Purely Commentary
Recalling the Clossic Martin Buber Assertion
Defining Israel's Right to Live in Its Ancient
Homeland ... Expose of Detente and USSR Tactics
By Philip
Slomovitz
Martin Buber: 'Something Even Higher Than the Life of Our People Is Bound Up With This Land'
Many countries have combined their political strength to suppress Israel. They
are numerically in evidence in the United Nations.
Even those involved in seeking freedoms for themselves and their people joined
the would-be squelchers of Jewish rights.
The battle waged against Israel dates back to the time when Jews were strug-
gling to establish their roots in the ancient homeland.
Then it was against Zionism—now it is against--the entire Jewish people whose
links with Israel are inseparable: we believe them to be indestructible.
Now those who would destroy Israel are turning back the pages of history. They
would have Israel reduced to the ghetto status of 1947. Some would even expel Jews
who settled in Israel from the year 1948; others would turn the clock back to 1917—
the year of the Balfour Declaration.
One such eminent suppresser of Jewish rights was Mohandas K. Gandhi. His
daughter, Indira Gandhi, who heads the Indian government, now is aligned in the
ranks of Israel's antagonists. "We are not anti-Jewish," she has told her people—but
she is certainly anti-Israel, and has been in that role from earliest Israel experiences.
Mohandas K. Gandhi opposed Jewish settlement in Palestine in 1939. He propa-
gated against the Jewish libertarian movement.
An eminent Jewish scholar, the distinguished philosopher Martin Buber, wrote
a classic reply that is one of the significant chapters in his writings.
Dr. Buber was a pacifist. He wanted Jews and Arabs to live in harmony. He
was among the leaders of the Ihud movement which counted among its supporters in
Palestine such personalities as Dr. Judah L. Magnes and Henrietta Szold.
Dr. Buber stated his case. He submitted that two peoples_ areinvolved, that "two
vital claims are opposed to each other, two claims of a different nature and a different
origin which cannot objectively be pitted against one another and between which no
objective decision can be made as to which is just, which unjust. We considered and
still consider it our duty to understand and to honor the claim which is opposed to ours
and to endeavor to reconcile both claims."
Then, in 1939, he defined Jewish rights, in the famous essay in which he dealt
with the conflict between Jew and Arab,. declaring:
"We could not and cannot renounce the Jewish claim; something even higher
thin the life of our people is bound up with this land, namely its work, its divine
mission. But we have been and still are convinced that it must be possible to find
some compromise between this claim and the other; for we love this land and we
believe in its future; since such love and such faith are surely present on the other side
as well, a union in the common service of the land must be within the range of possi-
bility. Where there is faith and love, a solution may be found even to what appears to
be a tragic opposition.
"In order to carry out a task of such extreme difficulty—in the recognition of
which we have to overcome an internal resistance on the Jewish side too, as foolish
as it is natural—we were in need of the support of well-meaning persons of all nations,
and hoped to receive it. But now you come and settle the whole existential dilemma
with the simple formula: 'Palestine belongs to the Arabs.'
"What do you mean by saying that a land belongs to a population? Evidently
you do not intend only to describe a state of affairs by your formula, but to declare a
certain right. You obviously mean to say that a people, being settled on the land, has
so absolute a claim to that land that whoever settles on it without the permission of
this people has committed a robbery.
"But by what means did the Arabs attain to the right of ownership in Palestine?
Surely by conquest and in fact a conquest with intent to settle. You therefore admit
that as a result their settlement gives them exclusive right of possession; whereas the
Suppression and Detente
•
• •
Russian Tactics Reviewed in Light of Latest USSR Manifestations
Soviet Life, beautifully illustrated and well written but
with contents subject to suspicion, has finally been ex-
posed. A New York Times editorial writer has courage-
ously presented facts that may have been ignored but need
to be known, especially in view of the repetitive emphasis
being given to detente.
The Russian magazine that is circulated in official
American quarters consistently carries Jewish articles
intended to exonerate the Soviet Union and to give the
impression that Jews live in a paradise in the USSR.
Much of what that magazine has published needs to be
exposed. Only a month ago - it carried a long feature on
the basis of which all who demand exit visas would be
branded as liars. The Sakharovs and their associates in
the protesting group of intellectuals who have condemned
Russian oppressions would be tarred as disloyal. Only the
Kremlin is sacred and truthful.
But the recent incident of medievalism, in the case of
the Panovs, inspired the exposure in the New York Times
editorial, Dec. 24, under the heading "Detente for the
Panovs." In its intercession for the Jewish couple, the
editorial showed the propaganda aspect of Soviet Life and
the defects in detente and stated:
"The current issue of Soviet Life, which is distributed
here by reciprocal agreement between the United States
and the Soviet Union, is devoted to 'Constitutional Rights
and Freedoms.' This magazine pictures life as the Soviets
would have us believe it exists there. But this particular
issue is cruelly ironical when its lofty ideals are measured
against just one current episode in 'Soviet life' — the case
of Valery and Galina Panov, the dancers with Leningrad's
Kirov Ballet whose feet have been tied by their govern..
ment ever since they applied for exit visas to Israel.
.
"After waiting for nearly two years, Valery Panov has
been told that he can leave but that his wife must stay
behind. This inhuman offer has of course been refused
by the couple. The Soviets were not simply holding her
hostage; this was government trying to break up a mar-
riage despite all the statements that anti-Semitism is
nonexistent in the Soviet Union. A police inspector has
been quoted as saying to Galina Panov, 'Why do you Want
to stay with this Jew? We will find you another husband.'
"And so one can turn the pages of Soviet Life this
month and read the articles boasting of constitutional
rights for all citizens regardless of 'their race or nation.
ality,' of 'cultural equality,' of 'freedom of religious
worship.' One can read of the 'international ballet com-
petition' with photographs of smiling dancers — but not
2—Friday, January 4, 1974
.•
' •' •
THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS
,
subsequent conquests of the Mamelukes and the Turks which were conquests with a
view to domination, not to settlement, do not constitute such a right in your opinion,
but leave the earlier conquerors in rightful ownership.
"Thus settlement by conquest justifies for you a right of ownership of Palestine;
whereas a settlement such as the Jewish—the methods of which, it is true, though not
always doing full justice to Arab ways of life, were even in the most objectional cases
far removed from those of conquest—do not justify in your opinion any participation in
this right of possession.
"These are the consequences which result from your axiomatic statement that
a land belongs to its population. In an epoch when nations are migrating, you would
first support the right of ownership of the nation that is threatened with dispossession or
extermination; but were this once achieved, you would be compelled, not at once, but
after a suitable number of generations had elapsed, to admit that the land 'belongs'
to the usurper.
"It seems to me that God does not give any one portion of the earth away, so
that the owner may say as God says in the Bible: 'For all the earth is Mine' (ExodvQ
19:5). The conquered land is, in my opinion, only lent even to the conqueror who
settled on it—and God waits to see what he will make of it.
"I am told, however, I should not respect the cultivated soil and despise the
desert. I am told, the desert is willing to wait for the work of her children; she no
longer recognizes us, burdened with civilization, as her children. The desert inspires me
with awe; but I do not believe in her absolute resistance, for I believe in the great
marriage between man and earth. This land recognizes -us, for it is fruitful through
us; and precisely because it bears fruit for us, it recognizes us.
"Our settlers do not come here as do the colonists from the Occident to have
natives do their work for them; they themselves set their shoulders to the plow and
they spend their strength and their blood to make the land fruitful. But it is not only
for ourselves that we desire its fertility. The Jewish farmers have begun to teach
their brothers the Arab farmers to cultivate the land more intensively; we desire to
teach them further; together with them we want to cultivate the land—to 'serve' it,
as the Hebrew has it.
"The more fertile this soil becomes, the more space there will be for us and for
them. We have no desire to dispossess them; we want to live with them. We do not
want to dominate them, we want to serve with them."
It remains a timely message to the prejudiced against Jewry, and the New York
Times saw fit to reprint that essay.
New conditions have arisen since 1939. There was the period of partition, when
Jews were granted a small strip of land, not even sufficient for a ghetto. The Arab
potentates even begrudged the Jewish people that mite. They waged war. The Jewish
state expanded a bit. They waged other wars, and Israel sought protection and security
a bit farther away from Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian guns.
The aim to destroy Israel has remained an objective of a kindred people that
already rules 19 countries, and has the support of the international community, mostly
under pressures from the Moslem world and from the Communist bloc.
Now, at last, there are renewed discussions that may—should!—lead to peace,
in the best interests of Arabs as well as Jews. Basically, the ethical, moral, historic
and biblical defense of Prof. Buber keeps re-emerging as a definition for justice to
the Jew without harm to the Arab neighbor. Will it be taken seriously? Will theologians
of all faiths, ethical culturists among the nations of the world, recognize the right of
Israel to live and to enjoy the fruits of labors aimed at elevating the standards of a
people that refuses to remain homeless and seeks to stay in the ancient homeland it is
reviving? Can a positive answer to the tragic needs and the urgency of the situation
come from Geneva?
of the Panovs, who were dismissed from their company
and are now called 'parasites.' A final irony—an article
on freedom of Jewish culture and religious practice.
"Detente is a welcome and necessary ideal between
the superpowers. But unlesi it is translated to the human
level—to rights and freedoms that are not merely internal
matters but must leap across borders to achieve reality—
hypocrisy and distrust will remain. Human lives and
marriages cannot be traded; the Panovs should be freed."
This manner of tackling the aggravated issue that
affects the freedoms in Russia is a measure of courage in
journalism. It does not accept without challenge the claims
to detente. It gives credence to the challenges by Senator
Henry M. Jackson and others who are cautious in dealing
with the approaches to detente by President Richard M.
Nixon and Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger.
In his address at the function of the American Jewish
Committee in New York, Dec. 17, when UAW-AFL Presi-
dent George Meany was honored, Senator Jackson had
this to say on the crucial subject:
"Just six months ago, on June 22, Secretary Brezhnev
and President Nixon signed an 'agreement on prevention
of nuclear war.' In Article II of this document the Soviet
Union agreed to 'refrain from the threat or use of force
against the other party, against the allies of the other
party and against other countries, in circumstances which
may endanger international peace and security.' In ex-
plaining the agreement of June 22 at a press conference
following the signing, Dr. Kissinger emphasized that it
was part of an effort to 'calm the atmosphere and replace
purely military measures by a new attitude of a coopera-
tive international system.' He called it . . . a milestone
in the achievement of self-restraint by the major countries,
a self-restraint which is, by definition, the essence of
peace and which we intend to observe, which we expect
the Soviet Union to observe.' He described the agreement
as 'a formal obligation that the two nuclear superpowers
have taken toward each other, and equally importantly,
toward all other countries, to practice restraint in their
diplomacy, to build a peace that is permanent, to pursue
a policy whose dedication to stability and peace will be-
come' — and here Dr. Kissinger quoted Brezhnev —
'irreversible.'
"I leave it to you to decide whether the alerting of
seven fully mobilized divisions of Soviet airborne troops
along with a brutal and threatening note from Secretary
Brezhnev that was delivered the night of Oct. 25 is in
keeping, with the, agreement as Dr. Kissinger described it.
.
•
• •
•
I don't know whether the agreement to pursue peace and
stability is irreversible, but on the night of Oct. 25 it
became, like so much, else in Washington these days,
inoperative.
"The agreement of June 22, like the euphoric descrip-
tion of it by the secretary of state — indeed, like much
of the as yet unfulfilled promise of detente — has turned
out to be mere words: well said, perhaps, but mere words
— nonetheless. If you will forgive me for quoting King
Henry — Henry the VIII, that is, from Shakespeare: 'Tis
a kind of good deed to say well; and yet words are no
deeds.'
"If there is to be hope for a peaceful settlement at
the Geneva talks, we must have deeds as well as words,
performance as well as promise, substance as well .as
atmosphere.
"It is all very well for the Arabs to say that they are
prepared to make peace with Israel. Those words have
been a long time coming, and I welcome them.
"But peace must be more than a word, more than a
mere document that can be torn up when it suits the
convenience of aggressive governments to go to war again.
It must be something concrete. It must exist in the dail- -
lives of men, for only then can it eventually come to exl,
in men's minds as well; and only then — finally — can
it be secure. It is naive to imagine that the enmities of
decades will vanish with the stroke of a pen. But for a
peace treaty to be more than just a scrap of paper, it
must do more than simply move the walls that separate
Arabs from Israelis to a new location. It must permit
Arabs and Israelis to work together, to trade with one
another, to talk with one another, to see for themselves
the truth about their neighbors.
"One of_the most hopeful developments of the last six
years in the Middle East, in my opinion, has been the
progress that has been made in relations between Israelis
and Arabs on the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip.
Thousands of Arabs work and travel in Israel — in spite
of the efforts of grenade-throwing terrorists to stop this
by attacking Arab civilians waiting for buses to take them
to work in Israel, Thousands of Israeli citizens now visit
Arab towns which for almost twenty years they were
permitted to see only across barbed wire fences. This
progress has been truly remarkable. It has been made
under the inevitably imperfect conditions of a state of
war. It will continue unless we create artificial political
entities that deliver the Palestinian Arabs into the hands
(Continued .on Page, 5)