Noam Chomsky, from an interview at the University of Arizona on February 2, 2017.

from Information Clearing House

INTERVIEWER: "Let us turn to the role of the media in reporting alleged Russian interference in the US electoral process. Mainstream journalists have called Trump a puppet of Russia, a modern version of the Manchurian Candidate. Others have criticized the media for accepting unsubstantiated claims about Russian influence, and reporting such claims as facts. Normon Soloman and Serge Halimi, for example, stated that press reporting on this issue amounts to a mass hysteria reminiscent of the McCarthy era, while Seymour Hersh called the media reporting on Russia “outrageous.”3 What is your view of this situation? "

CHOMSKY: "My guess is that most of the world is just collapsing in laughter. Suppose all the charges are true, I mean every single one, it is so amateurish by US standards that you can hardly even laugh. What the US does is the kind of thing I described in Italy in 1948. Case after case like that, not hacking or spreading rumors in the media; but saying look, we’re going to starve you to death or kill you or destroy you unless you vote the way we want. I mean that’s what we do.

"Take the famous 9/11, let’s think about it for a minute. It was a pretty awful terrorist act. It could have been a lot worse. Now let’s suppose that instead of the plane being downed in Pennsylvania by passengers, suppose it had hit its target, which was probably the White House. Now suppose it had killed the president. Suppose that plans had been set for a military coup to take over the government. And right away, immediately 50,000 people were killed, 700,000 tortured. A bunch of economists were brought in from Afghanistan, let’s call them the “Kandahar Boys,” who very quickly destroyed the economy, and established a dictatorship which devastated the country. That would have been a lot worse than 9/11. It happened: the first 9/11, it happened on September 11, 1973, in Chile. We did it. Was that interfering or hacking a party? This record is all over the world, constantly overthrowing governments, invading, forcing people to follow what we call democracy, as in the cases I mentioned. As I say, if every charge is accurate, it’s a joke, and I’m sure half the world is collapsing in laughter about this, because people outside the United States know it. You don’t have to tell people in Chile about the first 9/11."

Following the Chomsky Affair, Gush Shalom considers a Supreme Court appeal

by Adam Keller

Gush Shalom

Following the Chomsky Affair, Gush Shalom considers a Supreme Court appeal against the Minister of the Interior, demanding clear and transparent criteria for who shall be denied entry into the country and for what arguments. "Such decisions cannot be left to anonymous officials and security operatives, who become a thought police and censor political opinions"

On behalf of Gush Shalom (the Israeli Peace Bloc), Adv. Gabi Laski wrote to Interior Minister Eli Yishai, demanding that he issue regulations with clear criteria on who is to be denied entry into Israel and why. This followed the ban on the entry into Israel (and to the Occupied Territories) of the American linguist Prof. Noam Chomsky – considered among the most important thinkers in the world. There were also many other recent cases of foreign citizens denied entry, such as Spanish clown Ivan Prado. In none of these cases was an explanation or reason offered, beyond unspecified "security reasons".

There are ample grounds for suspicion that the real reason was the political views and activities of those denied entry – which is not a legitimate argument for the government of a country which boasts of being "the only democracy in the Middle East." The ongoing trend of unreasonably and unjustifiably preventing the entry of many people into Israel and the Palestinian territories creates the impression that anyone who criticizes Israel has a reason to worry of being denied entry. This causes great damage to democratic discourse and to freedom of movement, with Interior Ministry officials becoming a kind of "Thought Police" (and incidentally severely damaging the State of Israel's international standing).

Such acts also clearly manifest the occupation and oppression of the Palestinians, which goes on unabated even in times of negotiations and "proximity talks". The State of Israel arrogates to itself the right to determine who would and who would not visit the Palestinians – in Chomsky's case, who would be allowed to lecture at a Palestinian university and who would not.

In the letter Att. Lasky reminds that according to Article 14 of the Entry into Israel Law, from which the Minister of the Interior derives the authority to "remove" people who arrive at the country's borders, also obliges the minister to make regulations specifying what categories of people would be forbidden an entry visa or a residence permit . However, the current minister, like his predecessors, avoided making such regulations, leaving the issue to the arbitrary decisions of unnamed officials at the Interior Ministry itself, working with operatives of the Shabak Security Service, who hold secret deliberations and reach secret decisions, without publishing the decision itself or its reasons.

This denial of the principles of public transparency and good governance impairs the possibility of subjecting executive decisions to judicial review. Typically, people who are denied entry into Israel or the Occupied Territories hear about it for the first time when arriving at the Israeli passport control, and are often held in detention for several days and finally expelled from the country, without being given any reason or explanation other than unspecified "security reasons".

In her letter to the minister, Att. Laski Court's quotes Supreme Court rulings clearly stating that the making of this kind of regulations is not left to a minister's discretion, but is an absolute obligation. The regulations must be published in the Official Gazette and define criteria fitting with the principles public transparency and public control over governmental decisions. Failure to make such regulations is an unreasonable conduct on the part of the government, justifying judicial intervention.

Given the above, Adv. Laski asked Interior Minister Yishai to act in accordance with Article 14 of the Entry into Israel Law, and publish regulations specifying the categories of people who would be denied a visa or residence permit, as well as specifying the reasons for such a denial of entry. Absent a satisfactory answer from the minister, Gush Shalom will consider petitioning the Supreme Court.

Contact:

Adv. Gaby Laski +972(0)54-4418988

Adam Keller, Gush Shalom spokesperson +972(0)54-2340749

"Israel's Worst Enemies Are Those Who Support its Policies" - Chomsky

The Palestine Telegraph

Israel's greatest enemies are those who support its decline into moral degeneration and destruction, philosopher and political activist Noam Chomsky has told an audience in Dublin.

Chomsky, who is retired professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said Israel was once a civilised society similar to those found in Scandinavia. Now, however, that has changed. There is high inequality just as in the US, and the social security system has collapsed, he said.

In the 1970s, he said, Israel had a choice between security within its existing borders and expansion into settlements and it chose expansion.

It was not possible to carry out the military occupation this required and at the same time maintain elementary moral values. "The worst enemies of Israel were those supporting it. What they were in fact supporting was its moral degeneration and ultimate destruction," said Chomsky.

Chomsky, the son of Jewish parents from Pennsylvania, said that at one stage he considered going to live in Israel but "now I prefer to come to Dublin".

He was speaking at the College Historical Society, or Hist, in TCD, which yesterday awarded him a gold medal for outstanding contribution to public discourse.

Last night, the 80-year-old philosopher and author also addressed UCD's Law Society, which awarded him honorary life membership.

Answering questions from journalist Robert Fisk and a packed student audience at the Hist, Chomsky maintained there were grounds for hope in the conduct of world affairs. Countries such as Britain and the US had become much more civilised, a trend he attributed to the active engagement of citizens, especially young people, in politics. Disillusionment with the policies of John F Kennedy in the 1960s had prompted people to become involved in civil rights campaigns and, later, the feminist movement, he pointed out.

Drawing a distinction between "stories" and "non-stories" in the media and academia, Chomsky pointed out that the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago was followed six days later by the "end of Christianity" through the defeat of liberation theology. This occurred when elite units of the army in El Salvador, trained by the US, murdered six leading Catholic intellectuals. Yet, in contrast to events in eastern Europe, few people knew about this event.

Warning against the pitfalls of humanitarian intervention, he pointed out that British colonists came to the New World with the express intention of helping natives in this manner. "In the process, they helped exterminate them."

Most of these colonists were religious fanatics, Chomsky said, and this streak in American society has lasted almost up to the present day.

He described the conflict in eastern Congo as the worst catastrophe currently going on in the world and asked why Darfur, which was a much smaller conflict, received so much more attention. "In Darfur, you can blame it on enemies - the Arabs - whereas in the Congo it's a lot harder."

The multinationals were "all over" eastern Congo, using local militias to gain control of its rich resources, he said.

- Irish Times

The Grim Picture of Obama's Middle East

by Noam Chomsky

from The Palestine Telegraph

A CNN headline, reporting Obama's plans for his June 4 Cairo address, reads 'Obama looks to reach the soul of the Muslim world.' Perhaps that captures his intent, but more significant is the content hidden in the rhetorical stance, or more accurately, omitted.

Keeping just to Israel-Palestine -- there was nothing substantive about anything else -- Obama called on Arabs and Israelis not to 'point fingers' at each other or to 'see this conflict only from one side or the other.'

There is, however, a third side, that of the United States, which has played a decisive role in sustaining the current conflict. Obama gave no indication that its role should change or even be considered.

Those familiar with the history will rationally conclude, then, that Obama will continue in the path of unilateral U.S. rejectionism.

Obama once again praised the Arab Peace Initiative, saying only that Arabs should see it as 'an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities.' How should the Obama administration see it? Obama and his advisers are surely aware that the Initiative reiterates the long-standing international consensus calling for a two-state settlement on the international (pre-June '67) border, perhaps with 'minor and mutual modifications,' to borrow U.S. government usage before it departed sharply from world opinion in the 1970s, vetoing a Security Council resolution backed by the Arab 'confrontation states' (Egypt, Iran, Syria), and tacitly by the PLO, with the same essential content as the Arab Peace Initiative except that the latter goes beyond by calling on Arab states to normalize relations with Israel in the context of this political settlement. Obama has called on the Arab states to proceed with normalization, studiously ignoring, however, the crucial political settlement that is its precondition. The Initiative cannot be a 'beginning' if the U.S. continues to refuse to accept its core principles, even to acknowledge them.

In the background is the Obama administration's goal, enunciated most clearly by Senator John Kerry, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to forge an alliance of Israel and the 'moderate' Arab states against Iran. The term 'moderate' has nothing to do with the character of the state, but rather signals its willingness to conform to U.S. demands.

What is Israel to do in return for Arab steps to normalize relations? The strongest position so far enunciated by the Obama administration is that Israel should conform to Phase I of the 2003 Road Map, which states: 'Israel freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).' All sides claim to accept the Road Map, overlooking the fact that Israel instantly added 14 reservations that render it inoperable.

Overlooked in the debate over settlements is that even if Israel were to accept Phase I of the Road Map, that would leave in place the entire settlement project that has already been developed, with decisive U.S. support, to ensure that Israel will take over the valuable land within the illegal 'separation wall' (including the primary water supplies of the region) as well as the Jordan Valley, thus imprisoning what is left, which is being broken up into cantons by settlement/infrastructure salients extending far to the East. Unmentioned as well is that Israel is taking over Greater Jerusalem, the site of its major current development programs, displacing many Arabs, so that what remains to Palestinians will be separated from the center of their cultural, economic, and sociopolitical life. Also unmentioned is that all of this is in violation of international law, as conceded by the government of Israel after the 1967 conquest, and reaffirmed by Security Council resolutions and the International Court of Justice. Also unmentioned are Israel's successful operations since 1991 to separate the West Bank from Gaza, since turned into a prison where survival is barely possible, further undermining the hopes for a viable Palestinian state.

It is worth remembering that there has been one break in U.S.-Israeli rejectionism. President Clinton recognized that the terms he had offered at the failed 2000 Camp David meetings were not acceptable to any Palestinians, and in December, proposed his 'parameters,' vague but more forthcoming. He then announced that both sides had accepted the parameters, though both had reservations. Israeli and Palestinian negotiators met in Taba, Egypt to iron out the differences, and made considerable progress. A full resolution could have been reached in a few more days, they announced in their final joint press conference. But Israel called off the negotiations prematurely, and they have not been formally resumed. The single exception indicates that if an American president is willing to tolerate a meaningful diplomatic settlement, it can very likely be reached.

It is also worth remembering that the Bush I administration went a bit beyond words in objecting to illegal Israeli settlement projects, namely, by withholding U.S. economic support for them. In contrast, Obama administration officials stated that such measures are 'not under discussion' and that any pressures on Israel to conform to the Road Map will be 'largely symbolic,' so the New York Times reported (Helene Cooper, June 1).

There is more to say, but it does not relieve the grim picture that Obama has been painting, with a few extra touches in his widely-heralded address to the Muslim World in Cairo on June 4.

Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor (retired) at MIT. He is the author of many books and articles on international affairs and social-political issues, and a long-time participant in activist movements. His most recent books include: Failed States, What We Say Goes(with David Barsamian), Hegemony or Survival, and the Essential Chomsky.