INTELLECTUALS AND POLITICS
601
theological to characterize the anticommunist position, he rele–
gates it to a form of fanaticism. He also caricatures liberal criticism
of the peace movement by amalgamating it with that of the far
right by saying "it sees the Soviet hand in every manifestation of
Western radicalism from mindless terrorism to peaceful protest."
I do not know of any anticommunist liberal who has said that the
Soviets manipulate all radical movements; the French and Ameri–
can socialists, for example, are outside the Soviet orbit, as are the
radicals in Solidarity. Nevertheless, the Soviets are very much
involved in terrorist activities. Dickstein has only to read Ann
Sterling's
The Terror Network
for documentation of the intricate
ties between the PLO, the Syrians, and other Arab terrorist groups
with the Russians. Furthermore, Dickstein repeats the old saw that
communists and fellow travelers were well-meaning idealists,–
which is about as profound as saying that middle-American con–
servatives are often very decent people.
Brooks's contribution to current political confusion is simi–
lar to Dickstein's, but he adds a few obfuscations, including some
distortions of my views. For instance, he attributes to me what he
calls the right'S traditional "my country right or wrong" position.
The evidence?-I said that part of the left favors forces in Latin
America and other parts of the world regardless of their Soviet ties
and anti-American policies. He also suggests I am against any
criticism of Israel. Proof?-I said that some of the opposition to
Begin masks anti-Israel attitudes-which is obvious to anyone
who has followed the campaign against Israel here and abroad.
Furthermore, Brooks converts my criticism of the PLO into a lack
of concern for the Palestinians. In general, Brooks's ideological
logic leads him to assert that the renewed"cold war" has somehow
cut away the basis for any criticism of the policies of America and
its allies, and to ask "is pro-Americanism and anticommunism
once again the only test to be applied toThirdWorld governments
and to citizens' loyalty? " Who said anything about not criticizing
America and its allies or about loyalty tests? This is not only
loaded polemics, but unseemly: need I indicate that my record in
these respects is slightly longer and more public than Brooks's.
Brooks also misunderstands my remarks about national and
international policies. What I said was that one could no longer
take a position that weakened one's own country without weigh–
ing its international consequences. I cited Lenin who did not care
