>> one other figure i'd like to you touch upon a little bit more, a little more at length is clark cliffordecause he seems to have played really an instrumental role. and to what extent is this a function of clifford's convictions. how is it that he came to be the counter-weight to george marshall in the final arguments that were offered to truman. >> well, as i said in my paper, he was very influenced by rosaman and spent a lot of time with him and he didn't have strong feelings about zionism before him but he became a zionist -- he was extremely instrumental in what happened. and really laying out all the arguments for truman that countered state department arguments, and i think he genuinely believed in zionism. >> let me just ask one final question and then we'll turn it over to the audience and this brings us forward to the present with that remarkable statement that you read. you could argue that on many points his arguments were wholly bourne out. the arab world didn't at least until 1973 stop the flow of oil but moderate governments were overthrown in iraq, in libya, in egypt, in sy

forcibly truman's adviser clark clifford who had replaced rosenmen and became the first national security director told german it was really not unthinkable to reverse partition that what they should do is get the arabs to accept it and if they do not come much condemn them as the aggressors. clifford told german that warren austin speech from the state department position was completely fallacious and partitioned was in complete harmony with the policy of united states as has been stated to allow trusteeship to become policy now would actually lead to the very military involvement truman wanted to avoid. he said his position would harm the less, heart western unity and he told truman "we crossed the rubicon on this matter when the wind adopted the partition resolution largely your assistance program free backtrack to appease the arabs they will treat us "with contempt in light of our appeasement" end quote. so any way warren austin did give the speech which became as a bombshell because no one expected it, rabbi silver had speaking rights at the u.n. as a representative of the jewish age

truman including david niles, tremendous special counsel who in turn influence his replacement, clark clifford. he had begun working for fdr in the 1928 run for the governor of new york. when roosevelt was elected president, and rose in men and joined him where he served as fdr confidante, a council, a speechwriter, as well as unofficial adviser on jewish affairs. he has been criticized for not doing more to influence the fdr during world war ii but he was to play a much different role we found during truman's administration. after fdr's death feasted on to work for trimming in a similar capacity, but now his attitude had radically changed toward a zionism. something we found very interesting, a quote from him we had not seen before rosenmen said before hitler came to power i was the anti-zionist but after i became a non zionist but at the end of the war i became a full believer in the idea of political zionism. the others followed a similar path. 1945 the number of american jews who belong to zionist organization have grown at 400,000 less than 251,943. at the forefront of the surge was the a

[laughter] one of the figure i would like you to touch upon at a little more length is clark clifford because he seems to have played an instrumental role, and to what extent is this a function of clifford's convictions? how is it he came to be the counterweight to george marshall in the final arguments that were offered to truman? >> as i said in my paper he was influenced by rosenman and spent a lot of time with him and i don't think he had strong feelings about zionism before. but he became a zionist. he was extremely instrumental in what happened and laying out all the arguments for truman that countered state department arguments. and i think he genuinely believed in zionism. >> let me ask one final question then we will turn to the audience, and this brings this forward to the present with the remarkable statement of kennan's that you read. you could argue at many points his argues were borne out. at least until 1973 it stopped the flow of oil, but moderate governments were overthrown in iraq and libya, and egypt, and syria and so long replaced by extremist governments. the sovi