Rejoinder to Criticism of Chomsky: Asset or Liability?

Tirades against Noam Chomsky never cease to amaze me. And I’m not talking about the kind of criticisms of the man that come from Alan Dershowitz and other apologists for Israeli crimes; I mean from critics of Israel who support Palestinian rights.

There are a number of common gripes about Professor Chomsky. The leading one is that he is actually a Zionist and “left gatekeeper” who, despite appearances, really seeks to limit debate on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Another, part and parcel of the first, is that he denies the power of the Israeli Lobby and wrongly believes that Israel is a strategic asset of the U.S. A third and more recent criticism is that he is opposes to a boycott against Israel and considers activists who support the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BSD) campaign “hypocritical”.

Such arguments, in truth, only serve to demonstrate either the ignorance of Chomsky’s actual views or the dishonesty of the writer who deliberately misrepresents them. In a recent example that typifies the latter class of articles, Jeffrey Blankfort has written a piece entitled “Chomsky and Palestine: Asset or Liability?“, in which he does an excellent job of constructing a strawman Noam Chomsky to contend with.

Blankfort begins by noting that Chomsky gained some mainstream media attention when Israel denied him entry from the Palestinian West Bank, where he was scheduled to give a lecture and meet the unelected prime minister Salam Fayyad. Fayyad is “a favorite of both Washington and Israel and, it would appear, Chomsky”, writes Blankfort, the implication being that Chomsky favors Fayyad, and for the same reasons as Washington and Israel.

To support that implication, Blankfort cites Chomsky from an interview with Democracy Now! in which he stated that Fayyad “is pursuing policies, which, in my view, are quite sensible, policies of essentially developing facts on the ground.” Chomsky described the policies as “sensible and sound ones.”

Chomsky was — it should go without saying — referring to specific policies Fayyad has implemented — those of seeking to construct the infrastructure for a de facto Palestinian state now, without waiting indefinitely for Israel to shift its policy away from rejection of such a state. Blankfort thus portrays Chomsky’s support for a de facto Palestinian state as a blanket endorsement of the Palestinian Authority and all its actions.

“Unfortunately,” continues Blankfort, “Chomsky was not questioned about his support for the nation building priorities of the earlier Zionists nor if he considered the Palestine Authority’s endorsement of Israel’s blockade of Gaza, of its attempts to suppress a UN investigation of the Goldstone Report, and of the role played by its US-trained militia in protecting Israel, to be also ‘sensible and sound.’”

The intended implication, of course, is that Chomsky supports the Zionist theft of Arab land, the Israeli blockade, the blocking of the Goldstone Report, and P.A. collusion with Israel — all of which, as anyone who is familiar with Chomsky’s actual views knows — is just complete asinine nonsense.

Yet, Blankfort adds, “For those puzzled by that question, be assured that it is meant to be taken quite seriously” — something should be quite difficult for any reader who actually has any knowledge of Chomsky’s actual views, and given Blankfort’s propensity for mischaracterizing and distorting them.

Blankfort continues, saying that “Once upon a time Prof. Chomsky was considered by many to be the most important spokesperson for the Palestinian cause.” This, however, was because of his writings and activism on other issues in which “unlike the case with Israel, he had no personal vested interest.” Chomsky “maintained that position” even though there have been Palestinian professors “who were and are more knowledgeable about the subject” and who “could speak from personal experience that does not include prior service as ‘a Zionist youth leader’ — Chomsky’s background”.

Blankfort is correct on this point. Chomsky in fact makes no attempt to conceal the fact that he was what he calls a Zionist youth leader. But the intended implication is that he supported the Zionist rejection of Palestinian rights and supports the policies of contemporary Zionism. It should go without saying — again, for anyone remotely familiar with his work — that this is more asinine nonsense and contradicted by Chomsky’s volumes of work on the subject and criticism of those same Zionist policies. As for being a self-confessed “Zionist”, Chomsky explains:

[In] the 1940s I was what was called a Zionist youth leader. But Zionism at that time included my own position, which was opposition to a Jewish state and a call for a binational settlement in the former Palestine. And I still held — one of the reasons I went to that specific kibbutz was that it was … the kibbutz organization which had indeed been opposed to a Jewish state up ’til 1948.

As I explain in “The Rejection of Palestinian Self-Determination“, the binational settlement was in fact the one favored and proposed by the Arab states — but rejected by the Zionist leadership and their Western benefactors. Chomsky explained further in the interview, as he has elsewhere, what he has meant when he’s referred to himself as a “Zionist”:

What I said was that I remain a Zionist in the sense of Zionism in the 1940s. Zionism has changed. That doesn’t mean my views have.

But, never mind Chomsky’s actual views. That Chomsky could remain the leading spokesperson for the Palestinian cause, Blankfort continues, is “a reflection of the political culture of the American Left which was and remains substantially if not predominantly Jewish”.

Thus it is not because his work has any merit, but only because Chomsky is really a Zionist Jew that his work on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been so highly regarded. Because of “deeply embedded” support for Israel and fears of anti-Semitism, criticism of Israel could only come from “someone within the tribe”, like Chomsky, “who unequivocally supported” Israel’s existence.

Blankfort himself is perfectly well aware of Chomsky’s actual views. The above quotes from Chomsky come from an interview Blankfort himself cites in his article, and which Blankfort himself participated as well, having called in to the live program. Yet hes chooses to omit the facts that that Chomsky was opposed to the creation of a “Jewish state” and instead supported the solution favored by the Arabs, a single binational state. Instead, Blankfort deliberately tries to create the impression that Chomsky was an ardent Zionist in the sense that the term “Zionism” has become known today; which is to say that Chomsky “unequivocally supported” the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine at the expense of the rights of the majority Arab inhabitants.

Continuing, Blankfort asserts that Chomsky’s being a Zionist Jew “largely explains why Chomsky maintains his reputation despite public utterances over the past half dozen years that have done more to undermine the Palestinian cause than to help it.”

Blankfort claims a “destructive impact” of Chomsky’s “dismissal of the pro-Israel lobby as an influential force in shaping US Middle east policy”, and a “destructive role” Chomsky plays with his “unyielding opposition to the BDS [boycott, divestment, and sanctions] campaign launched by the leading organizations of Palestinian civil society.”

It might be instructive to turn here to what Chomsky actually has had to say about divestment, from the same interview:

I clearly cannot deal with the rumors that circulate in the internet gossip system. I mean, I’ve been in favor of the divestments since 2002 — in fact before the movement was even formed I was one of the sponsors of one of the first efforts. And I’ve repeatedly supported and in fact been one of the initial supporters of divestment efforts.

However, while Chomsky supports divestment, it is true he is opposed to the BDS campaign against Israel. He explains:

What I have opposed is the BDS proposals that harm Palestinians. If we’re serious about BDS or any other tactic we ought to want to ask what the consequences are for the victims.

Blankfort acknowledges that “Chomsky does support” a “vastly different, US-centered” campaign that targets “US companies that provide goods and services that assist Israel in maintaining the occupation.” But this campaign, Blankfort curiously asserts, “avoids penalizing Israel”.

The divestment campaign Chomsky supports includes, for example, pressuring the U.S. corporation Caterpillar “to stop selling bulldozers to the Israel military which it has used to destroy Palestinian homes.” Blankfort agrees “this is a worthy endeavor”, but suggests it would not “change the current situation for the Palestinians in any significant way”, which in turn suggests, he posits, that Chomsky is really just engaged in “damage control on Israel’s behalf”.

This is further evidenced by Chomsky’s statements in a recent interview, in which “Chomsky not only repeatedly attacks advocates of an Israeli boycott as being hypocritical, he accuses them of doing damage to the Palestinian cause.” Blankfort quotes Chomsky saying that a boycott of Israel harms Palestinians, but — unsurprisingly — omits Chomsky’s explanation for his position (which we’ll come to). Continuing, he emphases Chomsky’s remarks that the U.S. is “responsible for most of Israel’s crimes“, and, again, that the U.S. is “responsible for a lot of Israel’s criminal behavior.

Chomsky has written extensively on which crimes he means, and anyone even modestly familiar with his work knows he is referring to U.S. financial, military, and diplomatic support for Israeli violations of international law under the “special relationship” that has developed particularly since 1967, including U.S. support for the illegal occupation and colonization of Palestinian territories, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, the rejection of the two-state settlement, the ’08-’09 massacre in Gaza, and so on.

But Blankfort doesn’t turn to anything Chomsky has ever actually written about U.S. support for Israel for examples. Nor does he deny that this U.S. support for Israeli crimes exists. Instead, he simply constructs a further strawman argument, suggesting Chomsky is here blaming Israel for the Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 and the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 — suggestions for which Blankfort offers no supporting evidence from any of Chomsky’s voluminous writings and talks on the subject. This should not be surprising, since none exists.

Blankfort again criticizes the kind of divestment campaign Chomsky favors — one targeting the U.S. — on the grounds that “failure” is “patently inherent in such a campaign” and “would bring further disaster down upon the heads of the Palestinians.”

Blankfort makes no effort to explain why divestment in U.S. corporations supplying the Israeli criminal regime with the tools of oppression would be a “failure” or why it would bring “disaster” upon Palestinians. Nor does he explain the contradiction between, on one hand, agreeing that divesting from U.S. companies like Caterpillar is “a worthy endeavor”, while on the other suggesting such action would be a “failure”; between saying on one hand that it would not “change the current situation for the Palestinians in any significant way”, while on the other saying that it would be a “disaster” for them.

Turning back to Chomsky’s actual views on divestment, he explained further why he views a boycott of Israel as hypocritical and harmful:

If we’re serious about BDS or any other tactic we ought to want to ask what the consequences are for the victims. We have to distinguish always in tactical judgments between what you might call the “feel-good” tactics and “do-good” tactics. There are tactics that may make people feel good. “Look, I feel good. I’m doing something.” But maybe they harm the victims. There are other kinds that actually do good. That is, they benefit the victims. That’s a distinction we have to make and it’s a critical one. I’ve discussed what I think about it. But where there are actual “do-good” efforts of BDS, I’ve always supported them. In fact, long before the program even announced itself…. So, yes, I do oppose a boycott I think that’s harmful to Palestinians. And the reason it’s harmful is very obvious: It is so hypocritical that it discredits the whole effort.

Again Blankfort turns to his preferred rhetorical device, the strawman argument, to make his case against Chomsky. He paraphrases Chomsky as arguing that it would be “hypocritical” because the Israeli lobby “will use this against the Palestinians by pointing out that the US has committed far greater crimes than Israel.” By asking us to believe that American Jewish organizations would actually “compare America’s crimes to Israel’s”, Blankfort adds, Chomsky “insult[s] our intelligence”.

But — needless to say — Chomsky didn’t at all argue that it was “hypocritical” because the lobby would compare U.S. crimes with Israeli crimes. Rather, he pointed out the fact that it is hypocritical for Americans to support a boycott of Israel while not boycotting their own country, because the U.S. “supplies it with the tools of oppression”.

It should also be needless to say that the definition of “hypocrisy”, in the Biblical sense of the word (which is the sense in which Chomsky uses the word, as he himself has pointed out), is refusing to apply to oneself the same standard one applies to others. The principle is summarized by Jesus in the analogy of removing the plank from one’s own eye first, so that one can see clearly to remove the splinter from one’s brother’s.

Thus, by definition, boycotting Israel without first divesting from American corporations that support Israeli crimes, is “hypocritical”.

This simple application of this most elementary moral truism either completely escapes Blankfort, or he simply chooses to reject it in order to deliberately and dishonestly mischaracterize Chomsky’s actual argument.

The dishonest mischaracterization continues as Blankfort continues to attempt to portray Chomsky as a “Zionist” supporter of Israel. To do this, he quotes Chomsky saying, “I don’t regard myself as a critic of Israel. I regard myself as a supporter of Israel”, which he follows by reminding readers that Chomsky “likes to boast of his early Zionist activities”.

Chomsky has made this point many times, and explained his reasons for making it and his definition of “support” for Israel, but Blankfort refers here specifically to an interview on an Israeli news program earlier this year. Turning to the source, the interviewer had said to Chomsky, “You undermine Israel’s existence, it’s right to exist…” Chomsky interrupted to her to say:

That’s quite false. In fact, I don’t regard myself as a critic of Israel. I regard myself as a supporter of Israel. The people who are harming Israel, in my opinion, it’s what I’ve said many times, are those who claim to be supporting it. They are helping [to] drive Israel towards moral degeneration and possible ultimate destruction. I think support for Israel should be support for policies which are for its benefit.

The interviewer then correctly pointed out that Chomsky does not “support the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state“, which Chomsky then acknowledged, noting later in the show that neither does he “think that the United States should exist as a Christian state” or that “Pakistan should exist as an Islamic state”.

Thus, taken together with his enormous body of work on the subject, clearly what Chomsky means by saying he is “a supporter of Israel” is not that he supports Israel as a “Jewish state”, that he supports Zionism in the contemporary understanding of the word, that he supports the occupation, or any other such asinine nonsense, but just the opposite — that he opposes all of these policies. It’s those who support Israel’s criminal policies, in Chomsky’s view, who in fact are acting against Israel’s own best interests by encouraging its “moral degeneration”.

Blankfort, of course, declines to provide his readers with the explanation Chomsky gave for his statement that he is a “supporter of Israel”, which followed in his very next breath and in which he made perfectly clear that his own position is precisely the opposite of that which Blankfort would so disingenuously have his readers believe it to be.

Blankfort next quotes Chomsky as saying, “once Israel was formed in 1948, my position has consistently been that Israel should have all the rights of every state in the international system, no more and no less.” We are supposed to draw the conclusion, apparently, that Chomsky views Israel’s creation through an act of ethnic cleansing as having been legitimate.

But Blankfort yet again declines to share with his readers Chomsky’s explanation for that position, in which he explicitly rejected that Israel has a “right to exist”. As anyone familiar with his work knows, Chomsky has consistently held that:

No state has a right to exist, and no one demands such a right. For example, the United States has no such right. Mexico doesn’t respect the right of the United States to exist, sitting on half of Mexico, which was conquered in war. They do grant the U.S. rights in the international system, but not the legitimacy of those rights. This concept “right to exist” was in fact invented, as far as I can tell, in the 1970s when there was general international agreement, including the Arab states and the PLO, that Israel should have the rights of every state in the international system. And therefore, in an effort to prevent negotiations and a diplomatic settlement, the U.S. and Israel insisted on raising the barrier to something that nobody’s going to accept. Certainly, the Palestinians can’t accept it. They’re not going to accept Israel’s existence but also the legitimacy of its existence and the legitimacy of their dispossession. Why should they accept that? Why should anyone accept it?

Returning to the Israeli news interview, when asked whether it was relevant to his criticism of Israel that he is Jewish, Chomsky responded:

Well sure. Since I’m Jewish, and since I have a special relationship with Israel since childhood, and since I care about it, I think it should take positions that are moral, realistic, and appropriate for its own peace and survival.

When his Israeli interviewer suggested that Chomsky was being hypocritical by disproportionally focusing on Israel, instead of other oppressive regimes, Chomsky replied:

You started by asking, “Why is Israel in the center?” Answer: It isn’t. Not for me. What’s in the center for me is the United States, and for a very elementary moral reason. The moral principle is: we are responsible for our own actions and their consequences. Every crime that Israel commits is because of U.S. participation and authorization. So any decent American citizen, even without a special interest in Israel, as I have, should have these in the center of their attention; because those are the ones we are participating in, we are responsible for.

This, of course, goes back to Chomsky’s point that Americans should rather support divestment in U.S. corporations that participate in Israeli crimes before seeking divestment from Israel itself — again, a position based on a perfectly elementary moral truism that Blankfort must either reject or fail utterly to comprehend.

Chomsky also cited in the interview examples of Israeli actions that could not continue without U.S. support:

Israel, for example, could not have attacked Gaza, could not carry out the occupation, and so on, without decisive and direct U.S. diplomatic, military, and economic support…. Israeli actions in the occupied territory with crucial U.S. backing, are, first of all, illegal — Israeli recognized that in 1967 — they’re illegal, and they’re harmful.

Yet we may recall how Blankfort chooses to ignore Chomsky’s own specific examples, which he’s written on constantly and documented extensively, of how the U.S. is “responsible for a lot of Israel’s criminal behavior”, instead preferring to create a strawman argument by suggesting he was referring to Israeli actions in ’48 and ’67 that the U.S. did not decisively and directly support — and which, contrary to what Blankfort would have his readers believe, Chomsky has never claimed the U.S. was responsible for.

Chomsky also expressed his support for the Goldstone Report and opposition to it’s suppression in the interview, as he has elsewhere:

Take, say, the reaction to the Goldstone Report, which was quite interesting. Now, Israel has turned it into an international incident. If Israel had acted rationally, they would have responded to the Goldstone Report by saying, “Thank you, Mr. Goldstone, for your careful work. Thank you particularly for giving us a great gift”, as he did.

Recall Blankfort’s dismay that “Chomsky was not questioned” about whether he supported attempts to suppress the Goldstone Report and whether he found those efforts to be “sensible and sound”. It would seem that Blankfort might not be so puzzled about Chomsky’s position on this if he didn’t choose to deliberately withhold it from his readers.

This is not to say Chomsky has not been critical of the report; he’s criticized it for being biased in favor of Israel for focusing on Israel’s conduct in it’s assault on Gaza without addressing the question of whether or not that attack itself had any legitimacy under international law — which, Chomsky has observed, noting that it was not Hamas but Israel that violated the cease-fire, it didn’t.

But never mind what Chomsky actually has to say about anything. It’s simple enough just pretend Chomsky has never actually expressed his views on such matters in order to carry on this charade that if he did answer questions about such things, his support for Zionist injustices towards Palestinians might be exposed, which is why Chomsky is supposedly silent on such matters.

Taking this theme further, Blankfort implies that Chomsky rejects the Palestinian right of return, saying Chomsky thinks it “not only unrealistic but potentially dangerous”, and asserting that Chomsky “rarely, if ever mentions” the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, in which more than 700,000 Arabs were made refugees, “unless asked about it”.

On the right of return, Blankfort suggests Chomsky’s “preferred outcome” is that “the refugees would be obligated to give up their ‘right of return’ under a ‘two-state solution’”. Apparently in an attempt to provide evidence for this claim from Chomsky’s own work, Blankfort provides a lengthy quote in which Chomsky explains his view that it is unrealistic to expect that this right will ever be exercised — that is, that large population of Palestinian refugees will actually be allowed to return to the their land in what is today Israel. But nowhere does Chomsky even remotely suggest that he thinks that it is right or preferable that Palestinians not be allowed to return.

But, by taking Chomsky’s expression of what he deems realistic and turning it into an expression of what Chomsky deems preferable, Blankfort huff and puff and blow the strawman Chomsky down.

The real Chomsky, for his part, as Blankfort also perfectly well knows, has discussed this very topic of “realism” versus “acting on principle” — a false dichotomy, in Chomsky’s view — at length.

Chomsky in fact also recognizes and supports the Palestinian’s right of return, noting that “Their right to return or compensation is written into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Dec. 10, 1948), spelled out more explicitly in UN Resolution 194 passed unanimously the next day, and reiterated annually.”

As for Blankfort’s statement that Chomsky “rarely, if ever mentions” the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in what Israelis call “The War of Independence” and the Arabs call “The Nakba”, or “catastrophe”, it is possible he is not being dishonest here, and that he is truly just almost completely ignorant about Chomsky’s actual work. Chomsky, of course, frequently refers to the “Nakba”, or the “ethnic cleansing” of Palestine, in his writing.

Take, for instance, Chomsky’s 1983 epic analysis, “Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians“, in which he notes (pp. 95-96) that “The Irgun-LEHI Deir Yassin massacre in April had already taken place, one major factor in causing the flight of much of the Arab population” in the subsequent ethnic cleansing. “By May, about 300,000 Arabs had fled, about 1/3 of them from territories assigned to the Palestinian State” in the U.N. General Assembly partition proposal. “The armies of the Arab states entered the war immediately after the State of Israel was founded in May. Fighting continued, almost all of it within the territory assigned to the Palestinian state…. About 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled in the 1948 conflict.”

Or take his more recent 1999 book, “The New Military Humanism: Lessons from Kosovo“, in which he notes (p. 17) that the estimates of refugees from that conflict “are about the same as the number of Palestinians who fled or were expelled in 1948…. In that case, refugees numbered about 750,000, 85% of the population, with over 400 villages levelled.”

But never mind the real Chomsky. Blankfort’s imaginary Chomsky, which he finds it much easier to exercise his intellectual prowess against, avoids mentioning it because he secretly believes in the legitimacy of the Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

Blankfort continues, quoting Chomsky as saying:

Palestinian refugees should certainly not be willing to renounce the right of return, but in this world – not some imaginary world we can discuss in seminars – that right will not be exercised, in more than a limited way, within Israel. Again, there is no detectable international support for it, and under the (virtually unimaginable) circumstances that such support would develop, Israel would very likely resort to its ultimate weapon, defying even the boss-man, to prevent it. In that case there would be nothing to discuss. The facts are ugly, but facts do not go out of existence for that reason. In my opinion, it is improper to dangle hopes that will not be realized before the eyes of people suffering in misery and oppression. (Emphasis added) Rather, constructive efforts should be pursued to mitigate their suffering and deal with their problems in the real world.

He then feels it necessary to “interpret” Chomsky’s meaning for his readers, offering:

What Chomsky is saying to the refugees is that if they persist with their demand to return to Palestine, and should that demand, support for which is currently undetectable in Chomsky’s eyes, actually grow to the point where Israel feels threatened with an avalanche of returnees, it is likely to use its nuclear weapons and blow up the planet.

Notice, among other problems with Blankfort’s “interpretation”, he asserts that by “ultimate weapon” Chomsky meant “nuclear weapons”, when in fact Chomsky clearly stated that the “ultimate weapon” he was referring to was Israel simply ignoring orders from Washington, D.C., in the unlikely hypothetical scenario that the U.S. would actually tell Israel to permit refugees to return. It would seem readers might not be expected to find Chomsky’s remarks quite so detestable if Blankfort didn’t see fit “interpret” them for us in a way that served only to distort his meaning.

Blankfort similarly “interprets” Chomsky pointing out that under Israeli law and in practice, Palestinians have “second class citizenship” by saying this is a defense of “Israel’s legitimacy”. His main objection seems to be that Chomsky compares Israel to “the US and other Western democracies” in this respect — the U.S. Constitution, after all, defines blacks as three-fifths of a person, and so on. But Blankfort turns Chomsky’s longstanding criticism of Israel in this regard into an “attempt to rationalize Israel’s ongoing discrimination of those Palestinians who remained after the Nakba”.

Yet, after all this, Blankfort has the chutzpah to accuse Chomsky of “intellectual dishonesty”. By such dishonest means as these, Blankfort turns Chomsky’s insistence on applying an equal standard and not being hypocritical into “double standards”, and he twists Chomsky’s criticisms of Israel into Chomsky’s “defense of Israel”.

He states that Chomsky “and his followers continue insisting that US support for Israel is based on it being a ‘strategic asset’ for the United States even when an increasing number of mainstream observers who are not linked to AIPAC or the Zionist establishment have judged it to be a liability”, thus suggesting — falsely — that Chomsky’s himself shares the view that Israel is a “strategic asset”.

As any person even remotely familiar with Chomsky’s work on the subject — and who is willing to be honest about it — knows, he does not share that view. Rather, he simply observes that as defined by the political and economic elite in Washington, Israel is a strategic ally. In fact, he points this out in the interview Blankfort participated in, explaining briefly the interest of the military industrial complex in Israel:

Once they send those high tech weapons to Israel, then Saudi Arabia and the Emirates comes along and say well, we want them too, and the U.S. military industry can provide them — which they of course pay for — with masses of less advanced weaponry. And in general, military intelligence cooperation between Israel and the United States has been very close for many years. So, sure, there are many domestic factors that we should definitely pay attention to when we consider how policy is formed.

He further elaborated on his meaning in describing Israel as a strategic asset:

Now the term “national interest”, these are all very vague notions, but let me return to what I said before. The strongest support for Israel in the United States comes from the business sector. That’s why the Wall Street Journal is the most strong pro-Israel journal. That’s why you get increasing high-tech investment in Israel. That’s why you have things — That’s why the military lobby supports it. Now you can argue that this is against something called the national interest, whatever that is, but in so far as the national interest is determined by powerful domestic forces in the United States…

Chomsky was cut off for a commercial break at that point, but his point is clear, and he has made it repeatedly elsewhere. It is not his view that Israel is a “strategic asset” of the U.S. — and he’s argued endlessly to the contrary — but that is nevertheless the longstanding predominant view within the U.S. policy-making elite. This is a rather elementary observation that is hardly debatable, Blankfort and others’ efforts to manufacture a controversy over it notwithstanding.

Blankfort concludes by suggesting that “serious supporters” of the Palestinian cause should ask themselves whether Chomsky isn’t actually a liability to that cause.

Serious supporters of the Palestinian cause would do well to set aside such claptrap as Blankfort and his ilk see fit to spend their time and efforts writing on and go out and pick up Fateful Triangle or read any of Chomsky’s other countless writings on the subject, read it thoroughly and actually listen to what he actually has to say, and make an effort to actually comprehend it.

One needn’t agree with everything Chomsky writes, but one can learn a lot from the man who has rightfully earned his place as a — if not the – leading American critic of Israeli crimes and supporter of Palestinian rights.

And, at the very least, one can certainly learn much more about Chomsky’s actual views from the real Chomsky than from reading about some imaginary Chomsky the likes of Blankfort so dishonestly choose to manufacture in all their intellectual masturbation that serves only to distract attention away from the real issues concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Jeremy R. Hammond is the editor of Foreign Policy Journal, a website providing news, analysis, and opinion from outside the standard framework provided by government officials and the corporate media. He was among the recipients of the 2010 Project Censored Awards for outstanding investigative journalism and is the author of The Rejection of Palestinian Self-Determination. You can contact him at: jeremy@foreignpolicyjournal.com. Read other articles by Jeremy, or visit Jeremy's website.

373 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Rehmat said on July 24th, 2010 at 8:21am #

    Aha – the FPJ strikes back to protect their kinds of ‘Crypto-Zionists’.

    “The Jewish religion died 200 years ago. Now there is nothing that unifies the Jews around the world apart from Holocaust,” Yeshayahy Leibowitz, a observant orthodox Jew philosopher.

    Professor Dr. Noam Chomsky made headlines when he was refused entery by the Israeli guards at the Allenby Bridge on his way from Amman (Jordan) to Ramallah (West Bank) where he was schedule to lecture on US foreign policy at Bir Zeit University.The “official” reason was that Chomsky is a ‘Self-Hating, Israel-Threatening (S.H.I.T)’ Jews and thus a threat to the Zionist entity. In fact, Chomsky in real life doesn’t even come closer to those ‘allegations”.

    Noam Chomsky, although, is a strong critic of US foreign policy – but he has never supported armed struggle against Israel. He also favors the so-called ‘two-state’ solution and believes in Israel’s right to exist as ‘Jewish state’. Chomsky never publically questioned the Zionist version of the holocaust (‘Six Million Died’). Chomsky is against academic boycott of Israel. Chomsky doesn’t believe that the US foreign policy is controlled by the Jewish groups especially the AIPAC. Chomsky also doesn’t like Israel being compared with the apartheid South Africa.

    Roger Tucker, Jew Editor/Publisher of “One Democratic State” website – in a recent article, titled “Open Letter to Uri Avnery, Noam Chomsky and Jimmy Carter”, claimed that none of them is friend to Palestinian victims of the foreign Zionist Jew settlers because in fact they themselves are ‘Crypto-Zionists’ hiding behind the facade of ‘humanism’.

    According to Roger Tucker the the so-called “Two state solution” supporters are a bunch of odd bedfellows. It has Uri Avnery’s Gush shalom along with hardcore Israeli Zionist government officials, the ‘Israel-First’ American neocons, Republicans, the Christian Zionists, the puppet Fatah (Mahmoud Abbas) unelected government and somewhat reluctant European nations.

    “Noam Chomsky’s analyses of Israeli-Palestinian conflict and shifting sands of the Middle East has been non-parceil. And yet he is another closet Zionist (like Uri Avnery and Jimmy Carter). What a shame,” wrote Roger Tucker.

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/07/24/chomsky-a-crypto-zionist/

  2. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 24th, 2010 at 8:24am #

    Ah, Rehmat, we meet again.

    You are unteachable, repeating the lie that Chomsky “believes in Israel’s right to exist as ‘Jewish state’”.

    Try reading, Rehmat. You might learn something. And you would embarrass yourself less with your ignorance.

  3. Rehmat said on July 24th, 2010 at 9:09am #

    Yep – Jeremy….. And please do post a copy of your next Resume’ you write on me. I think the last time you did that was when I exposed you as a “Crypto-Zionist” for putting words in Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul.

    Gordon Duff of ‘Veteran Today’ has posted a recent interview with Hamid Gul – which is more closer to Gul Hamid I remeber from ISI than your interprtation of him in your Israeli Hasbara rant.

  4. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 24th, 2010 at 9:22am #

    Yeah, Rehmat. You really got me on my interview with Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul.

    http://blog.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2009/08/20/rehmats-delusional-world/

    The interview Gordon Duff posted on “Veterans Today”, BTW, is not by General Gul. It’s by Muhammad Abdullah Gul, who sent the article to Duff, Jeff Gates, and myself. Duff apparently mistakenly believed it had been from the former ISI chief.

    http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010/07/20107197729733150.html

    But, hey, what the heck do facts matter, right?

  5. David Silver said on July 24th, 2010 at 9:51am #

    When Chomsky was a young Zionist leader wasn’t he aware that the
    Zionist political perspective was racist to the core. From Weitzman to Ben Gurion to Netanyahu supported and now support the slogan
    (For a Land Without People (the Arabs and Palestinians –just adesert)
    for a People (the Jews without a Land.

    Dave Silver

  6. MichaelKenny said on July 24th, 2010 at 11:27am #

    My “gripe” with Chomsky stems from the fact that when Meersheimer and Walt published their now famous article, Chomsky immediately put out an article denying that the Israel Lobby even existed! Now, M&W didn’t announce any great discovery. They merely said out loud (and had to go outside the US to say it) what the whole planet had been saying privately for years and is still saying today. I pegged him at that point as a false flagger and nothing he has said or done since has changed my mind. I see Chomsky as part of the “old” American left, where support for Israel’s existence was unchallenged, and its indefinite existence axiomatic, but criticism of its government of the moment was allowed. There may be nothing more wrong with him than that he is 81 years old and, quite simply, the world has moved on. Interestingly, Mr Hammond doesn’t defend Chomsky, he merely takes issue with certain of Mr Blankfort’s statements.

  7. teafoe2 said on July 24th, 2010 at 12:28pm #

    Jeremy Hammond displays a high level of skill in his defense of Chomsky and his role in US politics. I have to admit to being impressed at several points by some of Hammond’s arguments. Which doesn’t mean that any of them were necessarily valid, which given what I know of Chomsky’s role and of Hammond’s inclinations seems to me extremely doubtful.

    I haven’t followed Chomsky’s writings and statements as closely as Blankfort OR Hammond, since a long time ago I realized Chomsky, no matter how erudite or articulate, was at bottom a component of the Zionist Power Configuration.

    In the US in recent years, we’ve seen a lot of activism claiming to be opposed to US Imperialist & Militarist adventures in other people’s countries, to be opposed to oppressive policies and practices her in the US, and to actions and inactions by the US Gov’t and US business firms which seriously degrade the natural environment.

    Over and over, it has turned out that one after another of the figures who were presented as opponents of the status quo and the war machine were in truth part of them all the time.

    At one time I was so unsophisticated about these machinations that I actively supported the Jesse Jackson for President campaigns and the effort to launch the “Rainbow Coalition” (sic) as a mass nationwide organization. But since then I’ve learned a lot.

    Having been active in pro-Palestine efforts over most of the last three decades, dating from when everybody but a few “fanatical Muslims” accepted the PLO as the “Sole Representative” of the Palestinian cause, I’ve observed several cycles of political “molting”, when the broad pro-“peace” and pro-Palestine movement in the US shed positions and doctrines previously held to be unassailable.
    But there is one illusory proposition that still enjoys “ideological hegemony” among most “players” and would-be players in the ME-I/P arena, and that is the notion that the Zionist Power Configuration simply does not have the power to determine the direction of US Military and Colonial policy, with its corrolary, the claim that “Israel” is a US puppet state, unable to act internationally without US permission.

    Is there any doubt that Prof Chomsky and Mr Hammond both accept this view?

    This is the crux of the matter.

    More insidious and more dangerous than Mr Hammond are the self-styled “Marxists” and “Leninists” who, incorporating reams of erudite “revolutionary” theorizing, present an obsolete analysis of a Capitalism which no longer exists, a view which is false because it ignores the developments in recent decades which have resulted in the US State Apparatus coming under the control of the highest echelon of the ZPC.

    To be continued:

  8. Max Shields said on July 24th, 2010 at 1:06pm #

    This is a healthy debate.

  9. teafoe2 said on July 24th, 2010 at 1:22pm #

    But the discussion of views promoted by such as the ANSWER Coalition and its “Marxist-Leninist” components including PSL and FPA, which echo outfits like CC-DS, CPUSA, DSA and other Democratic Party left-fringe elements, and also the last time I checked, by the ISO which is a major component of the Green Party — these discussions will have to wait until Mr Hammond is disposed of.
    I only have bits and scraps of time in between doing absolutely survival-necessary chores, so I’ll have to devour Mr Hammond’s article bite by bite. I may not be able to get to it all but I’ll make a start.

    “Another… (“gripe”, one H. considers illegitimate)… is that he denies the power of the Israeli Lobby and wrongly believes that Israel is a strategic asset of the U.S.”
    These two propositions offered by Mr H. are in my view disingenuous and dangerously misleading. All recent statements I’ve seen by Chomsky, in interviews, on Democracy Now or elsewhere, clearly show that he pooh-poohs the power of what Walt/Mearsheimer and others call The Lobby, the same that Petras and Blankfort refer to as the Zionist Power Configuration. ///
    will continue later…

  10. Rehmat said on July 24th, 2010 at 1:23pm #

    Jeremy – So tell me the wise guy – how would you like to define the “Two-state solution”, if not one “Palestinian state” and the other being “Jewish state”?

    You would not know the difference between ‘Hamid Gul’ and ‘Abdullah Gul” – just like you did not know the difference between Karl Marx and Theodor Herzl, eh!

    They were both born to Jewish mothers, and therefore, they both were “Jewish” according to the Jewish law – even one pretended to be a communist and the other being an Atheist.

    So, how far you have gone in writing my new CV!!

  11. Max Shields said on July 24th, 2010 at 1:33pm #

    The problem teafoe2 is that even a case made for say, a single-state can be strained through an ideological prism that considers that a Zionist solution (one Jewish State) or a Palestinian solution (right to return). If Chomsky believes in a two state (which I think is totally impractical on multiple levels) is it because he is a gatekeeper? Is it because he’s pushing a Zionist/US agenda? Or does he see a two state a workable? Whether I agree with that or not seems not to make, for instance the fact that he has presented the idea of “Manufactured Consent”. Is manufactured consent a concept that fits US propaganda to control through corporate media the populous? Or is it, because it comes from Chomsky, just a Zionist trying to play tricks with the naive “Left”?

    Discerning these things takes some care. Corporatism does not rule all. Anyone who understands systems thinking realizes the complexity of what causes what. When you think that everything is caused by one source than you have lost touch with reality. That is true when you debate Chomsky or think Zionism is the cause of all the evil in the world. The world just doesn’t work that way.

  12. Deadbeat said on July 24th, 2010 at 2:25pm #

    Max Sheilds in typical fashion creates strawman questions and his answers are fashioned to shield Chomsky rather than to scrutinize Chomsky.

    Chomsky’s influence and effect on the Left over the past 40 years is unsurpassed. Even an article on the Black Panthers recently posted on DV cites Chomsky. Thus what must be analyzed and scrutinized is how could the Left anoint someone who has an affinity to a racist ideology and identity as its intellectual leader?

    Noam Chomsky is a PROFESSED Zionist and has spent the better part of 40 years defending an apartheid system. This would be no different if we were discussing David Duke’s defense of institutional white supremacy.

    Therefore one must ask why Chomsky is not scrutinized by the Left under the same anti-racist parameters as one would apply to Duke.

    Shields writes …


    That is true when you debate Chomsky or think Zionism is the cause of all the evil in the world. The world just doesn’t work that way.

    Even if we accept Mr. Shields implied characterization via his rhetorical statement that “Zionism is [not] the cause of all evil in the world”, should the Left accept Mr. Chomsky as its representative and most “renowned” academic being a PROFESSED Zionist? Chomsky admits that Zionism “colors” his perspectives. In order to accept Chomsky and Chomskyism is to RETARD the Left and to question the entire veracity of the Left.

    Chomskyism is a RETARDATION of solidarity with the tenets of the Left and therefore Chomsky and Chomskyism MUST be REJECTED by those that adhere to and believe in the ideas and tenets of JUSTICE, FAIRNESS, and EQUALITY.

  13. Hue Longer said on July 24th, 2010 at 3:15pm #

    Apologies to the editors–now we know why the chit chat was closed on the Blankfort article—maybe now articles on angry drivers will be free from chomskyitis interuptus

  14. Max Shields said on July 24th, 2010 at 3:18pm #

    Deadbeat who is YOUR “left” and who the hell are you to think they are some fuckin dumb they need someone like Chomsky or anyone else to do their thinking? There is no Chomskyism except as you forumlate him into some kind of strawman.

    Since when are YOU the one who DECIDES whether or not others are using the “tenents” of justice, fairness and equality?

    YOU are the strawman creator when you credit Chomsky with your phony bull shit. It is YOU who make Chomsky into this demigod. YOU are the one who can’t read, or is so blinded by some ideological deformity that you have become the johnny one note – there use to be a place when people started exhibiting delusional repetitive monologues… sometimes they’d rob and armory and go looking for Castro. In your case, fortunately, you keep it here on DV.

    Who the hell cares about Chomsky more than YOU do Deadbeat. You have nothing to say without him.

  15. teafoe2 said on July 24th, 2010 at 4:10pm #

    Just to be sure no one is misled by my attempt to make a balanced and unemotional assessment of Hammond’s screed — yes, after weighing it for a couple hours I have no doubt that “screed” is the right word — let me clarify: in my considered opinion it is a crock of shit, but a more professionally prepared crock than those offered in the past by such as Steven Zunes, Mitchell Plitnick and Richard Becker.

    Since Hammond waxed on and on, disgorging paragraph after paragraph, presenting sophistry after sophistry, it becomes a real chore to examine and weigh every proposition. It is quite possible that he may have said some things that are true; it is even possible that he has caught Mr Blankfort out in a mistatement here and there, so one must proceed in a judicious fashion, assuming nothing. Which is tiresome, but unavoidable if one wishes to persuade people like Mr Shields and other members of DV circles.
    As a matter of fact, I find myself wondering how and by whom the decision was made to publish Hammond’s screed sans any explanitory disclaimer; it would seem to be a move that only a defender of Chomsky and his curious stances would make. Oh, I know, “equal time”. Where have I heard that one before:)

    Before taking on Hammond’s core arguments, let me dispose of some minor ones, which will serve to put his whole rap in perspective and give us a clue to his underlying intent.
    Well, let me post this much before I hit the wrong key again & the whole thing gets erased. Back in a few:)

  16. Hue Longer said on July 24th, 2010 at 4:19pm #

    so teafoe2, basically speaking you are basically speaking?

  17. teafoe2 said on July 24th, 2010 at 4:27pm #

    Okay, let’s examine Hammond’s defense of Chomsky’s willingness to meet with the disgusting collaborator Salam Fayyad. Both Hammond arguments and those he attributes to Chomsky are the same ones defenders of Laval & the Vichy regime, or/and Quisling used to try to justify collaboration with the Nazi occupiers.

    According to this kind of reasoning, the “smart” thing for victims of zionist aggression to do is kiss the occupier’s ass as much & as frequently as possible, in hopes he will occasionally let you have a crumb or two from his settler-colonialist table.

    This is scab reasoning, fink talk. Teacher’s Pet logic. “If you can’t beat ‘em join ‘em”. Any actions or words which tend to lend legitimacy to the traitorous “Palestinian Authority” farce amount to complicity with the criminal Zionist Enterprise.

    What’s the matter with Chomsky, that he doesn’t realize such an obvious fact?

    Next item on the agenda coming up in a moment or two.

  18. lichen said on July 24th, 2010 at 5:03pm #

    A brilliant article, Jeremy. I find the elitist micro-analysis inherent in these attacks on Chomsky to be completely sickening–people who do nothing themselves but sit around and repeat what the cool kids do about Israel/Palestine, and randomly attack people for not agreeing with them 100%. Chomsky isn’t that important, but yes, he does support justice for Palestineans. But I guess he should be attacked by conspiracy theory addicts who reduce everything to “zionism,” whilst they ignore the real zionists. I refuse to read any article, anymore, that wishes to talk about someone’s vast body of work or political views only in the context of israel/palestine, especially when they are american. It is dishonest and right wing bs for these arrogant foreigners who wish to push their own x–state solution onto the Palestineans regardless of what they want.

  19. teafoe2 said on July 24th, 2010 at 5:40pm #

    Unworthy of you, Lichen. “Arrogant foreigners”? wow.

    FYI, in 1982 I was an active member of the Nov 29 Coalition. Where was Chomsky? Why didn’t he support N29 at that time? Even people who had major disagreements with the N29 founders supported it as a major breakthrough on the US political scene, people as disparate as Phyliss Bennis and Lenni Brenner. But Chomsky was conspicously AWOL. Why? Rabbi Berger and Israel Shahak were glad to answer my questions once I identifed myself as an N29 member. At that time I was reading everything I could get my hands on about the Israel problem and the ME, but I didn’t come across Chomsky until a few years later when Fateful Triangle made a big splash. But to me it was all reduntant, repetition, since I’d already encountered Ibrahim Abu-Lughod, El Messeri Al Wahad, Louise Cainkar, Hilton Obenzinger, Steve Goldfield, Brenner, Berger, Shahak, Rochell Tekiner, Irwin Silber and many others.
    The existence of the US Empire was not a new thing to me then, and hadn’t been since early in the Vietnam era, so I had difficulty grasping just what was the big deal about Chomsky, other than a lot of Social Democrat editors loved him.
    Well, I refuse to waste any more time on people who talk about “arrogant foreigners”. How contemptible.

  20. Max Shields said on July 24th, 2010 at 5:41pm #

    If Chomsky is such a “leader of the Left which is mostly Jewish” how come many/most of the major proponents of Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BSD) are both American “leftist” Jews and Israeli “leftists”?

  21. Max Shields said on July 24th, 2010 at 5:50pm #

    teafoe2, if you don’t think Chomsky is such a big deal, and if as I mentioned above many Jews don’t seem to look to him for their daily homilies, than why do you get so worked up about him.

    If you think Chomsky is overrated as an intellectual fine. If you think he’s a johnny come lately that’s ok to. But why make such a fuss beyond that? Is it because Amy Goodman likes to make a big deal about the creds of all her guests (she never fails to mention their awards, and honors bestowed…which can be a bit irksome, but it can also be a way to simply provide a context for the guest and an appreciate for their appearance)?

  22. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 24th, 2010 at 6:06pm #

    @MichalKenny

    “Chomsky immediately put out an article denying that the Israel Lobby even existed!”

    False.

    “Interestingly, Mr Hammond doesn’t defend Chomsky, he merely takes issue with certain of Mr Blankfort’s statements.”

    Correct. If Chomsky is to be criticized, he should be criticized for what he actually writes, for his actual views, and not for imaginary nonsense.

    @teafoe2,

    If I understand your point and question correctly, I agree the Israel lobby is a powerful force. But it’s influence is mostly in Congress. Policy is decided based on the perceived self-interests of elite decision makers. Chomsky makes a perfectly elementary observation in noting that Israel has long been seen by them as a strategic ally. Why this observation is regarded as so controversial I cannot comprehend.

    Now, would you please care to explain why you describe me as “insidious” and “dangerous”? Why I need “disposed of”?

    On your sole substantive argument that my piece is “a crock of shit”:

    Chomsky meeting with Fayaad does not suggest Chomsky agrees with or supports the collobaration of the P.A. with Israel. In fact, Chomsky has long been very criticial of the P.A., including on this count.

    It’s fine to criticize Chomsky, but why don’t you criticize him for his actual views?

    @Rehmat,

    Let me know when you have something somewhat intelligent to say.

    @Deadbeat,

    “Noam Chomsky is a PROFESSED Zionist and has spent the better part of 40 years defending an apartheid system.”

    False. It’s true he was at one point, by his own description, a “Zionist youth leader”. But you can read in my article what his idea of “Zionism” was, which is not at all what the word means today. He was and is opposed to the Jewish state. And he’s spent the better part of 40 years endlessly criticizing the apartheid system.

  23. Max Shields said on July 24th, 2010 at 6:07pm #

    I really think much of the defense concerning Chomsky has very little to do with the quality of Chomsky’s analysis than the weakness of his opposition to make their case without resorting to motivational assumptions (Zionist Youth) and to blow out of proportion the Chomsky mystic. It’s the kind of tactic favored by those who have an ax to grind and need a effigy upon which to strike a match.

    Bottom line, Chomsky is an old intellectual; with few years left. He’s done some very interesting work in the field of linguistics. He has no manifesto to follow, and no succession planning that would hand the political Chomsky torch to a new “Chomskyite”. What’s really the big deal? The world is in such a mess and we humans are the main source of its destruction. Sometimes a little perspective can provide a way to a lot of common sense.

  24. lichen said on July 24th, 2010 at 6:16pm #

    Max is right, jumping on, distorting some stray words of Zinn or Chomsky in the last years of their life to attack and disappear the vastness of their very valuable, good life’s work is pathetic.

    I have no problem with you not wasting your time in responding to my posts, teafoe/dan e. I don’t buy some loser writing a whole article about x senate or congress candidate saying they suck because of israel/palestine when they a) don’t live in the region, and b) don’t live in the U.S. either and are batantly insulting people who might want to vote for their own self-interest because of economic, environmental, social issues that are lost on the author due to their reductionist obsession which also serves to cloak their right wing views on all the other subjects. I will call them what I want.

  25. Max Shields said on July 24th, 2010 at 6:33pm #

    Perhaps just a little familiarity with NSC-68 and Paul Nitze might provide another view to the intentionality of US foreign policy through the national security council of Harry Truman.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSC-68

    Whatever AIPAC does it does in a host that has long positioned itself for projection of global miliary and economic power. Whatever power AIPAC has is attained through a US power structure that has certain approaches to foreign policy clearly in motion. Much of the US foreign policy is still very much governed by post WWII/Cold War thinking. Our military industrial complex is firmly in place (and has grown) and exhibits itself in the form of an old styled Soviet agency. The military industrial complex that drives foreign policy through both the military arm and the for-profit corporate lobbyists, has been immune to the collapse of the US and Western world economy. It is a hollow state much like that of the old Soviet regime. It is a relic but it calls many of the shots.

    Yes, as Jeremy said, the Congress jumps to AIPAC/Israel (much like they jump to other big money lobbyiests) because they’ve fully bought into the notion that they’ll lose their jobs if they don’t play along. But as Jeremy rightly states, the Congress does NOT determine US foreign policy.

    The capacity of the POTUS to drive foreign policy depends on who’s president. The current one is up “shits creek” from what I can see.

  26. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 24th, 2010 at 8:34pm #

    Max Shields,

    “Whatever AIPAC does it does in a host that has long positioned itself for projection of global miliary and economic power.”

    You hit the nail on the head. That about sums up this entire discussion, as far as I’m concerned.

    Following on what I said earlier, about the influence mostly being in Congress, I would add that the influence in the White House is quite a bit less, and in the Pentagon, nonexistent, so far as I can see.

    In a similar vein, there’s this view out there that the Israeli lobby was behind the war in Iraq. I don’t know of any evidence to support that thesis. I’m confident I’m as familiar with the ins and outs of the so-called “intelligence failure” as just about anyone. I could trace for readers here the origins, as far as is publicly known, of virtually every single claim the Bush administration made with regard to WMD (or ties to al Qaeda, for that matter). Not one originated in Israel. Iraq was 100% Made in the USA.

  27. Hue Longer said on July 24th, 2010 at 9:47pm #

    Hello Jeremy,

    Your piece on Chomsky bashing was spot on and though you properly spot sophistr, many who can’t see a fallacy -even with the Latin removed (not sophists—just poor thinkers) are inspired to stay ignorant when you invite them with,

    “In a similar vein, there’s this view out there that the Israeli lobby was behind the war in Iraq. I don’t know of any evidence to support that thesis. I’m confident I’m as familiar with the ins and outs of the so-called “intelligence failure” as just about anyone. I could trace for readers here the origins, as far as is publicly known, of virtually every single claim the Bush administration made with regard to WMD (or ties to al Qaeda, for that matter). Not one originated in Israel. Iraq was 100% Made in the USA”….

    There are some interesting aspects of the so called “lead-up” to the bombing and invasion of Iraq which point to Israel. Not that it means it was their independent desire with the conclusions they sought but there is evidence of tip-offs… and Israeli spies celebrating in their van can’t be ignored (Of course this means you are a Chomskyite, har!). I’d love to have a discussion about that but feeding the irrational speed will make this a mess.

  28. dino said on July 24th, 2010 at 10:21pm #

    Jeremy,i think that to deal with the issue proposed by Jeff Blankfort is a loss of time and give support for those who make questionable Chomsky immense contribution in presenting the reality of history since the 60’s as if would exist some doubtful things which deserve to be cleared in Chomsky works and activity.I think that Jeff Blankfort has a real psyhological problem,an obsession with Chomsky whom he accuses that has some “limits” and his limits are planned with the goal to deflect the entire “left”wing from its right way.In my opinion Chomsky is the only real leftist so if he has limits then really these influence the left wing.
    But your assert that Iraq is 100% made in USA is arguable.100%!!!What we see right now that is happen about Iran as an existential threat on Israel,Europe,America and her allies i see is 100%made in Israel and it is a copy of Iraq criminal and liar motivated war.

  29. mary said on July 24th, 2010 at 11:58pm #

    Meanwhile as the debates churn on here as to whether Chomsky is or is not a Zionist, who is a left Zionist and who is a right Zionist, who is a Jew or is not a Jew, (www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10688920) and so on ad infinitum, the fact is that these arguments are diverting attention away from the continuing daily Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people.

    This report (three days old) is not on the BBC website of course, nor on any of the ‘news’ channels.

    GAZA: Two dead and four children injured in Israeli nail bomb attack-

    Two dead and four children injured in Israeli nail bomb attack in Beit Hanoun, Gaza
    Posted on: July 22, 2010

    By ISM Gaza | 22 July 2010

    “She came in through and it wasn’t clear she was injured. Suddenly a lot of blood came from her nose and she vomited. All of the family saw this – her little brothers were very scared. She had just been playing in the front of the house.”

    This is a mother describing to us her daughter, 9-year-old Sammah as she came in to her home at 4pm after the Israeli army reportedly shelled and fired four bombs into and around a residential area in Beit Hanoun, Northern Gaza. She is now in a semi-critical condition in hospital, suffering extensive blood loss and very low haemoglobin. She was hit by shrapnel and ‘flechettes’ from a nail bomb that landed 100m away, causing internal bleeding to the chest, severe head trauma and nails embedded in her body. Shells containing flechettes are illegal under international law if fired into densely populated civilian areas and SamahEid El-Massry is one of four children injured in the attack yesterday, July 21st.

    Two young men were killed: Mohammad Al-Kafarneh, 23, from severe shrapnel injuries in his back and chest and Kasim Al-Shinbary, 19, caused by injuries from nails embedded in his skull and shrapnel wounds to the back. It was unclear earlier whether they were resistance fighters or if they were civilians – the Israeli Occupation Force called them ‘militants’ – just as they called the four children, aged between 4 and 11, who were left hospitalised by their injuries ‘militants’. Their parents could be found weeping over their loved ones in Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City last night.

    We first visited Haitham Thaer Qasem a four year old boy and a first and only child. He was sleeping on the hospital bed, occasionally gasping for breath through the strapping around his nose. He had suffered deep nasal trauma, and flechette darts from the nail bomb were still embedded in his tiny body, where they had pierced his back, right elbow and right leg. He was 200m from the impact of the bomb.

    …./FULL REPORT:
    http://palsolidarity.org/2010/07/13159/

  30. shabnam said on July 25th, 2010 at 12:13am #

    Many individuals including Bush’s advisor, Philip Zelikow, has said that Iraq invasion was for the interest of Israel. If he as an advisor to Bush does not know, then who DOES?

    Philip Zelikow , who was Bush’s advisor and was present with the neocons behind closed door while the neocons pro Israel were pushing a war with Iraq:
    IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 — the 9/11 commission — in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.
    Zelikow’s casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel’s security.
    From an Arab point of view:
    November 16, 2009
    When the US invasion of Iraq started in 2003 how often did we hear the slogan “No Blood for Oil” proclaimed loudly by the anti-war movement?
    How often did we hear the accusation that the “insatiable thirst” for oil of the American economy and the American consumer had caused this drive for war against an oil-rich country?
    But is this really what we should be focused on?
    Ahmed Janabi of Al-Jazeera has good reason, supported by new documentary evidence, to see a far more important motive for the US war-policy.
    On November 9, 2009 Janabi wrote:
    New Iraq going “soft on Israel”
    In 1951 the Arab League established the Bureau for Boycotting Israel. Based in Damascus, Syria, the bureau has lost much of its authority since Egypt, Jordan and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) signed peace treaties with Israel…
    Before the US-led invasion, Iraq adhered closely to the instructions of the bureau. Israeli companies, those with Israeli shareholders and companies with dealings with Israel were banned in Iraq….
    Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq endured 13 years of UN sanctions. During this time speculation was rife that one of the aims of the sanctions was to force Iraq into a peace process with Israel…
    Al Jazeera has obtained a document written by Saddam Hussein’s secretary, which conveys Hussein’s rejection of an offer to partake in a peace process with Israel in exchange for the lifting of sanctions….
    Badi Rafaia, a spokesman for the Federation of Anti-Normalisation with Israel Unions Committee in Jordan, said the US-led invasion of Iraq removed one of the last remaining obstacles to Israel’s denial of Palestinian rights.
    “[Before the war] Iraq was the main obstacle to Israel’s plan to establish ties with Arab countries and subsequently swallow Palestinians’ rights and demands,” he said.
    “We believe that Iraq’s decision to allow companies with ties to Israel to work in the country is the fruit of American strategy in the region.”
    Stephen Sniegoski believes that Iraq War conceived in Israel:
    However, a group of men and women in and out of government proposed war with Iraq even before 9/ll. These were the neoconservatives – including such leading Bush administration officials as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and L. Lewis “Scooter” Libby. What motivated these advocates of war with a country that never attacked the U.S. and posed little threat is the subject of an important new book, The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel.
    The new book examines the close relationship of the American neoconservatives and the Israeli Likudnik right, and its role as a fundamental driver of the Bush administration’s militant Middle East policy. Sniegoski states, “This orientation is at the root of the explanation for why our policy does not seem to address or correspond with the genuine security needs of the U.S…. Ideology and personal ties have blinded them to what most others clearly see was the foreign policy reality.”
    While U.S. policy traditionally stressed stability in the Middle East, “[T]he neocons called for destabilizing existing regimes…. Likudnik strategy saw the benefit of regional destabilization for its own sake – creating as it would an environment of weak, disunified states or statelets involved in internal and external conflicts that could easily be dominated by Israel…. Thus, unlike a true ‘cabal,’ characterized by secrecy, the neoconservatives’ was a ‘transparent cabal’ – oxymoronic as that term might be.”
    During the l990s – long before the 9/ll terrorist assault – the neoconservatives were quite open about their goal of war in the Middle East to destabilize Iraq and other enemies of Israel. Sniegoski cites a l996 paper entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy For Securing The Realm,” published by an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies.
    Included in the study group that prepared the report were figures who later loomed large in the Bush administration’s war policy – Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser.
    The “realm” that the study group sought to secure was that of Israel. The purpose of the policy paper was to provide a political blueprint for the incoming Israeli Likud government of Benjamin Netanyahu. The paper stated that Netanyahu should “make a clean break” with the Oslo peace process and reassert Israel’s claim to the West Bank and Gaza. It presented a plan by which Israel would “shape its strategic environment,” beginning with the removal of Saddam Hussein and the installation of a Hashemite monarchy in Baghdad. The same people – Feith, Wurmser, Perle – would later advise the Bush administration “to pursue virtually the same policy regarding the Middle East.”
    The study urged Israel to abandon any thought of trading land for peace with the Palestinians. Incredibly, the study referred to “Our claim to the land – to which we have clung for 2,000 years – is legitimate and noble.” For Americans to use the phrase “our” in describing the claims of a foreign government is indeed revealing.
    When Bush assumed the presidency in 2000, neoconservatives filled key defense and national security policy positions. Paul Wolfowitz became Deputy Defense Secretary, and Douglas Feith became Under Secretary for Policy. The principal neoconservatives on Vice President Cheney’s staff included “Scooter” Libby, Eric Edelman, and John Hannah. David Wurmser replaced Edelman in 2003. Elliott Abrams was a member of the National Security Council who in 2002 was put in charge of Near East policy.

    http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_conc1.htm

    Now, the Zionists are pushing Obama for military attack on Iran. The occupied congress have just passed H.Res. 1553:
    Nearly one third of the Republican Caucus in the House of Representatives has introduced a resolution giving Israel a green light to attack Iran. H.Res.1553 declares unwavering support for Israel to “use all means necessary,” to “eliminate nuclear threats” posed by Iran.
    Obama is the most dependent US president on lobby’s support to survive. Israel lobby WANTS AN ATTACK ON IRAN like Iraq. Obama has NO POWER to peruse a more balanced policy in the Middle East. He is labeled as YELLOW by his own black elite supporters since he caves in too quickly to please the neocons. The last example was the firing of Sharrod for remarks that she did not make. She was set up by the media. He quickly asked her to resign.
    The people in the Middle East are worried about Israel provocation to start a war. Netanyahu’s plan is to surprise Obama before the election in November so he goes into action on behalf of Israel not to be labeled as WEAK. Obama carrying a Yellow stick wants to look like presidential, thus, will follow Netanyahu’s lead and will shed more blood and resources to ‘protect’ Israel.

