History
Discussions about history
2 replies
0 recast
4 reactions
Zero is the most mysterious number.
We are used to using zero in calculations. Mathematics is impossible without it. But this was not always the case. Zero was invented relatively recently.
In ancient Rome and Greece, zero was not known. There was no symbol for "nothing." Despite the wisdom of ancient philosophers and scientists such as Aristotle, Archimedes, Plato, Euclid, and others, who achieved great success in geometry and astronomy, they were unable to invent zero.
Without the zero, mathematics became much more complicated.
For example, let's write the number 408. It's simple:
4 hundreds
0 tens
8 units
In Roman numerals, the same number would be written as follows:
CDVIII
C - 100
D - 500
V - 5
I - 1
That is: 500 - 100 + 5 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 408
Some kind of mathematical nightmare.
Addition or multiplication operations are even more confusing.
408 + 140 = 548 - it's elementary
In Roman numerals:
CDVIII + CXL = DXLVIII - is it clear? Not really.
I won't even try to multiply in Roman numerals.
Meanwhile, ancient scholars solved even quadratic equations without a zero. However, it was extremely time-consuming.
The Babylonian mathematicians and astronomers were the first in history to invent zero. Around 300 BC, Babylonian scholars used zero in their calculations. In the Babylonian view, zero was represented by two arrows placed at an angle. However, their use of zero was not widespread.
Independently of the Babylonians, the Mayan tribes in Central America also invented zero. For them, zero was not a number but rather a symbol for space, and it did not participate in the operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.
For the first time in human history, the Indians used zero as a mathematical symbol in their counting operations. This happened at the latest in 458 AD.
The Persian mathematician Al-Khwarizmi (787-850) was the first Arab to describe a new system of numeration in his treatise "The Numbers of the Indians," which introduced the familiar zero. His work later reached Europe during the Crusades.
Zero was first used in Europe by the famous Italian mathematician Leonardo Fibonacci.
Zero is one of the greatest innovations in human history and is the cornerstone of modern mathematics. The development of science and technology would not have been possible without zero. It can be compared to the invention of the wheel. 1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
1 reply
0 recast
18 reactions
Justinian's Plague is the first recorded pandemic (worldwide epidemic) of plague in history, which occurred during the reign of the Byzantine Emperor Justinian I (482-565).
It spread across almost the entire civilized world of that time: Europe, Asia Minor, North Africa, and the Middle East.
It began in 541 AD. There was a second wave in 558 AD and a third wave in 570 AD. Then, in the form of separate outbreaks and epidemics, it manifested itself for two centuries, until 750.
Causes of the outbreak
The epidemic first broke out in 542 in Egypt, in the city of Pelusium, a major center of intermediary trade between the East and the West. The plague is believed to have originated in Ethiopia.
The spread was mainly along maritime trade routes. The main carriers at the initial stage were fleas that lived on rats, which were transported on ships carrying grain to Constantinople, and then to all major cities in Europe.
The cause of its appearance is believed to be a change in climate, the cold snap of 536-538, which was caused by a volcanic eruption.
By the spring of 542, the disease had reached Constantinople and spread to Syria, Anatolia, Greece, Italy (which was then controlled by Byzantium in its southern part), and North Africa.
By 543, the plague had reached Armenia (both Roman and Persian-controlled areas), as well as Gaul.
By 549, the plague had reached Britain and Ireland.
Over the next few years, the disease spread throughout Europe, North Africa, Arabia, and Mesopotamia. Only East Asia (the source of the infection) remained largely unaffected.
In the Byzantine Empire, the epidemic reached its peak around 544, when up to 5,000 people died daily in Constantinople, with some days seeing as many as 10,000 deaths.
Procopius of Caesarea, a historian and eyewitness to the events, wrote: "It was impossible to escape, either in the mountains, on the islands, or in secluded places. Homes were empty, and corpses lay unburied for days. There was no one to work, and the streets were filled with those who carried the dead. Crafts and trade had come to a standstill."
