Page 2-The Canadian Jewish News, Thursday, November 6, 1986
RABBI W. GUNTHER PLAUT
The other day I found a 4-page letter in my mailbox. Ipiit it aside for future reJading and am no longer siire just who sent it to me (1 think it was. the American Jewish Committee in New. York): When I firially read it I was struck by its clarity of language and the urgency of its message, and I knew I would want to share some of its contents with you:
"We are a group of lay people active nationally . .:. who have been meeting together regularly over the past year. While our respective affiliations reflect the diversity ofcontein-porary Judaism— Gr-thpdo.xy, Conservatism,
Rabbi Plaut
Reform. Reconstructionism — we feel a common sense of Jewishness and an abiding cornmitment to Jewish continuity; Jewish spiritual and ethical values; and Jewish unity:"
The letter goes onto speak of our common history and of our responsibility to transmit Jewish values to our children. "From them we derive the : imperative that.our diversity not; be permitted to threaten ia/irtvm Tisra^el.lhe love Jews have for each other-^"'-
The writers then describe the "mood of acrimonious discord in contemporary Jewish religious life which threaten the cohesiveness of our p>eople. .We view these internecine con-fiicts with great alarm, and believe that they should be tempered and moderated through a series of ■steps.;.": ■ ■.■
These steps, the writers suggest, should be the following:
1. Civil discourse among Jews. I agree. Except for a few notable exceptions,.Jews arenot likely to talk about religion to other Jews. They, will attack"pther" Jews from pulpits and in publications, but no attempt is made to speak openly and frankly to these "others." Then again, when one group wants to speak with Jews who hold very dif^ ferent views, their attempt is often summarily rebuffed. "You've got nothing to say to us that would make us listen to you." iis the meaning of the rebuff. Consequently there is today little serious conversation among Jewish religious leaders. :
2. J6int action on a common Jewish agenda. "Such an agenda would include solidarity with Israel,-support and'rescue of oppressed Jews around the world,.strengthening Jewish education,' enhancing Jewish family life, participating creatively in Jewish communal and'cultural activities., and seeking a more just society.'\ Fortunately, fnuch of this is being dorie in Canada, but even in these areas the sense of oiir belonging together js weakening.
3. "To promote understanding ^mong Jews of different religious orientations.'* Ah. there's the rub. Some do not want their own people; to develop a sense-of "'understanding" those with whom they disagree fundamentally. They are afraid of exjx)sing them to views they might find attrac-tivie..and it's easier to condemn than to talk.
The price of Jewish unity is a bit of courage and a dosage of decency, mixed with the belief that we can do more together than apart. We will still pursue our own particular objectives and may, in fact, do it better when we have a healthy community jointly concerned with the. Jewish future. The letter suggests that extreme elements prevent the fostering of unity: Maybe; So much more reason then for the rest of us to speak up for unity against such so-called leadership.
To solidify U.S>-Isfael relations
Saskatoon Jewish fund
SASKATOON -
The: Saskatoon Jewish Foundation. was launched here recently by Congregation Agudas Israel with some $44,000 in gifts that; the shul received over the past 10 years.
Contributions to the foundation, tax-deductible, will be invested and the interest earned will be avajlajjJQ,/Qr. W« jq . p^rT)fefuity:.''Thiswiirhetp
By
WOLF BLITZER
ensure the community's financial future." said a foundation spokesman.
Organizing the foundation over the past year were congregation members June Aviv, Earl Ffeidin,: Mickey Narun. Colleen . Golumbia, Isie Richman. Bert Gladstone, J. M: Goldenberg; Herman Neiimann, _Axnie Shaw, David Singer and Gerry Ross.
WASHINGTON -
Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir and President Ronald Reagan are scheduled to remain in office for roughly the same amount of time — two more years: This fact should be at the very top of Shamir's thinking now that he has assumed the number 1 job in Jerusalem.
Shamii". as Prime Minister, has an unusually good opportunity to solidify U.S.-Israeli relations in all sorts of critical ways during the next two ■\. years. What happens during this period can certainly help to shape events way down the road. Trends can be set in motion now which will be very difficult for future American administrations—perhaps not as pro-Israeli in their basic orientation — to reverse.
From Israel's point of view, it would, be a tragic waste to .squander this golden opportunity by foolishly irritating the United States.
The combination of Reagan. Secretary of State George Shultz and other key policymakers probably represents the most pro-.Israeli American leadership in history. Yes. there are : occasional differences bct-wieen Washington and Jeru.salem. especially in the area of U.S. arms sales to "mcxlerate" Arab states. But the broad areas of agreements nowadays far outweigh those disagreements.
