Those on the Left who have opposed Noam Chomsky's loyalty to zionism, but still trusted
him as an "anti-imperialist intellectual", would have to find for him a new excuse if they would still
insist on trusting this zionist bourgeois intellectual. The following journalists' reports expose
Noam Chomsky for what he is in reality : a zionist and a supporter of USA imperialism, and
they both come from the enemy's own mouth, namely, from an Israeli daily paper run by
fanatical zionists, and from a New York paper reporting from West Point Military Academy.
Let us start with the zionist report, and follow up with the report from West Point.
Under the title, "Noam Chomsky, Champion of Israel?", a former military reporter for The
Jerusalem Post opens his report on Chomsky in the 22nd April issue of the same zionist paper as follows :
"Noam Chomsky, champion of
By ERIK SCHECHTER
What do Noam Chomsky and the neocons have in common? They both stand accused of
protecting the enormously powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington from legitimate criticism.
That's right, hell has frozen over. Professor Chomsky - the far-left MIT linguist who has
consistently (and often quite viciously) criticized Israel since the early 1970s - is apparently a big
softie when it comes to Zion.
Or so say assorted left-wing critics.
The brouhaha began in late March when two American academics published in The London
Review of Books a paper critical of the Israel lobby. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt
argued that neither idealism nor hard-nosed practicality justified American support of the Jewish
state. Nevertheless, a "loose coalition of individuals and organizations" has been steering US
policy in that direction for years.
Though hardly a novel idea, the essay caused a wave of controversy because the authors were
not your run-of-the-mill, paranoid kooks. Mearsheimer sits on the international academic
advisory board at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, at Bar-Ilan University, and both
he and Walt are leading lights of the realist school of international relations. Their critique simply
could not go unanswered.
Indeed, following the publication of the article, professors and pundits of all stripes took to their keyboards.
Now, I will not address the many errors of the M-W piece or explain how arguing that lobbies
drive foreign policy upends the whole realist paradigm; that's been done elsewhere and by
people far smarter than me. What's interesting is where Noam Chomsky stepped out on the
Writing in Z Magazine, the aging anarchist commended Mearsheimer and Walt for their "courageous stand" but then attacked their notion of an informal, far-flung lobby as an empty
label. "M-W focus on AIPAC and the evangelicals," wrote Chomsky, "but they recognize that
the Lobby includes most of the political-intellectual class - at which point the thesis loses much
of its content."
Max Boot, a neoconservative fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, noted the very same
thing when he quipped, "In Mearsheimer-Walt's telling, the Israel lobby seems to include just
about every American politician, think tank and newspaper." Now who could have imagined
Chomsky manning the same barricade as the neocons?"
The second report is from the West Point correspondent of The Journal News, a New
York newspaper, as follows:
Foreign-policy critic speaks at West Point
By ALICE GOMSTYN
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original Publication: April 21, 2006)
WEST POINT — The U.S. Military Academy at West Point was host last night to one of the
world's foremost critics of American foreign policy.
Noam Chomsky, the Institute Professor Emeritus of Linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, spoke at the academy as part of its Distinguished Lecture Series.
More than 500 people attended the lecture, most of them cadets who could someday serve in
the Iraq war.
Last night, they heard the gray-haired scholar explain that, in his view, that the war in Iraq is
Chomsky, who spoke on the issue in response to a question from a cadet, said that while the
war could be called preventive, it was still an act of aggression by the United States that most
people in the world didn't support.
He added that Iran might legitimately have grounds for its own preventive war.
"If preventative war is legitimate under these circumstances, it's legitimate for everybody," he
Ian McDougall of Boxborough, Mass., a cadet who attended the lecture, wouldn't say whether
he agreed with Chomsky. But he did enjoy the lecture, he said.
"Agree or disagree with the points, he's certainly very well-read," said McDougall, 20.
The bulk of Chomsky's remarks revolved around "Just War Theory" — a theory, he said, that
modern scholarship hasn't sufficiently explained. Scholars who discuss the theory, he said, name
wars they believe are "just" without providing arguments to support the label.
Chomsky, who spoke for roughly a half-hour before taking questions from the audience, also
questioned which historic military acts could be considered pre-emptive in nature. For instance,
he said, before Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor — which prompted the United States' entry into
World War II — U.S. journals were publishing reports on America preparing fighter planes that
could burn Japan's wooden cities to the ground. Should Japan's attack, he asked, then be
Still, he added: "Does that justify Pearl Harbor? Not in 10 million years."
Chomsky also discussed Israel's military conflict with Lebanon, the war in Afghanistan, Saddam
Hussein's violations of human rights, and the United States' onetime support for the former Iraqi
At the end of his presentation, the military academy's class of 2008 presented Chomsky with a
framed picture of a part of the campus.
Lt. Col. Casey Neff, a staff member for the academy's commandant's office, said he too
enjoyed Chomsky's lecture.
Neff said Chomsky was at West Point to state a position and provoke debate.
The free speech of Chomsky and others, he said, "is one of the things we're here to defend." (All emphasis added).
All information posted on this web site is
the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only.
It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor
can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer
of your choice for medical care and advice.