2 Friday, July 18, 1980
THE DETROIT= JEWISH NEWS
Purely Commentary
Fault-Finding Approaches Arrogance in a Hate Campaign
Directed at Menahem Begin . . . The Political Contest and
Personalities Giving Substance to a Three-Party System
By Philip
Slomovitz
Religious Representatives Outline Proper Action in Defense of Israel
Three responsible representatives of major Jewish religious movments joined in
outlining a program of Jewish action in matters relating to Israel, in a letter to the New
York Times. Their views appeared under the heading The Proper Concern of American
Jews." To the word "concern" could have been added "responsibility," "duty," as well as
"conduct." It was inspired by the advertisements that have been financed by a group of
so-called peace-seekers who, in essence, were severe critics of Israel Prime Minister
Menahem Begin; as well as a full-page advertisement in the New York Times signed by
hundreds of Orthodox affiliates, a number from Detroit, urging Begin to stand firm on the
Jerusalem issue. The latter was inserted under the auspices of an organization calling
itself International Rabbinical Committee for the Safety of Israel.
In the signers of the latter published in the New York Times, July, 10, were Rabbi
Joseph Glaser, executive vice president of the Central Conference of American Rabbis;
Rabbi Seymour Siegel, of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America; and Robert B.
Goldman of the board of governors of the American Jewish Committee.
The text of the letter on "Jewish concern" follows:
The pages of the Times are beginning to look like the Knesset Record.
American Jews are giving news conferences, signing statements and pay-,
ing for advertisements criticizing the Israeli government's foreign and se-
curity policies from different ideological directions.
Prominent people in organized Jewish life express their opposition to
the Begin government's "extremist" policies in the occupied territories
while Orthodox rabbis argue that Mr. Begin has given away too much and is
not extreme enough.
We do not contest the right of these signers to express themselves in any
way they choose. We do raise a question about the proper role of American
Jews. Is it to involve themselves with Israel's policy-making process, or to
play their part as Americans and as Jews in the American democratic
process? We think it is the latter.
We have full confidence that Israel's democracy will come up with the
kinds of governments and policies that the people of Israel deem in their
best interest. They have demonstrated often that they are well-equipped to
do this job.
We, as Americans and Jews, are or should be primarily concerned with
Israel's security in the context of United States foreign policy.
We recognize that Israel's security represents only one component of an
American foreign policy that must seek to build satisfactory relationships
Carter vs. Reagan: The Campaign
Isn't Over by a Long Shot
Even before the Democratic National Convention gets
into motion next month, the lines have already been drawn
sharply. The battle for the Presidencyis on in full force. The
candidates — unless something very drastic happens in
New York in the Democratic Party scuffle — will be Jimmy
Carter in opposition to Ronald Reagan. John Anderson may
turn out to be more than a mere fiddler in an orchestra; he
may become the concertmaster causing distress for some-
body, should the vote be very close, should he take away
from either of the contenders, giving the other the victory;
or should he be the tool for throwing the election into the
House of Representatives. Then Speaker of the House
Thomas O'Neill can become the Acting President and he
could remain for most of the term.
That's all speculation. Not to be forgotten is the fact
that President Carter is the incumbent, and the incumbent
has the jump on contenders. -
Anderson made some important promises on
Jerusalem and Israel's sovereignty while there last, week.
That keeps him in the running as one of the Troika compet-
ing for the Presidency. Meanwhile, there are platforms on
which the other two, Carter and Reagan, are expected to
orate during the impending campaign, and some of the
boards in the platforms are already creaking.
Candidates will be tested as personalities, and their
records as politicians will be combed. It has already been
punned, in answer to the question "what's Carter's
weapon," that Reagan is the answer. Carter himself is
microscoped. The Jewish interest, the commitment to Is-
rael, are among the issues viewed with concern.
William Satire, one of Carter's severest critics, in a
New York Times Op-Ed Page article entitled "The Great
Deception," was devastating in his review of the Carter
record, especially on Israel. It drew a response, in Letters to
NYTimes, from Robert Lipschutz, former counsel to
President Carter, in a defense that gives the President a
very positive rating.
Frank Lautenberg, a former national chairman of the
United Jewish Appeal, takes the stump for Carter. He is
not alone. The Democratic ranks are not devoid of Jewish
spokesmen backing Jimmy Carter for re-election.
Now there is a mobilization for Ronald Reagan, led by
Detroiter with a national reputation Max Martin Fisher.
No one could have defined the Reagan role better than Max
Fisher, and the Detroiter has proven to be a good organizer.
The result is that he has some prominent Jews on his team.
There will be many more arguments, pro and con, and
the religious issue will certainly be spotted. Who can ignore
the strange stand taken by Reagan in support of Bible
reading in schools, even if he qualifies it as to be on a
voluntary basis?
It's true: The other candidates also are "Born Again
Christians," and, therefore, the Separation Principle af-
fects all, drags all candidates into the net of dispute over
introducing religion into politics. The voter who is already
puzzled by the candidacies will have lots to contend with.
with other key nations in the Middle East. But we believe that under the
threat of the Arab oil weapon, the pressure of powerful economic interests
and the influence of fashionable ideologies U.S. foreign policy has tilted too
far to accommodate countries and forces that continue to voice unrelenting
hostility to Israel's very existence. It is to this problem that we believe
American Jews must give their undivided attention.
