In my 2003 book Onward Muslim Soldiers, I skewer Chomsky and the Left's general eagerness to unite with the jihadists who will, if given the chance, happily subjugate their allies along with the rest of us. Here is more evidence.
From MEMRITV, with thanks to all who sent this in:
Following are excerpts from an interview with the American linguist Noam Chomsky, which aired on LBC TV on May 23, 2006.
Interviewer: Do you consider Hizbullah to be a terrorist organization?
Chomsky: The United States considers Hizbullah a terrorist organization, but the term terrorism is used by the great powers simply to refer to forms of violence of which they disapprove. So the U.S. was of course supporting the Israeli invasions and occupation of southern Lebanon. Hizbullah was instrumental in driving them out, so for that reason they are a terrorist organization.
It's an interesting dilemma. Personally I'm very much opposed to Hamas' policies in almost every respect. However, we should recognize that the policies of Hamas are more forthcoming and more conducive to a peaceful settlement than those of the United States or Israel. So to repeat: the policies, in my view, are unacceptable, but preferable to the policies of the United States and Israel.
So, for example, Hamas has called for a long-term indefinite truce on the international border. There is a long-standing international consensus that goes back over thirty years that there should be a two-state political settlement on the international border, the pre-June 1967 border, with minor and mutual modifications. That's the official phrase. Hamas is willing to accept that as a long-term truce. The United States and Israel are unwilling even to consider it.
The Hamas is being... The demand on Hamas by the United States and the European Union and Israel... The demand is first that they recognize the State of Israel. Actually, that they recognize its right to exist. Well, Israel and the U.S. certainly don't recognize the right of Palestine to exist, nor recognize any state of Palestine. In fact, they have been acting consistently to undermine any such possibility.
This is so contrary to fact it is astounding. The U.S. and Israel agreed to the Oslo accords and to so much else dedicated to helping "Palestine" exist. And what did the Palestinians do in response? Stepped up the jihad attacks.
The second condition is that Hamas must renounce violence. Israel and the United States certainly do not renounce violence.
Sure. It would be foolhardy to renounce violence unilaterally while the other side pursues it. But Hamas need have no such concerns; it is abundantly clear that the U.S. and Israel would abide by peace accords. It is only one side that has broken them.
The third condition is that Hamas accept international agreements. The United States and Israel reject international agreements.
International agreements issued by the UN at the behest of the OIC bloc? Sure. And they should reject them.
So, though the policies of Hamas are, again in my view, unacceptable, they happen to be closer to the international consensus on a political peaceful settlement than those of their antagonists, and it's a reflection of the power of the imperial states - the United States and Europe - that they are able to shift the framework, so that the problem appears to be Hamas' policies, and not the more extreme policies of the United States and Israel.
In this, of course, he ignores Hamas' repeatedly stated vow to destroy Israel altogether.