r

2

Friday, March 21, 1980

"

THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS

Purely Commentary

`Following Orders' Had its Horrors in Eras of Oppression,
Medievalism ... Repetitive Tyrranical Result Finds Echo
in the UN ... an Eminent Cleric's Advice to the Rescue

By Philip
Slomovitz

When the Submissive Order-Taking Turns Into Crime Against Humanity

When the chapter called The Carter Blunder is reviewed in diplomatic history, the
U.S. vote in the UN Security Council on that tragic-for-our-statesmen Saturday after-
noon, March 1, may prove to be the worst, incomparable error by the leaders of one of the
most powerful nations in the world.
When all the details are reviewed, there is nothing to match the failure by the
President to do his homework on a major foreign policy issue. It proves how the secretary
of state stumbled, the ineptitude of many officials, and the shallowness of this great
nation's ambassador to the international organization who had the lame excuse of having
"followed orders."
These are only a few of the ineptitudes. Where were the "Jewish advisers" to the
President? Is it excusable for the firm of Strauss & Linowitz to expect exoneration of the
President after the fact?
There were many warnings of an impending calamity for Israel in the form of
appeasement for oil, with Israel paying the price for an energy dilemma.
For a number of months there were warnings: there will be trouble for Israel from a
Carter Administration after the 1980 election. Where was the wisdom of Robert Strauss,
Sol Linowitz, Stuart Eizenstat and Philip Klutznick in their failure to provide refutation
for the charges and comfort for the confident to overcome fears?
William Safire, in a recent NYTimes Op-Ed Page article, called Harold Saunders
"the State Department's friend of the PLO." The White House should have been on the
alert when such a charge negates all the pledges vis-a-vis the PLO.
In another Times Op-Ed Page essay, after the March 1 Pogrom at the UN, Safire had
this to say about two of the Carter aides:
Jimmy Carter decided to teach the Israelis a lesson they would never
forget. His delighted pro-Arab aides — Harold Saunders at State and
Donald McHenry at the UN — then went all the way in abandoning Israel.
Only after the scope of the United States condemnation of Israel was ex-
plained to him did the President courageously direct his Secretary of State
to feign diplomatic stupidity and legal sloppiness.
Since the purpose of this addendum to the Tragedy-of-March 1, 1980-for-the-U.S.
relates to taking orders, something must be said about the man who followed them and
gave that as his excuse for the action at the UN. Newsweek, in Periscope, carried this
item about Donald McHenry, in its March 17 issue:
Israeli officials are privately unhappy about Donald McHenry, the U.S.
ambassador to the UN and the man who cast the anti-Israel vote that Jimmy
Carter later renounced. Israeli sources say McHenry made a poor impres-
sion on Menahem Begin and other leaders on a recent visit. Some describe
McHenry as "arrogant" in his meeting with Begin. They say that while
Begin was elaborating on a point, McHenry shocked the protocol-conscious
prime minister by abruptly suggesting it was time to leave. "By all means,
Mr. Ambassador," Begin shot back icily. "I don't want to keep you from
your other appointments." The Israelis say that McHenry apologized and
stayed, but still left a bad taste.
Perhaps it is understandable that a representative of the State Department, in the
role of a U.S. delegate to the United Nations, must follow orders. It is evident that
Senator Patrick Moynihan, when he was the U.S. ambassador to the UN, did protest
some of the orders. At one point, he recently said, he had to debate a difference between a
comma and a semi-colon, which could have altered the meaning of an important resolu-

•

tion. It is also believed that former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, as
ambassador of the U.S. to the UN, was unhappy over State Department orders. It is no
wonder that he is now making every effort to clarify some of his positions in that unhappy
role.
Were Charles Yost and George Bush similarly under pressure when they repre-
sented this country at the UN as the U.S. representatives? The Jerusalem issue, as it is so
badly bungled in current disputes, brings it to a head. Yost is already exposed guiltily,
Bush will have much explaining to do.
As to taking orders: A noted Christian religious leader exposed order-taicing as a
crime. It was related by this Commentator, in a book review, in The Jewish News issue of
June 14, 1963. Since the lesson must be learned anew every time someone buckles under
to political stupidities, the views expressed by the Catholic Army chaplain, Maj. Gen
Patrick J. Ryan, in his "A Soldier-Priest Talks to Youth" (Random House), are presented '-
here agein:
As the title denotes, the approach is that of a Catholic, but the advice is
applicable to all faiths, and, ignoring the Christological aspects, this book
serves a most valuable purpose.
Because of his distinguished army career, it is especially interesting to
note that Gen. Ryan disputes the Eichmann theory of "following orders."
He declares in all seriousness that "a patriot is not the man who says, as
Stephen Decatur once did 'My country, right or wrong, but right or wrong,
my country!" If your country is wrong, you must work to make her right, if
only because you love her so and it pains you to see her embarked on a
wicked course." Gen. Ryan proceeds to state on this score:
"The men who followed Hitler and Mussolini said 'My country right or
wrong' and we all know the beastliness that the Nazis turned loose on the
world. Look at Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi official whom Israel hanged in
June of 1962 for having done most to organize the slaughter of 6,000,000
Jews during the Nazi persecution. Eichmann's defense throughout his trial
was that he was 'following orders!' Could any man have done his country a
greater disservice than to have followed the bloody path that led to the
destruction of Germany from the air, and its division into two separate,
hostile camps?
"No one can place country above conscience, any more than he can
place loved ones above conscience. The Church teaches us that the Fourth
Commandment, on which patriotism is based, also commands: 'Obey your
mother and father in all that is not sin.' The same applies to.the fatherland.
If you saw your father striking a cripple you would be horrified and very
quick to plead with him to stop. The same should apply to you if — God
forbid — you should find your country bullying a little land or mistreating
minorities within its own community. You love the face of your country too
much to see it disfigured by brutality or prejudice."
This is not taking sides: it is the testing of the souls of Americans who are tormented
enough by Iran, Afghanistan, the Kremlin, OPEC, Olympics, INFLATION! Isn't the
whole business of the nation forced into an oppressive tension the result of inflated
ineptitudes?
The shame of March 1, followed by the blunders of the following week, cannot be
erased. At least, nothing mirroring it must ever be repeated again!

The Jerusalem Issue: Arthur Goldberg's Informative Denial of Guilt

Meanwhile, the attacks on Israel continue, the threats relating to Jerusalem keep
cropping up, the call for vigilance remains urgent.
The matter of Jerusalem was posed as an issue in that fallacious U.S. action at the
UN on March 1. Because of what had occurred, an Arab apologist, John P. Richardson,
director of public affairs, National Association of Arab Americans, wrote to the New York
Times, quoting a July 1, 1969, speech by Charles Yost, then the U.S. ambassador to the
UN, presenting a U.S. view that East Jerusalem is occupied territory which the U.S.
views as illegally secured by Israel. (This resort to a negative attitude toward Israel gives
special credence to this commentator's use of a nine-year-old item about Charles Yost and
his antagonism to Israel).
Fortunately, on the same page with the Richardson statement, in the New York
Times (March 12), appeared a letter from former U.S. Ambassador to the UN Arthur
Goldberg, repudiating the Richardson-Yost role and clarifying the true U.S. attitude as
he treated it when he was the U.S. spokesman. Goldberg wrote:
In Hodding Carter's briefing at the Depart-
ment of State regarding "the flap" on the Middle
East this weekend he distributed to the press on
Monday a copy of a speech I made at the United
Nations as our ambassador on July 14, 1967, and
a copy of a speech made on July 1, 1969, by
Ambassador Charles Yost, who then was our
permanent representative.
The import of this distribution, as relayed to
the press, was that I and Ambassador Yost both
supported the concept that Jerusalem was
occupied Arab territory. At Camp David, a simi-
lar distribution with an accompanying state-
ment caused an Israeli protest and personal em-
barrassment to me.
The facts are that I never described
Jerusalem as occupied territory. Ambassador
Yost did, in his speech of July 1, 1969, under
ARTHUR GOLDBERG
instructions from President Nixon, and his
statement represented a departure from the policy I, President Johnson
and the Department of State pursued with respect to Jerusalem during the
period of my tenure.
Hodding Carter's briefing tended and was obviously designed to create
in the minds of reporters, who are now querying me, the impression that the
concept of Jerusalem as occupied territory was inaugurated by me and
then continued by Ambassador Yost. This is entirely accurate.
Resolution 242 in no way refers to Jerusalem, and this omission was
deliberate. I wanted to make clear that Jerusalem was a discrete matter, not
linked to the West Bank.
In a number of speeches at the UN in 1967, I repeatedly stated that the

armistice lines fixed after 1948 were intended to be temporary. This, of
course, was particularly true of Jerusalem. At no time in these many
speeches did I refer to East Jerusalem as occupied territory.
My speech of July 14, 1967, which Hodding Carter distributed, did not
say that Jerusalem was occupied territory. On the contrary, I made it clear
that the status of Jerusalem should be negotiable and that the armistice
lines dividing Jerusalem were no longer viable. In other words, Jerusalem
was not to be divided again.
This is a far cry from Ambassador Yost's statement that we conceived
East Jerusalem to be occupied territory, to be returned to Jordanian sover-
eignty.
With respect to settlements on the West Bank during my tenure, this
subject was not discussed. There were not settlements at the time.
When George Ball, my immediate successor, visited Amman on July 18,
1967, he quoted King Hussein as having said he personally recognized that
there must be flexibility on the question of Jerusalem and that there could
be no return to the pre-June 1967 status. This statement is in the reporting
telegram of Ball's visit to King Hussein.
I write this note to set the record straight and also because I do not want
my name used in defense of a policy that I do not approve.
This is how every opportunity to harm Israel is utilized by her enemies. While one
such form of hatred was repudiated by the President of the United States on March 3, the
claim that the resolution nevertheless remains on the UN record is valid. Therefore, the
need to keep the refutation equally active.
Whatever happens in the Security Council threatens to remain damaging in future
relations involving Israel. This became evident when the Charles Yost statement was
drawn upon by Arabs as a condemnation of Israel. In spite of the Jimmy Carter apology of -
March 3, the UN act, committed with the blundering by the U.S. delegate, may remain
damaging for a long time. Egyptian and Israel Ambassadors Ghorbal and Evron have
already called the March act a deterrent to peace negotiations.
Israel cannot submit to the oppressive measures promulgated in the UN. It is to
prevent their recurrence that the vigilance of aspirants to peace in the Middle East must
be multiplied.

A, For Zton's sake,
44. I shall not keep
•-t, silent. roe Jew-
• 'agent's sake,
1 Matt not test.