Page 4 - The Canadian Jewish News, Friday, March 18, 1977
Editorial
TheCaoadian jewisii news
An independent Community Newspaper serving as a forum for diverse viewpoints.
Directors: Donald Carr. Q.C.. George A. Cohon. Murray B. Kottler, Albert J. Latner, Ray D.Wolfe.
Editor. Ralpti Hyrr^an Associate Editor. Lewis Levendel Production Manager, Gary Latoret Advertising Manager, Vera Gillman Of*ice Manager, Edna M. Johnstone
VOL; XVII, NO. 59 (943)
Published  h>   The Canadian JewiNh News
(.\ Corporation without share capital) at S62 Eglinton Avenue East, Suite 401, Toronto, Ontario M4P 1 Pi 481-6434. Quebec Bureau
4781 Van Horne Ave., Suite 209.
Montreal. Quebec H3W 1J1
73S-2606
/
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Canada S7.S0 per year........... $18-3 years
U.S.A. $10 per year...........$26.50 - 3 years
.Ml other countries $ 1S per year. $39-3 years Adar 28,5737-Vayakhel-Pokudei, Shabbat Hacbdesh Candlelighting: Toronto 6:07; Montreal 5:44
Second Class Mail Postage Vaid at Toronto Registration Number 1^83
.Average net paid circulation . . . 34,529      .\verage total distribution . . . 36,142 Publisher's sworn statement. December 3, 1976
The Canadian Jewish .News assumes no responsibility for the kashrulh of ihe products advertised.
Harris gives fair warning
Heed his message
The leaders of the Toronto Jewish community should take heed of Mihon Harris' warning to the annual meeting of the Toronto Jewish Congress. "We're going to have to anticipate problems, not operate on a reactive basis as we've done." declared the president of the TJC. who was reelected as head of the community for a second year. "If we wait till disaster strikes, it'll be too late."
Fair warning to the community and our leaders. In fact, even now it may be too late with nearly every community organization in a bankrupt position, according to Mr. Harris' analysis.
The biggest economic problem area is education. Part of the solution may be in getting more people involved in the political process of obtaining public funding for Jewish education, as suggested to the meeting by Congress National Vice-President David Satok.
Another priority involves a change in the thinking processes of many of our leaders. .As .Mr. Harris told the meeting, "the essential priority of the community is its unity. There is no priority in this community today which matches the need to maintain unity."
In the.e inflationary times, one of the toughest and most time-consuming tasks of the TJC is the allocations of funds. Our leaders must give first consideration to the total interest of the community, not individual organizations or agencies. "1 hope the leadership takes community positions over the next few vears," said Mr. Harris. "If
they don't, we're going to be in for some mighty tough times."
Other essential points of the president's report were his plea for the community to be cautious about constructing new buildings (for example. Associated Hebrew Schools should defer plans for a new.structure), and his call for an end to the multiplicity of fund-raising drives, especially those Israeli-related. He was correct in pointing out the UJ A is the instrument of funding for all activities of a local, national and Israeli nature.
Many of our leaders wear several hats regarding organizational allegiances, aside from UJA. Mr. Harris is not the first to point out the dangers of the multiplicity of fund-raising drives. Th^ law of diminishing returns is bound to affect the main campaigns, especially if his five-year projection proves correct.
His figures show the UJA in 1982 collecting S20.5 million, with local and national needs requiring S10.5 million. This would mean only about S8 million to Israel, down from S12 million in 1976. That, of course, would be a totally unsatisfactorv' amount destined for Jerusalem.
The president received much praise for his hard-hitting 40-minute address. And he deserves much credu for his handling of the first year of the Toronto merger of Congress and the Welfare Fund. As he said, many of the apprehensions of those opposed to the union have not been justified. Areas, such as our youth, have been somewhat neglected, but overall, it was a verv good first vear for the TJC.
An impotent
The impotence of the United Nations in the face of flagrant injustices perpetrated in many parts of the world was eloquently portrayed recently by Chaim Herzog, Israel's ambassador to the world body. Mr. Herzog is a rare breed of diplomat, one who readily abandons the niceties of diplomatic language to hammer home a point.■
The. ambassador told a United Jewish Appeal gathering in Chicago that the United Nations stands condemned for its failure to denounce terrorism and brutality. In the face of a massacre of Christians in Uganda, he said, the Securitv- Council had nothing to say. He contrasted this disgraceful abdication of ethical responsibility with the standing ovation given Idi Amin, the butcher of Uganda, by the General Assembly. And when Israel astounded the world «-ith its spectacular rescue of the hostages at Entebbe, the Security Council was called upon to condemn Israel for an act that had stirred the heart and touched the conscience of the world.
