Clinton Outlines Continuation of Bush Policies Under Obama at CFR

In a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) on Wednesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton outlined the Obama administration’s foreign policy, which has been widely touted as a sharp break from that of his predecessor’s. Judging from commentary in the media, Obama has ushered in a new age of diplomacy and international engagement. Clinton herself suggested as much.

But setting aside the platitudes that comprised most of Clinton’s speech and looking closely at her remarks that actually spoke meaningfully towards U.S. policy under the Obama, a different picture emerges, one not of a change of course from Bush but rather of near perfect continuity between the two administrations.

Obama’s foreign policy parallels Bush’s. The train may have switched tracks, but it’s still headed in the same direction.

Take, for starters, the framework Clinton established early on in her speech. “Liberty, democracy, justice and opportunity underlie our priorities”, she said. “Some accuse us of using these ideals to justify actions that contradict their very meaning. Others say we are too often condescending and imperialistic, seeking only to expand our power at the expense of others. And yes, these perceptions have fed anti-Americanism, but they do not reflect who we are.”

See, U.S. foreign policy doesn’t really contradict enlightened rhetoric and declarations of benevolent intent from policy makers. The U.S. isn’t really condescending or imperialistic. It doesn’t really seek only to expand its power at the expense of others. No, these are merely “perceptions”, and false ones. The obvious corollary is that we musn’t change our policies, only work to correct these warped perceptions that cause people to unjustly oppose U.S. actions.

It hardly needs to be said that there’s nothing new about that formula.
The multilateralism touted by Obama is different from Bush’s unilateralism, but only slightly. The difference is that Bush openly declared that if you aren’t with us, you’re against us. Obama’s team is being more nuanced and diplomatic in talking about building the “architecture of global cooperation.”

But in the end, it’s still about furthering U.S. interests as percieved by Washington and the corporate oligarchy. Cooperation and multilateralism, as it was under Bush, is fine, so long as it serves our “interests” as defined by that minority segment of the population. Obama’s strategy is quite different in terms of rhetoric about diplomacy, but the actual policy goal goals are indistinguishable from previous administrations.

One means by which policy goals are accomplished is through NATO, a matter that Clinton addressed. She observed that NATO was designed for the Cold War. But rather than becoming obsolete with the end of the Cold War, even now, two decades later, NATO must instead be restructured “to update its strategic concept so that it is as effective in this century as it was in the last.”

This is precisely the same policy as previous administrations.
Or take Clinton’s remarks about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. She says the Obama administration “wasted no time in starting an intensive effort on day one to realize the rights of Palestinians and Israelis to live in peace and security in two states.”

President Bush said exactly the same thing in not dissimilar language, only to implement an actual policy that fully supported Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians, including it’s 23-day full-scale military assault on Gaza beginning December 27.

U.S. policy under Obama hasn’t altered that framework one iota. The House of Representatives, for example, just approved Obama’s foreign aid budget that rewards Israel for it’s massacre of Palestinians in Gaza and other violations of international law with an additional $2.2 billion, on top of $555 million already allocated earlier this year.

Still, we are supposed to believe that the Obama administration is doing something “to ease the living conditions of Palestinians, and create circumstances that can lead to the establishment of a viable Palestinian state.” Clinton offers no evidence that the U.S. has done anything more than spout rhetoric about this, rendered meaningless by the U.S.’s actual actions.

Bush and Obama alike have paid lip service to the rights and aspirations of the Palestinians, but the actual facts about U.S. foreign policy point to an opposite conclusion from the one Clinton would have the public believe.

Clinton’s remarks on Iran similarly reflect perfect continuity from the Bush administration framework, asserting “the Iranian march toward a nuclear weapon” as fact, despite the complete lack of evidence to support the claim, and even the conclusion of the U.S.’s own intelligence community to the contrary.

The Obama administration has made it’s position clear. It is willing to engage in “diplomacy” with Iran. The proposed “dialogue” and offer “to engage Iran” would entail “giving its leaders a clear choice: whether to join the international community as a responsible member” by acquiescing to U.S. demands to halt uranium enrichment, “or to continue down a path to further isolation” by refusing to accept the U.S. ultimatum.

This policy doesn’t differ from Bush’s one jot or one tittle, except inasmuch as it is an escalation of the Bush policy. “We remain ready to engage with Iran,” Clinton reminds us, “but the time for action is now. The opportunity will not remain open indefinitely.”

As Clinton has explained earlier, sanctions even more stringent than those imposed under Bush, “crippling sanctions” in her words, will follow. Iran must be punished for refusing to bow to the will of Washington, and if there’s a change, it’s that Obama is even more eager than Bush to inflict it.

The policy formula for Afghanistan and Pakistan is familiar enough: “In Afghanistan and Pakistan, our goal is to disrupt, dismantle, and ultimately defeat al-Qaida and its extremist allies, and to prevent their return to either country.” This warrants little comment, other than the observation that Obama hasn’t only continued Bush’s policy here, but escalated it by “sending an additional 17,000 troops and 4,000 military trainers to Afghanistan.”

Or take Iraq, where the Obama administration is “developing a long-term economic and political relationship … as outlined by the US-Iraq Strategic Framework Agreement” that was implemented under the Bush administration. No comment is required here.

And what about U.S. policy towards “enemy combatants”? Clinton asserted, “We renewed our own values by prohibiting torture” — but torture has always been prohibited under U.S. law. Obama’s Executive Order didn’t do anything new, it merely reiterated already existing prohibitions.

Clinton said the administration is “beginning to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.” What she meant is that they’ve begun the process of beginning the process to close “Gitmo.” It’s a long ways from actually closing, and there’s plenty of opposition and other obstacles to overcome before this can happen, assuming the administration is sincere in its stated desire to shut Gitmo down.

There’s little reason to doubt their sincerity; shutting down Gitmo would be a useful way to do away with what has become a symbol for the unjustness of U.S. detention policy while doing little or nothing to actually alter that policy.

Obama, for instance, has not challenged, but accepted and reinforced the assumption of Executive power employed under the Bush administration under which detainees were captured and imprisoned in Gitmo in the first place.

On policy issue after policy issue, the continual torrrent of media commentary to the contrary aside, the Obama administration represents a continuation of the existing power establishment and goals and means of furthering U.S. strategic interests as defined by that very narrow and entirely self-interested segment of American society.

The CFR itself is among the prominent means by which these narrow interests perpetuate themselves. Clinton, herself a member, made some telling offhand remarks before beginning her scripted speech. Remarking on the CFR’s new headquarters in Washington, D.C., she said, “I am delighted to be here in these new headquarters. I have been often to I guess the mother ship in New York City, but it’s good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”

And so it goes, business as usual.

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: Read other articles by Jeremy, or visit Jeremy's website.

132 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Shabnam said on July 18th, 2009 at 8:09pm #

    Mr. Hammond:
    Thank you for your work exposing the US policy in Iran where is really no policy except using undiplomatic means to wage a war on Iran. Hillary Clinton and Obama have aligned US policy with Israel’s interest against American people interest and American people are not willing or unable to influence the policy since ‘left’ is actually in bed with Obama, a Zionist puppet, to divert attention from Israelis crimes, stealing more land by destruction of Palestinian houses. All these illegal and war criminal activities are supported by American people tax $$$$$$$$$$$ money.

    Unfortunately, majority of Americans are too naïve to find out the truth. Obama continues Bush’s foreign policy of killing Muslims in faraway places with a LIE that that making American fools save by killing ‘Al-Qaeda’ whereas there is NO ‘Al-Qaeda’ except the United States. In fact, Obama is following the same destructive foreign policy, in some areas bloodier than Bush, like in central Asia and Africa, to speed up destabilization and partition to serve the interest of elite including the Zionists.

    Recently, number of Iranian ‘intellectuals’ who have been nourished by Zionism and imperialism and have received awards and training by NED have become active since the violence erupted in June. Everyone familiar with Iranian politics knows that Ahmadinejad won the election by 2 to 1 margin. This victory was predicted by ‘the new American foundation’ a month before the election, but enemies of Iran who knew this information had tried to use the moment to bring destabilization through chaos by announcing ‘where is my vote.’ The enemy is trying to unseat Ahmadinejad for Mousavi who is under the protection of Rafsanjani, the symbol of neoliberal policy in Iran. Rafsanjani is supported by wealthy opposition groups; many are living aboard among them are the opposition groups connected to ‘the reformists’ who are widely viewed as agent of the West by many Iranians.

    The eruption of violence against the election outcome is very destructive but it is not surprising for those who know the hand of NED, and phony “human Right’ organization in Iran as Mr. Hammond you have written in the past and was not received well among those Iranians who want to hide NED’s role in Iran. The Zionist and imperialist agents who are active among ‘the reformists’, ‘women movement’ are the recipient of NED, ‘right and democracy’ Canadian NED where a zinofascist by the name of Payam Akhavan, a Bahia, law professor at Mac Gill university and founder of ‘Documents of Human rights violation center’ with two other Zionists who lie on NPR, Roya Hakakian and her husband Ramin Amadi, has received a grant more than $1.5 million from US government. Akhavan has close connection with Shireen Ebadi, an agent of the West, made ‘leader’ by announcing her the ‘winner’ of Nobel peace Prize in 2003, no one to this day knows what kind of peace making she was making, but we know she was pro shah before the revolution with no record on fighting against “human rights” violations during the dictatorship of US puppet, the shah. The campaign of “one million signature’ where was supported and nourished by the West , Parvin Ardalan, a Kurd, was given an award for her work on behalf of women movement.

    The reform movement and the women’s movement in Iran are interrelated. The women have been a key component of the reform movement since its very beginning. Over time the two have merged. That’s why the government sees activists in the women movement as pawns of the US destabilization plan. Many women have been given training in ‘non-violent’ civil disobedience technique in Dubai, Germany, India and Iran by NED.

    A coalition of leading Iranian Intellectuals, many of whom have been supported and provided for by NED, like Mehrangiz Kar, Abdulkarim Soroush, Akbar Ganji, Fatemeh Haqiqatjoo, Hossein Bashiriyeh, Hassan Yousefi Eshkevari are going to hold a hunger strike in front of the UN where Noam Chomsky is going to join them.
    This shows that Noam Chomsky’s view is aligned with Obama Iran policy in favor of Israel. Since the Iranian election a corrupt cleric businessman, Akbar Rafsanjani, is trying to steal the election with Obama cooperation and enablers like the ‘left’ in the West who are active on behalf of the ‘green wave’ supported by ‘reformists.’
    Noam Chomsky and Joanne Landy from CPD and phony Hamid Dabashi are with Obama.
    Abdulkarim Soroush, NED supported ‘philosopher’ along with Hamid Dabashi supports NED trained ‘intellectuals’ who are going to stage a HUNGER STRIKE ON 22 & 23 OF JULY in front of the UN.
    Abdulkarim Soroush received more than $10,000 for his rubbish, how to weaken Islam in Iran, by HRW and was awarded Erasmus prize, $50,000, in 2004 where was shared by two others from Morocco and Syria who are promoting ‘western democracy’ in their country. Soroush and Ebadi were selected by their masters as 100 ‘influential’ in the world people by TIME magazine a few years ago. The irony is that not many people, even Iranians with PhD inside or outside Iran know Soroush. I guess they mean influence at the Council on Foreign relations which makes sense.

    Zmag has published many articles promoting Obama’s foreign policy regarding Iran to form public opinion among ‘left’ and ‘progressive.’ However, the comments left by people under each article shows that they are not buying their positions and number of them was angry and wrote that they are going to stop their contribution to Zmag because they felt these articles are copied from the Iran policy in film Syriana. One of the papers by Rahnema at Zmag: “The Tragedy of Left’s Discourse on Iran’ critic people like James Petras, Azmi Bishara, MRZine for publishing papers from, in his mind ‘Islamists’, Zizek and others. Many articles at Zmag has intensified their attack on ‘left’ who do not repeat Obama and Hillary Clinton’s words criticizing Ahmadinejad and praising the stooges of the ‘green waves.’
    Thanks again for your work.

  2. Mamadu said on July 19th, 2009 at 4:52am #

    I totally agree with your analysis on the recent Iranian elections preceded by violent demonstrations in Tehran. I have always argued that the West has been behind all the chaos taking place in Tehran , Bush´s first election was a stollen one but did we see supporters of Al Gore demonstrating anywhere on the streets of America or Gore refushing to accept the results, no it never happen and no outside interference. Enemies of Islam, the west in this case have always used every means to bring down countries sympathatic to the plight of Palestinians. I blame the stooges of the muslim world for whatever is happening to musilms, they managed to divide us and we instead of going for our worst enemy, we are fighting each other. Our failure to listen and take the advice of our Beloved Prophet, PBUH when he told the Muslim Jaamat to unite or we will fall down if we faced the enemy, thats what is happening to Muslims today. Christianians, Jews and other religions are united against Islam and it is our own making and we will suffer for not taking the advice of our Beloved Prophet, PBUH-

  3. bozh said on July 19th, 2009 at 8:04am #

    managers come and go. New management is instructed to do ‘better’ than the previous administration/directors.
    by ‘better’ uncle sam means: reduce our casualties, while killing as many ‘terrorists’ as we can.
    and if civilians get killed in the manhunt, well, that’s collateral damage.
    women and children shldn’t hide in among terrorists or live with them.

    by ‘better’ uncle also means to say to inventors-makers of ‘better’ weapons to hurry up and make them much, much ‘better’; u don’t expects us to use wmd to pacify those untermenschen, do you.
    i knew you’d say yes!

    and, let us not get into semantics or any definition to explain who’s terrorist; I, and only i, define things around here and not various semanticists or haters of our glorious and free land.

    now go, invent invisible flying carpets delivering our bombs but blame it on persians who at one time had such vehicles. Everybody[well no, only 98% in US] wld believe us. Peace to u fellas! tnx

  4. Shabnam said on July 19th, 2009 at 10:25pm #

    [Clinton’s remarks on Iran similarly reflect perfect continuity from the Bush administration framework, asserting “the Iranian march toward a nuclear weapon” as fact, despite the complete lack of evidence to support the claim, and even the conclusion of the U.S.’s own intelligence community to the contrary.]
    You are absolutely correct Mr. Hammond. She is threatening Iran all the time without any sign of real diplomacy. She insults not only Iranian leaders but also dares to insult Iranian people and their civilization of more than 7000 years. She thinks she is talking with her fu**cking colony. Look at the following line she said at the same CFR meeting:
    “Iran can become a constructive actor in the region if it stops threatening its neighbors and supporting terrorism,” she said. “It can assume a responsible position in the international community if it fulfills its obligations on human rights.”
    This piece is all lies. Who is threatening whom? You, the war criminals have come from far away continent to our region and have encircled Iran killing innocent people including children every single day then asking Iran to play a constructive role? You must be kidding. You are sending your agents into Iran and killing people by bombing the place of worship in Baluchistan, Khuzestan and Kurdistan then tell us ‘stop threatening its neighbors’. When People listen to this rubbish will tell you go to hell. You should stop being a Zionist puppet and instead spend American $$$$$ to create jobs and provide health care for people. You have to take your fu**ing army out of our region and spend the money to improve your bridges and schools instead of killing more Muslim children, building more secret prisons and house of torture around the world. while you are telling these lies, Mordechai Vanunu can neither move freely in Israel nor in neighboring countries and still does not have a passport. While Iranian dissidents, some your agents have given passports and are moving in the corridor of power in washington or attacking the Iranian government on VOICE OF AMERICA and you still asking Iran to ‘fulfills its obligations’ while you never dare to ask Israel why Vanunu after spending 18 years in prison for revealing a piece of information that US pay millions of dollar to get this kind of information on other country – has no passprot? You close your eyes on crimes of Israel and go after Iran. As long as you continue to serve Israel and expand its interests nothing will change.
    You cannot continue your lies any longer because the whole world is watching and laughing at you and your president as a Zionist puppet. The main terrorist is US – Israel – Britain and their enablers meaning Arab head of states, Saudis – Egypt – and the Kurds. There is no Al Qadea but the United State. Iran has not invaded or attacked any country in 200 years why Iran should do this now? On the other hand you and Israel are waging war almost every two years in the region and around the world. Both Israel and US have thousands of nuclear weapons and the US have use it on Japan to kill hundreds of thousands people with no shame. You are so arrogant that think people are illiterate and have no brain to think or to analysis your dirty lies.
    [Clinton also called on Arab states to go beyond their 2002 peace proposal with Israel and take additional steps demonstrating their acceptance of the Jewish state in the region, as the US works to halt Israeli settlements and establish conditions for a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict.]
    Hillary Clinton lashes at Arab states to go beyond their 2002 offer and give MORE to Israel to demonstrate acceptance of “the greater Israel’ where goes from Mauritania to Afghanistan. We know Israel with help of her puppets in Washington and through ‘peace process’ has stolen more than 85% of the historical Palestine holding on to major source of water in occupied territories. Now Israel is trying to complete her project by diverting attention away from settlement issue onto Iranian legal enrichment program. Therefore, Olmert has told Israel’s puppets in Washington:
    [The United States’ focus on freezing construction in the West Bank an impediment to the Middle East peace process, in an article published in The Washington Post on Friday.]
    Israel asking Clinton in Washington to make the legal enrichment program of Iran as # one issue and engineer a ‘crisis’ to involve the international community to buy time to be able to steal all of the historical Palestine through ‘peace process.’ Hillary is doing exactly that, to buy time for Israel to complete her mission. She feels she has obligation to Israel lobby where she was helped with her jobs including the present one as the secretary of state.
    When Clinton is asking Arabs ‘to go beyond their 2002 peace proposal with Israel’, Israel has announced that:
    [Israel will not withdraw from the entire Golan Heights in return for a peace deal with Syria, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s top policy adviser said in an interview published Friday, rejecting Syria’s key demand for an agreement. The two countries could split the territory, suggested Uzi Arad, Netanyahu’s national security adviser and the aide widely seen as closest to Netanyahu.]
    He continues:
    [The area is also home to crucial water sources, a profitable Israeli winery, and Israeli settlements with about 18,000 residents. About 17,000 Druse Arabs loyal to Syria also live there. Israel needs to retain part of the Golan “for strategic, military and settlement reasons. For water, landscape and wine,” said Arad. He nonetheless called on the Syrians to resume peace talks with Israel with no preconditions but “with each side aware of the other’s position.]
    As long as Hillary Clinton and Obama are carrying the same policy no peace can be achieve This is the US/Israel plan for the region until they have accomplished their partition plan and re-draw map of the region to benefit Israel and bring the resources under their control.

    It is everyone duty in the region, from Asia to Africa be united against these war criminals and their enablers. Be united. Be united. Be united. Be united. Be united. Be united. Be united. Be united.

  5. jon s said on July 19th, 2009 at 11:07pm #

    The president of Iran has repeatedly called for Israel’s destruction and is apparently also actively seeking a nuclear capability, in other words seeking the means to achieve that goal. So Israel, and the rest of the world ,should be concerned .
    A satirical program in Israel a while ago had Ahmedinajad supposedly being interviewed on an Israeli channel and he says : “Believe me, when I have a nuclear bomb, you’ll be the first to know… ”
    That’s what has to be prevented.

  6. Deadbeat said on July 20th, 2009 at 12:40am #

    You have no facts to support your claim.

  7. mary said on July 20th, 2009 at 1:33am #

    Why is Israeli naval shipping including a Dolfin submarine with enlarged torpedo tubes capable of launching missiles travelling through the Suez Canal towards Iran? More slaughter, more blood and guts, more war crimes. Can Israel’s thirst for killing ever be quenched?

  8. Mulga Mumblebrain said on July 20th, 2009 at 1:51am #

    I know bare-faced lying, ordained by Yahweh, is the Zionazi ‘Gold Standard’ jon, but Ahmadinejad has never called for the destruction of Israel. He has said that Israel will ‘disappear from the pages of history’ quoting Khomenei. This was clearly meant to refer to a process like that which occured in the Soviet Union and Israel’s old love and fellow apartheid state, Afrikaaner South Africa. His remarkes were tendentiously and deliberately mistranslated by the Judeofascist black propaganda sewer, that lies with its every breath, and provides the untruths peddled with the religious fervour of the ‘Chosen People’ by Zionazis everywhere. As with the lies spread by the Zionazis concerning Iraq’s WMD, these black propaganda concoctions are designed to foster the atmosphere where a brutal, aggressive, attack can be launched against an Islamic country. And as we know from their own words, the religious leaders of Judeofascism, the fundamentalist Rabbis and ‘Torah Sages’ of those such as the ‘Yesha Council’, have declared that killing enemy civilians is a mitzvah or ‘good deed’, and, one imagines, ‘the more the merrier’.After all Judaic religious celebrations, like Passover and Purim, ‘celebrate’ ancient massacres of the innocent, in Purim’s case, in Persia itself. Needless to say, those who lie in the service of such aggression, that results, as in Iraq in millions of casualties, can be said, in my opinion, to have blood all over their hands.

  9. bozh said on July 20th, 2009 at 6:33am #

    oh my devil: the three dead men, moshe, jesus, and mohammed still wreak havoc on earth.
    when we had men for priests and members of gov’t, we had bulldung; now that we have women as priests and gov’t members, we also get cowdung.
    that’s the change i can believe in.

    there is also change i don’t believe in: that the three hells on earth, islam, christianity, and mosheic laws wld chage for better any time soon.
    and, of course, dozens of lesser hells on earth in afpak, palestine, iraq, russia, china, india, US, congo, somalia, UK, et al are to remain here at least for one more day.
    sorry folks, i din’t have anything new to say. tnx

  10. Shabnam said on July 20th, 2009 at 4:28pm #

    People of this site:
    Please raise your voice against the propaganda machine to form public opinion for a military attack on Iran. The propaganda campaign runs by Obama administration has been intensified. Since the election of Obama, many ignorant individuals as well as ‘progressive’ and ‘left’ dominated and directed by closet Zionists, such as Zmag with cooperation of Noam Chomsky and Joanne Landy from CPD, and HOPI and NED recipient Iranian ‘intellectuals’ are trying to bring the ignorant population under the US/Israel umbrella to sell the war, like they did for the Zionist war in Iraq. The role of Noam Chomsky and CPD is very clear and these closet Zionists are helping US/Israel agenda in the Middle East. The US government uses people like Chomsky as a BREAK to control radicalization of the ‘left’ in the United States. The CIA used Gloria Steinem in 1960s to prevent radicalization of Women movement in the United States. She was introduced into the political scene with her long shaved legs and mini skirt and big glasses to attract attention for ‘save’ government ‘feminism’ package where women can be controlled. Chomsky plays the same role to benefit US and Israel project ‘greater Israel.’

    The coming hunger strike by Akbar Ganji, one of the pupils of Abdulkarim Soroush, a ‘religious philosopher’ as he calls himself, beneficiary of Soros ‘Open Society’ grant who is trying to push Iran towards ‘secularism’ American style , supported by sell out Iranian ‘intellectuals’ and their closet Zionists backer including Noam Chomsky , Robert Redford, Joanne Landy, a monarchist Googopsh, a singer, another monarchist Shoreh Aghdashlou, Hollywood political whore who has been used number of times in Zionist propaganda films against Muslim. She also played Saddam oldest wife in a propaganda film against Iraqi people and other films against Iran. Please tell everyone about the CIA organized rally on July 25, 2009 and a hunger strike in front of the UN on 22 – 24 July, 2009 and participation of the closet Zionists as agents of US/Israel. Please tell them not to support these traitors.
    This hunger strike is supported by actors from Hollywood, like they are used in campaign against Sudan where with a phony charge of ‘genocide’ where everyone knows by now it was a hoax. Israel using ‘Save Darfur’ and her agents, the Zionists, carrying a campaign of disinformation, as Paul Graig Roberts writes in an article “Threatening Iran” at on July 20, 2009 creating destabilization and chaos and forming public opinion for a military attack on Iran. The following picture shows Googoosh, a monarchist, next to the Shah’s widow, Farah. Googoosh’s name is on the list, like Noam Chomsky, as supporter of the hunger strike.

    Down with Zionism. Israel has no right to exist.

  11. Danny Ray said on July 20th, 2009 at 5:09pm #

    Shabnam ، وأنت تقول لي يعني أنك لا اخماد propangada. تفعل mulas يدفع لك عندما كنت في نكاح الحمار أو هل يسمح لهم ، لأن جميع العرب هم من النساء

  12. lichen said on July 20th, 2009 at 5:28pm #

    No, Chomsky is not a zionist just because he doesn’t 100% agree with you and take your exact language on everything. I say; down with right wing poseurs who only post here about middle eastern subjects but actually don’t give a damn about the rest of the left political spectrum; don’t support direct democracy, nonviolence, socialism, children’s rights, and radical environmental solutions.

  13. Deadbeat said on July 20th, 2009 at 6:32pm #

    lichen you are WRONG about Chomsky. Chomsky IS a Zionist and he himself has admitted to being one.

  14. Shabnam said on July 20th, 2009 at 7:04pm #

    Only ignorant Americans think Chomsky, who supports the terrorist Kurds, pawns of Israel, is ‘left.’ Chomsky protects the interest of Israel that’s why is silent on Kurdish terrorism because creation of Kurdistan is one of the reason Jewish lobby took America to war against Iraq. The ‘left’ in the west is constantly manipulated left since majority of them were and still are in the position of leadership to use them against Palestinian and Arabs and at the present against Iran.
    Noam Chomsky, ‘left’, is joining NED supported ‘religious intellectuals’ and FORMER IRANIAN ‘LEFT’ TURNED PRO AMERICAN LIBERALISM AND ZIONISM LIKE Mehrdad Mashayekhi, Mehrzad Boroujerdi, former Stalinist and Trotskyist, clowns like Dabashi, Makhmalbaf, and monarchists like Googoosh and so on and so forth to protect Israel/US interest not the ‘working class’ interest. Only the Zionists who put the interest of Israel ahead of American people’s interest think that Noam Chomsky and Joanne Landy are working for the interest of working class. This kind of ‘left’ produces exactly the kind of ‘working class’ it deserves, majority are IGNORANT like the follower of the ‘left’ in the West.
    We never forget when we were told by the Zionists not to pay attention to ‘nationlist’ movement of Palestinian. We never forget those fu**ing left in the West who deliberately made people to be silent on issue of Zionism, major enemy of the humanity and worse than fascism. For this reason the non western left broke with these closet Zionists since they noticed how how phony you are. Up to this day, you still do not understand whose interest you are protecting, aren’t you? Majority of those who get angry about Zionism, are actually zionist protecting Isreal’ s interest.

    Paul Graig Roberts writes:
    [Israel intends to dominate the Middle East. Israel’s goal is to incorporate all of Palestine and southern Lebanon into “Greater Israel.” The US intends to dominate the entire world, deciding who rules which countries and controlling resource flows.]

  15. B99 said on July 20th, 2009 at 7:14pm #

    Jon S – The president of Iran has never called for Israel’s destruction except in the fabricated translations of Zionists. The truth is, Israel openly demands that Iran be bombed, and that if the US does not do so, Israel will. If that is not a threat that Iran or the world needs to answer – then what is? But Mulga already filled you in on your mis-fact.

    Iran obviously needs the bomb to restore the balance of power in the region. Why should Israel be the only state to have a bomb – especially an Israel that routinely attacks its neighbors. I bet Israel would think twice or thrice about its massacres and wars if it new it might have to answer for them as it never has had to in its short violent history.

  16. Shabnam said on July 20th, 2009 at 7:28pm #

    Thank you. I have come to the same conclusion as yours that only nuclear Iran can be saved unless no country possesses nuclear weapons. Israel should immediately be disarmed otherwise more wars will be followed to establish “greater Israel.”

  17. Max Shields said on July 20th, 2009 at 7:31pm #

    QUESTION: Does Zionism have anything to do with the fate of the Palestinians?

    CHOMSKY: This is a very complex problem. It depends on what you mean by Zionism. I was a Zionist activist in my youth. For me, Zionism meant opposition to a Jewish state. The Zionist movement did not come out officially in favor of a Jewish state until 1942. Before this it was merely the intent of the Zionist leadership. The Zionist movement for a long time stood against the establishment of a Jewish state because such a state would be discriminatory and racist…

  18. Deadbeat said on July 20th, 2009 at 7:37pm #


    Thanks for the posting the Chomsky quotation.

  19. Deadbeat said on July 20th, 2009 at 7:47pm #

    Apparently the great “left” intellectual Noam Chomsky never heard of Theodore Herzl (1860-1904).

  20. Shabnam said on July 20th, 2009 at 7:53pm #

    Chomsky is using the same language as Bill Clinton used when he was asked were you ? He said depends on what you mean by being alone.
    All leaders of Zionist state of Israel for the past 60 years were ‘secular’ Zionists who forced Palestinians out of their land and since 1947 have waged many wars against them and the neighboring countries in order to steal their land and resources, for example water, to establish
    ‘greater Israel.’ It has been the greatest human tragedy in the history of the region.
    The religious Jews were not the one who let the fascist and racists state, the European colonists did and still does.

    Israel has no right to exist. Down with zionism.

  21. jon s said on July 20th, 2009 at 10:47pm #

    Israel is here to stay, and has as much “right to exist” as any other state.
    Down with racism and fascism.

  22. Mulga Mumblebrain said on July 20th, 2009 at 11:46pm #

    Yes jon, but Israel, sorry ‘Eretz Yisrael’, has no right to exist on another people’s stolen land, no matter how many self-serving faery stories the Zionists dredge up. Moreover Israel’s entry to the UN was made contingent on the return of the ethnically cleansed Palestinians to their homes within the 1947 and 1948 borders. So Israel’s ‘right to exist’ depends on obeying international law, which it manifestly treats with arrogant contempt. I know it won’t happen but Israel ought to be expelled from the UN until it shows from its changed behaviour that it deserves re-admittance. But under the criteria of lawlessness and contempt for human rights, Israel would certainly not be the only country thus expelled.

  23. dino said on July 21st, 2009 at 3:03am #

    Shabnam,i can’t agree with you regarding Chomsky.To call Chomsky a Zionist is to put him together with Bibi,Barak,Livni,Peres or with intellectuals like:
    Amos Oz,Benny Morris,Bill Kristol,Krauthammer,Bernard Levy and so on.It’s a big difference between them,isn’t?I ,also ,not agree with Chomsky and Z.mag position regarding the revolt in Iran and their support for Moussavi and I also consider Ahmadinejad an anti imperialist very important personality but Chomsky remains the first,and the most important ,critique of US and Israel, so far I know or i read about this issue in the past and in the present.I think that Chomsky made a revolution in destruction of the myth of US good intention and generosity and the same about the myth of Israel desire of peace and its democracy.I think that is impossible to finish the Chomsky’s work putting on it the label Zionist, is too,too simple.

  24. dino said on July 21st, 2009 at 3:07am #

    Even Mulga, who seemed to be a very well informed man, wrote that he owed what he know to Chomsky

  25. Jeremy said on July 21st, 2009 at 4:23am #

    No state has a “right to exist”. It’s an absurd concept, used in the case of Israel to justify ethnic cleansing and land theft.

  26. bozh said on July 21st, 2009 at 5:34am #

    to me, anyone who’s for a two-state ‘solution’ is a zionist. If such people wld be resolutely for the right of return, two-state solution is unneeded.
    two-state ‘solution’ – one supported by US and christian world and the other by almost noone- wld ensure that the stronger state wld abuse the much weaker state.
    and we all know by now how abusive ‘jews’ can be. tnx

  27. B99 said on July 21st, 2009 at 5:58am #

    I’m in accord with Dino on this. I am much less interested in whether Chomsky is a Zionist or not than in his extremely meticulous research – a goldmine for those who appreciate methodical detail (and for those who want an advanced degree in some discipline of Middle East studies.)

    That Chomsky has made the journey from conventional zionista as a child to harsh critique of Israel as an adult is a political journey few of us can claim. Ultimately, I am more interested in Chomsky’s research than where to place him on the political spectrum.

    Speaking of which, the certifiable fascist Benny Morris has a new book about 1948 – and we would all do well to glean from it what we can despite his ghastly proclivities.

  28. B99 said on July 21st, 2009 at 6:06am #

    So Bozh, I take it you want Palestinians in one state with Jews so Jews can abuse them from within the state. So Palestinians can go from the Apartheid occupation to a mere Jim Crow oppression. Very kind of you. You’d prefer that Palestinians NOT have their own state. Interesting.

    While we are at it, let’s merge the Bosnians and Kosovars with their Serb brothers in a unified state. We can call it, umm, Yugoslavia.

  29. bozh said on July 21st, 2009 at 7:45am #

    if ‘jews’ wld live with pals in one state, seeing the wickedness in the world both the poor jews and poor pals wld be abused by other ‘jews’ and other pals.

    but a solely ‘jewish’ state or an israel, cld and most likely wld abuse the much weaker pal’n state.

    kosovo had never been part of bosnia. Few, if any, kosovars lived in bosnia, thus there is no question of the right to return.
    yes, i strongly support an unified bosnia. I strongly condemned serb and croat wars ’93-’95 to split bosnia assunder.

    mainly because it cld have never been split humaneley. It cld have been split asunder politically without bloodshed but mulsims never wanted to tear bosnia apart.

    similarly, palestine also cldn’t have been split humanely nor politically, because muslims opposed it.
    ‘zionists’ and abetors knew that. And must have known that they were committing crimes.
    so why reward criminal behavior?
    i do not oppose any political partition of any land. If pals approve of the partition while in a fair peace with isr, i am with them. tnx

  30. lichen said on July 22nd, 2009 at 9:35pm #

    Max, that quote certainly does not prove that Chomsky is a zionist in the way that is generally used here; or are you just so fanatically against zionism that any form or derivative of the word, even when being used to describe something else in the distant past can apparently only engender a violent reaction? Chomsky said he supports the two state solution, the one state solution, and the no-state solution; case closed, he is against Israeli aggression and violation of UN statues, no matter how he toyed with the word zionism when describing his past and clearly stating he was always against the jewish state. That is good enough for me, and more than enough to move the fuck on from the subject of Chomsky; I don’t need conspiracy theories and stupid perfectionism that actually has some right wing bias behind it for some people who hate the “western left” that much.

    Furthermore, yes, he advocates radical social and economic justice and freedom from US imperialism for the entire world. I really don’t agree that apparently the way to to truly help the Palestineans get their land back is to purge as many ‘impure’ people from the movement as possible. And someone is NOT on the political right because they disagree with the Iranian government killing protesters (but oh yes every action against the privatizing/citizen murdering regime is US/Zionist backed); it is really the other way around, and I think the obsession with Chomsky is stupid.

  31. Deadbeat said on July 23rd, 2009 at 1:30am #

    I have many disagreements with Max Shield but on this particular issue I’m in full agreement with his posting the Chomsky quote. It clearly demonstrates that Noam Chomsky is not who he professes to be. For a “leftist” there must be absolutely ZERO tolerance of RACISM and Zionism is a racist ideology. Racism is also a KEY component of imperialism and in order to confront imperialism one MUST be against all forms of racism.

    While Chomsky is critical of Israeli politics he is in absolute denial of the influence Zionism has on U.S. foreign policy and its hold on U.S. politics and culture. Zionism is an ideology that is NOT limited to borders and must be confronted in the U.S. by all Americans.

    Chomsky has used his cache as a “leftist” intellectual to distort, dismiss, diffuse, deny and conceal the influence of Zionism. For someone to be a “thinker”, “philosopher” and an “intellectual” that is disingenuous at best and hypocrisy at the worst and thus Chomsky cannot be taken seriously in truly confronting Imperialism, Capitalism and especially RACISM.

    To label critical analysis of Noam Chomsky “obsession” only reveal your own lack of seriousness and subtle adherence to a form of supremacist ideology.

  32. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 23rd, 2009 at 7:10am #

    Man, for some of you people criticizing Noam Chomsky for being a “Zionist”, I suggest you actually read some of his work with regard to the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You could start with “Fateful Triangle” and go from there.

    Chomsky has been one of the staunchest defenders of the rights of the Palestinians and perhaps the single strongest critic of Israel of all serious political analysts out there. With all due respect, some of these comments are just completely ignorant.

  33. jon s said on July 23rd, 2009 at 8:37am #

    Maybe your form of extreme anti-Zionism is in itself a form of racism, in that it would deny to the Jewish people the right to a sovereign national state, the same right exercised by other nations all over the world.

  34. bozh said on July 23rd, 2009 at 9:01am #

    why do i say that chomsky is a mini-zionistÉ . (my query mark doesn`t work)
    There are also, in my evaluating of `zionisms`, also medi- and maxi-zionisms.
    if chomsky had been quoted correctly, he had urged people to vote “for lesser evil“.
    yet u had nader who, if he wld have been elected, wld have brought peace or a win-win result in expalestine.
    of necessary truth, there has to be a win-win result available in ex-palestine.
    Chomsky, and other `zionists`, want a win-lose result.
    proof of that can be found in his urging people not to vote for nader.

    i am not sure that chomsky honors the right of the return. I wld have to read all his books to ascertain that he does not honor the second-dearest panhuman right: right to return to one`s habitat regardless why one had left it.
    the way i put it, `zionist` claim that pals left, is rendered null and void.

    if my memory serves me correctly, chomsky suggests it be solved in some non-specified ways; meaning to say, return cld be negotiable. Or whateverÉ
    also rewarding irgun, stern, haganah crimes with an israel or a `jewish` state wld bode unwell for lots of weaklings on this planet of so many wicked empires and nations.
    it wld amount to a crime, to me, to reward any criminal behavior.
    so, not in my name! tnx

  35. bozh said on July 23rd, 2009 at 9:18am #

    jon s,
    one can`t be racist if one is against a special or peculiar case of land theft with intent to murder and expell more or less defenseless people, know as “zionism“.

    one cannot be antijewish (antihuman, rather); one can be only against the quality of “jewishness“ and what this jewishness says and does.
    and the jewishness rejects everything on this planet that does not approve of supports an idea of the socalled jewishness.

