Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Some musings of the great Noam Chomsky

Posted 7 years ago on March 14, 2012, 8:14 a.m. EST by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Noam sat down for a video recorded chat about Israel and the campaign to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel.Interesting stuff...

http://mostlykosher.blogspot.com/2011/09/noam-chomsky-on-bds-not-what-you-expect.html

Watch the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=H5hY-gffV0M#t=53s

from zero to 1:07 asked about the Palestinian right of return as upheld by international law. First objection he voices "destruction of Israel".

1:13 -1:26 "the hypocrisy rises to heaven you know it's a hundred times worse in the United States or England or other countries" Had this argument held during the international struggle against apartheid there would have been no boycott, no sanctions against South Africa.

1:35 "It's not a call from the Palestinian people, it's a call from groups who call themselves the Palestinian people"

1:58 - 2:16 "Even if it were, let's say it was.......... (Here Noam explains that he knows best what's good for the Palestinian people and for good measure what's best for the Somali people as well.)

2:28 "It's a gift to US and Israeli hardliners"

2:30 "They know perfectly well that there's not gonna be an implementation of the right to return."

International Law demands this implementation.

3:40 he tells us that the call for divestment from Israel is a mistake because it doesn't include a call for divestment from the United States- again with the hypocrisy accusation, again ridiculous and beside the point- the point is struggle against Israel!

I'd say this is really a silly argument on the chompster's part. By this logic, again, the campaign against South Africa was hypocritical. Occupying a Bank Of America but not a Citibank or Fed branch is also hypocritical- after all why should shareholders of one take a loss but not the others?

4:00 to 4:19- an interesting admission by the chompster. He was a professor at MIT which "took part" in the Vietnam war. One could find a lot about that and his own individual role (while he participated to some extent in protests against that war which was buttering his bread) if one wanted to thanks to the miracle of search engines, but no doubt you're not interested.

4:30- 4:40. BDS "could be attacked for pure anti Semitism, now unfortunately that was with justice."

52 Comments

52 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 7 years ago

I'm not seeing what the problem is.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

I'm not either.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 7 years ago

This looks more like an try to annihilate Chomsky anyway you can gig.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 7 years ago

ShubeLMorgan2 is just trying to destort what NC stands for. He has also linked to "9-11 Truth" concpiracy videos in the comments on my posts, so he might be into that as well.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

A few of these posters are simply throwing a hissy fit because Chomsky is taking a principled position different than theirs. They are so upset by the disagreement itself, they willfully refuse to even try to understand the reasons for that disagreement. They are like four year olds throwing a tantrum because they didn't get the candy they demanded, without understanding that the reason the candy was not given was because it will rot their teeth, not because Chomsky is being withholding. They accuse him of betraying their cause when he, at real harm to himself, has been their staunchest ally and supporter for the last 50 years, and all because he won't participate in their hurting themselves.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 7 years ago

Exactly.

NC explains pretty clear what the logic behind his opinions on this topic is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QINIKnQiMnY&feature=g-vrec&context=G2baa383RVAAAAAAAADA

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 7 years ago

Yeah, and I suspect there is a reason for that.

[-] 0 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 7 years ago

Chiming in with your zionist friends, ay?

[-] -1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 7 years ago

not surprised

[-] -1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 7 years ago

Not surprised.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 7 years ago

I'm all out of anything for the Palestinian cause.

Pick up some of his books so that you have a good idea of what his views are before you throw yourself into a tantrum.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 7 years ago

Wasn't it you who said on another thread that you disagree with Chomsky because he's too much a critic of Israel? It does not surprise me then that you are all for his opposition to BDS and to pointing to the power of the Israel Lobby.

Not every Jewish person is a zionist and not every zionist is Jewish. I do not know or care if you are Jewish I want to make that clear - There actually are Jewish Israelis who brave lawsuit and criminal prosecution to support BDS - but you are a zionist, a supporter of the state of Israel as an entity in which Jewish people have special rights and non Jewish people are either second class citizens or not citizens at all.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 7 years ago

Save it. You wouldn't recognize a Zionist if one came up kissed you and declared themselves to be a Zionist. But, yep, he is far more supportive of the Palestinian cause than I am at this point.

The Palestinians inside Israel were offered citizenship, those that declined did so because they refuse to recognize Israel. Guess what? They still receive benefits.

Israelis have to join the military. The Arabs don't. Israel said, we understand that this could be awkward so you don't have to do this if you don't want to. There are Arabs in the knesset.

Israel is diverse. There can be no division of Israel. There is no reason to divide it. When ever it is time to come to the table it is always concessions made on Israels side. Why is that?

You want an all or nothing approach? Fine. Nothing.

[-] 1 points by Dumpthechump (96) 7 years ago

Look at her first paragraph!

That, ShubeLMorgan2, is a honey-trap!

