The Cold War Between Washington and Tehran
The following is an excerpt from Noam Chomsky’s new book Interventions published by City Lights Books.
In the energy-rich Middle East, only two countries have failed to subordinate themselves to Washington’s basic demands: Iran and Syria. Accordingly both are enemies, Iran by far the more important.
As was the norm during the Cold War, resort to violence is regularly justified as a reaction to the malign influence of the main enemy, often on the flimsiest of pretexts. Unsurprisingly, as Bush sends more troops to Iraq, tales surface of Iranian interference in the internal affairs of Iraq-a country otherwise free from any foreign interference, on the tacit assumption that Washington rules the world.
In the Cold War-like mentality that prevails in Washington, Tehran is portrayed as the pinnacle in the so-called Shiite Crescent that stretches from Iran to Hezbollah in Lebanon, through Shiite southern Iraq and Syria. And again unsurprisingly, the “surge” in Iraq and escalation of threats and accusations against Iran is accompanied by grudging willingness to attend a conference of regional powers, with the agenda limited to Iraq-more narrowly, to attaining U.S. goals in Iraq.
Presumably this minimal gesture toward diplomacy is intended to allay the growing fears and anger elicited by Washington’s heightened aggressiveness, with forces deployed in position to attack Iran and regular provocations and threats.
For the United States, the primary issue in the Middle East has been and remains effective control of its unparalleled energy resources. Access is a secondary matter. Once the oil is on the seas it goes anywhere. Control is understood to be an instrument of global dominance.
Iranian influence in the “crescent” challenges U.S. control. By an accident of geography, the world’s major oil resources are in largely Shiite areas of the Middle East: southern Iraq, adjacent regions of Saudi Arabia and Iran, with some of the major reserves of natural gas as well. Washington’s worst nightmare would be a loose Shiite alliance controlling most of the world’s oil and independent of the United States.
Such a bloc, if it emerges, might even join the Asian Energy Security Grid and Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), based in China. Iran, which already had observer status, is to be admitted as a member of the SCO. The Hong Kong South China Morning Post reported in June 2006 that “Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stole the limelight at the annual meeting of the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation (SCO) by calling on the group to unite against other countries as his nation faces criticism over its nuclear programme.” The non-aligned movement meanwhile affirmed Iran’s “inalienable right” to pursue these programs, and the SCO (which includes the states of Central Asia) “called on the United States to set a deadline for the withdrawal of military installations from all member states.1
If the Bush planners bring that about, they will have seriously undermined the U.S. position of power in the world.
To Washington, Tehran’s principal offense has been its defiance, going back to the overthrow of the Shah in 1979 and the hostage crisis at the U.S. embassy. The grim U.S. role in Iran in earlier years is excised from history. In retribution for Iranian defiance, Washington quickly turned to support for Saddam Hussein’s aggression against Iran, which left hundreds of thousands dead and the country in ruins. Then came murderous sanctions, and under Bush, rejection of Iranian diplomatic efforts in favor of increasing threats of direct attack.
Last July (2006), Israel invaded Lebanon, the fifth invasion since 1978. As before, U.S. support for the aggression was a critical factor, the pretexts quickly collapse on inspection, and the consequences for the people of Lebanon are severe. Among the reasons for the U.S.-Israel invasion is that Hezbollah’s rockets could be a deterrent to a potential U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran.
Despite the saber-rattling, it is, I suspect, unlikely that the Bush administration will attack Iran. The world is strongly opposed. Seventy-five percent of Americans favor diplomacy over military threats against Iran, and as noted earlier, Americans and Iranians largely agree on nuclear issues. Polls by Terror Free Tomorrow reveal that “Despite a deep historical enmity between Iran’s Persian Shiite population and the predominantly Sunni population of its ethnically diverse Arab, Turkish and Pakistani neighbors, the largest percentage of people in these countries favor accepting a nuclear-armed Iran over any American military action.” It appears that the U.S. military and intelligence community is also opposed to an attack.
Iran cannot defend itself against U.S. attack, but it can respond in other ways, among them by inciting even more havoc in Iraq. Some issue warnings that are far more grave, among them by the respected British military historian Corelli Barnett, who writes that “an attack on Iran would effectively launch World War III.”
The Bush administration has left disasters almost everywhere it has turned, from post-Katrina New Orleans to Iraq. In desperation to salvage something, the administration might undertake the risk of even greater disasters.
Meanwhile Washington may be seeking to destabilize Iran from within.2 The ethnic mix in Iran is complex; much of the population isn’t Persian. There are secessionist tendencies and it is likely that Washington is trying to stir them up-in Khuzestan on the Gulf, for example, where Iran’s oil is concentrated, a region that is largely Arab, not Persian.
Threat escalation also serves to pressure others to join U.S. efforts to strangle Iran economically, with predictable success in Europe. Another predictable consequence, presumably intended, is to induce the Iranian leadership to be as harsh and repressive as possible, fomenting disorder and perhaps resistance while undermining efforts of courageous Iranian reformers, who are bitterly protesting Washington’s tactics. It is also necessary to demonize the leadership. In the West, any wild statement of Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, immediately gets circulated in headlines, dubiously translated. But as is well known, Ahmadinejad has no control over foreign policy, which is in the hands of his superior, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
The U.S. media tend to ignore Khamenei’s statements, especially if they are conciliatory. For example, it’s widely reported when Ahmadinejad says that Israel shouldn’t exist-but there is silence when Khamenei says that Iran “shares a common view with Arab countries on the most important Islamic-Arabic issue, namely the issue of Palestine,” which would appear to mean that Iran accepts the Arab League position: full normalization of relations with Israel in terms of the international consensus on a two-state settlement that the U.S. and Israel continue to resist, almost alone.3
The U.S. invasion of Iraq virtually instructed Iran to develop a nuclear deterrent. Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld writes that after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, “had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy.” The message of the invasion, loud and clear, was that the U.S. will attack at will, as long as the target is defenseless. Now Iran is ringed by U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey and the Persian Gulf and close by are nuclear-armed Pakistan and particularly Israel, the regional superpower, thanks to U.S. support.
As already discussed, Iranian efforts to negotiate outstanding issues were rebuffed by Washington, and an EU-Iranian agreement was apparently undermined by Washington’s refusal to withdraw threats of attack. A genuine interest in preventing the development of nuclear weapons in Iran-and the escalating warlike tension in the region-would lead Washington to implement the EU bargain, agree to meaningful negotiations and join with others to move toward integrating Iran into the international economic system, in accord with public opinion in the United States, Iran, neighboring states, and virtually the entire rest of the world.
Noam Chomsky is the author of Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy (Metropolitan Books), just published in paperback, among many other works. His most recent book is Interventions.
Copyright 2007 Noam Chomsky
Notes
1. See M. K. Bhadrakumar, “China, Russia welcome Iran into the fold,” Asia Times, April 18, 2006. Bill Savadove, “President of Iran calls for unity against west,” South China Morning Post, June 16, 2006; “Non-aligned nations back Iran’s nuclear program,” Japan Economic Newswire, May 30, 2006; Edward Cody, “Iran Seeks Aid in Asia In Resisting the West,” Washington Post, June 15, 2006.
2. See, among others, William Lowther and Colin Freeman, “US funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran,” Sunday Telegraph, February 25, 2007.
3. For Khamenei’s statement, see “Leader Attends Memorial Ceremony Marking the 17th Departure Anniversary of Imam Khomeini,” June 4, 2006. http://www.khamenei.ir/ EN/News/detail.jsp?id=20060604A.
“had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy”
This is absolutely right. Weve made it clear to everyone that unless they go nuclear they are targets of Empire. Maybe one day all the dimwits here will catch on and actually exercise they power at the ballot.
