2 Friday, Octskir 23, 1981
;
•
TIE DETROIT EWISII NEWS
Purely Commentary
The Kreisky Viennese Message
to American Counterparts
to Prevent Bowing to the PLO
From the Viennese capital of the only European state
that has until now given comfort to the PLO banditry came
advice to the Top Brass Americans.
The assassination of Anwar Sadat was a signal for the
Arabs who are instigating terrorism and whose main aim is
the destruction of Israel to rejoice, to sponsor celebrations of
joy, to reiterate commitment to murder their opponents.
This reviled Austrian Chancellor Bruno Kreisky, who
is the only head of a European state to recognize the PLO,
and he declared:
"It is incomprehensible that anyone could praise a
murder, that anyone could be happy over a murder."
Surely, the noted Americans, Messrs. Richard Nixon,
Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and their associates, will en-
dorse this sentiment. But in that spirit, Kreisky, whose
previous actions in support of the PLO could brand him as
one of the few Jewish enemies of Isarel, will now deny
sanctuary to the PLO, whose murderous adherents re-
cently bombed the Viennese synagogue; and the American
leaders should think twice before speaking of Pales-
tinianism and eventual communication with the PLO — so
long as the PLO and cohorts rejoice over murders.
Will the Kreisky expression of horror in Vienna strike
root in the New Jersey home of one former President, the
new California home of another ex-President and the Geor-
gia home of Jimmy Carter?
These are not intended as harsh words but as an ex-
pression of normal shock that former Presidents should be
giving comfort to murderers.
The new trends, the time chosen for comfort to the
PLO, is an unfortunate aggravation of an already overly
intensified situation. There are charges and counter-
charges, involvements that create concern and in some
instances departures from established American policies.
When a U.S. Senator implies that there will be anti-Semitic
results from the opposition to the AWACS sales — a matter
related to the new attitudes of the three past Presidents, in
their allegiance to their successor in the White House,
there is much to be worried about.
AWACS Fiasco and American
Jewish Role in Politics
Discussions of the fiasco labeled AWACS may continue
for a very long time. So many aspects relate to it, so many
confusions are yet to be diffused, the basic issue creates so
much antagonism that the echoes may be heard in the 1984
Presidential election. They will surely be heard in the 1982
Congressional contests.
Why is the Jewish name dragged in? Why is so much
politics inundated into a debate that should have been
limited to the American foreign policies, with recognition
to those who maintain that the current proposals could
negate the American role?
An analysis of political impacts was provided in a val-
uable presentation by Steven B. Roberts, in the Oct. 16 New
York Times, under the heading "Pressure on AWACS
Comes with Winks and Nods." It exposed some of the pres-
sures on Senators, promises and threats, and dealt with the
Jews as a factor. Here is a brief portion of the lengthy
Roberts article that is worth taking into account in the
study of Jewish activism in politics:
The forces arrayed against the sale have their
own powerful, if unmentioned weapon: campaign
contributions from Jewish donors.
With campaign costs skyrocketing, almost
every Senator is forced to raise money from out of
state, and Democrats, in particular, rely heavily
on Jewish sources in such states as New York and
California.
"I think that would be a factor," conceded Sen.
(Dale) Bumpers (D-Ark.). "There's a big Jewish
community in this country, and nationally, they
are big hitters in the Democratic Party."
One East Coast Senator estimated that half of
his campaign chest had come from Jewish
sources. "Anytime it's close to a toss-up," he said,
"you're going to go their way."
If this were totally true, it would be a tragedy for Jews
and for America. Whatever motivates Jewish interests is
ideological. Jews react to economic issues as the gentiles do.
Their logic leans toward the socially just, and that must be
considered as the American way. Therefore, how true is the
comment on Jewish influence money-wise? Do Jews and
their political gifts really dominate?
Do they have such a great influence in Arkansas where
a population of 2,180,000 includes .02 percent Jews — the
immense total of 3,395?
