2

Friday, February 18, 1983

THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS

Purely Commentary

`Arik' Sharon Equated With
Ulysses S. Grant in a
Recollection About a 'Massacre'

Another Inquiry, Which
Measures Discord

In an interesting article in the current issue of Ameri-
can Zionist, the organ of the Zionist Organization of
America, entitled "Unconditional Surrender," Dr.
Shoshonnah Klebanoff, described as an American-trained

U.S. GRANT

Proper Respect for Fact-Finders and Truth-Searchers
in the Media, With Recognition of Consistencies in
the Wall Street Journ4I and Truth Kernel in Chicago

Another "inquiry" occurs simultaneous with the one in
Israel — the one about the American Jewish guilt in the
challenges created by the Nazi barbarities.
As in most issues, there are probably several sides to
many questions relating to the Hitler era. Nahum
Goldmann was among the Jewish leaders who admitted
guilt in having been slow in acting, incompetent in con-
fronting the menace.
Many aspects of a tragic situation will have to be taken
into account in the final judgment. American Jews had
"national policy" to contend with, on a basis similar to the
Jews in Great Britain. It will be recalled that when
Gerhardt Riegner presented the facts about the mass mur-
ders, the crematoria, the death camps, it was difficult to
penetrate the ears of the world's diplomatic forces.
There is little doubt that many prominent Jews were
frightened into silence. When the entire story is recorded
there may be another revelation: that those who later dared
speak out in support of a "free Jewish state in Palestine"
also had the guts to demand organized action against
Nazism.
Arthur Goldberg is, at last, pursuing the study relat-
ing to "the guilt" with determinatiori. This will be well for
historic accuracy.

ARIEL SHARON

Israeli political scientist, commenced with the following:

In January 1863, laying siege to Fort Donel-
son in northern Tennessee during the American
Civil War, Union General Ulysses S. Grant refused
the request for a negotiated surrender made to
him by General Simon Buckner, his former
classmate and friend at West Point Military
Academy and now the commander of this Con-
federate outpost.

"An unconditional and immediate surren-
, der," was the phrase which Grant used when he
turned down Buckner's request.

Contemporary historians often contend that
Grant's rejection of all terms of surrender at Fort
Dohelson actually led to the bloodbath which oc-
curred some three months later at Shiloh, a Con-
federate outpost in southern Tennessee. Accord-
ing to these historians the absence of any terms of
surrender left the defenders of Shiloh no option
than to prolong the battle and steeled them to
fight to the bitter end.

Following the mass slaughter at Shiloh,
voices were raised in Washington which de-
manded the removal of Grant from his post, to
which President Abraham Lincoln tersely re-
plied: "I can't spare the man, he fights."

The end came at Appomattox Court House
where, for the last time, Grant demanded an un-
conditional surrender and Lee agreed. But Lee
requested that as a gesture of consideration for
their personal valor and honor, each Confeder-
ate officer be allowed to return to his home riding
his horse. _

Lee's request was rejected. An unconditional
surrender, according to Grant, included no room
for any type of terms whatsoever. And Lee sur-
rendered unconditionally. The surrender having
been signed and completed, Grant now, from his
position as the victor and of his own accord,
allowed the Confederate officers to return to their
home riding their horses.

Three years after Appomattox, "Grant the
Butcher," the hate target of the entire South and
of the whole peace movement and the doves of the
North, won the U.S. Presidency by a landslide,
thus proving his immense popularity in the elec-
torate. Grant, now relabeled the "Man Who Saved
the Nation," was re-elected four years later.

Historians of his two administrations tend to
describe the "quiet warrior" as "gullible,"
"naive," and "honest," a man who was unable to
see the evil and corruption that-Surrounded him.
While equating historic incidents is not always realis-
tic or even sensible, this item may have some relation to the
current Israel situation and to Ariel Sharon. The dismissed
Israel minister of defense retains popularity, akin to
Grant's. Under normal circumstances he might have been a
natural in succession to Menahem Begin. This hardly
seems logical at this time or in any near future. In "mas-
sacre" and threats of ouster from military command, "Arik"
Sharon is contrasted with General Grant, but there is a
kinship that cannot be dismissed.

' •

ARTHUR GOLDBERG

NAHUM GOLDMANN

Truth Gains a Foothold
In Aftermath of Inquiry

Much of the resentment over the distortions that mar-
red truth in reports of the Lebanese occurrences may be
assuaged by responsible interpretations both of the Israel
inquiry commission report as well as the aftermath.
Most of the newspapers continue on a path of failing to
demand similar action by Lebanon, in the task of establish-
ing the guilt of Christian involvement in the massacres —
and there were and continue to be many of them. Some
newspapers have demanded action by the present Lebanese
government to ferret out the guilty. Notable among them is
the Wall Street Journal. The New York Times now keeps
pointing to the guilt, especially notable in the Thomas
Friedman articles.
Now comes the Chicago Tribune with a courageous
editorial. It has two formulas and they are depicted, first,
under the title Israel's Culpability ...
and continues
with a second portion entitled . . . and Arafat's guilt.
Treating "culpability" as a tribute to Israel's refusal to
resort to a "whitewash," at the same time rebuking "callous
indifference" to the dangers that were brewing in the
Christian-Moslem fratricide, thereby joining in the in-
dictment of the callousness that caused the formation of the
commission of inquiry, the Chicago Tribune proceeded to
point to the guiltiest of all.
Under " . . . Arafat's guilt," the editorial pulled no
punches, declaring:

,

In the flurry of finger-pointing that followed
release of the Israeli commission's massacre re-
port, none was more hypocritical than that of the
PLO's Yasir Arafat.
Mr. Arafat said there should be an interna-
tional war crimes tribunal, like the one at Nurem-
burg after World War II, to try the Israelis (and the
Americans, too) for "these dirty and shameful
massacres and genocide."
Well, if there is to be a war crimes tribunal the
docket will be a long one and the Israelis and the
Americans will 'be nowhere near the top of it. At
the top belongs Yasir Arafat himself, leader of an
organization that has as its governing policy the
destruction of a nation and the terrorist murder of
innocent men, women and children.
And next on the docket should come the men
who actually did the killing in the Palestinian ref-
ugee camps — Lebanese Christian militiamen.
Ayatollah Khomeini belongs on the docket, too,
along with the leaders of the Provisional Irish
Republican Army, the Red Brigades, Idi Amin,

By Philip
Slomovitz

Col. Muammar Qaddafi and innumerable others
who have been guilty of "dirty and shameful mas-
sacres and genocide."
After those trials have been completed and
the guilty criminals punished Mr. Arafat is wel-
come to try the Israelis and the Americans — ex-
cept by that time he'd have been hanged.
There are many more in the ranks of such guilty,
and the new associate of Arafat as the creators of situations
that placed Israel on the defensive and caused the tragedies
that are Lebanon's is Jordan's King Hussein. He and his
record of having encouraged the crimes were properly ex-
posed in the Meet the Press NBC interview Sunday by
Israel's U.S. Ambassador Moshe Arens. Fearlessly tracing
the Hussein record, Ambassador Arens proved his skill as a
statesman and gave credence to the wisdom of his being
considered for high rank in the Israel government.
Meanwhile, there is exoneration of leaders in the
media in their quest for the truth. The Chicago Tribune
contributes to it. The Wall Street Journal (see Editorial in
this issue) is a partner in honorable testing of realities in
the Middle East. Other newspapers are helpful in that
respect. Proper recognition must never be withheld when it
is due the respectful in the media.

Some Basic Facts Relevant
in Israel's Defense on Inquiry

If the Israel inquiry commission's report has left nega-
tive reactions leading to condemnations of the Jewish state,
they must be corrected.
The fact is that Israel emerges purified and the basic
charges are against those who used bad judgment and had
not acted speedily to prevent the extent of the Sabra and
Shatila camps.
Here are some basics that must be remembered and
circulated as wisely as possible, in an outline prepared by
official quarters:
• On the evening of Sept. 15, 1982, Major-
General Amir Drori made an effort to persuade
the commanders of the Lebanese army that their
forces should enter the camps and that they
should prevail upon the Prime Minister of Leba-
non to agree to this move. The reply of the
Lebanese army was negative. On Friday, Sept. 17,
Major-General Drori held a meeting with the
commander of the Lebanese army in which he
again tried to persuade the commander, and
through him the Prime Minister and Ambassador
Draper, that the Lebanese army enter the camps.
The answer which Major-General Drori received
was negative.
• The commission established that it is im-
possible to determine precisely the number of
persons who were slaughtered. The numbers
cited in this regard are to a large degree tendenti-
ous and are not based on an exact count by per-
sons whose reliability can be counted on. The
commission is of the opinion that the number of
victims was less than a thousand, and is inclined
to accept the figure of between 700 and 800 of the
IDF intelligence sources.
• The commission established that the mas-
sacre was perpetrated by the Phalangists and not
by other organized military forces. The direct re-
sponsibility for the massacre lies with Phalangist
forces and later denials of any connection with
the massacre by Phalangist commanders are pa-
tently incorrect.
• The commission established that no force
under the command of Major Haddad took part in
the Phalangists' operation in the camps, or took
part in the massacre.
• The commission established that hints, and
even accusations, to the effect that IDF soldiers
were in the camps at the time the massacre was
perpetrated are completely groundless and con-
stitute a baseless libel.
• Moreover, the commission established, be-
yond any doubt,-that no conspiracy or plot was
entered into between anyone from the Israeli
political echelon or from the military echelon in
the IDF and the Phalangists, with the aim of per-
petrating atrocities in the camps.

The decision to have the Phalangists enter the
camps was taken with the aim of preventing
further losses in the war in Lebanon, to accede to
the pressure of public opinion in Israel, which
was angry that the Phalangists, who were reaping
the fruits of the war, were taking no part in it, and
to take advantage of the Phalangists' professional
service and their skills in identifying terrorists
and in discovering arms caches. In having the
Phalangists enter the camps, no intention existed
on the part of anyone who acted on behalf of Is-
rael to harm the non-combatant population, and

(Continued on Page 12)

