vite the ACLU into his country, innorder to insulate it against the rhetoric ofncrazy religious enthusiasts. One wouldnbe justified in asking how these gesturesnmight keep Israel’s sworn enemies fromnblowing her up. The question is, ofncourse, an impudent one: what is to benprotected is the future of an illusion ofnthe Enlightenment, not the physicalnsecurity of a nation with armed enemiesnjust beyond its borders and a large Arabnminority—much of it sympathetic tonIsrael’s foreign enemies — within them.nA variation on the Dreyfus-Leshemnview of Israel’s mission as a Jewish statencan be found, curiously enough, amongnthe neoconservatives. Although theyndefend Israel furiously against all critics,nNorman Podhoretz and his circlendream alike of a brave new world withoutnpolitics. In this world, which theynimagine already largely exists, nationsnand national interest will cease to operate;neveryone will think like a neoeonservative.nIsraelis will not have tonprepare for this secularized Kingdom ofnGod, since global democracy attachesnto them irretrievably, like grace to thenfaithful in Calvinist theology. The tmthnthat will never pass neoconservative lipsnis that Israel is not a secular pluralisticndemocracy. Nor is there any reason thatnit should be. Judaism has a time-boundnrelationship to the Enlightenment: onenlimited to its quest for a defensivenstrategy against Christian anti-Semitism,nand to the war in Eastern andnCentral Europe being waged by Jewishnsecularists against the rabbinicalnmagisterium.nLeshem, who may have spent toonmuch time among ethical culturists,nexaggerates the Jewish ties to Enlightenednthinking. Like the authors of thenIsraeli Declaration of Independence, henanachronistically finds such thinking innProphetic (as opposed to Rabbinic) Judaism,nwishing us not to notice thenmessianic and often xenophobic nationalism,nmystical utterances, and —nespecially in the case of Ezekiel—nprofound attachment to the priestly cultnin the Prophets, as well as in laternJudaism. Leshem even works hard tonturn Herzl into a French “philosophenmanque,” though, as his biographersnpoint out, Herzl took his ideas morenfrom the gentrified German bourgeoisienthan from the Age of Reason.nUnfortunately for Leshem, there isnno reason to assume that all Jews at allntimes will (or should) accept cosmopolitan,negalitarian values; as he himselfnregretfully admits, these have not beennintegral to most Jewish experience innthe past. National and religious particularitiesnare in any case more useful innrallying a people like the Israelis in anprotracted war against a determinednfoe. In the present circumstances, wenmay even wonder which side is misrepresentingnthe truth more: Dreyfus andnLeshem, by calling for pacifist or secularistngestures in order to abolish politicalnproblems, or the global democrats,nfor informing us that Utopia is alreadynhere. Both sides have tried to reducenpolitics, which properly deals with thenprotection of communities against theirnLIBERAL ARTSnenemies, to dreams of a world withoutnpolitics.nThereby, they make it impossible tondiscuss national differences — evennamong political allies — without spitefulnrecrimination, since political differencesnare no longer tolerable amongnthose living in either an imminent ornan already established earthly paradise.nIll will and ill will alone, though variouslyninterpreted as anti-Semitism ornopposition to Jewish universalism, canncause Israeli and American interests tondiverge. Indeed, it may not be ideologynat all, but simply disagreement aboutnwhether Utopia is already upon us, that,nin America, separates certain of Israel’sncritics from certain others of its friends.n<^nSTEPPING OUT WITH UNCLE SAM, OR YOUR TAXnDOLLARS HARD AT WORKnWaiters in Italian restaurants in thisncountry get the biggest tips from customersnwhile those in Mexican eateriesnfare the worst, the Internal RevenuenService has found. The average tip innItalian restaurants in 1986 was 15.8npercent, compared with 15 percent innChinese restaurants and 14.8 percent innMexican restaurants, according to annIRS study conducted by the Universitynof Illinois. The IRS wisely refrainednfrom trying to explain the differencesn. . .n—from The Chicago Tribune,nAugust 28, J 989nThe Treasury Department’s depreciationnanalysis division has issued whatnmay be the first Federal tuxedo report.n. . . The report described the tuxedonjacket as “the basic unit of input,”nadding: “The average rental includesnnnthe jacket, pants, cummerbund, shirt,ntie and studs. Since pants usually wearnout faster than jackets, approximatelynone and a third pairs of pants arenpurchased for each jacket.”n. . . The statisticians found thatnformal-wear rental companies infrequentlynsell used tuxedos.n”Industry representatives noted thatnbefore used tuxedos are discarded theynmay be spray-painted, shredded or theirnsleeves may be cut off to prevent thentuxedos from being worn when theirnappearance would no longer suggestnelegance,” the report says. “There isnthus little or no salvage value for retiredntuxedos.”nThe tuxedo report is the first depreciationnreport issued by the depreciationnanalysis division. There is no mentionnof what the second study might be.n—AP, August 19, 1989nDECEMBER 1989/31n