Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options


Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

The University of Michigan Library provides access to these materials for educational and research purposes. These materials may be under copyright. If you decide to use any of these materials, you are responsible for making your own legal assessment and securing any necessary permission. If you have questions about the collection, please contact the Bentley Historical Library at bentley.ref@umich.edu

August 10, 1979 - Image 2

Resource type:
The Detroit Jewish News, 1979-08-10

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

2 Friday August 10,f 1919



Purely Commentary

Lots of M.E. Confusions
With Abiding Prejudices

There is so much confusion over efents in the Middle
East that it is no wonder the average person is so often in a
One would imagine that it would be a simple matter to
set up the security force necessary to assure tranquility in
the Sinai now that Israel has withdrawn from a major
portion of it. Yet the very assurance for an international
unit made by President Carter is under challenge.
Then there is the comfort given to Arafat by world
Socialist leaders, one of them the Austrian prime minister,
a Jew. The PLO trouble-makeeseems to be winning allies
in France and in Italy, he is given permisilien to establish
an office in Turkey, he has plans to go to the UN podium
again. Any wonder that Israel is always on the defensive?
There are prejudices galore and they are not to be
ignored. Nevertheless, the measure of responsibility in the
media also must be treated seriously.
Example: Why should William Safire speak of a "Pro-
radical Arab tilt to the Carter policy?"
Is it possible also that the State Department gave
encouragement, even tacitly, to the Kreisky-Brandt meet-
ing with Arafat?
On this score it is worth quoting an important state-
ment regarding that meeting in Vienna. Irving Howe wrote
to the New York Times as a socialist who was shocked by
both the Kreisky and Brandt attitude. He wrote:
I want to express my dismay at the recent meet-
ing (and its concluding communique) that was
held by Willy Brandt and Bruno Kreisky, the So-
cial Democratic leaders of Germany and Austria,
with Yasir Arafat, head of the PLO. As a socialist
who repsects Brandt, and as a supporter of Israel
who has nevertheless criticized its settlement
policies on the West Bank, I must admit — and it
does hurt — that what Brandt and Kreisky have
done is morally indefensible.
What troubles one is not so much the fact of
meeting with Arafat. Perhaps — I'm not sure —
that is useful. Perhaps Brandt and Kreisky hoped
to serve as intermediaries easing relations be-
tween Israel and the Palestinians. But why was it
necessary for Kreisky to greet Arafat with such
effusive affection? Why did Wendt agree to a joint
statement criticizing Israeli settlement policies in
the West Bank but saying nothing about either
PLO terrorism or the "principled" refusal of the
PLO to recognize Israel's right to exist? What pub-
licly available evidence did Kreisky have for say-
ing that Arafat now accepts Israel's survival?
While sitting down with Arafat, did Brandt say
anything about the role of the PLO in murdering
Israeli athletes during the Munich Olympics
when Brandt himself. was chancellor of West
Germany? And if you really want to express dis-
may over Prime Minister Begin's settlement
policies, must that be done with the spokesman
for terrorism?
Whatever the justification may have been for
conversations with PLO representatives, there
was none for this ostentations welcome and em-
brace of Arafat or for the statement that followed.
No, genosse Brandt, you have sinned and caused
some of us who have long admired you to feel
For the old-time socialists there is a nostalgic connota-
tion in Howe's referring to Brandt as a "genosse." It's a term
that was often used in socialist salutations when address-
ing each other in comradely fashion.
Now the Vienna meeting engineered perhaps more by
Kreisky than anyone else has its echoes in the world capi-
tals. Now there is talk of acceptance of the PLO if— there is
emphasis on the "if' — Arafat recognizes Israel's existence.
And in Beirut, upon his return from Vienna, Arafat denied
such a promise to the Socialist leaders. .
Since Arafat now warns of returning to the UN
podium, more agony can be anticipated for those who did
not stomach such an appearance in 1975 and know there
will be a repetition of the earlier spectacle at a world as-
sembly whose majority is committed to everything and
anything Israel's enemies may utter. Is it any wonder that
Israel's spokesmen now choose to ignore the demonstrators
of hatred? It is for this reason that a commission composed
of enemies, commissioned to "investigate" israel's treat-
ment of her Arab minority, was declared unwelcome. For
those who know the true conditions, such an official Israeli
position was respected and applauded.

