| Submit your comments on this article |
| Fifth Column |
| Noam Chomsky's Love Affair with Nazis |
| 2006-05-16 |
| See also this ("Partners in Hate - Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers by Werner Cohn"). By David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin Rarely has the world been afforded such a clear glimpse into the unholy alliance between Islamic extremists and secular radicals in the West. That’s exactly what it got last week when the foremost Imam of the radical Left, Noam Chomsky, bestowed his blessings on the world’s largest terrorist army, the Shiite jihad outfit sponsored by Iran and known as Hezbollah (“Party of God.”) Following a meeting with Hassan Nasrallah, the Lebanese terrorist group’s “secretary general,” Chomsky announced his support for Hezbollah’s refusal to disarm. Then, in an echo of Nasrallah’s recent declaration that President Bush is the world’s top “terrorist,” Chomsky pronounced his own fatwa on the United States, calling it one of the “leading terrorist states.” It was a meeting of murderous radical minds. In many ways, Chomsky’s newly forged friendship with Hezbollah -- the most recent entry in a lifetime befriending America’s most deadly enemies -- is the logical continuation of the professor’s longstanding admiration for global terrorists and Jew-haters. In fact, Chomsky devoted most of the nineties to touting Hezbollah as a “resistance” movement (which occasionally committed misguided acts against civilians) while singing its praises as a crusader for peace and social justice. Typical was Chomsky’s 1996 book, World Orders Old and New. Citing with approval a journalist’s observation that Hezbollah “is not a terror organization,” Chomsky explained that the terrorist who blew up 243 U.S. Marines in Lebanon and murdered untold citizens of Israel was only engaging in “legitimate resistance” against an oppressor and “avoids striking civilians except in retaliation for Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians.” Elsewhere in his book Chomsky claims that, in launching its attacks against Israel, Hezbollah “carefully avoided civilian areas” and assured his readers that Hezbollah attacks were always “retaliatory.” Israel through Chomsky's eyes presented quite a different story. Dispensing altogether with the studied euphemisms that marked his descriptions of Hezbollah, Chomsky unequivocally denounced Israel for using “terror weapons” to commit “atrocities” such as targeting “civilians” with “no provocation”. The resulting effort bore little resemblance to fact. Rather than consider well-documented reports of Hezbollah’s repeated shelling (at its Iranian masters' prompting) of Northern Israel, killing women and children in the process, Chomsky rejected the reports as so much American and Israeli propaganda. How after all, could the Great and Little Satans be telling the truth? Rather than reflect on the fact that Hezbollah terrorists deliberately entrenched themselves among Arab civilians to cause the casualties so that Chomsky could protest, Chomsky falsely charged that the Israeli military targeted the civilians, a claim which no reasonable human being could make. Even the anti-Israel UN felt compelled to acknowledge that “Hezbollah had resorted to using civilian areas to provide a human shield for its terrorist activity.” In Chomsky’s version of the Elders of Zion, Israel is always the instigator, while the attacks of terrorists, whose declared objective is the establishment of an Islamic state on Israel’s grave, are invariably “defensive.” Chomsky blames an upsurge in Hezbollah terror, for example, on Israel’s 1992 assassination, of Hezbollah leader (and mass murderer) Sheikh Abbas Mussawi. Yet Chomsky neglected to mention that Mussawi, speaking on behalf of Hezbollah, openly proclaimed his genocidal goal: “We are not fighting so that the enemy recognizes us and offers us something. We are fighting to wipe out the enemy.” In Chomsky’s writings about Hitler’s heirs, the genocidal roles are always reversed. When Hezbollah broke an informal 1995 agreement to suspend attacks against civilian targets, Chomsky condemned Israeli military strikes, again omitting the fact that the complete annihilation of the Jewish state was Hezbollah’s stated goal. In his 2000 book Fateful Triangle, Chomsky complained about media coverage that described Hezbollah’s shelling of the so-called Israeli “security zone” in Southern Lebanon as “terrorism.” Chomsky insisted that it was instead an act of “indigenous resistance to the rule of Israel and its proxies.” As