Two worth reading: Chomsky and Buchanan on Gaza

As a Jew and former Kibbutzer, it's difficult to justify calling Noam Chomsky an "anti-semite", even  though his criticism of the Israeli government for its treatment of Palestinian Arabs has invited the epithet.  

It's a different story for Pat Buchanan, whose anti-immigrant rants render the "anti-semite" label more plausible.  Like Chomsky, Buchanan has long been dismissive of Israeli policies. 

Both have recently written, critically, about the Israeli incursion into Gaza.  Buchanan, in a piece entitled "Olmert's Poodle", questions whether the American knee-jerk acquiescence to Israeli policy vis-a-vis the Palestinians will survive the passing of the Bush administration:

"With Olmert, Rice, and Bush departing, and Obama and Hillary taking charge committed to talking to Iran, can the old intimacy survive the new friction and colliding agendas?"

That remains an open question.

In a much lengthier piece, Chomsky indirectly provides an answer to Buchanan's question.  He suggests that the timing of the cessation of the "assault" on Gaza was carefully planned

"...to minimize the (remote) threat that Obama might have to say some words critical of these vicious US-supported crimes."

The key word in Chomsky's assessment is "remote", intimating that Obama may be no less sympathetic to Israeli militarism than Bush.  Obama reiterated today "...that Washington would continue to support Israel's right to defend itself."

How will that lead to a lasting peace between Israel and the bifurcated Palestinian government?  

Both pieces are worth reading.  

Also worth reading (for Obama, from yesterday's 25 recommended books) is Avi Shlaim's The Iron Wall, which recounts the history of the Zionist movement. 

Comments

[Craig]

Why in the world do you keep citing sources whose statements are not only obviously biased, but flat out wrong.

First Chomsky, who writes (to cite just one example among many false and ridiculous statements from his piece): "'...Hamas, which has long been calling for a two-state settlement in accord with the international consensus' -- blocked for over 30 years by the US and Israel, which reject the right of Palestinians to self-determination.'"

Say what? Who is for and who is against a two-state settlement? Has Chomsky read the Hamas charter, which explicitly rejects Israel's right to exist? Has he read the published statements of the last three U.S. administrations, as well as Israel, which, far from rejecting, explicitly call for a two-state solution?

As for the Buchanan piece, again why bother with someone who just buys into what he wants to believe? The heart of Buchanan's piece was that he (Buchanan) believed PM Olmert's claim that he (Olmert) got President Bush to interrupt a speech he (Bush) was giving to take a phone call from Olmert. Video of that speech explicitly exposes Olmert's claim as a lie.

As I've said repeatedly in this space, there is plenty to criticize in Israel's policies and behavior and I have explicitly done so. But it serves no purpose to keep citing sources whose obvious biases are such that they continue to make fools of themselves.

In the future, please base your posts on more credible sources.

[Harry Kershner]

One of the first responses to the Buchanan piece that you linked to was, "Why cede to Olmert on this issue if Bush is leaving office in a matter of days, and thus does not have to face the wrath of the Israeli Lobby (like his old man did in the early 90s) by going against Israel’s demands?"

This is a very important matter, one that surely calls into question the Mearsheimer/Walt/Buchanan hypothesis that Israel and its lobby direct U.S. policy (as opposed to the Chomsky "Strategic Asset" hypothesis, which suggests the opposite, i.e., that U.S. support for Israel is predicated on the assumption that Israeli hegemony advances U.S. power interests). Bush did not "cede to Olmert", since no possible advantage could have been forthcoming, even if Olmert, like AIPAC, wants to appear to be the one holding the whipping hand.

It's clear, or it should be clear to anyone who can read, that Israel consistently asks for the "green light" from U.S. policy makers before it commits any of its crimes. Therefore, it should be equally clear that it is our duty as Americans to demand that our role in this attempted genocide end.

To most of the world, Israel is now a pariah state that likely will be destroyed unless its allies force it to end its psychotic victim presumption.

"Once again, Israel demonstrated that it possesses the power and the lack of moral restraint necessary to commit atrocities against a population of destitute refugees it has caged and starved...

Yet paradoxically, it is Israel as a Zionist state, not Palestine or the Palestinian people, that cannot survive this attempted genocide...

According to well-informed and credible sources Israel did little harm to the modest but determined military capacity of the resistance. So instead Israel did what it does best: it massacred civilians in the hope that the population would turn against those fighting the occupier...

Israel not only unified the resistance factions in Gaza; its brutality rallied all Palestinians and Arabs...

If there was ever a moment when the peoples of the region would accept Israel as a Zionist state in their midst, that has passed forever.
(Ali Abunimah, Why Israel Won't Survive)

[Harry Kershner]

No nation state has the "right to exist" on land that they stole from people against whom they have attempted genocide. The ideological discipline that is necessary to continue to misunderstand this would be inspiring were it not so stupid.

[Terry]

Well, never mind Chomsky, the nation's leading, although not most influential, intellectual, then. Or Pat Buchanan, whose anti-war position on Iraq I find both persuasive and refreshing.

How about Jimmy Carter, who had the sense and the cajones to meet with Hamas, and declare that the "terrorist" group would "accept a two-state peace agreement"?

Or Gershom Gorenberg, an Orthodox Zionist Jew, who writes the South Jerusalem blog. He says,

"On the other hand, pay attention: The leader of Hamas is saying that the Charter has no practical relevance. He really wishes Israel would vanish, but that’s not his political program. He’d rather take a couple pills against nausea, and accept reality."

Gorenberg elaborates in this piece for the American Prospect.

[Craig]

I hope you are right -- that Hamas will accept a two-state peace agreement. But I'll believe it only when I hear Hamas -- not Jimmy Carter or Gershom Gorenberg -- say it.

I note that, in your link, exiled Hamas leader Khaled Meshal is quoted thusly: "We agree to a state on pre-67 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital with genuine sovereignty without settlements but without recognising Israel." Note the singular "a state," not two states, and note that Meshal explicity rejects recognizing Israel.

Also of note is that, in the same link, Jimmy Carter, who did more to bring about peace between Israel and its neighbors than any U.S. President before or since (the Camp David Accords) explicitly calls Hamas's behavior "despicable" and "acts of terrorism."

[marcia]

Hamas may be desipicable, but so is Israel. I am speaking of the story I heard last week on NPR of the Palestinian family holed up in their house in Gaza. The Israelis pulled up in their tanks and told people to come out and surrender. A family...three little girls, and grandmother and mother...went out waving a white flag, and an Israeli soldier picked them off, intentionally, one by one...killing 2 of the little girls instantly...the other little girl was shot and taken to the hospital...who knows...she might be dead now..In my mind, Israel is a bully, and ethnic cleansing is their agenda.