Showing posts with label Chomsky. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chomsky. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

The Persistence of Dishonesty






The advertisement below sounds pretty impressive, doesn’t it? But read on. The ad is an astonishing piece of misrepresentation:

****
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53865

“Jan 27, 2006

“JOAN PETERS TO MAKE RARE APPEARANCE

"Author of 'FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL' to address myths of Mideast

“WASHINGTON – Joan Peters, author of the best-selling, critically acclaimed history of the Arab-Jewish conflict over Palestine, 'From Time Immemorial,' is confirmed as a presenter at News Expo 2007 – the Washington, D.C., conference like no other ever produced.
Peters joins WND Jerusalem bureau chief Aaron Klein, columnist Ann Coulter, WND founder and Editor Joseph Farah and managing editor David Kupelian, author of the best-seller, 'The Marketing of Evil.'
Peters' book struck the world like an earthquake when it was first published in 1984 – shattering many of the myths and misconceptions involving the origins of the Mideast debate. Based on seven years of meticulous research and fearless reporting, Peters documented the complex history of the region and in so doing deftly and authoritatively contradicted common misperceptions about the role and strategy of each side of the struggle.”
****

No wonder it’s a “rare” appearance. Her book is a fraud.

I wrote about Joan Peters on VIEW FROM THE MOON on January 18, and some of what I’m publishing today is lifted from that earlier post. The point is that her book, “From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine”, published in 1984, has been widely acknowledged for years to be inaccurate, even fraudulent.

Her book tries to justify Zionism (the takeover of Palestine by Jews from other countries) by proving the constant presence of Jews in Palestine, contrary to the truth. As one critic put it:

“The thesis of this book is that when the state of Israel came into existence Palestine was largely unpopulated, except for a few Jews who had been there for many centuries; just a desert really, made to bloom by the ingenuity and hard work of Jews who subsequently arrived. Consequently the Palestinians we find there today must have arrived recently, freeloaders, no doubt attracted by the modern state built by the efforts of said hard-working Jews. And consequently Israel has a right to send them back where they came from.

“In fact, the book is rubbish. It was exposed as a fraud by several critics, including Norman Finkelstein (whose exposé is included in Blaming the Victims, edited by Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens, also available via Amazon) and later Oxford University's Albert Hourani.”

A less forthright reviewer explained: “Much of Mrs. Peters's book argues that at the same time that Jewish immigration to Palestine was rising, Arab immigration to the parts of Palestine where Jews had settled also increased. Therefore, in her view, the Arab claim that an indigenous Arab population was displaced by Jewish immigrants must be false, since many Arabs only arrived with the Jews." Peters concludes, therefore, that many of the refugees from the 1948 Arab-Israeli war were not native Palestinians. She has repeatedly been proven wrong.

Professor Norman Finkelstein (see “Links” on this blog) calls Ms. Peters’ book a “monumental hoax,” and “the most notorious source of historical bias on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ever published in the English language . . . “

Not one critic now accepts her thesis as valid.

“The New York Review of Books”: “Everyone familiar with the writing of the extreme [Zionist\ nationalists of Zeev Jabotinsky's Revisionist party would immediately recognize the tired and discredited arguments in Mrs. Peters's book. I had mistakenly thought them long forgotten. It is a pity that they have been given new life."

Even a friendly reviewer, Daniel Pipes, wrote: “‘From Time Immemorial’ quotes carelessly, uses statistics sloppily, and ignores inconvenient facts. Much of the book is irrelevant to Miss Peters's central thesis. The author's linguistic and scholarly abilities are open to question.”

For a lengthy discussion of the criticisms of Joan Peters' book, see Paul Blair's six-part article published in 2002 beginning at http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2135.

Blair writes in his Conclusion:

“From Time Immemorial is work of propaganda, with all the bad connotations that term carries. Peters' case rests upon distortion and fabrication. Time and again, she misconstrues sources in a tendentious manner. She cribs uncritically from partisan works. She conceals crucial calculations, and draws hard conclusions from tenuous evidence. She speculates wildly and without ground. She exaggerates figures and selects numbers to suit her thesis. She adduces evidence that in no way supports her claims, sometimes even omitting "inconvenient" portions of the citation. She invents contradictions in sources she wishes to discredit by quoting them out of context. She "forgets" undesirable numbers in her calculations. She ignores sources that cast doubt on her conclusions, even when she herself uses those sources for other purposes. She makes baseless insinuations and misleading claims.”

Noam Chomsky wrote in his 2002 book, “Understanding Power”:

“From Time Immemorial ... was a big scholarly-looking book with lots of footnotes, which purported to show that the Palestinians were all recent immigrants ... And it was very popular — it got literally hundreds of rave reviews, and no negative reviews: the Washington Post, the New York Times, everybody was just raving about it. Here was this book which proved that there were really no Palestinians! Of course, the implicit message was, if Israel kicks them all out there's no moral issue, because they're just recent immigrants who came in because the Jews had built up the country. ... That was the big intellectual hit for that year: Saul Bellow, Barbara Tuchman, everybody was talking about it as the greatest thing since chocolate cake. Well, one graduate student at Princeton, a guy named Norman Finkelstein, started reading through the book. He was interested in the history of Zionism, and as he read the book he was kind of surprised by some of the things it said. He's a very careful student, and he started checking the references — and it turned out that the whole thing was a hoax, it was completely faked: probably it had been put together by some intelligence agency ... [The Mossad?]

“Every major journal, the Times Literary Supplement, the London Review, the Observer, everybody had a review saying, this doesn't even reach the level of nonsense, of idiocy.”

How strange, then, that on January 22, 2007, Joan Peters’ discredited propaganda hoax should be trumpeted as “critically acclaimed” and “based on seven years of meticulous research”.

Joseph Farah, director of “News Expo 2007” and co-founder of the website which published the advertisement, WorldNetDaily, says:

“We're very excited about the appearance of Joan Peters. This presentation alone will make News Expo a spectacular, one-of-a-kind, can't-miss event.”

Tuesday, December 5, 2006

Misleading Headline, Missing News

What’s missing from this USA Today headline from yesterday?

MARINE HELICOPTER MAKES EMERGENCY LANDING IN ANBAR LAKE

Answer: Four Marines were killed.

(Journalists used to be taught that the most important facts go in the headlines.)
-----

I heard on television last night that a new blog is created every second, and that each blog has an average of one reader. Not very encouraging, especially when I add my own impression that most of the blogs which aren’t of the “washed my hair this morning” or “fuzzy photos of the Barfs’ concert” varieties are for the purpose of commenting on the news, thus putting them in competition with me.

Well, maybe not, since I’m trying to focus on what is NOT in the news, while many of the “current events” blogs I’ve seen just copy and paste other people’s published columns and make fun of them. Let somebody else do all the work, add a couple of smart-alecky comments at the end, and – voila – you’re right up there with Jon Stewart.
----

My eagle eye for what’s missing from the U.S. news has come up with this: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez – who endeared himself to me with his U.N. “smell of sulfur” speech in which President Bush was appropriately cast as the devil – has done some newsworthy things with Venezuelan oil during the past year or so . . . either giving away oil to the needy or selling it at a discount.

Those stories are pretty easy to avoid reporting in the United States as long as U.S. citizens aren’t the objects of Chavez’ bounty. It seems they’re also pretty easy to avoid reporting even when U.S. citizens are the beneficiaries. When I tried to educate myself about Chavez’ oil generosity toward North Americans with a Google search, I found not one U.S. news source in the first two screens of search results.

What I could learn about Chavez selling cut-rate oil to Americans in 2005 came from Australia and England.

“Venezuela's President, Hugo Chavez, has pulled off his greatest public relations coup yet in his campaign to irritate the Bush Administration with a deal to supply cheap fuel to thousands of poor residents of Boston and New York. To the anger of many in Washington, Citgo Petroleum Corporation, a company controlled by the Venezuelan Government, will supply more than 45 million litres of oil at 40 per cent below market prices. The deal is one of the most spectacular moves yet in Mr Chavez's attempt to market his '21st-century socialism' using his country's oil wealth.”

Would Washington have been happier if Venezuela had raised the price of oil? Some people you just can't please.

I thank President Chavez not only for angering many in Washington by helping poor people, but also for holding up a copy Noam Chomsky’s “Hegemony or Survival” in the U.N., leading me to read some of Mr. Chomsky’s books and watch some of his DVDs for the first time.

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

New Name for an Old War

As I wrote recently in my other blog, FLIGHTS OF PEGASUS , we live in a time when euphemisms are substitutes for solutions -- “issue” instead of “problem”, “challenged” instead of what my grandmother called “afflicted”, “food insecure” instead of “hungry”, and “tough interrogation” instead of torture.

Now the Bush administration is scurrying about looking for a new word to make something sound better than it is. As we all know, the flurry of the moment is NBC’s decision to describe the slaughter in Iraq as a “civil war”.

This war has already had more names than there have been sequels to “Halloween.” First it was “The War to Eliminate Weapons of Mass Destruction.” Whoops – no WMDs. Well, it must be “The War to Topple an Evil Dictator”, and then “A War to Bring Freedom and Democracy to Iraq”. Hmm, no sign of freedom or democracy yet. It must be part of the “The War on Terror”. As President Bush explained, his war in Iraq is now the leading edge of the “War on Terror”, without which the Iraqis would soon be lobbing mortar shells into malls in Minnesota. Never mind that Iraqis are fighting Americans only because we invaded their country. If Bush makes them mad enough that they actually attack Minnesota, he’ll need to run a contest for a new war name.

And now the journalists have re-christened it “The Iraq Civil War”. Same war, different name, but names can make a lot of difference. The nightly flapping jaws suggest that Bush is going to be very unhappy about the term “civil war” because it goes against his optimistic predictions as well as, incidentally, showing that he has completely failed in Iraq. But the wagging TV tongues also suggest that it will now be easier to get out of Iraq because the American people won’t stand for our soldiers to be killed intervening in a civil war – even if they did open the Pandora’s Box that had contained the civil war.

Actually, the American people will stand for whatever they’re told to stand for because the majority will think whatever they’re told to think. Noam Chomsky has eloquently described the situation in the U.S. in which Big Brother simply writes off 80 percent of the population as too stupid or too uninterested to be counted as significant. A few simple slogans are all they can absorb in addition to their sports, sitcoms, music, movies, actors and actresses, sex scandals, and medical and nutritional and fashion and crime and accident news. Bread and circuses. Anything to keep their minds off what their masters are up to.

Ironically, wouldn’t it serve Bush’s most pressing needs if Americans, sold on the semantics of “civil war”, really did demand swift military withdrawal from Iraq? The shame of “cut and run” becomes, “It’s not our war!" "Those people are nuts." "It’s a way of life over there.”

So, maybe Bush will bow out more quickly than we might have expected, saying as he shakes the dust of Iraq off his feet (or rather, as the Americans who actually fought there shake the dust off their feet), “We tried to bomb them into democracy, but if they’re going to act this way they can just stew in their own juice.”