Blind Flight by Noam Chomsky
Noam Chomsky | 13.09.2006 12:14 | Lebanon War 2006 | Anti-militarism | World
The incompetence of the Bush planners has led to a catastrophe in Iraq. The US administration may face a nightmare, a loose Shiite alliance that independent of Washington controls the greatest energy supply in the world and in the worst case builds close ties to the Shanghai group.
BLIND FLIGHT
The Muamar brothers and corporeal Gilad Shalat
The West’s power of distinction is challenged
By Noam Chomsky
[This article published in: Freitag 34, 8/25/2006 is translated from the German on the World Wide Web,
http://www.freitag.de/2006/34/06340603.php.]
A quick glance at western media shows that the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel were faded out during the Lebanon war even more than before. The destruction of the Gaza strip fell to the background like the further takeover of the West Bank. The world press reported one-sidedly about the official reasons. On June 25, Israeli corporeal Gilad Shalit was taken prisoner triggering vehement worldwide indignation. Logically the attacks of the Israelis were justified. The “kidnapping” of this soldier was a serious crime, it was said.
A day before, the Israeli army abducted two civilians, Osama and Mustafa Muamar from Gaza City and thereby committed an even more serious crime. The world press must have known about this kidnapping of the Muamars. The reports in Israel’s English-language media were based on information of the army (IDF). Scattered accounts appeared in several US papers. Typically enough, there wasn’t a commentary or any more reporting anywhere or any call for military attacks against Israel.
A Google search shows how the kidnapping of the two Palestinians on June 24 and the capture of the Israeli the next day were treated. Since both events were only 24 hours apart, the rage over the kidnapping of Shalet was nothing but cynical swindle. The prevailing standard says: The abduction of civilians cannot be criticized as long as it starts from our side. If our soldier is captured, we must counter the despicable outrage of the “other side” that calls for collective punishment.
Gideon Levy, editor of the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, comments: The abduction of civilians the day before the capture of corporeal Shalet gave a “legitimate basis” to the operations of the army. Therefore the established media preferred to avoid the facts. Lastly, the army claims the kidnapped Palestinians were “Hamas militants” or potential criminals.
Several things are actually at stake for Israel with the justification of its military actions. The US-supported Arab rulers first condemned Hezbollah but then relativized that verdict – out of fear of their own populations. Even king Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Washington’s most loyal ally, said: “If a peaceful solution should fail through Israeli arrogance, only a belligerent solution is left. Nobody can predict the reverberation in the region and whether there will be wars and conflicts that will spare no one, not even those seduced by their strength who play with fire.”
A leading Lebanese Hezbollah researcher who is also a sharp critic of the “party of God” warns, “all hell will break loose” in Lebanon. On account of the Israeli campaign supported by the US, “the Shiite community nurses a seething resentment toward Israel, the US and their own government that they regard as a traitor.”
The US will hardly be able to oppose this because the remarkable incompetence of the Bush planners – even according to their own standards – has led to a catastrophe in Iraq. The US administration may face a nightmare, a loose Shiite alliance that independent of Washington controls the greatest energy supply in the world and in the worst case builds close ties to the Shanghai group that includes Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kurdistan, Uzbekistan and Taschekistan with Pakistan, India and Iran as observers.
The Muamar brothers and corporeal Gilad Shalat
The West’s power of distinction is challenged
By Noam Chomsky
[This article published in: Freitag 34, 8/25/2006 is translated from the German on the World Wide Web,
http://www.freitag.de/2006/34/06340603.php.] A quick glance at western media shows that the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel were faded out during the Lebanon war even more than before. The destruction of the Gaza strip fell to the background like the further takeover of the West Bank. The world press reported one-sidedly about the official reasons. On June 25, Israeli corporeal Gilad Shalit was taken prisoner triggering vehement worldwide indignation. Logically the attacks of the Israelis were justified. The “kidnapping” of this soldier was a serious crime, it was said.
A day before, the Israeli army abducted two civilians, Osama and Mustafa Muamar from Gaza City and thereby committed an even more serious crime. The world press must have known about this kidnapping of the Muamars. The reports in Israel’s English-language media were based on information of the army (IDF). Scattered accounts appeared in several US papers. Typically enough, there wasn’t a commentary or any more reporting anywhere or any call for military attacks against Israel.
A Google search shows how the kidnapping of the two Palestinians on June 24 and the capture of the Israeli the next day were treated. Since both events were only 24 hours apart, the rage over the kidnapping of Shalet was nothing but cynical swindle. The prevailing standard says: The abduction of civilians cannot be criticized as long as it starts from our side. If our soldier is captured, we must counter the despicable outrage of the “other side” that calls for collective punishment.
Gideon Levy, editor of the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, comments: The abduction of civilians the day before the capture of corporeal Shalet gave a “legitimate basis” to the operations of the army. Therefore the established media preferred to avoid the facts. Lastly, the army claims the kidnapped Palestinians were “Hamas militants” or potential criminals.
Several things are actually at stake for Israel with the justification of its military actions. The US-supported Arab rulers first condemned Hezbollah but then relativized that verdict – out of fear of their own populations. Even king Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Washington’s most loyal ally, said: “If a peaceful solution should fail through Israeli arrogance, only a belligerent solution is left. Nobody can predict the reverberation in the region and whether there will be wars and conflicts that will spare no one, not even those seduced by their strength who play with fire.”
A leading Lebanese Hezbollah researcher who is also a sharp critic of the “party of God” warns, “all hell will break loose” in Lebanon. On account of the Israeli campaign supported by the US, “the Shiite community nurses a seething resentment toward Israel, the US and their own government that they regard as a traitor.”
The US will hardly be able to oppose this because the remarkable incompetence of the Bush planners – even according to their own standards – has led to a catastrophe in Iraq. The US administration may face a nightmare, a loose Shiite alliance that independent of Washington controls the greatest energy supply in the world and in the worst case builds close ties to the Shanghai group that includes Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kurdistan, Uzbekistan and Taschekistan with Pakistan, India and Iran as observers.
Noam Chomsky
e-mail:
mbatko@lycos.com
Homepage:
http://www.zmag.org
Comments
Hide the following comment
Chomsky Fears 9/11 Debate
15.09.2006 02:36
It's all fine and good that Mr. Chomsky confronts Israel for its phony justification for mass murder in Lebanon [
When questioned on Dr. Hesham Tillawi's online video program about his stance on the 9/11 issue, Chomsky timidly regurgitates the official line by saying that the version we are force-fed by the mainstream media is "pretty much what happened", with 19 Arab hijackers responsible for the planning and execution of the attacks. He claims that he hasn't seen any "credible evidence" to suggest otherwise.
[
At this point in the interview, the informed viewer and reader of his work will ask: "Where has Chomsky been for the last five years? Has he not heard of the work of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, particularly the work of engineer Dr. Judy Wood, physicist Dr. Stephen Jones, philosopher Dr. James Fetzer and theologian Dr. David Griffin? Has he not read about Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's appeal to the world for an investigation into 9/11?"
CHOMSKY’S LACK OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS 9/11 POSITION
How is it possible that he hasn’t “seen any credible evidence” when the Scholars” work has been posted all over the internet and has even made the corporate press because of the controversy it is spawning? Is it not arrogance on his part to dismiss these academics as "lacking credibility"? Where is Chomsky's evidence for this dismissal of his colleagues' work?
Instead he cites an imaginary and illusory body of "thousands of highly qualified engineers" with the "appropriate credentials" that can apparently prove how the official collapse model is scientifically sound. Who are these engineers? Why won’t they, along with the NIST engineers, debate the peer-reviewed science put forth by the Scholars? This group of brave scientists and intellectuals not only possess "appropriate credentials" and backgrounds, but, together, have systematically dismantled the FEMA, NIST and 9/11 Commission cover-up reports. Is it not revealing that these government "scientists" collectively refuse to publicly debate Scholars for 9/11 Truth!!!
[
So where does Chomsky position himself within this debate? Why is he openly accusing the 9/11 truth movement of "wasting an enormous amount of time and energy", that "could be better focused on more important issues"? What issues are more important than the events that have led us into an era of "permanent war"? Why is he ignoring the world public's call for an international and independent public inquiry?
NECESSARY QUESTIONS ON UNNECESSARY ILLUSIONS
In light of all this, we are forced to ask some very unpleasant questions with regards to Chomsky's political and moral agenda, as well as his ideological allegiances. Does he know something about the Israeli connection to terrorism and 9/11 and is he afraid to make it public? (Do recall Sharon's explicit declaration on October 3rd, 2001, that "We, the Jewish people, control America and the Americans know it." [IAP News])
Is Chomsky an ideological supporter of Zionism, as claimed by Dr. Norman G. Finkelstein, author of The Holocaust Industry, in an interview given to Snowshoe Films? [ Watch "Straussians, My Behind"
Is his stance with regard to 9/11 and "terrorism" not an indirect means of "manufacturing consent" for the "War on Terror"? If so, Chomsky is complicit in the very power system and war machine that he has always condemned. Is it not significant that he has remained employed, despite his dissident activities, by one of the largest weapons developers in the United States, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he began working directly under the U.S. Army during the 1950s. [
This leads us to this crucial question: is Chomsky's 9/11 position a result of his fear of power, do they have 'dirt' on him, or has he always been a high-level agent of state-propaganda working only within the acceptable confines of a specific, yet ambiguous ideological framework?
Fool me once...