In pursuit of anti-semitism

National Review, March 16, 1992 by William F. Buckley, Jr., Joseph Sobran, Ronald R. Stockton, Norman Podhoretz, William Pfaff, Irving Kristol, James M. Wall, A.M. Rosenthal, Alan M. Dershowitz, David Frum, Robert D. Novak, Hugh Kenner, Edwin M. Yoder, Jr., Murray Reswick, Eliot A. Cohen, Manfred Weidhorn, Murray Rothbard

But if you apply this simple principle consistently, the Orwellian minority lobbies will accuse you of hating minorities. Oppose special government favor to any special interest--the race-quota lobby, Zionists, homosexuals, feminists, "artists"--and you are tagged as racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, sexist, or Jesse Helms.

Replying to Bill's essay in the February issue of Commentary, Podhoretz all but equates opposition to Israel with anti-Semitism. And in his mind, "opposition" to Israel seems to mean rejecting any of its claims and demands against the American taxpayer. In other words, desiring merely normal relations with Israel is anti-Semitic!

But there is no reason why the American taxpayer should be forced to subsidize any foreign regime. He is already overtaxed to pay for his own government's constant pandering to domestic interests.

In the mental prison of his self-absorption, the minoritarian polemicist can only understand criticism of Israeli "democracy" (or of "civil rights," or federal grants to artists) as the expression of a special animus. It never occurs to him that the critics may be speaking out of their own principles, and he senses that he can't afford to subject his own interest to the scrutiny of principle.

So his endeavor is to sow suspicion against the critics. He has no other defense against them except the accusation. If he had to make his case on the presumption that others could disagree in good faith, he would be speechless.

I'll tell the full story of my own encounter with the Israel claque, and answer Bill's observations in detail, (*2) someday soon. For now, this abridged account will have to do.

I HAD been pro-Israel--emotionally pro-Israel, in fact--for some years after the 1967 Six Day War. That changed with the 1982 Lebanon War, when the ruthless bombing of Beirut, and the attendant slaughter of Palestinian refugees, became too much for many of Israel's former admirers. I was disgusted with the trite phrases and revolting excuses that were being made for our "reliable ally." Menachem Begin, moreover, had lied to Ronal Reagan about his intentions in Lebanon. Some friend. We were being implicated in Israel's crimes. What were we getting of this dubious alliance?

My mind really changed when I reread some old columns and editorials by James Burnham in, of all places, NATIONAL REVIEW. By then Jim was no longer with us--a stroke had forced him to retire in 1978--but his writings on the Middle East held up well. He had written that American and Israeli interests were basically divergent; that when push came to shove, the chief American interest in the region was access to Arab oil, which was threatened by American patronage of Israel, a relation that catered to the Israel lobby in America.

The more I reflected on this, the more obvious it seemed. I asked various pro-Israel conservatives for their views, but none of them made nearly as much sense as Burnham.

Taking his logic further, I concluded that it was in the interests of Israel to set the U.S. in opposition to the Arab world. But it was not in our interests. Such an alignment could only please the Soviet Union, which was seeking it for its own purposes. The idea that Israel was our "only reliable ally in the region," when it was alienating friendly Arab nations from use, recalled the old joke illustrating chutzpah; the man who kills his parents, then asks the court of mercy as an orphan.