Wednesday, June 23, 2004

The Hebrew press is much more open than the English language press, and there's a very obvious reason: Hebrew is a secret language, you only read it if you're inside the tribe. Like most cultures it's a tribal culture.

--Noam Chomsky, Anti-Semitism, Zionism, and the Palestinians

Can anyone really defend this kind of blatant Anti-Semitism?

The Anti-Chomsky Reader

A seemingly great new book has emerged: The Anti-Chomsky Reader.

A brief summary of the book from

In "The Anti-Chomsky Reader," editors Peter Collier and David Horowitz have assembled a set of essays that analyze Chomsky's intellectual career and the evolution of his anti-Americanism. The essays in this provocative book focus on subjects such as Chomsky's bizarre involvement with Holocaust revisionism, his apologies for Khmer Rouge tyrant Pol Pot, and his claim that America's policies in Latin America in the 1980s were comparable to Nazism. Scholar Paul Bogdanor writes about Chomsky's hatred of Israel. Ronald Radosh and David Horowitz discuss his gloating reaction to the September 11 attack. Linguists Paul Postal and Robert Levine reevaluate Chomsky's linguistics and find the same qualities there that others see in his politics: "a deep contempt for the truth, descents into incoherence, and verbal abuse of those who disagree with him."

"The Anti-Chomsky Reader" presents a fascinating composite portrait of a man who arguably is our most influential public intellectual.

A fellow anti-Chomsky-ite has started a anti-Chomsky website. The time has come for the masses to rise up, the anti-Chomsky revolution has begun =).

Monday, June 21, 2004

A Real Mideast Solution?

Noam Chomsky has proposed a solution to the decades old Israel-Palestine conflict. His prosal: a two-state settlement on the international border (green line), with "minor and mutual adjustments". This is seemingly a first for Chomsky who use to support a binational state. Nonetheless, Chomsky endorses the Geneva Accords. He even blasts America for not [being] among the governments sending a message of support for the accords. There was never any office reason give by the United States as to why they did not support the initiative, though the Bush Administration has called it a productive exercise. Moreover if Chomsky had cared to do some simple research he would have learned about the scrupulous past of, Yossi Beilin one of the Chief Architects of both Oslo and the Geneva Accords. Professor Efraim Karsh points out Beilin's past mistakes by stating that:

Yossi Beilin, Oslo's chief architect, [made] the arrogant prediction, shortly after the festive ceremony on the White House lawn, that the [Oslo] accord's real test "will not be in the intellectual sphere, but will rather be a test of blood." Should there be no significant drop in terrorism within a year or two from the establishment of the Palestinian Authority (i.e., May 1994), he argued, there would be "no more excuses" for Palestinian inaction and Israel would have to renege on the Oslo Accords. "This will only be a means of last resort," Beilin said. "But if we realize that the level of violence does not subside, we will not be able to proceed, and will most certainly not implement the final-status agreement. And should there be no choice, the IDF will return to those places which it is about to leave in the coming months." Seven years after the expiry of Beilin's deadline for the "test of blood" and some 1,300 murdered Israelis, isn't it time for the Labor Party to show some humility, if not outright remorse?

And this is the man that Chomsky wants to put in charge of the Middle East Peace Process?

Sunday, June 20, 2004

Chomsky Lying?

A fellow comrade of Chomsky has posed the question did Bush lie on the reasons for 9-11? His answer: a resounding NO. Why you ask, because George W. Bush, much like other conservative presidents before him are, poor souls whose knowledge of the world [are] restricted pretty much to their note cards. He goes on to rave that much like a three year old who can't tell the difference between fact and fiction, President Bush doesn't have competence to understand the difference between truth and falsehood.

Like his previous diatribes this one reveals more about Chomsky than it does President Bush. In his analysis Chomsky points out the reason why America was attacked on 9-11 was because they are so hated. And why are they so hated, because the decisive US support for vicious Israeli repression of Palestinians and robbery of their resources, and the murderous US-UK sanctions that were devastating the civilian society of Iraq. Chomsky goes on to claim that these are unpleasant truths. Leaving aside the fact that the sanctions where passed in the United Nations, there is overwhelming evidence that has accumulated both before and after the war on Iraq, that points to the main culprit - Saddam - for the reasons that the sanctions have been so devastating. See here, here, here and here. Even The Nation could not help but notice the blood on Saddams hands. The most damming evidence seemingly comes from Shafeeq N. Ghabra, a professor of political science at Kuwait University. As the professor notes:

The Arab summit in March 2001 revealed two key aspects of Iraq's policy. First, Iraq's undermining of the Arab position during the summit to ask the U.N. Security Council to lift the sanctions shows that Baghdad does not in fact want the sanctions lifted. Sanctions benefit the regime in several ways, winning it sympathy in Arab circles and allowing it to control the Iraqi people. Lifting the sanctions that hurt the people of Iraq while keeping the military sanctions and the U.N.-controlled escrow account would open a dynamic the regime could not control. Second, Iraq continues to harbor negative intentions towards Kuwait. This became clear when Iraq's representatives in the summit refused a clause that obliges Iraq to guarantee Kuwait's security and sovereignty.

So why would Chomsky propagate such an obvious falsehood? And why would he and many others like him let themselves become the pawns of tyrants and "evil doers" around the world. Maybe they just don't have the competence to understand it.