i think they'll never stop fighting.

Their is nothing good.

Good Discussion want to know more

Iran having a nuclear detterent? Of course it will keep them safer.The US dont want to invade Iran if they threaten Iraq,Afghanistan and Isreal.Especially Israel as its just a US client.

And the present nuclear club. Of course they are against others joining the top table in world affairs. The way the US has behaved invading Afghanistan and Iraq, has showed the world something. You better have some sort of detterent if you dont want the US to invade or poke their noses into your affairs. So if you dont have a large conventional force militarily, you need a Nuclear detterent.

 

North Korea has 2 detterents now. Conventional forces such as missiles which could destroy Seoul in a couple of hrs. The nuclear detterent makes them feel even safer.This is why they can get away with bold statements criticizing the US and making threats.

Iran's president is not even the "boss" of Iran. He has to kow tow to the Supreme Ayatollah. The "wiping Israel off the map" statements I thought were only to popularise the president in his own country. The Supreme leader will never allow Iran to attack Israel knowing how suicidal it would be.

Everybody in the world seems to think theres more chance of Israeli aggression towards Iran and other neighbours. Muslim countries in the middle east live in fear of Israeli expansionism with US backing.

I agree that there is a certain doublestandard that many israeli follow: The jewish people were persecuted themselves and now many israeli support or engage in acts that seem oppressive themselves. However, the jewish people do have called that region home for a long long time as well. Both palestians and jewish people. I think ethnically there are a lot of commonalities in fact. It is only the religion that splits them. Religion tends to split people anyways. I think the jewish people have decided that they never want to be persecuted again and therefore are over-reacting and too distrustful in many ways. distrustfulness breeds distrust.

I think Israel should exist, but it should exist responsibly and integrate its arab origin citizen as equal citizens. Yes, EQUAL !! Not 2nd class citizens. But at the same time the other side has to earn its trust too. Both sides have to work on it.

I have somewhat more sympathy with the palestinian people because they are the underdog and because more die of them every day and because they are underprivileged, even those who just want peace and cooperation.

Israel is an occupation. Plain and simple. A bunch of white people forcibly implanted themselves on another people's land (and continue to do so), killing and kicking out the majority of the residents and imprisoning the rest in completely blockaded and oppressed bantustans. What the hell did the Arabs have to do with the Holocaust? Nothing! So the Jews justify the theft of the land with a BS religious story.

The truly sick thing is that Israel perpetrates atrocity after atrocity against the Arabs and ends up turning completely sensible people into Jew haters. Then they get to scream "anti-semite" at everyone who dissents 'till the cows come home. Israel should not exist! The only just solution is one secular state encompassing all of historic Palestine, with equal rights for all. There will be no peace without justice; the Palestians will never surrender their right to live!

If israel and the palestinina do not want to negotiate peace: have someone else negotiate this peace for them.. If israel does not want to sit at a negotiating table, do the same treatment they make palestinian endures, it takes 2 to make a fight, in our common law system if 2 men fight, they both get arrested, the cops usually dont team up on the poorest one.

Why don´t you ask: "if Hizbullah want's peace, just peace, love and nothing more than that, why still they want to be armed?"

The people who love peace cannot have any kind of violent defense object? Is that necessarilly against peace?

And Iran, why they need nuclear weapons? Have they any secret love for countrys like Israel?

It should be to Hizbullah to fix the problem of Zionism, Zionism was promoted by the West, The West should dictates rules to Zionism that are acceptable to palestinians.

If weapons are all that the jewish people have to keep their tradition alive, why should anyone except the legitimacy of a Jewish state?

Even though it appears so to the masses, the true front lines are not between the extremist group A against extremist group B. (*)

The true frontlines are between the moderates (both side A and B) in one camp, the extremists (both side A and B) in the other camp. Because the moderates are austracized by the extremists and are seen as traitors. The moderates are the ones capable of making peace, capable of giving, of compromising, of recognizing the other side. The moderates are shouted down, berated, even killed by their own side's extremists.

Who fans the flames of most conflicts ? the extremists. If the world was ruled by moderates, there would be far less conflict and suffering in this world.

The extremists purport to represent the interests of their own group. But in reality they do not.

Not all historical conflicts are or were of that nature. In World War II an extremist lunatic (Hitler) had to be fought by the allied countries that had (except for Stalin's Russia) a non-extremist agenda.

But modern day conflicts, civil wars are fanned by extremists. The moderates tend to loose out.

To make lasting change

the moderates A have to reign in extremists A

the moderates B have to reign in extremists B

Then moderates A should meet the moderates B to work towards peace.

To many this sounds too simplistic and idealistic or naive. But what is the alternative ?

 

There are wise, liberal progressive and moderate Israelis.

There are wise, liberal progressive and moderate Arabs.

Can they find each other ?

 

(*)By extremist I mean anybody with a very selfish agenda: on the one side those Israelis who want to marginalize palestinians or israeli arabs and who want to even occupy more land, on the other side those who want to deny Israel any right to exist.

Perhaps you should consider that your website exists only to counter something already existing.  Maybe if you started thinking for yourself rather than taking the easy way out (by which i mean using someone else's arguments as the sole basis for your own), you would come up with something more intelligent.

Intellect requires shades of grey within a spectrum that never quite reaches black or white. 

MKL-Cleveland

By the way, as a citizen of Israel, how does it feel to attack someone much MUCH smaller than you?  Probably the same way a third grade bully does.

Perhaps you should consider that your website exists only to counter something already existing.  Maybe if you started thinking for yourself rather than taking the easy way out (by which i mean using someone else's arguments as the sole basis for your own), you would come up with something more intelligent.

Intellect requires shades of grey within a spectrum that never quite reaches black or white. 

MKL-Cleveland

By the way, as a citizen of Israel, how does it feel to attack someone much MUCH smaller than you?  Probably the same way a third grade bully does.

If you want to see pictures of dying Israeli soliders, find them yourself rather than condemming those who do not post them.  The disparity in the death tolls is so glaringly obvious that it begs the question of Israel's "ethics."  If you think that anti-semitism is to blame for Israel's critics, let us consider the Jewish principles that forbid unlawful and unfair (as this attack meets both conditions) attacks to be waged.

Police officers in the US are not allowed to shoot a suspect who is not armed or threatening.  Similarly, Israel's army, advanced as it is, should not, based on their self-proclaimed principles, attack someone who poses little to no threat, even along their borders.

This has NOTHING to do with the kidnapped soldiers; Israel has been mounting an offensive agains Hezbollah for some time.  Evidently, there can only exist one ruling faction of religious basis in the region, a concept Israel undoubtedly learned from the US.  Its no wonder the US in its diplomatic efforts have always supported Israel, the hyper-US that it is in the way it exercises religious intolerance.

 MKL-Cleveland

Brilliant! Great questions and all youir points are 100% on the button.

The arabs have never accepted the right of Israel to exist, and are still set on destroying it. All this destruction and all this suffering, on both sides, would have never happened if the arabs have just accepted the right of Israel to exist. have you read the Israel Declaration of Independence? "We extend our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East." have you ever read the Palestinian National Charter? which "urges the elimination of Zionism in Palestine and worldwide" (Art. 15) hence my "cute" and "bigoted" remark above. also see: http://www.spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=798 have you read/listened to any of the songs being taught to children in both cultures? have you looked at textbooks from both cultures? have you read the Koran? do you know what it teaches about non-muslims? about spreading Islam? what about Islam treatment of women? have you ever tried to imagine the entire world ruled under Islamic law? Now, I have no problem with anyone practicing their religion however they see fit, as long as they practice "live and let live", i.e. respect other humans/the environment/animal rights etc, But when it comes to a religion preaching hatred, killing, beheadings, jihad, suicide bombings, etc. I have a little bit of a problem with it... Why do you think the Hizbollah amassed tens of thousands of missiles? Why do you think they stored them under mosques, hospitals, and civilian houses? Do you know that the "mosque under construction" was built on top of one of the largest, most fortified bunkers/war rooms ever built? so much so, that it required several bombing waves and it is still not completely destroyed? Are you aware that the daily number of missiles landing in Israel is more than four time as many as were lobed by the Germans on England? and do you recall what the allied forces did to the German cities in retaliation? or the Japanese cities? and the German/Japanese civilians did not hide missiles in their houses... Compare to that, Israel is being very light handed. Too much so in my opinion.

Please fix??? Victor

Just what I was thinking! It's like some kind of Chinese torture (or am I being racist???). Speaking of torture, I noticed today on one of the news services that the Empire has decided that the law it passed to bring it into line with the Geneva Convention regarding torture needs to be changed so that it removes the kind of abuse promoted at Abu Ghraib from being a criminal offense. It also retroactively absolves any political appointee involved (Rummy, Halliburton Dick, Emperor Bushie, and the rest of the snake pit), any CIA officers and any of the former military personnel involved. The International Red Cross and other groups have raised serious concerns over this move. They feel that the US Administration is in effect changing the Geneva Convention agreement. They also went out of their way to mention that this could easily work both ways - soldiers of the Dark One could also be mistreated if the law is changed.

Victor, this must be a new form of terrorism... cyrano..

I really have no clue, but an answer could be the same as an answer to the same question asked to the U.S. administration - why do they need all those nuclear weapons and offensive weapons, if their aim is peace and democracy in the World?

 

Very cute statement. I wonder how long it took you to think that one up? It is also one of the most blatantly racist and obviously bigotted statements made on these blogs anywhere in my opinion. There are many many things that would prevent an Arab massacre of Jews - chief among which would be the Arabs themselves, if Isra4el truly laid down their arms. But on a more realistic note, no one is asking the Jews to lay down their weapons. They are only being asked to use them strictly for defensive purposes (REALLY defensive purposes, not vicious unprincipled agressision dressed up like defense). Victor http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Your discussion has made it clear to me how difficult determining a response for Israel should have been. And you're right to note that expecting the “Jesus-like in your response” is unfair— the golden rule is directly challenged by cases of suspected psychopathology, especially when “an eye for an eye” itself seems unfair when the injured party never intended to enter such a barbaric bargain—an eye for an eye might not be enough. But considering such as revenge, possibly beyond justice, leaves aside retribution for predicted future acts: preemptive and preventative war. Anonymous, this is another entirely complicated can of worms. I realize the vast differences between the Israeli/Hezbollah conflict and the US/Iraqi conflict and even the US/Taliban conflict—but there are lessons being learned by the US. Aside from ridiculous principles like the “one-percent doctrine” which suggests that a slim chance of catastrophic consequences requires action that treats suspicion as certitude—possibly you could see that nations and militaries might abide by the sort of conditions required for justified deadly force when used by police. Yes, Hezbollah had their weapon's cocked and aimed—and their trenches (tunnels) well dug in: in an extremely aggressive defensive posture. They proceeded, not to unload on Israel (an invasion of Israel was never at stake… this was not as close a call on that score as 1967) but murdered and kidnapped innocent Israeli soldiers. Now, why would have Hezbollah started bombing Israel? Was their build up of ~10,000 rockets an attempt at providing cover for “Operation Truthful Promise,” (was that name some sort of macho joke?) or were they supplies for years worth of random bombings? Possibly they were preparing to provoke this war for some time—I suspect the inevitably and equally inept strategy: provide cover and get away with a couple of murders, and trade prisoners for prisoners. You seem to argue for, beyond preemptive war: preventative war (or terror prevention over terror preemption)—and the difference is a matter of that “one percent doctrine” incertitude—in principle and pragmatically I must disagree on this “preventative” point if such a stance is being taken. Maybe people can read between the lines on another's face, yet even then a crystal ball is lacking. A crystal ball, not only for predicting future attacks, but one lacking for predicting the extent that a seemingly unprovoked attack will incite resentment (in this case, a provoked attack, but, in many people's “clichéd” opinions (many clichés are trite but true)—a disproportionate attack largely on the Lebanese). Hezbollah is intertwined with Lebanon, and even if it was completely “wiped out,” with a surgical removal of an eye, leaving the body of Lebanon otherwise intact—that body would no doubt carry some resentment into the future with, if not equal, at least considerable uncertainty concerning Israeli/Lebanese hostilities (since the justness of war for prevention is more questionable than war for preemption, and Hezbollah would have been seen as unjustly annihilated). Perhaps Israeli strategists were thinking along the lines of the “cliché” – “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” Aside from differences on principle, possibly we agree that sparing Lebanon the infrastructural and collateral damage (of the now burning forests of Israel and oily coast of Lebanon as well) and focusing on a limited ground attack on Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon may have been more “appropriate.” But urban warfare against gorilla forces is extremely dangerous, and it is likely that Hezbollah's rockets would have been launched even then (although their reserving the targeting of Tel Aviv until Beirut was bombed shows some semblance of proportionality on the part of Hezbollah) . Maybe short of some sort of radically creative solution, escalated war was inevitable—I'm no military strategist, and have no (working) crystal ball. Even limited hindsight is not 20/20 here for me. But I think we should be clear that this war, which has taken hundreds of lives, injured thousands, and will take Lebanon some time to recover from, was about preventing possible future incursions similar to the Israeli soldier murder/kidnappings—and was not even close to the "preemption" of 1967 which some question as well. Let's hope the end to this war is more creative than its inception and Israel will feel it has the strength to make what may be seen as concessions to a Lebanon who's dignity, despite Hezbollah's hubris, must feel wounded to say the least. Again, your knowledgeable engagement has been instructive for me—Thank you.

We agree that a military response to Hezbollah was legitimate. You say that the Israeli response, however, was disproportionate. This has become a cliché in these discussions, and while the concept comes from a very old just war theory, I think it is morally dubious. The American reversal of the Taliban was justified whether al-Qa'ida had killed 3000, 300, or only 3 civilians in New York. What justifies an act is not what the proportion of its consequences are in relation to some past act that it is responding to, but rather whether there are good reasons (which could be diverse) to do the act given all the consequences that it can reasonably be predicted to produce in the future. The Israelis have every right not to enter into a new tit for tat war of attrition with Hezbollah. Israel withdrew from Lebanon to its own borders as designated by the UN, and when its sovereignty was violated by a fanatical paramilitary organisation that rejects its right to exist, it had the right to wage a war for the purpose of removing the threat of this organisation. My own view, however, is as stated previously: it cannot really accomplish this military objective short of doing to half of Lebanon what the late President Assad did in Hama, which is supposed to be an example of Assad's appalling moral level. (Assad was facing a similar sort of enemy: the Muslim Brotherhood). Since the military objectives cannot reasonably be achieved, to continue the campaign at great loss of civilian life seems to me unjust. Perhaps, then, Israel might have limited itself to pure collective punishment (although illegal) and then aimed at some reasonable proportionality. Israel's dilemma, however, is that it would have had to exact a price at least sufficient to deter Hezbollah and Hamas from more kidnappings and cross-border raids. And since those organisations believe in martyrdom and proclaim that they love death more than Israelis love life, one wonders what sufficient deterrent can be. At any rate, things are now far beyond this point. (My own view is that the IDF should have forced the evacuation of southern villages and towns in a much more careful manner, then agreed to a cease-fire while saying it will not permit the safe return of refugees until a responsible military force is deployed in the south.) 

You also mentioned that holding Israelis to higher standards, calling on them to end hostilities instead of Hezbollah (who could end the war immediately), is a sort of "backhanded complement" to Israel. This is quite true. (I discuss a related point above in reply to someone named "Veronica"). But for one thing, many Israelis would likely reply that with complements like this, who needs insults? A common refrain among policy-makers is that if you want to survive in the Middle East you have to adopt means that are appropriate. This is the meaning of the "mad dog" quotation from Moshe Dayan that Chomsky loves to quote (always in typical tendentious fashion). When an enemy rejects your right to exist and uses barbaric methods and fanatical commitment to achieve your eradication, let's say it's not going to bring out 'the best' in you, nor would it be fair to demand of you to be Jesus-like in your response.

Nevertheless, I agree it is quite depressing when both sides of the conflict justify violent actions as the only thing that their adversary allegedly understands. And you are certainly quite right that there is no paucity of "machismo" in the IDF's braggadocio.

A propos, I listened to a good exchange between radio journalist Gaby Gazit and an Israeli general on Israeli radio Reshet Bet. The general was saying that Hasrallah appeared tired and exhausted, which shows that the IDF's campaign is putting great pressure on him. Gazit: So what are you waiting for? Do you want him to burst out crying and beg you to stop? Why don't you stop now, with hundreds of civilians already killed?  The general then (typically) resorted to clichés about "degrading Hezbollah's capability". Gazit: What degrading? It's not a very intelligent way to degrade an enemies capabilities by inducing them to use up their arsenal against you, is it? After all, the whole point of wanting to degrade an enemies capabilities is supposedly to stop them from using these weapons against you. What has the IDF accomplished?  Needless to say, the general had little convincing by way of reply. On another occasion Gazit had a similar exchange with Shimon Peres, resulting in Peres babbling in very general clichés about the right to respond to terrorists and so forth.

Possibly more important than who started the war, is who ends it, and how. Israeli Artists Call for Immediate Ceasefire

With the help of God and guys like you, dear Anonymous, George Bush will change this earth to the hell we all deserve.

How many kidnapping Israel committed for the past 50 years..?

Nor does the U.S. threaten Singapore, Monoco, Italy, Costa Rica, Iceland, and a couple hundred other countries lacking nuclear arms These countries dont have oil and if the arabs countries you are so quick to condemn dont't have democracies so to speak, its because they were denied democracy.. For over 30 years Israel refuses to negotiate with palestinians claiming Arafat was a terrorist, israel and abbas effectively removed the heads of PLO and on a free election what did palestinian do ? they voted for hamas, that is democracy my friend.. palestinians are no fools. Hamas was voted in, Israel duty was negotiate with Hamas, It shouldn't continue with terror against the population and and blame the victims.. democracy last time I checked does not mean vote for us that persecutes you or die.. (nice post jd)

Anonymous – whom I may have over-caricatured— Thank you—your comments were instructive. You're right—the context of your statements denigrating Hezbollah was not the place to sing their few merits—that they do represent, politically, and therefore speak for a large group of Lebanese. It's not too difficult to find anti-Semitic statements by members of Hezbollah—especially Nasrallah; but other members, such as representative Mohammed Fneish, who I quoted in a post above—talked more of seeing Israel as illegitimate, but did not see going to war over the issue. There are probably differences among various members of Hezbollah, some with less hateful rhetoric, and more nuanced positions. But again, you're right—these nuanced (and again, often BS, IMO) positions are not immediately relevant. You note: The “fact that the whole world denounces Israel and calls on it to stop, rather than denouncing Hezbollah and calling on it to take the elementary steps to stop the hostilities, speaks volumes about respective attitudes to Jews/Israelis and Arabs/Muslims.” Again, you're right; but would you accept that such denouncements are backhand compliments to Israel—that it is seen not only as the stronger of the parties involved—but the saner, more rational, as well—and thus more worth beseeching in the first place? Your own account of Hezbollah makes them out to be a somewhat psychopathic organization (“murderous”); but given their probable political survival in one form or another, maybe attempts should be made by some to reach out to their possibly saner elements. (Given that some of their less violent, yet often extreme, political positions are inevitable in the region). But again, this may not be immediately relevant. Perhaps my question of premeditation (on both sides) invites a false-dichotomy: between an (inept?) violent reflex on the part of Israel – the point where the major bombing of Lebanon (not just Hezbollah) began, and as you noted, “government and military spokespeople were threatening to destroy Lebanon's infrastructure and set Lebanon back twenty years if the government didn't act against Hezbollah and return the soldiers.”—between this, what many see as disproportionately punishing, rather quick action—and using what may have been less provocation than necessary as pretext for a full scale war. Possibly the Israeli government and military only had a limited number of plans drawn up (including massive assault on the whole infrastructure of Lebanon) and the one used was executed “in the heat of the moment” as the only pre-planned response that fit the sentiment at the time. At any rate, you should see my assumption, held by many, that the beginning of the bombing was the beginning of a disproportionate response (and the statistics bear this out). And what were Hezbollah's plans? Maybe this was the very “trade prisoners” trap that Israel so zealously avoided: a difficult situation to respond to, no doubt, but Israel's response seems a little on the “macho” side, to quote a word used by you in describing elements of the Arab world. Maybe Hezbollah hoped their rockets would, to note Chomsky, “deter” the response that Israel ultimately made. My thinking now would be that Israel acted too soon… but of course that would place much blame on Israel, when as you backhandedly note, we should pay respect to Hezbollah too—respecting that their actions deserve severe condemnation. It is in this way that Chomsky's “good will” might possibly be “deconstructed” (to mangle that word)—in that he possibly (and unintentionally?) disrespects Hezbollah by not holding them to as high of standards as he holds Israel.

The claim of Veronica that to "have a nuclear weapon is turning to be the safest way to keep your country at peace with the US" is rubbish. Spain has no nuclear weapon, but the US doesn't threaten it. Nor does the U.S. threaten Singapore, Monoco, Italy, Costa Rica, Iceland, and a couple hundred other countries lacking nuclear arms. The safest way to keep your country at peace with the US is to become a liberal democracy and stop threatening other liberal democracies. As Michael Doyle argued, there is no record of established democracies making war against each other. None whatsoever. And if Veronica is so confused as to think the U.S. is responsible for the 192 dead civilians in Madrid, I guess she has not read the statements of the perpetrators themselves, nor seen Al-Zawahiri's latest video clip, where he explicitly cites Spain in his list of formerly Muslim countries that need to be reconquered through Jihad. More disturbingly, Veronica probably sees these statements at the time but let's them pass from one ear to another, because it is more psychologically comfortable for her to blame a country where rational debate has some influence, rather than blame the murderous fanatics who rejoice at the killing of civilians and claim to "love death more than the Jews and Crusaders love life". With fanatics there is no room for discussion, so one ignores them and blames those who allow protest, engage in debate, and imprison their own soldiers when caught torturing or killing civilians. A pathetic though familiar psychological phenomenon.

You require the epithet "Dark Empire" to make your bizarre point. It is actually tremendously fortunate that the largest secular liberal democracy has the most powerful weapons available. If a militant fundamentalist theocratic regime like Iran achieves deterrent parity with the liberal democracies it will be a moral disaster that will dwarf the rampages of Attila the Hun, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot combined.  

So now it turns out that the number of dead in the bombing of the apartment in Qana was 22 not 50 as originally claimed. And that's roughly equal to the number of Israelis now killed by Hezbollah rockets. So I'm wondering why you aren't crying for the Israeli victims, who, unlike the unintended victims at Qana, were deliberately targeted by Hezbollah. Why aren't you showing the photos of the Israeli victims on your website? And why are you not calling on Hezbollah to end the war by returning the kidnapped soldiers and disarming in accordance with UN resolutions? Are you going to protest with feigned innocence and begin to whimper if someone suggests that maybe you have subconscious anti-Semitic motivations that account for such differential sympathy and blame?

Thank you for your message; I'll reply to your three points. First, you say that I "over-caricaturize" Hezbollah. I referred to Hezbollah as "a murderous Islamic fundamentalist organisation" and "reactionary, theocratic, rejectionist, anti-semitic, aggressive paramilitary group".

With which part of that description do you disagree? Of course, Hezbollah is also various other things, including a political party, a political movement, a social wefare organisation, and so forth (as was the Nazi Party), but those were irrelevant to my discussion. Bear in mind that just today Nasrallah pointedly reminded Israelis in his radio speech that "We love martyrdom" and so can never be defeated, while his Iranian chief Ahmadinejad reiterated that Israel will soon be eradicated.

 Turning to your second point, you claim to be 'troubled by your (my) use of the word “requires” in your (my) concluding statement: “The only ‘threat' or ‘aggression' that requires an armed response is that of the ‘Party of God', as any decent and honest person can see.” '

But you then add: "A response to Hezbollah was definitely in order". So we are in complete agreement. I didn't say what the extent of the response should have been or should be, so we don't necessarily have any dispute. For the record, I think what the Israeli army claims now to be its military objectives is inachievable, which is itself sufficient to make the collateral deaths to civilians unjustified. Still, it should always be borne in mind that Hezbollah could stop the war at any time by agreeing to return the kidnapped soldiers and not to deploy arms south of the Litani. That fact that the whole world denounces Israel and calls on it to stop, rather than denouncing Hezbollah and calling on it to take the elementary steps to stop the hostilities, speaks volumes about respective attitudes to Jews/Israelis and Arabs/Muslims, but I'll leave the issue for now.

 You and a few other writers also talk about "premeditation and planning" on the part of the Israel Defense Force as if this somehow renders its military actions more sinister. This is doubly mistaken. In the first place, it is evident to anyone who carefully watched the events unfold that the cabinet and IDF had little idea what they were doing, and only gradually unfolded a plan. The first thing they did was attempt to recapture the soldier with a ground operation, resulting in more Israeli soldiers killed. Next they began aerial bombardment, at first aimed at destroying transportation routes to prevent the kidnapped soldiers from being taken to Iran. So on the first nights Beirut international airport, main highways to Syria, and key bridges were bombed, as well as putative Hezbollah headquarters. At the time government and military spokespeople were threatening to destroy Lebanon's infrastructure and set Lebanon back twenty years if the government didn't act against Hezbollah and return the soldiers. Only several days later, after Hezbollah pummelled northern towns and especially Haifa with Katyushas, did a new idea emerge, namely to "degrade" Hezbollah's "capability" (which I personally believe is futile).

It is entirely irrelevant whether the IDF antecedently had such "plans". "Plan" is an ambiguous term that can mean at least two things. First, every army and defense department has "plans" in the sense of strategic blueprints that are worked out in some detail in case they are ever called upon to be implemented. Israel no doubt has "plans" of this sort up to and including the nuking of Teheran and other hostile capitals in the event that the avowed wish to "push the Jews into the sea" threatens to be realised. Similarly, the U.S. had "plans" to launch missiles with nuclear warheads against the Soviet Union.

These plans are irrelevant regarding "plans" in the second sense, namely an intentional policy to carry out in the future some action at an opportune moment. It is sheer nonsense to claim that Israel "planned" in this sense to carry out its current military campaign. The whole point of withdrawing from Lebanon was to avoid any conflict with that country. The expulsion of the Syrian army and intelligence from Lebanon two years ago was hailed by Israelis across the spectrum as an opportunity for consolidating the hitherto tense and unstable cease-fire on the northern border; it was earnestly hoped that the UN resolution calling for disarming the Hezb would be implemented. The last thing any Israeli government wanted was to re-enter the "swamp" (as it is regularly referred to by Israeli media and political discussion - Hebrew word "botz") of Lebanon. If the old hawk Sharon didn't do it, it was much less likely that a coalition with Labour, and the dovish former union leader (Peretz) who is currently the defense minister, would do it without very severe provocation. Hezbollah attacked Israel without provocation, crossing into Israeli territory to kill and kidnap, then began unprecedented bombardment of towns and cities. It was then that the political and military echelons gradually evolved a "plan" (in the second sense) which may well have drawn on whatever whole or partial "plans" (in the first sense) lay in drawers or on hard discs for years.

On the other hand - and this is entirely a hypothetical point in ethics - even had Israeli leaders hoped for an opportunity to execute a plan to expel Hezbollah, that doesn't detract in the least from the moral justification of the action, just so long as that "opportunity" is constituted by conditions that would render the war just. If the "opportunity" is constituted by conditions C (say gross violation against a country's sovereignty, unprovoked violent aggression) and conditions C normally justify execution of military plan P, then military plan P doesn't become any less just simply because it was "planned" beforehand, however much one might have hoped for the opportunity to execute it. 

US corporations should not had sponsored hitler and fascism in germany. hehehe nice one Victor, hehehehe!

On the logic of this person, the Allies were the fascists and Germany the victims of World War II, given that the 7 million German dead (mostly civilians) far outnumbered the deaths of Americans, British, French, Canadian, and Australian combined.

It's always the ones that [WHO] can't spell that think everyone else is an idiot.

It's always the ones that can't spell that think everyone else is an idiot.

I have decided to change name to the committee that follows the peace

appeals that I am launch.  I have given the name of one of the children

killed from the Israelis to CAna in Lebanese.  This to perennial memory of

the pain that door the war, is just, unjust, humanitarian, unilateral,

declared or not declared it, against the terrorism or whichever thing that

we are not.  Abbas to the Shalhoub was a child of a year.  I have two

sons, one of three years and means and one of seven months, knowledge that

only a small cold them can hit makes badly me star, this renders me the

pain immense that can have tried the parents of that child who did not

have no guilt.  It could not not ask itself because for that war.  The

smile had to be the only expression that had to pass on its ace, the joy

of the games, the affected look of a father whom it sees if same, the hope

of a mother had to be the images in front of its eyes.  But someone has

decided launch a missile, strafregandosene that some civilian could die,

would have been “damages collaterals”… But we think that child, with to

the other trentasei that are died with to he…  Because a number does not

remain, because its name remains imperituro in our memory, as it it is

that one of our sons here, because it is a our son always, because I have

given its name to my engagement, to my committee…    You pardon to me but

the tears come down me…  Ettore Lomaglio Silvestri

What has succeeded to Cana past Sunday and what are still succeeding to the borders between Israel and Libano, are actions of pure terrorism. The United Nations do not have the ability (obviously for guilt of the veto of Bush) to condemn them explicitly, and let Israel  to only kill because two soldiers have seized it.  Personally, as you will know, they are against whichever war and, in the instruction of Gandhi resumed also from Terzani, I do not try vendetta but I only try to stop the spiral of the war, one hateful spiral. We know all that in the wars only the civilians forgiveness.  Watched the photos that I have to you attached, and you say if your heart to me not tear blood to thinking next to those poor children. They could be our sons like Abbas al-Shalhoub that had only a year. We cannot that we put the human rights to the center of our battle, tacere of forehead to this slaughter. Above all we must hold account that in order to stop the war we cannot say: “I make It after the vacations”.  How many persons will have to die while we of are ourselves happily spread in sunlight (I  have a skin cancer therefore I cannot allow but to the example stocking me) to, with justice, playing with our sons? I would not have the conscience to place, of the rest to rest there am always time, therefore I invite to make something to you, in name of Abbas, name of the others 200 and passes children who the Israelis have massacred for their stupid reasons. Children do not have nationality, they are the flowers of this world, for this I write children and not libanesi children.  You have to know, if I watched my son or my daughter in the eyes and knew that I have not made null because an other child lived, I would not have the courage to watch it in the eyes. We organize therefore an other garrison, we organize other manifestations, we write to governing ours so that cry strongly to stop this stupid war. Yesterday of it I have written and I make to read you.  Thanks, I hope that it is succeeded to make something!!!  Ettore Lomaglio Silvestri  Dear Ministers, I would want to ask you for giving a glance to the photos that I enclose to you.  They are drawn from www.moqawama.net.  They are some of the photos of the murdered or hurt children in the massacre of Cana.  I will ask you only one what, after that you will have watched to them with attention.  Would have you still the courage to be mute and untalking?  Would have you still the courage to speak about reasons of Israel?  Would have you still the courage not to take part?  They are father, like many of you, I have two small sons, like many of you they have or they have had. I, in front of these photos, have only the force to cry and cry my need of Peace.  Not vindict, because it would create other evil. Not hatred, because hatred would give other innocent dead men to us.  Only Peace.  Stop Israel, stop the war everywhere it is. I do not have the courage to hold detention the impassible look and the forehead heart much evil, to much violence.  Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi has taught to me but not to ask the blood for my enemy. Only Peace.  Stop Israel once again.

 Thanks, Ettore Lomaglio Silvestri

JD - I believe there was a lot of planning going on for many months for the events that have transpired over the last few weeks. Both sides had planned it to completion and each was looking for a trigger event. Score: Hezbollah/USA/Israel - 700, Palestinians - 0

Anonymous against "Chomsky's lunatic morals"- I'm not going defend Hezbollah, or Chomsky's seeming “endorsement.” Yet I'm troubled by your use of the word “requires” in your concluding statement: “The only ‘threat' or ‘aggression' that requires an armed response is that of the ‘Party of God', as any decent and honest person can see.” This “requires” language is often echoed by some with terms like “there was no choice.” A response to Hezbollah was definitely in order… but this has escalated to a situation beyond the Israeli government, its soldiers, and the armed Hezbollah militia—it now includes many dead civilians: and many more dead Lebanese civilians that are not members of Hezbollah. Some have lamented that more children than soldiers have died. Was Israel “required,” did it “have no choice” but to respond in such a manner as to have such catastrophic collateral damage? Why not address the tough questions too, rather than over-caricaturizing a group that isn't too subtle in the first place (Hezbollah)—and spread the blame around a little, if not equally, at least with a modicum of proportionality (this counter-factual un-proportionality seems to be your gripe with Chomsky). Admitting to at least a little guilt can legitimate your own accusations, rather than painting pictures in black and white. If Hezbollah had not legitimate reasons to MAINTAIN arms—what was it's rationale? Disarming Hezbollah was mainly Lebanon's business (but did Lebanon deserve such infrastructural damage and civilian casualties due to its lack of ability or will to do so?) An armed party is BS, IMO, but will not Hezbollah most likely maintain a political presence in Lebanon? Due to democratic demographics, I do not see Hezbollah taking over the government of Lebanon legitimately (with a real army)—but there is the possibility that their presence in the government will grow due to this war. I again ask a question I asked in a post above: how much premeditation and planning went into this war (on both sides), and what does the answer to that question imply.

Stop writing back to this racist, Zionist pig. Israel's actions are nothing less than fascist (quite ironic, don't you think?). And no that doesn't mean I support Muslim extremism, either. But let's remind ourselves of the facts of the current situation: Israel - about 70 dead, the majority soldiers. Lebanon - about 700 dead, the majority civilians. Self-defense my ass...

Chomsky's twisting of elementary moral truth in the name of ostensible elementary moral truth is nothing new. Thus, in his book The Fateful Triangle, he manages to find an explanation for the murderous anti-Jewish pogrom against the age-old Jewish (and incidentally, non-Zionist) community of Hebron in 1929, resulting in 60 of these unarmed civilians dead, and the total liquidation of the thousands-of-year-old Jewish presence in Hebron, the first act of ethnic 'purification' in modern Palestine. Chomsky of course calls this an act of terrorist violence and a massacre, but he adds in a footnote that it "followed a demonstration organized at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem to counter 'Arab arrogance'...". He goes on to cite Simha Flapan as having called the demonstration "a major provocation", then continues to refer without quotation marks to "[T]his provocation" which was organized by the right-wing Jewish youth movement Betar. So Chomsky explains "the most extreme case" of "terrorist violence against Jews" as a response to a provocation - a demonstration in a different city some time earlier by a handful of youth. This is supposed to be a "provocation" of which a consequence is the worst example of Palestinian terrorist violence against Jews. (Of course there have been far worse examples since, for instance the massacre of 77 nurses and doctors on a bus heading to Hadassah hospital on Mount Scopus in 1948, completely omitted from Chomsky's 481 page book, which however includes numerous references to the Irgun massacre of Palestinians three days earlier at Deir Yassin).

I skip over dozens of other examples of this sort of apologetics, to consider Chomsky's new example. He now tells us that the June 25 kidnapping of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit by Hamas militants (omitting to mention the Israeli soldiers slain in the incident, just as he and the media systematically omit mention of the 8 soldiers killed by Hezbollah when they kidnapped two more soldiers) was "probable retaliation" for an Israeli "atrocity", namely the "kidnapping" of two Palestinian "civilians". This is pure, unadulterated rubbish. In the first place, the Hamas militants who kidnapped Gilad Shalit had tunneled under the border and Israeli positions in an operation that took months to plan and execute and which had nothing to do with events the day before. Secondly, this accusation by Chomsky (that the arrested men were just "civilians" unrelated to any terrorist activity) is pure fabrication and he cannot produce any evidence for it. Thirdly, he forgets that several Israeli soldiers were killed in the operation, and the seizure of one soldier while alive was pure luck.

But most fascinating of all is Chomsky's view that Nasrallah "has a reasoned and persuasive argument that the arms should
be in the hands of Hizbullah as a deterrent to potential aggression". This is incredible, though not a surprise to those who have watched Chomsky over many decades. So contrary to the majority of Lebanese before the current war, contrary to UN resolutions enjoying near unanimous support (excepting Syria and Iran, of course), and contrary to elementary logic, Chomsky thinks a murderous Islamic fundamentalist organisation that calls for the destruction of Israel should have a massive independent army not under the control of the sovereign state of Lebanon and its first popularly elected government. And what is this "reasoned and persuasive argument" that Chomsky couldn't be bothered to mention in a context where it can be subjected to criticism? Whatever this fantastic argument of Nasrallah's that Chomsky so admires, NO Israeli government, not even the hard-line Likud governments of the eighties, ever made any territorial claims on Lebanon. EVERY Israeli government since the founding of the state has expressed its desire for a permanent peace treaty with Lebanon along the internationally recognised borders. True, Hezbollah are huge heroes in the macho and anti-semitic Arab world for having supposedly driven the Israel Defense Force out of Lebanon by force. But any Lebanese government could have achieved exactly the same result without a single human being being killed, simply by agreeing to a mutual non-aggression pact with Israel and by demonstrating that it could stand by its commitment by disarming independent rejectionist militias and deploying along the border, as Israel has unceasingly called for since 1948. It's no secret why this never happened: Syria militarily occupied Lebanon against the wishes of the majority of its population (which seems not to have agitated Chomsky very much), and then proceeded (along with Iran) to arm  Hezbollah to the teeth to be used as its proxy. Israel entered Lebanon in 1978 and 1982 to remove the independent militias of the PLO, and remained there (however pathetically) to try to keep Hezbollah from descending south of the Litany River where they could shell Israeli towns at will. These murderous aggressive militias were the entire reason for Israel's military involvement in Lebanon - there simply is not, and has never been, any other "threat" or "potential aggression". Chomsky's endorsement of Nasrallah, therefore, is not some heroic stance in favour of a deep (but so far secret) moral truth in the face of  possibly unpleasant consequences. Rather, it is morally depraved from every reasonable perspective, supporting a reactionary, theocratic, rejectionist, anti-semitic, aggressive paramilitary group that is the actual source of all conflict along this border. (Incidentally, Hezbollah's pretentions to have driven the IDF out by force is only a half-truth, as the IDF is currently demonstrating. The IDF could have crushed Hezbollah by bombing mercilessly, as they are now doing, but refrained from doing so, perferring instead under Barak's leadership to withdraw to the internationally recognised borders so that any further provocation by Hezbollah could be met with a robust military response with support of international law. The only "threat" or "aggression" that requires an armed response is that of the "Party of God", as any decent and honest person can see.) 

 

veronica, I agree , The US has a poor record on racial issues, such as black , native indians and the death penalty. It has a good record of causing poverty and unwarranted wars around the globe.. You asked : I have always wondered who named US the savior of the world... To answer your question, I say its probably some sort of Anti-Christ from a Dark Empire who named the US the savior of the world.. ( it is also giving some americans a heart as dark as the oil underneath arabs feet)

I have always wondered who named US the savior of the world...

I bet you are right, Iran IS shocked of Irak's democracy that has the highest civilian death tolls in the history of War. They are also not stupid, and found out that US doesn't threat states that already have nuclear power, like Pakistan or North Korea. To have a nuclear weapon is turning to be the safest way to keep your country at peace with the US.

Again, I must point out that US is not a symbol of freedom, and instead of threatning the world and the world's stability, the US should go home and take care of the deficencies of their own system. When the US has a welfarestate that protects the poor, like the ones they have in Scandinavia, I'll start believeing in their leadership on human rights.

Go home, US, don't jeopardize the stability of our continent with wars we don't support. The only thing Bush has manage to get out of the "war on terror" is 192 death civilians in Madrid, and more or less in London.

 

Verónica, from Madrid

I will take that as a compliment, by the way, being acquainted with Rudy....*ugh* But if what you say is true, then it is an admission that there is no solution for the conflict, ever. And if there is no solution, and there is not likely ever to be a "winner", then we are truly faced with an interminable war for the next 30 years or so - until the oil runs out and life as we know it ends. At that point, no one will care about either Israel or their sworn enemies. And this also means that the Dark One will keep his forces of occupation in Iraq until that point. What else can he do? Bin Laden was right. The DArk One has placed himself in a situation in which if he holds on he is burned with fire and if he lets go he is burned with fire.

Surprsingly, I actually agree with you to a large degree. Honour is one thing, but the Arab rulers also have an incentive to keep the hostility alive. They need Israel as a distraction from their own mismanagement.So in a strange way the Arab rulers need Israel, they don't wish its demise in spite of the rhetorics. They walk a tight rope. On one hand they need to demonize the Jews to keep the people angry,--and Israel is doing a good job in playing the role,--but on the other hand, they cannot let the anger boils over, because they may lose control and get toppled if there is too much instability in the region. So the tactics is to keep up the rhetorics and fund Islamist terrorist groups in an underhanded way to make enough nuisance but to avoid major conflicts. The idea is to manage a level of hostility that they can turn up or down. But things got out of hand in Lebanon. So it is not surprisng that all major Arabs rulers blame the Hezbolloah for starting it. The Sunni-Shiite schism may also have something to do with the luke warm reception the Hezbollah get in the Arab world(they are not as popular as you think), that is the idea I get from some local muslims.A Saudi wahabi shiek has recently issued a fattwa against the Hezbollah. This guy is not a moderate, he is normally enthusiastic about violent jihads.

What does Hezbollah have to do with the Palestinians? Would you think they should also bomb India in "solidarity" with their muslim brothers in Kasmir? I am sorry to say Chomsky doesn't make sense in trying to trace the origin to the present crisis to Gaza. I expect him to do better. Also, Benjamin has a point. Do Islamist groups like Hezbollah attack Isreal because of what Israel does or is it because they consider Israel an original sin? If it is the latter then from Israel's point of view the only option is to "shove their right to exist down the Arab's throat" with brutal violence, to quote a blogger. They do have bigger guns like it or not. I am afraid as long as the players still got hung up in 1948 there is no chance for peace.

Israel and the Dark Empire are spending huge amounts of money on weapons and war. As are the Iranians, Syrians, Hamas and Hezbollah. A lot of finger-pointing going on. And a war that will not accomplish what its perpetrators thought it would (note that I did not mention whom the perpetrators are). I repeat - it will not, cannot, will NEVER accomplish what the perpetrators want. It will only cause more pain, more anguish, more damage, more resentment, more hatred. I also understand that in the Middle East (and I know you will correct me most politely if I am wrong on this point), it is a matter of deep honour that if one party wrongs another, that honour must be restored. And one effective way to restore honour is to compensate the aggrieved party (again, correct me if I am wrong here). Now. Billions of dollars are being spent bombing the shit out of each other and causing all kinds of trouble. The net result of all this expenditure is more hard feelings on all sides of the issue. One of the reasons that Hezbollah have made such an impact with the Palestinians is that they have gone into their areas, helped them financially and socially, and protected them from Israeli assaults. Nevermind their motives at this point. The Palestinians saw this as a blessing and it won their allegiance. For 50 years those on the Isaraeli side and those on the Palestinian side have bombed the shit out of each other. Please someone tell me what has been accomplished, and what can be expected to be accomplished in the future? Realistically? What if, however, Israel and its Dark benefactor change tactics? What if they began using all that money to better the lives of the Palestinians, without strings attached? We are talking about BILLIONS of dollars WASTED (WASTED, WASTED, WASTED) on weapons here. What if they used that money instead to begin the process of improving the lot of the Palestinians (AND now the Lebanese!)- to help build homes, feed and educate their children, provide jobs, encourage commerce, help them improve their farming techniques, provide technology assistance, and generally radically improve the lot of these folks in recompense for taking away their lands, their homes, and their livelihoods in the beginning. What would be the problem with this? How could the Palestinians resist such measures for long once they were convinced that the Israelis and the Dark One were serious? And forces like Hamas and Hezbollah? Yes, they would continue their strikes against Israel for a while, but in the end would lose politically big-time, and if continued, would lose the support of the Palestinians. And the Palestinians themselves? They would resist and be mistrustful for a while, until things started changing for the better. And the Israelis? If they would have the patiuence to defend themselves as best they can, but not to take retributive action against the Palestinians during this time, I believe that they would find that over time, the suicide bombings and the cross border attacks would begin to decrease. So I ask you all.....what if we stopped all this finger-pointing and took a chance on development rather than destruction?

Benjenmin, I fail to see the relationship, or the complicitYness in crimes of mr. chomsky because he dissent with Israel. Ss far as I see it, you are promoting zionists expansionism to the detriment of arabs. It look like like you want the left to become apologist of atrocities and infanticides and take your side against the most helpless people. I disagree with this,if palestinians fight with rocks its because they don't have military backing and the TANKS like Israel benefited. On an ethical level, considering the catastrophic life palestinians are being subjected, its morally wrong to support Israel

Benjamin – Again, I'm not going to defend Hezbollah; it is clear to me, that Hezbollah does not see Israel as legitimate: and to me this is obviously a huge misrecognition of what may be a “regional minority” population's right to a space of their own: Israel. Other's may opine for a popular democracy of whatever population happened to live in that region: but peoples are widely recognized to have the right to put up fences and protect their space, their culture, their earned power, etc. Issues arise such as how many “foreigners” may be allowed to immigrate into this space and vote, and hence concerns for maintaining, if not purity, at least a majority of “one's own” in one's own territory. I recall an episode of the Flintstones cartoon (The Flintstones: The Hatrocks and the Gruesomes), where Fred's Hillbilly cousins showed up and ate his family out of house and home. Fortunately, Barney Rubble was usually a better neighbor, who was happy to stay on his side of the fence (a bit less subtle analogy than one might find in Levinas). Robert Frost said, “good fences make good neighbors.” I wonder what sort of fence Hezbollah's rockets were supposed to present; but I also understand that Israel violates Lebanon's airspace quite regularly. Hezbollah, as unsubtle as they are, at least has some members that give a political line that is more subtle than your caricature: they don't call for your personal (or even collective annihilation)—they see Israelis as being on “their” land, to more or less of a degree. (Prior to the withdrawal from southern Lebanon, the Shebba farmland, the violations of airspace, on to the “occupation” of Israel itself). Would they fight for southern Lebanon? Yes. For the Shebaa farmland and against airspace violations… to a degree. Would they invade Israel itself… probably not—but they'd be a hostile neighbor none-the-less. For someone against the totalistic, you seem to think in absolutes a little. My quoting Einstein was not about being a complete pacifist; one must defend rights, such as the rights to space just discussed. It was meant to bring up the issue that Hezbollah may have been preparing to provoke the provocation that Israel had been preparing to take as a pretext for war: both sides may have been planning for this war for some time. Why bait, and why take the bait? Is it always “innocent us” against “guilty them?” A main Chomsky lesson seems to be: “judge not lest yea be judged” to which you respond: “I'm judging YOU!” Here's a naïve proposition: perpetual de-escalation of violence until a good borderline of compromise is discovered. Possibly it is hopeless too, that there might be a de-escalation of rhetoric (something we probably would not expect from Chomsky, especially considering his implied politico-scientific “objectivity”). Unlike Nietzsche, I don't think war makes for the best writing. Now many “innocents” on both sides are victims of a war they did not start. Statistics can be telling. Sometimes it takes two to tango, and some on both sides seemed too willing to dance. Yet, even “the guilty” dead might have deserved a trial before their death sentences. As to your point… I can't speak for Chomsky (and he will most likely not comment here)—but I think he admitted to being caught in a situation he did not plan for; and a charitable interpretation would note that he did not say Hezbollah had “good” reasons, and that he did not say that he himself was “persuaded.” The “deterrence” argument obviously didn't pan out. So much for 20/20 foresight. But you're right… he could have been more careful that his ounce of vinegar not turn into a pound of poison. Thanks for your thoughts; I'll be reading your blog some more.

I don't think I have any common values with Hezbollah.  They embrace a totalist ideology that calls for my personal and collective annihilation.  I am opposed to all such ideologies, including Chomsky's.  Reverse perspective can only exist between two people, or peoples, who are capable of apprehending one another face to face while simultaneously accepting the otherness of the other and his right to be an other. That is to say, when both sides accept the terms of the ethical relationship.  Hezbollah does not accept this and cannot accept this.  Its raison d'etre is a rejection of it.  This is true of all radical Islam.  This is also true of Chomskyism.  It is true of all totalist ideologies.  Read my blog and you will see why I think so.

 In the absence of the ethical relationship, your well-intentioned suggestions been the acceptance of one's own murder. Against this, the only recourse is to fight.  This is called fighting for one's rights.  I was under the impression that those who read this website generally support such things.

Unfortunately, Einstein is completely wrong.  Preparing or not preparing for war is irrelevent when faced with such an enemy.  You will have war eventually, whether you choose it or not. 

 You may argue, and Chomsky does on many occasions, that Israel and Zionism do not accept this ethical relationship.  That is certainly the excuse of Hezbollah's more intelligent supporters.  Hezbollah itself simply claims divine right.  At any rate, I believe this is untrue.  Zionism is not a totalist ideology and never has been.  It is, thankfully, inherently particular.

I think it is also clear from my blog that I support a compromise between us and the Arab peoples.  This is not possible, however, with organizations and ideologies which will not apprehend the fact of our existence and who are so offended by our refusal to cease to exist that they feel it necessary to engineer it.

 My point is simple: one can engage in propaganda for a terrorist organization (as Chomsky did, and is therefore in some measure complicit in its crimes) or one can be an opponent of mass murder and political evil.  I simply ask for a clarification from Chomsky on which option he prefers.

Benjamin

Anonymous (Benjamin?) – You are probably a better Chomsky scholar than I (given that your blog link demonstrates considerable attention paid to the professor – my own webpage mostly concerns ME: J.D. Casten's website) You seem to share many values with Chomsky in the abstract (e.g. attention to others' hypocrisy and complicity with atrocities), but come down on him pretty hard concerning some of his particular statements. To look for such a suspect statement, which would lead to “blood on his hands,” possibly we should look no further than his saying, “I think Nasrallah [head of Hizbullah] has a reasoned and persuasive argument that the arms should be in the hands of Hizbullah as a deterrent to potential aggression, and there are plenty of background reasons for that....” As my quote from Einstein above demonstrates (“You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war”)—I would differ with Chomsky's seeming opinion on the matter. However, you would have to demonstrate to me that this statement that we both take offense at (for differing reasons, I would imagine) actually contributed to the ongoing bloodshed (and no, I'm not talking about the Einstein quote!). Do you think that Chomsky's words, concerning mostly Hezbollah's defensive stance, emboldened Hezbollah to offensively kidnap the soldiers (and kill others)? (And I think you are right to note in your blog, something to the effect that even though soldiers are not considered as delicate as civilians—they are human beings too!) What would be the chain of causality between Chomsky's statements and Hezbollah's provocation? I understand that when you're being shot at, it can be difficult to surmise the fully human and complex belief system of the person shooting at you. And when you find a gun in your own hand as well, and find that you've been firing it too; i.e. when you're in the middle of a firefight, now may not seem to be the time to peacefully reflect that other human beings have their “reasons,” their dignity, and their heartfelt motivations. I'm not going to defend Hezbollah's actions—a militant “party of god” makes little sense to me; but have you ever tried to reconstruct their motivations with any sort of rational that might seem plausible to them? In other words, have you tried to see things from their perspective, in such a way that it doesn't seem utterly warped? They may be 50% full of bullshit, but another 50% may make sense to a lot of people—some say that even if the arms of Hezbollah are destroyed, it will live on as an idea. IMO, Hezbollah's Operation Truthful Promise and Israel's counter, Operation Just Reward/Operation Change of Direction both demonstrate escalations of violence (Chomsky might say Hezbollah was only involved in a tit for tat). Could you recognize that Israel is not the only aggrieved party in this matter? That the government of Israel does not always give the respect to its neighbors that it too deserves? Sometimes it's much easier to point fingers at other's than oneself; and I think Chomsky intones (and this was disputed in the posts above) that his statements were complicit in what ensued, and that he feels gravely responsible for the statements he made—although his conscious intentions were that it would simply piss off some right-wingers. He does point the finger at himself as well. But my point is the reverse, that instead of finger-pointing, we might look for the common values that we share, often, even as enemies, and try our best to encourage those values in others—and try to come to some sort of agreement, or at least some compromise, rather than conflict.

