I did read that article at the time it was published. Re-reading it reminded me what contempt Hitchens has for the self-determination of the Jews, regardless of religious affiliation or position on the left-right political spectrum. His view is through the lens of the incorrigible leftist. It’s nice he can stand up for the Danes and state (some of) the perfectly obvious about the Pal Arabs, but his core beliefs leave me cold, to say the least.
I never said he was a dummy. He’s brilliant, and that’s the reason for my initial lament. What a waste of a mind.

I don’t know if it’s the best he can do or not. You can read the full interview that I linked to above if you care to get a fuller sense of Hitchens’ perspective at the time. I don’t agree with him, but he’s no dummy. He’s also become considerably more negative about the Palestinian Arabs in the wake of the HAMAS election.

I think that, in a nutshell, Hitch aligns himself with the PLO because he sees it as a secular leftist outfit, standing in opposition to what he deems the religious nutcases among the Jews AND the Arabs.

That more or less shows him recognizing Israel as a free society in a sea of hatred.

If that’s the best he can do, I stand by my previous post.

Here is Hitchens from late 2003:

Mistaken as it is as an ethno-nationalist quasi-religious ideology, Zionism may have entirely failed to prove itself justifiable or sustainable, but nonetheless has founded a sort of democratic state which isn’t any worse in its practice than many others with equally dubious origins. And we are of course now faced with Islamic nihilists who oppose any Jewish presence in Palestine at all, and who act accordingly. (Unless you believe, as some pacifists seem to do, that suicide-murderers slay themselves and others, including Christian Arabs, either out of “despair” or in order to bring about a two-state solution. I have no time to waste on that delusion, either.)

That more or less shows him recognizing Israel as a free society in a sea of hatred. As for branding Israel “moral,” I agree with you that Hitchens won’t go that far. But he’s miles better than Cockburn IMO.

Some people just have a visceral hate in them, and Hitchens has it for Israel. I can’t explain why, but it’s obviously there. He’s too ascerbically smart to give him a pass as naive. Even if one subscribed to his view of past injustices to the ‘Palestinians’, he refuses to defend present-day Israel as a moral and free society in a sea of hatred. He has no problem defending Denmark as such. Why the double-standard?

Much has happenned since 1988 that ought to convince even the most naive that Palestinian intentions did not include a secure Israel. Hitchens is too smart and too perceptive in general to be naive about Arafat. He is cut from the same cloth as Alexander Cockburn, Tony Judt, and the rest at The Nation. Hitchens has evolved in some respects, but regarding Israel he remains in the swamp.

I don’t think it’s moral blindness (Hitch is anti-Zionist partly because he is anti-religious), but there is a large dose of naïveté—for example, Hitch thought that the PLO’s 1988 “peace initiative” was sincere. (Cf. Yossi Beilin, who is not morally blind but still thinks that there are folks in Fatah who are worth talking to.)

Meryl—

“Kierkegaard Rules” was my second-favorite sign, after the “FREE SPEECH” writ in Legos. I was less impressed with some of the more “literary” intellectual efforts.

The Mencken quote (”The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected”) I thought rather off; are we now opposed to respect? Mencken, delicious though his writing can be, was a cynic and provocateur who, at least in his published writings, did not respect ANY religious opinion.

The companion to the Mencken poster, sporting a quotation by John Morley (”You have not converted a man because you have silenced him”), was a sentiment that I unreservedly support but, on reflection, did not fit the occasion (the riots have reduced many to dhimmitude, but nobody mistakes that for conversion to Islam, and the intent of the riots is surely more to intimidate than to convert).

I saw someone quote Hitchens as saying that this was the best-behaved protest that he had ever attended. Crowd control certainly wasn’t an issue.

You have to admit, conservative rallies are a lot more intellectual than moonbat rallies.

Hitchens spoke, quietly, at the end. Lefty that he is, he addressed the crowd as “Brothers and sisters,” and finished with “Death to fascism.” He condemned our “invertebrate State Department,” and said that if there were time we should have marched to the Iraqi embassy to show solidarity with that much-maligned government and to take a stand against the bombers of the mosque in Samarra.

Hitch deftly dispersed the crowd by informing us that he had assured the embassy that the demonstration would end at 1 PM. On my way “out,” I noticed Bill Kristol of the National Review in the crowd. Look for him to mention the rally on one of this evening’s news talk shows.