Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options


Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

The University of Michigan Library provides access to these materials for educational and research purposes. These materials may be under copyright. If you decide to use any of these materials, you are responsible for making your own legal assessment and securing any necessary permission. If you have questions about the collection, please contact the Bentley Historical Library at bentley.ref@umich.edu

December 31, 1965 - Image 1

Resource type:
The Detroit Jewish News, 1965-12-31

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.



Michigan's Only English-Jewish Newspaper — Incorporating The Detroit Jewish Chronicle


Crises and


r R 01 T

A Weekly Review

Vol. XLVI II, No. 19

Printed in a
100% Union Shop


IN/1 I C t—i i

f Jewish Events

17100 W. 7 Mile Rd.—VE 8-9364-----Detroit 48235—Dec. 31, 1965

Liberalism at
Stake, Emergence
of Vandalism,
and Addictions .. .
'Hanukah Hangup'

Page 2

$6.00 Per Year; This Issue 20c

United Front Defending Shehita
Formed by U.S. Jewish Groups

Levi Eshkol Ill Again; Must
Select Cabinet Before Jan. 9

(Direct JTA Teletype Wire to The Jewish News)

JERUSALEM—Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, who had spent
two weeks in a hospital suffering from what his physicians called
"exhaustion," was ill again at his home here Tuesday, the diagnosis
being "a severe cold and influenza." Eshkol's doctors ordered
him to halt immediately all personal participation in his efforts
to form a new cabinet. Thus, the possibility of his presentation
of the new cabinet to the Knesset this week seemed most unlikely.
• Meanwhile, however, negotiations were continuing among the
various political parties in the effort to set up .a new government,
necessitated by the general elections held Nov. 2. Eshkol, who
had been given by President Shazar the mandate to form the
cabinet as a successor to the present caretaker government has,
officially, until Jan. 9 to complete that task. Under Israeli law,
no further extension of that period is possible.
The principal stumbling block in the negotiations still re-
volves around the insistence of the National Religious Party for
more stringent implementation of religious laws affecting Israeli
life. NRP is a member of the caretaker government but refuses
- to join the new cabinet unless Eshkol _agrees to its demands.
The main obstacle to Eshkol's efforts to form a broad coalition
continues to be the NRP insistence that Israel's newly built port
at Ashdod, south of Tel Aviv, shut down all operations on Satur-
days. Eshkol insists that permits to operate the Ashdod facilities
on the Sabbath be_ ruled on by the ministerial committee, as is
the case with Israel's other ports.
Without the National Religious Party and the Poalei Agudat
Israel, which were part of the outgoing coalition, Eshkol could
form only a very narrow coalition comprising, in addition to the
■i alignment, the Independent Liberals, Mapam and the Mapai-
/ affiliated Arab lists. This coalition would have only a slim majority.
The Mapai secretariat authorized Eshkol to go ahead with a
new coalition without the religious parties if the latter continue
to insist on conditions unacceptable to the Premier.
(Related Story on Page 5)

NEW YORK (JTA)—Prominent Jewish lay and rabbinical leaders Tuesday criticized
sharply a paid advertisement that appeared in the New York Times, dealing with so-called
humane slaughter. The advertisement, placed by an organization called Friends of Animals,
Inc., was called by the Jewish leaders "misleading," "intemperate," "destructive" and
The advertisement urged all readers to call on their representatives in the New York
State Legislature to support a bill prefiled by Assemblyman Albert J. Hausbeck, of
Buffalo, which, it was stated, "sets a humane standard for non-kosher slaughterers." The
advertisement stated: "The. Hausbeck bill eliminates shackling and hoisting in kosher
slaughter without placing Jewish Orthodox statutes under civil law" and claimed: "This
inspiration comes from Israel's ban on the import of 'U.S. kosher meat processed by the
shackling and hoisting method.' "
Among the signers of the advertisement, in addition to Mrs. Alice Herrington Schmid,
president of the Friends of Animals, Inc., were the honorary chairman of the organization,
the famous French actress, Brigitte Bardot; a number of other artists prominent in various
areas of show business; and two rabbis — Rabbi Max Hausen, of Temple Beth El, Great
Neck, L.I.: and Rabbi Edward Shapiro, of the Norwich Jewish Center at Norwich, N.Y.
The statements opposing the advertisement were issued, among others, by Mortimer
Brenner and Rabbi Max D. Davidson, co-chairmen of the Joint Advisory Committee of the
Synagogue Council of America and the National Community Relations Advisory Council.
Included among the members on the committee are representatives of the principal national
associations of rabbis and congregational bodies of Conservative, Orthodox and Reform
Jewry in the United States, as well as major national Jewish civic organizations and Jewish
community councils throughout the United States.
Among the opponents of the Friends of Animals was also Agudath Israel of America,
an ultra-Orthodox organization. Agudath Israel charged that Friends of Animals "besmirched
Jewish religious practice by widely circulating its portrayal of Jewish ritual slaughter in
such a derogatory manner that it reflects on the humaneness of the laws of Judaism,
which are deeply rooted in mercy and kindness."
The Jewish organizations attacking the Friends of Animals for their advertisement
against shehita charged that the advertisement could only mislead readers by creating
the impression that its proposals for legislation to control slaughtering methods are the only
ones currently being put forward. They pointed out that, in fact, the New York State
Humane Association has agreed to sponsor in the next session of the New York Legislature

