A great collection of Chomsky and of Judaic-Right
attacks on Chomsky - while we sometimes attack him
on the left to keep him in balance :-)
The collection compiled by Peter Myers, whose mail
list is warmly recommended.
Shamir
Chomsky's Reputation Restored? Ignores Vanunu;
Says Israel lobby is Christian,
not Jewish

by Peter Myers

January 30, 2005

Rachel Neuwirt, of the Jewish Right, calls Chomsky
an Anti-Semite (The Chomsky
Files - item 1):

'Chomsky repeats every distortion and libel
directed against the Jewish state
that has appeared in Arab, Western and "pro-peace"
Israeli publications, to
which he adds some conspiracy theories of his own
devising'

In a video transcript she quotes from (item 2),
Chomsky says:

'Anti-Semitism is no longer a problem,
fortunately. It's raised, but it's
raised because privileged people want to make sure
they have total control,
not just 98% control.'

I have not found such statements about Jewish
power in America on Chomsky's
own website. And elsewhere he says that the Israel
lobby is Christian
fundamentalist, not Jewish.

The edited transcript of a live video link-up,
which its publisher, Variant
magazine, says took place on 11 October 2002, is
not listed at Chomsky's
website under Interviews:
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews.htm (search by
the title Anti-Semitism, Zionism, and the
Palestinians, or look for 11 October 2002).

Nor is it listed at Chomsky's site under Audio &
Video at http://www.chomsky.info/audionvideo.htm.

In the video transcript, Chomsky also says

'There was another recent article in the Hebrew
press, this time our main
newspaper, the New York Times.'

'The Hebrew press is much more open than the
English language press, and
there's a very obvious reason: Hebrew is a secret
language, you only read it
if you're inside the tribe.'

'Influence of Israel over the US elite? In my
opinion essentially nothing. ...
So there's a lot of interaction but Israel can
have no influence on the US. If
the US doesn't want them to do something it tells
them and they follow orders.'

'... the Jewish lobby and its backers -
technically it's not a Jewish lobby,
it's a pro-Israel lobby. A substantial part of the
lobby happen to be
Christian fundamentalists'

In the past, Znet seemed to be the main Chomsky
site. Now he has his own; I
examined it as of Friday, December 31, 2004 (items
3 to 6).

Searches can be 1-word (eg Finkelstein) or phrases
(eg Norman Finkelstein).

Finkelstein got 7 hits (7 items), but none mention
The Holocaust Industry
(item 4).

Mordecai Vanunu got 0 hits (item 3). Benjamin
Ginsberg, the Professor of
Political Science at Princeton whose book The
Fatal Embrace attests to Jewish
domination of America (see
(http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/ginsberg.html)
,
was nowhere mentioned (item 3).

Gay Marriage is peripheral to Chomsky's concerns
(item 3).

The big hits in the searches I did were Kissinger
74, Huntington 27,
Brzezinski 10 (items 3 & 5). His target is the
Empire; these three are its ideologues.

Israel is merely a colony. The war is for Oil, not
for Israel (item 2).

The Temple got 4 hits; Chomsky writes, "Elements
of the Christian
fundamentalist right ...One of their goals seems
to be to rebuild the Temple,
which means destroying the Al-Aqsa Mosque" (item
6).

Note that Chomsky says nothing about the
specifically JEWISH movement to
rebuild the Temple & destroy Al-Aqsa Mosque (item
6).

(1) The Chomsky Files - Parts I, II &III, by
Rachel Neuwirt
(2) Anti-Semitism, Zionism, and the Palestinians -
Noam Chomsky video transcript
(3) Searches at Chomsky's website - Ginsberg 1,
Vanuno 0, Gay Marriage 1,
Kissinger 74
(4) Norman Finkelstein - 7 hits, but no mention of
The Holocaust Industry, for
which he is being prosecuted in France
(5) Chomsky on Wiesenthal 1, Neocons 5,
Neoconservative 2, Huntington 27,
Brzezinski 10
(6) Chomsky on rebuilding the Temple 4, but it's a
Christian project, not a
Jewish one
(7) Simon Wiesenthal Centre Testifies in Paris
Libel Suit Against Norman Finkelstein

(1) The Chomsky Files - Parts I, II &III, by
Rachel Neuwirt

Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:47:31 +1100 From: Peter
Marshall <petemar@...>

The Chomsky Files - Parts I, II &III

And in a more recent published interview
<http://www.variant.org.uk/> entitled
"Anti-Semitism, Zionism and the Palestinians,"
Chomsky says, "By now Jews in
the US are the most privileged and influential
part of the population....
Anti-Semitism is no longer a problem, fortunately.
It's raised, but it's
raised because privileged people want to make sure
they have total control,
not just 98% control. That's why anti-Semitism is
becoming an issue. Not
because of the threat of anti-Semitism; they want
to make sure there's no
critical look at the policies the US (and they
themselves) support in the
Middle East.... We should bear it in mind when
there's talk in the US about anti-Semitism."

The Chomsky File - Part I by Rachel Neuwirth
January 18, 2005
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=4680

Noam Chomsky, long-time professor of linguistics
at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, an idol of leftist
academics and journalists
everywhere, has created hundreds of anti-Israel
books, articles, recorded
interviews and lectures - all his own. Chomsky
repeats every distortion and
libel directed against the Jewish state that has
appeared in Arab, Western and
"pro-peace" Israeli publications, to which he adds
some conspiracy theories of
his own devising. Chomsky portrays Israel as a
racist state that has driven
the Palestinian Arabs from their homes, seized
their land, reduced them to
slavery, tortured and murdered them, and
discriminated against them in every
imaginable way. In his vision, Israel is an agent
of American imperialism,
doing the US' dirty work for it in the Middle East
and around the world.

Chomsky's books on the Arab-Israeli conflict are
filled with footnote
references and quotations from documentary
sources, thereby creating an
impression of accuracy and expertise. But as
Werner Cohn points out
<http://www.wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html>in his
trenchant study /Partners in
Hate: Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers/
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/096
4589702/qid=1104961874/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-59707
10-3175054?v=glance&s=books>,
most of the sources cited by Chomsky are very
biased against Israel and
Zionism. But even when he cites more even-handed
sources, he does so very
selectively. When Chomsky's documentary sources
contain versions or
interpretations of events that reflect unfavorably
on Israel, they are
incorporated into Chomsky's own narrative; but
whenever they present the
actions of Zionists or Israelis in a more
favorable light, their accounts are
omitted and ignored. Chomsky even distorts and
alters his biased "original"
sources in order to construct a narrative even
more damaging to Israel than
what they contain. Such behavior on the part of a
scholar is difficult to
explain except as an expression of an obsessive
hatred.

Chomsky, who is the son of a Hebrew teacher,
vehemently denies being an
anti-Semite. He accuses Israel and its supporters
in the US (the
Anti-Defamation League is a particular object of
Chomsky's bile) of charging
anyone who criticizes Israel in any way with being
an anti-Semite. Worse,
Israel and its supporters constantly exploit the
Holocaust as a means of
creating sympathy for Israel and its aggressive,
imperialist actions. Chomsky
represents himself as the victim of false charges
of anti-Semitism by these
Zionist propagandists intent on discrediting him.

In line with his denial of anti-Jewish intentions,
Chomsky is usually careful
to avoid overt attacks on the Jewish people
collectively, or Judaism per se,
in the material that he publishes under his own
name, although he never has
anything good to say about them, either. However,
he has devised ways of
assisting more overt anti-Semites to get their
message across to a wider
public, without ever quite saying in so many words
that he agrees with their
anti-Jewish rantings. The most effective of these
tools has been the bestowal
of his /hekhsher/ (a kosher seal of approval) on
overtly anti-Semitic writers,
which confers on them a degree of legitimacy with
the left-leaning,
"progressive" intellectual public that idolizes
Chomsky.

For example, Chomsky is author of the preface to a
book by the notorious
French Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson, one of
several in which Faurisson
claims that Jewish organizations fabricated the
Holocaust in order to extort
war reparations from Germany and to build
international sympathy for the
creation of a Jewish state:

"The alleged gassing and the alleged genocide of
Jews are part of the same
historical lie which has been the basis of a huge
political and financial
swindle of which the principle beneficiaries are
the State of Israel and
principal victims the German people, not its
leaders, and the Palestinian
people," as Faurisson puts it
<http://www.vex.net/%7Enizkor/ftp.cgi/orgs/america
n/ihr/seidel.001>.

