Controversy Blankfort / Chomsky (2nd Part)
Contrary to Chomsky’s theories, the United States has no interest to support Israel
28 September 2006 | We publish, today, the second part of Jeffrey Blankfort’s study on the ambiguities of Noam Chomsky. Having shown, in the first part of his article, the professor’s commitment to support the investments in Israel and to accredit the misleading theory of the guard of the oil wells, Blankfort dissects, below, two other dogmas. On the one hand, far from being a strategic asset for the United States, as Chomsky claims, Israel is a handicap. On the other hand, it is not Washington that prevents the solving of the Israel-Palestine conflict, but Israel itself, which wants to be, simultaneously, a Jewish state and the single state in Palestine.
Controversy Blankfort / Chomsky (1st Part)
Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict
20 September 2006 | While the Bush administration is sinking into the Iraqi mess and supports the Israeli destruction campaign in Palestine and in Lebanon, a controversy is expanding in the United States on the exact links between the US imperialism and the zionist expansionism. Suddenly, the thought of Noam Chomsky, which was imposed, for a long time, as a reference to the US left-wing, does not function any more. It is the moment, for the journalist Jeffrey Blankfort, to question this superstar. We publish here, in three parts, his long study of the limits of Noam Chomsky’s thought.
| | 3