Tuesday, June 26, 2001

---

A Nasty Turn in an Authors' Feud

By Richard Cohen

Tuesday, June 26, 2001; Page A17

There are events in life which bring to mind the Iran-Iraq war and how hard it is sometimes to choose sides. The latest example, besides the Giuliani-Hanover battle, is the current feud between Christopher Hitchens and Henry Kissinger. Hitchens has called Kissinger immoral and Kissinger has responded by calling Hitchens a Holocaust denier. With the greatest reluctance, I have to root for Hitchens.

My minimal enthusiasm traces back to 1998, when Hitchens, mistaking sex in the Oval Office for the spiriting of atomic secrets to a mortal enemy, betrayed his longtime friend, the White House aide Sidney Blumenthal. In high dudgeon, he gave impeachment investigators an affidavit contradicting what Blumenthal had earlier told them. He acted as if he had saved the nation.

That dirty, dirty deed does not, however, compare with Holocaust denial -- probably the most odious charge that can be brought against anyone, particularly a writer. In some odd way, it exceeds even "anti-Semite" since it suggests a kind of complicity in the crime itself: the cover-up. Holocaust denial by the sane -- a distinction worth noting here -- is coldly malicious, one last kick at the survivors themselves, one last attempt to say they don't matter. It is cruel beyond words.

Kissinger does not need me to tell him that. He is a refugee himself from Nazi Germany, a Jew, and in total command of the historic record. He is clearly vexed by Hitchens, whose latest book is not titled "The Trial of Henry Kissinger" for nothing. Hitchens's verdict, you will not be surprised to know, is guilty. He would like the former secretary of state tried for war crimes -- alleged, imputed and somewhat dated -- going back to Vietnam but including much else. For some reason, some reviewers think Hitchens has overreached.

Kissinger, too, has a book out. It is called "Does America Need a Foreign Policy?" and while no movie sales are envisaged, it has gotten the usual respectful reviews. (The one thing Kissinger has in common with Hitchens is that they are both good writers.) Because he is promoting his book, he has been asked on at least two occasions what he makes of the pesky Hitchens. On both "The News with Brian Williams" and "The Mitch Albom Show," Kissinger called him a Holocaust denier.

"He's a man who has attacked Mother Teresa, Jackie Kennedy, has said the Holocaust never existed," Kissinger told Williams.

"All right," said Williams, "we have you on record, then."

And so we do. But what is the record to which Kissinger refers? It seems to be Hitchens's defense of David Irving in a 1996 Vanity Fair piece. Irving is the genuine article -- a Holocaust denier -- but Hitchens was not so much defending Irving's ideology as his right to be published in America. (St. Martin's Press had caved under pressure and canceled publication of Irving's book, "Goebbels.")

What's more, Hitchens was not the only writer to defend Irving's right to be published. I did, too. And I did so because I had read the British version of "Goebbels." I thought Irving -- an always-eccentric historian who had taken a turn for the worse -- had some interesting things to say and that the book deserved scrutiny by expert reviewers.

Almost instantly, I was taken to task. The criticism was apt. But while I may have been wrong in my judgment, I was no Holocaust denier. The same has to be said about Hitchens. He, too, may have been wrong about Irving (indeed, he has since suggested he was), but that's a long haul from denying the Holocaust.

Hitchens is a provocateur. He writes against the grain -- always well, usually smartly. He has an absolute right to be wrong. So do I and so, for that matter, does Henry Kissinger. Not every detail of the Holocaust is settled. The subject is not inviolate, since, as Hitchens points out, it is often abused for fundraising or propaganda purposes.

Kissinger has combined the silly -- Mother Teresa, Jackie Kennedy -- with the downright crummy. He attempts to silence a critic not by responding to what he says but by virtually questioning his sanity. Hitchens has threatened a lawsuit -- a bad investment if it is his reputation he's defending -- and reluctantly asserted a part-Jewish ancestry, knowing it proves nothing.

No lawsuit should be necessary. Kissinger, as a public intellectual, simply ought to say he's sorry. He could call Hitchens many things -- wrong, misguided, biased, etc. -- but not a Holocaust denier. Character assassination can be tricky. In this case, Kissinger's shot has ricocheted. He's blown a hole through his own reputation.