Hillel Halkin

There were moments of this book that enraged me as well as many that opened my eyes. For every instance I felt Hillel Halkin was talking with me there were just as many where I thought he was talking at me, or more precisely, talking down to me. But before I get too far into my feelings regarding the book, let me take a step back and delineate a bit more professionally just what this text is as opposed to what it claims to be.

First of all, the title "Letters to an American Jewish Friend: a show more Zionist's Polemic" is a bit of a misnomer. Most friendships, so I believe at least, are based on some kind of equality and a comfort and even freedom of intimacy to exchange honest ideas (and dirty jokes) between two or more people. But unfortunately Halkin shakes the foundation of his use of the word in two ways. 1.) We never actually see any of the letters this American Jewish friend has written to counter Halkin's literary self (save for the occasional paragraph here and there), as such, we're automatically predisposed to more believe what Halkin is saying rather than his friend by sheer dint of quantity alone. And 2.) The use of 'friend' is ill-informed as the equality I believe and I figure most would believe is symptomatic of most friendships, seems absent in the exchange we do see between Halkin and this "American Jewish friend". This absence is most evidenced for me in Halkin's tone which, though not completely pedantic is more then a little, and even substantially condescending (not to mention a tad hypocritical and disingenuous but we'll get to that).

Let me speak positively first, if I may. Hillel Halkin is clearly a very intelligent, well spoken, and well read man. His level of education both cultural and common sense based is substantial. And he approaches the reader as someone equal to his intelligence which is very refreshing given the potential of many (with this same subject matter) to become mere ideologues, bully pulpit amateurs, and arm chair mouth pieces with nothing of actual substance or original thought to bring forward save for the same tired rhetoric that has driven so many to tears, boredom, or at worst, indifference and even anger. This is especially telling when one realizes, as I did, that the points Halkin is trying to drive home are not so substantially different from the likes of Arutz Sheva in Israel or any of its idiotic and borderline fascistic acolytes (the likes of clownish boor Tzvi Fishman and his ilk come to mind, sadly) are also trying to put forward (or ram down Jewish people's throats, but I digress).

But what is the difference, then? Let me go on record by saying that I despise Artuz Sheva (think Fox News in Israel with not even the pretense of objectively presenting the news or caring about the secular viewpoint) and the viewpoints of many of their contributors. The difference lies in presentation. Halkin presents well reasoned, well thought out, and well described arguments that, while relying far too much on metaphor and Romantic, borderline kitsch language, appeal not only to pathos, but to the ethos and logos as well. Instead of parading around a 'you are doomed unless you do as I say narrative' like any hack street preacher of any faith on any street corner in the world does, Halkin treats his readers with more respect and offers genuine intellectualism as opposed to the petty scare mongering and petty shaming many in the far right camp in Israel (mostly English speaking) attempt to use to convince people of their arguments (with genuine Jewish 'love' being their excuse).

Also, I'd like to point out that, again unlike many who agree with Halkin's end goals, Halkin himself doesn't offer a life in Israel as either a guarantee of Jewish survival or as anything completely patently 'Jewish' in comparison to the idealized Judaism of the past (partly fictionalized, exaggerated, and Romanticized) in the Diaspora. He's too smart, too honest, and thankfully too intellectually responsible for that. Israel and Zionism are not a panacea for the ills of the Jewish people. Israel could fall and as a nation is far from perfect and, like many a nation (America included) has committed many sins to get where it is now. But, Halkin contends, it's the best option we as a people have, and, frankly, I agree.

And herein the negatives begin. Remember when I said before that Halkin misused the word 'friend' in his title? Yeah, I still believe that he did. This isn't a book involving the exchange of letters between two Jewish equals. Halkin clearly doesn't think much of the achievements of Diaspora Jewry (outside of the name-checked 'acceptables' such as Kabbalah and other outgrowths of an essentially religious nature) except for those that he claims have some intrinsic link to Judaism (usually Hebraic and again, religiously based) that can be used as the grist for the burgeoning, or he might say stagnated, secular Jewish culture in Israel He lambastes the entire canon of Secular Jewish literature, American and otherwise, mainly because these works failed to be Jewish 'enough'. Absolute value judgments like this bother me in a number of ways. Primarily they bother me because no one appointed Halkin an arbiter of anything let alone what is and isn't definably Jewish. This is especially galling when Halkin himself states that Judaism, like any culture, isn't immune to the transformative influence of time. But whereas the Jewish religion itself gets a pass from Halkin due to the strictures of orthodoxy acting as a vanguard against modernity (which Halkin claims still acted as an influence on Orthodoxy which kind of softly shoots his point in the foot as numerous times Halkin claims he isn't religious but cites so many religious texts and authorities it becomes kind of hard to take his 'I'm not religious' claim that seriously substituting it instead for something like 'I'm not THAT religious' might have been more helpful) secular Jewish culture itself gets no such pass.

I guess I'm a bit more forgiving and understanding than Halkin. I look at the likes of Kafka, Spinoza, Mailer, Proust, and many many others and I don't bemoan that they wrote in a language that wasn't Hebrew (how dare they?) but instead rejoice that these minds ever lived at all. These minds have given us some of the greatest literature and philosophy the world has ever seen, and I think to dismiss them based on such a narrowly subjective view as what language they wrote in (not taking into account that they might not have had the same Hebrew language based upbringing and opportunities to learn said language that the likes of Halkin himself had) is just grossly myopic and more than a little ignorant. Is Secular Jewish literature perfect? Far from it. Has it damaged Judaism in places and at times? Oh yes. But, so I contend, has religious Judaism itself.

I love the interplay between Secular and Religious Judaism because within that dialectic, I believe, lies the true fire and brilliance of Judaism in its totality. Strict orthodoxy might be the heart of Judaism but it's also frighteningly incestuous and stagnant. And Secular Judaism might be the mind of Judaism but it's transience and corruptibility make it something difficult to find tangible purchase in. So, why not take from both? Why not see in Spinoza's exile and Kafka's alienation not a deviation from Judaism but instead a personal restructuring of it to fit the needs of the individual Jew in the face of ideological, religious, and philosophical abandonment at the hands of the majority of Jews, religious or otherwise, Zionist or otherwise? Just a theory, who the hell knows.

In the end though, this is still a rock solid work. Far from perfect, it does however perfectly engage the willing Jewish reader, with bracing ideas that are equal parts galling and potentially enlightening. Mr. Halkin, while I may not agree with everything you've put forward, I do agree that these points needed to be brought up and I'm thankful that you've put them forward in such an erudite and well crafted way. I'd offer up a Hebrew saying but unlike Halkin I don't have the Hebrew language skills to take for granted. As of yet anyway, still learning, still trying. Some of us have to make to do with what we have, and even go so far as to earn what is our birthright as opposed to those clueless who are simply gifted it by no more partial a judge than blind circumstance. show less

A superb short bio that finally makes me feel I understand Jabotinsky and the Revisionist Zionism he founded. I agree with the author that Jabotinsky probably should have stuck to literature; as a politician he was far-sighted but in practical terms a failure, and he made his own life and those of his wife and son much more difficult than they need have been. A sad life, well told.

I bought this book on a whim - almost as a souvenir - from the Shakespeare and Co bookstore in Paris. I read it on the flight home. It is the story of a man who is in love with a woman, and their subsequent relationship. However, it is far more than that. All the things that come with long term relationships - heartache, regret, anger, sadness, loss, love, resentment. Halkin does a wonderful job of pulling you through, wondering how it is going to end for them. I greatly enjoyed it and will show more probably read it again. show less

Yehuda Halevi, by Hillell Halkin, is an in depth analysis of much of Halevi’s poetry along with discussing his fictional book, The Kuzari: In Defense of the Despised Faith.

Halkin includes critiques of Halevi’s The Kuzari, which is a story about a dialogue between a rabbi and King Bulan of the Khazars. The king eventually calls upon a Christian missionary, Greek philosopher and a Muslim mullah, and a Jewish holy man. His religious satisfaction ended with the rabbi and what he had to say. show more Therein lies the theory and legendary concept of the fact that the Khazars were Jewish converts.

Yehuda Halevi, by Hillel Halkin, is a well documented and written study of the man. The reader will come away with a memorable, brilliant and intense account of Yehuda Halevi, his work, his theories and thoughts. show less