Hitchens got lost in Pink Elephant Land years ago.

May 3, 2006 @ 10:39 pm | Comment

Oh, I can speak from personal experience on that. He really is a raging drunk.

I read Juan Cole’s post earlier. Brilliant.

May 4, 2006 @ 12:29 am | Comment

Could you post a link to the Hitchens article in question, Richard?

May 4, 2006 @ 12:34 am | Comment

Keir, you can find it here: http://www.slate.com/id/2140947

May 4, 2006 @ 12:39 am | Comment

I’m as shamed to admit being an avid reader of Hitchens as I am to having been an avid reader of David Irving….

May 4, 2006 @ 12:48 am | Comment

Hitchens is a great writer and often he’s brilliant. It seems that with Iraq, he totally lost his mind. He decided to align himself with Bush, and ever since he’s been imploding.

May 4, 2006 @ 2:50 am | Comment

Juan Cole is quite justified in his response to Hitchens, but there are some unsavory aspects to Cole that could set off even a less disturbed person.

Cole is a scholar of the Middle East, falling into a camp that one could describe as “Arabist.” In keeping with that approach, he is an active academic opponent to Israel and pro-Israeli policies, and is one-sided to an extent that, arguably, is not conducive to balanced analysis of the region’s issues.

> He is an activist defender of Mersheimer and Walt, two Harvard academics who wrote a paper that even moderate critics see as anti-Semitism in academic robes. Cole has gone so far to taking up a petition refuting said criticism.

> He has long demanded that Israel relenquish the lands it captured in 1967 without recognizing that steps must be taken to guarantee Israel’s security once that transfer takes place.

> He criticizes Israel for introducing the atomic bomb in the Middle East, without acknowledging Israel’s strategic vulnerability OR Israeli nuclear doctrine, which is extremely specific about the scenario under which said weapons would be used.

> He asserts that “Israeli actions are criticized in all parliaments of the world.” Even if that were true, I doubt Israel is in any kind of exclusive club in that regard.

Regardless of where one may stand on those issues, then, one must question whether the conclusions Cole reaches are the result of a balanced weighing of the facts, or whether they are the result of a personal bias (at best) or the pursuit of another agenda (at worst.)

Criticize Hitchens for his attacks, but remember please that the target is no innocent victim.

May 4, 2006 @ 7:28 am | Comment

David, I used to feature Cole on my blogroll but took him down about a year ago for some of the reasons you cite. He’s no saint. But what Hitchens did was unforgivable, and Cole’s response was brilliant. And I do agree with Cole about Iran, and how our fuck-up in Iraq drastically limits our options there (in Iran).

May 4, 2006 @ 7:37 am | Comment

When people start claiming that a study of Israel’s policies is “anti-Semitism in academic robes” you know it is yet another attempt to censor and close down debate and open discussion. Unfortunately the use of the anti-semitic label is now a standard tactic against anyone who produces anything that shows Israel in a negative light. It’s similar to the Chinese authorities policy of describing anyone who discusses human rights in China as “anti-China”.

May 4, 2006 @ 8:58 pm | Comment

I can’t read your mind Richard, but it seems like you’re cheering on Cole for condemning the war in Iraq as a distraction from his actual arguments with Hitchens. There’s very little Cole says of substance to refute Hitchens’ Slate piece. Instead, it’s “The war is evil, look at these [as you say, hypnotically] bloody pictures.” Is that an indictment of Hitchens for supporting the war? Perhaps. But that’s not the issue at hand.

For one thing, if Cole’s communications to the “Gulf 2000” list are so “secretive” why has he referenced it in his blog posts? Furthermore, calling Hitchens a “hacker” is ridiculous, when the most obvious explanation is that somebody on the list gave the email snippet to Hitchens. In other words, this was a “leak,” much like, say, leaks from the CIA which have rightfully embarassed the Bush administratiion. (The communication ceases to be “Cole’s private email” once given to Hitchens.) Instead of castigating the leaker, Cole (1) posits Hitchens is a hacker and (2) accuses him of writing his piece drunk. This is lame and low-class at the same time.

On top of that, does anyone here really buy Cole’s explanation of the Iranian president’s invocation of the Ayatollah’s call to annihilate Israel as “just quoting the Ayatollah,” and only referrencing the West Bank and Gaza, not actually saying Israel should be “wiped from the map”? Cole’s line of reasoning is utterly stupid, given the things the president of Iran has been saying. Let’s use this defense of Ahmadinejad in another way. It’s as if Fred Phelps were citing the Old Testament to call for the murder of gays, then defending himself to police who arrest him for incitement by saying, “Oh, I’m just quoting the Bible, I don’t really mean it.”

The above having been said, should the US go to war with Iran over the nuclear standoff? No way, no how. But should we be acutely aware of the Iranian leadership’s eliminationist rhetoric and be prepared for the worst? Absolutely. The problem with Juan Cole is that he conflates the former with the latter, and in the act of bending over backwards to interpret Ahmadinejad in a favorable light, his head manages to enter his own posterior.

May 5, 2006 @ 11:29 am | Comment

“He is an activist defender of Mersheimer and Walt, two Harvard academics who wrote a paper that even moderate critics see as anti-Semitism in academic robes. Cole has gone so far to taking up a petition refuting said criticism.”

I read the Mearsheimer and Walt paper, and I fail to see where it is “anti-semitic”. Unbalanced, error ridden, counterproductive, partisan or ranty, yeah, I’ll grant the validity of those objections, and wholeheartedly agree with some of them. But I haven’t seen anyone point to any particular lines as examples. Anyone care to enlighten me?

May 6, 2006 @ 2:03 am | Comment

Come on Dave, you know better than that. Anytime anyone says anything at all critical of Israel, they’re an antisemite! Get with it.

May 6, 2006 @ 2:04 am | Comment

What if I say I don’t like Israel Horowitz? His plays are torturous and he fathered the lamest Beastie Boy. Cuz that seems to be about as relevant to anti-semitism as criticizing Israel. Unless, of course, I said Israel Horowitz had brainwashed the entire world with his plays, which would be really impressive for off off Broadway.

May 6, 2006 @ 2:18 am | Comment

Sorry. I have to agree with Dave. Israel Horowitz’ plays could be violations of international laws against torture.

Seriously, thought, my intention is neither to defend nor condemn Mearsheimer and Walt, or Cole for that matter. Rather it is to point out that the man’s record taken as a whole quite clearly indicates a strong bias toward one side on the region, and that any of his comments must be viewed through that prism, just as you would view comments by the Anti-Defamation League or Alan Dershowitz on the Mearsheimer and Walt paper.

May 6, 2006 @ 8:15 am | Comment

Hang on: there’s sympathies, partisanship, bias and discrimination. These are all different words. I’d say Juan Cole is a sympathetic partisan who sometimes makes biased statements, but I wouldn’t say he’s discriminatory (I haven’t read alot of his stuff). I only read “The Israel Lobby”, but I wouldn’t call Walt and Mearsheimer “anti-semitic” or discriminatory. Likewise, I don’t think the ADL is racist, but I do think they are biased and I seriously disagree with the equation of Zionism and Judaism.

May 6, 2006 @ 1:08 pm | Comment

Walt and Mearsheimer aren’t anti-Semites, and I wish bloggers and blog-readers would stop invoking that tired meme. They’re just hyper-realists in a foreign policy sense, and their paper has been mislabeled as anti-Semitic when in fact it reveals a great deal of rot within their academic paradigm. That’s a different debate, however.

Cole, on the other hand, may not be an anti-Semite — I lack the power to see into his heart of hearts — but his writings have long included apologetics for anti-Semitism in the Middle East. Were his blog named “It’s All Israel’s Fault” rather than “Informed Comment,” there might be more truth in labelling.

May 7, 2006 @ 7:25 am | Comment

Matthew, I don’t know Juan Coles’ inner thoughts either – in fact, I don’t read him much at all, for the simple reason of neglect. But I do enjoy Marc Lynch’s blog Abu Aardvark and his book as well, and Marc Lynch has linked to the few Juan Cole articles I read. Therefore vicariously I like Juan Cole (according to South Park Mr Hankey logic). Dr. Lynch puts bread on the table by translating and analyzing Arabic satellite television, so I’m inclined to think Juan Cole’s translation is reasonable. And Juan Cole’s translation is at the heart of Hitchens argument, rightly or wrongly acquired.

So when you say “On top of that, does anyone here really buy Cole’s explanation of the Iranian president’s invocation of the Ayatollah’s call to annihilate Israel as “just quoting the Ayatollah,” and only referrencing the West Bank and Gaza, not actually saying Israel should be “wiped from the map”? Cole’s line of reasoning is utterly stupid, given the things the president of Iran has been saying.” Well, yes, I buy the translation. And from what I understand this wasn’t the first Anti-Zionism conference and the Ayatollah has been saying this stuff for years. What makes Ahmadinejad’s speech, in either translation, notable is the fact that Iran is developing nuclear weapons while continuing the same rhetoric. But Cole’s point that the media was misreporting Ahmedinejad seems all the more worth serious consideration because of this, not angry dismissal. And certainly not dismissal as “anti-semitic” or bias.

Hitchens is biased too, but I still like him as a writer and a character. I love the schtick, the cigarette and martini (on Dennis Miller, Bill Maher, cable where such things apparently are possible), but I also think he’s an intelligent guy. We share a fondness for George Orwell, a hatred of Henry Kissinger and this:

“Some people including myself think that Abe Foxman and the Anti-Defamation League are too easily prone to charge the sin of anti-Semitism.”

He then went on to decry Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ as anti-semitic, or rather (I think the argument is flawed) that Mel Gibson bears anti-semitic feelings, which Hitchens thinks transferred to the film (I’m not so sure myself). But when David above says Cole “is an activist defender of Mersheimer and Walt, two Harvard academics who wrote a paper that even moderate critics see as anti-Semitism in academic robes”, I think Hitchens would agree with myself (and Cole) that that’s bullshit.

May 7, 2006 @ 7:54 pm | Comment