To mark IDC Herzliya’s 20th anniversary, we spent a day following Prof. Uriel Reichman, IDC’s founder and president, and Jonathan Davis, VP for External Relations, around its delightful campus.
Noam Chomsky, who spoke at Boston University’s Jacob Sleeper Auditorium on March 2 as part of the noxious Israel Apartheid Week and a guest of Students for Justice in Palestine, clearly lives in an academic netherworld of political fantasies, conspiracies, and intellectually imbecilic distortions of history and fact. As a result, the MIT professor emeritus of linguistics has become a widely known, eagerly followed superstar of the Israel-hating, America-hating Left.
The explosive power of Chomsky’s animus for the imperialist West – Israel and the U.S. in particular – is only matched by his slavish affection and apologetics for the murderous despots of the Soviet Union, Khmer Rouge, and Viet Cong, whose barbarous excesses were in his mind predicated by the oppression and exploitation of the tyranny of Western democratic states.
If Chomsky’s animosity toward America has been a defining theme in his intellectual jihad, an obsessive, apoplectic hatred for Israel has more completely dominated his screeds and spurious scholarship. Like other anti-Zionists in the West and in the Arab world, Chomsky does not even recognize the legitimacy of Israel, believing that its very existence was, and is, a moral transgression against an indigenous people, and that the creation of Israel was “wrong and disastrous . There is not now and never will be democracy in Israel.”
Jewish power is a repellant notion for Chomsky, just as the hegemonic might he ascribes to the terror states of Israel and America is the scourge of peace – not, of course, the destabilizing barbarism of Islamism. The existence of Israel not only subjugates the long-suffering Arabs but is driving the entire globe toward annihilation, Chomsky suggested, using the image of Israel having succumbed into a kind of moral madness. Its very psychosis had become a source of power, and the exercise of that power would bring about global genocide.
“Israel’s ‘secret weapon,’ ” Chomsky wrote, evoking an apocalyptic vision, “is that it may behave in the manner of what have sometimes been called ‘crazy states’ in the international affairs literature eventuating in a final solution from which few will escape.”
Chomsky denounces Israel’s identity as a Jewish state as being essentially racist on its face, and decries the very notion of its Jewishness as necessarily violating the concept of social equity by being exclusionary and elite.
While he is happy to, and regularly does, ignore the murder of Jews by Palestinians, Chomsky never hesitates to point to what he sees as the perfidy of Israel and its barbarous assaults on its Arab neighbors who, in his socialist fantasies, wish for nothing more than to live in peace. He draws the perverse parallel between Israelis and Nazis so frequently in his writings that, to paraphrase the wry Professor Edward Alexander, he would be rendered nearly speechless if he were unable to use the epithet of Nazi against Israel in every sentence he utters.
If imperialism itself can be classified as a type of state-sponsored “terror,” as it regularly is in the morally-incoherent universe where Chomsky and other anti-Western thinkers reside, then it is quite simple to suggest, as Chomsky regularly does, an equivalence between the murderous acts of Hamas and Hizbullah who attempt to address perceived grievances and the legitimate self-defense of democracies whose citizens are under attack by murderous, non-state actors. Once someone has equated the rogue terror of one party with the legitimate acts of self-defense by sovereign nations, it is possible, and indeed inevitable, that he or she will start investing both actors with the same moral, and legal, standing.
Chomsky’s optimism concerning the political aspirations of Hizbullah is equally as ludicrous. In 2006, when he traveled to Beirut to Hizbullah’s headquarters to meet with its secretary general, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, Chomsky was naturally impressed with the terrorist’s “reasoned argument and persuasive argument that [arms] should be in the hands of Hizbullah as a deterrent to potential aggression….”
As for Chomsky’s friend Nasrallah, his lovely opinions concerning Israel and the Jews are widely known, including his view that Jews “are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment,” but “if they all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.”
And in keeping with Chomsky’s own pathological obsession, Nasrallah has suggested that, since the Zionist regime is nothing but a blot on mankind, “there is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel.” That would seemingly make for a perfect world in Professor Chomsky’s view, but what would he then write about so fervently and with so much venomous enthusiasm?
About the Author: Richard L. Cravatts, Ph.D., author of “Genocidal Liberalism: The University’s Jihad Against Israel & Jews,” is president of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East.
If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.
Comments are closed.
The “Media” didn’t want us to know what a kind, giving, loving young woman Dalia was.
A “Palestine” could become another Lebanon, with many different factions battling for control.
Maimonides himself walked and prayed in the permissible areas when he visited Eretz Yisrael in 1165
Israel’s Temple Mount policy prefers to blames the Jews-not the attackers-for the crisis.
When Islam conquered the Holy Land, it made its capital in Ramle of all places, not in Jerusalem.
I joined the large crowd but this time it was more personal; my cousin Aryeh was one of the victims.
Terrorists aren’t driven by social, economic, or other grievances, rather by a fanatical worldview.
The phrase that the “Arabs are resorting to violence” is disgraceful and blames the victim.
Tuesday, Yom Shlishi, a doubly good day in the Torah, Esav’s hands tried to silence Yaakov’s voice.
Because of the disparate nature of the perpetrators, who are also relatively young, and given the lack of more traditional targets and the reverence Palestinians have for their homes, one now hears talk of Israel returning to a policy of destroying the houses of terrorists’ families.
In any event, the Constitution gives Congress what is popularly described as the “power of the purse” – that is, the power to raise revenues through taxation and to decide how the money should be sent.
It is difficult to write about such a holy person, for I fear I will not accurately portray his greatness…
Only in the inverted world of academia would Jewish professors denounce the AMCHA Initiative report.
The multiculturalism that animates the hate-Israel crowd is sprinkled with code words of oppression
Jews do not fare well on campuses these days, particularly in the context of the debate over Israel.
The cynical, and historically and factually inaccurate, view has meant leftists frequently denounce Western democracies as imperialistic, racist, militaristic oppressors.
What was unique about the MLA’s and the ASA’s approach was the breathtakingly Orwellian notion that not only was Israel itself guilty of the many alleged transgressions assigned to it by its libelers, but a boycott against Israeli academics was warranted because the academic establishment itself is complicit in Zionism’s excesses and a core element of the bemoaned occupation, oppression, and denial of Palestinian self-determination.
The ASA has obviously overlooked the pathology of Palestinian society.
The Teachers’ Union of Ireland (TUI), which represents some 14,500 members, voted in early April “to cease all cultural and academic collaboration with Israel, including the exchange of scientists, students and academic personalities, as well as cooperation in research programmes [sic].”
Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/noam-chomskys-visceral-hatreds/2010/04/08/
Scan this QR code to visit this page online: