I'd imagine you only like him when he cuts your way, though.
Indeed. To cite a more relevant example, Hitchens directly refutes Nadine's false claim that the Palestinians fled due to incitement by their leaders in his excellent article "Wiesel Words":
thenation.com
<<< In a propaganda tour of recent history, Wiesel asserts that in 1948, "incited by their leaders, 600,000 Palestinians left the country convinced that, once Israel was vanquished, they would be able to return home."
This claim is a cheap lie and is known by Wiesel to be a lie. It is furthermore an utterly discredited lie, and one that Israeli officialdom no longer cares to repeat. Israeli and Jewish historians have exposed it time and again: Every Arab broadcasting station in the region, in 1947 as well as 1948, was monitored and recorded and transcribed by the BBC, and every Arab newspaper has been scoured, and not one instance of such "incitement," in direct speech or reported speech, has ever come to light. The late historian and diplomat Erskine Childers issued an open challenge on the point as far back as the 1950s that was never taken up and never will be. And of course the lie is a Big Lie, because Expulsion-Denial lies at the root of the entire problem and helps poison the situation to this day. (When Israel's negotiators gingerly discuss the right of return, at least they don't claim to be arguing about ghosts, or Dead Souls.) >>>
Bear in mind that Hitchens' attack on Chomsky was basically questioning Chomsky's point of view. It really wasn't a very significant article by Hitchens.
Tom |
