lobby, rattling Norman Podhoretz, quotingrnthe ancient Jews to approve alternativernlifestyles, and having been on thernAmeriean right before Midtown Manhattanrntook it over.rnThere are three, partly overlappingrngroups that have suffered in particularrnfrom charges of anti-Semitism. In allrnthree cases, these groups have had thernsame disadvantage: little access to thernmedia and therefore a lack of opportunityrnto present their views in mass newspapersrnand magazines. But not all ofrnthem have had the same row to hoe.rnThe first, critics of Israeli expansionistrnparties, have received an occasional hearingrnon news programs, and though effortsrnhave been made bv AIPAC, neocons,rnand some liberal journalists tornliken these critics to Nazi sympathizers,rnthey do continue to enjoy the presumptivernbenefit of their association, in mostrncases, with the political left. This is particularlyrntrue of Palestinian spokesmen,rnwho often sound politically correct exceptrnon the question of Zionism. EdwardrnSaid remains a celebrated professorrnof English and comparative literature atrnColumbia University and in good standingrnas a liberal, despite his activities as arnPalestinian spokesman. We might alsornnote that the liberal Democratic candidaternfor Senate, Lynn Yeakel, attractedrnconsiderable Jewish support in Pennsylvania,rnwhile being associated with thernoutspokenly pro-Palestinian Board ofrnDirectors of Bryn Mawr PresbyterianrnChurch, Yeakel’s credentials as a prochoicernfeminist offset for Jewish votersrnher past associations with critics of Israel.rnIn fact her social liberalism allowedrnYeakel to compete successfully for Jewishrnvotes against a liberal Republican incumbentrnwho had consistently takenrnAIPAC positions. Included in this group,rntoo, are Israelis who have criticized thernhard-line positions taken by the formerrnLikud government, a coalition that wasrnturned out of power despite the impassionedrnbacking of American Zionist organizations.rnIt is therefore hard to makernthe anti-Semitic label stick to those inrngroup one.rnOther groups who have been susceptiblernto what Murray Rothbard calls thern”smearbund” include disparagers of gaylibrnand traditionalists who have run afoulrnof well-connected neocons. The paleornpresidential candidate Pat Buchanan wasrnlabeled an anti-Semite after falling intornboth groups. More accurately, he fellrninto all three, having faulted the WestrnBank policy of Israel’s Likud governmentrnwhile simultaneously attacking alternativernlifestyles. To some degree, the combinedrnliberal-neocon campaign againstrnBuchanan has now appropriated thisrnneocon definition of anti-Semitism.rnFor years Commentary whacked awayrnat the gay lobby, publishing withoutrnconstraint such debunkers of it asrnSamuel McCracken and Michael Frumenti.rnWith some justification, the leftistrnSid Blumenthal spoke of the neoconsrnas being fixated on gays, in the same wayrnthey exploded each time they encounteredrncritics of the Israeli occupation ofrnthe West Bank. But in spite of this oncernsettled attitude, some neocons andrnmovement conservatives arc now speakingrngently about gay rights. Both WilliamrnBuckley and the New Republic, particularlyrnsince the arrival of its proudlyrnhomosexual editor-in-chief Andrew Sullivan,rnhave presented sympathetic treatmentsrnof gays. For that matter, so havernmany other celebrities who have beenrntireless in their defense of Israeli foreignrnpolicies, such as Alan Dershowitz, A. M.rnRosenthal, and former New York mayorrnEd Koch. The equation of homophobiarnand anti-Semitism has long been operativernin our press; William Raspberry andrnRichard Cohen stressed this alleged linkrnin their fiery polemics against Buchanan.rnIn deference to victimology, moreover,rnliterature on the Holocaust has come tornput the suffering of homosexuals underrnHitler only slightly below that of EuropeanrnJewry. One does not have to gornto Dershowitz’s egregious autobiographyrnChutzpah in search of this revisionistrnview. A nationally respected Holocaustrnauthority whom I heard speak in arnsynagogue in Bethesda, Maryland, DeborahrnE. Lipstadt, explained that Hitler’srnpersecution was aimed at gays, feminists,rnand blacks, but not at the “anti-SemiticrnPoles.” It is simply not true that AmerieanrnJews do not want to share the Holocaustrnwith other groups. They are quiternwilling to share it with anyone on therncurrent list of designated s’ictims.rnBecause of the situation describedrnabove, there ma be a growing tendencyrnon the respectable right to accept homophobiarnas symptomatic of right-wingrnanti-Semitism. On August 19, 1992, anrnattack on Buchanan appeared in thernNew York Times written by MichaelrnLind, executive editor of the neocon NationalrnInterest. Though his dyspepticrncomments on “conseratism’s ugly face”rnlooked familiar on the Tunes’ editorialrnpage, one trait distinguished them fromrnthe other op-cd pieces on the same topic.rnThis piece was written by a self-describedrnconservative.rnContrary to the polite fib told on thernOld Right, the neocons did not “occupy”rnthe conservative movement. Theyrnwere invited in to carry out their gloriousrnAnschluss, cheered on by some of thernmost influential conservatives of thern70’s. Neoconservatives were not intruders,rnbut rather the thought police whomrnmovement conservatives of the 70’s,rn80’s, and 90’s have worked hard to obey.rnLike the subjects in Hobbes’ state ofrnnature, these morally divided and emotionallyrninsecure individuals needed arncommonwealth in which to live together.rnAs fate would have it, neoconservativesrnwere happy to provide one, in exchangernfor the surrender of theirrnsubjects’ natural freedom.rnI’he inhabitants of this commonwealthrnlack the “intellectual discrimination”rnthat Claes Ryn and GeorgernPanichas see as vanishing on the right.rnBut they also lack even that elementalrnmoral sense that helps to distinguishrnadults from children. Thus movementrnconservatives go after old friends for notrnproffering the approved neocon opinionsrnabout the state of the world. And theyrnrefrain from asking questions that theirrnmortal god, the neocon sovereign, considersrnto be dangerously divisive. Forrnthose who try to open what solemn assembliesrnof neocons have decided tornclose there is only one response: consignmentrnto the fever swamps of anti-rnSemitic insensitivity into which “responsiblernconservative opinion” has putrnanyone on the right who doesn’t quiternfit into the wodd as conceived by DavidrnGlasner, Michael Lind, and their royalrnmasters.rnThe terms anti-Semitism and insensitivityrnmean no more in the presentrnconservative movement than whateverrnoffends the sovereign. Whenever a wellheeledrnand socially important neoconrnaccuses anyone on the right of beingrnanti-Semitic or anti-Zionist, no movementrnconservative in good standingrnever asks for proof before joining in thernchorus of condemnation. In Lew Rockwell’srnsatirical glossary of neocon language,rnwe are reminded that, for neoconservatives,rnevery turn of speech andrnhistorical association refers back to theirrnown parochial view of reality, startingrnwith a laughably narrow view of what isrngood or bad for Jews. By now that se-rn4&/CHRON1CLESrnrnrn