Premier: Israel to keep parts of West Bank forever

[JEDIYoda]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100124/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians

Interesting article, but nothing really new as far as what I have been hearing . We will se ehow this plays out...

By MARK LAVIE, Associated Press Writer Mark Lavie, Associated Press Writer – Sun Jan 24, 4:33 pm ET
JERUSALEM – Israel's leader declared his country's permanent claim to parts of the West Bank on Sunday, angering Palestinians again and complicating efforts by President Barack Obama's Mideast envoy — though the same claim was also made by previous, more moderate premiers. nothing new just the same ole same ole..

Timing and context lent weight to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to two Jewish settlements and his declaration that they would remain in Israel forever. He planted a tree at one of them — Maaleh Adumim, home to about 30,000 Israelis about two miles (three kilometers) from Jerusalem — a symbolic act of ownership. We all know what a hot bed the city of Jerusalem has and will continue to be.

"Our message is clear: We are planting here, we will stay here, we will build here. This place will be an inseparable part of the state of Israel for eternity," Netanyahu proclaimed, just as envoy George Mitchell was trying to restart peace talks after a yearlong stalemate.

In his claim, Netanyahu was referring to what Israel calls its "main settlement blocs," most of them close to Israeli population centers. Israel has long said it would keep the blocs, where about 80 percent of its 300,000 settlers live, and trade Israeli land to the Palestinians in exchange for the blocs. as of this moment did anyone really expect israel to turn it`s back on the settlers....who are Israeli?

In failed negotiations with former, relatively moderate Israeli premiers like Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, Palestinians have indicated they might accept such a trade.--make note of this...

But Netanyahu is suspect in Palestinian eyes, since he has traditionally opposed ceding control of any of the West Bank and has backed settlement expansion. Only under heavy U.S. pressure did he express grudging acceptance of the idea of a Palestinian state in a speech last June. There can still be a Palestinian state...


Netanyahu responded to Palestinian demands for a total construction freeze in the settlements by limiting new building in the West Bank but not in east Jerusalem, claimed by the Palestinians as their capital. That claim will go over like a lead ballon!!

Palestinians rejected the partial freeze as insufficient to get them back to the negotiating table.

Israel countered that by demanding a total freeze in construction in the settlements and east Jerusalem's large Jewish neighborhoods — also considered settlements by the Palestinians — they have climbed out on a limb and are trapped by their own conditions.

On Sunday, claiming Maaleh Adumim and the Gush Etzion bloc south of Jerusalem, Netanyahu once again provided fuel for Palestinian outrage.

"This is an unacceptable act that destroys all the efforts being exerted by Senator Mitchell in order to bring the parties back to the negotiating table," said Nabil Abu Rdeneh, an aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

This came as Mitchell was conducting his latest round of talks in the region to try to get peace talks back on track.

In Amman, Jordan, Mitchell appeared unmoved by Netanyahu's declaration on Maaleh Adumim, restating the U.S. goal of a Palestinian state living next to Israel in peace. "We intend to continue to pursue our efforts until that objective is achieved," he said after meeting Abbas and Jordanian King Abdullah II.

On the eve of Mitchell's arrival last week, Netanyahu said Israel would demand a presence on the Jordanian border of the West Bank to stop weapons and rocket smuggling even if a peace deal is reached, in order to protect Israel's heartland from militant attacks like those from Gaza.

Palestinians rejected that as well. They want a state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem and say they will not accept any Israeli presence there — soldiers or settlers.--Sincw when has the palestinians been able to control their own people????

After his meeting with Mitchell, Netanyahu told his Cabinet he had heard "a few interesting ideas" on renewing peace talks. No details were forthcoming.

Even Mitchell's boss, Obama, has been sounding pessimistic about the prospects.

Last year, Obama took office with the ambitious aim of putting Mideast peacemaking on a fast track. Instead, the peace mission has stalled over Israel's settlements on occupied lands and the refusal by the Palestinians to return to peace talks.

Obama acknowledged in an interview published last week that he underestimated the domestic political forces at play in the region and overreached in expecting a quick breakthrough.

Also Sunday, a Belgian official protested after Israel prevented him from visiting Gaza. Development Minister Charles Michel said European officials must be able to visit the territory because they have aid projects there. The officila was not denied access..all he was told was that he had to enter through Egypt binstead...

"This situation is unacceptable," he told RTL TV.

Israel routinely bans foreign officials from crossing into Gaza, maintaining that such visits bolster the Islamic Hamas rulers of Gaza. Officials can enter Gaza from Egypt.

 

[fallout man]

I read this earlier today, shook my head, and once again reminded myself that certain company deserve one-another.

In this case, I mean the IDF and the kids throwing rocks.

SHAL0M!!!1112321

 

[Lemon law]

I read this earlier today, shook my head, and once again reminded myself that certain company deserve one-another.

In this case, I mean the IDF and the kids throwing rocks.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The way fallout man puts it, it sounds like a silly childish game, but sadly its deadly serious business that can result in blood baths on either side. Even if most of us in the USA live some six thousand miles or more away, what is happening in the mid-east impacts events world wide, and worse yet benefits terrorist organizations like Al-Quida.

There may be a few old enough to remember when there was no state of Israel, but anyone born from 1948 onward cannot. Without going into justifications or picking sides, we can only note the existence of the Israeli State has only provoked constant mid-east, war, tensions, and terrorism.

And when the only end to that vicious circle and any hope for a mid-east peace is invested in some land for peace deal involving the West Bank, Israel claiming any part of the West Bank sends a dangerous and chilling message to any hopes for a just mid-east peace. And maybe for Israel, short term we can get away with it but long term very very dumb.

 

[QuantumPion]

I think what Israel should do is just give them the West Bank like they ask, with no Israeli presence or border guards - complete autonomy.



Then, when the Palestinians conduct terrorist attacks as usual, Israel can declare war against their aggressive neighbors and annex the whole place officially.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I think what Israel should do is just give them the West Bank like they ask, with no Israeli presence or border guards - complete autonomy.



Then, when the Palestinians conduct terrorist attacks as usual, Israel can declare war against their aggressive neighbors and annex the whole place officially.

That similar scenario happened in '67.
And what has been accomplished in the past 40 years as a result.

People have wanted to change the rules of the games when they are not winning.
Palestinians have claimed that it was Jordan, not them the ceded the land to Israel. And they say Jordan did not have proper title to the land.

So it history that will be repeated; some other group will state that the Paelstinians do not have title to the land; therefore it is not theirs to surrender.

 

[Zebo]

The rules of warfare and postwar settlement shouldn't stop applying to the Jews because of age old antisemitism in the EU and Arab Lobby dominating the UN. Rules that entitled Italy to keep the Algo Adige after World War I, or allowed Poland to keep part of what was East Prussia, or the French to firmly incorporate, once and for all, Alsace-Lorraine from ever attacking Germans. Isreali were fuckin fools to even give up land acquired after Israel's victory in the Six-Day War. Got them nothing. It's simple keep up incessant attacks prepare to have that territory you attack from taken. Anyways been that way will always be that way.

 

[Lemon law]

The telling remark in the Zebo post is, "Anyways been that way will always be that way."

Which totally ignores UN doctrine that land taken by conquest is not legitimate and something that much be given back. Which is something counter motivational to expansionist conquest.

In short, the UN doctrine is the way to end the perpetual warfare implicit in this the way its been and always will be.

Do we want perpetual war or do we want peace? Zebo seeming chooses perpetual war.

Because in the fullness of time, sooner or later, the Arab side will be stronger and they will simply take back what they feel is theirs. So it was for places like Alsace-Lorraine but no longer now.

 

[dainthomas]

The telling remark in the Zebo post is, "Anyways been that way will always be that way."

Which totally ignores UN doctrine that land taken by conquest is not legitimate and something that much be given back. Which is something counter motivational to expansionist conquest.

In short, the UN doctrine is the way to end the perpetual warfare implicit in this the way its been and always will be.

Do we want perpetual war or do we want peace? Zebo seeming chooses perpetual war.

Because in the fullness of time, sooner or later, the Arab side will be stronger and they will simply take back what they feel is theirs. So it was for places like Alsace-Lorraine but no longer now.

If Israel gives it all back the Palestinians will find some other excuse to conduct terrorist attacks. Everyone knows this.

And the pseudo-intellectual euro-trash would still find a way to blame Israel, so what's the point? Some people just can't accept that while Israel carries some of the blame, most of the Palestinians current problems are self-induced.

 

[Lemon law]

If Israel gives it all back the Palestinians will find some other excuse to conduct terrorist attacks. Everyone knows this.

And the pseudo-intellectual euro-trash would still find a way to blame Israel, so what's the point? Some people just can't accept that while Israel carries some of the blame, most of the Palestinians current problems are self-induced.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually we can accept the dainthomas version of the propaganda or the also true Palestinian version that if we give Israel some West Bank land they will want more and more and more. Everyone knows that too whopeedo. Which flavor of bad propaganda do we prefer, both are full of artificial ingredients that are bad for physical and mental health.

Or do we prefer to consume the facts, and the fact is, Israel occupies the West Bank but does not own it. As we saw in 2008, the UN, as the final say in the matter, said the USA must end its occupation of Iraq, by setting a total with draw date and a schedule to achieve that end.

For some damn fool reason the UN seemingly prefers that Palestinians and Israelis negotiate and agree on the terms first and to a certain extent a US security council veto keeps that policy in place long after everyone realizes its not likely to happen anytime soon.

As for me, I have always advocated binding third party arbitration as the better option to achieve a just mid-east peace. Even if no really fair and just solution can be totally fair and neither side will be happy, not only must they like it or lump it, but at least it will start to achieve a peace.

 

[brownzilla786]

The rules of warfare and postwar settlement shouldn't stop applying to the Jews because of age old antisemitism in the EU and Arab Lobby dominating the UN. Rules that entitled Italy to keep the Algo Adige after World War I, or allowed Poland to keep part of what was East Prussia, or the French to firmly incorporate, once and for all, Alsace-Lorraine from ever attacking Germans. Isreali were fuckin fools to even give up land acquired after Israel's victory in the Six-Day War. Got them nothing. It's simple keep up incessant attacks prepare to have that territory you attack from taken. Anyways been that way will always be that way.

I wouldn't say getting peace with Egypt was "getting them nothing".

 

[JS80]

:thumbsup; finally some bravery and justice.

 

[piasabird]

Wasnt it just a month or two ago that Palestine was complaining that Isreal cut off the water supply? Palestinians might die of thirst without the water from Isreal. I say cut them off close the border and let them kill each other.

 

[JS80]

Wasnt it just a month or two ago that Palestine was complaining that Isreal cut off the water supply? Palestinians might die of thirst without the water from Isreal. I say cut them off close the border and let them kill each other.

Why are you capitalizing palestinian? They are lower case. Plus, no such thing as palestine. It's called Israel.

 

[Freshgeardude]

well its kind of obvious israel isnt going to give back all of the land. at least what they ask, since Israel has already offered 103% land mass ( israel keeps some west bank and some negev goes to palestinians) back to the palestinians, but they didnt accept that offer.


I agree with one of those comments above. let them have it all back, after they still continue terrorist attacks, annex the land officially in today's terms and tell everyone else to fuck off. kick out hamas and fatah and take away their weapons. let those with clear records be citizens minus a 1 year probation period, if they pass they are 100% equal to the israeli government as anyone else. anyone with criminal record that includes terrorism, gets put in jail/ kicked out. those with records like stealing etc make it a 2 year period. any terrorism found means jail for life.


regular palestinians have no problem with israel, infact many request to come in israel to work and when in need of medical attention, they ask to go into israel.

