A Blog About Nothing » Peace

The saga continues…

The Homo Economicus — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:57:17 +0000

Prof. Chomsky replied immediately (at about 4am) to my latest email:

I will keep to the two contributions I discussed, Gendzier’s and mine. If you have objections to the others, contact the authors.

Recall your charge: “the panel “DID NOT contribute to find solutions for peace, but rather lacked of any academic spirit of discussion and learning and was purely propaganda.” Clearly a very serious charge.

Let’s run through your efforts to respond to the detailed point-by-point refutation of them.

Now I transcript only his answers to my points, but not I’m not rewriting my points again:

(…)

You object to what the moderator said and the way the program was organized. Then contact them. This plainly has nothing to do with the invited speakers. Therefore this is irrelevant to your charges against the two speakers.

(…)

The announced topic for me was “International Politics and the Role of the Palestinian Conflict.” I therefore kept to my topic, as did Gendzier, instead of avoiding my assigned topic and discussing the horrendous Israeli war crimes in Gaza, as you say you would have preferred. We can therefore dismiss this argument — also noting that it is rather odd, on your part.

(…)

Neither speaker said a single word about the legitimacy of Israel. As Walt indicated, I don’t agree with him about the lobby. If you object to his position, contact him. Your score remains zero.

(…)

You wish there had been a different meeting on different topics. That’s fine. Then set one up. That has nothing to do with our speaking about our assigned topic, concentrating on US government policies and how they undermine peace, and how they are grossly distorted in standard assumptions. I happen to think that the topic we spoke about, as requested, is far more important for an American audience than what interests you personally. But you’re entitled to your opinion. Your score remains zero.

(…)

That happens to be false. I said that 242 (338 is of course irrelevant) is accepted across the board as the basic diplomatic document. I also pointed out that the US position from 1967 to 1971 (and the position of the rest of the world, apart from Israel, from 1967 until today) is that 242 bars acquisition of territory by force and calls for a settlement on the international border, with “minor and mutual modifications.”

Putting aside the falsehood, it is understandable why for extreme Israeli rejectionists, 242 is very important: it says nothing about Palestinian rights. No one else would dare to bring up your argument. Implicitly, then, you are making your position very clear.

Naturally the PLO could not accept a racist and rejectionist position that rejects Palestinian rights. Of course, I could have gone on with this, thus sharpening the condemnation of Israel — and of those who bring this up — following your (rather odd) wishes.

On the “three Noes,” read any serious Israeli analyst: e.g., Zeev Maoz, Defending the Holy Land. But no need, because it is all plainly irrelevant anyway, because in 1976 all the relevant Arab states, with the support of the PLO, called for a two-state settlement on the international border in a UN resolution vetoed by the US — the first in a consistent record up until today. Naturally, supporters of Israeli violence and expansion see no significance to this, and try to suppress it, as you do, desperately clinging to their interpretation of Khartoum, despite its clear irrelevance.

That aside, Israel of course did not accept 242, as you surely know. Settlements, known at once to be in gross violation of international law, began at once, violating 242 as understood throughout the world, including the US, apart from Israel. And by 1968 Israel was explicitly condemned for this by the Security Council.

Your score remains zero — though by now you are proceeding to harm your own case, clearly, demanding that there should have been even harsher condemnations of Israel

(…)

I didn’t have to “tell” you because you knew it very well but chose to suppress it. To proceed, if you knew anything about Israeli history, you’d know that if I had brought in the context of the remarks I cited, it would have been a far harsher condemnation of Israel — not just the ravings of two prime ministers and the chief of staff, but positions growing out of major criminal atrocities. You might ask yourself why you demand that I launch far harsher criticisms against Israel. But those strange positions of yours aside, it is evident that in response to a tirade like that of the HU professor, the proper response is to point out that if she wants to play that game, then comparable or worse charges can easily be launched against the state she wants to defend. In response to a question, it would be wholly improper to give a speech — and surely not the kind you want, which sharply increases the condemnation of Israel.

Your score continues to descend below zero, but let’s say it’s zero, out of charity.

(…)

It is quite a serious accusation, which is why I spelled out the reasons. Your inability to hear them tells us something quite striking about your commitments. It was plainly staged because it was entirely unnecessary for the IDF to take people out of their homes, as I explained. If you want even more detail, see my book Failed States, where I also quote the ridicule of the staged trauma in the Israeli press and by the noted Israeli sociologist Baruch Kimmerling. I also pointed out that it was just a repeat of the staged “National Trauma 82″ (as it was called by the Israeli press). You can also find details, quoted from the Israeli press, in the same book and the source it cites, my Fateful Triangle. The reasons for the fakery were also quite plain, as I mentioned. It served as the very clear basis for expansion of illegal settlement in the West Bank. The fact that you fell for the farce is a problem that should concern you.

