Comments on: Christopher Hitchens, fact-check on aisle three http://www.yourish.com/2007/12/04/4071 Cutting straight to the point Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:26:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Michael Lonie http://www.yourish.com/2007/12/04/4071/comment-page-1#comment-30001 Michael Lonie Thu, 06 Dec 2007 05:32:41 +0000 http://www.yourish.com/2007/12/04/4071#comment-30001 If I recall correctly what the "enlightened, rational" Hellenistic king Antiochus wanted the Jews to do was worship him as a g-d, and not The Lord. That was the sticking point. It does not seem to support Hichens' view very well. We might not have had Judaism and Christianity today, but given that precedent we might be worshipping any power-mad tyrant who seized rule by force instead. Idi Amin as "G-d Made Manifest" anyone? Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but I sometimes get the impression that Hitchens' dislike of the Jihadists is based solely on their being religious fanatics, and that if they were doing the same things in the name of establishing atheistic, world-wide socialism he'd be copacetic with the whole thing. If I recall correctly what the “enlightened, rational” Hellenistic king Antiochus wanted the Jews to do was worship him as a g-d, and not The Lord. That was the sticking point. It does not seem to support Hichens’ view very well. We might not have had Judaism and Christianity today, but given that precedent we might be worshipping any power-mad tyrant who seized rule by force instead. Idi Amin as “G-d Made Manifest” anyone?

Perhaps I’m wrong about this, but I sometimes get the impression that Hitchens’ dislike of the Jihadists is based solely on their being religious fanatics, and that if they were doing the same things in the name of establishing atheistic, world-wide socialism he’d be copacetic with the whole thing.

]]> By: Sabba Hillel http://www.yourish.com/2007/12/04/4071/comment-page-1#comment-29998 Sabba Hillel Thu, 06 Dec 2007 01:44:04 +0000 http://www.yourish.com/2007/12/04/4071#comment-29998 Thanks to <a href="http://incontext.blogmosis.com/" rel="nofollow">LynnB</a> for an interesting point. Of course, had the Hellenists won, Al Gor would not be faced with global warming as most human beings would have died, civilization would never have arisen, and we would be waiting for a replacement for Avraham Avinu to arise. Actually, though, the Hellenists would have failed to wipe out <b>all</b> the (religious) Jews though they may have triggered a massive plague rather than going underground as the Sadducees and causing the destruction of the second temple and our past (almost) 2000 years of exile and turmoil. Hitchens' comments are similar to ones that the Hellenists would have made. Perhaps that is why he is so nostalgic for them. Thanks to LynnB for an interesting point. Of course, had the Hellenists won, Al Gor would not be faced with global warming as most human beings would have died, civilization would never have arisen, and we would be waiting for a replacement for Avraham Avinu to arise.

Actually, though, the Hellenists would have failed to wipe out all the (religious) Jews though they may have triggered a massive plague rather than going underground as the Sadducees and causing the destruction of the second temple and our past (almost) 2000 years of exile and turmoil.

Hitchens’ comments are similar to ones that the Hellenists would have made. Perhaps that is why he is so nostalgic for them.

]]> By: LynnB http://www.yourish.com/2007/12/04/4071/comment-page-1#comment-29991 LynnB Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:02:07 +0000 http://www.yourish.com/2007/12/04/4071#comment-29991 Yes and no. The article does, in fact, take Hitchens' quote somewhat out of context. Because it looks like he's saying that the evil of Chanuka is that it "plagiarizes" Christmas, whereas that's only an aside. He then goes on to his main point, which is that Chanuka commemorates such an "absolutely tragic day in human history," because it represents the triumph of the Zealots' backwards, parochial, ignorant cult superstition over the enlightened Hellenized assimilationist Jews. He asserts, as I recall (I don't have the book in front of me -- I refuse to pay for it and the library wanted it back) that had the assimilationist Hellenized Jews won the day, Judaism as a religion would have disappeared, thus eliminating Christianity, Islam and all the evils of the world in one fell swoop, thus allowing the Jewish people to make a genuinely positive contribution to world civilization. That's the world according to Hitchens. FWIW. Yes and no. The article does, in fact, take Hitchens’ quote somewhat out of context. Because it looks like he’s saying that the evil of Chanuka is that it “plagiarizes” Christmas, whereas that’s only an aside. He then goes on to his main point, which is that Chanuka commemorates such an “absolutely tragic day in human history,” because it represents the triumph of the Zealots’ backwards, parochial, ignorant cult superstition over the enlightened Hellenized assimilationist Jews. He asserts, as I recall (I don’t have the book in front of me — I refuse to pay for it and the library wanted it back) that had the assimilationist Hellenized Jews won the day, Judaism as a religion would have disappeared, thus eliminating Christianity, Islam and all the evils of the world in one fell swoop, thus allowing the Jewish people to make a genuinely positive contribution to world civilization.

