will go on, and then, when the whole thing collapses because of the
US initiatives, they’re going to blame the Vietnamese (which is
exactly what happened).
He said, Don’t worry—you don’t need to write an article. I’ll
make sure your point of view gets in. It was supposed to be in an
article written by Frances FitzGerald, but it wasn’t; she didn’t
understand or didn’t agree with the point.
I published articles about this right away, but in Ramparts and in
Social Policy. That was essentially the end of any association with
the New York Review. We understood each other.
Why are you in the Nation so infrequently?
It’s complicated. I don’t recall any contact with them until about
the late 1970s, I guess. At that point I wrote some book reviews for
them. Occasionally they’d invite me to take part in a symposium, but
mostly we were sort of at arm’s length. We didn’t really see things
the same way.
In the late 1980s, I interviewed Victor Navasky [former editor,
publisher and editorial director of the Nation magazine]. He said he
was uncomfortable with your views on the Middle East.
Victor, who I like, once called me to say that people kept asking
him why I wasn’t in the magazine. He explained to them that it was
because I kept sending him huge articles that were way too long. In
fact, the only article I’d ever submitted to the Nation was about two
pages long.
It was right after the bombing of Beirut ended in mid-August
- There was a flurry of talk about how there was going to be
peace and everything was going to be wonderful.
My article, based mainly on the Israeli press, said this was
nonsense, that the US and Israel intended to continue fighting, and
that there were going to be further atrocities. (I didn’t know then,
of course, that the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian
refugee camps were going to take place a few weeks later, but that
was the sort of thing I was anticipating. )
I sent the article to the Nation and never heard a word from
them. It’s the only one I’ve ever submitted. Actually, that’s the