Planet Chomsky Vs. Dershowitz’s Orbit

by Gilad Atzmon / May 18th, 2010

The Israeli Interior Ministry on Sunday denied entry to Jewish American linguist Prof. Noam Chomsky turning him back from the Allenby Bridge border crossing in the Jordan Valley. Seemingly, the moral ash cloud that is pouring out of the morbid Jewish ghetto known as Israel is not going to clear. It is there to stay.

On the face of it, Chomsky’s border incident shouldn’t take us by surprise. Israel is the Jewish state and as such it operates as a synagogue of great magnitude. The synagogue is an exclusive entity, it only allows in those who fit. The synagogue is neither democratic nor liberal, it is actually subject to tribal judgments that have very little to do with ethics or universalism.

In the Jewish State, Prof Noam Chomsky is apparently a persona non grata, however, Alan Dershowitz, a shallow intellect is seemingly the hero of Tel Aviv University.

A week ago, during a University symposium, Dershowitz said that Israel’s biggest problem is Israel-bashing ‘Jews’ like Norman Finkelstein and Gilad Atzmon. He said some people live on what he calls “Planet Chomsky”. Dershowitz didn’t do his homework. Clearly I myself share very little with Chomsky. As if this is not enough, I am not a Jew for more than a while.

However, it doesn’t take a genius to detect a continuum between Israel and Dershowitz. A week ago Chomsky was a ‘planet’. Yesterday, at a Jordan valley border crossing, he was denied entry to the ‘Jews only universe’. The astronomy of the Jewish cosmos is pretty simple. You do not need a Galileo figure. The Jewish planet seeks total submissive tribal conformity.

Interestingly enough, Chomsky is not exactly the harsh anti Zionist figure that Dershowitz wants us to believe. Along the years, Chomsky was flirting heavily with Zionism. He was often visiting Israeli universities. I myself attended his Tel Aviv University lectures in the 1980’s. Chomsky was spreading some bizarre ungrounded ideas defying early Zionist commitment to the Jewish state. As American activist Jeff Blankfort pointed out recently, Chomsky has been dismissing the power of the pro-Israel lobby. He opposed the BDS movement and made some efforts to “dissuade people from using the term, apartheid, to describe Israel’s control over Palestinian society”. Chomsky also opposes the Palestinian right of return and a one-state solution. Chomsky is in fact, a liberal Zionist as well as a kibbutz enthusiast. He may as well be the prototype of the righteous Jew and Zionist fig leaf. And in spite of that Israel denied the entry of the 82 year old American academic

Israel now admits that it made a mistake. In fact Israel couldn’t inflict more harm on itself. As it happens, Chomsky’s border incident yesterday may as well be the biggest contribution the American academic has ever made to the anti Zionist struggle.

As the truth of Israeli barbarism is unfolding, more and more Westerners admit that time is ripe for the nations to spit out Israel, for the Jewish state doesn’t have room amongst nations. But the nations shouldn’t stop there. Time is also overdue to spit the Dershowitzes and other Zionist comic figures from our public, academic, social and intellectual life. De-Zionification is of the essence in the search for peace and humanity.

Gilad Atzmon, now living in London, was born in Israel and served in the Israeli military. He is the author of The Wandering Who and Being in Time and is one of the most accomplished jazz saxophonists in Europe. He can be reached via his website. Read other articles by Gilad, or visit Gilad's website.

This article was posted on Tuesday, May 18th, 2010 at 8:00am and is filed under Human Rights, Israel, Zionism.

41 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. bozh said on May 18th, 2010 at 8:36am #

    I am happy that atzmon confirms that chomsky is a zionist. He had not been allowed into occupied palestine, i assume, because he does not agree with all of what zionists do, while dershowitz does.
    It did not take much accumen to forsee that NC wld not be alllowed in. However, he probably knows by now that he has lost much respect from some of us. Thus, tries to restore his former glory by trying to enter israel or palestine.

    Atzmon does reveal- or seems to- for the first time [as far as i know] that he is for ROR, BDS, and one state solution! tnx

  2. MichaelKenny said on May 18th, 2010 at 10:29am #

    My respect for Chomsky vanished when he tried to deny the existence of the Israel Lobby. I now tend to regard anything by him, or anything connected with him, as false flagging. And, wow, hasn’t Bozh’s English improved dramatically (and in such a short time!). “Acumen”!

  3. dino said on May 18th, 2010 at 3:18pm #

    who are able of such meanness out of Israel sick of hatred propagandists?
    I think that never was something like this in human history.Lok at reactions after o Lebanese women became Miss America:”Instead, the highest decibels have been reserved for her Muslim Arab background (though the contestant herself has spoken little about religious matters, stressing that her family observes both Muslim and Christian holidays).

    Daniel Pipes, who publishes a right-leaning blog on Middle Eastern affairs, pointed to a “surprising frequency of Muslims winning beauty pageants.” While allowing that “they are all attractive” — Pipes, a former board member of the U.S. Institute for Peace, posted pictures of several — he said that their victories “make me suspect an odd form of affirmative action.”

    Pipes didn’t theorize how shadowy beauty-pageant fixers might be greasing the skids for contestants — but other political bloggers were happy to advance more heated pronouncements.

