Lelyveld: Secure Borders Not International Guarantees; New Mood Among Jewish Youth

Jews throughout the world support Israel’s rejection of international guarantees as a substitute for secure borders because of a “new mood of independence” among the Jewish people, Rabbi Arthur J. Lelyveld of Cleveland, president of the American Jewish Congress declared today. Addressing a luncheon here of the Congress’ Philadelphia Council Business and Professional Group in the Locust Club, Rabbi Lelyveld, spiritual leader of Fairmount Temple in Cleveland, Ohio, said Secretary of State William P. Rogers’ plan for “insubstantial” border changes “might have been acceptable in another era” but was inadequate today “because it asks Israel to allow its future security to become dependent on the good will of the United States.” Rabbi Lelyveld stated that “Never again do Jews wish to be at the mercy of the changeable emotions of their neighbors. Never again will we be dependent on the good will of others, for good will evanesces. Never again will sufferance be the badge of all our tribe. Instead we ask: where is it written that more than any other people we must be submissive and compliant, gratefully accepting whatever is handed to us?” Noting that Jews had “accommodated themselves to less than satisfactory arrangements in the past,” Rabbi Lelyveld said international pledges to protect the peace “have proved not only worthless but dangerously deceptive.”

He added: “Any effort to force Israel to withdraw from defensible positions on the basis of a promise of some future peace agreement by Egypt would render direct negotiations meaningless. If peace is to be sought in earnest, borders ought to be discussed by Israel and Egypt, not by Israel and the U.S. or among the Big Four.” The AJCongress leader traced the emergence of a new mood in Jewish communities “in part to our young people–the courageous young Jews in the Soviet Union, the activist Zionist youth in this country, the young men on the front lines in Israel.” He declared: “The Jewish people has always lost some youth to cosmopolitanism and assimilation. The difference is that in the 1920’s it was the most precious segment of the youth community that was leaving–the highly-motivated, the intellectuals, those who felt most committed to the cause of social betterment.” Today, he added these young people are “staying with us, and the prospect for the 1970’s is that they will remain with us–goading us and pointing out the evils that tie our hands, but definitely not separating themselves from the community.”