| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
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.
Posted by Robert at May 31, 2006 8:07 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
First off, If we had a Pope type in our faith he would be excommunicated. Second, the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. His daughter "teaches" at my Alma Mata Salem State College. From knowing first hand what a pinko-whacademic she is I can only be UN-surprised at daddy’s mouth. They are both twits.
Posted by: massachusettsrepublican![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 31, 2006 8:28 AM
Chomsky needs to try a thought-exercise. (I have heard this scenario describe elsewhere).
Scenario A: The Palestinians unilaterally lay down all of their weapons. Israel keeps its weapons. Israel then does what to the defenceless Palestinians? Nothing.
Scenario B: The Israelis unilaterally lay down all of their weapons. The Palestinians keep their weapons. The Palestinians then do what to the defenceless Israelis? (Do we really need to answer this?--of course, the Palestians would not stop until they has slaughtered all the Jews in Israel).
The above is of course oversimplified, but as far as I can tell it is basically a correct assessment. Why do people like Chomsky have such a hard-time admitting to the moral asymmetry in this scenario?
Posted by: Archimedes at May 31, 2006 8:47 AM
"unacceptable, but preferable"
He is a linguist? Of what language?
And perhaps the Israelis do know what the Muslims mean by "truce".
at May 31, 2006 8:47 AM
>So, for example, Hamas has called for a long-term >indefinite truce on the international border.
>
Well that is the rub. There is no "International border" just the cease fire lines of 1949. There has never been any form of a border. Also Hamas (and Fatah) have both made it very clear that their goals include the destruction of Israel and murder of as many of us Israelis as posible.
As Golda said "When your enemy wants to drive you into the sea there is no room for negotions"
Posted from Jerusalem
Posted by: Zach at May 31, 2006 9:00 AM
Hahaha!
"...He is a linguist? Of what language?,,," At his age the only lingua for him is cunni..........
A bullet is too expensive for this deluded commie-rat!
Everything fell into place: Cuba, Chile, moral & political equivalence of the most bizarre, mind-rattling sort that makes your blood boil!
I never knew such perverts existed until I watched it on MEMRI!
No Mohammedan crackerjack can come now and claim that 'Jews run MEMRI' and that 'they only pick pieces out of context'- just to smear peaceful Muhammedans...'
Chomsky = the ultimate Jew-hating Jew, the slime, the camel-dung of Arabia, soaked and soiled himself and all of us by spilling his dementia over Arabia. If it only encourages lunatics of the mohammedan perversion to become more enraged about us, I wouldn't give a brass razoo.
But he is the kind of a-sole who are widely read in the west, he is the ultimate perversion in the name of political correctness, and his treason is the worst ever committed against the US, a country that has given him everything and more than he ever deserved.
Treason is treason. We are at war:
You judge Chomsky, and be sure to give him what he deserves!
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 31, 2006 9:17 AM
What a great linguist. Hamas policies are in his opinion, 'unacceptable'.
Blowing up babies on buses is 'unacceptable'. I was groping for the right word.... sometimes you need a linguist.
Posted by: poetcomic1 at May 31, 2006 9:26 AM
before getting to chomsky's loathesome politics, people should know that his claim to originality in linguistics is questioned by many who say that he "borrowed" the theories of Univ of Pennsylvania linguist, Zellig Harris, and presented Harris' theories as his own. Harris was at Univ of Penna in the 1930s.
chomsky's propensity to lie is repulsive. Like Said, he has lied about his own political background, whether trotskyist or Zionist or Stalinist, giving different versions on different occasions. As to Lebanon, the United States DID NOT back up Israel in Lebanon. Anyone can research this by looking at STate Dept statements, White House statements, the American press in the years 1975 to 1990. Nor did the USA support the forces opposing Syrian occupation of Lebanon. If chomsky said it, it is likely to be a lie.
Posted by: Eliyahu at May 31, 2006 10:06 AM
Chomsky: the "Liberace" of the left and just as contaminated and even more irrelevant with each decade but for some reason admired by the mindless many.
Why is it that the liberal arts create an equal number of such fools for each decent and reputable graduate?
Thank God that the exams and competence tests for engineers and physicists are more rigid!!
Posted by: Zathras at May 31, 2006 10:26 AM
The least that this leftist traitor deserves is to be deported to his beloved Saudi Arabia/Syria/Iran, and his American citizenship revoked, although I think a more appropriate punishment would be the death penalty.
Posted by: US_infidel at May 31, 2006 10:48 AM
The Diary of an Anti-Chomskyite is a good website, if you can stomach the mountain of crap, vomit and tortuous intestines it reveals from Chomsky's writings and speeches.
http://www.antichomsky.blogspot.com/
at May 31, 2006 10:54 AM
Chomsky despises the U.S. so much he is willing to excuse all of America's enemies. He goes even further than other Leftists in that he even blames the U.S. for World War II, and thinks that the U.S. should have negotiated for peace with Japan AFTER the Pearl Harbor attack, rather than go to war. Chomsky writes:
"On November 6, 1941, just a month before Pearl Harbor, Japan had offered to eliminate the main major factor that really led to the Pacific war, namely the Closed Door Policy in China. But they did so with one reservation: that they would agree to eliminate the closed door in China, which is what we'd been demanding, only if the same principle were applied throughout the world -- that is, if it were also applied in, say, Latin America, the British Dominions, and so forth. Of course, this was considered too absurd to even elicit a response. And Secretary of State Cordell Hull's answer simply requested once again that they open the closed door in China and he didn't even deign to mention this ridiculous qualification that they had added. Now that qualification was of the essence and had been fought about for the preceding ten years. And it was one of the factors that led to Pearl Harbor and the war. Of course, it was politically impossible after Pearl Harbor for the United States not to declare war; we know how very difficult it is to restrain from striking back, even when you do know that the guilt is distributed. But we're talking about what is legitimate and what is moral, not what is a natural reflex. And the advocates of nonviolence are really saying that we should try to raise ourselves to such a cultural and moral level, both as individuals and as a community, that we would be able to control this reflex.
"Now what were the consequences of striking back and what was our own role in creating the situation in which the violence took place? On December 8, we struck back quite blindly, quite unthinkingly, and I'm not at all sure in retrospect that the world is any the better for it. It's quite striking to read the dissenting opinion at the Tokyo tribunal of the one Indian justice who was permitted to take part, and who dissented from the entire proceedings, concluding himself that the only acts in the Pacific War that in any way corresponded to the Nazi atrocities were the dropping of the two atom bombs on Japanese cities. A.J. Muste in 1941-2 predicted that we would adopt the worst features of our adversaries, of the object of our hatred, and that we would replace Japan as a still more ferocious conqueror. And I think it's very difficult to deny the justice of that prediction. So even after Pearl Harbor, I would accept advocacy of nonviolence, not as an absolute moral principle, but as conceivably justified in those particular historical circumstances. In short, there may well have been alternatives to the Pacific War."
http://www.chomsky.info/debates/19671215.htm
There is no point in wondering why Chomsky doesn't acknowledge savage acts of Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians. As you can see from the above, Chomsky doesn't even acknowledge the savage acts of Japanese aggression against Manchuria, China, Nanking, Shanghai, and the rest of the Pacific Rim, which started in 1931 while the U.S. was still very much isolationist. A hallmark of radical Leftist critiques of U.S. policy is that the enemy always, always, always gets a pass. To criticize Japanese aggression against Manchuria would be to help rationalize U.S. opposition to Japanese policy in the Pacific, and we don't want to give those U.S. colonialist-imperialists any more political ammunition, do we?
And if you think Chomsky's moral equivalence over the Israel-Palestine conflict is bad, Chomsky apparently thinks the U.S. war plan that won World War II was "blind" and "unthinking," and he doesn't think that "the world is any better for it." I wonder if he's ever given any thought to what would have happened to him and his family if the Nazis had won World War II.
Posted by: Steven L. at May 31, 2006 11:04 AM
Chomsky is actually kind of good from a real-politic perspective. He can illustrate how a country acts from it's self interest effectively. However, as an argument, his premise is loose. To say that because Hizbullah drove the Israelis from Lebanon is the reason why the US and Israel call them terrorists is incorrect (actually, better to say ‘not the whole picture’). Terrorism is the infliction of terror upon a populous for political goals. Hizbullah have applied Terror to the Jewish population and army and can be justly described as terrorists.
Posted by: albion at May 31, 2006 11:18 AM
There are two separate lines of attack above.
One is about Chomsky as a linguist. Did he borrow from othrs? Is generative grammar a dead end? Is Chomsky's contribution exaggerateted? Has he promoted the advancement of knowledge, or sought to impose a school upon, not students, but unquestioning acolytes? One would have to ask all kinds of people to respond, from Ian Robinson (who wrote an early anti-Chomsky piece) to Stephen Pinker.
The second is about Chomsky as a political thinker. Here, despite the tone of sweet reason, the piling up of nonsense and lies is too great, from someone who is intelligent (this isn't Robert Fisk or Juan Cole one is talking about), that something else must be going on. This is a True Believer in a number of things. The awfulness of Israel. Surely for this son of a Hebrew scholar, something else is going on. The awfulness of America. The wonderfulness of those who hate America, or oppose America, or who get in America's way, and to Chomsky it scarcely matters at this point, apparently, whether they are the Ortega brothers in Nicaragua, wishing to nationalize large-scale property, or Muslims following a Total Regulation of Life and Complete Explanation of the Universe that encourages the habit of mental submission, and discourages, even punishes by death, any attempt to question Islam itself.
It is extraodinary to see Chomsky descend to this. One might have thought that even he would keep, for example, his anti-Israel obsession, the roots of which all those interested in certan pathological mental states are welcome to speculate about, within bounds, within the usual bounds of "the legitimate rights of the 'Palestinian" people" business. But here he is embracing what is clearly a fascist movement, Hezbollah, fascist in the classic sense. And preferring it, in his terminal madness, a madness made more disturbing because it is expresed con una voce pacata, a voice of seeming sweet-reasonableness, that piles on, one after the other, such outrageous nonsense that, in attempting to deal with it all, one becomes exhausted.
He is, I think, simply crazy. There are other such people. Norman Finkelstein comes to mind. One wonders if the inability to deal, emotionally, with the full horror of antisemitism is what sends such people round the bend, permitting them to retain the outward and visible signs of sanity, so that not the form, which is usually a dead giveaway, but rather the content, is what shows the complete disconnection with messy reality.
Posted by: Hugh at May 31, 2006 11:34 AM
As somewhat of an amateur linguist myself, I'd like to analyze the name "Chomsky":
"Chom", shortened from "chomp" (slang for "to bite").
And "sky", the atmosphere above us, (although a minority of wordsmiths differ and say it is an Anglicization of "ski", the flat wooden -or synthetic- slats used to for a person to move on-foot over snow).
Thus, the majority of amateur linguists translate Mr. C.'s name as:
"One who bites big time , or as big as the firmament itself"
While the minority says it comes out as:
"A man who chews on wooden tootsies."
My question:
Why do we listen to a 'linguist' about world affairs?
Isn't his area of expertise the understanding of language, not geopolitical arcana?
A bit irrelevant. And out of his depth (etymological kiddie pool).
Free floating cranks like him are like flies.
Annoying, but only deserving of a rolled-up newspaper, not interviews, articles or headlines in them.
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 31, 2006 12:23 PM
chomsky's kind of pro-Nazi "peace" politics is not new to America. Nor was it unknown to Britain and France in the 1930s. You can find out about such politics and "peace movements" before and during WW2 in books like Plot Against the Peace by Sayers and Kahn, The Plotters by John Roy Carlson, etc. Also, look up "peace now" in the NYTimes index for 1943 and 1944 [maybe 1942 too]. There were mad professors then too, preaching that Hitler was a reasonable fellow who wanted peace if he were only given a chance, etc. Remember that Lindbergh and Henry Ford, not to mention Charles R Crane, sympathized with Hitler, although these did not claim to be leftist intellectuals. On the other hand, there were more honest intellectuals like Dwight MacDonald.
In France, Simone de Beauvoir complained in her biog, La Force de l'Age, that there were both left and right peace movements wanting to make peace with Hitler. Orwell blamed the pacifists for making the war possible.
http://www.netanyahu.org/peacmovthena.html
Posted by: Eliyahu at May 31, 2006 1:01 PM
a recent book reported that chomsky has done contract work for the US Defense dept. I have not read the book but has this claim been verified?
Posted by: Eliyahu at May 31, 2006 1:03 PM
"...a madness made more disturbing because it is expresed con una voce pacata, a voice of seeming sweet-reasonableness, that piles on, one after the other, such outrageous nonsense that, in attempting to deal with it all, one becomes exhausted."
The same pattern can be seen in converts to Islam, and especially those Western women who find a comfort in their cartoon notions about Islam. There is an interesting link which poster traeh has referenced. It links a debate held at FrontPageMag.com:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16440
Of special interest in this regard, readers may wish to concentrate on the responses of Julia Roach, a woman who appears to be one of those peculiar bitter feminist Muslim converts. The bizarre collisions between her acerbic form of feminism/frothing hatred for her culture of origin, and her self-debasement before Islam is summed up for me in the 3rd installment of her responses beginning with her devious and wondrously misattributed quote:
"What can one do against such reckless hate?"-- Tolkien"
and ending with:
"Whatever good has been said here it is from Allah and whatever bad has been said here is from me or the shaitan (satan). Jazakum allahkhair-May Allah reward you all for reading this and listening fairly. Your sister In Islam, Julia Roach."
Such crazy persons can be crazy making for sane observers who try to plumb the depths of their mangled psyches. While I don't fault the notion of "debating" with such persons for illustrative purposes -- attempting to reason with the insane is futile.
Posted by: jsla at May 31, 2006 1:41 PM
PS -- It seems as if I have been waiting for Mr. Chomsky to exhale forever.
Posted by: jsla at May 31, 2006 1:47 PM
I didn't care for Chomsky back in the 70's-80's when he was a linguist dabbling in computer science. Now of course he has moved on to more important things, criticising those two uberdaemons the U.S. and Israel. But I think the right pays more attention to him than the left. Like Carter, the right continues picking on easy targets who faded away into obscurity decades ago.
One of the local radio stations is giving away (as in free, gratis) his latest book to call-ins, and I doubt they have many takers at that price.
Posted by: special_guest at May 31, 2006 2:02 PM
Duh, I mean that the right picks on easy targets like Carter and Chomsky, not that Carter picks on easy targets. Fingers weren't listening to the brain.
Posted by: special_guest at May 31, 2006 2:04 PM
Noam Chomsky wrote a glowing introduction to Faurisson's Holocaust denial book. He also provided a warm imprimatur to a book entitled "Jewish History Jewish Religion," a vicious and false perversion of traditional Jewish law and religion penned by an obscure Israeli Maoist and chemist named Israel Shachak.
The incidents which Shachak claimed framed the inspiration for his book were proven to have been invented by Shachak, who is no scholar of Jewish law or religion. I have no comment concerning a French "scholar" who denies the Nazi slaughter of 12,000,000 innocent human souls. But Chomsky's approval is on both of these books.
Shachak's hateful book is offered by David Duke, Stormfront, Radio Islam and other neo-nazi, Islamo-fascist and racist sites as an authentic portrait of Jews and Judaism. You will find Chomsky's approval of both these books by doing a Google search on Chomsky.
In the 1940's people like Chomsky had a position. They were called "kapos." Yet today Chimpsky is acclaimed a great man and scholar, and lionized by millions on the left. His affinity to Nazis, or theirs to him, is well documented.
Posted by: DesertDawgN29 at May 31, 2006 4:09 PM
you know people like Chomsky never get assinated by a nutbar, they just keep going like some energy bunny. l dont wish death on people in general, but l am sure the world could live without this traitor.
Posted by: Lulu at May 31, 2006 4:17 PM
Pop-psychology alert...
I just had a great discussion with a friend who is a trained Psychiatrist. He called this kind of behavior: "Identification with the agressor." The subject of Kapos also came up, DesertDawgN29 (palms?)
In short, I gather that some people are so terrorized and made to feel impotent by menacing persons and events, that they choose to internalize this menace -- somehow make it their own... It was further explained that this is done by the person in an effort to exert control over an external force which is in realilty out of their control and which threatens them terribly. The sad thing is, these persons sometimes become the same perpetrators of the very thing they hoped to escape.
While my lay understanding may be shallow and imperfect -- I think this explanation helps me to reassess my previous inference that such behavior as Chomsky's is insane -- it may well be, and still appears to be so to me, but it may be a deep disorder of his psyche, perhaps he has been too terrorized by tales of Jewish vicimization early on or something, and this is his twisted response to it.
Anyway, such a mechanism, while fascinating to contemplate, avoids the issue of how to stop or prevent such actors-out from committing or furthering their internalized hatred.
Chomsky is clearly a twisted perpetrator of hatred. Given his status and position, I think he is also a kind of political criminal.
While such persons may be tolerated/indulged perhaps during times of peace (though I would say such poisonous persons shouldn't be placed in any position of importance), during times of peril we must explore the menace such persons pose to our collective well being. It seems to me Chomsky has given valuable political capital to Hamas -- a designated terror organization. As such, is it reasonable to say he may have broken US laws -- he certainly has given ammunition to the black forces arrayed against us.
Anyone prepared to weigh in with some Pop Legal advice on the subject?
Posted by: jsla at May 31, 2006 4:46 PM
I recently spoke with an Israeli woman, now living in America, whose son had served in the American military. This woman told me that she had been a member of an Israeli and Palestinian Rapprochment organization on the east coast. Noam Chomsky's sister joined the club, but her shrilly obsessive anti-Israeli hatred made her persona non grata, even among the Palestinians.
Noam's parents were Orthodox Jews and well-known Hebrew teachers. They must be rolling in their graves to see the harm his son is doing to the Jewish people.
Posted by: DesertDawgN29 at May 31, 2006 4:57 PM
Israel Shachak, strangely enough, survived the Warsaw Ghetto and Bergen-Belson at the young age of 12. The effect these events would have on a young psyche is unimaginable.
Posted by: DesertDawgN29 at May 31, 2006 5:00 PM
Manufacturing Content ?
Posted by: hasan salami at May 31, 2006 5:08 PM
Manufacturing Dissent.
Posted by: Hugh at May 31, 2006 7:44 PM
Great posts everybody
"...a madness made more disturbing because it is expresed con una voce pacata, a voice of seeming sweet-reasonableness, that piles on, one after the other, such outrageous nonsense that, in attempting to deal with it all, one becomes exhausted."
It's wickedly rewarding to see those tools of dissembling in a live argument, such as the one Chomsky had with Dershowitz at Harvard recently, where the supra- and extra-linguistic features were prevalent: the soft-spoken diction, the never varying tone/monotone signifying reasonabless and the patience of the wise and thoughtful versus the frenzy of the fools, the sweet myopic and baffled look of the benevolent sage/scholar who doesn't understand why people don't see the truth.
Add the studied loose, longish haircut, a sort of bohemian American de Villepin, and you get the image of the perfect imposter narcissist.
I'd give anything to see a real, behind-closed-doors confrontation with this guy. His kind is usually a treasure trove of scatological and sexual invectives, plus the sprayed saliva, when not threatened by image problems.
Posted by: ovidius_naso at May 31, 2006 7:58 PM
OVDIUS
That behind-closed-doors confrontation happened during a debate with G Gordon Liddy some time in the '80s, only it was actually caught on film -I've seen clips of it(and yes, the spray was so thick that Liddy had to call in a towel boy.)
Poor Noam, he started his literary career with -The New Mandarins- and now he's ending it as a sour old grape.
By the way, the title of one of his screeds is -
Necessary Illusions
-could he possibly define his belief-system more aptly?
Posted by: hasan salami at May 31, 2006 10:07 PM
Chomsky is the clear example of how a person can be brilliant in one subject and an idiotic imbecile in another. In the field of linguistics, Chomsky was a true scientist. Unfortunately, he is more famous for his bizarre political positions which border on the insane. Remember, this is the man who wrote a defense of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge genocide of Cambodia.
What is even stranger, is how Chomsky is now a close ally of Pat Buchanan.
Posted by: Provoslavni at May 31, 2006 11:18 PM
"He is, I think, simply crazy."
Chomsky is no more, or less, crazy than Moussaoui. Chomsky simply believes in the Revolution. And the Enemies of the Revolution are so evil in his mind, anything is permissible, even righteous, to fight them.
Posted by: Television at May 31, 2006 11:30 PM
Isn't Chomsky a little old to be a linguist?
Shouldn't he be a philologist?
Oh, that's right, he doesn't "love".
"Knowledge" or anything else.
But intellectual onanism. (Noam-sin.)
A seedy character indeed.
Posted by: profitsbeard at June 1, 2006 1:26 AM
Chimpsky is the biggest exponent of biting the hand that feeds and thus, an example to Islamists everywhere. His family and race would have been eliminated long ago had it not been for the intervention of the US in World War 2. The States has provided him with an excellent living and the ability to make money out of his demented ramblings. My suggestion is that he is deported to Gaza and see how long he lasts before he receives some Islamic punishment for speaking his mind.
Posted by: londongirl at June 2, 2006 3:56 AM
If Chumpsky wishes to whitewash Islam and its jihadists, that is his prerogative.
It is our prerogative, however, to ridicule this imbecile 97 ways til Sunday on this blog. Oh, and believe me, I will!!!!!!!!
Posted by: pythagoras at June 3, 2006 2:37 PM
chomsky's parents were most definitely NOT Orthodox Jews. Yes, they were Jews, but not Orthodox and probably not religious. His father was a minor linguist who wrote a history of the Hebrew language that has been long since superseded. As far as I know chomsky's parents had "left-liberal" views, whatever that means. Young noam was involved in leftist youth groups growing up in the 1920s-30s, as far as I know.
israel shahak was/is indeed a Communist. He may have come from a family that was Communist before the Holocaust, and his experiences did not lead him to change his views, as far as I know of him.
Now, we're seeing how close many "leftists" are to "far-rightists." Faurisson too, the Holocaust denier, was a marxist-leninist.
Posted by: Eliyahu at June 3, 2006 4:45 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)