The Role of the `Genossei in the Latest Attempts by the
Radically Prejudiced to Give Aid and Comfort to the
Enemies of Israel ... The New Respectability for the PLO

When the Egypt-Israel peace treaty was signed, on the
White House lawn, March 26, 1979, the President pledged
in writing to Begin and SAat: "If the Security Council fails
to establish'and maintain the arrangement called for in the
peace treaty, the President will be prepared to take those
steps necessary to insure the establishment and mainte-
nance of an acceptable alternative multi-national force."
The negations in Washington are known and are the
cause of much concern.
There is the role of Secretary General Waldheim which
must be considered on this issue. A statement by the Con-
ference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organiza-
tions charges:
UNTSO is responsible not to the Security Coun-
cil, where an American veto can protect against
its withdrawal, but to the UN Secretary-General,
Kurt Waldheim. Mr. Waldheim is not exactly the
kind of UN leader with either the moral courage
or political strength to stand up to the Soviet-
Arab bloc. Rather., he has proved to be the obe-
dient servant of the- Third World and pro-Soviet
states that dominate the UN and that have turned
what was once regarded as man's best hope for
peace into a bedlam where Yasir Arafat is wel-
comed to the podium and Zionism is equated with
racism. A dozen years ago another UN peacekeep-
ing force was ordered out of Sinai by the then-UN
Secretary General U Thant, in response to a de-
mand by President Nasser of Egypt that touched
off the Six-Day War. Does anyone believe Kurt
Waldheim will demonstrate greater resistance to
demands for UNTSO's withdrawal than U Thant
In the process of all the controversial disputes there are
Arab attitudes that are often kept in the dark. An item in
U.S. News and World Report merits special attention. It
Although Saudi Arabia's Deputy 'Prime Minis-
ter Prince Fand and Jordan's King Hussein pub-
licly demand the creation of a Palestinian state on
the West Bank, insiders who have seen them re-
cently say that both would be horrified if Israel's
Prime Minister Menahem Begin agreedaThe Arab
leaders do not welcome the idea of a Soviet-
backed Palestinian entity in their midst.
Would that all the facts were properly recorded. There
would then be much less confusion.

Giving Respectability to PLO:
When Tongue Slipping Is Destructive

Was it a slip of the tongue for the President to have
equated Palestinianism with civil rights movements?

By Philip

The President is credited with having given a build-up
to the Palestinians shortly after he entered the White
House. It was uncalled for then, as it was in the latter days
of July when what could be claimed as a slip of the tongue
suggested a status of martyrdom for the Palestinians and,
in the process, to the PLO.
Libertarians surely are appalled when the sanctity of a
civil rights obligation is equated with the murderous aims
of a group whose goal is the annihilation of a sovereign
The national Jewish leaders, and ffiends of Israel, few
as they may be when called upon to speak out, have ren-
dered judgment on the interpretations to be given civil
rights efforts.
How cautious people in the public life must be, ai
President even more so.
Oh, shades of Calvin Coolidge, whose tongue didn't slip
because he never talked too much!

Need to Mobilize Israel's
Defenders in Face of New Dangers

New dangers are mounting for Israel. Not only in Be-
irut and Damascus but in Washington and New York forces
are gathering to harm the Jewish state.
There is nothing new in threats stemming from the
Third World and Communist forces at the UN General
Assembly and Security Council. That's where they domi-
nate and only U.S. vetoes prevent calamities plotted at the
Security Council. But when there is talk of U.S. fraterniza-
tion with the PLO, the danger dare not be minimized.
Israel's enemies are back in action. Their present plot
is the amending of UN Resolution 242 by inserting clauses
for the recognition of Palestinians. This could lead to more
severe obstructions and public opinion must be mobilized
as a protection for Israel.
The advertising campaign re-introduced by the Arab
propaganda forces add to the concerns because they can
mislead the American people if the truth is not implanted
in public minds.
This is the time to ask: where are the giants in Chris-
tianity who in pre-Israel days emerged to support the
Zionist ideal? Where are the Ben Hechts in Jewish ranks to
speak out?
The Conference of Presidents of Major American
Jewish Organizations fortunately is not silent. Its leaders
speak out courageously. They challenge Israel's enemies.
This calls for the widest public support and it mean]
that individuals as well as organizations must speak.out,
must write their sentiments, to the President and to all
concerned, protesting untruths, demanding justice for Is-

