2 Friday, May 2, 1980

THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS

Purely Commentary

The Inhumanities That Challenge America
Challenge the Conscience of All Mankind

By Philip
Slomovitz

American Solidarity Mandatory in Current Crisis

Agreed! Had the military action in the planned rescue operation in Iran
succeeded, President Carter would have been a great hero. To the credit of this
nation, the public opinion polls indicate a 70 perceht sympathetic attitude
towards the President's plan.
Yet, it was a national tragedy. The mechanical failure, the loss of eight
lives, the humiliations to which Amerians are subjected all combine to create a
sense of grief.
Perhaps it is only the beginning. The solutions are yet to be found. Russia is
in the wings, the allies of this country must be alerted to the rising dangers, the
sentiments of Americans remain to be fully tested.
Much could have been learned, such as at the Entebbe triumph. But the
assurances are that precautions had been taken. They were not sufficient.
Therefore, ;Xi- hat had occurred is a great lesson for this country. Too many

Experience Teaches: Anti-Israeli
Venom Is Mostly Repetitive

For the many who, very normally, become upset by
every anti-Israeli act, especially when it stems from high
American diplomatic quarters, there is a lesson in reading
the history of Israel's struggles.
Very often that which is anti-Israel is really anti-
Semitic.
How does one face up to such trihulations as the repeat-
ing attacks on Israel and the constant threats to her exist-
ence?
I.L. Kenen, who has been on the frontline in the battle
for Israel's security and just rights, recalls the past experi-
ence. He is the editor emeritus of Near East Report ancr he
has just written a column, The Media in 1948." It is worth
reading and applying to the present:
On April 20, Israel celebrated its 32nd anniver-
sary. This evokes memories of the broad Ameri-
can support for Israel's establishment in 1948 and
the criticism of our State Department, which
sought to frustrate it.
A few days after the UN's 1947 decision recom-
mending Israeli statehood, the United States em-
bargoed the shipment of arms to her defenders
and in March 1948, withdrew support and called
for a UN trusteeship.
Analysis at the time showed that 62 percent of
the editorial comment attacked America's sur-
prising reversal and only 20 percent supported it,
while 18 percent were mixed or neutral.
Two major newspapers, the Philadelphia In-
quirer and the Miami Daily News swiftly warned
that the Jews would be denied weapons while the
Arab states were arming and training to assault
Jewish Palestine.
Israel's staunchest supporter, the New York
Herald Tribune, declared that the "trusteeship
plan seems shadowy and unsubstantial against
the harsh realities in the Holy Land."
The New York Times — once a foe of Jewish
statehood — attacked "a series of moves which
has seldom been matched for ineptness" and "a
shabby trick on the Jewish community in Pales-
tine, which put its faith in our promises."
Another New York paper, the Post, published a
column (Feb. 11) which could have been written
yesterday: "American policy on Palestine is being
influenced, and perhaps determined, by one of
the most amazing bluffs in history — the threat
that this country's access to Middle East oil will be
cut off unless we repudiate the UN decision to
partition the Holy Land." The Post went on to
disclose the role of ARAMCO's Washington lob-
byist.
In an earlier column, the New York Post
charged that we had entrusted our foreign policy
to the British and that we had designated Haj
Amin el-Husseini, the ex-Mufti of Jerusalem and a
Hitler collaborator, as "our new Secretary of
State for Palestine."
The Boston Globe charged that "in the name of
expediency, armed defiance of a decision taken
under American leadership is being appeased."
The Cleveland Plain Dealer wrote that the
United States "has seriously weakened its posi-
tion as a great power, opened the door to Russian
interference, which it fears . . . and solved noth-
ing."
Outraged correspondents for PM, a New York
daily, were vitriolic. Victor H. Bernstein, at the
UN, attacked the President as a man "who wants
desperately to succeed and is desperately afraid
he can't even succeed himself.",
And I.F. Stone, PM's Washington man (who is
now a protagonist of the Arab cause), then wrote:
"American policy aimed to use the Arabs to crush
the Jews as quickly as possible, if possible. Its
real, though not declared aim, is to liquidate the
yishuv, to reverse partition in blood."

