by Benjamin Kerstein
It’s nice to know that my country of residence still has its head on its shoulders in certain cases, especially when it comes to admitting entrance to pseudo-intellectual antisemites and apologists for genocide. I owe this cheerful realization, ironically, to Amira Hass, a dedicated partisan of the Palestinian cause who has just announced in Haaretz that MIT professor of linguistics and radical leftist cult figure Noam Chomsky has been denied entry at the Allenby Bridge and thus far prevented from appearing at Bier Zeit University in Ramallah.
I have no doubt that legions of the liberal (some of them, no doubt, Israeli) will shortly be descending upon us to denounce the decision and to sing the praises of this perennially worshiped leftist icon, who wrote himself into the history of intellectual infamy by denying the Khmer Rouge genocide and then spending the next four decades denying his denial. Chomsky’s reputation was further burnished by signing a petition in support of French Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson. When French critics pointed out that the petition referred to Faurisson’s position that the Holocaust did not happen as historical “findings,” and that this was, needless to say, monstrous, Chomsky promptly accused them all of being agents of totalitarian oppression.
This, of course, would be reason enough to give any country some pause about allowing entry to such a person. But there is likely a far more mundane reason for the Israeli government’s decision. What Chomsky thinks about Israel and the Jews is no secret, and nor does anyone have any illusions about what he is likely to say: Lists of real and imagined Israeli atrocities, various reasons Israel is at fault for the entire Middle East conflict, an explanation of Israel’s place as an armed colony of the United States aiding in the hegemon’s global oppression, various apologetics for Palestinian terrorism, endorsements of the regions most radical and dangerous regimes, a note or two about why 9/11 was an understandable reaction to the atrocities of the West, a denunciation of the Oslo agreement as a sellout, justifications for the second intifada, etc. There may even be a few antisemitic conspiracy theories about Jewish power in the United States, which Chomsky has explicitly endorsed in the past.
Needless to say, given the always tense situation in the territories, and the recent indications by the Palestinian Authority that they will attempt to end anti-Israel incitement, preventing Chomsky from shrieking “fire!” in a crowded theater is something of a no-brainer. Chomsky, of course, has his own explanation for this. Despite his wealth and privilege, he plays the martyr as usual, and as Hass reports,
In a telephone interview with Channel 10, Chomsky said the interrogators had told him he had written things that the Israeli government did not like.
“I suggested [the interrogator try to] find any government in the world that likes anything I say,” he said.
Assuming that this is actually true – and Chomsky is a habitual liar about things large and small – the good professor’s response is highly amusing for reasons other than its epic self-regard. The list of governments that like or have liked what Chomsky has to say include North Vietnam, Cuba, the now-defunct Soviet Union, Syria, Iran, Chavista Venezuela, and Khmer Rouge Cambodia, amongst other slightly less odious regimes. Non-government organizations fond of his missives include Hezbollah and Al Queda, including a personal endorsement from Osama Bin Laden himself. Indeed – and ironically – the list of governments and their subsidiaries who like what Chomsky has to say would seem to be more than sufficient to justify Israel’s decision to send him back to Amman.
While I can appreciate the Israeli government’s practical considerations on this issue, I am cheered far more by its moral implications. Simply put, Chomsky has been a lifelong partisan of tyranny and political violence. He has gotten away with it because the targets of his opprobrium are amenable to various establishments, liberal and illiberal, around the world. And it is indeed high time for the indulgences to cease, and for someone to take a stand against what may be one of the most singularly corrupt and bloodstained intellectual legacies of the twentieth century. It is possible, of course, that Israel’s decision may be reversed under pressure; but even if it is, a stand will at last have been taken, and I am personally rather proud that we have been the ones to take it.
Benjamin Kerstein is Senior Writer for The New Ledger. He writes from Tel Aviv.
I have no doubt that legions of the liberal (some of them, no doubt, Israeli) will shortly be descending upon us to denounce the decision and to sing the praises of this perennially worshiped leftist icon, who wrote himself into the history of intellectual infamy by denying the Khmer Rouge genocide and then spending the next four decades denying his denial. Chomsky’s reputation was further burnished by signing a petition in support of French Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson. When French critics pointed out that the petition referred to Faurisson’s position that the Holocaust did not happen as historical “findings,” and that this was, needless to say, monstrous, Chomsky promptly accused them all of being agents of totalitarian oppression.
This, of course, would be reason enough to give any country some pause about allowing entry to such a person. But there is likely a far more mundane reason for the Israeli government’s decision. What Chomsky thinks about Israel and the Jews is no secret, and nor does anyone have any illusions about what he is likely to say: Lists of real and imagined Israeli atrocities, various reasons Israel is at fault for the entire Middle East conflict, an explanation of Israel’s place as an armed colony of the United States aiding in the hegemon’s global oppression, various apologetics for Palestinian terrorism, endorsements of the regions most radical and dangerous regimes, a note or two about why 9/11 was an understandable reaction to the atrocities of the West, a denunciation of the Oslo agreement as a sellout, justifications for the second intifada, etc. There may even be a few antisemitic conspiracy theories about Jewish power in the United States, which Chomsky has explicitly endorsed in the past.
Needless to say, given the always tense situation in the territories, and the recent indications by the Palestinian Authority that they will attempt to end anti-Israel incitement, preventing Chomsky from shrieking “fire!” in a crowded theater is something of a no-brainer. Chomsky, of course, has his own explanation for this. Despite his wealth and privilege, he plays the martyr as usual, and as Hass reports,
In a telephone interview with Channel 10, Chomsky said the interrogators had told him he had written things that the Israeli government did not like.
“I suggested [the interrogator try to] find any government in the world that likes anything I say,” he said.
Assuming that this is actually true – and Chomsky is a habitual liar about things large and small – the good professor’s response is highly amusing for reasons other than its epic self-regard. The list of governments that like or have liked what Chomsky has to say include North Vietnam, Cuba, the now-defunct Soviet Union, Syria, Iran, Chavista Venezuela, and Khmer Rouge Cambodia, amongst other slightly less odious regimes. Non-government organizations fond of his missives include Hezbollah and Al Queda, including a personal endorsement from Osama Bin Laden himself. Indeed – and ironically – the list of governments and their subsidiaries who like what Chomsky has to say would seem to be more than sufficient to justify Israel’s decision to send him back to Amman.
While I can appreciate the Israeli government’s practical considerations on this issue, I am cheered far more by its moral implications. Simply put, Chomsky has been a lifelong partisan of tyranny and political violence. He has gotten away with it because the targets of his opprobrium are amenable to various establishments, liberal and illiberal, around the world. And it is indeed high time for the indulgences to cease, and for someone to take a stand against what may be one of the most singularly corrupt and bloodstained intellectual legacies of the twentieth century. It is possible, of course, that Israel’s decision may be reversed under pressure; but even if it is, a stand will at last have been taken, and I am personally rather proud that we have been the ones to take it.
Benjamin Kerstein is Senior Writer for The New Ledger. He writes from Tel Aviv.
No comments:
Post a Comment