Must Read Book - Absolutely Essential
torresD
Fateful Triangle:
The United States, Israel & the Palestinians, Updated Edition
Noam Chomsky
-------------------------------------------------------------
Noam Chomsky is a God among us.
Bernard Rooney
<csw78.1338$0E7.23...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>, "torresD"
<torr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I wouldnt say he was a god but after recently reading this updated
edition I agree it is essential reading.
The case he makes is irrefutable (it seems to me) and is a truly
devastating exposure and annihilation of longstanding US/Israeli
policy.
The world is turned on its head...
I wonder whether the likes of Oliver Kamm, Werner Cohn and zztop are
able to refute Chomsky's thesis, and why in fact they would bother?
Werner Cohn
b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au wrote on 2/6/02 12:18 AM:
The problem with God Chomsky's work is that his footnotes don't check out.
He obviously relies on his faithful followers not to bother checking his
documentation; if they did, they would no longer be his followers.
For help in tracking down Chomsky's counter-factual assertions and other
falsifications, see
http://wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html
http://wernercohn.com/ChomskyUpdate.html
http://wernercohn.com/Chomskydocs.html
Russil Wvong
> "torresD" <torr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Fateful Triangle:
> >The United States, Israel & the Palestinians, Updated Edition
>
> devastating exposure and annihilation of longstanding US/Israeli
> policy.
I posted a response on talk.politics.mideast:
groups.google.com/groups?selm=afe9ed76.0202051649.37f9137e%40posting.google.com
Russil Wvong
Vancouver, Canada
www.geocities.com/rwvong
Glenn W. Cooper
"Werner Cohn" <wern...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:B8862D32.19188%wern...@worldnet.att.net...
> The problem with God Chomsky's work is that his footnotes don't check out.
>
I had a look at your idiot essays. It's *your* "facts" that don't check out,
not Chomsky's.
Glenn C.
Dan Clore
I have checked Cohn's work as well. You are correct in your
assessment. See posts in the google archives for details if
you're interested.
--
Dan Clore
mailto:cl...@columbia-center.org
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord We˙rdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
News for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608
Bernard Rooney
<B8862D32.19188%wern...@worldnet.att.net>, Werner Cohn
<wern...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
well I have checked out you site briefly Werner and it does not make a
good impression.
"Has he perhaps tried to see something of both sides in the conflict
between Israel and the Palestinians, some merit, no matter how small,
in the cause of the Israeli people ? The answer, to put it bluntly, is
fat chance."
Its a gross misreading to think Chomsky doesnt see merit in the cause
of the Israeli people. I would say a distinguishing merit of his book
is precisely that he sees "merit" in the "cause" (or human rights) of
both Arabs and Israelis.
But to get to the main thesis of "Fateful Triangle". Chomsky argues
that the US/Israel have consistently followed a policy of rejectionism
since 1971. The facts shown make this thesis virtually irrefutable, as
I said. Is not this so?
Bernard Rooney
<afe9ed76.02020...@posting.google.com>,
russi...@yahoo.com (Russil Wvong) wrote:
>b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au (Bernard Rooney) wrote:
>> "torresD" <torr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >Fateful Triangle:
>> >The United States, Israel & the Palestinians, Updated Edition
>>
>> The case he makes is irrefutable (it seems to me) and is a truly
>> devastating exposure and annihilation of longstanding US/Israeli
>> policy.
>
>I posted a response on talk.politics.mideast:
>groups.google.com/groups?selm=afe9ed76.0202051649.37f9137e%40posting.google.com
In your article you say chomsky is not a reliable source of historical
information. I've commented on the article previously, you may have
seen it.
The other point you make is a quote from a reviewer who denies that
the PLO are willing to recognise the state of Israel. I suppose we
should take this as an admission that Israel will not recognise the
state of Palestine.
Chomsky provides plenty of evidence of the PLO willingness to
recognise Israel. If Chomsky's facts or evidence is wrong or
unreliable, point it out.
But it would also help the case if the PLO spoke for themselves. Where
are they? Do they not have a spokesperson who is available to
articulate the current PLO position on recognising Israel, and also
the historical position of the PLO on this question?
Werner Cohn
b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au wrote on 2/6/02 9:07 PM:
>
> well I have checked out you site briefly Werner and it does not make a
> good impression.
>
"I have checked your site briefly". Yes, that's the trouble. Bernard is
more forthright here than most Chomskyites, who claim to have studied my
writings in detail and to find them wanting. The truth is that I made a
thorough study of Chomsky's Triangle (first edition), looking up his
footnote references in detail, and showing, in detail, where Chomsky
misquotes his own sources, uses biased sources where more authoritative
sources are available, omits crucial facts (e.g. the pro-Nazi character of
the Mufti-led Palestinian movement during WWII), etc. etc. While my work has
been used to good effect by many people, I have not been able, as far as I
know, to reach the deep Chomskyites, from whom I have had nothing but abuse.
The problem is that Chomskyites, no more the Chomsky himself, like to apply
themselves to a study of history. They will do little that would take their
precious time away from their strenuous work of hate and abuse, on this
newsgroup and more generally wherever they can make their voices heard.
Werner Cohn
glenn...@austarnet.com.au wrote on 2/6/02 2:45 PM:
"idiot essays." This is a very typical example of how Chomskyites deal with
criticisms of their God: abuse and character assassination.
If you can read nothing else, at least read the shameful story of how
Chomsky promotes Israel Shahak:
Russil Wvong
> russi...@yahoo.com (Russil Wvong) wrote:
> >[Fateful Triangle]
> >I posted a response on talk.politics.mideast:
groups.google.com/groups?selm=afe9ed76.0202051649.37f9137e%40posting.google.com
> In your article you say chomsky is not a reliable source of historical
> information. I've commented on the article previously, you may have
> seen it.
Yes, thanks for your comments. I posted a response, and I'd be interested
in seeing your comments on the response.
groups.google.com/groups?selm=afe9ed76.0201280931.530d959%40posting.google.com
> The other point you make is a quote from a reviewer who denies that
> the PLO are willing to recognise the state of Israel.
No, actually. Margalit (writing in 1984) believed it was *true* that
the PLO was willing to recognize the state of Israel, but not *obvious*.
From what I can tell, there were pretty big splits within the PLO.
> I suppose we
> should take this as an admission that Israel will not recognise the
> state of Palestine.
Correct (as of 1984), although Margalit says that it's more complicated
than in Chomsky's portrayal.
According to Chomsky Israel presents a solid front to the
Palestinians, who seek an accommodation, while Israel responds
with total rejection. He believes that both the Labor Alignment
and the Likud are parties to this front, the only difference
between them being that the Alignment is more hypocritical, and
better able to camouflage its real intentions. The other dovish
groups in Israel, like Peace Now, also seem to Chomsky to be vague
and hesitant on the basic issue of the Palestinians; at any rate
Chomsky takes the position of Peace Now to be less "accommodative"
and more "rejectionist" than that of the PLO. consequently the
fashionable question of what is the Palestinian counterpart to
Israel's Peace Now seems to Chomsky false and hollow.
Is this how matters really stand today? In my view there are
distinct differences between the positions of the Likud, the
Alignment, and Peace Now. These can be shown by way of a
hypothetical questionnaire put to typical representatives of the
three groups, each of whom would be asked to rank in order the
following three possibilities. First, continuation of the status
quo. Second, returning most of the West Bank territory, except for
minor areas, to Jordan. Third, the creation of a Palestinian state
in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The typical member of Likud
would undoubtedly prefer the first option over the second: he
would not even consider the third. The typical member of the
Alignment would prefer the Jordanian option over the first, and
would have no hesitation in preferring the first to a Palestinian
state.
The typical Peace Now supporter regards the continuation of the
status quo as the worst of all three options. As for the other two
options, there is a division of opinion. Many of the tens of
thousands of people associated with Peace Now, mainly those who
are also affiliated with the labor movement, prefer the Jordanian
option; many others prefer the Palestinian option. A sizable
majority, however, regards the dichotomy between these two options
as fictitious. For them the solution is in the form of some
combination of Jordanian and Palestinian authority - call it a
federation or a confederation or whatever - where the degree of
cooperation between them will reflect their relative strength at
the time when the arrangement is reached. For such members of
Peace Now the obsessive preoccupation with the Palestinian and the
Jordanian solutions as being exhaustive and mutually exclusive is
more theological than political.
Be that as it may, Peace Now's opposition to the continuation of
the status quo is resolute. As for those within the Peace Now
movement who are divided between the Jordanian and the Palestinian
options, their feeling is that this difference of opinion does not
preclude political cooperation. The Peace Now members assume that
when they come to the bridge, if there is a bridge, they'll cross
it, together, one way or another. The government's position is
that when the Israelis come to the bridge of negotiations, they
will double-cross it, one way or another.
Such an account of the various shadings of mood in Israel
underscores the drawbacks of Chomsky's method. I refer
particularly to his method of viewing the world through newspaper
clippings. Chomky has not been to Israel since the early
1950s. Moreover, he seems to lack any kind of anthropological
curiosity about the people involved. His interest in the conflict
cannot even be accurately described as purely political. It is
fundamentally moral, based on a reading of printed sources. I
regard this as a limitation on his work, because behind the
written formulas there is a changing reality. Thus, for example,
according to Chomsky's description there is virtually no
difference between the position of the Labor party in Golda Meir's
time and its position today. Both then and now the position of
Labor for him is more or less accurately summarized by the Allon
Plan, which calls for the annexation by Israel of the Gaza Strip,
the Golan Heights, the Jordan Valley, and Greater Jerusalem. But
this is not quite true. There is a difference that is hard to
detect in the official formulas. Whereas in the past the Allon
Plan laid out, for the overriding majority in the Labor party, the
shape of the final settlement, I believe that for the majority
today it represents the opening move in future negotiations. And
this is a distinction that makes a difference.
Kant never visited England, yet he described with amazing
precision London's bridges over the Thames. Karl May was never in
America, and his accounts of the relations between American
Indians and white settlers were pure fantasy. Chomsky is certainly
not as fantaisiste as Karl May but he is also not Immanuel
Kant. It may be fair to add, though, that the situation in the
Middle East is less like those solid bridges over the Thames and
more like the ebb and flow of its water.
[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/5798]
> Chomsky provides plenty of evidence of the PLO willingness to
> recognise Israel. If Chomsky's facts or evidence is wrong or
> unreliable, point it out.
That's exactly what Margalit does in the quote I provided earlier:
he points out the contradictory evidence that Chomsky ignores, e.g.
The embarrassing answer to this question, however, was that Kadoumi
was the PLO's "foreign minister," while Sartawi was, one might say,
its Nahum Goldmann. Kadoumi, incidentally, in a Newsweek interview
in the fall of 1976, said the Israelis will eventually have to
accept the PLO plan for a secular democratic state even if they
have to crawl all the way from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in the process.
This statement does not appear in Chomsky's book.
Or, in a letter responding to Chomsky:
As for the PLO position, I do believe its general drift is toward
accommodation with Israel. Unlike Chomsky, I do not say "there is
no doubt about" it. Most of my doubts have to do with the period
previous to the PLO evacuation from Beirut. They derive from
statements like the following from the proposed political platform
that was adopted by the 4th Fatah Conference in May 1980:
The Fatah movement is a national revolutionary independence
movement whose goals are: the liberation of Palestine, a full
and complete liberation; the annihilation of the Zionist entity
in all of its economic, political, military, and cultural
manifestations; and the establishment of an independent
democratic Palestine which would rule the entire land of
Palestine.
Fatah is Arafat's organization.
> But it would also help the case if the PLO spoke for themselves. Where
> are they? Do they not have a spokesperson who is available to
> articulate the current PLO position on recognising Israel, and also
> the historical position of the PLO on this question?
john_z provided an interesting article on the historical evolution
of the PLO position from the Palestine-Israel Journal, by Hussam
Mohammad. The PLO gradually moved toward a two-state solution, first
implicitly (the 12th PNC meeting in 1974, which led to a Rejectionist
Front being established); then more explicitly, but as an intermediate
step (the 13th PNC meeting in 1977); and explicitly, with the militants
present, in November 1988.
The Likud's official policy of repression and colonization of
the occupied territories, the 1975 Lebanese civil war, the
1979 Camp David Accords and the subsequent expulsion of the PLO
from Beirut in 1982 all had a profound impact on PLO strategy
and future planning. These developments deprived the PLO of its
military option in dealing with Israel, shifted its interest to
diplomacy, and refocused its attention on the occupied territories
rather than on the whole of Palestine [i.e. including pre-1967
Israel]. Following its expulsion from Beirut, the PLO was forced
to seek defensive policies that would preserve its political
status as representative and spokesman of the Palestinian people.
[http://www.pij.org/zarticle.htm?aid=4282]
The current situation has become much darker. You might find the
following reference interesting, particularly Khalil Shikaki's
comments. It's from the Center for Middle East Peace and
Economic Cooperation.
[http://centerpeace.org/events/intifada2.htm]
Bernard Rooney
>
>Yes, thanks for your comments. I posted a response, and I'd be interested
>in seeing your comments on the response.
>groups.google.com/groups?selm=afe9ed76.0201280931.530d959%40posting.google.com
Thanks for that, I found the thread and your article, I'll respond on
that thread.
>
>> The other point you make is a quote from a reviewer who denies that
>> the PLO are willing to recognise the state of Israel.
>
>No, actually. Margalit (writing in 1984) believed it was *true* that
>the PLO was willing to recognize the state of Israel, but not *obvious*.
>From what I can tell, there were pretty big splits within the PLO.
Ok, I think Chomsky also conveys the failure of the PLO to articulate
their view, especially in the US.
But I suspect Chomsky would say that it may not be "obvious" to the US
reader that the PLO will recognise Israel due to the constant
US/Israeli propaganda on this issue, but their support for UN
resolutions (which apparently they helped to draft) and other evidence
shows that is should be fairly obvious to those who look. PLO
recognition of Israel is a pretty basic point.
Perhaps you are referring to the ordinary members of supporters of the
groups. But Chomsky argues (it seems to me convincingly) that in
practice Labor and Likud are the same: no recognition of a Palestinian
state and continued occupation, domination and repression of the area
in Israel's perceived interests.
>
> The typical Peace Now supporter regards the continuation of the
> status quo as the worst of all three options. As for the other two
> options, there is a division of opinion. Many of the tens of
> thousands of people associated with Peace Now, mainly those who
> are also affiliated with the labor movement, prefer the Jordanian
> option; many others prefer the Palestinian option. A sizable
> majority, however, regards the dichotomy between these two options
> as fictitious. For them the solution is in the form of some
> combination of Jordanian and Palestinian authority - call it a
> federation or a confederation or whatever - where the degree of
> cooperation between them will reflect their relative strength at
> the time when the arrangement is reached. For such members of
> Peace Now the obsessive preoccupation with the Palestinian and the
> Jordanian solutions as being exhaustive and mutually exclusive is
> more theological than political.
Chomsky's view on Peace Now is that they have nothing substantial to
say re the occupation, settlement and withdrawal. Perhaps the group
has moved a little in more recent times.
A group with a more definite statement and program is Jewish Voices
Against the Occupation.
What negotiations? Its hard to see much difference between the Allon
plan and today. We've got the occupation and the repression, the Arabs
being confined, marginalised, exploited etc.
>
> Kant never visited England, yet he described with amazing
> precision London's bridges over the Thames. Karl May was never in
> America, and his accounts of the relations between American
> Indians and white settlers were pure fantasy. Chomsky is certainly
> not as fantaisiste as Karl May but he is also not Immanuel
> Kant. It may be fair to add, though, that the situation in the
> Middle East is less like those solid bridges over the Thames and
> more like the ebb and flow of its water.
> [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/5798]
>
>> Chomsky provides plenty of evidence of the PLO willingness to
>> recognise Israel. If Chomsky's facts or evidence is wrong or
>> unreliable, point it out.
>
>That's exactly what Margalit does in the quote I provided earlier:
>he points out the contradictory evidence that Chomsky ignores, e.g.
Ok, the PLO have been less than clear at times in their formulations.
But Chomsky says it is clear they have been willing to recognise
Israel for a long time. And chomsky also says the unwillingness of PLO
to recognise Israel is bandied about for propaganda purposes right up
to the present day.
Ok, so we've got it dating from 1974, Chomsky says no more than this.
>
> The Likud's official policy of repression and colonization of
> the occupied territories, the 1975 Lebanese civil war, the
> 1979 Camp David Accords and the subsequent expulsion of the PLO
> from Beirut in 1982 all had a profound impact on PLO strategy
> and future planning. These developments deprived the PLO of its
> military option in dealing with Israel, shifted its interest to
> diplomacy, and refocused its attention on the occupied territories
> rather than on the whole of Palestine [i.e. including pre-1967
> Israel]. Following its expulsion from Beirut, the PLO was forced
> to seek defensive policies that would preserve its political
> status as representative and spokesman of the Palestinian people.
> [http://www.pij.org/zarticle.htm?aid=4282]
>
>The current situation has become much darker. You might find the
>following reference interesting, particularly Khalil Shikaki's
>comments. It's from the Center for Middle East Peace and
>Economic Cooperation.
>[http://centerpeace.org/events/intifada2.htm]
It seems to me that Chomsky's thesis is intact, that the PLO and the
Arab world have been willing to recognise Israel from the early to mid
70s at the latest, but the US/Israel have followed a consistently
rejectionist stance since 1971.
The striking thing about this thesis is that it is about the opposite
of the common view, that Israel has continually offered a square deal
to the PLO but those wretched terrorists are all still hell bent on
the extermination of Israel and this is why the conflict is never
resolved.
Bernard Rooney
<B8881339.1922D%wern...@worldnet.att.net>, Werner Cohn
<wern...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>If you can read nothing else, at least read the shameful story of how
>Chomsky promotes Israel Shahak:
>
>http://wernercohn.com/Shahak.html
Chomsky quotes Shahak quite a bit in Fateful Triangle, nearly from the
first page, IIRC. Shahak seems to be a valuable source for Chomsky on
human rights issues in Israel and the Hebrew press.
Bernard Rooney
<B887887F.1920A%wern...@worldnet.att.net>, Werner Cohn
<wern...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>in article 3c61deee...@syd-news.tpg.com.au, Bernard Rooney at
>b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au wrote on 2/6/02 9:07 PM:
>
>
>>
>> well I have checked out you site briefly Werner and it does not make a
>> good impression.
>>
>
>"I have checked your site briefly". Yes, that's the trouble. Bernard is
>more forthright here than most Chomskyites, who claim to have studied my
>writings in detail and to find them wanting.
Werner, I doubt I have the time to check up on all your writings (too
many chomsky books to read :) , the thesis that Chomsky presents is
what interests me:
- that the US/Israel have followed a consistently rejectionist policy
since 1971, and this is what has blocked a political settlement.
Fateful Triangle is a pretty convincing presentation of this thesis.
The right response is presented by Jewish Voices Against the
Occupation.
Russil Wvong
> >the PLO was willing to recognize the state of Israel, but not *obvious*.
> >From what I can tell, there were pretty big splits within the PLO.
>
> Ok, I think Chomsky also conveys the failure of the PLO to articulate
> their view, especially in the US.
>
> But I suspect Chomsky would say that it may not be "obvious" to the US
> reader that the PLO will recognise Israel due to the constant
> US/Israeli propaganda on this issue, but their support for UN
> resolutions (which apparently they helped to draft) and other evidence
> shows that is should be fairly obvious to those who look. PLO
> recognition of Israel is a pretty basic point.
Again, I disagree with this. Not that I'm an expert on Israeli and
Palestinian politics, but I think Avishai Margalit is probably more
knowledgeable than Chomsky, considering that Chomsky hadn't set foot
in Israel between the early 1950s and the time he wrote "The Fateful
Triangle." (Margalit lives in Jerusalem, and is a co-founder of
Peace Now; he's not a supporter of the Israeli government at all.)
Margalit is saying that the PLO may have been willing to recognize
Israel in 1984, but it was not *obvious* -- because of contradictory
PLO statements and actions, not because of US/Israeli propaganda.
E.g. in May 1980:
> > The Fatah movement is a national revolutionary independence
> > movement whose goals are: the liberation of Palestine, a full
> > and complete liberation; the annihilation of the Zionist entity
> > in all of its economic, political, military, and cultural
> > manifestations; and the establishment of an independent
> > democratic Palestine which would rule the entire land of
> > Palestine.
Or Kadoumi's denial of Issawi's statement. Or Issawi's being
assassinated, for that matter.
> >john_z provided an interesting article on the historical evolution
> >of the PLO position from the Palestine-Israel Journal, by Hussam
> >Mohammad. The PLO gradually moved toward a two-state solution, first
> >implicitly (the 12th PNC meeting in 1974, which led to a Rejectionist
> >Front being established); then more explicitly, but as an intermediate
> >step (the 13th PNC meeting in 1977); and explicitly, with the militants
> >present, in November 1988.
>
> Ok, so we've got it dating from 1974, Chomsky says no more than this.
No, after the 1974 meeting the Rejectionists walked out. From
Hussam Mohammad's article:
The revolutionaries, led by the Palestinian Front for the Liberation
of Palestine (PFLP), decided to establish a Rejectionist Front and
to continue the policy of militancy and armed struggle as the only
method of dealing with Israel. While Fatah aligned itself more
closely with the moderate Arab states, the opposition aligned itself
with the more radical ones.
[http://www.pij.org/zarticle.htm?aid=4282]
It wasn't until November 1988 that the PNC explicitly accepted the
existence of Israel, with the militants present.
In response to these new developments, in November 1988, the PLO
presented its peace strategy and declared the establishment of
the independent State of Palestine. It accepted UN resolutions
181, 242 and 338 as the bases for negotiating a political
settlement with Israel.
[http://www.pij.org/zarticle.htm?aid=4282]
> But Chomsky says it is clear they have been willing to recognise
> Israel for a long time.
Again, I think Chomsky is wrong; I think Margalit is a more reliable
source. Same with the differences between Likud, Labor, and Peace Now.
> Its hard to see much difference between the Allon
> plan and today. We've got the occupation and the repression, the Arabs
> being confined, marginalised, exploited etc.
I certainly agree with you there.
> It seems to me that Chomsky's thesis is intact, that the PLO and the
> Arab world have been willing to recognise Israel from the early to mid
> 70s at the latest, but the US/Israel have followed a consistently
> rejectionist stance since 1971.
Again, I disagree, based on reading Margalit (and other histories
of the Arab-Israeli conflict).
> The striking thing about this thesis is that it is about the opposite
> of the common view, that Israel has continually offered a square deal
> to the PLO but those wretched terrorists are all still hell bent on
> the extermination of Israel and this is why the conflict is never
> resolved.
I certainly would agree that Israel has not offered a "square deal"
to the PLO. Margalit wrote in May 2001:
If there is one thing that gets on the Palestinians' nerves, it's
the talk about Barak's "generous offer" at Camp David.
Palestinians—-all Palestinians--regard this expression as a deep
contradiction. Just why they do needs explaining.
Palestinians view the Palestine that existed during British rule
between 1918 and 1948 as theirs—-100 percent theirs, from the
Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River. They see themselves as
the indigenous population of this region and hence the natural
owners of the entire land of Palestine. Any part of the land that
they yield as part of an agreement is, for them, a huge concession.
Recognizing the State of Israel as defined by its 1967 borders—-the
so-called green line—-and thus yielding some 77 percent of British
mandate Palestine is to them by itself a colossal concession, a
painful historical compromise. By recognizing the Israel within the
green line they give up their claim to redress what they see as the
wrong done to them by the establishment of the State of Israel in
1948. If they accept any deal that recognizes Israel they will have
succeeded at most in redressing the wrong done to them in 1967,
when Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza. Thus to ask them
to compromise further after what they already regard as a huge
compromise is, as they see it, a historical outrage. To call any such
compromise "a generous offer" is to them sheer blasphemy.
The Israeli perception is of course diametrically opposite. And by
"the Israeli perception" I do not refer to the idea of "Greater Israel,"
according to which the entire biblical land of Israel belongs to the
Jews, who are the historical indigenous population that was forced
out of the land but never gave it up. What I mean by the Israeli
perception is something very prosaic and unbiblical. Following the
two wars that were forced on Israel, in 1948 and 1967, Israel
conquered and held on to the entire land from the Mediterranean to
the Jordan River. So the Israelis say that any territory we yield to
Palestinians is, to us, a concession. And if Barak was willing to
offer them almost all of the territories occupied since 1967—-an
offer that no previous Israeli leader was willing to entertain, let
alone to make—-it is entirely apt to see this as a generous offer.
[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14224]
I don't think it's a simple good guys/bad guys conflict, either with
the Israelis as the good guys and the Palestinians as the bad guys,
or with the Palestinians as the good guys and the Israelis as the
bad guys. William Polk, "The Arab World Today":
... it seems likely to me that we are watching the last act
of a long drama, a true tragedy, in which good people are locked
in a struggle that, ultimately, will certainly severely harm and
may even ruin them both.
Sources of information on the Arab-Israeli conflict that I would
regard as reliable:
- Albert Hourani, "A History of the Arab Peoples"
- William Polk, "The Arab World Today"
- Benny Morris, "Righteous Victims"
- Roy Gutman and David Rieff, eds., "Crimes of War"
- Avishai Margalit, http://www.nybooks.com/authors/278
- Yehoshua Porath, http://www.nybooks.com/authors/2986
- The Foundation for Middle East Peace, www.fmep.org
- The Economist, www.economist.com
Werner Cohn
b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au wrote on 2/7/02 6:03 PM:
>
> Chomsky quotes Shahak quite a bit in Fateful Triangle, nearly from the
> first page, IIRC. Shahak seems to be a valuable source for Chomsky on
> human rights issues in Israel and the Hebrew press.
>
Well, here is the trouble with Chomsky's scholarship right there: he relies
on and promotes the anti-Semitic agitation of Shahak and others like him.
Regarding Shahak, don't take my word. Read what I have to say, and CHECK
OUT my sources, and CHECK OUT Chomsky's sources. If you don't have the time
to investigate for yourself, you shouldn't have the time, nor do you have
the right, to be one of Chomsky's groupies.
Justin Felux
Werner Cohn wrote in message ...
>in article 3c630772...@syd-news.tpg.com.au, Bernard Rooney at
>b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au wrote on 2/7/02 6:03 PM:
>
>
>>
>> Chomsky quotes Shahak quite a bit in Fateful Triangle, nearly from the
>> first page, IIRC. Shahak seems to be a valuable source for Chomsky on
>> human rights issues in Israel and the Hebrew press.
>>
>Well, here is the trouble with Chomsky's scholarship right there: he
relies
>on and promotes the anti-Semitic agitation of Shahak and others like him.
What does Shahak's alleged anti-semetic agitation have to do with his
reliability as a source for information? Shall we ignore anthing presented
by him based on this fact? Based on this reasoning, we should forget pretty
much any history prior to the 19th or even the 20th century, since many of
the historians who documented those times were undoubtedly racist. I
haven't had a chance to read through your material in-depth yet, but it
seems to be yet another bundle of ad-hominem attacks on Chomsky's character,
and unfounded, stupid accusations of him being anti-semetic.
Werner Cohn
kar...@idworld.net wrote on 2/8/02 10:12 AM:
>
>
> What does Shahak's alleged anti-semetic agitation have to do with his
> reliability as a source for information? Shall we ignore anthing presented
> by him based on this fact? Based on this reasoning, we should forget pretty
> much any history prior to the 19th or even the 20th century, since many of
> the historians who documented those times were undoubtedly racist. I
> haven't had a chance to read through your material in-depth yet, but it
> seems to be yet another bundle of ad-hominem attacks on Chomsky's character,
> and unfounded, stupid accusations of him being anti-semetic.
>
>
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
Regarding the Shahak matter: It is not the case here of a historian, or
whatever, being an anti-Semite on the side. The problem with Shahak is that
he engaged in anti-Semitic agitation which he then called "history," and
which certain of his admirers, who obviously know better, have also praised
in completely bad faith. Chomsky has had the following to say about this
person: "Shahak is an outstanding scholar, with remarkable insight and
depth of knowledge. His work is informed and penetrating, a contribution of
great value." All this about work that does not in any substantial way
differ from the writings of Dr. Joseph Goebbels.
Read my review, and check out my sources !
Russil Wvong
> Or Kadoumi's denial of Issawi's statement. Or Issawi's being
> assassinated, for that matter.
"Issawi"? Oops, sorry. That should have been *Issam Sartawi*.
Bernard Rooney
<B88937F5.19283%wern...@worldnet.att.net>, Werner Cohn
<wern...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
my oh my, this Israel Shahak is something, isnt it?
I've had a look not only at your site, Werner, but also at on Amazon
and searched Shahak on the web, parts of his book are at this site:
http://www.abbc.com/islam/english/books/jewhis/jewhis1.htm
Radio Islam appears to be an anti-Israeli site, but with that
disclaimer I assume they have webbed correctly Shahak's book.
I'd be the last person to indulge in or condone anti-semitism,
revisionism, race hate etc.
The fact that Shahak is supported by Chomsky and Vidal does a lot for
his credibility at first sight. I dont assume that Shahak is a
jew-hater, but on the other hand I'm in no position to check the
accuracy of his remarks.
An interesting thesis Shahak explores which I have never seen before
is the notion that Jewish behaviour in part explains the development
of anti-semitism. He is especially interesting and provocative in the
idea that jewish character is formed by Christian Europe granting them
the power to discipline and rule their own people, which influences
Jewish character and position in Europe, which in turn influences the
development of anti-semitism.
As an example of the provocative nature of Shahak's thesis, there is
the story of the murder of a jew on by jewish elders or rabbis.
Shahak's comment on this is not that the murder occurred, but the
reaction of the authorities and the reaction of Jewish rabbis
throughout Europe. The authorities firstly changed their policy and
prosecuted those who did the crime. The rabbis commented on the change
in policy and that bribery did not work.
Whether any of this is true or not I cannot say, but if true then the
implications of Shahak's thesis become clearer.
Werner Cohn
b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au wrote on 2/8/02 10:17 PM:
> Whether any of this is true or not I cannot say, but if true then the
> implications of Shahak's thesis become clearer.
>
Don't you think that you should try to find out whether "any of this is
true" or not ? The fact is that, regarding Jewish history and the sociology
of Jews, the writings by Shahak, as I have said before, have the same status
as those of Joseph Goebbels. In my review of Shahak, I give you some
references to other work. Beyond that, there is a vast literature
concerning the Jews, and without some conscientious study and checking on
your part, you really have no moral right, IMVHO, to opinionate on this
matter. If you can spare the time, spend a little time in the library. If
you can't spare the time, spare us, please. "Pas sérieux, s'abstenir," as
they say in French.
zztop8970-
> On Fri, 08 Feb 2002 13:07:00 GMT, in
> <B88937F5.19283%wern...@worldnet.att.net>, Werner Cohn
> <wern...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >in article 3c630772...@syd-news.tpg.com.au, Bernard Rooney at
> >b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au wrote on 2/7/02 6:03 PM:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Chomsky quotes Shahak quite a bit in Fateful Triangle, nearly from the
> >> first page, IIRC. Shahak seems to be a valuable source for Chomsky on
> >> human rights issues in Israel and the Hebrew press.
> >>
> >
> >Well, here is the trouble with Chomsky's scholarship right there: he relies
> >on and promotes the anti-Semitic agitation of Shahak and others like him.
> >
> >Regarding Shahak, don't take my word. Read what I have to say, and CHECK
> >OUT my sources, and CHECK OUT Chomsky's sources. If you don't have the time
> >to investigate for yourself, you shouldn't have the time, nor do you have
> >the right, to be one of Chomsky's groupies.
> >
> >http://wernercohn.com/Shahak.html
>
> my oh my, this Israel Shahak is something, isnt it?
>
> I've had a look not only at your site, Werner, but also at on Amazon
> and searched Shahak on the web, parts of his book are at this site:
>
> http://www.abbc.com/islam/english/books/jewhis/jewhis1.htm
>
> Radio Islam appears to be an anti-Israeli site, but with that
> disclaimer I assume they have webbed correctly Shahak's book.
No, Radio Islam is a virulent antisemitic site.
I guess you've been exposed to so many excuses along the lines of 'I'm
not antisemitic, I'm just anti-Israeli' that you really can't tell the
difference anymore.
>
> I'd be the last person to indulge in or condone anti-semitism,
> revisionism, race hate etc.
You just get your information from anti-semitic, revisionist,
race-hate sites, is that it?
>
> The fact that Shahak is supported by Chomsky and Vidal does a lot for
> his credibility at first sight. I dont assume that Shahak is a
> jew-hater, but on the other hand I'm in no position to check the
> accuracy of his remarks.
>
> An interesting thesis Shahak explores which I have never seen before
> is the notion that Jewish behaviour in part explains the development
> of anti-semitism.
Hardly new or unique to Shahak. It is a staple of most antisemites.
Werner Cohn
wern...@worldnet.att.net wrote on 2/9/02 12:16 AM:
Allow me to make a few more remarks on the topic of Jewish history. Writers
like Chomsky and Shahak are not only basically ignorant about what is
involved, but their intent is strictly polemical and not at all one of
discovering of what it's all about. This is the polite way of putting it.
A more realistic appraisal would have to say that they use little snippets
of history, torn out of context, and of doubtful authenticity to start with,
to make their point, which is one of enmity to the Jewish people. Shahak is
especially strident. His praise for the Chmielnicki massacres of Jews is
basically an endorsement of the systematic killing of Jews in our time. No
wonder his book is promoted on Islamicist websites.
In my review of his book, I suggest the study of Jewish history that is
written by historians of the subject. In particular, the great work of
Jacob Katz is essential.
Bernard Rooney
>b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au (Bernard Rooney) wrote:
>> russi...@yahoo.com (Russil Wvong) wrote:
>> >Margalit (writing in 1984) believed it was *true* that
>> >the PLO was willing to recognize the state of Israel, but not *obvious*.
>> >From what I can tell, there were pretty big splits within the PLO.
>>
>> Ok, I think Chomsky also conveys the failure of the PLO to articulate
>> their view, especially in the US.
>>
>> But I suspect Chomsky would say that it may not be "obvious" to the US
>> reader that the PLO will recognise Israel due to the constant
>> US/Israeli propaganda on this issue, but their support for UN
>> resolutions (which apparently they helped to draft) and other evidence
>> shows that is should be fairly obvious to those who look. PLO
>> recognition of Israel is a pretty basic point.
>
>Again, I disagree with this. Not that I'm an expert on Israeli and
>Palestinian politics, but I think Avishai Margalit is probably more
>knowledgeable than Chomsky, considering that Chomsky hadn't set foot
>in Israel between the early 1950s and the time he wrote "The Fateful
>Triangle." (Margalit lives in Jerusalem, and is a co-founder of
>Peace Now; he's not a supporter of the Israeli government at all.)
>
>Margalit is saying that the PLO may have been willing to recognize
>Israel in 1984, but it was not *obvious* -- because of contradictory
>PLO statements and actions, not because of US/Israeli propaganda.
>E.g. in May 1980:
My reply to this is, the PLO has been willing to recognise Israel
(leaving aside the issue of whether this is 'obvious' or not),
especially in the context of recognition of Palestinian state and
other rights.
But the US/Israel has not wanted this outcome. They have followed a
consistently rejectionist stance. This is Chomsky's thesis, which
stands.
Bernard Rooney
<B88A1B41.192F1%wern...@worldnet.att.net>, Werner Cohn
<wern...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>in article 3c64918...@syd-news.tpg.com.au, Bernard Rooney at
>b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au wrote on 2/8/02 10:17 PM:
>
>> Whether any of this is true or not I cannot say, but if true then the
>> implications of Shahak's thesis become clearer.
>>
> Don't you think that you should try to find out whether "any of this is
>true" or not ? The fact is that, regarding Jewish history and the sociology
>of Jews, the writings by Shahak, as I have said before, have the same status
>as those of Joseph Goebbels.
It just so happens that I'm reading Hitler by Kershaw at the moment.
He says that Julius Streicher's (hanged at Nuremburg) anti-semitic
propaganda was so bad that at one time it was even banned in the Third
Reich!
It looks like with Shahak we are getting into some really forbidden
territory here. Are we to have a second look at Goebbels and Streicher
and inquire what may be the source of this hatred, in terms of the
behaviour of jews? Its a forbidden question comparable in some ways to
looking at S11 and asking in what way is can this be explained, in
terms of US behaviour? Note, "explained", not "justified".
We are getting a little afar from Chomsky here, perhaps you might like
to give your own opinion on the factual basis of one of the events
mentioned by Shahak:
- did jewish elders or rabbis murder or order the murder of a jew in
eastern europe?
- did the Tsarist authorities seek to prosecute the murderers?
- did jewish commentators in Europe observe that the matter was being
prosecuted and that 'bribery' no longer worked?
If these things did not in fact occur, then Shahak's credibility takes
a battering. But if they did occur, the issue needs to be addressed.
Bernard Rooney
<B88AFA82.1942C%wern...@worldnet.att.net>, Werner Cohn
<wern...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Allow me to make a few more remarks on the topic of Jewish history. Writers
>like Chomsky and Shahak are not only basically ignorant about what is
>involved, but their intent is strictly polemical and not at all one of
>discovering of what it's all about. This is the polite way of putting it.
>A more realistic appraisal would have to say that they use little snippets
>of history, torn out of context, and of doubtful authenticity to start with,
>to make their point, which is one of enmity to the Jewish people. Shahak is
>especially strident.
I simply cannot see how you can describe Chomsky's point as "enmity"
to the jewish people. His stance is respect for the human rights of
all people, including Israelis and Palestinians. About Shahak I
reserve judgement.
Bernard Rooney
<35d69502.02020...@posting.google.com>, zzto...@yahoo.com
(zztop8970-) wrote:
>b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au (Bernard Rooney) wrote in message news:<3c64918...@syd-news.tpg.com.au>...
>> On Fri, 08 Feb 2002 13:07:00 GMT, in
>> my oh my, this Israel Shahak is something, isnt it?
>>
>> I've had a look not only at your site, Werner, but also at on Amazon
>> and searched Shahak on the web, parts of his book are at this site:
>>
>> http://www.abbc.com/islam/english/books/jewhis/jewhis1.htm
>>
>> Radio Islam appears to be an anti-Israeli site, but with that
>> disclaimer I assume they have webbed correctly Shahak's book.
>
>
>No, Radio Islam is a virulent antisemitic site.
That's not the point. Have they webbed his book correctly, or do you
think they inserted a bunch of Goebbels-like anti-semitic statements
to boost it up a bit?
>I guess you've been exposed to so many excuses along the lines of 'I'm
>not antisemitic, I'm just anti-Israeli' that you really can't tell the
>difference anymore.
>
>>
>> I'd be the last person to indulge in or condone anti-semitism,
>> revisionism, race hate etc.
>
>
>You just get your information from anti-semitic, revisionist,
>race-hate sites, is that it?
Nearly all of media and scholarship is corrupt and biased, its not
helpful to automatically reject things just because they are
anti-semitic or anti-arab, anti-american etc. I've relied on Radio
Islam for excerpts from Shahak, if they are falsified, please advise.
>
>>
>> The fact that Shahak is supported by Chomsky and Vidal does a lot for
>> his credibility at first sight. I dont assume that Shahak is a
>> jew-hater, but on the other hand I'm in no position to check the
>> accuracy of his remarks.
>>
>> An interesting thesis Shahak explores which I have never seen before
>> is the notion that Jewish behaviour in part explains the development
>> of anti-semitism.
>
>
>Hardly new or unique to Shahak. It is a staple of most antisemites.
I guess so, but the really provocative and forbidden question
obviously is, is Shahak's thesis valid?
Werner Cohn
b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au wrote on 2/9/02 8:41 PM:
> - did jewish elders or rabbis murder or order the murder of a jew in
> eastern europe?
> - did the Tsarist authorities seek to prosecute the murderers?
> - did jewish commentators in Europe observe that the matter was being
> prosecuted and that 'bribery' no longer worked?
>
> If these things did not in fact occur, then Shahak's credibility takes
> a battering. But if they did occur, the issue needs to be addressed.
>
I am really glad that you raise these points because they illustrate so
perfectly the outrageous methods of Shahak's gutter historiography. (And
remember, Chomsky has called this "a contribution of great value").
You refer here to a passage found, in my edition, on page 17 of Shahak's
"Jewish History, Jewish Religion." the passage runs as follows:
"For example, in the late 1830's a 'Holy Rabbi' (Tzadik) in a small Jewish
town in the Ukraine ordered the murder of a heretic by throwing him into the
boiling water of the town baths, and contemporary Jewish sources note with
astonishment and horror that bribery was 'no longer effective' and that not
only the actual perpetrators but also the Holy Man were severely punished."
First of all, let me note that Shahak tells this entire tale without letting
us know the sources of his information. You ask me whether these things did
in fact occur. How would you check on it ? These are entirely unsupported
charges. Obviously I cannot refute them because I cannot prove a negative,
that no such thing ever happened. If I were to tell you that a distant star
is entirely made up of green cheese, but that I will not tell you how I know
such a thing, would you believe me ? How would you prove me wrong ?
Shahak says this occurred in "the late 1830's". That is a ten-year stretch.
Does he know in which of these ten years it happened ?
Shahak says that it happened "in a small Jewish town in the Ukraine". There
were hundreds of small Jewish towns in the Pale of settlement. If Shahak
knows it happened, does he how where it happened ? If so, why doesn't he
tell us ?
Shahak wants to have us believe that he has consulted "contemporary Jewish
sources". Where did he find these sources ? If they are there, why can't
he tell us where we can find them ?
You would like to believe both Shahak and Hitler on the subject of Jews.
Why ? Because these nice gentlemen make charges that you find congenial.
Of course you have an absolute right to believe anything you want to
believe, although I must say that you should also believe me about that
green cheese. Anyway, you make what is known in the trade as a good "mark",
someone who can be had.
Werner Cohn
wern...@worldnet.att.net wrote on 2/10/02 12:50 AM:
torresD
Well, here is the trouble with Chomsky's scholarship right there: he relies
on and promotes the anti-Semitic agitation of Shahak and others like him.
> I guess you've been exposed to so many excuses along the lines of 'I'm
> not antisemitic, I'm just anti-Israeli' that you really can't tell the
> difference anymore.
Anti-Semitic, that charge is losing its sting,
because it is hurled at anyone who dares to
question the brutal treatment of non-Jews in general,
and Israeli Arabs, Palestinians living in Israel.
Israel is an apartheid state, with Jewish Only Roads,
and Israeli Issued Identity cards mandatory for those
that wanted to leave the Israeli Military enclosed
concentration camps known as the Gaza Strip and
the West Bank.
Some Israeli Reserve Officers in Israel have taken the position
that they will no longer, in their own words
"Expel, Starve and Humiliate" Palestinian,
because they do not feel that the slaughter of Palestinians
by the Israeli Defense Forces does anything to promote
Israel.
The American news media has not given them much play,
but the international media certainly has.
Screaming anti-semitism at those that charge Israel
as being a terrorist state, because it uses conventional weapons
to control civilian populations sick of having to struggle everyday
against their Jewish Masters, won't work any longer.
Bernard Rooney
<B88B74A9.1943F%wern...@worldnet.att.net>, Werner Cohn
<wern...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>in article 3c65c9da...@syd-news.tpg.com.au, Bernard Rooney at
>b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au wrote on 2/9/02 8:41 PM:
>
>
>> - did jewish elders or rabbis murder or order the murder of a jew in
>> eastern europe?
>> - did the Tsarist authorities seek to prosecute the murderers?
>> - did jewish commentators in Europe observe that the matter was being
>> prosecuted and that 'bribery' no longer worked?
>>
>> If these things did not in fact occur, then Shahak's credibility takes
>> a battering. But if they did occur, the issue needs to be addressed.
>>
>
>I am really glad that you raise these points because they illustrate so
>perfectly the outrageous methods of Shahak's gutter historiography. (And
>remember, Chomsky has called this "a contribution of great value").
>
>You refer here to a passage found, in my edition, on page 17 of Shahak's
>"Jewish History, Jewish Religion." the passage runs as follows:
>
>"For example, in the late 1830's a 'Holy Rabbi' (Tzadik) in a small Jewish
>town in the Ukraine ordered the murder of a heretic by throwing him into the
>boiling water of the town baths, and contemporary Jewish sources note with
>astonishment and horror that bribery was 'no longer effective' and that not
>only the actual perpetrators but also the Holy Man were severely punished."
>
>First of all, let me note that Shahak tells this entire tale without letting
>us know the sources of his information.
If so, that's a weakness. He refers to "contemporary Jewish sources."
Presumably there exist some such sources, or he cant sustain his point
of view.
>You ask me whether these things did
>in fact occur. How would you check on it ? These are entirely unsupported
>charges. Obviously I cannot refute them because I cannot prove a negative,
>that no such thing ever happened. If I were to tell you that a distant star
>is entirely made up of green cheese, but that I will not tell you how I know
>such a thing, would you believe me ? How would you prove me wrong ?
>
>Shahak says this occurred in "the late 1830's". That is a ten-year stretch.
>Does he know in which of these ten years it happened ?
>
>Shahak says that it happened "in a small Jewish town in the Ukraine". There
>were hundreds of small Jewish towns in the Pale of settlement. If Shahak
>knows it happened, does he how where it happened ? If so, why doesn't he
>tell us ?
Good questions. I would imagine that if anybody takes Shahak seriously
these questions would have been looked into.
>Shahak wants to have us believe that he has consulted "contemporary Jewish
>sources". Where did he find these sources ? If they are there, why can't
>he tell us where we can find them ?
>
>You would like to believe both Shahak and Hitler on the subject of Jews.
Shahak, maybe, Hitler - I dont think so, his credibility is pretty
poor.
Russil Wvong
> russi...@yahoo.com (Russil Wvong) wrote:
> >Margalit is saying that the PLO may have been willing to recognize
> >Israel in 1984, but it was not *obvious* -- because of contradictory
> >PLO statements and actions, not because of US/Israeli propaganda.
> >E.g. in May 1980:
>
> My reply to this is, the PLO has been willing to recognise Israel
> (leaving aside the issue of whether this is 'obvious' or not),
> especially in the context of recognition of Palestinian state and
> other rights.
But I think the issue of whether it was obvious is an important one.
If people in Israel didn't think that the PLO would recognize Israel
and end the armed struggle, then negotiating with the PLO and
establishing a Palestinian state would have been a terrible mistake.
(Indeed, that's what a lot of Israelis think now, although it's not
so clear to me whether the peace process would have failed if Rabin
hadn't been assassinated, or if Peres had won the subsequent election.)
From the documents I've seen, including Palestinian ones, the major
turning point in the PLO position -- the acceptance of Israel's
existence within its pre-1967 borders, obviously a huge compromise
from the Palestinian point of view -- took place in 1988, after the
Intifada. Before that, the militants hadn't signed up.
Ronald Stockton is quite sympathetic to the Palestinians. He writes:
Just as the 1967 and 1973 wars had sparked reassessment among
the Palestinians, the Intifada of 1987 also sparked reassessment.
For the first time the Palestinians in Palestine had taken the
lead in the liberation movement. Hundreds of Palestinian protesters
lay dead, a large proportion of them youths. Their "martyrdom" was
a major impulse for action. Earlier in the summer of 1988 the Unified
Leadership of the Uprising had issued a public declaration calling
upon Arab leaders to take some action that would advance the
Palestinian cause. It was a powerful appeal, as if to say "with the
blood of our children we have challenged the Israelis face-to-face.
Now it is time for you to stop making speeches and do something
realistic."
Present at Algiers were most Palestinian groups, even the militants
who had boycotted the PLO for over a decade. The proposals before
the PNC were revolutionary: accept UN Resolution 181 and the
partition of Palestine, accept Israel as a permanent and legitimate
entity, renounce terrorism (this was not new--the PLO had renounced
terrorism before, but never with the militants present), declare
the existence of a Palestinian state, and call for open negotiations
with Israel. The debate went on for days. By 85% to 15% the
resolutions passed. The Intifada had reduced the militants to their
numbers. Their veto power was gone. They spoke, they objected, they
voted, they lost, they accepted defeat with a commitment not to
resist with violence (as they had done with previous peace
initiatives). They left mumbling that the Israelis did not want
a settlement, and that the Americans could not be trusted, but
they left without violence.
[http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/cmenas/outreach/StudyUnits/
israeli-palestinian_conflict/teacherlesson4.html]
It's a very ugly situation, but I don't think putting all the blame on
Israel helps. Again, I'd recommend that you read another history of
the conflict besides Chomsky's to get a different perspective. I
think "The Arab World Today", by William Polk, is pretty balanced.
(The Arab-Israeli conflict isn't the main focus of the book, but
it's covered in a fair amount of detail.)
Russil Wvong
Er, I'm afraid I have to dissent: this is Usenet, after all, where
lack of knowledge never stopped anyone from posting. :-) If someone
displays ignorance, it's possible to try to educate them (and hopefully
educate other readers at the same time), but I don't think it's fair
to say that they ought not to comment.
Back to Israel Shahak. Bernard, I did some triangulation on him when
I first ran across him, and from what I can tell, Shahak is a crank.
(This doesn't directly discredit "The Fateful Triangle", of course.)
> > Wrong, Wvong, have you read Israel shahaks "Jewish History, Jewish
> > Religion, the weight of 3000 years, read it, its enlightening.
>
> No, I haven't, but I just looked it up on the web. Shahak seems rather,
> er, negative about Jewish people, accusing them of lacking respect for
> the life of non-Jews. From reading excerpts, I find it hard to believe
> that anyone would take it seriously. Do you actually know any Jewish
> people yourself?
> ...
> A couple reviews of Shahak's book from www.amazon.com:
>
> People take this seriously?, September 6, 2001
> Reviewer: Jon John (see more about me)
>
> Shahak is a crank and has been one throughout his life. His
> bizarre theories about Jews worshiping Satan and polemics
> about the coming communist revolution should make his stuff
> laughable. What is amazing is that people take him seriously.
> Personally, I think that it is because some people have a
> predisposition against Jews (and please don't explain to me
> that he is a holocaust survivor so everything he says is right,
> identity politics is stupid).
>
> The deal is that Christian scholars of religion and history
> laugh at the work of this psychotic chemist. The textual evidence
> he cites to support his theories are either twisted mistranslations
> or worse out right made up. Anyone who wants can go and
> buy any of a number of translations of the Jewish Talmud and
> check it out for themselves.
>
> Also silly is his theory that orthodox Jews control the Israeli
> government. Orthodox Jews are a minority in Israel (every
> prime minister has been secular) and control very few seats in
> the parliament. While they do exert some influence as a
> special interest, one can say the same thing for the religious
> right in the USA.
>
> I know that people like this book, but those are the same people
> who believe the Jews control the banks and the government
> and blowing up federal buildings is the path to liberation.
> If you want to know about Judaism, read any of a number of good
> texts. Reading this is like reading Mien Kamf to understand
> European history.
>
> Another review:
>
> A must read, July 19, 2001
> Reviewer: A reader from San Diego, CA USA
>
> To anyone intrested in teh middle east, and israel it's a must read!
Russil Wvong
> Bernard Rooney at b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au wrote on 2/6/02 9:07 PM:
> > well I have checked out you site briefly Werner and it does not make a
> > good impression.
>
> "I have checked your site briefly". Yes, that's the trouble. Bernard is
> more forthright here than most Chomskyites, who claim to have studied my
> writings in detail and to find them wanting. The truth is that I made a
> thorough study of Chomsky's Triangle (first edition), looking up his
> footnote references in detail, and showing, in detail, where Chomsky
> misquotes his own sources, uses biased sources where more authoritative
> sources are available, omits crucial facts (e.g. the pro-Nazi character of
> the Mufti-led Palestinian movement during WWII), etc. etc. While my work has
> been used to good effect by many people, I have not been able, as far as I
> know, to reach the deep Chomskyites, from whom I have had nothing but abuse.
I think Werner's article is worth reading. It's reposted at
[http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/guestcolumnists/cohn09-11-01p.htm]
I posted the following comments when I first saw the article (someone
cross-posted it to can.politics).
> After reading the whole article, I think Cohn's case associating
> Chomsky with the "revisionists" isn't that strong; after all, Chomsky's
> a public figure, well-known as a harsh critic of Israel, and no doubt
> the "revisionists" would love to benefit from Chomsky's reputation
> by exaggerating their association with him.
>
> However, the article isn't all ad hominem argumentation. Cohn also
> discusses in detail Chomsky's methods of argument: in particular,
> his one-sided presentation of evidence. Chomsky presents lots of
> evidence, but Cohn argues (successfully, I think, using examples from
> "The Fateful Triangle") that Chomsky is selecting his evidence to
> support his pre-existing views. That is, he doesn't mention anything
> that would weaken his arguments.
>
> Despite the wealth of detail that Chomsky provides, it's all
> one-sided. That makes Chomsky an unreliable source of information
> on controversial subjects, including both US foreign policy and
> the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Bernard Rooney
<afe9ed76.0202...@posting.google.com>,
russi...@yahoo.com (Russil Wvong) wrote:
>Werner Cohn <wern...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> Bernard Rooney at b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au wrote on 2/8/02 10:17 PM:
>> > Whether any of this is true or not I cannot say, but if true then the
>> > implications of Shahak's thesis become clearer.
>>
>> Don't you think that you should try to find out whether "any of this is
>> true" or not ? The fact is that, regarding Jewish history and the sociology
>> of Jews, the writings by Shahak, as I have said before, have the same status
>> as those of Joseph Goebbels. In my review of Shahak, I give you some
>> references to other work. Beyond that, there is a vast literature
>> concerning the Jews, and without some conscientious study and checking on
>> your part, you really have no moral right, IMVHO, to opinionate on this
>> matter. If you can spare the time, spend a little time in the library. If
>> you can't spare the time, spare us, please. "Pas sérieux, s'abstenir," as
>> they say in French.
>
>Er, I'm afraid I have to dissent: this is Usenet, after all, where
>lack of knowledge never stopped anyone from posting. :-) If someone
>displays ignorance, it's possible to try to educate them (and hopefully
>educate other readers at the same time), but I don't think it's fair
>to say that they ought not to comment.
>
>Back to Israel Shahak. Bernard, I did some triangulation on him when
>I first ran across him, and from what I can tell, Shahak is a crank.
>(This doesn't directly discredit "The Fateful Triangle", of course.)
Shahak a crank? Yeah, possibly, but the fact that Chomsky quotes him,
and Cohn debunks him, perversely adds to his credibility.
I'd like to see some discussion of Shahak's thesis from those who are
neither anti-semite nor anti-chomsky.
Bernard Rooney
<B88BEBBC.19445%wern...@worldnet.att.net>, Werner Cohn
<wern...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
i already replied to this, but....
On Sun, 10 Feb 2002 05:50:31 GMT, in
<B88B74A9.1943F%wern...@worldnet.att.net>, Werner Cohn
<wern...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>in article 3c65c9da...@syd-news.tpg.com.au, Bernard Rooney at
>b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au wrote on 2/9/02 8:41 PM:
>
>
>> - did jewish elders or rabbis murder or order the murder of a jew in
>> eastern europe?
>> - did the Tsarist authorities seek to prosecute the murderers?
>> - did jewish commentators in Europe observe that the matter was being
>> prosecuted and that 'bribery' no longer worked?
>>
>> If these things did not in fact occur, then Shahak's credibility takes
>> a battering. But if they did occur, the issue needs to be addressed.
>>
>
>I am really glad that you raise these points because they illustrate so
>perfectly the outrageous methods of Shahak's gutter historiography. (And
>remember, Chomsky has called this "a contribution of great value").
>
>You refer here to a passage found, in my edition, on page 17 of Shahak's
>"Jewish History, Jewish Religion." the passage runs as follows:
>
>"For example, in the late 1830's a 'Holy Rabbi' (Tzadik) in a small Jewish
>town in the Ukraine ordered the murder of a heretic by throwing him into the
>boiling water of the town baths, and contemporary Jewish sources note with
>astonishment and horror that bribery was 'no longer effective' and that not
>only the actual perpetrators but also the Holy Man were severely punished."
>
>First of all, let me note that Shahak tells this entire tale without letting
>us know the sources of his information.
If so, that's a weakness. He refers to "contemporary Jewish sources."
Presumably there exist some such sources, or he cant sustain his point
of view.
>You ask me whether these things did
>in fact occur. How would you check on it ? These are entirely unsupported
>charges. Obviously I cannot refute them because I cannot prove a negative,
>that no such thing ever happened. If I were to tell you that a distant star
>is entirely made up of green cheese, but that I will not tell you how I know
>such a thing, would you believe me ? How would you prove me wrong ?
>
>Shahak says this occurred in "the late 1830's". That is a ten-year stretch.
>Does he know in which of these ten years it happened ?
>
>Shahak says that it happened "in a small Jewish town in the Ukraine". There
>were hundreds of small Jewish towns in the Pale of settlement. If Shahak
>knows it happened, does he how where it happened ? If so, why doesn't he
>tell us ?
Good questions. I would imagine that if anybody takes Shahak seriously
these questions would have been looked into.
>Shahak wants to have us believe that he has consulted "contemporary Jewish
>sources". Where did he find these sources ? If they are there, why can't
>he tell us where we can find them ?
>
>You would like to believe both Shahak and Hitler on the subject of Jews.
Shahak, maybe, Hitler - I dont think so, his credibility is pretty
poor.
>Why ? Because these nice gentlemen make charges that you find congenial.
Bernard Rooney
<afe9ed76.02021...@posting.google.com>,
russi...@yahoo.com (Russil Wvong) wrote:
>Werner Cohn <wern...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> Bernard Rooney at b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au wrote on 2/6/02 9:07 PM:
>> > well I have checked out you site briefly Werner and it does not make a
>> > good impression.
>>
>> "I have checked your site briefly". Yes, that's the trouble. Bernard is
>> more forthright here than most Chomskyites, who claim to have studied my
>> writings in detail and to find them wanting. The truth is that I made a
>> thorough study of Chomsky's Triangle (first edition), looking up his
>> footnote references in detail, and showing, in detail, where Chomsky
>> misquotes his own sources, uses biased sources where more authoritative
>> sources are available, omits crucial facts (e.g. the pro-Nazi character of
>> the Mufti-led Palestinian movement during WWII), etc. etc. While my work has
>> been used to good effect by many people, I have not been able, as far as I
>> know, to reach the deep Chomskyites, from whom I have had nothing but abuse.
>
>I think Werner's article is worth reading. It's reposted at
>[http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/guestcolumnists/cohn09-11-01p.htm]
Russil, Werner's viewpoint that Chomsky is an anti-semite and
revisionist borders on absurdity; Shahak's thesis is controversial (to
say the least) but worthy of further inquiry; Chomsky's viewpoint is
more important and profound than I think you have begun to realise.
Its not just about 'history'.
Werner Cohn
b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au wrote on 2/11/02 10:06 PM:
> Shahak a crank? Yeah, possibly, but the fact that Chomsky quotes him,
> and Cohn debunks him, perversely adds to his credibility.
>
> I'd like to see some discussion of Shahak's thesis from those who are
> neither anti-semite nor anti-chomsky.
>
Your are right when your suggest that you are being perverse on this
particular matter. You don't need Chomsky, you don't need Cohn to tell you
about Shahak. Just read Shahak himself. Read the page 17 from which you
yourself have quoted before, and reflect on it. To say that Shahak is a
crackpot is putting it mildly. For your convenience, here is our previous
correspondence:
in article 3c65c9da...@syd-news.tpg.com.au, Bernard Rooney at
b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au wrote on 2/9/02 8:41 PM:
> - did jewish elders or rabbis murder or order the murder of a jew in
> eastern europe?
> - did the Tsarist authorities seek to prosecute the murderers?
> - did jewish commentators in Europe observe that the matter was being
> prosecuted and that 'bribery' no longer worked?
>
> If these things did not in fact occur, then Shahak's credibility takes
> a battering. But if they did occur, the issue needs to be addressed.
>
I am really glad that you raise these points because they illustrate so
perfectly the outrageous methods of Shahak's gutter historiography. (And
remember, Chomsky has called this "a contribution of great value").
