Jewish Post, Indianapolis, Marion County, 9 January 1981 — Page 12

II Th* Jewish Post and Opinion

Terrorism Here? If, as Maxwell Greenberg believes and warns us, that 1981 will see terrorism imported to the United States and Jews will be among the targets (P-O, Jan.2) then the question arises as to what steps are being taken to safeguard security of Jews and Jewish institutions. As far as is known, the only obvious action by the authorities has been the lighting at night of Jewish buildings, a move begun at the time of bombings of Jewish temples, as for instance the temples in Atlanta and in Jackson, Miss. We note that a similar warning was issued by Greville _ Janner, who is president of the Board of Deputies of * British Jewry. In England, a top British and interna- » tional Jewish leader, answering his door bell, was □ shot in the face by an assailant. That was several § years ago and there has been no repetition of that kind ^ of atrocity. What has happened in France and now in Germany where Jews were shot down or bombed by executioners is no doubt the basis of the warnings. The time has come to give serious consideration to additional protective measures, albeit it would be a mistake to spread unwarranted fear. The agencies of our government are no doubt aware of the potential danger and are alert to the possibilities. Mr. Greenberg is within proper bounds in warning us of the danger. That is the province of his organization. Yet a warning, without assurances of steps being taken to avert the danger can only exacerbate fears. Precautions yes, and vigilance, yes. Are more steps being considered to ensure the safety of Jewish leaders? When the time is propitious or necessary, we believe the ADL will issue a statement or a directive, but as of now we can assume that everything as far as is possible is under control. N§w Jewish Agenda The founding convention of the New Jewish Agenda has been held and from its first news releases — we couldn’t locate anyone to cover the four-day sessions for us — it seems that the convenors are being extraordinarily cautious. This is unfortunate and seems to indicate that the fear of being characterized as a Peace Now successor has infiltrated its sense of courage and it prefers to take a low profile in order not to engender any more opposition than necessary. Of course the New Jewish Agenda will concern itself with the move to the right in the American Jewish Community. From a positive standpoint, it will seek to reenforce the Jewish tradition of liberalism which at the moment seems in danger of being engulfed at least for the time being. We wrote an editorial last month on the new organization but it was crowded out by other editorials we felt were more urgent. Here it is with no changes: We could be wrong but it seems as if The New Jewish Agenda (P-O, Dec. 5) is in reality the old Peace Now There is one giveaway other than the names of those who are the founding fathers of the new grouping in the Jewish community. Jay Rothman, the coordinator of the founding conference set for Dec. 24-28 in the nation’s capitol, stated that the group has 2,500 contacts in 45 states. Those are the precise figures given to a reporter from The Post and Opinion several months ago when Peace Now was approached on what its future plans were for organizing nationally. As for the names of the “initiators” of the founding convention, there is of course Leonard Fein, the publisher of Moment who was the guiding genius of the American Peace Now, plus a number of others who were associated with Peace Now. We presume that at the Washington session no secret will be made of the Peace Now background. As the only Jewish paper that supported Peace Now, and its predecessor, Breira, we also lend our backing to the New Jewish Agenda. Any movement that infuses the Jewish establishment with new thinking, we’re on their side. The establishment, regardless of Peace Now’s program, turned against it. Fear of change is the dominant characteristic of American Jewish society, which transfers its own insecurity into opposition to all

new ideas.

THE EDITOR'S CHAIR

In connection with the thrust of our editorial of last week, as good an instance of what we were trying to prove is the conference being convened March 29-31, in Washington D.C. bringing together rabbis of all wings of Judaism and professors from top American universities. One half of the two-day sessions will be devoted to an in-depth examination of international and foreign policy issues related to America and the Middle East and the remainder with issues of particular concern to the Jewish community under the rubric of “Will Our Grandchildren Be Jewish In America?” And who is the convenor of this conference? Is it the Reform, Conservative, Orthodox or Reconstructionist lay or rabbinical bodies? Is it the Synagogue Council of America? No. It is the United Jewish Appeal. • THE ITEM WE PICKED UP from Rabbi Howard R. Greenstein’s bulletin of Congregation Ahavath Chesed in Jacksonville, FI. in which God enters into a dialogue with the Angel Gabriel over Reverend Bailey Smith’s renunciation of Jews has not only made the rounds in many bulletins, but also in daily papers, which properly credit Rabbi Greenstein. The daily paper, The Post of West Palm Beach, FI., got the article from our Palm Beach stringer, Hy White. Although all were careful to credit Rabbi Greenstein, none credited The P-O so we have to be content with the knowledge that people do read the P-O. However, several who read the item in The P-O took up the idea of a dialogue, and one we’ll reprint here. It’s by Jack Sher, of Easton, Pa., a veteran reader who from time to time we hear from as he continues an active Jewish life after retiring after 50 years as Jewish Community Center director. He wrote this as a letter to the Easton Express: The Reverend Bailey Smith, president of the Southern Baptists, has said “God doesn’t hear the prayers of the Jews! ’ ’ Since nobody bothered to find out when and where Rev. Smith got this information, handed down from God, I was curious enough to check it out. Remember the motion picture “Oh God!”, the one with George Burns as God and John Denver as a grocery clerk? I decided to play the John Denver role from a In The Jerusalem Post

personal angle. If Denver could reach God, why couldn’t I? So I planted myself in the middle of my living room, looked up and called, “God!” Lo and behold, there was a guy who came out of nowhere. He was ordinary-lookin’, with a shabby suit and a workman’s cap. I said.

God: Yes, I am. Don’t mind the clothes. I appear in anything. Me: But you don’t LOOK like God! God: What’s God supposed to look like? Anyway, what can I do for you? Me: It’s about that guy, Bailey Smith. He says you don’t hear my prayers. I’m Jewish. Did you actually discuss anything with that guy? How come he said what he did? God: That’s the trouble with this world. Too many guys shootin’ off their mouths, callin’ on me to win their wars, or to declare their religion the best. Me: Then you DO hear my prayers? God: Of course I do. And I hear the prayers of all men and women and children. Me: Then if the Rev. Bailey Smith is using your name in vain, aren’t you going to strike him down with fire, and with... God: Brimstone? No, intelligent people recognize that what Smith says is malarkey. Me: Look. You aren’t puttin’ me on with some magic and ventriloquism. Do you mind if I test you out? God: Go ahead, it’s your act. Me: O.K. Where was I last Friday night? God: You were at worship services. Me: You guessed that. What was the rabbi’s

sermon?

God: About Jacob and Esau. Brother against brother. Right? Me: Yes. One more question. What was 1

praying for.

God: You were praying lor the stricken

people of Italy and California and for the

Lafayette College basketball team. .

Me: Incredible! Now I believe you’re God! Hey, God! Where’d you disappear to? God! Can I quote you in The Express? Voice: Go ahead. But tell ’em that I hear everyone’s prayers! Me:God! Do you think they’ll call me a nut like they did John Denver? Voice: No! If anyone is goin’ to be called a nut, it’ll be Rev. Bailey Smith!

If 2 Arab Mayors Expelled, Why Not Rabbi Kahane?

By RABBI MAURICE DAVIS A recent edition of the Jerusalem Post carried an intriguing article on / its editorial a l )age I It noted that Rabbi Meir Kahane has been released from jail after having iv i H served a reducDavis ed sentence. Rabbi Kahane continues to pursue his anti-Arab vituperation, and shows no indication of abiding by the law of the land.

WHEN ISRAEL was founded every effort was made to assure the Arab population that it would be afforded every right of citizenship. It is written in every document of Israel law. Nonethelesa; Kahane would like to rid Israel of its Arab population. The Jerusalem Post compared Kahane to the two Arab

Mayors expelled from Israel for their outspoken hatred of Jews, and their support of the PLO. The Government believed—correctly or incorrectly—that their words instigated anti-Jewish attacks. The question then arises. If they are guilty, why is not Kahane equally guilty? If they can be expelled, why can he not be expelled? He too is a threat to the peace of that nation. He too, flouts both the spirit and the letter of the law. He, too, advocates and encourages violence and lawlessness. Is he to be spared or coddled because he is a Jew, or because he carries the title of Rabbi? SINCE the time of the Bible Israel has taken justifiable pride in the concept of equal justice. There shall be one manner of law for the strange and for the home-born, for the rich and for the poor. Translated into modem terms, there

must be one manner of law for Jew and Arab. If fanatical hatred is to be condemned for the one, it must be condemned for the other. Israel has never disclosed those who attacked the young Jews of Hebron. Ner has she discovered those wh*e bomb so seriously wounded two West Bank Mayors. If violence in the first instance is attributed to the words and actions of Fahd Kawasme and Mohammed Milhim, cannot the violence of the second instance be attributed to the words and actions of Meir Kahane? THEN LET the world see and recognize that Israel deplores violence, not merely certain kinds of violence. Not that such action should be undertaken for the sake of world opinion. It should be taken for the sake of Israel, its safety, its self-respect, and its heritage. Let there be again in Israel one manner of law.