40 t h e q u e s t io n o f Pa l e s t in e anyone in either public or intellectual life, the sheer impossibil­ ity o f finding a space in which to speak for the Palestinians is enormous; indeed, every statement on behalf o f Israel intensi­ fies and concentrates pressure on the Palestinian to be silent, to accept repression. Thus it is legitimate and acceptable to be fo r Israel and against the Palestinians. T he more active principle stemming from this axiom is that you will very often find articles by Israelis about Israel in public circulation, but very rarely articles by Arabs about themselves. This is not only a gross numerical disproportion (which has a great deal to do with the difference in size and, yes, quality between the resident A rab and Jewish communities in this country), but also a qualitative one. During the 1973 w ar, for exam ple, The New York Times Sunday Magazine ran an essay one week by a prominent Israeli lawyer on what it felt like to be at war; the next w eek there was a supposedly symmetrical feature, al­ though it was written by a form er U .S . ambassador to Syria. When an A rab voice is heard it is selected in such a way as to make the least impression or, as I said earlier, when a representative A rab view is put forward it is either by a Western expert or it is a quasi-official A rab “ statem ent.” Q uantity and quality are kept equivalent. During the decade after 1967 a great many well-known personalities visited Israel, and in the case o f the writers among them, w rote their impressions. T he most recent instance is Saul Bellow ; others include Stephen Spender, Francine Du Plessix G ray, R enata A d ler, and G a ry Wills. A fte r 1967— unlike the period about which Edmund W ilson wrote— it was not possible to avoid or ignore the occupied territories or the Arabs there. Each account o f a visit to Israel therefore includes something about the Palestinians. In each case the Arabs are dealt with through an Israeli A rab expert, usually a worldly wise colonial officer, sometimes an academ ic figure with a background in military intelligence. In this respect, Bellow and Spender were exactly alik e.50 Their liberal humanity, their concern for the “ possible” violation o f Israeli dem ocracy by military occupa­ tion, was demonstrated by a talk with an expert w ho represent­ ed the A ra b “ reality” to them , alleviated their concern for