Purely Commentary
Sen. Fulbright's Role ... a Progressive's Failure to Recognize Mid-East Realties
Senator J. William Fulbright. chairman of the U.S. Senate's foreign relations
committee, is tan interesting if puzzling fellow. He keeps needling Israelis, he has
not given the encouragement that was expected from him for Israel, yet he keeps
saying he is an admirer 'and friend of Israel.
Perhaps the strongest affirmation by him was the following letter which
appeared in the New York Times, Nov. 15, 19'71:
POSITION ON MIDDLE EAST
special case, and I have acknowledged
that we should support it. In fact, we have
To the Editor:
I wish to call your attention to what no alternative." I recognize that this state-
I consider to have been a misinterpreta- ment, particularly the first sentence taken
tion of my views on the subject of military without the second (which was not quoted
assistance to Israel as contained in a news in Mr. Gwertzman's story) lends itself to
story appearing in The Times on Nov. 1. the interpretation that I personally favor
The article in question, written by Bernard providing additional arms to Israel. Such
Gwertzman, was based on remarks which I an interpretation is, however, inconsistent
made in the course of the "Face the Na- with my previous publicly stated views.
tion" program on Oct. 31. Mr. Gwertzman Implicit in my comment that "we have no
is a fine reporter but in this particular in- alternative" but -to approve military assist-
stance his story, undoubtedly through in- ance to Israel was my recognition of the
advertence, conveyed a misleading im- practical reality that there is overwhelm-
pression of my position. ing support for assistance to Israel within
Asked by one of the panelists on the the Senate.
It has long been my view that there
program whether the Senate had a duty
to come up with alternative ideas on for- will never be peace in the Middle East aN
eign aid, I replied that I thought consid- long as the contending parties seek to
insure their security through the pursuit
eration should be given to ". . . an in-
terim program which would take care of of military advantage. I believe that the
interests of all the peoples in the Middle
those parts of this (foreign aid) program
East and the interests of world peace
which are the least controversial." My
thought was that those elements of the would best be served by a negotiated set-
tlement between the Arabs and the Isra-
over-all foreign aid bill which would be
most likely to win approval in the Sen- elis along the lines of the Security Council
ate could be started on their way through Resolution of Nov. 22, 1967. In this con-
nection, I would regard actions on the
the legislative process, thus permitting
part
of the United States at this time to
the more controversial items to be ad-
augment Israel's military capability not
dressed separately.
As examples of the more popular pro- only as unnecessary but also as inconsist-
ent with this country's efforts to bring
grams I cited the United Nations Chil-
about such a negotiated settlement.
dren's Fund, refugee relief for Palestini-
J.. W. Fulbright
ans and Pakistanis and the •$400.000,000
Chairman,
Senate Foreign
of assistance proposed for Israel. With re-
Relations Committee
gard to the last I said, "Israel is a very
Washington. Nov. 8, 19'71
Senator Fulbright was rebuked, April 16, by Israel Prime Minister Golda Meir
for having menaced the tax-free status of the United Jewish Appeal and for having
charged that "Israel controls the Senate."
Whereupon, quoting these criticisms as they were released in a Reuters report
from Tel Aviv, Senator Fulbright delivered a speech in the Senate, April 17, again
denying that he is prejudiced, stating:
"Although I differ with some of the policies of the government of Israel, and,
indeed, with some of the actions taken by this body with regard to Israel, I do
not believe it is fair or accurate to categorize my position as anti-Israel. What I
have advocated is what I see as a more balanced policy in the Middle East, aimed
at achieving lasting peace in the area. I do not believe that it is in our best
interest or in the best interest of Israel for the United States to give unquestioned
support to every action and every desire of the government of Israel."
He said much more--and what he had said corroborates the regret over his
position. What he considers is "the best interest" implied by Israeli withdrawal from
administered territories, failing to take into account the need for Arabs and Jews
to discuss the issues frankly among themselves. He sneaks of an imposed peace—
and that can not be interpreted as friendship. That's the last thing that is either
desirable or practical or acceptable by Israel. Why can't so prominent a member
of the highest legislative body recognize his own fallacies vis-a-vis Israel and the
Middle East?
The issue came to a head again in the Senate, where Senator Fulbright
delivered a long speech, on May 21, on "Oil and the Middle East." Again, it was
a matter of condemning American policy toward Israel. He viewed Israel as a
Are We Getting Double Talk From Bonn?
West Germany's Foreign Minister Walter Scheel was
in Cairo to befriend the Arab potentates, which was
proper diplomatic involvement. But there was an answer
to an Egyptian newspaperman's question that both dis-
turbs and puzzles Bonn's Jewish friends.
