Peter Hitchens on Israel

[The Idler]

Peter Hitchens self described as a "strong supporter of the Israeli state" says;

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2008/12/catching-up.html#comment-142330922

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2008/12/catching-up.html#comment-142541978

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2008/12/oh-little-town.html


Actually, Israel will lose this contest in the end, since the demographics of the area mean that it will be increasingly difficult to maintain a Jewish majority even within the boundaries of the pre-1967 state. More or less desperate measures, such as the encouragement of Russian immigration in the 1990s, have already backfired quite severely. Many of the Russian Jews turned out not to be Jewish in any identifiable wayhttp://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2008/12/oh-little-town.html#comment-142947632

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2008/12/oh-little-town.html#comment-143116520

Fireworks at midnight, and Maggie Thatcher's role in wrecking the Universe (http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2008/12/fireworks-at-mi.html)

Clueless in Gaza (http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2008/12/clueless-in-gaz.html)

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2008/12/clueless-in-gaz.html#comment-143839936


I do not think the Arab world actually wants a Palestinian State, or that it would be economically or politically viable. Yasser Arafat plainly didn't want one, or he would have taken the chance to create it, (in however inadequate a form) at Camp David. He knew, however, that it would have destroyed his cause and shrivelled his personal importance, hence his rare candour in saying he did not want to be 'Mayor of Jericho'.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2008/12/clueless-in-gaz.html#comment-143845682


This is simply mistaken about the nature of the threat, and seems to be based on the idea that naked force is the decisive issue in this dispute. Israel's existence is not threatened by rocket attacks from Gaza. The most pressing threat to Israel's existence (apart from demographics) lies in its potential loss of diplomatic, military and popular consent in the USA and Europe, which will lead to Israel being dragged to a super-Madrid conference and forced to make concessions (including a 'right of return' which will destroy it as a Jewish state). I do not know whether a President Obama will be specially hostile to Israel( he cannot be much more hostile than was the 'conservative'George Bush senior and his Secretary of State James Baker). But this behaviour will certainly make it easier for any anti-Israel factions in his administration to press the case for a renewed 'peace process'in which Israel makes all the concessions. Bombing Gaza makes such a conference more likely.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2008/12/clueless-in-gaz.html#comment-143971336


"Adam" (2nd January, 4.33 pm) astutely notices that I seek to avoid the term'Palestinian". I do. I think it is a loaded expression, intended to give the impression that there is such a specific nationality, and perhaps to suggest that a nation called 'Palestine' existed before the creation of Israel. It didn't.
The name is in fact a British colonial invention, itself copied from a Roman colonial invention designed to humiliate the subjugated and defeatedJews, by giving their former territory the name of their bitterest historic enemies - the Philistines. ( a bit as if , say, the Chinese conquered Britain and called the subjugated province 'Germania').


http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2008/12/clueless-in-gaz.html#comment-143972490

Will Israel never learn? Each bomb is a gift to its enemies (http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2009/01/will-israel-nev.html)


Israel is the small, threatened victim in the conflict. It is a tiny piece of land, hemmed in on all sides by many millions of Muslims, mostly Arabs, who believe that the Jewish state can, and ought to be, wiped off the map.
Yet its attack on Gaza, like its 2006 attack on Lebanon, allows Israel to be portrayed as the big bully, and the vast, oil-rich Arab world to portray itself as the victim.
I should think most readers of this column take this ridiculous, inaccurate view. I am not surprised.

[The Idler]

Howled down by closed minds (http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2009/01/howled-down-by.html)


She knew about this because it had been a reason to demonstrate against the Israelis, 27 years ago. She didn't know about the events of February 1982 that concerned me, because Israel hadn't been , even indirectly, involved. No, I said, I wasn't talking about Sabra and Chatila, but about another massacre, in February 1982.

[Dean]

Yes, he supports a white nationalist system and in the same breath insults all of he readers. What a prick.

[Zurdito]

I do not know whether a President Obama will be specially hostile to Israel( he cannot be much more hostile than was the 'conservative'George Bush senior and his Secretary of State James Baker).


it would be hard to think of anything more ridiculous than this quote, even if someone wanted to parody the author. he has flipped the theory of a global Jewish conspiracy into one of a global conspiracy against Jews. which brings me to:



The name is in fact a British colonial invention, itself copied from a Roman colonial invention designed to humiliate the subjugated and defeatedJews, by giving their former territory the name of their bitterest historic enemies - the Philistines. ( a bit as if , say, the Chinese conquered Britain and called the subjugated province 'Germania').


what does he think the roots of "Britain" today are, then? or is it only the Palestinians who have to prove the complete abscence of outside factors and international politics and economics in moulding them as a nation today?

perhaps Hitchens doesn't know that Zionism was a minority ideology amongst Jews before the Holocaust. In the same way, obviously the communities forced into a 60 year common experience of exile and apartheid due to their "nationality" (i.e. Arabs in historic Palestine) are going to develop a consciousness based on this process also.

Peter Hitchens is much less clever than his brother, Chritsopher, who is a more skilled apologist for zionism.

[The Idler]

Yes, he supports a white nationalist system and in the same breath insults all of he readers. What a prick.

What white nationalist system?


Peter Hitchens is much less clever than his brother, Chritsopher, who is a more skilled apologist for zionism.

I don't know about that, at least Peter opposes the war on Iraq. He also wrote a good article about his visit to Iran here (http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-449880/Iran-A-nation-nose-jobs-nuclear-war.html). He also supports government investment in public transport (http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2007/11/cars-on-the-lef.html) and opposes a police state (http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2008/12/paddington-gree.html).

[synthesis]

He is obviously in denial of the basic fact that the recent events in that area are a thinly-veiled exercise in ethnic cleansing.

War was declared on "Hamas," yet it is obvious to anyone who is familiar with the details of the "conflict" that the Israeli military operations are nothing more than a blatant attempt to make Palestinians' living conditions so dismal that they have no other option than to be subsumed into the growing refugee population.

This will provoke further "asymmetric warfare" and it will not end until "Eretz Yisrael Hashlemah" is totally secure and the subjugation of the region is complete. Or until decent Israeli citizens' consciences lead them to demand that their government abandon its colonialist aspirations in the region, which seems to be the motivating factor in the ceasefire. But that will be temporary. It always is.

[Zurdito]

I don't know about that, at least Peter opposes the war on Iraq...He also supports government investment in public transport (http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2007/11/cars-on-the-lef.html)

so do the BNP.

as for "police state", the BNP use this same rhetoric also.

he is also far right, anti-immigrant, supports the death penalty, hates trade unions, etc. if that is not a police state what is?

[The Idler]

so do the BNP.

as for "police state", the BNP use this same rhetoric also.

he is also far right, anti-immigrant, supports the death penalty, hates trade unions, etc. if that is not a police state what is?
A police state is a state where the police have more powers than ordinary citizens. Peter has written many articles and a book (The Abolition of Crime) in which he has declared his opposition to the police having more powers than ordinary citizens. He is also keen to point out traditionally British police have only been supposed to have the same powers as ordinary citizens as result of objections to the force at their inception by Robert Peel. In general Peter Hitchens supports civil liberties, the BNP and the far-right don't.