State Dept. Fails to Overcome Bonn's
Insistence Budget Needs Force Delay

WASHINGTON (JTA)—United States Ambassador George McGhee discussed
several times in Bonn with high officials of the German government the legislation
deferring payment of compensations in 1966 and 1967 to the Nazi victims who sub-
mitted their claims after 1953, the State Department announced.
The discussions took place prior to the passage of the new legislation in bath
houses of the West German Parliament. the State Department emphasized. "However,
German budget considerations precluded any change" in the legislation, a department
communication stated.
The communication was addressed to Senator Jacob K. Javits, New York
Republican, by Douglas MacArthur II, assistant secretary of state for Congres-
sional relations. The State Department official stressed that "a last-minute amend-
ment to the legislation will permit the federal government to adjust percentages at
which claims will be satisfied during the next two years in accordance with circum-
stances of the case. This clause may particularly benefit older claimants and those in
serious need." MacArthur noted that "West German Finance Minister Rolf Dahlgruen
has said that he will consult with persecutee groups before issuing directives fixing
percentages at which claims may be paid if the appropriations do not suffice for
payments in full."
Sen. Javits said he considered the State Department response to his request
for intercession with Bonn to have been inadequate and ineffectual. He made known
that he intends to continue pursuit of justice for the Nazi - victims who have been
"arbitrarily denied indemnification solemnly promised by the West German govern-
(The Jewish Labor Committee sent cables to West Germany's Chancellor
Ludwig Erhard and Foreign Minister Gerhard Schroeder, requesting reversal of the
Bonn Parliament's decision to defer 1966 and 1967 payments to certain victims of
(The South African Jewish Board of Deputies lodged a protest with the West
German ambassador in Pretoria for transmission to his government against the de-
ferment of payment of indemnification claims during 1966 and 1967.)

(Continued on Page 5)

The 'Pagan Cult' in 1966

Wherefore Is a New Year Eve Sabbath
Different From All Other Friday Nights?

Wherefore is this night different from all other Friday nights? Jewish organi-
zations throughout the country were spending much time and effort this week to
explain the difference, appealing for the preservation of the sanctity of the Sabbath
which falls on New Year's Eve tonight.
The coincidence of New Year's Eve and Sabbath Eve prompted spokesmen
for rabbinical organizations to appeal to Jews to refrain from participation in the
usual New Year's Eve revelry out of respect for the Sabbath.
But at least one Jewish Center felt compelled to supervise a New Year's Eve
In Houston, Bernard Weingarten, president of the Jewish Center, explained
that the center was presented with an "ultimatum" by a number of high school youth
groups, who "pointed out that a dance would be held with or without the Center."
The only issue," he said, "was whether or not it would be adequately super-
Since the Center has been supervising New Year's Eve dances, Weingarten
said, much irresponsible conduct has been eliminated. If the Center were to withdraw
its supervision of the teen-agers when it was most needed, the youngsters, who would
have their party anyway, might be endangered. The Center agreed to supervise and
chaperone the affair, preparing food before the Sabbath and urging the teens to
attend Sabbath services before the dance, whose starting hour would be after services
were over. In addition, the dance will be held away from the Center, thus avoiding
the use of Jewish communal facilities on the Sabbath.
Houston's Rabbinical Association published a statement that it "does not
approve of any Jewish organization sponsoring a New Year's Eve dance on a Friday
But the editor of the Houston Jewish Herald-Voice pointed out editorially,
"The rabbis have had six years to think this problem through. Why have we waited
(Continued on Page 5)

Back to Top

© 2022 Regents of the University of Michigan