4 Thursday, October 25, 1973 University Daily Kansan KANSAN comment Editorials, columns and letters published on this page reflect only the opinions of the writers. Israel's Right to Be The latest episode of the Middle East war has renewed the dispute over whom to blame for initiating the conflict. Who is the aggressor, the Israelis or the Arabs? An answer to this question would help determine what position the United States should take in the ticklish issue of whether to continue aiding Israel. Americans are justifiably reluctant to risk enmeshing the United States in another foreign intervention after the tortuous experience in Vietnam. Yet there is a certain moral and humanitarian justification for aiding Israel, and the Jewish state has the important advantages of a highly skilled army and a legitimate, passionately popular government that other U.S. allies have lacked. The Israeli don't want American troops. They want enough arms to survive. Who has rightful claim to Palestine? Arab proponents point out that the Middle East is traditionally an Arab domain. Israel's backers retort that the Jewish people have populated Palestine since 1200 B.C. The discussion usually ends when a moderate declares that the claims and counter-claims are too confusing and that there are no good guys and bad guys in the Middle East, only two bad boys fighting with Soviet and American arms. The moderate's view is that all wars are ridiculous and that both participating parties should share the blame. But a quick historical look at the initiation of the struggle reveals the true aggressor. Palestine was controlled by the Turkish Ottoman empire until the British captured it during World War I. Arthur Balfour, British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs promised Palestinian Jews the creation of a Jewish national home in the Balfour Declaration. The British Palestinian Mandate detached four-fifths of Palestine to form Trans-Jordan, now the Kingdom of Jordan, in 1922. Jordan was and is an Arab state. Because of Arab pressure, no action was taken on the creation of a Jewish state until after World War II. When thousands of Jewish immigrants sought entrance to Israel after they were held in captivity, the humiliation plea of the Jews and the wrath of the Arab nations, which controlled oil and the valuable Suez Canal. The British wanted out of Palestine and out of the dilemma. The Arabs actually gained political territory rather than losing it. The creation of Israel was sanctioned by the United States, with right to exist is justified on both legal and humanitarian grounds. The Republic of Israel declared its independence May 14, 1948. Within hours the armies of the surrounding Arab states assaulted Israel's newly claimed borders. The Israelis, though greatly outnumbered, fought off the attack and from that day until today the Middle East has essentially been in constant warfare. The Arabs attacked immediately after Israel's declaration of independence. The Arab nations have declared that they will not put away their arms as long as Israel exists. That accounts for the constant Arab pressure against Israel and the continuing struggle in the Middle East. It also accounts for the defensive precaution of occupying the surrounding territory Israel has insisted upon. The U.N. General Assembly voted Nov. 29, 1947, to partition Palestine into two areas, one be absorbed into the Arabian Peninsula and the other to form a Jewish nation. Thus, 55 per cent of Palestine fell under Jewish control. The legitimacy of the Jewish state seems obvious. Of the total area of Palestine only one-tenth was delegated to Jewish control. The rest were from the Arabs but was carved out of British controlled territory. There are 100 million Arabs and three million Israelis. Israel is a tiny piece of land surrounded by avowed enemies. It has endured great courage, determination, and ingenuity and it deserves a tribute from the rest of the world and the chance to survive. -Bill Gibson Power Politics Nixon has continually chastised Sen. Sam Ervin's Senate Select Committee, arguing that the Watergate investigation that he said should be left to the courts. R. Buckminster Fuller, philosopher and scientist, has said that politics consists of an in-party who is afraid to change position for fear that the out-party, who is always waiting in the wings to take over, will decry any move as a dangerous change in posture. But leaving Watergate to the courts resulted in a subpoena of the President's tapes and papers by Archibald Cox, special Watergate lawyer, who lower courts rendered unfavorable judgments, Nixon backed off. Is this now the case? Is the outparty finding in Richard Nixon's new outrageous move only a chance to take power itself? Or are there substantial issues at stake that underlie talk of impeachment? He had said he would abide by a definitive decision of the Supreme Court. And all the nation's people were waiting to hear what the court would say and whether Nixon would defy it. Instead, the President avoided any possibility of open confrontation with the Supreme Court by offering a compromise. He said he would let Sen. John Stennis review the tapes and check the summary Nixon would write himself. Stennis was assured by the President that he would have a free hand in reviewing the tapes. But isn't that what Archibald Cox was promised before he agreed to take over the prosecuting of Watergate blunderers, among whom were men one step from the President? Would Nixon's proposed compromise even answer the crucial questions for which the tapes were originally boenaaed? No. A summary of his discussion with John Dean III in the Oval Office would not solve the problems of context and semantics on which the truth of Dean's testimony lies. Because his summary offer was rejected by all parties, Nixon had no other option to protect his tenuous position but to fire Cox and the resignation of Bill Richardson and William Kuckaus. Talk of impeachment a year ago would not have been believed after such a decisive victory over George McGovern. Yet the word is now bandied about by shocked and stunned legislators of both parties. But his year has been marked with incredible revelations. It is inconceivable that even Nixon would have carried his superiority complex to the judiciary by daring to defy any judgment, definitive or otherwise, down from the Supreme Court. For impeachment to become a reality, however, seemingly insurmountable barriers would have to be overcome. Partisan politics would have to be put aside for Republicans to favor an action that might put a Democrat in the White House. Democrats may be the might have Gerald Ford as vice president before either faction would be able to decide the case on its merits alone. Beyond that, Nixon, our master of diplomacy, holds a trump card. Security at home and abroad may outcome of the Middle East war. It is doubtful that Congress would seriously attempt to dislodge Nixon in the midst of this international crisis. Odd how his position seems so secure despite such flagrant disregard for the laws of the land. Is he really a master checkers player? Could he have planned it all? --Linda Hales Has U.S. Family Been Neglected? Hearings Say New Policies Overlook Family Impact By ISABEL SAWHILL Special to the Washington Post WASHINGTON—Has America really neglected the family? What evidence is there that family life is less than satisfactory or that children and their parents are less well-off than they used to be? In hearings before Sen. Walter Mondale's, D-Minn., subcommittee on children and youth last week, a number of witnesses described the pressures affecting American families and noted that our government has paid far too little attention to the way in which some of its own policies have contributed to these pressures. In Mondale's view, government policies are having unintended and often negative effects on family life. Our welfare and tax laws, our housing programs and work patterns are often carelessly designed with no thought given to how they may contribute to the integrity of the family and undermine the well-being of children and youth. They agreed with the senator that one solution would be to require a Family Impact Statement to accompany all existing and proposed government programs similar to those required for the environment. CERTAINLY THE NUCLEAR FAMILY is becoming less stable and, perhaps, less prevalent. Whether one looks at far out experiments with communal living, the swinging singles scene or census statistics, there is evidence of change. Young women are marrying at a slower rate than at any time in the century. Those who do marry are planning to have, on the average, one child less than their counterpart, and they are generally rising proportion of these women say they are not going to have any children. In the meantime, the probability of divorcing after, say, six to nine years of marriage has more than doubled in the postwar period, with the result that almost one-third of all first marriages can be predicted to dissolve eventually. and although the divorced are remarrying in large numbers, the reshuffling of marriage partners and of children is still ongoing there are increasing numbers of women and their children living, at least temporarily, in fatherless homes. In 1972, 14 per cent of all families with children had a female head, up from 10 per cent as recently as Is this a cause for alarm? WE KNOW THAT female-headed families have economic problems. Their median income in 1989 was $4,000, as compared with men's $7,500. They also generate serious social problems—unrelated to their economic position or to the conditions which led to female-headedness in the first place. How do they manage this ambilitary—is more difficult to document. Low income itself may lead to a greater incidence of juvenile delinquency, lower rates of child abuse and homelessness. the children in these families, but there is less evidence that the absence of the father, per se, is the cause of these problems. Where mothers have sufficient economic resources to attend school, study suggests the children suffer little from living with one parent. The rates at which families are formed, grow and dissolve tell only part of the story. For it appears that even stable, middle- or working-class families face new pressures. Witness after witness before Mondale's subcommittee spoke, sometimes viguously, an elementity of the problems of these families; not enough time, of enough money. SEN. MONDALE WAS SYMPATHETIC but puzzelied. Why, he asked, when family income has doubled in the postwar period—aren't families better off than ever? There are, of course, a number of possible explanations, including the cliche that money isn't everything and that expectations may have risen faster than income. Moreover, people really may be in love with the kind of measuring such things, it is possible, and often more interesting, to pretend that they're not. Finally, we could point out that the dramatic rise in the employment of married women has contributed both to family income and to family pressures. Forty percent of all married women, and more than half of those with school-age children, are HISTORICALLY, WOMEN have moved into the labor force in response to the demand for their services. It is quite common that women are insufficient number of jobs for them and that continued expansion of the female labor force will depress female earnings (as it appears to have done in the postwar period). Women may opt for full-time careers within the home. A study conducted by the New York State College of Human Ecology shows that the husbands of working wives are no more helpful around the house than the spouses of women working in a kitchen, these wives who help to bring home bacon are getting little help in cooking it. working while carrying on their usual duties at home. Much will depend on the management of aggregate demand, which areas of the economy expand most rapidly and the rate at which women are able to enter traditionally male occupations. The nature of these in areas (guarantee-ful full employment and equal job opportunities) may well determine the outcome. In view of the pressures noted, it might be tempting to structure various policies in a way which would discourage women from participating in the labor force were politically possible, I doubt that this would be wise. Unless they are provided with other options, women will continue to fill their time with home and children, thus increasing their health and eventually to ecological disaster. IN MANY RESPECTS, what is happening to the household sector is similar to what happened to the farm sector at an earlier time. Improvements in productivity within the home and on the farm, combined with a relatively slow rate of long-term growth in the demand for both food and children (or a substitution of quality for quantity), have reduced the cost of labor. This has provided subsidized labor to fuel the growth of a high-technology economy with its burgeoning, but increasingly professional, service needs. As a way of life with many noneconomic advantages, both the farm and the traditional household have strong emotional appeal, and their loss will undoubtedly be mourned for years. It would probably be a mistake, however, to subsidize the economic inefficiencies of the individual household just as it has been a mistake to subsidize its poverty. Their poverty has its roots in these inefficiencies. The long-run solution almost certainly lies in shifting human resources to areas where their potential can be fully developed. In the meantime, just as in the case of agriculture, policymakers will have to concern themselves with the problems of deforestation and climate change laws and welfare reform. If America has neglected the family, it is large because attitudes and public policies have failed to keep pace with fundamental social change. In addition, our research associate at the Urban Institute.* Oil Tapping Gets Defense Approval The Los Angeles Times By THOMAS J. FOLEY WASHINGTON—Defense officials said last week that the Nixon administration was preparing to ask Congress for authority to open the EIk Hills naval oil reserve for a single year's production to help ease the crisis. The officials' endorsement of the plan was the first time the Defense Department had proposed tapping the rich reserves for military use. The administration slumped, tapping the reserves. They revealed the plan for temporary production Wednesday in testimony before the House Armed Services Investigation subcommittee, most of whose members indicated opposition to lifting the ceiling on production at the Kern County reserve. President Nixon first proposed tapping the vast oil reserves in a message to Congress last month. However, there was an error then that the plan would be temporary. CONGRESS, LED BY its two armed services committees, has always jealously guarded the 40,000-acre reserve, which has proven deposits of about one billion barrels of oil. The reserve was originally set aside in 1912 to supply the Navy with oil in