The moral bankruptcy of the world organization is well documented, we regret to say. A few examples will show how far it has drifted from the principles enunciated in the San Francisco charter. The Security Council has done nothing to protest the slaughter of thousands of Africans, nor did it raise its voice when 50,000 Lebanese died in the nightmare of civil war, and black Christians were being murdered by a racist regime in the'Sudan. Ambassador Herzog told his audience that the United Nations has done nothing to prevent the Kurdish nation being liquidated by Iraqi forces.
The record is a sorrv' one, and the fact that Israel is not the sole victim of Arab and Third World hatred is cold comfort. Unless the United Nations cleans its house and becomes a world body in fact as well as in name, it will go the way of the ill-fated League of Nations which, too, started out with such high hopes of world brotherhood only to falter and collapse when the test came.
Human rights
Henry Kissinger's approach to human rights was. to say the least, a negative one. It was his judgment that the cause of human rights abroad could best be served by what hecalIed**quietbutforcefuldiplomacy." In practice, Mr. Kissinger rarely spoke out against injustices. His view was that America risked alienating its allies and undermining the spirit of detente with Moscow if it pushed too hard for the observance of human rights. It was a questionable thesis at best and quite a surprising one in light of the fact that Henr>' Kissinger, aGerman Jew, had himself been denied his human rights by a repressive regime.
With Jimmy Carter in the White House, U.S. foreign policy appears to have taken a different turn. No longer is 'quiet diplomacy' a sacrosanct phrase in Washington. Mr. Kissinger's callous attitude toward human rights has been replaced by an butspoken-^ness which heralds change.
Anyone who followed Mr. Carter's presidential campaign should not be surprised by his advocacy of human rights. On numerous occasions, he spoke of restoring "the moral authority'" of American foreign policy. Like Woodrow Wilson, who sought "to make the world safe for democracy," President Carter argues that foreign policy must reflect the egalitarian vaJues of the United States. "Because we are; free,'* he said in his Inaugural Address, "we caii never be indifferent to the fate of freedom elsewhere."
Mr. Carter has been true to his word since assuming office. He authorized the State Department to chastize Czechoslovakia for cracking down on dissideiits; he dispatched a letter to Soviet dissident Andrei Sakharov proclaiming his administration's "firm commitment" to human rights; he voiced his "profound concern" over the treatment of dissidents in Eastern Europe, and he expressed his disquiet about detained Soviet-Jewish humM rights activist Alexander Ginzburg. (
Two weeks ago, in one of his strongest .statements yet on the subject, President Carter said Washington's dedication to human rights was "permanent and I don't
intend to be timid in tny public declarations and positions." He said this after meeting with activist Alexander Bukovsky.
The new, refreshing American stance comes at a time when the Soviet Union has mounted a tough campaign to try to muffle the small but increasingly vocal dissident movement — rnany of whose members are Jews wishing to emigrate — and a few months before the Belgrade conference is due to review the human rights provisions of the 1975 Helsinki conference. The timing is significant.
Yet, as dedicated to human rights as the Carter administration may b,e, we would be less than candid if we overlooked the apparent loopholes in the president's policy.
Secretary of State Cyrus Vance says he rejects any formal linkage between Soviet-American arms talks and progress on human rights. We don't disagree with this formulation, since effective arms controls would be of benefit to all of mankind. However, as a way of preserving good relations with Moscow, Washington may very well dilute its present commitment to human rights should that be deemed in the national interest.
Another misgiving we have concerns the remark made by Mr. Vance at a recent Senate hearing. He disclosed that Argentina, Uruguay and Ethiopia would get a reduced level of foreign aid because of human rights violations. Then he noted that, because of overfidihg security commitments, Washington would not reduce its aid to South Korea or other Such ^ategical-ly placed allies, whatever their violatioris of human rights.
The hazard here, of course, is that this loophole may be applied to the Soviet Union, acountrythe U.S. does not take for granted, in order to preiserve detente or to promote arms talks. '
Our worst fears may never materialize; we may be reading too much into thie nuances of American policy. But those of us who applaud President Carter's strong stand on humaji rights should be cognizant of these very real potential dangers.
may foretell change in
By SHELDON KIRSHNER
Jordan has been very much in the news this year.
Hebron's former mayor. Sheikh Mohammed Ali Ja'abari, conferred with Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin after talks with Jordan's King Hussein. Jordan resumed the payment of its subsidies to West Bank municipal councils. A group of Israeli Arabs visited the bantam monarch after his wife, Queen Alya, died in a helicopter crash.
President Sadat of Egypt ^suggested that an "official and declared link" between the PLO and Jordan could be useful. And King Hussein and the PLO reached agreement in principle on the need for a strong link
Jordan's King Hussein
between Amman and a proposed Palestinian state on the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip.
What does it all mean?_ShouId any significance-be attached to these seemingly unrelated chain of events?
Observers who have kept a close watch on Jordanian affairs interpret these encoim-ters as harbingers of change in the Middle East. For the first time in some three years, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, with a little encouragement from Syria, Egypt, Israel, the U.S. and certain West Bank Palestinian leaders, may be prepared to break with the past by adopting a new policy toward the PLO.
The theory is that Jordan may abrogate the understanding it reached with the Arab League states at the 1974 Rabat Summit Conference that the PLO is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinians entitled to set up a "natioiial authority" in the occupied lands.
If King Hussein is really intent on claiming the West Bank, he is setting the stage for Jordanian-Israeli peace talks. Amman's aim in such negotiations would be to bring about a speedy Israeli withdrawal from most of the West Bank, and work out a pact with the Palestiniians which would serve the interests of all the parties concerned.
Such an agreement would probably take the form of a confederation between Jordan and a new Palestinian state—an idea which King Hussein put forward in 1972.
Five years ago, Israel and the PLO were not receptive to the concept of confederation. Israel thought it was a dark Arab plot to usurp its authority on the West Bank. The PLO, fresh fix)m fighting King Hussein's army during the civil war of 1970-71, refused to deal with a regiine that had slaughtered Palestinians.
Today, however, confederation may be an idea whose time has come.
Israel has learned that it is preferable to negotiate with a pro-Western monarchy which accepts its existence rather than with a national movement — the PLO — which does not as yet. Besides, confederation would fit in well with Israel's advocacy of solving the Palestinian problem withm a Jordanian framework.
The PLO, much like Israel, has learned that half a loaf is better than none at all. Aside from the Rejection Front, the majority of PLO leaders — including Yasser /^rafat — may be ready to settle for a West Bank-Gaza Strip entity in lieu of a secular, democratic state. Arafat and his colleagues have discovered, somewhat belatedly, that support of Palestinian national aspirations is not necessarily synonymous
Sheik Mohammed Ali Ja'abari of Hebron (with turban), talks to Israeli officials on the campus of Tel Aviv University. His recent diplomatic mission to Jordan was significant.
with Israel's destruction.
As a result, both the Israelis and the moderate Palestinians are presumably prepared for a compromise settlement; and the man who may facilitate such a settlement, through the good offices of Washington. Cairo and Damascus, is King Hussein.
Sheikh Ali Ja'abari of Hebron was instrumental in starting the latest diplomatic process that could lead to -an Israeli-Jordanian accommodation and. more importantly, to a rapprochement between Israel and the moderate Palestinians. After returning from Amman, the Moslem elder met Premier Rabin in a well-publicized meeting. He conveyed the message that Jordan insisted on a full Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank. As hard as King Hussein's terms were, the Ja'abari mission was productive because it underlined the fact that a serious dialogue is underway.
The resumption of Jordanian subsidies to West Bank towns is seen by observers as a means by which Amman can buy political influence. Bethlehem's Mayor Hias Freij echoed this view when he commented that the PLO had no choice but "to bow" to Hashemhe authority over the West Bank.
In the  aftermath  of Queen  Alva's . untimely death, an Israeli Arab delegation travelled to Amman, the first time Jordan permitted Israeli Arabs into the country on
an organized basis. Previously. Amman saw them as traitors to the Arab cause. The Jerusalem Post, which is very close to the Israeli government, editoriarized: "The delegation is...an expression of Israel's interest in supporting King Hussein's renewed claim to representation of the Palestinian Arabs as opposed to the PLO...."
