M-T
The Canadian Jewish News, Friday, November 4, 1977 - Page 5
Opinioii
REMARKS BY WJC PRESIDENT 'MISCHIEVOUS, SLANDEROUS'
^uiiuiiiiraiimuuiiiuuituiHuiiiuiHiuiiiiiiiiiuiiiiitiuuuimimiHiifflmnwiiu
BylTZHAKBAR LEWAW
Nahum Goldmann — judging by his Moment magazine interview excerpted in The CJN — seems to be a man of resentment and pettiness, consumed by gossip usually characteristic of Hollywood syndicated columnists.
Ben-Gurion. the subject of many of Gold-mann's personal reminiscences, is dead and cannot refute his cheap stories. But suppose, just suppose, that Goldmann truly reports B.G.'s small talk; is this what one might expect from a World Jewish Congress president? Goldmann goes on with his' ■"tzatzkes", shenanigans and simple mischievous talk. Accordingly, B.G. told him that "there is no democracy" (in Israel). Perhaps he could find more democracy in Syria or any other Arab state, but the fact is that Israel suffers'from too much democracy and not vice versa. There are too many democratic parties in Israel, and I remember Goldmann joking about three Israelis forming four political parties and expressing five different opinions...
Sometimes he is slanderous; he quotes B.G. saying: "We (the Jews) stole their country (the Arabs)." Whether B.G. said it or not is irrelevant. It's appropriate to remind Goldmann that, usually, states are not founded according to concepts of love, charity or brotherhood. History is full of examples, and he should know it well; he was born in Vishnevo, Lithuania, in 1895 which was then under Czarist Russia; after 22 years of independence (1918-40), Lithuania was "freely" reincorporated into the Soviet empire.
Unfortunately, power is not given; it is
won on the battlefield. If Goldmann could, as he states, prevent the Israeli-Arab wars, why then didn't he accept Ben-Gurion's offer to settle down in Israel, lead a party and fight for his ideals? More than that: he took out Israeli citizenship in 1%2, only to turn around in 1968 and receive a Swiss passport. Why did he desert? Does this behoove a world Jewish leader? A Lithuanian by birth, Goldmann was a Russian, German, U.S., Israeli and Swiss citizen.^ Could this be the reason that Le Monde called him "I'aristocrate du Judaisme mondial"? (the aristocrat of worid Jewry). The epithet "le tzigane (gypsy) du Judaism mondial" would better characterize Gold-mann's personality.
Goldmann's interview makes good reading, but is it true? There are too many ' 'ifs'' in his remarks: "if I were," "if I did," etc.
Suppositions or assumptions are irrelevant in the course of history.
What could Goldmann propose as an alternative to Israel? The Lubavitcher "kingdom" situated in Brooklyn, headed-by the rebbe (a Hitler refugee), who never visited Israel. —
For peace, real and authentic peace, you need two parties to agree, the Arabs and the Jews. Didn't Goldmann yet fully realize that the main Arab goal is the complete physical and spiritual destruction of the Jewish state? Does he seriously think that his talks with Abdel Gamal Nasser, and other Arab "democrats" could have changed that persistent 30-year policy? .
Dr. Bar Lewaw is a professor of language and literature at York University. Toronto and a graduate of Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
Letters to the Editor
Why does network play up only what is derogatory?
Dear Editor:
In your issue of Oct. 14,1 read the article written by your very able music critic. Rick Kardonne. It is high time that someone spoke up  and protested the constant
Who is responsible for lack of leadership frustrating the troops?
ByJ.B.SALSBERG
It.has happened periodically in the ranks of Canadian Jewry and it is happening again right now.
I'm referring to the groundswell of anger and frustration that disturbs the rank-and-file, the so-called "troops," from time to time because of the lack of direction and leadership at times when the healthy instinct of the people tells them that action is necessary. We are experiencing another such groundswell at present.
Two recent political events that affect the immediate and future interests of Israel prompted the present wave of dissatisfaction. One was the ominous joint statement issued by the U.S. and the USSR on Oct. 1. That statement was generally. interpreted as an effort to impose a big-power settlement in the Middle East that would prove to be most dangerous for the future of Israel.
The second event was the disturbing habit of the Canadian government to abstain from voting when the anti-Israel bloc sought to legitimize the PLO at international bodies. The Canadian representative did it again on Oct. 3 when he abstained on a motioti to recognize the PLO, the granddaddy of hijacking, as an official observer in the International Civil Aviation Organization. Canada, it should be noted, abstained while the U.S. voted against the proposition.
Let's face it — a lot of Canadian Jews feel that they were left immobilized and frustrated on both those occasions when, in their opinion, the Jewish community was eager to publicly demonstrate their opposition to both of those dangerous developments and to register their support for Israel. This feeling is not limited to the lay people in our cominunal structure but exists also among many commissioned and noncommissioned officers at the leadership level.
