. 5
2 Friday, August 3, 1979
.
.14101401111004.41110*Bmwoommow
THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS
Purely Commentary
By Philip
Slomovitz
The Prejudices That Seep Into Discussions Over the
Settlements . . . Israeli Rights Upheld by a Catholic ... .
The Day Schools, Their Growth and the Merited Support
Inexcusably Prejudicial Attitudes Towards Israel
A ruling by the Israel Supreme Court last week dismissed Arab objections to the
establishment of a new Jewish settlement, Matityahu, on the Jordanian border and
asserted that requisitioning of land in occupied territory was permitted when it becomes
vital for national security. Military authorities testified to the security challenges, thus
giving emphasis to the Supreme Court's ruling.
This is significant at a time when so much effort is being exerted in areas prejudicial
to Israel that the actual conditions relating to Israel's needs must be treated with respect.
When there is danger, Israel is justified in seeking self-protection, no matter how
stringent the condemnations from U.S. State Department spokesmen.
There is much to be done in many spheres to correct the prejudicial attitudes towards
Israel and to clarify the issues so that Israel's needs should not be negated. The demo-
cratic approaches to the foreign policy issues affecting Israel appear orderly. The fact that
the courts are called upon to act when there are disputes, that Arab protests are not
ignored by these courts, should give impetus to good will.
Regrettably, issues often are created, and at times generated, unrealistically, and
these involve the U.S. under regrettable conditions.
over the UN
An item from Washington about the U.S. reaction to the
observation teams in Sinai is of special interest as a reference to
to the confusions that have
set in and the distortions that have been injected into the revolving issues.
In his report to the New York Times from Washington on the subject that was
inflated into another alleged American-Israel problem; Graham Hovy wrote:
United States officials see the Istaeli protests as a case of overreaction
going back to 1967, when Secretary General U Thant, complying with
Cairo's demand, withdrew the United Nations peacekeeping force from
Sinai and war broke out almost immediately.
If this is the State Department attitude, of Israeli "over-reacting," in reference to the
The Right to Settlements:
A Catholic Abbot Goes Along
With Rostow in Israel's Defense
Yale Professor Eugene V. Rostow, who, as assistant
secretary of state during the Johnson Administration has
much to do with the wording of UN Resolution 242, wrote a
strong defense of Israel's right to establish settlements in
Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), in a letter to the New
York Times. He was challenged with an Arab viewpoint on
the subject. This elicited an endorsement of Rostow's views,
in another letter to the New York Times, from Abbot Leo A.
Rudloff of the Benedictine Monks, Weston Priory, Weston,
Vt. The Catholic Abbot wrote:
Professor Eugene V. Rostow's authoritative
and scholarly July 3 letter should once and for all
make it clear to everyone that the State Depart-
ment and the Administration are on very slippery
ground when they call Israel's settlements on the
so-called West Bank "illegal." One may rightfully
be of very different opinion about those settle-
ments. But to call them "illegal" is unwarranted.
Professor William V. O'Brien of Georgetown
University, in an article in the Washington Star,
Nov. 26, 1978, summarizes a balanced opinion
about this question this way: ". . the prudential
judgments relating to the maintenance, expan-
sion or termination of Jewish West Bank settle-
ments involve issues over which reasonable per-
sons can differ. But these debates are only
obscured by unfounded claims that Israel's West
Bank policies are contrary to international law.
The fact is that . . . Israel has maintained an occu-
pation on the West Bank that is fully consonant
with the principles of international law and
natural justice. The settlements on the West Bank
are not 'illegal'."
There exist widespread confusions about the
whole situation. For example, to call the old city of
Jerusalem "Arab Jerusalem" is a misnomer.
What about the Greek quarter, the Armenian
quarter, the large Jewish quarter of the old city?
The old city was made Judenrein through expul-
sion, destruction of synagogues, and desecration
of the Jewish cemetery. Since 1844 Jews have
been the largest single group of inhabitants of
Jerusalem. There have always been Jewish set-
tlements on the West Bank. Hebron, a city with
many ancient historical ties with Israel, has a
prospering Jewish community until most of them
were slaughtered during_ the Arab riots of 1929-
" 193f; the rest fled.
Another settlement of special interest to me
personally is the monastery on Mount Zion of
which I had been in charge for 20 years, from 1949
to 1969.
The monastery owned, and still owns, land on
the West Bank. One of these was, before my time,
sold to Jewish pioneers. One of my confreres told
me that he saw a photo of the stripped and partly
mutilated bodies of the young settlers after an
attack by Arabs. Now the Jews have resettled
Hebron, and the above mentioned piece of land
became the nucleus of what is now the Gush Etz-
ion. Are those re-settlements "illegal"?
To repeat, one can be of different opinion about
the prudence of some settlements, especially that
threat that emerged to the state's existence in 1967, then it must be treated as developing
in poor grace.
Students of foreign affairs, all with a sense of realism, must look back with a sense of
shame to the White House and State Department abortive scheme of October 1977, of the
effort then made to draw Russia into a Geneva Conference. It is believed that the
American blunder of cowtowing to Russia was among the developments that induced
Anwar Sadat into friendly acts with Israel.
It was no wonder that Israel so adamantly opposed the U.S.-Russian proposal and
that it should have failed so miserably. It is believable that the latest American effort to' - -
give Russia a place in the Sinai UN observation teams was a repetition of a similar
blunder? The State Department is not to be excused for it and Israel's protest is underl-
standable.
It is no wonder that the New York Times, not always in Israel's corner, should have
stated editorially, on July 25:
Given the Russians' desire to sabotage Israel's peace with Egypt and
the hostility of the United Nations in general, the Israelis should not even
have been asked to set such a precedent for future peacekeeping. To re- .
proach them for refusing is to demonstrate how insensitive Washington
remains to the psychic wounds it seeks to heal.
There is much more to be said on the subject. The haste with which Hodding Carter
and his associates condemn Israel is also inexcusable. As indicated earlier in these -
columns, these spokesmen for this country, being ultra-sensitive in their desires to
criticize Israel, have created a condition which enables Israel's enemies to append the
word "illegal" every time the very word "settlements" is uttered. Continuation of an
attitude of appending error to everything Israel does must be repudiated. There is no
excuse for an abiding prejudice.
of Alon Moreh. But a simplistic condemnation of
all of them is certainly contrary to justice and
common sense.
-
Perhaps it takes a Catholic not to be frightened by the
terror that has been inspired every time the mere word
"settlement" is uttered. As already noted in these columns,
every time the word is written or pronounced there has
developed a tendency to add to it an "illegal" definition.
If Israel were to panic every time such a jibe is directed
at her, she would not be alive today. She lives, survives the
taunting and fortunately has a few friends. Abbot Rudloff,
appreciatively, is one of them.
Day Schools' Growth:
Maximum Educational Programming
Never to Be Denied
It was not so long ago that the. Hebrew day school
movement was viewed in some quarters with apprehen-
sion. Some even considered it contrary to the American
democratic way of providing educational facilities for
American Jewish youth.
Naturally, an American wishes for the best in educa-
tional facilities for the children, and in earlier years the
schools did, indeed, assure the highest standards in educa-
tional programming, while the Jewish afternoon school
assured a good measure of Jewish training for the youth. It
was . when the afternoon school demanded five days of
after-public-school attendance for Jewish studies.
The latter demands were gradually reduced and for
many parents it became obligatory to provide full-time
Jewish studies for the youth without sacrificing the secular
studies demanded in the school systems of America.
-There is a general deploring of declines also in the
standards pursued in the public schools and this contrib-
uted to increased interest in the day school movement. This
is applicable in many respects also to school systems of
other faiths, with the result that anything listed as private,
or in the Jewish sense the day school, is no longer looked
upon with disrespect.
Recognition must be given to the fact that the need for
day school education was viewed as a necessity in many
Jewish quarters where there was the urgent desire to as-
sure the best of Jewish - educational programming for the
youth.
The growth of the day school movement was not only
evolutionary: it can be viewed as revolutionary.
Now, with a growing concern for proper Jewish train-
ing for the Jewish youth, as means of counteracting indif-
ference, of fighting the trend toward the cults, the day
schools are recognized as a necessity not to be diminished.
Torah Umesorah, the National Society for Hebrew Day
Schools, conducts a courageous effort to advance the day
school movement, to popularize it, to make it understood, to
help it grow. In the current issue of Tempo, the Hebrew day
school fact sheet, the following facts are presented about
the current status of the day school movement in America:
Eight new Hebrew day schools including two at
the high school leNiel have been' established this
past year in various parts of the United States. Six
of the eight new schools were established' outside
of New York and the 463 schools now lOcated in 36
states and about 170 communities comprise '313
elementary schools and 150 high schools.
There are 150 Hebrew day schools on a high
school level now functioning in the U.S. — a re-
cord for the Hebrew day school movement. High
schools are now located in 17 states.
For a full'appreciation of the growth of the day school
movement, it is important that these Charts provided by the
Torah Umesorah leaders should be studied by the Ameri-
can Jewish communities. It may have been slow in the
beginning — all beginnings are difficult, as a popular He-
brew phrase describes them. As the years progressed it has
become apparent that the growing movement has assumed
significance and cannot, as it is not, presently ignored.
Here are the charts that can well serve as guides for com-
munal planning, without interruption:
Hebrew day school enrollment is still a growth
situation. Based on the latest findings, Torah
Umesorah currently estimates a day school popu-
lation of some 83,200 students in the United States
and an additional 10,500 in Canada.
Day school enrollment (in the United States)
since Torah Umesorah's establishment in 1944,
reveals the following pattern:
ENROLLMENT
YEAR
SCHOOLS
10,000
69
1945
35,000
180
1955
63,500
323
1965
83,350
463
1978
There is now a Hebrew day school in every
community with a Jewish population of 7,500 or
better. The following population profile details
the Torah Umesorah story even further:
1. 24 out of 25 cities in the 5,000 - 7,500 popula-
tion group
2. 32 schools in the 110 cities in the 1,000-5,000
population group.
-
The Hebrew Day School Movement — 19441978
1944
1978
39
463
TOTAL UNITED STATES
30
313
Elementary Schools
150
9
High Schools
30
209
TOTAL NEW YORK
23
1341)
Elementary Schools
7
High Schools
9
254
TOTAL OUT OF N.Y.C.
178
7
Elementary Schools
2
76
High Schools
Educators agree, communal leaders must concur, that
unless the maximum in Jewish education is aimed at now it
will be difficult to retrieve the steps necessary for programs
in the communal school systems.
Can the aims of those seeking a maximum obtainable
be realized? The chief factor, much more than the com-
munal that is the basis for securing the necessary funds for
such programs, is the attitude of the Jewish parents. Un-
less the home is attuned to encourage highest-level educa-
tional programming nothing will help. Strengthen the
home influence in such matters, and the problem is solved.
The day school now is a fact of life. The Jewish devotion to
the highest aims in Jewish education must serve as an
acceptance of the existing needs, as the reality in giving
education the priorities which must neither be reduced nor
ever denied.