Sunday, April 23, 2006

No matter what you say or do you will always remain a Jew


It is a curious phenomenom that some Jews will always bend over backwards to besmirch other Jews and Jewish causes to attempt to find favour in certain gentile circles. They want to show the world that they are not "one of those Jews".
The interesting thing is that this has happened all throughout history and each and every one of them have never found favour in the eyes of those that they seek. To ceratin anti-Semitic circles, once a Jew, always a Jew. Karl Marx is a good example of this, no matter how much he lambasted Jews few forgot that he himself was a Jew.
One of the greatest examples of this today is that of Noam Chomsky. Chomsky is a Professor of Linuistics at MIT, but curiously is better known for his rabid anti-Zionism and even according to some anti-Semitism. There is even a good amount of evidence that Chomsky has agreed with many Holocaust-deniers and questions ceratin parts of the historical record on the Holocaust.
Recently there has been a big debate as to the role of the "Jewish-Lobby" in the US.
The brouhaha began in late March when two American academics published in The London Review of Books a paper critical of the Israel lobby. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt argued that neither idealism nor hard-nosed practicality justified American support of the Jewish state. Nevertheless, a "loose coalition of individuals and organizations" has been steering US policy in that direction for years.
Writing in Z Magazine, the aging anarchist Chomsky commended Mearsheimer and Walt for their "courageous stand" but then attacked their notion of an informal, far-flung lobby as an empty label. "M-W focus on AIPAC and the evangelicals," wrote Chomsky, "but they recognize that the Lobby includes most of the political-intellectual class - at which point the thesis loses much of its content." However, this slight difference of opinion has won Chomsky few fans amongst his 'friends'.
Veteran pro-Palestinian activist Jeffrey Blankfort, has taken issue with Chomsky's early experiences in the Marxist-Zionist Hashomer Hatza'ir movement, saying that they somehow blinded him to the political machinations of his fellow American Jews.
Amazingly, Blankfort - himself Jewish - has lambasted Chomsky as "a boon for AIPAC" and, by extension, "Israel's position in the United States."
Like Blankfort (and post-Zionist historian Ilan Pappe), James Petras also disagrees with Chomsky on the M-W paper. In fact, the Marxist sociologist gets downright nasty in his critique, suggesting that Chomsky's analytic skills "are totally absent when it comes to discussing the formulation of US foreign policy in the Middle East, particularly the role of his own ethnic group, the Jewish pro-Israel lobby and their Zionist supporters in the government."
Once again, Chomsky is covering for the tribe.
One would think that the Jewish anarchist has already paid his dues. Chomsky has attacked Israel time and again; described French Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson as "a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort"; commended the scholarship of the late Israel Shahak, author of the vile Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, and claimed that the charge of anti-Semitism is used to stifle criticism of Israel.
The fracas with Chomsky proves that, if you're Jewish, no matter what you say and do, you're always just one essay away from being labeled a pro-Israel lobbyist. In the eyes of many, once a Jew...always a Jew.

11 comments:

Nu-Ju said...

This article, although having some interest in terms of the criticism of Chomsky's recent article for Znet , is for the most part vicious libel against Noam Chomsky. As you note Noam Chomsky was in fact a zionist activist in his youth and the only reason he is now considered an anti-zionist is because the conception of Zionism itself has changed. The anti-semitic charge is completely baseless and ridiculous. In terms of his support for holocaust deniers, anyone who actually looks into the matter will find Noam Chomsky is a defender of free speech, for everyone, not just those views that we agree with and he certainly does not agree with any of the views expressed by Holocaust deniers.

Ashley Perry said...

Nu-Ju,
If you would read what I wrote carefully you would see that I never say Chomsky is an anti-Semite, I say "according to some" and there are plenty of people who feel this way.
The concept of Zionism has not changed, it still defines itself as the yearning of Jews to have a country of their own. My understanding is that Chomsky (having read his own words on his own website) has repeatedly called for a Bi-National State devoid of any religion of ethnicity. Whether we find that palatable or not, we must concur that is far outside of the parameters of Zionism.
His binational socialist state will be �integrated into a broader federation� and modeled on the �successful social revolution� in communist Yugoslavia, where 70,000-100,000 people were massacred. Frankly, a man who has shown admiration for Maoist China, Communist North Korea and particularly abominably the Khmer Rouge is not someone I would take too seriously about his input on any nation's standing.
My intent in the article, which very much still stands true, is that throughout history a Jew will still remain a Jew to anti-Semites, no matter that he or she champion some of their causes.

