2 Friday, November 6, 1981 THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS Purely Commentary The Human Factor in the Debate Over Massive Arms Sales and the Manner in Which Disagreements Demand Respect for Opposition, Devoid of Threats, Innuendo By Philip Slomovitz After AWACS: Recapitulating the Sad Part of an Accumulated Blunder That Reeked With Hatreds Anti-Climax is the description due for whatever may now be said about the debate over AWACS, the conflicting attitudes, the editorialized viewpoints. Whatever is said now may already have been uttered and surely could have been said prior to the triumphant vote in the U.S. Senate upholding the Reagan policy on Saudi Arabia. Only one voice could add a ray of light to the issue that was filled with so much dynamite and all-too-many threats: if from Riyadh there could be a voice declaring that the Saudis now preach Salaam, not Jihad. Nothing else matters. The poison on the American scene is the chief issue in whatever summation may be sought in the aftermath of the great debate. The "warnings" of an emerging anti- Semitism, the resort to the old cliche of "Jewish money in politics," utilization of Menahem Begin as the chief scapegoat in the disputed proposal of massive arms sales — these are the repetitions of Jewish experience that had their roles appended to AWACS. It has not been emphasized sufficiently that it was not AWACS alone that mattered, that at issue was an arms deal so immense that it staggered the imagination. The arms now to be supplied to Saudi 'Arabia include every imaginable piece of military hardware made available by the Merchants of Destructive Weapons. The pacifists were silent. Where were the voices of those who should have renewed the demand for an end to arms completions, for an emphasis on peace rather than the need for destructive weapons for security purposes. But the ruling factor is the Prophetic: - Peace, peace, and there is no peace!" Therefore, the arms deals become necessities, and in the process of bidding for them there is a decline in human values. This is what has happened: Jews were threatened with anti-Semitism, the country was told the President can't be wrong, the Constitution, which gives the Senate the power to overrule a President in matters of principle, was ignored. Would that the President were always right, that there should never be an occasion to differ with him! Who can predict such an eventuality for the democratic way of life for this nation, for the free peoples of the world? ('an this ever be a debatable subject? Only those who advocate return to imperialistic monarchism will endorse it. Else, there must be an adherence to the right to differ, and if ever this is denied toward the Presidency of the United States, woe unto the freedom of Mankind! There is much to deplore in the experiences of the last few weeks. Not only the threat to Jews of a re-emerging anti-Semitism, but the manner in which it was shouted, the resort to the "Jewish money" argument, which was in reality an insult to many of the leading legislators in the land who were accused of having been subjected to the power of the -Jewish dollar"; the insults that were heaped upon Israel's prime minister, who, with his associates in the Israel government, really muted the issue in its lasting stages; the way Israel and Jewish protestors to the AWACS deal were portrayed — they spell collectively a tragic note for this chapter in American history. The dispute was sullied at the outset when it was described as Carterism Without Carter. It developed into a Carterism WITH Carter. Then came the combined Nixon- Carter-Ford fiasco, three men who should dignify diplomacy and instead polluted .statesmanship. That was among the ugliest portions of the debate that was mislabeled AWACS and turned into a PLO ploy. The tragedy is in the vitriolic manner in which editorials treated the debate and the differing views, the form that cartoons took, the portrayals that almost echoed Streicherism from the Munich of Nazi days. This was deplorable. It was not the total picture, but it existed. The cartoon has a greater power in formulating public opinion than the editorial, than even the editorial writer, and some of the distortions by car- toonists caused sadness in the ranks of those who debated an issue on principle. Perhaps future debates like the one that ended in the U.S. Senate on Oct. 28 can be avoided. The experiences were labeled with the misnomer AWACS, when they should have been described as massive sale of arms to a country that speaks of Holy War — Jihad! There were editorial opinions to be admired — those in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Detroit Free Press, the Gainesville (Fla.) Sun, a number of others, who gave comfort to free discussion. There were the many who favored the massive arms sale and they did it with dignity. It is when some columnists resorted to Streicher-like hatreds, as some did, that the issue was muddied and forced into inhuman indecencies. A lot of respect is due the U.S. legislators who treated the matter with respect, staying within the limits of correct and statesmanlike application to a serious matter. There were, however, many suspicions. There is, for example, this one, which was part of the column by William Safire; - in the New York Times, Oct. 15, in. the essay entitled "A Stalwart's Lament": Worse still for our morale is the spectacle of Walter Mondale, who as Jimmy Carter's Vice President twisted Sen. Muriel Humphrey's arm until she voted for the sale of F-15s to the Saudis, now posing as a great defender of Israel by denouncing Mr. Reagan for following Mr. Carter's custom of acceding to Arab wish lists. Mondale repudiates this accusation, yet the emergence of suspicion does re- mind one of the admonition by the Psalmist, "Place not your trust in princes . . ." Yet, there is trust in princes, else there would not be 48 U.S. Senators' to act independently, to voice opinions on a disputed issue, to differ even with the President of the United States. A sad experience is being recorded in American history. It was not the first conflict- ing experience for those concerned with the problematic in the Middle East and in American political conflicts; it won't be the last. Learning from experience, the hope is that differences of views will always be respected and they will never be marred by innuendos and threats. Peace and good will must prevail, so that mankind may feel free to battle for what is right. Perhaps There Is Hope for Moderation in a Calmed Message froM Saudi Arabia Never abandoning hope, perhaps there is, after all, a measure of hope for "modera- tion" in Arab ranks, even if the term must be used in quotes. A report in the New York Times from a correspondent in Beirut speaks of the Saudis urging