Wednesday, June 30, 2004

Wise Words from Noam

I have recently stumbled upon these wise words once uttered by Noam Chomsky,

The Internet is an elite organization. Most of the population of the world has never even made a phone call.

Considering the fact that Noam Chomsky has his own blog I am wondering does that make him an elitist too?

Tuesday, June 29, 2004

Whats that you say Noam?

As I was browsing old Noam Chomsky articles I came across an excerpt from Chronicles of Dissent, which was published in 1992 and has been subsequently been uploaded onto the Internet. The article is a prime example as to how Chomsky's perpetrates a lie in an attempt to blacken the reputation of Israel and America.

The topic of the article is a solution to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Chomsky starts out by explaining that, "one possibility is a democratic secular society." But then Chomsky disregards that idea by stating that,"Virtually nobody is in favor of that. Some people[*] say they are, but if you look closely they're not really." Wait a second here wasn't Chomsky one of the original proponents of a 'bi-national' state in all of Palestine? Maybe he is trying to drop hints to the reader and tell them that he actually was never really "in favor" of the bi-national state idea only proposing in hopes of that it would lead to Israel's destruction? Whatever the case maybe, Chomsky now believes that, "The only realistic political settlement, for the time being, in the past ten or twelve years, that would satisfy the right of self-determination for both national groups is a two-state settlement." He goes on to state that for the solution to work, "Israel [will have to be] within approximately the pre-June 1967 borders and a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and a return of the Golan Heights to Syria, or maybe some other arrangement."

The article starts to get interesting when Chomsky begins to argue who are proponents of the two-state solution and who are adversaries of the idea.

"It's supported by Europe, by the Soviet Union, has been for a long time, by almost all the non-aligned countries, it's supported by all the major Arab states and has been for a long time, supported by the mainstream of the PLO and, again, has been for a long time."[Emphasis are mine]


Whats that you say Noam the 'mainstream of the PLO' and 'major Arab states' have 'for a long time' supported a two state solution? And who do you think are the real enemies of peace in the Middle East? According to Chomsky, it's opposed, by the "rejection front in the Arab World" and "minority elements in the PLO." However, Chomsky concludes that, "crucially it's opposed by the leaders of the rejection front, namely the United States and Israel." He goes on to rave that, "The United States and Israel adamantly oppose it. The United States will not consider it. Both political groupings in Israel reject it totally." So it's really the Israelis, both political parties, and the Americas who are an impediment to peace in the Middle East. And the majority of the PLO and the Arab world are really the only one in the Middle East who support a two state solution.

It's time to examine the record and see who in the Middle East is actually opposed to what, and if Chomsky's world of make believe actually holds true. First the claim that, "all the major Arab states", have been proponents of a two state solution and have "been for a long time." If this is the case why when 'Palestine' (the West Bank and Gaza) were under Jordanian and Egyptian rule was their no sovereignty granted to the Palestinians? According to Chomsky "major Arab states", they don't get much more major that Egypt and Jordan, are in favor of a two state solution. But leaving that aside for the moment, why doesn't Chomsky let Arab leaders speak for themselves? If a majority of Arabs want a two state solution why doesn't he present the evidence? A look at comment made by officials in Arab world should suffice:

On June 24, 1951, the Iraq newspaper Filastin quoted Dr. Fadhil Jamali, the oil-rich Arab kingdom's Ambassador-at-Large and delegate to the UN: "Whoever thinks of making peace with the enemy signs the death warrant of all the Arab nations."

In mid-August, 1952, Cairo's Al Ahram quoted Brig. Gen. Adib Shishekly, then president of Syria:"The Middle East is not large. enough for both Jews and Arabs."

When Mohammed Naguib was Gamal Nasser's hand-picked president of Egypt, back in June, 1953, a story in Cairo's Al Yakzah quoted him as follows on the situation in the Middle East: "The only solution is Israel's disappearance."

On Nov. 15, 1953, The New York Times quoted Fawzi Mulki, then prime minister of Jordan: "Jordan's policy will continue to be 'no peace with Israel.'"

On Jan. 10, 1954, The Times quoted King Saud of Arabia: "Israel is like a cancer to the human body, and the only way of remedy is to uproot it . . . We Arabs total about 150,000,000. Why don't we sacrifice 10 million of our number and live in pride and self-respect?"