  36. dino said on July 23rd, 2009 at 9:34am #

    DB,you believe that Chomsky is a Zionist because he didn’t speak about the lobby and its influence and you think that he has that reserve because his Jewishness.But i think that to accuse the lobby is the simpler way to bypass the “Jewish question” because the lobby is a relative little part from Jewish people and to accuse it is in fact to exonerate Israeli’s society.And what Chomsky did according with Edward Said in the foreword of Fateful triangle:F.T can be read as a protracted war between facts and a series of myths-Israeli democracy,Israeli purity of arms,the benign occupation,no racism against Arabs in Israel,Palestinian terrorism,peace fo0r Galilee.Having rehearsed the “official ” narrative,he then blows it away with vast amounts of counter evidence”
    And some lines before:””There is something profoundly moving about a mind of such noble ideal srepeatedly stirred on behalf of human suffering and injustice”.Being a”good Jew Zionist” (or a hidden one)he never would do things like these.

  37. B99 said on July 23rd, 2009 at 10:20am #

    Bozh – No way I conflated Kosovars with Bosnians. They were both part (or sub-part) of Yugoslavia. Do you think you can make one state out of Serbia with any one of these: Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Slovenia, Kosovo, Voyvojdina, Crnagora? If not, and many of these are ethnically related peoples, then how do you propose lumping Jew and Palestinian in one state?

  38. B99 said on July 23rd, 2009 at 10:39am #

    Jon – To be anti-Zionist is not racist in and of itself. Its not as if Jews are all Zionists today and it is not as if MOST Jews were non-Zionist prior to and including the early years of that state.

    We should be clear that there was NO right of Jewish people to a sovereign national state – any more than there is a right by a thousand other ethnic groups – and certainly no right to an exclusive state on the very grounds of an existing people. If there were a right to a state, surely the promises of WWI’s victors would have delivered that to the Palestinians – not the Jews – or at least, not to Jews in Palestine.

    To the extent there is a right of Israel to exist, it is because international bodies (flawed they may have been) enabled its creation, and nurtured it and humored it to the point where millions of Israelis are now entirely native to that country. There is no other country for them to ‘return to’ – and our ‘state-system’ of governance does not dissolve states against its own wishes.

    So your reasoning is flawed – not all people have sovereign national states so to compare Jews to other national states and conclude that Jews have a right to one does not follow.

  39. B99 said on July 23rd, 2009 at 10:41am #

    correction – First paragraph should say: Its not as if Jews are all Zionists today and it is not as if MOST Jews were Zionist prior to and including the early years of that state. (The ‘not’ before Zionist was an error.)

  40. B99 said on July 23rd, 2009 at 10:54am #

    Why the vehemence against Chomsky? I don’t care if he is a Zionist, a soft-Zionist, a hard-Zionist, a non-Zionist, or an anti-Zionist. What matters is that his research is meticulous and invaluable.

    Why not reserve your vehemence for Elie Wiesel – a man who has made a living as the sick puppy of the Holocaust – as one who is on everybody’s rolodex when they need a pronouncement on the relative merits of any genocide – and we all know he will reply: “It vas heartbreaking to vitness der results of soch inhumanity to fellow mann, but it does not compare vit the Holocaust (of which I am a victim, and you can please buy my memoir).
    It was Wiesel who when asked why he does not take up the cause of the Palestinians said. “I do not criticize Israel when I am outside of Israel.”

    Liar – lying sack of shit. Defiler of human dignity. Wiesel is a fraud.

  41. bozh said on July 23rd, 2009 at 12:45pm #

    pal’ns CAN get along with shemitic judaists. From what i know, shemitic judaists have gotten along with shemitic mohammedans much better than christians got along with germano-slavo-khazarians with mosheic faith.

    in any case, ‘zionists’ KNEW – or ought to have known- that shephardic and mizrahic peoples are totally different than euros with judeic ‘religion’.

    ‘zionists’ knew that they will not get along with palestinians. Thus the choice for white people: get along from now on with all shemites or leave.
    of course, euros may not ever get along with any people with ‘tainted ‘ skins.
    if they wld remain in a binat’l state, pal’ns and shemites with the cult will just have to bear the bastards and also one another.
    the horrendous mess judeo-christian alliance had wrought cannot be cleaned for decades or centuries.
    all this was well known.
    any other ‘solution’ than one state wld most likely be worse not only for pals but for also afro-asians who definately are shemitic but not much if at all judeo-benjaminitic.

    but pal’ns shld not be further penalized. They havei not done any wrong to euros. Let euros pay for their mess; let the bastards go back to americas and europe.

    actually, i predict [in view of extreme wickedness in the world] that a pal’n state wld be the worst all of possible solutions;
    it always may be treated as enemy of the judeo-christian soyuz.
    and we all know what happened to iraq and afpak.
    if we reward criminals we wld give clear signal to other criminals that crime pays. Not in my name. tnx

  42. bozh said on July 23rd, 2009 at 1:15pm #

    b99, calling chomsky this and that doesn’t explain anything.
    i called him a minizionist. But i have enumerated a few instances that prove he cares only for ‘jews’.
    ilan pappe is for a one-state solution; chomsky is for two-state solution.
    ilan asserts, as many do, that jewish peoplehood is an invention; chomsky has never said that to my knwoledge.
    chomsky had never, as far as i know, condemned or questioned validity of the phenomenon or entity called “jewishness”.
    he had not ever said that euros with the mosheic laws have no connection to israelites or benjamino-judeans.
    he skipped entirely the conversion to judaism by euro-asians.
    nor had he ever, as far as i know, condemned many misteaching contained in the mosheic laws.
    and most importantly, he did not advise people to vote for nader; ergo, not for justice in ME.
    he also said that there are differences btwn the two parties but fails {why?} to enumerate the differences btwn dems and reps.
    regarding palestine, syria, lebanon, afpak, and iraq there are no differences at all regarding the telos or to skin the cat.
    the differences arise solely in how to skin it but not whether to skin it. tnx

  43. Deadbeat said on July 23rd, 2009 at 1:21pm #

    B99 writes …
    What matters is that [Chomsky] research is meticulous and invaluable.

    What matters is that Chomsky has built a “fan” base and that base has limited its ability to confront ALL forms of racism which is an important component to imperialism and capitalism. One cannot profess to be a “libertarian socialist” and be against fully confronting racism.

  44. Deadbeat said on July 23rd, 2009 at 1:30pm #

    I agree with bozh prior remarks. Clearly Chomsky has not been so “meticulous”. Chomsky unfortunately has played the role of “gatekeeper” and has been in denial of AIPAC’s influence on U.S. politics. He is on the record of being against any boycott of Israel even in light of the recent atrocity they have committed upon the people in Gaza. In light of these contradiction thus it is necessary to shine a light on this person who has such a devoted following. There is almost a religious like aura surrounding Chomsky and that has stunted and retarded the left — especially solidarity.

    Thus exposing Chomsky is a very necessary in order to heal the left.

  45. B99 said on July 23rd, 2009 at 1:31pm #

    Bozh – European Jews are a people because they say they are. The Miskito Indians of Central America are largely African in origin. Shall we call them bad names for not being Indians? Whatever the genetic origins of Ashkenazi Jews (and the evidence points to significant Levant input), they have been living as Jews in Europe for more than a thousand years. That’s more than sufficient for me. We don’t need to make up names for Jews in order to understand that the occupation is illegal and must be reversed.

    Benjaminos??? Come on.

    PS – I voted for Nader twice. I didn’t this time because he didn’t have a political party. It was basically Ralphie being Ralphie.

  46. B99 said on July 23rd, 2009 at 1:37pm #

    Chomsky posits a world political structure with the lone superpower as the superstructure, and other nations, in this case, Israel – nestled beneath this structure – and answerable to it. I disagree with that analysis because I think it does not take into consideration the power of the Israeli lobby here – a lobby that South African Apartheidists wish they had had.

    But his research is undeniably fruitful – and essential reading, I would think.

    If Chomsky is splitting the left we are giving him more credit than necessary. If it is true, then the left is not an entity of much significance.

  47. lichen said on July 23rd, 2009 at 2:17pm #

    Not a month ago I was flamed by a real zionist–of the far right Netanyahu/Lieberman type, who repeatedly insisted that Chomsky (as well as I) was “antisemitic.” Both labels attached to this person are the result of irrelevant witch-hunts, not healing or building solidarity or justice at all.

    For someone who claims to be so much on the side of the “working class” and against the “left,” you sure are an armchair intellectual, Deadbeat; only interested in long, obsessive discussions of theory as opposed to any real action.

    “Zionism” is an intellectual construct, and clearly if someone can be 100% for the official two-state solution (and give support for the one state, the no state solutions), and absolutely condemn Israeli war crimes yet still be a zionist, then zionism is definitely not the problem; violent, right wing trash is.

    Saying the problem is this or that ‘ism,’ first of all renders it something highly abstract, no longer directly related to action at all. Secondly, it becomes like an excuse, whether for the alleged members of the ism, or its opponents; it lets them off the hook for being essentially ugly, essentially cruel, life-hating, stifling, hateful; because that essential fact is completely ignored in the process. The fundamental problem cannot remain ‘capitalism’ once we’ve seen those working completely outside of capitalism nonetheless displaying openly all the worse things in the world; we cannot say the essential problem is “white supremacy” or “male supremacy” (as I just heard the ridiculous leader of the “revolutionary communist party” insist–thereby excusing Obama for murdering middle eastern children and spreading inequality at home) when these terms have nothing to do with the makeup of the individual people it blackens or exonerates, and fails to address the latent right wing populace in women and minorities (as there are good and bad people everywhere.) Those are all distortions, all abstract ideology.

    But lol, yes, keep arguing about the one-versus-two state solution, when we all know that right now the only ‘solution’ being used is the apartheid end game.

  48. bozh said on July 23rd, 2009 at 5:02pm #

    it does seem to me that most or all europeans and americans believe, or rather, evaluate as true, that the ‘jews’ are descendants of judeans; ergo, have the right to return to their former homeland.
    and on the basis of what the clero-educational-political elite had told them over the last century or so, these ‘jews’ were for peace, human rights for all, democracy unlike arabs who are vile, stupid, primitive, etc.

    adoption of the name “jews” for peoples with the judaic faith had contributed to christian decision to, i conclude, set up a state for them in expalestine.
    it definitely was of some value to judaists; it wasn’t a minus in their eyes but a plus, else they would call selves ashkenazim, mizrahim, and shephardic.
    and these peoples were strewn all over the globe. Methinks, had white people known this, support for home in expalestine for these peoples wld have waned or even been negligible.
    the question wld have arisen how cld whites, blacks, and other people with dark skin ever get along in a such little piece of land?
    The idea that an ethiopean ‘jew’ wld come to palestine to displace a palestinian, wld have been more than laughable in 1897.
    except for that magic word: The “jew”.
    benjaminim also lived in judea. It does look funny to say that the ihabitants of judea were benjamino-judean {along with canaanitic peoples, of course}
    perhaps i cld have said judeo-benjamino-canaanitic people. Benjaminim have resided in ‘j’lem from the tenth century. They may have been assimilated by 130 ad by the other peoples and perhaps vanished along with other inhabitants of ancient judea.

    interesting thing ab. benjamins is that they married so many canaanitic women which alarmed sanhendrin to the point that it had to change the laws as who’s the “jew” or judaist/hebrew.
    this fact, if torahic report is accurate, shows that canaanites have never been extirpated. Utter extirpation had been demanded by mad priests; probably not carried out!.
    these people then may be still living in israe/palestine? And being killed by euros? go figure. tnx

  49. B99 said on July 23rd, 2009 at 6:55pm #

    Jews of any stripe only had permission to immigrate to Palestine with the permission of the Ottomans and Palestinians.

    People who are born to a Jewish mother or convert to Judaism automatically have the right to call themselves Jewish whether it is in Khazaria or where ever. There’s no special rights or limitations to this. Why do you want to deny them this? This conversion or adaption or intermarriage is hundreds of years before the rise of political zionism and so is not connected. Ultimately, who cares? The Palestinian right to Palestine is based on them being the inhabitants when the Zionists shipped in from Europe a century ago – the rest is not relevant.

    And yes, certainly the blood of ancient Jews runs through Palestinians today – it is the blood of those who did not leave Palestine to take advantage of superior commercial opportunities elsewhere in the Roman Empire.

  50. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 23rd, 2009 at 6:56pm #

    bozh, what does Chomsky’s statement on the U.S. election have to do with Zionism? Absolutely nothing.

    “But i have enumerated a few instances that prove he cares only for ‘jews’.”

    Seriously, dude, give it a rest with the asinine nonsense. You’re just making yourself look like an ass with people who’ve actually READ Chomsky’s work on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

  51. jon s said on July 23rd, 2009 at 9:22pm #

    Your mockery of Elie Wiesel is shameful. His writings have touched millions, and he has done much to raise awareness to other genocides, not only the Holocaust. He has never kept silent.
    You expect him to refer to the situation in Gaza as “genocide”? He won’t because it isn’t.

  52. jon s said on July 23rd, 2009 at 9:29pm #

    On Chomsky: he has been one of Israel’s harshest critics, and is hardly a Zionist.
    In his youth, he belonged to Hashomer Hatzair, a Socialist-Zionist youth movement, which , before the establishment of Israel, supported a bi-national state.

  53. Deadbeat said on July 24th, 2009 at 1:35am #

    Being a critic of Israel is not the same as being critical of Zionism. Zionism is a racist ideology that must be confronted. Chomsky is far from confronting Zionism/racism. In fact he has been at the forefront of denial and obfuscation.

  54. Mulga Mumblebrain said on July 24th, 2009 at 2:21am #

    jon, in my opinion B99 was spot on regarding Wiesel. Wiesel is, in my opinion, one of those unspeakable frauds whose ‘moral witness’ is only exercised to condemn the enemies, or should I say victims, of the US, the West and Israel. Therefore he peddles his soiled wares to condemn the non-existent ‘genocide’ in Darfur, but keeps his hypocrite’s mouth shut concerning Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia etc. In my opinion, moral imbecility does not come much lower than this. He is the living embodiment of Chomsky’s thesis concerning ‘worthy victims’-those bastardised by official enemies of the West, whose travails are to be played up, and if necessary, fabricated- and ‘unworthy victims’-those treated cruelly by the West and its puppets, whose suffering must be hidden by the media sewer, ignored or simply mendaciously denied. As I say, I believe that those that practise this particularly diabolical double-standard, while preening and parading as moral eminences, are about as vile as humanity comes.

  55. jon s said on July 24th, 2009 at 2:44am #

    Some quotes from Elie Wiesel:

    “This is the duty of our generation as we enter the twenty-first century — solidarity with the weak, the persecuted, the lonely, the sick, and those in despair. It is expressed by the desire to give a noble and humanizing meaning to a community in which all members will define themselves not by their own identity but by that of others.”

    I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”

    “No human race is superior; no religious faith is inferior. All collective judgments are wrong. Only racists make them.”

  56. dino said on July 24th, 2009 at 2:48am #

    DB,who is an anti racist struggle with the theories of Arthur Gobbineau,Horace Chamberlain etc or with its materialization in Germany,South Africa etc.What have a leftist to do ,to criticize US or the capitalism?How is Chomsky a Zionist if Zionism calls for all the Jew to come in Israel which ,her propaganda says, is a fine place and Chomsky proves that is a bad one based in racism against Arabs (according with Edward Said,and everyone who really read Chomsky).But let in side Chomsky’s approach to Israel ,his critique of US put him as a leftist?I’m sure that yes although he is not a critique of capitalism(his target is US imperialism) and he is not a marxist.Is the Zionism a such well formed theory which deserves attention.What is know is what Ben-Gurion said :Israel will be a beckon for gentiles.And it is ,but in contrary sens.And no one than Chomsky explains why.

  57. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 24th, 2009 at 5:24am #

    Seriously, people, read Fateful Triangle. Then explain to us how Chomsky is a “Zionist” or “is far from confronting Zionism” or whatever other asinine nonsense you want to keep insisting on from a position of complete ignorance. Give it a rest, already.

  58. Shabnam said on July 24th, 2009 at 5:56am #

    Do you remember the cold war and role of the ‘intellectuals’ in the expansion of American influence in the world? Chomsky does the same thing with Zionism. He is an enabler of Zionist’s influence in the world giving the ‘Jewish state’ a cushion by emphasizing on ‘US imperialism’ supporting organizations and individuals who emphasize on ‘US imperialism’, such as HOPI, CPD. He signs petitions in support of NED agents such as Jahanbeglou, Haleh Esfandiari, close to Israel think tank, Shireen Ebadi and Mehrangiz Kar, recipient of NED and ‘human rights’ organizations of number of Western governments, and now joining ‘green wave’ where is organized by monarchist, and CIA agents and others.
    Chomsky, as a fierce critic of ‘US imperialism’, as a cover, has rejected any alternative explanation to official theory regarding 9/11 where, according to scientists, there are many evidence where lead us towards the role of ‘inside job’ in 9/11 tragedy, yet Chomsky has rejected those who have brought this up, as conspiratorial theorists, because he knows Israel role will be exposed. It is a fact that ‘Art Students’ from Israel were standing with their videos in the side walk in New York waiting for the planes to hit the buildings so they can film the tragedy from the beginning.
    The neocon have justified and continued to wedge war using 9/11 as pretext to destabilize, invade, massacre and partition the regional countries where ‘ACCIDENTALLY’ benefits NO ONE EXCEPT Israel’s project of ‘greater Israel’ in the region.

    I was a ‘follower’ of Chomsky until mid 1990s. But little by little, especially when I got involved with Palestinian issue then I realized his technique of leading everything to ‘US imperialism.’ In fact his deception meaning keeping the ball in the imperialists’ yard most of the time was crucial for me to start having doubts about him. He continues to be one of the Zionist enablers who keep Zionism and Israel out of the discussion in the US and elsewhere among trotyskists, and others referring to Israel as a ‘proxy’ which is not true. Israel is the main actor in the region especially since 9/11 and directs the Middle East and North African policy decision making in Washington. Through this deception, Chomsky and closet Zionists in the position of ‘left’ leadership have been able to fool the sympathizers in the West and the Middle East; especially Iranians. Therefore, this deception has caused ‘imperialism’ not Zionism to be under attack as a COVER but in fact ISLAM is the main target for Trotskyists not Zionism or imperialism to benefit Israel, even working with Israel against ‘backward Islamists’ is viewed a revolutionary act.

    The position of majority of ‘left’ can be found at ZMAG where belongs to Chomsky and his associates who views the Iranian election as ‘fraud’ and ‘stolen’ by publishing many articles by the ‘third camp’ group and those who are embedded with imperialism like Saeed Rahnema.

    Petras is not well known among the Iranian left but Chomsky is, although Petras is improving his position among Iranians. The first article in Persian by Petras I read was, Making Nuclear Extermination Respectable’ and since then he is gaining more popularity among Iranian progressive. Chomsky is known by the Iranian left since Iranian elite and intellectuals felt more comfortable with non-Arabs due to animosity of Iranian elite against Arabs under the Shah. This hatred was mutual with Arab elite towards Iranians. Now, more Iranians are pro Palestinian than before but there is a long way to go. I was shocked with the position of Iranian ‘left’ abroad including HOPI after Israeli genocide in Gaza. HOPI as well as Joanne Landy from CPD, hide their pro Israel/US policy by the following slogan: Neither Israeli Aggression, Nor Hamas violence. Joanne Landy supported US/Israel invasion of Iraq by similar slogan: Neither US aggression, Nor Saddam dictatorial rule which in fact means war. HOPI and CPD both are supported by Chomsky who has signed all their petitions regarding Iran and have the same stupid slogan regarding Iran: Neither US aggression, Nor theocracy, where is nothing but beating on the war drum. Zionism and imperialism are ONE. Critic of US imperialism WITHOUT critic of Zionism is a DECEPTION. Chomsky’s critic of Israel is melted when he refer to US as the main factor and ‘little’ Israel as a proxy. He did the same thing at the time of Gaza genocide by referring to ‘American-Israeli war’ or when he constantly refers to ‘American planes attacking Palestinians’ or hold ‘US imperialism’ as the main obstacle against peace between Palestinians and the zionists while everyone knows Israel DOES NOT WANT PEACE because Israel is using America and its power to expand her own interest in the region where is AGAINT THE US INTEREST. US interest is NOT American interest.
    Chomsky also is silent on terrorism of Kurds, because an independent ‘Kurdistan’ is the Zionist’s project since its inception.

    Madonna, pro Israel in Hollywood, has joined the fools in supporting the ‘green wave.’ This worldwide campaign against Iran is very similar to campaign against Sudan by ‘save Darfur.’

  59. B99 said on July 24th, 2009 at 6:23am #

    In my opinion, Israel largely calls the shots on US middle east policy. BUT, we cannot entirely dismiss US imperialism as a factor in the region. Especially on this site which pretty uniformly denounces US imperialism every where else in the world. US interests (foul as they are) do not evaporate entirely just because there is the Israel lobby.

  60. B99 said on July 24th, 2009 at 6:27am #

    This may only matter to me but I wrote a poorly worded sentence earlier.

    “Jews of any stripe only had permission to immigrate to Palestine with the permission of the Ottomans and Palestinians.”

    That should have read that: “Jews of any stripe should have been permitted to immigrate to Palestine only with the permission of the Ottomans and Palestinians.”

    The truth is Euro-Jews did not ask permission of the native inhabitants. They moved in, moved the Palestinians over, then moved them out.

  61. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 24th, 2009 at 6:36am #

    “He continues to be one of the Zionist enablers who keep Zionism and Israel out of the discussion in the US and elsewhere”

    Sometimes there’s nothing more to say than: That’s just fucking stupid.

    Seriously, people. Give it a rest on Chomsky already before you make yourselves look like even bigger asses than you already have. This “he’s a Zionist [enabler]” stuff might be humorous if wasn’t just so asinine.

  62. B99 said on July 24th, 2009 at 6:41am #

    Jon S quotes Wiesel:
    “I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”

    The problem with this quote is that its only purpose is to position Wiesel as the go-to guy on mass murder – as if it was his duty to shoulder the entire world’s burden of mans inhumanity to man – and to do so with a reporter with microphone within earshot.

    Truth is Wiesel is dead silent on Israel. They can kill and remove as many Palestinians as they wish and the weasel will repeat, “I only criticize Israel when I am in Israel.”

    And you just know that when he’s in Israel he’s the toast of the town.

  63. B99 said on July 24th, 2009 at 6:47am #

    This is what Wiesel said in the Israeli paper Haaretz regarding the UN anti-racist summit in Durban South Africa. The sick puppy of sensitivity, the man who carries the world’s woes on his back.

    Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel on Thursday said the passing of resolutions attacking Israel at the upcoming “Durban II” conference on racism would only harm the summit’s host, the United Nations.

    “The anti-Israeli resolutions to be expected at Durban II will harm the UN, not Israel,” Weisel told Haaretz. He was referring to reports that draft resolutions for the summit brand Israel as an occupying state that carries out racist policies.

  64. bozh said on July 24th, 2009 at 7:06am #

    you have skipped the most important part: the swindling role of the label “jew” and justifacation- on basis of that stolen name- for horrendous crimes over the last 80 yrs comitted against civil pop of palestine.
    i am a croatian. This is true; i am not swindling! Even so, i wld abhor croatishness as much as i abhor a ‘quality’ callled “jewishness” and the use of such ‘elevated’ position to slay/expel people.

    in connection to this, let us recall how greeks reacted to the label “makedonia”. They were much alarmed even tho makedonia had been part of greater makedonia.
    on the other hand, europe was never part of canaan.
    then we have an example of namecalling of indigenes of canada “indians” and them calling selves “First Nations”.
    ashk’m have not only stolen a name, but also a country and judaism. Talmud and Mishnah testify to that.
    but if you insist to defend their right to deceive, it’s your right to do so. tnx

  65. B99 said on July 24th, 2009 at 7:08am #

    Here’s the weasel on Israel’s conquering and brutal occupation of the balance of Palestine.

    “The nations that kept silent during the Holocaust ought to keep silent now as well. The world that then condemned itself by its silence has lost all right to judge Israel now.”

    Seems to me that the only one who has forfeited his right to the moral high ground is Wiesel himself.

    Yet he’s still the go-to guy on all genocides (but one).

  66. bozh said on July 24th, 2009 at 7:11am #

    if you don’t very soon talk to us, this wld be last time i wld read or respond to any of your writings.
    we have trolls here who do that. Which i almost all the time skip.

  67. B99 said on July 24th, 2009 at 7:28am #

    bozh – There is no reason to deny the people that call themselves First Nations, Macedonians, or Jews the right to use these names for themselves. Besides, calling Ashkenazi Jews ‘Shem this or that’ totally shuts down comprehension and communication until you’ve arrived at an audience of one. Is that what you are aiming for? Obscurantism?

  68. bozh said on July 24th, 2009 at 7:29am #

    i forgot to say that your last response to me was civil; thus, i’ll continue to chat with you.
    response by hammond consists almost solely of namecalling.
    He also uses an apsolutism, such as chomsky’s advice not to vote for nader, as having no bearing on illumination of US foreign policy and thus also ‘zionism’.
    nader got around 679K votes. Cld he have gotten one, two, three … if the socalled left adised other lestists to vote fro real “lesser evil”?
    i also think that there is that “jewishness” in both of you! tnx

  69. bozh said on July 24th, 2009 at 7:33am #

    i just read your last ‘response’ to my post. You are off my list? I got other people who much appreciate what i say.
    you may be jewish!

  70. B99 said on July 24th, 2009 at 7:42am #

    Ah come on Bozh – You are the one that admitted to being a fraction Jewish. Maybe you are the *self-hating-fractional-Jew*!

    I come from a long line of catholics who lived as farmers of rocky hill country soil in a colonized nation where the few Jews who lived there did so in coastal cities.

  71. sid wright said on July 24th, 2009 at 7:59am #

    i am fed up reading posts from zionist trolls.
    why does every article have to taken over by pro-zionist or anti-zionist postings

  72. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 24th, 2009 at 8:27am #

    And you, bozh, are apparently racist, as well as ignorant. I couldn’t care less if you never read another one of my articles. Suit yourself.

  73. Mulga Mumblebrain said on July 24th, 2009 at 3:45pm #

    jon s, the quotes from The Weasel are fine and dandy, but, when judged with his total silence over and clear acquiescence to Israel and The US’s crimes against humanity against the Palestinians, Iraqis etc, they exhibit, in my opinion, the most depraved hypocrisy and double standards imaginable. That you cannot, or, rather, will not, see that, says a great deal about you, at least in my opinion.

  74. Shabnam said on July 24th, 2009 at 7:21pm #

    If people do not like what other people have to say about Chomsky , then don’t read it but don’t try to use ‘chosen’ words Such as ‘asinine’ instead, because it doesn’t work since the facts on the ground are not going to be changed. What we are saying here is not limited to few people.
    Chomsky as a ‘public intellectual’ draws more attention than others who may be far worse but since they are not known to many then, they are protected from critics. Chomsky has chosen to be a public intellectual, therefore, he can handle it and it’s not necessary for others to get EMOTIONAL on this issue where is shared by many people. Of course, each person gives her/his explaination regarding their experience, but one can see similar theme is repeated by different people.
    The Jerusalem Post reported in a piece: “Noam Chomsky, Champion of Israel?” on April 23, 2006 that some of these critics after the publication of Mearcheimer and Walt are paper in The London Review of Books and asked the following:
    [What do Noam Chomsky and the neocons have in common? They both stand accused of protecting the enormously powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington from legitimate criticism.]

    But at the same time JP acknowledges that:
    [Professor Chomsky who has consistently criticized Israel since the early 1970s – is apparently a big softie when it comes to Zion.]

    Then we are not alone, forget Blankfort, Petras and others, when we say Chomsky does not critic Zionism to protect Israel.
    Daniel Abrahamson also brings many questions regarding Chomsky’s position on 9/11 where he thinks Chomsky protects US and says Chomsky has acted as the premier Left gatekeeper, using his elevated status to cover up the major crimes of the global elite.

    Mark Green in “Radical Deceiver?” published in July 30 2005 accused Chomsky as [a key defender of segregation and war, as long as it serves Israel.] He says:

    [H]is latest expose on the “hidden reasons” behind America’s latest war on Iraq fails to even mention the U.S.-Israeli “special relationship”, or the essential role played by highly placed Zionists in shaping U.S. war policies. For him, the world’s doom and gloom is always and forever about “U.S. imperialism”–even within the Israeli-dominated Middle East. In Chomsky’s steady-state universe, America is the rapacious master, Israel our hapless servant.]

    Chomsky always repeats the same old theory to explain what is happening in the region without considering an important document written by Oded Yinon “The Israel strategy in the 1980s”
    Therefore, he simply does not emphasize on Israel’s interest meaning establishment of ‘greater Israel’ but limits himself to America’s control over the Middle East for oil, then, Zionist plan is not mentioned. Green says if US aggression is “all about oil”, then why is America now threatening to invade even Syria, a NON-oil exporting country? Chomsky doesn’t say.
    Chomsky was asked the same question after the publication of Israel Lobby since he does not believe Israel lobby is a factor in American policy in the Middle East region. He said because Syria does not follow the order which is not true. Syria has done everything, Chomsky accepted that Syria was very cooperative and has done everything especially after the 9/11, yet he at the end repeats his old theory.
    Recently, Karen Kwiatkowski, a writer and former US Air Force Officer said that: [the real reason why the U.S. continues its presence in Afghanistan is Iran the country which is an annoyance for Israel.]
    I agree with her.

  75. Shabnam said on July 24th, 2009 at 7:24pm #

  76. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 25th, 2009 at 2:54am #


    Okay, then, let’s discuss the facts. Let’s begin with the fact that Chomsky has been a, if not the, leading American intellectual critic of Israel and U.S. policy towards Israel, and among the ranks of Edward Said as being among the staunchest defenders of the rights of the Palestinian people.

    I’ll leave it up to intelligent readers to decide where that leaves the argument that Chomsky is a “Zionist [enabler]”.

    This old article of mine is relevant, but no longer online, so I’ll paste it in full:

    The Reasons for Regime Change in Iraq

    by Jeremy R. Hammond

    September 6, 2007

    There still remains some controversy over the real reasons the U.S. went to war in Iraq. The official reasons for the war, that Iraq had WMD and threatened to supply them to terrorist organizations, namely al-Qaeda, intent upon using them against the U.S., have long since proven to be false and we may dismiss them. We know much in hindsight that we did not know at the time, but the fact is that no credible evidence was presented at the time to support the claims being made and the available facts contradicted the Bush administration’s case. Hence, a campaign of deception was necessarily orchestrated against the American people in order to create a false pretext to invade Iraq.

    The question of the true motives for such violence is an important one, relevant both for history and for a more complete understanding of events today. The most prominent theory is that the U.S. invaded Iraq for oil. Another which remains particularly popular among many is that the war was fought not for U.S. interests, but to further the interests of Israel.

    The theory that the U.S. invaded Iraq for Israel’s sake is usually argued by pointing out the fact that many of the policy-makers responsible for orchestrating the war are Jewish, and that many have demonstrated deep concern for perceived Israeli interests.

    A principle document cited in making the case is entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”. The “realm” referred to is Israel, and the paper was prepared for the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, then Prime Minister. The 1996 report was the result of the Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000 from the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Among those who participated in the group were several prominent U.S. policy-makers, including Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser.[1]

    The paper argues for “a clean break” from old policies and the forging of “a peace process and strategy based on an entirely new intellectual foundation” designed for “rebuilding Zionism”. One of the goals is to “Forge a new basis for relations with the United States” based in part on “strategic cooperation on areas of mutual concern”. A suggested talking point for political leaders is, “Our claim to the land—to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years—is legitimate and noble.” For there to be peace depends upon “the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial dimension….”

    “Syria,” the paper notes, “challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which America can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by…establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces” and “striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper.”

    “Israel can shape its strategic environment” by “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 regional ambitions.” One possible alternative to Hussein’s rule is “the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq”, something in which “Israel has an interest” because “Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence…to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria.”

    Proponents of the theory point to this document as proof that some U.S. policy-makers wanted regime change in Iraq to further Israeli interests. Indeed, the report does demonstrate this quite clearly, and it begs the question of where some policy-makers’ loyalties truly lie. However, the report also notes that “relations with the United States” would be based in part on “strategic cooperation on areas of mutual concern”. While it is true that some of the architects of the war believed it would further Israel’s interests to overthrow Saddam, this does not preclude them from also serving percieved U.S. interests.

    To further the theory, proponents also point to the think-tank called The Project for a New American Century (PNAC), a virtual who’s who of neo-cons calling for regime change in Iraq. As has been noted, many are Jewish and have a strong affinity for and loyalty to Israel. But a thorough examination of documents issued by PNAC reveals little evidence that they have Israel’s, rather than the U.S.’s, interests predominantly in mind. The goal of the group “is to promote American global leadership” and this theme is repeatedly reiterated in documents they’ve issued concerning Iraq.[2]

    PNAC’s Statement of Principles clearly outlines their “vision of America’s role in the world” and “guiding principles for American foreign policy”, which should be designed to “maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.” The “United States stands as the world’s preeminent power” and should build up the military to maintain that power.[3]

    In 1998, PNAC wrote a letter to President Clinton stating that “American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding” and that U.S. “strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power.” The reasons are given. “The policy of ‘containment’ of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding” and “we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections.” This would make it difficult “to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess” weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Were Saddam to actually have a WMD capability, “a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard.” Concerns over WMD, though real, are secondary to concerns over access to oil.[4]

    Another letter was sent from PNAC to Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott in May 1998. The letter reiterated the points of the Clinton letter and the fear that “Saddam will be effectively liberated from constraints”, meaning the sanctions that had resulted in widespread poverty, malnutrition, and disease—and the deaths of half a million children by the U.N.’s own account. The end of these sanctions would be “an incalculable blow to American leadership and credibility” and hence “the goal of U.S. policy should be to bring down Saddam and his regime.” The U.S. simply could not afford to lose face to Saddam.[5]

    In September 2000, PNAC released what is generally regarded as its manifesto, entitled “Rebuilding Americas Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century”, which makes the case for maintaining U.S. preeminence and global hegemony through a buildup of the military; to “extend the current Pax Americana”. The document states that “Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

    The overall goal is to “preserve American military preeminence”. However, “the process of transformation”—the strengthening of the military—”is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”[6]

    This assessment echoed one from Andrew Krepinevich, Executive Director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, in his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities on March 5, 1999. After stating that “There appears to be general agreement concerning the need to transform the U.S. military into a significantly different kind of force from that which emerged victorious from the Cold and Gulf Wars,” he noted that “this verbal support has not been translated into a defense program supporting transformation.” He stated further that “While there is growing support in Congress for transformation, the ‘critical mass’ needed to affect it has not yet been achieved.” In conclusion, “in the absence of a strong external shock to the United States—a latter-day ‘Pearl Harbor’ of sorts—surmounting the barriers to transformation will likely prove a long, arduous process.”[7]

    In other words, there was a consensus among policy-makers that the military needed to be rebuilt, but in the wake of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the American public expected and wanted a decrease in military spending. The “transformation” of the military into a force able to enforce the U.S.’s will globally would therefore not occur unless a catastrophic event occurred that allowed policy-makers to shift American public opinion back towards increased military spending.

    Indeed, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were viewed as an opportunity by those favoring this “transformation” of the military to enforce U.S. global hegemony. Robert Kagan, a director of PNAC, wrote in the Washington Post that “Just as the Korean War, Pearl Harbor and the sinking of the Lusitania taught us that we can’t immunize ourselves against the world’s problems, Sept. 11 must spur us to launch a new era of American internationalism. Let’s not squander this opportunity.”[8]

    National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice similarly stated, “No less than Pearl Harbor, September 11 forever changed the lives of every American and the strategic perspective of the United States.”[9] Rice also stated that “an earthquake of the magnitude of 9/11 can shift the tectonic plates of international politics…. If that is right, if the collapse of the Soviet Union and 9/11 bookend a major shift in international politics, then this is a period not just of grave danger, but of enormous opportunity. Before the clay is dry again, America and our friends and our allies must move decisively to take advantage of these new opportunities. This is, then, a period akin to 1945 to 1947, when American leadership expanded the number of free and democratic states—Japan and Germany among the great powers—to create a new balance of power that favored freedom.”[10] (We will return to how “freedom” is defined under the Bush administration).

    The Bush administration did indeed take advantage of the “opportunity” provided by 9/11 to effect the “transformation” of the military to be used to further the goal of U.S. global hegemony, which explains why so much of their case against Iraq centered on either psychologically linking Iraq to the terrorist attacks or claiming directly that Iraq had some role. It was crude propaganda, but effective enough against the American people.

