Anti-Neocons Forum

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/01/chomskyab ... onism.html

Reveals what's become clearer and clearer in recent years. That Chomsky still sympathizes w/ Zionism. His comments are so uncharacteristic of the Chomsky who speaks out against imperialism elsewhere..

I don't know how they gather that from what Chomsky said. Chomsky is an anti-Zionist. He says American Jews form the 50s 60s 70s feel an attachment to Israel and are unaware of what is really going on. I have the second disk of Peace Propaganda and the Promised Land where he speaks for about an hour about how terrible Zionism is. Yall don't get to see it because it's not on google. You have to buy the DVDs.

He's also debated Perle about Zionism and the war in Iraq. And him not thinking AIPAC is as powerful as it is doesn't make him pro zionist it just makes him wrong. He's still an anti-zionist.

Pearle is such an easy target, debating with him proves nothing, I'm sure little Ryu will beat Pearle in a debate by the time he is 4 years old

Chomsky undermines the anti-zionist movement badly by:
1. refusing to support the boycott of israeli goods
2. intentionally omitting the fact that chrisian zionist churches raise billions for Israel (i racall Ilan Pappe questioning why he did that)
3. Denying the power of the Israel Lobby

No doubt chomsky provides some good info on many subjects, but most of his fans treat him like the 'the chief rabbi of the left' (to use Blankfort's term) and treat his books like some sacred texts. But Chomsky is very wrong on many issues.

Jeff Blankfort provides the best analysis on israel/palestine that i've ever come across. Why is chomsky repeatedly refusing to debate with him? is it because it looks pretty damn obvious that he would lose?

who's Abunimah?

Both Chomsky and Finkelstein are soft on the lobby. They both have not provided a detailed argument on what it is or isn't.

They have only responded to it shortly and usually sound dismissive.

At some times, Fink will say 'yea must be the Lobby'.

But the point remains, that w/ all that both have written, they haven't produced anything of value on the issue.

Blankfort has spoken about it in great detail. It's a very complex piece of activism - the Zionist lobby I mean.

Anyone here read stuff on the Christian Right? It's the same kind of thing. It's not wise to just have a very broad monolithic understand of how these lobbies work. These public scholars should put more time into humoring the argument at least.

I'm reading more about the Christian Right atm.

Chomsky has the stupidest argument against BDS. Thats why he continually refuses to debate Blankfort.

Blankfort is also Jewish. Comes from an anti-Zionist background. And has been unrelenting in his views on 'identity politics' in our country and on the Lobby. I go to him when I want some honesty on this issue. Chomsky gives easy answers on this issue by chalking it up to 'the US'.

But what if people who comprise 'the US' are also part of the Lobby? After all, Obama can't do shit, like any other pres.

It's not like the US is some alien entity that exists on the moon and is immune to lobbying.

The lobby has a major role in this and Chomsky can't talk about it. He compared BDS to breaking windows. Wtf?

What should Palestinians do? No one gives a shit about Arabs and Muslims.

How the fuck do people expect to change anything without starting somewhere? BDS doesnt have to be everything, it has to just be something - an act of solidarity. To show those people we care about them and we think its all wrong whats happening.

Chomsky use to say that Arafat was important as a symbol. Even though Arafat fucked so much up. Chomsky understand the importance of these symbols - whether they be people or actions - for the downtrodden.

So BDS is inspiring. It can motivate people to pitch in and that can be a gateway for more education on the issue and blah blah.

The LANGUAGE of BDS is inspiring and it relates this issue to South Africa and that in and of itself is a recruiting tool.

I mean, the level of carelessness on Chomsky and FInk's part is truly astounding.

The fact that Fink left the Gaza march because the goddamn Palestinians thought it was such a bad idea that they should have a say in how the March would be framed...yea...

Fink disappoints me. It's like he feels comfortable being on the losing side. That way he can just continue to state the obvious and massage his angst ("the US and Israel are hypocrites, seeeeeeee!!!?)

No shit. I think we're past that now. Why not DO something, even if you don't agree with the details? These acts have other effects that give the entire movement momentum.

The other side will always have the advantage so we need to work together and try to dissent but do so within a framework that is ultimately helpful to the cause.

Chomsky's argument is shallow, but worst of all - it's 'academic' (meaning, it's detached).

Chomsky sits in a university criticizing Israel. Fink lost his job over it. Don't say oh they are not anti-zionist enough so they are zionist.

Chomsky doesn't support a boycott because its not Israelis businessmen doing the occupation, it's the government. It would be like boycotting American goods, because of the war in Iraq. The difference is at least a majority of the American people are against the war. But then you look at hoe they vote and these idiots chose 4 prowar candidates in a row for president.

Chomsky is wrong about the lobby. But he's not covering for them. He just honestly believes their power is overblown. How effective would they be for example if they went against the MIC's interests? They happen to have overlapping interests. But the moment they don't the MIC will kick them to the curb. And the US oppressed the third world and invaded countries on any pretext long before Israel ever existed. And the US is currently waging plenty of global battles for its own interest outside of Iraq and Iran, that have nothing to do with Israel's lobby.

Now I disagree with them. But I see the argument. I disagree with them though because they fail to realize the level of blackmail and spying the lobby is involved in. I also don't see them as separate form the MIC, they are more like the managers of it.

