72 Friday, November 4, 1977 THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS
State Dept. Fails to Allay Jewish Community's Anger
Over the Handling of Israel's Needs and M.E. Peace .1
(Continued from Page 1
the Arab countries involv ed
"not a press conference"
sessions with Jew i sh
in the Geneva talks, rega rd- but a "background" orien-
spokesmen, to divide the
ing Palestinian represen ta-
ted session for the media? If
tion, Brzezinski said t hat
American Jewish comet u-
that session was not to be
Israeli Foreign Minis ter considered a "working
nity on the proble ms
involving Israel and the new Moshe Dayan "has f re- press" medium and there
quently drunk tea with t he
American policies.
was to be "no attribution,"
The reactions of both J ew- mayors of the West Ba nk.
how come these lines are
He
knows
very
well
t
he being typed for an eventual
ish leadership and the J ew-
relationship between the se
wide reading public?
ish editors was one of uni ty,
mayors and the PLO.")
Because there are no
rejecting pressures u pen
Brzezinski is accused of secrets, because the Jewish
Jewry and Israel, digni Eying .
formulating American pol- press
re did not have to reveal
PLO and resorting to • i
cy by emphasizing Ame ri- what had happened: the
threats against Israel. Did
can right to "leverage" in non-Jewish press already
they get the message t hat
dealing
with Israel. Doe 5 did it, both in relation to the
American Jewry is act
fri g
solidly, is united in its t his mean pressure? A Sta te Oct. 26 meeting with Jewish
Department spokesm
defense of Israel? Yes, sal d would have the comple an leadership and the Oct. 2R
te meeting with Jewish
Mr. Citrin, "They got t he s tatement read, not o ne editors.
•
message that Jewry is w ord out of context.
'Secrets will not be
united in support of Israe l's
revealed when stated that at
He did not convince eithe r
security and again s t the questioning editor or t
the session with editors Sec-
he
pressures."
ournalistic assembly. The retary Vance was flanked
That's how it happe ned State Department and t he by Alfred Atherton and
also at the editor's sessi on White House in the perso
liam Dyess. As deputy to
at State: They got the me s- o
Hodding Carter, Dyess
f Brzezinski - remain d
sage of Jewish unity.
under suspicion of plannin g assumes importance. Most
But there also was t he
ressires on Israel.
of the responses to protests
unmistakable affirmati on
What's State Departme nt
from Jews and appeals by
from the journalists' ra nks up to? The chief aim is t he
Jews on matters relating to
that the glib .prOmises wil
reconvening of • the Genev a
Israel are signed by
b Hod-
not be accepted witho ut
ding Carter.
Conference, and the plans of
scrutiny and that the reco
V ance and his associat es
They are stereotyped and
will speak for itself.
lengthy. They do not deviate
are to revive the brief se s _
The sum total of Jewi s
from an apparent estab-
ons of 1974 before th e
reactions, while Jewis
lished State Department
Christmas holiday period
leadership reacted i
policy. They are not person-
"Is this to be a Christmas
"anger" and "dismay" and
resent? — to whom?", on e
alined. They are now being
the editorial ranks - wi
for asked. The gist of t he
resented by many who feel
"doubt," can be summ
that there should be deeper
pute is over the PLO, an d
razed in the historic and tr
study into the occurrences
ecretary Vance ha 5
ditional Jewish admonitio
that create the unified Jew-
edged that PLO will n ot
a dictum from the Talmu
ish interest demanding life
recognized by the . U.S .
rooted in a traditional warn
protection for three million
The effort at such emphasi s
ing when one meets wi
kinsmen in Israel.
was serious. The pledge w as
antagnonists in high ranks
As a matter of fact, one of
peated: PLO will not be
"Kabdehu - v'hashdehu"
the eloquent editorial state-
presented at Geneva. Ye t
"Respect them and suspec
ments made to Secretary
Soviet Union received a
them."
Vance related to the Jewish
ance endorsement as a
This had special appl
experiences under Nazism
tal participant in th e
cation to the resentmen
out of which has grown the
rthcoming planned ses
that has been expressed
call for unity never again to
ons on the basis of the
over the role in the Israe
dely condemned join t permit repetition of what
Arab relations of Zbignie
had happened to the Six Ali-
SSR-U.S. agreement o n
Brzezinski, national secu
lion and not to tolerate any-
neva.
rity adviser to Presider
that would give the
Reaction
remains
that
th
e
Carter.
PLO the means to treat
r re-opened to the Sovie t
(Brzezinski — his fathe
Three Million more
nion on the basis o f
was a pro-Zionist friend o
similarly.
xpressed pro-Palestinian
Menahem Begin — in hi
Is there consistency in
m is an affront to Jewry
TV interview on Sunda
the new approach to the
well as to Isreael.
morning asked, "Can w e
issue that denies quest for a
Is State Department con
permit the Middle East to
Palestinian state but now
sist ent in its policies? Doer
deteriorate?" Israel i s it
endorses a Palestinian
take into account the
asked whether an abnegna-
ac cusations "dilly-dal _ Homeland? Legitimate
lion can also lead to deterio-
ri
lyi ng," and "zig-zagging,' • rights still is a term bandied
ration and whether zigzagg - de
by State spokesmen.
pending on who is
ing also spells
ad dressed, with Israel the
Even if there was to be no
deterioration.)
attribution in reference to
fav orite one day, the Arabs
(Brzezinski pointed out
the next? A State spokes:
statements made at the Oct.
that the formula for recon-
ma n denied there are
28 session Secretary Vance
vening Geneva was aimed
"zi gs" and "zags." He
may applaud this reporter's
at finding a way to over-
ins ists his Department is
temptation to quote him. He
come Israeli objections to
co nsistent, there are no
told the conferees:
the -PLO at the talks, add-
"zi gs" or "zags."
ing he did not want to be
"Israel exists, Israel will
too specific. Hinting that the
exist within secure
ow come this report is
West Bank Arab mayors
borders."
wri tten in this vein, when
might be an acceptable
it was declared at the out-
There are the frank aims
compromise to Israel and
set that the session was
of State De p artment: to
avoid misunderstanding
with the Jewish commu-
nity. The chief defense by
State is that it adheres
to UN Resolutions 242 and
338. Therefore the "zigging"
and "zagging" charges are
disclaimed in defense of the
assertion of consistency.
Therefore, the oil inter-
ests and pressures were
minimized. On the question
of the PLO Covenant which
threatens Israel's destruc-
tion, the State Department
seems to adhere to a veiw
that acceptance of Resolu-
tion 242 will mean abandon-
ment of the Covenant. It
does not go well with con-
cerned Jews.
Brzezinski was defended
and the Brookings Institute
Report was not rated an
influence on State Depart-
ment thinking.
There is an important
admission: PLO and USSR
"are not to be taken on
faith."
Why these sessions if
there are such disputes and
angry reactions to policies
of the U.S.? "We need your
perspectivies," is the
defined reply.
The Department's view is
that ."Jerusalem's status
was never considered final
and is yet to be resolved."
The spokesman said the
department would oppose
"a re-division of the city,"
but the matter is to be
resolved in negotiations.
There was a luncheon
given by State Department
for former Israel Foreign
Minister Yigal Allon after
the session with the Jewish
press. The Secretary also
rushed off at 12:15, after
conferring with the editors
for 75 minutes. Atherton
took over for the next 45
minutes and announced the
luncheon meeting with Allon
for which he too had to rush
off. Shortly thereafter, there
was the UN General Assem-
bly vote censuring Israel,
Chaim Herzog casting the
lone Israel opposition vote
to the 131 censuring dele-
gates. The U.S. and six
small states abstained. It
was too late to question
State on this vote.
* * *
President's Role:
Safire's Correction
Meanwhile, the White
House role becomes a mat-
ter of continued concern.
In the sensitive process of
White House assertions on
the Middle East situation, a
recent statement by Presi-
dent Carter has been called
to task by William Safire in
a column on the New York
Times—Op-Ed Page of Oct.
27, when Safire wrote:
WASHINGTON Oct. 26—
"They have never recog-
nized the right of Israel to
exist," said President Car-
ter of the Soviets, explain-
ing to an interviewer why
he was proud of the joint
USSR-U.S. statement on the
Mideast.
