To the Editor:
I was disappointed in Norman Podhoretz’s article, “What Is Anti-Semitism? An Open Letter to William F. Buckley, Jr.” [February], because he made no real effort to define anti-Semitism. For example, he quotes himself as follows: “Historically anti-Semitism has taken the form of labeling certain vices and failings as specifically Jewish when they are in fact common to all humanity . . . as though Jews were uniquely or disproportionately guilty of . . . those sins.” He complains that Buckley’s response to this is obtuse. . . . But surely it is true that Jews—or any other ethnic, religious, or racial group—have their characteristic vices. I don’t think Mr. Podhoretz would want to slap the “anti-Semitism” label on a truth. No doubt there are also vices which are uncharacteristic of Jews. If someone says: “Jews display vice X in greater proportion than mankind as a whole, and they display vice Y in lesser proportion,” would Mr. Podhoretz want to label his remark “half anti-Semitic, half pro-Semitic”? . . .
One might say that the attribution of a characteristic vice to Jews is anti-Semitic in cases where the attribution is incorrect—that is, when Jews do not in fact display that vice in greater proportion than mankind as a whole. Then we might wonder about some of Mr. Podhoretz’s examples. For instance, aren’t Jews on the average more ambitious than people on the average? (I go along with his characterization of ambition as a vice, just for the sake of argument.) And given the conditions under which they have lived—as despised outsiders, for the most part—it would be surprising if they had not become more clannish than the people they were living among. In any case, establishing that a remark is anti-Semitic is going to take some detailed sociological investigation, most of which has not been carried out.
Another idea is that anti-Semitism consists in making or expressing a more unfavorable judgment about Jews than is made about other groups, even on the same evidence. If Jews and Sicilians are equally clannish—both exceeding the average clannishness of mankind—but the facts are used to support an unfavorable judgment only about Jews, and not about Sicilians, perhaps then the speaker is being anti-Semitic. But it seems more apt to say he is being pro-Sicilian! Or perhaps Jews are just very slightly more clannish than average, but they are judged very harshly for this vice—more harshly than is justified. Maybe that is anti-Semitism. (But maybe not.)
I think Buckley must be excused for missing Mr. Podhoretz’s meaning. For all he has written about anti-Semitism, I don’t think he has clearly said what he thinks it is.
James Hudson
Northern Illinois University
DeKalb, Illinois
_____________
To the Editor:
Norman Podhoretz just doesn’t get it. There is a simpler explanation for many Americans’ resistance to sponsoring Israel than anti-Semitism. What is so sinister about Americans not liking to give Israel over $3 billion a year, bribing its neighbor Egypt $4 billion a year for good behavior, suffering deaths from terrorism and unnecessary police actions, paying too much for fuel (thanks to OPEC), and incurring the wrath of the Muslim world with adverse strategic and economic consequences?
Americans (and Palestinians) are not guilty of the Holocaust, so do not call those of us bad names who do not feel the need to atone for it by acting contrary to American interests and principles. One does not have to be a leftist or an anti-Semite to oppose the policies of Israel which are disturbingly close to colonization, apartheid, and theocracy. Apartheid is an ugly concept but the shoe fits. Nor is Israel a democracy in spirit. There is a religious symbol on its flag which is hardly conducive to Muslim democratic participation in the regime.
By denying a neutral ground between anti- and philo-Semitism, Mr. Podhoretz cynically swells the ranks of alleged anti-Semites, creating a self-serving and self-fulfilling prophecy.
James S. Rogers
Morenci, Michigan
_____________
To the Editor:
As a citizen and a Jew, I am appalled by Norman Podhoretz’s reference to the “anti-Semitic stench” of Russell Kirk’s statement that “not seldom has it seemed as if some neoconservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States.” Mr. Podhoretz’s eagerness to identify critics of pro-Israel policies as “anti-Semitic” is depressingly similar to the way “anti-black” is used to characterize opponents of affirmative action, quotas, and set-asides. In fact, Kirk’s statement should not have been limited to “eminent neoconservatives.” I have met some Jews (and some politicians) who are not “eminent neoconservatives” who nevertheless evaluate issues and candidates primarily if not exclusively on the basis of their support for Israel. I do not believe this is the attitude of most Jews or neoconservatives or politicians, but it is sufficiently widespread to be a matter of legitimate concern.
