It’s from W.D. Rubenstein’s “Chomsky and the Neo-Nazis”, or more specifically from correspondence between Rubenstein and Chomsky included within:
It would seem to me, that hating anyone would not be right for any believer in any religion. If God knows all things, loves all mankind, etc. then I believe one should just live their own life the best they can, and let God handle the rest. I don’t believe a loving father would pick out one kind of person( and if all humans are children of God), then God would want all of his children to have the best life possible.
Too much of what I hear about a God is contradictory and truth cannot be contradictory! Too many lives have been lost over the centuries because of some people believing different things about a Supreme being. The saying:“let go and let God” would make more sense than worrying if some one thinks differently then themselves. To me it is a lack of trust or belief and I find it hard to accept why they think God can’t lead a person, or allow a person, to use the mind he is said to have given them!
Any sleepless nights over Iraqi war?
Didn’t think so… :rolleyes:
Not at all.
The first “fact” at issue is whether Israel launched a pre-emptive strike on Jordan, or not.
Now, military history is a kind of hobby of mine, and I’ve read a reasonable amount on the '67 war. I know that Israel did not launch a pre-emptive strike on Jordan. Those “facts” are not controversial. It is not only “Israel’s position” that they did not strike Jordan preemptively. One does not have to be an “extremist” to believe it.
The issue then shifts to whether Carter said that Israel pre-emptively attacked Jordan because he was summarizing a lot of information hastily, and he just phrased it wrong. Reading the sentence does not give that impression, but I suppose one can be generous and assume that, if it was pointed out to Carter, he would have phrased it differently.
The second “fact” at issue is whether Carter really misunderstood Assad’s position on Golan Heights. Here, once again, I’m not relying on Israel’s position. Israel had no position. I’m relying on the eyewitness on the spot. That eyewitness, who took the minutes of the meeting in question, was of the impression Carter deliberately lied about what was said. I’m not sayong he’s right in that - I have no idea whether Carter lied or not.
Problem is, of course, that while any one muffed fact can be explained, when you start getting more and more - and they are all muffed in the same way (that is, to make Israel look the aggressor) - a fair minded and impartial observer could only conclude that the author is allowing his bias to influence his view of the facts.
Ignore all the talk about whether or not that makes Carter a bigot or a Jew-hater. It is not really important to pass judgment on the man. What is important, is that it makes him an unreliable witness on the facts he himself observed. Given Carter’s significant role in the history of the region, that’s important to know.
I know it’s off topic and all, but why the hell would a professor of French literature be doing “Holocaust research”?
While we could argue back and forth over whether this interpretation is reasonable, I’d just point out that the only other living eyewitness to the meeting besides Carter himself clearly did not think so - given that he resigned in disgust from his position with the Carter Institute in part over what he felt was Carter’s deliberate misrepresentation of that very meeting.
Now, of course it could be that this fellow is himself guilty of the bias he accuses Carter of, and it is he that is mis-remembering. However, the problem is that as one goes through the book, you get more and more examples of where either everyone else is misremembering and misinterpreting events - or Carter is. Eventually, occam’s razor kicks in.
This is a poor standard. There aren’t people going over his book with a fine tooth comb and trying to contort Carter’s words to “find” inaccuracies showing he is biased against the Palestinians.
We also have Stein’s notes, and they seem to be consistent with Carter’s interpretation.
Because he was and is virulently anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist.
You’ll notice that if you look around at “Holocaust Deniers” you’ll often find people with Ph.Ds in fields not remotely related to it. I.E. math professors or anthropologists or something similar.
I figured it was something like that, but I don’t understand how he could be disciplined for “academic misconduct” (versus plain old being an asshole) when the misconduct wasn’t related to his actual academic work.
Really? And why not? The Palestinians have supporters every bit as passionate for their “side” as the Israeli supporters are.
In any event, the two examples I mentioned are not “fine tooth comb” issues that only dedicated fanatics would or could pick up on. The first is one that literally caused me to do a double-take when reading the book; the second caused a major player to resign in disgust.
I must say I don’t read them that way and I think it’s a bit of a strain to do so. However, that’s not the point: I wasn’t there.
Again, in this controversy you have to believe one or the other is mistaken. Again, this is not an example of armchair observers (well, like us :D) picking over the book after the fact for nits, but the reaction of one of the “players”.
There are other examples of this–for example, take ex-President Clinton. He was annoyed (and allegedly said so) about Carter’s use of the maps created by US negotiator Dennis Ross. Once again, we have a high-profile dispute over the facts --and it is not between Israeli supporters and detractors, but between the Americans who where there at the time. Once again, the issue is whether to believe Carter or the other guy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/09/opinion/09ross.html?pagewanted=all
This isn’t, I think, in the realm of a “quibble” or of armchair fanatic Israeli supporters nit-picking. This is the very substance of the book. Ross was the US negotiator on the spot.
