Saturday, February 23, 2008

Time for Alan Colmes to improve on his facts

Leftists complain that Fox News spreads right-wing propaganda. The PC liberals and the rest of the political left bash Fox and falsely claim that only uneducated Americans watch it. Fox news actually says a lot of facts. Yet it's the most demonized TV news channel cause it's right-wing. There is one naive leftist who works and is a reporter for Fox news. His name is Alan Colmes.
When Cuban-American Humberto Fontova was interviewed about Ernesto [Che] Guevara on Hanitty and Colmes, Alan Colmes claimed it was only he who got facts about Che's firing squads as well as other facts Humberto got about the stupid bloodthirsty idiotic psychopath Che Guevara. That shows how the liberal Alan Colmes knows so little about Che Guevara. The firing squads at la cabana fortress are well-known. Proponents of Che try to justify it claiming that they were there because they were mass-murders under the fallen Fulgencio Batista dictatorship. However, the new Castor regime also executed people in la cabana for disagreeing with the government. One time, while I saw Humberto Fontova in the Dennis Prager show, a Cuban-American called. He said that his Hollywood boss called him and asked what he was doing. He said that he was making a movie about a Cuban-American family.
His boss said oh and then said that he wanted Kerry in to end the embargo on Cuba and said evil Communists come on. The Cuban-American said that Che Guevara killed his uncle for speaking out against Communism. Wow, that really sounds heroic Che, executing his uncle for speaking out against Communism.
Colmes also opposes the term Islamo-fascism even though they follow a form of fascism and claim to be doing their barbaric terrorist acts in the name of Islam. They still indoctrinate people [especially kids] to fight to spread their form of Islam around the world and that if they die, they don't die but end u[ in heaven with 72 virgins. Suicide bombers are holy Shahid fighters according to the radical Islamist ideology. Yet Alan Colmes says the term Islamo-fascism indites a whole religion even though it doesn't. It doesn't mean islam. Islam is a religion like Judaism and Christianity. But Islamo-fascists follow a brand of it and are hijacking Islam and even commit terrorist attacks on their fellow [innocent] Muslims especially those who disagree with radical Islamists and want peace with the non-Muslim infidels while following their faith.
He also said in the Hannitty and Colmes show when Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes interviewed former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu about Iran. Colmes said that Iran feels threatened by our rhetoric. Netanyahu responded correctly saying that Iran calls for the destruction of Israel while no one calls for the destruction of Iran. Alan Colmes like the rest of the political left and the political correct liberal nuts said that our rhetoric is making them do what they do. What about the Iranian government's rhetoric and their anti-American and anti-semitic propaganda. The Iranian government calls for the destruction of America, Israel and for the spread of their form of Islam. The US, Israel and this blog has nothing against the Iranian people. The three opposes the Iranian government as well as the demonstrators in Iran that yell death to American and death to Israel. Abedinejad goes to demonstrations that say death to America and death to Israel and calls for the destruction of Israel.
This blog is not cynically about Alan Colmes. Alan Colmes is just a naive liberal. He works for Fox news, the very TV station that his fellow liberals attack.

left-wing watch condemns crooks and liars for denying the existence of Iranian threat

Left-wing watch rebukes the leftist propaganda site Crooks and liars for downplaying the Iranian threat. It calls on you to sign a petition and has a link to it that calls for us to normalize relations with Iran,. which is the equivalent of countries normalizing relations of Nazi Germany. It also has a video that talks about the US coup that overthrew the elected Mohammad Mosadeq and replaced him with the pro-American shah. It does not mention the incitement by the Iranian government that calls for the destruction of Israel and the US and for their form of Islam to dominate the world, leaves out the nuclear threat and leaves out the fact that Iran supports terrorist groups that reject Israel's right to exist such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Left-wing watch knows that there are many Iranian people who want peace and don;t want war. But they don't represent the government. Iranian president Mahmoud Abadinejad goes to demonstrations that says,"Death to America." Yet the leftist crooks and liars site left that out. That site nitpicks to make political right look bad while ignoring leftists like Noam Chomsky who is anti-Semitic and makes some of the most ridiculous claims.

Monday, February 18, 2008

"Disengagement From Gaza Was A Big Mistake," Says Former Labor Party Leader & Government Minister Ben Eliezer

By Zionist Organization of America [ZOA]

November 09, 2007
Contact: Morton A. Klein, 212-481-1500
New York — The former Labor Party leader and Defense Minister, Benyamin Ben Eliezer, who is now National Infrastructure Minister in the government of Ehud Olmert, has admitted publicly that Israel’s 2005 unilateral withdrawal from Gaza was a big mistake. Speaking in a radio interview, Ben Eliezer said, “I admit and confess … I was with those who strongly supported [former prime minister] Ariel Sharon, and today I say with my head held high: We erred, we made a very big mistake ... [such a withdrawal can only work when territory is] handed over to responsible hands and anchored in agreements and international guarantees. Here we have a precedent -- a territory we left turns into a base for terror -- period.”

Regarding the ongoing Kassam rocket fire at Israel from the Gaza Strip, Ben Eliezer said there is no escaping the necessity of dealing with the problem, even at the risk of harm to the Palestinian civilian population: “Israel must respond, what else? ... Israel continues to say ‘I bind myself to ethical obligations,’ that no other country in the world binds itself to ... There is a contradiction here between two disciplines ... One nation is prepared to commit suicide and sees it as a mitzvah and an honor, and another wants to spare every ounce of blood” (Jerusalem Post, November 8, 2007).

Ben Eliezer is the most recent official to criticize the Gaza withdrawal and to assert the need to militarily deal with increased terrorism and insecurity that has flowed since from Gaza:

MK Yuval Steinitz (Likud): “It is clear that our withdrawal from the Philadelphi Corridor and our reliance on the Egyptians has proven to be a failure. The Egyptians are not acting ... in reality their behavior has drastically increased the amount of weapons smuggled into Gaza” (Jerusalem Post, January 10, 2006).

Former Israeli Defense Minister, Moshe Arens: “The security establishment must not forget ... that the Qassem [rockets] being fired on Ashkelon are being fired from areas that were abandoned as part of the Disengagement. The army must therefore return and conquer these areas, and only in this way will we be able to stop the rockets from being fired at us (Israel National News, April 25, 2006).

Col. (ret.) Moti Yogev, Ex-Gaza Division Commander: short-term offensives against Gazan terrorists are ineffective, the IDF must conquer both northern Gaza & the Egypt-Gaza border: “It’s true that in general military activity must be accompanied by negotiations ... but in this case, the Qassem rockets are a direct result not only of the terrorists who fire them, but of the wantonness, lack of professionalism and irresponsibility of this government and its ministers … The government is not implementing the most basic effective measures to fulfill its basic responsibility to protect the citizens of Sderot and the western Negev” (Israel National News, April 25, 2006).

Shin Bet chief, Yuval Diskin: Egypt has not combated World Jihad cells operating within Sinai and the peninsula is thus flooded with weapons smugglers (Haaretz, June 6, 2006).

Current Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee chairman, Tzahi Hanegbi (Kadima) and former Officer Commanding Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Ground Forces, Maj.-Gen. Yiftah Ron-Tal, have acknowledged that last year’s Israeli unilateral withdrawal from Gaza was mistake (Jerusalem Post, October 4 & 5, 2006).

Industry and Trade Minister Eli Yishai: Israel needs to find a way to reassert control over it (Jerusalem Post, October 22, 2006).

Pensioners Minister Rafi Eitan: “we need to sit on the Philadelphi Corridor for a long period of time” (Jerusalem Post, October 22, 2006).

Maj.-Gen. Dror Almog, OC, IDF’s Southern Command, 2002 -2003): “From a military point of view, there’s no question it was a mistake to leave [the] Philadelphi [corridor]” (Jerusalem Report, November 13, 2006).

MK Yuval Steinitz: the only way to keep Gaza from turning into southern Lebanon was to launch an “Operation Defensive Shield II” and to recapture the Philadelphi route, the border between the Strip and Egypt (Haaretz, November 14, 2006).

Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh: the government made a mistake by withdrawing from the Gaza area without an agreement with a responsible Arab authority (Israel National News, November 15, 2006).

Shin Bet Director Yuval Diskin: “in another two or three years, it will be very difficult to deal with the problem called the Gaza Strip” (Haaretz, March 13, 2007).

MK Yuval Steinitz (Likud) “The picture being drawn for us is grave ... I call on the government to launch Operation Defensive Shield II, in the Gaza Strip” (Haaretz, March 13, 2007).

Former Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Moshe Ya’alon: “the unilateral approach that drove the disengagement plan has failed and Israel must abandon it. The disengagement is seen by the other side as Israel fleeing.” The IDF should launch a massive land deployment in Gaza in order to “cleanse” the land of the rocket threat, without the need to establish long-term control or reoccupy the area. “The problem in Gaza will not solve itself and no one will solve it for us. It requires us to reach the terrorists and the areas in which they operate, and strike at the industry of terror. We did this during Operation Defensive Shield, and before that operation we were unsure about whether to proceed. Today, you must be blind not to realize the necessity of entering Gaza” ( Haaretz, May 26, 2007).

ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, “The ZOA strongly supports former Defense Minister Ben Eliezer’s judgment that on the terrible mistake of unilaterally withdrawing from Gaza and also on the necessity of acting militarily to put an end to the increasing security threats emanating from there. As the list provided shows, there is no shortage of distinguished Israeli defense and security establishment officials who have been making both points for some time.

“Leaving Gaza resulted in it becoming a bigger terrorist stronghold and source of insecurity, as even many former supporters of the unilateral withdrawal have noted. This demonstrates that there should be no further concessions and rewards to the PA and no further uprooting of thousands of Jews from their homes as is being planned on an even grander scale by the current Olmert government.

“Until the Israeli government recognizes that Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah are not moderate, peace-loving alternatives to Hamas, Israel will continue to embrace policies that further erode Israel’s security while the dangers to Jewish lives mount. The ZOA has urged repeatedly that Israel undertake a major military operation in Gaza to deal with the consolidation of terrorist groups there and to stop the rocket attacks. We have particularly urged the retaking of the Philadelphi Corridor, along the Gaza/Egypt border, as the only effective means for Israel to end the smuggling of offensive weaponry into Gaza.”

Chomsky’s War Against Israel

By Paul Bogdanor

In Noam Chomsky’s books, essays and public campaigns stretching back for decades, one theme is constant: his portrayal of the state of Israel as the focus of evil in the Middle East, a malevolent outlaw whose only redeeming feature is the readiness of its own left-wing intelligentsia to expose its uniquely horrifying depravity. His efforts began in the 1970s with the short polemic, Peace in the Middle East?, in which he argued that the country should be replaced by a binational socialist regime; they escalated in the 1980s with his lengthier works, Fateful Triangle and Pirates and Emperors, which portrayed Israel as a terrorist state with “points of similarity” to Nazi Germany; and they culminated in his most recent collection of diatribes, Middle East Illusions, in which he continues to present Israel as the main obstacle to peace in the region, in the midst of horrible war crimes against Israeli civilians.1 Dozens of publications, lectures and interviews contain further symptoms of Chomsky’s fixation upon the Jewish state. However, as we shall see, his polemics on the Arab-Israeli conflict bear the hallmarks of his intellectual repertoire – massive falsification of facts, evidence, sources and statistics, conducted in the service of a bigoted and extremist ideological agenda.

Abolishing Israel

Central to Chomsky’s position is the idea that Israel should cease to exist in its present form. This view is set out in his earliest writings on the subject, where he proclaims that Israel is “a state based on the principle of discrimination. There is no other way for a state with non-Jewish citizens to remain a Jewish state...”2 Taken literally, the claim hardly merits debate. Must a Jewish state deprive its non-Jewish citizens of the right to vote, form political parties, or hold elective office? Must it deny them freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or freedom of association? Chomsky gives no reason why a Jewish homeland must deny these rights to its non-Jewish citizens, although it must be said that they were totally absent in many states to which he has been attracted, such as Maoist China, which he considered “quite admirable”, or Stalinist Vietnam, where he found “a miracle of reconciliation and restraint”, or Pol Pot’s Cambodia, which he compared favorably with the American Revolution, with liberated France, and – to return to our topic – the Israeli kibbutz system.3

According to Chomsky, Israel’s Jewishness “resides in discriminatory institutions and practices... expressed in the basic legal structure of the state”, which defines it as the home of all Jews, wherever they live.4 But he does not object to democratic Armenia, which promotes “the protection of Armenian historical and cultural values located in other countries” and guarantees that “[i]ndividuals of Armenian origin shall acquire citizenship” through “a simplified procedure”; or democratic Lithuania, which announces that “[e]veryone who is ethnically Lithuanian has the right to settle in Lithuania”; or democratic Poland, which holds that “[a]nyone whose Polish origin has been confirmed in accordance with statute may settle permanently in Poland.”5 Nor does he call for the abolition of other democratic countries, such as the Ukraine, which “promotes the consolidation and development of the Ukrainian nation, of its historical consciousness, traditions and culture” and “provides for the satisfaction of national and cultural and linguistic needs of Ukrainians residing beyond the borders of the State”.6 Clearly Chomsky’s abhorrence of the modern nation-state is less than universal.

Equally offensive, in his eyes, is the relation between Israel’s Jewish and non-Jewish citizens. The Jewish state, he maintains, cannot be Jewish in the sense that France is French, for whereas a citizen of the Jewish state is not necessarily Jewish, a citizen of France is automatically French.7 The appropriate analogy, in his view, is “a White State with Black citizens” or “a Christian state with Jewish citizens”. He compares the notion that Israel is a Jewish state, “a democracy dominated by Jews”, to the idea that “England is a Christian state, a democracy dominated by Christians.”8 As every high school student knows, there is no state called England; but there is a country called Britain, which is in fact a Christian state, with an official Anglican Church, an Anglican head of state, an Anglican state education system, etc. Does Chomsky oppose the existence of Britain, an Anglican state with non-Anglican citizens? Does he oppose the existence of Ireland, a Catholic state with non-Catholic citizens; or Greece, a Greek Orthodox state with non-Orthodox citizens? For Chomsky, the list of discriminatory states is rather long, incorporating not only the countries just mentioned but also every Arab society, although it does not include his preferred communist tyrannies in Vietnam, which expelled its Chinese population, drowning as many as 250,000 boat people, or in Cambodia, where ethnic minorities were savagely decimated by the Khmer Rouge.9

How would Chomsky replace the Jewish state which he is so anxious to abolish? His proposed alternative is “socialist binationalism”.10 But Chomsky’s ideal is far more objectionable than a Jewish state with non-Jewish citizens: in his scheme there will be Jewish cantons with Arab inhabitants, and Arab cantons with no Jewish inhabitants. At one point Chomsky does stipulate that any individual “will be free to live where he wants”.11 But then he abandons this principle in favor of the binational state which he considers “the most desirable”, one in which “Palestinian Arabs who wish to return to their former homes within the Jewish-dominated region would have to abandon their hopes,” while “Jews who wish to settle in the Arab-dominated region would be unable to do so.”12 In other words, Arabs will not become a majority in Jewish areas, while Jews will be forbidden even to live as a minority in Arab areas. The founders of apartheid would surely applaud.

The details of Chomsky’s plans are even more disturbing. His binational socialist state will be “integrated into a broader federation” and modeled on the “successful social revolution” in communist Yugoslavia, where 70,000-100,000 people were massacred.13 It is in fact a “people’s democracy” of the familiar type, which will have to be “integrated” into the Arab world by force, given that “support for compromising Israeli independence is virtually non-existent in Israel.”14 The human costs of such a transformation can only be imagined. Perhaps this explains why Chomsky sponsored the leader of the Marxist-Leninist Matzpen party, who openly advocated terrorist atrocities against his fellow Israelis while promising that unless they were “split from Zionism”, they would suffer “another Holocaust”, because “the Arab revolution is going to win.”15

In his later writings, the absurdity of “socialist binationalism” became apparent even to him, and he altered his position. Demanding the creation of an independent Palestine, Chomsky now uses the term “rejectionism” in two senses: in one sense it refers to Arab calls for the destruction of Israel; in the other sense, it includes Israeli policies which “deny the right of self-determination to Palestinian Arabs”, that is, the right of the PLO to establish an irredentist dictatorship in the West Bank and Gaza.16 Thus Chomsky equates the PLO’s goal of destroying an existing state, a free society with Jewish and Arab citizens, with Israel’s reluctance to establish a new state, a nationalist dictatorship intended solely for Arabs. Such is the political morality which he recommends to his readers in the name of “peace” and “justice”.

Arab “Moderation”, Israeli “Rejectionism”

Chomsky’s bigoted views on the future of Israel are matched by his apologetics for Israel’s enemies. In his opinion, “the PLO has the same sort of legitimacy that the Zionist movement had in the pre-state period,”17 an insight which would be valid only if the pre-state Zionist movement had been founded with the goal of destroying a country and murdering its population. Furthermore, there is an “international consensus” including “the major Arab states, the population of the occupied territories, and the mainstream of the PLO” in support of a “two-state political settlement”, and this position is rejected only by America and Israel.18 This “consensus” view holds that Israel must make “peace” on the aggressors’ terms, creating a hostile PLO dictatorship in the West Bank and Gaza while triggering civil war by admitting millions of exiles under the PLO’s “Right of Return”, and allowing the military forces of the entire Arab world within striking distance of its major cities.19 It is not very surprising that Chomsky is so anxious to vindicate this position.

In fact, even these demands are purely tactical, as Chomsky is well aware but neglects to inform his readers. He pretends to believe in Nasser’s public overtures, a sign that “[Arab] rejectionism began to erode” after 1967. But Nasser was planning “a far-reaching operation” against Israel. Conscious of the need to “hide our preparations under political activity”, he instructed his generals: “You don’t need to pay any attention to anything I may say in public about a peaceful solution.”20 Equally misleading is Chomsky’s view of Anwar Sadat, who “moved at once” to implement “peace with Israel” in 1971.21 Sadat’s true position concerning “total Israeli withdrawal” was stated by his adviser Mohammed Heykal, editor of the official newspaper of the Egyptian regime: “If you could succeed in bringing it about, you would have passed sentence on the entire state of Israel.”22

Chomsky also suppresses the fact that in 1974 the PLO formulated its infamous “Phased Plan”, seeking through “armed struggle” to create a “fighting national authority” in part of the country before achieving “a union of the confrontation states” with the aim of “completing the liberation” of the rest of Palestine by destroying Israel.23 Instead he assures his readers that the Arab regimes and the PLO made “an important effort to bring about a peaceful two-state settlement”. As evidence of this effort, he adduces the draft UN Security Council resolution of January 1976, without explaining that the text of the resolution included an endorsement of the PLO’s “Right of Return” for millions of Palestinian exiles, which entails the dissolution of Israel.24

Chomsky’s counterfactual history of peace proposals continues in this vein. After Israel surrendered the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in 1979, PLO leader Yasser Arafat declared that “when the Arabs set off their volcano there will be only Arabs in this part of the world,” pledging “to fuel the torch of the revolution with rivers of blood until the whole of the occupied homeland is liberated; the whole of the homeland is liberated, not just a part of it.”25 One year later, Arafat made the following announcement: “Peace for us means the destruction of Israel. We are preparing for an all-out war, a war which will last for generations.”26 Shortly afterwards, Arafat’s Fatah, supposedly the most moderate faction of the PLO, reiterated its founding commitment to “the complete liberation of Palestine” and “the liquidation of the Zionist entity economically, militarily, politically, culturally and intellectually”.27 Chomsky, however, finds it “quite clear” that the PLO “has been far more forthcoming than either Israel or the US with regard to an accommodationist settlement”, a conclusion which would have embarrassed the editors of Pravda.28

While Chomsky offers every possible excuse for Arab extremism, he applies very different standards to Israel. In his version of reality, one of the “constant themes” of Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, was conquest of the whole region, “including southern Lebanon, southern Syria, today’s Jordan, all of cis-Jordan [Palestine], and the Sinai”, thus establishing Zionist hegemony “from the Nile to Iraq”.29 He adds that a “plausible long-term goal” of Israeli policy might be “a return to something like the system of the Ottoman empire”. He also believes that Israeli missiles are designed to “put US planners on notice” that pursuit of peace efforts “may lead to a violent reaction” intended to cause a confrontation between the superpowers, “with a high probability of global nuclear war”. All of these possibilities are part and parcel of Israel’s “Samson complex”, the final degeneration of an “Israeli Sparta” which has become the world’s “fourth greatest military power”, menacing the Saudi oil fields and even the USSR, and creating the danger of “a final solution from which few will escape”.30 Thankfully, the sage of MIT is at hand to expose the Jewish state’s nefarious plans for the destruction of the human race.

Lebanon: Heroes and Criminals

Perhaps the best view of Chomsky’s ideas on the Middle East can be gained from his coverage of the war in Lebanon. Here, again, the heroes are the terrorists of the PLO, while the criminals are the leaders of Israel. Thus Chomsky assigns “unique credibility” to an Arab journalist who discovered “relative peace” in PLO-controlled areas of Lebanon; his source was writing in the midst of the Israeli invasion,31 when PLO terrorists could no longer perpetrate acts of slaughter such as this:

The PLO men killed Susan’s father and her brother, and raped her mother, who suffered a haemorrhage and died. They raped Susan “many times”. They cut off her breasts and shot her. Hours later she was found alive, but with all four of her limbs so badly broken and torn with gunshot that they had to be surgically amputated. She now has only the upper part of one arm.

After Israel evicted the PLO from Beirut in 1982, “some Christian women conceived the idea of having Susan’s picture on a Lebanese stamp, because, they said, her fate symbolizes what has happened to their country – ‘rape and dismemberment by the PLO’,” but they were dissuaded.32 We can also learn of a pregnant mother of eleven children who was murdered “just for the fun of it” along with her baby; small children mutilated and killed when terrorists threw a grenade at them; a man whose limbs were chained to four vehicles which were then driven in opposite directions, tearing him to pieces; a newspaper editor found with his fingers cut off joint by joint, his eyes gouged out and his limbs hacked off; a local religious leader whose family was forced to watch as his daughter was raped and murdered, with her breasts torn away; a dead girl with both hands severed and part of her head missing; men who were castrated during torture sessions; men and women chopped to pieces with axes; and various other manifestations of “relative peace” under the benevolent rule of the PLO.33

Chomsky’s delusions about the PLO were not shared by its victims. The American Lebanese League stated that the country had been “occupied by PLO terrorists” who “committed an orgy of atrocities and desecration against women and children, churches and gravesites... From 1975 through 1981 the toll among civilians was 100,000 killed, 250,000 wounded, countless thousands made homeless,” with 32,000 orphans and the capital city “held hostage by PLO criminals”.34 Many years later, the World Lebanese Organization, the World Maronite Union, and multiple human rights groups concerned with the Middle East issued a public declaration accusing the PLO of genocide in Lebanon and addressing Yasser Arafat in the following terms: “You are responsible for the killing of 100,000 Lebanese civilians... The United States government should have asked you to appear at the Hague for the crimes you perpetrated in Lebanon...”35 But while the victims search for ways to commemorate the “rape and dismemberment” of their country by the PLO, Chomsky ponders a slightly different question: whether “the PLO will be able to maintain the image of heroism with which it left Beirut.”36

For Chomsky it is perfectly obvious that the PLO evacuated Beirut for humanitarian purposes, “to save the city from total destruction” at the hands of the criminal Israelis.37 Meanwhile, journalist David Shipler reported PLO tactics whereby “crates of ammunition were stacked in underground shelters and antiaircraft guns were emplaced in schoolyards, among apartment houses, next to churches and hospitals.”38 Israel’s conduct was somewhat less to his liking: Chomsky writes that in a comparable case, “few would have hesitated to recall the Nazi monsters.”39 But military historian Richard Gabriel observes that “concern for civilian casualties marked almost all IDF operations throughout the war.”40 After witnessing the combat first-hand, Trevor Dupuy and Paul Martell conclude: “As military historians we can think of no war in which greater military advantages were gained in combat in densely populated areas at such a small cost in civilian lives lost.”41 For Chomsky, however, while Israel “cannot be compared to Nazi Germany”, there are nevertheless “points of similarity, to which those who draw the analogies want to draw attention”.42 Not to be deterred by the absence of gas chambers and crematoria, he discloses the existence of Israeli “concentration camps”,43 and, for good measure, he refers to “the genocidal texts of the Bible”.44

He is equally dishonest about the human cost of the war. Whereas the Lebanese police tabulated 19,085 dead, with a combatant/civilian ratio of 57%/43%, Chomsky edits the sources to suggest that nearly all of the dead were civilians.45 Discussing the Phalangist massacre of hundreds of people in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, he refers to “high-level planning and complicity” by the Israelis.46 The Kahan Commission, by contrast, found that Israeli commanders warned the Phalangists “not to harm the civilian population”.47 A New York libel trial judged as “false and defamatory” the claim that Ariel Sharon had intended the deaths of civilians.48 Robert Hatem, security chief to the Phalangist commander Elie Hobeika, published a book maintaining that “Sharon had given strict orders to Hobeika... to guard against any desperate move,” and that Hobeika committed the massacre “to tarnish Israel’s reputation worldwide” for the benefit of Syria.49 Hobeika subsequently joined the Syrian occupation government and lived under Syrian protection; further massacres in Sabra and Shatila occurred under the Syrian aegis in 1985, initiating the slaughter of 3,781 people by Syrian-backed Amal terrorists and their PLO opponents, a bloodbath which evoked no reaction from Chomsky.50

The World’s Leading Terrorist Commanders

In recent years, Chomsky has surveyed the field of terrorism, where he discovers, yet again, that Israel is a paragon of criminality. Central to his argument is the deliberate misquotation of sources. Thus he explains that the “military doctrine of attacking defenseless civilians derives from David Ben-Gurion,” who is supposed to have confided in his diary: “If we know the family – strike mercilessly, women and children included. Otherwise the reaction is inefficient. At the place of action there is no need to distinguish between guilty and innocent.”51 This is a interesting example of Chomsky’s technique: the alleged quotation is not from Ben-Gurion, but an adviser, Gad Machnes. And the latter’s comments were the opposite of Chomsky’s version: “These matters necessitate the utmost precision – in terms of time, place, and whom and what to hit...only a direct blow and no touching of innocent people!”52 Meanwhile, Ben-Gurion’s own views were clear and explicit: “There is no other way than by sharp, aggressive reprisal, without harming women and children, to prevent Jews from being murdered...”53

Another example of Chomsky’s method can be found on the very same page. Here we are given a selective quotation of Labor Party diplomat Abba Eban, who wrote that as a result of Israel’s reprisal policy, “there was a rational prospect, ultimately fulfilled, that affected populations would exert pressure for the cessation of hostilities.” Chomsky reproduces the statement under the headline: “The Rational Basis for Attacking the Civilian Population”.54 Readers are informed that Eban “does not contest” the allegations he is discussing, namely the picture “of an Israel wantonly inflicting every possible measure of death and anguish on civilian populations...” Eban, of course, does contest these allegations, as is readily apparent from his insistence, elsewhere in his article, that Israeli leaders “were no senseless hooligans when they ordered artillery response to terrorist concentrations”.55

In addition to mutilating quotations which his readers are unable to verify, Chomsky makes his case by inflating or exaggerating each and every Israeli action involving civilian casualties. Reviewing the 1948 war, he tells us that Menachem Begin “took pride” in the infamous Irgun attack on Deir Yassin. In fact Begin, having ordered his followers to give advance warning to civilians and “to keep casualties to a minimum”, denied that a massacre had taken place.56 Elsewhere Chomsky refers to “the massacre of 250 civilians” at Lydda and Ramle, an allegation promoted by left-wing “revisionist” historians and long since discredited.57 He also discusses “the massacre of hundreds of others at the undefended village of Doueimah”, citing a possible death toll of 1,000, when even Arab officials had dismissed this claim as “exaggerated” at the time, recording 27 killings, apparently carried out in revenge for atrocities against Jews.58 But while distorting the facts of Jewish excesses, Chomsky has nothing to say about Arab violence and massacres which killed 2,000 Jewish civilians, let alone the fate of nearly 600 Jewish captives who were “slaughtered amid scenes of gang rape and sodomy...dismembered, decapitated, mutilated and then photographed”.59 These horrors are conveniently absent from his chronicles of “Middle East terrorism”.

Chomsky has other revelations in store, including a “recently-discovered Israeli intelligence report” which “concludes that of the 391,000 Arab refugees [in 1948] least 70% fled as a result of Jewish military operations.”60 Turning to the scholarly literature, we learn that far from being an “intelligence report”, this document was an unclassified “review” by anonymous authors found in the private papers of Aharon Cohen, who was “convicted of treason in 1960 for illegal contacts with Soviet agents” – surely “the last place to look for official IDF documents”, as historian Shabtai Teveth observes.61 No doubt the flight of Arab civilians during a war initiated by their own side with the intention of destroying the Jewish population was a major tragedy; equally tragic was the Arab ethnic cleansing of 800,000 Middle Eastern Jews once the hostilities were over, a crime which elicits no great concern in Chomsky’s writings.62

Other examples of Israeli “terrorism” include “the expulsion by bombing” of “a million and a half civilians from the Suez Canal” during the War of Attrition in 1967-70. In academic studies, however, we find that Egypt launched a massive artillery attack on Israeli forces, which “returned fire, targeting Egyptian artillery, the Suez refineries, and oil storage tanks”, whereupon “Nasser continued to evacuate the canal cities,” so that “by mid-September the town of Suez had only 60,000 of its original 260,000 citizens, and Ismailiya 5,000 of 173,000.”63 In other words, Israel was not perpetrating “the expulsion by bombing” of vast numbers of civilians but reacting to Egyptian attack, and it was not Israel but Egypt which removed the population from the war zone.

Another Chomsky tactic involves alluding to selected PLO atrocities against Israeli civilians, which he sanitizes as far as possible, and then equating them with Israeli operations against terrorists, which he depicts as premeditated attacks on civilians. In May 1974, PLO terrorists attacked Ma’alot, murdering 22 children before perishing in the Israeli rescue attempt.64 Chomsky’s version of the massacre is that “members of a paramilitary youth group were killed in an exchange of fire.”65 To this atrocity he counterposes the allegation that Israel was then engaged in “‘napalm bombing of Palestinian refugee camps in southern Lebanon,’ with over 200 killed”. His source is Edward Said, a former member of the PLO’s ruling council. Not to be outdone, Chomsky reveals that Israel was involved in “large-scale scorched earth operations”, with “probably thousands killed”, although “no accurate figures are available,” perhaps because his source for this claim appears to be an article by a far-left journalist in a short-lived fringe publication which cites unverified estimates by anonymous “observers”.66 These examples are matched by Chomsky’s assertion that over 200 people were killed by Israeli bombing of Sabra and Shatila in June 1982, based on an “eyewitness account” by an anti-Zionist propagandist in the PLO-sponsored Journal of Palestine Studies.67

Many of Chomsky’s judgments border on the surreal. In June 1976, PLO terrorists hijacked an Air France plane and diverted it to Idi Amin’s Uganda, where the passengers were to be held hostage. A week later, Israeli commandos rescued the victims in the famous raid on Entebbe. Reacting to public admiration for this blow against international terrorism, Chomsky lamented “the outpouring of hatred and contempt for popular movements of the Third World”. He felt that Israel’s rescue mission should be compared with “other military exploits, no less dramatic, that did not arouse such awed admiration in the American press”, notably the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. For Chomsky, the liberation of innocent hostages ranks with the fascist aggression which drew the United States into World War II.68

Extending his catalogue of Israeli “terrorism”, Chomsky describes an Israeli bombing raid against Baalbek in Lebanon in January 1984, “killing about 100 people, mostly civilians, with 400 wounded, including 150 children in a bombed-out schoolhouse”. He then ponders the likely reaction “if the PLO or Syria were to carry out a ‘surgical strike’ against ‘terrorist installations’ near Tel Aviv, killing 100 civilians and wounding 400 others, including 150 children in a bombed-out schoolhouse along with other civilian victims.”69 But his own sources report that the target area was “the headquarters of the militant Shi`ite Moslem group known as Islamic Amal. About 350 Iranian Revolutionary Guards have been operating there as well, reportedly helping to train Lebanese and foreign volunteers in terrorist tactics, especially the use of bombs.” The Lebanese government, plainly a most impartial and reliable observer, claimed 100 dead in total – not 100 civilian dead, as Chomsky pretends – and 400 wounded, while a media correction the following day noted that “the figures were not independently confirmed” and that “the ‘civilian’ identification of the casualties was an assertion, not an agreed fact.”70 The Shi`ite militias had recently killed 241 American peacekeepers and 58 French soldiers, along with 29 Israeli soldiers and 32 Arab prisoners, another fact which he chooses not to mention.

Chomsky also describes an incident in which “Israel hijacked a ferryboat operating between Cyprus and Lebanon,” suppressing media reports that “the ferry was captured after intelligence information indicated several key Palestinian guerrillas were aboard” and that “there were indications the men were planning attacks on Israel,” facts which might be of interest to those who think that countries have the right to intercept vessels believed to be carrying terrorists preparing to slaughter innocent civilians in their territory.71 Having lambasted the Israeli interception of suspected terrorists who were promptly released unharmed when found to be innocent, Chomsky proceeds to compare the PLO massacre of schoolchildren at Ma’alot with Israeli bombardment of a Lebanese island near Tripoli, where casualties included “children at a Sunni boy scout camp” in his words, actually members of al-Tawhid, an Islamic fundamentalist terror faction then allied to the PLO.72

Chomsky also reports that in April 1985, “several Palestinians were kidnapped from civilian boats operating between Lebanon and Cyprus and sent to secret destinations in Israel,” a discovery which stems from his careful reading of News From Within, a Marxist-Leninist publication in Jerusalem.73 He complains that “Israel’s hijacking of a Libyan civilian jet on February 4, 1986 was accepted with equanimity, criticized, if at all, as an error based on faulty intelligence” – not surprisingly, one might add, when we learn that the aircraft was an executive jet carrying official passengers after a major international terrorist conference attended by PLO commanders such as George Habash, Ahmed Jibril, Nayef Hawatmeh and Abu Musa, and that the interception was based on intelligence information that the haul might include Abu Nidal; as it happened, none of the wanted fugitives were aboard, and Israel promptly released the travelers unharmed, permitting the Syrian Ba`ath Party officials to return to Damascus after their visit to a rogue dictatorship during a gathering of international terrorist leaders.74 Perhaps they were there to enjoy the scenery.

By falsifying facts and manipulating sources in his trademark fashion, Chomsky is able to generate his desired conclusion, that the American President and the Israeli Prime Minister – Ronald Reagan and Shimon Peres, respectively – are “two of the world’s leading terrorist commanders”.75 The pretext for this claim is Israel’s bombing of the PLO headquarters in Tunis. If Chomsky’s verdict is accepted then this attack on a prime terrorist target is worse than the slaughter of 100,000 civilians during the years of PLO terror and destruction in Lebanon; worse than the massacre of up to 55,000 inhabitants of Hama by the neo-Nazi rulers of Syria; worse than the murder of 450,000 victims by the Ba’athist criminals in Iraq; worse than the execution of 30,000 opponents by the fundamentalist ayatollahs in Iran; worse than the genocide of 2 million people by theocratic fascists in Sudan.76 These examples of Chomsky’s mendacity can easily be multiplied.

Sources of Chomsky’s Anti-Zionism

As we review this squalid record of apologetics for aggression and neo-Nazi fanaticism, one question springs to mind: Why? What is Chomsky’s motive for pretending that Arab regimes are falling over themselves to make peace, that the PLO is a bastion of moderation, that Israel is driving the Middle East, and perhaps the whole world, towards catastrophe and nuclear war? There are several possible answers. First, Israel is America’s most important ally in one of the world’s vital regions. In Chomsky’s words: “There is an offshore US military base in the Middle East called Israel.”77 If America is the Great Satan, then Israel, by extension, must be the Little Satan. Second, the Jewish state has disappointed Chomsky’s hopes that it would move toward “socialist binationalism” and solidarity on “class lines”.78 Contrary to his advice, Israel has not supported revolutionary movements such as the FLN terrorists who butchered up to 150,000 innocent people after Algerian independence; and he responds to this betrayal with all the fury of a rebellious teenager.79

Another explanation suggests itself. In his first writings on the subject, Chomsky asserted that a key barrier to a “just peace” was “commitment to a Jewish state”, such an aspiration being wholly unacceptable for a people which had suffered genocide in Europe as well as brutal aggression and ethnic cleansing in the Middle East.80 Shortly afterwards, he complained that his “peace” plan, entailing abolition of this Jewish state, had been thwarted by “the commitment of the Israeli government to Jewish dominance throughout the region”.81 He soon came to believe that the Jewish homeland was “a place where racialism, religious discrimination, militarism and injustice prevail”, with non-Jews subject to persecution “all too reminiscent of the pogroms from which our forefathers fled”.82 As we have seen, his work on the conflict is littered with analogies between Israel and Nazi Germany, culminating in references to “Israeli concentration camps” and “the genocidal texts of the Bible”, along with dark warnings of a Zionist “final solution” which will eventuate in the total destruction of the human race.

These sentiments recall Chomsky’s involvement in the Faurisson scandal, specifically, his decision to sign a public statement in support of the French Holocaust denier. Written by a prominent neo-Nazi, the petition depicted Faurisson as a “respected professor” of “document criticism” who had carried out “extensive historical research into the ‘Holocaust’ question”. It claimed that after making his “findings” public, the poor man had been subject to “a vicious campaign of harassment, intimidation, slander and physical violence in a crude attempt to silence him”, necessitating a defense of his “freedom of speech and expression”.83 On the pretext of defending civil liberties, Chomsky endorsed a statement which (a) affirmed the scholarly credentials of a Holocaust denier (in “document criticism”); (b) dignified his propaganda as “extensive historical research”; (c) placed the term “Holocaust” in derisory quotes; and (d) portrayed his lies as “findings”.84

Stung by criticism of his actions, Chomsky hastened to pronounce the following judgment:

I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the holocaust. Nor would there be anti-Semitic implications, per se, in the claim that the holocaust (whether one believes it took place or not) is being exploited, viciously so, by apologists for Israeli repression and violence.85

He proceeded to lavish praise on the deniers: Robert Faurisson was “a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort”, Serge Thion was “a libertarian socialist scholar with a record of opposition to all forms of totalitarianism”, and Pierre Guillaume was “libertarian and antifascist on principle”.86 In Chomsky’s mental universe, defenders of Nazi Germany are infinitely preferable to nefarious “apologists for Israeli repression and violence” who are not convinced that Israel’s overriding objective is the reconstruction of the “system of the Ottoman Empire” in the service of “Jewish dominance” throughout the Middle East.

Nor can we forget the unadulterated bile which Chomsky has seen fit to pour upon his fellow American Jews. Explaining why his Fateful Triangle was virtually ignored in the American Jewish media, he charged that “[t]he Jewish community here is deeply totalitarian. They do not want democracy, they do not want freedom.”87 Elsewhere he felt compelled to mention New York, with its “huge Jewish population, Jewish-run media, a Jewish mayor, and domination of cultural and economic life”.88 After all, he insists, American Jews are now “a substantial part of the dominant privileged elite groups in every part of the society...they’re very influential, particularly in the ideological system, lots of writers, editors, etc. and that has an effect.”89 Horrified by this injustice, America’s leading “dissident” will bravely endeavor to protect the suffering masses from their Jewish oppressors.

In sum, Chomsky’s writings on the Arab-Israeli conflict are a mass of distortions, misrepresentations and plain falsehoods, all of which serve to incriminate the victims and exonerate the aggressors in this ongoing tragedy. Every crime by Israel’s foes is portrayed as a regrettable but understandable lapse, a mere detour from the course of moderation which they pursue with such dedicated benevolence, in the midst of the infinite wickedness of the nation they are fighting to destroy. It is hardly surprising that for the advocate of such a worldview, fellow Jews are hated enemies, and Holocaust deniers cherished allies.



Noam Chomsky, Peace in the Middle East?, Fontana, 1975, [hereafter PME]; Fateful Triangle: United States, Israel and the Palestinians, 1983; rev. ed. Pluto Press, 1999, [hereafter FT]; Pirates and Emperors, Old and New: International Terrorism in the Real World, 1986; rev. ed. Pluto Press, 2002, [hereafter PE]; Middle East Illusions, Rowman & Littlefield, 2003, [hereafter MEI].

PME, p. 37.

Alexander Klein, ed., Dissent, Power and Confrontation, McGraw-Hill, 1971, p. 118; Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism, South End Press, 1979, pp. 20-1, 28; Chomsky and Herman, After the Cataclysm, South End Press, 1979, pp. 140, 149, 205.

Noam Chomsky, Bernard Avishai, “An Exchange on the Jewish State”, New York Review of Books, July 17, 1975.

Constitution of the Republic of Armenia, arts. 11, 14; Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, art. 32; Constitution of the Republic of Poland, art. 52.

Constitution of Ukraine, arts. 11, 12. See also Constitution of Albania, art. 8; Constitution of the Republic of Hungary, art. 6; Constitution of Romania, art. 7.

PME, p. 110.

“An Exchange”, supra.

On communist ethnic cleansing of the Chinese in Vietnam, see e.g. Henry Kamm, New York Times, July 22, 1979; for the death toll among the boat people, see San Diego Union, July 20, 1986, citing the United Nations; on Cambodia’s minorities, see Ben Kiernan, The Pol Pot Regime: Race, Power and Genocide in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, 1975-79, Yale University Press, 1998).

PME, p. 43.

Ibid., p. 39.

Ibid., p. 114.

Ibid., p. 69. For the death toll in communist Yugoslavia, see New York Times, July 9, 1990.

PME, p. 115.

See Carl Gershman, “Matzpen and its Sponsors”, Commentary, August 1970; Arie Bober, Noam Chomsky, Letters, Commentary, October 1970.

FT, pp. 39-40.

Ibid., p164.

Ibid., p. 3. Chomsky repeatedly cites the assessments of Israeli “doves” as proof of Arab moderation, just as Nazi apologists might have illustrated the Fuhrer’s peaceful intentions by invoking the delusions of British appeasers during the 1930s.

See Col. Irving Kett, “Israel’s Territorial Imperatives”, Jerusalem Post International Edition, May 5, 1990, citing the views of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and over 100 US generals; Michael Widlanski, ed., Can Israel Survive a Palestinian State?, Jerusalem: Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, 1990).

FT, p. 64; Michael B. Oren, Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East, Oxford University Press, 2002,pp. 319, 326.

FT, p. 64.

Interview, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, Autumn 1971, p. 7. See Gil Carl AlRoy, “Do the Arabs Want Peace?”, Commentary, February 1974.

Resolution of the 12th Session of the Palestine National Council, Cairo, June 8, 1974.

FT, p. 67; UN Security Council Draft Resolution S/11940, January 26, 1976. Similar considerations apply to the 1982 Fez Plan, based on the 1981 Fahd Plan, which calls for “peaceful coexistence”, according to Chomsky; ibid., p.344. This plan also included a thinly veiled endorsement of the “Right of Return”.

Associated Press, March 12, 1979.

El Mundo, Venezuela, February 11, 1980; quoted in John Laffin, The PLO Connections, Corgi Books, 1982, pp43-4.

Associated Press, June 5, 1980.

FT, p. 41.

Ibid., p. 161; PE, p. 58.

FT, pp. 455, 467-9.

Ibid., pp. 186-7, also citing two left-wing Israeli journalists who made the same points, again writing in the midst of the Israeli invasion, not during the peak years of PLO barbarism and massacre. Worse still, his footnote, p. 316 n. 10, cites a report by David K. Shipler, New York Times, July 25, 1982, as if it supports his claims; in fact Shipler’s article is devoted to accounts of PLO tyranny.

Jillian Becker, The PLO: The Rise and Fall of the Palestine Liberation Organization,, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1984, p. 154.

Ibid., pp. 143, 153, 159, 268, n. 13; Raphael Israeli, ed., PLO in Lebanon: Selected Documents, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1983, pp. 240, 244-6, 234-53, passim.

American Lebanese League, “The PLO Must Quit Lebanon!”, New York Times, July 14, 1982, advertisement.

World Lebanese Organization et al., “Who is the Oppressor in the Middle East?” Washington Times, October 7, 1996, advertisement.

FT, p. 314.

FT, p. 309.

New York Times, July 25, 1982. For protests by Lebanese civilians against PLO tactics, see Becker, op. cit., pp. 153, 280, n. 10.

FT, p. 217, referring to a hypothetical Syrian conquest of northern Israel.

Richard A. Gabriel, Operation Peace for Galilee, Hill & Wang, 1984, pp. 86-7.

Trevor N. Dupuy and Paul Martell, Flawed Victory: The Arab-Israeli Conflict and the 1982 War in Lebanon,, Hero Books, 1986, p. 173.

FT, p. 313.

Ibid., pp. 217, 240, 307, 333, 335, 390, 398, 404, 415.

Ibid., p. 444.

FT, p. 221. The Lebanese figures comprise 12,310 killed outside Beirut, with a combatant/civilian ratio of 80%/20%, and 6,775 dead inside Beirut, with a ratio of 16% / 84%; Associated Press, December 1, 1982; Christian Science Monitor, December 21, 1982.

FT, p. 405.

“Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Events at the Refugee Camps in Beirut, The Kahan Commission”, February 8, 1983, published in the Jerusalem Post, February 9, 1983.

New York Times, January 25, 1985.

See the report by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, “Elie Hobeika’s Assassination: Covering Up the Secrets of Sabra and Shatilla”, Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 1, No. 17, January 30, 2002.

New York Times, March 10, 1992, citing figures from the Lebanese police, who added that another 144,000 died in the civil war, 1975-90, with 13,968 abducted by Christian and Muslim militias, most presumed dead, in addition to 6,630 killed in “conflicts involving Palestinians” and 857 killed in the Sabra and Shatila massacre.

FT, p. 182; also PE, p. 73.

Protocol of Meeting, January 1-2, 1948, Kibbutz Meuhad Archive, Ramat Efal, Israel, pp. 3-4; reproduced in Efraim Karsh, “Benny Morris and the Reign of Error”, Middle East Quarterly, March 1999. Emphasis added.

Protocol of Mapai Central Committee Meeting, September 16, 1954, David Ben-Gurion Archive, Sde Boker, Israel; reproduced in David Tal, “Israel’s Road to the 1956 War”, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 28, No. 1, February 1996, p. 67. Emphasis added.

FT, p. 182; also PE, p. 73, which further twists Eban’s statement by misconstruing it as a reference to the “savage attack” on Lebanon.

Abba Eban, “Morality and Warfare”, Jerusalem Post, August 16, 1981. Emphasis added.

FT, pp. 95-6; Michael S. Arnold, Jerusalem Post, April 3, 1998. Chomsky writes of 250 dead, but by 1987 historians at Bir Zeit University had reduced the figure to 120, i.e. 13 fighters and 107 civilians; Danny Rubinstein, Ha’aretz, January 28, 1998.

PE, p. 78; Alon Kadish, Avraham Sela and Arnon Golan, Kibush Lod, 1948 [Hebrew: The Conquest of Lydda, 1948], Tel Aviv, 2000). The figure of 250 dead was the number of Arab casualties reported by the local Israeli commander after the suppression of an armed rebellion; Arab rumors initially claimed that 3,000 had been massacred. Israel’s far-left “revisionist historians” have produced some noteworthy atrocity fabrications; see Meyrav Wurmser, “Made-Up Massacre”, The Weekly Standard, September 10, 2001, discussing the Tantura hoax.

PE, pp. 30, 78; Noam Chomsky, Turning the Tide, South End Press, 1985, p. 76; on the casualties, see Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948, Sussex Academic Press, 2001, p. 209, noting that 80 died in the conquest of the village; on the revenge, see Associated Press, August 24, 1984.

On the Jewish civilians, see Netanel Lorch, The Edge of the Sword: Israel’s War of Independence, 1947-1949, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1961, p. 450; on the captives, Sarah Honig, Jerusalem Post, March 1, 2001.

PE, p. 198, n. 105.

Shabtai Teveth, “The Palestine Arab Refugee Problem and its Origins”, Middle East Studies, Vol. 26, No. 2, April 1990, pp. 214-49; quotations are at pp. 216-7.

Ya’acov Meron, “Why Jews Fled the Arab Countries”, Middle East Quarterly, September 1995; Moshe Gat, The Jewish Exodus from Iraq, 1948-1951, Frank Cass, 1997); Malka Hillel Shulewitz, ed., The Forgotten Millions: The Modern Jewish Exodus from Arab Lands, Continuum, 2001); Itamar Levin and Rachel Neiman, Locked Doors: The Seizure of Jewish Property in Arab Countries, Praeger, 2001).

PE, p. 73; Jonathan Shimshoni, Israel and Conventional Deterrrence: Border Warfare From 1953 to 1970, Cornell University Press, 1988, pp. 137-8.

Becker, op. cit., pp. 186-7.

PE, p.65.

FT, p. 189; PE, p. 65; Chomsky’s source for the claim of “thousands killed” seems to be the article by far-left writer Judith Coburn quoted in FT, pp. 190-1.

FT, pp. 197, 318, n. 42.

Seven Days, July 1976; reprinted in Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1, Autumn 1976.

PE, p. 76.

New York Times, January 5, 6, 1984. See also Boston Globe, January 5, 1984.

PE, p. 64; Boston Globe, July 3, 1984.

PE, p. 65, citing New York Times, June 30, 1984, which naively repeats official Lebanese claims that the casualties were “boy scouts” and seems unaware that al-Tawhid was allied to the PLO, thus giving the erroneous impression that the Israeli and Lebanese versions were in conflict.

PE, pp. 64, 194, n. 71.

Ibid., p.64; New York Times, Los Angeles Times, February 5, 1986.

PE, p. 38.

On Syria, see “The Massacres of Hama: Law Enforcement Requires Accountability”, Syrian Human Rights Committee, London, 2002, reporting 30,000-40,000 massacred and 10,000-15,000 disappeared. On Iraq, Gerard Alexander, “A Lifesaving War”, The Weekly Standard, March 29, 2004. On Iran, Christina Lamb, “Khomeini Fatwa ‘Led to Killing of 30,000 in Iran’”, Sunday Telegraph, UK, February 4, 2001. On Sudan, “Quantifying Genocide in Southern Sudan and the Nuba Mountains, 1983-1998”, US Committee for Refugees, 1998.

Taimur Khan, “Controversial Linguist Rails at US Policies”, Daily Pennsylvanian, October 4, 2002.

PME, pp. 43, 66-7. He quotes with approval anti-Zionist calls for the replacement of “war between nations” by “war between classes”, p. 78.

Ibid., p. 73. On the FLN massacres, see Alistair Horne, A Savage War of Peace: Algeria 1954-1962, Viking Press, 1977, p. 538.

PME, p. 33.

“An Exchange on the Jewish State”, New York Review of Books, July 17, 1975.

“Time to Dissociate From Israel”, Christian Science Monitor, March 4, 1988, advertisement signed by Noam Chomsky et al.

The text of the petition is reproduced in the definitive study of the subject, Werner Cohn, Partners in Hate: Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers, Avukah Press, 1995, pp. 53-4.

The professed goal of defending free speech was a fraud: Faurisson’s right to teach had not been withdrawn, his books had been neither seized nor censored, he had not been denied access to public libraries or archives, and the law suit against him was a private action. See Nadine Fresco, “The Denial of the Dead: On the Faurisson Affair”, Dissent, Fall 1981.

W.D. Rubinstein, “Chomsky and the Neo-Nazis”, Quadrant, October 1981.

Chomsky, “Some Elementary Comments on the Rights of Freedom of Expression”, published as the preface to Robert Faurisson, Memoir en Defense, Paris: La Vieille Taupe, 1980); The Nation, February 28, 1981; Letter, Village Voice, March 18, 1986.

Interview, Shmate: A Journal of Progressive Jewish Thought, Summer 1988.

Lies of Our Times, January 1990.

Interview, “Israel, the Holocaust and Anti-Semitism”, Alternative Radio, October 24, 1986; for a transcript, see Noam Chomsky, Chronicles of Dissent: Interviews With David Barsamian, Common Courage Press, 1992, pp. 89-103.

Losing to the greens

By Robert Novak
"I've never seen industry so deathly afraid of the current politics surrounding climate change policy," a Bush administration environmental official told me. With good reason. As Democrats take control of Congress, once-firm opposition to the green lobby's campaign of imposing carbon emission controls is weak.

Panicky captains of industry have themselves largely to blame for failing to respond to the environmentalists' well-financed propaganda operation. One government official says "industry appears utterly helpless and utterly clueless as to how to respond." But the Bush administration itself is a house divided with support for greens and severe carbon regulation inside the Energy Department, reaching up to the secretary himself.

None of this necessarily means climate change will become law during the next two years, with President Bush wielding his veto pen if any bill escapes the Senate's gridlock. Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, reassuming chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee after a dozen years' absence, will try to protect the automotive industry from draconian regulation. But over the long term, industry is losing to the greens.

The stakes are immense, as shown by the impact of the bill to implement the Kyoto proposal co-sponsored by Sen. John McCain, front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, the favorite Democrat of many Republicans. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that this measure would reduce gross domestic product by $776 billion annually, raise gasoline prices 40 cents a gallon, raise natural gas prices 46 percent and cut coal production by nearly 60 percent. Charles River Associates, business consultants, predicts that it would kill 600,000 jobs.

Yet, Jonathan Lash of the World Resources Institute said last week that McCain-Lieberman does not go far enough in reducing carbon emissions. Green extremists would prefer the severe legislation proposed by Sen. Barbara Boxer, the new chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee.

According to industry sources, Dingell has privately advised auto industry lobbyists to prepare for the worst. House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi is making carbon emission legislation a priority, and Dingell has warned Detroit that she expects him to move a bill through his committee. He will do his best to modify legislation, but he is obliged to follow Pelosi's wishes and cannot play Horatio at the bridge.

The same dilemma faces Rep. Rick Boucher, a staunch ally of the coal industry who will become chairman of the Energy and Commerce subcommittee on energy and air quality. He must balance Pelosi's desires with the interests of the coal counties in his southwest Virginia district.

Staunch foes of carbon regulation remain in the administration, headed by Chairman James L. Connaughton of the Council on Environmental Quality. But the Energy Department's top executive strata have gone green.

Since moving from deputy treasury secretary to energy secretary nearly two years ago, business executive and financier Samuel W. Bodman has kept a low profile. In a rare public utterance on global warming Oct. 5, 2005, he said an "increasing level of certainty" about global warming fueled by carbon dioxide "is real" and "a matter we take seriously." In private meetings, he has expressed dissatisfaction with administration policy. Bodman's undersecretary, former Senate staffer David K. Garman, has shocked industry lobbyists with his criticism of the president's views.

In the background is a pending Supreme Court decision on what the Clean Air Act requires or permits the Environmental Protection Agency to do about greenhouse gas emissions. Even if the court says the authority is merely discretionary, McCain or any Democratic president would then crack down on industry if nothing is passed before the 2008 election.

Ultimate salvation from U.S. self-destructive behavior may come from the real world. Most European Union countries, suffering higher energy costs and constraints on growth imposed by the Kyoto pact, cannot meet that treaty's requirements for emission levels. Furthermore, China is on pace to exceed U.S. emissions by 2010, meaning that unilateral U.S. carbon controls will have little impact on global emissions while driving American jobs to China.

This downside of Speaker Pelosi's green determination ought to resonate in union halls and coalfields of Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia. However, American industrialists, while wringing their hands, are not making their case.

Sunday, February 17, 2008

About this blog

This blog is here to expose the political left. It exposes it's hypocrasy and stupidity. It will show how powerful they are. Political correctness has gone too far. It's run by the political left. Political correctness is a leftist idea.
Political correct liberals have gone too far weather it's on environmentalism, radical Islam, Arab-Israeli conflict, economics or Latin America.

Arab-Israeli conflict
Left-wing watch supports Israel and it's right to not only exist but also it's obligation to defend itself. Left-wing watch understands that the occupation is the result, not the cause. The cause is Arab and Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist and their attempts to destroy Israel. Left-watch believes that Oslo was a foolish mistake. Neither Fatah [which dominates the PLO] nor any other faction in the PLO recognized Israel's right to exist. The Palestinian Authority under Arafat and Abbas had [and has] their controlled widespread incitement against Israel, which called for[and calls for] the destruction of Israel, praises suicide bombings as religious Shahids and all forms of Palestinian terror as heroic resistance. The incitement is on PA controlled radio, textbooks, TV, mosques and etc... Left-wing watch understands that there are Palestinians who want peace with Israel and neither are terrorists nor support them. But too many Palestinians are terrorists who are fighting to destroy Israel. Prior to Oslo, only a handful of Palestinians were terrorists or supported the PLO's goal of destroying Israel. Now, much more of the population have become terrorists who try to eliminate Israel. Left-wing watch opposes the right of return for all Palestinian refugees because it would demographically destroy Israel. Left-wing watch believes in resettlement of the refugees into normal houses outside of Israel. Left-wing watch supports US support toward Israel and praises the pro-Israel lobby. It understands that Israel is an important ally in the war against Islamo-fascism. The politically correct leftists either blame the west or Israel for the Arab-Israeli conflict. They don't want us to blame the Arab states and Palestinian terrorist groups who reject Israel's right to exist and try to destroy Israel even though they are the right ones to blame for the conflict. Left-wing watch also condemns Israel's 2005 disengagement from Gaza. Benyamin Ben Elizer, the former Labor party leader and defense minister who is currently national infrastructure Miniser admitted it was a mistake. As a result of Israel's disengagement, rocket attacks on Israeli cities especially on Sderot increased. The summit in Anapolis wll fail. The PA leadership under Abbas, as I said before, did not recognize Israel's right to exist. Abbas still calls for the right of return, which would demographically destroy Israel.

Radical Islam
Left-wing watch makes it clear that it does not believe Islam is a violent religion. Islam is a religion like Judaism, Christianity, Hunduism, Buddism or other religions. However, at the same time, there is a movement that is a threat to Islam, moderate Muslims and non-Muslims. it's hijacking Islam and believes it's a duty for Muslims to carry out a jihad on infidels, who are according to the ideology, moderate Muslims and non-Muslims and seeks to make the whole world their form of Islam. It is legitimate to call that movement radical Islam, Islamo-fascism, Islamic fascism, Islamic Nazism, Islam--Nazis or Islamic fundamentalism. Non-Muslims and moderate Muslims should work together to defeat Islamo-fascism.
Left-wing watch understands that it is politically incorrect to say radical Islam is a threat even though it's true. Political correctness would say you're a bigot if you say it's a threat
It's even worse in Europe, where over there, it's politically correct to blame the western nation's [especially the US's foreign policy] and Israel's policy on radical Islamist terrorism.

Latin America
Left-wing watch condemns political correctness for the double standard on right-wingers and America on Latin America. Left-wing watch supports the Cuban-American community against bigotry against them by the political correct "tolerant" left. Left-wing watch understands that people who wear Che Guevara shirts don't know anything about the real Che Guevara.
The real Che Guevara was a mass-muderer and an idiot. Left-wing watch does not believe he was a guerilla fighter. If he was, then a horrible one. He was horrible at guerilla warfare. Che killed thousands of innocent people in La Cabana for Fidel Castro after Castro as well as in the countryside while the July 26th movement i.e. Castro's terrorist group tried to overthrow the Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista. The ones executed in the countryside were executed for refusing to cooperate with Castro. Castro and Che were not only executing people in La cabana for being connected or served under Batista. Some were executed for disagreeing with Castro. Even though left-wing watch calls the Castro movement a"terrorist group," this blog also acknowledges that not all people in the Castro movement were terrorists. Some wanted to restore the democracy that was destroyed by the coup Batista did to gain power. They were executed in La Cabana for continuing to try to get democracy in Cuba.

Refuting Noam Chomsky on the Middle East

Noam Chomsky distorts what happened in the Arab-Israeli conflict. According to Chomsky, it’s the poor Palestinians are committing terrorist attacks fighting for their land while America and Israel are committing evil and rejecting peaceful solutions.

America, Israel and the PLO

According to him, while the PLO has been fighting for a two-state settlement, the US and the Israel reject it. It is safe to say that is false. The US and Israel always supported the two-state settlement. The PLO fought to eliminate Israel. In 1974, the PLO made the ten-point program calling for the PLO to accept any Israeli territorial concessions as a step toward their goal of destroying Israel. Chomsky points to a 1976 UN proposal calling for a two-state settlement. According to Paul Bogdanor, it calls for the right of return, which would demographically destroy Israel. The US vetoed the resolution and Israel voted against it because they knew the PLO did not want peace with Israel but would view anything that involved Israel giving concessions as a step toward destroying the state of Israel. Arafat told the Venezuelan newspaper El Mundo in 1979 that peace for us means the destruction of Israel. The PLO continued to be dedicated to destroying Israel. In 1988, while the PLO influence was dying out and after years of being pressured of recognizing Israel’s right to exist and giving up terrorism, the PLO decided to officially recognize the right of Israel to exist and officially denounced terrorism while unofficially remaining dedicated to destroying Israel and use terrorism when “necessary’’ for their aims. The US even believed the PLO. The US, which went along with Israel in calling the PLO a terrorist organization, had a dialogue with the PLO. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir did not trust the PLO. In 1990, the PLO committed a terror attack on an Israeli beach in Tel Aviv and on US embassy. The US halted its dialogue with the PLO. Chomsky claims Arafat was Israel’s police man. To the contrary, he was inciting a violent Jihad toward Israel and compared the Oslo agreements to a peace agreement between Muhammad and the Quraysh, in which Muhammad attacked the Quraysh tribe when he was stronger. The PLO violated all their agreements. Even after Arafat’s death, which some people claim provided hope for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, Fatah’s PLO continued to violate all the commitments they made for peace. Abu Mazen the so-called moderate called Palestinian terrorists “strugglers,” “martyrs” and “heroes fighting for freedom.’’ Abu Mazen is fighting Hamas not for peace, not for Israel but cause they have too much power. He only speaks up against terrorist attacks on Israel whenever it’s the ‘’wrong time’’ to do it when it’s not in the Palestinian interests to do it yet. His controlled media, textbooks, TV and radio call for the elimination of Israel through violent Jihad.


Chomsky supports Hezbollah, a radical Islamist terrorist group bad for Israel and Lebanon. He compares Israel to WWII Japan and Hezbollah to WWII China. Yet, there is evidence that Hezbollah is not simply a nationalistic group, which is primarily concerned about Lebanon and would fight off any occupying force there. It’s important to know that when Syria illegally occupied Lebanon and controlled their political system and when independence parades are where Syrian soldiers march up and down, Hezbollah did not fight Syria. Syria was supporting the so-called Lebanese nationalist group even back then. Israel did not control the political system and was willing to withdraw from all of Lebanon. After 2000, the Lebanese government and Hezbollah claimed the Shebba farms. However, there is also evidence that Hezbollah’s real aim is the destruction of Israel and the spread of Islam. This is an eye-opening excerpt from Jeffrey Goldberg [who is a contributor to the New Yorker] the following in his article, A reporter a Large inside the Party of God part I:

“[Hasan] Ezzeddin seemed to concede that the Hezbollah campaign to rid Shebaa of Israeli troops is a pretext for something larger. “If they go from Shebaa, we will not stop fighting them,” he told me. “Our goal is to liberate the 1948 borders of Palestine,” he added, referring to the year of Israel’s founding. The Jews who survive this war of liberation, Ezzeddin said, “can go back to Germany, or wherever they came from.” He added, however, that the Jews who lived in Palestine before 1948 will be “allowed to live as a minority and they will be cared for by the Muslim majority.” Sayyid Nasrallah himself told a conference held in Tehran last year that “we all have an extraordinary historic opportunity to finish off the entire cancerous Zionist project.”

Also, the 1985 Hezbollah program on Israel, which was omitted from the original translation by the Jerusalem Quarterly, says the following:

“We see in Israel the vanguard of the United States in our Islamic world. It is the hated enemy that must be fought until the hated ones get what they deserve. This enemy is the greatest danger to our future generations and to the destiny of our lands, particularly as it glorifies the ideas of settlement and expansion, initiated in Palestine, and yearning outward to the extension of the Great Israel, from the Euphrates to the Nile. Our primary assumption in our fight against Israel states that the Zionist entity is aggressive from its inception, and built on lands wrested from their owners, at the expense of the rights of the Muslim people. Therefore our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no cease fire, and no peace agreements, whether separate or consolidated. We vigorously condemn all plans for negotiation with Israel, and regard all negotiators as enemies, for the reason that such negotiation is nothing but the recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist occupation of Palestine. Therefore we oppose and reject the Camp David Agreements, the proposals of King Fahd, the Fez and Reagan plan, Brezhnev's and the French-Egyptian proposals, and all other programs that include the recognition (even the implied recognition) of the Zionist entity.”

Also, Middle East Media Research Institute [Memri] has caught Hasan Nasrallah on Lebanese demonstrations saying, ’’Death to America.’’ He also said that if all the Jews gather in Israel, it would save us the trouble of going after them worldwide. A Lebanese Shiite who teaches a tan American university by the name of Saad Amal-Ghorayab, who is not a supporter of Israel and talks to Hezbollah leaders, confirms that Hezbollah is anti-Semitic. Hezbollah is a radical Islamist organization. Frontline correspondent David Lewis interviewed Muhammad Mugrabi, a Lebanese human rights activist and attorney. Under the story section on frontline of Hezbollah talking about the documentary about the Party of God says the following:

“But attorney and human rights activist Muhammad Mugrabi tells Lewis that Hezbollah's presence "is a recipe for trouble for Lebanon ...They are not subject to the rule of law." Hezbollah is "untouchable" because Syria -- with 20,000 troops in Lebanon -- still backs Hezbollah and holds sway over Lebanon's President Emile Lahoud.”

Many Lebanese want Lebanon to be known as the westernized nation it was. They want it’s capital Beirut to be known as ‘’Paris of the Middle East again.’’ They don’t want to have Lebanon continue the war with Israel. They don’t want their country to continue to be a hotspot for conflict and want their country to be known as that. Hezbollah is that obstacle to what those Lebanese want because it does want to continue the conflict with Israel and cause it’s a radical Islamist party. As long as Hezbollah continues its unofficial military dictatorship and attacks on Israel, Lebanon will remain a hotspot for conflict. Hezbollah is a threat for Israel cause they build up more strength to get the strength they need to destroy Israel, attack Israel when they feel strong enough and also bad for the stability in Lebanon.

Yet despite these facts these facts, Chomsky has the nerve to compare Hezbollah, the terrorist organization that opposes peace with Israel and an obstacle to stability in Lebanon, to WWII china and Israel, the nation that seeks to live in peace, with WWII Japan.

Proof of Noam Chomsky's Anti-Semitism

You may be thinking that I'm calling Chomsky anti-Semitic for criticizing Israeli policies. But I will make clear that I'm not calling Chomsky anti-Semitic for criticizing Israel. I will go a step forward to say that if you believe that the Israeli occupation is the root cause of Palestinian terrorism on Israel and of the Arab-Israeli conflict, you are not anti-Semitic. You would be naive. This is not mainly about Chomsky's position on the Middle East. This article may talk a little bit about that. It's not mainly about that.

Let’s look at the evidence one by one. Chomsky has said the following in his response as to why he did not get that much reviews by American Jews about his book the Fateful Triangle:

"The Jewish community here is deeply totalitarian. They do not want democracy, they do not want freedom. Israeli doves like Meir Pail and Matti Peled have been saying for years that the American Jewish community is their worst enemy, that it is a totalitarian community, that it does not want democracy in Israel, that it does not believe in democracy in Israel, that it does not believe in democracy here."1

I will never say this to people who critique Israel or the occupation of the West Bank [Gaza is no longer under Israeli rule since the disengagement in 2005]. But I say this on Chomsky. After saying a shockingly hateful thing like this, I say, "Shame on the big publishing companies for publishing his books. Shame on the people who interview him." I must admit that I do have a Noam Chomsky book called What We Say Goes. This also proves that Chomsky can't handle the fact that American Jews don't react to his book. So he attacks the whole community. Yes, thumbs up for Chomsky. But did he realize he attacked himself to. It is a well-known fact that Chomsky himself is an American Jew. After hearing that, how can you say Chomsky is smart? Unless you look at it as him hoodwinking people into believing he's an intellectual bringing the truth.

Decades earlier, Noam Chomsky said that saying that the Palestinians don't deserve a second homeland cause they have Jordan is like saying that the Jews don't deserve a homeland cause they have New York with their Jewish run-media, Jewish control of economic and cultural life and a Jew mayor. Chomsky admitted he said that himself to counter the claim that the Palestinians don't deserve a second homeland cause they already have Jordan in the chapter Supporting evidence: The Middle East in his book "Failed States."

Faurisson Affair

Some of Chomsky's critics talk about his association with Holocaust deniers such as Robert Faurisson. Chomsky claims to just be "defending their freedom of speech." There is proof that what the critics say is right. Chomsky signed the following petition:

"Dr. Robert Faurisson has served as a respected professor of twentieth-century French literature and document criticism for over four years at the University of Lyon-2 in France. Since 1974 he has been conducting extensive historical research into the "Holocaust" question.

Since he began making his findings public, Professor Faurisson has been subject to a vicious campaign of harassment, intimidation, slander and physical violence in a crude attempt to silence him. Fearful officials have even tried to stop him from further research by denying him access to public libraries and archives.

We strongly protest these efforts to deprive Professor Faurisson of his freedom of speech and expression, and we condemn the shameful campaign to silence him.

We strongly support Professor Faurisson's just right of academic freedom and we demand that university and government officials do everything possible to ensure his safety and the free exercise of his legal rights."

Notice the petition put Holocaust in parentheses and actually praised him rather than just defending his “freedom of speech.” Chomsky does not criticize Faurisson. He says this, “Let me add a final remark about Faurisson's alleged "anti-Semitism." Note first that even if Faurisson were to be a rabid anti-Semite and fanatic pro-Nazi -- such charges have been presented to me in private correspondence that it would be improper to cite in detail here -- this would have no bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy of the defense of his civil rights. On the contrary, it would make it all the more imperative to defend them since, once again, it has been a truism for years, indeed centuries, that it is precisely in the case of horrendous ideas that the right of free expression must be most vigorously defended; it is easy enough to defend free expression for those who require no such defense. Putting this central issue aside, is it true that Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi? As noted earlier, I do not know his work very well. But from what I have read -- largely as a result of the nature of the attacks on him -- I find no evidence to support either conclusion. Nor do I find credible evidence in the material that I have read concerning him, either in the public record or in private correspondence. As far as I can determine, he is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort."

Oh, so I guess according to Chomsky, the American Jewish community is totalitarian and does not want democracy in America or Israel for not responding to his book the Fateful Triangle. But Robert Faurison denying the Holocaust is ok. He is after all, an "apolitical liberal," according to Noam Chomsky. Why is Chomsky for "freedom of speech" for holocaust deniers, but not for the American-Jewish community? While he viciously attacks American Jews for not responding to his book, he does not criticize Robert Faurisson or any Holocaust deniers he is associated with and is supposedly defending their "free speech."

Double Standards about Latin America

In Latin America, there are double standards against Capitalism, right wingers and America. Communist and socialist anti-American dictators and regimes get away with human rights violations. In this article, I will talk about Chile, Nicaragua Venezuela and Cuba.
Here's what you have to do to get away with being a brutal dictator in Latin America:
1. Be anti-American
2. Be Communist and/or socialist
Augustin Pinochet was [and is] widely condemned. People say in disgust,"Och, look at all those right-wingers who support him. Look at America. America supported him." I say, "Well, look at all those leftists who support Che and Chaves and whitewash Castro as well as bash Cuban Americans." Yet, they get excused while the right-wingers who support Pinochet and any brutal right-wing pro-American regime get shunned. I agree that Pinochet was a brutal tyrant. He should have been condemned and he was. But contrary to what we're taught abut Latin America, he did not destroy democracy. Salvador Allende was slowly destroying democracy there. The Chilean Chamber of Deputies, the lower house of Chile's bicameral congress, issued a proclamation on August 22, 1973 [a few weeks before the coup that overthrew him on September 11, 1973] that condemned Allende for his human rights violations and his attempts to make himself a dictator. The proclamation was a declaration about the breakdown of democracy in Chile. It said, "That it powerfully contributes to the breakdown of the Rule of Law by providing government protection and encouragement of the creation and maintenance of a number of organizations which are subversive [to the constitutional order] in the exercise of authority granted to them by neither the Constitution nor the laws of the land, in open violation of article 10, number 16 of the Constitution. These include community commandos, peasant councils, vigilance committees, the JAP, etc.; all designed to create a so-called "popular authority" with the goal of replacing legitimately elected authority and establishing the foundation of a totalitarian dictatorship. These facts have been publicly acknowledged by the President of the Republic in his last State of the Nation address and by all government media and strategists."
"That especially serious is the breakdown of the Rule of Law by means of the creation and development of government-protected armed groups which, in addition to threatening citizens’ security and rights as well as domestic peace, are headed towards a confrontation with the Armed Forces. Just as serious is that the police are prevented from carrying out their most important responsibilities when dealing with criminal riots perpetrated by violent groups devoted to the government. Given the extreme gravity, one cannot be silent before the public and notorious attempts to use the Armed and Police Forces for partisan ends, destroy their institutional hierarchy, and politically infiltrate their ranks," said the proclamation. Allende also ruined the economy in Chile. The proclamation says, "It has systematically violated the constitutional guarantee of property rights by allowing and supporting more than 1,500 illegal "takings" of farms, and by encouraging the "taking" of hundreds of industrial and commercial establishments in order to later seize them or illegally place them in receivership and thereby, through looting, establish state control over the economy; this has been one of the determining causes of the unprecedented decline in production, the scarcity of goods, the black market and suffocating rise in the cost of living, the bankruptcy of the national treasury, and generally of the economic crisis that is sweeping the country and threatening basic household welfare, and very seriously compromising national security."
Pinochet was almost as bad as Allende and should be put in the same category. There is hardly any condemnations of Allende because he was a Marxist and because he was not pro-American. Pinochet took power and declared himself the dictator. Under Pinochet, at least the economy improved. Under Pinochet, Chile had implemented free market Capitalism. As a result of the free-market Capitalism, Chile had a good economy.
Like Allende, current Venezuelan president Hugo Chaves is slowly making his country into a dictatorship. The Human Rights Foundation [HRF], a group dedicated to promoting human rights in Latin America, documented that he is starting to ban criticism of his regime, unjustly arresting political opponents, attacking unarmed civilians and took control of the Judiciary. He dismissed the Judiciary. Only people who support him can be on the Judiciary. Chaves is using it to unjustly arrest political opponents. The HRF is also documenting that he wants to control all the media. So now Chaves and his supports are attacking employees who work for Globovision, the only independent news channel in Venezuela. Employees for that news station have to worry about being attacked. My maternal grandfather talked to Venezuelans in America. They said that he rigged the elections and is becoming more of a dictator. If Chaves was right-wing and pro-American rather than Socialist and anti-American, the condemnations would be much louder. Instead, extreme leftists say,"He's sticking up to the 'imperialist US.'" Chaves also called Carlos the Jackal, who was the most notorious and biggest terrorist until Bin Ladin took his place. Imagine if he said Hitler was a good friend. Fortunately, as a Jew, I am happy people respond unfavorably to that. Also, Chaves rigged both the 2004 and 2006 elections. Captain Quarters says the following:
"Hugo Chavez may have lost both the recall referendum in 2004 and the December 2006 presidential election, according to studies conducted by a distinguished multidisciplinary team in Caracas, Venezuela. The team includes the rector of Universidad Simon Bolivar, Frederick Malpica, and a former rector of the National Electoral Council, Alfredo Weil."
The Fidel Castro regime is killing people and arresting and torturing people that the regime doesn't like. Criticism of Castro is forbidden. Many people he doesn't like are in gulags and forced labor camps. The Castro regime has built more prisons. In Cuba, the regime knows everything you're doing. Yet the condemnations for Castro are not as loud as for America or Pinochet. They'll be louder if he was a right-wing pro-American regime rather than a Communist anti-American one. Che Guevara killed thousands of people. He executed many innocent people while helping Castro take over Cuba. He killed thousands of innocent people in la cabana prison for Castro without habeas corpus [like the ones executed by Che, Raul and Castro before Castro took over Cuba]. Che was a bloodthirsty stupid idiotic psychopath. The tribunals the prisoners got were shams. Che declared them guilty before they happened. But prisoners would go to the "tribunals." Che would say that they're guilty and then sent them to the firing squads.
Che, who killed thousands of innocent people and who was one of the founders one of the most oppressive regimes 90 miles away from Miami, is on the T-shirts as praise. These useful idiots buy these T-shirts and believe he fought for the oppressed people.
People say,"Oh my gosh. Batista made casinos. That's horrible." The condemnations of Batista for making casinos is louder than of Castro for deliberately killing and locking up thousands of innocent people. The only thing the US did in Latin America, which it was not condemned for was to bring Fidel Castro to power. The US was not condemned for having an arms embargo on Batista during the end of his reign. People twist it around and say that the US supported Batista and condemned [and condemn] America for supposedly doing that. They claim that US companies dominated Cuba and Latin America and were paying people there cheap wages and exploiting people there. Those claims are false.
Also, most land in Latin American countries including Cuba under Batista was [and is] owned by Latin Americans. Batista's Cuba had one of the best economies. Castro and Che destroyed the economy and made it one of the worst economies.
From 1960-1966, as the Castro regime were abolishing private property, the peasants rebelled and became freedom fighters who fought for the land they owned. Yet that war was unheard of. Castro and Che were not [and are not] condemned for the actions they did.
The fact that Castro and Che wanted to use nuclear weapons on the US is also not loudly condemned. The Castro regime begged Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev to launch the missiles at the US. Khruschev did not want to do it and negotiated a deal with the Kennedy administration to take them out. The Soviets took them out. There are many more horrible things the Castro regime wanted to do to the US and did with his own people and terrorists he supported that he's hardly condemned for. I shall not go into detail.
The US is condemned for it's embargo on Cuba and falsely blamed for ruining the economy that Castro destroyed. People say,"Why don't we leave them alone? We should do business with them." The US is the top food supplier to Cuba. The US provides medical supplies to Cuba. Also, when someone buys something from Cuba, the money ends up in Fidel Catro's hand, which gives him more power to oppress his people. First, the US is accused of exploiting Cuba when US companies [not dominated by the US government] go to Cuba to do business and hire people for jobs. Now, the US is rebuked for the embargo. Some people even go as far as to falsely blame the Cuban Americans for the horrible economy by falsely claiming that it is them making the US have the embargo and it must be their fault. Some Cuban Americans oppose the embargo [this article is neither confirming nor denying that there is an embargo].
Cuban Americans are bashed for telling the truth about Castro's Cuba. They experienced first-hand Castro's tyranny and left because of the horrible economy and because of his human rights violations. They're bashed because they fled from and want to reveal the horror of a Communist anti-American regime. If they fled form and wanted to reveal the truth about a right-wing pro-American regime, then people would listen to them and believe what they say. There is a lot of bigotry against Cuban-Americans and the condemnation for that bigotry is almost non-existent.
The fact that Somoza was pro-American and right-wing is why he was [and is] widely condemned. The Sandinistas promised that after they overthrow Somoza, there will be freedom and democracy. After they took power in 1979, it turned out that they were just as bad as Somoza. Yet the political correct teachings about Latin America keep telling us that life under the Sandinistas were fine. Somoza is portrayed for what he was, a tyrranical dictator, and the Sandisnistas are whitewashed. If you talk about Somoza's human rights violations, people agree. But if you talk about the Sandnista's, then people especially "liberals," will not believe you. The Nicaraguan permanent commission of human rights in Nicaragua, which condemned Somoza, also condemned the Sandinistas. The heritage foundation reported the following:
In a 1982 interview in Washington, D.C., Dr. Jose Esteban Gonzalez, then National Coordinator of the Permanent Commission said that under Somoza he could "call the editors of major U.S newspapers and my statements concerning violations of human rights by the Somoza regime made headlines the following day they don't even answer my calls."
How do you explain that. My answer is simple. The reason why was cause the Somoza regime was right-wing and pro-American. But the Sandinistas were Marxists and anti-America. So condemn the right-wing pro-american ones while give the Communist anti-American ones a green pass. The contras who fought the Sandinistas are demonized cause they're right-wing freedom fighters fighting a Communist anti-American government. They got support from the US. The contras, without any evidence, are accused of targeting civilians. as showed before, the Fidel Castro movement did target people who disagreed with them and executed them. They were not condemned for that. True, the Fidel Castro movement was not Communist then. They were still fighting the "pro-American" Batista regime [As I said before, the US supported the Castro movement against Batista. Let that pass in this part of the article now]. The Sandinistas arrested political opponents and were under trumped up charges such as theft and murder. "In the beginning, we were trained to work against terrorists and spies from other countries. But then we were instructed to work against comrades within the Ministry of Defense. Every individual who was not in agreement with the politics of the Sandinista National Liberation Front was considered to be an excessively dangerous element. For example, people who had disagreed politically with the National Directorate [the nine-member body that oversees the ruling three-man junta] began to face trumped-up charges of theft, even murder," said Roberto Guillén, who served for the Sandinistas. He stopped serving them and left Nicaragua on August 10, 1983. Also, what the Sandinistas did to the Miskito Indians was horrible. "I went to Cuba to study counterintelligence. When I returned in April of 1982, I was assigned to Zelaya Norte. After arriving there, I began to discover barbarities that were being committed against the Miskito people by reading the Ministry of Defense reports. Here is one entry which I copied in my notebook: 'On Feb. 8, 1982, at 8:45 a.m., a troop of border guards fired at civilian persons on the Rio Coco at the point of the community of Bilwaskarma." The report explained that the people were traveling in canoes at the moment the troops fired upon them. One man survived. Reading this, I could not understand why the chief of counterintelligence for the area had not brought this to trial. I couldn't understand also why the soldiers would kill a pregnant woman in the canoe,'" Guillén said. "The Directorate had published an article in Barricada [the official government newspaper] boasting that Sandinista soldiers had killed counterrevolutionaries coming out of Honduras. This was the same shooting I was reading about. The report I was reading said the people were searching for food and lived in Nicaragua. They had gone from Waspán [a town on the river] to Bilwaskarma in their canoes. I couldn't understand this. I fought against the barbarities Somoza committed against the Nicaraguan people. But as the revolutionary process increased, the level of class hatred increased. Among the officers, an attitude was created that one should kill rather than forgive." The Sandnistans killed and tortured political opponents. Unlike Somoza who became a dictator all at once, the Sandinistas were doing it gradually. Yet, we are expected to believe the PC BS that life under the Sandinistas was OK. The Sandinistas also destroyed the economy in Nicaragua. The 1984 elections they had in Nicaragua were rigged in favor of the Sandinistas. The Sandinistas also treated the Jews horribly mainly because of their conneciton with the Palesitne Liberation Organization [PLO]. Yet the Sandinista sgot a gree pass to mistreat the Jews n Nicaragua. These PC liberals complain about the US supporting the contra.s But the Sandinistas supported the PLO, which was dedicated to the destruction of Israel. The PC police gave the Sandinistas the excuse to support the PLO.
I say that any brutal regime in Latin America, like anywhere else, should be condemned weather the regime is pro-American, anti-American, right-wing, left-wing, Communist, Socialist or Capitalist should be condemned, period. But it seems only the right-wing pro-American ones in Latin America are and the left-wing anti-American ones are not or much less if any. That double standard is how we judged [and judge] the history and current affairs of Latin America. The PC version of Latin American history and politics is similar to the leftist version, which excuses the leftist anti-American tyrants while condemning the right-wing pro-American ones and America. It is another way to bash Capitalism. PC, which is controlled by the political left, exaggerates how much land the American companies own and how bad they are in Latin America. People get verbally attacked if they say anything good a right-wing tyrant does. But it's okay to say anything good a left-wing tyrant does. it was okay for Michael Moore to go to Cubans falsely claim that Cuba has good healthcare. It's bad to say anything good about Pinochet. If you do, then you'll be verbally attacked and/or people will ask,"Are you defending Pinochet?" Well no one asked Michael Moore if he was defending Castro even though his movie was at least whitewashing him. When leftist tyrants human rights violations gets exposed, leftists use the PC machine to say,"Well they have free healthcare to distract us from the human rights violations. You know who did have good and free healthcare? Slaves. The owners wanted to keep slaves healthy so they can work. Yet does that justify slavery?
So instead of looking how bad slavery is, we should fixate on the god and free healthcare. Same can be said about the free education. In dictatorships like Cuba [in Cuba, it's Communist indoctrination], it's indoctrination cause it's government controlled.