Chomsky doesn't support a boycott because its not Israelis businessmen doing the occupation, it's the government.

they have to pay taxes to the israeli government who fund the occupation.

most of the population serve in the army and are hardly 'innocent'

and it would be delusional to deny the fact that in general israel is an extremely violent / racist nation.

most of the population support the occupation.

Chomsky doesn't support a boycott because its not Israelis businessmen doing the occupation, it's the government.

This is false. The civilian population of Israel are completely intertwined with the occupation. Often, the people are even further to the right, than the government. 90+% or something support the Gaza massacre.

And of course civilian businesses profit off the occupation.

Israeli academics also function as ambassadors of Zionism.

I mean, if this is Chomsky's argument then of course he wouldn't debate Jeff Blankfort, who knows the lobby intimately and even sued the ADL in the early 90s I believe.

Chomsky has a very generalized and vague conception of the lobby.

He's being BLATANTLY intellectual lazy. Blankfort makes this his primary issue and has given details that Chomsky wouldn't be able to deal with purely because he simply does NOT know.

I'm not saying Fink is Zionist. I'm saying Chomsky is a 'Liberal' Zionist in the vein of Judah Magnes but more Zionist than liberal.

Chomsky in 67' worried that 'the Joos' would be exterminated. He lived on a kibbutz. He's not a fanatic inbred settler.

But he's not anti-Zionist like Jeff Blankfort. He's not anti-Zionist like Joel Kovel.

At times Chomsky says he has been supporting a one-state solution for decades, then he says the same of the two-state solution.

I don't think he would be against one-state. His argument afaik is that the first step is 2 states, as part of a reconciliation.

Again, my criticism of Chomsky is in a specific context. There are PLENTY of 'Liberal' Zionists who show up to the Bil'in demonstrations and stuff like that.

That does not imply solidarity.

There are mutual interests involved.

For example, the kind of 'Liberal' Zionist that realizes Israel has achieved it's goals of colonization as far as the 21st century will allow it. Hence, it's time to leave now, while on top.

That's not principled.

And you know what? Fuck Chomsky for writing an entire book on the MSM - an INSTITUTIONAL analysis of how a complex system works. But when it comes to our ME policy, he cannot provide a detailed argument for why all our presidents are bent over by Israel.

There is an overlap of interests but 'the US' political system is not a monolith. It is a complex system like the MSM.

Chomsky cannot factor in the ethnic/religious component as detailed as he did in M.C where he took a materialistic stance (he's a Marxist after all).

My point is that this is his pressure point. Lots of academics who purport to be in solidarity with the Palestinians do not go far enough. They are saving their political capital.

And why? Do we need them to tell us about how hypocritical US/ISrael/European foreign policy is? Who fucking cares! You can figure that stuff out on your own! It's instinctual.

The people I respect are the ones who identify that FACT that we live in a political culture where certain 'identities' have more political capital than others.

There are tons of books written on the mechanics of the Christian Right.

One major book gets written about the Zionist lobby, and people go bonkers. Even Fink makes the most idiotic arguments against Walt and Mersh. I've seen all his lectures and read all his books. Fink is capable of forming the analysis of 'The Israel Lobby' - he just chooses not to.

Fink is closes friends with Chomsky and considers him a mentor. Because of Fink's repeated expulsions from universities, and his lack of tact (beyond what could be considered the 'unvarnished truth') - he is in need of allies. Chomsky is a good friend to him I imagine. He always sticks up for Fink.

So it's reasonable to assume Fink won't deviate from certain issues because Chomsky won't as well.

For example, Fink once responded to a questioner that he didn't think it was important to question whether someone was Zionist or not.

Why the hell not?

I think people who give a damn about the Palestinian cause, should wonder why this guy left the GFM after the most petty quibble.

I mean, it's not Fink's decision on how to frame the march. He left. When will there be another? He's now apparently trying to write some clip about the Goldstone Report.

I don't think he has said one thing about the turnout of the GFM.

A lot of people in the Palestinian camp are suspect. And I consider Fink to have some defeatist issues. Self-destructive tendencies. He's narcissistic and cannot compromise EVEN when the Palestinian cause is at stake.

GFM was important and I do not see it happening again.

Shall we wait until another massacre? It's getting old talking about how 'bad' Israel is. It's a fact that they are colonial-settler blah blah blah blah.

Exactly Tim. And what is Fink's stellar analysis?

NOTHING. He makes a stupid joke about how Bush is incompetent and Cheney is Darth Vader and would not allow Israel to pull the strings.

First of all, his entire premise is fucking idiotic. This is not about individual leaders. It's about the institutions.

If there is an Israeli interest and Amercian interest that differ on the issue of Palestine, then lets figure out WHAT THE FUCK it is.

Next, analyze WHY the different American or Israeli objective is accomplished or isn't accomplished.

Israeli objectives are almost ALWAYS able to succeed. Obama's initiative is individualistic and that's why he got boned. He was up agains the Lobby.

Chomsky said in the interview that the media must be part of it too since they agree w/ the Lobby often (he was being cynical and saracastic basically).

I mean, the amount of two-facedness on the Left when it comes to Israel-Palestine is quite transparent.

We have tons of literature on the complexities of the Christian Right. It's not simply lolreligion. Chomsky is just too dogmatic to think along these lines. And Fink is too rigid as well to incorporate this stuff.

If Hamas really has accepted the Zionist 'right' to ethnically cleanse Palestinians and establish their Jewish colony in the heart of the Arab world then I dunno. I guess the Palestinians are settling for the 2-State prison.