Has Chomsky ever called for the end of Israel ? Has Chomsky ever justified Palestinian right of armed resistance ? His criticisms of Israel fall completely well within the acceptable guidelines of the America intellectual class . If you want an insight into his thinking on the Israel/Palestinian conflict read his Fateful Triangle if you know how to analyze what you read nowhere in that book does he justify Palestinian resistance . Chomsky only relates in his book what is already common knowledge about Israeli atrocities . You want to go further with this intellectual fake read his interview with David Barsamian ( secrets , lies and democracy=Odonian Press ) where he said Zionism wasnt racist and then went on to describe Arab nations as anti-semitic and racist .Or read his book ' revisiting Camelot ' where he tries to prove Kennedy was really indeed building up for involvement in Vietnam . All the declassified documents Chomsky showed in the book about Kennedy clearly showed he was indeed pulling troops out Vietnam and was going to end US involvement in early 64 yet he was trying to argue elsewise that Kennedy had a secret agenda. He even spent 12 pages of the book debunking Assassination theories about Kennedy that he really was a victim of a lone nut ! That was the book that made me realize this guy was just what he was the acceptable face of intellectual criticism he knows clearly the guidelines and parameters of criticism and he knows not to cross them . I have analyzed his views from his books on the problems in Central and South America to Sth East Asia . They are really a mass of quotes of cutting and pasting of articles from various sources and in-between he adds his comments accept it that man is a fraud . is already common knowledge what has happened in Central America nothing new comes out just that he has amassed a whole lot of information and put it all in one scrapbook . Again just a whole lot of information to read but no explanation and indictment .
The entire US system is a fraud. Even the allowed sources of discontent are there to defuse pockets of discontent and dissidence without it leading to any real movement of change. Recently a pseudo-anchor of a comedic news parody show called ‘The Daily Show’ appeared on a CNN pseudo-debate news show called ‘Crossfire’, where he criticized it for being a ‘hackery’ and a deception. But nobody has ever dared criticize the entire mass-media industry for being just that; if this pseudo-anchor, comedian had done so he would have never been on a national TV program with a popular following and would probably have been black-booked out of the entire entertainment industry. These valves of ‘outrage expression’ meant to offer directions for safe venting to those that have some ability with critical thought and don’t fall for all of the bullshit they see around them, are parts of the system itself. Nothing ever comes of them. Some lies are exposed, some half-truths are uttered, some spin is offered and everyone leaves feeling content that they have done their duty. You see, the system, as any system, is mainly interested in its own survival. Offering some freedom for expressing rebelliousness and allowing for the exposure of some of its shortcomings, gives the false impression that the system is self-regulating and that change is possible from within the guidelines and the premises of the very arrangement that is being criticized. Even apathy and non-participation in the political process suits the status quo. The sad fact is that there are no news reporters in the US today. What they are is propaganda dispensers and tools of mass-deception that become so popular and famous that they participate openly in the industry that they should belong to: The Entertainment Industry. The irony is that programs like ‘The Daily Show’ are comedy shows parodying news shows and news shows are parodying comedy shows. Noam Chomsky is just another guy that tells us what we already know but never calls for outrage or never insights movement. He’s there to make us feel like we’ve made a difference by just knowing some of the underlying filth in the system, so that the real cesspool remains hidden. Even he does not dare challenge the notion that the US is a democracy or that the electoral process is a sham.
Brian, "is already common knowledge what has happened in Central America nothing new comes out just that he has amassed a whole lot of information and put it all in one scrapbook . Again just a whole lot of information to read but no explanation and indictment ." Would you prefer he write a fictional novel? Or maybe you want him to pick up a rifle and start shooting? I dont understand. Amassing a lot of information not readily available to the public and putting it into a coherant single source with commentary is precisely what he intended to do. How does it make him a fraud? I think you simply disagree with his politics. After all, in the US the far left really isnt that far left as the far right really isn't that far right. Chomsky may be the face of US intellectual criticism, but you sure dont see even his face much on the talk shows. See commentary below... Wanderer, That was pretty funny watching Stewert make those guys squirm. The problem is the boundaries of discussion are so limited with the media. It is a left view vs. right view. A democrat vs. a republican. One spin vs another. Any other possibilities or commentary is inherently excluded. Any attempt at an objective truth or reality is dismissed. The rules of the game dictate the content we receive. It is a result of our failing political system.
Brian Foley: Indeed, Chomsky is the epitome of Jewish American Intellectuals who shys away from Israeli/Palastinian conflicts just like any other Jewish American Intellectuals: In principle, it is not Jews' best interest to be critical about Jewish state, or Jews in general. If one is truely hoping for a change in a system, one has to be in the system; it is inevitable that he gets to play the game. Chomsky, however, never plays the game nor does he part of the system (well, yes in a sense, but a wrong kind of an institution... He, ironically, gets paid working for a pro-military institution, viz., MIT).
It's funny, because the right wingers accuse Noam of doing just that. Abolishing Israel Central to Chomsky’s position is the idea that Israel should cease to exist in its present form. This view is set out in his earliest writings on the subject, where he proclaims that Israel is “a state based on the principle of discrimination. There is no other way for a state with non-Jewish citizens to remain a Jewish state...”2 Taken literally, the claim hardly merits debate. Must a Jewish state deprive its non-Jewish citizens of the right to vote, form political parties, or hold elective office? Must it deny them freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or freedom of association? Chomsky gives no reason why a Jewish homeland must deny these rights to its non-Jewish citizens, although it must be said that they were totally absent in many states to which he has been attracted, such as Maoist China, which he considered “quite admirable”, or Stalinist Vietnam, where he found “a miracle of reconciliation and restraint”, or Pol Pot’s Cambodia, which he compared favorably with the American Revolution, with liberated France, and – to return to our topic – the Israeli kibbutz system.3 http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/04-issue/bogdanor-4.htm It amuses me to see Noam Chomsky being attacked for being insufficiently radical.
