'2 `Friday, F6lirtiary 10, 1984 „ Oa' THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS Purely Commentary An Aggravated Debate Over Anti-Zionism Judged as Anti-Semitism, With the Late Charles de Gaulle Brought to Witness Stand in Don Cook's Biography Charles de Gaulle in Judgment Dock . The Problem of Anti-Zionist Anti-Semitism Long before the vicious incredulity of the United Na- tions submissiveness to the libelous accusation that Zionism was racism, many were judged as anti-Semites when they attacked Israel and Zionism. Jewish experience compels treating the subject as de- batable — because there were and there still are Jews who are antagonistic to Israel and are anti-Zionist. Their de-. fense is their congregational interest, and they contend that Jews are only a religious element, and they therefore act as a force to oppose anything that relates to the political, which also means the universal, the international, the global effects on Jews and Jewry. That is why Stephen S. Wise, in the mid-1920s and for a time thereafter treated such antagonists as "Jewish anti-Semites.” In the record of Dr. Wise's sermons in the Free Syna- gogue he organized in New York, there are several titles relating to his damnation of the "Jewish anti-Semites." This does not eliminate from consideration the non- Jews who stigmatize Zionism and Israel, in the United Nations, in the press, wherever they acquire a platform. Therefore the opportunity, and also the timeliness, to welcome to the witness stand the historically famous Charles de Gaulle. De Gaulle is called to the witness stand in the framework of the excellent biography of the French leader by Don Cook, the currently issued volume entitled simply "Charles de Gaulle" (Putnam). Cook reports on the press conference De Gaulle con- ducted on Nov. 27, 1967. Cook states that the remarks which burned most deeply and lasted longer from that press conference were the pronouncements that General de Gaulle volunteered about the Jews. It was his first press conference since the Six-Day War, and naturally he used the occasion to defend his condemnation of Israel." Cook then quotes de Gaulle's statement: One might ask oneself, in fact, and even many Jews do ask, whether the establishment of this community on territories acquired by more or less justifiable means, and in the midst of the Arab peoples who were fundamentally hostile, would not involve innumerable and interminable causes of friction and conflict .. . Some have even wondered whether the Jews, DON COOK RAYMOND ARON who in the dispersion remained what they have always been, an elite people, self-confident and domineering (italics added), would not, when once reunited, transform the vaulting ambition of a conqueror into the hopes which they so movingly cherished for 19 centuries: Next year in Jerusalem .. . Despite the wave, sometimes rising, some- times falling, of provoked, or more exactly inspired, by the Jews in certain countries and certain periods, they accumulated a certain bal- ance of interest, even of sympathy, in their favor, especially, it goes without saying, in Chris- tendom. Cook makes a personal comment on the de Gaulle declaration, asking whether the French chief of state was introducing antitSemitism with his comments. Cook posed the question thus: It is quite possible that coming from anyone but President de Gaulle, the description of the Jews as "an elite people, self-confident and domineering" would be taken on the whole as complimentary, if a little barbed. But from de Gaulle, on top of his actions in the Six-Day War, it suddenly posed a painful question: Was the French president opening the floodgates of anti- Semitism in France? What Cook also does at this point is to revive an inter- est in the sensational exchange of correspondence between David Ben-Gurion and Charles de Gaulle. The Israel leader By Philip Slomovitz United Nations it became so. In the main, most enemies o" Israel emerged as anti-Semites in the international arena. Not to be ignored is the truth that there are anti- Israelis in Jewish ranks. Some of them also can be judged as being anti-Semitic. In the 1920s and 1930s when Jews were antagonistic to Jewish hopes and Zionist aspirations, Dr. Stephen S. Wise condemned them as anti-Semitic. `Sermon on the Stump': How Many Politicians Recognize 'Separation'? CHARLES DE GAULLE DAVID BEN-GURION appealed to the Frenchman — they had been friends until that point — and de Gaulle's response was an additional expression of bitterness. Cook thus refers to that important incident in history: David Ben-Gurion, full of anxiety and de- spair, wrote a fourteen-page letter to de Gaulle. He got a stiff reply, rebuking Israel once again for "disregarding the warnings given at the proper time by the French Republic" against going to war, and declaring: "There was nothing offensive in underlining the character, thanks to which this strong people had been able to remain themselves after 19 centuries spent in unheard of conditions." If there. was any doubt that de Gaulle may have been misinterpreted, Don Cook refers to a statement by a famous Jewish historian definitively leveling the accusation of anti-Semitism at de Gaulle. The reference is to Raymond Aron who is thus listed in the Encyclopedia Judaica: ARON, RAYMOND (1905- ), French sociologist and writer. Aron, who was born in Paris, taught at LeHavre, Toulouse, Cologne and Berlin. In 1956 he was appointed professor of sociology at the Sorbonne, and director of studies at the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes in Paris in 1960. During World War II he was editor of Free France — La France Libre, published in London. Although not involved in Jewish affairs, Aron remained a conscious Jew. Ina series of essays published as "De Gaulle, Israel and the Jews" (1969), he concluded that even if the French president was not himself an anti-Semite, his notorious press conference after