Page 4,Tuesday, March 27, 1979-The Michigan Daily

cEMOg

420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Eig h ty-Nine Years of Editorial Freedom

1f

city
limits
keiLh r

Vol. LXXXIX, No. 140

News Phone: 764-0552

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan


ic hburg

Peace in the Mideast

IA


strictly business staandpoint, it is
more profitable to support ERA,
he says.
But when he's not out on the,
campaign trail trumpeting the
benefits of ERA to less
enlightened states, Power is can-
vassing the streets of Ann Arbor
for another, more immediate
cause - the election of Jamie
Kenworthy in April.
Power has been writing press
releases and brochures for the
Kenworthy camp, and can-
vassing door-to-door with the
candidate. Power is also
arranging an Ann Arbor cam-
paign appearance this Saturday
from the man who beat him in the
democratic senatorial primary
last year - Senator Carl Levin.
At a Democratic fundraiser in
Detroit last October, one Ann Ar-
bor Democrat told me that the
reason Phil Power didn't find
much support from the local par-
ty regulars for his senate can-
didacy was that Power had never
been active in the party. After
ignoring the party for years, this
city Democratic official said,
Power running for Senate was
suddenly, trying to pass himself

gate appearance the next mor-
ning with himself, Levin, and the
other defeated democrats in a
show of party unity.'
Power recalls that when he fir-
st volunteered to help the Ken-
worthy effort, Kenworthy remin-
ded him that he had supported
Levin in the 1978 primary.
Power's reply: "So what?"
Power's recent activism may
be a precurser to drive for the
Second District seat. But Power,
is, in the process, learning the
game of politics and piling up afi
impressive list of political
i.o.u.'s, should he decide that
his own effectiveness is in elec
tive office.
Phil Power is truly one of the
class acts in politics. Running for
Senate last year, Power's
background in economics made
him probably the most informed
and issue-oriented of the
democratic contenders. But, in
1978 he was an unknown running
against an established political
name like Levin. And the media
invariably and with few excep-
tions chose to concentrate on his
millions while ignoring his soun-
d policy positions. It's no coin-

UST 16 months ago, the chance for
a peace treaty between Israel and
Egypt seemed like a hopeless dream.
In fact, representatives of both coun-
tries refused to even negotiate with
each other. Without any kind of basis
for negotiations, a full-scale confron-
tation between the two ancient
enemies was possible, if not probable,
at any time. But since then, in a
remarkable chain of events that still
puzzles most Mideast analysts, peace
has been transformed from a distant
dream into reality mainly through the
combined efforts of Jimmy Carter,
Israeli Prime Minister Menachem
Begin and Egyptian President Anwar
Sadat.
The culmination of those efforts
came yesterday afternoon when the
impossible dream occurred on the nor-
th lawn of the White House - apeace
treaty between Israel and Egypt. It
was not easy. It took the efforts of all
three leaders who continually placed
their own political careers and their
country's national prestige on the line
duiring the 16-month mission for peace.
And the final document, the product of
numerous revisions by both sides with
critical guidance from the United
States, symbolizes an important initial
step toward the final realization of
peace in the Middle East. Removing
ancient bitternes, animosity, and in-
flexibility between the two most in-
fluential countries in the region, the
treaty was an achievement un-
paralleled in the history of Arab-
Israeli relations.
The treaty is only a first step toward
peace and must be followed by a sin-
cere effort to find a lasting solution to
the Palestinian issue. That effort was
already initiated through a clause in
the treaty that links this document to
the eventual goal of autonomy for the
Palestinians in the West Bank and the
Gaza Strip. Scheduled to begin in one
month, those negotiations must be
conducted with a serious effort by both
the Israelis and the Egyptians. If not,
the goal of a comprehensive settlement
in the region will remain an elusive
task.
Under the terms of the treaty, Israeli
forces and civilians will stage a phased
withdrawal from Sinai over a three-
year period. This Israeli pullback from
the §inai is a key condition of the treaty
as it restores the desert to its rightful
owners - the Egyptians. Since the 1973
om Kippur War, the Israeli army has
Occupied the strategically important
region as a security against Egyptian
intrusion. After Begin seized power in
1977, the amount of Zionist settlers in
the Sinai increased by a significant
figure, provoking widespread
criticism that Israel planned to annex
the whole Sinai. But due to guarantees
from the United States, Israel has con-
eeded the Sinai - a necessary step
toward peace.
Another key element of the accord
that proved to be a main stumbling
block for several months is the
question of whether Egypt would be

