THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS

Friday, October 31, 1980 61

After the election
...then what?

Based on the past record,
here's what your vote for Carter or Reagan
on November 4th could mean for Israel's future.

X

Carter

If elected, Carter would no longer need to seek
the votes of those Americans who care about the
safety of Israel. He would now have a free hand
to put even more pressure on Israelis to abandon
their settlements and turn the West Bank over to
a Palestinian state. He would be able to further
appease the Saudis and, other "moderate" Arab
states by insisting that East Jerusalem also be
given up.
But would Carter actually • try it?
Libyan Dictator Qaddafi seems to think so. On
January 9 of this year, after learning of the out-
come of some secret White House meetings, he
told a Washington Post reporter: "I believe
President Carter promised to radically change
American policy in the Middle East."
_
On May 20 of this year, after Charles Kirbo
Gimmy Carter's confidante) returned from a visit
with Crown Prince Fand in Saudi Arabia, a
London Times Arab expert wrote: "The
Kingdom (Saudi Arabia) has been gratified by
Washington's promises. . . by private assurance
that a re-elected President Carter would bring
Israel to heel."

X

Reagan

On the other hand, Governor Reagan's record
on Israel is one of clear and consistent support.
From the earliest days, he appeared throughout
California and the nation to contribute his efforts
in the young nation's behalf.
Today; Governor Reagan is against the
U.S.-Soviet "comprehensive" imposition
engineered by Jimmy Carter (and opposed by
both Egypt and Israel). He considers the West
Bank settlements legal.
He rejected the Carter plan to equip the
Saudis with offensive weaponry that could be
used against Israel. He states flatly that all of
Jerusalem belongs under Israeli sovereignty. No
ifs, ands or buts. And there is no question that
he would have instructed the Secretary of State
to veto the recent anti-Israeli vote on Jerusalem.
Jimmy Carter talked against the vote but when
the chips were down, he allowed the anti-Israel
resolution to pass and become U.N. policy.
Our veto could have changed that. But Carter
never allowed it to be cast.
If Mr. Carter refuses to defend Israel with our
veto at the U.N. during an election campaign,
who can doubt which side he would vote on
after an election he had won?

The choice is there. The choice is ours. Jimmy Carter sees Israel as an
obstacle and an embarrassment. Ronald Reagan views Israel as a
stronghold of democracy and a staunch ally in a part of the world that
is vital to our own interests.

SUPPORTING RONALD REAGAN IS
IN THE BEST INTEREST OF ISRAEL.

this ad paid for by Dr. Morrey Firesto!&eI. 22142 Michigan Avenue/Dearborn, Michigan 48124

A A.

A A

•

•,•

A

0.6(

•• ■ •

