To the Editor:

In July, COMMENTARY published an article by Edward Alexander, “Operation Moses,” which questions the actions of the Alliance Israélite Universelle [AIU] on behalf of the Ethiopian Falashas.

Mr. Alexander refers to two missions sent by our society to Abyssinia (as Ethiopia was then called), the first in 1867-68 under the direction of Joseph Halévy, the second in 1908 led by Haîm Nahum and Dr. Eberlin.

We do not know from what sources Mr. Alexander took his information on these expeditions, but we must correct several of his assertions which are not accurate.

1. Halévy’s expedition is known from two letters and a report which, contrary to what Mr. Alexander says, the Alliance did not refuse to publish: this report figures in extenso in the Bulletin semestrial de l’AIU, first semester 1868, pp. 85-102; the preliminary letters of the Halévy mission appear in the AIU bulletin, second semester 1867, p. 17 and first semester 1868, pp. 56-60. These texts are available for consultation in Paris at the Alliance library, in Jerusalem at the Ben-Zvi Institute library, and at the Harvard University library (in microfiche). According to his own testimony, moreover, Halévy visited only one part of Abyssinia and described the life of the Falashas of other provinces on the basis of accounts that were brought to him.
2. Joseph Halévy actually referred in his report (p. 88) to the difficulties he encountered in persuading some of the Falasha tribes that he was a “white Jew”; but we cannot find any indication anywhere that his testimony was suppressed on his return to Paris or that the Alliance treated the two young Falashas he brought back with him as “slaves whom he had bought in the market of Massuah,” as Mr. Alexander states. On the contrary, Narcisse Leven, secretary and future president of the Alliance, said in his report to the general assembly, January 11, 1869 (see AIU bulletin, first semester 1868, pp. 27-28), that the Falashas “belong to the great Israelite family. . . . [M. Halévy] has brought us a young Falasha whom we have placed in our preparatory school [the future Ecole Normale Israélite Orientale, founded in 1867] and who will return to his country, educated and capable of educating his co-religionists.” However, the young man was not able to stand the European climate and had to be sent back to his own country.
3. For various reasons (the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71; the development of schools in the Mediterranean basin; political difficulties in Abyssinia, etc.), the Alliance had to abandon its humanitarian projects on behalf of the Falashas. But it did help in the publication of several works by Joseph Halévy, especially his famous “Prayer of the Falashas,” written in the ancient Ethiopic language Ge’ez, as Mr. Alexander notes.
4. It was not until the summer of 1904 that Jacques Faitlovitch, a student of Joseph Halévy, was able to attempt an expedition of a few weeks to Abyssinia. This expedition, financed jointly by the Alliance and Baron Edmond de Rothschild, also brought back two young Falashas who were placed in the Ecole Normale Israélite Orientale. Two excerpts from Faitlovitch’s report were published in the AIU bulletin for 1905, pp. 96-104. The complete report was published by Leroux, Paris, 1905.
5. In response to the development in Europe of a favorable current of opinion toward the Falashas, the Alliance sent a third mission in 1908, under the direction of Haîm Nahum, professor at the rabbinical seminary of Constantinople and future grand rabbi of Turkey, and a young doctor, Dr. Eberlin. The nature of this mission, which was to establish the size of the population and assess its social and economic situation, was set forth in the AIU bulletin for 1907, pp. 87-90, along with the text of the official letter sent to Emperor Ménélik, who received the two Alliance emissaries on March 6, 1908.
6. The Nahum-Eberlin report, which appeared in March 1909, was published in the AIU bulletin for 1908, pp. 100-137, accompanied by a map of their itinerary and photographs. It is completely incorrect to claim, as Mr. Alexander does, that this report denied the Jewish character of the Falashas. On the contrary, it made much of the great originality of their culture, of the precariousness of their political situation, and advised extreme caution in any future European cultural intervention in order to preserve what today we would call their “identity.” The report advocated progressive waves of emigration to the capital of Italian Eritrea and the introduction of the Falashas to manual labor and to new agricultural techniques. Finally, for reasons of practicality, the report counseled against the creation of schools because of the extremely low density of the Falasha population, which was scattered over a vast territory.

While it is to be regretted that nothing concrete was attempted until quite recently to save the Falashas from their misery, the Alliance is nevertheless proud to have been the first international organization to affirm the Jewish character of these African tribes so long ignored by the general publish. Since to this day scholars themselves have not been able to resolve the question of the origins of the Falashas—are they indigenous, converted Africans, Semitic invaders who established themselves in Africa?—it is not up to the Alliance to take a position in regard to this problem.

Jacques Levy [Director]
Georges Weill [Curator of the Library and Archives]
L’Alliance Israélite Universelle
Paris, France

_____________

To the Editor:

I read Edward Alexander’s article with considerable interest, and would like to offer some comments concerning the unfortunate disclosure of the rescue operation of the Ethiopian Jews that led to its halt in January 1985.

Mr. Alexander writes that Arye Dulzin, chairman of the Jewish Agency, “all but revealed it [Israel’s rescue effort] in a statement to the press in early December.” In fact, Mr. Dulzin made his disclosure even earlier, on November 21, 1984, in a speech to the American section of the World Zionist Organization, when he said:

While I am not free to discuss it publicly, I can tell you that the Jewish Agency is preparing for a sudden jump in emigration. . . . One of the ancient tribes of Israel is due to return to its homeland. . . . We will take pride in what we have already achieved in this most difficult and complex operation.

What had indeed been an open secret in some circles quickly became a matter of public record and press attention—with ultimately devastating effect.