The President's assertion
is demonstrably false. If he
believes he has wrung this
concession out of the Soviets
in return for agreeing with
them to give the Palestinian
Arabs "legitimate rights"
to a state of their own, then
Mr Itarter has been grossly
misled.
Let us look at the Presi-
dent's statement in context,
as reported last week by
Saul Pett of the Associated
Press. Mr. Carter had just
observed how surprised he
was that something "com-
pletely innocuous" could
grab the attention of the
nation, such as the Soviet-
U.S. statement. He sought
then to show how far the
Russians had come toward
our position:
"In the past," President
Carter said, "the Soviets
have been just a complete
obstacle to progress. They
have been recalcitrant.
They have never recognized
the right of Israel to exist or
that an absence of complete
peace was an obstacle to a
solution of the Middle East.
They came so far.
"We looked upon that as a
great political acheivement
to remove a major
obstacle."
Mr. Carter's "great politi-
cal achievement" No. 1:
They have never recognized
the right of Israel to exist"
Not only has the Soviet
Union repeatedly recog-
nized the right of Israel to
exist, the Soviets were the
first to recognize the state
of Israel on May 15, 1948,
beating the Americans -to
that honor by 24 hours.
Through Iwo breaks in
diplomatic relations, the
Soviets have continued to
recognize Israel as a state,
and therefore its "right to
exist." Andrei Gromyko, in
a Dec. 21, 1973, speech to
the United Nations,
declared: "Israel was
granted that right (to exist)
by the very fact of the cre-
ating of that state by deci-
sion of the United Nations.
Possession of- that right was
confirmed by the estab-
li§hment in due course of
diplomatic relations wih
Israel by many states,
including the Soviet Union. -
What could be more clear?
In pitching for a Palesti-
nian state, the Soviets have
always stressed Israel's
right to exist even as they
supplied the Arabs with
arms: On Feb. 10, 1976, the
publicly announced Soviet
plan for the Mideast_
included "the right of all
countries involved in the
Middle Eastern conflict for
independence and secured
existence, namely the Arab
states bordering Israel and
Israel itself."
■
Even in the famed Secu-
rity Council Resolution 242
(which was delicately
ignored in last month's joint
statement ), the Soviets had
previously acknowledged
the "territorial integrity
and political independence
of every state in the area.'7
How, in light of 30 years
continuous recognition, and
with hundreds of Soviet
restatements of Isarel's
right to exist, could Presi-
dent Carter say "they have
never recognized the right
of Israel to exist"?
Okay. Now the Official
Correctors will explain that,
urn, you see, the President
- misspoke." But he does
not misspeak; he misthinks.
His foot is not so much in
his mouth as in his mind.
Mr. Carter really believes
he has bargained the
Soviets into recognizing
Israel's existence.
Mr. Carter's "great politi-
cal achievement" No. 2:
"They have never recog-
nized. . . that an absence of
complete _peace was an
obstacle to a solution of the
Middle East." -
That shows the President
has been led to believe that
he induced the Soviets into
accepting, for the first time,
the goal beyond armistice,
an end of the state of war.
But Leonid Brezhnev, in a
March 21, 1977, speech, said
specifically that "there
would be put an end to the
state of war between the
Arab countries involved in
the dispute and Israel, and
there would be established
relations of peace. - And
Resolution 242, with Soviet
agreement, calls for "termi-
nation of all claims or states
of beligerency." Again,
what could be clearer?
The stark fact is that the
President did not know what
he was doing, and to this
day is inexcusably
misinformed.
When he caved in to the
Soviets' "legitimate rights"
demand, and thus rigged
the Geneva conference to
force Israel to accept a
Soviet-armed radical state
on its border, he was told be
won two concessions, two
"great achievements." He
is thankful to the Soviets:
"They came so far."
Neither David Aaron at
the White House nor Anthony
Lake at State has the
inclination to expalin to the
President that he is using
false justifications for his
blunder, that what he calls
"great achievements" are
no concessions at all. It is as if
he traded away the cruise
missle in return for a
restatement of our clear
title to Alaska.
The Mideast does not lend
itself to quick study. Next
year, when our President is
better informed, is soon
enough to convene the par-
ties at Geneva.