 

[Lemon law]

Wasnt it just a month or two ago that Palestine was complaining that Isreal cut off the water supply? Palestinians might die of thirst without the water from Isreal. I say cut them off close the border and let them kill each other.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well piasabird, I have to say you are a sad and sorry example of a human being that only delights in others peoples misery.

It would be one thing to say the Palestinian people should pull themselves up by their boot straps, but when Israel confiscates their boots, their land, their livelihood, all their resources, and tosses them into nothing but glorified prisoner of war camps, I can only say you would not take it either if it happened to you.

Unlike you, I try to see both sides. As for you, you need to grow a brain.

The world can do better, much better.

 

[Freshgeardude]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well piasabird, I have to say you are a sad and sorry example of a human being that only delights in others peoples misery.

It would be one thing to say the Palestinian people should pull themselves up by their boot straps, but when Israel confiscates their boots, their land, their livelihood, all their resources, and tosses them into nothing but glorified prisoner of war camps, I can only say you would not take it either if it happened to you.

Unlike you, I try to see both sides. As for you, you need to grow a brain.

The world can do better, much better.

this just in.... gaza and the west bank are POW camps.


news to me!

 

[Lemon law]

this just in.... gaza and the west bank are POW camps.


news to me!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well what do call them freshgeardude? I await your response. When you can't call either a Palestinian State with any kind of self determination, or as piasabird notes, not even their own water long before diverted all to Israel.

I sure don't want to sound pro Palestinian either , when Israel has a lot of good people too, but when the rational on both sides are hijacked by extremists on both sides, the rascals are are left running the clusterfuck towards an inevitable bloodbath that will gag a maggot and burn the innocent and guilty alike in the larger fullness of time.

All you do is ape George C Wallace in saying stupidity then, stupidity now, and stupidity forever while losing any standards of human fairness.

 

[JEDIYoda]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well piasabird, I have to say you are a sad and sorry example of a human being that only delights in others peoples misery.

It would be one thing to say the Palestinian people should pull themselves up by their boot straps, but when Israel confiscates their boots, their land, their livelihood, all their resources, and tosses them into nothing but glorified prisoner of war camps, I can only say you would not take it either if it happened to you.

Unlike you, I try to see both sides. As for you, you need to grow a brain.

The world can do better, much better.

What piasabird said was and is very true in it`s purest sense....
Originally Posted by piasabird
Wasnt it just a month or two ago that Palestine was complaining that Isreal cut off the water supply? Palestinians might die of thirst without the water from Isreal. I say cut them off close the border and let them kill each other.

Then what Freshgeardude said rings very true----
originally posted by Freshgeardude
well its kind of obvious israel isnt going to give back all of the land. at least what they ask, since Israel has already offered 103% land mass ( israel keeps some west bank and some negev goes to palestinians) back to the palestinians, but they didnt accept that offer.


I agree with one of those comments above. let them have it all back, after they still continue terrorist attacks, annex the land officially in today's terms and tell everyone else to fuck off. kick out hamas and fatah and take away their weapons. let those with clear records be citizens minus a 1 year probation period, if they pass they are 100% equal to the israeli government as anyone else. anyone with criminal record that includes terrorism, gets put in jail/ kicked out. those with records like stealing etc make it a 2 year period. any terrorism found means jail for life.


regular palestinians have no problem with israel, infact many request to come in israel to work and when in need of medical attention, they ask to go into israel.


But then we have Palestinian sympathizers like Lemon Law who honestly believe that by meeting all the Palestinian demands as well as all of whatever Hamas desires that peace will come to that region and the palestinians will live happlily ever after.....
These so called Palestinian sympathizers would Love to see the UN get involved in a more agressive way-- the UN is such a total joke...that they actually several years back was found guilty of being biased and looking the other way when it came to aggression against Israel...hmm

The we have the most true comment so far --concerning Israel giving back the land...which is what Israel keeps doing....said best by Common Courtesy --
originally posted by Common Courtesy--
That similar scenario happened in '67.
And what has been accomplished in the past 40 years as a result.

People have wanted to change the rules of the games when they are not winning.
Palestinians have claimed that it was Jordan, not them the ceded the land to Israel. And they say Jordan did not have proper title to the land.

So it history that will be repeated; some other group will state that the Paelstinians do not have title to the land; therefore it is not theirs to surrender.

 

[DanDaManJC]

The US media is biased towards Israel... you can check out some info here:

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/ap-report.html

The MIT Linguist Noam Chomsky discusses the media bias in incredible detail in several of his books. His book "Necessary Illusions" is a good start. The thing about Chomsky is that he takes the time to find credible sources and he also cites those sources... so there's plenty of info to go around.

I really can't stress that enough -- he's not just another political hack like Glenn Beck or Keith Oberman -- he's a real academic and treats his work in as much a scientific matter with his citations and keeping his facts in line -- especially since he's making such big claims about US foreign policy. Doesn't mean you need to agree, but rather he is a bit more credible than others.

There's no doubt the suicide and rocket attacks are evil and unjust -- but things are barely as one sided as our media portrays it.

 

[Zebo]

Because in the fullness of time, sooner or later, the Arab side will be stronger and they will simply take back what they feel is theirs.

LOL Good one. Inshallah fatalism makes that a pipe dream. Until they dump Islam they will be in stone age, paradoxically, when they dump Islam there will be peace.

 

[JEDIYoda]

The US media is biased towards Israel... you can check out some info here:

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/ap-report.html

The MIT Linguist Noam Chomsky discusses the media bias in incredible detail in several of his books. His book "Necessary Illusions" is a good start. The thing about Chomsky is that he takes the time to find credible sources and he also cites those sources... so there's plenty of info to go around.