permitted to aid another Arab country
fighting a war against Israel. As it now
reads, the treaty takes precedence
over any other obligations Egypt has
with other countries. For instance, if a
confrontation between Israel and Syria
emerged, Egypt would be required to
abide by its accord with Israel.
Perhaps the most important phrase
of the document is the part
establishing normal relations between
the two nations. These include an ex-
change of ambassadors in 10 months,
the removal of all trade and economic
,arriers, and the lifting of boycotts.
These lines of -communication are the

relations proceed smoothly, then an
everlasting peace between the two is
likely.
When analyzing the peace process in
the Middle East,.it's obvious that the
first real courageous move was or-
chestrated by President Sadat who
became the first Arab leader ever to
visit Israel in November 1977. Sadat
boldly risked his life and alienated
Egypt from the rest of the Arab world.
But with those pressures mounting
during the process, he persevered and
kept pushing for peace.He recognized
Israel when other Arab leaders
denounced it. He tried to make peace
when they were talking about war.
Sadat had often insisted that Egypt
would never sign a treaty with Israel
until the Israelis promised to com-
pletely withdraw from all occupied
territories taken in the 1967 war. But in
the end, Sadat gave in and took peace
instead.,
When Menachem Begin was elected
in 1977, Israeli moderates and Western
officials feared a fifth full-scale
Mideast war was imminent. After all,
they said, Begin was against giving
back any territory. Begin was sup-
posed to annex the West Bank, and
Gaza. But Begin has proved
throughout the process, that he can
make concessions in the broader goal
for peace. He gave up the Sinai and he
agreed to work toward Palestinian
self-rule.
But the most praise should go to
Jimmy Carter. Carter made two gam-
bles, the one inviting Sadat and Begin
to Camp David, and then the trip
several weeks ago to the Middle East.
He won both times. By putting the
United States as such a key figure in
the future course of relations between
Egypt and-Israel, Carter has enhanced
the chance for peace. With the U.S. as
a constant mediator, the possibly ex-
plosive disputes between Israel and
Egypt will probably be handled a lot
more delicately.
This initial effort toward a com-
prehensive settlement has to be
followed by a real solution for the
Palestinian people. Pushed around like
pawns, the Palestinians deserve a
homeland on the West Bank and the
Gaza Strip. After efforts are made to
secure self-rule for the Palestinians in
those areas, Israel and Egypt should
both try to arrange for a Palestinian
state. But if the group that emerges as
the representative of the Palestinian
people fails to recognize Israel, the
Israelis should not be forced to
negotiate with them for a state. If the
group representing the Palestinians
does recognize Israel, then
negotiations should proceed for a state
in the occupied territories.
Yesterday was a huge step in the
process for peace in the Middle East. It
was the accomplishment of an age-old
dream. After four wars - 1948, 1956,
1967, 1973 - both sides finally waged
peace.

EDITORIAL STAFF
Sue Warner .................EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Richard Berke, Julie Rovner .... ...... MANAGING EDITORS
Michael Arkush...................... EDITORIAL DIRECTOR
Brian Blanchard ...................... UNIVERSITY EDITOR
Keith Rihburg. ..........................CITY EDITOR
Shelley Wolson .................. PERSONNEL DIRECTOR.
Elizabeth Slowik ........................ FEATURES EDITOR
Dennis Sabo............................ SPECIAL PROJECTS
R.J. Smith, Eric Zorn......................... ARTS EDITORS,
Owen Gleiberman, Judy Rakowsky ..... MAGAZINE EDITORS
STAFF WRITERS-Sara Alspach, Ron Benschoter, Lenny
Bernstein, Julie Brown, Rick Blanchard, Mitch Cantor, Joe
Ueterski, Stefany Cooperman, Amy Diamond, Monica Eby,
Marianne Egri, Julie Engebrecht, Mary Faranski, Bob Feld-
man, Joyce Frieden, Greg Gailopoulos, Ron Gifford, John Goyer,
Pat Hagen, Marion .Halberg, Vicki Henderson, Alison Hirschel,
Steve Hook, Elisa Isaaceon, Tom Kettler, Paula Lashingsky.
Adrienne Lyons, Chester Maleski, Jeff Miller, Tom Mirga.
Mark Parrent, Beth Persky, Kevin Roseborough, Beth Rosen-

