Cambridge University: Israel is a ‘Rogue State’

On March 5, 2015, one of UK’s prestigious University of Cambridge voted overwhelmingly in favor of the motion, “This House Believes Israel is a ‘Rogue State’,” at the Cambridge Union Society. The motion was proposed by British journalist Lauren Booth, sister-in-law of Tony Blair, ex-prime minister of UK. She converted to Islam in 2010. Listen the debate below.

The Cambridge Union Society was founded in 1815. Its most notable past speakers included UK’s prime minister Winston Churchill, US president and Hollywood star Ronald Reagan, Buddhist spiritual leader Dalai Lama and Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi.

In a packed debating chamber 51% students voted in favor of the motion, 19% voted against it while 30% abstained.

The proposition team included American academic professor Norman Finkelstein, author of one the best book on HolocaustThe Holocaust Industry; Palestinian academic professor Ghada Karmi (University of Exeter) and Jewish human rights activist Ben White.

The opposition team was lead by Vivian Wineman, president of UK’s powerful Jewish Lobby, the Board of Deputies of British Jews. She was assisted by Hannah Weisfelt, director of Israel lobby Jewish group Yachad and Davis Lewin, deputy director of another Israeli advocacy Jewish group, Henry Jackson Society.

Ben White’s views of the pathetic rants made by Wineman, Weisfelt and Lewin can be read here.

American academic and former special envoy of UNHRC in Palestine Richard Falk (Jewish), Talmiz Ahmad, former Indian diplomat, Gregory Shupak, lecturer at University of Guelph-Humber, Toronto, and Israeli academic professor IIan Pappe (University of Exeter, UK) have all called Israel Rogue State.

On December 4, 2013, American Jewish scholar, Dr. Noam Chomsky, called both the US and the Zionist entity Rogue Statefor their double standards over Iran’s nuclear program.

There are in fact two rogue states operating in the region, resorting to aggression and terror and violating international law at will: the United States and its Israeli client. Iran has indeed carried out an act of aggression: conquering three Arab islands under the US-backed Shah. But any terror credibly attributed to Iran pales in comparison with that of the rogue states,” Chomsky said.

Stephen Lendman, an American Jewish writer, called Israel rogue state on December 23, 2013.

Israel is no democracy. It never was. For sure it’s not now. Its current government is its worse ever. It’s dominated by right-wing (fanatic Zionist Jews),” he said.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!



by Maidhc Ó Cathail, The Passionate Attachment

When waging unconventional warfare, timing is everything.

In some pro-Israel circles, President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State John Kerry are now being hysterically compared to Neville Chamberlain for their alleged “betrayal” of the self-defined “Jewish state” to yet another imminent Holocaust as a result of Obama’s historic, albeit so far limited, rapprochement with today’s supposed equivalent of a genocidal Nazi regime in Tehran and Kerry’s sustained diplomatic effort to get Israel to return to its so-called “Auschwitz borders” prior to its premeditated 1967 Land Grab. In light of this dual “existential threat” posed by the Obama administration to a Greater Israel, the interview given to Israeli TV by Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who first published documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden that revealed the scope of U.S. spying worldwide, is as close to a “game theory warfare” smoking gun as you’re going to get.

Speaking to Israel’s Channel 10 — whose biggest shareholder, cosmetics billionaire Ronald Lauder, is President of the World Jewish Congress — Greenwald criticized “the continued imprisonment of Jonathan Pollard,” who was sentenced to life in prison in 1987 after passing more than a million highly classified documents to Israel while working as an intelligence analyst for the U.S. Navy. (Incidentally, Channel 10 owner Lauder is also asupporter of clemency for Pollard.) As reported today by Haaretz, here’s what Greenwald told his Israeli audience about the spy, who, in the words of former CIA officer Philip Giraldi, “did more damageto the United States than any spy in history”:

Greenwald agreed that the Snowden revelations are relevant to Pollard’s case. “When the U.S. government goes around the world criticizing other countries for spying on allies and prosecuting them,” he said, “are they going to maintain that with a straight face when they’re doing exactly that?”

It’s proper to raise Pollard’s case in the context of U.S. spying on its Israeli ally, he continued, because that underscores the hypocrisy of what the U.S. itself is doing. The U.S. government, Greenwald charged, does exactly what it accuses its enemies of doing, and no country has the right to say other countries shouldn’t do something while it is secretly violating that very same taboo.

While some may be willing to concede that Greenwald’s charge of U.S. government hypocrisy is perfectly valid, the acclaimed “independent” journalist’s remarks that American national security does not require surveillance of its so-called “ally” in Tel Aviv is at best naïve, at worst disingenuous:

Asked about the U.S. government’s claim that the purpose of the eavesdropping is to fight terrorism, he responded by citing the documents’ revelations that the NSA eavesdropped on both German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Israeli officials, asking, Does the U.S. government think Angela Merkel is a terrorist? Or that democratically elected Israeli officials are involved in terror?

Although many Greeks and other Europeans may justifiably view Chancellor Merkel’s austerity measures as a form of economic terrorism, could Greenwald seriously be oblivious to Israel’s long track record of terrorism, not only its state terrorism against the indigenous Palestinians and their neighbours but its less widely-known, albeit acknowledged, false flag terror attacks on its American benefactor and imperial proxy?

Given the account of the “Five Dancing Shlomos” caught celebrating in Liberty Park, New Jersey as the twin towers burned on Sept. 11, 2001, as well as much other well-documented evidence pointing toward Israeli complicity in the 9/11 attacks — seized on with great alacrity by Israel loyalists such as Joe Lieberman as a pretext to strip Americans of much of their constitutional rights while others such as Michael Chertoff profited from the hyped “need” for greater “security” in the post-9/11 “Homeland” — what kind of journalist genuinely concerned about civil liberties would deny that monitoring the conversations of a “spook, terrorist or criminal” such as Netanyahu, a harsh critic of NSA spying who infamously admittedthat 9/11 as “very good” for Israel, is an essential requirement of any genuine fight against terrorism?

Like that other much-adored Jewish “critic of Israel” Noam Chomsky, Glenn Greenwald would appear to be just the latest branded anti-imperial “hero” serving to provide cover for a less transparent Israeli agenda.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Israeli Jew author: ‘Zionists did 9/11′

Barry Chamish is one of the most radical, out-of-control Zionists you’ll ever meet. Chamish is so extreme right-wing pro-settler, pro-Greater-Israel, pro-Jabotinsky, pro-Zio-terrorist, he makes Netanyahu look like a peace-loving statesman,” says Kevin Barrett PhD, an academic, author and talk-show host.

In a recent interview published at Salem-News on August 14, 2012 – Barry Chamish admitted that the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack was an ‘in-house’ job executed by Bush administration with the help of local Zionists and Israeli Mossad. However, he says that Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu was not behind the 9/11.

Chamish claims that Israel’s President Shimon Peres and Defense Minister Ehud Barak were behind the assassination of former prime Robin, President John F. Kennedy and 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Peres organized the murders of Rabin, Sharon, Eitan, Zeevi, all right wing politicians who stood in his way of “peace.” His “peace” center, as its first order of business in the 90s was to fund nanotechnology. Barak arrived in Washington to oversee the murder of JFK Jr., the publisher exposing the real Rabin murder to America. And Olmert’s co-Treasurer of the Likud Party of the late 80s, Menachem Atzmon was too close to 9-11 for any degree of comfort. He apparently was rewarded for taking the rap for Olmert,” said Chamish.

I had further confirmation that the planes couldn’t have brought down the WTC from one of its architects, Aaron Swirki, of Netanya. I know 9-11 was an inside job. The most blatant clues are sheer giveaways. WTC leasee Larry Silverstein signed his takeover of the property in July 2001 with a double indemnity clause that gave him seven billion dollars if the buildings were felled by terrorism. Lucky Larry,” Chamish added.

Chamish claims that Bibi could not have masterminded the 9/11 plot because he was selling furniture at the RIM company in 1980. Chamish also called professors Israel Shahak and Noam Chomsky “Jewish turncoats”. Personally, I admire Israel Shahak for being an honest and outspoken Israeli Jew. However, I along with many others believe that Noam Chomsky is a Crypto Zionist.

Christopher Bollyn, who is under Chamish’s attack in this interview, has written book and several articals on 9/11. One of them can be read here. Interestingly, Chamish did not mention that Bollyn’s first wife, Bosmat Merimsky was allegedly a Jew from an Israeli Kibbutz. They were divorced after two year.

