Young Jews Disrupt Netanyahu at Jewish General Assembly

[KeyStone]

A fact with no context is propoganda. It is no different than suggesting a policemen is murder because he shot someone with his gun.

Tim, I think much of the confusion between us comes from your understanding of the word 'killed'.

Perhaps English is not your first language.

Saddam Hussein was killed by the Iraqi government.

This does not mean that the Iraqi government was in the wrong. It is simply an action that happened.

There is no judgment attached to it. You seem to equate killing with murdering which is not the same word at all.

In your police example, it does have a bias, but that is because you use the word murder, and not killed.

I did not get that from the way you worded it. You could have said that directly.

I stated a simple fact. I did not think all facts need to include the backstory and context.

If that is required, I'll need three hours to write a forum post.

I did not call you an anti-semite.

Ok, Tim, you just said I was engaged in hate-mongering. That's much better.

[TimG]

In your police example, it does have a bias, but that is because you use the word murder, and not killed.

The word "police" that changes the implication of the word "killed" because everyone understands that police sometimes have legimate reasons to kill. The same is true of using "killed" and "Saddam Hussain". The statement that "the Iraqi government killed a Sunni Muslim" is also a fact but is biased because it is not obvious what legimate reasons the Iraqi would have to kill a Sunni Muslim. The statement "the Iraqi government executed a Sunni Muslim" is better because it implies there was some due process that led to the execution.

Your statement that the Israeli government kills children is biased for the same reason. If one is making an extraordinary claim like killing children then the context must be provided. Providing context is also not hard to do. I gave you one example:

Israeli government policies have resulted in the deaths of thousands of children.

No three hour post. Simple, direct and provides enough context to make your point without implying something more than you intended. It leaves the door open for discussion of the reasons for Israeli polices and whether they are actually justified.

Ok, Tim, you just said I was engaged in hate-mongering. That's much better.

Point taken. Edited November 26, 2010 by TimG

[bud]

Bud I stated:

"I don't need to shove it down anyone's throat nor will I. It is what I am. It is simply who I am. Don't ever presume to tell me who I am again."

The above refers to me needing to tell people I am a Jew and preface my opinions by using my Jewish identity as an automatic pretext that because I am a Jew it makes my opinions more valid when I criticize Israel.

Then I stated:

"No I do not make the ridiculous comments these youths made. I expect them to lose their temper and have tantrums. I expect them to do that because that is what some of our people do. They are afraid to be Zionists and admit they have a distinct identity and they believe if they scream about how bad Zionism is, they will suddenly no longer be seen as Jews and be assimilated and accepted."

There is no contradiction in what I said you of course however do not understand what it is to be a Zionist or what Zionism is so to you this would appear to be a contradiction.

Zionism refers to the collective term Jew. It is a collective term for many components that go into our collective identity. What I am criticizing are Jews who are afraid to think of themselves as a collective with a right to universal sufferage NOT criticizing them for not going around prefacing their remarks for negating their collective identity of being Jewish by saying they hate Israel.

You clearly did not get it.

Let me put it in the simple black and white terms you understand. A secure Jew neither needs shove their Jewish identity down anyone's face when expressing an opinion nor do they need to openly have tantrums degrading Jews who see themselves as having a right to be collectively recognized.

There is a manner in which to discuss such identity issues and acting like baboons in public is not the way to do it.

You think Bob is an extremist? He let you off easy. Wait. You think I am done?

You think I will sit passively by while you dictate to me what is an acceptable jewish opinion and what isn't and who should speak for me and who I should consider brave or appropriate. I have news for you, whether I am a Jew or a gentile, black or white, female or male, Christian or Hindu, what-ever you and Naomi and your band of politially appropriate extremists do not speak for me or any one else but yourselves.

heh. seriously. you are a walking contradiction.

i don't give a shit whether you're jewish, bob is jewish, naomi is jewish or anyone else is jewish.

i do care when anyone, whether they're jewish/muslim/christian/athiest/etc., uses their ideology to try to excuse violating human rights.

zionism does not equal being jewish. zionism is an ideology that comes in different shapes and forms. there was a struggle between different groups in the early part of the last century and the really crappy racist one, that has no problem crushing other people's human rights is now controlling israel's path.

zionism is wrong. why? because in order to achieve it, another people's human rights must be crushed.

this is what ben guiren, whose own zionist ideology slowly transformed from something one might see as fair and just, to something like this. in 1937, in regards to the peel commission partition plan:

"We must expel Arabs and take their places .... and, if we have to use force-not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places-then we have force at our disposal." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 66)

what about rabin? this is what zionists are willing to live with. this is why zionism should be condemned:

Yitzhak Rabin wrote in his diary soon after Lydda's and Ramla's occupation on 10th-11th of July 1948:

"After attacking Lydda [later called Lod] and then Ramla, .... What would they do with the 50,000 civilians living in the two cities ..... Not even Ben-Gurion could offer a solution .... and during the discussion at operation headquarters, he [ben-Gurion] remained silent, as was his habit in such situations. Clearly, we could not leave [Lydda's] hostile and armed populace in our rear, where it could endangered the supply route [to the troops who were] advancing eastward.

Ben-Gurion would repeat the question: What is to be done with the population?, waving his hand in a gesture which said: Drive

them out! [garesh otem in Hebrew]. 'Driving out' is a term with a harsh ring, .... Psychologically, this was on of the most difficult actions we undertook". (Soldier Of Peace, p. 140-141 & Benny Morris, p. 207) .

Later, Rabin underlined the cruelty of the operation as mirrored in the reaction of his soldiers. He stated during an interview (which is still censored in Israeli publications to this day) with David Shipler from the New York Times on October 22, 1979:

"Great Suffering was inflicted upon the men taking part in the eviction action. [They] included youth-movement graduates who had been inculcated with values such as international brotherhood and humaneness. The eviction action went beyond the concepts they were used to. There were some fellows who refused to take part. . . Prolonged propaganda activities were required after the action . . . to explain why we were obliged to undertake such a harsh and cruel action." (Simha Flapan, p. 101)

[JB Globe]

As far a "real Jews" go, those who do not live a Jewish lifestyle have no right to speak on behalf of us who do live a Jewish lifestyle.

Supporting oppression is not part of Jewish life.

And no amount of kugel you eat makes up for it.

[JB Globe]

Translation: I'm a Jingoistic fanatic who will invoke every nationalistic and fallacious argument in my arsenal.

The only people here who one can't have a sensible conversation with is you and Naomi. Both of you, in your own ways, are bigots, and probably incurable ones.

Absolute co-sign

[bloodyminded]

Bob to clarify, I believe and I state this as a Jew, Zionist and first and foremost Canadian it is quite possible for someone to be anti Zionist or be critical of specific Israeli state policies and not necessarily intend to be anti-semitic.

I am not comfortable with the automatic inference that if one is anti-Zionist they are necessarily anti-semitic. I think it is quite possible to keep the two distinct. I lol, have rarely seen it done, but I think its quite possible and we need to look at the full context of what is said

for its meaning.

I believe Finklestein and Chomsky are blatant anti-semites not because they are anti Zionist but because they deliberately choose to insult all Jews and raise negative stereotypes against Jews and openly insult Jews assigning us negative false beliefs.

I consider Finklestein and Chomsky deliberately hateful in their comments. Their words speak for themselves. There is also a reason both of them are failed academics and had to go outside their actual disciplines.

Chomsky is a "failed academic"?

