If Marty Peretz were writing an article on the changes The New Republic has undergone since he bought it he would say that he is trying to revive the old tradition of The New Republic or as the magazine said in 1914, "to create a little insurrection in men's minds." Peretz says The New Republic had developed a "knee jerk liberal" quality in recent years and that he would like it to be "less predictable without sacrificing its fundamental liberal commitment." Peretz wants to make it a place where controversy exists. To that extent he has succeeded.

Martin H. Peretz, lecturer on Social Studies, gave up his position as master of South House last June in order to devote full time to his recent purchase, The New Republic--the liberal, intellectual weekly magazine of politics and arts.

It is a magazine that congressmen and editors have always liked to read. Liberals in search of an opinion could find out what to think in often long, detailed articles, that made important and sometimes boring reading. Its reputation has been established by the contributions of such notables as Walter Lippmann '10, George Santayana '86, George Bernard Shaw, and Bertrand Russell. Peretz describes his readership as "over-educated, over-politicized, and over-affluent...the opinion-making elite."

However, some of Peretz's critics charge that his ardent Zionism is giving the magazine a new kind of predictability, not only in its treatment of the Middle East, but the rest of the world. Disgruntled former members of the staff say his yardstick for all matters is how they affect Israel, that his hawkish position on Israel has had a ripple effect on other issues. One of them cynically suggests that the magazine be renamed "The Middle East..And the Rest of The World."

An incident that Peretz's critics say illustrates the effects of his pro-Israeli convictions centered around the resignation of Stanley Karnow '45, foreign editor of The New Republic for two years, who quit last May. Things "came to a head," Karnow recalls, a day or two before the deadline of the May 24 issue, when President Ford announced that the United States had retaken the freighter Mayaguez after Cambodia had seized it. Karnow then wrote a two-paragraph editorial, that was mildly critical of U.S. policy and said that the military operation was staged "to rescue U.S. honor in wake of the Indochina debacle."

Karnow says he then suggested to Peretz that "we write an editorial examining everything," a more detailed criticism for the following issue. "Peretz told me he was in favor of what the government did," Karnow says and he speculates that Peretz was in basic agreement with the U.S. actions because they set a precedent for military intervention on behalf of Israel.

Peretz's version of the story goes that Karnow had not written anything in a month because he was engrossed in researching an article on Henry A. Kissinger '50. Peretz says he told him to finish the article on Kissinger before writing anything on Mayaguez.

In any case, the next issue came and went with no mention of Mayaguez, something Karnow considered inexcusable. This incident, compounded with other differences Peretz and Karnow were having, was enough to make Karnow resign.

Karnow says now that David Sanford, managing editor of The New Republic, told him that the reason Peretz didn't write the editorial was because "he didn't want to alienate the liberal readers."

But Karnow's statement just shows how hard it is to get people to agree on what Peretz is doing. Sanford denies Karnow's attribution as "bullshit." Karnow, who is sour about the affair, isn't surprised by Sanford's denial and says that since Sanford is still working for Peretz he can't be critical of Peretz. But Sanford defends Peretz because, he says, Peretz didn't have the reflexive reaction to Mayaguez that Karnow had, that Peretz thought it would be premature to write about it. And, finally, in the list of charges and countercharges, Peretz says that it was inconceivable, given his record of involvement in the anti-war movement, that he would have approved of the way the government handled the Mayaguez affair; "I don't know," he adds, "what implications it had for Israel."

Peretz gets angry when he hears the accusation that his Zionism was involved in Karnow's resignation. Karnow is trying to give their squabble more substance than it had, Peretz says. He calls Karnow a "whiner," "a perpetual malcontent," and a "kvetch." Karnow's expensive habits were a main source of friction between them, Peretz says; Karnow had a predilection for dining in fancy, expensive French restaurants with news sources and charging it to Peretz. Peretz says he was also charged with Karnow's long-distance phone calls to his friends.

Karnow in reply says that Peretz never raised any issues of expenses with him and that Peretz is trying to demean him in the easiest way. "He's trying to drown the issues between us in that kind of trivia...his arguments on that subject merely reveal his pettiness," he says. Karnow also says he has repaid Peretz for everything he owed him.

The next head to roll at The New Republic was the executive editor's. Peretz was reading Time magazine in his office the week after Karnow quit, he recalls. An article on the events at The New Republic quoted some remarks by Walter Pincus, the executive editor, who specialized in articles on Watergate. (A "Watergate obsessive," Peretz says.) Time reported that Pincus was disconsolate and would quit soon. Pincus told Time that Peretz was "a guy on an ego trip who doesn't know where he wants to go." That was enough for Peretz. As he recalls, he put down the magazine, walked into Pincus's office and said: "Walter, I read in Time that you say I don't know where I'm going. Well I know where you're going--out!"

Pincus says he has not read The New Republic since he was fired. Like Karnow, he levels charges of non professionalism at Peretz and says that Peretz's ideology sometimes influences the presentation of his facts. Pincus cites an article by Tad Szulc that appeared in The New Republic in June claiming Soviet violations of the SALT agreements. The piece made it seem as though the USSR was the only violator, Pincus says; it was ironically pro-U.S. military. He attributes the bias to Zionist criticism of the Soviet Union. "You can let the ideology come out in your conclusion but you have to offer the reader the basic facts," says Pincus who is now a consultant to NBC news.

Pincus's reaction can be attributed to sour grapes, Peretz says. Pincus reportedly wanted to buy the magazine with some friends, and when Peretz purchased it, Peretz says, "he was critical of my inheriting his role."