Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Anti-Semitism in the Peace Movement
Noam Chomsky in response to a question about anti-Semitism in the Peace Movement.
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/talks/9103-berkeley.html
As for anti-semitism within the peace movement, I think it's extremely marginal. There's plenty of anti-semitism, but you find it
elsewhere. So for example, let's take, say, the Republican party, [laughter] a more powerful organization in the United States
than the peace movement. In the 1988 election campaign, some of you may recall, a month or so before the election it was
revealed that folks called the Ethnic Outreach Committee of the Republican Party, that is the sector of the Republican campaign
that tries to mobilize support for the Republicans among ethnic communities, that the Ethnic Outreach Committee was, that is,
had on it, in very high places, in fact, prominent places in it, were outright Nazis. I don't mean that word metaphorically. I mean
outright Nazis, people who had served in the Rumanian Iron Guard, had been Nazi collaborators and denied the Holocaust, and
so forth, outright Nazis, unreconstructed Nazis. It's interesting that the Democrats never made an issue of it. You look back and
you notice it never came up in the campaign. Some of them were dismissed. A couple of them resurfaced in other high positions.
It was sort of dropped. Now there was a little discussion about this. There was some discussion about this in the New Republic
which is basically the journal of the Israeli lobby. It's the Israeli propaganda journal. It's interesting the way they dealt with it. Of
course, the Democrats never picked the issue up because the leadership of the Jewish community told them to forget it. It's not
worth pursuing. We don't care. The New Republic explained it, interestingly. There is, they said, this "antique and anemic
anti-semitism." It's a crime in the Republican Party. It's true we have this "antique and anemic anti-semitism," namely outright
Nazis, [laughter] people who gassed people and so on, but that's "antique and anemic anti-semitism." That's not a big concern.
They said the real anti-semitism was in the Democratic Party. Why? Because at the Democratic convention there was a
discussion of a Palestinian State. OK. That's the real anti-semitism. And, in fact, the Anti Defamation League, the B'nai B'rith,
the official monitor of anti-semitism, they both put out some really dirty news copy. It's called "The Real Anti-Semitism in
America," around the early eighties, and in it they agreed with the New Republic. We don't have to be worried about antique
and anemic anti-semitism, outright Nazis and Holocaust deniers, and so on. We don't have to worry about that. What we have
to be worried about is the real anti-semitism. Now, what's the real anti-semitism? Well, they define it. Real anti-semitism they
say is, I'm quoting now, I may be off by a word or so but this is essentially a quote, "The real anti-semitism is people who give
war a bad name and peace favorable press." Peace wreakers of Vietnam vintage, people who oppose the U.S. military budget,
oppose U.S. actions in Central America, that's the real anti-semitism. Why? Well, the logic is clear. By their standards the
interests of anti-semitism are opposition to the interests of Jews. The interests of Jews are the same as the interests of Israel, in
their particular interpretation of those interests, not somebody else's, their hawkish interpretation. The hawkish interpretation of
the interests of Israel requires a powerful U.S. military budget and U.S. militancy worldwide. Because they want to maintain the
military confrontation. They want Israel to be an embattled state in a military confrontation with its neighbors, not entering into a
political settlement, and that means powerful support from the United States. Well, that being the case, people who give war a
bad name and peace a favorable press, they're the real anti-semites. So, in a sense, there is anti-semitism in the peace
movement, yes. [laughter][applause]
As for anti-semitism within the peace movement, I think it's extremely marginal. There's plenty of anti-semitism, but you find it
elsewhere. So for example, let's take, say, the Republican party, [laughter] a more powerful organization in the United States
than the peace movement. In the 1988 election campaign, some of you may recall, a month or so before the election it was
revealed that folks called the Ethnic Outreach Committee of the Republican Party, that is the sector of the Republican campaign
that tries to mobilize support for the Republicans among ethnic communities, that the Ethnic Outreach Committee was, that is,
had on it, in very high places, in fact, prominent places in it, were outright Nazis. I don't mean that word metaphorically. I mean
outright Nazis, people who had served in the Rumanian Iron Guard, had been Nazi collaborators and denied the Holocaust, and
so forth, outright Nazis, unreconstructed Nazis. It's interesting that the Democrats never made an issue of it. You look back and
you notice it never came up in the campaign. Some of them were dismissed. A couple of them resurfaced in other high positions.
It was sort of dropped. Now there was a little discussion about this. There was some discussion about this in the New Republic
which is basically the journal of the Israeli lobby. It's the Israeli propaganda journal. It's interesting the way they dealt with it. Of
course, the Democrats never picked the issue up because the leadership of the Jewish community told them to forget it. It's not
worth pursuing. We don't care. The New Republic explained it, interestingly. There is, they said, this "antique and anemic
anti-semitism." It's a crime in the Republican Party. It's true we have this "antique and anemic anti-semitism," namely outright
Nazis, [laughter] people who gassed people and so on, but that's "antique and anemic anti-semitism." That's not a big concern.
They said the real anti-semitism was in the Democratic Party. Why? Because at the Democratic convention there was a
discussion of a Palestinian State. OK. That's the real anti-semitism. And, in fact, the Anti Defamation League, the B'nai B'rith,
the official monitor of anti-semitism, they both put out some really dirty news copy. It's called "The Real Anti-Semitism in
America," around the early eighties, and in it they agreed with the New Republic. We don't have to be worried about antique
and anemic anti-semitism, outright Nazis and Holocaust deniers, and so on. We don't have to worry about that. What we have
to be worried about is the real anti-semitism. Now, what's the real anti-semitism? Well, they define it. Real anti-semitism they
say is, I'm quoting now, I may be off by a word or so but this is essentially a quote, "The real anti-semitism is people who give
war a bad name and peace favorable press." Peace wreakers of Vietnam vintage, people who oppose the U.S. military budget,
oppose U.S. actions in Central America, that's the real anti-semitism. Why? Well, the logic is clear. By their standards the
interests of anti-semitism are opposition to the interests of Jews. The interests of Jews are the same as the interests of Israel, in
their particular interpretation of those interests, not somebody else's, their hawkish interpretation. The hawkish interpretation of
the interests of Israel requires a powerful U.S. military budget and U.S. militancy worldwide. Because they want to maintain the
military confrontation. They want Israel to be an embattled state in a military confrontation with its neighbors, not entering into a
political settlement, and that means powerful support from the United States. Well, that being the case, people who give war a
bad name and peace a favorable press, they're the real anti-semites. So, in a sense, there is anti-semitism in the peace
movement, yes. [laughter][applause]
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Noam's answer is interesting in two ways:
1) He doesn't answer the question. He immediately turns the question (about the peace movement) into a rant against a completely unrelated group. Now there may be anti-semites in the Republican party, but that has no bearing on anti-semitism within the peace movement.
1) He doesn't answer the question. He immediately turns the question (about the peace movement) into a rant against a completely unrelated group. Now there may be anti-semites in the Republican party, but that has no bearing on anti-semitism within the peace movement.
2) I'm actually shocked by the amount of crypto-anti-semitism within Noam's answer. While he is a deft enough speaker to avoid speaking directly of a "Jewish Conspiracy", he alludes several times to how the Democratic party is controlled by the "Jewish Leadership". Accusing Jews of being secretly in power is a time-honored technique of inciting dislike or even hatred against them ("They're secretely against you, so you should be against them!").
Actually, I think you're off.
1) He does, in fact, answer the question almost immediately by saying: "I think [anti-semitism in the peace movement]'s marginal." He goes on to show counter-examples of what he considers to be anti-semitism, which is ignored or downplayed by the same people saying that the "peace movement" is anti-semitic.
2) You are way off here. The words in quotes you use ("jewish leadership") do not appear anywhere in Chomsky's text. They first appear in your comment. Additionally, the article says nothing about the Jewish leadership of the *Democrat* Party, that is completely incoherent with what is written. It is talking about Nazi's, discussion of a palestinian state at the democratic convention, the new republic, but nowhere is it talking about how the democratic party is "controlled by the jewish leadership"
Nice try at trolling.
1) He does, in fact, answer the question almost immediately by saying: "I think [anti-semitism in the peace movement]'s marginal." He goes on to show counter-examples of what he considers to be anti-semitism, which is ignored or downplayed by the same people saying that the "peace movement" is anti-semitic.
2) You are way off here. The words in quotes you use ("jewish leadership") do not appear anywhere in Chomsky's text. They first appear in your comment. Additionally, the article says nothing about the Jewish leadership of the *Democrat* Party, that is completely incoherent with what is written. It is talking about Nazi's, discussion of a palestinian state at the democratic convention, the new republic, but nowhere is it talking about how the democratic party is "controlled by the jewish leadership"
Nice try at trolling.
I'm not sure why you think this is an attempt at trolling. Is everything that you disagree with automatically a troll? I think you have a lot to learn as to what a troll actually is
But in any case...
1) Yes, Noam does give the question a quick brush-off. And then attempts to use the (postulated) existence of anti-semitism elsewhere as support for his statement. Too bad it is not relevant.
But in any case...
1) Yes, Noam does give the question a quick brush-off. And then attempts to use the (postulated) existence of anti-semitism elsewhere as support for his statement. Too bad it is not relevant.
2) The actual phrase that Noam uses is "the leadership of the Jewish community", I apologize for shortening it, I did not have the original post at hand. And I never stated anything about the leadership of the Democratic party being Jewish. But here is Chomsky's fear-mongering, as an exact quote:
"Of course, the Democrats never picked the issue up because the leadership of the Jewish community told them to forget it."
And there you have it, Noam Chomsky claiming that the Democrats are beholden to the Jewish community. Add in some double-speak ("Because at the Democratic convention there was a discussion of a Palestinian State. OK. That's the real anti-semitism.") and a manufactured quote ("The real anti-semitism is people who give war a bad name and peace favorable press."), and you have some well-crafted propaganda designed to create mistrust and hate. Well done, Noam.
Jesus! Chomsky gave this lecture over 10 years ago in March 16, 1991. How can you people even think you can discern what Chompsky's position about this issue is now? How is this original post, or the comments even faintly relevant to "anti-semitism in the peace movement" as it exists now. The relevance of Chomsky's past articles and lectures are his insights into historical fact and geopolitics, including abuse of US and Israeli hedgemony in the world. And this lecture was focused on just that. Not on "anti-semitism in the peace movement."
Chomsky has indeed authored many RECENT articles and lectures focused on all aspects of anti-semitism.
It is absurd for anyone to even discuss an out of context off topic feature of a 1991 Chomsky lecture.
Chomsky has indeed authored many RECENT articles and lectures focused on all aspects of anti-semitism.
It is absurd for anyone to even discuss an out of context off topic feature of a 1991 Chomsky lecture.
Chomsky gave this lecture over 10 years ago in March 16, 1991. How can you people even think you can discern what Chompsky's position about this issue is now?
Someone found it interesting enough to post it as a article, so I am merely pointing out some interesting points in what Noam said. My comments are to be taken in the same context as the original.
Now, now, people. Uncle Noam said that there's no significant antisemitism in the peace movement, and Uncle Noam is never wrong. He has exonerated you all (and himself in the same breath), so now just breathe a sigh of relief that you don't have to examine your positions or conscience any more. Phew!
And anyone who says otherwise is just an uppity Jew. Oh, wait, you're not supposed to say that in public. How about ... is just an uppity Zionist fascist nazoid ghoul baby-eater racist bent on world domination and WWIII. That _is_ an acceptable mode of discourse here on SF IMC, isn't it?
@%<
And anyone who says otherwise is just an uppity Jew. Oh, wait, you're not supposed to say that in public. How about ... is just an uppity Zionist fascist nazoid ghoul baby-eater racist bent on world domination and WWIII. That _is_ an acceptable mode of discourse here on SF IMC, isn't it?
@%<
Has anybody ever brought up the silly little fact that, in his FatefulTriangle book, which everybody is always holding up as some sort of authoritive presentation, makes no mention of the Munich Olympics, in which Israeli athletes were taken hostage and murdered by Palestinian terrorists? It almost seems as if Noam forgot to mention one of the most notable terrorist attacks in history, Certainly just an honest oversight, I'm sure.