Barry Chamish (born 1952), is a Canadian-born Israeli citizen. He fought in 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon as anti-aircraft missile shooter. He is author of several books on Israel. Chamish describes himself: “My work is a burden. I know too much. I’m paying a price now and it can only get costlier. Three and a half years ago I wrote about Israel from two perspectives: the very positive – glorifying my country’s achievements in various trade magazines read mostly by gentiles, and the very negative—exposing Israeli political corruption in my own publication Inside Israel, read mostly by Jews.”

In October 2005, Chemish wrote how the Zionist regime murdered 100,000 Sephardi Jews by experimenting high doses of radiation. Read the article here.

Alan Sabrosky PhD, who has Jewish family roots, also says: “Israel did 9/11″. Watch a video below.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Jeff Blankfort Speaking of Zionists in Disguise

Jeff Blankfort Speaking of Zionists in Disguise

Speaking of disguises, Mark Richie has been operating behind one for the 30 years I have known him.
In practice, while pretending to be a friend of the Palestinians, he has functioned as an agent provocateur whose sole goal is to cause divisions in the solidarity movement and was banned years ago from every Palestinian email list (before there were blogs).
He does this cleverly, as shown here, making legitimate criticisms of JVP, IJAN and ANSWER while hiding his real target, MECA, the Middle East Children’s Alliance, which is not Zionist, does not support the state of Israel and supports the Palestinian right of return and is one of the most effective organizations working on behalf of the Palestinians which is why Richie aka Richey aka PONeill aka Mark Hiver is continuously attacking it. In other words, he is working for Israel.
One of his other pastimes, illustrated here, is defending Noam Chomsky, who is an admitted Zionist, who supports Israel as a Jewish state, opposes the Palestinian right of return (but approves it for Jews!) and who opposes BDS against Israel. How does Richie reconcile that with his own stated views? He doesn’t try, hoping readers won’t see his ridiculous coupling of Chomsky with Gilad Atzmon who does support the right of return and doesn’t believe in a Jewish state.
I have publicly accused him of being an agent for the Anti-Defamation League and I have material in my files backing that up. A lawyer who, strangely, has never practiced, Richie threatened to sue me years ago if I continued to call him that and I have challenged him to do so since there are a number of questions I’d have my lawyer pose to him.
Anyone wishing more info on this creature should contact me at

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

For both Humanity and Palestine: One front: Occupy the Lobby…Kill the Beast

Nature of the Beast

In Case you missed it: The Helen Thomas’ Resolution by Gilad Atzmon

Two Front International Struggle For Palestine

by Lawrence Davidson

Part I – Two International Fronts
In January 2011, I wrote an analysis in support of a one-state solution to the on-going Israeli-Palestinian struggle. It is the Israelis themselves who have made the one-state solution the only practicable approach, because their incessant and illegal colonization of the West Bank has simply eliminated all possibility of a viable and truly independent Palestinian state. Israeli behavior has not changed in the past year and so I still stand by the position.

That being said, it is important to point out that even a one-state solution capable of bringing justice to the Palestinians, and in doing so, saving the Jews from the folly of Zionism, will not be possible without worldwide intervention. What is necessary is a struggle on two international fronts:

  • A) A strong growing international boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign against Israel and
  • B) Growing popular pressure in the United States that forces a change in foreign policy toward Israel.

Without achieving both of these goals the fate of both Palestinians and Jews looks very bleak indeed.

Part II – Israel Will Try To Prevent A Civil Rights Struggle.
The necessity of this two-front international approach was reinforced for me upon reading a speech given by Noam Chomsky in Beirut in May of 2010. When commenting on a one-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, he made the following points:

  1. For the indefinite future, “Israel will continue doing exactly what [its] doing….[taking] the water resources, the valuable land…the Jordan Valley…and send[ing] corridors through the remaining regions to break them up into separated cantons…”
  2. In the process the Israeli government will make sure that “very few Palestinians [are] incorporated in the valuable areas that Israel will take over” and they will do so in order to preclude “any civil rights struggle.”
  3. he Israelis can do this as long as the United States supports them. Chomsky calls this the “mafia principle.” He notes that in the case of South Africa, the apartheid state was able to hold out against an international boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign as long as the United States did not participate in it. And the primary reason the US gave for not doing so was that the leading resistance organization fighting apartheid, Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress, was a “notorious” terrorist organization.
  4. However, international anti-apartheid sentiment did help push Washington to finally cease its support South Africa and then apartheid collapsed. Chomsky concludes: “When the godfather [that is, the U.S.] changes his policy, things change….I think this could happen with Israel. If the United States changes policy and decides to join the world[‘s growing opposition to Israeli behavior], Israel will have no option but to go along.”

Chomsky’s analysis is a bit too reductionist for me. That is, he tends to bring everything down to positions taken by the U.S. government. But there is no denying that changing U.S. policy is one of two necessary international parts to any solution. And, he makes a seminal point when he tells us that the Israeli government has no intention of incorporating the mass of West Bank Palestinians (to say nothing of the Gazans) into the Jewish state.

Part III – Avoiding A Civil Rights Struggle Through “Transfer”

Indeed, Israeli strategy necessitates allowing a fake “Palestinian state” in the form of West Bank Bantustans, and then deporting their Arab Israeli citizens into those enclaves. No Arabs in Israel, no civil rights struggle.

An interesting piece of news that speaks to this possibility appeared on January 31, 2012. According to Associated Press reports, the Israeli Interior Ministry plans to deport thousands of Southern Sudanese refugees. Why so? Because, according to a ministry spokeswoman, “since the Southern Sudanese have an independent state, they will no longer be given protected status in Israel.” The first step will be to offer them “voluntary deportation and around $1300″ in ‘thanks for leaving’ money. After that, forced deportation and no money, will be the policy.

As the American Palestinian activist Ali Abunimah notes, “Israeli leaders have already hinted that they could use the same type of logic to justify removal of Palestinian citizens of Israel if a nominally independent Palestinian state is established on scrapes of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.”

This is known as a policy of “transfer” in Zionist parlance and it has been discussed at least since the time of Theodor Herzl. In recent years it has been suggested by former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni (now head of the Israeli opposition in the Knesset) and the present Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman as well as a slew of other Israeli politicians. Abunimah’s conclusion is that a “two-state solution would be more likely to lead to further ethnic cleansing of Palestinians than to peace.”

Part IV – Conclusion

So what do we have here? On the one hand, Noam Chomsky points to the very real possibility that the Israelis will not allow a one state solution that creates the conditions for an internal struggle for civil and political equality. And, on the other hand, Ali Abunimah points to the very real possibility that any two state solution will lead to forced deportation of Palestinians into Bantustans.

Is there a way out of this? Well if the South African experience is to be a guide it is this: The sine qua non of any solution is the collapse of Israel’s ethno/religious, that is Zionist, ideology of governance. Just as the racist apartheid form of governance had to be changed for there to be a resolution of the South African struggle, so the Israeli Zionist form of governance has to be changed for there to be a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian struggle.

And, I think that Chomsky is right when he says the Israelis have no intention of allowing such a change in governance to come about through an internal civil rights struggle. Therefore, the pressure for the necessary transformation will have to come from outside. It will have to come in the form a two-front movement: one front building the worldwide boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel, and the second front concentrating on making support of Israel a national scandal in the U.S. and therefore a domestic voting issue.

While there are a few good organizations in the U.S. (such as the U.S. Campaign To End The Occupation and Jewish Voices for Peace) involved in building this second front, I think that the effort has not been given enough attention by Americans involved in supporting the Palestinian cause. It is time this changed for, as Noam Chomsky suggests, there will be no just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian struggle unless Israeli treatment of the Palestinians becomes a strong enough cause to impact U.S. policy.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Noam Chomsky Endorses SPHR-UBC and SJC’s campaign..‏


Noam Chomsky among supporters of UBC students’ right to donate for Gaza aid

Facing a campaign of disinformation, students at the University of British Columbia’s Social Justice Centre (SJC) are nevertheless gaining support from far and wide after the Alma Mater Society’s President arbitrarily blocked a $700 donation to the Canadian Boat to Gaza.

The student newspaper, The Ubyssey, wrote an editorial defending the SJC’s autonomous right to make the donation.

And letters of support poured in, among them this letter from none other than Noam Chomsky:

“I am happy to endorse the Social Justice Centre (SJC) and Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR). They are integral parts of the UBC and Vancouver communities, and important voices in the struggle for justice. I oppose any efforts to defame or destroy these groups, and would urge the AMS Council to ensure their voices are protected. I support the autonomy of the SJC, and defend the right of the SJC and other Resource Groups to fulfill their political mandates without interference.”

On the other side of the debate, David Frum (the former Bush speechwriter of ‘Axis-of-Evil’ fame) weighed in with a column in the National Post, making some outlandish accusations.
David Heap, the Legal-Financial committee coordinator for the Boat to Gaza, wrote the SJC the following letter, in order to rebut the disinformation being spread by the likes of Frum.
Letter to UBC Social Justice Centre

Turtle Island Humanitarian Aid
C.P. 92087, Portobello, Brossard, Québec J4W 3K8

Social Justice Centre
University of British Columbia
November 29, 2010

Dear friends,

It has come to our attention that a number of false and misleading allegations have been made regarding your generous donation to the Canadian Boat to Gaza campaign. I would like to take this opportunity to clear up some potentially harmful misconceptions.
Funds for the Canadian Boat to Gaza campaign are being collected through a registered
non-governmental organization, Alternatives, which has been working in the area of
international development and solidarity for more than 15 years. Although Alternatives (full name: Alternatives, réseau d’action et de communication pour le développement international) is a registered Canadian charity, the purchase of a boat is not eligible for charitable tax receipts.

All the funds collected for the Canadian Boat to Gaza are subject to all the normal requirements of Canadian laws governing public organizations, and are subject to annual independent audits reporting to both the government and Alternatives’ members.
When sufficient funds have been gathered for the purchase of a vessel and related costs
(crew, berthing charges, registration, fuel, etc.), Alternatives will transfer the required amounts to Turtle Island Humanitarian Aid, a registered Canadian non-for-profit organization which will purchase the vessel and register it under Canadian law.

We will then arrange for a cargo of humanitarian aid as well as passengers for the trip to Gaza under a Canadian flag. Our cargo will be subject to independent verification at its port of departure.
Our campaign is a civil society initiative which deals with civil society partners in Gaza,
including the Palestinian Non-Governmental Organizations Network, which is partner with a number of international aid organizations. We do not seek nor will we accept sponsorship from any government.

I hope this information is enough to help counter the unprincipled and dishonest smear
campaign which has been directed at your organization. Please let me know if there is further information which I can provide about these matters. Thank you very much for standing on the side of justice, with the Palestinians of Gaza and against the inhuman and illegal siege.

It may not be an easy position to take at times, but history will show that it is the principled humanitarian course of action in the present circumstances.
In solidarity for peace with justice,
David Heap, Ph.D.
President, Turtle Island Humanitarian Aid
Coordinator, Legal-Financial Committee, Canadian Boat to Gaza campaign

SPHR-UBC: Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights at the University of British Columbian

SJC: Social Justice Center at UBC
AMS: Alma Mater Society at UBC (UBC’s student union)


There is a vicious campaign against SPHR-UBC and SJC. The campaign is at its core anti-Palestinian; and it’s becoming worse with lies floating around. For example:

And now the issue is in the National Post. David Frum is linking the SJC and SPHR to Gaddafi. David Frum wrote a piece about it:

The good news is that Professor Noam Chomsky “happily” endorsed the campaign by SPHR-UBC and SJC. That’s very excellent news; and I hope it encourages people to support SPHR and SJC. Forward this petition as widely as you can:

Omar Shaban
Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights | President
Website: | e-mail:
Mobile: 604-379-4050

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Israel: Strategic Ally or Liability?

12. Jun, 2010
By Stephen Sniegoski

The claim that Israel serves as a valuable ally for the United States is made by both pro-Zionists and much of the anti-war and anti-Zionist Left that is influenced by Noam Chomsky.

As a result of the Gaza flotilla massacre, which has caused a world-wide uproar against Israel, the value of Israel to the United States is being publicly questioned in more mainstream foreign policy forums.
Writing shortly before the massacre, the always astute Philip Giraldi critically analyzed the claim of Israel’s value to the United States in “The Strategic Ally Myth,” which focuses on a recent article by Israel Firster Mort Zuckerman entitled, “Israel Is a Key Ally and Deserves U.S. Support.”

Zuckerman is a real estate billionaire and editor-in-chief of U.S. News & World Report, and his article came out in that magazine. (He is also publisher/owner of the New York Daily News). Zuckerman’s writing for his own publications has credentialed him for other media outlets, and he regularly appears on MSNBC and The McLaughlin Group. Between 2001 and 2003, Zuckerman was the chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Giraldi underscores Zuckerman’s pro-Israel orientation: “Zuckerman is frequently spotted on the television talking head circuit where he dispenses analysis of international events that could have been crafted in Tel Aviv or Herzliya, where the Israeli intelligence service Mossad has its headquarters.” Zuckerman’s immense wealth and media influence exemplifies why Israel has been able to gain the reputation as a valuable ally to the United States.

Giraldi, however, points out that the United States is not technically an ally of Israel’s. Giraldi writes that “to be an ally requires an agreement in writing that spells out the conditions and reciprocity of the relationship. Israel has never been an ally of any country because it would force it to restrain its aggressive behavior, requiring consultation with its ally before attacking other nations. It is also unable to define its own borders, which have been expanding ever since it was founded in 1948. Without defined borders it is impossible to enter into an alliance because most alliances are established so that one country will come to the aid of another if it is attacked, which normally means having its territorial integrity violated. Since Israel intends to continue expanding its borders it cannot commit to an alliance with anyone and has, in fact, rebuffed several bids by Washington to enter into some kind of formal arrangement.”

Zuckerman maintains that there are no drawbacks to America’s support for Israel, explicitly denying the allegation that American support for Israel causes anti-American hostility in the Islamic countries. Instead, Zuckerman maintains that the Muslims “are fighting America because they see the whole West and its culture, values, and belief in democracy as antithetical to their own beliefs.” Giraldi correctly points out that this is ridiculous—a higher-IQ version of Bush’s “they hate us for our freedom.”

It would seem almost self-evident that support for the Arabs’ fundamental enemy would lead to the hostility of Arab states or, should a particular regime remain friendly to the United States, cause groups within the state to threaten its stability. During the Cold War, US/Israeli ties caused some Arab states to turn to the Soviet Union, especially since the Soviets were willing to provide them with weapons, which they could not obtain from the US because of the opposition from Israel and the Israel lobby. American support for Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur war led to the Arab oil embargo against the United States in 1973.

Obviously, it has induced the Islamic terrorism during the past decade, as Osama bin Laden has maintained. Certainly, the Gaza flotilla massacre has heightened Arab and Islamic animosity to the United States, which has been recognized even by mainstream media commentators. Because of the power of the Israel Lobby the United States cannot offer harsh criticism of Israel and must work to prevent any form of United Nations sanctions against it, thus complicating its relationship with the entire Arab/Islamic world. While it must be acknowledged that hostility to the United States has also been accentuated by its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the American military involvement has been caused in large part by the influence of the Israel lobby.

M. Shahid Alam points out in his excellent book, “Israeli Exceptionalism: The Destabilizing Logic of Zionism,” that much of the anti-Americanism in the Middle East was initially triggered by Israel. This anti-Americanism has in turn, enabled Israel to present itself as America’s only reliable friend in the Middle East. In essence, “Israel had manufactured the threats that would make it look like a strategic asset” (p. 218), writes Alam. “Without Israel,” Alam maintains, “there was little chance that any of the Arab regimes would turn away from their dependence on the West” (p. 171).

The realization that Israel is not really a strategic ally of the United States is now being expressed by individuals far more sympathetic to Israel than Alam. Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, for example, makes such a argument in his article, “Israel as a Strategic Liability.”

Cordesman served as national security assistant to the pro-Israel Senator John McCain, though he is considered a centrist. In denying that the United States supports Israel for strategic reasons, Cordesman writes that “the real motives behind America’s commitment to Israel are moral and ethical. They are a reaction to the horrors of the Holocaust, to the entire history of Western anti-Semitism, and to the United States’ failure to help German and European Jews during the period before it entered World War II. They are a product of the fact that Israel is a democracy that shares virtually all of the same values as the United States.”

I would simply point out that this belief in Israel’s moral superiority is not some objective notion that is determined by an objective weighing of all the evidence, but exists primarily in United States because of the power of the pro-Zionist media and political lobby. If somehow the wealth and power conditions of American Jews and Arab Americans were reversed, and all mainstream media information coming to the American public was filtered through a pro-Arab/Palestinian slant, it is inconceivable that America would support Israel over the Palestinians. It is hard to believe that someone as sharp as Cordesman does not recognize the power of the Israel lobby in American domestic politics, and he undoubtedly does, but he is also keen enough to know that people who openly express such a view do not hold cushy  positions in leading think tanks. However, so as not to go too far off track, the issue here is whether Israel is a strategic asset to the United States, not whether the US should support Israel for moral reasons, and concerning the issue at hand Cordesman comes down against the strategic asset argument.

Jim Lobe alludes to the career ramifications of speaking the truth regarding Israel when he quotes Stephen Walt, the co-author of the bombshell book, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” who states: “The fact that Cordesman would say this publicly is a sign that attitudes and discourse are changing . . . . Lots of people in the national security establishment—and especially the Pentagon and intelligence services—have understood that Israel wasn’t an asset, but nobody wanted to say so because they knew it might hurt their careers.”

Intriguingly, Lobe points out that head of the Mossad, Israel’s foremost spy agency, also recently made reference to Israel’s liability to the United States. Mossad chief Meir Dagan told members of the Israeli parliament’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that “Israel is gradually turning from an asset to the United States to a burden.” In reality, it is highly questionable whether Israel has ever been a net asset to the United States.

Zuckerman tries to illustrate what assistance Israel provides the US—a good strategic location in the Middle East, a place to stockpile American weapons, and beneficial intelligence. Giraldi rebuts these alleged benefits, maintaining  that “the notion that Israel is some kind of strategic asset for the United States is nonsense, a complete fabrication.” He points out that the United States cannot utilize Israeli territory to project its power throughout the region.  “The US has numerous bases in Arab countries,” Giraldi notes, “but is not allowed to use any military base in Israel. Washington’s own carrier groups and other forces in place all over the Middle East, including the Red Sea, have capabilities that far exceed those of the Israel Defense Forces.” It should also be added, as John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt bring out in their book, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” (p. 56), that Israel does not help the United States in its key military objective in the Middle East: maintaining access to Gulf oil.

Giraldi points out that the stockpiles of US equipment in Israel are basically for Israel. “The supplies are, in fact, regularly looted by the Israelis, leaving largely unusable or picked over equipment for US forces if it should ever be needed.”

Regarding Zuckerman’s reference to the provision of “good intelligence,” Giraldi observes that “The intelligence provided by Israel that Zuckerman praises is generally fabricated and completely self serving, intended to shape a narrative about the Middle East that makes the Israelis look good and virtually everyone else look bad.” For some specific examples of actually misleading intelligence, it should be recalled that Israel was providing some of the spurious intelligence on Iraq’s alleged formidable WMD during the build-up to the 2003 US invasion (the Knesset investigated this issue) and, for the past decade, has been issuing alarmist warnings that Iran is on the verge of developing  nuclear weaponry. In short, the intelligence Israel provides to the United States is intended to induce it to take actions to advance Israel’s interests, which can run counter to the interests of the United States. 

The idea of Israel as a strategic asset is especially significant because, as mentioned earlier, it is expressed not only by Israel Firsters but also by Noam Chomsky and his epigones, and thus is a view that looms large in the anti-war camp. Stephen Zunes, a prominent member of the Chomsky group, even implies that Israel is but the passive instrument of American policymakers (See my article: Israel-lobby denial: The bankruptcy of the mainstream Left as illustrated by Stephen Zunes”). This approach, of course, provides psychological satisfaction to those on the left who want to believe in the ultimate evil of gentile capitalism and the perpetual victimization of Jews, but is counterproductive in actually dealing with the problem of American military intervention in the Middle East.  

Actually the case of billionaire Mort Zuckerman should serve as an example to undermine the Chomskyist interpretation. The Chomskyist position is based on the idea that overriding wealth determines American foreign policy; while not strictly Marxist, it has strong similarities to Marxism.  But, of course, pro-Zionist Mort Zuckerman is an individual of great wealth, and he would seem to have considerable clout in the media. And Zuckerman is far from being an aberration. A huge disproportion of the super-wealthy are Jewish. A recent analysis determined that at least 139 of the richest 400 Americans listed by Forbes are Jewish.

Since many wealthy Jews publicly promote Zionism, it stands to reason that their view should be able to shape American foreign policy especially in areas where their interest is far greater than that of other wealthy Americans. We are frequently told that the oil interests control American Middle East policy. But one would think that the combined wealth of super-wealthy pro-Zionists far exceeds the wealth of the oil barons with interests in Middle East oil.  A cursory look at the list of America’s 400 wealthiest individuals showed about 20 or so of the 400 were, at least, to some extent involved in oil/energy. Those specializing in Middle East oil would be somewhat fewer, I would think.

Actually these figures provide a rough view of how wealth shapes the American foreign policy. Pro-Zionist money can sway the area where its concern is the greatest and where that of the oil interests is less so—the Israel/Palestine issue. The issue of overall Middle East policy directly involving the flow of Gulf oil, however, would be of fundamental concern to the oil industry, as well as the wealthy as a whole, since the flow of oil affects the economies of the entire industrial world. Thus, with respect to the current question of whether the US should attack Iran, hardline Zionists would seem to identify fully with the interest of Israel to eliminate an enemy, no matter what the impact on the global economy. However, those wealthy individuals whose fundamental concerns involve oil and economic matters in general are fearful of the possible negative economic effects resulting from such an attack. This explains why the United States has not yet attacked Iran.

Cordesman, who eschews any mention of Zionist influence in the United States, maintains that while the United States will defend, and presumably ought to defend, Israel for moral reasons, it should not provide Israel a blank check. It did “not mean that the United States should extend support to an Israeli government when that government fails to credibly pursue peace with its neighbors.”  In short, Israel cannot simply do anything it wants and receive the support of the United States. “It is time Israel realized that it has obligations to the United States, as well as the United States to Israel, and that it become far more careful about the extent to which it tests the limits of U.S. patience and exploits the support of American Jews. This does not mean taking a single action that undercuts Israeli security, but it does mean realizing that Israel should show enough discretion to reflect the fact that it is a tertiary U.S. strategic interest in a complex and demanding world.” Cordesman seems to believe that Israel can alter its policies to establish much improved relations with the Palestinians and its neighboring countries so that American interests would not be harmed. In short, Cordesman does not say that Israel could become a strategic asset, but that, by following conciliatory policies towards its current enemies, it could become much less of a liability to the United States.

The problem with Cordesman’s position, however, is that the Israeli leadership, and the Zionist establishment in the United States, really believe that Israel has to do what it does to preserve the existence of Israel, i.e., the exclusivist Jewish state. As an exclusivist Jewish state, Israel is threatened by peaceful demographics as well as by terrorism and warfare. To stave off this danger, Israel will not allow for any significant Palestinian return to Israel or any viable Palestinian state, which is exactly what the Palestinians and the Arab and Islamic countries supporting them demand. In short, the positions of Israel and the Palestinians and their backers are antithetical. The United States cannot support Israel without antagonizing the Arab and Islamic states, and vice versa. Since it is widely recognized that friendly relations with the oil-producing Middle Eastern states are vital to U.S. national security, America’s unwavering backing of Israel can only harm its strategic interests.

Furthermore, unconditional support for Israel fuels terrorism against the United States, making American citizens less safe abroad and even on American soil. And, of course, such terrorism can lead America into wars that would not take place if the United States were not targeted.

Finally, automatic support for Israel completely undermines the United States’ advocacy of a world governed by international law, a goal which President Obama has addressed on a number of occasions. As Scott Wilson writes in the article, “Obama’s agenda, Israel’s ambitions often at odds,” in the “Washington Post” (June 5) : “Since its creation more than six decades ago, the state of Israel has been at times a vexing ally to the United States. But it poses a special challenge for President Obama, whose foreign policy emphasizes the importance of international rules and organizations that successive Israeli governments have clashed with and often ignored.”

As President Obama stated in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech: “I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don’t.” Then, in an implicit swipe at the Bush administration, he continued: “Furthermore, America—in fact, no nation—can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves.” This admonition could also apply to America’s tacit support for Israel’s policies.

America’s concern about international legality did not begin with Obama—Woodrow Wilson was a major proponent of the League of Nations and Franklin Roosevelt of the UN—even though America’s unwillingness to join the League of Nations resulted from its devotion to national sovereignty and opposition to permanent alliances that could force the country into unwanted wars. America’s continued support for international legality during the interwar period (while the US was outside the League of Nations) was especially illustrated by the involvement of American peace advocates and Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg in framing what became known as the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, which was a multilateral treaty outlawing war except for purpose of self-defense. It was signed by all major countries (eventually 62 signatories), except for Soviet Russia. Although sometimes ridiculed as a meaningless utopian gesture, the treaty served as the basis to judge the Nazi high command at Nuremberg in 1945-46, and was incorporated and expanded in the UN Charter.

America’s verbal support for international law is not based simply on morality, nor is does it represent high-sounding but empty rhetoric. As a wealthy, powerful nation the United States has a vested interest in maintaining the international status quo in the same way as the preservation of the status quo was sought by the victors of the Napoleonic Wars and World War I. (The Congress of Vienna, of course, was far more effective than the Paris Peace Conference in establishing a long-lasting peace.) International stability not only preserves America’s power position, but also provides the optimal environment for the international trade and investment that benefits the American economy.

Obviously, as Obama pointed out, when the United States seeks to use international agreements to restrain the actions of other countries, it cannot expect other countries to obey these rules if does not do so itself. And it acts in this manner when it ignores, or supports, Israel’s violations of international law and prevents UN-sponsored actions against Israel that would be undertaken if any other country in the world engaged in comparable activities.

In conclusion, it is apparent that Washington’s support for Israel interferes with a number of the United States’ basic international goals. It can only be said that Israel is a liability rather than an asset.

Stephen Sniegoski is the author of The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel.

Chomsky denied entry as Goldstone remains under attack

Mel Frykberg, The Electronic Intifada, 19 May 2010

Many Gazan families cope with life in the remains of homes bombed out by the Israelis. (Mel Frykberg/IPS)

RAMALLAH, occupied West Bank (IPS) – When internationally renowned linguist, philosopher and political analyst Noam Chomsky was barred from entering the occupied West Bank, he joined a chorus of Jewish intellectuals savaged by the Israeli government for outspoken criticism.

Chomsky, a strong proponent of Palestinian rights, tried to cross into the occupied Palestinian West Bank from Jordan on Sunday to deliver a speech at Birzeit University near Ramallah.

He was held for several hours and interrogated as to why he was only giving a speech in the Palestinian territories and not in Israel, and then turned away.

“I find it hard to think of a similar case, in which entry to a person is denied because he is not lecturing in Tel Aviv. Perhaps only in Stalinist regimes,” Chomsky told the Israeli daily Haaretz.

Several years ago Norman Finkelstein, a respected American academic and political analyst, was interrogated for a number of hours at Ben Gurion International airport before he was refused entry by Israel’s domestic intelligence agency, the Shin Bet. Finkelstein believes he was targeted due to his harsh criticism of Israel for its war on Gaza.

Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories, was expelled when he tried to enter Israel in 2008.

“I was leading a mission that had intended to visit the West Bank and Gaza to prepare a report on Israel’s compliance with human rights standards and international humanitarian law,” said Falk.

But it appears the Israeli government and the Israel lobby have reserved their most vituperative attacks for South African Justice Richard Goldstone who was appointed by the UN to investigate war crimes during Israel’s devastating assault on Gaza from December 2008 to January 2009.

The Israelis refused to cooperate with his investigation and prevented him from entering Gaza from Israel. He had to enter via Egypt.

Goldstone, an internationally respected jurist, served as the chief prosecutor of the UN, International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

His criticism of Israeli war crimes committed in Gaza provoked Israeli apologists to accuse him of being a “hanging judge,” relating to a number of black South Africans who were sentenced to death under his rulings.

However, Goldstone argued that under prevailing South African law at the time when a murder had been committed in a gratuitous manner with no mitigating circumstances judges had no option other than to sentence the guilty to death.

Former South African Chief Justice Arthur Chaskalson who defended victims of the apartheid policies leaped to Goldstone’s defense.

“It is absolute nonsense to say that Justice Goldstone took the side of the racist policies of the apartheid regime. He was one of a small group of judges who did their best to mitigate the harshness of apartheid and when we went to court to defend victims of apartheid in criminal cases or to make claims on their behalf in the civil courts he was one of the judges that we hoped would hear our cases.”

Former South African president Nelson Mandela, arguably one of Africa’s finest liberation heroes, thought highly enough of Goldstone to appoint him to post-apartheid South Africa’s newly-established constitutional court.

Mandela had previously appointed Goldstone chair of inquiry into human rights abuses committed by South Africa’s various political factions in 1991.

One of Goldstone’s chief criticisms of Israel’s military operation in Gaza was its deliberate and wanton destruction of civilian infrastructure with no specific military purpose.

Goldstone stated, “None of the Israeli responses have even said a word about the property destruction, the bulldozing of agricultural fields, the bombing of water wells and the bombing of sewage works that caused a huge spill over a huge area. There has been no attempt to justify that.”

Human Rights Watch (HRW) released a report last week backing Goldstone’s investigation despite Israeli claims that its forces only destroyed civilian property when armed Palestinian groups were using the facilities.

HRW’s 116-page report, “I Lost Everything: Israel’s Unlawful Destruction of Property in the Gaza Conflict” documents 12 separate cases during its invasion last winter dubbed “Operation Cast Lead” in which Israeli forces extensively destroyed civilian property, including homes, factories, farms and greenhouses, in areas under their control without any lawful military purpose.

“Almost 16 months after the war, Israel has not held accountable troops who unlawfully destroyed swathes of civilian property in areas under their control,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at HRW.

HRW further documented the complete destruction of 189 buildings, including 11 factories, eight warehouses and 170 residential buildings — roughly five percent of the total property destroyed in Gaza — leaving at least 971 people homeless.

Satellite imagery corroborated eyewitness accounts that Israeli forces destroyed many structures after establishing control over an area and shortly before Israel announced a ceasefire and withdrew its forces from Gaza on 18 January 2009.

Israeli forces were following the “Dahiyeh Doctrine” established after Israel’s 2006 war on Lebanon when a Hizballah stronghold in the southern Beirut suburb of Dahiyeh was almost completely razed by the Israeli military.

“What happened in the Dahiyeh quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on,” said Gadi Eisenkot, head of the Israeli military’s northern division. “This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved,” he added.

Israeli leader Col. (Retd) Gabriel Siboni, stated the following, weeks before the Israeli military’s attack on Gaza: “With an outbreak of hostilities, the [Israeli army] will use force that is disproportionate to the enemy’s actions and the threat it poses. Such a response aims at inflicting damage and meting out punishment to an extent that will demand long and expensive reconstruction processes.”

All rights reserved, IPS — Inter Press Service (2010). Total or partial publication, retransmission or sale forbidden.

I’m baffled by Noam Chomsky’s contradictions on Palestine

Contributed by Nadia
Ali Abunimah

I have a great deal of admiration and respect for Noam Chomsky, one of the foremost intellectuals of our time, whose work opened my eyes on a great many issues. But like many others, I have been increasingly baffled by the many inconsistencies in his views on Palestine. A few months ago, for example, I responded to his opposition to the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement on Khalil Bendib’s radio program Voices from the Middle East and North Africa.
After Chomsky was outrageously barred by Israel from traveling to the occupied West Bank over the weekend, I could not help but be struck by yet another glaring contradiction.
In his 17 May interview on Democracy Now he told Amy Goodman that his planned itinerary included a meeting with Salam Fayyad, the unelected US- and Israeli-backed “prime minister” of the Ramallah Palestinian Authority imposed after the US helped overthrow the Hamas-led “national unity government” that came after the 2006 election. Chomsky told Goodman: 
I was going to meet with the Prime Minister [Fayyad]. Unfortunately, I couldn’t. But his office called me here in Amman this morning, and we had a long discussion.
He is pursuing policies, which, in my view, are quite sensible, policies of essentially developing facts on the ground. It’s almost—I think it’s probably a conscious imitation of the early Zionist policies, establishing facts on the ground and hoping that the political forms that follow will be determined by them. And the policies sound to me like sensible and sound ones. The question, of course, is whether—the extent to which Israel and the United States, which is a determining factor—the extent to which they’ll permit them to be implemented. But if implemented, and if, of course, Israel and the United States would terminate their systematic effort to separate Gaza from the West Bank, which is quite illegal, if that continues, yes, it could turn into a viable Palestinian state.
Really? Chomsky the great critic of US efforts to undermine democracy and impose its clients around the world is now effusively endorsing what is in effect a US-backed puppet regime? Don’t take my word for it. Here’s what Chomsky said about precisely the same Ramallah Palestinian Authority whose “prime minister” he now finds so “sensible” during a lecture in Boston on 21 January 2009.
After describing at length Israel’s plans to rob Palestinians inside Israel and the occupied territories of any remaining rights and to complete the colonization of remaining Palestinian lands, Chomsky says: 
Well, those proposals can only be implemented if there’s no resistance to them. In the West Bank by now there’s very little resistance, because of Israeli violence which has indeed subdued the population. And by now because of collaborationist Palestinian forces. As I’m sure you know Israel, the United States, with its allies, the Arab dictatorships — Jordan, Egypt — have trained security forces, Fatah security forces, whose main task is to subdue the population. If they have a demonstration, you know, against the atrocities in Gaza, instead of the Israeli army going in, they’ll do it. That’s a typical colonial pattern. The whole history of colonialism works like that. I won’t run through the details but it’s absolutely common, very common. Like, say, India, the population was mostly kept under control by Indian soldiers under British command. It’s just a typical and natural procedure. In Chechnya today it’s kept subdued and quiet and developing and so on under Chechen military forces with the Russians in the background in case anything goes wrong. It’s routine and its being duplicated in the West Bank. Well, okay, so they’ve pretty much subdued protest in the West Bank so they can carry out their policies without disturbance, but they haven’t yet subdued Gaza. In Gaza you still have resistance. 
Later, Chomsky speaks about Israel reneging on the 2005 deal to keep the borders of Gaza open and its imposition of the current blockade: 
A couple of months later, in January 2006, Israel rejected the agreement as did the United States. And the reason is the Palestinians had committed a really grave crime. They voted the wrong way in a free election. And you don’t do that. The Godfather doesn’t like that and therefore you have to be punished. And so the international community has to write uplifting articles about our yearning for democracy, so again, that’s how international affairs work and how our cultural system works…
What has happened to Chomsky that he is offering his cachet, endorsement and support to what he himself has described as a colonial collaborationist regime?


Nothing happened to Chomsky, At the end he is a Zionist
Planet Chomsky vs. Dershowitz’s Orbit by Gilad Atzmon

Norman Finkelstein on Israel and Noam Chomsky – Sam Husseini: Noam Chomsky Was Not Prevented From Entering Israel


By Sam Husseini

Many reported that Noam Chomsky was recently stopped from entering Israel. This is false. Totally false. He was prevented from going to the Palestinian city of Ramallah by Israeli forces. This important distinction highlights among other things that Israel controls the borders into occupied Palestinian areas, a large part of the problem.

AP stated: “An Israeli official says academic and polemicist Noam Chomsky, who is a fierce critic of Israel, has been denied entry to the country”. Al Jazeera English had Chomsky on and introduced the segment by saying he was “stopped from entering Israel”. ABC News ran the headline “Noam Chomsky Denied Entry to Israel”. Matthew Rothschild wrote: “On Sunday, the Israeli government denied Noam Chomsky entry into the country”.

Some got the facts right, noting that Chomsky was denied entry into the West Bank by Israel — but didn’t highlight why or how that might be. The typical reader is likely unaware that Israel controls access to Palestinian areas, among many other aspects of everyday life that most people take for granted.


Israel regularly prevents people from entering occupied Palestinian areas. It’s turned Gaza into a virtual prison camp. Goods cannot go to Palestinians without Israel’s say so. People cannot go to Palestinian towns without Israel’s say so. I’ve had relatives who are U.S. citizens marry Palestinians in the West Bank — they had to leave every three months because that was the duration of the visa Israel gives them. I’ve seen Israeli forces take little girls into a room to be strip searched at the border from Jordan into the occupied West Bank. Israel in many respects is trying to make life for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza difficult so they will simply leave.

Bob Naiman — who like Chomsky is Jewish — notes on my facebook page: “I would like to go to Ramallah too, but the last time I tried to enter the West Bank, I was blocked at the Sheikh Jarrah bridge, and my passport was stamped ‘no entry’ just like uncle Noam. That was in 1996. Then, a few months ago, the Egyptians stopped me from going to Gaza…” Bob’s last sentence refers to the Gaza Freedom March, when over 1,300 people (including myself) from over 40 countries tried to get into Gaza from Egypt, but the Mubarak regime stopped us, doing Israel’s dirty work and beating many of us up, to the silence of most major media.

Even Amira Hass, a noted Israeli journalist, wrote “Professor Noam Chomsky, an American linguist and left-wing activist, was denied entry into Israel and the West Bank on Sunday”.
This too is wrong — Chomsky didn’t request to enter Israel, so such a request couldn’t be denied. Actually, if you listen to Chomsky’s interview carefully on Democracy Now, he indicates that if he had tried to enter Israel, he would likely have been able to enter the West Bank — exactly the opposite of what so many are claiming:

“I have spoken in Bir Zeit [University, near Ramallah] a number of times. … The one difference in this case is that, on those occasions, I was visiting Israel and giving talks at Israeli universities and meetings and so on, and went to Bir Zeit on a side trip, and in this case, I was going to Bir Zeit and not speaking at Israeli universities. And in fact, the [Israeli] interrogator, who was reading questions that were coming from the [Interior] Ministry, repeatedly asked, “Well, why aren’t you also going to give talks in Israel?””

As Ali Abunimah observes: “It demonstrates that there is in fact one authority and it is not the ‘Palestinian Authority.’ It also shows that Israel is in fact effectively operating a political boycott while complaining about BDS!” [Referring to the Boycott Divestment Sanctions movement activists like Abunimah are organizing against Israel, modeled on the similar movement against apartheid South Africa.]

Ironically, Noam Chomsky has been critical of the Boycott Divestment Sanctions movement, listen to this debate earlier this year with him on KPFA.

I have had some qualms with the divestment sanctions movement myself, going back to South Africa. I don’t want change to come by the economic power of people in the U.S. — I want positive change to come because many people are better able to tell the truth or because people are better able to act in solidarity. But maybe we don’t live in that world and the best we can expect is that one type of evil — U.S. economic might — can be used in part to fight Israeli colonialism (Lord knows U.S. economic might frequently helps Israeli colonialism.)

Perhaps the last irony is that the “Interior Ministry” of Israel is calling the shots. Chomsky — and thousands, actually millions of others — wants to go from Jordan to Ramallah and Nablus and Hebron and Bethlehem and Gaza and elsewhere. What does Israel have to do with it? Palestinians should be allowed to control their own borders.

– Sam Husseini is the founder of He contributed this article to Visit:

Barring Chomsky raises the question again: why does Israel control Palestinian borders? – my experience – on May 16

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Planet Chomsky vs. Dershowitz’s Orbit by Gilad Atzmon

Monday, May 17, 2010 at 5:44PM Gilad Atzmon

The Israeli Interior Ministry on Sunday denied entry to Jewish American linguist Prof. Noam Chomsky turning him back from the Allenby Bridge border crossing in the Jordan Valley. Seemingly, the moral ash cloud that is pouring out of the morbid Jewish ghetto known as Israel is not going to clear. It is there to stay.

On the face of it, Chomsky’s border incident shouldn’t take us by surprise. Israel is the Jewish state and as such it operates as a synagogue of great magnitude. The synagogue is an exclusive entity, it only allows in those who fit. The synagogue is neither democratic nor liberal, it is actually subject to tribal judgments that have very little to do with ethics or universalism.

In the Jewish State, Prof Noam Chomsky is apparently a persona non grata,  however, Alan Dershowitz, a shallow intellect is seemingly the hero of Tel Aviv University.

A week ago, during a University symposium, Dershowitz said that Israel’s biggest problem is Israel-bashing ‘Jews’ like Norman Finkelstein and Gilad Atzmon. He said some people live on what he calls “Planet Chomsky”.

Dershowitz didn’t do his homework.

Clearly I myself share very little with Chomsky. As if this is not enough, I am not a Jew for more than a while.

However, it doesn’t take a genius to detect a continuum between Israel and Dershowitz. A week ago Chomsky was a ‘planet’. Yesterday, at a Jordan valley border crossing, he was denied entry to the ‘Jews only universe’. The astronomy of the Jewish cosmos is pretty simple. You do not need a Galileo figure. The Jewish planet seeks total submissive tribal conformity.

Interestingly enough, Chomsky is not exactly the harsh anti Zionist figure that Dershowitz wants us to believe. Along the years, Chomsky was flirting heavily with Zionism. He was often visiting Israeli universities.

I myself attended his Tel Aviv University lectures in the 1980’s. Chomsky was spreading some bizarre ungrounded ideas defying early Zionist commitment to the Jewish state. As American activist Jeff Blankfort pointed out recently Chomsky has been dismissing the power of the pro-Israel lobby.

He opposed the BDS movement and made some efforts to “dissuade people from using the term, apartheid, to describe Israel’s control over Palestinian society”. Chomsky also opposes the Palestinian right of return and a one-state solution. Chomsky is in fact, a liberal Zionist as well as a kibbutz enthusiast. He may as well be the prototype of the righteous Jew and Zionist fig leaf. And in spite of that Israel denied the entry of the 82 year old American academic

Israel now admits that it made a mistake. In fact Israel couldn’t inflict more harm on itself. As it happens, Chomsky’s border incident yesterday may as well be the biggest contribution the American academic has ever made to the anti Zionist struggle.

As the truth of Israeli barbarism is unfolding, more and more Westerners admit that time is ripe for the nations to spit out Israel, for the Jewish state doesn’t have room amongst nations. But the nations shouldn’t stop there. Time is also overdue to spit the Dershowitzes and other Zionist comic figures from our public, academic, social and intellectual life.

De-Zionification is of the essence in the search for peace and humanity.

After banned by Israel, Chomsky to give Bir Zeit lecture by video from Amman

The Interior Ministry refused to let linguist Noam Chomsky into Israel and the West Bank on Sunday. Chomsky, who aligns himself with the radical left, had been scheduled to lecture at Bir Zeit University near Ramallah, and visit Bil’in and Hebron, as well as meet with Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and various Palestinian activists.
In a telephone conversation last night from Amman, Chomsky told Haaretz that he concluded from the questions of the Israeli official that the fact that he came to lecture at a Palestinian and not an Israeli university led to the decision to deny him entry.
“I find it hard to think of a similar case, in which entry to a person is denied because he is not lecturing in Tel Aviv. Perhaps only in Stalinist regimes,” Chomsky told Haaretz.
Sabine Haddad, a spokesperson for the Interior Ministry, confirmed to Haaretz that the officials at the border were from the ministry.
“Because he entered the Palestinian Authority territory only, his entry is the responsibility of the Office of the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories at the Defense Ministry. There was a misunderstanding on our side, and the matter was not brought to the attention of the COGAT.”
Haddad told Haaretz that “the minute the COGAT says that they do not object, Chomsky’s entry would have been permitted.”
Chomsky, a Jewish professor of linguistics and philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, had spent several months at Kibbutz Hazore’a during the 1950s and had considered a longer stay in Israel. He had been invited by the Department of Philosophy at Bir Zeit.
He planned to spend four days in the West Bank and give two lectures.
On Sunday, at about 1:30 P.M. he came to the Israeli side of the border with Jordan. After three hours of questioning, during which the border officer repeatedly called the Interior Ministry for instructions, Chomsky’s passport was stamped with “Denied Entry.”
With Chomsky, 81, were his daughter Aviva, and a couple of old friends of his and his late wife.
Entry was also denied to his daughter.
Their friends, one of whom is a Palestinian who grew up in Beirut, were allowed in, but they opted to return with Chomsky to Amman.
Chomsky told Haaretz that it was clear that his arrival had been known to the authorities, because the minute he entered the passport control room the official told him that he was honored to see him and that he had read his works.
The professor concluded that the officer was a student, and said he looked embarrassed at the task at hand, especially when he began reading from text the questions that had been dictated to him, and which were also told to him later by telephone.
Chomsky told Haaretz about the questions.
“The official asked me why I was lecturing only at Bir Zeit and not an Israeli university,” Chomsky recalled. “I told him that I have lectured a great deal in Israel. The official read the following statement: ‘Israel does not like what you say.’”
Chomsky replied: “Find one government in the world which does.”
“The young man asked me whether I had ever been denied entry into other countries. I told him that once, to Czechoslovakia, after the Soviet invasion in 1968,” he said, adding that he had gone to visit ousted Czechoslovak leader Alexander Dubcek, whose reforms the Soviets crushed.
In response to the official’s question, Chomsky said that the subjects of his lectures were “America and the world,” and “America at home.”
The official asked him whether he would speak on Israel and Chomsky said that because he would talk of U.S. policy he would also comment on Israel and its policies.
He was then told by the official: “You have spoken with [Hassan] Nasrallah.”
“True,” Chomsky told him. “When I was in Lebanon [prior to the war in 2006] I spoke with people from the entire political spectrum there, as in Israel I also spoke with people on the right.”
“At the time I read reports of my visit in the Israeli press, and the articles in the Israeli press had no connection with reality,” Chomsky told the border official.
The official asked Chomsky why he did not have an Israeli passport.
“I replied I am an American citizen,” Chomsky said.
Chomsky said that he asked the man at border control for an official written explanation for the reason his entry was denied and that “it would help the Interior Ministry because this way my version will not be the only one given to the media.”
The official called the ministry and then told Chomsky that he would be able to find the official statement at the U.S. Embassy.
The last time Chomsky visited Israel and the West Bank was in 1997, when he lectured on both sides of the Green Line. He had also planned a visit to the Gaza strip, but because the Palestinian Authority insisted that he be escorted by Palestinian guards, he canceled that part of the visit.
To Haaretz, Chomsky said Sunday that preventing him entry is tantamount to boycotting Bir Zeit University. Chomsky is known to oppose a general boycott on Israel. “I was against a boycott of apartheid South Africa as well. If we are going to boycott, why not the United States, whose record is even worse? I’m in favor of boycotting American companies which collaborate with the occupation,” he said. “But if we are to boycott Tel Aviv University, why not MIT?”
Chomsky told Haaretz that he supports a two-state solution, but not the solution proposed by Jerusalem, “pieces of land that will be called a state.”
He said that Israel’s behavior today reminds him of that of South Africa in the 1960s, when it realized that it was already considered a pariah, but thought that it would resolve the problem with better public relations.
Source: Haaretz

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Anti-Semitism – what is it?


By Jeff Gates

17 March 2010

Jeff Gates considers how the definition of “anti-Semitism” has been broadened to an extent where any questioning of Israel’s relationship with or penetration of the United States political system, or of anything pertaining to 9/11 or the US’s war on Iraq, is deemed “anti-Semitic” and may pose a risk to the reputation or even the life of the questioner.

Several of us among the incurably curious asked ourselves a simple question: what is anti-Semitism? The fact that it must be written with a capital “S” says a lot.

Pic of yellow tape silencing Earth from screaming Israeli crimes against Palestinians

Then we realized it also morphs. To that feature I can attest. In November 2002, I met a “John Doe” in London who proposed a research challenge. While meeting that challenge, I encountered various versions of anti-Semitism.

A colleague advised against this challenge. First, he fretted at the criminal nature of what the research has since confirmed. Then he inquired about my safety. That said a lot.

The colleague was MIT Professor Noam Chomsky. For his criticism of Israeli policy, he was attacked as a self-hating Jew. Were he not Jewish, doubtless he would have been an anti-Semite. For critics of Israel, those are the only two options. He cautioned me:

You’ll get the same thing: anti-Semitic, Holocaust denier, want to kill all the Jews, etc. It doesn’t matter what the facts are. Bear in mind that you are dealing with intellectuals, that is, what we call “commissars” and “apparatchiks” in enemy states.

Is anti-Semitism a geopolitical strategy? If so, for what purpose? Character assassination?

Ten months ago, I met Professor William Robinson at the University of California Santa Barbara campus. We met soon after he was attacked by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and its smear team.

Robinson had read Guilt By Association, the first release based on this research. His question mirrored Prof. Chomsky’s concern: “Are they going to kill me?” he asked. They are those who smear anyone critical of Israeli policy.

Anti-Semitism – A license to kill?

To his class on globalization, Robinson provided an email link to a photo essay critical of Israeli policy that had been circulating online for weeks. When two students complained to the ADL (Anti-Defamation League), its attack troops insisted on Robinson’s removal while its national network urged alumni to threaten the withholding of gifts and bequests to the university.

From top left: Tun Mahathir, Desmond Tutu, Cynthia McKinney, James 
Bottom left: Nelson Mandela, Mearsheimer and Walt, William Robinson

Word quickly spread among academics nationwide. That time-critical ADL strategy silenced on-campus criticism of the Israeli assault on Gaza. Is it anti-Semitic to suggest that’s how anti-Semitism works?

When the ADL intimidates on a national scale, does anti-Semitism morph into something even more sinister? The Gaza assault killed 1,400, including 400 Palestinian children. That slaughter was scheduled during America’s political and media “down time” – between Christmas 2008 and the January 2009 inaugural of Barack Obama.

Is it anti-Semitic to suggest a strategic motive behind the timing of Israel’s latest barbarity?

Then there’s the motive for 9/11. Is it anti-Semitic to raise that taboo subject? Ask those members of the 9/11 Commission who objected m—successfully – when the chair and vice-chair proposed hearings on the motivation for that high-profile provocation.

Instead, Americans were left to cope with the results of an overwrought reaction to an unexplained mass murder too quickly blamed on “Islamo”-fascism. Only now can we see the full costs in blood and treasure of a war waged on fixed intelligence and false pretences.

The fiscal tab alone is projected to top 3 trillion US dollars, including the future costs of military pensions, disabilities, record-level post-traumatic stress, suicides and so forth.

All of the money has been borrowed, a first for an American war. The interest cost could reach 700 billion dollars. Is it anti-Semitic to point out that debt is always the prize?

