From jad@ckuxb.att.com Ukn Jan 26 09:31:42 1993 Received: from att-out.att.com by css.itd.umich.edu (5.67/2.2) id AA12287; Tue, 26 Jan 93 09:31:40 -0500 Message-Id: <9301261431.AA12287@css.itd.umich.edu> To: pauls@css.itd.umich.edu Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 09:28:22 EST From: jad@ckuxb.att.com Status: RO X-Status: Article 19684 of alt.conspiracy: Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa,misc.activism.progressive Subject: Part 6, NOAM CHOMSKY: The New World Order Message-ID: <1993Jan25.222619.24105@mont.cs.missouri.edu> Followup-To: alt.conspiracy Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu Keywords: NOAM CHOMSKY: The New World Order Sender: news@mont.cs.missouri.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: pencil.cs.missouri.edu Organization: UVA. FREE Public Access UNIX! Approved: map@pencil.cs.missouri.edu Lines: 159 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * (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 (202) 362-5266 E-mail: jcome@mcimail.com FAX: (202) 362-6965 [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. ***********************************