The church writer Evagrius Scholasticus, who lived in Antioch, described the symptoms: swollen faces, inflamed eyes, violent fevers, diarrhea, insanity, and abscesses in the groin.
They didn't know how to treat the plague, and they didn't impose a quarantine. They used prayers, herbs, and moxa, which didn't provide any real benefit.
According to modern estimates, in the first 30 years alone, the epidemic claimed the lives of more than 100 million people, more than half of the population in the regions affected by the pandemic.
Consequences
Economic consequences: The epidemic led to a decline in production, trade, and agriculture, causing prices to rise and living conditions to deteriorate.
Social consequences: The epidemic caused an increase in crime and violence, as well as a deterioration in human relationships.
Political consequences: the epidemic undermined the authority of Emperor Justinian and led to growing discontent among the population.
But Byzantium did not collapse. Modern researchers are amazed: despite the epidemic, the Empire maintained the functionality of its state institutions. Although it was weakened and lost a significant portion of its territories.
The period of the spread of Justinian's plague and its subsequent decline is known as the "Dark Ages."
Research
Scientists have established that the cause was a mutated bacterium Yersinia pestis.
In 2013, researchers concluded that the epidemic was caused by the same plague bacillus as bubonic plague.
In 2025, scientists from the University of Oxford restored the strain of the bacterium that caused the Justinian plague and identified 30 unique mutations specific to the ancient strain. 1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
A Farcaster Exclusive
Part 4 of 5
The Great Uprising of 1857 and the Transfer of Colonial Apparatus to the Crown (1857â1874)
Overview
Between 1857 and 1874, the East India Companyâs corporate dominion over India ended, replaced by direct governance under the British Crown. Thi period, precipitated by the Great Uprising of 1857, marked a decisive shift in the nature of colonial control. Drawing on rebellion accounts, administrative records, and legislative changes, this paper argues that the uprising was both a military and political crisis for Company rule. Its suppression led not to liberation but to the consolidation of exploitation under a centralised state system. Crown rule institutionalised wealth extraction, expanded military reach, and entrenched administrative control, ensuring the endurance of colonial dominance in a more structured and permanent form.
Introduction
The Great Uprising of 1857 confronted the East India Company with the gravest challenge in it history. Originating as a revolt among Indian soldiers in the Companyâs army, it quickly grew into a multi-regional resistance movement. The uprising exposed the weaknesses of corporate colonialism, a profit-driven system dependent on coercion but lacking the administrative breadth to withstand sustained political rebellion.
The aftermath saw an overhaul of governance. The British Crown assumed direct control, reorganising political, economic, and military structures to ensure a tighter grip over the subcontinent. This was not a reform towards justice but a calculated transformation that preserved the extractive essence of colonialism while increasing its efficiency.
The Accumulation of Grievances
For decades before 1857, Company policies had eroded traditional social frameworks, disrupted agrarian economies, and undermined cultural institutions. Land revenue systems displaced hereditary landholders; missionary activities and perceived threats to religious practices alienated communities; and economic monopolies impoverished artisans and traders.
Resentment built steadily, erupting when changes in military procedure, notably the introduction of rifle cartridges rumoured to be greased with cow and pig fat, became a flashpoint. This incident united Hindu and Muslim sepoys in defiance, catalysing a rebellion whose causes lay far deeper than military grievance.
Contemporaries debated what to call it. The British termed it the âSepoy Mutiny,â emphasising military disobedience; Indian nationalists later named it the âFirst War of Independence,â framing it as a unified anti-colonial struggle.
The Military Context of Rebellion
The Companyâs army was both the foundation of its power and the source of its undoing. Indian soldiers formed the vast majority of the force but were subjected to entrenched racial discrimination and exclusion from higher ranks. Pay disparities, arbitrary discipline, and the imposition of foreign cultural norms bred resentment.
Ironically, the very instrument designed to enforce colonial order became the nucleus of organised resistance. Mutinous regiments triggered widespread insurrection, drawing in civilian populations already burdened by economic exploitation.
The Challenge to Company Legitimacy
The uprising shook the legitimacy of Company rule to its core. It was a direct repudiation of the Companyâs claim to govern in the interests of its subjects. From Delhi to Kanpur, from Jhani to Lucknow, insurgents sought to dismantle the structures of foreign domination.
This was not an isolated series of revolts but a geographically dispersed challenge to the entire edifice of Company power, revealing the fragility of a regime sustained by force rather than consent.
The Scope of Resistance
While the rebellionâs spark came from the barracks, its flames spread across villages, towns, and princely states. Civilian participation was significant, landlord seeking restitution, peasants resisting taxation, artisans protesting economic displacement, and rulers defending sovereignty.
The breadth of involvement underscored the systemic character of colonial exploitation. Resistance was not confined to a class, profession, or region; it was woven into the social fabric.
The Militarisation of Colonial Control
The suppression of the uprising was brutal and uncompromising. British and loyalist forces engaged in mass reprisals, destroying villages, executing suspected sympathisers, and enforcing collective punishments.
The rebellionâs defeat reinforced the Companyâs reliance on overwhelming military force. Its army was reorganised to reduce the proportion of Indian soldiers, limit their regional concentration, and place greater reliance on communities deemed âloyal.â Surveillance and intelligence-gathering systems were expanded to detect unrest before it could spread.
Expansion of Military Authority
The aftermath produced a more intrusive military presence in daily life. Garrison towns multiplied, frontier posts were reinforced, and policing functions increasingly fell to the army. This militarised governance blurred the boundaries between civil and military authority, a pattern that would later become a hallmark of British rule in strategic border regions.
The End of Corporate Colonialism
By 1858, it was clear that the East India Company could no longer administer India effectively. Parliament dissolved the Companyâs governing role through the Government of India Act, transferring authority directly to the Crown. The move was presented in Britain as a moral corrective, governance in the name of justice and stability, but in practice it was a reconfiguration of exploitation under a more centralised and accountable apparatus.
The Institutionalisation of Colonial Rule
Under Crown rule, colonial governance gained the resources, continuity, and legitimacy that a chartered company could not provide. Bureaucratic departments expanded, a civil service hierarchy took shape, and legislative councils were established, not to democratise power, but to make colonial extraction more predictable and enduring.
Military Restructuring
The Crown retained the lessons of 1857: the army became both the shield and the spear of imperial rule. Recruitment strategies shifted, emphasising loyalty over numerical strength. Infrastructure such as railways and telegraph lines was built partly to move troops rapidly in case of unrest, embedding military priorities into the subcontinentâs development.
Administrative Consolidation
Civil administration became more uniform and tightly controlled. Revenue collection systems were refined, land surveys standardised, and judicial structures formalised, all designed to streamline economic exploitation and limit the autonomy of local elites.
Maintaining the Extractive Economy
Crown rule preserved the essential economic model established by the Company: agricultural surplus extraction, resource export, and market control. Taxes funded the colonial administration and military, whil Indian revenues also underwrote Britainâs global imperial ambitions.
Expanding Economic Reach
Under direct rule, infrastructure projects, ostensibly for âmodernisationâ, facilitated resource movement to ports and integration into global markets on terms set by Britain. This deepened Indiaâs role as a supplier of raw materials and a consumer of British manufactured goods.
Institutional Foundations
Many of the Companyâs administrative and military frameworks were retained, now legitimised under the Crown. The emphasis on surveillance, centralised authority, and economic regulation remained unchanged, ensuring continuity in the means of control.
Expansion of Colonial Reach
Crown rule extended the principles of Company governance to areas previously beyond tight control, embedding colonial authority deeper into rural and frontier regions.
Militarisation of Punjab and the Northwest Frontier
The post-1857 military settlement placed Punjab and the Northwest Frontier at the centre of imperial defence strategy. These regions were integrated into a garrison system where civil, political, and military authority merged. This militarised governance persisted beyond independence, shaping Pakistanâs post-1947 political order.