There is a strong reservoir of pwlitical support for Israel in the American capital waiting to be effec- : tively exploited. :
Reagan and Shultz, backed by National Security Advisor John Poindexter, Central Intelligence Agency Director William Casy, and to a lesser. degree Vice-President George Biish, White House Chief of Staff Donald Regan and even Defence Secretary Caspar Weinberger, have come to regard Israel as a major friend and ally. They also believe that Israel, to a large degree, has emerged as an important strategic asset in containing the Soviet Union and in combating terrorism.
During the last two years, while Shihion Peres served as Prime Minister, the Americans simultaneously came to regard the Arabs as the primary obstacle : standing in the way of a revived peace process. Israel was seen as flexible and reasonable m demanding direct, face-to-face negotiations. The Arabs came to be regard-. ed as the intransigent partners. This also helps to explain the upturn in American-Israeli ties.
Thus, Reagan, Shultz and company have continued their policy of "institutionalizing" close, rela tions with Israel in a whole hoist of areas:
On the economic front, for example, there is the US-Israeli Free Trade Area agreement — a far-ranging trade liberalization development thatwill total- ■
ly"°""remove all trade obstacles between the 'two countries over the next few years. Israeli export opportunities in the United States will be expanded."
In addition, Shultz has promoted routine American-Israeli consultations on other ways to strengthen the Lsraeli economy, A bureaucratic framework has come into play to meet the objective. ■
Shamir would be wise to keep the Israeli economy recovery program on track. The Americans, especially Shultz. have been very impressed by Israel's economic turnaround these past two years. Yet they are yearning for continued economic reforms designed to promote real growth. and greater productivity;
The same U.S.-Israeli "institutionalization" is . true on the military/ strategic level of relations. There is today a joint American-Israeli working group on political-military affairs. Teams of military and diplomatic officials meet regularly to coordinate strategic cooperation. Many details remain classified. But by all accounts, things are moving dramatically ahead.
On the military level,; therefore, the U.S. and Israel are doing things to-
day — quietly, without a lot of fanfare — that they have done before. The. damage from the Jonathan Jay Pollard spy scandal has been contained. Any negative Arab - reaction to this enhanced military relationship has also- been contained.
Shultz has told friends that before leaving office, he wants to further strengthen these bilateral forums. He wants to make sure that they become part of the bureaucratic woodwork in Washington — dif-flciilt, if not impossible, for future policymakers to eliminate. But in order to do so, the secretary will need Israel's full cooperation. That is the message being sent to Shamir. Israel's best friends in . Washington outside the administration ^-senators and congressmen as well as American Jewish political activists — recognize the golden opportunity that currently exists^ In all sorts of ways, they are passing along their own messages to Shamir and the new cast of characters occupying the Prime Minister's Office.
The Americans recognize the politics of the real world — the pften-times conflicting pressures that will come to bear on
Shamir. What is popular in Washington may not be so popular among his Likud followers.
Will the Prime Minister risk alienating . a very friendly Reagan administration; Congress arid American public opinion in order to appease the rightwirig of the political spectrum in Jerusalem? That remains to be sieen,. ' But there is no doubt that the stakes for Israel are great, especially in very practical areas of American economic and military support. Israel still has much to gain from Wa.shington.
The perception of Israel as reasonable and responsible, for example, can have a tremendous influence on the U.S. decision-making process in the weeks and months ahead.
If Israel play.s its cards right, for: instance, there could be a reduction in the prevailing interest rates on outstanding U;S. military loans . for Israel. Once again, key lawmakers are working with the administration to determine if .some sort of creative bookkeeping formula might be found. to cut those interest rates in half;
That will require .some good sense in Jerusalenh. Talk of expanding West
Bank settlements — even if largely rhetOricaK aimed only at appeasing Herut hardliners — can be damaging. Perception often is more important than reality. The image of a stubborn Israel so of^en portrayed when Menachem Begin was Prime Minister — can have a devastating impact on American attitudes toward Israel.
Shamir is not a complete Unknown in Washington; He was, after all, Prime Minister for just over a year after Begin resigned. And he has Served as foreign minister as well.
It was in November 1983, under Shamir and then-Defence .Minister Moshe Arens, that die U.S. and Israel. signed their strategic cooperation agreement. That has cer-tairily ; set in motion a positive tone in terms of the bilateral relationship.
But so much more can be done. The Reagan administration, backed by bipartisan majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives, is inclined to move in that direction: . A new era in the American-Israeli alliance is possible — one that will result in the expanded prepositioning of U.S. military equipment in Israel.. :
i^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^
r
isn t new
By
RICHARD COHEN
WASHiNGTON -
Ask the average American if there is an epidemic of births to teen-agers in this country and the answer will probably be yes. Ask if things are getting worse, and the answer will again be yes: Ask if diings were once better and the answer will still be yes, and if you ask when that was, you will be told "in the pa.st." Kids then had values! ._. .
So, to paraphrase the introduction to the old Lone Ranger show, return with me to those not-so-thrilling days of yesteryear, say 1957, That was smack in the middle of the Eisenhower era, when every good boy delivered papers and no good girl delivered babies. There was prayer in the schools, patriotism in die community and fins on cars. Those were the days.
Sorry. The Census Bureau says that 1957 was the peak year for teen-age motherhood. Girls aged 15 to' 19 had a birth rate of 96 per 1,000. Broken down by race' that amounted to 85 for white women and 173 for women then categorized as"nort-whites.'" Every year since, the rate has dropped. By 1984, the most recent year for \vhich data are available, the aVerage for all women aged 15 to 19 was 51 per 1,000 — 42.5 for whites and 95.7 for Blacks.
So then what accounts for the widespread perception that teen-agers have all gone from the Girl Scouts to Plato's Retreat? Well, for one thing, the rate of births to single women is up.. The figure for 1957 was 15.8 per 1,000;:in 1984 it was 30.2. A fair assumption is that teen-agers who once got married because they were pregnant now do not. Gone is the desperate dash to a marriage mill and nuptials' witnessed by a shotgun. Instead, more teen-agers are having babies^and.remaining single, producing a host of social problems that, through welfare, become our expense: That helps.account for our concern.
But what about the widely held perception that the teen-agers Of today are sexually active and need a shot of 1950-era values? That's a harder question. Clearly, the figures prove that a lot of. today's concerned parents have become retroactive teen-age virgins. Those 15- to 19-year-olds who set a rcord back in 57 were, it says here, having sex. Tliat hardly means, though, that today's kids are not and there is every indication
they are. The birth rate can be held down by a 1
variety of factors, including abortion, birth con-; 1
trol. sex education or postponing marriage: s
If that's the case, then more power tO birth con- = trol V sex education and — depending on your. =
views -^abortion: Nevertheless, die effectiveness §
of these programs is often denigrated by those =
who say they encourage promiscuity. It was =
precisely on those grounds that the New York E
city school board recently killed programs at nine; s
high schools where contraceptive devices or =
prescriptions for them were made available. "We =
cannot.    .support clinics in any school that pro- =
vide abortion counseling and the distribution of s
contraceptives that may encourage sexual activity § and prohiiscuity among teen-agers." said Dr. . =
Irene Impellizzeri, a school-board member. ■=
In effect. New.York had passed what amounts =
to the Teen-age Mother Preservation Act. Unlike 1
many government programs, this one will work. e.
Sexually active teen-agers willnot become chaste; e
they will become pregnant. New York, like a lot e
of jurisdictions, riiade its choice. It chose not to e
deal with the consequences of teen-age sexuali- e
ty. It hopes, maybe, that teen-age sexuality itself =
. will go away — as in pur ihythical recollection e
of the 1950s. Only obscure government statistics . §
whisper othervvise. e
The point, of course, is that teen-age sexuali- =
,ty is riot something that can be wished away. In e
the 1950s, it was handled in one way •— E
premature marriages, shotgun or otherwise — e
and, very often, premature divorces as well. Mar- ;s
ried or not, teen-age girls were not oiily having . e
sex. they were giving birth as well. Now, dif- 1
ferent economic and social circumstances have . e
produced a different problem. — single 5
modierhood and its awful consequences: The con- s
Slant, diough, is the cause of the problem — teen- .:e
age sexuality.                                 ; s
As did our parents before us, we should prefer s
if teen-agers refrained from sex. It's hard enough s
for adults to handle, tougher for kids. Too often 5
it produces confusion, anxiety and, inevitably, s
pregnancy. But the way to deal with the problem e
is not just to preach values, but also to teach sex 1
education and make birth control available: The e
Census Bureau's statistics prove that when we . e
had the former and not the latter we also has s
something else: An awfiil lot of teen-age mothers. =■
(Copyright Washington Post Writers Group) s
nlllltllllllllllllinHllllinillllillilllliHIIIIIIHIIIIHIHilllllllHHIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIHIIIlin