TIKKUN Letters Editor: Michael Lerner Publisher: Nan Fink Associate Editor.- Peter Gabel Assistant Editor: Josh Henkin Production Manager/Editorial Assistant: Amy Editorial Assistant: Andrea Siegel Contributing Editors: E. M. Broner, Todd Gitlin, Christopher Lasch, Ruth Messinger, Anne Roiphe, Steve Wasserman, Milton Viorst, Eli Zaretsky Book Editor.- Michael Kazin Fiction Editors: Rosellen Brown, Marvin Hoffman Poetry Editor: Marge Piercy Literary Editors: Phillip Lopate, Francine Prose Assistants to the Puhlisher: Laura Brill, Wolf Schweiger Israel Of?ce: Aaron Back, Beth Sandweiss Editorial Consultants: Margo Feeley, David Gewanter, Josh Weiner Interns: Peter Gordon, Marc Horwitz Proofreader: Tom Hassett Production.- Ari Davidow, Bob Steiner Editorial Board Martha Ackelsberg, Rachel Adler, Leslie Alexander, Gar Alperovitz, Michael Bader, Michael Berenbaum, David Biale, Rachel Biale, Norman Birnbaum, Heather Booth, David Bromwich, Abraham Brum- berg, Jay Cantor, David Cohen, Gerald Cromer, Dorothy Dinnerstein, Elliot Dorff, Peter Edelman, Leslie Epstein, Sidra Ezrahi, Gordon Fellman,John Felstiner, Gordon Freeman, Maurice Friedman, Amos Funkenstein, Laura Geller, Herbert Gold, David Gordis, Arthur Green, Colin Greer, Morton Halperin, David Hartman, Richard Healey, Robert Heilbroner, Burt Jacobson, Marc Kaminsky, Wolfe Kelman, Reuven Kimelman, Daniel Landes, Hillel Levine, Irving M. Levine, Daniel Matt, Marshall Meyer, Jo Milgrom, JoAnn Mort, Raquel Newman, Ilana Pardes, Yoram Peri, Robert Pinsky, Judith Plaskow, Letty Cottin Pogrebin, Aviezer Ravitsky, Lillian Rubin, John Ruskay, David Saperstein, Zalman Schachter-Shalomi, Howard Schwartz, Chaim SeidlerFeller, Gerald Serotta, T. Drorah Setel, Gershon Shaked, Stanley Sheinbaum, Carol Ruth Silver, Uri Simon, Daniel Thursz, David Twersky, AlVorspan, Arthur Waskow, TrudeWeiss- Rosmarin, Arnold Wolf, Seth Wolitz, A. B.Yehoshua, ldith Zertal, Steve Zipperstein Tikkun reserves the right to select, edit, and shorten all submissions to the Letters section. ISRAEL To the Editor: I agree with you 100 percent that our so-called community leaders?the ?big machers? who look down on the aver- age Jew?do not speak for the majority of American Jews. They speak only for their organizations. B?nai B?rith, American Jewish Congress, American Jewish Committee, AIPAC, and other establishment Jewish organizations do not necessarily represent my views. My wife told me that she saw onTV tonight a group of Israeli soldiers being brought up on charges of brutally beating a number of Arab prisoners after they were taken into custody. When the Israelis were asked why they beat the prisoners, they stated, ?We were told to do so.? This remark reminds me of the defense for atrocities against civilians that a lot of Germans used in German courts. When they were asked why they did what they did, their standard reply was, ?We were ordered to do so.? The ?rst thing the US. armed forces taught us twenty-two years ago in basic training was that we had a duty to disobey an illegal order. Our drill in- structor even gave as an example the atrocities of the Nazis against civilians. Hence, the Israeli soldiers alleging that they were ordered to beat the Arab civilians is a lot of nonsense. They know that the policy of the Israelis is to contain the disorders, not to brutalize the rioters. Look at the situ- ation in South Korea?where hundreds of student protesters clash daily with police and throw rocks and molotov cocktails at them. However, the South Korean police rarely if ever kill these protesters or shoot them. They are well trained in riot control and know how to deal with these disturbances. Unfortunately, the Israeli armed forces are not well trained in crowd control. These same so-called Jewish leaders should be ashamed of themselves for backing the iron-?st policy of the Israelis, or otherwise remaining silent! If, Heaven forbid, one tried to criticize the Israeli government, these same so- called leaders would stop at nothing to silence any opposition, including having people ?red from their jobs, not printing letters of protest, harass- ing opposing views of politicians, and branding non-anti-Semitic gentiles as anti-Semites. I think their tactics stink. These are the same leaders who 2 TIKKUN VOL. 4, No. 4 Tikkun (ISSN 0887-9982) is published by The Institute for Labor and Mental Health, a nonpro?t corporation. Editorial of?ces: 5100 Leona St., Oakland, CA 94619; (415)482-0805. Book reviews: Michael Kazin, Dept. of History, American University, 4400 Massachusetts Ave, NW7, Washington, DC. 20016; (202)885-2415. Copyright 1989 by The Institute for Labor and Mental Health. All rights reserved. Opinions expressed in Tikhun are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the Editorial Board or those of the people listed on the masthead. Unsolicited manuscripts must be accompanied by a SASE, or they will not be returned. Subscriptions can be placed by calling (800)825-0061. $30 for 6 issues, $60 for 12 issues, $90 for 18 issues. Add $7 per year for all foreign subscriptions (including Canada and Latin America). Please pay for all orders in US. funds (including postal money orders) and with checks drawn from a US. bank only. Institutional subscriptions: $40 for 6 issues. Limited availability of back issues?inquire at editorial of?ce. All subscription problems can be dealt with by our subscription service: Tikkun, PO. BOX 6406, Syracuse, NY 13217; (800)825-0061. Please allow 6-8 weeks for any subscription transaction, including receiving your first issue, solving subscription problems, or changing your address. (You may get a bill or a renewal notice after you?ve already paid or renewed. Please disregard. Bills and payments cross in the mail.) I Articles appearing in Tikhun have been indexed in Political Science Abstract, The Alternative Press Index, Boole Review Index, Index to Jewish Periodicals, and Religion Index One.- Periodicals in Magazine Index, Magazine Index Plus, Academic Index, and Puhlic Information, all available from Information Access Co., (800)227-8431; and in The Left Index. Book reviews appearing in Ti/ehun have been indexed in Index to Book Reviews in Religion (IBBR). 16 mm and 35 mm microfilm, 105 micro?che and article copies are available from UMI, 300 North Zeeb Rd., Ann Arbor, MI 48106. forty-?ve years ago were silent when our people were systematically being murdered! Nathaniel H. Goldman Columbus, Ohio To the Editor: Before I subscribed to Tikkun, I thought I was a liberal. I am a card- carrying member of the ACLU. I have voted Democrat in every election since 1936. I contribute to liberal causes. I am one of the few pro-choice doctors in the center of pro-life. But lately I am beginning to wonder. Liberal seems to mean Israel can do no right. Forget that before 1967 the Arabs had the West Bank and Gaza. And they were not satis?ed. Forget the Syrian threat. Forget what Syria did in Hama. Forget Syria on the Golan Heights. Forget that Arafat says one thing in English to us, and the opposite in Arabic to his friends. We all want Israel to be a light to the world. But I don?t want it to be a Ya/Jrzeit light. Tz'kkun is rapidly making me a con- servative. Don?t cancel my subscription. I read it regularly. I hope my blood pressure holds out. I?m furious. Stephen I. Rosenthal, M.D. Scranton, To the Editor: In the current debate about Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, far too little attention is being paid to the special history and ongoing experiences of Israel?s Sephardic Jews. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that a resolution of the many disputes between Israelis and Arabs can take place without the con- sent of Israeli voters, a large proportion of whom are Sephardic Jews. Those seeking or hoping for a change in the position of the Israeli electorate must be prepared to recognize the legitimate grievances and aspirations of Sephardic Jews, at least to the same degree that they acknowledge the special needs of Holocaust victims, Zionists, or Arabs. A large number of Sephardic Jews settled in Israel because of the oppres- sion and harassment they received in their Arab countries of origin: for example, imprisonment, physical abuse, and elimination of economic opportunities. As appealing as Zionism may have been for them, it is naive to assume that the majority would have AN NOUN CING THE SECOND EDITION OF "There has never been such a Dictionary, such a world of words, such a treasurehouse for the scholars ROBERTSON DAVIES "More than a national monument to Iexicography. The vast storehouse of the words and phrases that constitute the vocabulary of the English-speaking people is ll . . . . The greatest work 111 dlctionary maklng ever undertaken.? The New York Times Ihc Oxford I1nglish I lid iona z'y "There will be no greater publishing event this century than the appearance of the new ANTHONY BURGESS the ultimate authority on the English language as well as a history of English speech and thought from its infancy to the present day.? THE TIMES (LONDON) The ultimate authority on the usage and meaning of English words, unmatched in accuracy and comprehensiveness, the Oxford English Dictionary is the supreme reference work for anyone who loves the lan- guage. Now, for the first time in over 60 years, the greatest of all dictionaries appears in a new, Second Edition. Defining over half a million words, the Second Edition is an unsur? passable guide to the meaning, history, and pronunciation of words, and its 2,400,000 illus- trative quotes provide an invaluable record of the lan- For more information about the new OED II, write to OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS guage, tracing the various uses of each word throughout the centuries. Both for those who are already familiar with the OED and for those who have yet to discover its riches, the Second Edition offers a treasurehouse of language, an inexhaustible record of what we have written and said. 0 Integrates the original OED and its four?volume Supplement in one alphabetical sequence 0 Includes an additional 5,000 new words and meanings 0 Completely redesigned and reset TRADE DEPT, 200 MADISON AVENUE, NEW YORK, NY 10016 LETTERS 3 abandoned their homes, occupations, or material goods if they had not felt persecuted. The fact that their experi- ences were not as horrible as those of European Jewry during the Holocaust cannot provide much consolation to the Sephardic men, women, and chil- dren who underwent their own daily persecution and who still pay the and economic price for their victimization. The prejudice they subsequently experienced in Israel on the part of some earlier settlers un- doubtedly served to increase their resentment. It is particularly hypocritical and counterproductive for progressive Jews to bend over backward to make sure that the past and present sufferings of Arabs be redressed without demanding similarly fair treatment for Sephardic Jews. Aside from ethical considerations, common sense dictates that this crucial portion of the Israeli electorate not be ignored or taken for granted in the peace process. Without the consent of many Sephardic Jews, no group?s grievances will be peacefully resolved. Murray J. Friedman New York, New York To the Editor: You had good reason to distrust Arafat?s speech and his supposed ac? ceptance of Israel. Even if you didn?t know why. Not only did the PLO leader not reject terrorism; he stated in front of the world, without the world?s noticing, that his organization still plans to replace Israel with a Palestinian state. In his speech to the United Nations General Assembly, Arafat addressed the subject he knew the United States was waiting for. Therefore, he rejected terrorism and even managed to con- demn it?all the while implying it was Israel who conducted the terrorist acts. At the same time, he praised those ?sitting before me in this hall who, in the days when they fought to free their countries from the yoke of colonialism, were accused of terrorism by their oppressors, and who today are the faithful leaders of their peoples, stal- wart champions of the values of justice and freedom.? Translating from Demagoguery to English, Arafat is saying: am not a ter- rorist. The members of my organization don?t commit terrorist acts, and that fact will be recognized one day when 4 TIKKUN VOL. 4, N0. 4 we have our own state. Meanwhile, while I condemn terrorism?mostly Israel?s terrorism?my organization shall continue to conduct its struggle in the fashion to which it is accustomed, until we reach our goal.? In 1968 the PLO adopted its cove- nant, which rejects the legitimacy of the State of Israel and calls for ?armed struggle? to replace Israel with a Pales- tinian Arab state. Article 21 of the Covenant expresses the rejection of ?all solutions that are a substitute for the total liberation of Palestine.? In 1974, the PLO adopted its ten-point plan for achieving the strategic aims of the covenant. The PLO stated that it would be willing to accept a state in the West Bank and Gaza as a ?rst step in the total liberation of Palestine. The latest addition to PLO policy, the Algiers resolutions, do not depart from these basic points: 0 They cite the UN resolution (181) partitioning Palestine into Jewish and Arab States as justi?cation for only an Arab state. 0 They accept UN resolution 242 and 338, which guarantee the rights of all states in the region only in conjunc- tion with the ?Palestinian right to self- determination,? which, in the language of the covenant, means the eradication of Israel. 0 They reject ?terrorism? but de?ne their own actions not as terrorism but as ?legitimate armed struggle.? Arafat never contradicted the Algiers resolutions. On the contrary, he ex? plicitly stated that his words were a reiteration of the resolutions. Only repudiation of the covenant?or of the most rejectionist articles within it, especially article 21?will signify an actual departure from previous PLO policy. . David Olesker Director, independent institute of propaganda analysis Jerusalem, Israel Jessica Kramerman Tel Aviv, Israel To the Editor: Michael Lerner and his crew of ap- prentice Kapos have been perpetuating and proclaiming the same loathsome, verminous message that led inevitably to the extermination of most of Euro- pean Jewry. Just as Adolf ?rst had to delegitimize his victims before the Nazi killing machine began murdering them, so too do the governments and intel- lectuals of the world have to delegiti- mize Israel before wiping it out. From Ararat to Arafat, a common strand runs through history: one touch of anti-Semitism makes the entire world kin. Once again cries of Hep! Hep! the shout of Roman legionnaires burning Jerusalem and of pogromists torching Jewish shtetls?echo through the night. Israel is the Jew among nations. Of over 160 countries, fewer than twenty-four are open-society democracies respectful of human rights. Among this pitiful handful stands the Jewish state (with 17 percent of its population Arab). Stop preaching Jewish Jew-hate and start fighting for the survival of that miracle, Israel, whose struggle, faith, and endurance almost redeem this most evil of centuries. Unless you are able?which you are not?to guaran- tee the absolute safety and security of the people of Israel, you cannot with sincerity advocate their withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza. Will- fully ignoring the real struggle, which is not between Israelis and Palestin- ian Arabs but between Israel and twenty-two Muslim dictatorshipsmand, beyond that, between Israel and the entire world??you neglect not only the lesson of October 1938 but all of Jewish history. You concentrate on the ?liberation? of the Palestinian Arabs from ?oppres- sion.? But no hearts bleed for the Kurds, savaged, brutalized, and gassed by Arab-ruled Iraq, which, backed by the Western democracies, has just con- cluded one of the most grisly and grue- some wars of all time against Islamic Iran. Can you get 157 votes in the UN favoring independence for Brittany? Armenia? Catalonia? Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania? The Tamils? The Ber- bers? The uni?cation of Ireland? Or any of the other multitude of truly op- pressed and exploited peoples, includ- ing the Palestinian Arabs under the rule of that plucky king, Hussein, or in Syrian-occupied Lebanon? A world that has no room for Israel does not deserve to exist. There is only one serious historical question and, naturally, no serious his- torian to answer it: why, in the twentieth century, is it necessary to murder all the Jews? They are the oldest and most exclusive fraternity in the world, the most productive, creative, and ancient of races. All through the ages they have produced new gods for old gold, creat- ing an eternal sense of unrepayable debt and obligation that can be extinguished only with their slaughter. Throughout history, the Jews have offered gods to be followed: they provided the Moses, the Jesus, the Mary, the Saint Paul; more recently, they have laid the intel- lectual foundations of the twentieth century with, among others, Marx, Freud, and Einstein. To paraphrase Benjamin Disraeli, one half of the world worships a Jew (Marx), and the other half of the world worships aJew (Jesus). How to de?ne a Jew? Simple. The Jew is what the human race aspires to be. Failing at that, it turns to desecrate and destroy what it cannot attain. Sidney Halpern Professor of History Temple University Philadelphia, To the Editor: While we are aware that Israel?s friends in the US. are reluctant to express dissent from the Israeli govern- ment?s policy, we feel that certain occasions require the exercise of your right to speak out, especially on moral issues. We are a group of parents whose sons and daughters are serving, or will soon serve, in the Israel Defense Forces. These young people are confronted with the impossible task of maintaining law and order in the densely populated cities and villages of the West Bank and Gaza, whose own young people have risen to protest the long period of Israeli occupation and the absence both of civil rights and the promise of any clear political future. In this situation, our vaunted army, based on universal military conscription (which we applaud), has been turned into a repressive police force. The best of our soldiers are placed in situations where they cannot but carry out orders to beat and shoot civilians, invade homes without warrants, make political arrests without trial, and de- stroy houses. They act under orders and sometimes in sheer self-protection. This is untenable?morally and physically? and cannot but lead to the brutalization and demoralization not of the Pales- tinians, but of our children, together with the loss of life and limb on both sides and the breeding of deep mutual hatred. The Minister of Defense has re- peatedly declared that the solution to the problems of the territories is politi- cal, not military. It is quite clear that soldiers cannot end the uprising, let alone contribute to any solution. No solution whatever?even annexation or transfer, not to mention schemes of autonomy or statehood (based on good neighborly relations)?can be furthered in this way. Many of our children are deeply disturbed, as are we, by the disparity between the moral commitment of our society and the'demeaning behavior into which we, somehow, have slipped. We feel morally obliged to speak up, and we hope that you will join us, if you agree, in efforts to draw attention to this profound error and its disastrous implications. Yoel Klemes, Tamar Liebes, Estelle Schashar The Organizing Committee of Concerned Parents of Israeli Soldiers The Editor Responds: I agree with Mr. Goldman's senti- ments, but it?s incorrect to lump all establishment Jewish organizations to- gether and assume that they support the iron-?st policy of the Israeli govern- ment. American Jewish Congress, for example, passed a resolution before the intifada began in support of an ex- change of land for peace. And the American Jewish Committee, while supporting Commentary magazine and refusing to support Tz'kleun, has as executive director Ira Silverman, who privately supports Israeli peace forces. Yet Mr. Goldman?s assumptions are understandable because both Congress and Committee are nowhere to be seen when real leadership is needed to critique Shamir or his policies. When . Shamir called for a solidarity confer- ence, neither Committee nor Congress made any public statement pressuring Shamir to change his position. When Shamir once again rejected the ?land for peace? idea during his visit to the US. in March, again there was silence from those few Jewish leaders who were not jumping on Shamir?s band- wagon. The reason for this silence, according to some insiders, is simple: though there are some progressives in leadership positions in both organiza- tions who understand that they need to change their image in order to recruit members of the younger-than-?fty gen- eratiOn, the bulk of their big money sources and much of their membership are far more conservative. So the or- ganizations shy away from precisely the kind of high-pro?le con?ict with Shamir that the current situation re- quires. The net effect is that Seymour Reich and his Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations still ap- pears to speak for all of the organized Jewish community?misrepresenting American Jewish opinion and support- ing Shamir?s intransigence. Dr. Rosenthal claims that liberals think Israel can do no right. On the contrary, we are proud of Israel?s many accomplishments and have often ex- coriated Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq for behavior far worse than anything Israel has done in the past two years. But that doesn?t relieve us of the responsibility to criticize behavior that we think is not only immoral but also self-destructive. We hope his blood pressure holds out. Murray Friedman is absolutely cor- rect. The oppression and suffering that Sephardic Jews received in their Arab countries of origin remains a central part of their current consciousness? and the failure of the Ashkenazim who lead the Labor party and the Israeli peace forces to adequately address the resulting scars is one reason the Israeli left is failing. David Olesker and Jessica Kramer- man are right to insist that the PLO speak in one unambiguous voice and that it?s hard to trust the PLO when some of its leaders still talk about a Palestinian state as the ?rst stage in a two-stage process to ?liberate? all of Palestine. Tz'k/eun has called on the PNC to revise its charter. We?ve also urged the PLO to end all military actions against Israel. Yet, as Nabil Shaath of the PNC pointed out in Tz'kkun (May/June 1989), ?terrorism? means a violent attack on civilians?? and attacks on civilians, not attacks on Israeli military targets, are what the PLO has promised to suspend. We think this is inadequate, and we have called on the PLO to suspend these military attacks as well?but we under~ stand why the PLO thinks it is living up to its promises. This kind of literalism on the part of the PLO may win points at the UN, but it will never win the indispensable element that the Pales- tinians need in order to achieve national (Continued on p. 124) LETTERS 5 LETTERS (Continued from p. 5) self-determination, namely, the con?- dence of the Israeli people that a PLO- dominated Palestinian state could be trusted to live in peace with Israel. Still, our call for the PLO to engage in further con?dence-building gestures may fall on deaf ears when Palestinians witness the Israeli army killing and wounding Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Sidney Halpern resembles many post-Holocaust Jews in seeing anti- Semitism as the one strand running through history and unifying all peoples against us. Given the unspeakable atroci- ties committed against us, and the failure of the rest of the world to respond when we were being shoved into the gas chambers and crematoria of Europe, we identify with the pain and outrage that all Jews still feel. Yet our past suffering does not warrant the Israeli occupation of the West Bank or the oppression of the Palestinian people, and a paranoid worldview that considers everyone our enemy is likely to create precisely what it fears. Israel needs strength and security?hence Tikkun has insisted that a Palestinian state must be demilitarized. But Israel is not well-served by people who cannot distinguish between the real enemies of the Jewish people and those who are merely critiquing policies of the current government. If Jewish right-wingers see those aligned with the Israeli peace movement as indistinguishable from Hitler, it?s no wonder that they come up with scenarios for Israel that turn potential allies into enemies. Would that right-wingers listened to the anguish of The Organizing Com- mittee of Concerned Parents of Israeli Soldiers. It is precisely because we have listened to their appeal to ?speak up? that we have been receiving hun- dreds of hate letters from the likes of Sidney Halpern. WELFARE REFORM To the Editor: Howard Jacob Karger and David Stoesz recognize (?Welfare Reform,? Tikkun, March/April 1989) the need to realign the ?welfare? system with basic American values. In my mind, a 124 TIKKUN VOL. 4, N0. 4 perfect system would encourage work, provide an adequate safety net, and help strengthen families. Our current AFDC program has failed on all three counts. The Family Support Act of 1988 is a step in the right direction, though I recognize that many pieces of the puzzle are missing. First, the authors are correct in stat- ing that their complete reliance on a community development approach to providing services and bene?ts will be met by apprehension, even by liberals. As the War on Poverty experience taught us, there is great diversity at the local level with respect to the numbers, experience, and competency of community-based organizations, just as is true of State welfare agencies. The Family Support Act, hbwever, recognizes that some states can rely successfully on a network of local or- ganizations to provide services; there- fore, the act allows states to contract with private organizations, including community-based organizations, to ad- minister