Last night, Noam Chomsky delivered the Edward Said Memorial Lecture at Columbia on "The Unipolar Moment and the Culture of Imperialism." Some notes from David Bromwich who was there:
Chomsky took up a major theme of Said’s writings. In the big constellation, Enlightenment/Rationalism/Liberalism/Democratic Values, a missing word and concept that should be understood to accompany the others is Imperialism. He addressed "the unipolar moment," which started in 1989 with the end of Soviet Communism and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall. The self-congratulatory tone of recent commemorations of November 1989 tended to make people forget certain other stopping points on the way to unchallenged U.S. hegemony. A short survey followed of the destructiveness of the "settler colonialism" that cleared North America of its indigenous peoples. J.Q. Adams spoke out clearly of the policy as "perfidious" and regretted "the heinous sins of this nation" against "that hapless race." The equanimity, by contrast, of the mainstream wisdom now is epitomized by J.L. Gaddis: "expansion is the path to security."
On the moral fallacy of self-congratulation: "We focus laser-like on the crimes of enemies, but crucially we make sure never to look at ourselves." If now we chose to look at ourselves in the light of the dismantling of the Berlin Wall, we might admit the imperative of dismantling a much larger wall "snaking its way through Palestinian territory." The right name for it is: the Annexation Wall. Its purpose is to take over valuable land and water resources; Israel’s leading authorities recognized this early on as a violation of international law. None of it would have been possible without the support of Israel by the United States as "its partner in crime."
On November 16, 1989, shortly after the Berlin Wall came down, there occurred an event of great importance in Latin America: the killing of six prominent Jesuit priests in El Salvador. The U.S. denied any knowledge of the agents and any complicity in the crime; but documents, revealed in the mainstream Spanish press just two weeks ago and carried by the wire services, show that the order was given by authorities in El Salvador; and given the proximity of American advisers to that government at the time, it is hard to imagine the order being carried through without American knowledge and consent. This was part of a larger design–successfully pursued by the School of the Americas and other arms of U.S. policy–to suppress the Liberation Theology which had done much for the cause of social justice in that region, in the wake of Vatican II. All this was happening in 1989, while the West was celebrating the dismantling of the Berlin Wall. It is still happening and we are still celebrating. The U.S. ambassador in Honduras recently congratulated that country on having completed its own "great celebration of democracy," in an election where both candidates were selected by Honduran business interests. Chomsky said it was difficult fully to understand the Obama administration’s embrace of the de facto coup in Honduras. In this case the U.S. has separated itself from all of Latin America and from most of Europe as well, by our "brazen contempt" for real democracy.
Latin America was thus the proving ground for the first U.S. tests of what had become possible in the unipolar world. Another instance was the invasion of Panama in December 1989. Noriega, a dictator of no importance, and previously of no concern to the U.S., was punished for "dragging his feet in support of Reagan’s terrorist wars in Nicaragua."
Chomsky then turned to address the most recent Western attempt to create an international legal and moral institution for protection of human rights: the so-called Responsibility to Protect framework, developed in December 2001 (R2P for short). Such institutions can do much good but there is always a question how impartially the standards are applied. Here again, a glance at the details of execution is revealing. As soon as the norms were in place, a provision was voted to offer "subsequent authority," from the Security Council, for certain international missions already undertaken. This was meant to cover the NATO bombing of Serbia retroactively. Again, and strangely, no appeal to R2P can be made by "protected persons": this cuts out any apppeal by inhabitants of Gaza, who in the terms of this framework are "protected" by Israel. Similarly, no appeal was possible under the R2P norms to protest the deaths that followed Clinton’s sanctions against Iraq.
A distinct challenge of the transition of 1989: what to do with NATO? Here was an institution solely devised for the express purpose of protecting Europe and North America from the Soviet menace during the Cold War. The only logical response at the end of the Cold War was: to close down NATO. Instead, under Clinton the organization expanded eastward, and it has since expanded farther. Recall Gaddis: "expansion is the path to security." There has been in fact a continuous line from the expansionist U.S. policies under FDR, covering both Europe and the Pacific, to the policies pursued by Bill Clinton and codified in the Bush Doctrine. The use of violence goes hand in hand with the unilateral commitment to the opening of new and profitable markets.