For the first time in memory, I find myself disagreeing with Noam Chomsky, hoping-against-hope that he is right, as usual.
Firstly, he says that “despite the saber-rattling” it is unlikely that the Bush Administration (and I would add Israel)are unlikely to attack Iran. He gives numerous rational arguments why they shouldn’t.
The problem with this view, it seems to me, is that Chomsky underestimates the irrationality and venality of the Cheney/Bushies. As he points out, everything they touch turns into an unmitigated disaster for all involved.
Since there is an election coming up, what better way to distract from this quite obvious truth than to start another “war,” which, as Chomsky says, could lead to WWIII? For them, Armageddon may be preferable to the truth. They long ago drew up detailed Iran war plans that Seymour Hersh, and others, have written extensively about.
Also, curiously, Chomsky who is not the least bit afraid of the pro-Israel lobby and has courageously stood up to it from the beginning of his career, does not mention Israel’s obvious role in all this.
The crazy right in Israel (which like the US is in control), has talked about nuking Iran for sometime, thinking that a few bombs would make them kings of the Mideast. Despite more than a hundred billion dollars of US military aid since 1967, and despite recently getting more than $30 billion more for the next ten years, ostensibly to counter $20 billion of weapons that the Saudis are buying from the US, it aint gonna happen.
Though Israel, through AIPAC and a host of other campaign contributors, may own the US presidency and Congress on Mideast issues, they don’t own Iran and won’t be able to buy it.
This is where, I fear, Chomsky makes a second critical mistake: he says that Iran can’t defend itself against the US (and I would again add Israel). The Iraqis have already proved him wrong on this statement.
While the defense of their nation has cost them horrendously, the Iraqi resistance, in the midst of a brutal civil war, are militarily defeating US forces on the ground by making any governance and control of Iraqi oil impossible. Because of that, they have even negated US air superiority, reducing our air power to the role of supporting small scale temporary ground actions and genocidal revenge.
The Iranians, while not politically homogeneous by any account, are certainly united in their hatred of the US and Israel and could mount a resistance that would exceed Iraq’s and inflame the Shiite world.
Also, they do have a functioning air force and some missile capability. Among other things, more than 200 Iraqi fighters fled to Iran during the so-called gulf war. While this air force could not take on the US and Israelis head-to-head, it could mount a powerful suicidal campaign against US ships in the Gulf, oil tankers, Sunni Arab dictatorships like Saudi Arabia and even get a few planes or missiles through to Israel, less than 1,000 miles off.
Hezbollah would be brought in as well and the Palestinians would go into full revolt.
But even though there is no military victory to be had here, for anybody, the odds are more in favor of Hersh’s scenarios than Chomsky’s. I hope that I am wrong.
who needs coffee when there’s Chomsky?
Let us not forget July 3, 1988 - when the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian airliner, killing 290 innocent people. Read Ted Koppel’s report.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/ir655-nightline-19920701.html
I’m still persuaded by Paul Craig Roberts that this administration has every intention of attacking Iran. Chomsky points out that this would be lunacy, but Bush’s posse is an overaggressive group who will do what they must to prevent their “legacy” from going down in flames. In short, they are out of their minds and driven on by god knows what.
More like Tel Aviv and Tehran with Washington, DC dragged in by AIPAC. Let’s be realistic here. Of course Chomsky would never blame the source of the tension on the Israeli lobby. He denies it exists.
http://tinyurl.com/35xo42
I must echo the fine analysis of tj:
I don’t know of anything else that Chomsky has said/written that I disagree with but I disagree with him on this.
And like tj I certainly hope that I am wrong.
One thing I’d like to add.
Iran of course does not have an air force or army that could provide more than troublesome resistance to the US military.
But they do have a sizeable component of Chinese made SILKWORM and SUNBURN anti-ship missiles.
These weapons travel at speeds that render them capable of overwhelming ANY known defensive measures currently in existance. Indeed the Chinese developed them as a cheap means of countering the US navy and our aircraft carriers in particular.
In short the Iranians don’t need to compete with us plane for plane when they can easily sink our carriers.
I wish I had the links to these facts, but they are out there.
Finally these same missiles could and certainly would be used to bring the flow of oil from the region to a complete halt. Which would in a matter of weeks accomplish more damage to the US than any amount of guns ever could.
all the best
What’s truly odd and disturbing about this situation is that the dangerous regimes of Iran and Syria are only made more so by attacking them directly, since by becoming victims of American aggression they can portray their own aggression, their own anti-Semitism as being a natural response to unjust attack. Conversely, Israel loves its enemies since they allow them to go to war at will, all the while claiming, as most bullies do, that “they made me do it.” As the distinction between justice and revenge blurs, hatred becomes the dominant political emotion. Mobilizing hatred in the name of national ’self-defense’ is certainly nothing new, and it tends to entrench violence as a permanent feature of the political landscape. So, why we would choose to abet such strategy must be answered by looking at what is gained here from it. Can you spell Halliburton and competition-free contracts? Can you spell ‘rapture’ or ‘permanent Republican majority’? It is because I despise the Iranian leadership’s pronouncements on Israel and detest theocratic governance, here in America as well as abroad, that I think we must be more diplomatic, more sophisticated than simply to rush in with our guns ablaze. Until Israel accounts fairly for the massive act of expropriation through which the state was founded, there can never be peace. Until the Arab and Muslim world fully accepts, as it ought to, Israel’s right to exist, there can never be peace. Adding more hatred and violence to the present mix gets us all more of the same. What we need is a way to peace and it will not come at gunpoint.
TNATHANT: Spoken like a true diplomat who is capable of seeing truth and balance on all sides. Bravo.
One thing, Iran’s leader said that the holocaust is a hoax, and has vowed to destroy Israel. He is every bit the war monger that bush is.
tnathant said:
“So, why we would choose to abet such strategy must be answered by looking at what is gained here from it. Can you spell Halliburton and competition-free contracts? Can you spell ‘rapture’ or ‘permanent Republican majority’?”
“We” is not the majority. Neocons haven’t cared about what we think. Can you spell why would they start now?
There is no doubt in my mind that Seymour Hersh’s articles regarding the plans for the invasion of Iran having been draw up for some time is correct. This fact does not mean that Noam Chomsky’s assessment is incorrect. As others have said on this thread we are dealing with people on all sides who are not rational so anything is possible. I think no one outside of the Administration knows what is really gong to happen-it may depend on how things go for the Administration, if they need something to distract the public bad enough to start a war with Iran then the decision will be made.
I believe (and hope) Chomsky is right in thinking we will not attack Iran. Certainly there are plenty of nuts in Washington who want that, but could they control enough resources to make this happen? I doubt it. However, if we have another 9-11 event, then all bets are off. Also, something catastrophic in Israel, which could be blamed on Iran, could begin WW3.
Ken Mitchell (5:02 pm ) writes, “One thing, Iran’s leader said that the holocaust is a hoax, and has vowed to destroy Israel. He is every bit the war monger that bush is.”
You are misinformed — a victim of the US media. You’ve also not understood Chomsky’s article.
First of all, Ahmadinejad is not “Iran’s leader.” He doesn’t set foreign policy. Ayatollah Khamenei is “the leader” & has responsibility for foreign policy.
Secondly, Ahmadinejad never said those things. He said things which were grotesquely mistranslated (Chomsky refers to those mistranslations in passing, above) into the distorted versions you now cite. Ahmandinejad didn’t at all deny the holocaust; rather, he asked why people (like the Palestinians) who played no role in bringing it about, should ultimately have to pay the price for it. And the idea that he vowed to “destroy Israel” is an outright fabrication. See for example this CounterPunch article on the mistranslations.
Finally, it’s absurd to claim Ahmadinejad is “every bit the warmonger Bush is.” Bush has already started 2 wars based on lies which have shattered two countries and killed about a million people. He’s itching to start a third, whose results, should it come about, will dwarf what he’s already done. How can that possibly be compared to Ahmadinejad’s record?
RE: CHOMSKY “DENIES” ISRAELI LOBBY “EXISTS”? FALSE.
dcbeltway July 28th, 2007 2:12 pm
“Chomsky would never blame…the Israeli lobby. He denies it exists.”
Is this poster so twisted by bias she can’t keep facts straight from her favorite AIPAC conspiracy article? Or is she a deliberate liar?
http://www.counterpunch.org/christison06162006.html
“Chomsky himself acknowledges that the [Israeli] lobby plays a significant part in shaping the [U.S.] political environment in which support for Israel becomes automatic and unquestioned.”
I hope Chomsky is right that the U.S. will not attack Iran. I would feel more confident if the Senate had not passed a resolution sponsored by Joe Lieberman censuring Iran on a vote 97 to 0. This resolution feeds right into the Bush administration’s build up for a rationale to attack Iran, similar to what was done with Iraq, with no more validity. The Bush administration is not to be trusted and needs adult supervision. Unfortunately, Congress has yet to provide that supervision.
AIPAC is not mentioned once in the above article Baska.
If Iran, or Syria is attacked, The United States won’t have to worry about Iran and Syria, they’ll have to more than likely deal with the Russians and the Chinese.
Why else all of the recent rhetoric about Russia, and military deployment off Taiwan?
And, under the NPT Russia has an obligation to come to the defense of Iran if it is attacked with nuclear weapons.
RichM - “Ahmandinejad didn’t at all deny the holocaust; rather, he asked why people (like the Palestinians) who played no role in bringing it about, should ultimately have to pay the price for it.”
It is you RichM who is mistaken.
First of all:
Mr Ahmadinejad made comments while speaking on live TV in the south-eastern city of Zahedan, that he did not believe six million Jews had died at the hands of the Nazis last century, and that he think the holocaust is a myth.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4529198.stm
Second of all: It is also not true that the Palestinians did not take part in the holocaust.
Before I’ll continue, just to make it clear, the Holocaust blame falls for the most part on Nazi Germany.
If you compare the holocaust to a rape case, Nazi Germany was the one committing the rape.
The Palestinian leadership role in the holocaust was in cheering, and encouraging the rapist, planning their own rape, and when for a moment the victim managed to break free and run away, the Palestinian leadership push them back so the rape could continue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni
Some highlights:
- Germany and Italy recognize the right of the Arab countries to solve the question of the Jewish elements, which exist in Palestine and in the other Arab countries, as required by the national and ethnic (völkisch) interests of the Arabs, and as the Jewish question was solved in Germany and Italy.
- Assisting with the formation of Muslim Waffen SS units in the Balkan.
-
On March 1, 1944, while speaking on Radio Berlin, al-Husayni said:
Arabs, rise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you.[
- When the Red Cross offered to mediate with Adolf Eichmann in a trade prisoner-of-war exchange involving the freeing of German citizens in exchange for 5,000 Jewish children being sent from Poland to the Theresienstadt concentration camp, Husseini directly intervened with Himmler and the exchange was cancelled.
- al-Husayni organized was an attempted chemical warfare assault on the second largest and predominantly Jewish city in Palestine, Tel Aviv. (laboratory report stated that each container held enough poison to kill 25,000 people, and there were at least ten containers)
- the most important collaborator with the Nazis and an absolute Arab anti-Semite was Haj Amin al-Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem.
- Upon al-Husayni’s arrival in Europe, he met the German Foreign Minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop on November 20, 1941 and was officially received by Adolf Hitler on November 30, 1941 in Berlin.[5] He asked Hitler for a public declaration that “recognized and sympathized with the Arab struggles for independence and liberation, and that it would support the elimination of a national Jewish homeland.
dcbeltway,
I don’t think the new cold war between Washington and Tehran has much to do with AIPAC. It has more to do with the American weapon industrial complex.
By inflaming tensions, Saudi Arabia will parches weapons from American manufactures for $20 Billions. The conflict justify increase of military aid to Israel and Egypt - Which will immediately come back to the American weapon producers. It is unknown how much additional federal funding will be sucked into the defense budget.
I can tell you though who will suffer: It will be the American tax payer, and the people of Israel, Lebanon and Iran.
vets (2:07 am) — I don’t speak Farsi, & neither do you. So we must both rely on our trust & interpretation of various media sources, to figure out which translation of Ahmadinejad’s comments is more likely to be accurate.
Let’s compare your BBC account with the far more careful & analytical CounterPunch article I cited. Virginia Tilley’s analysis is backed up by scholars like Juan Cole who know Farsi, & who have been trying to warn the public of the consistent mistranslations & distortions of the Western mainstream media, in conveying Ahmadinejad’s remarks. Chomsky refers above to the “dubious translations.”
Meanwhile, your BBC article is thin. It consists of a naked unsupported assertion, followed by quotes from the likes of the White House Press Secretary saying he’s “shocked.” Do you find that very convincing? Are you under the impression that either the UK or US press is reliable in presenting information about Iran & Iraq, or the Middle East generally? Do you accept the New York Times’ general portrayal of what has happened in Iraq? Do you think the BBC is very different from the NYT, where UK imperialist interests are concerned?
The rest of your argument, that the Palestinians share some responsibility for the Holocaust, can’t be taken seriously. You are straining to reach a conclusion you desire, but the conclusion doesn’t follow from what you present. At most, you show that there was some anti-Semitic feeling among some Palestinians during WWII. That’s not the same thing as “taking part in the Holocaust.” As it happens, conflict between Zionists and Palestinians started well before WWII, so it’s not strange that there already would have been bad feeling — on BOTH sides. There were plenty of horrible things said about Arabs by Zionists during that period, as well. // There was also plenty of anti-Semitism in the UK & US before & during WWII. Would that justify a claim that the UK & US “took part in the Holocaust?”
RichM: Thanks for posting the Counterpunch article. We have literally created a “wag the dog” scenario of Ahmadinejad, demonizing him and of course Iran as wanting to destroy Israel. No matter what the Israelis do or say, they are always right, and if you question their motives or actions, the anti-semite accusations start flowing. See what Dershowitz did to Norman Finklestein’s tenure as a professor.
Some of my Jewish friends want Israel to nuke Iran, and that anybody wearing a “towel” on their head needs to be wiped out. Truth is Jews, Moslems, and Christians lived together in the middle east for hundreds of years, but most of the problems started after the creation of Israel, and the contempt they have for the Palestinian people as well as arabs in general.
The United Nations has been ineffective in preventing war or hostile military aggression, and is a country club for diplomats to travel the globe at taxpayers’ expense.
I hope Russia and China back Iran and any other country our corrupt politicians want to bomb or invade. The bully has to be humbled. And for the Jewish-American politicians who have duel allegiance to Israel, can you imagine General Eisenhower telling President Roosevelt in 1941 that he can’t fight the Nazis because he’s a German? Ike was an American, and you know the rest of the story.
Seymour Hersh is an honest journalist with a great deal of courage. I always thought Chomsky would be an outstanding President, and not only the U.S., but the whole world would be better off with his leadership, but that is wishful thinking.
Militarism is a profitable business and enemies have to be created in order to justify the enormous budget. The public is easily conned. What a pity!
peaceman - Some inaccuracies in your comment:
1. “matter what the Israelis do or say, they are always right, and if you question their motives or actions, the anti-semite accusations start flowing…”
You are trying to indiscriminately demonize all Israelis. There are 7.2 Millions of them, and not all are alike. Not each and every one of them will call you anti-semite.
