Even the harshest critics of the late Syrian President Hafez al-Assad should appreciate him for his treatment of Richard Nixon’s vainglorious secretary of state, Henry Kissinger. When Kissinger flew into Damascus on the evening of February 26, 1974, Assad made him wait for hours while he hosted dinner for Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu. Only after midnight did he grant the American an audience. Throughout the meeting, Kissinger was seated opposite “a massive canvas of the Battle of Hattin, where the Muslim Sultan Saladin defeated the Crusaders, and marched to capture Jerusalem,” in the words of Bouthaina Shaaban, the author of a new book titled “The Edge of the Precipice: Hafez al-Assad, Henry Kissinger, and the Remaking of the Modern Middle East.” It gets better.
Shaaban, a former professor of English literature who is media and political adviser to Assad’s son, Bashar al-Assad, provides for the first time a Syrian perspective on the famed Assad-Kissinger negotiations. Their final agreement framed relations between Syria and Israel, as well as Syria and the U.S., for nearly 40 years. Kissinger, other Americans, and Israelis have written about the talks, but this is the first Syrian account of them. Shaaban had unique access to the Syrian Presidential Archives with “the minutes of all their meetings and the messages they exchanged either through diplomatic channels through the U.S. ambassador in Damascus or via diplomatic channels.” The archives contain transcripts from a tape recorder that turned in full view of the participants throughout Kissinger’s 28 visits to Damascus in 1973 and 1974. This book is not, nor does it purport to be, the definitive story. Like the concealed microphones in Nixon’s White House, it provides a corrective to the legend Kissinger fostered of himself as latter-day Metternich.
Kissinger intended the second volume of his memoirs, “Years of Upheaval,” to be the final word on his haggling with Assad. Fortunately, it is not. Edward Sheehan’s masterful “The Arabs, Israelis, and Kissinger,” although written with Kissinger’s cooperation, earned its subject’s wrath. Kissinger said he “was ‘thunderstruck’ to see some of his conversations with foreign chiefs of state in print.” If Shaaban’s book, published in Beirut, reaches American readers, the thunder should strike again.
Kissinger came late to Mideast diplomacy. As Nixon’s national security adviser from 1969 to 1973, he obstructed negotiations to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. Eyeing William Rogers’s job as Nixon’s secretary of state, he discouraged moving beyond the ceasefire that Israel, Jordan, Egypt, and Syria had accepted under the Rogers Plan to end the “war of attrition” that was bankrupting Israel. The region was changing in September 1970, the month that King Hussein crushed the Palestine Liberation Organization in Jordan and Nasser died. His successor was his vice president, Anwar Sadat. Two months later, a bloodless coup put Syria’s minister of defense, Hafez al-Assad, in the top job. The door to diplomacy opened, but Kissinger slammed it shut.
Sadat approached Nixon and Kissinger through a variety of emissaries to offer peace for territory. Kissinger ignored him, believing the Israelis could defend the Sinai Peninsula from behind their “impregnable” Bar Lev Line on the east bank of the Suez Canal. Again and again, Sadat threatened war if the Americans failed to budge the Israelis. Kissinger believed Sadat was bluffing and rebuffed him. When Sadat expelled all of the Soviet Union’s 15,000 military advisers from Egypt in 1972, Kissinger refused to acknowledge the Egyptian’s strategic shift.
Despite warnings from King Hussein of Jordan and various intelligence agencies, the Syrian and Egyptian armies took Israel unawares when they attacked on October 6, 1973. The Egyptians reduced the Bar Lev sandbanks with water cannon, threw down pontoon bridges, and crossed into the Sinai. Syrian tanks and infantry poured into the occupied Golan Heights. Only American emergency supplies, the call-up of reservists, and a lighting run to the west side of the canal saved Israel’s gains of 1967.
Kissinger, who had replaced Rogers two weeks before the war, stepped in to clean up the mess for which he was largely responsible. He flew to the Mideast with a twofold purpose: to exclude the Soviets from peace negotiations and to protect Israel. Sadat threw himself into Kissinger’s arms, offering to go along with his diplomacy wherever it led. Assad was a tougher nut to crack, as much due to his country’s position as what Nasser called the “beating heart of Arabism” as to his innate stubbornness.
