← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Okiereddust

Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict

Thread ID: 17944 | Posts: 3 | Started: 2005-04-25

Wayback Archive

Okiereddust [OP]

2005-04-25 01:19 | User Profile

Jeffrey Blankfort

"In an article in the New York Times (April 19, 2003), reporter Emily Eakin tells the story of a University of Chicago confab called to assess theory's fate. At a session attended by a bevy of humanities superstars, a student asked: What good is theory if, he said, ‘we concede in fact how much more important the actions of Noam Chomsky are in the world than all the writings of critical theorists combined.’" Jon Spayde, Senior Editor, Utne Reader Nov/Dec 2004

Noam Chomsky has been the foremost critic of America’s imperial adventures for more than three decades. That is probably the only point of agreement shared by his legions of loyal supporters and his equally committed although far less numerous detractors. His domination of the field is so extraordinary and unprecedented that one would be hard-put to find a runner-up. It is a considerable achievement for someone who has been described, at times, as a "reluctant icon."[1]

Despite his low-key demeanor and monotone delivery, Chomsky has been anything but reluctant. On closer examination, however, it appears that he has gained his elevated position less from scholarship than from the sheer body of his work that includes books by the dozens–30 in the last 30 years--and speeches and interviews in the hundreds.

In the field of US-Israel-Palestine relations he has been a virtual human tsunami, washing like a huge wave over genuine scholarly works in the field that contradict his critical positions on the Middle East, namely that Israel serves a strategic asset for the US and that the Israeli lobby, primarily AIPAC, is little more than a pressure group like any other trying to affect US policy in the Middle East. For both of these positions, as I will show, he offers only the sketchiest of evidence and what undercuts his theory he eliminates altogether.

Nevertheless, he has ignited the thinking and gained himself the passionate, almost cult-like attachment of thousands of followers across the globe. At the same time it has made him the favorite hate object of those who support and justify the US global agenda and the domination of its junior partner, Israel, over the Palestinians. Who else has whole internet blogs dedicated to nothing else but attacking him?

What is less generally known is that he admits to having been a Zionist from childhood, by one of the earlier definitions of the term–in favor of a Jewish homeland in Palestine and a bi-national, not a Jewish state–and, as he wrote 30 years ago, "perhaps this personal history distorts my perspective.ﾓ[2]Measuring the degree to which it has done so is critical to understanding puzzling positions he has taken in response to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Given the viciousness and the consistency with which Chomsky has been attacked by his critics on the "right," one ventures cautiously when challenging him from the "left." To expose serious errors in Chomsky’s analysis and recording of history is to court almost certain opprobrium from those who might even agree with the nature of the criticism but who have become so protective of his reputation over the years, often through personal friendships, that have they not only failed to publicly challenge substantial errors of both fact and interpretation on his part, they have dismissed attempts by others to do so as "personal" vendettas.

Chomsky himself is no more inclined to accept criticism than his supporters. As one critic put it, "His attitude to who those who disagree with him, is, by and large, one of contempt. The only reason they can't see the simple truth of what he's saying is that they are, in one way or another, morally deficient."[3]

Although I had previously criticized Chomsky for downplaying the influence of the pro-Israel lobby on Washington’s Middle East policies,[4] I had hesitated to write a critique of his overall approach for the reasons noted. Nevertheless, I was convinced that while, ironically, having provided perhaps the most extensive documentation of Israeli crimes, he had, at the same time immobilized, if not sabotaged, the development of any serious effort to halt those crimes and to build an effective movement in behalf of the Palestinian cause.

An exaggeration? Hardly. A number of statements made by Chomsky have demonstrated his determination to keep Israel and Israelis from being punished or inconvenienced for the very monumental transgressions of decent human behavior that he himself has passionately documented over the years. This is one of the glaring contradictions in Chomsky’s work. [B]He would have us believe that Israel’s occupation and harsh actions against the Palestinians, its invasions and undeclared 40 years war on Lebanon, and its arming of murderous regimes in Central America and Africa during the Cold War, has been done as a client state in the service of US interests. In Chomsky’s world view, that absolves Israel of responsibility and has become standard Chomsky doctrine.[/B]......[URL=http://www.leftcurve.org/LC29WebPages/Chomsky.html]LeftCurve[/URL]

Stigmata

2005-04-25 12:17 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Although I had previously criticized Chomsky for downplaying the influence of the pro-Israel lobby on Washington’s Middle East policies,[4] I had hesitated to write a critique of his overall approach for the reasons noted. Nevertheless, I was convinced that while, ironically, having provided perhaps the most extensive documentation of Israeli crimes, he had, at the same time immobilized, if not sabotaged, the development of any serious effort to halt those crimes and to build an effective movement in behalf of the Palestinian cause. [/QUOTE]Excellent analysis, if a bit derivative:

[QUOTE]Adolf Hitler: "Every time there was something new and promising to despoil, the Jew has been immediately involved. He has demonstrated an uncanny ability to sniff out like a bloodhound anything that was dangerous to him. Having found it, he uses all his cunning to get at it, to divert it, to change its nature, or, at least, to deflect its point from its goal. Schopenhauer called the Jew ‘the dregs of mankind,’ ‘a beast,’ ‘the great master of the lie.’ How does the Jew respond? He establishes a Schopenhauer Society. Likewise, the Kant Society is his work, in spite of the fact that—or rather because—Kant summarily declared the Jewish people to be a ‘nation of swindlers.’ The same with the Goethe Society. ‘We tolerate no Jews among us,’ said Goethe. ‘Their religion permits them to rob non-Jews,’ he wrote. ‘This crafty race has one great principle: as long as order prevails, there is nothing to be gained for them,’ he continued. He categorically emphasized: ‘I refrain from all cooperation with Jews and their accomplices.’ All in vain; the Jewish Goethe Society is still there. It would even be there if he himself had expressly forbidden such knavery."

Dietrich Eckhart: "With exactly the same right, the two of us could join a Talmud Society. What impudence that would require! Inconceivable."

Hitler: "Not to the Jew. To him impudence has no meaning. He is only able to think in terms of advantage or disadvantage, profit or loss. To regard him in any other light would be like buying a pig in a poke."

Eckhart: "Our charmers and wizards all fall for their trick. Goethe, Kant, and Schopenhauer seem to be nothing but babblers to them." [/QUOTE]Dietrich Eckhart, Bolshevism from Moses to Lenin

[url="http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17886"]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17886[/url]

Howard Campbell, Jr.

2005-04-26 14:06 | User Profile

"What is less generally known is that he admits to having been a Zionist from childhood, by one of the earlier definitions of the term–in favor of a Jewish homeland in Palestine..."

The early Zionists would disavow the Likudnik, red-heiferist thugs now dominating Palestine. That region was infinitely better off under the Turks and Brits.

As it is, the Talmudists in collusion with the Rapture Cult are set to spark the Apocalypse...