Irene Gendzier, a professor of History at Boston
University, closes her foreword to Noam Chomsky’s prescription for the Middle
East [Peace in the Middle East, Vintage Books. $1.95] with these words: “But
beyond the critical level of providing Knowledge, Chomsky has demonstrated his
continued commitment to its purpose, Justice wedded to truth. One may disagree
with what is offered, but none can fault the honesty and Moral integrity of the
effort.”
Not so. Chomsky’s essays are the work of a myopic
moralist and in the opinion of this reviewer it is only this aspect that bears
discussion. For, as essays in “politicalthought” or on the “arab-israeli
conflict,” the volume is scarcely worth reviewing. The only two reviewed I have
seen, by Michael Walzer in The New York Times and Theodore Draper in The New
Republic, both point out that it is hard to imagine any editor thinking the
contents, old articles and speeches delivered before arab groups, worth
publishing on their own merits; the volume is published only because the author
is Noam Chomsky, a distinguished figure in modern linguistic theory, a vocal
critic of the Vietnam “New Left.” The salient question thus becomes “Why does
Chomsky hate Israel so much?”
Chomsky’s antagonism flows from the failure of Israel
to conform to his own utopian framework of worldorder. Chomsky has decided,
presumably on the basis of his own superior Moralinsights, that the proper
[unclear] for men to live is in “a world [unclear] democratic communities in
which [unclear]litical institutions, as well as the commercial and industrial
system [unclear] whole, are under direct popular [unclear] control, and the
resources of modern civilisation are directed to the [unclear] faction of
humanneeds and libertarian values.” Notice the term “communities” and not “States.”
Chomsky dislikes the nation[unclear] because the
search for Justice “trascends national lines; some would argue that it requires
abolishing [unclear] overcoming national divisions.” Never mind that
humanbeings have grown no sign of believing that the “satisfaction of
humanneeds,” lies in the abolition of the nationState but, on the contrary,
have sought to [unclear] ever more of them. Chomsky kn[unclear] what humanneeds
really are eve[unclear] the balky humanrace continues [unclear] define its
humanneeds quite differently.
On the basis of his own concept [unclear] framework
Chomsky might be [unclear]pected to dislike all nationStates with equal
heartiness, so there remains [unclear] question why he singles out Israel a
primary target for attack. To be sure, Chomsky does not applaud [unclear] arab
States, they too are “reactionary,” and for Chomsky the [unclear] bright spots
in the generally so[unclear] middle eastern picture are the guerillas.
Presumably Chomsky likes [unclear] terrorists (“the formation of elFatah [unclear]
prove to be a significant step towards peaceful reconciliation”) because they
threaten not only Israel [unclear] all the arab States. Given Chomsky’s
Platonic “Idea,” toward which the world is to be dragged, if necessary [unclear]gled
and screaming, the terrorists become the solvent to destroy the [unclear]
structure of middle eastern [unclear]es. There is room for doubt that [unclear]cialist
international brotherhood” is [unclear] would be brought in as replacement, but
Chomsky, for all his an[unclear]nced pessimism concerning the picture of the
Middle East, is at time [unclear]te the wideeyed optimist.
Thus, to those who cautiously point out that the
phrase “secular democratic State” that has replaced “throw [unclear] jews into
the sea” in the Rhetoric of the [PLO] may be a euphemism for the [unclear]
target, he responds that “this [unclear] possible, but no an absolutely
necessary, interpretation of such proposals.” Chomsky suggests that by [unclear]ng
them a different interpretation israelis might “help to give substance [unclear]
Reality to a more sympathetic and [unclear]structive interpretation.” If the
nazis tell the deported jews they are [unclear]ng to a comfrotable hotel, if
the jews will believe them, lo and behold that is what their destination may
become.
It is only possible to guess why [unclear] Chomsky
singles out Israel for [unclear]se when the world is so rich in [unclear]es,
many of them neither secular and democratic. Perhaps one important reason is
that Israel represents challenge to Chomsky’s Ideology in a way that the wave
of successor [unclear]es created in the wake of banished Imperialisms do not.
For Israel is not merely a new State but a State resting [unclear] part on an
ancient faith and in [unclear] on an Ideology that Statehood provided the
ultimate answer to the problem of a people initially not even [unclear]sent in
large numbers on the soil on the land in which they aspired to believe that
end. In addition to this, Israel is frankly a State dedicated to the welfare of
a nation, a nation whose nationality and Religion are inextricably bound
together. This situation is [unclear] distasteful to Chomsky that he [unclear]ply
asserts that in Israel “there can be no full recognition of basic Human Rights,”
that it is a “State based on the principle of discrimination,” or again, “if a
State is jewish in certain respects, then in those respects it is not
democratic.” All the arab States except Lebanon are, of course, moslem States
and unlike Israel none of them are democratic, but of this not a word in
Chomsky’s.
Chomsky’s Ideologism leads him to Moralblindness. He
argues not merely that the arab and jewish case can both be formulated with
Power and persuasiveness but that “each can plausibly be raised to the level of
a demand for survival, hence in a sense an absolute demand.” That the arabs
look upon Israel’s continued existence as a challenge to their own “survival”
has been fully documented by Yehoshafat Harkavi, whose work Chomsky alludes to
a number of times. It is because the arabs look upon the challenge of Israel’s
existence in this fundamental fashion that the chances for peaceful
accomodation being reached at this point are negligible.
But Chomsky is not merely noting this arab attitude;
he is endorsing it. Both can “plausibly,” he says, be treated as a demand for
survival. Yet this is nonsense. Only in one case is survival in fact
threatened, as all but the Morallyblind can ascertain.
In similar bizarre fashion, Chomsky refers to certain
unnamed elements in the american jewish community as “precise counterparts” to
Qaddafi and asserts “it is a measure of the bias and irrationality of american
opinion that Qaddifi is regarded as a fanatic, whereas his counterparts are
considered moderates.” This is so silly that it almost defies comment,
although, as Draper points out in The New Republic, the question of Power is
surely relevant. Thus, where are the american jews financing terrorists, buying
up Mirages and every sort of lethal equipment to be used to destroy a State, or
buying up african States wholesale and some european and south american ones
reatil to contribute to that policy? Only a Chomsky – or a General Brown – can make
that claim.
But perhaps the most interesting in this regard is an
essay largely devoted to the defence of Daniel Berrigan, whose vicious diatribe
against Israel, delivered while the Yom Kippur War was still going on, was
aptly described by Arthur Hertzberg, president of the American Jewish Congress,
as “old fashion theological anti-Semitism.” Hertzberg as well as Irving Howe
are given scathing treatment for their criticism of Berrigan, although
interestingly, even Chomsky has qualms about his own defence, at one point
remarking, “perhaps for once, the criticism is well taken and the charges
accurate.” Chomsky accuses the critics of Berrigan of “Fanaticism” but of
course, it is Chomsky who is the fanatic, ideologically blinded to Reality.
Chomsky’s “solution” is socialist bi-Nationalism; the
society he envisages “will not be a jewish State or an arab State, but rather a
democratic multinational society.” Notice the word “State” is still not used by
Chomsky; perhaps the “society” will take its place in the “revitalised
international movement that would stand for the ideals of brotherhood,
cooperation, Democracy, social and economic development guided by intrinsic,
historically evolving needs.”
Jolted to Earth from this empyrean, Chomsky does
somewhere note that the last arab to advocate a binational society (in 1946) was
killed by fellow arabs twelve days after he did so. The
Hashomer Hatzair, with which Chomsky claims an early sympathy, continued its
advocacy longer, although a substantial segment of it is now devoted, with no
greater wisdom, to a “two State” solution, palestinian and israeli, within the
borders now controlled by Israel, a solution which Chomsky has, of course,
trascended.
This book is full of talk of the need for “humaneness,”
“realisation of Just hopes and highest ideals,” “intrinsic, historically
evolving needs,” and so forth. And yet, fundamentally, there is no trace of
humanity in this volume, the humanity that is concerned with the neds of real
people in actual situations. The people of Israel overwhelmingly believe their
needs must be satisfied within the framework of a jewish State; Chomsky is
ready to deny them the fulfilment of those needs as they define them and is
quite prepared to throw them upon the mercy of the [PLO] in hopes that a “constructive
interpretation” can be put upon its words. If Israel does not fit his pattern,
Chomsky’s solution is not to change the pattern, but dispose of the deviants.
I should like to say that this book is simply drivel,
but given the fact that it will undoubtedly prove useful to arab propagandists,
I am constrained to say that the book is dangerous drivel.
No comments:
Post a Comment