Drivel.

Nothing described in the piece indicates that Chomsky did anything but analyze the HizbAllah position as he is wont to do and agree that basically their position is that they need to be armed to prevent Israel from taking over Lebanon as they tried to do before.

You can argue the overall significance of HizbAllah in the scheme of things - particularly their connections to Iran - but Chomsky is hardly "disgracing democratic ideals" by going and listening to their position.

Basically he's doing what Bush should be doing with Iran - listening. And of course he's going to be partial to any group that basically has given the finger to both the Zionists and the US and remains ready to do so again if the US attacks Iran.

He is no more "disgracing democratic ideals" by his analysis than I do by discerning that Iran has every rational reason to have a nuclear weapons program. These are simple facts. It has nothing to do with supporting theocratic dictators or Muslim terrorists.

I suspect Mort's Israel focus has disrupted her capacity to analyze such issues objectively.

Yup, drivel does the post justice, IMO. Maybe it was public relations-wise a dumb thing for Chomksy to do but his comments seem basically fine and, yes, as Transhuman says, it's a good idea, in general, to visit Hezbollah and listen. I don't think Chomsky professes to be either a "great democrat" or a leader of the progessive movement (though, yes, of course, he's call those things by others) and I don't see any "love fest" going down. Our governent, our citizens, our leaders, our "democrats" should all be engaging in dialogue with Hezbollah and Hamas and so on. We don't have to agree with them or endorse them or even drink their tea but certainly dialogue is better than war and we have about 1000% more war than dialogue at the moment.

the only powers he hurt by his show of solidarity with the terrorist group were the democrats of the Arab world who are fighting against Hezbollah in Lebanon, where they are also fighting Syrian occupation, and those intellectuals and democrats in Syria who are imprisoned by the regime

Well, if by "the only powers" you mean Israel, well, yes, I guess you could say that Chomsky spoke out again against Likud. But while Likud is part of a democracy, I'm not at all sure Likud is interested in spreading democracy in the ME.

Yeah, Jo-Ann, I think we all sort of know what you're trying to say, but you're just not really coming out and saying it. So I'll give you some help.

What you want to say is that Hezbollah is political kryptonite right now, and therefore we shouldn't ally ourselves with people who don't treat it like that. That would be fine if you had just said that and left it there. That may indeed be a valid point - but only in terms of political expediency, not in terms of substance.

The problem of course is that you're trying to make a substantive argument that has more holes in it than swiss cheese. Problem 1 is that -for better or worse- Hezbollah are the duly elected spokesmen of the Palestinians. Nobody was more surprised to find themselves in that position than they were, but there they are. They don't want what we want, they don't act like we would have them act...but again, there they are, and the Palestinians elected them, with a vote. So complaining that we are setting back the march of democracy by having a dialogue with democratically elected leaders just doesn't quite mesh to me. Problem 2 of course is that you offer quotes from Chomsky that blow against the sails of your argument. Chomsky says that 'terrorism' has a squishy definition that we change as it suits us best. Hezbollah may do bad things, but are they worse than the regimes in Pakistan or Saudi (or Turkey or Egypt etc)? I assure you if they recognized Israel's right to exist, the world would happily let them firebomb nursing homes on Bingo nights without batting an eye. Chomsky is telling you that there is often scant relationship between what regimes actually do and the labels we give them, therefore, GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE and give him a break for listening to what they have to say.

What numbertwo said - badmouth the visit all you want, but it seems like GWB has caused mere dialogue to go out of style. Exactly what is wrong with having a conversation with them? How can that hurt?

And what noblesse said too about your sop to Chomsky's 'intellectual prowess in linguistics'. That (plus most of the rest of your post) really makes you sound like you don't know who the guy is. Maybe you recognized the name when you read the source article, and knew it to be a name that other progressives had mentioned, so you did a quick google and grabbed a sound bite for your post. Something just doesn't ring truthful in your treatment.

Omigod - I am an idiot. I hereby swear I will never write another snarky post at 1am ever again. Jo-Ann - I take it all back.

You know, the way some right-wingers act, you'd think Noam Chomsky was the chair of the DNC, given how they try to saddle all Democrats, or all liberals, with his actions and demand at every turn that we denounce him when he does something questionable (which, by the way, I do not concede in this instance). Jo-Ann, I guess you're happy to make company with those who would make Chomsky the epitome of All Things Liberal, which is sad -- I would think you'd have more valuable things to do with your little piece of blogging real estate here than to attack strawmen. Oh well, the good thing is that you're not any more representative of the liberal position than Chomsky is, so we can take some comfort in that.

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter. Chomsky is a mirror image image of Falwell or Robertson- and his politics are just as toxic; except that in the case of Chomsky even fewer people take him seriously.

Noel

So I take it from the commenters that supporting theocrats who blow up innocent people is just fine and dandy, that there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Won't somebody talk about that issue just a little before going after Jo-ann? Is a little more honesty too much to ask?

There is no support here for Hizbullah.
There is only an attempt to see them as they are and not as we would like to see them. They are theocrats and they have killed and will most likely kill in the future.
They are also a natavist self defense force for Lebannon's Shiite community and are acknowledged even by their political ennemies to be legitimately viewed as such.
What does America gain by demonizing them?
Nothing; or worse, another War in the Middle East.

It's too bad Ariel Sharon isn't still with us, he could tell us all a thing or two about the folly of ignoring Lebannon's Shiites.

So what's the point of all this blather? Chomsky is all about Chomsky. He represents no one but his own ego and intellect and he says as much to all who ask. It's time to take the man at his word and push back when the right tries to attach him to their ennemy of the day.

Furthermore, instead of playing defense why don't we go on the offence? Why don't we wrap Falwell's and Pat Robinson's demented words around the kneck of every Republican we meet? After all these guys advise the White House. Chomsky writes polemics that are read by a few devotees, most of them foreigners.

Who deserves to be brought to attention and "Denounced"?

My criticism of Jo-Ann Mort's really boild down to the following; with everything going on this event is the wrong priority for us to be focus on.

You should read a real Lebanese perspective on the meeting between the two, not that crap from Al-Manar:

Ya Libnan: Chomsky needs to learn a lot more about Lebanon

The Ya Libnan post is very useful. Thanks to selbedo for suggesting that folks check it out.

The point is that Lebanon is a country where there are secular democrats fighting against Syrian occupation and against fundamentalism. Hezbollah is their enemy and Chomsky is giving them legitimacy as someone who is an iconic figure on the American left.

With all due respect to those who commented that this is not a relevant issue right now, I beg to differ. If the left is to rebuild itself by joining forces with others to reconstitute a broad democratic movement in this country that supports a domestic and foreign policy of social justice at home and abroad, and to promote a foreign policy that supports democratic ideals, it should demand of those it holds in regard that these people, especially the public intellectuals, support anti-fundamentalist, democratic movements, not the opposite. This is especially true when George Bush is attempting --and clearly failing--to promote democracy in the Arab world.

. Won't somebody talk about that issue just a little before going after Jo-ann?

An interesting phenomenon I've often noticed in commenting in the political blogosphere is a knee-jerk "defend your favorite celebrity thinker against any and all criticism," the 100% fealty thing of a "fan base." Well, it's not just the politicial blogosphere, as come to think of it, it's hard to find a Rush Limbaugh fan who is not afraid to say "sometimes I disagree with him." What I find odd about this kind of behavior in the blogosphere, though, is that it comes from when every Tom, Dick and Harry couldn't get their own voice heard and needed a celebrity to speak for them, and now they do have a way to be heard. Using the medium to continue the fandom thing sort of defeats the purpose to my mind.

It's especially ironic in Chomsky's case, as opposed to examples being given here like Pat Robertson. Being a genius in the field of linguistics and a scholar, I would think Chomsky would welcome "talking about the issue," and "a little more honesty," not just encouraging but requiring debate on the issue raised, though probably no human can easily withstand the allure of a large and loyal fan base for long. And in the end, I'll admit I myself am lazy at times and keep looking for that special someone to think and speak for me rather than thinking and speaking for myself....but in my case, it's not Chomsky, as it's clear that he demands opposition. The man has learned a thing or two about performance art over the years. :-)

Ms. Mort, speaking of linguisitcs, a humble suggestion: perhaps you set yourself up for this reaction by starting out with "I have never been a big fan of Noam Chomsky's"? :-)

"Being a genius in the field of linguistics and a scholar, I would think..."

Ha! If you were really a "genius in the field of linguistics" I doubt you'd been made that error with your sentence construction.

Just to clarify for others, I was referring to Chomsky there, so there's no hypocrisy on my part as to my poor communications skills, nor egomania. :-)

//Say what you will about Falwell and Robertson's toxic politics, which can easily be discredited in a blog post for the most part, they can still command the ear of any GOP leader (or should I say the lips on their a--), specifically including John McCain. //

I sympathize, and I agree. But that doesn't make Chomsky any better. A plague on both their houses.

//McCain's original quote about agents of intolerance was also total BS b/c the suppposed agents on the left HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO POLITICAL POWER! Farrakhan couldn't get a meeting in D.C., and Sharpton is just a hanger-on with no mainstream Dem support, as shown in the 2004 primaries. //

I wouldn't go that far. Both Sharpton and Farrakhan have some influence, if not nearly as much as Falwell or Robertson. But there's a distinction to be drawn even between those two. Sharpton's politics are stupid. Farrkhan's politics are dangerous.
I put Chomsky in the latter group.

Noel

I'm not well versed in the Lebanon situation, and so take seriously the suggestion that Chomsky is being naive.

However, the central argument, to me, is the definition of terrorism and his remarks to the effect that the US is the greatest terrorist nation on the planet. To anyone who truly desires a humane foreign policy, this is a serious question, and the outright dismissal of Chomsky and his views indicates a desire to avoid that question. And the primary reason to avoid that question would be the continuation of policies that result in terrorism.

Read the whole sub-discussion again. The quotes from ohiomeister are referring to commenters and not Chomsky. I dunno, probably should take a course or two in linguistics, but I see you as agreeing with me. You are saying Chomsky likes debate, wants debate, requires challenge and debate. He does not seek 100% fealty to Chomsky, I.E., I suspect he would prefer Ms. Mort's post to some of the knee-jerk reaction in support of him, and not take it as a personal insult. Some of the reaction here to Ms. Mort's post seems more about defending Chomsky as god to Ms. Mort's daring uppityness, while I see Chomsky as seeking, purposefully provoking challenging thought and discourse on the issue, like Ms. Mort's, with his actions. To be more blunt and then I am going to exit this conversation because it seems a lost cause: some Chomsky cultists are very sad, they actually dishonor Chomsky.

But have you pondered the radical difference between metaphysical assumptions and factual conclusions?  That ought to shatter the cohesivness of this group you are imagining.

Neoboho

I'm a fan of Chomsky - but it's for his political brazeness, which I find refreshing.  As a linguist...I don't know - I think Michel Foucault creamed him in their 1971 debate. My guess that most here would declare Chomsky the winner, since he's a champion of analytic thinking - North America's darling - while Foucault is definitely a conceptualist. I think Piaget also out-thunk him in the 75 debate.  Lacan?  He was horrified by Chomsky's linguistics.  You can't ignore Lacan - he smuggled Danny the Red out of France in the trunk of his Peugot.  

Seriously - some note needs to be given to the importance of dialog.  You know something really, really bad when two antagonistic parties refuse to talk.  Edward Said took his belief that the entire Israeli/Palestinan problem could be easily solved by dialog to his grave.  Chomsky seems to uphold that same idea.  Talk - talk to everyone - baddies and goodies.  That's got to count for something. 

Neoboho

Ouch! Smackdown!

Well, I for one am hardly a "Chomsky cultist". I've read a few interviews and articles by him - haven't read any of his books yet.

What I see - as in an example elsewhere on the site where he debates Alan Dershowitz - is that he cites references and points people to information resources and challenges them to draw their own conclusions.

And when someone like Dershowitz resorts to ad hominen attacks, Chomsky does not follow.

Mort's attack on him was ad hominem, entirely. He goes to HibzAllah and listens to them. He draws conclusions based on what he's heard and what he knows of the history.

She then attacks him for even being there at all.

I don't see any intellectual honesty in that position.

It's unfortunate that a matter of Lebanese internal affairs has become partisan material for the left vs. right in America. Simply because someone of significance, namely Chomsky, chose to oppose Bush administration, all of the left are singing Chomsky's praises. The fact of the matter is, Chomsky could have been praising a cyanide diet, but you have all become so blinded by your hypocritic partisanship that nothing else matters.

The point of the Ya Libnan article linked above is that Hezbollah being armed is a complex issue which Noam Chomsky chose to trivialize and politicize in order to generate some buzz about his trip to Lebanon. I was sadly a fan of Noam's before he so quickly jumped to conclusions about a militia that has no place in Lebanon's future. If he has an issue with Israel, Noam doesn't need to drag Lebanon into that battle.

"It's unfortunate that a matter of Lebanese internal affairs has become partisan material for the left vs. right in America."

Well, your post clearly indicates a partisan slant on the issue.

My initial post was that denouncing Chomsky for merely showing up in Lebanon to talk to HizbAllah and coming down on the side of HizbAllah on ONE stated issue is clearly illogical. I have no "partisan"interest in Lebanon at all - it is a side issue in the Israeli-Palestinian situation, that's all. Otherwise I couldn't care less about Lebanon and Syria - that's the problem of the residents there - as long as Israel stays out of it.

Your opinion that Chomsky chose to "trivialize" the HizbAllah arms is your opinion only. He issued a statement based on what he had learned was the HizbAllah position. It sounded reasonable to him and he said so. This is hardly supporting the entire HizbAllah agenda, nor is it "trivializing" the overall Lebanon situation.

What I find amusing is how the partisans on this site seize on any comment or off-the-cuff remark and turn it into a major issue to babble their agenda.

Meanwhile they ignore the actual ACTS of Bush and the neocons as being just "bluff" or not even worthy of discussion.

Bush declares. The "progressives" ignore. Bush acts. The "progressives" whine.

Anybody else makes a simple statement, the "progressives" launch a full court press war that doesn't stop at character assassination and lynch-mob attitude.

No wonder nobody in the real world takes you seriously.

I'm sorry, you must have mistaken me for a republican!

And you're also wrong in assuming I criticized Chomsky for "merely showing up in Lebanon". On the contrary, as I stated earlier I am, or was at least, a big fan of Chomsky. He has traditionally cut through the propaganda and lies to expose issues through logic. Unfortunately this is what infuriates me about his meeting with Hizbullah, it came across as though he was brainwashed in his response. No underlying logic... he simply attributed his comments to strong persuasiveness on the part of Nasrallah, hardly a pragmatic approach.

Incidentally that same site that criticized Chomsky after the meeting, had a very positive reception days earlier:
Noam Chomsky in Lebanon

//But have you pondered the radical difference between metaphysical assumptions and factual conclusions? That ought to shatter the cohesivness of this group you are imagining.//

Uh, no, I haven't, but that's only because I don't follow what you mean.

Noel

What was it Brad DeLong said about arguing with Chomsky fans? Even more inadvisable than getting involved in a land war in asia or facing off with a cicilian when death is on the line?

Someone mentioned Chomsky has no power and is of little importance ultimately. I agree with them. Let Chomsky travel around the world & play kissy face with his authoritarian of the month club. Both he & the doofs that make up his cult of personality are of little importance in the grand scheme of things.

I'm a bit surprised at Jo-Ann's surprise.  Progressives who take a "no enemies to the left" approach to any issue are bound to be disappointed.  It is not shocking that Noam Chomsky is more interested in scoring rhetorical points against the United States and Israel than the actual plight of the Lebanese people. 

There's no reason for Hezbollah to be armed any more.  Their maintenance of a separate militia serves only to menace their domestic opponents and serve their Syrian and Iranian paymasters.  The UN has certified that Israel has withdrawn from Lebanese territory.  (Shebaa Farms is a red herring.)  Israel's decision to end its misguided occupation of south Lebanon should have been rewarded with a quiet border.  The Lebanese army should be deployed to the southern border and the Lebanese should be permitted to go about rebuilding their country without being dragged into the proxy struggles of its neighbors or Iran. 

Lebanon is also a place with an urban and rich Sunni elite and angry and dirt poor rural Shia population who see Hezbollah as their only representative.
You wanna defend neoliberalism in other countries go right ahead, but don't bullshit about your high moral standing.
It's a mess, af you you say otherwise, you're lying.

I disagree - you're not an idiot.  A mistake that could happen to anyone.  I thought you made some good points.  Snark on, ssdagger, snark on!

Neoboho

Well, you may be misreading Hezbollah. If we want to go on seeing things in black and white, I don't think there's any kind of argument possible.

But take a look at this blog: Labanese Political Journal: What's happening inside Hezbollah. Of course it's not the end-all of any argument for or against Hezbollah, but it does define the political territory that is at stake - especially it's role of moderating a large number of radical Shia sects that would probably go ballistic and start another civil war in Lebanon without Hezbollah's restraining influence. What seems obvious to me, if what is written on this blog is true, is that a disarmed Hezbollah couldn't function as a restraint.

It wouldn't surprise me if Chomsky understands this - but I don't know one way or another. But it does map out one possible terrain of discourse in which Chomsky could support Hezbollah keeping its arms without being a bad guy. (please note that I am not claiming any purchase on the truth here. I'm only claiming that the issue is far more complex than we are treating it, and that there are several shades of grey.)

Neoboho

Otherwise I couldn't care less about Lebanon and Syria - that's the problem of the residents there - as long as Israel stays out of it

Just curious, why is it that only once Israel is involved do you care?

They also have a history of doing Syria's bidding against fellow Lebanese.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

//You make a good point Chomsky, Ramsey Clark and people like yourself have no real political influence, perhaps that accounts for the silly vehemence, but are very useful to Republicans. Democrats have to distinguish between themselves and the fools Republicans blame on them.//

I concur. It would also be nice if Democrats could turn "conservative" into a four-letter word the way that Republicans did with "liberal."

Noel

Count me in as one of those here who "would declare Chomsky the winner"! But thanks for linking this debate. I'd heard of it but never actually read a transcript. And I completely agree with your faith in talking "cures."

However toxic one finds Chomsky's ideas, there is wisdom in acknowledging that outside of the US they echo perceptions that are widely held.

--
Howard
*Equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Here's the bottom line with both the IRA and HizbAllah - and for that matter, the PLO going back decades:

If they have seats in a government, they are a genuine political party. If a significant percentage of the population supports them enough to get them seats in the government, branding them "terrorists" is just propaganda.

Either deal with the people who support them, or recognize them as parties to the process.

In fact, the same is true with the extreme rightwing parties in Israel. Most of those bozos would qualify as "terrorists" if they weren't in the government. The radical settler movement in Israel is loaded with guns. Nobody here calls them "terrorists" even when they murder Palestinians in cold blood.

You want to get rid of armed political parties - fine. Trying to shut them out simply isn't going to work - and that is what has been proved in Ireland, in Israel, in Lebanon, and in the West Bank - and is being proved in Iraq as we speak.

As far as "being corrosive" to democracy, well, just look at the US. The Republicans control the NSA, the CIA, the Pentagon, the DoJ, and every other source of actual political power in the United States. As Mao said, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

You're the one that believes in the viability of states and the democratic process - not me. So this is how it's done.

Get used to it.

Israel is armed. Saying that just because the UN has "certified" that Israel has left doesn't mean Israel wouldn't be back in a heartbeat if they thought it was to their benefit. I recall some neocon saying just recently that if HizbAllah initiates attacks on Israel as a result of a US attack on Iran that "Israel will finish them off."

Obviously HizbAllah thinks they need to be armed.

While it is obvious that the Lebanese would seem to have no stake in the proxy battles of Israel, Syria, Iran or the US, the fact of history is they are being used by all those states.

The Harriri assassination was used by the US and Israel to attack Syria for the neocon and Israeli agenda - which is the primary reason for assuming that Syria actually had nothing to do with it, as Robert Fisk seems to believe based on the available evidence (or lack of same.)

As long as this sort of thing is going on, the Lebanese are going to continue to be caught up in proxy wars. Which is not surprising since everybody in Lebanon seems to be on one side or the other, and interested in supporting external forces on one side or the other.

So saying what "should" be going on there is really irrelevant, since it isn't going to happen.

If the Lebanese "people" (i.e., the various factions) REALLY want to stay out of everything, it would easy enough to do it - just get rid of the politicians who are making deals with Israel, Syria, Iran, or whoever.

As usual, email me when this happens...because factions ARE factions for a reason. Lumping them all into the "Lebanese people" is just hand-waving.

Why is Chomsky somehow more important than primary sources?

Somewhere along the line I developed a knee-jerk reaction of raising the red flag whenever I encounter statements written in the passive voice.  So who thinks this, hc?  Who had taken that position.

Just for the sake of friendly argument, if you were analyzing Joe McCarthy speechs for "evenness" would you find the Senator at fault if he didn't recite a liturgy of communism's virtues before he recited a liturgy of its evils?  I'm just saying that if Chomsky is booked to talk as a "critic" of US foreign policy we expect him to do so.  Chomsky has said all sorts of good things about the US in the course of his career.  But his "mission" is to attack and publicize the things he finds wrong.  

Gore Vidal, on the other hand.... 

Neoboho

You miss the obvious point.

There are factions in Lebanon.

One of those factions controls the Lebanese military, if I'm not mistaken.

Asking HizbAllah to unilaterally disarm before being provided with assurances that the other factions will not use THEIR arms against the Shia that HizbAllah nomimally represent is simply ridiculous.

The problem is not who is armed - they ALL are armed!

The problem is resolving the factionalism. Do that and the arms won't matter.

Your presumption that "all militias called it quits" is just hand-waving as long as anyone in Lebanon besides HizbAllah is armed.

And the notion that HizbAllah is undermining Lebanon's ability to defend itself makes no sense. First, because until recently they had Syrian troops on the scene to (originally) maintain order (and later likely to influence the country to Syria's benefit). I'd say that was rather more significant than HizbAllah in undermining the Lebanese military.

Second, unless I am mistaken about what little I know about the Lebanese invasion, it was HizbAllah's military actions against Israel that eventually forced Israel to abandon its invasion of Lebanon. Where was the Lebanese military then?

HizbAllah clearly is making a twofold argument: 1) they need arms as long as other factions have arms; 2) they need arms to keep Israel at bay - and to attack Israel for its policies against the Palestinians.

You can argue these positions all day, but demanding HizbAllah unilaterally disarm doesn't make any sense because it isn't going to happen for the reasons they state.

Finally, saying that their disregard for the Lebanese authority sets the wrong image for the "huge following" - well, what's wrong with this picture? If they have a "huge following", then perhaps there is something wrong with Lebanese authority?

I don't pretend to be knowledgeable about the dynamics of Lebanon. But I can recognize illogic when I see it.