A Schlimazel Glitch

Watch out for the glitch!

The Washington, D.C., affliction for which we had no name now has been identified by President Jimmy Carter.

This valuable contribution to political science surfaced last week during the raging controversy over a United Nations vote demanding that Israel dismantle its settlements in former Arab territories.

U.S. Ambassador Donald McHenry joined in the Security Council resolution, making it unanimous.  The reaction of Israel and the World Synagogue Council of America was both immediate and awesome.

After a three-day firestorm, the president called in the Israel ambassador and U.S. Jewish leaders and said it was all a "glitch."

Presumably this was supposed to explain everything to his Jewish audience.  But Herbert Berman, treasurer of the World Jewish Congress, was less than entranced.

"I haven't been able to find a definition of what a glitch is in Webster's Dictionary, but the explanation that was given to me was that although U.S. policy was contrary to Ambassador.  McHenry's vote, Ambassador McHenry was not aware of U.S. policy," fumed Berman.  "I find that incredible."

Equally incredible is Berman's failure to understand and appreciate Carter's description.  It is a great word well deserving a permanent place in the lexicon of politics.

A delightful book titled "The Joy of Yiddish," by Leo Rosten, defines a glitch as: "skid on a slippery surface, a risky undertaking, a shady affair."

You said it, Mr. President, not me.

Carter claims that the UN vote was a "blunder," a "breakdown in communication." He says it wasn't his fault, and it wasn't McHenry's fault.  Then, guess who?

Secretary of state Cyrus Vance announced that he "accepts" responsibility for the snafu, his choice of word suggesting a statesman-like shielding of a subordinate rather than an admission of personal guilt.

There is no credibility available.  The affair has all the earmarks of having occurred accidentally on purpose.

This commentator happened to be attending a two-day foreign policy briefing at the state department when the UN vote blew up.  We asked Ambassador McHenry the equivalent question, "What did you know, and when did you know it?" his answer was evasive: "No useful purpose would be served by going into that."

Such interview formality is routine for journalists and officials.  The questions and answers are predictable.  The speed of reply, the fleeting expression, the tone of voice - these are the subtle communicators.

Ambassador McHenry clearly feels put upon and is dismayed by the ineptitude displayed.  The tribulations of his predecessor, Andrew Young, must loom large.

Overshadowed by the ruckus is a new tilt in U.S. foreign policy.  No longer is it intended that in the Mideast we will be the tail on an Israeli kite.

Recent events require an even-handedness with all nations in that part of the world.  We need friends to get our hostages out of Iran.  We need allies to help us stop Russia in Afghanistan.  We need cooperative oil producers in the Persian Gulf.

Carter moved cautiously to accomplish these objectives.  On two previous UN resolutions he directed McHenry to criticize Israeli settlements but to abstain from voting.

In the present instance, the Arab nations applied their new found leverage with the U.S. -- it was put up or shut up.  McHenry asked for instructions.  It was decided "at the highest levels" that the U.S. would have to stand closer to the Arabs.

A Friday vote was postponed while McHenry negotiated elimination of an offensive paragraph.  It called on Israel to refrain from interference in the "religious freedoms and practices in Jerusalem and other holy places in occupied Arab territories."

Our ambassador cabled the revised resolution to Vance who then discussed it by phone with the president week-ending at Camp David.  On Saturday morning Vance reportedly told McHenry to get the dismantling proviso deleted if he could, but to vote yes in any case.  That afternoon the deed was done.

Jewish outrage mounted until Carter recanted in a late night statement Monday.  He said he meant all references to Jerusalem omitted.  Seven remained.

We are asked to believe it took the administration the better part of three days to discover its mistake.

In short, it appears that the administration meant to vote as it did on the substance of the resolution but did not mean to use strong rhetoric.

Few observers have yet grasped the basic alarm of Israel - defacto recognition of a Palestinian state.

Left in the resolution - and not disputed even now by the White House -- is this language:

"All measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity."

This is the first tine the concept of Palestinian territory has found its way into an official document.  It sprays gasoline on a forest fire.

Nevertheless, the UN resolution now is on record.  Neither the vote nor the explanation changes anything.  Israel rejected the resolution and elected a new foreign minister dedicated to rapid Jewish settlement.  Arabs scorned the U.S. flip-flop and reaffirmed their opposition to the Egypt-Israel peace treaty compromises.

Mr. Carter has succeeded only in establishing himself as a schlimazel -- another Yiddish word meaning "a chronically unlucky person, someone for whom nothing seems to go right or turn out well, when he winds a clock it stops."

Home