Kissinger pioneered what would be called “shuttle diplomacy,” carrying messages between the Israelis and their Arab antagonists in Cairo and Damascus while making his own suggestions. There were arguments over prisoners of war, how much territory Israel would concede, where to place lines of disengagement, how many weapons would be allowed on both sides, and the status of United Nations observers. Reporters like myself on the ground in Damascus had no idea what Kissinger was promising behind the palace doors. He briefed the press corps that accompanied him on the plane from Washington, whom we called his “trained seals,” with whatever spin, true or false, he wanted to read in the morning newspapers.
Kissinger’s first meeting with Assad on December 15, 1973, lasted six and a half hours. Assad astounded his guest, the first U.S. secretary of state in his capital since 1953, by agreeing to exclude his Soviet patrons from the discussions on the understanding that the U.S. alone could influence Israel. Kissinger surprised Assad with the claim that his major obstacle emanated from those who control “the financial capital and means of communications” in the U.S., not so subtle code for the Zionist lobby that had yet to achieve the influence it would wield in later years. The Syrian transcripts contain Kissinger’s numerous disparaging remarks about the lobby, but, Shaaban writes, “The U.S. record makes no mention of him citing ‘financial capital’ or ‘means of communication.’”
Kissinger had negotiated the Israeli-Egyptian disengagement in eight days in January 1974. “Unlike the relatively short negotiations that led to the Egyptian-Israeli disengagement agreement,” the State Department website history notes with considerable understatement, “negotiations for a Syrian-Israeli disengagement proved far more arduous and took much longer.” Unlike the Sinai, the Golan had hundreds of villages, thousands of displaced inhabitants who longed to return home, and proximity to the country’s capital. From the Israeli point of view, the Syrian lines threatened their illegal settlements as well as parts of Israel itself. And Assad, unlike Sadat, was no pushover.
Kissinger cajoled, lied, and manipulated. In the end, he got what he wanted: a deal that gave Israel its most peaceful border until the Syrian civil war changed the game. He also achieved an American monopoly on Arab-Israeli negotiations that abandoned comprehensive peacemaking in favor of what he called “step-by-step” diplomacy. The steps led to the Lebanese civil war, Israel’s many invasions of Lebanon, the creation of Hezbollah and the expulsion of Israel from Lebanon, unrestricted Israeli colonization of the West Bank, the Palestinians’ intifada uprisings, and the continuing degradation of Palestinian life. Indeed, the situation is worse than it was when Kissinger left Harvard for government service in 1969.
The Middle East may seem a minor infraction compared to Kissinger’s crimes in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Bangladesh, Chile, Cyprus, and East Timor. The man who advised Nixon to deploy “anything that flies on anything that moves” in Cambodia was photographed in May sitting beside another American president, whose policies are dangerous enough without advice from the old desperado. My late friend Christopher Hitchens, whose book “The Trial of Henry Kissinger” presents sufficient evidence for an indictment, wrote in 2010, “Henry Kissinger should have the door shut in his face by every decent person and should be shamed, ostracized, and excluded. No more dinners in his honor; no more respectful audiences for his absurdly overpriced public appearances; no more smirking photographs with hostesses and celebrities; no more soliciting of his worthless opinions by sycophantic editors and producers.”
Nothing in “The Edge of the Precipice,” despite its portrayal of Kissinger as a shrewd if mendacious mediator, invalidates Hitchens’s sage advice.
Israel supports ISIS
Below, I see Zionist denial of Israel’s support for ISIS. So:
As I linked below, a right-wing Israeli think tank has endorsed supporting ISIS, and the right-wing Netanyahu government almost always agrees with them.
Lol..Yes, I can read, but you’ve asked three different people, if they can answer your question,..so is it the question about Israel supporting ISIS or is it the question about Henry and Hillary, or is it the question about what a strawman argument is.?.lol..
You didnt answer any of them Bob. Lol
It’s not funny. Here we have a rather anodyne summary of a book that seems moderately interesting. The article doesn’t really provide additional insights in the history of the Middle East, yet commentators are able to passionately rehash all the old worn out tropes about Israel, Arab Countries, Kissinger, Hillary, Oliver Stone, Putin, Bill someone? Apparently, it just needs one or two stimuli (Israel, Kissinger), and the Pavlovian dogs start salivating.
Yet there are some gems almost buried under all that garbage: Israel supporting the Druze in Syria, for example, or other groups. It doesn’t surprise me, Israel has never been and at times didn’t have the luxury of being too choosy in its maneuvers among its enemies.
The Hamas miscalculation was news to me, and the Judis book seems quite interesting. It’s a pity that one has to delve through lots of trash in order to find these infos.
I know it’s futile but can’t you for once stop smother us with your repetitive arguments. The more you repeat them, the less I (and others?) hear them.
Im curious what you find objectionable about Israel supporting the Druze?
I can’t remember of saying anything about the support being objectionable, but come to think of it, destabilizing your enemy is a rather short-sighted strategy. But the Druze have also been all over the place, at times pro-, at times anti-Israel. I guess. like the Israeli but without powerful friends in Washington, they are equally trying to survive short-time.
“Henry Kissinger should have the door shut in his face by every decent person and should be shamed, ostracized, and excluded.”
Not in America. We love our gangsters too much.
It’s nice to see a post I wrote 24 hours ago suddenly show up.
Let’s not forget that Hillary Clinton unabashedly cited “my good friend Henry Kissinger” for years as if that was one of her qualifications for high office. Progressives were horrified when she brought up the subject without being prompted in one of last year’s primary debates.
Oliver Stone’s Putin interviews: a good companion to this article.
Why? Is it because in both cases an evil people like Putin and Assad are given a pass by Stone and Glass respectively?
Kissinger and his likes evil zionists are the true face of satan, are the one and only impediment to the world peace. Rests are just reactionary figures.
Great answer James now i understand completly.
Israel supports ISIS. And ISIS appreciates it, as per this Ben Norton tweet: “ISIS ‘apologized’ to Israel for attacking an IDF unit in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights.”
Zionists detest the Assad government for reasons having zero to do with human rights (read my link). Hence, Zionists all over the Internet, including in this comments space, rant about Assad and his ostensibly “leftist” supporters. (Which are virtually non-existent.)
Evidence that Israel supports ISIS?
Read the link. Even the Times of Israel reports it, simply referring to them as “rebels”:
Many other sources report this with no euphemisms, and directly. Presumably even you, however, are not going to refuse to accept the ToI. Multiple Israeli officials have declared that ISIS is preferable to Assad and thus should be supported.
I don’t see any evidence that Israel is aiding ISIS.
Please provide a quote.
Israel also supports Al Qaeda. Just as with its support of ISIS, their media simply refers to Al Qaeda as “rebels.”
Please provide a quote showing that Israel gives aid to Al Qaeda.
Just google your request and ye click the links of your choice..
Backtracking your request,
Why would Israel want to help People fighting against Assad?
Are Israel and Assad buddies?
Are Al Qaeda and Assad buddies?
Uncle Bob
Israel doesn’t support Assad, and there is no reason why they should. For example, Hamas’s headquarters were located in Damascus supported by the Syrian regime until the Syrian civil war where Hamas made the choice to throw its lot in with the Sunnis fighting Assad. Hamas made a political mistake. Their other major Sunni support is Qatar now in a bit of trouble with their Arab Brothers. Hamas is in a very weak position which makes instigating a war with Israel for purposes of propaganda (like they have done in the past) a distinct possibility.
Follow the link.
Not all rebel groups are ISIS or al-Qaeda. That is just the propaganda of the Assad-Putin axis of evil. For example, the US supports the Kurds who are fighting ISIS.
There is none. The article linked to doesn’t give any. The article talks about a right wing think tank strategic ideas.
Israel doesn’t support ISIS, Israhell is ISIS. If you need evidence, go ask your daddy mosad.
Came across this WSJ article and thought of your thread.
Israel Gives Secret Aid to Syrian Rebels
Fighters near Golan Heights in Syria receive cash and humanitarian help
http://www.wsj.com/articles/israel-gives-secret-aid-to-syrian-rebels-1497813430
Are you really trying to make the claim that all the rebels in Syria are ISIS?
If so I think you should read up on the different factions and then get back to me.
Also can I ask what you have against “humanitarian help”? I am perplexed by people who are anti “humanitarian help”. It reminds me of all those folks who were more outraged by the White Helmets having a PR agent then they were about the fact that civilians required the WH assistance to begin with. I understand that for political ideologues politics is more important than human suffering but I really don’t understand that point of view. Can you explain it to me?
Does WH only rescue children?
Why so many pics of dead, dying and injured Children?
The “aid” part of “Humanitarian ” aid reminds me of past Humanitarian Aid episodes
1. 1999- Yugoslavia…https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_bombing
2. 2011- Libya…https://theintercept.com/2016/01/27/the-u-s-intervention-in-libya-was-such-a-smashing-success-that-a-sequel-is-coming/
3. 2016- Iraq..Obama’s Humanitarian Bombing to help save Iraqi civilians…http://www.globalresearch.ca/obamas-humanitarian-bombing-campaign-against-the-islamic-state-isis/5533098
They dont only save children Bob. But thanks for your concern. Now try answering my question.
This question? Who is Interfering in US Politics? Russia or Israel?
I just finished read this..very interesting.
pucker up!!
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-ineffable-reality-of-american-democracy-who-is-interfering-in-us-politics-russia-or-israel/5595276
No Bob, that wasnt my question at all. Do you not know how to read, or cant you give an answer?
It’s amazing how many posters at the Intercept believe the propaganda of Assad (and Putin) – that ALL rebels are al-Qaeda and ISIS.
GilG and craigsummers,
You folks specialize in strawmen? Or are you just that obtuse?
Thanks for the laugh.
Really Levi? Please tell me what my strawman was. Of course you won’t be able to because I am guessing you don’t know what a strawman argument actually is but let’s see if you can do it.
I’m betting you disappear from the thread or come back just to call names.
Prove me wrong Levi.
“Prove me wrong Levi”.
You’ve proved yourself to be obnoxious. Are you aware that people “disappear” in social settings for more than one reason? It isn’t necessarily because they have shrunk away in awe of you, devastated by the unassailable insight of your ceaseless prattle.
So no strawman then? Thanks for proving me correct . You came back to call me names and you didnt know what a strawman was. And yes i get obnoxious with people who make false accusations. Which in my book is far worse.
oh and I’m still waiting for you to respond to my posts to you below in which you made charges you clearly could not back up. That’s why I know you likewise will not be able to back up this latest charge. You folks seem to specialize in throwing out meaningless rhetoric that you cant defend but you apparently feel is a way of sounding intelligent. It will mostly fool your idiot friends buy no one with a brain in decent working order.
It’s pretty clear many just follow the party line and are incapable of thinking for themselves. That is why for example when one poses the question how does someone voting for Clinton prove they like Kissinger they reply with the idiocy that the Clintons are good friends with Kissinger so that is proof you like them.
Um, no. No one should appreciate a man and his father who have run a police state in Syria since the 1960s. Your lede stinks.
Let me get this straight – in order to once again bash Kissinger (which I am ok with) Intercept is quoting a version of events documented by a media and political adviser to Bashar al-Assad? Seriously, the patients are running the asylum. Pierre needs to grow a set and shut you all down.
Of course, it’s called history. Not unlike the trove of data unearthed when the intelligence archives of the former Soviet Union were briefly opened to Western historians. A very great deal was learned.
It is worth noting that Mr Glass and BS are on quite friendly terms. Probably Mr Glass does not see this relationship as nearly reprehensible as Kissinger’s actions. Go figure.
did she talk in her book about assad war crimes and genocide in Hama city in 1982 against his own people where regime military killed thousands of syrian people and she is testimony( boutheina chaabane) about crimes against humanity commited by his son Bashar regime n 2011-14 in saydaniya prison where opponents to regime hanged in mass and the burned in cretarium
Nope, that’s another book
Move away, brainwashed crackpot! Some should stop watching TV and start thinking by them self !If they’re able to…
Kissinger is a war criminal.
I’m no fan of Hitchens, but he’s right about Kissinger, who should be branded on his forehead with a giant “M” for murderer.
