Hitchens v Blair on religion: not to be missed!
Tonight on BBC Radio 4 at 8.00 pm: not to be missed! Listen and tell us what you think.
Hitchens versus Blair: The Religion Debate
.
Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens discuss the proposition that religion is a force for good in the world. Recorded in front of a live audience in the Canadian city of Toronto, the debate is chaired by Rudyard Griffiths, and forms part of the twice yearly series of Munk Debates.
Broadcasts
-
Sat 11 Dec 201020:00
-
Mon 13 Dec 201015:00
Mikey said,
December 11, 2010 at 3:30 pm
The only problem with this is that Munk escaped from the Holocaust with the aid of a Nazi collaborator. What really irks me is that these days I believe he funds projects such as the writing of
ahistorical books that try and portray that collaborator as a hero.
Sorry, I know this is in some ways off topic, but I am not amused.
jim denham said,
December 11, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Mikey: I’ve no idea what you’re on about, but it sounds important. Please explain.
Mikey said,
December 11, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Jim,
The situation is quite complex and really too long for a short blog comment, but I shall do my best to explain some headline points.
Peter Munk was a Jewish teenager in Hungary in 1944. It was in that year (quite late in the war) that the Nazis invaded Hungary. In the space of a short period of time, between mid May and the beginning of July 1944, 437,000 Jews from the Hungarian provinces were shipped off to Auschwitz at the rate of up to 20,000 per day. The vast majority were sent to the gas chambers on arrival. The sad truth is that there was very little resistance to these orders by the Nazis.
Rudolf Kasztner was a Jewish leader in Hungary. He knew about Auschwitz but the Jewish masses did not. He entered into negotiations with the leading Nazi Adolf Eichmann whose job it was to send all the Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz. The idea, as told by Kasztner’s supporters was that he wanted and tried to save all Hungarian Jews, but he only successfully negotiated one the safe passage of one train load of Jews containing just under 1,700 passengers. These particular Jews, of which Munk was one, did not go to Auschwitz.. They were taken to Bergen-Belsen where they were held hostage by the Nazis and ultimately released to Switzerland. Some of Kasztner’s supporters actually claim that Kasztner saved many more than these Jews and give him credit for “saving” up to hundreds of thousands of Jews. This is fantasy. There is simply no evidence that he did do so.
The problem was that Kasztner kept silent., Had the Jews known about Auschwitz they might have been able to attempt to resist boarding the trains. They might not have been successful, but at least they would have been encouraged to resist as best as they could. Even if they hid and the Nazis had to drag them out of the hiding places, the time taken to do this might have slowed down the rate at which they packaged off Jews to their death.
Not only this, but after the war, Kastzner testified on behalf of certain Nazis. In one case at least, Colonel Becher, it was likely to be Kasztner’s testimony that stopped Becher being executed in the war crimes’ trials.
After the war, Kasztner emigrated to Israel but in 1952, an elderly religious Zionist Jew living in Jerusalem published a pamphlet accusing Kasztner of collaborating with the Nazis, of preparing the ground for murder, of testifying for Nazi war criminals and of sharing Nazi plunder.
This led to a court case in Israel, that widely became known as the Kasztner Trial.
The judge (Benjamin Halevi) ruled that Kasztner was indeed a Nazi collaborator, he did prepare the ground for murder and he did testify for a Nazi war criminal. The only thing that it was not proved was that Kasztner had shared Nazi plunder. As such there was a technical libel and the pamphleteer was fined a notional one pound. This caused uproar – I am sure you can imagine that in Israel in 1955, there were a lot of people who wanted revenge against Nazi collaborators. There was an appeal to the trial where the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, overturned the ruling that kasztner was either a collaborator or had prepared the ground for murder. Their reasoning was that because, in their opinion, Kasztner had tried to save as many Jews as possible, he could not be a collaborator. But this was too late for Kasztner. In the interim he had been murdered in Israel by a man involved in a shady right wing Jewish organisation.
Given these two different court results – those opposed to Kasztner bring up the lower court decision and those in favour the Supreme Court decision. In fact,some of those in favour of Kasztner, of which Munk is one, go further. They argue that not only was Kasztner not a collaborator, that he was in fact a hero – a Jewish Oskar Schindler.
The Kasztner case was quite political. Kasztner himself aligned himself with Mapai, Labour Zionists associated with David Ben-Gurion’s party. Right wing Zionists associated with Menachem Begin’s Herut (a forerunner to Likud) and the Israeli Communist party used the Kasztner case to attack the Labour led government. There was in fact a vote of no-confidence in the government which while the government did win, it was embarrassing. The prime minister Moshe Sharett had to resign and David Ben-Gurion took his place.
In 1961, Ben Hecht, an American Jewish playwright and author who aligned himself most closely to Herut wrote a polemical book, Perfidy. This book is in many ways the case against Kasztner that was used by the right-wing revisionist Zionists. (Menachem Begin thought highly enough of Hecht that he ultimately attended his funeral in Chicago.)
A sinister turn occurred in the Soviet Union in the 1960s through to the 1980s. This was part of the Soviet Union’s alleged “anti-Zionist” campaign. They published propaganda suggesting that Kasztner was a Zionist, Kasztner collaborated with Nazis, therefore the Zionists collaborated with Nazis. Some argued that the reason for this was that Zionism works against Jewish interests. The extension could be drawn that Zionism and Nazism are alike etc etc. This thesis hit the west most famously for us in Britain with the publication of the American Trotskyist Lenni Brenner’s 1983 book, Zionism in the Age of the Dictators. This was all very marginal and just a fringe Trotskyist thing and pretty much dismissed. Nobody took Brenner’s book seriously (with the bizarre exception of a positive review in The Times). In the main where it was reviewed it was exposed as an ideologically motivated travesty. This all changed in 1987 when Jim Allen’s play Perdition, directed by Ken Loach that was due to be shown at the Royal Court Theatre. The play was largely based on Brenner’s book. There was a vast controversy over this play and ultimately the theatre pulled it 36 hours before publicly available previews were due to be staged.
Since that time there have been a slew of books that pain quite a sympathetic view of Kasztner more along the lines of him being a hero. Examples include, but are in no way limited to, Yehuda Bauer’s 1994 book, Jews for Sale?, Shlomo Aronson’s book, Hitler, the Allies and the Jews and Anna Porter’s 2007 book, Kasztner’s Train.
My own interest in the whole affair of Kasztner developed as a result of the Perdition scandal. Those that kept mentioning the Kasztner affair and wanting to bring up Perdition included Tony Greenstein. I had carried out quite a lot of research on Kasztner and was swayed by the arguments of Israeli historians such as Yehuda Bauer. I used such arguments to bait Tony Greenstein. However at one point in 2007 I came across certain evidence that suggested to me conclusively that Kasztner was not a hero, far from it, he was indeed a Nazi collaborator. This to me was quite shocking but I can assure you that it is true. This does not mean to say that the anti-Zionist case against Kasztner is correct, at least not in the way that the anti-Zionists wish to use it. Kasztner betrayed the Jews of Hungary – Zionist and anti-Zionist. There is nothing in Zionist thought that says that Jews should be assist the Nazis.
I do not wish to be too harsh on Peter Munk whose foundation sponsored the Blair-Hitchens debate. Munk is very charitable and donates fortunes to charities. He is not responsible and nor was he complicit in the death of hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews. As he believed he was saved by Kasztner, then I can understand why he would want to see Kasztner rehabilitated. (In face, Kasztner did not save him or the other train passengers, he just successfully managed to ensure that they were held hostage in Bergen-Belsen). The problem is that if he is supporting the writing of books such as Anna Porter’s which really is disgraceful in what it attempts to do, then it is unfair to the memory of the hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews who were transported to Auschwitz without knowledge of where they were going. On page 397 of her book, Porter goes so far as to accuse Hungarian Jews who survived Auschwitz who testified that they did not know about Auschwitz in advance of arriving their of making “irrational statements.” What a total disgrace – and all to defend one man – Rudolf Kasztner, a Nazi collaborator.
china!h said,
December 12, 2010 at 10:06 am
All tax deductable those donations.Does no religion and its fear of retaliation in our existance,and its redemtion in our carrying out its bloody rule,fuck you off.For a saved place that your tax insentives cannot excuse, for those exploited,for your comfort.
Kashif Shahzada said,
December 11, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Very Interesting to see the zeal and fervour, pro as well as against faith.
That raises a question that I was hoping people could answer.
Most western aversion to religion is historically rooted in confrontations with Christianity. But how would people respond to alternate views on Jesus Christ that exist in other parts of the world? E.g. such as in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9Yj8o9NYcQ
Best wishes & happy holidays
jim denham said,
December 11, 2010 at 6:39 pm
Mikey,
I was aware of Lenni Brenner, and how he is regularly used by the “left” (noteably the ISG/ ‘Socialist Resistance’/Pabloites) to justify their absolute anti-zionism, and I was also aware of Jim Allen’s anti-semitic play “Perdition”, largely based upon Brenner’s writings. I was not aware of Munk. Thank you for enlightening me.
Mikey said,
December 11, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Jim,
A pleasure. The problem is that not only was the play Perdition disgraceful but the campaign against Perdition, one that leading members of the British Jewish community were heavily involved with, was conducted in an appalling fashion. There were people who did not know the history spouting rubbish in letters to newspapers or comments to the press. More worryingly there were those who should have known better including Steven Roth (an academic, a survivor of the Holocaust in Hungary and leading British Zionist) writing articles that were also misleading.
A new book on Kasztner written by Eli Reichenthal should be being published in English hopefully in the next year. This should set the record straight on Kasztner.
This is however a total aside and it is to Munk’s credit that he has sponsored the debate between Hitchens and Blair.
jim denham said,
December 11, 2010 at 7:16 pm
Kashif: the rational, humanist, case against religion appies to Islam every bit as much as it applies to Christianity. To be honest: given fundamentalist Islam’s particularly reactionary and vicious role in the world today, it would be fair to say that of all the world’s religions, Islam is presently the number one enemy for humanists. Not, perhaps, because it is innately worse than other religions, but because it has been adopted (as was Catholicism in the 1930′s) by fascists.
Steve said,
December 11, 2010 at 7:59 pm
“I was aware of Lenni Brenner” Respected figure on the left.
Christopher Hitchens and Tony Blair – Not respected figures on the left.
Frankly this debate will be tedious, as are all debates about religion. A better debate for us with no belief in the god almighty would be the debate between Richard Dawkins and Steven Rose.
Mikey said,
December 11, 2010 at 8:19 pm
Steve,
If “the left” respects Lenni Brenner, however you define “the left,” then they should be pitied. Even SWP ideologue John Rose, in his pretty much useless book, The Myths of Zionism is critical of Brenner. For as he states (p.212n5):
jim denham said,
December 11, 2010 at 8:42 pm
Steve: “. A better debate for us with no belief in the god almighty …”
In those few words, Steve sums up all that is most loathsome and morarly *wrong* about the present-day soft-on-religion “left” like the SWP: that atheism is good enough for “us” (white Europeans), but not for “them” (non-white, non-Europeans): some values are absolute and universal. Most of all, rationality as against ignorance and superstition is universal. That’s what socialism (and humanism) is all about. Anything else is a form of racism.
charliethechulo said,
December 11, 2010 at 9:14 pm
Hitchens won the debate hands down, of course. Blair’s lightweight, platitudinous bullshit withered in the face of Hitchens’s onslaught. A great victory for humanity.
Steve said,
December 12, 2010 at 9:07 am
No, what I am saying Denham is that we who are likely to read your blog will not find any worth in watching this debate. Though looking at the people involved, no one else will either. And if people watch this and are put off by the loathsome arrogance of Hitchens, then Blair may well win the debate hands down and some atheists may be converted to religion.
Avoid, Avoid, Avoid.
Steve said,
December 12, 2010 at 9:09 am
“A great victory for humanity.”
Yes, I opened the curtains this morning and I could almost smell the change. This is a new dawn comrades!
china!h said,
December 12, 2010 at 10:15 am
Hey Steve,was the new socialist state capitalist higherarchy,promising that it will be better,we have paid jobs for you all.Ps are you a party member.
maxdunbar said,
December 12, 2010 at 2:19 pm
‘No, what I am saying Denham is that we who are likely to read your blog will not find any worth in watching this debate.’
Why even comment then?
Nayme Hear said,
December 12, 2010 at 4:50 pm
“some values are absolute and universal”
Seriously Jim – have you actually ever read any Marxism?
“Most of all, rationality as against ignorance and superstition is universal.”
Erm evidentially it is not, there’s plent or ignorance and superstition about. Starting with you – do you really think that ignorance alone is an adequate explanation of why people are religious? I dare say there are a fair few religious types in the this world who are a damn sight clever than you (and lets face it, that’s not difficult). Oh and why is “rationalism” such an important value? War, exploitation and environmental destruction are all fine examples of rationality, but they are not the kind of things that socialists advocate.
“That’s what socialism (and humanism) is all about”
No it isn’t, not Marxist socialism at any rate (bourgeois left-liberal “socialism” maybe). Socialism is all about the overthrow of class exploitation. Anti-religious propoganda that is not tied to this end is worthless. Hitchens, an apologist for capitalism and imperialism, is every bit as bad as the pro-religious types he rails against.
jim denham said,
December 12, 2010 at 4:52 pm
A very strange person writes:
“And if people watch this and are put off by the loathsome arrogance of Hitchens, then Blair may well win the debate hands down and some atheists may be converted to religion.”
Ehh: do you *really* think that’s at all likely, Steve?
jim denham said,
December 12, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Nayme: I think you’ll find that absolute, universal opposition to ignorance and superstition runs through *all* of Marx’s thought and writings. If you haven’t got that rather fundamental bit yet, then I suggest you start again – maybe here:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/
As you clearly don’t have even an elementary grasp of Marxism, I’ll be glad to recommend some basic educationals, run by the AWL.
Ed Duncan Laurence said,
December 12, 2010 at 6:18 pm
`Not, perhaps, because it is innately worse than other religions, but because it has been adopted (as was Catholicism in the 1930′s) by fascists.’
Jim I don’t think the above is still completely accurate. Since the Soviet Union was ejected from Afghanistan Islamism and imperialist capital have gone their separate ways and in fact are now at war with each other. The real shock troops of imperialism today, heavily funded and dependent on it as they are would appear to be the ever loyal Israelis and their unflinching use of overwhelming violence. But of course Judaism and Islam are equally along with Catholicism susceptible to fascist manipulation as they have not gone through any kind of reformation preparing them for civilised participation in liberal democracy. I think it is why the Nazis were atheists/pagans: they couldn’t be reformed christians because of its democratic inclinations and their belief that it made you a big old softy and was responsible for the decline of the West, of course Judaism in this situation was out of the question and we needn’t mention Islam which 99% of Germans would not have heard of and therefore it would have been of little or no use to the Nazis who would have considered it semitic in any case.
jim denham said,
December 12, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Ed Duncan Laurence: there is quite a lot of evidence that Hitler and the Nazi leadership were Catholics:
In 1941, according to the diary of Nazi General Gerhart Engel, Hitler stated “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.”[27]
Read the rest here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_views
Steve said,
December 12, 2010 at 6:41 pm
Just watchin Pastor Jones on Sky News and I kid you not, almost word for word it could have been you comrade Denham.
“Why even comment then?”
To make sure comrades don’t waste their time on this shit. You really are a cretin Dumbo, Dunbar, whatever the fuck it is.
jim denham said,
December 12, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Steve: you are either a genuinely thick and stupid person, or you’re a fucking liar. Either way you are an ignorant idjeet and unwelcome here. Please fuck off and don’t come back.
Ed Duncan Laurence said,
December 12, 2010 at 6:53 pm
Hmm I see what you mean Jim. Perhaps the biggest danger in Europe are the catholics. Though many Nazis were atheist even if the leader was most of the time secretly catholic blaming as they did Chrisitan liberal values in general for swamping pagan or Greek (they were great Hellenists) reason and for Germany losing the Great War.
Steve said,
December 12, 2010 at 7:07 pm
“Please fuck off and don’t come back.”
No, you will have to ban me first. But honestly, if I closed my eyes it could have been you. I urge comrades to watch it and tell me I am wrong.
jim denham said,
December 12, 2010 at 8:53 pm
“tell me I am wrong”: You’re wrong..
Steve said,
December 13, 2010 at 11:59 am
Your biased!
Ed Duncan Laurence said,
December 13, 2010 at 1:18 pm
I think it is important that we remember that Britain is a Christian country not Islamic, of Jew or Catholic but post-reformation Christian but with room for athiests of course. After all atheism is English too. That is why I would say that if Hitchens is having a go at Blair because he is a Catholic then good, they are practically nazis as you said along with the Islams and Jews (but they at least have their own land now), but if he is having a go at Britain being a Christian country that is going a little bit too far. Our country needs athiests and Chrisitans to work together, after all the athiests can teach us that turning the other cheek is not always the right thing to do and that we need a country that is internally cohesive but ready to take all necessary measures against threats to that cohesion. Good website. Keep talking, keep learning.
Clive said,
December 13, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Steve
If your reaction to hearing Pastor Jones on the telly is to shut your eyes and think about Jim Denham, I think you are quite strange.
Steve said,
December 14, 2010 at 9:02 am
Clive,
You may be right!
frunobulax said,
December 14, 2010 at 7:33 pm
The Serbs’ Self-Inflicted Wounds
With Kosovo independent, Yugoslavia is finally dead.
By Christopher Hitchens
http://www.slate.com/id/2184997
Well, it would seem that not all the wounds were “self-inflicted”:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/14/kosovo-prime-minister-llike-mafia-boss