(…)

Again you had some problems in hearing. I brought up Camp David, and added what Israeli jingoists don’t like to hear. Clinton recognized that the US-Israeli proposals were entirely unacceptable to any Palestinians (including Abbas), and presented his December “parameters” — not explicit, but more forthcoming. He then gave a speech in which he said that both sides had accepted the parameters, and both had voiced reservations. These were addressed at Taba, and were coming close to resolution, when Barak cancelled them prematurely. If you are as unfamiliar with all of this as you seem to be, I’d suggest that you look at the Israeli sources I cited in print in discussing the matter, most importantly Pundak and Arieli (in Hebrew) and Pundak (in English).

I didn’t bring up Oslo because of its transparent irrelevance. Oslo did not propose the IC. In fact, when Peres left office in 1996, he stated explicitly that there will never be a Palestinian state. I could indeed have reviewed the Oslo process, showing how Israel systematically violated its basic commitments by steadily increasing illegal settlements in the territories (peaking in 2000, Barak’s last year), and also running through the ways in which Israel acted to undermine the hope for the IC. If you’re unfamiliar with this, there is plenty of literature, and also the documents themselves, much of it reviewed (with sources) in my World Orders Old and New. But it is all familiar, and plainly irrelevant in this context.

You’re right that I didn’t say that the second intifada “froze the peace process,” because it is transparently false. Negotiations went on through the second intifada, leading to Clinton’s parameters and Taba. So it’s true that I did not bring up the falsehoods you prefer.

(…)

In this case your inability to hear what was said in a 20 minute talk reaches quite impressive levels. I discussed in detail how Israel (with Kissinger’s backing) rejected Sadat’s 1971 peace offer, preferring expansion into the northern Sinai — in fact, quite brutal expansion, leading to the 73 war — a very close thing for Israel — after which the US and Israel slowly moved towards acceptance of Sadat’s proposal (in essence) at Camp David, including the evacuation of the Sinai. I not only mentioned it, but stressed it.

Score is still zero, counting charitably.

(…)

I’m afraid you are insistent on digging yourself into a still deeper hole. As noted, I emphasized the disengagement, and explained in some detail the partial withdrawal from the West Bank in accord with “Allon plus,” then the Sharon plan, the Olmert’s “convergence” and “convergence plus,” even outlining the borders. Aside from the evident falsity of your claims, your reference to the “illegal outpost” is quite revealing. As everyone but Israeli ultra-chauvinists is aware, ALL the settlements are illegal, as Israel was informed by its top legal authorities in 1967, and as publicly conceded by Dayan, who said it didn’t matter. And of course the ICJ, with the agreement of US Justice Buergenthal, reaffirmed that the Geneva conventions apply to the Occupied territories, so that all settlement there is criminal, and any part of the wall that is built to protect settlers is “ipso facto” in violation of international law.

(…)

This desperation would be understandable on the part of a dedicated supporter of Israeli expansion and rejectionism, but surely in no other quarters. Let me repeat the uncontroversial facts. Israel flatly rejects the IC, not only in words, but far more significantly, in deeds, progressing daily. Hamas explicitly accepts the IC. Period.

As I pointed out to you, the IC says nothing — repeat NOTHING — about 194 and how it should be resolved. If you really are as unaware of the facts as you seem to be, I can onlysuggest that you look into the literature on the topic. Putting aside your irrelevant question and desperate effort to avoid the issues that are admittedly embarrassing to extreme Israeli chauvinists, there are well-known answers to the question of refugees: for example, at Taba, before Barak terminated the negotiations. And in more detail, in the Geneva accord, which Israel rejected and the US ignored. Would Hamas accept it? There is one way to find out. Bring the elected government of Palestine into the negotiations. As long as the US-Israel refuse to do so, they simply make even more clear their rejectionist commitments — in word, and much more important, in deeds

Score remains zero.

The rest is simply pathetic, and does not merit response. You didn’t ask for sources in the international press (which happen to exist, in the Financial Times, but I’m tired of doing your homework for you). Rather, you asked for confirmation of what I said about Iran’s position, which I gave you, in an official document, also noting that it is familiar to Iran scholars. That’s all that matters, plainly. If you object to the fact that the NYT chose not to print it, write to them. Still zero.

Amazingly, you stand by your flat falsehood about Ahmajinejad, exposed years ago, by saying that it was reported by AP — and by many others; it is very popular among apologists for US-Israeli violence. Your first citation of it could have been attributed to (rather surprising ignorance). Your reiteration merits a different term.

You asked for evidence that Hamas fired no rockets during the cease-fire (which Israel never accepted, continuing the siege, an act of war as Israel has long insisted). I gave you the evidence, citing Mark Regev. You now retreat to the position that Hamas didn’t stop others, so they are guilty of attacks on Israel. By your argument, the IDF is far more guilty of attacks on Israel, because even with its far more overwhelming force in the West Bank, it did not stop terrorist attacks.

As you can see, your efforts have come to zero. You have no basis whatsoever for your severe charges, which you implicitly concede to be pure slander — and minimal honesty would require more than that. And, naturally, you evade my indication of how you would act if you had any commitment to peace and an ending of settlements. Again, very telling.

I’m afraid this discussion is over, unless you are able to begin to be serious about the matter. I’ve more than fulfilled any responsibility I have to respond to slanderous charges and fabrications.