Wow. Perhaps you might do a tiny bit of research on the field of Linguistics, and discover Chomsky's position in the 20th century roster. I"ll give you a hint: he's at the very top.

Neither when discussing Israel follows standard academic protocol. They have been caught plagerizing, misquoting and they engage in the lowest level of discourse, and that is to take events out of context and then attach their subjective opinions onto those events to explain why they happened, ignoring the actual context in which they happened. Its a fool's game and it plays t people who do not understand contextual reference or why standard conventional historians do not invent meanings to events merely

document the cause and effect of them and report them without injecting their own political biases.

This is why they call themselves revisionist historians. They had to create a new name for their exercise since historians don't revise history but discipline themselves to simply report it.

The cause and effect or sequential movement of events is what the historian lays out. What Finklestein and Chomsky do is to ignore the sequence, lift out an event, ignore the events that happened before and after it, and then engage in snap shot analysis-looking at it as an isolated phenomena. They then editorialize and pass off their subjective theories or opinions as facts.

The study of History is not a simple matter of reportage. It involves sophisticated analysis; and all historians engage in what others could refer to as "revisionism," since historians argue incessantly with one another. That's as it should be.

And by the way, the eminent historian, the late Raul Hilberg, who is more or less single-handedly responsible for inventing the very field of Holocaust Studies, said that he agreed with Finkelstein on some key points, and that history would vindicate his opinion.

So now you're agoing after the "revisionist" Hilberg as well?

If for example you went on to say you believe in the above

because you don't think Israel has a legitimate right to exist as

a Jewish state, then yes I would say you were an anti-Zionist.

If you went on to say you believe in the above because Jews are evil and think they are better

than Palestinians and want to wipe them all out, then I would say that is an anti-semitic

remark.

If you stated the above and made a comment that all Israelis are savages and inconsiderate

then I would argue that is an anti-Israeli comment.

The context of your comment I would argue gives it, its meaning.

Now this I can agree with.

Edited November 30, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Rue]

Bud I will now respond to some of your remarks I place in quotations:

" i don't give a shit whether you're jewish, bob is jewish, naomi is jewish or anyone else is jewish.

i do care when anyone, whether they're jewish/muslim/christian/athiest/etc., uses their ideology to try to excuse violating human rights."

Read the two sentences. You do care and you are suggesting Jews excuse violating human rights when they are Zionists. That is what I am challenging-you making my religion an issue and making stereotype assumptions that if I am a jew and a Zionist I excuse the violation of human rights. I also challenged Naomi Glover because she played the Jew card and threw it out to suggest if a Jew is anti Israel it has more credibility. No its not relevant and stop singling my religion out or assuming because I am a Jew and a Zionist you know how I think or what I believe about human rights. That is what I am challenging.

You stated:

"zionism does not equal being jewish."

That is your opinion. Stop lecturing me on what it means for me or others to be Jews. Preface your comment by stating in your personal opinion Zionism does not necessarily equate with certain Jews defining their identity. Stop engaging in absolute statements as to how Jews should think.

Jews like me who are Zionist happen to believe are being Jewish is a collective concept that can only fully come into existence when we express it through universal sufferage. You keep making sweeping statements about Zionism because you haven't a clue what it means for a Jew to feel like one and assume we should all think like you. Stop pointing your finger at me and telling me what it is to be a Jew.

You stated:

"zionism is an ideology that comes in different shapes and form."

well at least you acknowledge that. Zionism is a pluralistic concept. It continues to evolve and mutate as does the way in which Jews define ourselves. It is not a static definition because the concept of the religion of Judaism and are collective identity was never designed to be static, it was designed to be open ended and subject to continual change. You think and probably unintentionally like a typical Western Christian. You speak in absolute dogmatic terms like a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim.

Jews do not conceptualize in that matter. Our concepts are fluid. They remain open ended and subject to infinite debate. They do not begin and end as much Muslim and Christian dogma does and which clearly is manifested in the way you describe the Jewish collective and how you think we think.

You stated:

"there was a struggle between different groups in the early part of the last century and the really crappy racist one, that has no problem crushing other people's human rights is now controlling israel's path."

That is a ridiculously simple description and it shows you take a complex concept and try reduce it to simplistic black and white definitions which you now try impose on others.

No it is not that simple. To start with the Zionism that came out of Europe was non religious. It came out of the Bund-labour unions. It was for the most part a socialist concept and had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with Jews obtaining universal sufferage. It was heavily influenced by Ashkenazi Jews. It was not a product if Mizrahi/Tsfardic/Oriental Jews of the Muslim world. It was based on reacting to thousands of years of anti-semitic governments, slaughters and decrees in the Christian world. In the Muslim world, the Jews their experienced dhimmitude a form of apartheid that at times was violent and condoned slaughter but for the most part ghettoized Jews as inferior second class citizens and isolated them but did not openly slaughter them. The Felashie Jews of Ethiopia for the most part were discriminated against sometimes violently sometimes non violently and they had their own unique collective experience. The Indian Jews of the large community in Bombay were relatively well off in a pluralistic society where the Hindus never harmed them.

The experience of the Jewish collective that started Zionism mostly came from Europe. It then mutated because of the Nazis and their exporting of Hitlerian anti-semitism through the Mufti of Jerusalem through the Arab world and Nazi styled regimes in Iraq, Egypt and Syria as well as the Palestinian National movement started by the Mufti.

All this Zionism was existential in nature. It dealt with the survival of Jews in the face of governments trying to wipe Jews out. It was not religious in nature-the concept of God became very abstract if not absent and the concept of continuing to live became a pragmatic existential struggle of the here and now.

Religious Zionism as expressed by the settlers on the West Bank and through Rabbia Kahane extremist followers and then the kache party has always been a highly vocal but fringe extreme group. The vast majority of Hews are not religious Zionists. They don't quote the Bible or refer to the Bible or even worship in synagogues. They see their existence as a day to day struggle.

Now this mythical racist Zionism you talk of is an absolute and complete crock. Its a word created by non Jews who do not understand the Jewish identity and how it is defined or the difference between Judaism and Zionism and fuse the two.

Zionism was never racist. It never defined Jews as a race. The collective it describes Jews as can't be racial-Jews come from all kinds of "races". More to the point the definition of jew by Zionists was never made finite-it was left open ended to develop. To this day Zionists struggle with how to define it but for you to say its racist is a crock. It does not define Jews superior to anyone on the contrary it is precisely because it is not racist Jews come in every colour of skin and racial feature and it allows its non Jews to elect people to the knesset have their own court systems, vote, own land and enjoy the highest standard of living of all Muslims in the Middle East. In short it gives all the rights to its non Jews, Jews have never been allowed in the apartheid discriminatory world of Sharia law dhimmitude still practiced in all Arab Leeague nations.

You want to talk discriminatory go find out why Jews are treated as inferiors in the Middle East outside Israel and what it means.

You stated:

"zionism is wrong. why? because in order to achieve it, another people's human rights must be crushed."

Sheer nonsense. That is your assumption. It is an illogical one that assumes a Jew can not be a Jewish national without discriminating against a non Jew. Such b.s. Why don't you find out what Zionism states and how it enforces human rights and just how many human rights organizations play a dramatic role in Israel defending Muslims while in the Muslim world Jews and Christians, Bahaiis, Zoroastreans and others have their human rights violated daily. Save the propoganda and sweeping assumptions for someone else.

Israel is not a perfect nation. No. But it certainly has a far better human rights record with its minorities then Jews were ever treated in Europe or the Middle East.

As for your comments on Ben Gurion and Rabin I have no idea what you were referring to.

