PURELY COMMENTARY DETROIT'S HIGHEST RATES Gambling Continued from Page 2 Minimum Deposit of $500 12 MONTH CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 8.000% 8.24rto Effective Annual Yield * Compounded Quarterly. This is a fixed rate account that is insured to $100,000 by the Savings Association Insurance Fund (SAIF). Substantial Interest Penalty for early withdrawal from certificate accounts. Rates subject to change without notice. FIRST SECURITYI SAVINGS BANK MAIN OFFICE PHONE L 33817700 352.1700 1760 Telegraph Rd. (Just South of Orchard lake) HOURS: MON. THURS ........ . - •• I OU•I .OLIS•C OP P T V .. 9:30-4:30 FRI. 9:30-6:00 54 FRIDAY, MARCH 9, 1990 1 disgraced by him who has won a gulden. Better he be disgraced." So vehement was his opposition to the gambler that if the latter were to lose his money and require assistance from charity, it was to be denied to him. Public calamities that befell the Jewish communi- ty were often considered the consequence of, and the punishment for, ex- cessive gambling. In 1576, in Cremona, three scholars proposed a ban on gambl- ing after a pestilence had abated. They maintained that the popular passion to gamble was the main source of all calamities that had befallen the community. Gaming in the synagogue was not uncommon; a sharp contrast was drawn, however, between the usual forms of gambling and cases where the primary motive was not for personal gain. A multitude of responsa cite instances where the winnings at games of chance were not considered fruits of sin. One of the clearest statements was made by Benjamin Slonik who dif- ferentiated between gambl- ing for private gain and that in which the winnings, even if only in part, went to charity. He saw no viola- tion in the latter case and demanded full payment of gambling debts to charity. There were many in- stances where the rabbis and communities joined in games of chance. One rab- bi ruled that he who wins at a lottery should pro- nounce the blessing She- Hecheyanu; should one win together with a part- ner, one must also add the blessing ha-tov ve-ha- metiv. It seems hardly like- ly that any blessing should be required if the winnings were considered the rewards of sinful acts. It would thus appear that Jewish law proscribes the professional and com- pulsive act of gambling; frowns severely and con- demns the occasional act of gambling when indulg- ed in for personal gain; while occasional gambling, where all or part of the winnings go to charity, has never aroused condemna- tion and frequently even has had the approval of the Jewish communities. These findings might have bearing on the modern controversy over congregationally spon- sored bingo and card games organized to raise funds to meet the tremen- dous budgets of the synagogues. Jewish history and rabbinic literature show that such methods are not new. Synagogues and com- munities have indulged in similar games in the past, and the revenues have been used to meet their financial obligations. Rab- bis not only did not frown upon such acts but fre- quently encouraged them. The United Synagogue of America at successive con- ventions has, however, rul- ed that bingo is a form of fund-raising not to be per- mitted by their congrega- tions, the opinion being that it is not in keeping with the spirit of Judaism. Results of the study and decisions by the special panel of the question of legitimizing gambling in Israel will be watched with keen interest. Detroiters will be especial- ly interested, such a proposal having been defeated here five years ago. The gambling question has sociological concern everywhere. The study of its aspects provide fascination for courses of study even in higher education. ❑ The Media Bias: At It 'Again' PHILIP SLOMOVITZ Editor Emeritus F ault-finding seems, all too often, a compulsive media treatment of Israel. The normal for all na- tions becomes a morality search for the Jewish state. The latest example is the manner in which the State Department Human Rights report is being treated. There are many shocking revela- tions in it, but Israel is singl- ed out for criticism. Israel could be found among the noblest, but when there is op- portunity to assail it, attack is resorted to. Jack Anderson, usually looked to as friendly to Israel wrote a column with the headline "Human Rights Report Irks Israel — Again" immediately gives a regret- table impression. Why not take into account the Israeli attitude? The State Depart- ment report was greeted with normalcy in Israel, as in- dicated in the following from the JTA: Israel has accepted as correct, "except for minor inaccuracies;' the State Department's annual report on human rights around the world, which is once again critical of Israel's treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The report, mandated by Congress and drafted by Richard Schifter, the assis- tant secretary of state for human rights and humanitarian affairs, says that in 1989, the Israeli Defense Force often did not comply with its own guidelines for treating Palestinian insurgents, resulting in "avoidable deaths and injuries:' He noted with satisfac- tion that there was no general accusation of tor- ture as a means of inter- rogation and that the report states explicitly that there is no policy of violence and torture of detainees. "The report has not presented anything new that I did not know before," he said. "The question is, why are we forced to use those unpleasant measures?" The American Arab Anti- Discrimination Committee found the report too le- nient and called for Schifter's resignation. Faris Bouhafa, a spokesman for the group, said Schifter "has an ob- vious conflict-of-interest problem" because he is Jewish. In Israel, by contrast, Brig. Gen. Strashnov said that, by and large, he has "no problem with the credibility of the report." Speaking on army radio, he said it amounts to a fac- tual account of the situa- tion in the territories, "ex- cept for minor inac- curacies." Palestinians also were responsible for many deaths in 1989, including those of fellow Palesti- nians, the report states. A total of 128 Palestinians were killed by their peers for collaborating with Israel, compared to 13 in 1988. Schifter said that in re- cent weeks, there had been a sharp drop in Palestinian casualties caused by Israeli forces. "If you look at the last six to seven weeks, the in- cidents of fatalities as a result of actions of the Israel Defense Force have gone down by more than half," he told the House Foreign Affairs subcom- mittee on human rights. This is an example of the reportorial humanism with which Israelis confront criticism. This is what we judge as "normalcy." Yet the Anderson column offered an appended "again." Let's judge the "again." The Near East Report, the weekly news analysis of the American Israel Public Af- fairs Committee, in a most re- cent issue carried the follow- ing under the headline "The New York Times Does It Again": While the historic exodus of Soviet Jews grows, the New York Times continues to look for ways to avoid the story of the positive im- pact the immigration is having on Israel. In the latest installment, Joel Brinkley uses the Soviet Jews' arrival as the hook for a story on native Israelis leaving the coun- try (Feb. 11). Thus, a new story that reflects well on Israel is supplanted by an old story that casts Israel in a more negative light. The following day, the Times distorted Israel's im- age by a different, but still familiar method. A head- line on page three read: "Soldiers Shoot 2 Arabs in Gaza." Meanwhile, on page seven, the headline for a story about Lebanon was: "Beirut General Sends Reinforcements to New Front:' In paragraph four of the story, the reader learns 435 people have been killed and 1,650 wounded since Jan. 30. In less than two weeks, well over three times as many Lebanese died as Palesti- nians perished all of last year in the intifada. This is an "again" not to be ignored. The Times, perhaps the least offensive of newspapers with media bias, provides something to irk us. ❑ I NEWS Political Pledges Curbed Jerusalem (JPFS) — A ceil- ing on donations by in- dividuals to political parties was finally passed into law. From now on, donations will be limited to $10,000 (20,000 shekels) a year — and $20,000 in an election year. The bill's sponsor said the Knesset had for too long ig- nored demands by successive state controllers to legislate restrictions on the size of such donations.