Noam Chomsky on Israel: An Apartheid State

[westwall]

And another....


“There is, to be sure, an element of absurdity in the constant refrain that socialism equals Gulag… But despite the inherent absurdity of attributing, say, revenge killings by Cambodian peasants who were bombed out of their homes by Western force to ‘Marxism’ or ‘atheism,’ the practice is common and quite successful as a tactic in engineering consent to the priorities and structures of contemporary state capitalism.”

After the Cataclysm (South End Press, 1979), p. 297.


The reality.....

The Khmer Rouge bloodbath was not peasant revenge for Western bombing but a planned mass murder motivated by communist ideology. The Khmer Rouge boasted that “we will be the first nation to create a completely communist society,” hailed Mao as “the most eminent teacher… since Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin” and drew up a plan to “eliminate the capitalist class” in order to “construct socialism.”

Quotations from Karl D. Jackson, ed., Cambodia 1975-1978: Rendezvous With Death (Princeton University Press, 1989), pp. 221ff, 274ff

 

[westwall]

So anyway, this thread isn't about Chomsky's career or view on Cambodia, it about his views of Israel and what he said in those two interviews on Israel/Palestine.

And, because he is PROVEN to be a supporter of murderous swine his opinion MEANS NOTHING! It would be like asking Goebbels for his opinion on the relationship between Russia and The Ukraine.

 

[Billo_Really]

Here is his statement. The reality was over 900,000 died due to Pol Pots agricultural policies.

“At the end of 1978 Cambodia [under the Khmer Rouge] was the only country in Indochina that had succeeded at all in overcoming the agricultural crisis that was left by the American destruction.”

Language and Politics (AK Press, 2004), pp. 245-6. Cf.: “it was a condition of survival to turn (or return) the populations to productive work. The victors in Cambodia undertook drastic and often brutal measures to accomplish this task… At a heavy cost, these measures appear to have overcome the dire and destructive consequences of the US war by 1978,” After the Cataclysm (South End Press, 1979), p. viii.
72 Marek Sliwinski, Le Génocide Khmer Rouge: Une Analyse Démographique (L’Harmattan, 1995), p.

That's not saying he supported Pol Pot's policies, just that he overcame the destruction from our carpet bombs.

He even admits the measures were brutal.

 

[Billo_Really]

On the subject of Israel, I found this pretty interesting...

Justice for Palestine?

15. You sometimes say in talks and interviews that you used to be called a 'Zionist', and now you're called an 'anti-Zionist', and that your views haven't changed. Young people working on Israel/Palestine issues today might find this confusing, since those who call themselves Zionists seem to be supporters of the most virulent Israeli government policies. Could you clarify this: What did it mean to be a 'Zionist' back then? What does it mean today?

Until December 1942, the Zionist movement had no formal commitment to a Jewish state. Until the state was established in May 1948, opposition to a Jewish state was within the Zionist movement. Later, the concept "Zionism" was very narrowly restricted for propaganda reasons. By the 1970s, when Israel chose expansion and dependence on the US over security and integration into the region, the concept "Zionism" was narrowed to refer, in effect, to support for the policies of the government of Israel. Thus when the distinguished Israeli Labor Party statesman Abba Eban said that the task of dialogue with the gentile world is to show that "anti-Zionists" are either anti-Semites or neurotic self-hating Jews (his examples were I.F. Stone and me), he was restricting "Zionism" to support for the state of Israel and excluding any such criticism as logically impossible. The concept "anti-Zionism" then becomes analogous to the disgraceful concept "anti-Americanism," drawn from the lexicon of totalitarianism and based on strictly totalitarian principles. By now the term has been so debased by propaganda that it is better abandoned, in my opinion.

 

[westwall]

Here is his statement. The reality was over 900,000 died due to Pol Pots agricultural policies.

“At the end of 1978 Cambodia [under the Khmer Rouge] was the only country in Indochina that had succeeded at all in overcoming the agricultural crisis that was left by the American destruction.”

Language and Politics (AK Press, 2004), pp. 245-6. Cf.: “it was a condition of survival to turn (or return) the populations to productive work. The victors in Cambodia undertook drastic and often brutal measures to accomplish this task… At a heavy cost, these measures appear to have overcome the dire and destructive consequences of the US war by 1978,” After the Cataclysm (South End Press, 1979), p. viii.
72 Marek Sliwinski, Le Génocide Khmer Rouge: Une Analyse Démographique (L’Harmattan, 1995), p.

That's not saying he supported Pol Pot's policies, just that he overcame the destruction from our carpet bombs.

He even admits the measures were brutal.

Bullshit. "The fact that Jews died in their millions was because the Americans were bombing the Germans" is the equivalent of what he's saying. Systematic starvation
(which you seem to support) IS a war crime and it is practiced by progressives the world over. Germany 6 million, Soviet Union 80+ million, China 100+ million. Etc. It's a lot easier to starve people (and cheaper) than to shoot them.

Progressives aren't stupid. They're just scum.

 

[amity1844]

None of us are ever going to find another human who agrees with us 100%.

Meanwhile, we have to learn from the brilliant, chew the chicken and spit out the bone while we sharpen our wits answering the points we don't agree with, and not be trashing people gratuitously just to avoid dealing with uncomfortable issues.

If you can't do that, then take your keister over to the southeast Asia forum and vent for awhile, and come back when you are ready to discuss Israel/Palestine.

Now ... the videos?

 

[westwall]

None of us are ever going to find another human who agrees with us 100%.

Meanwhile, we have to learn from the brilliant, chew the chicken and spit out the bone while we sharpen our wits answering the points we don't agree with, and not be trashing people gratuitously just to avoid dealing with uncomfortable issues.

If you can't do that, then take your keister over to the southeast Asia forum and vent for awhile, and come back when you are ready to discuss Israel/Palestine.

Now ... the videos?

Piss off. Chomsky has NO ETHICS thus he is not competent to speak about anything other than maybe wiping his own ass.

 

[Billo_Really]

None of us are ever going to find another human who agrees with us 100%.

Meanwhile, we have to learn from the brilliant, chew the chicken and spit out the bone while we sharpen our wits answering the points we don't agree with, and not be trashing people gratuitously just to avoid dealing with uncomfortable issues.

If you can't do that, then take your keister over to the southeast Asia forum and vent for awhile, and come back when you are ready to discuss Israel/Palestine.

Now ... the videos?

Anyone up for a little Jewish reggae?

 

[Billo_Really]

Piss off. Chomsky has NO ETHICS thus he is not competent to speak about anything other than maybe wiping his own ass.

Do you care to say something intelligent?

 

[amity1844]

WOW! He's really good! I have a feeling he spent more time learning that than his rabbi would strictly speaking approve of, but he learned it well.

 

[westwall]

Piss off. Chomsky has NO ETHICS thus he is not competent to speak about anything other than maybe wiping his own ass.

Do you care to say something intelligent?

You first. You parrot imbeciles and unethical assholes. Are you sure you're not a recording?

 

[amity1844]

the problem is, you likely think anyone who doesn't agree with you is an imbecile and an asshole, and use that to insulate you from what they're saying. If we let ourselves get away with that, we stop growing intellectually.

 

[westwall]

the problem is, you likely think anyone who doesn't agree with you is an imbecile and an asshole, and use that to insulate you from what they're saying. If we let ourselves get away with that, we stop growing intellectually.

No, I don't. I don't care if you disagree with me. I love learning from people. However, Chomsky has no ethics which means he is intellectually dishonest which means the same to a thinking person as if he were a known perjurer testifying in court. Nothing he says is believable thus he should just go away.

His opinions means NOTHING.

 

[Lipush]

You lost me at "Noam Chomsky".

The dude is a self hating nutjub.

 

[Phoenall]

He is extremely influential in US.
Here you are again putting you fingers in your eras and screaming "nananana" at the top of you lungs to avoid facing reality.

and at any rate, he thinks he is a supporter of Israel, a loving critic, and Israel takes him seriously even if you don't!

He is only influential amongst other Jew haters, and to everyone else he is a LIAR

 

[Billo_Really]

You first. You parrot imbeciles and unethical assholes. Are you sure you're not a recording?

Everything I say is intelligent.

You can't see it because you don't have the stones to put your emotions in check.

 

[Billo_Really]

He is only influential amongst other Jew haters, and to everyone else he is a LIAR

What did he lie about?

 

[Billo_Really]

You lost me at "Noam Chomsky".

The dude is a self hating nutjub.

Why do you say that?

 

[Billo_Really]

Nothing he says is believable...

What can't you believe about the following 4 statements?

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.

Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it.

Wanton killing of innocent civilians is terrorism, not a war against terrorism.

Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state.

 

[Lipush]

You lost me at "Noam Chomsky".

The dude is a self hating nutjub.

Why do you say that?

Because it's true?

Why don't you stop listening to crazy people and start listening to ones who know what they're actually talking about?