As is usual in siich periods of fi-iistration, Reople seek a culprit and in the present Instance the most handy target was the Canada-Israel Conunittee (CIC). siilce both issues affect Israel and since the CIC Js supposed to be the supreme high cominand on matters affecting Israel in this country.
But, having listened, observed and discussed this matter during the past week, I am unable to place the sole burden of responsibility on the CIC. I'm rather inclined to think that, in this instance, the constituent bodies of CIC are more responsible than is the CIC.
The Canada-Israel Cpmmittee, as should be known to^allris^the collectivie instrument of th^ Canadian Zionist
-F^cleratioh (to which all Zionist orgatiiz-ations belong), the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Canadian membership of B'nai B'rith.
In other words, the CIC is the centralized, specialized body of Canadian Jewry on matters affecting the welfare of Israel and the development of friendly, co-operative relations between Canada and the Jewish state. But, at best, the CIC is as strong and as effective as are its constituents, its sponsoring bodies. It has no mass base of its own, except that which is provided by its sponsoring, parent bodies.
In the prese;it instance the record seems to show that the CIC was riot oblivious, or indifferent, or silent on both issues. The two main front page headlines of the Oct. 7 issue of this mass-circulated Jewish publication (The Canadian Jewish News), read: "U.S.Soviet view denounced by CIC," and "Canada's abstention on PLO issue is branded as 'particularly gutless'" (by CIC). Below those headlines followed lengthy statements issued by CIC officers in Montreal and Toronto im-ihediately after the events took place. It is also known that the CIC issued written communications to a wide (but not sufficient) section of our leadership urging the writing of letters of protest to Ottawa, etc. ~
I share the view that in both instances the writing of letters of protest is insufficient and that more visible and more effective public activities were necessary. But, I'm obliged to ask: Where were the three major Jewish bodies that formed the CIC and which constitute its mass basis?
Where was the Canadian Zionist Federation and all its affiliates for whom both those issues sboiiild be top-priority? What did they do to "marshal the troops" (as the saying now goes), and to go into action on behalf of Israel?
What did the B'nai B'rith do in pursuance of the correct line made public by the CIC of which it is a constituent body? ; Yes, and what did the Canadian Jewish Congress do as a follow-up to the correct political lead given by the CIC?
Which, if any, of those three major bodies communicated instantly (by phone, wire or telex), with their far-flung, regional and local leadership cadres to offer advice and guidance on how to follow up the lead taken by the CIC on our behalf?
Are we suffering firom a lack of inner communication and collective responsibility or is our iniaction, heaven forbid, a reflection of a preference — on the part. of leadership — for "quiet diplomacy" (shtadlanut), as against public, political activity?
I'm not presuming to pass judgment on the leadership of this or that major sector of our Jewish communal life. Nor, I assure yon, am I handing out verdicts on the degree of responsibility that rests on one or the other of three'' parents'' of the CIC. But something is wrong somewhere that calls for honest objective examination.
Who or what is responsible for the most recent leadership failure that caused so mudi justified chagrin and firustration in our ranks during the last couple of weeks? /
attempt to defame and slander the Jewish people. Is it not enough that so many people are so ready and eager to believe that Jews are Shylocks and Fagins, charlatans — characters invented by authors, great as they were, who probably never knew or even saw a Jew?
Is it not enough that these same people will also believe in the proven slanderers' fabrication such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion — the wild diatribes of the Nazis — the Russians — and not to mention the sickly self-haters like Philip Roth and Mordecai Richler.
I have not the slightest doubt that a very capable and talented actor like Barry Morse could do justice to a part, and interpret a character, be he Jewish, Chinese or Turkish... and do it honestly, and in perfect faith as he sees it. It is also true that a capable Jewish actor would be inclined to tone down any uncalled-for viciousness in the character within the confines of the play as it is written. In the main, it is not the actor who determines that — it is the author.
I find it very easy to understand that a great Jewish actor who would play Shylock would be inclined to show a Shylock who was forcibly kept in a ghetto, being robbed of his only child (the apple of his eye), his fortune taken away from him — and would portray Shylock as the victim rather than the villain.
But all that is not the issue. Why must the CBC, which gets national coverage as well as bordering American cities and towns, forever play up that which is derogatory to Jews? Did Jews not produce enough greats in the fields of science, medicine, chemistry, psychology, philosophy, literature and all the arts? Why only dwell on that which maligns the Jews and creates the impression that Jews are charlatans, alchemists — when in reality they are on a higher level of morality — or at least, at the very least, equal to the rest of the Canadian population.
I.Roth, Toronto
Dear Editor:
Like so many other? I am intrigued by Rabbi Erwin Schild's letter condemning nudity at the 'Y' theatre as contrary to Jewish law and tradition, analogous to ham sandwiches.
