That last post deserves some background. Here is a post from my old Yahoo360 Blog from 2006:
I was first exposed to Noam Chomsky about 12 years ago (1994). George the Red is a huge fan and insisted that I read some of his profound works. Chomsky is an MIT PhD who is credited with revolutionizing modern linguistics. In the 1960s, he joined the anti-war movement and became a reliable critic of US foreign policy. He has written many books on the subject, a few of which I have read.
Though the arguments and discussions are long and ponderous and delivered with a dull rationality that the average reader might find unassailable, all of Noam's books boil down to the same point: It's America's fault (or maybe Israel). Pick any issue in the world today and Noam will shoot back a reasonable argument as to why it is America's fault. Human Rights violations in China? Well, that is obviously America's fault because we granted Most Favored Nation trade status which has only encouraged the regime to mistreat its citizenry. Cuban Poverty? Well, that is clearly America's fault on account of an ill-considered embargo instituted by JFK. Individually, they sound rational and reasonable. Side by side, he is saying that China's problems are because the US trades with them and Cuba's problems are because the US doesn't trade with them. Gee, we either trade or don't trade with every nation so that piles up the guilt pretty quickly.
Noam also has a habit of making outlandish claims without supporting them. This has the effect of saying that the fact is SO obvious, that he shouldn't be bothered to list the proof. Sort of like saying 2+2=4. It is obvious and beyond the need of further evidence. However, when you toss out a statement along the lines of "The US is the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world," some clear evidence would be greatly appreciated. He'll offer another of his esoteric and reasonable arguments how the UN definition of terrorism could be construed to include US firing cruise missiles into the Middle East since some civilians are killed and surely they must be terrified by the explosions.
Another thing to note about Noam is that he loves Cuba and what Castro has done to the place. To read Noam is to become utterly baffled as to why so many Cubans risk drowning in an effort to reach Florida. Why, everyone has healthcare. The infant mortality rate is lower than in much of the US. It's a socialist paradise that has been persecuted by America since the Bay of Pigs. The claim is outlandish. People vote with their feet and the immigration rate to Cuba is negative.
I believe everyone should try to do their own research on a subject and not take someone else's word for it. You ought to read a chapter or two of Noam (that's about all it should take). But, as I said, you can sum all his writing up as 'It's America's fault - Israel too - and Cuba is a Socialist Paradise.
As I mentioned Israel, here is another post from the following year (2007) where Chomsky - who is Jewish - sides with the enemies of Israel:
Noam Chomsky (PhD in Linguistics) has gone to Lebanon to confer with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. After a chat, Noam had the following deep thoughts:
“I think that Nasrallah has a reasoned argument and a persuasive argument that they (the weapons) should be in the hands of Hizbollah as a deterrent to potential aggression and there is plenty of background and reasons for that. So, I think his position, if I am reporting it correctly, and it seems to be a reasonable position, is that until there is a general political settlement in the region and the threat of aggression and violence is reduced or eliminated, there has to be a deterrent.”
As I said in an earlier blog on Noam, he has a way of phrasing things to sound reasonable. He makes outrageous claims that don’t seem outrageous because he surrounds them in equivocating phrases like ‘if I am reporting correctly’ or ‘seems to be.’ To use the old expression, Noam just loves to ‘beat around the bush.’ Let us try to dissect Noam’s statement and find what claims there are to evaluate.
1. Hizbollah should have weapons to deter aggression
2. There are historical reasons for Hizbollah to be armed
3. Weapons should be retained until there is a political settlement
Of course, Noam has failed to mention who Hizbollah must deter but the answer is clearly Israel. Israel occupied southern Lebanon twice so that would be the ‘plenty of background’ to which Noam refers. An armed Hizbollah will ‘deter aggression’ from Israel. Though both these points presume Israel as the aggressor rather than reacting to aggression, one can defend claims 1 and 2. Claim 3 falls apart when one examines Nasrallah’s stated intentions toward Israel:
“There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel. Peace settlements will not change reality, which is that Israel is the enemy and that it will never be a neighbor or a nation.”
Now, I found this with astonishing ease by merely looking up Hezbollah online but Noam apparently believes that Nasrallah only wants weapons until there is a ‘general political settlement.’ The settlement that Nasrallah intends is the destruction of Israel, as is clear from his own statements. Either Noam agrees that Israel should be destroyed or he is a witless dupe who failed to do any research – like I said, it was astonishingly easy to find Nasrallah’s stated views.
It is of note that Hezbollah sided with Syria (another nation that long occupied Lebanon but received no where near as much grief about it as Israel) during the Cedar Revolution, that they are funded by Iran (whose president has echoed Nasrallah’s views on Israel), and that they are in violation of UN resolution 1559 that required them to disarm. It takes someone as brilliant as Noam Chomsky to view Nasrallah/Hizbollah as the reasonable party in the Middle East.
To Chomsky, America and Israel are the bad actors in the world while everyone else is just an innocent victim of the policies of these two countries.