My kingdom for The Intercept’s IT people to please, please finally do something about comments ending up stuck readable only by clicking “Latest” under the comments box, but not in the default of “Threads.” Yet again, a post I spent some time on cannot be seen except in the Latest limbo.
This happens to many, and it happens a lot. It’s been going on for months. How can this still be unaddressed at a site with the wealth of tech talent this one has?
Henry Kissinger was and is many things, but stupid and unaware of powerful factions are not among them. The Israel Lobby was, indeed, not as strong in the U.S. in the 70s as it would begin to become a decade later, but it certainly was there.
It was already there in 1948, when against his better judgment, Harry Truman recognized the terror-state of Israel, observing that he faced virtually no Arab-American voters in the critical election of that year. Truman feared he was helping to usher in WWIII, so literally chose the Democratic Party’s electoral needs over world peace. That and more is documented by John Judis in his book, Genesis: Truman, American Jews, and the Origins of the Arab/Israeli Conflict.
Sultan Saladin on his way to capture Jerusalem– setting and structuring up the palestinian conflict?
Thank god he mentored Susan Rice. /s
“There is no question that Libya -– and the world –- would be better off with Qaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal.”
– Obama
“Assad Must Go!”
– Obama
“Assad Must Go!”
– craigsummers
“Jews Must Go!”
– hitler
“Palestinians Must Go!”
– netanyahu
Says Obama the war criminal.
Mr. Glass
A fairly typical view of the US. The US is totally responsible for the 1973 Yom Kipper War despite the invasion by Egypt. The Arabs literally have no responsibility in any decisions they make like the decision they made in 1948 to attack Israel. These myths perpetuated by the anti-American far left also include US responsibility for Saddam Hussein invading Iran in 1979 and goading the USSR into invading Afghanistan and killing the Afghan President – also in 1979. Some even believe the neocons are behind the war in Syria. Of course, Assad (the son) had no part in cracking down on peaceful demonstrators associated with the Arab Spring.
Sadat was solely responsible for invading Israel in 1973. Nasser was solely responsible for expelling the UN peace keepers in 1967 along with closing the Strait of Tiran to Israel shipping. In addition, Egypt massed tens of thousands of troops at the Egypt-Israel border. These provocations led to the Six Days War. That was Nasser’s fault – not the fault of Israels or of HenryKissinger.
Only the radical left can continuously denounce the imperial wars of the US while calling a leader that opts for peace a “pushover”. Indeed, Hafez al-Assad’s son is also no pushover – at least on peaceful protesters demanding a say in their government. So far 400,000 have died for the “tougher” negotiations of Bashar al-Assad (over thirty thousand murdered in detention). Stand up to the imperialist US and you are certain to become a hero to the extreme left.
You forget to explicitly say in finishing your point that which you implied: that Israel is always and only ever- and could only ever be- a completely innocent victim, and the good ol’ US of A is always wearing the white hat. Meanwhile the rest of us will just keep mistakenly believing that the real world carries just a little bit more nuance than that.
“………Meanwhile the rest of us will just keep mistakenly believing that the real world carries just a little bit more nuance than that……..”
I don’t believe that Charles Glass lives in the real world.
Thanks.
“Only American emergency supplies, the call-up of reservists, and a lighting run to the west side of the Canal saved Israel’s gains of 1967.”
From old memories (I have not verified this) the “lighting run to the west side of the Canal” was Kissinger’s doing. He had negotiated a pause in the fighting and both sides were supposed to stop in place awaiting further negotiations. A wink from Kissinger and Israel’s Arial Sharon “came to a stop *gradually*” sliding his forces around the flank of the stationary Egyptian forces.
Also, besides “American emergency supplies, the call-up of reservists, and a lighting run to the west side of the Canal saved Israel’s gains of 1967″ there was the threat by Israel to incinerate with nukes the eight million civilians of Cairo.
and the MURDER OF 34 AMERICANS BY ISRAEL in an effort to KILL THE WITNESSES aboard the USS LIBERTY
The USS Liberty incident was an accident. The CIA and the Joint Chief of Staffs and all investigations into the incident concluded that it was an accident. Israel first reported that the ship was Egyptian and that is why they attacked the ship. It was in the middle of the Six Day War, so a ton of confusion was going around as that happens during war time. It was only a day before that an Egyptian ship launched attacks against Israel from the coast. The U.S announced a few days earlier that it had no naval forces within hundreds of miles of the battle front to the U.N. The US tried messaging the Liberty to not approach within 100 miles of the fighting, but those messages were never received by the Liberty, so the Liberty kept going and got too close. Once Israel realized what it had done they reported the incident to the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv and offered to provide a helicopter for the Americans to fly out to the ship and any help they required to evacuate the injured and salvage the ship.