  31. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 25th, 2010 at 1:35am #

    @Hue Longer,

    As I understand it, you are saying that a case can be made that Israel was an influencing factor in the war in Iraq because there are indications Israel was responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. My response to that is:

    1) I was speaking specifically to intelligence. In the case of the mythical “intelligence failure”, none of the false claims — on aluminum tubes, UAVs, anthrax, mobile biological weapons labs, yellowcake, etc. — originated from Israel.

    2) While there is compelling evidence that Israeli intelligence was tracking the 9/11 hijackers and had advance knowledge of the attacks (as did U.S. intelligence; you cite the celebrating Israelis, but there is much more than that), it does not go so far as to support the claim that Israel itself was actually involved.

    @dino,

    Iran is a separate issue from Iraq. Even assuming it is as you say, that U.S. policy towards Iran is 100% made in Israel, it does not follow that the policy on Iraq was not 100% Made in the USA.

    @mary,

    I agree completely that “these arguments are diverting attention away from the continuing daily Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people.” That is why I wrote this article. The sooner people stop debating non-issues (such as by creating strawmen to debate against), diverting attention away from real issues, the better.

    @shabnam,

    Zelikow’s statement doesn’t really have any bearing on what I said, which was that the entire manufactured “intelligence” case against Iran was 100% Made in the USA. Like I said, none of this “intelligence”, so far as is publicly known, came from Israel.

    As for the broader discussion of the interests of Israel in the war, please see my discussion of it here:
    http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2007/09/06/the-reasons-for-regime-change-in-iraq/

    “Obama has NO POWER to peruse a more balanced policy in the Middle East.”

    Nonsense. He has a lot of power. He could do his job, for instance, and execute the law. For instance, under U.S. law, arms sales and financial aid to regimes that consistently engage in violations of international law and human rights abuses are illegal. Instead of saying to Israel, “You guys should really stop settlement construction” while at the same time saying, “U.S. support to Israel will continue unabated, unconditionally”, he could have said: “Israel, if you don’t stop your violations of international law, U.S. financial support, arms sales, and diplomatic support will cease.”

    There is a whole hell of a lot Obama could do.

    This whole argument that the Israeli lobby is behind everything the U.S. only serves to relegate responsibility for U.S. policy away from U.S. policymakers. This is not to deny that the lobby has an influence, but it is not a conspiratorial monolithic force directing U.S. policy. As Max Shields put it so well:

    “Whatever AIPAC does it does in a host that has long positioned itself for projection of global miliary and economic power.”

  32. dino said on July 25th, 2010 at 2:35am #

    Jeremy,I agree with Max Shields but US is more less paranoic than Israel.US has a great influence in world (still) ,even Iranian people,according with Stephan Kinzer who visited Iran recently, is a great sympathizer of US.So US really doesn’t see “existential threat”after every corner and has time that people in the countries which are still not US satellite to do some color revolutions of course with the help of NGO’s and money supported by US and become such.Israel doesn;t hope that whatsoever regime in whatsoever country will be pro Israel even the regime installed in Iraq is not a solution for Israel and she wants US army to remain there.This is the reason that Israel sees only war which strike the enemy strong and this solution should be repeated after some years.The role of Israel in Iraq invasion was very significant,how wrote Mearsheimer and Walt.

  33. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 25th, 2010 at 2:48am #

    dino,

    I don’t think Israel’s role in the Iraq invasion was significant at all. I’m perfectly willing to hear an argument that it was, but evidence is required, and I know of none, and you’ve presented none.

    As for U.S. policy towards Iran, neither is this dictated by Israel. True, the U.S. policy is not based on any perceived “existential threat” to the U.S. Here, it is the threat against Israel that is cited. It does not follow, however, that Israel is dictating this policy. Rather, the manufactured threat against Israel merely serves to “legitimize” the U.S. policy, which is driven by the perceived self-interest of the U.S. political elite. Israel is merely a pretext. The basic framework here is that the U.S. owns the world. Iran refuses to recognize that fact, so must be punished. U.S. policy towards Iran has nothing at all to do with its nuclear program — any more than policy towards Iraq had anything to do with WMD. It is about enforcing the “credibility” of U.S. hegemony.

  34. Deadbeat said on July 25th, 2010 at 3:39am #

    Jeremy R. Hammond writes …

    Zelikow’s statement doesn’t really have any bearing on what I said, which was that the entire manufactured “intelligence” case against Iran was 100% Made in the USA. Like I said, none of this “intelligence”, so far as is publicly known, came from Israel.

    The strawman that Mr. Hammond introduces is whether or not the war on Iraq was “directed” by Israel. This is the similar strawman that Max Shields when he first appeared on DV also tried argue. The point of arguing this strawman is that in order for the statement to have validity you have to show hard evidence that someone like Netanyahu or Sharon ordered George Bush to invade Iraq. Such evidence is impossible to provide. Thus the conclusion is that since the invasion of Iraq was directed by the “USA” then the United States is at fault. Thus “little old” Israel could not possibly be behind the invasion. To argue such is bending “anti-Zionist” to express tacitly “anti-Semitic” sentiments.

    The problem with the strawman is that while the “USA” invaded Iraq what Mr. Hammond and the Chomskyites how to BLUR is the INFLUENCE of American Zionism on the policy formation. What Mr. Hammond MUST ignore is the Project of New American Century and the signatories who were influential WITHIN the Bush Administration such as Dick Chaney and Paul Wolfowitz as well as the influence of AIPAC — influence which Chomsky’s dismisses.

    What Chomsky’s critics have stated is that the “War for Oil” promoted by the Chomsky and his followers NEVER considered any influence of Zionists who were the most vocal supporters in the invasion of Iraq. There is plenty of evidence that the oil companies were AGAINST the invasion. This aspect has constantly been suppressed by the “Left”.

    The “Left” NEVER identified Dick Chaney as a signatory of PNAC but activist were reminded constantly of Chaney’s Halliburton affiliations. The question is why the focus on one aspects (resources aka “Imperialism”) but not the Zionist Power Configuration. In other words the issue is not that oil has NO influence in the War on Iraq it is the Chomskyites insistence that Zionism had NO influence.

    Notice how Mr. Hammond argues “Israel” rather than Zionism. This is why the Chomskyites are now trying to infiltrate and redirect the BDS movement. At best they desire to maintain a narrow focus — Israel — without turning the lens to Zionism. They key is to limit Zionism as an Israel only problem and NOT a U.S. problem (and a worldwide problem).

    Israel is Zionism in the form of nationalism but Zionism goal is a racist goal and to see a long drawn out defense of a Zionist adherent in anti-Leftist and racist. As I stated it has retarded solidarity and makes the the Left suspect especially with people of color. It we were talking about the Tea Party or David Duke this would be obvious but somehow it’s OK to give a PROFESSED Zionist a pass.

  35. Deadbeat said on July 25th, 2010 at 3:55am #

    lichen writes …

    Max is right, jumping on, distorting some stray words of Zinn or Chomsky in the last years of their life to attack and disappear the vastness of their very valuable, good life’s work is pathetic.

    If it was only “stray words” it would not be a problem however Zinn and Chomsky has not been the so-called “radical” as they’ve been described by the “Left”. Their most recent activities have revealed their true affiliation. The political positions were most revealed during the anti-war movement of 2003-2004.

    It was easy for them to take the stances they did during the civil rights movement and during the anti-Vietnam war years. They’ve rode that for years. However there were a number of Jews who participated in both movement only later to become neo-conservatives. Joesph Lieberman is one such person.

    What was different in 2003-2004 is that a strong anti-war Libertarian voice along with and some members of the Left who were involved in anti-war movement raised the issue of Zionist influence in the War on Iraq. That idea had to be quashed and the Left effectively killed the anti-war movement — especially the UFPJ/Phyllis Bennis faction. Then the anti-war electorial campaigned of Ralph Nader had to be stopped. That was aided by Ted Glick and Medea Benjamin. Howard Zinn’s role along with Michael Albert’s ZMAG crew and FAIR’s Norman Soloman was to convince the Left to support pro-war John Kerry via the Anybody But Bush rhetoric.

    As Jeffrey Blankfort writes …

    Once upon a time Prof. Chomsky was considered by many to be the most important spokesperson for the Palestinian cause. It was a position he attained largely on the basis of his writings and activism in opposing the Vietnam War and US intervention in Central America in which, unlike the case with Israel, he had no personal vested interest. That Chomsky has maintained that position despite the presence in the US of a number of distinguished Palestinian professors, among them the late Edward Said, who were and are more knowledgeable about the subject and could speak from personal experience that does not include prior service as “a Zionist youth leader”—Chomsky’s background– is a reflection of the political culture of the American Left which was and remains substantially if not predominantly Jewish, particularly in its leadership positions.

    What is pathetic is the corruption of the Left to a racist ideology.

  36. Deadbeat said on July 25th, 2010 at 4:03am #

    Jeremy R. Hammond writes…

    @Deadbeat,
    “Noam Chomsky is a PROFESSED Zionist and has spent the better part of 40 years defending an apartheid system.”

    False. It’s true he was at one point, by his own description, a “Zionist youth leader”. But you can read in my article what his idea of “Zionism” was, which is not at all what the word means today. He was and is opposed to the Jewish state. And he’s spent the better part of 40 years endlessly criticizing the apartheid system.

    Mr. Hammond YOU ARE INCORRECT and it is really disappointing that you defend a racist adherent.

    CHOMSKY PROFESSED HIS AFFINITY TO ZIONISM this YEAR during an interview on Israeli television.

    Here the link to the interview …
    Noam Chomsky Interview: “I regard myself as a supporter of Israel”

  37. Deadbeat said on July 25th, 2010 at 4:22am #

    Max Shields writes …

    Deadbeat who is YOUR “left” and who the hell are you to think they are some fuckin dumb they need someone like Chomsky or anyone else to do their thinking? There is no Chomskyism except as you forumlate him into some kind of strawman.

    Max you are hilarious to try to deny how the Left has anointed an adherent of a racist ideology as its intellectual leader. Movies has been made about the man. Are you joking. Are you Rip-Van-Shields just waking up from a 40 year slumber. The one who is ridiculous is YOU Max. You can’t even make a coherent argument.

    Since when are YOU the one who DECIDES whether or not others are using the “tenents” of justice, fairness and equality?

    Since when did you Max become a defender of an adherent of a racist ideology. If this was a discussion of David Duke or the Tea Party you’d be one of the first ones to cry “RACISM”. But when the topic is Noam Chomsky his racist duplicity is acceptable with you.

    If you don’t like my description of what it means to be on the Left then Max you are free to offer your own designation or would that reveal your own hypocrisy?

    YOU are the strawman creator when you credit Chomsky with your phony bull shit. It is YOU who make Chomsky into this demigod. YOU are the one who can’t read, or is so blinded by some ideological deformity that you have become the johnny one note

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA……

    Stop it Max you are funnier than Bozo the Clown. Yeah they made movie starring or featuring Noam Chomsky yet Max Shields blames me for making Noam Chomsky a … demigod. Amy ($1,000,000.00/year) Goodman feature Noam Chomsky on the very day Israel illegally boards the Gaza flotilla — how ironic.

    – there use to be a place when people started exhibiting delusional repetitive monologues… sometimes they’d rob and armory and go looking for Castro. In your case, fortunately, you keep it here on DV.

    No Max I’m not getting paid $1,000,000.00/year to pump up Chomsky but if I wanted to I could possibly make a good living EXPOSING the “Left’s” racist/Zionist affinities. But for not it’s merely a PUBLIC service.

    Who the hell cares about Chomsky more than YOU do Deadbeat. You have nothing to say without him.

    I guess you didn’t read the article by Jeffery Blankfort. As a PUBLIC service here’s the link…
    Chomsky and Palestine: Asset or Liability?

    The problem Max is that you put yourself on the side of defending an adherent of a RACIST IDEOLOGY that is why the “Left” is placed in quotes because it does NOT represent the ideals of JUSTICE, FAIRNESS and EQUALITY.

  38. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 25th, 2010 at 4:31am #

    Deadbeat,

    1) “The strawman that Mr. Hammond introduces…”

    I didn’t employ any strawman argument. I observed: “the entire manufactured “intelligence” case against Iran was 100% Made in the USA. Like I said, none of this “intelligence”, so far as is publicly known, came from Israel.” If you disagree with that, you’re welcome to present evidence to the contrary.

    2) “What Mr. Hammond MUST ignore is the Project of New American Century and…”

    I don’t “ignore” PNAC, et al, at all, e.g.:
    Inconvenient Facts and ‘Conspiracy Theories’
    http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2004/01/07/inconvenient-facts-and-conspiracy-theories/

    The Reasons for Regime Change in Iraq
    http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2007/09/06/the-reasons-for-regime-change-in-iraq/

    So, as everyone can see, it’s you employing strawman argumentation.

    3) “There is plenty of evidence that the oil companies were AGAINST the invasion.”

    Such as?

    4) “Notice how Mr. Hammond argues “Israel” rather than Zionism. … At best they desire to maintain a narrow focus — Israel — without turning the lens to Zionism.”

    Again, you’re employing a strawman and speaking from a position of total ignorance about my actual views. I’ve written extensively on Zionism, e.g.:

    The Rejection of Palestinian Self-Determination
    http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/the-rejection-of-palestinian-self-determination/5533084

    Woe to you, Christian Zionists, hypocrites!
    http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2010/07/08/woe-to-you-christian-zionists-hypocrites/

    There Is No Two-State Solution
    http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2010/07/21/there-is-no-two-state-solution/

    The Simplicity of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
    http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2010/05/25/the-simplicity-of-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/

    Top Ten Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (free subscriber content only)
    http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2010/06/17/top-ten-myths-about-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/

    The U.N. Partition Plan and Arab ‘Catastrophe’
    http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2010/04/13/the-u-n-partition-plan/

    And both of the previous two articles of mine I gave you.

    Do you criticize Mearsheimer and Walt for calling their essay “The Israel Lobby” and not “The Zionist Lobby”? Just curious.

    5) “Mr. Hammond YOU ARE INCORRECT and it is really disappointing that you defend a racist adherent.”

    You offer no evidence of your claim Chomsky is “a racist”. You should actually read the article. You might learn something. And no need to repeat myself.

  39. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 25th, 2010 at 4:35am #

    Comment didn’t go through. Don’t know if it was sent to spam because of links or awaiting moderation. So submitting without links for now. Admins, if earlier comment approved, please delete this one:

    Deadbeat,

    1) “The strawman that Mr. Hammond introduces…”

    I didn’t employ any strawman argument. I observed: “the entire manufactured “intelligence” case against Iran was 100% Made in the USA. Like I said, none of this “intelligence”, so far as is publicly known, came from Israel.” If you disagree with that, you’re welcome to present evidence to the contrary.

    2) “What Mr. Hammond MUST ignore is the Project of New American Century and…”

    I don’t “ignore” PNAC, et al, at all, e.g.:
    *Inconvenient Facts and ‘Conspiracy Theories’
    *The Reasons for Regime Change in Iraq

    So, as everyone can see, it’s you employing strawman argumentation.

    3) “There is plenty of evidence that the oil companies were AGAINST the invasion.”

    Such as?

    4) “Notice how Mr. Hammond argues “Israel” rather than Zionism. … At best they desire to maintain a narrow focus — Israel — without turning the lens to Zionism.”

    Again, you’re employing a strawman and speaking from a position of total ignorance about my actual views. I’ve written extensively on Zionism, e.g.:

    * The Rejection of Palestinian Self-Determination
    * Woe to you, Christian Zionists, hypocrites!
    * There Is No Two-State Solution
    * The Simplicity of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
    * Top Ten Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (free subscriber content only)
    * The U.N. Partition Plan and Arab ‘Catastrophe’
    * Both of the previous two articles of mine I gave you.

    Do you criticize Mearsheimer and Walt for calling their essay “The Israel Lobby” and not “The Zionist Lobby”? Just curious.

    5) “Mr. Hammond YOU ARE INCORRECT and it is really disappointing that you defend a racist adherent.”

    You offer no evidence to support you claim Chomsky is “a racist”. You should actually read the article. You might learn something. And no need to repeat myself.

  40. Deadbeat said on July 25th, 2010 at 4:42am #

    Jeremy Hammond writes …

    You offer no evidence to support you claim Chomsky is “a racist”.

    Really? I guess being a PROFESSED Zionist is not in your book not a racist. It is in mine. It is Noam Chomsky is claim to have the affinity to Zionism not me Mr. Hammond. Perhaps you need to listen to the interview. I posted the link. Like you say Mr. Hammond …

    You might learn something. And no need to repeat myself.

  41. Deadbeat said on July 25th, 2010 at 4:43am #

    Should read …

    I guess being a PROFESSED Zionist in your book is not a racist.

  42. Deadbeat said on July 25th, 2010 at 4:46am #

    So, as everyone can see, it’s you employing strawman argumentation.

    3) “There is plenty of evidence that the oil companies were AGAINST the invasion.”

    Such as?

    The Economist.

    Check out the Economist or just source footnotes from James Petras articles. You can find them here on DV.

  43. Deadbeat said on July 25th, 2010 at 4:49am #

    Also you said something interesting Mr. Hammond about Chomsky’s past. While Chomsky was a Zionist “youth” (actually he still is a Zionist), he also identified himself as a “Libertarian Socialist”. Now tell me how as a Libertarian Socialist can he possible “Support Israel”. That’s totally contradictory because Libertarian Socialist are ardently anti-nationalist.

    It’s really a pity that you are spending your time defending this hypocrite.

  44. Don Hawkins said on July 25th, 2010 at 4:50am #

    “If we choose, we can live in a world of comforting illusion.”

    All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda system, there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume.
    Noam Chomsky

    Interesting quotes although in the first quote is the word comforting I might change that word to mindless illusion. Is old Noam a PHD.

  45. Max Shields said on July 25th, 2010 at 5:08am #

    Deadbeat to avoid a back and forth umpteen issues you’ve purported, the oil issue and Iraq is not a simple as oil companies supposedly not wanting to invade. The dominos that fell begain in early 1990s and it was oil based – the invasion of Kuwait. But beyond that it is Petras’s drive to make resources specifically oil a non-issue as regards the Middle East. Was it a stupid invasion? Absolutely, oil stopped flowing and I don’t think it’s reached the levels of the pre-invasion, or even pre-1990 when Bush I ran the Desert Storm Op.

    The point, and I know how hard it is for you to discern this, Deadbeat, is that Petras overplayed his hand on oil/Zionism. As I’ve said here countless times, it appears there were many, including Zionist/neocon influencers, who pushed the invasion. Unwrapping that into a clear – Israel was the reason we invaded Iraq is way beyond anything that Petras can unequivocally conclude. And in and of its self that’s fine. But one needs to be careful that in the zest to prove a point (perhaps a pre-judgement) they distort the whole US history.

    And, Deadbeat, you have taken Petras’s every word and then some to create a narrative that goes way beyond the facts, and is ahistorical. In fighting the Zionist you have taken on the Zionist methods of re-writing history.

  46. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 25th, 2010 at 5:09am #

    @Deadbeat,

    1) “I guess being a PROFESSED Zionist is not in your book not a racist.”

    Do you care at all to actually try to comprehend what Chomsky’s view of “Zionism” was in the 1940’s? Is it irrelevant to you that his being a “PROFESSED Zionist” included his opposition to a Jewish state, for instance? You’re being intellectually dishonest.

    2) “There is plenty of evidence that the oil companies were AGAINST the invasion.”

    Please provide an example of the evidence you refer to in the assertion. I have no interest in searching for needles in haystacks, nor time to do so. Support your assertion. Or don’t. But if you can’t support your statements, don’t be surprised that you convince nobody.

    3) “It’s really a pity that you are spending your time defending this hypocrite.”

    It’s really a pity you are spending your time creating strawman arguments in order to support your claim that Chomsky is a “hypocrite”.

  47. Don Hawkins said on July 25th, 2010 at 5:16am #

    Hay the US is doing war games in Asia and North Korea said this could lead to nuclear war well that does sound good. How many big bombs does the North have maybe two. Heck no problem 10 or eleven could be a problem, “If we choose, we can live in a world of comforting illusion,” hay DB you know that little train coming down the track I wonder the greatest minds in human history you know alive today where do they see themselves fitting in in the general scams of things?

  48. Don Hawkins said on July 25th, 2010 at 5:23am #

    Oh I wrote scams because I didn’t know how to spell scheme.

  49. BartFargo said on July 25th, 2010 at 9:05am #

    Great piece Mr. Hammond. As you must know, people hardly ever admit their views are untenable on the internet, so don’t be surprised if you’re forced to debate folks like Deadbeat into eternity. But for one, you’ve changed my views on how Mr. Chomsky relates to the I-P conflict. Chomsky simply presents a more nuanced stance on the conflict than most activists are willing to accept could be possible, and proscribes a likewise more nuanced course of action. It would be convenient to have Israel as the Great Satan behind all global evil, but the world hardly ever presents us with such black and white scenarios.

  50. dino said on July 25th, 2010 at 10:19am #

    Jeremy,i consider that a war is prepared by an intense propaganda which should prepare the population to support the war.In the case of Iraq Israeli propaganda depicted Saddam as Hitler ,as a danger for the world ,a crafty man who tricked the world working darkly to get nuclear weapon.”The war with Iraq is a must” said Shimon Peres. Exactly the same is done now on Iran.How Einstein said “is a naivete to think that things that once drove to an effect , in second experience will drive to other”.So you not consider that this propaganda and the insistence that the solution for “the crisis”is only war is a significant contribution in Iraq invasion and in US attack of Iran ?

    A former CIA director says military action against Iran now seems more likely because no matter what the U.S. does diplomatically, Tehran keeps pushing ahead with its suspected nuclear program. (Michael Hayden,in Haaretz today)

  51. mary said on July 25th, 2010 at 10:39am #

    Bartfargo – it is not a conflict. It is a cruel Occupation and oppression of a people who the Israelis would like to see driven out. And of course the Zionist lobbies in America and in other countries like the UK, Canada, Australia and France are controlling the wars on Islamic peoples. The lobby is embedded in all walks of our lives from banking to the law, from the press to the entertainment industry..

  52. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 25th, 2010 at 10:55am #

    @BartFargo, thanks.

    @dino, “So you not consider that this propaganda and the insistence that the solution for “the crisis”is only war is a significant contribution in Iraq invasion and in US attack of Iran ?” I don’t know if I understand the question. Are you asking whether or not I think propaganda played a role in preparing the public for war? If so, of course I do.

  53. Max Shields said on July 25th, 2010 at 11:03am #

    Dino, what is extremely difficult to unravel is the extent to which Israel played in US Iraq invasion.

    Depending on who you see “pulling strings” one could say: 1) Israel has threads that lead to the US media through some kind of Jewish linkage 2) Chomsky would say that the US media is run by US corporation with no ties to Israel. Chomsky would also add that what we see time and again is manufactured consent. Now one could say the the advertisers that pull the media strings are a coalition of Israeli sympathizers. But what if that’s not the case? What if the urge to go to war is simply captivating; and raises viewer and readership through the ceiling? These are dynamics which cannot be ignored.

    What propels a nation to war is largely its readiness to do battle (aka Military Industrial Complex). To quote Napolean: “You Can Do Anything with a Bayonet Except Sit on It.” In other words a bayonet is used to fight not talk. The US dynamic is always – to go or not to go to war. The US is always on the precipice of war. The complexity of who pushed who can be an interesting intrigue but it works when a nation is armed to the teeth. France would not have gone to war had 911 happened there.

  54. shabnam said on July 25th, 2010 at 12:11pm #

    Jeremy
    {That the entire manufactured “intelligence” case against Iran was 100% made in the USA. Like I said, none of this “intelligence”, so far as is publicly known, came from Israel.}

    Are you trying to say Israel has nothing to do with all these propaganda against Iran, which its aim is to bring the public on board? Is this the job of a ‘client state’? BS.

    If this is the policy of the United States, where Chomsky is trying to project, then why so many Zionist Jews are involved in leading their stooges at the White House, senate, congress and other governmental institutions? Why so many Israel firsters are in the key position of the military, intelligence, think tanks and other places. Why are they so involved and active in the design and implementation of the war?
    Do you think, the Jewish lobby is lounging propaganda campaign to help the ‘empire’ as a good ‘client state’?

    Frankly, you have not proven that Israel was not the primary force behind Iraq war and now Iran war. Why should I follow you and not Bush’s advisor who was present inside the room behind closed doors while they were discussing invasion of Iraq? YOU WERE NOT PRESENT IN THAT ROOM.
    Contrary to the closet Zionists like Chomsky who believes Israel is an ASSET, facts on the ground show that Israel neither is an asset nor an ally only liability. This fact has recently repeated by a Mossad agent that ISRAEL IS A BURDEN on the United States. Why are the closet zionists trying to fool the public?
    Recently, one of the staunch defender of Israel, Mort Zuckerman, wrote a post to tell a lie, like closet Zionists that Israel is “the strategic ally” of the United States. To prove his point he wrote:

    {What is forgotten in this administration is that Israel has been an ally that has paid dividends exceeding its costs. Yes, Israel receives $3 billion annually in military aid, but 70 percent is used to purchase American military equipment and provides jobs at home. Further, the United States and Israel are working jointly to improve missile defense capabilities, and they have cooperated on countermeasures against roadside bombs, the largest single cause of U.S. casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. These are already providing security to U.S. civilians and ground troops throughout the Middle East. Israel also provides U.S. officials with real-time access to one of the best intelligence services in the world regarding al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Iran, and Hamas. There is Israel’s strategic location on the Mediterranean. It provides a port of call for U.S. troops, ships, aircraft, and intelligence sources, and a place where arms, fuel, munitions, and other supplies can be stockpiled and accessed when America needs them in the region.}
    http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2010/05/26/the-strategic-ally-myth/
    This kind of rubbish plus “Israel is a place for advancement of technology” to save billion of dollars for US corporations and tax payers is repeated by Chomsk. Chomsky said the same rubbish in a meeting on the lates Israel l war crimes against Palestinians, GAZA genocide, in response to a question from the audience: “What is the benefit of Israel to tax payers beside parking our helicopters over there?”

    The fact is, as Philip Giraldi in a reply to Zuckerman’s assertion that “Israel is a “strategic ally” meaning an ASSET NOT LIABILITY, wrote:

    {Israel has never been an ally of any country because it would force it to restrain its aggressive behavior, requiring consultation with its ally before attacking other nations. It is also unable to define its own borders, which have been expanding ever since it was founded in 1948. Without defined borders it is impossible to enter into an alliance because most alliances are established so that one country will come to the aid of another if it is attacked, which normally means having its territorial integrity violated. Since Israel intends to continue expanding its borders it cannot commit to an alliance with anyone and has, in fact, rebuffed several bids by Washington to enter into some kind of formal arrangement.}

    If Israel is a client state, as Chomsky wants us to believe, then why Israel DOES NOT FOLLOW THE INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES BUT ONLY THE INTEREST OF ISRAEL?
    The closet Zionists like Chomsky says all these activities are according to US POLICY NOT ZIONIST POLICY. Then, why did Obama went against the US INTEREST and asked Netanyahu to stop illegal settlements where he received Netanyahu’s middle finger for an answer? So Joseph Biden. Why a client state does not follow the order? This is not the reason given by Chomsky on Iran where he tries to hide the hand of the zionist Jews in pushing for a war against Iran? Why Israel is not attacked?

    If Israel lobby does not control the Middle East policy, then why an Israel firster , War monger, Dennis Ross, who know sh*t about Iran should be designated as Obama’s advisor on Iran? This is conflict of Interest and against the interest of the United State, but a Win Win situation for “Jewish state”. Why did the lobby go after Chas Freeman to prevent him to become the new Chairman of the National Intelligence Council — essentially the think tank for the CIA and Directorate of National Intelligence? As has been said:
    Some in the hard line AIPAC crowd, though not formally AIPAC itself, are going after Freeman for having been a financial beneficiary from Saudi relationships.

  55. kalidas said on July 25th, 2010 at 12:44pm #

    Chomsky would have us all believe the Romans crucified Jesus for oil.
    Or was it Barabbas?
    Oh, yeah, that’s right … never mind.

  56. Hue Longer said on July 25th, 2010 at 3:28pm #

    Hello Jeremy,
    I was trying to point out earlier that though Israel-US relationships is a great debate that needs to happen, your case on clearing up sophistry against Chomsky doesn’t need it. Dead Beat isn’t intellectually dishonest– he doesn’t know what he’s doing and my guess is that many reading it, get into a cum hoc state when there are two things being argued. I think your points are valid and your adherence to logic (aside from feeding the animals) outstanding but I think Israeli control of US actions is more believable (or harder to explain) than Chomsky leading an insidious plot to see Israel protected from leftists…. I’d love to see the debates on their own.

    Cheers

  57. teafoe2 said on July 25th, 2010 at 5:35pm #

    Well well, it seems that Blankfort’s article struck a nerve. I’ve just returned to DV from visiting the Pulse Media site where the article was first published. The comment thread there is even longer than this one, at least in total lines. A comment there by a Chomsky fan signed in as “Tarnopol” is longer than Blankfort’s piece and Hammond’s attempt to rebut combined.

    There is a link to Hammond’s screed plus a reference to the fact that it has been published on DV, then a lengthy rebuttal of Hammond’s criticisms by Blankfort, which should be of interest to anyone involved in or pondering involvment in this ongoing debate.

    I haven’t yet visited Palestine Think Tank which republished the Pulse Media piece and sent it to their email list. I did visit the Louis Proyect “Marxmail.org” site and saw there has been considerable discussion of it there, but had some difficulty opening archived pages which is probably due to some yet-to-be ironed out quirks of IE8 or/and W7. Which is frustrating, because MM readers/commenters include many extremely knowledgeable writers with reputations approaching those of Chomsky & Petras, people like Michael Lebowitz whose new book I want to read.
    Proyect is a brilliant and erudite fellow; I’m impatient to see where he comes down on this one since I think he may have a tendency to identify so strongly with his Jewish roots that he lets that overcome his attachment to the cause of the “International Working Class”. But I could be underestimating him. ??

    Okay, posting this much, more coming.

  58. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 25th, 2010 at 6:00pm #

    “Are you trying to say Israel has nothing to do with all these propaganda against Iran, which its aim is to bring the public on board? Is this the job of a ‘client state’? BS.”

    I typed “Iran”. I meant “Iraq”, which would have been clear to you had you been reading the whole thread.

    “Frankly, you have not proven that Israel was not the primary force behind Iraq…”

    I haven’t tried to. Nobody here has offered any evidence that it was.

    “Contrary to the closet Zionists like Chomsky who believes Israel is an ASSET…”

    Dude, you’re just being ignorant. Read the article. Try to at least make a LITTLE effort to learn what Chomsky’s actual views are before presuming to tell others what they are. As anyone familiar with even a yod or a tittle of Chomsky’s work knows, he argues tirelessly against the U.S.-Israeli “special relationship”, precisely because he sees it as harmful to both the U.S. and Israel (in addition to the Palestinians, needless to say). When he says Israel is a “strategic asset”, he means in the equations of elite policymakers — it is not his own view.

    @kalidas

    “Chomsky would have us all believe the Romans crucified Jesus for oil.”

    Assuming you are referring to Iraq, are you suggesting the war wasn’t about oil? Are you putting forth the hypothesis that if Iraq’s principle export was pickles, the war still would have occurred?

    @Hue Longer,

    Right. You’re reiterating a point I made in the article, which is that such dishonest articles as Jeffrey’s serve only to distract people from the real issues, to feed ignorance instead of promoting a greater understanding.

    @teafoe2,

    Actually, just to set the record straight, Jeffrey didn’t “rebuttal” any single point I made in my response to his article. In fact, he made absolutely no attempt to.

  59. teafoe2 said on July 25th, 2010 at 6:36pm #

    Compliments and thanks to Shabnam for the best contribution so far.

    Hammond, Chomsky, and all the little chomskie’s erroneous views all stem from the same set of false premises. They are convinced that “israel” is a country much like other countries, one with good points and faults, but a country which a reasonable person can try to dissuade from policies which will ultimately be harmful to its wellbeing and survival.

    Which is insane. Stark raving nuts.

    People like Hammond and his hero have a well-polished skill at enmeshing critics in the minutae of government operations which diverts attention from the overall reality.

    The term “Israel Lobby” is a misnomer. AIPAC and the Council of Presidents are only the tip of a vast semi-submerged/semi-visible Entity, a monster with one head in “israel” and one in the US, plus secondary manifestations worldwide.

    The “State of Israel” is only one component of the Zionist State Apparatus, aka the Zionist Power Configuration. Similarly, AIPAC and the rest of the US “Jewish Community”, outfits like the Council of Prexies, the ADL, JCRC, the major national religious associations, form another component.

    “Manufacturing Consent”: haha:) The truth is that the US MSM is a wholly owned subsidiary of the ZPC. All the involved theorizing of the Norman Solomons and the Bob McChesneys exists for only one purpose: to distract us from the obvious reality that the US MSM operates 24/7 to advance the interests of the Zionist Enterprise.

    You can check out Blankfort’s exhaustive expose of Jewish ownership and executive control of the US Media, or you can just turn on your TV & check out what’s on.

    “Entertainment” made available to the moviegoing/TV-watching public primarily consists of productions which demonize Arabs, Iranians, Muslims, and glorifies killing them. Many of the same programs and many others constantly praise “israel”, present the Zionist version of ME history and archaeology, and day after day pound into viewer’s heads the refrain “Hitler, Hitler, Hitler”, as if nothing of importance had happened in the world since 1945.

    No, I don’t need to rebut Hammond’s rap sentence by sentence. All I have to do is look at what he ignores.

  60. Max Shields said on July 25th, 2010 at 7:04pm #

    These discussions regarding Chomsky remind me what the philosopher John Rogers Searle had to say about taking science to the public arena. He said it simply cannot be done because in order to understand a scientific argument you need to be immersed in the language of science and how the particular argument has evolved. That the public just cannot appreciate the nuances of what is happening in science without diluting the whole argument.

    Sounds a bit elitist, but never the less one wonders if Chomsky does not represent this. Afterall his work in linguistics is not for the faint of heart or mind. I think of his back and forth with Michel Foucault regarding human nature and am reminded just how subtle those arguments were.

    When posters say things like “Chomsky would have us all believe the Romans crucified Jesus for oil.” You have to ask yourself is this a discussion we are really ready to have. Can we just make up this stuff and pretend it’s intelligible, passing it off as thoughtful.

    I still have real problems with Chomsky’s view of a two-state solution. I really don’t know what is meant by a “binational” state that differs substantially from two states – as we use to say, separate but equal (a Jim Crow argument if ever there was one). But just because a boy was taken by some form of Zionism hardly makes this his lifelong albatross, one that means there is nothing he says which is not meant as a “Zionist conspiracy” (we do love our soap opera conspiracies don’t we?)

  61. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 25th, 2010 at 8:47pm #

    @ teafoe2,

    * “Hammond, Chomsky, and all the little chomskie’s erroneous views all stem from the same set of false premises. They are convinced that “israel” is a country much like other countries, one with good points and faults, but a country which a reasonable person can try to dissuade from policies which will ultimately be harmful to its wellbeing and survival. Which is insane. Stark raving nuts. ”

    Address what I’ve written, rather than creating a strawman argument.

    * ““Entertainment” made available to the moviegoing/TV-watching public primarily consists of productions which demonize Arabs, Iranians, Muslims, and glorifies killing them.”

    This is a non sequitur. It’s certainly true, but it doesn’t follow that Zionists must therefore control the MSM. To demonstrate the fallacy, it’s enough to observe the fact that well before there was ever a thing called “Zionism”, anti-Arab and anti-Muslim propaganda filled the media and other public discourse. Cultural and religious difference go a long way towards explaining this. Some monolithic Zionist conspiracy is hardly necessary.

    * “No, I don’t need to rebut Hammond’s rap sentence by sentence. All I have to do is look at what he ignores.”

    It would help if you actually substantively addressed anything I’ve said. I welcome you to point out any error in fact or logic I’ve made. I’d be delighted if you were to actually try and do so; this discussion would be much more interesting.

    @Max Shields,

    I think what Chomsky means by “binational” is a single democratic state but with autonomous communities of either ethnicity. The Arabs proposed something similar in the 40s. Existing Jewish communities that were already autonomous (e.g. the kibbutzim) could remain so, but within the context of a larger single state of Palestine, with a constitution that protected the rights of the minority (e.g. the Jews) and guaranteed representation in government.

  62. kalidas said on July 25th, 2010 at 8:58pm #

    Probably a good idea to discuss it before it becomes illegal to discuss it.

    It being the same the same mo today as it was 2,000 years ago.

    Feel free to substitute anything you wish for oil.

    Well, almost anything. (wink wink)

  63. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 25th, 2010 at 9:06pm #

    @kalidas,

    All right, I’m willing to hear an argument that Rumsfeld was being totally straight when he said oil has nothing … nothing at all … to do with it. So please explain what you think the primary motivation(s) was/were and what evidence you know of to support your view.

  64. PatrickSMcNally said on July 25th, 2010 at 9:33pm #

    The authors of “A Clean Break” do not appear to have acting as agents for Exxon-Mobil or BP as far as one can tell from the text of their own document:

    http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm

    —–
    Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions…
    —–

    Does anyone know of a similar document buried somewhere in the files of BP which speaks of “removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq” and characterizes it as “an important … strategic objective in its own right”? Some of the people who made up this document (Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser) seem to have resurfaced later when the Iraq invasion was on the agenda. Is there any comparable evidence of oil companies having participated in advocacy of the war?

  65. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 25th, 2010 at 10:13pm #

    @PatrickSMcNally,

    * “The authors of “A Clean Break” do not appear to have acting as agents for Exxon-Mobil or BP as far as one can tell from the text of their own document”

    No, certainly not. Has somebody suggested otherwise? You’re constructing a strawman argument.

    First of all, Perle, et al offered this to Netanyahu, not vice versa.

    Secondly, that Perle, et al have Israeli interests in mind in their calculations does not preclude them as Americans from also having U.S. interests in mind.

    Thirdly, numerous other policy papers from this same group of individuals, such as the ’92 Defense Planning Guidance and the PNAC Rebuilding America’s Defenses explictly state that hegemony over the oil-rich Gulf region is an overriding factor in their calculations. Yes, they are Zionists. But they are also U.S. imperialists. Even a precursory examination of the documentary record shows their primary considerations were with regard to what they perceived to be in the interests of U.S. global hegemony.

    See my article here:

    http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2007/09/06/the-reasons-for-regime-change-in-iraq/

  66. Deadbeat said on July 25th, 2010 at 10:31pm #

    More on Zionist influence of American Politics …

    James Petras, author of War Crimes in Gaza and the Zionist Fifth Column in America _on The Kevin Barrett Show

    Apparently the Chomskyites are out in full force. Apparently remarks by Sharon and Netanyahu about how Washington is “under control” matter nothing to the Chomskyites. Their apologetic and kowtow to Zionism is pathetic.

  67. Deadbeat said on July 25th, 2010 at 10:36pm #

    Teafoe2 writes ….

    The “State of Israel” is only one component of the Zionist State Apparatus, aka the Zionist Power Configuration. .

    This is true and IMO if the Zionist have to abandon Israel they will because they already have the United States lock, stock and barrel. This is why you are seeing Chomskyites like Naomi Klein trying to muscle her way into the BDS movement. The key is to narrow the focus of Zionism to Israel. Any analysis or discussion of AMERICAN Zionism is off limits.

  68. PatrickSMcNally said on July 25th, 2010 at 10:38pm #

    This carries the risk of getting into guesses about people’s motives, but how does it compare with Zbigniew Brzezinski’s on page 204 of The Grand Chessboard:

    —–
    It is appropriate to quote here the wise advice offered by my colleague at CSIS, Anthony H. Cordesman (in his paper on “The American Threat to the United States,” February 1997, p. 16, delivered as a speech to the Army War College), who has warned against the American propensity to demonize issues and even nations. As he put it: “Iran, Iraq, and Libya are cases where the U.S. has taken hostile regimes that pose real, but limited threats and ‘demonized’ them without developing any workable mid- to long-term end game for its strategy. U.S. planners cannot hope to totally isolate these states, and it makes no sense to treat them as if they were identical ‘rogue’ or terrorist’ states. . . . The U.S. lives in a morally gray world and cannot succeed by trying to make it black and white.”
    —–

    Now if Brzezinski had been found advocating an overthrow of Saddam Hussein then I’d have to say that that only makes sense as a strategy for oil imperialism. Brzezinski is definitely a hard-nosed planner of US imperialism plain and simple. One reason why I don’t believe is likely to invade Iran anytime soon is that Brzezinski is clearly among his top advisors. Some of the Likud-leaning kooks in the Bush administration might have argued for an attack on Iran. But Brzezinski has not and that will likely guarantee a more cautious approach from Obama. Maybe be proven wrong on that one.

    But Brzezinski is a natural example of someone whom I would expect to be out in front of a true war for oil where ideological considerations about Israel play little role. The fact that he clearly took a more restrained approach towards Iraq says a lot, in my opinion. Perhaps someone can name other people involved in the advocacy of the Iraq invasion and show that they have more in common with Brzezinski than with Perle?

  69. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 25th, 2010 at 10:40pm #

    @Deadbeat,

    Your “under control” quote is a fabrication. If you’re going to make a point about Netanyahu’s words, you could at least do readers the service of providing a real and accurate quote.

    http://blog.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/07/26/america-is-easy-to-push-around/

    What he said, to paraphrase, is that the U.S. can easily be persuaded to do what Israel wants it to. Which is a no-brainer. Of course it can. This is hardly a revelation.

  70. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 25th, 2010 at 10:42pm #

    @Deadbeat,

    “Any analysis or discussion of AMERICAN Zionism is off limits.”

    Since you’ve lumped me in with the “Chomskyites”, and since I’ve just recently written this piece: “Woe to you, Christian Zionists, hypocrites”…

    http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2010/07/08/woe-to-you-christian-zionists-hypocrites/

    …I guess your thesis is disproved.

  71. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 25th, 2010 at 10:44pm #

    @PatrickSMcNally,

    “Now if Brzezinski had been found advocating an overthrow of Saddam Hussein then I’d have to say that that only makes sense as a strategy for oil imperialism.”

    But when, say, Dick Cheney, does so, then it doesn’t make sense? Sorry, if that is not a logical corollary of your point, then I don’t follow.

  72. Deadbeat said on July 25th, 2010 at 10:56pm #

    Protecting Chomsky’s and the “Left’s” well cultivated image is the key to maintaining Zionism in the U.S. A discombobulated Left means that it will be unable to challenge Zionism and thus impossible to confront Capitalism.

    Chomsky’s well constructed axioms that the root of the problem is “U.S. Imperialism” is designed to not to identify the underlying power configuration of the actual influence. It is designed to place blame on the “President”.

    Mr. Hammond writes…

    Yes, they are Zionists. But they are also U.S. imperialists. Even a precursory examination of the documentary record shows their primary considerations were with regard to what they perceived to be in the interests of U.S. global hegemony.

    That’s quite gullible of you. Clearly American Zionists believe they OWN the U.S. so THEIR interests in their mind IS U.S. interest. How often have we’ve heard AIPAC say that the U.S. and Israel are ONE. Even Obama during his speech before AIPAC wore the obligatory US/Israel lapel pin. Yet Chomsky minimized the Zionist influence.

    PNAC reveals the insane RACIST mindset of the Zionist gangsters criminals and yet you cannot seem to make the distinctions.

    Zionism is a racist ideology and it USES Capitalism and Imperialism to advance its SUPREMACIST ideology. The basis of which makes it challengable. Unfortunately Chomsky and the “Left” never mobilized the Left to stand up to confront this racist ideology. But then again Chomsky is a PROFESSED Zionist so it difficult for a Zionist to criticize other Zionists.

    The terrible subordination of American Politics to Zionist power — James Petras.

  73. Deadbeat said on July 25th, 2010 at 11:00pm #

    Jeremy R. Hammond writes …

    Since you’ve lumped me in with the “Chomskyites”, and since I’ve just recently written this piece: “Woe to you, Christian Zionists, hypocrites”…
    …I guess your thesis is disproved.

    I guess I should write that the analysis of American JEWISH Zionism is off limits. The Christian Zionist are to be the patsies in this situation. They represent only 10% of American Zionism yet you and Bill Moyers and Michael Lerner want to make the Christian to be the “vanguard” of American Zionism.

    Your argument reveal your bended knees to this pathetic yet dangerous racist ideology.

  74. Deadbeat said on July 25th, 2010 at 11:00pm #

    My thesis Mr. Hammond still stands. It reflect the utter corruption of the Left,

  75. PatrickSMcNally said on July 25th, 2010 at 11:02pm #

    > But when, say, Dick Cheney, does so, then it doesn’t make sense?

    When the man who received the Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson Distinguished Service Award from JINSA as far back as 1991 and subsequently served in the Advisory Board JINSA does so, it makes a lot of sense. Cheney was indeed one of the Likud-leaning kooks in the Bush administration. Iran is safer with him retired.

  76. mary said on July 26th, 2010 at 12:19am #

    These Christian Zionists are good at warmongering and lobbying the US. How do we know that they represent ‘only 10% of American Zionism’?
    http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010072511132/culture-wars/interview-with-the-friends-of-israel-gospel-ministry.html

    The lust for the blood of the Iranians is demonstrated here.

    Daniel Pipes: I don’t think so. I don’t think sanctions have any value beyond window dressing. I don’t think agreements have any value. I don’t think threats have any value. It boils down to whether we accept the Iranian nuclear program or we destroy it.

    Elwood McQuaid: How should Israelis feel about this?

    Daniel Pipes: I think it’s realistic for the Israelis to attack and do real damage. Now, what constitutes success, I’m not exactly sure. There are many, many questions. If I were [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin]Netanyahu, I would say to [U.S. President Barack] Obama, “Why don’t you take out the Iranian nukes? Or else we will And we will not do it by trying to fly planes across Turkey and Syria or Jordan or Saudi Arabia. We will do it from submarine-based, tactical nuclear weapons.

    /…..

  77. Deadbeat said on July 26th, 2010 at 2:50am #

    Here’s a link to a debate about American Zionism between Jeffrey Blankfort and Richard Curtis on the Kevin Barnett Show…

    Debate on US-Zionist Alliance_on The Kevin Barrett Show

    When you listen to Curtis’s argument you get to understand how deep Chomskyism is on the American Left. This is why the Left is throughly useless and extremely retarded. There is no way anyone of conscience could ally with the American Left unless their life’s goal is to become a martyr. The American Left has become so corrupted by Jewish Zionism that there can never be any hope of any real solidarity due to the lack of trust and adherence to principles of justice.

    How can anyone trust a group that claims to be the Left yet anoints a Liberal Zionist as its intellectual leader. The degree of defense and protection that is given to this “deity” is outright disgusting hypocrisy.

    Thus the Capitalist crisis will only get worst since there is no way for the Left to reconstruct itself. How ironic that the Tea Party is being labeled as “racist”by the Left when racism on the Left is much worse and only going to even more so as the ratcheting of the war drums on Iran for Jewish Zionism intensifies.

    The War on Iraq and soon to be Iran is NOT for oil. The oil companies were against the recent sanctions against Iran. Any company selling REFINED oil and gas to Iran will be fined and sanctioned by the United States. Clearly that is NOT in U.S. interest. This claim by Chomskyites like Mr. Hammond are intended to obscure Jewish Zionism. Now Mr. Hammond along side Juan Cole last week is setting the stage for John Hagee to become the “Lee Harvey Oswald’ of the 21st Century should the U.S. go to war with Iran.

    The pathetic but dangerously pathological rhetoric to cover-up Jewish Zionism coming from these Chomskyites is outrageous and depressing. They really don’t give a shit about humanity.

  78. dino said on July 26th, 2010 at 3:05am #

    Jeremy,i think that propaganda for war prepares the population for the war which is planned by the leaders.But why to speak without examples:”: To Get Obama To Act, Netanyahu Should Threaten To Nuke Iran
    By Matt Duss on Jul 25th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
    Pipes: To Get Obama To Act, Netanyahu Should Threaten To Nuke Iran “Do you think that this is a contribution to war?”You know every “reason”that were given for an attack on Iran is originated in Israel propaganda:1-The threat about to wipe off Israel from the map;2-If Iran will get a bomb they will immediately will throw in Tel Aviv and doesn’t matter for them the coming Iran destruction because they will meet at Mahdi prophet (not matter for them the lives of Palestinian or destruction of Jerusalem);3-if Iran will get a bomb they will pass nuclear weapon to terrorist group and some kind of this installed in ships will reach US (Ehud Barak vision);4-if Iran will get the bomb ten all the countries in ME which fear Iran more than Israel will looking for getting bombs(Shimon Peres saying);5-if Iran will get the bomb then will provoke the destabilization of ME (Shimon Peres).If this propaganda is not a significant contribution to war all the people who denounce these lies believing that they struggle for peace are wrong.

  79. Deadbeat said on July 26th, 2010 at 3:15am #

    And another thing,

    Mr. Hammond uses axioms in his rejoinders. Not once did he provide any evidence that the War on Iraq was FOR oil. The Chomskyites have been a sounding board for years with the same old drumbeat (a phrase that Amy Goodman likes to use as in “drumbeat for war”) that they are not expected to provide any evidence whatsoever. So Mr. Hammond where is your evidence that the war on Iraq was something that the oil companies lobbied for?

  80. Deadbeat said on July 26th, 2010 at 3:17am #

    From Jeffrey Blankfort’s rebuttal on Pulse Media …

    By the way, I do think whether or not one is Jewish when it comes to discussing Israel and Palestine is as significant as whether one is white or black when discussing race relations in America. There are those, of course, who will tell you that it is of no consequence that 95% of the neocons happen to be Jewish and that the movement’s founders were Jewish. Chomsky never even mentions them, BTW, as he never mentions PNAC, JINSA, the Office of Special Plans where the false data for the Iraq war was cooked up. All irrelevant in the simplified world of Chomsky and the Chomskyites. But that’s standard fare among his followers, as well.

  81. dino said on July 26th, 2010 at 3:23am #

    Max,i believe that France today,under Sarkozy,after a sustained anti Islamic propaganda would react in a supposed 911 in the same way as US.Of course France of De Gaulle,Mitterand,D’Estaing,Pompidou,Chirac which kept Descartes rationalism in their policy would not.Jeremy claimed that an ant Islamic education existed always in West.It is true,Bertrand Russell recognized it,but today is something completely different,is impossible to compare what was and what is now:”the clash of civilizations,Islamo-fascism,jihad,the killings of infidels,”saria” cruelty,the caliphat from Mecca to Los Angeles,you know, and only Israel which impedes the spread of Islam in Occident.Every human debris became “specialist” in Islam and in every occasion he show is “knowledges “in Koran and help others to understand what is the problem:”Is Islam ,stupid”.

  82. Deadbeat said on July 26th, 2010 at 3:40am #

    dino writes …

    I think that Jeff Blankfort has a real psyhological problem,an obsession with Chomsky whom he accuses that has some “limits” and his limits are planned with the goal to deflect the entire “left”wing from its right way.In my opinion Chomsky is the only real leftist so if he has limits then really these influence the left wing.

    Dino we had this discussion on Palestine Think Tank and for you to accuse Jeffery Blankfort as such means that you lack an understanding of Left-wing politics. Left wing politics views issue from the standpoint of justice, fairness and equality and as a Liberal Zionist, Noam Chomsky is not a “real leftist”. Noam Chomsky is a FRAUD. In fact Noam Chomsky identified himself as a “Libertarian Socialist” which by definition means that he is “anti-nationalist” so how can he claim to “support Israel”? I supplied a link to where he admit such affinity. Therefore Chomsky is a poseur and not a “real leftist”. Therefore it takes real COURAGE to expose a fraud especially is that defrauder is iconic like Noam Chomsky is to the Left.

    The reason why Chomsky MUST draw this level of scrutiny is because he has defined what passes for the boundaries of American Left politics for the past 40 years. This is no small measure it has DEFINED the Left. And that gatekeeper status of Chomsky began to crack right after 9/11/2001, during the anti-war movement of 2003, the Presidential campaign of 2004, the Mearsheimer and Walt revelations of 2006, the ongoing BDS campaigns, the doctoring of the Boston speeches of Desmond Tutu and Chomsky by Democracy Now!

    Your use of the “psychological problem” smear is insulting. You should be greatful that someone has the guts to challenge Zionism especially of the Chomskyite veriety that the Left has fed for the past 40 years.

    But [Hammond's assertion] that Iraq is 100% made in USA is arguable.100%!!!What we see right now that is happen about Iran as an existential threat on Israel,Europe,America and her allies i see is 100%made in Israel and it is a copy of Iraq criminal and liar motivated war.

    This is the Chomskyite assertion Dino. Chomsky blames everything on the United States. He is even calling for a boycott of the United States. This way all Americans becomes the patsies for Jewish Zionism.

  83. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 26th, 2010 at 4:02am #

    @Deadbeat,

    You’ve expressed your beliefs. Perhaps you’d care to make an argument now to support them. One that includes evidence, perhaps.

    For example, with Iraq. Would you care to point out any error in fact or logic in my opposing argument in my article, “The Reasons for Regime Change in Iraq”? Even just one will do.

    Also, if you’d like to have a fruitful discussion, try to avoid using strawman arguments, or asking loaded questions containing strawman assumptions, like, “So Mr. Hammond where is your evidence that the war on Iraq was something that the oil companies lobbied for?”

    I have never suggested oil companies lobbied for the war, and I don’t believe that they did. If you want to disagree with me, fine, but disagree with me on my actual views and arguments, not imaginary ones of your own manufacturing.

    As for the “cooked up” intelligence on Iraq WMD, I’d be perfectly happy to discuss with you its origins. Take, for instance, the false claim that Iraq’s aluminum tubes were intended for centrifuges to enrich uranium. Where did this claim come from? Israel? PNAC? Feith’s OSP? Nope. The CIA. WINPAC, to be precise. But, hey, the analyst who pushed this claim was named “Joe”, which could be short for “Joseph”, which is a Hebrew name, so there ya go! A Zionist plot!

    How about the claim that Iraq’s UAV’s were intended to be fitted with CBW and could be used to attack the East coast of the U.S.? What were this claims origins? AIPAC? JINSA? Nope. CIA. By the CIA, after all, is just a Mossad front, so there ya go! A Zionist plot!

    Let’s look at Feith’s OSP. Let’s ask a simple question: Was the OSP a cause or consequence of the policy of regime change?

    Yes, there are many folks, the neocons, who wanted the war for U.S. interests who are also Zionists and who also believed it would serve Israeli interests. But the two are not mutually exclusive, and the predominant rationale among the neocons, as perfectly apparent in such documents as Defense Planning Guidance or Rebuilding America’s Defenses, was that it would serve to advance the goal of U.S. global hegemony and protect U.S. “interests” in the region, primarily “Persian Gulf Oil”.

    This claim that the campaign of deception for war in Iraq was some elaborate Zionist scheme doesn’t pass even the scratch test. It’s just absolute nonsense.

    @PatrickSMcNally,

    So we are in agreement that the war was about U.S. hegemony over the oil-rich Middle East, then? Correct me if I’m still misunderstanding.

    @dino,

    Yes, of course propaganda is used to prepare populations for war.

  84. Deadbeat said on July 26th, 2010 at 4:03am #

    Max Shields writes …

    Deadbeat to avoid a back and forth umpteen issues you’ve purported, the oil issue and Iraq is not a simple as oil companies supposedly not wanting to invade. The dominos that fell begain in early 1990s and it was oil based – the invasion of Kuwait.

    You are INCORRECT Max. The oil companies were AGAINST the 1991 invasion of Iraq. There were several non-oil based reasons why Bush 1 wanted to invade Iraq:

    [1] Papa Bush was always tainted by his right flank as a “whip”. Bush 1 wanted to lose the “whip factor”.

    [2] Papa Bush was looking at a recession coming off the Saving & Loan scandal and the inflated stock market from the Reagan years where economic policy favored the rich and speculator class. Papa Bush was hoping for a protracted war as both a detraction and a Keynesian stimulus.

    [3] Papa Bush was also looking to station U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. This war provided the pretext to convince the Saudi to have U.S. troops on Saudi soil.

    The initial driver for Iraq to invade Kuwait was over oil. That much is true but the main reason for the U.S. (an UK) to invade Iraq in 1991 is that Kuwait is a money laundering hub for the BANKS.

    The oil company were CLEARLY on record being AGAINST the First Gulf war.

    But beyond that it is Petras’s drive to make resources specifically oil a non-issue as regards the Middle East. Was it a stupid invasion? Absolutely, oil stopped flowing and I don’t think it’s reached the levels of the pre-invasion, or even pre-1990 when Bush I ran the Desert Storm Op.

    You are incorrect again. Petras provides reference to back up his analysis which is something that Chomskyites never do. They engage in repetitive axioms and their listeners ASSUME the “facts” never to demand evidence. Petras references The Economist and statements by members of the oil lobby. Those statement range from reluctance to outright being against the invasion. On the flip-side, American Jewish Zionist were fully supportive of an Iraqi invasion during both Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. tenures.

    Going back to point [2], the Bush Administration was touting how powerful the Iraq military was. They were labeled the “4th” largest military in the WORLD! IMO I think the Bush people felt that they were going to be in Iraq longer than they eventually were. They were probably surprise how easily they defeated the Iraq military. However when the Zionist camp egged them onto invading Baghdad that is when Bush Sr. “stood up” to the Zionist camp and “smartly” decided it was time to yank the troops. They avoid that quagmire which led to Bush Sr. defeat in 1992. Bush Jr. was not about to repeat the mistake of standing up to the insane Zionists and gave them free reign during his time in office.

  85. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 26th, 2010 at 4:19am #

    @Deadbeat,

    * “The oil companies were AGAINST the 1991 invasion of Iraq.”

    Max didn’t suggest otherwise. You really need to read more carefully, because these strawman arguments grow wearying. Now, to the point, let’s examine your apparently intended thesis that that war was not about oil:

    “U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf are vital to the national security. These interests include access to oil…”

    Know what that is? That’s how National Security Directive 45 opens. Those are the very first words in the NSD. So, uh, nothing at all to do with oil, right? Now, let’s take this a step further. According to you, this could have read:

    “U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf are vital to the national security. These interests include access to pickles…”

    And we still would have invaded. I’ll let intelligent readers draw their own conclusion from that.

    * “The oil company were CLEARLY on record being AGAINST the First Gulf war.”

    I don’t know that the were for it, but I’d like to see evidence for this.

    * “Petras provides reference to back up his analysis which is something that Chomskyites never do.”

    Yeah, as CLEARLY demonstrated by the comments here. You crack me up, Deadbeat. You’re a funny guy!

