to use such politically and emotionallynvolatile material as the key in the plan tontrap the terrorist ring. Still, Charlie is annimprovement over Khalil; “He was broadshoulderednand sculptured, with the raritynof a special object kept from sight. Hencould not have walked into a restaurantnwithout the talk dying round him, ornwalked out without leaving a kind of reliefnin his wake.” Even Barbara Cartlandnmight hesitate at this.nBut The Little Drummer Girl is interestingnprincipally because in it Le Carrencarries forward—^and moves beyond—nthe themes of his previous novels. LenCarre’s protagonists are usually Britishnand Soviet (or East European) agentsnand spymasters, whose similarity ofnmethods and perspectives make themninto mirror images of one another. Innthe Smiley novels, on which Le Carre’snfeme rests. Smiley evenmally triumphsnover Karla, his Soviet antagonist, but innthe process becomes the mirror imagenof his enemy. A Soviet operative tellsnSmiley: “Twin citiers we used to say younwere, you and Karla, two halves of thensame apple.” This is one of the few momentsnwhen Smiley is shaken out of hisnnormal composure: “He was standingnover her incensed by her cheap and unjustncomparison, knowing that neithernKarla’s methods nor Karla’s absolutismnwere his own.” Yet later he sees the justicenof the equation. Looking into thenKarla file:nHe read all night, he hardly stirred. Henread as far into his own past as intonKarla’s, and sometimes it seemed tonhim that the one life was merely thencomplement to the other.nSince Smiley has all along been awarenthat the values of loyalty and honor hendefended had all but vanished in contemporarynEngland (symbolized by hisnfidelity to his wife who routinely betraysnhim), one is tempted to formulate a LenCarre paradox. “There is nothing worthndefending but those who defend it anywaynwill wind up sacrificing even thenillusions that sustained them.”nIt is, to be sure, legitimate for a novel­nist to point out that there are similaritiesnbetween people who fill similar roles.nBut by never exploring the diflferencesnbetween the systems Smiley and Karlanrepresent, Le Carre conveys the impressionnthat there is no difference betweennthe governments for which they worknor the societies they serve. Le Carre thusndraws upon and feeds currents fashionablenamong liberals in the West who em-n•’llie biMiU make*’ the n-a.sons Iliir liTriirisiiiI iindiTMarnby Palestinian Arabs). For example,nJoseph, the agent who “runs” Charlie,nprovides a long, emotional defense ofnthe Palestinian cause. And it is an Israelinprofessor’s wife who compares Zionismnand nazism. “In the Golan, the beatingsnand the torture? On the West Bank, hownthey treat them, worse than the SS?…nWe couldn’t stop the Nazis, now wencan’t stop ourselves.” Both Joseph’sn—Mitvsiiivkn•’l.iu-raiiiri- is niiule Irom Mich slulV. . .. I.e (!arri- wrilcs this kind i)i’thin}> Ix-tter tluiin;in>t)ne has i^er done.”n—Peter .S. Prescottnen’.sHvekn”.Anil his iiioral Ibiiis is iniercstiiifj;uid pnnncalive.”n—Williani F.’ir Yorii Times RtMtk Reviewnphasize supposed correspondences andnconvergences between East and West,nand insinuates to the reading public thenidea that a determined enemy is no differentnfrom his n the surfece The Little DrummernGirl seems to follow the same pattern.nLe Carre applies his familiar mirrorimagingntechnique to his Israeli agentsnand Palestinian terrorists. “The housenwas beside a lake… Khalil drove past itntwice before he mmed into the drive,nand his eyes as he scanned the roadsidenwere Joseph’s eyes, dark and purposefulnand all-seeing.” Later, Charlie watchesnKhalil: “And for a second, in the extremitynof her tension, she imagined the mirrornimage of Joseph facing him.”nBut these suggestions of ambiguitynand correspondence are deceptive, fornLe Carre sets Israel up as the vUlain ofnthis novel. He ignores the broader Arab-nIsrael conflict and confines his focus tonIsrael and the Palestinians—in Le Carre’snportrait a military juggernaut against anhelpless, dispossessed people. The bitterestnattacks on Israel are from thenmouths of Israelis (there are no mirrorimagingnattacks on the Palestinian causennnspeech and that of the professor’s wifencan be partially defended in terms of thennovel’s structure. (And it must be admittednthat, while working on his book atnMishkenot Shaananim, the artist’s quarternin Jerusalem, Le Carre probably metnmore than one person like the professor’snwife. Particularly in academic and artisticncircles in Israel, there are those whonderive their sense of moral righteousnessnfrom castigating their society as utterlyniniquitous.) But Le Carre serves as PLOnpropagandist well beyond the requirementsnof his plot. At the end of Joseph’snlong disquisition on the evils of Zionism,nthere is this:nThen he laughed, not very nicely,nreached for his glass, and raised it tonher. ‘Make a toast to me,’ he ordered.n’Come. lift your glass. History belongsnto the winners . . .’ Doubtfully shenraised her own glass to him. ‘To tiny,ngallant Israel,’ he said. ‘To her amazingnsurvival, thanks to an American subsidynof seven million dollars a day, andnthe entire might of the Pentagonndancing to her mne.’nThis makes no sense except as anti-Israelnpropaganda. Le Carre’s use of theprofes-nAogttstl983n