2 October 31, 1975
THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS
Purely Commentary
The Sadat Visit: the Arab
Terrorists' Gall and Arrogance
The Sadat visit in this country should be another eye-
opener for all Americans. Israelis and Jews are concerned
about many things, but there is acknowledgement of reali-
ties that give an Arab chief as much right to visit in this
country as any head of state. But Arabs have mobilized
to spoil his trip, PLO backers are the protesters and one of
them, the hate-spreader Muhammad Mehdi, the advocate of
violence, went so far as to assert that the only Arab leader
who should have been invited here is Yassir Arafat.
How far can hate-inspired people go? Apparently there
is no limit to their machinations.
Meanwhile there was an interesting journalistic epi-
sode. Gamel Abdul Nasser's chief spokesman, Mohammed
Hassanein Heykal, who is now considered Egypt's top jour-
nalist, was interviewed in Washington by Bernard Gwerts-
man. The story appeared in the New York Times on Oct. 24.
Heykal, who was ousted from the editorship of Al Ahram,
the Egyptian government organ, by Sadat, was critical of
the Egyptian president's accord with Israel.
In high-priced attire, flaunting expensive Coronas, ac-
cording to Gwertsman, he adopted a negative attitude and
an antagonism to Israel, with a pro-Soviet tinge. The very
next day, on Oct. 25, the NY Times published a letter from
Heykal, softening his role, giving assurance that he does not
intend to oppose or harm the Sadat visit in the U.S. It never
— certainly seldom — happens that a correction to an inter-
view in Washington should be published in New York the
next day on the Letters to the Editor page of the NY Times.
It is a page planned just a bit in advance. But it happened
in the Heykal case.
The occurrence may not be as serious as it seems, but it
does indicate rifts which, in the Heykal case, point to the
Russian influence upon some Egyptians. It also shows that
Sadat isn't having an easy time with his diplomacy. What-
ever the speculation over Sadat's moderation, it, too, is en-
dangered. The PLO and the USSR pressures will not be eas-
ily removed by appeals to reason and justice.
Only a day after the Moynihan assertion that the Arab-
formulated anti-Zionist resolution in the UN will be treated
for what it is worth — as anti-Semitism — Sadat reiterated
an anti-Zionist ideology. He asked for territory for Palesti-
nians, ignoring the truth that they have it — in the Jordan-
ian area — but Zionism as an aim, as a home for homeless
Jews in some 10,000 miles of land amidst 4 million miles of
Arab possessions didn't count. The fooling of the public con-
tinued at the White House as well as at the National Press
Club.
Sadat Hasn't Fooled
All of the People
Anwar el-Sadat isn't a fool by any means. Why, then
did he resort to an anti-Semitic anti-Zionist harangue after
his speech at the National Press Club in Washington last
week? While asking for territory for the PLO — ignoring
the truth that the so-called Palestinians already have Jor-
dan and the Arabs have 20 states in millions of miles of
territory, he was in effect denying to Israel breathing space
in a small state of some 10,000 square miles.
Israel's former Minister of Defense Moshe Dayan un-
derstands the Arab mind perhaps better than the Arabs
themselves. In an interview he granted Harper's Magazine,
Dayan gave his answer to a related question:
Harper's: Do you think Egypt is now willing to
coexist with Israel, or is her goal to reduce Israel to
indefensible borders as a prelude to future attack?
Dayan: It is not a simple either-or situation. I be-
lieve that Egypt still wants, above , all, to see Israel
disappear altogether. But realistically, the Egyptians
have already fought four wars against us and lost all
four of them. So I think that rather than starting an-
other war, which they are quite sure they would lose,
they prefer to conduct a political offensive in the hope
of extracting large concessions from Israel, even terri-
torial concessions, and the withdrawal of our forces.
They have succeeded in getting the American State
Department to put political pressure on Israel. They
are exploiting the various interests of the Americans,
the Russians, and the Arabs, coupled with the threat
of an oil embargo. These are all political means. Not a
showdown of tanks against tanks, but political war-
fare to achieve the same result.
The facts are indisputable; the danger exists — the vis-
iting Arab potentate is no less menacing to Israel than his
neighbors, and Israel's role is clear: the battle for the right
and for secure survival hasn't ended.
Is Fortzug an Advantage?
