After being denied entry to the West Bank by Israel, Noam Chomsky spent some time in Amman and then made his way to Lebanon. He took a tour of the south which coincided with the 10-year anniversary of the Israeli withdrawal from most of occupied Lebanon. A few days later I was one of the several hundred people to pack into the UNESCO center auditorium to see him speak.
I first saw Chomsky deliver a lecture as a college freshman eight years ago. It was only one or two years before that that I had discovered some of his work, and I remember being awed by the man. Here was someone who fearlessly articulated the kinds of thing we Arabs knew, and Americans were oblivious to. Whatever doubts I may have had about his credentials (I had none) were dispelled by the aggressive Zionist contingent protesting the event. Hundreds of us lined up outside Irvine Auditorium while a few dozen Hillelniks chanted and passed out propaganda leaflets. I was elated.
The lecture was everything I’d hoped for. Chomsky reviewed the imperial history of the world, highlighted the nefarious corporatization of politics and conquest and lambasted the venality of the ruling American aristocracy. He recalled his labor Zionist youth and imparted one razor bit of insight which reverberated in my mind then and now (I’m paraphrasing):
“Many people do not know that America has a heavily-armed permanent military base on the Mediterranean. It’s called Israel.”
I couldn’t believe he said it; this was 2002 (Do you remember what that was like – only one year after 9/11? The televised braying heads were orchestrating a WMD tour de fuck and George W. Bush was a demigod).
I was one of many who thronged the speaker after the lecture. I managed to get a handshake in, thanking him profusely and reverently for his courage. It’s embarrassing to recall, but what can I say? He inspired me.
That was eight years ago and I’ve become more critical of Chomsky in the intervening period. It was mostly his stance on the two-state ‘solution’ that shook my faith in the man’s unimpeachability (which is a good thing; no one is right all of the time). Later, I’d find the W&M Israel lobby analytical model more convincing than the imperial structuralist one offered by Chomsky. To be sure, they’re not mutually exclusive and probably both useful depending on your desired degree of analysis. We may even need a grand unified theory of imperial ambition and special interest engineering. But the disagreement was enough to demonstrate that Chomsky hadn’t pinned it completely.
So it was with guarded skepticism that I took my seat in the packed auditorium last week. We only waited for a few minutes before Chomsky walked down the aisle and to the stage. He passed close by and I was glad to see he looked just as healthy as he did years ago.
The lecture was in many ways unoriginal, rehashing the imperial history of the world and imperialism’s contemporary variations. The fact that nothing Chomsky said was revelatory is of course due to the fact that his ideas have mostly been adopted as self-evident. In a funny way, the measure of an individual’s ideological influence corresponds inversely to how obvious and unoriginal those ideas appear years later. Everyone knows that bodies in motion stay in motion (until Barack Obama blasts them with a drone strike), and everyone knows that the US acts to maintain hegemonic supremacy through legal and illegal means.
The most interesting part of the lecture was the Q&A. Someone asked about the one-state solution and Chomsky responded that the one-state solution was better than the two-state solution, but that the no-state solution was better than either. He went on to provocatively suggest that no one has proposed a doable one-state model yet. What may emerge is a phased one-state model. Two-states first, then with normalization and integration, maybe one-state. But there was no way to go from here and now to one-state. I got the distinct feeling that Chomsky hadn’t updated his analytical framework while I listened; he spoke of the two-state solution as though it was somehow still possible to implement.
For the record, I disagree with his assessment. I’m pretty confident that the world which witnessed radical Soviet and South African restructuring will also see a radical Palestine/Israel restructuring.
Chomsky only took ten questions, but I managed to get one in. My question was:
“Press reports recently suggested that you intended to meet with Salam Fayyad. What’s your opinion of the view that he’s an imperial stooge, with no electoral legitimacy?”
The speaker tastefully avoided answering the question (no prevaricating – he just didn’t answer), which is a type of answer. Chomsky inadvertently provided some insight into the tight spaces he’s trying to maneuver. I have no doubt that he knows that Salam Fayyad is an imperial stooge, but his allegiance to two states leaves him with no good way to honestly confront that reality. Salam Fayyad is Israel’s partner for peace, and any believer in the two-state model can’t but rally behind the Occupation’s Administrator in Chief.
It’s like Harvey Dent said to Batman: “You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.” Noam Chomsky has now lived long enough to see himself loosely allied with the American imperial project in Palestine; Israel for the Jews, and Fayyadistan for the Hunched Henchmen.
Chomsky is no villain, but he can’t afford to be associated with them either. But despite how I feel, we owe Chomsky an immense debt of gratitude. His fifty years of activism and record of speaking truth to power cannot be disregarded or diminished, no matter what his position may be today.
Ahmed, thanks for the excellent, nuanced analysis of Chomsky. I concur with your appreciation of his life’s work, which is unmatched, despite your disagreements with him on fundamental issues. No one has expressed appreciation for Chomsky as eloquently as the late great Edward Said. Chomsky has deservedly achieved heroic status, but no one deserves complete adulation and uncritical agreement, and I think he’d be the first to say that.
I too hope for a radical restructuring that ends up in a one-state solution, and agree with you that the 2ss may now be impossible to implement because the settlement project has advanced too far to be reversed adequately. I have seen Chomsky put forth his recipe for getting hundreds of thousands of settlers out: Israel announces that the IDF will withdraw by a certain date and the remaining settlers will then be subject to Palestinian jurisdiction with no Israeli protection, forcing them to leave or face the consequences. I think his big mistake is in assuming rational behavior by the settlers. I would foresee at least tens of thousands of well-armed religious fanatics refusing to leave one inch of the land God gave them and refusing to submit to a Palestinian legal authority which they would regard with racist contempt. Things inevitably would get hot, in the military confrontation sense, and Israel could not stand by and watch its citizens, or at least recent citizens, manhandled by Arabs. To me, it’s a recipe for civil war and disaster.
I’m glad you resist the temptation to regard Chomsky as a fool or a liar. I don’t think age has diminished his mental capacity one bit. The one versus two state solution has crystallized a great deal in recent years, both because Israel has made 2ss impossible and because of more and more recognition that intolerable discrimination would remain forever against Palestinian citizens of a Jewish State. I disagree with Chomsky’s analysis, but am certain he has reached his conclusions honestly with no hidden agenda. He remains in my mind a figure of towering intelligence and integrity who deserves the highest respect.
Thank you, Ahmed. A pleasure to read you, as always. I agree with David. Your nuanced analysis of Chomsky is superb, and even icons (especially icons) need to be criticised. It is always interesting to see advocates of a particular course of action defend extremely impractical aspects of it (such as the removal/abandonment of half a million settlers, as David points out), while citing the impracticability of alternative solutions.
NICE POST. NICE COMMENT. The thing I emphasize is that the major obstacle to a one state solution is Zionism. Likewise, the major obstacle to an honest two state solution is Zionism. Zionism, in its present form, precludes any fair and equitable solution. Without Zionism, possibilites exist. Not that they will necessarily come to pass, but that there is at least hope. Therefore, peace and justice can only come about with the delegitimation of Zionist ideology.
Word for word, I’m with Keith.
Everything build on zionism has a troubled and short shelf-life because of it’s inherent ideological prejudice. The seed is rot within, as they say.
There will NEVER be progress in the mideast if zionism is the mouthpiece of the jewish people. Likewise, the jews will never find true peace and security – unless they first discard the offensive cloak of zionism and accept the universal oneness of our multi-ethnic world.
Jew=goyim or bust!
Yes, I agree with Keith also – Zionism cannot survive in the clear air of equality, justice and hence peace between people. It loses its monopolistic attractiveness within a single state under a set of restrictive laws, it cannot survive unless it has impunity which disappears in real life community. It is no longer “profitable,” through “legalized” theft of what belongs to the Palestinians. I, for one, am tired of just these ginger statements in regard to a single state, even though it becomes good for both the Israelis and Palestinians, it must result in the unequivocal death of the current form of Zionism.
Ahmad, thank you for sharing your experiences and thoughts. I enjoyed reading your article.
Despite the political conflict or his views on a permanent settlement of the conflict, professor Noam Chomsky is one of the greatest men (persons) of our time. Speaking truth to power, Chomsky inspired me to read more about his ideas and how he views the world. I still remember the first time I read his book Manufacturing Consent.
I wish him good health and many more years of productivity.
Can’t comment on Chomsky’s concept because I’m not familiar with it but I see something missing in all the discussions about 1 or 2 states, 67 borders or swapped territories and so on and I don’t think that Israel is sticking to the WB for its settlers’ religious vocations either but simply because it has to continue securing the water for Israel from that territory. At present, about 50% of Israel’s water is coming from the West Bank and Israel cannot walk away from that. It has recently increased its desalination program up from the 6% it had been providing but even with 3 more plants, Israel would still be unable to survive without WB’s water that it’s currently stealing. The 2006 Turkey-Israel water, oil and gas pipeline project that was suspended after the Marmara fiasco makes the holding of the WB by Israel even more critical. Same problem why Israel cannot abandon the Golan and Chebaa Farms that control the source of over 25% of Israel’s water. Until its water needs are addressed, Israel isn’t about to leave any of the territories it’s occupying as these are providing 75% of its current water needs.
Walid June 17, 2010 at 1:25 am
Interesting about the water. Thanks. I’ve articles mentioning israel Litani (spelling) river envy due to their water shortages. This water shortage is one of things frequently over looked when discussing Palestine issues.
“I’ve articles mentioning israel Litani (spelling) river envy due to their water shortages.”
Should have been:
I’ve read articles mentioning israeli Litani (spelling) river (in Lebanon) envy due to their water shortages. This had me wondering if water was at least in part to israeli wars and occupations there.
Hayate, you are right; the Zionists never quit trying to grab the Litani with the last time in the 2006 carpet-bombing and cluster bombing of all of the area south of that river. During the 18-year occupation that ended in 2000, Israel had run pipelines from the Litani into Israel which also explains why the occupation of south Lebanon had lasted so long as the PLO had been chased out of Lebanon since 1982 and there was no reason to occupy the area. In the final weeks of the occupation, Israeli trucks were filmed carting Lebanese topsoil across the border into Israel. Israel is a paradox that I can’t explain; it has such advanced technology and so many Nobel laureates, yet it reduces itself to the petty theft of its neighbour’s topsoil and water resources.
Zionists droooooooool over Lebanese water.
Dear me, god must have been stoned all them years ago when he drew the Litani river line 25 kilometers away from the ‘chosen land’.
And wadaya know, Israel is here today to correct god’s goofy mistake!
Water shortage is actually built into Jewish theology. The Land of Canaan/Israel is noted in the Bible for its lack of perpetual water sources (like the Nile). Positively framed, it means that the Israelites receive their water (in the form of rainfall) directly from God. Negatively framed, it’s God’s way of keeping tabs – if you do what I say, you get to eat and drink; if not, you suffer and die (a theological version of the Gaza siege?). Drought, rain, dew, etc. are recurrent themes in traditional Jewish literature and liturgy throughout the ages.
Water is the big issue, the Zionist schemes have always coveted every river basin and aquifer in the Levant for over a Century.
Up until israel attacked the Gaza aide convoy, there had been a lot of talk about israel attacking Lebanon again, and/or Syria, but the world reaction to their piracy seems to have put those plans on hold for now.
But not for long, unfortunately … they always have some new hideous atrocity to foist upon the world … they are so worried that no attack by them signals weakness somehow that they just inflict their cruelty at random from time-to-time
A month before the attack on the flotilla (which just happened to occur at about the same time as the PKK Kurdish rebel attack on the Turkish naval base at Iskenderun,) there were reports in the press that the Turks had moved into the Iskenderun area antiaircraft batteries that were intended to prevent Israeli air attacks on Syria and Iran.
I suspect that those batteries will present a great obstacle to future Israeli aggression to the north. What the Israelis have managed to accomplish in recent military escapades, they were able to do because of air supremacy.
The Lebanese are about to send an aid boat to Gaza. The IDF is particularly worried about this as the distance from Lebanon’s coast to Gaza is small so they are on 24-hour alert as they claim that stopping the boat could prove problematic. They are also worried that some of the activists on board may have connections to Hezbollah. This could speed things up perhaps.
The Lebanese: modern children of the ancient seafaring Phoenicians who built the first ships in the world.
The Israelis: modern children of the ancient landlocked kingdom of the Khazar.
A modern face-off in the ancient waters of the Mediterranean between them is now about to unfold. No doubt both their ancestors would never have imagined such a scenario happening.
I just wanted to draw a tableau from this perspective.
Taxi, Phoenicians was a fancy name given to the Canaanites by the Greeks. Palestinians too are also rooted in Canaan and if you remember your Bible stories, God had ordered Abraham’s descendants to kill them all. They haven’t stopped trying since.
Dee, 2 ships are ready and await government permission to set sail from Lebanon. One named the “Mariam” is an all-women ship of Muslims and Christians and the other is of Lebanese legislators and press corps, I don’t know the name. Israel has warned today that Lebanese attempting to reach Gaza will be jailed and worse if any members of Hizbullah are among passengers. The Lebanese group on flotilla 2 planned to sail between July 15 and August 8 is going to be huge.
2 ships are ready and await government permission to set sail from Lebanon
Following the latest bit of “logic” introduced into the discussion, they will undoubtedly be peaceful, green, earthy types – with that pretty tree on their flag ;-)
A statement yesterday by the Israeli government indicates it regards Lebanon as an “enemy state.”
What are you saying, Shmuel?
Lysias, the feeling from Lebanon is mutual but the ships are not going to Israel.
What are you saying, Shmuel?
Just having a bit of fun with our new friend Oren, who has introduced us to the wondrous science of flagology. I did not mean to cast any aspersions on the intentions of the courageous members of the Lebanese flotilla.
I recommend the lebanese ‘lady ship’ christian passengers wear full gloried bikinis and their moslem sisters wear those pantaloons-like islamic swimsuit (anyone know what they’re called?) – now picture them all wearing flowers in their hair/scarves, all summery and balmy on top deck and waving the Palestinian flag :-)
I’m just thinking here of a PR foto coup :-)
Besides, how will Israel look if god forbid we should see footage of sunbathing beauties shot in the face and belly :-)
*Arrest them with beauty then kill them with kindness :-)
“I recommend the lebanese ‘lady ship’ christian passengers wear full gloried bikinis and their moslem sisters wear those pantaloons-like islamic swimsuit (anyone know what they’re called?) – now picture them all wearing flowers in their hair/scarves, all summery and balmy on top deck and waving the Palestinian flag :-)”
An Israel-undermining, Lebanese SexBomb? Is there no limit to your nefarious anti-Semitic creativity? Truly, Israel is fighting an unusual war.
No doubt, hands down, the Lebanese would win the ‘sexbomb’ war in a new york second – against any country! Witness here how they’ve already wrestled undeniable victory in their ‘Hummus War’:
link to cnn.com
A most ‘unusual’ war this is indeed!
p.s. them moslem swimsuit pantaloons I’m remembering now are called ‘burkinis’ :-)
burkinis! I love it! Pasties, a G-string and a veil!
Ever had a woman at a party sidle up you and with a coy smile say: “I’m not wearing any knickers under my burka”.
That was bad, wasn’t it. Sorry about that.
You weren’t serious? I’m disappointed.
droog, the Zionist scheme goes back to 1919 at the Versaille peace Conference when Weizman was pushing his “Dan to Beersheva” concept of Eretz Israel and firmly believed that he desperately needed the Litani to develop nothern Palestine; he knew back then that the whole of Palestine would be taken by the Zionists. The French that had gotten Lebanon in the Sykes-Picot pie-cutting had promised that area to Lebanon’s Christians to whom they were tied by treaty since about 1720 refused Weizman’s request but to this day, Israel has its sights on that river that starts in the middle of the country and winds its way south to just 10 km north of Israel before it veers west and empties into the Med. The 30 sq km that Israel still occupies known as Chebaa Farms are located at the foot of Mount Hermon and are filled with wall-to-wall water. The Lebanese northern half of Ghajjar Village that the UN ordered Israel to vacate in 2006 but is still occupied is where the Wazzani Springs are located and from where Israel is running pipelines to steal water that it’s pumping to Israeli villages. Nation of thieves.
Walid I believe the Israelis are either already, or are interested in, helping themselves to Lebanon’s gas reserves too. Would be neighbourly of Lebanon to allow Israel access to this resource as well as its water and land no?
Dee, Israel served notice on Lebanon this week that any gas that may be found in Lebanon’s territorial waters must not be touched with an “or else” type of threat because the discovered undersea reserve appears to stretch from Gaza’s shores, up Israel’s, Lebanon’s and towards Cyprus and Israel is laying claim to all of it. A Norwegian company has been offering Lebanon to do the necessary exploration off its coast since several years now, cost-free but the offer was not taken up.
I’m guessing something to do with gas is happening over Gaza’s shoreline and that it’s the reason why Israel is not allowing anyone near Gaza because Israel must be already doing some serious undersea exploration there. The “stop them at any cost” order may have something to do with it. If Israel is not averse to stealing the Palestinians’ land and water, it would be even less averse to stealing their gas. The aid ships are not being stopped close to Gaza but way way out at sea like with the Marmara that happened at about 80 miles out or more. Last week we had the execution of the 5 or 6 Gazan divers that were shot at point blank range and left in the water by the Israeli navy. There has to be something going on there that Israel doesn’t want anyone to see and the only thing I could think of is undersea gas exploration in Gaza’s territorial waters.
There has been talk about gas off Gaza’s shore since 2000 and negotiations have been underway since 2008 by Israel with gas companies for Gaza’s gas. The following article seems to suggest that the war on Gaza in December 2008 and the negotiations over its gas are somehow related:
link to globalresearch.ca
Very interesting Walid. Thanks for the info.
walid, this is exactly what i was thinking. i was even imaginig people taking turns boating around out there. i thought of those deaths in the same way. i wonder if they are out there right now steal the resources. i don’t trust them for one minute.
this is an excellent point: the water.
Ahmed Moor – nice job on your article. I went through a similar process. At first I thought chomsky was the greatest thing to hit historical understanding. That back in the 80′s. Then gradually, as I learned more from other sources, I realised there were a great many flaws in his work and his approach to history. I still used to defend him as recent as a few years ago, mostly out of misplaced loyalty and a refusal to admit to myself that my once favourite source was not so reliable as I had thought. But I don’t do that any more. Chomsky’s got enough loyalists defending him and some of his views I now find to be seriously suspect, such as his support for the mossad/cia green “color revolution” regime change attempt.
A choice selection from the worst argument I’ve ever seen come out of Chomsky:
So he’s obviously aware of the fact that Oswald was a patsy, but imagines the assassination could remain officially blamed on Oswald to this day without any high-level conspiracy? Some people have accused Chomsky of being a left-wing gatekeeper, but I figure he is most likely just a prisoner of his own mind, as he is far too intelligent to make such a ridiculous argument while intentionally trying to mislead people.
Or he may be afraid to allow thoughts to wander towards what he suspects the truth is about that assassination.
a prisoner of his own mind, maybe afraid to allow his thoughts to wander.
maybe he’s thought about it, come to a conclusion, and is simply
saying what he thinks about it. Personally, I think what he says
makes a lot of sense. He has written a lot about the view that
JFK’s death resulted in some sort of shift in US policy in Vietnam.
Other than that issue, why spend any time on this? I used to
waste a lot of time reading about the two Oswalds and all of this stuff,
until I realized that (a) it was irrelevant to anything that mattered, and
(b) why should I give a crap about who killed JFK? Nothing makes
his life more important than anybody else’s.
If the same forces that killed JFK are still in power in the U.S. and are the forces that continue to drive us into wars, then the way he died should matter to you.
I have two recent works to recommend on the JFK assassination that in my opinion prove he was killed by the U.S. national security state: James Douglass’s JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, and Douglas Horne’s five-volume Inside the Assassination Records Review Board: The U.S. Government’s Final Attempt to Reconcile the Conflicting Medical Evidence in the Assassination of JFK. However, the fact that the U.S. national security state was primarily responsible for the assassination does not exclude the possibility of there having been accomplices.
I do not consider a “footnote” that resulted in millions of deaths (and may yet result in many millions more) to be a mere “tiny footnote”.
LYSIAS- If the assassination of JFK resulted in the deaths of millions of people it would not be a tiny footnote. However, as Chomsky has shown, there is no evidence whatsoever that US foreign policy changed significantly after the assassination, or that it would have changed significantly had JFK lived, the self-serving recollections of Camelot revisionists notwithstanding.
Michael Parenti wrote about the “progressive/left phobia about investigating things like the jfk murder back in the mid90′s when there was a lot of debate still going on brought about by the release of Stone’s film. One of the better pieces I’ve seen on this “conspiracy” debate.
Michael Parenti: THE JFK ASSASSINATION II: CONSPIRACY PHOBIA ON THE LEFT
link to 911blogger.com
He very thorough in this piece and not only goes into the absurdity of this phobia and how it damages understanding of recent history, he goes into the limitations of the structuralism approach to analyzing history, of which chomsky is also a major proponent.
One of the important aspects of this debate, which I forgot to mention above, is why certain events are taboo subjects for investigation, and why others are not. For example, the Tonkin Gulf false flag/invention, is considered a legit event for investigation and the role it played in expanding the Vietnam war is well understood because of this. Yet delving into the various political murders in the usa of that same period are considered a waste of time. The question is why only some events are deemed worthy of serious investigation and other investigations of equally serious events are denigrated as useless side issues or the raving of nuts.
The pattern of what is “kosher” and what is not among this “anti-conspiracy” group is fairly consistent and it relates to the sort of damage exposure of a conspiracy would do to the established corporate fascist status quo, frequently, as one would guess, there is also a zionist question of involvement in the events. The Tonkin Gulf incident exposure would only cause very limited, easily repairable damage to the status quo, while nabbing those behind the jfk murder would go right up the ladder to the very top, and perhaps implicate a few of our friendly zionist busybodies.
kylebisme
You might find this series interesting:
Confessions of a Conspiracy Theorist — Part 1
American Machiavellianism: How and Why it Works and How it Can be Made to Stop Working
by Moti Nissani / June 18th, 2010
In a five-part series in Dissident Voice, I hope to throw light on the real workings of American plutocracy. Because conspiracies are central to any understanding of how and why this plutocracy works, the first article joins the camp of those who argue that America’s real rulers often resort to secret criminal plots and undertakings. The second article exploits the manufactured Obama’s birthplace controversy in an effort to gain insights into the inner workings of the American political system. A third article provides conclusive evidence that America’s real rulers routinely utilize intimidations and assassinations of people, foreign or domestic, who pose meaningful threats to their power. A fourth article examines the constellation of factors which enables these rulers to retain and enhance their wealth and power. These four articles set the groundwork for the fifth and most important article, which explores strategies for replacing the current system with a more free, just, and sustainable one.
link to dissidentvoice.org
Israel takes approximately 87 percent of the West Bank’s water resources from the underground aqueduct. Palestinians have to survive on the pitiful remainder much of which they have to purchase from Israel.
I’m getting used used to the fact that every few weeks or so the water supply in Ramallah and surrounds is cut off completely for a day or two due to the shortages. I wouldn’t want the settlers deprived of being able to water their lush green lawns with sprinklers or use their swimming pools.
Dee, sorry to learn that you’re actually living the problems with the water while we’re just discussing them. The Zionist master plan to control the water has been confirmed by confidential documents published by the British Foreign Office, in which David Ben-Gurion, writing in 1941, said, “We have to remember that for the Jewish state’s ability to survive it must have within its borders, the waters of the Jordan and Litani.”
The list of water theft by Israel is too long but the details of how the Palestinians are prevented from digging wells on their own land or how Gaza will be completely dry of water in 8 years while Israel is siphoning 80% of the water stored under it and how in Hebron and on the Golan, people are prevented from collecting rain water, can be read in a comprehensive report at:
link to globalresearch.ca
While the topic has shifted from Chomsky to water, it is useful to recall this post from about six of eight months ago. link to mondoweiss.net. The post included an interview with Michael Oren, in which he was asked about an Amnesty International report that stated that in the OPT, Palestinian per capita water consumption was less than one-fourth of Israeli settlers’. Oren replied:
“First of all Israel categorically rejected the findings of this Amnesty report, in fact Israel’s supply to the Palestinians exceeds its obligations under the Oslo Accords. We have a problem with Palestinians digging illegal wells down to the aquifer, not treating their sewage. Israel leads the world in terms of its sewage treatment. A greater percentage of our water is reclaimed then any other country in the world. And, Israel is cooperating with Jordan, and very productively, in water sharing. So if the Palestinians have a problem, I would say it’s overwhelmingly self inflicted.”
When the interviewer noted that the disproportionate use of water seemed unfair, Oren continued:
“Well I don’t see anybody parched for water there, I think we have a regional water problem that is not particular to the Palestinians and I can only reassert that Israel leads not only the region but the world in water reclamation, And I think you can find Israeli water saving technology in the fields across the United States in terms of drip irrigation, this was pioneering the field of computer irrigation which puts microscopic sensors into a field and send messages back to a central computer.”
Don’t underestimate this guy’s skill. Israel allows its settlers more than four times the water per capita, and its settlers are not even entitled to be there at all. But Oren explains that this is not unfair for the following reasons: 1) Israel rejects the report, even though it cannot deny its truth; 2) Israel has never agreed to be fair about water, even under the Oslo Accords; 3) desperate Palestinians have been digging wells in violation of Israeli law, while the rest of the world agrees that Israelis are there in violation of international law and have no right to impose their law on Palestinians; 4) Israel leads the world in water technology, and shares that technology with the US; 5) Israel plays (shares water) well with others, like Jordan, even if it is stealing from the Palestinians; 6) The Palestinians are not “parched” (not dying of thirst?) and they’re not the only ones with a water problem.
As a lawyer who has had to reach for some creative arguments on behalf of clients, I find myself in grudging admiration. Even if I chose to be a dishonest advocate for a miserable policy, I couldn’t be this good, and I’ve spent decades trying to deflect judges’ attention from my weak points.
David Samel,
Oren only fools the fool-able.
His modus operandi is to propagandize through the practice of ‘enhanced omission’. It’s a particularly repugnant but popular practice amongst diplomats and PR three-card tricksters.
Oren’s not slick. Just sly like a snake in thick foliage.
If you read the Oslo Accord agreement on what the PLO accepted vis a vis a division of water resources and what they agreed to “receive” from Israel it is ludicrous. They accepted a very unfair deal due to the fact that Arafat and the PLO were so weak. The understanding was that the situation would improve and the water situation would be reviewed several years down the line as the peace process was implemented. But the second Intifada erupted in 2000. Since then there has been no progress as no substantive peace talks have resumed and the Israeli and Palestinian sides to the water question have not resumed negotiations. Furthermore, currently the Israelis continue to supply the agreed amount as per Oslo, more or less, even though the Palestinian population has increased since 1994 and their water needs are now much greater.
This is another example of why bilateral talks will never work with one strong party able to dictate terms and conditions to a very much weaker party. Outside and unbiased intervention is crucial.
Right Walid. I’ve written about and researched the subject in the years I’ve lived and worked here. It can be a pain in the butt not being able to flush the toilet or have a shower when it is hot, sweaty and dusty. But the Palestinians suffer far worse.
Miss Dee Mena is not exaggerating at all:
link to bds-la.org
Zionism is a revolutionary movement that eschews imperialism.
In fact it was Zionism that helped liberate Israel from British Imperialists, whom in turn took the reigns from Ottoman Imperialists, who themselves were preceded by Roman Imperialists.
It was the Romans that renamed Judea to Palestina in order to spite the Jewish people, it was the Romans that destroyed the Temple and attempted to rename Jerusalem to Aeola Capitolina.
It is Imperialists in the West and East that continue to attempt to oust Jews, rename Jerusalem and subvert the ideas of Justice and Peace.
Rightly so this Gentlemen accused Fayyad of being an Imperial stooge.
Time will tell if Netanyahu is a puppet as well. What the Jews in Israel need desperately, is to re-align away from western culture and stop self-defining as “western”.
Imperialists are manipulating the Arab Palestinians, Israelis, and many others to advance their designs.
Zionism isn’t going to disappear.
Any political perspective that imagines so, is fantasizing, and people get hurt through fantasy, especially when attempted to be forced.
And, the Jews that comprise the majority of individuals between river and sea currently, aren’t going to disappear either.
If you are truly progressive, you’ll respect that desire to self-govern on the part of Israelis, and seek to reconcile with that in a form that leaves Palestinians able.
RW, nobody is trying to make Zionism disappear; how you guys pray is your business. We’re just hoping to see it behave itself and stop manhandling the Palestinians.
Sorry Walid, but some of us are against the fundamental existence of political racist ideologies such as Nazism and Zionism.
Zionism, like nazism, in any measure, is unacceptable.
If Zionism is measured as the return to one’s homeland (this is the core of Zionism), then you are saying the Palestinian right of return is unacceptable.
“Palestinians are … Zionists??”
yes, the Jews came from Judea, hence the name Jews.
yes, the Jews came from Judea, hence the name Jews.
Ah, the ol’ Jews-come-from-Judea-Arabs-come-from-Arabia shtik. Bless my soul. I think it’s time for another Blossom Dearie moment (dedicated to Mooser).
Oren,
STFU with your stupid non-logic blah blah!
Euro convert jews are from europe – this is an indisputable fact regardless of your hasbara delusions! We can trace ALL of the euro Israelis back to europe within living memory for eff’s sakes!
Before the daylight robbery of Palestine in ’48, jews of the middle east had TWENTY-ONE HOMELANDS! Now they have a pitiful single (temporary) citizenship in a rouge state.
Arab jews have been seriously shafted by the importation of european zionism into their daily middle-eastern lives.
Stupid bastards! They shoulda stuck it out with their Arab cousins and not sided with the convert ‘outsider’.
Haha, thanks for validating my suspicions… you deny the claims of modern day Jews to the land of Israel. That’s okay, but I want you to do me a favor… google Salam Fayyad, and look at a picture of him real real closely. now ask yourself, how is it that he looks so much like Ben Stein?
:-)
What a moron you are! You think I’m actually gonna follow ANY of your asshole instructions?!
Clearly zionism=racism and I’m against the existence of ANY racist ideology such as zionism or nazism.
I’m most certainly not shy to say so asshole!
I’m sorry, I didn’t know you were born without a sense of humor. however, I’m glad you are good at insulting people, because that’s useful when you drive alot, seeing you are a cabbie and all.
Oren touches on a good point, that there are many that support a theory, that is backed mainly by anti-semites and skinheads, that modern Jews are racially unfit to return to Israel.
>> … the claims of modern day Jews to the land of Israel.
“Modern-day Jews” are citizens of the lands in which they reside. An American who practices Judaism is an American, not an Israelite. He has no claim to “the land of Israel”.
Oren,
I also happen to be a janitor haha and I’m here on mondoweiss to flush down some zionist shit right back to where it belongs: the stinking moral sewage of the world.
“yes, the Jews came from Judea, hence the name Jews.”
So you also accept the ashkenazi come from Khazaria, wonderful.
yes, the Jews came from Judea, hence the name Jews.
Really?
Ze’ev Herzog, Tel Aviv University
Why thanks, Shmuel.
The West Bank is mostly mountainous, with little regular rainfall. What water does penetrate through the cap rock ends up on the next layer down as an aquifer. This supplies the West Bank towns (oases), but since the layer slopes East-West, major springs and water sources are mostly on the west (Israeli) side of the area.
See map at: link to mideastweb.org
and compare it with this one:
link to mideastweb.org
The so-called Security Fence was deliberately planned to cut out, from Palestinian claims to the West Bank, any useful water sources.
link to en.wikipedia.org
Again and again, THIS is the map that Zionists refer to. They don’t see themselves as big fish colonizing a Palestinian sea.
They see themselves as a small fish in a giant Islamic sea, confused why the progressive world uniquely begrudges them a small secure drop of land.
And, as they have moved and moved and moved on, they wonder why Palestinians don’t just move on.
Mature Zionists are content with enough, with living as good neighbors to Palestinians (those that are willing to live as good neighbors), and that requires ceasing settlement expansion.
Mature humanists would be content with enough as well, and not seek the removal of a Jewish state, by either violence or orchestrated assimilation (with the stacked deck of proposed Arab majority).
Well and apparently you have already moved on to pretending like the Israeli slaughter on the flotilla and the persistence violence against non-violent demonstrators on the West Bank never happened. Is that what “mature humanism” represents to you? Denial of shoahs that happen to other people?
>> link to en.wikipedia.org
>> Again and again, THIS is the map that Zionists refer to. They don’t see themselves as big fish colonizing a Palestinian sea.
>> They see themselves as a small fish in a giant Islamic sea, confused why the progressive world uniquely begrudges them a small secure drop of land.
Again and again with the whiny victimhood! Again and again, why do Zionists refer to a map that shows Judaism to be exclusive to Israel? Judaism is not “a small fish in a giant Islamic sea” – it is practised in many (most?) countries throughout the world.
Americans or Brits or Italians of the Jewish faith are citizens of the nations in which they reside. They don’t need “a small secure drop of land” in which to reside, and they are not entitled to “a small secure drop of land” at the expense (lives and properties) of the original inhabitants of that land.
As for Israelis, they have their self-declared 1948 state, their “small secure drop of land”. Apparently, however, that’s not good enough, hence the expansionism and on-going colonization. Poor, misunderstood small fish: Powerful, destructive, racist, colonial but, above all, victim. :-(
I just want to point out that Israel has a shield on their flag. Other flags in the region have things like swords and AK-47s…
Fits in with their mindset of eternal victimhood.
Frances, is it unwarranted? History is nothing but murder, pogroms, massacres, holocaust for the Jewish people. This is not an Israeli memory, this is Jewish History. Zion was the fortress of David in Jerusalem. Zionism is the protection that we seek, from the world that only wants to destroy us.
Trying for a world record in irrelevant arguments and non sequiturs are we? Try not to blow all your “material” on your first day.
Do I doubt the Jewish people suffered? No. They did and tremendously so.
Does this give the Jewish people, or rather, SOME Jewish people the right to brutally oppress the Palestinians or the Lebanese? No. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
My comment about ‘eternal victimhood’ was flippant and I probably shouldn’t have said it. Still, as long as Israel uses it’s considerable military might to crush and oppress others, the shield is meaningless. They might as well have had a tank.
And also, who exactly is trying to destroy the Jews today? Please don’t say Iran or Ahmadinejad.
“History is nothing but murder, pogroms, massacres, holocaust for the Jewish people.”
Being a member of a long victimized group doesn’t necessarily make you compassionate towards others. Israel has participated in a fair amount of murder, pogroms and massacres itself and not just against Arabs. They were quite helpful to the genocidal Guetemalan military in the 80′s and had a nice cozy friendship with apartheid South Africa.
shmuel, I’m still waiting for some more of your relevant biblical exegesis…
Frances, hatred exists all over the world and it is not exclusive to the Jews. Naturally, I agree that it’s not okay to brutally oppress anyone. Jews should be more aware than anyone when it comes to recognizing injustice, but sadly it goes on. Making it clear is the most urgent priority.
Sorry, Oren. That was on-topic (previous comment was about God and water in I/P). Conversation goes all over the place. That’s not the same as throwing in talking points more or less at random.
History is nothing but murder, pogroms, massacres, holocaust for the Jewish people.
And history is all dynasties and wars.
No? It’s not? But that is what people think it is, when they know nothing about it. History, as it is received, is edited. Selected. If the Jewish people think of their history as nothing but murder, pogroms, massacres, holocaust, it is because this is how they have chosen to remember it.
There is a great deal of Jewish history that has nothing to do with pogroms, just as there were murders and massacres that did not involve Jews [and even Jews doing the murdering.]
Frances is right. Oren is clinging to a view of history that reinforces his feeling of victimhood and reveals his ignorance of it.
>> There is a great deal of Jewish history that has nothing to do with pogroms, just as there were murders and massacres that did not involve Jews [and even Jews doing the murdering.]
It seems to be a matter-of-convenience, split-personality thing. There are times when all one hears is about how brave, courageous, strong, mighty, powerful, fearless, dominant and eternal “the Jews” are and have always been. But when the heat is on and being tough looks bad, they’re hated, vilified, terrified, victims, “small fish”.
If somebody said to you, “I just want to point to you that the swastika was an ancient good luck symbol, so surely that tells you something about the nature of people who would use it on their flag”, would you say :
a. Gosh you’re right, I guess we shouldn’t be too hard on those Nazis after all.
b. I think the actions of a country say rather more than the symbols on their flag.
“History is nothing but murder, pogroms, massacres, holocaust for the Jewish people.”
And you are still alive Oren? Kapo! Who did you sell out in order to survive? Your parents or your siblings?
However, let me state that if you are killed in a death camp or pogrom, you will have every right to complain. Until then, shut up, okay?
“They see themselves as a small fish in a giant Islamic sea, confused why the progressive world uniquely begrudges them a small secure drop of land.
And, as they have moved and moved and moved on, they wonder why Palestinians don’t just move on.”
Brilliant, Richard. And if I steal your home, it’s no big deal, because there are plenty of other middle-aged accountants whose homes I haven’t stolen. Or if you don’t classify yourself as a middle aged accountant, pick your own self-designation and so long as there are a lot of you, I can steal your home with a clear conscience.
Move on, Witty. I plan to have my furniture shipped to your place in a couple of days and I don’t want your stuff cluttering the rooms and hallways.
Seriously, Richard, there’s this little matter of ethnic cleansing that you’ve elided. I didn’t like what Helen Thomas said, but she apologized. Why is it that supporters of Israel’s right to profit from ethnic cleansing can suggest that Palestinians move on and it doesn’t seem to matter?
Donald,
Don’t confuse description for advocacy. You do that a lot. Take the time to consider my language. When I say “it”, I don’t mean “I”.
I’ll honestly state “I agree” or “I believe” if I do.
My view is that BOTH little dot descriptions underly Zionist AND Palestinian attitudes about their condition.
There are similar power struggles and abuses within both Israeli and Palestinian societies, in which specific communities feel that they are swamped and attacked by the bigger one.
It primarily describes a rift in understanding.
There is no way that the radical interpretation of “international law” will be the defining way that people’s identify and experience. Their own experience, their own objectives will be defining.
To deny that MANY Israelis and others have the primary assumptions about the conflict that I described, is just to stay in a fantasy zone.
You can question the implications of those maps if you like. If you were associated with the blue spot on that map, would you feel controlling, or vulnerable, currently (not as psychological residue of naziism, though that is real as well).
A member of the Israeli government, obliged by law to support the Israeli basic laws (Jewish culturally AND democratic politically) should not be allowed to get away with abandoning half of that basic law, that is only functional as a complement (BOTH features fully applied.)
Richard, you endorsed the Zionist policy of not allowing the refugees back in 1950 and you only would let them back now (just the ones actually expelled) because they don’t constitute a demographic threat to Israel as a majority Jewish state. So there’s not a fundamental distinction between you and the people whose opinions you describe.
I stated that I understood the reasoning at the time.
You are asking me to revise history. You don’t have a clue what you would have endorsed and/or accepted at the time.
You’d have a much better clue, if you read of the history so you understood the ACTUAL setting at the time, rather than the simplistically revised description.
Do you understand the difference between observation and advocacy? Are you willing to review your assumptions about my comments in that light (that you might have confused comments of mine as advocacy, or even reluctant contextual advocacy, for comments of observation)?
I stated that I understood the reasoning at the time.
No, in response to questions about your opinion, you stated that YOU were not in favor of allowing the displaced Palestinians to return to their homes in the 1950′s. And you stated that today YOU only endorse a right of return for those who were born in Palestine/Israel prior to 1949, specifically because such a limited number of elderly Palestinians poses no “demographic threat” to Israel’s continued existence as a state that privileges Jews over non-Jews.
You have added mischaracterization (or outright lying) of your own statements and views to your usual hypocrisy. Do you really think we are that forgetful that you can fudge your stated opinion as “observation”? You are attempting to revise your own history here.
And please, you of all people ought not to be lecturing others on the benefits of reading the history of the region. Your willful ignorance is well-known here.
There will never be a secure piece of land for Israelis as long as it is stolen land.
Noam Chomsky is a Zionist. That is the essential fact that colors his worldview of the conflict.
On a broader perspective, I think of Chomsky as an “accountant” of human rights. He’s very good at recalling the history of US imperial adventures and abuses, and linking the facts, the players, and actions of the government together over a period of time.
But this vision is always looking backward. Just as an actual accountant is only concerned with counting out past performance, Chomsky seems only capable of dealing with historical facts.
Looking forward, Chomsky has no creative or innovative solutions. He’s simply not a creative thinker; he’s stuck in a dry analytical mode, and unable to come up with new ideas or solutions. His solution to every problem is always within the established framework of law and order.
As a Zionist, he reveals the ugly side of his self-styled “morality.” He constantly excuses the Israeli government and deprecates the power of the Israeli lobby. He’s so stuck in his narrow view, that he’s unable to really consider other ideas, let alone come up with them himself.
Matter,
You indicate your ignorance both of Chomsky and of accountants.
Reducto ad hominem. Nice to see you hadn’t lost your Zionist touch while you were off pretending that the last two weeks didn’t happen.
“You don’t know the history of psychiatry. I do”
Yeah Richard, I bet you are capable of some real creative accounting.
Yup, that’s just what I want in my accountant, creativity.
matter June 17, 2010 at 8:07 am
“But this vision is always looking backward. Just as an actual accountant is only concerned with counting out past performance, Chomsky seems only capable of dealing with historical facts.”
Even when I was fan of his, back in the mid90′s I noticed he seemed out of touch with current events. This became apparent during the Yugoslav break-up. Instead of a useful analysis of what was going on there, which I had hoped to hear from him, he said the west should arm the Bosnians (or Kosovars – I forget which now) since the east armed the Serbs. And that was about it, for a long time. And this from an avowed pacifist, recommending something that would be sure to create more war in the region. I started seriously wondering if he was getting senile. At the time, I was still wearing those rose coloured classes, though, and still had not digested all of his other irregularities. I now understand the context in which he made that statement, it’s much like the context in which he supported the mossad/cia green “color revolution” against iran last summer.
HAYATE- My recollection of events is that Chomsky always opposed US/NATO intervention in Yugoslavia. In his 1999 book, THE NEW MILITARY HUMANISM, he ridiculed the US/NATO humanitarian pretexts. I’ve never read anything he said about giving arms to the Bosnians or Kosovars. Perhaps you could share your source material. Same for his alleged support of the Iranian “green” uprising.
The time he advocated allowing the Bosnians or Kosvars arms was around 1995. At the time there was a blockade against sending arms to Yugoslavia. He proposed this in interviews at that time and may have written it in one of his z mag articles at that time, as well. I distinctly remember him proposing this several times throughout that period. Later, he may of condemned those israeloamerican/nato/eu sponsored civil wars, but he wasn’t exactly promoting the wars in 1995, either. His analysis was decidedly vague and sparse. What he said/wrote in the later 90′s I missed, as I didn’t follow what he writing/saying during that time, so I cant comment on what his views were then.
You could try looking up the z mag chomsky articles and other writings from that time or you might find his interviews. The period could also be later, as well, maybe 1996, even 97, when he was still repeating this idea of his about the arms, but I doubt it was from that later period.
matter, thank you for that thorough analysis although it is difficult to read when my computer monitor is constantly floating upwards into the air… I guess all the hot air is causing some kind of Archemedian effect…
And again, Witty is on the same wavelength as the crazy, mean, vicious attacking Zionist newcomer.
Who is surprised by this? Not me.
Oren, you can only save yourself! Flee Mondoweiss before it’s too late!
Thank God for the victim-hood card, it’s the ace up the manipulative sleeve of the Israeli government. Without it Israel would have to grow up and act like an adult and take responsibility for its increasingly disgusting behaviour. But at this point in time it can still spit the dummy, throw a tantrum like a three-year-old spoilt brat and spit and slobber about being picked on, while it continues to bully and brutalise the Palestinians.
And the Israeli flag bears the Star of David after King David. You remember him? The adulterer, murderer, and mass slaughterer of civilians on mass. He would be tried at the Hague for war crimes if he were alive today.
Miss Dee, although many will disagree with your characterization of a middle eastern personality, you will not witness:
- wide scale violent protests in the street
- death warrants
- savage murders
- state wide boycott of facebook and other popular social websites
Rational, moderate, “western” Israelis vs. violent, irrational, savage Arabs/Muslims. You’re not missing a hasbara trick in the book, are you? I hate to bring out the dreaded T-word, but your numerous irrelevant talking-pointish comments on this thread are a sure sign of trolling. Please stop.
Shmuel,
I deny your accusation of trolling. I am not posting inflammatory statements. I am trying to accurately measure the motivations and intentions of certain commentators.
Oren,
“I am trying to accurately measure the motivations and intentions of certain commentators.”
Then read the archives.
“I am trying to accurately measure the motivations and intentions of certain commentators”
What are you doing, drawing up an indictment? Gonna turn us in? Could you be any more officious? No, I don’t think it’s possible.
Oren, your Bar Mitzvah is supposed to be the start of your manhood as a Jewish man. Who told you the intent was to get stuck at the intellectual age of 13? And a nasty little snitchy thirteen year old, at that.
Oh really Oren? As we speak 50,000 Haredim have taken to the streets of Israel today where they are protesting on mass against a court ruling that forbids the Haredim from discriminating against Sephardic students in their schools. These and previous demonstations have involved stone and bottle throwing, assaulting police and setting tyres and dumpsters on fire.
Then we could mention the regular savage murders of Palestinian civilians by the Israeli security forces such as Operation Cast Lead and the brutal assault on the Free Gaza flotilla..just the latest of many. Then we could go into the targeted assassinations of often unarmed Palestinian political opponents who are executed by Israeli hit squads when they could have been arrested. Etc. ad infinitum.
you know, if Chomsky stands for anything, its cleaning your own house. he occupies himself with issues that are a direct result of american action (or inaction). when I see people who direct their energies at cleaning other peoples houses, I am certain that it is to distract themselves from their own messy lives.
cleaning your own house
The 3e gambit! Haven’t seen that one in a while. You can check off the box next to “internal matter” now. What, nothing about Native Americans or Mexico?
okay Shmuel, you got me… i’m leaving for the day. but now that i’m gone, what will you do?
You’re too busy worrying about the state of cleanliness of other people’s houses when you should be occupied cleaning up your own Mideast apartheid house or your apartheid house-loving and supporting US house.
“but now that i’m gone, what will you do?”
Talk like grown-ups.
I don’t think Oren reads the Israeli press, where such things are reported daily.
I think that the story of David, set c.1000 but taking its current form c.500, is a very powerful poetic reflection on militarism and religion. David, himself a poet, uses soft as well as hard power. A nation is forged by a man of mixed race and mixed morality but inspiring speech, ultimately derived from a sense of being commissioned by God, though his relationship with God, whose temple he somehow fails to found, is ambiguous. The relationship between the religion of Yahweh, centred in Jerusalem by his successors, and the religion of God Most High, established in Jerusalem by his predecessors, is remarkably interesting and debatable. To this day some debate whether Jerusalem is the capital of Judaism or of monotheism (both terms hard to define, of course).
The Biblical story concerns suffering but also gives a major place, not to be forgotten when victim status is under discussion, to conquest, power and magnificence. The Israelites/Jews are portrayed (perhaps quite fictionally) as mighty conquerors behaving in ways that are terrible by ancient as well as modern standards. I think that the writers of these stories put to us the claim that terrible deeds have to be accepted if they are part of God’s inevitably difficult enlightenment of deluded and sinful humanity. We don’t have to believe this, but it’s powerful poetry.
If you add the ‘Apocrypha’ the story of power and magnificence, now linked to a sense of full equality, to say the least, in the international intellectual world, continues significantly.
This man has an interesting take on chomsky’s work:
Saturday, July 26, 2008
AGAINST CHOMSKY
by Denis G. Rancourt
link to activistteacher.blogspot.com
To get a better idea of where Rancourt is coming from, take a look at this interview. It’s interesting.
Questioning Foundations: An Interview with Denis Rancourt
by Michael Barker / June 17th, 2010
link to dissidentvoice.org
I think this analysis is unfair and a little hysterical.
Rancourt writes :
Education as a “first step” constrains us to study and precludes action until an “understanding” is sufficiently complete
…Chomsky feeds our need for truth by providing analysis, an intellectual framework that resides in inaction
Here he thinks he is criticizing, but at the same time describing something which is necessary. Study is always a prerequisite to doing something meaningful and useful instead of throwing oneself headlong into a movement without understanding. Action without understanding can be very dangerous, and arrogant, unchecked power and privilege are its best representatives.
The same scientific method that has alienated us from nature and from our own selves
On the contrary, the scientific method has gotten us closer to nature and away form superstition and acceptance of “the way things are”, hasn’t it?
Characterizing Chomsky as someone who “works for the man” is kind of comical.
LAREINEBLANCHE- Attacking Chomsky seems to be a growth industry. Under attack from the Zionist right for a long time, he is now being pilloried by those on the left who appear to have an agenda. It started big-time with one-time lefty Christopher Hitchens, who garnered neocon cred with anti-Chomsky slurs. Others, still on the left, have piled on. Usually, it involves something he hasn’t said/endorsed which is unfairly conflated to active opposition. Or to something someone alleges he said in some unspecified interview, etc. I have yet to see any of his critics cite anything that Chomsky has written and easily verifiable. This appears to be a classic case of sectarian strife where some lefties see Chomsky as the competition for the hearts and minds of their target constituency. Also, perhaps some are allured by the prospect of a Hitchens type switch to greener pastures. In any event, the notion of Noam Chomsky as some sort of villain is ludicrous.
Atzmon describes the irony of chomsky being denied entry to the West Bank by israel:
Planet Chomsky vs. Dershowitz’s Orbit by Gilad Atzmon
May 17, 2010 at 5:44PM
(Excerpts)
Interestingly enough, Chomsky is not exactly the harsh anti Zionist figure that Dershowitz wants us to believe. Along the years, Chomsky was flirting heavily with Zionism. He was often visiting Israeli universities. I myself attended his Tel Aviv University lectures in the 1980’s. Chomsky was spreading some bizarre ungrounded ideas defying early Zionist commitment to the Jewish state. As American activist Jeff Blankfort pointed out recently Chomsky has been dismissing the power of the pro-Israel lobby. He opposed the BDS movement and made some efforts to “dissuade people from using the term, apartheid, to describe Israel’s control over Palestinian society”. Chomsky also opposes the Palestinian right of return and a one-state solution. Chomsky is in fact, a liberal Zionist as well as a kibbutz enthusiast. He may as well be the prototype of the righteous Jew and Zionist fig leaf. And in spite of that Israel denied the entry of the 82 year old American academic
Israel now admits that it made a mistake. In fact Israel couldn’t inflict more harm on itself. As it happens, Chomsky’s border incident yesterday may as well be the biggest contribution the American academic has ever made to the anti Zionist struggle.
link to gilad.co.uk
HAYATE- First of all, thanks for the link to the Gilad Atzmon article. When I clicked on the link and read his article, then clicked on his link to an actual Chomsky interview, I couldn’t believe the extent to which Atzmon misrepresented Chomsky. One can only wonder at his motivation for such blatant misrepresentation. I’ve read Atzmon in the past and liked him, but now I wonder how trustworthy he is. I encourage everyone to read the article link to gilad.co.uk , then click on his link to the Chomsky interview link to chomsky.info and compare what Chomsky says to what Atzmon says he says.
A couple of examples to make a point. Atzmon says: “Chomsky also opposes the Palestinian right of return and a one-state solution.” Chomsky discusses at length his opinion (not mine) that a one-state solution is unrealistic. This is not the same as opposing it. As for the right of return, Chomsky states: “Palestinian refugees should certainly not be willing to renounce the right of return, but in this world– not some imaginary world we can discuss in seminars– that right will not be exercised, in more than a limited way, within Israel.” In other words, Chomsky supports the right of return but believes that it will be severely limited within Israel. That is his assessment. We can agree or disagree, but to claim that he opposes the right of return is falsification.
One more example. Atzmon says: “Chomsky was spreading some bizarre ungrounded ideas defying early Zionist commitment to the Jewish state.” Chomsky, an early cultural (not political) Zionist said this: “Until December 1942, the Zionist movement had no formal commitment to a Jewish state. Until the state was established in May, 1948, opposition to a Jewish state was within the Zionist movement. Later, the concept of ’Zionism’ was very narrowly restricted for propaganda purposes.” Is this true? In A CALCULATED RISK, Evan Wilson says: “The real importance of the Biltmore Program (in May, 1942) was that here for the first time the Zionist movement came out officially for a Jewish state in Palestine. This was a radical new departure attributable chiefly to the influence of the American Zionists….” Once again, Atzmon’s criticism is unjustified, bearing little, if any, relation to what Chomsky actually said.
One can only wonder what motivates the anti-Chomsky animus of some on the left, or to what useful purpose they think it serves.
I didn’t post the Atzmon piece to argue with a sayanim about it. Nor the Rancourt pieces. But go ahead and knock yourselves out, it’s amusing.
;D
One of the most unusual hodgepodge of strange alliances I’ve noticed is that of worshippers of the chomsky religion© Probably the most bizarre practitioner of this religion I’ve come across was a guy from the Baltics who besides his fanatic belief in the chomsky religion©, also supported the rewriting of history to show Baltic members of the waffen ss as heroes (you know [cough] “freedom fighters”, as senior raygun may have called them). No joke. :D
In line withthat bizarre behaviour, is that a year or two before the the last american prez [s]election, on zionist sites, more than a few posters that had been pro-bush wars, fanatic israeli supporters and generally anti-left switched over to become obama supporters. An amazing turnabout, that. But even more odd, was many of these people would now defend chomsky when somebody posted a criticism of his work. Talk about strange bedfellows….
Oh well, the lord works in mysterious ways, eh?
:D