divergent endeavors, including missionary and educational enterprises. But in the immediate postwar years, Washington was increasingly drawn into the Palestine problem, whose origins linked Europe’s dark history with Zionist ambitions protected by the British mandate. The ensuing struggle over Palestine was accelerated in the years that followed as Washington became increasingly involved in its outcome, aware of the inevitable link between the fate of Palestine and U.S. oil and defense interests in the Middle East. The controversies over British policy, over partition, the war of 1948, the armistice agreements, and the Lausanne Conference in 1949 consumed Washington’s Near and Middle East specialists and their representatives at the United Nations.

This history is not new. The subject has long evoked interest and criticism. What was taboo yesterday, however, is openly discussed today, as the weight of current wars compels a confrontation with events that can no longer be ignored.

Disclosures of previously classified information, as well as previously ignored sources, whether of Palestinian or Israeli origin, have further altered the record. Although U.S. sources have long been open, they have been inadequately examined, significantly contributing to the flawed history of U.S. postwar policy in the Middle East, including oil and the transformation of Palestine.

Main Themes

A number of key questions have long dominated scholarly accounts of postwar U.S. policy in the Middle East, and these questions compel consideration. Among them is the ongoing controversy over the bureaucratic origins of U.S. policymaking in the Middle East in the postwar years. Did the State Department or the White House make Middle East policy? Was policy determined by domestic or foreign policy considerations? Did domestic lobbying by Zionists or by oil company partisans shape policy?

How did the president fit into this context? Some lauded President Truman as unquestionably committed to the creation of a Jewish state.¹⁴ Was he moved primarily by religious, humanitarian, and moral considerations that trumped other factors?¹⁵ Some argue that cultural, psychological, and religious factors cannot be ignored in shaping U.S. policy.¹⁶ On the other hand, works by Kenneth Bain, and more recently by Peter Hahn, Melvin Leffler, and John Judis, have, in different ways, demonstrated the extent of the president’s ambivalence, if not overt hostility, to the idea of a religious state.¹⁷ Without ignoring any of these factors, some historians also include the role of the Cold War as an influence on U.S. policy in Palestine.¹⁸

Analysts such as J. C. Hurewitz, who was a consummate insider, recalled another important dimension of early policy formation in his study on Palestine. He reminds us that the bureaucracy dealing with the Palestine question in 1943 was very small, and few officials were involved.¹⁹ U.S. policymakers confirmed this when they faced the need to define U.S. policy. Within a very few years, however, the Palestine question assumed greater importance, as its connection with developments in the Second World War and the Holocaust, as well as its relation to the foundation of postwar U.S. oil interests in the Middle East, promoted more attention to the needs of policymaking in this area.

As the question of partition on Palestine assumed greater importance in Washington, another theme dominated, as it still does. This was the claim that U.S. policymakers were faced with the choice of protecting U.S. oil interests or deferring to partisans of partition and, later, Jewish statehood. The question became: Oil or Israel? This formula erred, as I will explain in the following chapters. The choice facing policymakers was not oil versus Israel but rather oil and Israel. In the years that followed, it was oil and Israel versus reform and revolution in the Arab world.

The Changing Landscape of Middle East Studies

The changing landscape of Middle East scholarship is apparent in the spate of publications, books, and articles appearing on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Collectively, they attest to the changing nature of research and the increasing availability of U.S. and international sources that contribute to a transnational and multiarchival perspective.²⁰ Particularly at this time of increased U.S. intervention in the Middle East, this expanded view and increased understanding by western, notably American, writers on the Middle East is something that Ussama Makdisi has eloquently pleaded for, particularly at a time of increased U.S. intervention in the Middle East.²¹

The new scholarship promises no agreement but provides the seeds for a more informed debate, although thus far it has not altered conventional accounts of the Middle East or U.S. policy in the region. Nor has it fundamentally challenged the media, who often portray the Middle East as a danger zone whose complexity and controversy defies understanding, as does its alleged predilection to violence, instability, and sectarian hatreds.

Those seeking to break with such caricatured depictions of states and societies in the Middle East discover that this is no easy matter. The familiar images of mad mullahs and jihad-prone fanatics allow for scant reflection on who or what is involved, let alone the conditions giving rise to the emergence of religious movements across the region. In such an intellectual environment, approaches that challenge long-standing narratives are often viewed as frankly subversive. As a result, they are marginalized in the media and often in academia, particularly in fields such as international relations that have long served to justify western supremacy.²²

In this context, recent scholarship may indeed make a difference. But examining previously neglected sources of newly declassified government documents, of whatever origin, is not enough. What is required is not only new data but new ways of thinking about what we know, or have chosen to ignore. Considering why certain questions related to policy remain unanswered, or unasked, involves asking who benefits from the existing production of knowledge, and whose interests are served by censoring those who challenge it?

Consider the impact of the invaluable studies of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict produced by some of Israel’s new historians, such as Ilan Pappé, Benny Morris, and Avi Shlaim, and the journalist and historian Simha Flapan. Their work is based on the release of classified Israeli documents that challenge fundamental Israeli myths concerning the events of 1948 and Israel’s emergence as an independent state.²³ Such works have confirmed the accounts of Palestinian historians such as Walid Khalidi, Nur-eldeen Masalha, and Rashid Khalidi and have been critically appraised by others, such as Joseph Massad, who have written about the events of 1948.²⁴ Masalha has argued that the work of Israel’s New Historians is indicative of a marked desire among the younger generation of Israeli authors and academics to unearth the truth concerning the events surrounding the Palestinian refugee exodus of 1948. This new tendency breaks the wall of silence, myth, secrecy and censorship instituted by the older generation of Zionist leadership.²⁵

In a penetrating essay on the new Israeli historiography, however, historian Joel Beinin points out that "much, even if not all the details of the information [Benny] Morris presents in The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem and other works was always available in one form or another. It was actively rendered illegible in the Israeli historical narrative."²⁶

This applies to the historical evidence concerning U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East as well. U.S. sources provide evidence that has long been available but in some instances has been all but invisible. Sources such as those included in the Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS), U.S. Presidential Papers, and the records of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, for example, in conjunction with Israeli and Palestinian sources, strongly suggest the need to reconsider the dominant narratives of U.S. policy in the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

How the Present Work Differs

Building on the record of past scholarship and criticism of U.S. policy, this book differs from previous accounts in several significant respects. It situates the origin of the U.S. relationship with Israel in 1948 in the framework of postwar U.S. policy when petroleum dominated U.S. planning for the Middle East. Moreover, on the basis of U.S. sources, the present study maintains that the prevailing assumption with respect to U.S. policy toward Palestine, according to which U.S. officials feared that support for Zionism and partition of Palestine would undermine U.S. oil interests in the Arab world, proved to be a false assumption. The papers of Max Ball, director of the Oil and Gas Division of the Interior Department, and his exchanges with the representative of the Jewish Agency in the United States, Eliahu Epstein, confirm this fear, as do Israeli records of the same period. Ball operated outside the formal channels of policymakers, which does not negate the importance of his experience. It may explain, however, why that experience has been neglected in accounts of U.S. policy.

Evidence of the encounter between Max Ball and Eliahu Epstein in 1948 forms the basis of the oil connection discussed in this book. The encounter opened doors and broke barriers that had long been considered taboo. It revealed that major U.S. oil executives were pragmatic in their approach to the Palestine conflict and were prepared to engage with the Jewish Agency and later with Israeli officials, albeit operating within existing constraints. The relationship between Max Ball, his son and associate, and his son-in-law Ray Kosloff, who became the first Israeli adviser on oil matters, yields additional information on how this former U.S. official assisted Israel in its fuel policy after his retirement.

Second, I emphasize the extent to which U.S. officials who were part of the formal policymaking framework understood the secular roots of the conflict in Palestine, its significance for Zionist support, and its traumatic impact on Palestinians. They understood that Zionist objectives were incompatible with Palestinian Arab self-determination and independence, even as they persisted in calling for compromise among the parties. Well informed about the consequences of the struggle over Palestine by U.S. consuls, officials in Washington, including the secretary of state, undersecretary, and their colleagues operating in the United Nations and in the specialized agencies dealing with Palestine and the Near and Middle East, were prepared to reconsider partition in favor of trusteeship. The record of their views on the Palestinian refugee problem and, specifically, the Israeli response and rejection of responsibility for its creation, led to major clashes between Washington and Tel Aviv after Israel’s emergence.

That record is known, but a more detailed examination of the evidence is required and is presented here. This examination complements some of the work of Israel’s New Historians, as well as Palestinian historians. More attention needs to be paid to the contributions of the U.S. consuls in Jerusalem, Thomas Wasson and Robert Macattee, as well as to the views of Gordon Merriam, who had broad experience including oil policy as well as working within the Policy Planning Staff, among other assignments; Mark Ethridge, the U.S. delegate to the Palestine Conciliation Commission; and Philip Jessup in his role at the United Nations. Reconsidering their analyses as well as those of the far better known and more authoritative figures in the policy establishment—such as Robert McClintock, Loy Henderson, Robert Lovett, George Marshall, and Dean Acheson—provides a clearer view of the nature and evolution of U.S. policy toward Israel and Palestine.

Third, the input of the chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force, the chief of naval operations, the secretary of defense, and the joint chiefs of staff (JCS) also provides insight into U.S. policy in the Middle East. Within months of Israel’s emergence, U.S. officials reassessed their views of the new state, in accord with presidential recognition of Israel. What followed was not only recognition of Israeli sovereignty but recognition of its strategic potential in Washington’s postwar policy in the Middle East, which was designed to exclude the USSR and to protect U.S. oil interests and allied defense arrangements. This assessment undermined Washington’s critical position on Israeli policy toward Palestinian refugee repatriation and territorial expansion. These vital factors in the conflict between Israel-Palestine and the Arab world thereby assumed a subordinate position in light of the priorities defined by the JCS and officials in the Department of State.

Here, then, is the logic of U.S. oil policy, which was responsible for the increasing deference to Israeli policies whose purpose was to ensure that Israel turned toward the United States and away from the USSR. This objective, in turn, was allied to Washington’s principal goal in the Middle East—protection of its untrammeled access and control of oil.

These connections are crucial to understanding what many historians have taken to be signs of the cautious and contrary character, or weakness, of U.S. policy, which appeared to waver between criticism of Israel and silence in the face of the very policies it criticized. In this book, I focus on the consequences of these policies, the network of relations they promoted, their objectives, and their effect on Israel, Palestine, and the Arab world in 1949 and the years that followed.

Confronting this history is an exercise in uncovering the open secrets of past U.S. policy and in confronting the past, which remains embedded in the troubled present.

PART I

The Petroleum Order and the Palestine Question, 1945–1946

Part I introduces readers to the dominant role of petroleum in postwar U.S. policy and illustrates the manner in which it shaped U.S. policy in the Middle East, including Palestine.

Chapter 1 demonstrates the U.S. commitment to maintaining access and control over Middle East oil resources, as revealed in the pronouncements and practices of U.S. officials in the State Department and the network of allied agencies established to deal with petroleum policy. Against this background, which constituted Washington’s ongoing commitment to U.S. oil interests in the Middle East, President Truman and the policymaking elite confronted postwar conditions in Europe that had profound implications for Palestine and the Middle East. Chapter 2 analyzes the Earl Harrison Report, the Anglo-American Committee Report, and the Morrison-Grady plans that followed, with special attention to the reactions of U.S. officials, including the dissenters among them.

1

The Primacy of Oil

DEFINING U.S. OIL POLICY

The U.S. preoccupation with Middle East oil was a trademark of policy planning in the period after World War II, although it was by no means limited to the Truman era, as the experience of successive presidential doctrines of the Eisenhower, Nixon, and Carter administrations, and those that followed, have demonstrated.¹

U.S. policymakers crafted their vision of a petroleum order in postwar² 1945, an environment marked by the emergence of the United States as the undisputed power of the postwar world, with an economy three times the size of the USSR’s and five times that of Britain, commanding half of the world’s industrial output and three quarters of its gold reserves.³ By contrast, Washington faced the despairing plight of millions of Displaced Persons⁴ across the boundaries of its allies and former enemies, whose populations would be haunted by the trials and judgments at Nuremberg and by the nameless atrocities committed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Postwar U.S. policy in the Middle East, and more particularly in Palestine, was to be defined by these diverse and incompatible forces.

In 1945 John Loftus, the special assistant to the director of the Office of International Trade Policy in the State Department categorically asserted that a review of diplomatic history of the past 35 years will show that petroleum has historically played a larger part in the external relations of the United States than any other commodity.⁵ In explaining its unique and outstanding importance, Loftus underlined the absolute importance of oil as a commodity in terms of the gross value of annual production; and in part from the extremely high relative importance of oil in the foreign trade of certain nations.⁶ In light of these conditions, Loftus argued that it was desirable for U.S. companies to control petroleum production abroad. He offered a two-part justification for this position; the first rested on the talent of the American oil industry for discovery and development; the second, was that oil controlled by United States nationals is likely to be a little more accessible to the United States for commercial uses in times of peace and for strategic purposes in times of war.⁷

Moreover, as Philip Burch reported, the nation’s major corporate interests, having reestablished good working relations with the federal government during the war years, remained very much in control of the key defense and foreign policy posts during the Truman administration.⁸ According to Burch’s calculation, over 70 percent (22 out of 31) of Truman’s chief defense and foreign policy officials had elitist links, the bulk of them with America’s rapidly evolving business establishment.⁹ Among Truman’s select officials were figures such as Forrestal, Lovett, Harriman, Stettinius, Acheson, Nitze, McCloy, Clayton, Snyder, Hoffman—a stratum unlikely to overlook the interests of American capital in redesigning the postwar landscape.¹⁰ The business most closely involved in consideration of Middle East policy, including that applicable to Palestine, was the oil business.¹¹

In May 1940, in the very period in which Council of Foreign Relations members were deliberating on the economic dimensions of postwar U.S. policy, the Roosevelt administration created the Office of Petroleum Coordinator. In the following year, FDR’s Secretary of the Interior, Harold Ickes, was named Petroleum Coordinator for National Defense, and in 1942 that agency became the Petroleum Administration for War (PAW). On March 27, 1944, by Departmental Order 1245, the State Department established a Petroleum Division (PED) in the Office of Economic Affairs that oversaw the initiation, development and coordination of policy and action in all matters pertaining to petroleum and petroleum products, and maintained contact with related agencies.¹²

The subsequent creation of the Petroleum Industry War Council (PIWC) attested to the growing bureaucracy that was made up of 78 top-flight industry executives who, in addition to their other responsibilities, met with PAW executives, "and at these meetings all the major problems and policies of the worldwide oil situation are on the table. The Council, working with the executives of PAW, is the powerhouse of industry-government cooperation."¹³ These remarks were made by Max Ball, who was the special assistant to Harold Ickes, the deputy administrator in the Petroleum Administration for War.

As Ball emphasized in an essay in 1945, the international range of the PIWC’s responsibilities as well as that of PAW do not stop at the water’s edge: the cooperation of the industry is not circumscribed by our national boundaries. Every gallon of petroleum products produced or used by the United Nations anywhere in the world is within the sphere of interest and activity.¹⁴ Ball estimated that there were some thirty or forty government agencies dealing with oil. Among them were the Geological Survey, the Bureau of Mines, various bureaus of the Treasury Department, the Department of Justice, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Office of Defense, Transportation, Defense Plant Corporation, Defense Supplies Corporation, the War Manpower Commission, the Office of Price Administration, the War Production Board, and a host of others.¹⁵

In the spring of 1946, Ralph K. Davies, ex-Deputy Petroleum Administrator for War, recommended to the president that a coordinating body be put in charge of the multiple and diverse agencies dealing with oil-related questions. Davies, who had been responsible for creating the Office of Petroleum Coordination in May 1941, was now calling for its dissolution. But he was also calling for the establishment of a permanent office capable of coordinating the vast hierarchy of oil-related agencies. In that capacity, he recommended a new office that would operate in a liaison capacity with the petroleum industry in all oil and gas matters of concern to the administrative branch of the Federal Government.¹⁶

The president did, in fact, follow Davies’s advice, and on May 6, 1946, the Secretary of the Interior, J. A. Krug, announced the creation of an Oil and Gas Division within his department. Ralph K. Davies became its first director. Along with the National Petroleum Council, the Oil and Gas Division was assigned to consult with the president on petroleum policy. Among the duties of the new division was to amass and analyze information relevant to oil and gas operations, including the availability of existing and future supplies of petroleum, on the basis of which the president would recommend policy. In December, Davies nominated Max Ball to be director, having searched for a candidate who would have both the technical and practical training as well as the leadership qualities required.¹⁷ What Davies did not write on this occasion, although it was probably unnecessary to do so, was that Ball’s outlook on the question of private versus government control of oil was entirely compatible with that of the major oil companies and contemporary federal agencies, including those in which Davies had been involved.

Under Harold Ickes and PAW, for example, Davies, VP of Standard Oil of California, was named deputy coordinator. The organization of the Office of Petroleum Coordinator was itself modeled along the lines of the petroleum industry.¹⁸ An industry committee organization was set up to ensure government policy was favorable to the oil industry, with the Justice Department complicit in arranging to relax its anti-trust procedures by agreeing to rule beforehand on proposals for group action within the industry.¹⁹

Max Ball’s intimate knowledge of the petroleum industry’s operation at both the national and international levels was to have particular significance in his relations with representatives of the Jewish Agency prior to May 1948, and with the Israeli government after its independence. Ball’s encounters with Eliahu Epstein, one of the principal representatives of the Jewish Agency in the United States, in the winter and spring of 1948 are discussed at length in part II. Suffice it to note here that these meetings contradict one of the axioms of postwar U.S. policy. U.S. officials and their oil company collaborators feared the adverse effect of U.S. government support for partition and Jewish statehood on their relations with the oil-rich regimes of the Arab world.

In a seminal report titled A Foreign Oil Policy for the United States, issued in 1944, Herbert Feis, former adviser on international economic affairs in the State Department, argued firmly in favor of private ownership of oil and its global expansion, U.S. capital investment in the oil sector, and the staunch support of the U.S. government. According to the 1975 Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee Report on Multinational Corporations, Feis’s report represented the most systematic analysis of the major oil companies’ position.²⁰ Feis maintained that

the companies insist that private enterprise is the best medium for oil development, and that oil controlled by American corporate interests is equally available for the needs of national security with that owned wholly or in part by the United States government. Secondly, they urge that the American petroleum industry be encouraged to expand its plans for developing the world’s oil resources. To this end, they urge that the government should seek to secure for American nationals access to the world’s oil resources on equal terms with the nationals of all other countries; it should also accord diplomatic support as effective as that accorded to nationals of other countries.²¹

Feis called on Washington to adopt a policy capable of guaranteeing adequate supplies in the event of war while not depleting U.S. reserves. He insisted that the arrangements he favored would provide for (a) the maintenance of storage, as at bases, and (b) the acquisition directly by the United States government of proven reserves that could be quickly developed.²² He insisted that private ownership of foreign oil would preclude a U.S. military presence, which would be a challenge to every near-by country.²³ And along the same lines, he was persuaded that such arrangements would eliminate the risk of involvement in local petroleum politics and, more generally, in the politics of the Middle East.

Well before 1946 and the creation of the National Petroleum Council, the petroleum industry enjoyed close relations with policymakers. The creation of institutions such as the National Petroleum War Service Committee served as a liaison between the government and the oil corporations, helping to develop and supervise plans for supplying oil necessary for the war. In all these efforts care was taken to maintain the market percentages and power of the key companies.²⁴

At its opening meeting in 1946, Interior Secretary Julius A. Krug reassured the oil leaders that there was no intent to increase government power over them, and that the Council could do ‘no greater good to the oil and gas industry than by educating people in the Government in the economies and the problems of the industry.’²⁵ In addition, Krug held out the promise that you men will help U.S. with the staffing of our Oil and Gas Division to the end that we will get the kind of people who understand the problems of the industry and who know how to do a good job.²⁶

Earlier, Feis had advocated for the expansion of U.S. oil interests abroad, arguing that the war has established the fact that American military action may take place anywhere in the world, and that, particularly in any struggle involving the Pacific, control over these oil fields (and the political status of this area) might be of direct concern to U.S.²⁷ Hence the importance of expanding U.S. oil operations, along with U.S. support. The Soviet press, reviewing U.S. and British oil expansion several years later, recognized the importance of Feis’s recommendations. They viewed them as extending beyond economic considerations, suggesting instead that they may be referred to as secondary enterprises of ‘American world system of bases’ and as American outposts expanding along British naval and air communications.²⁸

In its April 11, 1944, report on Foreign Petroleum Policy of the United States, the Inter-Divisional Petroleum Committee of the State Department reviewed the official justifications for relying on foreign sources of oil, repeating the claim that it was essential to conserve Western Hemisphere petroleum for military and civilian requirements of strategically available reserves, while identifying the foreign policy implications of such a policy.²⁹ The excuse was hardly convincing. Domestic reserves were not exhausted, nor were they being preserved in some artificial manner. The explanation for focusing on Saudi Arabia rested on the profits it generated for U.S. oil companies.

The authors of the State Department committee position paper, Foreign Petroleum Policy of the United States, identified the regions of prime importance for oil, namely, the great developed oilfields of Russia, Roumania, Iraq, Iran and the Arabian Peninsula as well as the potential petroleum resources of Turkey, the Levantine Coastal areas, Afghanistan and Baluchistan.³⁰ But the primal zone of U.S. Middle East policy was to be the Middle East; as the Department of State report pointed out, it was in the areas encompassed by Iran, Iraq, and the Arabian peninsula including Saudi Arabia proper and the Sheikhdoms of Kuwait, Bahrein, Qatar and Trucial Oman, that United States policy must be formulated and implemented.³¹ If there was a dissenting voice in such deliberations, it came from Great Britain, whose primacy in the Middle East was to be fatally undermined by U.S. policy.

The Place of Saudi Arabia in the Postwar Petroleum Order

The project of building a base in Saudi Arabia appealed to the Pentagon and the State Department before the end of the war. The plan was part of a far more ambitious global initiative that included building bases across North Africa and the Middle East. When it was negotiated at the end of the war, the agreement was for the accord with Dhahran to last three years. In practice, it was repeatedly extended. During the Cold War, U.S. Air Force tankers operated out of the base to refuel the B-29s, B-36s, and B-47s that constantly circled Russia’s perimeters.³²

But before the accord with Dhahran was reached, the U.S. faced British opposition. According to Secretary of State Cordell Hull, "we