|
After reading several of Chomsky's books, I have more and more respect for this author and thinker. He is not in the business of convincing or converting, he is distinctly in the business of telling the truth the best he can.As for the people who question why they should read this book, as much of it is about an old war, and old politics.My answer is because it is important. These facts and the figures in the political scene were the same as they are now. Chomsky is an honorable follower to the likes of Orwell, and cuts through all the media campaigns, falsehoods, lies, and general misinformation pertaining to the Middle East and its conflicts.The book is a tough read, and is more like a disgorgement of information from a mind that has researched the topic at hand for years with meticulous effort. I cannot recommend it highly enough. Around half of the book follows general Israeli policy and politics, as well as Palestinian politics and American foreign policy. He is a meticulous historian and political analyst, and his critics should read his works before attacking him.This book is a compendium of facts, figures, quotes, and analysis that comprise the truth behind the complicated politics of the Middle East. Without this knowledge how can you possibly have an opinion regarding the on goings in the Middle East.
The other half is about these policies as they pertain to the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, and Chomsky knows his stuff, there is no doubt about that. Every claim, every statement, every quote, and every fact is scrupulously cited. To understand the conflicts, you must give this book a read. This book should be required reading in all of the West.A+
It was very interesting to read such a different perspective on the middle east. I would read another book by Norm Chomsky
Chomsky demonstrates (as close to conclusively as possible in political science) that not only did the Israelis (under the military leadership of Sharon) deliberately turn the other cheek during the Sabra and Shatila massacre, but that Sharon and others were actually involved in preparing the atrocities (see chpt. In it, Chomsky demonstrates quite conclusively, that there is an international solution to the conflict between the PLO and Israel, and that it resides quite straightforwardly in the domain of international law, namely U.N. resolution 242. Fateful Triangle is an elaborately researched work of political observation, particularly on Israel's invasion of Lebanon, which was really a proxy attempt to crush the PLO which was residing in the southern region of the state. Chomsky is Jewish and is not an anti-semite, but he applies harsh and rigorous (perhaps occasionally unfair) standards to the state of Israel, which is the product of the policy of genocide implemented against European Jewry during WWII. New Republic and Z mag). What remains is Israel's continued effort to impose a military Bantustan on the Palestinian people in an almost explicit attempt to drive the population out of the West bank and the Gaza strip and into the neighboring Arab states. Aside from Robert Fisk's great book `Pity the Nation,' `Fateful Triangle' may prove to be the most elaborate and well documented works of political literature in the region.
Chomsky's research is truly impressive. New York Times). For example, while discussing the IDF's indolence with regard to monitoring Sabra and Shatila, Chomsky quotes Thomas Friedman to the fact that "whether the Israelis actually looked down and saw what was happening was unkown," adding that "it is also not clear whether this is intended as irony" (366). There was a window of time in which Arafat and the PLO were willing to begin implementing 242 in the 70's, but unfortunately Israel rejected it at the time.
continues to provide blanket support for the occupation and illegal settlements. The basic tenets of 242 were reintroduced in the Taba accords, which were offered by Israel and then accepted by the PLO, but Israel subsequently called off the settlement prior to the election. during the nineties and leading up to the collapse of the process the birth of the second intifada in 2000. Wall Street Journal) and papers on the left (i.e. The updated section (Washington's `Peace Process') is perhaps the most concise, yet revealing attempt to explicate the inner-workings of the negotiations between the PLO, Israel, and the U.S. This book contains roughly 1,550 footnotes, with a huge range of sources, including mainstream right newspapers (i.e. The U.S.
329-440). You can disagree with the ideology and the point of view, but you cannot deny the sheer volume of sources. This is an updated and expanded version of Chomsky's `Fateful Triangle,' originally published in 1983 after Israel's invasion into Lebanon. He also refers to a number of Israeli historians (i.e. Morris and Shlaim), and both liberal and conservative Jewish magazines (commentary and Dissent), also left-wing and mainstream liberal magazines (i.e. It's difficult to explain the almost unanimous refusal to review this book among the mainstream press upon the time of publication, but it passed almost unnoticed.
Additionally, he manages to demonstrate that the Israeli invasion of Lebanon was an act of military aggression, similar now to the US's invasion of Iraq in 03. This is a needless and polemical reference to the Holocaust. Contrary to popular interpretation, Israel has been steadfast in its rejection of the principles of resolution 242, and that the PLO has wavered over the years between rejecting and accepting the policy. On the former charge, I must admit that on a few occasions, Chomsky's tone is needlessly hostile. 6 `Aftermath' pgs. The war in Lebanon cost roughly 30,000 lives and left the region devastated ( I suspect that Israel's recent incursion into the region may do even more damage).
Those who have commented on the book have usually criticized Chomsky's `tone' and his apparent use of `selective quotation.' On the latter charge I can only say that all political scientists must ultimately decide which quotes and sources they are going to include, and which they are going to exclude, it's simply the nature of the field. There is no need to compare the Israeli atrocities to the atrocities of the Nazis; it gets historians and scholars alike nowhere in penetrating into the truth of the current conflict.
Noam Chomsky has thrived greatly in this great country of his, yours, and mine - the United States of America. Let us hope he retires outside of our homeland that he hates so much, the United States of America. He goes way beyond a balanced multiculturism, when he always ranks the U.S.
His world-wide fame in psycholinguistics is well-deserved. His distrust of any authority, benign or otherwise, is reflected in his dogmatic and unexamined support of the "underdog," even if that underdog is a suicide bomber or a major terrorist organization such as Al Queda or Hezbollah. He has made millions of dollars teaching, lecturing, selling his books, and investing.
and Israel as foremost among the terrorist forces in the world now, and even in history. His infamy is merited for his lack of loyalty to his own Jewish ethnicity and the U.S., in spite of the fruits he has received by being a citizen of the United States. He has repaid this country in bile with his incredibly biased analysis of American foreign policy.
Yet since 1955, hypocrite Chomsky has worked for the "overdog" Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which has actively and enthusiastically participated in the development of weapons of War and mass destruction, and continues to this very day.Chomsky trumps his own potential for gifted analytic objectivity with his simple hatred of the United States and the Jewish State.If he were not so attached to the freedom of making money, earning the adulation of the American Left, and freedom to express himself, he might be able to give more direct and personal support for our enemies and his friends by taking up residence in North Korea, Iran, or Syria. God Bless America, which will continue to give Chomsky the right to speak, teach, and make lots of money.Rayboy
Shoher correctly wrote about Chomsky,"Regardless of how misguided and idealistic are Chomsky's views, I deeply respect him as a voice of conscience, reminding us of morality where we prefer efficiency and of compassion where we pursue self-interest."But for the balanced view, I suggest Samson Blinded: A Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict.
|
