Posted on 05/30/2006 3:25:05 PM PDT by Alouette
Following are excerpts from an interview with the American linguist Noam Chomsky, which aired on LBC TV on May 23, 2006.
Interviewer: Do you consider Hizbullah to be a terrorist organization?
Chomsky: The United States considers Hizbullah a terrorist organization, but the term terrorism is used by the great powers simply to refer to forms of violence of which they disapprove. So the U.S. was of course supporting the Israeli invasions and occupation of southern Lebanon. Hizbullah was instrumental in driving them out, so for that reason they are a terrorist organization.
[...]
It's an interesting dilemma. Personally I'm very much opposed to Hamas' policies in almost every respect. However, we should recognize that the policies of Hamas are more forthcoming and more conducive to a peaceful settlement than those of the United States or Israel. So to repeat: the policies, in my view, are unacceptable, but preferable to the policies of the United States and Israel.
So, for example, Hamas has called for a long-term indefinite truce on the international border. There is a long-standing international consensus that goes back over thirty years that there should be a two-state political settlement on the international border, the pre-June 1967 border, with minor and mutual modifications. That's the official phrase. Hamas is willing to accept that as a long-term truce. The United States and Israel are unwilling even to consider it.
The Hamas is being... The demand on Hamas by the United States and the European Union and Israel... The demand is first that they recognize the State of Israel. Actually, that they recognize its right to exist. Well, Israel and the U.S. certainly don't recognize the right of Palestine to exist, nor recognize any state of Palestine. In fact, they have been acting consistently to undermine any such possibility.
The second condition is that Hamas must renounce violence. Israel and the United States certainly do not renounce violence.
The third condition is that Hamas accept international agreements. The United States and Israel reject international agreements.
So, though the policies of Hamas are, again in my view, unacceptable, they happen to be closer to the international consensus on a political peaceful settlement than those of their antagonists, and it's a reflection of the power of the imperial states - the United States and Europe - that they are able to shift the framework, so that the problem appears to be Hamas' policies, and not the more extreme policies of the United States and Israel.
And remember... We must remember that in their case it's not just policies. It's not words - it's actions.
[...]
So if we compare the positions of the two sides, all are unacceptable, but those of Hamas are the least unacceptable. So framing the issue this way is a reflection of the power of the Western states to impose the framework of discussion. It's not something we should accept.
[...]
As far as September 11th is concerned, I take the position that I have written, continued to... It was, as I wrote immediately, it was one of the most horrifying terrorist atrocities ever. It's probably the single worst terrorist atrocity, a horrendous crime.
But we should recognize that in the scale of terrorist actions, it is not unusual. It's... In fact, in Latin America it's often called the second 9/11. Not 9/11. The reason is that on 9/11 - on September 11, 1973, there was an even worse terrorist attack. In fact, to translate it... Let's just imagine... September 11th, 2001 was bad enough, but suppose what had happened was this: Suppose that Al-Qaeda had succeeded in attacking the White House, killing the president, installing military dictatorship, a regime of terror and violence...
Interviewer: What happened then?
Chomsky: ...which killed 50-100... Pardon?
Interviewer: What happened then?
Chomsky: Let's continue. Suppose that they had killed 50,000-100,000 people, tortured 700 thousand, installed a terrorist apparatus that was functioning all over the world to overthrow governments, carry out assassinations, and so on. Suppose that had happened on September 11th.
Well, in fact, it did. That's what happened on September 11th, 1973, in Chile. The only change I've made is to change the numbers to per capita equivalence. Well, that would have been vastly worse than what actually happened, but it did happen. That was the U.S.-backed installation of a military dictatorship in Chile, which overthrew and destroyed the oldest democratic system in Latin America. That's only one example. There are many others.
So for example... Yes, September 11th, 2001 was a terrible atrocity. In the West it's considered unique, and it is in a sense unique. It's the first time in hundreds of years that massive terrorism was directed against the West. However, the West is the source of far worse terrorism and violence directed against others.
Yes, we should recognize what happened on September 11 as a crime, as an atrocity, and place it in the context of history.
Now, the commissar class in the United States, of whom David Horowitz is an example, do not want that picture to be presented. Just as their counterparts in the Soviet Union didn't want it to be presented.
[...]
The first achievement of George Bush after 9/11 was to attack Afghanistan. Let's take a look at what happened. The attack on Afghanistan was carried out for one explicit reason, because the war aim was stated explicitly. According to George Bush, any state that harbors terrorists is a terrorist state, and must be treated accordingly, by bombing and invasion.
It follows from that that George Bush is calling for the bombing of the United States. The United States harbors terrorists, violent terrorists, who are regarded by the FBI and the Justice Department as terrorists.
One of the worst of them is Orlando Bosch, an anti-Cuban terrorist, accused by the FBI of about thirty acts of terrorism, some in the United States: The blowing up of the Cubana airliner, killing 73 people... This is part of the 45-year U.S. terrorist war against Cuba. His father, George Bush I, gave Bosch a presidential pardon, so that he could remain in the United States, over the objections of the Justice Department, which regarded him as a threat to U.S. national security. And I can go on from there. But the main terrorists are the ones who carry out the acts in Washington.
[...]
Interviewer: You are a Jew, and you present yourself as having been a Zionist activist in your youth. Nevertheless, you are accused of anti-Semitism. Briefly, what do you have to say in your defense?