At the end of World War II, the victorious US was home to 50 per cent of the world’s productive power. Our bonds were guaranteed to be gilt-edged for at least two generations. Now we are widely hated, our credibility is shot, our credit rating is slipping and our economy teeters on a meltdown.

Is it anti-Semitic to ask: “What happened?”

Is it anti-Semitic to report that the so-called “mastermind” behind 9/11 cited as his motive the US-Israeli relationship? Is it anti-Semitic to ask for an accounting of the “but for” costs of this relationship?

But for this “special relationship” what would be the current condition of the US – financially, militarily, diplomatically, geopolitically? Would the computation of those costs be an exercise in anti-Semitism?

Is it anti-Semitic to call for a new 9/11 commission?

America was misled to wage war on Iraq. Who had a relationship with us that was privileged enough to succeed with such duplicity in plain sight?

Who had the means, motive, opportunity and – importantly – the stable nation state intelligence to deceive us from inside our own government? Is that question anti-Semitic?

From top left: Ilan Pappe, Mordechai Vanunu,
 Joel Kovel
Centre: Norman Finkelstein, Richard Goldstone, Ronnie Kasrils

Bottom: Kedy Epstein, Judity Weisman, Richard Falk

We were betrayed. Does that betrayal trace to those who befriended us? We were defrauded. Does that treason trace to those we were induced to trust?

As counsel to the US Senate Finance Committee (1980-87), I crafted a federal tax law that governs the bulk of funds under management. Those funds surged from 800 billion dollars in 1980 to more than 17,000 billion dollars by the spring of 2007.

The result created a vast pool of “money-on-autopilot”. Today’s consensus belief can be simply put: money should be allowed to pursue more of itself – freely.

The unspoken assumption is that money is smarter than people. That’s the generally accepted truth behind the finance-fixated obsession now known as “economics”.

Legions of consensus-touting consultants insist that this One True Faith must guide lawmaking worldwide. By law, financial freedom has now become a proxy for personal freedom. Tribunals under the World Trade Organization may yet enforce that worldview.

How did that narrow perspective become a widely agreed-to mindset? How were we induced to set America’s course by those values peculiar to money?

Rather than the civil rights refrain, “Let my people go”, the consensus refrain is “Let my money go”. Were we induced by a subculture within a subculture… within a subculture to freely embrace the very money-myopic mindset that now endangers our freedom?

This mindset first surfaced as the “Chicago model” before morphing over decades into the “Washington” consensus.

How were we as a nation induced to brand American democracy with a point of view that, by law, displaces those values not denominated in money? Is it anti-Semitic to pose that question?

Shutting down debate

Early on in this challenge, I included the noun “Jew” in a Google search. I received in return an automated response from the ADL implying that I was an anti-Semite. Why?

More importantly, how did a Google response appear in my email inbox – automatically – from the ADL?

The ADL now conducts trainings for law enforcement under recently enacted federal hate crimes legislation. By my use of a common noun in an online search, am I now identified in a database as wanting to kill all the Jews?

Mark Yudoff, president of the University of California, could have intervened in the on-campus events that caused Professor Robinson to fear for his life. He declined. Richard Blum, chair of the state’s Board of Regents, could have intervened. He too declined.

Judith Yudoff is the immediate past international president of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, representing 760 synagogues. Blum’s wife, U S Senator Diane Feinstein, chairs the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Is it anti-Semitic to report these facts?

My apologies. Clearly I don’t yet grasp what anti-Semitism is. Thus I throw the challenge to you the reader: what is it? Together perhaps we can sort this out.

Jeff Gates is a widely acclaimed author, attorney, investment banker, educator and consultant to government, corporate and union leaders worldwide. His latest book is Guilt By Association: How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War (2008) – his first release in the Criminal State series. His previous books include Democracy at Risk: Rescuing Main Street From Wall Street and The Ownership Solution: Toward a Shared Capitalism for the 21st Century.
A version of this article also appears on and on Sabbah Report.

River to Sea
Uprooted Palestinian

Noam Chomsky on Obama’s Foreign Policy, His Own History of Activism, and the Importance of Speaking Out

Transcript (partial) of Chomsky’s interview with Amy Goodman. See video and full transcrip on democracynow website.

Contributed by Lucia from Spain

AMY GOODMAN: We return now to the conclusion of our public conversation with Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. We were speaking at Harvard Memorial Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts. We talked about the risks he took as an antiwar activist. But first, I asked him about what he thought of the Obama administration, what it should be doing with Israel and Palestine.
NOAM CHOMSKY: Israel-Palestine happens to be a particularly easy case. I mean, there has been an overwhelming international consensus for thirty-five years on how to settle the problem—short term, at least—namely, a two-state settlement on the international border, which everyone agrees on, with, the phrase was, “minor and mutual modifications.” That was US official policy until the US departed from the world in the early ’70s, as it did.

That’s just overwhelming. I mean, there was a Security Council resolution in 1976 calling for a two-state settlement. The US vetoed it. And it just goes on from there. I won’t run through it, but if you get ’til today, there’s just overwhelming agreement. I mean, it includes all the Arab states for a long time. It includes Iran, the Organization of Islamic States. It includes Hamas. You know, in fact, everybody, except the United States and Israel.

So, what has Obama had to say about this? Well, it’s interesting. He has this great vision, but if you look—if you go below the vision and take a look at the words, it’s a little different. So his only word so far—there are two, really. One is to politely ask Israel to stop expanding settlements. Well, first of all, that’s meaningless. The issue is the existence, not the expansion of the settlements. But furthermore, those words were also meaningless. He was quoting Bush. In fact, he was quoting the—what’s called the Road Map, the official—you know, supposedly the agreed-upon scenario for moving forward. He was quoting it. OK, that’s meaningless, but that’s part of his great vision.

The other part, which is more interesting, was a few days after he took office, and he gave his one, and so far only, serious talk about Israel-Palestine. That’s when he was introducing George Mitchell as his negotiator, which is a good choice, if he’s given any leeway. And Obama explained what he was going to do. He said—this was his, you know, being very forthcoming to the Arab world. He said, well, there’s a constructive proposal on the table, the Arab peace proposal—you know, pat people on the head for producing it.

And then he went on to say, “Well, it’s time for the Arabs to live up to their peace proposal. They should start normalizing relations with Israel.” Well, you know, Obama is literate, intelligent. I suppose he chooses his words carefully. He knows perfectly well that that was not the Arab peace proposal. The Arab peace proposal re-endorsed the longstanding international consensus and said, in the context of a two-state settlement, the Arab states will proceed even beyond to normalize relations with Israel. Well, Obama picked out the corollary, but omitted the substance, which is a way of saying we’re going to maintain our rejectionist stance. Couldn’t have been clearer. And that’s what’s happened.

With regard to his repetition of the call to stop expansion of settlements, he did go a little bit farther—not he, but his spokespersons in press conferences. They were asked, is the administration going to do anything about it if Israel rejects it? And they said, “No, it’s purely symbolic.” In fact, explicitly said that the administration is not going to do what George Bush the 1st did. George Bush the 1st had some light taps on the wrist if Israel continued to reject what the US was asking for. Clinton pretty much withdrew that, and Obama withdrew it totally. He said, “No, this is just symbolic.” Well, that’s telling Benjamin Netanyahu, “Go ahead and do what you like. We’ll say we don’t like it, but there will be a wink saying, yeah, go ahead. Meanwhile, we participate in it. You know, we send you the arms. We give you the diplomatic support and a direct participation.”

That’s the vision. You know? It could hardly be clearer.

Now, what can we do about it? Well, you know, we can get the United States to join the world. In this case it’s literally the whole world. Just accept—join the world and accept the international consensus and stop the direct participation in violating it—I mean, what Israel is doing. And I should have said what the US and Israel are doing. Everything Israel does is a joint operation. They can’t go beyond what the US permits and participates in. So what the US and Israel are doing in Gaza and in the West Bank is destroying the hope of the—for realization of the international consensus.

And there’s no alternative around, I should say, with regard to a lot of the anti-—to pro-Palestinian—you know, supporters of the Palestinians. In fact, some of the leading Palestinian activists themselves are saying, well, we ought to give up on the two-state solution and just let Israel take over all the territories, maybe annex them, and then there will be a civil rights struggle and like an anti-apartheid struggle, and that can work like South Africa. That’s just blindness. That’s not going to happen. The US and Israel are not going to permit that to happen. They’re going to continue with exactly what they’re doing: strangling Gaza, separating it from the West Bank, in violation of international agreements, and in the West Bank take over whatever they want.

River to Sea
 Uprooted Palestinian

%d bloggers like this: