2 Friday, May 29, 1981 THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS Purely Commentary Mollifying Those in Power: Is This Weakness Repetitive? Jewish leadership should be credited with having been firm in pressing for justice, in refuting the prejudicial. In the main it must be emphasized that they have not yielded to unnecessary pressures. Often, however, out of a desire "to be nice," to gain favor with the powerful, concessions are made unnecessar- ily. An interesting example was recorded in an important book which evaluated the "Yahudim," the assimilating German Jews when they were contrasted with the East Europeans, in "Poor Cousins" (Coward, McCann, Geoghe- gan, 1972) by Ande Manners. The author of "Poor Cousins" was relating the demand made upon President William Taft in 1910 that the treaty with Czarist Russia be abro- gated because naturalized American Jews returning to Russia were denied their rights as American citizens. Louis Marshall led the battle, delivering a powerful address de- manding action by the U.S. government. But an eminent Jewish spokesman, Simon Wolf, sought to appease the White House. Here is the tale, related in "Poor Cousins": A month after Marshall's speech the President invited the leaders of AJC and several other organizations to the White House for lunch. In- cluded among those invited were Louis Marshall, Jacob Schiff, Judge Mayer Sulzberger, and Simon Wolf, a tireless communal leader, a former president of the Bnai Brith and a former consul general in Egypt, who had, during his residence there, formed a Bnai Brith chapter in Cairo. An estimable gentleman in many ways, Mr. Wolf had a weakness for trying to please those in power; consequently, he was not Marshall and Schiff's kind of shtadlan. And so several days before the White House lunch, Marshall wrote Schiff: "... The great danger will be that some of these gentlemen will feel so flattered by the invitation that they will readily concede that everything has been done that can be done . . . it would be just exactly in line with Mr. Wolf's ordinary policy to say 'Amen' to anything that the government authorities may suggest . . . The time is past when sweet words will butter our parsnips . . ." At the meeting President Taft gave his guests no opportunity to present their views; instead, he revealed his conclusions, which were dishearten- ing. Although the treaty ran counter to "our con- stitutional principle of equality for every one . . . and no distinction as to religion," the treaty was an old one, and the United States had permitted the offensive provisions to continue for many years. It would be awkward suddenly to abrogate the treaty. Moreover, American commercial interests — International Harvester, Singer Sew- ing Machine, and Westinghouse — had invest- ments in Russia, amounting to $60,000,000, that would be endangered by abrogation. Even if those investments were to he_sacrificed, Taft was convinced it would be an unwise gesture, for Rus- sian Jews would be made to suffer renewed pog- roms. Jacob Schiff exploded. ("When Mr. Schiff grew indignant," a friend commented, "he had a way of expressing himself clearly and forcefully.") After stating categorically, "Mr. President, you have failed us, and there is nothing left to us now, but to put our case before the American people directly . . ." he stamped out. (Simon Wolf reported seeing the President the next day, and, in the most good humored way," Mr. Taft said, "Wasn't Mr. Schiff angry yesterday?") Throughout 1911 public opinion was mobilized — or perhaps "marshalled" might be a more apt word. Thirty-two thousand copies of Marshall's speech, "Russia and the American Passport," went to opinion-makers in Congress, newspapers and magazines, and clergymen and judges. The issue was debated on the forum and in print. Though Marshall never made his appeals for abrogation on a partisan basis ("Taft is a very obstinate man and will be more apt to become actively hostile, if he feels we are attacking him . . ."), Congressional Democrats seized on the issue — autocratic Russia's insult to American citizens — to use it against the Administration. Jewish and non-Jewish Americans flooded mem- bers of Congress with petitions for abrogation. In one day, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge received 70 from Massachusetts groups. Finally, on Dec. 17, 1911, two days short of a year after Marshall's opening blast for abroga- tion, President Taft announced the abrogation of the Treaty of 1832. The successful abrogation battle was a superb object lesson in Americanization for Russian Jews — displaying the means open to individuals Continuity of Tensions, Mounting Threats to Israel That Keep Calling for Vigilance With the Emerging Irrita- tions . . . Novick's Commendable Zionist Services in a democracy in achieving desired ends. But Russian Jews, so quick to resent authority, so sensitive to any suggestion of condescension, found it impossible to be a passive, admiring audience. Forthright and fearless, Louis Marshall appeared to believe that only leaders should have these qualities; the immigrants were to be quiet, well-behaved, and content to be led by the shtad- lanim, who would handle everything. Although realistic, Marshall never failed to be shocked and astonished when they responded differently. An attitude relating to Wolf's was recently sen- sationalized in American and Israeli newspapers. Is it possible that representatives of Jewish com- munities, in their roles as shtadlanim or elected -spokesmen for Jewry, will appease, seek favors, bend to the will of authorities, as was charged against so prominent a leader as Simon Wolf? This is not always conceivable, although it is possible in exceptional cases. When a President Is Irritated by Jews in Vigilant Mood Historians, philosophers, sociologists and news analysts will, if they have not already, watch a President's facial expressions to judge his reactions to demands by his constituents on all imaginable subjects. He will not always be smiling or receptive. He may even show anger. This may especially be relevant to a President's reac- tions in matters involving human rights, anti-Semitism and the Israeli problems. The latter could cause aggrava- tion, as did, in years past, the problem of immigration which was a source of much concern in Jewish ranks. President Harry Truman may have been typicol in such matters. When this reporter led a delegation of Jewish newsmen to him in 1949, he commented: "Jews think I have not acted in a friendly spirit. I did. Look at the map . . He took us to the large globe in the Oval Office and turned it to the, Middle East to indicate how firm he was in demands two years earlier that Great Britain open the doors of Palestine to 100,000 more Jewish settlers before the estab- lishment of the state of Israel. President Truman did, however, state in his memoirs that he was annoyed by Jewish pressures. Wasn't that the case with President William Howard Taft prior to his having finally yielded to the demands of Louis Marshall and Jacob Schiff, in