Come back if you have specifics. If you want to lift quotes out of context I can do the same.

Also do me a favour before you assume Zionism can do nothing but violate human rights, explain then how it is acceptable for their to be Sharia law nations, Christian nations, and nations with institutionalization of Hinduism and Buddism.

Do explain the double standard. Tell me when you shut down the Vatian, these sharia law nations, and of course rid the United Kingdom of any reference to the Church of England.

Do let me know when you have told Mexico, and all the South American nations to cut out all their institutional references to Catholicism with their states.

Your double standard of course is quite something.

[Rue]

Bloody I will respond to your comments.

You asked me; "Chomsky is a "failed academic"? ...Wow. Perhaps you might do a tiny bit of research on the field of Linguistics, and discover Chomsky's position in the 20th century roster. I"ll give you a hint: he's at the very top."

Let me give you a hint bloody. I do have a Master's in Applied Psychology. I am well aware of his theories on linguistic development. You assumed I have suggested in that area of academia he is a failure I did not say that.

What I do say and argue however is that when homsky moved out of his area of expertise and began engaging in alleged academic discussion about Israel he became a complete and utter failure and it is well documented. Why? No not just because he is anti-Zionist but because of such failures as:

1-being caught using false references, false foot-notes, false quotes;

2-removing quotes from their actual context and then misrepresenting them to suggest they meant something else;

3-stating subjective opinion as fact;

4-making generalizations and assumptions as if they were facts that could not be repudiated;

5- repeating the subjective opinions of others as facts;

6-making negative generalizations about all Jews, all Zionists, all Israelis.

He has tried to pass himself off as an authority on Jewish history and Zionism, he is neither. In fact he has made so many errors in his representations as to Zionism and Jewish history as to have rendered himself ridiculous and it is precisely why no credible history faculty will align themselves with him or appreciate him referring to himself as a new historian. He is not. He is a psychologist with a specialist in linguistic development who long ago stopped working in his actual area of academic expertise.

You stated:

"The study of History is not a simple matter of reportage. It involves sophisticated analysis; and all historians engage in what others could refer to as "revisionism," since historians argue incessantly with one another. That's as it should be."

Bull. There is a strict code legitimate historians follow and they would probably take umbrage to your attempt to speak on their behalf and try rationalize for phonies like Chomsky or Finklestein who violate the basic precepts of history and try CHANGE history. In a nut shell, true historians report what happened as best they can without injecting their "sophisticated analysis" they try keep their own personal assumptions or inferences out of it as much as they can.

This buzz word you use "sophisticated analysis" is nothing more then editorialization or imposing subjective opinions-historians try follow as much as possible a methodology of objective analysis not subjective editorialization.

I defer to some others on this forum who are in fact historians to explain to you why revisionists are the scurge of the historic community. They make a mockery of the hard, time consuming and at times pain staking and tedious research a historian must do to put together missing pieces of time and information.

You stated:

"And by the way, the eminent historian, the late Raul Hilberg, who is more or less single-handedly responsible for inventing the very field of Holocaust Studies, said that he agreed with Finkelstein on some key points, and that history would vindicate his opinion."

And? What was your point. Read the above and this comment you made in follow up:

"So now you're agoing after the "revisionist" Hilberg as well?"

Your comment is illogical as is your inference and its actually a classic technique both Finklestein and Chomsky use which has rendered them both farsical.

No the fact that Raul Hilberg agrees with certain things Finklestein said does not mean he agrees with all of them. You deliberately took his quote out of context to suggest he approves everything Finklestein has said and condones his engaging in revisionism. He never said any such thing.

No sorry to burst your bubble but I do not disagree with everything Finklestein says or even Chinsky has said. What does that suddenly mean I agree when they engage in revisionism or editorialization of history to fit their subjective opinions and their removing of quotes out of context as you have done or engaging in snap shot distortion, i.e., removing an event from its historical sequence, isolating its cause and effect and giving it a new meaning?

Of course not. You are well aware Raul Hilberg has offered much criticism of chomsky, finklestein and other new historians no different than I and conventional historians have.

[Rue]

Supporting oppression is not part of Jewish life.

And no amount of kugel you eat makes up for it.

I took your comment out of its actual context. I had to read it twice to see your point. I originally was going to respond with another line of remarks.

I also am here to say I also believe I took something Bob said out of

context which I want to apologize for.

I also want to say I have not read a thing from Bob that says he supports oppression of anyone.

Bob's arguement that anti-Zionism is necessarily anti-semitism is also an

intellectual one not and does not necessarily assume the anti-semitism

is intentional or deliberate or meant to be hateful. Sometimes it is

somes it is not, sometimes it does not exist at all. It depends

on the context of the words being referenced.

I mist confess I very rarely see someone able to argue against Zionism as a

political concept without engaging in anti-semitic assumptions or

mistaken assumptions as to Jewish culture, history and/or religion.

The reason for that often is because non Jews and for that matter many Jews

too, do not understand the definition of what is a Jew and misrepresent

it.

The definition of a Jew is a very complex one and can't be easily

referenced as it has many concepts, variables and is forever changing

even as we speak.

So often, many of the assumptions made about Zionism to argue against it

can in fact be based on false assumptions about Judaism the religion

or the Jewish culture and not actual Zionist ideology

in which case they can become anti-semitic in reference.

In fairness to Bob I understand his position and it is often advanced

believe it or not by Christian fundamentalist Zionists not just certain

Jewish Zionists.

I should not have assumed he was making a negative generalization.

I engaged in the very criticism I applied to him. So I apologize.

Its a complex issue.

I am like many a person who loaths engaging in total generalizations.

I did it and it took me awhile to pick it up.

All my comments are meant to generate discussion not lecture Bob or anyone

else.

I read back my words and they sound like lectures. I just mean to

provide feedback to all even the ones I scold-its just friendly debate.

However I argue again, it is possible to believe ALL states should not

be religious in nature. A person who advances that consistent

arguement and does not simply select out Israel but criticizes every

state for the exact same reason including Christian states and Muslim ones,

and argues seperation of state from religion and refrains from

any other discussions but sticks to that seperation of state from

religion arguement would not be anti-semitic.

I have never once meant an anti-semite who wasn't anti-Israel. I can think of

anti-Zionists who hate all religious states equally and do not single out

the Jewish religion or Israel in their discussions but say it about all

peoples and their religions equally. Those people I am reluctant to call

anti-semites. I think the are anti organized religion but I am not sure

if I would want to say anything else and truthfully in an ideal world

I would have loved to see no need for any religious state but just everyone

living with respect for one anothers religions or values in all kinds of

states.

This is why I say I am a reluctant Zionist. I come about the ideology through

an existential struggle to survive not based on religion.

Me myself, I am uncomfortable with all organized religions equally.

I am more comfortable with a Spinoza like concept of God.

However I feel I have an existential obligation to be a Jew and I do enjoy

the Kaballa, and certain Judaic principles and beliefs and I feel as

Jewish as say Orthodox Jews who I respect but could not pray like.

I respect Muslims or Christians but could not pray like them either.

I prefer private meditation. That is all though just personal opinions and

I would like to think I can be deferential and respectful of religious

people and limit my discomfort to people who use their religion to hate

others and nothing else.

Edited December 1, 2010 by Rue

[bloodyminded]

Bloody I will respond to your comments.

You asked me; "Chomsky is a "failed academic"? ...Wow. Perhaps you might do a tiny bit of research on the field of Linguistics, and discover Chomsky's position in the 20th century roster. I"ll give you a hint: he's at the very top."

