Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4526374
label
Zionist Organization of America, Pittsburgh, PA, September 4, 1971
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526374
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Zionist Organization of America, Pittsburgh, PA, September 4, 1971
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Israel
Soviet Union
Middle East conflicts
Zionism
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526374
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1971-09-30
month
9
year
1971
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1971-09-01
month
9
year
1971
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
bb7acb4af13bb0fe
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D31, folder "Zionist Organization of America,
Pittsburgh, PA, September 4, 1971" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and
Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box D31 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
Modice Copy
ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
ZIONIST ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
September 4, 1971
For Release on Delivery
I am grateful for this opportunity to be with you at your 74th Annual
Convention.
Zionism was born out of the depths of Jewish martyrdom, aspirations and
faith, to challenge destiny and end the age-old injustices, prejudices and
persecutions which had so long denied the Jewish people the elementary human
rights of dignity and national heritage.
Its goals of national liberation and redemption for the Jewish people
have paralleled those of the United States in this period as the defender of
individual freedom and national independence for all peoples, at a tremendous
cost in American blood and treasure.
In the three-quarters of a century since the Zionist movement began,
the world has survived through traumatic and dramatic developments. Mankind has
engaged in unspeakable horrors and has also wrought wonders of which our fore-
fathers scarcely dared to dream.
Americans have walked and driven on the moon and have slogged through
jungle mud and other Americans have watched them in color in the safety of their
living rooms.
But surely there has been no greater miracle in this momentous period
of human history than the attainment of the Zionist goal to restore the Jewish
people to an honorable place among the nations of the earth on the holy ground
from which they had been dispersed for centuries.
The Zionist Organization of America played a major part in this modern
miracle which brought about the State of Israel, and in sustaining it through
the fiery trials that attended its establishment. You rightfully take pride in
what has come to pass in our time and all Americans can share a portion of that
pride, for it is part of our own pioneer heritage to champion the oppressed and
help those who struggle against towering odds to defend their dignity and
freedom.
(more)
GERALD LIBRARY FORD
-2-
I for one am proud of the part our countrymen have played in
realization of the Zionist dream and of all the United States has done to
strengthen the State of Israel and ensure its progress. It has not been a one-
way exchange. As an American I am also grateful for the examples Zionism and
modern Israel have given to the world, that devastated lands can be restored
to fruitfulness, that degraded people can rise from despair to new heights of
creativity and courage, that a free society can react to crisis with resolution
and unity of spirit.
But we are not here to take pride but to take stock; to realistically
appraise the present and attempt to peer rationally into the future. I cannot
claim to be a prophet or the son of prophets, but I can share your concern over
certain developments both in our own country and in the Middle East.
Things are happening at a breathtaking speed, not only in space and
technology but also in national and international politics. President Nixon
announced at the outset of his Presidency that he intended to be an activist
President in the tradition of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt -- and some
might say Franklin D. Roosevelt as well. Many Americans scoffed as the months
passed, but I have crisscrossed the country in recent weeks while the Congress
was in recess, and not many are scoffing now. They are cheering.
I have known Richard Nixon for many years, since we were both fledgling
Members of the House of Representatives. He does his homework. He does not
shoot wildly from the hip, but when all the facts and counsels are before him
he makes a decision that is in the best interests of all Americans.
From the moment he concluded the Presidential oath with the solemn
words "So help me God," President Nixon has been acting -- not just talking --
about his and our country's most painful and perplexing problem: how to extricate
ourselves from military involvement in Vietnam. He has acted, decisively and
courageously, even in the face of a gale of criticism and divisive doubt as in
Cambodia, to bring this war to an end with or without the cooperation of the
other side. For many reasons, Vietnam was and had to be the first priority.
But President Nixon's vision of the world as it really is and his
assessment of the hazards to peace has been perfectly clear from the beginning.
Let me quote directly from his February report to the Congress:
(more)
-3-
"Vietnam is our most anguishing problem. It is not, however,
the most dangerous. That grim distinction must go to the
situation in the Middle East with its vastly greater potential
for drawing Soviet policy and our own into a collision that
could prove uncontrollable."
