Why don't we have someone as competent and well drilled as this to counteract the toxic polarised debate we have to deal with each day. We need people like this now, people who can talk rationally based on facts and shut down the ridiculous rhetoric from both sides of the debate.
@@versioncity1very true, though I think a solid 95% of westerners didn’t have a very good understanding of the Israel / Gaza / West Bank situation until a year ago. Myself included, so he’s impressive to poorly read non-middle east experts such as myself.
@@tonylipsmire5918thing is, you should be ignorant to events in Arabia and the Middle East. Their culture is anti-ours and values are anti-ours and religious prosecution is anti-us. But we should just keep our relations to all Arabian, middle eastern nations on a strict tourist and trading basis and nothing more. Our governments in the west and Russia just meddle too much in their affairs. Just trade with em, leave Israel to fend for itself with no support (and their land grabbing will immediately end) from us except for trading. The world would become peaceful than it is
Towards the end of his life he became increasingly xenophobic and orientalist especially against arabs, he supported the Iraqi invasion and even after many of the people responsible for the debacle in Iraq admitted to their failure and said it was a mistake he doubled down and said it was correct and the right thing to do
They are both good in different ways. I like Peter for openly believing in God. It seems to me that the argument Christopher missed out, maybe due to his atheism, was the record of the prophets which are neglected; clearly stating that the Hebrews were expelled from the land of Israel by God. It is for God to bring them back not a group of politicians, academics, intellectuals or financiers. I'd like to see that argument explored more because this is an interesting narrow space where each of the brothers might have had something to contribute
@@martinledermann1862Jews don't need a religious argument for their right to live in Israel. Jews have lived their continually since long before the Muslim conquest and until today.
@@RoyBolinggoing Those types of arguments never work, because at the end of the day it's rarely truly about thoroughly obeying god. If they really wanted to obey god's supposed word consistently, they would be doing alot of things very differently. No, it's about doing all the evil stuff you already wanted to do, and then demanding everyone to accept and respect what you did because you did it for a religious purpose. That's one of the things that makes religion so appealing to so many people.
which he used to JUSTIFY the ILLEGAL INVASION of IRAN and AFGHANISTAN!! - WTF is wrong with you people? No memory longer than a month?? I was a devoted fan of this asshole but post 9/11 he was a Deranged NeoCon Republican... i guess his drinking got him in bed with someone underage of nonmhuma... blackmailed beyond ANY recognitin of the young man you see here..
Wrong! Yes influential, and so was Hitler. Did you listen to his arrogance..it sounded like he said Israel or Jews don't have a right to exist. He was an atheist, yet he thought was god, that would be the strange irony and tragic life of Hitchens. Btw, there's no real trick in reading 1000 books and sounding intelligent, anyone can do that.
@@alexhithamsafieh3113 I have studied this area and the conflict for nearly 20 years and lived there talking to both sides! It IS about religion as much as land and I’ve been told that “it’s in the Torah”, by Israelis my friend! Again, I say that Christopher said it best “Religion Poisons Everything” certainly rings true here.
@@maxmartin7080 The problem with that statement is that a great many of the people who claim that the Torah provides justification for taking the land, aren't religious themselves - beyond attending the occasional bar mitzvah. You'll find that many Orthodox Jews in Israel and abroad argue the exact opposite; that Jews are forbidden from returning to the land as a 'Jewish' nation, until the return of the Messiah. Jews are permitted to settle in the land as individuals. So in a sense you are correct, there are 'religious' tropes that being asserted which undergird one side of the 'conflict'. But in fact, that has very little to do with the Palestinian cause. Jews, Muslims and Christians have always lived in the region. Palestinians resist for the same reasons that all colonized peoples resist - survival and preservation. Ironically (perhaps), the first Zionist pioneers understood this totally. It's worth reading the Ze'ev Jabotinsky's 1923 essay, The Iron Wall. Most of those early Zionist's never even pretended to be observant.
@@NicholsMarn’thousands of years’ not true. Jews and Muslims had been living peacefully there until the west got involved. Actually, Jews used to migrate to Israel cos they were treated (by the majority Muslim population there) better than they were in Europe and other Arab countries. After WW2 the UK sent 100 of thousands of European asylum seeking Jews there, because they didn’t want to let them in the UK, and promised them land. This was at a time that they’d already made promises about the land to Arabs - who were helping the allies by rebelling against the Ottoman Empire during ww2. The notion that this conflict is all to do with religion is a complete fallacy.
Not quite that spot on. When a caller implied about the influence of said people on US media and politics he rejected it, but it is true. But even if I were to concede that it is not true directly, it would still be true indirectly, and this is because many people in power, in the US and abroad, have some degree of belief in the messianic prophecies, which leads them support said state on the basis of superstition. Although half of them are in it for the conquest of the Middle-East and its mineral resources - Israel is the perfect springboard for Western powers to take hold of those resources by force, coercion, terror.
Hitch taking that young man’s call… brilliant. You can imagine talking to this person in real life and walking him through the reasoning. This is as gentle as he got and it’s wonderful to see him being careful.
I was such a massive fan of Hitchens a decade ago but I somehow never knew or forgot his stance on Israel/Palestine so it made me so happy to watch this video and realize me and Hitchens aren't far off from each other.
@@malvolio01 Hitch literally says in this video (7:25) the Palestinians have every right to resist the proposal that they should be flung out of their own land. He probably wouldn't agree with the EXACT nature of what happened on October 7th, but he certainly wouldn't be surprised by it or think that their resistance taking extreme forms after almost of a century of violent occupation and apartheid is unthinkable. He certainly would consider what Israel has been doing for the last 12 months to be appalling.
@@jayhayes2007 "almost of a century of violent occupation and apartheid" It's quite disturbing to think some of you actually believe in that. "their resistance taking extreme forms" Not a shred of critical thought left in you, I'm afraid. In the absence of critical faculties, I guess empty revolutionary slogans will do.
@@spideralexandre2099 Do you think the atrocities committed on Israeli civilians on Oct. 7 were somehow justified? Do you think you have a moral basis for such justification, one not based on hamas propaganda and outright lies? Do you think you can establish a moral equivalence between the side that declared war with intent to destroy a sovereign nation and actually committed ge***ide and the side defending itself from annihilation? Do you think the demand for "proportional" response in a war is not the most preposterous and laughable demand under the circumstances? Do you think any other country would do differently when attacked like that? do you think any other country would be attacked and criticized like that for responding to defend itself like Israel is criticized and attacked?
Anyone who does more than ten minutes of research on the history of this problem would have to come to the conclusion that the Palestinians suffered a great injustice and conflict was the only outcome.
The problem is so many misinformation are out there. They brainwashed the west into thinking it’s the Palestinians who don’t want peace which is a total opposite.
@@Suplex479 You obviously have not done your research then. EEZREL has never draw it's borders even since it's formation by the U.N. It's the only country that has not done so to give it ability to expand indefinitely. Not to mention EEEZREL has never accepted the two state solution. All of two state solutions were proposed by the U.S but then EEEZRAIL added poison pills inside them to prevent the out right palestain. Then they fooled the west into thinking that it's the palestain that has never agreed to a two state solution. There's a video of BIB talking about it of how he found a way to kill the Two state solution. Watch the documentary "holy redemption" on youtube.
Of course the senior Bush would have said that. The family is neck-deep in the oil business. He son went to war with Iraq for the oil, but they set the oil fields on fire.
@@jonathanaliff6121 They all do that. Currently oil production is at record high. It doesn't matter that Trump lies about it, he was still after Venezuelan and Iranian oil. Even admitted to a journalist that USA stayed in Syria for its oil, which is an admission to a war crime. Trump has absolutely nobody left to lie to at this point, it's a wonder how anyone can take him seriously about anything
@@Hirnlego999 Well, Washington wanted a successful Plantation. So did Jefferson and the both wanted slaves to do the work. Ulysses Grant wanted to get rich on Wall Street. Oil wasn’t really a thing until the 19th C. .
@@LindaLinda80Linda Well, yes exactly. As soon as the resources have been known about they have all been part of the oil industrial complex. There's a further point to this. Being in the middle-east and making sure the oil flows keeps the prices down, which is why we have seen all presidents for ages going to Saudiarabia to do the sword dance. Strange bedfellows perhaps, but it has a further importance. In case of a wider war, like WW3 it would be possible to cut down oil exports to adversaries. So, it's never been about just using "our" own oil. Those are hollow talking points meant to target those who know very little about the subject.
@@donmadziva1689Great, good to know you're not a cultist who laser focuses on israel, you criticise the islamic states too. At least Israel has freedoms for its people though... including it's 2 million Muslims.
@@MrLebowski1980The two million Palestinians who remained in their homeland endured hell from the 1940s to the 1980s for the freedom they now enjoy, even if it is questionable, because there is still a lot of discrimination and inequality between Jews and Muslims in Israel. As for the Palestinians in the West Bank, it's a whole other story.
I applaud him as well, but on this issue he was wrong and shows very little understanding of the history. After generations of persecution by Arabs the Palestinian Jews should not have a state because it would be at the expense of the Palestinian Arabs? Conversely a Palestinian Arab state would be at the expense of Palestinian Jews. That's why the plan was to split the land. It was the Muslim Arabs who refused a split because they felt entitled to 100%.
@@DavoStreet I think he had a better understanding of history than those who argue against his view on the matter. Of couse Arabs felt entitled to 100%. It was their land. What right did the colonial Western powers have to split Arab land? Why would Arabs agree to give up their ancestral home to European settlers? Would you agree to split your home / land because a foreign nation said so? You need to understand this topic some more and then look at the issue objectively.
@@theopenrepublic It was Arab land? I guess if you say it was that's good enough. It was controlled by Ottomans, then handed over to the British to administrate establishment of viable states. Jews have lived there continually for thousands of years and their population dwindled after centuries of persecution. During the British Mandate there was a flood of Arab immigration into Palestine. Splitting Palestine and giving part to create yet another Arab state where one had never existed was being generous to the Arabs. Israel is the only success story for ethnic minorities within a sea of nations conquered by Arab colonizers. The Circassians, Assyrians, and Kurds all requested their own states and they should have been granted. Instead the powers that were did the lazy thing and yielded to the massive and powerful Arab colonial empire.
@@DavoStreet Yes, it was Arab land. They were living there. They owned the land. They have deeds of ownership. Jewish people started to migrate there from Europe and US starting from the late 19th century. Who "handed over" the land to the British? No one. They took it after the defeat of the Ottomans. So I ask again: by what right did Britain split the land? The answer is none. They left a legacy of conflict by creating a colonial settler state for Europeans. By any measure of objectivity, this is true. I have nothing further to say on the matter.
@@DavoStreet The Ottomans were a people defined by their religion - Islam. It makes no sense to try and redefine them by their languages (Turks and Arabs etc) unless you're also going to refer to Israelis as Hebrews. There certainly were Jews living in the region (Islam refers to them as People of the Book) but since they spoke Arabic their land would be "Arab land" too. As far as I know the only "persecution" the Ottomans imposed on People of the Book was an extra tax nobody collected. Your argument about dividing up the middle east according to language groups betrays a very Eurocentric concept of nationhood.
Oh wow! Looking at the way Sam Harris has disgraced himself on Israel-Palestine i had lost hope that there is a _single_ honest public intellectual who can say both Islamism AND Zionism are bad. I feel Hitch's absence even more strongly now.
@@arip9234 if they could do it without destroying the rest of the world, I wouldn't have a problem. But if they are escalating towards a potentially nuclear world war, taking away MY right to free speech and MY livelihood in MY country and putting MY family's and MY life in danger, it is very much for ME to decide. If they are destroying every international institution and any semblance of morality in MY government, then it is very much for me to decide. Deal with your real estate issues legally and peacefully without dragging the rest of the world down and I will have no problems.
Hi, I don't think any country has a right to exist. They all exist through force. 'Rights' don't really come into it. Unless you're talking about a moral 'right'. But that's just a metaphor not a real 'right'. Confusing isn't it?
@@kennycube5126 Interesting thoughts. Very philosophical. If you want to get out of that vacuum and make a not so neutral comment that would be more interesting.
"I think I know what you are trying to pin me down on. Onto the first point...". Hah, love Hitchens. Letting you know he sees your move, he is one step ahead of you, acknowledges it, then obliterates your argument. Excellent.
I would like Hitchens to be alive now so he could see what happened when the Palestinians got a state then raped and murdered as many Jews as they could get their hands on. Even Clinton has effectively apologized for his part in giving the Palestinians autonomy.
The problem quite honestly is rooted in the fact that Christianity still has a stronghold on American politics. The USA refuses to condemn Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.
realllly? right, cuz donald trump and the people who voted for him-who are totally ok with sex predators, criminals, frauds, liars, sociopaths and reality tv stars running the government, are just so aligned with christian values. please.
Well, if it just refused to condemn it, that would be a significant improvement. As things stands, the USA is the primary supporter of the occupation. Without the USA's enthusiastic approval, protection and funding, the genocide currently taking place would never have been possible on even a logistical level, nor would it have ever been on the table in Israeli politics to do it in the first place, as they would face the same treatment as their ideological brethren of the NSDAP back in the day.
I love "The Hitch" and despite one quote from him which i heard with my own ears...always will. Such a deep thinker..great orator and knowledgeable man.....to hear him say that he"dislikes people from Yorkshire " surprised and disappointed me. As you can guess im a proud Yorkshireman and wonder what happened to him to have such a low opinion of people from my county.....still love him though...
Misleadingly edited set of clips which loses the depth and nuance of Hitchens' position in favor of only one side. For example, Hitchens promises to talk about how the "two parties of G-d" are preventing a two-state solution, then discusses the problem of messianic settlers. He is about to discuss the hard-liners on the Palestinian side, but of course the editor cuts away first.
Well, not quite. It doesn't matter if the weaker side pushes for any two state solution when the Likud charter specifically makes any 2 state solution impossible. Where we are now the losing side will likely lose a lot more, and they won't ever get it back, these are good times for Israeli hardliners. Of course Hitchens would point out that religion doesn't help, but there is one side that has a lot more to say on where this goes than the other. Especially now that Trump is incoming and his son in law says there is a lot of profitable land to put to use (= to downright steal).
@@agathajadwiszczok3503 Yes, I spoke to Christopher about ten times. He was left leaning but did support George W Bush. Guessing I could look for the clips but they were 20 and 30 years ago.
AIPAC is wide out in the open, so your comment is firstly pretty silly. You like to tell a tale of it being covert because you belong to those Hitchens and every other sane person finds pretty detestable.
One of the few contrarians who was an actual contrarian and not just an uninformed childish troll. Also one of the few people whose old interviews shed light on current issues.
He uses the phrase 'Arab land'. What makes a piece of land "Arab?" Particularly, what makes a piece of land, outside of Arabia, "Arab"? Does land have ethnicity? Of course not, and I dont think Mr Hitchens would claim such a thing. Yet he labels this piece of land as inherently "Arab." Why? Because it was conquered by Arabs? Well, doesn't that same logic then apply in the reverse? If it was conquered by Jews, does it become "Jewish land?" Or does land just pass back and forth between peoples, across history, and can only be claimed to belong to those who currently control it and are strong enough to hold it?
When the UN was formed in 1945 after WW2 ended it became against international law for any country to militarilly invade another country with the aim of claiming it for themselves so that history of open conquest you're talking about is no longer relevant. This is why conquest only happens now through covert acts of the western deep state, bribery of foreign politicians, coups and assassinations by CIA/MI6/Mossad operatives, over 800 US military bases worldwide keep these foreign governments on the leash.
He had some interesting views. From memory he went on to support the invasion of Iraq and became extremely anti Muslim. He may still have retained his view of Israel.
No, critical of religion...yes. Still pushed for Palestinians state as well as Kurdish state. He wrote in hitch 22 that USA had a responsibility to get rid of Saddam since it put that tyrant in power in the first place. Hitch was anti-totalitarian
Why would Arabs alone be entitled to stateless land that was freed from Ottomans after WW1 and vacated by the British in 1948? Arabs wanted to force a repressive Arab Muslim ethnostate on everyone who lived there (not just Jews, but Christians, Druze, etc). Arab Palestine would’ve first had to have existed before Jews could steal and occupy it. Can anyone say when “Palestine” was founded, by whom, and who governed/administered it?
@@KandiMan The people in Czechoslovakia formed a new state in 1918 with the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. But they were Europeans. The people of Palestine, over 90% of whom were Arabs, weren't allowed to by the British occupiers.
He would tell the truth: that Hamas' crimes were a monstrous act of evil - but so are Israeli actions toward the Palestinians; & that if Israel continues to act the way it does - comitting such evil acts, empowering & enabling the worst elements of its society & giving them power over their government - what should it expect?
From a strict legal point of view, too many Israelis do rely on biblical claims to the land rather than legal claims from the UN, though they're happy to cite the latter when it suits them, but when they know they don't have a legal leg to stand on, they fall back on the Torah. It's not an actual legally binding document and has no basis in modern law (or logic). And therein lies the problem. The same can be said of the more radical Arab elements in one sense, but they have paperwork from a modern legal framework showing their ownership of the land in recent centuries. I know Hitchens addressed this at a point in the video, but it bear reiterating.
Nobody is. Hitchens was wrong on Iran soon having nuclear weapons. And he should have hated the neocons as much as Kissinger. But on Palestine, it's quite right. An occupation force is not doing defense.
@@Hirnlego999 Hitchens was wrong about the occupation. In all fairness, as millions others. Israel is not an occupying power based on international law since its declaration.
@@talmudovsky Yes it is. It has constantly moving borders. Israel only occupies 2% of West Bank, says US ambassador David Friedman also says international community always intended for Israel to keep some of the land it seized in 1967 "While the figure of 2% has been used in the past by Israeli officials to define occupation as the physical footprint of settlement buildings, “area C” - the part of the West Bank under Israeli administrative and security control - accounts for 60% of the West Bank. In addition, reports compiled by the UN and NGOs suggest up to 39% of all land in the occupied West Bank is under the control of Jewish municipalities, local authorities and regional councils, with Israel effectively prohibiting Palestinian construction and development there." One of many lies. And as Hitchens points out, private property owned by Palestinians are constantly seized. Israel razing more Palestinian homes, wells: monitors JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel has stepped up its demolitions of Palestinian property in occupied land this year, razing double the number of homes and water wells from 2010, human rights groups said on Tuesday. "Numerous UN resolutions have stated that the building and existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a violation of international law, including UN Security Council resolutions in 1979 and 1980.[10][11][12] UN Security Council Resolution 446 refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention as the applicable international legal instrument, and calls upon Israel to desist from transferring its own population into the territories or changing their demographic makeup. The reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions has declared the settlements illegal[13] as has the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice[14] and the International Committee of the Red Cross." Israel razing more Palestinian homes, wells: monitors JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel has stepped up its demolitions of Palestinian property in occupied land this year, razing double the number of homes and water wells from 2010, human rights groups said on Tuesday. etc etc
@@Hirnlego999 @adam0887 I appreciate your response. However, it appears there is some misunderstanding regarding the customary law known as "uti possidetis juris". Below are key considerations that establish Israel’s rightful standing as a legitimate landowner under this principle. Most United Nations General Assembly (UN GA) resolutions are advisory rather than legally binding, expressing opinions or recommendations of the international community rather than enforceable law. Likewise, Security Council (UN SC) resolutions under Chapter VI are non-binding; only Chapter VII resolutions can mandate action. It is a common and widely spread misconception that Israel's 1948 Declaration of Independence was predicated on the 1947 General Assembly Partition Resolution 181(II). This belief is not factually accurate. The foundation of Israel's statehood lies fundamentally in the universal principle of international law known as "uti possidetis juris". This principle asserts that newly formed sovereign states should inherit the internal borders of their preceding governing entities. In Israel’s case, these inherited borders included areas of the British Mandate for Palestine, extending over parts of the Gaza Strip, Jerusalem, and the West Bank. Thus, upon declaring independence, Israel legitimately acquired title over these territories. Customary international law is regarded as a primary, binding source within the hierarchy of international legal norms, deriving from widespread state practice and opinio juris (the belief that an action is carried out as a legal obligation). Uti possidetis juris has consistently been upheld as a customary norm, particularly in contexts of decolonization and the formation of new states. A further principle relevant to Israel’s formation is the equal applicability of law. Uti possidetis juris, rooted in Roman law, has served as a legal foundation for numerous states' creation over the past two centuries, including Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and others. To deny Israel its legitimate status based on this principle would undermine the legitimacy of numerous United Nations member states. The legitimacy of any international or legal body decision that disregards "uti possidetis juris" could thus be questioned, as it may risk promoting instability contrary to the foundational goals of international law. Following the illegal invasion by Arab forces in 1948, the Gaza Strip, West Bank, and East Jerusalem were occupied by Egypt and Jordan, which led to the ethnic cleansing of Jewish communities and desecration of cemeteries and synagogues. In 1967, during a defensive war instigated by Egypt and Jordan, Israel reclaimed these territories, reestablishing its rightful ownership. Therefore, Israel’s legal status is not that of an occupying power; this includes the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and the entirety of the City of Jerusalem. I hope that helps.
Oh my god…that exchange at the very end is really upsetting, man. In the interest of being logical, fair and non-hysterical (which is a rarity in these times), I know those types of extreme interactions are in the minority but the fact that they happen at all and that they probably happen somewhat often is awful.
Hitchens is right about the radical zionist settlers... But why is he leaving out the fact that the Palestinians could have had a state multiple times.
He isn't. Because the deals were never really great to begin with. As Chomsky details in some of his talks basically most resources falls into Israeli hands. Netanyahu has also been filmed bragging about killing the Oslo accords. The Likud charter has stated for a long time that a 2 state solution won't be allowed.
@@Hirnlego999 Let's take bill Clinton's word over noam Chomsky when it comes to summits and occords, since he was actually at one if them. Bill Clinton literally said that Arafat stopped any chance of a deal and basically turned down the chance of a palestinian state... and that just one example.
The peel commission map wasnt a good map for palestinians??... Both sides were not keen on it, but the palestinians turned it down not because it was a bad deal, but because they outright refused the idea of a Jewish state.
@@MrLebowski1980 Why would we? Clinton was in the pockets of AIPAC just like the rest of them. As Hitchens pointed out the last one to make demands on Israel was Bush senior
@@Hirnlego999 So you are not gonna believe the people in the actual room during the negotiations... instead it's the guy who blames practically everything on the west noam Chomsky??..This is just gonna be a pointless discussion.
At 10.04 he is cut off from finishing his statement as to why the two state solution hasn’t been worked out but only mentions the point where it’s the rightwing Jewish settlers who don’t want it, he is going to talk about the Islamic fundamentalists who don’t want it either. Love Hitch though he was totally right and totally rational in his thoughts on all the subjects he discussed.
The war on Palestinian children started in 1948. Should an occupied country not defend itself, even in threat of genocide? 9/11 and 10/7 seemed to give countries with 50x the military power to exert their ability to colonize that land. Peaceful people exist in every civilization. Always, always, always, rich people will waste poor people for their CAPITAL.
A badly missed political commentator… he was never ever afraid to tell of what he truly believed. He was always consistently spot on with this issue, America funding Israeli wars is a nonsense and always will be.
My parents are both from Poland. They are gentile. I will say this about Zionism. Given the way Polish people talk about Jews- I have heard it all my life- I don't blame Jews for wanting their own nation.
Christopher Hitches was a brilliant man and phenomenal debater. He is missing some very salient points in this conflict and what's missing are his thoughts on Jihadism. His position is that religion is stupid. He also doesn't seem aware of the impact of Britain or the grand Mufti and his relationship with Nazism and his extension of those values into the Islamist culture. Even so, he's brilliant and well missed.
It's not the same values. Some arab states had a thing going on with Nazi Germany because above all they wanted to get rid of the imperialist England. Finland was also allied with the Nazis because at the time USSR was a greater threat. They were not ideologically allied though, Finland didn't embrace Nazism. To people who think god is the greatest there is obviously no room for someone like Hitler Obviously there are fools who read mein kampf to try find ammunition against another religious group but it's just much better to see what goes on Gaza or other occupied areas. The best thing would be for all groups to understand that their religious beliefs are not helping this situation and neither does it in many others
I miss Hitchens.
❤
I did, until now.
@@DAVIDSTEIN-v1oWhy?
Why don't we have someone as competent and well drilled as this to counteract the toxic polarised debate we have to deal with each day. We need people like this now, people who can talk rationally based on facts and shut down the ridiculous rhetoric from both sides of the debate.
@@munkayman78because you can’t do it or most of us..this is why we liked hitchens. It’s a pretty easy concept to grasp imho
Wow. In 2024. How right he was. Spot on.
many people have been ever since the modern israeli state was created.
I was going to say that 🎉 3:26
@@versioncity1very true, though I think a solid 95% of westerners didn’t have a very good understanding of the Israel / Gaza / West Bank situation until a year ago. Myself included, so he’s impressive to poorly read non-middle east experts such as myself.
@@tonylipsmire5918thing is, you should be ignorant to events in Arabia and the Middle East. Their culture is anti-ours and values are anti-ours and religious prosecution is anti-us. But we should just keep our relations to all Arabian, middle eastern nations on a strict tourist and trading basis and nothing more. Our governments in the west and Russia just meddle too much in their affairs. Just trade with em, leave Israel to fend for itself with no support (and their land grabbing will immediately end) from us except for trading.
The world would become peaceful than it is
... AND YET WE WATCH WITH ''EYE'S WIDE SHUT ''
The same descriptions used in the videos, some decades old, are equally applicable to the current situation in Palestine. Its nuts.
Common sense doesn’t age
And the process hasn’t stopped
It's interesting hearing him talk about this after hearing so many accuse him of racism against Arabs
His justifications for the Iraq war was full of racism, unfortunately.
He's consistent and principled.
never heard anyone accuse him of that. Do you mean Muslims?
Towards the end of his life he became increasingly xenophobic and orientalist especially against arabs, he supported the Iraqi invasion and even after many of the people responsible for the debacle in Iraq admitted to their failure and said it was a mistake he doubled down and said it was correct and the right thing to do
He was friends with the Kurds so idk how they could say he's against Arabs rather than the psychotic islamksrs
The far far superior Hitchens brother
I prefer Christopher too but his brother is still way smarter than most of UK politicians.
They are both good in different ways. I like Peter for openly believing in God. It seems to me that the argument Christopher missed out, maybe due to his atheism, was the record of the prophets which are neglected; clearly stating that the Hebrews were expelled from the land of Israel by God. It is for God to bring them back not a group of politicians, academics, intellectuals or financiers.
I'd like to see that argument explored more because this is an interesting narrow space where each of the brothers might have had something to contribute
@@RoyBolinggoing They will then argue that it's their god that is leading them to do this.
@@martinledermann1862Jews don't need a religious argument for their right to live in Israel. Jews have lived their continually since long before the Muslim conquest and until today.
@@RoyBolinggoing Those types of arguments never work, because at the end of the day it's rarely truly about thoroughly obeying god. If they really wanted to obey god's supposed word consistently, they would be doing alot of things very differently. No, it's about doing all the evil stuff you already wanted to do, and then demanding everyone to accept and respect what you did because you did it for a religious purpose. That's one of the things that makes religion so appealing to so many people.
The world is a far darker place without his mind.
which he used to JUSTIFY the ILLEGAL INVASION of IRAN and AFGHANISTAN!! - WTF is wrong with you people? No memory longer than a month?? I was a devoted fan of this asshole but post 9/11 he was a Deranged NeoCon Republican... i guess his drinking got him in bed with someone underage of nonmhuma... blackmailed beyond ANY recognitin of the young man you see here..
The world is a far brighter place because his mind inspired so many.
@Monk_Chud Ya div🤣 You spelled 'yes' wrong.
Its all ablut sperm count.. Google him nothing has changed
Wrong! Yes influential, and so was Hitler. Did you listen to his arrogance..it sounded like he said Israel or Jews don't have a right to exist. He was an atheist, yet he thought was god, that would be the strange irony and tragic life of Hitchens.
Btw, there's no real trick in reading 1000 books and sounding intelligent, anyone can do that.
when you avoid looking at things with a tribal , religious and dogmatic way you will always see things the correct way , thank you Dr Christopher
wow, that's a really dangerous fallacy you've constructed
@@ChannelMath not in the least bit
I agree! What a pity the world seems to be reverting to tribalism
The last ‘settlers’ diatribe says it all, but Christopher said it best, ‘Religion Poisons Everything’!
I think it’s not about Religion it’s about land , try to read more about history of area
@@alexhithamsafieh3113 I have studied this area and the conflict for nearly 20 years and lived there talking to both sides! It IS about religion as much as land and I’ve been told that “it’s in the Torah”, by Israelis my friend! Again, I say that Christopher said it best “Religion Poisons Everything” certainly rings true here.
@@maxmartin7080 The problem with that statement is that a great many of the people who claim that the Torah provides justification for taking the land, aren't religious themselves - beyond attending the occasional bar mitzvah. You'll find that many Orthodox Jews in Israel and abroad argue the exact opposite; that Jews are forbidden from returning to the land as a 'Jewish' nation, until the return of the Messiah. Jews are permitted to settle in the land as individuals. So in a sense you are correct, there are 'religious' tropes that being asserted which undergird one side of the 'conflict'. But in fact, that has very little to do with the Palestinian cause. Jews, Muslims and Christians have always lived in the region. Palestinians resist for the same reasons that all colonized peoples resist - survival and preservation. Ironically (perhaps), the first Zionist pioneers understood this totally. It's worth reading the Ze'ev Jabotinsky's 1923 essay, The Iron Wall. Most of those early Zionist's never even pretended to be observant.