    In the days after 9/11, PNAC wrote to President Bush encouraging him in the “war on terrorism” but stating that, “We agree that a key goal, but by no means the only goal, of the current war on terrorism should be to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, and to destroy his network of associates.” It then moves quickly on to Iraq. Saddam Hussein, in the words of Secretary of State Colin Powell, is “one of the leading terrorists on the face of the Earth” and “It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.”[11]

    Their reasons had already been outlined in earlier documents, but evolved to suit the pretext offered publicly by the administration. Proponent’s of the theory that the war was fought for Israel point to PNAC’s letter to Bush in April 2002 commending him for his “strong stance in support of the Israeli government”, America’s “besieged ally” and “fellow victim of terrorist violence.” The letter states that “No one should doubt that the United States and Israel share a common enemy” and urges Bush “to accelerate plans for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.”[12]

    This time, the official reasons for the war were cited; fear of WMD and Iraq’s “links to the Al Qaeda network.” This, of course, was not so much reflective of their true concerns so much as a change in marketing strategy reflecting the official administration stance that was more palatable to the American public. As they’d acknowledged previously, they didn’t know whether Iraq had WMD or not, but were now stating unequivocally that not only did he have them, but also that he was allied with Al Qaeda, to which Saddam might provide weapons. The letter was essentially a clear endorsement of the false pretext offered publicly by the administration to justify the war.

    The letter concludes that “Israel’s fight against terrorism is our fight. Israel’s victory is an important part of our victory. For reasons both moral and strategic, we need to stand with Israel in its fight against terrorism.” In other words, the U.S. should continue to support Israel not because it is in Israel’s interests, but because it suits the interests of the U.S., as perceived by the authors.

    The reasons given for wanting regime change seen in the earlier PNAC documents reflected the earlier assessment of Paul Wolfowitz, who served as Deputy Secretary of Defense under the Bush administration and who, like Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, had signed a number of the PNAC documents calling for regime change. The “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” document, in which Wolfowitz participated, reflects a 1992 Pentagon draft document supervised by Paul Wolfowitz entitled “Defense Planning Guidance”.[13]

    This document declared that the “first objective” of U.S. “defense strategy” should be “to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival”. The U.S. “must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.”

    The “second objective” is to “address sources of regional conflict and instability in such a way as to promote increasing respect for international law, limit international violence, and encourage the spread of democratic forms of government and open economic systems.”

    Of course, each of these points is used in their usual euphemistic sense. For instance, “Respect for international law” follows the usual pattern and means forcing others to heed the terms of treaties to which they are party if it suits U.S. interests to do so. The U.S. (and its official allies, such as Israel) may of course continue to ignore its own treaty commitments and violate international law when it gets in the way if its agenda. This assumption was reflected in Richard Perle’s statement following the invasion of Iraq that, “I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing.”[14]

    “International violence” likewise means their violence, not ours, and “democratic forms of government” goes hand in hand with “open economic systems” and, following the long-established norm, refers to any regime which trades with and allows U.S. corporations to operate within their borders (which has to do with the Bush administration’s definition of “freedom” to which we will return).

    Naturally, the report adds, “Various types of U.S. interests may be involved in such instances”, such as “access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil”. With regard to the Middle East and Southwest Asia, “our overall objective is to remain predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region’s oil.”

    The Bush administration’s 2002 National Security Strategy mirrors all of the above and outlines a plan for U.S. global hegemony. “Today,” it says, “the United States enjoys a position of unparalleled military strength and great economic and political influence.” The gist of it is that the U.S. should use that strength and influence to rule the world.[15]

    Being a document intended for public consumption, it’s full of rhetoric about freedom and democracy, intended in the usual sense. Along that vein, it asserts that “we do not use our strength to press for unilateral advantage. We seek instead to create a balance of power that favors human freedom….” “Freedom” is later defined: “The concept of ‘free trade’ arose as a moral principle even before it became a pillar of economics. If you can make something that others value, you should be able to sell it to them. If others make something that you value, you should be able to buy it. This is real freedom, the freedom for a person—or a nation—to make a living.” Thus “freedom” is defined in terms of U.S. economic interests, which, as we have seen in the case of the Middle East, are “primarily Persian Gulf oil”, which the U.S. wants access to but which Saddam Hussein was willing to deny us.

    This problem with Iraq is outlined in great detail in a 2001 report resulting from a task force sponsored by the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy of Rice University and the Council on Foreign Relations entitled “Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century”. The document notes that “For many decades now, the United States has been without an energy policy” and that, “In fact, the world is currently precariously close to utilizing all of its available global oil production capacity, raising the chances of an oil-supply crisis with more substantial consequences than seen in three decades. These limits mean the America can no longer assume that oil-producing states will produce more oil. Nor is it strategically and politically desirable to remedy our present tenuous situation by simply increasing dependence on a few foreign sources.

    “So, we come to the report’s central dilemma: the American people continue to demand plentiful and cheap energy without sacrifice or inconvenience. But emerging technologies are not yet commercially viable to fill shortages and will not be for some time.”

    The report states, “For the most part, U.S. international oil policy has relied on maintenance of free access to Middle East Gulf oil and free access for Gulf exports to world markets. The United States has forged a special relationship with certain key Middle East exporters, which had an expressed interest in stable oil prices and, we assumed, would adjust their oil output to keep prices at levels that would neither discourage global economic growth nor fuel inflation. Taking this dependence a step further, the U.S. government has operated under the assumption that the national oil companies of these countries would make the investments needed to maintain enough surplus capacity to form a cushion against disruptions elsewhere. For several years, these assumptions appeared justified.

    “But recently, things have changed. These Gulf allies are finding their domestic and foreign policy interests increasingly at odds with U.S. strategic considerations, especially as Arab-Israeli tensions flare. They have become less inclined to lower oil prices in exchange for security of markets, and evidence suggests that investment is not being made in a timely enough manner to increase production capacity in line with growing global needs. A trend toward anti-Americanism could affect regional leaders’ ability to cooperate with the United States in the energy area.

    “The resulting tight markets have increased U.S. and global vulnerability to disruption and provided adversaries undue potential influence over the price of oil. Iraq has become a key ‘swing’ producer, posing a difficult situation for the U.S. government.”

    To further complicate the situation, “U.S. unilateral sanctions as well as multilateral sanctions against oil-producing countries have discouraged oil resource investment in a number of key oil provinces…. In the case of Iraq, the U.N. sanctions imposed as a result of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait have had a severe effect on potential Iraqi production.”

    Moreover, “Iran and Iraq accuse Saudi Arabia of seeking higher production rates to accommodate the economic interests of the United States, Japan, and Europe at the expense of the needs of local populations, creating internal pressures in the Arabian Gulf region against a moderate price stance. Bitter perceptions in the Arab world that the United States has not been evenhanded in brokering peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians have exacerbated these pressures on Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries and given political leverage to Iraq’s Saddam Hussein to lobby for support among the Arab world’s populations.”

    The report continues, “Over the past year, Iraq has effectively become a swing producer, turning its taps on and off when it has felt such action was in its strategic interest to do so. Saudi Arabia has proven willing to provide replacement supplies to the market when Iraqi exports have been reduced. This role has been extremely important in avoiding greater market volatility and in countering Iraq’s efforts to take advantage of the oil market’s structure. Saudi Arabia’s role in this needs to be preserved, and should not be taken for granted. There is domestic pressure on the GCC leaders to reject cooperation to cool oil markets during times of a shortfall in Iraqi oil production. These populations are dissatisfied with the ‘no-fly zone’ bombing and the sanctions regime against Iraq, perceived U.S. bias in the Arab-Israeli peace process, and lack of domestic economic pressures.”

    With regard to Israel, the task force report asserts that “The timing might not be appropriate for a major initiative to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict in a comprehensive manner, but it is important to reduce immediate tensions and violence in that conflict. While this is a tenet of U.S. foreign policy for other reasons, it can also be helpful to the oil situation in ensuring that the two issues do not become linked and are kept on separate tracks. Iraq has been engaged in a clever public relations campaign to intersect these two issues and stir up anti-American sentiment inside and outside the Middle East. The bombing of Iraq by the United States led coalition in February 2001 spurred anti-U.S. demonstrations in support of Iraq in traditional U.S. allies such as Egypt. Moreover, Saddam Hussein is trying to recast himself as the champion of the Palestinian cause to some success among young Palestinians. Any severe violence on the West Bank, Gaza, or Southern Lebanon will give Iraq more leverage in its efforts to discredit the United States and U.S. intentions. A focus on the anti-Israeli sympathies of some Arab oil-producing countries diverts attention from the repressive nature of the Iraqi regime. Instead it rewards Iraq in its claim to Arab leadership for ‘standing up to the United States for ten years.’ Israel will assert its right to defend itself from terrorist or other attacks, so it is important that both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict are given a stake in avoiding conflict and violence. Creating an atmosphere where both sides are willing to show restraint can be an important goal for U.S. diplomacy on this issue.”

    With regard for Iraq, the report’s recommendation is to “Review policies toward Iraq with the aim to lowering anti-Americanism in the Middle East and elsewhere, and set the groundwork to eventually ease Iraqi oilfield investment restrictions. Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to U.S. allies in the Middle East, as well as to regional and global order, and to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets. This would display his personal power, enhance his image as a ‘Pan Arab’ leader supporting the Palestinians against Israel, and pressure others for a lifting of economic sanctions against his regime.

    “The United States should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq, including military, energy, economic, and political/diplomatic assessments.”[16]

    Returning to the Bush administration’s National Security Strategy, it asserts that “as a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against…emerging threats before they are fully formed.” The document cites the principle of “preemption”: “For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack.” But it goes further, asserting that “the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather.” The document thus lays out a policy not of preemption, but of a loosely-defined form of prevention, for which there is no recognition or legitimacy under international law.

    “The United States,” the document states, “is fighting a war against terrorists of global reach…. Afghanistan has been liberated; coalition forces continue to hunt down the Taliban and al-Qaeda.” Reflecting the view from PNAC that this is “a key goal, but by no means the only goal, of the current war on terrorism”, the document adds, “But it is not only this battlefield on which we will engage terrorists.”

    A clear reference to Iraq, it states, “We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends.”

    In sum, the document outlines a policy of prevention which was then used as justification for war with Iraq to protect America’s “credibility” and “vital interests”, “primarily Persian Gulf Oil”, but sold to the public under false pretexts, one of which was to protect Israel from the “threat” of Saddam, his WMDs, and his ties to al-Qaeda.

    In the end, there is really no need to speculate about the reasons for the Iraq war, as policy-makers have quite openly and explicitly stated their reasons for desiring regime change since the end of the first Gulf War in public documents. The war was not fought to suit Israel’s interests, but to suit the interests of the U.S. as perceived by policy-makers in Washington. Israeli and U.S. interests may coincide at times, but the ultimate objective, repeatedly declared, is U.S. global hegemony, which necessitates military preeminence and guaranteeing access, by force if necessary, to Middle Eastern oil.

    [1] “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”, The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, 1996

    Richard Perle was Assistant Secretary of Defense under Reagan and member of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee from 1987 to 2004; Douglas Feith was Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from 2001 to 2005; David Wurmser was Middle East Advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney.


    PNAC’s directores include Chairman William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard and chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle under the first Bush administration, and Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, contributing editor at the Weekly Standard, member of the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff and principle speechwriter for Secretary of State George P. Schultz under the Reagan administration.

    [3] PNAC’s Statement of Principles

    Signers of the statement include Elliot Abrams, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Dan Quayle, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz.

    [4] Letter to President Clinton, January 26, 1998

    Signers of the letter include Elliot Abrams, Richard L. Armitage, John Bolton, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, and Robert B. Zoellick.

    [5] Letter to Gingrich and Lott, May 29, 1998

    Signers of the letter include Elliot Abrams, John R. Bolton, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, and Robert B. Zoellick

    [6] “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century”, Project for a New American Century, September 2000

    Participants included Stephen Cambone, I. Lewis Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, and William Kristol.

    [7] Testimony of Andrew Krepinevich, Executive Director, before the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, March 5, 1999,_/


    [8] Robert Kagan and Ronald D. Asmus, “Commit for the Long Run”, The Washington Post, January 29, 2002

    [9] Remarks by Condoleezza Rice at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, June 26, 2003

    [10] Remarks by Condoleezza Rice at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, April 29, 2002

    [11] Letter to President Bush, September 20, 2001

    Signers of the letter include William Kristol, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Charles Krauthammer, and Richard Perle.

    [12] Letter to President Bush, April 3, 2002

    Signers of the letter include William Kristol, Richard Perle, and R. James Woolsey.

    [13] Patrick E. Tyler, “U.S. Strategy Plan Calls for Insuring No Rivals Develop”, The New York Times, March 8, 1992

    [14] Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger, “War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal”, The Guardian, November 20, 2002,2763,1089158,00.html

    [15] The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, September 2002

    [16] “Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century”, Report of an Independent Task Force Sponsored by the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy of Rice University and the Council on Foreign Relations, April 2001


    So, come on, let’s hear how I’m also a “Zionist” or a “Zionist enabler”, or whatever other asinine nonsense you want to spout.

  77. dino said on July 25th, 2009 at 3:19am #

    Shabnam,the article of Mark Green is true in all its points except one:Chomsky.Yes the first war against Iraq and the second were pushed by Israel,Israeli’s friend and Jewish lobby, how the war against Iran is today incited by the same people.And Chomsky explained the wars in a different way but that doesn’t make him a deceiver.Green makes the critique at what Chomsky didn’t say but generally a critique is done of what is said is and wrote.If i put all what Chomsky wrote ,books like:Fateful Triangle,The culture of terrorism,,Necessary Illusion,Survival or hegemony,Fails and rogue states and many others and Green will prove that all this stuff has not value because is only masked Zionism then i accept that Chomsky is a deceiver but until then i see Chomsky fighting on behalf of human suffering and injustice more than anyone else.

  78. bozh said on July 25th, 2009 at 7:09am #

    dino, respectfully
    i’ve read all those books by chomsky that u listed; except, methinks, faithful triangle, and i think the books were excellent.

    i bought all those books mostly because i had been against land stealing in palestine and elsewhere.

    i do reject his and others’ ‘solution’ for both pal’ns and israelis. Two-state ‘solution’ cannot ever be A let alone THE solution for pal’ns, given the wickedness of the quality called “jewishness”, a mix of supremasistic cultishness and some connection to it of people ranging from ethiopia/yemen to patagonia.
    furthermore, much of the word is also much wicked and with US still remaining antipalestinian, a new palestine wld be just some municipalities.
    it had even been framed thus by netanyahu; while USA tacitly approves of that.
    two-state ‘solution’ rewards not only immoral League of Nations, but also UN ’49, and enormous ‘jewish’ crimes against innocent indigenes.
    these have never harmed europepans with the cult.
    in fact, judaists and moslems have lived in palestine for for at least 1600 yrs. There is no report of any clashes or hatred btwn thse peoples. tnx

  79. Shabnam said on July 25th, 2009 at 8:02am #

    No one denies that “Chomsky fighting on behalf of human suffering and injustice.” That is not the issue. The issue is that Israel is not simply a proxy or as according to Stephen Zunes, Chomsky’s close ally a victim of “US imperialism’ but Israel through its agent, Israel lobby, is very influential regarding US middle east policy making including North Africa.
    The issue is that Chomsky misrepresents Israeli influence in the design of the Middle East policy to protect the interest of “Jewish state.”Chomsky does not want one state solution because he thinks after passage of time, the state, goes from Jewish majority to Jewish minority. I don’t understand why such a big deal is since Jews are minority all over the world. Israel knows that soon or later the ‘Jewish state’ will be Palestinian state if one look at the natural population growth of Palestinian in Israel. Thus, Israel is insisting on “Jewish state” so they can kick Palestinians out of their own land in the future.

  80. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 25th, 2009 at 9:35am #

    “Chomsky misrepresents Israeli influence in the design of the Middle East policy to protect the interest of “Jewish state.””

    That’s just stupid. But I’ll humor all y’all who hold to this bizarre view. Do you have any evidence to support it? I’d love to see any of you try to present any.

  81. Shabnam said on July 25th, 2009 at 10:19am #

    “Do you have any evidence to support it? I’d ”
    The evidence are all over the Internet. Start from blankford. Only stupid and arrogant people who love to follow chomsky are not able to see that Chomsky presents ‘US imperialism’ the primary reason for NO Peace between Palestine and Israel. Stop insulting others.

  82. B99 said on July 25th, 2009 at 10:45am #

    Shabnam – Whatever the merits of your other arguments – to say that an Israel passing from a Jewish majority to a Jewish minority is no big deal to the Jews because Jews are a minority elsewhere just does not compute – at all. Take it at face value – Jews very much care not to pass into a minority position in *their own* state. In fact, being the “Jewish state’ is pretty much their raison d’etre.

  83. Shabnam said on July 25th, 2009 at 11:10am #


    This kind of statement was made by late Edward Said in support of ONE STATE SOLUTION. He said in an interview that Jews are minority all over the world then should not be concerned if they lose their majority status in one state Palestine. He must have known something in order to make such a statement.

  84. bozh said on July 25th, 2009 at 11:46am #

    having read most of chomsky’s books, i have concluded by late eighty’s that he was strongly against US expansionism. He also, if my memory serves me, had also condemned israeli crimes and expansionism.

    but by ’08 he appears to have significantly shifted his position regarding US expansion; possibly also israeli?
    let us not ever forget that he considers self a jew. His children and grandchildren may have swallowed the opium call “jewishness.
    That, along with his advice, people not vote for nader; which, in fact, amounted to an advisement for a vote for greater evil, proves to me beyond a shaddow of doubt that he now approves what the greater evil is doing in afpak, iraq, and palestine.
    chomsky had saaid that voting for obama was voting for lesser evil, but i evaluated his advise otherwise.
    be it as it may, no observer cld state that israel and US have not since Dec. ’08 committed at least similar crimes that were comitted in the past.
    actually, the raid against gazans was one the more serious crimes perped by israel since destruction of jenin.
    one cannot call self a jew and totally divorce self from jewishness, a peculiar kind of supremacism.
    if a ‘jew’ is genetically 95% polish and still calls self a jew, then, to me, he’s a fake.
    he has then rejected his humanity and replaced it with a cult of superiority.
    to convince self ab. the fact that most or even all jews reject their humanity, read posts by trolls. Most of them are vicious, hatefull, frivolous, full of contempt, etc.

  85. B99 said on July 25th, 2009 at 1:48pm #

    Shabnam – Edward Said knew an awful lot – but if he said that, or something to that effect – I’d have to disagree with him. You only have to read the Israel-Firsters on this site, or for that matter, the general discourse anywhere of Jews re Israel, to know that Israel as a Jewish majority state is hugely important to them. That’s why they refuse to abide by the UN demand that the refugees be repatriated and why Avigdor Lieberman has a big audience for his recommendation that Palestinian-Israelis be evicted. Ultimately, it is why they won’t agree to one-state-fits-all. At least not for the foreseeable future.

  86. Shabnam said on July 25th, 2009 at 4:27pm #


    I am saying the same thing. Edward said told the interviewer the same thing meaning Israel as a Jewish majority state is hugely important to them. He argued that why this status should be important since Jews all over the world are minority and yet they are doing very well especially in the US. I am sorry if I confused you.

  87. B99 said on July 25th, 2009 at 5:47pm #

    The perils of the written word.


  88. Shabnam said on July 25th, 2009 at 6:42pm #

    [but by ‘08 he appears to have significantly shifted his position regarding US expansion; possibly also israeli?]

    No, that is not correct. Chomsky did not change his position regarding US expansionist policy or Israel. What he believes and presents is that Israel is A GOOD ALLY BECAUSE ISRAEL PERFORMS VALUABLE SERVICES. Please watch the provided video to know what kind of services he is talking about. On the other hand he refers to Israel’s attack on Gaza as ‘US-Israel attack.’ He thinks Israel is an important military base in the Middle East to position US military arms in the region. He believes Palestinians are not valuable because they don’t perform any valuable services for US interest and as a result Palestinians don’t deserve to have human rights. He says Palestinians behavior create tension in the Arab streets therefore, they should go to hell. If that is true, then don’t you think, Bozh, the United States must treat Palestinian differently from the present time to gain their trust and cooperation to bring ‘Arab streets’ with population of over 1 billion on her side to perform ‘valuable services to benefit the US’ and not create tension and chaos since corporations need stability? Chomsky does not bring the fact that the Jewish Lobby uses its influence to present Israel as a ‘valuable asset’ to American elite to sell Israel’s interest as American’s interest. Israel as other people have argued is not an asset rather a liability. Chomsky believes otherwise and that is the source of disagreement.
    Besides, Chomsky tells the audience that Israeli intelligence and operators are so valuable that US has used their design of Gaza partition in Baghdad to re partition the city.

  89. Deadbeat said on July 25th, 2009 at 7:12pm #

    Chomsky’s denial and obfuscation of Zionism’s influence upon U.S. policy (political economy) make his “commitment” against “U.S. Imperialism” specious. Again if one looks at Zionism as racism it makes you wonder why Chomsky would go to such lengths to obfuscate its influence. This really came to light with his critique of the Mersheimer and Walt revelations. For someone to be such a “thorough” researcher and to miss the obvious only raises questions about the seriousness of his commitment.

    Chomsky’s vast influence has help to shape the “Left” and to essentially create a double standard of how the Left deals with racism. In fact it is rather self-serving when looked upon from how it effects the Jewish community. White Supremacy clearly has elements of antisemitism and therefore it is in the interest of Jews to confront that. However Zionism clearly implicates Jewish adherence to a supremacist ideology.
    It is this double standard that retards solidarity with people of color and has helped to isolate the Left. This is an important dynamic that adds to the context of the critique.

  90. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 25th, 2009 at 9:42pm #


    “Only stupid and arrogant people who love to follow chomsky are not able to see that Chomsky presents ‘US imperialism’ the primary reason for NO Peace between Palestine and Israel. Stop insulting others.”

    I didn’t ask for evidence that Chomsky presents U.S. imperialism as the primary reason for no peace between Palestine and Israel. I asked for evidence that he’s a Zionist, or a Zionist “enabler”, or whatever other nonsense.

    I’ll stop pointing out how stupid this assertion is when you stop insulting the intelligence of DV readers by repeatedly making the assertion, without evidence and contrary to pretty much everything Chomsky has ever written on the topic.

  91. B99 said on July 26th, 2009 at 6:11am #

    Shabnam says: “What (Chomsky) believes and presents is that Israel is A GOOD ALLY BECAUSE ISRAEL PERFORMS VALUABLE SERVICES.”

    Are you saying that Chomsky believes this is a GOOD thing? Chomsky does NOT believe this is a good thing – he is stating what he believes to be the geopolitical relationship between Israel and the US. I happen to agree with him that Israel DOES perform regional (and extra-regional) services for the US. It is historically clear that Israel does so. That’s a price Israel has to pay to get all the aid it demands to maintain the occupation and discipline its neighbors. However, I would disagree as to the balance of the relationship, I think what has happened is that Israel has gotten the US to put all its eggs pretty much in the Israeli basket. But Israel understands that there has to be some degree of quid-pro-quo.

    In any case, Chomsky’s view is clearly that the Palestinians are being wronged by this policy and relationship – he no way endorses it.

  92. bozh said on July 26th, 2009 at 6:49am #

    shabnam, with respect,
    for long time chomsky had condemned israeli crimes. What he felt then and feels now for pal’ns is another matter. No one can tell!

    i, too, label the gazan raid as an US/Israel venture. And for salient reasons. US provides veto for any israeli crime so that UN cannot even impose sanctions let alone militarily intervene to stop any israeli crime.
    and then there is moral approval and finanacial/military aid.
    having said that, all that US had ‘ achieved’ in afpak, palestine, ‘stans, jordan, egypt, iraq, and elsewhere, it cld have achieved without israel.
    thus, i conclude ,israel is of no strategic value to US or the christ-judean soyuz.
    seems to me that israel is just being [ab]used. That had been, i conclude, main concern for all ‘jews’ who protest israeli crimes.
    i need more evidence to even conclude let alone evaluate as fact that US ‘jews’ change any longstading US foreign policy of expansionism.
    i don’t think that anybody loves “jewishness”. Some jews, as people, obviously may be liked, but not if they are or even seem to be ‘jews’ first and human beings second. itnx

  93. Max Shields said on July 26th, 2009 at 7:40am #

    Why do some here dwell so on Chomsky? I remember when Chomsky was this ground breaking linguist which is why he’s at MIT – not because of his polemical books.

    If Chomsky is the “brain” to the American “left” than surely there is no “left”. If by “left” we mean those who are poking around the system like pups to their mother’s tits, well all the more reason to proclaim: there is NO US “left”. The “left” as it has been called, referred to, ill-defined, is dead.

    But really, to know what is in Chomsky’s mind and heart is rather ridiculous. Who cares?

    The US has only ever had hints of a progressive/left movement, mostly during the early 20th century which dissipated with FDR and the modern post-WWII era. The Vietnam outbursts were primarily about the draft…and yes there were some with a more left-wingish agenda, but they were a tiny fringe.

    Great masses of people rarely digest an ideology in some kind of intellectual fashion. Life style and culture govern behaviorial patterns which have been dictated by corporate marketing. Almost anything on the fringe is either ignorned into oblivian or set to music for commericals so as to nullify their threat to the status quo.

    How long that can go on as the empire slowly declines remains to be seen…but it will go on for some time. Will unemployment reach levels of intolerability? Will poverty become the new “normal”. Can it be mollified into a new status quo? Is there a capacity for revolt?

    We have a presidential administration that demonstrates by its policies that he has bet the farm that business as usual can be sustained for now.

    Israel is what it is, an imperial wanna be using American expansionist tacts, that were undetered in the 17th/18th Centuries and are now broadcast making Israel’s imperialism visible to a wider world. No sanctions, no meaningful UN resolutions. Only the end of the US empire and its attachment for this preditory state it has kept alive in the ME, will end that horror.

  94. Shabnam said on July 26th, 2009 at 8:05am #

    [Are you saying that Chomsky believes this is a GOOD thing? Chomsky does NOT believe this is a good thing – he is stating what he believes to be the geopolitical relationship between Israel and the US.]
    You have no prove to say that [Chomsky does NOT believe this is a good thing] and nor anyone can prove otherwise unless Chomsky himself expands his explanation further. One thing, however, is clear, at least to me , that Chomsky repeats this line of argument over and over and over and over to keep many Americans who have been disillusioned with presentation of Israel as ‘an asset’ based on this kind of argument that US interest is intertwined with Israeli interest. American people are waking up since the publication of mershamier and Walt more than ever but Chomsky’s explanation stays the same. What is so special about Israel? Israel receives preferential treatment not only in the US but also in all major Western Capitals around the world. This kind of treatment if is given to, lets’ say Sudan, we would have had a totally different Sudan today. Iran with so many engineered crises by the West and Israel and a destructive war for eight years has achieved a level of progress in missile technology, sciences including medical sciences and space technology never seen before. Can you imagine if Iran were given preferential treatment? Iran historically is an ally of the United States in the region. Why should Iran be presented as an enemy? This is Israel’s interest not American’s interest. Iran has become an enemy because Israel’s plan is establishment of ‘greater Israel’ to dominate the Middle East including the North Africa.

  95. Shabnam said on July 26th, 2009 at 8:31am #


    Why is occupation of Palestine in the interest of the United States? Why is destruction of Palestinian toddlers by phosphorous bombs in the interest of American people? This is Israel’s interest to incorporate all of Palestine and part of Syria and Lebanon and more into ‘greater Israel.’
    I am glad that you have reached the same conclusion as many Americans have reached meaning [Israel is of no strategic value to US] because many specialists of the Middle East studies have reached to the same conclusion believing that Israel is not an asset. Strong role of Israel in the design of the Middle East policy has been presented by Professor Sniegoski.
    Stephen J. Sniegoski makes some compelling arguments about neoconservatives: (1) they were the driving force behind the Bush administrations war in Iraq, (2) their motivation was based on their belief that American interests in the Middle East are virtually identical with the Israeli Likud party beliefs about Israeli interests in the region, and (3) these mutual interests lie in destabilizing Israel’s adversaries and reconfiguring the environment rather than in the traditional American policy of stabilizing the Middle East.

    My interpretation of the situation in the Middle East is close to Sniegoski and I have expressed it many times in the past.

  96. B99 said on July 26th, 2009 at 8:39am #

    Shabnam – Well, I have heard Chomsky in person several times and he ALWAYS closes (when I’ve heard him) with exhortations to organize in the interests of the common people – including us in the audience. And the emphasis is always – organize, organize, organize. So I don’t need proof, I’ve heard it first hand. Now for you that may be hearsay, so be it. It seems quite clear to me that Chomsky’s references to human rights in the youtube video link you provided are assertions that human rights is a good thing – his audience is chock full of those who fervently believe in human rights.

    Ultimately, Chomsky is against the collusion of state and big capital against commoners. Where I differ with him is on degrees of state control between Israel and the US. Chomsky believes in the US as superpower superstructure, a position enhanced by the demise of the Soviet Union. That’s why he rails against US policy toward Nicaragua and the former Apartheid South Africa. His sympathies always lie (whenever I’ve heard or read him on this) with the people.

    Can you tell me where you’ve heard him say (or in writing) that human rights should be secondary for the citizen? No, you’ve only heard him describe STATE RELATIONS – something he does continually and dispassionately.

    It can’t be, however, that here on DV we rail against US hegemony everywhere except when it comes to Israel – at which point we should shift the entire blame to Israel. The US is a premier activist government and pursues varying interests in the Middle East that occasionally differ with Israel’s and even more rarely takes a stand against Israel. That’s because the State Dept. is two steps removed from congress which we all know is Israel’s Amen Corner (Buchanan’s sole positive contribution to the topic). To the extent that the State Dept is hijacked by Israel-Firsters, that is the extent it and the president will be in accord on Middle East policy. Zionist control of that dept has not always been the case.

    To summarize – if someone were to hold a gun to my head I’d have to say the relationship is 65/35 controlled by Israel – with the 35 being far-ranging regional issues that buck up against US interests. Chomsky would likely more than reverse those numbers. Doesn’t make him an enemy – it’s just a philosophical difference on how geopolitics is structured in a world with one superpower.

  97. bozh said on July 26th, 2009 at 10:27am #

    i’d love to know why US DEMANDS/ COMMANDS israelis continue with building settlements and occupying palestine.
    the answer to this must come from US. When i say US, in include all zionists: ‘jews’ and goyim.

    however, we can guess! Is it money? ‘Jews’ are the richest group in US.
    They can thus wine and dine pols, their children, grand children, et al. When pols retire they can double dip by working with ‘jewish’ bankers and ‘jewsih’ businesspeople.
    another cause, one can this time asserrt, is religion and votes cast by pious people.
    they wld cast their votes for maximalists. Anyone suggesting building ‘settlements’ stop, let alone demanding their removal, will not get elected.
    meaness/delusional thinking always play a role. US does not gladhand dissent. More cld be said. Thanks for asking!

  98. bozh said on July 26th, 2009 at 10:54am #

    more on what chomsky wrote in, THE HEGEMONY OR SURVIVAL [’03]
    p.179. ‘Bush declared obliquely that Israel could continue its programs of settlement and development in the occuopied territories.
    The form of his endorsement was the statement that ” as progress has been made towards peace, settlement activity in the occupied territories must end” implying that it can continue until the US determines [unilaterally, as always] that progress has been made.

    if this is true, it proves that not every prez has been against expansion or ‘settlements’ [read, please, land robbing].
    but, de facto, every prez had approved ‘settling’ the lands; it was forbidden only verbally.

    p.184. this is from moshe dayan: ‘ Israel should tell palestinians in the territories that “we have no solution, you shall continue to live like dogs, and whoever wishes may leave, and we will see where this process leads”.
    But palestinians remained “samidin”, who endured but scarcely retaliated’ . tnx

  99. bozh said on July 26th, 2009 at 11:13am #

    in the,The Chomsky Reader [’87] on p. 387. Shimon Peres, the socialist leader of the Labor party, accepted Begin’s rationale for retaining the West Bank, writing: ” There is no argument in Israel about our historic rights inthe land of Israel. The past is immutable and the Bible is decisive document in determining the fate of our land”.
    This doctrine aparently causes few eyebrows inthe Socialist International, in which Peres and his Labor party are honored members.`

    does this help shed light on the supposedly meek stance of the left on zionismÉ. tnx

  100. Shabnam said on July 27th, 2009 at 6:08am #

    I don’t know why I have missed your paper. I spotted it while ago. In any case, I have read your paper and it is a good one but its reasoning behind the Iraq war is different from mine. I strongly view Israel as an important factor behind the decision to invade Iraq.

    Few articles of yours have been translated into Persian. The articles that you have criticized Zionism and presented Israel as a racist and belligerent force in the region have been translated into Persian. Your article on ‘color revolution’ where you have exposed organizations such as NED and other human rights organizations involved in regime change has been translated as well. This kind of article gets translated fast and is circulated in the Internet. Your article on the Iranian nuclear energy program has not been translated in full, only selected paragraphs, where I do understand the reason behind it and I have already commented on this piece when appeared at this site.
    Obama Administration Statements on Iran Nukes Not Backed by Intelligence
    This paper starts talking about “a Clean Break” but end up with the same point of view that Chomsky presents, basically, everything is according to US imperialist design towards world domination.
    Oded Yinon in ‘The strategy of Israel in 1980s’ clearly wrote:
    1- Israel should be the dominant power of the region
    2- Using the ethnic and religious divide to partition the regional states creating non-Arab allies for Israel

    Partition of Iraq is part of Zionist strategy since 1950’s. Creation of Kurdistan was not part of US design of the region because US knows that an independent ‘Kurdistan’ is against the interest of almost all regional states EXCEPT Israel. Turkey, Iran and Syria are important countries for US as allies. Everyone in the region strongly believe that the region does not need ‘another Israel.’ Why should US act against its own ‘natural’ ally, Iran, in the region and follows the bloody footsteps of Zionists who have their own interest in mind when they were designing US policy? You emphasize on Oil companies and the arms industry as important factors for the invasion but leaving Israel lobby behind is misleading.

    US policy in the Middle East designed around stability which Washington perceived as fundamental for preserving the flow of oil. But we have seen sudden policy change after the 9/11. We suddenly, saw Israel’s perceived enemies became US enemies over night.
    Between the World War II and 9/11 the watchword for U.S. policy in the Middle East was stability, which Washington perceived as fundamental for preserving the flow of cheap oil that economy of the West was build upon it. In that period, U.S. support for Israel existed within the broader framework of stability. But since the assumption of power by Bush and his associates, the neocon, the Bush administration’s foreign policy moved away from that traditional one and began promoting regional instability in an attempt to weaken Israel’s enemies. This was sold to Americans as “regime change” to bring about “democracy” where everyone by now knows that this was a lie. Bush, resisted attack on Iran by the end of his term because number of Generals told Bush not to follow the bloody footsteps of Israel. This time Bush accepted the call because the neocon promises were not fulfilled accordingly. You write:

    [The war was not fought to suit Israel’s interests, but to suit the interests of the U.S. as perceived by policy-makers in Washington. Israeli and U.S. interests may coincide at times, but the ultimate objective, repeatedly declared, is U.S. global hegemony, which necessitates military preeminence and guaranteeing access, by force if necessary, to Middle Eastern oil.]

    The oil companies at the beginning of the Gorge Bush administration actually sought to end sanctions on Iraq. They have taken the same stance toward Iran, in contrast to those who prepared “a clean break” wanted war against powerful states in the region and argued that this is the US interest.
    The United States has engaged and does engage in imperialistic activities that have nothing to do with Israel. The operation of American imperialism does not require promoting Israeli interests. Mearsheimer and Walt’s observation suggested that U.S. support of Israel is against U.S. strategic interests by stimulating anti-Americanism in the Arab/Islamic world. Mearsheimer and Walt joined Zbigniew Brzezinski, and other realists who recognized that the invasion of Iraq was contrary to U.S. national security interests, but the Bush administration and a majority of Congress believed otherwise. The reason behind US support of Israel is given by Stephen Zones, a close associate of Chomsky:
    [Israelis have helped arm and train pro-American Kurdish militias and have assisted U.S. officials in interrogation centers for suspected insurgents under detention near Baghdad. Israeli advisers have shared helpful tips on erecting and operating roadblocks and checkpoints, have provided training in mine-clearing and wall-breaching methods, and have suggested techniques for tracking suspected insurgents using drone aircraft. Israel has also provided aerial surveillance equipment, decoy drones, and armored construction equipment. In return, Israel has reaped ever-greater U.S. support.]

    It is true that Israel has provided some help to the United States from his experience torturing and dealing with Palestinians. Furthermore, Israel is working with Kurds since early 1960s and set up a hospital in the Kurdish region and placed Mossad agents Doctors to spy on Saddam. Partition of Iraq simply reflects the Israeli aim to fragment and destabilize the regional states, as proposed in Yinon’s 1982 article to expand her influence in the region.

    Israel has not sacrificed blood for this war. It has expended hardly any resources. Having promoted the war, it achieved its goal at virtually no cost. On the other hand the United States spend billions of dollars of her resources to buy hatred of the world, especially Islamic countries, for herself and the outcome of Israel’s war yet to be determined . Now Israel wants to destroy her strongest enemy, Iran using fools in Washington.