There are those that say the Holocaust never happened. They, as do you, damn themselves with their own words.
Who said the Liberty attack never happened?
As for the threat by Israel that is true they made that threat. Nasser also threatened to annihilate Israel.
“The CIA and the Joint Chief of Staffs and all investigations into the incident concluded that it was an accident.”
Phew! I know I feel a lot better when the CIA tells me something was an accident.
Henry Kissinger was the perfect choice to lead the 9/11 Commission (had you forgotten?).
After months of saying, “no investigation of 9/11, whatsoever”, Bush/Cheney relented to the pressure of the 9/11 Families and put Kissinger in charge.
That speaks miles.
What speaks miles? And who does it speak miles about? Kissinger resigned the post before the commission actually got started, and didn’t lead it.
Henry Kissinger is a major war- and human rights criminal. He should have been executed pursuant to a Nuremburg-like trial decades ago. Anyone who likes him is a disgusting pig; I’m talking to YOU, anyone who supports Hillary Clinton or othe corporate Democrats.
Yeppers. Indeed.
https://theintercept.com/2016/02/12/henry-kissingers-war-crimes-are-central-to-the-divide-between-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders/
Yes, indeed. I agree.
I agree.
How exactly is voting for Clinton tantamount to liking Kissinger?
On the otherhand there seems to be broad support on this board for the war criminal Assad jr. who hasnt yet achieved the level of butchery of his father, but is making his way there, how do you feel about those who lend that support Jeff?
More inane spewing from the Zionist shill.
Obviously, since Clinton lauded Kissinger during the 2016 debates, it would seem that voting for Clinton would be tantamount to liking Kissinger. It’s basic logic – it’s not up for debate.
No voting for someone merely means that you believe they are the best candidate of those running. Some times it means voting for the least objectionable candidate. It in no way is tantamount to liking everything they like. You might want to go back and take a review course in basis logic start with Inference.
In answer to your question, Hillary Clinton’s open admiration of Kissinger was an unambiguous indication of how she would pursue foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East. She, like him, is a foreign policy disaster, on the same scale as Trump. Different perhaps in style, but not in substance.
As for your comment, it’s whataboutism. I see little evidence of support for Assad, and can only wonder what would have happened in Syria, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in Libya, had the USofA kept its meddling hands out. Assad is bad, Saddam Hussein was bad, Qaddafi was bad, and the Taliban are bad, but we are worse. More death, more misery. It is for that reason, and not for love of Assad, that we wish that the US was not involved in Syria.
You didn’t answer my question at all. How is voting for Hilary proof that someone likes Kissinger.
There was plenty of evidence on these threads of support for Assad. From outright denial that he used poison gas on his people to defending the election process in Syria. eve a vote for Clinton is proof of liking Kissinger but defending Assad is not proof of liking Assad.
While I have your ear I am still waiting for you to tell me where on the Al Jazeera documentary that Israeli pilots testified as you claimed.
Bil land Hill are literally besties with the Kissingers. They vacation, spend Christmas, together. Hillary has publicly poured forth her admiration for Henry and been publicly affectionate.
Not a single person in this space has remotely any association such as that with anyone named Assad. No one here defends any Assad atrocities. At all.
While I have you, why is Israel supporting ISIS? And Al Qaeda?
Thanks for yours and the others’ support, since I’m not home and didn’t have time to respond. I won’t engage with GilG, seems like a troll to me.
As to the Middle East, if the U.K. and U.S. hadn’t meddled there for oil, there would be many more “countries” or other entities, and they wouldn’t have needed people like Saddam or the Assads to keep traditional enemies — that have been forced into one country because of the U.K. and U.S. — to keep from killing each other.
Hypernormalization, the latest film by Adam Curtis has a lot to say about the role of the US government in the making of the modern Middle East. How Gaddafi served whatever purpose the US needed him to is mind-boggling. Making things up to serve the foreign policy goals of the moment didn’t start with the George W Bush administration.
https://goo.gl/77XQpb
Mr. Glass should not defame by association his purported friend the late Christopher Hitchens.
Because while Hitchens was of course a famous enemy of Kissingers, he just as famously moved away from the point of view espoused in this piece that all the woes of the Levant were (and are) but the simple fault of the United States and Israel.
And where did Hitchens do exactly that? Certainly his myopic antagonism to all religion per se caused him to side with the neoconservative warmongers after 9/11. But I’m unaware that he ever reversed his views on Kissinger in general, or specifically on the crimes of the United States and Zionist Israel vis-a-vis the Middle East.
Where did he do it? In his mind, as evidenced by the things he said on the topic. For a rather concentrated recounting, I recommend his autobiography, Hitch-22, in which he describes his disillusionment with Socialism, and thereby his leaving its precepts and way of thinking behind…
As for his support of the Iraq war, as one can learn by reading Hitch-22 his inspirational opposition to organized religion had nothing to so with it. His actual reasoning having several components, including (bit not limited to) the international legal case based on Iraq flouting of UN Resolutions and the proven and continued mass threat he posed to the lives of Iraq’s and its neighbors citizens. (BTW, by recounting this I’m not saying I agree).
Lastly, I don;t in my post say that he ever “reversed” his views on Kissinger. To the best of my knowledge he did not (though someone posting on this thread seems to believe otherwise).
kevin translated: “I have no link — or even a supporting quote — and in fact cannot show that Christopher Hitchens ever ‘moved away from the point of view espoused in this piece that all the woes of the Levant were (and are) but the simple fault of the United States and Israel.'”
hi mona,
apologies for delay in replying.
here’s an excerpt from an interview Hitchens did in 2005 about Edward Said, with whom, though he remained fond of, he had a falling out.
The specifics Hitchens is referring to is long past into history, but the inference is clear that he is alluding to the POSITIVE IMPACT OF AMERICAN POLICY!
“EQ: If Edward were alive today what would he be working on, what would he be doing?
CH: Well if Edward were alive today, which I wish for many reasons he was, because I used to always cheer up when I heard his by his company, and always enjoy our discussion even when they became…even if either one or the other of us became incensed. So I miss him; I wish he were still alive for all those reasons, but I would very much like to know, would like to have heard from him what his reaction would be, in particular to the removal of at least immediate Syrian power from Lebanon, which is something I knew he cared about a lot. He loved Beirut; he didn’t like seeing it under Syrian occupation. I’d like to have known what his reaction to that would have been. I would of course have liked to see his response to the Iraqi election, and to all the developments in the region that were in effect, especially in Egypt, when — now we have the judges saying they won’t go on certifying bogus elections. These were things that he had in fact been calling for, and calling attention to. I would love to know, from him, and I’d love to have the argument in public: Can you really say, Edward, that this is nothing to do with American policy in region? Is it really your view that these things would have happened anyway, or shouldn’t have happened if they involved the use of American military power? Because that was the position he was stuck in over Bosnia. And I wonder how long he could’ve kept up the argument with me, with Azmi Bashara, and with others.”
BTW mona, how about you? do you have a link or supporting quote to show that Hitchens DID hold the view that “all the woes of the Levant were (and are) but the simple fault of the United States and Israel” ?
What is it about America that it continues to allow a war criminal like Kissinger to stand in the spotlight, let alone outside of a prison cell. Henry Kissinger has done more damage to humanity than any other american. He should be shunned – and locked away.
uh reagan took whatever carter had done and amped it up 100 times. the people that started neoliberalism weren’t carter supporters, iirc from reading listen liberal.
I don’t disagree that Reagan picked up the ball and ran with it, but it doesn’t change the fact the Carter let it happen under his watch, whether out of naiveté, ignorance or simply because he didn’t care anymore.
A pity that Hitchen’s sold out to the Kissinger camp in 2001-2003.