2 Friday, Aigdst 18, 1918
THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS
Purely Commentary
By Philip
Slomovitz
A New Deal in the Offing . . President Carter's
Leadership Augurs Courteous Approach to Middle East
Solution, With an Elimination of Vendettas
The New Page for Peace Envisioned by Begin and Seen as a Carter Achievement
Menahem Begin welcomed the approaching tri-national conference at Camp David as
opening "a new page for peace" between Israel and her Arab neighbors. Not exactly in the
same words but in a similar diplomatic sense, Dr. Henry Kissinger echoed this senti-
ment. It is all to the good.
There have been many suspicions about the "zigzagging" in the White House and the
State Department in dealing with the tactics of Anwar Sadat. Apparently, Secretary of
State Cy;us Vance had his most successful diplomatic tour by achieving the consent of
the Israeli and Egyptian leaders to join President Jimmy Carter in Camp David talks.
Now the heads of the three governments are in business for real and there is greater hope
for some sort of accord in solving the Middle East issues.
It may well be that out of this may emerge a new Carter, with an image of realism and
an ability to heal the wounds that were inflicted in a campaign that was marked by a
vendetta against Israel's prime minister.
Even at the moment when a three-nation conference was in the making with an aim to
end animosities, the hatred for Begin was still in evidence. Why would a news commen-
tator like Howard K. Smith say this on the very evening of the call to the September
conference at Camp David: "If the September meeting fails Begin will be remembered as
the man who killed peace." This was uttered either after or while Begin was hailing the
new approach by Carter who is convening the Camp David conference. Smith's confreres
must feel a sense of shame that any one in their ranks should be carrying on a vendetta of
hate. There is no other way of judging such prejudicial comments.
The Wilsonian 'Open Covenants'
and the Achievements That
Need Shelving of Notoriety
Political waters have been muddied to such an extent by
the airing of major international issues by the media before
the problems could be adequately discussed by the states-
men involved in the disputes, that an old principle now is
under challenge.
When he promulgated his Fourteen Point peace program
in an important declaration to the U.S. Congress, on Jan. 8,
1917, President Woodrow Wilson was echoing the public
indignation over the carving of territories by European
powers without the consent of the governed. He developed
the thesis of "open covenants openly arrived at." But in
practice it was a different tale.
George E. Gruen, who directs the department of Middle
Eastern affairs of the American Jewish Committee and
who has taught at Columbia and City Universities in New
York, offers an important explanation of what may appear
as an inconsistency in statesmanship. He points out that
while President Wilson rejected "secret diplomacy" and
resort to "secret covenants," in his historic declaration of
Jan. 8, 1918, towards the end of that year, in December of
1918, he was a party to shutting out public discussions of
the issues that were to be resolved after World War I.
Gruen's analysis is of considerable significance at this
time. He states:
After President Wilson arrived in Paris in De-
cember 1918 he posted U.S. Marines outside the
conference room to make sure that there were no
leaks to the press on the conduct of the negotia-
tions. The President quickly had had second
thoughts about the wisdom of his ringing phrase
"openly arrived at." The official U.S. interpreta-
tion of the 14 points submitted by Col. Edward M.
House, Wilson's foreign affairs adviser, to the Al-
lied powers explained that the phrase "was not
meant to exclude confidential diplomatic negotia-
tions involving delicate matters. The intention is
that nothing which occurs in the course of such
confidential negotiations shall be binding unless
it appears in the final covenant made public to the
world."
It is time that the Carter Administration learned
the lesson of the Wilsonian experience and scru-
pulously distinguished between the need for se-
crecy in the process of negotiation and the re-
quirement in a democracy that the international
commitments resulting from agreements be
known and approved by the people. Unfortu-
nately, the Carter Administration has thus ,far
frequently confused the two and has prematurely
made public specific ideas and proposals of its
own that have only complicated the negotiating
process. If repeated, such public diplomacy may
well destroy the basis for successful negotiations
at this delicate stage.
While Israeli and Arab leaders have also been
guilty at times of injudicious public remarks, the
government of the United States has a special ob-
ligation to weigh its words carefully if it is not to
jeopardize its position as mediator, enjoying the
trust and confidence of both sides. Whenever a
pronouncement is issued by the President of the
United States or other high American official, it
naturally provokes a public response by the par-
ties. Whether motivated by Israeli domestic polit-
ical considerations or by Egypt's need to counter
external Arab opposition, the result is an un-
necessary hardening of position and exacerba-
tion of friction.
Why did a New York Times editorial brand Begin and Israel with "rigidity" without
taking into account Sadatian rigidity and a possibly rigid White House attitude? There
has to be a measure of fairness in judgments.
Therefore, while a vendetta persists, one in which Sadat had a role which he now
hopefully will alter, there is hope for an emerging strength in the White House to
overcome the bitterness and to help create amity where war-mongering predominates.
But the vendetta and the war threat can, as it must, be eliminated very soon.
President Carter may be on the road towards a new role in making history. There is no
doubt about his sincere desire for peace in the Middle East. At Camp David in the
Maryland mountains, on Sept. 5, he may prove consistency in his diplomacy. He has an
opportunity to contribute towards the elimination of resort
to epithets while statesmen gather to strive for peace. He has
the blessings of all Americans in the striving for peace
among nations and a sense of cooperation by all the leaders
in the dispute to be resolved. Perhaps he can also succeed in
ending the vendetta against Begin towards which Sadat has
contributed a great deal, with Cairo Radio ABC News Corn-
mentator Smith have shared rather nastily.
Now the "new page" hailed by Begin is about to be opened
for a message of good will to be recorded for generations to
come. This is a gesture for which, it is hoped, Preicient
Carter will earn the blessings of the generations.
JIMMY CARTER
•
Moreover, American declarations on such sen-
sitive issues as borders and Palestinian rights are
interpreted as a form of pressure by Israel since
the United States is not simply an honest broker
but is Israel's major political support and virtu-
ally sole source of military and economic aid.
Public American declarations critical of Israeli
positions also strengthen the Arab view that there
is no need to negotiate seriously with Israel, since
if they just wait long enough the United States will
lose patience and make Israel an offer it can't
afford to refuse. This is a misreading of the under-
lying support for Israel within the United States
and the capacity of Israel's people to go it alone if
pushed to the wall. Heightened tension and re-
newal of conflict are the likely outcome if Israel is
faced with what it regards as Munich-style sell-
out.
The Carter Administration has, of course, re-
peatedly denied that it intends to impose a settle-
ment and Vice President Walter Mondale, at his
press conference in Jerusalem on July 3, pledged
that American economic and security assistance
to Israel "will not be held hostage as a form of
pressure to influence Israel's negotiating post-
ure." He added, however, that "we reserve the
right to make suggestions, to propose ideas .. ."
The United States can occasionally play a use-
ful role in suggesting formulations to bridge the
gap between the parties, as Dr. Kissinger did dur-
ing the arduous and lengthy shuttle negotiations
that led to Israel's two Sinai disengagement ag-
reements with Egypt and the Golan Heights ag-
reement with Syria. But Kissinger's insistence on
maintaining confidentiality during the negotiat-
ing process was a key element in its ultimate suc-
cess. The same approach was followed by Dr.
Ralph Bunche in successfully bringing about the
conclusion of the 1949 series of Armistice Agree-
ments between Israel and her four Arab
neighbors.
Egypt took the lead in 1949 and.if the current
bilateral negotiations are fruitful they may
prompt other Arab states to follow.
The way for the Carter Administration to fecal-
tate the serious give-and-take necessary to
achieve an Egyptian-Israeli first peace is to ref-
rain from public presentation of its own ideas.
The United States should instead prod the parties
to persevere and to engage patiently and with
persistence in quiet negotiations far away from
the glare of the television cameras.
These views compel serious consideration of the current
occurrences in the Middle East. There is so much confusion
that the spo'-.esnien for Israel, Egypt and the Unif Kt States
often are locked upon with suspicion as to the s..cerity of
their approaches to the vital problems affecting an impor-
tant area of the world and perhaps the .-ecurity of all man-
kind.
The debating of the needs for peace in the Middle East
has become a merchandising subject for the media. Every
columnist and news analyst poses as an authority. Person-
ality abuses have become the order of the day. The Presi-
dent of the United States is accused of having favorites, and
therefore the opponents of the fa. , ored feel slighted, but
because they would not add to whatever venom may de-
velop they, too, act the flatterers of the all-powerful.
It is all confusion, worse confounded. The airing of views
by self-appointed judges of issues that are vital to the very
lives of millions of people while the politicians are juggling
the facts all adds to the doubts whether "open covenants"
really are the means of arriving at solutions involving
human beings whose needs demand elimination of notori-
ety.
Isn't it reasonable to believe that in the quiet of non-
sensationalism it will be easier to bring the parties in the
Middle East dispute together with greater assurance of
realism. Won't such an approach eliminate epithitets,
shouting matches, name-calling, talks through both sides
of the mouth for public consumption while the problems
themselves thus become unintelligible?
George Gruen's explanatory notes deserve not only study
but also application to the realities of a situation in the
Middle East that demands not debates by the unknowing
who crave a public arena but by knowledgeable statesmen
who may, without interfering shouts from a confusing
arena, deal with facts and seek amity. In an atmosphere of
noiseless sincerity, even if it must be behind closed doors, it
may be much easier to make concessions workable and
peace approachable.
Personalities Who Built Their Monuments in Their
Lifetime . . . Tributes to Michael Michlin, Shmuel Ussishkin
Communities are judged
by the personalities who
mold them. When there is a
death of one who had a crea-
tive role in his generation,
the tributes he or she merits
become part of the apprecia-
tion of the community's
gifts to its people and to
mankind.
Michael Michlin's name
merits special consideration
in the evaluation of Greater
Detroit Jewry's progressive
attainments. Especially in
the fields of Jewish educa-
tion and Zionism, Michael
Michlin was among the
sages.
He was much more than a
pioneer in the field of Heb-
rew education. He was a
master pedagog, and he was
an inspirer of devotion to
Jewry among the hundreds
who studied under his
tutelage.
Whatever was noble in
the role of the melamed of
old was embodied by Mr.
Michlin in the progressive
methods he had introduced
and pursued together with
the American Jewish
pedagogs.
Such a record might have
been impossible without
Mr. Michlin's deep in-
volvement in the Zionist
movement. He was in the
ranks of most devoted
workers. He was in the di-
rectorate of the organized
Zionist movement that wel-
comed Chaim Weizmann to
Detroit in 1920 and served
on many important commit-
tees for the cause.
On the world scene, the
passing of Prof. Shmuel Us-
sishkin is another reminder
of a glorious chapter, writ-
ten by an important family,
in the making of the Jewish
state. His father, Menahem
Ussishkin, was world presi-
dent of the Keren Keyemet
l'Israel the Jewish National
Fund and in that capacity
he was the redeemer of the
Zionism. He remained a
director of the world
JNF. As a member of the
World Zionist Congress
Court he was highly re-
spected for decisions
handed down when there
were disputes among the
Zionist parties. As a pro-
fessor of law he was dis-
tinguished as an
academician.
eminent fathers who con-
tinued his father's tradi-
tions for leadership in
they remain honored in the
memories retained for
them.
The names of the noble
remain unforgotten. It was
Galil. Thanks to him the not necessary to wait for
most flourishing Jewish their passing to express ap-
settlements were estab- preciation for their work.
lished in Northern Israel.
The men now being honored
Shmuel Ussishkin was in memorials were es-
among the few sons of teemed in their lifetime and