Those words are, if anything, truer and more sobering today. With the
Vietnam problem rapidly being resolved as America's primary international pre-
occupation, the Middle East problem with the Arab-Israeli conflict at its center
remains in stark and somber primacy on our agenda.
Some of my good friends and good friends of Israel have asked me recently,
almost reluctant to express the thought, whether President Nixon's dramatic
change of course in relation to Red China, followed by his dramatic switch of
signals on domestic wage and price controls, might mean that we could someday
wake up to discover a dramatic reversal or revision of United States' policy
toward the Middle East.
This is a natural question to which I have an authoritative and
instant answer: No!
President Nixon's policy is and will continue to be to strengthen the
forces of peace and political stability throughout the Middle East and to reduce
the risk of a direct U.S. Soviet military confrontation there. This is a policy
we are actively pursuing both with Israel and her Arab neighbors and in direct
consultations with the Soviet Union and other outside powers. It is also a
policy which parallels the declared policy of the Israeli government and the
long-range interest of the Arab peoples.
The reason I can say with certainty that American policy toward Israel
and its neighbors will not be subject to sudden change under President Nixon's
leadership is that a dramatic redirection already has occurred -- somewhat
obscured, to be sure, by public concentration on the Vietnam war. Under this
Administration, we have moved from a passive policy of drift and deterioration
in our relations with Israel and the Arab nations to an activist pursuit of
peace -- first a cessation of shooting and eventually a secure and permanent
settlement that can be enforced by the self-interest of the parties immediately
concerned. As an interim step to check the rapid build-up of Soviet military
personnel and sophisticated military hardware in Egypt the President has
personally warned Chairman Kosygin that the United States will provide arms to
Israel to maintain the balance of power in the Eastern Mediterranean.
(more)
-4-
Realism dictates that the only way to secure Israel's existence and
the free world's position in the Eastern Mediterranean is to keep Israel
prepared militarily, strong enough to meet a new attack and withstand it, and
to withstand threats and blackmail from whatever source they may come.
For this, Israel needs the aid of the United States, militarily and
diplomatically. Israel does not ask, nor does she need, American fighting men
to defend it. Its ability to face its foes has been amply proven. What it does
need, and deserves, is to receive from us sufficient military wherewithal. This
should be given Israel not grudgingly, but willingly and generously, for it is
in our own best interests.
Israel is entitled to know that we understand and appreciate its
position as a de facto ally of the United States. The weapons Israel needs from
us for its defense must be made available to it not by bargaining processes each
year, but through a credible long-range plan. Diplomatically, we must press the
initiative by putting on the international agenda a call to free the Middle East
from outside forces which have no legitimate or moral justification for being
there, and only threaten the peace of the world.
There is a standard old political cliche in this country that firm
support of Israel is a bipartisan cornerstone of American foreign policy; that
this goes on forever, through the campaign platforms of both Democratic and
Republican parties ever since 1948. You and I know that this is not so;
American support for Israel has followed a zigzag course in spite of the fairly
straight line of political rhetoric.
Moreover, the strategic situation has shifted greatly. It was a
relatively safe and simple proposition to make an all-out commitment to Israel
when the United States was far and away the most powerful nation on earth and
Israel's integrity was threatened only by defeated and disunited Arab neighbors.
Under the comforting notion that Israel was quite capable of taking care of her-
self in what seemed no more than a noisy neighborhood quarrel, during the Sixties
many Americans and our government itself turned priority attention to more
immediate crises in Korea, in Cuba, in Berlin and in Southeast Asia, all of which
involved some direct commitment of American armed forces and confrontation with
Soviet and Chinese interests.
(more)
-5-
Ironically, Israel's own performance in the six-day war tended to
confirm the idea that Israel could cut it on her own, and eventually Vietnam
came close to blotting out all other international concerns for the majority
of Americans. Unfortunately, Moscow took a much longer and more realistic view
of the Middle East -- a view of her long southern frontier that has dominated
Russian strategic thinking since long before either Communism or Zionism were
born.
