Podhoretz, Vidal Feud

Yoder’s column in response to the Podhoretz-Vidal grudge match of the century scores several major points but somehow muddles the major issue of the dispute.

First, Yoder correctly focuses on the critical difference between disagreement with particular Israeli national policies and demonstration of overtly anti-Semitic behavior. Secondly, Yoder accurately and perceptively assesses the sudden affinity of “some Christian Right types” for Israel as based upon a premonition of Armageddon and the Second Coming rather than a full acceptance of Israel as an integral part of an ongoing and legitimate Jewish peoplehood.

However, Yoder’s characterization of Vidal’s attribution of “dual loyalty” to those Americans, primarily Jewish, who are intensely concerned with and supportive of Israel’s well-being as merely a verbal “rabbit punch,” and an “unfair and mischievous charge,” indicates that he was evidently missed the disagreement-behavior distinction to which he alludes.

Generations of Jews (mine, in America, thankfully excepted) have been tainted with such a charge as a means to exclude them from the mainstream of national life wherever they settled because their values were somewhat different from the majority ethos. Vidal’s remarks made in this personal intellectual cat fight create in the minds of many an uneasy feeling that he desires the exclusion of pro-Israeli Jews from the national mainstream as fostered by his adherence to the ludicrous standard of “dual loyalty.” Mere “unfairness,” as perceived by Yoder, thus becomes libelous to those of us who view Vidal’s remarks as an imputation of treason.

One would think that Yoder might possess a better grasp of history than both Podhoretz and Vidal, which would enable him to put these statements in their proper perspective.

THEODORE PERLE

Irvine