3. “Jews, Moslems, and Christians lived together in the middle east for hundreds of years, but most of the problems started after the creation of Israel”
Bullshit. You are trying to paint a picture as if the middle east, before 1948 was a place of peace and tranquility. Let me refresh your memory. Problems in Biblical proportions (Wars) started in the middle east along with history, some milenia before the creation of the state Israel. Surly the Crusades ring a bell, possibly also Alexander the great, the Romans, the Greek, Babylonians, Assyrians, Troy, Turks, Gilgamesh etc… . More than that, even after the creation of the state of Israel - Most of the ME violent death had nothing to do with Israel (See the Sudan genocide , Iran - Iraq war, Civil war in Lebanon, Occupation of Chad by Libya, Occupation of Spanish Sahara by Morocco, … and many more… And I’m not even getting into the question of who is responsible to the Israeli - Arab conflict.
4. “And for the Jewish-American politicians who have duel allegiance to Israel, can you imagine General Eisenhower telling President Roosevelt in 1941 that he can’t fight the Nazis because he’s a German?”
Bad example: Germany declared war on the States. Israel never did. And I don’t expect it to happen any time soon.
Also - What would you propose to do in order to prevent dual allegiance? - Burn the constitution and create a thought police? Build concentration camps for American Jews? (Similar to what the States did to Japaneses Americans) What about other ethnic groups? What if there is no war against their ancestral country?
5. “I always thought Chomsky would be an outstanding President” Amen to that.
6. “Militarism is a profitable business and enemies have to be created in order to justify the enormous budget. The public is easily conned. What a pity!” - On that I agree here too.
vets July 29th, 2007 5:58 am
I assume you’re talking about Joe Lieberman when you say “dual allegiance.” That’s not the issue. Passport holding citizens of a foreign country serving in the U.S. Senate are breaking the law if they have not registered as agents of that country. Lieberman should be arrested and tried as a traitor but I guess that will never happen.
I agree with Chomsky, they will saber rattle and make all sorts of unsupported accusations in an attempt to villainies Iran .But,Their is very little real support for attack on Iran in here the U.S. except among the hardcore neo-conservatives and their supporters..
People here in the U.S have tired of the war and the rhetoric that supports it, and at the moment have no stomach for another one.
The fact that the president of Iran has no power is to me worrisome. Chomsky does not seem to have any problem with the fact that a dictatorial religious Ayatollah makes all important decisions in Iran. And I can assure you, if that is the situation, the president doesn’t fart without clearance from his superior, much less make his “wild” public statements.
I hope Chomsky is right and the Bush Administration will not attack Iran. While it is true there is little worldwide public support, the same could be said before the invasion of Iraq. Congress has done nothing to reassure the American public.
Perhaps if Dennis Kucinich is elected, Noam Chomsky could be the Secretary of State.
I have to agree with Rick @ 6:42 am. While Cheney might like to attack Iran and while he might be successful getting Junior to go along with the idea, a strike against Iran would be disastrous for the fate of the Republican Party. Any Republican who hopes to get elected or re-elected in the next 10 years will be lobbying Junior against a military strike.
Bush/Cheney do not respond either to the electorate or to reason, but they DO understand power politics.
Iran or Syria are not rogue regimes. In comparison to Saudi Arabia, Israel and Pakistan (and Iraq now) , Iran and Syria are far more stable, do not support terrorists and are vital for stability in the middle-east. Just because bush&dick call it dangerous doesnt make it so.
In the Clinton years Iran and its ayatollahs were actually making a ton of progress towards democracy. As usual we fucked it up.
The only and I repeat only way to keep the americans out of your country is to go nuclear and thats exactly what they did.
I also tend to agree with chomsky’s view that we will not invade Iran right now. I also think if they had actually stabilized Iraq they would have gone after Iran. Either way, we really should not be in the middle-east in any capacity, but being the greedy capitalist pigs that we are its inevitable.
RichM -”I don’t speak Farsi, & neither do you. So we must both rely on our trust & interpretation of various media sources, to figure out which translation of Ahmadinejad’s comments is more likely to be accurate.”
We are talking about two different Ahmadinejad’s speeches.
You are talking about the “Wipe Israel (Regime)” speech from August 3, 2006 - Which could be interpreted in more that one way.
I was talking about his crystal clear speech on Dec 14, 2005 in the Iranian city of Zahedan.
RichM, Please research the Zahedan speech, and tell me what you think. I’m only after the truth.
When someone claim that the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust is significantly less than the number published by main stream historians - It clearly falls under the definition of holocaust denial.
In a May 30, 2006 interview with Der Spiegel Ahmadinejad again questioned the Holocaust several times.
- On December 11, 2006 the “International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust” opened, to widespread condemnation The conference, called for by and held at the behest of Ahmadinejad, was widely described as a “Holocaust denial conference” or a “meeting of Holocaust deniers”
RichM - “Would that justify a claim that the UK & US “took part in the Holocaust.
UK and USA, though carry some blame in not trying hard enough to stop the holocaust, they did not took active part in it.
Churchill and Truman were not convicted in Nirenberg for war crimes, as the Palestinian leader -Al-Hussaini did. (He wasn’t hanged as his Nazi’s friends because he fled to Egypt). He was clearly ally with the Nazis.
Show me another world leader today who, similar to Hissaini, publicly calls for the extermination of an ethnic group purly based on religion or race.
vets: I appreciate the comments.
1. Whenever I hear or read about anyone opposing the Israeli government in its dealings with the Palestinians, ie imprisonment, torture, bombing them, bulldozing their homes, and plain humiliation at checkpoints, the questioner is called anti-semitic, and if a Jewish person condemns the above, they are labeled as “self-hating” Jews. Of course there are differences among Jewish people, as there are differences with every other ethnic or racial group on earth.The “refusniks” in the IDF who disagree with the right-wing Likud Party pay a penalty by refusing to serve in the occupied territory. The Likud is a version of our Republican Party.
FREE SPEECH TV has some good documentaries showing Israeli and Palestinian people getting along with each other.
When a friend of mine was in the U.S. Army, and stationed in the middle east for awhile, he and a few other guys went to Tel Aviv and were having a few beers in a bar. They were wearing civillian clothes.One Mexican American GI who looked Arab, was minding his own business, nursing a beer when Israeli soldiers walked in and thinking he was a Palestinian, started punching him for no reason. His comrades jumped up and told the IDF that he was an American. They apologized and left the bar. It’s just one instance, vet, of the animosity toward others, especially when you have all the guns.
3. Where hasn’t conflict existed? Look at Europe. Fighting each other over the centuries. Christians killing Christians. Go to China and Japan and watch the war lords fighting each other for control. Native American people fighting each other. Africans fighting each other. It’s all insane! We could talk about this until the cows come home and still be at odds.
4. What I am saying is: our politicians’ took an oath to the Constitution and to the American people, and when my two Senators in California support the Lieberman bill, it bothers me. Boxer, the woman I campaigned for and adored, let her constituents down as well as the rest of the country by supporting the Patriot Act, and most other Bush/Cheney programs. To add insult to injury, as an anti-Iraq invasion senator, she went to Connecticut last year supporting Joe the war-monger rather than back Ned Lamont who opposes our military aggression in Iraq. Take it from there, vet.
You have got to be kidding in the last paragraph of #4. Myself and the others commenting on this site have been protesting what you mentioned since Common Dreams opened this section. I have been around too long to swallow the bait. if you asked me who my “idol” in journalism is, look up George Seldes.
We agree on 5&6. Good.
gyptian -
Do you have any proof to support your claims that Iran and Syria are not rogue regimes in comparison to Israel?
Do you have any proof to support your claims that Iran and Syria are NOT supporting terrorist organization?
Do you have any proof to support your claims that Iran and Syria are more stable regimes?
Do you build your theories based on real data, or purly on “guts” feeling?
Some on this site may have heard of or read books channeled through Pat Rodegast by an entity that went by the name of EMMANUEL. I sat in on a group of about 100 people in upstate N.Y (many professionals in the “helping” professions, psychologists, nurses and so forth) as the group was allowed to ask questions. One of the funniest was when a psychiatrist asked (to the trance medium, mind you), “At what point should a professional administer psychotropic medication?” The “channel” answered humorously, “I am not offended by that question,” and of course the group erupted in laughter.
Someone asked if there would be a World War III (now I know the neocons may regard the Cold War as such, but for the sake of argument, let me share what this OTHER worldly source stated) and the channel answered, “Divine intervention will not allow it.” Now the bad news is, this conversation took place over a decade ago, so one wonders if the ANSWER remains viable. I like to think such assurance has not changed. When folly in the form of the Bush-Cheney tragi-comedy team seize the reins of power and capsize all three branches of our otherwise self-correcting government system, it’s helpful to entertain the possibility that truly HIGHER intelligence may correct the suicidal course. These two unfit “rulers,” never legitimately elected have NO business defining the time line for mankind’s destruction to fix their egos on some form of insurance policy. I realize this is an unorthodox perspective, but many educated people have lent credence to the material that came through Pat Rodegast/Emmanuel.
peaceman (and purvis)- Regarding the duel allegiance issue (point #4) - Maybe I misunderstood you. If you were referring to high ranking politicians only, who has dual citizenship, and if this is against the American law - then I admit I was wrong, and I take back want I said.
vets July 29th, 2007 2:24 pm –
I think you’re trying to make too much out of Ahmadinejad’s remarks. He himself seems to be clearly anti-Semitic, and not well-educated. He comes from humble origins — son of a blacksmith — & is clearly a reactionary who’s in tight with Iran’s ruling clerics.
But that’s not nearly the whole story, for 2 reasons:
- 1) As the Virginia Tilley article points out, “Holocaust Denial” is not the same immensely sensitive topic that it is in the West, elsewhere in the world. Americans are raised to believe that there is practically no crime more repellant than Holocaust Denial. In other cultures, this is not so. They don’t know or care that much about European history, & don’t make such a big deal about it.
- 2) Moreover, what people elsewhere DO understand, is that accusations of anti-Semitism are regularly used to justify Israeli aggression. Therefore, many come to hate the propaganda associated with charges of anti-Semitism, even if they might agree that in principle, it’s a great moral wrong to persecute Jews (or any ethnic group) simply on the basis of their ethnicity.
You write “When someone claim that the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust is significantly less than the number published by main stream historians - It clearly falls under the definition of holocaust denial.”
- No, I don’t really agree with that, for the above reasons. You’re assuming Ahmadinejad should be judged by Western standards; I don’t believe this is fair. If he was really pushing for policies of military aggression, that’s one thing. But otherwise, I don’t think he’s obligated to say nice things about Israel or the US, because there’s much that’s objectionable about those two countries. We’re the ones who are threatening him, after all — and trying to justify it by dishonestly pretending that he’s threatening us!!
Furthermore, you’re presuming that as soon as you “prove” that some Muslim has negative feelings about Jews, that the discussion is finished & that you’ve won your point. But that’s not so. Even if you establish negative feelings about Jews, you also have to look at the question, “What is the origin of this feeling against Jews? Is it a purely bigoted hatred of Jews just for being Jews? Or is it ill will, related to the brutality & illegal aggression of Israeli policy?” In other words, this is not a situation where we in the West get to sit in judgement of Iran. We also have to be judged — and our wrongs, to Iran & to many other countries, are enormous. Let’s not forget that.
here we go again vets … the moment you say israel you pop out of your crevice like a worm and start the same old tired arguments. This is a blog. Not a friggin research paper. Go to the nearest library or even better read ‘alternate’ news sources on the web rather than the Times or Fox or CNN where youre pro-israeli views are reinforced.
If what israel is doing right now in the middle-east is anything other than terrorism then we need to redefine what terrorism means.
If terrorism only means ‘white people or jewish people’ feeling terrified then we have a lot of real issues to deal with !!!!!
Oh .. by the way .. i also believe the only way we can achieve a semblance of peace right now is to arm Hezbollah and Hamas to the teeth. Since no one else is willing to defend the Palestinians right to exist, maybe Hamas or Fatah can. Maybe they can stop the murderous israeli war machine (like hezbollah did earlier this year). Detente apparently has its believers.
This president as diagnosed by Joshua Frank, a first rate psychiatrist in the US capital, is that W is a paranoid megalomaniac or in lay person’s language as nutty as a fruitcake. His instability is just absolutely unreal. If you believe in prayer, pray God will stop him and this evil pathological lying gang of low lifes.
AD, that name is JUSTIN Frank, not Joshua. Joshua Frank is a writer whose work often appears on CounterPunch. He is very savvy politically, often exposing the disgusting cowardice & hypocrisy of the Democratic Party.
But Justin Frank is the psychiatrist who wrote “Bush on the Couch,” and also this recent article you’re referring to.
vets: RichM in his 358pm post stated it better than I, but maybe my words were unclear. I’m not talking about duel citizenship, but what the Jewish government has been doing to the Palestinian people, and how our politicians are afraid to speak up, but endorse Israeli policies and have been providing that country with enormous amounts of money and the most sophisticated weapons. Look at today’s story in the news and you’ll see Olmert smiling as Bush promises him 30,000,000,000 dollars over the next ten years.
And remember the nukes they have, which the surrounding countries worry about. When Mordecai Vanunu exposed the program, he was imprisoned for over twenty years. He is an Israeli citizen.
We are getting off the topic, vet, about what we can do to stop this administration from attacking another country. I think we are in agreement that our country has become the”world’s only superbully”, and new alliances are forming among nations worried about American imperialism and hegemony.
Yankee Doddles: Amen to your statement! it’s clear and simple.
peaceman - See my comment from July 29th, 2007 3:38 pm. I published an apology on the dual citizenship point.
As for Nukes - I support the idea that Israel should be disarmed of Nukes. Some political figures in Israel suggest the same thing.
Thank you RichM for your reply.
1) I don’t want to get into an argument with you about what is Holocaust denial. In my view, trying to diminish the scale, and questioning if it ever happened, is a form of holocaust denial. (Which was one of the most documented genocide in History).
I also don’t think that Ahmadinejad’s comment were done because he have some new “evidence” or “Historical proof”.
His comments were issued because of internal political agenda. (Getting internal support by prompting hatred, based on religious feelings)
2) When exactly accusation of anti-semitism was used to justify Israel’s aggression?
In the past I myself accused some of CD members as anti-semitists, (Never you) When I did - It was NEVER to justify any aggression. When I did so, it was ALWAYS done according to the definition of anti-semitism which was issued by the European Monitoring center of Racism and Xenophobia. (For example: I accused gyptian as being one, when he suggested to shoot 6 million non-Liberal Jews in Israel.)
3) Even though I agree with you that Ahmadinejad seems to be clearly anti-Semitic - I don’t want to see the debate over.
In a nut shell - I don’t want a war with Iran, or in Iraq. (Which will only help the military complex, and will be bad for the common people in the States, Israel, Lebanon, Iran etc.)
On the other hand, don’t agree with what some other people here say, that Iran must have Nukes. (Which I think will also push Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia to try and acquire Nukes.)
The Middle east should be Nuclear free. Allowing a Nuclear arms race in the unstable Middle East - It’s NUTS. (peaceman - Nuclear free means also Israel)
sorry vets .. you pulled another accusation out of your ass to justify your point as always. clearly you belong to the bushcheney mindset of ‘ you are either with israel or you hate jews and are anti-semite’ !!! This doesnt fly and you know it, so suck it up.
Four years ago Iran did make overtures towards peace to Washington via the Swiss. This was rebuffed and shortly afterwards the hardliners won the election including Ahmedinijad. An important read: http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001941.php
Israel will never give up it’s nuclear development, whether for military applications or for power and de-salinization. Israel will defend it’s right to exist with nukes.
That is a most unfortunate ideology.
On Chomsky and Israel:
http://www.leftcurve.org/LC29WebPages/Chomsky.html
The article in the link brings up this quote which is important:
“Many Israeli academics and journalists, such as Ilan Pappe, Tanya Reinhart and Amira Hass, have described the situation of the Palestinians as one of apartheid. Chomsky does not.”
RICH M: It’s becoming clear that you distinguish yourself in this forum as a well-informed voice of balance and intelligence. YOU should be a judge! I nominate you!
As far as the question of arming Iran, any truly enlightened individual realizes that identifying with a “team” and believing it ought to be armed is fueling conflict at a time when the very IDEA of conflict must be transcended. Isn’t that the spiritual task, challenge and lesson mankind faces? If we agree that we are IN an armed madhouse, that our never legitimately elected prez and his henchmen are MAD, and bent on destruction because the only cheese these rats salivate for is profit/power, then we must work with forces that recognize the futility of war. It is bankrupting our nation morally and financially. The karma is phenomenal and we have not yet MET it. Part of the healing for mankind will come when nations lay down their swords and agree that the common welfare of their children & grandchildren is more worthwhile than the apparent conflicts that divide them. Will this task be made more difficult or easier as resources become scarcer? Will individuals realize that greed demonstrated on this plane, naked self-interest will destine their souls to greater conflicts in this world. Or will persons transcend themselves in the hour when the soul is tested most? Each individual must answer this question. My background is Jewish, but I have never identified with any patriarchal religion. Still, there are cultural chords that are part of me and will never be cut. I do NOT agree with the positions Israel has taken, realize that it, like the US, will pay an eventual price for aggression. No nation is above the law, and to the extent any nation’s secular law reflects SPIRITUAL LAW (as taught by all the masters), it is in harmony with its plan. When it uses “law” to act against the common good, slaughter the innocent, steal their resources, use expensive management techniques to shift perception of its populace, then you know it won’t be long before the cosmic shit hits the fan. It’s good that we raise these issues in this forum, it’s sort of like Jedi warriors learning to hone their use of a powerful instrument: the awakened human mind. Best served with equal helpings of heart! It’s all about balance… (or should be)
“Despite the saber-rattling, it is, I suspect, unlikely that the Bush administration will attack Iran.”
I H-H-Hope N-N-Not !!
Such an attack would be a Zioni$t wet dream, and al Qaeda’s wet dream too.
If there is a real or false terrorist attack (we wont know whether it is real or fake) on the US, whether or not it implictes Iran, then that will enable the neocons to do all sorts of terrible things. It would’t take them long to rustle up another war or three then.
“As far as the question of arming Iran, any truly enlightened individual realizes that identifying with a “team” and believing it ought to be armed is fueling conflict at a time when the very IDEA of conflict must be transcended”
This is all very well when you are armed and are threatening another nation. Its only natural the ‘other’ nation takes steps to prevent the threat of armed conflict. If I was an Iranian I would desperately hope I had nuclear weapons if thats the only way i can prevent you from frying me and my kids !! Why is it so hard to put yourself in someone elses shoes ?
OK gyptian,
- Israel have Nukes today.
- Now you say that Iran should have Nukes as well.
- If Iran will have them - how could you refuse the next step where Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turky will want some? (Countries that already declared they want Nukes if Iran will have it)
- After all major M.E powers will have Nukes, smaller countries will want one, and perhaps smaller groups.
You see where the trend is going?
As Nukes become more and more width spread, how long before one nuke will fall in the hand of a Mad man?
I say Iran should be stopped, and israel should be convinced to disarmed.
Here is a question published by Stephen Hawking, “can the human race survive the next 100 years?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060704195516AAnrdOD
here is another site you should check -
http://www.DoomsdayClock.org
All this rhetoric is useless. Disarmament is a worthy cause if and only if its universal. In other words ALL countries should discard their nuclear arsenal. Im all for it. However does anyone actually see Israel or the U.S. or any other nuclear state voluntarily disarming besdies Brazil and South Africa? Especially in the conflict ridden middle-east (thanks in large part to the U.S., U.K. and Israel), being nuclear-armed is the only path available to keep us (U.S.) out of there.
No amount of Gandhian non-violence is going to help !!
I can point you to a 100 different sites on the internet which pretty much sez the same thing. We are responsible for this and unless we all disarm unilaterally you cannot prevent a nuclear armed Iran. As for Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt going nuclear, im willing to bet a whole lotta money we (the U.S.) will not raise a stink and will turn a blind eye to it like we did to Pakistans nuclear weapons !
All the breast-beating and preaching to the choir is useless unless we follow our own rules !!
gyptian, I’m not an expert. I don’t know what is the best way to stop the spread of Nuclear warheads.
If it was up to me, I would do it through education, diplomacy, and economic incentives, and not by unleashing war. This soution seemed to work in N. Korea’s case.
And how exactly will war be unleashed by Iran going nuclear ? Unless the U.S. bombs Iran and starts another war in the region I dont see how Iran will drop a nuclear weapon on any state unless they are willing to be wiped off the map. But having a nuclear weapon/s will definitely prevent the U.S. or Israel from bombing Iran due to the threat of retaliation. Its really as simple as that.
Please do not try and convince me that Iran is a terrorsist state waiting to acquire a nuclear weapon so that they can bomb the U.S. or israel !! Thats nonsense and not true. You can convince maybe half this country with that argument coz they will believe anything their friggin faithful leader says (lets not forget they believe in ‘rapture’ i recently learned !!).
gyptian, When I said “unleashing war” I meant: USA or Israel will attack Iran.
RE: ANYONE NOTICE HOW DCBELTWAY LIES A LOT?
dcbeltway July 29th, 2007 8:17 pm
“On Chomsky and Israel:
http://www.leftcurve.org/LC29WebPages/Chomsky.html
The article in the link brings up this quote which is important: ‘Many Israeli academics and journalists […] have described the situation of the Palestinians as one of apartheid. Chomsky does not.’”
1) “[T]his quote”? “Chomsky does not” is not part of the quote. Dumbass.
2) Chomsky said he doesn’t use the term apartheid himself:
a) Big effin’ deal - Chomsky is an uncompromising critic of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, and, probably more than any other well known intellectual, has validated and inspired 5 generations of students and academics to reach out of the academy and engage in progressive activism.
That’s more important than whether he’s right, fair, or meets your puny party ‘benchmark’ on any single issue.
b) Even within the piddling terms of dcbeltway’s complaint, the Chomsky quote - besides ignoring his reasons - falsifies his essential agreement with critics who DO use the word “apartheid”: a) Chomsky has signed petitions that use the term “apartheid” for Israel; b) he has contributed to an anthology that uses the term “apartheid” in its title; c) he has approvingly quoted the term by other writers to support his arguments; and d) used the term “apartheid” himself to describe Israeli treatment of Palestinians.
3) This information is easily available. And so one must conclude that dcbeltway is not only a bigot, a dimwit, and a lazebag who relies on 2nd hand views to support her bias. dcbeltway is intellectually dishonest. A liar.