Scheel was asked about "West Germany's special re-
lationships with Israel. He kept repeating that there was
such a special relationship, and then he defined his and
his country's position as follows:
"What we have is normal good relations but of a
special nature, or background, which is dictated by the
history that Jews and Germans have undergone in recent
decades."
Of course, the Jewish-German and Israel-German
"relations" have been affected by recent history. Let it
be reiterated: by Nazism and the German-made Holocaust.
Would there have been either a special nature or a special
relationship otherwise? And if not for the wholesale mur-
der of Six Million Jews and at least Eight Minion more
non-Germans, would there merely have a continuing anti-
Semitism without apologies? How does official Germany
differentiate between the specialties that are marked
either interest or relationship?
There are a few more questions to be posed:
There was a very shocking display of beastliness on
the part of Nazis in Italy—the mass Ardeatine murder
in March of 1944—when Hitler ordered the death of 10
Italians for each of the 32 Germans who were assassinated
in a reprisal attack by an Italian resistance group in
Italy.
Still imprisoned as a punishment for that outrageous
mass murder is the Nazi colonel, Herbert Kappler.
Because he has already served 28 years in an Italian
jail, Kappler is now regarded with compassion, and West
2 Friday, June 1, 1973
—
THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS
Jackson versus Fulbright in Serious Debate Over
Middle East and Oil . . . Is Bonn Changing Attitudes
on Israel? . . . Honors for Stollman, Rabbi Schnipper
B y Philip
SiOMOViti
threat to the Arab states and eventually as menacing the American role. Senator
th the Arkansan in a speech delivered immediately
M. Jackson took issue with
after Senator Fulbright's fear-inciting address. Senator Jackson's declaration was:
The principal problem with Senator
Fulbright's analysis of our energy prob- would be irresponsible to temporize the
lem is its principal assumption: that the need to develop alternative sources of en-
threat to the continued delivery of Middle ergy on a crash basis and to continue to
Eastern oil arises from our support for sit idly by as our dependence on import-
Israel. ed oil continues to increase.
First, the United States, with 6 per
The fact is, of course, that the princi-
cer cent of the world's population, pres-
pal threat to the oil producing countries
of the Middle East and Persian Gulf is ently uses over one-third of the world's
not Israel but, rather, the have-not Arab energy and 47 per cent of the world's raw
states: Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Yemen. materials.
Second, oil is a depletable resource.
These Arab states, impoverished as they
are and plagued by the most severe de- This must be recognized before we adopt
velopmental problems, view the great a policy of postponing or downplaying en-
riches of the oil producing states as a po- ergy research and development while the
tential solution to their economic develop- United States, Europe and Japan drain
ment problems. the huge, but limited, oil reserves of the
I would remind the Chairman of the Persian Gulf. The most important future
Foreign Relations Committee that it is uses of petroleum may not be for energ -
not Israel . (as he suggests) that threatens purposes. The use of oil as a chemic
Kuwait—but Iraq which was, as late as feedstock or as a raw material base from
last week, engaged in military activity which to manufacture food must also be
considered.
that may have as its objective the eventu-
Third, without the restraint and the
al control of that oil rich sheikhdom. Is
it not Israel that threatens Saudi Arabia— price ceiling on the cost of Middle East
but Yemen to the south, Soviet-supported oil which would result from our having
Iraq and Syria to the north, and Egypt to alternative energy sources, we will al-
the West. It is not Israel that is in Oman, most certainly face rapidly increasing
but rather the stability of Oman is threat- prices on crude oil that could, in a short
ened by a smouldering insurgency backed time, lead to gasoline prices on the order
by the Communist Chinese. of a dollar a gallon.
Mr. President, the Senator from Ar-
Mr. President, the Chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee believes that kansas has once again contrasted Ameri-
we would not need to develop alternative c ca's "emotional" interest in Israel with
sources of energy on a "crash" basis if what he considers to be our "economic"
we did not "write off the oil of the Arab interests in the Arab states of the Middle
states prematurely, for extraneous politi- East. On the contrary, I believe that our
cal reasons." His remarks today leave us economic and political and strategic in-
in no doubt as to what these "extraneous terests are supported—and not "undercut"
political reasons" are: they are, in Sena- —by our close and cooperative relationship
for Fulbright's view, our support for a with Israel. But I wish also to say that I
strong and free and independent Israel. am proud that the Amerian people recog-
But even if Israel did not exist, even if nize in Israel the kind of friend and ally
the oil of the Middle East were guaranteed that democratic nations everywhere must
to be available to the United States, and surely he drawn to. And if that injects
even if we had some kind of insurance a note of "emotion" into our foreign pol-
against upheavals that could interrupt the icy, it is one that represents the best in
flow of Middle Eastern and Gulf oil, it our traditional commitment to individual
freedom.
There is a handful of senators in the Fulbright corner. They have been
antagonistic to Israel. They have endorsed fear. They have failed to support the
vital need for peace not under compulsion but of a voluntary nature to bring amity
to the entire Middle East. But Jackson and the more than 70 other Senators who
upheld his role in the Senate represent a majority viewpoint. We hold that to be
to America's advantage and best interest.
The antagonistic members of the Senate, Mark Hatfield (R., Ore.) and James
Abourezk (D., S.D.) are effectively overwhelmed by the friendships from three-
fourths of the senatorial membership. It's regrettable that the majority leader, Sena-
tor Mike Mansfield (D., Mont.) is not more amicable. Even a minority of oppon-
ents adds to tensions. Nevertheless, it is Israel's good fortune that animosities are
not more widespread. The retention of good will is vital to an embattled nation.
We'd like to see J. William Fulbright in our corner. It would mean a great
deal not for Israel alone but for this country and all the national involved in an
unnecessary conflict that stifles progress for Israel's enemies more than for Israel.
Why doesn't a progressive senator recognize it? Perhaps the other antagonists to
Israel would then move in the direction of an accord for peace that would eliminate
for all time an area problem for the United States.
German Chancellor Willy Brandt has complained because
Italy wouldn't pardon him.
Pardon for mass crimes?
Why, Willy Brandt?
Pardon the Nazis? Why, all you spokesmen for West
Germany?
Pardon Rudolf Hess because he has already served
30 years in the Spandau Prison in Berlin? Why?
Is it because special interest supplants special rela-
tionship?
In a recent issue of Publishers Weekly, Willy Droemer,
head of one of Germany's leading publishing houses, was
quoted on the subject of German attitudes on politics and
literature, and in the course of his comments he said:
"Germans are badly educated politically. Much of our
youth is anti-Israel—not anti-Semitic, mind you, just anti-
Israel—because they think the Arabs are the underdog.
And Germans are ahistoric."
What a puzzle! Germans are ahistoric, we are now
told, but they have a view of Israel's neighbors who seek
to destroy the Jewish state—that would in itself be a
Nazi extermination act—as if the Arabs were the under-
dog. Possessors of 18 states who begrudge Israel her her-
itage are now the darlings of German youth, if we are to
believe a German spokesman.
That's something to think about. We had been told
that German youth are enamored with Israel, that they
spend their vacations there in the tens of thousands and
work in kibutzim. We get a different picture of German
youth that is supposedly not anti-Semitic but is anti-Israel.
Is this a new way of admiring those who would de-
stroy Jews by adopting the Russian ideology of resorting
to anti-Zionism as a means of accomplishing anti-Semit-
ism?
Indeed, these are matters to think about seriously in
the process of hoping for genuine good will, even with
former enemies.
Deserved Honors for Rabbi Schnipper
There is nothing unusual abcut a rabbi, or a com-
munal personality, being honored on the occasion of a
10th anniversary of service to his immediate community.
It is unusual, however, in the instance of Rabbi A. Irving
Schnipper of Cong. Beth Moses.
His congregants labeled the dinner in his honor this
Sunday as marking a "Decade of Progress." It is just
that in his case. His is the only large synagogue left in
Detroit, and his determination to serve the remaining Jews
in the large city has been progressive, creative, culturally
oriented.
Rabbi Schnipper's scholarly approaches, the educC
tional material he publishes, the deep interest he take-
in our educational system—all mark of great devotion
by a scholar and a devout man. He has earned a place
of honor and leadership in the Greater Detroit Jewish
community.
Phillip Stollman Gets Well Earned Honor
A community of co-workers in many causes shares
with Phillip Stollman his thrill at having been chosen to
receive an honorary doctorate from Israel's Bar-Ilan
University.
In the 17 years of his and his family's labors for the
university established in the name and the memory of
Rabbi Meir (Berlin) Bar-Ilan, the Stolknans have made
the Mizrachi project their chief interest in life.
Besides, the honoree has been a leader in Young
Israel, in the ranks of Mizrachi, the Akiva Day School,
the Jewish National Fund, every aspect of interest in
Israel and in this city's religious institutions.
Phillip Stollman has earned the recognition he will
receive from Bar-Ilan University at the graduation, in
Ramat Gan, June 25, and he has the hearty greetings of
an appreciative community.