For the same reason professors can be punished for committing plagiarism in books they publish.
For example, if it had been proven that Allen Dershowitz had committed plagiarism for his book Chutzpah or The Case For Israel, even though those aren’t related to his job as a law professor, he’d be in trouble.
I know it’s convenient for people to disarm Chomsky with attributions of extreme statements. It’s convenient if you’re an apologist for Israel and can’t handle academic criticism of it, but it’s also nonsense.
http://www.chomsky.info/letters/19890601.htm
"Since I never wrote a ‘joint article’ with Guillaume, I was curious, and after a search, found the book in question. Indeed, it contains the chapter ‘Une mise au point’, written in first-person singular by Guillaume, with no hint of any collaboration with me. I am mentioned in it, and fragments of a letter of mine are quoted in which I discuss changes in the U.S. intellectual climate since the 1960’s (with typical veracity, Cohn describes this as my ‘comments on Guillaume’s version of the Chomsky-VT relationship’, which is nowhere mentioned). By Cohn’s intriguing logic, I am also the co-author of his various diatribes – perhaps in my third life, which he will expose in the next instalment. Cohn asserts that I found ‘nothing to correct in Guillaume’s’ account. He has not the slightest idea what my reaction to the article is. Recall that this ‘joint article’ is his ‘crucial source’.
Let us turn to his second decisive piece of evidence. When I learned of Cohn’s fairy tales about the French translation of the book of Herman and mine, I was intrigued. Of course, it is obvious even without further inquiry that his claims are outlandish. There is no possible way that he could know of my intentions (and those of my co-author, Edward Herman, who somehow seems to have disappeared from the tale; perhaps I invented him as a cover). But we need not speculate on Cohn’s mystical ability to read minds.
Standard procedure is to leave translations in the hands of the publisher. I make no attempt to keep track of the innumerable translations of books of mine in foreign languages. Curious about Cohn’s allegations, I contacted the publisher, who checked their files and located the contract for the French translation – with Albin-Michel, a mainstream commercial publisher, to my knowledge. They did not know whether the translation had appeared, never having received a copy. The same is true of my co-author and me.
Note that these are the examples that Cohn selects as the decisive proof of his theses. A rational person will draw the obvious conclusions about the rest. Cohn makes two further claims. He says that in defending the right of freedom of expression in the case of Robert Faurisson, I have always ‘indicated’ that my ‘“diametrically opposed” view was more a matter of opinion than of scientific knowledge’ (a statement that he appears to attribute to Guillaume); and I have always defended freedom of expression ‘in terms that are absolutely incapable of hurting Faurrison [sic].’ Consider these allegations.
In Cohn’s ‘crucial source’, cited above, Guillaume quotes my statement that ‘there are no rational grounds that allow any doubt about the existence of gas chambers.’ Thus Cohn is refuted by his own ‘crucial source.’ In my own writings, from the earliest until the present, the conclusions of standard Holocaust studies are taken simply as established fact, as Cohn knows perfectly well. In the introduction to my first collection of political essays, 20 years ago, I add that we have lost our humanity if we are even willing to enter into debate over the Nazi crimes with those who deny or defend them. The only particle of truth in Cohn’s absurd charge is that I never use the phrase ‘scientific knowledge’ in dealing with any questions of history; my book with Herman, for example, which is neither science nor mere opinion."
Okay, I grok. Thanks!
I’ve been extremely civil. You’re the one who accused me of lying earlier and rather unwisely declared that Chomsky would never have denied the Cambodian Holocaust or been an apologist for Holocaust Deniers. Since then you’ve been desperately trying to handwave away the evidence rather than admit you were wrong.
Anyway which books, because they can’t have been Manufacturing Consent or Distortions of the Fourth Hand which referred to the incidents you knew nothing about until last night.
Anyway, if you wouldn’t mind, please do me the courtesy of answering a few simple questions.
Since we classify people who sign truther petitions as “truthers” what’s wrong with calling people who sign Holocaust apologist petitions “Holocaust apologists”?
Yes or no, is it fair to classify someone as a Holocaust apologist if the claim, “I see no anti-semitic implications in denial of the gas chambers or even in denial of the holocaust.”
Yes or no, is it fair to classify someone as an apologist for Holocaust Deniers if the insist that Faurisson is not an anti-Semite but merely “a relatively apolitical liberal.”
Because they aren’t desperately seeking to discredit Carter.
Again, the problem is that Stein isn’t pointing out factual discrepancies. He is disagreeing with the weight Carter gives to various facts and the conclusions Carter draws from these. Breaking down Carter’s statement:
Clearly true according to Stein’s notes.
Doesn’t seem to be any doubt that this part is true as well. I suppose you can quibble with what semi-demilitarization means, but I don’t see a reason to think that withdrawing from the border isn’t consistent with that.
In Stein’s notes, it says “equal footing”. That doesn’t mean equal distance. And modifying the distance based on geography seems consistent with equal footing.
So I see nothing in Carter’s statement that isn’t supported by Stein’s notes.
What’s interesting is that Stein cuts out half of Assad’s last paragraph. It’s tough to read his hand writing, but I’m pretty certain the next line from Assad reads “And I believe measures are not the issue”. After that, I think it says “When there is [CAN’T READ] for peace and no diplomatic prospects”.
Stein’s accusation is: “Carter reworded the conversation to suggest that Assad was flexible and the Israelis were not.”, but Stein’s own notes show someone flexible and willing to negotiate.
I don’t know enough about this to comment.
This topic has degenerated into a completely different debate, IE are all the most respected critics of Israel really nazis? (slight hyperbole of course)
What are the real world consequences for Jews outside of Israel? Are Jews being accosted on the street? Are they not being considered for jobs? Are people not allowing their children to date them? This virulent hatred the topic mentions outside of fringe groups no one takes seriously (Like the white supremacists of the USA, mostly a product of prisons) what is the great concern Jews have of their treatment? I hear much worse things about Mormons, born-again Christians, atheists and baptists in my area in California. Negativity about jews is pretty much nonexistent in conversations I’ve had here.
Some folks unashamedly support anti-Semitic nonsense, like claiming that Jews are clannish and look out for other Jews first and foremost. The negative repercussions of anti-Semitic views like that can be felt in a number of arenas, even though they don’t lead to violence in the streets.
I in all honesty cannot read it the way you are. The notes, as far as I know, say this:
My read is ‘for our part, contrary to what the Israeli PM said, we have not and will not agree to demilitarize the Golan. That would sacrifice our sovereignty. All we agreed in the past was to do some sort of measures, like semi-demilitarization, as long as the Israelis agreed to do the same on equal footing. If anyone should be asked to take “additional measures” (that is, additional to the stuff we the Syrians already agreed in the past we would do mutually) like a DMZ, it’s the Israelis, on their side of the border’.
He certainly did not offer, as Carter claims, that “both sides withdraw from the international border” or that “Syria might move its troops farther from the border because of the terrain”. The truth is somewhat the opposite - he’s saying that he’s already agreed in the past to all the measures he’s willing to take and if the Israelis want additional stuff like a DMZ it’s the Israelis who should do it on their side.
In short, he’s not agreeing to demilitarize the Golan and he’s not making concessions and he’s expressly not offering any negotiating “movement” - he’s saying he’s already agreed in the past to everything he’s currently willing to offer and if the Israelis want something different it is up to the Israelis to make concessions.
That being said, it is of course possible that Stein’s notes are not accurate or are incomplete.
To my mind, it’s more of the same.
But you get my point. I’m not taking about lists of points made by fanatically pro-Israeli nit-pickers, but reactions of the US officials on the ground. It is them who are complaining about Carter’s version of events.
Note that the topic is “why are Jews still hated so much around the world outside of the US?” Unless this California you speak of is “outside of the US”, I doubt your observation undermines the OP. 
My final comment about Chomsky’s vile offenses against humanity:
In France free speech is not a right. You are not allowed to speak in support of Nazis or against the Holocaust or anything like that. They can and will send you to prison for it. Obviously their history being occupied radicalized the population somewhat in this regard. In the US we regard freedom of speech as a fundamental component of democracy and that even if the most reprehensible speaker is censored it threatens us all.
Chomsky and many other academics believe that professional punishment for academics is also a great threat to the independence of scholarship from politics and government. This is the only thing he was doing in relation to the French idiot. He doesn’t want to see a litmus test of political agreement be a requisite of participation in the academic circles. I agree with him. Maybe you think the French have it right or that the British libel laws are reasonable, that’s fine. I don’t. But if supporting the free speech rights of a group means you support their message I guess I hold an almost infinite number of contradictory values and opinions all at once.
People who already disliked Chomsky used his defense of a holocaust denier to paint him as one himself. It’s opportunism and character assassination. It’s the tactic used when someone can’t actually win any substantive arguments with someone on their issues of contention. Can’t beat Chomsky in a debate about US foreign policy? Just twist something where his name and a holocaust deniers come up together until people think he’s one himself and viola, you don’t even have to debate him anymore.