Options
A letter from Chomsky and others on the recent events in the Middle East
Byrnzie
Posts: 21,037
A letter from Chomsky and others on the recent events in the Middle East (July 19, 2006):
The latest chapter of the conflict between Israel and Palestine began when Israeli forces abducted two civilians, a doctor and his brother, from Gaza. An incident scarcely reported anywhere, except in the Turkish press. The following day the Palestinians took an Israeli soldier prisoner - and proposed a negotiated exchange against prisoners taken by the Israelis - there are approximately 10,000 in Israeli jails.
That this "kidnapping" was considered an outrage, whereas the illegal military occupation of the West Bank and the systematic appropriation of its natural resources - most particularly that of water - by the Israeli Defence (!) Forces is considered a regrettable but realistic fact of life, is typical of the double standards repeatedly employed by the West in face of what has befallen the Palestinians, on the land alloted to them by international agreements, during the last seventy years.
Today outrage follows outrage; makeshift missiles cross sophisticated ones. The latter usually find their target situated where the disinherited and crowded poor live, waiting for what was once called Justice. Both categories of missile rip bodies apart horribly - who but field commanders can forget this for a moment?
Each provocation and counter-provocation is contested and preached over. But the subsequent arguments, accusations and vows, all serve as a distraction in order to divert world attention from a long-term military, economic and geographic practice whose political aim is nothing less than the liquidation of the Palestinian nation.
This has to be said loud and clear for the practice, only half declared and often covert, is advancing fast these days, and, in our opinion, it must be unceasingly and eternally recognised for what it is and resisted.
Tariq Ali
John Berger
Noam Chomsky
Eduardo Galeano
Naomi Klein
Harold Pinter
Arundhati Roy
Jose Saramago
Giuliana Sgrena
Howard Zinn
The latest chapter of the conflict between Israel and Palestine began when Israeli forces abducted two civilians, a doctor and his brother, from Gaza. An incident scarcely reported anywhere, except in the Turkish press. The following day the Palestinians took an Israeli soldier prisoner - and proposed a negotiated exchange against prisoners taken by the Israelis - there are approximately 10,000 in Israeli jails.
That this "kidnapping" was considered an outrage, whereas the illegal military occupation of the West Bank and the systematic appropriation of its natural resources - most particularly that of water - by the Israeli Defence (!) Forces is considered a regrettable but realistic fact of life, is typical of the double standards repeatedly employed by the West in face of what has befallen the Palestinians, on the land alloted to them by international agreements, during the last seventy years.
Today outrage follows outrage; makeshift missiles cross sophisticated ones. The latter usually find their target situated where the disinherited and crowded poor live, waiting for what was once called Justice. Both categories of missile rip bodies apart horribly - who but field commanders can forget this for a moment?
Each provocation and counter-provocation is contested and preached over. But the subsequent arguments, accusations and vows, all serve as a distraction in order to divert world attention from a long-term military, economic and geographic practice whose political aim is nothing less than the liquidation of the Palestinian nation.
This has to be said loud and clear for the practice, only half declared and often covert, is advancing fast these days, and, in our opinion, it must be unceasingly and eternally recognised for what it is and resisted.
Tariq Ali
John Berger
Noam Chomsky
Eduardo Galeano
Naomi Klein
Harold Pinter
Arundhati Roy
Jose Saramago
Giuliana Sgrena
Howard Zinn
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
wouldn't palestine have to be a nation in order to be liquidated?
The Jews didn't have a nation in the 1930's and yet no one disputes that the Nazi's attempted to have them liquidated. So, in answer to your question, the answer is no.
that's right the nazi's attempted to liquidate jews ( a people group), not israel (a country). so the answer to my question is yes. You cannot eliminate a country if there isn't one to eliminate.
Each provocation and counter-provocation is contested and preached over. But the subsequent arguments, accusations and vows, all serve as a distraction in order to divert world attention from a long-term military, economic and geographic practice whose political aim is nothing less than the liquidation of the Israeli nation.
hezbollah HAS said that, yet no one thinks any ill of that...interesting.
...now you made me stay... that is even better right now.
thanks again for the updates.
I read several books by comsky and he just makes me think and giving me those moments of : wow, he put it great! wow, now I understand! wow, that is an interesting aspect ... and so on...
(have not read Zinn yet, although books by him are standing already on the shelf... there needs to be winter time and less work to get started).
anyway, thanks alot.
I look now forward to read his letter....
...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.
Man, why are you splitting hairs here? It's boring. There was a country called Palestine. Now there isn't. They are being slowly but surely suffocated and extinguished by an illegal military occupation. Why argue the obvious?
Howard Zinn - 'You can't be neutral on a moving train'
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0807071277/026-0759168-2539642?
.. I kinda have a difficult time to believe that this is the hidden goal behind it all...
