NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/conspira/14640

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-25 | 9.5 KB

Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:14640 alt.activism:21345 alt.society.civil-liberty:7520 alt.individualism:6279 alt.censorship:10106 misc.headlines:7563 soc.culture.usa:10087 misc.activism.progressive:10347
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa,misc.activism.progressive
Path: sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!gatech!asuvax!ukma!mont!pencil.cs.missouri.edu!rich
From: [e-mail] (John DiNardo)
Subject: Part 6,  NOAM CHOMSKY: The New World Order
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
Originator: [e-mail]
Keywords:  NOAM CHOMSKY: The New World Order
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: UVA. FREE Public Access UNIX!
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:26:19 GMT
Approved: [e-mail]
Lines: 159

        I made the following transcript from a tape recording
        of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio Network station
               WBAI-FM (99.5)
               505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.
               New York, NY 10018       [phone]

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
                        (continuation)
NOAM CHOMSKY:
Well, breaking the rules and keeping to English instead of
PC-language, the traditional U.S. policy has been, as I said,
rigid opposition to the peace process -- rigid, inflexible,
invariant opposition to the peace process, which is why it never
gets anywhere. You can see this very clearly if you just look at
the more or less irrelevant, factual record. The record is
irrelevant because it's not "politically correct". It teaches
the wrong lessons. But let's look at it anyway. For example, you
could start with the U.N. General Assembly. The U.N. General
Assembly meets every winter and they have a vote every year on
advancing the peace process. I won't run through the whole record,
but the last one was December, 1990 when the vote was 144 to 2
(United States and Israel), and that's the way it is all the way
back. It's always something like that: N to 2, where N is everybody
who wasn't asleep that day, and 2 is the United States and Israel.
Sometimes it varies a little. In 1989, it was 151 to 3. For
completely unexplained reasons, Dominica joined with the United
States and Israel. Maybe somebody has some insight into that.
But, in effect, it's the United States and Israel blocking the
peace process at the General Assembly.

Well, what about the Security Council? Notice, incidentally, that
the United States is a very powerful country. That means that if
there is a vote at the General Assembly which is, let's say,
160 to 1 -- and things like that happen pretty commonly -- if the
one is the United States, it's vetoed. That's what it means to be
in a position to be able to assert "what we say goes." What about
the Security Council? Well, of course, that's out because there
the United States can just flat veto everything, as, in fact, it's
been doing since 1976. In 1976 -- first major U.S. veto -- there
was a resolution which called for (I'll quote it): "an Arab-Israeli
peace settlement on the pre-1967 borders" (that means the
internationally recognized borders) "with guarantees for the
sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of
all states in the area, and their right to live in peace within
secure and recognized boundaries, including Israel, and a new
Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza."  That was introduced
to the Security Council by Jordan, Syria and Egypt. It was backed
by virtually the whole World. It was publicly backed by the P.L.O.
According to Israel -- the current President of Israel, Chaim
Herzog, who was then the U.N. Ambassador -- it was not only backed
by the P.L.O., but actually prepared by the P.L.O. Another example
of their terrorist past. It was vetoed by the United States. It is,
therefore, out of history. Try to find it in the records of the
peace process, or in documentary collections, and so on. In short,
it's just not "politically correct." The same thing happened in 1980.
But, in effect, the Security Council is ruled out as an agency for
advancing the peace process. There have been a series of other
proposals rejected by the United States, and Israel was opposed
to them. I won't run through the record.

Now, the U.S. is a very powerful country, so we can block a proposal
by saying "no", period!  Israel is less powerful, and, therefore,
they have to be a little more vigorous in their opposition.
So, in the case of the 1976 Security Council Resolution, while the
U.S. just vetoed it, Israel reacted differently. They reacted by
bombing Lebanon, killing about fifty people in a raid that was
described quite openly and, in fact, even reported as not being
a reaction to anything -- which was not exactly correct. It was
actually a retaliation against the United Nations for considering
this resolution.

Then, in 1980, when Saudi Arabia announced the so-called Fahd Plan,
which again was sort of along the same lines (most of those plans
are along the same lines), Israel reacted, according to the
Israeli press, by sending Phantoms [American-made & paid F-4
fighter/attack jet aircraft], which probably means nuclear-armed
Phantoms over the oilfields.  And the Hebrew press pointed out
that foreign intelligence agencies are digging into their files
to look up their records on the capacity of Israel to destroy
the oilfields, meaning: If you push too far, there are things
we can do!

Well, that's the way a weaker country has to respond. The U.S.
is simpler. We just say "no", and that means it's off the agenda
and it's out of history -- if you have a well-disciplined commissar
class, at least. Well, this problem continued through the 1980s.
Yassir Arafat, for example, kept annoying everybody by calling
for negotiations with Israel, leading to mutual recognition. This
required considerable acrobatics in the doctrinal institutions.
So, for example, let's take a typical case: The current chief
diplomatic correspondent of the New York Times, Thomas Friedman,
who was the Jerusalem correspondent then .... he added new things
like, say, if headlines in the Israeli Press said:
ARAFAT OFFERS NEGOTIATIONS. PERES (who is supposed to be the dove)
SAYS "NO"  .... there had to be an article by Thomas Friedman
a couple days later saying:
  "The Israeli peace movement has never been more distraught. There
   are no Palestinians to talk to."
There was an interview with Shimon Peres saying:
  "If only there were some Palestinians as beautiful as we are,
   we could settle all of this. But, unfortunately, they're all
   terrorists who won't talk to us."
And that routine went on year after year. The New York Times not
only refused to publish the facts, but even refused to publish
letters referring to the facts, and ocassionally even went as far
as writing to correspondents explaining that they were not going
to allow letters on it (actually, some of those are around).

It was all done quite brilliantly. The result was to craft a
version of history which has no relation whatsoever to the facts.
Actually, it has a relation to the facts for the logicians in the
audience: the relation of contradiction. Apart from that, it has
no relation to the facts, but it does have striking utility for
power. And that was achieved in a manner which would have been
pretty much admired by any totalitarian state.

Now, there are reasons for this. There are reasons why the United
States has been constantly opposed to the peace process. It has
two features which the United States will not accept. One is:
it calls for an INTERNATIONAL conference. And remember, the Monroe
Doctrine has been extended to the Middle East long ago. It's too
important to allow anybody to interfere.
                        (to be continued)
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

    A 90-minute video documentary, from which this transcript was made,
    is available exclusively from JCOME.  In addition to the full
    Chomsky lecture, the documentary contains background information
    about Chomsky and JCOME -- the only Jewish-American organization
    that has Chomsky on its Advisory Committee.

    JCOME is extending a special offer at this time.  To get a copy
    of the video documentary simply send a check for $20 (only $15 for the
    documentary and $5 shipping) and indicate you read about Chomsky and
    JCOME on Internet or e-mail.  Send to:

                 The Jewish Committee on the Middle East
                             P.O. Box 18367
                         Washington, D.C. 20036

Phone orders cannot be taken.  But for additional information about JCOME --
including copies of recent magazine ads and the MID-EAST REALITIES newsletter
that can be sent directly to your fax machine -- call JCOME 24-hours daily to:

                     (202) 362-JCOME    [phone]
    E-mail: [e-mail]                      FAX:   [phone]
            [JCOME on MCIMail]

                       +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +
                        JCOME would be grateful to you for posting the
                        installments of this transcript to computer
                        bulletin boards, as well as posting hardcopies in
                        public places, both on and off campus.
                       +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +

            Transcribed for JCOME by John DiNardo.
                       ***********************************