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.