Let me give you a hint bloody. I do have a Master's in Applied Psychology. I am well aware of his theories on linguistic development. You assumed I have suggested in that area of academia he is a failure I did not say that.

Linguistics (and, very occasionally, mathematics and philosophy) are the only areas of academia to which he has applied himself. He does not teach poly sci, he does not teach international relations, he does not teach his political writings at all.

Even such a dishonest and oily little reactionary liberal-hater as David Horowitz, in his "screw the lefties" tome The Professors, concedes that all Chomsky's political writing and activism are extra-academy, not relevant to what he teaches at MiT.

What I do say and argue however is that when homsky moved out of his area of expertise and began engaging in alleged academic discussion about Israel he became a complete and utter failure and it is well documented. Why? No not just because he is anti-Zionist but because of such failures as:

1-being caught using false references, false foot-notes, false quotes;

Do you have a good, credible source for these misdemeanors? Because academics make this claim about one another virtually every day--and while without a doubt some of them are correct (since we're on the subject, see Finkelstein's exposure of Alan Dershowitz's academic fraud...Finkelstein's claim, by the way, not mine; as I haven't personally looked into the matter; and as I suspect you haven't either, regarding Chomsky. In fact, the overwhelming majority of criticisms of Chomsky come from second-hand, as reports of Chomsky's alleged opinions are often the direct opposite of his stated views.)

But it's unfair for me to ask for an expansive treatise from you...so can you concentrate on what exactly are the "false quotes" he uses?

6-making negative generalizations about all Jews, all Zionists, all Israelis.

You only perceive this because of your sensitivities. He gets the same criticism about his remarks about the United States. Exactly the same response, but about "Americans" and "whites" and "the rich" (you know, the usual victims of terrible oppression).

And not just those two, either. At one time, he was simultaneously disallowed into Argentina because his writings were "revolutionary"...and also not allowed into the Soviet Union, because his writings were "anti-revolutionary."

So everybody thinks the awful Chomsky is picking on them. A delusional criticism.

At any rate, he focusses far more on the U.S. than he does on Israel. Far more. No comparison.

And just incidentally, I'm far from convinced that he isn't too harsh about Israel. He might well be too harsh. But people would say the same thing about his criticisms of all Western states and their allies....oh, except France. They'd agree with him there, wouldn't they? Interesting....

He is a psychologist with a specialist in linguistic development who long ago stopped working in his actual area of academic expertise.

I don't believe he is a psychologist, though linguistics is sometimes part of that field.

At any rate, he still works very heavily in his chosen field of Linguistics, even at his advanced age. You literally are making this up as you go.

Didn't you just say something about presenting opinion as fact? What about presenting sheer invention as fact?

You stated:

"The study of History is not a simple matter of reportage. It involves sophisticated analysis; and all historians engage in what others could refer to as "revisionism," since historians argue incessantly with one another. That's as it should be."

Bull. There is a strict code legitimate historians follow and they would probably take umbrage to your attempt to speak on their behalf and try rationalize for phonies like Chomsky or Finklestein who violate the basic precepts of history and try CHANGE history. In a nut shell, true historians report what happened as best they can without injecting their "sophisticated analysis" they try keep their own personal assumptions or inferences out of it as much as they can.

Why you mistake "sophisticated analysis" for "personal assumptions" is anyone's guess; I can't figure it out.

In order to make "a report [on] what happened as best they can", historians are forced to undertake sophisticated analysis...because the plain facts, the real truth, are not always clear and unambiguous. In fact, they rarely are.

Do you think an historian needs merely to read a copy of the NYTimes from the mid-sixties to understand the Gulf of Tonkin incident? No...because "plain reporting" on this and other incidents was directly opposed to the truth.

This buzz word you use "sophisticated analysis" is nothing more then editorialization or imposing subjective opinions-historians try follow as much as possible a methodology of objective analysis not subjective editorialization.

Again, I am talking about an attempt at objective analysis. You're inventing the rest.

I defer to some others on this forum who are in fact historians to explain to you why revisionists are the scurge of the historic community. They make a mockery of the hard, time consuming and at times pain staking and tedious research a historian must do to put together missing pieces of time and information.

Historians, including excellent and eminent ones, disagree vociferously on lots of matters. You cannot dispute this. Keep trying; but you know this is full of shit.

You think all historians--or all "good" ones--are in lockstep agreement?

Please. Give that a rest. You know it's not true. You must.

No the fact that Raul Hilberg agrees with certain things Finklestein said does not mean he agrees with all of them. You deliberately took his quote out of context to suggest he approves everything Finklestein has said and condones his engaging in revisionism. He never said any such thing.

I was about to accuse you of illiteracy...but rather, I think you are being deliberately obtuse, deliberately dishonest.

What's amazing is that you quoted me directly...before claiming that the very words I used in that quote were not present:

Here's my quote (which you helpfully supplied in full, before pretending the words I used were not there:

"And by the way, the eminent historian, the late Raul Hilberg, who is more or less single-handedly responsible for inventing the very field of Holocaust Studies, said that he agreed with Finkelstein on some key points, and that history would vindicate his opinion."

You then go on to admonish me that I "deliberately took his quote out of context"--not only flatly untrue, but a strange assertion sicne I don't believe you were even aware of Hilberg's remarks in the first place. To stress your bizarre point further, you inform me that Hilberg's remark doesn't "suggest he approves of everything Finkelstein said"--obviously correct, but completely divorced from what I stated (see my bolded words above, which implicitly and clearly state the opposite of your charge).

No sorry to burst your bubble but I do not disagree with everything Finklestein says or even Chinsky has said.

Really? Then which of their assertions do you agree with?

You are well aware Raul Hilberg has offered much criticism of chomsky, finklestein and other new historians no different than I and conventional historians have.

On the contrary, I am not aware of these criticisms (this is not an assertion that they do not exist, however). Do you have any available?

Edited December 2, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Rue]

Bloody you stated:

"Linguistics (and, very occasionally, mathematics and philosophy) are the only areas of academia to which he has applied himself. He does not teach poly sci, he does not teach international relations, he does not teach his political writings at all."

If you want to deny he has passed himself off as an academic expert on Jewish History, Israel, and Zionism and that is why he gets criticized play that with someone else.

Also save your personal opinions of David Horowitz for someone else it was not germaine nor is it germaine to my criticisms of Chomsky or Finklestein or Sands or any other revisionist historian whether they be Jewish or non Jewish, neo Nazi, anti-Zionist or what-ever.

You stated:

"Do you have a good, credible source for these misdemeanors?"

then you stated:

"But it's unfair for me to ask for an expansive treatise from you...so can you concentrate on what exactly are the "false quotes" he uses?"

Lol you are already trying to control the very info you asked for right after you asked it.

You stated:

"You only perceive this because of your sensitivities."

what sensitivities. If you are going to make allegations, spell it out. Don't couch your words. Be specific. What sensitivities? Are you referring to my nasal congestion?

You stated:

"He gets the same criticism about his remarks about the United States."

Ooopsy didn't you just get finished lecturing me he only engages in academic discourse about linguistics?

Say now what part of the subject matter in this following remark by you is limited to academic discourse on linguistic development?

"t one time, he was simultaneously disallowed into Argentina because his writings were "revolutionary"...and also not allowed into the Soviet Union, because his writings were "anti-revolutionary."

You then made this statement:

"So everybody thinks the awful Chomsky is picking on them. A delusional criticism."

