Washington Star-News

225 VIRGINIA AVE., S.E., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20061

May 2, 1975

Mr. Robert J. McCloskey
Ambassador at Large
The State Department
Washington, DC

Dear Bob:

I had a good conversation with Secretary Kissinger Wednesday evening. He agreed on the matter of the Deputy Assistant Secretaryship. He did not agree to the commitment on the Assistant Secretaryship. He very generously gave me 48 hours to think it over.

I have given the matter a great deal of thought since then. While I feel I could make a contribution as spokesman to the country, the Department and the Secretary, I have come to the conclusion that it is at least possible that I might make at least as great a contribution to the nation by remaining as an independent observer and commentator in the difficult days that lie ahead. There are not, after all, too many voices saying the sort of things I say.

This may be the wrong decision. But the Secretary deserves a spokesman who comes to the post with no second thoughts or reservations. This I could not do, although these reservations have to do entirely with my own capabilities and have nothing to do with the Secretary, whom I admire, or his policies, with which I am in general agreement. Accordingly, please withdraw my name from consideration for the spokesman's post.

I regret any inconvenience I may have caused you and I am sorry to have wasted a half-hour in what must have been a busy day for the Secretary. I really thought the thing might work and, if I'd had to decide at 6:30 Wednesday evening, I probably would have said yes.

Thanks again for thinking of me. Maybe next time.

PS. If you and Mrs. McCloskey are free, we are providing bloody marys and omelets at noon on Sunday, May 4th, and would be delighted to see you both (at 7611 Fairfax Road, Bethesda - the corner of Fairfax Road and Wilson Lane).

Loy W. Henderson
2727 Twenty Ninth Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20008

October 28, 1976

The Honorable
Henry A. Kissinger
Secretary of State
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Please allow me to thank you and Mrs. Kissinger again for the many kindnesses which both of you showed Mrs. Henderson and myself on the evening of October 26. We realize that almost innumerable demands are being made upon you both at this time, and that faced as you are with the acute problems of Africa added to the chronic problems in other areas, including the United States, your devotion of so much time and energy to us that evening must have been at a considerable sacrifice. I am in particular grateful for your kind words with regard to me which I shall always remember.

By your kindnesses to us and by your patience in standing so long in the receiving line, you and Mrs. Kissinger have contributed to making the evening of October 26 a happy one for the several hundred guests, many of whom were our friends and former colleagues, and one of the most memorable of my long life.

May I add that for years I have been admiring your courage in tackling rather than seeking to evade various international problems troublesome to the United States, even though you have been aware that the prospects of obtaining an acceptable solution of them were dim. My admiration is heightened by your foray into the dangerous and

-2-

complex situation in southern Africa. No one now can say that the
United States did not at least try to prevent developments in that
area which could be seriously damaging to the United States and to
the cause of world peace.

250 PARK AVENUE
NEW YORK, N. Y. 10017

November 20, 1974

The Honorable Henry Kissinger
Department of State
Washington, D. C. 20520

Re: *The Ramayana*: Opening night,
Thursday, February 6, 1975

Dear Secretary of State Kissinger:

When Shri Yashwantrao B. Chavan, Foreign Minister of India, was in New York recently, he met with me and my production associates, and assured us that the Indian Government and Indian Embassy would give its full backing and support to my production of *The Ramayana*, which opens February 6th.

Since returning to New Delhi, Foreign Minister Chavan has met with the star, Jalabala Vaidya, and the playwright Gopal Sharman, and has reaffirmed his support. I understand he intends to attend the opening night and will ask you to accompany him.

This letter is to extend formally my invitation to you and your party to attend the opening night performance, or a subsequent performance if that is more convenient for you.

I have seen this production twice and have found it a moving play as well as a tour de force in Jalabala Vaidya's performance. I am confident you would find it a stimulating evening in the theatre -- entirely apart from diplomatic considerations.

RAH:A

November 20, 1974

Shri Yashwantrao B. Chavan
Foreign Minister
Ministry of External Affairs
Government of India
South Block
Central Secretariat
New Delhi, INDIA

Re: The Ramayana

Dear Foreign Minister Chavan:

This letter extends a formal invitation to you and as many guests as you wish to include in your party to the opening night of The Ramayana in New York on Thursday, February 6, 1975, at the Barbizon-Plaza Theatre.

Jalabala Vaidya and Gopal Sharman hope very much that you can be present. At their suggestion I am also extending an invitation to Secretary of State Kissinger in hopes that he also can attend.

For your information, I enclose some of the handbills. I am using my best efforts to coordinate plans for the production with the Indian Consulate General here and the Indian Embassy in Washington.

My wife and Mrs. Breed join me in sending their best regards, and all of us look forward to seeing you again in February.

RAH:A

November 20, 1974

The Honorable Shri T. N. Kaul
Ambassador of India to the
United States of America
Embassy of India
2107 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20008

Re: <u>The Ramayana</u>

Dear Mr. Kaul:

When Foreign Minister Y. B. Chavan was in New York on his recent visit, he and Mr. Inam Rahman and Mr. Upasani met with me and my production associates and assured us of their support for the production of <u>The Ramayana</u>, which opens Thursday night, February 6, 1975.

Since returning to New Delhi, Mr. Chavan met again with Jalabala Vaidya and Gopal Sharman and indicated he might plan to attend the opening night and invite Secretary of State Kissinger to attend with him.

This letter is to extend my invitation to you to attend the play on its opening night. I shall appreciate your advice concerning your plans.

RAH:A

# THE RAMAYANA

India's oldest epic,
in a new interpretation
in English by

## GOPAL SHARMAN

Lighting and sound by
ANASUYA VAIDYA

### THE HISTORY OF THE EPIC

*The Ramayana* was first written by Valmiki, Rama's contemporary, approximately 5,000 years ago, in Sanskrit. Valmiki's original work still exists.

In succeeding centuries the epic has been retold 52 times by subsequent poets. Each succeeding interpretation has carried the impress of its own time.

### THE PRESENT INTERPRETATION

The present interpretation has been written in the form of a play by Gopal Sharman, one of India's major contemporary poets. It is in English and covers a greater span of events from Valmiki's original than many of the other interpretations. What Sharman has done is to forcefully relate the epic to our own times.

One of India's two renowned epics, *The Ramayana* tells the story of the ascension of man to divinity.

The central character in the epic is Rama who is, in Hindu mythology, one of the ten incarnations of Vishnu, the Godhead.

Opening Night:
Thursday, February 6, 1975

Tuesdays through Sundays
at 8:00 P.M.

Tickets: $6.95, $4.95 & $2.95

For Tickets Call:
Gatchell & Neufeld, Ltd.
303 West 42nd Street
New York, N.Y. 10036
Tel. (212) 246 - 8430

Theatre:
(212) 247 - 7000

TELEX 42442

### JALABALA VAIDYA
"Made me think of Isadora Duncan"
— The Times, London,

Jalabala Vaidya is India's most famous stage actress. Her performance of *The Ramayana* which ran continuously for more than one year in her Delhi theatre, the Akshara, has been an incomparable virtuoso feat.

Easily India's only stage actress with an international following, Miss Vaidya's achievement on her first visit to London, the theatre capital of the world, of being presented solo first for a week in a West End theatre and then for a two-week season at the famed Mercury Theatre puts her in a class by herself.

### GOPAL SHARMAN
"A new major poet"
— The Sunday Times, London,

Gopal Sharman is the epic poet and playwright of contemporary India. His *Ramayana* is internationally acknowledged as a masterpiece. He is also a reputed critic of the performing arts. He was a widely read critic of The Times of London during two years in England which also brought him an invitation from the Royal Shakespeare Company to produce his play, *The Ramayana* at their London theatre, the Aldwych.

During this same period, 1967-68, a repertoire of his poems and stories, *Full Circle* was presented first in a West End theatre and later at the Mercury where such famous writers as T.S. Eliot and Christopher Fry had had their world premieres.

Gopal Sharman writes in English. In addition to writing poetry and plays he is an accomplished musician. His book on music *Filigree in Sound* was lauded by Lord Harewood in his review of the book in The Sunday Times, London.

Barbizon-Plaza Theatre
Barbizon-Plaza Hotel
106 Central Park South &
Avenue of the Americas
New York, N.Y. 10019

John F. Hennessy, Jr.

12 May 1976

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Thank you so much for your time yesterday and your lucid thoughts on the foreign policy of our government.

I know you will be happy to hear that Ron is doing a fine job and things seem to be working out well.

The cooperation we have received from your department has been excellent, and I would like to express my thanks and good wishes.

The Honorable Henry A. Kissinger
Secretary of State
Department of State
2201 C Street
Washington, D. C. 20520

110 West 50 Street

Fairfax, Virginia.
4036 Tara Drive,
General James V. Herbert, U.S.A., Ret.

Personal Assistant
Suzanne S. McFarlane

Sincerely,

it and preserving it for posterity.
representative! I know that the Secretary will enjoy hearing
What a fascinating bit of living history this tape

Rebellion of 1900.
personal reminiscences of his participation in the Boxer
much he appreciates your sending him General Nuttman's
The Secretary has asked me to let you know how

Dear General Herbert:

January 27, 1926

The Governor of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

October 9, 1974

The Honorable Henry A. Kissinger
Secretary of State
Department of State
Washington, D. C.
20520

Dear Mr. Secretary:

It was a real privilege and pleasure to have
visited with you during the luncheon given last week
for Latin America's representatives before the
United Nations.

As it was apparent that we have similar
preferences as to ties, I hereby enclose a little
present as a token of our willingness to contribute
to a better understanding and collaboration among
the peoples of this Hemisphere. The seal of the
tie is the seal of Puerto Rico.

With respect and admiration, I remain

Enclosure

HENRY HERRMANN

45 NECK PATH
EAST HAMPTON, N. Y. 11937

December 17th 1973

The Honorable Secretary of State
Department of State
Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir:

You may be interested in the following which Thomas Mann
wrote in 1921 to a friend -- and which I happened to
read a few days ago:

"An intellectual leader may be expected, precisely,
to step outside the interplay of contraries,
recognize the inherent polarities and find
their equilibrium, but not to postpone attaine-
ment of the equilibrium by putting more weight
on the one pole than the other."

Watching with fascination your efforts and the problems
which you are trying to solve I thought that this brief
and concise remark of Thomas Mann may cheer you on the
difficult road ahead of you.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE
WASHINGTON

February 12, 1976

Dear Governor Herschler:

Thank you very much for the warm and
generous hospitality extended to me by the
people of the State of Wyoming. The reception
I received in Laramie made my return visit to
your state a genuinely heart-warming and
pleasant experience which I will long remember.

It was a pleasure to meet you and your
wife and to have had the chance to talk with
you during the course of the day.

Please give my kindest regards to
Mrs. Herschler, who was a most enjoyable
luncheon companion.

The Honorable
Ed Herschler,
Governor of Wyoming,
Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Editorial Office

LADIES' HOME JOURNAL

12/5/73

November 14, 1973

The Honorable Henry Kissinger
Secretary of State
United States State Department
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Secretary:

As we move forward in 1974, the *Journal* has many causes for celebration. It is our 90th anniversary, and we look back proudly on nine decades of achievement in magazine journalism and in leadership for women. In addition, we close 1973 as the most successful and influential magazine in our industry.

To celebrate all these events, and to honor all our contributors and friends, the *Journal* will be giving a 90th birthday party at 5:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER THE FIFTH, at the Sky Club in New York, atop the Pan-Am building at 45th Street.

About 200 people will be present, including many of those who have helped to make the *Journal* great in 1973, and who will add to its lustre in 1974. We will also have as our guests many leaders in the spheres of government, the arts, science, medicine, sports and community relations.

We will be honored if you can join us that day. A more formal invitation will reach you later, but I am previewing that with my own personal hope that you join us.

Would you note on the attached postcard whether or not you plan to attend?

We all would be most happy if you join us.

LH:bf
Enc.

Ladies' Home Journal 641 Lexington Avenue New York, N.Y. 10022 Telephone: 935-4100 John Mack Carter Editor

TEMPLE EMANU-EL

147 Tenafly Road
Englewood, N. J.

07631

OFFICE OF THE RABBI

February 28, 1975

Dear Henry,

It was a great pleasure seeing you the other day, not only
because I thoroughly agreed with what you said at the formal
meeting, but especially because of the things that we both
got off our chests in private.

Since you are going to the Middle East in a few days, I
thought you might want to see an article that I wrote a
month ago. It has appeared in Hebrew in Israel, and in
English in the periodical of the World Jewish Congress,
World Jewry. It was written for the meetings of the World
Jewish Congress just concluded, but I thought you might want
to take a glance at it for its political line.

You might also like to know that I will write a regular
"Letter from America" for Ha'aretz, and the first piece
will be written in the next several days.

I understand from our mutual friend, Max Fisher, that you
have reiterated the invitation for the two of us to have
lunch with you after you return from the Middle East. I
hope that we will then be helping you to celebrate a
successful conclusion to a very important journey.

Dr. Henry Kissinger
Secretary of State
Department of State
Washington, D. C.

AH:re

World Jewry

The Review of the World Jewish Congress

JANUARY 1975

Vol XVIII No 1

IN THIS ISSUE:

Sixth Plenary Assembly:

<table><tr><td>PROGRAMME:</td><td></td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>NEED FOR COURAGE:</td><td>Nahum Goldmann</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>WORLD JEWRY IN A CHANGING WORLD:</td><td>Gerhart M. Riegner</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>EIGHT CRUCIAL YEARS SINCE BRUSSELS:</td><td>Alex L. Easterman</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>ISRAEL AND THE DIASPORA: TIME FOR A CHANGE:</td><td>Arthur Hertzberg</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>UPHILL STRUGGLE:</td><td>Natan Lerner</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>EUROPEAN JEWRY TODAY:</td><td>Stephen J. Roth</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>MESSAGE FROM BRITISH JEWRY:</td><td>Lord Fisher</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>SAFEGUARDING JEWISH CULTURE:</td><td>Jacob Halevy</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>THE NEW ANTISEMITICS:</td><td>C. C. Aronsfeld</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>UNESCO: AN ACT OF IRRESPONSIBILITY:</td><td>Donald G. MacRae</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>UNESCO: THE JEWISH CASE FOR JERUSALEM:</td><td>Marcus R. Einfeld</td><td>27</td></tr><tr><td>ISRAEL: THE NUCLEAR 'OPTION':</td><td>Ian Smart</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>YEARBOOK—GAP STILL UNFILLED:</td><td></td><td>32</td></tr><tr><td>PEOPLE AND EVENTS:</td><td>Culmus</td><td>32</td></tr><tr><td>IMPRESSIONS OF CZECHOSLOVAKIA:</td><td>Ben Nachman</td><td>34</td></tr></table>

Dr. Nahum Goldmann, the President, addressing the Fifth Plenary Assembly in Brussels in 1966. On his right. Dr: Eugen Gerstenmaier, then chairman of the West German Bundestag.

Opinions and views expressed by contributors to WORLD JEWRY are their own and do not necessarily represent those of the World Jewish Congress.

WORLD JEWRY, The Review of the World Jewish Congress is published on alternate months at 55 New Cavendish Street, London, W.1.

Annual Subscriptions: U.K. & Europe £1.20; U.S.A., Canada $5.00; British Commonwealth £1.50; Israel £12.50.

3

WORLD JEWISH CONGRESS

Programme for the Sixth Plenary Assembly
to be held at Binyanei Ha'uma, Jerusalem

Monday, February 3

OPENING SESSION :

Addresses of welcome by **Ephraim Katzir,**
**the President of Israel** and Itzhak Korn,
chairman, WJC Israel

Presidential address by **Dr. Nahum**

Goldmann :

THE JEWISH PEOPLE AMONG THE
NATIONS

Tuesday, February 4

Morning :

Symposium: A WORLD OF CHANGE

Speakers include **Lord Chalfont,** former
Minister of State, British Foreign and
Commonwealth Office and **Professor**

**Raymond Vernon,** Director, Centre for
International Affairs, Harvard University

Afternoon :

General Debate : WORLD JEWRY IN A
CHANGING WORLD

I : The external front
Debate

Evening :

II : The internal front
Debate

Wednesday, February 5

Morning :

III : Regional aspects
Debate

Afternoon :

IV : Jewish youth
Debate

Evening :

V : Israel and the Middle East

Speakers : **Yitzhak Rabin,** Prime Minister of Israel

**Pinchas Sapir,** chairman, World Zionist
Organisation Executive

Thursday, February 6

Morning :

THE WORLD JEWISH CONGRESS IN
A CHANGING WORLD

Introduction by the Secretary-General,
**Dr. Gerhart M. Riegner**

Debate

Afternoon :

Debate continues

Evening :

1. Eulogies

2. Proposals on structural and constitutional changes
Debate

Friday, February 7

Morning and Afternoon :

WORKSHOPS (meeting simultaneously) :

I. PROBLEMS OF SMALL
COMMUNITIES

II. INTELLECTUALS IN THE
COMMUNITY

III. ISRAEL AND THE DIASPORA

IV. AIMS OF JEWISH EDUCATION

V. ANTISEMITISM AND ANTI-
ZIONISM

VI. THE THIRD WORLD

VII. JEWISH ASPECTS OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW

Saturday, February 8

Evening :

Symposium : JERUSALEM AND THE
JEWISH PEOPLE

Sunday, February 9

All day, the following Commissions
meeting simultaneously :

1. POLITICAL

2. SOVIET JEWRY

3. ISRAEL AND THE MIDDLE EAST
(Introduction by **Yigal Allon**, Foreign
Minister of Israel)

4. CULTURAL

Monday, February 10

Morning and Afternoon :

Reports of the Workshops and
Commissions

Adoption of resolutions

Elections

Evening : Closure of Assembly

Speakers : Mrs. Golda Meir
Dr. Nahum Goldmann

4

# Israel and the Diaspora: Time for a Change

ARTHUR HERTZBERG

Israel and the Diaspora are married to each other, indissolubly and forever. As in any marriage, especially one which does not admit of divorce, the partners stand together in adversity, tend to drift off into his own life in quieter times, and are always bickering to a greater or lesser degree over their respective rights and even over who is to make some or all of the ultimate family decisions. To take the metaphor of marriage just a bit further, it makes a vast difference in their relationship to each other whether the family is a young couple with large prospects, or the husband and wife in their middle years struggling with poverty and neglect.

The vast, recurring and over-discussed questions of Israel-Diaspora relations can therefore not be talked about without asking the question: What time is it? This question must indeed be asked in two senses: What time is it in the world as a whole? What time is it in the lives of the two partners, Israel and the Diaspora?

My fundamental perception of the change today in Israel-Diaspora relations is in the realm of time. It can be put quite simply. Until the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War, for the first twenty-four years of the existence of the state of Israel, the almost totally undoubted premise was that time was on our side. Even before the glorious days of June, 1967, Israel's policy was predicated on the premise that if it waited with sufficient courage and patience, the Arab refugees would somehow become tired of the camps and would integrate themselves in their new homes, the Arab states would become disillusioned with the instability in the region that this problem was causing, and the American Jews would stand unshakably firm in their support on many levels. One could look to the future with confidence. This was made all the more certain when the results of the Six Day War were widely interpreted as reflecting a technological gap between Israel and the Arabs that were held to be not only large but, indeed, growing. From 1967 to 1973, Israel's policy was therefore founded on the notion that time was on our side.

For that matter, the American Jewish community, which had come to large power and

wealth in the United States during the same period, was even more confident of the future, until at least the late 1960s. After the second World War Jews in their vast majority moved very rapidly into the middle and upper middle classes, and their professional and managerial elite ascended to positions of substantial influence and power in American society as a whole. This new power and influence were not regarded as temporary or limited. It was presumed that they were constant and even growing. Both in Israel and in the United States problems could therefore be postponed, for the future would be better.

## Pooling of successes

The fundamental relationship between Israel and the American Jewish diaspora was therefore compounded not out of the sharing of problems but out of the pooling of successes. What seemed most strikingly successful about Israel in its first two decades was that it existed as a viable political entity, and the valour and brilliance of its military forces. What was most characteristic of American Jewry in the 1950s and 1960s was, to be perfectly blunt about it, that a large part of this community had gotten rich. What was simpler and more obvious than to marry the state-building achievements of Israel to the fortune-building achievements of American Jews? The fundamental nexus, therefore, was between a political and military leadership in Israel and the fund-raising establishment in the United States. These regarded each other as the proper partners, to the large exclusion of other forces, not because of any inherent nastiness or lack of respect on either side for such people as intellectuals or religious leaders, but simply because Israeli politicians and generals and American millionaires were the shapers of success and the main bearers of the optimistic certainty that time was a friend. Were not the leaders of a state and a non-assimilated class of new rich in the

Rabbi Dr. Hertzberg is the President of the American Jewish Congress and Professor of History at Columbia University, New York.

13

Diaspora the most characteristic new Jewish types of the post Second World War era?

It is too simple to assert that these certainties and the relationship based on them were destroyed without warning by the Yom Kippur War and its aftermath, the Arab oil embargo, and the crises of the Western economy which it created. The optimism of Israel had produced the prediction that when the Arabs were clearly beaten, they would sue for peace, and, as an earnest of their good intentions, the Arab states would make an end of the Arab refugee problem and of the Palestinian national movement. By 1968, and certainly by 1969, it was quite clear to those who took the trouble to look, without the blinders of preconceived rhetoric, that the Arabs were not behaving according to plan. The predominant view was to disregard this as a piece of foolishness on the part of people who were anyway thoroughly outclassed by Israel's superiority in technology and education. There were various critics of this optimism, especially in Israel, but they did not agree on what should be done, and they could certainly never muster any respectable political force even behind their perception that all was not going according to plan. What they did see quite clearly and almost with one voice was that time was not necessarily our ally.

## Who was Godot ?

I myself could never get an answer after 1968 from anyone in power to the question: If the Arabs are not suing for peace to get the West Bank, Sinai and the Golan back, can we really sit still and assume that, at some future date, they will come to the bargaining table? Who was the Godot we were waiting for, or did we simply presume that time itself was a positive factor, on our side?

In the United States, the certainties about the future began to crumble more obviously in the late 1960s. The initial enchantment with the Black Revolution came to an end. It was realized that one of the meanings of the Black advance was, at very least, some growing tension over jobs and positions of influence in the governmental bureaucracy and in the economy. A static Jewish birthrate in a still growing population was reducing the number of Jewish votes, even as Jewish influence was continuing to grow.

Perhaps the most important factor sapping inner morale was the question of intermarriage, which had risen from a rate of ten percent in the early 1950s to nearly thirty percent

in the late 1960s. Jewish education, which used to be paid lip service, was suddenly a very central concern, because the very wealthy leaders of the community were discovering substantial attrition of Jewish belongingness within their own families. By the late 1960s, it had become quite respectable in the American Jewish community to worry loud about threats to our inner survival and to our influence in American life as a whole.

## Charity dollars

The dominant mood, especially as a growing economy continued to boom, was nonetheless still optimistic. In relationship to Israel, it was compounded out of two feelings, admiration bordering on religious veneration, and an unquestioning certainty that what Israel needed in America could quite easily be mustered. Its political requests were relatively minimal during the period of immobility, and its economic needs were such that charity dollars, with some relatively modest help from the United States government, could pay the bill.

What happened on Yom Kippur Day 1973 did not essentially represent a radical break. As a matter of fact, both Israel and American Jewry delivered their full potential as it was sketched in the earlier optimistic vision. The Israeli army performed more legendary feats of valour than it had in the Six Day War. The American Jewish community, and, for that matter, world Jewry as a whole, gave three times as much money as they had given in June, 1967. The political support that American Jewry provided during those critical days was total, unswerving and very effective. Nonetheless, something over a year later, after events which were intrinsically more glorious than those of 1967, we are clearly much worse off. Why?

What has changed fundamentally — and has been changing right along — is time, i.e., what time it is both in the United States and in the Middle East. For American Jews in the short run it is a bad economic time, and therefore the kind of money that was realised immediately after the Yom Kippur War is not likely to be given again this year or the next. Some illusions were shattered in America as well as in Israel about the perfect wisdom of charismatic figures — but none of this is the essence of the matter. At root, what world Jewry needs in the United States is no longer something which fundraising can basically provide. For Israel to survive in a situation of the continued threat of armed conflict, means that it needs, on

14

a continuing basis, several billion dollars a year from the United States. This kind of support can come only from the government on a crisis basis in the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War, but will it continue?

It is no accident that the fundamental request of Israel's diplomacy in Washington today is that the funding of support be transformed from year to year to a long term basis. This year's bill for Israel is, in toto, very nearly as large as the total American global commitment to foreign aid. That the United States will continue to support Israel on this scale is conceivable on two premises: that it regards support of Israel, in Israel's own view of its policy, as central to the American interest, and that the American Jewish community continues to have sufficient power and persuasiveness, into the teeth of the growing domestic influence of Arab oil money, to keep that judgment unswerving.

## Momentary optimism

For the immediate moment, one can be optimistic. The oil boycott has almost universally been ascribed in the United States to Arab intransigence and the rapacity of the multinational oil companies. Yasir Arafat's appearance at the United Nations has evoked a press response all over the country that was ninety-five percent or more hostile to him. Israel continues to enjoy the support of the vast majority in the Congress of the United States. It certainly has the support of American Jewry, even among the handful of figures who are less than enchanted with all its policies, because it is universally realized that its very existence is now possibly threatened.

But all of this depends on ongoing American Jewish political activity. It must play its role in an American society within which the Jews, with their liberal, anti-militarist traditions, must increasingly face such conundrums as how do you demand maximum military defence for Israel, and oppose the proliferation of foreign bases? More fundamentally, on which side of the great debate of America's foreign policy vis-a-vis the Russians do you bet on the future of Israel: on accommodation, or on confrontation? How do you work out a social policy in the United States which will maintain the necessary domestic alliances for Jews at a time when those committed to radical reform within the domestic society tend to be ever more isolationist in their foreign policy?

It really does not matter on which side of all these different political questions one finds oneself. After a decade or more of

quiescence since 1957, when Israel was forced by Eisenhower and Dulles to return the Sinai to Egypt for very little benefit, Jewish politics, both internationally in the Middle East and on the American domestic scene, are now very active. Fateful decisions are in process, either consciously or by avoidance. The older constellation of the official American Jewish establishment, unswerving in its relationship to Israel, will continue to exist, but this very establishment is beginning to be racked by still muted, but very real, political conflict.

Support for Israel can no longer be anti-septic and non-partisan, for Israel itself is thoroughly divided. In Israel, an obvious symbolic act has occurred, of a change in generation as the government has moved into the hands of men in their early fifties who are Israeli born. As a matter of fact, simply on the actuarial tables, this is not so profound and historic a change as it has been made out to be; it would have happened in five years even without the Yom Kippur War. What is profoundly and immediately different is that the end of political immobilism has made the question of Israel's future an issue of national debate. It is precisely because fundamental and fateful decisions are being taken, and have to be taken, that supposed "side issues" such as "Who is a Jew?" have been raised by those who care about such matters, not merely because they can gain some political advantage, but because the whole future and destiny of Israel and its society now seem to be up for redecision.

## Serious debate

Inevitably the discussion about Israel's future borders and policy is very much on the agenda of American Jews. It is less discussed by the establishment, especially in public, for fear of providing quotable quotes to Arab propaganda machines. It is therefore a more lively and serious debate than it appears to be, even in those circles most committed to Israel's position.

All of these questions are very much on the mind of Jewish academic intelligentsia and of Jewish political activists. Israel's future certainly does concern the vast masses of caring, though not necessarily organized, Jews.

I suspect that individuals tend to make political judgments generally out of emotion rather than objective reason (whatever that may be). As I look back on the 1950s and the 1960s, I find them attractive and satisfying from the Jewish perspective, but I suspect that I show my age when I prefer the 1940s as the more exact political model for where

15

we are today. Perhaps I do it because I was young then and felt terribly needed, inside the action and even within the decision-making process, as the Jewish world was struggling everywhere against Ernest Bevin, against international indifference and towards a Jewish state. I can, however, buttress this preference with what seems to me, at least, to be reasonable argument. In the 1940s what the situation primarily required was political action and political decision everywhere. The questions at hand could not be kept antiseptic. Between 1942 and 1949, Jewish effort was directed towards all of the elements within the Jewish and general communities — and the divisions were marked and were public. Nonetheless, majority Jewish opinion prevailed for the creation of a moderately reformist state of Israel in a partitioned Palestine.

In the struggles of this day, the partner to Israel can no longer be the existing Jewish establishment alone, for it was a creation in its present form of an age of political quietude from 1957 to 1973. New alliances must now be forged and old ones repaired in the United States. The defence of Jerusalem in Washington and in Topeka is heavily intertwined with American domestic considerations. Indeed, in relationship to Israel, the old cliche is not true that domestic policy is a function of foreign policy. Here, on the contrary, the long term domestic concern of the United States will be determinant of its foreign policy, at least in the Middle East.

All of this leads me back to the consideration with which I began, the question of time. It is not accidental that one hears recurrently from Israel that its government is nowadays "playing for time," more time in which not to make difficult decisions, or at least to make them more palatable and congenial to its population. Nonetheless, the awareness that we are in a new day should not now trap us in the contrary error, that if there was never endless time, there is now too little time. In America — I cannot speak with any competence about Israel — the times are not so burning even in economic recession, so that American Jews must make, and pressure Israel to make, very unpalatable decisions under the threat that war will come tomorrow. The United States has the patience for a crisis that is longer than a couple of years, and it will even pay for it — but one must continue to remember that a decade or so is too long; at least, that was what the American Conservatives proved when they too finally got tired of Vietnam.

In this new political era, when immobilism

has ended, and what is now possible and what is not possible is far from clear, two fundamental changes must take place in Jewish leadership. The relationship between Israel and American Jewry has clearly to cease being non-political. The kinds of leaders and forces which are in relationship to each other in both communities have to involve a far wider sense of who are the decision-makers and the influentials, especially in the United States, than obtained in the last few years. Above all, the relationship has to cease being one which regards the concerns of Israel as political and therefore its own business, and that of American Jewry as fund-raising and internal survival and therefore its own business. Both communities must now together live in and with the politics of change and the politics of survival.

## Uphill Struggle

NATAN LERNER

On December 9, 1824 — thus 150 years ago almost to the day — the joint armies of Simon Bolivar and Jose de San Martin were fighting at Ayacucho, on the road to Lima, the battle which was to put an end to Spain's domination of Latin America. Brazil had already become independent from Portugal two years earlier.

A century and a half later the countries, which became sovereign powers in the rebellion that led to the Ayacucho battle, are still searching for the solution to their main problems: economic self-sufficiency and cultural-ethnic cohesion, which are the major components of Latin-American nationalism today. The anniversary of Ayacucho is an appropriate occasion to re-examine the crucial questions of that Continent and re-assess the progress as well as the shortcomings of the Ibero-American republics at a time when Latin-America is in the midst of growing political turmoil. Looking at the present situation as a whole, one certainly cannot be too optimistic about the general trend of events.

Dr. Lerner is the Executive Director of the World Jewish Congress Israel Section and a lecturer in Latin-American affairs at Tel Aviv University.

16

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Washington, D.C. 20520

March 13, 1974

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Today I have been sworn in as Ambassador to
the People's Republic of Bulgaria.

I wish to thank you for the confidence in me
that you have shown by recommending me for this
appointment, and assure you of my complete loyalty
and very best efforts in this new position.

We have many mutual friends, and it may amuse
you to know that some of them have expressed the
thought that if we were able to have a quiet chat
together -- which, alas, is very difficult in our
busy Department -- we would find that we have more
things in common that you may realize: background,
temperament, tastes, foibles, and of course opinions.

I look forward to reporting to you, and will
do all in my power to justify the confidence the
President and you have placed in me.

The Honorable
Henry A. Kissinger,
Secretary of State

MOVEMENT

OCTOBER 1975

THE YEARS
BETWEEN

JUNE AND OCTOBER

Chaim Herzog

In June of 1967, Israel was transformed from potential victim to brilliant victor, and that transformation created first euphoria, then a revolution in Israel.

For the first time, Israelis felt they were living behind secure borders with strategic depth: surely no Arab leaders would launch a war against Israeli forces manning these new front lines. Jewish immigration rose. The Israeli economy developed at one of the highest rates in the world (ten percent growth per annum in real terms); income per capita reached some two thousand dollars, equivalent to many countries in Western Europe. True, there were problems, but by and large one could view the problem areas with optimism: the liberal administration of the occupied Arab territories was creating a bridge to the Arab world; Arabs in the territories were reaping

considerable economic advantage from the Israeli administration, and this, in turn, benefited the Israeli economy; trade flowed both ways across the Jordan River bridges; Arab tourists poured into Israel and the occupied territories in the hundreds of thousands; a free Arab press began to flourish; Israel benefited from the oil wells in Sinai; Arab labor helped develop Israel as tens of thousands of Arabs crossed into Israel daily to their new jobs.

The memory of the traumatic weeks before the Six Day War faded. The world had then looked on petrified, incapable of action; eloquent eulogies about an Israel on the verge of being overrun by Arab hordes had been written. But that was all long ago, before the euphoric present. Why call up such memories now?

The new euphoria caused the Israeli public to overlook many of the weaknesses in the Israel Defense Forces which had been revealed during the war, most particularly the fact that intelligence estimates regarding Arab intentions before the war had been wrong. (Israel in 1967 was in fact surprised by developments on the Arab side; just weeks before the war, Israel's political and military leaders had spoken of the relatively long period of quiet along

the borders to which they looked forward.)

Then, early in 1969, Prime Minister Eshkol died. He had been a wise and sensible person who was greatly misunderstood during his premiership. His apparent lack of decisiveness, his hesitant manner (caused chiefly by a lack of dogmatism), his ability to see both sides of any problem, had created a peculiarly open style of government. He was succeeded by Mrs. Golda Meir, who had held national leadership positions for many years, rising through the ranks of the labor movement. She had been the first Israeli Ambassador to the Soviet Union, Minister of Labor, Minister of Foreign Affairs and finally, Secretary General of the Labor Party. She had a strong personality which was soon asserted in the Israeli cabinet and which led to a very personal style of government. Uncompromising in her manner, she divided people into black and white categories, with few gray areas. She was intolerant of criticism and highly effective in debate; she had an overpowering effect on those around her.

Mrs. Meir's outstanding characteristics proved to be both her greatest assets and her major liabilities. Her stubborn decisiveness and her incomparable ability to weather ad-

Major General (Ret.) Chaim Herzog is Israel's new Ambassador to the United Nations. He has held a variety of staff and command posts in the Israeli Army and has been active as a journalist and broadcaster.

This article is an adaptation of the chapter entitled "And Yeshurun Waxed Fat" from the Hebrew edition of Ambassador Herzog's recent book, THE WAR OF ATONEMENT: OCTOBER, 1973.

CHESHVAN 5736 MOMENT 17

Golda Meir

Wide World Photos

Moshe Dayan

[LC]

versity, her inflexible unwillingness to accept alternative solutions once she had made up her mind, were to prove a national asset during war. But her doctrinaire approach to problems and to the operation of government were to contribute to the failings of the government before the war.

She developed her own style of government, in which her personality was the decisive factor. She was very much the overbearing mother who ruled the roost with her iron hand. She had little idea of orderly administration, preferring to work closely with her cronies in an ad hoc framework that soon came to be known as her "kitchen."

In order fully to understand just how the personal style of the Meir Government was established, and how, in 1973, an unprecedented build-up of Arab forces along Israeli borders could take place without even a cursory discussion of the threat in Parliament or even in the full Cabinet, it is necessary to understand Israel's electoral system.

Every four years the Israeli electorate chooses 120 representatives to the Knesset (Israel's parliament). These representatives are elected under a system of national proportional representation: each party

presents to the voters a list of its nominees, and the voter chooses one such list. The voter has no influence whatsoever on the creation of the lists; he cannot affect the nominations, nor can he select one candidate from one list, a second from another.

The lists themselves are prepared by a nominating committee of each party, chosen by that party's leadership group. The number of votes for the list determines the number of that party's representatives who will enter parliament. Thus, the representative depends for his political future on the leaders of the party, who decide whether he will be nominated at all, and decide as well where his name will be placed on the list. He does not depend on the voter; he has no direct relationship with the electorate. Instead, once in four years his party leaders go to the public and ask for their votes. Apart from a few names at the top of the list, the rest of the nominees — thus, also the rest of the Members of the Knesset — are an amorphous collection of people largely unknown to the general public.

The result of this system is a heavy emphasis on seniority in party councils. Party officials who reach elected office tend to hold on to it; large sections of the population with experience in public endeavor are

thereby virtually excluded from the Knesset.

The Israeli system is unique in the world. Ben Gurion tried in vain to change it, believing that it would bring catastrophe to the nation. In the meantime, it has rendered the Knesset ineffective in many important areas of national life. And it has frozen the political parties. The leader of the major opposition party has led the opposition for twenty-six years, through eight successive electoral defeats. Ministers have served — in some cases — for almost twenty-five years. And, because the ministers are party leaders, few Members of the Knesset will take the political risk of attacking their actions. To do so, even though Knesset committees are formally charged with the supervision of administrative behavior, would be to place their political futures on the line. Thus, for example, the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee of the Knesset has exercised little or no control over the defense establishment; it has acted as a forum for the receipt of reports, but little more. Indeed, the first intimation which this Committee received about Arab preparations for war in October 1973 was six hours after the war had begun.

Against this background, one can understand how just three people came to control Israel in the period

18 MOMENT OCTOBER 1975

[L.C.]

Israel Press and Photo Agency

Pinhas Sapir

between the last two wars. Each of these three operated with virtual autonomy, in a manner reminiscent of medieval baronies. The province of each "barony" was clearly delineated, the borders between them respected by the other two barons. Mrs. Meir was in absolute control of foreign policy, and above all of relations with the United States. She established a personal accord with President Nixon which proved to be one of Israel's great political assets in times of need. The economic field, including all aspects of government relating thereto, as well as world Jewish support, were controlled by Mr. Pinhas Sapir, a driving force who, as Minister of Finance, was probably the most powerful single minister in any Western democratic government. A dove, politically speaking, he was in principle opposed to what he considered were the more intransigent policies of Mrs. Meir and General Dayan, and he expressed himself openly in this respect. But he did so without crossing the borders of the adjoining "baronies."

General Dayan, 'the charismatic Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces in the 1956 Campaign and Minister of Defense during the 1967 War, had been the preeminent hero of the 1967 War. He was worshipped by the nation; he had become, virtu-

ally overnight, an object of worldwide admiration and adulation. He is a born leader but a very poor politician; he has no time for party hacks, and is very rapidly bored by people. Dayan has a highly original brain which is capable of analyzing situations brilliantly and producing unique ideas. He has excelled as a leader in the political-military arena. Yet, he lacks formal military education. His outward appearance and image belie his hesitant character. His instincts are frequently accurate, but unfortunately he often lacks the decisiveness to follow them through. In 1967 he was reluctant to allow Israeli forces to reach the Suez Canal because he appreciated that Egypt could never come to an agreement with Israel as long as Israeli troops were on the banks of the Suez. He alleged that he himself had opposed the attack on the Golan Heights in Syria, but that he was overruled by the Cabinet.

In his open bridges policy with Jordan, in his relationship with the Arab population in the West Bank, in the Kissinger negotiations on the disengagement with Egypt and Syria, he revealed the earthy common sense which characterizes much of his approach. However, the air of superiority which he adopts towards others, his obsession with himself, his laconic manner of talking, and

his reputed inability to back even his closest friends, all have created a number of question marks around his personality. The famous Israeli cartoonist Ze'ev perhaps summed him up best by portraying him as Hamlet, a "to be or not to be" figure torn by doubts.

Dayan's successful period as Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces, coupled with the incomparable prestige which he had acquired as a result of the Six Day War and his position as a world figure, gave him unquestioned authority on defense matters; an authority which few ministers of defense in the democratic world enjoyed. Dayan had been a leader in a breakaway faction of the Labor Party (Rafi), and Mrs. Meir had vehemently opposed his appointment as Minister of Defense in the period just before the Six Day War. Many Israelis imagined that the two would never manage to work side-by-side, that the inevitable conflict between them would lead to a general instability in government. In any event, however, they succeeded in finding a modus vivendi; their political differences were glossed over quite early on, as they developed a relationship of mutual respect. Dayan was always very careful to coordinate every move with Mrs. Meir, yet he was in many ways the final arbiter on de-

CHESHVAN 5736 MOMENT 19

[L.C.]

fense matters. True, much had to be brought to the Cabinet table for decisions. But in the same way that few, if any, ministers ever dared to contest Mr. Sapir in the field of economics and Mrs. Meir in foreign affairs, so few ministers hazarded Dayan's ill-concealed irritability by crossing swords with him on matters of defense. In general the decision would go as he wished.

Privately, Dayan frequently expressed grave reservations regarding internal social developments in the country and its economic system, but only up to a point. Each of the three personalities continued to control his "barony" with little interference from outside. The Knesset, the elected body representing the public, had but little influence in these matters.

Thus, partly because of the centrality of the powerful figures involved and partly because of the electoral and party system, the representatives of the people abdicated to a great degree their function as the watchdogs of the public, and a small select group made all major decisions without the benefit of adequate parliamentary supervision.

The country prospered economically, but a weakness arising out of a lack of contact between the leadership and the people became apparent. The income tax system, one of the most stringent in the world, coupled with numerous ingenious methods which had been devised (even by the Government) to bypass the income tax laws, played a major part in eroding the moral basis of the society. From port worker to university professor, everybody was involved in attempting to evade government tax regulations. Public morality was affected not only in regard to payment of taxes. Strikes broke out for legitimate reasons and also for matters of prestige and power politics, in many cases directly affecting the security of a country faced by mobilized

armies along its borders. While a prolonged doctors' strike was under way, one professor of psychiatry publicly expressed his grave doubts as to the country's ability to withstand a major onslaught. He summed up the situation succinctly: "Free thinking is by its very nature critical. Criticism destroys gods before they are created. The society which Israel created in which her heroes are tough and aloof requires gods. When these gods disappoint, the basis of that society is swept from under its feet. When there are gods the responsibility for the society and its fate moves over from the public in general and every individual to these gods. . . . As we saw in the war, by acquiring a monopoly on the knowledge of good and bad, the leadership removed from the public its responsibility for its fate." In many ways this definition of what happened in Israel's society explains public reactions after the war.

In many of its aspects, Israel's society was sound and strong. Economic and settlement achievements were unparalleled. Israel exported knowhow, helping other countries. A superior defense force was created. There was much to be proud of in this society which absorbed its less fortunate brethren from all over the world and achieved so much success in the creation of a nation based on egalitarian and socially advanced concepts.

But stagnation set in at the top. The electoral system never placed a Minister or a Member of the Knesset in a position in which he would have to defend his record before the voters. Every leader continued to function, conscious of the fact that despite all the mistakes he might make his position on the list in the next elections would not be affected. The process of reward and punishment became difficult to apply. It was almost impossible to dismiss an individual for slovenliness, negligence or incompetence. Further-

more. Parliament itself tended to ignore the fact that many of its laws were not being applied to protect the private citizen; in a system of such burdensome bureaucracy, the private citizen is invariably less important than pressure groups. Such a system of government was bound to create an ever-widening gap between the leadership on the one hand and the public on the other hand. It inevitably gave the leadership a sense of power without sanction, leading to decisions not subjected to prior criticism and examination, bound to encourage an approach of negligence and carelessness in the conduct of public affairs.

Mrs. Meir continued to manage the government in her peculiarly personal manner. Every week the Cabinet concentrated on foreign affairs and defense issues, while social, internal and economic matters were discussed much less frequently. There was little staff work. So impervious was the leadership to public criticism that a book, *Message from the White House*, published in 1971, by Dan Margalit, a newspaper man on the staff of Haaretz, made no impression whatsoever in Israel. Margalit's book revealed the utter lack of preparatory staff work at Cabinet level, the lack of decision-making machinery, the haphazard manner in which decisions were rendered, the incredibly superficial nature of Cabinet discussions and the all-pervading power of the kitchen cabinet. Yet it aroused no public interest, no reaction on the part of the Parliamentary opposition, little comment in the press, and it certainly did not lead to any change in the system of Government.

It is against the background of a dedicated, hard-working and powerful Prime Minister, imbued with great feeling and faith — but self-satisfied, complacent and convinced that leaders know better — that one must see the developments at the decision-making level in Israel prior to the war.

20 MOMENT OCTOBER 1975

Meridian House
October 9, 1974

1630 CRESCENT PLACE N.W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20009
TELEPHONE 667-8800

Honorary Patron

MRS. NIXON

Honorary Chairman

MRS. HENRY A. KISSINGER

Chairman

MRS. SCOTT HEUER, JR.

Vice Chairman

MRS. HENRY CATTO

Executive Committee

MRS. HUBERT W. CHANLER

MRS. ELLIOTT D. DEGRAFF

MRS. HAROLD D. FANGBONER

MRS. GEORGE M. FERRIS, JR.

MRS. JOHN S. HAYES

MRS. ARTHUR P. HENDRICK

MRS. CLARK MACGREGOR

MRS. WILLIAM S. MAILLIARD

MRS. MARTIN F. MALARKEY

MRS. S. PARKER OLIPHANT

MRS. MANDELL J. OURISMAN

MRS. DUDLEY OWEN

MRS. WILLIAM M. PRESTON

MRS. ELLIOTT L. RICHARDSON

MRS. WILLIAM P. ROGERS

MRS. KENNETH RUSH

MRS. CARL L. SHIPLEY

MRS. MARION H. SMOAK

MRS. WALTER E. WASHINGTON

Mrs. Executive Committee

CHAIRMAN

MR. J. ROBERT MACNAUGHTON

VICE CHAIRMAN

HONORABLE ROBERT K. GRAY

Under the sponsorship of
H.E. DR. GUILLERMO SEVILLA-SACAS

July 26, 1974

Mrs. Henry A. Kissinger
The Department of State
Washington, D. C. 20520

Dear Mrs. Kissinger:

You will recall that in my letter of June 24th, I mentioned how much the Meridian House Ball Committee would appreciate again having a cocktail party at Blair House to honor Ambassadors and their wives who host dinner parties prior to the Ball. We now find that we no longer need to give a Blair House party as the Ambassador of Argentina has kindly offered to host a dinner-dance on September 5th at 7:30 p.m. to honor the Ball Committee and to show his appreciation for the work of Meridian House International. Members of the Ball Committee and Ambassadors and their wives participating in this year's Ball will be invited; we hope you and the Secretary will be able to attend this party.

Since we will not be having a Blair House party this year, perhaps you may be interested in having a tea for the members of the Ball Executive Committee and the Ambassadors' wives. This has been done for past Balls and as it would be a much smaller group, you would have more of a chance to chat with everyone. If you think this is possible, either at Blair House or in your home, let me know what date would be convenient.

Thank you so much for your interest. I look forward to hearing from you.

Mrs. Scott Heuer, Jr.
Chairman

[10]

LEO HEXTER

1781 RIVERSIDE DRIVE
NEW YORK, N.Y. 10034

February 11, 1974

The Hon. Secretary of State
Dr. Henry Kissinger
Department of State
Washington, D.C. 20520

Dear Henry,

Thank you very much for your detailed letter of January 28 th
I certainly appreciate it that you took time from your extremely
busy schedule to answer my inquiry about Prof. Vitali and
suggest some steps which could be taken. I hope that we can
be helpful to him in his efforts.

I still hope that it will be possible for you to arrange
an appointment to see me some time in the near future - it
would be wonderful indeed if I could meet with you again
after a lapse of so many years.

Phone ( Office ) 212-728-0909

Phone ( Home ) 212-567-2539