By Matthew Rozsa
As the Republican Jewish Coalition continues to condemn any Democrat who dares listen to someone who has been less than fully supportive of the State of Israel, it is worth taking the time to look at that group’s own relationship with a prominent anti-Zionist – Christopher Hitchens.
Although noteworthy for his outspoken support of the war on terror and the current military program in Iraq, Hitchens has nevertheless made some shockingly controversial remarks about the State of Israel, from calling Ariel Sharon “vile to referring to Zionism as a “false messiah for Jews” , of stating that Israel was a mistake and serving as an indirect apologist for Holocaust denier David Irving.
How did the RJC defend this decision? Director Matthew Brooks said:
It is not a panel discussion about Israel but about the United Nations. And yes, Christopher Hitchens is controversial figure — on the right and the left. But he is in the process of undergoing an ideological transformation. He is an outspoken supporter of the war in Iraq and what our president is doing in the war against global terror and he’s been an outspoken critic of what the UN has been doing. The fact is that Christopher Hitchens was willing to come and participate in this discussion and bash the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic UN and be particularly critical of George Galloway and the oil for food program, which has been a absolute outrage. We had a number of people scheduled for this panel, expressing different points of view to give the attendees a varied perspective. And I would add that inviting people to participate in our panel discussions does not mean the RJC supports or endorses anything they say.
We happen to think that Brooks is right – that it is possible to have someone with whom you disagree on Israel nevertheless make intelligent and useful contributes to discussions on other subjects. But why does the RJC consider its willingness to let Hitchens speak kosher and brand Obama’s decision to consult individuals like Tony McPeak to be treif?