After denied entry to West Bank, Chomsky likens Israel to 'Stalinist regime'

Brown Bomber

A nation gone mad? Could Chomsky a Jewish, American intellectual be considered an immediate threat to Israel's security. Hardly, therefore it is an illegal act by Israel to curtail his freedom of speech. Not the behaviour to be expected from the "only democracy in the ME". Chomsky himself compares Israel to the "Stalinist regime" - http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/after-denied-entry-to-west-bank-chomsky-likens-israel-to-stalinist-regime-1.290736

Its not just outspoken critics they put in the "them" camp either. Recently they turned refused entry to a Spanish clown of all people, Ivan Prado, who had planned to hold an international clown festival in Ramallah.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/israel-s-security-measures-don-t-make-me-laugh-1.289150

Its not just Israel that Israel-firsters want to keep people out of.

High-profile attorney and former AIPAC executive director Neal Shar is attempting to prevent Judge Richard Goldstone (of the Goldstone Report) from entering.
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=175557

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Banned Account

Is this the same Chomsky who was an outright supporter of pol pot? He does seem to have a habit of being controversial.

Exile 1798

The headline is a sensationalist stretch of Chomsky's actual statement.

In a telephone conversation last night from Amman, Chomsky told Haaretz that he concluded from the questions of the Israeli official that the fact that he came to lecture at a Palestinian and not an Israeli university led to the decision to deny him entry. "I find it hard to think of a similar case, in which entry to a person is denied because he is not lecturing in Tel Aviv. Perhaps only in Stalinist regimes," Chomsky told Haaretz. ....

Chomsky told Haaretz that it was clear that his arrival had been known to the authorities, because the minute he entered the passport control room the official told him that he was honored to see him and that he had read his works.

The professor concluded that the officer was a student, and said he looked embarrassed at the task at hand, especially when he began reading from text the questions that had been dictated to him, and which were also told to him later by telephone.

Chomsky told Haaretz about the questions.

"The official asked me why I was lecturing only at Bir Zeit and not an Israeli university," Chomsky recalled. "I told him that I have lectured a great deal in Israel. The official read the following statement: 'Israel does not like what you say.'"

Chomsky replied: "Find one government in the world which does."

"The young man asked me whether I had ever been denied entry into other countries. I told him that once, to Czechoslovakia, after the Soviet invasion in 1968," he said, adding that he had gone to visit ousted Czechoslovak leader Alexander Dubcek, whose reforms the Soviets crushed.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/after-denied-entry-to-west-bank-chomsky-likens-israel-to-stalinist-regime-1.290736

Clearly he was not saying Israel is a Stalinist country, but that their actions in the case are reminiscent of those taken by former Soviet States.

karma_

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

Is this the same Chomsky who was an outright supporter of pol pot? He does seem to have a habit of being controversial.

Maybe you should read the whole story?

I would ask the listener whether he harbours any guilt for having supported Hitler and the Holocaust and insisting the Jews be sent to extermination camps. It has the same answer. Since it never happened, I obviously can't have any guilt for it. He's just repeating propaganda he heard. If you ask him, you'll discover that he never read one word I wrote. Try it. What I wrote was, and I don't have any apologies for it because it was accurate, I took the position that Pol Pot was a brutal monster, from the beginning was carrying out hideous atrocities, but the West, for propaganda purposes, was creating and inventing immense fabrications for its own political goals and not out of interest for the people of Cambodia. And my colleague and I with whom I wrote all this stuff simply ran through the list of fanatic lies that were being told and we took the most credible sources, which happened to be US intelligence, who knew more than anyone else. And we said US intelligence is probably accurate. In retrospect, that turns out to be correct, US intelligence was probably accurate. I think we were the only ones who quoted it. The fabrications were fabrications and should be eliminated. In fact, we also discussed, and I noticed nobody ever talks about this, we discussed fabrications against the US. For example a standard claim in the major works was that the US bombings had killed 600,000 people in 1973. We looked at the data and decided it was probably 200,000. So we said let's tell the truth about it. It's a crime, but it's not like anything you said. It's interesting that nobody ever objects to that. When we criticize fabrications about US crimes, that's fine, when we criticize and in fact expose much worse fabrications about some official enemy, that's horrible, it becomes apologetics. We should learn something about ourselves. If you're interested in the truth, which you ought to be, tell the truth about yourself and tell the truth about others. These fabrications had an obvious political purpose. Incidentally, we continually criticize the Khmer Rouge after the Vietnamese invasion. After the Vietnamese invasion, which finally threw them out thankfully, the US and Britain immediately turned to support Pol Pot. Well, we criticized that, too, we said, no, you shouldn't be supporting this monster. So yes, our position was consistent throughout. There's been a huge literature trying to show that there was something wrong in what we said. To my knowledge, nobody's even found a comma that's misplaced. And therefore what you have is immense gossip. My guess is that the person who just wrote this in has never seen anything we wrote, but has heard a lot of gossip about it

Manach

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

As someone who enjoys the writings of Alan Dershowitz, I'd have a certain view of Mr. Chomsky. However, this action of the Israeli state does strike me as a blunder. As for Stalin, offhand I'd disagree with how he handled Western intellectuals. In the case of the Webbs, they were treated to a Potemkin style tour of the USSR and returned to the West as fervant propagandists. For all that might be said of Mr. Chomsky, I would not reckon he'd be so mis-informed.

wes

Some of the people Israel have turned away has been rather puzzling.

I would also like to point out that Chomsky was going to the West Bank, and Israel should have no right to block anyone from entering there. They certainly have the right to block people coming into Israel, but doing so in the West Bank, even if in this instance it is a "mistake", is simply wrong imho, and another example of Israel complete control over Palestinian land.

Brown Bomber

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Chomsky's response -

There was no basis for any misunderstanding. It was a decision by the Ministry of The Interior

donegalfella wrote: »

If Israel were actually a "Stalinist" regime, Chomsky would be rotting in an unmarked grave by now. There's a difference.

Yes, there is a difference. There is also a similarity.

wes

These kind of "blunders" seem to increasingly common in Israel. Let not forget another "blunder" blamed on a low level flunky, when Israel embarrsed US Vice President Joe Biden. Seems to me that Israel is making excuses for there actions, and trying to blame it on random low level beauracrats. There are only so many times they can use that excuse, before people start calling them on it.

Banned Account

karma_ wrote: »

Maybe you should read the whole story?

You should try cutting and pasting the preceding text from the wikipedia article also.;)

Brown Bomber

I wonder if he had his luggage by him at all times.

This South African investigative report exposes El Al security as Shin Bet agents
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POWvgcKWg-U&feature=related

A whistleblower confirms that after taking South African based ME expert Virginia Tilley into custody she was removed from her luggage and her personal files were photocopied and sent to Israel.

"And the decision was she should be checked in the harshest possible way; because of her connections"

A lower profile case but somewhat similar.

Part 1 if anyone is interested: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGwBXIPUW5E&feature=related

BluePlanet

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

You should try cutting and pasting the preceding text from the wikipedia article also.;)

What, it's pretty clear he doesn't support Pol Pot so do you actually have a point?

Banned Account

BluePlanet wrote: »

What, it's pretty clear he doesn't support Pol Pot so do you actually have a point?

No, not at all - please feel free to continue with the selective editing and parsing that Chomsky himself warns against.:rolleyes:

karma_

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

You should try cutting and pasting the preceding text from the wikipedia article also.;)

Article? that is a direct Chomsky quote. I really should not have to point that out to you.

Banned Account

karma_ wrote: »

Article? that is a direct Chomsky quote.

Which you cut and pasted from where?????

karma_

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

Which you cut and pasted from where?????

Look, you are just rambling now.

That quote appears on many websites. Maybe you should just do a quick google search to confirm that rather than chasing your own tail on here.

It's not from an article, it is Chomsky's response to the same allegation that you brought up, with no evidence might I add.

Banned Account

karma_ wrote: »

Look, you are just rambling now.

That quote appears on many websites. Maybe you should just do a quick google search to confirm that rather than chasing your own tail on here.

It's not from an article, it is Chomsky's response to the same allegation that you brought up, with no evidence might I add.

May I ask you why Chomsky felt the need to issue that response in the first place, do you not accept that in a couple of publications he may have given the impression that the full brutality of pol pot's regime was manipulated by the US?

It is easy to issue a statement after the fact saying "what I meant was ..." just as it is also easy to paste selective quotes on an internet forum without acknowledging that there may be another side to the story, another interpretation of events.

karma_

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

May I ask you why Chomsky felt the need to issue that response in the first place, do you not accept that in a couple of publications he may have given the impression that the full brutality of pol pot's regime was manipulated by the US?

It is easy to issue a statement after the fact saying "what I meant was ..." just as it is also easy to paste selective quotes on an internet forum without acknowledging that there may be another side to the story, another interpretation of events.

you should pay particular attention to this part;

My guess is that the person who just wrote this in has never seen anything we wrote, but has heard a lot of gossip about it

Banned Account

karma_ wrote: »

you should pay particular attention to this part;

Would you be making assumptions by any chance?

karma_

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

Would you be making assumptions by any chance?

OK then, go ahead and get a piece of something he wrote or said that backs up your point. Your talking the talk but your not walking the walk.

BluePlanet

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

May I ask you why Chomsky felt the need to issue that response in the first place, do you not accept that in a couple of publications he may have given the impression that the full brutality of pol pot's regime was manipulated by the US?

What's this, trying to move the goalposts and hope no one notices huh?
Here's what you said:

Is this the same Chomsky who was an outright supporter of pol pot?

Now, when being brought to book, you waffle about giving the impression that the US manipulated Pol Pot's brutality.

What a JOKE!

Banned Account

To both of you, may I respectfully suggest that you get your hands on Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, After the Cataclysm. The Political Economy of Human Rights, Vol. 2. Boston: South End Press, and Montreal: Black Rose Press, 1979

paying particular attention to pages 130 through to around 150 ish in there you will find he argues along the following lines;

He first begins to dilute the reality of Pol Pot's crimes, and actually asks "In the first place, is it proper to attribute deaths from famine and disease to the Cambodian authorities?" (convieniently ignoring the fact that those very authorities caused the famine and disease, by evacuating the cities.

He further says, "Or, one might wonder, how can it be that a population so oppressed by a handful of fanatics does not rise up to overthrow them?" According to this logic, there should be no oppressed people anywhere - they all would have overthrown their oppressors surely? I am perfectly entitled, given the fact that the man is obviously not stupid, to conclude his question is biased.

You see, to me, this specific writing indicates that at the time, Chomsky's anti-americanism had coloured him to the point that he was outrightly lending his support to pol pot's regime of course that is my opinion and others may think that this is merely suggestive. After the fact, he simmered down somewhat and qualified his earlier thinkings.

Few people have read the above text (funnily enough it seems to be forgotten about:rolleyes:) but as I have said - feel free, I can post a copy if you wish, but i'd like it back.

BluePlanet

Passages probably taken out of context.

If that is the best you can do to prove your point, you'd have been better to stay quiet.

really.

Banned Account

BluePlanet wrote: »

Passages probably taken out of context.

If that is the best you can do to prove your point, you'd have been better to stay quiet.

really.

oh dear lord are you actually saying, without having any knowledge of the text that i am probably not right so I should be quiet? Please read the book - I quite like Chomsky and agree with much of his thinking but by God do his fanatics have issues with accepting the impossibility of infallibility.

Exile 1798

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

To both of you, may I respectfully suggest that you get your hands on Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, After the Cataclysm. The Political Economy of Human Rights, Vol. 2. Boston: South End Press, and Montreal: Black Rose Press, 1979

paying particular attention to pages 130 through to around 150 ish in there you will find he argues along the following lines;

He first begins to dilute the reality of Pol Pot's crimes, and actually asks "In the first place, is it proper to attribute deaths from famine and disease to the Cambodian authorities?" (convieniently ignoring the fact that those very authorities caused the famine and disease, by evacuating the cities.

He further says, "Or, one might wonder, how can it be that a population so oppressed by a handful of fanatics does not rise up to overthrow them?" According to this logic, there should be no oppressed people anywhere - they all would have overthrown their oppressors surely? I am perfectly entitled, given the fact that the man is obviously not stupid, to conclude his question is biased.

You see, to me, this specific writing indicates that at the time, Chomsky's anti-americanism had coloured him to the point that he was outrightly lending his support to pol pot's regime of course that is my opinion and others may think that this is merely suggestive. After the fact, he simmered down somewhat and qualified his earlier thinkings.

Few people have read the above text (funnily enough it seems to be forgotten about:rolleyes:) but as I have said - feel free, I can post a copy if you wish, but i'd like it back.

Those are interesting questions. However, that doesn't come anywhere near supporting your original assertion.

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

Is this the same Chomsky who was an outright supporter of pol pot? He does seem to have a habit of being controversial.

Do you stand by this outlandish falsehood?

karma_

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

oh dear lord are you actually saying, without having any knowledge of the text that i am probably not right so I should be quiet? Please read the book - I quite like Chomsky and agree with much of his thinking but by God do his fanatics have issues with accepting the impossibility of infallibility.

Both of quotes are questions. Not conclusions.

How can a question without a conclusion be biased?

Banned Account

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Do you stand by this outlandish falsehood?

Yes, and I will debate the issue with anyone who has read the text in question.

Banned Account

karma_ wrote: »

Both of quotes are questions. Not conclusions.

How can a question without a conclusion be biased?

There are rhetorical questions - please read the text.

karma_

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

There are rhetorical questions - please read the text.

They may be but they go no where near legitimising your original statements that he was an outright supporter of pol pot.

Now, if as you say your ready to debate wether he was;

an outright supporter of pol pot?

then please post something that proves it rather than rhetorical questions.

I contest that you can't infact do that.

Exile 1798

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

Yes, and I will debate the issue with anyone who has read the text in question.

Well, I would assume that if you had texts that supported your assertion you would have actually quoted them.

Instead what you quoted came no where near to supporting your accusation that "Chomsky.... was an outright supporter of pol pot"

Further I think it's safe to assume that if Chomsky was an "outright supporter of Pol Pot" then it would be quite common and easily obtainable knowledge. Your idea that this information is contained in this one book and know one can doubt you until they read it seems a bit silly.

Appropriate that such a distortion of facts should take place in a thread based on a Haaretz title which itself was quite an manipulation of words and truth. But it should serve as a lesson to everyone: Don't automatically assume that views attributed to someone are true.

karma_

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Well, I would assume that if you had texts that supported your assertion you would have actually quoted them.

Instead what you quoted came no where near to supporting your accusation that "Chomsky.... was an outright supporter of pol pot"

Further I think it's safe to assume that if Chomsky was an "outright supporter of Pol Pot" then it would be quite common and easily obtainable knowledge. Your idea that this information is contained in this one book and know one can doubt you until they read it seems a bit silly.

Appropriate that such a distortion of facts should take place in a thread based on a Haaretz title which itself was quite an manipulation of words and truth. But it should serve as a lesson to everyone: Don't automatically assume that views attributed to someone are true.

Well you see, those opinions aren't even those of Fitzcaraldo they are that of George Jochnowitz.

original piece by Jochnowitz;

In order to minimize the extent of Pol Pot's crimes, Chomsky asks, "In the first place, is it proper to attribute deaths from famine and disease to the Cambodian authorities?" 8 It is quite proper if those very authorities caused the famine and disease, which they did by evacuating the cities. He also asks, "Or, one might wonder, how can it be that a population so oppressed by a handful of fanatics does not rise up to overthrow them?" 9 If he were stupid, one could understand the question. According to Chomsky's logic, there should be no oppressed people anywhere, since they all would have overthrown their oppressors.

which is very similar to what Fitzcaraldo posted.

Banned Account

karma_ wrote: »

then please post something that proves it rather than rhetorical questions.

I contest that you can't infact do that.

Please read the text and then answer some of the points raised below. It is futile for you to attempt to do so if you have not read the text - whay are you defending a text you have not read.

On Cambodia, Chomsky and Herman produce some extraordinary apologetics for the Khmer Rouge, offering a figure of only 25,000 killed and claiming that the bloodbath has been exaggerated by a “factor of 100” (p. 139). They rely on accounts of stage-managed official visits undertaken by credulous Western fellow-travellers, while dismissing the evidence of the victims, on the basis that refugee reports are compromised by “extreme bias” in their selection by the media (pp. 147-8). They reject any parallel between the killing fields and Nazi Germany, asking whether “a more appropriate comparison is, say, to France after liberation,” where tens of thousands of collaborators were massacred “with far less motive for revenge” (p. 149). They complain that “allegations of genocide” are being used “to whitewash Western imperialism,” to distract attention from the “the expanding system of subfascism” and to lay the ideological basis for further Western intervention (pp. 149-50).


Chomsky and Herman ridicule the idea that the people are “suffering in misery under a savage oppressor bent on genocide,” a notion disproved by “common sense” (pp. 151-2). They argue that if the population is being slaughtered, one would expect “unwillingness to fight for the Paris-educated fanatics at the top,” whereas the record indicates that the Cambodian people “have not exactly been awaiting liberation from their oppressors” (p. 156). They suggest that the killers “may actually have saved many lives” (p. 160). Echoing the ideology of the Khmer Rouge, they denounce the country’s “urban society” as “a colonial implantation,” which the perpetrators “know only as a murderer and a remote oppressor,” and thus plainly deserves its fate (p. 290). In their eyes, the atrocities are a “direct and understandable response to the violence of the imperial system,” a suggestion that readers may well interpret as an explicit justification for mass murder (p. 291).


Equally noteworthy is the authors’ use of source material. Having conceded that the work of Khmer Rouge critic Francois Ponchaud is “serious” and deserves “careful study” (p. 253), they proceed to denounce him for his “careless and untrustworthy” writing (p. 274), his “petty deceit” (p. 280), his “highly unreliable” book (p. 282), etc. These scruples disappear, however, when the authors rely on Khmer Rouge apologists such as Michael Vickery (pp. 215-22), Ben Kiernan(pp. 226-30), or Shane Tarr (pp. 235-40), let alone Gareth Porter and George Hildebrand, whose “carefully documented” study [7] has been “almost entirely ignored” by reviewers and journalists (pp. 284-5) - perhaps because it was based largely on official Khmer Rouge propaganda statements.


The alert reader will detect countless falsifications of facts and evidence in these pages. Perhaps the most striking example is the libel of Cambodian refugee Pin Yathay, whose classic memoir [8] offers a detailed account of the unimaginable horrors of the Khmer Rouge dictatorship, which wiped out his family. Chomsky and Herman refer, without further discussion, to a letter in a foreign newspaper that defames Yathay as a CIA-sponsored drug dealer (pp. 143-4). Needless to say, no supporting evidence whatsoever is offered for this scurrilous allegation from an anonymous source, which the authors uncritically deploy for the purpose of smearing a bereaved father and genocide survivor.


As Stephen J. Morris has noted, the object of this disgraceful exercise cannot be to convince the reader that the arguments offered are actually true. Rather, the goal is to affect the reader’s emotional attitude, by dulling his or her sense of outrage on contemplating millions of tortured and mutilated corpses brought about by the radical movement that campaigned for a communist victory in Indochina. In this task, the book is eminently successful, not unlike the works of Holocaust denial that serve as its echo and mirror image.

karma_

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

Please read the text and then answer some of the points raised below. It is futile for you to attempt to do so if you have not read the text - whay are you defending a text you have not read.

On Cambodia, Chomsky and Herman produce some extraordinary apologetics for the Khmer Rouge, offering a figure of only 25,000 killed and claiming that the bloodbath has been exaggerated by a “factor of 100” (p. 139). They rely on accounts of stage-managed official visits undertaken by credulous Western fellow-travellers, while dismissing the evidence of the victims, on the basis that refugee reports are compromised by “extreme bias” in their selection by the media (pp. 147-8). They reject any parallel between the killing fields and Nazi Germany, asking whether “a more appropriate comparison is, say, to France after liberation,” where tens of thousands of collaborators were massacred “with far less motive for revenge” (p. 149). They complain that “allegations of genocide” are being used “to whitewash Western imperialism,” to distract attention from the “the expanding system of subfascism” and to lay the ideological basis for further Western intervention (pp. 149-50).


Chomsky and Herman ridicule the idea that the people are “suffering in misery under a savage oppressor bent on genocide,” a notion disproved by “common sense” (pp. 151-2). They argue that if the population is being slaughtered, one would expect “unwillingness to fight for the Paris-educated fanatics at the top,” whereas the record indicates that the Cambodian people “have not exactly been awaiting liberation from their oppressors” (p. 156). They suggest that the killers “may actually have saved many lives” (p. 160). Echoing the ideology of the Khmer Rouge, they denounce the country’s “urban society” as “a colonial implantation,” which the perpetrators “know only as a murderer and a remote oppressor,” and thus plainly deserves its fate (p. 290). In their eyes, the atrocities are a “direct and understandable response to the violence of the imperial system,” a suggestion that readers may well interpret as an explicit justification for mass murder (p. 291).


Equally noteworthy is the authors’ use of source material. Having conceded that the work of Khmer Rouge critic Francois Ponchaud is “serious” and deserves “careful study” (p. 253), they proceed to denounce him for his “careless and untrustworthy” writing (p. 274), his “petty deceit” (p. 280), his “highly unreliable” book (p. 282), etc. These scruples disappear, however, when the authors rely on Khmer Rouge apologists such as Michael Vickery (pp. 215-22), Ben Kiernan(pp. 226-30), or Shane Tarr (pp. 235-40), let alone Gareth Porter and George Hildebrand, whose “carefully documented” study [7] has been “almost entirely ignored” by reviewers and journalists (pp. 284-5) - perhaps because it was based largely on official Khmer Rouge propaganda statements.


The alert reader will detect countless falsifications of facts and evidence in these pages. Perhaps the most striking example is the libel of Cambodian refugee Pin Yathay, whose classic memoir [8] offers a detailed account of the unimaginable horrors of the Khmer Rouge dictatorship, which wiped out his family. Chomsky and Herman refer, without further discussion, to a letter in a foreign newspaper that defames Yathay as a CIA-sponsored drug dealer (pp. 143-4). Needless to say, no supporting evidence whatsoever is offered for this scurrilous allegation from an anonymous source, which the authors uncritically deploy for the purpose of smearing a bereaved father and genocide survivor.


As Stephen J. Morris has noted, the object of this disgraceful exercise cannot be to convince the reader that the arguments offered are actually true. Rather, the goal is to affect the reader’s emotional attitude, by dulling his or her sense of outrage on contemplating millions of tortured and mutilated corpses brought about by the radical movement that campaigned for a communist victory in Indochina. In this task, the book is eminently successful, not unlike the works of Holocaust denial that serve as its echo and mirror image.

Now your just quoting swathes of text from Paul Bogdanor who is obsessed with Chomsky.

BluePlanet

So we should believe George Jochnowitz's opinions about Chomsky's views on Pol Pot rather then what Chomsky says himself?

Nodin

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

Please read (.......)image.

It's normal to use quotation marks/quote tags and links to properly accredit other peoples material.

Banned Account

BluePlanet wrote: »

So we should believe George Jochnowitz's opinions about Chomsky's views on Pol Pot rather then what Chomsky says himself?

Don't forget that what Chomsky said, was said after the original text was written justifications after the fact should be taken in the context in whaich they are made.

As for the above comment re: posting swathes of articles - does this make the point raiesd less vaild?

I note that you have still not confirmed that any of you have actually read the text in question. I will nail my colours to the mast and say that I have. I would stake a lot on the fact that you will find it hard to justify much of what was written if you would actually read the taext itself.

Like I said, I agree with much of Chomsky's writing - but he was just plain wrong on this one - plain wrong.

Scofflaw

While it's a pleasure to see robust and fast-paced debate, what does any of this have to do with the OP?

moderately,
Scofflaw

Banned Account

Nodin wrote: »

It's normal to use quotation marks/quote tags and links to properly accredit other peoples material.

Ah, so you are pulling me on braech of scholarly etiquette standards in a forum where posters are defending texts they have not read? Why not just paste the quote into google - it'll show you who it is from.

BluePlanet

Scofflaw wrote: »

While it's a pleasure to see robust and fast-paced debate, what does any of this have to do with the OP?

moderately,
Scofflaw

Well insofar as i can tell, according to Fitzcaraldo, unbeknownst to most the world, Chomsky was actually an outright supporter of Pol Pot, and I guess this has some relevance to why we shouldn't empathise with him regarding getting refused entry to Palestine.

Banned Account

BluePlanet wrote: »

Well insofar as i can tell, according to Fitzcaraldo, unbeknownst to most the world, Chomsky was actually an outright supporter of Pol Pot, and I guess this has some relevance to why we shouldn't empathise with him regarding getting refused entry to Palestine.

Yep, that's pretty much it in a nutshell.

Scofflaw

So it's a sort of extended ad hominem - Noam Chomsky is a bad person, therefore it's OK that Israel can deny him entry to the West Bank, even though the question of his support or not for Pol Pot was never raised by Israel?

I'm not seeing relevance here.

moderately,
Scofflaw

OhNoYouDidn't

Scofflaw wrote: »

So it's a sort of extended ad hominem - Noam Chomsky is a bad person, therefore it's OK that Israel can deny him entry to the West Bank, even though the question of his support or not for Pol Pot was never raised by Israel?

I'm not seeing relevance here.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Well said. I don't care about somones interpretation of an academics position of 30 years ago. I care about a state that proffesses to be a western democracy denying travel to a neigbhouring country to a world renknowned academic on the basis he is a 'threat'

Banned Account

Scofflaw wrote: »

So it's a sort of extended ad hominem - Noam Chomsky is a bad person, therefore it's OK that Israel can deny him entry to the West Bank, even though the question of his support or not for Pol Pot was never raised by Israel?

I'm not seeing relevance here.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Not quite, my initial post was that it is rational to expect that someone who regularly courts controversy shouldn't be so surprised when he is greeted with a controversial decision. I do acknowledge that the thread went somewhat off topic after this though.

Scofflaw

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

Not quite, my initial post was that it is rational to expect that someone who regularly courts controversy shouldn't be so surprised when he is greeted with a controversial decision. I do acknowledge that the thread went somewhat off topic after this though.

Dropping the mod hat for the moment, then - so you'd say that if someone courts controversy, they are fair game for 'controversial decisions'? Someone who, say, draws attention to planning abuse in Ireland should not be surprised if they are 'controversially' denied a State pension, perhaps? Someone who draws attention to human rights issues shouldn't be surprised if they are 'controversially' thrown in prison?

Perhaps, at that, they shouldn't be surprised - but surely the question is not whether Chomsky was surprised (was he even surprised?) but whether it's right that someone who courts controversy should be subject to controversial decisions by States that are supposed to be democratic, transparent, and law-abiding. I wouldn't be surprised to hear of an arbitrary decision by Zimbabwe, but I would be surprised to hear of such an action by, say, Finland.

Indeed, to describe the decision as 'not surprising' actually suggests a view of Israel as implicitly vindictive - which surely you're arguing against? Or are you merely arguing that Israel is entitled to be vindictive?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

BluePlanet

And now a defender of Israel refers to that state as a "wasp's nest".
Strange.
Do you mean if you "mess" with Israel you get stung?
Is that your comparision?

How does Chomsky "mess" with Israel other than by using words, both spoken and written on paper.
And yet, you lament reporters without borders, and pretend that you believe in freedom of speech.

But it's really only the speech that you agree with right?
Afterall Chomsky uses speech that you dont, therefore he's fair game to get stung by your wasps.

karma_

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I doubt Chomsky cares if he is sympathised with or not, I think he is highlighting the pettiness of the decision, and in this instance he is correct. I'm therefore at a loss to see what the problem is.

Banned Account

Scofflaw wrote: »

Dropping the mod hat for the moment, then - so you'd say that if someone courts controversy, they are fair game for 'controversial decisions'? Someone who, say, draws attention to planning abuse in Ireland should not be surprised if they are 'controversially' denied a State pension, perhaps? Someone who draws attention to human rights issues shouldn't be surprised if they are 'controversially' thrown in prison?

Perhaps, at that, they shouldn't be surprised - but surely the question is not whether Chomsky was surprised (was he even surprised?) but whether it's right that someone who courts controversy should be subject to controversial decisions by States that are supposed to be democratic, transparent, and law-abiding. I wouldn't be surprised to hear of an arbitrary decision by Zimbabwe, but I would be surprised to hear of such an action by, say, Finland.

Indeed, to describe the decision as 'not surprising' actually suggests a view of Israel as implicitly vindictive - which surely you're arguing against? Or are you merely arguing that Israel is entitled to be vindictive?

cordially,
Scofflaw

You are correct to italicise the word surprise - this is what I was commenting on, not on whether the decision was right or not (in retrospect i should have just asked why he did not expect such a reaction this would have removed the issue of semantics). In relation to asking whether or not he was indeed surprised, I think perhaps not, looking at your point regarding democratic, transparent and law-abiding states, it may be more accurate to include Israel in the Zimbabwe camp than in the Finnish one.

I am certainly not arguing against the fact that Israel is not capable of being vindictive - I would robustly oppose it's continuing conduct in the west bank and flagrant and repeated breaches of human rights.

I do find it perplexing that you equate my views on Chomsky's Cambodian stance with being pro-Israel, or perhaps I am missing a point?

BluePlanet

It's bizarre.

Here is donegalfella, this outspoken self professed Libertarian, cheerleading a well known author getting refused entry into a city by a heavy handed Statist regime.

I mean, run that Chomsky-refused-at-border through your Libertarian rabbit hole and see what comes out.

Scofflaw

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

I do find it perplexing that you equate my views on Chomsky's Cambodian stance with being pro-Israel, or perhaps I am missing a point?

If I have come across as assuming that, I shouldn't have done! I'm only really interested in whether a controversialist should be subject to controversial decisions - there's no requirement that one have a particular stance on Israel (or Chomsky).

donegalfella wrote:

Chomsky's modus operandi is to poke at wasps' nests until he gets stung, and then howl loudly in the media about how oppressed he is. The guy has been doing this for years. Frankly, I have a lot more sympathy for actual victims of totalitarian repression than I do for an attention-seeking tenured professor at MIT.

And funnily enough, I have no sympathy for the howling either. But the existence of the howling doesn't change the question of whether arbitrary decisions of this kind are proper. After all, if we start taking the question of how controversial one is as being a guide to one's rights, then I think it's pretty clear we're on a downward trajectory in terms of freedom!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Banned Account

Personally, I don't thisnk such decisions are correct and I think Israel would have done itself a bigger favour by allowing the man passage. My real point is that if you spend your life inhabiting the margins that Chomsky does, you should expect that those you criticise for being irrational and vindictive will react in an irrational and vindictive manner.

Whether this is right or wrong is a completely different animal and I don't want to de-rail this thread again.