3 ms·

NY Times didn't really go much into the political stuff, which they really don't write about. Do you have any recommendations after those hundreds of hours of

by berntb 10y ago

NY Times didn't really go much into the political stuff, which they really don't write about. Do you have any recommendations after those hundreds of hours of Chomsky? I have problems reading/listening. To me, Chomsky's politics seems to not be written as an honest academic -- but just to change people's opinion. For instance, there are gigantic double standards in how different sides are evaluated by Chomsky. In an interview I found (no link saved, sorry) Chomsky was asked about criticizing Israel thousands of times more than the hateful antisemitic groups around Israel, which routinely use civilians for targets (while Israel follows the laws of war, more or less). Chomsky answered. The reason (at least then) was that Israel ignored an Egyptian peace initiative in the early 70s, so they deserved what they got... Uh... WTF?! Neither I nor Chomsky have a clue if that was a real initiative or just a trap ("give us X and we will sign a peace paper and follow it.") Even assuming the initiative was real and that it was realized on the Israeli side, but the Israeli politicians at the time were militaristic expansionists (maybe as bad as their neighbours) -- it is just not serious to hence you judge the future governments for decades because of that! After seeing that, I stopped reading/listening to Chomsky again. Edit: Two minus votes in 5 minutes for asking about references and explaining why Chomsky's political writing seemed weird? :-)

abalone 10y ago
There are multiple reasons why your comment would be downvoted, chiefly that it is off topic and fails to cite a source. Citing a source for your claims would better allow the reader to evaluate whether you are accurately characterizing your subject. Being somewhat familiar with Chomsky's extensive body of work I know of exactly zero cases of him claiming that Israel "deserved" civilian casualties, while Israel's frequent violation of the "laws of war", e.g. use of white phosphorous and extensive targeting of civilian areas, is a frequent topic. This is before we even address your rather disturbing implication about what it means to be an "honest academic".
- berntb 10y ago
  Edit: Is it off topic to ask for a reference to what someone writes they've spent hundreds of hours on?! :-) >> I know of exactly zero cases of him claiming that Israel "deserved" civilian casualties I did not write that, I claimed the standards were very different. (To be absolutely clear: I am not claiming Israel is perfect, I'm claiming the differences in volume of criticism is weird. Sure, keep higher standards for democracies -- but how many factors of thousands more criticism is serious?) >> Israel's frequent violation of the "laws of war", e.g. use of white phosphorous and extensive targeting of civilian areas, is a frequent topic. Uh, you complained about lacking references..? White phosphor is legal for smoke screens. Used by NATO too. [Edit: Link. Also note that there will be failed shells e.g. reaching the ground in any artillery barrage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_munitions#Arms_control_status_and_military_regulations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_munitions#Arm... ] It is legal according to the war laws to target civilian areas if the other side hide in them (a complex legal situation). This is my favorite reference on this subject, since it is critical of the US -- and shows what the standards are. The difference between the sides criticized heavily here (Israel) and the non criticized side is quite obvious: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n04/michael-byers/the-laws-of-war-us-style http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n04/michael-byers/the-laws-of-war-u... Edit: Clarity and got a link to remove an "Afaik".
  - icebraining 10y ago
    I did not write that, I claimed the standards were very different. You wrote "Chomsky answered. The reason (at least then) was that Israel ignored an Egyptian peace initiative in the early 70s, so they deserved what they got..." How is this not saying that Chomsky claimed that Israel deserved it?
    - berntb 10y ago
      My claim was about Chomsky's volume of criticism of Israel, compared to other groups/countries in that conflict. If that really is unclear, criticize my grammar (not using my native tongue). I answered this: >> [Chomsky never claimed] that Israel "deserved" civilian casualties I was obviously discussing volume of criticism. See the paragraph directly previous from the one you quoted, which I (tried to) reference in what you quote: >> Chomsky was asked about criticizing Israel thousands of times more than [..]

by berntb 10y ago

abalone 10y ago

There are multiple reasons why your comment would be downvoted, chiefly that it is off topic and fails to cite a source. Citing a source for your claims would better allow the reader to evaluate whether you are accurately characterizing your subject. Being somewhat familiar with Chomsky's extensive body of work I know of exactly zero cases of him claiming that Israel "deserved" civilian casualties, while Israel's frequent violation of the "laws of war", e.g. use of white phosphorous and extensive targeting of civilian areas, is a frequent topic. This is before we even address your rather disturbing implication about what it means to be an "honest academic".

berntb 10y ago
Edit: Is it off topic to ask for a reference to what someone writes they've spent hundreds of hours on?! :-) >> I know of exactly zero cases of him claiming that Israel "deserved" civilian casualties I did not write that, I claimed the standards were very different. (To be absolutely clear: I am not claiming Israel is perfect, I'm claiming the differences in volume of criticism is weird. Sure, keep higher standards for democracies -- but how many factors of thousands more criticism is serious?) >> Israel's frequent violation of the "laws of war", e.g. use of white phosphorous and extensive targeting of civilian areas, is a frequent topic. Uh, you complained about lacking references..? White phosphor is legal for smoke screens. Used by NATO too. [Edit: Link. Also note that there will be failed shells e.g. reaching the ground in any artillery barrage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_munitions#Arms_control_status_and_military_regulations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_munitions#Arm... ] It is legal according to the war laws to target civilian areas if the other side hide in them (a complex legal situation). This is my favorite reference on this subject, since it is critical of the US -- and shows what the standards are. The difference between the sides criticized heavily here (Israel) and the non criticized side is quite obvious: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n04/michael-byers/the-laws-of-war-us-style http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n04/michael-byers/the-laws-of-war-u... Edit: Clarity and got a link to remove an "Afaik".
- icebraining 10y ago
  I did not write that, I claimed the standards were very different. You wrote "Chomsky answered. The reason (at least then) was that Israel ignored an Egyptian peace initiative in the early 70s, so they deserved what they got..." How is this not saying that Chomsky claimed that Israel deserved it?
  - berntb 10y ago
    My claim was about Chomsky's volume of criticism of Israel, compared to other groups/countries in that conflict. If that really is unclear, criticize my grammar (not using my native tongue). I answered this: >> [Chomsky never claimed] that Israel "deserved" civilian casualties I was obviously discussing volume of criticism. See the paragraph directly previous from the one you quoted, which I (tried to) reference in what you quote: >> Chomsky was asked about criticizing Israel thousands of times more than [..]