Your above comment is illogical. You did not establish everyone criticizes Chomsky's writings just the specific vague references you mentioned. Even then if we are to take them at face value, they don't demonstrate those specific critics found him awful, they simply disagreed with his opinions.

It is illogical for you to infer or assume because someone disagrees with some of his opinions they "think he is awful". That I would suggest is an assumption you project onto who you think are his critics because you mix people disagreeing with someone's opinion with feelings as to the person.

The two are not the same. Your "delusional criticism" comment is just name calling. The fact that someone disagrees with what he says does not make them any more delusional then you are for accusing them of being delusional or clearly not knowing the difference between disagreeing with someone's opinions and not liking them as a person.

You stated:

"At any rate, he focusses far more on the U.S. than he does on Israel. Far more. No comparison."

Again that is not germaine to our discussions. I was and am criticizing his comments about Israel, Zionism and Jewish history not what he says about the U.S. try stick to the issue we are discussing. You are all over the place raising issues that are not germaine to what is being criticized and throwing them in as if they are relevant. Whether he's more focused on the U.S. then Israel does not determine whether the things he does say when discussing Jewish history, Zionism or Israel are credible or not.

You stated:

"I'm far from convinced that he isn't too harsh about Israel. He might well be too harsh."

I do not define the validity or credibility of people's statements as to whether they are "too harsh" you do. My criticism goes not to whether he chooses to criticize Israel or even dislike it-whether he is as you say "harsh" or not "harsh" is not the issue and never was. Who he chooses to critcize whether its the US or Israel is not the issue. What he chooses to say is.

You stated:

"I don't believe he is a psychologist, though linguistics is sometimes part of that field."

To be specific his Master's thesis was on the Morphophonemics of Modern Hebrew. He received his B.A., M.A. and Ph.d degrees from the University of Pennsylvania in linguistics and was a linguistics professor and specialist in linguistics.

He is not a psychologist he is a liguist however his learning development theories about linguistics are not a basis of development psychology or cognitive sciences or cognitive psychology.

You stated:

"At any rate, he still works very heavily in his chosen field of Linguistics, even at his advanced age."

And what I have stated is I criticize his comments outside his academic field on Jewish history, Zionism and Israel and as you have demonstrated and acknowledged the contraversy of what he has said is related to his comments on things outside his academic area of expertise.

As for you stating I am making things up as I go along you have made several personal remarks attributing motives or actions to me and I choose to ignore them as they are without basis and personal in nature and not germaine to the issues we are discussing. Your attempts to draw me into name calling will not work,s so t rying to bait me with unspecified allegations such as accusing me of " presenting presenting sheer invention as fact are of course ignored.

Either give a specific example of what I said and why it was invented or get back to the issues. Your name calling only serves to show you try shift attention away from the issues.

You stated:

"Why you mistake "sophisticated analysis" for "personal assumptions" is anyone's guess; I can't figure it out."

Well then try figure it out by looking at the context in which you presented it and next time rather than throw out such a vague description define it specifically if you don't want me to read it into the context of what you stated before and after it. Can you do that? Do you even know what you mean by "sophisticated analysis" other than you agree with Chomsky's non academic method of taking historic events out of their actual context, isolating them, and editorializing on them as to what he thinks they mean? Do you mean the manner in which he editorializes and assumes what the motives and intent of certain people were? Do you even read what he writes?

You stated"

"In order to make "a report [on] what happened as best they can", historians are forced to undertake sophisticated analysis...because the plain facts, the real truth, are not always clear and unambiguous. In fact, they rarely are."

Historians do not claim to know what "real truth" is. "Real truth" does not exist to a historian. That is your subjective projection and it is one that is necessarily illogical. The plain facts are all an historian is intended to report and when they can't document them they have no license to editorialize and create facts and when they offer theories, they clearly indicate they are theories and not facts and those theories presented are enunciated conditionally not absolutely.

Those are the basic rules of historic academia. The fact you throw out the phrase "real t ruth" shows the context of what you think is sophisticated analysis-Chomsky's subjective opinion.

History is not a faith doctrine where dogma is preached.

You stated:

"Youa sked meDo you think an historian needs merely to read a copy of the NYTimes from the mid-sixties to understand the Gulf of Tonkin incident? No...because "plain reporting" on this and other incidents was directly opposed to the truth."

I never asked you the above question and never would because it has nothing to do with the the academic area or exercise of history and what you are in fact referring to is political editorialization or commentary.

You stted:

"Again, I am talking about an attempt at objective analysis. "

No as you have now shown repeatedly above, you are talking about subjective editorialization.

You stated:

"Historians, including excellent and eminent ones, disagree vociferously on lots of matters. You cannot dispute this. Keep trying; but you know this is full of shit."

I have never suggested historians do not disagree with their theories. What I have stated is that when they state their theories they make clear they are just that and that is why they come into dispute. No one disputes Canada was founded in 1867. That is a fact. What might be disputed was the motives behind why John A. MacDonald passed certain policies in 1867. Yes historians engage in editorialization but what I have stated and you clearly do not understand is they follow a protocol when they editorialize so they do not mix up or claim their theories as "real truths" as you claim they do.

You stated"

"You think all historians--or all "good" ones--are in lockstep agreement?"

Again your question shows you do not understand the point I made and continue to make and no the credibility of one's comments are not determined by whether others agree or disagree with them, they depend on the merit of their contents. Many people agree on opinions that contain no credibility. It is illogical to suggest credibility is determined by popularity or lack of resistance.

You stated:

"I was about to accuse you of illiteracy...but rather, I think you are being deliberately obtuse, deliberately dishonest."

Again you engage in personal attacks. Its not germaine to the issues being discussed and is ignored.

Finally your comments on the historian you claim supports Finklestein speak for themselves. You attempted to suggest his comment that you referred to means he agrees with everything Finklestein says and does. This is of course not true. You tried to give Finklestein a general credibility endorsement from the historian you quoted. That is how it was taken out of context. The historian you quoted never endorsed all the opinions of Finklestein, only some of them.

[Rue]

I was asked by bloody to give examples of Chomsky's false quotes.

I will not of course take the bait and have him switch the focus away from the actual issue and that is when Chomsky vetures forth outside his academic area of expertise, linguistics and becomes a political activist he no longer is an academic and violates basic rules of acadamia and I will give examples starting with:

http://alekboyd.blogspot.com/2009/01/noam-chomsky-fails-academic-standards.html

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Manufacturing+dissent%3a+Noam+Chomsky+and+the+crisis+of+the+Western...-a0127013020

Now since Bloody you saw fit to name call a critic of Chomsky then let's

of course provide criticism of Chomsky from that critic and others in regards

to his comments on Israel and let people decide not you or me whether they

line up on his political opinions about Israel and the holocaust:

http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/04-issue/bogdanor-4.htm

http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2004/11/chomsky_and_hol.html

Edited December 2, 2010 by Rue

[Rue]

Here is an example of the false quotes Bloody asked me for with Chomsky:

http://jim.com/chomsdis.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Noam_Chomsky

Edited December 2, 2010 by Rue

[bloodyminded]

Bloody you stated:

"Linguistics (and, very occasionally, mathematics and philosophy) are the only areas of academia to which he has applied himself. He does not teach poly sci, he does not teach international relations, he does not teach his political writings at all."

If you want to deny he has passed himself off as an academic expert on Jewish History, Israel, and Zionism and that is why he gets criticized play that with someone else.

His political writing is not part of his academic work. He doesn't publish it under the MiT rubric, and he doesn't teach it in class.