Well, at least it's not like Uncle Noam ever contributed the forward to a major work of Holocaust denial propaganda -- well, okay, more than _one_ major work of Holocaust denial propaganda. And that was French, so it doesn't really count.
@%<
@%<
Jewish supporters of Israel will always throw the charge of anti-Semitism at anyone that dares support Palestinian rights.
Noam Chomsky's crime is pointing out Israel's crimes and our complicity in it by giving that racist state $6 billion a year in our tax money.
Israel should not be considered special and beyond reproach nor should the charge of anti-Semitism prevent decent people from finding out the truth about the origins of this country and its current policies.
Noam Chomsky's book "Fateful Triangle" is one of the most important books on the subject and is a must read for anyone interested in the truth.
Noam Chomsky's crime is pointing out Israel's crimes and our complicity in it by giving that racist state $6 billion a year in our tax money.
Israel should not be considered special and beyond reproach nor should the charge of anti-Semitism prevent decent people from finding out the truth about the origins of this country and its current policies.
Noam Chomsky's book "Fateful Triangle" is one of the most important books on the subject and is a must read for anyone interested in the truth.
"Noam Chomsky's book "Fateful Triangle" is one of the most important books on the subject and is a must read for anyone interested in the truth."
As if. Among other things, Noam doesn't even mention the 1972 Munich Olympics, where Palestinian terrorists murdered Israeli athletes. It's a must read, I suppose, but only for folks who want an extremely one-sided and totally incomplete version of reality.
As if. Among other things, Noam doesn't even mention the 1972 Munich Olympics, where Palestinian terrorists murdered Israeli athletes. It's a must read, I suppose, but only for folks who want an extremely one-sided and totally incomplete version of reality.
I could do what self-described "Justice" did -- make a sweeping but unsupportable over-generalization about what the opposition "always" does -- but instead I'll say this.
I guess that supporters of Palestinian rights fall into two categories -- the ones that cry "Zionists always cry antisemitism when Israel is criticized" any time the topic of antisemitism comes up in a discussion on the Mideast, and the ones who recognize that there are indeed enough disturbing instances of antisemitic rhetoric in these discussions that it would be naive to pretend that there isn't a serious concern. Just take a stroll through IMC Palestine, with your blinders off, and if it weren't for Uncle Noam, I'll bet you'd become one of the latter.
Fortunately, Uncle Noam has blessed us all with his exonerating wand, so now we know that there is in fact nothing to be worried about on the antisemitism front among progressives, because Uncle Noam has told us so himself, and Uncle Noam is always right.
So the next time someone posts a variation on the blood libel in the guise of commentary on the Mideast -- and you know what post I'm talking about, don't you? the one spread all over the IMCs about Palestinian children being "slaughtered according to Jewish rites"? -- then just blink twice and it will all go away. Uncle Noam sez so. And if anyone doesn't go along with your pretending, just shout "You're only crying antisemitism because someone has criticized Israel!"
All better now! That didn't hurt a bit.
I guess that supporters of Palestinian rights fall into two categories -- the ones that cry "Zionists always cry antisemitism when Israel is criticized" any time the topic of antisemitism comes up in a discussion on the Mideast, and the ones who recognize that there are indeed enough disturbing instances of antisemitic rhetoric in these discussions that it would be naive to pretend that there isn't a serious concern. Just take a stroll through IMC Palestine, with your blinders off, and if it weren't for Uncle Noam, I'll bet you'd become one of the latter.
Fortunately, Uncle Noam has blessed us all with his exonerating wand, so now we know that there is in fact nothing to be worried about on the antisemitism front among progressives, because Uncle Noam has told us so himself, and Uncle Noam is always right.
So the next time someone posts a variation on the blood libel in the guise of commentary on the Mideast -- and you know what post I'm talking about, don't you? the one spread all over the IMCs about Palestinian children being "slaughtered according to Jewish rites"? -- then just blink twice and it will all go away. Uncle Noam sez so. And if anyone doesn't go along with your pretending, just shout "You're only crying antisemitism because someone has criticized Israel!"
All better now! That didn't hurt a bit.
Nessie: "There is no anti-Semitism among progressives, by definition. "
Oh, _brother_. Would that it were.
Nessie: "To call all anti-Zionists anti-Semites because some anti-Zionists...."
... would be to do something I'm not doing, and no one in this discussion is doing. Once again you're having a conversation with your own index finger, Nessie. Redrum! Redrum!
@%<
Oh, _brother_. Would that it were.
Nessie: "To call all anti-Zionists anti-Semites because some anti-Zionists...."
... would be to do something I'm not doing, and no one in this discussion is doing. Once again you're having a conversation with your own index finger, Nessie. Redrum! Redrum!
@%<
...n/dc/hb/jw
i've told you not to be a smartass. you don't listen well do you?
T T P T P
i've told you not to be a smartass. you don't listen well do you?
T T P T P
So is it anti-semitic to point out that Israel killed 20,000 people in Lebanon in 1982 through random bombardment of Beirut and other Lebanese cities during their invasion (doing to an Arab neighbor what they fear the Arabs want to do to them)?
And they did this with our weapons that we gave them free of charge.
Is it anti-semitic to want to end this aid in its entirety?
Is it anti-semitic to talk about the Jenin massacre and Israel's successful attempt to prevent any investigation into it? They bulldozed homes with people still inside them.
Is it anti-semitic to report on Israeli soldiers defecating and urinating in Palestinian homes, offices, and schools in their latest invasion?
To me anti-semitism is the hatred of Jews for being Jews.
This is wrong no doubt.
But when you lie about Israeli crimes and then vilify people who report the truth by labelling them anti-semitic then that is also wrong.
Jews are not being oppressed now. Palestinians are.
Palestinians are no less important than Jews -- no doubt you'll label that anti-semitic as well.
And they did this with our weapons that we gave them free of charge.
Is it anti-semitic to want to end this aid in its entirety?
Is it anti-semitic to talk about the Jenin massacre and Israel's successful attempt to prevent any investigation into it? They bulldozed homes with people still inside them.
Is it anti-semitic to report on Israeli soldiers defecating and urinating in Palestinian homes, offices, and schools in their latest invasion?
To me anti-semitism is the hatred of Jews for being Jews.
This is wrong no doubt.
But when you lie about Israeli crimes and then vilify people who report the truth by labelling them anti-semitic then that is also wrong.
Jews are not being oppressed now. Palestinians are.
Palestinians are no less important than Jews -- no doubt you'll label that anti-semitic as well.
The semits are Sem´s descendents, and they are: JEWS, ARABS, between others.
Palestinian people are semits too. Nobody can call them "anti-semits".
Palestinian people are semits too. Nobody can call them "anti-semits".
they may not be anti-semits, but some of them are definitely anti-Semites.
-- "So is it anti-semitic to point out that ... Is it anti-semitic to ... Is it anti-semitic to ... Is it anti-semitic to ... "
Ignoring some highly debatable assumptions in your questions, the answer is no, no, no, and no. Which leads me to the next question, which is, who exactly has claimed that they were? Sure wasn't me. Some official Voice of Zionism somewhere who tells you What The Jew Thinks? Got a cite? Got a quote? Or is it that all you've got is more straw men than at a casting call for "The Wizard of Oz"?
-- "But when you lie about Israeli crimes and then vilify people who report the truth by labelling them anti-semitic then that is also wrong."
Another straw man. Where have I lied about Israeli crimes? Is that "you" in the Borg sense of "every Zionist is interchangable -- they all look alike to me"?
Honest, isn't there any supporter of Palestinian rights on this IMC who can talk to a Zionist without projecting all over him like a drive-in movie gone mad?
-- "Jews are not being oppressed now. Palestinians are."
And this proves the non-existence of antisemitic rhetoric among supporters of the Palestinians exactly how?
-- "Palestinians are no less important than Jews -- no doubt you'll label that anti-semitic as well."
Your prediction is based, presumably, on your knowledge of How The Jew Thinks?
Really, if you would stop to find out what folks like me actually think, instead of just projecting onto me for your own rhetorical purposes, you might learn something you'd like.
@%<
Ignoring some highly debatable assumptions in your questions, the answer is no, no, no, and no. Which leads me to the next question, which is, who exactly has claimed that they were? Sure wasn't me. Some official Voice of Zionism somewhere who tells you What The Jew Thinks? Got a cite? Got a quote? Or is it that all you've got is more straw men than at a casting call for "The Wizard of Oz"?
-- "But when you lie about Israeli crimes and then vilify people who report the truth by labelling them anti-semitic then that is also wrong."
Another straw man. Where have I lied about Israeli crimes? Is that "you" in the Borg sense of "every Zionist is interchangable -- they all look alike to me"?
Honest, isn't there any supporter of Palestinian rights on this IMC who can talk to a Zionist without projecting all over him like a drive-in movie gone mad?
-- "Jews are not being oppressed now. Palestinians are."
And this proves the non-existence of antisemitic rhetoric among supporters of the Palestinians exactly how?
-- "Palestinians are no less important than Jews -- no doubt you'll label that anti-semitic as well."
Your prediction is based, presumably, on your knowledge of How The Jew Thinks?
Really, if you would stop to find out what folks like me actually think, instead of just projecting onto me for your own rhetorical purposes, you might learn something you'd like.
@%<
I know there are a lot of anti-jewish (and no, I don't mean anti-Israel) lefties because I have dozens of times heard racist statements freely uttered regarding Jews by the same anti-racist "activists" who would call you a racist for questioning the validity of affirmative action. A writer in an above messgae wrote that those who support Palestine will always be called anti-semetic by Pro-Israel Jews. To him or her I say that those pro-Palestineian demonstractors who think they can harrass Jews, whether they are pro-Pal or pro-Israel are going to find their shit called on. Many people have used the Palestinian cause as a way to freely voice and promote their hatred of Jews and get away with it. The "activists" have been intolerant of anti-Muslim/Arab violence while promoting it towards Jews. They have tried to set up a system where anyone who claims Palestianian sympathy or ties can committ hate crimes at will whiloe continuing to demand sympathy. They work to stop scapegoating of Arabs/Muslims and promote the scapegoating of Jews.
Tell me then, why are there no conservatives in Anti-Racist Action?
When an anti-Jewish neo-nazi comes to town, who protests them? Who tries to disrupt their event?
When a Holocaust denier comes to town, where are the synagogues? Where is the Israeli PAC then?
The fact is that *only* the hard-left come out to oppose these anti-Semitic pigs. All of you right-wing whiners are secretly sending your checks to nazi fascist groups while we are out on the front lines fighting them. And you have the audacity to say that *we* are anti-semitic.
Get a fucking clue.
When an anti-Jewish neo-nazi comes to town, who protests them? Who tries to disrupt their event?
When a Holocaust denier comes to town, where are the synagogues? Where is the Israeli PAC then?
The fact is that *only* the hard-left come out to oppose these anti-Semitic pigs. All of you right-wing whiners are secretly sending your checks to nazi fascist groups while we are out on the front lines fighting them. And you have the audacity to say that *we* are anti-semitic.
Get a fucking clue.
You don't claim such statements are anti-semitic but you try to vilify people who write about these things.
"...it's not like Uncle Noam ever contributed the forward (sic) to a major work of Holocaust denial propaganda -- well, okay, more than _one_ major work of Holocaust denial propaganda. And that was French, so it doesn't really count."
Chomsky has been smeared repeatedly for this when all he did was defend the freedom of speech of someone who was going to be sent to prison for what he said (the revisionist Faurisson). Chomsky stated time and time again that he opposed his views but supported his right to speak without being imprisoned for his views. But this has been used incessantly (along with derisive comments like "Uncle Noam") to defame him. There were hundreds of signatures supporting this revisionist's right to speak without persecution but Chomsky was singled out. Chomsky never wrote a foreword to his book, but a letter expressing elementary principles on freedom of speech which was used by Faurisson as a foreword.
