Replies

Interesting to see the Marxist mindset: essentially, EVERY nation must capitulate their right of self-determination to terrorist murderers, or else we'll all [deserve to] be murdered by terrorists.

Did you even read the article? Not only is Hitchens generally vehemently anti-marxist and anti-Islamist (I believe he actually coined the phrase), but he specifically says:

One of the haunting phrases of the Manifesto is the least noted: Marx and Engels speak soberly not of the victory of one side or another but of "the common ruin of the contending classes", and this is a better description of 1871 and 1905, to say nothing of 1914 and 1917, than they are usually given credit for.
...
Of course this hard-headed and self-interested solution of withdrawal would not satisfy the jihadists. But one isn't seeking to placate them. One is seeking to destroy and discredit them.

For what it is worth, the references to 1871 and 1905 are the Paris Commune and the abortive Russian Revolution, respectively.

Hitchens uses a Marxist analysis of the Arab war against Israel in the interview. He says so in his first sentence. Whether you think he's a Marxist or not, he admitted his analysis was Marxist in his first sentence. Take a look.

He continues in the same vein of Marxist analysis throughout the interview.

I'm glad that he's able to understand that "jihadists" are a serious problem, however my point was that the Marxist analysis is flawed. He thinks jihad exists because Israel exists, so the way to end jihad is to end Israel. The Marxist viewpoint doesn't understand that jihad isn't "rational" it's "religious".

There's been genocidal jihad against Non-Muslims all over the world for the last 1400 years. Look at Armenia, Sudan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Kashmir, Eritrea, Nigeria, Algeria, etc., etc., etc. just in the 20th Century, and many jihad genocides still ongoing this minute. Hitchens anti-Israel views blind him to that basic fact.