Even within the organized AmericannJewish community, anyone whontakes a less than intransigent positionnwith regard to the Middle East isnbitterly attacked. Letty Cottin Pogrebin,nin her column in the Jewishnmagazine Moment (February 1990),ndescribes the situation this way: “Amidnall the contentiousness over MiddlenEast politics, you may have missed onensubtle but ominous development in thenAmerican Jewish community: Peace isnbecoming a dirty word. . . . DiscussingnMiddle East politics withnan old friend, I argue that, for the sakenof security, democracy and Jewish ethics,nIsrael should trade land for peace.n’Peace is just another word for surrender,’ninterrupts my friend with uncharacteristicnimpatience. ‘We’ve got tonstop thinking like ghetto Jews. We’vengot to stop compromising.'”nThose who have attempted to stiflenopen discussion, Ms. Pogrebin adds,n”have already accomplished the impossible:nthey’ve marginalized our centrists.nFor example, despite the ravagesnof the intifada, inflation, unemploymentnand depressed morale, they’veninsisted that only whiny, self-hatingnJews would focus on Israel’s problemsnor flaws. They’ve made moral introspectionnthe province of wimps, andnmedia-bashing a badge of Zionist honor.”nIn an interview with MichaelnLerner, editor of Tikkun (September/nOctober 1990), the respected Israelinnovelist A.N. Yehoshua laments whatnhe believes is “ethical insensitivity” onnthe part of Jewish organizational leadersnin America: “My greatest disappointmentnin the past few years wasnwatching the ethical insensitivity ofnAmerican Jews.” If there were morensensihvity, he argues, “American Jewsnwould have spoken out more cleady inncriHcizing Israel’s policies toward thenPalestinians. I watched with amazementnhow the world honored ElienWiesel as somehow a prophet of morality,nand how simultaneously Wieselnmanaged to fail to criticize Israeli policiesnin the territories. . . . I’m a friendnof Wiesel’s and I like him, and I knownthe important work he once did tonpromote an awareness of the Holocaustntwo decades ago, but I cannotnaccept his silence. He speaks aboutn’The Jews of Silence.’ But he is now anJew of silence. He cannot ask others tonspeak up about other situations ofnoppression and then remain silentnwhen he can clearly see what is happeningnon the West Bank.”nThose few members of Congressnwho have criticized Israel have, as withnmembers of the media, been accusednof anti-Semitism, and pro-Israel politicalnaction committees have done theirnbest to defeat them. They succeedednin the case of Representative PaulnFindlay (R-Illinois). In his book TheynDare to Speak Out, Findlay writes, “Ifnone particular group can succeed inninhibidng free expression on a particularnsubject, others inevitably will bentempted to try the same in order tonadvance their favorite causes. . . .nWhen a lobby stifles free speech nationallynon one controversial topic —nthe Middle East — all free speech isnthreatened.”nClearly, the bitter attack upon PatnBuchanan is not merely an isolatednfeud between two journalists but rathernpart of a larger effort to manipulate thennational discussion of Middle East affairs.nIn the case of Buchanan, our modernn”silencers” may have been surprisednby the widespread defense henhas received, in particular, by manynprominent Jewish Americans. Amongnthose signing a pro-Buchanan advertisementnin the New York Times werenPaul Gottfried, Leon Hadar, SheldonnRichman, Murray Rothbard, RonaldnHamowy and Murray Sabrin. AndnRabbi Jacob Neusner said, “this admirablenconservative may be ornery andnimpatient and wrong-headed, but he isncertainly no anti-Semite.”nOne can disagree with Buchanan ornanyone else without making falsencharges of bigotry. One can also insistnthat true anti-Semitism — and all formsnof racial and religious bigotry — shouldnbe vigorously opposed. But such evilsnshould not be trivialized by attributingnthem to those with whom there isnsimply disagreement on certain publicnquestions. The trivializahon of anti-nSemitism will only help to make itnacceptable. And then all of us will benthe losers.nAllan C. Brownfeld is a syndicatedncolumnist and an associate of thenAccuracy in Media-Allied EducationalnFoundation Speakers Bureau innWashington.nPOLITICSnnnAssassination ofnel Piochitonby Leon Steinmetzn(Love, Art, and the FourthnInternational)nWniinhen he was young, Cobanwas very fond of hunting,nbut not with a rifle, he preferred traps,”n”wrote Leon Trotsky in his essay inn1939. And who could know it betternthan Trotsky, for whom Coba (a.k.a.nJoseph Stalin), his former comrade-inarmsnand a close associate at the Politburo,nwas setting traps all over thenworid, which Trotsky, a weathered conspirator,nkept eluding. Until, finally, thentrap’s jaws clapped over their victim.nExactly 50 years ago, on a hot Augustnday in 1940, a young Spaniard,nRamon Mercader, walked freely intonTrotsky’s heavily fortified house in Coyoacan,na suburb of Mexico City, saidnhello to the guards, declined politely thentea offered to him by Trotsky’s unsuspectingnwife Natalia, then, on the pretextnof discussing with Trotsky his articlenabout the Fourth International, accompaniednthe old man to his study, andnthere brutally crushed Trotsky’s skullnwith an ice pick. That blow ended whatnhad begun peacefully, almost idyllicallynthree years prior — Trotsky’s final refugenin Mexico.nAfter Coba expelled him from SovietnRussia in 1929 (one can well imaginenhow madly he later cursed himself fornJANUARY 1991/51n