Some people take issue with me for calling Chomsky an anti-Semite. I did so in my comments section and I linked to this article that describes the issue. Some people who disagree begin by saying "Chomsky is a Jew". Sorry, but that doesn't mean much. Rumour has it that Himler [sic] was a Jew, but that didn't stop him from being one of the most terrible and "successful" anti-Semites in history. The other argument is that Chomsky only defended a Holocaust denier's right to free speech. That doesn't fly because what Chomsky actually did is say that the Holocaust denier's opinion was based on "extensive research". The final defence is often that Chomsky was just making the "obvious" point that you can deny that the victims of the Holocaust were killed in gas chambers, without denying the Holocaust. Sorry, but why would a person deny such a thing? Doesn't denying the Nazi use of the gas chambers that can still be visited in Eastern Europe only feed the notion that there is some sort of world-wide conspiracy to mislead people into believing that the Nazis killed millions of Jews in gas chambers? Perhaps Chomsky is not a direct anti-Semite, but the adverse effects of his argument are to feed anti-Semitism.
Can Cherniak possibly be any more selective and absolutely wrong about Chomsky's opinions on these matters? Can you believe he actually uses Himmler's and Chomsky's names in the same sentence? Does he actually provide any proof that Himmler, whose mother was Roman Catholic, was a Jew? No. Instead he relies on some "rumour" as justification to attack Chomsky. What kind of argument is that?
and...
Allow me to give one obvious example. In this world, there are many countries that defy human rights. We know that suspected terrorists are tortured in Syria. We know that Tibetans are punished in China. We know that Palestinians are denied true political rights in Jordan. Why, then, is Israel singled out by the United Nations every year? I have nothing against pointing out the human rights flaws of other countries, but I do have a problem with singling out one country each and every year. How can you justify that? While this singling out of Israel can be called "anti-Zionism", the reality is that it is no different than anti-Semitism. It is the singling out of Jews (indeed, an entire country of Jews) amongst all the people of the world for condemnation. I don't see how else you can view it. While there may be no direct anti-Semitism, the adverse effects are obvious.
That's is so completely illogical (and Cherniak is a lawyer) that it's not even worth deconstructing. If I point out human rights abuses in this country, does that mean I'm "anti-Canadian"? Of course not.
There's a discussion of that post over at Progressive Bloggers in this diary where I posted the following comment:
I was simply astounded when I read Cherniak's comment that Chomsky is a holocaust denier.
Chomsky:
"My views are quite explicitly stated: the Holocaust was the most extreme atrocity in human history, and we lose our humanity if we are even willing to enter the arena of debate with those who seek to deny or underplay Nazi crimes. Subsequent writings take the same stand, without variation. In brief, anyone who was actually interested in my opinions could quickly determine them."
What was Jason's motive in peddling that lie?
He uses the now infamous Faurisson petition about which Chomsky says this in a 1992 letter:
"The statement you quote about the petition on Faurisson is false. The petition called upon the Courts to defend F's civil rights; it did not imply that his work in this area had any significance or should be pursued."
and...
"While I have no interest in his writings, I am much interested in the scandalous violation of elementary civil rights, and therefore followed the judicial proceedings as reported in the French press. The Court condemned him for "allowing others" to use his writings for nefarious ends, for lack of care in use of documents, etc.; not for anti-Semitism."
link
Further, Cherniak's whining about Israel's human rights record being brought up year after year (as are all countries that abuse human rights, btw - a UN panel just criticized Canada again for its appalling treatment of aboriginal people) is simply that - whining. Israel has ignored decades of UN resolutions regarding its record and has been allowed to persist in that mode because it is protected by the US government practically every time. Don't believe me and have the urge to call me an anti-semite now? Read this:
List of the UN Resolutions concerning Israel.
That's wiki - just the facts.
Frankly, I'm considering removing my blog from the Liblogs list now. How dare he slur Chomsky that way? And why? Just because he's more of a leftist than Cherniak? And to call Chomsky an anti-semite when he IS a semite? Let's get real.
I had my disagreements with Jason during the Israel/Lebanon war last year but this takes the cake. I don't think I want to be associated with him anymore.
And, in fact, I've made my decision. Cherniak's comments have infuriated me. This entire affair started when another blogger made a wholly inappropriate comment and was summarily banned from the Progressive Bloggers aggregator. I support that decision and it's been discussed enough. However, this latest post by Cherniak in which he calls Noam Chomsky a "holocaust denier" is unacceptable as well. Do I think he should be banned from Progressive Bloggers over it? That's not for me to say - especially not right now while I'm angry, but I do know this: I have a choice about where my blog name appears and it won't be on Liblogs anymore. Calling someone a "holocaust denier" is a very serious charge and, in this case, it has absolutely no basis in fact. That's shameful. And I don't care how much traffic I'll lose by disassociating myself from Liblogs because of it. My integrity is worth a helluva lot more than blog stats and I refuse to be associated with Cherniak anymore.
Related: Noam Chomsky's site
No comments:
Post a Comment