  86. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 26th, 2010 at 4:21am #

    Oh, I neglected to mention, for those who aren’t familiar: NSD 45 was a National Security Directive from George H. W. Bush on August 20, 1990 entitled “U.S. Policy in Response to the Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait”.

  87. PatrickSMcNally said on July 26th, 2010 at 4:51am #

    > So we are in agreement that the war was about U.S. hegemony over the oil-rich Middle East, then?

    How so? What is clear is that Cheney represents evidence of the role of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs in determining policy. There is no evidence that Cheney has ever seen himself as representing Exxon-Mobil or any of the other well-known oil giants.

  88. PatrickSMcNally said on July 26th, 2010 at 5:03am #

    > NSD 45 was a National Security Directive from George H. W. Bush on August 20, 1990

    That first Gulf war of 1990-1 should be viewed in a separate category from the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Gulf War One fit very well into the traditional strategy of Cold War against the USSR and should be seen as the hot war flair-up of a long cold war. Having a US war going in Iraq (which would have been unthinkable under Brezhnev) created a crisis for Gorbachev and pushed eastern Europe over the final edge into Yeltsin’s pocket. That in itself is a sufficient accounting for the motives of this first Gulf war.

    The later questions of how to deal with Iraq long after the Cold War had passed away are separate. In these debates people like Brzezinski who is a classical imperial strategist showed no inclination towards a full-scale invasion of Iraq. Something like the subsidy of a Color Revolution for Iraq, or else just buying out Saddam, tended to be the natural leaning. The groups which spent their time advocating war in Iraq all lead back to agencies like the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and other Israel-connected rackets. That’s not an accident.

  89. Deadbeat said on July 26th, 2010 at 5:14am #

    Jeremy R. Hammond writes …

    You’ve expressed your beliefs. Perhaps you’d care to make an argument now to support them. One that includes evidence, perhaps.

    YOU been very thin in the evidence department Mr. Hammond with your repeat of the Chomskyite axioms. I’ve provided you with links of the recent Chomsky interview on Israeli television, links to a recent James Petras interview. I’ve even pointed you to where you can verify the oil industry position as being reluctant to downright against both Iraq war. But nice try Mr. Hammond because as you say …

    You’ve express your beliefs

    Unfortunately your belief is the defense of the racist Liberal Zionist.

    For example, with Iraq. Would you care to point out any error in fact or logic in my opposing argument in my article, “The Reasons for Regime Change in Iraq”? Even just one will do.

    Sure thing. American politics is determine by those you can BUY it. Jewish Zionist MONEY and its NETWORK of grassroots operative have been able to influence the Executive and Legislative branches. In other words before Iraq could be overthrow their had to a regime change in the UNITED STATES. Zionist used their money and network to gain control of the U.S. government and thus the military industrial complex. The military industrial complex now serves Zionist interest. In other words Zionist interest is now a major component of why you call “U.S. Imperialism”.

    Jeffery Blankfort using information that once was published by Mother Jones was able to ascertain that 60% of the donations to the Democrats come from Jewish Zionist. That huge influence Mr. Hammond. Influence that you refuse to analyze. But don’t worry you are not alone in failing to analyze this. Much of the Left including Marxist have dropped the ball here. But the number one person in obfuscating this problem is our most renowned Liberal Zionist (racist) — Noam Chomsky.

    Also, if you’d like to have a fruitful discussion, try to avoid using strawman arguments, or asking loaded questions containing strawman assumptions, like, “So Mr. Hammond where is your evidence that the war on Iraq was something that the oil companies lobbied for?”

    That’s funny. Didn’t you just accuse me of not having any evidence. I provided the aforementioned links and you ignored Chomsky Zionist admission. However Mr. Hammond you are just arguing the Chomskyite axiom and spinning your own yarns.

    I have never suggested oil companies lobbied for the war, and I don’t believe that they did. If you want to disagree with me, fine, but disagree with me on my actual views and arguments, not imaginary ones of your own manufacturing.

    I have and again you argued that Noam Chomsky was only a Zionist in his youth and I provided evident to REFUTE your assertions and now you accuse me of manufacturing your views. Mr. Chomsky is a Liberal Zionist which much of the world considers Zionism to be a racist ideology. My question is why the duplicity? If this was a discussion about the Tea Party or David Duke this wouldn’t even be a topic of discussion.

    As for the “cooked up” intelligence on Iraq WMD, I’d be perfectly happy to discuss with you its origins. Take, for instance, the false claim that Iraq’s aluminum tubes were intended for centrifuges to enrich uranium. Where did this claim come from? Israel? PNAC? Feith’s OSP? Nope. The CIA. WINPAC, to be precise. But, hey, the analyst who pushed this claim was named “Joe”, which could be short for “Joseph”, which is a Hebrew name, so there ya go! A Zionist plot!

    The CIA under George Tenet. Are you kidding me? Key position of the Bush Bush Administration was being run and controlled by Zionists also known as Neo-Conservative (founded by Leo Strauss). Mr. Hammond you are all about “presentation” but little substance. I guess it’s ok for you to ignore what the Israeli leader say about the United States … “Jews control the United States”. That’s right Mr. Hammond the Israeli leader believe THEY control the United States via their own affinity groups.

    How about the claim that Iraq’s UAV’s were intended to be fitted with CBW and could be used to attack the East coast of the U.S.? What were this claims origins? AIPAC? JINSA? Nope. CIA. By the CIA, after all, is just a Mossad front, so there ya go! A Zionist plot!

    Again we are talking about George Tenet’s CIA. This is why you had so many former CIA agents speak out about the Zionists take over of the CIA.

    Let’s look at Feith’s OSP. Let’s ask a simple question: Was the OSP a cause or consequence of the policy of regime change?

    The issue is NOT your narrow framing it is the larger integrative issue. In typical liberal fashion narrow the focus. The problem that I’m addressing is much larger and has to do with the political economy of the United States. Address that Mr. Hammond. Chaney was a signatory to PNAC and he surround himself with Zionists and the Bush Administration was a nesting ground for the PNAC crew. Even Colin Powell was neutered and was made to follow order in this environment.

    As I have argued here, the issue that I’ve raised is that Chomsky who you are defending and his followers has argued that the war on Iraq was EXCLUSIVELY for oil. They have never explored, considered, or mentioned the Zionist influence and gains from a war on Iraq. They have provided NO evidence to support that the oil companies pushed for war. What you are trying to infer is that the Zionist and their network in and out of the Bush administration didn’t push for war. That it was solely an Uncle Sam initiative. Sorry but that dog won’t hunt Mr. Hammond.

    Yes, there are many folks, the neocons, who wanted the war for U.S. interests who are also Zionists and who also believed it would serve Israeli interests. But the two are not mutually exclusive, and the predominant rationale among the neocons, as perfectly apparent in such documents as Defense Planning Guidance or Rebuilding America’s Defenses, was that it would serve to advance the goal of U.S. global hegemony and protect U.S. “interests” in the region, primarily “Persian Gulf Oil”.

    The U.S. get most of its oil from Canada and Latin America so from an imperialist point of view, the U.S. focus should be in the Western Hemisphere not in the Persian Gulf. Thus these document does little to promote U.S. global hegemony especially as Latin American move away from the Washington Consensus. The NeoCon was founded on the principles of former leftist “mugged” by reality. Unfortunately the mugging was the principles of ideological racialist supremacy. Clearly the invasion of Iraq and we can now observe in 2010 didn’t bring about U.S. global hegemony but it did rid Israel of an enemy and one who supported the Palestinians. Like I said Mr. Hammond it is the big picture that matters. And this picture clearly shows the benefit brought to Israel at the cost to the United States.

    This claim that the campaign of deception for war in Iraq was some elaborate Zionist scheme doesn’t pass even the scratch test. It’s just absolute nonsense.

    Funny how you like to accuse your counterparties of the tactics you yourself like to engage. The main issue is that Chomsky at best minimize and outright obfuscates the influence of Zionism on Middle East policies. He seeks to deflect the issue as “U.S. Imperialism” without examining the power configuration especially the Zionist power configurations. This is something not to be riduculed as “absolute nonsense’ but something that requires analysis and must be taken seriously.

    The Democrats, the majority of whom voted along with the Bush Administraton to invade Iraq knows that 60% of their contributions come from Jewish Zionists who most visible representative — AIPAC and Joesph Lieberman — were most vocal wanting Iraq overthrown. While the Chomskyites were telling us it was a “war for oil” the oil companies were on record being against the invasion and the Chomskyite never considered the Zionist influence.

    The position of most of the anti-Chomskyites is similar to mine. We never said that resources played NO role but there is considerable evidence that Zionist played a major role in influencing the drive for war on Iraq. The Chomskyites contend that Zionism had no influenece and it was all about the oil.

    Now the Chomskyites are not dummies. They have advanced degrees and write oodles and oodles of books and get paid considerable sums that they claim never comes from “corporations” (it’s OK if their money comes from Madoff investors however). Yet somehow they want us to believe that the drive for war was solely for oil. Remember Mr. Hammond this is 2003 when these argument were being made.

    As I have stated this is 2010 and we’ve seen the results.

    Also Mr. Hammond nice try on the Christian Zionist angle. I guess you’d have us beleive that John Hagee is behind the Zionist inflence when and if the war on Iran starts.

  90. Deadbeat said on July 26th, 2010 at 5:21am #

    Patrick S McNally writes …

    That first Gulf war of 1990-1 should be viewed in a separate category from the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Gulf War One fit very well into the traditional strategy of Cold War against the USSR and should be seen as the hot war flair-up of a long cold war. Having a US war going in Iraq (which would have been unthinkable under Brezhnev) created a crisis for Gorbachev and pushed eastern Europe over the final edge into Yeltsin’s pocket. That in itself is a sufficient accounting for the motives of this first Gulf war.

    I totally forgot about that. Thanks for submitting that. You are right the Gulf War was the final nail in the coffin for Gorbachev. The fall of the USSR was an extremely recent event and over everything else — especially oil — would weaken the USSR and push Eastern Europe toward the puppet Yeltsin. The “Coalition” demonstrated the clout and power of the USA to the rest of the world. The two wars are not the same.

  91. mary said on July 26th, 2010 at 5:26am #

    The Jewish lobby evens silences debate on the holocaust according to Oliver Stone.
    ‘Jewish control of the media is preventing an open discussion of the Holocaust, prominent Hollywood director Oliver Stone told the Sunday Times, adding that the U.S. Jewish lobby was controlling Washington’s foreign policy for years.

    In the Sunday interview, Stone reportedly said U.S. public opinion was focused on the Holocaust as a result of the “Jewish domination of the media,” adding that an upcoming film of him aims to put Adolf Hitler and Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin “in context.”

    “There’s a major lobby in the United States,” Stone said, adding that “they are hard workers. They stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington.” ‘

    http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/oliver-stone-jewish-control-of-the-media-is-preventing-free-holocaust-debate-1.304108

  92. Deadbeat said on July 26th, 2010 at 5:30am #

    Patrick S. McNally writes …

    What is clear is that Cheney represents evidence of the role of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs in determining policy. There is no evidence that Cheney has ever seen himself as representing Exxon-Mobil or any of the other well-known oil giants.

    To add to Mr. McNally’s excellent comments is that Chomsky and the Left never mentions Chaney’s Zionist connections. They constantly remind actives of Chaney’s Halliburton affiliations and the oil tanker named after Condolezza Rice. The Left omits Chaney as a signatory to PNAC. This cover-up of Zionism by the Left is pathetic.

  93. Deadbeat said on July 26th, 2010 at 5:37am #

    More links and more evidence …

    The permanent link for Alison Weir’s recent interview with Chomsky is at http://www.wsradio.com/internet-talk-radio.cfm/shows/CNI:-Jerusalem-Calling/archives/date/selected/07-08-2010.html – then click on the links to “The Many Aspects of the Palestinian Israeli Conflict, with Noam Chomsky”.

  94. Max Shields said on July 26th, 2010 at 5:44am #

    Deadbeat says ” This is why you are seeing Chomskyites like Naomi Klein trying to muscle her way into the BDS movement. The key is to narrow the focus of Zionism to Israel. Any analysis or discussion of AMERICAN Zionism is off limits.”

    This is the very thing that makes whatever you have to say on this topic (and it is pretty much the only topic you harp on) just plain hollow. You are a paranoid who sees everything through the same prism. Klein “muscles” in on BDS movement. Knowing your mo, Deadbeat you’ll repeat this a 1,000 times until you find someone to agree…and there’s always someone out there. Pathetic!

  95. Max Shields said on July 26th, 2010 at 6:11am #

    I don’t think anyone is denying Zionism as a complex cocktail which is largely our (US) creation and has become super-toxic to the region. But to ignore US foreign policies which go back many decades regarding the Middle East in particular, to not understand the US relationship to that region via the British Empire and its demise, to ignore all the relationships the US has had with Arab and Persian leaders in the region. To further ignore the grotesque dependency on oil as an incomparable source of energy is to be illiterate regarding history and US foreign policy.

    The trail of historical events, complex maneuvers, strategic relations that turn allies to enemies cannot be answered, as much as simple answers may be convenient, strictly by yelling Zionism. Nor does any of this deny the fact that Zionists in and outside of Israel have had considerable influence.

    But again, the US is a poised military machine the meanest baddest military machine the world has ever known. It is, as Andrew Bacevich so eloquently states in The Limits of Power, powerless, because it does not understand its (US) limits. Those limits are not just military limits, they are economic limits. These US policies both domestic and foreign are more of an existential threat to the US than if Al Qaeda became a true army of world-wide militants.

  96. kalidas said on July 26th, 2010 at 6:38am #

    Yes. Pickles would work fine as a substitute for oil.
    Anything but the truth will suffice.

    Let’s try it out.
    The Romans crucified Jesus for pickles.
    The US invaded Iraq for pickles.
    Any word you wish, as long as it’s not the truth.

    And we all know what the truth is.
    Some of us have known for most of our lives.

  97. PatrickSMcNally said on July 26th, 2010 at 7:27am #

    > To further ignore the grotesque dependency on oil as an incomparable source of energy is to be illiterate regarding history and US foreign policy.

    I don’t think that Petras ignored this. I think that Petras made the case that it was precisely for this reason that oil executives had a more cautious attitude to the prospects of a war in Iraq. I would also say that this accounts for Brzezinski’s more cautious attitude as well. Those pushed for war in Iraq between 1992 and 2003 tended invariably to be tied with wider ideological agendas than just oil, such as are represented by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, or the report on “A Clean Break” made to the Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies in Israel. These patterns are consistent with the idea that oil is important. They simply are not consistent with the charge that the war in 2003 was fundamentally a “war for oil.”

  98. PatrickSMcNally said on July 26th, 2010 at 7:42am #

    > The trail of historical events, complex maneuvers, strategic relations that turn allies to enemies cannot be answered, as much as simple answers may be convenient, strictly by yelling Zionism.

    Well, would you be willing to allow that some notable difference exists between the way Iraq and Israel have fared since the Cold War ended? It was claimed during the Cold War that Israel was a relevant strategic ally because of the capabilities which it showed in the Six-Day War. It was also true that the CIA had helped Saddam Hussein to pull off a coup and destroy the Iraqi Communist Party. For awhile Saddam made some overtures to Moscow, but then in the 1980s he was worked with again over the campaign against Iran. So both Israel and Iraq were at one time given some aid which was allegedly justified by their roles as strategic assets during the time of the Cold War. But somehow the trail of historical events, complex maneuvers, strategic relations which has occurred since the end of the Cold War has had very different results for Israel than it had for Iraq. Might it not be plausible to consider that the Israel lobby has had some influence on this difference of outcomes?

  99. Josie Michel-Bruening said on July 26th, 2010 at 7:59am #

    I could not read all comments, but I’m grateful for Mary’s with the link to Oliver Stone’s reported film.
    Apart from that, I can’t agree to Jeremy R. Hammond’s criticism, additionally I don’t understand that – although he is literally citing Noam Chomsky – he does not understand his words.
    If the human species will not give up its custom of searching for punching bags or scapegoats it will not survive.
    As Chomsky says, the US foreign policy, as well as the European, I have to add, is involved in Israelian attitude against the Palestinian people.
    Originally Zionism might have been a kind of idealism when Noam Chomsky was young, as the Communism has been, by the way.
    The first Christians were communists too, they were poor and oppressed and therefore they wanted to share with each other and protect, and support each other.
    Given the oil catastrophy within the gulf of Mexico and all the consequences of carelessness towards nature and the resources of earth just because of human greed we should give up patriotism and blaming even those among us who are working for a better understanding, but join each other in supporting good ideas whoever might offer them to us.

  100. Jeffrey Blankfort said on July 26th, 2010 at 8:09am #

    The hysterical response by Hammond to my article and the comments that it has generated would make it appear that I had struck a responsive chord with my critique of Chomsky which Hammond did an incredible job in distorting for reasons I can only speculate. For a longer critique of Chomsky, with extensive footnotes, that more than covers Hammond’s complaints, please check out: “Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict” at http://dissidentvoice.org/May05/Blankfort0525.htm.

    For those who wish to see why the Iraq war was fought on Israel’s behalf, check out: http://www.leftcurve.org/LC28WebPages/WarForIsrael.html

    An earlier article might explain why the Palestinian support movement has been an utter failure to this point: The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions.” http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/pg-blankfort.html

  101. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 26th, 2010 at 9:35am #

    @PatrickSMcNally

    *”How so?”

    You said if Brzezinski had advocated overthrowing Saddam, then it would make sense to you that the war was “for oil imperialism”.

    So I asked whether it would make sense to you that the war was for “oil imperialism” if Dick Cheney had advocated overthrowing Saddam.

    You answered that would “make a lot of sense”.

    Thus, it would seem we are in agreement that since Dick Cheney advocated for the war, makes sense that it was about “oil imperialism”, as you call it.

    * Your “Cold War” explanation for the Gulf War is nonsense. The U.S. supported Saddam throughout the 80s, removing Iraq from the list of state sponsors of terrorism in order to open trade relations. Sales to Iraq included precursors for biological and chemical weapons like anthrax and botulism.

    But the U.S. had also supplied Iran during the war, so Saddam mistrusted U.S. intentions. After the war and before the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam told U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie, “We clearly understand America’s statement that it wants an easy flow of oil” but accused the U.S. of encouraging Kuwait and the UAE to implement policies that drove down the price of oil, which hurt debt-burdened Iraq, which he described as economic warfare that he would defend Iraq against.

    Glaspie informed Saddam she was under direct instruction from Bush to seek better relations with Iraq. She then asked Saddam not to demand charging too high for the price of oil (re: OPEC). Saddam replied that $25 a barrel was not high. Glaspie conceded that “We have many Americans who would like to see the price go above $25 because they come from oil-producing states.” She then said she understood Saddam’s efforts to rebuild his country and that “we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait…. [T]he issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesman to emphasize this instruction.” She then noted the buildup of Iraqi forces on the border, and asked his intentions.

    He reiterated that he regarded Kuwait’s policy as economic warfare and he would defend Iraq’s rights. Saddam invaded, capturing Kuwait and its oil fields and threatening the oil supply.

    Bush signed NSD 45 on U.S. policy in response to the invasion, which opened with “U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf are vital to the national security. These interests include access to oil and the security and stability of key friendly states in the region. The United States will defend its vital interests in the area, through the use of U.S. military force if necessary and appropriate, against any power with interests inimical to our own.”

    NSD 54 followed: “Access to Persian Gulf oil and the security of key friendly states in the area are vital to U.S. national security…. I hereby authorize military actions designed to bring about Iraq’s withdrawal from Kuwait.”

    You know the rest.

  102. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 26th, 2010 at 10:02am #

    @Patrick

    * “There is no evidence that Cheney has ever seen himself as representing Exxon-Mobil or any of the other well-known oil giants.”

    Cheney WAS big oil. Surely you’ve heard of Halliburton?

  103. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 26th, 2010 at 10:02am #

    Deadbeat,

    I asked for evidence for your view. You repeated about the Chomsky interview on Israeli TV. I’ve already addressed that. You repeated about Chomsky being a “Zionist”. I’ve already addressed that.

    Also, once again, you keep arguing that the oil industry was “reluctant to downright against both Iraq war”, as though I had argued otherwise. I have not. So, like I said, please stop employing strawman arguments. I’ve no interest in disussion dishonestly conducted.

    Like I said, the cooked up intelligence was 100% Made in the USA. Your reply, as far as I can decipher it for anything meaningful, is that Tenet was a Zionist. Please provide evidence to support this claim.

    You say Cheney was a signatory of PNAC, by which I presume you mean the statement of principles. Yes, that’s correct, and I’ve already pointed that out. I also pointed out that the PNAC manifesto followed on the theme of Wolfotwitz’s 1992 draft guidance defining the primary U.S. interest in the region as “Persian Gulf oil”, and outlined a “transformation” of the military into a force for U.S. global hegemony.

    Look, there’s nothing to debate here. If you want to know why the architects of the war invaded Iraq, then read their own explanations for it. They state quite plainly their reasons.

    I have never stated that the was was “EXCLUSIVELY for oil”, as you put it. Nor do I believe that. There were many factors. Oil was obviously a primary one.

    Please provide evidence from the documentary record that the oil companies “were on record being against the invasion” of Iraq.

    On your comment on Christian Zionism, I’ve no interest in debating a strawman argument. Try to stick with addressing my actual arguments instead of manufacturing false ones to argue against.

  104. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 26th, 2010 at 10:08am #

    @ Josie Michel-Bruening,

    If you think I don’t “understand his words”, perhaps you could show me where I erred in fact or logic and demonstrate for us the correct understanding.

    @ Jeffrey Blankfort,

    Let me know if you’d like to actually substantively address my article pointing out your dishonest mischaracterizations of Chomsky’s views.

    Even just taking a single point I made and demonstrating any error in fact or logic would suffice. Even just one. Quote me and show everyone where I erred.

    I challenge you.

    For those who want to see why the war in Iraq was not fought primarily for Israel, see:
    http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2007/09/06/the-reasons-for-regime-change-in-iraq/

  105. PatrickSMcNally said on July 26th, 2010 at 10:54am #

    > So I asked whether it would make sense to you that the war was for “oil imperialism” if Dick Cheney had advocated overthrowing Saddam.

    It makes sense as a war for JINSA, but not so much as a war for oil.

    > The U.S. supported Saddam throughout the 80s, removing Iraq from the list of state sponsors of terrorism in order to open trade relations.

    Yes it did. But the Cold War significance of the bombing of Iraq while Gorbachev sat as a lame duck was much greater than any aid given to Saddam. The crisis which broke out in 1991 and led to the final collapse of the USSR was a consequence of the Gulf war. That was by far the most enduring consequence of Gulf War One, and reason enough to have it.

    > Cheney WAS big oil. Surely you’ve heard of Halliburton?

    Halliburton is an oilfield services corporation which means they provide technical products and services to others engaged in oil exploration. Halliburton itself is not really much of an oil explorer. A company like Halliburton is a natural place for JINSA to establish its own people on the outskirts of an oil industry which has often viewed the Israel lobby with some suspicion. If Cheney were an executive of BP or Exxon-Mobil one could fairly classify him as big oil. But as one of the advisors of JINSA his status in the Israel lobby was higher than his grade in the main oil industry.

  106. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 26th, 2010 at 10:58am #

    @PatrickSMcNally,

    * It makes sense as a war for JINSA, but not so much as a war for oil.

    Why not?

    * “But the Cold War significance of the bombing of Iraq while Gorbachev sat as a lame duck was much greater than any aid given to Saddam.”

    Why?

    * “Halliburton is an oilfield services corporation which means they provide technical products and services to others engaged in oil exploration.”

    Precisely. So, like I said, Cheney IS the oil industry.

  107. PatrickSMcNally said on July 26th, 2010 at 10:59am #

    > Like I said, the cooked up intelligence was 100% Made in the USA.

    The head of WINPAC at that time, Alan Foley, is said to have commented “If the president wants to go to war, our job is to find the intelligence to allow him to do so.” That shows him to be an obedient footsoldier, but not the initiator of policy. Foley is simply following orders from above, but that sheds no light on the origins of these orders.

  108. PatrickSMcNally said on July 26th, 2010 at 11:07am #

    > Why not?

    See the points Petras made about oil executives’s reluctance about the war. There’s no indication to to suggest that major oil companies driven principally by a search for oil resources were pushing for war.

    > Why?

    The final collapse of the Soviet Union is unambiguously the most significant event of the last quarter of the 20th century.

    > So, like I said, Cheney IS the oil industry.

    No, he is a side-player to the oil industry. That is the very make-up of what Halliburton is about. It’s like saying that a company which trades in auto parts used by auto repair services but produces no cars of its own IS the auto industry. It’s not.

  109. Max Shields said on July 26th, 2010 at 11:18am #

    Jeremy’s response to PatrickSMcNally above meshes my understanding of the evolution of Desert Storm. One cannot detach that invasion from what occured during the Clinton and then the G.W. Bush terms.

    I don’t think that G. H. W. Bush could be thought of as a Zionist (in fact I don’t think G.W. Bush could either). Bush I had a direct line to US foreign policy having been a long time high ranking official on these matters, not to mention two terms as VP. Even going back to the Carter Doctrine, not a president who is particularly “pro” Israel, you have an advocacy of ME policy that is unabashedly about oil and national interest in the ME.

    The role of the Israeli Lobby needs to be put in this context. It is a relatively powerful lobby (I think more so than Chomsky does).

    We have posters here that are so blinded by this notion that Chomsky is a gatekeeper for Israeli interests, that they consistently deny US history as if the US is a puppet country with nothing better to do than be led by the nose by some whacko Zionist movement. I think there is a confluence here that gives one a sense of cause and effect more than A(Israel) causes B(US invasions). Even when there is a clear A and B, almost always the relationship has some repriocity. Rarely in any systems relationship is there only one cause; it’s like trying to argue creation. A causes B, B causes A’s reaction and on and on with more and more entities entering and exiting.

    We will never know the extent to which Israel “caused” an Iraq invasion. It is doubtful that such could be the case. Because even if Israel wished for it, the actual mobilization could not be controlled by Israel. No foreign entity (let alone one as powerful as the US) can mobilized a nation to go to war. It can taunt, persuade, shout fire…etc. but moving something the US military is beyond Israel’s capacity regardless the overtures. In terms of the latter there may have been conflicting and at times confluent agreements on invading Iraq depending on who you speak to in Israel.

    To then think that Chomsky is making up what has been clearly documented by people who could give a rat’s ass about Chomsky, seems to raise the question WHY? And if So does it really matter if Chomsky really is trying to “protect” Israeli interest? I don’t think he is, but it seems rather trite and inconsequential in the scheme of things.

  110. Max Shields said on July 26th, 2010 at 11:32am #

    PatrickSMcNally could you please point me to a meeting of all the oil companies took place to vote on US Iraq invasion?

    I can certainly imagine some instances where an oil company would be concerned by destablizing an oil producing state. But the policies and doctrines were fully in place. The military is not monolithic on these matters, but surgical strikes and low intensity war had been the “lessons” of Vietnam, and tested in Central America. I suspect Israel did play a role in demonstrating a certain kind of war in the Middle East, how one can be fought. But in the end, today, both the US and Israel have failed miserably with these wars even with their technological asymmetrical nature and attempts at disproportional punishment, and use of perhaps the even worse genocidal approaches EMBARBOS ala Clinton with Iraq.

    So, while the Iraq invasions and occupations have been immoral and criminal, they have also been terribly stupid. Is Israel the cause of this stupidity? To the extent that Israel has used similar tactics, it appears it too suffers from the same stupidity.

  111. PatrickSMcNally said on July 26th, 2010 at 11:50am #

    > I don’t think that G. H. W. Bush could be thought of as a Zionist

    Definitely not. He pissed off Israel by trying to pressure them to reach some agreement with the Palestinians and this resulted the Israel lobby supporting Clinton. Then Clinton pissed of the Likudniks himself by pushing for Oslo. G. W. was more careful to try minimizing these risks by incorporating a significant segment of pro-Israel neo-conservatives into his administration.

    > could you please point me to a meeting of all the oil companies took place to vote on US Iraq invasion?

    No, but there are lots of examples of meetings by Israel lobbyists who did as you describe. and followed this with political action. Blankfort has gone over some of these, as has Petras.

    > To the extent that Israel has used similar tactics, it appears it too suffers from the same stupidity.

    That’s a separate issue of course. The general arrogance which Israeli leaders develop over time has been their worst potential Achilles Heel. 10 years ago it would have been almost unthinkable for Mearsheimer & Walt to get published in the London Review and then be taken seriously by many peace activists. But that’s what a lot of arrogance by the Israel lobby has brought about.

  112. Don Hawkins said on July 26th, 2010 at 11:52am #

    Max the minds in the military in the US in the first part of the twenty first century are not what they used to be. Up and down the line the system is talking it’s toll the human mind for most of us the little voice in the back of our head say’s no the system say’s yes. It must be ok they say so but something is not correct what could it be?

  113. PatrickSMcNally said on July 26th, 2010 at 12:09pm #

    > Even going back to the Carter Doctrine, not a president who is particularly “pro” Israel, you have an advocacy of ME policy that is unabashedly about oil and national interest in the ME.

    Following that up, you’ll notice that Carter was against the Iraq war in 2003:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/opinion/just-war-or-a-just-war.html

    —–
    American stature will surely decline further if we launch a war in clear defiance of the United Nations. But to use the presence and threat of our military power to force Iraq’s compliance with all United Nations resolutions — with war as a final option — will enhance our status as a champion of peace and justice.
    —–

  114. Max Shields said on July 26th, 2010 at 12:30pm #

    Yes as was much of Bush I’s national security advisors. But that’s not the point. The point is there was a policy in motion, one that predates Carter, and is reinforced by his doctrine. Carter is out of power, Bush I is out of power. However the policy is shaped regardless of their thoughts about invading or not.

    As best I can tell oil played a significant role in the invasion both the original Desert Strom and the fly over bombing and sanctons for 8 years and then the invasion occupation of the 21st Century. These are not unrelated.

    As I’ve said whether or not oil companies support these moves or not hardly makes the case for Israel calling the shots with US Iraq invasion. PNAC is not an Israeli strategy, nor is it an AIPAC document. There is confluence, and neocons did play a role but even then oil was central.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

  115. teafoe2 said on July 26th, 2010 at 12:53pm #

    After reading everything on this long thread, plus the corresponding long thread on Pulse Media, I have come to some conclusions about Prof Chomsky and also about most of the posters above, including this snake J. Hammond.

    Who would like to keep us all bogged down in details like what one administration agency put in what document published as the Official Version of some US government action/policy or other.

    Jumping to the chase, the BDS campaign is the biggest development in US politics since Rosa Parks got on the bus. Chomsky’s hemming & hawwing, quibbling about it can only be due to one of two things: either he’s terminally stupid or he is acting out of malice. Malice toward not just the Palestinians but toward all the people in the world who occupy spaces lower on the Capitalist totempole than he does.

    Hammond exposes who HE is by the way he refers to and characterizes Jeff Blankfort, using terms like “his ilk” etc. Blankfort may not be as famous as Chomsky in liberal circles, but people who’ve been following real radical politics over the last four decades know that he has compiled a record of struggle that stands comparison with any. That Hammond doesn’t know or doesn’t care about Blankfort’s record of putting himself on the line, putting himself in situations of real danger, where he had to expect that at any moment the Cointelpro assassination machine could decide to use him for target practice, tells me a lot about where Hammond is coming from.
    You can agree or disagree with Blankfort’s analysis, but if you are a member of the oppressed/exploited strata of this globalized capitalist society, Jeff Blankfort is a guy you have to respect. I could cite more facts but that should be enough. Turn the page…

  116. Max Shields said on July 26th, 2010 at 1:08pm #

    teafoe2 have you read what you just posted. You’ve referred to Hammond as a “snake” and then you chastise him for referring to Blankfort as his “ilk”.

    Then you proceed to say, pay no attention to details because they’re just being used to confuse us.

    The thing that is so reprehensible about your post and Deadbeat’s post is just how insulting they are. They assume we are all idiots and can’t figure out day from night. Too many details you would have it.

    And what exactly has Blankfort done to put his life on the line? Do you know what anyone here has done in that regard?

    teafoe2 so you’re a member of the oppressed? Explain. My own sense is that Deadbeat is a counterrevolutionary of the old guard and I’m still not sure about you.

  117. teafoe2 said on July 26th, 2010 at 1:10pm #

    starting again from the bottom brings us to the curious case of Max Shields.

    Uh, wait a minit, just want to draw attention to Hammond’s favorite debate tactic: whenever he’s confronted by an argument he has no answer for, he labells it a “strawman”. Caw caw, polly wanna strawman, hohum. Back to Shields.

    The underlying point of all Shield’s arguments is he doesn’t want us to make a thorough indepth examination of all aspects including the historical, sociological, financial and cultural/ideological, of the Zionist Power phenomenon. I’m tempted to speculate that this is not because he is especially partial to Zionism per se, but that to engage in such an investigation will involve us whether we like it or not in a close study of Capitalism itself, covering the same aspects, possibly more, and this is something Max instinctively shys away from. As I remember his earlier comments, it seems to me Max is not sure anything we can rightly call Capitalism even exists. “Am I right or wrong! Gimme fav!”. meanwhile back at the Dal Segno…

  118. teafoe2 said on July 26th, 2010 at 1:44pm #

    you ARE an idiot Max, and Hammond is an asp you have cuddled to your bosom.

    I have limited time in which to try to make a contribution to this ideological struggle, so I don’t want to waste time beating around the bush. When I first read Hammond’s post, I noted immediately that he was not an amateur or a novice, so I decided to consider his arguments carefully. But the more of his words I read the more I realized that such words could only be produced by a person of diminished mental capacity, or by a charlatan trying to derail the movement for justice in Palestine, the ME & the Muslim world in general.

    So I stated my conclusions as soon as I reached them. As I have read more of Hammond’s words here on DV and also on Pulse, my respect for him has diminished proportionally.

    As for you, Max, I may have been a little disingenous heretofore, in that I think I have tended to address you more or less courteously, which may have given you the false impression that I take you seriously. I don’t.

    Re Blankfort, the fact that you’re unfamiliar with his record tells me you’re either a total newbie who should shut up till he learns his way around the movement, or somebody who’s attention was on something else when Cointelpro was hitting the fan. If you want to learn the facts, try googling & see what you find.

    As for me being a member of the lower tier of the “subaltern classes”, anybody who is also a member of same can tell I know what I’m talking about. That you question me about it tells me something about YOU.

  119. teafoe2 said on July 26th, 2010 at 2:39pm #

    Take it from the top: what is really at issue here?

    Underlying the questions about Chomsky’s role & influence is the question of why there is so little opposition to current actions of the US-based war and counterinsurgency machine. To my mind springs an immediate parallel to what mystified me in early 1982, which was the absence of visible protest from those who were usually in the forefront of protesting acts of naked aggression, such as the US invasion of Grenada etc.
    After examining both cases, I conclude that the underlying causes of both anomalies were/are identical: the widespread diffusion of pro-Zionist ideology throughout the US “Left”.

    Chomsky doesn’t seem to think this is a serious problem. Neither does Hammond, or Zunes, or Plitnick, or Goodman, or Klein, or any of the other apologists and/or gatekeepers deployed as components in the Zionist multi-echelon defense-in-depth ideological strategy. Oops, I forgot Richard Becker and the ANSWER stooges.

    But Chomsky is the Authority Figure all the above turn to when challenged. It is his Nobel-derived academic prestige which serves as a backstop for those who offer nonsense like the “War For Oil” thesis, so Blankfort, Petras and other leading members of the antiZionist “advance guard” have identified Chomsky as a key roadblock standing in the way of well-intentioned US activists desiring to oppose criminal actions of the US warmachine who are unable to make headway because they continue to accept a false view of the problem.

    A closely related problem is that the US Black public, which historically has been the main base of left/progressive politics in the US, so far has been unable to untangle itself from the Obama myth; an exposure of the role played by the ZPC in promoting Obama’s career, getting him elected, and in determining the policies adopted by his administration would be a big help toward getting disentangled, which is one reason Bruce Dixon and other writers at Black Agenda Report have commented on it.

    Meanwhile back at the point: it makes a difference what Chomsky says, what he supports and what he denounces. True, he denounces many things that need to be denounced. So we acknowledge that to be a fact. BUT:

    Those who have played the game of Chess will be familiar with the term Gambit. Gambit refers to a tactic, in which a player whose aim is to do harm to an opponent, first does something which would seem to FAVOR the opponent’s interest. Prof. C., Hammond et al may or may not consciously realize that this is the role they are playing, but it is the actions which count in this instance. This is not a murder trial in which “state of mind” is relevant; we are talking about how and in what direction history is being made, and at whose expense.

    Let us refocus our eyes on the prize: BDS. That is the NAME OF THE GAME this time around. Any quibbling or mealymouthing which might cause a person with good intentions to hesitate before supporting the main BDS movement is at this point in history CRIMINAL.

    BDS is crucial not just, maybe not even primarily of the economic and diplomatic effects it will have on the apartheid “state of isreal”. I think its impact will be greatest on the US political process. The more visible it becomes, the more members of the US public will find themselves looking more and more closely at the role of the “Isreal Lobby” and, yes, of the “Jewish Community” in US public life.

    I believe this is the real reason Chomsky and his “ilk” don’t like it. Of course I can’t read the mind of a super-intellect like his, but looking at actions and impacts, that’s the only explanation that makes sense.

  120. Rehmat said on July 26th, 2010 at 2:41pm #

    Jeremy, as I have proved many times – is nothing but Israel Hasbara (propaganda) tool like the so-called ‘experts’ on the Muslim world at IntelCenter and S.I.T.E. I love to pull-down their skull-caps whenever I have the opportunity.

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/israel-must-be-like-a-mad-dog-to-fight-hizballah/

  121. Max Shields said on July 26th, 2010 at 3:15pm #

    You do know teafoe2 that BDS is strongly supported by Israeli progressives, and many US “left” Jews? These are the same Jews who Chomsky is “gatekeeping” according to you and Blankfort.

    Look your so tangled up in this mangled perversion of parsing Chomsky’s words in various interviews that you long ago stopped making any sense.

    Who cares about Chomsky? Why do you need a whipping boy to beat up on. Go off to your anti-Chomsky blogs and have a ball!

  122. Deadbeat said on July 26th, 2010 at 4:48pm #

    Here’s the important segments of TeaFoe2 post that’s extremely important…

    But Chomsky is the Authority Figure all the above turn to when challenged. It is his Nobel-derived academic prestige which serves as a backstop for those who offer nonsense like the “War For Oil” thesis, so Blankfort, Petras and other leading members of the antiZionist “advance guard” have identified Chomsky as a key roadblock standing in the way of well-intentioned US activists desiring to oppose criminal actions of the US warmachine who are unable to make headway because they continue to accept a false view of the problem.

    Chomsky has been the leading voice identified with the Left for the past 40 years. He’s been called a “dissident” and he himself labels himself as a “Libertarian Socialist”. It is clear that Chomsky is neither. This kind of con game raises serious question about the veracity of the Left and it is reflected in the Left’s inability to mobilize around the Capitalist crisis and both the war on Afghanistan and Iraq and probably soon to be Iran.

    The reason why there is no effort to reinvigorate the anti-war movement because of what occurred in 2003. There was a section of the movement raising the issue of Zionist influence taking the U.S. to war with Iraq. Thus countering the “War for Oil” rhetoric being spread by the Chomskyites.

    Part of the reason for this was the influence of the Libertarian 9-11 who thought that the Left would be allies in getting to the truth. This was combined with some members of the Left who raised the issue of the Israeli occupation. I don’t think this configuration was anticipated by the Chomskyites. It’s too risky now for the Chomskyites to want to reinvigorate the anti-war movement. In fact if they cannot control the message they certainly won’t encourage its reformation.

    A closely related problem is that the US Black public, which historically has been the main base of left/progressive politics in the US, so far has been unable to untangle itself from the Obama myth; an exposure of the role played by the ZPC in promoting Obama’s career, getting him elected, and in determining the policies adopted by his administration would be a big help toward getting disentangled, which is one reason Bruce Dixon and other writers at Black Agenda Report have commented on it.

    Affirmative Action had the negative consequence of integrating (siphoning off) the upwardly mobile segment of the Black population. This segment is now ensconced as the “middle class” and their politics is firmly based in the Liberal camp. However this segment is a sliver of the total Black population and they don’t posses the monetary clout that Jewish Zionists have. In other words the “Liberal” Black Leadership (LBL) must rely on Jewish money in order to survive. This is why there is virtually NO mention of the Israel/Palestine conflict among the LBL. And in 1988 Jesse Jackson didn’t help matters. In fact his campaign help to bring Blacks into the Democratic Party. The irony however was the racist backlash by the Democratic Leadership Council from which Bill Clinton emerged.

    It is deeply ironic that the only members of the Black community to have a solidly anti-Zionist stance are the reactionary Black nationalists (Louis Farrakhan, New Black Panther Party, Professor Griff, etc.). This is how the Jewish Zionists have corrupted Black Politics but they had to do it. The reason was that the original Black Panther Party (BPP) openly expressed their support for the Palestinians and where openly anti-Zionist and were LEFTISTS in their truer sense of the word. They also has affinity with the struggles of the people of Appalachia and thus support the struggles of all oppressed groups regardless of race. The original BPP was anti-racist, anti-Zionist, and anti-Capitalist and most importantly — popular among Blacks. Under these circumstance they has to be destroyed.

    This kind of analysis is deeply missing from Glen Ford and Black Agenda Report (BAR). They have NOT turned their lenses on the Left and its corruption by Zionism. Yes they have written about “Israel” but that is NOT the story of ZIONISM.

    The problem with BAR is that they are too focused on the puppet (Obama) and not the puppet master (American Jewish Zionism).

  123. Deadbeat said on July 26th, 2010 at 6:13pm #

    Max Shield writes …

    You do know teafoe2 that BDS is strongly supported by Israeli progressives, and many US “left” Jews? These are the same Jews who Chomsky is “gatekeeping” according to you and Blankfort.

    U.S. “Left” (I’m glad you used quotes) like Naomi Klein is suspect. There goal is to infiltrate the movement and limit or waterdown its message or kill it from within. We’ve seen happen to the Green Party in 2004 via Ted Glick and Medea Benjamin.

    The question is whether Leftist (no quotes) Jews being to analyze the power configuration in the United States and stand up to confront it. This hasn’t happen because the “Left” has prevented it. This is why the contributions from Jeffery Blankfort and James Petras is so vitally
    important — in order to make people aware of the “Left’s” con game.

    Look your so tangled up in this mangled perversion of parsing Chomsky’s words in various interviews that you long ago stopped making any sense.

    No Max it is you who makes no sense as Chomsky’s initial claim to fame has to do with language and syntax. Therefore Chomsky know how to use the language and how to communicate. His words (and obfuscatory use of words) reveals his affinity to the racist ideology of Zionism. Your duplicity on the issue of justice and racism are what is interesting to observe and analyze.

    Who cares about Chomsky? Why do you need a whipping boy to beat up on. Go off to your anti-Chomsky blogs and have a ball!

    The “Left” and liberal Zionists care about maintaining the Chomsky facade lest they too be exposed as racists.

  124. teafoe2 said on July 26th, 2010 at 6:18pm #

    Well, DB, my take on BAR diverges from yours, but it would be possible to have a principled discussion of and with Ford/Dixon/Kimberly about the points you raise. Nobody’s perfect. But I don’t think BAR, no matter what its failings or strengths, is a priority problem that needs to be taken up at this point.

    Please forgive me for saying this, because I think you are probably the most important voice on DV providing an accurate perspective on the role of Chomsky and followers. But I think sometimes you get carried away with your own momentum and take your arguments off on tangents, chasing what are really secondary issues.

    I guess I probably do that too. I try to remember to keep my eyes on the main focus but I think of so many clever things to say I can’t help myself:)

    But let me post this much and get back to Mr Shields and his problems:)

  125. Max Shields said on July 26th, 2010 at 6:35pm #

    Deadbeat are they infiltrators like you? Are you a spy Deadbeat? What is your mission Deadbeat? Who is your boss Deadbeat? Why do you post here at DV, Deadbeat? Are you speaking for yourself or for someone else Deadbeat?

    I understand Deadbeat works for Noam Chomsky and is working on a biography of Chomsky’s life, but first he must create suspicion about Noam so as to pique the interest of the public.

    Have you given us a full account of your reasons for posting at DV, Deadbeat? Who pays you to post here, Deadbeat? What do you read when you’ve put down Mein Kemp; is Marx your favorite author or do you like Little Women? Will you be at the rally tonight Deadbeat? Are you a spy Deadbeat? Are you giving us your real name Deadbeat. Are you Dead or just a beat? Are you a boy Deadbeat or a girl Deadbeat? Are you Chinese Deadbeat? Was your father Jewish Deadbeat or was he black? Are you from California Deadbeat? Do you wear your have long, Deadbeat? How long have you been in the sun Deadbeat?

  126. teafoe2 said on July 26th, 2010 at 6:35pm #

    Hang on Max, get to you in a minit:) I want to lay out something which may help some, especially some of our progressive-minded Jewish friends get a handle on the Chomsky problem.

    History demonstrates time after time that people have a tendency to vicariously identify with political leaders of their own ethnic or national or religious sub-group, and to continue to support, even worship such figures long after it is obvious to disinterested observers that far from being defenders of the interests of the respective sub-group, said “leaders” are in fact working for the interests of the main oppressors of the group in question.
    Examples: Yasser Arafat. There are still many Palestinians and Palestinian-Americans who take umbrage if a non-Palestinian speaks of “Abu Ammar” in a disrespectful way.
    Example two: Barack Obama, the biggest Uncle Tom since… well I can’t think of a bigger one.

    Three: the Cesar Chavez myth. CC with help from Jerry Brown led the farmworker movement into the clutches of the Dumbock-rat Party and the road to oblivion. Look at the facts, it’s obvious. But try telling that to a Chicano community activist. Rotsa Ruck Ese:)

    Four: Nelson Mandela. Give me Winnie any day.
    Several more I’ll have to get to later.

    Times up, see you all in the banagna:)

  127. teafoe2 said on July 26th, 2010 at 6:42pm #

    Uhoh, looks like the heat finally got to ol’ Maxie:(

    Hey Max, go lie down in the shade somewhere! Drink some fluids, re-hydrate yourself! You may be suffering from a salt deficiency so quick, eat some chips or take some salt pills. Dampen your face, cool yourself down before you have a stroke or something.

    Well good luck to you, I do hope you recover soon:)

  128. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 26th, 2010 at 6:46pm #

    @PatrickSMcNally,

    I never suggested WINPAC set policy. The White House dictated the policy. It’s no mystery who the architects of the war were. And the architects of the war were perfectly explicit in their own policy papers about the reasons for it. They defined the key U.S. interest in the region as “Persian Gulf oil” and wanted a “transformation” of the military into a force for U.S. global hegemony, and regime change in Iraq was one of the first steps in solidifying that hegemony. 100% Made in the USA.

    Your Cold War explanation for the first Gulf War is absolute nonsense. Why did bombing Iraq cause the Soviet Union to collapse? Good luck explaining that one.

    And what part of George H. W. Bush issuing two national security directives stating that the U.S. would use military force to defend its access to oil don’t you understand? What part don’t you understand when Saddam told Glaspie, “We clearly understand America’s statement that it wants an easy flow of oil”? This is not rocket science.

    Cheney is not a “side-player to the oil industry”. He IS the oil industry. He was the CEO of Halliburton: “We serve the upstream oil and gas industry throughout the life cycle of the reservoir – from locating hydrocarbons and managing geological data, to drilling and formation evaluation, well construction and completion, and optimizing production through the life of the field.” That’s the oil industry.

    @teafoe2,

    If I’m such a “snake” with a “diminished mental capacity”, you should easily then be able to point out a single error in fact or logic in my response to Blankfort’s dishonest mischaracterization of Chomsky’s views (definition of a “strawman” argument). Best of luck with that.

    Oh, and good luck finding evidence in any of my writing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that I’m a Zionist or otherwise sympathetic to Zionism.

    @Rehmat,

    Since you’ve “proved many times” that I’m an Israeli propaganda tool, why don’t you offer us one piece of evidence for that from any of my writing. A single quote that proves your point will suffice.

    This discussion no longer interests me. It’s quite clear to me that facts are irrelevant to, well, it seems like pretty much everybody except Max Shields. Which bores me. Signing off. — Jeremy

  129. kalidas said on July 26th, 2010 at 6:47pm #

    I think Max, who once called me a Nazi, is surely becoming more and more frustrated.
    Most likely because he hasn’t yet made Colonel.

  130. PatrickSMcNally said on July 26th, 2010 at 7:11pm #

    > I never suggested WINPAC set policy.

    Trying to place WINPAC and JINSA on the same level does appear to suggest such. The policy was laid out people at JINSA, then adopted by the incoming Bush administration, and dictated to WINPAC to implement.

    > Why did bombing Iraq cause the Soviet Union to collapse?

    The whole crisis which tore down Gorbachev, led to the failed coup attempt, and enabled Yeltsin to consolidate power was a byproduct of having the USA blow Iraq apart next to the USSR. If you’re not aware of that much then there isn’t much point in trying to get you to understand anything more.

    > He was the CEO of Halliburton

    And Halliburton does not involve itself in actual oil explorations. It simply provides tools to those who do. To the extent that the issue is one of deciding whether or not it would be worth trying to gain formal possession of oilfields in Iraq for the sake of extracting more oil, Halliburton does not provide principal input. Rather, if Exxon-Mobil decided that they wanted to do further explorations in Iraq for new oilfields, then they would convey to Halliburton what types of equipment they expect to need and Halliburton would act to service this contract.

  131. Jeffrey Blankfort said on July 26th, 2010 at 7:30pm #

    Jeremy Hammond, he who defendth Chomsky over much has made so many errors and not just about my article that it is difficult to know if he is really as ignorant as he appears. He challenges me to find one thing wrong with his criticism so starting at the top very quickly I decided to examine the following section:

    Hammond:
    “Blankfort begins by noting that Chomsky gained some mainstream media attention when Israel denied him entry from the Palestinian West Bank, where he was scheduled to give a lecture and meet the unelected prime minister Salam Fayyad. Fayyad is “a favorite of both Washington and Israel and, it would appear, Chomsky”, writes Blankfort, the implication being that Chomsky favors Fayyad, and for the same reasons as Washington and Israel.”

    I IMPLIED NOTHING AT ALL. I SIMPLY NOTING THAT CHOMSKY HAS A FAVORABLE VIEW OF FAYYAD. IF HE HAD NOT, HE SURELY WOULD HAVE SAID SO WHEN HE HAD AMPLY OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO.

    “To support that implication, Blankfort cites Chomsky from an interview with Democracy Now! in which he stated that Fayyad “is pursuing policies, which, in my view, are quite sensible, policies of essentially developing facts on the ground.” Chomsky described the policies as “sensible and sound ones.”

    “Chomsky was — it should go without saying — referring to specific policies Fayyad has implemented — those of seeking to construct the infrastructure for a de facto Palestinian state now, without waiting indefinitely for Israel to shift its policy away from rejection of such a state. Blankfort thus portrays Chomsky’s support for a de facto Palestinian state as a blanket endorsement of the Palestinian Authority and all its actions.”

    NOT SO. THAT’S YOUR READING OF IT AND A STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION THAT IS NOT BORN OUT BY THE ACTUAL TEXT OF MY ARTICLE.

    “Unfortunately,” continues Blankfort, “Chomsky was not questioned about his support for the nation building priorities of the earlier Zionists nor if he considered the Palestine Authority’s endorsement of Israel’s blockade of Gaza, of its attempts to suppress a UN investigation of the Goldstone Report, and of the role played by its US-trained militia in protecting Israel, to be also ‘sensible and sound.’”

    The intended implication, of course, is that Chomsky supports the Zionist theft of Arab land, the Israeli blockade, the blocking of the Goldstone Report, and P.A. collusion with Israel — all of which, as anyone who is familiar with Chomsky’s actual views knows — is just complete asinine nonsense.”

    NOT AT ALL AND YOU KNOW IT. AND LIKE YOUR ENTIRE ARTICLE, IT TRIES TO PLACE WORDS IN MY ARTICLE THAT I NEITHER WROTE NOR IMPLIED. WHAT I AM QUESTIONING IN THIS PARAGRAPH IS THE FAILURE OF AMY GOODMAN TO ACT LIKE A JOURNALIST INSTEAD OF A WORSHIPFUL SYCOPHANT IN CHOMSKY’S PRESENCE, WHETHER IN THE FLESH OR BY PHONE, AND ASK HIM SOMETHING OTHER THAN A SOFTBALL QUESTION.

    Jeremy, your OWN intellectual dishonesty may exceed even that of your hero, to the point where you even removed my short rejoinder from your own web site. Perhaps you didn’t like me pointing out that your critique was 1400 words longer than my original article.

  132. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 26th, 2010 at 7:44pm #

    Ah, well, for Jeffrey Blankfort, I’ll make an exception.

    * What I challenged you to, Jeffrey, was to point out one error in FACT or LOGIC that I made.

    Thus, if you “implied nothing at all”, please show me where, in explaining how, logically, you do so imply, I erred in fact or logic. You quote only my conclusion, but make no attempt to show where, in my argument explaining precisely how you DO so imply, my argument erred in fact or logic.

    * “Blankfort thus portrays Chomsky’s support for a de facto Palestinian state as a blanket endorsement of the Palestinian Authority and all its actions.”

    That statement is absolutely accurate.

    * “[Y]ou even removed my short rejoinder from your own web site.”

    That is an absolute lie.

  133. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 26th, 2010 at 8:02pm #

    Now, if you’re saying you didn’t intend to imply that Chomsky favors Fayyad or that he did so for the same reasons as Israel and Washington, then are we in agreement that he was referring to Fayyad’s efforts to create the infrastructure for a de facto independent state?

    And if so, then why did you also imply further that Chomsky supports P.A. suppression of the Goldstone Report or P.A. collusion with Israel?

    Now, if you didn’t intend to imply either of those things, either, then are we in agreement that Chomsky does not support the suppression of the Goldstone Report and P.A. collusion (quite the contrary)?

    Looking forward to your answer to these simple questions.

  134. Hue Longer said on July 26th, 2010 at 9:03pm #

    Hello Jeremy,

    Give me some credit for suggesting that you’re helping the baby get tossed with the bathwater by allowing Chomsky motive debate to mix with Zionist control debate ( I know you know already). I also suggested you stop assuming anyone here is being intellectually dishonest (though Jeffrey seems smart enough for that).

    That said again, I find your points on Chomsky inarguable and responses measured and logical concerning Israeli control… on the later, the people you are arguing with let me down but I think there are some good areas to cover in a conversation solely seeing debate (removed from ego) as a means to find truth and understanding.

    Thanks for the time you put in….very good stuff

  135. dino said on July 26th, 2010 at 10:05pm #

    Jeremy,I read your article on why Israel was not the first reason for Iraq invasion.So ,if you admitted that that Israel was not the first reason but a second reason ,then you have to admit that the war was not 100%made in USA.The article is very well informed but it is a detail that you didn’t remind:Saddam,short before the invasion,for avoided a war,agreed with all the conditions put by US and even to leave the country.Nevertheless Iraq was attacked,destroyed,and “ideas” to share it in three zones appeared.So remained how said Peres:”the war is a must”.Thanks for patience and for the effort to explain your self with your readers.

  136. shabnam said on July 26th, 2010 at 10:18pm #

    Chomsky in the following video does not include Israel as one of the reason behind the situation in the Middle East. He rather holds US policy as number one reason behind the unrest in the region. Chomsky cleverly tells the audience that Muslim population is angry with US opposition to democracy, support for brutal theocracy? (Is he talking about Iranian theocracy or Jewish theocracy – if Iranian then why US wants to overthrow it?), to control their resources. He told the audience; by 2001 there were two more reasons for hatred of the population toward US:

    1) It was US involvement in crushing Palestinians
    2) The brutal sanction against Iraq which was genocidal. He said Clinton killed more Iraqi than Saddam Hussein

    Chomsky, however, leaves Israel out. Please notice that Chomsky holds US the main responsible party for CRUSHIG PALESTINIANS. No mention of Israel as the prime suspect. He gives US and US desire for control of resources, as the MAIN REASON BEHIND people’s anger and he refuses to mentions Israel as one of the reason.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBif2pgvzMI&feature=related

    He points to Iraq sanction as genocidal but cleverly forgets to mention that the designer of that genocidal sanction was Martin Indyk, a Zionist Jew. The “Dual Containment” of Iraq and Iran was designed by Martin Indyk, strong supporter of Israel, against Iraqi people where more than 650000 died, many were children younger than 5 years of age.
    In 1982, Indyk began working as a deputy research director for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington. In 1985 Indyk served eight years as the founding Executive Director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a research institute specializing in analysis of Middle East policy. These organization are pro Israel interest where have strong influence on US policy making decision. He served as special assistant to U.S. President Bill Clinton and as senior director of Near East and South Asian Affairs at the United States National Security Council. While at the NSC, he served as principal adviser to the President and the National Security Advisor on Arab-Israeli issues, Iraq, Iran, and South Asia. All these information never mentioned by Chomsky.

    In A & Q period in a meeting at MIT for Gaza genocide in 2009, someone from the audience asked the following question:
    Why US strongly alleys with Israel? Chomsky gave the following reasons for this strategic alliance (an asset):
    1) Israel is a major US military base in the region
    2) Israel is the only reliable base in the region
    3) Israel is highly integrated with US high Tech, which is part of the US economy, like Microsoft, HP, where elite is in love with Israel, therefore, it has AN EFFECT ON POLICY, and of course they are in love with Israel, just look at the investment pattern to find out that they have nice relations with Israel .
    4) Ideological connection between two countries since Israel victory in 1967 war.
    Similar to Zionist hasbara that was made by Zuckerman

    5) What Israel has been doing it resonate with our OWN history. A forcible and violent displacement of the 2 legged beast, and settlements by a superior race. This is American history back in 17th century where was fulfilling god’s will. God has a plan for the universe and you are fulfilling it. You are carrying a mission by wiping out the indigenous population by stealing their land, like half of the Mexico, and war in Vietnam, whatever might be. A mission to fulfill. This is very similar to what is happening in Israel. This is the mindset of the settlers in Israel and is highly honored capturing the essence of Israel or Zionism, whatever it is.

