In Rederob's zeal to fulfill some infantile grudge against me banning him for serial insults on this forum, he misinterprets my intentions and leaps to incorrect conclusions once again.
Pitiful.
Mr L, you remain short on facts. You claim it was a "well written" article. Was that from the perspective of prose, fiction, or journalism? Or, if there were elements worth deeper consideration, explain what they were so we can improve the thread.
Mr Pliskin, an apparent acolyte who I have yet to see has a clue about anything he posts, weighs in with an endorsement of it as being "good". Again, as in the climate threads, Mr Pliskin either does not wish to or is incapable of defending his words.
Rather than making everything personal, and apparently with some issues between you and Rederob, try dealing with the substance of the topic at hand.
Hitchens has clearly mastered guilt by association and, unfortunately for less critical readers, this sticks. Lord Monckton has similarly mastered a false truth by creating facts from thin air and presenting them as gospel.
Reading critically, Hitchens presents a potted history of the Gazan situation and then launches into the present relevance:
So in the midst of this confusion, we now find ourselves in a huge row over the alleged 'Aid Convoy' manned by alleged 'Humanitarians' which approached the Israeli coast at the weekend and was boarded by Israeli armed forces.
Like Monckton, Hitchens relies on his own version of reality to suggest "confusion". Rather, there is intricate complexity to many events that in historical chronicles are extremely detailed. An imperative is determining the perspective of writers to gain a semblance of balance as to what they present, and how.
Hitchens then "alleges" an Aid Convoy. Does he present evidence that the cargo is not aid? No, he instead indulged in a campaign of guilt by association.
Was the convoy approaching the Israeli coast, as Hitchens claims? No, it was heading towards Gaza.
Was the convoy "boarded" by armed forces. A moot and semantic point. It was an assault by armed forces on a civilian vessel in international waters that led to many people being killed and more wounded.
Although Hitchens declares his partisan stance, he also suggests his views present a counter to other biased reporting of the events. For example, he suggests the Turks would turn around a
pro-Kurdish 'humanitarian convoy' . This is an insult to your intelligence if you understand the Kurdish situation vis-a-vis Palestinian. The Kurds are landlocked, and it's absurd to suggest anyone (let alone "humanitarians") would try to reach them by sea to deliver aid. Then again, you might like to go catch a flight to Erbil on Kurdistan Airlines to see their new international airport, and compare that experience with trying to enter Gaza.
Would you like me to go on and present more of an indictment of Hitchens' article, Mr L, or will you keep indulging in some mysterious personal battle that seems to affect your responses to me?