Hemmed in by polar wastes on the north and by militarily and politically
stronger nations to the west and east, Russia under both Czars and Commissars
looked longingly at the weak and underpopulated lands to the South. She did
not look reverently at these lands as the cradle of civilization and religion
but covetously as the undefended land bridges to Africa and the Indian sub-
continent. So it is not surprising that our earliest warnings after World War II
that Soviet expansionism had not been buried in the United Nations Charter came
in the form of probes toward Iran, Turkey and Greece.
These threats were turned back, but the Baghdad Pact failed to close
the line and the Russian romance with the Arab world began. It was slowed by
the Sixth Fleet and other American and British countermoves to backstop Lebanon
and Jordan, but the Russians swiftly set about building a Soviet naval presence
in the Mediterranean which now, according to Admiral Zumwalt's sobering recent
report, poses a high risk not only to our Sixth Fleet but to our total mastery
of the seas in everything except strategic nuclear deterrence.
We all know that Israel's 120-mile coastline is in fact defened by the
U.S. Sixth Fleet against any outright Soviet amphibious intervention, just as
Israeli soldiers and airmen man the ramparts of the Free World in Israel itself.
We are de facto allies not only because of a common culture and kindred ideals
but by the cold practical consideration of mutual necessity and national interest.
Israel stands in the path of the historic Russian drive to the South
where the restive and underdeveloped peoples of Africa and the Indian sub-
continent, released from colonial rule but without a unifying ideology, are ripe
for the alluring promises of Communism. It is neither in the national interests
of Israel nor the United States -- nor for that matter of any independent nation
including the Arabs -- to permit one great power to consolidate its grip on this
vital region.
(more)
-6-
As we wind down our involvement in Vietnam -- and President Nixon is
winding it down daily; as we shore up and stimulate our domestic economy, itself
the victim of a mismanaged and underfunded war -- and President Nixon is doing
that with vigor; as we look hopefully toward a generation of peace abroad and
tackling the neglected tasks that confront us at home, there is one trend that
considerably concerns me.
Will the Congress, with a major political contest looming, stand up
and be counted when it comes to maintaining the real security and strength of
America and in making up the ground we have lost vis-a-vis the Soviet Union?
Let me give you a simple proposition: Whatever contributes to the
overall defense posture of the United States contributes to the overall defense
posture of Israel and the free world. Whatever diminishes the long-range
security of the United States diminishes the long-range security of Israel and
the free world. And, of course, both these propositions can be put in reverse.
I am concerned that the Congress, and the American people, in their
disillusionment and war-weariness of the present moment, will so restrict future
funds and support for a realistic defense that the Soviet momentum, which has
moved inexorably forward on all fronts while we were bogged down in Southeast
Asia, will gain such a lead that we can never catch up.
Despite recent revelations, most Americans are not fully aware of the
extent to which the Vietnam war effort was financed at the expense of other
essential U.S. defense programs, since those who escalated our involvement were
unwilling to come to Congress and openly ask for the sums and the sacrifices a
commitment of this magnitude and duration demanded.
To give one example, since we have spoken of the Soviet challenge to
our peacekeeping Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean. During the 1960's, the Soviet
Union spent over 34 percent of its defense budget on research and development,
while we cut ours back to about 18 percent. In the same period the Russians
modernized three-fourths of their shipyards; we have only modernized 20 percent
of our shipbuilding facilities since World War II.
Most Soviet warships are less than 20 years old; 37 percent of ours are
older. The average Soviet ship is faster, has longer-range firepower and highly
efficient and versatile electronics. The U.S. Navy is only now starting to catch
up on ship-to-ship missiles of the type an Egyptian-manned Soviet gunboat used to
sink an Israeli destroyer several years no: they were not needed in Vietnam.