Rabbi Schild, as a Conservative rabbi, should be more open-minded. After all, the very basis of Conservatism 15 to adapt Jewish law and tradition to the changing moods of modem times.
I respectfully ask Rabbi Schild to show me any sources indicating that nudity is contrary to the Jewish spirit and tradition. Nowhere in the Torah is such a prohibition to be found.
Also, evenifsuch a source could be found, that should not stand in our way. There are so many other laws of the Torah which we Conservative and Reform Jews reject as archaic, irrelevant and irreconcilable with sophisticated modern life and morality (e.g.. the laws of Nidah, dietary laws, laws on prohibited work on the Sabbath and holy days etc.).
Talmudic injunctions and the Orthodox Shulchan Aruch. inventions of medieval and superstitious minds and products of hair-splitting sophistry, have no bearing on the religious life of modem Jews and should not be allowed to stifle contemporary perspectives and desires.
I would be very grateful for an explana-tion. .  ■ . ■ :
BemySOverberg, Toronto
Dear Editor:
Thank you for publishing my letter in the issue of Oct. l4 suggesting that publicity should be given iriore fully about Christians killed and mistreated in Hitler's Germany before and during the war.
I realize that you had to edit my letterdue to space available. However, the point of the letter was lost in the abbreviation, namely that most of the Christian worid does not realize that their own also suffered greatly. Therefore, their attitude generally is that they killed only Jews. "So what! Too bad they coul^hi't finish the job."
Perhaps if they heard it often enough they-would realize that if the. Nazis ever did it again who knows who they would kill thie next time.
A new generation of misfits is growing up;~repeating the propaganda of the glorious Third^Reich widi no thought of what may happen'to their own.
y    David I. Cohen, Montreal
= (David Groskind photo) =
I Renowned author Meyer Levin (right), joins Rabbi Joseph Kelman of Beth Emeth Bais Yehuda in conversation prior to his lec- = I ture at the synagogue. The well-known writer of such works as The Old Bunch, The Settlers and Compulsion told his audience 5 =   there is a clique of Jewish anti-Zionist intellectuals who are conspiring to suppress and ignore works of pro-Zionist authors. =
^iiintnutimiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ .....niiiiiiiiiiiiimtmff
Canada expected to abstain on anti-Israel votes at UN
By LAWRENCE I. GROSSMAN (First of two parts)
Over the next six weeks, the UN General Assembly will pass a dozen or two resolutions critical of Israel and endorsing Arab perspectives regarding the Mideast dispute. Though Canada is one of Israel's few friends at the UN, it can nevertheless be expected that our government will rarely vote with Israel in opposition to these onesided pollings.
Canada's voting record on Mideast resolutions at the General Aissembly has been slowly but undeniably eroding over the last four years, since the Yom Kippur War and the Arabs' oil embargo. The Trudeau government, which has failed during this period to heed protests regarding its lamentable performance at the assembly, will probably anger Canadian supporters of Israel again this year who see Canada standing idly by as biased UN resolutions spoil hopes for a peacefully negotiated solution of the Arab-Israeli dispute. .
Indeed, such a bleak prognosis of Canada's role at the UN appears highly ironical when juxtaposed against the recent UN address of External Affairs Minister Don Jamieson. The minister told the assembly that its one-sided debates have been ineffectual and, consequently, undermining Canadian public support for the UN. In particular, he criticized the numerous resolutions passed last year on the Middle East as being ' 'devoid of practical proposals for action" and stated that Canada "deplores" assembly efforts to "attribute patently false motives to Israel or to diminish its status and rights within the United Nations."
Jamieson concluded by warning the members of the assembly that "the erosion of the effectiveness and prestige of the United Nations will continue'' unless they changed their ways;
Yet the contradiction between the minister's blunt speaking and the government's poor track-record remains clear. The facts strongly suggest that Jamieson, all too aware that the government's voting record at the UN receives low marks from Canadian supporters qf Israel, hoped his speech would balance or compensate for the upcoming disappointments.
Times have changed and so has Canada's policy toward the Mideast. Between 1948 and 1973. Canada's policy for the Arab-Israeli conflict firmly endorsed an equitable solution entailing concessions by both sides. Sejcurity Council Resolution 242. the most . Avidely acceptable blue-print for Axab-Israeli peace, was consistent with Canadian policy when it was passed in 1967 and it has represented the centrepiece of Canadian policy for the last 10 years. The key elements of 242 call for peace, a withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied in 1%7 to secure and recognized boundaries, and a resolution of the refugee problem.
The Yom Kippur War. -however, clearly, marked a turning point in Canada's stand. Thereafter, Canada has said — as^Arab leaders do — that 242 does not adequately deal with the Palestinians by its reference to "refugees.". Thus, our representatives have embraced the concept of "Palestinian interests"; over the last four years, this perspective has been gradually expanded to mean "political self expression — consistent with the principle of self-determination" for the Palestinians on a "territorial foundation."
At the same time. Canada has come to view resolutions r^gSding the PLO as questions on whicti Canada should refrain from voiciiig an bpinion. TheNresult has been a long list ofVbstentions oti\pro-PLO resolutions which diallenges IsYael^s right
CIC's Larry Grossman
to exist and which seriously derogates from the balanced and reasonable proposal of Security Council Resolution 242.
While Canada has thus shored up — from the Arab's vantage point — its Mideast policy on the Palestinian issue, it has also lessened its support for Israeli positions. Since 1973, Canada has come to view the numerous UN condemnations of Israeli policies as containing greater merit than the
fewer and less hostile resolutions passed between 1967 and 1972.
Canada's recent abstention on a vote, taken in Montreal, inviting the PLO to participate in the Intemational Civil Aviation Organization on matters related to "its territories" is a typical case. The PLO. an organization without an airline but with a long history of airline piracy, simply ias no place in IC AO. That should be self-evident.
The fruits of this kind of behavior were seen in greater detail last year at the General Assembly when Canada supported or abstained on all the resolutions criticizing Israeli policies in the occupied territories. In the pre-Yom Kippur War period. Canada often opposed such resolutions.
Canada also supported last year a vote calling for peace talks on the Mideast without reference to Security Council Resolution 242 and with the participation of the PLO. Before 1973. Canada opposed many resolutions prescribing conditions for negotiations or for a peace settlement which lacked reference to Resolution 242. Yet, because Canada now argue:s that 242 does not adequately cover the Palestinian dimension of the Middle East issue, pur govemment's support for Resolution 242 has become an off-again, oii-again thing. Afr. Grossnian is director of research of the Canada—Israel Committee.
Tragedy at Lalrim di^ jubilance of later victory
landmark events in our history
ByROCHELLECARR
Tension was mounting in Palestine. Arabs and Jews worked feverishly to present their views to world leaders. It was Nov. 4. 1947. In a few short weeks, the United Nations would decide to partition Palestine, an act which not only created the first. moderri Jewish state the following May, but also led to Israel's first war.
One of the most heroic yet tragic battles to occur in that war took place at the village of Latrun.
According to the United Nations partition plan, Jerusalem was to become an internationalized city."iCing Abdullah of Jordan, however, had other plans. Consequently, numerous battles raged during thespring of L948, all of which led to the heart-rending story of Latrun.
Even before Israel officially was bom, Arab armies trifed to take control of Jerusalem by laying seige to the Jewish sections of the city. Consequentiy. the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem road became the very lifeline for Jerusalem's Jews. During the night of May 15, the Palmach (the fighting arm of Hagana) actually captured Latrun. It was a ■ place of strategic importance if the Jews wanted to ensure reasonably safe passage for their convoys bearing food, water and arms to Jerasalelm.
Unfortunately, heavy fighting 011 all fronts of the tiny, nascent Jewish state ' forced the abatidonriient of Latrun. How-
ever, the conditions in Jemsalem for the Jews were deteriorating rapidly, with as many as 400 civilians killed in a three-week period. As the days went by and convoys to Jerusalem became virtually impossible, it became apparent to Ben-Gurion, in particular, afid to his Hagana commanders, that Latrun must be captured and held.
On May 22, it was decided by the Israeli high command that the bottleneck at Latrun had to be dealt with. Three nights later the operation began. It was doomed from the beginning. First there was the bickering amongst Israeli leaders as how to proceed. Then there was the total lack of surprise as ' .the forces rumbled their way from Hulda to Latrun. giving the Arab irregulars, as well as the well-trained Jordanian Legion, plenty of time to prepare.
Finally, and perhaps the saddest aspect of the whole venture, was the type of Israeli soldier chosen for the job. In addition to Palmachniks, a battalion of recentiy-arrived immigrants was added. Those new soldiers, remnaints of the Holocaust, spoke littie if any Hebrew (their commanders, generally, spoke nothing but Hebrew) and had received, in some cases, onlya day or two of military training. Tragically many of them, who managed to evade Hitler^sovens, were to die at Latrun. '
Added to those staggering problems was the fact that a blistering desert wind engulfed the area and the Israelis had not made adequate provisions for water stip-plies. It was no surprise that the outcome left Latran in Arab hands, as did a similar ill-fatedattempt on May30.
The whole lesson forc^ the Israelis to use ingenuity/They circumvented Latnm by building a back road (the' 'Burma" road) and got supplies to J)eseiged Jerusalem. Notwithstanding the courage and inventive* ness of that last act, nothing could lessen the tragedy at LatiTin. particularly of titose remnants from the Holocaust who endor^ so much and yet were to die only a few days after their arrival in the Promised Land.