The feeding frenzy surrounding this incident has, I believe, more to do with Chomsky's writings and views on Israel and the Middle East than with any purported beliefs he has in revisionism. There was a concerted effort to label him a revisionist by those who oppose his views.
The ridiculous thing is that Chomsky himself is of Jewish descent and one of the most honorable and decent people around. Chomsky and other Jewish anti-Zionists are a credit to the Jewish community and do much to counter the racist, jingoistic image of leaders of the Jewish State like Sharon and Netanyahu.
"...it's not like Uncle Noam ever contributed the forward (sic) to a major work of Holocaust denial propaganda -- well, okay, more than _one_ major work of Holocaust denial propaganda. And that was French, so it doesn't really count."
Chomsky has been smeared repeatedly for this when all he did was defend the freedom of speech of someone who was going to be sent to prison for what he said (the revisionist Faurisson). Chomsky stated time and time again that he opposed his views but supported his right to speak without being imprisoned for his views. But this has been used incessantly (along with derisive comments like "Uncle Noam") to defame him. There were hundreds of signatures supporting this revisionist's right to speak without persecution but Chomsky was singled out. Chomsky never wrote a foreword to his book, but a letter expressing elementary principles on freedom of speech which was used by Faurisson as a foreword.
The feeding frenzy surrounding this incident has, I believe, more to do with Chomsky's writings and views on Israel and the Middle East than with any purported beliefs he has in revisionism. There was a concerted effort to label him a revisionist by those who oppose his views.
The ridiculous thing is that Chomsky himself is of Jewish descent and one of the most honorable and decent people around. Chomsky and other Jewish anti-Zionists are a credit to the Jewish community and do much to counter the racist, jingoistic image of leaders of the Jewish State like Sharon and Netanyahu.
open publishing means that
by nessie 3:05am Sat Apr 27 '02 comment#5122
nessie [at] sfbg.com
if you think there aren't enough pro Israeli posts, and you yourself have failed to post enough to satisfy you idea of a quota, it's your own fault. Nothing is stopping you from posting pro-Israeli articles. Go right ahead. Pleanty of other people do. We've been deluged with this crap. Most days, there is more Zionist propaganda on the SF-IMC newswire than there is truth.
Bottom line:
Israeli is a fascist, racist, aggressor state. Indymedia has NO BUSINESS supporting fascist, racist agressors. To do so would be no different than telling the Nazi's side of the story as well as the side of the Warsaw Jews, "in the interest of fairness and objectivity."
It is nothing short of appalling that you would even consider that we should do anything whatsoever to further Zionism. What's WRONG with you, anyway? Have you no decency? Zionism is EVIL. Period. End of story.
Facist, Racist Aggressor
by Josh Michaels 11:38am Sat Apr 27 '02 comment#5124
michals1 [at] uiuc.edu
> Bottom line:
> Israeli is a fascist, racist, aggressor state. Indymedia has NO BUSINESS supporting fascist, racist agressors. To do so would be no different than telling the Nazi's side of the story as well as the side of the Warsaw Jews, "in the interest of fairness and objectivity."
Let us examine this statement for evidence of fact:
In Palestinan schools, they teach that Jews have horns. They teach that Jews use the blood of Palestinans in their ceremonies. They teach their children that being a suicide bomber and killing Israeli Civilians is the ultimate thing to do when you "grow up." Is this not racist? Is this not facist? But Indy Media supports the Palestinans? Have you read a Palestinian textbook? Have you watched any Palestinian media? If not, I suggest you do, and then compare it to the contents of what is taught in Israeli schools, and what is shown on Israeli media.
The Jews, and Israel, have wanted nothing but peace from day one. If you know the history of Israel, you'd be aware that when Israel declared its independence in 1948 they did NOT INCLUDE the West Bank in the territory claimed to be Israel. They didn't even include Jerusalem! They weren't satisfied with what the UN said was theirs, but they decided that they would accept it anyway. All that time the Palestinans could have declared the West Bank as their state, with Jerusalem as the capitol. But what happened? Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and the Palestinans all attacked Israel in an attempt to take back the small piece of land Israel declared as theirs (and was inhabited by a large majority if Israeli's, as defined by an investigation by the United Nations.) And Israel defended itself, and survived. Is Israel really an aggressor state when all it has ever done in its history is defend itself? Since when do aggressor states give back land? Israel has never attacked a foreign nation in attempt to gain land. They have only defended themselves against attacks from neighbors and gained land in the process, most of which they have given back over time.
Saying that Israel invading the West Bank is like Nazi Germany invading France is completly unfounded. The comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany HAVE TO STOP because they are based on almost no fact and all fiction. Israel gained the West Bank as part of its land as a result of DEFENDING ITSELF against attacks from the outside, not through BEING AN AGGRESSOR.
by nessie 3:05am Sat Apr 27 '02 comment#5122
nessie [at] sfbg.com
if you think there aren't enough pro Israeli posts, and you yourself have failed to post enough to satisfy you idea of a quota, it's your own fault. Nothing is stopping you from posting pro-Israeli articles. Go right ahead. Pleanty of other people do. We've been deluged with this crap. Most days, there is more Zionist propaganda on the SF-IMC newswire than there is truth.
Bottom line:
Israeli is a fascist, racist, aggressor state. Indymedia has NO BUSINESS supporting fascist, racist agressors. To do so would be no different than telling the Nazi's side of the story as well as the side of the Warsaw Jews, "in the interest of fairness and objectivity."
It is nothing short of appalling that you would even consider that we should do anything whatsoever to further Zionism. What's WRONG with you, anyway? Have you no decency? Zionism is EVIL. Period. End of story.
Facist, Racist Aggressor
by Josh Michaels 11:38am Sat Apr 27 '02 comment#5124
michals1 [at] uiuc.edu
> Bottom line:
> Israeli is a fascist, racist, aggressor state. Indymedia has NO BUSINESS supporting fascist, racist agressors. To do so would be no different than telling the Nazi's side of the story as well as the side of the Warsaw Jews, "in the interest of fairness and objectivity."