How would that ( war) have been averted if Saddam had the bomb? The americans would not have attacked Iraq, americans would have resorted to dialogue and diplomacy.. Bwong, I disagree Iraq is a better place without Hussein and i also disagree the americans are ever gonna compensate Iraqis for the destruction and the death of their people.in insight, the civil war in Iraq was caused by the US, Iraqis were not killing each other before the invasion. It invaded Iraq because Iraq was weak, Israel did the recent planed agression on Lebanon because lebanon is military weak. You can't say the americans are ever gonna leave Iraq. based on the level of destruction caused by the american in Iraq and Afghanistan, I believe Iranians are weary of invasions and endless war brought upon them by the US for additional imperial oil interests, if it does not look for nukes, may be it should, mainly to protect its population and its benefit via nationalization of oil for the common good for Iranians. Should Iran acquire a few nukes, you could be assured that there would be no invasion of their land nor civil war for next 25 years. Bwong i am unwilling to sacrifice 65 millions people because youd like to put your hand on some young iranian's boy leg. the primary human right of Iranians is the right to live. So on , I am unwilling to send americans baby killers In Iran because it would enrich few oil corporation and weapon profiteers or for any imperial ambitions as a matter of fact. If you look back prior to the invasion of Iraq, oil prices and other goods were half of what they are today, poor people ( in China) have to endure harsh effects of this rise in prices nd you can't say it have been of any benefit to Iraqis , specially children when they step on a honeywell cluster bomb.. Bwong, i am not saying you are not condemning the US and Israel, I am just saying that Iranians have whatever right to protect its country.. ( victor and rudy ? OMG my poor victor!..you got to run and run,,) lol

God I hope not!!!....LOL

Cyrano, you wrote: "I am just using the same logic used as the americans with the cold war.." I know. But we also know that that logic is insane. "I am just using contingency scenarios.. I am not to debate if they should be morally used, I am argue that "legally" Iran could use nukes if attacked." By nuking a third party? "I didn't say Arabs could uses nukes on Israel specially with the proximity of their own people. Who knows Arabs or Iranians could chose other targets." Such as? And why would that be more acceptible? And you see how this can trigger a new wave of local arms race. "Just look at the intensive power bombs falling on lebanon, Israel is bombing lebaneses population to punish them for Hizbollah. ITs COWARDLY and Its terrorism because aimed at civilians." But what do you care if you subscribe to the same logic if used by the Iranians and Arabs. That sounds racist. I think killing the innocents is wrong no matter done by who and under whatver pretext. So I disagee with Israel as well. I also think it was a crime to nuke Japanese civilians when WWII was coming to a close. "if you consider the possibility that Iraq will be at war for the next 25 years " How would that have been averted if Saddam had the bomb? Please explain. Aside: Iraq will be at war for the next while even if the U.S leaves now. The invasion didn't create the religious and tribal rivaries, it merely unleashed them. Iraqis and foreign religious fanatics are mainly doing the killing now, of fellow Iraqis. "if you consider the number of threats Iran and its people received from the US, it could say same thing as Bush by using whatever means.." Which means would involve the nuke? Give me a morally justifiable scenario. "The last time I checked arabs are not the invaders but the occupied whom are constantly under attack for their oil. " The Arabs also have a long history of attacking each other. "The main reason why Israel attck lebanese is because Lebanon is defenseless in face of powerful weapons.." But a robust, conventional armed force would be much more effective as a deterrence in this case. How would Lebanon have used the nuke even if it has it? Again, give me a scenario. Moreover, Lebanon is a very unstable country and it has been under defacto Syrian occupation until recently,with the wild card Hezbollah runing amoke, unaccountable, uncontrollable. You have to be insane to think that it is a good idea for Lebanon to have the nuke. Now multiply this many times so that every unstable country, every tinpot dictatorship got nuke. This is 1000 times worse than the nightmarish MAD scenario during the cold war. There were only a few major players during the cold war(mainly two, with China) It was easier to keep track of things. With your crazy scenario god knows who is going to nuke whom when local conflicts get out of hand. "What do you think Israel9and the US) is doing with lebanon and the Occupied Palestine ?" It is criminal, why do you expect me to say otherwise? Two wrongs don't make a right(What does the U.S. do in Lebanon?) Foaming in the mouth Israeli apologists from the loonie right such as "rudy" are likewise nuts. The political specrum is arranged on a circle, insanity converges if you go too far in either direction. At some point on the far side victor and Rudy shall meet.

Queria saber si existe una traducción al català, castellano, portugués o francés de los textos de este blog. Gràcies. JV

http://amicsarbres.blogspot.com/

 

there another apologist of infanticides

Bwong I am just using the same logic used as the americans with the cold war.. I am just using contingency scenarios.. I am not to debate if they should be morally used, I am argue that "legally" Iran could use nukes if attacked. The US has them all(WMD)and that also the US have contingency scenarios to use them and I am not sure the US would back off invading unless deterred. I didn't say Arabs could uses nukes on Israel specially with the proximity of their own people. Who knows Arabs or Iranians could chose other targets. This said, and Regardless in 1995 France ( Nato) did mini-nukes tests in the pacific mainly to blow part of populations and part of towns,they were designed as contigency plans against a possible war against chineses... Just look at the intensive power bombs falling on lebanon, Israel is bombing lebaneses population to punish them for Hizbollah. ITs COWARDLY and Its terrorism because aimed at civilians. Note, life if full of ifs and plausible scenarios, if you consider the possibility that Iraq will be at war for the next 25 years because an Illegal war and if you consider the number of threats Iran and its people received from the US, it could say same thing as Bush by using whatever means.. The last time I checked arabs are not the invaders but the occupied whom are constantly under attack for their oil. The main reason why Israel attck lebanese is because Lebanon is defenseless in face of powerful weapons.. I have a question. is bombing defenseless people, cowardice itself? bwong said: So basically you think holding neighbouring countries hostages is an acceptible way of "self defense"?

What do you think Israel9and the US) is doing with lebanon and the Occupied Palestine ?

 

I will not bother delving into Mr. Chomsky's long and disgraceful history of outrageous lies and vile apologetics for all manner of unspeakable atrocities.  The blood on his hands is quite apparent to all thinking people, and is well-documented in numerous writings, including my own.  Nonetheless, there is a clear need to state the obvious: when one supports terrorist organizations, one bears some measure of responsibility for their atrocities.  Mr. Chomsky has two choices: he can repudiate his statements imputing legitimacy to Hezbollah, or he can repudiate his hypocritical and frankly absurd claim to be an opponent of mass murder and "horrendous ongoing atrocities."  I eagerly await his inevitable obfuscations.

Bwong. 

I don't think Cyrano is calling Iran's develpoment of nukes an 'acceptable' form of defense ... merely an effective one.  Thuggery -  as you call it - is not acceptable, but it sure works.

The fact is, nukes exist ... that's how they are used.  Cyrano didn't dream up the idea in his sick, cowardly mind.

I'm not really sure he proved your point as you claim.

 The US will be far more inclined to negotiate (rather than use military force) with a country that has nukes ... call me Ronny Reagan but that's not really a bad thing.

 btw, it is a little dishonest to call Iran/N. Korea 'thugs' and suggest (even by omisison) that the US is not ... it dampens a fairly valid point you were trying to make.

The plural is anonppopotamus

So basically you think holding neighbouring countries hostages is an acceptible way of "self defense"? Wow..So I take it you think it is OK for combatants to use civilians as human shields? The idea that North Korea threatens to hit Japan and the South in case the U.S attacks is pure thuggery (though it is an interesting concept to nuke your next door neighbour,--south Korea,-- considering the extent of a thermo-nuclear blast and the reality of radiation fallout) Is there a dictator and thug whom you don't like as long as he "stands up to the U.S"? I for one wouldn't moan the demise of the NK regime.It is of a different league even comparing to Saddam and the Iran mullahs.Perhaps Pol Pot is not too far off. So tell me, did you support the Khmer rouge "resistance" against the Vietnamese invaders? Afterall they were defending "their country" against imperialism were they not? Interestingly most cambodians didn't join the "resistance"(and the U.S was arming KR along with China and the U.K) Your recipe for "deterrent" is not only morally cowardly and indefensible, it would surly touch off a local arms race. Thanks for proving my point. BTW, You may not care if Iran nukes Israel, which in your mind is probably just a clone of the "Dark Empire". But in that event your beloved Palestinians will be finished too. It is a very, very tiny teeny piece of land that they are killing each other over, in case you don't remember. Well may be it is all for the better, right?

Bwong the only thing that stopped the US from destroying Cuba was the missile crisis. Korea as enough conventional weapons aimed at Japan and Seoul to keep the US from invading. So does Iran by the way with its short range missiles that can be deployed on neighbors.. Korea ahving acquired nukes is a good deterrent from attack because no one want to see nuclear conflicts..I would rely on the korean tests to dismiss the quality of the missiles; it look like the Korean dictactor was testing more than missiles.. Iran ahving nukes would possibly take the right to use them against a US army gathering to invades Iran; such attack could be excused as a pre-emptive strike.. note by all mean, Iran is not an invading country, it has the right to do whats necessery to repeal an enemy gathering at its door.. In the same token if Hussein had WMD, he would had use them when the US army was gathering in Qatar.. Chose a different target.

My question is exactly *how* having nuke protects Iran against possible U.S aggressions? Do you expect the mullahs to nuke U.S invading troops *in Iran*? Having the nuke is useless as a deterent if you cannot deliver it to hit the U.S. Remember the uproar about North Korea's missile test a few weeks ago? It wasn't because it had the nuke, but because it claimed it had long range missiles that supposedly could carry a bomb to hit North America(they turned out to be duds, much to the embarassment of the regime) The Iranians don't have long range missiles, the only possible way that Iranian nuke may serve as a "deterent" is if the Mullahs hold the whole region hostage by threatening to bring down everyone if Iran is attacked. Kind of a suicidal last stance. Is that the kind of "protection" you have in mind??!! Please clarify. P.S. What is the plural from for anonymous, "anonymouses" or "anonymi"? Difficult to keep track.

wow..for the anonymous Bwong.. a total of four arab countries are under occupation and it is not clear what are the occupier intentions or motives.. its a considreable threat to ahve colonialists responsible for illegal wars being at your door threatening to destroy your country home to over 65 million people. So far rthe policies of the thughs in iran are relatively light by comparison to the reckleness , the barbarism of the US in Iraq and Afganistan and Israel in Lebanon and the occupied territories of palestine.. I think an iranian duty is to protect the integrity of its country and its people against agression; it should make all possibble to all acquires deterrents against such agressions.

Iranians allmost lost their language and culture during the arab expansion. The work of brilliant and brave scolars of language and lore literally saved their literate ass.

 

Of course americans benefit from american domination. Fuel is a comparatively small part of an americans budget.

As for countless people dying. We dont have many animals left, and societal controll is anchored as the enemy. Everything americans fled the old world to escape.

Bigger economic and military power could well make the Priests in Teheran slacken their grip on their nation. Dictatorial powers can well be a security-issue. Just look at all the freedoms of privacy lost after emergency was declared stateside. Sudans territorial size prevents it from using "humane" warfare. It is either Janjaweed or segregation. They have allready lost South-sudan. Karthoums reactions are quite rational.

 How far would USA`s ruling elite go to stay king of the hill ? A question of ideas or a political reality ? This leads back to thye original blog were the Chum comments on his freedom of speach in an intellectual war-zone.

Of course people get killed by that lip of his. If nobody got killed by being seduced by leftist troublemakers we might have peace and live in a conservative think-tank utopia. People anyways allways find some ideal to go get killed for. Some of it can be quite beneficial.

An anglo irony is that of supportingf Hitlers rize to power because he was such a good anti-commie. Then having to ally with Satan Stalin because that half a moustache got out f line. It is the funniest historical anglo-joke i know of. Hush-hush from London and Washington there yes.

Since nuclear military power is a fact, someone needs nukes to prevent us from having them. Yes, truth IS paradox.  It is currently corporate america`s prerogative. Other nuclear powers don`t have the global presence needed. What I am saying is that Russia, France, Britain, India, Pakistan, China, North-Korea and Israel all are bodybuilders, but only USA is an austrian cyborg.

Anonymous, if you do a bit of research you may uncover: 1). There is no democracy in Iraq as long as a majority want the occupying army out, and it stays by force; 2). There are severe electricity shortages throughout the Iraq (this was not so before the invasion and occupation); 3). In parts of Iraq there is limited access to clean water facilities (also a result of the US-UK campaign); 4). Many children are not able to go to school in Iraq because the streets are not safe (again, a result of the invasion and continuing occupation); 5). The modern conveniences you assume people in Iran admire about an occupied, war-torn Iraq are already in place in their own country. No violence needed to supply electricity or water works or schools there. You're probably correct in assuming Bush does not care what anyone thinks about the US. But you care, quite obviously. And you seem to care about people in Iran as well. If you also care about Semitic people (whether living in Lebanon, for example, or Israel), consider rereading Chomsky's original post and reexaming your own moral obligation to oppose the state terror of your beloved president and his allies.

 

The reason Iran is seeking nuclear weapons is because it is a country run by common street thugs who are cowards.  The street thugs in Iran are horrified of the new democracy in Iraq.  They see electric power on in the entire country, water serice, and school construction.  They are afraid.  Street thugs are the same all over the world.  They rely on intimidation for their power.  Fortunately we have in President Bush a true leader who does not care what a bunch of murdering anti-Semites think about the United States.  I hope the U.S. military invades Iran and liberates the millions of people there who would love to be rid of the criminal thugs that have taken over Iran.

All countries say they need the nuke for self defence, including the U.S. But once they got it they use it as a means to coerce others. It is insane to allow a very unstable regime with a half crazy president like Iran to have the nuke. God knows who may have a finger on the button and for what purpose. If they somehow come up with it then I think we would have to accept that as a fact, but not if we have a way to prevent it from happening. Realistically Iran cannot threaten the U.S with its nuke, any itchy finger on the part of the Mullahs would garantee their country to be anihilated ten times over.Moreover having the nuke doesn't mean it has the means to deliver it over a long range.We have just witnessed North Korea's embarassing missile test. This being the case in what way does it serve as a deterrent against the U.S? Instead it will be a means for Iran to attain the status of a regional supeepower and exert coercions on its neighbours. Chances are it will export its nuclear capability to assorted shady characters involved in local conflicts elsewhere, leading to further proliferation and destabilzation around the world. We have the precidence of Pakistan and North Korea to look at. Israel will not sit to wait for Iran to build the bomb. It's better to stop Iran early through some internationl sanctions than to wait until the Israeli take out Iran's facilities with missiles. Think about it.

Absolutely true, Iranians aren't arabs and they do speak a different language than arabic its called farsi. Bwong my opinion is simple as far as Iran is concerned. It has the right to nuclear power and as far as their country is being threatened by the US, Iran should have right to nuclear weapons as a deterrent against invasions, and not only that, if it is true that Iranians are not in pursuit of nukes, I believe Iranians should look to acquire nukes to defend their country and more specifically to defend their country against US colonialism; because the US ( the Dark Empire) is being threatening and the US is being a country that has a gruesome history of war against its neighbors; the barbaric and illegal war and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan be an example of reckless colonialist agressions. So far I can only see see Iran as being a country being under threat by the US. Anonymous, I dont see where "you", I and the ordinary people benefit from the hegemony of the US "that you proposes" apart from cheering from your home team.. so far ITS actuallY cost me DOUBLE at the gas pumps and for all goods over a period of 3 years, It cost me more while OIL and Chemicals corporations, Military Weapons Corporations, and Banks made more money.. I can't understand your cheering of policy of making poor "poorer", and rich "richer" and espouse an apologistic approach when countless of innocent people dies for your "supremacist hegemony". simply put, anonymous, you are plain dumb..you should go heil your tv, GWB is hiding behind it..

Whether the U.S has the right to have nuclear weapons is a moot point. It has them already. Maybe Iran has the right in some abstract, cosmic sense. But it is a bad idea all the same. There are many "dark empires". Being weak in and of itself does not indicate a moral highground. I for one does not have a lot of sympathy to a bunch of medieval mullahs who brutalize and abuse their own population in the most grotesque manner. If Iran ever has a fraction of the power of the U.S it would be a much darker empire. Sudan is not a very powerful country, it doesn't stop it from carrying out genocide on even weaker people in Darfur.You don't have to be a super power to be evil. Wake up and smell the coffee, the enemy of your enemy is not your friend. I hate to say this, but it needs to be said: the left is marginalized for some good reasons, the "mainstream media" is not solely to blame. If leftists want to restore some credibility to their causes they should smarten up and make some sense. Though not explicitly stated, the message I get from some of you is loud and clear "we support any monster as long as it stands up to the U.S". I used to think that is just a smear from the right.

Absolutely true, Iranians aren't arabs and they do speak a different language than arabic its called farsi. Bwong my opinion is simple as far as Iran is concerned. It has the right to nuclear power and as far as their country is being threatened by the US, Iran should have right to nuclear weapons as a deterrent against invasions, and not only that, if it is true that Iranian are not in pursuit of nukes, I specially think Iranians should look to acquire nukes to defend their country speacially against the US, a country that has a gruesome history of war agsinst its neighbors Like the barbaric and illegal war and occupation of Iraq ( by example).. Anonymous, I dont see where "you", I and the ordinary people benefit from the hegemony of the US "that you proposes" apart from cheering from your home team.. so far ITS actuallY cost me DOUBLE at the gas pumps and for all goods over a period of 3 years, It cost me more while OIL and chemecals corporations, Military weapons corporations, and banks made more money.. I can't understand your cheering of policy of making poor "poorer", and rich "richer" and espose an apologistic approach when countless of innocent people dies for your "supremacist hegemony". simply put, anonymous, you are plain dumb..you should go heil your tv, GWB is hiding behind it..

Anonymous - When my son was eight, he might have said something like that in his more immature moments.

BWONG - I totally agree with you. When the Dark Empire admits that it has no right to nuclear arms, I will most certainly admit that Iran or any other country has no such right as well.

Anonymous. point taken about the association of Iranians with Arabs. My apologies....dude. Both for offending your obvious sensibilities, but especially to any Iranians reading this. I suppose I just got caught up in the exchange and simply mis-stated. It is interesting, however, your statements about Aryans, Nazi Germany, etc. You seem well-versed in Aryanism and racial heirarchies. Death is not always the worst human state as you seem to imply. Slave owners were part of an evil economy that enslaved and humiliated people beyond human decency. And you are absolutely correct - no holder of nuclear weapons would want to rule over corpses, nor would they desire to become corpses in response to that use. Which is precisely why I am less concerned about Iran or other nations possessing such weapons than I am about the Dark Empire. With Iran and others, it is more a thing of national pride, and the respect one is shown when others know he has the capability of doing serious damage if provoked. Sort of a macho thing. Also, the Dark One has every capability to using his weapons without a lot of fear that he would be wiped out in response as he currently possesses enough such weapons to wipe out the world several times over. And most scarily, he has demonstrated a willingness to actually use such weapons on multiple cases in the past. Lastly, he currently holds a vast store of such weapons while preaching to others about the evils of such weaponry, much as he does about chemical and biogolical weapons as well. I never said anything about Iran, or Palestinians, or anyone in the Muslim world, being my friend. I only said I understand why they might perceive themselves of having the same right to weaponry that the Dark One and his minions, the UK and Israel, have. Lastly, what is so wrong with wanting to stand in the way of American hegemony? Surely that is a worthy endeavor.

Chomsky you're a Jew and you think you could hide behind your radical irrational left roderick... your sick in the head... seek help!

Victor wrote: "The Arab has a knack for overstating, I have seen. Dramatics seem to be highly important to the art of persuasion in Arab countries. I have no problem with this. Yes, Iran (and many others) would like to see Israel wiped off the map. But the unspoken admission is that that won't happen." First of all Iranians are not Arabs. Secondly you are saying they say things not expecting to be taken on their words. That is a rather bizzare point to make. If as you say the Arabs always exaggerate does it also follow that the Palestinians overstate their misfortune to elicit sympathy? Uttering threats without the power to back them up obviously is a bad policy. You cast yourself in the role of villain even when you are actually on the recieving end.It is a PR disaster that your enemy can exploit to great effect. The Muslim world (including Iran)have experienced this over and over again in its conflict with Israel. Since they have been consistently shooting themselves on the foot with their big mouths they should have wised up and learned to just shut up when silence is warranted. Since they continue to shoot their mouth off because of "honour" does it not indicate poor judgement and recklessness? Is it wise to trust someone with such a consistent record of bad judgements with nuclear weapons hoping that they are just bluffing? Also, since when is acquiring nuclear weapons a right??!! Other countries shouldn't have nuclear weapons either but somehow got them. But this is not an argument that Iran should have them. Just because some people got away with murder is not a liscence for you to go shoot someone.

"The Arab has a knack for overstating, I have seen. Dramatics seem to be highly important to the art of persuasion in Arab countries. I have no problem with this."

Dude, Iranians are NOT Arabs - except for a minority concentrated in Kuzistan. This not pendantry either. Frankly Iranians in America are sick of being lumped in with Arabs - its as offensive as it would be to an Indian or any other non-arabic culture. Not only was Persian culture already ancient before Mohamud was even a twinkle in his father eye, but Iranian is an Indo-European language group - a completely different family than Arabic. Ironically the name Iran comes from the word we write as "Aryan" - because they are the decendents of the ARYA - the REAL historical Aryans we know through the Rig Veda and the Zend Avesta - and as such actually had a high place, unlike Arabs, in the Nazi racial heirarchy: lower than Germans only because of their longer period out of the racial homeland.

 

"If Russia were as evil as we in the West have historically assumed, why haven't they used their capability? "

WTF???? The Soviets were accused of wanting the kind of world Hegemony the US is after, not being cartoon supervillians from GI JOE.

By the same logic I suppose one could ask "If Slave owners were as bad as we are taught, why didn't they just kill all their slaves?" Obviously they wanted slaves to work, and those who want to dominate the world do not typically want to rule over corpses.

 

Why didn't we rail against him in the eighties when he fought Iran as we did in the nineties when he invaded one of the Friends of the Dark?

The phrase "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" can be found in every culture on earth.

You are defending Irans right to nuclear weapons BECAUSE it stands in the way of American hegemony - because the enemy of the "Dark Empire" is your friend.

Why would the US government be any different?

 

An older Reason interview with Hezbollah representative Mohammed Fneish can be found here: Meet Hizbollah - The Party of God's MP talks about Islam, Iraq, and the war on terror. A Reason interview An excerpt: “reason: When you say you oppose, do you oppose Israel's existence, or just having relations? Fneish: Both. reason: Would you continue to fight Israel just on the basis of that existence? Fneish: That's another issue. We're trying to make Israel step back as an enemy that is attacking us. We fought the Israelis only on Lebanese soil. Before we talk about fighting their existence, there is a problem here. There's a Zionist project. Let's be realistic. It's clear there is a Zionist mentality, which is clannish, sectarian, and belligerent. I didn't say I want to fight Israel on the basis of its existence. I spoke of a position. There is a difference. If today a country in the world occupied another country, and I said that country is aggressive and I want nothing to do with that country, that doesn't mean I want to fight that country. The subject of war is a different thing. But nobody can force me to say that country is legitimate.” Hezbollah seems to be operating out of outdated military momentum—did they really need all those rockets to claim the ~9x2 miles of Shebaa farmland? I suppose I'm missing something there. If Hezbollah “needed” arms, it seems they would need anti-aircraft weaponry for Israel's violation of Southern Lebanon airspace—defensive rather than offensive weaponry. My earlier question applies to Hezbollah too: how long the preparations, and for what purpose? A defense against an “enemy” that had mostly withdrawn from southern Lebanon? Major war over a small space of farm land? Has Hezbollah missed its opportunity to become a legitimate part of the Lebanese democracy, by trying to SIEZE too much power?

In a long question concerning Human Rights in the UK, I asked Chomsky (in the ZNet Sustainers Forum – I would hesitate to write another question to our overworked friend) about the principle of universality, as I believe his ethical “principles” in the abstract, revolve around universality and consequentialism (or maybe utilitarianism, which is related IMO). In that context he responded: “On the principle of universality -- perhaps the most elementary moral principle -- it's not clear to me what exceptions it might have in principle, though in practice it is almost universally ignored by systems of power and their acolytes. But maybe. Human life is too complex, and too poorly understood, for much confidence to be warranted. I'd like to see an example, though.” In this blog post Chomsky notes: “We can drop abstruse matters like consequentialism, and keep to one of the most elementary of moral truisms: we are responsible for the anticipated consequences of our actions, or inaction. Of course, that does not provide a simple guide, because there are always many varied and often conflicting consequences. But the question does come up all the time, and is worth considering. Take a few examples.” And he then turns to some seeming exceptions—that might not be exceptions in that Truth telling can, for example, legitimate a speaker with a broader audience, and amplify the power of and legitimacy of their other statements (besides “honesty being the best policy.”) If someone continually hid facts and lied about events, many people would have a hard time taking them seriously. But when someone's truths often fly in the face of conventional wisdom, yet they are a proven truth teller, and not deceptively selective—and when they are a good scientist too for example—then truth telling adds to their power to do some good. But as Chomsky's quotes above make clear—we need specific examples, where general principles do have their occasional exceptions. There is a clear split between principles and pragmatics—and in the One State/Two State example, although one state (which would be democratically and demographically weighted towards Palestinians) might be more desirable for many in principle (a fair democracy), for many the two state solution is much more pragmatic (which also respects the minority population of Israel as to have its own space): the two state solution seems doable, whereas the one state is virtually impossible (given the Israeli minority power). Slicing through the Gordian Knot of a complex situation with the sword of a couple of principles may seem the simple solution; but in reality, I think many, including Chomsky, would say these principles may help clarify a problem and its potential solutions, but they do not provide the specific course of action to take in any specific situation. The edge of generalities usually have their borderline cases. Ideally, I think Chomsky's words should have no power, other than to reveal a truth beyond his words, and provoke others to think things through on their own. Maybe others have grander hopes for the power of his ideas and insights. In reality, people speak and listen only semi-rationally, and act accordingly, so one must be careful of one's words—but not so careful as to never break a vow of silence!

"...but the implication, by both the Sustainer questioner, and maybe Chomsky himself, that this comment played a part in setting off Israel's disproportionate response to Hezbollah... seems to be taking Chomsky's power a little too far."

I don't think Chomsky is claiming that much. He said his comments fed the right-wing rumor mill and thus contributed to US-Israeli policies:

"So yes, the anticipated consequences were very ugly -- though of course I didn't know then how grotesque US-Israeli behavior would become." He then lists what he didn't know would happen, namely, the precipitating events in the recent crisis.

A while back a Palestinian rights activist criticized Chomsky for advocating a binational state instead of the supposed ideal solution for Palestine, the one-state solution. Chomsky criticized this b/c although it may have theoretical merits in the abstract, the implications of us advocating it would be a huge propaganda victory for the right and for Israeli expansionists, who would use it as proof that Palestinians and outsiders want to demographically eliminate Israel, and thus it would be a pretext for even faster land expropriation and more repression against Palestinians. In essence he was saying, we live in a real world with real implications for what we say and do, and we can't simply advance a purist line.

This seems to be in contrast to what he says above. The principle is the same, but in the Lebanon, Cambodia, and PLO examples, he accepts the consequences of saying things that could have a negative impact (or be used by others in a negative way).

I don't understand the thinking that Iran and other regional states should be OK with Israel's nukes because they developed them years ago and haven't used them yet. Only in the Western corporate media does that fly. Israel's history gives the region plenty to worry about.

The Arab has a knack for overstating, I have seen. Dramatics seem to be highly important to the art of persuasion in Arab countries. I have no problem with this. Yes, Iran (and many others) would like to see Israel wiped off the map. But the unspoken admission is that that won't happen. To assume that Iran would develop nuclear capability and actually use it are in actuality two different arguments. Pakistan would love to see India pertmanently disfigured and even wiped off the map, but have they used their nuclear arsenal against India? The same with India towards Pakistan. And if Israel is so keen to keep from using its nuclear arsenal, why doesn't it just abandon it? The real issue here is national pride. It's important to some nations to be seen as having strength. It's seen as being a deterrent to such countries as the Dark Empire, who thinks twice before threatening another nuclear power. It is a great bargaining chip. And why not? Do you seriously believe Iran would actually use such weapons in the face of a certain annihilation to follow? And why shouldn't other nations have this capability? Why is the nuclear club only for the few existing ones? What makes them so special? If Russia were as evil as we in the West have historically assumed, why haven't they used their capability? What about China? England? France? Why is it acceptable for these folks to have nuclear weapons and not acceptable for others? Funny how we perceive evil of those who are currently our enemies, and how we overlook the "evil" of those who are our "friends". We thought Saddam Hussain was the greatest thing since sliced bread before he it went to his head and he did something we didn't like. Why didn't we rail against him in the eighties when he fought Iran as we did in the nineties when he invaded one of the Friends of the Dark? Why did we let Pakistan's nuclear scientist, Dr Khan, off the hook with little more than a slap on the wrist for sharing such info with Iran and others? Because pakistan was vital to our interests at the time. If Pakistan did something to piss off the Dark Power, what do you think would happen then? And when was it EVER OK for a country to develop nuclear capability? It wasn't ok for the Dark Empire. It wasn't ok for the Soviets. It wasn't ok for ANYONE to create these death machines - ever. Your arguments carry no weight. The one country that should be feared the most (and really is though it is not wise for any country to speak of it) is the Dark Empire. If the world are to fear ANYONE having the remote possibility to actually use nuclear weapons, they should be fearing the one country who has already clearly demonstrated a willingness to do so, not just bluff.

Not mentionned above is that Israel destroyed an important lebanese Tv station ( CNN), boy was hezbollah hiding on the antennas? In Canada, harper is being preceived as a hero for evacuating canadian from lebanon.. to borrow the words of chomsky, its grotesque really,, what about lebanese and palestinians, women and children..? what about the people of gaza, arent they being taken hostages by the zionist terrorist state? Heil your TVs..you Bushites

Albeit somewhat less popular in the extreme-left crowd, is that Israel gained nuclear armament in the 50's, when it was still 'okay' for countries to do so. It also has refrained from using any of it's nuclear arsennal in any conflict, despite indymedia clamoring that Israel has genocidal and imperialist goals.
On the other hand, Irani leaders have spoken outright of their desire to 'wipe Israel off the map', and other some extreme rhetorics.

Perhaps a reassesment is in order? Oh nevermind, afterall, questions are a burden, answers a prison for oneself.

Posted by Kelvin Yearwood Maurice Jamall - Chomsky's replies on ChomskyChat are sometimes posted here, but Chomsky does not comment on these postings. My suggestion is that Westerm dominant media generally frame Israel as a victim reacting to Arab/Muslim aggressors, therefore the US-backed, Israeli state-terrorist possession of nuclear weapons is filtered out along with its real role in the world. I hope from your tone that you don't think Chomsky falls shy of citing these imperialist realities.

Dear Professor Chomsky, At the risk of appearing tragically naive, I was wondering if you could comment on why the Western governments and the Western media in general continually fail to bring to the public's attention that one reason that Iran may be seeking an independent nuclear deterrent may be because their "enemy", Israel already possesses such a deterrent with the blessing of its paymaster. Kind regards, Maurice Jamall

If I gather the gist of Chomsky's reply—he is claiming that telling “truth” can be more important than lying (not white lies at least) for intended consequences. Chomsky and company obviously thought his noting Hezbollah had reasons for arming themselves would have some political backlash—but the implication, by both the Sustainer questioner, and maybe Chomsky himself, that this comment played a part in setting off Israel's disproportionate response to Hezbollah (with their claimed aim of taking care of things with some sort of finality, as not to prolong the conflict)—seems to be taking Chomsky's power a little too far. It seems that some, like Condoleezza Rice, want to frame the bombing of Lebanon as a consequence of Hezbollah's actions: as if it were inevitable once Hezbollah kidnapped the two Israeli soldiers. There have obviously been actions and counteractions going on for quite some time: why start the bombing? To show that there can be consequences and repercussions for kidnapping? To get rid of Hezbollah's arms, in short order, by having them launched at Israel? (What's the point of disarming an enemy by having them unload at you?) Israel seems to have “rolled the dice” in a big way, by trying to “do the Lebanese a favor” of disarming one of their political parities: who will the children of Lebanon blame for the bombing, Hezbollah or Israel? There are consequences to actions: and hence sometimes regret (regrets that one did something without the proper amount of prudence—that one's reasoning and risk assessment were not as perfect as was hoped). Victims often do not have the opportunity to regret their demise. I wonder how much of Israel's bombing Lebanon was a response to the kidnapping, and how much the kidnapping was used as pretext to attack their enemy Hezbollah? How long the premeditation for this action? Were Israeli officials caught trying to legitimate a knee-jerk reaction? Or has this dice-rolling with lives and public opinion been in the cards for some time?