Enduring Colonial Patterns
The colonial emphasis on military over civilian governance in these territories created a legacy of centralised, security-driven administration. This structure conceived to defend imperial interests became embedded in the state apparatus inherited by Pakistan.
Conclusion
The Great Uprising of 1857 was both a rupture and a continuity. It ended the East India Companyâs political existence but entrenched colonial exploitation under a more systematic and durable regime. Crown rule preserved the economic and political objectives of Company rule while expanding the means to enforce them.
In regions such as Punjab and the Northwest Frontier, the militarised governance established in the wake of 1857 persisted well into the modern era, influencing the political culture of successor states. The period from 1857 to 1874 thus marks not the dismantling of empire but its reorganisation, the transformation of a corporate colonial project into a fully-fledged arm of the British state. 0 reply
1 recast
2 reactions
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
2 replies
1 recast
5 reactions
6 replies
0 recast
6 reactions
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
20 replies
10 recasts
61 reactions
A Farcaster Semi-Exclusive
Rumi - The Sufi Political Revolutionary
From his correspondence with Mongol-appointed officials:
When an Amir (ruler) complained to Rumi about being too occupied with "Mongol affairs" to properly serve God, Rumi responded:
Those works too are work done for God, since they are the means of providing peace and security for your country. You sacrifice yourself, your possessions, your time, so the hearts of a few will be lifted to peacefully obeying God's will. So this too is a good work.
Modern Islamic scholarship has systematically depoliticised Rumi transforming a sophisticated political actor into a harmless mystic poet. This sanitisation obscures one of the most compelling models of spiritual authority challenging temporal power in Islamic history. He was in fact a pragmatic political operator who wielded religious legitimacy to influence governance across one of history's most turbulent periods.
Rumi maintained extensive correspondence with political authorities through approximately 147 letters addressed to disciples family members and men of state and of influence. These Letters of Advice targeted government officials to exhort them to remain righteous and to do good deeds in the conduct of their duties. The correspondence employed consciously sophisticated and epistolary style which is in conformity with the expectations directed to nobles statesmen and kings revealing systematic engagement with power structures rather than mystical withdrawal. Rumi was not offering spiritual platitudes to rulers; he was engaging in sophisticated political discourse using the vocabulary of statecraft. His letters demonstrate mastery of the political conventions necessary to influence policy while maintaining the moral authority that made such influence possible.
Rumi's approach to power was calculated. Contemporary accounts describe how he gained much love and respect from the sultans viziers and kings who were very eager to see him. However Rumi seldom accepted their invitations and spent most of his time with the poor and needy. This selective accessibility created leverage, by maintaining distance from power while remaining indispensable to it Rumi preserved his independence while maximising his influence. His correspondence with Mongol-appointed administrators proves the point. When an Amir complained about being too occupied with Mongol affairs to serve God properly Rumi did not counsel withdrawal from political engagement. Instead he reframed administrative work as spiritual service arguing that governance itself could be divine worship if it provided peace and security for your country. This represents political theology, sanctifying temporal authority whilst maintaining the religious ground from which to critique it.
Rumi's charisma wit charm and spirit drew many to him regardless of social background; high government officials prominent personalities Christians monks as well as Jews were comfortable with him. This describes systematic coalition building across religious and political boundaries. In the fractured landscape of 13th-century Anatolia such networks provided alternative channels of influence that bypassed official hierarchies whilst remaining embedded within them. Beyond correspondence Rumi involved himself in the lives of his community members solving disputes and facilitating loans between nobles and students. This was practical political mediation, using religious authority to resolve conflicts that formal legal structures could not address. Such intervention required detailed knowledge of local power dynamics and considerable political skill to navigate competing interests.
Modern academic treatment shows the extent of historical sanitisation. Scholars simultaneously acknowledge that Rumi existed on the fringes and directly challenged the authorities of their day while claiming that Sufism as a social trend always existed on the margin of society, cut off from political turmoil and no Sufi saint ever influenced politics. This contradiction exposes the depoliticisation process: recognising Rumi's confrontational stance whilr denying its political significance. The politically engaged Rumi presents a sophisticated model for religious authority operating under authoritarian conditions. His approach shows how spiritual leaders can critique policies without direct confrontation influence decision-makers through moral guidance build alternative power structures through religious networks and maintain legitimacy while working within oppressive systems.