President Sadat's suggestion of a Palestinian-Jordanian link was welcomed by U.S. Secretarv- of State Cyrus Vance when he visited the Middle East. Sadat's statement opened the way for a combined Palestinian-Jordanian delegation at the Geneva Peace Conference, and denoted' wider Arab approval of a West Bank state controlled by Jordan.
(Syria is interested in a West Bank state under the control of Jordan because President Assad realizes that a totally independent Palestinian state would thwart his scheme for a !'Greater Syria" encompassing Jordan, Lebanon and the Palestinians.)
The meeting involving King Hussein and PLO chairman Yasser Arafat in Cairo last week indicated that a reconciliation between Jordan and the PLO may Ije in the ' offi ng. After seven years of bitter c6nfix)nta-tion, that would be a sign of progress, a real harbinger of change.
Letters to the Editor
'CZF leader owes an apology to yordim'
Dear Editor:
Regarding Phil Givens' letter (Feb. 25), it is my turn to find his letter to the editor incredible. I am one of the Israelis who had to leave the country. There are many who left Israel for various reasons: some caimot take the climate, some have all kind of financial problems and just have to try the'u-luck in other places, some — who survived the Holocaust and World War n — have not the nerve and power to live in continuous tension.
If somebody rings your bell in the middle of the night, you are not afraid of the police, but you have the feeling that something is on and you are drafted again and again and again. If you hear a plane flying low. you ask yourself what's going on and if there is heavy traffic — sounds of armored vehicles — you ask yourself where is it starting now. After a war in Europe, and some wars in Israel, many people cannot take it anymore.
But, who gives you,.Mr. Givens, the right to say that we " pulled up our stakes in scorn and that we rejected Israel"? It is true that Israel needs every Jew (although there are more Jews on this cpntinentthan there)! but this does not mean that yordim are the ones who "deliberately and purposely withdrew their human and intellectual resources from Israel."
WTiat do you mean when you write ' 'Israel permits them to leave ftwly"? How would you feel if Canada would not permit you to go and come as you please? I strongly suggest that'you and every Jew.on this continent should live iii Israel for at least a couple of years of your life, giving Israel your human and intellectual resources, your "sons and brothers for the Fatherland. You might feel some of the anxiety others feel, but you could also have the wonderful, elated feeling of being a Jew in a Jewish country. It is nice to send money, but it is more important to give a couple of years of your life to living there.       — .
I'm sorry you don't respect us, but why do we Je:ws have to be different from others in this matter? I'm sure that people who emigrated from Greece, Italy, Holland, etc. to Canada and the United States, did not lose the respect of their compatriots at home. ......
There are many yordim — like my husband — who were taken as hostages by the Germans at the beginning of Worid War 11 and sent to the border with Russia because the concentration camps were not ready yet in 1939. My husband could write books about his situation in Russia during the war. He was lucky, to be able to leave Russia, and in 1948, together with my brother, they volunteered and went to Israel
with the MAHAL and fought in the Independence war, fought also in 1956, and tny brother took part in the 1967 war also.
My husband is an active member of Irgim Zwai Leumi and his feelings for Israel and Zionism are as strong — and stronger — than yours, and there are many yordim with the same strong feelings for Israel.
As far as I'm concerned, we do not need your respect and admiration, but I feel that as president of the CZF. you should think twice before you publish such a strong article. You should look more deeply and find out facts before insulting us. I feel you owe an apologv- to many yordim, for whom your article was disgraceful, insulting and in bad taste.
dna Aasabd, Toninto
Reader offended
Dear Editor:
Listening to Rabbi Slonim and Dr. Forrest's interview on CBC radio (Feb. 22, Momingside program), I couldn't help feeling sick. It's bad enough that Dr. Forrest thinks the Jews are not entitled to a national home in Israel, but to see a Jew share that view is revolting.
Had Rabbi Slonim been brought up in Europe and lived through the Holocaust there; had he known anti-Semitism in Poland as we knew it — I'm sure his views would be quite different.
Are we to be singled out forever among all nations of the worid and not have a right to the land of our forefathers? This is a Jewish homeland, the only place on earth where millions of persecuted and homeless Jews Jound a place where they finally belong and whidi they can call their own.