(more)
-7-
Both in advanced research and in production-line weapons our defense
establishment has much ground to regain all across the board. There is an evident
effort in Congress to cut such funds even further, some of it generated by the
most vocal champions of military aid to Israel. They are found on both sides of
the political aisle and I do not believe this is a partisan form of hypocrisy;
indeed, Democrats and Republicans are both found supporting realistic U.S. defense
levels.
I respect those who oppose all war as a matter of conviction, and I
recognize the right of Americans to disagree as to where our defense effort
should be primarily directed -- whether towards Europe or Asia or the Middle
East -- although this is largely determined by the most immediate threat. But
the inconsistency of some members of Congress who shout how they would strengthen
Israel and then vote to weaken the United States should be rejected by realists
in both countries. I hope you will watch for such doubletalk in the days ahead.
Finally, I would like to appeal to you as American Zionists for under-
standing of what sometimes appears to be contradictory policy toward the Arab
countries. It is an ancient Middle East axiom that "the enemy of my enemy is
my friend" and it is understandable that every Administration gesture toward
Cairo sends shivers through TelAviv.
Yet I can assure you that President Nixon and all of his people who are
working day and night to bring about a lasting peace in this area have no intention
of letting Israel down; they do, however, despite repeated disappointments, cling
to the commendable American goal of bringing all nations up to a level of self-
reliance and responsibility that will make permanent peace a reality.
This is a long-term prospect, and the first step is simply to stop the
shooting and keep the guns silent. As we approach the end of another year by
the Jewish reckoning, the guns remain silent along Suez. It has hardly been a
year of real peace in the area, but it has been a year of no-war, and I believe
this has been a major achievement of the Nixon Administration.
When President Nixon took office he faced a clear choice with respect
to the Arab-Israeli impasse, which had existed since the end of the six-day war.
He could continue to stand more or less aloof and let the forces in the area
arrive at their own standoff with or without renewed hostilities. Or he could
involve the United States more actively in the honest broker's role, since
United Nations' efforts were making little or no progress.
(more)
-8-
The President promptly chose the activist course to help defuse the
ominously ticking timebomb. When about a year ago his efforts both on a big
power level and with the Israelis and Arabs directly appeared stalled and the
military situation worsened, the Administration stepped up its initiatives and
Secretary Rogers was able to obtain a cease-fire along the canal and some agree-
ment by Egypt, Jordan and Israel to a broad basis for negotiation. Firmness
by the United States prevented a serious flareup on the Syrian frontier and
helped enable King Hussein to gain the upper hand over terrorists in Jordan.
Stabilization has not been followed by serious direct negotiation, but
at least the cease-fire has held. Egypt and the Soviet Union have formalized
their de facto dependency with a 15-year pact, and the Russians have reached
over the Himalayas to side with India while China lines up with Pakistan.
The Russians do not win every round, however. Attempted coups were
crushed in Morocco and the Sudan and blamed on the local Communists. While the
extent of Soviet involvement is not clear, it is safe to say that Soviet goals
are always advanced by turmoil and political instability in target countries.
On a larger map we see a hope of reduced tension with Red China and
with the Russians in West Berlin -- though on Berlin I will wait to read the
fine print. President Nixon is making steady progress toward cooling down the
whole spectrum of international tensions but an essential ingredient in this is
to maintain a strong and credible defense posture for the United States.
I earnestly hope the Congress and the American people will not repeat
the mistake we have made after every war in our history by throwing down our
strong shields while we beat our swords into plowshares. Certainly the defenders
of Israel, and their true friends in America, will never do so..
Thank you, and a heartfelt Shalom.
# # # # #
distribution
20 copies 2 ionish
Organization
Office copy
ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
ZIONIST ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
September 4, 1971
For Release on Delivery
I am grateful for this opportunity to be with you at your 74th Annual
Convention.
Zionism was born out of the depths of Jewish martyrdom, aspirations and
faith, to challenge destiny and end the age-old injustices, prejudices and
persecutions which had so long denied the Jewish people the elementary human
rights of dignity and national heritage.
Its goals of national liberation and redemption for the Jewish people
have paralleled those of the United States in this period as the defender of
individual freedom and national independence for all peoples, at a tremendous
cost in American blood and treasure.