Book Claims Britain, Absoked in War,
Turned Its Back' on European Jews

LONDON — A book pub- Jews an& a refusal
lished here states that Brit- among some fairly high-
ain, absorbed in a war for level British officials to
survival against Nazi Ger- believe the Jews who
many, turned its back on warned of Hitler's genoc-
the millions of suffering idal intentions.
Jews in Europe.
The author quotes Oliver
For the British govern- Hardy, private secretary to
ment the first priority and Foreign Secretary Anthony
chief preoccupation was, of Eden, as saying in a note:
necessity, victory in the "Unfortunately A. E. is im-
war," the author, Bernard movable on the subject of
Wasserstein, writes. The Palestine. He loves Arabs
fate of the Jews was of only and hates Jews." And in a
secondary importance in note to Mr. Harvey, Mr.
the eyes of the British Gov- Eden wrote in September
ernment." 1941: "If we must have pref-
The book, according to erences let me murmur in
The New York Times, your ear that I prefer Arabs
draws on documents that to Jews."
The irritation of Colonial
included British papers not
previously available to his- Office executives with the
torians, and tells how the Jews was reflected in many
"relatively generous" pre- documents, and the ten-
war record of Britain dency to, discount Jewish
toward German refugees horror stories is illustrated
was replaced by the sealing in a memo dated January
off of escape routes. 1945 from an official in the
The reasons, he writes Refugee Department of the
in "Britain and the Jews Foreign Office.
"Sources of information
of Europe 1939-1945," in-
cluded fear of inflaming are nearly always Jewish
Potpourri: Addendum on Policing
anti-Semitism at home, whose accounts are only
the Peace; An Arab Attitude
fear of upsetting the sometimes reliable and not
Addenda to the current issues involving the Middle Arabs in Palestine, and seldom highly colored," the
East are vital.
fear of planted spies official wrote. One notable
On the question of policing the peace it is important among immigrants. The tendency in Jewish reports
that the Carter role should be known and the attitude of documentation shows a on this problem is to exagg-
UN Secretary Kurt Waldheim fully understood.
lack of sympathy with the erate the numbers of depor-

In the war years, says
tations and deaths."
Palestine, awasded to Mr. Wasserstein, a lec-
Britain under a League of turer in modern history
Nations mandate, was at the University of Shef-
virtually shut off to field, Britain's policy
Jewish immigration from toward the Jews showed
May 1939, four months "a few flashes of human-
before the war in Europe ity by individuals light-
started. ened the general dark-
Even before that Malcolm ness."
MacDonald, the Colonial
He says that Prime
Secretary, had said at a
meeting with Jewish lead- Minister Winston Chur-
ers that in the event of war chill's attitude toward the
the security of British forces
in the Middle East and lines and compassion, but the ef-
of communication with fectiveness of his inter,•
tions in favor of the
India. and the Far East de- was repeatedly bluntea ray
pended on maintaining
friendly relations with the the actions of his subordi-
governments in the region. Jews
was one of sympathy
The defeat of the British Churchill enthusias-
Empire, he told them, would tically endorsed the idea
be a disaster as much for the of a Jewish fighting force
and was met by solid op-
Jews as for Britain.
Barring immigration to position from the gener-
Palestine remained the als and colonial adminis-
basic British policy until trators. Churchill's memo
the British withdrew and in reply started: "General
the state of Israel was born. Wavell, like most British
In perhaps the only hint Army officers, is strongly
of bitterness the author pro-Arab. The Jewish Army
allows himself, he notes project must be put off for
that the first shots fired by six months but may be re-
British troops in World War considered in four months.
II were fired at a ship at- The sole reason given
tempting to take illegal should be lack of equip-
immigrants to Palestine. ment." Eventually, a
Jewish Brigade was formed.
Two Jews were killed.

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan