In the past, Hitch was a stern critic; I was a stern defender. Strange that we have now converged again:

In order for Israel to become part of the alliance against whatever we want to call it, religious barbarism, theocratic, possibly thermonuclear theocratic or nuclear theocratic aggression, it can’t, it’ll have to dispense with the occupation. It’s as simple as that.

It can be, you can think of it as a kind of European style, Western style country if you want, but it can’t govern other people against their will. It can’t continue to steal their land in the way that it does every day.And it’s unbelievably irresponsible of Israelis, knowing the position of the United States and its allies are in around the world, to continue to behave in this unconscionable way. And I’m afraid I know too much about the history of the conflict to think of Israel as just a tiny, little island surrounded by a sea of ravening wolves and so on. I mean, I know quite a lot about how that state was founded, and the amount of violence and dispossession that involved. And I’m a prisoner of that knowledge. I can’t un-know it.

Since Obama was elected, Israel has indeed behaved in an unconscionable and irresponsible way towards its most important ally. And yet those neocons who never stint in calling for presidents to defend US interests against foreign governments, have almost uniformly backed this foreign government against their own president. I can't think of any parallel. And yet we are so used to it it is almost background noise.