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."
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."