Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

What happened to freedom of speech? I guess Israel means "you are free to speak of Israel, as long as it is serves Israel's interest".

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/no ... k-1.290701

Professor Noam Chomsky, an American linguist and left-wing activist, was denied entry into Israel and the West Bank on Sunday.

No reason was initially given for the decision, but the Interior Ministry later said immigration officials at the Allenby Bridge border crossing from Jordan had misunderstood Chomsky's intentions thinking initially he was also due to visit Israel.

Chomsky, who is on a speaking tour in the region, was scheduled to speak at Bir Zeit University in the West Bank on Monday.

Interior Ministry spokeswoman Sabine Haddad said officials were now trying to get clearance from the Israel Defense Forces, which controls access to the West Bank to allow Chomsky to enter that territory.

"We are trying to contact the military to clear things up and if they have no objection we see no reason why he should not be allowed in," said Hadad.
Chomsky said inspectors had stamped the words "denied entry" onto his passport when he tried to cross from Jordan over Allenby Bridge.

When he asked an Israeli inspector why he had not received permission, he was told that an explanation would be sent in writing to the American embassy. "They apparently didn't like the fact that I was due to lecture at a Palestinian university and not in Israel," Chomsky told Reuters by telephone from Amman.

Chomsky arrived at the Allenby Bridge at around 1:30 in the afternoon and was taken for questioning, before being released back to Amman at 4:30 P.M.

In a telephone interview with Channel 10, Chomsky said the interrogators had told him he had written things that the Israeli government did not like. "I suggested [the interrogator try to] find any government in the world that likes anything I say," he said.

Chomsky is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and is considered among the foremost academics in the world. He identifies with the radical left and is often critical of both Israeli and American policies.

Chomsky said he last visited Israel and the West Bank in 1997 when he lectured at Ben-Gurion University and also at Bir Zeit. He said all his previous West Bank visits had been as a part of trips to Israel.

His Palestinian host, lawmaker Mustafa al-Barghouti called the decision "a fascist action, amounting to suppression of freedom of expression."

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel slammed the Interior Ministry for "using detention and deportation to prevent a man from expressing his opinion", calling it "characteristic of a totalitarian regime."

"A democratic country where freedom of expression is a guiding principle does not close in the face of criticism or ideas that are not comfortable and does not deny entry to guests only because it does not accept their opinions. Instead, it deals with these opinions through public discussion," said ACRI in a statement.

Kadima MK Otniel Schneller, on the other hand, praised the move.
"It's good that Israel did not allow one of its accusers to enter its territory," said Schneller. "I recommend [Chomsky] try one of the tunnels connecting Gaza and Egypt."

The BBC says the Israeli authorities are doing a quick back pedal now and saying it might have been a mistake.. let's see whether they allow Chomsky to enter now.

Cheers,
Shafique

Israel is the master of backpeddling.

Chomsky is a funny guy.

I remember (well, not literally, of course) Chomsky predicting that the Soviet Union would emerge the victor in the cold war and that the US economy was on the verge of collapse (he also claimed that the Soviet economy was thriving).

And this was in the mid/early eighties!

He just seems like someone who tries to sound like an expert in fields that he has no qualifications to really pontificate on. Too bad wikipedia and google didn't exist earlier. Chomsky could have fooled even more individuals into thinking that the knew what he was talking about!

Bora - steady, you'll be accused of being anti-semitic for such comments!

eh - fascinating insights. Do you have some quotes - I haven't heard that Chomsky got it so wrong about the Soviet Union, but have read his books about American Hegemony - and his analysis of the Israeli Palestine issue is actually spot on - which is presumably what he's going to be talking about in Occupied Palestine.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Bora - steady, you'll be accused of being anti-semitic for such comments!

Me anti-semetic??? No, No, No!!!! Just anti-Israel.

He...he... I reject to believe that a Jew can be denied visiting Israel.

Where is this World going?

First, a technicality. Chomsky was denied access to the disputed areas. Unless your claim is that the disputed areas an intregal part of Israel (a view I donot share), he is not denied access to Israel, but to the Westbank.
Like other posters, I also wonder what the reason was. Problems with a visa maybe (dozens of people, including jews, are denied access to Israel, because of visa problems). Notice he also visited Lebanon before. Israel always hold the right to deny people who visited enemy states, like Lebanon, Syria etc. etc. Just as many Arab states deny access to visiters with an Israeli stamp in their passport.
IF he was denied access because Israel has problems with his views (like the UK (Geert Wilders), Egypt (Elton John) etc. etc.), Israel should have been bigger like that.

FD - The occupied territories are just that - occupied, not 'disputed' - I refer you to the UN and other international bodies and their pronouncements. The Israeli tactics of trying to call them disputed (and taken up by some American politicians) has been noted and commented on before.

Land not occupied before 1967 (and certainly not allocated to Israel in 1948) is internationally recogonised as not being part of Israel and as being occupied territory.

As for the title of the thread - that was my doing, the Haaretz article's full title is:

"Noam Chomsky denied entry into Israel and West Bank":
And the opening line of the article states he was refused entry into Israel (as they thought that is where he wanted to visit) as well.

I also agree, the reason for Mr Chomsky's refusal is crucial here. I've read only that the the Israelis were doing a back-pedal and saying it was a 'mistake' - but to my knowledge I'm not sure if there is any more developments on this.

Note that an Israeli politician was happy about the ban and gave his views, whilst other Israelis were dismayed:

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel slammed the Interior Ministry for "using detention and deportation to prevent a man from expressing his opinion", calling it "characteristic of a totalitarian regime."

"A democratic country where freedom of expression is a guiding principle does not close in the face of criticism or ideas that are not comfortable and does not deny entry to guests only because it does not accept their opinions. Instead, it deals with these opinions through public discussion," said ACRI in a statement.

Kadima MK Otniel Schneller, on the other hand, praised the move.
"It's good that Israel did not allow one of its accusers to enter its territory," said Schneller. "I recommend [Chomsky] try one of the tunnels connecting Gaza and Egypt."

Ultimately, FD, I agree with you 'Israel should have been bigger like that'!

Cheers,
Shafique

and what appalling excuses you have in favour of Zionists FD. I understand you have no sympathy for open air prisoners in Israel.
The charlatans stop aid workers for entry and take them hostage too. The last recent one I know was jailed for 20 days for no reason and was released later .There are thousands of innocent people out there who are locked behind walls. I am hoping that those Palestinians who are forced to spend years in Israeli jails will be released away from their israeli animosity.

shafique wrote:FD - The occupied territories are just that - occupied, not 'disputed' - I refer you to the UN and other international bodies and their pronouncements. The Israeli tactics of trying to call them disputed (and taken up by some American politicians) has been noted and commented on before.

I can call them whatever I want.

This has been discussed numerous times in other threads. If you want to add anything or draw people's attention to it, bump it. Notice that you never were able to specify an legimate sovereign of the territories before Israel conquered them. Occupation means you occupy it from an legitimate sovereign. Hence I prefer the term disputed areas. Others like to refer to Israel as occupied Palestine or the Zionist entity and have their own reasons for it.

Occupation means you occupy it from an legitimate sovereign.

Yes the ottomans were legitimate sovereign and they hold the title deeds to prove who the actual owners are..Ottomons were very good at archiving with every single detail.

Berrin wrote:

Occupation means you occupy it from an legitimate sovereign.

Yes the ottomans were legitimate sovereign and they hold the title deeds to prove who the actual owners are..Ottomons were very good at archiving with every single detail.

Ottomans were not the legitimate sovereigns over the Westbank and Gaza in 1967.

Ottomans were not the legitimate sovereigns over the Westbank and Gaza in 1967.

Do they have to be? Israelis were not legitimate sovereigns before 1967 either.
So there will be a time when Turks will ram those title deeds into their eyes. Just wait until zionists overthrown then you will see how they pull back and agree to everything that is just.

Berrin wrote:

Ottomans were not the legitimate sovereigns over the Westbank and Gaza in 1967.

Do they have to be? Israelis were not legitimate sovereigns before 1967 either.
So there will be a time when Turks will ram those title deeds into their eyes. Just wait until zionists overthrown then you will see how they pull back and agree to everything that is just.

Funny how you probably DO object to Zionists claiming property in Judea and Samaria based on Ottoman ownership paper.

Anywho, if you want to discuss the IPC, go to the many threads about it and contribute. This one is about Chomsky denied access to the Westbank.

Berrin - do you object to non-Muslim residents of the West Bank and Gaza claiming property that they have deeds of?

Perhaps you may have said this in one of your longs posts (I have to admit, I haven't read all of them)

Cheers,
Shafique

Funny how you probably DO object to Zionists claiming property in Judea and Samaria based on Ottoman ownership paper.
Anywho, if you want to discuss the IPC, go to the many threads about it and contribute. This one is about Chomsky denied access to the Westbank.

You Chicken.

Berrin - do you object to non-Muslim residents of the West Bank and Gaza claiming property that they have deeds of?

Sure you're asking my opinion..
If palestinians don't know what they are intitled to own? then how can one make sure what non-muslim residents should be intitled to own?

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:FD - The occupied territories are just that - occupied, not 'disputed' - I refer you to the UN and other international bodies and their pronouncements. The Israeli tactics of trying to call them disputed (and taken up by some American politicians) has been noted and commented on before.

I can call them whatever I want.

Of you can my dearest Dutch friend - I'm just pointing out the reality of the pieces of land and pointing out that the new labelling is not done unintentionally. You can call the Occupied Territories (as the UN terms the land) as 'Jewish motherland' 'Judea and Samaria' 'Syria' 'British mandate Palestine' 'Palestine' etc - it is your choice. However, I just wanted to be clear that 'disputed' is actually used by those who are trying to avoid the word 'Occupied'.

I came across this today - which directly addresses your argument relating to ownership of the Occupied Territories:

Your first argument is the played out and offensive Islamophobic argument that Palestinian people do not exist. You mentioned a few quotes, and I’m sure most of them are as spurious as the other ones you quoted in the Bat Ye’or article. You also quoted Syrians, Saudis, etc., (who have a vested interest and a belief in pan-Arabism) as if a couple isolated quotes from random individuals is indicative of anything.

But all that aside, the state of Pakistan never existed prior to 1947. Do we then say that Pakistani people do not exist, or that there is no such thing as Pakistanis? Was the land of Pakistan unoccupied prior to 1947, where all of a sudden Pakistanis spawned from the underworld? No. Obviously, the Pakistani people existed: they simply went by another name prior to 1947. So it is just a matter of names and semantics. But they existed as a people. Likewise, Palestinians existed as a people prior to 1947, and they were then expelled from their lands and occupied by outsiders.

To deny their very existence because the name they used primarily to describe themselves changed (which in itself is a statement which must be proven first, since I doubt it’s even true), well, that’s ludicrous. There are European nation-states which never existed separately before and were part of larger empires. Does that mean that those people don’t belong to that land and another country can just invade and occupy them?

Would you also deny that Jordanians exist, since after all, there was no country CALLED Jordan before, but rather it was simply called “Shaam” (Syria)? So I guess we could also conquer and expel Jordanians.

So even if we accept your claim that Palestinians are just Syrians, then so what? What does that do for your argument? If Russia invaded California, do you think they could argue: ‘Well, there is no such thing as a country of Californians–just Americans! So therefore our invasion is justified.’ The strange way Islamophobes think is amazing. Denying the existence of the Palestinian people is exactly the same kind of thing as denying the Holocaust. Anyone who does such things should be severely censured.

Then you say: “Also let me throw this out as well.”

Like I said, you are just throwing stuff out. Random stuff that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Then you blame the Arabs and Palestinians for the situation the Palestinians are in. No, I’m sorry, but any sane person can see that the party with the greatest share of blame is the occupier and colonizer, not the occupied and colonized. You go on to say: “It is a shame that the hatred is directed at those who hold much less responsibility for their plight that they are willing to admit.” Who could possibly have more share of responsibility for the plight of the occupied than the occupier? Truly you are reaching.

Lastly, you say: “I feel for the ‘Palestinians’ as their own leaders have failed them.” Let’s be real. You don’t feel for any of them. And by the way, people who use the word “Palestinians” in quotes are just as bad as those who use the word Holocaust in quotes. Same zany conspiracy theorist mentality.

And just for good measure, there are these clear points of argument:

There are loads of proof that there are Palestinians, with a unique culture, food, and language PRIOR to the Zionist conquest of Palestine.

1. Palestinians have their own dialect of Levant Arabic, which is different from the Lebanese, Syrians, etc.

2. Palestinians have unique culinary dishes which were later taken by Israel. To quote Israeli food critic Gil Hovav,

“Humous is Arabic. Falafel, our national dish, our national Israeli dish, is completely Arabic and this salad that we call an Israeli Salad, actually it’s an Arab salad, Palestinian salad. So, we sort of robbed them of everything…”

The food you see in Israel is mostly Palestinian food.

3. During the British Mandate, all people who lived in Palestine (that’s right, it was NOT a “land without a people for a people without a land”) were called Palestinians.