It is also a brazen lie on the part of Slonim-to utter such a statement that the Arabs in Israel are treated like the Jews are elsewhere.
The Israelis are doing vihst they can to be just and fair to the Israeli Arabs. They have water and electricity; they have business opportunities and in many instances they are exempt from taxes wdiidi weigh so heavy on tiiie Jews; they attrad sdiools and universities by the thousands. Their standard oif living has risen markedly. They certainly are not denied access to Jerusalem and their holy places, and neither are the Christians. Israel bends backward to give everybody religious freedom. I do remember clearly though how the Jews were
denied access to Jerusalem and their holy places when they were under Arab rule.
The Arabs cannot serve in the Israeli army, and I don't think they'd want to. and the reason for that is dear.
As for the refugees. I do sjTnpathize with anyone who suffers. I was a refugee myself and suffered enough. But the Arabs could have absorbed these refugees long ago just as Israel absorbed Jewish refugees. They, however, preferred to have them suffer and use them as political pawiis against Israel. They don't want peace. What they do want is to destroy Israel.
If ever there would come a day when the Jews would have to be a minority in Israel, they would indeed be ai sony lot. which is true for almost everj- Arab coimtty they live in. They have no choice but to fight for their survival, and the only way they can survive is to rely on themselves and their brothers. Otherwise, they would have landed at the bottom of the sea long a"go.
E31. Gtecnspoon, Dowim-tew
Max Federman
Dear Editor:
May I point out a discrepancy in the otherwise admirable article on Max Federman that appeared in your March 11 edition.
If as you correctly say. Max Federman has been a sodal democrat since the mid-'30s, then he didn't need the Hitler-Stalin pact (of 1939) to "turn him off" the ideology of the proletarian dictatorship. There are lots of Tbrontonians about who recall him as being a bitter and consistent anti-Communist long before 1939 and even before the mid2*30s.
The fact is that even when Federman, as a "Left Poale Zion." generally supported the--polides of the Soviet Union, he and his movement had a healthy distrust of the Yevseks (i.e. the Jewish Communist Party people).
B. Goldstein, Tonuto
The HuMng Place
Dear Editor:
: Much controversy has appeared in recent inbnths'concerning the film Hie Hiding Place by Billy Graham Productions.
As a proselytizing film, it must be dismissed. Those who come to proselytize to Jews are conunitting an inherently
hostile act by inferring that the Jewish identity and religion should be abandoned in favor of Christianity, This is an unacceptable position.
On the human relations level, on an individual-to-individual basis, those acts of goodwill carried out by Christians toward Jews in Wprid War II will always be cherished. Indeed, those yery Christians are forever commemorated at Yad Vashem Memorial on Mt. Herzl in Jerusalem.
However, forJews as a people, the; entire film must be viewed as irre evant. Those few acts of goodwill and' kindness by Christians had no effect on preventing the extermination of European Jewrj-. thereby eliminating one-third of the entire world Jewish population.
What the film does not concern itself with, yet is central to Jewish survival, is the underlying cause of the Holocaust and the reasons why Jews had to be hidden.
Why was there ati atmosphere prevalent where attacking Jews was generally acceptable to all of Europe? In this area, the film fails to point to the 1.900years of teaching of contempt for Jews and Judaism by the "ad-versus Judeos tradition" of the Church fathers and the supposed "supersession" of Christianity over Judaism as the " New-Israel". denying Jews their peoplehood and their religious rights.
Nor does it reveal the prevalence of the anti-Zionist attitudes created by the tum-of-the-century Russian forgery, tlie Protocols of tbe^ers of 23on, which denies Jews political rights.
In not dealing with these important issues, the film must be view;ed as evasive and. therefore, ineffectual.
MarshaLe\7, Montreal
'Un-Jewishlike'
Dear Editor:
In your Feb. 25 edition, your "What's New" column printed an announcement regarding a forthcoming rummage sale to be held by Friends jrf Pioneering Israel. Espedally since the proceeds are presumably to be used to aid Israel. I was all the more surprised to note that the first of the two-day period that this sale will fimction is on a Saturday — Yom Shabbos kodesh.
In spite of the fad that this organization is not comprised of Orthodox membership, is the whole purpose not being defeated trying to build up the "Jewish stater through "un-Jewishlike" means?
Toronto