Noam Chomsky Accuses Alan Dershowitz of Launching a "Jihad" to Block Norman Finkelstein From Getting Tenure at Depaul University

Tuesday, April 17th, 2007

Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream

---

We play Part II of our conversation with two of the country's leading dissidents, Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn on U.S. wars from Iraq to Vietnam, resistance and academia. We also ask Chomsky about Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz who is lobbying DePaul faculty members to oppose Norman Finkelstein's bid to receive tenure. Chomsky says, "[Dershowitz] launched a jihad against Norman Finkelstein simply to try and vilify and defame in the hope that maybe what he is writing will disappear."

---

We turn to Part II of our conversation with two of the country's leading dissidents, Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky. We spoke with them yesterday in a rare joint interview.

Howard Zinn is one of America's most widely-read historians. His classic work "A People's History of the United States" has sold over 1.5 million copies and it has altered how many teach the nation's history. His latest book is "A Power Governments Cannot Suppress."

Noam Chomsky began teaching linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge over 50 years ago. He is the author of dozens of books on linguistics and U.S. foreign policy. His most recent book is titled "Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy."

In a wide-ranging interview, we spoke about US wars from Iraq to Vietnam, about resistance and about academia. I asked Chomsky about political science professor Norman Finkelstein - one of the country's foremost critics of Israeli policy - and his battle to receive tenure at Depaul University where has taught for six years. Finkelstein's tenure has been approved at the departmental and college level but the dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences has opposed it. A final decision is expected to be made by May. Finkelstein has accused Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz of being responsible for leading the effort to deny him tenure. In an interview with the Harvard Crimson, Dershowitz admitted that he had sent a letter to DePaul faculty members lobbying against Finkelstein's tenure. I asked Noam Chomsky about the dispute.

• Noam Chomsky. Professor Emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is the author of dozens of books on linguistics and U.S. foreign policy. His latest book is "Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy."

• Howard Zinn. Professor emeritus at Boston University. His classic work "A People's History of the United States" has sold over 1.5 million copies. His latest book is "A Power Governments Cannot Suppress."

It all comes down to control

It all comes down to control

Noam Chomsky, noted linguist, author and foreign-policy expert, discusses wide-ranging issues from Iran, Iraq and North Korea to Latin America, Palestine-Israel and global warming with Michael Shank. A common thread in all of these issues is how the rest of the world must obey the dictates of Washington. (Feb 21, '07)

Draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism

Chomsky’s discussion with a ‘ZNet Sustainer’:

“ZNet Sustainer: A question that arises for me is that regardless of this issue, how do I as an activist prevent myself from getting distracted by such things as conspiracy theories instead of focusing on the bigger picture of the institutional analysis of private profit over people?

Noam Chomsky: I think this reaches the heart of the matter. One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work. How do you personally set priorities? That's of course up to you. I've explained my priorities often, in print as well as elsewhere, but we have to make our own judgments.”

Alexander Cockburn seems to think that, were it not for September 11 conspiracy theories, Americans would be manning the barricades, waving the red flag, and singing the Internationale. What’s with these people anyway?

We now know that a large part of Chomsky’s problem is that he is a covert Zionist agent, something proved by his denial of the importance of the Israel Lobby (since confirmed by people like former Senator Abourezk – what would he know? – and Israeli Prime Minister Olmert). Since Chomsky supports the efforts of the Lobby to create the Zionist Empire, but doesn’t like the American Empire, what it comes down to is that Chomsky doesn’t like Americans. Fair enough, but hardly the basis for an entire political philosophy, especially one sold as having a much greater value.

Of course, Cockburn obviously isn’t a secret agent for Zionism, so we need a wider explanation for the headinthesandism of ‘progressive’ America over what happened on September 11. You have to remember that during the time that both Cockburn and Chomsky have been active in writing about American politics, the United States has gone from Nixon, to Reagan, to Bush. If neither Chomsky nor Cockburn had written a word, does anyone really believe that things would be – or could possibly be – worse? Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. The abject failure of both Chomsky and Cockburn in making anything even the slightest bit better over the last thirty years ought to be an indication that these are not writers that intelligent people should pay any attention to. The idea that you can’t even consider the truth because it might confuse or distract you is so ridiculous – it only makes sense to old washed-up Marxists – that it does not merit a reply. Chomsky’s response to Senator Abourezk’s perception of Lobby pressure would no doubt be that the Senator’s brain has been clouded by a false consciousness caused by years of capitalist oppression. Senator Abourezk and his colleagues only think they are under immense Lobby pressure; really they are just capitalist running dogs working for the Establishment.

There is a distraction, but it is the other way around. The idea that the only possible solution to any problem is some kind of socialist revolution has made it impossible for ‘progressive’ analysts to use the political tools at hand to deal with conspiracy problems. The laws exist to find out who did the crimes, and it has always been possible to put the guilty parties in jail. If this had been done even once in the long series of conspiracies from the JFK assassination to September 11 and the Zionist war conspiracies which followed, the United States – not to mention its victims – wouldn’t be in the deep shit it is in now. While we wait for a glorious time when private profit is not put over people, a lot of these people are dying.

posted at 5:28 AM permanent link Comments (27) | Trackback

Former Senator James Abourezk on Chomsky and the Lobby

Dec 4, 2006

Jim Abourezk wrote:
Dear Jeff [Blankfort]:

I just finished reading your critique of Noam Chomsky's positions in an e mail sent to me by Tony Saidy.

I had never paid much attention to Chomsky's writings, as I had all along assumed that he was correct and proper in his position on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

But now, upon learning that his first assumption is that Israel is simply doing what the imperial leaders in the U.S. wants them to do, I concur with you that this assumption is completely wrong.

I can tell you from personal experience that, at least in the Congress, the support Israel has in that body is based completely on political fear – fear of defeat by anyone who does not do what Israel wants done. I can also tell you that very few members of Congress – at least when I served there – have any affection for Israel or for its Lobby. What they have is contempt, but it is silenced by fear of being found out exactly how they feel. I've heard too many cloakroom conversations in which members of the Senate will voice their bitter feelings about how they're pushed around by the Lobby to think otherwise. In private one hears the dislike of Israel and the tactics of the Lobby, but not one of them is willing to risk the Lobby's animosity by making their feelings public.

Thus, I see no desire on the part of Members of Congress to further any U.S. imperial dreams by using Israel as their pit bull. The only exceptions to that rule are the feelings of Jewish members, whom, I believe, are sincere in their efforts to keep U.S. money flowing to Israel. But that minority does not a U.S. imperial policy make.

Secondly, the Lobby is quite clear in its efforts to suppress any congressional dissent from the policy of complete support for Israel which might hurt annual appropriations. Even one voice is attacked, as I was, on grounds that if Congress is completely silent on the issue, the press will have no one to quote, which effectively silences the press as well. Any journalists or editors who step out of line are quickly brought under control by well organized economic pressure against the newspaper caught sinning.

I once made a trip through the Middle East, taking with me a reporter friend who wrote for Knight-Ridder newspapers. He was writing honestly about what he saw with respect to the Palestinians and other countries bordering on Israel. The St. Paul Pioneer press executives received threats from several of their large advertisers that their advertising would be terminated if they continued publishing the journalist's articles. It's a lesson quickly learned by those who controlled the paper.

With respect to the positions of several administrations on the question of Israel, there are two things that bring them into line: One is pressure from members of Congress who bring that pressure resulting in the demands of AIPAC, and the other is the desire on the part of the President and his advisers to keep their respective political parties from crumbling under that pressure. I do not recall a single instance where any administration saw the need for Israel's military power to advance U.S. Imperial interests. In fact, as we saw in the Gulf War, Israel's involvement was detrimental to what Bush, Sr. wanted to accomplish in that war. They had, as you might remember, to suppress any Israeli assistance so that the coalition would not be destroyed by their involvement.

So far as the argument that we need to use Israel as a base for U.S. operations, I'm not aware of any U.S. bases there of any kind. The U.S. has enough military bases, and fleets, in the area to be able to handle any kind of military needs without using Israel. In fact I can't think of an instance where the U.S. would want to involve Israel militarily for fear of upsetting the current allies the U.S. has, i.e., Saudi Arabia and the Emirates. The public in those countries would not allow the monarchies to continue their alliance with the U.S. should Israel become involved.

I suppose one could argue that Bush's encouragement of Israel in the Lebanon war this summer was the result of some imperial urge, but it was merely an extension of the U.S. policy of helping Israel because of the Lobby's continual pressure. In fact, I heard not one voice of opposition to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon this summer (except Chuck Hagel). Lebanon always has been a "throw away" country so far as the congress is concerned, that is, what happens there has no effect on U.S. interests. There is no Lebanon Lobby. The same was true in 1982, when the Congress fell completely silent over the invasion that year.

I think in the heart of hearts of both members of congress and of the administrations they would prefer not to have Israel fouling things up for U.S. foreign policy, which is to keep oil flowing to the Western world to prevent an economic depression. But what our policy makers do is to juggle the Lobby's pressure on them to support Israel with keeping the oil countries from cutting off oil to the western nations. So far they've been able to do that. With the exception of King Feisal and his oil embargo, there hasn't been a Saudi leader able to stand up to U.S. policy.

So I believe that divestment, and especially cutting off U.S. aid to Israel would immediately result in Israel's giving up the West Bank and leaving the Gaza to the Palestinians. Such pressure would work, I think, because the Israeli public would be able to determine what is causing their misery and would demand that an immediate peace agreement be made with the Palestinians. It would work because of the democracy there, unlike sanctions against a dictatorship where the public could do little about changing their leaders' minds. One need only look at the objectives of the Israeli Lobby to determine how to best change their minds. The Lobby's principal objectives are to keep money flowing from the U.S. treasury to Israel, requiring a docile congress and a compliant administration. As Willie Sutton once said, "That's where the money is."

Jim Abourezk

---

Comment by Jeffrey Blankfort:

The following letter was sent to me today by James Abourezk, former US Senator from South Dakota, and he readily complied when I asked that I be allowed to forward it to my list because what he had to say is of the utmost importance, given last month's election and all the new faces in Congress, and the immediate previous posting to you and James Petras's article earlier in the day...


James G. Abourezk represented South Dakota in the U.S. Senate from 1973 to 1979 and in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1971 to 1973. He is also the co-author of "Through Different Eyes: Two Leading Americans - a Jew and an Arab - Debate U. S. Policy in the Middle East."

Jeff Blankfort is a radio program producer with KPOO in San Francisco, KZYX in Mendocino and KPFT/Pacifica in Houston..
He is a journalist and Jewish-American and has been a pro-Palestinian human rights activist since 1970. He was formerly the editor of the Middle East Labor Bulletin and co-founder of the Labor Committee of the Middle East. He was also a founding member of the Nov. 29 Coalition on Palestine. He won a sizable lawsuit against the Jewish Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in February 2002 for its vast illegal spying against him, as well as other peaceful political groups and individuals (including anti-Apartheid groups/activists).