meredith: "Who gives a crock what Chomsky thinks"? You obviously do, or you wouldn't have raised the subject. And it's not M-W who are "dodgy", it's you who are dodging. PP: Endorsements for M-W: Uri Avnery, Ira Glunts, Tom Segev, Christoph Bertram, David Aaronovitch, Tony Judt, Justin Raimondo are some I've come across.

Boaz-David
Palestine is no more the ‘former homeland’ for Jews than England is for Italians since both invaded and conquered the original inhabitants to take it.
In terms of difference to the Islamic Empire it is more recent and this puts it in the same category, as you suggest, of Australia, the US etc. This is my point. Until Israel acknowledges the ‘wrongs’ inherent in its foundation as all other historically recent colonizers have to do (and it is the recent ones because you cannot go back too far…. Just tough luck for the recent ones) have had to do it will not have legitimacy. The partition was illegal and it was unjust, like all colonisations but redress can be made. This of course can only apply to the original borders unless Israel can reach agreement with the Palestinians on change.
You of course overlook the worst aspect of Israel’s action is the brutality of its occupation and the colonization it has continued to carry out under cover of that colonization…. In blatant disregard of international law, the Geneva Convention, and human rights.

Yoyogitoj,

Israel may be threatened, but it is not under threat. Israel is the only nuclear power in the Middle East. It is armed to the teeth and it has a history of aggression toward its neighbours. In addition, it is backed by the world’s current superpower, the United States. Anyone, with half a brain can deduce that Israel is NOT under any real threat.

There can be no cry of ‘islamofascism’ as long as Israel remains an aggressor in the region. ‘judaofascism’ and ‘christofascism’ are far greater threats because this fundamentalism comes from countries which do have nuclear weapons and which say they are prepared to use them.
When you have finished looking at websites showing Muslim violence you might like to trawl through those which show the murdered and maimed in Palestine and Iraq …. You’ll find plenty of headless, armless, eyeless children there. And they are dead not because someone is fighting against occupation but because someone is fighting to maintain occupation.

Meredith
You were out of context because you missed the basic point Chomsky was making. Chomsky is not saying what the others said but perhaps you see only what you want to see instead of what is there. Denial does that.

I don’t necessarily agree with Chomsky. He has a point in regard to corporate power but I am not convinced he is right that the Jewish lobby does not wield more power. As he said himself, they are so interlinked at times. I thought the W-M article raised salient points and points I might add which have been raised and buried before.

You conveniently overlook the fact that it is one thing to threaten and another to act. Plenty of leaders threaten, many of them at the instigation of the US I might add, but only the US and Israel believe in bombing people because of what they say instead of what they do.

In addition, it is hardly surprising for a nation to be threatened when it acts like a thug. Israel is the regional thug and the United States is the world’s biggest thug at this point in time. Most people respond to the threats of bullies with their own threats.

Israel of course plays coy in regard to its nuclear capability but it is accepted that it has nuclear weapons, in spades. Israel threatened to use neutron bombs against Iraq: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STE203A.html and has threatened Iran with pre-emptive strikes….. http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,396791,00.html. Israel has said in the past it is prepared to use all of its capability. By extension, its nuclear capability.

rhross.. may I know why one cannot go back 'too far'? I think the destruction of Jerusalem and exile of pretty much the whole population in AD 70 can be laid today at the door of the Italian Parliament ! I am surprised Jews don't mount a massive class action against the Roman government of today for untold compensation.

Lets face it, the evidence is well documented.

You seem to be suggesting the Israelites took it from the indigenous..well they actually took it from some tribes which were in many ways related to themselves, (back to the sons of Noah) but the point was, the land was promised to the descendants of Abraham, and not so they can sit on their deck chairs and enjoy it.. but that they might share the Salvation of God with the world.

I think you are battling uphill to seek a human and 'humane' solution when there really isn't one. The Italians/Romans started it, now the Israelis are finishing it. They were removed by force of arms, and they are now re-establishing it by force of arms. The Palestinians are seeking to remove them 'by force of arms' so it all seems pretty even to me. "Last man standing gets the prize."

When it comes to tribes, nation-states (i.e. hyper-tribes) etc, and land/resources, there is only one means of establishing peace.... "power". Once a power framework is established, they can get on with the niceties of civil codes etc. But lets never 4get it all rests on power.

It should never be about the last and bloodiest outburst of brutality, because human nature is the same. Read Josephus on the conditons leading up to the destruction of the Temple. It will make your ears tingle. The current crisis is kiddie school compared to those days.

P.S.is your surname 'Ross' ? if yes, we are probably related :) or at least share ancestral land connections in Scotland. Remember the highland clearances ?

rhoss:

That link you provided had better not be to a regular source of your information.

http://www.globalresearch.ca

A more concentrated seam of total moonbattery I have not seen for a long time. Really, I am impressed. Being a long-time fan as I am of Pilger and his ilk and having a soft spot for the sort of rhetoric that makes use of phrases such as "puppet regime" and "stooges of the US industrial militarist complex".

From the front page:

Who is behind "Al Qaeda in Iraq"? Pentagon acknowledges fabricating a "Zarqawi Legend"
- by Michel Chossudovsky

Pentagon implements Global Military Policing
Second 9/11 to provide an "Opportunity" to Intervene
- by Michel Chossudovsky

Rumsfeld accuses bin Laden and Zarqawi of Manipulating the U.S. Media

Starve the Racist Prison Beast: Review of America's System of Mass Incarceration
- by Paul Street

Dead Cities
Some of the key players are urging that the "Fallujah Option" be applied to Baghdad.

Real tasty this one.

The War Lovers
- by John Pilger

Rachel’s Words Live On: Each Palestinian has a special place in their heart for Rachel Corrie. - by Remi Kanazi

You succinctly eliminate any hopes of credibility. Sad. That is the largest mother-lode of paranoid conspiracist brain spasm I have seen since Joe Vialls passed on (he of Israeli micro nukes caused Asian tsunami fame). Amazing.

Beware the black helicopters.

Strewth,

You bought it up, I answered.

Chomsky questioning the "veracity" of M & W?Document it!
Posted by Strewth, Monday, 24 April 2006 4:49:09 PM

chomsky says:
"But recognizing that M-W took a courageous stand, which merits praise, we still have to ask how convincing their thesis is. Not very, in my opinion."
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9999
Posted by meredith, Monday, 24 April 2006 6:12:06 PM

Meredith: "Veracity" means TRUTH, not 'comvincing'. Next time reach for your dictionary (if you have one) before exposing your ignorance.
Posted by Strewth, Monday, 24 April 2006 7:00:04 PM

Strewth
Chomski says:
"But recognizing that M-W took a courageous stand, which merits praise, we still have to ask how convincing their thesis is. Not very, in my opinion."
he also says:
"They also have a highly selective use of evidence (and much of the evidence is assertion)."
look mate he's saying its dodgy, deal with it hey.
Posted by meredith, Monday, 24 April 2006 7:23:16 PM

meredith: "Who gives a crock what Chomsky thinks"? You obviously do, or you wouldn't have raised the subject.And it's not M-W who are "dodgy", it's you who are dodging
Posted by Strewth, Wednesday, 26 April 2006 11:22:56 AM

Your resorting to splitting hairs over the word truth and unconvincing... I say dodgy and for you to deal with it, like cope hey, cuz your hero Chomsky is even not with you here on the MW article. (me dodging?)Like the posts show, it was you that bought it up mate, I just answered u