Sir: Ignoring the irony that Israel should be attacked for
'churlish- ness' by the paper which, in Gale and Waugh (whatever happened to Biafra when it ceased to be news- worthy?), harbours two most cele- brated churls, I would reproach you only for your hypocrisy and inability to sustain your own argu- ment. If, as you admit, Sadat speaks with two voices, one for diplomatic display outside Egypt, the other to appease a war mania in Egypt, then there are grounds for Israel's recognition that, not only is he possibly not sincere, but that the converse to your argument is true, that it is the pious world appeal of Sadat which is the mask and the face turned to his own country which is real, especially as he has more to fear from them, and as glib Arab double talk, whether in bazaar or diplomatic bluster, is notorious. Arab leaders come and go and even now they speak with a gibber of contradiction and con- flict.
While they shout each other down, Israel is right to consider carefully before eagerly obeying a chance voice of appeasement spe- ciously raised in the din. Nor is Israel likely to be bothered by the risk of being considered a pariah by the SPECTATOR or indeed by anyone in the western world. When has she received any help other than crocodile tears in misfortune and condemnation when, after the United Nations, Britain and America stood by, she was attacked and defended herself? There is no relevance in a settlement which puts Arafat on a border a kilo- metre from Jewish homes. And the fact that some of the young Israeli intelligentsia are becoming as woolly and decadent as the Jewish intelligentsia in London and New York, let alone the rest of the London School of Economics and Berkeley University sloganeers, is no argument why Israel should not fight to maintain what a better generation travelled from the ghettos to maintain, ghettos to which they may have to return if the El Vino right and the New Left have their way. Henry Adler 3 Roland Gardens, London sw7
Previous page
