100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

The University of Michigan Library provides access to these materials for educational and research purposes. These materials may be under copyright. If you decide to use any of these materials, you are responsible for making your own legal assessment and securing any necessary permission. If you have questions about the collection, please contact the Bentley Historical Library at bentley.ref@umich.edu

February 12, 1982 - Image 2

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Detroit Jewish News, 1982-02-12

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

2 Friday, February 12, 1982

THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS

Purely Commentary

Too Many Jews in U.S.
Diplomatic Corps? ... Shades
of Panic in Days of Yore

Mrs. Jeane Kirkpatrick made an interesting comment
in her observations of experiences as chief U.S. delegate to
the United Nations. She revealed that some representa-
tives of foreign nations expressed the view that there were
too many Jews in the U.S. delegation to the UN.
This is a revival of an Old Wives' Tale, a repetition of
accusations heard during the Franklin D. Roosevelt ad-
ministration that too many Jews were being appointed to
important positions in government.
It's an old numerus clausus in politics. In those days,
the advice was being offered by heads of some national
Jewish organizations to prospective selectees for govern-
ment positions to shun the honors lest their acceptance be
treated as "too many Jews in government!" In fact, it was
when Morgenthau and Frankfurter were among the
"Jewish names" and personalities considered for important
posts who were advised to stay out of government service.
The crime even of suggesting such abstentions is ap-
parent. Fortunately the Morgenthaus wrote their names
gloriously into American history; so did Justices Brandeis
and Frankfurter, "Sammy the Rose" Rosenman, later
Eugene Rostow, many in all generations.
Ambassador Kirkpatrick's comments, on Jews in im-
portant government roles, on Israel as the UN "pariah,"
lead to recollections of past experiences. Now as then, a
numerus clausus in anything and everything is not ac-
ceptable. There is still that important voice called Ameri-
can fair play. Those who yield to it are the cowards, those
who suggest it are scoundrels.

Heart of Gold Awardees
Represent Volunteerism

ROSE GREENBERG, LEONARD SIMONS

Heart of Gold awards, introduced by the United Foun-
dation to recognize the impressiveness of commitments to
community needs, brought to light the nobility of a large
number who have labored tirelessly to provide for human
needs.
The selectees represent an army of volunteer workers
who have selflessly aided the less affluent, the less fortu-
nate.
The early winners of these awards included women
who labored with the blind and the deaf, with the handi-
capped elderly, the young people who needed guidance.
Their names fill a communal Who's Who of women
whose hearts are filled with kindness, who had not asked
for recognition, whose selection for. Heart of Gold honors
was by those who were aware of their selflessness.
In the past they were all women. Now there is a devia-
tion, and a prominent man with a Heart of Gold was added
to the corps of honored women.
This year, the ideal inherent in the creation of the
Heart of Gold award has been additionally enriched by the
selection of another eminent man to share the honors with
the women. The choice is so highly commendable that it
once again attests to the good judgment of the selectors of
the honorees.
Leonard N. Simons merits the honor. He adds glory to
the basic principle of making Heart of Gold a distinct
acclaim for the awardee's record of service to mankind.
The current occasion of the presentation of the Heart of
Gold awards gains added significance for the Jewish com-
munity because Mr. Simons' co-winner from Jewish ranks
is a distinguished lady. Rose (Mrs. William) Greenberg has
such a long record of service that she represents a match for
the man who shares honors with her.
Mr. Simons' record of service to all elements in the
community, to Jewry and to the nation, is so immense that
although it has been referred to on many occasions it de-
serves repetition.
Similarly, Mrs. Greenberg has done so much, the long
list of her services is so voluminous, that the community
she represents justly takes pride in her.
The Heart of Gold presentations truly emphasize no-
bility of spirit, symbolized by the two Jewish winners of the
honor.
Mr. Simons has earned the gratitude of the young and
the elderly; he has served the causes of Hillel Foundations

By Philip
Slomovitz

Recollections of the Days of Yore, When Numertis Clausus
Was Suggested for Jews in Official Positions . . . 'Hearts of
Gold' Designations for Two Admired Jewish Personalities

as devotedly as that of the Home for the Aged, the cause of
Israel as much as the blacks when they needed help.
Mrs. Greenberg's recorded role in the community simi-
larly has many factors. Most impressive is the wisdom that
led her to the organization of an army of workers in the
cause of Service With Love, which has inspired hundreds of
women to dedicate themselves to calling the lonely, the
aged, the sick, and to give them courage in a struggle to
attain a good long life.
What really summarizes the services that have lifted
these two splendid representatives of the Jewish commu-
nity in the current Heart of Gold ceremonial presentations?
It is their volunteerism. It is their unselfishness. It is their
readiness to serve all who need the human spark.
Mrs. Greenberg and Mr. Simons have added to volun-
teerism the nobility of humanism. For this they have
earned the acclaim they received at the Heart of Gold
awards ceremony on Tuesday.

A Lesson From the Past:
About a Hebrew-Loving
Anti-Zionist Britisher

If there is no learning from the past, there can be no
application of experience to the future.
Recovering an old column, nearly four decades old,
could serve the vitally needed lesson for the present.
In 1943, this reporter reviewed "The Memoirs of Sir
Ronald Storrs" (Putnam). It was the autobiographical story
of the British Governor of Jerusalem. The review appeared
as a Purely Commentary column then syndicated to some
60 newspapers by the Independent Jewish Press Service.
The column was entitled, "Storrs and Zionism." As its text
reprinted here indicates, it raised several questions:
whether a highly cultured British official who was assigned
to the governship of Jerusalem could also be an anti-
Semite, whether a non-Jew who knew and loved Hebrew
could be a Jew-hater, whether anti-Zimism was compatible
with Judeophiles?
Here is the Purely Commentary column dated April
23, 1943:
Sir Ronald Storrs, first governor of Jerusalem
under British rule, has been saying things that are
not very helpful to the Zionist cause.
Nearly six years ago, Sir Ronald published his
autobiography under the title of "The Memoirs of
Sir Ronald Storrs." In that record of his dealings
with Zionists we are given warning that he can
not be expected to go the full way with us in claim-
ing an autonomous Jewish commonwealth.
.
The story of his ex-
periences in Pales-
tine is worth reading.
If he is to be confer-
red with in the future
on the Palestinian is-
sues, Jewish leaders
must familiarize
themselves with his
attitudes.
He is not an anti-
Semite, and by his
own declaration we
must believe that he
is neither pro-Arab
nor pro-Zionist.
But he has cer-
tainly given prefer-
ence to the point of
view of those who
SIR RONALD STORRS
would
denude
Zionism of its most sacred principles.
For instance, when he spoke of the riots of 1920
and 1921, he resented the "tempest of vituperation
in the Palestine and world Hebrew press" and
stated that, having to endure such a tempest, "I
am still unable to understand how I did not
emerge from it an anti-Semite for life."
These are strong words.
Thus, in his memoirs, Sir Ronald Storrs says
nothing about the necessity of firm dealing with
Arab gangsters, but he did advocate a firm stand
where the "powerful influences of the Zionist
Organization" were involved.
Well, Sir Ronald has reason to rejoice that the
Zionist "powers" have been curbed. Jewish chil-
dren have been kept from Palestine, boatloads of
homeless men, women and children have been
turned away from the shores of Palestine and the
dispossessed are threatened with restrictions
against the purchase of land.
But Sir Ronald Stbrrs has an ideal of which he
can and does boast. He knows and loves Hebrew.
And his scholarship is his strongest weapon
against us.
Is this a contradiction of facts and an illogical
statement?
Not at all.