Let us examine this statement for evidence of fact:
In Palestinan schools, they teach that Jews have horns. They teach that Jews use the blood of Palestinans in their ceremonies. They teach their children that being a suicide bomber and killing Israeli Civilians is the ultimate thing to do when you "grow up." Is this not racist? Is this not facist? But Indy Media supports the Palestinans? Have you read a Palestinian textbook? Have you watched any Palestinian media? If not, I suggest you do, and then compare it to the contents of what is taught in Israeli schools, and what is shown on Israeli media.
The Jews, and Israel, have wanted nothing but peace from day one. If you know the history of Israel, you'd be aware that when Israel declared its independence in 1948 they did NOT INCLUDE the West Bank in the territory claimed to be Israel. They didn't even include Jerusalem! They weren't satisfied with what the UN said was theirs, but they decided that they would accept it anyway. All that time the Palestinans could have declared the West Bank as their state, with Jerusalem as the capitol. But what happened? Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and the Palestinans all attacked Israel in an attempt to take back the small piece of land Israel declared as theirs (and was inhabited by a large majority if Israeli's, as defined by an investigation by the United Nations.) And Israel defended itself, and survived. Is Israel really an aggressor state when all it has ever done in its history is defend itself? Since when do aggressor states give back land? Israel has never attacked a foreign nation in attempt to gain land. They have only defended themselves against attacks from neighbors and gained land in the process, most of which they have given back over time.
Saying that Israel invading the West Bank is like Nazi Germany invading France is completly unfounded. The comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany HAVE TO STOP because they are based on almost no fact and all fiction. Israel gained the West Bank as part of its land as a result of DEFENDING ITSELF against attacks from the outside, not through BEING AN AGGRESSOR.
"Israel gained the West Bank as part of its land as a result of DEFENDING ITSELF against attacks from the outside, not through BEING AN AGGRESSOR. "
Actually, Israel was not attacked in 1967, but attacked its neighbors claiming pre-emptive self defense. In reality, this was just another land grab that was then spun into Israeli propaganda.
In 1948, a UN that had no Arab representation gave 78% of the land to a Jewish population which had just arrived from Europe. At the time, Jews owned about 6% of the land there and much of that was bought under dubious circumstances.
How can one group of people give away something that does not belong to them (basically the US and Britain giving Palestinian homes and land to the Zionists). Not only this, but it was the most fertile farm lands and the most scenic beaches. The Palestinians refused for obvious reasons.
Would you give up your land, home and all your belongings to a group of people who had just arrived?
Would you accept the proclamation by Western countries that your property now belongs to someone else?
The Arabs are now offering Israel full peace for just 22% of the remaining land for Palestinians to live on free of a foreign army. But the Zionists CRINGE at giving even this back. They believe land and material things are more important than ephereal concepts such as peace (and justice for anyone other than white Israelis is a foreign concept).
Actually, Israel was not attacked in 1967, but attacked its neighbors claiming pre-emptive self defense. In reality, this was just another land grab that was then spun into Israeli propaganda.
In 1948, a UN that had no Arab representation gave 78% of the land to a Jewish population which had just arrived from Europe. At the time, Jews owned about 6% of the land there and much of that was bought under dubious circumstances.
How can one group of people give away something that does not belong to them (basically the US and Britain giving Palestinian homes and land to the Zionists). Not only this, but it was the most fertile farm lands and the most scenic beaches. The Palestinians refused for obvious reasons.
Would you give up your land, home and all your belongings to a group of people who had just arrived?
Would you accept the proclamation by Western countries that your property now belongs to someone else?
The Arabs are now offering Israel full peace for just 22% of the remaining land for Palestinians to live on free of a foreign army. But the Zionists CRINGE at giving even this back. They believe land and material things are more important than ephereal concepts such as peace (and justice for anyone other than white Israelis is a foreign concept).
What follows is an excerpt from Robert Jan van Pelt’s expert report on the history of Auschwitz and Holocaust denial, submitted as part of the David Irving trial of 2000. The report was published, in an extended form, this spring as _The Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving Trial_, by Indiana UP.
This text comes from http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com, which is Emory University’s site about Irving v Lipstadt/Penguin.
------ begin excerpt from van Pelt
Within months after bringing Thion's book on the market, La Veille Taupe published _Faurisson's Mèmoire en Defense-contre ceux qui m'accusent de falsifier l'histoire. La question des chambres ä gaz_ (Testimony in Defense--Against those who Accuse me of Falsifying History: The Question of the Gas Chambers). The true significance of the book, which made it the topic of conversation everywhere, was not to be found in the amalgamate of Faurisson's scholarship, but in Noam Chomsky's ill-advised preface. As we have seen, Chomsky had in 1979 signed a petition in support of Faurisson's academic freedom to challenge the inherited account of the Holocaust, and one thing had led to another. Entitled "Some Elementary Commentaries on the Right to the Freedom of Speech," Chomsky reviewed the reasons why he had signed the 1979 petition, and dismissed the outcry that had resulted from it. He stated that he had often signed petitions on behalf of people whose ideas he found detestable -- i.e. Russian dissidents who supported American policies in Indochina -- and observed that in those cases no-one had raised an objection [...]
In his final paragraph he addressed the tricky question of Faurisson's alleged antisemitism.
(begin quote from Chomsky) Let it be said that even if Faurisson were a rabid antisemite or a fanatic Nazi supporter -- and these are accusations that are leveled against him in letters that I have received and for which there is no space here to cite in detail -- that has absolutely no bearing on his legitimacy of the defense of his civil rights. On the contrary, that would make the defence of these rights even more necessary since, once again, and for this there is evidence for many years, and even centuries, it is exactly the right to express the most dreadful ideas freely that must be defended most rigorously. (end quote)
[...] The Chomsky preface initiated a second wave of publicity for Faurisson, which led, among other things, to a radio interview on December 17, 1980. Faurisson said, among many other things, that the alleged Holocaust was a historical lie that served a huge political and financial swindle that benefited the State of Israel at the expense of the German and Palestinian peoples. This statement led to Faurisson's indictment under France's Race Relations Law. At the same time Faurisson was also indicted under Article 382 of the Civil Code for willfully distorting history. Finally Faurisson faced a libel suit initiated by the French historian Lèon Poliakov, whom Faurisson had accused of fabricating his sources with reference to the Gerstein report. The first two trials certainly put Faurisson in the position of the Dreyfusian underdog persecuted by the system, and brought him much publicity, and even sympathy. Absorbing all of Faurisson's energies to remain out of prison, the trials generated, however, not much new negationist "scholarship," and hence I will limit myself to the observation that Faurisson was convicted in each case.
