Facts are useless. They can prove almost everything.
The article was biased.
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
Not surprised you didn't actually READ the article, but rather resorted to baseless assumptions:
"Despite being born to Jewish parents himself, Chomsky embraces Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, who calls Jews the “grandsons of apes and pigs.”"
Hey, maybe that's a compliment - maybe he's saying, "Hey, yo - you guys are just the same as us - we're all only animals, we're on the level."
Maybe that's how arabs make friends? Most likely, not... but oh well... 10,000 years we've had to get cultured and the human species is still afraid of the dark...
Noam Chomsky in Beirut
Assaf Kfoury
ZNet, July 12, 2006
Noam and Carol Chomsky arrived in Beirut on May 8, 2006, for an eight-day visit, their first ever to Lebanon. Many of Noam's friends had wanted this visit to happen for a long time. The Palestinians, the south of Lebanon, and the wider Middle East and its peoples have all been central among Noam's many concerns. He has written about them and defended them, publicly and tirelessly, for nearly four decades, and will continue "as long as I'm ambulatory."[1] Beirut would give Noam Chomsky a hero's welcome, and it did with relish.
An invitation from the American University in Beirut provided the occasion. Noam would give two lectures at the AUB on two consecutive days, May 9 and 10, and then the rest of the eight-day stay would be devoted to meeting people and visiting places.[2] The non-AUB part of the visit would be organized by writer, political activist and long-time friend Fawwaz Trabulsi, with help from me.
Noam's visit came at a time of heightened tension in Lebanon and renewed violence in the Palestinian territories and in Iraq. What is mostly recalled in the Western media of Lebanese events in recent months is perhaps the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri on February 14, 2005, followed by several massive demonstrations in Beirut during the Spring of 2005, which were a major factor in forcing the withdrawal of Syrian troops at the end of April 2005, twenty-nine years after they first entered Lebanon at the beginning of the civil war. Hariri's assassination is still under investigation by a UN-appointed commission. Hariri was a prominent opponent of a three-year extension of Emile Lahoud's presidential mandate, from November 2004 to November 2007, resulting from a constitutional amendment that had been engineered by the Syrian government both by intimidation and through its own allies in the Lebanese parliament. In protest, Hariri resigned from the cabinet premiership in October 2004 and joined an increasingly militant anti-Syrian opposition, whose most vocal leader was Walid Jumblat.
The huge demonstrations in the Spring of 2005 were fueled not only by long-simmering resentment of heavy-handed Syrian domination, but also by a stagnant economy reflected by a staggering national debt estimated at around 40 billion dollars, amounting to more than 180 % of the country's GDP, the highest ratio anywhere in the world. If anything, these demonstrations showed a deep popular demand for change, shared by wide strata of the population, mobilizing more than a half million people (on March 8, 2005) and three quarters of a million (on March 14, 2005) in a country with a population under 4 million . But the political elites were divided, chiefly according to what they perceive as the main external threat to Lebanon. The organizers of the March 8 demonstration, led by Hizbullah, consider the chief danger to come from Israeli incursions and regional designs, backed up by a totally unfettered US policy to reshape the Middle East political map under the Bush administration; on the other hand, the organizers of the March 14 demonstration, including Walid Jumblat and others among Rafiq Hariri's allies, argue that the Lebanese have to first free themselves from the danger in their midst -- namely, Syria's continued meddling through its local allies and the security agencies it created or molded during its 29-year military presence -- before they can tackle their other problems, including Israeli threats.
Since Spring 2005, political alliances have shifted somewhat, with a few defections from one side or the other, but the "March 8" and "March 14" coalitions remain the two main contending poles, at least within the political establishment. As for the extra-parliamentary left, represented by the Communist Party and several other allied groups, they seemed at first eclipsed by the overwhelming events of that Spring. More recently, however, the Communist Party and its allies have taken a more assertive role and tended to side with Hizbullah and the "March 8" coalition, without being part of it, while a few dissidents have split and are part of the "March 14" coalition.
Fawwaz Trabulsi prepared a packed and also, rather inadvertently, an emotionally charged program of activities beyond the AUB lectures. Noam and Carol spent an entire morning in the Sabra-Shatila refugee camp on the outskirts of Beirut, travelled to the Lebanese-Israeli border region, visited the former Israeli prison and torture compound in the town of Khiam in southern Lebanon, and had lengthy meetings with Hizbullah leaders (from the "March 8" coalition), with parliamentarian Walid Jumblat and lawyer Chibli Mallat (from the "March 14" coalition), and with leaders of the Communist Party. In a seminar at the Lebanese American University on "Palestine 1948", hosted by Fawwaz Trabulsi, Noam engaged the students in a discussion of Zionism and the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Noam also gave dozens of interviews, for newspapers and TV stations, both Lebanese and non-Lebanese.
In addition to the two AUB lectures to eager overflow crowds, Noam gave a third talk to a packed audience at Masrah al Madina, a large movie theatre in Beirut. This latter event was organized by al Liqaa (the "Encounter"), a progressive cultural association, introduced by its president Ghassan Issa, and chaired by Fawwaz Trabulsi. Entitled "Imminent Crises: Threats and Opportunities," it dealt with current dangers resulting from American interventionist zeal in the Middle East.
Just as significant as the planned activities were countless chance encounters with people -- in the street, in the hotel lobby, on the way to a lecture or after, at a meeting enlarged to include other eager participants -- who would invariably give Noam a warm welcome: a Palestinian pharmacist in his makeshift drugstore in Sabra-Shatila, a Palestinian labor leader, a former Lebanese cabinet minister, a man rushing to get an inscription on a freshly-bought copy of Noam's Failed States, and many others.
Several Memorable Moments
Fawwaz Trabulsi, Irene Gendzier[3] and I accompanied Noam and Carol Chomsky throughout their stay May 8-16, as did at various times journalists and filmmakers who documented the trip. A small selection from our collective travel notes:
May 11, Sabra-Shatila camp. At the vocational center run by Najda, a Palestinian aid and relief association, there are two young university graduates, a Briton and a Palestinian, who volunteer to teach teenagers how to use computers and connect to the Internet. The Briton will soon return to the UK, having completed one year working in the camp. The Palestinian volunteer has a degree in computer science from one of the Lebanese universities, but has not yet found any employment. A conversation ensues between Noam and the young Palestinian. Noam asks who paid for his university education (UNRWA, a UN agency, paid), whether he looked for a job outside the camp (he did, but in vain), why no one hired him (employers seemed to prefer Lebanese graduates). "And what, in the long run, if you don't find a job?" Noam asks. "I hope to leave Lebanon," he says, then with a faint smile, "Maybe I will become like Edward Said."
