Comments for Israel is a terrorist state by definition: Chomsky »
Posted By tehranchik 9 months, 3 weeks ago in Political NewsAvram Noam Chomsky, 80, is an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, political activist, author, and lecturer. He is an Institute Professor emeritus and professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Chomsky is well known in the academic and scientific community as the father of modern linguistics. Since the 1960s, he has become known more widely as a political dissident, and a libertarian socialist intellectual.
Voniati: Though of Jewish decent, you have been repeatedly accused of anti-Semitism. How do you respond?
Chomsky: The most important comment about that was made by the distinguished statesman Abba Eban, maybe 35 years ago, in an address to the American people. He said that there are two kinds of criticism of Zionism (by Zionism I mean the policies of the state of Israel). One is criticism by anti-Semites and the other is criticism by neurotic self-hating Jews. That eliminates 100% of possible criticism. The neurotic self-hating Jews, he actually mentioned two, I was one and I.F. Stone, a well-known writer was another). I mean that’s the kind of thing that would come out of a communist party in its worst days. But you see, I can’t really be called anti-Semite because I’m Jewish so I must be a neurotic self-hating Jew, by definition. The assumption is that the policies of the state of Israel are perfect, so therefore any kind of criticism must be illegitimate. And that’s from Abba Eban, one of the most distinguished figures in Israel, the most westernized … praised, considered a dove.
Read Full Story at tehrantimes.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 35
-
50%
Thinker229 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>Israel is a terrorist state by definition: Chomsky
Reply
By Chomsky's definition, Tehranchik...
By his definition, a person who hates Jews is NOT an anti-Semite if he is Jewish himself.
By his definition, Zionism is "policies of the state of Israel" and NOT the right of the Jews for self-determination.
A Professor of linguistics must be an expert of twisting definitions. -
-
50%
Edmar149 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The concept of a democracy includes the right of all individuals to voice their opinions regardless of whether it is rational, intelligent, or based in reality. Because Chomsky says what he believes hardly makes it so. The majority of Americans after 9/11 believe that all muslims are terrorists irregardless of the fact that all terrorists appear to be Muslim. Our founding fathers recognized that freedom of speech was a right granted to all people, smart and stupid alike. Chomsky isn't the first stupid person to exercise his first amendment rights. He certainly won't be the last either.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
50%
Thinker229 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> ...their neighbors in the Gaza Strip fire rockets at Israel and hide behind women and children. Is this a terrorist state as well?
Reply
No. For starters, Gaza is not a state yet. More importantly, however, to become a "terrorist state" (at least, by Chomski's definition) a state must be A TARGET for terrorist attacks, not a terrorist BASE.
-
-
40%
jimdoze9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have a conscience. I read it.
Reply
Chomsky continues to live in a world of walnuts and jellied candy fillers, as he always has.
Christiana Voniati reveals her otherworldly predispositions with the following phrase...
"To explain myself, the global financial crisis has challenged the almost absolute U.S. global hegemony"
I wonder how the mullahs allowed an interview of a man by a woman, whom I doubt was wearing a burkha when the interview occurred (or at any other time), into the Tehran Times? -
-
100%
earthlingerer9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, if you really had read it, you would have at least glanced over these words:
Reply
"Following is an excerpt of Professor Chomsky’s interview with Christiana Voniati, who is head of International News Department POLITIS Newspaper, Nicosia, Cyprus."
Any normal, english speaking and reading person would interpret this means the article is actually from the Cyprus newspaper, just reprinted in part by an Iranian newspaper.
And take your ignorant a$$ to some photo sites and see how many women in Teheran actually wear burkhas. Maybe a google image search using "teheran" and "women" would set your course a little closer to the truth.-
67%
Thinker229 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The link below contains instructions of what women (and men) are allowed to wear in Iran, earthlingerer:
Reply
http://www.letsgoiran.com/iran-women-dress-code -
50%
jimdoze9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am a "normal, english speaking and reading person". Does it matter that Christiana Voniati is the head of International News Department POLITIS Newspaper, Nicosia, Cyprus?
Reply
And, in keeping with your diktat, I took my ignorant a$$ to Google, entered Teheran and Women... and the first hit I got was the following:
Exile for Teheran women who flout dress code
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?...
Whew! For a moment you had me worried that I was way off base!-
100%
Bkumm9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm not going to get into the whole thing about this right now. However, isn't it fascinating that all three of the major monotheistic religions have dress codes?
Reply
Christianity is by far the most liberal, however most orthodox Christians would say that a woman should wear a dress and a hat.
Orthodox Jews have a very similar dress code for women and in Islam, as we know, the dress code can be taken to the extreme in covering all of a woman's body.
And what, you may ask is the purpose of this? Women are so enticing that merely the glimpse of naked flesh is enough to drive a man away from God.
It's fascinating.
And I don't believe you as to your first hit. At least that wasn't my first hit even when I spelled it as you do. And there were no pictures. Women in Iran are not required to wear burkhas. They do, however, generally cover their heads.-
-
Neutral
lovemylibs9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes it was...
Reply
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en=women+and+teher...-
Neutral
Bkumm9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Okay. I'll concede that, but, if you read the article, it doesn't have anything to do with burkhas.
Reply
FTA:
"Under sharia, Islamic law, imposed after Iran’s 1979 revolution, women are obliged to cover their hair and wear long, loose-fitting clothes to disguise their figures and protect their modesty."
That's not a burkha, necessarily.-
-
0%
dissent9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
context dear, context
Reply
"Chomsky: Well for several years Hamas has been very clear and explicit, repeatedly, that they favor a two state settlement on the international border. They said they would not recognize Israel but they would accept a two state settlement and a prolonged truce, maybe decades, maybe 50 years. Now, that’s not exactly the international consensus but it’s pretty close to it. On the other hand, the United States and Israel flatly reject it. They reject it in deeds, that’s why they are building all the construction development activities in the West Bank, not only in violation of international laws, U.S. and Israel know that the illegal constructions are designed explicitly to convert the West Bank into what the architect of the policy, Arial Sharon, called bantustan. Israel takes over what it wants, break up Palestine into unviable fragments. That’s undermining a political settlement. So in deeds, yes of course they are undermining it, but also in words: that goes back to 1976 when the U.S. vetoed the Security Council resolution put forward by the Arab states which called for a two state settlement and it goes around until today. In December, last December, at the meetings of the UN’s General Assembly there were many resolutions passed. One of them was a resolution calling for recognition of the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people. It didn’t call for a state, just the right of self-determination. It passed with 173 to 5. The 5 were the U.S, Israel and a few small pacific islands. Of course that can’t be reported in the U.S. So they are rejecting it even in words, as well as -- more significantly- in acts. On the other hand, Hamas comes pretty close to accepting it. Now, the demand which Obama repeated on Hamas is that they must meet three conditions: they must recognize Israel’s right to exist, they must renounce violence and they must accept past agreements, and in particular the Road Map. Well, what about the U.S. and Israel? I mean, obviously they don’t renounce violence, they reject the Road Map -- technically they accepted it but Israel immediately entered 14 reservations (which weren’t reported here) which completely eliminated its content, and the U.S. went along. So the U.S. and Israel completely violate those two conditions, and of course they violate the first, they don’t recognize Palestine. So sure, there’s a lot to criticize about Hamas, but on these matters they seem to be much closer to -- not only international opinion -- but even to a just settlement than the U.S. and Israel are."-
100%
Thinker229 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>Chomsky: Well for several years Hamas has been very clear and explicit, repeatedly, that they favor a two state settlement on the international border.
Reply
Well, so, according to Chomski Hamas "favor a two state settlement on the international border." I'm not sure where the "international border" is as Israel already has official internationally recognized borders with Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt. Further, Hamas "would not recognize Israel but they would accept a two state settlement and a prolonged truce, maybe decades, maybe 50 years."
To summarize, Hamas will favor a "two-state solution" but "will not recognize Israel". In addition Hamas will favor "International border". The only way to interpret this BS is that Hamas will favor a "two-state solution on the international border" with Jordan, Egypt or, maybe, both these Arab countries. In the same time Hamas would accept a "prolonged truce" with Israel which will end when Hamas will decide to end it.
I'm sorry but Chomski's lies are not very convincing. -
100%
Thinker229 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>In December, last December, at the meetings of the UN’s General Assembly there were many resolutions passed. One of them was a resolution calling for recognition of the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people. It didn’t call for a state, just the right of self-determination. It passed with 173 to 5. The 5 were the U.S, Israel and a few small pacific islands. Of course that can’t be reported in the U.S.
Reply
Yes, it was not reported in the U.S. and for very good reason: there was no such resolution. The fact is that since 1948 both Israel and the U.S voted FOR the right of self-determination of Palestinian Arabs AND for an Arab state in Palestine. All these offers were REJECTED by the Palestinians and the Arab states because they were conditioned on the right of Israel to exist in peaceful and secured borders. All UN resolution proposals vetoed by the US demanded Israel to commit a state suicide in one form or another... but Chomski pretends not to know about it.-
0%
dissent9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Yes, it was not reported in the U.S. and for very good reason: there was no such resolution."
Reply
oh, tinker.... i thought you were smarter than that as to set yourself up so easily to be disproven.
looky here, 30 seconds of googling and what do i find?
"Sixty-third session
Third Committee
Agenda item 63
Right of peoples to self-determination
The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination
The General Assembly,
Aware that the development of friendly relations among nations, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, is among the purposes and principles of the United Nations, as defined in the Charter,
Recalling, in this regard, its resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970 entitled "Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Natons.""
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/5ba47a5c6cef541b8...
you are blinded by your fanaticism and trip over your zealotry tinker... tsk tsk-
100%
Thinker229 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> i thought you were smarter than that as to set yourself up so easily to be disproven.
Reply
Let us see:
> looky here, 30 seconds of googling and what do i find?
