phy Chutzpah, I was struck by his deftnmanipulation of a particular image, thatnof an aggrieved member of an immeasurablynvictimized group, the victimizationnof which is somehow the inexpiable faultnof white heterosexual Christian males.nCuriously, it is never made clear whonthe victim is. It is not all Jews, for Dershowitznvents his contempt on GermannJews and on those of his coreligionistsnwho made it in America before him andnwhose names do not seem, at least to hisnear, sufficiently Jewish. In fact, the onlynJews he would admit as fellow victimsnare those who share his unutterablenindignation against goyim and whonsupport the present Israeli settlementnpolicy on the West Bank. Dershowitz insistsnthat the displacement of Palestiniansnis a “fifth-rate human rights issue”nand that any criticism of that policy is onlyna mask for anti-Semitism or Jewishnself-hate. Not surprisingly, he does supportncontinued sanctions against thengovernment of South Africa.nAnother criterion of being an authenticnJew, for Dershowitz, is the willingness tonembrace gay rights as a Jewish concern.nIn Chutzpah we learn that, unlike Polesnwho were “selectively murdered” by thenNazis, homosexuals were genuine victimsnof Nazi genocide. Homosexualsnalso shared the Jewish fate of beingnmarginalized, again unlike the Polesnwho are presented as Nazi accomplices.nUnfortunately, for this exercise in politicalncorrectness. Hitler killed twonmillion Polish Catholics, a far greaternnumber of victims than one can reasonablyncome up with for liquidated gays.nBesides, unlike Polish Catholics, homosexualsnswelled the ranks of the earlynNazi movement, particularly the SA. Thenmost important Nazi filmmaker, LeninRiefenstahl, was a crusading lesbian andncelebrant of black Africa.nBut Dershowitz’s book is not aboutnfacts, any more than Mein Kampf. It is annextended diabolization in which, as innHitler’s ravings, the victimizer stands outnalways more clearly than the victim. Andnthe victimizer is whomever Dershowitznhappens to dislike and decides to presentnas an anti-Semite. When he comes tonblack anti-Semitism, he dismisses it asnbased on misunderstanding about thencauses of discrimination. Jesse Jackson,nby definition, cannot be an anti-Semite,nbecause he is not an American whitenProtestant, Polish Catholic, or a membernof any other group that Dershowitz setsnout to diabolize. One is also impressedn8/CHRONICLESnby the sweeping character of the condemnations.nWSPdom is relegated tonthe outer reaches of perdition becausenDershowitz felt socially uncomfortable asna law student at Yale and because nonestablishment firm gave him a job uponngraduation. Former students of mine havenexpressed the same complaints againstnEastern European Jewish liberals whononly hire their own kind in law firms andnuniversities. Are they, too, justified innventing their hate in print—or in reachingnfor the Aryan equivalent of Chutzpah?nHaving known real holocaust victims,nit is doubtful that Dershowitz and hisnself-pitying friends have shared their fate.nThose real victims know the difference betweennmurderous thugs and Episcopaliannlaw professors who may or may not havensnubbed the abrasive Dershowitz on annelevator. Nor did our self-proclaimed heronsuffer continuing degradation at the handsnof American Christians, many of whosenfamilies fought against Nazi Germany. Tonthe contrary, Dershowitz has benefitednconspicuously from American Christiannsociety, far more than yours truly whonnonetheless thanks this country for givingnhis father refuge from real, not imaginary,nNazis. Reading Dershowitz I was remindednof the rhetorical question posednby Joe McCarthy in what I would like tonbelieve was a sober moment: Why haventhose born with silver spoons in theirnmouths repaid this country so badly?nThough Dershowitz worked for that silvernspoon by putting those he knew werenmurderers back onto the streets, it seemsnin any case that America did well by him.nCertainly he could not have come sonfar from his humble Brooklyn origins ifnAmerican gentiles were even half asnprejudiced as he suggests. Invariablynhe skirts this issue by praising Americanas an open-ended or deconstructednFirst Amendment or as something beingnresocialized by the Anti-DefamationnLeague. Yet it is still a predominantlynChristian Western country that putsnup with him and rewards his insultsnwith money.nMy own sense of things is that Dershowitznwould clean up his act if goyimnwere not such wimps. If American Christiansnand American Jews tried to build anrelationship on mutual respect, Dershowitznwould be forced to confine himselfnto professional activities. Though itnis hoped that a less permissive criminalnlaw system would deprive him of that optionnas well, he may be less offensive innthe classroom or courtroom than as annnvictimological autobiographer.n—Paul GottfriednPRESIDENT BUSH’S 1993 budgetncalled for additional reductions in defensenspending totaling $50 billion over fivenyears. Liberal members of Congressnimmediately sharpened their knives tonmake even larger cuts. Bush’s recommendationsnin regard to nuclear weaponsnwere sensible. Termination of the B-2nbomber and Midgetman ICBM programsnwas justified, as both were far too expensivenfor the capabilities provided. Then”builddown” of existing long-range missilesnand warheads is to proceed over thenrest of the decade in tandem with the dismantlingnof Russia’s offensive systems.nHowever, four-fifths of the Pentagonnbudget goes for conventional forces. Despitenthe attention paid to the nuclearnarms race, it is still the traditional combatnservices that do the real fighting andnon which the United States dependsnfor power projection and the active defensenof its overseas interests. The movenaway from nuclear arms is not just becausenthe danger of an ideological struggle fornworld domination has waned. Nuclearnweapons have been shown to have limitednvalue in extended deterrence or as a toolnof world politics.nThe 1993 budget indicated a shift innBush administration priorities from previousnbudgets. The earlier five-year defensenplan incorporated into the OmnibusnBudget Reconciliation Act of Octobern1990 called for a massive reduction in conventionalnforces in order to keep fundsnavailable for nuclear systems. Now the axnhas been turned on the strategic systemsnwith Bush warning that he will not acceptndeeper cuts in conventional forces. Thisnnew scheme makes more sense, but it willnbe surprising if Bush can (or even triesnvery hard to) block further moves innCongress towards conventional disarmament.nThe disarmers claim that afternthe dissolution of the Soviet Union, thenUnited States has a surplus in military capability,nparticularly in “European-oriented”nground and air forces, which it isnalleged the country cannot afford becausenof the budget crisis. However, neithernthe facts nor experience supportsnsuch a conclusion.nThe size of the military is commonlynexaggerated. The United States nevernbuilt up to the levels required to meet thencountry’s global Cold War commitments.nIn 1982 these requirements were set byn