poignant of the selections here collected.nAmong the other contributions, thenreader will find a variety of rhetorical approachesnand philosophical concerns—nan articulate affirmation by MalcolmnMuggeridge of the abiding relevance ofnChristian doctrine, a scholarly explorationnby Allan Carlson of the historicalnlinkage between capitalism and thennuclear family, a scathing indictment bynJacqueline Kasun of the antinatalnpolicies governing U.S. foreign aid, anpenetrating critique by Midge Decter ofnvoluntarily childless marriage as anmodish trend—but all 14 speakers andnwriters share a profound faith in thentraditional family and a deep antipathynfor the invidious forces which wouldnweaken its beneficent bonds. Since onlyntwo in this “community of believers innthe family” frame their statements in explicitlynChristian terms, this is probablynnot the band of devout warriors Schaeffernwants to marshal. Nevertheless, at leastnso long as the battle rages over the preservationnof the family, believers would donwell to remember Jesus’ own words: “Henthat is not against us is on our part.”nClear Glass and Distorted ImagesnLawrence Meyer: Israel Now: Portraitnof a Troubled Land; Delacorte Press;nNew York.nSamuel Chavkin: The Murder ofnChile: Eyewitness Accounts of thenCoup, the Terror, and the ResistancenToday; Everest House; New York.nby Clay Clemensn^ince about 1970, if not earlier, worknhas been underway on a code of conductnfor international affairs. To be sure, thenUnited Nations Charter is already in existence,nbut it is hardly in force; fewncountries treat that document and itsnprescriptions very seriously. Instead theninternational community has thrownntogether a patchwork of procedures andnregulations having to do with the creationnof a “new international order.” Anynnation which chooses not to embrace thenritual obligations of anti-imperialism,nanticolonialism, antiapartheidism, redistributivenjustice, and radical egalitarianismnis begging for ostracism from thenworld community. Nowhere is the sanctitynof these slogans more strictly observednthan in the United NationsnMr. Clemens is a research associate at thenInstitute for Foreign Policy Analysis,nCambridge, MA.n34inChronicles of CulturenGeneral Assembly. The “world body”napparently sees as its sole purpose thenestablishment of the new order, or disestablishmentnof the old.nThe Israelis have cortfounded a vitalnmyth of the new order—that force isnreserved for approved national liberationnstruggles or for powerful countries immunenfrom the censure of world publicnopinion (an allowance which might bencalled the Brezhnev corollary). Israel hasnvigorously but prudently used militarynmeans to secure defensible borders, tonpreempt planned attacks, and—mostnrecently—to eliminate chronic and intolerablenterrorist raids from across itsnborders. In each case, the Jewish state wasnnot diverted by frantic pleas to let “internationalndiplomacy” work out “a peacefulnsolution”: Israelis clearly and coollynperceive that such multilateral settlementsninvariably patch over real conflictsnfor the sake of a superficial peace, andnthey reward those aggressors and outlawsnwho bury their designs in the cliches of annew, more peaceful and just world order.nThere are valuable, timely lessons fornAmerica in the Israeli experience if, asnNorman Podhoretz recently suggested innCommentary, we were willing to overcomenthe Vietnam syndrome. Militarynforce can succeed against national-liberationncampaigns because most arc butnthinly disguised grabs for power. Israelnnnhas quite convincingly stripped away thenmask of its own enemies, exposing themnas shrill dissemblers. The military decapitationnof Arafat’s PLO was performednswiftly and effectively, and it may havencreated the conditions for a real peace.nIsrael’s Spartan vigor has never comenat the expense of its Athenian vitality.nWhile so many devotees of the new ordernfind any excuse to establish emergencynrule, popular-front dictatorships, andnother variations of military government,nthe Jewish state has a natural legitimacynwhich obviates thq. need for strongarmednauthority. Despite political andngeographical isolation in an almost exclusivelynhostile environment, Israel remainsnmore visibly democratic than allnbut a handful of states.nA consensus of confidence has madenIsrael what it is: one of the most astonishingnsuccess stories in history. Israelis arenbound by a sense of national mission andncommon destiny that permits littlendoubt about the tightness of their generalncourse. Even journalists share in thisnconviction: they are Israelis first, newsmennsecond—an order of priorities aliennto their American colleagues.nFor three decades, Israel has held anspecial place in U. S. foreign policy. Withnlittle more at stake than its moral commitmentnto the survival of a democraticnstate, the U.S., to its credit, has stood bynIsrael militarily and politically. Now thatnAmericans are, for several reasons, said tonbe reassessing this close relationship,nLawrence Meyer’s Israel Now providesnsome valuable insights. Meyer has drawnna good journalistic profile of an entirensociety; working from several angles, henhas.captured the character of Israelnwithout overlooking or overdoing thenblemishes.nJyleyer’s objective—to help makensure that Americans do not judge Israelnhastily or wrongly—is understandable,ngiven that we have never become tmlynfamiliar with our ally and friend. One recentnepisode is instructive. In 1981,nMcnachem Begin faced a strong electoralnchallenge from the opposition Laborn