4. Palestinian nationalist movements started back in the late 19th century during the Ottoman Empire where the Palestinian natives wanted to create a democratic nation-state.

It is a serious mistake to think Palestinian was merely an invention to oppose Zionism. The Palestinian question has existed before Zionism took over the region. I can go on, but that’s enough since it is not relevant to the story.

Cheers,
Shafique

Everything in your above post has been discussed dozens times in dozens of threads on DF en DHH. With some points I agree, with some I don't. You shared you views, thanks. And I shared mine. Sometimes people like event horizon joined, but then you had to bring up the 32,000 vrigins (I wonder where your fascination for virgins comes from). Whats next, threaten me with 32,000 virgins???

About Humus. I closely followed the humus war between Israel and Lebanon. Lebanon won. Congrats! Make Humus, not war.

Sometimes people like event horizon joined, but then you had to bring up the 32,000 vrigins (I wonder where your fascination for virgins comes from). Whats next, threaten me with 32,000 virgins???

divertive chicken!
Now lets wait for chameleon chicken..

Berrin wrote:

Sometimes people like event horizon joined, but then you had to bring up the 32,000 vrigins (I wonder where your fascination for virgins comes from). Whats next, threaten me with 32,000 virgins???

divertive chicken!
Now lets wait for chameleon chicken..

No, you are chicken!

FD - there were points that were new to me in the quotes I gave today, hence I posted them again.

I thought the reference to Pakistan was pretty well put and made the point quite clearly. But I particularly liked the analogy of Russia invading and occupying California and then saying that there was no country called California before and using this to justify keeping the land! (perhaps that's the part you agree with?)

I didn't expect you to change any of your ingrained beliefs - I just thought I'd share a good set points (which you agree with partly). No problems then.

Now they've been posted, I can readily refer back to the points. You say 'disputed', the UN etc says 'Occupied' - your argument that it is not Palestinian land (necessarily) is countered by the arguments in the posts above (including, indeed, the humus wars! )

Cheers,
Shafique

I fully support Mexicans claiming Cali is Mexican. Well, sort of...

Well, let's not forget Texas - wasn't that annexed by the US?


Cheers,
Shafique

Alamooooooooo!
Man, I love American history!

Sorry, drifting away. Man, the whole of the USA was annexed! How can anybody (except the Injuns) with an American passport criticize the forming of nation states? No offense, I consider the USA a completely legitimate country.

Labels aside, I fully support the forming of a Palestinian entity in the Westbank and Gaza. I would also include Jordan, but that would make me an Islamophobe according to above posts.

Labels aside, I fully support the forming of a Palestinian entity in the Westbank and Gaza.

No mate I don't. You woun't be changing rooms in house? right

Berrin wrote:

Labels aside, I fully support the forming of a Palestinian entity in the Westbank and Gaza.

No mate I don't. You woun't be changing rooms in house? right

I suspect you have other plans:

Berrin wrote:Sieg Heil goodboy, Sieg Heil goodboy...

Just a hunch.

Flying Dutchman wrote:I suspect you have other plans:
...
Just a hunch.

Yes, I've noticed how your 'suspicions' and 'hunches' rely on beliefs that don't quite match reality. In this case picking up on a smiley to justify a cherished belief.. there's some fire behind this smoke, isn't there FD?


As for the Alamo - yes, I love the way that it is usually spun in a way that disguises the fact that it took place in Mexico!

As for Palestine - I'll happily stick with the UN resolutions on the partition of what was the British Mandate of Palestine - i.e. the territory to the West of the Jordan river. The portion east is now a soveriegn country of Jordan. I personally don't want to mess with them.

But your solution actually does make sense in the matter of Kurdistan - and we have discussed this in the past (in relation to Syria, Turkey and Iraq and their Kurdish populations that were split up by colonial powers).

But for Palestine - why complicate what has already been resolved by the UN and international law? It is only Israel's refusal to implement UN resolutions that is causing the hold up right now, and the Palestinians are the only ones who have conceded that they will accept less than UN resolutions and International law requires (i.e. they are giving up what is due to them, in exchange for peace).

To date, Israel has not given up one item - has it?

Cheers,
Shafique

Apparently, someone saying `seig heil´´sieg heil´, is not bothersome the least. We shouldn´t draw any conclusions from that.

Apologies for being off topic, this is about Chomsky, are you going to delete it now?