2 Friday, March 28, 1980 THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS Purely Commentary Passover Has a Message of Cheer, and Also of Caution, Never to Yield to Fear, Always to Pursue Vigilance for Justice and Liberty By Pr .‘.• Slomovitz Passover Admonition: Freedom Without Fear, With Vigilance for Justice Passover is a privilege for the celebrants. It is an emphasis on the roots whence freedoms stemmed. It admonishes lovers of freedom never to yield to fears. It reminds the rational and clear-thinking that it is not limited to the few who acquire might but is for all, for every human being in all stages of life. It is on the score of fearlessness that freedom has its most urgent challenges. When there is a submission to threats, freedom vanishes. When there is vigilance and defiance of obstacles to the elementary right to speak out for just rights, freedom is assured. Take the United Nations as an example. It was constructed for peace, and the amity aspired to was not intended for a few dictators but for all mankind. Yet, in that very august assembly, there is a clique so domineering that it stands in the way of human dignity. The moment a signal is given, in that area of representatives of the Communist, Arab and Third World blocs, for whatever they choose, there is no hope for the minority. Some oppose this ruling dictatorship. Some abstain. In the latter two classes it has often been a matter of oil. The need for the energy-providing flow has become more vital than anything approaching the human factor in international relations. That is why Israel often stands alone as a member of that august body. Because Israel stands alone, there have been many repetitive threats to the very existence of the Jewish state. That's why the recurring panicking over matters that should be fought to a finish and never permitted to erupt menacingly. The outrageous UN resolution which elicited an apology from President Carter is exemplary. Silence at that point would have been devastating and submission to panic would be disastrous. The lessons of the past cannot be ignored. Since Israel's rebirth, almost as a peren- nial experience at the UN, occasionally at the State Department, there was an attack on Israel that caused dismay, often accompanied by fear. A typical example is a quotation from this column, in the issue of April 16, 1971: George Bush, the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, spoke encouragingly, several days after he had succeeded Charles Yost to the important international post, about the Middle East's conditions and the American attitude. Like President Nixon he emphasized that this country is not exerting pressures upon Israel for complete withdrawal from con- quered territories. State Department officials similarly appeased Israel and her friends on that score. Even in the light of his policies that are contin- ually interpreted as harsh, even Secretary of State William P. Rogers has denied that there is pressure. But a retired U.S. official now proves that there are pressures and that there is something unholy about American policy. Charles Yost, who had not revealed his true attitude until after he had left the UN post, showed his true colors, and if his attitude was and remains American policy, then woe unto the U.S. claim that our aim is for free covenants freely arrived at. If men assigned to diplomatic posts will keep declaring themselves with tongue in cheek, then there is little hope for peace anywhere, whether it is in the Middle East, in Southeast Asia, or even on the home front. The entire tenor of Yost's "Guest Privilege" article in Life magazine is in the form of emphasis that Arabs seek peace and Israel resists, and he becomes a prophet on the basis of his analyses that "There is likely to be another (war) in a year or two." It is his "privilege" — and it is a justified one — to judge "territorial acquisitions" in his specific way. There are many Israelis who say it more emphatically than he does — David Ben-Gurion among them — that there should be vast concessions by Israel. But a pragmatist challenges the privileged: how are these concessions to be at- tained? By Israel's negotiating with the United States and or with Russia, or with the United Arab Republic? After all, there is such a thing as realism even among statesmen-diplomats, unless they become spokesmen for power-seekers in a game of power-politics — the Yost view is all too clearly the effect of a Big Four attitude which the proper reading of current history rejects, since three of the four — France, Russia and Great Britain — are definitely unfriendly to Israel. Is the fourth, our own government, now to be added to the three to make it a unanimous anti-Israel viewpoint, if George Bush will prove to be a pursuer of a Charles Yost policy? Charles Yost apparently believes that rational people will fall for such tripe as the evidence is clear" that the UAR would assure freedom of the seas to Israel. Remember 1957 and the Eisenhower pledge? And on the question of Sharm el-Sheikh Yost speaks of the "Consent of the UN Security Council, on which of course the U.S. has a veto." What a sense of humor! Ha the U.S. exercised its veto power when the USSR was brutal towark. every move made by Israel? And does Yost really believe there is justice in a Security Council that is loaded with Israel's enemies? If there is fair play left in the ranks of diplomacy the last statement by Sadat should help resolve the entire issue. He made it plain that an agree- ment on the Suez Canal re-opening must provide freedom of movement by Egyptian troops and their placement on both sides of the canal. This, if granted, would mean a reversion to the dangers that faced Israel prior to June 4, 1967 — it would mean free passage for Israel's enemies into Israeli territory and an invitation to destroy the Jewish state. Anyone who im- agines that Israel might adopt such a suicidal attitude or that Israel's friends would subscribe to it is acting insanely. Yost is charitable when he says: "One cannot but deeply sympathize with the agonizing dilemmas of those responsible for the present and future security of Israel. Its essential vulnerability is indisputable . . . " And there is a but: a choice has to be made, he says, and his emphasis on a "choice" is predicated on the view that Israel should not keep saying they can't trust the Arabs. Aren't the Arabs adhering to the view that Israel must abandon not only the areas held prior to June 4, 1967, but also territories acquired in a war that was instituted by the Arabs in 1948: Aren't many of them saying they would expel Jews who arrived in Eretz Israel after 1918? Where is the logic and where is the justice — and who are they who say they are offering guarantees to Israel? Is there any contender other than Israel who can protect Israel? Therefore, who else is to negotiate except Israel with those who aimed at her destruction? President Nixon is the man to speak now. If those representing him at the UN and in the State Department speak through both sides of the mouth, tongue in cheek, mouthing appeasements while adhering to a policy that would spell Israel's destruction, then he more than any other person must state exactly what must be made known immediately: what is U.S. policy and who formulates it? An experience of nine years ago merely echos many of early years and a considerable number in the following years. The admonition in the 1971 occurrence applies to the situation today and may call for similar warnings in the months ahead — always demanding avoidance of fears. U.S. Credibility, National Honor and Justice Passover is the ideal time to test the diversions from libertarian principles and the agonies caused Israel and her friends by the latest developments vis-a-vis American- Israel friendship. "Lame Duck" Secretary of State Cyrus Vance continues to accept responsibility for what had occurred with the diabolical United Nations Security Council vote on March 1. It was more than a blunder. Having harmed the credibility of the United States on a world-wide basis, the issue cannot be shelved and must be viewed with grave concern. The secretary, who had not been considered a lame duck three years ago, attempted a Soviet inclusion in the Middle East talks at Geneva. That's when he had angered not only Israel, but also Egypt, and Sadat's historic trip to Jerusalem is partly ascribable to that* U.S. move toward a "solution" which could have caused great calamity. Then, too, President Carter was judged as having concurred in an illogical task which was forced into abandonment. Now? The guilt is apparent, and even if it had been reviewed in some measure the "chronology" of it merits special consideration. It is given interesting analysis in the March 24 issue of New York magazine: • For nearly a week prior to the Security Council vote on a Jordanian-Moroccan resolution that declared Israeli settlements in "Pales- tinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem," illegal, the American delegation at the UN had been assuring Israel that it would abstain. • As late as the afternoon of Friday, Feb. 29, the eve of the vote, Assis- tant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs Harold H. Saunders had, in effect, repeated these assurances to Israeli Ambassador Ephraim Evron, although President Carter had authorized Secretary Vance at a White House breakfast earlier that day to vote for the resolution. This decision had substantially altered American policy toward Israel in the dispute over settlements, recognizing for the first time, significantly, that occupied territories were "Palestinian." • Since the vote, senior State Department officials have claimed that the United States had supported the resolution because Israel had failed to "lobby" against it. The Ithraeli response is that if, indeed, they had not lobbied until the last day — Ambassador Evron had learned only on Satur- day morning, a few hours before the vote, how the United States proposed to act — it was because they had been misled all along as to American intentions. • Having resolved late on Monday, March 3 — after the huge political fire storm had broken out — to disavow the American vote, the President kept top State Department policy advisers in the dark about the decision. This prevented these officials from arguing against the reversal on the ground that, in the long run, the United States could have ridden out the storm, while a public recantation would — as it did — painfully undermine the credibility of American leadership. The reversal, in fact, did nothing to allay Israeli fury against Carter. According to Anthony Holden, writing in the London Observer from Washington, Carter was infuriated with Vance and had asked him to resign. This has not been confirmed. It does, however, add to the confusion that does little credit to the U.S., and the loss of credibility is cause for resentment over the blunders that should not have been permitted by this government. The London Observer commented editorially on "Carter's Dangerous Gaffe," declar- • ing: What Mr. Carter decides about the Middle East is of special importance to his European allies, whose dependence on Arab oil is even greater than America's. His action will accelerate the trend for a new European initia- tive to seek an Arab-Israeli settlement based on self-setermination for the Palestinians. While Mr. Carter's retraction weakens his standing with the Arab coun- tries, the vote itself has angered the Israelis, who were already in a bitter mood, indignant that their courageous contribution to peace in withdraw- ing from a large part of Sinai was not adequately recognized. They suspect the West Europeans of preparing to throw her to the PLO wolves for the sake of Arab oil. These comments are the resulte of a spreading pro-PLO tendency in European ranks, all yielding to the pressures from the oil magnates. Because there is such a threatening danger from so many quarters, the policies of this government become vital to Israel's security, and her friends must, therefore, become fully aware of what is transpiring and must speak courageously in their defensive roles in Israel's behalf. The new "crusade" to revive the East Jerusalem issue and to give credence to a U.S. position that Israel must abandon that portion of the Holy City together with other administered territory is not only appalling: it is morally outrageous. Former U,S, Ambassador to the UN Arthur Goldberg described the indecency of this new move anr - - condemnation merits widest attention. Regrettably, there was an error in the Goldberg item in this column last week. The section should have read: The facts are that I never described Jerusalem as occupied territory. , Ambassador Yost did, in his speech of July 1, 1969, under 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 Jerusalme as occupied territory was inaugurated by me and then continued by Ambassador Yost. This is entirely inaccurate. Isn't it a great pity that instead of discussing the Passover theme in its sense of freedom and justice there must now be consideration of the injustice attached to it by the indolent in our midst? Again, therefore, the necessity to be vigilant. It's something never to be abandoned. Therefore the Passover lesson remains intact: freedom will not be abandoned and justice remains the aim of all people of good will, good sense and common decency.