Home        Back        Log in

Alison Weir interviews Noam Chomsky on the Israel Lobby Question by Jay Knott (07/13/10)       ⇌ (Israel and the US)       

Whereas Chomsky is overrated as a political leader on the left, his actual contribution to humanity is less well unknown. In 1959, Chomsky discovered that competency in language is already programmed in a newborn baby's brain. Chomsky's finding is among the most important scientific discoveries of the twentieth century - and I am aware that this is quite a claim.  But the implications of this insight did not fit in with the leftist orthodoxy then emerging, which in a nutshell favored nurture over nature, a false dichotomy, in explaining human beings and their societies:

cogprints.org/1148/1/chomsky.htm

Because he is so brilliant, when he uses his fame to lead the left on a wild goose chase, I want to give him a hard time. Chomsky is a 'Lobby Denier' - he says that the Israel Lobby is not important in deciding US policy - the dog wags the tail - the USA supports Israel because it is in the interests of the US capitalist class. He uses left-wing dogma to dodge the evidence.

On July 10 2010, Alison Weir, on the radio for the Council for the National Interest, interviewed Chomsky. Jeff Blankfort, Chomsky's perennial nemesis on the Lobby question, called in and added his two cents. It was a great start for Alison in her new position as president of the Council for the National Interest.

The interview is available in four parts - click here

www.wsradio.com/internet-talk-radio.cfm/shows/CNI:-Jerusalem-Calling/archives/date/selected/07-08-2010.html

then click on each one of the links to
"The Many Aspects of the Palestinian Israeli Conflict, with Noam Chomsky".

Particularly devastating was when, after listening to the Great Man arguing that a boycott of Israel would harm the Palestinians because the Israel Lobby would be able to say a boycott of Israel is hypocritical, because the USA has committed more human rights violations, Weir asked how this was compatible with his dismissal of the importance of the Lobby. And, if the boycott would help the 'hard right' Zionists, as Chomsky claimed, why do they fear it and oppose it so vociferously?

Blankfort reiterated his frustration in trying to tackle Chomsky on his Zionism and the Lobby over several decades. Blankfort said that numerous Palestinian groups want Americans to boycott Israel as they boycotted South Africa, and he is annoyed to hear a left-wing Jewish American professor saying he knows better than them. At first, Chomsky said he was against those 'aspects' of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement which harm Palestinians, but more and more, it became clear that the Great Man believes this is true of all 'aspects' of that campaign.

He also claimed that his support for Zionism means 1940's Zionism, which he said was in favor of a 'bi-national' state, and that he is against a secular one-state solution, because it is unrealistic - neither party wants it - it's not like South Africa.

Remember Eugene Terre`Blanche? He was the most right-wing of the Afrikaaner leaders. He supported apartheid, and was not overly missed when he was murdered earlier this year (2010). The latest position defended by him and his party was a two-state solution - a small separate white state next to a large black one. Contrast this with Chomsky's 'binational' approach to Israel, or the US government's attempts to pressure Israel to accept a 'two-state' solution. Do we have a double standard, where attitudes we consider progressive in Jews, we call 'racism' in white Europeans?

Home        Back        Log in