This model explains why the mystical sanitisation occurred. The divine love poet poses no threat to temporal authority, indeed such spirituality can serve state purposes by encouraging political quietism. The politically engaged Rumi however demonstrates how religious figures can wield substantial influence without appearing to challenge state power directly. Such techniques remain deeply relevant for understanding how spiritual authority intersects with political control in authoritarian contexts. Recovering the political Rumi requires reading against the grain of both hagiographical and academic sources. The diplomatic correspondence community mediation selective accessibility to power and cross-community networking highlight systematic political engagement rather than mystical withdrawal. This figure challenges both the romantic Western appropriation of Rumi as universal spiritual teacher and the sanitised versions promoted by contemporary Islamic authorities seeking to neutralise his subversive potential.
The politically engaged Rumi demonstrates that the most effective challenges to authority often come not from direct confrontation but from strategic positioning within systems of power. His model remains politically dangerous precisely because it shows how spiritual legitimacy can be leveraged for political influence without appearing to threaten established order, while fundamentally altering the terms on which that order operates. This matters because it reveals possibilities for religious authority that transcend the false choice between political quietism and revolutionary confrontation. Rumi's approach suggests how spiritual figures can maintain moral credibility while engaging practically with temporal power, a model that threatens both authoritarian control and revolutionary ideology by demonstrating the political potential of strategic spiritual engagement. 0 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
A Farcaster Exclusive
Rothschild's Connection To The East India Company
In 1808, Nathan Mayer Rothschild made what appeared to be a routine gold purchase from the British East India Company. He bought ÂŁ800,000 worth of bullion using money from the Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel, officially to supply Wellington's armies fighting Napoleon. Nobody suspected this transaction would birth a financial empire spanning continents.
Recently discovered papers from N.M. Rothschild & Sons tell a different story. These documents expose decades of secret arrangements between Europe's most powerful banking family and Britain's colonial administration in India. What emerges is not the familiar tale of imperial expansion, but something far more calculating, the systematic capture of a Royal Charter company by private financial interests. The gold deal of 1808 was Rothschild's opening move. Nathan had positioned himself as the British government's primary bullion broker during the Napoleonic Wars, giving him unique access to both government officials and Company directors. The Hesse-Cassel transaction created a precedent. Bank records show that by 1825, Rothschild was making regular advances to Company officials, receiving preferential access to Indian commodities in return.
What began as a wartime expedient became a permanent arrangement, reads a bank memorandum from 1823. The Company's need for ready capital and our control of bullion markets created natural synergies. The word synergies hardly captures what followed. Rothschild didn't just lend money to the East India Company, he rebuilt it from the inside out. The most revealing papers concern David Sassoon, the Baghdad merchant who fled Ottoman persecution to build a trading empire in Bombay. History remembers Sassoon as the Rothschild of the East, but the correspondence shows he was more accurately Rothschild's lieutenant in Asia. Letters between Nathan Rothschild and Sassoon discuss funding arrangements with businesslike precision.
Our mutual friend in Bombay requires ÂŁ50,000 for the Bengal operation," Nathan wrote in 1834. The Company directors have agreed to the arrangement provided our usual terms are met.
Those usual terms transformed the opium trade. By 1840, Sassoon controlled 70% of opium flowing from British India to China. This was Rothschild capital systematically eliminating competition. The banking house provided credit lines that allowed Sassoon to undercut rivals and corner markets. Chinese authorities, fighting to stop opium imports, found themselves battling not just British imperial policy but European banking strategy.
The railway boom of the 1850s and 1860s (historical fact: Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer for the railroad companies) took this arrangement to new heights. Rothschild issued over ÂŁ15 million in Indian railway bonds, with the East India Company guaranteeing returns through tax revenues from Bengal and other provinces. An 1856 internal report makes the calculation explicit: The railway scheme provides excellent cover for our broader interests. Public infrastructure serves private profit most efficiently. This was financial engineering. Indian taxpayers funded railway construction that primarily served export industries controlled by Rothschild associates. The trains carried opium to ports, cotton to Manchester mills, and wealth to London banks. Meanwhile, famines ravaged Bengal as agricultural land shifted from food production to cash crops.
Personnel files reveal how thoroughly Rothschild influence penetrated Company administration. Lord Henry Hardinge, Governor-General of India from 1844-1848, maintained regular correspondence with the banking house about matters of mutual commercial interest. Similar relationships existed throughout the Company hierarchy. One document describes "a parallel administration responsive to our requirements.
The Bengal famines take on new meaning in this context. When crops failed, Company officials prioritized cash crop exports over food distribution. Rothschild-financed railways efficiently moved grain out of starving districts to profitable markets. The death toll, range into the millions, resulted from policy choices that put financial returns above human survival. Company spokesman Sir Charles Metcalfe dismissed early accusations as grossly exaggerated, insisting all arrangements followed proper commercial principles. He refused to discuss specific transactions, however. Opposition MP Richard Cobden saw through the deflection: If these documents are authentic, they reveal corruption of public trust on an unprecedented scale. The Company operates under Royal Charter for the benefit of the realm, not private financiers.
The papers suggest Cobden underestimated the situation. Rothschild had transformed a state-chartered monopoly into a private profit engine while maintaining the fiction of public oversight. Similar patterns emerged across other colonial enterprises. European banking houses applied the Rothschild model throughout Africa and Asia, using local intermediaries and infrastructure investments to extract wealth while avoiding direct political responsibility. The template proved remarkably durable.
Modern parallels aren't hard to find. When private equity firms acquire public utilities, when foreign banks finance infrastructure projects in developing countries, when international financial institutions shape government policy through lending conditions, the mechanisms differ, but the underlying dynamic remains constant. Private capital captures public institutions, redirects them toward profit maximization, and externalizes the human costs. The East India Company papers matter because they document this process with unusual clarity. Most such arrangements remain hidden behind commercial confidentiality and diplomatic secrecy. The Rothschild documents offer a rare glimpse into how financial power operates behind the scenes of political authority.
They also help explain why British rule in India produced such contradictory outcomes. The same administration that built railways and telegraph systems also presided over devastating famines and systematic deindustrialization. These were the predictable results of a system designed to maximize financial extraction rather than human welfare. Understanding this history remains relevant today. As financial markets globalize and private capital increasingly shapes public policy, the East India Company experience offers crucial lessons about the dangers of allowing profit motives to override democratic accountability. The Rothschild papers show how easily public institutions can be captured when financial interests organize more effectively than public oversight.
The human cost of that capture, measured in millions of lives lost to famine and conflict, serves as a permanent reminder of what happens when private interests masquerade as public policy. 1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
A Farcaster Exclusive
Johnsonâs Christian Zionist Roots and Israeli Arms Policy
Lyndon Johnsonâs arms transfers to Israel during the 1960s traced directly to religious convictions rooted in his Texas upbringing. The transformation of American-Israeli relations under Johnson cannot be examined without understanding the Christian Zionist heritage that shaped his worldview from childhood.
Johnsonâs grandfather, Samuel Ealy Johnson Sr., belonged to the Christadelphian Church, a Protestant sect founded in the 1840s. The LBJ Presidential Library confirms that Johnsonâs paternal grandfather affiliated with the Christadelphians in his later years, while his father joined the denomination towards the end of his life.
Christadelphians maintain that Jews remain Godâs chosen people and that Christâs second coming requires Jewish return to Palestine and Israelâs restoration. Johnsonâs grandfather instructed him to take care of the Jews, Godâs chosen people. Consider them your friends and help them in every way you can.
