Purely Commentary
A spirit of gloom is invading not only the Middle East and Israel but Jews
everywhere and much of mankind.
Note the somewhat disparaging comment in an article from Paris by Joseph
Alsop who, in another of his valuable analyses of world conditions had this to say:
". . Our part of the world will be near fatally weakened in the event of another
outbreak of war in the Mideast, at the other end of the Mediterranean, with the result-
ing long supply line to Israel. Now, for the first time, the destruction or brutal
amputation of Israel are quite imaginable possibilities. Yet who can imagine that
Western society will survive the poisons engendered by so hideous an event?",
Even the most unimaginable fear of a possible new conflagration in the Middle
East is frightening and such a possibility may well be viewed as inevitably leading
to another world war. Especially distressing is the contribution toward such fears and
dangers by statesmen, diplomats, news analysts, and commentators. Many carry
grudges, some are most regrettably misled. It is therefore especially distressing that
so distinguished a columnist as James Reston of the New York Times should have this
to say •
"During the congressional elections, this worldwide issue was argued out in the
streets and on the political barricades of America as a struggle for the votes of the
friends of Israel, but the election is over now, and the President and the .new Congress
are going to have to re-think the problem in terms of world peace.
"Ironically, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, William
Fulbright of Arkansas, probably the most severe critic of Israel in the Congress of
the United States, is almost the only influential politician in Washington who has argued
for years that (a) Israel should pull back to `approximtely' her 1967 borders and
internationalize 'the Old City of Jerusalem,' but (b) that it would be unfair to ask her
to do so without a direct American treaty guarantee of Israel's independence and
territory.' "
There are three blunders—one of them an injustice—in the Reston article. The
blunderous injustice is in the repetition of the nonsense about Jewish influence in
relation to voting power. What about the many Christians who adhere to the Zionist
ideal? Either the cause of a secure Israel is just or those who would impose a genocidal
fate unon the Jewish state are correct.
Exception must _be taken to two other elements—the acceptance of Fulbright
as a prophet and the view that he is sincere about an American guarantee. Fulbright
was never a Daniel come to judgment, and the lame duck senator always knew damned
well that an American guarantee might imply troops and military support, something
the American people will not approve of and Israel won't ask for. Meanwhile,-we have
the immorality evidenced in the United Nations. ,Former Israel Foreign Minister Abba
Eban, certainly the most reputable authority on conditions affecting the UN, galls for
justice in the matter involving the PLO. In recent speeches and in an impressive state-
ment published in the New York Times he declared these truisms:
In its present mood and structure, the United Nations would refuse to 'endorse
the Ten Commandments on account of their Israelite origin. Today the United Nations
wearily embraces the terrorist movement, which it recently sought to condemn.
Precedent is sometimes a balm for the agitated conscience. Some of those
at the United Nations who voted for the invitation for the PLO to appear have
said that "resistance" leaders have often passed from terrorist violence to national
leadership and international respectability. It is also said that in the history of
revolutionary violence an intense patriotic and moral conviction has often been held
to excuse the methodt by which it has been expressed.
Both analogies are false. There have been resistance movements which lib-
erated Algeria from France, Kenya -from Britain, Indonesia from the -Netherlands.
But they did not seek the elimination of France, Britain and the Netherlands from
the map of history or a denial of their national personality.
The PLO, on- the other hand, frankly aims to liberate Israel from Israel.
It commits the heresy of denying that Israel lies at the origin, "the heart and the
center of Middle Eastern history. Its aim is "politicide"—the murder of a - state.
There are some who find it difficult to endorse the concept of national particu-
larity when the nation happens to be Jewish. This is the modern face of anti-
Semitism. Classical anti-Semitism proclaimed that all individuals within society are
endowed with equal rights unless they are Jews. The new anti-Semitism says that
all distinctive nations have an equal right to their domain of sovereign independence
unless the nationhood at issue is Jewish.
Realism and resistance play their roles in the present situation. Mr. Eban has
outlined the reality of a status that is being muddied in the UN, and he has also, at
the same time reasserted in the name of justice a right to resistance to injustice.