May 11, Sabra-Shatila camp. There is a plot of land of perhaps less than a half acre, surrounded by a wall with a large iron gate, where the victims of the 1982 massacre are buried.[4] The land is mostly flat and covered by grass, with a few mounds here and there, the locations of mass graves which we can see through the gate's vertical bars. On the outside wall there are large, slightly fading, poster photos of those found dead after the rampage of Phalangist militiamen that were sent in by the Israeli army that had surrounded the camp in 1982. The gate-keeper is an old Palestinian, with half of his teeth missing, sitting under the shade of the tree near the gate and selling flowers. We ask him to open the gate and let us enter the ground. The old man says that if the visitors are American he will not let them enter. "Yes, the visitors are American, but they are good Americans," I explain. Then pointing to Noam a few steps away, I say that he, in particular, is the most indefatigable defender of Palestinian rights in America. The old man stares at me with a skeptical look for a few seconds, as if to gauge the truth of what I just said, then gets up and opens the gate.
May 11, Hizbullah headquarters, Beirut. We meet Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah, the head of Hizbullah, in a heavily fortified compound. Hizbullah has widespread popular support, with representation in the Lebanese parliament and the council of ministers, largely the result of its role in the successful resistance to the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon in the 1990's. Nevertheless, American government officials -- from Condoleezza Rice, David Welch, Elliott Abrams, Jeffrey Feltman and on down -- routinely visit other Lebanese politicians and dignitaries, never Nasrallah, and they portray Hizbullah as a band of terrorists. The value of this meeting with Noam is as much in what Nasrallah has to say as in the public recognition by a public American, admittedly the most dissident of them, of Hizbullah's role in Lebanon and the Middle East at large. Nasrallah recognizes the value of trying to break the official American embargo: He has no objection to Noam quoting him on anything he has said, and his last question to Noam is a request for advice on what Hizbullah can do to counter the pernicious propaganda in the US.
In response, Noam points out the importance of separating policies emanating from Washington from public opinion in the US, with the latter often at odds with the former. Given the nature of electoral politics today in the US, he also points out that officials in Washington are usually elected by a minority of the population and represent two parties that are virtually indistinguishable on fundamental issues, and hence the importance of reaching out to the US public ahead of policy makers who are beholden to corporate interests.
Nasrallah covers a wide range of issues in his presentation, including the arms of Hizbullah, which the US and its allies have demanded be relinquished. Nasrallah presents the issue of the arms in the context of a strategy to defend southern Lebanon which, he argues, concerns all Lebanese and not only Hizbullah. After the meeting, to the pack of journalists and TV crews waiting outside, Noam declares: "I think Nasrallah has a reasoned and persuasive argument that the arms should be in the hands of Hizbullah as a deterrent to potential aggression, and there are plenty of background reasons for that ..." Enough to feed the right-wing rumor mill for a long time to come.
May 12, Masrah al Madina, Beirut. After Noam's lecture, there is an unexpected and particularly poignant moment. A young woman, maybe in her late 20's, comes up to Noam and just says "I am Kinda." She has one of Noam's books, Pirates and Emperors, where he reproduced the letter she wrote at the age of seven after the American air raid that destroyed her home in Tripoli, Libya, in April 1986. This was a terrorist attack that killed between 60 and 100 civilians, aptly characterized by American journalist Donald Neff at the time as "a demonstration of the bully [the Reagan administration] on the block picking a fight with the little guy [the Qaddafi regime]." Kinda asks Noam to sign the book; her mother is there too. Noam calls Carol over and they all meet. Kinda's letter read:
Dear Mr Reagan
Why did you kill my only sister Rafa and my friend Racha, she is only nine, and my baby doll Strawberry. Is it true you want to kill us all because my father is Palestinian and you want to kill Kadafi because he wants to help us go back to my father's home and land.
My name is Kinda
ABC correspondent Charles Glass, who reported the Libya bombing and aftermath from the scene in April 1986, dug out Kinda's letter from the rubble of her home, whose American-educated family he visited and remained in touch with after they moved to Lebanon.[5]
Three days later on May 15, Noam and Carol watch the BBC evening news at their hotel, and see David Welch sanctimoniously droning on about how the State Department has carefully reviewed Libya's record and decided that they have adhered to international norms, so that the US will remove them from the list of states supporting terrorism. There is no limit to dissembling, conscious or not, for State Department officials, it seems.
May 13, Khiam, South Lebanon. To reach Khiam we have to drive along a narrow road right along the Israeli-Lebanese border, occasionally marked by a barbed-wire fence. On a bright Spring day, we pass the Israeli town of Metulla where we clearly see some of the inhabitants tending to their daily chores, with houses clustering the hill with the watch-tower and the Israeli flag on top. This is the uppermost part of the Galilee with deep mountain ravines, streams and (in May) lush green fields. The view from Khiam across the valley, towards the Shebaa Farms[6] and Mount Hermon at a distance, is breath-taking.
Sheikh Nabil Qauq, head of Hizbullah in southern Lebanon, is waiting for us at the entrance to the former Israeli prison and torture camp in Khiam, surrounded by a bevy of TV crews and journalists. Qauq gives us an effusive reception as soon as we alight from our cars, with Noam getting a warm embrace with kisses on both cheeks. There are two disabled and rusting military trucks with Hebrew markings, parked in the middle of the prison yard, which were left behind by the Israeli army after its withdrawal in May 2000. The whole scene is captured by photographers and TV cameramen, but not only. There is a constant drone overhead -- it is an unmanned aircraft barely visible in the bright hazy sky which, we are told, the Israeli military regularly flies over the border region to film suspected movements of Lebanese and Palestinian militants.
The next day we are served front-page photographs of Noam and Qauq, inspecting an old Khiam prison cell, in all major Beirut newspapers. And, sure enough, another two or three days later hysterical bloggers proclaim "Noam Chomsky applauds jihad," "Chomsky should not be allowed back into the US," etc., the usual right-wing Chomsky-bashing diatribes.
Why don't you read some articles written BY Chomsky, not right-wing diatribes trying to criticize and minimalize his opinions and work around the world.
24 years old, mid-life crisis
nowadays hits you when you're young
Why don't you read some articles written BY Chomsky, not right-wing diatribes trying to criticize and minimalize his opinions and work around the world.
What he (she) said.
To those attacking chomsky's view in this, he is Jewish, by the way.
A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects
are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider
god-fearing and pious: Aristotle
Not surprising he would support Hezbollah due to his extreme hatred for the U.S.
That being said, I think it's wrong for anyone to support either side at this point.
How so?
One side was born from fighting those who have now again invaded their homeland.
The other are murderous, Zionist bastards.
A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects
are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider
god-fearing and pious: Aristotle
What is a homeland anyway? They just took it from someone else. Murdering for land is stupid.
homeland.
home·land ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hmlnd)
n.
One's native land.
A state, region, or territory that is closely identified with a particular people or ethnic group.
Any of the ten regions designated by South Africa in the 1970s as semiautonomous territorial states for the Black population. The Black homelands were dissolved and reincorporated into South Africa by the 1994 constitution.
Palestinians took it from whom, exactly?
A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects
are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider
god-fearing and pious: Aristotle
The Arab claim to be descended from Canaanites is an invention that came after the 1964 founding of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the same crew who today deny that there was ever a Jewish temple in Jerusalem. Prior to 1964 there was no "Palestinian" people and no "Palestinian" claim to Palestine; the Arab nations who sought to overrun and destroy Israel in 1948 planned to divide up the territory amongst themselves. Let us also remember that prior to the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, the name "Palestinian" referred to the Jews of Palestine. http://www.shamar.org/emet/analysis/arab_claim_to_palestine.htm
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
this is a legit question. But how have you come to trust Chomsky? I'd be interested to know. Also, enlighten everyone on teh "facts about hezbollah" and how they are on teh side of truth and justice? Is it b/c they want isreal gone? I'd read up on Hezbollah and then see if you agree with Chomsky (as i'm sure you will). Not the other way around.
Also think, who are the people that are spoonfeeding us bullshit that hezbollah are the good guys? It's people who are always critical of America, no matter what.
I'm not sure I said that Hezbollah were on the side of truth and justice. I'm just saying that it's got to be a possibility. For fuck's sake, Hezbollah are the ones pushing for an immediate cease-fire and surprise, surprise, the U.S. is not. You tell me who wants peace. Who started the fucking bombing? Not Hezbollah. Israel started bombing and the U.S. is behind them. Terrorists? I submit that they/we are.
homeland.
home·land ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hmlnd)
n.
One's native land.
A state, region, or territory that is closely identified with a particular people or ethnic group.
Any of the ten regions designated by South Africa in the 1970s as semiautonomous territorial states for the Black population. The Black homelands were dissolved and reincorporated into South Africa by the 1994 constitution.
Palestinians took it from whom, exactly?
Hey Danny Boy,
How did Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem, documented in history as the traditional Jewish homeland and capital, become the “occupied West Bank ” and “Arab lands”?
The true “occupation” is the Muslim continuing occupation of lands that were Jewish and Christian for centuries. That occupation ended in Palestine when the Ottoman Empire went to war on the side of Germany and, having lost, paid the price that aggressors always pay when they lose. The victors carved up the caliphate and created the states of the modern Middle East, including Israel.
It's the failure of the Arabs to recognize a legitimate state created by the same historical process that created their own nations, and their continuing failure to recognize Israel in deeds rather than in words, that is the root cause of the ongoing crisis.
homeland.
home·land ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hmlnd)
n.
One's native land.
A state, region, or territory that is closely identified with a particular people or ethnic group.
Any of the ten regions designated by South Africa in the 1970s as semiautonomous territorial states for the Black population. The Black homelands were dissolved and reincorporated into South Africa by the 1994 constitution.
Palestinians took it from whom, exactly?
Hey Danny Boy,
How did Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem, documented in history as the traditional Jewish homeland and capital, become the “occupied West Bank ” and “Arab lands”?
The true “occupation” is the Muslim continuing occupation of lands that were Jewish and Christian for centuries. That occupation ended in Palestine when the Ottoman Empire went to war on the side of Germany and, having lost, paid the price that aggressors always pay when they lose. The victors carved up the caliphate and created the states of the modern Middle East, including Israel.
Its' the failure of the Arabs to recognize a legitimate state created by the same historical process that created their own nations, and their continuing failure to recognize Israel in deeds rather than in words, that are the root causes of the ongoing crisis.
I'm not sure I said that Hezbollah were on the side of truth and justice. I'm just saying that it's got to be a possibility. For fuck's sake, Hezbollah are the ones pushing for an immediate cease-fire and surprise, surprise, the U.S. is not. You tell me who wants peace. Who started the fucking bombing? Not Hezbollah. Israel started bombing and the U.S. is behind them. Terrorists? I submit that they/we are.
sure it's a possibility... VERY remote, but i'll say it's possible...not likely, imo. I was surprised the US didn't want the cease fire, my guess is they are thinking that if they get a cease fire it will leave them in the same state they were before. It seems like the US is asking for disarming hezbollah as well, i tend to agree. I don't know if any disarming would occurr after a ceasefire, there's no incentive at that point. Then it becomes a pissing match again. I submit to you that if hezbollah didn't do what they did we wouldn't be in this situation. And yes, I'll concede that if israel agreed to a ceasefire the fighting MAY stop temporarily. I also think this whole thing shows the weakness of the UN and international community to police itself. No one wants to step up and do anything, they just want to say things and quite frankly all the rhetoric and talk from the UN is getting old.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
homeland.
home·land ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hmlnd)
n.
One's native land.
A state, region, or territory that is closely identified with a particular people or ethnic group.
Any of the ten regions designated by South Africa in the 1970s as semiautonomous territorial states for the Black population. The Black homelands were dissolved and reincorporated into South Africa by the 1994 constitution.
Palestinians took it from whom, exactly?