    “Miss Hezbollah is now Miss USA,” declared conservative radio talk show host Debbie Schlussel, saying that Fakih’s relatives in Lebanon had ties to the terrorist organization based there. Schlussel also said Fakih received some financial backing from onetime Hezbollah supporter Imad Hamad — or, as Schlussel put it, Fakih’s “bid for the pageant was financed by an Islamic terrorist.” Suggesting the pageant was “rigged,” Schlussel wrote off Fakih’s victory to a “politically correct, Islamo-pandering climate.”

    Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin saw a conspiracy afoot, too — generic rather than Muslim-specific this time. Malkin mocked Fakih as a “gaffetastic” contestant who tripped over her gown as well as over her answer to a question about birth control — exposing Fakih’s ignorance, Malkin argued, about what constitutes a “controlled substance” and what the purpose of health care is. “Looks like the Miss USA pageant didn’t want to risk the wrath of the open-borders mob,” Malkin said

  4. Mulga Mumblebrain said on May 19th, 2010 at 12:38am #

    I doubt very much that Chomsky is a covert Zionist-no one who has read ‘Fateful Triangle’ with its carefully footnoted case that Israel is a menace to humanity could come to that conclusion. I think he underestimates Zionist control of the West, however, but that does not make him a Zionist. Mr Atzmon is correct that Israel is a ghetto,and its demand that the world recognise it as ‘the state of the Jews’ is an open admission of its apartheid nature. A state, to be legitimate, must be a state of all its inhabitants, not just one privileged group. Further evidence of Israel’s real nature is its long love affair and close support for apartheid South Africa, extending to military assistance in its wars in Namibia and Angola (what a shame Cuba kicked their arse at Cuito Carnavale)aid in making a nuclear bomb and research into ‘ethnically specific’ biological weapons, research that surely still goes on in Israel. Israel’s real,unique, danger, however,lies in the use of the massive Jewish money power to control the corrupt pseudo-democracies of the West.That is possibly the most dangerous development in history, the fruits of which, whether in support for destabilisation and destruction from the Congo to Pakistan, or in the crude indoctrination in hatred by the Zionist controlled mass media, will have devastating consequences far into the future.

  5. Deadbeat said on May 19th, 2010 at 12:58am #

    I think [Noam Chomsky] underestimates Zionist control of the West, however, but that does not make him a Zionist

    Chomsky is a professed Zionist. That is what makes Chomsky a Zionist.

    What is less generally known is that [Noam Chomsky] admits to having been a Zionist from childhood, by one of the earlier definitions of the term—in favor of a Jewish homeland in Palestine and a bi-national, not a Jewish state—and, as he wrote 30 years ago, “perhaps this personal history distorts my perspective.?[2]Measuring the degree to which it has done so is critical to understanding puzzling positions he has taken in response to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

    — Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict by Jeffrey Blankfort

  6. Mulga Mumblebrain said on May 19th, 2010 at 3:18am #

    Deadbeat, Chomsky’s form of Zionism (and your quote is from thirty years ago-I’d be interested in a more recent comment)with its bi-national, not exclusivist Jewish state, seems, to me, a million light-years from the ‘Left Zionism’ of jon, let alone the fascist Zionism of the current Israeli regime. I think a bi-national state with equal rights for all, with the ethnically cleansed Palestinian refugees returned,is the only outcome that will avert a regional bloodbath, so I’m with Chomsky there.

  7. Rehmat said on May 19th, 2010 at 3:40am #

    AHA…. Professor Noam Chomsky, whom Dick Eastman called: “Noam Chomsky is a Zionist and he is a gatekeeper who pulls ranks of scholarship – he taught linguistics at MIT but will never take on opponents faced to fact in debate. Chomsky, as a Talmudist Zionist refuses to consider that fingers should be pointed to Israel for 9-11. Chomsky is yet one more example of the fact that when you blame Jews for covering up the fact that 9-11 was a false-flag black-op concluded by Jews – he merely says that whoever brought the claim is unqualified to have an opinion worth considering. This is not a matter of collective guilt – for the Jews held out as the intellectual elite of the US, it is case of universal guilt. And that goes for the the New York Times, the Nation, Rolling Stone, the village Voice and hundred other publications by the Jews in the information war to the death with you and me….”

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/more-anti-iran-hasbara-conferences/

  8. GLloyd Rowsey said on May 19th, 2010 at 5:00am #

    “On the face of it, Chomsky’s border incident shouldn’t take us by surprise. Israel is the Jewish state and as such it operates as a synagogue of great magnitude. The synagogue is an exclusive entity, it only allows in those who fit. The synagogue is neither democratic nor liberal, it is actually subject to tribal judgments that have very little to do with ethics or universalism.”

    And anarchists really scare their pants off ! ! !

    (This comment deemed necessary on the reading of the above to imply that anarchists are located between democrats and liberals on the political spectrum, when in fact only anarchists know where the fork they are, or if they are, on “the political spectrum.”)

  9. bozh said on May 19th, 2010 at 6:18am #

    We’ve already said over and over again that labeling does not lead to an elucidation, but only to an obnubilation.
    Let what chomsky and other ‘jewish’ dissenters are for-against be our illuminator and forget or omit entirely WHAT THEY ARE!

    And let us recall and mull over that what is one FOR, cannot ever be separated from what is one AGAINST!
    These behaviors militate against all ‘jewish’ dissenters and their trustworthiness: clinging to ‘jewishness’ rather than one’s humanity or ethnicity,
    forever saying what they are against; seldom if ever what they are for; being against ROR, BDS, etc.