Johnsonâs aunt, Jessie Johnson Hatcher, reinforced these beliefs through her membership in the Zionist Organisation of America. The familyâs opposition to anti-Semitism extended to practical action: both Johnsonâs grandfather and father sought clemency for Leo Frank, the Jewish victim of a 1915 lynching in Atlanta. The Ku Klux Klan threatened to kill the Johnsons for this intervention.
Johnsonâs commitment to Jewish welfare manifested during his congressional years through Operation Texas, a covert operation to rescue European Jews from Nazi persecution. Between 1938 and 1941, working with Austin businessman Jim Novy, Johnson helped hundreds of Jewish refugees enter the United States through National Youth Administration programmes he supervised.
This operation violated existing immigration restrictions. Johnson channelled Jewish men into NYA welding schools, then ensured their employment when he headed the Navyâs shipbuilding personnel office. Other refugees worked in liquor stores, carnivals, and as school janitors. Operation Texas also included financial support for Jewish underground fighters in Palestine.
Johnson fundamentally altered American arms policy towards Israel upon assuming the presidency in 1963. Previous administrations had limited weapons sales to Israel under the 1950 Tripartite Declaration. The State Departmentâs Office of the Historian documents Johnsonâs abandonment of this restraint.
In 1965, Johnson approved M48A3 tank sales to Israel, followed by A-4 Skyhawk aircraft in 1966, the first major American offensive weapons systems sold to the Jewish state. National Security Council staffer Robert Komer justified these sales: Arab knowledge that they could not win an arms race against Israel should contribute long-term to the damping down of the Arab-Israeli dispute.
The breakthrough came in 1968 when Johnson approved F-4 Phantom fighter jet sales to Israel. This established what became known as Israelâs qualitative military edge, the principle that Israel must maintain technological superiority over Arab neighbours.
Johnsonâs arms policy proceeded despite warnings from Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt, and 26 other prominent Jewish scholars. Their December 1948 letter to The New York Times condemned Menachem Beginâs Freedom Party (Herut) as a political party closely akin in its organisation, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties.
Einstein advocated a secured bi-national status in Palestine with free immigration, arguing it defied common sense to seek political rule over Palestine where two thirds of the population are not Jewish. In 1946, Einstein warned that Zionist extremism conflicted with the essential nature of Judaism and would bring catastrophe upon Jewish communities.
Einsteinâs concerns about Beginâs terrorist background, including participation in the Deir Yassin massacre, proved accurate when Begin became Israeli Prime Minister in 1977, leading the same Herut movement that evolved into todayâs Likud Party.
Ken McCarthyâs documentary research in JFK and RFKâs Secret Battle Against Zionist Extremism reveals that John F. Kennedy actively confronted Israeli nuclear ambitions and demanded registration of Zionist lobbying groups under the Foreign Registration Act. These efforts continued until Kennedyâs assassination in November 1963.
Johnson immediately reversed Kennedyâs Middle East policies. Where Kennedy had sought to limit Israeli weapons access and nuclear capabilities, Johnson expanded both military aid and strategic cooperation.
Johnsonâs arms policy reflected both personal conviction and Cold War strategy. Following the 1967 Six-Day War, American policymakers concluded that Arab states had aligned permanently with the Soviet Union. Johnsonâs administration viewed Israel as a democratic bulwark against Soviet influence.
Johnson refused to pressure Israel to withdraw from territories captured in 1967 without comprehensive peace agreements. He proclaimed that while troops must be withdrawn, there must also be recognised rights of national life and respect for political independence and territorial integrity.
Johnsonâs presidency established the modern American-Israeli alliance. The arms pipeline he created, from tanks and aircraft to broader strategic cooperation, produced precedents that successive administrations expanded rather than curtailed.
Johnsonâs transformation of the United States from cautious broker to Israelâs primary arms supplier represents one of the most dramatic shifts in post-war American foreign policy. The theological notion that supporting Jewish restoration to Palestine served divine purposes found ultimate expression in Johnsonâs presidency, where Christian Zionist conviction merged with geopolitical strategy to reshape Middle East power balances, precisely the outcome Einstein had feared would prove catastrophic for both Jews and Palestinians.
Use history as a teacher. 0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