the Six-Day War certainly encouraged the anti-Jewish elements in French society. Turning again to Don Cook in the text of his "Charles de Gaulle" biography, here is his quotation from Raymond Aron: Raymond Aron, France's most noted political commentator of the postwar era, next responded (to the Ben-Gurion - de Gaulle dispute) with a slim little book entitled "The General and the Jews." "I defy any man of good faith (Aron wrote) to contradict me when I say that General de Gaulle could not possibly have not foreseen the emo- tional reactions which he provoked. The Jews of France (or rather of the entire world) immediately realized the historic significance of the words pronounced by the President of the French Re- public. The anti-Semites received from the head of the state the official authority to speak again in the same language as before the great massacre. State-approved anti-Semitism at one blow be- came salonfahig, as the Germans say. What has been said cannot be unsaid. But tomorrow either explanation or silence will establish the ultimate meaning of the few words which, in part at least, will define the last stage of Gaullism." Don Cook concludes his analyses of the de Gaulle posi- tion on Jews by defending the French leader against the charge of anti-Semitism. He nevertheless accuses him of insensitivity, stating: To accuse General de Gaulle of deliberate anti-Semitism would be far-fetched, totally out of keeping with his own integrity, intelligence and honor, and his sense of honor of the French na- tion. His own father set this example for him by defending Dreyfus when the whole nation was aroused at the turn of the century. De Gaulle was not anti-Semitic — but he certainly was insensi- tive in this as in so many other matters. It is safe to assert that insensitivity can contribute to guilt, and in this instance to anti-Semitism. David Ben- Gurion did not go that far. Subsequent events lend them- selves to such assignations. The entire subject lends itself to extensive study and testing. Not every anti-Israeli is an anti-Semite. In the When the President likened opening prayers at the U.S. Senate to the school room and proposed a lesson in sanctity, there must have been puzzlement: will any of the candidates for political positions have the guts to discuss the "Separation Principle," and will someone perhaps pro- pose, in accord with the Reagan policies, to reduce a small part of the deficit by abandoning the expense of financing chaplains for the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Repre- sentatives? Then the President made further approaches tc,- Church, apparently as a platform plank on his stumping for re-election to the Presidency, and the New York Times had the guts to comment under the heading "Sermon on the Stump" (leading editorial, Feb. 3, 1984): Who recently spoke these comforting words: "If the Lord is our light, our strength and our salvation, whom shall we fear, of whom shall we be afraid? No matter where we live, we have a promise that can make all the difference — a promise from Jesus to soothe our sorrows, heal our hearts and drive away our fears. He promised there will never be a dark night that does not end. Our weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning. He promised if our hearts are true, His love will be sure as sunlight. And by dying for us, Jesus showed how far our love should be ready to go: all the way." An eloquent preacher like the Rev. Billy Graham? The Rev. Jerry Falwell? No. Ronald Re- agan, the President of a nation whose Bill of Rights enjoins government from establishing religion, aiding one religion, even aiding all reli- gions. He gave that televised sermon not while worshiping in his church but in a Washington hotel his first Campaign stop, to a convention of religious broadcasters. You don't have to be a secular humanist to take offense at the display of what, in America, should be private piety. The devoutest Christians, who warmly respond to those words, have a higher stake in not having them used for partisan gain. That stake is the separation of church from state. Americans ask piety in Presidents, not dis- plays of religious preference. Mr. Reagan uttered not just an ecumenical summons to the spirit. He was pandering to the Christian right that helped to propel his national political career. The President went astray in the substance of his remarks as well. He compared the fight against abortion to the struggle against slavery. But the bondage in the modern instance was the law's refusal to let women decide whether or not to bear a child — until the Supreme Court read this basic liberty into the Constitution. And no Presidential preachments can turn prayer in the public schools into a "voluntary act." Mr. Reagan asked, in his State of the Union address, why kids couldn't pray in school when Congress hires chaplains to lead a prayer to start each session. The answer, also given by the Sup- reme Court, is the obvious one that children are required to attend school and are vulnerable to the pressure of peers and teachers. It's small consolation that President Reagan has given his evangelical supporters more talk than action. Actually, he has spent little capital to move the abortion and prayer measures he es- pouses. His recent streak of religiosity may also have been intended to console some Protestants who heatedly objected to formal diplomatic ties with the Vatican. But as preaching proves, words matter. It's an offense to Americans of every denomination, or no denomination, when a President speaks that way. The report on the Presidential approach to the pulpit, which could, as it should, be judged as an assault on the "Separation" ideal in the American tradition, called atten- - tion to the newest large-scale political development. Per- haps the NYTimes "Sermon on the Stump" will be a nail in the coffin where the measures proposed by the President should be buried.