In the three-quarters of a century since the Zionist movement began,
the world has survived through traumatic and dramatic developments. Mankind has
engaged in unspeakable horrors and has also wrought wonders of which our fore-
fathers scarcely dared to dream.
Americans have walked and driven on the moon and have slogged through
jungle mud and other Americans have watched them in color in the safety of their
living rooms.
But surely there has been no greater miracle in this momentous period
of human history than the attainment of the Zionist goal to restore the Jewish
people to an honorable place among the nations of the earth on the holy ground
from which they had been dispersed for centuries.
The Zionist Organization of America played a major part in this modern
miracle which brought about the State of Israel, and in sustaining it through
the fiery trials that attended its establishment. You rightfully take pride in
what has come to pass in our time and all Americans can share a portion of that
pride, for it is part of our own pioneer heritage to champion the oppressed and
help those who struggle against towering odds to defend their dignity and
freedom.
(more)
GERALD LISBARY FORD
distribution
20 copies 2 ionists
Organization
Office copy
ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
ZIONIST ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
September 4, 1971
For Release on Delivery
I am grateful for this opportunity to be with you at your 74th Annual
Convention.
Zionism was born out of the depths of Jewish martyrdom, aspirations and
faith, to challenge destiny and end the age-old injustices, prejudices and
persecutions which had so long denied the Jewish people the elementary human
rights of dignity and national heritage.
Its goals of national liberation and redemption for the Jewish people
have paralleled those of the United States in this period as the defender of
individual freedom and national independence for all peoples, at a tremendous
cost in American blood and treasure.
In the three-quarters of a century since the Zionist movement began,
the world has survived through traumatic and dramatic developments. Mankind has
engaged in unspeakable horrors and has also wrought wonders of which our fore-
fathers scarcely dared to dream.
Americans have walked and driven on the moon and have slogged through
jungle mud and other Americans have watched them in color in the safety of their
living rooms.
But surely there has been no greater miracle in this momentous period
of human history than the attainment of the Zionist goal to restore the Jewish
people to an honorable place among the nations of the earth on the holy ground
from which they had been dispersed for centuries.
The Zionist Organization of America played a major part in this modern
miracle which brought about the State of Israel, and in sustaining it through
the fiery trials that attended its establishment. You rightfully take pride in
what has come to pass in our time and all Americans can share a portion of that
pride, for it is part of our own pioneer heritage to champion the oppressed and
help those who struggle against towering odds to defend their dignity and
freedom.
(more)
GERALD LISTRAY FORD
-2-
I for one am proud of the part our countrymen have played in
realization of the Zionist dream and of all the United States has done to
strengthen the State of Israel and ensure its progress. It has not been a one-
way exchange. As an American I am also grateful for the examples Zionism and
modern Israel have given to the world, that devastated lands can be restored
to fruitfulness, that degraded people can rise from despair to new heights of
creativity and courage, that a free society can react to crisis with resolution
and unity of spirit.
But we are not here to take pride but to take stock; to realistically
appraise the present and attempt to peer rationally into the future. I cannot
claim to be a prophet or the son of prophets, but I can share your concern over
certain developments both in our own country and in the Middle East.
Things are happening at a breathtaking speed, not only in space and
technology but also in national and international politics. President Nixon
announced at the outset of his Presidency that he intended to be an activist
President in the tradition of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt -- and some
might say Franklin D. Roosevelt as well. Many Americans scoffed as the months
passed, but I have crisscrossed the country in recent weeks while the Congress
was in recess, and not many are scoffing now. They are cheering.
I have known Richard Nixon for many years, since we were both fledgling
Members of the House of Representatives. He does his homework. He does not
shoot wildly from the hip, but when all the facts and counsels are before him
he makes a decision that is in the best interests of all Americans.
From the moment he concluded the Presidential oath with the solemn
words "So help me God," President Nixon has been acting -- not just talking --
about his and our country's most painful and perplexing problem: how to extricate
ourselves from military involvement in Vietnam. He has acted, decisively and
courageously, even in the face of a gale of criticism and divisive doubt as in
Cambodia, to bring this war to an end with or without the cooperation of the
other side. For many reasons, Vietnam was and had to be the first priority.
But President Nixon's vision of the world as it really is and his
assessment of the hazards to peace has been perfectly clear from the beginning.
Let me quote directly from his February report to the Congress:
(more)
-3-
"Vietnam is our most anguishing problem. It is not, however,
the most dangerous. That grim distinction must go to the
situation in the Middle East with its vastly greater potential
for drawing Soviet policy and our own into a collision that
could prove uncontrollable."
Those words are, if anything, truer and more sobering today. With the
Vietnam problem rapidly being resolved as America's primary international pre-
occupation, the Middle East problem with the Arab-Israeli conflict at its center
remains in stark and somber primacy on our agenda.
Some of my good friends and good friends of Israel have asked me recently,
almost reluctant to express the thought, whether President Nixon's dramatic
change of course in relation to Red China, followed by his dramatic switch of
signals on domestic wage and price controls, might mean that we could someday
wake up to discover a dramatic reversal or revision of United States' policy
toward the Middle East.
This is a natural question to which I have an authoritative and
instant answer: No!
President Nixon's policy is and will continue to be to strengthen the
forces of peace and political stability throughout the Middle East and to reduce
the risk of a direct U.S. Soviet military confrontation there. This is a policy
we are actively pursuing both with Israel and her Arab neighbors and in direct
consultations with the Soviet Union and other outside powers. It is also a
policy which parallels the declared policy of the Israeli government and the
long-range interest of the Arab peoples.
The reason I can say with certainty that American policy toward Israel
and its neighbors will not be subject to sudden change under President Nixon's
leadership is that a dramatic redirection already has occurred -- somewhat
obscured, to be sure, by public concentration on the Vietnam war. Under this
Administration, we have moved from a passive policy of drift and deterioration
in our relations with Israel and the Arab nations to an activist pursuit of
peace -- first a cessation of shooting and eventually a secure and permanent
settlement that can be enforced by the self-interest of the parties immediately
concerned. As an interim step to check the rapid build-up of Soviet military
personnel and sophisticated military hardware in Egypt the President has
personally warned Chairman Kosygin that the United States will provide arms to
Israel to maintain the balance of power in the Eastern Mediterranean.
(more)
Realism dictates that the only way to secure Israel's existence and
the free world's position in the Eastern Mediterranean is to keep Israel
prepared militarily, strong enough to meet a new attack and withstand it, and
to withstand threats and blackmail from whatever source they may come.
For this, Israel needs the aid of the United States, militarily and
diplomatically. Israel does not ask, nor does she need, American fighting men
to defend it. Its ability to face its foes has been amply proven. What it does
need, and deserves, is to receive from us sufficient military wherewithal. This
should be given Israel not grudgingly, but willingly and generously, for it is
in our own best interests.
Israel is entitled to know that we understand and appreciate its
position as a de facto ally of the United States. The weapons Israel needs from
us for its defense must be made available to it not by bargaining processes each
year, but through a credible long-range plan. Diplomatically, we must press the
initiative by putting on the international agenda a call to free the Middle East
from outside forces which have no legitimate or moral justification for being
there, and only threaten the peace of the world.
There is a standard old political cliche in this country that firm
support of Israel is a bipartisan cornerstone of American foreign policy; that
this goes on forever, through the campaign platforms of both Democratic and
Republican parties ever since 1948. You and I know that this is not so;
American support for Israel has followed a zigzag course in spite of the fairly
straight line of political rhetoric.
Moreover, the strategic situation has shifted greatly. It was a
relatively safe and simple proposition to make an all-out commitment to Israel
when the United States was far and away the most powerful nation on earth and
Israel's integrity was threatened only by defeated and disunited Arab neighbors.
Under the comforting notion that Israel was quite capable of taking care of her-
self in what seemed no more than a noisy neighborhood quarrel, during the Sixties
many Americans and our government itself turned priority attention to more
immediate crises in Korea, in Cuba, in Berlin and in Southeast Asia, all of which
involved some direct commitment of American armed forces and confrontation with
Soviet and Chinese interests.
(more)
-5-
Ironically, Israel's own performance in the six-day war tended to
confirm the idea that Israel could cut it on her own, and eventually Vietnam
came close to blotting out all other international concerns for the majority
of Americans. Unfortunately, Moscow took a much longer and more realistic view
of the Middle East -- a view of her long southern frontier that has dominated
Russian strategic thinking since long before either Communism or Zionism were
born.
Hemmed in by polar wastes on the north and by militarily and politically
stronger nations to the west and east, Russia under both Czars and Commissars
looked longingly at the weak and underpopulated lands to the South. She did
not look reverently at these lands as the cradle of civilization and religion
but covetously as the undefended land bridges to Africa and the Indian sub-
continent. So it is not surprising that our earliest warnings after World War II
that Soviet expansionism had not been buried in the United Nations Charter came
in the form of probes toward Iran, Turkey and Greece.
These threats were turned back, but the Baghdad Pact failed to close
the line and the Russian romance with the Arab world began. It was slowed by
the Sixth Fleet and other American and British countermoves to backstop Lebanon
and Jordan, but the Russians swiftly set about building a Soviet naval presence
in the Mediterranean which now, according to Admiral Zumwalt's sobering recent
report, poses a high risk not only to our Sixth Fleet but to our total mastery
of the seas in everything except strategic nuclear deterrence.
We all know that Israel's 120-mile coastline is in fact defened by the
U.S. Sixth Fleet against any outright Soviet amphibious intervention, just as
Israeli soldiers and airmen man the ramparts of the Free World in Israel itself.
We are de facto allies not only because of a common culture and kindred ideals
but by the cold practical consideration of mutual necessity and national interest.
Israel stands in the path of the historic Russian drive to the South
where the restive and underdeveloped peoples of Africa and the Indian sub-
continent, released from colonial rule but without a unifying ideology, are ripe
for the alluring promises of Communism. It is neither in the national interests
of Israel nor the United States -- nor for that matter of any independent nation
including the Arabs -- to permit one great power to consolidate its grip on this
vital region.
(more)
-6-
As we wind down our involvement in Vietnam -- and President Nixon is
winding it down daily; as we shore up and stimulate our domestic economy, itself
the victim of a mismanaged and underfunded war -- and President Nixon is doing
that with vigor; as we look hopefully toward a generation of peace abroad and
tackling the neglected tasks that confront us at home, there is one trend that
considerably concerns me.
Will the Congress, with a major political contest looming, stand up
and be counted when it comes to maintaining the real security and strength of
America and in making up the ground we have lost vis-a-vis the Soviet Union?
Let me give you a simple proposition: Whatever contributes to the
overall defense posture of the United States contributes to the overall defense
posture of Israel and the free world. Whatever diminishes the long-range
security of the United States diminishes the long-range security of Israel and
the free world. And, of course, both these propositions can be put in reverse.
I am concerned that the Congress, and the American people, in their
disillusionment and war-weariness of the present moment, will so restrict future
funds and support for a realistic defense that the Soviet momentum, which has
moved inexorably forward on all fronts while we were bogged down in Southeast
Asia, will gain such a lead that we can never catch up.
Despite recent revelations, most Americans are not fully aware of the
extent to which the Vietnam war effort was financed at the expense of other
essential U.S. defense programs, since those who escalated our involvement were
unwilling to come to Congress and openly ask for the sums and the sacrifices a
commitment of this magnitude and duration demanded.
To give one example, since we have spoken of the Soviet challenge to
our peacekeeping Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean. During the 1960's, the Soviet
Union spent over 34 percent of its defense budget on research and development,
while we cut ours back to about 18 percent. In the same period the Russians
modernized three-fourths of their shipyards; we have only modernized 20 percent
of our shipbuilding facilities since World War II.