I really can't stress that enough -- he's not just another political hack like Glenn Beck or Keith Oberman -- he's a real academic and treats his work in as much a scientific matter with his citations and keeping his facts in line -- especially since he's making such big claims about US foreign policy. Doesn't mean you need to agree, but rather he is a bit more credible than others.

There's no doubt the suicide and rocket attacks are evil and unjust -- but things are barely as one sided as our media portrays it.

So what does this have to do with Chomsky?? Chomsky finds credible sources?? You must be kidding...what he finds are sources that agree with his view point....

The Chomsky Hoax

Articles and documents exposing the dishonesty and fanaticism of extreme left-wing propagandist and genocide denier Noam Chomsky.

General

Paul Bogdanor, The Top 200 Chomsky Lies [PDF]
Documentation of 200 egregious lies about communist mass murderers, modern history, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, 9/11, Latin America, the Middle East, the Arab-Israeli conflict, Holocaust denial, etc. Also lists misquotations, numerical distortions and worthless sources used in his writings. (The original 100 lies are also available in Spanish.)
Paul Bogdanor, The Wit and Wisdom of Noam Chomsky
Quotations the Chomsky cultists would like you to ignore.
Stefan Kanfer, America’s Dumbest Intellectual
An excellent brief introduction to Chomskyism.
J. Bradford DeLong, My Very, Very Allergic Reaction to Noam Chomsky
Ridicules Chomsky statements about Bosnia, Holocaust denial and the Khmer Rouge.
Keith Windschuttle, The Hypocrisy of Noam Chomsky
An overview of Chomsky’s disgraceful political career.
Oliver Kamm, Chomsky Recollects
Chomsky wrote that Americans were no better than Nazis. Then he lied about it.

Book Reviews

American Power and the New Mandarins
Arthur Schlesinger, Three Cheers For Professor Chomsky: But Not Just Now [PDF]
Arthur Schlesinger and Noam Chomsky, Exchange: Truman’s Speech and Noam Chomsky [PDF]
Oliver Kamm, Chomsky and the Vietnam War: A Study in Failure
Oliver Kamm, Chomsky and the Vietnam War: A Study in Propaganda

Peace in the Middle East?
Benjamin Kerstein, Review

Political Economy of Human Rights
Stephen J. Morris, Chomsky on US Foreign Policy [PDF]
Paul Bogdanor, Chomsky’s Totalitarian Apologetics
Paul Bogdanor, Chomsky Denies a Genocide

Towards a New Cold War
C. M. Woodhouse, The Anti-American Case [PDF]

Fateful Triangle
Paul Bogdanor, Chomsky’s Protocols

Manufacturing Consent
Paul Bogdanor, Manufacturing Distortions

What Uncle Sam Really Wants
J. Bradford DeLong, My Allergic Reaction to Noam Chomsky
Benjamin Kerstein, Review

Powers and Prospects/Class Warfare
Roger Scruton, Rash Thinker Who is in Two Minds

The New Military Humanism
Adrian Hastings, Chomsky and Kosova

A New Generation Draws the Line
Marko Attila Hoare, Nothing is Left

9/11
Carlin Romano, Once Again, Chomsky’s on Anti-US Hobbyhorse

Hegemony or Survival
Amir Taheri, Chomsky Identifies “The Evil” That Haunts the World

Interventions
Jonathan Rauch, Notes From a Gadfly

Ideology

Nathan Folkert, Chomsky on Violence
On Chomsky’s support for totalitarian terror and mass murder.
Barry Loberfeld, The Coercive Anarchism of Noam Chomsky
The true nature of Chomsky’s anarchist-communist ideology.
James Ostrowski, Chomsky’s Economics
Chomsky wants to abolish the state so that he can impose far more control over the population.
Rajeev Advani, The Crimes of Democratic Capitalism
Chomsky exploited the horrors of democratic socialism in India to mitigate the horrors of totalitarian communism in China.
Paul M. Postal, Noam Chomsky and the Quest For Social Justice
An academic colleague exposes his manipulative rhetoric about international human rights standards.

Cold War

Russil Wvong, Chomsky Responds to Criticism of PPS/23 Quote
Russil Wvong, A Response to Chomsky’s Quotation of PPS/23
Chomsky distorts a Cold War document.
Oliver Kamm, Chomsky on Milosevic, Stalin and Germany
Chomsky revives discredited myths about the 1952 Stalin Note on the status of Germany.
Tom Nichols, Re: Chomsky: A Principled Dissenter
A Cold War historian exposes Chomsky’s falsification of the history of the arms race.
Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, Handling Dissidents: The “Free-World Model” [PDF]
Joshua Muravchik, Latin American and Soviet Repression [PDF]
Chomsky tries to belittle Soviet crimes.
Charles Kalina, Chomsky and Afghanistan
Quick rebuttal of Chomsky’s ludicrous false analogy between American intervention in Vietnam and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Vietnam

Noam Chomsky, In North Vietnam
Chomsky undertakes a stagemanaged tour of North Vietnam and argues that this hideous dictatorship “offers the peasant hope for the future.”
Vietnam News Agency, Spring Peace Offensive of American People Welcomed [PDF]
An official North Vietnamese record of Chomsky’s enthusiastic collaboration with totalitarian tyranny
Tim Starr, Noam Chomsky: Viet Cong Cheerleader
Chomsky’s notorious speech glorifying the communist mass murderers in North Vietnam. Chomsky has admitted in print to delivering this speech.
Anders Lewis, Noam Chomsky: Unrepentant Stalinist
Debunks the Chomsky propaganda version of the Vietnam War.