Hell, Rue, you later cite Oliver Kamm. Is he an "expert" who is following the proper "academic rules." If so, what are his citations, and how does one excuse his misrepresentations and polemical style (as I"ll get to later)?

Go ahead: explain. Why are Kamm's remarks good, and Chomsky's bad?

Oh yeah--because of your political ideology.

"Do you have a good, credible source for these misdemeanors?"

then you stated:

"But it's unfair for me to ask for an expansive treatise from you...so can you concentrate on what exactly are the "false quotes" he uses?"

Lol you are already trying to control the very info you asked for right after you asked it.

you've got to be kidding me.

You laid out a bunch of Chomsky's supposed faults (presumably thinking I should simply take Rue's word for it, for...some reason, unstated); I asked for evidence of these wrongdoings; and then, because I figured i was asking for too much information, I asked if you could offer me examples of one of his wrongdoings.

i was doing it to be friendly, rue. Not to "control the very info". how could I "control" what you're going to say, when I don't even know what, if any, examples you're going to offer?

You stated:

"You only perceive this because of your sensitivities."

what sensitivities. If you are going to make allegations, spell it out. Don't couch your words. Be specific. What sensitivities? Are you referring to my nasal congestion?

Your sensitivities about the State of Israel, obviously.

You stated:

"He gets the same criticism about his remarks about the United States."

Ooopsy didn't you just get finished lecturing me he only engages in academic discourse about linguistics?

Say now what part of the subject matter in this following remark by you is limited to academic discourse on linguistic development?

"t one time, he was simultaneously disallowed into Argentina because his writings were "revolutionary"...and also not allowed into the Soviet Union, because his writings were "anti-revolutionary."

What do these have to do with his academic work? You keep making the claim, but continually refuse to back the claim up with evidence.

Therefore, I'll have to assume you have none. It's your subjective opinion...always a terrible thing, evidently, unless it's offerred by Rue.

You stated:

"At any rate, he focusses far more on the U.S. than he does on Israel. Far more. No comparison."

Again that is not germaine to our discussions. I was and am criticizing his comments about Israel, Zionism and Jewish history not what he says about the U.S. try stick to the issue we are discussing.

Oh really? then why, of the six sources you cite (to which I'll get to later), are only two specifically about Israel...and three of them aren't about his criticisms of Israel at all?

By the way, I'm still waiting to hear on what matters you agree with Chomsky and Finkelstein, as you say you do. I'd be interested to hear about it.

You are all over the place raising issues that are not germaine to what is being criticized and throwing them in as if they are relevant. Whether he's more focused on the U.S. then Israel does not determine whether the things he does say when discussing Jewish history, Zionism or Israel are credible or not.

Like your links about what his critics say about his writings on Cambodia and Latin america?

You stated:

"I don't believe he is a psychologist, though linguistics is sometimes part of that field."

To be specific his Master's thesis was on the Morphophonemics of Modern Hebrew. He received his B.A., M.A. and Ph.d degrees from the University of Pennsylvania in linguistics and was a linguistics professor and specialist in linguistics.

He is not a psychologist he is a liguist however his learning development theories about linguistics are not a basis of development psychology or cognitive sciences or cognitive psychology.

Wow! you can even make a concession that you were wrong sound like you think you were right.

"At any rate, he still works very heavily in his chosen field of Linguistics, even at his advanced age."

And what I have stated is I criticize his comments outside his academic field on Jewish history, Zionism and Israel and as you have demonstrated and acknowledged the contraversy of what he has said is related to his comments on things outside his academic area of expertise.

As for you stating I am making things up as I go along you have made several personal remarks attributing motives or actions to me and I choose to ignore them as they are without basis and personal in nature and not germaine to the issues we are discussing.

Wrong. YOU stated that he doesn't do this work anymore; but in fact he does, and there is no source in which you picked this up, since it's a non-existent "fact."So you just...made it up.

What else are you just inventing here for the sake of your argument, Rue? I'd honestly like to know, as it's sometimes difficult to debate with a liar.

Your attempts to draw me into name calling will not work,s so t rying to bait me with unspecified allegations such as accusing me of " presenting presenting sheer invention as fact are of course ignored.

fine: then explain how you made the error...it must have come from somewhere, right? If you didn't simply invent it out of thin air, where did it come from?

Either give a specific example of what I said and why it was invented or get back to the issues.

I already did...prior to your asking this question.

But I'll give you the "specific example" again: you said he has stopped doing his academic linguistic work.

Why? Only you know...and you're not telling, evidently.

It's ultimately a trivial matter...but you seem awfully insulted that I noticed your trivial deception.

You stated:

"I was about to accuse you of illiteracy...but rather, I think you are being deliberately obtuse, deliberately dishonest."

Again you engage in personal attacks. Its not germaine to the issues being discussed and is ignored.

Finally your comments on the historian you claim supports Finklestein speak for themselves. You attempted to suggest his comment that you referred to means he agrees with everything Finklestein says and does. This is of course not true. You tried to give Finklestein a general credibility endorsement from the historian you quoted. That is how it was taken out of context. The historian you quoted never endorsed all the opinions of Finklestein, only some of them.

You're doing it again!

Read very carefully, Rue: I did not suggest that Hilberg "agrees with everything Finkelstein says." I didn't even hint at it. I wrote--and I quote the crucial, unmistakeable qualifier from my own post--that Hilberg agreed with Finkelstein "on some key points."

That's my exact wording, Rue. Go back and look...that's precisely what I wrote. (Fuck sakes, you even quoted me the last time you misinterpreted my remark.)

You aren't careful enough in reading other people's posts, but instead assuming what is already there based on your pre-existing biases.

Little wonder you can't understand Chomsky...or maybe you've never read him, but only those who criticize him.

Edited December 2, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Oleg Bach]

The average "jew" loathes being controled by the anglo elite..but the money is good..sad part is once Israel becomes of no further use - this nasty elite..will burn them and get rid of the evidence as they have done repeatedly in the past..To bad that the average "jew" - did not stand up their masters and say "I would rather be poor than corrupt" - not going to happen for the Jews or anyone else...sadly.

[ToadBrother]

Chomsky is a "failed academic"?

Wow. Perhaps you might do a tiny bit of research on the field of Linguistics, and discover Chomsky's position in the 20th century roster. I"ll give you a hint: he's at the very top.

Indeed. I don't agree with Chomsky on a lot of things, but he is indeed a major figure in linguistics, dare I say one of the pre-eminent figures in the modern science of language.

People seem to have this need to disparage all of a man, not just the parts they disagree with. I think a lot of Chomsky's political writings are off base, but in his actual field of expertise he is very much an authority and anything but a failed academic.

[bloodyminded]

I was asked by bloody to give examples of Chomsky's false quotes.

I will not of course take the bait and have him switch the focus away from the actual issue and that is when Chomsky vetures forth outside his academic area of expertise, linguistics and becomes a political activist he no longer is an academic and violates basic rules of acadamia and I will give examples starting with:

http://alekboyd.blogspot.com/2009/01/noam-chomsky-fails-academic-standards.html

This one's a fail, Rue. Chomsky signed a petition written by some activist students.

As Chomsky says, if all those who dissented agaisnt the Soviet Union or Iran refused to do so because every single point was not pitch-perfect to their liking....no petitions on any subject would ever be signed.

This is plainly true.

http://jim.com/chomsdis.htm

Ok, this is the usual "Khmer Rouge apologetics" theme, and it's been answered and rebutted many, many times.