Nu-Ju said...

I'm afraid you'll find that the concept of Zionism has changed. Chomsky was part of the Zionist movement that was strongly against the establishment of jewish state. It was not until 1942 that the Zionist movemment (at least in america) officially sanctioned the ide of a Jewish State. Up until 1948 there was still stream of the Zionist movement that was opposed to the creation of a jewish state. I'm not sure where exactly you're getting the information from about Noam Chomsky being a supporter of a bi-national state, maybe you could provide me with a link. As fas i know since the 70's he has been consistently in favour of a two state solution as the only realistic option. Also i think with some proper research you will find that Noam Chomsky has not shown support for any of the regimes you mention as a whole. As far as i know he has said that some aspects of Khmer Rouge's policy , such as the evacuation of Pnom Penh and China's collectivisation policy did not have the terrible effects to the level that is commonly alleged against them but i think you will find he has no great love for either of these regimes. I'm not aware of him ever expressing any support for any policy of the North Korean government. Also i'm sure there may be an innocent reason but why does this blog post have almost exactly the same content as this article in the jeruselem post? http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1143498893816&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Ashley Perry said...

Nu-Ju,
I really don't know what Zionism you can be talking about. Zionism means the longing to return to Zion. This is clearly enunciated in the seminal work "The Jewish State" by founding Zionist thinker Theodore Herzl. I am baffled as to what "the Jewish State" could refer to if not.....a Jewish State. Zionism espoused by Americans does not necessarily identify the movement. The movement began in Europe, although Jews had been espousing Zionism since the destruction of the Second Temple but were in no way successful. Herzl was just more successful in his ideas being put into action. http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/6640/zion/judenstaadt.html
also
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/zionism.html

I get all of my inormation from www.chomsky.com. Also, parts of the article were taken from the Jerusalem Post article that is why I provide a link to the parts that are from the original.

Nu-Ju said...

i sincerely hope you're not getting your information about Noam Chomsky from www.chomsky.com which seems to be a website for a band named 'Chomsky'. I'd advise you to get your information from 'www.chomsky.info'. I see you haven't checked your facts as you are unable to produce a link to anywhere in which Chomsky says post-1973 that he supports this bi-nationalim you speak of. You clearly do not have any understaning of pre-state Zionist history or theory. It surprises me immensely that someone who claims to be as well informed as yourself and considers themselves an Israel advocate does not have any research skills or any real knowledge of history. Also your blog post was shamelessly plagiarised from that Jeruselem post article. Many parts of the post are exactly the same as the newspaper article and you do not provide a link back to the original article except for one sentence. This is really poor work, i came to your site hoping for some honest discussion but it seems really this site has nothing more to offer than crudely supported polemics and plagiarised blog posts.

Ashley Perry said...

Firstly, while I provided you with ample proof of Zionism's roots, not least from the father of Zionism himself Herzl, you provided me with not a jot of evidence for your 'theories'. Honest discussion??
Anyway I will try and attempt to enlighten you on these matters.
Here are a few notes on Chomsky...
Chomsky is Jewish and has described himself as a Zionist activist in his youth (though his definition of Zionism implies support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine and opposition to a Jewish state thus differing from COMMON interpretations of the term).
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19970609.htm
Chomsky's criticisms of the policies of Israel and his advocacy - until the Geneva Accord - of the dismantling of Israel in favor of a bi-national state is often cited as evidence of anti-Semitism. Chomsky has compared Israel to Nazi Germany on several occasions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Noam_Chomsky

Chomsky has drawn strong criticism from some quarters following statements regarding Jewish power and influence in the United States. In 2002, for example, Chomsky suggested that "Anti-Semitism is no longer a problem" and that Jews are "the most privileged and influential part of the population" who make charges of anti-Semitism because they want "total control, not just 98% control"
http://www.variant.randomstate.org/16texts/Chomsky.html

Chomsky said "I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers or even denial of the Holocaust."

So it seems quite clear what sort of type Chomsky is. He makes outrageous comments about Jewish power, defends people like Holocaust denying Robert Faurisson. He may have changed his views on a binational state VERY RECENTLY (not in 1973 as you claim...again with no evidence) but has advocated for the Geneva Accords. He only gave up his dream of a binational state as it is 'unrealistic' and not because he ceases to beleive in it.
I think most honest commentators know the measure of this man and those of his ilk.

Nu-Ju said...

This argument is getting a bit silly. I notice that you haven't responded to my charges of plagiarism. Firstly from Chomsky has been very consistent since 1973 that the only real option is a two state solution 'from 73 on, the only real option was two states.' http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20040309.htm
I can provide you with more sources, but all it takes is a quick search on Chomsky's website.

He's said this many times and i'm not sure where you got the idea he only changed his mind recently.
About the concept of Zionism, i agree with you that the concept of the jewish state was for the most part the majority position within the zionist movement however there was a clear minority zionist position advocating a gainst a jewish state before 1948. My point is only that this position was considered within the the general conception of Zionism previously and now it is not.
The quotes you have taken of Chomsky are out of context. He means of course that Jews in the US are the most influential and privileged MINORITY group within the population, when compared with other minorities and that jews in america are for the most part amongst the most privileged and and influential part of society. I should think this is a thing to be proud of, but maybe you disagree. You have also inaccurately quoted Chomsky, he says that priveleged people not jews in fact want 100% of control rather than 98%, meaning control of the realm of ideas and acceptable policy. I see no issue with Chomsky defending the right to freedom of speech of Robert Faurisson. And i agree that denying the holocaust does not automatically mean one is an anti-semite. Chomsky uses the example of , someone for the first time learning about the holocaust and flat out denying that it happened because they cannot concieve of anything so utterly brutal, and cannot believe that human beings could do such a thing. I doubt you would say this person is anti-semitic.

Ashley Perry said...

Firstly, I will address your claims of plagiarism. The reason I didn't respond is that I thought it is so obvious, but it seems that there is a lot that is obvious that escapes one's attention.
This is obviously not an academic peice of work, thus does not adhere to academic standards. I give updates and commentary on current affairs. In almsot every peice on this blog, parts are taken from other sources. I provide links to the original articles in every instance. If I wanted to pass this work off as my own, I would hardly provide a link now would I?!?!?!
I asked what kind of Zionism, Chomsky and you refer to if not a return of the Jewish people to their own land with sovereignty. Of course there can be minority opinions on every issue, I'm sure if you look hard enough you will find people who say the world is flat. Zionism as espoused by its creator is what the vast overwhelming majority say it is. Could I lecture Karl Marx about what Marxism really is??
And you claim you "denying the holocaust does not automatically mean one is an anti-semite". I would like you to give me the name of one Holocaust-denier that does not have anti-Semitic inclinations and ties with the far-right or neo-Nazi movements. The proof is definitely in the pudding, as they say.
Of course if a martian were to come from out of space, they could go either way. But let's be intellectually honest here and call a spade a spade. People like Irving and Faurisson have become darlings of the neo-Nazi movement, have made other outrageous statements about Jews and are generally accepted for what they are and the reasons for their beliefs. I refer you to Deborah Lipstadts book.
Can you tell me one other seminal event that occurred since in the last 60 years which has people doubt its veracity. Especially when there are so many people walking this earth who would love to know where their relatives are if this is a big hoax.
It is of the highest offense to claim that there are millions of people (Jews and others) who have lost loved ones, and they are being called liars. Not to mention those who experienced and survived the horrors.
Would you advocate psuedo-academic research to prove that slavery never occurred? Or that the Khmer-Rouge never killed anyone?
It is obvious to all that one group seem to have been singled out where their history and suffering just never happened. This is anti-Semitism. Please don't try and sugar-coat pure and unadulterated hatred, it does noone of any decent morality any favours to claim freedom of expression for such evil.
The power of the Jewish lobby is clearly open for a serious debate as it is a pressing issue for intersted parties. But debating a part of recent history to gain adherents to a racial, hate-spweing creed is nothing of the sort.
Finally, my original point stands. Chomsky whose writings have found favour amongst certain extreme left-wing circles has never found favour himself. And when one small amount of dissent appears, his 'cadre' will dismiss him for his ethnic background. As has happened so often in history.

Nu-Ju said...