Inasmuch as Mr. Podhoretz undoubtedly knows many more U.S. “Israel first” partisans than I do, he must be well aware of the fact that Kirk’s statement expresses a valid concern. Baseless charges of anti-Semitism are not just mistaken; they reveal a willingness to use character assassination to silence or discredit those who believe that the U.S. level of support for Israel exceeds what is in the best interests of the United States.
Myron Lieberman
Washington, D.C.
_____________
To the Editor:
. . . Norman Podhoretz . . . reasons very well. Nevertheless, there is a hollowness in what he says. On the one hand, he “supports” Israel. On the other, he does so only within narrow bounds—it must act in accordance with the wishes of the United States. Since for some 44 years the U.S. has overwhelmingly favored Arab positions and has never excoriated them (as it so often does Israel . . .), one is reminded of the old saying, “With friends like these, who needs enemies?” . . .
Virtually all the talks, debates, lectures, books, and articles about Israel, including articles in COMMENTARY, deal with peripheral questions. The basic issue is Israel’s existence. If U.S. blackmail succeeds and Israel capitulates by surrendering yet another part of the Jewish national homeland, . . . out of which will emerge the second Palestinian Arab state (the first being Jordan), then it follows as inevitably as the night the day that the next attack by the Arabs will probably achieve their long-sought goal: Israel’s complete liquidation. So, consciously or otherwise, Norman Podhoretz is aiding the U.S. in its collusion with the Arabs and a mendacious media in so undermining Israel as to cause its downfall. . . .
In 1919 the League of Nations proposed the creation of four national entities: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and the reconstituted nation of Israel. All four had the identical parenthood, yet it is only Israel’s borders that are ever questioned. Why not those of Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon?
The Balfour Declaration of 1917 . . . supported the establishment of a Jewish national homeland in all of Palestine (a former southern province of Syria). But Britain then illegally lopped off 79 percent of this territory (today called Jordan), though sovereignty had never been transferred from the Jewish people. In 1947 the UN, from the remaining Jewish sliver of 22 percent, offered the Jews 10 percent and the Arabs 12 percent, each for its own state. This insulting offer was accepted by the Jews, but rejected by the Arabs who opted publicly for genocidal war against the Jews. . . .
Following the defeat of Germany and Turkey in World War I, the Allies wrested from Turkey its vast land holdings, which had been Turkish lands for 400 years . . . and turned most of them over to the Arabs. Some of the land, however, remained unallocated. Included in that category was Palestine, a place of desert, semi-desert, swampland, unwanted even by Arabs, a land “sitting in sackcloth and ashes,” as Mark Twain said. Lord Balfour said that this was not a “gift” to the Jews but a restitution of their lands “stolen” from them in ancient days, and that such a small piece of land would “not be begrudged them by the Arabs.” In this, of course, he was wrong. . . .
The Arabs did and do begrudge the Jews land that never belonged to Arabs. In both World War I and World War II the Jews fought with the Allies, while the Arabs fought against the Allies. The Mufti of Jerusalem sat out the war in Berlin and Anwar Sadat spent time in prison for aiding the Nazis.
Every people gives a name to its land, but the Arabs had none for “their” land. They called it “Filastin,” their version of the name “Palestine” that had been bestowed by the Romans. The Allied gift to the Arabs of former Ottoman-empire lands was twice the size of Europe, containing millions of unused, unpopulated acres and constituting 99 3/4 percent of all the land in the Middle East. The portion given to Israel was one-quarter of 1 percent. . . . Judea, Samaria, and Gaza were acquired by Jordan and Egypt in 1948 by virtue of conquest, which the UN Charter calls “inadmissible.” When they reattacked in 1967 Israel reacquired its lands; the only remaining “occupation” was and is the occupation by Jordan of Jewish land.
Bernard Brodsky
Brooklyn, New York
_____________
To the Editor:
Norman Podhoretz’s article may help William F. Buckley, Jr. in his “search for anti-Semitism,” but it leaves unanswered what Jews should consider anti-Semitism and when to cry out about it. The problem was made clear in a January 8, 1992 Washington Post story on the American Jewish Committee’s study of anti-Semitism. The study found “anti-Semitism still on [the] decline in the U.S.,” although Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) took exception to the findings. Foxman cited “increased anti-Semitism on college campuses and greater tolerance for anti-Semitic expressions.” He also mentioned the views of Patrick J. Buchanan, who was the catalyst for Buckley’s “search” for anti-Semitism.
