As a linguist, Noam Chomsky very finely lays down the implicit rules of what may or may not be discussed. But of course, read between the lines.
We may take notice of Palestinian lands stolen after 1967, but any discussion of land taken by force before 1967 is beyond the pale. So too, any review of the massive suborning of the US administration, the Congress, lately the judiciary in matters against Iran, the threats of adverse, suborned, US actions against a couple of dozen parliaments in South America and Europe in 1947 and 1948. Recall “Truman beats Dewey.”
Chomsky included the hackneyed proposition that if we do not boycott Harvard, as a single convenient example, for various crimes of the US, then it is unfair to boycott Israeli colleges who support the Israeli actions against the Palestinians. Killing Palestinians and stealing their land was a criminal conspiracy since 1898 and today is a crime in progress. In systems of criminal justice, the perpetrators don’t get to choose who will be indicted. Israel claims a “special relation to the US.” There is a downside: special notice by Americans who do not enjoy being accomplices.
Noam Chomsky denies Palestinians the right of return to stolen lands and, I suppose, the concept of paying compensation to the dispossessed and to the descendants of the dispossessed. Heaven forbid! Don’t mention it. Don’t bring up German reparations, 1950 to 2014.
Jul 4 2014 - 11:43am