their coreligionists not to be too harsh on the new Egyptian head of state, President Hosni Mubarak. The NYTimes story, which was published on the day after the Reagan triumph in the U.S. Senate, follows: BEIRUT, Lebanon, Oct. 28 — Saudi Arabia, in an apparent appeal for Arab reconciliation with Egypt, has urged Arab countries to refrain from pressing the new Egyptian president to abrogate the peace treaty with Israel. The Riyadh radio said today that a front-page editorial in the government-controlled newspaper Al Madina of Jidda praised President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt yesterday as a leader with "!a clean Arab record." . The radio said the editorial urged Arab countries to give him a year "to put the Egyptian house in order" after the assassination of President Anwar el-Sadat. It was the first time a Saudi newspaper had spoken favor- ably of Egypt since the Arab countries broke relations with Egypt in 1979 after the signing of the Israeli peace treaty. The editorial in Al Madina said: "We do not and must not expect President Mubarak to abrogate the Camp David agreements at this time for a number of reasons that are understood by those acquainted with international convention." The editorial was viewed by diplomats as further evidence of a desire by conservative Arab countries to re-establish relations with Egypt. The press in Kuwait has expressed similar views. The Kuwait daily Al Siyasa, for example, said that pressure on Mr. Mubarak to renege on the peace treaty could be used by Israel as an excuse not to complete its withdrawal from Sinai. The Saudis, it will be recalled, were given credit by President Reagan for having engineered the Lebanese cease-fire in the warfare between Israel, the PLO and the Syrians. Now this is drawn upon as a signal that Saudi Arabia can be a factor for peace. With the return of Philip Habib for negotiations there, there is that increasing measure of hope that the Camp David accords will gain support from more Arab quarters. Incidentally, the reactions in Israel to the U.S. Senate vote merits attention. There was a bitter feeling, but Prime Minister Menahem Begin admonished the embittered that this is not a time to be broiges, a most welcome Yiddishized Hebraism for anger. Here is hoping again there will be no need to be broiges. `Assassination or Execution?': With Mehdi Illusion What Hope Is There for True Moderation Among Arabs? When a Ford Hospital - scribing himself as "Ford ■ Detroit) medical research Hospital Research," wrote: staff member saw fit last "Please forgive Dr. A. February to write to this Khalifa. He cannot write commentator, threatening and probably cannot read." in behalf of his Arab com- ( See The Jewish News, patriots another Holocaust Purely Commentary, for Jews, a repudiation was March 6 and March 20, elicited from Dr. M.T. 1981). Mehdi, president of the Now, this very Dr. American Arab Relations Mehdi, who in the March Committee. 20 issue was identified as The reason your commen- "secretary general of tator contacted Dr. Mehdi Arab people to American was that only a matter of people," is responsible days before the hateful let- for a letter which ap- ter arrived from the Ford peared in the New York Hospital scientist, Dr. Times, Oct. 30, giving the Mehdi was the only Arab radical Arab view of why spokesman to have ex- Anwar Sadat had to be pressed disappointment "removed" as president with his confreres having of Egypt. resorted to the vilest anti- Let there be a platform for Semitic attacks on the Dr. Mehdi, in the interest of Jewish people in speeches at truth, fairness, the search the United Nations General for justice and the pur- Assembly. suance of the commonest of Dr. Mehdi, commenting decencies in human rela- on the scurrillous letter tions. Dr. Mehdi was a party to a from Dr. A. Khalifa, de- Detroit dispute involving a depraved compatriot who dared threaten Jewry with another Holocaust. He chat- ted with the commentator some time after the March exchange, suggesting con- ferring on the issues. Then came the recent NYTimes self-expose in which he ap- pears as an applauder of the jubilation over the assassi- nation of Anwar Sadat. He suggests it was an execu- tion, contrary to the recog- nition that had been given to a man who abandoned all previous hatreds and dared a trip to Jerusalem in the search for peace. Sadat's trip was so revolutionary an act that it earned worldwide applause. Not from the Arab spokesman Dr. Mehdi, just as it did not invite recognition from the PLO and Arafat; just as they con- tinue to brand Camp David as undesirable. There was hope for the emergence of a moderate to encourage peace. The de- cent folk in mankind craved and prayed for it. For a fleeting moment it seemed as if Dr. Mehdi was the messenger for peace from his compat- riots. The disappointment is great. But the delusions are unlimited. Even the White House is falling into traps — constantly, as the State Department surely has. The latest instance is that of the misleading proposals from the Saudis, whose purpose continues to be the dismem- berment of Israel. There should be gratitude to Dr. Mehdi for what he had written. At least he doesn't hide being a menace to Israel's existence. His let- ter to the New York Times follows: "The American news media, including the Times, have not provided an an- swer to the question: Was President Sadat 'assassi- nated' on Oct. 6, as the Western press refers to the bloody event of that day, or was he 'executed," as the Arab press refers to Sadat's end? "Nor has there been in the American press as to why Sadat, a charming person on American TV and an advocate of 'peace' loved by millions of Americans, was so despised at home by his own people and by more than a billion Arabs and Moslems. any analysis To understand Arab feel- ing, imagine, if you can, the American President after Pearl Harbor flying to Tokyo to make peace with Japan and offering Canada to the Japanese rulers in payment for peace—all this without the .knowledge of the American people or the consent of the people of Canada but in the interest of peace. "Of course, no American President would ever dare to so violate the public trust. An Egyptian pharaoh could. President Sadat did exactly that by flying to Jerusalem and offering Palestine to the Israelis, without the con- sent of the Palestinians or even the knowledge of his own people. "Mohammed Anwar el- Sadat was, therefore, an ex- traordinary despot. In the 20th Century, he was acting as the pharoahs did in the remote past. "Sadat was a strange experience in the recent history of the world. Born in an authoritarian fam- ily and society, he changed roles from an Arab nationalist to a pro-fascist, from a mili- tary man to the top civi- lian post in his country. (Continued on Page 5)