<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18904">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"
bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff>"one country, undivided, not so different in governance
than China"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Heh.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>There aren't provinces threatening to secede from
the Union over violation of the 9th and 10th amendments</FONT><FONT size=2
face=Arial>, </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>but there certainly </FONT><FONT size=2
face=Arial>is a lot more autonomy and local government even refusal to
comply (nullification) among the various provinces </FONT><FONT size=2
face=Arial>than what you are imagining, Mort.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=brussel@illinois.edu href="mailto:brussel@illinois.edu">Morton K.
Brussel</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=galliher@illinois.edu
href="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu">C. G. Estabrook</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=peace-discuss@anti-war.net
href="mailto:peace-discuss@anti-war.net">Peace-discuss</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, October 29, 2010 10:34
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Peace-discuss] Noam
Chomsky: An Interview</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR>
<DIV>
<DIV>On Oct 28, 2010, at 7:12 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:</DIV><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">In fact, to anyone who's been reading
what Chomsky's written over the years, his consistency is clear. (See,
e.g., his views in "Peace in the Middle East? Reflections on Justice and
Nationhood" [1975], where I first read of a "bi-national socialist state.")
<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Not to me, who have listened and read him "over the years". I
remember his disagreements with Ali Abunimah, Mazin Qumziyeh, and others close
to the situation, Palestinians and others. Even Edward Zaid, whom he
praises.<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff"><BR>Chomsky agrees with the best
English-language reporter on the scene, Patrick Cockburn, that the US war
aims in Iraq - viz., bases in that major oil-producing country and control
of its oil production - have been at best only partially accomplished.
And he's pointed out accurately for many years that the murder of 4 million
SE Asians and the devastation of a peasant society with several times the
ordnance used in WWII prevented the emergence of an independent, socialist
Vietnam - and that was the primary US aim, to prevent "the threat of a good
example." But the opposition to the Bush/Obama war by the US
population and major segments of the foreign policy elite meant that the
carpet-bombing of Vietnam couldn't be repeated in Iraq.
<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>One could say that destroying the Iraq society was not so
different than destroying Vietnam, where the U.S. certainly "lost face". And
who says that now we don't have an independent Vietnam, one country,
undivided, not so different in governance than China. Our bases linger
in Iraq, as do our contractors. We'll see how soon all this will be abandoned.
We are closer threat to Iran from there. Our companies and
allied corporations have gotten their oil contacts and made a
financial killing there. We no longer have to worry about a hostile Saddam,
etc. Oh, yes our ends have not been completely fulfilled, we have not
<I>completely</I> succeeded in all our aims; as Cockburn says they've "been at
best only partially accomplished". How's that for spin? </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>In other words, the results in those two wars are similar in many ways;
in both we've succeeded in destroying, displacing, and killing untold numbers
of innocents. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The point is that Chomsky, despite his brilliance, is no oracle, and one
ought not uncritically accept whatever he says, as some are wont to do.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>--mkb</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff"><BR>On 10/28/10 6:47 PM, Morton K.
Brussel wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:4D9BC5E6-77BA-4EC2-A3BD-377D8F02D940@illinois.edu
type="cite">Curious interview. For example,
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">Hicham Yezza: … You compared the
Iraq war protest movement favourably to the anti-Vietnam one due,
largely, to the fact mass opposition to the Iraq war actually started
before the invasion. Do you still see the anti-Iraq-war movement in that
positive light, especially considering how small it is now, seven years
on?<BR><BR>Noam Chomsky: The anti-Iraq-war movement was always much too
small in my view, though in fact much larger than the anti-Vietnam-war
movement at any comparable stage -- a crucial qualification often
ignored. I think there is good reason to believe that the anti-Iraq-war
movement contributed to the US defeat in Iraq as contrasted with its
considerable victory in Vietnam, already evident 40 years ago --
abandonment of core war aims in Iraq, while they were basically achieved
in Vietnam.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>I've always believed that Chomsky's views about anti-Iraq
war activism were overly sanguine. Here, he's equivocating, for it's
obvious that after seven years, the anti-war movement is far from having
the strength of the anti-war movement at that time in Vietnam. Then, his
statement that we won ["a considerable victory"] the Vietnam war, whereas
the anti-war movement was largely effective in causing our "defeat" in
Iraq, seems uncompelling at best. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Later in the interview, there is a similar kind of equivocation with
respect to Israel-Palestine. He clearly has backed off his former
antipathy to talking about a one-state solution. His remarks about BDS,
which he formerly dismissed/discouraged/"dissed" [He calls that notion
mythology—I wonder how/why it arose.] , now appears somewhat
modified. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Chomsky is never one to admit that his positions or ideas might have
changed. Surprising?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>--mkb</DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<DIV>
<DIV>On Oct 28, 2010, at 5:51 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:</DIV><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">"<B>The tea party movement itself
is quite small,</B> though heavily funded and granted enormous media
attention, Much more significant is the great number of Americans,
probably a majority, for whom it has some appeal, even though its
programs would be extremely harmful to their interests if implemented.