But for one of the better rebuttals, read Christoper Hitchens:

After a relatively long introductory section, he gets down to the (invented, politicized, right-wing)) controversy:

The gravamen of the bill against Noam Chomsky is this. That, first, he did euphemize and minimize the horrors of the Khmer Rouge. That, second, he did "endorse" or otherwise recommend a pamphlet or paper that sought to prove the Nazi Holocaust a fiction. That, third, he is an enemy of the Jewish state and a friend to footpads and terrorists of every stripe.

[The focus in this piece isn't against his "Holocaust denial" which of course is another preposterous myth...but on the first clause: his suppsoed minimizing of the crimes of the Khmer Rouge]

David Horowitz and Peter Collier were wrong, in the syndicated article announcing their joint conversion to neoconservatism, to say that Chomsky hailed the advent of the Khmer Rouge as "a new era of economic development and social justice." The Khmer Rouge took power in 1975. In 1972, Chomsky wrote an introduction to Dr. Malcolm Caldwell's collection of interviews with Prince Norodom Sihanouk. In this introduction, he expressed not the prediction but the pious hope that Sihanouk and his supporters might preserve Cambodia for "a new era of economic development and social justice." [note: this is before the atrocities...before the American carpet-bombing atrocity as well]/ You could say that this was naive of Chomsky, who did not predict the 1973 carpet-bombing campaign or the resultant rise of a primitive, chauvinist guerrilla movement. But any irony here would appear to be at the expense of Horowitz and Collier.

[Further, Chomsky "does not express "skepticism" about the massacres in Cambodia, but [he does] express reservations about some of the accounts of them. This is well before the matter was wholly settled. People were disagreeing left and right on the scale of the crimes. Including the CIA.]

Now, one of the chief architects of the "Chomsky is a Pol Pot apologist" comes from William Shawcross; and in shwcross's polemical indictment, he smashed three different Chomsky paragraphs and ideas together, without attributing the changes, or offerring ellipses, and so on; in other words, outright academic fraud, Rue.

Look at it like this: I could quote you this way to make it seem you're saying anything: here are your own words from your paragraph above:

Rue: "I will take the bait and switch the focus and become a political activist."

You see how easy that is?

That's what Shawcross was doing...it is improper quoting and citation procedure.

Which you surely must understand.

Chomsky and Herman were engaged in the admittedly touchy business of distinguishing evidence from interpretation. They were doing so in the aftermath of a war which had featured tremendous, organized, official lying and many cynical and opportunist "bloodbath" predictions. There was and is no argument about mass murder in Cambodia: there is still argument about whether the number of deaths, and the manner in which they were inflicted, will warrant the use of the term "genocide' or even "autogenocide." Shawcross pays an implicit homage to this distinction, a few pages later, when he admits that Jean Lacouture, in his first "emotional" review of Father Ponchaud, greatly exaggerated the real number of Khmer Rouge executions. These errors, writes Shawcross, "were seized upon by Noam Chomsky, who circulated them widely. In a subsequent issue of The New York Review, Lacouture corrected himself. Not all of those who had reported his mea culpa published his corrections. Chomsky used the affair as part of his argument that the media were embarked on an unjustified blitz against the Khmer Rouge."

If this paragraph has any internal coherence -- and I have given it in its entirety -- it must lead the reader to suppose that Chomsky publicized Lacoutre's mea culpa without acknowledging his corrections. But in The Political Economy of Human Rights there is an exhaustive presentation of the evolution of Lacoutre's position, including both his mea culpa and his corrections and adding some complimentary remarks about his work. Incidentally, Lacouture reduced his own estimate of deaths from "two million" to "thousands or hundreds of thousands." Is this, too, "minimization of atrocities"?

Chomsky and Herman wrote that "the record of atrocities in Cambodia is substantial and often gruesome." They even said, "When the facts are in, it may turn out that the more extreme condemnations were in fact correct."

Does that sound like "Khmer Rouge apologetics"? :)

Please.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Manufacturing+dissent%3a+Noam+Chomsky+and+the+crisis+of+the+Western...-a0127013020

Despite his aspirations to social science, Chomsky never considers the methodological problems with his argument. His criticism of the American liberal intelligentsia is essentially an assertion that those who do not share his Marxist Reductionism.

You see, this is what i meant when I pointed out how many of his critics don't even know his stance...so how can they argue it? Chomsky not only is not a "Marxist," he doesn't particularly like or respect Marx. He said "Who would want to be a 'Marxist,' fitting all theories into some box in a way they believe the Great Man might do it?"

Now since Bloody you saw fit to name call a critic of Chomsky then let's

of course provide criticism of Chomsky from that critic and others in regards

to his comments on Israel and let people decide not you or me whether they

line up on his political opinions about Israel and the holocaust:

http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/04-issue/bogdanor-4.htm

Leaving aside that this whole piece is nothing but opinion and invective--all those things which seem to bother you so greatly, until now...for some reason...let's get to the crux of the recurring criticism, which appears over asnd over, displaying so many people's loathing for free speech principles: The so-called "Faurisson Affair."

Faurisson, a Holocaust-denier, was in some trouble in France. Hhis supporters asked Chomsky if he would write in his defense.

True, Chomsky was ignorant of Faurisson's writings, and based on one innocuous peice, deemed Faurisson a "relatively apolitical liberal"..which is dead false. But that's a minor error: you should appreciate it, Rue, because look at the character-assassins and charlatans you are here citing!

At any rate, that's irrelevant; Chomsky wrote a piece defending principles of free speech and free inquiry; this should not be controversial. Hell, he would write a piece in defense of Henry kissinger's right to speak publicly, and he considers kissinger a serious war criminal; certainly more of a criminal than Faurisson, who is merely a moron.

http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2004/11/chomsky_and_hol.html

Ok, this is arguably the stupidest one of all, Rue, and I"m frankly surprised you'd stoop to including it. Chomsky as a holocaust denier?

Kamm's tortured and dishonest argument aside, why not go right to the source himself?:

QUESTION: I ask you this question because I know that you have been plagued and hounded around the United States specifically on this issue of the Holocaust. It's been said that Noam Chomsky is somehow agnostic on the issue of whether the Holocaust occurred or not.

CHOMSKY: My "agnosticism" is in print. I described the Holocaust years ago as the most fantastic outburst of insanity in human history, so much so that if we even agree to discuss the matter we demean ourselves. Those statements and numerous others like them are in print, but they're basically irrelevant because you have to understand that this is part of a Stalinist-style technique to silence critics of the holy state and therefore the truth is entirely irrelevant, you just tell as many lies as you can and hope that some of the mud will stick. It's a standard technique used by the Stalinist parties, by the Nazis and by these guys.

Edited December 2, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

Indeed. I don't agree with Chomsky on a lot of things, but he is indeed a major figure in linguistics, dare I say one of the pre-eminent figures in the modern science of language.

People seem to have this need to disparage all of a man, not just the parts they disagree with. I think a lot of Chomsky's political writings are off base, but in his actual field of expertise he is very much an authority and anything but a failed academic.

Exactly. I have no doubt whatsoever that he is wrong on certain matters, maybe lots of them--hell, the sheer mathematics of his huge volume of activist writing virtually demands that, in my opinion.

But a "failed academic"? By what standards? Einstein's?

And the notion that "I was talking about his political writing," which was offerred as a rebuttal, is ridiculous. Nowhere does Chomsky or anyone else claim that his activism is his "academic work." He doesn't publish it under the university rubric, and he doesn't teach it. So it's by definition not his academic work.