Chomsky: Well, actually, that notion has origins in the Bible, and I'm happy to accept the criticism. The origins in the Bible are King Ahab, who was the epitome of evil in the Bible, and he condemned the prophet Elijah for being a hater of Israel. The reason Elijah was a hater of Israel was because he was criticizing the acts of the evil king, and the king, like totalitarians throughout history, identified the state - himself - with the people, the country, and the culture. So if you criticize state policy, you are a hater of Israel or a hater of America, or a hater of Russia or any other country like... So yes, I'm delighted to be in that company.
Interviewer: But don't you think it natural that when you compare the Israeli actions and the Israelis to Hitler, it is only natural that you are labeled an anti-Semite?
Chomsky: I have never described Israeli policies as being like Hitler, or anyone else's policies as being like Hitler. Hitler was unique. It's a historically unique, hideous, development in human affairs. I don't think anyone is like it.
On the other hand, I do say that some of the policies announced happen to be very similar to those of Hitler. So Hitler's quoted remarks when he took over Czechoslovakia - they are familiar from every other great power, and we should recognize that.
That's not to say that everyone else is committing the Holocaust. Of course they're not. That was unique. But we should recognize similarities in planning, policies, and thinking, when they are real.
Nonsense. Terrorism is violence targeting civilians or civilian property to further a political agenda.
I didn't know that. I don't know why other than the "know thy enemy" value.
He is an anarchis. He's not 'liberal' who longs for big government. In one paper, he said he's against big business now, but later, when the state is strong and all business are done by state, he would be against them as well.
So, if now he sounds as if pro-Hamas, it's because he thinks America and Israel are the strong institutions that need to be destroyed. Later, if Hamas is too strong, he would want them destroyed as well.
Lemay?
By your definition they both were. (Both supported area bombardment which is deliberatly attacking civilians and civilian property.)
It really is a tricky definition.
We already know as a matter of fact that Izlamakazis are the legacy of such greats of evil.
Chomski is pond scum.
This guy is a real POS. he has absolutly no love for this country.
Unless the civilian deaths were peripheral to an attempt to destroy industry primarily supporting the military, which from what little I know they weren't, the Harris's and Lemay's bombings were terrorist. That may be difficult to accept, but I don’t see how it’s tricky.
Preemptive yes. Terrorist no. (Criminality of Castro aside)
Eloquent and heartwarming.
Why does ANYBODY give a crap what Chomsky thinks?
"In the 1930's, he would have been rationalizing Nazism."
Actually he did that in the 1970's -
"Chomsky's association with Holocaust denial is rarely mentioned in the American press (its much more commonly cited in France, where the scandal originated), and represents one of the ugliest points in Chomsky's career. In the late 1970s, in response to attacks on a French university professor named Robert Faurisson, Chomsky signed a petition which contained the following statement
[Faurisson] has been conducting extensive research into the 'Holocaust' question. Since he began making his findings public, Professor Faurisson has been subject to a vicious campaign of harassment, intimidation, slander, and physical violence in a crude attempt to silence him.
Faurisson was one of France's most outspoken and prominent deniers of the Holocaust, and Chomsky's support for him, and in particular the language of the petition he signed, caused an uproar."
http://antichomsky.blogspot.com/2004/07/political-economy-of-holocaust-denial.html
Noam Chomsky wrote the preface to a book by French Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson. A book within which Faurisson said:
"The alleged gassing and the alleged genocide of Jews are part of the same historical lie which has been the basis of a huge political and financial swindle of which the principle beneficiaries are the State of Israel and principal victims the German people, not its leaders, and the Palestinian people. . ."
Chomsky also wrote a ringing endorsement for another book, which teaches that Jews worship Satan and justifies the 17th Century Chmeilnitsky pogroms here in Ukraine, which killed thousands of Jews. Chomsky praised the author as: "an outstanding scholar, with remarkable insight and depth of knowledge. His work is informed and penetrating, a contribution of great value."
http://www.postmodernclog.com/archives/000943.html
Chomsky benefits from his traitorous statements - in how many ways one can only surmise. Because he was born Jewish, Chomsky, a truly vile person who has helped bring on terrorism by his many years of trying to weaken America, gets special attention in the liberal world and has for many years attracted other leftist Jews to his Marxist side. If he didn't have tenure, he might very well be out on his ear because even his linguistic theories have been disproven. The man's a big fraud. Academia in the name of free speech harbors and coddles fools. The concept of tenure is highly overrated and should be seriously reexamined.
Why would a military academy like West Point invite him to give a presentation on "Just War Theory", UN Article 51, etc. given his background??
I met a high ranking navy wife last year who told me how upset she was that an anti-American Muslim had been brought in to give a speech to the officers in training about how wrong the Iraq war is.
The question is who decided to bring in these extreme traitors to lecture? Something stinks in high places.
Typo fixed.
Chomsky's primary rhetorical argument is that of facile moral equivalence - e.g. the cops have guns, the Crips have guns - why should Crips give up their weapons when the cops keep theirs? He pretends there is no moral difference in legitimacy between a democratically elected liberal government and religious nuts with guns.
Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel.
..................
Noam, your head would be on the chopping block just as fast as ours unless you're willing to accept Islam as your religion. You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.