2 FrWaY, March 5, 19711

THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS

Purely Commentary

Challenge to Jewish Leadership . . . Proposal for
Double-Chambered Jewish Parliamentary System
for American Jewry . . . Role of Academicians

By Philip
Slomovitz

Critics to the Fore: Commentator Counters Parliamentary Proposal with View on Prevention of Stagnation

American Jewish leadership needs revision. The com-
munal structure may be in danger of tottering, unless it is
fortified by confidence from constituents.
Challenges caused by dangers usually bring forth qual-
ified leaders. Perhaps the emerging and growing concerns
over existing conditions will result in strengthened struc-
turing as well as new leadership.

The mere fact that the agonies of an age laden with
problems are prdbed only by criticism is an addition to the
communal malady. Out of criticism, however, must develop
the great creative changes so vitally needed and so urgently
awaited.

Perhaps the old guideline "wie christelt sich, so ju-
Jews suffer from the same maladies as non-
Jews — is applicable to the present situation. There is such
a tragic lack of leadership in America, and the world, that
the appalling state of affairs which is laden with tensions
is understandable.
How does one approach the problem, and wherein lies
the solution ?

delt sich"

—

Rabbi David Polish, a former president of the Central
Conference of American
Rabbis, noted scholar, Zion-
ist and an activist in Jewish
communal affairs, is among
the challenging critics who
has a proposal for action
supplementary to the work
of the Conference of Presi-
dents of Major American
Jewish Organizations. This
is the body that makes and
executes policies and is the
dominant group in Ameri-
can Jewish life. Dr. Polish
approves of the Conference
of Presidents and wishes it
continuity, but he proposes
RABBI DAVID POLISH
an addition, another cham-
ber, as means of extending the democratic process in per-
mitting others, in addition to the 32 representatives who
make up the membership of the Conference of Presidents,
to have a share in executing programs for the Jews of this
country.

Dr. Polish's proposal contains this definitive state-
ment:

First, it is becoming increasingly clear that Is-
rael must involve World Jewry in its counsels. The
situation is too critical for Israel either to act uni-
laterally or to indulge in what is only a pretense of
consultation with the Diaspora. Clearly, final deci-
sions must rest with the government of Israel, but
Diasporan Jewry must have a greater share in
communicating to Israel its concerns . . .

Despite the shattering effects of the post-1973
period with its harvest of overwhelming problems,
the most significant umbrella organization in
American Jewry, the Presidents Conference, has
changed neither its method of operations nor its
conception of its task. No one questions the devo-
tion and the capability of the members of the Presi-
dents Conference. But 30 some Jews, however
skillful, should not govern the affairs of American
Jewry (especially when the initiative is not always
theirs) without manifesting a greater concern for
awakening the fullest resources of the American
Jewish community.

I do not propose the creation of a new body.
Even if it were to emerge, this would only result in
yet another competitive national organization. In-
stead I propose that the Presidents Conference
expand its scope so as to include representation
from Jewish communities, regions and the aca-
demic community . . .

The mere dream of democratizing Jewish life is fla-
vored with euphoria. After all, there are traditions for two-
chambered parliamentarianism. Great Britain has the
House of Commons and the House of Lords. The United
States has its House of Representatives and the Senate.
But, does the fact that Israel has only one parliamentary
house, the Knesset, only one legislative chamber, contribute
to the ills that plague the land, to its economic difficulties
and security problems?
Israel has many troubles and it possesses many fac-
tions and political problems. In the process of ironing out
differences there are that nation's democratic approaches
which provide freedom for differing opinions. That's cause
for satisfaction. Out of it emerges parliamentary normal-
ism,
Differing opinions in American Jewish ranks equal
those in Israel. Perhaps they exceed them. Dr. Polish could

be correct if he were to state that the selection of personnel
for the Conference of Presidents does not equate the Israeli,
if he were to assert that the democratic procedure is lack-
ing. But it is not that as much as the indifference, the cal-
lousness, the lack of understanding and the failure to differ
that causes the chaos in American Jewish life. Why is Dr.
Polish among the very few who criticize, who ask for
changes, who propose supplementary action in dealing with
the critical situations? It is all ascribable to' complacency.
We have geniuses in fund-raising, lilliputian in solidifying
the tasks for action in behalf of Israel and in finding solu-
tions to a multiplicity of Jewish problems.
Should American Jews, the fund-raisers and fund-
providers, have a share in planning certain functions in Is-
rael for which the philanthropic dollars are provided?
Whose fault is it, if there isn't that type of cooperative ad-
ministrative action, if not that of the spokesmen for the
Jews of this country who commute between here and Israel
and succeed in nothing more than repeating cliches and em-
phasizing the monetary solicitations?

The most recent so-called international gatherings in
support of Israel, held in Jerusalem, were such utter flops
that they aroused ridicule among the realists. But the pub-
licity-seeking, sensationalizing spokesmen do not seem to
learn from experience. They have permitted a political La-
bor Party to dominate and to dictate selection of heads of
the major Jewish movements, they seldom say new words
in their propaganda, they fail to win the confidence of their
constituents. But the latter don't seem to 'care a damn, be-
cause they have been poorly trained to become what is so
urgently needed — an intellectual aristocracy in the sense
of Jewish historical experiences.

