Chomsky Acknowledges the Neocons as the Dominant Force in Pushing for Iraq War

From: “Stephen Sniegoski”


Noam Chomsky has been  the intellectual icon of the anti-war left for almost a half-century.   He has downplayed the significance of the neocons and the Israel lobby while emphasizing the domination of American Middle East policy—and in fact, American foreign policy in general—by a rather monolithic  (and somewhat nebulous) corporate elite concerned about protecting and enhancing their own economic interests.  Recently, however, the energetic James Morris was able get Chomsky to admit that the neocons were the “dominant force” in bringing about the US war  on Iraq.  Morris was able to elicit this acknowledgement from Chomsky in a question to him when he was on Phil Tourney’s Internet radio program.





My new article  “Chomsky Acknowledges the Neocons as the Dominant Force in Pushing for Iraq War” can be found at the following websites among others:


The Passionate Attachment


America Hijacked


My Catbird Seat



Stephen Sniegoski

Chomsky Acknowledges the Neocons as the Dominant Force in Pushing for Iraq War

By Stephen J. Sniegoski

Thanks to the efforts of the indefatigable James Morris, a seeming transformation of the view of the illustrious Noam Chomsky was revealed, which, if not equivalent to the change that Saul of Tarsus underwent while on the road to Damascus, was significant nonetheless.  Morris seems to have a knack for ferreting out the  unknown views of the famous, as was illustrated in his 2010 email exchange with General David Petraeus, then head of U.S. Central Command, in which he was able to reveal the latter’s close relationship with neocon Max Boot and his ardent desire to propitiate the pro-Zionist  Jewish community  at a time when it was generally thought that Petraeus was critical of  the negative effects of the intimate U.S.-Israeli relationship on America’s position in the Middle East.


The  Chomsky revelation took place while the latter was a guest on Phil Tourney’s “Your Voice Counts”  program on Republic Broadcasting Network from 2:00 pm to 3:00pm Eastern Standard Time on Sunday, February 24, 2013.  While Chomsky is a strong and very knowledgeable critic of Israel, he also has been (at least, was before this program) a stringent critic of the idea that the neocons have any significant impact on American Middle East policy.  Rather, he presents a somewhat nebulous, quasi-monolithic, corporate elite, which includes the oil interests, as determining American policy in that region—as it does everywhere else in the globe—for its own economic interests.  In what has been Chomsky’s view, Israel only serves as an instrument for American imperialism; that it too might benefit from American policies is, presumably, only an incidental by-product.


Chomsky was quite impressive on the program as he demonstrated extensive knowledge of the USS Liberty issue, which is a major issue of the program, since Tourney was a seaman on that ill-fated ship that was deliberately attacked by Israeli planes and gunboats during the Six Day War in June 1967, causing the deaths of 34 U.S. seamen and wounding 171 others out of a crew of 297.


Chomsky included  an injection of his standard theme that Israel became a valuable strategic asset  to  the United States with the 1967 war when it wrecked Nasser and secular Arab nationalism in general, thus aiding America’s conservative client states,  such as Saudi Arabia.


Listener phone calls were restricted to the last 15 minutes.  Consequently, James Morris wasn’t able to get on the program until the last five minutes when he tried to get Chomsky to address the issue of the connection between the neocons and Israel.  Morris cited then-Secretary of State Powell’s reference to the “JINSA crowd” (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) as the primary force for the war on Iraq within the Bush Administration.  Morris went on to say that the neocons were a leading element of the Israel lobby.




After Morris made these statements, Chomsky amazingly blurted out that he “agreed completely” with him regarding the importance of the neocons—describing the neocons as “tremendously important.”  Chomsky acknowledged that the neoconservatives  had been the “dominant force” in the Bush administration,  and that they had “pushed through” the Iraq war over many objections even from within the government.  What Chomsky had said about the importance of the neocons was radically different from his usual portrayal of a monolithic corporatist dominance of U.S. Middle East policy. Chomsky even seemed to agree that the neocons held positions that diverged from those of the traditional foreign policy establishment—Morris had earlier mentioned Scowcroft and Brzezinski as opponents of the neocons.

