MORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY, PART THREE

2007-03-15T10:58:00.000+11:00

MORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY(article 39) by Benjamin Merhav

Following are excerpts from an article by Zahir Ebrahim. Although the article is well researched, and is important contribution to the collective effort to expose the notorious zionist impostor Noam Chomsky and his cronies, it is still showing unjustified respect for Chomsky, and even for the openly zionist Uri Avnery. Proving their deceptive appearances, and pointing out their misleading activities, the author does not expressly condemn them for being the zionist frauds that they are. They purport to be champions of justice and peace, when in reality they are the willing tools of the zionist apartheid regime of Israel, and loyal zionists.

Here are parts of the article dealing with Noam Chomsky :

http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2007/03/endless-red-herrings.html

The endless trail of red herrings - Part II
by Zahir Ebrahim

...The same is true of Noam Chomsky - while he supported the sanctions on Apartheid South Africa, he is against sanctions for Israel.

...Chomsky does not distinguish between a crime that happened in the distant past that we can do little about today in rectification, and one that is occurring concurrently in our present epoch for which we can most assuredly do something in rectification, and for which a just and moral solution does indeed exist. It has not receded into dusty pages of history far enough yet to have become a fait accompli that cannot be practicably undone - such as returning California to Mexico.

Today, Israel is the only nation on earth as far as I know, with no self-recognized borders except the entire 'land of Canaan', and where the writ of this apartheid state is continually extending over amorphous boundaries with new 14 ft walls being continually constructed to create giant prisons to enclose the indigenous population who refuse to "die", and whose "young" refuse to "forget", and who refuse to be "resigned to live here as slaves", and who miraculously escape "We have to kill all the Palestinians" call to ethnically cleanse the beleaguered Palestinians from their own homeland.

...So why am I not enthusiastically applauding Noam Chomsky for his courageous "dissent"? The answer entirely depends on why is a similar argument for abolishing Israel as an apartheid state, as was made for South Africa, and conclusively ending its Zionist reign of monumental terror and obscurantism in the modernity of the 21st century, not being courageously made by him.

...What indeed are the underlying reasons for his abstaining from making the moral calls for a unified democratic Israel-Palestine for all the inhabitants of Palestine? What restrains him from articulating an unequivocal principled stance against the very root cause celebra of apartheid and the "ubermensch" racism ingrained in Zionism itself that makes Israel such a misconstruction of West's own cherished values of democracy and equal rights for all?

By inexplicably ignoring this "rogue state" conveniently using (and abusing) a minority among the Jews themselves to further its own hegemonistic interest of sustained indomitable preeminence in the affairs of the world (see here) by financially and politically maintaining Israel in its current abominable Zionist construction as its private little Nuclear armed proxy hegemon in the Middle East (see here, here, here, and here), and staying silent about the role that Zionists themselves are currently playing in the construction of his own nation's imperial foreign policies in a tortuous collaboration of self-interests (see here and here and compare authors here) which seems to be visible to all and sundry in the world, except inexplicably to the "arguably the most important intellectual alive", Chomsky is willingly co-opting himself to the interests of the "ruling elite" that he has spent his entire life sanity-checking.

...His undistinguished silence has likely misled, or indeed not been the prime mover of, many a movements that might have effectively called for an end to the Israeli racism and apartheid, and thus postponed the harbinger of justice to a suffering peoples.

...So let's tepidly examine Noam Chomsky's own objectivity in the light of his own self proclaimed self-interests that might coherently explain this odd blindsight in the most profound intellectual in the West. Having openly declared himself a Zionist, and a Zionist youth leader, albeit of the 1940s variety, whatever that might mean, I must ask why the profound intellectual of the dissent space would not conscionably recuse himself from bringing to bear his own Zionist-aspiration driven personal advocacy on the Israel-Palestine solution space due to his obvious conflict of interest, and focused instead, as a conscionable intellectual must, on what the suffering Palestinian victims themselves advocate as their desired solution space?

...why would he not also conscionably set aside his personal self-interests of his nuanced "Labor-Zionism" aspirations, and bring the Palestinian victims' own solutions - as the victims' natural right to demand their own redressing - to the attention of the same audience? This is a rather clear and unambiguous litmus test of objectivity for anyone who claims to speaks out on behalf of any suffering peoples.

...Thus knowing full well that any Zionist aspiration for a land that is already continuously inhabited by an indigenous population for centuries will most assuredly continually lead to, and has already led to, their displacement and bloodshed, upon what "ubermensch" principle of morality is Chomsky's aspiration of Zionism based?

Is it what Golda Meir uttered: "This country exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy." (Golda Meir, Le Monde, 15 October 1971, noted from the web here).

Or is it what Menachem Begin uttered the day after the U.N. vote to Partition Palestine: "The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever." (Menachem Begin, noted from the web here)

Or is it based on the spirit, which for the nth time was candidly asserted by Yitzhak Shamir in his own straightforward diction, and Ariel Sharon in his characteristic bulldozing speak (and which is unapologetically repeated ad nauseam by all Israeli statesmen and Zionist protagonists in their own choicest diction with the spectating world pretending to not notice): "The settlement of the Land of Israel is the essence of Zionism. Without settlement, we will not fulfill Zionism. It's that simple." (Yitzhak Shamir, Maariv, 02/21/1997, noted from the web here) " ...

The best way to demonstrate that these are indeed misperceptions and there are no vested self-interests at play, is to loudly condemn Zionism in all its abhorrent nuanced shades [3], to unequivocally call for an end to apartheid and "ubermensch" racism in Israel that is entirely seeded from the "ubermensch" racism in Zionism itself, to designate Israel as a rogue state in one's writings and to call for its boycott and for sanctions to be imposed on it, and to actively engage in echoing the victims' own demands for justice and not put forth ones' own (tainted) solutions.

... the question arises that why should the dialog, when it comes to the Palestinians, begin with the 1948 construction of Israel through superpower politics? As for instance, in Phyllis Bennis' article where she passionately advocates justice for the refugees, she makes the following statement: "The United Nations welcomed Israel as its newest member with Resolution 273, passed on May 11, 1949. The membership resolution stated specifically that entry to the world body was based on Israel's statements regarding its ability and willingness to implement the earlier Resolution 194 of December 1948, and the rights it granted to the Palestinians. Those were the right to return home and compensation for their losses during the war."

... All conscionable peoples' voices of protest must be brought to bear on the plight of any innocent victims, for we are indeed one family in humanity, and when we collectively stand up against tyranny, we are at our finest in demonstrating that we have come a long ways from our humble Neanderthal beginning. However, in principled Moral-Activism, our conscionable voices can never be allowed to drown out the victims' own anguished voices themselves, the victims' own notion of what crimes are being heaped upon them, and the victims' own demands for what is fair and just restitution! Especially since the victims are still contemporaneous, and justice can still be afforded them.

...There is no reason, in the modernity of the 21st century, to have an Apartheid pariah state in our midsts that has co-opted the very definition of justice from the lexicon of Western languages, and continues to create new innocent victims on a daily basis and has been doing so since its very inception in 1896, when its founder claimed along the banks of the Swiss Rhine: "In Basle I founded the Jewish state ... Maybe in five years, certainly in fifty, everyone will realize it". And most assuredly, there is no reason for any people, be they well intentioned, or ideological, who may have supported it in the past, to continue doing so in the present, except with monumentally criminal intent of perpetuating crimes against a beleaguered humanity.

If an EU can transpire after killing each other for centuries and upon the ashes of 50 million dead just in the 20th century, with the determined will and singular focus to do so, a unified Palestine-Israel is a far more natural and historical reconstitution except for the relative newcomer European Zionism parasite that has hijacked the region, and continually prevents and distorts its reseeding with red herrings up the wazoo. It's time to finally endeavor creating the long cherished and elusive dream of a peaceful and fairer future for all of our children by the construction of a non-Apartheid equal and just state for all its inhabitants in Israel-Palestine." (Emphasis added - B.M.)

2006-12-29T16:00:00.000+11:00

MORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY(article 38)
by Benjamin Merhav

The following article was downloaded from the Italy based URUKNET website. This brief article is the first in Europe to expose the notorious zionist impostor, Noam Chomsky. It needs no further introduction, except to point out that the author chose pseudonym to conceal his identity. Are they still very scared of the zionist lobby in Europe, or is it merely the fear of attack by Chomsky's cronies ? Here is the article, http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m29362 :

So typically Noamesque as to sound like a parody
Xymphora

December 28, 2006

Noam Chomsky comments on the Iraq Study Group Report.

After pointing out that poll results display overwhelming Iraqi desire for American withdrawal, he proposes a referendum in Iraq to decide the issue. This is so typically Noamesque as to sound like a parody. While maintaining his usual attacks on the American Empire, Noam proposes a precondition that he knows will never happen (what Empire is going to ask for a referendum guaranteed to prove how unpopular it is with the people it is supposed to be helping?), thus ensuring the fulfillment of the Zionist goal of keeping American troops in Iraq until the country is forced into Yinon-style non-threatening (to Israel) statelets. As usual, fiendishly clever.

I think the best way to view Chomsky is as a one-man Zionist 'sleeper cell’. He started to write about the American Empire at about the same time as the extreme Israeli right was planning its campaign of taking political power in Israel and creating Greater Israel over the dead bodies of a lot of Arabs.

The long-term plan involved seizing control of American politics through the use of the Christian Zionists (thus Begin’s courting, and financing, of Christian Zionist leaders), at the same time quietly infiltrating the bureaucracy of government through the use of those people we now know as the neocons (it is a huge mistake, but one encouraged by the Zionist media, to regard them as Republicans).

All the while, Noam was working on his completely ineffectual critiques of the American Empire, building up his street cred for when it would be needed in the service of the Israeli Empire. We hardly need a referendum to know that the Iraqis don’t want a continued brutal American occupation, and suggesting an impossible precondition to utopia is more of what Noam has been doing for the last thirty years.

The brilliance of the conception of the sleeper cell is that much of Noam’s most trenchant criticism remains directed at Israel, thus fooling many into thinking that he is working against Israeli colonialism. Nothing could be further from the truth. (Emphasis added).

2006-11-04T12:30:00.000+11:00

MORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY(article 37)
by Benjamin Merhav

As I mentioned previously in this series, the Military Commissions Act, recently legislated and enforced on the USA public, is a fascist legislation. It begins the transformation of the USA regime from a plutocracy into a full scale terrorist-fascist dictatorship. Yet , Noam Chomsky and his cronies continue to lull the people into complacency, by telling them that they live in the "most free country in the world ". The following article is by Prof. Jose Maria Sison. It shows what Noam Chomsky, as the self proclaimed "Guru of the Left" in the USA ,should have done, had he been honest in his claims to be anti-imperialist, anti-fascist, and pro-democracy. Here is the article :
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2006/10/21/p11659

"US Military Commissions Act of 2006 is a Fascist Law that the People of the World Must Condemn and Oppose

Prof. Jose Maria Sison

The International League of People’s Struggle vigorously condemns and opposes the US Military Commissions Act of 2006 as a fascist law that flouts and violates the universally accepted principles and conventions on human rights and international humanitarian law.

The Act seeks to impose state terrorism and fascism on the people of the world through the brute military power of US imperialism and its collaborators. The people of the world must condemn and oppose this fascist law until it is repealed or nullified as a brazen comprehensive assault on human rights and fundamental freedoms.

On 17 October 2006, George W. Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006. He called it one of the most important pieces of legislation in the war on terror. In a public statement, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has described the new law as one of the worst measures ever enacted against civil liberties in American history.

"The president can now -- with the approval of Congress -- indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions," ACLU executive director Anthony Romero said.

In sum, the new Act does three things:

1. It denies non-citizens of the US the right to habeas corpus (the right of detainees to challenge their detention);
2. It gives the US President the power to detain indefinitely anyone—US or foreign nationals, from within the US, and from abroad—whom he believes to have given material support to hostilities against the US, and even use secret and coerced evidence (i.e. through use of torture) to try detainees who will be held in secret US military prisons;
3. It gives US officials immunity from prosecution for torturing detainees that were captured before the end of 2005 by the US military and CIA.

On the matter of habeas corpus, the Act: strips US courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus appeals challenging the lawfulness or conditions of detention of anyone held in US custody as an “enemy combatant;” denies any person the right of invoking the Geneva Conventions or their protocols in any action in any US court; allows civilians captured far from any battlefield to be tried by military commission rather than civilian courts, violating international standards and case law; restricts the right of detainees to be represented by counsel of their choosing.

The Act gives broad powers to the US president to detain indefinitely and allow the use of torture to extract information. Detainees can be held indefinitely without charges or if trials are held there are no guarantees that these are done within a reasonable time. It permits the executive to convene military commissions to try “alien unlawful enemy combatants” in trials that would give foreign nationals a lower standard of justice than US citizens accused of the same crimes in violation of the principle of equal application of the law.

The Act allows the use of evidence extracted under cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or as a result of “outrages upon personal dignity, particularly humiliating or degrading treatment”, as defined under international law. It allows the use of classified evidence without the defendant being able to effectively challenge the “sources, methods or activities” by which the government acquired the evidence. It gives the military commissions the power to hand down death sentences in contravention of international standards.

The Act in effect would now consider as legal the following torture methods that have been routinely practiced by US forces in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons which have generated universal outrage: (1) Long Time Standing: Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confession. (2) The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water that can induce hypothermia.
The Act gives US officials immunity from prosecution. It narrows the scope of the War Crimes Act by not expressly criminalizing acts that constitute “outrages upon personal dignity, particularly humiliating and degrading treatment” banned under Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions. It prohibits US courts from using “foreign or international law” in forming their decisions in relation to the War Crimes Act. The US President is given the authority to “interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions.”

With this law the US Congress has put a stamp of approval to the systematic violation of international law the US has been guilty of in the past years in the conduct of its spurious “war on terror.” Human rights violations have included: secret detention, enforced disappearance, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, outrages upon personal dignity, including humiliating treatment, denial and restriction of habeas corpus, indefinite detention without charge or trial, prolonged incommunicado detention and arbitrary arrest.

Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights has described the Act as giving to the US president the authority of an authoritarian despot and the power to detain any person anywhere in the world, citizen or non-citizen,
whether living in the United States or elsewhere. The American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Constitutional Rights and other human rights organizations in the US are determined to challenge the constitutionality of the Act.

The International League of Peoples’ Struggle (ILPS) is outraged by the enactment of the US Military Commissions Act of 2006 as it may become a very dangerous turning point in the rise of fascism in the US and the rest of the world, unless the people condemn and oppose it resolutely and militantly until it is struck down. This Act makes the US the No. 1 rogue state in the world by deliberately and systematically violating the universally accepted principles and standards of human rights.

The International League of Peoples’ Struggle calls on its participating organizations in the US and in other countries to wage a relentless campaign against this fascist law. All freedom-loving people of the world must stand up to defend human rights and fundamental freedoms and fight this latest brutal assault on democracy and human dignity. "(Emphasis added).

2006-11-02T17:40:00.000+11:00

MORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY(article 36)
by Benjamin Merhav

Do you, like myself, have Noam Chomsky's statement that the USA is "the most free country in the world" still ringing in your ears ? In any case, let us read again the question, and Chomsky's reply : "Would you describe the US as it is now as a fascist state?
Chomsky : Far from it. In many respects it is the most free country in the world."
"Far from it", he said, meaning that the USA regime is far from becoming a fascist regime. Yet he knows, of course, that many websites in the USA have publicised for a number of years now the fact that there are some 800 concentration camps around the USA, camps which are vacant but ready to detain USA citizens instantly. Everything is ready for a full scale reign of fascism in the USA. Here are three of the many websites which have publicised this advent of USA fascism. The first of the three shows satellite photos of the concentration camps :

1. http://www.resurrectingliberty.com/
2. http://www.apfn.org/apfn/camps3.htm
3. http://www.mindfully.org

All of which prove that Noam Chomsky has been lying to make people complacent rather than resist fascism in the USA ! The proof is there of his pro-imperialist service to the USA ruling class too ! All his books and articles are ,consequently, meant to serve as traps for well meaning and progressive people ( apart from a source of profits and self promotion for himself ).

The following information describes the process of moving to a full scale fascist dictatorship in the USA : http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/fema.htm

"Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

What is the Federal Emergency Management Agency? Simply put, it is the "secret government". This agency has powers and authority that go well beyond any other agency in the nation. What can FEMA do? It can suspend laws. It can move entire populations. It can arrest and detain citizens without a warrant and can hold them without a trial. It can seize property, food supplies, and transportation systems. And it can even suspend the Constitution of the United States.
When the first concept had been presented, its original mission was to assure the survivability of the United States Government in the event of a nuclear attack. It's secondary function was to be a Federal coordinating body during times of domestic disasters. These disasters consisted of earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes.
The "secret" black helicopters that are reported throughout the US, mainly in the West California, Washington, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Colorado areas are flown by FEMA personnel. It has been given the responsibility for many new national disasters such as forest fires, home heating emergencies, refugee situations, riots, and emergency planning for nuclear and toxic incidents. It works together with the Sixth Army in the West.
A series of Executive Orders (EO) was used to create FEMA. It does not matter whether an EO is Constitutional or not, it becomes a law simply by being published in the Federal Registry. These orders go around Congress.

List of Executive Orders :

Executive Order Number

Meaning
10900
Allows the government to take control over all modes of transportation, highways, and seaports.
10995
Allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
10997
Allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and minerals.
10998
Allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.
11000
Allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
11001
Allows the government to take over all health, education, and welfare functions.
11002
Designates the Postmaster General to operate national registration of all persons.
11003
Allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
11004
Allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
11005
Allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways, and public storage facilities.
11051
Specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
11310
Grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
11049
Assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.
11921
Allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and flow of money in the U.S.A. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months.
President Regan signed Presidential Director Number 54 in April of 1984 that allowed FEMA to activate a secret national readiness exercise. This exercise was given the code name REX 84. The purpose of the exercise was to test FEMA's ability to assume military authority. REX 84 was so highly guarded that special metal doors were installed on the fifth floor of the FEMA building in Washington, D.C. The only people that were allowed to enter the premises were ones who had a red Christian cross on their shirt. The exercise required the following.....
*
Suspension of the Constitution of the United States
*
Turning control of the government over to FEMA
*
Appointment of military commanders to run state and local governments
*
Declaration of Martial Law

So how much money goes into an organization like this? Well it has been discovered that FEMA has a quasi-billion dollar budget. However, about 6% of that budget goes into the relief effort. So why is it that they need so much money? Ever wonder where the President goes when it's said he is in a "secure location"? Well most of the time that location is a secret government complex built into a mountain. It is called Mt. Weather."

What is most distressing is that Noam Chomsky enjoys the support and the collaboration of all his cronies and devotees, people like Alexander Cockburn ,who runs counterpunch.org, and many academics who consider themselves as Left oriented anti-fascists and
anti-imperialists. They all help Chomsky maintain the conspiracy of silence in the face of increased preparations for full scale fascism in the USA, thereby lulling the USA public into complacency.

2006-10-25T17:00:00.000+10:00

MORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY(ARTICLE 35)
by Benjamin Merhav

The statement by Noam Chomsky that the USA is the most free country in the world (see my previous article in this series) is not only a propaganda lie in support of the USA ruling class, and it is even more than tantamount to support for fascism in the USA. It is direct support for fascism in the USA right now ! Here is why.

The recent cancellation by the Military Commissions Act of USA courts' powers to issue Habeas Corpus orders is a very ominous sign. Along with the new powers of the President to define what is torture and to define who is "unlawful enemy combatant" these legal changes constitue a very clear step towards full scale fascism in the
USA . Yet Noam Chomsky is not protesting. Worse still, he says that the USA is the most free country in the world, which can only be interpreted as his endorsement of the above legal steps towards full scale fascism in the USA !

Where are the Chomsky cronies and the Chomsky devotees who have voted to crown him as the "world's greatest intellectual" , believing that their guru is a justice loving, anti-imperialist Left intellectual ? Not only are they silent in regard to Chomsky's treachery, they are silent in the face of the new fascist measures too ! And if anyone would suspect that those are my personal thoughts alone then I invite you to read the following report/article, and draw your own conclusions.

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index956.htm
October 21, 2006

US Army Announces Readiness for Total Military Takeover of America

By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers

Russian Intelligence Analysts are reporting today that final steps towards a full Military Dictatorship of the United States have been taken with the US Army announcing USARNORTH has now reached ‘full operational capacity’ and is now ready to:

"Execute homeland defense and defense support of civil authorities missions", and "Conduct the Army-to-Army portion of the theater cooperation mission with Canada and Mexico".

According to these reports, the first of the USANORTH plans for the total military takeover of the United States, from its few remaining civilian overseers, rest with a new series of draconian laws recently enacted by their top Military Leaders and which, among other things, suspends the right of habeas corpus for Americans, and which the American Military Leaders have ordered their courts to disallow, and as we can read as reported by the Washington Post News Service in their article titled "Court Told It Lacks Power in Detainee Cases", and which says:

"Moving quickly to implement the bill signed by President Bush this week that authorizes military trials of enemy combatants, the administration has formally notified the U.S. District Court here that it no longer has jurisdiction to consider hundreds of habeas corpus petitions filed by inmates at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.
Beyond those already imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere, the law applies to all non-U.S. citizens, including permanent U.S. residents. Habeas corpus, a Latin term meaning "you have the body," is one of the oldest principles of English and American law. It requires the government to show a legal basis for holding a prisoner."

Not being fully explained to the American people, however, are that these new draconian laws do in fact have a direct impact upon each of them, and as explained by an American dissident group called The Future of Freedom Foundation, and which in their article titled "Jose Padilla and the Military Commissions Act", states:

"Anyone who hoped that U.S. military detention of Americans accused of terrorism expired with the transfer of American citizen Jose Padilla from military custody to Justice Department custody have seen their hopes dashed by the Military Commissions Act that the president signed into law yesterday. Although the act limits to foreign citizens the use of military tribunals and the denial of habeas corpus, any person, including American citizens, can still be labeled and treated as an "unlawful enemy combatant" in the war on terrorism.
What does that mean for the American people? It means the same thing it did for Jose Padilla. You’ll recall that Padilla was arrested in Chicago for terrorism and transferred to military custody, where, according to Padilla, he was tortured and involuntarily injected with drugs.
The government’s position is that since the entire world is a battlefield in which the war on terrorism is being waged, U.S. officials now have the power to arrest any American suspected of terrorism, place him in military custody, and subject him to the same "unlawful enemy combatant" treatment that Padilla received, until the war on terrorism has finally been won, no matter how long that takes."

More ominously for the American people is their future culpability in these actions being done in their name by their Military Leaders, and as articulated by one of the United States most celebrated reporters, Helen Thomas, and who has said about these horrific new laws:

"President Bush on Tuesday signed the law that legalizes the administration's shameful treatment of detainees suspected of terrorism. The same measure also empowers the president to define torture. It's a sad legacy for America and its already-tarnished world image."

The far-reaching legislation gives Bush the right to decide what constitutes torture. The president has often said "we do not torture," despite evidence to the contrary - and photographs from the infamous Abu Ghraib prison as well. The president also can set guidelines for interrogation of prisoners. White House spokesman Tony Snow declined to say whether "waterboarding" - in which detainees are made to feel they are drowning - would be permissible.
Under the new law, the president also has extraordinary powers to designate who is an illegal enemy combatant, which potentially subjects U.S. citizens and foreigners to indefinite detention with no power to appeal. Bush is also allowed to interpret the Geneva Conventions on Humane Treatment of Prisoners of War.

One of the reasons Bush sought a green light from the lawmakers is "to have Congress stand with him in the dock," Malinowski added. The military commissions act is law. And all Americans will be tainted by it."
Helen Thomas’ reference to American Military Leaders standing in the ‘dock’, which means standing trial for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, rings ever truer with the decision of the International Committee of the Red Cross issuing only its second ever in history "concern" regarding the actions of a warring Nation [the first "concern" issued by the ICRC was in 1944 over the Nazi German treatment of concentration camp detainees], and which we can read as reported by the SwissInfo News Service in their article titled "ICRC "concerned" over US anti-terrorism law", and which says:

"The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) expressed concern on Thursday at the United States' tough new anti-terrorism law. The president of Swiss-run humanitarian body, Jakob Kellenberger, said that there were questions over its compliance with the Geneva Conventions on the conduct of war."

To the second part of the USANORTH plan for the unsuspecting American people, Conduct the Army-to-Army portion of the theater cooperation mission with Canada and Mexico", we can read from the Council on Foreign Relations report that first outlined the merger of the independent Nations of the United States, Canada and Mexico into a North American Union, and which says:
"Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations in association with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales.

North America is vulnerable on several fronts: the region faces terrorist and criminal security threats, increased economic competition from abroad, and uneven economic development at home. In response to these challenges, a trinational, Independent Task Force on the Future of North America has developed a roadmap to promote North American security and advance the well-being of citizens of all three countries.

When the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States met in Texas recently they underscored the deep ties and shared principles of the three countries. The Council-sponsored Task Force applauds the announced "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America," but proposes a more ambitious vision of a new community by 2010 and specific recommendations on how to achieve it."

Also not being understood by the American people are how their young children are currently being trained to be administrators of this North American Union, and as we can read as reported by the World Net Daily News Service in their article titled "N[orth] American students trained for 'merger', and which says:

"In another example of the way the three nations of North America are being drawn into a federation, or "merger," students from 10 universities in the U.S., Mexico and Canada are participating annually in a simulated "model Parliament."

Under the sponsorship of the Canadian based North American Forum on Integration, students met in the Mexican Senate for five days in May in an event dubbed "Triumvirate," with organizers declaring "A North American Parliament is born." A similar event took place in the Canadian Senate in 2005.
The intentions of organizers are clear. "The creation of a North American parliament, such as the one being simulated by these young people, should be considered," explained Raymond Chretien, the president of the Triumvirate and the former Canadian ambassador to both Mexico and the U.S. Participants discuss draft bills on trade corridors, immigration, provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement and produce a daily newspaper called "The TrilatHerald."

To those dwindling numbers of Americans aware of the total destruction of their Nation, and way of life, ever harsher measures to destroy all dissent were outlined to them this past week by their Military Leaders, and as we can read as reported by these various sources:

As reported by the Reuters News Service in their October 17th article titled "Web could be terror training camp: Chertoff", and which says, "Disaffected people living in the United States may develop radical ideologies and potentially violent skills over the Internet and that could present the next major U.S. security threat, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said on Monday. "We now have a capability of someone to radicalize themselves over the Internet," Chertoff said on the sidelines of a meeting of International Association of the Chiefs of Police."

As reported by the CNET News Service in their October 17th article titled "FBI director wants ISPs to track users", and which says, "FBI Director Robert Mueller on Tuesday called on Internet service providers to record their customers' online activities, a move that anticipates a fierce debate over privacy and law enforcement in Washington next year."

As reported by an American dissident writer, Chris Floyd, in his October 17th report titled "Sentimental Education: Academia Signs Up for Tracking Down Dissent", and which says, "Why is the United States government spending millions of dollars to track down critics of George W. Bush in the press? And why have major American universities agreed to put this technology of tyranny into the state's hands?
The Bush administration already has spyware devouring reams of private information in every direction. It is now paying top universities millions of dollars to refine this data into actionable intelligence - including the automated discernment and tracking of dissent against administration policies and criticism of the president. Bush has openly declared that he has no intention of obeying privacy laws - or any other laws safeguarding the Constitutional rights of American citizens - if he doesn't want to."

More interesting, perhaps, than the simultaneous flooding of the American media this past week with ‘frightening’ reports on the ‘dangers’ of the Internet by the US Military Leaders, was the sensationalist reporting revolving around an American man posting on the Internet a hoax threat, and which has resulted in his arrest, and as we can read as reported by the KWTX News Service in their article titled "Store Clerk Arrested In Stadium Threat Hoax", and which says:

"A Wisconsin grocery store clerk is under arrest on charges he's behind the hoax that claimed there would be dirty bomb attacks during this weekend's NFL games. Jake Brahm surrendered to federal authorities Friday morning, and was due in a Milwaukee court later in the day. The US Attorney in Newark, N.J., says Brahm is charged in a sealed criminal complaint."

Russian Intelligence reports on this American ‘hoax incident’, in our opinion, have correctly stated that these events are a false flag operation intended to bring the ever growing American dissident community to heel by ‘reminding’ them that even a 20-year-old store clerk is not beyond their reach. We can rightly imagine the fear these events have caused among the American dissidents as what they are experiencing now we have lived with our entire lives.

To the greater of these issues, though, remains the fact that the total destruction of America today has long been planned, and is even now in its final stages. To the many warning signs put before these American people there have also been many, and, perhaps, none more chilling then a simple letter sent from a former US Congressman, Bill Hefner, to a constituent of his in North Carolina written in 1997, and which says:

"Enclosed is the information you requested pertaining to the Army's policy and guidance for establishing civilian inmate labor program and civilian prison camps on Army installations.
This information has not yet been published (it is currently at the printers), however, it has been funded, staffed, and does reflect current Army policy. I hope you find this information useful."

As the storm clouds continue to gather over these once great American people, one cannot but wonder at their continued insistence to not look up, see what is coming, and prepare."(Emphasis added).

2006-10-23T20:43:00.000+10:00

MORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY(article 34)
by Benjamin Merhav

Noam Chomsky's replies to questions by The Independent readers are the same predictable replies this wealthy zionist, and dishonest bourgeois intellectual had provided on previous occasions over the years. Masquerading as the guru of the Left for many years now, and with his repeated pretences and cover-ups, Chomsky just becomes too boring to read. However, the following replies by him ,although still boring repetitions, provide the proximity of his zionist loyalty to his support for USA imperialism, proximity some of his devotees have failed to see so far. Even anti-imperialist leaders in Latin America and elsewhere have ignored it at their own peril.
Here are the relevant questions and Chomsky's revealing answers :

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14727.htm

"Do you believe Israel should exist, why and in what form ? NICK HARRIS
Chomsky : As a Zionist youth leader in the 1940s, I was among those who called for a binational state in Mandatory Palestine. When a Jewish state was declared, I felt that it should have the rights of other states - no more, no less.
Why should the US exist, sitting on half of Mexico, including Florida, conquered in a violent racist war carried out in violation of the Constitution?
And we can ask much the same about other states. State formation has been a brutal project, with many hideous consequences. But the results exist, and their pernicious aspects should be overcome.

Would you describe the US as it is now as a fascist state? T SUMMERS, CORNWALL
Chomsky : Far from it. In many respects it is the most free country in the world.

Surely the US, UK and Israel are guilty of war crimes? BALALL MAQBOOL

Chomsky : In the case of Lebanon, there is little doubt. Ample reasons have been given by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and that's a bare beginning. But guilt extends far beyond. The Bush-Blair invasion of Iraq, for example, is a clear example of what the Nuremberg Tribunal determined to be "the supreme international crime", which encompasses all the evil that follows. We would do well to recall the eloquent words of Nuremberg chief counsel Justice Robert Jackson: "We are handing the defendants a 'poisoned chalice', and if we sip from it, we must accept the same judgement." The conclusions seem clear enough."

Let us see what is the meaning of those games of words behind which Noam Chomsky - the real zionist and pro-imperialist Noam Chomsky - is attempting to hide.

Firstly, about his early zionist past.
Yes, he was a zionist leader, of Hashomer Hatzair, the so called "zionist left". As such he , like Hashomer Hatzair at the time, supported a bi-national state in Palestine before 1948, when Palestine was Arab Palestine, and the zionist settler society was a minority there, and with most of the land settled and owned by the Arab people of Palestine. However, with the establishment of the zionist apartheid regime of Israel in 1948, an all out zionist war of ethnic cleansing began to drive the Palestinians out of their homeland. Hashomer Hatzair joined the first zionist government and participated enthusiastically in the ethnic cleansing of the Arabs of Palestine. Guru Noam Chomsky continued his active support for both Hashomer Hatzair and for the newly formed zionist apartheid regime of Israel, and now he tries to justify it by comparing the history of the expansionist zionist state with the history of the expansionist USA.

Please keep in mind that Noam Chomsky has continued his support for zionism and for the zionist apartheid regime of Israel all his life. At no stage did he oppose zionism or the zionist apartheid regime of Israel. He does not consider zionism as racism, much less as fascism.He does not consider the zionist state as a racist state, and he is opposed to sanctions against it.

Can racism,imperialism and fascism in the USA justify the criminal zionist apartheid regime of Israel ? Of course not ! Knowing too that the criminal zionist apartheid regime of Israel is responsible for the 4 million Palestinian refugees problem, and that it still continues with its policies of ethnic cleansing in Palestine. Noam Chomsky supports the zionist refusal to let the Palestinians return to their homeland ! How can anyone regard him as a left oriented and anti-imperialist intellectual under such circumstances ? How can anyone trust such a dishonest person ?

Secondly, now, regarding his support for USA imperialism.Let's read the question and answer again : " Would you describe the US as it is now as a fascist state?
Chomsky : Far from it. In many respects it is the most free country in the world." Did Hugo Chavez hear that the USA "is the most free country in the world" from Noam Chomsky? No,he could not get it from Chomsky, because it is not written in any of Chomsky's books or in any of his articles! However , other American writers do consider the USA as a fascist state ,already now ! Here are two examples : "How the USA became a Fascist State" by Chris Herz, http://narcosphere.narconews.com/story/2005/1/22/114858/087 ; and "14 points of fascism under george bush in the united states wake up and smell the fascism", a collection of news articles on http://oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm .

The USA is a plutocracy, i.e. a country ruled and controlled by big business. Fascism is the terrorist dictatorship of finance capital. Therefore, in the USA it remains in the hands of big business to decide when to exercise full scale terrorist dictatorship there, and they are likely to do that in times of crisis. Hence the complacency of most Americans, because there is no crisis at present. However, for Chomsky to state that the USA "is the most free country in the world" is more than support for the USA ruling class, it is tantamount to declaring his support for fascism there too !

Which brings us to the third question and answer as follows :

"Surely the US, UK and Israel are guilty of war crimes?

Chomsky : In the case of Lebanon, there is little doubt. Ample reasons have been given by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and that's a bare beginning. But guilt extends far beyond. The Bush-Blair invasion of Iraq, for example, is a clear example of what the Nuremberg Tribunal determined to be "the supreme international crime", which encompasses all the evil that follows. We would do well to recall the eloquent words of Nuremberg chief counsel Justice Robert Jackson: "We are handing the defendants a 'poisoned chalice', and if we sip from it, we must accept the same judgement." The conclusions seem clear enough."

The question which begs itself is why, then, did Noam Chomsky fail to protest those horrendous war crimes and crimes against humanity in Palestine, in Lebanon, in Iraq ? Why did he not call for an international tribunal where top zionist and USA war criminals would be brought to justice and be punished ? Why did he not call for international sanctions to be imposed on the zionist apartheid regime of Israel ? Yet to me these are mere rhetorical questions, because the truth is that Noam Chomsky is a loyal zionist ,a dishonest bourgeois intellectual, and an ally of the USA rulers.

2006-09-27T22:46:00.001+10:00

MORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY (article 33),
by Benjamin Merhav

The recent publicity given to Noam Chomsky's book by Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela, at the UN, is not an exoneration for Chomsky. On the contrary, it proves how dangerous Chomsky has been for the Left worldwide, and for anti-imperialist forces in particular, as he managed to get Hugo Chavez fall into his trap too !

Noam Chomsky's loyalty to zionism is not the only reason for his menace. He has been regarded as the darling of the most reactionary forces on earth : the USA ruling class ,the comprador ruling class of South Korea, the rulers of Israel. Thus, for example, the most recent issue of the Opinion Journal, the Editorial Page of The Wall Street Journal ,carries an article titled, Who Is Noam Chomsky? by a Roger Scruton. The Wall Street Journal is known all over the world as the official mouthpiece of big business in the USA, the USA ruling class.

The article opens as follows,

http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110008997

"Noam Chomsky's popularity owes little or nothing to the eminent place that he occupies in the world of ideas. That place was won many years ago in the science of linguistics, and no expert in the subject would, I think, dispute Prof. Chomsky's title to it."

The article then goes on to sing the praises of Noam Chomsky in linguistics, and concluding it as follows :

"Although some of those ideas had been foreseen by the pioneers of modern logic, Prof. Chomsky develops them with an imaginative flair that is entirely his own. He has the true scientist's ability to translate abstract theory into concrete observation, and to discover intellectual problems where others see only ordinary facts. "Has," I say, but perhaps "had" would be more accurate. For Prof. Chomsky long ago cast off his academic gown and donned the mantle of the prophet. "

Prophet ? "Prophet" for the USA ruling class ?

The article does go on to criticise Noam Chomsky, but only in a very mild and forgiving way, concluding that "Prof. Chomsky is an intelligent man. Not everything he says by way of criticizing his country is wrong."

This is not the first time the USA ruling class expressed its approval of Noam Chomsky, and even praised him. My 21st article in this series quotes the hierarchy of the USA Miltary Academy at West Point, which invited him to lecture there for their cadets. The USA military chieftains had only praise and respect for him following his lecture there. In other words, Noam Chomsky is regarded as a friend, certainly not as an enemy of USA imperialism, by the leaders of that imperialism which threatens the entire humanity !

2006-08-27T18:47:00.000+10:00

MORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY (ARTICLE 32)
by Benjamin Merhav

Soon after posting my previous article (31st in a series) I got a couple of angry comments from Chomsky devotees. They reckon that I misunderstood Noam Chomsky's quotation of the ancient saying that "The strong do as they can, and the weak suffer as they must." He did not identify with that saying, claim the angry devotees, and he only used it as irony to mock the attitude/policies of Israel towards the Arabs. Did he ? Let us then take a closer look at the opinion and the attitude of Noam Chomsky.

Firstly, Chomsky did not merely quote that very wrong epigram, and without referring to anyone other than the ancient Greek historian who coined it 2500 years ago, he actually stated during the interview that "it is one of the leading principles of international affairs." This conclusion is his own, and without any reservation, let alone his condemnation of it.

Secondly, Chomsky devotees assume that their guru is a justice upholding, anti-imperialist and honest intellectual, whereas the reality is exactly the opposite of their assumptions. As I pointed out in my well documented 31 articles in this series, Noam Chomsky is a dishonest, wealthy zionist, bourgeois intellectual. Therefore he should not be trusted at all, and least of all in matters concerning the zionist conflict in Palestine !

Thirdly, Noam Chomsky has developed a system of deceit to cover up his loyalty to zionism and to the zionist apartheid regime of Israel. One of this system's devices is the misuse of the term "reality" or "realistic" to defend his pro-zionist views, and to repulse any criticism as "unrealistic". Good examples of his deceit are in his debate with Noah Cohen which took place a couple of years ago. Quoting Chomsky Noah Cohen points out that Chomsky actually opposed the right to return of the Palestinian refugees ,while purporting to support it, under the cover of the "realism" argument as follows :

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/cohenvchomsky.html

"Now listen to Chomsky on the right of return:

"there is no detectable international support for it, and under the (virtually unimaginable) circumstances that such support would develop, Israel would very likely resort to its ultimate weapon, defying even the boss-man, to prevent it. ... In my opinion, it is improper to dangle hopes that will not be realized before the eyes of people suffering in misery and oppression. Rather, constructive efforts should be pursued to mitigate their suffering and deal with their problems in the real world."

Here is how Noah Cohen commented on Chomsky's "realism" argument :

"Chomsky’s concept of "realism" has a striking resemblance to the colonial discourse of "manifest destiny": Good or bad, right or wrong—so the argument goes—these are the facts on the ground; this is the way of history."

The same Chomsky logic applies to the saying he quotes in the above interview, namely, "might is right" is the reality, and "it is one of the leading principles of international affairs."Therefore, nothing can be done against the crimes of the zionist apartheid regime of Israel, and the Arabs "should accept the zionist reality". Which is why Chomsky does not protest, nor demands sanctions or punishment for the top zionist war criminals.

2006-08-25T23:09:00.000+10:00

MORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY (ARTICLE 31)
by Benjamin Merhav

If anyone is still in need of more proof of Noam Chomsky's loyalty to zionism, nay, of his own deep conviction that the zionist ideology is "correct" (and the same applies to the zionist apartheid regime of Israel too, of course) then his latest interview provides such a proof.

The interview, published by counterpunch.org, 24 August, 2006, under the headline, "The Strong Do as They Can", is an eye-opener for those who still have their eyes closed to see the truth. The headline is very indicative of the essence of zionism as a form of fascism, namely, its reliance on brute force in complete contempt for any human rights or for any human values.

Noam Chomsky, suiting his purported "scholarship"show, is quoting an ancient Greek hisorian, Thucydides ,who lived some 2,500 years ago. However, this epigram,"The Strong Do as They Can", could have been spitted out by Mussolini or by Hitler or by any other fascist dictator. Sure, in ancient societies, ruled by slave owners, such was the norm and the reality, but one would think that it has no place in the 21st century, and you wouldn't expect it to come from the purported guru of the Left, and certainly not from the crowned "greatest intellectual" of our time !

The interviewer, NERMEEN AL-MUFTI, of Al-Ahram, opened the interview with the following question: "Why is Israel given the right to self- defense while Arab countries are denied it?" to which Noam Chomsky replied : "Thucydides gave an answer to that a long time ago: "The strong do as they can, and the weak suffer as they must." It is one of the leading principles of international affairs." In other words, Noam Chomsky, like the zionist rulers of Israel, considers that "might is right" as a leading principle of international affairs ! If anyone would still doubt my conclusion then I would point out that he repeats it at the end of the interview , in reply to the last question as follows :

Q. "I am unable to understand this Israeli arrogance. Are you?"

A. "The maxim of Thucydides again. But it is worth bearing in mind that Israel can go just as far as its protector in Washington permits and supports."

Chomsky's devotees would now jump to his defence and say that in the rest of the interview he expressed his opposition to Israel's military aggression in Palestine and in Lebanon. The reality is that Noam Chomsky does not protest the crimes of the zionist apartheid regime of Israel. He does not demand that the top zionist war criminals be put on trial. He does not demand international sanctions against that racist/fascist regime. His academic style account of the events is true, but his conclusions are not. He does not side with the oppressed Palestinians nor with the victimised Lebanese. He sides with the zionists. He is on the side of the criminal zionist apartheid regime of Israel !

2006-08-21T22:26:00.001+10:00

MORE ON NOAM CHOMSKY AND ON URI AVNERY, THE TWO MOST IMPORTANT ASSETS OF THE ZIONIST PROPGANDA MACHINE
by Benjamin Merhav (article 30 in a series)

Ostensibly, both Noam Chomsky and Uri Avnery have been strongly criticised by zionist propaganda outlets, particularly by fanatical zionists like Alan Dershowitz and his ilk. Yet, that criticism never harmed any of the two. On the contrary, it has enhanced their positions among Left and peace activists. So much so, it seems without that criticism very few on the Left would have trusted any of them, knowing their treacherous records. Thus, for example, both Chomsky and Avnery, have strongly supported the military aggression and invasion of Arab lands by the zionist apartheid regime of Israel during June 1967. Avnery had then gone as far as demand that the zionist army invade and occupy Damascus, rather than be satisfied with the occupation and annexation of the Golan Heights alone. In fact, he used the paper he produced and edited to fan the flames of chauvinism and war hysteria inside Israel during that war. Another example of their treacherous records is their approval of the zionist apartheid regime, along with its institutionalised racism and fascist policies. Both of them have never stated their opposition to zionism nor to the zionist apartheid regime of Israel, much less condemn the racist regime. Accordingly, both support a two state peace agreement, thus allowing the continuation of the zionist apartheid regime, rather than a non-racist democratic state all over historic Palestine.

They both oppose the full and unconditional return of the Palestinian refugees, and they both oppose international sanctions against the racist regime. Uri Avnery, with his background as a fanatical follower of Jabotinsky ( including membership of Irgun, the zionist terror organisation), had gone even further than Chomsky . He had actually volunteered (and he is still very proud of it !) to a zionist commando unit during the 1948 zionist war of ethnic cleansing. As soon as the war was over Avnery began a political career as a self proclaimed peace activist, only to betray the peace movement in 1967. This year, ever since the horrendous escalation of zionist state terrorism and war crimes, following the Palestinian elections, and then the invasion of Lebanon, Chomsky and Avnery failed once more to condemn the criminal zionist regime, and to call for international sanctions against it.

Having dealt with Chomsky's treachery regarding the current situation in the last 5 articles in this series, let us now examine Avnery's attitude as reflected in two of his latest articles. The latest one, published by counterpunch.org over the weekend ,19/20 August,2006, has got a rather revealing title : "Where are the Achievements of This War? The 155th Victim". What "achievments" was Avnery hoping for by this series of zionist war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated by the racist regime against the people of Lebanon ?

The article serves as an eye-opener for anyone who does not know that Avnery has been a fanatical zionist all his life. It is a kind of debate he is having with the zionist army chieftains, accusing them of not being competent. Avnery is actually angry at the zionist generals not because they perpetrated horrendous crimes, rather because they were not good enough at doing so ! Listen to this :

"AFTER EVERY failed war, the cry for an official investigation goes up in Israel. Now there is a "trauma", much bitterness, a feeling of defeat and of a missed opportunity. Hence the demand for a strong Commission of Inquiry that will cut off the heads of those responsible."

What does Uri Avnery mean by "missed opportunity" ? Did he expect the zionist invading army to crush the Lebanese resistance, and do so without any casualities ? Could it be that Avnery still clings to his old dream of invading Damascus, and he is disappointed now ? Yet there is a contradiction here between Avnery's imperial dreams and his conclusion that there cannot be any peace for as long as Israel occupies the 1967 invaded Arab lands. However,it is merely the contradiction between Avnery, the fanatical zionist, and his purported peace activist role. He sure remains a fanatical zionist ! Here is what he says just before concluding his article :

"All over Israel, they are already talking about the "Next Round", the war that will at long last eliminate Hizbullah and punish it for besmirching our honor. That has become, so it seems, a self-evident matter. Even Haaretz treats it as such in its editorials."

Already a few days earlier, in an article published by the same zionism loving website, under the title, What the Hell has Happened to the Israeli Army? Avnery showed his true colours, the zionist colours. Here is what he says about the Israeli army :

"This war casts a dark shadow on the whole upper echelon of our army. I assume that there are some talented officers, but the general picture is of a senior officers corps that is mediocre or worse, grey and unoriginal. Almost all the many officers that have appeared on TV are unimpressive, uninspiring professionals, experts on covering their behinds, repeating empty clichés like parrots."

Avnery is not critical of the zionist army because it is an occupation army, an imperialist army, which has been perpetrating war crimes and crimes against humanity in Palestine and in Lebanon. He is merely concerned that "general picture is of a senior officers corps that is mediocre or worse, grey and unoriginal". How can anyone believe this same Uri Avnery when he presents himself as a "peace activist" ? He himself attempts to cover himself in the article as follows , but only to further sink into the zionist quagmire :

"We, as people of peace, have a great interest in changing the military leadership. First, because it has a huge impact on the forming of policy and, as we just saw, irresponsible commanders can easily drag the government into dangerous adventures. And second, because even after achieving peace we shall need an efficient army--at least until the wolf lies down with the lamb, as the prophet Isaiah promised."

Genuine people of peace do not support an imperialist army. Instead, they would change the entire regime which produces and maintains such an army. Change of the army officers would not make any difference, as the army would remain a zionist occupation army for as long as the zionist apartheid regime of Israel exists !

2006-08-09T21:46:00.000+10:00

MORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY
(article 29) by Benjamin Merhav

On the 1st of July, 2006 I posted my 25th article in this series under the title, More on the Deafening Silence from Noam Chomsky and his Cronies, regarding Present War Crimes by the Zionist Apartheid Regime of Israel,to expose his conspicuous yet not explained dodging of current zionist war crimes in Palestine, the Gaza Strip particularly. He himself would later admit the severity of those crimes by pointing to Israel's rulers plan behind them, namely, annihilate the Palestinian nation, yet he kept silent for over 3 long weeks. To this day Noam Chomsky has not written a single article to protest the current zionist crimes in Palestine and in Lebanon, horrendous crimes, perpetrated with unprecedented impunity by the zionist apartheid regime of Israel !

On the 27th of July Chomsky's website ( http://www.chomsky.info/whatsnew.htm ) published what purported to be a protest letter dated 19 July. It had no title other than "A letter from Chomsky and others on the recent events in the Middle East ", a sort of update on what Chomsky thinks about "events" in the Middle East, and that's all. Furthermore, he would later claim that it was not his letter, and that he had signed a letter authored by someone else. However, by then he and /or his cronies must have got wind of my articles, which exposed their dodge and apathy, because on the 3rd of August his website published a new letter on the same subject. This time the letter had a title : "War Crimes and Lebanon".

That title raises more questions - such as : war crimes by whom ? what about the zionist apartheid regime of Israel ? - questions which are added to those raised by the letter itself. Thus, for example, the letter describes the Qana massacre as a war crime. There were rather multiple zionist war crimes and zionist crimes against humanity perpetrated in Qana, not just the one war crime. The murder of each of the 34 children there was both a war crime and a crime against humanity as well, and the same applies, of course ,to the other Lebanese civilians murdered by the zionist bomb there. Also, this mass murder occured for the second time in the same village ! What's more, the very zionist invasion of Lebanon is the biggest war crime of all ! Why was there no mention of these facts in the letter ? Where is the protest ? This letter too has very feeble protest in it .

The only actual difference between this and the first letter is in the last paragraph which opens as follows : "We offer our solidarity and support to the victims of this brutality and to those who mount a resistance against it". In the first letter Chomsky described the zionist crimes in Lebanon as mere "provocations" and the Lebanese resistance as "counter provocations". Now this letter states the truth, namely, that the Lebanese resistance is mounted against the brutality of the aggressors, therefore justified and deserves solidarity and support. However, the terms zionism and the zionist apartheid regime of Israel are not there,whereas they should be, as they are the base and the essence of the war crimes both in Palestine and in Lebanon. The result is that this letter too can be regarded as a very feeble protest,and much less as solidarity with the victims of the current zionist war crimes in Palestine and in Lebanon.

Three days later a third letter was posted on Chomsky's website - a carbon copy of the previous one, except for the title. Chomsky replaced the title "war crimes in Lebanon" with "Lebanon solidarity letter".
However, what is worrying about this letter is that some Palestinian signatories were added to it, including the famous Palestinian poet : Mahmoud Darwish. Do Mahmoud Darwish and his mates agree with Chomsky that all those current military aggressions by Israel in Palestine and in Lebanon have got nothing to do with zionism nor with the zionist apartheid regime of Israel ? Do they accept Noam Chomsky as a friend, no matter how treacherous he has been to the Palestinian cause ? Or may be they themselves have turned pro-zionist too - have they ?

2006-07-27T12:53:00.000+10:00

MORE ON THE FAILURE OF NOAM CHOMSKY AND
HIS ZIONIST CABAL TO CONDEMN CURRENT ZIONIST WAR CRIMES AND ZIONIST CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY IN PALESTINE AND IN LEBANON
(article 28 in a series) by Benjamin Merhav

There are still some intellectuals ,who consider themselves Left oriented, following Noam Chomsky as their trusted guru. Not even reading the 27 articles in this series would have caused them to reconsider their admiration for this zionist bourgeois intellectual who has been masquerading as the anti-imperialist guru of the Left. Yet, nothing seems to be more persuasive than his reluctance to condemn the current war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated by the zionist apartheid regime of Israel in Palestine and in Lebanon. As I pointed out in my previous article in this series, Noam Chomsky purports to support the Palestinians and the Lebanese while in reality he is loyal to their zionist enemy. This has been his successful method of disguise among the Left (aided by zionist "criticism" too) over the years. Notice that the terms zionist racism, zionist war crimes, zionist crimes against humanity, and the zionist apartheid regime of Israel are not in his vocabulary. He does consider them, apparently, as relevant neither to the current zionist offensive against the Arab people of Palestine nor to the current zionist massacres of Lebanese Arabs.

We shall discuss later the implications of his more than 3 weeks silence on the matter, but let us first check his definitions. In his letter (with 9 others) he describes the zionist atrocities in Palestine and in Lebanon as "provocations"(see http://www.chomsky.info/whatsnew.htm ), and the Palestinian and Lebanese armed resistance as "counter-provocations",thus apportioning the blame for the bloodshed equally between the zionist aggressor and its victims. It does say that in Gaza the zionist army kidnapped two Palestinian civilians the day before the capture of the zionist soldier. Also, it does mention, as if by coincidence, what the real purpose of the zionist military aggression is, namely, the "liquidation of the Palestinian nation". The latter being in fact a very serious - and correct too ! - accusation which deserves far stronger protest than this miserable letter, because it is genocide perpetrated by the zionist apartheid regime of Israel. Does Noam Chomsky condone this genocide of the Palestinian nation ? If not ,why did he keep silent on the matter for such a long time ? He is certainly still not protesting now !

Further more now to the deafening silence from Chomsky and his zionist cabal before that letter. The zionist invasion of Gaza by tanks and bulldozers began on the 29th of June, and the capture of the Israeli soldier was four days earlier. However, the zionist assault on the Palestinian inhabitants of the Gaza Strip and of the West Bank began well before the capture of the soldier. From the historical perspective the zionist plans for genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Arab people of Palestine date back some 70 years ago. Their implementation began with the Deir Yassin massacre in 1947 and continued with the mass ethnic cleansing during the 1948 zionist war. However, when Chomsky refers to the current genocide he means the zionist attacks on the Palestinians following Hamas victory during the Palestinian elections in late January this year. So Noam Chomsky and his zionist cabal had some 6 months to contemplate their protest against the genocide, if he and his cronies ever wanted to protest. He chose silence instead, obviously, so as to keep his Left disguise intact while maintaining his loyalty to zionism.

To illustrate the kind of protest letter Noam Chomsky and his cronies could have publicised, had they been honest and sincere in their purported support for the Palestinian cause, the following letter could serve as a good example. Written by an Israeli woman it sounds sincere despite the omission of zionism and the zionist apartheid regime of Israel, and therefore could have suited even Noam Chomsky's zionist orientation ,had he been a honest person that is.

"I accuse you ! http://www.thecatsdream.com/blog/2006/07/did-you-know.htm

by Tsilli Goldenberg, Israeli citizen

I, Tsilli Goldenberg, Israeli citizen
Accuse you - Ehud Olmert, Prime Minister of Israel, Amir Peretz, Minister of Defense, Dan Halutz Head of Staff Chief Commander of the Israeli Army, of committing this bestial barbaric slaughter in Lebanon.

I accuse you of committing Crimes against Humanity towards the Palestinian People. I accuse you of deserting our soldiers, when their lives could be saved by negotiations, and I accuse you of starting an unjustified war in my name.

Haniya, Prime-minister of the Palestinian people, was willing to negotiate with us not only the return of P.O.W Gilaad Shalit, but a long term cease fire, that would enable people of Israel and Palestine SECURITY and Sanity. You refused.

Nasrallah was willing to negotiate the return of the soldiers kidnapped in the north. You refused.

Instead you have endangered the lives of hundreds of thousands of Israelis, you have caused the death of 27 Israelis, [till now], civilians and soldiers,
You have caused the mass murder of more than 350 Lebanese, many of them children, you have caused 500,000 Lebanese to be refugees, and you continue to murder and starve Palestinian children, just because they are living on their land.
The Palestinians are not my enemies, nor are the Lebanese. You, have become my enemy. And I will fight you, and so will many other sane people around the world.

Tsilli Goldenberg, Masarik 11, Jerusalem 93106 Israel"

Another example of protest for the Chomsky cabal is the following article by Jonathan Cook, the British journalist who lives in Israel, as follows :

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cook.php?articleid=9407
July 26, 2006
Five Myths That Sanction Israel's War Crimes
by Jonathan Cook

This week I had the pleasure to appear on American radio, on the Laura Ingraham show, pitted against David Horowitz, who most recently made his name under the banner of Campus Watch, leading McCarthyite witch-hunts against American professors who have the impertinence to suggest that maybe, just maybe, Arabs have minds and feelings like the rest of us.

It was a revealing experience, at least for a British journalist rarely exposed to the depths of ignorance and prejudice in the United States on Middle East matters – well, apart from the regular whackos who fill my e-mail in-tray. But five minutes of listening to Horowitz speak, and the sympathy with which his arguments were greeted by Laura ("The Professors – your book's a great read, David"), left me a lot more frightened about the world's future.

Horowitz's response to every question, every development in the Middle East, whether it concerns Lebanon, the Palestinians, Syria, or Iran, is the same: "They want to drive the Jews into the sea." It's as simple as that. Not even a superficial attempt at analysis; just the message that the Arab world is trying to finish off the genocide started by Europe. And if Laura is any yardstick, a lot of Americans buy that stuff.

Horowitz is keen to bang the square peg of the Lebanon story into the round hole of his claims that the Jews are facing an imminent genocide in the Middle East. And to help him, he and the massed ranks of U.S. apologists for Israel – regulars, I suspect, of shows like Laura's – are promoting at least four myths regarding Hezbollah's current rockets strikes on Israel. Unless they are challenged at every turn, the danger is that they will win the ground war against common sense in the U.S.

The first myth is that Israel was forced to pound Lebanon with its military hardware because Hezbollah began "raining down" rockets on the Galilee. Anyone with a short memory can probably recall this was not the first justification we were offered: that had to do with the two soldiers captured by Hezbollah on a border post on July 12.

But presumably Horowitz and his friends realized that 400 Lebanese dead and counting in little more than a week was hard to sell as a "proportionate" response. In any case, Hezbollah kept telling the world how keen it was to return the soldiers in a prisoner swap.

Hundreds of dead in Lebanon, at least 1,000 severely injured, and more than half a million refugees – all because Israel is not ready to sit down at the negotiating table. Even Horowitz could not "advocate for Israel" on that one.

So the chronology of war has been reorganized: now we are being told that Israel was forced to attack Lebanon to defend itself from the barrage of Hezbollah rockets falling on Israeli civilians. The international community is buying the argument hook, line, and sinker. "Israel has the right to defend itself," says every politician who can find a microphone to talk into.
But, if we cast our minds back, that is not how the "Middle East crisis," as TV channels now describe it, started. It is worth recapping those early events (and I won't document the long history of Lebanese suffering at Israel's hands that preceded it) before they become entirely shrouded in the mythology being peddled by Horowitz and others.

Early on July 12, Hezbollah launched a raid against an army border post, in what was in the best interpretation a foolhardy violation of Israeli sovereignty. In the fighting, the Shi'ite militia killed three soldiers and captured two others, while Hezbollah fired a few mortars at border areas in what the Israeli army described at the time as "diversionary tactics." As a result of the shelling, five Israelis were "lightly injured," with most needing treatment for shock, according to the Ha'aretz newspaper.

Israel's immediate response was to send a tank into Lebanon in pursuit of the Hezbollah fighters (its own foolhardy violation of Lebanese sovereignty). The tank ran over a land mine, which exploded, killing four soldiers inside. Another soldier died in further clashes inside Lebanon as his unit tried to retrieve the bodies.

Rather than open diplomatic channels to calm the violence down and start the process of getting its soldiers back, Israel launched bombing raids deep into Lebanese territory the same day. Given Israel's worldview that it alone has a right to project power and fear, that might have been expected.

But the next day Israel continued its rampage across the south and into Beirut, where the airport, roads, bridges, and power stations were pummeled. We now know from reports in the U.S. media that the Israeli army had been planning such a strike against Lebanon for at least a year.

In contrast to the image of Hezbollah frothing at the mouth to destroy Israel, its leader Hassan Nasrallah held off from serious retaliation. For the first day and a half, he limited his strikes to the northern borders areas, which have faced Hezbollah attacks in the past and are well protected.

He waited till late on June 13 before turning his guns on Haifa, even though we now know he could have targeted Israel's third largest city from the outset. A small volley of rockets directed at Haifa caused no injuries and looked more like a warning than an escalation.
It was another three days – days of constant Israeli bombardment of Lebanon, destroying the country and injuring countless civilians – before Nasrallah hit Haifa again, including a shell that killed eight workers in a railway depot.

No one should have been surprised. Nasrallah was doing exactly what he had threatened to do if Israel refused to negotiate and chose the path of war instead. Although the international media quoted his ominous televised message that "Haifa is just the beginning," Nasrallah in fact made his threat conditional on Israel's continuing strikes against Lebanon. In the same speech he warned: "As long as the enemy pursues its aggression without limits and red lines, we will pursue the confrontation without limits and red lines." Well, Israel did, and so now has Nasrallah.

The second myth is that Hezbollah's stockpile of 12,000 rockets – the Israeli army's estimate – poses an existential threat to Israel. According to Horowitz and others, Hezbollah collected its armory with the sole intent of destroying the Jewish state.
If this really was Hezbollah's intention in amassing the weapons, it has a very deluded view of what is required to wipe Israel off the map. More likely, it collected the armory in the hope that it might prove a deterrence – even if a very inadequate one, as Lebanon is now discovering – against a repeat of Israel's invasions of 1978 and 1982, and the occupation that lasted nearly two decades afterwards.

In fact, according to other figures supplied by the Israeli army, at least 2,000 Hezbollah rockets have already been fired into Israel while the army's bombardments have so far destroyed a further 2,000 rockets. In other words, northern Israel has already received a fifth of Hezbollah's arsenal. As someone living in the north, and within range of the rockets, I have to say Israel does not look close to being expunged. The Galilee may be emptier, as up to a third of Israeli Jews seek temporary refuge in the south, but Israel's existence is in no doubt at all.

The third myth is that, while Israel is trying to fight a clean war by targeting only terrorists, Hezbollah prefers to bring death and destruction on innocents by firing rockets at Israeli civilians.
It is amazing that this myth even needs exploding, but after the efforts of Horowitz and co. it most certainly does. As the civilian death toll in Lebanon has rocketed, international criticism of Israel has remained at the mealy-mouthed level of diplomatic requests for "restraint" and "proportionate responses."

One need only cast a quick eye over the casualty figures from this conflict to see that if Israel is targeting only Hezbollah fighters it has been making disastrous miscalculations. So far some 400 Lebanese civilians are reported dead – unfortunately for Horowitz's story, at least a third of them are children. From the images coming out of Lebanon's hospitals, many more children have survived but with terrible burns or disabling injuries.
The best estimates, though no one knows for sure, are that Hezbollah deaths are not yet close to the three-figures range.

In the latest emerging news from Lebanon, human rights groups are accusing Israel of violating international law and using cluster grenades, which kill indiscriminately. There are reports too, so far unconfirmed, that Israel has been firing illegal incendiary bombs.

Conversely, the breakdown of the smaller number of deaths of Israelis at the hands of Hezbollah – 42 at the time of writing – show that more soldiers have been killed than civilians.
In fact, although no one is making the point, Hezbollah's rockets have been targeted overwhelming at strategic locations: the northern economic hub of Haifa, its satellite towns, and the array of military sites across the Galilee.

Nasrallah seems fully aware that Israel has an impressive civil defense program of shelters that keep most civilians out of harm's way. Unlike Horowitz, I won't presume to read Nasrallah's mind: whether he wants to kill large numbers of Israeli civilians or not cannot be known, given his inability to do so.

But we can see from the choice of the sites he is striking that his primary goal is to give Israelis a small taste of the disruption of normal life that is being endured by the Lebanese. He has effectively closed Haifa for more than a week, shutting its port and financial centers. Israeli TV is speaking increasingly of the damage being inflicted on the country's economy.

Because of Israel's press censorship laws, it is impossible to discuss the locations of Israel's military installations. But Hezbollah's rockets are accurate enough to show that many are intended for the army's sites in the Galilee, even if they are rarely precise enough to hit them.
It is obvious to everyone in Nazareth, for example, that the rockets landing close by, and once on, the city over the past week are searching out, and some have fallen extremely close to, the weapons factory sited near us.

Hezbollah seems to have as little concern for the collateral damage of civilian deaths as Israel – each wants the balance of terror in its favor – but it is nonsense to suggest that Hezbollah's goals are any more ignoble than Israel's. It is trying to dent the economy of northern Israel in retaliation for Israel's total destruction of the Lebanese economy. Equally, it is trying to show Israel that it knows where its military installations are to be found. Both strategies appear to be having an impact, even if a minor one, on weakening Israeli resolve.

The fourth myth is a continuation of the third: Hezbollah has been endangering the lives of ordinary Lebanese by hiding among noncombatants.

We have seen this kind of dissembling by Israel and Horowitz before, though not repeated so enthusiastically by Western officials. The UN head of humanitarian affairs, Jan Egeland, who is in the region, accused Hezbollah of "cowardly blending" among the civilian population, and a similar accusation was leveled by the British Foreign Minister Kim Howells when he arrived in Israel.

In 2002, Israel made the same charge: that Palestinians resisting its army's rampage through the refugee camps of the West Bank were hiding among civilians. The claim grew louder as more Palestinian civilians showed the irritating habit of getting in the way of Israeli strikes against population centers. The complaints reached a crescendo when at least two dozen civilians were killed in Jenin as Israel razed the camp with Apache helicopters and Caterpillar bulldozers.
The implication of Egeland's cowardly statement seems to be that any Lebanese fighter, or Palestinian one, resisting Israel and its powerful military should stand in an open field, his rifle raised to the sky, waiting to see who fares worse in a shoot-out with an Apache helicopter or F-16 fighter jet. Hezbollah's reluctance to conduct the war in this manner, we are supposed to infer, is proof that they are terrorists.

Egeland and Howells need reminding that Hezbollah's fighters are not aliens recently arrived from training camps in Iran, whatever Horowitz claims. They belong to and are strongly supported by the Shi'ite community, nearly half the country's population, and many other Lebanese. They have families, friends, and neighbors living alongside them in the country's south and the neighborhoods of Beirut who believe Hezbollah is the best hope of defending their country from Israel's regular onslaughts.

Given the indigenous nature of Hezbollah's resistance, we should not be surprised at the lengths the Shi'ite militia is going to ensure their loved ones, and the Lebanese people more generally, are not put directly in danger by their combat.
If only the same could be said of the Israeli army and air force. One need only look at the images of the victims of its strikes against residential neighborhoods, cars, ambulances, and factories to see why most of the dead being extracted from the rubble are civilians.

And finally, there is a fifth myth I almost forgot to mention. That people like David Horowitz only want to tell us the truth…"

2006-07-24T13:15:00.000+10:00

MORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY
(article 27) by Benjamin Merhav

It took Noam Chomsky some 3 weeks to break his silence on the current zionist atrocities in Palestine and in Lebanon. In a letter by himself and nine others titled,
A letter from Chomsky and others on the recent events in the Middle East (July 19, 2006), http://www.chomsky.info/whatsnew.htm , he does express his disagreement with Israel's violence in Gaza and in Lebanon. He calls it "outrage" and "provocations", and he calls the Palestinian and Lebanese defensive actions "counter provocations".

If this letter is supposed to be a protest letter - it is very feeble protest indeed ! Mind you, the end of the letter reminds its readers that Israel's purpose is nothing less than "divert world attention from a long-term military, economic and geographic practice whose political aim is nothing less than the liquidation of the Palestinian nation." Previously, during his debate on democracynow.org, http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/14/146258 , he stated that "...(Israel's) constant intense repression; plenty of abductions; plenty of atrocities in Gaza; the steady takeover of the West Bank, which, in effect, if it continues, is just the murder of a nation, the end of Palestine..."

Repeat : "the murder of a nation", "liquidation of the Palestinian nation", "the end of Palestine". By whom ? By the zionist apartheid regime of Israel, of course. So where is the Chomsky protest against this regime, and against the zionist ideology which drives it ? The plain truth is that Chomsky does not oppose the zionist apartheid regime of Israel, nor is he against zionism. Therefore, the inevitable conclusion must be that because he is a zionist, by refusing to protest against this racist and fascist regime he has been, and continues to be, aiding and abetting the "the murder of a nation, the end of Palestine" !

Similarly, Chomsky's attitude to the Lebanese resistance to the zionist aggressions and war crimes against Lebanon is as treacherous as Chomsky can be. Ostensibly, he is opposed to the zionist war on Lebanon, but in reality he is on the side of the zionist war criminals. This is the same Noam Chomsky who, only a few weeks ago, visited Lebanon and declared to the leaders of Hezbollah there that he supports their determination not to be disarmed. He was therefore embraced as a friend by them. Now he says that Hezbollah's ambush of Israel's tanks on the border - as an act of solidarity with the suffering Palestinians in Gaza - was "very irresponsible act. It subjects Lebanese to possible -- certainly to plenty of terror and possible extreme disaster." (see his comments on democracynow.org, http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/14/146258 ).

In other words , the reality is that not only is Chomsky not protesting the zionist crimes in Lebanon and in Palestine, he is actually helping the zionists ! By apportioning the blame for the war in Lebanon equally between the zionist aggressors and its Lebanese victims he is helping the zionist apartheid regime of Israel. The only remaining question is why did the other 9 signatories add their names to this miserable letter too ? Do they too consider the Palestinian and Lebanese defence against the current zionist aggression and war crimes as mere "counter provocations" ?

2006-07-15T13:50:00.000+10:00

MORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY
(article 26) by Benjamin Merhav

For two long weeks Noam Chomsky and his cronies kept silent about the current war crimes against the Arab people of Palestine by the zionist apartheid regime of Israel, and its crimes against humanity, particularly in the Gaza Strip. The first Chomsky crony to have broken that silence is Tanya Reinhart in her article, The IDF is Hungry for War
What Are They Fighting For? It was published in this weekend edition (14/17 of July) of counterpunch.org . However, although she broke the silence, she did not breach the Chomsky cabal's loyalty to zionism, as we shall see later in this article.

Noam Chomsky himself is still silent, but the events forced him out of his dodge to be interviewed by the media on the subject. Under the long title, Noam Chomsky: U.S.-Backed Israeli Policies Pursuing "End of Palestine"; Hezbollah Capture of Israeli Soldiers "Very Irresponsible Act" That Could Lead To "Extreme Disaster", democracynow.org published on 14 July the interview with him on the subject
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/14/146258 .

In both cases, that of Tanya Reinhart and that of her guru ( she is very proud to have done her PHD in linguistics under his supervision, and ever since then her politics too) ,there is no condemnation of the zionist apartheid regime of Israel, much less of zionism. Instead, they both continue their pretence to uphold Palestinian rights and to oppose their oppression, while maintainig their zionist loyalty. In her case, at least, she would have a "good reason" for not opposing zionism, as she would risk losing her lucrative job at the University of Tel-Aviv in doing so. Also both Chomsky and Reinhart do not condemn the current atrocities perpetrated by the zionist army in Palestine and in Lebanon as war crimes (which is how they were defined even by a UN report) and crimes against humanity, and this too points to their unswerving loyalty to zionism and to the zionist apartheid regime of Israel.

Noam Chomsky and his cronies consider themselves as "liberal" or "left wing" zionists
( despite their reluctance to admit publicly their loyalty to zionism ), but this is a contradiction in terms. Can anyone be a "left wing" fascist, or "liberal fascist" ? Of course not, and the same answer applies to zionism too. There has been a debate between zionists and fanatical zionists, but it only concerns the best way to implement the zionist ambitions. Thus, for example, the present Olmert goverment is made up of fanatical zionists, namely, fanatical fascists. It follows the methods,guidline and policies similar to those of the Hitler regime of fascist Germany. So much so that some zionists oppose it too, including a former Israeli airforce pilot who recently called for international sanctions to be imposed on Israel. Noam Chomsky and Tanya Reinhart are yet to agree to such sanctions !

In her article Tanya Reinhart blames the army of the zionist apartheid regime of Israel , rather than the regime itself, and its zionist ideology, for the current zionist atrocities in the Gaza Strip. However, the army, like the armies of all states, is the instrument of the regime. Its actions follow the orders of the government, although the army chiefs are as responsible for the war crimes as the government heads. Tanya Reinhart and Noam Chomsky ignore that because they do not want to give up their loyalty to the regime and to zionism !

2006-07-01T22:44:00.000+10:00

MORE ON THE DEAFENING SILENCE FROM NOAM CHOMSKY AND HIS CRONIES, REGARDING PRESENT WAR CRIMES AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY BY THE ZIONIST APARTHEID REGIME OF ISRAEL (article 25),
by Benjamin Merhav

Mr. Michael D. Higgins, the President of the Labour Party in Ireland, in an article published by electronicintifada.net, 30 June, 2006, under the title, Deafening Silence from Ireland and the European Union on Arrest of Elected Politicians and Incursions into Gaza Condemned, is not silent in regard to the current zionist crimes in Palestine. Noam Chomsky and his zionist cabal are silent, and their silence is deafening too !

In the past ,whenever Chomsky & cronies would criticise policies of any Israeli goverment/politicians they would carefully avoid implicating the zionist apartheid regime of Israel. Why ? Because they are zionists. However, the current zionist war crimes in Palestine are manifestations of zionist impunity at its worst, therefore very hard to ignore. So they have chosen silence instead. However,in doing so, they not only expose their loyalty to zionism, they forfeit any claim to humanistic principles which they purported to follow too !

Here is the most recent UN report regarding the current situation in the Gaza Strip as a direct result of the current zionist invasion and attack on the entire civilian population there :

"EMERGENCY SITREP -
Gaza StripWFP occupied Palestinian territory (oPt)
Operation: PRRO 10387
Reporting period: 29-30th June 2006
Date of the report: 30th June 2006 Gaza caseload: 160,000 beneficiaries out of a total population of 436,800 non refugees.

1. Security: The Israeli military operation "summer rain" continues in Gaza. Aerial attacks, artillery and sonic blasts continued through another long night affecting the whole populaiton.· There has been further destruction of essential infrastructure connecting Northern areas from Gaza City (Salahadeen road) consolidating the divisions already made through bridge destruction in earlier days. There are unconfirmed reports that a power station in Middle area and a electricity distribution network in Northern Gaza were also hit last night.

2. Staff: As it is Friday no-one is in the WFP Gaza office today however all have been contacted and are safe. WFP Security officer entered Gaza today.

3. Impact:WFP is extremely concerned about the humanitarian impact of the current Israeli military offensive on the civilian population in Gaza against the already critical backdrop of a serious humanitarian crisis in the territory. Electricity is being divided throughout the strip in rotation. It is not available in all areas. Where it is available, it is for only 6-10 hours per day with a break of 10-12 hours in between. It is unpredictable which means that there is overuse of generators and excessive use of fuel. People are starting to reduce their fuel consumption now. Impact of power cuts/fuel shortages/closures on food security: Karni terminal was consecutively closed for 2 weeks even before the offensive started. Owing the closures, no dairy or meat products are entering Gaza. Fish stocks are running low owing to a 4th consecutive day of fishing closures. There is a high rate of loss of perishable goods (vegetables, dairy products, meat, eggs, poultry and fish) as refrigeration capacity – essential in the current Gaza heat – is unreliable.· Vegetable availability is being affected by access to land. Productivity is also being affected by water and electricity shortages. Overheads are increasing due to transport (fuel) costs and shortages. This is all resulting in vegetable price rises. Fruits are in even shorter supply and few people have the purchasing power to buy them. Water remains a key issue. Electricity is essential for pumping water (and sewage). Rural areas rely on Generators for access to water and are strongly affected by fuel shortages. Filtered water (suitable for drinking) costs around 0.2 USD per 10 Litres- this is still too costly for the poorest families.· Social institutions (supported by WFP) have limited fuel and water supplies. SOS Rafah (children’s home) has fuel for 2 days and relies on fuel to pump water and prepare food.· Bakeries: WFP did a quick survey of bakeries stocks – they have around 2-3 days of fuel left on average. Many are working at reduced hours but have adapted their staff to increase productivity during those available hours. Water is also an essential ingredient of bread.· Wheat Flour mills are reliant on fuel to power the generators to grind the wheat grain to bread. While they have 22 days of wheat grain stocks, this means nothing unless the wheat grain can be ground to flour and cooked into food that can be eaten.· Market survey of basic commodities: There is a shortage of sugar and wheat flour in shops. Some people are stockpiling wheat flour, others cannot afford to. There has been almost a 10% rise in prices of wheat flour, sugar, rice and oil over the last 20 days linked to the closure of Karni and increased transportation/fuel costs resulting from the destruction of infrastructure. Milk prices have increased by 12% and there is a shortage in hospitals and children’s centres.

4. Logistics- Stocks:· WFP emergency stock in the Karni warehouse is equivalent to 10 days supply to our caseload.

5. Interagency Planning / Coordination:· The Interagency meeting was held at Heads of Agencies level to discuss the humanitarian impacts affecting the population. Fuel was identified as a key issue as there are only (as of 30.06.06) 2-3 days of fuel stocks left in Gaza and it has an impact on all sectors.

6. Future plans/ concerns:· A humanitarian corridor is essential to bring relief items into Gaza. There is currently no means to bring essential items into Gaza.· WFP is extremely concerned of the combined humanitarian impacts of a deterioration in health, water supplies and food access on the entire population. The poorest people and vulnerable groups reliant on social services were already in a dire situation before the military offensive. Their situation is now becoming critical as in some 2-3 days time the effects of the combined loss of fuel and power will start to have grave consequences on the population. "

The declared aim of the current zionist invasion is to force the Palestinian resistance to hand over a captured soldier to the zionist apartheid regime. This by itself is the worst form of collective punishment, which is a war crime according to the Fourth Geneva Convention, as well as a violation of other international law instruments. The abduction and arrest of Palestinian government ministers, and other Palestinian people, and the murder of 2 Palestinians and wounding of dozens of others aggravate further the war crimes by the zionist apartheid regime of Israel. The time is indeed overdue for this racist regime to be disbanded, as it is far worse than the former apartheid regime of South Africa.

DOWN WITH THE ZIONIST APARTHEID REGIME OF ISRAEL NOW !

2006-06-24T15:39:00.001+10:00

MORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY
(article 24) , by Benjamin Merhav

The news about Noam Chomsky's visit to Lebanon, and the friendly welcome extended to him by no other than the Hizbollah leaders there, might have misled people (including some Palestinian and other Arab people) into the wrong conclusions regarding this zionist bourgeois intellectual. Furthermore, if that visit to Lebanon was not enough to exonerate him in the eyes of other vacillating people, then his subsequent statement, purporting to support Iran against the USA, would have done the trick. The issue in regard to Iran concerns nuclear weapons, of course, and this would have been an excellent opportunity for Chomsky to expose and condemn the zionist apartheid regime of Israel for its production and deployment of nuclear weapons and other WMD, but he deliberately missed this opportunity, and did not condemn the racist regime.
In three previous articles in this series - articles 7,8,and 20 ( see http://treacheryof.blogspot.com/2006/04/more-on-treachery-of-noam-chomsky.html ,and www.benmerhav.blogspot.com ) - I have dealt with Chomsky's conspicuous silence on Israel's nuclear bombs arsenal. Not only did he not condemn Israel's 45 years of nuclear bombs production, he openly supported it ,as I have pointed out in article 20 in this series, when he declared that Israel would use its nuclear weapons to prevent any imposition of the Palestinian refugees' right of return (which he, Chomsky, has been opposed to its implementation too !). If this is not enough to prove Noam Chomsky's loyalty to zionism and to the zionist apartheid regime of Israel, then there are more issues on which he persistently has taken the zionist side (see all the other articles in this series), but his stand on the nuclear issue is the most outrageous one !
Chomsky's most recent game of false pretences regarding the nuclear bombs issue is manifested again in his article titled, Solution in Sight, http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20060623.htm
and it sheds light on other issues where his treachery is manifested too ! He begins his article by stating that "The urgency of halting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and moving toward their elimination, could hardly be greater." However, nowhere in the article is there any mention of Israel's nuclear bombs arsenal, much less in regard to its elimination.
The article then states that during 2003 "the reformist government of Mohammad Khatami proposed "an agenda for a diplomatic process that was intended to resolve on a comprehensive basis all of the bilateral differences between the United States and Iran", but it was rejected by the USA. In particular, Noam Chomsky laments the rejection of the "two states solution" in Palestine, which was included, according to Noam Chomsky, in that proposal By Khatami. Why does he lament it ? Because it would have legitimised forever the zionist apartheid regime of Israel ! This is the major concern of Noam Chomsky, namely, the preservation of zionism and of the zionist apartheid regime of Israel !
To close this article let us return to its beginning. Can Noam Chomsky be regarded as an anti-imperialist intellectual following his purported support for Hizbollah, as well as his pretence to support Iran's access to nuclear energy ? The answer is no. To be regarded as genuine in the cases of Hizbollah and Iran Noam Chomsky had to denounce zionism and the zionist apartheid regime of Israel first . He did not , because he is a zionist. No zionist can be regarded as anti-imperialist , because zionism and the zionist apartheid regime of Israel serve as the spearhead for USA imperialism, and the zionist apartheid regime of Israel has got its own imperialist ambitions too !

2006-05-07T23:48:00.000+10:00

MORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY
(article 23) by Benjamin Merhav

The Noam Chomsky love affair with the comprador ruling class of South Korea should have made by now the top headlines in the world's news media, but it didn't. This is not because of disregard for Noam Chomsky ( who has been the prodigy of the bourgeois media in the West for many years now ), rather because of its effort to suppress the very important news about the recent heroic struggles of the South Korean people against USA imperialism. Even the following press release by Amnesty International was ignored by that media :

"AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
PRESS RELEASE

AI Index: ASA 25/001/2006 (Public)
News Service No: 067
17 March 2006
South Korea: Elderly farmers forcibly evicted for US army base

Several human rights activists are being detained after protesting at the forced eviction by riot police of elderly villagers in Pyongtaek, in the north west of South Korea. Their village is subject to an eviction order to allow for the expansion of a neighbouring US army base, Camp Humphreys.

The residents of Daechuri village, mostly farmers in their 60s and 70s, suffered bloodied noses and were pushed over while resisting the latest eviction attempt on 15 March and during an earlier attempt to evict them on 6 March. They say the compensation offered will not be enough to buy equivalent land elsewhere and their livelihoods are at stake.

"Most of these villagers are very old and it is distressing to hear of force being used against them," said Rajiv Narayan, East Asia researcher at Amnesty International. "Given their age, the police should take special care to ensure they are not hurt and to allow prompt medical treatment if they are -- which does not appear to have been the case so far."

Several protesters were arrested on 15 March, including prominent human rights activist Park Lae-goon of Sarangbang Group for Human Rights and Cho Baek-ki of the Catholic Human Rights Committee. Park Lae-goon was arrested while sitting in front of the village school; Cho Baek-ki was trying to stop a forklift truck being used in the evictions. Both men are still detained in local police stations, charged with preventing government officials carrying out orders.

"The government must release all those detained for peacefully protesting against these forced evictions," said Rajiv Narayan.

A consultation carried out before the eviction did not result in the farmers' concerns being taken into account, and appeared to be mainly for show, according to those protesting the eviction. Protesters have complained that the Ministry of National Defence, which initiated the request for an eviction order, acted unilaterally in deciding on an eviction deadline and was not prepared to listen to the needs of the residents."

"Any eviction on the current terms would leave the farmers in an extremely vulnerable position with few opportunities to make a living," said Rajiv Narayan. "We urge the government to carry out a fresh consultation. It should ensure the villagers are not left homeless and give them reasonable compensation and alternative farming land close to their new homes."

There were reports of at least 50 police buses being present during the forced evictions, but it was not clear how many riot police officers were deployed to evict the residents of Daechuri, who number over 1,000. Protesters requested ambulances when some of the elderly villagers were injured after being pushed to the ground, but the riot police ignored their request.

Background

In December 2004 the Korean government planned to give an extra 2,851 acres to the US Army base Camp Humphreys in Kyonggi province. In December 2005 the government's Land Expropriation Committee approved the 'imminent domain' seizure of the village of Daechuri, a move which made the farmers' existence on their land illegal.

After a consultation led by the Ministry of National Defence, the residents of Daechuri were offered a lump sum in compensation, determined on a low estimation of the value of their land. The area is reclaimed from tidal flats, meaning the land price was already low compared to other farming areas. It would be almost impossible to buy equivalent areas of land for subsistence farming with the lump sum offered.

In February 2006 a national campaign protesting the forced eviction of the farmers was launched. For more information, please see http://www.geocities.com/savePTfarmers/home."

The campaign against the evictions began in February 2006, and there have been several attempts by South Korean police and military to forcibly evict the farmers in the villages/towns of the Pyongtaek region since then. Each brutal attempt failed, as it met heroic resistance by the local farmers and other Korean people who came to their aid. The last and most massive and brutal attack by the South Korean police and military occured only a few days ago (see the full report on www.saveptfarmers.org ) resulting in many farmers injured and hundreds of arrests. However, the camopaign against USA imperialism in South Korea is not confined to that particular region, as the demand is for complete withdrawal of all USA troops from South Korea. Here is the relevant statement :
from http://www.g2mil.com/korea.htm

" When Pentagon officials talk about the need to maintain a "two-war" capability, they often refer to Korea. This is absurd since South Korea can crush North Korea without American help. North Korea’s million-man army may look impressive on paper, but remember that Iraq had a million-man army, which also had modern equipment, combat experience, and plenty of fuel.
In contrast, North Korean soldiers suffer from malnutrition and rarely train due to a scarcity of fuel and ammo. Most North Korean soldiers could not attack because they are needed to defend the entire DMZ and coastal approaches (they remember the 1950 landing at Inchon) while entire divisions must remain throughout North Korea to fend off heliborne offensives, food riots, and probable coups.

On the other hand, the entire 700,000 man South Korean active duty army can be devoted to the defense of Seoul. The modern South Korean army is backed by over 5,000,000 well-trained reservists who can be called to duty in hours. South Korea has twice the population of the North, thirty times its economic power, and spends three times more on its military each year. South Korean military equipment is first class whereas most of the North Korean military equipment is over 30 years old and much is inoperable due to a lack of maintenance. If war broke out, South Korea has a massive industrial capacity and $94 billion in foreign currency reserves to sustain a war, while North Korea has no industryand no money. As a result, South Korea is roughly five times more powerful than North Korea.

If North Korea insanely attacked, the South Koreans would fight on mountainous and urban terrain which heavily favors defense, and complete air superiority would shoot up anything the North Koreans put on the road. Assuming the North Koreans could start up a thousand of their old tanks and armored vehicles, they cannot advance through the mountainous DMZ. The South Koreans have fortified, mined, and physically blocked all avenues through these
mountains, and it would take North Korean infantry and engineers weeks to clear road paths while under fire.

The North Korean military could gain a few thousand meters with human wave assaults into minefields and concrete fortifications. However, these attacks would bog down from heavy casualties, and a lack of food and ammo resupply. Fighting would be bloody as thousands of South Korean and American troops and civilians suffer from North Korean artillery and commando attacks. Nevertheless, the North Korean army would be unable to
breakthrough or move supplies forward. Even if North Korea magically broke through, all military analysts scoff at the idea that the North Koreans could bridge large rivers or move tons of supplies forward while under attack from American airpower.

It is important to remember that the last Korean war involved Chinese forces supported by North Koreans with the latest Soviet equipment and supplies. China and Russia no longer aid North Korea and trade openly with South Korea. Thousands of Chinese soldiers guard the Yalu River to prevent crossings by starving North Koreans. North Korean soldiers no longer train for war, but spend most hours harvesting crops, while their old aircraft and ancient
tanks sit idle from a lack of fuel and parts. In 1999, Lt. Gen. Patrick Hughes, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told Congress that discipline in the North Korean army had collapsed, and that refugees report soldiers stealing food at gun point. Nighttime satellite pictures reveal few lights in the North because of a lack of electricity.

Even if North Korea employs a few crude nuclear weapons, using them would be suicidal since it would invite instant retaliation from the United States. North Korea lacks the technical know-how to build an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, despite the hopes and lies from the National Missile Defense proponents in the USA. North Korea's industrial production is almost zero, over two million people have starved in recent years, and millions of homeless
nomads threaten internal revolution.

The US military ignores this reality and retains old plans for the deployment of 450,000 GIs to help defend South Korea, even though the superior South Korean military can halt any North Korean offensive without help from a singleAmerican soldier. American forces are not even required for a counter-offensive. A North Korean attack would stall after a few intense days and South Korean forces would soon be in position to overrun North Korea. American air
and naval power along with logistical and intelligence support would ensure the rapid collapse of the North Korean army.

However, South Korean leaders would be distressed about economic losses and the cost of occupying the North. They would have little incentive to overrun North Korea quickly if 450,000 free spending American GIs with billions of dollars in American military aid were on the way. Rather than quickly overrunning the North, South Korean leaders
may demobilize some units to restart its economy. Hopefully, Americans will realize that something is wrong when infantrymen from Kansas are deployed to invade North Korea while infantrymen from Seoul are sent home. Perhaps they will recall the logic of President Lyndon Johnson who said in 1964 that he was "not about to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing themselves." If South Koreans
are unwilling to defend their nation from poverty stricken cousins from the North, why should Americans defend them? The USA imports no vital resources from Korea; the consumer items imported from South Korea are readily available elsewhere."

Chinese participation is extremely unlikely since China is busy with its free enterprise transformation while ensuring domestic tranquility. In fact, stopping thousands of starving North Korean refugees from crossing their border has become a major problem, although the Chinese refuse to spend any of their billions of dollars in US trade surpluses to purchase food for their old ally. Korea has no natural resources which interest China, and Chinese support would cause a major war with powerful South Korea, the United States, and probably Japan and Taiwan. On the other hand, a prosperous Korea provides a buffer against China’s traditional enemy - Japan.

The US Army must adapt to the end of the Cold War in Asia and stop wasting millions of dollars on new military construction projects in Korea. Second, the North Koreans have stated that the 37,000 American troops must go before peace talks can progress. (Imagine how South Korea would feel if 37,000 Russian troops were based in North Korea.) Many South Koreans know that American troops are no longer needed and anti-American base protests are common.

The United States must support peace efforts by announcing that 17,000 soldiers will withdraw from South Korea within two years. The US Army could move the headquarters for the 2nd Infantry Division and one combat brigade to Washington State to join two combat brigades at Fort Lewis to form a solid combat-ready division near Pacific ports. This would allow the US Army to close several camps in Korea, which would eliminate several thousand military and civilian base support billets, and save millions of dollars each year from base operations and overseas shipments. Pulling 17,000 soldiers from Korea will also increase
morale and readiness since most Korea positions are filled with one-year unaccompanied tours.

This would leave one combat brigade in Korea, which could become part of the 25th Infantry Division in Hawaii. This brigade and two US Air Force wings could remain as a symbolic presence of 20,000 American troops until a peace agreement is formalized. The billions of dollars saved could be used to improve Army readiness and the thousands of support personnel freed could fill gaps in other units. Army Generals may dispute savings by pointing to the $333 million a year in "burden sharing" by the South Korean government. However, not one penny of this money is paid to the US military, but goes to Koreans for land rent and some base services.

If the US military pulled 17,000 soldiers out of Korea, there is no reason why this contribution must shrink. South Korea spends less of it’s GDP on its military each year than the United States. The US Army has complained about maintaining Patriot missile batteries and Apache attack helicopters in South Korea; a burden it imposed on itself in1994. Meanwhile, South Korea has refused to purchase these advanced weapons with the billions of dollars in
annual trade surpluses with the United States. If South Korea is truly concerned about the North Korean threat, it has the resources to expand its military and buy the latest military equipment from the United States.

The Center for Defense Information estimates that US military business injects almost $5 billion a year into the South Korean economy. Shifting some of this activity to Fort Lewis would spur economic activity in Washington State. Closing unneeded overseas bases is far cheaper than domestic bases and the economic impact is actually positive as spending shifts to American communities. However, this will be opposed in Washington DC as lobbyists
representing Korea and certain corporations politic to keep "their" bases open, and by Army Generals seeking toretain an outdated mission.

The chance of a Korean war is extremely unlikely. North Korean leaders realize they have no hope of success without major backing from China or Russia. The previous South Korean President, Kim Dae Jung, encouraged peace and visited North Korea. The two countries are reconnecting rail lines and sent a combined team to the Olympics. Even the United States is providing $500 million dollars a year in food to the starving North Koreans. The
new South Korean President, Roh-Moo-hyun was elected on a peace platform and suggested US troops may be gone within ten years.

It may take many years for the two Koreas to unite, meanwhile the USA can contribute to peace and save billions of dollars by starting a withdrawal of forces. The US Army can increase its ability to deploy expeditionary forces in Asia by cutting infrastructure in Korea and forming a solid division at Fort Lewis. The USA already has a huge logistical infrastructure in Japan, Hawaii and Guam, it doesn't need bases in Korea. American forces should continue
to train with South Korea, but the $5 billion a year military base subsidy to South Korea must end. Unfortunately, lying about the Korean situation has become a cornerstone of the Pentagon's effort to boost military spending beyond Cold War levels."

2006-05-05T00:23:00.000+10:00

MORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY
(article 22) by Benjamin Merhav

In my previous article in this series we have seen how Noam Chomsky won the praise of the zionist Jerusalem Post as well as that of the military hierarchy at USA military academy, West Point, where Noam Chomsky is regarded as a "Distinguished Lecturer". Before that, in article 13 this series ( www.benmerhav.blogspot.com ) we have seen the praise heaped on him by the official website of the reactionary government of South Korea, which announced that "The Korean Society for Chomsky Studies held its launching ceremony and first academic conference at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies in eastern Seoul on Saturday(Nov. 12)."
To the illinformed observer such news items regarding Chomsky's political loyalty would come as a surprise, wouldn't they ? Is then Chomsky a zionist, pro-imperialist, bourgeois intellectual mole implanted at the centre of the Left worldwide ? The answer is YES, and it comes from Noam Chomsky himself !
Today's online issue of The Korea Herald, the largest English newspaper in South Korea, carries a brief report by Lee Ik-hoon who " is adjunct professor of Hanyang University and runs a language institute in Seoul". Titled, "Chomsky: Lighthouse of Human Intellect", the report goes on to reveal the following brief exchange between the reporter/interviewer and Noam Chomsky, http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/SITE/data/html_dir/2006/05/04/200605040014.asp :
"Chomsky, considered a leftist intellectual, attached little meaning to the ideological categorization.
"What's the difference between leftist and rightist? It is of little importance," said the professor who has long expressed interest in human rights issues and criticized American policies on conflicts in Indonesia and East Timor."
Let's read this again : "What's the difference between leftist and rightist? It is of little importance," said the professor." Any school child knows that there are a very important differences between genuine "leftists" and the rightists. Whereas the latter would support the status quo, namely, the rule and oppression by imperialists, zionists and other fascists, the Left is on the side of the victims : oppressed nations, oppressed classes. This is basic knowledge, derived from basic facts of life !
The origin of the political terms "Right", "Left" dates back to the French revolution, more than 200 years ago, and they are not necessarily the best definitions of the two enemy camps. Thus, for example, the word right has got a positive meaning, which has no place inside
fascist ,racist or imperialist regimes. However, everybody knows that genuine leftists are on the side of the working class, on the side of the struggle of oppressed nations, and against environmental degradation by transnational corporations. In a word, the Left represent the interests of humanity, while the Right represents the a small section of humanity driven by avarice and lust for political power.
Noam Chomsky knows the facts, but he has been playing a game of deceit, namely, purporting to act as if he has been the guru of the Left while in actual fact being loyal to zionism and to imperialism. This sudden love affair of Noam Chomsky with the ruling class of South Korea, a country which has been the de-facto colony of the USA since the Korean war in the early 50s, does expose him as the fraud that he has been in reality.

2006-04-28T23:26:00.000+10:00

MORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY
(article 21)
by Benjamin Merhav

April 22, 2006

Those on the Left who have opposed Noam Chomsky's loyalty to zionism, but still trusted him as an "anti-imperialist intellectual", would have to find for him a new excuse if they would still insist on trusting this zionist bourgeois intellectual. The following journalists' reports expose Noam Chomsky for what he is in reality : a zionist and a supporter of USA imperialism, and they both come from the enemy's own mouth, namely, from an Israeli daily paper run by fanatical zionists, and from a New York paper reporting from West Point Military Academy. Let us start with the zionist report, and follow up with the report from West Point.Under the title, "Noam Chomsky, Champion of Israel?", a former military reporter for The Jerusalem Post opens his report on Chomsky in the 22nd April issue of the same zionist paper as follows :
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1143498893816&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%

"Noam Chomsky, champion of Israel?
By ERIK SCHECHTER

What do Noam Chomsky and the neocons have in common? They both stand accused of protecting the enormously powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington from legitimate criticism. That's right, hell has frozen over. Professor Chomsky - the far-left MIT linguist who has consistently (and often quite viciously) criticized Israel since the early 1970s - is apparently a big softie when it comes to Zion.Or so say assorted left-wing critics.The brouhaha began in late March when two American academics published in The London Review of Books a paper critical of the Israel lobby. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt argued that neither idealism nor hard-nosed practicality justified American support of the Jewish state. Nevertheless, a "loose coalition of individuals and organizations" has been steering US policy in that direction for years.Though hardly a novel idea, the essay caused a wave of controversy because the authors were not your run-of-the-mill, paranoid kooks. Mearsheimer sits on the international academic advisory board at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, at Bar-Ilan University, and both he and Walt are leading lights of the realist school of international relations. Their critique simply could not go unanswered.Indeed, following the publication of the article, professors and pundits of all stripes took to their keyboards.Now, I will not address the many errors of the M-W piece or explain how arguing that lobbies drive foreign policy upends the whole realist paradigm; that's been done elsewhere and by people far smarter than me. What's interesting is where Noam Chomsky stepped out on the controversy.Writing in Z Magazine, the aging anarchist commended Mearsheimer and Walt for their "courageous stand" but then attacked their notion of an informal, far-flung lobby as an empty label. "M-W focus on AIPAC and the evangelicals," wrote Chomsky, "but they recognize that the Lobby includes most of the political-intellectual class - at which point the thesis loses much of its content."Max Boot, a neoconservative fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, noted the very same thing when he quipped, "In Mearsheimer-Walt's telling, the Israel lobby seems to include just about every American politician, think tank and newspaper." Now who could have imagined Chomsky manning the same barricade as the neocons?"The second report is from the West Point correspondent of The Journal News, a New York newspaper, as follows:
http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060421/NEWS03/604210331/1024/NEWS08&template=printart

"Foreign-policy critic speaks at West Point
By ALICE GOMSTYN
THE JOURNAL NEWS(Original Publication: April 21, 2006)

WEST POINT — The U.S. Military Academy at West Point was host last night to one of the world's foremost critics of American foreign policy.Noam Chomsky, the Institute Professor Emeritus of Linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, spoke at the academy as part of its Distinguished Lecture Series.More than 500 people attended the lecture, most of them cadets who could someday serve in the Iraq war.Last night, they heard the gray-haired scholar explain that, in his view, that the war in Iraq is unjust.Chomsky, who spoke on the issue in response to a question from a cadet, said that while the war could be called preventive, it was still an act of aggression by the United States that most people in the world didn't support.He added that Iran might legitimately have grounds for its own preventive war."If preventative war is legitimate under these circumstances, it's legitimate for everybody," he said.Ian McDougall of Boxborough, Mass., a cadet who attended the lecture, wouldn't say whether he agreed with Chomsky. But he did enjoy the lecture, he said."Agree or disagree with the points, he's certainly very well-read," said McDougall, 20.The bulk of Chomsky's remarks revolved around "Just War Theory" — a theory, he said, that modern scholarship hasn't sufficiently explained. Scholars who discuss the theory, he said, name wars they believe are "just" without providing arguments to support the label.Chomsky, who spoke for roughly a half-hour before taking questions from the audience, also questioned which historic military acts could be considered pre-emptive in nature. For instance, he said, before Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor — which prompted the United States' entry into World War II — U.S. journals were publishing reports on America preparing fighter planes that could burn Japan's wooden cities to the ground. Should Japan's attack, he asked, then be considered pre-emptive?Still, he added: "Does that justify Pearl Harbor? Not in 10 million years."Chomsky also discussed Israel's military conflict with Lebanon, the war in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein's violations of human rights, and the United States' onetime support for the former Iraqi dictator.At the end of his presentation, the military academy's class of 2008 presented Chomsky with a framed picture of a part of the campus.Lt. Col. Casey Neff, a staff member for the academy's commandant's office, said he too enjoyed Chomsky's lecture.Neff said Chomsky was at West Point to state a position and provoke debate.The free speech of Chomsky and others, he said, "is one of the things we're here to defend." (All emphasis added).

2006-04-11T21:09:00.000+10:00

MORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY
(article 20) by Benjamin Merhav

It is rather surprising that only Chomsky's recent defence of the zionist lobby in Washington has awakened many people on the Left to the reality that guru Noam Chomsky is a loyal zionist. On a far more important issue - the issue of the WMD, and the nuclear bombs arsenal in particular, produced and deployed by the zionist apartheid regime of Israel - Noam Chomsky has been completely silent, and a deafening silence it still is ! He deliberately avoids this globally important issue, even when his attention is drawn to it, as the following segment of his recent interview by the The Hindu in India in its 9th of April issue , http://www.hindu.com/mag/2006/04/09/stories/2006040900080100.htm , clearly shows :

"Keeping in view Israel's secret nuclear weapons programme, don't you think that same standards should be applied to all West Asia nations, and not just to Iran.

Certainly. Recall that the major UN resolution on Iraq to which the U.S. and U.K. appeal, Resolution 687 of April 1991, calls for "establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and all missiles for their delivery". The U.S. has repeatedly made similar commitments, but of course does not abide by them, and has now also violated them in the case of India. Furthermore, we should bear in mind that the Non-Proliferation Treaty commits all nuclear states to undertake "good faith" efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons. That was a core part of the initial bargain. That is a binding legal commitment, as the World Court ruled a decade ago. None of the nuclear states has abided by that commitment, but the U..S is far in the lead in rejecting it, and has even declared, under Bush, that it is not bound by it.

Why not have nuclear disarmament in West Asia. Is it possible? What about Israel?

Because the U.S. will not permit it. That holds more generally. It is widely recognised among strategic analysts that unless production of weapons-grade fissile materials is controlled, the fate of the species is very much in doubt. There are sensible proposals as to how to deal with this problem: the proposal of Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, to place production of fissile materials in the hands of an international agency, to which states could apply for legitimate uses; and the Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FISSBAN) called for in a UN resolution of 1993. The U.S. would never accept ElBaradei's proposal. In fact, the only state to have accepted it, to my knowledge, is Iran, in February 2006 (unreported in the Western press, to my knowledge).
As for FISSBAN, despite strong U.S. objections it did come to a vote at the UN in November 2004. It passed 174-1, with two abstentions: Israel, which is reflexive, and Britain, which is more interesting. The British ambassador explained at the U.S. session that Britain favoured a FISSBAN, but this version "divided the international community": 174-1. For Blair's Britain, it is apparently more important to heed the master's voice than for the human species to survive."

As I have pointed out before (see articles 7,8 on my blog, Exposing Zionist Crimes, Refuting Zionist Lies, www.benmerhav.blogspot.com/ ) on the issue of Israel's WMD arsenal, Noam Chomsky's loyalty to zionism is manifested in his defence of the zionist apartheid regime of Israel, and it always has been his primary concern to defend that racist regime. He even went as far as actually threatening with the use of Israel's nuclear weapons (on behalf of the zionist apartheid regime of Israel) during an interview ,in reply to a question by an interviewer , http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20040330.htm ,as follows :
"10. Should Palestinian refugees be willing to renounce the "right of return" as part of a settlement? Does this benefit West Bank and Gaza residents at the expense of those Palestinians living in grim conditions in refugee camps outside Palestine?
Palestinian refugees should certainly not be willing to renounce the right of return, but in this world -- not some imaginary world we can discuss in seminars -- that right will not be exercised, in more than a limited way, within Israel. Again, there is no detectable international support for it, and under the (virtually unimaginable) circumstances that such support would develop, Israel would very likely resort to its ultimate weapon, defying even the boss-man, to prevent it." (Emphasis added)
Even Israel's rulers have never dared to threaten the use of its nuclear weapons. Yet Noam Chomsky, who purports to be very concerned about the spread of nuclear weapons, let alone the use of such weapons, is threatening the world with Israel's nuclear weapons ! You would expect him - at the very least ! - to oppose and condemn such a move, but he is threatening the world with the zionist WMD instead !
In a recent article published by The Guardian on April 4, 2006, David Hirst, http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,,1746244,00.html , points to the obvious culprit in the Iran crisis, saying that the crisis was created by Israel. His comments can be summed up in one sentence of his : "The Iranian crisis can only be understood as the inevitable result of Israel's US-backed WMD monopoly in the region."
Why, then, does Noam Chomsky continue his deafening silence on the issue ? Answer : because he is a zionist guru, not the guru of the Left, as some dishonest people continue to regard him. The issue can be summed up with Noam Chomsky's own words too, by replacing the reference to Tony Blair with "Noam Chomsky" and master with "zionist masters" in this sentence by Chomsky : " For Blair's Britain, it is apparently more important to heed the master's voice than for the human species to survive."