Party, which had been gaining strength,naccording to the opinion polls. ManynAmericans and Europeans assumed thatntheir own distaste for Begin was widelynshared in Israel. Never popular in Washington,nthe testy Prime Minister was farntoo combative, particularly as comparednto Anwar Sadat. Some blamed him fornstalling the Camp David peace process.nEven well-informed Americans believednthat Begin would fall. But he won reelectionnand helped his patty to gain additionalnseats in parliament.nMany U.S. observers were vexednbecause they had applied American standardsnto an Israeli situation. More importantlyn, they underestimated the depth ofncertain social divisions in the Jewish statenthat largely shape its political culture. Fornwhile Israelis are united about theirncountry’s role in the world, there is nonconsensus about the status of peoplenwithin Israel itself. Sephardicjews, thosenof non-European heritage, are a majoritynin Israel, but a minority in key areas:nuniversities, business, and, above all,npolitics. This “Second Israel” feels it hasnbeen relegated to second-class status bynJews of European descent, the Ashkenazim.nBegin, although Ashkenazimnhimself, has become the rallying figurenfor Sephardis against their common foe,nthe Labor Party and its predominantlyn”European” leadership.nObviously, the other major division innIsraeli society sets Jews against Arabs,nparticularly those Arabs living in thenWest Bank region. From the standpointnof national security, Israel’s case for retainingnArab-inhabited areas is unchallengeable.nEven when posed as a moralnissue—that is, about resolving the plightnof the Palestinians—Israel bears a greatndeal less responsibility than her neighbors:nit was the unrelenting hostility ofnSyria, Jordan, and Egypt, coupled withntheir military ineptitude, which led tonIsrael’s occupation of territory inhabitednby Palestinian Arabs. But even if Israel isnnot morally obliged to sacrifice its securitynto restore Palestinian self-determination,nthe ethnic tension between twonpeoples in one state has proven almostnirremediable, further sapping Israeli selfconfidence.nCompounding these animositiesnis an economic malaise causednby necessarily large defense budgets andnthe effects of socialism: Israel’s powerfulntrade unions assure high job security andnlow productivity.nThese strains come at a time in Israelinhistory when many common bonds haveneroded: the Jewish state’s very novelty, anbroad-based devotion to Zionism, thenaura of uninterrupted military success—neach has gradually worn away. The socialndivisions are also mirrored in a chaoticnpolitical system that brims with negativenenergy. Nevertheless, there is an examplenfor other states in the way Israelisnstrive to preserve their security and independence.nLawrence Meyer paints anfair portrait of Israel. About one thing henleaves little doubt: Israel has earnednrespect and support.nw hile Israel’s success makes itnanathema to founders of the new worldnorder, Chile has earned this same distinctionnfor a very different reason—for failingnto turn Marxist and lead Latin Americanout of neoimperialist bondage. However,nfashionable world opinion findsnChile rather useful. What happenednoverthrow. No one acquainted withnCosta-Gavras expected an accurate account,nand he did not disappoint: afternalerting the audience that “what followsnis all well documented,” he proceeded tondistort every aspect of Allende’s fall,nslandering U.S. diplomatic personnel ennroute. But compared to Missing, ThenMurder of Chile may be a trifle embarrassingnto perpetrators of the Allendenmyths. As the title indicates, authornSamuel Chavkin, a left-wing journalist,nscorns ail pretense of objectivity. His isnblatant propaganda and will convert nonone. Only a true believer would bother tonstay with this tiresomely tendentiousnbook beyond the opening page, wherenChavkin declares: “the epic story ofnAllende and the Popular Unity government,nas well as that of the fascist orgy ofnsadism that followed should be toldnagain and again.”nMost mythmakers touch up Allende’snrecord as president of Chile, the better tonpresent him as a martyr. But in their enthusiasm,nChavkin and the people henquotes all but canonize this lifelongnMarxist pol and amigo of Fidel Castro:none source gushes over the “greatnhumanitarian side of Allende”; anotherndeclares, “He was a father to us”; and forn”A needed correcrive lo the sluihby .’.tory piii DUI by iht- JLirita . . . they remind usnwhat an extraordinary politician Allende was—principled, dedicated, energeticnand tough.”n—The Nationnduring and after the 1973 military coupnthat overthrew Salvador Allende makesnfor facile equations of U.S. and Sovietnbehavior. Atrocities under the rightwingnjunta have helped divert attentionnfrom communist bmtality in Cuba, Vietnam,nand elsewhere throughout thenThird World.nChile’s polemical value can remainnhigh only so long as a certain version ofn1973’s events is widely accepted, andnthat requires a steady drumbeat of sophisticatednpropaganda. For example,nanti-American film director Costa-nGavras did his bit in 1982 with Missing, anmovie set in the turmoil of Allende’snnna third, Chile’s Marxist program was “anmiracle and Allende made it happen.”nNot surprisingly, Allende’s enemies are,nwithout exception, depicted as cruel,nvain, ugly, with “big pimply hostilenfaces.”nSalvador Allende’s image as a martyrnfor the masses of Latin America is thenproduct of revisionism and short memories.nLittle more than one third of Chile’snvoters supported him in 1970, but in ansplintered party system they constitutedna plurality. In subsequent elections, evennwith conttol over the machinery of government,nhis party made only marginalngains, and the Chilean left never camenApril 1983n