Who cares??!! It's just land. It is NOT worth killing someone over.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
hey sorry am i hearing this correctly, you are complaining that the muslims NOT ARABS specifically muslims took from the christians and jews. first does it mean th ejews have a right to get back at the muslims? second, i want to LAUGH AND CRY when i hear someone who forgets the invasion of south america most of africa and all of north america by ALL CHRISITANITY!! have you forgotten so you are speakign about the origins of th emuslims and arabs who come from this region and no other whove taken it from the christians whove taken it from someone else.
honestly i dont believe that land belogns to one ehtinic group or anyone because we all came from one place and spread on this earth...so it really doesnt make sense.
however have you ocmpeltly forgotten how africa has chritianity now, how southamerica became how it is today!! because the christians took it..and heck they didnt do much of a job with it. so dont critisce someone else please everyone who has power does exactly what the previous has done with power. its silly it needs to stop we need to settle. conflicts must not arise from religion anymore it should not and it leaks into politics.
id suggest a government of all atheists but no on would go for it. plus religion should be to yourself and not for the public. remember that if you want to see a future. if you want wars over oil to stop if you want us to help stop diseases spreading and haterd and poverty. it all starts at religion and th epower that people have gained from it.
"If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set, then there'd be peace." John Lennon
My god its been so long, never dreamed you'd return, but now here you are, and here i am.
I also think this whole thing shows the weakness of the UN and international community to police itself. No one wants to step up and do anything, they just want to say things and quite frankly all the rhetoric and talk from the UN is getting old.
So the cowboys of the west need to step up and take control, right? I'll tell ya what, I'll choose the "rhetoric and talk from the UN" anyday over the "shock and awe" of the U.S. or Israel's refusal for ceasefire.
hey sorry am i hearing this correctly, you are complaining that the muslims NOT ARABS specifically muslims took from the christians and jews. first does it mean th ejews have a right to get back at the muslims? second, i want to LAUGH AND CRY when i hear someone who forgets the invasion of south america most of africa and all of north america by ALL CHRISITANITY!! have you forgotten so you are speakign about the origins of th emuslims and arabs who come from this region and no other whove taken it from the christians whove taken it from someone else.
honestly i dont believe that land belogns to one ehtinic group or anyone because we all came from one place and spread on this earth...so it really doesnt make sense.
however have you ocmpeltly forgotten how africa has chritianity now, how southamerica became how it is today!! because the christians took it..and heck they didnt do much of a job with it. so dont critisce someone else please everyone who has power does exactly what the previous has done with power. its silly it needs to stop we need to settle. conflicts must not arise from religion anymore it should not and it leaks into politics.
id suggest a government of all atheists but no on would go for it. plus religion should be to yourself and not for the public. remember that if you want to see a future. if you want wars over oil to stop if you want us to help stop diseases spreading and haterd and poverty. it all starts at religion and th epower that people have gained from it.
I'm not complaining about anything. I personally think all of this stems from stupid religous beliefs and bigotry that is passed down and engrained from one generation to the next on BOTH sides.
But it is a simple fact that Hamas, Hizbollah... take your pick - they will not recognize Israel as a soverign state. And until they learn to accept the fact that there is an Israel, and there always will be an Israel - then we will have continued violence.
No I havent forgoten how the world was formed and boundaries were drawn. I realize that Christianity has been one of the most oppressive forces in the world. But that doesn't change the problem we face now.
Not surprising he would support Hezbollah due to his extreme hatred for the U.S.
That being said, I think it's wrong for anyone to support either side at this point.
So you believe that anybody who is critical of his government hates his country? Weird! I thought that criticism of ones government and the striving for equality and justice in the world were at the heart of what it means to live in a democracy?
You are of the opinion that someone who attempts to expose the injustices and crime sof his government in order to benefit the citizens of that country must be hateful of that same country?
I find that to be a very confused viewpoint. Maybe you'd be kind enough to elaborate?
I suppose you believe that Henry David Thoreau hated America, and that George Washington was a terrorist?
Noam Chomsky in Beirut
Assaf Kfoury
ZNet, July 12, 2006
the usual right-wing Chomsky-bashing diatribes.[/b]
now all is falling into pieces.
thanks for posting both sides of the coin.
that was now a great evening read,
thanks a lot to all...
now this thread is perfect. one can read both sides and can make up his/her opinion.
I always thought while reading the first article:
I would like to know out of which context those lines by Comsky are taken.
He seems such a peaceful guy to me, a wise one who dares to speak critical about the US (our intellectuals do speak all the time critical about Germany... ..;)
anyway, the second article answered my question. I am released
...at least Mr. Comsky dared to see for himself and with his own eyes what about the life is down there.... in Libanon.
I look forward to reading an article by him about it... I am sure it will be interesting and often spoken out what I may believe, too.
there is no way to peace, peace is the way!
...the world is come undone, I like to change it everyday but change don't come at once, it's a wave, building before it breaks.
So the cowboys of the west need to step up and take control, right? I'll tell ya what, I'll choose the "rhetoric and talk from the UN" anyday over the "shock and awe" of the U.S. or Israel's refusal for ceasefire.
my point is SOMEONE needs to do something. And if the Almighty UN is just gonna pat the region on the ass and say "play nice" then i say yes, the US should do something.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
now all is falling into pieces.
thanks for posting both sides of the coin.
that was now a great evening read,
thanks a lot to all...
now this thread is perfect. one can read both sides and can make up his/her opinion.
I always thought while reading the first article:
I would like to know out of which context those lines by Comsky are taken.
He seems such a peaceful guy to me, a wise one who dares to speak critical about the US (our intellectuals do speak all the time critical about Germany... ..;)
anyway, the second article answered my question. I am released
...at least Mr. Comsky dared to see for himself and with his own eyes what about the life is down there.... in Libanon.
I look forward to reading an article by him about it... I am sure it will be interesting and often spoken out what I may believe, too.
You can find all of his recent articles here my friend...
...thanks, that is nice very nice.
and a perfect read on for tonight
btw: I meant: all makes sense now, all becomes a picture now,
not: all is falling into pieces ...
thanks alot for putting it right again
there is no way to peace, peace is the way!
...the world is come undone, I like to change it everyday but change don't come at once, it's a wave, building before it breaks.
...thanks, that is nice very nice.
and a perfect read on for tonight
btw: I meant: all makes sense now, all becomes a picture now,
not: all is falling into pieces ...
thanks alot for putting it right again
I felt the same way when I first watched the film of the book 'Manufacturing consent'. The thought that crossed my mind at that time was that I could feel the cogs of my mind shift a gear. I now feel this way whenever I read Chomsky. He presents the truth about current affairs in a way that is indisputable and backs up everything he says by providing the sources. The only criticisms of him that I've yet to encounter are empty personal attacks against him, and lies which are an attempt to discredit him.