Rabbi Polish is too tolerant. If there is to be fault-find-
ing let there be no limit to criticisms and to demands for
improvements in Jewish communal functioning and leader-
ships. Let there be an end to complacency and let there be
consideration of the wastefulness in Jewish life.
Why the multiplicity of Jewish organizations? Why ov-
erlapping in civic-protective labors? Why does every Jewish
group need a published house organ and a glorified public-
ity department? Why the vanity journalism if not for the
sake of self-glorification by heads of Jewish movements?
The whys can be multiplied to indicate waste of vitality
and a lack of effort for positive accomplishments.

Rabbi Polish does well in his criticisms. He has ex-
pressed them in his published articles, in an address at a
convention of the Zionist Organization of America, at ses-
sions of the Central Conference of American Rabbis. His
courage is commendable. Does a double-barrelled Jewish
parliamentary body provide the solution? What good is it if
the constituents are unknowledgeable and indifferent?
Train the community better, make education practical and
applicable, encourage unlimited criticisms on a par with the
fearlessness of Rabbi Polish, and there will be hope for a
solution to the stagnations in Jewish life.

Diaspora Role in Israel
This business of American Jews sharing in certain ave-
nues of Israeli functions recalls a very early squabble which
caused a serious rift in the Zionist Organization of America.
Dr. Polish surely knows about the defections by men like
Judge Louis Levinthal, Louis Lipsky, Ezra Shapiro, Israel
Goldstein and others. They formed the fallacious American
League for Israel which came to the fore only for World
Zionist Congresses at which the handful was granted con-

Protestors Not Silenced

siderable (unjustified?) representation.
The charge then was that ZOA leaders were meddling
in Israeli affairs, and the defectors insisted upon a "keep
hands off" policy as the reason for forming a new party that
never amounted to much and should never have been
formed.
Therefore the caution in many ranks when speaking
about American Jewry's active participation in certain in-
ternal Israeli affairs. Only the Labor Party seems unaf-
fected and keeps having its role in Israel through Histadrut.

All of this- still is debatable — depending on the kind of
role expected by Diaspora Jews in Israel's affairs.

Erosions and Academicians
Vital to this discussion is the problem of erosh,
Admittedly, American inter-
est in Israel has eroded a bit,
although Congress remains
adamantly supportive of Is-
rael. The most depressing fac-
tor is the erosion of interest
in Jewish ranks. On this sub-
ject, the following note to this
Commentator from Prof.
William Haber, adviser to the
president at the University of
Michigan, offers a brief but
very effective summation of
existing needs:

The government,
that is Kissinger and
Ford, may still favor
this or that appropria-
DR. WILLIAM HABER
tion. If public erosion
continues, however, even those who are taking a
favorable stance toward Israel and the government
cannot continue to do so. I urged Dinitz to set up a
group of 25 or 30 well-known academic people from
10 or 15 of our most distinguished universities and
consult with them at least as frequently as the am-
bassador or the visiting ministers consult with the
Committee of Presidents of the Jewish Organiza-
tions.
There are nearly half a million Jewish stu-
dents on the university campuses and nearly 10
million others. Ten percent of the faculties happen
to be Jewish, and in the distinguished universities
the percentage is closer to 20. In addition, they
have an objectivity which does not often character-
ize those who lead organizational life. I was
pleased when Prime Minister Rabin was here.
Such a meeting did take place with about 40 such
professors and I hope it continues.

The fact is that academicians as well as students have
been unresponsive to Israel's and world Jewry's crises. Only
on occasions, as in the instance of Prof. Haber's continuing
devotions to Israel and to Jewry, is a collegian heard from.
The many thousands of Jewish professors seldom speak
out. It takes a great crisis to awaken some of them.
That is why the Near Eastern departments in universi-
ties are ridden with anti-Israel and anti-Zionist sentiments
which often make their classes sources of anti-Semitism.
So — there is much to think about, much to be done, a
great many problems to tackle, new fields to explore for
justice to the Jew and to Israel. The fact that the subject is
now openly discussed offers consolation that better days
must be in the offing.

Reject USSR Propaganda

An unending flow of propaganda from the Soviet Union, through Novosti, the USSR embassy in Washington, and
other sources shows to what extent the Russian authorities will go to disprove charges of discrimination and in the
process to attack Israel and Zionism. What it proves is that the USSR is concerned about the condemnations of anti-
Semitism and the obstructions to Jews seeking exit visas.
Soviet Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs Boris Shumlin is one of the spokesmen for the USSR whose article in
New York Times defending the Russian emigration policies was widely distributed. But his claims invited disproval
Russian Jews and four eminent Russian Jewish academicians, B. Lavich, S. Alber, N. Meiman and L. Korenfeld, wro e
the New York Times from Moscow, Feb. 6 — the letter appearing in the Times on Feb. 26:

The Feb. 3 Op-Ed article about Soviet emigration, written by Gen. Boris Shumilin, Soviet Deputy
Minister of Internal Affairs, might have given your readers a distorted impression about the actual state
of things.
The author mentions the considerable decrease of the number of emigrants. In particular, the number
of Jews who left this country in 1975 turns out to be only about a third of the number that left in 1973. He
acknowledged that some categories of people are kept in the country, even produced a figure: 1.6 percent
of the total number of those having left the country within 30 years.
That figure evokes our strongest doubts: In 1975 about 2,000, or 14 percent of a total of 13,700 wishing to
leave, were refused or the refusal was confirmed.
The procedure of considering applications for exit visas is in fact far from what the author endeavors to
present. This is the reality: Persons unknown, guided by instructions unknown and proceeding from moti-
vations unknown, return their verdicts in the absence of those applying. In case of refusal, one is deprived of
the right to choose his place of residence, a right established in the General Declaration of Human Rights
and solemnly confirmed in Helsinki.
(Continued on Page 6)

