12 Friday, September 23, 1983

THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS

Black March on Washington and Jewish Pluralism

By DR. IRVING
GREENBERG

National Jewish
Resource Center

NEW YORK — On Aug.
28, 1963, Martin Luther
King addressed a great civil
Tights rally in Washington,
giving his now immortal "I
Have a Dream" speech. The
event was one of the sym-
bolic high water marks of
the civil rights movement of
the 1960s.
Among the 250,000
attendees, Jews were a
highly visible presence.
Their participation found
official expression in
Joachim Prinz's speech as
one of the designated
spokesmen. Prinz spoke
movingly and drew upon his
own Jewish experiences
under Nazism to warn of the
dangers of silence in the
face of evil.
During the past 20 years,
the then perceived unity of
black and white interests
and, in particular, Jewish
and black concerns, has
fractured. The Martin
Luther King Center for
Non-Violent Social Change
initiated a new march on
Washington to mark the oc-
casion of the 20th anniver-
sary of the first march. Its
goal was to strengthen the
call for a national holiday in
honor of King and to high-
light the continuing unful-
filled elements of King's
dream.
Blacks themselves
were split over the
march. Bayard Rustin,
the organizer of the 1963
march, and the National
Urban League were par-
ticularly outspoken in
arguing that marches
were an ineffectual way
of pursuing jobs and eco-
nomic opportunity. The
catchall nature of the
demands and the inclu-
sion of gay rights and
other issues disturbed
other blacks.
The Jewish community
was divided over the march
as well. Liberal Jews felt
sympathy for the black
cause and nostalgia for the
old unity. Many Jews felt
that we owed it to Martin
Luther King's memory to
participate. King had chal-
lenged anti-Semitism even
among blacks ("for the
black men to be struggling
for justice and then turn
around and be anti-Semitic
. . . is a very immoral
course").
King had criticized Soviet
persecution of Jews ("Jews
in Russia are facing every
day a kind of spiritual and
cultural genocide"). King
had supported Israel
strongly, calling it "one of
the great outposts of democ-
racy in the world" and urg-
ing support for its safety

RABBI GREENBERG

Jewish liberal group, Re-
form and its leadership
wanted to support the black
cause. Moreover, they
argued that it would be dis-
astrous to let moderates like
Coretta Scott King slip into
the hands of anti-Israel and
more radical blacks.
The Jewish community
could not afford the in-
creased receptivity to Arab
views and causes that would
follow. Israel should not be-
come politically identified
with the right or even neo-
conservative views alone.
The other relatively
least-changed liberal
group, American Jewish
Congress, also stepped
in. Sentimentally, the
AJCongress was also
pulled by the memory of
the role Dr. Joachim
Prinz, its then president,
had pla
yed in 1964.
While Schindler wanted
to support the rally, he (and
the American Jewish Con-
gress) were worried that
any possible denunciation
of Israel expressed there
could lead to a firestorm of
criticism within the Jewish
community. Schindler was
also worried that the
scheduling of the rally on
Shabat meant that partici-
pation would be deemed to
show a lack of Jewish self-
respect.
However, Schindler de-
cided to participate in ex-
change for guarantees: re-
vision of the call and assur-
ance against anti-Israel ac-
tions.
A critical intermediary
role was played by Robert
Lifschutz. Lifshutz, an At-
lanta Jew, former counsel to
President Jimmy Carter in
the White House, had
strong connections to King's
circles and to the Jewish
community. The incentive
not to totally lose Jewish
support brought forth mod-
erating influences within
the march's leadership.
The march's "call" was
rewritten. The implied
criticism of Israel was
changed to a call for "a

("Peace for Israel means se-
curity and that security
must be a reality").
However, the opponents
of participation soon gained
the upper hand in the
Jewish community. Too
many of the organizers
(Jackson, Lowery,. Walter
Fauntroy) had supported
the PLO. Among the early
sponsors of the rally were
such organizations as the
American-Arab Anti-
Discrimination Committee
headed by former Senator
James Aboureszk, a notori-
ous front for Arab and anti-
Israel propaganda.
Especially influential
were the views of Bayard
Rustin. Rustin labeled
the march as an inappro-
priate tactic for the issues
of today, criticized the
grab-bag list of demands
which included criticism
of U.S. policy in the Mid-
dle East and warned that
the success of the march
would strengthen the
hand of radical and anti-
Israel black leaders.
When the initial "call to
action" of the march in-
cluded a slightly-masked
attack on U.S. support for
Israel, the argument over
endorsing the march in the
Jewish community turned
into a rout of the supporters.
The ADL and the American
Jewish Committee came out
in opposition. For a while, it
appeared that only the New
Jewish Agenda would
actively participate in the
march. The surface impres-
sion — sure to be exploited
by the media — was that the
mainstream of the or-
ganized Jewish community
By DVORA WAYSMAN
was cut off from all but the
World Zionist Press Service
most conservative black
. . . You shall dwell in
groups.
booths seven days; all that
At this point, the coun- are Israelites born shall
tervailing forces stepped in. dwell in booths; that your
The pluralism of the Jewish generations may know that I
community reasserted it- made the children of Israel
self. A key role was played to dwell in booths, when I
by the Union of American brought them out of the
Hebrew Congregations, its Land of Egypt . . .
president, Alexander
Leviticus 23:39
Schindler, and Rabbi David
According to Jewish tra-
Saperstein, the director of
its Washington office for so- dition, as soon as Yom Kip-
cial action. As the relatively pur ends, you drive in at
most unreconstructed least the first nail to build

just and lasting peace for
the Palestinians, Israelis
and all other people in
the Middle East." A
specific written pledge
was made not only to
check positions hostile to
Israel, but that were any
speakers to make anti-
Israel or anti-Semitic
statements, they would
be publicly disowned on
the spot by the co-
chairmen of the event.
In response to these as-
surances, the American
Jewish Congress an-
nounced its sponsorship of
the march. The UAHC
sponsored the march and
Schindler agreed to give the
benediction. However, the
majority of Jewish organ-
izations persisted in their
refusal to endorse the
march.
Who was right? The sup-
porters or opponents? The
AJCommittee or the AJ-
Congress? I would argue
that both sides were right.
Not to be cynical: it was
probably best for the Jewish
community that the rally
was successful (social jus-
tice, economic opportunity
are still "good for the Jews")
but not too successful (so
that the Jesse Jacksons did
not gain too much).
It would have been bad for
the Jews if a total or-
ganized Jewish organiza-
tional boycott of the march
was highlighted in the
media as proof that Jews
have abandoned liberalism
and black causes. It would
have been doubly bad if a
denunciation of Israel had
then occurred which would
have been used against Is-
rael and further polarized
blacks and Jews and further
weakened support for Israel
in certain circles.
It was good for the
Jews that moderate
black leadership within
the march were
encouraged to negotiate
and revise their "call." It
was also good that the
moderate blacks who
opposed the march were

,

RABBI SCHINDLER

supported by the other
Jewish organizations
who did not support the
march. The lesson has
gone out that Jewish
support is not automatic
and that Jewish interests
must be respected if
Jewish support is sought.
This is a classic example
where the pluralism in the
Jewish community works in
our favor. By playing both
sides of the street— not cyn-
ically but in accordance
with the natural division of
Jewish interests and posi-
tions — the greatest
number of Jewish positions
were asserted and pro-
tected.
Of course, it could have
backfired. The march might
have condemned Israel — or
have been so successful as to
strengthen the wrong ele-
ments in the black commu-
nity. But those are the risks
that are always involved in
the flow of day-to-day politi-
cal issues and decisions.
The Jewish community
should learn to utilize its
own pluralism positively. In
general, support for Israel
can be kept at a -more uni-
versal level if the various
factions within the Jewish
community seek out their
counterparts and work with
them on the issues. Thus,
conservatives should go
with conservatives, Jewish
Republicans with Republi-
cans, as well as liberals and
radicals going with their
peers.

To make this possible,
Jews will have to tolerate
a greater range of dissent
and disagreement vis-a-
vis Israeli policies or on
other issues — provided,
of course, the fundamen-
tally positive stand is
made clear.
The community will also
have to learn to be more
civil in arguing over the is-
sues to avoid sweeping con-
demnations ("neo-
conservatives are betraying
the Jewish tradition," "cri-
tics of any aspect of Israeli
policy are traitors"). The
nature of politics is that
there are . many issues in
which there are two plausi-
ble legitimate sides and
both are right although one
or the other may prove to be
more effective once they are
actually worked out. Thus
one learns to treat issues
more pragmatically and
flexibly, reserving extreme
moral- condemnation or
polarization for the very few
issues that deserve that
kind of treatment.

Pluralism within the
Jewish community — fre
quently treated with great
anxiety as a source of divi-
siveness and weakness —
can be a real source of
strength. If I have any
reservation about the out-
come of the community's
disagreement over the
march, it is that the balance
within the organizations
has too clearly shifted to the
self-interest, more "conser-
vative" side.
There were many Jewish
individual participants in
the march — more so than
the percentage of Jewish
organizations involved.
This raises the continuing
risk that excessive univer-
salism continues to sweep
through Jews as individuals
while the organized com-
munity turns so par-
ticularist that it cannot
reach those Jews.
A better balance — or,
more correctly — a better
outreach, is needed.

When Israel Dwells in Booths

your sukka. After all the cept that God is One taro ideas --- that God in-
solemnity of Yom Kippur, forever. Judaism imparts tervened and helped us
we prepare for Sukkot when -the message by way of overcome insuperable
we are not only allowed, but symbolism and ritual, difficulties; and it also
actually obligated, to re- stamping it into the con- symbolizes the ingather-
joice. This injunction is sciousness of each Jew. ing of the grain and fruit
made three times:
Sukkot symbolizes cer- harvests.
You shall rejoice before
the Lord your God seven
days . . . You shall rejoice
in your festival . . . You
shall have nothing but joy.
You could call Sukkot a
multi-purpose festival, for
there are many strands
coming together for the cen-
tral theme. Certain reli-
gious tasks were imposed on
the Jews which were not
given to other nations. The
greatest of these was intro-
ducing justice and right-
eousness into the world.
Why should we build
these frail booths and
dwell in them for seven
Crowds gather near the Western Wall in
days? Sukkot per-
petuates the basic pre- Jerusalem during Sukkot.

att, 4ft.