FACTS:
Chomsky signs onto a petition opposing Israeli “apartheid”:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/111200-105.htm
Chomsky introduces essays critical of Israeli treatment of Palestinians with “apartheid” in title: The New Intifada: Resisting Israel’s Apartheid by Roane Carey (Ed.), Noam Chomsky (Author), Gila Svirsky (Auth.), Alison Weir (Auth.)
Chomsky approves use of “apartheid” re Israel by other writers, and uses “apartheid” himself to describe Israeli treatment of Palestinians:
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0511-04.htm
Whoa there !! Ive read dc’s posts in the past and i dont think he/she is a bigot whatever. DC is probably misinformed and thats about it but its hard to see DC given his/her comments in the past as a Chomsky-hating liar. So save your bile for the real assholes and trust me we have millions of them !!!
Black or white. Fact or Fiction. Wrong or Right. Liberal or Conservative. *phew* I usually enjoy reading what Chomsky writes but could have done without all the hysterical blogging afterwards. Stand back and read the threads… no wonder this world is in the state it’s in!! Finger pointing, blaming, name calling… why should world leaders - who are only reflections of the rest of us - behave any differently? Deep breaths and a little introspection into how we lead our own lives would only filter upwards. The likes of Bush, Cheney, Ahmedinijad, etc. won’t change until each of us make the necessary changes within our selves to choose compassion over violence. And even name calling is a form of violence! Honestly, it’s hypocritical to expect the US war machine to behave differently when we can’t even blog diverse opinions without resorting to calling others “dumb ass” or encourage others to save up their anger for a certain type of person. Isn’t anger one of the reasons the world is how it is? Where would we be now if our anger (and fear) hadn’t been whipped up into a frenzy to such a point that it allowed a clear path march into downtown Baghdad?
How each of us behaves individually is how we all behave collectively. - Peace!
Thank you Gyptian. No intellectual no matter who they are should be put up on a pedastool and made out to be infalliable. I don’t dislike Chomsky I just don’t always agree with him. Baksa Gyptian is right calm down and save your bile for others. If you aren’t capable of that then I won’t respond to you when you unleash your rabid attack dogs on me. You need to chill and get out more.
RE: DCBELTWAY MERELY “MISINFORMED”? NOT PLAUSIBLE
gyptian July 30th, 2007 6:59 pm
“DC is probably [just] misinformed”
Not plausible. In the first falsehood on this thread, dcbeltway alleged - as she has on another thread - that Chomsky “denies” the Israeli lobby “exists”:
dcbeltway July 28th, 2007 2:12 pm
“Chomsky would never blame…the Israeli lobby. He denies it exists.”
As the quote I linked shows, this allegation is false:
baska July 28th, 2007 6:53 pm
http://www.counterpunch.org/christison06162006.html
“Chomsky himself acknowledges that the [Israeli] lobby plays a significant part in shaping the [U.S.] political environment in which support for Israel becomes automatic and unquestioned.”
Merely “misinformed”? Not plausible - the above link is to an article dcbeltway has linked and told others to read. So she cannot be “misinformed” that her allegation is false. That leaves several possibilities - stupidity (can’t recall basic points she reads), bias (screens out major facts that directly contradict her pov), or a liar.
Evaluating both her dishonest response to my above post (dcbeltway July 28th, 2007 10:58 pm), and her subsequent post - misrepresenting Chomsky’s essential alliance with critics of Israel who use the term apartheid (dcbeltway July 29th, 2007 8:17 pm)- I conclude dishonesty. On the other hand, it appears, increasingly, that limited mental ability and bias are co-factors.
Baksa-yawn. As I mentioned before you have an anger problem and need to chill out. This is my last response to you.
dcbeltway - There is nothing wrong with Chomsky’s type of Zionism.
Seems to me as the most human solution - If the hatred level is reduced.
RE: English as a second language and ‘dual loyalties’
dcbeltway July 30th, 2007 11:50 pm
“No intellectual no matter who they are should be put up on a pedastool”
A “pedastool”? I mean this is too funny.
English isn’t your first language, is it?
I guess we could use this evidence of non-English-speaking background to raise questions about possible ‘tribal’ allegiances or ‘dual-loyalties’ - and, in general, to cast suspicion on your (so to speak) ideas. But…that would be as sleazy as impugning Chomsky’s ideas because he’s a Jew, rather than evaluating their legitimate place in a greater U.S. progressive community. Wouldn’t it?
Wow Baska you are really a hater bashing foreigners. There is nothing wrong with English being a person’s second language but I guess in your book only those who speak English are morally superior and fit to write on the internet. I didn’t saying anything bad about Chomsky for being Jewish. There’s nothing wrong with his background or religion and I did not accuse him of dual loyalties. I’d also like to add there is no spellcheck button here and this is not an academic research paper. Its a forum. But then there are always the spelling nazis who use spelling as a means to attack people’s arguments and accuse those arguments of being invalid. Besides its wrong to attack people whose first language is not English but then you enjoy doing that and think you are more of an intellectual for doing so. You probably don’t even hold a passport or have been outside the US eh? I mention that Amira Haas who is Jewish and the daughter of holocaust survivors uses apartheid and speaks of the lobby more often than Chomsky who tends to dodge these issues. You really are good at twisting peoples words around but then again its obvious you have some real personal issues you need to deal with since you cannot argue in a civil manner without lowering yourself to personal attacks, insults and ridiculous accusations. You only make yourself look bad. Congratulations for being the biggot on this forum.
By the way Noam’s father came from the Ukraine Baska so I am sure you would bash him too for not speaking English fluently and as his second language in your little biggotted world.
RE: REDUCING CHOMSKY’S VIEW OF U.S.-ISRAEL TO HIS JEWISHNESS; TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR LINKS POSTED
dcbeltway August 1st, 2007 3:43 pm
“I didn’t saying anything bad about Chomsky for being Jewish. There’s nothing wrong with his background or religion and I did not accuse him of dual loyalties.”
So how DOES dcbeltway explain why Chomsky (supposedly) “tends to dodge…issues” like the word “apartheid” for Israel; (supposedly) “denies” the Israeli lobby “exists;” and, thereby, supports a foreign policy that (supposedly) is good for Israel but hurts the U.S.? Let’s read her link “On Chomsky and Israel” (dcbeltway July 29th, 2007 8:17 pm) and find out…
…Well well, Mr. Petras ‘explains’ why Chomsky does these things: Chomsky’s views of Israel and the Israeli lobby are due to his being a Jew. But of course dcbeltway doesn’t think that - she posted the link because she DISAGREES with Petras’ allegation that he is “ideologically driven” by his ethnicity:
“[Chomsky’s] virtues are totally absent when it comes to discussing…the role of his own ethnic group, the Jewish pro-Israel lobby…This political blindness is not unknown or uncommon. History is replete of intellectual critics of…abuses of power by others, but not of one’s own kin and kind. Chomsky’s long history…culminated in his recent conjoining with the US Zionist propaganda machine.”
http://www.leftcurve.org/LC29WebPages/Chomsky.html
And the REASON dcbeltway disagrees with the link she told others to read is because she knows that - once a person’s ideas are explained, first of all, on the basis of ethnic background - that opens the door to others doing the same thing to her. And judging her ideas by the same standard she judges Chomsky’s would be unfair.
Baska I am an American born and bred by the way but you showed your own personal bigotry towards foriegners by labeling me as a foreigner.
As far as your own tribal loyalties thats obvious which is why you are all riled up.
“English isn’t your first language, is it?”
Wow .. baska you are a bigot. And like a lot of other fellow AIPAC members on this forum the slightest criticism of israel is enough to make you froth at the mouth. Reading the above link its easy to surmise that Chomsky does indeed hesitate to hold israel accountable readily, instead he tries to lay the entire blame at the feet of the U.S. and this could very well stem from his personal history. Who knows !!