Mr. Alexander then states that “. . . the American and Israeli press had in general showed rare and admirable self-restraint in withholding the story. . . .” Yet if the press showed restraint prior to November 21, it certainly showed much less thereafter.

On November 23, the Jewish Week of New York carried a frontpage story with the headline: “Reveal Plan for Rescue of Falashas; Israel Prepares for Absorption of Thousands of Ethiopian Jews.” On November 28, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency carried a page-three story: “Dulzin: Jewish Agency Is Preparing for a Sudden Jump in Immigration,” which clearly referred to the Ethiopian Jews. On December 6, despite the strenuous efforts of Israeli and American Jewish leaders, the Washington Jewish Week published a front-page article entitled: “An Ancient Tribe Returns Home: The Ethiopian Exodus Has Begun.” Then, specifically citing “articles . . . in the Jewish press” and the Washington Jewish Week story in particular, the New York Times, which had indeed shown restraint by sitting on the story for a considerable time, published a front-page piece headlined “Airlift to Israel Is Reported Taking Thousands of Jews from Ethiopia.”

The next day, in a particularly damaging story carried by leading newspapers in Miami, Philadelphia, and other major cities, William Beecher of the Boston Globe reported on a “dramatic, secret operation” involving “unmarked planes” and “boats pulling in surreptitiously along the Red Sea coast near Port Sudan” and “sympathetic Sudanese military men providing protection.” He cited diplomatic sources reporting on the role of the U.S. as “intermediary in getting Sudanese officials and Israeli agents together to set up the complex logistics for the humanitarian mission.” Beecher went on to say that “American officials also urged news organizations that found out about the operation, including the Globe, not to print the story prematurely. . . .” He even went so far as to quote an American official that, “We’ve got to get them [Ethiopian Jews in the Sudan] out as quickly as possible before it comes to public attention and the whole thing collapses” (emphasis added).

Almost beyond belief, this article was written when thousands of Ethiopian Jews were still languishing in camps and other thousands remained behind in their native villages. As a result of these revelations, individuals involved in the rescue operation were perilously exposed, and the already shaky Sudanese government, a moderate regime in the Arab world and a U.S. ally, could only be further exposed to internal and external opposition elements.

Yes, it is undoubtedly true that the original leak came from an Israeli leader and the halt to the operation resulted most immediately from the unfortunate Israeli government confirmation in early January. At the same time, however, I would question whether the American press, and more specifically the Anglo-Jewish press which initiated the coverage, acted with proper restraint, or whether it unwittingly contributed, to some degree at least, to the premature cancellation of what had up to that point been one of the most daring and humanitarian rescue operations in modern history.

Finally, it is well worth noting that while there were predictably vicious interpretations of the rescue operation offered by Soviet and Arab commentators, as well as the West German source cited by Mr. Alexander, there was, happily, recognition in other non-Jewish circles of its importance. Let me cite two examples. Marvin Arrington, president of the Atlanta City Council and a black, wrote in an op-ed piece in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution (January 20, 1985):

As no group of people has ever done, the people of Israel have demonstrated that we are our brothers’ keepers and that kinship transcends race. A tiny nation of approximately three million people has shown the world clearly that we can live by our loftiest ideals. As we recall the contribution of Martin Luther King, Jr. on the anniversary of his birth, I am proud to say, “Martin, look how well your dream works.”

And, second, in a letter to Secretary of State Shultz (February 21, 1985) urging continued U.S. efforts to secure the emigration of those Ethiopian Jews who had not yet reached Israel, Julius Chambers, the director-general of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, wrote:

Were the victims of the Ethiopian famine white, countless nations might have offered them refuge. But the people dying every day of starvation in Ethiopia and the Sudan are black, and in a world where racism is officially deplored by virtually every organized government, only one non-African nation has opened its doors and its arms. The quiet humanitarian action of the state of Israel, action taken entirely without regard to the color of those being rescued, stands as a condemnation of racism far more telling then mere speeches and resolutions.

Messrs. Arrington and Chambers eloquently remind us, in this the tenth year since the passage of the infamous Zionism-is-racism resolution, of the special significance of the effort undertaken by Israel, and supported by its friends, in seeking to bring home the Ethiopian Jewish community after more than 2,000 years of exile.

David A. Harris
Deputy Director, International Relations
American Jewish Committee
New York City

_____________

Edward Alexander writes:

I am grateful to Jacques Levy and Georges Weill for the fullness of their documentation of the Alliance’s involvement in the expeditions of Halévy, Faitlovitch, and Nahum to Ethiopia. I believe that the unflattering story, often repeated (for example, by Moshe Dor in Ma’ariv, January 11, 1985), of the AIU’s reception of Joseph Halévy’s report and recommendations originated with Nahum Sokolow’s portrait of Halévy. I ought to have specified that Halévy was unable to get the AIU’s permission to publish the report in book form.

Messrs. Levy and Weill mention the 1904 expedition of Faitlovitch but say nothing about his 1908 expedition, which began just a few months after Haîm Nahum, the representative of the Alliance, arrived in Addis Ababa. The reason the two expeditions coincided but did not join is, of course, well-known: Faitlovitch believed that the Alliance had ignored Halévy’s recommendations and was still cool to the whole idea of involvement in the plight of the Ethiopian Jews. Faitlovitch disapproved of Rabbi Nahum because he did not speak Amharic, did not understand the extent of the bad impression he made upon the Ethiopian Jews by his traveling on the Sabbath, and allowed himself to be duped by local Ethiopian officials into underestimating the size of the Jewish population (by something like 87 percent). All this is fully recounted in Faitlovitch’s Quer durch Abessinien (1910).