their demands on be- half of the American Jewish Committee that the commer- cial treaty with Russia should be abrogated in protest against anti-Jewish discriminations involving American Jews? • President Ronald Reagan now confronts Jewish repre- sentatives in their presentations in behalf of Israel. The arms-for-Saudi Arabia issue predominates. Is the President irritated? The following excerpt from the essay, "Signals of Softness," by William Satire in the New York Times May 13, has some relevance: WASHINGTON — The Syrian missile crisis is the first Soviet test of the Reagan Administra- tion's will. The Reagan response to the Kremlin's probe has been dangerously soft. The first sign of softness came when Secretary of State Haig prevented the Israelis from nipping the crisis in the bud by taking out the first mis- siles. As a result of the U.S. intercession, the bat- teries have been "thickened," promising heavier casualties to their removers. The second signal of softness was the Haig invi- tation to the Soviets to re-enter Middle East diplo- macy, from which they had been effectively bar- red since Mr. Sadat's historic eviction notice. De- spite evidence that Soviet technicians have been calibrating the radar for the Soviet-built surface- to-air missiles placed in Lebanon, Mr. Haig naively went to the fox to ask for help in the henhouse. As might have been expected, the Soviets promptly took our chief diplomat into camp: After a week of reports that the Soviets might be helpful in restraining their client state, it became obvious that the Soviet mission to Damascus only stif- fened Syria in its desire to end its Arab isolation. The Syrians became determined to show the Arab world that Israel could not count on American backing — or to become a victim of a losing war against Israel, and thereby to end its pariah status. Not until late last week did it dawn on the Secre- tary of State that he had been had by the Rus- sians. At that time, The Great Backgrounder of Foggy Bottom told a select group of reporters that the Soviet role in the peace negotiations had been "actively destructive." He seemed surprised. A third sign of softness came with the applica- tion of an old Carter Administration maneuver: from the ambush of background, get angry with our ally for being at the place where the Kremlin tests American will. By Philip Slomovitz Despite Israel's acquiescence to an American request for time to negotiate with the Soviet client, and despite a surprisingly pliant attitude toward the American compromise which was later rejected by the Syrians, some American policymaker felt it necessary to vent his spleen at our ally: "There is reason for saying," wrote James Re- ston of the New York Times last week, "that President Reagan is not amused by Mr. Begin's first reaction to the new Washington Administra- tion's policies in the Middle East. He is irritated by the mounting Israeli campaign against his deci- sion to sell the AWACS aircraft to Saudi Ar bia s , and appalled by Mr. Begin's personal atta Chancellor Helmut Schmidt of West Germa My colleague is too experienced and trustwor- thy a reporter to assess the President's innermost thoughts without a well-placed source. His "rea- son for saying," I presume, can only be that such a reading of the President's mind was given him on deep background by a high official. "Sounds like the old vicar," I was told on shal- lower background by a different high source, who may be in a better position to understand Mr. Reagan's thinking. My insider leads me to believe that the cold Victorian fury of "we are not amused">is far from Reagan's style; that the President is not "irritated" by Israel's predictable concern about arms sales to the Saudis; and that "appalled" is hardly the Reagan reaction to the Begin comment about Chancellor Schmidt's cozying-up to the PLO. The source seeking to project an ominous Presidential impatience with Israel may not have been the Secretary of State, but that knock-your-ally line is indicative of the kind of wishy-washiness now emanating from the State Department. In a human fashion, every person in public life has occasion to be irritated. This may be even more applicable to the communications media, on a par with politicians who deal with foreign affairs. For the lay person who knows history and the democratic way of treating it, one must never retreat from advocating and adhering to basic prin- ciples — even when addressing the President of the United States. Else the very root of freedom of expression would be destroyed. There is only one way of preserving the American way of life and that is not to sacrifice the right to assert oneself and to speak firmly in defense of the basic rights of people wherver they may be. Presidents usually respond with respect to those who have self-respect and act respectfully. That is how American democracy is protected. As matters have gone so far, President Reagan and his associates have much to their credit in their treatment of the Middle East issue. The Israel-Syria dispute proves it. Philip Habib serves this nation and its involvement in the _ Middle East with courage. The applause these efforts earns is a political realism. Ivan Novick, a Native American Who Lends Dignity to Leadership Guest speakers come to this community in hordes dur- ing the year. They are the acclaimed by cultural commit- tees of synagogues and other groups, propagators of impor- tant causes, many who offer assistance in fund raising and the sale of Israel Bonds. There is much to be said and is yet to be said about the selection of speakers. Many of them who do not show suffi- cient respect for their audiences bring messages that are mere rehashing of news everybody already knows. There needs to be a demand that speakers should do their homework. They should understand that bringing messages to the audience involves responsibility in doing research on the subject to be covered. That is why this particular recommendation fo - tan who has risen to national leadership and who w e a guest here this evening. Ivan Novick rose to the presidency of the Zionist Organization of America from the ranks. Serving in that capacity in an era of great stress, he has always displayed tact when meeting with important gov- ernment officials, and his skill is in his consistent leaning on facts and preparation which place him in high ranks among spokesmen for Jewry. It should be said to his credit that he knows his place in a position that was held by Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Judge Julian Mack, eminent scholars, top-ranking rabbis, all fully aware of their responsibilities to the great and historic Zionist movement. Novick not only occupies his position of leadership with dignity: he does not speak out of turn, and his letters published in important newspapers and magazines, as well as his speeches, are based on facts. At the same time, he is a realist in his approaches. He has earned great respect for his leadership and this community has reason to appreciate the opportunity to welcome him here.