PDA

View Full Version : Noam Chomsky: What the American Media won't tell you about Isreal




adisongrace
12-06-2012, 12:41 AM
http://mobile.alternet.org/alternet/#!/entry/noam-chomsky-what-the-american-media-wont-tell-you-about,50bd773fd7fc7b5670899d7b/1

John F Kennedy III
12-06-2012, 02:31 AM
“You take my water, burn my olive trees, destroy my house, take my job, steal my land, imprison my father, kill my mother, bombard my country, starve us all, humiliate us all, but I am to blame: I shot a rocket back.”

arsenius
12-06-2012, 06:34 AM
Seems the link is broken. This one should work:

http://www.alternet.org/world/noam-chomsky-what-american-media-wont-tell-you-about-israel

Todd
12-06-2012, 07:00 AM
I got this article in my email from a socialist friend of mine.

I'll entertain Chomskey from time to time....but most often when he discusses a topic, he uses his language skills and equivocates more than makes a solid argument.

osan
12-06-2012, 08:11 AM
http://mobile.alternet.org/alternet/#!/entry/noam-chomsky-what-the-american-media-wont-tell-you-about,50bd773fd7fc7b5670899d7b/1

The Jews of Europe who fled after the war may be viewed as having taken the wrong step in those days. But was that step mistaken? I suspect not.

If one studies the history of Jewish people in Europe and other places, one picks up certain patterns that cannot be honestly ignored. Among them is the incessant strife between them and the broader cultures into which they injected themselves. One should be driven to ask why this would be so consistently the case. Could it be that the rest of the world is so universally wrong in its very fabric that the poor and innocent and righteous Jewish populations have had to suffer unjustly at the hands of their invariably barbaric neighbors? Given what I have come to learn of human proclivity during my short life time, I cannot rule this out categorically. The notion, therefore, retains plausibility, thin as it may be. Crazier things have proven true.

There are, however, alternate speculative explanations that seem far more likely true. I say "speculative" because my expertise on the historical minutiae is not nearly up to the snuff required for making more definite statements. That said, I will address one possibility that serves as but a factor in a far broader fabric of life; one that may in part explain why Jews have lived for millennia in a state of constant friction and even strife with their surroundings.

The historical record is quite clear on the nature of human empire societies: the easier and more prosperous life becomes, the looser the social ties. I have no idea why this is so and why it is apparently not so for tribal cultures, but I suspect that population size has something to do with it, along with the very nature of life in cities v. less sedentary ways of living. Jews are nothing if not tightly knit and what better way is there to ensure the bonds remain that way than to have a common adversary? I have grown up hip-deep in Jewish culture. Two Jews may hate each other to the point of nearly wanting to kill one another, but the moment a outsider poses any challenge to one or the other, all differences are forgotten and they unite to face the threat, after which they are free to return to their back biting.

Given this, the choice to proceed as they did in 1946-47 begins to make better sense. Living in a state of perpetual hostility enables those in power at the state level to proceed because no matter how much the average Israeli may hate their daily circumstance, their sense of prioritization ranks their dislike well below the need to meet all threats to themselves and, most importantly to that culture, the community. I do believe this is key to understanding the chronic nature of the conflict. The Israelis are notorious for ignoring UN mandates. They simply disregard them as if nothing had ever been resolved - good on them for that, BTW. But the curious thing is this: Israel has a simple solution to the problem. All they had to do way back when was to deport all non-Jewish persons from Israel and today their troubles would not be gone, but would be greatly simplified and attenuated. The 600 million pissed off Arab/Muslims surrounding them would still be there posing the same threat they do now, but the internal threat would be gone. Or would it? The direct Palestinian threat would be gone, but would there be another internal threat; that of wide and open dissent? It would seem to me that the TPTB in Israel are in this sense no different than those found in any other nation: they want to rule with as little friction against their decisions as possible. I find it very plausible that the mindset back in the day was that the internal threat posed by retaining Palestinians within the physical borders of the nation was a cost worth paying in exchange for the ability to pursue an agenda that many might otherwise find strongly disagreeable. In other words, the Palestinians have served as the foils by which the greater strategic vision and agenda have been protected and best ensured. The terror of the general populace has served as the shield behind which that strategic agenda has been operating and remains protected. (Aside: does this remind you of anywhere else?)

Therefore, from such a point of view the Israeli choices cannot be seen as mis-steps, but rather as conscious strategic choices pursuant to a broader evolutionary vision of that nation. To what end that vision I cannot begin to say with anything greater than speculative certainty. The possibilities run from Utopian to Orwellian and are therefore worth nothing much, so I will not go there.

I short, the Israelis have painted themselves into a very tight corner after a pattern that appears to have a very long history attached to it. I believe there is sound basis for believing they have done this with full knowledge and intent. I could be wrong and perhaps am, but the explanation fits a little too well to dismiss it out of hand. And for anyone about to start shrieking, "antisemite" at me, I assure you this has NOTHING to do with being Jewish, but rather only with the usual thing: power.

whippoorwill
12-06-2012, 09:13 AM
he uses his language skills and equivocates more than makes a solid argument.
Indeed, like a pro. Did you see were he said he was a libertarian? If I were a sidewalk pedestrian viewer he would have sold me on it too.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbL3zRgZUBo

adisongrace
12-06-2012, 10:17 AM
Indeed, like a pro. Did you see were he said he was a libertarian? If I were a sidewalk pedestrian viewer he would have sold me on it too.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbL3zRgZUBo


Outside of America, Libertarian means Libertarian Socialist.
I have major respect for Noam. He exposes issues that
Liberty won't even touch. Kudos.

adisongrace
12-06-2012, 10:18 AM
I got this article in my email from a socialist friend of mine.

I'll entertain Chomskey from time to time....but most often when he discusses a topic, he uses his language skills and equivocates more than makes a solid argument.

I disagree. I credit his work o waking me up in HS. His facts are solid.

whippoorwill
12-07-2012, 10:53 AM
He exposes issues that
Liberty won't even touch

Liberty?

paulbot24
12-07-2012, 01:02 PM
“You take my water, burn my olive trees, destroy my house, take my job, steal my land, imprison my father, kill my mother, bombard my country, starve us all, humiliate us all, but I am to blame: I shot a rocket back.”

You should always call the authorities instead of taking matters into your own hands!

(How to achieve nuclear fusion 101) JFKIII is online and will go nuclear in 5...4...3...2...1...:D

John F Kennedy III
12-07-2012, 01:26 PM
You should always call the authorities instead of taking matters into your own hands!

(How to achieve nuclear fusion 101) JFKIII is online and will go nuclear in 5...4...3...2...1...:D

Haha I think I've achieved nuclear fusion on the toilet a few times :p

John F Kennedy III
12-07-2012, 01:35 PM
Liberty?


She, like me, isn't the type of person who will write paragraphs just to insure proper understanding for the people who are sticklers to detail. It may sound like she is painting with a broad brush, but that isn't the intention at all. If you want to know the issues she is referencing feel free to ask.

adisongrace
12-07-2012, 02:15 PM
Liberty?

As in the liberty movement... I work from outside of any paradigm. I'm on this site, as well as Occupy Forums speaking about the same goals.

Examples:
-LGBT equality
-Alternative Energy
-Climate Change
-Cypto Currency
-SuperPac Corruption
-Mixed Economies

We are creating a new paradigm by ostracizing each of the respective freedom movements.
We need complete truth transparency. Left/Right/Center...we all are subjected to the same tyranny.

thoughtomator
12-07-2012, 02:21 PM
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_me82vmkbOs1qh7g48o1_500.jpg

erowe1
12-07-2012, 02:21 PM
As in the liberty movement... I work from outside of any paradigm. I'm on this site, as well as Occupy Forums speaking about the same goals.

Examples:
-LGBT equality
-Alternative Energy
-Climate Change
-Cypto Currency
-SuperPac Corruption
-Mixed Economies

We are creating a new paradigm by ostracizing each of the respective freedom movements.
We need complete truth transparency. Left/Right/Center...we all are subjected to the same tyranny.

When you say liberty won't touch those issues, do you just mean that you don't support liberty when it comes to those issues?

Because I don't see anything on that list that libertarians don't address.

adisongrace
12-07-2012, 02:31 PM
When you say liberty won't touch those issues, do you just mean that you don't support liberty when it comes to those issues?

Because I don't see anything on that list that libertarians don't address.

No. In my experience, on this site as well as other liberty forums, use char. degradation to dismiss the debate.

adisongrace
12-07-2012, 02:33 PM
No. In my experience, on this site as well as other liberty forums, use char. degradation to dismiss the debate.

This also has occurred during debates at Occupy when mentioning RP or ending the reserve.

erowe1
12-07-2012, 02:46 PM
No. In my experience, on this site as well as other liberty forums, use char. degradation to dismiss the debate.

So you do support libertarian positions on those issues, you just don't think other libertarians use the right tone when they talk about them?

Or you don't support libertarian positions on them to begin with?

adisongrace
12-07-2012, 02:49 PM
So you do support libertarian positions on those issues, you just don't think other libertarians use the right tone when they talk about them?

Or you don't support libertarian positions on them to begin with?

No I agree with some libertarian views, however when I present my evidence I am ignored or
flamed for my view.

erowe1
12-07-2012, 02:51 PM
No I agree with some libertarian views, however when I present my evidence I am ignored or
flamed for my view.

I have a hunch that when that happens it has something to do with what your position is, and not just the fact that you're broaching some untouchable subject.

paulbot24
12-07-2012, 03:05 PM
No. In my experience, on this site as well as other liberty forums, use char. degradation to dismiss the debate.

LGBT Equality - Libertarianism doesn't care about LGBT equality. Yes, that's right. Liberty is liberty for all, it doesn't worry about dicing it up and being fair for myriads of different "special" groups. It doesn't even want to know or care if you or anybody else is LGBT. That's why Ron says liberty brings all different types of people together. Usually those spouting off about certain equalities for hyphenated Americans are those wanting specialized rights and preferential treatment for their niche.

Alternative energy - This is certainly a topic we are interested in. The largest consumer of oil in the world is the MIC, which we would like to see drastically reduced. Not to mention we are aware of the military adventurism and loss of life and liberty that takes place in pursuit of oil. Go to the www.dailypaul.com (http://www.dailypaul.com) and you'll find all kinds of ideas on how to be self-sustainable and get off the grid.

Climate change - We notice it is not called global warming now, it is now "climate change." We could worry about the fact that nature does not stay perfectly constant and "changes" if you would like to debate that. Is the sun giving off the exact same amount of solar energy as last year? If not, we must fret.

Cryptocurrency - We are all about alternate currencies on here. I love bitcoins. We don't trust slips of paper from a cabal of thieves that has corrupted our federal government, which we don't exactly trust to begin with however.

SuperPac corruption - Do a search on these forums and you will find MANY people who are angry about the Supreme Court's ruling on Citizens United. Yeah, we love the fact that the establishment can just tap people on the shoulder and get millions from kooky donors.

Mixed Economies - With the range of ideas on here, anarcho-capitalist, mini-anarch, principles of free market and slashing of regulations, you'll find endorsements of everything but socialism and tyranny on here.

Just out of curiosity, when was the last time you saw a libertarian dismiss a debate? It's getting us to shut up that is the hard part!:D

adisongrace
12-07-2012, 03:16 PM
I have a hunch that when that happens it has something to do with what your position is, and not just the fact that you're broaching some untouchable subject.

No it's more along the lines of not fitting into the narrative of "the movement."

anaconda
12-14-2012, 09:29 PM
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/noamchomskygatekeepersofleft1part04oct07.shtml

FreeHampshire
12-14-2012, 10:08 PM
I don't know about gatekeeper, but Noam Chomsky does have a tendency to be dishonest and manipulative. Anyone that is familiar with his botched reports on the Khmer Rouge will know what I'm talking about. Instead of being a principled anti-authoritarian, he comes off as an apologist for any dictatorial regime that falls outside the realm of the "West." He links any totalitarian State's action to be in response to the policies of the West, despite how tenuous of a connection it may be. Something many Libertarian Capitalists are guilty of as well. His political goals are just as absurd and mythological as Leninism. Basically, he thinks the greater power a State may have, and the more rights workers have, somehow a stateless society will emerge from this. And Anarcho-Syndicalism will be the result.




http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf
http://jim.com/chomsdis.htm

Antischism
12-14-2012, 10:17 PM
Noam Chomsky is great on some issues. I appreciate his work.

anaconda
12-14-2012, 10:40 PM
I don't know about gatekeeper, but Noam Chomsky does have a tendency to be dishonest and manipulative. Anyone that is familiar with his botched reports on the Khmer Rouge will know what I'm talking about. Instead of being a principled anti-authoritarian, he comes off as an apologist for any dictatorial regime that falls outside the realm of the "West." He links any totalitarian State's action to be in response to the policies of the West, despite how tenuous of a connection it may be. Something many Libertarian Capitalists are guilty of as well. His political goals are just as absurd and mythological as Leninism. Basically, he thinks the greater power a State may have, and the more rights workers have, somehow a stateless society will emerge from this. And Anarcho-Syndicalism will be the result.




http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf
http://jim.com/chomsdis.htm

Isn't anarch-syndicalism just a bunch of gangs of labor groups, distinguished by specific labor function?

FreeHampshire
12-14-2012, 11:11 PM
Isn't anarch-syndicalism just a bunch of gangs of labor groups, distinguished by specific labor function?

Pretty much that. I don't think any strain of Collectivist anarchy would be sustainable. They will evolve into a State extremely quickly, probably faster than Anarcho-Capitalism would.