Most Soviet warships are less than 20 years old; 37 percent of ours are
older. The average Soviet ship is faster, has longer-range firepower and highly
efficient and versatile electronics. The U.S. Navy is only now starting to catch
up on ship-to-ship missiles of the type an Egyptian-manned Soviet gunboat used to
sink an Israeli destroyer several years they were not needed in Vietnam.
(more)
-7-
Both in advanced research and in production-line weapons our defense
establishment has much ground to regain all across the board. There is an evident
effort in Congress to cut such funds even further, some of it generated by the
most vocal champions of military aid to Israel. They are found on both sides of
the political aisle and I do not believe this is a partisan form of hypocrisy;
indeed, Democrats and Republicans are both found supporting realistic U.S. defense
levels.
I respect those who oppose all war as a matter of conviction, and I
recognize the right of Americans to disagree as to where our defense effort
should be primarily directed -- whether towards Europe or Asia or the Middle
East -- although this is largely determined by the most immediate threat. But
the inconsistency of some members of Congress who shout how they would strengthen
Israel and then vote to weaken the United States should be rejected by realists
in both countries. I hope you will watch for such doubletalk in the days ahead.
Finally, I would like to appeal to you as American Zionists for under-
standing of what sometimes appears to be contradictory policy toward the Arab
countries. It is an ancient Middle East axiom that "the enemy of my enemy is
my friend" and it is understandable that every Administration gesture toward
Cairo sends shivers through TelAviv.
Yet I can assure you that President Nixon and all of his people who are
working day and night to bring about a lasting peace in this area have no intention
of letting Israel down; they do, however, despite repeated disappointments, cling
to the commendable American goal of bringing all nations up to a level of self-
reliance and responsibility that will make permanent peace a reality.
This is a long-term prospect, and the first step is simply to stop the
shooting and keep the guns silent. As we approach the end of another year by
the Jewish reckoning, the guns remain silent along Suez. It has hardly been a
year of real peace in the area, but it has been a year of no-war, and I believe
this has been a major achievement of the Nixon Administration.
When President Nixon took office he faced a clear choice with respect
to the Arab-Israeli impasse, which had existed since the end of the six-day war.
He could continue to stand more or less aloof and let the forces in the area
arrive at their own standoff with or without renewed hostilities. Or he could
involve the United States more actively in the honest broker's role, since
United Nations' efforts were making lit: 3 or no progress.
(more)
-8-
The President promptly chose the activist course to help defuse the
ominously ticking timebomb. When about a year ago his efforts both on a big
power level and with the Israelis and Arabs directly appeared stalled and the
military situation worsened, the Administration stepped up its initiatives and
Secretary Rogers was able to obtain a cease-fire along the canal and some agree-
ment by Egypt, Jordan and Israel to a broad basis for negotiation. Firmness
by the United States prevented a serious flareup on the Syrian frontier and
helped enable King Hussein to gain the upper hand over terrorists in Jordan.
Stabilization has not been followed by serious direct negotiation, but
at least the cease-fire has held. Egypt and the Soviet Union have formalized
their de facto dependency with a 15-year pact, and the Russians have reached
over the Himalayas to side with India while China lines up with Pakistan.
The Russians do not win every round, however. Attempted coups were
crushed in Morocco and the Sudan and blamed on the local Communists. While the
extent of Soviet involvement is not clear, it is safe to say that Soviet goals
are always advanced by turmoil and political instability in target countries.
On a larger map we see a hope of reduced tension with Red China and
with the Russians in West Berlin -- though on Berlin I will wait to read the
fine print. President Nixon is making steady progress toward cooling down the
whole spectrum of international tensions but an essential ingredient in this is
to maintain a strong and credible defense posture for the United States.
I earnestly hope the Congress and the American people will not repeat
the mistake we have made after every war in our history by throwing down our
strong shields while we beat our swords into plowshares. Certainly the defenders
of Israel, and their true friends in America, will never do SO..
Thank you, and a heartfelt Shalom.
#####