    6) By settling every inch of the land, we are carrying out God’s will. We bring the messiah. This resemblance between our own history and Israeli settlement by superior race probably is significant. Thus, there are plenty of reasons. When Israel goes against US policy, then US stops Israel.
    To hide the hand of the Zionist Jews in foreign policy decision making of the United States in the Middle East and NORTH AFRICA, Chomsky pointed out the LOVE of US elite for Israel since two countries have similar past history which it leads to INFLUENCE IN POLICY decision making in favor of Israel.

    One should ask, if “two legged beast” background is the reason for LOVE of ISRAEL, then why US interest is not identical to Canada, Australia, New Zealand since they have done the same and have similar past?
    He does not, however, tell you that majority of “US billionaire” elite are JEWISH and have the interest of Israel at heart thus, they use their $$$ to influence the policy.

    Israel IS NOT AN ASSET, even Mossad agent knows that. Israel has to PRESENT herself as an asset through manufactured crisis to make present her interest identical to US interest. As a result the Jewish lobby and its extension use their $$$, active ARMY and hundreds of think tanks and Jewish institution to keep their control over US government and put a Zionist puppet at the White House to serve Israel’s interest.
    The left which is under influence of Zionist Jews exaggerates ‘US imperialism’ to divert attention away from the main enemy, ‘Zionism’. The main enemy of the ‘left’ has become “Islam”, due to an active role of the closet Zionists. The leadership of the left in the west is giving helping hand to ZIONISM AGAINST ISLAM. This cooperation is beneficial to Israel. This clever tactic has influenced Iranian ‘left’ as well, where it manifested itself at the time of Gaza genocide and attack on flotilla where majority of them were either silent or criticized the victims or they hold Iranian regime responsible for Gaza blockade because of Iranian government support for Palestinian cause.

  137. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 26th, 2010 at 11:02pm #

    Hue,

    Sorry, Hue. I was referring to the most recent commenters, and didn’t have you in mind.

    dino,

    Your argument is a non sequitur. It doesn’t follow that because the architects of the war considered Israeli interests in their equations that the war wasn’t 100% Made in the USA. It is as I’ve said. And you’re welcome.

  138. dino said on July 27th, 2010 at 12:29am #

    Jeremy,at least is hard to say that if arhitects of war took Israel;s interests in their equation,the plan remained 100%made in USA.But you remember that Saddam was ready to implemented all Americans demands even to leave Iraq.What about it.
    I boring you with an other observation:the propaganda doesn’t work only on population but also on policy makers.I’m sure that all the new propaganda “theories” became the common way to speak and think for everybody.If the old Bush even didn’t intend to entry in Bagdad,in few years the occupation of Iraq became a must.The same happened with Islam,only in 80’s they were freedom fighters for all and now ,you know.
    Thank again very much for dialog.

  139. mary said on July 27th, 2010 at 2:19am #

    I am Chomskied off! The total number of comments is now 137 and ten posts ago, the author said ‘Signing off – Jeremy’. What a fib.

  140. Josie Michel-Bruening said on July 27th, 2010 at 2:57am #

    Dear Jeremy R. Hammond, did you ever take into consideration that Israel is working as a servant in the interest of the big corporations and the Pentagon, working as a bullwark in the Middle East?
    Why is Israel allowed to have nuclear weapons, while all the other around the small country are not?
    Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman wrote already in the 1970’s about the mindset behind US leadership in the world which was already drafted in 1948. In their book, The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism: The Political Economy of Human Rights: Volume I, and Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, they stated:
    In 1948, Kennan wrote Policy Planning Study 23, stating that if the U.S. wanted to maintain (and expand) its position of world dominance, it could not truly respect human rights and democracy abroad. The document said:

    We have about 50 percent of the world’s wealth, but only about 6 percent of its population…In this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships that will permit us to maintain this disparity…To do so we will have to dispense with sentimentality and daydreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives…We should cease to talk about vague and…unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards and democratization.

    Kennan elaborated on this concept in a 1950 briefing of U.S. ambassadors to Latin American countries. Of prime importance was to prevent the spreading of the idea “that governments are responsible for the well being of their people.” To combat the proliferation of this idea, Kennan argued that “we should not hesitate before police repression by the local government…It is better to have a strong regime in power than a liberal one if it is indulgent and relaxed and penetrated by Communist.” s., Hans Bennet, http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2009/01/edward-herman-on-latin-america-and-the-us/ ;

  141. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 27th, 2010 at 3:15am #

    dino,

    * “Jeremy,at least is hard to say that if arhitects of war took Israel;s interests in their equation,the plan remained 100%made in USA.”

    Not at all.

    Josie Michel-Bruening,

    * “Dear Jeremy R. Hammond, did you ever take into consideration that Israel is working as a servant in the interest of the big corporations and the Pentagon, working as a bullwark in the Middle East?”

    Yes, that is essentially what is meant when observing Israel is a strategic ally.

    * “Why is Israel allowed to have nuclear weapons, while all the other around the small country are not?”

    Same reason.

  142. PatrickSMcNally said on July 27th, 2010 at 5:20am #

    > Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman wrote already in the 1970’s about the mindset behind US leadership in the world which was already drafted in 1948.

    While all of those points are perfectly valid in a general way, they really don’t shed any light on the specifics of US Mideast policy. The types of quotes which Chomsky & Herman are giving there would also be perfectly compatible with a policy whereby Iraq is armed as a surrogate state against Iran, as just one of many possibilities. The issues which got Saddam Hussein into tensions with Kuwait in 1990 would not have arisen if Iraq at that time could have guarenteed hand-over-fist payments of 3.5+ billion every year with any political conditions attached, as is the case with Israel. Likewise, it’s not apparent how any of the documents from 1948 can enable us to account for the rejection of Iman Hage’s overtures:

    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0311/06/i_ins.01.html

    —–
    The United States went to war to topple Saddam Hussein, arguing its intelligence proved that Iraq was stockpiling the deadliest weapons known to man. None of those weapons has been found, and now U.S. intelligence is facing another set of allegations, that an influential American was approached by Iraqi officials with a potential peace deal, but the offer to negotiate was turned down by the CIA…

    What we know so far revolves around several meetings involving a number of people. The first is Imad Hage, the businessman, a man with good contacts in several developing nations and Washington as well. We’ll hear from him in a moment.

    The second was his highest level contact in the United States, Richard Perle. Perle is well-known around Washington, a member of the Defense Policy Advisory Board that assists planning at the Pentagon. He was traveling and unable to talk to us, though he has spoken to other media and confirmed the broad outlines of the story.
    —–

    The refusal of such overtures is definitely not accountable by any hypothetical search to open up new oilfields.

  143. Max Shields said on July 27th, 2010 at 7:21am #

    PatrickSMcNally first I’m assuming that the connection with Perle you’ve introduced has to do with his entry into the roster of neocons and signator to PNAC. PNAC is not AIPAC nor is it an agent of Israel. This was the brain child of Dick Cheney who then recruited Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, et al.

    In an of itself PNAC was a means of filling the policy void post-Cold War. It is based on the age old notion of US exceptionalism and from there constructs a global dominance by the US (not Israel).

    The group’s core ideas are expressed in a September 2000 report produced for Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, and Lewis Libby entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century. It’s military component is central.

    It is this “cabal” that filled the void once 911 occurred. G.W. Bush was not a necon nor any more a Israel “supporter” than his many predessors.

    This said, one should ask, what is the importance of the Middle East, Africa and parts of Asia and South/Central America to the United States? But to answer that question you need to concede just one thing: the US is an Empire. An empire is driven and consumed by hegemony to control and extract resources of one sort or another. The only reason to be an Empire is to control nature’s gifts. In some cases it’s for your own consumption, and in other cases it is for control so as to ensure power over those resources and accessibility to them.

    If you ignore the US role in the world, than you can begin to look for other entities that are simply forcing the US to spend trillions on armament and wars. I think this is delusional. There are those here that are so against this notion that the mother country (USA) could ever be guilty of its own lust, that it has turned to calling posters Chomskyites. Now what does Chomsky have to do with all this you ask? Simple: you has been a long time chronicler of US Empire throughout the world. Therefore anyone who thinks the US is an Empire must be a Chomsky protege and must be a Zionist gatekeeper.

    PatrickSMcNally you seem like a reasonable poster. I haven’t noticed your posts before these, but you have walked into 3 year debate that goes well beyond Mr. Hammond and Blankfort who while they come done on these issues from different perspect seem to provide, each in their own way, cogent arguments.

  144. Max Shields said on July 27th, 2010 at 7:30am #

    Yes, there are a few typos (down instead of done in the last sentence). Hopefully any others are obvious and easily corrected by the reader.

  145. Max Shields said on July 27th, 2010 at 7:37am #

    PNAC is not a foreign agent’s musings over US foreign policy. During the Cold War there was (and I think I mentioned it here) there was NSC 68.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSC-68

    PNAC follows a very similar path and NSC 68 was certainly not a Zionist invention.

    Again, since it needs repeating, none of this ignores the power of AIPAC and the seemingly irrational relationship with Israel. But the world, believe it or not does not revolve around Israel (except in the minds of some).

  146. shabnam said on July 27th, 2010 at 8:00am #

    MC: There is no other country in the Middle East in which the US and its allies could position the vast military threat that Israel has been made into if they are to achieve their ambitions for the region. The realisation of Zionist ambitions for Israel was and still is a secondary consideration for the US, despite the relatively powerful Israeli lobby.

    GA: I am not so sure at all. I actually think that the Zionist Lobby has managed to destroy the American empire. I argue that the Credit Crunch is in fact a Zio-Punch. I argue that Greenspan created an economy boom to divert attention from Wolfowitz’ wars. The Zionists in fact have managed to bring down every super power they cling to. Britain, France and now America. You have to allow yourself to admit that the ‘War on Terror’ was actually a Zionist led war against Islam, a battle that was there to serve Israeli interests.

    http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/touching-left-islam-israeli-lobby-chomsky-and-many-other-hot.html

  147. PatrickSMcNally said on July 27th, 2010 at 8:14am #

    > the connection with Perle you’ve introduced has to do with his entry into the roster of neocons and signator to PNAC. PNAC is not AIPAC

    The relevant place to look with regards to Richard Perle is not AIPAC but JINSA. Fortunately they were nice in providing us a profile:

    http://www.jinsa.org/node/467

    —–
    Hon. Richard Perle
    Board of Advisors
    Previously was Chairman of the Defense Policy Board (2001-2003); Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy (1981-87); and served on the U.S. Senate Staff (1960-1980). Currently, he is Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington DC. He is a leading authority on national security, military requirements, arms proliferation and defense, and regional conflicts.

    Mr. Perle has a B.A. in International Politics, University of Southern California (1964); a M.A Politics, Princeton University (1967); Honours Examinations, London School of Economics (1962-63) and Fellowships: Princeton University; Ford Foundation and American Council of Learned Societies.

    Mr. Perle writes frequently for the op-ed pages of the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, The Daily Telegraph (London), Jerusalem Post and other publications. He appears on radio and television on matters of security and foreign policy. He is the co- author of An End to Evil and author of Hard Line, a political novel.
    —–

    AIPAC isn’t the only Israel-pushing racket out there, so this may get confusing. There are a lot of diverse Israel-pushing rackets out there which address different audiences. AIPAC for some, WINEP for others, JINSA for those higher tastes, and the list goes on.

    > This was the brain child of Dick Cheney

    Huh? Where did you pull that one from? The PNAC was founded by William Kristol & Robert Kagan in 1997.

    > It is based on the age old notion of US exceptionalism and from there constructs a global dominance by the US (not Israel).

    Your losing yourself in generalities here, again. Many other people who have engaged in formulating US imperial strategy could easily fit the loose summary which you’ve given. Zbigniew Brzezinski and the Council of Foreign Relations would certainly fall into that category. Most of these groups have regarded the Israel/Palestine issue as an annoyance which the Israel lobby has forced into their hands. The PNAC was founded not so much to provide a post-Cold War strategy in general (that was already being addressed by people like Brzezinski and groups like the CFR) but to provide a post-Cold War strategy which took a specifically friendly attitude towards Israel. The latter outcome would not have been as likely to the extent that post-Cold War strategy was shaped by the other groups.

    > This said, one should ask, what is the importance of the Middle East, Africa and parts of Asia and South/Central America to the United States? But to answer that question you need to concede just one thing: the US is an Empire.

    You’re just playing off of generalities. The usual empire-builders such as not only Brzezinski but also David & Nelson Rockefeller and others like them have generally viewed Israel/Palestine the way that one regards a big cyst on your buttocks. That doesn’t mean that such people were any less of imperialists than any of the people over at JINSA. It simply means that people like the Rockefellers or Brzezinski would more likely have favored taking advantage of Iman Hage’s overtures, and perhaps building up some mujahideen in Iraq that could play a similar role such as was done in Afghanistan, or any one of a multiple other imperial options that would not have entailed the close marriage with Israeli Likudniks which the agendas pushed by JINSA, PNAC and all related rackets have followed.

    > If you ignore the US role in the world, than you can begin to look for other entities that are simply forcing the US to spend trillions on armament and wars.

    That just uses generalities to obfuscate things, and this wouldn’t be done in any other context. With regards to Vietnam, it’s generally recognized that the Taiwan lobby had some notable impact in causing the war to develop the way it did. Eventually it was the Republican Richard Nixon who went to China and withdrew from Vietnam. Does that mean that Nixon was not an imperialist? Of course not! Under different political circumstances, imperial strategy might have followed a path which could have avoided the more prolonged war in Indochina without being any less imperialist. The Taiwan lobby obstructed this and made a war-escalation the more likely outcome.

    Now most historians and even Leftists would likely accept those facts without feeling the need to repeatedly refer to imperialism in general as a way of brushing off charges against the Taiwan lobby. But try applying the same rules to the much bigger Israel lobby of today and one can expect the slanders to come forward.

  148. PatrickSMcNally said on July 27th, 2010 at 8:37am #

    > During the Cold War there was (and I think I mentioned it here) there was NSC 68.

    You’re back to trading in generalities again. NSC 68 would be perfectly compatible with any one of a multitude of policy ideas bounced around by the Council on Foreign Relations. The CFR is a much more diverse group of imperial strategists and as such the range of views towards Israel-as-strategic-asset and what not which can be argued there is wider. But all of it is compatible with NSC 68 and whatever else. No, what defines rackets like JINSA, PNAC and the rest, as something very distinct from the CFR, Trilateral Commission and what not, is the way that JINSA, PNAC et al clearly keep their strategies woven very closely to the Israel-as-buddy scenario. If we cut that out of the picture then it’s simply hard to see what would be the point of forming any new rackets which stand in organizational rivalry with the CFR, Trilats and the rest.

  149. Max Shields said on July 27th, 2010 at 8:49am #

    > Huh? Where did you pull that one from? The PNAC was founded by William Kristol & Robert Kagan in 1997.

    Project for the New American Century (PNAC): Cheney’s Monstrous Scheme

    The blueprint for our current foreign policy was being written back in 1992 by then-Defense Secretary, Dick Cheney. His writings set out a new doctrine that called for U.S. power in the twentieth century, to be that of an aggressive and unilateral approach that would secure American dominance of world affairs by force if necessary. This “peace through strength” policy has been unfolding from the day Bush, Jr. took office; the strategic planning of it was done during the Clinton administration with funding from the military-industrial complex, energy companies, and right-wing foundations. Over time, those working on these new plans evolved into PNAC, established in 1997 with members Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz at the helm. May God help us!

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_louise_010603_pnac.html

  150. shabnam said on July 27th, 2010 at 8:56am #

    The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an American think tank based in Washington, D.C. that lasted from early 1997 to 2006. It was co-founded as a non-profit educational organization by neoconservatives William Kristol and Robert Kagan.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

  151. Max Shields said on July 27th, 2010 at 8:58am #

    PatrickSMcNally you are disappointing. I said first we need to agree (or not on one point): the US is an empire.

    If you want to call what I’ve posted “generalities” (another way of calling everything a strawman) than you’re just trying to play “gotcha” and that’s disingenous.

    Of course, other policy makers have used US exceptionalism. My point was that PNAC represents that same mindset. And as I’ve posted above PNAC had as its original author Richard Cheney, a former CEO of Halliburton WASP.

  152. Max Shields said on July 27th, 2010 at 9:15am #

    shabnam if you read what I posted above you’ll see that the basis for PNAC was Cheney’s Rebuilding America’s Defenses. The tribe that was part of that became signators to PNAC. Read on in the Wikipedia link and you’ll see the direct connection.

    The point isn’t that Kristol was co-founder of the think tank, the point is what was this PNAC all about. It was about unipower (US) and projecting global US power. Cheney is a Republican right-winger (who drafted the basis of PNAC project) and so may differ in some ways with the likes of Berzinsky, but the essence of their world view is very similar. Berzinsky may disagree with the neocons about Iraq, but was gungho about invading Serbia (Clinton admin.)

  153. PatrickSMcNally said on July 27th, 2010 at 10:13am #

    > you are disappointing

    Talk to yourself much? So now Alex Jones and Prison Planet have become the reference source?

    > My point was that PNAC represents that same mindset.

    And my point was that the mindset which you’ve referenced is far too general to really shed any light why the strategy followed the pattern of invading Iraq when many other types of strategy would have easily conformed the general patterns of NSC 68 and whatever else.

    > And as I’ve posted above PNAC had as its original author Richard Cheney

    No, what you’ve made clear is that you’ll dig as low as you need to get something that can let you attach your spin to things. The item from Prison Planet which you linked to was simply an opinionated essay where shouts conclusions in the face of the reader in true Alex Jonesian style.

    > the basis for PNAC was Cheney’s Rebuilding America’s Defenses.

    You’ve got your dates mixed up again. RAD was written in 2000. PNAC was founded by Kristol & Kagan in 1997. Not that Cheney should be left out of the loop either. Cheney was, after all, awarded the Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson Distinguished Service Award by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs as early as 1991:

    http://www.jinsa.org/node/721

    —–
    In 1982, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) was proud to honor Senator Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson with the first “Distinguished Service Award.” After the Senator’s untimely death in 1983, JINSA, in cooperation with Mrs. Helen Jackson, renamed the award in the Senator’s memory…

    Past Recipients of the Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson Distinguished Service Award…

    1991 – Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense
    —–

    But what basis do you have for crediting the authorship of this piece to Cheney, if I may be so bold to ask? Or is that another piece of wisdom from Alex Jones? The actual report listed Thomas Donnelly as Principal Author along with Donald Kagan and Gary Schmitt. Does this revelation of Cheney as the hidden author come from Alex Jones too, or maybe from the John Birch Society?

    > the point is what was this PNAC all about. It was about unipower (US) and projecting global US power.

    More to the point, it was about seeking to displace strategies of global US power which favored a less privileged role for Israel. Strategies of global power have been made up many times by Brzezinski, the Rockefellers, the CFR, the Trilateral Commission and many related organizations. The founding of rackets like JINSA and the PNAC (which should be properly seen as the baby-child of JINSA, to which Cheney belonged, rather than as the baby-child of Cheney himself) was a deliberate effort by Israel-supporters to displace Brzezinski et al as the traditional mappers of strategy and put a more Israel-friendly racket in their place.

    > Berzinsky may disagree with the neocons about Iraq, but was gungho about invading Serbia

    Which again points out why citing generalities like NSC 68 can very little bearing on the question of why the Iraq invasion in 2003. Those types of general documents do not shed light on anything specific.

  154. Max Shields said on July 27th, 2010 at 10:39am #

    You’re quibbling, PatrickSMcNally. And so far you have not responded to the simpliest of requests: Is the US and Empire?

  155. Max Shields said on July 27th, 2010 at 10:49am #

    If you think PatrickSMcNally Scoop Jackson is relevant than fine. You can say I’m too general but you are obfiscating by tossing out irrelevent pieces of information. If you are denying Cheney’s central role in PNAC than say so.

    You are playing games PatrickSMcNally. You have tossed out one red herring after another.

    As I said, and I’m saying it to YOU PatrickSMcNally: you are disappointing. You are taking obfiscation as the basis for direct discussion on this topic. Read the Wikipedia piece if you don’t like any other references and read it all the way through.

  156. shabnam said on July 27th, 2010 at 10:56am #

    Max:

    {Shabnam if you read what I posted above you’ll see that the basis for PNAC was Cheney’s Rebuilding America’s Defenses.}

    So what? This actually makes sense. The Israel-firsters are strong supporter of allocating large amount of resources maintain the most sophisticated military to force others to bend. People like Lieberman, Kristol, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Kegan, Elliott Abrahams and thousands more support allocation of billions of dollars to military and ‘intelligence’ to put all pro Israel people as directors in place. This is necessary for the expansion of Zionist project which is WORLD DOMINATION.

    Please look at the names of people involved in writing “statement of principles” for these THINK TANKS, where majority of them are Jewish. Why so many Zionist Jews are are active in these organizations and think tanks? They are everywhere. The Jewish population of the US is less than 2% but they have occupied majority of the sensitive positions at the military, intelligence, think tanks, as economic and political advisors to the President, majority of ambassadors to countries important to Israel? Are they the most educated group in America? The answer is NO, NO.
    Today, the propaganda campaign against Iran is dominated by the Zionist Jews. The propaganda films against Iran are made by Zionists and their supporters Iranian Bahia. Majority of policies against Iran are written and forced on Zionist stooges at the white house, Obama, state department, Hillary Rotten Clinton, Joseph Biden and the rest by Dennis Ross, an illiterate advisor on Iran and a dangerous man but an asset for expansion of Zionist policy but toxic to American interest, Martin Indyk and others from Saban institute belong to a billionaire Zionist Jew who is determined to destroy Iran. You can deceive yourself as much as you want but you CAN NOT FOOL OTHERS.

    Look at the main goal of PNAC, was “regime change in Iraq”. Was Saddam an enemy of the United States? Or, was Saddam against the interest of US EMPIRE? Or Iraq was a threat to the United States?
    The answers to all these questions were NO, NO, and again NO. If we repeat the same questions but put ISRAEL instead of the US, then the answers to all these questions would have been YES, YES and yes.
    So, the statement of the principles MAINLY were written by the Zionist Jews to protect Israel’s interest but sold it as American’s interest. The illiterate president, Bush, bought it.

    Today, the same people, in addition to phony left, are active against Iran, because Iran is an obsticle against ZIONIST EXPANSIONEST POLICY, like Iraq, not against American interest.
    These wars are waged for establishment of “WORLD GOVERNMENT” led by Jewish plutocracy where Israel has an important position in the “new world order”. Thus, the military might of the United States is used NOT TO EXPAND US INTEREST, rather to expand ‘Jewish interest”. People involved in world government project do not recognize borders but their own interest and their family.
    http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?15717-Who-Controls-the-Bilderberg-Group-(2010

    Tell your friends that if the Zionist Jews dare to stage a military attack on Iran, they will be crushed before Iran goes down.

  157. PatrickSMcNally said on July 27th, 2010 at 10:59am #

    > Is the US and Empire?

    I never realized that you had even bothered to ask such a stupid question. Of course the USA sits at the top of a world empire (although it’s in slow terminal decline). So now let’s get back to the real issue: what does that have to do with the invasion of Iraq? You are simply invoking generalities as a way of pushing aside specifics. It’s clear to anyone who examines the evidence in a detailed way that many of the traditional people associated with US imperial planning were not in favor of invading Iraq in 2003, but that there were some very specific well-organized groups who pushed for it. Any attempt to track these groups back to their points of origin invariably leads us to JINSA and related offspring. Rambling about NSC 68 is just playing with generalities.

    With the level of generality that you’re trying to invoke one might just as well atribute the whole war to a generic sort of “white racism” and leave out any mention of oil. That kind of general philosphical approach may have a natural place when one is BSing around, but then you shouldn’t even pretend to be offering a detailed political analysis with citations of Cheney or whoever.

  158. PatrickSMcNally said on July 27th, 2010 at 11:10am #

    > If you think PatrickSMcNally Scoop Jackson is relevant than fine.

    Playing with words again? I never mentioned the man except as part of the name of an award which JINSA hands out and which Cheney received as early as 1991.

    > If you are denying Cheney’s central role in PNAC than say so.

    “Cheney’s central role in PNAC”? Yes, I’d be happy to deny that because it’s bullshit. Cheney was one of a number of people associated with PNAC and it’s more appropriate to speak of JINSA’s central role in providing a cradle for both Cheney and the PNAC in general. The fable of Cheney as the Godfather of the PNAC is just your imagination at work.

  159. Max Shields said on July 27th, 2010 at 11:20am #

    > Of course the USA sits at the top of a world empire (although it’s in slow terminal decline).

    Then perhaps you are arguing with the wrong poster PatrickSMcNally.

    Frankly, other than quibbling about who wrote what first (it seems you have lost the forest for the trees) the real issue is Chomsky. The question is simple if this is an empire than what follows is not an Israeli cabal that run US policy (though such a cabal may influence or find confluence), but what the empire actually DOES.

    I am not interested in conspiracies (which seems to be where you’re going) than in US policy and fundamental issue of Chomsky’s position (which is not tied to JINSA).

    Why not just read PNAC. It is what it clearly is (perhaps it is too general for you).
    http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

  160. Max Shields said on July 27th, 2010 at 11:35am #

    Regarding PNAC and Chomsky

    (Apparently, Cheney does not seem to be the principle author of
    Rebuilding America’s Defenses. It is interesting that one of the participants is Eliot Cohen Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University. Nitze is the principle policy author for NSC-68)

    We, the undersigned:

    1. propose to set up a tribunal against the PNAC, the “Project for the New American Century”, and its ramifications and machinations, to investigate the real reasons behind this war. Our example is the Russell Tribunal (1966-1967), set up to investigate war crimes during the Vietnam War, and we ask philosophers and other intellectuals with the same moral authority as Bertrand Russell to preside this tribunal. We call upon Jacques Derrida, Jürgen Habermas, Noam Chomsky and Edward Said, among others.

    2. propose to take legal action against “The Project for the New American Century”, more specifically the authors of the (in)famous report “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, published by the PNAC in September 2000: Thomas Donnelly, Donald Kagan, Gary Schmitt, and against Paul Wolfowitz as contributor and master mind behind it. We propose that specialised NGO’s, like “Lawyers without frontiers”, lay down a complaint against the authors and their organisation for “openly preaching and planning crimes against humanity”. This complaint could be lodged at the European Court for Human Rights in Strasbourg.

    http://www.brusselstribunal.org/petition.htm

  161. PatrickSMcNally said on July 27th, 2010 at 11:50am #

    > if this is an empire than what follows is not an Israeli cabal that run US policy

    That phrase again just shows obfuscation. There are multitudes of US policy going on all around in the world in Colombia, Guatemala and many other places. What is pertinent to the arguments which Blankfort made (and, yes, that name was part of how this thread began) is the issue of how the Israel lobby has guided US policy in the Mideast specifically, especially around the Israel/Palestine issue but also with respect a number of related spin-off issues such as Iraq. You appear to be repeatedly burying the straight technical points which Blankfort as on occasion tried to make underneath a fog where we have to debate about the Learned Elders of Zion.

    > but what the empire actually DOES.

    What is actually done is generally determined by what different interest groups backed by deep pockets do. This process is not determined a single Politburo seated somewhere. That point was already made above with regards to the role of the Taiwan lobby in bringing about a war in Vietnam which might have been avoided if different voices among imperial planners had prevailed. The Taiwan lobby made it obligatory for every Democrat to swear they would never allow “another China” and so it fell to Richard Nixon to leave Vietnam behind and go to China. That chain of events was an example of “what the empire actually DOES,” sure, but it can’t really be understood on such a vague level. If there had been no Taiwan lobby then it’s quite possible that Nixon might have gone to China before Eisenhower even left office, and that could have had further ramifications for Vietnam. But for someone who cites Alex Jones as a source, you sound really funny attacking Blankfort as if he were calling out about the Learned Elders of Zion.

  162. Max Shields said on July 27th, 2010 at 11:58am #

    PatrickSMcNally I have never disagreed that Israel, that AIPAC, that PNAC/neocons all have played a recent role in US Middle East policy.

    And so, it is a red herring to keep making that my “case”. Nor do I think Hammond has made that case.

    My position is not to support all of what Chomsky has said or written. Who really could? My sole position is that the US is an empire which has many influences, but a clear underlying determination from almost the inception of the USA – exceptionalism. It is laced throughout US foreign policy and PNAC which is not official policy has used it as the overriding basis for their principles. And PNAC play a role with regard to the 2003 Iraq invasion; that role is strengthened not by a connection with Zionism or Israel but with the underlying premise of American Exceptionalism in a post-Cold War (unipower) era.

    It is from that point that Chomsky weaves his theses from Vietnam through to today.

  163. Max Shields said on July 27th, 2010 at 12:03pm #

    By the way, PatrickSMcNally you or any other poster can disagree with my position, but that is what it has been. Making up what a poster think I think to suit some other agenda or motives is very problematic if one wishes to have an honest discourse.

    You can disagree that PNAC had any role or that it was much more decisive or that it has no connection with US historical policy. My request is to not mis-represent my position.

  164. PatrickSMcNally said on July 27th, 2010 at 1:08pm #

    > And PNAC play a role with regard to the 2003 Iraq invasion;

    More to the point, the PNAC is better viewed as an offspring of JINSA and the latter played the role of organizing the intellectual forces who lobbied for an invasion of Iraq.

    > that role is strengthened not by a connection with Zionism or Israel

    PNAC was founded by people from out of JINSA, which includes Cheney. The question of what strengthened their role in the larger play of affairs beyond is sociological one.

    > the underlying premise of American Exceptionalism in a post-Cold War

    JINSA latched itself onto that and began creating things like the PNAC because they understood full well that “American exceptionalism” was the way to sell things to the public.

    http://www.thenation.com/article/men-jinsa-and-csp?page=full

    —–
    Founded in 1976 by neoconservatives concerned that the United States might not be able to provide Israel with adequate military supplies in the event of another Arab-Israeli war, over the past twenty-five years JINSA has gone from a loose-knit proto-group to a $1.4-million-a-year operation with a formidable array of Washington power players on its rolls. Until the beginning of the current Bush Administration, JINSA’s board of advisers included such heavy hitters as Dick Cheney, John Bolton (now Under Secretary of State for Arms Control) and Douglas Feith, the third-highest-ranking executive in the Pentagon. Both Perle and former Director of Central Intelligence James Woolsey, two of the loudest voices in the attack-Iraq chorus, are still on the board, as are such Reagan-era relics as Jeane Kirkpatrick, Eugene Rostow and Ledeen–Oliver North’s Iran/contra liaison with the Israelis.
    —–

  165. Joseph Anderson said on July 27th, 2010 at 4:22pm #

    Hammond: “It might be instructive to turn here to what Chomsky actually has had to say about divestment, from the same interview:”

    “I clearly cannot deal with the rumors that circulate in the internet gossip system. I mean, I’ve been in favor of the divestments since 2002 — in fact before the movement was even formed I was one of the sponsors of one of the first efforts. And I’ve repeatedly supported and in fact been one of the initial supporters of divestment efforts.”
    ________________________________________________________________

    MIT Institute Professor of Linguistics Noam Chomsky recently gave the greatest Hanukkah gift of all to opponents of the divestment campaign against Israel. By signing the Harvard-MIT divestment petition several months ago—and then denouncing divestment on Nov. 25 at Harvard—Chomsky has completely undercut the petition.

    *********************************************************************
    At his recent talk for the Harvard anthropology department, CHOMSKY STATED [http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2002/12/12/chomskys-gift-mit-institute-professor-of/]:

    “I am opposed and have been opposed for many years, in fact, I’ve probably been the leading opponent for years of the campaign for divestment from Israel and of the campaign about academic boycotts.”

    *********************************************************************

    And then, the two-faced Chomsky goes go to verbally do “the white liberal two-step /shuffle” — oh, as a politically consc ious Black person, I know that white liberal dance so well — otherwise known in the Black community as “the shuck-‘n-jivvve!”
    ————————————————————————————————

    [Editors, are historical analogies permitted?]

    Chomsky goes on to ‘say’, in his Great White Hope liberal heart (along with his jr. mentee Finkelstein), that, ‘**If you really care about [THE LAST RUSE/REFUGE OF A WHITE LIBERAL SCOUNDREL]** the poor oppressed black slaves…, catching the lash every day, you’ll *oppose* BDS against Ole Dixie — which will just hurt the slaves! Besides, let me say as *theee world’s leading intellectual* and as an *Anarchist* par excellence, that calls for just freeing the slaves, in a free multicultural secular democratic state with equal rights for all regardless of color, ethnicity, and religion, especially where the freed black slaves can just go live wherever they want to in the country, are just totally *unrealistic*! What kind of *imaginary world* is that!!? …What after *that*!?: freeing white women from *household slavery* and giving women the right to *vote*!!???

    Why next they’ll be wanting to sit in the front of the (something called a) bus — or even go to an all-white school — or even run for political office — or drink out of the same water fountain — or sit right next to good white folks in the same restaurant — and pee in the same toilet!! Some really light-skin free blacks might even have sex with a good white woman, without his telling her that he’s *black*, and then get put in prison!! Uncriticallly BELIEVE *ME*!: I ONLY HAVE THE *SLAVES* IN MIND! …LET’S TAKE THE FOCUS OFF THE SOUTH WHERE IT *DOESN’T* BELONG!

    FORGET WHAT EVEN NONVIOLENT SUPPORT THE *VICTIMS* THEMSELVES ARE ASKING FOR (anyway, hypothetically, what would *they* know about the concepts of temporary sacrifice for longterm achievements like freedom?)!: we (many of us Jewish slave merchants!) didn’t consult them when we *made* them victims and slaves, now did we?: why should we pay any attention to what they’re asking for (BDS) now!?

    Besides, I have good white *friends* living on those slave plantations; I once stayed, with fondness, on a slave plantation myself (I didn’t see anything wrong then)!; I once thought about living on on a plantation, but then I got this big fancy job offer at one of the nation’s very most elite universities!: you know, they don’t give such very most elite ivory tower jobs to just *any*, ahem, “radical” — they find out if you’re going to be any *real* threat to the system first! Look, I *support* the Confederacy. Does it have a right to exist?: no more and no less than *any* country does, like France, or Italy, or Sweden.

    And let’s not engage in those *feel-good* boycotts of the South; let’s boycott the *United States government* and the *North* instead!!! Now that’ll *really* make you feel good! Stay home from work!; don’t buy horses and carriages!; stop buying hay to fuel the horses!; stop buying household goods and clothing from the shops!; don’t travel in stage coaches or American ships; stop paying your mortgage to those Northern bankers or rent to your landlord (that money’s going right into one of those Northern Banks)!; and don’t pay your kerosene bill!’ Boycott your schools and, any of you that get to go to one, boycott your universities, and stop buying books! We’ll bring the United States government, the United States economy, and American society to its *knees*! Yeah, *that’ll* work…! Just like we will have done for that future country called Apartheid South Africa! One day, those anti-racists will be picking on some future country called Israel (NEXT YEAR IN JERUSALEM!!). Anyway, za plantation owners, the oppressors, …ZAY ARE JUST FFOLLOWING ORRRRDERZZZ….

    So, *stop listening* — *cover your ears!!* — to the tirades and claptrap like the* illk* of those abolitionists like that *sslave-lover* Blankfort (he’ll support *anyone* who’s oppressed, no matter against *whomever* is oppressing them)! Now come on…!: all you other Good Whites agree with me, don’t you!?

    .

  166. Joseph Anderson said on July 27th, 2010 at 4:43pm #

    Although history is no stranger to “liberal/progressive/leftist” racism [while we still recognize that there is often at least latent sexism on the left], even among white leftist intellectuals and philanthropists, I’m often surprised that I, as typically one of the very fewest Americans of color in most white progressive/leftist venues, that “liberal/progressive/leftist” racism from these “liberal/progressive/leftist” icons [as with Chomsky mentee Norman Finkelstein] is typically _invisible_ to their overwhelmingly white audiences.

    And while there are numerous (if still not enough) extremely courageous and remarkable anti-Zionist Jews…; this, *vs.* what I call ‘anti-Occupation’ *Zionists*, or left *Zionist* apologists, Jewish icons — who dominate the national/international lecture and media circuit discourse on the left (even on Democracy Now) in the so-called “pro-Palestinian rights [but never *justice/equality*] movement” in America — and their refusal to renounce political Zionism (be *anti*-Zionist), or even to publicly debate Zionism (a repugnant racist ideology), the *reason* for the well-over 60-year oppression of the Palestinians, one Black friend of mine in the Oakland ‘hood succinctly summed it up this way: “Whites ‘never’ want to get to the *root* of the problem.”)
    _________________________________________________________________

    Btw, Chomsky’s previously stated reasons for his opposition to BDS against the white-/Jewish-supremacist settler-colonial state of apartheid Israel exactly mirrors that of white conservatives in the U.S. in their opposition to BDS against the then settler-colonial state of apartheid South Africa (to which Israel, which supplied arms to S.A., and the Reagan administration were apartheid S.A.’s closest allies). Of course, these are all just rationalized, white/Jewish(whether from the right or the left) supremacist _excuses_, meaning I just didn’t/don’t want to see whites/Israelis economically hurt (although it’s not like they’d be starving or living in rubble/shanties — unlike, often, respectively, their victims):

    1) The majority of the Israelis oppose it.

    [since when do we ask the _oppressors_ if they oppose BDS!?]

    2) it would be seen as anti-white racism (in Chomsky’s words, as anti-Semitism)

    [decades of the most atrocious brutal white-supremacist (whether Christian or Jewish) oppression and Chomsky claims that it would be seen as, in effect, anti-oppressor racism!!???; would, hypothetically, Chomsky have worried about a then BDS campaign against Nazi Germany being seen as anti-Aryan racism???]

    3) It would hurt the very people you’re trying to help.

    [even though the *victims* of the white/Jewish/(religio)ethnic-supremacist oppression are calling for it!]

    4) It would be a gift to the right-wing.

    [as Jeffrey Blankfort has said, "_Chomsky's position_ on BDS is a gift to the right-wing", in Israel and the U.S., and to the Israel lobby]

    5) There’s not a national consensus.

    [see open email letter, above, to Rose Aguilar, host of "Your Call" radio show, KALW-fm, San Francisco, and interviewer of Noam Chomsky.]

    .

  167. Joseph Anderson said on July 27th, 2010 at 4:49pm #

    Suggested reading:

    “Gnome Chomsky” — a *GREAT* little poem!
    (which nicely encapsulates The Cult of Chomsky on Israel)
    http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/133840/index.php

    The Left and the Israel Lobby
    – by Joseph Anderson
    http://dissidentvoice.org/June06/Anderson08.htm (original version)

    http://peaceandjustice.org/article.php/20060612173054885 (2nd
    edition version — even better!)

    http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/06/18/18281217.php (version with comments)

    Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict
    – by Jeffrey Blankfort (very good *interview*)
    http://www.voltairenet.org/article143519.html

    Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict
    – by Jeffrey Blankfort (excellent article)
    http://dissidentvoice.org/May05/Blankfort0525.htm (this copy’s formatting is probably a little easier to read)
    http://www.leftcurve.org/LC29WebPages/Chomsky.html

    Chomsky on Oil and the Israel Lobby
    -by M. Shahid Alam / January 31st, 2009
    http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2009/01/chomsky-on-oil-and-the-israel-lobby/#comment-37871

    Other Jeffrey Blankfort articles/interviews at VoltaireNet
    http://www.voltairenet.org/auteur123803.html?lang=en

  168. teafoe2 said on July 27th, 2010 at 5:40pm #

    Hmm, is the interest in J Blankfort’s article in Pulse Media about Chomsky’s role, and this Hammond fellow’s negative reaction to it, now starting to wane?

    Comments and comments on comments were coming thick and fast all day yesterday and on into the forenoon today, but it’s now been about five hours since Max S last weighed in.

    Rereading the later portion of the thread, I realized something about Max that I hadn’t before. He does follow the official version of US gov’t policy making very closely. I myself tend not to bother because I know that what comes out publicly is is mostly bullshit put out there to keep the customers buying.

    One of the most amazing statements on this thread is the one where Hammond incredulously asks us how we can doubt what was the reasoning behind a US policy when the “architects” of it had just explained the whole thing.

    Another was where he told us that since the CIA was the official source of some document, it was thereby proven that “Isreal” couldn’t have had anything to do with its origination. I thought everybody with any kind of “leftish” credentials had reached a consensus back when the JFK & RFK assassinations were a live issue that the CIA and Mossad were for all practical purposes the same outfit, or if not completely identical, so inter-merged, interpenetrating each other to such a degree that it amounted to the same thing. I remember John Judge expressing this view.
    The same consensus holds that the FBI is less Isreal-friendly, in fact seems to harbor a faction influenced by traditional anti-Semitic ideology. Since I happen to have been exposed to some of the inner workings and “laboratory politics” of the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory-Berkeley back in the days when guys like Shockley used to be observable drinking quietly at the bar in that hangout on El Camino Real, Scotty something’s? — Scotty Campbell’s. The BSM era: “Before MicroSoft”.
    Anyway the version of events I find most credible about that “security breach” case at the Los Alamos branch office, is that some Catholic-orentated & probably anti-Semitism-motivated FBI types got upset by the way Isreali scientists had the run of the joint in violation of US statutes & UC policy etc etc. So they decided to try to focus some attention on the problem in hopes of bringing about a change in policy. But a direct frontal attack on the Israelis was out of the question, too risky. So they decided to broaden their definition of persons who needed to be reigned in to “foreigners” in general, and as an example they chose a physicist of Chinese extraction, who, following local custom, was in the habit of taking stuff he was working on at the lab home with him to work on in evening hours. The rest of the story is on the public record. The scientist and family suffered a lot of humiliation and some economic losses, but survived without any jail time imposed. The Lab’s policies continued as before, and Israeli scientists/grad students continue to have the run of the joint, Pollard et al notwithstanding.

    How foolish of those FBI types and their Security Professional pals, to think they could limit Jewish access to the nuclear store, when they were the ones who gave the fukken technology to the US in the first goddam place! What chutzpah! If Ed Teller were alive today he’d turn over in his grave.

    Anyway, anybody who assumes there is some impenetrable firewall between the CIA and the Mossad hasn’t been paying attention.

  169. teafoe2 said on July 27th, 2010 at 5:54pm #

    Hahahahaha!!! R olling O n T he F loor L aughing H ysterically! Hahahah!

  170. teafoe2 said on July 27th, 2010 at 5:57pm #

    sorry, I’d just read Joe’s post. excuse me while I go roll on the floor a little more, chip mop, floor a liddle more, a chippity bop…

  171. Max Shields said on July 27th, 2010 at 6:51pm #

    It’s baffling that so many have come to conclusions that they can either only conjure or find in interviews about some old guy babbling on about whether to boycott shipment of materials to Israel and not boycott all out going from Israel.

    Look if you are for BSD, than fight for it. Chomsky isn’t stopping you.

    But I really think that’s not your point. You’d rather just hang out here “discussing” what Chomsky said in some stupid interview.

    The only “gatekeeper” Chomksy seems to be is the one that makes you all stop silly and jabber on about Chomsky. Now that’s hilarious.

    By the way, has anyone noticed how Chomksy parts his hair – left or right?

  172. Max Shields said on July 27th, 2010 at 6:52pm #

    teafoe2 so sorry your missed me.

  173. Max Shields said on July 27th, 2010 at 6:58pm #

    It’s just a hunch, but something tells me, some day, soon, several months from now; some of you will be back saying how BSD (much of it organized by American and Israel Jews) is really a Zionist plot.

  174. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 27th, 2010 at 9:20pm #

    @teafoe2

    * “One of the most amazing statements on this thread is the one where Hammond incredulously asks us how we can doubt what was the reasoning behind a US policy when the “architects” of it had just explained the whole thing.”

    That’s right. Why is that “amazing”? Their policy papers go directly to motive. No sense speculating about it when they tell us in plain day.

    * “Another was where he told us that since the CIA was the official source of some document, it was thereby proven that “Isreal” couldn’t have had anything to do with its origination.”

    None of the intelligence came from Israel. If you don’t believe that, you are welcome to demonstrate to us that I’m wrong by providing the evidence. You’ll find that you are unable to.

    @Joseph Anderson,

    Read the article. You’ll find out why Chomsky is opposed to boycotting Israel. It’s an application of an elementary moral principle. It’s absolutely hypocritical for Americans to boycott Israel but not the U.S.

  175. Joseph Anderson said on July 27th, 2010 at 11:50pm #

    Hammond: “@Joseph Anderson,

    Read the article. You’ll find out why Chomsky is opposed to boycotting Israel. It’s an application of an elementary moral principle. It’s absolutely hypocritical for Americans to boycott Israel but not the U.S.”

    Oh PUH-LEEEZZZE…!! Fortunately, fewer and fewer progressives/leftists around the world are listening to white “liberals” like you — or Chomsky (or Finkelstein) — 2 (or, rather, 3) slick “liberal” damage-control shills for the Zionists — on this. Even fewer ‘anti-Occupation’ (closet) Zionists are even listening to you and Chomsky (and Finkelstein) on this — because even they realize that *something* has to be done to save their “milk and honey Land Without A People” — to *save* their “Chosen People”-“Jewish state” — from political self-destruction by the crazy Likudniks and the even more rabid _*Jewish* fundamentalist_ nationalist settler movement.

    (I guess that activists should have boycotted *Israel* back in the days of Apartheid South Africa –huh?– because then Israel was Apartheid South Africa’s greatest political and practical ally — seeing how Israel shipped so many arms to — was the ‘arsenal’ of — the Apartheid South African regime. Ooops! But wait! People like you were *then* telling us there was no ideological, racial or political connection between Israel and the Apartheid South Africa regime!)

  176. Mark Richey said on July 27th, 2010 at 11:51pm #

    Thanks very much Jeremy. For decades B’fort has attacked anyone independent of the lberal zionist acronyms..MECA, ANSWER, UFPJ, et…as somehow
    ‘hasbara’ or ‘ADL agents.’ In the case of our discussion list, USQuagmire, and several of us personally, this has been going on for over 20 years. In the United States this sort of conduct is given complete indulgence by the entire ‘pwog’ milieu; as with all bullies, the indulgence shown toward him because he’s Jewish has now led him to try the same tactics against even Noam Chomsky.

    The reason B’fort concocts these deliberate falsehoods is not complicated: Chomsky is too effective in exposing US-Israeli imperial policy,and the liberal wint of the Democratic Party wants him silenced on the left. Chomsky is alrady effectively blacklisted in the establishment media, NY Times,and so forth.

    The above organizations all are part of an informal but nonetheless well-organized network of’ liberal’ zionist cliques, represented by the above acronyms, which attemps to slander and isolate anyone they don’t control.

  177. Joseph Anderson said on July 28th, 2010 at 12:04am #

    re Joseph Anderson said on July 27th, 2010 at 4:43pm:

    “5) There’s not a national consensus.

    [see open email letter, above, to Rose Aguilar, host of "Your Call" radio show, KALW-fm, San Francisco, and interviewer of Noam Chomsky.]”

    Let me just say that a DV editor decided he didn’t want to post it. But you can find my open formal letter to Rose Aguilar, host of KALW’s “Your Call” radio show, sent to her office, about her Chomsky interview, and posted at Indybay.org (and maybe at yourcallradio.org, 9.29.o6 program date) using the search terms: “rose aguilar” — that will probably suffice, but +”noam chomsky”+”joseph anderson” or any suitable combination thereof, as helpful.

  178. Deadbeat said on July 28th, 2010 at 2:41am #

    teafoe2 writes …

    Well, DB, my take on BAR diverges from yours, but it would be possible to have a principled discussion of and with Ford/Dixon/Kimberly about the points you raise.

    My argument on DV developed from a critique of Chomsky into the total corruption of the Left by Chomskyism. Analysis of Chomskyism must also include the atrophying of Left-wing Black politcs.

    To be clear I’m not lumping BAR into the same camp as Chomskyites. My point is that as African Americans BAR should not be so tepid as to avoid a confrontation and anaysis of American Zionism. In fact IMO Jeffrey Blankfort encourages it.

    TF2, you opened the door to explore that side of the discussion when you stated that US Black Public historically has been the main base of left/progressive politics in the US The question is why not now in 2010. And the weakness in Left-wing U.S. African American PREDATES the rise of Obama. In fact BAR (Glen Ford and Bruce Dixon) didn’t break from supporting the Democrats until 2008. In 2004 they supported the campaign of Howard Dean.

    Therefore in that light examining the weakness of left-wing Black Politics, a topic that even Jeffrey Blankfort has raised, is very closely linked to the examination of Chomskyism we are having here. Thus discussion the sorry condition of left-wing Black Politics is not tangential to this discussion but is extremely germane to the critique and analysis of Chomsky and Chomskyism because they are linked to racism, capitalism, power and inequality. Exposing Chomsky duplicity IS very much BLACK POLITICS.

    And one final point TF2, BAR certainly didn’t pull any of their pushes against homegrown Tea Party racism. But racism is not just a black vs white supremacy. The most virulent form of racism in the United States today is the one that Noam Chomsky remains adhered to. Why isn’t BAR taking a seriously thorough examination of American (Jewish) Zionism. Clearly it too has a serve impact on the Left and the Black community.

  179. Deadbeat said on July 28th, 2010 at 4:36am #

    teafoe2 writes …

    you ARE an idiot Max, and Hammond is an asp you have cuddled to your bosom.

    I concur. I won’t even bother responding to this foolish apologist.

  180. Max Shields said on July 28th, 2010 at 5:35am #

    Deadbeat “thinks” BAR may be suspect Zionist gatekeeper!

  181. Max Shields said on July 28th, 2010 at 5:47am #

    > Oh PUH-LEEEZZZE…!! Fortunately, fewer and fewer progressives/leftists around the world are listening to white “liberals” like you — or Chomsky (or Finkelstein) — 2 (or, rather, 3) slick “liberal” damage-control shills for the Zionists — on this.

    Then what’s your beef? Are they listening to white liberals like you instead? Or not?

  182. PatrickSMcNally said on July 28th, 2010 at 5:53am #

    > None of the intelligence came from Israel.

    The intelligence did not point to the existence of WMDs equipped delivery systems ready to be launched on 45 minutes notice. Or are you one of those who argues that it was all just an honest mistake by Bush & Blair? WINPAC simply carried out directions given to them from the White House to make a case for war one way or the other. But there is no issue actual intelligence coming from any source, be it WINPAC or JINSA, which really supported the claims made by Bush & Blair & Co. The decision to invade Iraq was a political decision, and the driving ideas came from JINSA.

  183. Hue Longer said on July 28th, 2010 at 6:30am #

    DB says,
    “And one final point TF2, BAR certainly didn’t pull any of their pushes against homegrown Tea Party racism. But racism is not just a black vs white supremacy. The most virulent form of racism in the United States today is the one that Noam Chomsky remains adhered to. Why isn’t BAR taking a seriously thorough examination of American (Jewish) Zionism. Clearly it too has a serve impact on the Left and the Black community”.

    It’s comments like these that make it embarrassing to send links

  184. Max Shields said on July 28th, 2010 at 6:55am #

    PatrickSMcNally isn’t it a leap to go from who influenced the White House to Chomsky is a Zionist gatekeeper? (I’m not saying you’ve said, though you may have.)

    If Chomsky’s world view is that the 800 pound gorilla is the US empire than he may find it difficult to square that with an Israel is “in charge” cabal. I do think that there is a strong connection, regardless of other influences, between US foreign policy and the materialization of PNAC.

    Again, Brzezinski (a non-Zionist) may lean more toward the Balkins than in the heart of ME, but the trajectory is very much loaded for military intervention.

  185. Joseph Anderson said on July 28th, 2010 at 7:43am #

    .

    Max Shields said [to Joseph Anderson] on July 28th, 2010 at 5:47am:

    “Are they listening to white liberals like you instead?”
    ———————————————————————————————–

    Yo, Max! I guess that you haven’t figured out even ***yet*** that I’m **NOT** white — nor am I a liberal.

    (–If you even know what the word “liberal” really means, Max. Go ask your pal Hammond: I bet even *he* knows.)

    .

  186. teafoe2 said on July 28th, 2010 at 10:18am #

    DB, here’s a scrap of a “snapshot” of what came up when I typed “zionism” into the BAR search box. There was a full page of links to articles on the front page, plus links to more pages.

    From the Black Agenda Report search box:

    Black America, Corporate Media and the Siege of Gaza
    … apartheid Israel! Down with “Christian” Zionism! Down with white nationalist tea baggers and confede-rats! … the RACIST/ZIONIST entity of Israel by also confronting Zionism in the United States. This is a very important issue for African …

    Bruce A. Dixon – 06/09/2010 – 11:16 – 50 comments – 0 attachments

    Freedom Rider: Israel Is Boss
    … the ends of the earth and finally, with the advent of Zionism, made a U-turn and returned en masse to their orphaned homeland,” … of the white Jewish “Left” that has excused Zionism for decades. Chomsky himself is AGAINST the Palestinian inspired …

    Margaret Kimberley – 03/24/2010 – 22:49 – 21 comments – 0 attachments

    A Blacks vs. Tea Party Free-for-All on the Mall?
    … to exclude others and as we have seen Jewish nationalism (Zionism) has become the most influential and dangerous form of … expressed that the war on Iraq was in the service of Zionism rather than “for oil”. This Zionist Left has a great … he fails to examine why the Left itself is so weak and how Zionism plays a major role in influencing Black Politics. At one …

    Glen Ford – 07/07/2010 – 13:40 –

    Etc etc. Is it possible, DB, that you’ve let your negative reaction to Ford’s position on the 2004 campaign lead you into carelessly misreading BAR’s actual position on Zionism, Israel & Chomsky?

    It seems to me that BAR’s take on them is very close to your own, so it’s a bit mystifying to see how hostile you are to Ford and BAR.

    Historical note: Black Agenda Report did not exist in 2004, which was founded when The Black Commentator was taken over by a group of Black Obama supporters, who had had an ownership stake in it previously but had hired Ford to perform the editorial chores. They became disenchanted with him when he refused to join the Obama parade.
    I’m going to have to do a little research and determine exactly what Ford said about Dean & in what context, because it sounds to me farfetched that he would change his view of the world that much that fast. Meanwhile, “Assume Nothing”.
    BTW, just a quick round of applause for Patrick McNally who has so much information at his fingertips. I’ve read much of the same source material at one time or another but filed it only in the back of my brain where it helped form my outlook on things, but I’ve never acquired the scholarly skills to keep so much on tap & at the ready. My bad, dunno how much this old dog can learn at this late stage but it’s clear to me where I’m deficient. Now if I could get this damn Windows 7 to work as advertised…

  187. shabnam said on July 28th, 2010 at 11:18am #

    {Chomsky is already effectively blacklisted in the establishment media, NY Times, and so forth.}

    Keep your lies at home. Chomsky has gone to all major Zionist platform including Public Radio, on point, before that on ‘connection’, on Public Radio, repeatedly appeared on Charlie Rose , is funded and supported by Bloomberg owns by a Zionist Jew, a ZIONIST PLATFORM to fool more educated but ignorant audience aired on PBS that is influence by $$$ from Zionists. He even was invited by the WEST POINT to give a talk to the future WAR CRIMINALS.

    Well, what else left that your Zionist closet, Noam Chomsky, has not gone?
    Chomsky accepted and repeated the Zionist propaganda, Iranian election ‘fraud’ HOAX to bring ‘progressive’ on board for the Zionist plan, and supported Iranian Zionist stooges against Dr. Ahmadinejad and participated in their propaganda campaign funded by NED at the United Nation to protect the Zionist interest.
    He supported stooges such as Akbar Ganji, a NED agent, who have received MILTON FREIDMAN AWARD from NEO LIBERAL INSTITUTE, CATO, worth $500,000 for his services in addition to many other awards from major capitalist and zionist center in the West, worth thousand of $$$$$$
    Chomsky is close to Iranian Zionist stooges and separatists, Azeri and Kurds are Israel’s Pawns in the region who are trained by MOSSAD to be used in terrorist activity against the neighboring countries Syria, Iran and Turkey, The left must look into it. He also cooperates with Hamid Dabashi, a clown, and since Obama’s election Dabashi has abandoned Palestinians to reappear as “Green” since is more profitable. He has reduced himself to an interpreter for Akbar Ganji, a stooge pro neo liberalism, a broken economic system responsible for death of millions of people.

    The following link shows these Zionist stooges at the party where Akbar Ganji, supported by Noam Chomsky, received his Milton Friedman Award at the CATO institute. The opportunist, Hamid Dabashi, with his wife, a phony feminist, is next to Akbar Ganji and his wife, all are wearing GREEN scarf, the color for the “velvet revolution’ to create zionst stooges as “opposition” to facilitate “regime change” in Iran. It failed badly.

    http://zamaaneh.com/photography/2010/05/post_1304.html

    Tell all your closet Zionist friends their ‘color revolution’ FAILED.

  188. Max Shields said on July 28th, 2010 at 12:00pm #

    Joseph Anderson You’re not white? I couldn’t tell from here. As far as liberal I’m just using your words. I really don’t know exactly how you’d label yourself. We know from Deadbeat that the Left are Chomskyites.

    It’s a humpty-Dumpty World.

  189. PatrickSMcNally said on July 28th, 2010 at 12:02pm #

    > isn’t it a leap to go from who influenced the White House to Chomsky is a Zionist gatekeeper?

    I’ll always have to carry a soft spot in my heart for Chomsky just from what it meant to run across books by him and Herman back in 1984. But he would do better to just acknowledge that the Israel lobby is more than just recognition of Israel as a strategic asset. For whatever it may be worth, I don’t really subscribe to the Zionist gatekeeper thesis (though I have no way of proving it false). My impression has always been that he was more influenced by the “totalitarian paradigm” which Cold War liberals like Hannah Arendt put forward.

    The totalitarian thesis argued that the Soviet Union, Third Reich, People’s Republic of China, and whatever other state was labeled, had established a new form of “totalitarian” rule, and this was then invoked as the ideological clarion call for Cold War liberalism. That totalitarian thesis has been gradually discarded by historians. It’s now more widely recognized that power in these states was much more multi-polar than the classical totalitarian view allowed for. People like Sarah Davies, Archibald Getty, Hans Mommsen and others have punctured many holes in the more simple totalitarian paradigm. Even dictators like Hitler or Stalin had to deal with a fluctuating balance of forces that was more complex than previously recognized.

    But I always had the sense that Chomsky was trying to make the case that power in the USA operated something like the way it allegedly did in “totalitarian” societies. In doind that I think he reduplicated a lot of the errors which were already a part of the Cold War liberal paradigm. Vietnam did not simply follow straight from NSC 68. The Taiwan lobby played an important role in making it impossible to just quietly withdraw. Chomsky chose not to acknowledge that because recognizing some political dynamics at that level would have appeared like a concession that perhaps “totalitarianism” does not apply as a model to the USA.

    If Chomsky had been on the Right-wing then he could always have just attributed everything to the Bilderbergers or the Learned Elders of Zion and closed the book there. He tried to avoid that, but still to maintain some image of a singularly unified power directing all around us. I think that his failures to identify the Israel lobby arise from his inability get away from this paradigm in which one power from behind the scenes determines wars in Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam and so on. But I don’t really know what goes through his mind.

    > I do think that there is a strong connection, regardless of other influences, between US foreign policy and the materialization of PNAC.

    Definitely. The connection is made even clearer when we realize that the PNAC was the baby-child of JINSA. JINSA is where one needs to go to understand anything about Cheney or the Bush II administration.

  190. shabnam said on July 28th, 2010 at 12:10pm #

    The following link shows a photo of Chomsky is standing next to Akbar Kanji, winner of Milton Friedman Award worth $500,000 for his services to NED and neo liberalist CAPITALISM. Please notice the GREEN pin Chomsky is wearing.

    http://zamaaneh.com/news/2009/07/post_9836.html

  191. teafoe2 said on July 28th, 2010 at 12:22pm #

    Re assertion that Cheney should be seen as representative of WASP oil industry-based sector of US imperialist rulingclass because he worked for Halliburton: That firm and closely linked KBR/Kellogg Brown & Root were financed by Lehman Bros, “from early wildcat days” as the Lehman Bros website used to boast, prior to the firm going defunct.

    Is it necessary to add that Lehman was one of the main firms in what Wm Domhoff described as “the Jewish financial group”? John F Lehman of course is a member of the 911 whitewash commission. I didn’t see any reports of him or other members of the Lehman family jumping out of Wall St windows when the firm’s failure was announced, so my guess is that they’re all alive and well and living in Cancun:)

  192. teafoe2 said on July 28th, 2010 at 12:36pm #

    Many thanks Shabnam,

    “A picture is worth a thousand words”.

    All political figures I’ve ever heard of are very careful about who they meet with and who they stand close enough to for them to be photographed in a “two-shot”. So I don’t think it’s necessary to try to parse Hammond’s explanation of Chomsky’s explanation of why he was meeting with an official of the “Palestinian Authority”, when he couldn’t have failed to realize that his willingness to meet with such a person would be interpreted by the general public as an endorsement of the PA.
    The information you have provided corroborates this view: Chomsky is, as Joseph A so eloquently described him, a Shucker & Jiver, a guy who says one thing to one bunch of people and the opposite to the next bunch.

    That a “progressive” would even CONSIDER speaking at West Point! How goofy can it get!

  193. Max Shields said on July 28th, 2010 at 12:38pm #

    PatrickSMcNally I like your thoughtfulness, and hope I haven’t come down too hard at times.

    My position on Chomsky is similar to your own. I think he is wrong in his underestimating the power of AIPAC. I completely disagree with a two state solution. I’m dubious about this position of binational Palestine. However whether I agree with him or not I’ve never thought him disingenuous.

    I think that sanctions and blockades have only worked once in recent history: Apartheid South Africa. Sanctions are another form of war which can and does kill countless innocents. If Chomsky has reasoned that a broad boycott of Israel would lead to the deaths of many Palestinians (and some Israeli) than he may be basing this less on the single “positive” result of SA, and more on the many other murderous results and an understanding Israel/Palestine. I don’t know that his position is correct, but that doesn’t mean that he is a gatekeeper for Israel. The sense I get with Chomsky is he states what he thinks and lets the chips fall where they may.

  194. Don Hawkins said on July 28th, 2010 at 12:42pm #

    Science talks about very simple things, and asks hard questions about them. As soon as things become too complex, science can’t deal with them… But it’s a complicated matter: Science studies what’s at the edge of understanding, and what’s at the edge of understanding is usually fairly simple. And it rarely reaches human affairs. Human affairs are way too complicated

    He has argued that the mass media in the United States largely serve as a propaganda arm and “bought priesthood” of the U.S. government and U.S. corporations, with the three parties all largely intertwined through common interests. In a famous reference to Walter Lippmann, Chomsky along with his coauthor, Edward S. Herman, has written that the American media manufactures consent among the public. Chomsky has condemned the 2010 supreme court ruling revoking the limits on campaign finance, calling it “corporate takeover of democracy.”

    and what’s at the edge of understanding is usually fairly simple. And it rarely reaches human affairs. Human affairs are way too complicated and what’s at the edge of understanding is usually fairly simple. And it rarely reaches human affairs. Human affairs are way too complicated. Chomsky

  195. teafoe2 said on July 28th, 2010 at 1:01pm #

    DB, I went to the Black Commentator archives for Nov 13 2003 and found the front page article attacking Al Sharpton, in which there was favorable reference to Dean as his positions compared to Sharpton’s, along with a clarification of the remark which Sharpton had twisted in order to vilify Dean.

    To me the article took an unjustifiably favorable slant on the Dean candidacy. The whole thing was totally enmeshed in petty squabbles between members of the Democrat Party, focussing on J Jacksons Jr & Sr and other irrelevant Black Liberal nonsense, which later developments have revealed to be nothing but tiny tempests in a dream world.

    I did note that the piece is not signed by Glen Ford personally, but he must bear responsibility for it since he was the editor at the time. I think I recognize his writing style, but “assume nothing”? Who knows.

    I do think that “BC” was originally a project of a group of “Black Radicals” who weren’t/aren’t really that radical, and that Ford was probably eager to keep them happy enough for him to establish himself as a professionally qualified editor who could look forward to quitting his dayjob to become a fulltime journalist.

    Of course that’s just my own speculation. I WILL send your comments & this exchange to Glen to see what he says about the Dean remarks.

    But whatever the illusions he may have been harboring in those days, I’m in 100pct agreement with what he has been writing and publishing since the founding of BAR and the preceding year or two at BC, which led to the hostile takeover of that publication and his ouster.

    I don’t think that to speak of a “nuanced” position on Obama being the right one makes any sense at all. Obama is no damn good, has never been any good, and Ford was one of only a few to tell the truth about him before Obama’s perfidious actions and lies made it obvious.

  196. Deadbeat said on July 28th, 2010 at 1:45pm #

    Max Shields writes …

    Deadbeat “thinks” BAR may be suspect Zionist gatekeeper!

    I’m glad you succinctly stated that because if anyone reads my critique of BAR could FALSELY come to that conclusion but as I said in my post to TF2 I’m not putting BAR in the same camp as Chomskyites. BAR’s agenda is to see African Americans finally break from the Democrats. This is an important first step. However as I have experience with the Green Party, if American Jewish Zionism is not confronted it will sabotage of any viable Left configuration. This issue is too deep seated on the Left to be ignored anymore. BAR cannot just critique the edges of this issue and expect they’ll attract Blacks over to their side especially since reactionary Blacks DO speak to this issue and have built their ranks within the Black community by doing so.

    To TF2 my critique of BAR is not “hostility”. I’m pointing out a hole in their analysis. I’ve read the articles you posted and have even commented on some of them with the same message as I’m doing here. We need more non-Jewish members and especially more Left-wing Blacks to speak out about Chomskyism. I believe there is a reluctance and I’m addressing that reluctance.

    To critique “Israel” is a first start and I do give BAR credit for that. However they must go further. That’s their real challenge. In fact you can witness this somewhat during Glen Ford’s discussion about Iran with Paul Jay on The Real News. Ford has the more saner position and Jay got very “emotional” about Ford’s who took the correct position on the topic.

    Zionism clearly has had a severe impact on Black Politics which is personified today by Obama’s raise but it has occurring for quite a long time.

  197. Max Shields said on July 28th, 2010 at 1:48pm #

    I’m completely with you on BAR and Glen Ford.

  198. Max Shields said on July 28th, 2010 at 2:13pm #

    teafoe2 I’m completely with you on BAR and Glen Ford.

  199. Max Shields said on July 28th, 2010 at 2:15pm #

    Deadbeat you’ve been on BAR’s case for some time. I remember during the Obama campaign, you just kept chiding Glen. So glad you don’t think their Chomskyites.

  200. Deadbeat said on July 28th, 2010 at 3:05pm #

    Max Shields writes …

    Deadbeat you’ve been on BAR’s case for some time. I remember during the Obama campaign, you just kept chiding Glen. So glad you don’t think their Chomskyites.

    I never claim BAR to be Chomskyites Max — YOU DID.

  201. Max Shields said on July 28th, 2010 at 3:16pm #

    No Deadbeat, neither of us did. I simply said you were considering them “soft” (my word but your intent) on Zionism when they should be a voice on Zionism to the African American progressives they speak to/for.

    You just have it in for BAR as your discourse throughout the Obama campaign cycle. BAR’s lonely stand in the African American community to alert one and all about the Obama agenda was not only at BAR but here at DV where Glen contributed as did Margret.

    You’ll use that Chomsyite wedge whenever it serves your purposes. Usually to shut down and dismiss rational discussion.

  202. Deadbeat said on July 28th, 2010 at 3:25pm #

    TF2 you need to go further to the December 11, 2003 Issue 68 — Black Commentator’s praise of Dean’s speech on race. It was from this moment that warmed Dean to Ford and company. They got sucked in as usual by Democrat’s overtures to Black America. From that point on BC never really paid any attention to the efforts outside of the Democratic Party. It was Obama’s rise that forced BAR to alter its stance toward the Democrats.

    Black Commentator clearly had Sharpton’s number but TF2 we’re talking about LIBERALS not the LEFT. My stance is that BAR is not taking a critical analysis of the LEFT and failing to do so will not enhance the Left has yield the same outcome we’ve seen with the Green Party. That is why this critical discussion on Chomskyism is necessary if there is any chance to repair and strengthen the Left.

  203. Deadbeat said on July 28th, 2010 at 3:28pm #

    No Deadbeat, neither of us did. I simply said you were considering them “soft” (my word but your intent) on Zionism when they should be a voice on Zionism to the African American progressives they speak to/for.

    Really then why did you infer that I did…

    So glad you don’t think [BAR to be] Chomskyites.

    You’ll use that Chomsyite wedge whenever it serves your purposes. Usually to shut down and dismiss rational discussion.

    Really apparently you were the one to use the wedge falsely implying that I said something that I did not.

  204. Max Shields said on July 28th, 2010 at 3:36pm #

    Because, Deadbeat, YOU said you did not consider BAR to be a Chomskyite.

    Deadbeat I’ll let the DV readership determine the frequency you use the term “Chomskyite” and in some cases even when a poster is criticizing (apparenly not enough to your liking) Chomsky.

  205. Deadbeat said on July 28th, 2010 at 4:23pm #

    Max Shields writes …

    I remember during the Obama campaign, you just kept chiding Glen.

    They needed to be critique during the 2008 Obama campaign and my critique of them still stands. I think this debate between me and TF2 on this issue is necessary and healthy because it addresses the RELUCTANCE of the Left (including the Black Left) to explore and analyze the problem of American Jewish Zionism and its power over all aspects of the U.S. Political Economy. This issue is important to ALL Americans regardless of race and religious affiliations.

    Starting in 2008, with the rise of Obama, BAR finally broke from traditional African American support of the Democrats. IMO they were four years too late and I’ll get to that in a moment.

    BAR stance was that the Black support for Obama was primarily due to their lingering hopes of “having a Black Face in a high place” and in doing so was very critical of the Black community for handing its support to Obama. BAR correctly identified that Obama would offer nothing but empty rhetoric to Blacks but IMO that was not hard to figure out. Where I criticized BAR was that they took the easy way out of BLAMING the victim — in this case the Black community and failed to provide complete and nuanced CONTEXT for their support of Obama.

    Yes various members of the upwardly mobile Black wanted an Obama victory in order to prove that African Americans are “worthy” participants of the Capitalist system. This analysis came through loud and clear from BAR. However what BAR missed (or avoided) was the PRAGMATISM of Blacks to continue to vote for the Democrats. In order for there to be pragmatism of the “lesser evil” means that there must be a VACUUM elsewhere. BAR in 2008 failed to examine that vacuum.

    As an aside, BAR now is trying to build up a Left via the Green and alongside Cynthia McKinney. This is a good start but it is NOT good enough. Until there is a discussion on the Left of American Zionism (and not the bullshit Christian Zionism variety which Jeremy R. Hammond displayed herein how the Chomskyists are using them as a pasties) then the Left will continue to remain weak and discombobulated.

    The Vacuum is the Left

    Clearly the Left was weak well before the rise of Obama so the focus primarily on Obama is in truth a distraction. It can be used to help prove context but overall it is a distraction. The key to understanding the vacuum is understanding WHY the Left is so weak. Understanding Chomskyism is key to understanding the weakness of the Left. In other words the pragmatism of Blacks to go along with the Democrats is due to fact that the Left does not present itself as a viable alternative to the Democrats and BAR has not explored this problem in any depth and sought primarily to fault Blacks for supporting Obama. That is a REACTIONARY analysis which I am extremely critical of.

    BAR is right now on the periphery but they need to be in the VANGUARD of challenging American Jewish Zionism. WHY? Because over the past 40 years or more the vanguard of address this problem has come from REACTIONARY BLACK organizations like Nation of Islam and the New Black Panther Party. They have CREDIBILITY in the Black community. The most popular personality among working class Blacks is Louis Farrakhan. Therefore BAR and the rebuilding of a radical Black Left has a tremendous uphill fight. Because the white left are not based in Black communities they have NO idea how hostile Blacks are to American Jewish Zionism and they know that the white left has been in cahoots. In other words the white left has very little credibility and having a multi-racial solidarity means PURGING American Jewish Zionist from the Left. Unfortunately the radical Black left fears alienating Jews and they have been next to silent about this problem.

    Jeffery Blankfort and James Petras are heroes in my book because by being on the vanguard of challenging American Jewish Zionism they are opening space for other non-Jewish and Black leftists to address this issue. This is the PRIMARY ISSUE holding back the Left and until this issue is dealt with BLUNTLY will won’t stand a chance to address Capitalism.

  206. teafoe2 said on July 28th, 2010 at 5:27pm #

    An Anti-War Movement That Won’t Cave to Obama or Israel
    Wed, 07/28/2010 – 13:13 — Glen Ford

    by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

    For at least two years, there has been no anti-war “movement” worthy of the term – one that calls the aggressor by his name (starts with “O”) and gives no pass to apartheid Israel. There’s good reason to believe a corner has been turned, with last weekend’s anti-war conference in Albany, New York.

    An Anti-War Movement That Won’t Cave to Obama or Israel
    by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

    “U.S. aid to Israel was the most contentious issue to arise at the conference.”

    A renewed anti-war movement is under construction, one that breaks decisively from the Cult of Obama, demands an end to all U.S. aid to the Israeli “apartheid regime,” and calls for “immediate, total and unconditional withdrawal of all U.S. troops, mercenaries and contractors from Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, and the immediate closing of all U.S. bases in those countries.”

    Nearly 600 delegates – twice the initial expectations – took part in the United National Anti-War Conference, held at the Crown Plaza Hotel in Albany, New York, July 23 through 25. The mission: to rescue the anti-war movement from the rubble of its collapse with the ascent of Black Democrat Barack Obama to the presidency.

    As George Bush exited the White House, the phony anti-war forces – people and groups that only oppose Republican wars – exited the movement. Activist and author David Swanson’s list of those that have made their peace with Obama’s wars include: Campaign for America’s Future, the Center for American Progress, DailyKos, Democracy for America, Moveon.org, National Organization for Women, Open Left, the Out of Iraq Caucus, the Progressive Caucus, the Network of Spiritual Progressives, Talking Points Memo, True Majority.

    Black America, historically the most anti-war of all major U.S. demographic groups, remains emotionally invested in the First Black President – if not in his foreign and domestic policies. The great confusion in African American ranks over the true nature of Obama’s policies represents a huge problem for the Left – especially the Black Left. Yet, that façade, too, will crumble under the weight of events.

    Organized labor’s reflexive instinct is also to back the Democrat in office, even when that means backing into a knife. But the reality of Obama, Inc. is by now inescapable to every honest unionist – and the anti-war movement only has need of the honest ones.

    “The reality of Obama, Inc. is by now inescapable to every honest unionist.”

    The conference voted to support the October 2 March for Jobs in Washington, DC, sponsored by the NAACP and both feuding wings of organized labor, as well as Rev. Jesse Jackson’s joint venture with the United Auto Workers for an August 28 mobilization in Detroit.

    This writer pressed union-affiliated attendees on whether, in the end, labor and the NAACP will turn the October 2 march into a “rah-rah” session for Obama and the Democrats? “Not this time,” said a Black labor activist from upstate New York.

    We shall see. Conference organizers were determined that there be a large and vocal anti-war contingent to the October 2 action. Leaders of the Black is Back Coalition say they intend to take part, as well, unless march organizers impose political conditions that make it impossible.

    In the longer run, a “bi-coastal mass spring mobilization” is planned for New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles on April 9, 2001. Organizers envision actions in the interim that build momentum to the big events, when once again the anti-war movement might put many thousands of peaceful “boots on the ground.” To accomplish this, the scope of organizing must be widened. “A prime component of these mobilizations will be major efforts to include broad new forces from youth to veterans to trade unionists to civil and human rights groups to the Arab, Muslim and other oppressed communities to environmental organizations, social justice and faith-based groups.”

    In addition to the demand for unconditional withdrawal from Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, the Conference called for:

    “The allocation of the trillions spent on wars and corporate bailouts to massive programs for jobs, education, health care, housing and the environment. Compensation to be paid to the peoples whose countries the U.S. attacked and occupied for the loss of lives and massive destruction they suffered,” and

    “Reverse and end all foreclosures. Stop the government attacks on trade unions, civil and democratic rights, and immigrant communities.”

    Conferees endorsed a flurry of other “action plans,” from opposition to U.S. military intervention in Africa, to “no war or sanctions against Iran,” to the “immediate freedom” of imprisoned human rights lawyer Lynn Stewart.

    “Conference organizers were determined that there be a large and vocal anti-war contingent to the October 2 action.”

    U.S. aid to Israel was the most contentious issue to arise at the conference. Israel supporters employed delaying tactics in an attempt to derail the Palestine Solidarity Caucus’s proposal for an “end to U.S. aid to Israel – military, economic, and diplomatic. End U.S. support for the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the blockade of Gaza.” Opponents claimed inclusion of the resolution would make it impossible for them to recruit labor activists into anti-war ranks – as if Zionists rule everywhere in the House of Labor. After a series of dilatory maneuvers by the pro-Israel faction, the Conference overwhelming endorsed the Palestine Solidarity Caucus position.

    Perhaps the most poignant moment of the weekend came when Ralph Poynter read a letter from his companion in struggle for nearly fifty years, Lynne Stewart, who had been part of the conference steering committee. “I have been out of the steering apparatus due to my unavailability,” she wrote. “Serve the people with honesty, kindness and respect. Love the struggle.”

    BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at moc.tropeRadnegAkcalBnull@droF.nelG

  207. Joseph Anderson said on July 28th, 2010 at 6:12pm #

    .

    Max Shields said on July 28th, 2010 at 12:00pm:

    “Joseph Anderson You’re not white? I couldn’t tell from here.”
    ———————————————————————————————

    That’s because you’re so busy running your pro-Israel damage-control propaganda mill mouth that you can’t *read* — at least not with any truly functional literacy.

    .

  208. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 28th, 2010 at 6:28pm #

    @Joseph Anderson,

    It’s an elementary moral principle. If it’s beyond your comprehension that one should apply the same standard to oneself as to others, I don’t know what else to say about it.

    @PatrickSMcNally,

    It is like I said. None of the cooked up “intelligence” for war on Iraq came from Israel. Also, JINSA does not make U.S. policy. The Bush administration set the policy. 100% Made in the USA.

    On Vietnam, “The Taiwan lobby played an important role in making it impossible to just quietly withdraw”? You can’t possibly be serious. That rises about to the level of your “Cold War” explanation for the Gulf War.

    @shabnam,

    The Iranian election fraud was indeed a “hoax”, as you put it. I’ve never seen Chomsky claim the election was fraudulent.

    @teafo2,

    Chomsky visiting Fayaad is no more and endorsement of the P.A. than his visiting Nasrallah was an “endorsement” of Hezbollah. You’re employing the same kind of dishonest spin the Zionists do:
    http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=11&x_article=1151

    @Don Hawkins,

    I disagree with Chomsky on the Citizens United case. The Supreme Court made a good decision to protect our liberty.

    @Deadbeat,

    Define “American Zionism” and please explain how Christian Zionism does NOT fall into that category. Thanks.

    Your “hero” Jeffrey Blankfort … mischaracterizes Chomsky’s views, as I demonstrated in the article. You should choose your heroes more wisely.

  209. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 28th, 2010 at 6:31pm #

    Readers will observe I never got an answer from Jeffrey to these simple questions in response to his denial that he was implying Chomsky endorses P.A. actions:
    [BEGIN]
    Now, if you’re saying you didn’t intend to imply that Chomsky favors Fayyad or that he did so for the same reasons as Israel and Washington, then are we in agreement that he was referring to Fayyad’s efforts to create the infrastructure for a de facto independent state?

    And if so, then why did you also imply further that Chomsky supports P.A. suppression of the Goldstone Report or P.A. collusion with Israel?

    Now, if you didn’t intend to imply either of those things, either, then are we in agreement that Chomsky does not support the suppression of the Goldstone Report and P.A. collusion (quite the contrary)?

    Looking forward to your answer to these simple questions.
    [END]
    I can understand why Jeffrey wouldn’t want to answer those questions. Intelligent readers should be able to figure it out.

  210. Joseph Anderson said on July 28th, 2010 at 6:34pm #

    teafoe2 said on July 28th, 2010 at 5:27pm:

    “An Anti-War Movement That Won’t Cave to Obama or Israel”,
    Wed, 07/28/2010 – 13:13 — Glen Ford

    by BAR executive editor Glen Ford
    ________________________________________________________________

    Great– and *very* informative and political consciousness *heartening* — post teafoe2!!

    Thanks much!!

    That consciousness is wayyy over due!!

    (Except for former Black Panther Larry Pinkney at BlackCommentator.com, which drank ‘the Obamalade’ during his presidential political campaign, BAR has long ago taken the leading edge in Black progressive/leftist political consciousness — and without my yet knowing for sure, I’d bet that’s why Glenn Ford & Co. left BC to establish BAR. I got to the point where I just stopped reading BC during Obama’s presidential campaign, and in particular Bill Fletcher’s heartfelt apologisms for Obama: but, these days, Fletcher is now crying that he was “betrayed” by the Obama presidency — when, in actuality, Bill Fletcher just *played* himself [for a fool!], reminiscent of the unrelated ‘Old School’ rap classic, “You Played Yourself” by Ice T. But, the day after Obama won, Larry Pinkney wrote an intellectually and politically scathing commentary in BC on Obama — a commentary that stands the test of time and validity to this day.)

    .

  211. shabnam said on July 28th, 2010 at 7:26pm #

    Jeremy:

    {The Iranian election fraud was indeed a “hoax”, as you put it. I’ve never seen Chomsky claim the election was fraudulent.}

    Chomsky is more clever than that, to come and tells the world that the election is FRAUD, where even the CIA officials, like Leveretts said that Ahmadinejad was the winner without introducting so many doubts like Chomsky did. Chomsky cleverly introduced strong DOUBTS based on nonsense, but at the end he made sure that to keep people guessing and not supporting the election.
    He said: we don’t know what happened but the details are uncertain. ALL LEAD YOU TOWARD the ‘election fraud’ hoax.

    Iranian election was transparent and his reasoning is imaginary.
    HE NEVER SAID THAT ‘ELECTION FRAUD’ WAS HOAX. HE INTRODUCED DOUBTS TO HELP THE GREEN STOOGES THAT HE SUPPORTS. You know that ‘Green’ was formed based on election ‘fraud’ hoax.

    Chomsky’s interpretation of Iranian election is as follows:

    {The facts are not clear. It was not constructed anything like a fair election in the first place. Then, right away, immediately after the election, the Interior Ministry, as far as we know, where we have evidence, the Interior Ministry sealed the ballot boxes and took them to wherever, to their own headquarters, where they then came out with a figure which doesn’t look like a very credible figure and the method of reaching it is in violation of their own laws and procedures and of course undermines wherever credibility they might have.}

    On what basis he thinks the figure was not credible?
    ————————————————-

    “Noam Chomsky’s Hypocrisy”

    “I don’t regard myself as a critic of Israel. I regard myself a supporter of Israel … I think the U.S. should continue to support Israel”. [1] – Noam Chomsky
    http://rockthetruth.blogspot.com/2010/07/chomskys-hypocrisy.html

  212. Joseph Anderson said on July 28th, 2010 at 7:28pm #

    Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 28th, 2010 at 6:28pm:

    “@Joseph Anderson,

    It’s an elementary moral principle. If it’s beyond your comprehension that one should apply the same standard to oneself as to others, I don’t know what else to say about it.”
    ___________________________________________________________________________

    Jeremy, the very first thing ‘elementary’ on this page was your article — filled with such, ahem, ‘intellectual’, David Horowitz-like usage, from the very first word, like “Tirade”, to “claptrap”, to “ilk”, to whatever other ‘intellectual’, linguistic ‘gems’ I missed — in what’s *self-purported* to be a supposedly ‘[pseudo-]intellectually’ persuasive, formal commentary — and pseudo-intellectually complete with quite squiggly and tedious tactics. So, fortunately, most people won’t even get through it, except diehards like Max or those with more intestinal fortitude like teafoe2.

    As I said in an above comment post, “Fortunately, fewer and fewer progressives/leftists around the world ARE EVEN LISTENING to white “liberals” like *YOU* — or Chomsky (or Finkelstein) — 2 (or, rather, 3) slick “liberal” DAMAGE-CONTROL SHILLS / ‘ARTISTS’ for the *overt* Zionists — on this. Even fewer and fewer progressive-/leftist-posing, ‘anti-Occupation’ (CLOSET) ZIONISTS are even listening to you and Chomsky (and Finkelstein) on this — because even *they* realize that *something* has to be done to save their ideologically, so-called “Jewish[-supremacist, apartheid] state” — from right-wing Jewish political self-destruction”. This so, just like what happened to white apartheid in South Africa: it became an international pariah state, first by the true — read, *anti-racist* (and *anti-colonial*) — progressives/leftists, and then by the rest of the *people* (if much later –*except in Israel*– by their governments), of the world. And what were the Jewish Zionists doing then?: going around *hatin’ on* Mandela and the ANC, and calling them anti-Semitic terrorists.

    —————————————————————————————————————————-

    (And I know something — that I won’t disclose — that *you* don’t know about the publication, here, of your own “tirade” and “claptrap” commentary, praised by your “ilk” in the comment posts. Let’s just say that in ‘the fog of war’ you didn’t exactly get through on intellectual meritocracy, let alone intellectual decorum.)

    [I purposely put this under the " --------" line in case 'someone' wants to snip it.]

    .

  213. lichen said on July 28th, 2010 at 7:30pm #

    Right wing Iranians spreading blind pro-government propaganda here is pathetic. The election was not 100% transparent, and a great deal of the indigenous Iranian population was unsatisfied with the results. Unpopular, dictatorial, radical capitalist regimes often attempt to claim any internal opposition is in fact from their enemies abroad; it is a ploy.

  214. shabnam said on July 28th, 2010 at 7:33pm #

    {Right wing Iranians spreading blind pro-government propaganda here is pathetic….}

    I don’t have time for an idiot. Educate YOUSELF.

  215. PatrickSMcNally said on July 28th, 2010 at 7:58pm #

    > Also, JINSA does not make U.S. policy. The Bush administration set the policy.

    Cheney came straight from JINSA, and he acted largely as Bush’s handler. Imagine if Cheney had been from the Ku Klux Klan and someone tried saying “the KKK does not make US policy.” I think that would get a bit of an uproar from liberals. But Cheney being from JINSA, the issue just goes down the Memory Hole.

  216. Max Shields said on July 28th, 2010 at 8:09pm #

    Cheney came out of his mother’s womb. So is it his mother who determined the US invade and occupy Iraq?

  217. PatrickSMcNally said on July 28th, 2010 at 8:25pm #

    > On Vietnam, “The Taiwan lobby played an important role in making it impossible to just quietly withdraw”? You can’t possibly be serious.

    Well maybe Robert McNamara wasn’t being serious either when he maintained that the war could have been avoided if Asian specialists with some knowledge of the real events hadn’t chased away:

    “The irony of this gap was that it existed largely because the top East Asian and China experts in the State Department—John Paton Davies, Jr., John Stewart Service, and John Carter Vincent—had been purged during the McCarthy hysteria of the 1950s.”

    That was directly the work of the Taiwan lobby.

  218. Joseph Anderson said on July 28th, 2010 at 8:48pm #

    .

    Max Shields said on July 28th, 2010 at 8:09pm:

    “Cheney came out of his mother’s womb. So is it his mother who determined the US invade and occupy Iraq?”

    ______________________________________________________________________________

    Max’s brilliance just amaaazingly underwhelms me.

    You tell ‘em Max!!…

  219. PatrickSMcNally said on July 28th, 2010 at 8:50pm #

    > Cheney came out of his mother’s womb. So is it his mother who determined the US invade and occupy Iraq?

    If you have any evidence of his mother ever acting as a policy advisor for politicians, then I’ll be willing to investigate further. But obviously JINSA is another matter altogether. That institute is devoted to developing policy advisors who can subsequently guide political decisions. There’s no need to play guessing games about the import of that. People from JINSA even founded a subsidiary racket called the PNAC which did more of the same.

  220. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 28th, 2010 at 10:54pm #

    @shabnam,

    Please provide an example from his work where “Chomsky cleverly introduced strong DOUBTS based on nonsense” so we can examine the basis for your conclusion that he’s a Zionist propagandist. The arguments for fraud are fallacious, but that does not mean that many people — perhaps including Chomsky — did not have doubts in good faith about the election’s legitimacy. Chomsky is not infallible, after all. He gets it wrong sometimes. That doesn’t make him a Zionist “gatekeeper” or whatever it is you want to call him.

    As for his “I regard myself a supporter of Israel”, I’ve already discussed his meaning, which is that he opposes Israeli crimes and the Zionist agenda — he considers criticism of Israeli crimes not “anti-Israeli”, but supportive of Israel, because the moral degeneration of Israel is what is truly harmful to the country.

    @Joseph Anderson,

    Are you one of those who, unlike Max, didn’t actually read the article while wanting to comment on it?

    Like I said, the principle in question is a perfectly elementary one. It’s a Biblical principle, in fact, as I’ve already discussed. It’s not difficult to comprehend that one should apply to oneself the same (or a more stringent) standard than to others. To not do so is the definition (Biblically speaking) of “hypocrisy”. Like I said, this is perfectly elementary.

    @PatrickSMcNally,

    Cheney was the elected Vice President of a country known as THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, not of Israel. Like I said, the cooked up “intelligence” on Iraq was 100% made in the USA. Moreover, the primary reasons for the war had to do with perceived U.S. interests, primarily “Persian Gulf oil”, as Wolfowitz outlined in the ’92 draft defense planning guidance, and as reiterated in PNAC’s Rebuilding America’s Defenses, etc.

    Again, blaming the length of the Vietnam war on some “Taiwan lobby” is just absolute nonsense, which you “evidence” with more nonsense, this time that the “McCarthy hysteria” that resulted in the purge of Asian specialists in the State Department was “directly the work of the Taiwan lobby”. Good luck proving that one. Absolute nonsense.

    Good luck also proving your ridiculous “Cold War” thesis that the Gulf War was fought not to secure U.S. “interests” in the region (e.g. “oil”, as per G.H.W. Bush’s national security directives) but to to topple the USSR. Absolute nonsense.

  221. shabnam said on July 29th, 2010 at 12:09am #

    Jeremy:

    {Please provide an example from his work where “Chomsky cleverly introduced strong DOUBTS based on nonsense” so we can examine the basis for your conclusion that he’s a Zionist propagandist.}

    The fact that Chomsky does not think the election result was credible but does not provide credible evidence, is Zionist propaganda. His claim that the election outcome was not credible prevents others who listen to him to support the election result, therefore, are easily manipulated by the media propaganda. Furthermore, Chomsky uses the same tactic to introduce doubt about Iran LEGAL enrichment program and its final goal.
    I bring a quote from the following link to give you an example. Please pay attention to the first two paragraphs:

    {On Iran, Chomsky is very unclear. While he rightly argues that the U.S. and Israel are seriously threatening Iran, Chomsky has yet to show any evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Quoting Martin van Crevel, the Zionist military historian at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and adviser to the Israeli military, Chomsky argues that Iran is developing nuclear weapons to deter any U.S.-Israel aggression. If not, the Iranians “are crazy”. There is absolutely no evidence that Iran is enriching uranium for military use. Iran has the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. The rest is anti-Muslim Zionist warmongering propaganda. Iran has broken no agreement and is fulfilling all its obligations to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The real violator is Israel which stands in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and IAEA safeguards obligations. To date, Israel is refusing to open its nuclear facilities for inspection and threatening to use nuclear weapons against Iran.
    Furthermore, Chomsky’s attack on the Iranian Government is unjustified. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the choice of the majority of the Iranian people (2-1), according to an analysis of multiple polls of the Iranian public conducted by the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA). [5] Like most Western “Leftists”, Chomsky believes the elections were rigged.
    Given Chomsky’s defense of freedom and democratic principles, it was ironic that in 2005 Chomsky and his leftist friends supported the U.S.-staged fraudulent elections in Iraq to install a puppet government as “democratic” and “worthy of praise”. If people like Chomsky fail to condemn fraudulent elections staged by foreign military occupation, then the U.S. will continue to manipulate democracy to serve U.S. imperialist interest. He called the murderous Occupation “incompetence” and attacked the Iraqi Resistance as a “violent insurgency”. It is sad that Chomsky, a leading critic of U.S. imperialism and injustice, could have ignored U.S. imperialist motives.
    It is important to remember that while Chomsky protested against the criminal U.S. invasion of Iraq, he later justified the illegal invasion on the basis that it has “removed” not only Saddam Hussein but also the genocidal sanctions. Seven years after the criminal U.S. invasion, Iraq is far worse today than under Saddam Hussein and the genocidal sanctions. An entire nation has been deliberately destroyed. More than 1.5 million Iraqis have been killed and at least 5 millions Iraqis are refugees, including 2.7 million internally displaced Iraqis. According to the U.S. think-tank, the Brookings Institute, only 20 per cent of the Iraqi population have access to proper sanitation, 45 per cent to clean water, 50 per cent to more than 12 hours a day of electricity, 50 per cent to adequate housing, and 30 per cent to health services. A quarter of Iraq’s population is living in extreme poverty. Iraq remains under murderous U.S. military Occupation. The motive remains conspicuous; defending the Zionist state of Israel and enforcing long-lasting imperialist-Zionist control of the region.}

    http://www.jnoubiyeh.com/2010/06/noam-chomskys-hypocrisy.html

  222. mary said on July 29th, 2010 at 1:55am #

    I opened Dissident Voice just now expecting to see some interesting new discussion. Instead it’s more of the same. Getting boring now.

    Rejoinder to Criticism of Chomsky: Asset or Liability?
    221 comments !!!

  223. Don Hawkins said on July 29th, 2010 at 3:46am #

    Interesting new discussion I have a feeling the you know what is about to hit the fan. Boring this will not be.

  224. Deadbeat said on July 29th, 2010 at 4:49am #

    teafoe2 posts
    “An Anti-War Movement That Won’t Cave to Obama or Israel”,
    Wed, 07/28/2010 – 13:13 — Glen Ford by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

    Ford writes …

    Nearly 600 delegates – twice the initial expectations – took part in the United National Anti-War Conference, held at the Crown Plaza Hotel in Albany, New York, July 23 through 25. The mission: to rescue the anti-war movement from the rubble of its collapse with the ascent of Black Democrat Barack Obama to the presidency.

    and a later in the article he writes …

    Opponents claimed inclusion of the resolution would make it impossible for them to recruit labor activists into anti-war ranks – as if Zionists rule everywhere in the House of Labor. After a series of dilatory maneuvers by the pro-Israel faction, the Conference overwhelming endorsed the Palestine Solidarity Caucus position.

    The article TF2 this is merely a beginning but it is not without two concerns:

    [1] The anti-war movement did NOT become moribund with the rise of Obama. The anti-war movement collapsed by the end of 2003 and the “Left” kept it that way because the issue of Zionism was being raised by factions on the Left as well as the anti-war Right. Howard Zinn, Phyllis Bennis, and the Chomskyite Z-Mag crowd all threw their weight behind the Anybody But Bush (ABB) pro-war John Kerry canard and fail to support the anti-war campaign of Ralph Nader.

    [2] Sitting on the dais while Ford gives his presentation — Glen Ford: Breaking the Obama Spell, at the United National Peace Conference 7/23/2010 is Medea Benjamin. I’ve written here on DV about the role Ms. Benjamin played in sabotaging the Greens in 2004 and preventing the Greens from supporting the Nader/Camejo slate. To see her on sitting on the dais while Ford gives an enthralling speech means either one of two things:

    [a] She has completely changed. No more fronting for Soros and Zionism or …

    [b] She is still taking Soros’ dollars and her presence raises real concerns about whether this initiative is serious or will result with the same betrayals.

    I do hope that Ford continue in this direction and challenge what look to me to be a predominately white audience.

  225. Deadbeat said on July 29th, 2010 at 4:53am #

    mary writes …

    I opened Dissident Voice just now expecting to see some interesting new discussion. Instead it’s more of the same. Getting boring now. Rejoinder to Criticism of Chomsky: Asset or Liability? 221 comments !!!

    It’s a window to the extremely repressed condition of the Left that has essentially been unaddressed for about 40 years. 22o some comments is NOTHING. This discussion/debate needs to be ongoing in order to deal with an extremely taboo topic.

  226. Deadbeat said on July 29th, 2010 at 4:59am #

    Patrick S. McNally writes …

    Cheney came straight from JINSA, and he acted largely as Bush’s handler. Imagine if Cheney had been from the Ku Klux Klan and someone tried saying “the KKK does not make US policy.” I think that would get a bit of an uproar from liberals. But Cheney being from JINSA, the issue just goes down the Memory Hole.

    This analogy clearly and accurately reflects the corruption and duplicity of the “Left.” Which is why exposing Chomsky causes such a backlash from the liberal/left. Anything discussion about American Jewish Zionism has been suppressed and repressed especially by the liberal/left. The “Left” especially identified Chaney “corporate” links but not his links to Zionism — neither JINSA or PNAC. This is why this discussion is so heated because Jeffery Blankfort has for more than 30 years has been trying to opened up space for this very important airing of the “Left’s” dirty laundry.

  227. Deadbeat said on July 29th, 2010 at 5:05am #

    To be fair to Patrick I’m not suggesting he agrees with my position. What I am commenting on is the duplicity of the response we see from the liberals and the “left” when the topic is white supremacy vs Zionism.

  228. Deadbeat said on July 29th, 2010 at 5:32am #

    Hue Longer writes …

    DB says, “And one final point TF2, BAR certainly didn’t pull any of their pushes against homegrown Tea Party racism. But racism is not just a black vs white supremacy. The most virulent form of racism in the United States today is the one that Noam Chomsky remains adhered to. Why isn’t BAR taking a seriously thorough examination of American (Jewish) Zionism. Clearly it too has a [severe] impact on the Left and the Black community”.

    Hue Longer:
    It’s comments like these that make it embarrassing to send links

    Zionism has become so mainstreamed that a harsh critique of Zionism would embarrassed Mr. Hue Longer. (who BTW accused me of being a Zionist).

    If I had made a similar comment about White Supremacy I don’t think Mr. Longer would feel any qualms or embarrassment. In fact during the course of this long discussion Mr. Longer sought to praise Mr. Hammond.

    Mr. Longer is entitled to his opinions and the side he chooses to support but rather than offering HIS own opinion or perspectives to this discussion he rather expressed how “embarrassed” his is because I happen to point out the DUPLICITY of the liberal/left response to White Supremacy and their denials when it comes to Zionism which IS the most virulent form of racism in the U.S. today. It is the Zionist Power Configuration that have the major influence over U.S. Congress, policy makers, and the Pentagon.

    Why Mr. Longer singled out my remark to express his “embarrassment” over a harsh critique of Zionism is anyone’s guess.

  229. PatrickSMcNally said on July 29th, 2010 at 5:32am #

    > Cheney was the elected Vice President of a country known as THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, not of Israel.

    And he was with JINSA long before he became VP. Taking a look at the actual background which someone came from isn’t has altogether hard as you make it out to be. Like I said, if Cheney had come from the Ku Klux Klan and then entered office calling for a colonial invasion of Africa, everyone would jump on that. It’s only his JINSA background that is deemed irrelevant.

    > as Wolfowitz outlined in the ‘92 draft defense planning guidance

    Another JINSA man, as well as from AIPAC:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/05/politics/05spy.html

    —–
    The investigation has proven awkward as well for a group of conservative Republicans, who held high-level civilian jobs at the Pentagon during President Bush’s first term and the buildup toward the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and who were also close to Aipac.

    They were led by Paul D. Wolfowitz, the former deputy defense secretary who has been named president of the World Bank.
    —–

    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04/09/070409fa_fact_cassidy?currentPage=all

    —–
    Wolfowitz has an abiding interest in the Islamic world. His father, Jacob, an eminent mathematician who taught at Columbia and Cornell, was a fervent Zionist, and Wolfowitz’s elder sister, Laura, lives in Israel.
    —–

    > Again, blaming the length of the Vietnam war on some “Taiwan lobby” is just absolute nonsense, which you “evidence” with more nonsense, this time that the “McCarthy hysteria” that resulted in the purge of Asian specialists in the State Department was “directly the work of the Taiwan lobby”.

    Playing on words again? I actually did not ever say that “McCarthy hysteria” in general was brought about by the Taiwan lobby. That term “McCarthy hysteria” is used by sociologists to reference a wide range of phenomenon all across the USA in the 1950s, most of which has no direct relation to McCarthy. What is well-established is that the purge of Asian specialists in the State Department was brought about by the Taiwan lobby charging that these specialists had “lost China.”

  230. Deadbeat said on July 29th, 2010 at 6:06am #

    Jeremy R. Hammond writes …

    @Deadbeat,Define “American Zionism” and please explain how Christian Zionism does NOT fall into that category. Thanks.

    Apparently Jeremy, the participants here are onto your tactics. To feign ignorance makes you look foolish and dishonest. In fact it was your dishonesty that forced the issue. I’ll refresh your memory….

    Jeremy R. Hammond writes …

    DB: “Notice how Mr. Hammond argues “Israel” rather than Zionism. … At best they desire to maintain a narrow focus — Israel — without turning the lens to Zionism.”

    Again, you’re employing a strawman and speaking from a position of total ignorance about my actual views. I’ve written extensively on Zionism, e.g.:

    Woe to you, Christian Zionists, hypocrites!
    http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2010/07/08/woe-to-you-christian-zionists-hypocrites/

    After that bit of rhetorical chicanery I decided to make it even more specific that I’m referring to American Jewish Zionism which makes up 90% of what is termed “Zionism”. The Christian Zionists are only 10%. You can verify these percentage via James Petras. I think mary also posted a link as well to rebut your Christian Zionism chicanery.

    However Mr. Hammond you did open my eyes to how Chomskyites intend to use the Christian Zionists to take the heat away from Jewish Zionism. John Hagee becomes the 21st Century “Lee Harvey Oswald” — the patsy. There a place for Hagee at AIPAC’s podium along with all the Executive and Legislative Branches of the United States of American in servitude to American Jewish Zionism.

    The Christian Zionists first came to my attention when that other foundation sycophant, Bill Moyers had a discussion about them with Liberal Zionist Michael Lerner. That discussion didn’t pass the smell test. Recently Juan Cole got into the act of Christian Zionist inflation after the Republicans introduced a bill supporting an Israeli attack on Iran.

    The rhetorical line coming from the Liberal/Left will be “Republican war-mongers” or “Christian Zionists war-mongers”. But it will be designed to minimize and deflect blame away from Jewish Zionist influence such as AIPAC, Bill Crystal, etc. and towards Sarah Palin, John McCain, and Pastor Hagee all of whom would not have any political status if not for American Jewish Zionism.

    Jeffrey Blankfort already put forth that 60% of the donations to the Democratic Party comes from Jewish sources. And that the Congress are in lock step only on the support of Israel. It is clear and obvious that Mr. Hammond is operating as an apologist for American Jewish Zionism.

    Your “hero” Jeffrey Blankfort … mischaracterizes Chomsky’s views, as demonstrated in the article. You should choose your heroes more wisely.

    You obviously didn’t take the time to look as the link that I posted during my rebuttals to you Mr. Hammond otherwise you would have seen the Chomsky interview by Israeli TV.

    First and foremost Chomsky’s willingness to be interviewed by Israeli television violates the BDS campaign and during the interview he admits that he SUPPORTS Israel. Therefore Chomsky’s own words betrays his well cultivated image and further points to the corruption of the Left for anointing an adherent of a racist ideology as its intellectual leader.

    Sorry Mr. Hammond you showed your true colors — Blue & White.

  231. Deadbeat said on July 29th, 2010 at 6:10am #

    Jeremy R. Hammond writes …


    @Deadbeat,Define “American Zionism” and please explain how Christian Zionism does NOT fall into that category. Thanks.

    Apparently Jeremy, the participants here are onto your tactics. To feign ignorance makes you look foolish and dishonest. In fact it was your dishonesty that forced the issue. I’ll refresh your memory….

    Jeremy R. Hammond writes …

    DB: “Notice how Mr. Hammond argues “Israel” rather than Zionism. … At best they desire to maintain a narrow focus — Israel — without turning the lens to Zionism.”

    Again, you’re employing a strawman and speaking from a position of total ignorance about my actual views. I’ve written extensively on Zionism, e.g.:

    Woe to you, Christian Zionists, hypocrites!
    http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2010/07/08/woe-to-you-christian-zionists-hypocrites/

    After that bit of rhetorical chicanery I decided to make it even more specific that I’m referring to American Jewish Zionism which makes up 90% of what is termed “Zionism”. The Christian Zionists are only 10%. You can verify these percentage via James Petras. I think mary also posted a link as well to rebut your Christian Zionism chicanery.

    However Mr. Hammond you did open my eyes to how Chomskyites intend to use the Christian Zionists to take the heat away from Jewish Zionism. John Hagee becomes the 21st Century “Lee Harvey Oswald” — the patsy. There a place for Hagee at AIPAC’s podium along with all the Executive and Legislative Branches of the United States of American in servitude to American Jewish Zionism.

    The Christian Zionists first came to my attention when that other foundation sycophant, Bill Moyers had a discussion about them with Liberal Zionist Michael Lerner. That discussion didn’t pass the smell test. Recently Juan Cole got into the act of Christian Zionist inflation after the Republicans introduced a bill supporting an Israeli attack on Iran.

    The rhetorical line coming from the Liberal/Left will be “Republican war-mongers” or “Christian Zionists war-mongers”. But it will be designed to minimize and deflect blame away from Jewish Zionist influence such as AIPAC, Bill Crystal, etc. and towards Sarah Palin, John McCain, and Pastor Hagee all of whom would not have any political status if not for American Jewish Zionism.

    Jeffrey Blankfort already put forth that 60% of the donations to the Democratic Party comes from Jewish sources. And that the Congress are in lock step only on the support of Israel. It is clear and obvious that Mr. Hammond is operating as an apologist for American Jewish Zionism.

    Your “hero” Jeffrey Blankfort … mischaracterizes Chomsky’s views, as demonstrated in the article. You should choose your heroes more wisely.

    You obviously didn’t take the time to look as the link that I posted during my rebuttals to you Mr. Hammond otherwise you would have seen the Chomsky interview by Israeli TV.

    First and foremost Chomsky’s willingness to be interviewed by Israeli television violates the BDS campaign and during the interview he admits that he SUPPORTS Israel. Therefore Chomsky’s own words betrays his well cultivated image and further points to the corruption of the Left for anointing an adherent of a racist ideology as its intellectual leader.

    Sorry Mr. Hammond you showed your true colors — Blue & White.

  232. Max Shields said on July 29th, 2010 at 7:33am #

    PatrickSMcNally it’s not JINSA that’s irrelevent, but rather it’s the extent to which one wishes to ignore US policies for about a century that is hypocritical. And the corollary of the focusing on Chomsky as a Zionist “gatekeeper” and Cheney as having no important connection with formative US policy prior to JINSA.

    Cheney didn’t just hatch out of JINSA PatrickSMcNally. And Cheney was not the entire Bush administration’s foreign policy (though certainly very influential). But let me ask you this: Do you think Clinton’s policy of strangling Iraq (keep them in a Box as Albright put it) and regularly and without warning air-raiding the country for nearly all of his terms in office leaving over a one million dead Iraq civilians including children? Who in his administration came from JINSA?

    Do you think that his administration was an arm of JINSA? And if you’d like we can go back to one administration after another.

  233. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 29th, 2010 at 8:28am #

    @shabnam,

    Re: Iranian election, please provide an example from his work where “Chomsky cleverly introduced strong DOUBTS based on nonsense” so we can examine the basis for your conclusion that he’s a Zionist propagandist. Second request. Thanks.

    As for, “Chomsky has yet to show any evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons” — where has Chomsky ever claimed Iran is developing nuclear weapons? Again, please provide an example from his work where he makes this claim so we can examine the bases for your conclusions. What Chomsky has said — repeatedly — is that Iran would be “crazy” not to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent to U.S. and Israeli aggression, because that threat of aggression is very real and Iran’s possession of the bomb would be an effective deterrent. His point is that it would be logical for Iran to do so. This is not to say that Iran IS doing so — and Chomsky has NEVER made that claim.

    @PatrickSMcNally,

    You argue that Cheney was “with JINSA long before he became VP” to support your assertion that the war was about Israel. Cheney was also with Halliburton before he became VP. So applying your own logic, that must prove the war was about oil. He was also a chief of staff, Congressman, and Secretary of Defense before he became VP, so by your own logic, what can we conclude?

    Does Wolfowitz being in JINSA change the fact that he spelled out the motive for regime change in Iraq in the ’92 defense planning guidance document?

    Or take PNAC and their manifesto. What part of the architects of the war spelling out clearly in their own policy documents how it was about U.S. global hegemony don’t you understand?

    I did not say you said “McCarthy hysteria”. That quote is from the thing you quoted, which contradicts your argument here that the purge of Asian specialists was because of the Taiwan lobby. According to your source, that was due to “McCarthy hysteria”.

    @Deadbeat,

    You didn’t explain how Christian Zionism does not fall into the category of “American Zionism”. Then you tacitly accepted that it does. So, naturally, I’m a bit confused about your argument.

    Also, what, exactly, is it that you disagree with me about on my “Christian Zionists” article? I fail to understand your objection to that article.

    I doubt Petras’ figures, but that’s irrelevant. So what if Christian Zionists are only 10% of American Zionists? What bearing does that have on my article critical of Christian Zionists? You seem to be suggesting that by writing that article, I intended to distract people’s attention away from “Jewish Zionism”. Yet, if you search my archives, you’ll notice that I have a single article criticizing Christian Zionism, but a great many others criticizing Zionism. So how does that fact square with your little theory here? Doh!

    Please quote me where I’ve ever played “an apologist for American Jewish Zionism”. Thanks.

    As for the interview by Israeli TV, you obviously didn’t take the time to read my article, as I discussed that therein. Which is what I replied to you the first time you mentioned it. And you STILL haven’t read the article, yet again cite the Israeli TV interview as though I hadn’t already addressed that and as though it were evidence of your thesis.

    That’s the definition of “ignorance”, by the way, just as an aside.

    I also already addressed your repeated assertion of Chomsky saying he supports Israel. I see no need to repeat myself on that point for a third or fourth time.

    @Max Shields,

    Appreciate your sensible contributions. Breath of fresh air after the preceding nonsense.

  234. Mark Richey said on July 29th, 2010 at 9:17am #

    I agree with Mary that the commentary is boring, and clearly consists largely of people who, unable to justify or defend Blankfort, resort to red herrings and squid ink to simply CHANGE the SUBJECT.

    Blankfort himself never made any serious attempt to answer Hammond, and now has formally run away, as is his wont when confronted in forums that he and his ANSWER-MECA liberal zionist cabal don’t control.

    For decades he has said I am sor sort of ‘ADL agent’, and has said similar things about other people. The indulgence shown this behavior, due entirely to the fact that he’s Jewish, has now emboldened him to use the same tactics against Noam Chomsky, which is much more potentially damaging to opposition to US policies.

  235. PatrickSMcNally said on July 29th, 2010 at 9:38am #

    > rather it’s the extent to which one wishes to ignore US policies for about a century that is hypocritical.

    And so we’re back to just immersing outselves in generalities again, as a way of escaping anything specific. Then how did Chomsky end up advising people in swing states to vote Democrat in 2004, may I be so bold to ask? If we’re just going to go back to merging decades of interventionism into a single unit then what could possibly have motivated Chomsky to tell people to take some notice of the Bush/Kerry verdict? Obviously Chomsky, who never showed himself to be a fan of the Clinton administration, was implying that there was something distinctive about the Bush administration which deserved notice. But as soon as any clear details about this began towards the Israel lobby, then it’s time to head back our world of generalities.

    > Cheney was not the entire Bush administration’s foreign policy

    No, there was also Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz and a whole slew of other types of JINSA/WINEP/etc characters.

    > Do you think that his administration was an arm of JINSA?

    Clinton was elected after Bush I pissed off the Israel lobby by attempting to follow Gulf War I with a push for a settlement of the Israel/Palestine conflict. People may recall the remarks by AIPAC’s David Steiner at the time about Clinton was going to be good for them:

    http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0293/9302008.html

    —–
    A girl who worked for me at AIPAC stood up for them at their wedding. Hillary lived with her. I mean we have those relationships. We have never had that with Bush. Susan Thomases, who’s in there, worked with me on the Bradley campaign. We worked together for 13 years. She’s in there with the family. They stay with her when they come to New York. One of my officers, Monte Friedkin, is one of the biggest fund-raisers for them. I mean, I have people like that all over the country.
    —–

    Unfortunately, the AIPAC/Clinton didn’t last for very long. Clinton took his own initiatives at pushing for a settlement and this led to Oslo. As a consequence of these accords, Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by Likudniks. The Oslo accords had been the product of secret meetings from April 1993 through August 1993 that were arranged by Johan Jorgen Holst of Norway. Holst died of a sudden heart attack 4 months after Oslo was announced on September 13, 1993. Pointless to make too many guesses, but it did look suspicious in light of Rabin’s open murder.

    It’s also documented that Hillary Clinton had made several statements in support of a Palestinian state. Most people would agree Bill & Hillary worked as a team and her statements should seen in this context. It does seem doubtful that the Oslo meetings would simply have been held without any knowledge of Washington. There more likely were ongoing contacts between the White House and participants at Oslo. Given Hillary’s outspoken comments about a Palestinian state, it would make sense to have these contacts managed by someone who was a friend of hers. She actually did have a close friend by the name of Vincent Foster, but he was found dead in July 1993 while the Oslo negotiations were still going on.

    As it happened then Jerry Falwell, one of our favorite Christian Zionists, produced “The Clinton Chronicles,” a video which set out to argue that Bill Clinton had murdered Foster. Another Israel-supporter named Ken Starr launched a big investigation which set out to tar Clinton with the charge of murdering Foster, but later just quietly concluded that Foster had committed suicide. There’s no question that the Likudniks hated Clinton for 8 years. This didn’t always translate to the behavior of the average Jewish voter in the USA, many fo whom no doubt still voted Democrat in 1996, but Clinton had clearly pissed off some very big people.

    You raise an interesting query about what other directions might US policy towards Iraq have followed. In THE GRAND CHESSBOARD Zbigniew Brzezinski comments that:

    —–
    It is appropriate to quote here the wise advice offered by my colleague at CSIS, Anthony H. Cordesman (in his paper on “The American Threat to the United States,” February 1997, p. 16, delivered as a speech to the Army War College), who has warned against the American propensity to demonize issues and even nations. As he put it: “Iran, Iraq, and Libya are cases where the U.S. has taken hostile regimes that pose real, but limited threats and ‘demonized’ them without developing any workable mid- to long-term end game for its strategy. U.S. planners cannot hope to totally isolate these states, and it makes no sense to treat them as if they were identical ‘rogue’ or terrorist’ states. . . . The U.S. lives in a morally gray world and cannot succeed by trying to make it black and white.”
    —–
    — Page 204.

    That almost does sound like Brzezinski would have sought another way of wrapping up the sanctions, maybe by using something similar to the offer from Imam Hage:

    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0311/06/i_ins.01.html

    That conflict between the CFR-faction of the ruling class (which would include people like Brzezinski) and the JINSA/WINEP/AIPAC/ADL-faction (which would include people like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith and others) is very well highlighted by this old CounterPunch piece:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/green02282004.html

    —–
    In April of 1979, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Robert Keuch recommended in writing that Bryen, then a staff member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, undergo a grand jury hearing to establish the basis for a prosecution for espionage… The evidence was strong. Bryen had been overheard in the Madison Hotel Coffee Shop, offering classified documents to an official of the Israeli Embassy in the presence of the director of AIPAC, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee. It was later determined that the Embassy official was Zvi Rafiah, the Mossad station chief in Washington. Bryen refused to be poly-graphed by the FBI on the purpose and details of the meeting; whereas the person who’d witnessed it agreed to be poly-graphed and passed the test… Bryen was asked to resign from his Foreign Relations Committee post shortly before the investigation was concluded in late 1979. For the following year and a half, he served as Executive Director of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), and provided consulting services to AIPAC.
    —–

    Now if you look up the author of that CP piece, Stephen Green, what you’ll on the jacket of his book, TAKING SIDES: AMERICA’S SECRET RELATIONS WITH A MILITANT ISRAEL, says: “Author Stephen Green has previously undertaken foreign policy research and/or writing for the Council on Foreign Relations, the Carnegie Endowment, and the United Nations Association of the United States, among others.” Green belongs to that Brzezinski/CFR crowd, and he writes on CP about how JINSA hires Israeli spies. This reflects a real conflict of factions among the ruling class.

    Clinton attempted ride things out while under seige from the Israel lobby without advancing too far with initiatives that would offend them more than Oslo already had, but still resisting the push for an outright invasion of Iraq. The whole quandary of sanctions on Iraq sits in the middle of this mess. When Bush became President he determined to break out of the stalemate which Clinton had been stuck in for 2 terms by signing onto JINSA’s push to overthrow Saddam. The rest follows.

