Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 4 THE SOUTHERN ISRAELITE June 20, 1986
The Southern Israelite
The Weekly Newspoper For Southern Jev^fy
Since 1925
Vida Goldgar
Editor and Publisher
Luna Levy
Associate Editor
Leonard Goldstein
Advertising Director
Eschol A. Harrell
Production Manager
Lutz Baum
Business Manager
Published every Friday by The Southern Israelite, Inc
Second Class Postage paid at Atlanta, Ca (ISSN 00388) (UPS 776080)
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Southern Israelite. P O Bos
77388, Atlanta, GA 30357
Mailing Address. P.O Box 77388, Atlanta, Georgia 30357
Location: 188 15th St.. N.W., Atl., Ga. 30318 Phone (404)876-8248
Advertising rates available upon request.
Subscriptions: $23.00, I year; $41.00, 2 years
Member of Jewish Telegraphic Agency: Religious News Service:
American Jewish Press Assn., Georgia Press Assn ; National Newspaper Assn.
The
Southern Israelite
A Prize-Winning
Newspaper
Better Newspaper
Contests
More than a shelter
It hardly seems any time at all since a group of forward-
thinking Jewish Atlantans conceived the plan for a group
home for mentally handicapped adults.
Such a facility, they believed, would provide much more
than shelter. It would provide the opportunity for an
enriched lifestyle with others who shared and understood
their problems.
Out of such a home, the founders believed, would come
increased independence and an improved social life, under
the supervision of houseparents.
It was an ambitious project and it wasn’t easy. There
were zoning objections to overcome and funds to be raised.
The community, as usual, rallied.
Donations, both in cash and in kind, were received.
The expectations of the founders as to the positive effect
of this kind of group living have been realized. Still, the
Atlanta Group Home at 3095 Margaret Mitchell Drive is
not one of our community’s most widely known facilities.
Sunday, June 22, from 2 to 5 p.m. there will be an open
house to celebrate the second anniversary.
It's a fine opportunity to stop by (parking is available at
the Jewish Home next door) and see what has been
achieved.
Soviet switch
by M.J. Rosenberg
t ilnor. Near F.aM Report
Perhaps the only good thing to
come out of Kurt Waldheim’s elec
tion to the Austrian presidency
was that it forced the Soviet Union
to abandon all pretense of revul
sion over the Nazi legacy. There
has not been much good to say
about the Soviets since they seized
power in 1917, but there was one
thing. They fought the Nazis val
iantly-losing almost 20 million
people in the process—and were at
the forefront of those dedicated to
seeing that Nazi crimes against
humanity not be forgotten
To a large extent, that has
changed in recent years. Moscow’s
East German puppet state routinely
placed ex-Nazis in high positions.
Unlike its democratic neighbor,
the Federal Republic of Germany,
it neither went through a process of
“denazification" nor made any
attempt to offer amends to the
Jewish people. (West Germany paid
Jewish survivors of the Holocaust
and the State of Israel several bil
lion dollars in so-called reparations
and proclaimed its need for a “spe
cial relationship” with Israel.)
East Germany also followed
Moscow's lead in utilizing Nazi-
like rhetoric against Zionists, Jews,
and Israelis. The Soviets were
probably the first to equate Zion
ism with fascism and racism, often
going so far as to make analogies
between Israel and Nazi Germany.
At the same time, Moscow tried to
rrTCtintain its historic anti-Nazi cre
dentials. Its anti-Jewish, anti-Israel
rhetoric was obscene but Moscow
attempted to balance it with blasts
of anti-Nazi oratory second to none.
It had little choice. There was
hardly a Russian family which had
been left untouched by the German
onslaught of the 1940s. The aver
age Russian was in no mood to
forgive and forget.
That all appeared to end on the
day that Kurt Waldheim won the
Austrian election. One might have
expected the Soviets to oppose
Waldheim even without the allega
tions about his war criminal past.
Waldheim was the candidate of a
right-wing party while his oppo
nent was a socialist. Of course,
Moscow tends to despise social
democrats even more than it does
conservatives. Beyond party lab
els, however, was (or should have
been) Waldheim’s record during
World War II. Throughout the
Austriancampaign, the Soviet press
ignored reports that Waldheim may
ha\e committed war crimes. It
ignored them even though some of
Waldheim’s alleged victims were
pro-Soviet. anti-Nazi fighters in
southern Europe. (At this point,
one hardly expects Moscow to
expend any concern over the Nazis’s
Jewish victims.)
Moscow only broke its silence
after the election. Tass (June 8)
dismissed evidence of Waldheim’s
Nazi past as concocted by the
“U.S. Administration and Zionist
circles” to discredit Waldheim
because of his anti-Israel record
while at the United Nations. It
called the revelations about him
“personal hostile attacks" which
were “unjust and slanderous" and
“in no way confirmed by the doc
umentary evidence.”
Instead of examining that evi
dence, Tass praised the Austrian
for his “active role” in securing the
passage of U.N. resolutions adopted
“after Israel’s aggression against
Arab countries in 1967.” Accord
ing to the New York Times (June
9), Tass “placed Moscow unambi-
valently behind the new president.”
It is an interesting development.
The Soviets, who often remind
Americans of the anti-Nazi alliance
between our countries between 1941
and 1945, are now so anti-American
and anti-Semitic that they would
rather embrace alleged Nazis than
stand on the same side with the
United States and Israel. T his, in a
sense, represents the real end of the
post-war era. Moscow has applied
its famous revisionism to World
War II and, in this instance,
switched sides. It’s not terrible sad.
Gorbachev and Waldheim deserve
each other. But it is evidence of the
lengths to which “anti-Zionism”
can push people and nations. Mos
cow (like the voters of Austria)
should be ashamed. You can be
certain that they are not.
Orthodox Judaism
Stanley M. Lefco
In his book, “Profiles in Ameri
can Judaism,” Marc Lee Raphael
reviews the history and develop
ment of the four major branches or
movements of Judaism.
In his study of the Orthodox
movement, Raphael notes that prior
to the emergence of a Reform Jew
ish organization, a number of syn
agogues existed with varied ex
pressions of Judaism. “Uncomfort
able” with a liberal philosophy,
they were committed to replicating
in some fashion much of the old
European Judaism in its Dutch,
English, German and Polish forms.
The earliest synagogues tended
to be Sephardic in ritual. Philadel
phia was the first city to have an
Ashkenazic congregation. A group
ol recent immigrants left Philadel
phia’s Sephardic Mikve Israel
around 1795 to establish the Ger
man Hebrew Society or Rodeph
Shalom.
It was not uncommon around
that time for lay leaders to establish
guidelines tor their congregants.
I hose at Rodeph Shalom, forex-
ample, made it obligatory to attend
Fridas and Saturday service or pay
a tine. Baltimore’s Hebrew Con
gregation imposed a tine if one
sang louder than the “hazzan." At
Ness York's B’nai Jeshurun, a
member could not attend services
if he opened his business on Shab-
bat.
In July 1935 the Rabbinical
C ouncil of America was formed by
approximately 40 English-speak
ing rabbis. 1 he Orthodox move
ment was divided into numerous
synagogues, rabbinical, seminary
and educational organizations.
According to Raphael, they were
frequently at odds with oneanother.
Ioday, dozens of academies of
advanced J almudic studies exist in
the United States. Among these, as
well as in other institutions and the
rabbinate, there exist major ideo
logical differences. Rabbi Emanuel
Rack man, president of Bar Ban
University, noted that Orthodoxy
is “no more monolithic than the
non-Orthodox movements.”
One school of thought claims
that Torah is “totally self-sufficient
for a Jew’s intellectual needs."
Raphael cites the position ot Beth
Jacob’s Rabbi Emanuel Feldman,
who asserts that secular know ledge
“increases our appreciation ot God's
unfolding will in nature and his
tory and can be instrumental in the
understanding of Divine truths ”
Orthodox thinkers do agree that
the text of the Torah was given to
Moses bv God. At the first meeting
of the Union of Orthodox Jewish
Congregations of America in 1898.
belief in the Divine revelation ol
the Bible was declared. 1 his belie!.
Raphael claims, is “the single most
striking and important distinction
between Orthodox and non-Ortho
dox."
The essence of Orthodoxy rests
on “acceptance of a spiritual-his
torical event during which God
conveyed to Moses the Torah (w rit-
ten down by Moses) and the Oral
Law (taught by Moses to the disci
ples).” The latter evolved into the
Talmud. It is believed that this orui
tradition or law as well as the
Torah had its origins at Mount
Sinai.
Orthodoxy stresses that Jewish
law (halacha) has its origins in thi
divine and must be the guide to a
Jewish way of life. Judaism is con
sidered more than just a faith, it is
also a people.
&
”'.rr i