It would be interesting to know what does Dean Maureen O’Rourke, the Dean of BU School of Law, have to say about the fact that BU School of Law is organizing talks for which the publicized topic is very different from the one that the organizers told the panelists.

In any case, since I am also tired of Prof. Chomsky constant rudeness I decided to give an end to this discussion by asking two more questions in my email:

Prof. Chomsky,

Thanks again. I have to say that I feel disappointed due to your excessive and constant rudeness in your words. You, yourself, apparently are playing some sort of competition in this discussion, since you are trying to give me scores that start at 0 and go below 0 at some point, after apparently self appointing yourself as both the judge and the jury.

I did not ask for a score, and I am not competing nor debating with you. I am just writing to a well-known scholar, as I usually do as a student, to ask, learn and understand different positions. However, you are the first scholar that I know that answers in so a rudely manner – insulting me (such as your “cynicism” about my “hearing problems”) and trying to diminish me constantly for not agreeing with your positions. This is shocking. I would never expected a Professor insulting me like this without not even knowing me, and telling me what should have been my positions according to my political affiliation. That is non-sense.

You keep saying that my arguments are irrelevant and skip them still without providing strong evidence on yours. I remind you that you are the researcher among us. If I don’t have the evidence I might be a simply illiterate student, but if you, being a prominent scholar, don’t have evidence on what you say and write – that is very concerning.

In any case, Prof. Chomsky you ignored again– among others – one of my main questions by saying it is irrelevant. To be pragmatic I will restate my question again (please answer it and avoid telling me how irrelevant it is and how wrong I am, just answer):

How do you (Prof. Chomsky) reconcile a two-state solution – two states for two people – that includes the right of return to Palestinian refugees?

Just to make it clear and avoid misunderstandings: I refer to the Haniyeh’s Request for the Right of Return to Palestinian Refugees – allowing for the Palestinian Refugees and their offspring to return to Israel as Israeli citizens even and not necessarily to the Palestinian State. Please note that I am not referring to the offers of Camp David II and Taba regarding the refugees.

More specifically (and this is a YES or NO answer, no need to expand):

Do you support the right of return to Palestinian Refugees of 1948 to the State of Israel and not to the Palestinian State???

Again, I’m referring to the Right of Return to the Palestinian Refugees, and not economic compensation or return of a small number of refugees on the basis of family reunion.

I hope you will reply answering only my questions, and not insulting me further. In any case, if you don’t reply I will have my own conclusions, but let me say – in case this is the last email in our conversation – it has been very enriching exchanging ideas with you, regardless of your rudeness and insults.

Thanks,

DB

Some more Arab-Israeli conflict…

The Homo Economicus — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 04:57:03 +0000

Prof. Chomsky replied to my last email published in a previous post.

This is his (very long) answer:

I will return to your letter below, but first would like to bring up your general charge, and the one that is most important to me: namely, that the panel “DID NOT contribute to find solutions for peace, but rather lacked of any academic spirit of discussion and learning and was purely propaganda (mainly when for every question the panel instead of answering they diminished publicly the student by calling them ‘illiterate’).”

We can first dismiss your claim about “every question” and diminishing the student. It was all videotaped, so you can check, and determine very quickly that your impression is so totally wrong as to suggest that you just couldn’t bring yourself to attend to what was happening. The incident arose exactly once, and it was not a student. It was an older man who shows up at every event and launches into a hysterical diatribe against me, in this case claiming that I supported Hamas rockets and wanted to see Jews killed. My response was that he should try “literacy” and read what I had written about it, which I then quoted. That was the appropriate response to one single disgraceful tantrum. You parenthesis is totally false, and rather surprising. Surely it was the hysterical tantrum that is not conducive to serious debate, and you might want to ask yourself why you derived the incredible picture you report.

But let’s keep to the important part: “the panel “DID NOT contribute to find solutions for peace, but rather lacked of any academic spirit of discussion and learning and was purely propaganda.” Plainly, I anm concerned with this very serious charge, for which you do not attempt to provide a particle of evidence. I’m interested personally since I regularly give talks like this, and want to make sure that they contribute to discussion and understanding and are not propaganda, let alone “pure propaganda.” I have my notes in front of me, and will review briefly what I said in the 20 minutes alloted to me.

I began by reviewing standard, near univeral, assumptions in the mainstream about the nature of the conflict, giving a few examples from major recent articles in the national press — and of course could have added many more: namely, the US has been an honest broker, trying to bring two adversaries to a peaceful settlement, one Israel, which is seeking a partner for peace, the other Arab and Muslim states (Syria, Jordan, Saudia Arabia, Turkey), which the US must somehow induce “to take the hard steps to forge a durable peace with Israel.”

