Christopher Hitchens is calling for a pro-Denmark rally today at noon.
Please be outside the Embassy of Denmark, 3200 Whitehaven Street (off Massachusetts Avenue) between noon and 1 p.m. this Friday, Feb. 24. Quietness and calm are the necessities, plus cheerful conversation. Danish flags are good, or posters reading “Stand By Denmark” and any variation on this theme (such as “Buy Carlsberg/ Havarti/ Lego”) The response has been astonishing and I know that the Danes are appreciative. But they are an embassy and thus do not of course endorse or comment on any demonstration. Let us hope, however, to set a precedent for other cities and countries. Please pass on this message to friends and colleagues.
I’d be there if it weren’t a two-hour drive. Shoulda called it for Sunday, Hitch.
I should be able to get there; if I make it I’ll post a report.
There were about 100 people at the rally when I got there about 2/3 of the way through (but my estimates are only guaranteed accurate to within an order of magnitude). Quiet; no songs or chants. Best sign: “Free Speech” spelled out in Legos® on a Lego base.
Hitchens spoke, quietly, at the end. Lefty that he is, he addressed the crowd as “Brothers and sisters,” and finished with “Death to fascism.” He condemned our “invertebrate State Department,” and said that if there were time we should have marched to the Iraqi embassy to show solidarity with that much-maligned government and to take a stand against the bombers of the mosque in Samarra.
Hitch deftly dispersed the crowd by informing us that he had assured the embassy that the demonstration would end at 1 PM. On my way “out,” I noticed Bill Kristol of the National Review in the crowd. Look for him to mention the rally on one of this evening’s news talk shows.
It is heartening to hear Hitchens speak with such moral clarity about the Danes’ predicament. Too bad he’s such a rabid and reflexive anti-Zionist. His moral blindness is astounding.
Thanks, Ben. There were a lot of great posters at the rally. Mencken, Shakespeare, and Kierkegaard were all mentioned.
You have to admit, conservative rallies are a lot more intellectual than moonbat rallies.
Li’l Mamzer—
I don’t think it’s moral blindness (Hitch is anti-Zionist partly because he is anti-religious), but there is a large dose of naïveté—for example, Hitch thought that the PLO’s 1988 “peace initiative” was sincere. (Cf. Yossi Beilin, who is not morally blind but still thinks that there are folks in Fatah who are worth talking to.)
Meryl—
“Kierkegaard Rules” was my second-favorite sign, after the “FREE SPEECH” writ in Legos. I was less impressed with some of the more “literary” intellectual efforts.
The Mencken quote (“The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected”) I thought rather off; are we now opposed to respect? Mencken, delicious though his writing can be, was a cynic and provocateur who, at least in his published writings, did not respect ANY religious opinion.
The companion to the Mencken poster, sporting a quotation by John Morley (“You have not converted a man because you have silenced him”), was a sentiment that I unreservedly support but, on reflection, did not fit the occasion (the riots have reduced many to dhimmitude, but nobody mistakes that for conversion to Islam, and the intent of the riots is surely more to intimidate than to convert).
I saw someone quote Hitchens as saying that this was the best-behaved protest that he had ever attended. Crowd control certainly wasn’t an issue.
Ben F –
Much has happenned since 1988 that ought to convince even the most naive that Palestinian intentions did not include a secure Israel. Hitchens is too smart and too perceptive in general to be naive about Arafat. He is cut from the same cloth as Alexander Cockburn, Tony Judt, and the rest at The Nation. Hitchens has evolved in some respects, but regarding Israel he remains in the swamp.
Ben F –
Some people just have a visceral hate in them, and Hitchens has it for Israel. I can’t explain why, but it’s obviously there. He’s too ascerbically smart to give him a pass as naive. Even if one subscribed to his view of past injustices to the ‘Palestinians’, he refuses to defend present-day Israel as a moral and free society in a sea of hatred. He has no problem defending Denmark as such. Why the double-standard?
Li’l Mamzer:
Here is Hitchens from late 2003:
That more or less shows him recognizing Israel as a free society in a sea of hatred. As for branding Israel “moral,” I agree with you that Hitchens won’t go that far. But he’s miles better than Cockburn IMO.
If that’s the best he can do, I stand by my previous post.
Li’l Mamzer—
I don’t know if it’s the best he can do or not. You can read the full interview that I linked to above if you care to get a fuller sense of Hitchens’ perspective at the time. I don’t agree with him, but he’s no dummy. He’s also become considerably more negative about the Palestinian Arabs in the wake of the HAMAS election.
I think that, in a nutshell, Hitch aligns himself with the PLO because he sees it as a secular leftist outfit, standing in opposition to what he deems the religious nutcases among the Jews AND the Arabs.
Ben F –
I did read that article at the time it was published. Re-reading it reminded me what contempt Hitchens has for the self-determination of the Jews, regardless of religious affiliation or position on the left-right political spectrum. His view is through the lens of the incorrigible leftist. It’s nice he can stand up for the Danes and state (some of) the perfectly obvious about the Pal Arabs, but his core beliefs leave me cold, to say the least.
I never said he was a dummy. He’s brilliant, and that’s the reason for my initial lament. What a waste of a mind.