usual, Chomsky was lying. Hezbollah’s attacks were against civilians inside the security zone not military targets. In a typical projection, Chomsky maintained in the face of the facts that it was Israel who was killing civilians, and (another lie) that Israel’s official policy was to attack “villages and civilians” in Lebanon. Today, as its Iranian patron calls on the Muslim world to exterminate the Jews and finish Hitler’s job, Hezbollah is blessed by the embassy of America’s most prominent leftist, and better still, a self-hating Jew. While the international community and even the United Nations (whose resolutions Chomsky has repeatedly used as a sledge hammer against Israel), demands that the terrorist Party of God – which is an occupying army in Lebanon -- lay down its weapons, Chomsky provides the occupiers with a moral defense. According to Professor Chomsky there is a “persuasive argument” that the weapons “should be in the hands of Hezbollah as a deterrent to potential aggression and there is plenty of background and reasons for that.” (Many Lebanese are not persuaded. Commenting on Chomsky’s visit, a Lebanese observer pointed to the professor’s ignorance of the fact “that the Hezbollah arms scare the Lebanese people more than the Israelis.") In fact, of course, the only “potential aggression” comes from Chomsky’s friends. In 2004, Hezbollah inked an agreement with Hamas – similarly dedicated to the extermination of Israel -- to continue their joint terrorist attacks against Israel. Hezbollah has also provided political support and weapons training to Hamas and al-Qaeda. In 2004, Hezbollah also launched an unmanned aerial vehicle that crossed Israeli airspace before crashing. Hitler concealed his genocidal agendas from the German people and from his Chomsky-apologists. Hezbollah is more fortunate. In pursuing a second Holocaust of the Jews, it can count on Muslim support and apparently the support of American radicals as well. Therefore it makes no secret of what it intends. Its 1985 manifesto contains a section titled “The Necessity for the Destruction of Israel” that spells out the evil it seeks: “Our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no cease-fire, no peace agreements.” Like true jihadists, Hezbollah’s genocidal plans are not reserved for the Little Satan only but are its agenda for the Great Satan too. In 1993, Chomsky’s host Nasrallah declared: “Death to America was, is, and will stay our slogan.” As his pilgrimage to Hezbollah’s mecca confirms, it is Noam Chomsky’s life-dream as well. |
| Posted by:anonymous5089 |
| #6 Also, the Islamic movement is always on the lookout for official, exemplary "spokespeople" for their movement in order to affect general thinking. It is an understood strategy and they routinely attempt to make friends with "higher ups" and then groom them for the movement. Those who go along with it never know about the strategy or that they were "marks." |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2006-05-16 19:55 |
| #5 When I moved to Manhattan 3 years ago I met Kenny and Elaine. (majormediabypass.com) Two veteran activists who absolutely fascinated me with their full palette of moonbattery, fresh out of the Western Desert as I was. They spoke about the support Noam Chomsky had given them, which amazed me given how little sense they made, all questions of right and wrong aside. There is a lot of just plain pandering to a market in Chomsky. I don't doubt that he believes his spiel, but on a certain level- the bottom line- it sells. |
| Posted by: Grunter 2006-05-16 16:01 |
| #4 Has this podex EVER met a tyrant he didn't like? Or a regime with ANY degree of freedom he didn't hate? |
| Posted by: Korora 2006-05-16 11:53 |
| #3 We must destroy the old world before we build a new one. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2006-05-16 10:24 |
| #2 Most reports seem to indicate that Chomsky's parents were well within the normal range -- Chomsky has nobody to blame for his moral failings but himself. Besides being self-hating as a Jew, Chomsky is self-hating as an American while continually providing attempted exculpations for groups as evil as the genocidal Khmer Rouge, one suspects simply because they were anti-American. It's not so shocking that someone could hold his views; what's truly repellent is that he has so many respectful readers in the European and US left. |
| Posted by: Odysseus 2006-05-16 09:45 |
| #1 Chomsky's parents must have made it their hobby to mindfuck little Noam. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-05-16 08:24 |