Gambling for Peace
"It is easier to remember than to think," said Is-
raeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin earlier this
week about the possible peace accord brewing
between the Jewish state and the group that
has been its arch enemy for three decades, the
Palestine Liberation Organization.
Indeed, remembering takes little effort. One
recalls — instantly and effortlessly — airplanes
hijacked and passengers murdered at gunpoint,
kibbutzim pounded relentlessly by rockets, bus-
es hijacked on Israeli highways, children killed
in their classrooms. The war unleashed by the
PLO against Israelis — a war mostly against
Israeli civilians — is unforgettable.
When one can no longer stomach the endless
carnage and the wrenching possibility that it
will continue, then one must conclude — pas-
sionately and irrevocably — that a gamble for
peace is the only way to stop the revolving door
of war and terror in the Middle East.
Israel appears on the threshold of taking just
such a gamble. The Gaza-Jericho blueprint for
peace that it will probably sign with the PLO in
the next week or two just might be the break-
through that generations have sought — and
at which the naysayers, who cloaked themselves
as the authentic "realists," scoffed. If so, this is
one of those historic watersheds when the past
no longer dictates the present and the future
has a vitality and a decisiveness all its own.
Since last weekend's headlines started an-
nouncing the probable Israeli-PLO peace deal,
the dominant mood in many quarters has been
euphoria. Indeed, it is indisputably exulting to
relish the possibility of peace in our time. The
proposed autonomy arrangement is cautiously
temperate, with built-in safeguards and fail-
safes. In it, Israel immediately relinquishes the
142 square miles of Gaza, where 740,000 Pales-
tinians live in poverty and squalor and which
has no religious or historic value to Israelis or
Jews and little strategic worth. Initially, only
the eight square miles in the West Bank that
comprise the town of Jericho are relinquished
to the Palestinians. Over the next five years,
Palestinians slowly gain autonomy over most
of the rest of the West Bank — if trust and ami-
ty between Israelis and Palestinians is sus-
tained.
But reality (which does not mean cynicism)
must moderate the exultation. There is much
room in the proposed autonomy plan for snags,
detours, frustrations — and for the whole
scheme blowing up in our faces.
What is most important at this stage is that
the highest level of Palestinians and Israelis are
apparently on the brink of the most serious bid
for peace since Israel's founding, one that hinges
on creating a permanently demilitarized inde-
pendent Palestinian entity that will ultimate-
ly enhance, not diminish, Israel's security.
For 45 years, Israelis have dreamed of secu-
rity while Palestinians have dreamed of land.
The two dreams, as Mr. Rabin and Mr. Arafat
seem to have finally realized, are not mutual-
ly exclusive. Realizing them demands com-
modities that are not common in the Middle
East — patience, compromise and, above all,
trust. All three qualities will be tested to their
limit in the coming months as details of the pro-
posed Israeli-Palestinian agreement are final-
ized. If in five years, there is a real and lasting
peace between these two peoples, it will all have
been worthwhile.
Federation Must Make
Priorities More Local
In 1948, when Israel gained its independence, ap-
proximately 60 percent of funds raised by Detroit's
Allied Jewish Campaign went to support the fledg-
ling state. In 1993, a strong, mature Israel, con-
fident enough to attempt to make peace with its
hostile Arab neighbors and with a Gross Nation-
al Product that dwarfs its humble economic ori-
gins, still receives approximately 60 percent of
funds raised by Detroit's Allied Jewish Campaign.
Times have changed. Certainly the needs have
changed. The split of funds, with more staying to
meet local needs, has to change, too.
Detroit sets a national example for the amount
of dollars it sends to Jews in need overseas. It's a
tradition which is rooted in the extraordinary lead-
ership of Max Fisher and carried on today by such
international Jewish leaders as Joel Tauber, David
Hermelin and Jane Sherman — all Detroiters. It's
a distinguished legacy which reflects positively on
the entire community.
But the American Jewish community — and
Detroit's — has changed dramatically since 1948.
