Chomsky er en skarp analytiker med mange gode poenger. Men han har en
klar svakhet som han deler med mange teoretikere, særlig av "marxistisk"
observans (hva det så enn betyr): De er dogmatiske, de har en tendens
til å forveksle verden med sine teorier om den ("political
correctness"), og de undervurderer betydningen av det som Cornelius
Castoriadis har kalt "det imaginære". Det er derfor det er sunt for
"marxister" å lese god litteratur: Dostojevskij, Kafka osv. kan se sider
av virkeligheten som aldri noen sinne vil bli forstått av folk som
teoretiserer. Visse teoretikere kan fable opp ad stolper og ned ad
vegger f.eks. om alle mulige finurlige spesifikasjoner som skal til før
de vil våge å kalle noe nazisme; resultatet er at de i praksis som Hans
Fredrik Dahl ender opp med å mene at nazismen (altså: "Das Ding an
sich") egentlig aldri har eksistert. Det spiller ikke noen rolle for
dem: kun bøkene deres betyr noe. De går i samme fella som Biedermann:
mens de teoretiserer, setter brannstifterne fyr på huset deres. De kan
ikke SE.
Ingen med vett i skallen kan overse at det finnes en utrolig sterk
israelsk lobby i USA. Kongressen koker over av slikt. Men den betyr lite
for Bush II, der har Chomsky rett. Det han totalt overser er den enorme
betydningen gammeltestamentelig bokstavelig bibeltro har i USA. Bare se
på Jehovas Vitners tegneserier som skal "bevise" at verden oppsto for
6000 år siden osv., der har man mentaliteten. Millioner av amerikanere
tror de vet hvordan det ser ut i paradis osv. Det finnes flommevis av
amerikanere som helt naivt, bokstavelig og troskyldig fullt og fast tror
at USA og Israel er to land GUD har utvalgt til å spille den sentrale
rolle i verden. Den samme mentaliteten finnes blant hvite settlere i
Sørafrika: det er så sent som år 1900 beskrevet hvordan en amerikansk
verdensomseiler (Joshua Slocum) vakte skandale i Cape Town ene og alene
ved å påstå at han hadde seilt verden rundt (hva han hadde). Han fikk
kontant beskjed fra boere om at det var en villfarelse: verden var flat,
folkemassen pekte etter ham når han gikk på gata: haha, der går han som
tror jorda er rund. Det er denne mentaliteten Bush II representerer enda
et århundre seinere og minst fem for seint, i en depravert, pervertert
og selv i forhold til Reagan sterkt forflatet utgave. Disneyworld
regjerer verden nå. Like sentimental som brutal. Han tror på Star Wars,
GUD, USA osv. Han og hans miljø er med andre ord som Osama bin Laden: de
tror på GUD som Laden tror på Allah, de er hverandres speilbilder (bin
Laden er også utrolig amerikanisert uten å ane det selv, det er derfor
han blir paralysert av Twin Towers). Det ligger i historiens skjulte
logikk at en forvokst baby som Bush II, når han overtar fars firma MÅ
ende opp i clinch med en som bin Laden: legg merke til hvordan også han
ser ut som et forvokst barn. Da den kapitalistiske og kommunistiske
framskrittsopitmismen mistet grunnen under føttene, dukket
middelalderverdenen opp igjen, men nå i en barbarisk og barnaktig
utgave. Den onde = "de andre". Gud = oss (USA/Islam), meg (Bush/Laden).
Slik er også universet i "Star Wars", pervertert middelalder utstyrt med
"moderne" teknikk. "Fortidens mål realisert med nåtidens teknikk"
(Hermann Broch i Søvngjengerne). "Stinkbarokk".
Karsten Johansen
-----Message d'origine-----
De: Knut Rognes <knrognes@online.no>
A: klassekampen-forum@aksess.no
Date: 15/04/02
Objet: Chomsky_om_den_jødiske_lobby
KK-Forum,
Chomsky om den jødiske lobby som TV2 nå lager et stort nummer av.
Knut Rognes
******************
To: (Recipients of 'znetchomskychat' suppressed)
From: "znetchomskychat Listmanager" <listmanager@forum.zmag.org>
Subject: Chomsky replies re Role Of Pro Israel Lobby
Reply-To: "ChomskyChat" <znetchomskychat.44172@forum.zmag.org>
X-Mailer: O'Reilly WebBoard 4.0
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 08:51:28 -0700
From: "Timothy Allen" <tim@zmag.org>
Reply from NC,
I've written about this extensively, and don't see much point in
repeating
the details, which are in print, repeatedly, reviewed very briefly in
the
interview to which you refer.
Even more briefly, the Israeli lobby is only in part a Jewish
lobby. Furthermore, it is time-restricted -- mostly since Israel's
military victory in 1967. Furthermore, when there has been a threat of
confrontation with US power, it has backed down. The reasonable
conclusion
from this long record, which has been reviewed in detail elsewhere, is
that
the Israel lobby, like other domestic lobbies, is effective when its
goals
either conform to those of major power centers or when they are of
little
concern to them. That gives it a swing effect, which can be
significant.
There seems to me overwhelming evidence in support of the view expressed
by
US intelligence in 1958 that a "logical corollary" to US opposition to
Arab
nationalism is support for Israel as a reliable base for US power. That
conclusion was strongly reinforced in 1967, again in 1970, as a
tripartite
alliance between Israel-Saudi Arabia-Iran was formed under the US aegis,
with Turkey in the wings. For reasons I've reviewed elsewhere, the
alliance became even more firm in 1979 and through the 80s, and has
taken
new and even more intimate forms in the years since. One can raise the
question whether this course was wise from the point of view of the
major
interests of US power systems, but that's separate from the question
whether it was the course that they undertook. Here the evidence seems
to
me reasonably strong, for reasons reviewed in detail elsewhere. I
don't,
then, see any mystery. As for the media, their behavior in this regard
is
quite normal. On the hawks and doves, the usual hawks have been highly
supportive of Israeli power and violence, and remain so, independently
of
any Jewish connection (background, votes, money, etc.). The energy
corporations have been divided on these issues as far as we know, same
with
other business elites. Though I don't know of extensive research, I
also
don't see any major surprises, no more than in other cases where tactics
and assessments vary.
Noam Chomsky
At 08:46 AM 4/8/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: znetchomskychat Listmanager [mailto:listmanager@forum.zmag.org]
>Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 2:41 AM
>To: Recipients of 'znetchomskychat' suppressed
>Subject: Reasons for US support of Israel
>
>
>From: "Francisco Gonzalez" <isco33@yahoo.com>
>
>Dear Mr. Chomsky,
>
>The United States unconditional support of Israel through whatever
>atrocities that exceptional country feels like perpetrating in plain
>view of the whole world seems to have the quality of blind faith. I
find
>it pretty much inexplicable, this support.
>
>This much seems indisputably clear to most people around the world:
>Israel's abominable behavior with regard to the Palestinians is
possible
>only because its actions are granted complete immunity by the US
>government and are presented by the US media as acts of legitimate
>defense against a community of naturally-born terrorists, etc., etc.
>
>So for the many among us who cannot find a convincing explanation for
>this support, the essence of this problem remains a mystery.
>
>What are the real reasons for this staunch, unconditional support of
>Israel by every US administration? And where does the main force
>originate that causes the media to keep orchestrating this amazing
>masquerade with such remarkable consistency? We have no difficulty in
>seeing the obscene distortion through which the whole story is
>presented. I also see that this distortion, for it to be so relentless
>and consistent, decade after decade, must be the result of some well
>thought-out plan designed to keep it alive at all costs. Such a careful
>masquerade cannot occur spontaneously.
>
>There seem to be two main explanations offered: One, as you mentioned
in
>a recent interview, we can regard Israel as a sort of American military
>base in a region that the US wants to make sure it controls completely,
>with the advantage that the US does not actually have to do any of the
>dirty work and so on. This explanation assumes that Israel is perceived
>by our ruling class as highly beneficial to the US interests in that
>region. But is this really the case?
>
>Another, equally plausible explanation that surfaces now and then
>suggests something quite different: that supporting Israel causes the
US
>nothing but trouble, being the main source of the enormous amount of
>both popular and official animosity against the US in the Middle East,
>and therefore the US would be much better off strategically if it
ceased
>supporting that country. But this is quite impossible--the explanation
>continues--because the power of the "Jewish lobby". This also seems
>plausible, but if we dig too much into it, unpleasant and implausible
>ramifications of a kind of Jewish "conspiracy" arise.
>
>The whole issue of Israel and the Palestinians seems to be so weird
that
>it completely confounds the roles one normally expects from the main
>media figures. It seems particularly surreal, for example, to see in a
>main media show, such as CNN's Crossfire, people like Robert Novak
>teaming up with a guest like Jesse Jackson, on one side, to voice their
>mild opposition to Israel's policies, against a dramatic gesticulator
on
>the Left side of the screen, a James Carville, teaming up with guest
>Jerry Falwell, a priest, who sounds considerably more cruel and unreal
>than Sharon himself. There is something quite extraordinary with
>situations like this, which invariably surface when the subject of
>Israel is discussed in the main media. Then you start to see certain
>congressmen and other prominent political figures, whom one normally
>associates with the "liberal" side of your everyday political show,
seem
>completely pro-Israeli, while others that belong to the most hawkish
>tradition appear much less enthusiastic. This i If supporting Israel is
>so important for US military hegemony schemes, why would the regular
>hawks be more lukewarm about it than the regular doves?
>
>This entire issue is really not clear to me at all. I am not a fan of
>conspiracy theories, but on this one I have a suspicion that the
>influence of the Jewish groups in this country, and the horror people
>feel at being hit with those ugly and sticky terms that can be hurled
at
>them and stick to them (anti-Israeli--> anti-Semitic, Jew-hater,
>whatever) can be so immense that it suffices to keep this irrational
>support going, in spite of the damage it does to the US position in the
>world.
>
>What other explanations are there to this puzzling total support of a
>repugnant regime? Why do so many people who in other situations have no
>difficulty in detecting injustice and speaking against it, choose to
>remain quiet (or even go to the side of the oppressor) on this most
>blatant and long-lasting of modern injustices?
>
>Thank you very much for your time.
>
>Francisco Gonzalez
To reply: mailto:znetchomskychat.44172@forum.zmag.org
To start a new topic: mailto:znetchomskychat@forum.zmag.org
To login: http://forum.zmag.org:80/~ZNetCmt
***************************''
______________________________________________________________________________
ifrance.com, l'email gratuit le plus complet de l'Internet !
vos emails depuis un navigateur, en POP3, sur Minitel, sur le WAP...
http://www.ifrance.com/_reloc/email.emailif
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 11-07-02 MET DST