  236. PatrickSMcNally said on July 29th, 2010 at 10:01am #

    > Cheney was also with Halliburton before he became VP. So applying your own logic, that must prove the war was about oil.

    No, because Halliburton as an institution does not deal with such policies. Halliburton does not even with the task of oil exploration. Halliburton is just a company which provides equipment to those which do. In his Halliburton capacity Cheney would simply occupied with finding out what equipment has BP ordered and how to get it. Nothing about finding oilwells or deciding foreign policy in the Mideast would figure into this. JINSA is a different kettle of fish. They do quite explicitly make policy recommendations and hence are more relevant.

    > Does Wolfowitz being in JINSA change the fact that he spelled out the motive for regime change in Iraq in the ‘92 defense planning guidance document?

    Rather it allows us to explain how he came up with such an idea when there is absolutely no evidence of Exxon-Mobil knocking at his door to get him to bring about regime change.

    > I did not say you said “McCarthy hysteria”. That quote is from the thing you quoted,

    Which were McNamara’s own words from his own book In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam. If you actually bother to read the quote, you’ll notice that he says nothing to contradict the well-established fact that the Taiwan lobby carried on the campaign against Asian specialists. He does not say “due to” “McCarthy hysteria.” He simply says “during the McCarthy hysteria.” Yes, it was “during the McCarthy hysteria” that this happened. McNamara does not attempt to develop any further analysis of what was this “due to.” It’s a passing comment where he notes that the attacks on Asian specialists had a bad outcome in the determination of foreign policy, but he doesn’t go into the specifics.

  237. shabnam said on July 29th, 2010 at 11:17am #

    {As for, “Chomsky has yet to show any evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons” }

    @Jeremy:

    What do you call the following media propaganda based on what Chomsky said:

    {Speaking at Harvard’s Memorial Church on Saturday, March 6th, Chomsky critiqued the foreign policy of President Obama ’91 and explained the historical reasons that Iran would perceive a need to develop nuclear weapons. “If they’re not developing a nuclear deterrent, they are crazy.}

    Do you, Jeremy, go around and talk like Chomsky does? We know how ignorant the population is. Don’t you want prevent doubts and giving EXCUSE toi the media?

    The following was the head line in LARGE PRINT of many local, national and international media:

    {Noam Chomsky: Iran pursuing nuclear weapons out of fear

    Even the most radical conservative can agree with Noam Chomsky on at least one thing. “No one in their right mind wants Iran to develop nuclear weapons.” But to Chomsky, nonproliferation requires reciprocal action, rather than international condemnation. Chomsky’s reputation as a prolific author of books on subjects including linguistics, philosophy, cognitive science, political science, and media might lead one to believe that his views stem from esoteric theoretical arguments, but Chomsky takes a pragmatic view of international relations. His conclusion is that Iran is developing nuclear weapons out of a rational fear for its national safety because of the systematically threatening posture of the United States and Israel.
    Speaking at Harvard’s Memorial Church on Saturday, March 6th, Chomsky critiqued the foreign policy of President Obama ’91 and explained the historical reasons that Iran would perceive a need to develop nuclear weapons. “If they’re not developing a nuclear deterrent, they are crazy.”

    http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/03/12-0

    Published on Friday, March 12, 2010 by The Harvard Law Record

    Noam Chomsky: Iran Pursuing Nuclear Weapons Out of Fear

    Scholar assails U.S. for hypocritical application of Non-Proliferation Treaty
    by Matthew W. Hutchins

    Chomsky did not say clearly, like James Petras and others, that election ‘fraud’ was HOAX, but he said enough to create enough DOUBTS to make thousands of people believe the zionist propaganda that the election was ‘fraud’. He supported and participated with GREEN which was formed based on ELECTION FRAUD. He wore GREEN PIN. What else do you want him to do?

    In the area of Iran LEGAL nuclear energy program, he cleverly used similar tactic to give material to Zionist propaganda machine to be used against Iran to bring more fools on board.

    Stop being obstructionists.

  238. Max Shields said on July 29th, 2010 at 11:22am #

    PatrickSMcNally it seems you are not willing to concede that there are many ingredients that went into the making of US/Iraq invasion. None of it has a simple point in time, nor does it have a single father/mother.

    The problem here is that there seems to be a blind spot to history and to the complexity of war making. What makes war for US somewhat easier is that the US has almost never stopped being at war.

    I haven’t read anyone hear who thinks PNAC and the necons didn’t play a role in affecting policy. But when a machine is moving forward, it doesn’t take a whole lot of pushing to keep it moving in more or less the direction it seems to be going. We can all think this think tank or that is in control of US policy – the think tanks would like their sponsors and donars to believe that. The truth, it seems with just some reading is always a tad more complex than that.

    Not being able to at least entertain that leads one to believe there is another agenda at work.

  239. PatrickSMcNally said on July 29th, 2010 at 11:34am #

    > The problem here is that there seems to be a blind spot to history and to the complexity of war making.

    The problem rather is that you perpetually immerse yourself in philosophical generalities when specific questions are at issue.

    > We can all think this think tank or that is in control of US policy

    Perfect example of a wasteful generality. The policies put into motion by the Bush II adminstration since 2000 in a corner of the world known as Iraq can all be clearly traced back to JINSA. If you’re going to be phrasing the issue in terms of “control of US policy” in general, well that’s obviously too broad to have much meaning. One could begin a whole line of investigation into Latin American policies and then this would have to be examined in stages going from one region to the next. But that’s just your way of invoking generalities to shun details.

  240. Max Shields said on July 29th, 2010 at 2:10pm #

    PatrickSMcNally said on July 29th, 2010 at 11:34am #
    “The problem rather is that you perpetually immerse yourself in philosophical generalities when specific questions are at issue.”

    This is the kind of vapid statements that tries to pass as a response. A reference to one sentence as opposed to a true response to the point made.

    That, PatrickSMcNally is becasue you have no response. At least not one that’s not disingenuous.

  241. Joseph Anderson said on July 29th, 2010 at 2:18pm #

    Yo Jeremy Hammond!

    You want to talk about *HYPOCRISY*!?

    NOAM CHOMSKY IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST PUBLIC HYPOCRITES IN THE WORLD!!

    And thus that makes YOU the biggest public HYPOCRITE to ever be sadly allowed to have an article at DV — complete with your David Horrowitz-like colorful ad hominems. (I told Kim Peterson that if you need that kind of language to try to ‘intellectually’ persuade the reader — but that’s just the kind of ‘intellectually’, ‘logically’ and morally squiggly person you are — then maybe that’s a intellectual sign alone that your article shouldn’t be published.)

    You *claim* that you are not defending Chomsky — just that ‘you are merely correcting Blankforts “misstatements” about Chomsky’ — but it’s *OBVIOUS* to any reader (“except” the likes of Max Shields — and when you’ve got *Max* strenuously defending you…) that you *ARE* and that you have the *SAME* views as — a *SHILL* for — Chomsky and (like Chomsky, *at the very least* a morally corrupted apologist for) an ideologically RACIST “Jewish(-supremacist) state” — (quote) “because there’s no ‘international consensus’ [of primarily imperialist/pro-imperialist permanent Western powers members of the UN Security Council, with the U.S.'s ever-ready veto power against so much as an official *censure* against Israel] for anything else — except in the imaginary world”, as Chomsky (and Finkelstein — and *you?*) have said.

    Now what’s a bigger *HYPOCRITE* than “the intellectual world’s leading leftist” — an *”Anarchist”* (as Chomsky *claims* he is, or a *”Communist”*, as Finkelstein claims he is) who has (im)morally accepted *that*!?

    But *THAT’S* not the *HYPOCRISY* _YOUR_ *diversionary* white liberal racism is worried about! You — like Chomsky always has — want to keep the *American* “pro-Palestinian” movement diverted/channeled into an *inherently* dead-end, busy-work, exercise — no Chomsky criticism about “feel-good” futility there!! — of *us* “economically boycotting” *our own* country!! — and the largest economy in the world!!: and what, here, are we Americans supposed to stop buying!???

    But, INSTEAD, Chomsky, Finkelstein and you are complaining that, ‘THEY’RE (BDS’ers are) *PPICKINGG ON* ISSSRAELLL…”

    So, since DV editor Kim Peterson won’t let me *objectively* say what you — and much more importantly Chomsky (rather than some intellectually minion acolyte shill of his) — *REALLY ARE* (a term certainly much less invective) — and much more *demonstratably* objective — than the kinds *you* use, let me just say, in delicate parlor language, acceptable to Kim Peterson, that, at the least, you’re *highly disingenuous*. As I said, fortunately fewer and fewer people are listening to *either* of you (and Chomsky) — especially on BDS.

    So you can blow and blow and blow ’till you blow your brains out!

    I’m preparing for international travel, but if I have time maybe I’ll do an article for DV about your tedious attempt at damage-control for your pathetic hero. And I’ll do to you what I did to Finkelstein (and, indirectly, Chomsky) in my Israel Lobby article. You better *hope* that I don’t have time — because there’s a ‘New Jack’ on this block — and I’ve intellectually, methodically, and coolly demolished much bigger names than you are.

    And I can tell you for a fact, that other people who write for Project Censored adamantly disagree with you on Chomsky — as well as adamantly disagree with Chomsky himself — (even Chomsky’s famous former co-author *ED HERMAN*, and the late *EDWARD SAID*) — so maybe they’re ALL “hypocrites” too, and if you don’t want to be a hypocrite there, then maybe you should return your Project Censored award in behalf of yourself and your chum.

    FINALLY, if you and Chomsky and Finkelstein want to economically boycott the United States…,

    THEN WHY DON’T YOU GUYS STOP *YAPPIN’* ABOUT IT AND GO START A CAMPAIGN TO **DO** IT!!?

    Comsky is a multimillionaire, so he can fund it (and he can *mill out* another book for even *more* money) — or was *that* never a real idea…

    .

  242. Max Shields said on July 29th, 2010 at 2:35pm #

    Joseph Anderson said on July 29th, 2010 at 2:18pm #

    Use to think you were pretty good at providing a sane non-inflamatory argument.

    This tirade you’ve been on is a departure from what seemed to be an earnest contributer.

    You’ve gone the way of Deadbeat; particularly in style. Too bad.

  243. Joseph Anderson said on July 29th, 2010 at 2:47pm #

    HOW CHOMSKY L**S [okay, editor?] — actually TO PROTECT ISRAEL as an ideologically Jewish/Zionist state

    by Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA
    Wednesday Feb 20th, 2008 1:42 PM
    http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/02/15/18479413.php

    OPEN EMAIL LETTER COPY:

    >September 29, 2006
    >
    >Rose Aguilar
    >Host
    >Your Call Radio program
    >KALW radio station
    >San Francisco, CA
    >
    >Matt Martin
    >General Manager
    >KALW radio station (91.7-FM)
    >San Francisco, CA
    >
    >Subject: ATTN: ROSE AGUILAR, MATT MARTIN — RE NOAM
    >CHOMSKY ON KALW’S “YOUR CALL” RADIO PROGRAM
    >Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 11:42:40 -0700
    >
    >Dear Rose & Matt:
    >
    >I just wanted to follow up just for your own information (if helpful),
    >regarding the KALW “Your Call Radio” program interview with Noam
    >Chomsky on Tuesday, September 26, 2006, and my call to your show
    >at 31:48 after the hour.
    >
    >Since, as my being a mere caller, I was at a distinct inherent
    >disadvantage regarding Chomsky’s ability to, frankly, just l** in
    >response to my question about his opposition statements to a
    >sanctions, boycott or divestment campaign against Israel for its
    >continued brutal oppression against the Palestinian people, I wanted
    >to follow up here if you don’t mind.
    >
    >I want to regretfully say that Chomsky l**d when he said that he
    >never said that he opposed a divestment movement against Israel
    >because (quote), “the majority of the population opposes it”
    >(meaning, of course Israeli Jews). I said in my question beforehand
    >that human rights activists don’t first ask the *oppressors* if they
    >would accept sanctions and accede to the *oppressors’* inevitable
    >objection.
    >
    >Anyway, in addition to his speeches, Chomsiky said this in a May 10,
    >2004, published interview with Harvard Professor Christopher J. Lee
    >in “Safundi”, a South African scholarly journal, an interview
    >republished in Z Magaine in May, 2004. This was also documented
    >and covered in detail in Jeffrey Blankfort’s article, “Damage Control:
    >Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict” [available online].
    >
    >Chomsky also said that a sanctions movement would be “a gift to the
    >utlra-right-wing” in Israel and the U.S., and would hurt the victims.
    >But the *victims* — the Palestinians — *are* calling for an
    >international sanctions/boycotts/divestment campaign against
    >Israel. So, Chomsky is opposing what the victims themselves are
    >asking for to help eliminate their oppression. In addition, Chomsky’s
    >colleague and sometimes co-author, Ed Herman, whom Chomsky
    >alluded to in your interview, OPPOSES Chomsky’s views on sanctions
    >(and on Chomsky’s dismissal of the Israel lobby) and finds
    >Chomsky’s views on these issues logically and morally inexplicable.
    >
    >
    >[The late EDWARD SAID also DISAGREED WITH CHOMSKY's
    >opposition to sanctions, boycotts and divestments; Chomsky's
    >opposition to a secular, democratic, 1-state, re-unified historic >
    Palestine, with equal rights and privileges for all regardless of
    >religion and ethnicity, solution; Chomsky's opposition to an all-but
    >-token Palestinian Right-of-Return; Chomsky's willingness to see the
    >85% of historic Palestine that Israel has directly taken over for Jews
    >finally ethnically cleansed of its approximately 1 million Palestinian
    >citizens; and Chomsky's (the "Anarchist") willingness to see that
    >85% of historic Palestine that was violently taken over by the
    >Zionists -- largely through Zionist *Jewish* terrorism -- remain a
    >Zionist state; as well >as other strong disagreements with Chomsky.
    >
    >Yet, icon AMY GOODMAN of, the generally very good, Democracy
    >Now national radio program -- WHO'S ALWAYS PROTECTED
    >CHOMSKY FROM LEFT DEBATE OR VALID CRITICISM with her
    >progressive media 'empire' and left gate-keeping --
    > JUST AS KPFA GENERALLY PROTECTS STEPHEN ZUNES -- never mentions
    >such very strong disagreements when she pretends that there were
    >none between Chomsky and Said, since, I guess, for her, Said has
    >safely passed on (and therefore can be "beloved" by her and
    >Chomsky without any 'problems'). And so, the false history re-writing
    >begins or continues by some of the gate-keeper icons.]
    >
    >
    >Actually, it’s Chomsky’s, as America’s leading leftist guru, opposition
    >to sanctions and his dismissal of the Israel lobby that is “a gift to the
    >ultra-right-wing” in Israel and the U.S. government.
    >
    >Finally, I regret to say that Chomsky also l**d about the history of
    >the, then, American anti-apartheid divestment movement against
    >South Africa, when he said that some great public consensus had
    >been built up and established *before* the American divestment
    >campaign was begun.
    >
    >The anti-Apartheid sanctions/boycott/divestment campaign against
    >South Africa was not begun ONLY *AFTER* some huge American
    >public consensus had been established: it started out *very small*;
    >it often started out in places (actually most of the country then)
    >where most people didn’t know all that much, if anything, about
    >South African apartheid and its racial system of laws and
    >restrictions; and the campaigns, along with the mock shanty towns
    >on many campuses (often in small campustowns/cities), were used
    >as an educational and consciousness-raising tool (precisely what
    >Chomsky calls for with regard to Israel’s oppression) to *BUILD UP*
    >public awareness and support for economic divestment. And we
    >activists certainly weren’t able to change U.S. government policy first
    >(Reagan was a *friend* of apartheid South Africa). In one sentence:
    >The anti-Apartheid divestment movement against South Africa was
    >*itself* a basis of the groundwork to build up and establish an
    >international political anti-Apartheid movement in support of the
    >oppressed black South Africans.
    >
    >The big establishment politicians that Chomsky claimed were all
    >lining up to get arrested in protests (like in front of the White House)
    >mostly happened toward the *end* of the divestment movement
    >(when it was, of course, politically much safer in their perceived
    >situation), *not* at the beginning.
    >
    >[Even Congressman Ron Dellums constantly opposed language criticizing Israel's alliance with the apartheid South African
    >government.]
    >
    >If a divestment campaign against Israel would be seized upon as
    >”anti-Semitic”, I remember when the divestment campaign against
    >apartheid South Africa was seized upon by many politicians and/or
    >the mainstream media as “communist” and “supporting terrorism”
    >and ironically “racist” (against *whites* in apartheid South Africa!),
    >and that the black South Africans would have an anti-white bloodbath
    >and throw all the white South Africans into the sea if apartheid fell —
    >whites who claimed that, “Unlike Israeli Jews, we [whites] have no
    >other place to go (have no American or >European suburbs and
    >cities to go back to).”
    >
    >Since I was at a distinct inherent disadvantage as a caller, I hope
    >that in some future interview with Chomsky or anyone else —
    >especially anyone Palestinian — on some related issue, I hope that
    >you bring this up so that someone can correct Chomsky’s protecting
    >Israel (from an article of the >same name, “Protecting Israel:
    >Chomsky’s Way”). I’m sure that it’s not the first time that a white
    >Western intellectual has become quite disengenous, diversionary,
    >and inconsistent, and even immoral (Chomsky claims that Israel is,
    >in effect, “just following orders” from the U.S. government — where
    >have we heard *that* echo before) when it hypocritically comes too
    >close to home for the ethnic privileges of either him, his friends or
    >relatives and/or *his* ethnic group. (And Chomsky has ducked
    >*any* public debate, on the radio or in person, on this issue
    >because he knows that he wouldn’t just be able to cast off these
    >kinds of l**s and logical or moral inconsistencies, without being
    >directly challenged.) Sad, but true.
    >
    >(Also see, “Gnome Chomsky” — a *GREAT* little poem!,
    >http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/133840/index.php, which
    >nicely encapsulates Noam Chomsky on Israel.
    >
    >
    >Sincerely,
    >
    >Joseph Anderson
    >
    >Berkeley, CA

    .

  244. PatrickSMcNally said on July 29th, 2010 at 2:53pm #

    > This is the kind of vapid statements

    Mr. Pot, meet Sir Kettle. But first let’s get clear on “vapid”:

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vapid

    —–
    lacking liveliness, tang, briskness, or force : flat, dull
    —–

    Let’s check back to some of your most recent winners:

    “… there are many ingredients … None of it has a simple point in time, nor does it have a single father/mother … a blind spot to history and to the complexity of war making … when a machine is moving forward, it doesn’t take a whole lot of pushing to keep it moving in more or less the direction it seems to be going … The truth, it seems with just some reading is always a tad more complex than that…”

    You’ve just philosophized your way out of the paper bag which contains any real specifics about who planned the invasion of Iraq before 2003 and you haven’t said a single thing in all of this. What’s especially preposterous about this is that almost no one would apply such evasions on anything else. If there seemed to be some evidence suggesting that United Fruit wanted Jacobo Arbenz overthrown in Guatemala, then people would be happy to bring it on. But on these matters we get a lecture on the philosophy of history instead. Vapid indeed.

  245. Mark Richey said on July 29th, 2010 at 3:01pm #

    Yo, Joseph Anderson, another Berkeley fraud, Chomsky is totally right about the divestment movement against South Africa, and you know it perfectly well.

    Max: I really think McNally and Anderson are just laying out red herrings because they can’t defend their pal Blankfort’s slanders, and just want to change the subject and make it impossible to have any real discussion about that, which is of course the POINT of Jeremy’s ARTICLE!!!

    They know they’re not making sense or being even minimally responsive, so it’s no wonder they begin to sound alike, except for the YO.

    Blankfort has long been given a pass in ‘pwog’ circles because he’s Jewish; otherwise he wouldn’t get away with saying I’m an ADL agent, for decades, with no proof.

    In BErkeley you get a free pass for nonsense if you’re black, that’s why he says YO!!!

    They’ve succeeded in boring Mary and me out of the thread!

  246. Mark Richey said on July 29th, 2010 at 3:13pm #

    People interested in a discussion about Chomsky where there aren’t liberal zionists just tying to muddy the waters and prevent any real exchange of views..

    We have a discussion site,
    moc.spuorgoohaynull@erimgauQSU,

    half Arab out of 370. UNQUALIFIED support for the Palestinian right of return is required for membership…so we don’t have ANSWER, MECA, and their camp followers calling people ‘snakes’ or ‘ADL agents’ when they are challenged.

  247. teafoe2 said on July 29th, 2010 at 5:37pm #

    Wow. This Richey is a real piece of work. Apparently he’s so ignorant that he thinks Blankfort is an ANSWER supporter.

    Blankfort has never been given a “free pass” in “progressive” circles; the truth is that he’s been shunned. In order to get his work published he’s had to turn to obscure outlets like Left Curve and Pulse Media. Cockburn did include one chapter by Jeff in a book, but I’ve never seen Jeff’s byline on Counterpunch. Blankfort’s views have for decades been considered “beyond the pale” by most publications and organized activist formations, from the far right and extreme zionist outfits to ANSWER and other “Marchus Lemmingist” sects, and every variety of Liberal and “Left” org or mag in between.

    But, thanks to the latest set of Warcrimes/Crimes vs Humanity perpetrated by the zionist state terrorist gangsters in Gaza, and their terrorist assault on the “Flotilla” in which they murdered nine civilians, people in the US are starting to question what’s going on. Some are noting that Blankfort and Petras seem to know a lot about the problem, so they want to consider what they have to say.

    Since the old lines of defense have been breached, thanks largely to the work of Palestine Solidarity activists like but not limited to Norcal ISM, Huwaida Arraf, Adam Shapiro, the Corrie family and Paul Larudee, we now witness the zionist power configuration attempting to establish new lines of defense farther to the rear; i.e., they see the old bs is no longer viable so they have become willing to concede a lot of ground, drop the corniest crap like the “Exodus” snowjob, and try to circle the wagons around Soft Zionists like Chomsky and Michael Lerner, hoping that their more “sophisticated” propaganda line will suffice to keep progressive-leaning activists in the US and the G8 countries hesitant about fully committing to the global BDS campaign.

  248. teafoe2 said on July 29th, 2010 at 5:54pm #

    Richey asserts that “Chomsky is totally right about the sanctions movement against South Africa…”. Maybe you and Joe do know this “perfectly well”, but I don’t.

    I’m not even certain what Chomsky’s views were or are on the topic. I happen to have been involved in the movement in support of the ANC, on a very low “foot soldier” level of course, since before the IOF’s naked aggression vs Lebanon which culminated in the Sabra-Shattilla massacres. I vividly remember being ushered into an upstairs room to shake hands with Randall Robinson after he addressed a hall full of Black students at UCDavis. I don’t recall Chomsky being visible participant either in those earlier days before N29 was launched, or later on when “Free Mandela” became the main slogan. So if you would, Mr Richey, I wonder if you’d mind just posting a statement by the great man, or any other evidence you have, that will lend substance to your claim that he is/was “totally right” about the issue?
    I DO thank you:)

  249. teafoe2 said on July 29th, 2010 at 6:09pm #

    Attention Kim, Angie, Sunil: Richey writes: “In Berkeley you get a free pass for nonsense if you’re black…”.

    My first thought was to urge you to use your Moderator’s blue pencil to remove this racist remark lest it soil DV’s reputation as a site that doesn’t accept open racism, pornography etc.

    But on second thought, I think you should leave it up for a while, to give Mr Hammond and Max Shields the opportunity to disassociate themselves from this sort of thing, lest readers assume that because they share Richey’s outlook in some respects, they also support the kind of racist attitude expressed in this remark?

    Perhaps after Hammond and Shields clarify how they feel about it, it would then be appropriate to expunge the whole exchange, including this post?

    Thanks:)

  250. lichen said on July 29th, 2010 at 6:27pm #

    Joesoph Anderson voted for Obama and said that Nader had “progressive white male syndrome.” I don’t think him calling anyone a hypocrite is worthy of attention. There are many great people in Berkeley, who don’t subscribe to bankrupt 60’s identity politics. Personally, I’m very glad that Chomsky is consistent; he is an anarchist and doesn’t support regimes that steal elections and murder young civil rights protesters in the streets. I think it would be fine if the right wing anti-zionists found their own forum.

  251. lichen said on July 29th, 2010 at 6:37pm #

    Perhaps the moderators could delete Joesoph Anderson’s groovy black-racist rants first? That might be appropriate instead of targeting anyone who doesn’t like his psychedelic haze.

  252. teafoe2 said on July 29th, 2010 at 7:02pm #

    Aha! so Lichen is a closet racist too! learn something every day:)

    Yeah, all that ’60’s equality crap is so tired. Civil Rights, reparations for slavery/jim crow: who cares?

    Lichen is too simple minded to realize that Chomsky is a very clever defender of the Zionist State, no matter how many times it’s explained to him.

    Speaking of murdering civil rights protesters, what about Chomsky’s sneaky support for Apartheid South Africa?

    Hmm, did Joe A tell you, Lichen, that he’d voted for Obama? If not, how did you learn that fascinating bit of information? I find it credible that he may have said some negative things about Nader. I was a Nader 2004 convention delegate and even Northern CA coordinator for a while unti a pro replacement could be found for the Reform Pty jerk who’d stupidly made a bunch of racist remarks on a Reform Pty webpage. But I got very disenchanted with Nader by 2008. The logical move would bave been for him to ally with Cynthia McKinney, but I guess that might alienate a lot of his core supporters or something. I don’t think I’d call Nader a racist exactly, but I don’t think he’s finished the task of digging his mind out from under all the white supremacist crap that all we “wyt” people imbibe with the air we breath from kindygarten onward.
    So I think Nader is very open to criticism.
    But I’m shocked to see you come out in support of this idiot “Richey”. You’ve said a lot of things I didn’t particularly like, but also other stuff I did like. So I’m disappointed to see you line up with this mouther of racist cliches.
    Oh well, can’t win a mall:)

  253. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 29th, 2010 at 7:21pm #

    Yo Joseph Anderson!

    I’ll reply to that which is actually comprehensible from your post:

    * In what way is Chomsky hypocritical?

    * I did not employ a single ad hominem argument in my article. I challenge you to quote one. You’ll find you’re unable to do so.

    * I did not defend any of Chomsky’s views in my article. I merely observed how Jeffrey mischaracterizes them.

    * I challenge you to find evidence from my writings on the topic that I’m a Zionist shill:

    http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/category/world/israel-palestine/

    Sign up and get my “The Rejection of Palestinian Self-Determination: The struggle for Palestine and the roots of the Israeli-Arab conflict” for free. See if you can find any evidence for your thesis therein. That’ll be quite a challenge for you, so I hope you take it to heart.

    * Your characterization of Chomsky’s objection to a boycott of Israel that “They’re picking on Israel” is incorrect. As for Finkelstein, he actually supports the idea. See his “Why an Economic Boycott of Israel is Justified”. (http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/economic-boycott-of-israel/) Try to make at least a modest effort to get your facts straight.

    I agree with Finkelstein, by the way.

    * If you think I’ve been in any way “disingenuous”, I invite you to demonstrate in what way that’s so.

    * I don’t care to read your article, either version. From your comments here, and assuming it would be more of the same, I can easily conclude it would be a waste of my time. You could perhaps convince me that that’s a wrong assumption, but, then, I’d have to see it demonstrated in your future comments to me.

    * Chomsky’s observation that it is hypocritical for Americans to boycott Israel but not the U.S. is based on a perfectly elementary moral principle. It’s Biblical, in fact. Remove the plank from your own eye… If that elementary principle is beyond your comprehension, I don’t know what else to say.

  254. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 29th, 2010 at 7:58pm #

    @PatrickSMcNally,

    * Yes, Chomsky’s encouraging people to vote Obama in swing states was a grievous mistake, in my view, as I wrote at the time: http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2008/10/20/how-should-you-vote/

    * It does not follow that since Halliburton does not deal with oil exploration, therefore, it is not the oil industry. Non sequitur. Halliburton is the oil industry.

    * Now, you argue Halliburton “does not deal with such policies”. True, the company itself may not have. But it’s ex-CEO certainly did. In fact, prior to the war, Cheney held an energy task force consulting with reps from the oil industry. Documents uncovered through a Judicial Watch law suit reveal that the task force focused on Iraq’s oil fields, and included maps of fields and lists of potential contracts.

    * You observe “there is absolutely no evidence of Exxon-Mobil knocking” at Wolfowitz’s door “to get him to bring about regime change”. Certainly not. Yet, the fact remains that Wolfowitz spelled out in the ’92 document the need to deal with Saddam in order to expand U.S. global hegemony and protect U.S. “interests” in the region, primarily “Persian Gulf oil”. You still have not substantively addressed this fact or in any way reconciled it with your thesis.

    * You claim it’s a “well-established fact that the Taiwan lobby carried on the campaign against Asian specialists”. It being “well established”, it should be a simple thing for you to provide evidence of this, as I requested. Yet you’ve offered none.

    * If “The policies put into motion by the Bush II adminstration since 2000 in a corner of the world known as Iraq can all be clearly traced back to JINSA”, kindly illustrate that for us. Because it seems to me the evidence is clear that the policy of regime change can be traced back to imperialist ideologues who sought to implement such a policy going back to at least shortly after the Gulf War. This is clearly evidenced in the ’92 draft defense planning guidance, which explicitly stated that the U.S. “interests” in the region were primarily “Persian Gulf oil”. There’s nothing about Israel in the excerpts of the document made public. That’s pretty unambiguous evidene of intent — as is PNAC’s Rebuilding America’s Defenses.

    @shabnam,

    * I already discussed Chomsky’s “they are crazy” comment. As a matter of fact, he has never said Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

    * I’ve asked at least twice now for what evidence from his speech or writing you are referring to in which Chomsky expressed doubt about the Iranian election. You’ve offered none. I’m aware of his expressions of solidarity with the “green” movement. It does not follow that he thinks the election fraudulent. This could merely be an expression of solidarity with the notion that people should be permitted to freely express themselves and freely protest without the threat of brutality. You should not presume to know Chomsky’s motivations for something, and the reasons you attribute to him are not necessarily his own.

  255. lichen said on July 29th, 2010 at 7:59pm #

    No, the 60’s identity politics is not about equality, but about scoring rhetorical points by saying ‘stylish’ things about white people (especially if they’re male), like the way Joesoph can’t get over the color of Chomsky’s skin long enough to say anything coherent. I personally don’t do that; I don’t include someone’s race in my disagreements with them, and no I don’t advocate self-righteous rants about how white someone is. Some people are just so radical and right wing at the same time that they can’t learn how to communicate with other people. Joesoph Anderson came on here and insulted me and Max for being against Obama back before the 08 election, in a similar self-righteous way that he speaks here.

    But yes, indeed, anyone who doesn’t agree with your ideology is now: a zionist, racist, a capitalist. Very mature; I, however, am not shocked that you subscribe to yet another antiquated, exclusionist ideology instead of embracing new politics, that includes men’s issues, gay issues, and many things they didn’t in the 60’s.

  256. shabnam said on July 29th, 2010 at 8:19pm #

    Jeremy:

    You do not want to admit that I have sent you enough evidence to proof my points.

    Look at the HEADLINE WHEN THEY REPORTED:
    {Noam Chomsky: Iran pursuing nuclear weapons out of fear}

    {Even the most radical conservative can agree with Noam Chomsky on at least one thing. “No one in their right mind wants Iran to develop nuclear weapons. }
    Why should chomsky present such a stupid explaination that IRAN PURSUING NUCLEAR WEAPONS OUT OF FEAR?

    IS THIS TOO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND?

    He did not say that the election was credible, In fact, he said IT WAS **NOT CREDIBLE* . What that means?
    I have provided the documents for both.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk04v2yq4PQ

    YET, YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE THAT IRAQ WAR WAS FOR **OIL*.

  257. Deadbeat said on July 29th, 2010 at 8:23pm #

    Here’s an IMPRESSIVE critique of Liberalism by BAR’s Jared Ball. This is the kind of RADICAL critique I’ve been waiting to hear!!!

    “Snookered” by Liberalism

  258. shabnam said on July 29th, 2010 at 8:34pm #

    {I’m very glad that Chomsky is consistent; he is an anarchist and doesn’t support regimes that steal elections and murder young civil rights protesters in the streets. I think it would be fine if the right wing anti-zionists found their own forum.}

    Chomsky, supports and is a friend of an apartheid state like Israel. We don’t care if he supports Iranian government or not, but we want him to stop injecting doubts into the mind of public to help the zionist media propaganda to form public opinion to help the war mongers. He goes around and spreads uncertainty about Iranian election where according to many independent polls, before and after the election, it was CREDIBLE AND DR. AHMADINEJAD WAS ELECTED by 2 to one margin.

    The ‘reformist’ camp and their stooges, Khatami and Mousavi, however, spread rumors early on during the campaign that ‘election will be rigged’ to prepare the public for ‘Color revolution’ they had prepared. But it did fail.
    You better to put forward a credible document showing that the Iranian election was stolen, otherwise get lost.

    It has been reported that Mohammad Khatami and vice presidnet Massoomeh Ebtekar, were among the globalist elite at the Bilderberg secret meeting in Portugal in 1999. Their names can be found among global capitalists on the list.

    • Dinstein, Yoram – President of Tel Aviv University-TAU
    • Disney, Roy – Vice Chairman & Nephew – Walt Disney
    • Ebtekar, Massoomeh – Vice President of Iran
    • Eisenberg, Erwin – Heir to Eisenberg Group
    • Kaveh, Moshe – President of Bar Ilan University
    • Khatami, Mohammed – President of Iran

    No wonder the corrupt Iranian elite like Rafsanjani, Khatami and their stooge Mousavi are not targeted by the zionist media, like Dr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Khamenei ? Ahmadinejad comes from a poor family and Khamenei with no accumulated wealth, contrary to businessman like Rafsanjani, they have been targeted by the media.
    The ignorant people must understand the reason for Khamenie and Ahmadinejad support by the population although they are not millionaire like Noam Chomsky.
    Khamenaie is the most popular politician in Iran, according to many including individuals like Bahari, from the opposition, and Fareed Zakaria, a journalist and an author.
    Chomsky supports “world government” desirable by the Globalist elite. We never accept ‘world government’, which is nothing but an Iron Cage.

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/060406Chomsky.htm

  259. Max Shields said on July 29th, 2010 at 8:42pm #

    There are so many arguments going on at the same time that this is total chaos. Perhaps that Deadbeat’s intent. I’m not sure about the others. I vaguely recall some poster from some time ago with the style of PatrickSMcNally. He/she concedes nothing and continues to parse and distort never answering the simplest of questions. It’s sport, nothing more. Rather agnostic about these topics but loves to pick a fight.

    On the other hand, shabnam seems to be missing something in the translation of Chomsky’s phrasing. If you listen and read what Chomsky says he sometimes presents his thoughts in ways that can be miscontrued, particularly my those who are extremely sensitive to the wiles of Zionism. You have to get with the rhythm of his cadence.

    teafoe2 is just not too smart; but comes incredibly close to mimicing the style of Deadbeat – it’s like an echo chamber.

    I’m sure all of the above will be torn apart by the vultures (perhaps even this forecast).

  260. lichen said on July 29th, 2010 at 8:47pm #

    Doubts about the Iranian election are completely justified. It is funny how for some, their own fellow people are disappeared into ‘zionists’ if they are dissidents, if they are outsiders, if they are young students that want civil rights and don’t agree with the right wing elders who send out the morality police to arrest them if they sit too close together on public benches. But I guess there is nothing wrong with shooting protesters in the streets, executing, imprisoning, and exiling them. How dare Chomsky question that? He must be a friend of the zionists if he doesn’t agree with you. Just like Israel pays people to go out and troll internet forums to dog their public line, I guess Iran might do the same.

  261. Mark Richey said on July 29th, 2010 at 9:08pm #

    Yes, Max, the chaos is deliberate, a way to obfuscate the fact that Blankfort has no response to Hammond other than name calling and smarmy comments about how many readers Hammond has.

    I found this same deliberate squid ink squirting on any discussion site that touched on Palestine, so we started USQuagmire. By requiring UNQUALIFIED support for the Palestinian right of returrn, we keep a civil atmosphere without all this deliberate creating of confusion.

    Please check out USQuagmire.

  262. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 29th, 2010 at 10:03pm #

    @shabnam,

    * Refresh my memory and summarize your “evidence” for me. I missed it.

    * As for the headline, “Noam Chomsky: Iran pursuing nuclear weapons out of fear” LOOK AT WHAT CHOMSKY ACTUALLY SAID. You’ll discover, as I’ve discussed already, that Chomsky did not say that. IS THIS TOO DIFFICULT TOO UNDERSTAND? See, I can shout, too.

    * As for evidence that the Iraq war was for oil, which you say I’ve presented none of, how about the fact that the architects of the war, in their own policy documents, explicitly state that “Persian Gulf oil” is the primary U.S. “interest” for which they sought to expand U.S. hegemony over the region? In what way do their own declarations of policy and intent not consitute evidence of policy and intent? Kindly explain.

    * You repeatedly say Chomsky “goes around and spreads uncertainty about Iranian election”. For I believe the third time, please quote Chomsky where he has ever done so, so we may assess the evidence for your thesis. You unwillingness to do so would seem to reflect an inability to do so, which, I think is instructive as to the validity — or lack thereof — of your overall thesis, as is your mischaracterization of Chomsky’s remarks on Iran’s nuclear program.

    @lichen,

    * You’ll find there is no evidence to support the claim that Ahmadinejad won through fraud.

    * “How dare Chomsky question” what? What is it you’re suggesting he’s questioned?

    @Mark Richey,

    Yes, it’s the same over at Pulse, where Jeffrey and I have also been commenting. I wouldn’t say it quite rises to the level of a “discussion”, however.

    Take, for instance, Jeffrey’s and Idrees’ (the editor who refused to publish my response) assertion that Chomsky had criticized PALESTINIANS as “hypocritical” for calling for a boycott of Israel. I pointed out that the moral principle (of applying an equal or more stringent standard to oneself as to others) would only apply to Americans who call for boycotting Israel but not for boycotting the U.S., which supports Israel’s crimes. Thus, Chomsky’s criticism was not directed at Palestinians, but at Americans.

    Idrees called me an “ass” (this remark was later removed, but I have the original in my email inbox) for saying so and Jeffrey said I was being “ridiculous”.

    So I emailed Chomsky and asked him for clarification. He replied stating explicitly that the criticism of hypocrisy is directed at Americans, not Palestinians. I just posted that over there, asking Idrees who the “ass” is now and Jeffrey who looks “ridiculous” now. Looking forward to their responses.

    The “discussion” has pretty much gone like that throughout.

    Is HTML allowed here. Just a test.

  263. Joseph Anderson said on July 29th, 2010 at 11:43pm #

    .

    Mark Richey said on July 29th, 2010 at 9:08pm:

    “Yes, Max, the chaos is deliberate, a way to obfuscate the fact that Blankfort has no response to Hammond other than [***>>>] NAME CALLING AND SMARMY COMMENTS [<<>>] SINGLE [<<>>] SINGLE [<<<***] one of your ad hominem, ahem, 'emissions' (and neither does Blankfort in even his longer articles):

    The Left and the Israel Lobby, by Joseph Anderson
    http://dissidentvoice.org/June06/Anderson08.htm (original version)
    http://peaceandjustice.org/article.php/20060612173054885 (2nd
    edition version — even better!)

  264. mary said on July 30th, 2010 at 12:15am #

    FYI – US Quagmire – You have to join a Yahoo group to know what is being said which I will not be doing. You have to be approved by a moderator too.

    Description
    We are devoted to discussions to find an alternative to present US policies in the region.

    UNQUALIFIED support for the Palestinian right of return is required for membership, thus keeping out the usual ‘liberal’ censors and saboteurs.

    USQ recognizes that Arab peoples are Semitic and rejects all anti-Semitism, using the logical definition of that term!

    We are also opposed to all other forms of racism including anti-Jewish racism.
    ~~~~~~

    PS This makes comment no 264. Crazy. Mark Richey has made three more comments since he said that he was bored out of the thread. I trust the author is satisfied with the large and mainly circular response.

  265. hayate said on July 30th, 2010 at 12:21am #

    “Rejoinder to Criticism of Chomsky: Asset or Liability?

    by Jeremy R. Hammond / July 24th, 2010″

    This sort of zionist apologia and hasbara bs belongs in the “forward”, “commentary”, “front page magazine” or “znet”. Not on a respectable website like this. It’s a total waste of people’s time to inflict this sort of bottom rung zionist misrepresentations and disinformation. All it does is distract people away from more important things, like how to implement BDS persoanally and in their communities.

  266. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 30th, 2010 at 12:22am #

    I am by no means “satisfied” with the circular response. Yet I always remain optimistic that people can demonstrate that they are intelligent and reasonable. Perhaps that is naive of me.

    I’d observe further that you keep commenting solely to note how many comments have been made and how boring, useless, etc. they are. If you have a problem with the number of such comments, which seems to me to be the case (correct me if I’m wrong), then why add to their number?

    It’s not a very logical thing to do.

  267. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 30th, 2010 at 1:21am #

    @hayate,

    I totally agree that attempting to demonize Chomsky by dishonestly mischaracterizing his positions is a distraction from more important things, which is precisely why I wrote this article (you’ll observe I made that point explicitly in the conclusion).

    Now, as for your criticism of my response to Jeffrey’s intellectual dishonesty, I invite you to point out any error in fact or logic I made. In particular, I challenge you to support the characterization of it as “zionist apologia and hasbara”.

    I also invite you to search for evidence for this thesis in my other work on the topic (excuse inactive links; bypassing spam protection comment approval process):

    www[dot]jeremyrhammond[dot]com/category/world/israel-palestine/

    www[dot]lulu[dot]com/product/paperback/the-rejection-of-palestinian-self-determination/5533084

    Best of luck with that endeavor.

  268. Aaron Aarons said on July 30th, 2010 at 3:05am #

    I spent too much time en la madrugada de jueves reading this rather repetitious discussion. But I do want to argue a position that has not been explicitly argued so far here.

    What should concern those of us who see capitalism and imperialism as a force that is destroying the ability of the planet we live on to sustain life is NOT whether or not the Jewish bourgeoisie is leading U.S. imperialism in the Middle East (though I think it is), but the influence of that section of bourgeoisie in the left, where it is the only section of the U.S. and European ruling class that does have much influence. While that influence partly takes the form of Zionism, it has also long taken, and still does take, the form of suppressing the concrete analysis of capitalist structures of power, and the actual identities of the capitalist criminals, for the spoken or merely understood excuse that such analysis may lead to “antisemitism”.

    It is long past time for leftist Jews in particular to accept that Jewish bankers and merchants have been in the vanguard of capitalist penetration (i.e., rape) of the world, including the slave trade, and that they should be denounced and repudiated by Jews as much as, for instance, the papacy, past and present, should be denounced and repudiated by leftists from Catholic backgrounds.

  269. Deadbeat said on July 30th, 2010 at 3:23am #

    Max Shield writes …

    There are so many arguments going on at the same time that this is total chaos. Perhaps that Deadbeat’s intent.

    What Mr. Shields labels as chaotic I see as a reflection of the corruption of the Left that hasn’t been address for about 40 years. A serious critique of American Jewish Zionism is been a taboo subject. You would have not seen this level of engagement even as little as 1o – 15 years ago. There clearly is a sea change in the ranks and that change thankfully is due to the raise of the Internet and the ability for people who were omitted from the discussion to now have a voice.

    Back then you had nothing but filters and gatekeepers. Progressives could only get there news and views from Democracy Now!, Alternative Radio, and the tome of books written by Chomsky.

    However the turning point was the anti-war movement of 2003 and the 2004 Nader/Camejo campaign. All of a sudden these so-called “Radicals” who talked a good game about “the moving train” all of a sudden revealed that they too were part of the fuel keeping “the moving train” going. But what made 2003-2004 different are from what I observed are as follows:

    [1] There was a different configuration that I don’t think the Chomskyite Left anticipated — the anti-war Right many of whom are Libertarians (Justin Raimondo comes to mind). You also have the 9-11 truth seekers who mistakenly believe that the “Left” would be natural allies in uncovering the evil deeds of U.S. “Empire”.

    However when 911-truthers got ridiculed by Chomsky especially they turned their scrutiny onto him only to reveal what a bunch of hypocrites the “Left” really is. Interestingly their investigations revealed some embarrassing facts and other hypocrisies about not only Chomsky but of Amy Goodman like her specious salary demands. The “Exception to the Rulers” began to look like they were “Servant of the Rulers” as well as themselves.

    [2] What makes the Libertarians a threat to Zionism is that Zionists do not have a strangle hold on the Libertarians as they do the Liberal/Left. Thus the Libertarians from early on raise the idea that the War on Iraq was a War for Israel. However they were easily dismissed by “Chomskyites” for consumption of the Liberal/Left as “racists’ and “anti-Semites”.

    [3] On the other hand there were factions of the Left that raised the issue of Zionist influence but not in the same direct manner as the Right. They saw the Israel/Palestine “conflict” as being partially the cause for 9-11 and that a resolution to the “conflict” was necessary to bring peace and stability. Ironically they were smeared as “anti-Semitic” by they likes of Michael Lerner. As well as being scolded by Chomskyites Phyllis Bennis and Antonia Juhasz that the reason for the War was OIL and the “evil” corporations like Halliburton without any mention of PNAC, JINSA, AIPAC and any other Jewish Zionist organization that supported the overthrow of Iraq.

    [4] Clearly the Chomskyites were in a bind. The anti-war movement clearly had a large faction that didn’t go along with the Chomskyite “U.S Imperialism” axioms regarding the Iraq War and this faction was putting Israel (meaning Zionism) into the spotlight. Therefore the anti-war movement as far as the Chomskyites were concern was too risky and had to be dissolved. You can thank Bennis and United For Peace and Justice (UFPJ).

    [5] Rather than reinvigorate the anti-war movement in 2004 behind Ralph Nader/Peter Camejo campaign (Nader ran ran a respectable enough campaign in 2000 giving the Green Party needed ballot lines), the “Left” choose to adopt the Anybody But Bush (ABB) strategy which was a disguised endorsement of pro-war Democrat John Kerry. The entire Chomskyite Left personalities — Howard Zinn, Norman Solomon, the Z-Mag Crew supported this canard helped along by “Demo-Greens” such as Ted Glick and Medea Benjamin who supported gadfly David Cobb. This was a thorough betrayal of the Left by the Chomskyites and it seriously weaken the Left (as the Green Party lost their ballot lines) to such a degree that the vacuum created by this betrayal is what provided the opportunity for rise of Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign.

    So now here we are in 2010 and this just happens to be THE most contentious discussion on Dissident Voice — the critique and scrutiny of Chomskyism. Chomskyism is not specially about Noam Chomsky. It about the corruption of the Left and the tactics, rhetoric and rank hypocrisy. It is about as James Petras calls “The Zionist Power Configuration”. It is about Liberalism and American Jewish Zionism. It is about the 40 years of the McCarthy-like taboo that has been suppress but has caused tremendous retardation of solidarity and discredit of the American Left. It is about failing to address racism and Capitalism. It is about the hypocrisy of anointing a racist adherent as the intellectual leader of the Left. It is about all of these things and more that have been suppressed an repress for 40 years.

    I know mary expressed her astonishment at around 220 comments. I was surprised that the number of comments was still under 1000. Unlike Mr. Shields I find this topic will all of its contentions and disagreement to be HEALTHY because the Left will not be able to move forward and renew itself until it discovers who really adheres to principles of JUSTICE, FAIRNESS, EQUALITY and TRUST. That is how solidarity is built and without solidarity there will be no movement to confront racism and Capitalism. And with no movement due to the lack of solidarity and betrayals the future will be as bleak as Don Hawkins constantly reminds us.

  270. PatrickSMcNally said on July 30th, 2010 at 5:40am #

    > In fact, prior to the war, Cheney held an energy task force consulting with reps from the oil industry.

    There’s nothing startling about that. Anyone in the least awake to the realities of how the economy depends upon oil would understand that when you lay down plans for an invasion of Iraq then oil must be addressed. That does not constitute evidence that this a “war for oil.” It only shows that the people who planned the war were not totally asleep at the wheel.

    JINSA has a long record of this. If you go back over its history you’ll find that JINSA was founded in 1976 as a response to the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Then in the last 1980s JINSA began revamping its act and reaching out to establish its role on a wide range of strategic issues. The people in JINSA realized that just narrowly lobbying for Israel the way AIPAC does ran too much of a risk that groups like the Council of Foreign Relations would be able to predominate on questions of general strategy against the parochialism of AIPAC. So JINSA set out to establish itself as rival leader to the CFR and this was they cultivated side-players in the oil industry like Cheney who could help to place a JINSA-view on the types of questions which had normally been the CFR’s domain.

    What you seem to be implying is that any hint that the war-planners were not completely unaware of the importance of oil qualifies as evidence for the war-for-oil thesis. It does not. Not only Cheney, but William Kristol and everyone else mixed up with the JINSA/PNAC racket would have understood that to launch a war in Iraq without making plans for what to do with the oil would be totally irresponsible. It would have been irresponsible even if it had been true that Saddam Hussein had masterminded 911 and possessed WMDs ready to be launched on 45 minutes notice. No matter what the cause for war might be, once the decision had been made it would be Cheney’s responsibility to make plans for what to do about the oil.

    > You claim it’s a “well-established fact that the Taiwan lobby carried on the campaign against Asian specialists”. It being “well established”, it should be a simple thing for you to provide evidence of this, as I requested. Yet you’ve offered none.

    This isn’t the thread for a long discussion of 1950s history. If you really are this ignorant and not just putting on act, spend some time looking up more about Henry Luce, Alfred Kohlberg and others yourself. The reason for mentioning McNamara’s comment was simply that he admits that it was the attacks on Asian specialists in the State Department which influenced later strategy in Vietnam.

    > If “The policies put into motion by the Bush II adminstration since 2000 in a corner of the world known as Iraq can all be clearly traced back to JINSA”, kindly illustrate that for us.

    That has already been done, as not only do all of the documents which you’ve attempted to cite come specifically from JINSA people like Wolfowitz and Cheney but it is also clear that any more general examination of CFR documents or anything similar shows that war-in-Iraq-for-oil was not on the agenda. The only let’s-grab-Iraq-and-here’s-some-stuff-about-oil documents which anyone can produce are documents made by JINSA people, while documents from normal imperial planners say the opposite.

  271. Mark Richey said on July 30th, 2010 at 9:47am #

    Ok, last call!

    I predict that there won’t be one WORD of criticism of Pulse for suppressing Jeremy’s criticism of Blankfort from any of the following; deadbeat, Joe, Tefore, McNally, and the other camp followers of the liberal zionists.

    Gee, could suppressing discussion be their only real purpose? And if they can’t do that, and they can’t here on DV, would they resort to spamming and changing the subject?

    Yes, mate, it sure could be that.

    Secondly, I see not one WORD of criticism of Blankfort for this McCartyite practice of accusing people of being agents, etc., with NO proof not EVEN circumstantial! And I predict there will never be a word of criticism of THAT from any of the above truth crusaders.

    In the commercial press, that sort of deliberately fasle accusation wouldn’t be allowed today. And it would quickly be sanctioned if anyone did engage in that sort of slander.

    Only on the ‘left’-, which in the US is. be well advised, totally run by MECA-ANSWER and other similar cliques with overlapping members!!… all of the leaders there liberal zionists… is that sort of McCarthyism given carte blanche!

    Also on most ‘public’ radio stations, where the same people are totally in control in terms of public affairs/international programming, at least here in California. There’s more untrammeled discussion of the Middle East in the commercial press than on ‘public’ radio, where not coincidentally you find…J.P. Blankfort on at least two stations with his own program!

    Thanks to DV for allowing a free discussion, crippled as it is by the ANSWER/public radio red herring brigade.

  272. Max Shields said on July 30th, 2010 at 10:02am #

    There is nothing in Deadbeats rantings that approximates a discussion, or a cogent thought.

    Jeremy’s piece unlike that of Blankfort has allowed an open discuss, no such discussion has really taken place here, unfortunately.

    I think, in the end, Mary’s notes above are perhaps the most crucial:
    “Meanwhile as the debates churn on here as to whether Chomsky is or is not a Zionist, who is a left Zionist and who is a right Zionist, who is a Jew or is not a Jew, (www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10688920) and so on ad infinitum, the fact is that these arguments are diverting attention away from the continuing daily Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people.”

  273. hayate said on July 30th, 2010 at 11:06am #

    Max Shields said on July 30th, 2010 at 10:02am

    You and hammy ought to get a room.

  274. Max Shields said on July 30th, 2010 at 11:18am #

    Is that hate?

  275. hayate said on July 30th, 2010 at 12:26pm #

    What hammond did was distort and misrepresent the article Blankfort wrote in much the same way zionist hasbarats regularly distort subjects in discussions and in media pieces. And he did this in a very hamfisted and obvious way. This is why I am so disgusted with seeing this rubbish posted on this site. If there was no legit rebuttal of Blankfort’s article around, then no rebuttal should have been posted. These hasbarat disinformation spiels are a complete waste of every one’s time.

  276. Joseph Anderson said on July 30th, 2010 at 2:03pm #

    .

    Jeremy Hammon: “It’s Biblical…”

    It’s also been a while since I’ve heard a supposed “intellectual/progressive/leftist” reference — and keep *repeatedly* referencing — **THE BIBLE** as an “intellectual” defense!!

    .

  277. Joseph Anderson said on July 30th, 2010 at 2:15pm #

    Mark Richey said on July 29th, 2010 at 9:08pm:

    “Yes, Max, the chaos is deliberate, a way to obfuscate the fact that Blankfort has no response to Hammond other than *NAME CALLING AND SMARMY COMMENTS*”

    Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 29th, 2010 at 7:21pm:

    “Yo Joseph Anderson!

    I did not employ a *SINGLE* ad hominem argument in my article. I challenge you to quote one. You’ll find you’re unable to do so.”

    Now *let’s* see…:

    there’s, right from the get, “Tirades”: is *that* a term of intellectual analysis? Because if it was, I forgot to use that term in my own article indirectly criticizing Chomsky and when Chomsky was intellectually and morally cornered by Khalil Bendib, of Voices of the Middle East, on KPFA and Alison Weir, of IfAmericansKnew, on her own radio program, and when I asked him some 10 years ago at University of San Francisco why he tells us to “follow the money” when examining any other lobby in Washington — *except* the Israel lobby!;

    there’s, “claptrap” — is that another term of intellectual analysis?;

    then there’s, “ilk” — that ole charmer — as in “Blankfort and his ilk” — a constantly favorite catch-all epithet of David Horowitz, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Ann Coulter, etc., used in their, ahem, ‘intellectual analyses’ — or was that a term of endearment?

    oh, there’s, “asinine” — that must-use epithet — are you getting all this, Richey and Hammond??? — which is where you pulled your ‘screed’ out of (you forgot to use that de rigueur, hackneyed chestnut, typical of *your* “ilk”);

    moving on, there’s, “Blankfort['s] huff and puff” — now *who’s* really “huffing and puffing” *here*!?;

    …, there’s, “Blankfort has the chutzpah” — been a while since I’ve seen that kind of phrase in a scholarly rebuttal — but maybe you meant it as a zealous *compliment*!;

    and *finally* (of the, ahem, *mess* I saw from just scanning your *excretions*) you *end* with, *curiously*, *”masturbation”* — which makes sense since you obviously have ‘a love Jones’ for Chomsky: ahhhhh!!… — did you get it all *out* now? Feel better?

    RICHEY & HAMMOND!!: You guys ought to take your comedy act on the road!! If you both shaved your head and put them together, you could make a perfect *asinine* of yourself.

    And *this*, Jeremy, is what I can do to you, when I’m just watching a late-night rerun of “Seinfeld”, before the “Nightly Business Report” comes on!

    You *ASKED* for it!!!

    Hammond: “I don’t care to read your article, either version.”

    That’s okay, I think it’s way above the level at which you, ahem, *shoot* at.

    It’s some 1100 words and I didn’t use a *SINGLE* one of your ad hominem, ahem, ‘emissions’ (and neither does Blankfort in even his longer articles):

    The Left and the Israel Lobby, by Joseph Anderson
    http://dissidentvoice.org/June06/Anderson08.htm (original version)
    http://peaceandjustice.org/article.php/20060612173054885 (2nd edition version — even better!)

  278. Joseph Anderson said on July 30th, 2010 at 3:14pm #

    -

    WELL SAID, AARON:

    Aaron Aarons said on July 30th, 2010 at 3:05am:

    Excerpt —

    “It is long past time for leftist Jews in particular [-- INCLUDING, *SUPPOSEDLY*, CHOMSKY --] to accept that Jewish bankers and merchants have been in the vanguard of capitalist penetration (i.e., rape) of the world, including the slave trade, and that they should be denounced and repudiated by Jews as much as, for instance, the papacy, past and present, should be denounced and repudiated by leftists from Catholic backgrounds.”

    __________________________________________________________________

    JEFFREY BLANKFORT:

    “The anti-war movement, peace movement, whatever one want to call it, has long been dominated by self-styled [']anti-zionist['] [read, so-called "anti-Occupation"] Jews who have made sure that no collective blame will fall on Jews for what Israel has done to the Palestinians which, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, they insist is a goal of US policy. In effect,they have done and continue to do *DAMAGE CONTROL* [*'s and caps, mine--JA] for the Jewish establishment, as they have done over the years in keeping the Palestinian issue out of the movement’s overall agenda that were reflected in major marches in SF during the ’80’s and at the start of the Afghan war.”

    -

  279. shabnam said on July 30th, 2010 at 3:42pm #

    Chomsky in a video address to the anti war conference in Albany, MISLED THE PUBLIC AGAIN by hiding the hand of the organized Zionist in a possible military attack on Iran and instead made US global design the reason behind the upcoming war against Iran. We strongly condemned this kind of analysis and in a case of any attack will held the ZIONIST JEWS primary force behind such an attack and will tell Iranians generation after generation of this plot against nation of Iran with more than 7000 years of civilization.
    Chomsky told his ignorant Americans that Iran is a target by US destructive forces because the United States finds Iran against her interest in the region for the following reasons:

    1) Iran nuclear deterrence capability
    2) Relations with its neighbor and its influence in these countries
    3) Supports for Hamas and Hezbollah
    4) Supports for free election in the region

    The list is mainly concerned to Zionists the United States against Iran since the Zionist expansionists have found Iran an obstacle against their strategic expansion in the region. Chomsky believes that US FIRMS have not done WELL in Iraq, yet, he suggests the war exclusively was for the control of the resources since this gives the United States the power to CONTROL THE WORLD.

    We know ISRAEL does well in Iraq especially in the North of Iraq where is dominated by Mossad disguised as BUSINESSMEN. Israel is the country who gained the most from Iraq war and now is pushing for Iran war. Partition of Iraq has been an important strategic goal of ZIOINSM SINCE ITS ERECTION.

    The People should not allow Zionist lobby and its extension push for more war to protect an apartheid state. THIS IS A ZIONIST WAR.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcIVNzcMucU

    Why does Iran, A NATURAL ALLY OF THE UNITED STATES DURING THE COURSE OF THE HISTORY has suddenly become the most dangerous enemy of the United States, one should ask?
    Why is an apartheid state of Israel, a BURDEN ON THE UNITED STATES, according to Mossad agent, should be number one on her list to protect her interest and makes ISREAL INTEREST AS THE UNITED STATES?
    The United States DOES NOT NEED ISRAEL TO PROJECT HER POWER, on the contrary, it is Israel that cannot survive one day without the United States protection, military and diplomatically. Thus, the Zionist Jews as an ORGANIZED LOBBY and its JEWISH PLUTOCRACY have taken control over the United States government, similar to control of British Empire, to steal Palestine and expand beyond that to establish ‘Jewish empire’.
    As Gareth Porter in ‘Bomb Iran?’ correctly writes:

    {The idea of waging a U.S. war of destruction against Iran is obvious lunacy, which is why U.S. military leaders have strongly resisted it both during the Bush and Obama administrations. But Gerecht makes it clear that Israel believes it can use its control of Congress to pound Obama into submission.}

    Gilad Atzmon believes:

    {I actually think that the Zionist Lobby has managed to destroy the American empire. I argue that the Credit Crunch is in fact a Zio-Punch. I argue that Greenspan created an economy boom to divert attention from Wolfowitz’ wars. The Zionists in fact have managed to bring down every super power they cling to. Britain, France and now America. You have to allow yourself to admit that the ‘War on Terror’ was actually a Zionist led war against Islam, a battle that was there to serve Israeli interests.}

    American people must organize at once and bring this destructive force its stooges, Black and White, down, otherwise, Iranian people and the world will held Americans as war criminals at the best.

  280. teafoe2 said on July 30th, 2010 at 4:47pm #

    Max seems to think he’s found a savior in this Hammond, an ally who can supply needed bolstering of Max’s shaky views. A word to the wise, Max: Hammond is a practiced debater, but alas turns out to be just another crackpot.

    I do agree with Max that it’s hard to keep up with all the disputes taking place on this thread. But how could it be otherwise, given all the different pieces of misleading information that Hammond put in his article?

    I want to respond to Mary’s complaint that all these arguments are distracting people from remembering what the Palestinians are enduring day after day under the IOF jackboot. Let me say that I’ve always found Mary’s comments to be among the best and most useful posted by DV readers. And I can certainly empathize with her reaction to all the blah blah. However.

    I didn’t really become aware of the full obscenity of this monstrosity known as “isreal” until the failure of the US “left” to protest the 1982 invasion of Lebanon roused me from preoccupation with other issues, and set in motion a process that wound up focussing my attention on what was happening to Palestinians. I found myself attending film showing after film showing, subscribing to a bunch of periodicals, reading books, listening to speakers, and to different Palestinians who were participating in the same efforts to do grassroots organizing and education.
    I found myself devoting most of what disposable income I had — which wasn’t that much — to stuff like airfare to attend conferences, buying books, calendars, kafiyehs to give as gifts, big blowup photos of the Old City of Al Kuds… I’m sure you get the idea. Devoting time and energy, going to meetings, classes, putting on banquets, selling pizzas etc etc.

    After a few years of this, it dawned on me that nothing I or the groups I’d been supporting had done had improved the situation at all, period. So I started looking for a way to actually make a difference.

    I didn’t completely stop contributing to humanitarian stuff like buying olive oil, but I knew as I did so that no amount of bandaids was going to bring about a solution.

    I got a big wake up call when the local JCRC zionist thought police reacted to my introducing a resolution before the local Human Rts commish deploring Isreali abuse of Palestinian Human Rts by labelling me an “anti-Semite” and insinuating I was some kind of neo-nazi. I was less surprised that the JCRC and allies did this, than I was by the way all the “progressive” Democrats on the commission, including some who’d been considered coalition partners by local Palestinians, lined up solidly behind the zionist attack & their version of what was going on. But I digress.

    The point is, this BDS campaign is the only thing that has emerged in the last 28 years that shows promise of actually having an impact on the struggle against zionist Apartheid, violence and oppression.

    So when Chomsky starts calling it “hypocritical”, from here it looks like he’s doing his best to limit its potential. In plain words, it indicates to me that his real loyalty is to his Jewishness, and not to justice or to the wellbeing of the Palestinians.

    Given the fact of his tremendous prestige and influence on US “progressives” and “leftist”, “antiwar” circles, I see it as vitally important to examine his objections to the BDS effort.

    That’s one key aspect. The other is that the US capitalist/imperialist structure, which is Isreal’s main source of material support, has since 1967 to pick a handy date, or you could say “since OPEC”, undergone a series of drastic changes which have made the kind of Marxist analysis which was pretty reflective of US reality in the forties & fifties now out of step with the new reality. One of the key features of the new reality is the extent to which the role previously played by the WASP “our sort” elite made up primarily of the heirs of the industrialist robber-barons, is now being played by a Jewish American elite based in the FIRE sector, along with Big Pharma, Big Alcohol, and the DOD budget. Read the new article by James Petras; he avoids the words Jewish or/and Zionist, but if you are familiar with his previous works, it’s clear what he’s talking about.
    So to me, what Huwaida & Adam, Ms Butterly, Paul Larudee and the other ISM folks have done and are doing is one key to the problem, mainly because BDS becomes a means of focussing the US public’s attention on the true nature of the Israeli state. But it is also crucial not to let BDS be confined to the assault on the Gaza Flotilla, or to the recent warcrimes/crimes vs humanity perpetrated by the IOF invasion of the Gaza Strip.

    The BDS movement must become the means by which we take advantage of the opening which zionist irrationality has provided to expand that opening and show everybody how insanely criminal this whole “Jewish State” swindle has been from the beginning.

  281. teafoe2 said on July 30th, 2010 at 5:11pm #

    Cheney: From what I’ve read, it looks like Cheney’s career got started when he chose Leo Strauss as his mentor. Same applies to Rumsfeld.

    Having established his “good goy” credentials as a Strauss disciple, the way was smoothed for Cheney to be placed in some enviable governmental and some non-governmental juicy job slots. When it came time for him to get a highlevel juicy sinecure in the “private sector”, one was found for him in Lehman Bros-sponsored Halliburton.
    I have to wonder how much of his time was actually spent acquiring enough oil exploration hardware expertise to make a real contribution to Halliburton’s business plan, since his real career focus has always been on the kind of thing Strauss was interested in.

    Hammond: this guy is a simpleton. If I knew where he lived I’d try to run the Pigeon Drop or some other traditional Long Con on him:) Seldom have I seen anybody openly in public confess to such a degree of gullibility. The dumb bunny actually seems to believe that these warmonger international criminals never lie, that if it appeared in an “official document” it must be the god’s truth, so help me Richard Nixon:)

    The willing suspension of disbelief and selective inattention, adding up to a novel pathology… DV could hold a contest to give it a proper taxonomical name?

  282. teafoe2 said on July 30th, 2010 at 6:12pm #

    Re Aron Arons: I too found his comments very insightful. Right on, Aron.

  283. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 30th, 2010 at 6:16pm #

    @PatrickSMcNalley,

    So the Iraq war was about Israel and the oil was just an added little bonus? Really? So if Iraq’s principle export was pickles, we’d still be there today? Is this what you’re asking us to believe?

    If the policy and planning documents of the architects of the war in which they state unambiguously that the purpose of regime change in Iraq would be to further the interests of U.S. global hegemony, the U.S. “interests” being defined primarily as “Persian Gulf oil” aren’t evidence, then the word has no meaning.

    @Mark Richey,

    Yes. It’s instructive that Jeffrey Blankfort was silent, both here and at Pulse, on the fact that Idrees, the editor in question over at Pulse, refused to publish my response to his article — and yet had the chutzpah to falsely accuse me of trying to censor him by deleting a comment he left to my article on my website.

    Of course, I did no such thing. His comment remains right where he left it. They guy is just a compulsive liar, not to mention a hypocrite.

    My thanks and respect also to the DV crew.

    @hayate,

    Please offer one example where I “distort and misrepresent the article Blankfort wrote”. Just take one quote where I did so, and demonstrate for us how I distorted what he said.

    You know, kind of like the way I demonstrated for you how Blankfort, in all his hypocritical dishonesty, willfully and deliberately mischaracterizes Chomsky’s views.

    Thanks.

    @Joseph Anderson,

    It boggles my mind that so many are completely unable to comprehend such an elementary moral truism as that one should apply to oneself an equal or more stringent standard than one applies to others. This is not too difficult or to far away for you to grasp.

    It’s the standard Chomsky applies when he observes that for Americans to support a boycott of Israel but not the U.S., they are being hypocritical. By definition.

    If you choose to reject elementary moral standards, that’s your choice. Some people actually try to live their lives by them, though.

  284. Joseph Anderson said on July 30th, 2010 at 6:43pm #

    .

    **************************************************************************

    _ *JEREMY R. HAMOND*_ said on July 29th, 2010 at 7:21pm :

    “I did not employ a *SINGLE* ad hominem argument in my article.

    I **CHALLENGE** YOU to quote one. You’ll find you’re unable to do so.”

    **************************************************************************
    .

    **YOO-HOOooo…!!!** …Yyyo, *JEREMY*!!

    **SEEE** ====>JOSEPH ANDERSON said on July 30th, 2010 at 2:15pm!!!

    .

    (I see, Hammond…: Of course, anything that you *DON’T WANT TO SEE* / acknowledge, you just blow past it and *IGNORE*!

    You too Richey…

    I wonder, Jeremy, how that applies to your “sscreeed” on Jeffrey Blankfort’s article.)
    ____________________________________________________________________

    .

    Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 30th, 2010 at 6:16pm:

    “@Joseph Anderson,

    It boggles my mind that so many are completely unable to comprehend such an elementary moral truism as that one should apply to oneself an equal or more stringent standard than one applies to others. This is not too difficult or to far away for you to grasp.”

    Jeremy Hammond: “[BESIDES,] It’s *BIBLICAL*…”!!

    It’s been a while since I’ve heard a supposed “intellectual/progressive/leftist” reference — and keep *repeatedly* referencing — **THE BIBLE** as an “intellectual” defense!!

    .

  285. Joseph Anderson said on July 30th, 2010 at 7:09pm #

    .

    Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 30th, 2010 at 6:16pm:

    “the editor in question over at Pulse, refused to publish my response to his article” … “My thanks and respect also to the DV crew.”
    ———————————————————————————————————–

    I think that many people are surprised that DV even published your article in the first place.

    I don’t think that the DV crew wants you *calling attention* to them, anymore, on your article above. I’d bet they’re thinking, ‘Oh, my God! Quit *reminding* us and everyone *else*…

    I’d bet that they’re all looking off to the side and down at the floor, with their elbos on their desk and their hands in front of their faces, and blushing enough as it *is*, by now.

    Like David Horowitz squeeking his (racist) “anti-Reparations” rant into a number of college newspapers a number of years ago, _you_got_*lucky*_.

    I bet you won’t get anything similar into DV again.

    DV is a GREAT political journal: …but this ain’t their proudest moment.

    ___________________________________________________________________

    Hammond: “Yes. It’s instructive that Jeffrey Blankfort was silent, both here and at Pulse,”

    ————————————————————————————————————

    WRONG, AGAINNN!, *SSSCREED* BREATH…!!

    Blankfort has responded PP-LL-LENTY — including to *you* — over at “Pulse”:

    http://pulsemedia.org/2010/07/20/chomsky-and-palestine-asset-or-liability/#comment-12745

    But, Blankfort doesn’t need to get up and go look out the window *every time* he hears a dog bark in the street.

    .

  286. Deadbeat said on July 30th, 2010 at 7:13pm #

    Jeremy R. Hammond writes …

    It’s the standard Chomsky applies when he observes that for Americans to support a boycott of Israel but not the U.S., they are being hypocritical. By definition.

    This has to be one of the most hypocritical remarks by Noam Chomsky. Israelis by and large agree with their government and agree with the Israeli apartheid and the Zionist project.

    Americans have been duped and are VICTIMS of Zionism. Thus Chomsky is deliberately blaming ALL Americans for American Jewish Zionist 5th column and seeks to hurt ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS if he can deflect blame from Jewish Zionism. Yet astonishingly Chomsky for the past 40 years he is the symbol of the American Left.

    I agree with TF2 remarks …

    The BDS movement must become the means by which we take advantage of the opening which zionist irrationality has provided to expand that opening and show everybody how insanely criminal this whole “Jewish State” swindle has been from the beginning.

    Let’s hope that BDS doesn’t end up like the anti-war movement.

  287. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 30th, 2010 at 7:23pm #

    Actually, Joseph, Blankfort has not substantively replied to ANY POINT I made in the article. Not one.

    Deadbeat, why do you reject the elementary moral truism that one should apply to oneself an equal or more stringent standard than to others? Failure to do so is the DEFINITION of hypocrisy, in the Biblical usage of the word.

  288. Max Shields said on July 30th, 2010 at 8:04pm #

    Deadbeat implies Americans are dumb asses who are led by their dumbass noses by Israeli Zionists.

    Just a bunch of lambs marching off to slaughter….we should be grateful for Zionism otherwise we’d having nothing to do, no one pinching our asses to war….thank god for Chomsky, Deadbeat would be more dead than beat.

    Next to the word American – is a picture of a DEAD BEET!

  289. yoni said on July 30th, 2010 at 8:26pm #

    @Deadbeat of course the Israelis support the “Zionist project”, the same way that every other national group in history supported its own national aspirations. The fact that you choose to distort the meaning of Zionism to simply represent “everything we hate in this world” doesn’t make it right. And frankly you should ask yourself if there’s a difference between your concept of Zionism and the concept of the “organized world Jewry” a few decades before you. You are a victim of the same simplified shitty explanation of our complex political, economic and social world, an explanation which is so simple and attractive that it’s hard not to embrace. It’s amazing to see how the world managed to disconnect from those ideas only for a very short period of time.

  290. Deadbeat said on July 30th, 2010 at 8:36pm #

    Deadbeat implies Americans are dumb asses who are led by their dumbass noses by Israeli Zionists.

    The clearest way to answer this question is to ask Americans if they want their tax dollars to fund Israeli racist apartheid. I think most Americans would say no. Another question you can ask if whether they want foreign aid to go to Israel that EXCEED the per capita U.S. income. I think most Americans would say no.

    The American mainstream and progressive news and media is dominated by Zionists. Therefore Americans are grossly misinformed and Chomsky has been central to the misinforming campaign in America for the better part of 40 years.

    So for Chomsky to advocate a boycott of America is not only ironic it is damn near sociopathic. But then again what other kind of behavior would you expect from a racist adherent.

  291. Deadbeat said on July 30th, 2010 at 9:04pm #

    Yoni writes …

    @Deadbeat of course the Israelis support the “Zionist project”, the same way that every other national group in history supported its own national aspirations.

    YAWN! In your book two wrongs make a right. I disagree. I’m not here to defend any state’s nationalism especially not the U.S. The basis of my critique began with the out right questioning of the “war for oil” canard and now has taken me into the direction of the entire corruption of the U.S. Left by Zionism.

    The fact that you choose to distort the meaning of Zionism to simply represent “everything we hate in this world” doesn’t make it right. And frankly you should ask yourself if there’s a difference between your concept of Zionism and the concept of the “organized world Jewry” a few decades before you.

    My view of Zionism is in line with much of the world having designated Zionism to be racist. In fact you should check out the series the editors here at DV ran about two years ago examining why Zionism is racist.

    You are a victim of the same simplified shitty explanation of our complex political, economic and social world, an explanation which is so simple and attractive that it’s hard not to embrace. It’s amazing to see how the world managed to disconnect from those ideas only for a very short period of time.

    I WAS a victim of Chomskyism which is a network of poseurs who job it is to conceal from the American public Zionism’s powerful influence of the U.S. Political Economy and to make arguments similar to yours.

  292. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 30th, 2010 at 9:26pm #

    Deadbeat,

    Give us even a single example, even a single quote from Chomsky in which he misinforms his audience, evidencing your thesis that “Chomsky has been central to the misinforming campaign in America for the better part of 40 years”.

    Thanks.

  293. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 30th, 2010 at 9:28pm #

    Oh, and what is “damn near sociopathic” in my own view is your rejection of the elementary moral principle that one should apply to oneself an equal or stricter standard than to others..

  294. hayate said on July 30th, 2010 at 10:36pm #

    Sayanim jeremy

    That ‘oles got so deep now, it must murder on your arms shoveling the dirt up and over the rim. You remind me of arsecroft and his incessant ‘ole digging.

    :D

  295. hayate said on July 30th, 2010 at 10:48pm #

    ssayanim jeremy

    “Yes. It’s instructive that Jeffrey Blankfort was silent, both here and at Pulse,”

    He already dispensed with you and your [cough] criticisms. You’ve been thoroughly discredited, why would he feel any need to waste any more time on you? By continuing this exposed con, you’ve now reduced yourself to that of a common zionist hasbarat internet troll, pushing low order ziofascist, Judeao-supremacist bs.

    Congrats

    :D

  296. hayate said on July 30th, 2010 at 10:55pm #

    And I’ll repeat my earlier criticism; why was this wannabee dershowitz toady, hammond, given space on this site to bring it down to the low level of something like front page mag?

  297. shabnam said on July 30th, 2010 at 11:13pm #

    {Give us even a single example, even a single quote from Chomsky in which he misinforms his audience,}

    Chomsky’s address to the anti war conference July 23 – 25 in Albany was misleading, and like in Iraq war where he spread the slogan “No Blood for Oil” now he deliberately ignores once again the important role of ISRAEL AND ORGANIZED ZIONIST JEWS in pushing for a military attack on Iran.
    He misleads the audience when he says the United States is going to ATTACK IRAN FOR HER GLOBAL DESIGN and control of the energy resources. The United States could have chosen different path to achieve her goal. Iran is a natural ally of the United States NOT ISRAEL, a burden.
    According to many including Petras, Atzmon and Gareth Porter is ISRAEL, not the United States who is PUSHING FOR DESTRUCTION OF IRAN.
    Gareth Porter writes:

    {The idea of waging a U.S. war of destruction against Iran is obvious lunacy, which is why U.S. military leaders have strongly resisted it both during the Bush and Obama administrations. But Gerecht makes it clear that Israel believes it can use its control of Congress to pound Obama into submission.}

    http://www.counterpunch.org/porter07302010.html
    and
    {Moreover, polling data for 2010 show that a majority of Americans have already been manipulated into supporting war against Iran – in large part because more than two-thirds of those polled have gotten the impression that Iran already has nuclear weapons. The Israelis are apparently hoping to exploit that advantage. “If the Israelis bomb now, American public opinion will probably be with them,” writes Gerecht. “Perhaps decisively so.” }

    Is the anti war movement is going to ignore the role of the ZIONISM AGAIN. If not, then why Chomsky was invited? ZIONISM IS THE MAIN PROBLEM OF OUR TIME.
    It is disturbing that CHOMSKY hides the hand of the Organized Zionist Jews in pushing for a military attack on Iran.
    Iranian people do not forgive their enemy and at the first opportunity will destroy those basta*ds who inflict harm on nation of Iran in order to expand the interest of their vicious tribe.

  298. Joseph Anderson said on July 30th, 2010 at 11:41pm #

    .

    Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 30th, 2010 at 7:23pm:

    “Actually, Joseph, Blankfort has not substantively replied to ANY POINT I made in the article. Not one.”

    Well, maybe not “substantive” to *you*!

    But, let’s say — purely for sake of argument — that — hypothetically — what you said were true:

    *YOU* SURE AS HELL DON’T SUBSTANTIVELY RESPOND — *IF AT ALL* — TO ANY POINTS/ARGUMENTS *YOU* DON’T WANT TO — SO THERE.

    LET ME REMIND YOU OF **THIS**!: Joseph Anderson said on July 30th, 2010 at 2:15pm — after Hammond said **THIS**!: “I did not employ a *SINGLE* ad hominem argument in my article. I **CHALLENGE** YOU to quote one. You’ll find you’re unable to do so. [I-I-I-*I* am not a crook! You can't prove a thing!].”

    HA-HA-HA-HA-HA…!!

    I’M SURE THAT BLANKFORT DOESN’T GIVE A *DAMN* ABOUT TRYING TO CONVINCE *YOU*-*PERSONALLY* OF *ANYTHING* — AND NEITHER WOULD I!

    Maybe Blankfort — like I — simply DOESN’T intellectually TAKE YOU THAT *SERIOUSLY* — to say the least.

    I — and I’m sure he — and I *know* people like Aaron Aarons — has seen your “ilk” before: we could defeat your arguments 100 ways ’till next week, and you’d *STILL* go out and repeat the same things over and over again to a *new* audience. It’s because you’re a *pseudo*-intellectual PROPAGANDA *SHILL* for Chomsky — _CHOMSKY’S *PR AGENT*_ — *A PSEUDO-INTELLECTUAL GLORIFIED HACK*.

    THERE’S CHOMSKY — “THE GREAT MEDIA ANALYST”!…:

    HAS HE **EVER** ANALYZED THE WAYS AND MEANS AND METHODS AND **VERY PERVASIVE** EFFECT THAT ANY OF THOSE ZIONIST INSTITUTIONS — WE COULD EVEN SET ASIDE CALLING THEM “THE ISRAEL LOBBY” — HAVE AND HAVE HAD ON OUR MEDIA — OR OTHERS IN THE WESTERN WORLD — IN BOTH NEWS *AND* ENTERTAINMENT?

    — ASIDE FROM HOW IT FUNCTIONS IN OUR GOVERNMENT — AT EVERY LEVEL!

    BUT, “MANUFACTURING CONSENT” WASN’T EVEN CHOMSKY’S ORIGINAL IDEA! — SO MAYBE *’THAT’S’* WHY.

    Actually, Blankfort is a lot more generous to you than *I* would ever be — he *has* intellectually responded to you — and here is just one very enlightening response to you: Jeff Blankfort, July 30, 2010 at 4:17pm.

    But, I disagree with Blankfort on one point — which is more than you can do with Chomsky/Finkelstein: “Both of them do not pull their punches when describing Israel’s crimes”. Both Chomsky & his jr. mentee Finkelstein *DO* pull their punches on criticism of Israel — because they always say that it’s the *U.S.’s* fault:

    EVERYBODY *ELSE’S* FAULT BUT ISRAELI & ZIONIST *JEWS* _THEMSELVES_! — THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN RAZING TOWNS — COMMITING SEMI-GENOCIDE — CREATING PALESTINIAN ‘WARSAW GHETTOS’ — & ETHNICALLY CLEANSING HISTORIC PALESTINE — FOR THE PAST THREE-QUARTER CENTURIES — LIKE _*HITLER*_ TRIED TO WIPE *POLAND* OFF THE MAP.

    THAT’S LIKE BLAMING THE JEWISH HOLOCAUST ON THE POLITICAL & INDUSTRIAL FIGURES AND ELEMENTS IN THE WEST WHICH ORIGINALLY SUPPORTED *HITLER*

    — OR LIKE BLAMING IT ALL ON WESTERN *CAPITALIST* IMPERIALISTS!!

    — AND CLAIMING THAT ISRAEL IS “JUSSST FFOLLLOWWING ORRRDERRZZZ…”

    — AND WHERE HAVE WE HEARD *THAT* ECHO BEFORE…?

    ———————————————————————————————————

    HAMMOND: “Deadbeat, why do you reject the elementary moral truism that one should apply to oneself an equal or more stringent standard than to others? Failure to do so is the DEFINITION of hypocrisy, in the Biblical usage of the word.”

    YOU SEE…, YOU’RE JUST A ‘BROKEN-RECORD’ PROPAGANDA *SHILL* ARTIST — WITH YOUR PR TALKING POINTS — ON HEAVY ROTATION.

    WHY DON’T YOU HOLD _*ISRAEL*_ RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS _*OWN*_ BEHAVIOR.

    *AMERICANS* WEREN’T OVER THERE MASSACRING GAZA — OR, PURPOSELY, THOSE FLEEING CIVILIANS IN LEBANON — OR THE GAZA FLOTILLA — EXCEPT MAYBE ISRAEL-FIRST DUAL ISRAELI-AMERICAN ZIONIST JEWS.

    YOU GOT A *JOB* TO DO — AND YOUR JOB *ISN’T* BEING OTHERWISE-CONVINCED BY ANYONE INTELLECTUALLY DEBUNKING AND DISCREDITING YOUR LITTLE PROPAGANDA SHOW.

    …You beter hope that *I* don’t have the time to tear apart your “screed” in a formal analytical article. My analytical article debunking the whole specious “tail-dog” Israel lobby-denial has been, intellectually, quite appreciatively received by everyone who’s read it — except by “liberal/progressive/leftist” ‘anti-Occupation’ Zionist Jews — AND ALWAYS *KNEW* THE ISRAEL LOBBY WAS POWERFUL, BUT DIDN’T KNOW HOW TO ANALYZE AND EXPLAIN IT and so was afraid of being called “anti-Semitic”.

    — Although several people here seem to be doing a very good job on you without me, so I’m saving my time and letting an intellectual division of labor take place on you here.

    — But, I *wouldn’t need* _ANY_ of the ad hominems like — ‘don’t believe Blankfort, he’s a *bad* guy!!’ — ‘it’s all the “claptrap” and “tirades” of his “ilk” and he has the *”chutzpah”* to criticize The Grrreaaat Chommmsky — *theee* grrreatest in the worrrld [*SSSUCK-SSSUCK, SSSLURP-SSSLURP*] — with his “asinine” ignorance and “intellectual masturbation” — that you desperately seem to require as ‘linguistic’ reinforcements to try to persuade the reader that you’re right!

    Who could *blame* anyone for not taking you seriously.

    .

  299. Joseph Anderson said on July 31st, 2010 at 12:13am #

    -

    “…implies Americans are dumb asses who are led by their dumbass noses by Israeli Zionists.”

    — I was hoping that Hammond said — or at least *believes* this — just as an intellectually discrediting example — because I dont’ give a *F* what Max says — except to poke fun at his idiocy, just occasionally, briefly, for a good laugh!

    ———————————————————————————————–

    “The difficulty with this argument is that…The Israel lobby doesn’t fall all over itself trying to demonstrate to American politicians [/citizens] that Israel is an obedient and useful lackey. Quite the contrary: the Lobby puts its vast resources and constituent mobilizations into **BULLYING** and **THREATENING** these very same politicians [/citizens] in order to get its way [even trying to threaten the very livelihood/jobs of citizens -- *EVERYBODY* KNOWS THIS]. And woe unto any politician who doesn’t comply.

    But why would the Lobby — if Israel were indeed the essential tool of American imperialism that Finkelstein, et al., claim — need to be so *AGGRESSIVELY THREATENING*? That would only make sense if there were actually a genuine danger that many American politicians — absent those formidable and unignorable threats — might conclude that, in fact, ISRAEL is *NOT* a VERY USEFUL, let alone prerequisite proxy. … Which in turn begs the question — how has Israel really served, if arguably at all, rather than upset, U.S. interests?”

    — Excerpt from “The Left and the Israel Lobby”, by Joseph Anderson
    http://peaceandjustice.org/article.php/20060612173054885

    (**’a and CAPS added, above, for emphasis.)

    -

  300. Joseph Anderson said on July 31st, 2010 at 12:42am #

    .

    shabnam said on July 30th, 2010 at 11:13pm:

    “According to many including Petras, Atzmon and Gareth Porter is ISRAEL, not the United States who is PUSHING FOR DESTRUCTION OF IRAN.”

    —————————————————————————————————–

    And even according to PHYLLIS BENNIS of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C. — and she’s a national principal in JVP — and maybe now J Street too — and she and those organizations are ‘ANTI-OCCUPATION’ ZIONIST JEWS!

    PHYLLIS BENNIS once said on KPFA &/or Democracy Now: “THE *ONLY* PEOPLE REALLY PUSHING FOR A MILITARY ATTACK ON IRAN IS THE ISRAEL LOBBY!”

    .

    YES, in recent times, even the *so-called* “liberal/progressive/leftist” Jews in JVP and J Street have finally been forced to openly admit that — YES –THERE, in fact, IS AN ISRAEL LOBBY! — *only because* JVP and J Street are worried as hell that the crazy and even rabid LIKUDNIKS and NEOCONS in the Israel Lobby — *given their course* — will lead to Israel becoming a worldwide pariah state (at least among the people of the world, if not, nearly as soon, their governments) — like, formerly, apartheid South African — and the political destruction of the Zionist apartheid state — their “Land of Milk & Honey”, their “Light Unto the Nations”, their “Land Without A People”, in historic Palestine.

    .

  301. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 31st, 2010 at 12:46am #

    shabnam,

    I asked you to give us an example, even a single quote from Chomsky, in which he misinforms his audience. You neglected to do so in your response.

    @Joseph Anderson,

    * “*AMERICANS* WEREN’T OVER THERE MASSACRING GAZA”

    Yet the U.S. supported Israel’s massacre in Gaza. It was my writing on that very topic for which I received the Project Censored 2010 Award.

  302. Joseph Anderson said on July 31st, 2010 at 1:23am #

    teafoe2 said on July 30th, 2010 at 4:47pm:

    “So when Chomsky starts calling it “hypocritical”, from here it looks like he’s doing his best to limit its potential. In plain words, it indicates to me that his real loyalty is to his Jewishness, and not to justice or to the well being of the Palestinians.”

    ———————————————————————————————————

    And this is like *ALLL* those, *so-called* “liberal/progressive/leftist” ‘anti-Occupation’ Zionist Jewish icons — whether it’s Chomsky, Finkelstein, *NAOMI KLIEN*, Halper, etc.:

    WHEN ANY EFFECTIVE MOVEMENT OF WORLWIDE — ESPECIALLY, WESTERN — PROTEST SO MUCH AS STARTS TO TAKE PLACE …

    THEY TURN ON AND ATTACK THE *LEFT*!!

    THEN, SUDDENLY THEY FIND “RAMPANT ANTI-SEMITISM” — OR SINCE THAT ACCUSATIONAL RUSE IS STARTING TO REALLY ANNOY MORE AND MORE PEOPLE — NOW “HYPOCRISY” — ON THE LEFT!!

    _”HYPOCRITICAL”_ IS CHOMSKY’S VERBAL STAND-IN FOR “ANTI-SEMITIC”.

    –AS *NAOMI KLEIN* DID — WHEN SHE SUDDENLY ‘DISCOVERED’ “RAMPANT ANTI-SEMITISM” — ON THE *LEFT* — AND PUBLISHED A COMMENTARY (last known to be still available at her website) *THE VERY MONTH* OF ISRAEL’S MILITARY ONSLAUGHT IN JENIN AND OTHER PALESTINIAN TOWNS BACK IN 2002.

    IF ANY SUPPOSEDLY PROGRESSIVE / LEFTIST ICONS, “LEADERS”, ORGANIZERS OR ACTIVISTS ARE NOT A PUBLICLY DECLARED ANTI-ZIONIST, THEY SHOULD BE KICKED OUT OF ANY ANTI-WAR OR PRO-PALESTINIAN ORGANIZATIONS / MOVEMENT.

    OTHERWISE, AT ANY *CRITICAL* OR POTENTIALLY CRITICAL TIME, THEY WILL *ALWAYS* FIND A REASON TO TURN ON THE MOVEMENT.

    -

  303. Hue Longer said on July 31st, 2010 at 1:56am #

    Hello Everyone,

    Joseph,

    Calling people names is not nice maybe but by itself is not ad hominem…If your argument is, “You are not nice, therefore your positions are invalid”? Ironically THAT would be ad hominem. See how that works, DB? You’re welcome

    Cheers

  304. Joseph Anderson said on July 31st, 2010 at 2:39am #

    .

    Hue Longer — stopping by to ingratiatingly lick Hammond’s boots for a few brownie points — said on July 31st, 2010 at 1:56am #:

    “See how that works, DB?”

    —————————————————————————————–

    Yo! Let me *SHOW* you how it works, Longer. Hammond makes a CHALLENGE…

    **************************************************************************
    _ *JEREMY R. HAMOND*_ said on July 29th, 2010 at 7:21pm :

    “I did not employ a *SINGLE* ad hominem argument in my article.

    I **CHALLENGE** YOU to quote one. You’ll find you’re unable to do so.”
    **************************************************************************

    …and I MOP THE FLOOR WITH HIM:

    **SEEE** ====>JOSEPH ANDERSON said on July 30th, 2010 at 2:15pm!

    That goes to the issue of *credibility*.

    And since Hammond can’t even remember what he wrote, maybe he DIDN’T even write it. Or, maybe he got all his SHILL talking points — many of them ad nauseum repeated — from someone elllsse… *HMMMmmm*….

    .

  305. Joseph Anderson said on July 31st, 2010 at 3:47am #

    .

    Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 31st, 2010 at 12:46am:

    “@Joseph Anderson,

    * ‘*AMERICANS* WEREN’T OVER THERE MASSACRING GAZA’

    Yet the U.S. supported Israel’s massacre in Gaza. It was my writing on that very topic for which I received the Project Censored 2010 Award.”
    ——————————————————————————————————–

    Welp, *that* get’s Israel off the hook, now doesn’t it…

    And, ‘yes’, America was *’cheering’* the Gaza massacres, wasn’t it — just like the Israelis were, huh…?

    You know what?: I *know* Peter Philips (director of Project Censored). I’ve known him for quite a long time. I’ve met him at his office at Sonoma State. I’ve had dinner at his home with his lovely wife, wayyy up in the woods of Sonoma county. I have his home phone number, his office phone number, and his email address. I could email or call him any time I want.

    But, I doubt that Philips blames Americans themselves or even the U.S. government — but **DOESN’T** blame Israel itself — for **Israelis** themselves massacring, especially civilians, in Gaza. So, I’m not going to ask him such an *”asinine”* question. Americans, in general, or the U.S. govt, in particular, didn’t go over to Israel and put a gun to Jewish heads and say, ‘Now start targeting and massacring Palestinian civilians and wantonly destroy their homes, hospitals, schools, stores, farms, orchards, livestock, and public health facilities — or else.’

    .

    And, if you don’t understand *that* fundamental difference, then, as Blankfort said to you:

    “If this is your ultimate fallback reason for opposing boycotting,
    sanctioning, and divesting from Israel itself, you are even more a PATHETIC example of our species than I had first thought.’

    [caps added for emphasis]

    No one could say it any better than Blankfort.

    .

    And, after this article of yours, I bet that Philips — like DissidentVoice — won’t exactly want you reminding people, either, that he published anything of yours: items — collecting leftist credits — that you’re calculatingly using for your little Chomsky shill, leftist, _MANIPULATIVE_ *’resume builder’*.

    Now you can, indeed, make sure to put at the bottom of all your articles:

    “among the recipients of the 2010 Project Censored Awards for outstanding investigative journalism.”

    (When are you going to tell us that, “[You] marched with King / Jesse”?)

    That — alone — morally impresses me about as much as:

    Noam Chomsky, MIT professor.

    —————————————————————————————————–

    Or, as a Black friend of mine from the ‘hood once said:

    “I never confuse *literacy*, in and of itself, with *wisdom*.”

    ———————————————————————————————————-

    *AGAIN*!:

    FINALLY, if you and Chomsky and Finkelstein want to economically boycott the UNITED STATES…,

    THEN WHY DON’T YOU GUYS STOP *YAPPIN’* ABOUT IT AND GO START A CAMPAIGN TO **DO** IT!!?

    *NOBODY’S* STOPPING YOU GUYS!

    SO WHAT ARE YOU DOING *HERE* RANTING…!?

    .

  306. Joseph Anderson said on July 31st, 2010 at 4:08am #

    -

    Oh, speaking of “investigative journalists”…

    GREG PALAST — he’s not even an *’anti-Occupation’* Zionist — he’s a closet (except in the Jewish mainstream press) semi-hardcore Zionist (if not as openly crude as a card-carrying Likudnik) — and out-&-out (again, in the maintream Jewish press) anti-Palestinian racist — also suddenly ‘discovered’ “rampant anti-Semitism” ON THE LEFT during either one of Israel’s military onslaughts through Palestinian towns or Israel’s last Lebanon massacres — when there was worldwide protests, especially in the West.

    -

  307. Joseph Anderson said on July 31st, 2010 at 5:01am #

    TELLING…, about JEREMY HAMMOND…, NO?…

    from “Pulse” (http://pulsemedia.org/2010/07/20/chomsky-and-palestine-asset-or-liability/#comment-12777):

    Infensus Mentis said on Chomsky and Palestine: Asset or Liability?
    July 31, 2010 at 7:08 am:

    In response to Jeremy R. Hammond on July 31, 2010 at 6:16 am:

    “No, you’re obviously not interested in reading my articles — or talking to me, for that matter — to find out what my actual views are. As with Chomsky, you simply look for things you can take out of context to dishonestly mischaracterize others’ views in order to support your own. I’m not interested, therefore, [...]”

    What’s this childish, ‘I’m not telling’, bullshit all about? Do you support the existence of the exclusivist, racist, apartheid state of Israel or not? Are you Zionist or anti-Zionist? After writing an entire article in response to the one above and returning here over a period of days to write even more, you should be able to cough up one more sentence.
    _______________________________________________________________________

    Notice Jeremy Hammond can’t — or won’t — answer A *DEFINITIVE* QUESTION.

    HEY, HAMMOND, THE EDITORS AT DV ARE DEFINITIVELY _*ANTI-ZIONIST*_.

    –Or, at least, last I heard (their publication of your “screed” makes me *wonder* now) …

    -

  308. Max Shields said on July 31st, 2010 at 5:02am #

    Joseph Anderson you’re talking all around the issue as are most of what appears to be a kind of neo-Zionist like Deadbeat.

    You’ve got your “beliefs” and all must be twisted to fit that single-minded world view. It simplifies having to deal with the ever so slightly nuanced remarks by Hue Longer.

    Let’s see this one fits in the Chomsky box, and this one in the Hammond box, and this one in the Blankfort. Ok, everyone got a box? If not hurry up before Deadbeat And Joseph Andrews finds you one!!!! Hurry Hurry….

  309. Max Shields said on July 31st, 2010 at 5:12am #

    Since we’re talking boxes, I’ve made one special. It’s called: Fighting Lame Vacuous Neo-Zionist Arguments. And while we’re at it you can put me in it.

    The more I read these rants by Deadbeat and Joseph Anderson, the more I’m reminded of the tea party zealots – all anger and no substance.

  310. Joseph Anderson said on July 31st, 2010 at 5:29am #

    -

    at “Pulse”
    http://pulsemedia.org/2010/07/20/chomsky-and-palestine-asset-or-liability/#comment-12777

    — Jeffrey Blankfort to Jeremy Hammond:

    “I frankly only know about your character from your posts here and while you might be very good with children and animals and very respectful of women, your efforts at defending Chomsky, while insisting you are not defending him, your refusal to acknowledge what Chomsky has said when I have accurately quoted him, does not speak well for your character particularly when one adds up the amount of time you have spent on this thread, an effort that appears almost one of desperation and one that makes me suspect of your entire agenda as I already have been of Chomsky’s. The good news is that I consider you both to be in the same boat. The bad news is that both of your are up the creek without any oars.”

    ——————————————————————————————————

    YO HAMMOND! IT LOOKS LIKE SOMEONE SENT A FOOL — OR A FOOL SENT HIMSELF — ON A FOOL’S MISSION!

    SEE WHAT I SAID, LONGER (Joseph Anderson said on July 31st, 2010 at 2:39am)?

    IT’S ALL ABOUT HAMMOND’S *CREDIBILITY*.

    (Yo, Longer! You better go back to the *baby* pool! The water is too deep for you here.)

    I *TOLLLD* EVERYONE THAT HAMMOND IS NOTHING BUT _* CHOMSKY’S PROPAGANDA SHILL *_.

    -

  311. Max Shields said on July 31st, 2010 at 6:01am #

    Joseph, I spend a little time and jot down a thought or two. It’s apparent you’re building a life around your anti-Chomsky positions. Sad.

    But from your own website (and purely random selection):

    ““So when Chomsky starts calling it “hypocritical”, from here it looks like he’s doing his best to limit its [the BDS movement's] potential. In plain words, it indicates to me that his real loyalty is to his Jewishness, and not to justice or to the well being of the Palestinians.”

    Now how does one conjure these things with a straight face? You are all so senitive about being taken for a ride by Israel and Zionism and the American “Left” (which is mostly Jewish) and yet, and yet…the BDS movement is led by American Jewish Left and Israeli progressives?

    Take a moment. Is there no irony in this? Don’t rant and climb inside your box and shout vulgarities, just think about the labels you’re tossing out in lieu of critical thinking. Can you do that?

  312. Don Hawkins said on July 31st, 2010 at 6:02am #

    Hello Earth calling Chomsky is one person and the last time I checked about 6.8 billion now and if we add up past humans even a bigger number. I have read a little of Chomsky and he does try and see the forest for the trees in a rather complex way. Here are some ball scores 6 to 5, 7 to 3 and 0 to 0.

  313. Hue Longer said on July 31st, 2010 at 6:54am #

    Joseph,

    Bluffing in hopes that I am doesn’t change the truth…neither does shouting your mistake over and over again. You don’t understand what you are talking about and have little care in being corrected. I don’t assume you are a young person because unfortunately this type of ignorance is seen as a virtue by mobs of adult fuckwits high fiving each other online. Calm down and understand what’s being said to you

  314. Max Shields said on July 31st, 2010 at 7:29am #

    Deadbeat the real issue here is the sincerity of Chomsky’s positions, specifically, since you mention it, on BDS. From what I’ve read I think Chomsky is sincere in his sense that while it may “feel good” such a total boycott and divestment may have the completely opposite impact on Palestinians than intended. Now you or I can agree or disagree with that assertion, but to see everything that doesn’t fit into you ideological box as an “infiltration” or a Zionist “gatekeeper” seems narrow minded at best.

    BDS is not a hierarchical organization, it is a network. And how are you going to “stop” someone from participating?

    I’ve made my position known here regarding Chomsky. But those positions are not angry enough or dogmatic enough for the likes of you and some others here like Joseph Anderson. But anger is not an argument.

    Perhaps the great impasse here, Deadbeat, is you care more about what Chomsky says than I do. I don’t have that much invested in him. You seem to need him to give you a lift, to provide you with a reason to post at DV.

  315. hayate said on July 31st, 2010 at 10:00am #

    Here are 2 articles on the zionist push for war against Iran. On can see the difference between the “chomsky” approach and that of someone less influenced by the zionist toxin.

    In the first:

    Lurching Toward War?
    Iran Under Siege

    By ANTHONY DiMAGGIO

    http://www.counterpunch.org/dimaggio07302010.html

    Almost nothing is said about israeli or zionist influence behind the people pushing for war or tougher sanctions. It’s all american and the eu with the role of israel and zionists ignored completely. Reading this article, one would be lead to believe israel had no part in this push for war at all. It is all the usa’s and Europe’s doing.

    That is the chomsky approach, where the role of israel, and Jewish zionists is left out of the analysis and all discussion uses their puppets as the final decision makers without the strings noted. Without even noting the obvious anydimwit could see just from reading the zionist run western corporate media about israeli/zionist involvement. Every day one of these 21st century nazi sods is spouting off on the need to attack Iran.

    Now look at a more reasonable analysis:

    Neocon Nutballs Ramp Up Campaign
    Bomb Iran?

    By GARETH PORTER

    He details the zionist/neocon/israeli players ramping up the attack Iran propaganda. Describes their connections to each other and israel. Describes the israeli lobby role and their role in having the u.s. congress declare it’s loyalty to israeli interests about Iran. What you get here is a much more realistic understanding of who is behind this warmongering and how they are going about laying the groundwork for public approval of the war.

    This is a huge difference from the crypto-zionist “chomsky” style of the dimaggio piece where the role of zionists and israel is cleverly hidden behind that of their puppet’s roles.

  316. hayate said on July 31st, 2010 at 10:02am #

    Forgot the link for the Porter piece:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/porter07302010.html

    Both of these articles are in this weekend’s Counterpunch line up.

  317. Max Shields said on July 31st, 2010 at 10:05am #

    Just noticed this recent quote by Alexander Cockburn on Counterpunch from Chomsky: It is true, as Noam Chomsky pointed out to me last week, when I asked him for positive examples, that popular protest in the wake of press disclosures “impelled Congress to call off the direct US role in the grotesque bombing of rural Cambodia. Similarly in the late 70s, under popular pressure Congress barred Carter, later Reagan, from direct participation in virtual genocide in the Guatemalan highlands, so the Pentagon had to evade legislation in devious ways and Reagan had to call in terrorist states, primarily Israel, to carry out the massacres.”

    Calling Israel a terrorist state seems like an odd thing for a Zionist Israel Gatekeeper to do. Perhaps he’s just softening us up for the “big nchilada of a lie”? I’m sure the Deadbeat crowd will descipher for us.

  318. hayate said on July 31st, 2010 at 10:58am #

    Max Shields said on July 31st, 2010 at 10:05am

    Funny how s.w.a.r.m. operates. After an article about Iran, they’ll line up and promote the usa attacking Iran. After one criticizing chomsky, they’ll line up defending his views and praising him. Even though chomsky says Iran should not be attacked by the usa.

    Odd, eh?

  319. mary said on July 31st, 2010 at 11:27am #

    Same old same old from Chomsky esp on BDS in an interview with Israeli Occupation Archive. (Not sure if this has already been referred to.

    http://www.countercurrents.org/chomsky290710.htm

  320. Joseph Anderson said on July 31st, 2010 at 12:24pm #

    -

    “Noam Chomsky and uncovering the corruption of the Left by Zionism should be the #1 story for Project Censored list of the most censored stories.”

    That’s *exactly* what a Black friend of mine *from tha ‘hood* instantly noticed about the white left and the “progressive / leftist”, especially, but not only, broadcast media:

    “ANALYTICAL CRITICISM OF CHOMSKY AND ZIONISM — FROM THE LEFT — INCLUDING AND, ESPECIALLY, ON AMY GOODMAN’S ‘DEMOCRACY NOW’ — SHOULD BE ****THE #1 STORY*** ON THE LIST OF PROJECT CENSORED — FOR: THE MOST CENSORED STORY ON THE LEFT!”

    -

  321. shabnam said on July 31st, 2010 at 12:58pm #

    More people blieve that Israel is after the destruction of Iran.

    Hassan Tahsin in an article “Israeli Plan to attack Iran” wrote:

    In June 1981 then Israeli chief of staff Rafael Eitan announced the plan of Israeli air force to bomb Iraq’s Ozirak nuclear facilities.

    He said: “If we do not do that the result would be our destruction.”
    Jerusalem Post reported on July 19 that Israel was successful in its efforts to convince Washington to weigh military option against Iran. Its conclusion was based on a report carried by the Time magazine with its headline “An Attack on Iran back on Table.”

    Israel and its Organized Zionists fifth column in the United States and around the world are active in spreading lies through disinformation – like what they did against Saddam before the invasion of Iraq, and against Sudan and Al Bashir to bring southern Sudan under their agents, and then went to Darfur spreading lies, “child slavery” in Southern Sudan and “genocide” in Darfur through organized campaign by the Zionist Jews, like “Save Darfur”, to form public opinion against Sudan, and now Iran to bring the ignorant Americans and Westerners on board for DESTRUCTION OF IRAN.
    According to the facts on the ground,Israel, NOT THE UNITED STATES, has benefited the most from IRAQ destruction with 1.5 million deaths, 6 millions displaced, so Israel to be able to establish itself in the north of Iraq, and to place mossad agents disguised as businessman in order to train the Kurdish terrorists to be used against the regional countries to expand Israel’s interest according to ODED YINON STRATEGY.

    { Similarly in the late 70s, under popular pressure Congress barred Carter, later Reagan, from direct participation in virtual genocide in the Guatemalan highlands, so the Pentagon had to evade legislation in devious ways and Reagan had to call in terrorist states, primarily Israel, to carry out the massacres.”}

    Then, it was the cold war and the US was directly challenging Soviet empire. Do you view Iran as ‘empire’ threatening the US? People who compare Iran with the Soviet empire from the Cold War, they are either hypocritical or ignorant. Iran is the natural ally of the United States and even a nuclear Iran, according to many including to Late William Odem, IS NOT A THREAT TO US, Europe, neighboring countries or the Asia. Iran, contrary to Chomsky’s claim is not against the United States’ global design. Chomsky MISLEADS the audience when holds “US global design” responsible for military attack on Iran. Iran is viewed an obstacle ONLY to ZIONIST EXPANSIONSTS IN THE REGION who are trying to re arrange the map of the region for the interest of Israel.

    In the propaganda campaign against Iran, the ‘progressive’ media is fully on board to serve the Zionist’s interest.

    In an interview of Paul Jay, a Canadian journalist and film director, and creator and CEO of The Real News with Glen Ford is manipulating and leading Glen Ford into rough water, such as IRANIAN LEFT where both know very little to paint Ahmadinejad and the Iranian government

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj1upMdugaM&feature=related

    as illegitimate to bring support for GREEN stooges that Chomsky supports. Both are illiterate about Iranian politics, especially the ‘left.’ THERE IS NO ORGANIZED IRANIAN LEFT IN IRAN, never been an organized Iranian left. The most organized ‘left’ was Todeh Party where its leadership was in the service of the Soviet Union. They have a bad reputation in Iran. No Iranian patriotic supports them. They came to the fore during the Oil Nationalization movement led by Mossadeq who was overthrown by a joint Coup by MI6/CIA in 1953.

    Many Iranians have devoted their lives to make Iran a better place for all and the working class has sacrificed the most, although majority of activists were young and illiterate about Marxist literature, they claimed they were ‘Marxists’. The left was crashed during the Shah, ally of the United States.
    At the time of the Iranian revolution, there were 50 or so individuals who called themselves Fadiyan Khalq, a Marxist-Leninist group, but due to Iranian revolution they grew in thousands over night. They were extremely INEXPERIENCE in anything including politics, economics and Marxist literature. Thus, many of them came to the conclusion that the ‘left’ was not in a position to rule Iran.

    People with Persian language skill can read a novel by Ahmad Mahmoud, NEIGHBORS, that paints the left leaning activists of the 195’s so you can understand the status of the ‘left’ during that era.

    It is funny to mention that while these honest activists could not even pronounce ‘imperialism’ امپریالیسم yet they throught they were fighting against it. This charactersitics of the‘left’ stays the same after the revolution, where many of the young fighters did not know the meaning of imperialism or other Marxist terms yet they call themselves Marxists.

    The ‘left’ leaning Iranian upper middle class were sitting in the Western Bars having wine and cheese while discussing the condition of ‘ Iranian working class’ where knew little, while Iranian working class and middle class were fighting against the Iraqi innovators who received a green light from Washington to invade Iran.
    All ‘leaders’ of Fadiyan Khalq are living abroad and occasionally visiting MI6/CIA and discussing the state of the ‘working class’ on CIA outlet, Voice of America. They also have special attraction to Israelis think thank such The Washington Institute for the Near East Policy, Saban institute at Brookline and are defending neo liberalist economic system, like Khanbaba Tehrani, Farrokh Negahdar, or Akbar Ganji close to Noam Chomsky. No Iranian trusts these kinds of ‘leftists’.

    Those who claim there is an organized ‘left’ in Iran are hypocritical. Many of them have close relations with the power in the US and EU. For example you can read about, the Communist Workers party, a Trotyskist group who have close relations with Israel and the West.

    Is Glen Ford going to challenge Zionism or is going to continue his line of politics, focusing only on US imperialism like Chomsky does.

  322. Deadbeat said on July 31st, 2010 at 8:35pm #

    Max Shields writes ..

    Deadbeat the real issue here is the sincerity of Chomsky’s positions, specifically, since you mention it, on BDS. From what I’ve read I think Chomsky is sincere in his sense that while it may “feel good” such a total boycott and divestment may have the completely opposite impact on Palestinians than intended.

    Yeah Max, Chomsky is really “sincere”. Why are you making excuses for Chomsky? Chomsky, to my knowledge, didn’t say the same thing when he supported the boycott of South Africa. Therefore Chomsky is duplicitous in his principles and as a PROFESSED Zionist naturally he is going to be against a boycott of Israel. Why do you ignore the fact that Chomsky himself admits that his being a Zionist and a support of Israel colors his views. Actually he’s been quite honest about that yet the Chomskyite Left denies Chomsky’s own admitted positions.

    Now you or I can agree or disagree with that assertion, but to see everything that doesn’t fit into you ideological box as an “infiltration” or a Zionist “gatekeeper” seems narrow minded at best.

    And racism and Zionism are in your ideological purview. What is “narrow-minded” is that of the Chomskyites who denies Chomsky profess adherence to this racist ideology. Have you ever asked yourself why you are defending him? Again Max this is about PRINCIPLES. You don’t see any anti-Zionists here defending David Duke despite him being outspoken against Zionism. Yet you are quick to dismiss Chomsky’s duplicity.

    BDS is not a hierarchical organization, it is a network. And how are you going to “stop” someone from participating?

    You know Max the BDS campaigned was initiated by the Palestinians and boycotts work. They help educate citizens and is non-violent. You’d think that the “world’s leading intellectual” who supported the boycott against South Africa would support a boycott against a country that Desmond Tutu describes as worst than South Africa. But clearly Chomsky adherence to the racist ideology of Zionism is why he take a position against BDS.

    I’ve made my position known here regarding Chomsky. But those positions are not angry enough or dogmatic enough for the likes of you and some others here like Joseph Anderson. But anger is not an argument.

    There is nothing wrong with anger Max. You and Hue Longer clearly express your anger with my position on this issue. Hue even labeled me a “Zionist” in a fit of angry expression. We’re all adults here.

    I can’t speak for Joseph Anderson but I think his anger reflects the dismay with the hypocrisy of the “Left”. The Left has guiding principles which are JUSTICE, FAIRNESS, EQUALITY, TRUST. The fact is that American Zionism has corrupted the Left and breached that trust. The natural reaction to a breech of trust Max is anger. So Joesph’s response is quite natural and reasonable especially for a topic that has been so repressed and censored.

    On the other hand Max, everyone can see through you and the side you defend. You are far from being trustworthy on what it means to be on the Left. As I have stated many times if you do not adhere to the principles of Justice, Fairness, Equality and Trust there can be NO solidarity. It is a fools errant to align yourself with untrustworthy folks because BETRAYAL is its only outcome. And your stance Max is an obvious betrayal to these aforementioned principles.

    Perhaps the great impasse here, Deadbeat, is you care more about what Chomsky says than I do. I don’t have that much invested in him. You seem to need him to give you a lift, to provide you with a reason to post at DV.

    The mainstay of Chomskyites is to deflect and censor analysis and discussion from Jewish Zionism and its influence on the U.S. political economy and policy making. It’s obvious Max from your participation on this thread and on DV that YOU have a great DEAL INVESTED in this issue. So to try to pretend you don’t have any interest in this issue is hypocritical and duplicitous.

  323. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 31st, 2010 at 9:00pm #

    @Joseph Anderson,

    * Welp, *that* get’s Israel off the hook, now doesn’t it…

    Absolutely not. I’ve never said or suggested so in any way, shape, or form. You’re arguing against a strawman. Morever, while said nothing to “let Israel off the hook”, you are trying to get the U.S. off the hook, and therefore are a hypocrite. The U.S. absolutely shares responsibility for the massacre in Gaza.

    * Notice Jeremy Hammond can’t — or won’t — answer A *DEFINITIVE* QUESTION.

    I welcome readers to click the link you provided and witness that exchange for themselves. It’s quite illuminating, and Jeff’s reply proved my point that he wasn’t interested in knowing what my views are, only in looking for statements he can cherry-pick and take out of context in order to create a strawman to argue against to support his own views — which is precisely what he did in his dishonest diatribe against Chomsky.

    * “‘…while insisting you are not defending him…'”

    I challenge anyone to point out where I defended any of Chomsky’s views. All I did was to merely observe that Jeff dishonestly mischaraterizes Chomsky’s views.

    @hayate,

    I have thrice requested now that you present us with even a single quote from Chomsky to support your claim about his “crypto-zionist” position on Iran. Is your unwillingness to do so reflective of the fact that you are unable to do so?

    I encourage others to follow Gareth Porter’s work. He’s a top-notch journalist. One of the best.

    @Deadbeat,

    You continually parrot that Chomsky is an admitted Zionist. Yet you still have not addressed the fact that when Chomsky says this, what he means is that he was opposed to the creation of a Jewish state and in favor of what the Arabs proposed, which was a single binational state. Since you are by now well aware of this fact, your continual repeating of this claim can only be attributed to dishonesty.

  324. Deadbeat said on July 31st, 2010 at 10:01pm #

    Jeremy R. Hammond writes …

    @Deadbeat,

    You continually parrot that Chomsky is an admitted Zionist. Yet you still have not addressed the fact that when Chomsky says this, what he means is that he was opposed to the creation of a Jewish state and in favor of what the Arabs proposed, which was a single binational state. Since you are by now well aware of this fact, your continual repeating of this claim can only be attributed to dishonesty.

    If you are foolish to believe that Jeremy than I have bridge to sell you. If anyone is parroting anything here it is your excuses for an admitted Zionist. Look the ideology of Zionism was invented by Theodore Herzl and it was a well established ideology when Chomsky was a Hitle..er..Zionist youth. By the time he became an adult he should have REJECTED AND RENOUNCED Zionism but he hasn’t and remains a Zionist to this day.

    The one who is dishonest here is you Jeremy. I posted a link to Chomsky’s interview on Israeli television. As I already stated his interview with Israeli TV violates the spirit of BDS and he admitted his support for the Zionist entity.

    Why Jeremy you defend this racist only reflects the corruption of the Left to Zionism which should anger any leftist.

    However Jeremy your presence here and the position you argue from reveals what I’ve witness during my participation in the 2003 anti-war movement and with the Green Party in 2004.

    Until the Left is purged of sociopathic Chomskyism there will be no hope for changing the current course of the USA. Chomsky desires to see every American blamed for the actions of American Jewish Zionism and that may happened if the Zionists wins out and the U.S. finds itself in a war on Iran.

    This is a very serious matter that ENDANGERS all Americans. Yet the Chomskyites continues to put up false fronts. It’s a damn travesty.

