Arab Lie and British Reply
Israel's enemies, in the ranks of the Arabs and their
cohorts resort to attritional war policies and to efforts to
destroy the philanthropic needs at aiding new settlers in
the Jewish state. Advertisements in the American news-
papers sponsored by Arab propagandists often sought to
undermine the relief agencies, especially the United Jew-
ish Appeal, with accusations that American dollars are
used for Zionist purposes. In a sense, this was a Fulbright
legacy. The ex-senator from Arkansas conducted a cam-
paign against the fund-raising agencies. Fortunately, the
attempts to declare Jewish philanthropic dollars non-
deductible items in IRS reports fell on deaf ears. The
supreme humanitarian agencies emerged unscathed.
Thee anti-humanitarian propaganda was renewed in
Arab-financed advertisements in the British newspapers,
and the most recent one made charges so fantastic in
nature that a journalistic scandal developed in England.
An ad that appeared in the London Times at a cost
exceeding $7,500 charged that British pounds that should
be used for needs in England were sent to Israel by
The Manchester Guardian refused to accept that
damaging ad. The London Times editors defended their
insertion claiming it was justified by journalistic standards
and freedom of the press. But the ad in question had
accused Jews of disloyalty because they _were philan-
thropic to their kinspeople, and the storm of protest has
opened a new chapter in analyzing newspaper ethics. The
protests against the ad in question indicate overwhelming
indignation at the blackmail procedures of Arabs whose
oil wealth gives them the arrogance to spread libels that
tend to disrupt amicable relations between Jews and
neighbors who could well be poisoned by Arab manufac-
It is important to note that the libels published in the
London Times met with proper rebukes from many
quarters. Sir Michael Hadow, former British-,ambassador
to Israel, now director of the Anglo-Israel Association,
clarified the true facts relating to the Arab charges in
the following letter which was published in the London
"That the publication of a certain advertisement
in your paper on December 11 would provoke quite a
flurry was clearly foreseen by you according to your
leader of today (December 12), "The Freedom of the
Advertiser." You yourself hinted in this at the probable
mendacity of many of the statements in the advertise.
ment. Others will doubtless deal with this aspect and
whether the advertisement was or was not subtle incite-
ment to anti-Semitism.
What seems to me dangerous in the advertisement
is that the casual reader may be misled into thinking
that by "British" money channelled to "Zionist" Israel,
Her Majesty's Government (i.e. the taxpayers' money)
is in some way involved. On this aspect I feel that I,
as an ex-member of Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service,
can offer authoritative and reassuring information.
While assistant and later head of the Foreign Office
Department dealing with Israel and the Arab countries
around her I was engaged in the 1950s in channelling
large sums of aid to the Arab countries —L12 1/2 million
a year to the Arab Legion, L3 1/2 million a year to Jordan
for economic development and so on. Our technical
assistance programs channelled through our Middle East
Development Division were almost exclusively directed
to the Arab countries. Even Nuri's oil-rich Iraq benefited
handsomely in various ways. HMG's contribution to
UNWRA for the Arab refugees has run into millions of
pounds since 1949 and continues. All the above repre-
sented the British taxpayers' money.
Against this our economic and technical assistance
to Israel was on a tiny, if efficient, scale and not one
penny of the British taxpayers' money went to support
the 750,000 Jews who had been driven out of Arab lands
and stripped of all their possessions.
So, the casual reader can rest assured — his money
has not been sent to Israel but to her needy neighbors."
Very effective among the many protesting letters
published by the London Times on the subject are the
pin-pointed comments by Philip Goodhart member of the
House of Commons, who stated:
It is true, as the advertisement by the "Committee
for Justice in the Middle East" (December 11) alleges,
that the Jewish community in Great Britain has con-
tributed millions of pounds over the past 25 years to
charities in Israel. It is equally true that a fortnight's
oil revenue from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Kuwait could
provide sufficient funds for the material compensation
and resettlement of every Arab Palestinian refugee.
It is true, as Mr. John Reddaway writes (December
18), that many of the 750,000 Jews who have moved to
Israel from Arab lands since 1948 went there voluntarily.
It is equally true that many Jews who stayed behind,
particularly in Syria, Iraq and Libya, have suffered
savagely. It is also true that many of the 750,000 Arabs
who left Israeli territory in 1948 went voluntarily
because of instructions given by the Arab National Com-
mittee at that time.
2 Friday, January 3, 1975 THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS
Lesson in Journalistic Ethics Out of London
Times Blunder . . . Quiet Diplomacy and the
Rejection of Wilsonian Open Covenants
It is true, as Sir Michael Hadow writes (December
14), that the British taxpayer has contributed millions
of pounds to the relief of Arab refugees in the past 25
years. Between 1950 and 1973 British taxpayers con-
tributed $128,574,254 to UNRWA. It is equally true that
during the same period successive British governments
made no direct contribution to the cost of resettling
Jewish refugees from Arab countries in Israel.
In the past 25 years contributions from the Jewish
community in Britian have helped to integrate Jewish
refugees into the mainstream of Israeli life. During
the same period, the contribution of British taxpayers
to UNRWA has been used, unfortunately, to stop the
integration of Arab refugees into the life of the Arab
countries where they now live.
It would be true to say that over the years the
Israeli Government's handling of this double refugee
problem in the Middle East has been a humanitarian
achievement of considerable proportions and a political
disaster. Meanwhile, the Arab Governments' handling of
this same refugee problem has been a humanitarian
disaster but a political triumph.
While there were Arab and Christian antagonists to
Israel who defended the London Times, the indignations
that were expressed proved heartening at a time when it
has been so easy to create hatred for Israel which is
tantamount to anti-Semitism. The Manchester Guardian,
which was pro-Zionist in the days of Chaim Weizmann's
residence in that city, has not been too friendly to Israel
of late, but it recognized the injustice of the Arab adver-
tizement and refused to publish it.
Journalistic standards in relation both to editorial
matter and advertising often demands scrutiny. It will
be recalled that about a year ago Detroit's afternoon
newspaper insisted upon appending the words "Political
Advertising" to a strictly philanthropic appeal. This com-
munity paid exorbitantly for the insult and the insulted
failed to reply! As in the instance of the British Jewish
community, local Jewry should have condemned that act.
It failed miserably in that respect. Perhaps the experience
with Arab blackmailers and the London Times will serve
as a guide for firmness and courage in preventing future
abuses that have now become Arab propaganda practice
of distorting facts and creating anti-Semitism with their
oiled currency. Newspapers that are bait for the libel
spreading Arab propagandists are as guilty as the spread-
ers of the prejudices.
Sanctimony from the Vatican,
Depredation for Israel
A holy season for Christians commenced with a de-
plorably negative note from the Vatican. Pope Paul VI
again turned to the subject of Jerusalem in his annual
Christmas message and he spoke of Jerusalem becoming
"the crossroads of a fraternal encounter of all those who
believe in one God."
Why has Paul VI failed to acknowledge that by
assuring freedom for all religions Israel has already
created such "crossroads"?
Where was the Pope prior to 1948 when Jews were
molested at the Kotel — the Wailing (Western) Wall?
Where was the Pope when, from 1948 until 1967, Jews
weren't permitted to enter the ancient City of David? It
took a war in 1967 for Jews to regain the right of free
entry to their ancient capital and holy places.
And while Israelis were understandably and properly
protecting Christian pilgrims to Bethlehem on Christmas
eve, the Christian mayor of that city had the audacity
to protest the presence of Israel's military protectors by
claiming that Arabs always respected Christian worship-
pers. Why hasn't he demanded similar respect for Jewish
worshippers and Jewish rights at Jewish holy places?
Consistency, when related to Jews by Christians,
where is thy sting?
Secret and Quiet Diplomacy
and Mankind's Peace of Mind
Abba Eban recently expressed disagreement with the
principle of "open covenants openly arrived at" which
was advanced in the post-World War I period by President
Last week, President Gerald Ford adopted a pro-Eban
attitude by advising representatives of national Jewish
organizations that the best way of achieving desired
results in behalf of emigres from Russia is through "quiet
In practice, the Eban-Ford views always predominated
and the Wilsonian principles never gained status other
than the ethical hopefulness for high goals in human
It hasn't been merely quiet diplomacy: it is secret
diplomacy that rules the world. Only final acts are openly
arrived at. Otherwise doors are closed to the public, to
the nations involved, when deals are made that often
affect the future of millions.
