EDITORIAL

Emergency Housing

Ariel Sharon always has been a man of ac-
tion. The controversial Israeli general has
been criticized for overly zealous behavior, at
times, during military crises; he is also
credited by many for turning the tide in
Israel's favor during the 1973 Yom Kippur
War with his bold strategy.
Now, in his new cabinet position as housing
minister, Sharon is facing a different war:
bureaucracy. And whether or not one is an
admirer of Sharon the military leader, he has
the hopes of many Jews, in Israel and around
the world, riding on his broad shoulders as he
attempts to deal with the serious housing
shortage created by the arrival of tens of
thousands of Soviet Jewish newcomers.
The Israeli cabinet this week gave Sharon
emergency powers to suspend standard plan-
ning laws and procedures so that 3,000
prefabricated houses can be imported from
the United States. Israeli builders, envi-

OP-ED I

ronmentalists and others immediately
decried the move for various reasons. The
head of a construction union threatened to
have dock workers refuse to unload the
prefab houses if they are imported from the
United States.
But times of emergency call for emergency
decisions. The Israeli government, until now,
has talked a great deal about the urgent
housing needs of large-scale immigration.
But not one new housing unit was built. This
is shameful.
With 100,000 Soviet Jews expected to ar-
rive in Israel this year, the time for rhetoric
has long past. The need for urgent action is
upon us, or our elaborate fund-raising efforts
on behalf of helping Soviet Jews settle in
Israel will have been misguided.
Admirers describe Ariel Sharon as "a
bulldozer." Perhaps it is time to let the
bulldozer take action.

WE NEVER PLANNED

WE NEVER SET ED

Tb SETTLE SOVIET JEWS

5oViEr JEWS iN
"ThE

IN -THE TERWIDRiEs...

„,,

AND we FRatila-

NEVER EVER TO
!
t AGAIN Th
ir

((

1144r DOE.90

Tta THAr To
BUSH AND

MAKE Altgl
Se se

ocizevica-V,„
AND

TEL -THEu!

r

c

W~a o

; 174,

RIIP4‘

COMMENT

The American Flag: Free To Fly It, Free To Burn It

MURRAY LAULICHT

Special to The Jewish News

T

he collapse of commu-
nism in Europe has
created respect for,
and emulation of, the U.S.
Constitution and Bill of
Rights not seen since the end
of World War II. At the same
moment, however, we are
witnessing in our capital a
most significant effort to
modify the freedoms articu-
lated in that remarkable
document.
The debate that has de-
veloped since the U.S.
Supreme Court decision in
the flag burning case reflects
a far larger set of issues than
simply whether a group of
fanatic exhibitionists should
be allowed to burn a flag.
One should keep in mind
that they did not really burn
"The Flag," but only "a
flag." While the protesters
were burning a flag on the
steps of the Capitol, another
flag was flying very visibly
on the top of that building.
The questions debated in
our country today concern
the place of symbols and the
limits — or lack of limits —
on dissent. These questions
are of immense importance
to all U.S. citizens and have
profound significance for

.

Murray Laulicht is chairman
of the Community Relations
Committee of the United Jew-
ish Federation of MetroWest,
East Orange, N.J.

6

FRIDAY, JULY 6, 1990

cultural and religious
minorities, such as the Jew-
ish community.
The flag is clearly the
symbolic representation of
the United States of
America. As Sen. Bill
Bradley, D-N.J., noted in a
speech expressing his oppo-
sition to a constitutional
amendment: "I revere the
flag as a symbol of our na-
tional unity." He noted that
we must not sacrifice the
substance of our freedom for
the symbol of it.
The Bible gives us an
almost uncanny parallel to
this situation, providing
remarkable insight into the
flag issue. During the period

of the wandering in the
desert, a snake wrapped
itself around Moses' staff
and became a part of it. The
resulting object, known as
the caduceus, had special
healing property and has
become the symbol of doctors
in the military.
During the time of the
Kingdoms of Judea and
Israel, the caduceus became
an object of extreme vener-
ation. The object was then
destroyed by the high priest
because people worshiped
the object, not God. Our
ancestors recognized the
ease with which we can
adore the symbol and lose
sight of its true focus. In the

flag debate, the symbols
replace, rather than repre-
sent, our country and its
ideals.
The second aspect of the
debate revolves around an
amendment to the First
Amendment guarantee of
freedom of speech. As
Charles Fried, the solicitor-
general of the United States
from 1985 to 1989, com-
mented: The foremost
American value "is the prin-
ciple that no one shall be
punished for his political ex-
pressions — no matter how
offensive or bizarre." That is
not an easy principle with
which to live. But the oppor-
tunities for political
creativity and growth as
resulting from this principle
are unique in the history of
the modern world.
Our system provides
minorities with a deep sense
of security as they develop
their special identities in
America. Freedom of expres-
sion is guaranteed for any
ideological or social group
that wishes to create a diff-
erent lifestyle or set of
values that may threaten
the sense of a homogeneous
majority, but ultimately
pose no real challenge to our
way of life.
If we accept the concept
that substantial dissent is to
be outlawed when the
majority finds it distasteful,
we begin a process with deep
implications for the whole
principle of protecting
minority rights. It is a

truism to say, but of value
nevertheless, that it is
precisely the minority views
that are most objectionable
that require the most rig-
orous protection.
The Jewish community, as
a relatively small group that
has frequently raised ideas
or issues challenging the
majority, has reason to value
this protection. We can only
be secure in our own com-
munity to discuss, debate
and develop a unique
American-Jewish expression
if we have no fear that the
larger society will censure
what it finds threatening.
And we can only work to
create a better America for
all if we have no fear of be-
ing silenced as Jews. While
we may have little concern
for the flag burners, we do
have reason to be deeply
concerned about their
treatment. As Justice
William Brennan wrote in
the majority opinion:
"Punishing desecration of
the flag dilutes that very
freedom that makes the
emblem so revered and wor-
th revering."
We applaud the decision
by the House of Repre-
sentatives to defeat the call
for a constitutional amend-
ment on flag burning. In ad-
dition, we as a Jewish com-
munity can rest a bit more
securely realizing that
American leadership re-
mains deeply committed to
the unique character of this
open society. ❑