I then reviewed the record of diplomacy, including Obama, in a style that could easily have been published in Diplomatic History, showing that the standard picture is exactly the opposite of the truth in every crucial respect. Israel and the US rejected Sadat’s peace proposal in 1971, choosing expansion over peace, leading to the 73 war, after which the US-Israel were slowly brought to accept Sadat’s proposal (in essence) at Camp David. Meanwhile, Palestinian nationalism entered the international agenda, explicitly in 1976, when the US vetoed a Security Council proposal calling for a two-state settlement on the international border, brought by the relevant Arab states. Since then there has been a very broad international consensus (IC) to the same effect. blocked unilaterally by the US and Israel, continuing now with Obama. I also noted that there had been one exception: Taba in January 2001, when the two sides came close to agreement, and expressed their view that they could have with a little more time, but negotiations were terminated prematurely by Barak. Hence, to repeat, the standard picture is completely false. The Arab states (and of course Turkey) long ago “took the hard steps” (and though I didn’t review it, so did the PLO-PNC, as you know), but the IC had been blocked by the US and Israel, now alone, since it is also accepted by Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah.

I then reviewed Israel’s policies, specifically Olmert’s “hitkansut” — expanded farther after the Lebanon war — and gave a few brief and uncontroversial facts about them, pointing out that US-Israel not only reject the IC in words, but far more importantly in their daily deeds, citing also the Peace Now report that was published that morning on the plans to double settlers.

I then reviewed the options for the future: (1) the IC, if the US-Israel will abandon their rejectionism, which need not lead to a civil war, as wrongly assumed, for reasons I discussed; (2) an apartheid state over all of the former Mandate; (3) continuation of the US-Israeli policies. I also reviewed the strong ties between the US-Israel: military, intelligence, high tech investment, shifting of Israeli military production to the US, using Israel as a military base for prepositioning supplies (again during the attack on Gaza), noting that there are no real counterforces, so we can anticipate (3), unless the population of the US organizes to compel the government to drop its rejectionist stance and return to something like Taba and the IC.

Now to my question: what part of this is purely propaganda, DOES NOT contribute to peace, and lacks any spirit of academic discussion and learning? More specifically, given 20 minutes what would you suggest should have been excluded, and what should have replace it, in order to avoid pure propaganda and to contribute to peace in the style of academic discussion and learning?

The discussion afterwards, of course, was controlled by the questioners. During the discussion I refuted some other standard, in fact near universal, claims: that Israel had a right to self-defense in Gaza by force, clearly false for the reasons I gave; that Hamas is responsible for breaking the cease-fire by rocketing, clearly false (as you agree), and a few others. The same questions arise, with regard to the discussion, about your very serious charge, for which you provide no evidence or argument.

I also do not see why Gendzier’s review of early USG documents, mostly unknown, and highly relevant, merits your very serious accusation of being purely propaganda and lacking any spirit of academic discussion.

I’ll now turn to your letter, comments interspersed.

Noam Chomsky

Next the transcript only of his interspersed comments – I will not repeat my email again:

(…)

Your “fact” is plainly irrelevant. What I said was that Hamas supports the IC, that is, a two-state solution. There is no IC on UN 194. On that the documentation is overwhelming. As I wrote, one can certainly say that Hamas’s clear and explicit support for the IC does not go far enough, though that is an odd comment, particularly from an Israeli, since Israel (like the US) flatly rejects the IC altogether, not only words but more importantly in deeds. Your comment, I’m afraid, is not only irrelevant but just an evasion. As I said, Hamas has joined the IC, the US-Israel are blocking it. “That is a fact.”

(…)

I can send you Khamenei’s statement if you like. Your criticism again is very odd, particularly from an Israeli. Again, one may argue that Iran did not go as far as Israel would like, but it has joined the IC, unlike Israel, which rejects it in words and more important in daily deeds. I might add that I am a little surprised that you refer to the “call to wipe Israel off the map.” Surely you know that that is a US-Israeli fabrication, exposed years ago by Juan Cole, who gave the accurate translation: Ahmadinejad quoted a statement of Khomeini’s (from the years when Israel was supporting him) which said that in the end of days Israel will vanish — a position much like that of Hashomer Hatzair pre-1948, as you surely know, having been a member. There was not a word about use of force against anyone. I realize that Israeli hasbara clings to this falsification desperately, but is that a reason for you to do so?

(…)

In that case, you are mistaken, for the reasons I discussed. He did not “put together the peace treaty.” Rather, he was very reluctantly compelled to adopt the peace proposal that Sadat had offered in 1971 (in essence), after the near catastrophe of 1973. He deserves no credit for that, nor for his immediate moves to undermine the spirit of the Camp David agreement by rapidly expanding the illegal settlements in the territories — which he knew were illegal, as I mentioned in the talk.

(…)

To continue, for doing so in 1988. Israel responded immediately by a formal declaration (Peres-Shamir) that there can be “no additional Palestinian state” between Israel and Jordan, and that the future of the territories will be determined by Israeli “guidelines.” To this day Israel has never gone anywhere near as far as the PNC in 1988. And of course Israel does not renounce violence.

(…)

I appreciate your agreeing with what I’ve been writing for 40 years, and repeated at the forum. But, rather strikingly, you say nothing about Israel violence, which has always vastly exceeded Palestinian violence, often without even attempt to provide a credible pretext, as in the bombing of Lebanon in 1975 that I mentioned, or more significantly, in the worst of Israel’s many crimes of violence, the invasion of Lebanon in 1982 (I presume we do not have to go through the fakery about shelling of the Galilee, particularly since the real reasons were conceded at once). A rather surprising omission, don’t you think?

(…)

As you have perhaps forgotten, I brought up the quotes in response to a Hebrew University professor who began reeling off quotes from Hamas, which are utterly irrelevant. And it was quite proper to do so. Outlandish Israeli efforts to undermine peace and to block serious discussion should not go unanswered. As for what Israeli leaders have done for peace, you know as well as I: flatly reject the IC, carry out massive settlement programs to try to ensure that it will never be implemented and that there will be no opportunity for decent Palestinian existence, and resort to large-scale violence. These are rather surprising apologetics, particularly from someone who believes himself to be an Israeli dove.

(…)

I quite agree. That’s why I did not bring up any of them. Your criticism should be addressed to the HU professor who did.

(…)

If that is the reason, the blame falls strictly on Israeli hasbara, specifically, the HU professor who brought this up. I have already commented on the parenthesis, false in every detail.

(…)

Again, if you can give any reasons for your charges, I’ll be glad to pay attention to them. But severe charges without evidence are not very compelling.

I also have some suggestions for you, given your commitment to a two-state agreement, an end to settlement, and civilized discourse about the matter. You are in a very good position to explain to your associates at the K school that the prevailing assumptions are the opposite of the truth; and that there are real opportunities for peace if the US drops its traditional rejectionism, stops lending the decisive support for Israel’s violence and illegal expansion, and if at the very least we are willing to face the simple, uncontroversial, crucial facts of the matter instead of insisting on severe distortions that serve to justify US-Israeli rejectionism.

This is my answer to Prof. Chomsky:

Dear Prof. Chomsky,

As you requested me to acknowledge in a previous email that my “criticism was incorrect” and your “words were precisely accurate”, and I did in my following email, I would have expected also from you to acknowledge your false accusations that I would probably condone Jewish terrorism without any evidence.

I appreciate your long answer. I’m going to address your main concern of the panel being propagandistic and you claim that I have no evidence and then some small comments in your answers to my points.

Before that I want to make clear that English is not my first language, so please it will be more productive if we focus on the bottom line and the general points of my statements, and not the specific wording of them.

In any case, these are the reasons I believe that there was a propagandistic talk:

·    Firstly, the moderator made clear that this was a “balanced” event and “several perspectives” of the conflict would be presented. But not a single speaker was presenting the mainstream Israeli perspective of the conflict. I know, as so I presume you do, there are many interesting scholars in the Boston area that could have happily done that. Don’t you think as an academic that there should have been a more diverse panel on such a controversial issue?

·    The talk was supposed to be about the recent Gaza conflict, but this was not the main focus of the talk de facto. Most of it focused on the legitimacy of Israel, the American Jewish Lobby, the American historical foreign policies with respect to Israel and Palestine among others. I’d at least expected some insights about the current complex political situation in both Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA), such as the challenges for the Palestinian people regarding the split between Hamas and Fatah governments or the possible coalitions of the Israeli government.

·    In your presentation you omitted facts that are important to understand the conflict and, by omitting those, one can get a distorted view of the conflict. In addition you presented statements with no formal evidence. Some examples I remember are:

o    You never mentioned that Israel accepted resolution 242 and 338 when it was passed in UN. But the PLO did not at the time. Moreover, resolution 242 was rejected by the Arab countries in famous “three noes” of the Khartun Summit.

o    You brought quotes of Israeli state men without their respective historic context. You told me that I should direct this criticism to the HU professor, but – even if it was a reply – you did it as well, so I believe it is relevant to raise again my criticism.

o    You stated that the Gaza disengagement plan was “staged”. This is a very serious accusation. Although I don’t agree with the politics of the settlers, I would never say that it was “staged”. I was in my military service at the time and I saw with my own eyes, first hand, the IDF taking those people out of their homes. Please provide on what basis do you make that accusation.

o    You said “Since then (1976) there has been a very broad international consensus (IC) to the same effect. blocked unilaterally by the US and Israel, continuing now with Obama. I also noted that there had been one exception: Taba in January 2001, when the two sides came close to agreement, and expressed their view that they could have with a little more time, but negotiations were terminated prematurely by Barak”. Why did you omit the Camp David negotiations of 2000 or the Oslo process since 1993? Why didn’t you mention the broke of the second intifada after Camp David II that froze the peace process for several years?

o    You said several times that the US and Israel have chosen expansionism over peace. Why do you omit Israel’s withdrawn from Sinai – three times the size of Israel (I believe it was mentioned but in the framework of “staged” withdrawal and not as the fact of the withdrawal per se)? The disengagement was omitted – which not only include Gaza but parts in the northern West Bank? Why do you omit Israel taking down the illegal outpost of the Amona settlement in the West Bank a few years ago? Would you say that one was staged as well? Please give evidence.

o    In your three options for the future, let me refer to the first one: “the IC, if the US-Israel will abandon their rejectionism, which need not lead to a civil war, as wrongly assumed, for reasons I discussed”. You say that Israel (and the US) claim that Hamas acceptance for a two-state solution does not go far enough. I suspect that this state solution is not consistent with a two state for two people solution, because – again – it includes the right of return to Palestinian refugees. So, Prof. Chomsky, given that you ignored this question in my last email, let me ask you again: how do you reconcile a two-state solution – two states for two people – that includes the right of return to Palestinian refugees? Please don’t ignore my question. Are you maybe claiming that two states solution is IC but two states for two people isn’t? If yes, I believe you are ignoring, not only USA and Israel, but the European Union, Russia, the UN, even Jordan and Egypt and many others actors into your definition of International Consensus.

These are only some examples. Now, back to some comments regarding your answers on my last email:

You ignored my question about asking sources in international press (and not Iranian) on the acceptance of Iran of a two state – again two states for two people – solution. You ignored my request by saying that you can send me the statement – please send me a link to any international news agency or station with that information. The call for the wipe off of Israel is for example reported by the AP in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hLDjGdJC0Q. So you can blame Israeli Hasbara but also direct your criticism to the Associated Press and many other international news agencies and stations. However, let’s forget about words, and see deeds instead of words: isn’t so clear that Teheran has no intention at all of recognizing the existence of Israel – and moreover engaging in any kind of peace process – when they not even let their athletes to compete against Israeli teams in the Olympics or ignore Israeli journalist in international press conferences (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDaTM0XXuJc)?

You wrote: “I refuted some other standard, in fact near universal, claims: that Israel had a right to self-defense in Gaza by force, clearly false for the reasons I gave; that Hamas is responsible for breaking the cease-fire by rocketing, clearly false (as you agree), and a few others”. Prof. Chomsky, I did not agree with that – I agreed with you with the fact that Mark Regev said that those Rockets were not launched by Hamas. But the Tahadiyeh also implied from Hamas to hail ALL rockets launching. As you agreed with me, Hamas is not strong enough to control all the factions in Gaza (which means at some extent that there is some kind of anarchy in Gaza), so what would you suggest for a cease fire? Should Israel sign a cease-fire with every single group that wants to launch rockets to Israel??? I would have expected to have to discuss this in the talk as well.

Thank you again,

Respectfully,

DB

It will continue…

Dear Prof. Chomsky 2

The Homo Economicus — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 12:05:00 +0000

This is a blog about nothing. Not about politics or the Arab-Israeli conflict. But since I posted already two posts about my conversation with Prof. Noam Chomsky, let me update you on that. After Prof. Chomsky replied in the last post, I replied the following:

Thank you Prof. Chomsky for taking some time to reply.

I already saw Mark Regev and he indeed said that. But do you think we can conclude by that the fact that Hamas, even though is the ruling power in Gaza, doesn’t have enough political strength to make other smaller groups stop their attacks on Israel?

In addition, could you please refer me to the sources in which you based your arguments regarding Iran and Hamas’ Ismael Haniyeh accepting a two-states proposal?

Thanks,

DB

Prof. Chomsky replied almost immediately:

I believe it would have been appropriate, and I hope you agree, for you to open your letter by acknowledging that your criticism was incorrect and my words were precisely accurate, as you now say you already knew. But put that aside, though you might want to think about it.

You are now raising an entirely different question. And the answer, as Regev will surely tell you (and Israeli intelligence if you proceed further), is that Hamas does not fully control other groups, like Islamic Jihad and other splinters. Israel, with incomparably more force at its command, and full control over the occupied territories extending vastly beyond what Hamas can hope to attain, was not able to stop terrorist attacks.

Note that we’re discussing a footnote, about which my comments were precisely accurate. The text, which you’re ignoring, is that Hamas lived up to the cease-fire fully and that total rocketing sharply declined, while Israel never for a moment lived up to the cease-fire — as noted in my letter — and went beyond on Nov. 4, under the cover of the US election, with a direct military violation, offering a pretext too absurd even to bother ridiculing, as Israeli commentators correctly observed.

On Haniyeh, one well-known example of his advocacy of the international consensus is http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/10/AR2006071001108.html, W Post July 12 2006. But if you just google you’ll find others, including reports in the Israeli press. Of course, Israeli hasbara claims that Haniyeh didn’t go far enough — though we both know that that charge is pure cynicism, since he went far beyond what any Israeli leader has.

On Khamenei’s endorsement of the Arab League position, see among others, http://www.khamenei.ir/EN/News/detail.jsp?id=20060604A. It’s also well-known to Iran specialists, e.g., Ervand Abrahamian, in Barsamian ed., Targeting Iran. Again, Israeli hasbara will claim that he didn’t go far enough — just much farther than any Israeli leader.

All of this ignores the far more important facts that I reviewed briefly last night, and that I’m sure you already know. Immediately after the 67 war, Israel was informed by its highest legal advisers — Meron and Shapira — that any settlement in the occupied territories was a serious violation of the core of international humanitarian law, acknowledged by Moshe Dayan, who said it didn’t matter. And you’re I’m sure aware that for over 30 years, the US and Israel have virtually alone — and by now completely alone — barred the international consensus, while carrying very serious crimes in the occupied territories. If anything remotely similar were happening to Jews, I’m sure you would be the first to condone resistance, perhaps as violent as that of the Zionist resistance under the British. If so, and I presume it is so, you are hardly in a position to condemn the elected government of Palestine for not going far enough towards the international consensus (though of course much farther than Israel, the occupying power).

I think that should be clear.

Noam Chomsky

To which I replied:

Dear Prof. Chomsky,

Thank you again for taking the time to reply to me. When I said I saw Mark Regev I meant that I watched after reading your mail, so it is not the case that I was aware of that particular interview before that. I apologize if you perceived that I was being rude to you. I am thankful to have this discussion and I appreciate that you are answering me.

I just read Haniyah’s article, and I must tell you that as far as I understand, the international consensus does not include the right of return to Palestinian refugees from 1948, because that, as you may know, is an indirect denial of the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish AND Democratic state, which is the Israel that the peace movements in both sides are aspiring. The right of return to Palestinian refugees into Israel is not consistent with a two state solution. That is a fact.

Unfortunately, the link to the Iranian source didn’t work. However, how would you reconcile Iran’s ’support’ for a two state solution with their call to wipe Israel off the map. I believe that, aside from the Iranian sources you are sending me, there is no official declaration of the Iranian government in any international well-known news station, agency or newspaper (such as BBC for example).

Let me just say something about your assumption about me condoning ‘Jewish resistance’. I am an Israeli, born in Venezuela to a second-generation Holocaust survivors and immigrated to Israel in 2004. I was a member of Hashomer Hatzair and Peace Now (Shalom Achshav) movement, and currently an elected member in the National Convention of the Meretz Party. I am currently doing Graduate school in Harvard University. To make it clear, I condemn any act of terrorism, either Muslim, Jewish or any other form of it. I condemn Jewish settlements in the occupied territories as well simply because I believe they are an obstacle to peace and are the core of the Israeli occupation. I do not praise Begin either for his terrorist acts in the pre-state era, but I do have some respect him for bravely putting together the Peace treaty with Egypt. Similarly I respect Fatah and the PLO for accepting a two state solution and renouncing to violence. But I also condemn Palestinian violent resistance from other groups. I think it is immoral to target civilians and the Palestinian resistance in my opinion is actually hurting the Palestinian cause more than helping.

We can go back in history and find thousands of quotes from Dayan, and even the more classic ‘socialist-zionists’ such as Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir and Rabin making statements against the Palestinians. I think those are unfortunate now, but I believe that they should be kept in that historic context and not use them to try to diminish all the efforts that the same and other Israeli leaders have done for Peace in the last decades. You know that anybody could come with thousand of quotes (and even actions beside words) of PLO and even AP members stating clearly anti-Israeli positions in violent languages before the Oslo Accords – and even after. However, I think that those kind of political attitudes do not contribute to constructive discussions. That is why Prof. Chomsky, I think that the event we shared – me as a humble viewer – and you as the main panelist, DID NOT contribute to find solutions for peace, but rather lacked of any academic spirit of discussion and learning and was purely propaganda (mainly when for every question the panel instead of answering they diminished publicly the student by calling them ‘illiterate’). The Israeli-Arab conflict is extremely complex. I wish it was as black and white as the panelist tried to present it. But if your narrative really wants to help bring peace, I would humbly suggest you to try engage also with mainstream Israelis, understand their fears and help them get past them. I felt that the talk did not help give Israelis, like me, the space to work for peace. Moreover, talks like this cause Israelis – even those on the left – to close ranks and retreat into a sort of intellectual ghetto.

Thank you again for reading my thoughts,

Respectfully,

DB

I’ll keep you — literally — posted…

He replied!

The Homo Economicus — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 03:10:00 +0000

Yes, Prof. Chomsky replied. But before I copy his answer (as promised) I would like to address one comment of a reader in the previous post. Rachel Fierstein commented the following in the “Dear Prof. Chomsky…” post:

I attended the same event and just re-watched it. The moderator said the organizers attempted to make it more balanced, but these were the only speakers that responded. You miss quoted here. I know for a fact they contacted Dershowitz.

And just because none of them were pro-Israeli doesn’t mean there weren’t different perspectives. Perspectives don’t only consist of “for” or “against.” Perhaps that misunderstanding is why you felt fooled? The speakers did offer different perspectives. You should have paid more attention.

Dear Rachel, thank you for writing. Maybe Prof. Dershowitz couldn’t or did not want to come. I will write him an email with your quote just to clarify if he couldn’t or did not want to. But in any case, Prof. Dershowitz is not the only person in a panel that can represent the Israeli position in the Boston Area. From an outsider’s view (outsider to the organization of the event): it appears that if they did not find anyone to present the Israeli narrative is because they didn’t put a big effort looking for one.