As a former ADL professional now retired, I have a high regard for Foxman, and am fully aware of how his perceptions have been shaped by his experiences as a Holocaust survivor. But reacting on the basis of a “gut feeling” is no way to determine the true extent of anti-Semitism today. There are too few studies being made these days. Those I remember from the past found that Americans could be classified as one-third pro-Jewish, regardless of Jewish behavior; one-third, inherent Jew-haters; and the middle one-third the still undecided “swing vote.” The role of the Jewish “defense” agencies was to secure that middle third as allies through a program of education, public opinion, and legal efforts. We also sought to make the media responsive, in fighting anti-Semitism, to the principle of “publicity to expose, but none to promote.” All this seems to have gone by the board as agencies compete for adherents and supporters.
At times I get the feeling that we Jews are prone to shout “anti-Semitism” much too quickly, forgetting the story of the shepherd boy who cried “wolf” once too often. We also seem more intent on combat than on finding ways to “win friends and influence people.” . . .
Some time ago I heard Norman Lear discuss anti-Semitism. He wondered why we Jews are so defensive about Jewish stereotypes. . . . Lear argued that Jews should accept those stereotypes that give them “power,” real or unreal. Such stereotypes, while resented, he thought, brought admiration and respect. Why not use them to our advantage? . . .
Hyman H. Haves
Pacific Palisades, California
_____________
To the Editor:
With respect to Norman Podhoretz’s discussion of anti-Israel sentiment and anti-Semitism, let me suggest the following three criteria. Criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism if: (1) the facts cited are false; (2) the critic voices only criticism and never approval; and (3) Israel is judged by standards that are not applied to other nations.
Mortimer Ostow
New York City
_____________
To the Editor:
Thank you for Norman Podhoretz’s thoughtful and persuasive open letter to William F. Buckley, Jr. He has critiqued both Buckley’s search and his conclusions with emotion beautifully controlled. . . .
Victor N. Low
Lyme, New Hampshire
_____________
To the Editor:
William F. Buckley, Jr.’s bold initiative and Norman Podhoretz’s persuasive reply are, one hopes, the opening salvos in a continuing debate. An open exchange of ideas of this kind may prove to be cathartic in the long run. . . .
We have long known how pervasive anti-Semitism was among the Brahmins of the Northeast and within many of the most prominent American families. . . . Now William F. Buckley, Jr., himself the son of a prominent family, reveals its depth and scope. . . . Buckley’s courage in pushing aside some of the wraps that have covered the skeletons in his father’s house is both impressive and admirable. While he may be poorly equipped to ferret out true anti-Semitism from under the myriad disguises it assumes, he is eminently qualified to furnish us with greater insights and understanding of what motivated men like his father to instill hatred and contempt in their children. How was it possible that God-fearing and conservative men winked at their children’s burning and desecrating of symbols of holiness and at their acts of transgression on other people’s property?
By resurrecting these ghosts, Buckley provides a unique opportunity to generations of descendants of privilege to come face to face with the ugliness, perversity, and insidiousness of anti-Semitism. . . .
Ruth Janko
Bayside, New York
_____________
To the Editor:
. . . I agree with 95 percent of Norman Podhoretz’s article and have no real quarrel with William F. Buckley, Jr. . . . Nevertheless, I think that anti-Semitism is something that basically only a Jew can understand. Jean-Paul Sartre’s famous essay on the subject missed the point. There is no way to rationalize an anti-Semite. To my mind Patrick J. Buchanan is much more dangerous than David Duke. . . . Duke is too obvious. It is the subtle anti-Semite we must fear and Jews sense these instinctively.
Israel is the litmus test of today’s anti-Semites both on the Left and the Right, of the [Alexander] Cockburns and the [Joseph] Sobrans. Witness how when Jews do not react to violence against them, they are called cowards; when they do, they are called arrogant aggressors. Perhaps the Gentile world does not like to be reminded that they too were on the passive side when Jewish annihilation was going on during World II or when a similar threat loomed upon the outbreak of the Six-Day War. . . .