    Mr. Hammond, you are not a well known figure like Chomsky who has a lot of influence among many groups including Iranians and Arabs alike. Furthermore, Chomsky lends his signature to selected petitions in support of many Iranians who are neither left, nor anti Zionism or imperialism. Many are closely related to NED and ‘Human rights’ organizations where are known to be connected with the West intelligent services. Mr. James Barker has written many articles on organization ‘manipulating human rights’ and has exposed the true nature of these organizations where are acting as ENABLERS to assist imperialism and Zionism to achieve their goals in the targeted countries. Chomsky has supported figures such as Haleh Esfadiari, she and her husband Shaul Bakhash are viewed as pro Israel and it is on the record that Daniel Pipes , a zionist pro Israel , promote Bakhash’s writing at his ‘campuswatch’ for his supporters. Esfadiari and her husband had close cooperation with the Washington Institute for the Near East policy (WINEP) where is known to everyone as Israel’s think tank and even Rashid Khalidi advised Arabs not to associate themselves with this center in any shape or form many times in the past.
    Chomsky also has lent his signature to another famous NED recipient, Ramin Jahanbeglou, who was closely involved in preparation of youth and intellectuals for a ‘velvet revolution’ in Iran when he was arrested and detained for investigation for a short time. He lives in Canada where he has citizenship.
    Joanne Landy from CPD prepared a petition in support of Shireen Ebadi, where Chomsky signed. Shireen Ebadi has close cooperation and relations with Payman Akhavan, a Bahia, who is a professor of law at Mac Gill University in Toronto where he teaches. Akhavan has close relations with Zionist circles in Canada to protect the fascist state’s interest against Palestinian. Akhavan and Ebadi were involved in organization of the “United for Iran” held on July 25, 2009, and traveled to Amsterdam to give speeches against Iranian government at the rally. Barker in ‘Media Watchdog as Democracy Manipulator’ part I, 2007 wrote the following line about Shireen Ebadi:

    [Finally, it is interesting that Shirin Ebadi, the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize winner, “formally asked to represent the family” of Zahra Kazemi. This is noteworthy because Ebadi is a director of the Points of Peace Foundation – a Norwegian based human rights organization whose advisory board includes a large number of ‘democratically’ linked individuals.]

    Akhavan with Roya Hakakian and Ramin Ahmadi have founded “Iranian Human Rights Documentation Center” in New Haven where received 1.5 million US government grant. On the other hand, Shireen Ebadi’s daughter, Nargees, who is a student at Mac Gill in the same department where Akhavan is teaching where there is a rumor that she, also has adopted Bahia faith. Many people view Payman Akhavan, a board member of ‘Rights and Democracy’ Canadian version of NED, as an agent of Western governments who is in the business and disinformation and propaganda against Iran in the interest of Israel. Payman Akhavan is active in ‘Save Darfur’ documenting the ‘genocide’ for the zionist propagandists. The following is taken from Sourcewatch:

    [In August 2007, UN Watch director Hillel Neuer was the keynote speaker at the Save Darfur Canada rally in Montreal. [9] Neuer spoke together with Gen. Lewis MacKenzie, former commander of UN peacekeepers in the Balkans; Prof. Payam Akhavan, international law professor at McGill, and former senior advisor to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court; Simon Deng, a black Christian from the south of Sudan who was sold into slavery into the Muslim north; Miss World Canada Nazanin Afshin-Jam; and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author of Infidel.]

    The following video is made by Esther prade from Amsterdam where Payman Akhavan is preaching ‘death to Iranian government’ and openly promoting ‘VELVET REVOLUTION.’

  101. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 27th, 2009 at 7:47am #


    Briefly, yes, the war in Iraq was about U.S. hegemony.

    Returning to Chomsky, I fail to see how he is a Zionist according to your argument, and I’m not really sure what kind of argument you’re trying to make here. Suffice to say the assertion that he’s a Zionist “enabler, or whatever, is just outrageously absurd. It’s completely asinine, as anyone whose ever actually read his work on the issue at any length knows.

    The suggestion that some signature of his on some petition in support of human rights or some such thing outweighs his massive body of work condemning Israel and U.S. support for its violations of international law and rejection of Palestinian self-determination is just completely asinine. Really. It really is.

  102. bozh said on July 27th, 2009 at 10:24am #

    anyone who wants to reward stern,irgun, hagganah, christo-judean evil soyuz’ crimes with money or land abets future crimes by gangsters against other weak and ignored indigenes.

    anyone who had abetted past ‘zionist’ crimes, had abetted and abets present US and nato crimes in afpak, iraq, palestine, syria, iran. tnx

  103. Shabnam said on July 27th, 2009 at 12:54pm #

    Chomsky holds ‘US imperialism’ responsible for Israel’s action against Palestinian to confuse who is the guilty party

    Chomsky in “Obama & Israel-Palestine” writes:
    [During the murderous assault, Obama remained silent apart from a few platitudes, because, he said, there is only one president – a fact that did not silence him on many other issues.]
    Since he does not recognize Israel Lobby as an influential factor in US Middle East policy, then he brings in ‘US imperialism’ when Israel commits genocide in Palestine. For a second assume that ‘US imperialism’ demands little Israel to go after Palestinians and kill their toddlers with phosphorus bomb. Don’t you think Israel has a CHOICE to say No, I would not do it? Of course, he does. But the problem is that Israel has an agenda and that is written in the writing of Oded Yinon where Chomsky rarely mentioning it to his audience. It was the late Israel Shahak a fierce opponent of Zionism who actually translated this important document to inform the world about Israel’s strategy in the region. This document is widely used to refer to what is going on in the region including destabilization of the regional states in order to establish ‘greater Israel.’ Chomsky rarely refers to this document, thus, no one can connect the dots that Chomsky leaves behind and he tries to fill the holes with ‘US imperialism’ and leaves Zionism unmentioned. In fact, Zionism and imperialism are both sides of the same coin. Chomsky’s fixation on ‘US imperialism’ and leaving out Zionism makes many to believe that he is protecting the Zionist’s interest.
    Chomsky continues:
    [The most significant acts to undermine a peaceful settlement are the daily US-backed actions in the occupied territories, all recognized to be criminal: taking over valuable land and resources and constructing what the leading architect of… ]

    This lines implies that Chomsky believes it is the ‘US imperialism’ that does not want to end the settlements otherwise Israel would have not done all the land robbery and destruction of houses and lives. Furthermore, strengthen this assumption that occupation and settlements are part of ‘US imperialism’ policy in the Middle East.
    Now, we have heard Obama is calling to stop immediately the settlements, of course with fear from Jewish Lobby retribution. US think settlement is an impediment to its policy in the region. Yet, Chomsky still repeats the same line of argument and thinks the reverse is true. This, again, makes ‘US imperialism’ entirely responsible for the harms inflicted on Palestinian in their own land this confusion brings more time for the Zionist’s plan to go further, and that is the establishment of ‘greater Israel’ that Paul Graig Roberts has talked about.

    Chomskyhas always supported the Kurds to buy sympathy for them from the westerners; however, rarely he has talked about Kurdish terrorism and its role as a Zionists’ pawn in the region

    Seymour Hersh wrote:
    [Israeli intelligence and military operatives are now quietly at work in Kurdistan, providing training for Kurdish commando units and, most important in Israel’s view, running covert operations inside Kurdish areas of Iran and Syria. Israel feels particularly threatened by Iran, whose position in the region has been strengthened by the war. The Israeli operatives include members of the Mossad, Israel’s clandestine foreign-intelligence service, who work undercover in Kurdistan as businessmen and, in some cases, do not carry Israeli passports.]

    Israeli involvement with the Kurds is not new. In its search for non-Arab allies in the region, Israel has supported Kurdish terrorism in the region since 1960s. In 1980, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin publicly acknowledged that Israel had secretly provided military aid to Kurds in the form of weapons and advisers.

    A Clean Break, “A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” paper was presented in 1996 to the then Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered a more potent strategy to provide “the Israel the room to engage every possible energy in rebuilding Zionism, and increase its influence in the Middle East.

    The authors of this paper were from the neocons gang including Richard Perle, present Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith, and vice
    President Dick Cheney’s adviser for Middle East Affairs, David Wurmser. Furthermore, according to Oded Yinon and A clean break, partition of Iraq is an important goal for expansion of zionist’s interest point of view. Kurds
    as Zionist’s pawn must be brought to American people’s attention to know what is going on in the region. The partition of Iraq brought by a self claimed Zionist, Joseph Biden to the senate and it was written by a Zionist from The Council on Foreign Relations, Leslie Gelb.

    Noam Chomsky should stop supporting NED agents who clearly has close relations with Zionists, including Payman Akhavan, a phony human rights lawyer who makes cases against enemies of Israel and US imperialism to protect interest of Zionism, US imperialism in Darfur against Bashir but not against ‘save Darfur’ acting in line with Israel’s interest in Sudan, Iran, former Yugoslavia, against Russia to protect Aggression by Sakashvili in Georgia, a puppet of Israel.
    Chomsky’s support of NED agents, deliberately or not, makes Zionism able to expand its influence to establish ‘greater Israel.’

    I don’t want to go into 9/11 terror case where Chomsky rejects any evidence against the official line and call it conspiracy theory.
    Whoever wants to be a blind follower of Chomsky and repeats his rusty knife “US imperialism” without any criticism of Zionist is the true is just completely asinine.

  104. B99 said on July 27th, 2009 at 1:26pm #

    The fact that there is great involvement of Israel in Kurdistan is a true negative – but does not subtract from the fact that the Kurdish right to self-determination is no less than that of Palestine’s or any other people. If there is but one good that comes out of the US war on Iraq, it is that the Kurds can establish their own state. It is incumbent upon Arabs, Turks, and Iranians to come to terms with that state and establish good relations with it.

  105. Deadbeat said on July 27th, 2009 at 1:34pm #

    Shabnam thanks for that excellent analysis.

  106. Shabnam said on July 27th, 2009 at 1:45pm #


    Would you please cut that out. Where was Kurdistan before Othman Empire waged a war against Iran and stole Part of Kurdistan from Iran? Kurdistan that is located in Iraq, Turkey and elsewhere was part of Iran until early 16th century. Today Israel through its agents including Ken Timmerman and Michael Leeden are working amongst Azeri, Kurds, Baluch and other to partition Iran to create non-Arab states. Then should I cooperate with those Zionist su**ers for self determination of different Iranian groups. Stop that nonsense. The Zionist used this stupid concept to steal Palestinian land and using the same concept to establish their own fu**ing ‘Greater Israel’ and then to go for Zionist world domination. We have seen it all baby…..

  107. bozh said on July 27th, 2009 at 3:20pm #

    last few days i have reread parts of the books chomsky wrote prior to ’03 and i still find them at least adequate.
    he does blame israelis for all the well-known crimes they have comitted but notes that US approbates each crime israelis have comitted.

    this is also my opinion. I wld just add that europe is not that much better than US towards pal’ns.
    chomsky does not mention even once, unless i have missed it, the right of return.
    i don’t remember how i evaluated that fact until about first serb aggression against slovenia in late early ’91. I think that i thought that he dealt with that issue in some other books or articles.
    and he may have.
    however, like most leftists and ‘jews’ , he was pro-serb until at least ’99.
    eventually, yrs later, he did regret that he did not condemn srebrenica massacre of ’95. {don’t recall where i read that}

    i am not sure that he also denied kosovars independence. I wld have to reread what he wrote ab. kosovo to make sure.
    The left did because, methinks, it was unaware that the albanians have resided in much of the balkans ca. 3K yrs before slavs arrived there.
    thus they may have continuously resided als in kosovo for ca. 5K yrs.
    slovenians and croats have assimilated illyrian pop [there is no report of warfare bwtn newcomers and indigenes] but serbs, montenegrins, and macedonians have not.
    i self am probably 50% illyrian and the rest probably croat. tnx

  108. B99 said on July 27th, 2009 at 4:12pm #

    Shabnam – I started the Atzmon article, but it’s really long so I’ll finish it later. But let me say this – it is firstly about the psychological aspects of individual Jews and their relationship to gentile society. I’m not Jewish, not particularly cosmopolitan – but I did grow up in NYC – and I’m an atheist. From there, I’m not sure where he is going with the argument other than his jazz friends did not consider themselves citizens of the world. Well, that’s just not the kind of shit jazzmen talk about. And I certainly don’t consider myself a citizen of the world.

    But Atzmon mentions that the UN recognizes the right of people to self-determination for all peoples. I take that at the level of population groups – not individuals so much. I subscribe to this statement fully. That’s why I am for a Palestinian state. Not because I’m an Arabist, Islamist, Middle East expert, anti-white, anti-American or anti-Jewish. I’m none of those (well I do have some recognized expertise on Palestine.) It’s a principle. And it applies to all. Not all ask for its application. The Tutsis were slaughtered in great numbers but are not (to my knowledge) agitating for a Tutsi state. But the Kurds are – and have been long before Israeli involvement. The superpowers and the regional powers have played football with Kurdish independence for many decades.

    Only part of Kurdistan was in Iran, and an even smaller part now. IF the Brits had done their job correctly after WWI Kurdistan would not have been included in Iraq, and should not have been part of Turkey either considering they lost the war. The possibility of a Kurdish state, denied to the present, would have and should have emerged after that war. Instead, the Brits inserted part of Kurdistan into Iraq and sliced Kuwait out of Iraq. That was a crime.

    So I am not going to be against a Kurdish state just because the Israelis are involved. I am not going to be against a Kurdish state because Iran does not want it either. I am going to be for a Kurdish state for precisely the same reason that I am for a Palestinian state – because the Kurds and Palestinians have the right to exercise political self-determination – and that’s what they want. And its a language the UN understands.

    PS – The job of the Arabs and Persians is to get on the Kurds good side. They are not the cousins of the Jews – they are your cousins – and they are Muslims. So why drive them into the arms of Israel?

  109. Shabnam said on July 27th, 2009 at 5:12pm #


    After the demise of Ottoman empire where the zionists played an important role to gain access to Palestine, then Kurdistan was divided further. Consult your history book.
    The Battle of Chaldiran (also Chaldoran or Çaldıran) occurred on 23 August 1514 and ended with a decisive victory for the Ottoman Empire over the Safavids. As a result the Ottomans gained control over the north western part of Iran. The Ottomans had a larger, better equipped army numbering 100,000[3] to 200,000, while the Iranians numbered some 40,000. Shah Ismail I was wounded and almost captured in the conflict.
    We are all Iranians. Then please stop thinking about partitioning Iran. We do not believe in the UN, a fu**ing whore house where the West instals a petty servant like Ban Ki Moon as a cover and then they start destroying country after country. The current system is so fuc**d up that encourages only a Master & servant relationship. We never allow ANOTHER ISRAEL in our region. I am also against Kosova as an independent country.
    The case of Palestine is totally different. Palestinians’ land has been stolen and they have been forced out. Therefore, only one country for all is the solution, nothing else. UN is not in the position of solving problem rather carrying out orders of the war criminals through hegemonic rule where is called ‘veto power.’ UN is really United States and Israel where I am going to burn it down should the opportunity arise.

  110. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 27th, 2009 at 6:57pm #


    chomsky says the Iraq war was about U.S. imperialism because it was about U.S. imperialism, not “to confuse who is the guilty party”.

    Since your premise is wrong, there’s no need to respond to the rest of it, suffice to say it’s riddled with fallacies and misrepresentations of Chomsky’s writing.

    Example: “This lines implies that Chomsky believes it is the ‘US imperialism’ that does not want to end the settlements otherwise Israel would have not done all the land robbery and destruction of houses and lives.”

    No, it doesn’t imply that. At all. This is a non sequiter.

    And how again is it that Chomsky condemning U.S-backed Israeli crimes is evidence for him being a “Zionist”?

    “Whoever wants to be a blind follower of Chomsky and repeats his rusty knife “US imperialism” without any criticism of Zionist is the true is just completely asinine.”

    I suppose I’m a Zionist enabler, too, right? By your logic, that’s a reasonable corollary. So here’s some evidence of it for you, not unlike the evidence you’ve presented of Chomsky’s Zionist tendancies:

    Surely, if you look hard enough, you’ll find some kind of “evidence” from my articles on the topic that I’m a “Zionist enabler” like Noam Chomsky. Maybe you could quote me condemning U.S. support for Israeli crimes and explain how that shows I’m really sympathetic towards Zionism and am working to “enable” further Israeli crimes against the Palestinians.

    Then Deadbeat could even say, “Superb analysis!” That would really show ’em.

  111. Deadbeat said on July 28th, 2009 at 3:35am #

    Jeremy Hammond writes …
    Seriously, people, read Fateful Triangle. Then explain to us how Chomsky is a “Zionist” or “is far from confronting Zionism” or whatever other asinine nonsense you want to keep insisting on from a position of complete ignorance. Give it a rest, already.

    It is obvious that Mr. Hammond hasn’t read my commentary regarding Chomsky and Zionism over the past years of my participation on DV. In addition I have NEVER insulted anyone who hasn’t agreed with my position on this issue. In fact much of my introduction to “left-wing” ideology has been via reading Chomsky. HOWEVER just because I’ve read someone ideas doesn’t mean that I have to IDOLIZE them. Unfortunately many of the “Chomskyites” do and herein lies much of the problems with the “Left”. Rather than adhering to the ideas of EQUALITY, JUSTICE, FAIRNESS and TRUST that build SOLIDARITY people like Mr. Hammond would rather SPEW out lazy-ass ad hominem fallacies to make their points. Such retorts illustrates their own HYPOCRISIES and their specious commitment to confront a RACIST ideology which is INTEGRAL to the so-called “U.S. Imperialism” they profess to be against.

    You don’t have to take it from me, there are many intellectual who do not put the RELIGION before JUSTICE. I refer to Jeffrey Blankfort and James Petras who have written critiques of the “Oracle of the Left”.

    Clearly Mr. Hammond if anyone is being asinine it is YOU. YOU who would rather be in denial of how Chomsky and the phony LEFT discombobulated the anti-war movement with their suppor of the Anybody But Bush/Safe State strategy in ’04. And Chomsky continued denial of Zionism influence of U.S. Foreign policy and its increasing influence of the American political economy. Zionism is the most pervasive RACIST ideology gripping the United States today and being in denial of this fact is epitome of ASININE.

  112. Jeremy R. Hammond said on July 28th, 2009 at 3:53am #

    No one is asking you to “IDOLIZE” Chomsky. Just to weigh his enormous contribution to the defense of Palestinian rights and actually present evidence to support the assertion that he’s a “Zionist” or a “Zionist enabler”, or whatever.

    You still haven’t actually presented any evidence for this, this latest post being no exception to the rule.

  113. bozh said on July 28th, 2009 at 6:43am #

    i’ve read several chomsky’s books. I recall that he condemned ‘jewish’ orgs for trying to stifle free speech and shutting up people who wld adduce facts that wld show israel in bad or very bad light.

    i wld have to reread these and rea dother books by chomsky to find out if he ever affirmed or denied ‘jewish’ influence in US foreign policy.
    curioso is also that, if my memory serves me, he also never discussed or mentioned right of return.
    if he had not, silence on this most salient aspect of the conflict, signifies what?
    he has not, as far as i know, ever renounced his anarchism. Such people are asocialistic.
    to me, his sayings of the last few yrs, indicate that he had chnaged his position significantly.
    in any case, as i have already said, he’s not a socialist. Has he renounced the ‘higher quality of being’ called “jewishness” .
    if not, he then rejects his humanity as well!
    thus, not much good can be expected from him and the ‘jews’ on DV who condemn others believing they can stifle free speech. tnx

  114. B99 said on July 28th, 2009 at 7:28am #

    Shabnam – Kurdistan came under nominal Persian control sometime after the 10th century. That control waxed and waned until 1514 when Persia lost most of it to the Ottomans. That’s the way it is with empires. Nobody gets to keep their possessions forever. In WWI the Ottomans chose the wrong side – and as I mentioned earlier, the Brits – Churchill to be specific – lumped and split the region as it saw fit. The Kurds should have been guaranteed their own country (as were all the Arab lands of southwest Asia).