While Chomsky's preface does not specifically
endorse Faurisson's thesis,
neither does it criticize or repudiate it. In
addition, Chomsky denies that
Faurisson is an anti-Semite, and instead
characterizes
<http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19801011.htm>
him as "a relatively
apolitical liberal of some type." Shortly
thereafter, Chomsky went so far as
to claim, in private correspondence with the
Australian journalist William
Rubenstein, that he saw nothing anti-Semitic about
Holocaust denial:

"I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of
the existence of gas
chambers, or even denial of the holocaust. Nor
would there be anti-Semitic
implications, per se, in the claim that the
holocaust (whether one believes it
took place or not) is being exploited, viciously
so, by apologists for Israeli
repression and violence. I see no hint of
anti-Semitic implications in
Faurisson's work..." [1]

Chomsky, then, sees nothing wrong with denying
that the worst crime in human
history ever occurred. What strikes him as
"vicious" is that this horrendous
atrocity should be used to generate sympathy for
Israel. Even before he
authored the Faurisson preface in 1980, Chomsky
signed
<http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/chomsky/PGmisaupoint.h
tml> a petition
<http://www.wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html> on
Faurisson's behalf, proudly
putting his name first above several hundred other
names:

"Dr. Robert Faurisson has served as a respected
professor of twentieth-century
French literature and document criticism for over
four years at the University
of Lyon-2 in France. Since 1974 he has been
conducting extensive historical
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. Fearful officials have even tried to
stop him from further
research by denying him access to public libraries
and archives. We strongly
protest these efforts to deprive Professor
Faurisson of his freedom of speech
and expression, and we condemn the shameful
campaign to silence him"

Chomsky later claimed
<http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19810228.htm>
that
this petition was "quite neutral" about the
accuracy of Faurisson's
"findings." But the tone of it at least implies
that Faurisson has discovered
some great truth, through an honest and
professional inquiry, which powerful
people are attempting to suppress. In the course
of the controversy over his
support for Faurisson, Chomsky also conferred his
/hekhsher/ on Faurisson's
publishers, Serge Thion and Pierre Guillaume, who
are both prolific
Holocaust-deniers in their own right. According to
Chomsky
<http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19810228.htm>,
Thion is "a libertarian
socialist scholar with a record of opposition to
all forms of
totalitarianism," while he describes Guillaume as
"libertarian and antifascist
on principle." [2]

Chomsky also wrote what Werner Cohn describes as
"an enthusiastic endorsement,
right on its cover, "of a book by the late Hebrew
University professor Israel
Shahak (yet another Jewish anti-Semite), which
attacks the Jewish religion as
such as inherently racist. [3] Shahak is
especially harsh in his attacks on
the Talmud - a traditional target of anti-Semites
for centuries. The publisher
of the book, Noontide Press, a neo-Nazi outfit,
summarizes
<http://www.noontidepress.com/catlist/0515.htmlres
s> Shahak's magnum opus this
way in its catalog advertisement:

"This stunning, powerful work, with a foreword by
Gore Vidal, is essential
reading for anyone interested in the eternally
vexing 'Jewish question'.
Drawing on a masterly study of the Jewish Talmud
and rabbinical laws, Shahak
brilliantly traces the long Jewish record of
vicious hostility toward
non-Jews, and particularly against Christianity.
He reveals the destructive
role Jews have played throughout history on behalf
of tyrannical rulers.
Written by a Polish-born Jew and 'Holocaust
survivor' who spent his childhood
in the wartime Warsaw ghetto and the Belsen
concentration camp. After moving
to Palestine in 1945, he worked for years as a
Professor of Organic Chemistry.
MIT professor Noam Chomsky calls Shahak 'an
outstanding scholar, with
remarkable insight and depth of knowledge,' and
praises his work as 'informed
and penetrating, a contribution of great value.'
Deeply probing the roots of
Jewish chauvinism and arrogant hostility toward
non-Jews, Shahak shows how
Jews are encouraged to regard non-Jews as
spiritually and morally unclean
subhumans. As a result, warns Shahak, 'Israel as a
Jewish state constitutes a
danger not only to itself and its inhabitants, but
all Jews, and to all other
peoples and states in the Middle East and
beyond.'"

Shahak even justifies
<http://www.wernercohn.com/Shahak.html> the
notorious
Chmeilnitsky pogroms in the 17th century Ukraine,
which may have killed up to
100,000 Jews, on the grounds that the Jews had
exploited the Ukrainian
peasantry and deserved what they got. Amongst so
many accusations against the
Jews and Judaism, one, perhaps, especially stands
out: Shahak's claim that the
Jews worship Satan. This is the author whom
Chomsky, on the cover of this
learned tome, praises as "an outstanding scholar,
with remarkable insight and
depth of knowledge. His work is informed and
penetrating, a contribution of
great value."

Chomsky also gave a joint lecture appearance with
Shahak at MIT on November 3,
1994, around the same time that /Jewish History/
was going to press. The
announced theme of the lecture was "Jewish
Fundamentalism". An outfit called
Radio Free Maine distributes an audio-video
recording of this performance. I
don't have a complete transcript of what the
speakers said on this occasion,
but RFM does have a free summary
<http://www.radiofreemaine.com/rfm/shahak.html> on
its website that is very revealing:

"Both Chomsky and Shahak spoke at length about the
appalling crimes supposedly
committed by Israel against the innocent
Palestinians, as they both had been
doing for over 25 years. During the question
period, however, Shahak moved on
to his broader attack on Judaism and 'Jewish
tradition'. In the question
period, Professor Shahak makes a telling comment
on /Fiddler on the Roof/, the
musical based on the book by the Jewish writer
Shalom Aleichem. Professor
Shahak sees Jewish tradition as standing in
contradiction to democratic
society, as indeed did the author Aleichem in his
incessant ridicule of Jewish
tradition in many of his writings. In Hollywood
style, of course, the musical
has turned the issue on its head and the
playwrights would have us, the
audience, revel in Jewish tradition. Aside from
the entertaining music of this
hit, the writer of this review has long viewed it
as a clever bit of
propaganda for the Jewish nationalist cause which
has been so costly in human
lives. Jewish people can and do joke about the
duplicity of Jewish
fundamentalism and this deception that beguiles
the Gentile world. To
illustrate, Professor Shahak retells the well-know
n Jewish joke: Some Jews
don't believe God exists, but they do believe that
God gave them the land."

As far as I know, Chomsky did not himself talk in
this vein. But he did stand
silently next to his lecture partner, apparently
without protest, while Shahak
mouthed this anti-Semitic garbage. There is an old
legal maxim, "silence gives consent."

[Part 1 of 3]

*Notes:*

/John Landau, contributed research and reporting
to this article./

[1] W. D. Rubinstein, "Chomsky and the Neo-Nazis,"
/Quadrant/ [Australia],
October 1981, pp. 8-14. A reply by Chomsky and a
rebuttal by Rubinstein are
published in the April 1982 issue of the same
journal. See Noam Chomsky,
/Search for the Truth/,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_Affair, and
http://www.wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html for
Chomsky's comments.

[2] Chomsky's article "His Right to Say It," and
http://www.anti-rev.org/textes/VidalNaquet92b/,
Pierre Vidal-Naquet, "On
Faurisson and Chomsky" in /Assassins of Memory/
[NY: Columbia University Press
1992], quoting Chomsky's letter in the /Village
Voice/ of March 18,1986, p. 7).

[3] /Jewish History, Jewish Religion. The Weight
of Three Thousand Years/ by
Israel Shahak. Foreword by Gore Vidal. Pluto
Press, London and Boulder,
Colorado. 1994. See review by Werner Cohn,
http://www.wernercohn.com/Shahak.html.

The Chomsky File - Part II by Rachel Neuwirth
January 19, 2005
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=4684

When a major public figure in the Muslim world,
Prime Minister Mahathir of
Malaysia, made widely publicized remarks at an
international Islamic
conference that no one could deny were
anti-Jewish, Noam Chomsky took at
slightly different tack. Instead of denying
outright the offensiveness of
Mahathir's remarks, he made excuses for the
Malaysian prime minister and
sought to minimize his responsibility for them.
When asked by an e-mail
correspondent, "Noam, what is your analysis of the
recent comments by the
ex-Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed on
world Jewry?" Chomsky gave a
characteristically evasive response:

"Depends on what level of response you have in
mind. If you are asking whether
I agree with the content of the few remarks of his
that were reported widely
and enthusiastically (e.g., Jews rule the world,
etc.), then the answer we
already both know: obviously not, and the comments
are outrageous. But what
has been featured in the media is only a fraction
of the story, as has been
discussed by more honest commentators in the
mainstream, Paul Krugman
particularly, sometimes others. Mahathir's
comments were marginal to a bitter
attack on Islamists who have blocked intellectual,
moral, uneconomic progress.
That was the main thrust of his comments, as often
before, and whatever one
thinks of him (a complex matter), he should be
applauded for that. The Islamic
world badly needs that kind of criticism. ... "
[4]

In other words, it is of no importance that the
Prime Minister of a major
Muslim country is an open and avowed anti-Semite,
and that his anti-Semitic
remarks were applauded by high-ranking politicians
and officials from
throughout the Islamic world. For Chomsky, all
that matters is that calling
attention to anti-Semitism "undermine[s] activist
elements of the left."
Consequently, anyone who calls attention to
anti-Semitism is a right-wing
conspirator. By implication, all good
"progressives" should ignore or deny
anti-Semitism - which is exactly what Chomsky
does. Note also Chomsky's
assumption that anti-Semitism is "red meat" that
Islamic leaders throw to
their eagerly devouring public - a state of
affairs that Chomsky does not
criticize in any way, but rather takes for granted
as the norm in that part of
the world.

Our leftist guru has also assisted anti-Semitic
organizations, some of them on
the extreme right end of the spectrum, in another,
even quieter way, by
allowing them to publish or disseminate his books,
articles and recordings.
Noontide Press, the book-publishing arm of the
Holocaust-denying and overtly
anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi organization the Institute
for Historical Review, has
brought out an edition of Chomsky's book
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/031
7530240/qid=1104366343/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/002-65821
06-6916019?v=glance&s=books>
/The Fateful Triangle/, one of his more extended
attacks on Israel and
Zionism. Noontide advertises
<http://www.noontidepress.com/catlist/A044.html>on
its current online
catalogue two audio lecture presentations by
Chomsky, "The Middle East Crisis
and the Threat of Nuclear War: Parts 1 & 2", which
are sustained verbal
assaults on Israel. /The Journal of Historical
Review/, a "scholarly"
periodical organ of the IHR that specializes in
Holocaust-denial, published an
article by Chomsky entitled "All Denials of Free
Speech Undercut a Democratic
Society" in its Spring 1986 issue; it is still
available online at the
Institute for Historical Review website
<http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p123_HNAC.html>.

Even more bizarre is the Chomskian presence on the
website
<http://www.oswaldmosley.com> that commemorates
the British Union of Fascists,
Britain's pre-World War II fascist organization,
and its founder, Oswald
Mosley. Among the free books for downloading
advertised on this site, along
with the collected works and autobiography of
Oswald Mosley, is an article
<http://www.oswaldmosley.com/downloads/free_ebooks
.htm> by Noam Chomsky,
entitled "What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream?"
The site also uses a
quotation from Chomsky as the masthead for a
reprint of a 1947 article about
"Atrocities" by Mosley himself, which protests the
unfairness of the Nuremberg
trials. The quotation from Chairman Noam reads
<http://www.oswaldmosley.com/misc_documents/atroci
ties.htm>, "If the Nuremberg
laws were applied today, then every Post-War
American president would have to
be hanged."

At one time, this avowedly fascist site also
contained an admiring article
about Chomsky, entitled "Noam Chomsky's Search For
The Truth". It commends
Chomsky for his role as a "patron" of the
Holocaust Denial ("revisionist")
movement, and his endorsement of Israel Shahak's
tirades against Judaism.
According to
<http://web.archive.org/web/20011226052243/www.osw
aldmosley.com/people/chomsky.html>
Chomsky's unnamed cheerleader, "Chomsky's
opposition to organized Jewry,
particularly the Zionist variety is on a more
erudite level. He can balance
Left and Right and appeal to both in his
condemnation of both Israel and
America and his belief that the Jewish religion is
anti-social. His is a
rejection of dogma and a moral courage that
secures he is taken seriously by everyone."

Radio Islam <http://www.abbc.net/>, perhaps the
most virulent of thousands of
anti-Semitic web sites on the worldwide web,
publishes at least ten articles
or chapters from books by Chomsky for free
on-site, in addition to direct
links to several Chomsky publications at other
sites, including an entire book
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0896083667
/qid=1104965978/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/103-5970710
-3175054>,
/Necessary Illusions/. Chomsky's writings share
pride of place in Radio
Islam's voluminous online library with such
anti-Semitic "classics" as /The
Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion/, Hitler's
/Mein Kampf/, Henry Ford's
/The International Jew/, and the works of
Chomsky's proteges Robert Faurisson,
Serge Thion and Israel Shahak. And this does not
even include the numerous
lengthy quotations from Chomsky's writings,
highlighted within borders for emphasis.

Most troubling, perhaps, of Chomsky's involvements
with anti-Semitic
publishers is his long-time involvement with the
Holocaust deniers Pierre
Guillaume and Serge Thion, whom we have already
mentioned
<http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id
=4680>. At the same time
that Chomsky began making public statements on
behalf of Robert Faurisson, he
assigned publication rights for the French edition
of his book /The Political
Economy of Human Rights/ to Guillaume and Thion.
This saved them from
bankruptcy and gave them the money to publish
their Holocaust-denying pal
Faurisson's scholarly masterpieces. In addition,
according to a memoir written
by Guillaume about his friendship with Chomsky,
the fact that the
Guillaume-Thion duo were the publisher and editor,
respectively, of Chomsky's
book helped to rehabilitate their reputations,
which had been damaged by their
Holocaust-denial activities. [5]

Saving the business of these Holocaust-denying
publishers, and enabling them
to bring out Holocaust-denying "scholarship", must
surely have helped in a
very tangible way to re-legitimate anti-Semitism
in France. We are seeing the
results of this legitimization in the growing
violence against French Jews today.

[Part 2 of 3]

*Notes:*

/John Landau contributed research and reporting to
this article./

[4] Online at "Chomsky on Mahathir"
<http://forum.zmag.org/%7EZNetCmt/guests>
("ChomskyChat"; Michael Albert
<mailto:sysop@...>).

[5] See
http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/chomsky/PGmisaupoint.html
for Guillaume's
first-hand account in French; also summaries are
available from Werner Cohn at
www.wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html-101k
<http://www.wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html-101k>,
http://www.mega.nu/ampp/cohn_on_chomsky_intro.html,
and http://www.wernercohn.com/Chomskydocs.html.

Sources cited in "The Chomsky File: Self-Portrait
of an Anti-Semite":

a) "Chomsky and the Jews"
<http://www.mega.nu/ampp/cohn_on_chomsky_intro.htm
l>
by Werner Cohn

b) "Partners in Hate"
<http://www.wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html> on Werner
Cohn's personal website.

c) Another website with"Partners in Hate".
<http://www.books-on-line.com/bol/BookDisplay.cfm?
BookNum=13976>

d) "Partners in Hate: Noam Chomsky and the
Holocaust Deniers," 2001 FronPage
Edition
<http://www.mega.nu/ampp/cohn_on_chomsky.html>.

e) Still another website publishing "Partners in
Hate".
<http://victoria.indymedia.org/news/2004/02/21672.
php?theme=default&theme=1>

f) Article by Werner Cohn, "Chomsky and the French
neo-Nazis: Some documents"
<http://www.wernercohn.com/Chomskydocs.html>. A
quote from this article:
"Another incident, very important in the Guillaume
essay, has to do with
Chomsky's insistence that Guillaume and his
Holocaust-denying organization 'La
Vieille Taupe' publish the French version of
Chomsky's book /Political Economy
of Human Rights/ (written with E. Herman). Here
Chomsky plays dumb. He insists
that it was a mainline French publisher,
Hallier-Albin, not La Vieille Taupe,
that was to publish the book. But Guillaume
explains in detail (p. 154,
Document A) that he, Guillaume, was the director
of the collection in H-T that
published the book, and that Chomsky insisted on
giving this plumb to him out
of a sense of solidarity with Guillaume's
politics, that is to say with La
Vieille Taupe."

g) "Une Mise Au Point" de Pierre Guillaume
<http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/chomsky/PGmisaupoint.h
tml> en 1986.

h) "Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of
Freedom of Expression"
<http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19801011.htm>,
by Noam Chomsky. Appeared as
a preface to Robert Faurisson's /MÈmoire en
dÈfense/, October 11, 1980.

i) Pierre Vidal-Naquet: "On Faurisson and Chomsky"
in /Assassins of Memory/
<http://www.anti-rev.org/textes/VidalNaquet92b/>
[NY: Columbia University
Press 1992], quoting Chomsky's letter in the
/Village Voice/ of March 18,1986,
p. 7.

j) "The Jews are Bad!": A review of /Jewish
History, Jewish Religion. The
Weight of Three Thousand Years/ by Israel Shahak
(Foreword by Gore Vidal.
Pluto Press, London and Boulder, Colorado. 1994)
<http://www.wernercohn.com/Shahak.html>, by Werner
Cohn, in /Israel Horizons/,
vol. 42, no. 3 of 4 (/sic/), Autumn 1994, pp.
28-9. copyright 1994 by Werner Cohn.

k) Review of RFM Recording of Noam Chomsky and
Israel Shahak speaking on
Jewish Fundamentalism
<http://www.radiofreemaine.com/rfm/shahak.html>.
Recorded on 11/3/1994, at MIT, Cambridge MA

l)
http://www.synaptic.bc.ca/Contact/viewtopic.php?t=146
and
http://forum.zmag.org:80/~ZNetCmt
<http://forum.zmag.org:80/%7EZNetCmt>: The
eJournal website "Chomsky on Mahathir" and
"Anti-Semitism in Media Reporting";
eJournal Message Forums - Noam Chomsky. Same text
available at
http://forum.zmag.org/~ZNetCmt/guests
<http://forum.zmag.org/%7EZNetCmt/guests>; topic:
"Chomsky on Mahathir", from
Michael Albert <mailto:sysop@...>, dated
Thursday, November 06, 2003 06:11am

m) Advertisement on Amazon.com for the Noontide
Press edition of Noam
Chomsky's /The Fateful Triangle/
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/031
7530240/qid=1104366343/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/002-65821
06-6916019?v=glance&s=books>,
published in 1986.

n) The Noontide Press: Audio Cassettes A044 - "The
Middle East Crisis and the
Threat of Nuclear War: Part 1"
<http://www.noontidepress.com/catlist/A044.html>
by Noam Chomsky, Audio; 90
mins; $9.95. The Noontide Press: Audio Cassettes
A045 - "The Middle East
Crisis and the Threat of Nuclear War: Part 2"
<http://www.noontidepress.com/catlist/A045.html>
by Noam Chomsky, Audio; 90
mins; $9.95.

o) /The Journal of Historical Review/, a
"scholarly" periodical organ of the
IHR that specializes in Holocaust-denial,
published an article by Chomsky
entitled "All Denials of Free Speech Undercut a
Democratic Society"
<http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p123_HNAC.html> in
its Spring 1986 issue; it is
still available online at the Institute for
Historical Review website, and can
also be ordered in hard copy through Noontide
Press' online catalogue.

p) "What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream?"
<http://www.oswaldmosley.com/downloads/free_ebooks
.htm> on the Oswald Mosley
website: "Short article by left-wing U.S.
intellectual Professor Noam Chomsky
on the way vested political and economic interests
maintain political consent
through the media etc. We may not fully agree with
Noam Chomsky, but he does
make some valid points about the media and how
mainstream political opinion is
manufactured and maintained. FREE Download - 'What
Makes Mainstream Media
Mainstream? (121Kb)'"

q) Oswald Mosley, "Atrocities"
<http://www.oswaldmosley.com/misc_documents/atroci
ties.html>

r) "Noam Chomsky's Search For The Truth".
<http://web.archive.org/web/20011226052243/www.osw
aldmosley.com/people/chomsky.html>
Once on the Oswald Mosley website in the "People"
section. Later removed.

The Chomsky File - Part III by Rachel Neuwirth
January 20, 2005
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=4695

It is true that Noam Chomsky cannot prevent people
from quoting from his
works. ...

While Chomsky usually avoids invoking overtly
anti-Jewish stereotypes in his
own writings, preferring to legitimate others who
do so, sometimes he lets
down his guard. In a column in the leftist media
criticism magazine /The Lies
of Our Times/, published on January 1, 1990,
Chomsky wrote
<http://www.wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html-101k> that
"the Jews do not merit a
'second homeland' because they already have New
York, with a huge Jewish
population, Jewish-run media, a Jewish mayor, and
domination of cultural and
economic life."

And in a more recent published interview
<http://www.variant.org.uk/> entitled
"Anti-Semitism, Zionism and the Palestinians,"
Chomsky says, "By now Jews in
the US are the most privileged and influential
part of the population....
Anti-Semitism is no longer a problem, fortunately.
It's raised, but it's
raised because privileged people want to make sure
they have total control,
not just 98% control. That's why anti-Semitism is
becoming an issue. Not
because of the threat of anti-Semitism; they want
to make sure there's no
critical look at the policies the US (and they
themselves) support in the
Middle East.... We should bear it in mind when
there's talk in the US about anti-Semitism."

Claims that Jews are "the most privileged and
influential part of the
population" and that they seek "total control,"
are, of course, at the center
of most anti-Semitic discourse over the past one
hundred and fifty years. They
are the central ideas of the notorious
anti-Semitic forgery /The Protocols of
the Learned Elders of Zion/. A little later in the
same interview, apropos
nothing in particular, Chomsky remarks, "[The]
Hebrew press is much more open
than the English language press, and there's a
very obvious reason: Hebrew is
a secret language, you only read it if you're
inside the tribe. Like most
cultures it's a tribal culture. I don't want to
exaggerate, but the English
translations on the Internet are very revealing
and very interesting."

The idea that Jews conspire in secret is of course
also central to
anti-Semitic mythology. It is the exact reverse of
the truth: Israel is the
most open society in the world. There is no
alleged wrongdoing by the Israeli
government that Israelis fail to report
themselves, both in their own press
and to the foreign media.

However vehemently Chomsky denies his
anti-Semitism, whatever pains he takes
to conceal it behind the veil of anti-Zionism and
anti-Israelism, we have to
look the facts in the face. He constantly
denounces a Jewish institution that
represents millions of Jews, on which the lives of
millions of Jews, perhaps
all Jews, are dependent, as evil and vicious. He
has had many opportunities to
denounce anti-Semitism and anti-Semites, but has
consistently failed to do so.
And he has given assistance and comfort to
anti-Semites, both covertly and not
so covertly. Chomsky's numerous admirers may
regard him as a courageous voice
for justice, progress, morality and truth, but
surely anti-Semitism, when
called by any other name, smells just as foul.

[Part 3 of 3]

*Notes:*

/John Landau contributed research and reporting to
this article./ ==

(2) Anti-Semitism, Zionism, and the Palestinians -
Noam Chomsky video transcript

Variant issue16 {Winter 2002/3} www.variant.org.uk
variant@... back
to issue list

http://www.variant.randomstate.org/16texts/Chomsky.html

It's useful to mention a moral principle that's so
trivial it's embarrassing -
the reason for doing so is it's near universally
disregarded. It's easy (and
not even gratifying) to criticise and condemn the
crimes of others. It's a
little harder to look in the mirror and ask what
we're doing because it's
usually not very pretty, and if we're minimally
decent we're going to try to
do something about it. ...

In the US when I was growing up anti-Semitism was
a severe problem. In the
1930's depression when my father finally had
enough money to buy a second-hand
car and could take the family on a trip to the
mountains, if we wanted to stop
at a motel we had to check it didn't have a sign
saying 'Restricted'.
'Restricted' meant no Jews, so not for us; of
course no Blacks. Even when I
got to Harvard 50 years ago you could cut the
anti-Semitism with a knife.
There was almost no Jewish faculty. I think the
first Jewish maths professor
was appointed while I was there in the early '50s.
One of the reasons MIT
(where I now am) became a great university is
because a lot of people who went
on to become academic stars couldn't get jobs at
Harvard - so they came to the
engineering school down the street. Just 30 years
ago (1960s) when my wife and
I had young children, we decided to move to a
Boston suburb (we couldn't
afford the rents near Cambridge any longer). We
asked a real estate agent
about one town we were interested in, he told us:
'Well, you wouldn't be happy
there.' Meaning they don't allow Jews. It's not
like sending people to
concentration and termination camps but that's
anti-Semitism. That was almost
completely national.

By now Jews in the US are the most privileged and
influential part of the
population. You find occasional instances of
anti-Semitism but they are
marginal. There's plenty of racism, but it's
directed against Blacks, Latinos,
Arabs are targets of enormous racism, and those
problems are real.
Anti-Semitism is no longer a problem, fortunately.
It's raised, but it's
raised because privileged people want to make sure
they have total control,
not just 98% control. That's why anti-Semitism is
becoming an issue. Not
because of the threat of anti-Semitism; they want
to make sure there's no
critical look at the policies the US (and they
themselves) support in the
Middle East. With regard to anti-Semitism, the
distinguished Israeli statesman
Abba Eban pointed out the main task of Israeli
propaganda (they would call it
exclamation, what's called 'propaganda' when
others do it) is to make it clear
to the world there's no difference between
anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. By
anti-Zionism he meant criticisms of the current
policies of the State of
Israel. So there's no difference between criticism
of policies of the State of
Israel and anti-Semitism, because if he can
establish 'that' then he can
undercut all criticism by invoking the Nazis and
that will silence people. We
should bear it in mind when there's talk in the US
about anti-Semitism. ...

There was another recent article in the Hebrew
press, this time our main
newspaper, the New York Times. The article (by a
former high official in the
Foreign Office and vice president of Tel Aviv
University) was translated into
English. In it he was reputing the idea that
General / Prime Minister Sharon
doesn't have a strategy. He said Sharon does have
a strategy, one which goes
way back. In the 1970s and '80s high officials in
the security establishment
were paying close attention to what was going on
in South Africa, regarding it
as a model that Israel should follow. What was
going on in South Africa was an
effort to establish 'bantustans' - independent
black run homelands. The South
Africa government in the depths of the Apartheid
regime was trying to gain
international support for the idea that these
black-run States were viable
independent States: the leadership was black, the
police forces were black,
the population was mostly black. ...

The Hebrew press is much more open than the
English language press, and
there's a very obvious reason: Hebrew is a secret
language, you only read it
if you're inside the tribe. Like most cultures
it's a tribal culture. I don't
want to exaggerate, but the English translations
on the internet are very
revealing and very interesting.

Influence of Israel over the US elite? In my
opinion essentially nothing.
They're very close. People like Richard Perle and
others inside the central
power group within the US happen to be close to
the ultra right wing in
Israel. Perle was actually writing position papers
for Benjamin Netanyahu
(who's to the hawkish side of Sharon) just a few
years ago. So there's a lot
of interaction but Israel can have no influence on
the US. If the US doesn't
want them to do something it tells them and they
follow orders. We saw that
with the pullout from Ramallah a couple of days
ago.

That same point extends to the power of the Jewish
lobby and its backers -
technically it's not a Jewish lobby, it's a
pro-Israel lobby. A substantial
part of the lobby happen to be Christian
fundamentalists who in the US are a
very important force. The US is one of the most
Fundamentalist cultures in the
world - the proportion of people who believe that
the world was created 6,000
years ago, there are miracles and so on, is
astounding. It's a fundamentalist
society. It's not institutionalised, so it's not
like Iran with institutional
fundamentalism, but our culture is highly
fundamentalist. The right wing
fundamentalist Christian block is very strong and
mixed - some are activists
in the Solidarity movement, but overwhelmingly
it's jingoistic and supportive
of Israel, also there's plenty of anti-Semitism.
That's not a contradiction.
If you read the Book of Revelations (which they
take seriously) you'll see
why. So you can be both an anti-Semitic Christian
fundamentalist and a strong
supporter of Israeli oppression and atrocities.
It's not a contradiction and
it's a real political force. So there is an Israel
lobby and it has influence
insofar as it is allied to actual US power. Where
it runs into any conflict
with US power it dissolves. (Another factor is
they have enormous influence
over the media because they happen to be strong
within the intellectual
community.) So yes, they're powerful, but I
wouldn't exaggerate their power. ...

Is it a war for oil? Anything in that region of
the world has something to do
with oil, that's not even questionable. Iraq has
the second largest oil
reserves in the world, whoever controls it will be
an extremely powerful force
in world affairs - apart from the fact there are
huge profits to be made. And
it's always been clear that sooner or later the US
will move to take control
over this. But that's been true for a long time. I
don't think that's to do
with the timing, it's in the background.

This is an edited transcript of a live video
link-up from the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology to public meetings called
by the Scottish Palestine
Solidarity Campaign, and other groups &
organisations, throughout Scotland and
the north of England, on Friday 11 October 2002.

Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign Peace &
Justice Centre Princes Street
Edinburgh, EH2 4BJ

Tel: +44 (0)131 538 0257

email: palsolcam@...

(3) Searches at Chomsky's website - Ginsberg 1,
Vanuno 0, Gay Marriage 1,
Kissinger 74

http://www.chomsky.info/

The Official Noam Chomsky Website Copyright Noam
Chomsky 2004

http://www.chomsky.info/whatsnew.htm

Friday, December 31, 2004 ... ==

Results 1 - 10 of about 74 from chomsky.info for
kissinger.

Results 1 - 1 of 1 from chomsky.info for ginsberg.

Chomsky's Right, Bush Has to Go, by Michael Leon

... I asked whether Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg
was preferable to ...

http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/20040323.htm

Results 1 - 4 of 4 from chomsky.info for gay
marriage.

Your search - vanunu - did not match any
documents.

(4) Norman Finkelstein - 7 hits, but no mention of
The Holocaust Industry, for
which he is being prosecuted in France

Results 1 - 7 of 7 from chomsky.info for
finkelstein.

Results 1 - 7 of 7 from chomsky.info for norman
finkelstein.

Chomsky calls Norman Finkelstein "an honest
intellectual " - high tribute.
Yet, he makes no mention of Finkelstein's magnum
opus, The Holocaust Industry,
a book suppressed in the U.S.; nor of the lawsuit
the Simon Wiesenthal Center
has mounted in France against Finkelstein over the
publication of this book.

http://www.chomsky.info/books/power01.htm

The Fate of an Honest Intellectual

Noam Chomsky

Excerpted from Understanding Power, New York,
2002, pp. 244-248

... Well, one graduate student at Princeton, a guy
named Norman Finkelstein,
started reading through the book. He was
interested in the history of Zionism,
and as he read the book he was kind of surprised
by some of the things it
said. He's a very careful student, and he started
checking the references -
and it turned out that the whole thing was a hoax,
it was completely faked:
probably it had been put together by some
intelligence agency or something
like that. Well, Finkelstein wrote up a short
paper of just preliminary
findings, it was about twenty-five pages or so,
and he sent it around to I
think thirty people who were interested in the
topic, scholars in the field
and so on, saying: "Here's what I've found in this
book, do you think it's
worth pursuing?"

Well, he got back one answer, from me. I told him,
yeah, I think it's an
interesting topic, but I warned him, if you follow
this, you're going to get
in trouble - because you're going to expose the
American intellectual
community as a gang of frauds, and they are not
going to like it, and they're
going to destroy you. So I said: if you want to do
it, go ahead, but be aware
of what you're getting into. It's an important
issue, it makes a big
difference whether you eliminate the moral basis
for driving out a population
- it's preparing the basis for some real horrors -
so a lot of people's lives
could be at stake. But your life is at stake too,
I told him, because if you
pursue this, your career is going to be ruined.

Well, he didn't believe me. We became very close
friends after this, I didn't
know him before. He went ahead and wrote up an
article, and he started
submitting it to journals. Nothing: they didn't
even bother responding. I
finally managed to place a piece of it in In These
Times, a tiny left-wing
journal published in Illinois, where some of you
may have seen it. Otherwise
nothing, no response. Meanwhile his professors -
this is Princeton University,
supposed to be a serious place - stopped talking
to him: they wouldn't make
appointments with him, they wouldn't read his
papers, he basically had to quit
the program.

By this time, he was getting kind of desperate,
and he asked me what to do. I
gave him what I thought was good advice, but what
turned out to be bad advice:
I suggested that he shift over to a different
department, where I knew some
people and figured he'd at least be treated
decently. That turned out to be
wrong. He switched over, and when he got to the
point of writing his thesis he
literally could not get the faculty to read it, he
couldn't get them to come
to his thesis defense. Finally, out of
embarrassment, they granted him a Ph.D.
- he's very smart, incidentally - but they will
not even write a letter for
him saying that he was a student at Princeton
University. I mean, sometimes
you have students for whom it's hard to write good
letters of recommendation,
because you really didn't think they were very
good - but you can write
something, there are ways of doing these things.
This guy was good, but he
literally cannot get a letter.

He's now living in a little apartment somewhere in
New York City, and he's a
part-time social worker working with teenage
drop-outs. Very promising scholar
- if he'd done what he was told, he would have
gone on and right now he'd be a
professor somewhere at some big university.
Instead he's working part-time
with disturbed teenaged kids for a couple thousand
dollars a year. That's a
lot better than a death squad, it's true - it's a
whole lot better than a
death squad. But those are the techniques of
control that are around. ... ==

Eastern Exposure: Misrepresenting the Peace
Process

Noam Chomsky

The Village Voice Literary Supplement, February 6,
1996

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19960206.htm

Norman Finkelstein's study of the image and
reality of the Israel-Palestine
conflict, and the disparity between them, could
hardly have been better timed.
... Finkelstein ends his review of the "peace
process" at this point. In
later years, Washington continued to undermine
diplomatic initiatives until
the Gulf War taught the lesson that "What we say
goes," as George Bush proudly
proclaimed, and with the rest of the world
retreating from the scene, it
became possible at last to impose Washington's
rejectionist agenda. ...==

http://www.chomsky.info/list.htm

Some Suggested Reading on U.S. History and Foreign
Policy from chomsky.info:

... Norman Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the
Israel-Palestine Conflict.
... ==

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/198805--.htm

On Trip to Middle East

Noam Chomsky interviewed by Burton Levine

Shmate: A Journal of Progressive Jewish Thought,
20 (Summer 1988), pp. 24-32
[May, 1988]

... CHOMSKY: ... This vilification apparatus is
really effective in shutting
people up. It scares a lot of people off,
especially people in exposed
positions. There is just no way to respond. If you
are denounced as being an
anti-Semite, what are you going to say, I'm not an
anti-Semite? Or if you are
denounced as being in favor of the Holocaust, what
are you going to say, I'm
not in favor of the Holocaust? I mean you cannot
win. Stalinist types of the
ADL understand the beauty of throwing mud is that
nobody can follow the
details. You write it. Somebody else quotes it.
Then somebody else says
something.

Some people are really extreme. Dershowitz has
actually written articles in
the ADL journals in which he says I told him that
I was "an agnostic about the
Holocaust". First of all, I would not have a
conversation with Alan Dershowitz
if I met him in the street. But this is
fabrication.

QUESTION: It is actually a quote that comes up a
lot attached to your name
now.

CHOMSKY: Sure. Why not? Why not say I am in favor
of the Holocaust? I think
all Jews should be killed. That is the next thing
to say. The point is that
they can say anything they want. It is a kind of
status that the Communist
Party had aspired to but never achieved. And they
have achieved it. They are
totalitarians. There are plenty of others like
them. Take say, Elie Wiesel.
His position is that one must maintain silence in
the face of atrocities
carried out by one's favorite state. That is his
position, reiterated over and
over again in the clearest possible terms. ... ==

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20040204.htm

On Bush, the Left, Iraq, and Israel

Noam Chomsky interviewed by M. Junaid Alam

Left Hook, February 4, 2004

... Given that Zionism is, as Norman Finkelstein
writes in Image and Reality,
"grounded in its pre-emptive right to establish a
Jewish state in Palestine -
a right that, allegedly, superseded the
aspirations of the indigenous
population," do you think the pragmatists
advocating withdrawal from Gaza and
the West Bank can trump those who still want to
pretend the indigenous
Palestinians are, as Israel's first president
Chaim Weizmann once said, "a
matter of no consequence"? ... ==

Noam Chomsky and 'Left' Apologetics for Injustice
in Palestine

Noah Cohen

Axis of Logic, August 23, 2004

http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/20040823.htm

... A far more realistic assessment of all such
treaty negotiations was
written during the Oslo process by Norman
Finkelstein. Entitled "History's
Verdict: the Cherokee Case," the article is a
sustained comparison between the
Zionist project in Palestine and the US
colonial-settler project of
dispossessing the Cherokee people of all of their
native land through a
combination of settler encroachment, military
assault and treaty negotiations.
Within this process, settlers steal land; natives
defend themselves;
self-defense is widely published as "savagery" or
"terrorism"; this propaganda
is then used to justify military attacks as acts
of "self-defense;" and
finally treaty negotiations are employed to enlist
a certain number of the
indigenous people - either those who are simply
exhausted by the sustained
military assault, or those who can be bribed into
collaborating - to cede more
of their land to the settlers with the guarantee
that the remaining land will
be theirs "in perpetuity." Perpetuity lasts for
about 10 to 20 years, and then
the cycle begins again (if it doesn't simply
continue unabated). The treaty
negotiations are particularly useful in dividing
the colonized within
themselves over their possible hopes; stopping
resistance struggles under the
guise of a negotiated peace; and finally giving a
spurious appearance of
legitimacy to the entire process. ... ==

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199508--.htm

Memories Noam Chomsky Z Magazine, July-August,
1995

The year 1995 is a season of memories, and for
some, regrets and apologies as
well.

... Or the celebration of "the Winning of the
West" by the racist historian
Theodore Roosevelt: "As a nation, our Indian
policy is to be blamed, because
of the weakness it displayed, because of its
shortsightedness, and its
occasional leaning to the policy of sentimental
humanitarians; and we have
often promised what was impossible to perform; but
there has been no wilful
wrong-doing."1

... 1 Financial Times, May 2, 4, 1995. NYT, March
6, May 7, 1995. On
Roosevelt, see Norman Finkelstein, "History's
Verdict," ms. NYU, to appear in
a forthcoming book. ... ==

(5) Chomsky on Wiesenthal 1, Neocons 5,
Neoconservative 2, Huntington 27,
Brzezinski 10

Results 1 - 1 of 1 from chomsky.info for
wiesenthal.

http://www.chomsky.info/letters/1989----.htm

The Faurisson Affair Noam Chomsky writes to
Lawrence K. Kolodney Circa 1989-1991

Chomsky's reply:

Dear Mr. Kolodney,

The issue of the Faurisson affair is very far from
settled, in two respects.
First, the actual issue has not yet even been
addressed. Recall the facts. A
professor of French literature was suspended from
teaching on grounds that he
could not be protected from violence, after
privately printing pamphlets
questioning the existence of gas chambers. He was
then brought to trial for
"falsification of History," and later condemned
for this crime, the first time
that a modern Western state openly affirmed the
Stalinist-Nazi doctrine that
the state will determine historical truth and
punish deviation from it. ...

ASI was also the sponsor of Rabbi Kahane, the
advocate of the Nuremberg laws
who was denounced as an outright Nazi by Israeli
supreme court justices and
Israeli scholars, and barred from the Israeli
political system as an outspoken
Nazi, which indeed he was. People who choose to
pay attention to pamphlets
published by pro-Nazi organizations of course have
a right to do so. I believe
in freedom of speech. But it is hard to take them
seriously. ...

You ask whether one wouldn't at least suspect the
motives of someone who
denies genocide (the Holocaust, in particular). Of
course. Thus, I do suspect
the motives of Wiesel, Bernard Lewis, the
anthropological profession, the
American Jewish Congress and ASI, Faurisson,
Western intellectuals who
systematically and almost universally downplay the
atrocities of their own
states, and people who deny genocide and
atrocities generally. ...

Sincerely yours,

Noam Chomsky ==

Results 1 - 5 of 5 from chomsky.info for neocons.

http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/20040107.htm

Planet Chomsky in the Times

Michael Leon

CounterPunch, January 7, 2004

The limits of column inches can constrain
reasoned, subtle argumentation that
refutes one's favorite author from being housed in
the op-ed columns and book
review sections of a daily newspaper.

But this week's New York Times demonstrate again
that ideological constraints
are the most powerful force thwarting honest
disputation, at least in the
newspaper of record.

A review by Samantha Power in the Sunday New York
Times Book Review (Jan. 4,
2003) of Noam Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival,
America's Quest for Global
Dominance (Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt &
Company) constitutes the most
sympathetic, comparatively fair and balanced
discussion of Chomsky's political
writing in years appearing in these pages, with
only a hint of Chomsky
bashing. ...

The Times reverts to the not-so-fair-and-balanced
commentary in today's
editorial page in David Brooks' "The Era of
Distortion" (Jan.6, 2003) who gets
back to good old Times-Chomsky bashing.

You who point out that following:

That neocons Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Doug
Feith, Bill Kristol and
others have advocated invading Iraq for years

That many neocons are in policy-making or
influential positions in the administration

That we did invade Iraq even though no weapons of
mass destruction and no
connections to al-Qaeda have been found (Brooks
does not mention this) are,
well read this description of you neocon critics
who are "unhinged from reality":

"You get to feed off their villainy and luxuriate
in your own contrasting
virtue. You will find books, blowhards and
candidates playing to your
delusions, and you can emigrate to your own
version of Planet Chomsky. You can
live there unburdened by ambiguity."

Elsewhere, Brooks notes that:

. "(con is short for 'conservative' and neo is
short for 'Jewish'),"

. "...there are apparently millions of people who
cling to the notion that the
world is controlled by well-organized and
malevolent forces. And for a subset
of these people, Jews are a handy explanation for
everything"

. and "...anti-Semitism is resurgent. Conspiracy
theories are prevalent.
Partisanship has left many people unhinged"

"Welcome to election year, 2004," concludes
Brooks.

Neocon critics are unhinged or anti-Semitic,
proliferating because of the 2004
election year. Welcome to Planet Brooks in the
Times. ==

Results 1 - 2 of 2 from chomsky.info for
neoconservative.

Results 1 - 10 of about 27 from chomsky.info for
huntington. ==

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/200311--.htm

Telling the Truth about Imperialism

Noam Chomsky interviewed by David Barsamian

International Socialist Review, November-December,
2003

NOAM CHOMSKY, internationally renowned MIT
professor, has been a leading voice
for peace and social justice for more than four
decades. He is in such demand
as a public speaker that he is often booked years
in advance. And wherever he
appears, he draws huge audiences. The Guardian
calls him, "One of the radical
heroes of our age." He is the author of Power and
Terror and Middle East
Illusions. His latest book is Hegemony or
Survival. He's done a series of
interview books with David Barsamian, including
most recently The Common Good
and Propaganda and the Public Mind.

David Barsamian is the director and producer of
Alternative Radio in Boulder,
Colorado. He recently published Culture and
Resistance, a book of interviews
with Edward Said.

DAVID BARSAMIAN: REGIME CHANGE is a new term in
the lexicon. Kind of like
change of address. It sounds somewhat innocuous.
It certainly sounds a lot
better than invasion, overthrow and occupation.
The U.S. is an old hand at
regime change. We're in a year that marks a couple
of anniversaries. Today is
the 30th anniversary of the U.S.-backed coup in
Chile. October 25 marks the
20th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Grenada.
But I'm particularly
thinking of regime change in Iran. 50 years ago,
in August 1953, Operation
Ajax, carried out by a CIA agent who was
incidentally Teddy Roosevelt's
grandson, overthrew the conservative parliamentary
democracy led by Mohammed
Mossadeq and restored the Shah to the Peacock
Throne, where he ruled for the
next 25 years.

NOAM CHOMSKY: THE ISSUE was that the conservative
nationalist parliamentary
government was attempting to take over its own oil
resources. These had been
under the control of a British company originally
called Anglo-Persian, later
called Anglo-Iranian, which had entered into
contracts with the rulers of Iran
that were just pure extortion and robbery. The
Iranians got nothing and the
British were laughing all the way to the bank.
Mossadeq had a long history as
a critic of this subordination of imperial policy.
Popular outbursts compelled
the Shah to appoint him as prime minister, and he
moved to nationalize the
industry, which makes perfect sense.

The British went completely berserk. They refused
to make any compromises.
They wouldn't even come near what the American oil
companies had just agreed
to in Saudi Arabia. They wanted to continue just
robbing the Iranians blind.
And that led to a tremendous popular uprising.
Iran has a democratic
tradition. It had a majlis, parliament, which had
always been suppressed. But
the Shah couldn't suppress it; the army tried and
couldn't. Finally a joint
British-American coup did succeed in organizing an
overthrow of the regime,
and restored the Shah to power. Then comes 25
years of terror, atrocities,
violence, finally leading to the revolution in
1979 and the overthrow of the Shah.

Incidentally, one outcome of the coup was that the
United States took over
from Britain about 40 percent of the share in
Iranian oil. It had been 100
percent British. That wasn't actually the goal of
the effort, it's just in the
normal course of events. But it was part of the
general displacement of
British power by U.S. power in that region, and in
fact, throughout the world. ==

Results 1 - 10 of about 14 from chomsky.info for
brzezinski.

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/197703--.htm

Oil Imperialism and the US-Israel Relationship

Noam Chomsky interviewed by Roger Hurwitz, David
Woolf & Sherman Teichman

Leviathan, 1:1-3, Spring, 1977, pp. 6-9, 86
[March, 1977]

QUESTION: Given the fact that now you have a
government dominated by people
like Carter and Brzezinski who were deeply
involved in the Trilateral
Commission, which emphasized maintaining a strong
relationship with both
Western Europe and Japan, will there be a new
emphasis on new policy?

CHOMSKY: First of all, I don't think there is any
significant difference
between the Trilateral view and the Kissinger
view. The difference is more in
style than in content. Many people in power
regarded Kissinger as a kind of
nut. He understood the basic ideas but he was
playing the game like a clown,
with the show for the media and the personal
nonsense. That's not the way you
conduct serious affairs. I think the Trilateral
Commission is, in effect,
taking the basic thrust of Kissinger's policies
and is trying to implement
them with a rational plan, without the dangerous
clowning. When things become
personalized and an erratic, irrational person
takes over, you never know
what's going to happen. The Commission would
rather have done it in a sensible
coordinated way.

But Trilateralism still means that Europe and
Japan ought to be subordinated
to overall American interests. There's no
deviation from that policy.
Trilateralism is a shift from the policy of, say,
thirty years ago, when it
was assumed that the U.S. would unilaterally
organize most of the world. Now
everyone has to recognize that there are other
sources of power within the
so-called First World, the world of industrial
capitalism, but those are
supposed to be regional powers.

QUESTION: It's almost a capitalist version of
polycentrism.

CHOMSKY: Yes, with exactly the same tacit
conditions that are already assumed
in polycentrism, that there's one power that's the
first power. Kissinger made
the policy very explicit -- one of Kissinger's
problems from the point of view
of the ruling class is that he's much too
explicit.

QUESTION: Is there a U.S. foreign policy in the
Middle East?

CHOMSKY: Yes. There's been a very consistent U.S.
foreign policy in the Middle
East, at least since the Second World War, whose
primary concern has been to
ensure that the energy reserves of the Middle East
remain firmly under
American control. The State Department noted in
1945 that these reserves
constitute "a stupendous source of strategic
power, and one of the greatest
material prizes in world history."1

Basically it is a policy meant to keep Saudi
Arabia, which has by far the
largest known stores of petroleum, under American
control. This has been quite
explicit since World War II. In fact, during the
war the government tried to
expel Britain, and later France, from the region.
There were forms of
chicanery used to achieve that end, which was
achieved, certainly, by the
formation of ARAMCO [Arabian American Oil Company]
in 1947. ... ==

http://chomsky.info/articles/20041129.htm

2004 Elections Noam Chomsky ZNet, November 29,
2004

... Let's turn to more serious evidence about
public opinion: the studies I
mentioned earlier that were released shortly
before the elections by some of
the most respected and reliable institutions that
regularly monitor public
opinion. Here are a few of the results (CCFR):

A large majority of the public believe that the US
should accept the
jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court
and the World Court, sign the
Kyoto protocols, allow the UN to take the lead in
international crises, and
rely on diplomatic and economic measures more than
military ones in the "war
on terror." Similar majorities believe the US
should resort to force only if
there is "strong evidence that the country is in
imminent danger of being
attacked," thus rejecting the bipartisan consensus
on "pre-emptive war" and
adopting a rather conventional interpretation of
the UN Charter. A majority
even favor giving up the Security Council veto,
hence following the UN lead
even if it is not the preference of US state
managers. ... ==

(6) Chomsky on rebuilding the Temple 4, but it's a
Christian project, not a
Jewish one

Results 1 - 4 of 4 from chomsky.info for temple.

Remarks on Religion Noam Chomsky interviewed by
various interviewers various
sources, 1990-1999

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/1990----.htm

... Reply from NC to a forum query on his belief
in God, etc. [No date
available]

Do I believe in God? Can't answer, I'm afraid. I'm
not being flippant, but I
don't understand the question. What is it that I
am supposed to believe or not
believe in? Are you asking whether I believe there
is something not in the
universe (or the universes, if there are (maybe
infinitely) many of them), and
that somehow stands above them? I've never heard
of any reason for believing
that. Something else? What? ...

Elements of the Christian fundamentalist right are
one of the strongest
components of "support for Israel" -- support in
an odd sense, because they
presumably want to see it destroyed in a cosmic
battle at Armageddon, after
which all the proper souls will ascend to
heaven -- or so I understand, again,
not from close reading. They have provided
enormous economic aid, again of a
dubious sort. One of their goals seems to be to
rebuild the Temple, which
means destroying the Al-Aqsa Mosque, which
presumably means war with the Arab
world -- one of the goals, perhaps, in fulfilling
the prophecy of Armageddon.
So they strongly support Israeli power and
expansionism, and help fund it and
lobby for it; but they also support actions that
are very harmful and
objectionable to most of its population -- as do
Jewish fundamentalist groups,
mostly rooted in the US, which, after all, is one
of the most extreme
religious fundamentalist societies in the world.
{end}

Note that Chomsky says nothing about the JEWISH
movement to rebuild the Temple
& destroy Al-Aqsa Mosque ==

Prospects for Peace in the Middle East Noam
Chomsky Delivered at the First
Annual Maryse Mikhail Lecture "No peace without
justice; no justice without
truth" The University of Toledo, March 4, 2001

http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20010304.htm

... The '67 war was dangerous; it came very close
to nuclear confrontation {I
think he means the 1973 war}. And it was agreed
that there has got to be some
diplomatic settlement. The diplomatic settlement
that was proposed, by the
United States primarily, and the other great
powers, was called UN 242. Notice
that it was explicitly rejectionist. It calls for
recognition of Israel's
right to live in peace and security within
recognized borders, but says
nothing about rights of the Palestinians, apart
from a vague allusion to the
problem of refugees. UN 242 calls for a settlement
among existing states of
the region. The agreement was, to put in simple
terms, that there should be
full peace in return for full Israeli withdrawal
from the occupied
territories. That's UN 242. And it was official US
policy at the time. ...

Without going into the details, you'll notice that
in all of the current
discussion about the remarkable negotiations and
the "forthcoming" and
"generous concessions" of Clinton and Barak, there
are some notable omissions.
One is maps. Try finding a map in one of the US
newspapers describing what's
happening. Well, the reason there aren't any maps,
I suppose, is because
what's being implemented under the Camp David
proposal, and Clinton's last
plan and Barak's plan, is pretty much what Ben
Eliezer described. The places I
mentioned are pretty much those being incorporated
within Israel, along with
others. A second crucial omission is that there
cannot be "generous
concessions" because there cannot be territorial
concessions at all, any more
than when Russia withdrew from Afghanistan or
Germany from occupied France.

What's called "Jerusalem" extends extensively in
all directions, separating
Ramallah to the north from Bethlehem to the south,
and effectively
partitioning the West Bank. Ma'ale Adumim is
called in the US press "a
neighborhood of Jerusalem"; in fact, it is a city
constructed by the US and
Israel, primarily during the Oslo period, well to
the east of Jerusalem. Its
planned borders are supposed to reach to a few
kilometers from Jericho.
Jericho itself is now surrounded by a seven-foot
deep trench to prevent people
from getting in and out-and the same is planned
for other cities. That means
that the "Jerusalem" salient effectively bisects
the West Bank, separating the
Palestinian sections into two enclaves; and the
whole Palestinian region is
separated from the traditional center of
Palestinian life in Jerusalem (now
vastly expanded, with Israeli settlement only).
There's another salient to the
North, which effectively separates the northern
and central regions.
Discussion of Gaza is vague, but judging by
settlement and development
patters, something similar is probably planned.
Remember that all the
settlements are within vast infrastructure
projects designed to integrate them
within Israel and remove West Bank Palestinians
from sight, contained within
their enclaves. ... {end}

(7) Simon Wiesenthal Centre Testifies in Paris
Libel Suit Against Norman Finkelstein

http://www.juedische.at/TCgi/TCgi.cgi?target=home&Param_Kat=15&Param_RB=&Param
_Red=1956

"die jüdische", Vienna, 25.03.2004 20:17

Wiesenthal Center Los Angeles Paris, 26 March 2004

Norman Finkelstein, the American author of "The
Holocaust Industry", and his
publisher, are being sued under French law against
libel. The French edition
(based on the English-language original) is
considered actionable and replete
with Holocaust revisionism and incitement to
antisemitism.

The Simon Wiesenthal Centre's Director for
International Liaison, Dr. Shimon
Samuels, who three years ago publicly debated
Finkelstein when the book was
first published in London, presented the following
testimony for today's Paris hearing:

"'The Holocaust Industry' presents a great danger.
Mr. Finkelstein's thesis is
an extremist attack on Jews in general, and
American Jews in particular,
accusing them of exploiting the suffering of the
Shoah as 'a pretext for their
crimes in the context of the Middle-East
conflict.'

This thesis, so close to that of Roger Garaudy [a
condemned French Holocaust
denier and anti-Jewish hate-monger] today
constitutes the principal credo of
modern antisemitism.

With particularly acute intellectual perversity,
Finkelstein exploits his own
Jewish antecedents in order to attack, as
'racist,' specific Jewish leaders,
their organizations and the Jewish people.

I am convinced that, as in the aforementioned
Garaudy trial, only a judicial
penalty will contain the damage wreaked by this
particularly offensive libel."

{end} More at
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/finkelstein.html

--
Peter Myers, 21 Blair St, Watson ACT 2602,
Australia ph +61 2 62475187
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers Mirror:
http://mailstar.net/index.html I
use a Mac & the old Mac OS; I send text from a
word-processor, without
attachments. If mail does not arrive, check the
Trash can. To unsubscribe, reply
with "unsubscribe" in the subject line; allow 1
day.

Welcome!
You may subscribe to my mailing list, it will
bring you my articles and an
occasional forward, by sending a blank email to
shamireaders-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
The items published in the group can be seen on
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shamireaders/messages
Visit my site www.israelshamir.net
For a discussion group, subscribe to togethernet,
togethernet-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Israel Shamir
info@...