the JOBS program. Second, the authors understate the case for child-support enforcement. The child-support enforcement provi- sions are among the most important reform elements of the 1988 Act. The composition of the AFDC population has changed dramatically since the program was established, and since the program?s period of rapid growth in the 19603. Most welfare families today are headed by divorced or never- married women rather than widows, and these women have a right to expect that every reasonable effort will be made to establish and collect child support on their behalf. Most welfare recipients hate welfare, but without child support there is little chance that a signi?cant number can afford to leave the welfare rolls. The child-support provisions are necessary improvements to the child-support system. I ?nd the authors? argument against garnishing wages weak; I cannot believe that a signi?cant number of fathers will quit work just so they do not have to pro- vide support. How will these men support themselves? Children are the lifelong responsibility of both parents. We need to get that message out. It is unfair that mothers on welfare currently shoulder the burden that should be shared by two. Third, I cannot agree more with the authors regarding the increasing poverty and declining income of work- ing families at the bottom of the economic ladder. Unless we provide income supplements to the working poor, there is little hope that we can make more than a dent in the welfare rolls. For this reason, my ?rst act in the recently convened 101st Congress was to introduce, along with Senator Albert Gore (D., Tenn), the Employ- ment Incentives Act of 1988. Over the ?rst ?ve years, this act would, if en- acted, provide close to $34 billion in direct income supplements to families who are working but living in or near poverty. This bill, in combination with minimum-wage legislation and a plan to provide access to health care for the uninsured, is a necessary partner to the Family Support Act. These pieces of legislation will support and encour- age work, and help strengthen families. Representative Thomas J. Downey Acting Chairman Subcommittee on Human Resources Committee on Ways and Means T0 the Editor: Karger and Stoesz?s critique of last autumn?s Family Support Act is co- gent and to the point. However, their article also contains a couple of errors and misrepresentations that are worth correcting. Karger and Stoesz assert that William Julius Wilson has ?discarded academic protocol and acknowledged that many minority communities are literally im- ploding.? If this is to be taken as an admission that the ?culture? of the Black inner city is the major culprit in the exploding rates of unemployment, crime, and teenage pregnancy, I do not think that they have read Wilson?s book, The Truly Disadvantaged, very carefully. While Wilson does waf?e on the issue (substituting the notion of ?concentration effects? for the old truism ?culture of poverty?), he ulti- mately believes that the ?pathological? culture of the Black inner city will evaporate when decent jobs are made available. Granted, this implies an ex- ceedingly ephemeral notion of culture. But it leads Wilson to propose solutions that focus on the need for employment rather than the remaking of people?s ?behavior.? At the same time, he does so with an odd sexist twist. Wilson holds that the ?problem? of female-headed families is the result of a shrinking pool of marriageable men. Why are they unmarriageable? Because they are unemployed?give men jobs, and men and women in the Black inner city will get married in higher numbers once again. Wilson ignores the fact that women throughout America are in- creasingly opting to raise children out- side of marriage?not that it is an easy or often happy alternative, but it is fre- quently a necessary one. The main point is that women, for a variety of good rea- sons, need to have options in the world of work and family life. This means that Black women in the inner city deserve decent work opportunities? just as men do?and they need to have child care that does not leave them fearing for the well-being of their children. It is on these last points that Karger and Stoesz are conspicuously silent. It is ?ne to suggest WPA-style community work projects, but for whom are they intended? If they are intended for fe- male heads of households, who is to take care of the children? Should cer- tain women not have the option to stay home with their young children because they are poor? Why threaten the fragile families of the inner city still further by forcing female heads of households into the work force? The failures of the left on the ques- tion of urban poverty have not resulted from the neglect of ?tough questions such as the social control of the under- class.? Members of the underclass do not need to be ?controlled?; they need the same opportunities that the rest of us receive?to be productive and to construct family life as they see Peter Goldsmith Director of Studies Lecturer, Afro-American Studies Princeton University Princeton, New Jersey To the Editor: Karger and Stoesz make two mis- takes: ?rst, they fail to indicate the af?rmative possibilities of mainstream programs, and, second, they see com- munity development as a sound al- ternative to current welfare reform. From 1945 to 1965, people with moderate and poor incomes registered small gains in income shares. These gains reflected high employment levels and rising wage levels and were visible in the rising relative wage levels of women and minorities. After that, wages and salaries, interest, and pro?ts became more unequally distributed, and the tax system grew less progress- ive. Only dramatically rising social security and other income transfers tended somewhat to correct for an in- crease in inequality. Without improved income transfers, inequality would have been far worse. The status of the aged presents a dramatic illustration of what was achieved. The percentage of poor aged (14 percent) is half of what it was in 1965, owing largely to improved social security. So one should not ignore the possi- bilities for progress through main- stream income transfers. There will certainly be an attempt to cut these transfers back, as Karger and Stoesz say, and that attempt must be fought, but progress is possible as well. President Bush has proposed a $1,000 refundable tax credit for families with children. It may be a move worth supporting. In time, it might come together with the Earned Income Tax Credit in a main- stream subsidy that favors poor families with children?a type of subsidy that among western industrial countries only the United States lacks. Widespread discontent about our health system opens another real pos- sibility for progressive reform. Indeed, some type of legislation will almost certainly be enacted?and it will, no doubt, be represented as reform. The task for progressives will be to dis- tinguish movement toward a genuine national health system from a variety of proposals that will be described as such. Karger and Stoesz?s hope of making community development a basis for welfare reform is romantic. Federal money, or its lack, is at the heart of the problems of welfare departments. Little would have pleased the Reagan govern- ment more than to lay the administra? tion of welfare on local voluntary or quasivoluntary organizations, setting a sum of money on a stump, thus cap- ping costs and denying further respon- sibility. Moreover, it isn?t clear that welfare clients, now deeply humiliated if not denied the assistance to which they are legally entitled, would be treated better by these new community development entities. Especially in the context of the borrowed traditionalist vocabulary?? social contract,? respon- sibility,? and ?productivity? (but when have welfare recipients ever been free of such demands?)?recipients might be treated worse than they now are by welfare departments, if that is possible. I make this plea for welfare recipi- ents. They are hassled; they go hungry and sick; day by day some lose their homes. Whatever progressives empha- size for the middle or long run, we should not casually risk making their circumstances worse. Alvin L. Schorr L. Mayo Professor Case Western Reserve University Cleveland, Ohio Karger and Stoesz respond: We appreciate the care with which Congressman Downey, Professor Gold- smith, and Professor Schorr consid- ered our position on welfare reform. As a group, however, the responses are problematic, given their authors? unwillingness to acknowledge three prerequisites to authentic welfare re- form. First, contrary to liberal ortho- doxy, a portion of the poor is not like the middle class, a reality starkly evident in the American underclass. Second, a primary obstacle to improv- ing the life chances of the poor is a pernicious welfare bureaucracy that is perceived by taxpayers and welfare recipients as siphoning off vast sums of money that could be put to better use. Third, welfare proposals that fail to consider the current economic reality?for example, the creation of vast numbers of minimum-wage jobs? are doomed to failure. The inability of liberals to grapple with these issues leaves any welfare reform proposal ripe for ideological attack. Representative Downey?s $34 billion Employment Incentives Act, while ar- guably justi?able, is unlikely to see the light of the House ?oor because of liberal intransigence on these issues. (Senator Kennedy?s modest?by com- parison?$200 million Minimum Bene- ?ts for All Workers Act stalled in committee.) At the heart of the problem is the liberal insistence that all of the poor exhibit mainstream behavior and have mainstream aspirations, a pre- sumption that is exploded by anyone with enough courage to stroll down New York Avenue in the nation?s cap- ital. When a signi?cant number of the poor fail to live up to bourgeois stan- dards, liberal welfare proposals founder on the shoals of social reality. For ex- ample, after several years, proponents TIKKUN VOL. 4, N0. 