Purely Commentary 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 Zionists. 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- tured lies. 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 Times: "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 Woodrow Wilson. 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 diplomacy." 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 relations. 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 By Philip Slomovitz 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 to depression. 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 practice. 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 redemption. 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 human being. His interest in many causes was not flaunted. It came naturally, sincerely. 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 good citizenship. 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 Benny? 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.