Newspaper Page Text
Page 4 THE SOVTHERS ISRAELITE August 17, 1979
Vida Goldgar
The Southern Israelite
The Weekly Newspaper For Southern Jewry
Our 55th Year
U
Vida Goldgar
Editor and Publisher
242 down
Faith Powell
Assistant Editor
Linda Lincoln
Advertising Director
Mark Nicholas
ProductK>n Manager
Published every Friday by I he Southern Israelite, Inc.
Second Class Postage paid at Atlanta, Ga (ISSN 00388) (USPS 776000)
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 77388, Atlanta, Georgia 30357
Location: 188 15th St., N W Phone (404) 876-8248
Advertising rates available upon request.
Subscriptions: $15.00 - 1 year; $25 00 2 years
Member Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Religious News Servue.
American Jewish Press Assn . Georgia Press Assn . National Newspaper Assn
Andy, Andy...
Andrew Young’s go-it-alone “diplomacy” finally caught up
with him.
While applauding Young’s resignation, we have a tinge of
regret that a man for whom many of us had considerable regard
when he was in Atlanta has proved so irresponsible in
representing our country’s stated policies.
Guest editorial
We live at ease
RATS! The word itself is terrifying. We recoil at the mere
thought of coming face to face with such a rodent. Yet, Ida Nudel
in the name of Judaism lives literally imprisoned among rats. (The
Southern Israelite, Aug. 10).
We half-jo kingly tell each other that it is expensive to be
Jewish. But for most of us—if not all of us—that is all it is. (For
some it is not eventhat.) That is the extent of our sacrifice. On
reflection, it may be no sacrifice at all.
We give dollars and watch the Jewish history of the world
repeat itself. We live comfortably, securely, and all too obliviously
to what is really going on.
Some of us raise our arms in the air and cry, “But what can we
do?” We can demand. We can write and protest to our
government and other governments that persecution of the Jews
must cease. We can write and protest to our own Jewish
institutions that they must protest loudly and at the highest levels
the treatment of our fellow Jews.
We can rally and march and not let the world forget or
ignore.
The plight of the Jewish conscience is to know guiltily that we
live in ease and comfort while others in the name of Judaism suffer
and are destroyed.
SML
Well, it looks like Andy Young has done it again.
While the State Department was claiming that the
encounter last month between our Ambassador to the
United Nations and PLO rep
Zchdi Labib Terzi was strictly
accidental. Young now admits that
this was not the case.
He got a proper dressing down
from Secretary of State Cyrus
Vance but the implications of the
entire affair are questionable.
No wonder Israel takes with a
grain of salt repeated reassur
ances from the highest places that
the United States will stick to its guns in not dealing
with the PLO until that organization recognizes the
right of Israel to exist and accepts U.N. Security
Council Resolution 242.
All this becomes of prime concern to Israel right
now, and it is our concern as well, because the Security
Council is due next week to consider Kuwait’s
proposal making unacceptable concessions to the
PLO.
True, President Carter has said in no uncertain
terms that the United States would veto the suggested
resolution because it would alter 242
Still, I can’t help but agree with Moshe Dayan,
who wonders whether the United States would also
veto a similar suggestion with different wording.
All the fancy speeches and denials out of
Washington haven’t convinced me that American
foreign policy for the Mideast hasn’t shifted. Let's go
back a bit and consider some key statements U S.
officials have made on the subject of Palestinians and
the PLO:
In April of 1976, Jimmy Carter, meeting with
Jewish leaders in New York, criticized a 1975 speech
by then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Carter
said he would not rate the survival of Israel as no more
important than the supply of oil, or risk “sacrificing a
progressive, advanced, democratic nation which is
our friend to maintain good relations with the Arabs.”
Carter also said that he recognized the “humanitarian
core of the Palestinian problem" but that this “should
not lead us to recognize the existence of brutal
terrorists who masquerade as their representatives in
the world forum.”
Sounds pretty straightforward, doesn’t it.
In February of 1977, the new Secretary of State,
Cyrus Vance, ruled out PLO participation in a
Geneva conference until the PLO recognized Israel's
right to exist, accepted U.N. Security Council
Resolutions 242 and 338, and revised its national
covenant which calls for Israel’s elimination. (That
covenant, of course, has not been revised.)
A month later, Carter, now President, stated that
“There has to be a homeland provided for the
the drain?
Palestinian refugees... ” He clarified his use of the
word “homeland” by saying “I think some provision
has got to be made for the Palestinians in the
framework of the nation of Jordan or by some other
means.” He reiterated the need for recognition of
Israel by her neighbors and her right to exist
permanently and in peace.
On May 12, 1977, Carter indicated he believed
there was a “chance that the Palestinians might make
moves to recognize the right of Israel to exist.” He
recalled, however, that he had promised Israel that the
United States would not recognize the PLO by direct
coversation or negotiations “as long as the PLO
continues to espouse the commitment that Israel had
to be destroyed,” I guess Andrew Young didn’t know
about that statement.
It wasn’t long after that time that Young made a
statement that the PLO would have to be brought into
the negotiations, though he generously added that the
PLO must first recognize Israel’s right to exist.
Though the Administration somewhere along the
line changed its reference from the legitimate
“interests” of the Palestinians to their legitimate
“rights,” President Carter continued to repeat that he
did not favor an independent Palestinian state.
Then came President Sadat's momentous trip to
Jerusalem. Carter, a month later, reiterated his
“preference” that the Palestinians not be an
independent nation but tied...to the surrounding
countries, “making a choice, for instance, between
Israel and Jordan.”
The State Department did some fancy footwork in
June 1978, when a spokesman condemned acts of
terror such as a recent bombing in Jerusalem, but
noted that “while major elements and important
leaders of the PLO clearly advocate terrorism, it is not
correct to say that the two are synonymous... "
About midway between the signing of the Camp
David Accords last September, and the Israel-Egypt
Peace Treaty this March, Andy Young got strike two
when he called the PLO a moderating influence and
called the terrorists’ U.N. observers “decent human
beings."
Now we are up to the last couple of months ago
when, despite protestations to the contrary, signs
point to some behind the scenes wheeling and dealing
involving the PLO.
Israelis agree with Moshe Dayan that there has
been a definite change in U S. policy toward the PLO
in order to appease Saudi Arabia and keep the oil
flowing. Even Assistant Secretary of State Harold
Saunders, testifying before a Congressional
committee, agreed with Representative Lee
Hamilton’s assessment that his (Saunders’) remarks
indicated that the U S. is “on the verge of a
concentrated effort to include Palestinians of all
political stripes in the negotiating process.”
So here it is, August I, 1979, with a New York
Times story reporting that the United States is seeking
a new formula for U.N. Resolution 242 that could
serve as a basis for bringing Palestinians and possibly
the PLO into the Middle East negotiating process.
It is ironic that the United States, which played
such a vital role in bringing Israel and Egypt to the
peace table, could blow the whole thing if it
cooperates in any way in an attempt to by-pass
Resolution 242. The situation is of enormous concern,
because the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt is
based on Resolution 242. Any breach of that
resolution could lead cither Egypt or Israel to pull out
of the hard won treaty. There we'd be, back at square
one—or worse.
So now, at a time when the United States should be
putting its full weight behind the Camp David peace
process with a show of strength, we have Andrew
Young playing footsie with the PLO. Strike three.
Complaint gets results
R1C HMOND (JTA) A complaint from the
Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith has led the
Richmond Police Department to discontinue
using an employment form which asked an
applicant’s religious affiliation.