4 125 of child-support enforcement can claim recovery of no more than 15 percent of expenditures for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). While some fathers choose not to ful?ll their familial obligations, on an annual wage of less than $6,500 a year (the minimum wage) some fathers of kids on AFDC simply cannot. At best, child-support payments taken out of a minimum-wage paycheck will have only symbolic value. If policy makers believe that a token payment has moral value, then who are we to argue? Proposals now on the table, a $1,000 tax credit for poor families with chil- dren, for example, will not address the life circumstances of underclass Ameri- cans who either can?t wait for a tax refund or couldn?t care less about complying with something as irrelevant as an Internal Revenue Service ?ling deadline. Similarly, liberal proposals focused solely on providing ?decent work opportunities? for the underclass are inadequately conceived so long as the proposals fail to recognize that people without essential work skills and inclinations will not take advantage of them without some compelling reasons. So, back to our premise: Why not cashier the public welfare bureaucracy for some bold experiments in social re- construction? Unfortunately, liberals who remember the turbulent days of the Community Action Program are unlikely to embrace a community devel- opment strategy for welfare reform. Yet the times are propitious for doing just that. There is little doubt that Jack Kemp will place Urban Enterprise Zone legislation before this Congress, and that offers liberals a chance to offer some creative proposals for con- tending with the underclass problem. Of course, liberals can opt for con- ventional prescriptions for alleviating poverty: pumping megasums into pro~ grams that are irrelevant to many of the poor, and that are administered by an archaic bureaucracy that has no stake in whether these efforts suc- ceed. That route is familiar and safe. But liberals have to do more than that if they are to command once again the middle ground in the welfare policy debate. Liberals must jettison traditional income-maintenance strate- gies and deal seriously with problems presented by the underclass and the welfare bureaucracy. Progressives ul- timately stand to gain more from being realistic about the substantial problems confronting American social welfare than by indulging in romanticism. El WHAT KIND OF (Continued from p. 37) garde. The adjective ?Jewish? doesn?t by itself rule out these (or many other) possibilities. But if we give it its broadest sense, allow it to incorporate the full range of Jewish experience in the modern world, then it points toward a liberal state in which clerics and anticlerics, rabbis and secular intellectuals, peacefully (I don?t mean harmoniously) coexist. V. iberalism, however, isn?t only for the Jews. We still need to ask how the adjective ?Jewish? can modify a state that includes Arabs as free and equal citizens. Obviously, if ?Jewish? is a strong adjective, the inclusion of Arabs is impossible; at best, they would be granted the same kind of corporate autonomy that Jews enjoyed (some of the time, in some places) in the centuries before emancipation. Like the Jews again, they would be denied civil rights. But we have reason to know that arrangements of this sort make for a precarious and vulnerable existence; having ourselves escaped from them, we would have dif?culty explaining why we were prepared to impose them on another people. In any case, corporate autonomy works best under conditions of benevolent absolutism or imperial rule; it isn?t compatible with democratic self-government. So: How can a Jewish state, committed to democracy, include Arabs? Some people, worrying about this ques- tion (it needs to be worried about!), decided long ago that it was necessary to ?nd another adjective. Since 126 TIKKUN VOL. 4, N0. 4 states need adjectives, since political communities must be identi?ed in some determinate way with their own citizens, we must look, they argued, for an identity that predates or transcends the Arab/Jewish distinction. The number of possibilities is fairly limited?Semite, Canaanite, Hebrew, Israeli?and none of them is quite satisfactory. For names of this sort are not matters of mere willfulness, used and disused as we please. Of course, they don?t correspond to essences; names and identities are social constructions. But they are con- structed over many years and many generations; they tap into the deepest levels of collective self-consciousness. There is no contemporary (or, for that matter, historical) group of Arabs and Jews that answers to the name of Semite or Canaanite; Hebrew is the name of a language that Israeli Jews and Arabs speak, but not the name of a people or a culture; and Israeli is a name still to be tested, an indication of civic status, not yet of cultural or (for the Arabs at least) of national belonging. It is probably better to acknowledge the separate identities of the two peoples rather than to search for some arti?cial unity. The Arabs are a minority that should be included in Israel much as Jewish minorities, after emancipation, are included in states where most of their fellow citizens are non-Jews. Or, more generally, Arabs should be included much as any national minority is included in a ?liberal? state shaped by, and in some sense for, the majority nation. There are many examples of such inclusion, enough of them problematic, however, so that'some further description is required. I will try to indicate the conditions that might justify this particu- lar kind of majority rule. But I don?t mean to suggest that these conditions already exist, either in Israel or