>"the Arafat faction and the rejectionists always
>[know] they've got someone else to turn to in Baghdad,
>for money and for weapons. Without that, they might
>have to do what they keep saying they won't do, which
>is make a deal... The bet made by the Wolfowitz-Perle
>group is that an agreement between Israel and the
>Palestinians would be more easily done if the Middle
>East were cleansed of authoritarian extremist regimes
>than if it were not."
>
>Does Hitchens mean that the main thing preventing a
>just peace agreement is Arafat, emboldened by his
>support from Saddam Hussein? And that the genuine aim
>of the Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle is to have
>such an agreement, and this is one of their reasons
>for invading Iraq?
>
>Such sentiments could come from any Likudnik. Peter
>K., do you have insight into this?
That's a creative use of ellipses. I doubt he would say Arafat is the main thing. Bush was the first US President to say "Palestinian state."
I liked what Hitchens had to say elsewhere in the interview:
"And Orwell was clever about this. I mean, there were a lot of people, a very large number in fact, in 1940, for example, not just in England but in Europe and America, who would say, "Well, this Nazi business in Poland is pretty rough, obviously, but look at how the British behave in India. Why should we pick a side?" He sort of knew by the same instinct that I hope your readers have why that stinks as a means of arguing. I could explain why it stinks, but if I had to explain why to someone who didn't get it right away, I probably would never succeed."
The Likudniks and Al-Qaeda want to link the Palestinian resistance and Al-Qaeda which is what you seem to want to do also. If this happens it will be the death knell for the dream of a Palestinian state and spell more misery for the Palestinians and Israelis.
Peter