Does realism emphasize the nonsensical judging of .02
percent of a state population's influence? And doesn't it also
apply to the 2.1 percent of the • entire population in this
country as being exaggerated when it is termed as being
exceedingly influential?
By Philip
Slomovitz
Lessons to Ex-Presidents from Vienna, Warnings Lest
Distortions Mar the American Way of Judging the Major
Issues, Dominate Situation Evolving from AWACS Debates
Much more vital, exceedingly more interesting, is the
fact when there is a showdown regarding Israel and threats
of anti-Semitism, leadership in defense of the Jewish state
of Israel comes from states like Arkansas where Jews have
no influence whatever, and the salons from such states in
both houses of Congress come to the defense of Israel.
The AWACS issue is grave enough. There must be no
distortions of truth, nothing abusive of human values, ev-
erything must be devoid of the imperialistic tendencies.
Must there be a repetition of the wail: "Liberty, Liberty.
What crimes are committed in thy name?!?!?"
Who is the Troubleshooter
Manipulating the Agonies?
It may well be asked what is causing the new im-
perialistic motivations in the actions of past Presidents?
William Safire, New York Times Op-Ed Page essayist,
makes comments and charges when he states:
When Washington's Sen. Slade Gorton, a quiet-
spoken man, protested that "Prime Mi
nister
Begin doesn't control my vote," I am told that Mr.
Reagan replied, "You may not think Israel is con-
troling your vote, but the world will."
What kind of argument is that? Should the Un-
ited States base its national security decisions on
what others mistakenly "perceive" to be our mo-
tives? Are we so afraid of "world opinion" that we
must cater to its perception even when we know it
to be wrong? That is international handwringing
worthy of a McGovern strategist.
We are a democracy and a super-power. We
should make our national security decisions on
the basis of reality, not appearances, and cer-
tainly not on other nations' self-interested "per-
ception" of appearances.
When the un-Reaganlike, other-directed Dutton
pitch failed to persuade his fellow Republicans—
some of whom did not take kindly to the threat
that they would be labeled anybody's stooges —
Mr. Reagan stressed party discipline and finally
used the Sadat assassination as evidence of the
need to build a new bastion.
We should hasten to support Sadatism in Egypt,
just as we should offer our protection, in our own
way, to the Saudis who reviled and rejected the
peacemaking of this century's most farsignted
Arab. Although he was shot while celebrating the
anniversary of a sneak attack, this benevolent
dictator was the first Arab leader to realize that
peace with Israel was a first step toward prosper-
ity for his people.
But amidst the eulogies to a remarkable indi-
vidual, we should remind ourselves that in the
end, our most realiable allies are nations that
share our democratic traditions. And in the
world's cool acceptance of-another violent
change in leadership, we might direct a modicum
of outrage at Brazhnev, Castro, Qaddaft and that
farrago of rejectionists who align themselves wi
the politics of murder.
If there is an evil spirit, whence does it emanate?
Why the new imperialism in this great land?
Quoting Safire on the source of the troubles and on as
manipulator:
Missing from the reaction to the assassination
of Anwar el-Sadat is the element of outrage.
In radical Arab headquarters in Beirut and
Tripoli, the reaction is glee; in Moscow, the party
line is a smug he-brought-it-on-himself; in Lord
Carrington's Europe, you can hear the hand-
rubbing of men who prefer their own "initiative"
to the Sadat brand of peacemaking; in Israel,
there is concern for its treaty with an Egypt with-
out Sadat, and in Washington there is sadness,
resignation and calculation about how the
tragedy can be explointed to rally support for the
sale of AWACS to the Saudis.
It is as if the world were taking for granted this
triumph of terrorism.
The only genuine anger detectable at the White
House today is directed at those Republicans who
dare to defy the President on the sale of our most
guarded technological military secrets to the
power whose blackmail payments supply
weapons to the PLO.