Like that which caught honest Mordecai Vanunu!

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 7 years ago

you are a zionist, a supporter of the state of Israel as an entity in which Jewish people have special rights and non Jewish people are either second class citizens or not citizens at all.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 7 years ago

That is a crock of shit. Sell that to somebody else.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 7 years ago

It's reality. Even your god Noam says so. that's the definition of "Jewish state." supporters of the "Jewish state" are zionists.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 7 years ago

Here is the reality: You are one of those people who is absolutely sure that there is a Zionist plot. Nutters.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 7 years ago

"Zionist plot?" Oh no! Zionists don't meet, make plans, take concerted actions to further their causes! Couldn't be!

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 7 years ago

Calling GirlFriday "a zionist, a supporter of the state of Israel as an entity in which Jewish people have special rights(...)" is just an awful thing to do. This is just another one of your increasing number of distortions and straw man statements - partially what you're being criticized for.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 7 years ago

I'm a bit surprised to see this website foremost Chomsky worshiper saying what you have said here "struggleforfreedom". Israel IS a state that affords special rights to Jews! How could anyone deny that?! That's why they call themselves "the Jewish state!" You so urgently need to defend Chomsky that you step in to side with a flat out unmistakable zionist to do so.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 7 years ago

Be as surprised as you want. You shouldn't be though, if you'd payed attention to where I stand politically.

I know that Israel is a state where jews are on many issues favored. The point is that I think that's wrong. States are power centers, thats bad enough, but power centers favoring a specific religion or ethnic group is just awful.

It's not that I'm defending NC, we just happen to have many of the same opinions, and I express my opinions here. I'm also not quite sure how NC stands on all these Middle-East issues in detail.

Why don't you present some counter-arguments instead of just attacking the person.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 7 years ago

I've presented Noam's musings on BDS and argued against them quite much as have others. There does come a point in time when it becomes clear that arguing is not going to change anyone's mind.

I'd just finish by summing up very briefly:

Chomsky opposed BDS because it challenges the legitimacy of the Israeli Jewish state (zionist entity). This is why he opposes most strongly Palestinian's lawful and legitimate right of return, which is the BDS demand that bothers him. He knows that upholding international law is the end of the Jewish privileged state of Israel and he doesn't like it. Yes,

A person who defends the Israeli Jewish state (zionist entity) can rightly be called a zionist. If that's a dirty word, well then, too bad.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 7 years ago

And again are you just presenting pure fabrications and straw men. You can continue this way if you want, but nobody's going to take anthing you say seriously if you do.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

I'm not sure that it is. Only anti-Zionists think Zionism is a slur. ZIonism has one meaning and one meaning only: support for the existence of a Jewish homeland. I, for one, am proud to called a Zionist.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 7 years ago

Zionism means (at least to most people) continued occupation because zionism is support for "The land of Israel" which goes beyond the 67 boarders.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

No, that is a modern and deliberate distortion of its definition. Most people call Stalin a Socialist. Does that make it true?

The definition of Zionism is simply the support of a Jewish state. In fact, that state could be in Nebraska. Anything else is an add-on, not part of its meaning at all. I happen to be against the occupation. But I am for the existence of the state of Israel.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 7 years ago

As a matter of fact young Noam Chomsky was affiliated with Hashomer Hatzair, Zionists claimed to support not a Jewish State but a "bi National" one in Palestine. What made him and them Zionists was their belief that Jews had a special right to come to Palestine not as mere immigrants or refugees, but to rule.

Of course Hashomer Hatzir supported boycott of Arab labor in this bi National dreamland, and once the fighting started they were the most ardent, fanatical ethnic cleansers of the Palestinians.

After this initial ethnic cleansing Noam was still considering moving to Israel with his wife. (While Palestinians born there were barred from returning to their homes).

http://ziomania.com/chomsky/chomsky.htm

[-] 1 points by Dumpthechump (96) 7 years ago

People are caught by how they are brought up. I am willing to give YOUNG Chomsky the benefit of the doubt when he first lived in Israel associated with Hashomer Hatzair - since he did leave for MIT.

However he has no excuse now, where the Zionist Lobby just hope that Palestinians will simply die off en masse from "local solutions" i.e. cutting off food deliveries across the Apartheid Wall as the settlers snap up all the agricultural areas of the Palestinians while the Palestinians starve to death as a "regrettable but uncorrectable side effect".

Furthermore, as the video reveals, Chomsky can't take the Reagan option either i.e. "What didn't the Chump know and when did he forget!"

Thank you ShubeLMorgan2 for highlighting these vital issues.

PS: Everyone needs to read Shlomo Sand's "The Invention of the Jewish People". Even Zionists will be given pause by this book!