<B>There is tremendous anger in the country, and bitter opposition to
virtually all institutions</B>: government, corporations, banks,
professions, the political parties (Republicans are even more unpopular
than Democrats), etc. At the same time, careful studies show that
<B>people largely retain attitudes that are basically social
democratic</B>, facts rarely discussed in the media. The anger and
frustration are understandable: <B>for about 30 years, real incomes have
stagnated for the majority, working hours have increased (far beyond
Europe), benefits -- which were never great -- have declined, while
public funds are bailing out the rich and economic growth is finding its
way into very few pockets.</B> In manufacturing industry
unemployment is at the level of the Great Depression, and these jobs are
not coming back if the bipartisan policies of financialization of the
economy and export of production proceed. But anger and frustration can
be very dangerous, unless focused on the real causes of the plight of
the population. That is barely happening, and the outcome could be
ominous, as history more than amply
illustrates."<BR><BR> Noam Chomsky interviewed
by Hicham Yezza<BR> Ceasefire, September 22,
2010<BR><BR>Hicham Yezza: In your recent London lectures, you recounted
a wonderful anecdote about student radicalism days in MIT and also at
the LSE. Do you think the intellectual/academic culture has changed
drastically since then? You compared the Iraq war protest movement
favourably to the anti-Vietnam one due, largely, to the fact mass
opposition to the Iraq war actually started before the invasion. Do you
still see the anti-Iraq-war movement in that positive light, especially
considering how small it is now, seven years on?<BR><BR>Noam Chomsky:
The anti-Iraq-war movement was always much too small in my view, though
in fact much larger than the anti-Vietnam-war movement at any comparable
stage -- a crucial qualification often ignored. I think there is good
reason to believe that the anti-Iraq-war movement contributed to the US
defeat in Iraq as contrasted with its considerable victory in Vietnam,
already evident 40 years ago -- abandonment of core war aims in Iraq,
while they were basically achieved in Vietnam.<BR><BR>HY: The global
recession and crisis in the past two years have yielded a lot of popular
anger against financial institutions and governmental subservience to
them. And yet, nothing structural has shifted in terms of people saying:
we want a different system. Do you think the left has made mistakes in
responding to the crisis?<BR><BR>NC: A lot more can be done, and should
be. To take merely one example, the left could be active in efforts by
workers and communities to take over production that is being shut down
by the state-capitalist managers and convert the facilities to urgent
needs, such as high-speed public transportation and green technology.
Just one case.<BR><BR>HY: Your 1970 lecture* on 'Government in the
Future' is now a classic of the genre. Does it still reflect your views
entirely or has there been a change? Many find it now extremely rare to
see this sort of explicit, serious engagement with fundamental ideas
about how society should be run, as if the case for state capitalism has
been definitively made and the left should just give up trying to argue
for radical alternatives. Is this your view? Or do you think the
situation is more hopeful?<BR><BR>NC: I have not changed my views on
these matters -- of course expressed only sketchily in this talk. In
fact, I had pretty much the same views as a teen-ager. The left should
very definitely be actively engaged in critical analysis of the
destructive system of state capitalism and in developing the seeds of
the future within it, to borrow Bakunin's image. I think there are many
opportunities, and some of them are being pursued, though still on much
too limited a scale.<BR><BR>HY: Turning to the Middle East, regarding
the movement which calls for boycotting, divesting from and sanctioning
(BDS) Israel, why do you think there is such a drastic disagreement
between yourself and people (such as Naomi Klein) who traditionally
agree with you wholeheartedly on Middle-East and other issues? Is this a
mere issue of tactics? Is the BDS movement doing more harm than
good?<BR><BR>NC: There is an interesting mythology that I have opposed
the BDS movement. In reality, as explained over and over, I not only
support it but was actively involved long before the "movement" took
shape. BDS is, of course, a tactic. That should be understood. Norman
Finkelstein warned recently that it sometimes appears to be taking on
cult-like features. That should be carefully avoided. Like all tactics,
particular implementations have to be judged on their own merits. Here
there is room for legitimate disagreement. I have been opposed to
certain implementations, particularly those that are very likely to harm
the victims, as unfortunately has happened.<BR><BR>More generally, I
think we should question the formulation you gave. It is convenient,
particularly for Westerners, to regard it as an "anti-Israel movement."
There are obvious temptations to blaming someone else, but the fact of
the matter is that Israel can commit crimes to the extent that they are
given decisive support by the US, and less directly, its allies. BDS
actions are both principled and most effective when they are directed at
our crucial contribution to these crimes, without which they would end;
for example, boycott of western firms contributing to the occupation,
working to end military aid to Israel, etc.<BR><BR>HY: My understanding
is that you believe a one state solution can only happen via a two state
solution. Is this correct? If so, do you think a call for a one state
solution is detrimental to Palestinian interests? Or merely
unhelpful?<BR><BR>NC: I have never felt that we must honour the
boundaries imposed by imperial violence, hence do not see a solution
keeping to the Mandatory boundaries as something holy, or even desirable
in the long-term. A "no-state solution" eroding those boundaries is, in
my view, both preferable and conceivable, a matter I have discussed
elsewhere. However, I know of no suggestion as to how to reach that goal
without proceeding in stages, at first by way of a "one-state"
(bi-national) solution of the kind I have advocated since the 1940s, and
still do.<BR><BR>There have been periods when it was feasible to move
fairly directly towards a settlement of this sort -- pre-1948 and from
1967 to the mid-70's, and during those periods I was quite actively
involved in urging direct moves towards such a settlement. Since
Palestinian nationalism became an active force in the international
system in the mid-1970s, I know of no suggestion as to how to reach this
limited goal without proceeding in stages, at first by way of the
two-state solution of the overwhelming international consensus, blocked
for 35 years by the US (and Israel) with rare and temporary
exceptions.<BR><BR>Calling for a one-state (or better, a no-state)
settlement is fine, as are many other calls, for example, for
eliminating nuclear weapons, warding off environmental catastrophe, etc.
But we should distinguish between "calls" and true advocacy, which
requires sketching a path from here to there. The latter is the more
serious and demanding task, both in thought and action.<BR><BR>HY: You
have said before that you would accept whatever solution the
Palestinians/Israelis wanted (one state/two state/etc), but you also
said that if, for instance, Somalis were in favour of an international
course of action that, in your view, would actually harm them, you
naturally wouldn't participate in it. How would you clarify the
distinction between the two moral imperatives? Is it possible at the
same time to listen to the Palestinians' wishes but also independently
decide what's good for them?<BR><BR>NC: If I said that, it was
misleading. I have no authority, right or ability to "accept" or
"reject" international agreements. Speaking personally, I do not regard
nation-states as acceptable institutions, except as temporary
expedients. It is always possible, and often imperative, to decide that
the wishes of some population are not good for them. We all do it all
the time, surely. And if we are serious about decent human values, we
may often decide not to participate in actions that populations choose
to carry out. I see no general issues here, though particular cases
always raise questions.<BR><BR>HY: You've recently dismissed the idea
that China and India can pose any serious challenge to Western
dominance. What will the post-unipolar world look like in your view, if
current trends continue?<BR><BR>NC: They do pose a serious challenge,
something I have been speaking and writing about, though much of the
excited rhetoric about the topic is highly misleading. For many years
the world has been becoming more diverse, with more diffusion of power.