an emergency. Congress authorized partial production only once, during World War II. The proposal to tap Elk Hills oil was made before the outbreak of fire in the Middlebury area. Jack L. Bowers, assistant secretary of the Navy for installations and logistics, mentioned the one-year aspect of the ad- dition of NAV plans for the reserve questions about Navy plans for the reserve. The subcommittee had been told earlier by Robert Rothwell, deputy director of the General Accounting Office, that the Navy was not maintaining the reserve in a state of readiness so oil could be produced on an emergency basis. ROTHWELL ALSO SAID that the Navy had proposed further exploration and development of the reserve in April but that the President had not acted on the plan. Asked about the Navy plan, Bowers testified that the Navy had proposed spending $23 million over a five-to-ten-year period to improve its capacity to produce and carry oil from the reserve when needed. But it was also able to produce 160,000 barrels a day. When asked what had happened to the Navy's proposal, Bowers replied that the administration's plan was only for a one-year increase in production to lake care of A subsequent witness, Arthur I. Mendola, assistant secretary of defense for installations and logistics, said the department's one-year plan "to alleviate hardship." Committee Chairman F. Edward Hebert, D-La., said Mendolia's concession marked the first time in history that the oil company used the oil for anything but national defense. Mendola replied, "It is the only time in recent history that the United States has faced an acute shortage of oil." Mendolia indicated after the hearing that the one-year limitation was an effort to assure congressional support for opening up Elk Hills. During the hearing he conceded while answering questions from Rep. Dan Keefer, who said that Congress, it was "most unlikely to be temporary because there are not many other solutions in night" to the energy crisis. He said it should be looked at on a very basis. Rep. Charles S. Gubser, R-Calf, was the only committee member who appeared to support the proposal. He noted that a state power generation company in California would be short more than 50 million barrels of oil per year. Gubser said failure to increase supplies of oil would mean "the lights will go out" in California. Medolia said a power shortage would have an adverse effect on military bases and "probably on our defense suppliers in the state." The defense officials said Eik Hills could be producing 150,000 barrels a day within 60 hours. Hebert said Congress had not yet received the proposal in legislative form and could not pass it. not act until early spring if it's not a full sun. A single year's product will produce better results but should decrease the proven reserves by about 5 per cent, according to the defense officials. Griff and the Unicorn by Sokoloff F The Navy has a contract with Standard Oil of California to operate the wells in the reserve. Navy witnesses testified that it had acquired an oil field in the market. The market price is about $5 a barrel. Rep. Sam Stratton, D-N.Y., said the entire reserve would supply the nation's power needs for only about a month and a half. Standard Oil owns some of the land within the reserve. Under the contract with the Navy, Standard receives 30 per cent of the proceeds from any oil sold from one part of the reserve and 16 per cent from another section. The Navy gets the rest. THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN An All-American college newspaper Kansan Telephone Numbers Newroom-UN-4410 Phone number: 576-234-1234 Published at the University of Kansas daily for publication and examination periods. Mail subscription rates: $8 for a one-hour lecture; $15 for a two-hour lecture; $25 for a lawrence, Kan. 60043. Student subscription rate: $15. Some students in student groups may be advertised offered to all students within regards prouce are not necessarily those of the Universities whose subscription rates are not necessary. NEWS STAFF NEWS STAFF News adviser . . . Susanne Shaw Editor Bob Simpson Assistant Campus Editor Campus Editor Chuck Potter Editorial Editor C Feature Editor Kim Jendell Sports Editor Gary Isaacson Copy Chicks Hal Ritter, Bait Harley, Bob Marcieau, Ann Merren News Editors Bob Marcieau, Liz Zimmerman Jo Zanatta Reviewers Editor Diane Bain Associate Campus Editors Margie Cook, Chris Stevens Assistant Campus Editors Kathy Tusting, Assistant Feature Editor Katherine Karenilow Assistant Sports Editor Bill Gibbon, Carol Gowl Photographer Linda Hales, Eric Meyer Makeup Editor Bob Marcieau, Jo Zanatta, Customists Steve Carpenter, Dave Sokoff, RUSINESS STAFF Business Advisor Mel Adams Business Advertiser Lizette Liggett Advertising Manager Diana Schmidt Advertising Manager Daniel Schmidt Classified Advertising Manager David Runke Assistant Advertising Manager Tara Thompson Assistant Advertising Manager Tara Thompson Assistant Advertising Manager Tara Thompson Member Associated Collegiate Press