Jewish Leaders Insist Jews Did Not Call for Young’s Resignation and Should Not Be a Black-jewish Iss

Jewish leaders insist that the American Jewish community did not ask for Andrew Young’s resignation as Ambassador to the United Nations and that his resignation was not and should not be made an issue between American Blacks and Jews.

Leaders issuing statements include Theodore Mann, chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations; Jack Spitzer, president of B’nai B’rith; Henry Siegman, executive director of the American Jewish Congress; and Rabbi Alexander Schindler, president of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations.

Mann, in a letter to President Carter, declared that “we did not ask for Ambassador Young’s resignation, nor is his resignation an issue in the relationship between the Jewish and Black communities.” Mann said State Department policy was that of trying to “find a way to bring about Palestine Liberation Organization recognition of Israel’s right to exist and United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 so that the Palestinians will feel free to engage in peace negotiations.

“Underlying such a policy is the assumption that such recognition can be achieved without concessions to the PLO that will endanger Israel’s security.” Mann added that “if by some miracle, the PLO relinquished its designs on Tel Aviv, Haifa and Jerusalem, and recognized Israel’s right to exist and Resolution 242, surely it would still absolutely insist on a PLO state in Judaea and Samaria,” which, Mann said, Carter himself opposes.

OTHER ISSUES INVOLVED IN RESIGNATION

Spitzer also declared that Young’s resignation “is not an Issue between Jews and Blacks. While Young’s resignation came as a result of his actions on an issue affecting the Middle East, Young’s tenure as UN Ambassador was marked by controversy on issues totally unrelated to the Mideast.”

Spitzer asserted “it is safe to assume that Young would not have felt a need to resign, nor would the President have accepted his resignation, if Young’s only controversial act was his unsanctioned visit with a PLO representative.” Spitzer said the American Jewish community “is working with the Black community on many agendas” and “we will continue to do so. Indeed, we are interested in increasing the communication between our communities so that we might even more effectively address our many mutual, concerns together.”

Responding to a call by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) for a renewed dialogue between Black and Jewish communities after Young’s resignation, Siegman said, in a telegram to Joseph Lowery, SCLC president, that the American Jewish Congress joins in the view “that there is urgent need for talks between our two communities” following Young’s resignation. Siegman added that “the two communities have so much to give each other in support of the objectives we share that it would be a tragedy if this or any other issue were allowed to create an unbridgeable gulf between us.”

Siegman said the AJCongress and other Jewish organizations “deliberately refrained from calling for Ambassador Young’s resignation and it is clear that that resignation was due solely to the fact that his violation of the policy of our government in the Middle East and his subsequent misrepresentation of his actions made his continued official service impossible.” Siegman noted that “Young himself,” in his resignation letter, said his actions “may have hampered the peace process” in the Middle East.

Schindler reiterated that the Jewish community did not call for Young’s resignation, adding,” the fact that Young is Black had nothing to do with his appointment as United Nations Ambassador, or his resignation, and “consequently there is no reason for any so-called ‘tension’ between the Jewish and Black communities arising out of this issue.”

Declaring that Young ‘has been a steadfast friend of Jewish causes from his earliest days in the civil rights movement,” Schindler said that “those who speak of such tensions do a disservice to harmonious Black-Jewish relations. “He stressed that concern for those relations “should not be allowed to obscure the central issue: the State Department’s policy that seeks to cosmetize the PLO and transform this terrorist gang into a fit negotiating partner in the Middle East peace talks.”

RECALLS COMMITMENT NOT TO TALK TO PLO

Schindler cited the “solemn commitment” made four years ago by Henry Kissinger as Secretary of State that the United States would not recognize nor negotiate with the PLO as long as it refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist and refuses to accept Resolution 242. He added that President Carter has “on numerous occasions” reiterated that commitment.

“The State Department, however, has violated that solemn pledge by overtly or covertly encouraging Ambassador Young to traffic with the PLO-a policy-confirmed by the fact that the U.S. Ambassador to Austria, Milton Wolf, also conferred at length with the PLO.” Schindler said it was time for President Carter “to establish his authority over the Arabists in the State Department and make crystal clear that we are a country that honors its commitments to its friends, its allies and its principles.”

SAYS YOUNG WAS CAUGHT IN A WEB

Rabbi Wolfe kelman, executive vice-president of the Conservative Rabbinical Assembly, said in a letter to Young that he had come to appreciate “your love for the Jewish people and concern for the security and peace of Israel.” Kelman decried press reports about Jewish “fury” against Young.

He said he had spoken to Jews in different parts of the United States about various matters “and I sensed no special fury directed against you, but rather sadness over your being caught in a web of larger design by the American government and that if there was any blame to be fixed, it was on those in the United States government who are signaling the appearance of weakening or repudiating their commitment not to deal with the PLO until they recognized 242 in its entirety.” Rabbi Abraham Hecht, Rabbinical Alliance president, strongly denounced the “singling out” of Young “for vilification as if he were the sole culprit,” adding that Carter, rather than Young, “is primarily responsible for the immediate crisis in our Mideast diplomacy. “He said it was “extremely difficult” to believe that both Young and Wolf “could have had meetings with representatives of that international “Murder Incorporated,” the PLO, without the tacit approval of President Carter and the State Department.” Hecht said Young’s “forced resignation” had made him “the sacrificial lamb.”

In a related development, Bill Brock, chairman of the Republican National Committee declared that “the existing question as to what this nation’s policy is in the Middle East must be immediately resolved by the President.” Brock declared that if Young acted with Carter’s approval in meeting with a PLO official, “the President must explain his actions to the American people.”

Meanwhile, top-ranking Carter Administration officials said Friday that the Administration regards contacts with the PLO as important to the Middle East peace process and will continue them under arrangements short of negotiations. The officials said contacts with the PLO were “necessary” and often unavoidable for U.S. diplomats and that such contacts did not breach the official Administration policy of neither-recognizing nor formally negotiating with the PLO until it accepted Israel’s right to exist and endorsed UN Security Council Resolution 242.