Thursday, August 19, 2004

The Anger of Noam Chomsky: Part II

Chomsky is an angry man. He is so consumed by his anger and spite that anyone who has an opinion that runs contrary to his view is automatically branded as a Fascist Neo-Nazi hatemonger. With a wave of the hand all America's are engage in anti-Arab bigotry, "a lot of racism here [in America], it was assumed [the reason Sadat lost the Yom Kippur War was] that Arabs didn't know which end of the gun to hold and that sort of thing". Anyone who disagrees with his position on divestment is acting like a Stalinist, "Even if the petition had singled out Israel ... it would be an absurdity reminiscent of the worst days of Stalinism to call that anti-Semitic". The United States of America during the Cold War was essentially, "picking up where the Nazis had left off". Maybe someone forgot to tell Chomsky the Nazis were slaughtering Jews by the millions or maybe that doesn't really matter to him. Chomsky calls everyone he disagrees with Nazis or Stalinists. He has an unflinching hatred for those that disagree with him.

Besides Chomsky's abuse of the analogy of Stalinism and Nazism as his only mode of attacking those he disagrees with, Chomksy has the nerve (or the chutzpah if you please) to claim Israel uses the memory of Nazi aggression against the Jews, the Holocaust, to further its political agenda. Chomsky states, "[The Holocaust is] quite certainly real, there's no question about that, but it is also undoubted that [Israelis] manipulate [the Holocaust]." As evidence Chomsky cites the following incident,

[I]n the Jerusalem Post, in English so you can read it, their Washington correspondent Wolf Blitzer, I don't recall the exact date, but after one of the big Holocaust memorial meetings in Washington he wrote an article in the Jerusalem Post in which he said it was a great success. He said, "Nobody mentioned arms sales to the Arabs but all the Congressmen understood that that was the hidden message. So we got it across."
Apparently 'nobody mentioning arms sales' is a big deal to Chomsky and that implies some sort of abuse of the Holocaust. Ironically enough Chomsky seems to forget another big arms deal. This one however involved the USSR and Egypt at a time when Egypt supposedly offering a peace settlement to Israel. In the above article Chomsky mentions "Egypt offered a full peace treaty to Israel," yet he neglects to mention that an arms sale between Egypt and the USSR was being conducted. So I guess all the Chomskytes understood the hidden message - arms sales are important only if they involve certain groups, others are apparently excused.

Leaving Chomsky's blatant hypocrisy one should note how he proceeds label all those he hates as Nazi's but never acknowledges those who are or have collaborated with Nazis during the Holocaust. Take for example the 'Grand' Mufti of Jerusalem during the period of the British Mandate. The Mufti was a rapid supporter of Adolph Hitler. In fact they had a meeting with each other, and the Mufti sent a letter to other European nations encourgeing them to join the Nazi program. In addition the Mufti was a 'personal friend' of Eichmann.

But if you read only the maertial by Chomsky on the Arab Israeli Conflict you would know none of this. Chomsky's tome on the Arab Israeli dispute, The Faithful Triangle makes no mention of the Mufti at all. A simple search on the official web page of Noam Chomsky where dozens of his articles and books are published results in zero hits for the word 'mufti'. However, on the converse the word 'Nazi' returns a total of 81 hits and the The Faithful Triangle makes references to Nazism numerous times. A brief survey of every utterance Chomsky makes about Nazism shows that it is in reference to how Israel, Zionism or America are Nazi like.

Chomsky is an angry man. He believes the whole world is comprised of Nazi like people, just because they disagree with him. On top off that these people abuse the history of Nazism to further their own political agenda. If Chomsky bothered to read his own statements from time to time he might notice how his own contempt for others who disagree with him has led him to abuse the past and made his own comments about others dip into the realm of 'sacrilege'.

Wednesday, August 18, 2004

The Anger of Noam Chomsky

A fellow anti-Chomskyte sent me the following article:

Copyright 1994 Globe Newspaper Company
The Boston Globe

HEADLINE: Doing a sales job on Noam's tome;
BYLINE: By Alex Beam, Globe Staff

If you're having a fancy soiree anytime soon, you might do well not to seat Hillel Stavis, the owner of WordsWorth bookstore in Harvard Square, and MIT linguistics professor Noam Chomsky too close to each other.

Stavis is hardly the only person who finds Chomsky's strident anti-Israeli political pronouncements objectionable; yet unlike many others, he is in a position to do something about it. When you go to WordsWorth in Harvard Square, you will find displayed next to Chomsky's political writings a small chapbook called "The Hidden Alliances of Noam Chomsky, " published by an organization called Americans for Safe Israel. The 39-page pamphlet, written by a retired professor named Werner Cohn, documents Chomsky's public statements defending the work of French academic Robert Faurisson, who is best known for calling Hitler's slaughter of the European Jews a "historical lie" and an "alleged genocide."

Earlier this month, Stavis approached Chomsky at a lecture and said he would try to get the Cohn pamphlet distributed in bookstores across the United States. "He went ballistic, this great defender of free speech called Cohn a neo-Nazi," Stavis recalls. "There's a sinister part to this guy. He's a Jewish self-hater, and he's nuts. You can quote me on that."

In an interview, Chomsky denies that he lost his temper, but confirms that he does regard Cohn to be a neo-Nazi, because he denies freedom of speech to his opponents. "They take my views and lie about them," says Chomsky, who explains that while he defends Faurisson's right to be heard, he is diametrically opposed to the Holocaust denial efforts. As far back as 1969, Chomsky says, "I wrote essay condemning the 'monstrous denials of Hitler's crimes.' Even by entering into the debate about these questions, you've lost your humanity."

As for Stavis, Chomsky bemusedly remembers receiving a letter in which the bookseller indicated he would be donating all profits from sales of Chomsky's books to the Safe Israel committee, and asked the professor if he wanted his name included among the donors. Chomsky never replied, though he appears to be replying now: "I grant Stavis his right to be an ultraright racist and an anti-Arab fanatic."
The person who emailed me the article has this to say about the article and Chomsky’s spite:
JUST SO WE ARE ALL CLEAR ABOUT CHOMSKY'S CONCEPTION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH: IF YOU DISAGREE WITH HIM, YOU ARE DENYING HIM HIS FREEDOM OF SPEECH, AND OF COURSE THAT MAKES YOU A NEO-NAZI. QUITE A LIBERTARIAN, ISN'T HE?
How true.