[-] 2 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 7 years ago

Right, one shouldn't hold what Noam did during his younger days against him now providing he really renounced it which is missing. Lots of Zionists of course hate Noam because he has written about many of the crimes they have committed against the Palestinians. For that, some low level official didn't let him cross into Palestine, however the Israeli state realized it had made a mistake, that Noam is a dissident but a dissident from within the Zionist family and not at all bent on the abolishment of the Jewish only state.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

That has no relationship to my post. My post was about a definition. Yours is about Chomsky.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 7 years ago

A zionist who claims to support a bi national state not an exclusively Jewish one in Palestine.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

A zionist, by definition, is an advocate for a Jewish state. That's all it means. Period.

One can argue about the nature of that support, how it has worked out, whom it has benefitted or hurt, etc. But the definition remains the same.

[-] 0 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 7 years ago

Hashomer Hatzir, which is Noam's association with zionism, had of course advocated unlimited entry to Jews into Palestine and national rights for Jews as one of the two recognized nationalities of their dream land. They even, for a while, advocated right of return for Palestinians. No one at that time said or thought that Hashomer wasn't zionist. They turned out to be the most ferocious fighters against the Palestinians and before they faded into history they dropped their "bi national" pretenses, including Palestinian right of return.

Today Noam also upholds a Jewish state (Israel) and rejects Palestiniasn's right to return to their homes even though international law calls for just that. Noam maintains that Israel is a puppet regime of the US like El Salvador once was and that Israel and Israelis should not pay any consequences for their deeds, as they do those deeds in the role of puppet. Noam also maintains that the Israel Lobby, groups like AIPAC, are just another pressure group althoough they have politically humiliated and brought to heel Johnson, (remember the USS Liberty) Nixon, Bush One and apparently are working at breaking Obama in.

http://www.leftcurve.org/LC27WebPages/IsraelLobby.html

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

That's very interesting, but has nothing to do with the only thing I have addressed: the definition of Zionist. You seem to want to engage in a dialogue (or rather, monologue) that I am not involved with.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 7 years ago

I know that the term can have different meanings and have thru history had somewhat different meanings (that's why I wrote "at least to most people").

But even by using your definition, I still have to disagree. I am strongly against a state favoring a particular religion or ethnic group. I'm against a "jewish state" the same way I'm opposed to Norway or the U. S being a "christian state"

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 7 years ago
[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 7 years ago

I don't care who I disagree with.

There are lots of lies floating around about NC so please provide exact quote (and sources); or video and exact time.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 7 years ago

It's already been done so many times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=YCtYecGbQz8

Check out this video, especially from 3:55- 4:05.

"I don't regard myself as a critic of Israel, I regard myself as a supporter of Israel. The people who are harming Israel, I've said so many times, are the people claiming to support Israel."

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 7 years ago

I've seen this interview. I'm not sure if you've watched it thoroughly though. At 5.33 he says exactly what I advocated above...

I don't find anything controvercial about what he's saying in this interview. What exactly is he saying that you object to, and why do you think it's objectionable?

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 7 years ago

5:33. Yeah. Listen when tourists used to go to Times Square they'd see these card tables set up. Those who approached left twenty dollars or more poorer. The trick was not to listen to what the man was saying but to watch his hands. The core of Chomsky on Israel is:

1- Israel is but a mere puppet of the USA empire, not culpable for its own actions.

2- The Israel Lobby is but another of many pressure groups and does not deserve the attention of pro Palestinian forces. In fact, such attention is anti-Semitic.

3- BDS is hypocritical and anti-Semitic.

Sure, Noam was an adherent of Hashomer Hatzair. They were the last Zionist group to give up peddling the phony "bi national state" (a state in which Jews and Palestinians have national rights and others don't, and to which Jews from everywhere on earth could immigrate and become citizens.) He opposes the right of Palestinians to return to their homes, in spite of international law and plain decency. He opposes the Palestinian led BDS campaign which Israel itself considers a serious threat to its legitimacy in the most disrespectful and even hysterical terms.

It's as he is saying "I defend Israel's right to exist, but not as a Jewish state" and then goes ahead and fights tooth and nail to defend that very state by opposing the major Palestinian founded non violent initiative designed to press Israel to adhere to law and decency.

http://www.nytexaminer.com/2012/03/bloomberg-warns-bds-will-lead-to-massacres-as-park-slope-co-op-holds-initial-vote-on-boycott-tonight/

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

I wasn't addressing your agreement or disagreement, but only the definition. That definition has not changed because others have tried to distort it.

Israel is not a theocracy. It is a secular state whose existence provides a safe haven for a people, against whom the among the worst racial genocides in history was perpetrated, and were persecuted for centuries before that wherever they lived. It is the result of a downtrodden people's national liberation movement. It is not about religion, but it does protect those who wish to have the freedom to practice, or not practice it.