Daniel Spicehandler
New York City
_____________
To the Editor:
William F. Buckley, Jr.’s analysis and conclusions in his essay, “In Search of Anti-Semitism,” reminded me of why I decided several years ago not to renew my subscription to National Review. While Buckley has, on many occasions, shown a willingness to tackle the tough issues, I have often been disappointed by a tendency (in his pieces as well as in his magazine in general) to pull punches when it comes to dealing with unsavory positions, actions, or remarks of those deemed to be in the conservative camp. As a Jew, being naturally sensitive to anti-Semitism, and as a graduate student in political science, I found such a double standard particularly disconcerting in this case.
To me, anti-Semitism is best conceptualized as a continuum, ranging from “mild” to “extreme.” (All forms of bigotry, in fact, could be analyzed along such a continuum.) At the mild end, one could list the social prejudices of “country-club anti-Semitism,” as portrayed in the film Gentleman’s Agreement, and, I would argue, in the discussions of the Philadelphia Society’s 1986 meeting that was described in Buckley’s essay. As I read the details of this meeting, I could sense the atmosphere of prejudice that filled the room; it was a sickening sensation, exacerbated by the knowledge that I could probably agree with some of the other opinions of the members. I found it disappointing that Buckley was so easily able to write off their anti-Jewish prejudices as being merely pro-Christian and anti-Israel.
This, of course, begs a question of central importance to the search for contemporary anti-Semitism: namely, does anti-Zionism necessarily reflect an underlying anti-Jewish bias? Much of Buckley’s analysis is devoted to this question and, along with Norman Podhoretz, I am comfortable for the most part with his conclusions here. While one can, of course, be opposed to Israel’s policies without being anti-Semitic, anti-Zionism does provide a convenient—and often used—refuge for the modern Jew-hater. The difficulty lies in uncovering the anti-Semite who cloaks himself in anti-Israel rhetoric. How can this be done? I would posit that clues can be found in a close scrutiny of the reasoning and wording of a person’s opposition to Israel and/or its policies; the mechanisms suggested by Mr. Podhoretz in his article “J’Accuse” [COMMENTARY, September 1982] and restated in his “Open Letter,” should prove adequate.
One of my greatest disappointments with Buckley’s essay, then, lies in his interpretation and conclusions concerning the writings of his colleague, Joseph Sobran. The most damning evidence against Sobran in the essay consists of Sobran’s own words, especially his letter to Buckley. My own conclusion (to me, a self-evident one) is that Sobran is a Jew-hater, no less anti-Semitic than his liberal nemesis, Gore Vidal. Sobran’s language and rhetoric may be more subtle and sophisticated, but all the catchwords are there, and his message is just as brutal and disturbing as Vidal’s. . . . While Buckley’s loyalty to a friend is admirable, I fear it has clouded his vision. When comparing his defense of Sobran as a mere “kook” to his well-worded and justified assault on Vidal, I see a double standard. . . .
As for Patrick J. Buchanan, his anti-Semitism is also made evident by his own words, both past and present. . . . Buckley fails to put Buchanan’s “America first” campaign into its proper historical perspective: . . . Buchanan’s anti-Semitism is only one component of his general xenophobia, and his vision of “traditional America” is but one step in logic away from that of Duke’s “white America.”
Anti-Semitism is a fancy word for anti-Jewish bigotry. Like all forms of bigotry, it can range from mild exclusionary prejudice to extreme violence. But unlike any other bigotry, it has existed for two thousand continuous years (with no end in sight), and has led to the philosophical and legal sanctioning of mass murder by both church and state. . . . Not all specific acts of anti-Semitism necessarily lead to the extreme end of the continuum—advocacy of, and action toward, the total extermination of a people. But the ultimate, logical conclusion of any form of anti-Semitism is its extreme. This is why all anti-Semitic acts, no matter how “mild,” are so potentially dangerous. . . .
Pierre M. Atlas
Tucson, Arizona
_____________
To the Editor:
On several occasions William F. Buckley, Jr. has made snide remarks about 100,000 Jewish settlers controlling 800,000 Arabs in Judea and Samaria. This from a man who was strongly in favor of the continued rule over millions of blacks by 250,000 whites in Rhodesia.
As for Buckley’s anger over Martin Peretz’s comment that “the old Catholic Right has always had trouble with the Jewish problem”: one of the reasons the Vatican gives for nonrecognition of Israel is the lack of defined borders, but this did not stop the Vatican from recognizing Catholic Croatia which has a very undefined southern border. . . .