RE: won’t respond? promises, promises…
dcbeltway July 30th, 2007 11:50 pm
“I won’t respond to you-”
Who cares – you only whine about how mistreated you are. So watch in silence as I ridicule and debunk your feebleminded posts.
dcbeltway August 1st, 2007 3:43 pm
“its wrong to attack people whose first language is not English but then you enjoy doing that and-”
Boo hoo, sob! sob! sob! - I’m soooo sorry.
p.s. - Two missing commas - rewrite & turn in for homework. Thanks.
dcbeltway July 30th, 2007 11:50 pm
“You need to…get out more.”
You need remedial English.
Chomsky does have a bias when it comes to Zionism. Baksa can only attack my grammar and spelling and utilize ad homein attacks but clearly he cannot attack my main arguments which is why he is latching on to other issues. Baksa so how is your job at AIPAC or is it the ADL you are working for? Good job outting yourself. Chomsky had Zionist leanings in his youth and considered moving to Israel according to Jeffrey Blankfort below. How can I trust what he says today especially when the Zionist lobby is pushing for war with Iran and here Chomsky says the US won’t attack Iran? Chomsky is telling us the US won’t attack Iran when the lobby is working over time to ensure we do? It looks like Chomsky is playing some sort of gatekeeping role then getting the left to be passive. I like what Chomsky has written about South America and other US policies. He brings up important points about these issues. I think his work is important. But I cannot trust him when it comes to Zionism. Everyone has loyalties. There’s nothing wrong with being loyal to issues however it doesn’t mean we should trust them and their words when it comes to those issues. As an American my loyalty is to America first not to some foreign nation so that’s my own personal bias. Being loyal to America means exposing the truth then I will do it. Yes, I’ll be the first to admit my spelling sucks but I am usually in a rush as unlike Baksa I don’t troll around at blogs all day. My foreigner husband and I both have lives to lead:). Baksa stop being a spelling/grammar nazi!
Jeffrey Blankfort: Yes, Chomsky tends to simplify US politics, blaming everything on the elites and whoever is in the White House while avoiding the role of Congress. Today, eleven members of the Senate are Jewish, that is 11% of the 100 members while only 2% of the American population is Jewish. He and his supporters, either directly or indirectly, raise the spectre of anti-Semitism, of provoking anti-Semitism, and what happens is that people keep their mouth shut. Now, Chomsky, who was a Zionist when he was younger–he lived in Israel, he has friends in Israel, was considering moving to Israel– admitted in 1974 that this might influence his perspective – and he wanted his readers to know that. He wrote this in 1974 and yet few people who read Chomsky today know that. They do not know that he was Zionist, that he considered living in Israel.
In fact, for years he did not speak about Israel while he was speaking out about the US in Central America and Vietnam. It was a mutual friend of ours, Dr. Israel Shahak, who convinced Chomsky that he should speak up against what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. It is interesting that the most important book that Chomsky wrote about the Israeli-Palestinian issue, The Fateful Triangle, begins actually with a defence of Israel, a defence in the sense that while acknowledging all the Israeli crimes against the Palestinians, he blames the US for allowing it to happen. Now, this defence, I would say, could be used by Pinochet in Chile or any dictator the US has supported around the world, to take the primary responsibility from them and place it on the US. And I don’t buy this. And most people who understand the situation, don’t buy it either when they come to look at it. A number of friends of mine, who are friends of Chomsky, have come to agree with me. The problem is, I would say, as fellow academics, that they don’t feel comfortable criticizing Chomsky, particularly since he is often attacked by the right wing.
Yes, Chomsky tends to simplify US politics, blaming everything on the elites and whoever is in the White House while avoiding the role of Congress. Today, eleven members of the Senate are Jewish, that is 11% of the 100 members while only 2% of the American population is Jewish. He and his supporters, either directly or indirectly, raise the spectre of anti-Semitism, of provoking anti-Semitism, and what happens is that people keep their mouth shut. Now, Chomsky, who was a Zionist when he was younger–he lived in Israel, he has friends in Israel, was considering moving to Israel– admitted in 1974 that this might influence his perspective – and he wanted his readers to know that. He wrote this in 1974 and yet few people who read Chomsky today know that. They do not know that he was Zionist, that he considered living in Israel.
In fact, for years he did not speak about Israel while he was speaking out about the US in Central America and Vietnam. It was a mutual friend of ours, Dr. Israel Shahak, who convinced Chomsky that he should speak up against what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. It is interesting that the most important book that Chomsky wrote about the Israeli-Palestinian issue, The Fateful Triangle, begins actually with a defence of Israel, a defence in the sense that while acknowledging all the Israeli crimes against the Palestinians, he blames the US for allowing it to happen. Now, this defence, I would say, could be used by Pinochet in Chile or any dictator the US has supported around the world, to take the primary responsibility from them and place it on the US. And I don’t buy this. And most people who understand the situation, don’t buy it either when they come to look at it. A number of friends of mine, who are friends of Chomsky, have come to agree with me. The problem is, I would say, as fellow academics, that they don’t feel comfortable criticizing Chomsky, particularly since he is often attacked by the right wing.
He has defended many people who have been under attack and has thus gained their loyalty. He also has been a mentor to a number of academics, and ironically, Chomsky has been the doorway for so many people to become involved in politics. They read Chomsky, and they become excited about political work. And it is only later, if they are fortunate, that they discover that Chomsky not only opens the door, he closes it as well!
S.C.: Which would mean that Chomsky gives less importance to the pro-Israeli lobby than it has? Has Chomsky upheld unjust options for the Palestinians in order to preserve Israel, for which he has an emotional attachment? Is this a unique case or has Chomsky defended the indefensible?
Jeffrey Blankfort: For the most part. On most other subjects, he is more open. On this particular one, he won’t even debate the issue. In 1991 we had an exchange that was published in a left newspaper in New York, the National Guardian, and a friend there wanted to set up a debate between Chomsky and myself on the issue of the Israel lobby at the Socialist Scholars Conference. Chomsky refused, writing “that it would not be useful.” After his refusal, I asked a professor in California, Joel Beinin, whom I know, and who takes Chomsky’s position, if he would debate me. His response was identical: “it would not be useful!”
S.C.: On Iran, which today is caught in a vise, is Chomsky, in your opinion, also minimizing the role of the lobby acting in favor of Israel in the United States?
Jeffrey Blankfort: Regarding Iran, Chomsky and the others seem to be ignoring the campaign that the lobby is waging to get us into another war, one that will be far more catastrophic than the disaster that has taken place in Iraq. There is a coalition of the 12 leading Jewish women’s organizations, representing a million Jewish women, calling itself “One Voice for Israel,” that formed in 2002 in response to the bad publicity Israel received over the destruction of Jenin. Each year, in what it calls “Take-5,” it gets it gets it members to call the White House at the same time and then on another day, to do the same to Congress. Each time they have done it, they have tied up the Capitol switchboard. It is one of the ways in which they show their power.
Here is the link for all to see on Jeffrey Blankfort’s interview:
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/02/148477.php
RE: USING PRESUMED “TRIBAL LOYALTIES” TO EXPLAIN VIEWS? LET’S PLAY ROLE REVERSAL…
dcbeltway August 2nd, 2007 3:15 pm
“Baska…your…tribal loyalties [are] obvious”
dcbeltway August 1st, 2007 4:00 pm
“Noam’s father came from-”
Oh my, on a first name basis now - guess you’ve knocked “Noam” off his “pedastool.”
By the way - husband know about this new intimacy with “Noam”? Wouldn’t want “tribal loyalties” to get you stoned to death…