From high levels of assimilation and intermar-
riage to low levels of Jewish education, tough ques-
tons are being raised about our future as a strong,
politically active, philanthropic community. "Will
your grandchildren be Jewish (and why should
they be?)" is but one question which demands a
creative, proactive response from community lead-
ers.
We're encouraged the Federation has formed a
joint allocations committee to study the so-called
60/40 split. However, the community interest
would be well served if this committee does more
than "fine-tune" the allocations. The days of mere-
ly raising more and more money to meet local and
overseas needs are over. Most Federation fund-
raising campaigns have been flat for years and, in
more circumstances, such as Los Angeles, have
come totally unglued.
A thoughtful, but significant change is needed
in the community's allocation priorities. We must
continue to provide substantial financial support
for Jews in need around the world, and particu-
larly in Israel. But until we can answer the ques-
tion, "Will your grandchildren be Jewish?" with a
resounding "Yes," we must meet the needs in our
own back yard first.
Letters
Jews Should Be
For Vouchers
The voucher proposal (Aug. 13)
for residents of Michigan not
only makes sense, it is also an
imperative for anyone inter-
ested in Jewish survival.
In economics, you reward
the efficient and quality pro-
ducer by your vote — you buy
the product. Public schools
have fallen short, not only in
academics. They must be seen
as contributing to the any-
thing-goes generation that has
led to millions of unwed moth-
ers, abortions on demand,
teen-age drugs and drug push-
ers and the explosion of youth
violence and murder.
It is not that the public
schools advocate these things.
It is that they have a vague
moral agenda which allows
children to become irresponsi-
ble without respect for au-
thority and its institutions.
By contrast, the private and
especially day school systems
teach values, with respect for
elders, for life, for a moral
framework together with ex-
cellence in studies. The result
is that for half the cost of a
public school education, the
Jewish day schools provide two
educational programs, not just
one, and their students achieve
more. There is a much lower
rate of drug or discipline prob-
lems and almost no violence.
Children who attend any
day school are four times as
unlikely to marry out of the
faith as children in public
schools. Children who attend
day schools value tzedakah,
visiting the sick, honoring par-
ents, respecting elders because
they are taught to be God's val-
ues. Promiscuity is minimal
and drug use scorned. Hence
there is no problem with AIDS,
no guns, just good, solid Jew-
ish citizens.
Anyone observing this
would wonder why one might
oppose sending children to or
supporting such institutions.
The answer is the old socialist
left. They would like to see re-
ligion disappear. They feel they
know better what is needed for
society that anyone else.
Never mind that the public
schools do not work. Just give
them more money. Never mind
that 70 percent of the children
are marrying out. That's OK
Never mind that these chil-
dren grow up without Jewish
values; they have replaced
those "ideas" with liberal po-
litical agenda.
Never mind the physical
and social problems created by
a vacuum from Torah, abor-
tions will "fix" promiscuity and
ultimately some drug will "fix"
AIDS.
In the meantime, "we" must
be sensitive to every deviant
except traditional Jews or their
schools. They won't fund day
schools if they are "redundant"
(only one "type of" school per
city). They oppose any govern-
ment aid for day schools. It is
entanglement of government
and religion! Vouchers? Heav-
en forbid, the public schools are
sacrosanct!
The truth is, there is no en-
tanglement whatsoever if the
government would give a
voucher to a parent to choose
a school for his/her child. The
government is not entangled
with or promoting any reli-
gious institution. The parent
chooses the school for his/her
child. The public schools will
get the message and clean up
their act as well.
How obscene it is that peo-
ple who are paid by the Jewish
community would oppose the
very formula which would al-
low it to survive. How cruel it
is to force parents to be taxed
once by the government, then
by the congregation for their
Hebrew schools and then have
to pay additional thousands for
their child's education! How
short-sighted and unwise!
Vouchers are constitution-
al! Vouchers are fair! Vouch-
ers will help in Jewish
survival! Vouchers will make
the schools more responsive to
people's needs. Then our
streets will be safer. No Jew
should oppose vouchers!
Rabbi Chaim
Moshe Bergstein
Farmington Hills
LETTERS page 8