Options
Noam Chomsky on Israel, Lebanon and Palestine
Infinity_Now
Posts: 188
After having read all this:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14404.htm
...an interview with Noam Chomsky, from which I invite any debate and discourse relating to Noam Chomsky and this article.
I realize there have been 10,000 threads on this topic - but I want to discuss this interview in particular.
"Interviewer: Much has been said about Israel's right to defend itself from its enemies who are taking advantage of Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, thus causing the latest chapter in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Do you agree?
NC: Israel certainly has a right to defend itself, but no state has the right to "defend" occupied territories."
That pretty much sums up this whole conflict - this mess should never have occured, had Israel obeyed international law and NOT illegally invade/occupy Lebanon.
I think Israel are, "in the wrong" here.
They are in the wrong fight, in the wrong nation, they're arresting the wrong soldiers - their own, they're killing the wrong people - by and large, they are in the wrong position to argue, "this is done for our defense," because they attacked first, they are incapable of justifying their ongoing war crimes... this mess, it needs to end!
"Interviewer: What steps do you recommend for the current hostilities to be brought to an end and a lasting peace established?
NC: The basic steps are well understood: a cease-fire and exchange of prisoners; withdrawal of occupying forces; continuation of the "national dialogue" within Lebanon; and acceptance of the very broad international consensus on a two-state settlement for Israel-Palestine, which has been unilaterally blocked by the United States and Israel for thirty years. There is, as always, much more to say, but those are the essentials."
Thorough, as is his routine - Chomsky knows what he's talking about. He's the only speaker I can think of in recent memory who can support every single one of his statements with facts, on the spot with no pre-constructed dialouge set up for him. He rarely needs to defend his statements, because he tends to speak in favor of facts and very rarely states his personal opinions.
As always, Chomsky provides answers - not diatribe, nor rhetoric - cease-fire and civil engagement in regional negotiations... will it happen? I still say that action is largely an effect of public opinion and so the people of Israel and the U.S. must make it known they demand their representative governments will either agree to take them seriously and set forth cease-fire and further talks, or choose to disobey the populace and succeed from their seats and thus cause all out civil war.
Maybe such a harsh conflict deserves a such harsh response? ...such a harsh realization of personal and international responsibility?
It seems war is the best time for peace to be heard in the public forum. It seems many more voices must be heard in order for this ongoing conflict to end (common people, this conflict in the ME didn't start a month ago, it's been going on long enough!)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14404.htm
...an interview with Noam Chomsky, from which I invite any debate and discourse relating to Noam Chomsky and this article.
I realize there have been 10,000 threads on this topic - but I want to discuss this interview in particular.
"Interviewer: Much has been said about Israel's right to defend itself from its enemies who are taking advantage of Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, thus causing the latest chapter in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Do you agree?
NC: Israel certainly has a right to defend itself, but no state has the right to "defend" occupied territories."
That pretty much sums up this whole conflict - this mess should never have occured, had Israel obeyed international law and NOT illegally invade/occupy Lebanon.
I think Israel are, "in the wrong" here.
They are in the wrong fight, in the wrong nation, they're arresting the wrong soldiers - their own, they're killing the wrong people - by and large, they are in the wrong position to argue, "this is done for our defense," because they attacked first, they are incapable of justifying their ongoing war crimes... this mess, it needs to end!
"Interviewer: What steps do you recommend for the current hostilities to be brought to an end and a lasting peace established?
NC: The basic steps are well understood: a cease-fire and exchange of prisoners; withdrawal of occupying forces; continuation of the "national dialogue" within Lebanon; and acceptance of the very broad international consensus on a two-state settlement for Israel-Palestine, which has been unilaterally blocked by the United States and Israel for thirty years. There is, as always, much more to say, but those are the essentials."
Thorough, as is his routine - Chomsky knows what he's talking about. He's the only speaker I can think of in recent memory who can support every single one of his statements with facts, on the spot with no pre-constructed dialouge set up for him. He rarely needs to defend his statements, because he tends to speak in favor of facts and very rarely states his personal opinions.
As always, Chomsky provides answers - not diatribe, nor rhetoric - cease-fire and civil engagement in regional negotiations... will it happen? I still say that action is largely an effect of public opinion and so the people of Israel and the U.S. must make it known they demand their representative governments will either agree to take them seriously and set forth cease-fire and further talks, or choose to disobey the populace and succeed from their seats and thus cause all out civil war.
Maybe such a harsh conflict deserves a such harsh response? ...such a harsh realization of personal and international responsibility?
It seems war is the best time for peace to be heard in the public forum. It seems many more voices must be heard in order for this ongoing conflict to end (common people, this conflict in the ME didn't start a month ago, it's been going on long enough!)
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I can't argue with the above, although I'm sure that there are platy who will. As Chomsky states: "..acceptance of the very broad international consensus on a two-state settlement for Israel-Palestine, which has been unilaterally blocked by the United States and Israel for thirty years." This is the crux of the matter. Although I've heard it said here on the board that the U.N is corrupt - without explaining why the U.N is corrupt, and of who is responsible for corrupting it - and that this apparently excuses the ongoing stalemate, and the ongoing death and destruction.
bump!
*snore*
zzzzz...