1. You should have higher standards for your blog, i'm afraid if anyone comes to your site for a casual read they will believe that Ashley Perry wrote what he says he has written. As blogs become more and more important i would advise you to have higher standards and indicate always what is written by you and what is not so your blog will have some sort of credibility.
2. Ok, you further demonstrate your lack of knowledge of the history of Zionism. Zionism is not Herzlism. And I don't think anyone except you is claiming it is. There are many different types of marxists, there are many different types of Zionists. I'm assuming you do not disagree with this statement. There was obvious disagreement within the Zionist movement about whether or not to advocate for a jewish state, they were joined by thier wish for a homeland for the jewish ppl but obviously many ppl had different conceptions of what they wanted the jewish homeland to look like. I don't think this is a controversial statement. Many Jews were against the establishment of jewish state because such a state would be discriminatory and racist.

3. I don't know what this proves but a lot of people deny that man landed on the moon, to state one example. It took a long time for the many people to recognise the armenian genocide and many ppl (mostly turks) still do not acknowledge this. I'm sorry but i really don't believe denying a fact means automatic racial hatred. And It's nice to know you don't believe in freedom of expression.

4. If you did your research you would know that James Petras and Jeffrey Blankfort (the two ppl quoted in the article denouncing Chomsky) are far from Chomsky's cadre. Blankfort is a long time critic of Chomsky who is not at all taken seriously. I have never heard of Petras before but it seems evident he's an antisemitic arsehole. My point is that these people are not his cadre .I believe they are both marxists and Chomsky is definitely not a marxist.

Ashley Perry said...

1. You seem to be the only person incapable of understanding the rudiments of the system. If I provide a link to something, I could not possibly claim it as my own. The main purpose of this blog is extremely well served by a simple system of disseminating information to those interested in Israel Advocacy.
2.Zionism is not Herzl, in fact Zionism is as old as Judaism. But modern political zionism certainly owes a very large amount to Herzl. Of course there were competing ideas during the early years of the movement when the ideas are being crystallised. Once the State was created Zionism was indeed actively crystallised. If Chomsky were part of that early process of defining the movement we would not have this arguement. However, the only people who now seek to completely re-define Zionism only find themselves completely outside of the boundaries of Zionism. Chomsky is amongst this group certainly.
3. I bleive in freedom of expression, but like every freedom it comes with boundaries. Those boundaries must be upheld for freedom of expression to actually mean anything and not some meaningless pap that frequently is utilised for hate-mongerers.
I personally believe calling my grandfather a liar when he lost his entire family to the Nazis and suffered unimagineable suffering is beyond the pale of the freedom of expression. If my grandfather were one person and a few people, or even a few hundred people went missing. But when denying the death of six million people from a certain ethnic grouping, this is simply hate speech.
I challenged you to name me one holocaust-denier not feted and connected to the far-neo nazi right. You obviously could not, which simply serves and proves my case.
The Armenian genocide is a pretty weak argument. The Turks obviously deny it as they were largely the perpetrators and those who do not recognise it do so purely for political reasons. Show me one historian who claims to have found evidence that it mever happened.
4. Of course people who do not coincide with your argument are not to be taken seriously and are "anti-semitic arseholes', pretty much proves my point. The fact remains that voices very much in accordance with Chomsky are now baiting the Jew Chomsky. Just look at how many websites are presenting these opinions that have frequently lauded Chomsky for his views on Israel.
This is surely the greatest test.

Nu-Ju said...

1. Well it's up to you how you run your website, i think it's dodgy and i'm guessing a lot of other people would probably agree with me.
2. Chomsky was a teenager, around this time of pre-state zionist activism , so i don't see he could have been 'defining the movement'. All i'm saying is that he was part of the stream of zionist movement that was against the creation of a jewish state. Chomsky is not trying to redefine Zionism, he and everyone else accepts that after 1948 Zionism means support for the jewish state. My point is only that this wasn't the only conception of Zionism before 1948, and it seems you agree with me.
3.I beleive you'll find that approximately 12 million people were killed in the Holocaust including roughly 6 million Jews. I agree there's no point in even engaging in any sort of dicussion with holocaust deniers, but i think people should have the right to say what they want. I would never advocate that anyone be thrown in Jail for their views no matter how horrendous those views are.
4. Well i think on this point you are kind of correct, it's an interesting point but very much overstated i think.