Chomsky nails it

[Joseph Tracy]

What is Chomsky failing to see or listen to?

The point is that the US and Israel retain the right to use violence in their own interests, but want to single out Palestinians as those who have no such rights. As far as Obama calling for no violence from all sides this is not credible. Give me an instance of a consequence for Israel's use of violence. And are you really going to contend that Israel has never abused their military power. Was Gaza legitimate?

Also several nations are quite exemplary in their restraint of military and police power.  Do I need to make a list? 

What Chomsky is saying is !00% valid. There is no call by Obama to  Israel or the US for a "renunciation" of violence. Quite the reverse. Our pretexts and weapons and legitimizations for violence expand every year. 


On May 19, 2011, at 1:23 PM, Mark Kohut wrote:

> this is a perfect example of how Chomsky judges without even listening or seeing....
>  
> Under his definition of 'violence' , no nation escapes whipping, as Hamlet would say.
>  
> Obama spoke of the need for no violence from all sides...(Of course, since we are committing some in supposedly defending ourselves,
> Chomsky can condemn as if moral equivalence is another hypocrisy).
>  
> Hamas wants to be at the negotiating table with a nation that they declare should not exist and want to destroy. And that is the same as
> Israel "occupying" Palestinian lands....not.
Israel wants to destroy Hamas and killed over thousand mostly civilian Gazans to collectively punish them for electing Hamas. 
>  
> Once again, as I said when Chomsky spoke as if THE TALIBAN were to be believed--they offered to 'turn bin Laden over w evidence--- over any other country, Chomsky sides here with self-proclaimed terrorist organizations---Hamas, The Muslim Brotherhood--- as morally equal to nation states subjecting themselves to internatioanl law at least...
Hamas is not a self proclaimed terrorist organization. When did they proclaim themselves terrorists?
You're making stuff up.

Neither the US nor Israel abides by international law.  And beside this, nation states have a long history of lawless violence that is far from over(Iraq). 
>  
> Wrong again. Very wrong. 
> 
> From: Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net>
> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
> Sent: Thu, May 19, 2011 12:55:32 PM
> Subject: Chomsky nails it
> 
> A headline from Democracy Now
> 
> President Obama is scheduled to deliver an address today billed by aides as his most important on the Middle East since his speech in Cairo in June 2009. Obama is expected to announce billions of dollars in aid for Egypt and Tunisia following criticism of U.S. support for both countries’ former long-term heads of state. A U.S. official said Obama will announce "a single standard," including the renunciation of violence for groups including Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and others seeking engagement with the United States. In response, the MIT linguist and political analyst Noam Chomsky said: "It follows that the U.S. will no longer engage with Israel, which has long relied on violence to impose its will and has highly discriminatory laws and practices targeting [Palestinians]. And the U.S. will not engage with itself, given its longstanding commitment to violence to impose the domestic arrangements of its choice, including political change. Since Obama doesn’t mean that, the 'single standard' is just more of the familiar deceptive rhetoric."
> 
> This is the essence of the Chomsky critique; simply reverse the stated standard of behavior and apply it to those in power. Not sophisticated, not reliant on obscure philosophical premises- just good old fashioned do what you say. 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20110519/dac35068/attachment.html>