There were different interpretations and expositions, but not different perspectives on the narrative side of the conflict. There was nobody explaining the position of Israel. It is a fact. But if you read careful my post, this is not my critique. My critique is don’t insult the public calling it a balanced or a “would have been balanced” if a speaker representing the Israeli position would have come.

In any case, Prof. Chomsky answered my email. As I promised, here is the answer. Of course, he claims, I am guilty for mishearing him:

You misheard. I very carefully said that not a single rocket was fired by Hamas from the onset of the cease-fire until Nov. 4, when Israel invaded Gaza, breaking the cease-fire, which in fact it had never observed, maintaining the siege — of course, an act of war, as Israel has long insisted.

Rocket firing dropped very sharply until Israel broke the truth. There were a few, but not by Hamas, as recognized by Mark Regev, Israeli government spokesman. Can send you the link if you like.

Noam Chomsky

My reply in the next post…

Dear Prof. Chomsky…

The Homo Economicus — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 10:32:00 +0000

In the Microeconomics Summer School of the Hebrew University in June 2008, Prof. Kenneth Arrow – in his last address as the Summer School Director – gave to the participants (me among them) an advise for their academic life: If you find a result while doing research you should always think that you did something wrong along the way… check twice, three, four and even a million times. Relax the assumptions, give all possible values to all the variables. In short terms he told us: “Always question yourself, until there is no other questions to ask, before you can argue that you are right”.

I think this is the spirit of a real and committed scholar in search of the truth.

I just came from a talk about the Gaza events in Boston University. Four out of the four panelist were presenting a very strong anti-Israeli view. Now, that doesn’t bother me. Everybody is free to say and think pretty much whatever they want. As an Israeli I sometimes criticize the Israeli government. Thus, if other people want to do it (even all the time), go ahead, do it. It does not really bother me.

What really bothers me is when these kind of events open with the sentence: “This will be a very balanced panel, with different perspectives on the topic”. The moderator even added “probably what the panelist will say here tonight won’t please either the Israeli nor the Hamas Government”… but as my good friend M said: “I think Hamas would have been very happy to be in that talk!”.

In any case, I believe that it is an insult to the public attending the event to say that a panel composed by four distinguished professors with clear strong opinions against Israel (Prof. Noam Chomsky, Prof. Duncan Kennedy, Prof. Stephen Walt and Prof. Irene Gendzier) is balanced. Just say that they will present one perspective of the conflict. But please, don’t call it balanced trying to fool the public. It is irrespectful and even inmoral.

In any case, there are two issues about this event that I would like to share with you.

I met a very interesting Israeli Professor that in a very academic and professional manner came to the microphone to ask Prof. Chomsky. Prof. Paula Kabalo has been researching on Israel and Palestine in the period of the late 40s. She made very clear arguments – all of them based on quoted sources. For a humble student, like me, this could have been a very interesting situation: two scholars arguing – having a academic level discussion – on facts and not emotions. However, the response of the panel was almost as with everybody else that came to the microphone with a different view: “You have the problem of the illiterate, go and read some more”. Of course they could not say that to Prof. Kabalo, but instead of engaging into a healthy discussion, they just diminished her using the advantage of siting in the stage as the panelist. It is a shame that the “you’re an illiterate, go out and read” is the weapon of those who don’t want to have a high level discussion. But even more shameful is that professors from the most prestigious universities in the world engage in that attitude like the ones I saw today.

A second thought. Prof. Noam Chomsky stated that “not a single rocket was fired from Gaza to Southern Israel from June to November 2008…” Please let me share with you the email I just sent to Prof. Chomsky:

Dear Prof. Chomsky,

I carefully heard your arguments today at Boston University in the talk “Gaza: Beyond the Headlines”.

You stated that “not a single rocket” was fired from Gaza to Southern Israel between June and November 2008. I invite you to visit the following link in Google News with a search on rockets attacks from Gaza in that period. As you may see your argument (as well as many others I believe) were based in wrong historic facts. Could you please explain what did you mean by saying that “not a single rocket was fired”?

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_user_ldate=2008%2F06&as_user_hdate=2008%2F11&q=rockets+gaza&scoring=t&hl=en&ned=us&q=rockets+gaza&lnav=od&btnG=Go

Thanks,

DB

I hope he will reply. Since I beleive in discussion Prof. Chomsky, your reply will be posted in my blog.

But if you are reading this, I am not trying to challenge your views. I am sure that I won’t change them. I don’t even intend to do so. But please, be as humble as Nobel Price Laureate Prof. Kenneth Arrow and follow his simple advise and before you make an statement, just make sure you are not missing any facts or don’t distortionate them. And if you do, please be open to debate. You are a Professor as well.

Maybe one day…

The Homo Economicus — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 09:15:00 +0000

This is a commercial of the 013 Barak Telecommunications company in Israel. I hope you will enjoy it as I did.

PS: The subtitles at the very end mean: “In real life, this is still not possible. But over the internet, links like these are created on a daily basis”.