warnings about unpreparedness seem to have been ignored, out of a desire to
curtail that national military obligations. Even in the limited spheres the skill
must be unmatched, because war can be averted only by an assurance of the
strength of those who defend the democratic factors in the international spheres
in which cold wars have thus far shielded the heat of actual military conflict.
The lesson of the failed military mission is a bitter one, but it must lead to
strength. Primarily, it must assure solidarity in American reactions as well as
actions.
The President was late in acting. It was when the polls showed an over-
whelming sentiment in support of militarism that there was action. The bitter
pill must not create divisiveness. In matters involving national honor there
must be unity. The solidarity of the American people is something to be proud
It assuages the grief caused by military failure.

And there were niany more critics: The Nation,
the New York Sun, the Chattanooga Times, the
LaCrosse Tribune and the Bridgeport Post.
U.S. support has always been ambivalent be-
cause of the State Department's never-ending at-
tempt to propitiate the Arabs, in the illusion that
this would ensure access to oil and deter Soviet
penetration of the area.
In the current impasse over autonomy for the
Palestinians, the United States has tilted sharply
toward the Arab side, portraying Israel as in-
transigent and the obstacle to peace. Substantial
segments of the media accept the administration's
judgment, but Israel has many veteran friends
with long memories.
"Si" Kenen wrote this column on the occasion of Is-
rael's 32nd anniversary. There are many such experiences
applying to perhaps every year in Israel's existence. Don't .
we have a March 1 outrage at the UN Security Council for
which President Carter issued an apology?
Indeed, the experiences are trying, yet there is ground
for accepting Kenen's advice: there also are friends. There
is genuine appreciation and gratitude for them.

`Settlements' as a Bogey Word:
Just Rights and Realities

Few public functions, at which the conditions in Israel
are discussed, ever eliminate review of the matter that is
generally labeled "settlements."
The mere word has become a means of arousing ten-
sion. It is treated as if a great sin is being committed, as if a
calamity were imposed on the poor Arabs.
One would imagine that a powder keg were about to be
blown up and that it would destroy the basic rights of
unfortunate people. -
As a matter of fact, Jews living, in Israel who settle in
administered areas overwhelmingly populated by Arabs
bring with them prosperity. They introduce a good business
relationship with the Arab residents. Only when the PLO
propagandists step in does trouble ensue.
A shocking example of perpetuated prejudices was evi-
denced at the meeting of the Council of Europe in
Strassbourg, France. Of the 21 members, 10 abstained on a
vote of condemnation of Israel and there wasn't a single
negative vote. The fact that 10 abstained meant that there
is some justice to Israel's position. Why the silence? Is it the
oil or the fear that dominates actions by people who surely
can think — and speak — but who are silent in self-interest.
Not everybody yields to the misleading propaganda
attached to the settlements. Unfortunately, the media also
see red every time the word is mentioned. But there are the
rational, the realistic, those who would introduce a note
aimed at justice for the Jewish settlers into the discussion.
Msgr. John M. Oesterreicher, professor emeritus at
Seton Hall University in New Jersey, sent a clarifying
statement on the subject to the New York Times in which
he pointed out:
One need not be a supporter of the current set-
tlement policy to realize that the oft-repeated
charge of violation of international law by Israel
is not very sophisticated.
The West Bank was never a legitimate or integ-
ral part of Jordan. It was annexed shortly after
the conclusion of an armistice agreement be-
tween Israel and its Arab neighbors, very much.
against the spirit of that truce, even against the
will of the Arab League. The nations of the world,
with the exception of Great Britain and Pakistan,
refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of Jor-
dan's unbloody conquest of the land west of its
former border, the Jordan River.
The West Bank is thus a kind of political no
man's land, a region over which neither Jordan
nor any other Arab state can rightly claim sover-
eignty. Hence, the acquisition or use of an un-
populated area in that region does not violate in-
ternational law.
Were the Administration to acknowledge these
political realities in private and in public, rather

..

than join in the criticism emanating from forces
hostile to the Jewish state, and were it to show
greater perception of Israel's psyche, an appeal
for the cessation of the present settlement policy
for the sole reason of peace might get a favorable
hearing.
Would that the conversations by the President
with the two remarkable statesmen of the Middle
East bring us closer to that "tranquility of order"
we all long for.
This published declaration on Jewish rights was ad-
dressed as a plea to the Carter Administration. Will it bring
results? Is it possible that the President is not aware that
less than 6,000 Jewish settlers are involved in the shocking
dispute over settlements? Does so small a number repre-
sent a threat to anyone? Can't it be recognized that small as
this number is it serves as a nucleus for Israel's defense?
In Jewish ranks there is another element in the issue
to be considered. It is not the Begin government that has
begun and pursued the establishment of settlements. Of
the approximately 100, about 60-65 were introduced by the
Labor government that preceded the prime ministry of
Menahem Begin. What is happening is a great need for
Israel and is endorsed overwhelmingly, in spite of the con-
trary claims made by the so-called Peace Movement. There
can be no peace without security and this should be ac-
knowledged.
Therefore, the need for Jewish unity on _the subject.
Only if Jews will be divisive and assist those who aim to
undermine the Israeli position of security will the issue of
settlements be treated as a menace. Right now they are
aimed for a blessing.

Lindbergh's Guilt Inerasable,
Widow's Apology Too Late

Charles A. Lindbergh was so much an isolationist that
he fell right into the Hitler trap and propagated anti-
Semitism.
Now, in "War Within and Without: -The Diaries and
Letters of Anne Morrow Lindbergh, 1939-1944," the
famous aviator who was the first to cross the Atlantic on a
solo flight is defended by his widow. It is like an apology in
which Mrs. Lindbergh, who grained wide acclaim as an
author, admits her own and her husband's errors. She
maintains she never heard an anti-Semitic remark from
her husband.
It was on Sept. 11, 1941, that Lindbergh, speaking in
Des Moines, Iowa, said "The three most important groups
who have been pressing this country toward war are the
British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt Administration." Yet
Mrs. Lindbergh now states that as early as 1941 she dis-
cussed with her husband the need for a homeland for the
Jewish people, and he favored it.
How late, oh how late, for such an apology! The records
are filled with condemnations of the famous aviator. Hun-
dreds, perhaps thousands, of editorials were written assail-
ing him. Scores upon scores of speeches were delivered in
both houses of Congress assailing him.
Open letters to Anne Morrow Lindbergh appeare'
newspapers and were published as brochures.
One such open letter was published by Elizabeth
Seeger. It was distributed in the thousands. Why didn't
Mrs. Lindbergh recognize the errors earlier?
The Council Against Intolerance in America publis
a pamphlet, "America Answers Lindbergh," and it con-
tained statements by the famous historian Charles A. Be-
ard, by the noted publisher Frank Gannett, New York
Mayor Fiorello H. LaGuardia, Herbert H. Lehman, who
later became governor of New York and then U.S. Senator;
Bishop G. Ashton Oldham, Msgr. John A. Ryan, N.Y. Gov-
ernor Alfred E. Smith, Raymond Graham Swing, Booth
Tarkington, Dorothy Thompson, U.S. Senator Robert F.
Wagner, William Allen White, Wendell Willkie, who was a
candidate for President on the Republican ticket in 1940,
and Stephen S. Wise.
Seldom is such prominence assembled in a single com-
pilation. Yet it took all these years to make the attempt to
absolve Lindbergh. Time usually heals. Is a healing possi-
ble now?

,