The latest symptom of the deployment of a double standard to advance the interests of the U.S. and its allies can be seen in the response to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s call for Israel to join the Nonproliferation Treaty. The U.S. voted against the demand, and, when the call on Israel nonetheless passed by a narrow majority of member states, the U.S. assured Israel that we rejected the IAEA vote. Winston Churchill once said the continuity of Western power existed to "protect the interests of the satisfied nations." This pattern has not changed.
***On another recent use of an international double standard when convenient for U.S. interests: Barack Obama was asked why he supported Mubarak who is an authoritarian leader. Obama replied, "I tend not to use labels for folks." Chomsky: "When a political leader uses the word ‘folks,’ you know you’re going to shudder at what comes next."
***Obama is almost too obvious a proof–a caricature almost–of the "investment theory of party competition," outlined by Thomas Ferguson. The heads of the important banks and the brokerage houses preferred Obama to McCain. He would accomplish what they wanted more smoothly. They got what they paid for.
For black Americans his election gave a lift. The feeling of the lift is still there; and there’s something good about it in itself. In the longer run, it is hard to see that Obama’s policies will improve the social conditions of black Americans; probably the reverse.
***John Kerry, one of the people running interference for the administration on Israel/Palestine, gave a recent speech which was mostly boilerplate: we are pursuing a two-state solution in earnest, looking for reasonable compromise from both sides, etc. etc. But sometimes, in such speeches, "something really new" comes out; and in Kerry’s speech there was something new. Kerry said: now for the first time, we have a partner we can negotiate with. And what was the proof of the adequacy of the partner? That during the Gaza assault, there had been no unruly protests on the West Bank. Dissent was successfully controlled. And the reason for this? Effective surveillance by Palestinian forces trained and advised by Keith Dayton, the general heading the American Task Force in Palestine. Dayton’s presence is an acknowledged fact, though the content of the training is unknown. Unacknowledged are CIA advisers in Palestine whose actions we know nothing about.
***"We heard the other night [from Obama at West Point] how the world supported us when we first attacked Afghanistan. It all depends on how you define the world. If it includes the people of the world…"– then the reverse of supportive unanimity was indicated by a world Gallup Poll at the end of 2001, which predictably got little play in the American press.
Dr. Edward Said was unique Orientalist. He never liked the Zionist intellectual projected as ‘Orientalists’. He divided them into honest and anti-Muslim. The later included Bernard Lewis and Fouad Ajami whom he blamed for the illegal Iraq war.
link to guardian.co.uk
Many readers are not aware of the fact that Dr. Chomsky is son of Zionist Jew parents. As a young writer, he was one of the two authors honored by AJC. Dr. Chomsky is critical of American foreign policies but no friend of Palestinians or Muslims at large. To understand his mindset, one only has to read his book 9/11 – in which his did not write a single passage on Israeli involvement.
As for Barack Obama’s speech is concerned – he proved once again that he is the most powerless leader of the world. He gave into AIPAC.
Personally, I say: “Palestine – Silent no more….”
link to rehmat1.wordpress.com
…and most people who follow Chomsky with any sort of active interest do know that. Are you implying that Chomsky himself is a Zionist? Because if you are I think perhaps you are mistaken.
I think Chomsky is not 100% correct — then again, nobody is, really — but I don’t believe it’s fair to characterize his motives as malign. I think perhaps Chomsky is aloof and distant and, oddly enough, still a little naive in certain aspects, but for the most part he is giving honest analysis. Criticize Chomsky’s analysis — I encourage it, Rehmat — but don’t build a house of straw around him to undermine him. That’s ad hominem, and it reflects poorly on you. And I know you’re capable of better.
