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

Occupying the middle ground was, for example, Professor Paul Gottfried (himself Jewish), who wrote to The New Republic: ". . . some neoconservatives reacted hysterically-even opportunistically-to Joe Sobran's observations about American Jews. But I do not believe that Sobran is blameless in this particular matter. His remarks on the Jewish persecution of Christians [not here reproduced] reflect a woeful ignorance of history, and his praise of the neo-Nazi Instauration was inexcusably offensive."

At the what's-going-on-here? end was, for instance, Manuel Tellechea of the New York City Tribune, who predicted that Sobran would resign from NATIONAL REVIEW rather than accept the rebuke of his colleagues. More, "If Buckley truly believes Joseph Sobran not to be an anti-Semite, he should dismiss as either malicious or misinformed anyone who would so slander him, Jew or gentile. It is a debt he owes to friendship and to justice." Mr. Tellechea has an explanation for my misbehavior. "Buckley is a national icon. In fact, not a few liberals have had a sort of crush on him for years. He is a fascist, of course, but what a wonderful writer."'

Therein the explanation! "Buckley is [would be?] a man of iron not to have succumbed to such entreaties. But because he is so accustomed to adoration and so above the fray, he does not understand that the criticism he weathers so easily, when directed at one such as Sobran, who is not a national icon and not particularly lovable, can wreck a man's career and leave his reputation in tatters. He shouldn't recommend to Sobran that he ignore his enemies, nor should Buckley ignore them. And, of course, he shouldn't give Sobran's adversaries even an inch of rope with which to hang him. Buckley, after all, believes in Sobran's innocence, doesn't he?"

The instinctive feel of the majority of the eighty-odd readers Of NATIONAL REVIEW who wrote in was to wonder whether I had knuckled under to trendy pressures. I replied (perforce) by form letter, immediately acknowledging that this was the device I was necessarily driven to. My letter included the following sentences:

I have read your letters, many of them surpassingly sensitive and intelligent, with great care. The general positions I adopted ... reflect our considered judgment of the issues involved. Beyond reiterating this-we are bound, in the last analysis, to act with right reason, according to the dictates of conscience-there isn't anything I can usefully add.... I do hope that those of you most vexed will consider the possibility that you misread the editorial I wrote, and will do me the favor of rereading it.

A month or so later a letter from a rabbi. Daniel E. Lapin wrote from the Pacific Jewish Center in Venice, California:

Mr. Buckley, I am not sure that I fully understand the fuss about Sobran. The writing of Richard Cohen et al. strikes me as disingenuous. Sobran's "Pensees" in NR, December 31, 1985, on the other hand, laid the foundations of a dozen sermons in my synagogue. As you may remember from our brief meeting when you spoke for Brandeis Bardin Institute in Los Angeles, my rabbinic credentials are adequate.... If there is any way I can be useful to you, Mr. Sobran, or NATIONAL REVIEW, I would be honored. Insofar as there is something called anti-Semitism (as opposed to anti-Godism), I just don't believe Mr. Sobran is one. The range of opinion on NATIONAL REVIEW and Joe Sobran ran, thus, the gamut.