You refer here to a passage found, in my edition, on page 17 of Shahak's
"Jewish History, Jewish Religion." the passage runs as follows:
"For example, in the late 1830's a 'Holy Rabbi' (Tzadik) in a small Jewish
town in the Ukraine ordered the murder of a heretic by throwing him into the
boiling water of the town baths, and contemporary Jewish sources note with
astonishment and horror that bribery was 'no longer effective' and that not
only the actual perpetrators but also the Holy Man were severely punished."
First of all, let me note that Shahak tells this entire tale without letting
us know the sources of his information. You ask me whether these things did
in fact occur. How would you check on it ? These are entirely unsupported
charges. Obviously I cannot refute them because I cannot prove a negative,
that no such thing ever happened. If I were to tell you that a distant star
is entirely made up of green cheese, but that I will not tell you how I know
such a thing, would you believe me ? How would you prove me wrong ?
Shahak says this occurred in "the late 1830's". That is a ten-year stretch.
Does he know in which of these ten years it happened ?
Shahak says that it happened "in a small Jewish town in the Ukraine". There
were hundreds of small Jewish towns in the Pale of settlement. If Shahak
knows it happened, does he how where it happened ? If so, why doesn't he
tell us ?
Shahak wants to have us believe that he has consulted "contemporary Jewish
sources". Where did he find these sources ? If they are there, why can't
he tell us where we can find them ?
You would like to believe both Shahak and Hitler on the subject of Jews.
Russil Wvong
> Russil, Werner's viewpoint that Chomsky is an anti-semite and
> revisionist borders on absurdity;
If I understand Werner's argument correctly, he's not saying that
Chomsky *is* a revisionist, only that he's *associated* with
revisionists. As I said, I don't accept this argument, either:
> >> After reading the whole article, I think Cohn's case associating
> >> Chomsky with the "revisionists" isn't that strong; after all, Chomsky's
> >> a public figure, well-known as a harsh critic of Israel, and no doubt
> >> the "revisionists" would love to benefit from Chomsky's reputation
> >> by exaggerating their association with him.
When I read Werner's article, I did so fairly carefully and warily,
knowing that he was predisposed against Chomsky (to say the least).
But I did think that he was successful in arguing that Chomsky
is selecting his evidence to support his pre-existing views
(using examples from "The Fateful Triangle"), and not mentioning
anything that would weaken his arguments.
> Shahak's thesis is controversial (to
> say the least) but worthy of further inquiry;
When I did some "triangulation" to try to check Shahak's credibility,
it seemed pretty clear to me that he was a crank. I can definitely
tell you that it seems absurd to say that Jews have a tendency to
regard non-Jews as sub-human; in my experience, there's more of a
tendency to want to save the world, going into such activities as
teaching, medicine, psychiatry, journalism, science, or political
activism. Shahak seems to be as bitterly anti-Israel as Chomsky is
anti-US. (I guess you may see this as a virtue.)
You may want to do a Google search yourself to find commentary on
Shahak; you'll need to check the credibility of the source of the
commentary as well, given the amount of both pro-Israel and
anti-Israel propaganda out there. I did a quick check on
the New York Review of Books archive and found some comments by
Timothy Garton Ash in 1985, responding to a letter by Shahak:
More important than these misrepresentations, however, is
Professor Shahak's own argument: that the "essential point" in
explaining Polish, Jewish, and German attitudes is "the behavior
common to all humanity"; that in these extremities of terror and
degradation they all - Poles, Germans, Jews - behaved "in about the
same way," "in a perfectly typical human way"; that the Jewish
policeman, the Polish policeman, and the Nazi vice-commander were
"perfectly equal in their wickedness"; that, far from being
unique, the Nazis' attempted extermination of the Jews was
historically but one of many acts of genocide either intended by
the Nazis or attempted by other groups in world history. In each
of these formulations an important argument has been taken to an
extreme which is both absurd, and, insofar as its absurdity is not
self-evident, dangerous. Obviously any historian who neglects the
common human factors will not provide a convincing explanation;
but it is patently absurd to assert that almost all human beings
behave "in about the same way" irrespective of nationality, creed,
or past experience. If that were so, historians might as well pack
their bags and go home. It is important to know that Jewish
policemen and spies were at moments almost as much hated in the
Warsaw ghetto as the Nazis; but it is a truly breathtaking
"quantum jump" to the assertion that the one and the other were
"perfectly equal in their wickedness." To argue (as indeed I
would) that the Holocaust was unique plainly does not require one
to view it "in total isolation," far less to assert that there
have been no other examples of genocide. If I say "this murder is
unique" I am not saying "there are no other murders."
Professor Shahak's concluding words about the special kind of
moral courage required to confront the failings of "one's own
group" are eloquent and well-taken. As an Englishman, I may find
it more difficult to condemn the bombing of Dresden than to
condemn Auschwitz. Perhaps to do so is also morally more
important. But if my sense of national moral responsibility were
to lead me to assert that there is no difference between Dresden
and Auschwitz, then I would be doing no one any service. On the
contrary, I would be attacking (albeit vainly) the basic
principles of historical explanation and moral judgment, not to
mention common sense. This is perhaps a danger which Professor
Shahak does not entirely avoid.
[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/4892, subscribers only]
I did a quick check on Timothy Garton Ash as well, to make
sure he's not some kind of pro-Israel hardliner:
[http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/BIOS/ash.html]
> Chomsky's viewpoint is
> more important and profound than I think you have begun to realise.
> Its not just about 'history'.
Again:
> >> Despite the wealth of detail that Chomsky provides, it's all
> >> one-sided. That makes Chomsky an unreliable source of information
> >> on controversial subjects, including both US foreign policy and
> >> the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Once again, I'd strongly recommend that you take the time to look
up another account of the Arab-Israeli conflict, such as that given
in William Polk's "The Arab World Today". The key turning point
in the PLO position was in November 1988, not in the early 1970s.
Werner Cohn
russi...@yahoo.com wrote on 2/12/02 3:16 AM:
>
> When I did some "triangulation" to try to check Shahak's credibility,
> it seemed pretty clear to me that he was a crank.
I think that, in general, what Peter says about Paul tells us more about
Peter than it does about Paul. To learn about Paul, study Paul, not Peter.
I don't think that "triangulation" is the best way to study Shahak. What I
have done, and what I invite others to do, is to read Shahak himself
carefully, to check on the sources he professes to have used, and also to
study what other scholars have taught us -- not what they say about Shahak,
but what they have taught us about the phenomena that Shahak professes to
write about.
I have used the same method in studying Chomsky's writings on Israel and the
Jews.
By the way, it has been said that since I hold Chomsky to be an anti-Semite,
and since that claim appears to be so improbable, nothing I say should be
believed or even read.
There is a category problem here. "Anti-Semite" isn't something one either
is or is not, as, say, a given person is either over six feet in height or
he isn't. I don't insist on the label "anti-Semite" for Chomsky or for
anyone else. To be an anti-Semite is not a "fact" so much as an
interpretation which may or may not flow from the facts that I do present
about him.
Bernard Rooney
<afe9ed76.0202...@posting.google.com>,
russi...@yahoo.com (Russil Wvong) wrote:
>b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au (Bernard Rooney) wrote:
>> Shahak's thesis is controversial (to
>> say the least) but worthy of further inquiry;
>
>When I did some "triangulation" to try to check Shahak's credibility,
>it seemed pretty clear to me that he was a crank.
That's not the impression I got. Just from reading his excerpts, his
thesis, that European governance of jews contributed to jewish
character which contributed to anti-semitism, seemed plausible,
although of course controversial. Far from being a crank.
By contrast I would say that Werner Cohn's writings do not make such a
good impression, he is taking what seems to me outlandish or absurd
positions on Chomsky etc.
>Once again, I'd strongly recommend that you take the time to look
>up another account of the Arab-Israeli conflict, such as that given
>in William Polk's "The Arab World Today". The key turning point
>in the PLO position was in November 1988, not in the early 1970s.
Firstly, that's not the main thesis of Fateful Triangle. Its main
thesis is that US/Israel has maintained a consistently rejectionist
position since 1971.
Secondly, the PLO according to Chomsky came around to supporting the
two state solution in the 70s, even going so far as to draft a UN
resolution to that effect, which was vetoed by the US. Surely that is
the key turning point as far as recognition of Israel and the two
state solution?
Bernard Rooney
<B88E8E06.19714%wern...@worldnet.att.net>, Werner Cohn
<wern...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>By the way, it has been said that since I hold Chomsky to be an anti-Semite,
>and since that claim appears to be so improbable, nothing I say should be
>believed or even read.
Personally I think the claim that Chomsky is an anti-semite is
ludicrous, and making such a claim that does seriously effect the
credibility of your writings in my eyes. It goes further, that if you
denounce Shahak, while Chomsky commends him, without knowing anything
more about the matter, that serves to lift Shahak's credibility, for
me.
Bernard Rooney
<afe9ed76.02021...@posting.google.com>,
russi...@yahoo.com (Russil Wvong) wrote:
>b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au (Bernard Rooney) wrote:
>> russi...@yahoo.com (Russil Wvong) wrote:
>> >Margalit is saying that the PLO may have been willing to recognize
>> >Israel in 1984, but it was not *obvious* -- because of contradictory
>> >PLO statements and actions, not because of US/Israeli propaganda.
>> >E.g. in May 1980:
>>
>> My reply to this is, the PLO has been willing to recognise Israel
>> (leaving aside the issue of whether this is 'obvious' or not),
>> especially in the context of recognition of Palestinian state and
>> other rights.
>
>But I think the issue of whether it was obvious is an important one.
It is only important for purposes of propaganda.
>If people in Israel didn't think that the PLO would recognize Israel
>and end the armed struggle, then negotiating with the PLO and
>establishing a Palestinian state would have been a terrible mistake.
>(Indeed, that's what a lot of Israelis think now, although it's not
>so clear to me whether the peace process would have failed if Rabin
>hadn't been assassinated, or if Peres had won the subsequent election.)
It seems to me you havent read Fateful Triangle, or else disagree with
everything Chomsky is saying in it.
The case Chomsky makes is that both major political groupings in
Israel (Labor and Likud) are united in rejecting the concept of a
Palestinian state. (the 'rejectionist stance'). Thus the reason why
they dont want to negotiate with the PLO is not because they are
concerned the PLO wont recognise Israel and end the armed struggle,
but because they do not want to recognise a Palestinian state.
Whether it be Rabin, Peres, or Labor, Likud, or Sharon, Barak - doesnt
make any difference.
>From the documents I've seen, including Palestinian ones, the major
>turning point in the PLO position -- the acceptance of Israel's
>existence within its pre-1967 borders, obviously a huge compromise
>from the Palestinian point of view -- took place in 1988, after the
>Intifada. Before that, the militants hadn't signed up.
Well we could check documents and sources etc. Militants (to this day)
might not accept Israel, also there could be propaganda to that
effect.
But if the PLO drafted and submitted to the UN a two-state solution in
the 70s only to be frustrated at the US veto, then the key change for
the majority of influential people has occurred by then?
>Ronald Stockton is quite sympathetic to the Palestinians. He writes:
Sympathetic? Sounds like he is rewriting history to maintain the PLO
rejected Israel until 1988.
Chomsky places most of the blame on the United States - they have
followed a consitently rejectionist stance and through their crucial
military, financial and diplomatic support, have encouraged the
extremist elements in Israel and blocked the diplomatic settlement.
This is Chomsky's thesis.
>Again, I'd recommend that you read another history of
>the conflict besides Chomsky's to get a different perspective.
Your "different perspective", generally speaking, is what is served up
on the mass media everyday. It is Chomsky who provides the real
different perspective, with plenty of documentation, I might add.
Werner Cohn
b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au wrote on 2/12/02 9:24 PM:
You really are a very scholarly person. You decide on Shahak by reading
Chomsky, who praises him. Then you read Cohn, who denounces him. Those two
circumstances establish Shahak's credentials. And then Cohn asks you to
read Shahak about Shahak, but, since Cohn recommends this, you know that
reading Shahak about Shahak is no way to learn about Shahak.
Right on, Bernard. A great contribution to knowledge, a great advance in
learning !
Werner Cohn
b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au wrote on 2/12/02 9:19 PM:
> On 12 Feb 2002 00:16:37 -0800, in
> <afe9ed76.0202...@posting.google.com>,
> russi...@yahoo.com (Russil Wvong) wrote:
>
>> b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au (Bernard Rooney) wrote:
>
>>> Shahak's thesis is controversial (to
>>> say the least) but worthy of further inquiry;
>>
>> When I did some "triangulation" to try to check Shahak's credibility,
>> it seemed pretty clear to me that he was a crank.
>
> That's not the impression I got. Just from reading his excerpts, his
> thesis, that European governance of jews contributed to jewish
> character which contributed to anti-semitism, seemed plausible,
> although of course controversial. Far from being a crank.
>
> By contrast I would say that Werner Cohn's writings do not make such a
> good impression, he is taking what seems to me outlandish or absurd
> positions on Chomsky etc.
>
You find Shahak's thesis "plausible," Bernard. Far from being crank. Right
on. And I have good news for you. There is a lot of enjoyable reading
still to be done, Bernie, very plausible reading, very no-crank reading.
Now don't laugh, and don't dismiss it out of hand. I've mentioned Dolfie
Hitler to you before, but then you thought that, what were your words, he
has no credibility ? Hell, have you actually READ Dolfie, Bernie ?
You may not be able to quite manage the German original, but there is a very
fine English translation of Mein Kampf by Ralph Manheim (a Jew you say, but
Bernie, what is Noam ?), which you can read with great pleasure. Right,
it's not fashionable to say that Hitler is plausible, that he's no-crank,
but Bernie, and here I must be 100% serious for a moment, anyone who finds
Shahak plausible and no-crank will will find Hitler great. (Hint, start
with pp. 306-7 in the Houghton Mifflin edition).
Russil Wvong
> Russil Wvong at russi...@yahoo.com wrote on 2/12/02 3:16 AM:
> > When I did some "triangulation" to try to check Shahak's credibility,
> > it seemed pretty clear to me that he was a crank.
>
> I think that, in general, what Peter says about Paul tells us more about
> Peter than it does about Paul. To learn about Paul, study Paul, not Peter.
>
> I don't think that "triangulation" is the best way to study Shahak. What I
> have done, and what I invite others to do, is to read Shahak himself
> carefully, to check on the sources he professes to have used, and also to
> study what other scholars have taught us -- not what they say about Shahak,
> but what they have taught us about the phenomena that Shahak professes to
> write about.
Sure, that's also useful. To check what A says about X -- assuming that
X isn't a subject I know much about -- I find a number of techniques
to be useful:
1. Find something I *do* know about, and see what A has to say about it.
(E.g. What does Ronald Stockton say about the 1967 war? What does
Noam Chomsky say about George Kennan?) Same principle as checking
the reliability of a telephone book by looking up your own listing.
2. Find out what other people have to say about X. That's why I
recommend a number of books on world history at the top of the
critical review I put together.
3. Find out what other people have to say about A's comments on X --
book reviews, for example.
Seems to me that you're trying to use rule (1) with Bernard --
Chomsky is unreliable because he recommends Israel Shahak, whom you
know to be a crank. But *Bernard doesn't know this*, so it doesn't
work. :-) And even if it's possible to convince Bernard that
Shahak *is* a crank, that doesn't directly establish Chomsky's
unreliability.
Moreover, because Bernard finds your claim about Chomsky being
associated with neo-Nazis to be implausible, he see this as
discrediting your other views as well, by rule (1).
I'm trying to use rules (2) and (3), trying to get Bernard to read
other accounts of the Arab-Israeli conflict and also quoting from
Avishai Margalit's review of *The Fateful Triangle*. But that
doesn't seem to be working either. :-)
I don't think it's that Bernard is either anti-Semitic or especially
closed-minded. He is reading Kershaw, after all. It's just human
nature to filter new information through our existing beliefs. As
William James says:
The observable process which Schiller and Dewey particularly
singled out for generalization is the familiar one by which any
individual settles into *new opinions*. The process here is
always the same. The individual has a stock of old opinions
already, but he meets a new experience that puts them to a strain.
[On the Internet, this happens all the time. :-)] Somebody
contradicts them; or in a reflective moment he discovers that they
contradict each other; or he hears of facts with which they are
incompatible; or desires arise in him which they cease to satisfy.
The result is an inward trouble to which his mind till then had
been a stranger, and from which he seeks to escape by modifying
his previous mass of opinions. He saves as much of it as he can,
for in this matter of belief we are all extreme conservatives. So
he tries to change first this opinion, and then that (for they
resist change very variously), until at last some new idea comes
up which he can graft upon the ancient stock with a minimum of
disturbance of the latter, some idea that mediates between the
stock and the new experience and runs them into one another most
felicitously and expediently.
... Loyalty to [existing beliefs] is the first principle--in most
cases it is the only principle; for by far the most usual way of
handling phenomena so novel that they would make for a serious
rearrangement of our preconceptions is to ignore them altogether,
or to abuse those who bear witness for them.
Now you and I may see Chomsky's views as being obviously ridiculous,
only given superficial plausibility by Chomsky's rhetorical brilliance
and the unscrupulousness with which he presents the evidence. But
to someone who doesn't know that much about world history, and who's
read several of Chomsky's books, *Chomsky is an authority*. They'll
check evidence by finding out what Chomsky has to say about it.
If they're open-minded enough to look at other sources as well, they
may start to realize that Chomsky's views don't match well with what
actually happened, and that may start to shift their view of Chomsky's
reliability. But that's a long and slow process; it's just human
nature.
Russil Wvong
> >it seemed pretty clear to me that he was a crank.
>
> That's not the impression I got. Just from reading his excerpts, his
> thesis, that European governance of jews contributed to jewish
> character which contributed to anti-semitism, seemed plausible,
> although of course controversial. Far from being a crank.
I'm thinking of passages like this, from "Three Thousand Years",
which I found on the white-supremacist Stormfront website:
So now one can read quite freely - and Jewish children are actually
taught - passages such as that [l8] which commands every Jew,
whenever passing near a cemetery, to utter a blessing if the
cemetery is Jewish, but to curse the mothers of the dead [19]
if it is non-Jewish.
[http://www4.stormfront.org/posterity/khazars/shahak2.html]
If you can find any Jews who were actually taught this as children,
let me know. Certainly this isn't true of anyone that I know. This
reads like straight anti-Semitic propaganda; no wonder it's on the
Stormfront website.
Regarding anti-Semitism in Europe, and specifically in Nazi Germany,
Hannah Arendt's thesis (in "The Origins of Totalitarianism") is
that traditional Christian-based hostility towards the Jews and
Nazi anti-Semitism are not closely related at all. German Jews
had been emancipated and assimilated for a significant length of time
(decades, I think) when the Nazis came to power. The Nazi goal
of destroying the Jews didn't make any rational sense at all. It's
a complex subject, but if you're interested in learning more Arendt
might be a good place to start. I imagine that Kershaw probably
discusses anti-Semitism as well (I haven't read Kershaw).
Anyway, back to Chomsky.
> >Once again, I'd strongly recommend that you take the time to look
> >up another account of the Arab-Israeli conflict, such as that given
> >in William Polk's "The Arab World Today". The key turning point
> >in the PLO position was in November 1988, not in the early 1970s.
>
> Firstly, that's not the main thesis of Fateful Triangle. Its main
> thesis is that US/Israel has maintained a consistently rejectionist
> position since 1971.
Er, you might want to check Jimmy Carter's view of the Palestinians
and the Palestinian state, for example. (He wrote a book on this,
"The Blood of Abraham.")
> Secondly, the PLO according to Chomsky came around to supporting the
> two state solution in the 70s, even going so far as to draft a UN
> resolution to that effect, which was vetoed by the US. Surely that is
> the key turning point as far as recognition of Israel and the two
> state solution?
Again, I'd suggest that you check other sources (not just pro-Israel
propaganda or the mass media view, but the Hussam Mohammad article
that I posted earlier, for example). I don't think I'll be able to
change your mind. :-)
In response to these new developments, in November 1988, the PLO
presented its peace strategy and declared the establishment of
the independent State of Palestine. It accepted UN resolutions
181, 242 and 338 as the bases for negotiating a political
settlement with Israel.
[http://www.pij.org/zarticle.htm?aid=4282]
Werner Cohn
russi...@yahoo.com wrote on 2/13/02 1:08 PM:
Thanks for your thoughtful contribution, and that of William James. (Where
does this passage come from ? "Varieties ...." or some other book ?)
Concerning Shahak (or Chomsky for that matter), the main point I was trying
to make is that the scholarship is prima facie, on the face of it, so
defective that reasonable people must reject it. That passage on page 17,
first brought up by Bernard, is a great example of what I mean. Shahak
makes outlandish claims AND DOES NOT GIVE THE READER ANY INKLING OF HOW AND
WHERE HE GOT THE INFORMATION. The reader has no way of checking for
himself. An author who engages in totally unsupported charges is to be
dismissed, for that reason alone. To say that he has been highly
recommended by others, in this kind of context, is no argument at all.
Of course there are times when we would like to listen to people even when
we cannot check up on them directly. For example, there may be eye
witnesses, who are listened to in the courts. But there too great caution
is required, hence the lawyers' old saying, "he lies like an eye witnesses."
In any case, eye witness testimony unsupported by other evidence, given by
witnesses known to be biased, cannot carry much weight.
In the case of a someone who claims to write about events which have taken
place a hundred years before he was born, and to which he could obviously
not have been a witness, who claims to know merely because someone else says
that he is a good fellow, well, those who listen to such claims must be told
that they are foolish.
I repeat what I previously said about Shahak's famous page 17, typical of
the whole of Shahak's book:
> On page 17 of Shahak's
> "Jewish History, Jewish Religion." we read as follows:
James Boucher
> > >When I did some "triangulation" to try to check Shahak's credibility,
> > >it seemed pretty clear to me that he was a crank. [snip] I'm thinking
> of
> passages like this, from "Three Thousand Years", which I found on the
> white-
> supremacist Stormfront website: [snip]
>
This demonstrates the weakness of your triangulation technique. Which
sources
do you choose to cross-check the accuracy of a person's viewpoint? Choosing
the above rubbishy website to test the veracity of anything is ridiculous.
Similarly, one
could have chosen a few columnists from our national newspapers, and hey!
that
view's been triangulated.
When he passed away, Israel Shahak was eulogized by Edward Said as, not only
a
tireless spokesperson for human rights in Israel/Palestine, but also as a
person whose door
was always open to any person suffering hardship, and one who physically
went out
wherever he was needed to assist others in their struggle for social
justice. Yet this
person crudely dismissed after his death with the single word Crank by a
computer
programmer living in comfort far away.
PS: Newsgroup readers should know that Wvong's reliability with regard to
historical facts
has to be called into question. He claims to be located in Vancouver,
Canada, but a quick
check reveals his headquarters to be New Westminster, a grotty town ten
miles south
of Vancouver.
A triangulation-type check of Wvong should establish his credibility once
and for all.
Shall we turn to John Caruso, David Manning, and James Boucher?
Werner Cohn
wrote on 2/13/02 3:40 PM:
> PS: Newsgroup readers should know that Wvong's reliability with regard to
> historical facts
> has to be called into question. He claims to be located in Vancouver,
> Canada, but a quick
> check reveals his headquarters to be New Westminster, a grotty town ten
> miles south
> of Vancouver.
>
New Westminster is part of the Vancouver metropolitan area and the Greater
Vancouver Regional district. Those interested in the area -- and who
wouldn't be ? -- may wish to look at the website of the GVRD:
And, concerning all matters dealing with Chomsky, Shahak, and Said (the
Great CS&S), I invite you to visit my own website:
http://wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html
Russil Wvong
> Thanks for your thoughtful contribution, and that of William James. (Where
> does this passage come from ? "Varieties ...." or some other book ?)
You're welcome! The James passage is from the book *Pragmatism*,
specifically the "What is Pragmatism?" lecture. The conclusion I
draw from it is that there's limits to the power of rational argument
to change someone else's beliefs, *even if* they're amazingly
open-minded; I find this helpful to keep in mind when arguing with
people on the net. :-)
> Concerning Shahak (or Chomsky for that matter), the main point I was trying
> to make is that the scholarship is prima facie, on the face of it, so
> defective that reasonable people must reject it.
And yet Bernard, who seems like a rational and reasonable person to me,
doesn't reject it, because Chomsky recommends Shahak. It's true that
this can be resolved by assuming that Bernard is *not* a rational and
reasonable person, but I think it's simply that Bernard regards Chomsky
as an authority. It's like a parallel-universe problem: once someone
has a set of beliefs which are wrong, they'll filter new evidence through
those beliefs, and even if they're very open-minded, it's not possible
to get them to alter their beliefs in a radical way. I think it's only
possible to chip at the edges, so to speak.
That's one reason I put together the critical review article of Chomsky.
I'm guessing that people who encounter Chomsky for the first time, and
aren't yet entirely convinced by Chomsky's arguments, will want to do
some triangulation to find out what other people have to say about
Chomsky. So if they look up "chomsky critical review" in Google,
they'll find my article at the top of the list. Same thing for the
articles that you've published: they may help in the case of someone
who isn't yet convinced that Chomsky's a god among us. :-)
But once someone *is* convinced that Chomsky's ideas are correct,
*it's too late*. It's possible to argue with them, but I don't think
it's possible to convince them that they're wrong, except very, very
slowly. (That's one reason that I'm so amazed and impressed that
Nathan Folkert changed his mind about Chomsky. The three hardest
words to say aren't "I love you" -- they're "I was wrong.")
Russil Wvong
> It seems to me you havent read Fateful Triangle, or else disagree with
> everything Chomsky is saying in it.
I'm afraid you're right. I forced myself to read "The Chomsky Reader"
and "Deterring Democracy" while debating John Caruso, but the only
part of "The Fateful Triangle" that I've read is the excerpt in
"The Chomsky Reader." Most of my information about the Arab-Israeli
conflict comes from "The Arab World Today", by William Polk; the
material in "Crimes of War"; and "Righteous Victims" by Benny Morris.
I've also looked up the conflict in "A History of the Arab Peoples",
by Albert Hourani, and read a number of articles in the New York
Review of Books (notably the articles by Avishai Margalit).
> The case Chomsky makes is that both major political groupings in
> Israel (Labor and Likud) are united in rejecting the concept of a
> Palestinian state. (the 'rejectionist stance'). Thus the reason why
> they dont want to negotiate with the PLO is not because they are
> concerned the PLO wont recognise Israel and end the armed struggle,
> but because they do not want to recognise a Palestinian state.
>
> Whether it be Rabin, Peres, or Labor, Likud, or Sharon, Barak - doesnt
> make any difference.
Sure it does. Chomsky was writing in 1983; Oslo didn't start until
the early 1990s. Barak offered 94% of the West Bank. (Yes, I know
that the Palestinians have good reason for not regarding it as a
generous offer.) Sharon, well, the Palestinians regard Sharon
as a war criminal because of the Shabra and Shatila massacres.
> Well we could check documents and sources etc. Militants (to this day)
> might not accept Israel, also there could be propaganda to that
> effect.
Correct. But the militants *were* at the November 1988 PNC meeting.
> But if the PLO drafted and submitted to the UN a two-state solution in
> the 70s only to be frustrated at the US veto, then the key change for
> the majority of influential people has occurred by then?
No. Again, I'm not basing this on pro-Israel propaganda, but on the
account by Hussam Mohammad.
> >Ronald Stockton is quite sympathetic to the Palestinians. He writes:
>
> Sympathetic? Sounds like he is rewriting history to maintain the PLO
> rejected Israel until 1988.
Yes, he's very sympathetic. I checked out what he had to say about
the 1967 war. No, he's not rewriting history. *It only looks that
way because of what you've read in "The Fateful Triangle"*. Again,
"The Fateful Triangle" was written in 1983; Stockton is describing
events taking place in 1988.
> >It's a very ugly situation, but I don't think putting all the blame on
> >Israel helps.
>
> Chomsky places most of the blame on the United States - they have
> followed a consitently rejectionist stance and through their crucial
> military, financial and diplomatic support, have encouraged the
> extremist elements in Israel and blocked the diplomatic settlement.
> This is Chomsky's thesis.
What does he say about Jimmy Carter?
> >Again, I'd recommend that you read another history of
> >the conflict besides Chomsky's to get a different perspective.
>
> Your "different perspective", generally speaking, is what is served up
> on the mass media everyday. It is Chomsky who provides the real
> different perspective, with plenty of documentation, I might add.
Polk provides plenty of documentation as well, as does Morris. And
I wouldn't describe Polk's account as the mass media account at all.
He's extremely critical of the Israelis. If you don't feel like
looking up and reading an entire book, the Hussam Mohammad article
isn't very long.
[http://www.pij.org/zarticle.htm?aid=4282]
Russil Wvong
> This demonstrates the weakness of your triangulation technique. Which
> sources do you choose to cross-check the accuracy of a person's viewpoint?
I use Google, of course. :-) Plus the books that I've read.
> Choosing the above rubbishy website to test the veracity of anything
> is ridiculous.
I considered the possibility that Stormfront had altered the text,
but it seemed unlikely. The reviews on www.amazon.com are consistent
with the text. We could check this easily enough.
> Similarly, one
> could have chosen a few columnists from our national newspapers,
> and hey! that view's been triangulated.
First we'd need to establish the reliability (or lack thereof) of
the columnists themselves.
> When he passed away, Israel Shahak was eulogized by Edward Said as,
> not only a tireless spokesperson for human rights in Israel/Palestine,
> but also as a person whose door was always open to any person
> suffering hardship, and one who physically went out wherever he was
> needed to assist others in their struggle for social justice.
Fair enough. I certainly don't want to sound unsympathetic to
the Palestinians, who have definitely suffered the worst in
the Arab-Israeli conflict.
> Yet this person was crudely dismissed after his death with the single
> word Crank by a computer programmer living in comfort far away.
No disrespect to Shahak, but from what I can tell from his writings,
he *was* a crank. Again, this stuff about Jewish children being
taught to curse when passing non-Jewish cemeteries is exactly what
you'd expect to find on a white supremacist website.
That he worked tirelessly for social justice doesn't mean that
his views were correct, for the same reason that an ad hominem
attack wouldn't show that his views were incorrect.
> PS: Newsgroup readers should know that Wvong's reliability with
> regard to historical facts has to be called into question. He
> claims to be located in Vancouver, Canada, but a quick check
> reveals his headquarters to be New Westminster, a grotty town ten
> miles south of Vancouver.
Check again. It's not too hard to find out -- I'm listed in the
phone book. We moved in May last year. I did put "Vancouver"
in my signature even when I was living in New Westminster, but
that's because nobody outside the Lower Mainland would know
where New Westminster is. :-) (New West used to be a town, but
it's become a suburb of Vancouver.) If you think there was some
kind of misrepresentation going on, I've always included my home
address on my contact information page.
By the way, as a former resident of New West, I also object to your
describing it as "grotty". :-)
> A triangulation-type check of Wvong should establish his credibility
> once and for all. Shall we turn to John Caruso, David Manning, and
> James Boucher?
Sure. I haven't seen John or David post anything lately. For anyone
who wants to check out my earlier debate with John, there's a link on
the critical review page. If you want to make it easier for readers
who are trying to triangulate *me*, just add a comment to the critical
review page, pointing out the weaknesses in the review. If you can't
really pin any down, feel free to post some ad hominem attacks instead.
("Wvong is a LOSER! Get a life, you pinhead!")
Did you want to respond to my earlier question? If you didn't see it,
here it is again:
If I'm distorting and misrepresenting Chomsky's views, I'm certainly
not doing so intentionally; I really would like to understand what
Chomsky is saying. Let me tighten my focus. Do you think the
following statements misrepresent Chomsky's views? If so, why?
1. The key conflict during the Cold War was that between
counter-revolutionary forces (whether directed by the US or the
Soviet Union) and popular revolutionary movements, not between
the US and the Soviet Union.
The Spanish civil war is an example of this kind of triangular
conflict:
A B
C
Here A represents Franco's Nationalists, B the liberal/Soviet
government, and C the Spanish anarchists; the Nationalists and
the government both crushed the anarchists. During the Cold
War, the same pattern was repeated, with A being the US,
B being the Soviet Union, C being the peoples oppressed by both.
Now that the Cold War is over, the US has even more latitude
to suppress revolutions, without fear of Soviet intervention.
The role of the activist is to try to restrain US foreign policy
from aggression and atrocities.
2. International politics isn't as complex as "experts" make it
out to be. In particular, US foreign policy is primarily
driven by elite self-interest.
3. Mainstream US intellectuals believe in the myth of US benevolence,
even when they're being critical of US foreign policy, because
of self-brainwashing.
By the way, if you want to meet for coffee and discuss Chomsky,
let me know. We're close to Main and King Edward, which is where
the Grind is.
nate-dogg
"Russil Wvong" <russi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:afe9ed76.02021...@posting.google.com...
> James Boucher <james....@ubc.ca> wrote:
snip
Russil, it seems to me that Mr. Boucher was being facetious about your
location, providing
an example (fair or not) of first distrusting your "thesis" and second
"triangulating" it.
snip
Russil Wvong
> James Boucher <james....@ubc.ca> wrote:
> > PS: Newsgroup readers should know that Wvong's reliability with
> > regard to historical facts has to be called into question. He
> > claims to be located in Vancouver, Canada, but a quick check
> > reveals his headquarters to be New Westminster, a grotty town ten
> > miles south of Vancouver.
>
> Check again.
For a better example of my getting historical facts wrong, check this out:
geof...@iguana.reptiles.org (Geoffrey Gies) wrote:
> By the time the You Ess became involved in WWdeuce, the
> battle of Britain was over, shipping lanes were once again secure and
> the airwar had been taken back over the continent.
So you're saying if the US hadn't entered World War II, the Nazis
would still have been defeated? I think you fail to realize how
perilous Britain's position was. They were the only remaining
power fighting Nazi Germany.
Here's Churchill's description of his feelings on learning that the
Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor:
At this very moment I knew that the United States was in the war,
up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won after all!
Yes, after Dunkirk; after the fall of France; after the horrible
episode of Oran; after the threat of invasion ... we had won the war.
England would live; Britain would live; the Commonwealth of Nations
and the Empire would live. How long the war would last or in
what fashion it would end, no man could tell, nor did I at this
moment care.... We should not be wiped out. Our history would
not come to an end. We might not even have to die as individuals.
... Being saturated and satiated with emotion and sensation, I went
to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful.
Quoted in "Churchill and Coalition Strategy", by Eliot A. Cohen, in
"Grand Strategies in War and Peace", ed. Paul Kennedy.
Anyone who thinks that the outcome of World War II was preordained --
that there's no way the Nazis could have succeeded in enslaving
Europe -- should read William Shirer's book "The Rise and Fall of
the Third Reich".
It's at
groups.google.com/groups?selm=afe9ed76.0110050801.27190d5%40posting.google.com
Geoffrey's response:
>So you're saying if the US hadn't entered World War II, the Nazis
>would still have been defeated? I think you fail to realize how
>perilous Britain's position was. They were the only remaining
>power fighting Nazi Germany.
Ummm ..
So what do you think the Nazis were fighting on the eastern
front? Butterflies?
Fock man.
[http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9pkshf%241sbi%241%40news.tht.net]
Ooooops.
Russil Wvong
> > > regard to historical facts has to be called into question. He
> > > claims to be located in Vancouver, Canada, but a quick check
> > > reveals his headquarters to be New Westminster, a grotty town ten
> > > miles south of Vancouver.
> >
> > Check again.
>
> location, providing an example (fair or not) of first distrusting
> your "thesis" and second "triangulating" it.
I was wondering about that; I couldn't tell if James was joking, serious,
or somewhere in between. From looking at his previous postings,
I didn't see much in the way of ironic humor. I guess we'll see
what he says next. :-)
James Boucher
> "nate-dogg" <y...@wish.com> wrote:
> > > James Boucher <james....@ubc.ca> wrote:
> > > > PS: Newsgroup readers should know that Wvong's reliability with
> > > > regard to historical facts has to be called into question. He
> > > > claims to be located in Vancouver, Canada, but a quick check
> > > > reveals his headquarters to be New Westminster, a grotty town ten
> > > > miles south of Vancouver.
> > >
> >
> > Russil, it seems to me that Mr. Boucher was being facetious about your
> > location, providing an example (fair or not) of first distrusting
> > your "thesis" and second "triangulating" it.
>
> I was wondering about that; I couldn't tell if James was joking, serious,
> or somewhere in between.
I was being ironic, yes. When I said we should all disbelieve the things you
write
because I found some insignificant flaw in something you’d written, I meant
that that’s
about as valid as your positon that Chomsky is unreliable as a source of
historical facts
because of what you cited as flaws & inaccuracies in your exchanges with
Caruso &
Manning. Those things you cited were shown – sometimes spectacularly shown --
to
be utterly lame & feeble, and your comprehension of Chomsky’s views at times
to be
virtually nil.
You didn’t see that, haven't budged an inch, and you're still here peddling
the same
stuff. Chomsky critics like you remind me of some tourist, standing in front
of the Taj
Mahal & complaining about the choice of curtains in one of the little
windows. Open
your eyes. Chomsky is a truly great human being.
Maybe the Taj Mahal analogy isn’t so good, though, because it’s clearly
willful
blindness on your part. You’re an ideologue, Russ. Your position’s as firmly
set now
as it was before Caruso & Manning wasted their eloquence on you. Even just
yesterday you posted more evidence of a right-wing bias (“For readers who
don't
know who Krugman is, he's a well-known economist, liberal but not mindlessly
so…”).
But it’s been very entertaining reading those two work you over in recent
months
(and now the doughty "Bob"). You performed your job of punching dummy
perfectly,
displaying an almost pathological politeness as time and again your arguments
were
brutally pummelled.
My only regret in all this is that my heartfelt paean to your mildness last
week never
made it into Best Of Usenet. They friends of yours?
TVsHenry
>don't
>know who Krugman is, he's a well-known economist, liberal but not mindlessly
>so…”
I've seen a few criticisms of him from former fans that say in the past year he
has been "mindlessly so" transforming his column into an endless anti-Bush
screed.
_
"The scandal isn't necessarily what Krugman did; it's that his brethren in the
Press believe that he can take $50k for his personal use and remain objective,
but that a politician who gets a campaign donation has been bought." - Orrin
Judd
Werner Cohn
wrote on 2/14/02 10:06 PM:
> Chomsky is a truly great human being.
>
Now here is truly great thinking, truly great argumentation.
TVsHenry
>From: Werner Cohn wern...@worldnet.att.net
>Date: 2/15/02 12:17 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <B8920479.1992D%wern...@worldnet.att.net>
LOL
Russil Wvong
> Russil Wvong wrote:
> > I was wondering about that; I couldn't tell if James was joking, serious,
> > or somewhere in between.
>
> I was being ironic, yes.
I'm glad you cleared that up. So your view is that (a) I've been soundly
refuted by John Caruso and David Manning, but I'm too thick to realize it;
(b) I'm attempting to discredit Chomsky by quibbling over his
misrepresentation of sources; (c) I'm a right-wing ideologue;
(d) I'm pathologically polite. Being flamed for being polite
must be some kind of Usenet first. What can I say, I'm Canadian;
I have an allergic reaction to abusive self-righteousness.
I disagree with John Caruso, obviously, but I respect his opinion,
and I think it's useful to be able to have an argument with someone
without resorting to personal attacks.
I also try to remember that although it's human nature to resist
changing your mind, if you're never willing to admit that you may
be wrong, you'll never learn anything. William James comments that
"by far the most usual way of handling phenomena so novel that
they would make for a serious rearrangement of our preconceptions
is to ignore them altogether, or to abuse those who bear witness
for them." I try to avoid the latter failing, at least, and I also
try to make the effort to look at evidence that may contradict
my existing beliefs: reading "The Chomsky Reader", "Deterring
Democracy", and "Operation Rollback", for example, and looking up
PPS 23 and the September 1980 Esprit. (I have to say that I was
disappointed that John Caruso didn't accept my suggestion to read
Kennan's "American Diplomacy 1900-1950" -- even if I sent him a copy.)
Nevertheless, if you think I'm an inflexible ideologue, and a right-wing
one to boot (FYI, I voted for the NDP in the last provincial election),
I suppose there's not much I can do to convince you otherwise. Same
with the debates I had with John Caruso and David Manning.
> Chomsky critics like you remind me of some tourist, standing in front
> of the Taj Mahal & complaining about the choice of curtains in one of
> the little windows. Open your eyes. Chomsky is a truly great human being.
Look, Chomsky isn't a god among us, and he's not one of the wonders
of the world, either; as Joseph Michael Bay said, he's just a guy.
No matter how brilliant he is, he's only human. Regarding his
omission of material facts and his taking quotes out of context,
I don't think I'm blowing this out of proportion. People were
complaining about this *before I was even born.*
So if I think Chomsky is so wrong, what am I doing here? What
originally happened was that Lawrence Day posted a long speech made
by Chomsky on can.politics, commenting that people were trying to
suppress Chomsky's ideas, and that nobody could refute them. Being
curious, I read through it, found some things I thought were dubious
(it discussed US intervention in Latin America), looked up and read
through a couple books on modern Latin American history, and then
went through a fairly long debate with Lawrence Day. A while later,
someone cross-posted a similar comment (that nobody could refute
Chomsky's specific arguments), and I reposted my earlier comments
from the debate I'd had with Lawrence Day; that started the debate
with John Caruso, which went even longer. That's how I ended up on
alt.fan.noam-chomsky. After having spent so much time in the two
debates, and having learned more from having read "The Chomsky Reader",
I thought I'd write up my arguments as a web page. I have the
impression that a lot of Chomsky's readers think that Chomsky's
arguments are self-evident, and it's only possible to attack them
through ad hominem or strawman arguments.
If you think my arguments are totally lame and devoid of content,
so be it. I've been trying to get some discussion of international
politics going on talk.politics.misc (interested readers can do a
Google search on "group:talk.politics misc author:russilwvong");
if that works out, I expect I'll be spending more time there and
less time here. I've certainly enjoyed the discussions here, but
I think it's time for me to start arguing with the neo-conservatives.
Russil Wvong
> >For readers who don't know who Krugman is, he's a well-known economist,
> >liberal but not mindlessly so…”
>
> I've seen a few criticisms of him from former fans that say in the past
> year he has been "mindlessly so" transforming his column into an
> endless anti-Bush screed.
I've seen the same criticism:
But by February 2000, two months in, Krugman began writing about Bush.
About six months later, he really began writing about Bush. And
writing about Bush. There's nothing wrong with setting a theme, or
pushing an issue that most of the media is too polite to cover. But
column after column flogged the same points, with nothing truly new
to add. Worst of all, the witty scoring became angry preaching. Look
at this column, where my synopsis of the columns was a terse 'Final
Bush Slam.'
[http://www.pkarchive.org/heykrugman.html]
My own view is that his criticisms of the Bush Administration have
been harsh and repetitive, but I haven't seen him distort facts to
make a partisan point. And I think his quantitative analysis of
various policies is useful. The complete list of NYT columns:
[http://www.pkarchive.org/column/column.html]
Bernard Rooney
>b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au (Bernard Rooney) wrote:
>> It seems to me you havent read Fateful Triangle, or else disagree with
>> everything Chomsky is saying in it.
>
>I'm afraid you're right. I forced myself to read "The Chomsky Reader"
>and "Deterring Democracy" while debating John Caruso, but the only
>part of "The Fateful Triangle" that I've read is the excerpt in
>"The Chomsky Reader."
I've been reading Chomsky for a number of years but it takes some time
for it to properly sink in. I think he has a genuinely profound and
important outlook. Stick at it.
>> The case Chomsky makes is that both major political groupings in
>> Israel (Labor and Likud) are united in rejecting the concept of a
>> Palestinian state. (the 'rejectionist stance'). Thus the reason why
>> they dont want to negotiate with the PLO is not because they are
>> concerned the PLO wont recognise Israel and end the armed struggle,
>> but because they do not want to recognise a Palestinian state.
>>
>> Whether it be Rabin, Peres, or Labor, Likud, or Sharon, Barak - doesnt
>> make any difference.
>
>Sure it does. Chomsky was writing in 1983; Oslo didn't start until
>the early 1990s. Barak offered 94% of the West Bank. (Yes, I know
>that the Palestinians have good reason for not regarding it as a
>generous offer.) Sharon, well, the Palestinians regard Sharon
>as a war criminal because of the Shabra and Shatila massacres.
Chomsky discusses this in the updated version of Fateful Triangle. The
argument is that Barak's "offer" was atrociously bad. In fact just an
updated version of the traditional rejectionist position. It was only
accepted because Arafat began to play the part of the Bantustan chief.
The intifada represented an on-the-ground rejection of the appalling
conditions of Israeli/Arafat rule.
>
>> Well we could check documents and sources etc. Militants (to this day)
>> might not accept Israel, also there could be propaganda to that
>> effect.
>
>Correct. But the militants *were* at the November 1988 PNC meeting.
>
>> But if the PLO drafted and submitted to the UN a two-state solution in
>> the 70s only to be frustrated at the US veto, then the key change for
>> the majority of influential people has occurred by then?
>
>No. Again, I'm not basing this on pro-Israel propaganda, but on the
>account by Hussam Mohammad.
Again you are not acknowledging the key point, that US/Israeli policy
has been consistently rejectionist. On the Palestinian side,
accommodation was always a sane option and there has been evidence of
impotant levels of support for it since the 70s at least.
>> >Ronald Stockton is quite sympathetic to the Palestinians. He writes:
>>
>> Sympathetic? Sounds like he is rewriting history to maintain the PLO
>> rejected Israel until 1988.
>
>Yes, he's very sympathetic. I checked out what he had to say about
>the 1967 war. No, he's not rewriting history. *It only looks that
>way because of what you've read in "The Fateful Triangle"*. Again,
>"The Fateful Triangle" was written in 1983; Stockton is describing
>events taking place in 1988.
>
>> >It's a very ugly situation, but I don't think putting all the blame on
>> >Israel helps.
>>
>> Chomsky places most of the blame on the United States - they have
>> followed a consitently rejectionist stance and through their crucial
>> military, financial and diplomatic support, have encouraged the
>> extremist elements in Israel and blocked the diplomatic settlement.
>> This is Chomsky's thesis.
>
>What does he say about Jimmy Carter?
Carter, Nixon, Reagon, Clinton etc - much the same, same policy.
>
>> >Again, I'd recommend that you read another history of
>> >the conflict besides Chomsky's to get a different perspective.
>>
>> Your "different perspective", generally speaking, is what is served up
>> on the mass media everyday. It is Chomsky who provides the real
>> different perspective, with plenty of documentation, I might add.
>
>Polk provides plenty of documentation as well, as does Morris. And
>I wouldn't describe Polk's account as the mass media account at all.
>He's extremely critical of the Israelis. If you don't feel like
>looking up and reading an entire book, the Hussam Mohammad article
>isn't very long.
>[http://www.pij.org/zarticle.htm?aid=4282]
Ok I looked and I found this:
>On a general level, PLO military strategy and political thought can
>be divided into three phases: the total liberation phase (1964--1968); the
>secular democratic state phase (1969--1974); and the two-state solution
>(1974--1990s)
Two state solution 74-90s? Isnt that direct confirmation of what I
have been saying and refutation of your point?
It almost seems as though you have not only not read Fateful Triangle
but you have not even read your own sources and references.
B Spank
specifically the "What is Pragmatism?" lecture. The conclusion I
draw from it is that there's limits to the power of rational argument
to change someone else's beliefs, *even if* they're amazingly
open-minded;
news:afe9ed76.02021...@posting.google.com...
What you say about the theory of 'pragmatism' misses it's main point. People
are indeed likely to hang on to their beliefs, but they will not try to
modify their existing beliefs, instead they will reject everything that does
not fit their old ideas (what you do with Chomsky). UNTILL there are too
many questions raised that do not fit. THEN they completely change
opinion/theory etc.
I learned this theory by the name of 'paralell paradigma's' in history
classes. It goes for science as well. (Einstein who completely changed
existing beliefs about 'matter'.)
I don't know about Shahak but with Chomsky i think it's contrary. People
will believe him more and more. More Enron scandals, more released
government documents. Chomsky is not a racist, just fighting for human
rights.
Ben vd Spank
Utrecht, Netherlands
Werner Cohn
b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au wrote on 2/16/02 10:50 PM:
>>> It seems to me you havent read Fateful Triangle, or else disagree with
>>> everything Chomsky is saying in it.
>>
>
> I've been reading Chomsky for a number of years but it takes some time
> for it to properly sink in. I think he has a genuinely profound and
> important outlook. Stick at it.
>
> Chomsky discusses this in the updated version of Fateful Triangle. The
> argument is that Barak's "offer" was atrociously bad. In fact just an
> updated version of the traditional rejectionist position. It was only
> accepted because Arafat began to play the part of the Bantustan chief.
> The intifada represented an on-the-ground rejection of the appalling
> conditions of Israeli/Arafat rule.
>
I have not yet been able to read Chomsky's update of his Fateful Triangle.
But in my booklet (available on my website) concerning his first edition, I
make a point of examining the documentation that Chomsky cites concerning a)
the 1929 violence, b) the Deir Yassin incident, and c) the alleged
pro-Fascist Betar (pages 107, ff. in the printed version). I show in each
case how Chomsky's footnotes do not check out. Has he tried to fix any of
that in the new edition(s) ?
It must also be said about Chomsky and his supporters that nothing Israel
could do would satisfy them. That is why their endorsement of Shahak is so
important. Shahak maintains (borrowing from the Nazis) that the Jews are by
nature bad; that their religion teaches them to be enemies of all non-Jews.
Justin Felux
Werner Cohn wrote in message ...
>It must also be said about Chomsky and his supporters that nothing Israel
>could do would satisfy them. That is why their endorsement of Shahak is so
>important. Shahak maintains (borrowing from the Nazis) that the Jews are
by
>nature bad; that their religion teaches them to be enemies of all
non-Jews.
>
>http://wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html
>
>http://wernercohn.com/Shahak.html
>
>http://www.wernercohn.com/Said.html
I am saying this from a position of ignorance, as I have still not had the
chance to thoroughly go through your material, but judging from my scanning
over of Said.html, it would seem that Said is describing and/or criticising
a particular form of Jewish fundamentalism. I don't see the problem with
characterizing any kind of religious fundamentalist as an irrational person
whose beliefs could cause alot of harm if the are allowed the opportunity to
impose them. There are Christians who drink cyanide and handle snakes and
bomb abortion clinics and beat homosexuals. I might write something similar
about these fundamentalist Christians (perhaps something even more scathing)
to whatever it was Said wrote about these Jewish fundamentalists. But of
course, like I said, I am speaking from ignorance. I am unaware of the
level of criticism Said employs or how he presents it. It may very well be
that he is being anti-semetic, but judging from what I have read of the man
so far, I would have to say that he doesn't strike me as the racist type.
Although I do find his comments about the "Jewish lobby" to be very inane
and sometimes downright stupid.
Russil Wvong
>
> Ok I looked and I found this:
>
> >On a general level, PLO military strategy and political thought can
> >be divided into three phases: the total liberation phase (1964--1968); the
> >secular democratic state phase (1969--1974); and the two-state solution
> >(1974--1990s)
>
> Two state solution 74-90s? Isnt that direct confirmation of what I
> have been saying and refutation of your point?
I hope you kept reading. :-) As described by Hussam Mohammad, the
PLO started moving towards a two-state solution in 1974, and began
sending signals to indicate this. But it was a long process, which
isn't surprising, and as Avishai Margalit describes it, there was
too much "noise" for the signals to come through clearly. In
particular, the Rejectionist Front wasn't reconciled to the two-state
solution until after the Intifada, at the November 1988 meeting.
> >What does he say about Jimmy Carter?
>
> Carter, Nixon, Reagon, Clinton etc - much the same, same policy.
William Polk, "The Arab World Today":
The Palestinian issue was one on which, apparently, President
Carter felt a personal, even a religious, commitment. He had
spoken of it often during his campaign, yet in his pronouncements
there is no hint that he had informed himself in any detail of
its history or complexity. He did, however, identify the
Palestinians as poor and needy, and amelioration of their plight
thus acquired for him a double moral imperative.
> Again you are not acknowledging the key point, that US/Israeli policy
> has been consistently rejectionist.
I would agree that Israeli leaders consistently rejected the
possibility of a Palestinian state, until the Intifada of 1987-88.
Benny Morris, "Righteous Victims":
Early in the summer of 1967 Dayan rejected the idea of autonomy -
proposed by West Bank notables - for the inhabitants of the
territories, fearing it would evolve into Palestinian statehood.
He, like the rest of the Labor Party leadership, firmly opposed
such statehood, deeming it a mortal threat to Israel's existence.
The 1987-88 Intifada appears to have been a major turning point on
the Israeli side as well:
Until 1967 Israelis had generally felt that the "Palestinian
problem" had somehow gone away. The 1967 conquest and the rise
of the resistance movement reawakened the problem, but not to
such an extent that it penetrated most people's consciousness.
The Intifada changed this -- eleven-year-olds stoning troops,
open sewage in the shantytowns of Gaza, soldiers beating
demonstrators and the GSS torturing prisoners, all entered
Israeli homes via television and newspapers day after day,
and via the stories of fathers, brothers, and sons who served
increasingly longer stints in the territories.
In short order the Intifada radicalized both Left and Right,
splitting society perhaps even more definitively than the
Lebanese conflict had done. However, the existence since 1984
of the Likud-Labor National Unity Government served to blunt
the effects of this polarization.
On the Left, people began to say that Israel had to get out of
the territories quickly, and that this could be achieved by
dialogue with the PLO and agreement to a two-state solution.
The settlements were seen as an obstacle to peace and a burden
on security; even Rabin, by no means an emotional left-winger,
made no secret of his view that the settlers were an albatross
around the neck of the IDF.
The radicalization of the Right was even more dramatic. The
settlers, feeling besieged by the Palestinians and ostracized
by part of the political establishment, began speaking of
left-of-center politicians, and even Rabin, as "traitors" and
"murderers" whenever a settler was killed by an Arab. Rehav'am
Ze'evi's Moledet ("Motherland") Party, which ran on a "transfer"
platform [i.e. ethnic cleansing], won two seats in the December
1988 elections. Mass expulsion once again became, as it had
during the 1930s and 1940s, a legitimate subject of public
advocacy. One opinion poll indicated that almost half the
electorate looked to some sort of transfer solution.
> >> Whether it be Rabin, Peres, or Labor, Likud, or Sharon, Barak - doesnt
> >> make any difference.
> >
> >Sure it does. Chomsky was writing in 1983; Oslo didn't start until
> >the early 1990s. Barak offered 94% of the West Bank. (Yes, I know
> >that the Palestinians have good reason for not regarding it as a
> >generous offer.) Sharon, well, the Palestinians regard Sharon
> >as a war criminal because of the Shabra and Shatila massacres.
>
> Chomsky discusses this in the updated version of Fateful Triangle. The
> argument is that Barak's "offer" was atrociously bad.
I hope you'll agree that Sharon is worse. To say that there's no
difference between Sharon and Barak is pretty strange, IMHO.
For a map from the Foundation for Middle East Peace (www.fmep.org)
showing Barak's proposal and Sharon's current position, see
[http://www.fmep.org/maps/v11n4_Barak_Sharon_map.pdf]
Under Barak's proposal, 87 Israeli settlements (35% of the settlers
in the West Bank) would have come under Palestinian sovereignty.
For a discussion of the current situation, see
[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14224]
Russil Wvong
> What you say about the theory of 'pragmatism' misses it's main point. People
> are indeed likely to hang on to their beliefs, but they will not try to
> modify their existing beliefs, instead they will reject everything that does
> not fit their old ideas (what you do with Chomsky). UNTILL there are too
> many questions raised that do not fit. THEN they completely change
> opinion/theory etc.
>
> I learned this theory by the name of 'paralell paradigma's' in history
> classes. It goes for science as well. (Einstein who completely changed
> existing beliefs about 'matter'.)
That may be true, but that's not what William James is describing. :-)
Very rarely have I seen someone completely change their opinions and
theories. From what I've seen, it's much more common for people to
come up with an explanation that bridges the gap, accounting for the
new evidence while modifying their existing beliefs as little as possible.
How many times have you changed your fundamental beliefs?
> I don't know about Shahak but with Chomsky i think it's contrary. People
> will believe him more and more. More Enron scandals, more released
> government documents. Chomsky is not a racist, just fighting for human
> rights.
I certainly don't think Chomsky is a racist at all, I just think some
of his fundamental beliefs about US foreign policy and international
politics are wrong. Yes, the US is narcissistic, and doesn't apply
the same standards to itself that it does to others; no, US foreign
policy isn't driven primarily by economics.
Bernard Rooney
<wern...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>in article 3c69cd7b...@syd-news.tpg.com.au, Bernard Rooney at
>b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au wrote on 2/12/02 9:24 PM:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 14:15:29 GMT, in
>> <B88E8E06.19714%wern...@worldnet.att.net>, Werner Cohn
>> <wern...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> By the way, it has been said that since I hold Chomsky to be an anti-Semite,
>>> and since that claim appears to be so improbable, nothing I say should be
>>> believed or even read.
>>
>> Personally I think the claim that Chomsky is an anti-semite is
>> ludicrous, and making such a claim that does seriously effect the
>> credibility of your writings in my eyes. It goes further, that if you
>> denounce Shahak, while Chomsky commends him, without knowing anything
>> more about the matter, that serves to lift Shahak's credibility, for
>> me.
>
>You really are a very scholarly person. You decide on Shahak by reading
>Chomsky, who praises him. Then you read Cohn, who denounces him. Those two
>circumstances establish Shahak's credentials. And then Cohn asks you to
>read Shahak about Shahak, but, since Cohn recommends this, you know that
>reading Shahak about Shahak is no way to learn about Shahak.
I'm only giving a report about my initial impressions. At the present
stage, it doesnt look like I am going to read either Shahak or Cohn; Shahak
because I dont have his book and it is a bit far afield from my interests;
Cohn because it doesnt seem credible or interesting at all. But if you keep
bugging me about it, I might get to Cohn after all.....
Bernard Rooney
<wern...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>in article 3c69cb83...@syd-news.tpg.com.au, Bernard Rooney at
>b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au wrote on 2/12/02 9:19 PM:
>
>> On 12 Feb 2002 00:16:37 -0800, in
>> <afe9ed76.0202...@posting.google.com>,
>> russi...@yahoo.com (Russil Wvong) wrote:
>>
>>> b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au (Bernard Rooney) wrote:
>>
>>>> Shahak's thesis is controversial (to
>>>> say the least) but worthy of further inquiry;
>>>
>>> When I did some "triangulation" to try to check Shahak's credibility,
>>> it seemed pretty clear to me that he was a crank.
>>
>> That's not the impression I got. Just from reading his excerpts, his
>> thesis, that European governance of jews contributed to jewish
>> character which contributed to anti-semitism, seemed plausible,
>> although of course controversial. Far from being a crank.
>>
>> By contrast I would say that Werner Cohn's writings do not make such a
>> good impression, he is taking what seems to me outlandish or absurd
>> positions on Chomsky etc.
>>
>
>You find Shahak's thesis "plausible," Bernard. Far from being crank. Right
>on. And I have good news for you. There is a lot of enjoyable reading
>still to be done, Bernie, very plausible reading, very no-crank reading.
>
>Now don't laugh, and don't dismiss it out of hand. I've mentioned Dolfie
>Hitler to you before, but then you thought that, what were your words, he
>has no credibility ? Hell, have you actually READ Dolfie, Bernie ?
I have only read a few excerpts of HItler's masterwork, Mein Kampf. I am
reading about Hitler, though: Kershaw.
One interesting point that comes out is there is no trace of the rabid
anti-semitism in Hitler in the Vienna period, the first war, or even after
the war. It seems to emerge from nowhere in the munich beer-hall period and
of course continues right down to the Last Testament, a rant blaming the
jews composed shortly before he put the gun to his head.
This is curious. It suggests he seized upon anti-semitism as a political
and polemical tactic. Another very interesting discovery is that Hitler
supported the socialist revolution in Bavaria post war, only afterwards
siding definitely with the nationalist rightists.
Kerhsaw also says 'the enigma of HItler is profound.' One would have to
agree with that, unless we take the view it is not such a mystery.
>You may not be able to quite manage the German original, but there is a very
>fine English translation of Mein Kampf by Ralph Manheim (a Jew you say, but
>Bernie, what is Noam ?), which you can read with great pleasure.
Yes, I've seen mein kampf around, but could I really read it with pleasure?
The impression of reviewers and commentators is that it is rather long,
boring, repetitive, a mishmash. Perhaps left to Hitler scholars.
> Right,
>it's not fashionable to say that Hitler is plausible, that he's no-crank,
>but Bernie, and here I must be 100% serious for a moment, anyone who finds
>Shahak plausible and no-crank will will find Hitler great. (Hint, start
>with pp. 306-7 in the Houghton Mifflin edition).
what's on p.306-7?
Bernard Rooney
<wern...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Concerning Shahak (or Chomsky for that matter), the main point I was trying
>to make is that the scholarship is prima facie, on the face of it, so
>defective that reasonable people must reject it. That passage on page 17,
>first brought up by Bernard, is a great example of what I mean. Shahak
>makes outlandish claims AND DOES NOT GIVE THE READER ANY INKLING OF HOW AND
>WHERE HE GOT THE INFORMATION.
As I mentioned before, if Shahak does not give sources, or if sources do
not exist, that effects the credibility of his argument. For his views to
be taken seriously sources must be able to be found and verified.
As I mentioned also, I'd like to seem some commentary on Shahak that is
neither anti-semite nor anti-chomsky. Failing that I may just leave him be
for the moment.
Bernard Rooney
wrote:
>When he passed away, Israel Shahak was eulogized by Edward Said
when did shahak die? is said's eulogy online?
Note: Chomsky, Vidal, and now Said are all praising Shahak. Only Cohn
condemns him... what should I think?
Bernard Rooney
<wern...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
James Boucher is right, Werner. Its a shame you cant see that. Chomsky is
also the "world's greatest living intellectual" - almost certainly. In
another comment, someone said "not to have read Chomsky is to court genuine
ignorance." This is so true. Finally someone remarked "Chomsky is a god
among us." Well, I think here we have gone a bit too far.
Bernard Rooney
>What you say about the theory of 'pragmatism' misses it's main point. People
>are indeed likely to hang on to their beliefs, but they will not try to
>modify their existing beliefs, instead they will reject everything that does
>not fit their old ideas (what you do with Chomsky). UNTILL there are too
>many questions raised that do not fit. THEN they completely change
>opinion/theory etc.
>
>I learned this theory by the name of 'paralell paradigma's' in history
>classes. It goes for science as well. (Einstein who completely changed
>existing beliefs about 'matter'.)
>I don't know about Shahak but with Chomsky i think it's contrary. People
>will believe him more and more. More Enron scandals, more released
>government documents. Chomsky is not a racist, just fighting for human
>rights.
I agree. Chomsky is already very influential and this will increase to a
critical mass over the early part of the 21stC as people realise the depth
and importance of his message.
Bernard Rooney
<wern...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>in article 3c6f2570...@syd-news.tpg.com.au, Bernard Rooney at
>b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au wrote on 2/16/02 10:50 PM:
>
>
>>>> It seems to me you havent read Fateful Triangle, or else disagree with
>>>> everything Chomsky is saying in it.
>>>
>
>>
>> I've been reading Chomsky for a number of years but it takes some time
>> for it to properly sink in. I think he has a genuinely profound and
>> important outlook. Stick at it.
>>
>
>> Chomsky discusses this in the updated version of Fateful Triangle. The
>> argument is that Barak's "offer" was atrociously bad. In fact just an
>> updated version of the traditional rejectionist position. It was only
>> accepted because Arafat began to play the part of the Bantustan chief.
>> The intifada represented an on-the-ground rejection of the appalling
>> conditions of Israeli/Arafat rule.
>>
>
>I have not yet been able to read Chomsky's update of his Fateful Triangle.
>But in my booklet (available on my website) concerning his first edition, I
>make a point of examining the documentation that Chomsky cites concerning a)
>the 1929 violence, b) the Deir Yassin incident, and c) the alleged
>pro-Fascist Betar (pages 107, ff. in the printed version). I show in each
>case how Chomsky's footnotes do not check out. Has he tried to fix any of
>that in the new edition(s) ?
Lets get to the point, Werner. Chomsky's thesis is that the US/Israel have
followed a consistently rejectionist policy since 1971 and it is this which
has blocked the political settlement. Do you agree with this or not?
>It must also be said about Chomsky and his supporters that nothing Israel
>could do would satisfy them.
No. If Israel recognised the legitimate rights and grievances of
Palestinian Arabs, that would go a long way to being satisfactory.
Particularly if Israel withdraws army and settlements from the Occupied
Territories; recognises a Palestinian state consisting of Gaza, West Bank
and East Jerusalem; and respects the right of return of the refugees or
appropriate compensation.
Of course all of this is precisely what the US-backed Israel will not do.
The preferred option is a militarised dependency, an Israeli Sparta in
continuous conflict with its neighbours, with the spectre of a general war
or a mass ethnic cleansing or both in the background.
>That is why their endorsement of Shahak is so
>important. Shahak maintains (borrowing from the Nazis) that the Jews are by
>nature bad; that their religion teaches them to be enemies of all non-Jews.
These are ravings and defamations of yours. Chomsky and like-minded people
recognise and support the human rights of both Israelis and Palestinians.
If you cannot see this you have a problem.
Bernard Rooney
russi...@yahoo.com (Russil Wvong) wrote:
>b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au (Bernard Rooney) wrote:
>> russi...@yahoo.com (Russil Wvong) wrote:
>> >[http://www.pij.org/zarticle.htm?aid=4282]
>>
>> Ok I looked and I found this:
>>
>> >On a general level, PLO military strategy and political thought can
>> >be divided into three phases: the total liberation phase (1964--1968); the
>> >secular democratic state phase (1969--1974); and the two-state solution
>> >(1974--1990s)
>>
>> Two state solution 74-90s? Isnt that direct confirmation of what I
>> have been saying and refutation of your point?
>
>I hope you kept reading. :-) As described by Hussam Mohammad, the
>PLO started moving towards a two-state solution in 1974, and began
>sending signals to indicate this.
According to Chomsky the signals came through pretty clearly by about 1976
in the form of a UN two-state resolution prepared by the PLO (according to
Israeli sources themselves) which was vetoed by the US, earning a complaint
from the PLO about the 'tyranny of the veto'.
>
>> Again you are not acknowledging the key point, that US/Israeli policy
>> has been consistently rejectionist.
>
>I would agree that Israeli leaders consistently rejected the
>possibility of a Palestinian state, until the Intifada of 1987-88.
>Benny Morris, "Righteous Victims":
>
> Early in the summer of 1967 Dayan rejected the idea of autonomy -
> proposed by West Bank notables - for the inhabitants of the
> territories, fearing it would evolve into Palestinian statehood.
> He, like the rest of the Labor Party leadership, firmly opposed
> such statehood, deeming it a mortal threat to Israel's existence.
This is the fixed view from beginning to end. They are only now talking
about a 'Palestinian state' in the form of Bantustans, which represents
something like total victory for the zionists.
>
>The 1987-88 Intifada appears to have been a major turning point on
>the Israeli side as well:
The only "turning point" was the crushing of Palestinians and the PLO to
the extent that they would agree to the wretched terms on offer.
>> >> Whether it be Rabin, Peres, or Labor, Likud, or Sharon, Barak - doesnt
>> >> make any difference.
>> >
>> >Sure it does. Chomsky was writing in 1983; Oslo didn't start until
>> >the early 1990s. Barak offered 94% of the West Bank. (Yes, I know
>> >that the Palestinians have good reason for not regarding it as a
>> >generous offer.) Sharon, well, the Palestinians regard Sharon
>> >as a war criminal because of the Shabra and Shatila massacres.
>>
>> Chomsky discusses this in the updated version of Fateful Triangle. The
>> argument is that Barak's "offer" was atrociously bad.
>
>I hope you'll agree that Sharon is worse. To say that there's no
>difference between Sharon and Barak is pretty strange, IMHO.
Strange, but valid nonetheless. This is an important Chomksy concept. The
"differences" that are held up by the media and the system amount to very
litle. Real dissent, real difference, real alternatives are not visible
through the mainstream system.
Barak and Sharon have the same policy in essence, crush the Palestinians,
give them as little as possible, dominate the West bank and its most
valuable resources.
Russil Wvong
> James Boucher is right, Werner. Its a shame you cant see that. Chomsky is
> also the "world's greatest living intellectual" - almost certainly. In
> another comment, someone said "not to have read Chomsky is to court genuine
> ignorance." This is so true. Finally someone remarked "Chomsky is a god
> among us." Well, I think here we have gone a bit too far.
Glad to see you draw the line somewhere. :-)
As I said, I don't think I'll be able to convince you that Chomsky isn't
presenting an accurate picture of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But
I'd like to encourage you to read more about it from different sources,
e.g. the Avishai Margalit article [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14224].
Bernard Rooney
wrote:
>b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au (Bernard Rooney) wrote:
>> Firstly, that's not the main thesis of Fateful Triangle. Its main
>> thesis is that US/Israel has maintained a consistently rejectionist
>> position since 1971.
>
>Er, you might want to check Jimmy Carter's view of the Palestinians
>and the Palestinian state, for example. (He wrote a book on this,
>"The Blood of Abraham.")
Great, but has the US/Israel position since 1971 been rejectionist or
not?
Apart from 'triangulation', your other favourite technique appears to
be avoiding admitting or denying certain positions but instead
referring to other sources which may or may not be illuminating to the
matter.
>> Secondly, the PLO according to Chomsky came around to supporting the
>> two state solution in the 70s, even going so far as to draft a UN
>> resolution to that effect, which was vetoed by the US. Surely that is
>> the key turning point as far as recognition of Israel and the two
>> state solution?
>
>Again, I'd suggest that you check other sources (not just pro-Israel
>propaganda or the mass media view, but the Hussam Mohammad article
>that I posted earlier, for example). I don't think I'll be able to
>change your mind. :-)
So which facts presented by Chomsky are not true? Was there a draft UN
resolution on this issue in the 70s vetoed by the US or not? Was this
draft prepared by the PLO or not?
Bernard Rooney
wrote:
>As I said, I don't think I'll be able to convince you that Chomsky isn't
>presenting an accurate picture of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But
>I'd like to encourage you to read more about it from different sources,
>e.g. the Avishai Margalit article [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14224].
Russil, as I've said, it would be helpful if you could specify more
precisely what is wrong with Chomsky's thesis.
Chomsky argues that US/Israeli policy since 1971 has been consistently
rejectionist. This is an important proposition. Do you think it is
correct or not?
Bernard Rooney
<kar...@idworld.net> wrote:
>
>Werner Cohn wrote in message ...
>>It must also be said about Chomsky and his supporters that nothing Israel
>>could do would satisfy them. That is why their endorsement of Shahak is so
>>important. Shahak maintains (borrowing from the Nazis) that the Jews are
>by
>>nature bad; that their religion teaches them to be enemies of all
>non-Jews.
>>
>>http://wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html
>>
>>http://wernercohn.com/Shahak.html
>>
>>http://www.wernercohn.com/Said.html
>
>
>I am saying this from a position of ignorance, as I have still not had the
>chance to thoroughly go through your material, but judging from my scanning
>over of Said.html, it would seem that Said is describing and/or criticising
>a particular form of Jewish fundamentalism. I don't see the problem with
>characterizing any kind of religious fundamentalist as an irrational person
>whose beliefs could cause alot of harm if the are allowed the opportunity to
>impose them. There are Christians who drink cyanide and handle snakes and
>bomb abortion clinics and beat homosexuals. I might write something similar
>about these fundamentalist Christians (perhaps something even more scathing)
>to whatever it was Said wrote about these Jewish fundamentalists.
Without knowing too much either about Shahak or jewish fundamentalism
this seems to me the correct way to apprehend Shahak's writings.
Extremist/fundamentalist sentiments among christians, jews or muslims
are bound to exist. These strands are likely to have a presence and an
influence on public policy. Look at Christian fundamentalism in the US
and its influence over the Republican right.
Thus an examination of these strands and an attempt to evaluate the
extent of their influence is a legitimate area of study. Merely by
pinponting some extreme or ugly positions does not mean that one is
defaming an entire race or religion or is a nazi.
Efforts by Werner Cohn to equate Shahak with Hitler are on a par with
his other efforts to equate Chomsky with anti-semitism.
Werner Cohn
b5...@tpg.com.au wrote on 2/27/02 1:43 AM:
> Without knowing too much either about Shahak or jewish fundamentalism
> this seems to me the correct way to apprehend Shahak's writings.
>
> Extremist/fundamentalist sentiments among christians, jews or muslims
> are bound to exist. These strands are likely to have a presence and an
> influence on public policy. Look at Christian fundamentalism in the US
> and its influence over the Republican right.
>
If you don't know much about Shahak, why do you insist on telling us what it
is he really says ?
No, he does not write about "Jewish fundamentalism". He writes about Jews,
period. If you don't have the time or inclination to study Shahak, don't
write about him.
Presumably you object to the "fundamentalists" of all religions partly
because they are deaf to reason. But so are you. You keep talking about
things you haven't studied and won't listen to those who have.
Russil Wvong
> russi...@yahoo.com (Russil Wvong) wrote:
> >b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au (Bernard Rooney) wrote:
> >> Firstly, that's not the main thesis of Fateful Triangle. Its main
> >> thesis is that US/Israel has maintained a consistently rejectionist
> >> position since 1971.
> >
> >Er, you might want to check Jimmy Carter's view of the Palestinians
> >and the Palestinian state, for example. (He wrote a book on this,
> >"The Blood of Abraham.")
>
> Great, but has the US/Israel position since 1971 been rejectionist or
> not?
Sorry, perhaps I should have been clearer. Chomsky's thesis is
incorrect. The US has *not* been consistently rejectionist since 1971.
In Carter's first speech as President on the Arab-Israeli conflict,
he stated that a Palestinian homeland was one of three necessary
conditions for peace in the Middle East. See William Polk,
"The Arab World Today."
> Was there a draft UN resolution on this issue in the 70s vetoed by
> the US or not?
Yes. You can see the resolution itself at
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/be25c7c81949e71a052567270057c82b/
696d540fd7821bce0525651c00736250!OpenDocument
> Was this draft prepared by the PLO or not?
Yes, according to Chaim Herzog.
> So which facts presented by Chomsky are not true?
He's selecting facts to match his thesis, and ignoring evidence
contrary to his thesis. Again, I'm no expert on the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but Avishai Margalit gives a
couple of examples:
- The political platform adopted at the 4th Fatah Conference
in May 1980, Fatah being Arafat's organization:
The Fatah movement is a national revolutionary independence
movement whose goals are: the liberation of Palestine, a full
and complete liberation; the annihilation of the Zionist entity
in all of its economic, political, military, and cultural
manifestations; and the establishment of an independent
democratic Palestine which would rule the entire land of
Palestine.
- Chomsky describes Issam Sartawi's willingness to recognize Israel,
while failing to mention Farouk Kadoumi's rejection of Israel.
Margalit:
Leaving the building, I asked one of the reporters, a tough and
experienced journalist, whether he really doubted Peled's account,
for Peled is an honorable man. "That's not the issue," replied my
friend. "The issue is that by tomorrow morning there will be a
denial from Beirut." And so there was. Farouk Kadoumi of the PLO
promptly denied the content of the document, though not that a
meeting had taken place. Peled and his associates then issued a
statement under the title "Who Are You, Farouk Kadoumi?" The
embarrassing answer to this question, however, was that Kadoumi
was the PLO's "foreign minister," while Sartawi was, one might
say, its Nahum Goldmann. Kadoumi, incidentally, in a *Newsweek*
interview in the fall of 1976, said the Israelis will eventually
have to accept the PLO plan for a secular democratic state [the
one-state solution] even if they have to crawl all the way from
Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in the process. This statement does not
appear in Chomsky's book.
- Margalit, writing in 1984, describing the PLO's ambivalence about
accepting Israel:
Moreover, I believe that the noise accompanying this signal is not
accidental. The PLO is torn between two alternatives. On the one
hand, recognizing Israel seems sure to lead to an American
recognition of the PLO as a partner for negotiations. On the other
hand, recognizing Israel might well create another severe split
within the PLO, and possibly in the Palestinian diaspora as
well. In order to bridge these two conflicting tendencies, the PLO
may find it convenient to signal its readiness for recognition of
Israel while at the same time surrounding this signal with a
sufficient amount of noise to satisfy the Palestinians who
oppose it.
Once again, I think that no matter how much evidence I give, I'm not
going to be able to convince you that Chomsky's thesis is wrong. It's
simply human nature to try to conserve one's existing beliefs. Now
that you've read and accepted Chomsky's thesis, it's simply too late
for me to be able to convince you that Chomsky's wrong.
This is one of the reasons that I wrote up the critical review: I'm
hoping to reach people *before* they go too far down the path to be able
to turn back. (If you type "noam chomsky review" into Google, the critical
review article now appears as the fifth search result.)
For other readers, I'd recommend the following books and articles
on the Arab-Israeli conflict; I think they give a relatively
even-handed account.
- William Polk, "The Arab World Today" (1991)
- Benny Morris, "Righteous Victims"
- Avishai Margalit, "The Middle East: Snakes and Ladders" (May 2001)
[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14224]
Polk's conclusion:
... it seems likely to me that we are watching the last act
of a long drama, a true tragedy, in which good people are locked
in a struggle that, ultimately, will certainly severely harm and
may even ruin them both.
Bernard Rooney
I've read a little bit of shahak online. He's writing about what we
would call "fundamentalism", or extremism. He does not tar all jews
with the same brush. Werner, you are arguing that Shahak is an
anti-semite (like Hitler or chomsky), but it is a completely
unconvincing argument.
>
Bernard Rooney
wrote:
>b5...@tpg.com.au (Bernard Rooney) wrote:
>> russi...@yahoo.com (Russil Wvong) wrote:
>> >b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au (Bernard Rooney) wrote:
>> >> Firstly, that's not the main thesis of Fateful Triangle. Its main
>> >> thesis is that US/Israel has maintained a consistently rejectionist
>> >> position since 1971.
>> >
>> >Er, you might want to check Jimmy Carter's view of the Palestinians
>> >and the Palestinian state, for example. (He wrote a book on this,
>> >"The Blood of Abraham.")
>>
>> Great, but has the US/Israel position since 1971 been rejectionist or
>> not?
>
>Sorry, perhaps I should have been clearer. Chomsky's thesis is
>incorrect. The US has *not* been consistently rejectionist since 1971.
>In Carter's first speech as President on the Arab-Israeli conflict,
>he stated that a Palestinian homeland was one of three necessary
>conditions for peace in the Middle East. See William Polk,
>"The Arab World Today."
Ok, but Chomsky argues that what the US says from time to time is
pretty much irrelevant compared to what they do. See point below re
vetoing of PLO drafted UN resolution.
Another example is the recent "saudi plan" and the professed
intentions of Colin Powell etc for middle east peace.
If the US runs true to long standing policy, the Saudi plan for
Israeli withdrawal will be sidelined, ignored and forgotten, until
another decade down the track when the Saudis or someone else announce
a "breakthrough" where the Arab world (finally) agrees to recognise
Israel, normalise relations and encourage withdrawal from the occupied
territories.
>
>> Was there a draft UN resolution on this issue in the 70s vetoed by
>> the US or not?
>
>Yes. You can see the resolution itself at
>http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/be25c7c81949e71a052567270057c82b/
>696d540fd7821bce0525651c00736250!OpenDocument
>
>> Was this draft prepared by the PLO or not?
>
>Yes, according to Chaim Herzog.
>
>> So which facts presented by Chomsky are not true?
>
>He's selecting facts to match his thesis, and ignoring evidence
>contrary to his thesis. Again, I'm no expert on the
>Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but Avishai Margalit gives a
>couple of examples:
about the cases you give below, I think that of course there will be
sentiments for the destruction of the jewish state, but this does not
mean the PLO and the Arab world would not accept the existence of
Israel from the 70s at the latest. They are prepared to cut a deal,
but the US/Israel is not. This is Chomsky's point.
You are effectively adopting the Israeli propaganda view, that Israel
has tried so hard to make peace but the arab terrorists will never
give up their passion for murder and recognise the state of Israel to
live in peace.
This is the widespread view but Chomsky cuts it to pieces in Fateful
Triangle.
Russil Wvong
> about the cases you give below, I think that of course there will be
> sentiments for the destruction of the jewish state, but this does not
> mean the PLO and the Arab world would not accept the existence of
> Israel from the 70s at the latest.
This is the key question: which is stronger, the wish to destroy
Israel, or the willingness to accept the existence of Israel? (And
there's a similar key question on the Israeli side: which is
stronger, the desire to hold onto the occupied territories, or the
belief that land can be traded for peace?) There's conflicting
opinions on both sides, and the relative strength of each has
changed over time.
Chomsky's argument that the PLO has been willing to accept the existence
of Israel since the 1970s is based on emphasizing one current of opinion
(e.g. Issam Sartawi) and discounting or ignoring other currents
(e.g. Farouk Kadami). His argument that Israel has been consistently
unwilling to trade land for peace is based on similar methods. I'm
somewhat surprised that you think there's no difference between
Rabin and Netanyahu, for example. Intelligence makes it possible to
see subtle distinctions; the effect of reading Chomsky seems to be, well,
the reverse, as Chomsky dismisses even blindingly obvious differences.
The current intifada has greatly strengthened the extremists and
weakened the moderates on both sides. Instead of Ehud Barak,
Arafat is now facing Ariel Sharon. And apparently Netanyahu is
even more extreme than Sharon. The situation looks pretty black.
As I said earlier, I don't think I'm going to convince you to look
at any other evidence, and I'm also trying to cut down on postings
to alt.fan.noam-chomsky; so if you want to respond, I'll let you have
the last word.
Patrick Bateman
russi...@yahoo.com says...
state was also to be created? It didn't because the Palestine Authority
rejected it? That was in the 1940's
Russil Wvong
> Did Chomsky also say that when an Israeli state was created, a Palestine
Was it so unreasonable for the Palestinians to reject the UN partition
plan in 1947-1948? Avishai Margalit:
If there is one thing that gets on the Palestinians' nerves, it's
the talk about Barak's "generous offer" at Camp David.
Palestinians—-all Palestinians--regard this expression as a deep
contradiction. Just why they do needs explaining.
Palestinians view the Palestine that existed during British rule
between 1918 and 1948 as theirs—-100 percent theirs, from the
Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River. They see themselves as
the indigenous population of this region and hence the natural
owners of the entire land of Palestine. Any part of the land that
they yield as part of an agreement is, for them, a huge concession.
Recognizing the State of Israel as defined by its 1967 borders—-the
so-called green line—-and thus yielding some 77 percent of British
mandate Palestine is to them by itself a colossal concession, a
painful historical compromise. By recognizing the Israel within the
green line they give up their claim to redress what they see as the
wrong done to them by the establishment of the State of Israel in
1948. If they accept any deal that recognizes Israel they will have
succeeded at most in redressing the wrong done to them in 1967,
when Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza. Thus to ask them
to compromise further after what they already regard as a huge
compromise is, as they see it, a historical outrage. To call any such
compromise "a generous offer" is to them sheer blasphemy.
The Israeli perception is of course diametrically opposite. And by
"the Israeli perception" I do not refer to the idea of "Greater Israel,"
according to which the entire biblical land of Israel belongs to the
Jews, who are the historical indigenous population that was forced
out of the land but never gave it up. What I mean by the Israeli
perception is something very prosaic and unbiblical. Following the
two wars that were forced on Israel, in 1948 and 1967, Israel
conquered and held on to the entire land from the Mediterranean to
the Jordan River. So the Israelis say that any territory we yield to
Palestinians is, to us, a concession. And if Barak was willing to
offer them almost all of the territories occupied since 1967—-an
offer that no previous Israeli leader was willing to entertain, let
alone to make—-it is entirely apt to see this as a generous offer.
[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14224]
There was no central Palestinian authority back then. That was one of
the key weaknesses of the Palestinians: they lacked unity.
A brief review of the origins of the Arab-Israeli conflict, based
primarily on "The Arab World Today", by William Polk:
Palestine had been conquered by the Romans, then the Arabs;
later, it came under Turkish rule. During World War I,
to induce the Arabs to rise up against Turkey, the British
promised to support Arab national independence; at the same
time, to induce the Jews to support the British war effort,
they also promised to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
*And* they signed an agreement with France giving it control
over Syria and Lebanon. (Polk's sardonic title for the chapter
on Palestine is "The Promised Land.")
After the war, Palestine came under British administration. There
was a flood of Jewish immigration to Palestine from Europe as Hitler
and the Nazis came to power, and there was increasing tension and
violence between the Jewish and Arab populations. The UN supported
establishment of a Jewish state, but attempts to partition the
territory between the Jewish and Arab populations failed.
Finally the British gave up and withdrew in 1948, after which war
broke out: Israel declared independence, and the neighboring Arab
states invaded; most of the Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled.
Israel won, but no peace agreement was reached.
In 1956, Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal; Israel, Britain, and
France attacked Egypt, but were forced to withdraw by the US.
In 1967, Egypt occupied the Sinai Peninsula and closed Israel's
access to the Red Sea; Israelis feared that the country was about
to be destroyed. In response, Israel launched the Six-Day War.
To everyone's surprise, Israel won the war easily, occupying the
Sinai Peninsula, West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
In 1973, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel on Yom Kippur. This time
the objective was not to destroy Israel, but to inflict a limited
defeat, forcing the US and USSR to intervene. (By this time,
Israel had nuclear weapons, jointly developed with France. The
reason Egypt risked nuclear war was that it desperately needed to
reverse the Israeli occupation of the Sinai.) Israel won the war
again, but with much more difficulty.
Patrick Bateman
state, since there was no central Palestinian authority, i wonder who
exactly rejected the idea. Or was it that they didn't want the land
that was offered. I dunno, just my $0.02
zztop8970-
> In article <afe9ed76.02031...@posting.google.com>,
> russi...@yahoo.com says...
> > Patrick Bateman <Zap...@removemeHotmail.Com> wrote:
> > > Did Chomsky also say that when an Israeli state was created, a Palestine
> > > state was also to be created? It didn't because the Palestine Authority
> > > rejected it? That was in the 1940's.
> >
> > Was it so unreasonable for the Palestinians to reject the UN partition
> > plan in 1947-1948? Avishai Margalit:
> >
> > If there is one thing that gets on the Palestinians' nerves, it's
> > the talk about Barak's "generous offer" at Camp David.
> > contradiction. Just why they do needs explaining.
> >
> > Palestinians view the Palestine that existed during British rule
> > Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River. They see themselves as
> > the indigenous population of this region and hence the natural
> > owners of the entire land of Palestine. Any part of the land that
> > they yield as part of an agreement is, for them, a huge concession.
> > so-called green line—-and thus yielding some 77 percent of British
> > mandate Palestine is to them by itself a colossal concession, a
> > painful historical compromise. By recognizing the Israel within the
> > green line they give up their claim to redress what they see as the
> > wrong done to them by the establishment of the State of Israel in
> > 1948. If they accept any deal that recognizes Israel they will have
> > succeeded at most in redressing the wrong done to them in 1967,
> > when Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza. Thus to ask them
> > to compromise further after what they already regard as a huge
> > compromise is, as they see it, a historical outrage. To call any such
> > compromise "a generous offer" is to them sheer blasphemy.
> >
> > The Israeli perception is of course diametrically opposite. And by
> > "the Israeli perception" I do not refer to the idea of "Greater Israel,"
> > according to which the entire biblical land of Israel belongs to the
> > Jews, who are the historical indigenous population that was forced
> > out of the land but never gave it up. What I mean by the Israeli
> > perception is something very prosaic and unbiblical. Following the
> > two wars that were forced on Israel, in 1948 and 1967, Israel
> > conquered and held on to the entire land from the Mediterranean to
> > the Jordan River. So the Israelis say that any territory we yield to
> > Palestinians is, to us, a concession. And if Barak was willing to
> > offer that no previous Israeli leader was willing to entertain, let
> > [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14224]
> >
> > There was no central Palestinian authority back then. That was one of
> > the key weaknesses of the Palestinians: they lacked unity.
> >
> oh, so maybe you can explain to me who turned down the enactment of the
> state, since there was no central Palestinian authority, i wonder who
> exactly rejected the idea. Or was it that they didn't want the land
> that was offered. I dunno, just my $0.02
Russil is wrong here. The central Palestinian authority back them was
the Arab High Council - the AHC. Its members were consulted by UNSCOP
prior to the partition plan, they voiced their opposition to it, and
they rejected it once it was approved by the UNGA.
BTW, Margalit shows a surprisingly biased viewpoint here:
On one hand, he views with favor, or at he's least impartial to the
idea that we should accept that "Palestinians view the Palestine that
existed during British rule between 1918 and 1948 as theirs—-100
percent theirs, from the
Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River." -
Yet he makes no equivalent argument that Israelis view the Palestine
that existed during British rule between 1918 and 1948 as
theirs—-100 percent theirs, from the Mediterranean Sea to the
*Iraqi border* - land that was mandated by the League of Nations to
them for the creation of a Jewish national home.
Russil Wvong
> Patrick Bateman <Zap...@removemeHotmail.Com> wrote:
> > russi...@yahoo.com says:
> > > There was no central Palestinian authority back then. That was one of
> > > the key weaknesses of the Palestinians: they lacked unity.
> > >
> > oh, so maybe you can explain to me who turned down the enactment of the
> > state, since there was no central Palestinian authority, i wonder who
> > exactly rejected the idea. Or was it that they didn't want the land
> > that was offered. I dunno, just my $0.02
>
> Russil is wrong here. The central Palestinian authority back them was
> the Arab High Council - the AHC. Its members were consulted by UNSCOP
> prior to the partition plan, they voiced their opposition to it, and
> they rejected it once it was approved by the UNGA.
Sorry about that, you probably know the history in more detail than
I do. I was basing this in Polk, "The Arab World Today":
In Palestine itself the [British] high commissioner tried in 1922
to establish a government agency in which Arabs would have a voice --
at least in lesser issues of policy. The plan called for a council
of twenty-three members, including the high commissioner. Ten of the
other twenty-two would be official appointees; of the remaining twelve
elected positions, two would be Christian, two Jews, and eight Muslims.
The Arabs opposed the plan because they would have only ten votes
[two Christian, eight Muslim] -- a permanent minority -- on such
matters as land policy, immigration, and Zionism. In the face of
Arab hostility the high commissioner dropped the whole project.
The following year he suggested that the Arabs form an "Arab Agency"
analogous to the Jewish Agency, so that the Palestine Arab community
would have voice in the affairs of government. This also the Arabs
refused.
There can be no doubt that the Arabs were mistaken in not accepting
this proposal, for their refusal deprived them of all effective
concentration of their activities in the Palestine mandate. Again
and again in the following years the Arabs refused to be involved
responsibly in political affairs. They argued to themselves that
if they accepted responsibility for any part of the affairs of the
mandate they would thereby acquiesce in the basic policy of creating
a Jewish National Home and would become actually, as the mandate
suggested they were politically, but a single part of the population
of Palestine.
Later, in 1931:
The immediate result [to the British letter cancelling the
Passfield White Paper] was an Arab boycott and a refusal to work
together with the Jewish community on civic affairs. But on a
positive program, the Arabs spoke with many voices when they spoke
at all. Lacking a constituted representative, as the Jews possessed
in the Jewish Agency, the Arabs divided into a number of mutually
hostile groups which were ineffective in expressing their desires
to the government. Moreover, the minimum Arab program was
independence, end of immigration, and restriction of land sales.
on these terms the government had shown itself unwilling, if not
unable, to negotiate. As a result, moderate Arabs could have no
concrete and positive program to urge upon the government.
Meanwhile, with the rise to power in Germany of the Nazis in 1932
a new sense of urgency and, eventually, desperation was felt by the
Zionist organization, and its ability to act was stiffened by the
increasing scale of immigration from Germany. Between 1932 and 1933
the number of immigrants tripled. As the subsequent royal commission
pointed out: "As the National Home expanded from 1933 onwards, so the
Arab hate and fear have increased." ...
But eventually there *was* a united front (I'd forgotten). April 1936:
Throughout Palestine committees were formed in the Arab towns to
demand the establishment of a representative government, prohibition
of sales of land to Jews, and end of Jewish immigration. The normally
mutually hostile Arab political leaders were forced by their
rank-and-file supporters to form a united front and call for a
general strike. This time, the [British] government refused to submit
to pressure and on May 18 issued an immigration schedule which was
somewhat higher than in any previous year. Two trains were derailed,
a bridge blown up, and guerrilla bands which included soldiers from
Syria and Iraq began to operate in the hill country. On May 23
mass arrests of Arab leaders were made, and in June members of the
Arab Higher Committee were interned in a concentration camp.
[The violence was suppressed in October 1936.]
... in September 1937 the acting district commissioner of Galilee,
which under the royal commission proposal would have been given to
the Jewish state, was murdered by Arab terrorists. On October 1,
a week after the assassination, the government outlawed the Arab
Higher Committee and all national committees, ordered the arrest
and deportation of six leading Arab figures, and froze the funds
of the Pious Foundation which had supported Arab political activity.
As zztop says, the Arab Higher Committee refused to cooperate with
UNSCOP:
[The British decided to turn over the problem to the UN.]
On May 15, 1947, the General Assembly voted to create a Special
Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), to submit not later than
September 1, 1947, "such proposals as it may consider appropriate
for the solution of the problem of Palestine."
UNSCOP members arrived in Jerusalem on June 14. Once again
the Arab Higher Committee showed itself inflexible by refusing
to participate in the meetings of the special committee. The
Arab states, however, did make their views known by repeating
arguments they had previously advanced.
The Jewish Agency, to the contrary, cooperated in full with
UNSCOP and provided its members with extensive documentation and
appeals. Even the Irgun, then engaged in a game of hide-and-seek
with the whole of the British forces in Palestine and not always
on friendly terms with the Haganah, managed to hold a lengthy
meeting with the chairman of the committee.
Reaction to the UNSCOP partition plan:
When the UNSCOP proposals were published, the British government
announced its intention to remove its military installations from
the Palestine-Suez Canal area deep into central Africa, to an
area which then seemed relatively quiet, Kenya. In effect,
Britain was getting ready to wash its hands of Palestine.
As desperately as everyone had wished this in the past, there
was an immediate realization that such action would precipitate
a grim and bloody struggle, that as violently condemned as the
British had been, they had exercised the only existing restraint.
The Jewish Agency could be satisfied in having gained recognition
of its early claim to independence and a much larger slice of
territory than ever before offered, except in the limited
"National Home" sense suggested in the Balfour Declaration.
The Arabs felt that they had lost everything, and they publicly
announced that they intended to resist the implementation of
UNSCOP's proposals by force. The Egyptian newspaper *al-Ahram*
predicted in September 1947 that "the Palestine Arabs will
launch a relentless war to repel this attack on their country,
especially as they know that all Arab countries will back and
assist them, supplying them with men, money, and ammunition."
The rival communities prepared for war, the Arabs in two -- rival --
paramilitary organizations neither of which proved to amount to
much when tested. The Jews of course had large cadres of men who
had served in the British army or the American army and air force
during the war, and they already had standing, if concealed, armies
in the Haganah, its Palmach elite corps, the Irgun, and the
smaller Stern Gang. ...
In the Middle East outside of Palestine itself, the growth of
anti-Zionism among the Arabs had reached a fever pitch. Ugly
demonstrations broke out in many points all over the Middle East.
In points as widely scattered as Aden, Libya, and Baghdad a
growing feeling of anger over Palestine which could not be
vented on the distant Palestine Jewish community was vented
locally upon Jews who in most cases had little or no contact
with Zionism. The Jewish communities in their turn recoiled
in fear from the nations in which many of them had participated,
often at the highest levels of government. This ugly situation
in the ensuing months led to a large-scale migration from Iraq
and Yemen which further increased the immigration pressure upon
Palestine.
... In Palestine the Arabs managed to gain a semblance of unity
by reverting to their 1936 model of local national committees.
The first of these was established in Jaffa just before the
United Nations voted partition. Arab attacks on Jews and Jewish
settlements and Jewish reprisals and attacks on Arabs began at
the end of November and rapidly gained in intensity. ...
The war:
On the surface the Arabs appeared infinitely stronger. After
all, the whole Arab world was publicly pledged to intervene in
the war. [But:] ... even in dire need, the Arab governments
proved that their jealousies and personal quarrels were of
much more importance to them than their declared interest in
Palestine. None of the Arabs, Palestinian or other, except
the Arab Legion of Transjordan, could begin to match the level
of technical competence of the Jewish forces. Moreover, among
the Arabs of Palestine, they found little support. These had
been virtually leaderless since 1938 and had never really
recovered from their rebellion of 1936-38. By the end of the
mandate, they had become terrorized, psychologically defeated
mobs, fleeing in all directions.
Polk provides a very detailed and -- as far as I can tell -- reasonably
balanced account of the conflict.
> BTW, Margalit shows a surprisingly biased viewpoint here:
> On one hand, he views with favor, or at he's least impartial to the
> idea that we should accept that "Palestinians view the Palestine that
> existed during British rule between 1918 and 1948 as theirs—-100
> percent theirs, from the
> Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River." -
> Yet he makes no equivalent argument that Israelis view the Palestine
> that existed during British rule between 1918 and 1948 as
> theirs—-100 percent theirs, from the Mediterranean Sea to the
> *Iraqi border* - land that was mandated by the League of Nations to
> them for the creation of a Jewish national home.
I thought Margalit was simply presenting first the Palestinian view,
then the Israeli view. I thought his description of both views seemed
reasonably accurate (I don't think a claim to all of Mandate Palestine
is a mainstream view today).
Spike Spiegel
Cohn's website as the source of arguments refuting Israel Shahak.
On his website, Cohn claims that Shahak's claims must be invalid since
they resemble the claims of Eisenmenger.
Shahak is not merely making an academic comparison of one text to
another. He is explaining why Zionists massacre Palestinian
civilians, and he gives pointed examples like Dr. Goldstein's massacre
of Palestinians.
<Cohn quote>
Much of Shahak's book, and all of his Chapter 5, are given to the
allegation that the Talmud requires or permits Jews to commit crimes,
including murder, against non-Jews. Here Shahak follows an old
anti-Semitic tradition that began with the 1700 work Entdecktes
Judenthum (Judaism Revealed) by Johann Eisenmenger.
...
The Encyclopedia Talmudica, founded by Rabbi Meyer Berlin (Bar-Ilan),
has a full discussion (volume 1, pp. 274-5). This source teaches that
non-Jews are to be loved in the same manner as Jews; in particular,
robbing a non-Jew is the same as robbing a Jew; the non-Jewish sick
are to be visited just as the Jewish sick; and so forth.
</Cohn quote>
The resemblance between Eisenmenger and Shahak can be vaguely
inferred. But just because both of them say that the Talmud is racist
doesn't mean much. It certainly doesn't mean either one can be
dismissed.
Further, just because the Encyclopedia Talmudica claims that the
Talmud is non-racist does not prove that the Talmud is really
non-racist. The Jewish children who wore buttons saying "Dr.
Goldstein cured Israel's ills" were being taught to make a racist
statement -- they were commenting that a medical doctor who massacred
unarmed civilians with an automatic rifle was destroying a subhuman
illness, not human beings. In my opinion, Dr. Goldstein's victims
were humans. They had human DNA, opposable thumbs, upright gait, and
all the usual characteristics of humans. Ergo, they were human, just
like black people or Swedish people or Japanese people.
Katz's book is of debatable worth, but in any event it is irrelevant.
Shahak claims that the Talmud can be interpreted in non-racist ways
and in racist ways. He also claims that the racist interpretations
are sufficiently prevalent in modern Israel to produce atrocities
against Palestinians.
The current atrocities against Palestinians can either be linked to
Talmudic thinking, or they cannot. If the link can be made, then
Shahak's accusation is credible.
Note that Shahak does not reject Talmud -- Shahak claims that he is
interpreting it correctly and justly, thus condemning Zionist
misinterpretations of Talmud.
Cohn rather inaccurately titles his page "The Jews Are Bad." Shahak
does not claim the Jews are bad. He claims the Jews are victimized by
bad rabbis and fanatics.