Marvin P. Cohen
New Milford, New Jersey
_____________
To the Editor:
Norman Podhoretz, in his open letter to William F. Buckley, Jr., discusses Patrick J. Buchanan’s conspicuous anti-Semitism. While we all understand the obvious danger that Buchanan’s anti-Semitism represents to the Jews, what is less clearly understood and rarely discussed is its negative consequences for America itself.
If Buchanan were to come to power, he might choose a foreign (and Middle East) policy largely on the basis of what is detrimental to Israel’s interests, even if that policy were to harm America’s interests as well. This could explain the conservative Buchanan’s unusual opposition to the Gulf War, the first American war he ever opposed. Even though this military effort was clearly in America’s economic and strategic interests (especially from a conservative, Republican standpoint), the problem for Buchanan was that it was inadvertently in Israel’s interests as well. This theory could also explain his endorsement of a Palestinian state, which is opposed by both Bush and Baker, . . . and which could harm both America and Israel by adding a new measure of instability to the Middle East. . . . It could also explain why this sophisticated journalist simplistically opposes all foreign aid. Though such aid serves America’s strategic interests as well, he would blindly sacrifice this gain in order to withhold aid from Israel. . . .
It is perplexing that a right-wing conservative who once admired Menachem Begin and favored annexing the West Bank is now applauding the leftist Israeli Labor party, Shimon Peres, and the establishment of a Palestinian state. This . . . is as inexplicable as it would be if Buchanan decided to support Jesse Jackson and came out in favor of expanding the welfare system, widening affirmative-action programs, and raising taxes. Should Buchanan’s slogan really be “America first,” or are some of his policies more descriptive of the slogan “Jews last,” no matter what the negative consequences are to America? . . .
Morton A. Klein
President, American Zionist Federation
Greater Philadelphia Chapter
Merion, Pennsylvania
_____________
To the Editor:
. . . I am persuaded, as apparently is Norman Podhoretz, that Patrick J. Buchanan criticizes Israel on the basis of a double standard, rooted in the ancient traditions of anti-Semitic propaganda. However, I have trouble proving this to people. . . . How does one demonstrate it?
Joshua Muravchik has certainly documented anti-Semitic statements by Buchanan in his article, “Patrick J. Buchanan and the Jews” [COMMENTARY, January 1991], and by now there is more to be added, . . . but I think Buchanan has been vague—no doubt deliberately—about his Israel policy. Buchanan’s views on the Jewish lobby (though I think he avoids that locution) hardly predict his Israel policy, and they are unfortunately common coin inside the Beltway. . . .
Muravchik, though it was not his main purpose, goes some way toward showing Buchanan’s double standard toward Israel as well, . . . but this double standard could turn on some attribute of Israel other than its Jewishness. For instance, the attribute that the only factor unifying the otherwise fractious Arab states which control an essential resource is implacable opposition to Israel’s existence. . . . I imagine this particular attribute is what motivated President Reagan’s condemnation of Israel’s 1981 bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor, but though I think Reagan was wrong, I do not suspect him of anti-Semitism. Apparently “realists” regard a double standard on that basis as being in the American interest. . . .
I think we need a description of an appropriate American policy toward Israel, or at least the appropriate presumptions for such a policy, with litmus tests for whether deviations are the result of (1) legitimate considerations of American interest, or (2) anti-Semitism, or (3) neither of the above. . . .
Roberto Alazar
Reseda, California
_____________
To the Editor:
. . . I think we are all making too much of a fuss about Patrick J. Buchanan’s remarks. . . . When the Jews register their collective views as members of some Jewish organization or lobby, objections to these views may look anti-Jewish when in fact they are simply the result of political differences. The really dangerous anti-Semitism today comes almost completely from the Left.
The Holocaust taught us to be sensitive about this because it showed that a slight prejudice against the Jews, carried to its logical conclusion, might lead to the gas chambers. Still, we all know very polished individuals both in the private and public sphere who would never let slip an anti-Jewish remark, but who might very well serve, if the time were ripe, as future Eichmanns and Ivan the Terribles. On the other hand, there are some people who are capable, in the heat of debate, of insensitive and even insulting slips of the tongue, but in a bad time would risk their own lives hiding and protecting Jews.
I know little about Buchanan, but it is my perception that he is such a person. . . . What he does not realize is that his slips could provoke a situation where the Jews would once again be in need of protection. For example, his remark about soldiers with non-Jewish names who would do the actual fighting in the Gulf while the pro-Israel lobby advocates the war, is ugly and reminiscent of Soviet propaganda claiming that the Jews hid out in Soviet Middle Asia to avoid fighting in World War II. (In fact, when the war was over, it became known that the number of Jews awarded the highest military honor of Hero of the Soviet Union far exceeded the proportion of Jews in the Soviet population—and this in spite of the fact that anti-Semitism reduced the number of honors given to Jews.)
Still, the major problem with Buchanan is not his anti-Semitic remarks but his isolationist politics, . . . and this should be the central point in criticizing him. . . . The honor and glory of America are in its permanent commitment to the world. Americans may be angry about Japanese and European competition, but I cannot find another example in history of a victor making such enormous and effective efforts to raise defeated nations as America did with Germany and Japan. The major problem with Buchanan is his desire to deprive our nation of this great historical tradition. . . .
David M. Shur
Berkeley Heights, New Jersey
_____________
To the Editor:
. . . I was brought up in Vienna where anti-Semitism was imbibed by babies of all religions along with their mother’s milk. Ultimately, my entire family was exterminated by the Hitler hordes. . . .
Nowadays anti-Semitism has gone underground for the most part and operates mainly by innuendo. While one may welcome the demise of overt anti-Semitism, it is an even more difficult task to fight this monster once it has become invisible, and therefore harder to spot and to attack.
Frederick C. Kramer
Wilmette, Illinois
_____________
To the Editor:
I have not encountered personal anti-Semitism since my escape from Nazi Europe more than 50 years ago. I have, of course, seen reports on hate groups, but accepted their existence as insignificant. . . . Now, however, Norman Podhoretz’s forceful article has alerted me to the intrusion of anti-Semitism into the national arena and stirred up some old memories and thoughts. . . .
Tribal rivalry is an age-old phenomenon, yet it still survives in various parts of the world in the form of chauvinism and hostility against minorities, whether indigenous or more recently arrived in the country. In addition to sharing minority status with most inhabitants of America, . . . Jews still carry the stigma of centuries of vilification by Christian teaching, even though this has recently been revised. Thus, although . . . Buckley was able to liberate himself from the residual prejudices of his Christian upbringing, he was unable to convince his “beloved disciple,” Joseph Sobran, that anti-Semitism is wrong and evil. By describing Patrick J. Buchanan’s anti-Semitic remarks with innocent charm as only a lapse into “mischievous generalizations,” Buckley unwittingly put his finger on the central unpardonable sin which is in fact the insidious tool of bigots. I refer to the practice of identifying individual criminals, professional competitors, political opponents and dissenters, etc., etc. as members of specific minorities in order to defame entire communities through generalization. On the television show, Larry King Live, I heard Buchanan use this kind of generalization in reverse when, in answer to a question about his alleged anti-Semitism, he denied it and added as evidence that he had received campaign contributions from a few friends who are Jewish. Buchanan’s pretense that this proves his good relationship with “the Jews” is, indeed, an example of mischievous generalization, otherwise known as chutzpah.
Ambitious politicans of past and present have known the power of appeals to racism. That technique has helped to keep old hatreds in existence and to generate unlikely new ones, such as black anti-Semites. When I was growing up in Europe, it was used by right-wing nationalists with disastrous consequences for their victims and themselves. Then, after World War II, the rulers of Communist countries, whose lofty ideals had been equality and universal brotherhood, tried to cover up their own failure by attacking their tiny surviving Jewish minorities. Now, after glasnost, open hostility has broken out among national units liberated from the former Soviet empire and its satellites.
In the United States there is a remarkable amount of tolerance and good will. It is an absolute necessity in a democratic, pluralistic society founded . . . and built by immigrants of diverse races and colors, all of whom have the right to live peacefully side by side. . . .
