 |
|
|
Tuesday, May 17 2005Hitchens' hypocrisy
I don't think the New York Times ever referred to those who devastated its hometown's downtown as "insurgents." But it does employ this title every day for the gang headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi... In my ears, "insurgent" is a bit like "rebel" or even "revolutionary." There's nothing axiomatically pejorative about it, and some passages of history have made it a term of honor. At a minimum, though, it must mean "rising up." These fascists and hirelings are not rising up, they are stamping back down. It's time for respectable outlets to drop the word, to call things by their right names (Baathist or Bin Ladenist or jihadist would all do in this case), and to stop inventing mysteries where none exist. But when it comes to Israel and its jihadist demons, Hitchens sings a very different tune: The Palestinian people have a much more justifiable grievance against Israel than even the most alienated Sunni slum-dweller has against the Coalition in Iraq. The Arab citizens of former mandate Palestine live, at best, as second-class citizens in Israel. At worst, they live in vile refugee camps in other states. In the middle, in Jerusalem and Gaza and the West Bank, they experience occupation and colonization and annexation. More than that, they have been told that their very presence is an inconvenience, since the land was awarded by God to the Jews. See also this interview with Hitchens on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where he blames Israeli policy in the territories for all the region's woes, and calls Zionism a bad idea from the very start. To the best of our knowledge, Hitchens has never come right out and denied the legitimacy of the State of Israel, but his writings certainly seem to point in that direction.
TrackBackTrackBack URL for this entry: Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hitchens' hypocrisy: CommentsAnother technique of his is to equate Zionism with fundamentalist/messianic settlers... as if that was a dominant ideology among Israelis, past or present. His anti-Zionism is the last vestige of his Trotskyite past, if he gave it up he'd have to admit to full neocon status, he would have to admit he was no longer a leftist at all. It's his last shred of respectability among his former comrades. He can't bear to do it, even though they have all repudiated him. I feel very sorry for the conflicted Mr. Hitchens. The very same people he denounces in Irak are those who have caused so much misery to Israelis and Palestinians alike and yet he cannot bring himself to admit that the murderers in that conflict are evil people. People like Christopher Hitchens need to taken to task on every opportunity. Their inaccurate use of the English Language is cavalier, insensitive and entirely inappropriate especially coming from a so-called educated person. Using terms like insurgents or militants softens what would otherwise be considered as murderers or killers. And using terms like Nazi or Holocaust to describe Israeli actions is a hardening to an entirely undeserved position. Why am I bothering to say this? We who post here all know that. It's the rest of the world who need to be educated. Hypocrisy is not strong enough. "The Arab citizens of former mandate Palestine live, at best, as second-class citizens in Israel. At worst, they live in vile refugee camps in other states." is enough to display his total bias by deliberately denying the facts and context, should we say anti-semitism (anti zionist is denying the right of Jews to self determination there-by denying them any rights ipso facto..) Post a comment[Comments are held for approval before appearing.]
|
| ||||||||||||
 |
