On p. 54, Hitchens writes, "Orthodox Jews conduct Congress by means of a hole in the sheet…" This is, as even most idiots know, a total fabrication. As a lie, it’s not as bad as the blood libel, but it’s not so far from the old tales of sexual perversion in Catholic monasteries and convents — it’s a lie meant to discredit a whole people by making them seem sexually bizarre and far outside decent society.
This urban legend was in the galleys of the book, but I figured that there’s no way it would appear in the final version. I figured someone along the way — a copy-editor, his Jewish editor, his Jewish publicist (a friend of mine and a great guy) — somebody would say, "Hitch, where did you read this? It’s total bullshit." But nobody did. Nor did anybody at Slate, where one imagines the book was read in galleys before somebody decided to excerpt it. In an industry filled with Jews (and plenty of smart Christians and Muslims and Hindus and atheists, too), who will catch this colossal error? Over the next couple weeks, let’s watch the book reviews to see.
My friend Lewis emails Hitchens:
Here’s what concerns me, and I write these words as someone who is a full agnostic. But before I begin, please allow me this one indulgence: I’m ecstatic that you answer my emails; it’s very gracious of you, and I will wage jihad for you. Just give me the signal! No, give me the names: Prager (pretty please), Horowitz, Eve Ensler (in monologue form) — God almighty, give me the order!
By criticizing circumcision – and you do more than simply criticize it; Andrew Sullivan also abhors the practice, but alas, for different reasons – you may be furthering, unintentionally, an effort that helps (how shall I put this) people who are not the most supportive of our Hebrew friends. If a cornerstone of Judaism is barbaric, and if said practice is routinely cited as proof of "the Jews’" depravity, don’t you think your criticism – and I know your motivations differ markedly from bigots and fools – will nonetheless strengthen the side you naturally detest? Does this mean you shouldn’t condemn what you find condemnable? Of course not. But you don’t qualify your criticism, reminding the reader that, religious considerations notwithstanding, there is a credible case to be made, one proffered by doctors themselves, that circumcision actually has legitimate medicinal benefits. Or, to paraphrase Robin Williams: When in doubt, go for the dick joke.
Also, you cite Meir Kahane . . . as proof of what? That he was a racist? No surprise there. That he was anti-Arab? Not exactly shocking. Was he representative of Israeli public opinion? No. If your most hateful opponents offered Pat Buchanan or Noam Chomsky (or Gore Vidal!) as proof of America’s shameful political class . . . would you find these examples even remotely persuasive or representative of either "American fascism" or "American communism"? C’mon!
Finally, you fully know that Judaism does not believe in proselytizing. You disdain the Orthodox? Who cares! Orthodox Jews don’t care about your religious beliefs. If anything, the vast majority of Orthodox Jews, in the United States and Europe, want to be left alone. I have no desire to live as an Orthodox Jew. But the Orthodox, even if they consider my beliefs contemptible, illogical, sad, laughable or ignorant, will not harm me. Or, to invoke Uncle Miltie (Friedman): Orthodox Jews, the adults anyway, are "free to choose." An Orthodox Jew can leave a community without fear of reprisal. Will he or she be shunned? Perhaps. Physically harmed? Highly, highly unlikely. I can’t say the same for the religion of peace.
Bottom line, God may not be great, but your copy generally is. Now, if only you’d realize that Horowitz is a schmuck. Peace.
….I’ll see you in hell. Which is not necessarily a bad thing. Think of it this way: Why would the Devil punish his likeminded ideologues? Does Satan look at this veritable murderers’ row and say: You’ve done bad, and I must punish you. Hell, no (so to speak)! We’ll at least be in middle management. The one shame is this: Prager will enjoy God’s love while we burn, or at least sizzle. If we repent, we can at least get his radio show in the great beyond. Then again, that would be hellish.
p.s. Kahane was repudiated by the Israeli government. Sadly, the government used "hate speech" laws to accomplish their goals. The medicine was equal to if not worse than the disease, in this case. Finally, Kahane may have represented settler opinion pretty well, but so what? Randy Weaver represented American lunacy pretty well, too. The real question is, Did Kahane represent Israeli public opinion? No! I’d think you’d support a country, especially one in the Middle east, that 1) outlaws capital punishment; 2) was founded by socialists, many of them atheists; 3) is a member of the West; and 4) makes excellent pita.