There was an interesting occasion recently when a journalist for the Guardian in England interviewed Chomsky and then proceeded to twist his words and print things which he hadn't said in an attempt to discredit him. She failed in the end, because Chomsky retaliated, and the Guardian's editor was forced to issue a full page apology...
· Missing from list: young, women, and the French
· Honour leaves linguistics professor underwhelmed
Duncan Campbell
Tuesday October 18, 2005
The Guardian
He is in his 70s and first became known for his theory of transformational grammar - and now he is top of the thinkers' hit parade. Noam Chomsky, the linguistics professor who has become one of the most outspoken critics of US foreign policy, has won a poll that names him as the world's top public intellectual.
Chomsky, who was underwhelmed by the honour, beat off challenges from Umberto Eco, Richard Dawkins, Vaclav Havel and Christopher Hitchens to win the Prospect/Foreign Policy poll.
Article continues
More than 20,000 voters from around the world took part in selecting the winners from a list of 100. The most striking aspect of the list is the shortage of the young, the female and the French. Only two of the top 10, Hitchens and Salman Rushdie, were born after the war, and Naomi Klein is the highest placed woman, at 11. France provides one name in the top 40, fewer than Peru and Iran.
Since the poll was for the world's leading intellectuals, it should come as no surprise that websites manned by supporters of Chomsky, Hitchens and Abdolkarim Soroush were used to draw attention to the poll. Chomsky's supporters are clearly the most energetic: he took 4,800 votes to Eco's 2,500. Voters came mainly from Britain and the US. "I don't pay a lot of attention to them," said Chomsky of the poll last night. "It was probably padded by some friends of mine."
Pondering the absence of younger intellectuals from the list, David Herman asks in the new issue of Prospect: "Who are the younger equivalents to [Jürgen] Habermas, Chomsky and Havel? Great names are formed by great events. But there has been no shortage of terrible events in the last 10 years." Only two of the top 20 have yet to reach the age of 50.
The choice of Chomsky will be welcomed and contested by many of the same names who responded delightedly or furiously to the award of the Nobel prize for literature to Harold Pinter last week.
In recognition of this, Prospect offers alternative perspectives, with Robin Blackburn arguing for Chomsky's right to head the list as both a brilliant expositor of linguistics and a vital critic of the US abroad, while Oliver Kamm dismisses him as a kneejerk anti-American who is cavalier about his sources.
Top five
1 Noam Chomsky linguistics expert and critic of US foreign policy
2 Umberto Eco writer and academic
3 Richard Dawkins Oxford professor of public understanding of science
4 Vaclav Havel playwright and leader of Czech velvet revolution
5 Christopher Hitchens journalist, author, pro-Iraq war polemicist
Comments
at least you recognize it's opinion. Other's think it's gospel.
Amen to that!
Actually, it wasn't a diversion. He pointed out a solid point and pattern in your (and others here) behavior and tactics.
Maybe you have a problem identifying diversions?:D
The article was biased.
Hey, maybe that's a compliment - maybe he's saying, "Hey, yo - you guys are just the same as us - we're all only animals, we're on the level."
Maybe that's how arabs make friends? Most likely, not... but oh well... 10,000 years we've had to get cultured and the human species is still afraid of the dark...
wow
Assaf Kfoury
ZNet, July 12, 2006
Noam and Carol Chomsky arrived in Beirut on May 8, 2006, for an eight-day visit, their first ever to Lebanon. Many of Noam's friends had wanted this visit to happen for a long time. The Palestinians, the south of Lebanon, and the wider Middle East and its peoples have all been central among Noam's many concerns. He has written about them and defended them, publicly and tirelessly, for nearly four decades, and will continue "as long as I'm ambulatory."[1] Beirut would give Noam Chomsky a hero's welcome, and it did with relish.
An invitation from the American University in Beirut provided the occasion. Noam would give two lectures at the AUB on two consecutive days, May 9 and 10, and then the rest of the eight-day stay would be devoted to meeting people and visiting places.[2] The non-AUB part of the visit would be organized by writer, political activist and long-time friend Fawwaz Trabulsi, with help from me.
Noam's visit came at a time of heightened tension in Lebanon and renewed violence in the Palestinian territories and in Iraq. What is mostly recalled in the Western media of Lebanese events in recent months is perhaps the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri on February 14, 2005, followed by several massive demonstrations in Beirut during the Spring of 2005, which were a major factor in forcing the withdrawal of Syrian troops at the end of April 2005, twenty-nine years after they first entered Lebanon at the beginning of the civil war. Hariri's assassination is still under investigation by a UN-appointed commission. Hariri was a prominent opponent of a three-year extension of Emile Lahoud's presidential mandate, from November 2004 to November 2007, resulting from a constitutional amendment that had been engineered by the Syrian government both by intimidation and through its own allies in the Lebanese parliament. In protest, Hariri resigned from the cabinet premiership in October 2004 and joined an increasingly militant anti-Syrian opposition, whose most vocal leader was Walid Jumblat.
The huge demonstrations in the Spring of 2005 were fueled not only by long-simmering resentment of heavy-handed Syrian domination, but also by a stagnant economy reflected by a staggering national debt estimated at around 40 billion dollars, amounting to more than 180 % of the country's GDP, the highest ratio anywhere in the world. If anything, these demonstrations showed a deep popular demand for change, shared by wide strata of the population, mobilizing more than a half million people (on March 8, 2005) and three quarters of a million (on March 14, 2005) in a country with a population under 4 million . But the political elites were divided, chiefly according to what they perceive as the main external threat to Lebanon. The organizers of the March 8 demonstration, led by Hizbullah, consider the chief danger to come from Israeli incursions and regional designs, backed up by a totally unfettered US policy to reshape the Middle East political map under the Bush administration; on the other hand, the organizers of the March 14 demonstration, including Walid Jumblat and others among Rafiq Hariri's allies, argue that the Lebanese have to first free themselves from the danger in their midst -- namely, Syria's continued meddling through its local allies and the security agencies it created or molded during its 29-year military presence -- before they can tackle their other problems, including Israeli threats.
