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.