>>"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 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?
Peter K:
>That's a creative use of ellipses.
Well, it's always nice to be called creative. But I don't think I was creative here. How did I misrepresent his thoughts in that interview?
>I doubt he would say Arafat is the main thing.
What exactly does he mean, then? Certainly that sentence indicates that he believes Arafat is a significant obstacle. But who among the Arafat faction keeps saying they wouldn't "make a deal" that Hitchens would support -- ie, an independent state in the entire occupied territories? I think they'd all wet their pants with relief.
He's also assuming that a democratic Iraq wouldn't be sending money and weapons to the West Bank. Either that or he's assuming a post-invasion Iraq wouldn't be democratic.
>Bush was the first US President to say "Palestinian
>state."
True. He also called Ariel Sharon a man of peace. But no matter what he said, it's the actions that matter. And on that front, the right wing in Israel has never had support from any American administration like it has from Bush. (Of course, it probably wouldn't have all that much less under Gore.)
>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."
This is the core of the disagreement most progressives have with Hitchens on this issue. He thinks Al-Qaida is a threat on the level of Nazi Germany.
I might agree -- if Osama bin Laden were chancellor of an industrialized country with one of the world's most powerful economies and a huge army that had invaded several countries. Then I'd be more than willing to pick George Bush's side. Until then, I'm going to stick here with most of the world's population, who find both Bush and bin Laden pretty terrifying.
By the way, the equivalent claim is made in Israel -- Arafat/Hamas are Hitler, and Israelis must all sign up with Sharon's program because of the massive threat posed by Islamic fundamentalism. The people making this claim also affect the same world-weariness about how obvious this is and how they can't be bothered to argue about it. And to be honest, given how much larger and more powerful the US is than Israel, I find the argument more valid there.
>The Likudniks and Al-Qaeda want to link the
>Palestinian resistance and Al-Qaeda which is
>what you seem to want to do also.
You're engaging in some rhetorical slight of hand here. I don't think Al-Qaida and the Palestinian resistance AS A WHOLE are the same kind of phenomenon. However, I'm perfectly happy to say that Al-Qaida and the grislier parts of Hamas and Hezbollah are similar phenomena. Al-Qaida may be more dangerous because it has more money and freedom of action. But I'm sure some members of Hamas would be happy to fly planes into buildings in Tel Aviv if they could.
The Palestinians have legitimate grievances against Israel. Terrorism will continue against Israel until the Palestinians' grievances are dealt with. At that point there will still be crazy Palestinian killers around, but they won't have support from the general Palestinian population.
Likewise, the Arab/Muslim world in general has legitimate grievances against the US. Al-Qaida's terrorism will continue until the Arab/Muslim world's grievances are dealt with -- no matter how many angry articles Hitchens writes about Ramsey Clark and Noam Chomsky.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com