Interesting points, Chaos. Is Chomsky technically a Zionist? He favors a binational state, which is apparently different from one state. At the very least he’s a Jewish exceptionalist, seeing as how he’s not asking for binationalism for Jews and gentiles here. Intellectual inconsistency is an excellent sign of malign motives-we should be questioning them more not less.
If “ad hominem” reflects poorly on Rehmat, what about Phil? In much of this blog, Phil not only debates issues on their strict merits but points out the Jewishness of those he disagrees with. On that issue, I think he’s close to Kevin MacDonald’s “default position” (contra Stephen Pinker) that a Jewish intellectual is motivated at least in part by ethnic activism. I think that’s a highly effective approach.
Chomsky: critic of Israel, apologist for Jewish power:
Noam Chomsky and the Pro-Israel Lobby: Fourteen Erroneous Theses
James Petras
link to uruknet.info
Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict
Jeffrey Blankfort
link to leftcurve.org
Chomsky believes that science is a good way to start understanding history and human affairs.
Its funny. Maybe someone should ask Chomsky how many human cultural causal laws we have to develop this science from. It sure does reveal quite a bit of Chomsky’s effort to explain everything with a huge meta theory. The problem is, science develops those theories from the use of the hypothetico deductive method. Social science has zero (none) causal laws of human cultural behavior.
Whoops!
Well Bob I see you have a hobby horse you like to ride whenever the opportunity is provided. That you for your social stochastic confession. I am sure that it provides comfort to the “movers and shakers” in the world, to know that their “activities” will never be identified. Of course, the only gaping hole in your theory, from past posts, is when you try to drive home the prominence of Zionist influence – a rather selective process I must say.
One may ask the question of why history has this repetitive quality, and one might try to postulate that it is mere chance, or a collection of random events which has no core. This, of course, leads to no predictable quality – one may not even proscribe an inductive method which brings about any causal link, even though one may see specific trends and strains. Good luck with your theory -
SIMPLE PROPOSAL
Indeed, it might be too simple for you Bob. I mean in Chomsky’s lecture, how can we even come to any conclusions about what happened to the indigenous populations in the present USA?
NO CAUSAL LINK
The only difference from a strict scientific causal structure in culture is actve contingency, but I do not expect you to grasp this point. You are more interested in a false isolation of the sciences, trying to absurdly say that Chomsky makes an exact analogy to physical science. Carry on…
Of course, following the indigenous people down to the modern day, and what has happened to them is merely a coincidence –
HISTORY BY CHANCE
This is probably the most disjointed post I’ve seen.
Not only are you unable to deal with the points I brought up
You also have a long string of personal insults:
I’ve re- read this a few times, a after posting this below, and theres some additional twists in logic I can’t let go.
The twist here is the implication that theres real “movers and shakers,” more important than the lobby, and this is providing a cover for them. The joke is that when you erroneously address induction, you ignore the structure induction provides to include multiple narratives in a historical analysis. In other words, the problem that is repeatedly brought up re: Chomsky is that he doesn’t have the evidence to support his claims, and he tries to ignore vast amounts of inductive evidence regarding the Israeli lobby because it runs contrary to his metatheory. There is room for “oil lobbies” and “strategic c0ntrol,” but he must support this information. People writing on the Israeli lobby cannot present a large conspiratorial metatheory without specific contextual evidence without being laughed out as conspiracists. Chomsky doesnt pass this test of rigor, and it is Chomsky who is presenting a “theory” from false causation that is exclusive. Blankfort has cited where he has provided comfort, as you put it, as well.
You are more interested in a false isolation of the sciences, trying to absurdly say that Chomsky makes an exact analogy to physical science.
Chomsky in his rejection of the postmodern and post structuralist development from the failure of the positivists (i.e. people who tried and failed to use the scientific method and models to break down cultural behavior) is the person making this false isolation. He fails in the same way. He has a metatheory, and will assign more weight to evidence that confirms his hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm this hypothesis. He canot employ causal laws of human cultural behavior, but espouses a scientific paradigm that implicitly requires the use these non existent laws . Chomsky is clearly involved, as you put it, in the “a false isolation of the sciences.” It takes significant mental gymnastics from you to project this out.
Regarding the videos….. I think you are coming unhinged on this subject and have nothing much to offer but ignoring the points, throwing projections, and casting out insults.
Here we go again with an avalanche of absurdities Bob, do you think this display of ignorance on your part makes you position sounder? Or that denying Chomsky’s use of “imperial design” makes one bit of difference as to the predictable outcomes of such activity? What I think we are dealing with in your screeds is an ideological block, I am not quite sure of its origin, and it is not just you but others make similar assertions. The inability to come to grips with systemic issues and the relationship of design to activity. You take current activity and wrest it from its foundation, which is the systemic flaw in the “American system” – which is nothing less than old world imperialism (and its concomitant structure, elites designing and controlling the apparatus of the state for their own purposes, whether it is Zionists or others). It is written broad in all the deliberations of the country’s founding documents, and has repetitively (as it should) extent in a myriad of evidences to the current day. Perhaps I should argue to the contrary, this does not mean that Zionist activity is an anomaly, or strange – it is just an exercise in historic control of an elite group currently.
Than you go off making assertions about previous arguments that do not reflect their content (another fault that you, and some of your “associates” have, dishonesty in arguments). I never said the US owned China (and anyone can read it for themselves), but I said in the sense of debt that China owns the USA. You keep talking about market fungibility, when it has little to do with boots on the ground (within our original argument you linked to) and the ability to control the region because of such. The onus of the argument does not lie in fungibility, but in aggressive imperial design which resulted in the invasion and massacre in Iraq – in fact, I even link to the designs by referring to Thomas Barnett and the US goal and design that generals are debriefed regarding (no mention of that from you). It is no surprise that you bypass Barnett, it is simply a sign that you bypass inconvenient truths or facts (which you accuse Chomsky of doing). What happened after the fall of the wall was predictable, because it became the green light for the “predominant” nations to do what they wanted, or to quote Chomsky who quoted Churchill the “satisfied nations.” In simple shorthand, if the oil does not get out of the ground it is not fungible (like I said previously), why beat a dead horse, which seems to be your methodology?
You make my argument by “analogy,” when I use “analogy” I do so in the sense of as close to casual as possible, and the recurring activity in the unipolar time frame (which Chomsky is talking about) was predictable. I repeat – What happened after the fall of the wall was predictable, because it became the green light for the “predominant” nations to do what they wanted, or to quote Chomsky who quoted Churchill the “satisfied nations.” You can carp on as long as you like about the social sciences abandoning “human causal laws” as much as you like, it is quiet immaterial. You in turn pass over massive bodies of evidences, “treaties” and official documentation, and plain written statements of intent – how do you excuse yourself from such large bodies of evidence both historical and contemporary? I don’t know, I think it has something to do with ideological bloc which you seem incapable of overcoming. Here is a quote for you, perhaps far enough away (historically) so we can think about it by President Woodrow Wilson –
“Since trade ignores national boundaries, and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market – the flag of the nation must follow him, and the doors which are closed against him must be battered down. Concessions gained by finance must be safeguarded by ministers of state. Even if the sovereignty of the nations are outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained and planted in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or unused.”
In your world Bob, the above quote from Wilson means nothing.
In your second barrage (I will not call it an argument) at 10:04 am, you assume falsely and than argue again –
“The twist here is the implication that theres real “movers and shakers,” more important than the lobby, and this is providing a cover for them.”
No, I have never tried to excuse thew lobby, ever in my arguments – you just assume that this is what I am doing, like your buddy Blankfort did in the past, that does not magically make your statements true. There is no “joke” about multiple narratives, there is just inductive method which you seem proficient in bypassing. The “metatheory” you keep baying about is nothing but a process of inductive analysis which produces and overarching motivation.
The lobby does not run contrary to the overarching theorem, it fits quite nicely (another mistake you and your compatriots make is to constantly try to dismiss me as a Chomsky talking head, as I said before, we do not agree on everything). Than you erroneously launch off on the “oil lobby” crap again, you are really irritating Bob, because you stumble around spouting ideas and than planting them into what I have said – you might apply for a position with the lobby which uses such false arguments, it seems to be what you excel in.
The idea of overarching themes is not dismissed by deduction, but enlivened by multiple facts, written and spoken testimony and heavy documentation, including official USA. I have no choice but to conclude after all of this so-called “discussion,” that you have not availed yourself to a myriad of material and facts – no doubt this effort will be rebuffed, to be kind I will call it your ignorance.
Of course, we could get real nasty and apply your “reasoning” Bob, to what is happening between the Israelis and Palestinians, but lets spare the post this exercise.
In retyping the window that closed on me i got: China and US reversed. No worry, people can see that it was cited correctly here November 15, 2009 at 9:25 pm
I make the point there that the claim “In case you are unaware of this bob, China owns the USA. Need I say more,” is silly. You collapsed in supporting it.
denying Chomsky’s use of “imperial design” makes one bit of difference as to the predictable outcomes of such activity?….The inability to come to grips with systemic issues and the relationship of design to activity. …What happened after the fall of the wall was predictable, because it became the green light for the “predominant” nations to do what they wanted
These statements require causal laws. What do you offer?
You make my argument by “analogy,” when I use “analogy” I do so in the sense of as close to casual as possible, and the recurring activity in the unipolar time frame (which Chomsky is talking about) was predictable.
Ahh, the common problem of confusing causation for correlation. Its all anyone has left when they make this approach. Causation fails, and this post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is what is left. Its a well worn road of failure.
No, I have never tried to excuse thew lobby… The lobby does not run contrary to the overarching theorem, it fits quite nicely
It only fits nicely if you give more attention and weight to data that support our beliefs than we do to contrary data. Thats right, you take all that information and sweep it as just some pressure group. The ‘real’ issue is bigger. Wheres the evidence? We’re still waiting for that.
The idea of overarching themes is not dismissed by deduction, but enlivened by multiple facts, written and spoken testimony and heavy documentation, including official USA. I have no choice but to conclude after all of this so-called “discussion,” that you have not availed yourself to a myriad of material and facts –
Yikes. You do know that its commonly pointed out that Chomsky offers only the sketchiest of evidence and what undercuts his theory he eliminates altogether. Right? You have this relationship backwards.
Of course, we could get real nasty and apply your “reasoning” Bob, to what is happening between the Israelis and Palestinians, but lets spare the post this exercise.
I’m game. I will enjoy watching a person who conceives things in metatheories that will fail at assuming making a paradigmatic and epistemological failure assuming I must approach the problem from a similar point of view.
One more thing. When you go off on ‘prediction,’ you are really pointing out a trend. prediction in science can account for change in the future. When you don’t have causation, you have a trend: i.e. a situation in the present you hope to extend into the future. Change? well, thats the problem. Chomsky makes a big effort to torture history to make decades of time of US policy the same. of course, he does this by ignoring evidence to the contrary. This makes his ‘trend’ stretch back in time and is the foundation for his metatheory. Predictions and such are good for chaos theory and systems. Here, its just a trend.
Bob, I am sorry, you have no idea what you are talking about, to be frank, you are a bumbling blind idiot. You are never going to see it even if you are struck over the head –
“The ‘real’ issue is bigger. Wheres the evidence? We’re still waiting for that.”
It is not coming, you do not want to do the work, in fact, you refuse to go beyond a gaggle of definitive garbage ar plumb any factual proofs. The going “trend” here is that you are not capable of learning anything.
Here is a good exercise for you Bob, which you will never do – why don’t you go to my site, back to the beginning of the last year of Bush. Look at the dates and the calls on subjects all the way to the present day, than ask yourself “why are all of these statements before the fact correct?” This might help you in your quest, than again, I think you are just a disingenuous buffoon, so it may not help you at all. lol
This bickering is repulsive.
“The ‘real’ issue is bigger. Wheres the evidence? We’re still waiting for that.”
I don’t know if its an evening of festivities or what, but this sure is funny. How did you miss that this quote was about you & Chomsky is beyond me.
Maybe cause you didnt read the sentence that preceded it? Or the one that went after it?
This is a massive waste of time.
Tell you what, when you decide to ever construct a post that
1) Has evidence
2) Deals with the points at hand
3) Can abstain from ad hominems
We’ll talk. otherwise, I don’t think you are worth my time.
Cheers
You were not worth my time at the outset. The reason why is that you are a big mouth that has apparently not cracked one book of chomsky. How can I tell? Because of your spurious remarks, I get the same verbal fodder from individuals who have not read M&R’s volume, and the same from people who have not cracked the Goldstone report. All of this ridiculous expertise with not one bit of information in regard to the individual you seem intent on disparaging. Well, have you read anything? As an example, lets pick one volume – Failed States. I have a rather nasty habit of reading and following up on all footnotes, in Chomsky’s works I do not find – “Chomsky is that he doesn’t have the evidence to support his claims, and he tries to ignore vast amounts of inductive evidence…”, granted you have used this in the context of the Israel Lobby, but you have spread it far and wide by everything the man supposedly has said. In order to ascertain what he has said as a whole you need to have opened his works, by your truncated and obviously fallacious statements you merely move by a preceonceived agenda, you have not studied squat.
I have sufficiently answered spurious reasoning and therefore I am left with nothing but a judgment as to your motivation, you can call it ad hominem till the cows come home, it matter little to me. In order to traverse the material that we are discussing you have to have a grasp of history and that in original document, apparently this is not your strong suit and it shows by your statements.
In order to deal with the “points at hand” you have to have valid points, you have none. It is a waste of time, fallacious foundations and premises leads to ridiculous conclusions, this you have proved beyond a shadow of doubt.
David Bromwich,
Another instance was the invasion of Panama in December 1989. Noriega, a dictator of no importance, and previously of no concern to the U.S., was punished for “dragging his feet in support of Reagan’s terrorist wars in Nicaragua.”
A point of history. Chomsky’s statement about this is not entirely accurate. I knew about what I am going to tell you in the summer of 1986. Bush was VP when I heard about this from someone directly involved with this; Iran Contra hadn’t happened yet, and when it did, it threatened to destroy Bush Sr’s candidacy for Prez.
Noriega was involved with Ollie North and Bush Sr in the drug runs to pay for the Contras. North flew the drugs around in medical canisters. He would leave from Nosara in Costa Rica, drop the money off in banks Noriega set up and ran in Panama, and the plane kept going to Mena, AK. (The first time I heard the name Clinton was during this 1986 description; they had to inform the Governor of AK what they were doing.) Drugs and money back and forth.
Noriega became a loose cannon for Bush Sr. They needed to dismantle any association Noriega thought he might have with Bush Sr, in light of the ’88 election — fear of blackmail of a sitting President by another head of state was the national security reason– and trump up a reason to kidnap him and get him out of Panama to the US. [The people in metal huts and outdoor cafes, if you could call them that, who sold supplies for the locals at the inland edge of the strip in Nosara affectionately referred to the dirt airstrip as “The Ollie North International Airport.” They laughed about it openly.]
So Noriega wound up in Florida with no chance for his own attorney, or access to any papers that might implicate Bush. Noriega’s sentence was over in 2007. I think he got 15 years. But he’s still in jail — Jr was in power in 2007 — until they can get extradition papers to ship him off to France — CIA preferred location — and keep an eye on him, or whack him.
Reagan was basically non compos mentis for the first two years after he got shot, that healthy wave from the hospital window notwithstanding. He came within a mm of death, and they kept it quiet. I dont know who ran the regular presidential stuff, but Bush Sr handled all the covert decisions because he’d been Director of the CIA. And Noriega became a tremendous threat the instant Bush Sr became President. And this is one story the majority of which I knew about before it happened. Imagine my shock when I saw it all come down.
Oops, messed up in ital tags. Sorry.
Let me complete the cycle for you MRW, coming full circle the drugs that came in were sold all over the inner cities in the USA. This was the time of the “crack explosion,” including high quality cocaine, where areas were turned into complete wastelands. This was covered carefully and fully documented by Gary Webb from the San Jose Mercury News which initially supported him in his heavily documented Dark Alliance series, and when the pressure of the system came down dropped him like a hot potato and he was blacklisted.
Rolling a few years forward Gary was isolated, and his employer (San Jose Mercury) tried to reassign him to some isolated region. He would not deny any of his writing or research, and ostensibly a “risk” for the MSM he left and developed a book of the same still available. Gary began to report that he was being followed, and that one time when he went to his house there was actually a man on his balcony that shimmied down and ran off when he arrived. Several weeks later Gary was found supposedly dead of a suicide by gun, having shot himself TWICE in the head (those who are aware of what this means, and how ridiculous it is can draw their own conclusions). The coroner brought to the scene was one that has appeared at other “suicides” in different parts of the USA –
Gary Webb: DARK ALLIANCE
VR…That was so sad. I remember the night he got shot. He was a superb investigative reporter, and his series was stellar. Knowing what I did made it particularly powerful to me, and I had followed the meetings in LA on pirate radio where the CIA was accused of specifically targeting the Black community with drugs. That was not reported properly either.
It took the coroner about 24 hours to wipe the suicide by two bullet holes truth out of the wire service accounts of his death and concoct the depression and suicide angle. I caught the first newswire by happenstance.
Maybe this is just my own inability, but I did not find a link to the lecture that Chomsky give here. So here it is –
THE LECTURE
Hi Chaos4700 – instead of beating around the bushes – why don’t tell us if hiding Zionist entity’s crimes intentionally is not done by a Zionist then who does it?
Personally, I don’t care what Chomsky or his blind followers believe – I use my own judgement based on their writing and speeches. There are thousands of Zionist moles walking around projected to be Jewish, Christian, Muslim and Hindu ‘intellectuals’ to confuse the public and divert attention from the real issues.
You’re not exactly very good at cultivating alliances and making persuasive arguments this way, Rehmat.
What does it mean for all of us where the dog wags the tail and the tail wags the dog?
link to redress.btinternet.co.uk
Well, we know what it means for the Palestinians, and we know what it means for USA taxpayers, and we know what it means for our
“volunteer” army.
Next!
That was a very good article Citizen, cannot see much to argue with in regard to the conclusions (now lets hope someone does not pop up and say I strongly disagreed).
RE: “And what was the proof of the adequacy of the partner? That during the Gaza assault, there had been no unruly protests on the West Bank. Dissent was successfully controlled.”
SEE: “British police and intelligence officers sent to tackle UK-funded torturers on West Bank”, By DAVID ROSE, 10/25/09, dailymail.co.uk
(excerpts) The Government is sending British police and intelligence officers to the West Bank to try to stop a wave of brutal torture by Palestinian security forces funded by UK taxpayers.
Their mission is to set up and train a new ‘internal affairs’ department with sweeping powers to investigate abuse and bring torturers to justice…
…Yesterday a senior official from the semi-autonomous Palestinian Authority (PA), which runs the West Bank and its security agencies, admitted for the first time that torture, beatings and extra-judicial killings have been rife for the past two years, with hundreds of torture allegations and at least four murders in custody, the most recent in August…
…The next step would be for officers from MI5 and MI6 to train the PA’s Mukhabarat intelligence agency.
‘Obviously police cannot train intelligence officers,’ Ms Arar said. ‘For that you need other intelligence officers. We need all the help we can get.’…
…In the region’s largest city, Nablus, Nasser al-Shaer, a former Manchester academic who was deputy prime minister in the short-lived Hamas Palestinian Authority government elected in 2006, said many of those released from detention in recent months were telling the same story – of torture, including beatings, being suspended from the ceiling and electric shocks…
ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to dailymail.co.uk
Hey, come on Huckabees; who is who we should fear?
link to counterpunch.org