Cambodia

Noam Chomsky, Comments on Cambodia [PDF]
Chomsky credits the Khmer Rouge dictatorship with saving up to a million lives.
James A. Donald, Chomsky Lies
Point-by-point refutation of Chomsky’s infamous genocide denial essay in The Nation.
Noam Chomsky, Letter on Cambodia [PDF]
Leopold Labedz, Chomsky Revisited [PDF]
Chomsky suggests that Khmer Rouge atrocities have been inflated by “a factor of 1,000.” He is then taken apart by Labedz in one of the most devastating rebuttals ever written. If you only read one discussion of Chomsky’s political views, make it this one.
Robert Manne, Response to Chomsky [PDF]
West Midlands Anarchists, Noam Chomsky on Cambodia
First-rate analyses of Chomsky’s genocide denial.
Sophal Ear, The Standard Total Academic View on Cambodia
Bruce Sharp, Averaging Wrong Answers: Noam Chomsky and the Cambodia Controversy
Massively detailed studies of Chomsky’s Khmer Rouge apologetics.
Nathan Folkert, Noam Chomsky on the CIA Demographic Catastrophe Report
Chomsky’s falsification of the CIA demographic study of Cambodia.
Noam Chomsky and Charles Burton, Exchange on Cambodia [PDF]
Noam Chomsky and Adam Roberts, Exchange on Cambodia
“Trilateral Chairman,” Noam Chomsky on Cambodia
Chomsky’s deceitful efforts to rewrite his record of genocide denial.

Yugoslavia

Marko Attila Hoare, Chomsky’s Srebrenica Shame - and The Guardian’s
Chomsky’s appalling record on the war crimes in Yugoslavia.
Ed Vulliamy et al., Srebrenica: Defending the Truth
Marko Attila Hoare, The Guardian, Noam Chomsky and the Milosevic Lobby
Bosnia specialists and genocide survivors denounce Chomsky.
Oliver Kamm et al., Chomsky, The Guardian and Bosnia
Newspaper columnists denounce Chomsky.
Oliver Kamm, Chomsky Bamboozles on the Balkans I II III
Chomsky falsifies sources to conceal war crimes and concentration camps.
David Watson, Letter to the New Statesman
Roger Lippman, Noam Chomsky on Kosovo
Chomsky’s disgraceful apologetics for the crimes of the Milosevic regime.

Israel

Paul Bogdanor, The Devil State: Chomsky’s War Against Israel [PDF]
Comprehensively refutes Chomsky’s lies about the Arab-Israeli conflict. From Edward Alexander and Paul Bogdanor, eds., The Jewish Divide Over Israel; an abridged version appeared in Peter Collier and David Horowitz, eds., The Anti-Chomsky Reader.
Alan Dershowitz, Chomsky’s Immoral Divestiture Petition
Benjamin Kerstein, Noam Chomsky is an Iconic Mass Murderer...
The Chomsky-Dershowitz debates on Israel.
Ali Hussein, Chomsky Needs to Learn a Lot More About Lebanon
David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin, Noam Chomsky’s Love Affair With Nazis
Zachary Hughes, Noam Chomsky’s Support For Hezbollah
Chomsky travels to Lebanon and openly embraces the genocidal fanatics of Hezbollah.
Noam Chomsky, Hamas Policies Are More Conducive to a Peaceful Settlement Than Those of the US or Israel
Chomsky tells Lebanese viewers that Hamas positions are “preferable to the policies of the United States and Israel,” which are “very similar to those of Hitler.”
Oliver Kamm, Chomsky and Conspiracy Theory
Adriene Sere, The Dance of Deception
“Grasshoppa,” Chomsky Lies (Again)
Alan Dershowitz, Chomsky’s New Blood Libel
Oliver Kamm, Chomsky on Palestine & Israel
Representative Chomsky falsehoods exposed.

Antisemitism

W. D. Rubinstein, Chomsky and the Neo-Nazis [PDF]
Examines Chomsky’s belief that Holocaust denial is not antisemitic and that Holocaust deniers have been maligned. Also notes the parallel between Nazi apologetics and Chomsky’s Khmer Rouge genocide denial.
Pierre Vidal-Naquet, On Faurisson and Chomsky
On the notorious Chomsky preface to Faurisson’s book.
Nadine Fresco, The Denial of the Dead: On the Faurisson Affair
Detailed analysis of the Faurisson scandal.
Werner Cohn, Partners in Hate: Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers
The definitive work on Chomsky’s neo-Nazi involvements.
Werner Cohn, Chomsky and the French Neo-Nazis: Some Documents
Comments on the Guillaume essay below.
Rachel Neuwirth, The Chomsky File
The sordid history of Chomsky’s involvement with Jew-hatred, which extends beyond collaboration with Holocaust deniers.

Chomsky’s Jewish Critics

Edward Alexander, The Secret Life of Noam Chomsky [PDF]
Carlos P. Otero, The Attack on Noam Chomsky Was Unjustified [PDF]
Edward A. Stern, Noam Chomsky’s Politics and Albert Einstein’s Violin [PDF]
Noam Chomsky, Chomsky’s Words Stand on Their Own [PDF]
Edward Alexander and Edward A. Stern, Response to Chomsky [PDF]
Illuminating debate on Chomsky’s antisemitic connections.
Noam Chomsky and Edward Alexander, Exchange: Holocaust Denial [PDF]
Chomsky tries to cover his tracks with a defamatory rant against his chief opponent.

Chomsky’s Nazi Admirers

Pierre Guillaume, A Clarification
A French Holocaust denier shows how Chomsky single-handedly saved the denial movement from collapse. He even gave the deniers translation rights for his books! Chomsky assisted in the preparation of this essay. For discussion, see the preceding articles by Cohn.
Institute for Historical Review, “One of the Best Exposés of Zionist Mythology...”
Institute for Historical Review, “Chomsky’s Valuable Insights...”
American Holocaust deniers endorse Chomsky’s anti-Israel ravings.
Friends of Oswald Mosley, Noam Chomsky’s Search For the Truth
British fascists sing Chomsky’s praises.