    Iraqi Kurdistan is NOT part of Iran and has not been part of Iran for centuries – as you know from your outline of Ottoman/Persian history. Besides, the Kurds of Iraq are not petitioning to join Iran and are not joining you in shouting ‘We are all Iranians.’

    Whether Shabnam believes in the UN is less important than the fact Iran is a member of the UN and a signatory to its documents, thus Iran believes in the right of people to self-determination. The UN needs to be overhauled so that the Security Council is eliminated – however, UN ideals are sound (if we grant the state system) and Iran has no international forum outside of it. In any case, it is Iraqi Kurdistan we are discussing.

    Contrary to your wishes, but in accordance with what you already know, Kurdistan is rife with Israelis. The sooner Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia come to terms with an independent Kurdistan and start making overtures – the better.

    You and me both know that there will be no *one country for all* in our lifetimes – in Palestine. The Jews knew how to get Palestine. They went from zero to 100% one piece at a time. The Zionists accepted all partition offers (not without internal argument) as a means to launch the next quest. (They accepted 55% – the UN 1947 unwise recommendation, over ran an additional 23% in 1948-49, and over ran the remaining 22% in 1967.) I suggest that we all accept the Palestinian position as it is now, the entire West Bank (incl. East Jerusalem) and Gaza. The long term goal is to return to all of Palestine. But the one-state position at present is nothing more than an intellectual exercise.

  115. Shabnam said on July 28th, 2009 at 9:45am #

    All of Kurdistan was part of Iran until 1514. You have made a mistake, B99, and confused over two similar names Sassanid with Samanid, in 10th century. Kurdistan is part of Iran since Meadian. Kurdon (Kurdistan) has always remained as a crucial and important state of the Persian Empire. Please consult your history book. All of Kurdistan was part of Persia under Sassanid at the time of Arab invasion in 7th century.
    Kurds are an Aryan Rooted Race, to be precise, Kurds are Median. Meds are one of the 3 major Aryan Tribes of Iran (Persia, Media, Parthia). Kurdish roots go back to 6th century BC, Median Kingdom of Iran. Persian Empire, especially Achaemenids Empire had respected and enforced “Federalism” throughout the Empire.

    Iran does not believe in ‘self determination’ where is pushed by NED agents and destabilization plan design by Oded Yinon to establish ‘greater Israel.’
    Iran, China, Russia and other countries should have a destabilization plan for the United States and you will see US comes into, as least, 20 pieces in NO time.
    The Zionist/imperialist talk of ‘self determination’ means sh*t when we are told about ‘disappearance of borders’, or ‘disappearance of sovereignty.’ due to ‘globalization.’ Well, we as Iranians do strongly believe in our borders and sovereignty. No wonder Iranian people have led so many movements and revolutions while others engaged in empire building and killing everyone comes in between with no question asked.
    We are determined to protect our borders from Zionist/imperialist aggression at all time. Palestinians have a right to their land, thus there is no solution except one country for all.

    [Contrary to your wishes, but in accordance with what you already know, Kurdistan is rife with Israelis. The sooner Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia come to terms with an independent Kurdistan and start making overtures]

    This is exactly the Zionists want. This is exactly the reason where they took over the US government and let it into a Zionist war to partition Iraq and then go after other states including Iran, Turkey, Syria, and so on and so forth. In world war I the Zionist Jews did exactly the same meaning actively cooperated in Committee of Union Progress (CUP) for demise of Ottoman empire since Abdulhamid did not allow Herzl and his folks to put their fu**ing foot on Palestine. We as the people of region do anything to stop the Zionists’ dream of ‘greater Israel’ and send them to HELL.
    Kurdistan is the first step for the zionists but not the last. The ‘greater Israel’ is not only against interests of all people in the region but also is a threat to world peace. All Arabs, Turks, Greeks, and the rest are united against ‘greater Israel’ and tell you and people like you ‘WE WILL NOT ALLOW ANOTHER ISRAEL.’ ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

  116. Danny Ray said on July 28th, 2009 at 10:41am #

    شبنم ، شما هنوز هم پسر و افشانده شدن از یک سگ

  117. B99 said on July 28th, 2009 at 11:14am #

    No, Shabnam, I said precisely, “That control (by Persia) waxed and waned until 1514 when Persia lost most of it to the Ottomans.” That means we agree that all of Kurdistan was part of Persia until 1514 at which point most – but not all – of Kurdistan came under Ottoman rule. Some has remained as part of Persia/Iran to this day. The waxing and waning has to do with the degree of Persian control over the region, not with other contestants. (I did not confuse Sassanid with Samanid – nor Safavid, for that matter – it did not enter into my equation.)

    I am aware of the non-Semitic (and non-Turkish) roots of the Kurds. They must be considered cultural cousins, if not brothers, of Persians.

    Iran has every right to protect its borders (which of course do not include Iraqi Kurdistan) up to and including building atomic weaponry. I don’t propose sending the Jews to hell – only back to their pre-67 borders.

    It is not too late for you and Iran to reverse the course of events in Kurdistan vis a vis Israel – but you have to do it based on cultural affinities – as fellow regionalists, fellow Muslims, fellow Aryans, even. You have to do it with aid, trade and cultural exchanges – maybe even defense agreements. What is Iran offering Kurdistan now? Squat. Less than squat. You are giving Kurdistan to the Israelis. Israel already has working agreements with Turkey – so Iran, given a change in government, may be next. It has happened before.

    So why don’t you pull the rug out from under Israel and push for an independent Kurdistan and a Palestinian state in all of the WB&G as Fatah and Hamas propose? Or you can just let Israel pick the region apart and curse them to hell.

  118. Shabnam said on July 28th, 2009 at 11:57am #


    [And Chomsky continued denial of Zionism influence of U.S. Foreign policy and its increasing influence of the American political economy.]
    Thank you for your post. As you know during the cultural cold war, according to Frances Stonor Saunders, the CIA penetrated and influenced many cultural organizations though its front groups. Many intellectuals were funded and promoted including Irving Kristol, Melvin Lasky, Isaiah Berlin, Stephen Spender, Sidney Hook, Daniel Bell, Dwight MacDonald, Robert Lowell, Hannah Arendt, Mary McCarthy, and numerous others in the United States and Europe.
    Now, CIA is doing the same thing through its organizations related but not limited to ‘Human Rights’ organizations. NED is funded by the US government and is the center to train agents for the targeted countries. They fund ‘intellectuals’ who are willing to cooperate to spread the empire’s influence around the world and in return these agents will train and direct NGOs in the targeted countries. US have brought many Iranians to the center who are willing to cooperate with NED. Haleh Esfandiari, a monarchist, who left Iran with her husband Shaul Bakhash and has adopted her husband religion, Judaismm, was invited to NED in 1995 and closely cooperated with ‘The institute for the Near East policy.’
    Ms. Esfandiari number of times travelled to Iran and in 2007 was detained for few weeks to be questioned. All of sudden many from the ‘progressive’ and ‘left’ were demanding her immediate release. Chomsky on her behalf wrote:

    [I would like to join Human Rights Watch and the Middle East Studies Association in strenuously condemning the persecution and now imprisonment of Haleh Esfandiari. These actions are deplorable in themselves, and also are a gift to Western hardliners who are trying to organize support for military action against Iran. Now is a time for diplomacy, negotiations, and relaxation of tensions, in accordance with the will of the overwhelming majority of Americans and Iranians, as recent polls reveal. The intolerable treatment of this highly respected scholar and human rights activist severely undermines the efforts of those who are seeking peace, justice, and freedom in the region and the world.]
    Mr. Chomsky was not alone. Joe Biden and Juan Cole were demanding her release as well. Please review Haleh Esfandiari background to know why she is A CIA AGENT to many people.

  119. Shabnam said on July 28th, 2009 at 12:00pm #

    Please remove the first post under Gilad Atzmon’s article. Sorry for the mistake.

  120. Shabnam said on July 28th, 2009 at 12:10pm #

    [شما هنوز هم پسر و افشانده شدن از یک سگ]
    The translation of nonsense above gives the following sh*t where fits you the best because no one else can understand it except you.

    You still sow a son and dog

  121. Shabnam said on July 28th, 2009 at 12:44pm #

    I don’t understand, B99, why do you, as American??? at this site are trying to sell Israeli’s plan to others to promote ‘Greater Israel’ project? You must know better than anyone else no ‘two state solution’ exist. All these ‘peace process’ and ‘negotiation’ are there to buy time. We can’t say this is US imperialism fault, but with great confidence we can say this is Zionists’ plan to steal all of the Palestinian’s land.
    Majority of Palestinians want ONE state. Some many not say it loudly because they think, same as you when passionately advocating two states solution, Israel will not allow it. But you are misleading people at this site saying that due to hatred one state solution is not possible. Please stop fooling yourself. Even Erakat believes that ‘two states’ is NO solution otherwise he would have not said: “GIVE US ISRAELI CITIZENSHIP.”
    [So why don’t you pull the rug out from under Israel and push for an independent Kurdistan and a Palestinian state in all of the WB&G as Fatah and Hamas propose? Or you can just let Israel pick the region apart and curse them to hell.]

    I am not going to act AS A ZIONIST ENABLER by cooperating with their project the ‘greater Israel’ for the region. Iran lost half of Azerbaijan to brutal Russians in 19th century and since then the enemy of Iran wants to partition Iran. The Zionists like Michael Leeden and Schifer, Israeli agent, are very active among opportunists. Please stop dreaming B99,

  122. B99 said on July 28th, 2009 at 1:26pm #

    Shabnam – Israel’s policy is to undermine all Arab states by surrounding them with alliances with regional non-Arab states – to do this by leveraging historic cultural cleavages. The obvious candidates for this have beenTurkey and Iran. Iran was lost to Israel when the Shah was thrown out. That leaves Turkey. And now Kurdistan. So am I going to side with keeping Kurdistan within Iraq (as against Kurdish wishes) so as to thwart the Israeli program or am I going to go with what the Kurds have always wanted – their own state. Obviously the latter is a more important ideal. The Kurds can jettison the Israelis later – as did Iran. And has Turkey to a lesser extent. But it will not happen if Iranians are anti-Kurdish – that would make you the Zionist-enabler. It looks like Israel outplays its opponents every time.

    Yes, the purpose of the ‘peace process’ is to buy time until all of Palestine is absorbed. This is why the Palestinians must insist all the way on the entire WB&G and East Jerusalem which is what EVERY F**KING INSTITUTION in the world supports on paper or in reality – as opposed to what? Your solution? What is the damn mechanism of your solution and how many institutions do you have behind it? You don’t even have Hamas for Christ sake. You don’t even have a way of operationalizing it. Nothing but an emotional position. And it just gets the Palestinians killed.

    Erakat said that because he wants to hang that possibility over Israel – because he knows every Israeli dreads such an outcome. They will give up all of WB before they submit to one state with Arabs. You know they won’t give in on this.

    So I am for a Palestinian state even as you stall until they dry up in the desert. And I am for a state in Kosovo too.

  123. Shabnam said on July 28th, 2009 at 2:08pm #

    No, being against ‘greater Israel’ does not make one a Zionist enabler, only the opposite.
    [So am I going to side with keeping Kurdistan within Iraq (as against Kurdish wishes) so as to thwart the Israeli program or am I going to go with what the Kurds have always wanted – their own state.]

    You go with the latter and I will go with the former. Iranians are living together, including Azeri, Balouch, Kurds and others, for thousands of years. Please stop this nonsense and tell the Zionists they cannot separate us. People should honor togetherness not separating them into many pieces. There is already a fierce fight between Barezani, a puppet of Israel, and Talebani in north of Iraq where may split into two pieces. You must listen to people’s voices in the region that regardless of ethnic or religious divide everyone agrees on one thing, WE DO NOT WANT ANOTHER ISRAEL. You do not have any idea about Kurdish nationalism which is worse than Zionism. They have already started to act against not only Arabs, Christians, Turkmen but also against Azeri. There is a fierce fight between Azeri and Kurds of Iran on who is a ‘guest’ on this piece of land (north east). Stop dreaming B99 and no one should support Kurdish terrorism and must bring it to the fore for others to see. If Kurds can live in the US or Sweden and proudly wave their foc**ng passport to call themselves Americans, or Swedish then they certainly can live with the rest of Iraqi people where have lived for centuries. If those hypocrites who claim ‘I am a citizen of the world’ then they should fu*k off and try to live with people in the region in peace and not to be a PAWN of Zionism and imperialism to expand their TRIBE.

  124. Danny Ray said on July 28th, 2009 at 2:13pm #

    Sorry Shabnam its that damn mechanical translator it is never right. one of my PKK friends saw it just after I posted it and said so.

    BTW my boys in the Persh Merga would love to sit down with you and have a real dialogue on Kurdish inderpendence.

  125. B99 said on July 28th, 2009 at 2:26pm #

    Shabnam – The Iranian govt has screwed its Kurdish population when it was advantageous to do so – and supported Iraqi Kurdish desires when it chose to do so. Let’s not pretend there is a great deal of Aryan brotherhood in this history. Besides, this is about Iraqi Kurdistan, not Iran. Just grant them their own country and stop using them as a pawn in intra-regional rivalry. Middle Easterners proved incapable of putting up a united front against the US and thus it was able to dismember Iraq. This is the consequence of Middle Eastern people being unable to organize sufficiently to reject US (and now Israeli) imperialism.

    And no one is saying the Kurds are angels – they ARE however, people deserving the same rights as all others – and to say that Kurdish nationalism is worse than Zionism says to me you’d be willing to military occupy Kurdish regions in the name of one state or another.

  126. Ruvy said on July 28th, 2009 at 2:58pm #

    Oh, this comment thread is a merry chase! Which Jew is more of a Zionist?! Which Jew should be more condemned for insisting on a homeland for his people?! And poor No’am! He is really dragged over the coals here! If he had not been circumcized and given a Hebrew name, nobody would question his credentials as someone who is against Israel and its existence. Even poor Madonna, who can’t tell the difference between a Jew and a Jewfish (“oh yes I can!”, screams the material girl, showing us graphically how the circumcized penis penetrates differently from the uncircumcized one) , is dragged over the hot coals of righteous criticism here.

    What an absolute joke.

    I don’t like No’am Chomsky. He’s a traitor to the Jewish people (though Soros and Kissinger are far worse and deserve a far more painful punishment for their actions), but worse, he is an intellectual bully who blocks the publications of linguists who dare disagree with him.

    Nevertheless, I almost feel like looking him up and e-mailing him some of the comments made here. I almost spit up the water I was drinking on the screen reading them.

  127. Shabnam said on July 28th, 2009 at 4:25pm #

    B99 Stop this nonsense. The whole region was united in their opposition to partition of Palestine including the Christian Greece. What did happen? You, the westerners since 15th century are doing what is in your fu**ing interest ‘divide and rule.” That’s why I am asking people of the region including central Asia and North Africa be united against racists who think we are unable to unite ignoring their own fu**ing hand in installation of dictators, setting coup, waging wars to expand their influence and take our market and resources. We do not forget the racist British imperialists, Zionists, and the most brutal, American empire committing genocide in each country they have set their foot. Therefore, I am warning you we do not need your advice. You should spend your energy to protect indigenous population of America, Australia and elsewhere under the boots of imperialist/
    Zionist war criminals. I am going to work toward unity of ALL IN THE REGION TO FORCE THE WAR CRIMINALS AND the fools who support the racists with their tax money out of our region. If you want cooperation you have to stop interfering in our AFFAIRS. We are not unable people otherwise you wouldn’t be interested in to destroying our rich civilization to replace it with culture of ‘cleavage.’ Stop this nonsense.

  128. Danny Ray said on July 28th, 2009 at 5:14pm #

    Wait, I’m confused first you are talking about the middle east and then you are talking about rich civilizations, are we still talking about iran?

    You know shabnam sometimes I am afraid that you will get all worked up and burst a vein, and then again sometimes I am afraid you might not

  129. Deadbeat said on July 28th, 2009 at 10:32pm #

    Nevertheless, I almost feel like looking him up and e-mailing him some of the comments made here. I almost spit up the water I was drinking on the screen reading them.

    Good! You should start with Jeffrey Blankfort.

  130. Shabnam said on July 28th, 2009 at 11:01pm #

    Deadbea: that is a good suggestion.
    Furthermore, next time when “spit up the water I was drinking on the screen reading them” make sure you are standing in front of a mirror.
    It is wired that people watch the provided video of zionist’s propagandist, Madonna, but it does not cross their brain why does Madonna paint the Zionist’s enemies as Hiter and leave out all the true
    HITER and war criminals out such as Olmert, Peres, Barak, Netanyahu, Bush, Blair, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and many more.


    As I have pointed out many times in the past that CPD can not be trusted. Chomsky has signed many of their petitions. I just spotted an article by Edward Herman where he is saying the same thing. Please read this article as soon as possile to see why ‘left’ and ‘progressive’ in the West are so confused and divided.

  131. Shabnam said on July 29th, 2009 at 12:09am #

    Edward Herman:

    So, while Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might not be good for world anti-imperialism, his country is not just “opposed by the United States,” it has been under serious U.S. attack and faces a continuing threat of escalated violence. It should be first-order business of a left and supposed campaign for peace as well as democracy to oppose this threat. But with Ahmadinejad a demonized target and Iran’s allegedly sham election of June 12 utterly discredited, the CPD’s willing participation in that whole process (in contrast to Honduras, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia) provides first-class service to the imperial powers.

    Great lines to show that CPD CAN NOT BE TRUSTED. CPD IS A FRONT.

  132. B99 said on July 29th, 2009 at 7:23am #

    Shabnam – But the Kurds don’t want to be in your country.

    The Kurds looked to the US for help – the US played them, they looked to the Soviet Union for help – the Soviets played them, they looked to Iraq for help against Iran, Iraq played them, they looked to Iran for help against Iraq, Iran played them. So the Israelis, smart as ever, have jumped in. Israel too, is playing them. It will be another rough lesson for the Kurds. And they will get no help from Arab nor Persian, neither of whom is interested in Kurdistan as anything but a vassal province.

    But you are right that the Palestinians do not need my advice. Instead, I take THEIR advice. A long time ago I went to Palestine, the first day I sat in a Jerusalem cafe with a Jewish professor of Hebrew University. He was polite for a while, but then eventually admonished me that I should not be doing the research I had intended to do as I did not have the permission of the Israeli people. Surprising myself with my own quick retort, I replied that I did not need such permission – I had the permission of the Palestinian people. (Literally true, as per a written document in my pocket!) He was silent, I imagine him doing a slow burn. The idea of Palestinians making their own decisions had never occurred to him.

    So if I am meddling in the Middle East, it is with the kind permission of the Palestinian people. Of course, that does not give me permission to muck about in Kurdistan, but then again, I don’t imagine that you have their permission either.