The Legitimacy of Boycotting as a Tactic

Straw men and Resisting Oppression

Progressivism values solidarity, and within that solidarity there is respect for diversity. It is expected that there will be differences of opinion on the causes of injustices and solutions to the injustice. What best captures the essence of progressivism is its adherence to principles. It seems obvious to declare the right to non-violently resist an occupier/oppressor must be one of those principles. There appears, however, a schism on this principle within the progressivist movement.

One renowned leftist, Noam Chomsky, is against boycotts as a tactic to resist oppression.

Jeffrey Blankfort objected to Chomsky’s stand on boycotts and his stance vis-à-vis Israel.1 Jeremy Hammond objected to Blankfort’s criticism of Chomsky.2

Hammond, who usually writes quite articulately on social justice issues, began his recent offering in an intemperate manner: “Tirades against Noam Chomsky never cease to amaze me.” One might surmise from Hammond’s opening sentence that he would address tirades against a man who is revered by a segment of the Left. Amazingly, what followed is best described as a tirade against Jeffrey Blankfort who dared to analyze and question the positions of Chomsky. Chomsky is an important thinker, but I do not believe that reasoned questioning of the words and actions of anyone is beyond reproach.

Chomsky, for his part, does not show signs of relishing his celebrity status. Nonetheless, because of the spotlight afforded him, his reputation, and his articulation, his message has reach and influence. Consequently, if Chomsky were to be averse to a form of social justice activism, then the effect would not be beneficial for that activism.

Blankfort, a well-informed thinker and proponent of social justice, examined the struggle of Palestinians and Chomsky’s repudiation of a non-violent form of resistance by Palestinians to their oppression; namely, the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign. Because of Chomsky’s opposition to boycotts, among other points, Blankfort asks whether Chomsky is an asset or a liability to social justice for Palestinians.

Hammond does not directly state that Blankfort’s piece was a tirade, but he accuses Blankfort of ignorance and deliberate misrepresentation. Those are heavy charges, and they should be backed up solidly.

Yet Hammond, himself, appears guilty of deliberate misrepresentation. An example is his discussion of Chomsky’s meeting with Palestinian “prime minister” Salam Fayyad.

Blankfort wishes to know whether Chomsky “considered the Palestine Authority’s endorsement of Israel’s blockade of Gaza, of its attempts to suppress a UN investigation of the Goldstone Report, and of the role played by its US-trained militia in protecting Israel.”

Hammond says that Blankfort implies that Chomsky favors Fayyad. This is a straw man. There is no such implication. Blankfort wonders why Chomsky would meet Fayyad. Given the history surrounding the Palestine Authority (PA), this is a fair question.

Hammond likes to point out omissions, yet he omits mentioning that Fayyad is a member of a government which evades democracy. The electorally mandated term of Mahmoud Abbas, “president” of Palestine, expired in January 2009.

Now why would a party that heads a government seek to avoid elections? Probably most people would answer that such a government is afraid of losing. Hence, any policies that the PA implements are lacking democratic legitimacy, whether Chomsky considers them “quite sensible” or not.

Contrary to Hammond’s assertion, Blankfort does not portray “Chomsky’s support for a de facto Palestinian state as a blanket endorsement of the PA and all its actions.” Blankfort calls into question the democratic legitimacy of the PA. Without the imprimatur of the Palestinian electorate, who does the PA represent? Many critics point to it as a stooge of Israel and the United States. With such a reputation, is it any wonder that the PA is afraid to face the electorate? The last election for the Palestinian legislature, in 2006, amply revealed how the Palestinian electorate responds to a disloyal government.

Given that whatever democratic legitimacy the PA held had expired, Blankfort asked a serious question: “Why had Chomsky been invited to speak at Bir Zeit in the first place? For those puzzled by that question, be assured that it is meant to be taken quite seriously.” As for democratic legitimacy: how legitimate and representative are elections under occupation? How much credence should people give to such elections?

Chomsky has the right to meet with whoever. He is not a representative of the Palestinians, and he is meeting with the US-backed prime minister (bearing in mind that Chomsky holds the US largely responsible for Israeli-committed crimes in Palestine) whose government is accused of collaborating in Israeli occupation of the West Bank. However, given Chomsky’s opposition to US imperialism and crimes against Palestinians, it is not unusual to wonder why he would meet Fayyad. One should be careful, though, in drawing any conclusions about such a meeting. If I had a chance to honestly dialogue with Fayyad, I would likeliest do so.

Hammond employs the rhetorical device that he accuses Blankfort of throughout his article. Hammond constructs a straw man. He states that Blankfort’s “intended implication, of course, is that Chomsky supports the Zionist theft of Arab land, the Israeli blockade, the blocking of the Goldstone Report, and P.A. collusion with Israel.” In Hammond’s mindset, asking a question carries an implication.

Hammond constructs a straw man, accusing Blankfort of misleading readers on what Chomsky did not mean by being a “supporter of Israel.” Nowhere is such interpretation by Blankfort apparent. Instead Blankfort left it for readers to draw their own conclusions.

Hammond states “taken together with his enormous body of work on the subject, clearly what Chomsky means by saying he is ‘a supporter of Israel’ is not that he supports Israel as a ‘Jewish state’, that he supports Zionism in the contemporary understanding of the word, that he supports the occupation, or any other such asinine nonsense, but just the opposite — that he opposes all of these policies. It’s those who support Israel’s criminal policies, in Chomsky’s view, who in fact are acting against Israel’s own best interests by encouraging its “moral degeneration.” Chomsky bears some responsibility for the lack of clarity. He is a linguist, he must be aware of the connotations carried by his words.

Hammond points to an interview where Chomsky explained what he meant by being a “Zionist”:

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

This is an interesting explanation Hammond points to. Is it a clear statement? Do people understand what a Zionist was in the 1940s? Is it a Zionist like David Ben Gurion – a Zionist in the 1940s? Yitzhak Shamir? How was being a Zionist in the 1940s different from now?

Hammond constructs his next straw man when he insinuates that Blankfort alludes to Chomsky’s work to be lacking in merit on the Palestinian cause. Really? Blankfort wrote, “Chomsky’s background – is a reflection of the political culture of the American Left which was and remains substantially if not predominantly Jewish, particularly in its leadership positions. Support for Israel had become so ingrained and fear of anti-Semitism so deeply embedded in the psyche of American Jewish Leftists in the aftermath of World War 2, that if the Jewish state was to be criticized it had to be by someone from within the tribe who unequivocally supported its existence.”

Through Hammond’s construction of straw men, one might infer that he seeks to evade the points Blankfort raises. Does Hammond deny a Jewish predominance in leadership positions in “political culture of the American Left”?3 Does he deny the fear of pro-Palestinian rights activists of being smeared as an anti-Semite?4

Much of Chomsky’s work on Palestinian issues has merit; surely, Blankfort recognizes that. In Fateful Triangle, Chomsky identifies unequivocally the rampant racism against Arabs and abuses perpetrated against them.5 What would it mean though if someone both aids and hampers a social justice movement?

Hammond constructs another straw man when he writes, “Chomsky has written extensively on which crimes he means, and anyone even modestly familiar with his work knows he is referring to U.S. financial, military, and diplomatic support for Israeli violations of international law…” He adds, “But Blankfort doesn’t turn to anything Chomsky has ever actually written about U.S. support for Israel for examples.” Hammond has widened the scope of discussion.

Of course the US supports Zionism (along with other western governments), and it supports the Israeli occupation. Blankfort, in his article, focuses on what Israel does to Palestine. Chomsky points to who supplies the gun. Blankfort points to who fires the gun. Israel is the occupying state. It is Israeli soldiers that commit war crimes on behalf of Israel.

Blankfort does not deny that US support for Israeli crimes exists. Yet, this does not restrain Hammond from constructing another straw man argument, alleging that “Chomsky is here blaming Israel for the Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 and the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 — suggestions for which Blankfort offers no supporting evidence from any of Chomsky’s voluminous writings and talks on the subject.”

Hammond is way off base here. Blankfort does not blame; he mainly asks pertinent questions which Hammond does not deal with. Blankfort says Chomsky is “shifting blame for Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians to the US.” Blankfort is arguing against the notion that Israel never acts independently of the US. To illustrate this, Blankfort asks whether the Nakba or the Israeli takeover and occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 were also the fault of the US?

To buttress his argument that Chomsky may be a liability to the Palestinian struggle, Blankfort analyzed an exchange between Alison Weir, of If Americans Knew on Jerusalem Calling, and Chomsky where the latter stated,

What I have opposed, is BDS proposals that harm Palestinians. If we are serious about BDS or any other tactic, we want to ask what the consequences are for the victims. We have to distinguish always in tactical judgments between what you might call ‘feel good’ tactics and ‘do good’ tactics. There are tactics that may make people feel good in doing something, but maybe they harm the victims.

The obvious question that arises from Chomsky’s statement: Why does Chomsky presume to speak on behalf of Palestinians? Do Palestinians not have the right to determine what hardship they would be willing to endure for an end to their occupation? Courageous writer Vittorio Arrigoni, in his eyewitness accounts of Israel’s Cast Lead massacre, lamented, “Gaza’s muted Palestinians survive while others speak for them while they may not speak for themselves.”6

Moreover, how is it that a Palestinian people already having suffered massacres, an illegal siege, and — as Chomsky’s colleague Edward Herman states — a slow-motion genocide might be further harmed by Israel?

Chomsky said, “It is so hypocritical … why boycott Israel and not boycott the United States? The US has a much worse record.”

This is true, and a boycott against the US would be justifiable, but does avoidance of hypocrisy stand up to logical scrutiny?

Extrapolating from Chomsky: if all the criminals are not prosecuted, then none should be. No justice is better than a little justice.

Another extrapolation: It is hypocritical to resist your resistible tormentors, if you do not or cannot defeat all your tormentors at once. This is a strategy doomed to defeat.

Furthermore, a defeat of Zionism would also be a defeat for US imperialism, this by the very fact that it would signal to other people who suffer under the US yoke that US imperialism can still be defeated abroad. So, in effect, the success of the Palestinian-based BDS campaign would strike at the heart of US imperialism.

Chomsky uses tu quoque argumentation.7 Because you do not resist all oppressions equally, does that mean all resistance is illegitimate and/or hypocritical? Because you do not resist all oppressions equally, does that mean all resistance is illegitimate and/or hypocritical?

A Thought Experiment

   Imagine you have two groups of enemies. One group of enemies is three small boys who wake you up in the middle of every night. The second group is a gang of two dozen knife-wielding ruffians who encourage the small boys to carry out their nightly disturbances. You decide that you can deal with the small boys by reporting them to the police, but you fear reporting the gang of ruffians to the police. What do you do? Do you continue suffering the nightly disturbances of the small boys to avoid being a hypocrite?

 

Chomsky’s argumentation requires that a non-violent resistance be abandoned because there are more deserving calls for resistance elsewhere. This argument serves the Israeli occupiers and the supporters of Israel’s occupation. It does not serve the victims of occupation. Ergo, it could be reasoned that — in some sense — Chomsky sides with the oppressors over the victims of the oppressors.

Nevertheless, to answer Chomsky’s boycott question is futile because — if I understand correctly — he rules out boycotts in every case since a boycott would harm the people of whichever state was being boycotted.

Supporter of Israel

Chomsky said, “I don’t regard myself as a critic of Israel. I regard myself as a supporter of Israel.”

This is a statement that on its face is suggestive, but given the history and meaning attached to “Israel,” it requires further clarification to get at its significance.

Based on Chomsky’s former desire to live in Israel, Blankfort suggests, that Chomsky “seems to have no problem with the Jewish ‘right of return’ to what, until 1948, was Palestine, but considers a similar demand by the Palestinians who were actually born there to be not only unrealistic but potentially dangerous.”

Chomsky did act to “return” to Israel knowing that Palestinians were denied the same right.

Blankfort quotes Chomsky that “… there is no detectable international support for it [the ‘right of return’], and under the (virtually unimaginable) circumstances that such support would develop, …”

Two points: 1) International support? Chomsky must be referring to support expressed by governments. Since Chomsky writes often about and is well aware of US hegemony, that there should be “no detectable international support” for a position contrary to the hegemon should be unsurprising. Does the position of the governments of the international community abrogate the rights of an Indigenous people to land they have occupied for millennia? What does elementary morality posit here? If the international community is defying elementary morality, then why refer to such a community to seemingly exculpate a crime?

2) Virtually unimaginable? Is this not the pessimistic mindset that Chomsky so often battles when he refutes the gainsayers of those seeking social justice — those who point out that resistance is futile and that things will never change — by pointing to gains made by activists against slavery, for the right to vote, worker rights, women’s rights, etc.?

Hammond notes Chomsky’s opposition to BDS is specifically aimed at the boycott while Chomsky supports divestment. He takes issue with Blankfort’s contention and the paucity of his explanation on why “the kind of divestment campaign Chomsky favors — one targeting the U.S” would fail and be harmful to Palestinians.

I do not presume to speak for Blankfort, but he leaves unexplained what should be palpable. As Chomsky has noted, it is the investor class (i.e., the ruling class) that predominately invests. Why would this class move against its interests or desires? Divestment is a call for the ruling class to militate against themselves. Although there are some sizable retirement and union funds, such a call for divestment does, indeed, seem doomed to failure.

Another straw man of Hammond follows:

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

Hammond has drawn a conclusion and presented it. His conclusion is a non sequitur though. Yes, readers are supposed to draw their own conclusions, and writers should grant that readers can consider the facts cited, the views given, check sources, discuss … otherwise writers would only be indoctrinators, of a sort.

But Hammond persists with his straw men through conjuration. He takes issue with Blankfort not informing readers that Chomsky has “explicitly rejected that Israel has a ‘right to exist.’” It is as if Hammond realizes the weight of evidence that Blankfort presents bodes ill for Chomsky — that he has to fish for ways to support his man.

Hammond constructs straw men by alleging straw man building by Blankfort. Hammond claims that “Blankfort chooses to ignore Chomsky’s own specific examples, which he’s written on constantly and documented extensively, of how the U.S. is ‘responsible for a lot of Israel’s criminal behavior’, instead preferring to create a straw man argument by suggesting he was referring to Israeli actions in ’48 and ’67 …” This is disingenuous. It was sufficient to merely posit a few examples that supported his contention that Israel does act on its own initiative. That there are examples that do not suggest otherwise does not nullify what Blankfort stated.

Hammond writes, “Yet, after all this, Blankfort has the chutzpah to accuse Chomsky of “intellectual dishonesty.’” This is bizarre considering that Hammond also has the chutzpah to accuse Blankfort of dishonesty in his article.

Hammond ends with praise for his hero. One certainly can learn much from Chomsky. As for his place as a critic of Israeli crimes and as a supporter of Palestinian rights, that is something that history will decide. He has been a critic of Israeli crimes, and he has supported Palestinian rights. But he does not support the Palestinian right to urge a boycott of Israel. By not supporting the Palestinian-based BDS, Chomsky arguably takes away a non-violent means of resistance that further exposes them to Israeli crimes.

The Gravamen

Blankfort raised an issue, and it is a pertinent issue — despite what Hammond opines — whether a high profile progressive is hampering Palestinians attempt to non-violently resist their occupation.

Whatever other issues are raised by Chomsky to question his support for Palestinian rights, glaring is his lack of support for the BDS campaign.

Thought Experiment 2

   Imagine that you and your kith and kin have been dispossessed, your land occupied, and you have endured oppression and massacres for six decades. You are living under a brutal siege where people live in fear, where your children are malnourished … and much, much worse. You are basically disarmed (backyard tin-can rockets hardly count), and your oppressor is a military heavyweight. The governments of the entire western world side with your oppressor. But you remember South Africa, you have heard how boycotts and sanctions brought an end to apartheid in that land. It is a non-violent means of resistance. It is a campaign that provides a profile for your cause. It a campaign that allows the citizens of western countries to reject their government’s collaboration with a racist regime of occupation and oppression by doing something simple: not purchasing products of the occupier. It is a ray of hope for the oppressed people to resist. (And living with a ray of hope beats living with pessimism and despair.)

   Then a venerated professor of the Left living overseas in a nation that collaborates steadfastly with your oppressor tells you that a BDS campaign is wrong. He has inflicted a dent in your non-violent means of resistance, and he has given you no substitute means of resistance. The platform is seemingly pulled from under your feet. You wonder why, and you discover because the professor has determined that you will be harmed. It is not for you to decide. The professor has influence. Many people are followers of the professor, and his pronouncements have sway. The BDS campaign has been wounded. How do you as one of the oppressed people living under occupation feel about this?

Palestinians Isolated

Although this writer believes violent resistance to violent oppression is legitimate, BDS appears to be a legitimate, non-violent means to combat the occupation and oppression of the Palestinian people. Chomsky would seemingly take this non-violent tactic out of the hands of Palestinian resistance because it might harm the people who are behind the occupation and oppression of Palestinians. Since Chomsky rejects a tactic of Palestinian resistance, he should at least proffer a realistic means of ending the occupation and oppression of Palestinians.

Viewing the devastation heaped upon Gazans, Arrogoni decried the absence of “any tangible sign from the international community of a will to boycott these actions.”8

Arrogoni argued, “It’s [sic] now our turn, as ordinary citizens without citizenship … to get away from this hellish contraption.”9

Arrogoni looked to the historical struggle against racism in South Africa: “Refraining from boycotting the regime of apartheid back then was a little like being an accomplice of it. What has changed today?”10

Does Arrogoni capture the will and right of Palestinians to resist their tormentor, or does the logic and elementary morality of the professor stand up to scrutiny?

  1. Jeffrey Blankfort, “Chomsky and Palestine: Asset or Liability?,” Dissident Voice, 23 July 2010. []
  2. Jeremy R. Hammond, “Rejoinder to Criticism of Chomsky: Asset or Liability?,” Dissident Voice, 24 July 2010. []
  3. Much has been written on this. See, for example, Israel Shamir, “Part Three: The Left,” in Masters of Discourse (New York: Surge Books, 2008); Philip Weiss, “‘Increasingly vocal’ Jewish left is taking over the American Jewish ’street’,” Mondoweiss, 7 June 2010. and “List of Jewish American activists,” Wikipedia. []
  4. Norman Solomon, “Bias And Fear Tilting Coverage Of Israel,” FAIR, 19 April 2001. []
  5. Noam Chomsky, Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel & The Palestinians (Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 1983, 1999). []
  6. Vittorio Arrigoni, Gaza: Stay Human, Translated by Daniela Filippin, (Leichestershire, UK: Kube Publishing, 2010): 113. []
  7. “Chomsky’s attempt to rationalize Israel’s ongoing discrimination of those Palestinians who remained after the Nakba, by lumping it together with the forms of racism practiced in the US” is also tu quoque. The fact that a wrong is committed at another time or place does not legitimize commission of the crime in the present instance. []
  8. Arrogoni, 64. []
  9. Ibid. []
  10. Ibid, 66. []
Kim Petersen is a former co-editor of the Dissident Voice newsletter. He can be reached at: kimohp@gmail.com. Twitter: @kimpetersen. Read other articles by Kim.

159 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Mark Richey said on August 3rd, 2010 at 8:49am #

    I’ll let Jeremy Hammond repond to thisfor the most part. Let me say on just one point: Blankfort cites Alison Weir’s recent interview with Chomsky where Chomsky thoroughly explains what me means by saying he is a zionist. Yet Blankfort demands an explanation of this point as if he had just discovered it.

    This is at best …at best…intellectually dishonest, Kim. There’s no nicer word for it, and this is a pattern with Blankfort.

    Take his 20 year slander against me personally, that I am sort of ADL agent, repeated in the very DV commentary on Hammond’s article.

    Aside from the issue that making such an allegation without proof is really a veiled threat, since B’fort knows perfectly well the sort of nutpies that exist in his liberal zionist milieu….

    Leaving that aside, Blankfort is much too intelligent, I’m sure you’ll agree, to think this could be true. After more than 20 years, I’d have long since disappeared if I were an agent, and this is just common sense.

    So this accusation is not just false, but a deliberate and calculated falsehood.

    Don’t you think ‘intellectually dishonest’ is a pretty mild term for such behavior, Kim?

  2. Mark Richey said on August 3rd, 2010 at 9:55am #

    Sorry, I know I said I’d leave it to Hammond, but I just can’t resist one more point and then I’ll leave for at least 24 hours, I promise!

    You don’t deny that Blankfort gave no explanation for his statement that Chomsky’s anti-US divestment would be doomed to fail.

    In the first place, many people are now involved in local campaigns of precisely this sort, and I think we all know that the main point of such actions is not that all the major investors in the US are going to cancel investing in Israel…we know that’s not realistic..

    The point is the POLITICAl IMPACT of such campaigns, and in that sense it’s hardly doomed to failure.

    But you seem to think that by offering an explanation for Blankfort’s statement…and I don’t agree with it, but that’s secondary..,

    You somehow ANSWER Hammond’s criticism!

    Now that IS a non sequitur. BLANKFORT still hasn’t given an explanation, even after repeated challenges..because he knows he can’t!

    In that sense, you are acting as his secretary, not as someone giving an independent opinion, and in all honesty, I see your piece as an attempt by his press agent to repair some of the damage Hammond did, NOT as a real rebuttal to anything Hammond says. You keep saying it’s not logical it’s a straw man, etc., but in all honesty, you dont’ BEGIN to demonstrate that.

    Just saying it doesn’t really help a discussion, it’s a conclusion you have reached you haven’t bothered to support, just as you ACCUSE, wrongly, Hammond of doing.

    Actually he’s scrupulously careful about demonstrating every distorition and falsehood of B’fort’s quite throughly, as I’m sure you ARE AWARE!

  3. teafoe2 said on August 3rd, 2010 at 9:59am #

    Mr Richey,

    It seems Jeff Blankfort has a lot of credibility with editor Petersen; he certainly does with me and with most who post comments here. So it looks like the burden of proof falls on you: if Jeff thinks you are an ADL agent I’m inclined to assume he’s correct.

    What proof can you offer that you aren’t one?

  4. David Green said on August 3rd, 2010 at 10:48am #

    I’ve been following along for months on this, observing Blankfort’s tactics, especially on Mondoweiss, but also Counterpunch. Here’s an article that DV would not put up:

    http://www.maxajl.com/?p=4007

  5. Deadbeat said on August 3rd, 2010 at 1:13pm #

    Kim Peterson writes …

    What best captures the essence of progressivism is its adherence to principles

    This has been my major argumentation point here on DV. That what defines the Left is adherence to principles. Failure to adhere to principles and duplicity creates distrust and retards solidarity.

    The duplicitous stance by Chomsky on Israel and BDS and the rallying of his fan club to defend his duplicity reveals a badly corrupted Left. What needs to be confronted is that Zionism has corrupted the Left and its corruption is becoming more and more obvious.

    Before there can be real solidarity there needs to be more voices like Jeffrey Blankfort and James Petras and others who adhere to principles. That is the only way that the Left can be rebuilt and be in the position to confront the huge issues ahead.

  6. David Green said on August 3rd, 2010 at 1:47pm #

    For years, leftist supporters of the Palestinian cause have worked hard to ensure the inclusion of that cause into leftist analysis and strategy. There’s been a sea-change in that regard since, let’s say Oslo in 1993. More so since the 2nd intifada (2000) and the concurrent antiwar movement (Iraq). So now Palestine has become central. So at this point, Peterson says “Zionism has corrupted the Left.” Meanwhile, the radical Lobby thesis is not put forth by the Left, but by Mearsheimer/Walt and other “realists” who support U.S. imperialism in the region. But Blankfort and Petras, with claims as leftists (I guess) go along with this argument. So what’s being corrupted? It’s the Palestinian movement as an aspect of the antiwar and social justice movements. Now it’s an aspect of the “make the Middle East safe for American interests” movement. It’s just fucking nuts. Kim, your post is just fucking idiotic.

  7. teafoe2 said on August 3rd, 2010 at 2:07pm #

    well well, David Green…

    Even he is forced to acknowledge that Petras and Blankfort “have claims” as Leftists, but his sneaky attempt to condemn by faint praise won’t wash.

    Anybody who wants to check Petras & Blankfort’s “leftist” credentials need do no more than type the names into a search engine. These are two guys who not only write but who also have spent much time on the frontlines of the class struggle. Petras spent eleven years in north east Brazil working at the grassroots level with the Landless Peasants Movement; Blankfort was for some years a relatively fairskint member of the inner leadership of the Oakland Panthers during the period when Cointelpro was knocking off Panthers right and left.

    The rest of Green’s “comment” is simply a mendacious but fragrant steaming pile of libelous garbage. Reminds me of the proverbial flea climbing up an elephant’s leg. Hohum one more time.

  8. David Green said on August 3rd, 2010 at 3:49pm #

    “Green and pal simply regurgitate tired old nonsense that has been thoroughly debunked time after time. hohum.”

    Nothing specific of which, of course, you will bother to actually challenge or refute.

  9. PatrickSMcNally said on August 3rd, 2010 at 4:16pm #

    > For years, leftist supporters of the Palestinian cause have worked hard to ensure the inclusion of that cause into leftist analysis and strategy.

    Perhaps, but the standards used on this single issue have been oddly at variance with what has been followed in other contexts. Most of the civil rights legislation which was enacted during the 1960s was enacted at the behests of LBJ, who escalated Vietnam after the Tonkin Gulf sham. It wasn’t just Democrats who were in on the act either. Liberal Republicans like Winthrop & Nelson Rockefeller were strong advocates of civil rights legislation. This never caused the Left of that time to feel any need for being evenly balanced towards Confederate flag-wavers. It was accepted that fighting against a particular sector of the bourgeoisie, that sector of the southern bourgeoisie which traced its wealth back to the days of slavery, was a legitimate cause in itself even when this tacitly entailed an alliance with sectors of the northern bourgeoisie who traced their interests back to the northern industrialists who had supported Abraham Lincoln.

    Many self-avowed “Marxists” from that time used to toss around slogans like “finish the civil war” even when this clearly implied some degree of class-alliance with the Rockefellers. OK, nothing wrong with that. I see no benefit in Rand Paul making “libertarian” attacks on civil rights legislation. But here’s where it starts to turn kind of funny. Fast-forward to the present time and we find that today there is again another type of fissure in the ruling class.

    Today there are parochial sectors among the ruling class which clearly favor support for Israel in a way which simply can not be accounted for in terms of generic imperial interests. I read over some of the laughable arguments at that link at it was interesting to watch how mountains can be constructed from molehills. Israel tests weapons technology? Well Saddam Hussein was also capable of testing weapons technology on Iranians. Suharto also provided a means for testing weapons technology in East Timor. There are lots of places around the world where a means can be found for testing weapons technology without giving free license to Tel Aviv.

    One should be clear that free license is exactly what is given to Tel Aviv everytime the US Congress hands over money to Israel. Some people like to point to the money which goes to Egypt as a counter-part to the subsidies given to Israel. However, those payments to Egypt are conditional on the requirement that Egypt shall never blow its nose in the direction of Israel. No such conditions have ever been attached to the money given to Israel. If tomorrow Israel were to begin bombing any country in the Mideast we would have Congress-critters getting up on TV to announce their “deep empathy” with Israel. Nonsense of this type can never be accounted for by going on about Israel developing and testing weapons technology.

    That doesn’t just have to depend upon speculation. It’s easy to trace the tensions which Zbigniew Brzezinski, David Rockefeller, George Ball, and many other people commonly associated with the Bilderberg group, the Council of Foreign Relations, and other elite think-tanks have had with the Israel lobby. At the same time there is a clear record of an effort to build up pro-Israel think-tanks such as JINSA. WINEP, PNAC and others. This reflects a fissure within the ruling class that is greater than any since the civil war in the 1860s.

    It’s clearly absurd to suggest that the founding of the state of Israel was ever supported as some sort of strategic outpost, when Harry Truman was very clear that he did it for reasons of domestic politics. All of the evidence from the internal archival record shows that George Marshall and James Forrestal were both opposed to Truman’s decision to endorse the founding of Israel, and that their opposition was based upon very strategic grounds. For several decades it was maintained that Forrestal had simply been a paranoid when he charged that Zionists were spying on him. We had to wait for John Loftus & Mark Aarons, THE SECRET WAR AGAINST THE JEWS, to learn that not only was Forrestal actually spied upon with David Ben Gurion’s approval but that he was even labeled as “Zionist Enemy Number One.”

    What’s absurd about some of the pseudo-Left diatribes is not that they might feel a need to define a stance separate from Marshall, Forrestal, Mearsheimer, Walt and others, but that they so clearly do it with a different standard from what was the norm 5 decades ago. At that time there was no embarrassment in taking a position which clearly placed one closer to members of the Rockefeller family than to Strom Thurmond or George Wallace. This was repeatedly done by people who saw none of this impinging on their “Marxist” credentials.

    But today it suddenly has become the highest embodiment of “class-consciousness” to poo-poo any suggestion that there might actually be notable fissures among segments of the ruling class which could really be central to understanding the present course in the Mideast. It’s this kind of silliness which gives an aura of credence to a crank like Rand Paul. The civil rights legislation which Paul was condemning upon libertarian grounds was pushed through by the same people who brought you Vietnam. If puritanical views of “class-consciousness” bar you from looking closely at the Israel lobby then you should feel fine dismissing civil rights legislation that was pushed through by capitalist blood-suckers.

    I should add though, in fairness to the real Karl Marx, that I can’t imagine him ever falling to this level.

  10. Rehmat said on August 3rd, 2010 at 6:25pm #

    Well, well …… Let us call everyone who challenge Chomsky or his tail-holder as “anti-Semite” or “a Jew hater” or better “a holocaust denier” – to complete the character assassination of the challenger.

    Don’t believe me? Well, the British broadcasting regulator did that to Press TV a few days ago for broadcasting “baised criticism” of Israel – not by Dr. Ahmadinejad – but by British MP George Galloway and Tony Blair’s sister-in-law.

    Don’t you the western ‘freedom of speech’!

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/08/04/britain-press-tv-is-anti-semite/

  11. Max Shields said on August 3rd, 2010 at 6:40pm #

    No Deadbeat, your arguments are no where near as cogent as sane as Kim’s. And that is the issue with those who swarmed much like the Zionist drop ins. The whole tenor of the “argument” by teafoe2 and Deadbeat was reduced to name calling.

    Now they act like the innocent…”just what I’ve been saying all along Kim…”

    Kim does not bash Chomsky. Deadbeat uses almost every post to do just that. Teafoe2 is a close 2nd. There’s a BIG difference between cogent arguments and the non-stop assault by those on the Hammond thread by the likes of the ranting Joseph Anderson.

    A little civility goes a long way.

  12. JoeJ said on August 3rd, 2010 at 7:43pm #

    Please, Chomsky is Jewish. His principles go out the door when it comes to Israel.

    This whole article is a waste of time once you acknowledge that truth.

    People want to ostracize Israel – this is rational – that is the most peaceful powerful deterrent there is to the evil activity that Israel and the world’s Jewish people are putting on Palestine.

  13. Deadbeat said on August 3rd, 2010 at 9:08pm #

    Max Shields writes ..

    No Deadbeat, your arguments are no where near as cogent as sane as Kim’s. And that is the issue with those who swarmed much like the Zionist drop ins. The whole tenor of the “argument” by teafoe2 and Deadbeat was reduced to name calling.

    That’s your opinion Max. My perspective is different. The arguments made by Chomskyites are specious and do not deserve the “respect” that you want to give to that perspective. In fact Max you’ve argued the “U.S. Imperialism” axiom yourself even when I pointed out that the Left promoted the “War for Oil” canard while never mentioning the Zionist influence. I needed re-argue this. This has been an ongoing debate for the better part of three years or more that I’ve participated here on DV.

    I’ve had to put up with your distortions of my position and taking my remarks out of context. In order to set the record straight just like you are doing now.

    Now they act like the innocent … “just what I’ve been saying all along Kim…”

    This is no “act” but once again reflects your distortion of my position. I have constantly argued here about the Left’s duplicity and corruption. I’ve argued for the need of the Left to reach out to people of color. They especially have witnessed the Left not confronting Zionism is all its deleterious aspects and they do not trust the Left.

    I have also stated the principles that I believe define solidarity: justice, fairness, equality and trust.

    In fact Max you went ballistic when I stated those tenants during the recent Hammond thread. You argued that it was audacious of me to make such an enumeration. I invited you to post your own tenants and I still await your articulation of left-wing principles.

    Without trust Max there can be NO solidarity.

    Kim does not bash Chomsky. Deadbeat uses almost every post to do just that. Teafoe2 is a close 2nd. There’s a BIG difference between cogent arguments and the non-stop assault by those on the Hammond thread by the likes of the ranting Joseph Anderson.

    And neither does Jeffrey Blankfort, nor James Petras, nor Teafoe2, nor Joesph Anderson. They don’t “bash” Chomsky they TELL THE TRUTH about his DUPLICITY and the corruption of the Left.

    A little civility goes a long way.

    You misuse “civility” Max. You constantly display a lack of “civility” when you distort my comments. That is a failure of civility and your duplicity Max will not garner you civility.

  14. Mark Richey said on August 4th, 2010 at 12:03am #

    The most laughable point made by Petersen in defending Blankfort is the idea that Chomsky is somehow hindering Palestinian campaigns.

    Of course Chomsky has said many times that we in the US can’t tell Palestinians what to do. I won’t bother to cite this since it’s so well known.

    So again, you’re just erecting ANOTHER straw man next to B’fort’s. Just repeating what he says doesn;t make the straw less limp or less full of holes.

    Chomsky has no political organization or tendencies. There is no national Chomsky media or press to air his views. Unlike the Stalin time, where many of our current pundits find their political roots, there aren’t gangs that are going to beat up anyone for disagreeing with Chomsky, or even for using MCCarthy type smear tactics as Blankfort basically does.

    Nor, of course, does Chomsky ever resort to Stalinist tactics like accusing your critics of being ‘agents.’ Hundreds of thousand of people, if not millions, worldwide are now receiving official letters from Russia apologizing for the execution of their family members for this false accusation.

    Fortunately, Blankfort and his ilk have no gulags or armies, or it’s clear all of us who criticize him would wind up behind bars as ‘agents.’

    So when Chomsky opposes SOME boycott activity…he doesn’t oppose all of it, of course, although one wouldn’t know that from listening to you or Blankfort– he’s quite clearly talking about whether WE here in the US should do that. NOT the Palestinians! It’s totally dishonest to pretend otherwise.

    Another straw man easily taken apart.

    Also, Chomsky explains at length the conditions of early Israel, when many socialist kibbutz projects aimed at joint Jewish-Palestinian solidarity. In Weir’s interview, Chomsky estimates that 20% of the early kibbutzim were of this current. As he says, it may sound strange now…zionism has of course abjured that current.

    Once again, you and Blankfort, even while citing that SAME INTERVIEW, somehow pretend you didn’t hear that.

    That’s intellectual dishonesty, again, and also just another straw man.

    TEFOE…CAn you prove you’re not a child molester? I’m not saying you are, but if I WERE to say that with NO proof….how would you prove you were NOT??

    The old ‘prove a negative’ rhetorical trick, sort of transparent even for a liberal zionist apologist..

    Also, Kim, you simply repeat the straw man

  15. Mark Richey said on August 4th, 2010 at 2:34am #

    One more point…as I predicted earlier, no one objects to censoring Green’ comments. If you read them, they are certainly as coherent as most of the comments, and now that I have been called an agent, Chomsky basically called that too, though not quite as openly..

    We’re entitled to see the pattern of Blankfort’s distoritons, lies, and slanders. It’s dishonest at this point in the discussion to censor Green.

    I notice deadhead doesn’t even bother to deal with the issue of censorship. The point isn’t whether you agree with it, deadbrain.

    It’s whether it’s right to censor it.

    Such dishonesty vitiates totally any claim to a hearing. I quickly stopped reading most of what he writes.

    Incidentally, Alison Weir, a pal of Blankfort’s, was totally unprofessional in her ‘interview’ with him, repeatedly interrupting him, to the point where he threatened to end the talk…and then took ONLY two calls from Blankfort in the call in period, giving him nearly as much time as Chomsky had for long STATEMENTS.

    The whole scenario was clearly prepared by Weir and Blankfort, Weir also cut off at least one other caller by her own admission on air in order to get Blankfort all the time he wanted.

    This is typical dishonest behavior..aside from being completely unprofessional.

  16. mary said on August 4th, 2010 at 2:42am #

    Keep on digging that hole Mr Richey. You’ll get though to Israel soon.

  17. Deadbeat said on August 4th, 2010 at 2:46am #

    The most laughable point made by Petersen in defending Blankfort is the idea that Chomsky is somehow hindering Palestinian campaigns.

    Its not funny that Chomsky ridicules the BDS campaign which the Palestinians themselves has called for and initiated. Chomskyism is not only a hindrance to Palestinians. It has been a hindrance to the entire Left most especially the anti-war movement.

    Of course Chomsky has said many times that we in the US can’t tell Palestinians what to do. I won’t bother to cite this since it’s so well known.

    Chomsky says one thing and does another. Pointing out his duplicity is reflective of the duplicity of the Left. It seem odd that supporter of Chomsky is quick to inform people of say the duplicity of the Liberals and Conservatives but when it comes to this “Libertarian Socialist”, Chomskyites set aside principles and make excuses for their man.

    So again, [Kim is] just erecting ANOTHER straw man next to B’fort’s. Just repeating what he says doesn;t make the straw less limp or less full of holes.

    The fact is when it comes to Chomkyism the burden of proof is always on Left-wing critics of Chomsky. Chomsky is such an icon that every thing he says is more or less taken as gospel.

    Chomsky has no political organization or tendencies. There is no national Chomsky media or press to air his views. Unlike the Stalin time, where many of our current pundits find their political roots, there aren’t gangs that are going to beat up anyone for disagreeing with Chomsky, or even for using MCCarthy type smear tactics as Blankfort basically does.

    Now we’re talking LAUGHABLE. The entire Left media for the past 30 years or so has been all about Chomsky (and his late twin Howard Zinn). Movies has been made about Chomsky. He’s been well published in books and journals. He articles regularly appears Z-Mag. He is a constant face on Democracy Now! and David Barsamian’s Alternative Radio. He’s been the face and voice of the Left for the past 4 DECADES and has developed a HUGE following. Thus in order to judge where the Left is today an analysis of Chomsky must be front and center. And when Chomsky’s positions is MEASURED against progressive principles the contradictions and duplicity looms large but has been mostly ignored.

    If anyone faces McCarthy-like smear are critics of the American Jewish Zionist Establishment that exerts tremendous influence over the U.S. political economy.

    Nor, of course, does Chomsky ever resort to Stalinist tactics like accusing your critics of being ‘agents.’ Hundreds of thousand of people, if not millions, worldwide are now receiving official letters from Russia apologizing for the execution of their family members for this false accusation.

    Chomsky doesn’t have to resort to “Stalinist tactics” because he has a network of supporters who do.

    Fortunately, Blankfort and his ilk have no gulags or armies, or it’s clear all of us who criticize him would wind up behind bars as ‘agents.’

    You have nothing to fear unless you fear the exposure of the Zionist Left. “Blankfort and his ilk” ADHERE to progressive principles. However those that do adhere to Leftwing principles have to worry about Chomskite’s smear campaigns and twisted fallacies that are designed to weaken solidarity and to maintain a discombobulated Left. The reason why this is such a MAJOR problem is because the whole world faces REAL SERIOUS issues that can only be confronted WITH REAL Left-wing solidarity.

    So when Chomsky opposes SOME boycott activity…he doesn’t oppose all of it, of course, although one wouldn’t know that from listening to you or Blankfort– he’s quite clearly talking about whether WE here in the US should do that. NOT the Palestinians! It’s totally dishonest to pretend otherwise.

    Chomsky’s “ambiguities” WEAKENS the Palestinians cause. His Swiss Cheese-like stance towards BDS like being against culture and academic boycotts weakens the BDS’s impact.

    Another straw man easily taken apart.

    You got that right. It looks like your strawman has been blow apart. But again the more you argue in Chomsky behalf the more it EXPOSES the corruption of the Left due to Zionism.

    Also, Chomsky explains at length the conditions of early Israel, when many socialist kibbutz projects aimed at joint Jewish-Palestinian solidarity. In Weir’s interview, Chomsky estimates that 20% of the early kibbutzim were of this current. As he says, it may sound strange now…zionism has of course abjured that current.

    This is ludicrous. The Palestine NATION was against the partition plan. The Jews expelled the 750,000 Palestinian nationals to form Israel in a act of ethic cleansing and you expect us to believe that there was Jewish-Palestinian solidarity. This is an example of the worst kind of Chomskyism that has thoroughly corrupted the Left.

    Once again, [Kim] and Blankfort, even while citing that SAME INTERVIEW, somehow pretend you didn’t hear that.

    The level of of idolatry for Chomsky has seriously debilitated the Left.

    That’s intellectual dishonesty, again, and also just another straw man.

    It’s not “intellectual dishonesty” nor is it a “strawman”. It is theocracy. Chomsky is a DEITY to Mr. Richey and the minions. Every word of Noam Chomsky is of biblical proportions. How dare anyone defy the GOD of the LEFT. However Chomsky claimes to be a “Libertarian Socialist” and as a such he’s suppose to be against religiosity.

    TEFOE…CAn you prove you’re not a child molester? I’m not saying you are, but if I WERE to say that with NO proof….how would you prove you were NOT?? The old ‘prove a negative’ rhetorical trick, sort of transparent even for a liberal zionist apologist..

    I find this analogy similar to Chomskyites who NEVER DEMAND proof from Noam Chomsky. Chomskyites sycophantically accept all of his axioms, bromides, and cliche. Blind acceptance is the ABC’s of Chomskyism.

  18. mary said on August 4th, 2010 at 3:05am #

    Are Mark Richey here and Mark Richie on Palestine Think Tank one and the same? If so, why the different spellings?

    See comment 20 onwards for a dialogue between Richie and Blankfort.

    http://palestinethinktank.com/2010/07/21/jeff-blankfort-chomsky-and-palestine-asset-or-liability/

  19. Max Shields said on August 4th, 2010 at 4:45am #

    Deadbeat you can post all you want like a politician you think you can just talk your way out of the facts if you just post long and winded.

    Petras doesn’t bash, that’s true. On the other hand, conflating Petras and Kim’s work with Teafoe2 and Joseph Anderson is dishonest.

    Without honesty there is NO trust Deadbeat and so to use your corollary NO SOLIDARITY.

  20. Jeremy R. Hammond said on August 4th, 2010 at 6:07am #

    My initial response is simple:

    If Blankfort agrees with Petersen’s characterization of me as dishonest and hypocritical, he can easily prove Petersen’s case by acknowledging the facts that:

    (a) Chomsky was referring to Fayyad’s efforts to construct the infrastructure of a de facto Palestinian state in saying he was implementing sensible policies,

    (b) Chomsky criticized the suppression of the Goldstone Report,

    (c) Chomsky does not support P.A. collusion with Israel,

    (d) Chomsky means he was opposed to a Jewish state and supportive of a binational solution when he says he was a “Zionist youth leader”,

    (e) Chomsky means he is opposed to Israeli crimes against Palestinians when he says he is “a supporter of Israel”,

    (f) Chomsky attained his status as a leading supporter of Palestinian rights primarily because of the merit of his work in that regard,

    (g) Chomsky has never shifted blame for the Nakba or ’67 invasion and occupation away from Israel by instead blaming the U.S. for those crimes, but refers primarily to crimes committed by Israel since ’67 that the U.S. has supported, including its ’82 invasion of Lebanon, its colonization of the West Bank, it’s rejection of the right to Palestinian self-determination, it’s ’08-’09 massacre in Gaza, and so on.

    (h) Chomsky’s criticism of “hypocrisy” for supporting a boycott of Israel but not of the U.S., which fully supports those same crimes, is directed explicitly at Americans and not Palestinians, and

    (i) Chomsky rejects that Israel has a “right to exist” and does not view Israel’s creation through an act of ethnic cleansing as having been legitimate.

    Now, just as soon as Blankfort acknowledges these facts, I will be more than happy to issue a correction and apology for stating that he intended his readers to conclusions contrary to these.

    I trust that reasonable solution is agreeable to Kim.

  21. Deadbeat said on August 4th, 2010 at 6:43am #

    Max Shields writes …

    Deadbeat you can post all you want like a politician you think you can just talk your way out of the facts if you just post long and winded.

    I’ve been consistent regarding my stance against racism — in ALL of its forms including and especially Zionism. I can’t say that is true of Chomsky and the “Left” that has been corrupted by Zionism.

    Petras doesn’t bash, that’s true. On the other hand, conflating Petras and Kim’s work with Teafoe2 and Joseph Anderson is dishonest.

    Your attempt to use tone and tenor as a wedge is pathetic and hypocritical. I understand where both Teafoe2 and Joesph Anderson are coming from. Teafoe2, IMO, had at one time a naive notion about the Left only to figure out that the Left wasn’t as it positions itself to be. In that sense my experience is quite similar to Teafoe2 and why we find ourselves very much in agreement. My eyes opened wide about the Left’s duplicity when I got involved in the 2003 anti-war movement and the 2004 Nader campaign only to find out that the those who I thought adhered to progressive principles in actually did not and in fact SABOTAGED the movements.

    Mr. Anderson, IMO, as a person of color for years knew that the Left was duplicitous primarily on the issue of racism and therefore has been confronting the Left about its duplicity.

    Unlike you Max you make excuses for the Left and seek to discredit those to confronts the Left’s duplicity.

    Without honesty there is NO trust Deadbeat and so to use your corollary NO SOLIDARITY.

    Absolutely correct Max. I’m glad you FINALLY understand my argument.

    At best the Left are populated with many guilt ridden wannabees. Wannabee rich, elitist and privilege and wannabee progressives. Unfortunately they are contradictory and duplicitous and dishonest.

    These folks need to choose Max in axiom of Leo Strauss’s:
    A neo-conservative is a Leftist MUGGED by REALITY.

    The Chomskyites need to choose Max whether they want to be principled progressives or rich, elitist, privileged imperialists. After they make their decision Max they’ll free of the chains of duplicity and contradiction.

  22. Deadbeat said on August 4th, 2010 at 6:56am #

    Hammond writes …

    (h) Chomsky’s criticism of “hypocrisy” for supporting a boycott of Israel but not of the U.S., which fully supports those same crimes, is directed explicitly at Americans and not Palestinians, and

    I’ll let others respond to Mr. Hammond’s alphabet soup. But letter (h) is
    may backfire on Chomsky. Because if he wants a boycott of the U.S. then why doesn’t Mr. Chomsky expose the POWER structure of Jewish Zionism as practiced in the United States. That means EXPOSING AIPAC’s and the Jewish establishment’s control of the Congress, Banking, the FED, the White House, the Media, News outlets, Hollywood, and WEALTH and their enormous influence of the political economy that well exceed its overall population numbers.

