The Jewish Divide Over Israel:
Accusers and Defenders

From Chapter 6: The Devil State: Chomsky’s War Against Israel:-

In Chomsky’s mental universe, there are few questions about Israel and the Middle East that cannot be resolved by equating Jews with Nazis. Does Israel have a right to pre-emptive self-defense? Such arguments recall “Hitler’s moves to blunt the Czech dagger pointed at the heart of Germany... Hitler’s conceptions have struck a responsive chord in current Zionist commentary.” Does Israel face threats to its security? “Hitler and Goebbels... gave a similar justification for their resort to force.” Does Israel conduct military operations against terrorists? “Gestapo operations in occupied Europe also ‘were justified in the name of combating “terrorism”’...” Has Israel shown a commitment to the peace process? “Does it deserve to be described as a ‘peace process’? Hitler’s campaign to conquer Europe was also dubbed a ‘peace process.’” How much time and effort Chomsky would save if he simply programmed his computer to spew out “Hitler” and “Goebbels” and “Gestapo” and “Nazi” at every mention of the wicked Zionists!

From Chapter 7: Chomsky’s Ayatollahs:-

Part 1: “Jews Worship Satan”: The Blood Libels of Israel Shahak:-

Not content with execrating the Jewish state as the reincarnation of Nazi Germany and the likely perpetrator of a new Holocaust, Shahak proceeded to vilify each and every Jewish writer, thinker, leader or rabbi whose opinions incurred his displeasure. Moses Hess, one of the first socialist thinkers in Germany, was “an extreme Jewish racist,” whose views “were not unlike comparable bilge about the ‘pure Aryan race.’” Chaim Weizmann’s “anti-Arab racism… can only be compared to Nazi anti-Semitic outbursts.” Martin Buber “glorified a movement holding and actually teaching doctrines about non-Jews not unlike the Nazi doctrines about Jews.” Bible scholar Yehezkel Kaufman was “an advocate of genocide on the model of the Book of Joshua.” The Lubavitcher Rebbe was the “hereditary Fuehrer of Habbad,” guilty of publishing “the most rabid bloodthirsty statements and exhortations against all Arabs.” Ignoring the standard pretense that anti-Zionism is distinct from antisemitism, Shahak hastened to declare that “there are Nazi-like tendencies in Judaism…” Finally, when his readers must have been wondering whether there was a single Jewish person on the face of the earth he did not regard as a Nazi, Shahak provided some relief: echoing Chomsky, he explained that American Jews “have been compared by the Hebrew press to communists under the Comintern, with their loyalty to Stalin.”

Part 2: “A Slow, Steady Genocide”: Tanya Reinhart Unveils the Zionist Conspiracy:-

In reviewing this cornucopia of ideological inventions, obscene libels and embarrassing factual blunders, it is tempting to ask how it is possible that such allegations can be made – perhaps even believed – by an academic teaching at a respectable university. But to pose such questions is to miss the essence of the Chomskyan enterprise. For Chomsky, Reinhart and their many sycophants, disciples and imitators, there is no need to prove that the peace process is a Zionist deception of the PLO, that Barak is in league with his fellow-conspirator Sharon, that Israel is ruled by a military sect, that Peace Now is an instrument of Israeli expansionism, that the Jewish state has a policy of “slow, steady genocide,” that the IDF has a “little game” of shooting people in the eyes, that there was a massacre in Jenin, or that Israeli soldiers employ Palestinian snipers to fire into Israeli neighborhoods. All that is required is an audience of sufficient credulity and the most hysterical anti-Israel charges will enter the realm of respectable discourse.

From Chapter 8: Norman G. Finkelstein: Chomsky For Nazis:-

Throughout his long and inglorious career, Finkelstein has been sustained by a simple thesis. “In the Holocaust framework,” he laments, antisemitism is “always irrational,” but such propositions “do not withstand even superficial scrutiny.” Rather, hatred of Jews “develops in a specific historical context with its attendant interplay of interests.” Finkelstein does not explain how Jews threatened the “interests” of the Third Reich. But why should he? This is surely self-evident to the neo-Nazis who sing his praises, to the Holocaust deniers who republish his books on their websites, to the legions of enthusiasts eager to hear that the wicked Zionists are the source of all the evils which beset the human race. In Finkelstein’s mental universe, Israeli Jews are a “parasitic class,” but Hezbollah terrorists are the paragons of liberation. In his scholarly judgment, “abusive force was not truly integral to the Final Solution,” but Israeli prisons are the scene of “novelties to the Nazi experiments.” In his moral calculus, Tel Aviv deserves the fate of Hiroshima and pregnant women are “legitimate targets” for mass murder. In his version of reality, supporters of the Jewish homeland are worse than the Gestapo, and the governments of Europe are helpless in the face of a Jewish conspiracy so powerful that “it can easily break the feeble resistance of prostrate nations.” What are we to make of the fact that such a man is a best-selling author in sixteen languages?


Table of Contents

Interview: Edward Alexander

Interview: Edward Alexander and Paul Bogdanor


Further Reading

Order: [ US | UK ]