In search of anti-semitism: what Christians provoke what Jews? Why? By doing what? - And vice versa

National Review, Dec 30, 1991 by William F. Buckley, Jr.

You wrote that you were "surprised and dismayed by the fact that NATIONAL REVIEW published such a piece" as Joe Sobran had written, and that my doing so "does damage ... lending credence to all those like Marty Peretz [the editor-in-chief of The New Republic] who have attacked me [Podhoretz] for being too easy on Buckley." The time is clearly overdue for a recapitulation of the relevant data.

1. I deemed Joe Sobran's six columns contextually anti-Semitic. By this I mean that if he bad been talking, let us say, about the lobbying interests of the Arabs or of the Chinese, he would not have raised eyebrows as an anti-Arab or an anti-Chinese.

2. I took the initiative in disavowing those columns and in pointing out the contextual danger of such language. In doing so, I proffered my own opinion, which is expert, on the question whether Sobran was in fact anti-Semitic.

3. I advised Joe that if he continued to write such columns, we would need to dissociate ourselves not only from the columns, but from him, on the grounds that he was invincibly ignorant of an ethical-cultural point which I deem critically important in modern discourse.

4. It would appear to me, based on your reaction to my publishing his essay, that you are under the impression that I should have shorn him of his privileges as a senior editor of NATIONAL REVIEW. There is no compelling reason for you to be acquainted with the protocols of this magazine, but for thirty years I have given to any senior editor the privilege of disagreeing with the policy of the magazine through the device of the so-called "Open Question."

5. So convinced is Sobran that the charges of anti-Semitism leveled against him are intellectually and objectively unfair that he asked for space in which to give the reasons why. I did not rescind NATIONAL REVIEW'S policies when I agreed to give him that space, which by organic arrangements he was entitled to. But I did, as an amateur diplomatist, urge him to recast his essay, when I saw the first draft of it, which, had I published it in the form presented, would in turn have required me to reiterate my livid objections to his six columns. He understood my point, substantially reconstructed his essay, and came up with 1,500 words to only a few sentences of which I have any objection whatever. . . . Moreover, you are strangely insensitive to the point that his essay is much more damaging to me than it is to you, for reasons I shan't patronize you by elucidating. [By this I meant that Joe's scorn for the reasoning by which I and my colleagues were guided was very painful to read from a colleague, published in my magazine.]

6. Your letter to Jeff arrives at the strangest moment, when you profess yourself embarrassed by insufficient docility to Marty Peretz, whose criticisms of NATIONAL REVIEW you [evidently] now feel you must pay more solemn attention to. This notwithstanding an editorial paragraph by Peretz published in the contemporary issue [of The New Republic] which is as indefensible as anything ever done by Sobran. [Peretz, reacting to my defense of Cardinal O'Connor when he visited Israel, had written, ". . . his abundant ignorance of the Middle East cannot suffice as explanation. The old Catholic Right has always had trouble with the Jewish problem. This explains why Buckley has made things so cozy for an unabashed bigot like columnist Joseph Sobran."] Jeff Hart's covering letter [to me] touches on several subjects, one of them Peretz's attack. "Marty Peretz's remarks in TNR are outrageous. Maybe you should take them on in a column-except that it is so disagreeable to get into the ring with someone who can write in the terms Peretz employed." I note that you say that in the next issue of Commentary you will apologize for your treatment of me--who took the initiative in respect of Sobran--rather than for Peretz, whose frenzy causes me only to be grateful that he is not a representative of Catholic orthodoxy; he is your problem, not mine. I despise the low level of his polemics, even as I contemplate with genuine pride the invitation I received today to accept the annual award of the Anti-Defamat/ion League.