Since Spring 2005, political alliances have shifted somewhat, with a few defections from one side or the other, but the "March 8" and "March 14" coalitions remain the two main contending poles, at least within the political establishment. As for the extra-parliamentary left, represented by the Communist Party and several other allied groups, they seemed at first eclipsed by the overwhelming events of that Spring. More recently, however, the Communist Party and its allies have taken a more assertive role and tended to side with Hizbullah and the "March 8" coalition, without being part of it, while a few dissidents have split and are part of the "March 14" coalition.
Fawwaz Trabulsi prepared a packed and also, rather inadvertently, an emotionally charged program of activities beyond the AUB lectures. Noam and Carol spent an entire morning in the Sabra-Shatila refugee camp on the outskirts of Beirut, travelled to the Lebanese-Israeli border region, visited the former Israeli prison and torture compound in the town of Khiam in southern Lebanon, and had lengthy meetings with Hizbullah leaders (from the "March 8" coalition), with parliamentarian Walid Jumblat and lawyer Chibli Mallat (from the "March 14" coalition), and with leaders of the Communist Party. In a seminar at the Lebanese American University on "Palestine 1948", hosted by Fawwaz Trabulsi, Noam engaged the students in a discussion of Zionism and the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Noam also gave dozens of interviews, for newspapers and TV stations, both Lebanese and non-Lebanese.
In addition to the two AUB lectures to eager overflow crowds, Noam gave a third talk to a packed audience at Masrah al Madina, a large movie theatre in Beirut. This latter event was organized by al Liqaa (the "Encounter"), a progressive cultural association, introduced by its president Ghassan Issa, and chaired by Fawwaz Trabulsi. Entitled "Imminent Crises: Threats and Opportunities," it dealt with current dangers resulting from American interventionist zeal in the Middle East.
Just as significant as the planned activities were countless chance encounters with people -- in the street, in the hotel lobby, on the way to a lecture or after, at a meeting enlarged to include other eager participants -- who would invariably give Noam a warm welcome: a Palestinian pharmacist in his makeshift drugstore in Sabra-Shatila, a Palestinian labor leader, a former Lebanese cabinet minister, a man rushing to get an inscription on a freshly-bought copy of Noam's Failed States, and many others.
Several Memorable Moments
Fawwaz Trabulsi, Irene Gendzier[3] and I accompanied Noam and Carol Chomsky throughout their stay May 8-16, as did at various times journalists and filmmakers who documented the trip. A small selection from our collective travel notes:
May 11, Sabra-Shatila camp. At the vocational center run by Najda, a Palestinian aid and relief association, there are two young university graduates, a Briton and a Palestinian, who volunteer to teach teenagers how to use computers and connect to the Internet. The Briton will soon return to the UK, having completed one year working in the camp. The Palestinian volunteer has a degree in computer science from one of the Lebanese universities, but has not yet found any employment. A conversation ensues between Noam and the young Palestinian. Noam asks who paid for his university education (UNRWA, a UN agency, paid), whether he looked for a job outside the camp (he did, but in vain), why no one hired him (employers seemed to prefer Lebanese graduates). "And what, in the long run, if you don't find a job?" Noam asks. "I hope to leave Lebanon," he says, then with a faint smile, "Maybe I will become like Edward Said."
May 11, Sabra-Shatila camp. There is a plot of land of perhaps less than a half acre, surrounded by a wall with a large iron gate, where the victims of the 1982 massacre are buried.[4] The land is mostly flat and covered by grass, with a few mounds here and there, the locations of mass graves which we can see through the gate's vertical bars. On the outside wall there are large, slightly fading, poster photos of those found dead after the rampage of Phalangist militiamen that were sent in by the Israeli army that had surrounded the camp in 1982. The gate-keeper is an old Palestinian, with half of his teeth missing, sitting under the shade of the tree near the gate and selling flowers. We ask him to open the gate and let us enter the ground. The old man says that if the visitors are American he will not let them enter. "Yes, the visitors are American, but they are good Americans," I explain. Then pointing to Noam a few steps away, I say that he, in particular, is the most indefatigable defender of Palestinian rights in America. The old man stares at me with a skeptical look for a few seconds, as if to gauge the truth of what I just said, then gets up and opens the gate.
May 11, Hizbullah headquarters, Beirut. We meet Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah, the head of Hizbullah, in a heavily fortified compound. Hizbullah has widespread popular support, with representation in the Lebanese parliament and the council of ministers, largely the result of its role in the successful resistance to the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon in the 1990's. Nevertheless, American government officials -- from Condoleezza Rice, David Welch, Elliott Abrams, Jeffrey Feltman and on down -- routinely visit other Lebanese politicians and dignitaries, never Nasrallah, and they portray Hizbullah as a band of terrorists. The value of this meeting with Noam is as much in what Nasrallah has to say as in the public recognition by a public American, admittedly the most dissident of them, of Hizbullah's role in Lebanon and the Middle East at large. Nasrallah recognizes the value of trying to break the official American embargo: He has no objection to Noam quoting him on anything he has said, and his last question to Noam is a request for advice on what Hizbullah can do to counter the pernicious propaganda in the US.
In response, Noam points out the importance of separating policies emanating from Washington from public opinion in the US, with the latter often at odds with the former. Given the nature of electoral politics today in the US, he also points out that officials in Washington are usually elected by a minority of the population and represent two parties that are virtually indistinguishable on fundamental issues, and hence the importance of reaching out to the US public ahead of policy makers who are beholden to corporate interests.
Nasrallah covers a wide range of issues in his presentation, including the arms of Hizbullah, which the US and its allies have demanded be relinquished. Nasrallah presents the issue of the arms in the context of a strategy to defend southern Lebanon which, he argues, concerns all Lebanese and not only Hizbullah. After the meeting, to the pack of journalists and TV crews waiting outside, Noam declares: "I think Nasrallah has a reasoned and persuasive argument that the arms should be in the hands of Hizbullah as a deterrent to potential aggression, and there are plenty of background reasons for that ..." Enough to feed the right-wing rumor mill for a long time to come.
May 12, Masrah al Madina, Beirut. After Noam's lecture, there is an unexpected and particularly poignant moment. A young woman, maybe in her late 20's, comes up to Noam and just says "I am Kinda." She has one of Noam's books, Pirates and Emperors, where he reproduced the letter she wrote at the age of seven after the American air raid that destroyed her home in Tripoli, Libya, in April 1986. This was a terrorist attack that killed between 60 and 100 civilians, aptly characterized by American journalist Donald Neff at the time as "a demonstration of the bully [the Reagan administration] on the block picking a fight with the little guy [the Qaddafi regime]." Kinda asks Noam to sign the book; her mother is there too. Noam calls Carol over and they all meet. Kinda's letter read:
Dear Mr Reagan
Why did you kill my only sister Rafa and my friend Racha, she is only nine, and my baby doll Strawberry. Is it true you want to kill us all because my father is Palestinian and you want to kill Kadafi because he wants to help us go back to my father's home and land.