The kinds of issues to which American Jews should address themselves
today are President Carter's promise of advanced tanks to King Hussein
without getting an iota of cooperation from the King with the Camp David
peace process; the Administration's signals that it intends to approve ad-
vanced equipment for Saudi Arabia's F-15 fighter planes, which can be
used offensively against Israel and which the President had committed
himself to Congress not to supply, and the decision to have America's
representative in the United Nations abstain' rather than vote against a
resolution that all but asked Israel to withdraw from East Jerusalem and
that would, if implemented, lead to a re-divided city.
We are not suggesting that the signers of recent statements on Israel
policy are not concerned about these problems, or that they should not hold
and appropriately express views about Israel's actions. But we strongly feel
that they have misplaced the emphasis among their concerns, to the point
where they are playing the wrong role in the wrong place.
Let Israel take care of its policymaking through its democratic process.
Let us do our job in America by helping to foster American policies in the
Middle East that undergird the security of Israel in the context of America's
national interest, as defined by every President and backed up by every
Congress since 1948.
It makes sense. There are certain matters that are hardly the business of Zionist
party politicians and critics of Begin in the Diaspora. They should be respected as the
concern of the Israelis. The responsibility of Jews and non-Jewish friends of Israel is to
uphold the hands of the builders of Zion who are struggling against great odds and who
should not be hindered by obstacles put in their path by haters of a regime in Israel that
was chosen democratically.
A point to be added is that those who mobilized as critics of Menahem Begin actually
added to the harm anti-Israelis are conspiring for Israel as a sovereign nation. What has
transpired is that their tactics reintroduced a campaign to destroy the unity,ofJerusalem
and to deny capital status for the Holy City. This is inexcusable.
It all makes decisions, when reaching the polling
booth, very difficult.
The voter becomes even more disillusioned in the
realization that the Third Party hope is futile. It was hope-
less for Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. It was impossible in 1924
for Robert LaFollette the Progressive, who elicited this
commentator's first vote for a President. What's the road
for this generation — and the next?
Alexander Brin: A Tribute
,
Dr. Alexander Brin was one of the very interesting
personalities in the ranks of Jewish journalism. 'Justice
Louis D. Brandeis attracted him to the English-Jewish
press and encouraged him to succeed Jacob deHaas, a
Zionist of merit and an associate of Theodor Herzl and the
eminent jurist, to the editorship of the Boston Jewish Advo-
cate.
Prior to that he gained recognition as one of the report-
ers who covered the tragic Leo Frank case in Georgia.
As editor of the Jewish Advocate he was responsible for
elevating the standards of Jewish journalism.
His nephew, Joseph Weisberg, the current editor
emeritus of the Advocate, paid him a deserved tribute upon
-his passing two weeks ago. It was another mark of con-
tinuity in making the English-Jewish press important in
American Jewish life.
The Brin record, that of Dr. Joseph Brin, who also
served as editor of the Advocate and who additionally
earned recognition as a teacher of journalism in Boston
College, has left an excellent mark in Jewish journalism.
They have earned the recognition now accorded them.
Zuieback and Blumenau
People are too quickly forgotten when a generation
separates them from communal activities. It is well, there-
fore, to recall the services that were rendered here by two
men who were eminent in their time, three or more decades
ago.
Rudolph Zuieback held top leadership positions, in the
United Hebrew Schools, in Zionism, in philanthropy.
Aaron Blumenau was a leader in Zionism and in many
communal functions. Both were congregationally active.
Even the brief tributes accorded them serves as remin-
der of the contributions they made in their lifetimes.
Fault-Finders Rebuked
in Anti-Begin Arrogance
Howard Squadron, president of the American Jewish
Congress, who has just assumed the chairmanship of the
Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organ-
izations, called to task the signers of the so-called peace
declaration, pointing to the irresponsibility in that ten-
dency to divide American Jewry.
Two past presidents of the Conference of Presidents,
Rabbi Alexander M. Schindler and Theodore R. Mann,
whose names were among the signers of that damaging
declaration, repudiated condemnations of Menahem Begin
by the man who engineered the published peace statement
and issued this pronouncement:
We are deeply disturbed by the abusive com-
ments of Leonard Fein in making public the
statement - to which we gave our names, and we
dissociate ourselves completely from his charges.
Prime Minister Begin is a world statesman of
the highest integrity, a peacemaker whose name
will be revered throughout the history of the
Jewish people. In most matters we are in full
agreement and sympathy with Mr. Begin's
policies; in some we differ from him. But the in-
sults to the prime minister expressed by Mr. Fein
are utterly inexcusable.
We signed a call to conscience, not a political
polemic. It was an expression against extremism
and violence, from whatever source. We do not
regard Prime Minister Begin or his policies as
extremist" or as a "disaster" and we deeply re-
sent the 'effort by Mr. Fein to associate us with
such views.
The Schindler-Mann rebuke needs repetition and it is
offered here. Israel and her leaders are not always above
reproach and criticism of Israeli actions should not be
stifled. But when the attempts to introduce peace mov
ments tend to disrupt unity and to harm rather than assi.s
in peace efforts, they should not be accepted with grace.
Ina subsequent letter to Begin, Dr. Fine denied that he
had spoken disparagingly of him. The UPI reporter who
quoted his bitter reference to the prime minister insists his
notes substantiate the original report. Dr. Fine's defense,
therefore, proves somewhat lame because the damage was
done and the personal antagonism gave grist to the mill of
venom that was unleashed, creating an unfortunate situa-
tion in the public disputes which have resulted in abuses
directed at the prime minister. Such abuses often are aimed
at slurs at the entire Israel government and even if indi-
rectly also at all Israel. Therefore, the criticism of Fine also
should be interpreted as advice that those who would ad-
vise Israel on foreign as well as internal affairs should
think twice before appending signatures to statements that
tend to cause damage.
"