    There are several ‘jews’ here on DV. I no longer read their posts for the reasons i have just posited. In any case, just deeming-calling self a ‘jew’ signifies his-her ties or beloning to a cult.
    Wld i read a post whose author proclaims that he’s a nazi, koreshi, catholic, muslim? tnx

  10. Josie Michel-Bruening said on May 19th, 2010 at 6:52am #

    Well, I am rather disappointed by most of the comments to the more or less splendid articles posted here.
    It rather seems to me as a playground for abreacting something, what doesn’t help on the respective issue.
    I personally appreciate Noam Chomsky’s work very much and his honest fight for justice wherever it is mistreated or lacks at all.
    Apart from Zionists, there are jewish intellectuals, whom I apprediated ever since, like Martin Buber, Erich Fromm and last but least Noam Chomsky.
    Among other, I appreciate Chomsky because he had imformed himslef about the case of the Cuban Five and he dares to call openly for their freedom.

  11. Mulga Mumblebrain said on May 20th, 2010 at 9:59am #

    I think calling Chomsky a ‘Talmudist Zionist’ is, frankly, daft. Chomsky has been on the side of the oppressed for decades, and been vilified by the Right for it.His opinions might not coincide with mine, but I see no reason to suspect his humanity or devotion to egalitarianism and global amity. In the future, when,hopefully, Zionism has been consigned to the dust-bin of history along with Nazism, and the Zionist criminals been judged at a Zionist version of the Nuremberg Trials, Jews will still wish to live in Palestine. So long as they behave themselves and return stolen property to its rightful owners, I believe they must be allowed to do so.Palestine belongs to all her children. It has been a cross-roads for tens of thousands of years. Labeling decent, anti-fascist Jews like Chomsky as ‘Talmudic Zionists’ just plays into the hands of the real Zionist fascists who will point to such extreme criticism as a sign that opposition to Israel’s crimality and barbarity is really just anti-semitism after all.

  12. dan e said on May 20th, 2010 at 12:59pm #

    Mulga,

    I can scarcely contain the dismay aroused upon reading your remarks defending Chomsky and attacking those of us who find it necessary to criticize his stance from a pro-Palestine, anti-Imperialist viewpoint. That you of all people have fallen for Chomsky’s pro-Isreal/pro-ZPC & thus ultimately pro Western Imperialism sophistries comes as a shock to me, since heretofore I’ve thought of your contributions on DV as among the very best to appear here.
    I’ve particularly admired the articulate passion with which you’ve repeatedly dismantled trolls.
    So it really bums me out to see you take the position you have re Chomsky.
    I would like to ask a favor of you. Would you please postpone any further comment re this topic until you have
    a) opened the link Deadbeat has provided to the article by Jeffrey Blankfort, read the entire article and considered it; b) read the chapter in James Petras’ “The Power of Israel in the United States” (Clarity Press Atlanta 2006) entitled “Noam Chomsky’s Fourteen Erroneous These”; c) read what Dr Hatem Bazian has said about it.

    In a nutshell, Chomsky has the issue of power in the Western Empire backwards. His academic and political prestige is of incalculable value to those who want to divert attention from the obvious fact that the US Imperial State has been taken over by the Zionist Power Configuration.

    It may help to check out some of the writing of the last cpl decades about “the relative autonomy of The State”. We call it “the Capitalist State”, because of the legal system enshrining Private Property in the Means of Production as the holy of holies, but the power of the State Apparatus to compel or and convince the public to accept governmental policy decisions is not wielded by the richest capitalists in person. So from time to time the historical record displays instances where the personnel actually operating the levers of power adopt courses of action which do not reflect the best interests of the richest concentrations of capital based in the country.
    Well I’m sorry, so much more to be explained — the confluence of the ZPC and the “defense establishlment”, that of the ZPC and far-rightist/neo-confederate elements in the goyish sectors of the rulingclass, like Richard Mellon Scaife…but I have to stop. One last thought: do read Lenni Brenner’s four main books, and re the present topic, especially his “Jews in America Today”.

  13. Mulga Mumblebrain said on May 20th, 2010 at 2:03pm #

    dan e- I just read Eastman and, in my opinion, he’s a nut. Skinner may be one of his heroes, but to me he is,or was, a classic robopathic dehumaniser. One of the progenitors of the anti-human technique of operant conditioning where people are reduced to the status of Pavlov’s dogs, a technique picked up early on by the advertising industry, the Devil (as Peter Cook in Bedazzled)’s best idea since the Dark Ages. And by capitalists wishing to ‘take the risk out of democracy’. I agree that Chomsky is wrong over 9/11. I agree that the paw-prints of Mossad are all over it,but Chomsky disagrees. I doubt very much that he does so as an agent of Israel. His criticisms of Israel have been too pointed to be a smokescreen. I think that, although we seem to agree on most things canvassed here, certainly the infamy of Zionism, and I respect your opinions, we appear to disagree on this point. That’s life.

  14. dan e said on May 20th, 2010 at 4:10pm #

    Hello Mulga,

    Thanks for reading this Eastman so I won’t have to:) Actually I didn’t plan on reading him anyway, and with all due respect to Rehmat with whom I usually agree, if he bases his reasoning on B F Skinner then he IS a nutcase.

    However my own opinions have no reference to Eastman’s, or to Skinner’s fascistic nonsense. My thinking IS heavily influenced by Blankfort’s work over the last four decades, going back to when I used to see his photos in the Oakland Black Panther newspaper & tried to eavesdrop on his conversations in Franco Bruno’s coffee store. And also by Jas Petras’ work on colonialism, earlier re Latin America but since 1982 the ME and Zionism in the imperial Metropole. Also by WM Domhoff, Cleveland Amory, Prof Val Burris, Floyd Hunter, Thorstein Veblen and personal contact with certain members of prominent rulingclass families. Plus such as Ibrahim Abu Lughod, Nasser Aruri, F Braudel, I Wallerstein, Israel Shahak, Elmer Berger and others. (actually I never bothered to read all of The Fateful Triangle since I’d already encountered the same case made elsewhere. To one who had been reading the work of Habash-oriented writers like I Silber & Hilton Obenzinger, plus Brenner, Ralph Schoenman, Louise Cainkar, Livia Rokach & such people, Chomsky’s version was at best little more than retracing other’s steps.)

    Re the current “tail wags dog vs verse vicey” debate, cf. also articles by Kathy & Bill Christison; some have appeared in Counterpunch.

    I think you’d find it interesting to check out some of the recent reader comments relating to the topic on Antiwar. com. I’m no Libertarian & often disagree violently with Raimundo’s views, but he does publish a great deal of news of interest, and seems to be attracting a lot of readers critical of Zionism & Zio-power in the US.
    One appended comment there quoted poll results to the effect that the majority of US residents believe that Jews make up about 43pct of the US population.

    Well I have to get back to the chores but hope to continue this conversation ASAP. I would be most interested to read your reactions to arguments presented by the writers I mentioned — ?

    Thanks for your interesting response!
    Cordially,
    Dan

  15. Hue Longer said on May 20th, 2010 at 5:09pm #

    Hello Dan and Mulga,

    I’m enjoying your conversation

    Dan,
    I never read anything by Mulga that would lead you to believe he was everything you say you thought he was. He’s been very logical and not prone to ad hominem (the actual meaning of ad hom).

    Regarding your take on Chomsky, I find it interesting that you give Raimundo’s opposing views (which you “oppose violently”) a pass and keep the baby from going down the drain yet with Chomsky, no. Truth is truth and though I can see a need to be wary of people who may be intentionally missing the mark, if the guy is that, his truth as propaganda is so subtle that it would cause more good than harm and seem like a silly operation.

    I “violently oppose” his dismissal of inside job (there’s that before we even get to Israeli op!) but I don’t feel a need to risk ad hom by using the excuse that other people have said his good parts before.

    Cheers

  16. lichen said on May 20th, 2010 at 7:08pm #

    Gilad, having perhaps murdered Palestineans during his time in the terrorist IDF organization, certainly has no room in which to chastise chomsky. Chomsky has explained that he is for any solution that will work–a no state, one-state, two state… Just because he might intellectually disagree with this tactic or this hard-line solution coming from the outside doesn’t mean a thing. How shallow the people who hate chomsky are; they have an obsession with celebrities, and a perverse, perfectionist dogma that goes nowhere, certianly not towards taking action.

    Gilad mentions that Chomsky was originally reluctant about BDS, yet we know that some of the people here at DV who hate chomsky go much further, and wish to openly attack anyone who is involved with it. When you are in the “anti-zionist struggle” you don’t actually care about justice for the Palestineans–it is all abstract ideology instead.

  17. dino said on May 20th, 2010 at 11:23pm #

    Dan E&DB. Something odd in your appraise of Chomsky importance ,contributions,merits and shortcomings.The base for your critique is not your but of others :Blankfort and James Petras..Stranger is that you claim to have Marxists criterions in judging the politics.In the measure I understand Marx’s theory of history Chomsky is more close to Marx’s views than Petras,M&W and of course of Blakfort.According to Marx every war is done for material gains.Petras,although he seems to be Marxist put the Iraq invasion on the accountability of ZPC (Zionist power configuration).His explanation match the novel The Demons of Dostoevsky but not Marx.(Dostoevsky was anti socialist) .The majority of people who wrote about Iraq invasion explained it as US intention to hold control on oil according even with Carter doctrine.The last article i read is called :The “War on Terrorism” for Oil: Folly of the Imperial Oil Adventure. Tolling Bells for Humanity” by Larry Chin at Global research,a very convincing article.My opinion is that M&W book about is true and what Blankfort and Petras said also but this not make no one who claims the role of oil to seem to me as a stooge of Zionism.Of course that in taking politic decision are mixed many reasons.To call Chomsky hypocrite ,and a covered Zionist who manipulates opinions in which doesn’t believe is fanaticism.In a country like US where Newt Gingrich called Obama Stalin and Hitler,to write what Chomsky wrote needs a huge conscience and courage to suit it.Maybe Chomsky has some fans but the number of his haters is incomparable bigger.You have still a lot to learn from Chomsky to be a real human being .Mulga is right,even where he not agree with Chomsky he doesn’t take for sure that is Chomsky guilty.

    by Larry Chin

  18. GLloyd Rowsey said on May 21st, 2010 at 8:41am #

    I read an interesting interview at the London Review of Books, with a European Union view of Israel which I’d never though of before.

    The interview is at: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n06/tony-judt/the-way-things-are-and-how-they-might-be

    And what caught my attention in relation to Israel was this quotation:

    “Israel wants two things more than anything else in the world. The first is American aid. This it has. As long as it continues to get American aid without conditions it can do stupid things for a very long time, damaging Palestinians and damaging Israel without running any risk. However, the second thing Israel wants is an economic relationship with Europe as a way to escape from the Middle East. The joke is that Jews spent a hundred years desperately trying to have a state in the Middle East. Now they spend all their time trying to get out of the Middle East. They don’t want to be there economically, culturally or politically – they don’t feel part of it and don’t want to be part of it. They want to be part of Europe and therefore it is here that the EU has enormous leverage. If the EU said: ‘So long as you break international laws, you can’t have the privileges of partial economic membership, you can’t have internal trading rights, you can’t be part of the EU market,’ this would be a huge issue in Israel, second only to losing American military aid. We don’t even have to talk about Gaza, just the Occupied Territories….”

    I found this an invaluable perspective, and interesting in itself.

  19. Deadbeat said on May 21st, 2010 at 4:22pm #

    Dino or Larry Chin writes (not sure which one)…

    Dan E&DB. Something odd in your appraise of Chomsky importance ,contributions,merits and shortcomings.The base for your critique is not your but of others :Blankfort and James Petras..

    Clearly the author (Dino or Mr. Chin) lacks a basis for my critique of Chomsky. Obviously he hasn’t read much of my critique of Chomsky to ASS-UME that my critique is based SOLELY on the writings of Blankfort and Petras.

    It is obvious that Chomsky is not beholding to MARXISM. Marxists from my experience are solidly ANTI-RACIST and I view Zionism as being a racist ideology. From my experience Marxists see Racism and Capitalism working hand-in-hand in order to maintain divisions amongst the working class. Therefore I’ve concluded Chomsky adherence to Zionism as being clearly ANTI-MARXIST.

    In other words Chomsky is the one that I see having a huge contradiction of principles (as an example being against the Israel boycott) and pointing out those contradictions is extremely important. The reason for that importance has to do with his influence among activists and the contradictory actions taken under the influence of Chomskyism.

    According to Marx every war is done for material gains. Petras ,although he seems to be Marxist put the Iraq invasion on the accountability of ZPC (Zionist power configuration).

    There is no contradiction here. The war in Iraq definitely benefited the material gain of the ZPC. Your view of “material gain” is extremely narrow as in material taking the form of some commodity (oil) which the Chomskyites used to divert attention and analysis away from the ZPC. But material gain also comes from POWER. The problem with the Chomskyites is that they exerted a great deal of PRESSURE to suppress any consideration that with the Zionists crawling throughout the Bush administration and AIPAC influenced the advancement of the war on Iraq. For the Chomskyites it was only for oil. Petras DOCUMENTS that the oil company were AGAINST the war on Iraq and therefore the war was not “for oil”. But for me it was the “Left” refusal to analyze the role and the INFLUENCE of Zionism as a factor in pushing for the War. Why were they suppressing any analysis? Finding the answer to the question reveal more about Chomsky and his adherence to ETHNIC LOCALITY rather than to PRINCIPLES of JUSTICE. That was absolutely evident in Chomsky’s criticisms of Mearsheimer and Walt.

    What you are suggesting is that we should give a PASS on justice, fairness, and equality in order to maintain the cult of personality that surrounds Chomskyism. No thanks! In the end that will only breeds distrust and retard solidarity.

  20. bozh said on May 21st, 2010 at 5:48pm #

    DB, yes,
    chomsky is an anarchist. he often mambastes marxism and communism. goes so far to accuse bolsheviks of destroying socialism.
    Actually, bolsheviks were true egalitarians and socialism builders. later, obviously, non-socialists join the party; who later with gorbachev gave up on socialism; for more than one reason.One of the reasons surely must have been emplacement of N-missiles on the borders of USSR.

    The hatred and demonization by US politico-clerico-media p. of bolsheviks prove beyond a shadow of doubt that bolsheviks cld not have been bought or frightened.

    Khrushchev did try to offset the daily threat on SU by placing N- weapons in cuba, but fear of losing the war, khrushchev backed dwn.
    Even so, i do not think that molotov, zhukov, bulganin, beria, brezhnev wld have ever betrayed bolsheviks no matter what.
    But the new generation of socialsit and crypto-socilaists have betrayed lenin and stalin.Tnx

  21. dan e said on May 21st, 2010 at 6:15pm #

    okay dino. or “larry chin”? Whoever you are, FYA, I don’t give a damn what you find odd. Or about any of your attempts to distract attention from the main question at issue. Which is not whether Petras or Chomsky or somebody else is the better Marxist.

    The question is whether Chomsky’s activity and statements taken together in the final analysis add up to a contribution to the struggle against US/Isreal-based racist/imperialist aggression and oppression, or if the opposite is closer to the truth, that Chomsky and “Chomskyism” have been and continue to be a major hindrance to the emergence of any effective opposition to the ZPC/Israel Lobby-dictated Perpetual War On The Weak policies of the Bush/Obama bipartisan regime.

    It happens that Jeff Blankfort has compiled a detailed indictment of Chomsky’s role in smoothing the way for implementation of the PNAC agenda, and Deadbeat has posted a link to it as you have no doubt noticed above.

    What Marx thought about why capitalist states go to war, or what Petras thought/thinks about such things is not germane to the question on the table.

    What I see on this thread is that lots of DV readers/posters admire Chomsky, and have a lot to say about anyone who dares criticize his political impact, but none of these folks wants to repost an excerpt from Blankfort’s article or from Petras’s chapter on Chomsky, and offer a refutation of same.

    Rhetoric is cheap & easier to produce than careful reasoned argument… which is why I myself resort to it frequently. But this question of Chomsky’s impact on the Antiwar & BDS movements, on US “progressive” politics in general, is a most serious matter. This question of the relative responsibility of “big oil” and “big zionism” is key to understanding the historical conjuncture we find ourselves in. It is a matter of life & death multiplied exponentially. So let’s have a serious discussion of it? Thank you.

    Uh, yes, I could select an excerpt or two & post them here for you-all to take aim at, but instead I’ll let you choose your own targets. Fire away, I’m waiting:)

    PS: I don’t pretend to be an expert “authority” on much of these matters. I aspire only to function as a “milepost”, or a highway sign? I don’t claim to be a “destination” myself, but if I can serve some fresh inquiring mind as “a finger pointing” in the right direction I’ll feel the effort has been worthwhile.

    What I’m about to offer does not rise to the level of scholarly argument ala Petras or Blankfort. But to me it makes sense, see what your think: In June 1982 Israel invaded Lebanon, and among other results a movement arose to protest the violations of international law. US protests focussed on the UN bldg in NYC; from them an organization emerged, calling itself the Nov. 29 Coalition.
    Up till then Israel had mainly been getting a free pass from “left” circles in the US; for instance “Hanoi Jane” Fonda saw no reason not to visit Isreal. Many Haight/Ashbury era “flower children” I knew made pilgrimages to live for a while in a Kibbutz.

    I wasn’t quite that much in the dark myself, but my political activist agenda was focussed elsewhere, on “Free Mandela”, on Central America, on conditions in the local community. It was the lack of any organized protest initiated by any of the “usual suspects”, by the main outfits that mobilized protest vs other outrages, that caught my attention. I mentioned the anomaly to various people, with the result that when the Nov 29 Coalition got around to doing some organizing in this backwater I got invited to a mtg, and started getting educated.
    Nov 29 chapters sprang up all over the US, putting on events, holding classes, distributing “forbidden literature”. The Nov 29 core leadership included some folks from VERY radical backgrounds, including from organizations others called “stalinist”, “maoist”, “mau mau” etc. And so persons attracted to N29 over the Lebanon invastion, Sabra/Chatilla etc, found themselves being exposed to some very radical Forbidden Thoughts.

    I myself had been thinking forbidden thoughts of various kinds for years, but had not to that point encountered the thoughts of Herzl, Jabotinsky, or Ben Gurion. So I found my mental universe undergoing rapid expansion. My guess is, and you can evaluate for yourself, my guess is that a significant number of activist types were undergoing similar processes.
    It was after a few years of this learning process that at some point I started seeing reviews of this new book by the famous Nobel linguist Chomsky. At that point I was delighted by the news. It wasn’t until later that I started to read statements by him that weren’t so delightful.
    Anyway, jumping to the chase, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that a national pro-Palestine organization got going under radical antizionist/antiimperialist/antiracist leadership, and the appearance of Chomsky’s book and his sudden elevation to the status of Superstar of the “critical of Isreali policy” movement.
    Of course I tend to be paranoid:) I’m the kind of guy who said to a friend at about noon PST on Sept 11 2001: “Remember the Maine, Reichstag Fire, Tonkin Gulf, caw caw whooee Polly Wanna Falseflag, pollywanna false flag”:) So you can see I have no idea what I’m talking about, do I:)

  22. Hue Longer said on May 21st, 2010 at 6:27pm #

    Marx was a Chomskyite…stop reading him, his words should be ignored!

  23. Deadbeat said on May 21st, 2010 at 6:51pm #

    correction in my response. That should be ETHNIC LOYALITY not locality.

  24. Deadbeat said on May 21st, 2010 at 7:05pm #

    bozh writes …

    Actually, bolsheviks were true egalitarians and socialism builders

    Thanks for writing this. There is a lot that I need to learn and understand about this period of history and I respect your insights.

    DB

  25. Deadbeat said on May 21st, 2010 at 7:40pm #

    Chomsky has some fans but the number of his haters is incomparable bigger.You have still a lot to learn from Chomsky to be a real human being .

    Here’s the problem with Chomskyism. Chomsky has becomed such a cult figure for progressivse that Chomsky can make an assertion WITHOUT any facts needed to support it. The “War for Oil” is one such assertions. I have seen NO facts presented by any Chomskyite to support their position. What they do is exactly the same tactic that is done by the MSM — provide a parade of advocates marching to the same drumbeat. In other words they MANUFACTURE CONSENT that the primary basis for the war in Iraq was for Oil. They told us that, for example, Dick Chaney worked for Halliburton but educate their audience that Chaney was also a signatory of PNAC.

    Thus Chomskyism is not about THINKING for yourself and not about judging issues from the standpoint of JUSTICE but about being part of the cult. That cult as DanE points out has become an obstruction to challenging the ZPC. Thus Chomskyism is directly responsible for enabling the rise of Zionism in the United States as well as weakening and fracturing the Left.

    What I’ve learned from Chomksyism is that the Left has betrayed itself in order to advance a racist ideology that has a great deal of influence upon the world’s greatest empire. If that is the “real human being” that you admire — NO THANKS!

  26. Deadbeat said on May 21st, 2010 at 7:49pm #

    They told us that, for example, Dick Chaney worked for Halliburton but educate their audience that Chaney was also a signatory of PNAC.

    Sorry that should have read …

    [Chomskyites] told us that, for example, Dick Chaney worked for Halliburton but FAIL TO educate their audience that Chaney was also a signatory of PNAC.

  27. ivancannon said on May 21st, 2010 at 8:16pm #

    Lots and lots of words. There are degrees of affiliation to every faith, with some being passive memebers of a label and others being radical members. Chomsky was radical in some respects, but probably not a radical Zionist or a radical anti-Zionist. He strikes me as a rather grumpy, but essentially good person, genuinely concerned with both truth and ethics. Interesting that I recall no reference to Determinism, which is probably the most radical thing about him and critical to understanding his particular brand of Jewism. * Note: I prefer the term Jewism to Zionism out of respect for the national park in southern Utah, where there is, ironically, some very radical religiosity happening, albeit without much political leverage on the world stage. The concept of Determinism, via genetics or not, clearly supports traditional religious sentiments which have long been a device for exploiting people and resources. The crux of the biscuit is that religion itself is the culprit.

  28. Deadbeat said on May 21st, 2010 at 9:00pm #

    ivancannon writes …

    He strikes me as a rather grumpy, but essentially good person, genuinely concerned with both truth and ethics.

    And herein lies the problem. The issue surronding Chomsky is NOT whether he is a good or ill person. The issue is adherence to prinicples and advocacy. Chomsky’s advocacy is what is being analyzed and questioned and the influence that advocacy has had upon a whole sector of the political spectrum that is known as “progressives” or “the Left”.

    The charge is that his advocacy has retarded any real confrontation of Zionism in the U.S. and by doing so has enabled its growth. This is a very serious charge.

    Part of the charge is that if Chomsky was geniunely concerned with the truth as you say he would have used his immense influence as an outspoken advocate confronting Zionism rather than giving it a pass.

  29. dino said on May 22nd, 2010 at 6:27am #

    Dan E &D.B We live in world of lies and myths and racism.e propaganda,a huge media in the hands of the upper class spread it in waves of venom.Chomsky is one of the few who dares o speak truth and he did it when almost were not others voices in the opposite side.I believe that if is atrend ,how weak it seems to be,which withstand the current it is due to Chomsky.I doesn’t agree with him in everything but i’m sure that he doesn’t manipulate people in a such way that people will not see the meanness of zionism>This is an aberration.I believe that in the realm of politics nothing could be totally demonstrated and will be place for different interpretations.However Chomsky is still the leading of the progressives camp.If you consider that that should be occupied by Blankfort or Petras let it be.What i understood until now it is that “The clash of civilizations”is the Mein Kampf of our history,it is a very American product and it has Zionism as an ally and not conversely.Of course racist Jew will jump in any racist bandwagon either South African or American.I said that the term ” Occidental civilizations” replaced the superior races of Gobbineau,H>S>Chamberlain theories,and Israel is a natural ally it is not only the work of the lobby that spoil America,it has a real basis in American “idealism” how Huffington called it.

  30. Max Shields said on May 22nd, 2010 at 8:03am #

    Deadbeat your assessment of Chomsky lacks a sense of nuance and discernment. If a person thinks that the US empire is more powerful than the AIPAC I think his case can be made without assuming he is a gatekeeper for Israeli Zionism. One can even vehemantly disagree, as I do, with his version of a two state (bi-national, what the heck is that!?!) without disregarding his cogent analysis on the US hegemony and empire and his ardant (and dino has put it) attack against the state of Israel over many many years when almost NO ONE would have made those claims.

    He like all of us should not be taken as some kind of truth teller; i.e., whatever he states should be without critical thinking. Yes there are shallow and lazy thinkers who do that, but again, dicernment is needed to weed out the weak-kneed who would put any of us on a pedestal.

    Clearly, there is an incredible distinction between Dershowitz and Chomsky!

  31. Deadbeat said on May 22nd, 2010 at 2:04pm #

    Deadbeat your assessment of Chomsky lacks a sense of nuance and discernment. If a person thinks that the US empire is more powerful than the AIPAC I think his case can be made without assuming he is a gatekeeper for Israeli Zionism

    This is a typical tactic of Chomskyites and the cult of personality — protect the man at all cost. In this case re-frame the argument. Here Max argues “Israeli Zionism” and comparing Chomsky to the loathsome Alan Dershowitz.

    Again Max engages in DIVERSION rather than analyze/debate the fact that Chomsky places his ETHNIC LOYALTY ABOVE principles of JUSTICE. Chomsky uses his amazing talents in order to DIVERT from analyzing AMERICAN ZIONISM and Zionist influence of U.S. Foreign Policy. That IS Chomsky’s primary GATEKEEPER role.

    What Chomsky has done is to float canards that are used to divert attention and analysis away from AMERICAN ZIONISM or as James Petras refers it as the Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC). For at least the past 30 maybe 40 years there has been enormous changes in the political/economic arrangements of “the Empire” as Chomskyites like to refer to United States.

    During that time Chomsky with all of his investigation has overlooked the rise of Zionism in the United States. This rise in fact that also coincides with the rise of the Financialization of U.S. economy.

    Why is this analysis important? Because an analysis of Chomsky’s positions reveal that his influence, rather than educate activists, has actually hinders mobilization that should challenge both CAPITALISM and especially ZIONISM at home. Israeli Zionism only part of the problem. Zionism throughout the diaspora and especially in the U.S. and U.K. are most problematic. And Max like the good little Chomskyite that he is, chooses diversion.

    What the “Alternative Media” has done is to INFLATE Chomsky’s status to have in fact turn him into a cult-like figure who is immunized from criticism. This has been EXCELLENT propaganda theater to manufacture consent around Chomsky’s every utterances. However when a examination of Chomsky’s position especially in light of the rise of both financialization and Zionism we see that Chomsky positions are not only out of touch but HARMFUL.

    The HARMFULNESS of Chomskyism is very obvious when it comes to the pathetic state of the anti-war movement; Chomsky horrible position on the Israeli Boycott; his stance on Israeli apartheid; his criticisms of Mersheimer and Walt; the War for Oil mantra; Israel as Junior Partner; and even his reverence for Adam Smith.

    Noam Chomsky’s influence on the Left has retarded solidarity. But clearly there seem so be a sea change as many young activist today are seeking their own path to justice. This is evident with the BDS movement and movements among people of color.

  32. Deadbeat said on May 22nd, 2010 at 2:27pm #

    dino writes …

    Dan E &D.B We live in world of lies and myths and racism.e propaganda,a huge media in the hands of the upper class spread it in waves of venom. Chomsky is one of the few who dares o speak truth and he did it when almost were not others voices in the opposite side.

    Dino you are selling the “good man” scenario rather than offering up analysis. It DID NOT TAKE courage for Chomsky to “speak out” otherwise he most likely would NOT still be working for MIT. Chomsky despite the propaganda didn’t sacrifice ANYTHING. Chomsky has been THEATER and most of the “white progressive so-called Left” bought tickets and came out contented with the show.

    However the Chomsky Show missed one of the greatest epochal changes within the United States — the rise of Zionism.

  33. Max Shields said on May 22nd, 2010 at 4:21pm #

    Deadbeat, honestly do you read or just skim lightly and begin typing? Your output has little to do with much of what is said.

  34. Deadbeat said on May 22nd, 2010 at 5:06pm #

    Deadbeat, honestly do you read or just skim lightly and begin typing? Your output has little to do with much of what is said.

    What’s your point. Do you have a rebuttal or merely ad hominems.

  35. ivancannon said on May 22nd, 2010 at 5:28pm #

    Wait. Isn’t Israel basically the political territory of the U.S.? And didn’t Chomsky get stopped from entering Israel? Why would they stop him unless he was perceived as a threat? It seems clear that somebody in the U.S. informed the Israeli Interior Ministry to stop Chompsky and rough him up a bit. Thus, he is thought of by some entity within the U.S. gov as anti-Zionist. Why? It seems pretty obvious that it is in the interest of the U.S. for there to be continued instability between Israel and Palestine to distract from the real reasons we support Israel. Chomsky is famous and supports a peaceful relationship between Israel and Palestine and thus he needed to be sent a little message. I have 2 questions: 1) What is really going on in Israel that requires an ongoing distraction and 2) Who are the Zionist or others within the U.S. gov that are doing dirty stuff and what kind of dirty stuff is it – specifically.

  36. Max Shields said on May 22nd, 2010 at 5:39pm #

    My point Deadbeat is you NEVER address what is said, just what you compartmentalize as the writer’s position for your own ends.

  37. dino said on May 22nd, 2010 at 10:01pm #

    Deadbeat,what do you think that it is more important,to break American myth ,namely her love for freedom.democracy,her only good intentions in all wars in took part,her effort to build a better world and her sacrifices for these noble targets,the sacrifices in defeating Germany in ww2,her sacrifices in the struggle with the “communism cancer”which its expansion in Koreea,Vietnam,Cambodgia,Afghanistan and in the end the victory against “the evil empire”,how the world should be obliged that America saved it from fascism ,and communism and now again will save us all against the threatening of Islam and of Republic of Islam or to show the tricks used by ZPC to exploit this American idealism” (how is called by Huntington) for Israel interest?Are you convinced that without American idealism,and America image in world as the system which have to be international norm of freedom,good intentions,of a global capitalism which bring the rest of the world to American Paradise and only reactionary forces of subhuman oppose this blessed march of history,do you think that without it the tricks of ZPC would manage?

  38. Deadbeat said on May 23rd, 2010 at 3:45am #

    Here’s a link to support and confirm my critique of the real effects of Chomskyism on the American Left.

    Don’t Rock the Boat – A Critique of a Pamphlet Defending Zionism in the American Left

  39. Deadbeat said on May 23rd, 2010 at 3:47am #

    Dino,

    I have no clue whatsoever of the point you are trying to make, what your argument is, and what you want me to respond to.

  40. Deadbeat said on May 23rd, 2010 at 4:01am #

    More confirmation …

    This is from a major MAINSTREAM source — The New York Review of Books.

    The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment

    What is noteworthy about this article is that it is concerned of the continuation of American LIBERAL ZIONISM especially as young Jews do not have an innate affinity to Israel. The article makes note of the importance American Zionism is to Israel. Once again the political reality of American Zionism expressed by this mainstream source has been totally IGNORED by Chomsky and goes unaddressed by the “Left”.

  41. bozh said on May 23rd, 2010 at 8:26am #

    Chomsky had not ever said the truth: the universal TRUTH1, but his arbitrary truth, TRUTH2
    He, as far as i know, had not for decades revealed that he’s against ROR. Wld i have bought his books [ab 10] had i known that? And imagine my shock when blankfort informs me some mo’s ago that chomsky is against ROR.

    And chomsky confirms it to me in his email to me after i asked him ab that!
    And is even now deceiving us by not disclosing why he is against our second dearest right, right of return.
    Is it because return of the expellees obviates a state for ‘jews’ only? OK! It doesnt matter to me any more. It suffices to know that he’s not for one of the most basic panhuman rights. tnx