----- Original Message ----- From: "Ritu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 4:24 PM Subject: RE: Mindless and Heartless
> > Dan Minette wrote: > > > > I am still trying to figure out the line between criticising > > > Israel/Jews in politics/Jewish politics and anti-semitism. > > So I have a > > > question: When Christopher Hitchens claims that "The Democrat party > > > truly is what some people crudely say: a wholly-owned subsidiary of > > > the Israeli lobby", is he being critical of the Democrats or is he > > > being anti-semitic? > > > > He is being critical of the Democratic party. One way to > > note this is his support of the neocons (who are Jewish) in > > the next breath. > > Okay, so if you support the neocons, you are not anti-semitic? No. The great lie is that "Jews can't be trusted becasue they will betray their countrymen for their own agenda." I read a number of things by Hitchens and while I disagree with him on some points; I agree with him on others. He has written in such a way that he specifically disentangles himself from the "Great Lie" and points his finger in another direction. In a real sense, he provides a real counter-example to Warren's contention: here is a man who criticizes Israel strongly, as well as the actions of some of the Jews in the US. Yet, he does it in a manner that does not evoke one of the great historical anti-Semetic lies. So, I think that seeing the difference between what he writes and what Zimmy, Gautam and I all call anti-Semetic is key to seeing the point. Let me quote from other writings of his: <quote> The United States is free to say at any time that it can and will guarantee the 1947/8 frontiers of Israel, and will make this defense perimeter part of the western alliance, but that it will not provide one cent for annexation and colonisation, let alone for fanatical religious proselytisation. General Sharon would have to reject this offer of perpetual "security", because of the thuggish ideology of his own party. But the evidence is that a majority of Israeli Jews and Jewish Americans would support it, on principle. Why does this not happen, and why do we gamble the whole future of regime-change in the region on the wishes of a handful of demented zealots? At least partly because of the influence of the Christian lobby, which completes my point about the poisonous effect of the three monotheisms The war upon which we are engaged is a war for Enlightenment values, in which all religious fundamentalists are actual or potential traitors. It's well beyond time that we recognised this elementary fact, and began to act upon it. <end quote> > > If you read other things by him he comes > > out with a fairly well nuanced view. > > In the last two days, I have read some 6 articles by Hitchens. And I > have not come across any well nuanced view. Hmmm...since your a reasonable person, its likely that the nuances are against a background of long standing arguements. Hitchens is an athiestic socialist. His natural political advasaries are the conservatives, his natural allies are the leftists. Yet, he praises the neo-cons as being superior to the Israeli lobby, even though that lobby is more liberal. Further, the neo-cons are usually considered apostates by socialists who are well trained in Maxist analysis. They are former Trotskyites, who became conservatives....thus neocon (new conservative). So, by doing so, he breaks the usual pattern. For those of us familiar with Western political discord and political philosophy, we could usually finish the writings of someone who attacks the actions of the Israeli government as he starts to. I can't with Hitchens, because he breaks the pattern. There are other places where he breaks the mold. He says it is clear that Viet Nam was an impearlistic war fought first by the French and then the US. He says it's also clear that the Iraq war was the correct war to fight. There are very few people who hold both of theses views so strongly. I hope this helps illuminate the differences in the two statements. I see some of Hitchen's statements as mistaken, but none as anti-Semitic. Clearly, when he criticizes the statement attributed to Cindy as anti-Semitic, he puts himself in a position of seeing a similar difference. I think understanding that difference is extremely helpful if we are to fight anti-Semitism while retaining the right to criticize Israel as well as criticize the actions of our fellow citizens who happen to be Jewish. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