@@alexhithamsafieh3113Please tell me this is satire. It’s not about religion? It’s been about religion for thousands of years.
@@NicholsMarn’thousands of years’ not true. Jews and Muslims had been living peacefully there until the west got involved. Actually, Jews used to migrate to Israel cos they were treated (by the majority Muslim population there) better than they were in Europe and other Arab countries.
After WW2 the UK sent 100 of thousands of European asylum seeking Jews there, because they didn’t want to let them in the UK, and promised them land. This was at a time that they’d already made promises about the land to Arabs - who were helping the allies by rebelling against the Ottoman Empire during ww2.
The notion that this conflict is all to do with religion is a complete fallacy.
Hitchens was always spot on on this issue
like his support for the illegal invasion of Iran and Afghanistan?
Not quite that spot on. When a caller implied about the influence of said people on US media and politics he rejected it, but it is true. But even if I were to concede that it is not true directly, it would still be true indirectly, and this is because many people in power, in the US and abroad, have some degree of belief in the messianic prophecies, which leads them support said state on the basis of superstition. Although half of them are in it for the conquest of the Middle-East and its mineral resources - Israel is the perfect springboard for Western powers to take hold of those resources by force, coercion, terror.
😮😮😮 10:03 10:03 😮6 10:03 😅😮😅😮😮😮😊😅😅😅😮so 😮😅in 10:03 😮😮in 😅😅😮😮😮in 😅😮den 😅
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
"Spot On" I guess that's intellectual speak for "I like to sound smart"
Thanks for posting.
I miss you Christopher Hitchens.
How did you write that comment that makes a search result
he was a bloody genius and still correct after his death.
He did go full nutter
He’d be a Zionist now.
@@jpw5029 Where? When?
then he says there is no hidden juiceish hand behind the US government? haha He is right... it's not hidden anymore 😂
@@wiwlarue4097 Aipac
it's amazing how his voice and his opinions stayed absolutely consistent over the 30 years of his career.
Do you know who you are talking about, or anything about him? He did a complete 180 on fundamental issues relating to the middle east
@@vemundrye8999 could you please just list one of these 180 turns. thank you.
Hitch taking that young man’s call… brilliant. You can imagine talking to this person in real life and walking him through the reasoning. This is as gentle as he got and it’s wonderful to see him being careful.
Speaking from the grave and what progress has been made in decades? Hitchens was a great man.
He's still a breath of fresh air...even from the beyond.
Legend
For neckbeards
The exact brilliant mind the WORLD needs right now.
He was against islam, so I agree he did have a brilliant mind
You're a tonne of simple.
@@R-Righteoushe was against all religion
@@chav2002 Sure was, but other religions are more tolerable than the cult of peace....
@@chav2002 in the UK "chav" isn't a good thing, Google it.
So right in every way!
I was such a massive fan of Hitchens a decade ago but I somehow never knew or forgot his stance on Israel/Palestine so it made me so happy to watch this video and realize me and Hitchens aren't far off from each other.
@@5dollarshake263 That wouldn’t be his stance now. Especially after Oct 7. Are you mad?
@@malvolio01 Hitch literally says in this video (7:25) the Palestinians have every right to resist the proposal that they should be flung out of their own land. He probably wouldn't agree with the EXACT nature of what happened on October 7th, but he certainly wouldn't be surprised by it or think that their resistance taking extreme forms after almost of a century of violent occupation and apartheid is unthinkable. He certainly would consider what Israel has been doing for the last 12 months to be appalling.
@@jayhayes2007 "almost of a century of violent occupation and apartheid"
It's quite disturbing to think some of you actually believe in that.
"their resistance taking extreme forms"
Not a shred of critical thought left in you, I'm afraid. In the absence of critical faculties, I guess empty revolutionary slogans will do.
@@etsequentia6765 Do you think the state of Israel's response over the last 12, nearly 13 months, is proportional?
@@spideralexandre2099 Do you think the atrocities committed on Israeli civilians on Oct. 7 were somehow justified?
Do you think you have a moral basis for such justification, one not based on hamas propaganda and outright lies?
Do you think you can establish a moral equivalence between the side that declared war with intent to destroy a sovereign nation and actually committed ge***ide and the side defending itself from annihilation?
Do you think the demand for "proportional" response in a war is not the most preposterous and laughable demand under the circumstances?
Do you think any other country would do differently when attacked like that? do you think any other country would be attacked and criticized like that for responding to defend itself like Israel is criticized and attacked?
He was ahead of the curve on a lot of issues
I miss this man so much. 😔
Anyone who does more than ten minutes of research on the history of this problem would have to come to the conclusion that the Palestinians suffered a great injustice and conflict was the only outcome.
Ten minutes of research and a modicum of moral fibre
The problem is so many misinformation are out there. They brainwashed the west into thinking it’s the Palestinians who don’t want peace which is a total opposite.
Yeah, but if you do more than ten minutes and actually do meaningful research you find the opposite.
@@Suplex479 You obviously have not done your research then. EEZREL has never draw it's borders even since it's formation by the U.N. It's the only country that has not done so to give it ability to expand indefinitely. Not to mention EEEZREL has never accepted the two state solution. All of two state solutions were proposed by the U.S but then EEEZRAIL added poison pills inside them to prevent the out right palestain. Then they fooled the west into thinking that it's the palestain that has never agreed to a two state solution. There's a video of BIB talking about it of how he found a way to kill the Two state solution. Watch the documentary "holy redemption" on youtube.
@@Suplex479 I remember when Israel Foreign Ministry reps could actually spell 😂
I would've loved to hear Hitch on this issue and several others of the last decade. He was a great man.
you know he became a zionist right?
Of course the senior Bush would have said that. The family is neck-deep in the oil business. He son went to war with Iraq for the oil, but they set the oil fields on fire.
Is there any US president that has not been on an oil hunt?
@@Hirnlego999Just the one that encouraged us to use our own comes to mind.
@@jonathanaliff6121 They all do that. Currently oil production is at record high. It doesn't matter that Trump lies about it, he was still after Venezuelan and Iranian oil. Even admitted to a journalist that USA stayed in Syria for its oil, which is an admission to a war crime.
Trump has absolutely nobody left to lie to at this point, it's a wonder how anyone can take him seriously about anything
@@Hirnlego999 Well, Washington wanted a successful Plantation. So did Jefferson and the both wanted slaves to do the work. Ulysses Grant wanted to get rich on Wall Street. Oil wasn’t really a thing until the 19th C. .
@@LindaLinda80Linda Well, yes exactly. As soon as the resources have been known about they have all been part of the oil industrial complex.
There's a further point to this. Being in the middle-east and making sure the oil flows keeps the prices down, which is why we have seen all presidents for ages going to Saudiarabia to do the sword dance. Strange bedfellows perhaps, but it has a further importance. In case of a wider war, like WW3 it would be possible to cut down oil exports to adversaries. So, it's never been about just using "our" own oil.
Those are hollow talking points meant to target those who know very little about the subject.
Man, this guy is really someone who is missed
now we're left with sham harris and richard dawcringe
@@zeusjukem9484 2 horsemen of intellectual arrogance
The idea of a country founded on religion is preposterous.
So you are against all of those islamic countries that are under islamic law? ..If so you are consistent
@@MrLebowski1980 all of them.
@@donmadziva1689Great, good to know you're not a cultist who laser focuses on israel, you criticise the islamic states too. At least Israel has freedoms for its people though... including it's 2 million Muslims.
@@MrLebowski1980Yeah, all those Palestinians in the West Bank are overflowing with freedom…
@@MrLebowski1980The two million Palestinians who remained in their homeland endured hell from the 1940s to the 1980s for the freedom they now enjoy, even if it is questionable, because there is still a lot of discrimination and inequality between Jews and Muslims in Israel. As for the Palestinians in the West Bank, it's a whole other story.
We desperately need this mans nuance today and can't seem to find it anywhere ... RIP.
Facts
This is still as relevant 20 years later..
He would wipe the floor with anyone in politics today..he speaks the truth to power
Whilst I disagree with the late Mr Hitchens, he was entirely correct on this issue. I applaude him for being consistent with his principles.
I applaud him as well, but on this issue he was wrong and shows very little understanding of the history.
After generations of persecution by Arabs the Palestinian Jews should not have a state because it would be at the expense of the Palestinian Arabs? Conversely a Palestinian Arab state would be at the expense of Palestinian Jews. That's why the plan was to split the land. It was the Muslim Arabs who refused a split because they felt entitled to 100%.
@@DavoStreet I think he had a better understanding of history than those who argue against his view on the matter. Of couse Arabs felt entitled to 100%. It was their land. What right did the colonial Western powers have to split Arab land? Why would Arabs agree to give up their ancestral home to European settlers? Would you agree to split your home / land because a foreign nation said so? You need to understand this topic some more and then look at the issue objectively.
@@theopenrepublic It was Arab land? I guess if you say it was that's good enough.
It was controlled by Ottomans, then handed over to the British to administrate establishment of viable states.
Jews have lived there continually for thousands of years and their population dwindled after centuries of persecution. During the British Mandate there was a flood of Arab immigration into Palestine. Splitting Palestine and giving part to create yet another Arab state where one had never existed was being generous to the Arabs.
Israel is the only success story for ethnic minorities within a sea of nations conquered by Arab colonizers. The Circassians, Assyrians, and Kurds all requested their own states and they should have been granted. Instead the powers that were did the lazy thing and yielded to the massive and powerful Arab colonial empire.
@@DavoStreet Yes, it was Arab land. They were living there. They owned the land. They have deeds of ownership. Jewish people started to migrate there from Europe and US starting from the late 19th century. Who "handed over" the land to the British? No one. They took it after the defeat of the Ottomans. So I ask again: by what right did Britain split the land? The answer is none. They left a legacy of conflict by creating a colonial settler state for Europeans. By any measure of objectivity, this is true. I have nothing further to say on the matter.
@@DavoStreet The Ottomans were a people defined by their religion - Islam. It makes no sense to try and redefine them by their languages (Turks and Arabs etc) unless you're also going to refer to Israelis as Hebrews. There certainly were Jews living in the region (Islam refers to them as People of the Book) but since they spoke Arabic their land would be "Arab land" too.
As far as I know the only "persecution" the Ottomans imposed on People of the Book was an extra tax nobody collected.
Your argument about dividing up the middle east according to language groups betrays a very Eurocentric concept of nationhood.
A great man and speaker. His brilliant mind and voice of reason are sorely missed.
Oh wow! Looking at the way Sam Harris has disgraced himself on Israel-Palestine i had lost hope that there is a _single_ honest public intellectual who can say both Islamism AND Zionism are bad.
I feel Hitch's absence even more strongly now.
Zionism isn’t bad. It’s not for you to decide if the Jews will live on their original ancestral land, is it now?
@@arip9234 if they could do it without destroying the rest of the world, I wouldn't have a problem. But if they are escalating towards a potentially nuclear world war, taking away MY right to free speech and MY livelihood in MY country and putting MY family's and MY life in danger, it is very much for ME to decide. If they are destroying every international institution and any semblance of morality in MY government, then it is very much for me to decide. Deal with your real estate issues legally and peacefully without dragging the rest of the world down and I will have no problems.
His opinions were logical and based on informed research. I do not agree with every aspect, but respect it.
Awh does the golden boy not believe in your silly little fair tales? 😢 diddums.
What does it mean to say a country has a "right" to exist?
Everyone has a right to exist. Even Palestine.
Hi,
I don't think any country has a right to exist. They all exist through force. 'Rights' don't really come into it. Unless you're talking about a moral 'right'. But that's just a metaphor not a real 'right'. Confusing isn't it?
There never was a Palestine
@@malvolio01 Most countries on Earth, including a lot of white ones, would disagree with you on that.
@@malvolio01There is now..
@@kennycube5126 Interesting thoughts. Very philosophical. If you want to get out of that vacuum and make a not so neutral comment that would be more interesting.
"I think I know what you are trying to pin me down on. Onto the first point...". Hah, love Hitchens. Letting you know he sees your move, he is one step ahead of you, acknowledges it, then obliterates your argument. Excellent.
You know....what WAS the guy trying to "pin down"?
I didn't really understand his 3 questions. Is there some context here that I am missing?
The caller asked if Iran or Russia would "close the straits of Hormuz" or something?
What was he talking about, exactly?
6:33 So good 😂 The wit of Christopher Hitchens was unassailable
6:07 - 'mm I can scream if I have to...' 😂
Fair play to the first caller, he asked all his questions in an incredibly efficient manner
Man I would love to hear him comment on Israeli affairs right now, if only….
why? there's nothing new to comment on. If his comments were helpful they would've helped by now
@@ChannelMath Maybe I just miss the wrath of Hitchens, is that so wrong
He condemned how Palestine was taken over by j-hadists. It really changed the conversation
@jaredpowell4108 those jihadists wouldn't have taken over if zionist extremists didn't carve out the state of Israel
I would like Hitchens to be alive now so he could see what happened when the Palestinians got a state then raped and murdered as many Jews as they could get their hands on. Even Clinton has effectively apologized for his part in giving the Palestinians autonomy.
He could see the whole thing with absolute clarity that those around tended to be wilfully blind of
The problem quite honestly is rooted in the fact that Christianity still has a stronghold on American politics. The USA refuses to condemn Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.
realllly? right, cuz donald trump and the people who voted for him-who are totally ok with sex predators, criminals, frauds, liars, sociopaths and reality tv stars running the government, are just so aligned with christian values. please.
Well, if it just refused to condemn it, that would be a significant improvement.
As things stands, the USA is the primary supporter of the occupation.
Without the USA's enthusiastic approval, protection and funding, the genocide currently taking place would never have been possible on even a logistical level, nor would it have ever been on the table in Israeli politics to do it in the first place, as they would face the same treatment as their ideological brethren of the NSDAP back in the day.
I love "The Hitch" and despite one quote from him which i heard with my own ears...always will. Such a deep thinker..great orator and knowledgeable man.....to hear him say that he"dislikes people from Yorkshire " surprised and disappointed me. As you can guess im a proud Yorkshireman and wonder what happened to him to have such a low opinion of people from my county.....still love him though...
Thank you for C-span
That’s one honest man!
Nothing better than an intellectual debates, when I was screaming and shouting happens.
Truth from Chris
Misleadingly edited set of clips which loses the depth and nuance of Hitchens' position in favor of only one side. For example, Hitchens promises to talk about how the "two parties of G-d" are preventing a two-state solution, then discusses the problem of messianic settlers. He is about to discuss the hard-liners on the Palestinian side, but of course the editor cuts away first.
Well, not quite. It doesn't matter if the weaker side pushes for any two state solution when the Likud charter specifically makes any 2 state solution impossible.
Where we are now the losing side will likely lose a lot more, and they won't ever get it back, these are good times for Israeli hardliners.
Of course Hitchens would point out that religion doesn't help, but there is one side that has a lot more to say on where this goes than the other. Especially now that Trump is incoming and his son in law says there is a lot of profitable land to put to use (= to downright steal).
“Of course” immediately shows your own prejudices rather than those of the Editor or Hitchens
@@gingervirus2988 "Of course Hitchens would point out that religion doesn't help" are you seriously debating this point? You know who Hitchens is?
Yes, he was honest in he's positions being wright or wrong.
I called in many times when Hitchens was on WJ. What a flash back. He looks like a kid and so does Brian Lamb.
Did they actually take your questions and respond?
If so, what did Hitchens say?
@@agathajadwiszczok3503 Yes, I spoke to Christopher about ten times. He was left leaning but did support George W Bush. Guessing I could look for the clips but they were 20 and 30 years ago.
This is what a moderate should sound like.
Good man ! He is a loss to this world.
He saw the truth.
What year is this?
It's a compilation of clips from across the decades. Isn't that obvious? What a stupid question.
I love hitch! I also want to note how strikingly handsome he is in that first clip!!
Gawd yes..... handsome.
@@cynthiamadrid1430seriously? That pale skin, pudgey face, and unstyled hair cut? Genuinely, how is he handsome?
Totally agree. Hitch, starring Will Smith, was a great movie ;)
Does somebody have the last video?
Do you know the only country in the Middle East that doesn't have a constitution or borders?
Do you know who’s the only country in the Middle East with equal rights for women and gays?
@@odedrokachify unless those women and gays are palestinian
@@odedrokachify... And other minorities. Compare the experience of Jews in Arab nations to the experience of 2m Arabs in Israel.
yeah, Algeria. do you know which country in the Middle East is a white ethnostate?
@@jad2728 sure….how about googling Algeria gay rights before you post? Women rights in Algeria? 🤣🤣🤣
This video hasn’t aged
"Covert Jewish hand" = AIPAC
AIPAC is wide out in the open, so your comment is firstly pretty silly. You like to tell a tale of it being covert because you belong to those Hitchens and every other sane person finds pretty detestable.
That’s not covert
@@vhufeosqap their secret funding from the Israeli government is covert
@@vhufeosqap😂😂😂😂
@@vhufeosqap but AIPAC handlers assigned to all Republican congressman is quite covert. Only recently did it become widespread knowledge.
Miss this guy. Epic logic
It would be amazing if we could hear Hitchens talk to Sam Harris on this issue
One of the few contrarians who was an actual contrarian and not just an uninformed childish troll. Also one of the few people whose old interviews shed light on current issues.
He uses the phrase 'Arab land'. What makes a piece of land "Arab?" Particularly, what makes a piece of land, outside of Arabia, "Arab"? Does land have ethnicity? Of course not, and I dont think Mr Hitchens would claim such a thing. Yet he labels this piece of land as inherently "Arab." Why? Because it was conquered by Arabs? Well, doesn't that same logic then apply in the reverse? If it was conquered by Jews, does it become "Jewish land?" Or does land just pass back and forth between peoples, across history, and can only be claimed to belong to those who currently control it and are strong enough to hold it?
Is your car that was stolen no longer yours?
@Eddyzk not if I stole the car, from someone who stole it, before it was stolen from me.
Except, it wasn't "conquered by Arabs". ruclips.net/video/QUCeQt8zg5o/видео.htmlsi=s4xFOgjwQEJXQ4Bo
When the UN was formed in 1945 after WW2 ended it became against international law for any country to militarilly invade another country with the aim of claiming it for themselves so that history of open conquest you're talking about is no longer relevant. This is why conquest only happens now through covert acts of the western deep state, bribery of foreign politicians, coups and assassinations by CIA/MI6/Mossad operatives, over 800 US military bases worldwide keep these foreign governments on the leash.
Arabs originally comes from the Levant..
Hitchins preaching it long before most people knew it was a problem
He had some interesting views. From memory he went on to support the invasion of Iraq and became extremely anti Muslim. He may still have retained his view of Israel.
No, critical of religion...yes. Still pushed for Palestinians state as well as Kurdish state. He wrote in hitch 22 that USA had a responsibility to get rid of Saddam since it put that tyrant in power in the first place. Hitch was anti-totalitarian
@@markclans3284 No, anti Islam, but anti-religion in general anyway.
That comment about clinton is so on point its horrifying.
Why would Arabs alone be entitled to stateless land that was freed from Ottomans after WW1 and vacated by the British in 1948? Arabs wanted to force a repressive Arab Muslim ethnostate on everyone who lived there (not just Jews, but Christians, Druze, etc).
Arab Palestine would’ve first had to have existed before Jews could steal and occupy it. Can anyone say when “Palestine” was founded, by whom, and who governed/administered it?
@@KandiMan The people in Czechoslovakia formed a new state in 1918 with the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. But they were Europeans. The people of Palestine, over 90% of whom were Arabs, weren't allowed to by the British occupiers.
Such a shame he’s no longer here. Especially at this point in history. Damn shame.
How spot on, free Palestine
Much missed. RIP.
Hitchens was a very smart Jew. We miss him.
6:08 - "I'm a libertarian"
- proceeds to defend the acts of an occupying government in ethnically cleansing a population they don't like
In all fairness, I think the libertarian guy was saying "Even Jordan has problems with Palestinians - and they are Arabs, too!"
Probably some douche-y college sophmore
If only we could hear Hitch’s thoughts post-Oct7.
He would tell the truth: that Hamas' crimes were a monstrous act of evil - but so are Israeli actions toward the Palestinians; & that if Israel continues to act the way it does - comitting such evil acts, empowering & enabling the worst elements of its society & giving them power over their government - what should it expect?
We need this guy today
gone too soon 🙏🏿
From a strict legal point of view, too many Israelis do rely on biblical claims to the land rather than legal claims from the UN, though they're happy to cite the latter when it suits them, but when they know they don't have a legal leg to stand on, they fall back on the Torah. It's not an actual legally binding document and has no basis in modern law (or logic). And therein lies the problem. The same can be said of the more radical Arab elements in one sense, but they have paperwork from a modern legal framework showing their ownership of the land in recent centuries. I know Hitchens addressed this at a point in the video, but it bear reiterating.
am israel chaiiiii
The ghost of her ex husband (who unalived himself when he found out about the affair) came back to haunt them.
Sam Harris and Bill Maher are watching this video while punching the air right now.
Something I agree with him on great stuff.
Hitchens wasn't right about everything. Charismatic yes.
Nobody is. Hitchens was wrong on Iran soon having nuclear weapons. And he should have hated the neocons as much as Kissinger.
But on Palestine, it's quite right. An occupation force is not doing defense.
@@Hirnlego999 Hitchens was wrong about the occupation. In all fairness, as millions others. Israel is not an occupying power based on international law since its declaration.
@@talmudovsky Yes it is. It has constantly moving borders.
Israel only occupies 2% of West Bank, says US ambassador
David Friedman also says international community always intended for Israel to keep some of the land it seized in 1967
"While the figure of 2% has been used in the past by Israeli officials to define occupation as the physical footprint of settlement buildings, “area C” - the part of the West Bank under Israeli administrative and security control - accounts for 60% of the West Bank.
In addition, reports compiled by the UN and NGOs suggest up to 39% of all land in the occupied West Bank is under the control of Jewish municipalities, local authorities and regional councils, with Israel effectively prohibiting Palestinian construction and development there."
One of many lies. And as Hitchens points out, private property owned by Palestinians are constantly seized.
Israel razing more Palestinian homes, wells: monitors
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel has stepped up its demolitions of Palestinian property in occupied land this year, razing double the number of homes and water wells from 2010, human rights groups said on Tuesday.
"Numerous UN resolutions have stated that the building and existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a violation of international law, including UN Security Council resolutions in 1979 and 1980.[10][11][12] UN Security Council Resolution 446 refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention as the applicable international legal instrument, and calls upon Israel to desist from transferring its own population into the territories or changing their demographic makeup. The reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions has declared the settlements illegal[13] as has the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice[14] and the International Committee of the Red Cross."
Israel razing more Palestinian homes, wells: monitors
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel has stepped up its demolitions of Palestinian property in occupied land this year, razing double the number of homes and water wells from 2010, human rights groups said on Tuesday.
etc etc
@@talmudovsky Confidently incorrect.
@@Hirnlego999 @adam0887
I appreciate your response. However, it appears there is some misunderstanding regarding the customary law known as "uti possidetis juris". Below are key considerations that establish Israel’s rightful standing as a legitimate landowner under this principle.
Most United Nations General Assembly (UN GA) resolutions are advisory rather than legally binding, expressing opinions or recommendations of the international community rather than enforceable law. Likewise, Security Council (UN SC) resolutions under Chapter VI are non-binding; only Chapter VII resolutions can mandate action.
It is a common and widely spread misconception that Israel's 1948 Declaration of Independence was predicated on the 1947 General Assembly Partition Resolution 181(II). This belief is not factually accurate. The foundation of Israel's statehood lies fundamentally in the universal principle of international law known as "uti possidetis juris". This principle asserts that newly formed sovereign states should inherit the internal borders of their preceding governing entities. In Israel’s case, these inherited borders included areas of the British Mandate for Palestine, extending over parts of the Gaza Strip, Jerusalem, and the West Bank. Thus, upon declaring independence, Israel legitimately acquired title over these territories.
Customary international law is regarded as a primary, binding source within the hierarchy of international legal norms, deriving from widespread state practice and opinio juris (the belief that an action is carried out as a legal obligation). Uti possidetis juris has consistently been upheld as a customary norm, particularly in contexts of decolonization and the formation of new states.
A further principle relevant to Israel’s formation is the equal applicability of law. Uti possidetis juris, rooted in Roman law, has served as a legal foundation for numerous states' creation over the past two centuries, including Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and others. To deny Israel its legitimate status based on this principle would undermine the legitimacy of numerous United Nations member states. The legitimacy of any international or legal body decision that disregards "uti possidetis juris" could thus be questioned, as it may risk promoting instability contrary to the foundational goals of international law.
Following the illegal invasion by Arab forces in 1948, the Gaza Strip, West Bank, and East Jerusalem were occupied by Egypt and Jordan, which led to the ethnic cleansing of Jewish communities and desecration of cemeteries and synagogues. In 1967, during a defensive war instigated by Egypt and Jordan, Israel reclaimed these territories, reestablishing its rightful ownership.
Therefore, Israel’s legal status is not that of an occupying power; this includes the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and the entirety of the City of Jerusalem.
I hope that helps.
Oh my god…that exchange at the very end is really upsetting, man. In the interest of being logical, fair and non-hysterical (which is a rarity in these times), I know those types of extreme interactions are in the minority but the fact that they happen at all and that they probably happen somewhat often is awful.
Hitchens is right about the radical zionist settlers... But why is he leaving out the fact that the Palestinians could have had a state multiple times.
He isn't. Because the deals were never really great to begin with. As Chomsky details in some of his talks basically most resources falls into Israeli hands.
Netanyahu has also been filmed bragging about killing the Oslo accords. The Likud charter has stated for a long time that a 2 state solution won't be allowed.
@@Hirnlego999 Let's take bill Clinton's word over noam Chomsky when it comes to summits and occords, since he was actually at one if them. Bill Clinton literally said that Arafat stopped any chance of a deal and basically turned down the chance of a palestinian state... and that just one example.
The peel commission map wasnt a good map for palestinians??... Both sides were not keen on it, but the palestinians turned it down not because it was a bad deal, but because they outright refused the idea of a Jewish state.
@@MrLebowski1980 Why would we? Clinton was in the pockets of AIPAC just like the rest of them. As Hitchens pointed out the last one to make demands on Israel was Bush senior
@@Hirnlego999 So you are not gonna believe the people in the actual room during the negotiations... instead it's the guy who blames practically everything on the west noam Chomsky??..This is just gonna be a pointless discussion.
Could hitchens predict the future? I thought all the trouble started on October 7th?
It has been brewing for decades and decades.
He would turn over in his grave if he knew what was going on now in October 2024.
Could be. I am here and I am tempted to turn over in my grave and I am not dead yet.
Let him turn. Jerusalem has always been the capital of Israel.
I think that perhaps Hitchens would be surprised that it didn't happen sooner. He clearly knew trouble was brewing.
The US warned against the creation of a state the 1922 King-Crane Report. How much has changed.
I love how he changed facts
At 10.04 he is cut off from finishing his statement as to why the two state solution hasn’t been worked out but only mentions the point where it’s the rightwing Jewish settlers who don’t want it, he is going to talk about the Islamic fundamentalists who don’t want it either. Love Hitch though he was totally right and totally rational in his thoughts on all the subjects he discussed.
The war on Palestinian children started in 1948. Should an occupied country not defend itself, even in threat of genocide? 9/11 and 10/7 seemed to give countries with 50x the military power to exert their ability to colonize that land. Peaceful people exist in every civilization. Always, always, always, rich people will waste poor people for their CAPITAL.
I miss him a lot
It was never a good idea to effectively punish Palestinian Muslims for what European Christians did to the Jewish people.
Maybe it's time both sides did some research on their respective imaginary deities. It's all twaddle. Evolve, people.
Agreed, but it's not just religious motivation
5:55 it's a shame the clip didn't linger for a few seconds there to get a taste of the crowd's reaction
8:19 did Christopher just deny the existence of AIPAC 🤦♂️
These people have been saying the same thing for 100 years. Shameful.
A badly missed political commentator… he was never ever afraid to tell of what he truly believed. He was always consistently spot on with this issue, America funding Israeli wars is a nonsense and always will be.
My parents are both from Poland. They are gentile.
I will say this about Zionism. Given the way Polish people talk about Jews- I have heard it all my life- I don't blame Jews for wanting their own nation.
@@agathajadwiszczok3503 So they can do what was done to them to the Palestinians? Who are themselves semites...
2010 and already Netnhayahoo and the Shas were already a thing?!
Christopher Hitches was a brilliant man and phenomenal debater. He is missing some very salient points in this conflict and what's missing are his thoughts on Jihadism. His position is that religion is stupid. He also doesn't seem aware of the impact of Britain or the grand Mufti and his relationship with Nazism and his extension of those values into the Islamist culture. Even so, he's brilliant and well missed.
It's not the same values. Some arab states had a thing going on with Nazi Germany because above all they wanted to get rid of the imperialist England. Finland was also allied with the Nazis because at the time USSR was a greater threat. They were not ideologically allied though, Finland didn't embrace Nazism.
To people who think god is the greatest there is obviously no room for someone like Hitler
Obviously there are fools who read mein kampf to try find ammunition against another religious group but it's just much better to see what goes on Gaza or other occupied areas.
The best thing would be for all groups to understand that their religious beliefs are not helping this situation and neither does it in many others
Still waiting for justice for the USS Liberty.
Isreal paid the families of the dead.
Kinda took this right from my channel huh? Haha
If you're the content owner you can ask for it to be taken down otherwise..