3 ms·

That's fair enough. We can discuss arguments to a large extent divorced from who made them. This is often useful. However, the quote in question goes a bit fur

by yyyk 5y ago

That's fair enough. We can discuss arguments to a large extent divorced from who made them. This is often useful. However, the quote in question goes a bit further, Chomsky says Eban started a specific strategy of using antisemitism to Eban's own ends, almost directly paraphrasing something Eban allegedly said. I think I'm entitled to ask what's Chomsky's source, and if there isn't any, than it rests on Chomsky's credibility which, well, isn't very much IMHO. [EDIT: On the Balkans, you can see Kraut's video on YouTube. This text has similar arguments though: https://srebrenicagenocide7111995.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/noam-chomsky-is-srebrenica-genocide-denier/ https://srebrenicagenocide7111995.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/n... ]

A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
I followed a chain of links to see if I can pinpoint the origin of the quote, but that only resulted in, as you indicated, in Chomsky's own words[1]. As such, you are right, for that reason his credibility is more relevant since I was not able to verify Eban's words. Separately, I did some basic googling of Eban quotes and his positions[2] do not seem at odds with the gist of Chomsky's quote though: "One of the chief tasks of any dialogue with the Gentile world is to prove that the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is not a distinction at all. Anti-Zionism is merely the new anti-Semitism….” I only started reading the link you provided so it may take a while before I respond. [1]https://www.democracynow.org/2014/11/27/noam_chomsky_at_united_nations_it https://www.democracynow.org/2014/11/27/noam_chomsky_at_unit... [2]https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/11/18/corb-n18.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/11/18/corb-n18.html
- yyyk 5y ago
  >his positions[2] do not seem at odds with the gist of Chomsky's quote though I would like to differ slightly. Chomsky has it that Eban wants to tar criticism of Israeli policy as antisemitic* - which leads to the 'oh well, they just accused Corbyn of antisemitism because of his Israel position' argument you see in the comments. Eban wants to argue against a specific ideological position which at least is aimed at completely modifying the Israeli state (not 'policy criticism') and he has his argument for it - an argument we can safely say Israel has lost in the West. People may defend Israel, but they usually do not consider their opponent antisemitic per se. * There's also the 'neurotic self-hatred' part, where Eban supposedly is naming Chomsky specifically, but I think we can safely discard that.

by yyyk 5y ago

A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago

I followed a chain of links to see if I can pinpoint the origin of the quote, but that only resulted in, as you indicated, in Chomsky's own words[1]. As such, you are right, for that reason his credibility is more relevant since I was not able to verify Eban's words. Separately, I did some basic googling of Eban quotes and his positions[2] do not seem at odds with the gist of Chomsky's quote though: "One of the chief tasks of any dialogue with the Gentile world is to prove that the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is not a distinction at all. Anti-Zionism is merely the new anti-Semitism….” I only started reading the link you provided so it may take a while before I respond. [1]https://www.democracynow.org/2014/11/27/noam_chomsky_at_united_nations_it https://www.democracynow.org/2014/11/27/noam_chomsky_at_unit... [2]https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/11/18/corb-n18.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/11/18/corb-n18.html

yyyk 5y ago
>his positions[2] do not seem at odds with the gist of Chomsky's quote though I would like to differ slightly. Chomsky has it that Eban wants to tar criticism of Israeli policy as antisemitic* - which leads to the 'oh well, they just accused Corbyn of antisemitism because of his Israel position' argument you see in the comments. Eban wants to argue against a specific ideological position which at least is aimed at completely modifying the Israeli state (not 'policy criticism') and he has his argument for it - an argument we can safely say Israel has lost in the West. People may defend Israel, but they usually do not consider their opponent antisemitic per se. * There's also the 'neurotic self-hatred' part, where Eban supposedly is naming Chomsky specifically, but I think we can safely discard that.