There will be no submitting to terrorism, blackmail or submission to any threats of
destruction. As Mr. Eban has outlined it:
Those who advocate a Palestinian state do not even trouble themselves to
make clear whether they mean for that state to be established instead of Israel,
or together with, and side by side with, Israel.
We do know that the PLO prOelaims the first of these propositions. It has said
so in its Covenant:
"The establishment of Israel is fundamentally null and void." (Article 19.)
"The Jews are not one people with an independent personality." (Article 20.) "The
liberation of Palestine will liquidate the Zioniit presence . . ." (Article 22.)
To any such proposition, whether expressed in the slogan of a democratic
Palestinian state, or any other formula for obliterating Israel's personality, the
Israeli response will be resistance—implacable, unreserved and, I believe, triumphant.
If there is a thought about a Palestine side by side with Israel, the key lies
in what I said on behalf of the Israel government at the Geneva Conference last
December:
"Our negotiation with Jordan will define the agreed boundaries and other
conditions of coexistence between two states occupying the original area of the
Palestine Mandate—Israel and the neighboring state. The specific identity of the
Palestiniani and Jordanian Arabs will be able to find expression in the neighboring
state in peaceful cooperation with Israel."
The mere fact that a clear-cut case of a people's right to reject genocide and
another holocaust needed further clarification is in itself proof of the emergence of
gangsterism on the international arena. Clarity has been defined anew in world Jewry's
declaration of solidarity with Israel's determined will to live.
2—Friday, Nov. 15, 1974
THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS
Agonies Created by Diplomats, the UN, Disputable Media
Analysts Get Proper Reply in Abba Eban's Declarations . . .
Conservatives' New Regulations and Need for Sanhedrin
• By Philip
Slomovitz
Conservative Regulations Point to Need for Sanhedrin
Regulations on food and dietary laws generally belong and are discussed and
reported in women's sections of a newspaper since it is the manager of the kitchen
who supervises these matters. Yet there is a new development that makes it mandatory
for the conflicting dietetics to be given special consideration.
In behalf of the Rabbinical Assembly of the Jewish Theological Seminary, the
organization of Conservative rabbis, Rabbi Seymour Siegel, chairman of the committee
on Jewish law and standards, issued a set• of interpretive regulations which touch on
Many matters involving kashrut.
Some of them are so challenging to thought and action, they are so revolutionary
in matters that have been puzzling — some have been confusing they call for serious
consideration on a much wider scale.
For an understanding and appreciation of the issue now raised editorially, it is
necessary to quote a few of the new regulations. Among them, taken at random. axe
the following capsules from Rabbi Siegel's statement in behalf of his committee
and standards:
2) Practice of using for both meat
Sturgeon—Both varieties are considered
dairy should be discouraged becauseL
kosher. Question has been reopened and is
will lead to abolition of basic distinctions.
presently on the agenda of the committee.
Kashering—In case of expensive dishes
Swordfish—Is considered kosher. Rea-
even thOse that are not china, and people
son: Ichthyologists report that swordfish
want to have a kosher home, dishes should
retain scale until •they are approximately
four feet long. Rabbi Efrati of the kashrut not be used for one year and then can be
considered kosher.
division of the Israeli Rabbinate concurs
in an article published in Hapardes (No-
Utensils used for meat cannot be kash-
vember 1965 p. 10, December 1965 p. 10).
ered rso that they may be used
Vegetable Shortening—According to De-
for dairy or vice versa except in absc-
partment of Health, Education and Wel-
lutely urgent cases.
fare any article labeled as vegetable
Silverware and metal are kashered as
shortening should consist of only vegetable
follows: Thoroughly cleansed and then
material. 'It makes no difference if the
dipped in boiling water.
adjective "pure" is mentioned.
Teflon—Is permitted on basis of a state-
Vitamin A—Considered kosher' no mat-
ment made by Alcoa's staff - metallurgist.
ter what its ingredients are since it is
Teflon does not contain any animal fats
used for medicinal purposes.
nor is it derived from animal fats.
Wine (Setam Yaenam) — Permitted.
Sale of Kosher Meat—
Reasons:
II I no longer exists.
Butcher shop that sells groceries and
,Wine is processed by machine and un-
dairy products, the proprietor must wash
touched by human hands (contact made
hands and change aprons when going from
by testers and tasters is by means_ of
meat counter to dairy counter an vice
utensils). The wine is pasteurized and
versa. '
Meat sold by a non-Jew, even if it has
As I (Even
Therefore is considered
a plumbe, is treif, if it is not packagod.
though it doesn't boil it fits definition of
Only meat in a closed and sealed container
(1"fq which is !AA /4N CI t4Pf ). How-
may be sold by a non-Jew to a Jew.
ever, Israeli wine should be used when-
Officiating at Non-Kosher Affairs-
ever possible, especially for ritual pur-
1) Rabbi may officiate even when he
poses. This heter doesn't apply for Pass-
knows that the dinner will not be kosher.
over, and it is also restricted to _wines
However, he should not put in an appear-
made by machines and not to wines made
ance at the social function. Various regions
by hand.
of the R.A. have decided to bar members
Corning Ware-
. from officiating at such functions.
1) Is to be' considered as glass.
2) Rabbi should not participate in a non-
2) Is regarded, as pyrex and glass.
kosher dinner conducted by a Jewish or-
- Dishwasher—May be used for both meat
/
and dairy provided a full wash cycle is run ganization.
between the use of each. This applies to
Eating Fish and Cooked Vegetables in a
both metal land rubber covered trays
Non-Kosher Restaurant—"Does not consti-
which are considered to be (ck ' g)
tute a violation of the principles of kash-
Earthenware—glazed—is still considered
rut.."
earthenware and not china.
`The minutes- of the committee of May
13, 1952 state "It is the opinion of the
Glass dishes-
_ 1) Can be used for meat and dairy pro- committee that fish dinners in non-Jewish
eating places shall not be construed - as a
vided food is cold and dishes are washed
violation of dietary laws."
between the use of each.
'
re
Reform Jews are not involved in this. They will surely go alofig with their Con-
servative fellow Jews. But what about the Orthodox? How will they react? Will they
accept the interpretations which surely permit some negations and acceptance of many
popularized practices? Will the liberalizations please a segment in our community that
has battled against many other changes in synagogue services, in social actions, in
family functions?
The issue is picked up here from the Conservative ranks in the interest of a much
larger problem, as means of reviving an interest in calling into being a Sanbedrim ithat
'n
could unify Jewish ranks and might even create cooperative bases to eliminate
Jewish ranks.
For a brief pAiod in Israel, it was hoped that Chief Rabbi Shlomo G'oreirlk
favor the convening of a Sanhedrin. Whatever the case, he is no longer its sponsor,' ono.
it is becoming more difficult with time to secure the consent of the Orthodox rabbi-
nate to an assembly of Jewish spiritual leaders and scholars for the purpose of fitting
Jewish practices with the needs of the present time and conditions.
Effecting changes would not be a new practice in Jewish life. There are
traditions in favor of changes. The regulations affirmed by the Conservative rabbis are
revolutionary in many respects, and they are certain to create controversy. With differ-
ences, especially in religious matters—and kashrut is a religious one—often go enmities.
Families are split, communities undergo divisiveness, and unity is deferred.
It is doubtful whether an appeal to reasonable action will induce the opponents of
the Sanhedrin idea to consent to the consideration of its being convened, either in Israel
or in a major Jewish community like New York or London.
- Nevertheless, the , statement quoted from the rabbinical rules of the Rabbinical
Assembly suggest again the need for a Sanhedrin so that acceptable practices and
changes demanded by modernity may be introduced.
The idea that a Sanhedrin should be re-established is proposed very often. It ends
either in a dream or as a rebuff from those who could effectuate it. On the basis of
past experience, the revival of the idea transforms this editorial into a dream.