    It is ludicrous to call for a boycott of the United States without a full examination of the POWER STRUCTURES and its puppet masters. Unfortunately Mr. Chomsky in his 40 years has done an AWFUL job of educating the Left about the raising influence of the Jewish Zionist Establishment and Mr. Chomsky through his omission has essentially been a part of it.

    Remember Mr. Chomsky is a SUPPORTER of Israel as one would expect a PROFESSED Zionist to be.

  23. kalidas said on August 4th, 2010 at 7:48am #

    “Please, Chomsky is Jewish. His principles go out the door when it comes to Israel.”

    How sweet it is. The truth doesn’t require many words at all.
    Two short sentences to condense mountains of word jugglery and hot air into … well … the truth.

    The vast majority of those paid by the word, (in money or false ego), need to smarten up.

  24. Jeffrey Blankfort said on August 4th, 2010 at 8:49am #

    My initial response is simple:

    If Blankfort agrees with Petersen’s characterization of me as dishonest and hypocritical, he can easily prove Petersen’s case by acknowledging the facts that:

    (a) Chomsky was referring to Fayyad’s efforts to construct the infrastructure of a de facto Palestinian state in saying he was implementing sensible policies,
    AGREE

    (b) Chomsky criticized the suppression of the Goldstone Report,
    AGREE BUT THAT HAD NO RELEVANCE TO MY CRITIQUE. IF HE WISHED TO QUALIFY HIS SUPPORT FOR THE PALESTINE AUTHORITY HE HAD TIME TO DO IT IN THAT INTERVIEW. HE CHOSE NOT TO.

    (c) Chomsky does not support P.A. collusion with Israel,
    AGREE. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE TO HAVE QUALIFIED HIS SUPPORT FOR FAYYAD BY SAYING THAT. HE DIDN’T, LEAVING THE LISTENER WITH THE IMPRESSION THAT HE SUPPORTS THE P.A.

    (d) Chomsky means he was opposed to a Jewish state and supportive of a binational solution when he says he was a “Zionist youth leader”,
    AGREE. I’VE ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT.

    (e) Chomsky means he is opposed to Israeli crimes against Palestinians when he says he is “a supporter of Israel”,
    DON’T AGREE. HE DID NOT QUALIFY HIS STATEMENT TO THE ISRAELI INTERVIWER BY SAYING THAT WHEN HE COULD HAVE.

    (f) Chomsky attained his status as a leading supporter of Palestinian rights primarily because of the merit of his work in that regard,
    THAT WAS THE PERCEPTION OF MANY PEOPLE IN THE MOVEMENT, PRIMARILY JEWISH, WHO WERE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH ONE OF THEIR OWN DOING IT. IT WAS EASIER BECAUSE HE WAS NOT QUESTIONING ISRAEL’S LEGITIMACY OR SUPPORTING THE PALESTINIAN RIGHT OF RETURN.

    (g) Chomsky has never shifted blame for the Nakba or ‘67 invasion and occupation away from Israel by instead blaming the U.S. for those crimes, but refers primarily to crimes committed by Israel since ‘67 that the U.S. has supported, including its ‘82 invasion of Lebanon, its colonization of the West Bank, it’s rejection of the right to Palestinian self-determination, it’s ‘08-’09 massacre in Gaza, and so on.
    CHOMSKY REFERS TO ONLY WHAT HAPPENED AFTER 1967 AS “CONQUEST.”HE REFUSES TO PLACE THE PRIMARY BLAME FOR WHAT HAPPENED AFTER 67 ON ISRAEL AND ITS SUPPORTERS IN THE US, LEAVING HIS READERS TO BELIEVE THAT ISRAEL’S ACTIONS WERE BASED SIMPLY ON US STRATEGIC EVALUATIONS AND NOT INFLUENCED BY DOMESTIC PRESSURES APPLIED BY THE JEWISH ESTABLISHMENT. THAT’S WHAT I MEAN BY “INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY.”

    (h) Chomsky’s criticism of “hypocrisy” for supporting a boycott of Israel but not of the U.S., which fully supports those same crimes, is directed explicitly at Americans and not Palestinians, and
    DON’T AGREE. HE DOES NOT SAY THAT. MOREOVER, HE SHOWS JUST HOW OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY BE SUGGESTING THAT PEOPLE OF THE US OR ANY COUNTRY FOR THAT MATTER, COULD LAUNCH A CAMPAIGN THAT WOULD BOYCOTT ITSELF. IT’S JUST PLAIN IDIOTIC, QUITE ASIDE FROM THE RESPONSE IT WOULD CAUSE AMONG THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. IN ANY CASE, ISRAEL IS THE PRIME MALFACTOR, COUPLED WITH THE AMERICAN JEWISH ESTABLISHMENT, WHICH HE MENTIONS ONLY IN PASSING. WHO IS THE HYPOCRITE?

    (i) Chomsky rejects that Israel has a “right to exist” and does not view Israel’s creation through an act of ethnic cleansing as having been legitimate.
    DON’T AGREE. HE HAS SAID THAT AFTER 1948 ISRAEL WAS A LEGITIMATE STATE. “RIGHT TO EXIST” IS SOMETHING ELSE.

    Now, just as soon as Blankfort acknowledges these facts, I will be more than happy to issue a correction and apology for stating that he intended his readers to conclusions contrary to these.
    QUESTION FOR YOU. HAMMOND? WERE YOU, LIKE CHOMSKY, RAISED IN A ZIONIST HOUSEHOLD?

  25. Jeffrey Blankfort said on August 4th, 2010 at 9:14am #

    David Green, who resembles David Horowitz in his vitriolic name calling, wrote yesterday:
    Meanwhile, the radical Lobby thesis is not put forth by the Left, but by Mearsheimer/Walt and other “realists” who support U.S. imperialism in the region. But Blankfort and Petras, with claims as leftists (I guess) go along with this argument. So what’s being corrupted? It’s the Palestinian movement as an aspect of the antiwar and social justice movements. Now it’s an aspect of the “make the Middle East safe for American interests” movement. It’s just fucking nuts. Kim, your post is just fucking idiotic.”

    This is, of course, complete hogwash. I have been writing about the Israel Lobby since the late 80s and was immediately marginalized by the tribalized Jewish poseurs of the Left at the time who become little Dershowitzes when someone comes along who seems to be blaming a sector of God’s chosen for something that they shouldn’t have been doing, like placing a chokehold on the US Congress and making them servants of Israel. In the end there is no fundamental difference between Green and Hammond and Dershowitz because America is the main battleground on this issue and they all know it. The rest of us need to act accordingly.

  26. DavidLGreen said on August 4th, 2010 at 10:01am #

    Yes Jeffrey, you’ve got me pegged. I’m must like Horowitz. I learned everything I know from the man.

    Jeffrey, your simply making assertions about the power of the Lobby. And you still haven’t explained whether you agree with the “realist” analysis of M/W and Wawro. If so, how does this put you on the left? If not, how does this effect the validity of their arguments about the Lobby?

  27. DavidLGreen said on August 4th, 2010 at 10:03am #

    I’ll repost this without the typos:

    Yes Jeffrey, you’ve got me pegged. I’m just like Horowitz. I learned everything I know from the man.

    Jeffrey, you’re simply making assertions about the power of the Lobby. And you still haven’t explained whether you agree with the “realist” analysis of M/W and Wawro, and there essential support for empire. If so, how does this put you on the left? If not, how might this effect the validity of their arguments about the Lobby?

    After all, they are using the Lobby argument to avoid challenging the capitalist and militarist centers of power.

  28. Mark Richey said on August 4th, 2010 at 10:59am #

    Blankfort just repeats the same lies over and over. Chomsky has said MANY times that we can’t tell Palestinians what to do. About any isssue.

    CAn’t say the same about the egomaniacs like B’fort.

    Whatever you think of Chomsky’s opinion on boycott, he’s made it crystal clear he’s talking to us.
    NOT Palestinians!

    It’s simply a deliberate lie to say otherwise.

  29. Mark Richey said on August 4th, 2010 at 11:20am #

    Chomsky has stated quite clearly that he supports the right of return.

    He’s also said he’s opposed to organizing around the idea because he thinks it’s unrealistic..a pipe dream..

    Personally, I disagree with that. Not long before the end of apartheid many people though it was a pipe dream too…

    Blankfort is very well informed, so this statement that Chomsky is not a supporter of the right of return is not some oversight or misinterpretation.

    It’s a deliberate and calculated falsehood.

    This sort of behavior is why Dave Green says Blankfort’s prominence on the ‘movement’ media is really pathetic, and Green of course is correct.

    As Blankfort himself said, the existing ‘movement’, or whatever you want to call it, is totally controlled by a handful of individuals, in organizations with overlapping membership and ESPECIALLY leadership, and is mostly Jewish, and nearly all liberal zionist.

    What he doesn’t say is that he’s a part of that informal but quite well organized network, himself!

  30. Mark Richey said on August 4th, 2010 at 11:37am #

    ONe last comment on this thread, I’m moving on.

    There are half a dozen people posted here on DV and the same people on PTT who jump on any article about the ‘movement’ in the US, especially in regard to Palestine, with the purpose of supporting the existing liberal zionist leadership of most of it–a leadership in which Blankfort seems to be assigned the role of chief monitor. This leadership consists entirely of an informal but still quite organized network of liberal zionists, who are found in the leadership of every acronym, often overlapping.

    There’s never any word of criticism of censorshp and exclusion of those of us not part of it. Many of them are even calling on the DV moderators to exclude Hammond and bewailing the posting of his critique.

    These Stalinist tactics, which many of these red diaper grandchildren learned from their CP parents and grandparents, are totally accepted in this clique. Never a word of apology and in fact they even celebrate when their critics are arbitrarily silenced.

    There’s never a word of criticism of even the most outrageous personal conduct, such as accusing people who disagree of being ADL agents, or a ‘liability’ to the movement, really a veiled version of saying they are agents…

    This is of course the biggest of the Stalin Big Lies, used to murder hundres of thousands in the 1930’s, and reflected in the lower level violence practiced by the United States CP and its milieu in the days when it had a large organization, funding from Moscow, and to some exent a mass base in the trade unions, well into the 1960’s.

    Of course this agent accusation is itself a veiled threat of violence as these people well know. They no longer have gangs to beat people up, so they use veiled incitement like this.

    I know these people don’t care what ordinary people think, but of course THIS IS REPULSIVE to ordinary people and guarantees the ‘movement’ will remain marginal and confined largely to liberal zionist slanderers and their mindless cheerleaders like Mary and Tefoe and Deadbeat and a couple of others.

    I think these people have the sole purpose on sites like DV and PTT of throttling any real discussion, and driving away anyone who doesn’t agree with them.

    Since DV is democratic enough to permit articles like Hammond, and a largely uncensored commentary, they are forced to resort to spamming the discussion with incessant repetition and name calling to get people to go away.

    Which is the real goal of these cliquists , a tiny handful representing only the liberal wing of the Democratic Party: to make sure that the Obama handholding misleaders we have in ANSWER, MECA, UFPJ, JVP, etc. etc. continue in control.

    There

  31. teafoe2 said on August 4th, 2010 at 11:43am #

    Thank you, Kalidas, amen.

    Re “David Green” @ 3:49: Davey you miss the point. I said what I said in order to inform readers that I found nothing on the link you offered that we needed to bother to refute since it was all crap.

    I want to explain something to a person I respect who suggested in a friendly way that my posts, while not totally lacking in merit, were often “too rude”. Most DV readers probably assume that I’m something like they are, that I fall into one of two main sociological categories: either a person who’s been able to parlay a good education into a career as a professional journalist or scholar or hasbara propagandist, or like most DV readers, as described by Alexa, an over-65 white male property owner with time on my hands because all my needs are already covered.

    Such is not the case. Yes I’m over sixty-five, by several years. Yes I’m considered “white” and biologically male. But I’m not affluent, in fact I’m poverty-struck, a collossal loser in this capitalist society run by this Brahmin Caste of Jews and employees of Jews.

    So I don’t react to people like this Hammond and this David Green in the same way someone who shares their social status and privileges likely would. I don’t see such persons as “opponents” in a debate in which all participants are expected to observe standards of decorum and civility. No.

    No. To me these people are Enemies. Enemies, material enemies. No different from Netanyahu or Obama themselves.

    The readers I’m hoping to communicate with are not those who comprise the majority of DV’s audience demographic, but those whose background is down-to-earth enough to understand that when I rudely ridicule some phoney, I’m trying to save them from having to expend precious time evaluating arguments peddled by snakes.

    I’m also hoping to provide a little entertainment, both for DV readers and some for myself, since nobody is paying me to spend time typing.

    Okay, turn the page…

  32. DavidLGreen said on August 4th, 2010 at 12:01pm #

    “Such is not the case. Yes I’m over sixty-five, by several years. Yes I’m considered “white” and biologically male. But I’m not affluent, in fact I’m poverty-struck, a collossal loser in this capitalist society run by this Brahmin Caste of Jews and employees of Jews.”

    Thanks teafoe2; that explains a lot.

  33. teafoe2 said on August 4th, 2010 at 12:20pm #

    de nada, davy boy:) But, pray tell, exactly what lot did my post explain to you? Would you care to expand on that? In the interests of clarity, so everybody can grasp how my post struck you?

    While I have your attention, lemme axe you a question about sthg you said minit ago:

    “After all, they are using the Lobby argument to avoid challenging the capitalist and militarist centers of power.”

    If I understand you correctly, the “they” you refer to are Walt/Mearsheimer and Wawro? At least “denotatively”, overtly? But you hope to nail Jeff and Petras as hypocritical because they ally themselves with writers who do not challenge the fundamental principles of the capitalist system or what you call “the militarist centers of power”. Am I right or wrong?

    If my reading is correct, apparently you neglected to read the post higher up on this thread by Patrick McNally, or if you did you failed to understand it?

  34. teafoe2 said on August 4th, 2010 at 1:00pm #

    Those who mischaracterize exposure and criticism of the Zionist Power Configuration’s US branch as being about “the lobby” are attempting to mislead the unwary.

    Yes, AIPAC, the illegality of its birth and its current criminal activities, are one important focus in the effort to expose and counter the ZPC. But the problem is much bigger than that.

    The truth is that at this point in history, the “capitalist and militarist centers of power” Dumb Dave refers to above have been incorporated into the Zionist power structure.

    Walt and Mearsheimer provide a lot of well-documented evidence for this, as does Petras. Lenni Brenner grasped the key facts relating to the socio-economic balance of power in the US back in the mid-eighties, in his book “Jews In America Today”. Pro-Isreal academics and sociologists corroborate Brenner’s view.

    Nobody in their right mind can look at the evidence of Zionist control of the US Congress and of the military and “foreign policy” (read Colonial Policy) functions of the Executive Branch without realizing that this is something that merits close investigation.

    A couple of these hasbara artists would have us believe that since the Isreal stooges embedded in the Exec Br. policy-making apparatus didn’t declare in the policy documents they authored “we hope this benefits the US but we’re really doing it for Israel” that it is proven that these operatives were not working for Israel all the time.

    If you believe that, please post your email address on this thread, I have a nice bridge I’ll sell you real cheap:)

  35. teafoe2 said on August 4th, 2010 at 1:15pm #

    Hey Davy, you haven’t answered my question:)

    Did you mean to say that since I’m old & poor I must be stupid?

    Or did my mention of the Brahmin Caste mislead you into telling yourself that I must be an “antisemite”?

    Well, while I’m awaiting your response, I wonder if you or any DV reader can name an important US public institution that is not either owned by or clearly controlled by Jews.

    Yes? Speak up, I can’t hear you:)

  36. teafoe2 said on August 4th, 2010 at 1:23pm #

    Caw caw, polly wanna antisemite. you zionists have been running that one on me since 1986. Anytime you’re confronted with information you can’t deal with you start hollering “antisemite”. same old same old, hohum.

    Do you dispute that the two pct of the US population that is Jewish totally dominates public life in this country? Does the fact that I notice it make me some kind of Nazi?

  37. teafoe2 said on August 4th, 2010 at 1:30pm #

    In answer to your question about “USFP”, it has already been answered in detail by Petras, Hatem Bazian, Kathy and the late Bill Christison among others too numerous to mention.

    If you want to refute one of them, Petras for instance, why don’t you post an excerpt from one of his books or articles, and explain why it is incorrect?

    Until you do that, I’m just going to operate on the same assumption regarding your “theses” that I do re this “Richey” clown: hohum, more pro-zionist hot air.

  38. Deadbeat said on August 4th, 2010 at 1:34pm #

    Mark Richey writes …

    I know these people don’t care what ordinary people think, but of course THIS IS REPULSIVE to ordinary people and guarantees the ‘movement’ will remain marginal and confined largely to liberal zionist slanderers and their mindless cheerleaders like Mary and Tefoe and Deadbeat and a couple of others.

    What is repulsive are poseurs like Mr. Richey corruption of the Left. I find it pathetic the way that Mr. Richey inverts his labeling but that’s the way Chomskyite smear campaigns work.

    However on the bright side it is a sign of fear from the Chomskyite Left that dominated the dialogue for 40 years. Thanks to the Internet and the changing environment the cracks are beginning to become obvious in the Chomskyite facade.

  39. mary said on August 4th, 2010 at 2:37pm #

    I was so pleased to be called a ‘cheerleader’ by Richie/Richey who couldn’t stand the heat and has said goodbye like many before him here.

    Yes I am proud to be in the fight for justice for the Palestinians and against those who lobby and shill for Israel who illegally occupy Palestinian land and oppress its people.

    These latest murders in Gaza aren’t even being reported by the state broadcaster. An e-mail to the BBC today from a medialens contributor –

    New paragraph added to email
    Posted by Keith on August 4, 2010, 7:51 pm, in reply to “Another Palestinian killed by Israel on Gaza’s side of the boundary -not even reported on by the BBC”

    Dear Steve Hermann et al

    I saw in the news today (4th August 2010) that another Palestinian has been killed by Israeli fire on the Palestinian side of the boundary. I did not see this reported by the BBC and notice that BBC online has no report on the killing; no mention that it was wholly on the Palestinian side of boundary, no mention of the buffer zone (‘killing zone’), no mention of the other Palestinians that Israel has killed recently, no mention at all.

    Have I somehow missed the BBC report, or is it not there because the BBC staff were too busy today; or are they waiting to collect some facts before reporting on this latest killing of Palestinians by Israel?

    The BBC acknowledges that it does not report every killing as and when it happens (BBC Online did not report the killing of a Palestinian Mother of five a few weeks ago), and the BBC does not report a count of the Palestinians killed by Israeli fire when it does bother to report on a killing. Therefore, some killings by Israeli fire appear to go totally unreported by the BBC – is that considered a satisfactory output?

    All the best.

    Keith

  40. Jeffrey Blankfort said on August 4th, 2010 at 4:18pm #

    David Green who has refused, like all of the Chomskyites starting with the head man, to debate me, wonders if ” whether JB subscribes to a “realist” view of USFP (M/W and Wawro), or one that challenges U.S. hegemony.” That question is just another indicator of Green’s political illiteracy. I judge the US and its action of the basis of its actions and the reality in which those actions are carried out, without the ideological filters that have led the Left to make its share of mistakes in the past. I judge the role of the Israel Lobby and the Jewish establishment on the basis of what it does or doesn’t do to project Israel’s interests before that of the United States as perceived by the ruling class as well as, whether or not correctly, by the majority of its people. Thus, while a stable Middle East that will continue to provide cheap oil to fuel US automobiles, is ultimately destructive of the environment and the planet, anything that serves to disrupt that stability would be described as not being in the national interest of either the ruling class or the majority of the population, as they perceive it. even though I and many others will not agree that maintaining our addiction to oil is in our national interest.

    I have argued and will continue to do so and will be willing to debate any one who chooses to do so, that Israel has historically worked to disrupt the stability of the region because it’s own perceived interests require that it play the role of an embattled Sparta, in which making war has become a national addiction and when the target is too large, getting America to do it, as we have seen in Iraq, and if they and their supporters in the US get their way, in Iran, as well.

    At some point in time, non-Jewish Americans will begin to catch on to their game, particularly as they have become increasingly up front about it and that, too, will work for the Jewish establishment since it historically considered anti-semitism as the glue that hold the Jewish community together, which makes Jews unique among minority groups but seems to be a symptom of what I consider to be a tribal sickness, a culture of victimhood which is uniquely Jewish, which was once exemplified by former PM Yitzhak Shamir who said that “the goyim imbibe antisemitism with their mother’s milk.” This is of course the kind of crap that is all to prevalent in the twisted world in which far too many Jews inhabit, which leads a David Green or a Jeremy Hammond to morph into an Alan Dershowitz or Abe Foxman at the first sign that Jews are being criticized for what they have done as Jews. For me there is fundamentally no difference between any of those four when it comes down to the nitty-gritty. Green and Hammond can write all the beautiful words they want about justice for Palestinians but when it comes down to people pointing a finger at who is ultimately responsible for the lack of that justice, they turn ugly and stupid.

  41. Jeremy R. Hammond said on August 4th, 2010 at 6:03pm #

    Jeffrey,

    If you agree Chomksy was referring to Fayyad’s efforts to construct the infrastructure of a de facto Palestinian state in saying he was implementing sensible policies, and if you agree Chomsky criticized the suppression of the Goldstone Report, and if you agree Chomsky does not support P.A. collusion with Israel, then why did you write:

    Chomsky … had also arranged to meet with Salam Fayyad, the unelected prime minister of the Palestine Authority and a favorite of both Washington and Israel and, it would appear, of Chomsky. … Unfortunately, Chomsky was not questioned about his support for the nation building priorities of the earlier Zionists nor if he considered the Palestine Authority’s endorsement of Israel’s blockade of Gaza, of its attempts to suppress a UN investigation of the Goldstone Report, and of the role played by its US-trained militia in protecting Israel, to be also “sensible and sound.”

    If you already know Chomsky’s position on those matters, why do you think it “unfortunate” he was not asked about them? If you already know Chomsky does not think that the P.A.’s collusion with Israel is “sensible and sound”, then why do you question whether he thinks it “sensible and sound”, thereby suggesting the possibility that this is the case, despite the fact that you know it’s not true, and despite the fact that you knew exactly what policy he WAS referring to in describing it as “sensible and sound”?

    It would seem an explanation is required.

  42. teafoe2 said on August 4th, 2010 at 6:15pm #

    Sincere leaders of the genuine, antiZioImperialist Left in the US face a unique challenge: since nearly all of these genuine leaders come from Jewish backgrounds, when a non-Jewish person essays to get involved in Left activity they can easily get the impression that they’ve just entered a synagogue. This is not because of any personal or political failings on the part of the Jewish activists; it’s just an inevitable result of a field being dominated by persons who share a particular background, which is not shared by the majority of the population of the society they want to “revolutionize”.

    You could compare it to the field of professional basketball, which is dominated by African Americans, so that aspiring European types entering the field are under pressure to learn African American customs/styles/speech patterns. Which may be good or bad. The difference between the basketball field and the left political field is that basketball players don’t need to attract more players to the game.

    In order for would be “revolutionaries” or “agents of change” to succeed in bringing about significant change in US government and Central Bank policies (to define the desired changes as narrowly as possible), they need to attract huge numbers of others to participate in the “social change” game.

    I submit that this will never happen as long as Left activity is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as “a Jewish thing”.
    I’m reminded of something Second City actor/director Del Close said when asked whether or not he was Jewish: “Anybody who has been in Show Business fifteen years is Jewish”.

    My own experience is that Leftwing Politics is even more a Jewish preserve than Show Biz.

    So it looks to me like the current crop of really knowledgeable and able leaders of most popular movements (excluding those defined as Black/Latino/Native Amercan Indan/AsianAmerican etc)are faced with the necessity to break their asses all their lives to create something, and then do their best to give it away, let it be taken over and really controlled by others. Others who may or may not just fuck it up. That risk seems to be unavoidable, inherent in the nature of the game from the jump.

    Any readers who find this theory of mine of interest might also find the history of the PSL and WWP of interest, that is the “Party of Socialist Liberation” and its parent org, the Workers World Party, both of which are major components of the ANSWER Coalition.

    In an oversimplified nutshell, it seems there were some African American “comrades” in the WWP who got the strange notion that since Affirmative Action was on the progressive agenda everywhere else, maybe it would be a good idea to institute a little AA in the upper echelons of “The Party”. It seems that the pro-AA faction gained the upper hand at the Party Conference, so those who had been occupying the top spots up to that point took the “To Hell With That” adjustment, exited from The Party taking their fundraising list with them, moved out to SF and reincarnated themselves as the PSL.

    Of course Richard Becker is as Italian as paddy’s pig, so I’m sure I have it all wrong and will in due course be corrected by somebody who knows The REST of the story:)

  43. Jeffrey Blankfort said on August 4th, 2010 at 6:29pm #

    Jeremy, I may be acquainted with Chomsky’s positions on various subjects but all those who listen to DN! are not. Hence, if he has serious differences with the PA on other issues he should have said as much, even if he did not identify all those issues. He has all the time he wants to that program and yet I have not heard him do that, to discuss, for example,the Vichy militia which protects Fayyad while ignoring Israeli attacks against West Bank Palestinians. In fact, the issue of the legitimacy or lack of same by the PA is so important that it is inexcusable that he didn’t say a critical word about the PA. Did you get that, inexcusable.

    Now, how about answering the question I asked you, or do you need it in CAPs. Did you grow up in a Zionist household? I only ask that because your tenacity in defending Chomsky and attacking me is an indication of some mental deformation at an early age.

  44. teafoe2 said on August 4th, 2010 at 6:42pm #

    Hammond is still around? Still posting on DV, trying to wea… er, excuse me Kim, trying to salvage something from the wreckage of his ill-advised impulse to try to defend his hero from Jeff’s careful but penetrating criticism?

    Well whadddya know. Okay, he’s back. No help for it.

    One thing mystifies me: what’s this rap about a “de facto Palestinian state”? What Palestinians have come out in favor of this curious notion, other than Abbas & his fellow Fatah fakers?

    I wonder what Hammond and Guru mean by “sensible policies”: how can the proferring of bait be considered “sensible” from the fish’s point of view.

    Is it not abundantly clear, from Chomsky and acolytes words alone, that both are trying their best to enable sold-out Palestinian traitors to pass themselves of as leaders, as benefactors of the Palestinian public at large?

    That both are doing their best to lend legitimacy to the Izzy-installed puppet PA, and to undermine the credibility of the mainstream BDS movement? To discourage people from participating in what Palestine civil society has been calling for since 2005?

    I myself find it increasingly hard to pretend to be “civil” to such creatures.

    Oh, yeah, Chomsky is supposed to be this great intellectual, this great leftist analyst of Imperialism & critic of Israeli excesses. I don’t buy it.

    To me, the fact that he was awarded the Dynamite Prize says nothing worth fussing over. After all, the same aristocratic Committee awarded the same prize to Obama and a bunch of other creepy fakes. My take on that is So What.

    Much is made of Prof. C’s supposed great contributions to the Linguistics field. Has anybody noticed that the whole field has wound up in the intellectual dustbin, having been replaced by more recent fads like Semiotics and Deconstruction?

  45. lichen said on August 4th, 2010 at 7:02pm #

    I’m glad Hammond is still here; he brings some sense to a place where often there is only blind black/white dogma.

  46. teafoe2 said on August 4th, 2010 at 7:24pm #

    But however the final score in the bourgeois intellectualism contest comes out, the focus here is on Politics, in particular Middle East politics, and on the politics of Empire Analysis in which ME politics is embedded.

    The popular myth is that Chomsky was the first to discover that there was a “dark side” to the
    noble experiment” the world’s Jews were carrying out in somebody else’s country, and that he was the first to discover that the US was the home territory of a worldwide empire. Yeah, right, and Columbus discovered America.

    The fact is that Chomsky only got around to dealing with these subjects in a serious way after international events had focussed attention on what others had been saying for years if not decades. The only reason Chomsky’s version got so much attention was that the ZioCapitalist topdogs knew he could be counted on to protect their interests in the clutch.

    Chomsky impressed a lot of petit bourgeois academics, who were horrified when the same facts were presented by Bolsheviks. It was the specter of waves of graduate students coming under the influence of Maoists like the Progressive Labor Party, or the Black Panthers, or Irwin Silber of the National Guardian, that frightened the upper echelons into giving Chomsky the go-ahead to articulate a lot of then-to-fore forbidden information.

    If Chomsky actually contributed anything to the publicly available knowledge about the Zionist Entity or Capitalist Imperialism, it consisted solely of filling in various minor details. The only thing new about his trip was that he was a recognized bourgeois scholar, which made it easy for US middle class cretins to accept what he presented as gospel.

    Others not so fearful of coldwar boogeymen had actually been daring enough to read what Ho Chi Minh and General Giap had to say about the reasons for the US invasion of Vietnam. Some of us had already run across Amilcar Cabral. Immanuel Wallerstein, Andre Gunder Frank and others had already published massive works contesting the conventional Marxist analysis of Imperialism. Baran and Sweezy had long before published a scholarly revision of previous Marxist explanations of the inner logic of capitalism.

    Neo-trostkyites like Perry Anderson had already built publishing empires. Ernest Mandel, Nicos Poulantzas, Ben Fine, Louis Althusser, Samir Amin were already household words in left academic circles.

    So who’s kidding who. Chomsky has never been more than a jonny-come-lately copycat. Every word of his I’ve ever read or heard him intone on Democracy Now I’d already heard somewhere else. He has added not a damn thing to my understanding of Imperialism or of Zionism. And I understand both well enough to be able to predict what’s coming next as well as anybody I’ve run across.

    Now this Nitzan & Bichler, they’ve come up with something original. Don’t know that I like it, but it IS something new, something incorporating a degree of creativity.

    Which reminds me, I went and read a speech by David Harvey on the google page. VERY VERY impressive! Had me eating out of his hand… until I noticed he never mentioned Zionism or the US ZPC ONCE.

    Amazing, that a guy could get so much right, could cover the possibilities of the emergence of a popular resistance to the global War & Exploitation so comprehensively, in such detail, going into much more detail than Petras does in the recent article you can find here on DV. But here we go again, the long slow curve followed by the Fast Break. Well if you understand it, explain it to me please?

  47. Max Shields said on August 4th, 2010 at 8:04pm #

    teafoe2 I don’t know where you get the Chomsky myth regarding empire. The problem with the back and forth here is that (unless teafoe 2was here under another handle) you’ve missed a long running argument with Deadbeat. Whenever the word empire is mentioned, Deadbeat jumps in and calls who ever utters the E word, a Chomskyite. In simple terms, it is Deadbeat who believes and embraces the “myth”.

    For me and anyone who has read any history, Chomsky did not discover our “dark” side. He merely points to as have many others before and no doubt after Chomsky.

    But teafoe2 it is very difficult to understand your points. First, if Chomsky is so meaningless, than why have you blathered on about him for thousands of words (not to mention the hours you’re putting in on this subject…don’t you have to go some where…at least relieve yourself once in a while?)

    You set Chomsky up as if he’s single handedly holding all the cards to the Middle East and Peace and Love and Justice for ALL….

    And what’s the big to do? Well there are some “leftist” out there some dumb and blind that they listen and hang on to every one of Chomsky’s utterance and STOP any attempt at Palestinian justice…. This is such hyperbole only in this little world (and it is sad to see DV become so trite and tiny) could good and evil be so simplistically defined. There are the Super-Zionist that pop in and out and their counterparts the Super-Anti-Zionist that seem to be calling DV home…

    Boriiiiinnnnnnggggggg

  48. Jeremy R. Hammond said on August 4th, 2010 at 9:12pm #

    Jeffrey, your reply does not answer my question. If you knew Chomsky did not hold those views, why did you suggest otherwise? Yes, other readers/viewers may not be familiar with Chomsky’s views — but, as you just acknowledged, you are. Aren’t you really tacitly admitting here that you knew many readers would not be as familiar with Chomsky’s positions as you are, and therefore, by suggesting Chomsky holds views you know he does not, you could lead readers to drawing incorrect conclusions about him and his views? In what way is your doing so not intellectually dishonest?

    Still awaiting a reasonable explanation for why you suggested Chomsky possibly holds views you know he does not.

    As for your question, my family upbringing is both personal, and therefore something I am not inclined to discuss with people I don’t know or like, and irrelevant. If you’d like to ask me relevant questions not of a personal nature, I’d be happy to answer them. For instance, if you want to know my views, ask me about my views, but leave my family out of it.

  49. Jeremy R. Hammond said on August 4th, 2010 at 9:49pm #

    Kim wrote:

    Blankfort wishes to know whether Chomsky “considered the Palestine Authority’s endorsement of Israel’s blockade of Gaza, of its attempts to suppress a UN investigation of the Goldstone Report, and of the role played by its US-trained militia in protecting Israel.” [sic]

    Hammond says that Blankfort implies that Chomsky favors Fayyad. This is a straw man.

    It would seem Petersen would not have missed Blankfort’s clear implication had he not omitted Blankfort’s explicit statement that Chomsky apparently favors Fayyad, and had he not chosen to partially and improperly quote Blankfort’s further statement on the matter.

  50. Jeffrey Blankfort said on August 4th, 2010 at 10:20pm #

    Hammond, buddy boy, be like Chomsky, and tell us how about the Zionist household in which you grew up? Did you ever visit Israel or think about making aliyah.? You know how it is with names. Hammond could be Protestant, Quaker, Methodist, Catholic, or, in this case, I suspect Jewish. And why? It seems that only Jews, thus far, have become hysterical over my critique of Chomsky which will come back to haunt them when they wish people to take them seriously. Now you like any number of Jews on the Left may be think that being Jewish is irrelvant, that the fact that the administration has been penetrated a score of pro-Israel Jews is not to be discussed in Jewish terms, that the majority of neocons including the founders of the movement are Jews is, we are told irrelevant. Being Jewish is only important when you do something positive as, of course, many Jews have done. But saying or pretending that being Jewish is irrelevant when it comes to dealing with any aspect of the Israel-Palestine conflict is the same as saying that when it comes to black-white relations, the color of one’s skin is also irrelevant. So tell us about yourself, Jeremy. What are you trying to hide?

  51. Jeremy R. Hammond said on August 4th, 2010 at 11:03pm #

    Jeffrey, your refusal to explain for readers why you suggested Chomsky possibly holds views you know perfectly well he doesn’t hold, and how doing so is not intellectually dishonest is instructive — as is your attempt to distract attention away from your having done so, particularly by means of suggesting that I’m a Zionist Jew.

    As for my personal views and positions, anyone who wants to know them can read about them, or ask me about them. I hardly “hide” them, but publicize them constantly, here at DV, at Foreign Policy Journal, at JeremyRHammond.com, this month in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, and elsewhere. I’m happy to discuss them.

    Now, if you’d prefer not to know what my views are, but would rather make assumptions about them from a position of total ignorance, and then either assert or insinuate your assumptions as fact, by all means, carry on. It troubles me not one yod or one tittle, for your doing so simply proves my point as to your intellectual dishonesty and moral cowardice.

  52. Deadbeat said on August 5th, 2010 at 3:15am #

    Max Shields writes …

    Deadbeat jumps in and calls who ever utters the E word, a Chomskyite. In simple terms, it is Deadbeat who believes and embraces the “myth”.

    You mean “Evasive”, “Erroneous”, “Elusive”, “Egghead”? Those “E” words certainly seem to describe Chomskyism.

  53. Max Shields said on August 5th, 2010 at 4:11am #

    No Deadbeat, I mean the one you can’t seem to admit here: Empire. If Chomsky were not alive you’d have to invent him. You don’t care for Marx or Socialism these are just vapid words, mere pretexts for what irks you.

  54. PatrickSMcNally said on August 5th, 2010 at 5:49am #

    > If not, how might this effect the validity of their arguments about the Lobby?

    This mode of argument reflects a basic misconception here. What is significant about people like Mearsheimer, Walt and others like them is not whether or not “their arguments about the Lobby” are entirely accurate. What makes them important is that if Chomsky’s thesis is going to be taken seriously then evidence from sources like this should be at the center of it. Chomsky has repeatedly maintained that the USA began funding Israel hand-over-fist after the 1967 war because US policy-makers became persuaded that Israel was a strategic asset. Now if that claim is going to be taken in good faith, then it should be supported by evidence which comes directly from documents written by strategic planners, documents which show such strategists arguing in very cold, hard terms for Israel as a military outpost of some kind or other. Can anyone produce such documents?

    When approaching such an issue we should, of course, anticipate in advance that JINSA, WINEP and other Israel-promoting agencies have long been engaged in trying consciously promote such an Israel-as-strategic-asset view. Statements from Dick Cheney, a man who was given an award of recognition by JINSA as long ago as 1991 and has actually served on the advisory board of JINSA in the past, should be treated with a strong dosage of salt (if not actual disinfectant). With that in mind as an important qualifier, one may attempt to search through the available record for evidence in support of Chomsky’s thesis. So what is there?

    I don’t just mean this as a rhetorical trick. It really is the responsibility of Chomsky and any supporters whom he may have to produce real evidence in support of this Israel-as-strategic-asset thesis. Geoffrey Wawro is only significant because, were Chomsky’s thesis really true, then Wawro or others like him should be playing a primary role in advocating support for Israel. Wawro is an example of someone whose job it is to decide whether Israel really is a strategic asset or not, and therefore citations from if not Wawro then someone very similar should be at the center of any real argument for Chomsky’s view.

    What seems to be the modux operandi among Chomsky-groupies is that, when they’re not busy quoting phrases from JINSA-members like Cheney, they spend more time trying to give reasons why they think Israel should be viewed as a strategic asset. But that is not the same thing as demonstrating that real strategic planners somewhere sat down and decided that Israel must be supported as an asset. Instead these arguments take the form of arguing about how lucky all those nasty WASPs at the top should really feel to know that they have their great buddy Israel on their side. That is not the same as actually documenting that support for Israel ever came about from strategic concerns. It merely attempts to argue that support for Israel SHOULD have come about from strategic concerns. See the difference?

  55. DavidLGreen said on August 5th, 2010 at 8:23am #

    USFP is determined by a variety of economic, class, and ideological interests. It would seem that the burden would be on M/W etc. to show that support for Israel has represented ethnic apart from economic interests, and has damaged U.S. “interests” in the region apart from the usual damage that’s inevitably going to happen when you try to take from people what is theirs, control their lives, and kill them if they don’t cooperate. I’m sure all the 1960s documents are just fascinating in that regard. I’m sure it was all very complicated in terms of growing support for Israel vis a vis Arab politics, oil, etc. Certainly, Nixon’s choice to back Kissinger rather than Rogers prompted the October 1973 war and subsequent embargo. OK, these choices turned out badly, in a sense. But were they made pursuant to Lobby influence, and against U.S. “interests” as perceived by Kissinger, Nixon, etc.

    Those who propose the Lobby thesis have a very low bar for “proof,” and then expect others to do the work to prove or disprove their thesis. But when in 200 years have economic elites in this country ever consciously acted in opposition to their interests?

  56. Jeffrey Blankfort said on August 5th, 2010 at 8:57am #

    Frankly, Jeremy, I don’t really know what Chomsky believes. I have gone through all his books, and many of his writings dealing with US-Israel relations and he has distorted them in such a way that I have concluded that he must be either an idiot (which he is not) or intellectually dishonest which I believe he is. I have made the same conclusion about you. I did not ask or suggest that you were a Zionist. I asked if you had been raised, like Chomsky, in a Zionist household? You read the question but you refuse to answer which I find curious but not surprising. May I ask if you were raised in a Jewish household or is that prying into your personal life as well? If you don’t think that being Jewish has an impact on your feelings and approach to the Israel-Palestine issue you are being even a bigger clown than you have already shown yourself to be on this list and on Pulse not to mention your own self-promoting sites.

    What you have “cleverly” tried to do as turn attention away from the fact that CHOMSKY OPPOSES ANY KIND OF BOYCOTT, DIVESTMENT, AND SANCTIONS CAMPAIGN AGAINST ISRAEL. That was the main thrust of my article and why I consider him to be a liability to the Palestinian struggle and that position is consistent with his statements and writings over the years. That he can say about that “shitty little state” that “I am not a critic of Israel. I am a supporter of Israel,” only adds strength to my conclusion which you have attempted to dissipate by trying to put things into my article that I didn’t say. What are you are clearly trying to be is Chomsky’s lawyer because your client lacks the courage to take answer for himself. Can anyone imagine an icon such as Chomsky having said: “I am not a critic of South Africa. I am a supporter of South Africa?”

    Finally, do I have to paste in Israel Shahak’s telling criticisms of his friend Chomsky to show you that my opinion of him is not only unique but shared by his friends? And in responding, please do not forget to answer the question as to whether or not you are Jewish? This nonsense has gone too far without you having to identify where you are coming from. If I haven’t already mentioned it, I was raised in a Jewish non-Zionist household that became anti-Zionist as Israel’s crimes became more obvious to both my parents. How about yours?

  57. mary said on August 5th, 2010 at 9:31am #

    http://qumsiyeh.org/markrichey/

  58. PatrickSMcNally said on August 5th, 2010 at 9:52am #

    > It would seem that the burden would be on M/W etc. to show that support for Israel has represented ethnic apart from economic interests

    Actually, the burden is on Chomsky to provide some evidence that an assessment of Israel as a strategic asset has played some kind of role in bringing about support for Israel. The only thing which is fundamentally significant about Mearsheimer & Walt is that, if Chomsky’s thesis were assumed to be correct, then these are the types of people who should be leading the charge in support of Israel. But they’re not, nor is anyone else like them, and that’s all that’s significant here.

    > I’m sure all the 1960s documents are just fascinating in that regard.

    A lot of interesting stuff has turned up from the 1960s, but not much to really support Chomsky’s thesis.

    Eisenhower had demanded that England, France and Israel turn around from the invasion of Egypt in 1956. John Foster Dulles on February 11, 1957, urged that Israel should withdraw in conformity with UN resolutions. On February 19, Lyndon Johnson sent a letter to Dulles that was endorsed by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee which urged that the USA should oppose any UN sanctions against Israel. The next day Eisenhower broadcast a radio message where he warned that unless Israel withdrew in accord with UN resolutions, the UN would have no choice but to “exert pressure” and implied that the USA would support “United Nations pressure.” LBJ’s acting as a spokesman for Israel during these events bears the stamp of domestic politics, not foreign policy strategy.

    But the crisis in relations with Israel became even more severe when Kennedy took the Presidency. Andrew & Leslie Cockburn, DANGEROUS LIASON, or Seymour Hersh, THE SAMSON OPTION, have documented Kennedy’s political battles when trying to investigate Israel’s nuclear Dimona project. All of that came to an abrupt halt when LBJ gained the Presidency. There’s nothing to suggest that such a change was ever motivated by any strategic assessment made for LBJ by anyone in the Defense Department. It fits rather with the pro-Israel political stance which LBJ was already on record as having taken in 1957 against Eisenhower.

    > Certainly, Nixon’s choice to back Kissinger rather than Rogers prompted the October 1973 war and subsequent embargo.

    Nixon was working from the deck handed to him by LBJ. It was LBJ who had establsihed the “special relationship” between the US and Israel at the time of the Six-Day War and the USS Liberty incident. Most of Nixon’s bunglings on this score should be read as an attempt to sort out the cards handed to him. But there isn’t anything to suggest that Nixon himself advocated the view of Israel as a strategic asset.

    > Those who propose the Lobby thesis have a very low bar for “proof,”

    Mr. Pot, this is Sir Kettle:

    “I’m sure it was all very complicated in terms of growing support for Israel vis a vis Arab politics, oil, etc.”

    Talk about a low standard of proof. Where do you have a shred of evidence of “growing support for Israel vis a vis Arab politics, oil”? What’s clear is that LBJ had been a partisan sympathizer of Israel since 1957, long before the Six-Day War. After Eisenhower and then Kennedy had tried to restrain Israel, a pro-Israel Johnson came in and set up a “special relkationship” which was then handed to Nixon to deal with. No one has yet been able to trace any evidence of “growing support for Israel” related to strategic concerns.

  59. teafoe2 said on August 5th, 2010 at 10:43am #

    Mary: BINGO! Once more Mary supplies the knockout blow!

    I come to appreciate your work more and more. Thanks Again!

    Let me say that I didn’t have the detailed information Mary supplies about this “Richie” but without it was still able to arrive at the same conclusion other DV readers will come to after hitting the link she provided.

    I mention this for the benefit of those who may assume that since I don’t always provided detailed documentation to support my conclusions, I don’t know what I’m talking about. If you note my first reaction to something, nearly every time somebody else will post evidence corroborating my opinion.

    If this seems like a dubious proposition to you, try keeping score. And do share what you discover:)

  60. Josie Michel-Bruening said on August 5th, 2010 at 10:54am #

    This discussion is some how fascinating to me, although I am thinking that I waste my time when reading these comments.
    My impression is, despite of the mentioning of real facts it is not really about facts, as often in such sophisticated discussions it is about feelings, about old psychic injuries.
    I am certainly not grown up in a Jewish home, although, some of my ancestors may have been Jewish too.
    One of the first lessons in my education in educational sciences was: sanctions are no behavior models.
    By the way, South African Apartheid was not overturned by sanctions, but finally by their defeat in their war against ANC in Namibia and Angola, ask Nelson Mandela.
    In William Blum`s new Anti Empire Report one paragraph is entitled
    “USrael and Iran”, s.: http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer84.html .
    There is a symbiotic relation between the US and Israel, despite of the above mentioned differences between the former US administrations.
    Wouldn’t it be better, instead of blaming Noam Chomsky in this “playground” to unite in protesting against the lobbyism both are “profitting” from and trying to alarm public opinion referring to the threat of a new war against Iran? (Sorry for my poor English)

  61. teafoe2 said on August 5th, 2010 at 11:08am #

    Now for a little fun, let’s check out good ol’ Max?

    “teafoe2 I don’t know where you get the Chomsky myth regarding empire.” Max, didn’t you read any of the fulsome praise your pal Jeremy H has lavished on his here right here on this website? Were you too lazy to go to the Pulse Media site and read what that “Tarnopol” posted in his ill-considered attempt to defend The Great Man from Jeff Blankfort’s incisive criticism?

    Have you never encountered Z-Net? Michael Albert? The “Z” empire is one of the most read and most influential “left” information sources in existence, online or in hardcopy. The Nation also frequently cites Chomsky as an authority. Ditto Mother Jones, the Progressive, all the Social Democrat publications, writers published in the CC-DS Newsletters.

    I take it you’ve never run across Steven Zunes? Antonia Juhacz? Amy Goodman? All the proponents of the “War Fer Oil” propaganda line frequently cite Chomsky to back up the hype they’re peddling.

    Even Hugo Chavez has been fooled into thinking Chomsky is a friend to Bolivarian 21st Century Socialism. So it becomes incumbent on those who know better to try to pull Chavez’ Bolivarian coat.

    The entire world of Liberal Zionist journalism presents a view of Chomsky as this great pioneer of anti-Imperialist politics, when the truth is that he pioneered nothing but his own overblown reputation.

    Next:

  62. teafoe2 said on August 5th, 2010 at 11:21am #

    More “Fun with Max”: “But teafoe2 it is very difficult to understand your points.” hehe, can I help it if you’re a little dense?

    “if Chomsky is so meaningless, than why have you blathered on about him for thousands of words”

    Max, I just explained that. Chomsky is accepted by most observers as the most prestigious upholder of the “War For Oil” myth, and is certainly the most prestigious critic and enemy of the BDS movement who is not an open Zionist or Izzy government official. So he is a big roadblock standing in the way of progress, that needs to be moved aside so we can get on with the business of resisting this ZioImperialist war/occupation/exploitation machine, in a material way, not just rhetorically.
    Sometimes some of these Liberal Zionists talk a good game, but talk is cheap.

  63. teafoe2 said on August 5th, 2010 at 11:31am #

    BTW, “blather” is in the eye of the beholder. If you think something I posted here is counter to the facts, why don’t you post it as a quote and explain how and why it is false? Your pal Jeremy tries to do that, why don’t you try it too? Instead of blathering on about your longrunning frustration because Deadbeat keeps getting the better of you?

    TIP: I am NOT Deadbeat, and am not responsible for anything he says or omits, unless I specifically say that I agree with a specific point. In general, I would recommend to you and other DV readers to pay close attention to what Deadbeat has to say, even on matters about which I may have said I disagree with him. Sometimes I find later that there’s more to what he said than I first assumed, such as in the course of our dialog concerning Glen Ford and Howard Dean.

    I’m dismayed to see that in this week’s BAR there is no mention of Israel, Palestine or AIPAC/ZPC. Well, let’s see what the next issue contains, one swallow does not make a jump to conclusions?

    But I digress. If you have a beef with Deadbeat, Max, take it up with him. I don’t want to hear it.

  64. DavidLGreen said on August 5th, 2010 at 11:42am #

    “Talk about a low standard of proof. Where do you have a shred of evidence of “growing support for Israel vis a vis Arab politics, oil”? What’s clear is that LBJ had been a partisan sympathizer of Israel since 1957, long before the Six-Day War. After Eisenhower and then Kennedy had tried to restrain Israel, a pro-Israel Johnson came in and set up a “special relkationship” which was then handed to Nixon to deal with. No one has yet been able to trace any evidence of “growing support for Israel” related to strategic concerns.”

    When one goes beyond 1947 & Truman, etc., into the diplomatic/political/military events around 1956, 1967, 1973, etc., one finds much evidence of debate, uncertainty, conflict vis a vis Israel, etc. What one does not find is the intervention of the “Lobby.”

    For example, Noam Kochavi (Cold War History, November 2008), in a comprehensive 2008 account, writes;

    “public denunciation of Nixon was anathema to his superior. Rabin
    approached the Nixon issue from an importantly divergent vantage point. Upon his release from the army, this celebrated chief of staff of the 1967 war had surprised Prime Minister Levi Eshkol by his unorthodox request to serve as Israel’s ambassador to the United States. Once installed, Rabin did not cooperate closely with the Johnson administration or with the leaders of the American Jewish establishment and lobby. He also proved impatient with what he perceived as the Foreign Service’s cumbersome
    procedures and breeding of mediocre thinking (American as well as Israeli). These dispositions provided instant and lasting common ground between Rabin and the incoming administration. Moreover, Rabin had met both Nixon and Kissinger several times prior to 1969, finding common language with their realpolitik outlook on world affairs and their underlining of the Soviet threat.”

    It would be nice if, once in a while, those promoting the Lobby thesis would actually carefully look at the evidence, sorting out the Lobby from Israelis themselves, defining various considerations and interests, and how the events played out. What’s rarely left is a serious case that “the Lobby,” (which also isn’t carefully defined and delimited), is the ultimate determinant in decisions and outcomes.

  65. teafoe2 said on August 5th, 2010 at 11:54am #

    Josie,

    I read your post above with interest. I opened your link to the Blum Anti Empire story and read it. I found nothing I disagreed with, but nothing I could relate to the “differences of opinion” that have been appearing here and on Pulse Media about Chomsky’s influence.

    you say: “My impression is, despite of the mentioning of real facts it is not really about facts, as often in such sophisticated discussions it is about feelings, about old psychic injuries.”

    It is true, Josie, that in my own case, and I’m sure to some extent in Jeff’s, that having suffered many scurrilous attacks at the hands of Zionists over the years, there is a psychogical residue remaining from all the attempts at character assassination. I myself have been “jacked up”, accosted many times by Zionist fanatics and subjected to verbal abuse. One incident in particular has stayed with me: one day I was peacefully and silently standing near the temporary entrance to the state capitol, profferring leaflets advertising a talk by — wait a minute, I’ll get back because I think your take on this is important —

  66. teafoe2 said on August 5th, 2010 at 12:56pm #

    Josie, continued: …leaflets advertising a talk by Robert Fisk, when a well-dressed Zionist fanatic started berating me, calling me a Nazi, anti-Semite Fascist, scum of the earth, etc etc all in a loud voice, coming up right in my face. I retreated a few feet, he followed so I confronted him, got in HIS face & told him to go to hell and stop pestering me. Which seemed to discourage him; he broke off his tirade and went on into the Capitol.
    Then in about five minutes a sergeant of the Capitol Police came out and started threatening me that if I caused any more disturbance I’d be evicted from the capitol grounds, etc etc, blah blah.

    Which is just one of many incidents I could cite. Yes, this kind of stuff does stay with a person. It helps supply motivation to try to expose these Zionist phoneys whenever I have the chance. But the facts of the current situation are another matter. It doesn’t matter how I personally feel about various things; what matters is to have a correct view of the BDS campaign and of the critics of it, led by Dr Chomsky, aided and abetted by such as this Hammond and his ally “Tarnopol” whose screed you can read on Pulse.

    Later on you say:
    “One of the first lessons in my education in educational sciences was: sanctions are no behavior models.”

    I’m sorry, Josie, but I can’t make any sense out of “sanctions are no behavior models.” Could you please explain how that proposition applies to this political problem? Thanks:)

    Next you say:

    “By the way, South African Apartheid was not overturned by sanctions, but finally by their defeat in their war against ANC in Namibia and Angola, ask Nelson Mandela.”

    Josie, I have no problem with attributing the end of official Apartheid to the success of the armed struggle in Angola and Namibia. Other factors also played a role, such as the US defeat in Vietnam which left the US public unwilling to back a major US counterinsurgency in those countries. But I have no problem with what you said.

    I DO have a bit of a problem with your choice of Nelson Mandela as the final authority on the matter. Before I got involved in ME and I/P issues, my main political focus was for some years on the US movement in solidarity with the ANC led by TransAfrica and Randall Robinson. In those years I expended a lot of time and energy trying to oppose the influence of the PAC/Pan-African Congress on the US solidarity effort.

    Alas, while there was plenty wrong with the PAC leadership, in the end the ANC led by Mandela cut a deal, made a compromise with the South African capitalist ruling class, in which the aspects of Apartheid which most affected the Black, Colored and Indian small business and professional classes were abolished, and a new Black middleclass was allowed to occupy official posts hitherto denied them. But as I’m sure you realize, the material conditions facing the great mass of workingclass Blacks have not improved, and in fact have in many cases deteriorated.

    So I’d be cautious about citing Mandela as an authority for anything. The unfortunate fact is that he and Rev Tutu have been absorbed into and now form components of the racist globalized imperial state’s Ideological Hegemony apparatus. In which they play a role very similar to that played by Prof Chomsky with respect to Palestine and the ME.

    The Apartheid “security services” decided that Steve Biko had to be assassinated, and that Winnie Mandela should suffer character assassination and be sidelined.

    But Nelson has become an international celebrity.

  67. Deadbeat said on August 5th, 2010 at 1:01pm #

    Max Shield writes …

    Deadbeat jumps in and calls who ever utters the E word, a Chomskyite. In simple terms, it is Deadbeat who believes and embraces the “myth”.

    Same old out of context BS. But I’ll entertain it but I need you to contextualize your complaint. What “myth” are you accusing me of believing?

  68. PatrickSMcNally said on August 5th, 2010 at 1:03pm #

    > What one does not find is the intervention of the “Lobby.”

    This begins to run the risk of getting into a debate over the usage of the word “Lobby.” I realize that Petras has used the more elongated phrase “Zionist Power Configuration” in place of “Lobby.” I still employ the latter word as a shorthand however.

    It’s clear that there are organizations like AIPAC and the ADL which devote their attention to “lobbying” in the ordinary sense of meeting with politicians, organizing letter-writing campaigns and the like. Then there are groups like JINSA which has set itself apart from this ordinary type of lobbying and devoted itself to building a reputation of itself as a think-tank on national security affairs, while making sure to promote the Israel-as-strategic-asset-and-vital-ally thesis. JINSA’s job is not to pressure Congress but to make sure that pro-Israel advocates can reference a source-base of “strategic studies” for their arguments.

    Clearly Lyndon Johnson had a well-established record as a supporter of Israel long before the USS Liberty incident, and this accounts for his response to the 1967 events rather than any strategic assessment. LBJ’s connections are interesting since he was subsidized by Brown & Root which is a name that also turns up in discussions of Halliburton. But your prime interest seems to be in the Nixon years, as you’ve evoked them rather consistently.

    If the history of the US-Israel relationship were to be reduced to the Nixon years then there would be a coherent case to be made that this was just a strategic miscalculation. But that’s not a valid explanation in general. Just to recap what Nixon had to deal with, when Nixon had been VP for Eisenhower in the 1950s it was clear that Eisenhower was willing to stand up to Israel in order to driving Egypt into the Soviet sphere. By the time Nixon became POTUS the world had seen LBJ cover up for the attack on the USS Liberty while the Israeli victory in the Six-Day War had been publicized as a Cold War victory for the West against the USSR, thereby politicizing the Mideast issues in exactly the way that Eisenhower had wished to avoid when he demanded that Israel withdraw in 1957. Coming into office in 1969 Nixon encountered Yitzhak Rabin with a somewhat favorable impression.

    Nixon’s instincts were not altogether misplaced. Rabin was the Israeli equivalent of Jimmy Carter, and his assassination in 1995 made this point clear. At the time Nixon would have had some valid basis for hoping that a relationship built with Rabin would be directed towards more normal Cold War ends and would not simply serve parochial Israeli interests which ran orthogonal to Cold War priorities. Even there, however, it misrepresents things to ignore the context which LBJ left to Nixon.

    Nixon did not enter office and decide to break away from Eisenhower’s 1956-7 policy in favor of one which favored Israel. Nixon took office when the stance of the US on the international scene was already pointed in the Israel-as-ally direction, and Nixon thought that he could cultivate a working relationship with people like Rabin to create a more favorable outcome. Nixon was clearly wrong on that point, as Rabin’s assassination later showed. But if the whole subject of the US-Israel special relationship were reduced to the Nixon years then it would be easier to see how some might arrive at the view that strategic decisions underlay the whole dynamic.

  69. Deadbeat said on August 5th, 2010 at 1:14pm #

    Max Shield writes …

    No Deadbeat, I mean the one you can’t seem to admit here: Empire. If Chomsky were not alive you’d have to invent him. You don’t care for Marx or Socialism these are just vapid words, mere pretexts for what irks you.

    I thought about writing a long response but I’ll shorten it to one word written recursively.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

    I think that makes it clear.

  70. DavidLGreen said on August 5th, 2010 at 1:18pm #

    “Clearly Lyndon Johnson had a well-established record as a supporter of Israel long before the USS Liberty incident, and this accounts for his response to the 1967 events rather than any strategic assessment. LBJ’s connections are interesting since he was subsidized by Brown & Root which is a name that also turns up in discussions of Halliburton.”

    How does this contribute to the Lobby thesis?

  71. teafoe2 said on August 5th, 2010 at 1:33pm #

    Josie follows with this: “Wouldn’t it be better, instead of blaming Noam Chomsky in this “playground” to unite in protesting against the lobbyism both are “profitting” from and trying to alarm public opinion referring to the threat of a new war against Iran? (Sorry for my poor English)”.

    Well,Josie, I’m sorry that my limited education restricts me to discussing these matters solely in English. I’m sure I’d have a better view of things if I could read Arabic or Farsi, even Ivrit or French. But as things are I’ll try to do the best I can with what I’ve got. I hope you don’t have too much difficulty understanding me…?

    But I’m having big problems with your main point.

    You seem to be saying that BDS seems to you unimportant, therefore discussion of Chomsky’s opposition to it is a waste of time. I couldn’t disagree more.

    The reason why BDS is so important is more than just the injury it might do to Isreali economic interests. Of the three components, Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions, the imposition meaningful sanctions by the US government is extremely unlikely in the foreseeable future, so I see the “S” demand as the least significant of the three.

    An all-sided Boycott of Isreali business, academia, entertainers, sports figures, artists/writers will have some immediate effect on Israeli society, but the campaign in favor of such measures to be taken by the public at large, by “civil society”, has already engendered more discussion of Israel and the US/Izzy relationship than was evident previously.

    The same reasoning applies to Divestment: it is the discussion that the introduction of resolutions calling for Divestment from Israel and from companies doing business in Isreal before labor union conventions, Pension boards of directors, Academic Senates, NGO governing bodies, religious associations, and also some for-profit corporation board meetings, that promises to change the pro-Israel consensus which is the prevailing “conventional wisdom” among the US public at the grassroots level.

    The surfacing of BDS efforts like the campaign being waged by the Olympia WA Co-op is already affecting the political climate in the US. Anybody with a “progressive” reputation is lining up to get their name on the list of endorsers.

    So I disagree. I think BDS is the most important initiative to come along since Rosa Parks refused to obey the busdriver’s order to comply with Jim Crow rules & move to the back of the bus.

    I’m not a Palestinian or a Jew with guilt concerns. I’m a person who sees that the whole capitalist/militarist global “security” state has to be dismantled before Humanity can make any headway with the host of critical problems we face, including the fact that the natural environment is being trashed at an incredible rate every day.

    We have to somehow get rid of the bunch who are running things now and replace them with another bunch. Who may not be perfect but will at least slow the pace of the advancing Mass Extinction process.

    So first we need to take careful not of who it is exactly that is running things. We can’t depend on old formulas that may have been pretty reflective of reality in decades pase; we need to look at the problem with fresh eyes, but not throw the baby out with the bathwater by discarding everything that has been learned about this evil system by earlier generations of victims.

    Many many very smart people have come to see Chomsky as part of the existing system, “part of the scam”. The task before DV readers is to evaluate the evidence and decide for themselves the validity of the charges against Dr Chomsky, or the lack thereof.

    To try to ignore the question is in my opinion the height of irresponsibility.

    Regards,
    Teafoe:)

  72. PatrickSMcNally said on August 5th, 2010 at 1:40pm #

    Using the term “Lobby” or “Zionist Power Configuration” if you prefer, it’s obvious that it was an accredited servant of the ZPC who first established the “special relationship” in 1967. If you read Chomsky’s writings, his argument is that the 1967 war was what brought about the view of Israel as a strategic asset. At a time when the USA was bogged down in Vietnam and Arab states were exploring alliance with Moscow, the swift Israeli victory in 1967 emerged as a Cold War victory for the West against the USSR. This victory over Soviet-aligned states was so significant that it warranted burying the USS Liberty incident as a form of “thank uou” to Israel for winning the Six-Day War, and the later developments flowed from that. Such is Chomsky’s thesis (in case you’ve never read it).

    I think it’s pretty apparent how LBJ’s record as a supporter of Israel, a servant of the Lobby/ZPC or whichever term you prefer, has relevance here. Or did you mean the comment about Brown & Root? Like I said, it’s interesting to note that the same special interests which constructed LBJ are also the ones which made Dick Cheney. I doubt that it’s an accident that LBJ turned out to be the one leading the opposition to sanctions against Israel in 1957, establishing the special relationship while covering up the USS Liberty incident in 1967, while also noting that Cheney became part of the advisory board of JINSA. Brown & Root would definitely have been part of the Zionist Power Configuration, or “Lobby” if you will.

  73. Jeffrey Blankfort said on August 5th, 2010 at 2:01pm #

    For those who wish to read two books that explore the pro-Israel lobby from two different perspectives, I recommend Edward Tivnan’s “The Lobby and JJ Goldberg’s “Jewish Power,” and, of course, there is Paul Findley’s classic, They Dared to Speak Out.” More recently on specific issues such as the Israel-US Free Trade Agreement in which AIPAC and Israel, despite having stolen confidential proprietary documents from the US Trade Office triumphed over such major corporations as Monsanto and Dow Chemical that opposed it. See Grant Smith’s “Spy Trade” for that one.

    Moreover, Green’s icon, Chomsky never once mentions that (1) JFK supported the Palestinian right of return and has his UN rep reinforce that position two days before he was assassinated; 2) that JFK adamantly opposed Israel obtaining nuclear weapons and was outraged at Israel’s deceptions at Dimona and (3) that under Bobby, his Justice Dept. made a tireless and serious effort to get the American Zionist Council, AIPAC’s predecessor, to register as a Foreign Agent, which Smith has also documented with the help of declassified documents. All three of these issues presented red lines which Israel could not allow to be crossed.
    Needless to say, when LBJ came into office, surrounded by a bevy of Israel firsters, led by the notorious Abe Feinberg, who paid for Truman’s successful whistlestop tour in 1948, all three of these efforts on the part of the White House came to an end. David Green may be unaware of any of this, but Chomsky certainly is not and yet he has never to my knowledge ever mentioned any of the positions held by JFK which are reinforced by declassified documents available from Smith’s website or the National Archives. That is why I have come to consider Chomsky, whatever his motives, to have been an asset for Israel and David Green is doing his very best to follow in his footsteps. I pity anyone who has to clean up after them. At best, as with Hammond, you could attribute their misbegotten ways to the negative aspects of Jewish tribalism.

  74. DavidLGreen said on August 5th, 2010 at 2:51pm #

    “This victory over Soviet-aligned states was so significant that it warranted burying the USS Liberty incident as a form of “thank uou” to Israel for winning the Six-Day War, and the later developments flowed from that. Such is Chomsky’s thesis (in case you’ve never read it).”

    How does this support the thesis that the Lobby acts in contradiction to U.S. interests?

  75. DavidLGreen said on August 5th, 2010 at 2:54pm #

    “Moreover, Green’s icon, Chomsky never once mentions that (1) JFK supported the Palestinian right of return and has his UN rep reinforce that position two days before he was assassinated; 2) that JFK adamantly opposed Israel obtaining nuclear weapons and was outraged at Israel’s deceptions at Dimona and (3) that under Bobby, his Justice Dept. made a tireless and serious effort to get the American Zionist Council, AIPAC’s predecessor, to register as a Foreign Agent, which Smith has also documented with the help of declassified documents. All three of these issues presented red lines which Israel could not allow to be crossed.”

    What evidence can be brought to bear on why they were allowed to cross those lines?

  76. Josie Michel-Bruening said on August 5th, 2010 at 3:08pm #

    Thank you for responding me, Teafoe:), I think I have learned by this. And I do respect your feelings.
    And I will think your comment over.
    I didn’t want to say, however, that I would admire Nelson Mandela or looking at him at a person without flaws or would agree with the development in South Africa …
    Well, by now, it is midnight here.
    All the best to you.

  77. teafoe2 said on August 5th, 2010 at 3:08pm #

    David Green seems to have difficulty reading English. The question is not “why they were allowed to cross these lines” but how much the Israelis and the ZPC had to do with the JFK and RFK assassinations, and how much evidence there is for or against those possibilities.

    Patrick McNally, thanks for the details about LBJ and the mention of Brown & Root, also known as Kellogg Brown & Root or KBR. I wonder if you saw my comment about the relationship between KBR and sibling corporation Halliburton, and Lehman Brothers, who used to boast of its role in financing both.

  78. PatrickSMcNally said on August 5th, 2010 at 3:50pm #

    > How does this support the thesis that the Lobby acts in contradiction to U.S. interests?

    The sentence you quoted was just part of a summary of Chomsky’s views. Clearly Chomsky does not claim any such contradiction.

    > What evidence can be brought to bear on why they were allowed to cross those lines?

    I think you meant “what prevented the crossing of those lines?” A bullet in Dallas prevented the lines from being crossed, together with the fact that LBJ (unlike JFK) was a firm supporter of Israel.

  79. David Green said on August 5th, 2010 at 3:58pm #

    First, teafoe, forgive me, you’re absolutely correct.

    PSM: Again, (1) what evidence is there that the Lobby influenced LBJ to act in contradiction to U.S. strategic interests?
    (2) What evidence is there that against the wishes of JFK/RFK, the Lobby influenced the ability of Israel to “cross lines” in contradiction to U.S. strategic interests?

  80. PatrickSMcNally said on August 5th, 2010 at 4:17pm #

    > I wonder if you saw my comment about the relationship between KBR and sibling corporation Halliburton, and Lehman Brothers,

    Yes, I know ran across that somewhere on one of the pages.

  81. Jeffrey Blankfort said on August 5th, 2010 at 4:19pm #

    I was also puzzled by David Green’s real agenda before this but his response to my post (post and response below) is somewhat mind boggling:

    #

    DavidLGreen said on August 5th, 2010 at 2:54pm #

    “Moreover, Green’s icon, Chomsky never once mentions that (1) JFK supported the Palestinian right of return and has his UN rep reinforce that position two days before he was assassinated; 2) that JFK adamantly opposed Israel obtaining nuclear weapons and was outraged at Israel’s deceptions at Dimona and (3) that under Bobby, his Justice Dept. made a tireless and serious effort to get the American Zionist Council, AIPAC’s predecessor, to register as a Foreign Agent, which Smith has also documented with the help of declassified documents. All three of these issues presented red lines which Israel could not allow to be crossed.”

    What evidence can be brought to bear on why they were allowed to cross those lines?

    The simple answer was a bullet in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. The problem O raised, however, was why Prof. Chomsky has never mentioned any of those conflicts that JFK had with Israel and its US agents, in fact in The Fateful Triangle, in a book purportedly written to explain the history US-Israel-Palestine relationship, that master of deception,THERE IS NOT A SINGLE REFERENCE TO JFK. Under the circumstances, referred to above, all well documented, how can you explain that, Mr. Green?

  82. PatrickSMcNally said on August 5th, 2010 at 4:40pm #

    > what evidence is there that the Lobby influenced LBJ to act in contradiction to U.S. strategic interests?

    Well the faact that LBJ was himself a long-running member of the Israel Lobby or Zionist Power Configuration means were not looking for any outside influences. We’re talking about a man with a record of actively opposing Eisenhower’s threats of sanctions against Israel in 1957 who came into office in 1963 and reversed all of JFK’s policies towards Israel, a man created by the same group which brought you Dick Cheney.

    > What evidence is there that against the wishes of JFK/RFK, the Lobby influenced the ability of Israel to “cross lines” in contradiction to U.S. strategic interests?

    I already mentioned some sources above on the Dimona crisis which JFK was involved in and which LBJ dropped the ball on. JB also mentioned a few some references of his own. But I probably should have mentioned L.M. Bloomfield, EGYPT, ISRAEL AND THE GULF OF AQABA IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, which describes the sequence of events where LBJ in 1957 organized the Senate Democratic opposition to Eisenhower’s threats of sanctions if Israel didn’t withdraw. From the sounds of things you seem to be adhering to an if-AIPAC-didn’t-tell-them-to-do-it-then-it-wasn’t-the-Israel-lobby approach. So even though LBJ organizing the Senate Democratic opposition to Eisenhower was probably more important than anything done by the ADL at that time, and even though LBJ was clearly not motivated by some view of Israel as a “strategic asset” when he did this, we can just write it out of the picture as “not related to the Israel lobby.” Whatever.

  83. lichen said on August 5th, 2010 at 5:17pm #

    Jeremy is right. It is pathetic and racist to insinuate that if someone doesn’t agree with you, they must be jewish. But yes, I’m sure people who randomly happen to have “jewish” ancestors would be a little bit annoyed at the conspiracy theorist people who go on about “world jewry” in order to excuse themselves as american christians and american christian politicians from acts which are 100% their crimes and which they should prosecuted for. People should be examined by their stated political views, and nothing else. There are also zionist muslims. I can see why teafoe/dan e and deadbeat idolize this blankfort person; they parrot each other perfectly in their deadbeat dogma and the fact that they love to hear themselves talk but don’t actually give a damn about the Palestinians.

  84. David Green said on August 5th, 2010 at 5:30pm #

    Jeffrey,

    Here is the quote from Wawro’s book regarding lines crossed during the JFK administration:

    “Although Kennedy balked at a formal security guarantee for Israel—fearing that it might prompt an equiv­a­lent guarantee from the Arab states and lead to World War III—Israel did receive critical hardware…” Or, “In an act of breath­tak­ing chutzpah, the first Hawks were installed around Israel’s nuclear weapons facility at Dimona, which the Kennedy admin­is­tra­tion staunchly opposed.”

    The argument you’re putting forth is that the Lobby was integral to these lines being crossed, and that the result was deleterious to U.S. interests in the Middle East.

    Again, what is your evidence for supporting this argument?

  85. David Green said on August 5th, 2010 at 5:35pm #

    Patrick, once again:

    What is your evidence that the determining influence in LBJ’s decisions was the influence of the Lobby? What is your evidence for the argument that these decisions were in contradiction to the U.S. interest (you might want to define what you mean by that, also)

    Again, what is your evidence that during the Kennedy administration, lines were crossed by Israel that would not have been crossed except for the influence or pressure of the Lobby. Again, what is your evidence that these lines being crossed undermined U.S. interests, however you choose to define that term.

    Thanks.

  86. JoeJ said on August 5th, 2010 at 5:54pm #

    Green what evidence is there that the Lobby influenced LBJ to act in contradiction to U.S. strategic interests? USS Liberty!

  87. David Green said on August 5th, 2010 at 6:16pm #

    JoeJ, what evidence is there that they didn’t strategically value our relationship with Israel more than the lives of those men, just like they valued the destruction of Vietnam over the lives of 58,000?

  88. PatrickSMcNally said on August 5th, 2010 at 6:30pm #

    > What is your evidence that the determining influence in LBJ’s decisions was the influence of the Lobby?

    One more time for the really slow people, LBJ was an established supporter of Israel since at least 1957 and there is no issue of having to guess about “did the Israel Lobby influence him?” That would be like asking if Cheney was ever influenced by JINSA when he sat on the advisory board.

    > what is your evidence that during the Kennedy administration, lines were crossed by Israel that would not have been crossed except for the influence or pressure of the Lobby.

    You seem to be making a point of mixing up a phrase which JB had used above when he stated that “these issues presented red lines which Israel could not allow to be crossed.” There he was referring to some lines which JFK had intended to cross, but which he was stopped in Dallas from doing.

    > Again, what is your evidence that these lines being crossed undermined U.S. interests

    Actually that’s your own term which I haven’t made use of at all. To introduce such terms would only obfuscate the issue. Most notions of “national interest” have been antiquated since about 1914 or so, but that’s neither here nor there as far as evaluating Chomsky’s thesis is concerned. It is Chomsky who has persistently maintained that the US-Israel “special relationship” was created because Israel’s performance in the 1967 war impressed strategists into believing that it was an asset. Everything else in US-Israel relations since 1967 has followed in Chomsky-land since that “strategic asset” view of Israel was formed. It is this thesis which does not come close to passing the smell test. Debating what “U.S. interests” should mean is beside the point.

  89. JoeJ said on August 5th, 2010 at 6:38pm #

    Green – world Jewry routinely insults our intelligence.

    Your statement shows no respect for us. Words count!

    JoeJ, what evidence is there that they didn’t strategically value our relationship with Israel more than the lives of those men (USS Liberty), just like they valued the destruction of Vietnam over the lives of 58,000?

    You are not a friend.

  90. David Green said on August 5th, 2010 at 6:38pm #

    Patrick, the quote from Wawro about lines that were crossed during the Kennedy administration is very clear. You still haven’t responded. How did they get away with it while Kennedy was alive?

    And still you haven’t offered any evidence on what influenced LBJ’s decision-making, other than defining him in essentialistic terms.

    Your analogy is strange. Do you really think that Cheney placed Israel’s interests above Halliburton and oil companies?

    Do you not think that those planning and deciding the foreign policies of this country don’t have some interests in mind of an economic or at least ideological nature? Do you not think that they, in various ways, represent the interests of elites? This would seem an important issue on something that calls itself “Dissident Voice.”

    And also, you might like to find out what it feels like to write something without insulting other people. You might like it. My insults to Blankfort in the article were intended and polemical. But if you’re going to “debate” the point, at least pretend to play by civilized rules.

  91. Max Shields said on August 5th, 2010 at 6:47pm #

    The answer to all this speculation is WE DON’T KNOW.

    We can conjecture about an event, but these are almost always symptoms of something which is extremely (if not impossible) to determine with accuracy.

    That is why this debate has fallen into blathering. We DON’T for instance KNOW that BSD would provide the outcome many want regarding Palestinian justice. Does that mean we shouldn’t try and see what happens? It depends on the risk. What could be the price paid to the very cause that many of us are in agreement on – Palestinian justice and right to return to their home land.

    Does Kim know that Chomsky is WRONG? That as a tactic BSD is a sure thing or could Chomsky have a point?

    When all one does is escalate the argument, much like the arms race, a certain pathological discourse begins to reach ever greater cresendos. And the truth is no one here knows. If you see Chomsky as a Zionist/Israeli Gatekeeper you stop listening to anything he has to say. All filters through that prism. Perhaps he does “care” about the people in Israel as well as the Palestinians. Is that possible without being a gatekeeper? But again, we put far too much emphasis on one man. Chomsky does not represent a movement (like Martin Luther King, or the revolutionary Simón Bolívar; nor is he the second coming of Theodor Herzl, father of Zionism).

    For some he may be a force, but what force really? Come on. This game of back and forth “what evidence do you have” is nausiatingly redundant and pitiful on so many levels.

  92. PatrickSMcNally said on August 5th, 2010 at 6:49pm #

    > what evidence is there that they didn’t strategically value our relationship with Israel more than the lives of those men

    One natural piece of evidence is in the fact that Eisenhower had taken a firm stand in demanding that Israel withdraw in 1956-7, that JFK had been pushing for an investigation of Dimona until 1963, and that the 180 degree turn-around which involved covering up for the USS Liberty occurred under a President who had already established his record ten years earlier as a defender of Israel when he organized the Senate Democratic opposition against Eisenhower’s attempts to threaten sanctions to make Israel withdraw. Normal historical methodology would suggest that a logical explanation to consider here would be that the USS Liberty was covered up by a pro-Israel President.

    But you needn’t just leave it at that. This is where you can try looking for military studies to show that Israel was assessed as a real strategic asset by hard-nosed generals who didn’t mind blowing away a few Vietnamese villages but just thought that Israel was such a vital asset taht it had to backed up at all costs. Like I said before, the importance of Mearsheimer & Walt is not whether they are or are not correct.

    Their importance is simply in the fact that they are the types of people should be leading the charge to support Israel, if Chomsky is correct. To say that the event of the USS Liberty was covered up because somehow Israel was viewed as a strategic asset means nothing more or less than that people similar to Mearsheimer & Walt were the ones who demanded the cover-up. Who were they then?

  93. Deadbeat said on August 5th, 2010 at 6:59pm #

    I think former US Senator from South Dakota James Abourezk could add some perspective…

    … the pressure from the [former Vice President Hubert] Humphrey and [last West Virginia Senator Robert] Byrd camps was coming down heavy on the mostly undeclared senators. The liberal Democats, of course, liked Hubert Humphrey, as did I. But I also was aware that Hubert was the leader of the “Israeli Mafia,” as I called them, in the Senate. I did not want to see the strong supporters of Israel gain even more power in the Senate.

    Encounters With Sen. Robert C. Byrd: A Liberal, But With Guts

  94. David Green said on August 5th, 2010 at 7:04pm #

    Patrick, you pile on circumstantial evidence pretty high. Eisenhower et al. certainly had strategic reasons vis a vis the UK in 1956, well-documented. And he had strategic reasons for not trusting Nasser in spite of his ejection of Israel from Sinai.

    I’m sure there were generals who differed with out policies in the Middle East, and there certainly were those in Vietnam. But generals don’t decide these things, ultimately. So one has to keep coming back to the point of who does decide, how does it get decided, what influence did the Lobby have in those decisions other than it had already made a pod of Johnson.

    Israel’s show of force in 1967 was a pretty big morale lifter in this country, I can tell you. We were proud of their boys–as if they were Americans, as we were getting out butts kicked in Vietnam. There was some strategic value in that, in the eyes of some pretty powerful people, I’m sure. But finally you have to get back to Chomsky’s long-standing point about smashing Arab nationalism. And that’s not to mentione Israel’s role as a proxy in 3rd world conflicts.

    What is the value of 34 American lives in relation to that? Nothing, of course.

  95. teafoe2 said on August 5th, 2010 at 7:06pm #

    Once again for Dumb David, Halliburton has never been an “Oil company”. It is a company whose main business before it got its mitts into the DOD budget via VP Cheney and construction contracts in Iraq was supplying hardware to oil exploration companys. Not to “oil companies”, to exploration companies.

    Come on Dave, stop trying to con people by repeating MSM mythology. You keep people like Max mired in confusion.

  96. David Green said on August 5th, 2010 at 7:12pm #

    From Wikipedia:

    Halliburton (NYSE: HAL) is the world’s second largest [6] oilfield services corporation with operations in more than 70 countries. It has hundreds of subsidiaries, affiliates, branches, brands and divisions worldwide and employs over 50,000 people.[5]

    The company has its headquarters in the North Belt office in Houston, Texas, and in offices in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (opened March, 2007) where Chairman and CEO David J. Lesar works and resides, “to Focus [the] Company’s Eastern Hemisphere Growth.”[7] The company will remain incorporated in the United States.[8][9][10]

    Halliburton’s major business segment is the Energy Services Group (ESG). ESG provides technical products and services for petroleum and natural gas exploration and production. Halliburton’s former subsidiary, KBR, is a major construction company of refineries, oil fields, pipelines, and chemical plants. Halliburton announced on April 5, 2007 that it had finally broken ties with KBR, which had been its contracting, engineering and construction unit as a part of the company for 44 years.[11]

  97. teafoe2 said on August 5th, 2010 at 7:15pm #

    David Green said on August 5th, 2010 at 7:04pm, blah blah.
    to which I can only say So What? or “you said that to say what?”

    None of what you said even if true means anything at all. hohum.

    Well, maybe to you Jewish Zionists the 1967 war really was a big “morale builder”, but to people who had been moved by the governmental mendacity re Vietnam to pay some attention to some of the more radical voices out there, such as the National Guardian, it didn’t “make us proud”.

  98. PatrickSMcNally said on August 5th, 2010 at 7:29pm #

    > the quote from Wawro

    I don’t wish to pretend to comment too much on a book which I’ve never seen. I referenced above a couple books which do go into substantive detail about JFK’s conflcits with Israel. I can’t really comment about what Wawro does or does not have to say. Andrew & Leslie Cockburn and Seymour Hersh in their books do an adequate job of covering JFK’s conflcits with Israel over Dimona. Regarding the merits of Waro, the only thing I could say with clarity is that Wawro is the type of author who should be supporting Israel if Chomsky’s Israel-as-strategic-asset thesis is correct.

    > Do you really think that Cheney placed Israel’s interests above Halliburton and oil companies?

    We’ve had to run through this multiple times until it reahced broken-record status, but for the sake of those who may not be familiar with the old threads let’s repeat again: Halliburton is what’s called an “oilfield services corporation” and as such should not be confused with generic “oil companies.” Halliburton does not involve itself in oil exploration to try to find new oilfields anywhere. The companies which do such activities evaluate what types of equipment they expect to need and then they pass those equipment orders on to Halliburton. Where Cheney involved himself in advocacy of war in Iraq he was not acting as a representative of the oil exploration industry. I’ve yet to find any evidence that those who were acting as such ever advocated the occupation of Iraq. Of course if you know of some evidence that Exxon-Mobil lobbied Bush for an invasion of Iraq then please let us hear about it. So far all of the known evidence suggests that they didn’t much like the idea but simply went along with taking contracts once it was clear that Bush was set upon the war. The Likudniks in Israel, on the other hand, as well the JINSA/PNAC groups which were closely connected to them and which Cheney was a part of, definitely did lobby for war in Iraq.

    > or at least ideological nature?

    Obviously LBJ’s empathy for Israel was ideological in nature. Ditto for most of those in JINSA/PNAC and the like. LBJ was ideologically committed to an I-support-Israel stance that accounts for why he opposed Eisenhower in 1957 and then later dumped Kennedy’s policies which sought to end Dimona.

    > Do you not think that they, in various ways, represent the interests of elites?

    Another play on words, perhaps? Of course the supporters of Israel represent elites. So did Lincoln and Davis. The point stands, however, that there is not merely a single uniformly defined elite (as Chomsky so often implies) but that real factional differences exist at the top which allow one to define at least two separate rival factions among the generic e’ites. One faction might be called the Bilderberg/Trilateral/CFR faction. The other might be called the JINSA/AIPAC/WINEP faction. Although Chomsky says very little to let his readers know that such divergences can actually exist at a deep level within elites, he does have a tendency to give average readers the sense that the Bild/Tri/CFR faction is really at fault at all times. He essentially erases the JAW faction from existence.

  99. teafoe2 said on August 5th, 2010 at 7:29pm #

    re your Wikipedia excerpt, that’s what I said, a company that supplies exploration equipment. NOT an “oil company”. A company which had a stake in the profits to be reaped by a greatly expanded US presence in the ME, but not one which has or which stands to profit from oil extracted from Iraqi fields.

    Tell us about a US based oil Extraction company which has benefited to a substantial degree from access to Iraqi oil since “Shock and Awe”.

    So Halliburton is doing well providing services & equipment to the Gulf regimes. What does that prove about the US invasion of Iraq being motivated by “oil interests”?

    Answer: absolutely nothing, because the whole propaganda snowjob was an Isreal/ZPC-motivated lie from the beginning, and still is. But keep trying, Max will get lonesome if you go away and leave him with nobody but Leachum for company:)

  100. Jeremy R. Hammond said on August 5th, 2010 at 7:43pm #

    Frankly, Jeremy, I don’t really know what Chomsky believes.

    Well, now, Jeffrey, you’re changing your story. You just acknowledged that you know that by “sensible and sound” policies Chomsky was referring to efforts to construct the infrastructure for a de facto Palestinian state, that you know Chomsky criticized the suppression of the Goldstone Report, and that you know Chomsky does not support P.A. collusion with Israel.

    So my question remains: Why did you say it was “unfortunate” he was not asked about these matters and then proceed to suggest the possibility that Chomsky held views you knew he did not?

    When you answer this simple question, Jeff, I’ll be happy to tell you whether I was raised in a Jewish household or not, if you are really so fascinated by my personal family history, which is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

  101. Deadbeat said on August 5th, 2010 at 7:45pm #

    Max Shields writes …

    We can conjecture about an event, but these are almost always symptoms of something which is extremely (if not impossible) to determine with accuracy.

    But isn’t conjecturing exactly what Chomsky has done for 40 years. Chomsky’s axioms are accepted as gospel and very rarely giving any scrutiny. It’s just that now the growth of Zionism’s influence and power is TOO obvious to hide or deflect. Essentially the growth of Zionist power and the ability for anti-Zionists to now sidestep the gatekeepers has usurped Chomsky’s abilities of disguising the problem.

    On the other hand pointing out pertinent FACTS (especially the facts about JFK) that has been LONG ignored is not conjecturing. It OPENS UP the ability to ASK QUESTIONS and demand further INVESTIGATION. Chomsky doesn’t do this. He condescends and dismisses out of hand such evidence and questions.

    Does Kim know that Chomsky is WRONG? That as a tactic BSD is a sure thing or could Chomsky have a point?

    History is our guide Max and the history of boycotts works. Chomsky supported the South African boycott. But since Chomsky in his own words supports Apartheid Israel he happens to be against BDS — which the Palestinians themselves have called for.

    When all one does is escalate the argument, much like the arms race, a certain pathological discourse begins to reach ever greater cresendos. And the truth is no one here knows. If you see Chomsky as a Zionist/Israeli Gatekeeper you stop listening to anything he has to say.

    No matter how much you try Max you cannot wash away what Chomsky has done to retard the Left and curtail solidarity these past 40 years. It”s not a simple matter of “walking away”. It is a matter of CONFRONTATION. That’s the crux of the problem Max with your simplistic rhetoric and answers to current day’s problems. You just want to “walk away” from it. Now you see that “walking away” doesn’t solve anything. All it does is maintain the status quo.

    All filters through that prism. Perhaps he does “care” about the people in Israel as well as the Palestinians. Is that possible without being a gatekeeper?

    Now look who is conjecturing. It is you Max. There is NOTHING to conjecture about Chomsky’s Zionism. He made that clear on Israeli TV — which BTW essentially VIOLATES the spirit of the BDS boycott.

    But again, we put far too much emphasis on one man. Chomsky does not represent a movement (like Martin Luther King, or the revolutionary Simón Bolívar; nor is he the second coming of Theodor Herzl, father of Zionism).

    I disagree with that analogy. Chomsky (and his late little bro Howard Zinn) was elevated to this status by the Liberal/Left Jews who pretty much run much of what is called “Alternative Media” in the United States for the past 40 – 50 years. A PROFESSED Zionist was anointed the Left’s intellectual leader and raised to iconic status. Movies, books, radio, etc. Chomsky is the face of the Left in the United States. In order to understand the retarded condition of the Left today one MUST start with an analysis Chomsky and Chomskyism. What this debate reveals is CORRUPTED and RETARDED nature of the American Left.

    The anti-war movement collapsed due to the Left. Not because of the Right. Not because of the Tea Party. Not due to the “traditional “villains” but by the so-called “exceptions to the rulers”.

  102. teafoe2 said on August 5th, 2010 at 7:46pm #

    I find it handy to refer to the rulingclass faction that P McN calls the Bilderberg/Trilateral/CFR faction as the “our sort” faction, since that is how members of that formerly dominant, primarily WASP social group used to describe themselves when desiring to distinguish members of their group from outsiders who showed up on Ivy League campuses and other once exclusive locales.

    “Our Sort” circles had their noses put out of joint in the mid-sixties when upwardly mobile Jews started showing up where their presence had previously been restricted to a “token” level. There was a period when the resentment at Radcliff, Byrn Mawr, Wellesley became so intense that the term “JAP” was coined, meaning “Jewish American Princess”, and bandied about in various ways until surfacing in mainstream publications.

    Needless to say, nobody would dare use such nomenclature within hearing range of an Ivy League campus today.

    I recite this history just to add to the evidence that a sea-change has occurred in the US rulingclass. No, “Our Sort” have not become extinct. But they are not the Top Dogs they once were.

  103. teafoe2 said on August 5th, 2010 at 8:02pm #

    J Hammond once again reveals that he has problems with English grammar. Consider: he posts the following quote from an earlier post by Jeff Blankfort:

    “Frankly, Jeremy, I don’t really know what Chomsky believes.”

    Next, Hammond launches into a word-twisting exercise: “Why did you… proceed to suggest the possibility that Chomsky held views you knew he did not?”

    How silly; Hammond wants us to believe that since Jeff didn’t claim to be able to read Chomsky’s mind, that Jeff therefore did positively KNOW what views Chomsky held. I think this is what they call a “non-sequitur”?

    Jeff has never made claims about what Chomsky did or did not THINK in his heart of hearts. The question is, what did Chomsky SAY. What did he actively and publicly support, and what did/does he oppose?

  104. Jeremy R. Hammond said on August 5th, 2010 at 8:15pm #

    teafo2, I would direct your attention to comments:

    * Jeremy R. Hammond said on August 4th, 2010 at 6:07am #
    *Jeffrey Blankfort said on August 4th, 2010 at 8:49am #

    It’s interesting you quote me selectively — you apparently missed the part where I said:

    Well, now, Jeffrey, you’re changing your story. You just acknowledged that you know that by “sensible and sound” policies Chomsky was referring to efforts to construct the infrastructure for a de facto Palestinian state, that you know Chomsky criticized the suppression of the Goldstone Report, and that you know Chomsky does not support P.A. collusion with Israel.

    See, the only “word-twiting exercise” is your own. As any reader may see and confirm for themselves, Jeffrey clearly acknowledged above that he knew what Chomsky was referring to, acknowledged that he knew Chomsky criticized the suppression of the Goldstone Report, and agreed that Chomsky does not support P.A. collusion with Israel.

    Yet in his article he suggested the possibility that Chomsky holds opposite views to those.

    So the obvious question is, if Jeff knew Chomsky didn’t hold those views, why did Jeff suggest otherwise?

    A further obvious question is, in what way is this not intellectual dishonesty?

    I still await Jeff’s explanation.

  105. Deadbeat said on August 5th, 2010 at 8:30pm #

    I see that Mr. Hammond took Jeffrey Blankfort’s remarks on August 5th, 2010 at 8:57am out of context. This is a typical tactic. Take a phrase or sentence out of context and inflate it to distort its intended meaning. I’ll put back the context to same Jeffrey some time.

    Frankly, Jeremy, I don’t really know what Chomsky believes. I have gone through all his books, and many of his writings dealing with US-Israel relations and he has distorted them in such a way that I have concluded that he must be either an idiot (which he is not) or intellectually dishonest which I believe he is. I have made the same conclusion about you. I did not ask or suggest that you were a Zionist. I asked if you had been raised, like Chomsky, in a Zionist household? You read the question but you refuse to answer which I find curious but not surprising. May I ask if you were raised in a Jewish household or is that prying into your personal life as well? If you don’t think that being Jewish has an impact on your feelings and approach to the Israel-Palestine issue you are being even a bigger clown than you have already shown yourself to be on this list and on Pulse not to mention your own self-promoting sites.

    What you have “cleverly” tried to do as turn attention away from the fact that CHOMSKY OPPOSES ANY KIND OF BOYCOTT, DIVESTMENT, AND SANCTIONS CAMPAIGN AGAINST ISRAEL. That was the main thrust of my article and why I consider him to be a liability to the Palestinian struggle and that position is consistent with his statements and writings over the years. That he can say about that “shitty little state” that “I am not a critic of Israel. I am a supporter of Israel,” only adds strength to my conclusion which you have attempted to dissipate by trying to put things into my article that I didn’t say. What are you are clearly trying to be is Chomsky’s lawyer because your client lacks the courage to take answer for himself. Can anyone imagine an icon such as Chomsky having said: “I am not a critic of South Africa. I am a supporter of South Africa?”

    Finally, do I have to paste in Israel Shahak’s telling criticisms of his friend Chomsky to show you that my opinion of him is not only unique but shared by his friends? And in responding, please do not forget to answer the question as to whether or not you are Jewish? This nonsense has gone too far without you having to identify where you are coming from. If I haven’t already mentioned it, I was raised in a Jewish non-Zionist household that became anti-Zionist as Israel’s crimes became more obvious to both my parents. How about yours?

  106. teafoe2 said on August 5th, 2010 at 8:37pm #

    To illustrate what Deadbeat points out in his excellently argued post above, I want to mention the current issue of Palestine Chronicle I found my Inbox this AM. It’s a pretty good online publication, and this issue was rich with a lot of articles I immediately wanted to read.

    One of particular interest to me was a report by Andrew Pollack on the recent United National Antiwar Conference, which contained the news that UFPJ has been dissolved, (hurrah, good riddance) and coverage of the fact that the Palestine issue had, over the objections of the USLAW delegate, been included in the basic document adopted by UNAC as the permanent body entrusted with carrying out Conference decisions will be known.

    But what is relevant here is the publications front page, which included a lengthy statement by Chomsky.

    In his article Pollack was effusive in support BDS and the Olympia Coop’s petition. But here on the front page was all this Chomsky-hype. Strange, no? A pro-Palestine publication promoting the image of one who has condemned BDS as “hypocritical”?

    I wrote to Editor Baroud expressing my mystification. I hope other DV readers will visit the Pal Chron site and see what I saw, and hopefully will be moved to contact the editors about it.

    It is exactly this kind of uncritical accepting of Chomsky as the “Face of the struggle for Palestinian Rights” that makes the mythology surrounding him such a problem for the US “antiwar” movement. As long as everybody keeps accepting this “war for oil” garbage as gospel, we’ll be stuck forever with these Liberal phonies leading the movement around the mulberry obama.

    Wel need to identify the persons, organizations and ideologies responsible for installing the Obama regime and for causing it to adopt its current fascistoid militarist policies of war and destruction. If you think he is responding to “oil interests”, then the burden is on you to supply the names of the individuals and orgs who have promoted such policies. And pointing to Cheney’s Halliburton connection won’t fly: his connection to Leo Strauss predates his job at Halliburton, and Halliburton itself, with or without KBR, is not a big enough player all by itself to determine US policy in any significant respect.

    No no no. All these characters, Chomsky, Hammond, Tarnopol, Green, all of them are simply trying to divert unwanted attention from the role of the US “Jewish Community” (sic) that now decides what US foreign and military policy the DOD and the State Dept plus “Intelligence Community” cum Executive Security industry will be ordered to implement. They’re all State of Israel assets, wittingly or not.

  107. Jeremy R. Hammond said on August 5th, 2010 at 9:58pm #

    The fact remains that Jeffrey acknowledged that:

    (a) Chomsky was referring to Fayyad’s efforts to construct the infrastructure of a de facto Palestinian state in saying he was implementing sensible policies,

    (b) Chomsky criticized the suppression of the Goldstone Report,

    (c) Chomsky does not support P.A. collusion with Israel,

    So the obvious question is: Why did Jeffrey suggest in his article that Chomsky possibly holds views that Jeffrey knows Chomsky doesn’t hold?

    The further question also remains: How is this not intellectually dishonest?

    If Jeffrey, Deadbeat, teafoe2, or anyone else wishes to offer an explanation, I’m all ears.

    Cheers.

  108. Jeffrey Blankfort said on August 5th, 2010 at 11:22pm #

    Jeremy, I am not sure you are playing with a full deck. I might even say the same for the esteemed professor, but don’t play around with what I say which seems to be typical of the new and pernicious version of the Jewish Defense League to which it seems you and David Green belong.

    I did acknowledge that Chomsky has criticized the suppression of the Goldstone report. Is that a big deal? I have been unable to find any reference, however, to his criticizing the PA for its supporting of that suppression. If you have proof that he did you need to show it.

    I assumed that Chomsky does not support collusion with Israel but apparently I was giving him too much credit. In a July 26th interview on IOA, after my article came out, when asked about the PA, he said:

    “It is not our right or responsibility to lecture the Palestinian leadership on what they should do. That is up to the Palestinians to decide.” Wow, what ballsy statement! In any case, I have found no evidence that he has criticized the PA’s collusion with Israel. Unless you can find evidence that he has, I will assume that he has not.

    As for his statement on Democracy Now from which I quoted in my article, here’s the estimable Phil Weiss who has the guts and sense of reality that Chomsky lacks:

    Wrote Phil on his invaluable blog, Mondoweiss,” I’m just a journalist here. But, compare [Chomsky on Democracy Now] with Azmi Bishara saying, “Salam Fayyad’s plans for Palestine and the Palestinians are nought but a contrived folk festival where the occupied bow to their oppressors.” And Meron Benvenisti in the Guardian, calling the PA leaders “traitors to their own cause.”

    Frankly, Jeremy, you’d make a poor lawyer. Had you not written this post I would have not done the little research I did before answering. It provides me with more material for my next article and you’ll be in it and you can be sure I’ll give you credit . You should have done what your mother wanted and become a doctor.

  109. Jeremy R. Hammond said on August 5th, 2010 at 11:59pm #

    I did acknowledge that Chomsky has criticized the suppression of the Goldstone report. Is that a big deal?

    Yes, it is a big deal when you are intellectually dishonest. Aagain, Jeffrey, why did you suggest in your article the possibility that Chomsky thought the P.A.’s suppression of the Goldstone Report was “sound and sensible” when you knew he had criticized the suppression of the Goldstone report.

    If you think Chomsky thinks the P.A.’s collusion with Israel in suppressing the report are “sound and sensible”, it’s you who needs to provide evidence — which you’ll find is difficult to do, since none exists.

  110. hayate said on August 6th, 2010 at 1:41am #

    Kim Petersen

    Very well done deconstruction of hammond’s zionist hasbarat piece against Blankfort.

  111. Deadbeat said on August 6th, 2010 at 3:14am #

    teafoe2 writes

    One of particular interest to me was a report by Andrew Pollack on the recent United National Antiwar Conference, which contained the news that UFPJ has been dissolved, (hurrah, good riddance)

    UFPJ and Phyllis Bennis were instrumental in splitting the anti-war movement especially as ANSWER push the Israel/Palestine issue. UFPJ also supported the Anybody But Bush/pro-war Democrat John Kerry canard that was endorsed heavily by Howard Zinn, Norman Solomon of FAIR. Michael Albert and the Z-Mag Crowd, and the War for Oil Chomskyites. In the end the Left displayed its true colors — Jewish Supremacy aka ZIONISM.

    This was 2004 and there actions not only severely weakened the anti-war movement but discredited the Left creating the VACUUM for Barack Obama to drive a mac-truck through.

    The main reason why Obama is President today is due to not just Daily Koz and his shenanigans but primarily due to the Chomskyite Zionist LEFT for creating the political vacuum.

    UFPJ’s dissolution is great news.

  112. Deadbeat said on August 6th, 2010 at 3:24am #

    If anyone is being “intellectually dishonest” it’s Mr. Hammond. Chomsky’s on record on Israeli TV telling the interviewer that HE SUPPORTS ISRAEL. That’s speaks for itself. The other issues that Mr. Hammond argues are mundane compared to Chomsky’s own words.

  113. Max Shields said on August 6th, 2010 at 5:51am #

    Deadbeat you are an example of the wildness of these discussions. I, for example, disagree vehemently with Chomsky on the state of Israel – and I don’t think anyone has to split hairs to know that he has voiced preference for the so-called two-state solution. He has always been consistent that now that the “state” exists it would (in his opinion) be virtually impossible to dissolve it; hence the two-state is the feasible approach to reconciling Palestinian justice.

    I completely and utterly disagree with Chomsky’s assertion regarding two-state. There should not only be a right of return but the state of Israel should be dissolved, and, my sense is that with time it will. I say this both from an overall sense of justice and: 1) the region cannot adequately support two states given the growing population; 2) Israel would undermine it every step of the way as they have.

    I think Chomsky’s position on Israel is NOT a feasible position. Whether BDS could ever achieve a single regional entity or not is in question.

    It comes down to whether or not one thinks Chomsky is really that influential. I think debate on whether boycotting and disvesture would provide the hoped for outcome is fair. Throwing in Chomsky as a symbolic effigy and than using him as the entire argument is what is off base and misdirects the issues. Even if Chomsky has something to say, it is not about CHOMSKY.

  114. Max Shields said on August 6th, 2010 at 5:55am #

    Additionally, the reason why these “debates” become so heated is because hyperbole and name calling is so flagrant that it obfiscates every attempt at cogency.

    To disgree with Chomsky is not the issue. To disagree with him when he says day is day and night is night, is a demonstration of deep hypocracy.

  115. Jeremy R. Hammond said on August 6th, 2010 at 6:55am #

    Here is Chomsky’s “I regard myself as a supporter of Israel” remark in the crucial context Jeffrey, Deadbeat, teafoe2, et al, like to OMIT, in all their intellectual dishonesty:

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

  116. Max Shields said on August 6th, 2010 at 12:14pm #

    Deadbeat can you provide one way (aside from talking here to a handful of bloggers) you are filling any political voids?

    You’re blame is incessant. Your solutions are not about anything that creates but only that which seems to want to clear the decks and leave even bigger voids (a kind of a Marque de Sade minus the created talent).

    You should watch people some time. People don’t want to live in the kind of world that simply screams and shouts “It’s their fault!!!!” (Ok so the tea party might.) Granted it’s a whole lot tougher to do something than to lambast against relatively unknowns, and pretend this is some kind of “activism”. It isn’t; it is just the opposite.

  117. Deadbeat said on August 6th, 2010 at 3:55pm #

    Max Shields writes …

    Deadbeat you are an example of the wildness of these discussions.

    The “wildness” has to do with the interest in concealing awareness of the power American Jewish Zionism (AJZ), the Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC) and defending Chomskyism. It is reflective of the corruption of the Left and the many years people like Jeffrey Blankfort and Joesph Anderson were marginalize for speaking the truth about these power configurations which is something that you and the Chomskyites pretended to do.

    I, for example, disagree vehemently with Chomsky on the state of Israel – and I don’t think anyone has to split hairs to know that he has voiced preference for the so-called two-state solution. He has always been consistent that now that the “state” exists it would (in his opinion) be virtually impossible to dissolve it; hence the two-state is the feasible approach to reconciling Palestinian justice.

    Your rhetorical position Max is that you stand against Chomsky on Israel to buy yourself “credibility” yet stand WITH Chomsky and his bogus axiomatic use of “empire”. Why is that distinction important? Because the power of AJZ is real and influential to what you call the “empire”. Your use of “empire” like that of Chomsky and his ilk is designed to CONCEAL the power of AJZ.

    Your early postings Max gave you away. Your initial rhetorical attack on DV was that “little old” Israel could not possibly influence U.S. policy. That policy emanates from the U.S when at that time was not even the arguments. The argument that was being made was about the “Left’s” refusal to identify the obvious and growing influence on U.S. Middle East policy by Zionism. It was for this reason the anti-war movement was quashed by the Chomskyite Left.

    It comes down to whether or not one thinks Chomsky is really that influential. I think debate on whether boycotting and disvesture would provide the hoped for outcome is fair. Throwing in Chomsky as a symbolic effigy and than using him as the entire argument is what is off base and misdirects the issues. Even if Chomsky has something to say, it is not about CHOMSKY.

    Funny you should say that. Chomsky is appearing in yet another upcoming MOVIE. What you’ve been poorly trying to explain away Max is CHOMSKYISM and substituting axioms for analysis.

    The battleground is on the Left-wing of American Politics. If you are serious about helping the Palestinians you have to confront AJZ. Otherwise Max you are being duplicitous and duplicity is what best defines the American Left today under Chomskyism.

    And speaking of movies this goes right to the heart of PatrickSMcNally arguments. I recently saw the movie The American Ruling Class. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is prominently featured and identified as the center of ruling class influence . Not once does the movie featuring Barbara Ehrenreich, Doug Henwood, and Howard Zinn, ever mentions PNAC, AIPAC, JINSA and the ZPC as influencing policy. The movie was made in 2007 at the HEIGHT of the Bush Administration who were crawling with Zionist policy makers so we’re talking fairly recent.

    This is how PROPAGANDA and the “manufacturing of consent” works. Yet Gatekeeper Shields wants us to believe otherwise.

  118. Deadbeat said on August 6th, 2010 at 4:02pm #

    Max Shields writes …

    Deadbeat can you provide one way (aside from talking here to a handful of bloggers) you are filling any political voids?

    Yes Max. When I first appeared on DV there was very little discussion coming from any principled Marxist/leftist about Zionist influence on U.S. Middle East policy. Apparently DV has come a long way. Hopefully DV can remain in the vanguard of confronting American Jewish Zionism, the Zionist Power Configuration and the corruption of the Left.

    If the name DEADBEAT keeps you awake at night then I’ve made a HUGE contribution to the cause of filling the political vacuum.

  119. Jeremy R. Hammond said on August 6th, 2010 at 5:12pm #

    …the many years people like Jeffrey Blankfort … were marginalize for speaking the truth…

    Perhaps Blankfort has been “marginalized” for other reasons, such as for suggesting that Chomsky holds views Blankfort knows he doesn’t hold. For instance, when he suggests that Chomsky supported “the nation building priorities of the earlier Zionists” and viewed the P.A.’s endorsement of the blockade, suppression the Goldstone Report, and other collusion with Israel as “sound and sensible”, despite the fact that he knows Chomsky’s position on Zionism was actually opposition to the Jewish state and support for a binational solution (the one preferred by the Arabs themselves), that Chomsky criticized the suppression of the Goldstone Report, and that Chomsky otherwise does not view the P.A.’s collusion as “sound and sensible.”

    In other words, perhaps he’s marginalized not because he tells the truth, but because he is so dishonest.

  120. Deadbeat said on August 6th, 2010 at 5:32pm #

    Max Shields writes …

    You’re blame is incessant. Your solutions are not about anything that creates but only that which seems to want to clear the decks and leave even bigger voids (a kind of a Marque de Sade minus the created talent).

    If anyone is sadistic here is Chomsky whose specious call for a boycott of the U.S. in response to BDS is quite insipid and reactionary.

    You should watch people some time. People don’t want to live in the kind of world that simply screams and shouts “It’s their fault!!!!” (Ok so the tea party might.) Granted it’s a whole lot tougher to do something than to lambast against relatively unknowns, and pretend this is some kind of “activism”. It isn’t; it is just the opposite.

    More blah, blah. Max you think the readers here have short memories. You’ve been an advocate of neo-Malthusian remedies and have promoted such ideas on DV. I’ve called you and others out for promoting such cruel ideas. What is that if not “incessantly” assigning blame UNEQUALLY which is exactly what Chomsky is doing with his “boycott the U.S.” rhetoric. If that is not “sadistic” I don’t know what is. That is the apex of UNFAIRNESS and INJUSTICE which will only yield DISTRUST and retard solidarity.

    As I have written many times what defines the Left is adherence to core tenets: JUSTICE, FAIRNESS, EQUALITY and TRUST. That is what build solidarity which build movements that transforms society. The Left is weak because it has failed to adhere to its principles.

  121. Max Shields said on August 6th, 2010 at 6:40pm #

    Deadbeat you’re in your own world…when was the last time you saw a “Left” person? Full of meaningless labels and acting like you invented Justice, Fairness, Equality and Trust….all you need is a boogeyman…but you found one: Noam Chomsky! Lucky you.

  122. Deadbeat said on August 6th, 2010 at 9:03pm #

    Max Shields writes …

    Deadbeat you’re in your own world…when was the last time you saw a “Left” person?

    There are plenty of them Max if you know where to look. The problem is Max from your response is that since you are not a Leftist you have no idea where to look for how to find one. No matter Max you wouldn’t want to be around a Leftist anyway.

    Full of meaningless labels and acting like you invented Justice, Fairness, Equality and Trust….all you need is a boogeyman…but you found one: Noam Chomsky! Lucky you.

    Yes Max you expose your true self: Justice, Fairness, Equality and Trust are “meaningless labels” to you. No Max they are not labels those are TENETS. Clearly you and the Chomskyite Left choose not to adhere to those tenets and it helps explain why the Left is so weak and corrupted. It explains the void we see today.

    It’s amazing how you and Hammond defends an professed Zionist.

  123. Jeremy R. Hammond said on August 6th, 2010 at 9:42pm #

    Oh, yeah, on that point, here is Chomksy’s statement of being a self-professed Zionist in the crucial context Jeffrey, Deadbeat, teafoe2, et al, OMIT, in all their intellectual dishonesty:

    [In] the 1940s I was what was called a Zionist youth leader. But Zionism at that time included my own position, which was opposition to a Jewish state and a call for a binational settlement in the former Palestine. And I still held — one of the reasons I went to that specific kibbutz was that it was … the kibbutz organization which had indeed been opposed to a Jewish state up ’til 1948…. What I said was that I remain a Zionist in the sense of Zionism in the 1940s. Zionism has changed. That doesn’t mean my views have.

  124. teafoe2 said on August 7th, 2010 at 10:43am #

    On Aug 5th, David Green said: “It would seem that the burden would be on M/W etc. to show that support for Israel has represented ethnic apart from economic interests, and has damaged U.S. “interests” in the region…”.

    Huh? That’s exactly what M/W & Petras’ books and articles DID show. M/W in particular wrote their books and the long piece finally published by LRB to provide documentary evidence of the truth of exactly that proposition.

  125. teafoe2 said on August 7th, 2010 at 11:05am #

    Hammond charges “intellectual dishonesty”, then repeats Chomsky’s confession: “…I remain a Zionist in the sense of Zionism in the 1940.”

    I think somebody has already explained to Jeremy that Zionism has incorporated openly racist & colonialist ideology into its official statements since at least the 1897 Basel Conference. Herzl’s partner Max Nordau had been a notorious advocate of racialist ideas for years before allying with Herzl.

    Their whole concept was rooted in the same “Blut & Boden” worldview derived from Bismarck that Hitler based his call to German nationalism on.

    Are we expected to believe Chomsky was ignorant of all the history of racist measures to suppress Palestinian resistance to British colonialism and the Zionist plan to make Palestinians into second and third class residents of their own country?

    I’ve heard of “selective inattention”, but how could one who presents himself as a leading expert on the I/P issue fail to note the history of Zionist terrorism vs. the longtime overwhelming majority of Palestine Mandate residents?

    “Intellectual Dishonesty” my keister. Remove the log from your own m-f-ing eye.

  126. teafoe2 said on August 7th, 2010 at 11:20am #

    all defense of “Isreal”, of its ficticious “right to exist”, and all reference to it as something that should be “saved”, is Zionism, and anybody who engages in that kind of talk is a Zionist.

    And Zionism, as we all know, is still Racism, no matter what a cowed bunch of colonialist puppets say at the U.N. nowadays.

  127. Jeremy R. Hammond said on August 7th, 2010 at 6:37pm #

    When Chomsky says that he was a “Zionist”, he means he opposed the creation of a Jewish state and supported a binational settlement — the solution proposed and supported by the Arabs themselves.

    Saying he meant something else is intellectual dishonesty. Quoting him saying “I remain a Zionist in the sense of Zionism in the 1940” and yet again OMITTING his explanation of what that MEANS to him is intellectually dishonest.

  128. Angie Tibbs said on August 7th, 2010 at 7:20pm #

    Max Shields wrote: “Does Kim know that Chomsky is WRONG? That as a tactic BSD is a sure thing or could Chomsky have a point?”

    If the BSD were not attempted, how would anyone know if Mr. Chomsky is right or wrong, Mr. Shields? Mr. Chomsky disagrees with boycotts against Israel claiming, without any proof whatsoever, that they will harm the Palestinian people. Do you think, therefore, that because he has spoken that this is reason enough for boycotts et al to be abandoned?

    BDS has been the only tactic to date that has been producing results, and there has been no indication that the Palestinian people are suffering as a result of same.

    When Mr. Chomsky speaks out against a tactic that is working, one wonders why. When his followers attempt to explain and/or justify his statement (s), one wonders why.

    One also wonders why Mr. Chomsky hasn’t offered an alternative tactic..

    But then we remember that he “supports Israel”. He doesn’t need to say anything else, really, does he?

    It is also of interest that Mr. Chomsky has stated that “it is not our right or responsibility to lecture the Palestinian leadership on what they should do. That is up to the Palestinians to decide”.

    Mr. Chomsky, however, feels that it is perfectly acceptable for him to “lecture” the Palestinian people.

  129. Jeremy R. Hammond said on August 7th, 2010 at 10:54pm #

    But then we remember that he “supports Israel”.

    The full quote, in context:

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

    Look, if you people want to go on being ignorant and dishonest, that’s your choice. Clearly, facts don’t matter to you.

  130. Jeremy R. Hammond said on August 7th, 2010 at 10:55pm #

    Mr. Chomsky, however, feels that it is perfectly acceptable for him to “lecture” the Palestinian people.

    His criticism on that point is directed at Americans, not Palestinians. I’ve pointed out this fact repeatedly.

  131. Rowan Berkeley said on August 8th, 2010 at 2:52am #

    I think it’s rather symptomatic that when the occasional hapless non-Jew crosses your radar screens, none of you can be bothered to get his name right. It’s Mahmoud Abbas, a.k.a. Abu Mazen; not “Abbu Abbas”.

  132. Jeremy R. Hammond said on August 8th, 2010 at 7:10am #

    Let me ask you a simple question, Deadbeat. You keep repeating that Chomsky is a professed Zionist. So answer me this very simple question:

    Does Chomsky support a Jewish state or a binational state?

    You’ve been paying attention, so that should be a snap for you.

  133. Max Shields said on August 8th, 2010 at 8:45am #

    Angie Tibbs said on August 7th, 2010 at 7:20pm #

    Aside from the fact that you took what I said out of context to make your point, and that I’m not against a boycott of Israel, how do you know that BSD is working?

  134. Max Shields said on August 8th, 2010 at 8:54am #

    Deadbeat, the Obama cheer leader, you’re the ultimate cynic. More a dead Downbeat.

    My positions have not waivered for years, and I’ve posted them here repeatedly.

    Seems like there’s a handful of neozionists who have been off reading too many anti-Chomsky blogs and spouting their new found “information” on DV.

    These are quite disturbed “voices” who don’t care a wit about Palestinians.

    Mary I use to think you cared but apparently you’ve fallen in with, if we can’t help the Palestinians at least we can go to DV and post how much Chomsky is interfering with Palistinian liberation…or some such nonsense.

    Hit the street folks…DO SOMETHING!!!

  135. Rehmat said on August 8th, 2010 at 9:19am #

    Hi Jeremy, stop beating around the bush. Hear is from the horse-mouth: “I regard myself as a supporter of Israel”.

    Israeli Channel 2 News TV reporter conducted an interview with Dr. Noam Chomsky in Amman (Jordan) on May 23, 2010 after he was not allowed by Israeli authorities to travel to the West Bank to deliver a scheduled lecture at Birzeit college. In the interview, while he debunked Israeli claim that Chomsky is a “Self-Hating, Israel-Threatening (S.H.I.T)” Jew and restated his true relation with the Zionist entity: “I regard myself as a supporter of Israel” (watch the video below)…..

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/08/06/chomsky-i-regard-myself-as-a-supporter-of-israel/

  136. Angie Tibbs said on August 8th, 2010 at 9:21am #

    Mr. Hammond,

    The facts, as spoken by Chomsky, are clear. What is not clear is why you feel a need to interpret, explain, clarify, modify what the man said.

    Surely if his words were taken out of context, misquoted, misinterpreted, etc., he is quite capable of self-clarification?

    The BDS is a Palestinian-based campaign — not an American-based campaign. Are you stating that Americans should buy Israeli goods?

  137. Max Shields said on August 8th, 2010 at 9:32am #

    Rehmat said on August 8th, 2010 at 9:19am #

    Sounds like your quoted statements by Chomsky indicate just how much he is hated by the Israeli Zionists.

    It will never be enough for the DV neozionists like Deadbeat, et al. They get off on finding someone to blame for their own inaction.

  138. Jeffrey Blankfort said on August 8th, 2010 at 12:48pm #

    I have happily been away as well away from my computer for a couple of days and see that the Chomskyite version of the Jewish Defense League is still trying to salvage what they can from what they obviously believe is their hero’s diminished reputation since they are certainly not being paid by the word.

    Jeremy, if Chomsky has said it once, he has said it many times, that he is a zionist and that it has zionism that has changed, not him, and that while he still supports a bi-national state, he is believes two-states is the first step, and that he opposes the idea of a Jewish state. Are you with me this far? Good. He also says and has done so more than once, most recently in the Israeli TV interview, that after 1948 when Ben-Gurion, whose early speeches calling for Arab-Jewish cooperationn were sincere, declared the existence of the Jewish state of Israel, Israel’s legitimacy as a state like any other state was beyond questioning. (Are you still with me, or are your bowels beginning to quiver?) That means that when Chomsky says he supports Israel, irrespective of the harsh terms in which he frequently criticizes it, he really means it. He may say that he is a “true” supporter of Israel, and the 94% of the Jews who are Israelis and their supporters thoughout the world who cheered the assault on Gaza are not “true supporters,” but, WHEN, IN FACT, DID AN ISRAEL EVER EXIST THAT WOULD JUSTIFY HIS SUPPORT? He talks about the Zionism he knew in the 40s WHEN HE WAS TWELVE (12) YEARS OLD. Give me and everyone else a break. Do you really think Chomsky was an expert on what was happening within the Mapai when he was 12? He is under the delusion that the Zionists were never pushing for a Jewish state until the Judeocide by the Nazis despite ample evidence to the contrary, including the words of Nahum Goldmann, one of the original Zionist planners who said that had always been the goal but when Jews in Palestine were still a tiny minority, they obviously couldn’t talk in those terms. Chomsky has acknowledged Goldmann’s first hand experiences but still insists that he was wrong. Amazing, but true. As Israel Shahak put it Chomsky is “stubborn,” even to the point of denying history for the sake of maintaining his belief in a Zionism that was never more than a minority movement.

    Now, for my last word on Chomsky’s opposition to the BDS. Chomsky says it is hypocritical to support BDS against Israel and not the US. You interpret that to mean that he is saying that it is “hypocritical” for Americans to support BDS, and that he is not saying that to the Palestinians, that he is not telling the Palestinians to do anything. Right? Still with me? Again, with apologies to Joseph Anderson, what you are implying is DESPITE THE FACT THAT PALESTINIAN CIVIL SOCIETY HAS CALLED FOR BOYCOTT, SANCTIONS AND DIVESTMENT AGAINST ISRAEL, SUPPORTERS OF THE STRUGGLE FOR JUSTICE IN PALESTINE IN THE U.S. SHOULD TELL THEM, SORRY, BUT WE CAN’T SUPPORT YOU. OUR LEADER, NOAM CHOMSKY SAYS THAT WOULD BE ‘HYPOCRITICAL. WE HOPE YOU WILL UNDERSTAND OUR POSITION.” If that is not what you and Chomsky, are telling us, Hammond, what is it

  139. Max Shields said on August 8th, 2010 at 3:14pm #

    Jeffery, I know you’re trying to have it out with Jeremy, but who in the world is saying Chomsky is “OUR LEADER”? Do you think for one minute the likes of Joseph Anderson or Deadbeat are being pursuaded by this faux argument? They each have their agenda as do you. Do you think I am a Chomskyite because I find calling Chomsky a “leader” absurd”?

    Before you make Chomsky anything, first demonstrate that he has any real power? If you think that he is an equivocator because he doesn’t go as far as you’d like fine. So what? The Palestinians are still under the Israeli right-wing Zionist boot. You haven’t moved the issue one bit. And if Chomsky were to die tomorrow…what then? Do you think all will be better…snap of the fingers?

    This is a joke.

  140. Deadbeat said on August 8th, 2010 at 3:42pm #

    Max Shields writes …

    Deadbeat, the Obama cheer leader, you’re the ultimate cynic. More a dead Downbeat. My positions have not wavered for years, and I’ve posted them here repeatedly. Seems like there’s a handful of neozionists who have been off reading too many anti-Chomsky blogs and spouting their new found “information” on DV.

    These are quite disturbed “voices” who don’t care a wit about Palestinians.
    Mary I use to think you cared but apparently you’ve fallen in with, if we can’t help the Palestinians at least we can go to DV and post how much Chomsky is interfering with Palestinian liberation…or some such nonsense.

    Hit the street folks…DO SOMETHING!!!

    Obama “cheerleader” is a distortion. Obama is a Zionist. Let’s stay with reality.

    What Max seems to forget was that people did HIT THE STREETS in 2003 and wanted to support a REAL challenge to the Democrats through the Nader Campaign in 2004. Those goals were circumvented not by the Right but by the Left more specifically the Chomskyite Left.

    The reason why the Left is ineffective today has to do with the facets that Mr. Shields wants people to ignore — in true Chomskyite fashion. There is an attempted to reinvigorate the anti-war movement which occurred at the recent conference in Albany. They took a promising stance regarding ending all aid to Israel and supporting BDS. Therefore we are seeing what appears to be a break away from the positions held by Chomsky himself. Whether or not this will emerge into a more radical configuration remains to be seen but it is a hopeful start.

    In the meantime while that front is opening it doesn’t mean that other fronts should be cut off as Mr. Shields desires. This analysis about Chomsky, Chomskyism and Zionism won’t go away even if Israel was to miraculously change. What is true is that Zionism is not confined to Israel and Palestine. Zionism is NOT JUST a Palestinian problem. It is also an AMERICAN problem and is also being argued from an AMERICAN perspective.

    Should U.S. “zio-leaders” take the United States to war with Iran ALL Americans are AT RISK. Chomsky argues from the position that “U.S. Elites, Imperialism, Empire, Corporations” (each as an ambiguous institutional aggregate kind of like “government spending”) are the responsible parties which OBSCURES the underlying power configuration that is heavily Zionist influenced. His rhetoric misdirect activists by pointing them in the WRONG direction. Thus, Chomsky stifles the ability to CONFRONT this home grown problem the consequence of which means the ultimate blame is UNFAIRLY assigned to ALL American citizens

    The Chomskyite rhetoric is much like how the mainstream blame the current debt and budget crisis on working people in order to shift the blame and burden away from the rich. Why is it that Chomskyites can painstaking explain why Social Security “spending” was not responsible for the crisis? Why is it that Chomskyites can disambiguate the mainstream propaganda and provide us with useful analysis of the budget composition to help us derive INFORMED conclusions? But when it comes to the power behind U.S. policy Zionism is a taboo, censored, and “off limits” subject.

    It is the Chomskyite duplicity on this issue of the American Jewish Zionist Power Configuration (AJZPC) that breeds distrust and retards solidarity especially for people of color on the Left. They are NOT blind and can see through it and why they are most reluctant to organize with the white Left.

    They’ve witnessed how the AJZPC has quashed “hitting the streets”. The Albany conference did NOT address AJZPC and I don’t expect it ever will. Ignoring AJZPC, IMO, will leave a renewed anti-war movement still vulnerable to the gatekeepers and a repeat of 2003-2004.

    In the meantime this front is opened and Left-wing anti-Zionists anti-Capitalists should make the most of it.

  141. Max Shields said on August 8th, 2010 at 4:25pm #

    Good to see you’ve finally come around Deadbeat and are beginning to see Obama for what he is.

    “people did hit the street” in 2003 now that’s a big help. So does that mean its time to hit “Chomsky” the leader of da “people”? Speaking of Chomskyites, by the way, does Hugo Chavez qualify as a Chomskyite?

    Got a little black list going there Deadbeat?

    Could you define what you mean by “Left” Deadbeat? It get’s confusing.

    Could you let me know when ARE WE GOING to war with Iran? I’ve been hearing this for the past 8 years….what’s keeping Obama, shit he’s got us going in four wars so far. Maybe he’s waiting for Chomsky to kick the bucket.

    But seriously Deadbeat do you really care whether the USA goes to war with Iran? I haven’t heard you say much about Afghanistan or Iraq or Somalia or any other fly over drones or US/CIA death squads. Never hear a peep out of you about the innocents killed in Pakistan. I don’t even hear much from you regarding Palestinians. No, now that I think of it…it’s all about Chomsky and Jews and Zionism. I mean, ok, so I get some of that but where’s that great big JUSTICE you tout here. How do you FIGHT for JUSTICE Deadbeat. Tell us, please. By blogging here about Chomsky and Chomskyites?

  142. Hue Longer said on August 8th, 2010 at 5:13pm #

    Max,

    YOU ARE USING STRAW MAN AD HOMINEM!!!….DB also rails against Naomi Klein, Amy Goodman and Glen Ford…all FOUR of whom are the foremost figures on the Zionist payroll to keep liberal arts college students in the dark by running the “America is Bad” shield protecting their planet X masters. IT IS YOU WHO DOESN’T CARE ABOUT SOMALIA!!!

  143. Jeremy R. Hammond said on August 8th, 2010 at 6:23pm #

    @Rehmat,

    Here is the full quote, in the crucial context you, in all your intellectual dishonesty, deliberately omit:

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

    @Angie Tibbs,

    You have eyes. You can see for yourself Chomsky’s words are taken out of context by Jeffrey, Rehmat, Deadbeat, et al. Take the above quote. When Chomsky says he is “a supporter of Israel”, he means he opposes Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians — precisely the opposite of what Jeffrey, Rehmat, Deadbeat, et al would have you wrongly believe.

    @Jeffrey,

    Quote Chomsky where he ever said “Israel’s legitimacy as a state like any other state was beyond questioning”. As you know, Chomsky firmly and explicitly rejects that Israel has a “right to exist”.

    I don’t “interpret” Chomsky’s statements to mean that he is saying it is hypocritical for Americans to support BDS against Israel but not the U.S. As you know, that is what he’s said. “No interpretation necessary.” That it would be hypocritical to do so is a point of fact, by definition, not an opinion. What Chomsky is saying is that if Americans want to help Palestinians by such methods, they should boycott the U.S. and divest from U.S. corporations that materially support Israeli crimes.

    On Chomsky’s view of what Zionism was, you’ll notice he stated quite clearly that Zionism at that time “included” his position, which was opposition to a Jewish state and support for a binational state — the solution favored by the Arabs themselves. He does not say — as you suggest — that his view was the ONLY view of Zionism and therefore that there were not Zionists who wanted a Jewish state. It goes without saying that when he says his position included opposition to a Jewish state, that is an acknowledgment of the fact that other Zionists wanted a Jewish state.

    Now, please explain to us why you suggested that Chomsky holds views you know he doesn’t hold, such as your suggestion that he approves of the P.A.’s collaboration with Israel to suppress of the Goldstone Report.

  144. teafoe2 said on August 8th, 2010 at 7:53pm #

    Max Shields, thanks as ever for the comic relief:)

    Among the many who cite Chomsky as the number one US authority on the I/P struggle & AfPak etc, is the Palestine Chronicle. PC editor Ramsy Baroud is frequently published on a number of online sites including Counterpunch. Then there’s Zunes, Plitnick, Lerner, Klein, the UFPJ crowd, even the ANSWER honchae who may not mention Chomsky by name (or maybe they do time to time?) but parrot his version of what’s behind the “warontearer”.

    Come on, Max, you can’t pretend Chomsky doesn’t wield enormous influence. Why else would Nasrallah and Chavez disgrace themselves by meeting with him? If you’re still in doubt, try googling his name & see what comes up.

    Will his opposition to the BDS be a significant obstacle for it? Who knows. IMO his poohpoohing of the power of the ZPC is more dangerous.

    But the BDS is gathering momentum, just visit the Olympia Coop site (cosponsored by the Corrie family) and see first what well known figures have added their names to the Endorsers List, then go see how many of us humbler sorts have signed on.

    Angie T, that was a good one: “Are you saying that Americans should buy Israeli goods?” — ROTFL:)

  145. teafoe2 said on August 8th, 2010 at 8:08pm #

    Max Shields keeps hollering “Do Something! Do Something! Do something even if it’s wrong!”

    Sorry, Max, there used to be a lot of buyers for the Mindless Activism pitch but nowadays “been there done that”.

    Big herds of well-intentioned folks followed various Chomsky-worshipping parking meters “into the streets” in 2003, and most continued for years. But now a lot of us want to be sure that our efforts aren’t just reinforcing the Big Scam.

    And spare us all the insults about how lazy we are, etc etc. You have no knowledge of what other posters on DV do or have done besides post here, so stop pretending to have ESP.

  146. teafoe2 said on August 8th, 2010 at 8:11pm #

    El Saboteur posts: “When Chomsky says he is “a supporter of Israel”, he means he opposes Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians.”

    i.e., when he says White any fool should know that he means Black:)

  147. teafoe2 said on August 8th, 2010 at 8:15pm #

    el sabo quotes El Maximo: ” I think support for Israel should be support for policies which are for its benefit.”

    Only a zionist could say such a thing.

    Am I right or wrong.

  148. teafoe2 said on August 8th, 2010 at 8:22pm #

    Max, if Chomsky is as unimportant as you maintain, why do you suppose Hammond, Green et al expend so much time and energy defending him?

  149. Deadbeat said on August 8th, 2010 at 8:25pm #

    Hue Longer writes …

    DB also rails against Naomi Klein, Amy Goodman and Glen Ford…all FOUR of whom are the foremost figures on the Zionist payroll to keep liberal arts college students in the dark by running the “America is Bad” shield protecting their planet X masters.

    Hue can you provide me with some references to back up your claim that Glen Ford is on the Zionist payroll? Also what does “planet X” have to do with this discussion?

    thx

  150. Jeffrey Blankfort said on August 9th, 2010 at 12:21am #

    Folks, one of the biggest jokes is that perpetrated by Noam and the Chomskyites, the 2010 version of the Jewish Defense League, is the placing of any degree of importance about what Chomsky knew about Zionism in 1940 when he was TWELVE YEARS OLD.

  151. Jonas Rand said on August 9th, 2010 at 12:45am #

    In 1949, Noam Chomsky was 21 years old and turned 22 in December of that year (born 1928). He was literate from his youth, and wrote an essay on the fascist Generalissimo Franco’s forces and the fall of Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War when he was 10 years old. So it is indeed true that, while he was probably not very informed when he was 11 and 12 in 1940, he could well have been quite knowledgeable about Zionism when he was 17 in around 1946.

  152. mary said on August 9th, 2010 at 12:58am #

    In Memoriam – Tony Judt 1948-2010

    Tony Judt, a towering intellect, a moral giant, and a master of prose, has passed on. He did what only the greatest of thinkers do: he constantly evolved. More significantly, he never succumbed to orthodoxies, he was always on the edge. And that is what gave his writing its distinctive freshness. In his last years, he also outgrew his middle-of-the-road liberalism to adopt principled, at times radical, positions on war and capitalism. He fought successfully to erase the gap between passion and principle. The Zionism of his youth had led him to volunteer for the Israeli forces in 1967; he was disillusioned after realizing that the Israeli soldiers he worked with were ‘right-wing thugs with anti-Arab views’ or ‘just dumb idiots with guns.’

    Judt’s disenchantment turned him into one of the most courageous and eloquent critics of the Jewish State. But unlike some luminaries of the left, he also had the moral courage to re-examine his own easy assumptions. A year after his first public statement on Israel-Palestine, in which he had called for a two-state solution, Judt acknowledged its unviability and issued a call for a single binational state in Palestine.

    /……

    http://australiansforpalestine.com/27656

  153. Deadbeat said on August 9th, 2010 at 1:35am #

    Good to see you’ve finally come around Deadbeat and are beginning to see Obama for what he is.

    Yeah right Max. It’s not like my position haven’t been clear on Obama. I’m aware you never liked Obama. Good for you Max. However I offered NUANCED analysis of the Obama phenomenon rather than mere blind anger and disdain. You want to ignore that in order to score points.

    “people did hit the street” in 2003 now that’s a big help. So does that mean its time to hit “Chomsky” the leader of da “people”? Speaking of Chomskyites, by the way, does Hugo Chavez qualify as a Chomskyite?

    Hugo Chavez is not trying to MANIPULATE public option in order to obscure Zionism as practiced in the United States. He is in fact a supporter of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and we know that the Chomskyites supported regime change in Iran via the bogus “Green” Revolution.

    Again Max without too much repetition, the Chomskyite Left quashed the 2003 anti-war movement.

    Got a little black list going there Deadbeat?

    It is the Chomskyite Left that behave like McCarthyites.

    Could you define what you mean by “Left” Deadbeat? It get’s confusing.

    It is defined by what you rejected Max. Perhaps you’ve forgotten that you disregarded and ridiculed my enumeration of Left-wing tenets and you have yet to enumerate your own tenets. I still await your perspective of what it means to be a Leftist.

    Could you let me know when ARE WE GOING to war with Iran? I’ve been hearing this for the past 8 years….what’s keeping Obama, shit he’s got us going in four wars so far. Maybe he’s waiting for Chomsky to kick the bucket.

    Then you have nothing to worry about Max.

    But seriously Deadbeat do you really care whether the USA goes to war with Iran? I haven’t heard you say much about Afghanistan or Iraq or Somalia or any other fly over drones or US/CIA death squads. Never hear a peep out of you about the innocents killed in Pakistan. I don’t even hear much from you regarding Palestinians. No, now that I think of it…it’s all about Chomsky and Jews and Zionism. I mean, ok, so I get some of that but where’s that great big JUSTICE you tout here. How do you FIGHT for JUSTICE Deadbeat. Tell us, please. By blogging here about Chomsky and Chomskyites?

    I fight for truth, justice, fairness, and equality in the guise of Clark Kent, mild-manner poster for a great metropolitan website in a never ending battle of the deceptive rhetoric designed to mislead the great unwashed. When mild-mannered doesn’t cut it I become … DEADBEAT … scourge of the bullshitters, Chomskyites and pro-Capitalists!!!

  154. Max Shields said on August 9th, 2010 at 5:48am #

    Thank you Mary for the Tony Judt post. Truly a man of great intellect and courage.

  155. Jeffrey Blankfort said on August 9th, 2010 at 9:01am #

    Jeremy, you write:

    Quote Chomsky where he ever said “Israel’s legitimacy as a state like any other state was beyond questioning”. As you know, Chomsky firmly and explicitly rejects that Israel has a “right to exist”.

    BY NOW IT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS THAT EVERYONE KNOWS THE DIFFERENCE. ARE YOU TRYING TO INFER THAT CHOMSKY DOES NOT CONSIDER ISRAEL TO BE A LEGITIMATE STATE LIKE ANY OTHER?

    I don’t “interpret” Chomsky’s statements to mean that he is saying it is hypocritical for Americans to support BDS against Israel but not the U.S. As you know, that is what he’s said. “No interpretation necessary.” That it would be hypocritical to do so is a point of fact, by definition, not an opinion. What Chomsky is saying is that if Americans want to help Palestinians by such methods, they should boycott the U.S. and divest from U.S. corporations that materially support Israeli crimes.

    JB: Calling something “hypocritical” is an opinion, and never “a point of fact,” although some examples may seem to be so. This is not one of them. Here we see Chomsky creating another straw man since there is no inconsistency in boycotting US corporations that invest in Israel as well as boycotting Israel if that is what Chomsky means by boycotting the US, although, as usual, he is vague on such matters. The only thing we can be sure of is that CHOMSKY IS AGAINST BOYCOTTING ISRAEL and it appears to be under any circumstances. How would you define boycotting the US, as you think Chomsky conceives it, and how would you go about doing it? Are you doing it in your private life? Earlier you wrote that you would support the Palestinian call for BDS against Israel only if it included BDS against the US. Since the latter has not been called, we can assume that you are rejecting the Palestinian call for BDS against Israel.

    JH: On Chomsky’s view of what Zionism was, you’ll notice he stated quite clearly that Zionism at that time “included” his position, which was opposition to a Jewish state and support for a binational state — the solution favored by the Arabs themselves.

    JB: It included his position but almost only among the intellectuals not and not the decision makers and by 1946 the plans by the Jewish ethnic cleansers were already in the works. As for a bi-national state being “the solution favored by the Arabs themselves,” what Arabs is he speaking of and what evidence does he have to show that those in Palestine supported it?

  156. teafoe2 said on August 9th, 2010 at 1:26pm #

    jeff you said “infer” when I think you meant “imply”.

    sincerely,

    Grammar Nazi

  157. teafoe2 said on August 9th, 2010 at 2:02pm #

    Jeff, or anybody, it seems clear that “JH” is Hammond, but I can’t figure out who “JB” refers to. ??

  158. teafoe2 said on August 9th, 2010 at 6:21pm #

    Quote of the day: Needless to say, Israel ‘s occupation of Palestine was an act of rape from day-1, is an act of rape now , and will always be an act of rape. As such, Israel will have no legitimacy, neither today nor tomorrow, nor after a thousand years.
    Khaled Amayreh in his article titled: Holocaustabation from July 27, 2010

  159. Jeffrey Blankfort said on August 9th, 2010 at 6:48pm #

    Teafoe2, I’m JB. That was my choice instead of answering everything in CAPS. I have sad news for Chomsky and the Chomskyites including brothers Hammond and even Green. At an anti-war conference in NY with 850 attending, a resolution was passed that included the following text:

    – To endorse the call of Palestinian Civil Society, as expressed in its July, 2005 Call, signed by hundreds of Palestinian refugees, human rights and cultural organizations and unions, to support a world-wide campaign of “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel Until it Complies with International Law and Universal Principles of Human Rights”.

    http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=16174

    A new day has dawned!