Ann Arbor's millionaire
newspaper publisher Phil Power
is still campaigning - he's cam-
paigning for fellow Democrat
Jamie Kenworthy's mayoral
candidacy, he's campaigning
across the country for the Equal
Rights Amendment, and, some
observers say, he's campaigning
for Carl Pursell's Second District
Congressional seat in 1980.
Democrats who want Power to
take on Pursel iwhen the seat
goes up again think the publisher
can take it if he wants it. Power,
remember, came from relative
obscurity to finish second in last
year's statewide race for the
United States Senate -- and
around Ann Arbor, at least,
Power is already a known quan-
tity.
AND DEMOCRATS like to think
that the Second District is still,
for the most part, a Democratic
district, that just happens to be in
the G.O.P. fold - for the time
being. Republican Pursell barely
nosed out liberal Democrat Ed.
Pierce for the seat in 1976 in an
election that was still undecided
close to inauguration day. And
many political observers say the
Dems could have recaptured the
seat last year, had they fielded a
stronger candidate than Coun-
cilman Earl Greene.
But Phil Power won't speculate
on his own political future - at
least not yet, over a year and a
half before November 1980. He
doesn't share the popular convic-
tion that Pursell is "vulnerable"
in the Second District - "He
buried Earl Greene last time
around," Power said.d
"I'm trying to figure out what
makes the most sense," Power
says, emphasizing that one need
not run for political office to help

affect change. "You have to see
how you can be effective."
RIGHT NOW, Power is being
effective on two fronts - cam-'
paigning for Kenworthy in Ann
Arbor and campaigning forERA
as far away as Kansas City,
Missouri.
Power has made his services
available to stump on behalf of
the stalled equal rights amen-
dment. At a dinner for ERA sup-
porters in Kansas City earlier
this month, Power unveiled his
unique line of argument to
promote passage of ERA in that
state. Power broadened the
visual argument in favor of ERA
by taking it out of the legal and
moral standpoint, andrap-
proaching ratification from a
businessman's point of view.
Power told that gathring how
Kansas City lost the 1980
Republican National Convention
- and something over $40 million
in revenue - to Detroit in the
national bidding war. And the
National Organization for
Women convention boycott of
states that have not ratified was a
primary factor for the G.O.P. site
selection committee. ". . . I can-
not help wondering what would,
have happened to the Republican
convenion - and to others - if
Missouri had ratified
ERA,"Power told the
Missourians. "... From a
business point of view, suppor-
ting ERA is nothing less than
doing well by doing good."
POWER ALSO emphasized in
that speech how as an emp loyer
- and with his own newspapers
as a case-study - that equalizing
salaries between men and women
really improves the job perfor-
mance of both. Thus, from a

"Power's recent activism may
be a precursor to drive for the
Second District seat. But power

is, in the

process,

learning

the

game of politics and piling up an
impressive list of political

I.O. U. 's,

should he decide

that

his own effectiveness is in elec-
tive office.

off as a loyal party man from way
back when.
WELL, IF there was any
justification for 'that influential
Democrat's reservations with
Phil Power, then Power has been
working intently to rectify the
situation. After losing in the
August 8 primary to Levin,
Poyer was on the phones before
daybreak arranging a joint plant

cidence that Power - not
Detroiter Levin - got the endor-
sement of Detroit's influential
black slate.
One can only imagine what
would have happened in Novem-
ber, had Phil Power set his sights
lower in his first try for office and
run 'against Carl Pursell for the
Second District seat.
City Editor Keith Rich-
burg's column appears every
other Tuesday.

4'

Letters

f


Right tolife for the unborn

To the Daily:
Mr. Howard L. Simon,
Executive Director of the
Michigan ACLU, presented the
ACLU's position (Daily, Jan. 30,
1979) arguing that the Hyde
Amendment, prohibiting federal
medicaid funding of elective
abortions, is in violation of the
First Amendment to the Con-
stitution. I would like to respond
to that charge and to Mr. Simon's
premises.
Mr. Simon states that the Hyde
Amendment was passed in
response to "those who believe
that human life begins at the
moment of conception, and that
from that moment on, such life is
separate from the mother's life."
But, Mr. Simon contends, "when
human life begins is essentially a
religious question . . . The con-
troversy over abortion - over
when the fertilized egg becomes a
human life - is similarly a
religious question."
IF MR. SIMON'S legal exper-
tise is not better than his
knowledge of biology, he hasn't a
case to stand on. A reading of the
section on embryology in the
latest edition of Gray's Anatomy
or of any standard textbook on
embryology, would dispell the
notion that the question of the
beginning of the life of a new
human individual i, in any way a
religious one. It is a question an-
swered unanimously by the
sciences of genetics and em-
bryology that the life of a new,
unique human individual begins
with the fusion of two gametes,
i.e., at fertilization. From that
point on, all genetic charac-
teristics of the new human being
(sex, eye and hair color, blood
type, etc.) are determined and
irreversible. A reading of the
standard textbooks on genetics,
embryology or fetology would
make this abundantly clear.
Certainly, since the famous in
vitro experiments of Drs. Steptoe
and Edwards produced the first
so-called "test tube baby," it
should be obvious even to a