..nahh, wouldn't think so right now.
but, well, there are reasons behind all this, other reasons then haunting and getting rid of terrorists.... and it is an interesting theory....
for the rest I am speakless,
cause it just does not get into my mind anymore, how nations and leaders still make war,
instead of love
I mean it... why can't we sort things out,
discuss things in a diplomatic way,
find a solution,
and leave behind this ONE, and only ONE belief in a god
but being tolerant instead and live and let live.
1/2 of the globe does have an agreement already,
is treating the other with respect and peace,
only when it comes to parts of africa and the middle east,
people are left in bloody slaughterism.
speakless.. it does not get into my mind.
maybe just a sig line I read here, once.
there is plenty for all!!!
...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.
"on the land alloted to them by international agreements, during the last seventy years."
Are people not human beings, and allowed to commence their day to day existence on this planet, unless they are classified as a nation?
Can you find me the original story out of the Turkish press? Cause everybody here keeps talking about it, but I havn't really saw a link to the Turkish source. (never mind the language, I've got friends who can translate it for me).
I can't find the original source. I'd be interested to see that aswell. All I have is this at the moment:
'On June 24, when Israel seized two Palestinians in “the first arrest raid in the territory since Israel pulled out of the area a year ago” the American mainstream media was silent.'
Chomsky:
"Israel abducted the two Gaza civilians, a doctor and his brother. We don't know their names. You don't know the names of victims. They were taken to Israel, presumably, and nobody knows their fate. The next day, something happened, which we do know about, a lot. Militants in Gaza, probably Islamic Jihad, abducted an Israeli soldier across the border. That's Corporal Gilad Shalit. And that's well known; the first abduction is not."
Edit: found this...
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/07/23oppel_edit.html
'Shihadeh claims the Hamas raid was only a response to the abduction the previous day of a Gaza doctor and his brother by Israeli forces.
She said her source was professor emeritus Noam Chomsky of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is a distinguished linguist and critic of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy. I contacted him and asked his sources.
He promptly replied that they were Gideon Levy of Ha'aretz, an Israeli newspaper; Jonathan Cook in the media journal Medialens; David Peterson; The Baltimore Sun and The Los Angeles Times; the Turkish Daily News; and scholar Robert Blecher.
Chomsky acknowledged that some of the mentions were marginal, understated and brief'.
The Top 100 Chomsky Lies - http://www.paulbogdanor.com/100chomskylies.pdf
You're beginning to sound an air of desperation relying on such obvious crap as that web page you have provided the link to. I bet that took you all of 30 seconds to find in Google. Your dedication to the cause of truth is astounding.
That web page is a fucking joke. Everything quoted is taken out of context and distorted.
Just one example:
The Lie: "it seems fair to describe the reponsibility of the United States and Pol Pot for the atrocities during 'the decade of the genocide' as being roughly in the same range"
The truth: They were not remotely in the same range American forces caused approximately 40,000 Khmer Rouge and civilian casualties in Cambodia during 1970-5. The Khmer Rouge killed more than 1.8 million civilians during 1975-9"
Chomsky was here actually comparing the genocide in Cambodia with the U.S sponsored genocide in East Timor during tha same period. But then reading these two quotations out of context you would never know that.
It's also interesting to note where this guy gets most of his sources: for instance, the 'Anti-Chomsky reader' is one. The Washington post and the New York Times also appear frequently as sources.
Quite frankly, if this tedious hodge podge of quotations is the best that people desperate to criticise Chomsky - rather than confront him with a degree of honesty - can come up with, then he's pretty safe for the time being.
It would be far more revealing for this Paul Bogdanor, whoever he is, to actually confront Chomsky and engage in a reasoned debate with him. But then I suppose it's a lot easier to pick holes from a distance. It just makes you wonder why this person would go to such lengths, rather than simply arrange an interview with his subject. Perhaps it's because Chomsky would make him look as stupid as the web page you provided above, Nakedeye66.
All Chomsky need do to destroy his character is open his mouth. Other than the fringe elements that seem to have a heyday on message boards like this, he has no weight or character. If Chomsky's goal is peace, truth, and justice, than so was Stalin's. Gee, I think Hugo Chavez has goals like that too.
Whether God has mercy on a soul rests with each individual and the God he chooses (or chooses not to) observe. Certainly not based on the pontifications of message board fringe leftists.
The only "points" I want from this board are based on what I have to say about Pearl Jam. As to history and politics, this is but a three-ring circus (in which I'm sadly too eager to participate in).
Damn Byrnzie, got sucked in again. Stayed away for several days and now I'm wasting time on the job. But I always know I can illicit a reaction here. Not much "reasoned debate" on the Train, but certainly amusing.
Have you listened to Naked Eye yet? Do you hear the similarity to Present Tense? Next try Life Wasted versus the Punk Meets The Godfather. Ed loves his Who nostalgia.
this whole issue is about splitting hairs...can you show me there was a country called Palestine? B/c i couldn't find it. I could find a region but no country and that may be splitting hairs but it's the truth. And I find it great that chomsky et al would say country in a letter...it makes it seem that much more atrocious.
And Irael is slowly but surely being suffocated and extinguished by terrorists, who once again have said that is there goal! Show me something that says Israel wants Lebanon or the palestinian "region" gone. They are fighting people (read terrorist group) who want them wiped out.
Yep. This moving train is like McDonalds. You know it's wrong but you keep going back.
I downloaded the album a few days ago. It's on my i-pod. I'll give it a listen this morning on the way to work.
Exactly. Well said.
High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
Low Traffic CIO MIW
Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
I'm not saying Palestine is right, but do you think Israel is planting daisies on the Gaza border everyday? they're roasting bar-b-q people over there slowly to death is what they're doing. It's been ongoing seemingly forever now. Look at the Gaza strip on a map. They're making "crazies" over there is what they're doing. You know, the muslim terrorists?
So that womam heared it from Chomsky. He said he heared it from Gideon Levy. Gideon is a well knowen Israeli journalist who work in "Haaretz", a pro-Palestinian newspaper and one of the most popular newspaper in Israel. I've checked all of his articals there. on 2/7 he posted a very LONG artical, with a tiny remark about that kidnapping story ("two days before the kidnapping in Kerem Shalon, the IDF had kidnapped a Palestinian doctor and his bother out of their home in Gaza"), as if it was an old & well knowen fact. I've checked earlier articals in "Haaretz", no one even metioned that story. I've checked his other articals over the net (he is an activist journalist who also write in "radical left organizations" websites - nothing, just the same sentence without any other details about the case nor the source of it.
So Gideon is not our answer. But Turkish Daily News (maybe) is:
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=47183
"Ali Muamar, a Palestinian known to *local residents* as a Hamas loyalist, said..." Well, this is our source - a Hamas loyalist.
"An army spokeswoman confirmed troops had entered Gaza and detained the men, saying they were Hamas militants who had planned to carry out an anti-Israeli attack. *Muamar* said he and his sons were not involved in hostilities against Israel". But his local neighbors said HE IS a Hamas loyalist, according to that artical.
also, all the articals of Hamas statements about Gilad Shalit kidnapping on this very site say nothing about that doctor & son. Now, if that really was the reason for the Shalit kidnapping by the Hamas, wouldn't it be logic they'll (=Hamas) use it in press?
Nothing here is for sure, except for one thing: The source is not reliable. Now I don't know what about you, but for me basing a theory on that story seems odd and a bit irresponsible.
"Chomsky acknowledged that some of the mentions were marginal, understated and brief'".
www.amnesty.org.uk
But it is clear to all of us is that a unproportionate response is going on.
www.amnesty.org.uk
Even worse, he knew that and still allowed himself (not just him, but also the other journalists) to write about it like valid fact. The thing is, too many people don't pay attention to "some of the mentions were marginal..." and take the rest of his words for granted. Look, none of you didn't even bother to dig into the source of that story, you just assumed its true and that's it.
*edit:
See? you're talking about it like a valid fact.
Oh, come on. Since when Chomsky is considered to be "a common mortal" (certainty not on this board)?
.
Yep, it is clear, and that's why things like that really bother me - they are pointless and only cause more tension in the mid-east.
Chomsky, Zinn, they're taken in consideration just between the anglosaxons (america, uk), so it will not create more tensions inside the middle east.
Instead I wanted to ask you: what's your opinion in the results (or non-results) of the rome conference of yesterday?
www.amnesty.org.uk
HUGE disappointment, and I don't know why. After all, I didn't expect anything to actually happen over there.
About Chomsky et al: most of "common" people who read these articals don't get it that way. They don't focus on the criticism to their own governments, the only thing they are taking out of it is the criticism upon "evil" Israel (as you can well see on this board). Criticism is blessed, don't get me wrong, but if you're missing the point of it then its either worth nothing, or can be very dangerous.
So with what rigorous method do you analyse the information which is presented to you daily by the mainstream media Shiraz? I'd be very interested to know under what criteria you decide what is certified truth and what is not. Does the fact that the mainstream medie neglected to mention the 'alledged' kidnapping of the two Palestinians mean that the event can't therefore have happened, in your scheme of things?
But anyway, this might not stop criticism. Just people making critics should be ready to counter-fight people making stupid generalizations from their critics.
www.amnesty.org.uk
Shiraz doesn't make stupid generalizations like those highlighted above, do you, Shiraz?
are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider
god-fearing and pious: Aristotle
Viva Zapatista!
All I'm saying is this event's circumstances are really blurry = maybe it is true or maybe it isn't, but most people tend to ignore the doubts and relate to the story as a valid fact. I mean - we should talk/discuss about it, but refer to it as what it really is: A blurry story.
IDF said they are terrorists, the father said they are not, Hamas said nothing to the press - go figure what really happened, who is right and if it really had something to do with Gilad Shalit (Well, since Hamas had to dig a VERY long tunnle in order to get to place where Gilad Shalit was, I'll ASSUME it has nothing to do with it - it takes more than 2 days to do such thing without anyone to notice you).