Noam Chomsky on Israel, Lebanon and Palestine

[mom cat]

Noam Chomsky on Israel, Lebanon and Palestine

By Kaveh Afrasiabi of Global Interfaith Peace

08/07/06 "Information Clearing House" -- --

Do you agree with the argument that Israel's military offensive in Lebanon is "legally and morally justified?"
Noam Chomsky: The invasion itself is a serious breach of international law, and major war crimes are being committed as it proceeds. There is no legal justification.

The "moral justification" is supposed to be that capturing soldiers in a cross-border raid, and killing others, is an outrageous crime. We know, for certain, that Israel, the United States and other Western governments, as well as the mainstream of articulate Western opinion, do not believe a word of that. Sufficient evidence is their tolerance for many years of US-backed Israeli crimes in Lebanon, including four invasions before this one, occupation in violation of Security Council orders for 22 years, and regular killings and abductions. To mention just one question that every journal should be answering: When did Nasrallah assume a leadership role? Answer: When the Rabin government escalated its crimes in Lebanon, murdering Sheikh Abbas Mussawi and his wife and child with missiles fired from a US helicopter. Nasrallah was chosen as his successor. Only one of innumerable cases. There is, after all, a good reason why last February, 70% of Lebanese called for the capture of Israeli soldiers for prisoner exchange.

The conclusion is underscored, dramatically, by the current upsurge of violence, which began after the capture of Corporal Gilad Shalit on June 25. Every published Western "timeline" takes that as the opening event. Yet the day before, Israeli forces kidnapped two Gaza civilians, a doctor and his brother, and sent them to the Israeli prison system where they can join innumerable other Palestinians, many held without charges -- hence kidnapped. Kidnapping of civilians is a far worse crime than capture of soldiers. The Western response was quite revealing: a few casual comments, otherwise silence. The major media did not even bother reporting it. That fact alone demonstrates, with brutal clarity, that there is no moral justification for the sharp escalation of attacks in Gaza or the destruction of Lebanon, and that the Western show of outrage about kidnapping is cynical fraud.

Much has been said about Israel's right to defend itself from its enemies who are taking advantage of Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, thus causing the latest chapter in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Do you agree?

NC: Israel certainly has a right to defend itself, but no state has the right to "defend" occupied territories. When the World Court condemned Israel's "separation wall," even a US Justice, Judge Buergenthal, declared that any part of it built to defend Israeli settlements is "ipso facto in violation of international humanitarian law," because the settlements themselves are illegal.

more at:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14404.htm

[Mr_Spock]

1. Video is in my signature

.

[mom cat]

2. Actually, that is a different Chomsky piece, but it is also quite good.

The one in the OP just came out today.

[Mr_Spock]

3. Oh, I see

Apparently he's got a lot to say on this topic.

[whirlygigspin]

4. Galloway video, it rocks

George Galloway went ballistic and told the truth on SkyNews, of course the airhead Nazi-propaganda bitch didn't veer from the 1984 scripted 'war on terrah' bullshit.


Must see TV!


http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0,,31200-galloway_060806,00.html

[SPKrazy]

6. Love The Argument That Hizbollah "Isn't A Terrorist" Organization

yeah, he's into reality, right

[Jazzgirl]

8. There are only three countries that consider

Hezbollah a terrorist organization: the US, Israel, and the UK. 'Nuff said.

[SPKrazy]

11. I'm Sorry

but if you don't consider Hizbollah to be a terrorist organization, well I just don't know what to say to you


:shrug:

[OrechDin]

18. Don`t think thats quite true,

For one Hezbollah is listed by the Canadian government (and it was the liberal government who did this,not the current neocon gov.) as a terrorist organization, probably many other countries too (such as Australia)

[Joe Chi Minh]

22. I don't get the way everyone accepts the word,"terrorist",

as some kind of insult, when we know that almost invariably it is used with reference to resistance fighters/freedom-fighters, seeking to liberate their people from the oppressive occupation of an aggressor. And since most people are largely apolitical and extraordinarily long-suffering, it takes an awful lot to induce most people to support resistance fighters/ terrorists.

Sometimes, as in the case of the Bader Meinhof Red Army Faction and the far-right thugs in Miami, they really are a bad lot, but generally resistance fighters have the support of most of the people they are seeking to liberate.

In this case, I don't doubt the motives and integrity of the Arabic guerilla leaders at all; in fact, I admire them, and hope that, had I been born there (since I would surely have grown up believing in the justice of the cause) I would have signed up to serve in their ranks.

However, as I have intimated in other posts, this seems to me a situation where pragmatism is not just "not a dirty word", but the only sane and wise policy to adopt. The situation with Israel is not comparable with the situation in Northern Ireland, or in South Africa, or in any struggle for release from colonial domination, where the prospect of an end game is more than plausible.

Ask yourselves why the terms, "Pax Romana" and Pax Britannica", came about. Pax Tito, for that matter. Peaceful co-existence between the different peoples/tribes etc, was understood by their leaders to be the only pragmatic recourse. I think it's something like what they call in law, a leonine contract, i.e. where just one of the parties to an agreement effectively calls the shots. Not good in a business context, I should think, but in the context of geopolitical survival, and the peace and relative prosperity of the inhabitants, in such cases at least, the only sane option on the table.

I believe I have read articles contending that the only Pax Americana that Bushco wants in the Middle East is in a kind of Middle East laid waste by internecine national and tribal struggles. This conflict must be a big plus for them (not to mention the Carlyle Group); as indeed must be the encouragement the world gives to the Arabic nations to ignore the fact that Israel is not going to go away or submit in any way to Arabic hegemony.

It's not uncommon in our societies for parents to actually hate their spouses more than they love their children. It happens all the time. It doesn't take any kind of leap of the imagination on my part to believe the compassion of Western liberals towards the Palestinians in this business partakes more than a little of this ambivalent kind of loving relationship with the Palestinians and Lebanese.

The great obstacle to be overcome by the Arabic and Jewish leaders in any long-term desire for peaceful co-existence is the increasingly hardened attitudes that decades of conflict have engendered, effectively based on a crucial misjudgement of the former concerning the permanence of the Jewish State, ever fanned by a "world opinion" directed by the magnates of the Western media.

[SPKrazy]

25. 9/11 Done By Freedom Fighters?????

al Queda freedom fighters?????

I'm sure 3000 people's families would argue with you about that

[Joe Chi Minh]

26. I'm sure millions of people would argue with you about that.

Even if it was the work of freedom fighters...

I don't mind anyone calling freedom-fighters, terrorists, just so long as they understand that they're the underdog terrorists. The big orthodox armies of nations are the big terrorists. Ask an Iraqi. Ask the ghosts of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead. Ask the survivors of Abu Ghraib. Ask the ghosts of Abeer and her family. Wake up to yourself.

Just as freedom-fighters can justifiably be described as terrorists, the same must apply, and on the same basis, even to orthodox armies that are not aggressors, that are truly fighting for freedom, such as in WWII.

Even the Christian Church recognises that "turning the other cheek" is a counsel of perfection between individuals. Between nations, I doubt if it's even contemplated as an option. Is it only the US and the UK who are justified in defending themselves by recourse to terror and violence? Only the top dogs, and not the victims of aggression and oppression?

[breakaleg]

31. I think the word terrorist is meant as an attack or insult rather than a

description. It's clear in this case, that not everyone recognizes that the offending parties in this case, are in fact terrorists. That is an opinion of 4 countries. All the rest, recognize that all people have a right to defend themselves.

[breakaleg]

23. Canada does as well, but I agree that 4 countries does not reflect

world opinion. And considering these countries' close ties with the US, it's not at all surprising they gave their support on this issue.

[breakaleg]

12. This is awesome!!!

Seriously, it's such a relief to see a refreshingly honest take on this situation.

[breakaleg]

14. I have to say that his ending bit was the best

paraphrasing: you don't even know the name of one member of the family of seven Palestinians that was slaughtered on the beach in Gaza, but you know the name of every Israeli soldier who's been taking prisoner because you believe Israeli blood is more valuable than the blood of Palestinians.

Talk about calling a spade a spade.

[OrechDin]

17. He comes across as being a misinformed Bully who thinks

if he shouts louder than the interviewer he must be right.


:eyes:

[dipsydoodle]

21. You got that 100% correct

She's actually a very good reporter. Most the threads which are currently dissing her and praising Galloway are from outside of the UK and have little or no knowledge of either of them.
x(

[G2099]

24. There is NOTHING in existence Greater than TRUTH and . . .

Galloway is NOT afraid to tell the TRUTH regardless of whom or what.

[mom cat]

5. He has been right on top of this.

[Nikki Stone 1]

7. He usually is

:kick:

[Tom Joad]

9. Recommending for an even 10, but we need 100 more.

[ARRESTBOSCHAVILANOW]

10. CHOMSKY's Good

As always, Chomsky is 99% correct.

[WiseButAngrySara]

13. Agree with Chomsky 100%! Israel perfectly exemplifies the observation

that the victim and victimizer are the same entity, as they both need and feed off of each other. I despise what Israel is currently doing, and I hope it brings them great shame. I for one, will not view the atrocities of the Holocaust with the same eyes as before.

Where are all of the expected posts on the current situation? Have these all been banned because of the rally cries of 'Anti-Semitism'? I haven't been on DU for a while. If this very important topic has been banned or curtailed, I guess I'll have to go elsewhere for honest discussion on the issue.

[breakaleg]

15. threads are being locked very quidkly, and moved off the

Discussion board onto this one very quickly. The rules for posting are very restrictive...

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OrechDin]

19. Not quite sure what viewing `the atrocities of the Holocaust with the same

eyes as before`` has to do with Israels action in Lebanon.

BUT whatever.




:crazy:

[WiseButAngrySara]

20. Ethnic cleansing? Mass murder of innocent civilians? ....n/t

[msmcghee]

27. Noam Chomsky is an idiot.

Anyone who truly values peace can not justify deadly attacks against sovereign peoples by referring to past wrongs.

If that made any sense at all, Native American would have been fully justified to bring down the WTC themselves.

As soon as you start down that road you are saying that endless war between aggrieved parties based on retribution for past wrongs - is a perfectly wonderful way for people in the world to settle their differences.

The only way to end war and needless civilian deaths is to condemn aggression when it happens. This was a blatant act of war against Israel by Hizbollah.

Chomsky is not only an idiot - he's a war-monger.

[jonnyblitz]

28. you post makes ZERO sense.

I think you need to put down the pipe. :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[msmcghee]

29. If you had a logical rebuttal . . .

. . to the validity of my statement I guess you would have used it.

But, I haven't seen much sense from anti-Israel side yet.

[breakaleg]

30. not so...

"The only way to end war and needless civilian deaths is to condemn aggression when it happens."

If that were true, then Israel would lay down their arms and it would be over.

The ONLY way to end war, is through a political or negotiated peace settlement, which Israel is not interested in.

[msmcghee]

32. Fuzzy thinking that confuses aggressors with . .

. . defenders - will not justify Hizbollah's act of war against Israel.

It will only result in more death and destruction of civilians on both sides as Israel is forced to respond violently to such future attacks - that this type of fuzzy thinking encourages.

[breakaleg]

33. what?

if "Israel is forced to respond"? They are the aggressor! No one forced Israel to invade Lebanon. In recent press, everyone agrees it was not about those 2 soldiers, so that has been debunked.

The death and destruction is being instigated by Israel. Look at the numbers. They don't lie.