  325. Deadbeat said on July 31st, 2010 at 10:17pm #

    Shabnam writes …

    Is Glen Ford going to challenge Zionism or is going to continue his line of politics, focusing only on US imperialism like Chomsky does.

    I wrote a lengthy analysis on this question but somehow it didn’t get posted and I didn’t save it. I did address this Glen Ford in this discussion but it’ll take too long for me to recreate the response. This is a complicated question because the Black Community are victims of Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism and Zionism and if Ford is honestly trying to rebuild the Black Left he faces huge challenges not only from Liberal Zionists but also from the Black Liberals (whose are paid to defend Liberalism and Jewish Zionism) and reactionary Nationalists who gain credibility with Blacks by putting up challenges to White Supremacy and Zionism but are non-Marxist and are stuck in identity politics.

  326. Jeremy R. Hammond said on August 1st, 2010 at 12:13am #

    @Deadbeat,

    * JRH: You continually parrot that Chomsky is an admitted Zionist. Yet you still have not addressed the fact that when Chomsky says this, what he means is that he was opposed to the creation of a Jewish state and in favor of what the Arabs proposed, which was a single binational state. Since you are by now well aware of this fact, your continual repeating of this claim can only be attributed to dishonesty.

    DEADBEAT: If you are foolish to believe that Jeremy than I have bridge to sell you.

    Okay. So, readers may either:

    (a) Understand Chomsky’s position from what Chomsky says it is,

    or,

    (b) Understand Chomsky’s position from what Deadbeat says it is.

    I’ll let DV’s intelligent readership figure that one out.

    Thanks for playing.

  327. Deadbeat said on August 1st, 2010 at 1:49am #

    Obviously Jeremy you are running out of rejoinders and now you are engaging in Max Shield’s favorite passtime — selective editing. Since you are too lazy to post my entire response to you I’ll do it for you …

    If you are foolish to believe that Jeremy than I have bridge to sell you. If anyone is parroting anything here it is your excuses for an admitted Zionist. Look the ideology of Zionism was invented by Theodore Herzl and it was a well established ideology when Chomsky was a Hitle..er..Zionist youth. By the time he became an adult he should have REJECTED AND RENOUNCED Zionism but he hasn’t and remains a Zionist to this day.

  328. Deadbeat said on August 1st, 2010 at 2:37am #

    Hue Longer writes …

    Calling people names is not nice maybe but by itself is not ad hominem…If your argument is, “You are not nice, therefore your positions are invalid”? Ironically THAT would be ad hominem. See how that works, DB? You’re welcome

    I agree with Joseph that Longer is a Chomskyite bootlicker. According to Mr. Longer this is not an ad hominem. Using Mr. Longer’s definition it appears that Mr. Longer is a Zionist apologist and a Chomskyite. Now remember according to Mr. Longer this is not an ad hominem. In fact Mr. Longer labeling me a “Zionist” according to him is not an ad hominem.

    Mr. Longer use of this tactic is design to suggest that since Chomsky is a Zionist it doesn’t mean his position is invalid. However what Mr. Longer ignores is that Chomsky HIMSELF stated that his Zionism taints his views toward Israel. So Chomsky doesn’t deny that he supports the Zionist entity. The problem with Mr. Longer ridicule is that I’ve posted links to support my argument even links to Nizkor which provides definition on logical argumentation. The link that I posted before is a link to the Israeli television interview where Chomsky professes his support for Israel which is clearly in keeping with his stance against BDS and his support of Zionism.

    In addition there has been plenty of evidence right here on Dissident Voice to REFUTE and invalidate Chomsky’s positions. Again thanks to the efforts of Jeffrey Blankfort, James Petras, Mersheimer and Walt, the Christiansons, and many others have provided the EVIDENCE that contradicts Chomsky arguments, stance, and position.

    It is when one EXPLORE Chomsky that we discover that he does not adhere to the leftist principles yet the “Left” has anointed Chomsky as its intellectual leader. Then the issue becomes not ONLY about Noam Chomsky but about the CULT that has sprung up around him — the “Left”. And the fraudulent personalities who pretend to be activists but are GATEKEEPERS who agenda is to maintain a discombobulated Left and to guard against any scrutiny of American Jewish Zionism.

    Hue Longer avoids any analysis of this serious question with his bootlicking Chomskyite tactics. (Remember Hue according to you this is not an ad hominem. I’m only sticking by your rules. HAHAHAHAHAHA)

    DB

  329. Deadbeat said on August 1st, 2010 at 2:42am #

    I didn’t want Shabnam’s excellent comments to get lost in the shuffle here. The sociopathic Chomskyite War for Oil/U.S. Imperialism canard is sheer BS and endangers ALL Americans …

    Israel and its Organized Zionists fifth column in the United States and around the world are active in spreading lies through disinformation – like what they did against Saddam before the invasion of Iraq, and against Sudan and Al Bashir to bring southern Sudan under their agents, and then went to Darfur spreading lies, “child slavery” in Southern Sudan and “genocide” in Darfur through organized campaign by the Zionist Jews, like “Save Darfur”, to form public opinion against Sudan, and now Iran to bring the ignorant Americans and Westerners on board for DESTRUCTION OF IRAN.

    According to the facts on the ground,Israel, NOT THE UNITED STATES, has benefited the most from IRAQ destruction with 1.5 million deaths, 6 millions displaced, so Israel to be able to establish itself in the north of Iraq, and to place mossad agents disguised as businessman in order to train the Kurdish terrorists to be used against the regional countries to expand Israel’s interest according to ODED YINON STRATEGY.

  330. Deadbeat said on August 1st, 2010 at 2:50am #

    Shabnam writes …

    In an interview of Paul Jay, a Canadian journalist and film director, and creator and CEO of The Real News with Glen Ford is manipulating and leading Glen Ford into rough water, such as IRANIAN LEFT where both know very little to paint Ahmadinejad and the Iranian government

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj1upMdugaM&feature=related

    This was the interview that I mention in my earlier commentary and I’m glad that Shabnam references it in her comments. I noticed that too how Paul Jay became very agitated by Ford’s reluctance. If Ford is not careful and should he align too closely with “Progressives” he will find himself losing credibility among African Americans and miss the opportunity to build a Black Left.

    The “Progressives” IMO are fearful of a truly Left/Marxist Black Leadership so if they can sabotage it — they will. Ford must be extremely careful.

  331. Deadbeat said on August 1st, 2010 at 3:01am #

    Shabnam’s post is REQUIRED reading. Explores the linkage with Chomsky and the “think tanks” and those who would desire to see a regime change in Iran. The sociopathic Chomskyite are at the ready to shift the blame and focus onto all American should the U.S. find itself warring against Iran at the behest of Zionism.

  332. Jeremy R. Hammond said on August 1st, 2010 at 3:02am #

    Deadbeat, the point remains, which is that we may either (a) Understand Chomsky’s position from what Chomsky says it is, or, (b) Understand Chomsky’s position from what Deadbeat says it is. The obvious choice is (a).

    Why would Chomsky renounce his views from the ’40s when his position then was opposition to a Jewish state and support for a single binational state? Why do you insist that Chomsky should denounce this position?

  333. Deadbeat said on August 1st, 2010 at 3:04am #

    Joseph Anderson writes …

    I *TOLLLD* EVERYONE THAT HAMMOND IS NOTHING BUT _* CHOMSKY’S PROPAGANDA SHILL *_.

    That about sums it up.

  334. Deadbeat said on August 1st, 2010 at 3:13am #

    Jeremy Hammond writes …

    Deadbeat, the point remains, which is that we may either (a) Understand Chomsky’s position from what Chomsky says it is, or, (b) Understand Chomsky’s position from what Deadbeat says it is. The obvious choice is (a).

    We’re going around in circle Jeremy. Chomsky revealed himself during his interview on Israeli television. ROLL THE VIDEO TAPE …

    “I regard myself as a supporter of Israel”

    Why would Chomsky renounce his views from the ’40s when his position then was opposition to a Jewish state and support for a single binational state? Why do you insist that Chomsky should denounce this position?

    The Late Robert Byrd RENOUNCED his stance on White Supremacy as being a member of the KKK in his youth.

    Yet Chomsky REMAINS A PRESENT DAY ZIONIST. This is NOT just about his youth it is WHERE HE STAND TODAY. And he stand FOR Israel and for Zionism.

    Give it rest Jeremy. Why are you shilling for this RACIST? Are you a racist too?

  335. Deadbeat said on August 1st, 2010 at 3:17am #

    It is astounding how corrupted the Left is. The rise of the Internet has help to expose these shills. This may be why Joe Lieberman wants to have the Internet shut down.

  336. Deadbeat said on August 1st, 2010 at 3:31am #

    Max Shields writes …

    The more I read these rants by Deadbeat and Joseph Anderson, the more I’m reminded of the tea party zealots – all anger and no substance.

    The more I see the corruption of the Left the more I see the nuance of James Petras recent article on the Tea Party. I’ve presented my analysis of the Tea Party and I’m sticking with it. At first I agreed with Glen Ford’s write off of the Tea Party as a bunch of White Nationalist. But since then I’m having second thoughts.

    I think Ford’s attraction by the Paul Jays and other “Left” personalities was due to his harsh critique of the Tea Party. The Chomskyites needed a credible Black face to slam the Tea Party especially since they were labeling the Tea Party as racist.

    As I observed the Tea Party was a reaction to Obama’s bank bailout. Clearly the Chomskyites have done NOTHING to aid people with regards to the bank bailout. And the Tea Party’s predominately Libertarian ideology especially their anti-Zionism is a threat. Therefore the Tea Party got attack from two fronts — from the Fox News/Sarah Palin and from the “Liberal/Left” all of whom are in the pocket of Zionists. Under these circumstances the Tea Party didn’t have a chance.

    I have to hand it to you Max for playing the Tea Party card and oh yes the “anger” card. If people were able to take the time to analysis how Zionism has fucked up the USA anger would be the least of your worries.

    DB

  337. Deadbeat said on August 1st, 2010 at 4:15am #

    Jeremy R. Hammond writes …


    @hayate,

    I have thrice requested now that you present us with even a single quote from Chomsky to support your claim about his “crypto-zionist” position on Iran. Is your unwillingness to do so reflective of the fact that you are unable to do so?

    Chomsky is a signatory and supporter of HOPI.

  338. Deadbeat said on August 1st, 2010 at 4:20am #

    Excuse me make that HOPOI. You can refer to the comments of the article written by Ron Jacobs.

    http://dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/lies-and-misconceptions%E2%80%94iran-on-the-agenda/

  339. Joseph Anderson said on August 1st, 2010 at 5:42am #

    .

    A LITTLE MORE ON _TINA NACCACHE_:

    Lebanese human rights activist.

    Documentary film
    director/cinematographer/producer/supervisor/editor:

    “Alive in Limbo”

    http://www.brooklynfilmfestival.org/films/detail.asp?fid=392

    .

    “Who hangs the laundry? Washing, war and electricity in Beirut”

    Tina Naccache, a resident of Beirut, washes the laundry while airing her views on washing, war and feminism.

    (see other Tina Naccache filmography online)

    .

    “You Can Not Kill Us All”

    This is a must listen interview with Tina Naccache in Beirut

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14195.htm

    .

    [Note the display of naked "Jewish-supremacy" that one Zionist Jew, "danny", inevitably displays in the comments section response to this interview -- AS IF TO SAY, 'We Jews are *smarter* than the Palestinians/Arabs; in fact, *smarter* than *all* the "Global Islamic population": we Jews *deserve* Palestine more, and can make *better use* of the land.']

    .

  340. Joseph Anderson said on August 1st, 2010 at 12:00pm #

    .

    TINA NACCACHE, I’VE COPIED THIS (somewhat edited) FROM AN EMAIL I SENT TO A POLITICAL ACTIVIST FRIEND.

    IT WAS AND IS, THEN PRIVATELY EXPRESSED, FRANK, BUT, NONETHELESS, *KINDRED SPIRIT-LOVING* AND *CONSTRUCTIVE* CRITICISM OF A PERSPECTIVE YOU HOLD:

    Tina Naccache’s arrival on the comment post scene, there,

    http://pulsemedia.org/2010/07/20/chomsky-and-palestine-asset-or-liability/#comment-12811 ,

    *has* generated a few more comments. (Although Naccache is outspoken and passionate in her own typographically *lower case* way.) I just listened to a radio interview of her by Dennis Bernstein, and she *VERY NAIVELY* spouts that — ‘Israel’s actions are *ALLL* the U.S.’s fault!!’ — 1-dimensional garbage too. Probably ‘sold’ that garbage by white Western Marxists and “liberal/progressive/leftist” ‘anti-Occupation’ Zionist Jews.

    MAYBE SHE WAS *DUPED* BY THAT _**TOTAL BULLSIT MISINFORMATION**_ THAT THAT PROCLAIMED ‘EPISCOPALIAN’ ZIONIST (and another professor) STEPHEN ZUNES OF USF (University of San Francisco) COMMONLY PUTS OUT TO PROGRESSIVES/LEFTISTS ABOUT HOW OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM ACTUALLY OPERATES.

    But, Bernstein didn’t say a damn thing to make her think twice because he was too busy paying — *quite appropriately so*, with Lebanon again then under immediate Israeli massacres — radio homage to the accomplished artist and documentary filmmaker!

    Naccache obviously doesn’t understand our, especially, 51% winner-take-all electoral system of politics, where even a statistically small population of a highly-financed, highly-organized, highly media-connected, highly-dedicated, 1-issue, block constituency, even in just a small number of critically important, must-win states on the federa level (or cities/counties/precincts on the state/local level), can threaten/swing a presidential (or gubernatorial/mayoral) election victory.

    She apparently doesn’t understand our campaign finance, stranglehold-lobby system of politics; or the American system of mainstream media control (certainly something “media analyst expert”, Chomksy, has never exposed about AIPAC, in particular, or the Israel lobby, in general).

    And she apparently thinks — I guess with the naivete of a too-easily superficially impressed foreigner — that we have such a wonderful, free and thriving, citizen democracy — that can just tell the government to stop its wars — as opposed to one generally rigged and run by ruling-class, military-industrial complex, corporate and, otherwise, *MONEYED* interests.

    We’ve had mega-millionaire politicos who’d long skipped or stopped voting themselves, until they themselves decided to run for office (and it was exposed), because they realized that a suitcase full of hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of mega-moneyed, lobbyists, or corporate dollars in our, more or less, corporate-financed election system, matters/ed more than tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of public polling opinions, *whichever* way.

    In the U.S., Britain, Germany and Spain — at least — all countries who’s governments have troops in Afghanistan — for the majority of the citizens the war is either unpopular and/or opposed — and the citizens of Britain have proportionately (and maybe even numerically) actually had far more people out on the streets to oppose the war — “the *good* war”, our media tells us — than in the United States — and to those governments it doesn’t make a bit of difference.

    So, until enough ordinary Americans *really* start hurting financially, until there are enough austerity cut-backs in government/public services and (especially, higher) educational resources (generally the only pathway to higher financial mobility), there isn’t going to be any rising up against the billions of dollars each and every year — year after year after year — with Israel’s *additional* financial and/or military arms resupply request everytime it wants to attack/invade another country — or as financial blackmail *not* to attack/invade another country — or to build more settlements, sufficient numbers of Americans *alone* will not rise up against Israel’s atrocities anywhere — especially against brown-skin people in (as stereotyped) ‘headscarves, pajamas and sandals’.

    .

    Apparently, Tina Naccache thinks that every long workaday ‘Middle American’ [with 2.5+ to x kids to take care of, a *very* expensive and intensive ordeal these days], wherever those Americans *actually* live, knows that Flashpoints/Pacifica radio exists, and has radio signal access to it, has time to listen to 3 or 4 shows every day (often broadcast during the weekday workday), but are just ignoring all that good information people like Dennis Bernstein, otherwise Chomskyite Amy Goodman, Rose Aguilar, etc., are putting out over the air).

    She also doesn’t understand that Israel doesn’t just get *ALLL* its money from the U.S. government. I heard that Israel still gets *GOBS* of money from Germany — Europe’s largest and richest economy!! As you know, Israel — as Norman Finkelstein described in his book, _”THE HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY”_, has been financially guilt-tripping and/or still “shaking down” almost all the other Western and, especially, European countries too! — for whatever contrived reason Israel can browbeat out of them!: almost if so much as one stolen Jewish-owned painting, during or even long after the Nazi era, has ever crossed their borders, 1st-, 2nd-, 3rd-, 4th-, 5th-, xth-hand.

    Besides that, as you know, Israel has its own thriving economy in police state-surveillance technology, military weapons, joint-ventures internet software technology (they’ve probably built ‘backdoors’ and contingent secret system vulnerabilites in everything we use), American investments and private corporate joint-ventures, etc. And the U.S. govt is not going to financially sink Israel, so Israel would at least ‘always’ have enough money, if not to go on cross-border or trans-borders military ventures in Lebanon, Iraq or Iran, or go on a mega-settlements building program, then to still at least keep the Palestinians oppressed in situ — short of an *INTERNAIONAL* pariah, BDS, movement against Israel. These things *always* require an *INTERNATIONAL* movement.

    –Joseph Anderson,

    Berkeley, California

    .

  341. Hue Longer said on August 1st, 2010 at 12:22pm #

    DB,

    Posting links does not mean you understand them (This applies to everything you link, not just ad hom…I tried telling Hammond you aren’t a sophist, but he seems to think there’s a reason to talk to you about anything OTHER than your errors in thought). Funny that you would call me names trying to prove otherwise…silly rabbit.

  342. Deadbeat said on August 1st, 2010 at 4:21pm #

    Hue Longer writes …

    Posting links does not mean you understand them …silly rabbit.

    Trix are for KIDS!

  343. lichen said on August 1st, 2010 at 4:37pm #

    Jeremy Hammond is right. Unfortunately, the reason that puffed up antizionists spew endless, mindless hate at chomsky has nothing to do with him, or reason, but just pathetic scapegoating and venting.

  344. teafoe2 said on August 1st, 2010 at 4:45pm #

    This is the text of what seems to be the operative portion of the selection to which Mary provided the link. Quoting Chomsky in the interview: “As for what is now called BDS, my views are the same as when I was engaged in these actions well before the BDS efforts crystallized, and I am unaware of any challenge to them apart from inevitable disagreement on specific cases that are unclear. BDS is a tactic, one of many, and not a doctrine of faith. Like other tactics, particular implementations of BDS have to be evaluated by familiar criteria. Crucial among them is the likely consequences for the victims. As those seriously involved in anti-Indochina war activities will recall, the Vietnamese strongly objected to Weathermen tactics, which were understandable in the light of the horrendous atrocities but seriously misguided, predictably strengthening support for state violence. The Vietnamese urged nonviolent tactics that would help educate public opinion and increase popular opposition to the wars, and didn’t care whether protesters “feel good” about what they are doing. Similar issues arise constantly, in the case of BDS as well. Some implementations have been highly constructive, both in educating the public here — a primary consideration always — and in raising the costs of participation in ongoing crimes. Good examples are boycotting settlement products and US corporations that are engaged in support for the occupation. Such actions both impose costs and help educate the public here, by emphasizing what should be our prime concern: our own major role in these criminal actions, which is what we can hope to influence. It would be sensible to go far beyond: for example, to join the appeal of Amnesty International for termination of all military aid to Israel, which violates international law as AI observes, and domestic law as well. Unfortunately, there have been other initiatives that were poorly formulated and played directly into the hands of hardliners, who of course welcome them. Again it is easy to identify examples. We should at least be able to learn from ample experience, as well as to understand the reasons for these different consequences.

    Careful evaluation of tactical choices is sometimes disparaged as “lacking principle.” That is a serious error, another gift to hardline supporters of violence and repression. It is the tactical choices that have direct human consequences. Evaluating them is often difficult, and reasonable people may have different judgments in particular cases, but the principle of selecting tactical choices that help the victims and rejecting those that harm them should not be controversial among people concerned about the Palestinians. And it should also not be controversial that those who differ in particular judgments should be able to unite in pursuing the common goals of helping the victims, and should avoid the destructive tendencies that sometimes arise in popular movements to try to impose a Party Line to which all must conform. Norman Finkelstein has recently warned
    that BDS is sometimes taking on a cult-like character, another tendency that has sometimes undermined popular movements. His warnings are apt.”

    My first observation of the above is that contains very little other than vague generalities. Mr Chomsky was very specific earlier in the interview when talking about Israeli crimes, but when asked about what practical steps could be taken to stop them, he starts talking in generalities. He makes insinuations that some BDS groups are “cultlike” but he carefully doesn’t name any names.

    I confess, until the last few days since Jeff B’s article and the response to it appeared, I had seriously underestimated Prof Chomsky. He’s much slicker and more devious than even I had imagined. But my overall opinion of him and his activities has not changed: his primary objective is to defend the existence of the Zionist State. All the rest is sugar-coating for the suckers. “The long slow curve followed by the fast break”.

  345. teafoe2 said on August 1st, 2010 at 4:48pm #

    Please note how Chompsky finds a parallel between the Weathermen and the presentday BDS movement. How low can you get.

  346. teafoe2 said on August 1st, 2010 at 4:56pm #

    I need to take a sec and acknowledge that Mr Hammond scored a debating point. My argument about Chomscky visiting with that Likud-selected unelected “prime minister” (sic) of the puppet “Palestinian Authority” proved that he was in bed with the Isrealis was easily refutable by what CAMERA said about his visit to Lebanon and the statements CAMERA quoted him as saying.

    So I’ve learned a lesson: Chomsky is much slicker than I had supposed.

  347. teafoe2 said on August 1st, 2010 at 5:06pm #

    Chomsky’s policy seems to be “you can say anything you want, boycott anything you want, just don’t do anything that might wind up materially weakening the Jewish State, or threatening the position of the Zionist Power Elite in the US, especially the ZPE’s control of the Federal Government and the Federal Reserve”.

    To those who still try to defend Chomsky’s underhanded defense of Jewish Power, I would suggest that you revisit the chapter in Jas Petras’ 2006 book “The Power of Israel in the United States” entitled “Chomsky’s Fourteen Erroneous Theses”.

  348. teafoe2 said on August 1st, 2010 at 5:11pm #

    The point being that a BDS campaign targetting Israel appears to have a very good chance of negatively impacting both the Israeli state and its powersource in the US Congress, Executive Branch and now in the Judiciary, plus the hand it keeps in the US taxpayers cash register via control of the US central bank aka “the Fed” and the US Treasury Dept. Meanwhile, Wolfy’s at the World Bank and all’s well with the world…NOT

  349. teafoe2 said on August 1st, 2010 at 5:15pm #

    Sorry to belabor the point, but the nonsense about how we should stop BDS vs Israel and instead boycott the US fails the smell test.

    “which rat has the tony”:)

  350. Jeremy R. Hammond said on August 1st, 2010 at 6:20pm #

    *So pointing out that Jeffrey Blankfort deliberately mischaracterizes Chomsky’s views makes me “Chomsky’s propaganda shill”? Really? That’s an interesting standard.

    *You keep mentioning the Israeli interview, and Chomsky’s comment that he’s a “supporter of Israel”, as though I hadn’t already pointed out that what he means is that he opposes Israeli crimes — which he states explicitly in that interview, but which you for some reason constantly omit.

    *Again, why would Chomsky renounce the views he had in the ’40s, when he was opposed to a Jewish state and favored what the Arabs favored, a single binational state? What is so horrible about this position of his (which is the position he refers to in noting that he was a “Zionist youth leader”) that you think he should denounce it? And why won’t you answer this question?

    * HOPI’s positions are:

    Our campaign demands are:

    * No to imperialist war! For the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of US/UK troops from Iraq and all the Gulf region!
    * No to any imperialist intervention. The immediate and unconditional end to sanctions on Iran.
    * No to the theocratic regime!
    * Opposition to Israeli expansionism and aggression
    * Support to all working class and progressive struggles in Iran against poverty and repression!
    * Support for socialism and democracy in Iran and therefore solidarity with all democratic, working class, socialist and secular movements in Iran.
    * Opposition to Israeli, British and American nuclear weapons. For a Middle East free of nuclear weapons as a step towards world-wide nuclear disarmament!

    So which of those positions Chomsky supports make him a “crypto-zionist”?

    @teafoe2,

    * What evidence do you know of to support your thesis that Chomsky’s “primary objective is to defend the existence of the Zionist State” that would override is constant criticism and condemnation of the crimes of that same Zionist state?

    * “So I’ve learned a lesson: Chomsky is much slicker than I had supposed.”

    That reminds me of the false claim that Iraq had WMD, and how when no evidence for this could be found, that simply proved how clever Saddam was at hiding them.

    * “Sorry to belabor the point, but the nonsense about how we should stop BDS vs Israel and instead boycott the US fails the smell test.”

    Why do you reject the elementary moral principle that one should apply an equal or more stringent standard to oneself as to others? I’d like Deadbeat’s answer to that as well.

  351. Aaron Aarons said on August 2nd, 2010 at 1:18am #

    Jeremy R. Hammond asks: Are you putting forth the hypothesis that if Iraq’s principle [sic!] export was pickles, the war still would have occurred?

    If Iraq’s principal export had been pickles or, in 1990-91, broccoli, the Iraqi state and/or nation would not have had the material resources to be seen as any kind of threat to their rule by the Zionists or anybody else, including the Kuwaiti royal parasites. Therefore, the two decades of wars and murderous sanctions against Iraq by Zionism and its imperialist patrons would not have occurred.

  352. Jeffrey Blankfort said on August 2nd, 2010 at 7:55am #

    Jeremy, if you object to being called a shill for Chomsky, how about his lawyer, which I assume you are doing pro bono, and not a very good job of it. Chomsky will not debate his critics from the left, the equivalent of taking the stand himself, not having the guts to do so and this has been the case for almost 20 years when he were on friendly terms and he declined a suggestion that we debate the lobby issue at the Socialist Scholars Conference in 1992, writing that “it wouldn’t be useful.”
    To whom I wonder?

    Now, to clarify Chomsky’s position, this is what he stated to the Israeli TV. “I’m not a critic of Israel. I’m a supporter of Israel.” Maybe we need to put that on a billboard. I’m sure AIPAC or the ADL would find the bucks to pay for it.

  353. Jeffrey Blankfort said on August 2nd, 2010 at 12:27pm #

    When one walks in a cow pasture, one expects to step in some shit. In some ways discussions on the Israel-Palestinian issue resemble that cow pasture. If I and others think Hammond is problematic, not apparently having worked through let alone being aware of his own embarrassing [the last hree of those syllables being dominant), he is a naif compared to Mark Richie/Richey/Ritchie and other probable aliases who has now deposited his shit on DV as he has elsewhere. I not only consider him to an agent for the ADL and have denounced him publicly as such, and offer circumstantial evidence to prove it, including his persistent libels of the Middle East Children’s Alliance (MECA) in Berkeley, one of the rare organizations that has consistently and unequivocally supported the Palestinian struggle not just with words but with millions of dollars in material aid over the past 22 years . Unlike Richie, who dis­missed the importance of stopping US aid to Israel as, I imagine, he has dismissed the movement to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel today, MECA this spring hosted Ali Abunimah, of the Electronic Intifada who gave a powerful speech supporting BDS that was broadcast in two parts on TUC Radio on KZYX and can he heard by going to http://www.tucradio.org

    Part of Richie’s style in making his attacks is to include another
    organization that does merit criti­cism such as ANSWER, despite the fact that he has more in common with ANSWER since both he and
    ANSWER’s perennial poobah, Richard Becker, dismiss the notion that the
    pro-Israel lobby has any say over US Middle East pol­icy, preferring to
    lay all the blame on the accomodat­ing but well protected doorstep of US
    imperialism. Indeed, affirming belief in that position is a requirement
    to join Richie’s Quagmire email list when last I heard.

    This is his modus operandi. He stakes out a credible position from which he then targets genuine activists, claiming them to be “zionist” enemies. About five years ago when Richie’s poison pen was circulating over the internet, I wrote the following, updated when appro­priate.

    Those who are not familiar with the machinations of Mark Richey AKA Mark Richie AKA POneill should be aware that he has been plying his divisive wares, spreading the ink from his poison pen in the San Francisco Bay Area for more than 25 years and has been so diligent in his attacks on
    genuine anti-Zion­ists while either ignoring or patronizing actual
    Zion­ists that I and others have concluded that he must be in the employ
    of the Anti-Defamation League.

    In the late 80s, Richey, along with a man
    named Roy Bul­lock, the ADL’s “top fact finder” (according to the late
    ADL spy chief, Irwin Suall), infiltrated the SF Chapter of the ADC
    (American-Arab Anti-Discrimi­nation Committee) of which I had been a
    founding member but was no longer active.

    In 1987, I received information that Bullock, who had been at the
    founding meetings of our Labor Committee on the Middle East, had been an ADL spy for 25 years and when I and Steve Zeltzer, my LCOME co-founder, called him on it, his responses convinced us that the allegation was correct and we booted him out and did our best to inform other groups about him. (The folks now at ANSWER and Socialist Action did not appreciate my warnings and Socialist Action even brought him in as volunteer to run its office when it was organizing a major march in April, 1988)

    In 1992, the SF Police Dept. arrested Tom Gerrad, one of its officers
    when it learned he had been pro­viding information for the ADL and South
    African intelligence services. I put two and two together and gave a SF
    Examiner reporter Bullock’s name which up to then had been kept out of
    the papers. In an FBI deposition, Bullock, who was working in
    partnership with the cop, said that he had six other people work­ing
    with him in the Bay Area but their names were never revealed. He also
    mentioned, gratuitously, that he had infiltrated the ADC after a
    previous spy had been exposed and that that spy had gone on to become a
    lawyer. What was curious is that story wasn’t true. No spy had been
    exposed by the ADC, but it turns out that Richie was a lawyer registered
    with the California State Bar Assn., but who, apparently, never
    practiced and he has never responded to the question as to why he
    hasn’t. (Maybe he will in a follow-up post but I won’t hold my
    breath). Readers can find out more about the ADL spy and the court case
    that followed on http://www.counterpunch.org/adlspying2.html

    According to others at ADC, Richey was relatively quiet at meetings and
    was eventually promoted to the chapter’s board of directors while the
    other infiltra­tor, Bullock, a weight-lifter “volunteered” to provide
    the organization’s security. After differences with Pal­estinians in the
    chapter, Richie left and proceeded to attack the remaining board members
    and other anti-Zionist activists, using his former position as an ADC
    board member as a badge of credibility.

    When the entire Arab community boycotted Alan Solomonow, the openly
    Zionist head of the Middle East Desk of the American Friends Service
    Commit­tee chapter in SF, because of Solomonow’s open dis­crimination
    against Palestinian and Arab organiza­tions and individuals, Richey
    printed a handout defending Solomonow and criticizing the Palestinian
    and Arab community for boycotting the AFSC offi­cial.

    After an early attempt to enlist me on his side failed, and this goes
    back over 25 years, Richie began attacking me as a “liberal Zionist
    intellectual.” His attacks began in earnest after I was interviewed by
    the SF Weekly in 1984 when the Demos held their con­vention in San
    Francisco in in which I criticized the control over the Democratic Party
    exerted by the Zionist lobby. Those attacks have never ceased, the most
    ridiculous being a message in which Richie kissed up to Noam Chomsky
    after my article “Dam­age Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine
    Conflict” was published in Left Curve and began cir­culating on the net.
    See http://www.leftcurve.org/LC29WebPages/Chomsky.html

    While the evidence that Richie was an ADL agent is circumstantial, he
    made a curious slip six years ago or so in an email exchange with me
    about Bullock, revealing information about how the spy was exposed as
    such by the Inst. for Historical Review, the holo­caust revisionst group
    whose meetings Bullock had also attended. That piece of information was
    NOT part of the court testimony and has been otherwise publicly unavailable.

    There was another incident which also solidified my conclusions about
    who Richie was working for when I encountered Bullock on day and said to
    him, “Mark Richie says hello.” This seemed to fluster the ADL’s “top fact finder,” who stammered, “I don’t know who you are talking” about, even as his face reddened

    Richie once left a message on my answering machine, threatening to sue
    me for calling him an ADL agent in public and I have since, on a number of
    occa­sions, online and in person, invited him to do so, since there are
    many questions that I would have my own lawyer ask him. How he knew
    about Bullock’s expo­sure would be one of them.

    It should be noted that Richie has never stopped his spying. Until at
    least a few years ago, he had main­tained his membership in the Arab
    Cultural Center in SF, the people at the center being too polite to ask
    him to leave. I happened to be there a about five years ago at a small
    reception for a former Palestinian pris­oner and his lawyer from the
    West Bank when who should show up at the door but Richie. He was told
    that the reception was private and he was not allowed in.

    Before the internet, Richie had to reply on the postal service to do his
    mud slinging, but thanks to cyberspace he has a world wide reach. In
    August, 2005, I sent a copy of a similar letter to Richie, repeating my
    invitation for him to sue me.

    I sent it as well to Palestinian Prof. Mazin Qumsi­yeh, who spends most
    of the year in Bethelem, Prof. Qumsiyeh forwarded my letter to his
    mailing list and added ‘My own experience with Richey was when he
    exploited a difference of opinion on tactics between some chapters of
    Al-Awda to then claim Zionists manipulated Al-Awda and Zionists run
    Middle East Children Alliance etc.” You can read Qumsiyeh’s excellent
    reports from the West Bank on http://qumsiyeh.org/ and for more on the
    Middle East Children’s Alliance, check out its site, http://www.mecaforpeace.org.

  354. Deadbeat said on August 2nd, 2010 at 1:13pm #

    To follow-up Jeffrey’s post here the link to the Chomsky Interview on Israeli TV for those who missed it…

    “I regard myself as a supporter of Israel”

    These are Chomsky’s own words that he is not a critic of Israel and regards himself a supporter of Israel. Clearly Chomsky remains a Zionist — TO THIS DAY. Once again the apologetic of the Chomskyites is PROFOUNDLY hypocritical and reflects the complete corruption and RETARDATION of the Left.

    Clearly the MOST censored story of the past 40 years!

  355. teafoe2 said on August 2nd, 2010 at 1:22pm #

    response to J Hamhead: I don’t give a jeremy what reminds you of what. I stated a fact. \

    Next, you offer as an “argument”: “Why do you reject the elementary moral principle that one should apply an equal or more stringent standard to oneself as to others?”

    Lemme axe you, Jermey, where or how you come up with the notion that I’m rejecting some “moral principle”?

    Actually I was APPLYING a moral principle by condemning Chomsky’s hypocrisy. He goes around claiming to be a friend of the Palestinians but when push comes to shove we see him telling everybody not to support the only thing anybody has come up with which shows promise of improving the situation for the Palestinians.

    Let me pull your coat to something, Jermey: BDS is not controversial. Even people far to the right of Jeff Blankfort and Idrees have endorsed it, from Desmond Tutu all the way to Media Benjamin and Naomi Klein. But Chompsky’s name is conspicuously absent.

    A word to the wise, Jermey: cut your losses. By defending Chomsky’s indefensible stance you’re just making an ass of yourself in public. Get off this silly Chomsko-Can-Do-No-Wrong kick as fast as you can, publish a disclaimer & put as much distance as you can between yourself and your bad decision to attack Jeff’s critique.

    Salvage what reputation you still have left.

    Good luck;)

  356. teafoe2 said on August 2nd, 2010 at 2:22pm #

    Why BDS? From the Olympia Coop’s webpage:

    Israel has repeatedly violated the Geneva Conventions, defied over seventy UN resolutions, and ignored rulings of the International Court of Justice. The man-made humanitarian crisis in Gaza was explained by Dov Weissglass, a former public face for the Sharon government, as an idea “to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger”.

    During the 22-day attack on Gaza that started in December 2008, hospitals, mosques and schools were bombed and roughly 1300 Palestinians lost their lives. When international civil society sends humanitarian aid ships to Gaza, they are attacked by commando forces. Palestinian land and water is confiscated to make room for illegal settlements; homes, farms and orchards are demolished. People are immobilized and harassed by a web of checkpoints, walls, settler-only roads and closures. Palestinian political leaders are being subjected to targeted assassinations and extrajudicial detentions.

    There is a way to describe all of these atrocities with only one word: Occupation. It seems clear that something has to be done. But what?

    How do you challenge and alter the violent behavior of one of the worlds largest military powers, a perpetual human rights violator who shows no respect for international courts or the UN? How do you end an occupation that has been going on for over forty years, that every day reaps new victims? How do you create a peaceful solution in the region, justice and equality, and a more hopeful future for Palestinians and Israelis alike?

    All forms of international intervention and peace-making have until now failed to convince or force the state of Israel to comply with humanitarian law, to respect fundamental human rights and to end its occupation and oppression of the people of Palestine. What has not been tried before is the strategy of boycott, divestment and sanctions — BDS for short. This is what the Palestinian civil society has called for, and from this call, a global movement has slowly been gaining momentum and is just about to hit it big.

    So what is BDS, and how could it change things for the better?

    The idea is to send a powerful, non-violent message to Israel that we are bearing witness to the ongoing atrocities, and that what is happening today in Gaza and in the West Bank is unacceptable. The aim is not to reject, but to bring about change. To embrace this strategy is, like the friend of a drug addict, to stop enabling the abuse.

    In the US, and in regard to Palestine and Israel, silence is unfortunately complicity. Every year, the city of Olympia alone forks over an estimated $940,000 to Israel, the majority of which is used to buy US made weaponry to be used against Palestinians. The US as a whole spends around $3 billion a year on Israel (links). The occupation would not exist as it does today if it wasn’t for the money that your employer sends to Israel through federal taxes, paycheck by paycheck.

    Governments, particularly here in the US, and international institutions, have failed to bring justice to Palestinians. It is now up to us, the civil society, the activists, the artists, the local business owners, the people on the street, the working mothers, the retired, the religious, the atheists: We need to stop enabling the abuse.

    Naomi Klein has written that “the reason the BDS strategy should be tried against Israel is practical: in a country so small and trade-dependent, it could actually work.” In the face of oppression in South Africa, university students, labor unions, and churches used their economic agency to apply pressure on the Apartheid regime demanding that it renounce its discriminatory practices and replace them with a policy of “one man, one vote.” The same could happen in Palestine and Israel.

    So why BDS? It is non-violent, it is accessible to everyone and it has proven successful in the past. Let’s get to work!

  357. teafoe2 said on August 2nd, 2010 at 2:26pm #

    The following courageous individuals have endorsed our campaign and the Co-op’s decision to boycott Israeli goods:

    TJ Johnson, Former Olympia City Council member
    Monica Peabody, Local Community Organizer
    Muhammad Ayub, MD
    Nomy Lamm, Artist
    Cindy Corrie, Founder, Rachel Corrie Foundation for Peace & Justice
    Jean Eberhardt, Community Organizer
    Desmond Tutu, South African Archbishop
    Lynn Gottlieb, Rabbi
    Alissa Wise, Rabbi
    Richard Falk, UN Special Rapporteur for Occupied Palestinian Territories, Board Chair, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and nominee for Nobel Peace Prize
    Naomi Klein, Award-winning journalist, syndicated columnist and author of the New York Times and #1 international bestseller The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism
    Mairead Maguire, Nobel Laureate
    John Berger, Author of G, Booker Prize winner -72
    Yonaton Shapiro, Israeli Air Force Captain and co-founder of Combatants for Peace
    Tariq Ali, Leader of 68 in Europe and the publisher of Verso books, and The New Left Review
    Anthony Arnove, Co-author of Voices of a People’s History of the United States, Author of Iraq: The Logic of Withdrawal
    Paul Kivel, Violence Prevention Educator and author of several books including Uprooting Racism: How White People Can Work for Racial Justice
    Jennifer Loewenstein, Faculty Associate, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Human Rights activist & freelance journalist
    Roger Waters, Pink Floyd
    Janet Lahr Lewis, United Methodist Liaison in Israel and Palestine
    Jeff Halper, Israeli anthropologist and the Director of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD)
    Dina Kennedy
    Joel Kovel, Author of Overcoming Zionism
    Cindy Sheehan, Peace activist and mother of Spc. Casey Austin Sheehan KIA in Iraq on 04/04/04
    Medea Benjamin, Co-Founder CODEPINK, Global Exchange
    Anne Wright, Retired Army Colonel, noted US diplomat and member of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla
    And of course all the 2009 global citizens who signed our petition!

  358. teafoe2 said on August 2nd, 2010 at 3:55pm #

    The information Pulse editor “Idrees” supplies in this makes an excellent epitaph to be inscribed on War For Oil hasbararist J Hammond’s political tombstone:

    P U L S E
    “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.”

    Israel’s Gurkha Regiment and Iran

    Israel’s fifth column in the United States has long used the American military as what Juan Cole memorably called Israel’s ‘Gurkha Regiment’. They used the September 11 attacks as an opportunity to push the United States into a disastrous war against Israel’s regional enemies. The war was planned and executed in Washington, but its inspiration came from Tel Aviv. David Ben Gurion’s periphery doctrine had by the early 1980s evolved into Likud’s elaborate plan for dominating the region. It was developed and articulated by veteran Israeli diplomat Oded Yinon in the World Zionist Organization’s inhouse publication Kivunim. Ariel Sharon’s abortive attempt to implement the plan backfired after its invasion of Lebanon turned into a political and military fiasco. Israel soon realized the limits of its power when fighting a popular resistance as opposed to the ill-equipped and poorly led Arab armies which it had handily defeated. Meanwhile Yinon’s ideas were picked up and adapted by David Wurmser, the principal author of the infamous ‘Clean Break‘ and its lesser known, but more important follow up, ‘Coping with Crumbling States‘. (In a clear breach of the 1798 Logan Act, Wurmser, Feith and Perle also advised Israeli leaders on ways to undercut US foreign policy.) They were given their fullest expression in Wurmser’s 1999 book Tyranny’s Ally published by AEI and endorsed by Richard Perle et al.

    At a time when Israel and the Likudnik neoconservatives were divided as to which regional rival needed confronting first — Iran or Iraq — Wurmser came up with a conceptual breakthrough which would neutralize both with a single stroke. In the place of the US strategy of ‘dual containment’ (developed by Israel lobbyist Martin Indyk), Wurmser proposed a strategy of ‘dual rollback’. By invading Iraq, encouraging sectarian segregation, and empowering the Shia, the United States could eliminate Iraq as a major threat while at the same time exploiting the Iraq-Iranian doctrinal schism over Khomeini’s concept of wilayat-e-faqih to rollback the Iranian revolution. Iraq and its present Grand Ayatullah command higher authority among Shias, he noted, and unlike the Iranian clergy, they don’t subscribe to wilayat-e-faqih. An assertive Iraqi Shia populace would therefore displace Iran as a center of the Shia world, its example would also spur the Saudi Shia to agitate against the central government.

    So it was that in 2002 the neoconservatives leveraged their privileged access to Cheney and Rumsfeld to defeat the sceptics in the foreign policy establishment, the military joint chiefs of staff, and the intelligence agencies. They waged a war that has destroyed over a million Iraqi lives, dispalced nearly 5 million, and impoverished the world by burning up nearly six trillion dollars (half of those costs will be born by the US alone).But if you thought these agents of a foreign power would be laying low lest they draw more attention to themselves, you’d be disappointed. Deja vu: the neoconservatives now want the United States to wage another war for Israel. The cast is familiar, so is the script. The only question is how long the audience will put up with the charade. The US military has repeatedly put its foot down: it doesn’t want to fight another war for Israel. US businesses are even more sceptical. Even Obama is not listening. But the danger, as Zbigniew Brzezinski had warned, is that Israel could stage an event to force American hand and embroil it in a war that it does not want. So, where are the antiwar voices, and when will they call the Israel lobby on its treacherous machinations?

    The following article by investigative journalist Gareth Porter is a must read. (Also see my 2007 article on the campaign against Iran)

    (Idrees’ reference is to the Gareth Porter article published a few days ago here on DV)

  359. teafoe2 said on August 2nd, 2010 at 4:42pm #

    Hammond asks: @teafoe2,

    * What evidence do you know of to support your thesis that Chomsky’s “primary objective is to defend the existence of the Zionist State” that would override is constant criticism and condemnation of the crimes of that same Zionist state?

    Hammond also asks: “So which of those positions Chomsky supports make him a “crypto-zionist”?

    A sufficient if not comprehensive answer is supplied by Hammond himself in the same post:

    “Our campaign demands are:

    * No to imperialist war! For the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of US/UK troops from Iraq and all the Gulf region!
    * No to any imperialist intervention. The immediate and unconditional end to sanctions on Iran.
    * No to the theocratic regime!
    * Opposition to Israeli expansionism and aggression
    * Support to all working class and progressive struggles in Iran against poverty and repression!
    * Support for socialism and democracy in Iran and therefore solidarity with all democratic, working class, socialist and secular movements in Iran.
    * Opposition to Israeli, British and American nuclear weapons. For a Middle East free of nuclear weapons as a step towards world-wide nuclear disarmament!

    Taking this exercise in hypocrisy one line at a time:

    * No to imperialist war!
    This is good rhetoric, intended to get HOPI and Chomsky accepted as on the side of the angels, to function as cover enabling them to proceed with their real purpose.

    Anybody can denounce “Imperialist War” as long as they don’t propose or support anything that might really disrupt the ZioImperialist warmachine. Bet I can find a lot of Obama-supporting Democrats who’d endorse a statement like “No to Imperialist War”. So general as to be meaningless.

    * No to the theocratic regime!
    This is intended to encourage support for US/Israel-inspired efforts to destabilize Iran and weaken its cohesion just when Izzy and the ZPC are projecting an armed attack on Iran.

    *Opposition to Israeli expansionism and aggression

    But not condemnation of the racist settler-colonial basis of the Isreali state, or of its imposition of its Apartheid regime. This is Limited Criticism of certain Isreali policies which does not go to the root of the problem.

    * Support to all working class and progressive struggles in Iran against poverty and repression!

    The above is just more “color revolution” propaganda, aimed at conning US “progressives” into supporting US/Izzy backed subversion of the democratically elected Iranian administration. Ahmedinejad’s administration is more strongly supported by the Iranian poor and workingclass than by any other strata of the society.

    * Support for socialism and democracy in Iran and therefore solidarity with all democratic, working class, socialist and secular movements in Iran.

    more of the same Voice of America bs. HOPI, Chomsky, and Hammand have obviously enlisted in the US/Izzy campaign to prepare the US public for an armed attack on Iran, and for launching even more CIA/Mossad covert action attempts to attack it from within. what else is new?

    * Opposition to Israeli, British and American nuclear weapons. For a Middle East free of nuclear weapons as a step towards world-wide nuclear disarmament!

    More “on the side of the angels” rhetoric. Pius pacifists have been futily pleading for Nuclear Disarmement since Bertrand Russell was a pup. What is needed NOW, that would advance the cause of nuclear disaarment NOW, is maximum support for the BDS campaign, which would among other things put the issue of Isreali criminality at the top of student activist’s agendas on all US campuses, at the top of the agendas of progressive labor union activists, and activists in religious organizations. Which will result in it becoming impossible to avoid the subject even in local Democrat Party organizations.

    Why Chomsky et al refuse to align themselves with BDS is a mystery to me, but that apparently is the line they refuse to cross. The only explanation I can come up with is that they just don’t want to see “isreal” or the Zionist aggressor state injured or weakened in any material way.

    But if you have a better explanation I’d love to read it:)

  360. Aaron Aarons said on August 4th, 2010 at 4:37am #

    Some questions for Jeremy Hammond:

    1) Do you support the Palestinian Right of Return?

    2) Do you support full political and civil rights for ‘Gentiles’ in every part of Palestine from the Jordan to the Mediterranean and from the Egyptian to the Lebanese and Syrian borders? Or do you support the existence of a state in any part of Palestine that privileges Jews in any way?

    3) Do you support any part of ‘BDS’ against ‘Israel’ and its enablers? If so, which parts do you support and which parts do you not support?

    4) In armed conflicts resulting from Israeli attacks on Palestinians, as in Gaza, and Lebanese, do you support, at least with words, the armed resistance of those peoples to the Israeli military and state?

    4a) So as not to be ‘hypocritical’, do you also support the armed resistance against the United Snakes and its allies in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran.

    I’m sure I will think of more questions later, but that’s enough for now.

  361. Aaron Aarons said on August 4th, 2010 at 5:02am #

    Near the start of his lawyer’s brief in defense of Chomsky, Jeremy Hammond writes:

    There are a number of common gripes about Professor Chomsky. The leading one is that he is actually a Zionist and “left gatekeeper” who, despite appearances, really seeks to limit debate on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    Despite appearances? I think what Hammond really wants people to believe is that, despite appearances, Chomsky really favors free and open debate between people with his line and those who actually support the Palestinian people against the Jewish-supremacist state.

    Anybody buying? If so, I have a bridge over one of the canals of Mars that I’ll give you a good deal on.

  362. Jon said on August 4th, 2010 at 9:46am #

    Jeffrey, you wrote, quoting Chomsky:

    ““I’m not a critic of Israel. I’m a supporter of Israel.” Maybe we need to put that on a billboard. I’m sure AIPAC or the ADL would find the bucks to pay for it.”

    Are you a supporter of the United States? I am. Not that I support US invasions and aggressions. As Chomsky states all the time, charges of anti-Americanism that conflate being a supporter of America with being a supporter of the American government’s policies embraces assumptions much like those that existed in Nazi Germany. He does NOT embrace such assumptions and regards being pro-American as being pro-the American people. This means opposing US invasions and aggressions not only because they are destructive to the victims but also because they make Americans less safe as victims retaliate.

    He is a supporter of Israel in that he supporters Israeli’s. He wants Israeli’s to live in peace and security. He knows that the Israeli public supported the Arab Peace Plan of 2003, though the government won’t go along. He wants what’s best for them, what’s best for Palestinians, and what’s best for Americans as well, so he supports realistic peace plans that the world backs but the US and Israel reject. This is a perfectly moral and reasonable view. To conflate his claim of supporting Israel with a claim that he supporters Israeli policies of aggression and violence is plainly backwards and the opposite of his clear views which he has been expressing for a long time.

  363. Jon said on August 4th, 2010 at 9:53am #

    It appears to me that criticisms of Chomsky are based almost entirely on interpretations of his words that deviate from his intended meaning. That’s very sad to me. There are so many problems that need to be addressed and we need to be joined in solidarity, not attacking each other based on misunderstandings.

    The worst that can be said of Chomsky is that what he suggests doesn’t make sense strategically. If true, which I’m not sure, it doesn’t warrant the vilification and charges that his in league with Zionist criminals. Argue that his strategy is misguided if you will, but to pretend he’s some sort of Zionist (in the sense the word is understood today) seems really out of court.

  364. Aaron Aarons said on August 6th, 2010 at 1:06am #

    @Shabnam, quotes Gilad Atzmon:

    I actually think that the Zionist Lobby has managed to destroy the American empire.[...] The Zionists in fact have managed to bring down every super power they cling to. Britain, France and now America.

    I’m surprised to see Gilad praising the Zionists like that! What could have gotten into him?

  365. Aaron Aarons said on August 6th, 2010 at 2:40am #

    In the lead article above, JRH quotes Chomsky:

    What I said was that I remain a Zionist in the sense of Zionism in the 1940s. Zionism has changed. That doesn’t mean my views have.

    The Zionist campaign to displace the indigenous people of Palestine and establish a Jewish state didn’t start some time in the 1940’s. It was because they were planning such a displacement that they successfully lobbied the imperialist League of Nations before 1920 to deny Palestinian self-determination, and to keep Palestine under a “mandate” until there were sufficient numbers of Jews there to establish a Jewish state or “commonwealth”. And, from 1936 to 1939, Jewish colonists teamed up with the British military to suppress the Arab revolt. And it was in May of 1942 that a mass gathering of U.S. and world Zionist leaders at the Biltmore Hotel in New York, certainly the largest such Zionist meeting in that period, issued a declaration whose main, concluding, demand was “that Palestine be established as a Jewish Commonwealth integrated in the structure of the new democratic world.”

    Zionism in the 1940’s was just as much a racist or, if you prefer, an ethnic-supremacist movement as it was before and after the 1940’s. There were, of course, many Jews who didn’t, and didn’t want to, see that. At least in Chomsky’s case, considering that he is very intelligent and, moreover, completed his Master’s thesis on Modern Hebrew in 1951, it must have taken a strong-willed refusal to see.

  366. Deadbeat said on August 6th, 2010 at 3:27am #

    This is off-topic but I agree with Aaron the editors should consider upgrading the site to include a rich text editor and preview features.

  367. Jeremy R. Hammond said on August 6th, 2010 at 6:52am #

    @Jeffrey,

    Now, to clarify Chomsky’s position, this is what he stated to the Israeli TV. “I’m not a critic of Israel. I’m a supporter of Israel.”

    As you know, Jeffrey, you are taking that remark out of context. Why don’t you quote the whole statement so readers may see the context?

    In fact, I don’t regard myself as a critic of Israel. I regard myself as a supporter of Israel. The people who are harming Israel, in my opinion, it’s what I’ve said many times, are those who claim to be supporting it. They are helping [to] drive Israel towards moral degeneration and possible ultimate destruction. I think support for Israel should be support for policies which are for its benefit.

    Also, Jeff, why did you suggest the possibility that Chomsky holds views you know he doesn’t hold, such as suggesting he thinks P.A. collusion with Israel to be “sensible and sound”?

    And in what way is that not intellectually dishonest of you?

    @Aaron Aarons,

    To answer your questions:

    1) I support the right of return.
    2) I support full political and civil rights for all people, everywhere.
    3) I support BDS against the U.S. and Israel. As an American, I oppose BDS against Israel if it does not include BDS against the U.S., because, as Chomsky correctly observes, it is hypocritical.
    4, 4a) I support the right of all people everywhere to armed resistance to aggression, occupation, and oppression. I don’t always agree with this as a tactic.

    As for your comment on August 6th, 2010 at 2:40am, you might be interseted in my essay, “The Rejection of Palestinian Self-Determination”. It’s available at Amazon or Lulu.com. Or get the PDF for free by registering on my site, JeremyRHammond.com.

  368. shabnam said on August 6th, 2010 at 9:42am #

    @Aaron Aarons

    {I’m surprised to see Gilad praising the Zionists like that! What could have gotten into him?}

    Please don’t distort Gilad’s words to say that he is praising the zionists because clearly DOESN’T.

    I have left you the link and you should not do this kind of manipulation to paint a distorded image of him. He means the Lobby clings to dominant power and sucks its blood for the interest of Israel and zionist project until the empire is dead (is demised).

    http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/touching-left-islam-israeli-lobby-chomsky-and-many-other-hot.html

  369. teafoe2 said on August 6th, 2010 at 4:07pm #

    Behold, another clairvoyant, another “Jon”. Or is this the same one, sans the “s”? I think I can remember the original “jon s” claiming the same power to read minds as the author of the posts above –?

    This one seeks to prevent Dr Chomsky from suffering the consequences of his actions and public statements by claiming Chomksy didn’t mean what he said, but really “intended” something that Jon will explain to us.

    Sorry Jon, if Chomsky didn’t mean what he said, he can go on Democracy Now anytime he wants and clarify it.

    If he, or you, or any of your fellow hasbara artists like this Hammond want to prove that the accusations levelled against them by anti-Zionists are misguided and misplaced, all you have to do is go to the Olympia Coop site and add your names to the BDS Petition list.

    Let us know when the great man’s monicker has been added to the list, just post it onto this thread? Please hurry? So I can stop holding my breath?

  370. teafoe2 said on August 6th, 2010 at 4:24pm #

    Jeremy H. writes: “3) I support BDS against the U.S. and Israel. As an American, I oppose BDS against Israel if it does not include BDS against the U.S., because, as Chomsky correctly observes, it is hypocritical.”

    What a transparently hypocritical statement.

    If Hammond and his guru think US residents and US-based organizations should engage in a boycott of the US, why don’t they announce that they’ve launched a campaign to that end and ask us to support it? And tell us how we can go about supporting it in a material way, not just rhetorically, not just with empty words of the kind Hammond is so free with?

    What US products should we stop buying? Is this another “don’t pay your taxes” scam? Should we all emigrate?

    It doesn’t seem practical for all US citizens to emigrate, but maybe Hammond has that all figured out?

    What does seem highly practical would be for Isrealis of good will to comply with BDS by emigrating from that anachronistic racist/militarist monstrosity.

  371. Jeremy R. Hammond said on August 6th, 2010 at 5:35pm #

    That one should apply to oneself an equal or more stringent standard than one applies to others is an elementary moral principle. If you reject it, fine. Your choice. I do not. If you want to support your assertion that I’ve been hypocritical, you’re welcome to try to create an argument explaining how I’ve applied to others a standard I don’t apply to myself. Best of luck with that endeavor.

  372. Deadbeat said on August 6th, 2010 at 6:01pm #

    Jeremy R. Hammond writes …

    That one should apply to oneself an equal or more stringent standard than one applies to others is an elementary moral principle. If you reject it, fine. Your choice. I do not. If you want to support your assertion that I’ve been hypocritical, you’re welcome to try to create an argument explaining how I’ve applied to others a standard I don’t apply to myself. Best of luck with that endeavor.

    I appreciate Mr. Hammond’s response to teafoe2 and can see his point. It makes complete sense to me. He’s arguing that he has the moral high-ground in a boycott of the United States and wants to hold the United States to a higher standard. I agree with those sentiments. However in order to boycott properly we’ll need to target those actors who influence U.S. policy.

    Therefore I would definitely join Mr. Hammond in a boycott of American Jewish Zionism (AJZ) since the AJZ and the Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC) are at the center of influencing American policy today.

    Let’s start with a boycott of NBC, CBS, ABC there’s just too many Jewish Zionist on TV and in Hollywood. Let’s boycott the banks there are a lot of AJZ in banking and on Wall Street (Goldman etc). The FED is heavily influenced by the AJZ. Stop watching Democracy Now! We all know Amy sympathize with the AJZ. And the Pentagon is heavily influence by the AJZ.

    Yes Mr. Hammond a boycott of American Zionism is a welcomed development and will raise awareness to the American people and the world that the most virulent and dangerous form of racism it faces today is American Jewish Zionism.

  373. Jeremy R. Hammond said on August 6th, 2010 at 8:27pm #

    Any boycott/divestment should be directed at corporations that materially support Israeli crimes, e.g. Caterpillar, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Alliant Techsystems, and so on. If you know any that happen incidentally to be Jewish-owned, feel free to add them to the list. But proposing a boycott of only Jewish or Jewish-owned companies/organizations, or boycotting such simply because they are Jewish-owned, would not satisfy the elementary moral principle you just professed to agree with. Not even close. Quite the contrary. You can’t combat racism with racism, and you can’t fight hypocrisy with hypocrisy.