Al-Shifa and 9/11

Noam Chomsky, On the Bombings
Chomsky equates the 9/11 massacres with the American bombing of a factory in Sudan.
Leo Casey, The Unbearable Whiteness of Chomsky’s Arguments
Noam Chomsky, Reply to Casey
Leo Casey, Let Us Not Inherit This Ill Wind
Noam Chomsky, Second Reply to Casey
Exchange on Chomsky’s Sudan allegations. Casey shows that Chomsky’s sources are worthless.
Brian Carnell, Chomsky Needs a Fact-Checker
Brian Carnell, How Many People Died as a Result of US Bombing of Sudan?
Chomsky invokes another worthless source and fabricates statements by Human Rights Watch.
Oliver Kamm, Chomsky Redux
On Chomsky’s response to the exposure of his fabrications.

War on Terrorism

Noam Chomsky, The New War Against Terror [RealPlayer Video]
Lecture to the Technology and Culture Forum at MIT, October 18, 2001, containing his infamous lie that America was inflicting a “silent genocide” on Afghanistan (at 9:20-9:30 and 10:35-11:15 mins.). Chomsky warned that millions would die within the next couple of weeks.
Massive Food Delivery Averts Afghan Famine
Ronald Radosh, The Last Word on the Afghan “Genocide”
American intervention prevented famine in Afghanistan.
Brian Carnell, Chomsky Backpedals on Silent Genocide in Afghanistan
Chomsky accused the Bush Administration of attempting to murder 3-4 million people in Afghanistan and then denied that he had made the accusation.
Charles Kalina, Re: Drain the Swamp and There Will Be No More Mosquitoes
Point-by-point refutation of Chomsky’s post-9/11 sophistries.
Christian Beckner, Chomsky Doesn’t Know His WMDs
Chomsky shows that he does not know the difference between radiological and nuclear weapons.
“NeoCenturions,” Chomsky in Dublin
Jacob Laksin, The Ayatollah of Anti-Americanism
Michael Weiss, Fisking Chomsky’s Latest Bilge on Iran
Michael Weiss, Fun With Chomsky’s Latest Hiccup
Chomsky’s lies about the Iraq war and the Iranian nuclear crisis.

Chomsky’s Conspiracy Theories

Chomsky Calls US Imperialistic [PDF]
Chomsky suggests that America is planning a war against Europe.
Chomsky Misuses Facts [PDF]
Chomsky fabricates American plans to exploit the Iranian hostage crisis by building new missile systems and encircling the Indian Ocean.
Chomsky Lectures on US Foreign Policy
Chomsky asserts that the Clinton Administration is “the most extreme fundamentalist administration,” but the American population “hasn’t got a clue to what’s going on.”
Faculty Hold Teach-In on Divestment
Chomsky claims that America arms and finances Arab suicide bombers.
Interview: An Hour With Noam Chomsky [PDF]
Chomsky argues [page 119] that sports, sex and Who Wants to be a Millionaire? are media tools for manipulating the population.
Larissa MacFarquhar, The Devil’s Accountant [Excerpts]
Chomsky claims that Pearl Harbor saved millions of lives and that America and Britain used Nazi armies to attack the Soviet Union and prolong the Holocaust.
Bill Frezza, A Lion in Winter
Chomsky suggests that America is selling nuclear warheads to the Israeli air force and that the search for a cancer cure is hoax.

Other

Konrad Koerner, The Anatomy of a Revolution in the Social Sciences: Chomsky in 1962
A respected historian of linguistics shows how Chomsky actually achieved academic prominence.
Peter Schweizer, The Branding of the World’s Top Intellectual: Noam Chomsky
Alleges that Chomsky made millions of dollars from the political system he despises.
Samuel Korb, Chomsky’s Bullying
Eye-witness account of bullying by Chomsky.
Larissa MacFarquhar, The Devil’s Accountant [Excerpts]
More examples of bullying by Chomsky.

 

[JEDIYoda]

http://www.jochnowitz.net/Essays/ExtremistLang.html

Chomsky Denies holocaust.....

Noam Chomsky - Extremist of the
Left and Right

Noam Chomsky is doubly important: He is the world's most famous and respected linguistic scientist in addition to being a well-known radical political writer.

The Chicago Tribune describes Chomsky as "the most cited living author." At the same time, he has been characterized as a writer whose work has been suppressed "because the gentlemen who own the major media don't want you to know about Noam Chomsky." 1 It is paradoxical that such a well-known figure has trouble finding a publisher. The reason is that Chomsky's name has been associated with the denial of one genocide and the minimization of another.

It would be inaccurate to call Chomsky a Holocaust denier. Chomsky knows the Holocaust took place, and he has repeatedly called it "the most fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human history." Nevertheless, Chomsky did in fact lend his reputation to the deniers of the Holocaust and participated directly in downplaying another genocide, the Cambodian massacres of 1975-78. While it is true that Chomsky himself never claimed that the Holocaust never happened, he did sign a petition in defense of Robert Faurisson, a Holocaust denier, saying that Faurisson

has been conducting extensive research into the 'Holocaust" question. Since he began making his findings public, Professor Faurisson has been subject to a vicious campaign of harassment, intimidation, slander, and physical violence in a crude attempt to silence him. 2

This is much more than a call for freedom of speech. The use of the word "findings" for Faurisson's book and the quotation marks around the word "Holocaust" are themselves a denial. Chomsky is in effect saying that although he happens to believe that the Holocaust took place, other reputable researchers may honestly come to different conclusions.

The petition was signed in 1979. Chomsky has had enough time to make it clear that he disapproves of what Faurisson said, even while defending his right to say it. Holocaust denial has an agenda. It is necessarily an expression of anti-Semitism. Those who deny that the Holocaust happened maintain that although it didn't take place, it should have. The motivation, the deep structure (to use Chomsky's terminology) of Holocaust denial is the belief that those who suffer are virtuous, and since the Jews are villainous, they couldn't have suffered. There is no way in the world that a researcher could conclude there had never been a Holocaust. If Chomsky made a simple error in accepting the word "findings," or if he felt the word has been misunderstood by his critics, he could have made it clear between 1979 and now that he considers Faurisson's study an instance of hate literature while defending his right to advocate hatred. He can still do so.

 

[DanDaManJC]

http://www.jochnowitz.net/Essays/ExtremistLang.html

Chomsky Denies holocaust.....

Noam Chomsky - Extremist of the
Left and Right

...
It would be inaccurate to call Chomsky a Holocaust denier. Chomsky knows the Holocaust took place, and he has repeatedly called it "the most fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human history." Nevertheless, Chomsky did in fact lend his reputation to the deniers of the Holocaust and participated directly in downplaying another genocide, the Cambodian massacres of 1975-78. While it is true that Chomsky himself never claimed that the Holocaust never happened, he did sign a petition in defense of Robert Faurisson, a Holocaust denier, saying that Faurisson

has been conducting extensive research into the 'Holocaust" question. Since he began making his findings public, Professor Faurisson has been subject to a vicious campaign of harassment, intimidation, slander, and physical violence in a crude attempt to silence him. 2

...

On holocaust denial, the important thing to note is the bolded. So Chomsky says that this holocaust denier has "findings" which automatically implies Chomsky is also a holocaust denier? That specific example is obviously pretty weak. I think the wikipedia article does a pretty good job of addressing the issue. It really looks like Chomsky put himself in a bind.. so iono, bad PR?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair


As for your wall of text --- there's no way I can hopefully respond to everything you have listed. In fact, it's great to see that people are fact checking. But I would still encourage people to look at the other side. Going to the top 200 chomsky mis-fact pdf, the first point listed is this one:

The Lie: “in comparison to the conditions imposed by US tyranny and violence, East Europe
under Russian rule was practically a paradise.”1

The Truth: The communists murdered 4 million people in the Ukraine; 753,000 in Poland;
360,000 in Romania; 300,000 in Belarus; 200,000 in Hungary; 100,000 in East Germany;
100,000 in Lithuania; 70,000-100,000 in Yugoslavia; 30,000-40,000 in Bulgaria; 20,000 in
Czechoslovakia; and 5,000 in Albania. Other atrocities included the murder of over 500,000
POWs in Soviet captivity and the mass rape of at least 2 million women by the Red Army.2
9.

Now of course, the quote is properly cited back to chomsky and so forth. The things that Chomsky says that make him so unpopular is the idea that the US backs tyrannical dictatorships and / or pursues imperial ambitions regardless of the sanctity of human life. He claims the US supports several despotic regimes solely because they serve US interests... for instance he asserts the real reason for our invasion of Grenda was to protect the US's fruit company assets (other srcs: http://www.unitedfruit.org/about.htm) and so on. Now with regard to the the quote --- it's this support of despotic regimes that tallys up mass murder numbers that out-shadow the old soviet countries. Furthermore, I think it's pretty obvious Chomsky's original quote here is lacking enough context... a general statement of "US tyranny" isn't specific enough, which case of US "tyranny"? From the extermination of the native americans to the present day? Maybe vietnam? latin america?

No matter the cause, in terms of imperialistic ambition as chomsky would state it, or more the more "innocent" claims of combatting evil communism, events such as the US support of the contras did indeed lead to mass civilian death. (Winning Hearts and Minds: The Debate Over U.S. Intervention in Nicaragua in the 1980s by Roger Peace is a good journal entry on the topic of Nicaragua) From the article:

THE CONTRA WAR
On March 9, 1981, President Reagan signed a secret Presidential Finding
that authorized the CIA to organize an anti-Sandinista guerrilla
force, ostensibly to interdict weapons transfers from Nicaragua to El
Salvador.13 The House Committee on Intelligence secretly approved
this CIA operation, but expressly forbade the CIA from spending U.S.
funds ‘‘for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Nicaragua
or provoking a military exchange between Nicaragua and Honduras.’’
14 The administration’s arms interdiction rationale allowed it to
build a contra guerrilla army in neighboring Honduras. A subsequent
report by the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Oversight and Evaluation
in the fall of 1982 concluded that administration claims on
arms transfers were ‘‘flawed by several instances of overstatement and
overinterpretation.’’15 The contras, in fact, never interdicted any
weapons.
The first major wave of contra attacks began in mid-March 1982.
Led by former National Guardsmen of the Somoza regime, contra
units attacked weakly defended areas, killing civilians deemed to be
pro-Sandinista and kidnapping young men. Such tactics hardly
endeared them to the Nicaraguan people, as noted by the new U.S.
ambassador to Nicaragua, Anthony Quainton. On August 13, 1983,
Quainton sent a memo to the State Department regarding ‘‘allegations
of a contra massacre.’’ The ambassador wrote that Nicaraguan newspapers
were full of photographs and eyewitness accounts of a contra
ambush of a bus carrying eighteen civilians near the town of Jinotega
two days earlier. Commented Quainton, ‘‘Incidents such as this in
which unarmed civilians, including women and children, are victims
provide invaluable grist for the Sandinista propaganda mill. Reports of
such activities revive memories of the brutality of Somoza’s National
Guard.’’16

Point of the quote is just to illustrate the point that US backed terrorism does exist. That's outside Chomsky's commentary too.

Now finally, the good stuff. I could very well have been completely duped by Chomsky's works. That list of 200 Chomsky misquotes and/or misrepresentations looks legit and pretty damn well encompassing on most of the things Chomsky talks about. That said, several of the quotes do look a bit short -- so in all honesty proper context would be an absolute necessity, and context-based explanations alone could probably (speakin outta my ass ) whittle down the list a good bit.



Now to reply to the topic at hand. I was initially replying to this thread to more or less agree with Lemon Law's sentiment about trying to "see both sides". I then presented Chomsky as an alternative opinion to mainstream american press, who has also documented his findings on the whole israel-palestinian issue. I also did a quick google and found this handy site with several nice facts.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/ap-report.html

Israeli children’s deaths were covered at a rate 7.5 times greater than Palestinian children’s deaths.

Relevance is that childrens death automatically draws sympathy. We're all human after all. The main page has similar stats.

My point here isn't to take the completly pro-palestinian side but rather to just try and illustrate the fact that the issue is a lot more multi dimensional that just hezbollah's rocket, atrocious, rocket attacks on israel and israel's subsequent rebuttals.

Cliffs
*I replied to agree with Lemon Law on the idea of trying to see both sides of the story
*I present Chomsky as an author/"liberal" activist who is a what many consider a good representation of a pro-palestinian ideals
*I present this other website that shows the widespread Israeli oppression of the palestinian civilian population
*I finally don't deny it's definitely a two way street. but that's what id like to stress, it is a two way street

 

[Noobtastic]

Well what do call them freshgeardude? I await your response. When you can't call either a Palestinian State with any kind of self determination, or as piasabird notes, not even their own water long before diverted all to Israel.

This is simply false. A "Palestinian state" was a non-issue until it became political relevant to front their war against Israel.

Between 1948-1967, when not a single Israeli lived in Gaza or the West Bank and Jordan and Egypt had total control of the people that lived there, no Palestinian state was made.

In fact, Jordan wouldn't even let Palestinians build universities in the WB because they feared it could cause politician activism. Any attempts at independence were crushed ruthlessly by the occupiers. And for good reason, Arafat tried to take over Jordan in the 1970s in what became known as Black September.

Jordan killed 10,000 Palestinians over a weekend. In a single month Jordan had killed more Palestinians than Israel had in over 25 years.

No protest from the UN of course. And Britain was silent, considering they recognized Jordan's annexation of the West Bank.

Now, when Israel came in 1967, what happened to the Palestinians?

Many things. First, Israel eradicated malaria in both Gaza and the West Bank because they feared it would carry over into the mainland. Palestinian life expectancy almost doubled between 1967-1980, from 40 to 75. Literacy among males and females more than tripled, and is now at 95+%, one of the highest in the Middle East except for Jordan and Israel.

And standard of living tripled too. Even today, the Palestinians have a higher standard of living than many Arab and Muslim states - including Pakistan, Indonesia, Yemen, etc.

According to the latest research, there is more poverty in Egypt than in Gaza. Gazans have a higher life expectancy and higher per capita income than EGYPT.

And while it is true Palestinians have access to only 20% of all water in proximity, before 1967 they only had 10%.

Considering Israel, as the enemy, having suffered over thousands of suicide bombing attempts, airplane hijackings, torched embassies, massacred Olympic athletes, etc....they've done a pretty good job subsidizing the lives of their enemies.

I mean really, you expect Israel to behave in a way no other country behaves. When America is attacked by terrorists, it invades a country thousands of miles away. When the Arab's are threatened, they massacre entire cities - as the Syrian's did to Hama in response to the Muslim Brotherhood, where over 40,000 were killed in less than 24 hours in the 1980s.

P.S: Hamas is a splinter group from the Muslim Brotherhood.

No state on Earth treats its enemies like Israel does, yet you continue to cite buzzwords and factoids that cannot be proven with independent research. The PLO lost all credibility when they were caught selling UN food on the black market.

That, and strapping bombs to their children and when whining when minors are considered combatants by the IDF.

Israeli children’s deaths were covered at a rate 7.5 times greater than Palestinian children’s deaths.

Irrelevant. Israel's did not strap bombs to their children, nor did Israel soldiers camp in Jewish elementary schools when fighting Palestinian thugs.

So whereas the majority of Israeli children were killed in suicide bombings and attacks on schools, the majority of Palestinian "children" were killed in active conflict. And the majority of the Palestinian "children" killed were actually combat-aged males. Males outnumbered females by a factor of 5 - which proves immense discretion.

Plus, Israel, as the victim, does not take lightly to casualties. It builds bomb shelters, walls, fences, early-warning systems...all designed to protect civilians and soldiers from unpredictable mindless attacks from the enemy.

But Palestinians do not build bomb shelters, walls, or fences to protect their people from Israeli attack because they know Israel's military is predicated on retaliation. Unless provoked, Israel won't attack. And when they do attack, they'll drop leaflets, phone homes, and by and large do their best to keep casualties to low.

But the Palestinians have learned dead civilians, even faked deaths, are easy money and serve as effective propaganda in demonizing Israel and collecting billions in international welfare.

I remember a Palestinian youth was run over by an Israeli water tanker in Hebron. Hundreds of youth surrounded the truck, lobbing rocks at it, unaware or perhaps indifferent to the fact that the water was designated for their village.

In the chaos a youth was run over. An IDF helicopter flew in and airlifted the injured boy to a hospital in Jerusalem, where he later died.

IDF apologized, and said it was an accident. Fatah called it murder and as an example of Israeli genocide blah blah blah.

I don't remember how the mainstream press covered it but I'm sure it was on the lines of "In other news, another innocent, victim, Palestinian child was ruthlessly run over by a Zionist tank."

6 weeks later in back page "mistakes" section: "Correction: Zionist water tanker."

 

[Lemon law]

All the above poster has proved is that Israel provides its third class citizens with some measure of food and health. We can say the same thing about US prisons also, would you therefore choose to be jailed?

Which may feed the body but not the Palestinian `soul that yearns to have a state dedicated to their interests, where they can be first class citizens again and have a sense of self determination.

After all many of these people had lands and possessions until Israel confiscated it for Israeli use. Israel does indeed use that tactic in Gaza and sometimes the West Bank.

But cheer up, remember the piasabird recommendation to with hold their water if they get uppity.