Edited December 2, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Oleg Bach]

So nice to have good scholars on the forum..really - I mean that..If you have done the study..then use it...I have not...so I am useless in this area other than saying...Please God - let it rain on Israel...hear there is drought. Washington has no rain makers I suppose.

[ToadBrother]

Exactly. I have no doubt whatsoever that he is wrong on certain matters, maybe lots of them--hell, the sheer mathematics of his huge volume of activist writing virtually demands that, in my opinion.

But a "failed academic"? By what standards? Einstein's?

Within linguistics, Chomsky isn't quite an Einstein, perhaps more of a Dawkins

[KeyStone]

I myself, am very critical of this country

Like what Bob? Taxes are too high, and Israel isn't encroaching on the settlements fast enough for your liking?

[Bob]

Rue - It's too bad you describe yourself as a "reluctant Zionist". Zionism is a beautiful movement. It is a political movement of civil rights, emancipation, and liberation. Through Israel, we the Jewish people have true independence and self-determination. We define our destiny. We preserve and continually develop our culture. After all the blood, sweat, and tears shed by our people, Zionism is a movement to be proud of.

[Rue]

Rue - It's too bad you describe yourself as a "reluctant Zionist". Zionism is a beautiful movement. It is a political movement of civil rights, emancipation, and liberation. Through Israel, we the Jewish people have true independence and self-determination. We define our destiny. We preserve and continually develop our culture. After all the blood, sweat, and tears shed by our people, Zionism is a movement to be proud of.

No don't misunderstand me. It sounds disparaging not meant to be. Actually I strongly agree with what you said Bob. When I say reluctant I mean in the sense we as a Jewish collective have been forced to fight for our existence including wars and when I use the word "reluctant" I actually use it in the way Moishe Dayan once did when he described himself as a reluctant warrior.

What I mean is you and I didn't set out to want to kill people. We didn't set out to force ourselves on people.

Sorry it could have come across clearer. I am trying to enunciate a certain kind of Zionism and I guess I could do a hell of a better job at it I must say.

I would never be reluctant to be proud to share the Jewish collective and all its richness. I mean I am reluctant to have to go to war over it and have to defend it by war. The war part.

Much of our history is about having to defend our existence in wars.

I don't embrace war. Its a necessity thrust on us by destiny but

I note Israeli soldiers if I must stereotype them after meeting so

many of them is that they are reluctant-they don't brag about what they

have to do. They go about their job with as little fanfare as possible

and often with gritted teeth wishing there was another way.

I think this stereotype of the IDF deliberately being abusive is far

from the soldiers I know and how many of them placed themselves in

danger because they did not want Palestinian civilians hurt.

I wish people would see the humane part to both Israelis AND Palestinians

and realize the average of both don't sit around wanting to kill each

other, they are caught in a spiral beyond their control.

But enough with my opinions. I was just expressing discussion. My personal

views when all is said and done are just one example of the vast range

of Zionist opinions. I just want people to see Zionists like you and

I are not robots who think exactly the same way. We are tied by

our collective but each of us has our own way of expressing what being

Jewish means to us and we don't necessarily have to agree to share

it.

Also as part of that ideology if you were Israeli or older than me and

had lived through any war, people would see I would openly defer to you

on certain things out of respect.

I do not talk this way to Israelis (if I know they are) or Palestinians

or former Israelis because anyone in the military I do not express an

opinion to unless they first ask because I believe I have to show respect

that they lived what I now only talk about.

If I sounded presumptious before I did not mean to be to you. I am just

debating.

I also never presume to discuss anyone's personal religious views. I just

respect them and only challenge them if I think they misrepresent

someone else's opinion not their own.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Rue

[Rue]

Exactly. I have no doubt whatsoever that he is wrong on certain matters, maybe lots of them--hell, the sheer mathematics of his huge volume of activist writing virtually demands that, in my opinion.

But a "failed academic"? By what standards? Einstein's?

And the notion that "I was talking about his political writing," which was offerred as a rebuttal, is ridiculous. Nowhere does Chomsky or anyone else claim that his activism is his "academic work." He doesn't publish it under the university rubric, and he doesn't teach it. So it's by definition not his academic work.

First off excellent rebuttal. Enjoyed it. Thank you.

When I say failed academic I mean failed when he went outside his area of academic expertise and began engaging in revisionist history.

In regards to his work as a linguist, in his area of academic expertise, no he is not a failed academic but we are clearly talking only in the context of my criticism of his revisionist history editorialization and in particular his revisionism of Jewish history.

In regards to his political ideology I would myself define him as a Stalinist. I don't think that is an unfair label.

I personally disagree with his political views on world conspiracy, the U.S., and the current economic problems. I agree putting a label on his politics gets dangerous because all of us when you think of it are all over the place with ideology.

Bloody be fair though. Chomsky has been caught time and time again passing off his political or history views as academic ones trying to pass him off as an academic expert in those

fields and that is why he has been called out.

He makes sure when he expresses his history or political views to trot out all his non related academic credentials.

If you would like I can begin quoting my four university degrees in

these debates.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Rue

[Rue]

I will repeat again Chomsky in my opinion and that of many others is a deliberate anti-semite and says deliebrately anti-semitic things that he knows are hateful and incite hatred against ALL Jews.

Bloody have a fun time trying to repudiate this full response to Chomsky's anti-semitism and association with neo Nazis:

http://www.wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html

Have fun with this site as well which goes to greatlengths to rebutt everything Chomsky has said about Jews:

http://chomskywatch.blogspot.com/

Now if you go to the above site on the first page you can see an example of Chomsky getting caught misquoting and then trying to weasel his way out of what he said.

Lol. You want to hero worship him. Be my guest. Here is an excerpt of what happens when he is caught misquoting from the above site which is full of many more examples:

"Ironically I stumbled upon a similar quotation in which Chomsky attributes to Ben-Gurion which in actuality Ben-Gurion did not say. The quote comes from the afterward in his book Deterring Democracy. In it he states, “During the 1948 war, [ben-Gurion] held that ‘To the Arabs of the Land of Israel only one function remains -- to run away.’” Anyone familiar with the idea of transfer in Zionist thought knows that this quote comes from Ezra Danin not Ben-Gurion [1]. Once I found this quote I emailed Chomsky and asked him what his sources were, he replied:

I don't know what you are looking at, but I've repeatedly cited the source in print, from the first time I mentioned it: Yossi Beilin, Mehiro shel Ihud (Revivim, 1985). Can add the page reference if you like. This is the standard scholarly source, in fact the only source for Israeli cabinet records from 67-77, the period he covers.

Even though the quote as Chomsky wrote it in the original himself attributes it to the War of Independence that would be 1948 which is not anywhere remotely near the time period of 67-77, I still decided to shoot an email down to Yossi Beilin and see if the quotation actually exists in his work. As I expected it doesn’t.

So much for Chomsky’s scholarly pretensions.

[1] Ilan Pappe no friend of Zionism and a Chomsky confidant writes, “Ezra Danin's words to Ben Gurion: 'The Arabs of the Land of Israel, they have but one task left - to run away'.”

UPDATE: Chomsky has written me back stating the following:

It's you, not me, who says that B-G "uttered those words." What I wrote -- as you repeat -- is that he held that view, as discussed in the source I cited. I'll grant you one thing, though. I should have realized that people who are really desperate to defend their own crimes would find some way of misreading something if they can, and should have spelled it out more explicitly.

The irony should be apparent here."

Edited December 7, 2010 by Rue