[“Chomsky Confirms Neocons Pushed Iraq War Over Objections,” (YouTube Video),]



What Chomsky said pertaining to  the neocons being the leading force for the Iraq war is  essentially identical to my position in “The Transparent Cabal.” And it is not only the opposite of what it appeared that he used to hold but what his protégé Norman Finkelstein continues to expound, as I discuss in my article, “Norman Finkelstein and Neocon Denial.”




Finkelstein denies that the neocons were a factor in causing the U.S. to go to war—and has nothing to do with my book, describing it as conspiracist—but he does not seem to realize that his position contrasts with that of his mentor. Since the two are quite close, it would seem that Chomsky has not even expressed this new view to Finkelstein in private conversation.  When Finkelstein finds out that his mentor holds that the neocons were the “dominant force” for war with Iraq, one wonders if he will then charge him with believing in a conspiracy.


Unfortunately, however, Chomsky still stops far short of the full truth.  For in his response to Morris, he went on to maintain that the neocons are different from the Israel lobby—definitely implying, though not explicitly stating,  that the neocons are not motivated by the interests of Israel.  He quickly put forth two arguments for this contention.  First, he claimed that the neocons are simply a mainstream force in American conservatism going back to the Reagan administration.   Even if true, this would not necessarily preclude their being biased in favor of Israel.  However, it is not true—the neocons did not just fit into existing mainstream conservatism, but altered it to fit their own goals.


As I bring out in “The Transparent Cabal” (with numerous citations from secondary sources, this being a rather conventional view), the neocon movement originated among liberal Democrats, mainly Jewish, who gravitated to the right in the late 1960s and early 1970s.   In significant part, this reflected a concern that American liberalism was moving leftward in ways detrimental to Jewish interests.   In foreign policy, this involved diminished support by American liberals for Israel—in line with the world left’s support for Third World movements that included the Palestinians—and the liberals’ turn against an anti-Communist foreign policy, as a reaction to the Vietnam imbroglio, at a time when the Soviet Union’s policies were exhibiting discrimination against Soviet Jewry and opposition to Israel in support of its Arab enemies.   In opposing what they saw as liberalism’s move to the left, these proto-neoconservatives did not see themselves as becoming conservative, but were dubbed with the moniker “neoconservative” by left-wing social critic Michael Harrington, who intended it as a pejorative term, and the name soon stuck.


Neoconservatives basically wanted to return mainstream American liberalism to the anti-Communist Cold War positions exemplified by President Harry Truman (1945–1953), which had held sway through the administration of Lyndon B. Johnson (1963–1969). When this effort failed to achieve success, neocons would turn to Ronald Reagan in the 1980.  Despite being newcomers to the conservative camp, neoconservatives were able to find significant places in the Reagan administration, especially in the national security and foreign policy areas, although at less than Cabinet-level status.


Neoconservatives, however, did not become traditional conservatives, but instead altered the content of conservatism to their liking. “The neoconservative impulse,” pro-neocon Murray Friedman maintains in his book “The Neoconservative Revolution,” “was the spontaneous response of a group of liberal intellectuals, mainly Jewish, who sought to shape a perspective of their own while standing apart from more traditional forms of conservatism.”[Quoted in “Transparent Cabal,” pp. 39-40]


In domestic policy, neoconservatives supported the modern welfare state, in contrast to the traditional conservatives, who emphasized small government, states’ rights, and relatively unfettered capitalism. Most importantly, they differed significantly from the conservative position on foreign policy.  Although the American conservatives of the Cold War era were anti-Communist and pro-military, they harbored a strain of isolationism. Their interventionism was limited largely to fighting Communism, but not to nation-building and the export of democracy, the expressed goals of the neocons. Nor did traditional conservatives view the United States as the policeman of the world.  Most significantly, traditional conservatives had never championed Israel.


While traditional conservatives welcomed neoconservatives as allies in their fight against Soviet Communism and domestic liberalism, the neocons in effect acted as a Trojan Horse within conservatism: they managed to secure dominant positions in the conservative political and intellectual movement, and as soon as they gained power, they purged those traditional conservatives who opposed their agenda, particularly as it involved Israel. Support for Israel and its policies had become, and remains, a veritable litmus test for being a member of the multitudinous political action groups and think tanks that comprise the conservative movement.


In his 1996 book, “The Essential Neoconservative Reader,” editor Mark Gerson, a neocon himself who served on the board of directors of the Project for the New American Century, jubilantly observed: “The neoconservatives have so changed conservatism that what we now identify as conservatism is largely what was once neoconservatism. And in so doing, they have defined the way that vast numbers of Americans view their economy, their polity, and their society.” [Quoted in “Transparent Cabal”, p. 42]

While in domestic policy Gerson’s analysis might not be completely accurate, it would seem to be so in US national security policy, as illustrated by the near unanimous Republican opposition in the US Senate to the nomination of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense because of his past statements critical of both US all-out support for Israel and its hardline position toward Iran (currently Israel’s foremost enemy) that might lead to war.


Now the fact that Cheney and Rumsfeld may not be motivated by a desire to aid Israel in their support for neocon Middle East policy, the Middle East policies they have supported have been formulated by those who identify with Israel.  Since both of them have been closely associated with the neocons, Cheney moreso than Rumsfeld, they were undoubtedly influenced by the pro-Israel neocons.   Cheney even went so far as to serve on JINSA’s Advisory Board.  And JINSA was set up in 1976 to put “the U.S.-Israel strategic relationship first.”



Moreover, as Vice President, Cheney specifically relied on advice from the eminent historian of the Middle East, Bernard Lewis, a right-wing Zionist and one of the neocons’ foremost gurus, who strongly advocated war against Iraq and other Middle Eastern states. (Barton Gellman, “Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency,” p. 231)  Chomsky has said that “Bernard Lewis is nothing but a vile propagandist,” and he presumably means a propagandist for Israel.


The influence of ideas per se was not the only factor that likely motivated Cheney. The fact that Cheney and his wife, Lynne, who was with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI—known as “neocon central”), had close personal and professional relations with the neocons also would have predisposed him to give his support to the neoconservatives and their agenda.


The same arguments would apply for Rumsfeld, with one additional one: a war on Iraq would give him the chance to demonstrate the value of his concept of a smaller, mobile, high tech American military.   Rumsfeld held that a small, streamlined invasion force would be sufficient to defeat Iraq.   As Bob Woodward writes in his book, “State of Denial”: “The Iraq war plan was the chess board on which Rumsfeld would test, develop, expand and modify his ideas about military transformation. And the driving concept was ‘less is more’ – new thinking about a lighter, swifter, smaller force that could do the job better. Rumsfeld’s blitzkrieg would vindicate his leadership of the Pentagon.”[“State of Denial,” p. 82]


For the neocons, Rumsfeld’s approach would not have the drawbacks of the conventional full-scale invasion initially sought by the military brass. The neocons feared that no neighboring country would provide the necessary bases from which to launch such a massive conventional attack, or that during the lengthy time period needed to assemble a large force, diplomacy might avert war or that peace forces in the U.S. might increase their size and political clout and do likewise.  In short, it was this convergence on interests between the Rumsfeld and the neocons that made them so supportive of each other in the early years of the George W. Bush administration.