Denmark exists as a nation-state on the basis of people identifying with a particular culture and a particular language. It is no more a justification for separate national status than any other cultural identification.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 7 years ago

I never said you did.

I'm just saying that the definition have different meaning to different people and that it's often understood to include "The land of Israel" (including wikipedia, the norwegian encyclopedia and norwegian wikipedia etc)

I still don't think we should have power centers such as states, f.ex. favoring or even using the name of a specific religion or ethnic belonging. I am a libertarian socialist though, so I'm very sceptic to states in any way shape or form :)

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

Of COURSE it refers to the "land of Israel". What do you think the current Jewish homeland is? It does NOT, however, refer to the occupied territories, with are specifically outside of its borders.

A real problem with the right wing is their distortion of language. It is a ploy that allows them to distort ideas and manipulate emotions. I expect that of them, since they are, in view, pure evil. But I don't expect it of the left, and it is always a real disappointment - to say the least - when they use the same scurrilous tactics.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 7 years ago

"The Land of Israel" is the Biblical name for the territory roughly corresponding to the area encompassed by the Southern Levant, also known as Palestine, Canaan, Promised Land and the Holy Land.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Israel )

"But I don't expect it of the left, and it is always a real disappointment - to say the least - when they use the same scurrilous tactics"

I think we have to realize that "zionism" is thought of by many as including "The land of Israel" hence occupation. One can disagree with that definition but it's a fact at this point.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

Reply to post below:

There are not, in fact, "many" who believe the idea of Zionism refers to all the lands you listed. Those who do are a right wing, fundamentalist fringe. Their numbers are tiny, even within Israel, and are frankly not well liked there by most citizens. They are no more representative of mainstream Zionism than the Taliban is of mainstream Islam. Yet it is those extremists who are constantly being referred to by Anti-Zionists as the mainstream. It is this distortion I objected to about your post. Although it may not have been your distortion, you did cite it, and hence my objection.

Otherwise, I do think we largely agree.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

Reply to you post below: The "Land of Israel" is the common phrase denoting the State of Israel, chartered as a state by the United Nations. As a nation state brought into being by that United Nations, it is not an occupation, any more than Jordan (aka The Land of Jordan), which was created by that same organization is. Nation states recognized by the international community, whose official body is the United Nations, are not, by definition, occupations. The West Bank and Gaza are another matter, since that same international body has not recognized that to be a part of the State of Israel, nor should it be so recognized. Israel illegally occupies the West Bank and Gaza. It does not occupy ITSELF. It is a legal entity. Denmark does not occupy itself. The United States does not occupy itself, even though it originally stole the land from the native people here. Occupation is, by definition an unrecognized military annexation. No existing nation state that has been internationally legally recognized belongs to that category within its own borders.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 7 years ago

I brought up the phrase "The Land of Israel" because we were talking about zionism, in which i pointed out that many concider zionism to include the idea of "The Land of Israel" - the Biblical name for the territory roughly corresponding to the area encompassed by the Southern Levant, also known as Palestine, Canaan, Promised Land and the Holy Land.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Israel )

This was what was ment by "The Land of Israel". Maybe you misunderstood something.

I think we maybe agree. "The West Bank and Gaza are another matter, since that same international body has not recognized that to be a part of the State of Israel, nor should it be so recognized."

Agreed.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

"Land of Israel" is not "occupation". One is a nation state, the other a military occupation of a neighbor. Only if you define the existence of the State of Israel itself as an occupation in and of itself does your definition hold. I categorically reject such a definition, as does the United Nations - whose vote created the country along with Jordan, et al - and all international law.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 7 years ago

As mentioned, "The Land of Israel" is the Biblical name for the territory roughly corresponding to the area encompassed by the Southern Levant, also known as Palestine, Canaan, Promised Land and the Holy Land, so occupation of P necessarily goes along with it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Israel

Many regard this view to be a part of what's called "zionism"

[-] 0 points by Dumpthechump (96) 7 years ago

It is an occupation when there is an oppressed group - whether in the occupied territories or in the Israel of 1948 which enlarged its borders over what the UN delineated.

Other countries are occupiers too, the occupied are e.g. Native Americans, Australian Aborigines etc. In some cases the people have found redress, in other cases not. Israel however is a particularly severe offender as its religious-sanctioned rules forbid any resolution of the occupation whatsoever.

[-] 0 points by Secretariat (33) 7 years ago

""NATO is staging "Massacre of Christians in Syria by Muslims", by bringing Al Qaida and other radical Islamists to Syria, in order to initiate a war, where they can nuke Iran, give a lesson to rising China, control Middle East oil resources, and allow some people to print as much money as they wish by using petrodollars, so they can control the society and the world through their wealth and power. This will also allow capitalism to continue by breaking the Eastern and the Socialist spirituality which is growing around the world and which is the biggest threat to capitalist ruling elite. ""