The man who created the "Reagan or Begin"
strategy now followed by the White House is Fred
Dutton, the former McGovern campaign
strategist and Kennedy aide who masterminds
Saudi lobbying in Washington. Because he also
gets a grant from Mobil Oil, which pays for his
nonpartisan "National Town Meeting" radio
panel, Dutton has been able to sprinkle $500 to
$1,000 honoraria over hundreds of congressmen
and Washington journalists (myself included, be-
fore the connection clicked); he knows how to
operate.
The Dutton pitch is simple: a vote against the
AWACS sale, no matter what the U.S. national-
security reason, would be "perceived" as giving
Israel too great a say in U.S. affairs. Never mind
that the perception is untrue: the existence of the
perception is all that matters.
Following the Dutton line, Mr. Reagan deli-
vered his press-conference warning that "It is not
the business of other nations to make American
foreign policy," giving as his reason the need to
avoid "a perception that we are being unduly in-
fluenced ..."
Richard Nixon promptly followed up with an
even blunter version: "Everyone in the Middle
East knows," he said, that the sale would go
"through were it not for the opposition of some
Jews; opponents of the sale, "whatever their own
particular reasons" — i.e., loss of our secrets in an
Arab upheaval — must take what "everyone
knows" into account.
Moshe Dayan — Many Qualities of Eminent Genius
Moshe Dayan is being eulogized everywhere both as a
man of war as well as of peace.
These claims can be proved in numerous ways. His
having gained the title of a military hero is major on his
record. That he was a man of peace also was established in
many ways. It gained emphasis in his capacity as Menahem
Begin's foreign minister when he was one of Israel's ar-
chitects of the peace agreement with Anwar Sadat at Camp.
David.
Now the Dayan story of his encounters at Camp David
gains greater significance. In his latest book, "Break-
through — A Personal Account of the Egypt-Israel Peace
Negotiations" (Knopf), Dayan provides a history of the
events and his own important role in that historic period for
Israel, the Middle East and the world.
In this account the reader learns about his illness, and
the stoicism with which he confronted the knowledge that
he was afflicted with cancer.
"Breakthrough" re-introduces the eminent personal-
ity, one of the most famous of his nation's pioneer builders,
as an archeologist who searched for relics to establish the
legacies of Israel's history.
Reflecting on his background and character, the reader
can see in his story the Israeli leader's knowledge of the
Bible and his love for it. He is the master of his mother
tongue, Hebrew, and he was highly respected by the Arabs
among whome he mingled, whose language he had also
mastered. In this respect he also was able to play the impor-
tant role of peace-seeker.
In "Breakthrough" he tells of having broken with his
chief, Menahein Begin, but it was over administrative mat-
ters involving attitudes on the planned autonomy for the
Arabs in Judea and Samaria.
He told in "Breakthrough" that when asked whether
he approved of Israel's withdrawal from Sinai his answer is
in the affirmative, in the interest of peace.
MOSHE DAYAN
There is also his strict
adherence to the need for
additional settlements in
Judea and Samaria and his
approval of these policies.
Charismatic Sadat
emerged well in Dayan's es-
timation. There was no such
approval for either
President Jimmy Carter or
Vice PreSident Walter
Mondale.
Dayan apparently had
lesser differences with Sec-
retary of State Cyrus
Vance. With Carter and
Mondale there were con-
frontations.
The Carter and Mondale "anger" and "fury" experienced
by Dayan relate especially to the issue that was raised over
settlements. This is where Dayan expressed his firmness .
In "Breakthrough" there is the evidence. The bitter-
ness shown by Carter and Mondale are thus recorded:
We all then left for the White House.
I had been there before, when Nixon was
President. But this was my first visit since its new
tenant had moved in and also my first meeting
with President Carter and Vice President Walter
Mondale, who was with him. Our talk lasted al-
most an hour and was most unpleasant. At the
session in the State Department, there were dif-
ferences of view between the Secretary of State
and myself, but the discussion was conducted in a
calm and sober manner. Even when we turned
down a proposal by Vance or his aides, we were
(Continued from Page 2)