chomsky is being pretty honest, while the interviewers (etc.) and the people (mis)characterizing him are being as disingenuous as one can possibly be. again, refer to the vids (the 3rd part is most relevant, plus it's only 7 mins long). would explain MANY of your questions and comments.
My point was that all countries use realpolitik and lie about it, even if democracies are nicer when it doesn't cost anything etc. (Wartime, including the cold war, tends to get moral considerations thrown out.)
It is propaganda to condemn a player morally for acting like everyone else in a game where survival literally is at stake. At a minimum you should talk carefully about the implications.
Also, I noted it is easy to give examples where other countries are much worse, without Chomsky or anyone else caring.
It seems like propaganda.
You wrote that you had no problem with that, you wrote in anothe comment that you are no fan of Chomsky -- and now you are the "opposite"??
you say "Also, I noted it is easy to give examples where other countries are much worse, without Chomsky or anyone else caring". if you watch the videos i mentioned you will get the reply you are looking for to this question and see that this claim is completely false.
thus also false is the claim of propaganda. all i can say is "watch the vids", and until you do there is no point in constantly repeating the above talking point since it's CLEARLY addressed and refuted in the vids mentioned.
again, now you're getting into the "hidden intentions" thing which is completely irrelevant with regards to my not being a fan of chomsky. all i can say is that the world is a complex place, some things i agree with and some things i disagree with. for me to say i'm a "fan" of chomsky is probably as (in)valid as saying that i'm "not a fan" of chomsky.
I got some time and finished this, posting after minimal rereading...
I was more interested in two other statements -- I now really think Chomsky is a propagandist.
A) 5:45, where he explained why he criticizes Israel more than all the other places which are much worse. "He can influence more", because he is American.
That is just not true. It doesn't explain his lack of attention on Sudan, which lacked attention from the international community, when murder/rape by the millions were taking place. If someone with Chomsky's weight had started to make speeches, it would have added needed attention. And probably saved, at a minimum, thousands of lives.
(That Chomsky statement doesn't help explain the total fixation on Israel by all the other left wingers with similar opinions in e.g. Western Europe... Where outright demonization of Israel is more or less standard.)
B) At one minute, Chomsky explains that there is no need to consider the existential threat, because Israel ignored a peace offer from Egypt in 1971... (Despite that Israel has peace with Egypt since a few decades, anyway!)
Whatever, with that an easy standard on blaming the victims, you can motivate anything -- based on what a government did a few generations ago, in a very different world!
(According to the Israeli side, Sadat gave other signals to PLO about supporting them and not really going for peace. I have no idea if that is true or not, neither has Chomsky.)
Democracies tend to go insane over terrorism and throw out human rights (GB, USA, Germany, Israel, etc) -- with Israel we talk about an existential threat…
Israel is the only present democracy with that, but look at different internment camps for civilians in the second world war (including Sweden, which threw lots of communists in jail because they took order from Moscow -- and Sweden wasn't even in the war!).
I am not defending putting people in camps -- I'm just noting that in a lot less threatening situation, most everyone was worse -- including my native Sweden.
In conclusion, I have a considered opionion now: Chomsky writes propaganda.
a def'n of propaganda is "information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc." (dictionary.com). is this what you're claiming chomsky is doing? if so, what is the info he is spreading and whom is he trying to harm? i believe such a claim is VERY strong, and would fall under the area of mudslinging. it's a popular fox news tactic too.
A) he does NOT criticize israel more than other places (he says something similar many times elsewhere in the 3 vids). he is saying that as an american citizen, the places where the usa has an influence is where he feels he is most obligated to act. thus, if the situation in sudan is not a byproduct of usa policy, he feels the moral obligation is not as strong as in places where the usa has directly affected a region (middle east, south america, vietnam, etc.).
are you assuming that chomsky has said nothing about sudan?
i'm unsure what your critique here is. chomsky is on the record about making comments on (quick, abridged list): serbia/yugoslavia, venezuala, mexico, vietnam, iraq, afghanistan, russia, germany, iraq, iran, syria, israel, palestine, lebanon, cuba, canada, usa, china, phillipines, korea, japan, south africa, haiti, honduras, east timor, tibet, india, pakistan, libya, turkey, indonesia, brazil, egypt, jordan, georgia, colombia, cambodia, australia, etc.
another factor: chomsky is american. thus is it "propaganda" if the majority of his writings concern america? isn't this acceptable? the same concern with the fact that he's jewish and has personal ties to israel. thus why is it considered "problematic" if the majority of his words and thoughts concern the 2 things he is a part of? (he even mentions this at 2:00).
further, your "all other left wingers" and "demonization of israel" is extreme hyperbole. i'm going to ignore that comment. i find all right wingers to participate in extreme hyperbole where the demonization of anyone that disagrees with them as more or less standard.
B) by "existential threat", are you referring to "israel's right to exist is questioned"?
i'll also ignore the "sadat and plo" unicorns-are-real statement, since as you say, no one knows whether it's true or not.
i'm unsure what the rest of your points are referring to. and i don't see how they support your "chomsky writes propaganda" thesis. it's a very weak thesis (i'm being generous). propaganda involves the spreading of misinformation ("lies" if you will). the only point you've brought up is that "chomsky focuses too much on israel" (he doesn't) and "ignores sudan" (again, wrong). i fail to see the connection to propaganda.
Discussion is over? Well, I guess it ended before the last two comments, since...
tl;dr You didn't answer my arguments based on your reference -- and avoided the same point Chomsky did.
I should also add...
I wrote: "(That Chomsky statement doesn't help explain the total fixation on Israel by all the other left wingers with similar opinions in e.g. Western Europe... Where outright demonization of Israel is more or less standard.)"
The answer: further, your "all other left wingers" and "demonization of israel" is extreme hyperbole.
That was a non sequitor to what I wrote, since I obviously talked about the many left extremists with similar opinions and that they demonize Israel -- not claiming all left wing extremists agree (But I have seen few disagree.)
I don't think that was a mistake, since you failed to answer my arguments -- and wrote childish insults and fantasies about my opinions. That is not only a lack of arguments, it is a lack of integrity. Or bad trolling, from what looks like a troll account.
i'm missing the references here. see my other post as to what you perceive i'm not addressing.
what were the childish fantasies and insults you are referring to?
thnx for more mud slinging about calling this a "troll account" just because i disagree with you or am trying to shed some light to your original question. it really adds to the conversation. and i agree, childish insults and fantasies should best be ignored.
Oh please, I use it here to mean "non-serious argument to influence opinions".
What other term would you suggest?
Re Sudan... Arguably, even using a Palestinian description of Israel, Sudan is a thousand times worse.
My point was that some attention from Chomsky on that subject could have saved at least thousands of lives. You don't have anything relevant?
>>he is saying that as an american citizen, the places where the usa has an influence is where he feels he is most obligated to act.
No. Note that I am quoting YOUR reference...
What he said, see time in the video above, was that he could do less about Sudan. I argued that was wrong, see previous paragraph.
You didn't even try to argue against my point.
>>further, your "all other left wingers" and "demonization of israel" is extreme hyperbole.
It is certainly a generalization, but hardly hyperbole. Do you want a long list of examples from all major left wing media in my native country?
>> i find all right wingers to participate in extreme hyperbole
You might want to note that I limited myself to West Europe, which I know a bit about. Also, wtf?!
>>since as you say, no one knows whether it's true or not.
Note that you totally disagreed with Chomsky here, if you watch what I referenced.
He thought there is no need to make considerations for being under really hard pressure because Israel didn't accept a proposal 40 years ago. He can't know how serious that proposal was assumed to be.
You totally ignored this, my other point.
Then I discuss where you end up if you consider how countries function under existential threats. Arguably, Israel is better than most.
Chomsky won't touch that subject - you don't want to, either.
>>very weak thesis
In that case, why couldn't you give relevant answers to my arguments? You even misquoted Chomsky on what he said in the video you linked to youself...
And that type of defense of Chomsky is quite fun with your claim of not being a fan... :-)
hi berntb,
thnx again for the time to reply. upvoted you again.
re: propaganda.
if you didn't mean to refer to chomsky as a "propagandist" then you obviously shouldn't have used that term. which term you should have used is a concern for you, not for me. if you aren't using the correct terms to convey what you are trying to say then there is no way i can help you choose the appropriate words since i have no idea what it is you mean. basically, operate on the safe side of things and don't throw labels around if you're unsure about what you're trying to convey.
chomsky is participating in a "non-serious argument"? are you serious? and he is trying to "influence opinions"? again, really? do you seriously stand by these accusations? if so, you'll have to provide evidence for these accusations. otherwise you're participating in further hyberbole.
sudan is a 1000 times worse. yes, even chomsky said that in the vids (if not a million times worse). so you agree with chomsky. no one is arguing that.
you claim chomsky could have saved 1000s of lives if he discussed sudan. i have no idea where you came up with these numbers. how can you come up with a correlation between chomsky talking about something and having saved sudanese lives??? how can he have saved one life, or 1 million? as mentioned, chomsky made comments in the past about the bombing of an american pharmaceutical company. how many 1000s of sudanese lives did those comments save? i believe you're overestimating chomsky's influence on the political arena here.
and further, how do you know chomsky has not discussed sudan? my initial take (why this thread started) is that you were not aware that chomsky discussed anything but israel. we've already established that is a false conclusion (as long as you don't perform the experiment, you can pretend every conclusion is true).
re: quoting my reference. i'm unclear what you're referring to here. what reference of mine are you quoting? i must have missed the point (therefore not provide a comment on it)?
re: "all left wingers" and hyperbole.
by "all left wingers" i interpreted that as not just "all left wingers in sweden" (i have no idea what the left in sweden is like, probably in a similar way that you might not have an idea as to what the left is like in other countries). and it might appear to you that ALL demonize israel. if you're willing to admit that you're overgeneralizing then i'm willing to retract my claim of hyperbole.
i had no idea you were limiting your comments to a subset of people you were referring to. i agree with "wtf", because my comment was a reflection of my reaction to your overgeneralization. the statement was intended to be ironic.
re: "no one knows whether it's true or not" about sadat and the plo.
i'm missing something here. where did chomsky discuss sadat and the plo in the vid? can you give me a rough time in the vid? i watched at the 1:00 mark and didn't see that mentioned. i'm unsure about what i'm disagreeing with chomsky.
i wasn't ignoring anything. i stated i wasn't clear about the rest of your points were in regards to (e.g. i didn't understand what you meant by "existential threats"). i'm asking you to clarify them if you can.
unsure what you mean by "israel is better than most" as well. i'm happy to touch any subject (i can't speak for chomsky tho). i just don't understand the subject you want me to touch.
which arguments did i not address and i'll be happy to address them? i think you're being VERY disingenuous here by saying i'm avoiding anything. you don't know me well enough at all to sling mud my way. that's not cool.
keep in mind, i'm NOT arguing here, just having a discussion and hoping everyone is clarifying what they are interpreting. if i'm wrong or misinformed, i'd GLADLY revise my statements or opinions. it's part of the learning process. hopefully you, and everyone else, would do the same when presented with new perspectives on the way they view life.
what did i misquote of chomsky from the vid? (you're going to have to be much clearer in your claims/accusations since this conversation is getting pretty nested.)
again, i'm not a fan of chomsky. i'm not sure what else you want me to say about that. the discussion began with "chomsky focuses on israel and ignores everything else", to which i replied that it was a good observation, and provided a video which addresses that concern.
You are just writing lots of text twice without touching my arguments -- from a previously unused account. You seem like a troll.
I'll go over my original simple points about your video again, then I'll stop feeding you.
>>if you didn't mean to refer to chomsky as a "propagandist" then you obviously shouldn't have used that term.
AGAIN: "Propaganda" is not a good term for (quote of me) "non-serious argument to influence opinions"? What other term would you suggest?
>>you claim chomsky could have saved 1000s of lives if he discussed sudan. i have no idea where you came up with these numbers.
You do know, you're trolling. Your still haven't written anything relevant to the original simple point:
A) 5:45, where he explained why he criticizes Israel more than all the other places which are much worse. "He can influence more", because he is American.
That is just not true. It doesn't explain his lack of attention on Sudan, which lacked attention from the international community, when murder/rape by the millions were taking place. If someone with Chomsky's weight had started to make speeches, it would have added needed attention. And probably saved, at a minimum, thousands of lives.
>>where did chomsky discuss sadat and the plo in the vid? can you give me a rough time in the vid? i watched at the 1:00 mark and didn't see that mentioned. i'm unsure about what i'm disagreeing with chomsky.
You have still not addressed my second point:
B) At one minute, Chomsky explains that there is no need to consider the existential threat, because Israel ignored a peace offer from Egypt in 1971... (Despite that Israel has peace with Egypt since a few decades, anyway!)
I'll go over this a THIRD time:
At one minute, the journalist talks about the literal threat to existence -- start listening at 45 seconds if you really don't get it. When discussing the threat to existence of Israel, the interviewer says: "If you listen to what [Hamas, etc] say, there is an immediate threat to Israel".
Chomsky doesn't touch that or the history of wars trying to eradicate Israel etc -- he starts talking about an Egypt peace offer in 1971!!
(That is both damn long ago to judge a present time -- and also ignoring that none of us know how serious that peace offer was thought to be. Which is a side point.)
My point is that Chomsky didn't touch the status of being under an existential threat. Then I discussed what that means:
Democracies tend to go insane over terrorism and throw out human rights (GB, USA, Germany, Israel, etc) -- with Israel we talk about an existential threat… [Edit: Which is obviously factors of ten worse than terrorism. Just to be clear]
Israel is the only present democracy with [an existential threat], but look at different internment camps for civilians in the second world war (including Sweden, which threw lots of communists in jail because they took order from Moscow -- and Sweden wasn't even in the war!).
To be absolute clear: When discussing a country's behaviour, you really should consider the situation(!). Israel doesn't seem extreme to me, compared to e.g. Sweden or any other democracy.
Was THAT really so hard to understand, that you had to write walls of text twice? Hardly.
I'll comment myself, to say that I'll probably not check for an answer, because if you haven't answered my reactions to your video reference by now, you won't do it.
I always get this experience when reading/hearing Chomsky.
First I notice something weird, like point "A)" above:
What... Chomsky says he could not influence the atrocities in Sudan?! What the Hell, it would have major impact if the foremost academic critic of USA/Israel said in multiple speeches: "Darfur/South Sudan is a total genocide that must be stopped -- and the muslim world is pure evil when supporting the Sudan junta!". There is obviously a high probably that would have saved lots of lives.
I write this -- and don't get a serious answer, like e.g. "A point, Chomsky is full of sh-t there" -- or "Wrong, that was incomplete source about Chomsky's position. See X and Y".
Instead, you Chomskyists/trolls refuse to understand what I write and/or write flames and/or write large text blocks on trivialities.
(Was that the third or fourth time I explained that trivial point? Never mind...)
chomsky is being pretty honest, while the interviewers (etc.) and the people (mis)characterizing him are being as disingenuous as one can possibly be. again, refer to the vids (the 3rd part is most relevant, plus it's only 7 mins long). would explain MANY of your questions and comments.