readers to exert pressure on local newspapersnaround the country to replacenPat Buchanan’s column with that ofnanother conservative columnist, suchnas George Will. Even Harvard ProfessornAlan Dershowitz, ordinarily an outspokennadvocate of the First Amendment,ndeclared that Buchanan shouldnbe removed from the national media.n”CNN should take him off the air andnmajor American newspapers shouldnstop running him,” Dershowitz toldnthe Washington Jewish Week. “Pat Buchanannhas been a vicious Jew-baiternfor many years. His anti-Semitism isnbeyond dispute.”nIndeed, AIPAC has made it clearnthat Pat Buchanan is not its only target.nWriting in Near East Report, MitchellnBard discussed “What to Do Aboutnthe Buchanans.” The plural is used, hennoted, because “Buchanan, of course,nis not the only one spewing venomnagainst Jews and Israel on a regularnbasis.” He urged supporters of AIPACnto urge editors to replace Buchanannwith conservatives like “George Will,nPaul Gigot, Norman Podhoretz, FrednBarnes, and William Safire,” or, if thencritic of Israel is a liberal, with “AlannDershowitz, A.M. Rosenthal, ornCharles Krauthammer.”nWhat many Americans seem not tonunderstand is that when the ADL andnAIPAC use the term “anti-Semitism,”nthey have their own, revised definitionnof the term.nIn his book Language is Sermonic,nRichard Weaver argued that we live innan age characterized by looseness andnexaggeration in description. Exaggeration,nhe maintained, is essentially anform of ignorance that allows andnseems to justify distortion: “A course ofnaction, when taken by our side, wasn’courageous’; when taken by the enemy,n’desperate’; a policy instituted bynour command was ‘stern’; the samenthing instituted by the enemy wasn’brutal’ . . . And such always happensnwhen men surrender to irrationality.”nToday, anti-Semitism in Americanhas been redefined as anything thatnopposes the politics and interests of thenstate of Israel. One cannot be critical ofnthe Israeli prime minister, concernednabout the question of the Palestinians,nor dubious about the value of massiveninfusions of American aid to Israelnwithout subjecting oneself to the possibilitynof being called “anti-Semitic.”n50/CHRONICLESnSuch a redefinition may be found innthe book The New Anti-Semitism bynArnold Forster and Benjamin R. Epsteinnof the Anti-Defamation League.nThe authors begin by noting the apparentndecrease in anti-Semitism in thenyears following Worid War II, especiallynfollowing the Allied liberation of thenconcentration camps and the discoverynof the full extent of Nazi atrocities.nHowever, they insist that this is only ansuperficial development. Anti-Semitism,nthey say, may remain dormant fornyears, and unless rooted out completely,nmay grow again. The book sets outnto identify the sources, modes, andnextent of current anti-Jewish behavior.nTo do so, the authors insist that it isnnecessary to redefine some of the traditionalnnotions about anti-Semitism andnits sources, to examine “insensitivity”nto Jewish concerns as well, therebynbroadening the range of behavior to benstudied. The new definition includesn”a callous indifference to Jewish concernsnexpressed by respectable institutionsnand persons . . . people whonwould be shocked to think of themselvesnas anti-Semites.”nThus, the nature of the “new” anti-nSemitism, according to Forster andnEpstein, is not necessarily hostility tonJews as Jews or toward Judaism —nwhich all men and women of good willndeplore—but, instead, criticism of Israelnand its policies.nIn a June 5, 1983, Washington Postnarticle entitled “Anti-Semitism HasnChanged,” Nathan Perlmutter, thennnational chairman of the ADL, expandednupon this thesis. He noted thatnthe search for peace in the Middle Eastnis “littered with minefields that endangernJewish interests” and declared thatnthe “fevered language” used by thenmedia in describing Israeli actions duringnthe invasion of Lebanon illustratedn”how decent yearnings for ‘peace’ innan alchemy of historical ignorance, andnhyperbole, stir anti-Semitic imagery.”nOne of those who has freely usednthe charge of anti-Semitism to silencencritics of Israel is Norman Podhoretz,neditor of Commentary. In an articlenentitled “J’accuse” {Commentary,nSeptember 1983), he charged America’snleading journalists, newspapers,nand television networks with anti-Semitismnbecause of their reporting of thennnwar of Lebanon and their criticism ofnIsrael’s conduct. Among those so accusednwere Anthony Lewis of the NewnYork Times, Nicholas von Hoffmannand Joseph Harsch of the ChristiannScience Monitor, Rowland Evans,nRobert Novak, Richard Cohen, andnAlfred Friendly of the WashingtonnPost, and a host of others. Of thencriticism of Israel by these journalists,nmany of whom were Jewish themselves,nPodhoretz declared: “We arendealing here with an eruption of anti-nSemitism.”nNorman Podhoretz was also willingnto attack Israeli critics of Israel’s policynin Lebanon, and did so publicly at thenMarch 1986 International Colloquiumnof Jewish Journalists. The Jerusalemnmeeting focused on whether Jewishnjournalists in general and Israeli journalistsnin particular have a special obligationnof restraint in reporting controversialnaspects of Israeli life. Writing innthe Jerusalem Post, columnist MoshenKohn reported: “The debate was lednoff by Norman Podhoretz . . . Henopened by laying down the ‘axiom’nthat ‘the preservation of the Jewishnpeople involves above all else ensuringnthe survival of Israel’ From this, hensaid, follows a second axiom: ‘It is innDiaspora Jewry’s own self-interest tonman the ramparts in the relentlessnideological war being waged againstnIsrael,’ which, he said, ‘I take to be anwar against the Jewish people as anwhole.’ So ‘the role of Jews who writenin both the Jewish and general press isnto defend Israel, and not join in thenattack on Israel.'”nMr. Podhoretz admitted that Jewsnhave a right to criticize. However,nwhen asked if he could think of annIsraeli action of which he might disapprove,nhe declared, “The only decisionnby Israel that I know I’d criticize publiclynwould be one to join a Communistnalliance.”nThe Jerusalem meeting was notnoverly receptive to this point of view.nHannah Zemer, editor of the Israelinlabor movement’s daily newspaper,nsaid: “I cannot tell people not to criticizena particular policy. Criticizing anparticular decision does not mean thatnyou are attacking Israel. You can’tnexpect people to defend the LebanonnWar, which was a wrong war. All wencan do is demand that the press benfair.”n