In Search of Anti-Semitism - Review
Searching through a used book store, I came across In Search of Anti-Semitism by William F. Buckley (1992). Let me offer the gist of it here with a recommendation to read it.
First, let’s be clear. William F. Buckley is one of the leaders of the U.S. conservative movement and his magazine the National Review is often described within as the leading flagship guiding Conservatism. Obviously then, I’m offering up something rather unique for this blog: A book written by a prominent conservative focusing mostly on, attributions of or views about, anti-Semitism by other conservatives and neo-conservatives.
The book is divided into three parts: 1. the essay; 2. responses by so-called prominent conservatives (but others as well) to aspects of the essay (with some rejoinders by Buckley) and 3. final reflections.
Buckley intends to explore and “search” for the possibility of anti-Semitic attitudes or opinions resurfacing by focusing on four cases: 1. Joe Sobran’s criticism’s of Israel as published in National Review, 2. Pat Buchanan’s comments about Israel on the McLaughlin Group, 3. Dartmouth College’s The Dartmouth Review incident, whereby the student magazine was wholely slandered and 4. the Nation magazine’s Jewish editor publishing Gore Vidal’s claim that a prominent Jewish couple had a dual loyalty to the U.S. and Israel.
The term used throughout to describe Buckley’s tone and approach in the essay is “nuanced”. It is precisely this nuance that allowed for divergent opinions as to where exactly Buckley stood on the matter.
Throughout, one gets an interesting “insiders” look at (roughly) an inner circle of elites and journalists thrashing about over the question of who is or is not an anti-Semite and/or whether or not this or that can be construed as anti-Semitic. One gains insights into the publishing industry and the editorial process and of how these various conservative colleges regard each other including each other’s opinions and arguments. One gets a sense for the gatekeeping process and how it manifests when a writer has “gone too far” and outside of the acceptable. In addition, one comes to appreciate how AIPAC and other Jewish organizations play their role in such events - in particular in the Dartmouth Review case.
The responses to the essay provide a wealth of divergent opinions culled from a much larger collection of responses. To name some names that might interest the reader: 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 and yet others.
As for my take, I think Joe Sobran speaks the most concretely about the truth of matters in Palestine and I did not think Buchanan’s comments anti-Semitic. I found the Dartmouth Review unfairly accused (the consensus opinion on this one) and I’m unclear as to how to regard Vidal’s assertion. Was it anti-Semitic or a personal attack on a Jewish couple? Is there a difference? At any rate, the consensus on that one is Vidal crossed the line and shame on the Nation for publishing it.
Aside from Sobran and a few others in the response section, the one notable and glaring absence in the book was/is the crucial events and context that animated and, indeed, caused this discussion to manifest - Israel’s policies in Palestine. These are mentioned. The occupied territories are referred to and it is clear that anti-Semitism is raised within the context of the State of Israel and how one thinks about its actions in Palestine.[1] But Buckley himself barely mentions the Palestinians - only in passing - and when he does, it does not flatter. For Buckley, this is largely about American conservatives and whether or not they’ve crossed a line into the world of insensitivity to the Jews or even worse, to anti-Semitic views about Jews. His aim seems to be to keep the conservatives on track and to gatekeep public political discourse, to ensure that anti-Semitism (or accusations of) does not become a dividing issue within the conservative movement. Thus, in his view, Sobran and Buchanan needed a “talking to” or more if necessary while the Nation (a left leaning mag) needed belittling. Nonetheless, Buckley does face up to and assert a measure of criticism toward Israeli policies which makes clear Israel and its actions are an issue for the conservatives.
In short, it is a lively, engaging read covering a considerable amount of territory and providing the reader with a diversity of opinions and arguments as to what is - or is not - anti-Semitic. All the while, it should be noted, the anti-Semitism of the past is not even a question. That kind of anti-Semitism - actual persecution, admission quotas, immigration tribulations, violence etcetera - that kind, is not at issue. The issue is whether this or that expression is anti-Semitic. Sometimes a collection of essays are under study but the focus remains criticism of public written expression rather than physical actions. No. Actions do not even come into play. Throughout, it is important to keep that in mind because the reality is that the anti-Semitism of old no longer exists. Not as it existed mere decades ago in Christendom. The real question being raised is whether particular expressions or comments are anti-Semitic. If they are, should world Jewry (and people in general) be concerned about it? Especially, given more concrete and material forms of racism going on in the world at present?
posted by willtotruth @ 7:20 AM
<< Home