In the past decade, even Latin America -- which the US has traditionally
taken for granted -- is drifting out of control.<BR><BR>One striking
illustration today is Iran's nuclear programs. For the US and most of
Europe, that is THE problem of the day. This is "the year of Iran" in
foreign policy circles, and the "Iranian threat" is depicted as the
greatest current danger facing the world. The US is demanding that China
and others meet their "international responsibilities": to adhere to
unilateral US sanctions, which have no force other than what is
conferred by power. Few are paying attention. Not China, not Brazil, not
the nonaligned countries (most of the world), not even Iran's neighbors,
particularly Turkey.<BR><BR>HY: Recent reports have shown inequality in
the US to be greater than ever. And yet all we hear of is the rise of
the tea party movement and its crusade against Obama's "socialist"
agenda. Is this because people are campaigning against their own
interests out of ignorance? Or is it that those who really suffer from
inequality (the very poor) are completely cut off from the political
debate in the first place and thus utterly voiceless?<BR><BR>NC: The tea
party movement itself is quite small, though heavily funded and granted
enormous media attention, Much more significant is the great number of
Americans, probably a majority, for whom it has some appeal, even though
its programs would be extremely harmful to their interests if
implemented. There is tremendous anger in the country, and bitter
opposition to virtually all institutions: government, corporations,
banks, professions, the political parties (Republicans are even more
unpopular than Democrats), etc.<BR><BR>At the same time, careful studies
show that people largely retain attitudes that are basically social
democratic, facts rarely discussed in the media. The anger and
frustration are understandable: for about 30 years, real incomes have
stagnated for the majority, working hours have increased (far beyond
Europe), benefits -- which were never great -- have declined, while
public funds are bailing out the rich and economic growth is finding its
way into very few pockets.<BR><BR>In manufacturing industry unemployment
is at the level of the great depression, and these jobs are not coming
back if the bipartisan policies of financialization of the economy and
export of production proceed. But anger and frustration can be very
dangerous, unless focused on the real causes of the plight of the
population. That is barely happening, and the outcome could be ominous,
as history more than amply illustrates.<BR><BR>HY: You often state that
global warming and nuclear war are the two great dangers threatening
human life. Why do you think there's such resistance against believing
in human-caused climate change? It's difficult to put this simply down
to financial interests since many "sceptics", as they call themselves,
seem genuinely convinced global warming is some sort of hoax. Are they
just blinded by propaganda?<BR><BR>NC: There is a very small group of
serious scientists who are skeptical about global warming. Major sectors
of business have been entirely open about the fact that they are running
propaganda campaigns to convince the public that it is a hoax. That is
an interesting phenomenon, because those very same corporate executives
probably share our views on the severity of the crisis. But they are
acting in their institutional capacity as corporate managers, which
require them to focus on short term gain and to ignore "externalities,"
in this case the fate of the species.<BR><BR>The problem is
institutional, not individual. As for the public, many are genuinely
confused. That is not surprising when the media present a "debate"
between two sides -- virtually all scientists versus a scattering of
skeptics -- while incidentally ignoring almost entirely a much more
serious array of skeptics within the scientific world, namely those who
believe that the general scientific consensus is much too optimistic.
There are doubtless other reasons too. Taking the problem as seriously
as we should leads to difficult choices and actions. It is easier to
transfer the problems somewhere else, in this case to the world's poor
and to our grandchildren.<BR><BR>HY: We had a discussion recently with
some of our readers about independent media outlets receiving money from
foundations. Some argue this is fundamentally wrong because even if it
comes with no explicit strings attached, it would still affect the way
an organisation reports and analyses the news. A case that was mentioned
was Democracy Now!, which we love. Do you think receiving donations from
charities/foundations is fine, or is it merely a lesser evil to be
avoided if possible?<BR><BR>NC: I do not feel that it must be avoided in
principle, though naturally considerable caution is
necessary.<BR><BR>HY: Our next print issue, out in October, will feature
a celebration of the late Edward Said. Why should young
students/activists pay a great deal of attention to his
legacy?<BR><BR>NC: In his highly original and justly influential
scholarly work, and in his dedicated and courageous activism in support
of suffering and oppressed people, Edward Said -- a close and highly
valued friend -- was one of those very rare figures who actually
fulfilled the responsibility of intellectuals that he wrote about so
compellingly. He is an inspiring model.<BR><BR><A
href="http://chomsky.info/"
moz-do-not-send="true">chomsky.info</A><BR>________________________<BR><BR>*
I was present to hear this lecture, at MIT in 1970, and I was quite
impressed; it's still much worth reading.
<BR><BR></DIV>_______________________________________________<BR>Peace-discuss
mailing list<BR><A href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net"
moz-do-not-send="true">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</A><BR><A
class=moz-txt-link-freetext
href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV><PRE wrap=""><FIELDSET class=mimeAttachmentHeader></FIELDSET>
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
<A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</A>
<A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</A>
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>_______________________________________________<BR>Peace-discuss
mailing list<BR><A
href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</A><BR>http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>Peace-discuss
mailing
list<BR>Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net<BR>http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>