Christopher Hitchens: Israel Needs To End The Occupation To Truly Join The West

Last week Christopher Hitchens was interviewed on Hugh Hewitt's radio show, and he had some tough words for Israel.

The author said that if Israel truly wants to be part of the West then it will have to end its occupation of Palestinian territories and accused Israelis of being "unbelievably irresponsible" (via Daily Dish):

In order for Israel to become part of the alliance against whatever we want to call it, religious barbarism, theocratic, possibly thermonuclear theocratic or nuclear theocratic aggression, it can't, it'll have to dispense with the occupation. It's as simple as that.

It can be, you can think of it as a kind of European style, Western style country if you want, but it can't govern other people against their will. It can't continue to steal their land in the way that it does every day. And it's unbelievably irresponsible of Israelis, knowing the position of the United States and its allies are in around the world, to continue to behave in this unconscionable way. And I'm afraid I know too much about the history of the conflict to think of Israel as just a tiny, little island surrounded by a sea of ravening wolves and so on. I mean, I know quite a lot about how that state was founded, and the amount of violence and dispossession that involved. And I'm a prisoner of that knowledge. I can't un-know it.

Hitchens is promoting his memoir "Hitch-22" but canceled much of his book tour after he was diagnosed with esophageal cancer. He is currently undergoing chemotherapy.

He discusses his cancer treatment in the wide-ranging conversation with Hewitt. Read the full interview here.

Comments

[playsindirt]

08:54 PM on 08/07/2010

I think he's right. The Arab world hates America because in their view we kowtow to Israel and have always turned a blind eye to their antics. They squatted on Arab land and claimed it for themselves. The UN gave it's stamp of approval and the rest is history. Thousands of Jewish immigrants continue to pour into Israel and push into and occupy territory that is not rightfully theirs. Israel doesn't honor the partition agreement and never has. Americans get all up in arms about ethnic cleansing throughout Africa but don't seem to recognize or acknowledge that Israel has been trying to do the same to Palestinians for over a half century.

[juicyju]

05:35 PM on 08/03/2010

Sounds exactly the opposite- to join the West Israel should indefinitely continue it's "occupation"
Just how was the West won?

[TheNarrowWay]

06:30 PM on 07/26/2010

I notice HItchens didn't actually say he wanted america to change its policy in any way

So how about HItch? Are you in favor of cutting off the spigot of aid? To stop vetoing resolutions against them at the UN?

Or is this just a passing attempt to gain back a piece of the credibility you lost

[persianadvocate]

11:03 AM on 07/25/2010

It's very simple: prior to 1968, the year in which the US started to back Israel in unprecedented ways, there were ZERO Arab/Muslim terrorist attacks on US interests. In fact, there were several Jewish/Zionist ones! After allying with the Zionists in 1968, only then did the Muslim world truly start blaming the US for Israeli occupation.

This is the damning fact that no Zionist can escape. Please repeat until they run out of talking points to go back to ;)

[HazemOne]

01:20 AM on 07/26/2010

There is a direct correlation between assistance by the US to Israel and level of anger/frustration in all Arabs - of all faiths. Islamic Fundamentalists (who are most willing to take actions into their own hands) having zero political influence, result to terrorism as a consequence.

[Saco A]

08:54 PM on 07/31/2010

As one might know, correlation dies not demonstrate consequence.

[nickguillory]

06:43 PM on 07/24/2010

Netanyahu DECIEVES THE US -- Video evidence with Oslo Accords:

http://www.frequency.com/video/netanyahu/174441

[natasha007]

04:55 PM on 07/24/2010

GREAT NEW BDS VIDEO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKn1F8R_2_E&feature

[Markovich]

04:17 PM on 07/24/2010

Europeans colonists colonized Palestine. Obviously, that started the problem between Palestinians and European Jews. There was no problem between the Palestinians and Middle Eastern Jews until this moment. So, you can't say this triggered the problem between arabs and "jews". That's false.

Europeans Jews who quickly took over Israel had an extra responsibility to understand this fact, the stolen land and home and to be sensitive to it.

The failed miserably, decade after decade. No one is surprised when people take their shots when they get them. This is Israel's failure all the way around.

[Saco A]

09:00 PM on 07/31/2010

1. It was not a "colony".
2. Muslim Europeans arrived in the 19th c. as well, and Egyptian ones in the 19th and 29th in larger numbers.
3. When the Palestinian Jews were a docile ethnic and religious minority in am oppressive empire - there were no problems. When the Palestinians were under military rule in Israel and for 20 years in the West bank, there were n problems either. So I guess it is the Fatah's fault.
4. The Jews has a right to have a national home - a state - like every other nation (including the Palestinians). And the only place for that is Israel. to deny this is antisemitic.
5. No land was stolen. It was bought in full price (unlike the Muslim immigrants who got it for free from the Ottomans). after the war the Arabs started things changed.
6. Israel can be criticized for many things, but it is not a failure. It is a miraculous case.

[Fernando Santos]

04:54 PM on 08/03/2010

fanned.

[MadBrad]

02:12 PM on 07/24/2010

I was going to post a comment but then I remembered that any comment with a hint of negative to it about you know who [the I word] never makes it to the board.

[Markovich]

01:27 PM on 07/24/2010

Ben Gurion hated JFK.

JFK was the most hard-nosed president we had toward Israel, mostly over Dimona. We should all miss presidents like him. He wrote Israel STERN letters and did not bow and play politics.

He was a real president who led in the interests of the U.S.

One of his biggest concerns was Israel possessing nuclear weapons and proliferation. He was right on both.

[HazemOne]

01:56 AM on 07/24/2010

Israel was founded in 1948 by David Ben Gurion who was open about stealing Arab land.

Ben-Gurion recognized the strong attachment of Palestinian Arabs to the land but hoped that this would be overcome in time. Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress, wrote that in a conversation about "the Arab problem" in 1956,

Ben-Gurion stated: "Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country ... There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance. So it is simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army."

Goldman criticized Ben-Gurion for what he viewed as Ben-Gurion's confrontational approach to the Arab world. Goldman wrote that "Ben-Gurion is the man principally responsible for the anti-Arab policy, because it was he who moulded the thinking of generations of Israelis."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ben-Gurion

[hmp49]

03:01 AM on 07/24/2010

Britain was an obstacle, not an enabler, of a Jewish State. Britain strictly limited Jewish immigration, and was responsible for hundreds of thousands if not millions of Jewish lives lost as a result.

Yes, the Balfour agreement was a British document, but the League of Nations mandated that the British have the following task:

"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of THE ESTABLISHMENT IN PALESTINE OF A _NATIONAL_ HOME FOR THE JEWISH PEOPLE, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country"

ART. 27.

THE CONSENT OF THE COUNCIL OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS IS REQUIRED FOR ANY MODIFICATION OF THE TERMS OF THIS MANDATE.

ART. 24.
The Mandatory shall make to the Council of the League of Nations an annual report to the satisfaction of the Council as to the measures taken during the year to carry out the provisions of the mandate. Copies of all laws and regulations promulgated or issued during the year shall be communicated with the report.”

http://www.jmcc.org/Documentsandmaps.aspx?id=375

Phony Ben Gurion quote, BTW

[HazemOne]

03:42 AM on 07/24/2010

Not sure why you refuse to accept the Ben Gurion quote - it is not contested and it comes from the memoirs of Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress back then.

In case you do not believe that Ben Gurion was vocal about stealing Arab land, here are a couple more for you.

"We must expel Arabs and take their places."

"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."

Afterall, we do not judge the man by his words, rather his deeds - the creation of the State of Israel and the principal apartheid situation that has lingered in the area ever since.

http://www.monabaker.com/quotes.htm

[Markovich]

12:10 AM on 07/24/2010

Israel admits DOCTORING Flotilla footage...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woIuFRL1Q6g&feature=related

[Joo-liz]

12:49 AM on 07/24/2010

Of course, PressTV must be your favorite news channel. Why not trust Iranian government-owned media, especially for information about Israel?

That wasn't doctored "footage" it was edited audio, and they later released the full audio. They also admitted that it was an open channel, and not all comments were necessarily made directly from the Mavi Marmara. The full 6 minute audio is available.

[mathew]

11:59 PM on 07/23/2010

Moderator is there a time limit on Pending Comments ?

I have been waiting SO LONG to see if mine was accepted or rejected for some reason.

Help please

[Joo-liz]

11:32 PM on 07/23/2010

I made another post downthread which seems to have been eaten up by the mods. Since it's so far downthread anyway, I'll post the essence here.

On the topic of so-called pro-Israel media bias, a look at the NYT.

http://soccerdad.baltiblogs.com/archives/2010/04/29/the_nyts_one-sided_debate.html
"Of those 16 articles only two could possible be described as pro-Israel and one of those was from an Israeli ambassador! Seven of the articles were contributed by Times columnists, Roger Cohen and Thomas Friedman."

He specifically quotes from and links to all 16 of the articles he is talking about, if you click through.

[Markovich]

12:02 AM on 07/24/2010

yeah, whatever.

[persianadvocate]

10:56 AM on 07/25/2010

Except Nazila Fathi of the NYT is the one who generated the fabricated "Israel will be wiped off the map", which is a sensational lie, if nothing else.

[Markovich]

11:29 PM on 07/23/2010

In 2008, the students at Brandeis, the only nonsectarian Jewish-sponsored university in America, rejected a resolution commemorating the sixtieth anniversary of the Jewish state.

The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/jun/10/failure-american-jewish-establishment/?pagination=false

[hmp49]

03:10 AM on 07/24/2010

Why on earth would you think this is at all relevant?

The NY Review of books is predictable and tiresome in its anti-Israel perspective.. Fortunately, it is completely irrelevant except to the tiniest sliver of the self-appointed elite.

[Markovich]

04:26 AM on 07/24/2010

LOL.

You see NY Review of Books.

I see living students and future American leaders at Brandeis voting against Israel.
funny huh

[Markovich]

11:28 PM on 07/23/2010

June 8, 2010...

Peter Beinart and Frank Luntz blame old Jews for the fading Zionism among young Jews.

Because I dam and indict people for a living, the lede of Peter Beinart's recent New York Review of Books essay, "The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment," grabs me by the throat. Beinart declares in his first paragraph that the findings of Republican pollster Frank Luntz present "the most damning indictment of the organized American Jewish community that I have ever seen."

[hmp49]

03:24 AM on 07/24/2010

Have you EVER had an original thought in your life?

Except for the fact you misspelled "dam" this is lifted verbatim from an article in Slate by Jack Shafer - as usual, without attribution.

http://www.slate.com/id/2256342

As for "fading Zionism among young Jews" all four of my kids have been to Israel. My oldest arrived just in time for the start of the Intifada. While many of his classmates did run home, he stayed 2 semesters instead of just the 1 he planned.

He returned after he graduated and spent a year with Project Otzma, working with Rabbis For Human Rights, MEMRI, teaching Bedouin children English (he speaks Arabic as well as Hebrew), working with Ethiopian refugees at an immigration center, and more. So that you very much, I can tell you from personal experience the there is no problem with Zionism among young Jews.

I can also tell you my son has a top job with the Democratic Caucus, and has a lot more influence than you'll ever have with your 5,000,000 pitifully caustic, plagarized posts on Huffpo.

[Markovich]

04:15 AM on 07/24/2010

Thanks for the link, which I left out with my correct date.

I feel like Tom Sawyer over here and you're painting my fence. Do you dance too?

A top job with a Democratic Caucus is very nice, but I'm afraid a single mid sized company donor surpasses his power today. Don't complain to me.

You should be proud of your son, however, he is a single anecdote, not powerful enough to overturn Beinhart's research either....

I will send you a link to a pufffish.

[Joo-liz]

01:14 PM on 07/24/2010

Not only did he leave out the link, but the page he plagiarized from concludes the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he presents here.

The conclusion from the Slate page:

"... Please don't bother Beinart with these numbers. Like the philanthropists who hired Luntz, he has already reached his conclusions and doesn't need any evidence. If this were a court of law and not a column of press criticism, I would rule his opening paragraphs inadmissible and throw his case out."