Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

After denied entry to West Bank, Chomsky likens Israel to 'Stalinist regime'

«13

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Banned Account


    Is this the same Chomsky who was an outright supporter of pol pot? He does seem to have a habit of being controversial.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 709 ✭✭✭Exile 1798


    The headline is a sensationalist stretch of Chomsky's actual statement.
    In a telephone conversation last night from Amman, Chomsky told Haaretz that he concluded from the questions of the Israeli official that the fact that he came to lecture at a Palestinian and not an Israeli university led to the decision to deny him entry. "I find it hard to think of a similar case, in which entry to a person is denied because he is not lecturing in Tel Aviv. Perhaps only in Stalinist regimes," Chomsky told Haaretz. ....

    Chomsky told Haaretz that it was clear that his arrival had been known to the authorities, because the minute he entered the passport control room the official told him that he was honored to see him and that he had read his works.

    The professor concluded that the officer was a student, and said he looked embarrassed at the task at hand, especially when he began reading from text the questions that had been dictated to him, and which were also told to him later by telephone.

    Chomsky told Haaretz about the questions.

    "The official asked me why I was lecturing only at Bir Zeit and not an Israeli university," Chomsky recalled. "I told him that I have lectured a great deal in Israel. The official read the following statement: 'Israel does not like what you say.'"

    Chomsky replied: "Find one government in the world which does."

    "The young man asked me whether I had ever been denied entry into other countries. I told him that once, to Czechoslovakia, after the Soviet invasion in 1968," he said, adding that he had gone to visit ousted Czechoslovak leader Alexander Dubcek, whose reforms the Soviets crushed.

    http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/after-denied-entry-to-west-bank-chomsky-likens-israel-to-stalinist-regime-1.290736

    Clearly he was not saying Israel is a Stalinist country, but that their actions in the case are reminiscent of those taken by former Soviet States.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Is this the same Chomsky who was an outright supporter of pol pot? He does seem to have a habit of being controversial.

    Maybe you should read the whole story?
    I would ask the listener whether he harbours any guilt for having supported Hitler and the Holocaust and insisting the Jews be sent to extermination camps. It has the same answer. Since it never happened, I obviously can't have any guilt for it. He's just repeating propaganda he heard. If you ask him, you'll discover that he never read one word I wrote. Try it. What I wrote was, and I don't have any apologies for it because it was accurate, I took the position that Pol Pot was a brutal monster, from the beginning was carrying out hideous atrocities, but the West, for propaganda purposes, was creating and inventing immense fabrications for its own political goals and not out of interest for the people of Cambodia. And my colleague and I with whom I wrote all this stuff simply ran through the list of fanatic lies that were being told and we took the most credible sources, which happened to be US intelligence, who knew more than anyone else. And we said US intelligence is probably accurate. In retrospect, that turns out to be correct, US intelligence was probably accurate. I think we were the only ones who quoted it. The fabrications were fabrications and should be eliminated. In fact, we also discussed, and I noticed nobody ever talks about this, we discussed fabrications against the US. For example a standard claim in the major works was that the US bombings had killed 600,000 people in 1973. We looked at the data and decided it was probably 200,000. So we said let's tell the truth about it. It's a crime, but it's not like anything you said. It's interesting that nobody ever objects to that. When we criticize fabrications about US crimes, that's fine, when we criticize and in fact expose much worse fabrications about some official enemy, that's horrible, it becomes apologetics. We should learn something about ourselves. If you're interested in the truth, which you ought to be, tell the truth about yourself and tell the truth about others. These fabrications had an obvious political purpose. Incidentally, we continually criticize the Khmer Rouge after the Vietnamese invasion. After the Vietnamese invasion, which finally threw them out thankfully, the US and Britain immediately turned to support Pol Pot. Well, we criticized that, too, we said, no, you shouldn't be supporting this monster. So yes, our position was consistent throughout. There's been a huge literature trying to show that there was something wrong in what we said. To my knowledge, nobody's even found a comma that's misplaced. And therefore what you have is immense gossip. My guess is that the person who just wrote this in has never seen anything we wrote, but has heard a lot of gossip about it


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,823 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    This post has been deleted.

    As someone who enjoys the writings of Alan Dershowitz, I'd have a certain view of Mr. Chomsky. However, this action of the Israeli state does strike me as a blunder. As for Stalin, offhand I'd disagree with how he handled Western intellectuals. In the case of the Webbs, they were treated to a Potemkin style tour of the USSR and returned to the West as fervant propagandists. For all that might be said of Mr. Chomsky, I would not reckon he'd be so mis-informed.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Some of the people Israel have turned away has been rather puzzling.

    I would also like to point out that Chomsky was going to the West Bank, and Israel should have no right to block anyone from entering there. They certainly have the right to block people coming into Israel, but doing so in the West Bank, even if in this instance it is a "mistake", is simply wrong imho, and another example of Israel complete control over Palestinian land.


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    This post has been deleted.

    Chomsky's response -
    There was no basis for any misunderstanding. It was a decision by the Ministry of The Interior


    If Israel were actually a "Stalinist" regime, Chomsky would be rotting in an unmarked grave by now. There's a difference.

    Yes, there is a difference. There is also a similarity.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    These kind of "blunders" seem to increasingly common in Israel. Let not forget another "blunder" blamed on a low level flunky, when Israel embarrsed US Vice President Joe Biden. Seems to me that Israel is making excuses for there actions, and trying to blame it on random low level beauracrats. There are only so many times they can use that excuse, before people start calling them on it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Banned Account


    karma_ wrote: »
    Maybe you should read the whole story?


    You should try cutting and pasting the preceding text from the wikipedia article also.;)


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    I wonder if he had his luggage by him at all times.

    This South African investigative report exposes El Al security as Shin Bet agents
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POWvgcKWg-U&feature=related

    A whistleblower confirms that after taking South African based ME expert Virginia Tilley into custody she was removed from her luggage and her personal files were photocopied and sent to Israel.

    "And the decision was she should be checked in the harshest possible way; because of her connections"

    A lower profile case but somewhat similar.

    Part 1 if anyone is interested: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGwBXIPUW5E&feature=related


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,445 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    You should try cutting and pasting the preceding text from the wikipedia article also.;)
    What, it's pretty clear he doesn't support Pol Pot so do you actually have a point?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Banned Account


    BluePlanet wrote: »
    What, it's pretty clear he doesn't support Pol Pot so do you actually have a point?


    No, not at all - please feel free to continue with the selective editing and parsing that Chomsky himself warns against.:rolleyes:


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    You should try cutting and pasting the preceding text from the wikipedia article also.;)

    Article? that is a direct Chomsky quote. I really should not have to point that out to you.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Banned Account


    karma_ wrote: »
    Article? that is a direct Chomsky quote.

    Which you cut and pasted from where?????


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Which you cut and pasted from where?????

    Look, you are just rambling now.

    That quote appears on many websites. Maybe you should just do a quick google search to confirm that rather than chasing your own tail on here.

    It's not from an article, it is Chomsky's response to the same allegation that you brought up, with no evidence might I add.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Banned Account


    karma_ wrote: »
    Look, you are just rambling now.

    That quote appears on many websites. Maybe you should just do a quick google search to confirm that rather than chasing your own tail on here.

    It's not from an article, it is Chomsky's response to the same allegation that you brought up, with no evidence might I add.

    May I ask you why Chomsky felt the need to issue that response in the first place, do you not accept that in a couple of publications he may have given the impression that the full brutality of pol pot's regime was manipulated by the US?

    It is easy to issue a statement after the fact saying "what I meant was ..." just as it is also easy to paste selective quotes on an internet forum without acknowledging that there may be another side to the story, another interpretation of events.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    May I ask you why Chomsky felt the need to issue that response in the first place, do you not accept that in a couple of publications he may have given the impression that the full brutality of pol pot's regime was manipulated by the US?

    It is easy to issue a statement after the fact saying "what I meant was ..." just as it is also easy to paste selective quotes on an internet forum without acknowledging that there may be another side to the story, another interpretation of events.

    you should pay particular attention to this part;
    My guess is that the person who just wrote this in has never seen anything we wrote, but has heard a lot of gossip about it


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Banned Account


    karma_ wrote: »
    you should pay particular attention to this part;

    Would you be making assumptions by any chance?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Would you be making assumptions by any chance?

    OK then, go ahead and get a piece of something he wrote or said that backs up your point. Your talking the talk but your not walking the walk.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,445 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    May I ask you why Chomsky felt the need to issue that response in the first place, do you not accept that in a couple of publications he may have given the impression that the full brutality of pol pot's regime was manipulated by the US?
    What's this, trying to move the goalposts and hope no one notices huh?
    Here's what you said:
    Is this the same Chomsky who was an outright supporter of pol pot?
    Now, when being brought to book, you waffle about giving the impression that the US manipulated Pol Pot's brutality.

    What a JOKE!


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Banned Account


    To both of you, may I respectfully suggest that you get your hands on Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, After the Cataclysm. The Political Economy of Human Rights, Vol. 2. Boston: South End Press, and Montreal: Black Rose Press, 1979

    paying particular attention to pages 130 through to around 150 ish in there you will find he argues along the following lines;

    He first begins to dilute the reality of Pol Pot's crimes, and actually asks "In the first place, is it proper to attribute deaths from famine and disease to the Cambodian authorities?" (convieniently ignoring the fact that those very authorities caused the famine and disease, by evacuating the cities.

    He further says, "Or, one might wonder, how can it be that a population so oppressed by a handful of fanatics does not rise up to overthrow them?" According to this logic, there should be no oppressed people anywhere - they all would have overthrown their oppressors surely? I am perfectly entitled, given the fact that the man is obviously not stupid, to conclude his question is biased.

    You see, to me, this specific writing indicates that at the time, Chomsky's anti-americanism had coloured him to the point that he was outrightly lending his support to pol pot's regime of course that is my opinion and others may think that this is merely suggestive. After the fact, he simmered down somewhat and qualified his earlier thinkings.

    Few people have read the above text (funnily enough it seems to be forgotten about:rolleyes:) but as I have said - feel free, I can post a copy if you wish, but i'd like it back.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,445 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    Passages probably taken out of context.

    If that is the best you can do to prove your point, you'd have been better to stay quiet.

    really.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Banned Account


    BluePlanet wrote: »
    Passages probably taken out of context.

    If that is the best you can do to prove your point, you'd have been better to stay quiet.

    really.


    oh dear lord are you actually saying, without having any knowledge of the text that i am probably not right so I should be quiet? Please read the book - I quite like Chomsky and agree with much of his thinking but by God do his fanatics have issues with accepting the impossibility of infallibility.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 709 ✭✭✭Exile 1798


    To both of you, may I respectfully suggest that you get your hands on Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, After the Cataclysm. The Political Economy of Human Rights, Vol. 2. Boston: South End Press, and Montreal: Black Rose Press, 1979

    paying particular attention to pages 130 through to around 150 ish in there you will find he argues along the following lines;

    He first begins to dilute the reality of Pol Pot's crimes, and actually asks "In the first place, is it proper to attribute deaths from famine and disease to the Cambodian authorities?" (convieniently ignoring the fact that those very authorities caused the famine and disease, by evacuating the cities.

    He further says, "Or, one might wonder, how can it be that a population so oppressed by a handful of fanatics does not rise up to overthrow them?" According to this logic, there should be no oppressed people anywhere - they all would have overthrown their oppressors surely? I am perfectly entitled, given the fact that the man is obviously not stupid, to conclude his question is biased.

    You see, to me, this specific writing indicates that at the time, Chomsky's anti-americanism had coloured him to the point that he was outrightly lending his support to pol pot's regime of course that is my opinion and others may think that this is merely suggestive. After the fact, he simmered down somewhat and qualified his earlier thinkings.

    Few people have read the above text (funnily enough it seems to be forgotten about:rolleyes:) but as I have said - feel free, I can post a copy if you wish, but i'd like it back.

    Those are interesting questions. However, that doesn't come anywhere near supporting your original assertion.
    Is this the same Chomsky who was an outright supporter of pol pot? He does seem to have a habit of being controversial.

    Do you stand by this outlandish falsehood?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    oh dear lord are you actually saying, without having any knowledge of the text that i am probably not right so I should be quiet? Please read the book - I quite like Chomsky and agree with much of his thinking but by God do his fanatics have issues with accepting the impossibility of infallibility.

    Both of quotes are questions. Not conclusions.

    How can a question without a conclusion be biased?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Banned Account


    Exile 1798 wrote: »
    Do you stand by this outlandish falsehood?

    Yes, and I will debate the issue with anyone who has read the text in question.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Banned Account


    karma_ wrote: »
    Both of quotes are questions. Not conclusions.

    How can a question without a conclusion be biased?

    There are rhetorical questions - please read the text.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    There are rhetorical questions - please read the text.

    They may be but they go no where near legitimising your original statements that he was an outright supporter of pol pot.

    Now, if as you say your ready to debate wether he was;
    an outright supporter of pol pot?

    then please post something that proves it rather than rhetorical questions.

    I contest that you can't infact do that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 709 ✭✭✭Exile 1798


    Yes, and I will debate the issue with anyone who has read the text in question.

    Well, I would assume that if you had texts that supported your assertion you would have actually quoted them.

    Instead what you quoted came no where near to supporting your accusation that "Chomsky.... was an outright supporter of pol pot"

    Further I think it's safe to assume that if Chomsky was an "outright supporter of Pol Pot" then it would be quite common and easily obtainable knowledge. Your idea that this information is contained in this one book and know one can doubt you until they read it seems a bit silly.

    Appropriate that such a distortion of facts should take place in a thread based on a Haaretz title which itself was quite an manipulation of words and truth. But it should serve as a lesson to everyone: Don't automatically assume that views attributed to someone are true.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Exile 1798 wrote: »
    Well, I would assume that if you had texts that supported your assertion you would have actually quoted them.

    Instead what you quoted came no where near to supporting your accusation that "Chomsky.... was an outright supporter of pol pot"

    Further I think it's safe to assume that if Chomsky was an "outright supporter of Pol Pot" then it would be quite common and easily obtainable knowledge. Your idea that this information is contained in this one book and know one can doubt you until they read it seems a bit silly.

    Appropriate that such a distortion of facts should take place in a thread based on a Haaretz title which itself was quite an manipulation of words and truth. But it should serve as a lesson to everyone: Don't automatically assume that views attributed to someone are true.

    Well you see, those opinions aren't even those of Fitzcaraldo they are that of George Jochnowitz.

    original piece by Jochnowitz;
    In order to minimize the extent of Pol Pot's crimes, Chomsky asks, "In the first place, is it proper to attribute deaths from famine and disease to the Cambodian authorities?" 8 It is quite proper if those very authorities caused the famine and disease, which they did by evacuating the cities. He also asks, "Or, one might wonder, how can it be that a population so oppressed by a handful of fanatics does not rise up to overthrow them?" 9 If he were stupid, one could understand the question. According to Chomsky's logic, there should be no oppressed people anywhere, since they all would have overthrown their oppressors.

    which is very similar to what Fitzcaraldo posted.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement