Both great gentlemen understood that driving racism is imperialism. DB does not. He uses me as a strawman for what is clear to nearly ever scholar and historian on the face of the planet. Whether it is his inability to get this or his state of denial to have Zionism the basis for all evil, only he can say.

deadbeat,
if my memory serves me correctly, chomsky had decades ago severely condemned B’nai Brith and the Antidefamation league and other zionists. i also do not know of a single crime by israel that Chomsky has ommited and not strongly condemned. he is wrong, when he advocates a twostate sol’n. i advocate a onestate sol’n. a twostate sol’n wld award zionist terrorisn and crimes against humanities. thus, to me, he’s a minizionist. thnx

Bozhidar, I can refer you to the many articles wriiten by Dr. Petras including his recent critique of Noam Chomsky. In addition to Dr. Petras there is Jeffrey Blankfort who has been critical of Chomsky for nearly 30 years. The issue is not necessarily Israel’s crimes as heinous as they are. On the issue of Israel, Chomsky is clearly a Liberal and I would say left of Dr. Michael Lerner. But that is NOT why Chomsky is being criticized and Bozhidar you have to realize this is not an esoteric critique. The critique goes to the core of WHY the Left is not confronting American Zionism.

Critiquing B’nai Brith and the Antidefamation League is not a major critique of American Zionism. A critique of American Zionism is an analysis of the power and influence that Zionism has on American culture and political economy. Here is where Chomsky, who presents himself as an accomplished and prolific writer and researcher, ignores. In fact Chomsky ridiculed Mersheimer & Walt analysis of the AIPAC’s power and influence. Because Chomsky is held in such high regard among activists, his denial of Zionism’s influence has a major effect on how the Left organizes around this issue.

This is why you have people like Max Shields who fails to confront American Zionism and in fact constantly used ambiguous terms like “imperialism” and “empire” to obscure and to camouflage this problem.

To use an analogy a Max Shields type would have said to say Martin Luther King or Malcolm X that the problem is not white supremacy it is “imperialism”. Imagine if Civil Right leaders would have listen to this kind of analysis. “Imperialism” used in Max’s context represents all the tools used by the ruling class to maintain power. However should there not have been a challenged to Jim Crow? Is fighting Zionism a zero sum approach in the struggle for justice?

Therefore it is critical to analyze Chomsky’s role and his influence and his message to understand how Chomsky has been an impediment in the fight against “imperialism”. Which would seem most counter-intuitive to many activist who has been elucidated by Chomsky’s critiques on many other issues.

thx

It’s difficult to respond to this all too typical misreading of Chomsky. Single issue anti zionists are forever accusing him of a conspiracy to aid Israel in it’s ethnic cleansing project. Quite to the contrary, Chomsky’s only aim, it seems, is dispassionate observation. He’s not great at advocacy, for sure, but to see a hidden pro zionist agenda is going a bit far, me thinks. The aim is not limiting Israeli politicians power hunger, rather a desire that they might realize their ongoing land grab project and aggressive abuse of the Palestinian people is in the end counter productive in the extreme. As most thoughtful observers agree the Zionists are their own worst enemies. If calamity comes to Israel they only have themselves to blame.

Lets start with some mistaken conceptions. First I am not a “single-issue” anti-zionist. That is ridicule design to dismiss a very important issue. Also using the word “conspiracy” is a red herring since I have no knowledge whether Chomsky is a paid agent. Perhaps you do. But assuming Chomsky is not a paid agent then perhaps the reason why Chomsky has been unable to confront American Zionism has more to do with tribalism rather than any kind of “conspiracy”.

You suggest the following…
Quite to the contrary, Chomsky’s only aim, it seems, is dispassionate observation.

Chomsky lack of critique of American Zionism has been far from dispassionate. Chomsky was a harsh critique of Mershiemer and Walt and Chomsky analysis of U.S. foriegn policy never considers Zionism as a factor despite the fact that many of the advocate of Project of a New American Century were members of the Bush Administration and were very influential in leading the U.S. in a war on Iraq.

With Chomsky being so respected and revered amongst the “Left” he has enormous influence on how the Left articulate issues and how the Left position themselves on issue.

The issue is more about “calamity” coming to the U.S. on a foreign policy that advance Zionism than “calamity” coming Israel. I recommend reading Jeffrey Blankfort who has warned the Left about Chomsky’s myopia analysis on American Zionism for nearly three decades.

From:
Ex-Sandler Fan

This is the dogmatic line that runs though the Chomsky-esque wing of the “Left”. As DanE points out this agenda is “counter-revolutionary” because it seeks to confuse activists and camouflage the influence Zionism has upon the U.S. political economy leading effectively to Zionism going unchallenged. This actually helps to increase the influence of Zionism and preserve the Israeli state.

What Chomskyites hope for in vein is that Zionist leaders will limit their quest for power but unfortunately power never limits itself. It is up to the people to confront power. Unfortunately, the real danger of Chomsky’s dogma is that it blocks that very necessary confrontation.

There were some times in US history where subordinate whites DID unite with subordinate blacks…not really en masses since the nadir of race relations from 1890-1920, but some great examples were from the end of the civil war ’til 1890. Before it was the US, there were plenty of slave rebellions which included white indentured servants

That’s correct, but that time may never come. Using America as an example, subordinate whites have never united with subordinate blacks, despite them having far more in common than subordinate whites do with the ruling class.

By giving one group (subordinate Israelis) privileges over Palestinians, solidarity is prevented. It’s classic divide and conquer which all ruling classes use, because it works.

I think your view simplifies the situation in Israel. In fact I would say that the Palestinians have it worse than the situation was for African Americans during Jim Crow and that was no “picnic” (as a nod to origin of the word).

There were times in U.S. history when blacks and poor whites formed coalitions. But the what the Palestinians face, IMO, is far worse because Israel has the full support of the world’s “superpower”. And worst of all the world’s superpower policies toward the Palestine is heavily influenced and corrupted by Zionist ideology.

The irony however is that this corruption is also stunting African American aspirations as well as we see Obama and essentially every African American national politician kowtow to Zionism.

This IMO is not a matter of “education”. What needs to occur is a direct confrontation of the Zionist ideology in the manner like the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement confronted white supremacy.

In order for that to happen the “Left” has to confront Zionism in the United States and demand a total boycott of Israel. Why withdrawal all support to Israel by confronting Zionism at home will embolden the Palestinians resistance and that is how peace will be achieved in the Middle East.

Well said!

That’s correct, but that time may never come. Using America as an example, subordinate whites have never united with subordinate blacks, despite them having far more in common than subordinate whites do with the ruling class.

By giving one group (subordinate Israelis) privileges over Palestinians, solidarity is prevented. It’s classic divide and conquer which all ruling classes use, because it works.