US MEDIA is US people's greastest enemy

America.s enemy -- THE American media

Hameed ABDUL KARIM

US President Thomas Jefferson once said that .the security for all (Americans) is in the free press. That was when more than 80 percent of the US media were independent. But by 1983 there were only about 50 corporations which controlled more than half of all information, knowledge and entertainment companies in the US. In 1987, the figure fell dramatically to 27. Today the picture for a free media is even grimmer with more corporations merging in the wake of the recession.

This goes to show the extent of the power in the hands of so few. So if Thomas Jefferson were to come back to earth, he will be horrified to see his safety net eroded and that the media is now controlled by a handful of individuals hell bent in the pursuit of making money. Morals no longer have any validity in a post-modern materialistic society.

.News., for want of a better word, is tailor made to fit into the agenda of the warlords in Washington. The US media would want the world to believe that they are free and fair. Yet a cursory glance at its coverage of Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine will expose the fact that the US media selects only some stories and skews them in a way that fits into the US global agenda.

A classic example of this is the .WMD. hoax that George Bush foisted on the ever ready-to-be-brainwashed American people. That the US media collaborated with the Bush regime in propagating this con is now much too obvious.

Big Lie Syndrome

In media parlance this con is known as the .Big Lie.. The idea behind the Big Lie is that the bigger the lie the more the chances of it being believed.

This strategy allows room to entertain denials from the other side, but with every denial comes another barrage of accusations. Sometimes, though, a little masala is necessary especially when the chips are down as was in the case with Iraq when the IAEA refused to endorse US claims.

So what happens then? Simple. You have a sideshow. In this case, the sideshow was Tony Blair, war criminal and peacemaker, with his now infamous dossier, which was a shameless forgery. And then, hey presto, we.ve got the game going again. Eventually a terrified audience concludes that it.s best to be safe than sorry and toes the line of the establishment. An identical exercise is now in place with regard to Iran.

Incidentally, the current coverage of Iranian protests is hyped to such an extent that anybody with an iota of grey matter in his head can conclude that it is the US and other Western Governments that are directing the news coverage.
Manufacturing consent

The role of the US media (and other sections of the Western media) has been to manufacture public consent as the US launches one military campaign after another to globalise the world for its own benefit and to the detriment of third world countries.

The home audiences are engineered to stand up and cheer. In the case of Afghanistan the plea was simple. Saudi terrorists bombed the Twin Towers, so let.s go bomb Afghanistan and the crowed roared in approval like they do at big league baseball games.
Suppression of information

The media.s power is not only confined to engineering public consent but also to restrain from freedom of thought. The home audiences are viewed by the PR companies as .less endowed.. Way back in 1932 Reinhold Niebuhr had said that .given the stupidity of the average man it is the responsibility of the cool observers to provide the necessary illusions that provides the faith that must be instilled in the minds of the less endowed..

To illustrate how the US media keeps information away from its public it.s pertinent to quote Sen. Paul Findley who said he had not heard the word .Islam. until he got hit by the Jewish lobby. It was joked that when George Bush jnr. was asked who the Taliban were he had said they were a pop group in Indonesia! Jokes aside, George Bush paucity of intelligence is now legendary and is probably a State secret.

Another case in point is the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty over forty years ago but the US Government has not given into the demand of the survivors for an inquiry. Over 35 American servicemen perished in that attack and over 170 were injured. Some of the men were maimed for life. Not many Americans know of this incident because the US media has deliberately kept this away from the public domain.

Then there is the Lavon Affair where Israeli under cover agents had planned to bomb US institutions in Cairo and put the blame on the Arabs. Unfortunately for the Israelis, the Egyptian Police nabbed the Israeli agents in the nick of time. Up until now the US media has not reported these stories to the American public, definitely not in the way they reported Saddam Hussein.s fictitious WMDs.

The truth is the US media skilfully misleads the US public for the benefit of its Government. In other words, the US media is now an arm of the US Government, unlike in the days of Thomas Jefferson.

The founding fathers would have been horrified if they saw the way the US media behaved in the aftermath of 9/11. Virtually all TV journalists wore the American flag lapel pins in a show of solidarity with the government. More than 150 songs were banned from radio stations, including John Lennon.s immortal rendition of .Imagine.. There was to be no talk of peace! Neither was there to be a closer look on statements like .you are either with us or with them. that George Bush made.

Permissible discourse

To give an illusion of a free media the bigwigs in the circus would allow, what is known, as Prof Noam Chomsky points out, is a .permissible discourse.. But even in this parameters are defined so that the truth does not get out.

But things are changing in the US, albeit a tad too slow. Recently the famous American actor Sean Penn said that the American media has gone too far in its lying game. He said he was tired of hearing or reading that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was a dictator.

Chavez had been elected three times in row in the most democratic manner that would make many Americans blush in shame, because they cannot say the same about their elections that gifted George Bush the Presidency. Sean Penn had said that American journalists should be jailed for lying to the American people.

It is now becoming clear that the American media is only advertising its corporate agenda in the guise of news reporting.
Demonising Islam

The hatred generated against Muslims in the aftermath of 9-11 was so intense that Ann Coulter, contributing editor of National Review Online, and a regular talking head on the extreme rightist Fox News was so captivated by the propaganda that she felt free and very American to propose .We (Americans) should invade their (Muslims.) countries, kill their leaders and convert all Muslims to Christianity.. Imagine how Fox News would have reacted if a Muslim said the same thing against Christians!

But then they say those were patriotic times and journalists got carried away with an overdose of patriotic fervour. Understandably so. But history records the worst of crimes have been committed during .patriotic times..

Marja

A recent case of how the US media (and much of the Western media) brainwash the home audiences can be found in the Marja operation in Afghanistan. From the very beginning it was clear the US wanted to have something to show its public to convey the impression that it was making .progress. in the quagmire that Afghanistan has turned out to be.

Hence the Marja operation. As it turned out, the .news. presented by US military officials and dutifully reported by all major U.S. media was nothing but a hyped up propaganda exercise and a typical case of misinformation to manipulate the minds of the .less endowed. American public.

The fact of the matter is Marja was nowhere near the .main Taliban stronghold.. It was a dusty farming community without any military significance. And as the news about the .large and loud victory. gradually fade from TV screens, it.s becoming clear that the Marja operation was yet another ruse created by the US and it.s media to hoodwink their public into believing something that is not true.

Paid Pundits

A few weeks ago a New York based non-profit group calling itself .Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. (FAIR) disclosed that most of the .pundits. who appear on channels like CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, CNBC and Fox Business Network are actually on the payroll of corporations and special interest groups that they represent on TV.

To make matters worse for the US media it was reported that TV channels were well aware of the payments these .pundits. received but had refrained from disclosing this fact.

This is yet another example of how the US media, the State and the big corporations work hand-in-hand to dupe an unsuspecting public into believing as true all the fabrication that they come up with just so that the big boys and girls in the ruling elite can make their big bucks.

FAIR.s exposure should shock the American people and motivate them to call for the .democratisation of the US media. to use the words of the famous intellectual Prof Noam Chomsky.

In the meantime, those behind the Policy for the Next American Century (PNAC) must be busy mapping out strategies to extend their dominion in the world whilst the media must be planning its line of attack to occupy the minds of people.

It.s about time the US public was told that their media has been misleading them right along and that there was no .red under the bed.. Neither was there any threat from the Viet Cong to the .American way of life.. This was all cooked up to fit into America.s global agenda for full spectrum domination of the entire world.

America.s ruling elite invents an enemy to keep its public in fear of being taken over by some wicked foreign forces or a foreign ideology. Currently Islam serves the purpose for America.s jingoist brand of patriotism promulgated by the media.

There is no .jihadi next door. as Time magazine would want us to believe, neither are there any hooked nose Arabs lurking somewhere in the dark to run amok in America.

America.s enemy is its own media.

[3~http://www.dailynews.lk/2010/03/27/fea03.asp

IRAN ATTACKS ISRAEL !!! HORROR! SHOCK!

of course it is Israel that attacks iran.

Remember: even the THREAT OF WAR is illegal,
and must be prosecuted in THE HAGUE world court.

But Israel and USA (VETO champions) are illegal
anyway!!

Mullen wary of Israeli attack on Iran

11/03/2010 06:30:00 AM GMT

By Ray McGovern

Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, came home with sweaty palms from his
mid-February visit to Israel. Ever since, he has been
worrying aloud that Israel might mousetrap the U.S.
into war with Iran.

This is especially worrying, because Mullen has had
considerable experience in putting the brakes on such
Israeli plans in the past. This time, he appears
convinced that the Israeli leaders did not take his
earlier warnings seriously - notwithstanding the
unusually strong language he put into play.

Upon arrival in Jerusalem on Feb. 14, Mullen wasted no
time in making clear why he had come. He insisted
publicly that an attack on Iran would be "a big, big,
big problem for all of us, and I worry a great deal
about the unintended consequences."

After his return, at a Pentagon press conference on
Feb. 22, Mullen drove home the same point - with some
of the same language. After reciting the usual
boilerplate about Iran being "on the path to achieve
nuclear weaponization" and about its "desire to
dominate its neighbors," he included this in his
prepared remarks:

"I worry a lot about the unintended consequences of any
sort of military action. For now, the diplomatic and
the economic levers of international power are and
ought to be the levers first pulled. Indeed, I would
hope they are always and consistently pulled. No
strike, however effective, will be, in and of itself,
decisive."

In answer to a question about the "efficacy" of
military strikes on Iran.s nuclear program, Mullen said
such strikes "would delay it for one to three years."
Underscoring the point, he added that this is what he
meant "about a military strike not being decisive."

Unlike younger generals, such as David Petraeus and
Stanley McChrystal, Adm. Mullen served in the Vietnam
War. It seems likely that this experience prompted his
philosophical aside about the war in Afghanistan:

"I would remind everyone of an essential truth: War is
bloody and uneven. It.s messy and ugly and incredibly
wasteful, but that doesn.t mean it isn.t worth the
cost."

Though the immediate context for that remark was
Afghanistan, Mullen has underscored time and again that
war with Iran would be a far larger disaster. Those
with a modicum of familiarity with the military,
strategic and economic equities at stake know he is
right.

* Firing .Fox.

Recall that one of Mullen.s Vietnam veteran
contemporaries, Adm. William "Fox" Fallon was cashiered
as CENTCOM commander in March 2008 for saying things
like war with Iran "isn't going to happen on my watch."

Fallon openly encouraged negotiations with Iran as the
only sensible approach, and harshly criticized the
"constant drum beat" for war.

Fallon.s attitude appears to be shared by the more
politically cautious - and less rhetorically blunt -
Mullen, as the same war-with-Iran drumbeat reaches a
new crescendo today.

Fallon abhorred the thought of being on the receiving
end of an order inspired by the likes of then-Vice
President Dick Cheney and Deputy National Security
Adviser Elliott Abrams to send American troops into
what would surely be - in Mullen.s words - a "bloody,
uneven, messy, ugly and incredibly wasteful" war.

How strong the pressure was within the Bush
administration to attack Iran - or to give Israel "a
green light" to attack Iran - can be read between the
lines in a Feb. 14 exchange between ABC News. "This
Week" host Jonathan Karl and former Vice President
Cheney.

Karl: "How close did the Bush administration come to
taking military action against Iran?"

Cheney: "Some of that I can't talk about, obviously,
still. I'm sure it's still classified. We clearly never
made the decision - we never crossed over that line of
saying, .Now we're going to mount a military operation
to deal with the problem.. ."

Karl: "David Sanger of the New York Times says that the
Israelis came to you - came to the administration in
the final months and asked for certain things,
bunker-buster bombs, air-to-air refueling capability,
over-flight rights, and that basically the
administration dithered, did not give the Israelis a
response. Was that a mistake?"

Cheney: "I can't get into it still. I'm sure a lot of
those discussions are still very sensitive."

Karl: "Let me ask you: Did you advocate a harder line,
including in the military area, in those final months?"

Cheney: "Usually."

Karl: "And with respect to Iran?"

Cheney: "Well, I made public statements to the effect
that I felt very strongly that we had to have the
military option, that it had to be on the table, that
it had to be a meaningful option, and that we might
well have to resort to military force in order to deal
with the threat that Iran represented. . [But] we never
got to the point where the President had to make a
decision one way or the other."

* Renewed pressures

Clearly, those pressures have not disappeared during
the first 13 months of the Obama administration. Today,
it appears that Mullen has replaced Fallon as the
principal military obstacle to exercising the war
option against Iran.

From his recent demeanor, as well as his many
statements since he became the country.s most senior
officer, it is apparent that Mullen does not believe
that a "preventive war" against Iran would be worth the
horrendous cost.

Washington rhetoric, echoed by the many stenographers
of the Fawning Corporate Media over the past eight
years, has brought a veneer of respectability to the
international crime of aggressive war, as long as done
or sanctioned by the United States.

With nodding approval from the FCM, Bush and Cheney
sold the notion that such attacks can be justified to
"prevent" some future hypothetical threat to the United
States or its allies, the supposed rationale for
invading Iraq in 2003.

Clearly, the Obama administration has not fully backed
away from such thinking.

While in Qatar on Feb. 14, Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton expressed concern over what she called
"accumulating evidence" of an Iranian attempt to pursue
a nuclear weapon, not because it "directly threaten[s]
the United States, but [because] it directly threatens
a lot of our friends" - read Israel.

Mullen, for his part, seems acutely aware that the
Constitution he has sworn to defend makes no provision
for the kind of war he might be sucked into to defend
Israel. When he studied at the Naval Academy, his
professors apparently were still teaching that the
Constitution.s Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2)
establishes that treaties ratified by the Senate become
the "supreme law of the land."

It would be, pure and simple, a flagrant violation of a
supreme law of the land, the Senate-ratified United
Nations Charter, for the United States to join in an
unprovoked assault on Iran without the approval of the
UN Security Council, which surely would not go along.

Adm. Mullen also appears to be one of the few Americans
aware that there is no mutual defense treaty between
the United States and Israel and, thus, the U.S. has no
legal obligation to jump to Israel.s defense if it
ignites war with Iran.

Now you may scoff. "Everyone knows," you will say, that
political realities in America dictate that the U.S.
military must defend Israel no matter who started a
conflict.

Still, there was a time - after the 1967 Israeli-Arab
war when Israel first occupied the Palestinian
territories - that the U.S. did take soundings
regarding the possibility of a mutual defense treaty,
in the expectation that this might introduce more calm
into the area by giving the Israelis a greater sense of
security.

But the Israelis turned the overture down cold. Such
treaties, you see, require internationally recognized
boundaries and Israel did not want any part of parting
with the territories it had just seized militarily.

Besides, mutual defense treaties usually impose on both
parties an obligation to inform the other if one
decides to attack a third country. Israel wanted no
part of that either.

This virtually unknown background helps to explain why
the lack of a treaty of mutual defense is more than a
picayune academic point.

* Why is Mullen worried?

Yet, if Adm. Mullen is an old hand at reining in the
Israelis, why is he so visibly worried at present? He.s
had experience in reading the riot act to the Israelis.
So what could be so different now?

Last time, in mid-2008, Cheney and Abrams were arguing
for an aggressive military posture toward Iran but lost
the argument to Mullen and his senior commanders, who -
in the final days of the Bush administration - won the
backing of President Bush.

When former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert seemed intent on
starting hostilities with Iran before Bush and Cheney
left office, Bush ordered Adm. Mullen to Israel to tell
the Israelis, in no uncertain terms, don.t do it.
Mullen gladly rose to the occasion; actually, he outdid
himself.

With Bush.s full support, Mullen told the Israelis to
disabuse themselves of the notion that US military
support would be knee-jerk automatic if Israel somehow
provoked open hostilities with Iran.

We also learned from the Israeli press that Mullen went
so far as to warn the Israelis not to even think about
another incident at sea like the Israeli attack on the
USS Liberty on June 8, 1967, which left 34 American
crew killed and more than 170 wounded.

Never before had a senior U.S. official braced Israel
so blatantly about the Liberty incident, which was
covered up unconscionably by Lyndon B. Johnson.s
administration, the Congress, and by the Navy itself.

The lesson the Israelis took away from the Liberty
incident was that they could get away with murder,
literally, and walk free because of political realities
in the United States. Never again, said Mullen. He
could not have raised a more neuralgic issue.

So, again, what.s different about today? How to account
for Mullen.s decision to keep expressing his worries
about "unintended consequences"?
I believe the admiral fears that things are about to
spin out of control. Whether there will be war does not
depend on Mullen - or even Obama. It depends on Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And Mullen does well
to be worried.

* Netanyahu.s impression of Obama

It is altogether likely that Netanyahu has concluded
that Barack Obama is - in the vernacular - a wuss. Why,
for example, does the President keep sending an endless
procession of the most senior U.S. officials to Tel
Aviv to plead with their Israeli counterparts: Please,
pretty please, don.t start a war with Iran.

Loose-cannon Vice President Joe Biden arrives on
Monday, hopefully with clearer instructions than when
he blithely told ABC on July 4, 2009, that Israel is a
"sovereign nation" and thus "entitled" to launch a
military strike against Iran, adding that Washington
would make no effort to dissuade the Israeli
government.

Will Biden manage to keep his foot out of his mouth
this time, or will his nearly four decades of
experience in the U.S. Senate - learning how to
position himself politically in regards to Israel -
again reassert itself?

It is a safe bet that Netanyahu is wryly amused at such
obsequious buffoonery. But his impression of Obama.s
backbone - or lack thereof - is key.

The Israeli Prime Minister must be drawing some lessons
from Obama.s aversion to leveraging the $3 billion a
year the U.S. gives to Israel. Why doesn.t he simply
pick up the phone and warn me himself, Netanyahu might
be asking himself.

Is Obama so deathly afraid of the powerful Likud Lobby
that he cannot bring himself to call me? Is the
President afraid his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel,
might listen in and leak it to neoconservative pundits
like the Washington Post.s Dana Milbank?

Netanyahu has had ample time to size up the President.
Their initial encounter in May 2009 reminded me very
much of the disastrous meeting in Vienna between
another young American president and Nikita Khrushchev
in early June 1961.

The Soviets took the measure of President John Kennedy,
and a result was the Cuban missile crisis which brought
the world as close as it has ever come, before or
since, to nuclear destruction.

The Israeli Prime Minister has found it possible to
thumb his nose at Obama.s repeated pleas for a halt in
illegal construction of Israeli settlements in the
occupied territories - without consequence. Moreover,
Netanyahu has watched Obama cave in time after time -
on domestic, as well as international issues.

Netanyahu styles himself as sitting in the catbird.s
seat of the relationship, largely because of the Likud
Lobby.s unparalleled influence with U.S. lawmakers and
opinion makers - not to mention the entrée the Israelis
enjoy to the chief executive himself by having one of
their staunchest allies, Rahm Emanuel, in position as
White House chief of staff. In the intelligence
business, we might call that an "agent of influence."

Emanuel.s father, Benjamin Emanuel, was born in
Jerusalem and served in the Irgun, the pre-independence
Zionist guerrilla organization. During the 1991 Persian
Gulf War, Rahm Emanuel, then in his early 30s, traveled
to Israel as a civilian volunteer to work with the
Israeli Defense Forces. He served in one of the IDF.s
northern bases.

* Mullen.s worries

So, Netanyahu is supremely confident of the solidity of
his position with the movers and shakers in Congress,
Washington opinion makers, and even within the Obama
administration, and he gives off signs of being
singularly underwhelmed by the President.

These factors enhance the possibility Netanyahu will
opt for the kind of provocation that would confront
Obama with a Hobson.s choice of either joining an
Israeli attack on Iran or facing dire political
consequences at home.

And so Mullen continues to worry - not only about
"unintended consequences," but about what might be
accurately described as intended consequences, as well.
The most immediate of these could involve
mouse-trapping Obama into committing U.S. forces to war
provoked with Iran.

And for those fond of saying that "everything is on the
table," be advised that this would go in spades in this
context.

Very little seems outlandish these days. Remember
Seymour Hersh.s report about Cheney.s office conjuring
up plots as to how best to trigger a war with Iran?
Hersh said:

"The one that interested me [Hersh] the most was why
don.t we build - we in our shipyard - build four or
five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy
Seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of
our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a
shoot-up."

In other words, another Tonkin Gulf incident, like the
one that President Johnson used to justify a massive
escalation in Vietnam.

Only a modern-day Gulf of Tonkin in the Strait of
Hormuz could be even more problematic, given the
waterway's vital role as a supply route for oil tankers
necessary for maintaining the world.s economy.

The navigable part of the Strait of Hormuz is narrow,
and things often go bump in the night without trying.
For example:

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) - On the evening of
Jan. 8, 2007, a US nuclear-powered submarine collided
with a Japanese oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz,
through which 40 percent of the world's oil supplies
travel, officials said. The collision between the USS
Newport News and the Japanese-flagged motor vessel
Mogamigawa occurred at approximately 10:15 in the
evening (local time) in the Strait of Hormuz while the
submarine was transiting submerged.

AP, March 20, 2009: "The USS Hartford nuclear submarine
and the amphibious USS New Orleans collided in the
waters between Iran and the Arabian peninsula today.
Fifteen sailors were slightly injured aboard the
Hartford.the New Orleans suffered a ruptured fuel tank,
spilling 25,000 gallons of diesel..The ships were on
routine security patrols in a busy shipping route."

Think back also to the bizarre accounts of the incident
involving swarming Iranian boats and U.S. naval ships
in the Strait of Hormuz on Jan. 6, 2008.

* Preventing preventive war

The Persian Gulf would be an ideal locale for Israel to
mount a provocation eliciting Iranian retaliation that
could, in turn, lead to a full-scale Israeli attack on
Iran.s nuclear-related sites.

Painfully aware of that possible scenario, Adm. Mullen
noted at a July 2, 2008, press conference, that
military-to-military dialogue could "add to a better
understanding" between the U.S. and Iran.

If Mullen.s worries are to be taken as genuine (and I
believe they are), it would behoove him to resurrect
that idea and formally propose such dialogue to the
Iranians.
He is the U.S. government.s senior military officer and
should not let himself be stymied by neoconservative
partisans more interested in regime change in Tehran
than in working out a modus vivendi and reduction of
tension.

The following two modest proposals could go a long way
toward avoiding an armed confrontation with Iran -
whether accidental, or provoked by those who may
actually wish to precipitate hostilities and involve
the U.S.

1 - Establish a direct communications link between top
military officials in Washington and Tehran, in order
to reduce the danger of accident, miscalculation or
covert attack.

2 - Launch immediate negotiations by top Iranian and
American naval officers to conclude an incidents-at-sea
protocol.

A communications link has historically proven its merit
during times of high tension. The Cuban missile crisis
of 1962 underscored the need for instantaneous
communications at senior levels, and a "hot line"
between Washington and Moscow was established the
following year.

That direct link played a crucial role, for example, in
preventing the spread of war in the Middle East during
the Six-Day War in early June 1967.

Another useful precedent is the "Incidents-at-Sea"
agreement between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, signed
in Moscow in May 1972. That period was another time of
considerable tension between the two countries,
including several inadvertent naval encounters that
could well have escalated. The agreement sharply
reduced the likelihood of such incidents.

I believe it would be difficult for American and
Iranian leaders alike to oppose measures that make such
good sense. Press reports show that top U.S. commanders
in the Persian Gulf have favored such steps. And, as
indicated above, Adm. Mullen has already appealed for
military-to-military dialogue.

In the present circumstances, it has become
increasingly urgent to discuss seriously how the United
States and Iran might avoid a conflict started by
accident, miscalculation or provocation. Neither the
U.S. nor Iran can afford to allow an avoidable incident
at sea to spin out of control.

With a modicum of mutual trust, these common-sense
actions might be able to win wide and prompt acceptance
by leaders in both countries.

-- Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the
publishing ministry of the Church of the Saviour in
inner-city Washington. He was in Moscow in 1972 during
President Richard Nixon.s first visit to Russia, when
the US-Soviet Incidents-at-Sea agreement was signed
together with several key arms control agreements. A
27-year veteran analyst at the CIA, he is co-founder of
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

Source: Middle East Online

~Noam Chomsky tells US-censored facts of Israel.

March 3, 2010

Noam Chomsky tells US-censored facts of Israel.

The Sad Truth of apartheid, and the United States as a
"Mafia don"

Noam Chomsky addressed more than 500 people at Sleeper
Auditorium last night as part of Israeli Apartheid Week.
Photo by Vernon Doucette

World-renowned linguist and U.S. foreign policy critic
Noam Chomsky addressed an audience of about 500 people
at BU last night, lashing out at what he calls Israel.s
"escalating policy of apartheid," which he believes is
in some respects worse than the longtime degradation of
the nonwhite majority in South Africa.

Addressing a supportive crowd at the College of General
Studies Jacob Sleeper Auditorium in his signature fluid
monotone, the 82-year-old Massachusetts Institute of
Technology professor emeritus of linguistics offered a
torrent of factoids, indicting Israel for its actions in
Lebanon, the West Bank, east Jerusalem, and especially
Gaza. The author of dozens of books, including most
recently the upcoming Hopes and Prospects, Chomsky spoke
at the invitation of the BU student group Students for
Justice in Palestine as part of the University.s
first-time participation in Israeli Apartheid Week
(IAW), a series of events held in cities and campuses
across the globe. According to its Web site, prominent
Palestinians, Jewish anti-Zionists, and South Africans
have been at the forefront of the IAW effort to exert
pressure on Israel "to alter its current structure and
practices as an apartheid state."

Under the watchful eye of four University police
officers, the proceedings were calm except for a verbal
altercation during the question-and-answer period
following Chomsky.s talk. Identifying herself as a
"member of the BU community," a woman called out, "You
are distorting the truth!" Several audience members
yelled back, "Shut up," and a woman seated near the
protestor shouted, "We want to hear him, not you."

With references to "slaughter" in Gaza and Israel.s
successful efforts (with U.S. complicity) to quell
protest and expressions of sympathy among Palestinians
in the West Bank, Chomsky returned often to the
apartheid theme. At one point he described Gaza.s living
conditions as being worse than the bantustans, the
so-called homelands of apartheid South Africa. He later
referred to Israel.s actions in sealed-off Gaza as a
campaign of extermination.

His comments were punctuated by his familiar refrain
that the United States and Israel are "rogue states."
With few exceptions, U.S. support of Israel has been
unflagging, he said.

"The world works like the Mafia, and we.re the don,"
Chomsky said. "You do what we say or else." Israel is on
its way to becoming a pariah state, he continued, yet
like South Africa, it receives increasingly lonely U.S.
support.

Chomsky took issue with Israel.s claims of self-defense,
especially in its attacks on Hamas for firing rockets
into Israel. As for Israel.s pretext for its 2006
invasion of Lebanon . the capture of two Israeli
soldiers by Hezbollah . he asserted that "for decades,
Israel has been kidnapping and killing civilians,"
sometimes at sea. "That.s piracy worse than the
Somalis.," he said. And he referred to Israel.s practice
of detaining Palestinian prisoners without formal
charges as "holding hostages." Chomsky added that he
doubts that Mossad, Israel.s intelligence agency, is the
culprit in the recent assassination of Hamas leader
Mahmoud-al-Mabhouh in Dubai. "It was carried out so
unprofessionally, I could.ve carried it out," he said to
laughter.

Despite his railing against what he sees as a history of
Israeli war crimes and sabotage of peace efforts,
Chomsky ended on a positive note. "Pretty much
everything turns on a change in U.S. policy," he said.
"Those of us inside the United States can influence
policy. No one else can. If any change is going to take
place in Palestine, there will have to be change here.

"It.s hard work," he said in closing, "but it.s
possible."

Chomsky Apartheid - US MIND - Cognitive dissedent

The Daily Free Press

Chomsky joins Israel 'apartheid' debate

By Saba Hamedy

Updated: Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Michelle Simunovic

Professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institue of Technology Noam Chomsky speaks about Palestine at Jacob Sleeper Auditorium Tuesday evening.

A week-long war of words over Israel continued Tuesday after prominent liberal academic Noam Chomsky called on United States citizens to confront Israel over its treatment of Palestinians.

Chomsky, a noted author and Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor emeritus, drew about 450 students, faculty and locals to Jacob Sleeper Auditorium as he described what he called a double standard in Israel.

.Over time, the apparatus of Israeli control has become more sophisticated and effective in affecting Palestinian life,. he said.

He listed the permit system required of Arabs, restricted roads and the security barrier between Israeli and Palestinian territory . which he called an .annexation wall. . as examples of how Israel.s control has dominated Palestine.

.Israel has finally begun to adopt the South African policy of what they call .indigenization of repression,.. he said.

Chomsky.s speech came as pro-Palestine groups across the country marked Israel Apartheid Week, a campaign equating Israel.s domination over Palestinian territories with the policy of segregation white South Africans forced on the black population in that country until the 1990s.

Israel vehemently denies that the term applies to its situation, saying Palestinians have full rights in the state and that the security barrier is only used to defend Israelis from terrorist attacks, not to restrict Palestinians. movements.

Boston University.s Students for Justice in Palestine organized the event. Members said they were thrilled to have Chomsky deliver his thoughts during the weeklong campaign.

SJP President and College of Arts and Sciences senior Omar El-Kayal said .apartheid. is an apt comparison.

.It draws attention to the notion that there are similarities between the apartheids,. El-Kayal said.

SJP member and Graduate School of Arts and Sciences student Ian Chinich introduced Chomsky to the crowd as the .champion of justice for decades..

.He is widely considered one of the most important historians and analysts,. Chinich said. .His works have touched people all over the world . . . you.re all witnessing a historic event tonight at BU and a very historic movement in the history of Palestine..

Many supporting Israel have doubted the South Africa comparison, which Chomsky addressed in the question and answer session that followed his speech.

.It.s not exactly like the South African apartheid,. he said. .In some respects it.s not as bad, but in some respects it.s worse..

Chomsky also gave a history of the conflict and U.S. involvement in it.

Israel.s month-long invasion of Lebanon, for instance, was its fifth strongly supported by the U.S., he said. The pretext for the invasion was Hezbollah capturing two Israeli soldiers on the border, he said.

.For decades, Israel has been killing and kidnapping civilians in Lebanon.bringing them to Israel, imprisoning them, keeping them as hostages.but two Israel soldiers are captured at the border [and it] justifies a U.S. invasion,. he said. .It.s a comment of us and what we go along with..

Chomsky criticized U.S. foreign policy toward Israel but stressed it could also use its power abroad to lessen the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

.The world works like the mafia,. he said. .There is the don, or us [the United States], and when the don says not do something, you don.t do it..

If Israel is to change its stance toward a Palestinian state, he said, the United States must ask for it.

.If any meaningful change takes place, it.s going to have to begin here,. he said.

Some students in the audience said they believed Chomsky.s cause is a good one.

.As professor Chomsky said, the only way for any meaningful change to come around must start by U.S. citizens who care about Palestinians pressuring a change in foreign policy,. said CAS graduate student Lael Adams.

Others said they just wanted to hear Chomsky.

.He.s arguably the greatest or at least among the greatest intellectuals of our time,. said CAS graduate student Maria Kamal. .I wouldn.t miss a chance to hear him speak..
Recommended: Articles that may interest you
12 comments
Anonymous
Thu Mar 4 2010 00:26
Scott, maybe I'm misreading you but the quote you are referencing was Chomsky himself responding to a question about comparing Israel to South Africa, not a quote from someone opposing him.
robin
Thu Mar 4 2010 00:10
Chomsky is the Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson to this conversation. Pomposity looking for a podium. A mouth in search of a microphone. While he's succeeded in getting into the fray, he's not exactly a "big picture" thinker here. But his alarmist stance reminds us that too many people get way beyond their 15 minutes of fame and need to be taken down a peg for wasting our time with their rants.

How a country the size of New Jersey decides to handle it's security issues is their business. They certainly seem to be better at it. Applying our standards of security to Israel doesn't work. Israel's standards are higher than ours. Their protection of "their house" is tougher than our protection of "our house" That's why there are terrorist cells in this country and around the world training to destroy our people, our cities, our fabric of life. And that of others with whom they disagree. They have succeeded in most of those attempts. That is why we have security issues at home and around the world as Americans, we're not tough enough on the outside, and we're way too soft on the inside, i.e. the proliferation of central American gangs plagueing our major cities. We are giving up control at home and barely treading water to protect our soil from outsiders. If anything, we should be examining what pages we can take from Israel's playbook that would improve OUR homeland. And then our energies should be placed THERE. We need to be more proactive about our own self preservation.
Anonymous
Wed Mar 3 2010 16:22
Chomsky and Israel Apartheid Week. Two products of an extreme ideology based on lies. At least the black community of South Africa never tried shooting rockets on a regular basis at white towns, let alone stating their desire to kill all of the whites.
Anonymous
Wed Mar 3 2010 12:33
Seriously, you expected a thorough treatment of this important geopolitical problem to go along with a piece that is clearly just reporting on an event at school? In the Freep? Wow... You got some high expectations bruvva. I mean I would love some actual editorializing, but this clearly isn't an editorial.

But also, if you're dissatisfied, feel free to read the BU Today article- bland reporting that through its diction undercuts Chomsky's argument.

PS - I'm sure the "supporters of Israel" aka supporters of global capitalism and militarism through the continuation of the nation-state and the maintenance of the current economic and geopolitical system were too busy gibbering insanely to communicate. It's understandable, since what I just said (even without the gibbering part) is like saying "F you if you support Israel". However, I don't support "Palestine" either. Why support a social construct designed to dominate "the people" who identify with it? I mean honestly, screw anyone who does.
Anonymous
Wed Mar 3 2010 12:22
Chomsky is not exactly like hitler in some respects he's not as bad, but in some respects he is worse
Anonymous
Wed Mar 3 2010 11:30
How does Chomsky feel about Hamas often stated desire to destroy IsrAel & kill all Israeli Jews? What about Hezbollah? Iran? The history of the actions & charter of the PLO/&some factions of the Palestinian authority.?
/JHS
Anonymous
Wed Mar 3 2010 10:45
Glad to see Chomsky is still tossing around the same garbage he's been peddling for the past...what?...four decades or so? Some things never change, just the faces of the undergrads ready to lap it up. Chomsky is a "liberal" academic? Snort. Let me hip you to something. There is nothing "liberal" about Noam Chomsky. He's a far-left radical who's made a fortune using lies and distortions to teach kids to hate their country.
Timothy
Wed Mar 3 2010 10:10
It's an article covering a pro-palestine speaker. Did you expect more than you received? If the author were to take a neutral view, it would be to report the Chomsky talk, which technically means NO dissenting voices because only one side of the debate was present. Don't complain about something you never should have gotten in the first place.
Anonymous
Wed Mar 3 2010 09:45
I disagree. The author suggests through various quotations that Chomsky is indeed trying to promote peace through the speech. There is no apparent bias toward Chomsky's cause. Though he or she could have gone about making that the focus.
Anonymous
Wed Mar 3 2010 09:25
I don't know about you Scott, but I definitely thought Chomsky brought up very realistic and striking examples of Israel's policy that is so detrimental to the Palestinians. The quote you used was perhaps the most weak of the night.
Erin BU 08'
Wed Mar 3 2010 09:13
As a CGS graduate, I feel honored that another side of the story is being presented to such a knowledge-hungry group of students. In my opinion, Chomsky is accurately pointing out that those who resolved following the Holocaust do not have the right to disenfranchise. Both parties are in the wrong and it is up to the US citizens, deemed the enforcers in the situation (an issue in and of itself), to create/ foster an environment of humanity and fairness.
Scott
Wed Mar 3 2010 08:36
So glad the author sought out exactly one dissenting voice...and a very mild one at that....It.s not exactly like the South African apartheid,. he said. .In some respects it.s not as bad, but in some respects it.s worse.. Are you kidding me? This is the voice of those who support Israel? Where is the war of words that was promised in the opening of this piece...all we got was a chorus of words on, at the very least, a contentious position on a hotly debated topic. Give me a break.

In the USA (like Nazi germany) there can be no impartial opinion. The US-people themselves have paid for murder and mayhem sooooooo many times. And *E*V*E*R*Y*T*I*M*E* under false pretences. The real story for US-americans is how the MEDIA can be so well controlled, Goebbels would be in awe. TO PROVE MY POINT, try to watch Al Jazeera in the USA.. TRY!! You may hate it, but it is JUST A TV CHANNEL. .. but you CANNOT WATCH IT!! -- Ask yourself why you can't watch "the other" channel? Hello East Germany! Patriot Act, US under emergency rule, YES YES, this is no patr-idiot militia fever dream! The USA is thought-controlled!!!!! You are!! There CAN BE NO IMPARTIAL OPINION in a thought-controlled SOCIETY. You and your peers are part of a SOCIETY, and dissidents are the sign of health. They are an immune-system, they help to cut the crap. But you can't have it. Chomsky, the mildest and superbly reasoned dissident is hated, BECAUSE THE COGNITIVE DISSONANCE is too great. (We whities are the good ones, yet brown people suffer because of us!) How can that be? Why can we not even WATCH THE BROWN PEOPLE TV (Al Jazeera) and treat them like fellow humans. **** BING *** PAVLOV RESPONSE **** because they are not fellow humans, they are suicide bombing, rocket-launching, boeing-jet WTC flying, underpants-bombing -AL-BLABLA .... right? ... UNTERMENSCHEN. Corrupt tin-pot dictator street-crime-mugging hostage taking invaders with mosques of peace-loving Christian intelligent... (phew) ... Apartheid is wrong, but Hamas is so bad, Apartheid is justified. Torture is wrong, but Al Qeada is so bad, it is justified. Occupying foreign countries is wrong, but the brown people are corrupt and can't handle the oil and finance-banking, therefore it is justfied. --- Did you know that the USA has to repay huuuuuugggee debt to countries that actuall earn their way? Google: RANKING BALANCE PAYMENT WIKI and say to yourself: Since Reagan we have ammassed a debt that needs to be repaid. How about a peace economy? A new dollar and a fair finance system? HAHAHA. Not even remotely able to even THINK about it. Al Jazeera? HAHA, make me laugh. The reminder MUST BE ELIMINATED.. Hello Adolf Hitler.. Marx! boooo!! scare you!! piss your pants mighty marine special operations covert murderer. Haiti had to be invaded 4 times! Read the story of 1915.. Germans took 50 years to understand the GOEBBELS-PROPAGANDA... you US-Americans will take how long? It took you already 9 years to understand 9/11 (fishy fishy!!) how many more will suffer home-health-wage losses and STILL support the barons? How dumb do you think Nazi-supporters were in 1938? Were they?