That’s the world according to Hitchens. FWIW.

]]> By: Yankev http://www.yourish.com/2007/12/04/4071/comment-page-1#comment-29988 Yankev Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:34:52 +0000 http://www.yourish.com/2007/12/04/4071#comment-29988 Alex and others have summed it up nicely. Hanukka obviously could not have started as an imitation of Krechsmacht, but if you read the full article, you'll see that Hitchens never claims it did. In the US especially, the imitation of Krechsmacht is rampant, from the gift giving (never a part of traditional Hanukkah observance) to the nauseating but mercifully seldom seen "Hanukah bush" that started as a bad joke. Alex, the guy who played Murphy Brown’s right-wing boyfriend played a sports writer in the show with Susan Dey. Susan Dey left after the first season or two and was replaced with another non-Jewish girlfriend, played by one of the former Designing Women. Alex and others have summed it up nicely. Hanukka obviously could not have started as an imitation of Krechsmacht, but if you read the full article, you’ll see that Hitchens never claims it did. In the US especially, the imitation of Krechsmacht is rampant, from the gift giving (never a part of traditional Hanukkah observance) to the nauseating but mercifully seldom seen “Hanukah bush” that started as a bad joke.

Alex, the guy who played Murphy Brown’s right-wing boyfriend played a sports writer in the show with Susan Dey. Susan Dey left after the first season or two and was replaced with another non-Jewish girlfriend, played by one of the former Designing Women.

]]> By: Alex Bensky http://www.yourish.com/2007/12/04/4071/comment-page-1#comment-29985 Alex Bensky Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:10:13 +0000 http://www.yourish.com/2007/12/04/4071#comment-29985 Eric, you've got a good point. However, after 9/11 he abandoned for the msot part his iconoclastic/left-wing stance on most issues but kept his viewpoint on Israel. In other words, in most areas except this one he's been able to adjust his thinking to reality. It's entirely possible, of course, that the obvious explanation is the correct one--he doesn't like Jews, at least not Jews organized into a state with armies and jet fighters. (For a lot of people Jews as violinists and comedians are just fine, it's when we start getting into this other stuff that they sadly see that we're abandoning our great traditions.) So he re-appraised a lot of issues but doesn't seem to have done so on this...I don't mean changing his mind, he doesn't appear to have even gone through a re-appraisal that brought him back to where he was before. As I say, it could well be the obvious reason but I wonder. There are a lot of areas where I used to ascribe the situation to deep, complex, socioeconomic or historical forces and I later realized it was a lot simpler: a lot of people don't like Jews. Eric, you’ve got a good point. However, after 9/11 he abandoned for the msot part his iconoclastic/left-wing stance on most issues but kept his viewpoint on Israel. In other words, in most areas except this one he’s been able to adjust his thinking to reality.

It’s entirely possible, of course, that the obvious explanation is the correct one–he doesn’t like Jews, at least not Jews organized into a state with armies and jet fighters. (For a lot of people Jews as violinists and comedians are just fine, it’s when we start getting into this other stuff that they sadly see that we’re abandoning our great traditions.)

So he re-appraised a lot of issues but doesn’t seem to have done so on this…I don’t mean changing his mind, he doesn’t appear to have even gone through a re-appraisal that brought him back to where he was before. As I say, it could well be the obvious reason but I wonder.

There are a lot of areas where I used to ascribe the situation to deep, complex, socioeconomic or historical forces and I later realized it was a lot simpler: a lot of people don’t like Jews.

]]> By: Eric J http://www.yourish.com/2007/12/04/4071/comment-page-1#comment-29982 Eric J Wed, 05 Dec 2007 14:47:31 +0000 http://www.yourish.com/2007/12/04/4071#comment-29982 Alex, I think part of the core of Hitchens is his need to see himself as an iconoclast, and hold a number of opinions contradictory to whomever he's associating with at the moment. Remember, this is the guy who wrote a book-length screed and documentary about the hypocrisy and perfidy of <i>Mother Theresa</i>. In addition, post-September 11th he's made a project of opposing Islamofascism and supporting the GWOT without publicly walking back or repudiating any of his pre-September 11th positions. He wants to be a modern Lincoln Brigader, fighting the new face of Fascism while carrying the banner of International Socialism. The fact that there isn't anyone else there holding the banner with him just makes the position all the more attractive. So his hatred of Israel and support for the Palestinians comes from the '70s-'80s world view where Arafat and the Palestinians were an Arab Socialist vanguard, using the rhetoric and iconography of a Socialist revolution (when their audience was sympathetic to such.) He became steeped and learned in every mistake the Israeli army and government made in the '82 Lebanon war, and was an eager audience for anti-Zionist propaganda. And he's felt no need to reappraise that position, given his faith that all religions are equally bad, and therefore a Jewish state is as despicable as an Islamic one. Alex, I think part of the core of Hitchens is his need to see himself as an iconoclast, and hold a number of opinions contradictory to whomever he’s associating with at the moment. Remember, this is the guy who wrote a book-length screed and documentary about the hypocrisy and perfidy of Mother Theresa.

In addition, post-September 11th he’s made a project of opposing Islamofascism and supporting the GWOT without publicly walking back or repudiating any of his pre-September 11th positions. He wants to be a modern Lincoln Brigader, fighting the new face of Fascism while carrying the banner of International Socialism. The fact that there isn’t anyone else there holding the banner with him just makes the position all the more attractive.

So his hatred of Israel and support for the Palestinians comes from the ’70s-’80s world view where Arafat and the Palestinians were an Arab Socialist vanguard, using the rhetoric and iconography of a Socialist revolution (when their audience was sympathetic to such.) He became steeped and learned in every mistake the Israeli army and government made in the ‘82 Lebanon war, and was an eager audience for anti-Zionist propaganda. And he’s felt no need to reappraise that position, given his faith that all religions are equally bad, and therefore a Jewish state is as despicable as an Islamic one.

]]> By: Alex Bensky http://www.yourish.com/2007/12/04/4071/comment-page-1#comment-29979 Alex Bensky Wed, 05 Dec 2007 11:57:50 +0000 http://www.yourish.com/2007/12/04/4071#comment-29979 No, actually he's got a point here. Chanukkah traditionally has been a minor holiday. Making it into something major and turning it into a major gift giving holiday is actually pretty much what American Jews have done. I assume everyone reading this knows, by the way, that the "miracle of the eight nights" is not found in the historical sources. We shouldn't have done this, either. Chanukkah just happens to come around this time but it does have significance that has nothing to do with gifts or Christmas or winter festivals as such. There was some sitcome a while back with Susan Dey and the guy who played Murphy Brown's right-wing boyfriend. She was a non-Jewish restaurant owner, I forget what his Jewish character did, and in the obligatory holiday episode they agree at the end that "both Christmas and Chanukkah are really about 'peace on earth, good will towards men.'" Peace and good will are, of course, the last things Chanukkah is about. That said, while I learn a lot from Hitchens, it must be said that he has a blind spot when it comes to certain people. 9/11 had a profound effect on him in many ways, but somehow he still sees Israel and Israel's situation just as he did before. Anyone have any ideas why? Yes,I know the standard and quite possibly real explanation, but I wonder. No, actually he’s got a point here. Chanukkah traditionally has been a minor holiday. Making it into something major and turning it into a major gift giving holiday is actually pretty much what American Jews have done. I assume everyone reading this knows, by the way, that the “miracle of the eight nights” is not found in the historical sources.

We shouldn’t have done this, either. Chanukkah just happens to come around this time but it does have significance that has nothing to do with gifts or Christmas or winter festivals as such.

There was some sitcome a while back with Susan Dey and the guy who played Murphy Brown’s right-wing boyfriend. She was a non-Jewish restaurant owner, I forget what his Jewish character did, and in the obligatory holiday episode they agree at the end that “both Christmas and Chanukkah are really about ‘peace on earth, good will towards men.’” Peace and good will are, of course, the last things Chanukkah is about.

That said, while I learn a lot from Hitchens, it must be said that he has a blind spot when it comes to certain people. 9/11 had a profound effect on him in many ways, but somehow he still sees Israel and Israel’s situation just as he did before.

Anyone have any ideas why? Yes,I know the standard and quite possibly real explanation, but I wonder.

]]> By: Joanne http://www.yourish.com/2007/12/04/4071/comment-page-1#comment-29978 Joanne Wed, 05 Dec 2007 04:55:04 +0000 http://www.yourish.com/2007/12/04/4071#comment-29978 Christopher Hitchens is no authority on Judaism, and, though he claims to be a philosemite, he's no friend of the Jews. He even claims to be Jewish himself. That's because when he was 38 years old, he found out for the first time that he had some Jewish ancestry, when his mother or grandmother told him. They hadn't bothered before, you see. But because he is descended from a female Jew through the maternal line (great grandmother? I'm not sure), he claims that he's technically Jewish. But all he uses his "Judaism" for is to preach anti-Zionism. That's right, he's for the war on Iraq. That was a switch from his traditionally left-wing politics, but he remains a staunch anti-Zionist. So now, he likes to say, "as a Jew..." You can figure out the rest. Christopher Hitchens is no authority on Judaism, and, though he claims to be a philosemite, he’s no friend of the Jews. He even claims to be Jewish himself. That’s because when he was 38 years old, he found out for the first time that he had some Jewish ancestry, when his mother or grandmother told him. They hadn’t bothered before, you see. But because he is descended from a female Jew through the maternal line (great grandmother? I’m not sure), he claims that he’s technically Jewish.

But all he uses his “Judaism” for is to preach anti-Zionism. That’s right, he’s for the war on Iraq. That was a switch from his traditionally left-wing politics, but he remains a staunch anti-Zionist. So now, he likes to say, “as a Jew…” You can figure out the rest.

]]> By: Gliker http://www.yourish.com/2007/12/04/4071/comment-page-1#comment-29976 Gliker Wed, 05 Dec 2007 03:29:20 +0000 http://www.yourish.com/2007/12/04/4071#comment-29976 I tend to agree with Hitch in that Hanukah has been commercialized to match the Christmas sentiment. And thats fine. Its very fun. I love Hanukah. I love Christmas. People should get over themselves. I tend to agree with Hitch in that Hanukah has been commercialized to match the Christmas sentiment.

And thats fine. Its very fun. I love Hanukah. I love Christmas. People should get over themselves.

]]> By: LynnB http://www.yourish.com/2007/12/04/4071/comment-page-1#comment-29975 LynnB Wed, 05 Dec 2007 03:04:42 +0000 http://www.yourish.com/2007/12/04/4071#comment-29975 Yes, and this is only one of many complete distortions of reality that Hitchens indulges in throughout what could be a close contender for The Worst Book Ever Written. Michael Lonie (#4) may well have put his finger on it, because I've been at a loss to figure how Hitch can be so erudite and articulate on so many subjects and yet fail so miserably (whether you agree with him or not) on this one. Feh! Yes, and this is only one of many complete distortions of reality that Hitchens indulges in throughout what could be a close contender for The Worst Book Ever Written. Michael Lonie (#4) may well have put his finger on it, because I’ve been at a loss to figure how Hitch can be so erudite and articulate on so many subjects and yet fail so miserably (whether you agree with him or not) on this one. Feh!

]]>