My name is Kinda
ABC correspondent Charles Glass, who reported the Libya bombing and aftermath from the scene in April 1986, dug out Kinda's letter from the rubble of her home, whose American-educated family he visited and remained in touch with after they moved to Lebanon.[5]
Three days later on May 15, Noam and Carol watch the BBC evening news at their hotel, and see David Welch sanctimoniously droning on about how the State Department has carefully reviewed Libya's record and decided that they have adhered to international norms, so that the US will remove them from the list of states supporting terrorism. There is no limit to dissembling, conscious or not, for State Department officials, it seems.
May 13, Khiam, South Lebanon. To reach Khiam we have to drive along a narrow road right along the Israeli-Lebanese border, occasionally marked by a barbed-wire fence. On a bright Spring day, we pass the Israeli town of Metulla where we clearly see some of the inhabitants tending to their daily chores, with houses clustering the hill with the watch-tower and the Israeli flag on top. This is the uppermost part of the Galilee with deep mountain ravines, streams and (in May) lush green fields. The view from Khiam across the valley, towards the Shebaa Farms[6] and Mount Hermon at a distance, is breath-taking.
Sheikh Nabil Qauq, head of Hizbullah in southern Lebanon, is waiting for us at the entrance to the former Israeli prison and torture camp in Khiam, surrounded by a bevy of TV crews and journalists. Qauq gives us an effusive reception as soon as we alight from our cars, with Noam getting a warm embrace with kisses on both cheeks. There are two disabled and rusting military trucks with Hebrew markings, parked in the middle of the prison yard, which were left behind by the Israeli army after its withdrawal in May 2000. The whole scene is captured by photographers and TV cameramen, but not only. There is a constant drone overhead -- it is an unmanned aircraft barely visible in the bright hazy sky which, we are told, the Israeli military regularly flies over the border region to film suspected movements of Lebanese and Palestinian militants.
The next day we are served front-page photographs of Noam and Qauq, inspecting an old Khiam prison cell, in all major Beirut newspapers. And, sure enough, another two or three days later hysterical bloggers proclaim "Noam Chomsky applauds jihad," "Chomsky should not be allowed back into the US," etc., the usual right-wing Chomsky-bashing diatribes.
nowadays hits you when you're young
What he (she) said.
To those attacking chomsky's view in this, he is Jewish, by the way.
are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider
god-fearing and pious: Aristotle
Viva Zapatista!
That being said, I think it's wrong for anyone to support either side at this point.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
How so?
One side was born from fighting those who have now again invaded their homeland.
The other are murderous, Zionist bastards.
are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider
god-fearing and pious: Aristotle
Viva Zapatista!
Both sides are murderous.
What is a homeland anyway? They just took it from someone else. Murdering for land is stupid.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
homeland.
home·land ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hmlnd)
n.
One's native land.
A state, region, or territory that is closely identified with a particular people or ethnic group.
Any of the ten regions designated by South Africa in the 1970s as semiautonomous territorial states for the Black population. The Black homelands were dissolved and reincorporated into South Africa by the 1994 constitution.
Palestinians took it from whom, exactly?
are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider
god-fearing and pious: Aristotle
Viva Zapatista!
The Arab claim to be descended from Canaanites is an invention that came after the 1964 founding of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the same crew who today deny that there was ever a Jewish temple in Jerusalem. Prior to 1964 there was no "Palestinian" people and no "Palestinian" claim to Palestine; the Arab nations who sought to overrun and destroy Israel in 1948 planned to divide up the territory amongst themselves. Let us also remember that prior to the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, the name "Palestinian" referred to the Jews of Palestine.
http://www.shamar.org/emet/analysis/arab_claim_to_palestine.htm
Hey Danny Boy,
How did Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem, documented in history as the traditional Jewish homeland and capital, become the “occupied West Bank ” and “Arab lands”?
The true “occupation” is the Muslim continuing occupation of lands that were Jewish and Christian for centuries. That occupation ended in Palestine when the Ottoman Empire went to war on the side of Germany and, having lost, paid the price that aggressors always pay when they lose. The victors carved up the caliphate and created the states of the modern Middle East, including Israel.
It's the failure of the Arabs to recognize a legitimate state created by the same historical process that created their own nations, and their continuing failure to recognize Israel in deeds rather than in words, that is the root cause of the ongoing crisis.
Hey Danny Boy,
How did Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem, documented in history as the traditional Jewish homeland and capital, become the “occupied West Bank ” and “Arab lands”?
The true “occupation” is the Muslim continuing occupation of lands that were Jewish and Christian for centuries. That occupation ended in Palestine when the Ottoman Empire went to war on the side of Germany and, having lost, paid the price that aggressors always pay when they lose. The victors carved up the caliphate and created the states of the modern Middle East, including Israel.
Its' the failure of the Arabs to recognize a legitimate state created by the same historical process that created their own nations, and their continuing failure to recognize Israel in deeds rather than in words, that are the root causes of the ongoing crisis.
sure it's a possibility... VERY remote, but i'll say it's possible...not likely, imo. I was surprised the US didn't want the cease fire, my guess is they are thinking that if they get a cease fire it will leave them in the same state they were before. It seems like the US is asking for disarming hezbollah as well, i tend to agree. I don't know if any disarming would occurr after a ceasefire, there's no incentive at that point. Then it becomes a pissing match again. I submit to you that if hezbollah didn't do what they did we wouldn't be in this situation. And yes, I'll concede that if israel agreed to a ceasefire the fighting MAY stop temporarily. I also think this whole thing shows the weakness of the UN and international community to police itself. No one wants to step up and do anything, they just want to say things and quite frankly all the rhetoric and talk from the UN is getting old.
Who cares??!! It's just land. It is NOT worth killing someone over.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
honestly i dont believe that land belogns to one ehtinic group or anyone because we all came from one place and spread on this earth...so it really doesnt make sense.
however have you ocmpeltly forgotten how africa has chritianity now, how southamerica became how it is today!! because the christians took it..and heck they didnt do much of a job with it. so dont critisce someone else please everyone who has power does exactly what the previous has done with power. its silly it needs to stop we need to settle. conflicts must not arise from religion anymore it should not and it leaks into politics.
id suggest a government of all atheists but no on would go for it. plus religion should be to yourself and not for the public. remember that if you want to see a future. if you want wars over oil to stop if you want us to help stop diseases spreading and haterd and poverty. it all starts at religion and th epower that people have gained from it.
My god its been so long, never dreamed you'd return, but now here you are, and here i am.
I'm not complaining about anything. I personally think all of this stems from stupid religous beliefs and bigotry that is passed down and engrained from one generation to the next on BOTH sides.
But it is a simple fact that Hamas, Hizbollah... take your pick - they will not recognize Israel as a soverign state. And until they learn to accept the fact that there is an Israel, and there always will be an Israel - then we will have continued violence.
No I havent forgoten how the world was formed and boundaries were drawn. I realize that Christianity has been one of the most oppressive forces in the world. But that doesn't change the problem we face now.
So you believe that anybody who is critical of his government hates his country? Weird! I thought that criticism of ones government and the striving for equality and justice in the world were at the heart of what it means to live in a democracy?
You are of the opinion that someone who attempts to expose the injustices and crime sof his government in order to benefit the citizens of that country must be hateful of that same country?
I find that to be a very confused viewpoint. Maybe you'd be kind enough to elaborate?
I suppose you believe that Henry David Thoreau hated America, and that George Washington was a terrorist?
now all is falling into pieces.
thanks for posting both sides of the coin.
that was now a great evening read,
thanks a lot to all...
now this thread is perfect. one can read both sides and can make up his/her opinion.
I always thought while reading the first article:
I would like to know out of which context those lines by Comsky are taken.
He seems such a peaceful guy to me, a wise one who dares to speak critical about the US (our intellectuals do speak all the time critical about Germany... ..;)
anyway, the second article answered my question. I am released
...at least Mr. Comsky dared to see for himself and with his own eyes what about the life is down there.... in Libanon.
I look forward to reading an article by him about it... I am sure it will be interesting and often spoken out what I may believe, too.
...the world is come undone, I like to change it everyday but change don't come at once, it's a wave, building before it breaks.
my point is SOMEONE needs to do something. And if the Almighty UN is just gonna pat the region on the ass and say "play nice" then i say yes, the US should do something.
You can find all of his recent articles here my friend...
http://www.chomsky.info/
A recent article:
U.S.-Backed Israeli Policies Pursuing "End of Palestine"
Noam Chomsky interviewed by Amy Goodman & Juan Gonzalez
Democracy Now, July 14, 2006
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20060714.htm
...thanks, that is nice very nice.
and a perfect read on for tonight
btw: I meant: all makes sense now, all becomes a picture now,
not: all is falling into pieces ...
thanks alot for putting it right
...the world is come undone, I like to change it everyday but change don't come at once, it's a wave, building before it breaks.
I felt the same way when I first watched the film of the book 'Manufacturing consent'. The thought that crossed my mind at that time was that I could feel the cogs of my mind shift a gear. I now feel this way whenever I read Chomsky. He presents the truth about current affairs in a way that is indisputable and backs up everything he says by providing the sources. The only criticisms of him that I've yet to encounter are empty personal attacks against him, and lies which are an attempt to discredit him.
There was an interesting occasion recently when a journalist for the Guardian in England interviewed Chomsky and then proceeded to twist his words and print things which he hadn't said in an attempt to discredit him. She failed in the end, because Chomsky retaliated, and the Guardian's editor was forced to issue a full page apology...
http://www.chomsky.info/letters/20051113.htm
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11052005.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/corrections/story/0,3604,1644017,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1594654,00.html
I could see visiting with members of the Lebanese government itself, but this is just sickening.
Would you care to elaborate, or is this just flatulence on your part?
· Missing from list: young, women, and the French
· Honour leaves linguistics professor underwhelmed
Duncan Campbell
Tuesday October 18, 2005
The Guardian
He is in his 70s and first became known for his theory of transformational grammar - and now he is top of the thinkers' hit parade. Noam Chomsky, the linguistics professor who has become one of the most outspoken critics of US foreign policy, has won a poll that names him as the world's top public intellectual.
Chomsky, who was underwhelmed by the honour, beat off challenges from Umberto Eco, Richard Dawkins, Vaclav Havel and Christopher Hitchens to win the Prospect/Foreign Policy poll.
Article continues
More than 20,000 voters from around the world took part in selecting the winners from a list of 100. The most striking aspect of the list is the shortage of the young, the female and the French. Only two of the top 10, Hitchens and Salman Rushdie, were born after the war, and Naomi Klein is the highest placed woman, at 11. France provides one name in the top 40, fewer than Peru and Iran.
Since the poll was for the world's leading intellectuals, it should come as no surprise that websites manned by supporters of Chomsky, Hitchens and Abdolkarim Soroush were used to draw attention to the poll. Chomsky's supporters are clearly the most energetic: he took 4,800 votes to Eco's 2,500. Voters came mainly from Britain and the US. "I don't pay a lot of attention to them," said Chomsky of the poll last night. "It was probably padded by some friends of mine."
Pondering the absence of younger intellectuals from the list, David Herman asks in the new issue of Prospect: "Who are the younger equivalents to [Jürgen] Habermas, Chomsky and Havel? Great names are formed by great events. But there has been no shortage of terrible events in the last 10 years." Only two of the top 20 have yet to reach the age of 50.
The choice of Chomsky will be welcomed and contested by many of the same names who responded delightedly or furiously to the award of the Nobel prize for literature to Harold Pinter last week.
In recognition of this, Prospect offers alternative perspectives, with Robin Blackburn arguing for Chomsky's right to head the list as both a brilliant expositor of linguistics and a vital critic of the US abroad, while Oliver Kamm dismisses him as a kneejerk anti-American who is cavalier about his sources.
Top five
1 Noam Chomsky linguistics expert and critic of US foreign policy
2 Umberto Eco writer and academic
3 Richard Dawkins Oxford professor of public understanding of science
4 Vaclav Havel playwright and leader of Czech velvet revolution
5 Christopher Hitchens journalist, author, pro-Iraq war polemicist