----- end excerpt from van Pelt
It’s true that Chomsky hadn’t intended his statement to be used as foreword for Faurisson’s book, but the net result is pretty clear. I don’t claim Chomsky is a Holocaust denier; I only claim that -- in this particular area, at least -- he’s a Panglossian fool. Do a Google search on “faurisson chomsky” and you’ll pull up every major Holocaust denial outfit there is, all of them happy to exploit the Chomsky connection and all of them tickled to death that Chomsky let himself be played like a violin. The sum total of Chomsky’s involvement with the Faurisson Affair was a great big gift for Holocaust deniers, a bonus with bells on it. Thanks, Uncle Noam!
@%<
This text comes from http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com, which is Emory University’s site about Irving v Lipstadt/Penguin.
------ begin excerpt from van Pelt
Within months after bringing Thion's book on the market, La Veille Taupe published _Faurisson's Mèmoire en Defense-contre ceux qui m'accusent de falsifier l'histoire. La question des chambres ä gaz_ (Testimony in Defense--Against those who Accuse me of Falsifying History: The Question of the Gas Chambers). The true significance of the book, which made it the topic of conversation everywhere, was not to be found in the amalgamate of Faurisson's scholarship, but in Noam Chomsky's ill-advised preface. As we have seen, Chomsky had in 1979 signed a petition in support of Faurisson's academic freedom to challenge the inherited account of the Holocaust, and one thing had led to another. Entitled "Some Elementary Commentaries on the Right to the Freedom of Speech," Chomsky reviewed the reasons why he had signed the 1979 petition, and dismissed the outcry that had resulted from it. He stated that he had often signed petitions on behalf of people whose ideas he found detestable -- i.e. Russian dissidents who supported American policies in Indochina -- and observed that in those cases no-one had raised an objection [...]
In his final paragraph he addressed the tricky question of Faurisson's alleged antisemitism.
(begin quote from Chomsky) Let it be said that even if Faurisson were a rabid antisemite or a fanatic Nazi supporter -- and these are accusations that are leveled against him in letters that I have received and for which there is no space here to cite in detail -- that has absolutely no bearing on his legitimacy of the defense of his civil rights. On the contrary, that would make the defence of these rights even more necessary since, once again, and for this there is evidence for many years, and even centuries, it is exactly the right to express the most dreadful ideas freely that must be defended most rigorously. (end quote)
[...] The Chomsky preface initiated a second wave of publicity for Faurisson, which led, among other things, to a radio interview on December 17, 1980. Faurisson said, among many other things, that the alleged Holocaust was a historical lie that served a huge political and financial swindle that benefited the State of Israel at the expense of the German and Palestinian peoples. This statement led to Faurisson's indictment under France's Race Relations Law. At the same time Faurisson was also indicted under Article 382 of the Civil Code for willfully distorting history. Finally Faurisson faced a libel suit initiated by the French historian Lèon Poliakov, whom Faurisson had accused of fabricating his sources with reference to the Gerstein report. The first two trials certainly put Faurisson in the position of the Dreyfusian underdog persecuted by the system, and brought him much publicity, and even sympathy. Absorbing all of Faurisson's energies to remain out of prison, the trials generated, however, not much new negationist "scholarship," and hence I will limit myself to the observation that Faurisson was convicted in each case.
----- end excerpt from van Pelt
It’s true that Chomsky hadn’t intended his statement to be used as foreword for Faurisson’s book, but the net result is pretty clear. I don’t claim Chomsky is a Holocaust denier; I only claim that -- in this particular area, at least -- he’s a Panglossian fool. Do a Google search on “faurisson chomsky” and you’ll pull up every major Holocaust denial outfit there is, all of them happy to exploit the Chomsky connection and all of them tickled to death that Chomsky let himself be played like a violin. The sum total of Chomsky’s involvement with the Faurisson Affair was a great big gift for Holocaust deniers, a bonus with bells on it. Thanks, Uncle Noam!
@%<
Read this book now.
Hey,, if the jews weren't there then Syria would be. Or Lebanon or some other Arab aggressor state. Even if the Palestinians dont have it all right now they have something which is more than what'd they'd have if the jews weren't there. and let's admit, a few israeli checkpoints are better than a Hama massacre. Or nerve gas. or chaos. or guerillas. leave the jews alone. we're better than most other people. kay?
"we're better than most other people"
yeah, and I see you aren't the slightest bit racist or conceited, either ....
yeah, and I see you aren't the slightest bit racist or conceited, either ....
--"Or nerve gas. or chaos. or guerillas."
Like the nerve gas Israeli soldiers used on Palestinians.
The gassing of Palestinians is corroborated by the below video and testimony from a French physician (Dr. Helen Bruzau) and an American filmographer (James B. Longley).
According to James B. Longley those affected reeled in excruciating, unending agony for days, some as long as a month.
This was not reported in the US media which, if it were Arabs doing this to Israelis, you can just imagine the reaction.
French Physician on the scene describes the symptoms:
"The people we saw in the hospital, were mainly young people, exhibiting neurological manifestations: with hypertonic and choreoathetotic crisis in their limbs, spasms causing the body to stiffen, or worse: to go rigid in an arc position. This was followed by episodes of muscle relaxation: Nearly complete paralysis of the limbs, with hypertonia and also digestive pains like cramps and colics, and behavioral distresses; periods of extreme excitation, that kind of trouble."
-Dr. Helen Bruzau
Medecins Sans Frontieres
"As I made my way through the wards of Amal and Nasser Hospitals that day and for many days afterward, I observed many patients that had been brought to the hospitals suffering from these symptoms [from tear gas laced with poison gas]. Room after room, women, children, men. Some were vomiting. Some alternated between a coma-like state and violent convulsions, their entire bodies twisting and arching, members of their families struggling to hold them down on the beds. On and on, for days. One boy, who had inhaled a large amount of the gas in question, suffered in the hospital for an entire month with recurrent convulsions. It is difficult to describe the sensation of sitting in a room for hours and days with people suffering so terribly, and knowing that this was done by human beings."
"The incident went largely unreported. No articles were written in major US newspapers. Fox News and 60 Minutes did not produce special reports. The story gradually grew old and fell through the cracks. Out of sight and out of mind – and who would believe that the Israeli military would do such a thing to civilians in a refugee camp? Olivier Rafowicz, an Israeli Army spokesman, was furious that I even dared to ask him about the gas when I interviewed him in Tel Aviv on April 10, and he repeated the same angry denials. I did not tell him what I had witnessed and filmed. I make these transcripts available in order to set the record straight. I filmed many other interviews with patients, doctors, etc., but the accounts tend to vary only in the details."
-James B. Longley
212-898-0472
james@littleredbutton.com
This was of course totally ignored by our media. Now imagine the reaction if Arabs had done this to Israelis.
Athens, Oct 29, IRNA -- Israeli occupation troops on Sunday shot tear gas canisters into classrooms at a West Bank village, seriously suffocating scores of children, said a dispatch from al-Qods.
Palestinian sources said heavily armed Israeli soldiers raided the primary school at the village of T'ku, near Bethlehem, and shot several tear-gas shells inside class rooms in the school yard.
The sources said over 24 children suffered from gas inhalation and required hospitalization. Palestinian medical sources said the type of tear-gas used by Israeli occupation troops against Palestinian children differs from the standard tear-gas used around the world in dispersing demonstrations.
A spokesman for the Palestinian Health Ministry said the type used by Israel is a semi-poisonous gas that leaves strong aftereffects, including spasmodic reactions, nervous reactions as well as strong abdominal pains. Moreover, the use of the tear-gas in closed areas, such as classrooms, exacerbates its effect and could result in death. KA/NK/HR END ::irna 29/10/2000 21:45
Like the nerve gas Israeli soldiers used on Palestinians.
The gassing of Palestinians is corroborated by the below video and testimony from a French physician (Dr. Helen Bruzau) and an American filmographer (James B. Longley).
According to James B. Longley those affected reeled in excruciating, unending agony for days, some as long as a month.
This was not reported in the US media which, if it were Arabs doing this to Israelis, you can just imagine the reaction.
VIDEO:
RealAudio metafileFrench Physician on the scene describes the symptoms:
"The people we saw in the hospital, were mainly young people, exhibiting neurological manifestations: with hypertonic and choreoathetotic crisis in their limbs, spasms causing the body to stiffen, or worse: to go rigid in an arc position. This was followed by episodes of muscle relaxation: Nearly complete paralysis of the limbs, with hypertonia and also digestive pains like cramps and colics, and behavioral distresses; periods of extreme excitation, that kind of trouble."
-Dr. Helen Bruzau
Medecins Sans Frontieres
"As I made my way through the wards of Amal and Nasser Hospitals that day and for many days afterward, I observed many patients that had been brought to the hospitals suffering from these symptoms [from tear gas laced with poison gas]. Room after room, women, children, men. Some were vomiting. Some alternated between a coma-like state and violent convulsions, their entire bodies twisting and arching, members of their families struggling to hold them down on the beds. On and on, for days. One boy, who had inhaled a large amount of the gas in question, suffered in the hospital for an entire month with recurrent convulsions. It is difficult to describe the sensation of sitting in a room for hours and days with people suffering so terribly, and knowing that this was done by human beings."
"The incident went largely unreported. No articles were written in major US newspapers. Fox News and 60 Minutes did not produce special reports. The story gradually grew old and fell through the cracks. Out of sight and out of mind – and who would believe that the Israeli military would do such a thing to civilians in a refugee camp? Olivier Rafowicz, an Israeli Army spokesman, was furious that I even dared to ask him about the gas when I interviewed him in Tel Aviv on April 10, and he repeated the same angry denials. I did not tell him what I had witnessed and filmed. I make these transcripts available in order to set the record straight. I filmed many other interviews with patients, doctors, etc., but the accounts tend to vary only in the details."
-James B. Longley
212-898-0472
james@littleredbutton.com
This was of course totally ignored by our media. Now imagine the reaction if Arabs had done this to Israelis.
www.littleredbutton.com/gas_interviews/
www.littleredbutton.com/gas_interviews/interviews.pdf
Athens, Oct 29, IRNA -- Israeli occupation troops on Sunday shot tear gas canisters into classrooms at a West Bank village, seriously suffocating scores of children, said a dispatch from al-Qods.
Palestinian sources said heavily armed Israeli soldiers raided the primary school at the village of T'ku, near Bethlehem, and shot several tear-gas shells inside class rooms in the school yard.
The sources said over 24 children suffered from gas inhalation and required hospitalization. Palestinian medical sources said the type of tear-gas used by Israeli occupation troops against Palestinian children differs from the standard tear-gas used around the world in dispersing demonstrations.
A spokesman for the Palestinian Health Ministry said the type used by Israel is a semi-poisonous gas that leaves strong aftereffects, including spasmodic reactions, nervous reactions as well as strong abdominal pains. Moreover, the use of the tear-gas in closed areas, such as classrooms, exacerbates its effect and could result in death. KA/NK/HR END ::irna 29/10/2000 21:45
Sitting in a hot car in 100+ degree heat for hours on end, and if you dare get out, you are shot at.
Now imagine being pregnant and forced to sit in the heat for 3-6 hours (possibly longer) to travel 300 feet. And this is all just political. There is nothing being gained but lording it over the Palestinians. Showing them who has the guns and the power.
Now imagine being pregnant and forced to sit in the heat for 3-6 hours (possibly longer) to travel 300 feet. And this is all just political. There is nothing being gained but lording it over the Palestinians. Showing them who has the guns and the power.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$330.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network