On April 12, 1954, Cairo's Al-Misri quoted Mohammed Salah-ad-Din:"We shall only have completed satisfaction when Israel is finally blotted out from the map of the Middle East. The Arabs will find no rest until this cancer has been removed from their heart."

On Oct. 15, 1954, Nasser's official mouthpiece, El-Gomhou1ia, said this:"Egypt and the Arabs must turn in the name of humanity and culture to all nations of the world who will aid in wiping Israel off the face of the map...."


Which part of the Arab world did Chomsky say has had a long history of supporting a two state solution?

The next mind boggling assertion made by Chomsky is that major elements in the PLO support a two state solution while only minor elements are against it. A simple glance at the PLO charter should suffice:

Article 2. Palestine with its boundaries at the time of the British Mandate is a regional indivisible unit. [Dhimmi: Just in case you where wondering what part of Palestine the PLO charter was referencing when it uses the term Palestine: all of it.]

Article 17. The Partitioning of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of Israel are illegal and false regardless of the loss of time, because they were contrary to the wish of the Palestine people and its natural right to its homeland, and in violation of the basic principles embodied in the charter of the United Nations, foremost among which is the right to self-determination.

Article 28. The Fundamental Law for the Palestine Liberation Organization is attached to this Covenant. This Law defines the manner of establishing the Organization, its organs, institutions, the specialities of each one of them, and all the needed duties thrust upon it in accordance with this Covenant. [Dhimmi: Just in case you were wondering to which elements are this covenant binding, I don't see a division between major and minor elements, do you Chomsky?]


Well, if the PLO, according to Chomsky, was going for a two state solution in Palestine you think they might have updated their charter. The last allegation that the, 'United States and Israel are adamantly oppose' to a two state solution,is so ridiculous that it doesn't even merit a response.



*I wonder if Noam is talking about Edward here? Hey, Noam if you ever stubble across my web page drop me a line and tell me who you were talking about here, I would love to know.


Update: While I was reading Arafat's War by Efraim Karsh, a wonderful book by the way, I came across this quote from Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser: "We will always see to it that they [Palestinians] do not become too powerful. Can you imagine yet another nation on the shores of the eastern Mediterranean!" This is very odd, Chomsky is claiming that the major Arab states have been in favor of a two state solution for a long time; Nasser wasn't even in favor of creating a Palestinian state. Chomsky is just plain wrong.


Update 2: Some more recent speeches by Arafat calling for the destruction of Israel:

As early as August 1968, Arafat defined the PLO's strategic objective as "the transfer of all resistance bases" into the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, occupied by Israel during the June 1967 war, "so that the resistance may be gradually transformed into a popular armed revolution." This, he reasoned, would allow the PLO to undermine Israel's way of life by "preventing immigration and encouraging emigration destroying tourism weakening the Israeli economy and diverting the greater part of it to security requirements [and] creating and maintaining an atmosphere of strain and anxiety that will force the Zionists to realize that it is impossible for them to live in Israel."

On May 10, 1994, Yasir Arafat gave what he thought was an off-the-record talk at a mosque while visiting Johannesburg, South Africa. But a South African journalist, Bruce Whitfield of 702 Talk Radio, found a way secretly to record his (English-language) remarks ... Arafat's bellicose talk in Johannesburg about a "jihad to liberate Jerusalem," had a major impact on Israelis, beginning a process of disillusionment that has hardly abated in the intervening years. No less damaging than his comments about Jerusalem was Arafat's cryptic allusion about his agreement with Israel. Criticized by Arabs and Muslims for having made concessions to Israel, he defended his actions by comparing them to those of the Prophet Muhammad in a similar circumstance:I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the Quraysh in Mecca.Arafat further drew out the comparison, noting that although Muhammad had been criticized for this diplomacy by one of his leading companions (and a future caliph), 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, the prophet had been right to insist on the agreement, for it helped him defeat the Quraysh and take over their city of Mecca. In a similar spirit,we now accept the peace agreement, but [only in order] to continue on the road to JerusalemIn the five years since he first alluded to Muhammad and the Quraysh, Arafat has frequently mentioned this as a model for his own diplomacy.

"We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem....All the rich Jews who will get compensation will travel to America....We of the PLO will now concentrate all our efforts on splitting Israel psychologically into two camps. Within five years we will have six to seven million Arabs living in the West Bank and in Jerusalem....You understand that we plan to eliminate the State of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian State....I have no use for Jews; they are and remain Jews."
Yasser Arafat, Private speech entitled "The Impending Total Collapse of Israel", Stockholm, Sweden, January 30, 1996

The Oslo accords are comparable to "when the Prophet Mohammed made the Hudaibiya (Khudaibiya) agreement...we must learn from his steps...We respect agreements the way that the Prophet Mohammed respected the agreements which he signed." Mohammed in fact breached the agreement, pillaging Mecca and killing many of its citizens with whom he had come to the "peace" agreement.
Yasser Arafat, Egyptian Orbit TV, April 18, 1998

Monday, June 28, 2004

Meet Chomsky's Disciple: Norman Finkelstein

There is another Chomsky clone, I wonder if there is a minting factory or something, who made a name for himself by publishing a review of Joan Peters' From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab–Jewish Conflict Over Palestine, his name: Norman Finkelstein. The past couple of years this Chomsky-te has been roaming the world and the internet promoting his screed of a book: The Holocaust Industry. Paul Bogdanor has a nice review of his book and I think it's important for all to understand what type of person Finkelstein really is:

Finkelstein calls the Holocaust an "ideological representation" whose "central dogmas serve significant political and class interests" (3). He argues that American Jews are the class enemy, ruthless collaborators with capitalism and imperialism, who use the memory of the gas chambers to oppress their victims. The result is a gruesome parody of ethnic self-hatred: "Lording it over those least able to defend themselves: that is the real content of organized American Jewry's reclaimed courage" (38). Furthermore: "By conferring total blamelessness on the Jews, the Holocaust dogma [sic] immunizes Israel and American Jewry from legitimate censure" (52). The Holocaust "dogma" must be overcome, so that the Jews can once again be "censured" with impunity. If Arab extremists wish to annihilate the Israelis, then the Israelis clearly deserve it. If black racists blame the Jews for their problems, then the Jews must be at fault. "Ever chastised, ever innocent," he sneers, "this is the burden of being a Jew" (53).

Finkelstein and Chomsky they make a perfect pair.

Sunday, June 27, 2004

Chomsky’s War Against Israel

For those of you who can't wait until The anti-Chomsky Reader is published by Encounter Books, Paul Bogdanor chapter on Chomsky's War Against Israel has been reprinted on the internet.

In Noam Chomsky’s books, essays and public campaigns stretching back for decades, one theme is constant: his portrayal of the state of Israel as the focus of evil in the Middle East, a malevolent outlaw whose only redeeming feature is the readiness of its own left-wing intelligentsia to expose its uniquely horrifying depravity. His efforts began in the 1970s with the short polemic, Peace in the Middle East?, in which he argued that the country should be replaced by a binational socialist regime; they escalated in the 1980s with his lengthier works, Fateful Triangle and Pirates and Emperors, which portrayed Israel as a terrorist state with "points of similarity" to Nazi Germany; and they culminated in his most recent collection of diatribes, Middle East Illusions, in which he continues to present Israel as the main obstacle to peace in the region, in the midst of horrible war crimes against Israeli civilians.1 Dozens of publications, lectures and interviews contain further symptoms of Chomsky's fixation upon the Jewish state. However, as we shall see, his polemics on the Arab-Israeli conflict bear the hallmarks of his intellectual repertoire – massive falsification of facts, evidence, sources and statistics, conducted in the service of a bigoted and extremist ideological agenda.

It is definitely a must read, so go check it out.

Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn Plan to Vote for Ralph Nader

That's the word, Noam Chomsky and his comrade Howard Zinn, are voting for Ralph Nader in the next presidential election. Hopefully more Chomksy-tes might be enthralled to do so too, and Nader will do to Kerry what, Ross Perot did to Bush Sr. Leaving that point aside one should note the apparent 'hipocracy' vote, a ballot cast in Nader’s favor entails:

Nader's latest financial disclosure report reveals the consumer advocate owns at least $2.1 million in corporate stock, which accounts for more than half his total net worth of $3.8 million. You'd think that someone who attacks corporate brass as "criminals" and "crooks" would never trust them with so much of his own money.

But then again Chomsky is never one who will not do something because it is hypocritical stance.