Focus On Fund-Raising
It's good the Federation is getting out of the
school bus business. Then again, why was the
Federation running a bus service in the first
place?
The strength of Federation is its ability to un-
derstand and predict Jewish communal needs
— locally, nationally and internationally — and
generate through an umbrella campaign the
funds necessary_to meet those needs and put in
place appropriate checks and balances to assure
these charitable funds are being spent as in-
tended.
Running bus services, neighborhood loan pro-
jects, information services, Israel travel desks
and other programs that are not part of Feder-
ation's mission should be left to the communal
agencies Federation-raised dollars support.
As a community, we need the Federation to
focus its talent and resources on its core busi-
ness — our collective future and the raising of
funds to provide for it. Hopefully, the embar-
rassment over the running of the United He-
brew Schools bus service will refocus Federation's
energies.
Nixon's Mixed Legacy
Richard Nixon, who died last week, was a man
of overwhelming contradictions -- which also
defined his relationship with American Jews.
While this relationship was heavily based on
mutual distrust, Mr. Nixon contributed to the
positive transformation of U.S.-Israeli relations,
and helped create a new and more visible place
for Jews in the American political cosmos.
From the beginning, Jews did not care much
for Mr. Nixon. In the late 1940s, when Jewish
liberalism was at a high point, Mr. Nixon seemed
eager to ride the crest of the era's obsessive anti-
communism as an upstart member of the House
Un-American Activities Committee. For many
Jews, the early Nixon was believed to be an anti-
Semite, and a demagogue with traits Jews de-
spised in politics — anti-intellectual and
stumbling, conspiracy-minded, a scapegoater.
Jews voted primarily for his presidential elec-
tion rivals, John F. Kennedy in 1960 and Hu-
bert H. Humphrey in 1968.
But Mr. Nixon was also an internationalist,
something Jews, with support of Israel in mind,
traditionally favor. He opened relations with
China and sought detente with the Soviet Union.
And he did this with the country's first Jewish
national security adviser and then secretary of
state, Henry Kissinger. On the other hand, the
two opposed the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, a
key element in this country's attempt to protect
an endangered Soviet Jewish population.
Then there was Vietnam. Jews were dispro-
portionately represented in the anti-war move-
rfiRsvr.. i<NIF61
ATTACKS oM
- Jews IN
(T) JeRUSA(-EN-1,
-THE -1 AND -11AeM r S THE
REVACE ISRAELI ItRSION)
CAR 8oM6 IN
is
AFW,A AtQl) PALESTINIAN OF " ortil EE
"1"HeN - 114E
ATTACK ON.J
JETS
A9-1C>1)1
4
ment. To this day, many of them resent Mr.
Nixon and Mr. Kissinger for their Christmas
bombings of North Vietnam and the secret
strikes in Cambodia.
In the Mideast, the 1969 "Rogers Plan" for
peace between Israel and Egypt was vigorously
rejected by Israeli leaders. They viewed it as an
American attempt to impose territorial corn-
promises. But that plan was similar to the Camp
David accords signed 10 years later, for which
the Nixon administration may have laid the
groundwork.
Mr. Nixon was also harshly criticized by many
Jews for hesitating in ordering an airlift of des-
perately needed military supplies to Israel dur-
ing the 1973 Yom Kippur War, which many
today praise him for eventually doing. That dra-
matic event helped forge the "strategic rela-
tionship" concept that bound Washington and
Jerusalem in the U.S.-led battle to contain the
Soviet Union.
Finally, Mr. Nixon's actions accelerated the
process by which American Jews became a se-
rious political force. Detroit's own Max Fisher
and other area Jews played important roles in
establishing that relationship at such a high lev-
el. And that too, was part of Richard Nixon's com-
plex legacy.
He'll be historically tagged for his role in Wa-
tergate, but Mr. Nixon's crucial, though some-
times puzzling, relationship with the Jews and
Israel contributed to our survival as a people and
to the survival of Israel.
SHOW
"600D OW
STRIKES ND
qou'RE off."
Letters
Funds Only for
Day Schools?
Last week's edition of The Jew-
ish News contained yet another
editorial in favor of children at-
tending Jewish day schools.
There has been an increasing
emphasis by both the Federation
and The Jewish News that at-
tendance at day schools is the
best and only way to insure the
"continuity" of the Jewish reli-
gion.
This position implies that
every child going to an after-
school religious program does not
get a good education and will not
stay Jewish. We strongly dis-
agree! We belong to Congrega-
tion Beth Achim where our son
attends the Beth Achim branch
of the Congregational Religious
School and receives an excellent
Jewish education.
Based on currently available
information, the Federation is in-
creasing its subsidy to day
schools in excess of $80,000 an-
nually. At Beth Achim, our Fed-
eration subsidy has been cut in
half each year for the past two
years, and the Federation antic-
ipates withdrawing their subsidy
completely after next year.
Last Tuesday, at our semi-an-
nual membership meeting, we
were told that our religious school
would close next year if the Fed-
eration did not continue their
subsidy at the current (1993-
1994) level. Should our program
close, that would leave only one
Conservative after-school pro-
gram east of Telegraph Road. Ac-
cording to your recent
demographic study that consti-
tutes about 50 percent of the
metro Detroit Jewish communi-
ty!
More than one-third of our stu-
dents receive scholarships based
on financial need. As the Feder-
ation knows, since they have
been told on numerous occasions,
Beth Achim will be unable to ab-
sorb the additional costs if Fed-
eration funding continues as
planned.
Has the Federation decided
that students attending after-
school programs are less worthy
than those who attend day-school
programs? Is the Federation
planning on sacrificing after-
school programs for day-school
programs? Even The Jewish
News seems to support this view-
point, based on recent articles
and editorials.
What happened to the Feder-
ation's position of "no child will
be denied a Jewish education be-
cause of financial reasons"? Or
will this only apply to students
of day-school programs?
Steven & Sherri Kass
Huntington Woods
Thanks And
Correction
Thank you for the wonderful ed-
itorial in The Jewish News on
April 22. There is one point, how-
ever, that needs correction. The
Hillel Day School Board of Di-
rectors is elected each year at our
annual meeting by the parents.
This meeting will be May 24.
Robert Schostak has been
nominated as part of the slate to
be the next president of Hillel
Day School.
We hope that we will be able
to say on May 25 that indeed,
continuity occurred on May 24.
Midge Stulberg,
Development Director,
Hillel Day School
Hollywood
Vs. History
I was disturbed to learn from The
Jewish News article "Schindler
for Free" (April 15) that several
area high schools plan to use
Steven Spielberg's film
Schindler's List as an educational
tool to teach teen-agers about our
Jewish history.
Despite the numerous rave re-
views I have read about said film
and the awards it has received, I
was not impressed to the same
degree as the critics.
After viewing the film, I
walked out very moved with the
knowledge that, Thank God, a
man named Schindler existed
who enabled 1,100 Jews and
their future generations to sur-
vive. The film highlighted his life
and important role in Jews' lives
in that time of our history.
I do not feel, however, that this
particular film is an adequate
historical depiction of the horrors
and human suffering inflicted
and endured.
HOLLYWOOD page 10