July 3rd, 2011
Hazem Biqaeen
Noam Chomsky, being generally progressive and influential, still can’t go beyond his Zionist Jewish nationalist loyalties and imperial self-interests at the critical junctures. The “left” in the West have given him an exalted mythical status, and worship him to the point of inability to assess him critically. Whatever Chomsky says, they parrot.
One example is how, after he describes the history of how the Zionist entity came into being, he still says that “Israel” is a “legitimate” state, and he openly says he’s a Zionist. How in hell he’s able to reconcile his supposedly progressive ethics and ideology with Zionism, I don’t know.
Another example was when he came to Brown University after the invasion of Iraq to give a speech. I was among the audience, and prior to his speech I had convinced a socialist friend that the only real way to judge Chomsky was by ascertaining his position on the Iraqi resistance, which by then had begun to hurt the American occupation pretty badly, before the Iranian and American instigated sectarian war. When asked point-blank about whether or not he supported the Iraqi resistance, Chomsky simply danced around the question.
Now comes this statement (see The Guardian article below) by Chomsky about his “friend” Chavez, made at a time when his friend is trying to recover from cancer, and on the recommendation of some establishment “center for human rights policy”.
Chomsky interferes in an internal Venezuelan matter, and criticises Chavez (publicly to The Observer) for “concentrating too much power”. Now as some of you know, I think that concentration of power is the root of all evil, but the problem is not Chavez when Chavez is opposing the biggest concentration of power on the planet – imperialism. I wish that you could have internal democracy while you’re being threatened by imperialism, but you can’t, and Chomsky knows that; he’s not that naiive.
Furthermore, Chomsky then contradicts himself by stating that “The Chávez government deserved credit for sharply reducing poverty and for its policies of promoting self-governing communities and Latin American unity.” “It’s hard to judge how successful they are, but if they are successful they would be seeds of a better world.”
Now if that does not merit being considered a global and material de-concentration of power, not just a cosmetic one, then I don’t know what does.
So Chomsky can be pretty progressive methodologically, but he’ll screw you when it really counts.
President Chavez has obviously set himself up by befriending such a snake. I have a feeling Chavez didn’t quite understand what we understand about Jews and about privileged citizens of the empire, and where their ultimate loyalties lie.
See the link below for the full report:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/03/noam-chomsky-hugo-chavez-democracy