The established procedures therefore provide avenues
for gossip, for rumors that more often than not cause
disturbance and frequently arouse despair.
Detente, Israel, control of the arms race, economic
relations among nations — all are subject to the quietude
that is transformed into secrecy in diplomacy.
Hope for better days for mankind rests upon the
integrity of those who sit at the green tables and rule
over the destiny of nations. When trust is retained in the
honor of diplomats, their constituents, who are their
subjects, may acquire peace of mind.
Questions Regarding Generosity:
Rahamanim bnai Rahamanim Principle
Under Probe in Time of. Crisis
American Jewry was judged peculiarly in recent
months. Interviews with Israeli spokesmen, on television
and radio, at press conferences, have been challenged by
the question of whether the Jews of this country w -
cooling off towards Israel, if their gifts were decrea
philanthropically; and the answers were, invariably, thac
the devotions expressed in their responses to appeals by
the United Jewish Appeal have been heartening.
Of course, there can be no other answer, and the
interrogators must have been influenced by reports uni-
versally spreading that donations to worthy causes are
declining as a result of a recession that is paving a road
The Jewish tradition does not condone indifference to .
the needs of kinsmen who look to their fellow Jews every-
where never to abandon the oppressed and the depressed.
An old satirical reference to the irresponsible in the
ranks of Jewry had taken this form: A wealthy man had
rejected a plea for•help from improverished who knocked
at his door. The rich one was quoted telling his door-
keeper who answered a doorbell from a begging visitor:.
"Throw him out. He breaks my heart." This was a satire
rebuking the niggardly. In reality, the title rahamanim
bnai rahamanim—the compassionate sons of the com-
passionate — is inerasable from Jewish thinking and
The needy who look to American Jewry for sustenance
are not in Israel alone. They are in many lands, in the
ranks of those who seek haven in Israel when oppressed,
and a share in Israel's upbuilding among the many who
are determined to share in assuring a stronghold for the
Jewish spirit in retention of the historic legacy of national
Accumulating disturbing factors are more distressing
than the economic aspects which affect people everywhere.
The terrorism, the attempts to undermine tourism to
Israel, the reports of pressures from American sources
to reduce assistance to Israel — these contribute to con-
cern. But Jewish experience is to reject threats and the
more damaging the dangers to Jewish existence the more
generous and more prompt the task of coming to the aid
of those trapped by hatreds.
Faith has always defied danger and the faithful do
not shut their doors to the endangered. The present crisis
matches the most serious in Jewry's history. It is much
more than compassion — at this time. It is a matter of
self-respect and responsibility to the people under duress.
This is not a time to be depressed. It is a time for action.
Enemies, statesmen, news commentators and would-be
prophets keep talking of an impending war. In defiance
of such an augury or of approaching doom, the Jewish
answer is one of responsibility to those who must be
protected. It is rooted in faith and Jews never abandon
faith. Only by emphasizing such a message to the em-
battled kinsmen in Israel will Jews remain true to their
faith, to history, to tradition and to their self-respect.
The Unforgettable Jack Benny
The very mention of the name evokes a tribute to a
great entertainer, a possessor of a genuine sense of
humor that defies abusiveness, and a truly generous and
His interest in many causes was not flaunted. It came
There was evidence of it when he appeared at func-
tions for Jewish philanthropic needs, for Israel Bonds, in
support of orchestras, and to
encourage youth to build up
He came to Detroit to spur
efforts for Israel and a usually
handsome fee was cancelled.
He came here to play on
his violin with the Detroit Sym-
phony Orchestra and while he
was jesting he was earnest in
advocacy of devotion to a
favorite musical instrument.
Could there ever be a bad
word about one like Jack
Many changes had taken place in the entertainment
world during the 60 years of Jack Benny's career. Slap-
stick, sexual suggestiveness, racial slurs and many other
factors were in evidence in the contents of stage humor.
Jack Benny was not 'abusive. He was the comedian for
the family and he therefore contributed glory and avoided
abusiveness. He earned appreciation for such a role.
He is unquestionably among the most loved and he
leaves a wonderful legacy for entertainers and comedians
of the next generation.