You've found this:
""Stressing the need for respect for and preservation of the territorial unity, contiguity and integrity of all of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East
Jerusalem,"""
Now read again what I've said in my post you've "disproven":
>>>All UN resolution proposals vetoed by the US demanded Israel to commit a state suicide in one form or another...<<<
If you need additional explanations, Dissent, look at the the map of Israel and you'll, (hopefully) realize that it is not possible to achieve "preservation of the territorial unity, contiguity and integrity of all of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East
Jerusalem" without cutting Israel in several pieces.
Enjoy the map and try to read my statement prior to responding in the future:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en="map+of+israel=1...
-
-
-
100%
Thinker229 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>Now, the demand which Obama repeated on Hamas is that they must meet three conditions: they must recognize Israel’s right to exist, they must renounce violence and they must accept past agreements, and in particular the Road Map. Well, what about the U.S. and Israel? I mean, obviously they don’t renounce violence...
Reply
So, even according to Chomski Hamas DID NOT AND WILL NOT recognize Israel's right to exist while Israel RECOGNIZED the Palestinians since 1948. Further, I'm not sure how he (Chomski) arrived to a conclusion that Israel "obviously"(!!!) WILL NOT renounce violence if Hamas WILL but this is a pretty idiotic (sorry, Chomski) suggestion. What will Israel, possibly, gain from attacking PEACEFUL Palestinians except international condemnation?
> ...they reject the Road Map -- technically they accepted it but...
Here, as they say in the movies, "I don't have further comments, your honor..." According to Chomski, Israel REJECT the Road Map by... ACCEPTING it. Bravo, Professor, your logic is (literally) INCREDIBLE (for those without proper sense of humor I mean NOT CREDIBLE).
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
dissent9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Exile for Teheran women who flout dress code
Reply
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?...
Whew! For a moment you had me worried that I was way off base!"
tried in a few different browsers but your link comes up as an error message.
"Microsoft VBScript runtime error '800a01a8'
Object required
/span_logo_hb_news.asp, line 24"
how about your 2nd hit? -
Neutral
dissent9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
btw... all cultures have seemingly irrational expectations.
Reply
ours for instance puts a great deal of emphasis on fake tits, teeth, tans and hair. we are bombarded constantly with the relentless and ubiquitous saturation of such images (that promise to be the key to the perfect lifestyle paradise on earth) and what is expected from us by them in order to be permitted access to the nirvana for beautiful people only.
subsequently, the number of teenage girls and adult women with anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa and the opposite reaction, obesity, are all disproportionately large in our culture as compared to others due to our unrealistic cultural expectations to have the ideal woman look like a plastic kid's toy.
you don't have to look too far for too long to see that the sad and tragically flawed truth doesn't dovetail with the unrealistic and absurd demand. ours is a neurotic culture driven by angst to chase its own neurotic tail. preoccupied with narcissism, consumed by eating disorders
but you don't seem to have a problem with that as you do with the cultural practises of iran. no prizes for guessing why. you're indoctrinated by one and you demonize the other. sheep will do that
-
-
-
75%
Thinker229 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Chomski:
Reply
" He [Abba Eban] said that there are two kinds of criticism of Zionism (by Zionism I [Chomski, NOT Abba Eban] mean the policies of the state of Israel). One is criticism by anti-Semites and the other is criticism by neurotic self-hating Jews. That eliminates 100% of possible criticism."
The words above prove that Chomski is a liar. He tells us about a statement supposely made by Abba Eban but then TWISTS the definition of Zionism to suit his (Chomski's) purposes.
> "The neurotic self-hating Jews, he actually mentioned two, I was one and I.F. Stone, a well-known writer was another). I mean that’s the kind of thing that would come out of a communist party in its worst days."
This is a pretty strange claim (and a blatant lie as well). Why should one be a member of the "Comminist party in its worst days" to say that anti-Zionist Jews (Jews declaring that their own people DO NOT have a right for self-determination) are "neurotic self-hating Jews"? The fact is that the Communist party in the Soviet Union FORCED Jewish celebrities to condemn Zionism and praised those who did as heroes, not as "neurotic self-hating Jews".
> "But you see, I can’t really be called anti-Semite because I’m Jewish so I must be a neurotic self-hating Jew, by definition."
This is still another lie by Mr. Chomski. An anti-Semite is one hating Jews no matter if this Jew-hater is himself Jewish or not. Further, if Mr. Chomski is a "neurotic self-hating Jew" then it means that he is a Jew-hater which is the same as anti-Semite.
> "The assumption is that the policies of the state of Israel are perfect, so therefore any kind of criticism must be illegitimate. And that’s from Abba Eban, one of the most distinguished figures in Israel, the most westernized … praised, considered a dove."
This is still another lie. The assumption above comes from Mr. Chomski, NOT from Abba Eban as it's Chomski who invented the definition of Zionism as "the policies of the state of Israel".
Anti-Semitism is a form of racism. It's hatred of Jews because they are Jewish. Hatred of Jews is no different from hatred of Blacks, Armenians, Tutsis or Albanians. All forms of racist hatred are based on lies. With all due respect to Mr. Chomski's achievements in science and academia he is a racist liar (as I've shown above). -
-
-
HMMaceComment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.