that "whether the earth is round
or not is essentially a religious
question" - and then siding with
the Flat-Earthers.
I FIND IT incredible that the
ACLU can seriously put forth the
argument that the abortion con-
troversy is "fundamentally a
controversy over religious doc-
trine." It appears to be an exer-
cise in obscurantism, if not in
intellectual honesty to this issue
seems inexcusable and
deliberately misleading.
With regard to the First Amen-
dment, furthermore, the ACLU
surely realizes that the con-
stitutional right to the free exer/"
cise of religion did not entail ban-
ning the ethical insights of
religion in the formation of our
nation's laws. The most fun-
damental bases of our laws are,
in fact, religious precepts, e.g.,
"You shall not steal; you shall
not bear false. witness; you shall*
not commit murder."
Abortion is a moral issue, and
laws relating to human life are all
essentially moral or ethical in
character. Even the secular
humanist believes that human
beings have certain basic and
"inalienable" rights. Ethical
concerns about the moral charac-
ter of the laws which govern our
nation.
Since abortion is the taking of a
human life, which science - not
religion - indubitably demon-
strates, the question is whether
such killing is justified. This
question is the legitimate concern
of every citizen.
The Supreme Court has been
wrong before, as when it ruled
that Blacks were not personsin
the full sense of the law (Dred
Scott). Now the Court tells us that
an unborn child is not a person
"in the full sense," and therefore
may be deprived of life without
due process of law (Roe vs.
Wade). Those of us who are con-
oerned about the Right to Life for
all human beings will continue in
the struggle to restore that right
to the Unborn, the ACLU not

tion that his critical review of
"The Anita Bryant Follies" could
cause Tom Simonds to consider
giving up play-writing is
disgusting.
Perhaps next time Joshua
doesn't know ",what the hell to
say" about something, he'll
choose to say nothing.
NEEDLESS TO SAY, I feel dif-
ferently than he did about -the
Follies. I thought Simonds treat-
ment of the topic was delicate,
thoughtful and devastating. He
beautifully extaposed portrayals
of laughable gay roles and man-
nerisms with the reality of a
deeply committed gay couple,
playing on traditional
stereotypessandrevealing their
limitations simultaneously.
The scene in which Anita's
biblical quotes are intermingled
with the love-making of two men
is moving because it illuminates
her barren statements about love
with the reality, emotional and
sexual, of gay love. When she
(he) reads that learning to con-
trol one's tongue is paramount to
holiness the parody is complete,
the quote is outrageous in Simon-
d's context, but also credible.
Throughout, Simonds combines
humor and truth in a powerful
and tormenting way.
As for the music, which got a
scanty review by Joshua, I
thought it was wonferful. I found
Anita's song, "Are you dancing
with me God?" moving, because
the question seemed so ap-
propriate. The references to
orange juice which offended
Joshua, I thought important
because they effectively
suggested that Anita's priorities
were confused. When her
aggressive, greasy son and timid
daughter in drag sing that they
are unafraid because they were
"raised on orange juice and the
Lord", the tension between their
faith, their self-righteousness and
their confidence in OJ is
touching, because in a funny way
they are courageous and do have
integrity, while to an Ann Arbor

knowing why Joshua found "a
briefly-clad actor" dancing, (or
"Writhing" as he writes),
nauseating. He adds that "it
would be vulgar if a woman were
doing it, too." I found the partial
nudity shocking and partly
refreshing because of its connec-
tions to the 60's; I also found it.
valuable in its inescapable:
demonstration of flesh, rhythm~
and sex, while I appreciated that'
Simonds chose not to expose the
actual love-making of two men.
I think the play was brilliant
and that Joshua Peck is less so.
-Jeanie Wylie
March 25, 1979
Regents
To the Daily:
It's so refreshing to read in last
Tuesday's Daily that Brian Blan-
chard andSACUA are standing
firm against student disruption of
the Regents meetings. After all,
they "forced the cessation of
regular business"! All over a few
foreigners, who are black
anyway, er, ah, I mean, who
aren't really fit to govern them-
selves. They probably want to
turn South Africa into some sort
of totalitarian society. Tactics
like the disruption of meeting
where so much important and
crucial business has to be
discussed are abhorrent. What
importance is the freedom of a
few Africans? They never gave
us anything !
Mr. Blanchard's column was
remarkable for its intelligent
analysis of the situation. He is
perfectly right, the protestors
may have a point or two in their
favor, and granted, these tactics
have been effective before, but
they insulted the Regents! "In
personal terms", no less! These
students should be thankful that
they all weren't arrested and
they should return to class to
"sharpen their arguments" till
1hext March and present
"possible courses of action in