Philip Gilbert was the first and others were to follow
to give advice on the Yiddish term for advantage. They
quoted Harkavy's which suggested fortzug. The mere fact
that modern lexicography didn't follow the usual excellent
interpretations in Harkavy's is because fortzug is not only
strange: it is puzzling. If this commentator, who may be
able to match Yiddishisms with most of his contemporaries,
were to be spoken to with a fortzug, he wouldn't know what
the addressee was talking about. We'll stick to a corruption
of the Hebrew: mayleh (maaleh).
By Philip
Slomovitz
Sadat Hasn't Fooled All of the People . . .
Anti-Semitism in the UN, Moynihan's
Courage and Sulzberger's Definition
Toynbee's Enmity Toward Jews:
Blight on Historian's Career
Arnold Toynbee was a great historian. All the more
reason for regret that his enmity toward Jews should have
become a major task in the latter years of his life. He tinged
his pro-Arabism with anti-Israelism and anti-Zionism. He
viewed Jews as "fossils" and during some exceptional Jew-
ish deviations from pacifism, when extremists resorted to
violence in the British days of prejudice against Jews that
was tantamount to pledge-breaking by the mandatory
power, he sunk to a low state of equating Jews with Nazis.
He had rendered a great disservice to history with his
antagonisms to Jews who were struggling for the right to
assure security for the survivors from Hitlerism. His venom
necessitated many replies by Jewish scholars and the late
Maurice Samuel was compelled to write an entire volume in
reply to the fossil depredation by the eminent historian.
Fortunately, Jews were not alone in their rejections of
Toynbee's poisonous writings. The rejections of his prejud-
ices include two most eminent Christian scholars, the late
theologian Dr. Reinhold Niebuhr and the eminent archeolo-
gist Dr. W. Albright, who wrote in statements they issued
in April 1955:
Reinhold Niebuhr: "I think that Professor Toyn-
bee is wrong in criticizing Jewish nationalism so sev-
erely. Nationalism may be in conflict with the general
universalism of high religion, but it is wrong for any
secure or satisfied nation to criticize the nationalism
of the subject peoples of Asia for trying to establish
themselves as independent nations, and it is equally
wrong to criticize a nation which had no homeland,
for seeking one. I think the error is particularly great
when we remember that the Jews were not only a na-
tion without a homeland, but that the new Jewish
homeland offered asylum to millions of Jews who es-
caped Hitler's terror."
W. F. Albright: "Toynbee is quite right, in my
opinion, in emphasizing the fact that Jews and Gen-
tiles react similarly under similar provocation, but he
is emphatically wrong in comparing Zionism to Naz-
ism. While I am myself deeply distressed by what has
happened to the Arab refugees from Palestine and I
have contributed repeatedly to their relief, I do not
think that it is fair to blame the Jews for the political
action _of the Moslem states. He might with the same
logic blame America for the Nazi genocide, because
American speculation in the twenties had no little to
do with the upset of the German economy which
helped materially to bring the Nazis into power in
Germany."
These quotes are by two unforgettable men — Albright
who had contributed very much to an understanding of the
Jewish developments in Israel and to the Zionist ideal; Nie-
buhr, whose theological liberalism had elevated him to the
ranks of the greatest men ever to hold a pulpit in any faith.
Unfortunately, an historian's published works are not
erasable. Therefore it is obligatory not to forget what Toyn-
bee had written at a time when, in tributes to his memory
upon his passing two weeks ago, the record should not be
perpetuated without indicating the blunders of a biased
writer.
.
The Sick United Nations
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the head of the U. S. delega-
tion to the UN, is the courageous spokesman who has given
warning that this country will not submit to the abuses of
the uncivilized and to the manifestations of obscenity by the •
dominantly undemocratic nations of the world.
Moynihan gave emphasis to the reality of Israel and to
that nation's role as one of a handful, perhaps 20, nations
among the 143 members of the UN who are truly demo-
cratic.
Many questions are still to be posed. Why, indeed, have
the Western European nations hesitated to act in the past?
Why have some nations who have diplomatic exchanges
with Israel endorsed the anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist resolu-
tion? Why have 27 countries abstained? Is fear still the dom-
inant human strain in a world choking with oil?
How is one really to judge the United Nations, the ideal
in which so much hope had been placed 30 years ago?
C. L. Sulzberger, writing under the title "The Path to
Easy Failure," in Sunday's New York Times, stated:
,
The United Nations is an increasingly incon-
venient organization for democratic societies be-
cause it can now be seen plainly as a built-in para-
dox from the start. More than half its current
problems stem from the fact that its Charter was
drafted largely by democratic constitutional law-
yers who understandably lacked the foresight to
realize Western democracies were doomed to a de-
creasingly effective position.
Of the U.N.'s 143 current members (recently
including Sao Tome, whose total population equals
India's daily growth rate), only about. two dozen
could properly be called democracies. It is at best
a strain for those unfamiliar with representational
institutions to accustom themselves to their use in
the East River's Glass Menagerie.
Philosophically, it is odd for an organization
based on democratic procedure to be dominated by
elements that neither understand democracy nor
wish to do so. A few years ago it was a widespread
hope that many newly independent Third World
lands might gradually become democratic. But the
trend is in the opposite direction. Anyway the
U.N.'s function is to compose differences, not con-
duct an ideological kindergarten.
The Russians have managed with considera-
ble skill to use a democratic system against democ-
racy in the U.N. and they may justifiably contend
that history's tide is with them. After all, they can
see voting happily together on key issues such dis-
parate voices as the Arab bloc, right-wing Chile
and left-wing China.
In other words, approximately half our asso-
ciates in the world parliament dislike our policies
as' a matter of principle. By the accident that sees
mini-states and maxi-states sitting together, an
approximate balance of population right now op-
posed to us is on about the same scale as national
votes.
These days the biggest issue, which could end
in destroying the U.N. as we know it, is the drive
to gradually disqualify and perhaps finally expel
Israel as a "nonstate" although it was in- a sense
created by the U.N. and blessed by its two super-
powers. This attempt violates the idea of the U.N.,
which should, in theory, be open to any recognized
state or idology — without qualification.
The concept of statehood is defined by interna-
tional law. If it extends to the Comoros or the Mal-
dives it obviously also extends to Israel and doesn't
pertain to her specific borders, now under negotia-
tion. Today's thrust is against "intruded" states,
meaning countries like Israel whose majority pop-
ulation displaced another and earlier majority.
If this bias is ever accepted, it should not be
forgotten that the United States, Canada, Haiti;
New Zealand, Brazil and Australia are all in-
truded states as well. Should Israel, a part of the
geographical area known as Palestine, revert to
Britain, its previous administrator? Or to Turkey,
which owned it before then? Should the U.N.'s
home, New York, be given back to the Indians?
The machinery of the U.N., is being slowly
bent in such a way that many members aren't even
aware of the implications. Nor is there much the
United States can do about it. After all, democratic
lawyers joined in devising the procedural system
now being used against democracy. The alterna-
tive of seeking Moscow's legal advice on how to re-
vise the Charter does not commend itself.
Who listens to Moynihan, and his two courageous asso-
ciates in the U.S.-UN delegation, Leonard Garment and
Charles Mitchell; and who reads the exposes of the UN fail-
ures? But they have to be said and written, and now there
is cause for gratitude to some people of courage.
Tragedies for Mankind:
Lebanon's Misery While UN
Submits to the Jungle
An occasional bomb, planted by insaned terrorists in
Israel, is at once cause for distress. Israelis retaliate only
against the organizers of such terrorist acts, who strike
from camps the existence of which has been permitted by
United Nations' blindness to realities and by Arab nations'
encouragements of the terrors.
The occurrences in Israel now emerge as isolated in-
stances of-inhumanism. The horrors in Lebanon are marked
by so many dangers for the entire Middle East that they
demand intervention by responsible denominations and by
the Western world.
In 1959, President Eisenhower sent the Marines into
Lebanon to prevent a calamity. Anything like that is incon-
ceivable now. This may be a time for the Vatican to act. A
million Catholic lives are endangered in that country.
Syria's threat to appropriate that embattled country
menaces the security of millions and could lead to a world
conflict. If there were a responsible United Nations it might
have been able to effect a sensible accord for amity among
Moslems and Christians. Could NATO step in to end the
tragedy? How would Russia react' to the situation?
At the moment there is silence, except for the noise of
gunshots that have resulted in thousands of casualties.
Now it is to be hoped that Israel will not be embroiled
in the conflict. Should Syria step in to absorb Lebanon, the
Israeli involvement may be inevitable. The cause of the Mos-
lem-Christian troubles is that the latter object to the activi-
ties of the terrorists, all Moslems, who are responsible for
Israeli attacks on their camps in southern Lebanon. The
sooner these camps are dissolved and terrorism uprooted,
the quicker will be the end of the present internecine strife
and bloodshed in Lebanon.
Is there hope for a solution there, as elsewhere, in the
Middle East? It is delayed, and the UN insanities are re-
sponsible for the world's illnesses.
.