Hostile remarks made publicly, whether from personal conviction or political appeal, cannot be simply denied or explained away . . . after they have backfired and become an embarrassment to the speaker. Such statements have been written, rehearsed, and read aloud from scripts. There is no excuse for anti-isms of any kind and no place for divisive narrow-mindedness in candidates for high public office in a country whose Constitution holds it to be indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Charles Terner
Newton, Massachusetts
_____________
To the Editor:
I want to thank Norman Podhoretz for “What Is Anti-Semitism?” I read William F. Buckley, Jr.’s article in National Review and, while it confirmed my feeling that he was a “righteous Gentile,” I was left with a queasy feeling about his first adducing anti-Semitic evidence and then rationalizing the resulting logical conclusion into thin air. . . . Mr. Podhoretz has cleared up much of my confusion. . . .
The best example I know on this question, substituting the Jews of Europe for Israel, is that of Harold Nicolson. As a high-level functionary in the British Foreign Office in the late 30’s, Nicolson was appalled at the evidence of what the Nazis were preparing for the Jews and at what he felt was his government’s . . . conscious avoidance of this evidence. In discussing this in his diary, he added that he himself just could not stand to be in the company of Jews.
Frederic Wile
New York City
_____________
Norman Podhoretz writes:
James Hudson is disappointed in me for not attempting to define anti-Semitism in a way that would satisfy him as a professor of philosophy. But I doubt that such a definition is possible. Anti-Semitism is not a systematic set of propositions but rather a passion or animus which seeks to justify itself by charges against the Jewish people (and in our day against the Jewish state) that are naturally said to be true. Mr. Hudson seems to think that some of these rationalizations are indeed true—for example, that Jews are more clannish than other peoples. Yet it is hard to see in what sense a group capable of a 50-percent intermarriage rate is intrinsically clannish, let alone disproportionately so. Nor were the Jews any more clannish (for better or worse) than the peoples they lived among in the past in less liberal societies than our own. The very fact—cited by Mr. Hudson—that such peoples, whether Christian or Muslim, were either unable or unwilling to accept the Jews (or any other minority) as equals shows how clannish they were.
So too (again for better or worse) with ambition. When Jews either were forced or were content to remain among their own, they were accused of clannishness; but no sooner did they develop the desire to move into the surrounding society than they were met with charges of aggressive ambition (or pushiness). Heads you win, tails you lose: always the sign of an animus that will seize upon any rationalization whatsoever to keep itself going.
Obviously the well-known double standard was also operating here. For the very qualities that were seen as vices in Jews were apt to be accepted as normal or even represented as virtues in others. Thus, what was stigmatized as “clannishness” in Jews was often praised as patriotism or a sense of responsibility for one’s own when it manifested itself in the majority group; and what was lauded as “the Protestant ethic” among Protestants became, in the eyes of these very same Protestants, pushiness and greed among Jews.
This kind of trick as applied to the Jewish state results in precisely the charges leveled by James Rogers. In condemning Israel for the sin of colonization, Mr. Rogers is in effect turning the old charge of aggressive ambition against the Jewish state; and in condemning Israel for practicing apartheid and theocracy, he is translating the old charge of clannishness into language suitable for defaming the Jewish polity.
I certainly have no wish to “swell the ranks of alleged anti-Semites,” but I would beg Mr. Rogers to consider the extent to which his attacks on Israel actually do echo the attacks that used to be—and in some quarters still are—made by anti-Semitic propagandists against Jews in the Diaspora. I would also urge him to ponder the historical section of Bernard Brodsky’s letter, which conclusively refutes the charge of “colonization,” and to acquaint himself with the plain facts of Israeli society, which make nonsense of the charges of apartheid and theocracy.
Myron Lieberman, for his part, claims that yet another familiar anti-Semitic canard—the charge of dual loyalty—is true and therefore cannot be anti-Semitic. But can he really be saying that the American Jews he calls “Israel first” partisans are not loyal to the United States? Is he really unaware of the fact that, unlike him, they are absolutely convinced that strong support of Israel is in the best interests of the United States?
Ironically, Bernard Brodsky accuses me of insufficient support for Israel and of too much deference to “the wishes of the United States.” And from his point of view, U.S. policy, far from being excessive in its support of Israel, as Mr. Lieberman would have it, “has overwhelmingly favored Arab positions.” Well, in my judgment Mr. Brodsky wildly exaggerates the pro-Arab tilt of American policy over the years, just as Mr. Lieberman does its pro-Israel bent—though at this moment, alas, Mr. Brodsky looks less wrong than Mr. Lieberman.
I thank all the other correspondents for their thoughtful comments and their generous words.