46
PARTISAN REVIEW
is a moralist and I am sure he has an explanation ready which persuades
himself and will satisfy his admirers.
Nor is it that difficult
to
understand Said's radicalism, which proba–
bly has little
to
do with the deep moral commitment he always invokes
and his innate non-conformism, but has instead a great deal
to
do with
Said's Christian origins. He is not a practicing Christian, and is uncom–
fortable with his non-Arabic first name. The same is true at least to
some extent with many of the Georges, Williams, Edmunds, Nicolas, and
Michaels-not to mention the Clovis in the forefront of the Arab
national movement.
Once upon a time this did not greatly matter, but with the rise of
Muslim fundamentalism, the situation of these non-Muslims has
become precarious. They are under psychological pressure to show that
their patriotism equals that of their Muslim compatriots. As a
spokesman for those in Jordan who oppose normal relations with Israel,
Ah Abu Sakar said, "1 am a Muslim and the Jewish people are our
enemy." There was no reference
to
being an Arab, or
to
Zionism. One
of the Christian Arab leaders solved his own problem by moving
to
Iraq
and converting
to
Islam, but for those who are known secularists, this
may not be a way out of the dilemma. Nor is it a specifically Arab
predicament: the Jews in the Russian terrorist movement prior
to
World
War 1 had
to
prove their attachment to the cause by being more extreme
and more foolhardy than the others. The same is true for the role of
women in the Baader Meinhof gang in Germany. Another example is
that of Semyon Frank, the Russian philosopher who died an emigre,
who reached the conclusion that a full identification with his native
country was possible only if he also embraced the state religion, and so
he and his family became practicing Russian Orthodox. The same was
true of Boris Pasternak; and it would be easy
to
adduce other examples
from other countries.
To blame Said for not having embraced the tenets of Zionism is, of
course, ridiculous. His case against Israel is as logical and legitimate as
that of the German refugees who were expelled from Eastern Europe
after World War II, or those of the many millions of Indians and Pak–
istanis who had to flee when the subcontinent was divided. What under–
mines his position are the blatant contradictions in his public posture
and,
to
call a spade a spade, his intellectual dishonesty.
If
there were a
prize for the self-righteous among the nations he would be a leading can–
didate. Showered with honors, acclaim, and publicity, the avatar of
political correctness, considered by some
to
be the most influential intel–
lectual figure in the United States, he still presents himself as a persecuted