By boasting of his Jewish scholarship and his
knowledge of Hebrew — often the boasts are
made in Hebrew — he is able to appear as one of
us and to say: Look at me! I love your language. I
believe in Hebrew as the language of the Jew. (His
own words in his memoirs are: , "But what'other
language could a Jewish national revival in
Palestine have ado ated?")
Can you call sucl a man an enemy?
Of course, you ca n not.
But with such a w 3apon in his hands he is dead-
lier than others in its advocacy of policies that
may restrict our pr >gress in Palestine.
Is it possible that )ur leaders are unable to bef-
riend brilliant men 1 ke Sir Ronald Storrs and
we thereby are defe ated in future planning for
redemption of Pak stine?
The reasons for resurrecting this column:
Zionists, knowledgeable Jews, students of anti-
Semitism and the obstacles in the paths of Jews every-
where, have always known that there was an element
in mankind that loved the Bible, studied it in the original
Hebrew, recited the Psalms, but hated Jews. Why has it
been, remains, so difficult to overcome such hatreds? If, in
the process, those dealt with are people genuinely cultured,
why can't their hatred be eliminated?
Similarly, the question arises: It has always been
common knowledge, dating back to Ronald Storrs and long
before him, that Arabism, now also infected with the power
of Islamism, has threatene 3 Zionism and Israel's existence.
How come that dating back to the earliest times of Jewish
pioneering so little has been achieved in establishing a
genuine Arab-Jewish friendship and cooperation?
Incidentally, since Ronald Storrs is on a brief agenda
here, it is worth recalling, as an emphasis on Storrs' love for
Hebrew, Jacob Miller, who will be remembered as the di-
rector here of the Detroit Zionist District and the Keren
Hayesod campaigns in the 1920s. He assumed the director-
ship of the Judea Insurance Company in Palestine and
Storrs was among the first of the British officials he had
visited in establishing hte insurance company in the
Yishuv. The first thing Storrs sais to him was: "Miller,
daber Ivrit. Ata b'Eretz Israel" — "Miller, speak Hebrew.
You are in the Land of Israel." _
Could such an Hebreo-phile be an anti-Semite? But he
was an anti-Zionist. Is this how diplomacy must operate?

.

One-Sidedness of Anti-Israel
Program Dishonors '20/20'

Neither Channel 7, carrying the ABC features, nor
Hugh Downs added glory to the "20/20" broadcast, Feb. 4,
when the extremist in Arab nationalism were given a plat-
form to evoke hatred for Israel.
It wasn't merely a story of Jewish atrocities. It was a
compilation of one-sided charges and assertions which were
cleverly concocted to portray "Israeli villainy."
The advance announcements, sensationalizing the
program, immediately alerted an innocently uninformed
audience that the Villain Israel was to be portrayed that
night. The announcements were brief: "How Israel Mis-
treats the Arabs" was to be witnessed that night.
There was a brief acknowledgement of Israeli claims
that the administration of the "West Bank" by Israel
brouit economic progress to the area. Then the repetition
that Israel would not offer explanations for the anticipated
program. This is where the root to the problem is to be
located: that Israel could not have participated in debates
over what was being presented.
To have dignified what was planned for the "20/20"
charade would have been the stupidest submission to a
spreading campaign of hatred. How can any honest person
risk a dispute with people who were deliberately chosen to
present the most antagonistic aspects of an existing situa-
tion which is presently under deliberation, with Egypt and
the United States as partners in the planning process?
Shocking in the extreme was the path provided for the
anti-Israel propagandists to hide the truth about the pro-
visions made by Israel's authorities to assure water
supplies and electrical power for the Arab farmers. For the
spreaders of hate to have been enabled to make an issue
over a swimming pool enjoyed by Israeli settlers was one o'
the stupidities that were perpetrated. How much water is
there in a swimming pool that could affect the massive \
needs for irrigation?
It was as if a gang of rowdies were to be imposed upon a
community with challenges based on so many distortions
that attempts at arriving at truth would only be further
annihilated.
So much that is honorable and proper is developing in
the Judea-Samaria area portrayed as the West Bank that a
one-sided selection of partisan witnesses is far from just or
honorable.
As long as the facts about the accused were not avail-
able, that "20/20" program should never have been tele-
vised. It was an unjust accumulation of accusations, injur-
ing Israel and her friends and harming the peace process. It
was a program. to be ashamed of.

Cy-

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan