Slashdot Mirror

Has Chomsky perhaps mellowed somewhat (snip) Has he perhaps tried to see something of both sides in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, some merit, no matter how small, in the cause of the Israeli people?

Why should he see merit in the side of the Israelis? Is there some kind of requirement that you must do so or you are anti-semitic or somehow a bad person? Is it wrong for people to support the Palestinians and hope that they gain their independence?

But for Chomsky it has been suffering for the Palestinians, period. (snip) [H]e is concerned over what he calls "killings" and "atrocities," all of which, according to him, are killings of Arabs by Jews.

Entirely fallacious. Obviously Chomsky knows that the Israelis are suffering. He chooses champion the cause of the side that he feels is in the right. The statement is loaded with the implication that Chomsky does not care about or somehow condones the deaths of Israelis. Also it contains the connotation that perhaps Chomsky dies not even acknowledge that Israelis are dying or being killed, obviously an attempt to draw a parallel with Holocaust-deniers.

Not a word of any suffering by Jews, not a word of Arab violence.

Chomsky has spoken at length about suicide bombings, and many of the clashes in the region. Why must he speak about what we all know in every single speech that he gives? As this "point" by Cohn only applies to one particular speech given at MIT. Once again this attempts to portray Chomsky as having the view that Israelis are not being killed and Arabs do not commit violent acts. Another attempt to make a Holocaust-denier link.

Instead, a repeated demand for a Palestinian "right to resist," and a criticism of Arafat for having signed away that right at Oslo.

So? That is his view. That the Palestinians are indeed fighting for independence. There is a difference between resistance and terrorism. Chomsky does not and has not supported terrorism, instead he acknowledges that the Palestinians are an occupied people, and as such deserve the right to fight for their freedom, as any other occupied people have the right to do.

Arafat, as Chomsky has opined many times before, is far too easy on the Jews.

Once again an attempt to make it seem as if Chomsky is demanding that suicide bombers be unleashed upon Israel by the thousands. Instead "too easy on the Jews" refers to the negotiations and demands that are made by the Palestinians. He believes that Israel is the side that should be making the concessions, as they are the party that is in the wrong. Instead of saying that Cohn makes it seem as if Noam is a blood-thirsty maniac by trying to bring up terrorist and Holocaust links that do not exist.

a repetition of Nazi crimes

Quite the loaded statement when taken out of context. Nazi crimes included making some citizens "second-class" citizens, taking away their rights, giving them special areas to live in, taking away their freedoms to work and travel without restrictions... etc. It goes on and on. Obviously the link is once again drawn that Chomsky is anti-semitic. Drawing any kind of link to Nazi Germany is unacceptable to the Zionists and cannot be done, especially by a "self-hating" Jew. Nevermind the fact that it is an appeal to the Jews that they should not go down the same path as the country that so terribly murdered their people.

I suggest that anyone who wants to see what Chomsky's true views on these issues should refer to This link