It must be acknowledged that the neocon Middle East war agenda did resonate with both Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s general positions on national security policy, but there is little reason to think that they would have come up with the specifics of the policy, including even the identification of Iraq as the target, if it had not been for their neocon associates, whose policy reflected their close identification with Israel.  It should also be pointed out that in Chomsky’s usual presentation of an American foreign policy shaped by the corporate elite, the actual government officials who implemented the policy were not necessarily members of the corporate elite nor motivated by a desire to advance the interests of the corporate elite as opposed to the national interest of the United States.  In order for any type of elite to be successful, it is essential that it attract significant numbers of people outside of itself, which Chomsky himself has discussed at length regarding the corporate elite.  This is also the very purpose of the neoconservative network and the information that it disseminates.


Acknowledging as much as he did, it is hard to see how Chomsky can fail to discern that the neocons identify with Israel.  The evidence is overwhelming.   The following are a few examples of this connection.


The effort to prevent Chuck Hagel from becoming the Secretary of Defense has been spearheaded by the Emergency Committee for Israel, the creation of which in 2010 was in large part the work of leading neocon, Bill Kristol, and which claims “to provide citizens with the facts they need to be sure that their public officials are supporting a strong U.S.-Israel relationship.” As Bill Kristol states: “We’re the pro-Israel wing of the pro-Israel community.” Kristol had co-founded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which promoted the war on Iraq. Kristol’s father, the late Irving Kristol, a godfather of neoconservatism, is noted for his identification with Israel. In 1973, he said: “Jews don’t like big military budgets. But it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States . . . American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don’t want to cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel.” [Congress Bi-Weekly (1973), published by the American Jewish Congress]


Noah Pollak, a contributor to “Commentary” magazine, is the Emergency Committee’s executive director and, while living in Israel for two years, was an assistant editor at the Jerusalem-based Shalem Center


Eliot Cohen, a veteran neocon, was a founding signatory of the Project for the New American Century and advised the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. He coined the term “World War IV” for the war on terror. During the George Bush administration, he served on the Defense Policy Board in Bush’s first term and was closely affiliated with those neocons around Vice President Cheney.  He is on the International Academic Advisory Board of the Began Sadat Center for Strategic Studies in Israel, which is affiliated with Bar Ilan University, and is involved in contract work for the Israeli government.


Douglas Feith, who as the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in George W. Bush’s first term set up and controlled the Office of Special Plans, which spread the most specious war propaganda, was closely associated with the right-wing Zionist group, the Zionist Organization of America. In 1997, he co-founded One Jerusalem, a group whose objective was “saving a united Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel.” Before entering the Bush administration, Feith ran a small Washington-based law firm, which had one international office – in Israel. And the majority of the firm’s work consisted of representing Israeli interests.


Richard Perle has had very close personal connections with Israeli government officials, and has been accused of providing classified information to that country on a number of occasions. Perle not only expounded pro-Zionist views, but was a board member of the pro-Likud “Jerusalem Post” and had worked as a lobbyist for the Israeli weapons manufacturer Soltam.


Norman Podhoretz is considered a godfather, along with Irving Kristol, of the neoconservative movement.  When editor of “Commentary” magazine, he wrote that “the formative question for his politics would heretofore be, ‘Is it good for the Jews?’” (“Commentary,” February 1972)  In 2007, Podhoretz received the Guardian of Zion Award, which is given to individuals for their support for Israel, from Bar-Ilan University in Israel. Neocon Charles Krauthammer was the 2002 winner of the Guardian of Zion Award.


Max Singer, co-founder of the neocon Hudson Institute and its former president, who pushed for the war on Iraq, has moved to Israel, where he is a citizen and has been involved with the Institute for Zionist Strategies, which advocates the need to better infuse Zionist ideology in the Jewish people of Israel.


The neocons’ support for Israel does not necessarily mean that they were deliberately promoting the interest of Israel at the expense of the United States. Instead, as I point out in “The Transparent Cabal,” they maintained that an identity of interests existed between the two countries – Israel’s enemies being ipso facto America’s enemies. However, it is apparent from their backgrounds that the neoconservatives viewed American foreign policy in the Middle East through the lens of Israeli interest, as Israeli interest was perceived by the Likudniks.


Despite this professed view of the identity of American and Israel interests, sometimes the neocons’ actions verged on putting Israel interests above those of the United States government.  For example, some leading neocons—David Wurmser, Richard Perle, and Douglas Feith—developed the “Clean Break” proposal outlining  an aggressive policy for Israel intended to enhance its geostrategic position, which they presented in 1996 to then-incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. One part of the plan was to get the United States to disassociate itself from peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine and simply let Israel treat the Palestinians as it saw fit. “Israel,” stated the report, “can manage it’s own affairs. Such self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a significant lever of [US] pressure used against it in the past.” It was highly noteworthy that the neocons would devise a strategy to enable Israel to become free from adhering to the goals of their own country. [“Transparent Cabal,”  p. 93]

In conclusion, while Chomsky’s change was far from being complete, his acknowledgement that that the neoconservatives were the “dominant force” in driving the U.S.  to the war on Iraq in 2003 is, nonetheless, very significant.   Chomsky, who was voted the “world’s top public intellectual” in a 2005 poll, certainly influences many people, most particularly on the anti-war left, and his new view should make them rethink their belief that the war was all about oil. It is to be hoped that Chomsky’s words were not a one-time aberration and that he will not revert to his previous publicly-espoused position.  Rather, it is to be hoped that he will now look more deeply into the neocons’ activities and thus discern their close connection to Israel.


Jeffrey Blankfort discussed the above in his radio show via following URL:

Chomsky Says US is World’s Biggest Terrorist

Jeffrey Blankfort – Are there Israel lobby gatekeepers and damage control squads on the Left?

21 Responses to “Chomsky Acknowledges the Neocons as the Dominant Force in Pushing for Iraq War”

  • Jeff Blankfort says:

    Kudos, James, for pulling what must have been a painful tooth from Chomsky, one that has been infected for years by his being in denial regarding the power of the neocons who happen to be predominantly Jewish (almost like the Pope happens to be Catholic). Perhaps, suddenly realizing he was swimming in the deep end, Chomsky quickly returned to his usual nonsense about AIPAC simply being “an ethnic lobby” that has nothing to do with the neocons.

    Most of his interviewers are careful not to ask him questions that might throw a wrench in what passes for his “analysis” and it is not likely that Chomsky will put himself in such a position again if he can help it.

    Like an aging fighter, sagging on the ropes, this time Chomsky was saved by the bell. Perhaps, a match might be arranged between him and Sniegoski whose article contains important, and moreover, useful historical information that is relevant for our times, something that’s usually absent in Chomsky’s writings.

  • Jeff Blankfort says:

    As usual an excellent piece of analysis by Stephen Sniegoski coupled with a wonderful bonus: listening to Noam Chomsky being forced to admit that it was, as Colin Powell put it, the neocons who brought us the Iraq war. Now Finkelstein and Phyllis Bennis will have a problem on their hands, disagreeing with their guru. Of course, they will fall back on his dismissal of AIPAC as just “another ethnic lobby,” but he can’t walk away from the Iraq quote.

  • I am uncomfortable with the triumphalist tone of this piece. It is almost as if you are accusing Chomsky of wilful dishonesty and disingenuity – what possible motivation would he have for doing this given what he has dedicated his life to?

    You describe his views as ‘nebulous’ but it would appear you are looking for a simplistic answer to a complex problem. I do not believe you are a conspiracy theorist, but your views do resemble that of ‘New World Order’ cultists who look for a small group of defined people in order to explain the ills of geopolitics.

    I am not dismissing your views out of hand, there is no doubt the Neocons and Israel lobby were a factor in the Iraq war build up. But the fact is, US strategic interest in the Middle East predates Neoconservatism. I think there are more productive ways for you to pursue your agenda than by lauding men who bark at Chomsky – one of the most prolific dissident writers and cerebral men of our time – barely giving him time to speak and pouncing on the couple of words he manages to get in.

  • David Evans says:

    Some of those critical of Israel’s abuses of power and its ongoing criminal activity fail to address the very real issue of Zionist control of US media, government and foreign policy; foreign policy that is often used to project US power for Israel, even when such projection of power isn’t in the interests of the United States.
    One needs only view this list of very influential people to understand that this topic isn’t conspiracy theory, as Finkelstein and Chomsky, for example, suggest. Indeed, it is conspiracy, but it is FACT, not theory.

  • Daniel Baguley seems to miss the obvious fact that Chomsky, in his response to James Morris, changed his position on the neocon issue. In regard to the Iraq war, Chomsky agreed that the neocons were a major factor in bringing about the US attack on Iraq. It would seem that Baguley, who regards this interpretation as a “simplistic answer,” differs from his hero Chomsky.

  • Referring to my ‘hero Chomsky’ just shows a lack of maturity, much like your approach to your subject matter. Instead of parading this unedifying shouting match and Chomsky’s limited response as some kind of victory, why not simply write to Chomsky outlining your position in an attempt to elicit a more substantive response and to clarify his position. You can publish the results here, and I will be interested to read them.

  • Jeff Blankfort says:


    In preparation for a critical article on Chomsky (with whom I was acquainted and had exchanged friendly emails) I did write him, requesting further comments on the issues about which I planned to write, promising him that, apart from his answers to my questions, I would not circulate our correspondence, a promise which I have kept despite the fact that his replies were insulting, vicious in nature and contained accusations that he added, in a smail mail letter, that I “produce slanderous falsehoods, at will, and reject elementary moral principles.”

    In the same letter, he wrote that I “consistently take positions that so severely undermine any hope of justice for the Palestinians.” of which, other than suggsting that I might say the same for him, I should point out is his way of responding to critics from his “left,” by accusing them of hurting the Palestinian cause, something I have been active in since 1970.

    Whatever his motives, Chomsky has spent a goodly part of the last four decades explaining why the US is more responsible for Israel’s crimes than are the people of Israel themselves and the Israel Lobby which works tirelessly to maintain tbat support.

    Here are links to two articles that I wrote about him, to neither of which he has replied despite the urging of his supporters to do so. Since he didn’t, they elected to smear me rather than counter the facts about the professor that I presented to my readers. Perhaps, you will be the first to do so: and

  • Professor Chomsky’s response was quite explicit, as the audio recording illustrates. To imply that he would say one thing in one place and the very opposite elsewhere would not reflect highly on him. I would certainly bring this out if he should, in fact, revert to his previous position, but I see no reason to test him.

  • I have no interest in smearing anyone. But to be frank, Jeff, I find your misreading of Chomsky’s work so profound I am hard pressed to believe it is not wilful. Let us be direct here; you are obliquely suggesting Chomsky is pro expansionist Israel and his work is built around defending its crimes.

    When, in fact, your perception of Chomsky inflating US crimes and downplaying Israel’s is your misunderstanding (wilful or otherwise) of a simple ethical judgement: i.e. we are responsible for the crimes we can prevent. I live in the UK, but in your case it would be stopping the unqualified and implicit support for Israeli crimes facilitated by American largesse.

    It is convenient to believe the US is the junior partner in this relationship, and that your government has been ‘hijacked by Zionism’, as it allows one to absolves themselves of responsibility. Neoconservatism and the Israel lobby is part of the US body politic – no question. But the policies the US pursues in the Middle East, and elsewhere, predate this political breed; so I am hard pushed to acknowledge this huge shift in policy brought about by ‘the Neocons’.

  • David Evans says:

    Daniel, Let me be direct; I read Chomsky’s work, like Finkelstein’s work, to be about obliquely defending the Jewish state. They decry the murderous behavior of Israel, but in essence, they defend Israel and its right to exist, even though Israel hasn’t that right. Neither seems to be able to abandon the illicit “Jewish Homeland” nor are they willing to come to grips with the century-long historical record of Zionist influence in various governments that set the stage for them to spawn Israel, and has continued setting the stage for Israel’s illegal survival and expansion.

    Neocon = Zionist = defender of Israel. That Chomsky now admits, as Colin Powell did, that Zionists in US government pushed the US to war, is a recipe for his now suffering the pain of cognitive dissonance.

    I wish him well.

    Please see this list:

  • Patriot says:

    See the link to what Colin Powell conveyed by scrolling down to it at if interested further! See following link for what George Marshall (Colin’s Powell’s role model) had to say about the creation of Israel!:

    Petraeus wasn’t the first:

    General Petraeus’s leaked emails about Israel:

  • David Evans says:

    Thank you, Patriot. Defenders of Israel always begin with the flawed assumption that Israel has a right to exist, when in fact, Israel was illicitly founded by acts of terror and illegal aggressive war on stolen land. Only by overwhelming military force and oppression, and by the destruction of its challengers and by connivance and co-opting of the political will of various external governments, have Zionists been able to maintain their illicit enterprise.

    Truman should have listened to his generals and his diplomats who warned him that accepting Israel as a racist Zionist state would be a problem for the region and for the US for the foreseeable future. They were prophetic.

    Please see:

  • Jeff Blankfort says:

    Daniel, as I expected. like the rest of the Chomskyites who have attacked me, you have also failed to challenge the veracity of any allegation that I made against the professor and instead come up with something I neither stated or hinted at, that I was “obliquely suggesting Chomsky is pro expansionist Israel and his work is built around defending its crimes.”

    No, what I stated and demonstrated quite clearly, is that Chomsky believes that Israel within the 1967 (not 1948) borders is a legitimate state, despite its ehtnic cleansing origins and that much of his work has not been about defending Israel’s crimes which he freely talks about, but rather his placing primary blame on the US for funding those crimes while ignoring the role played by the uniquely powerful domestic Jewish establishment in shaping US policy toward that end.

    As Chomsky concluded in that same letter, dated Nov.12, 2004, before I had written my initial article, following his accusation that what I have been doing “so severely undermine any hope of justice for the Palestinians, find truth so offensive, and work so hard to evade our own responsibilities in favor of the much more convenient stance of blaming others. But that’s your business. I don’t wrote or speak about it.”

    I should add that Chomsky was familiar with my work since he had been one of the early subscribers to the Middle East Labor Bulletin, a quarterly which I edited from 1988 to 1995 and which was the only publication to deal with Palestinian and other Middle East labor issues, an arena in which the rather pathetic solidarity movements have largely ignored. I also published more articles from the Israeli press, translated by Israel Shahak, than any other US publication.

    Each issue, in addition, carried a special section reporting on Congress’s subservience to AIPAC and to the Jewish Lobby, in general, which proved beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Congress was completely in AIPAC’s pocket and how it protected Israel from being punished for its arms dealings with South Africa, something Chomsky also never spoke about.

    You see, if Chomsky really wanted to do something about US support for Israel he would have long ago publicly advocated that all aid be stopped which he has never done, and would have condemned the Congressional Black Caucus for caving in to Jewish pressure and selling out South Africa for donations at election time.

    That Chomsky has mezmerized hundreds of thousands of people in to doing nothing that might actually change the US political landscape, such as challenging their members of Congress for their fealty to Israel, is why I consider him to be a major “strategic asset” for Israel and equally, a major liability to the Palestinuan cause. While not placing the entire load on his shoulders, of course, I see him as one of the key reasons the solidarity movement in the US has been an utter failure.

    You mention you are from Britain, where next to the US and Canada, your politicians fall over one another in kissing Israel’s behind. I would like to know if there is a movement that is engaged in exposing Labour Friends of Israel, Liberal Friends of Israel, and Conservative Friends of Israel, or are you all following the warning of the slippery self-styled “Anti-Zionist,”Tony Greenstein, that to speak about the Israel Lobby “is the first step to holocaust denial?”

  • Patriot says:

    Exactly, Jeff! And even ‘anti-Zionists’ like George Galloway don’t want to address the root cause either!:

    British MP George Galloway Cuts off Caller for Telling the Truth about Jewish Neocons!:

  • My government reflexively follows what your government does. It’s interesting you should mention Conservative Friends of Israel; I had a long correspondence with my former Member of Parliament (MP), Richard Harrington, who revealed he is a member of this group along with our Defence Secretary, William Hague. The Telegraph ran an excellent piece on this issue at the end of last year:

    I’m afraid I will have to respectfully disagree with your perception of Chomsky’s calls for inaction. Fateful Triangle consistently points out the fact Americans are expected to ‘foot the bill’ for Israel’s criminality. It’s a serious piece of scholarship from which many lessons can be drawn – the obvious one being that an end to this munificence would rein in Israel.

    Going back to the original issue – and bearing in mind I said I am not completely dismissing your opinion – I think the onus is on you to explain why policies which have been in place since the end of the second world war are now being driven primarily by Neocons. I would also suggest that looking for ulterior motives for a difference of opinion undermines one’s own argument.

    I am happy to continue our discussion, Jeff. But would prefer to do so by email. I would rather not post my address on here so I will give it to James Morris who can perhaps pass it on to you?

  • David Evans says:

    Zionists have enormous influence in controlling discourse. As long as borders around discourse remain intact Israel will remain secure in its actions.

    I suppose one can attribute (but not excuse) Finkelstein’s and Chomsky’s reluctance to admit Israel, not US imperial goals, is the reason for the mess in the region is because neither can abandon the imaginary PROMISE of Israel (safe refuge for beleaguered Jews). However, staunch critic of Israel, U.K. PM George Galloway’s defending of discourse borders is less understandable, and I think must be attributed to concerns of false charges of anti-Semitism by Zionists who essentially vet political candidates in all governments they’ve infiltrated. Galloway’s response is disappointing, but such is the power of Zionists in Western governments:

  • Lujean Rogers says:

    Excellent article, and nothing new except to people who simply have not studied enough to learn what is happening to our country, with foreign lobbies having moved right into our own government.

    Anyone interested should read the book by Jerusalem born Gilad Alzmon, “The Wandering Who? and a book by Tel Aviv professor Shlomo Sand, “The Invention of the Land of Israel.” “That the Jewish Exile is a myth as is the Jewish people and even the Land of Israel.” Professor Sand is also Jewish, and his book has been out for a couple of years; yet, he still is a professor in Tel Aviv. Read Chomsky’s article: ( US into Iraq.
    And now as most of us know, Israel is trying to push the US to attack Iran, a country that is suffering inhumane sanctions, while Israel commits crimes against humanity every day, continues to build “settlements” on stolen land and thumbs its nose at the U.S. Meantime the U.S. has increased the “aid” to that nuclear armed country (Israel) to the tune of ELEVEN MILLION DOLLARS PER DAY!!!! It is considered a crime, by law, in the United States to send aid to ANY country that is Nuclear Armed. They also refuse to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.


  • Lujean Rogers says:

    thanks – great way to learn what is really going on!

  • Al American says:

    What scares the hell out of me and what should scare the hell out of all of America is that the NEOCONS CONTINUE TO PLAN THE WAR WITH IRAN EVEN THOUGH AMERICA HAS SAID NO! Look at Eric Edelman a former defense minister, he is giving seminars on American military strategies in the future and how we must take out Iran. He is not telling the American students that this is not for America it is being done to benefit Israel.The NEOCONS have financed FEMA consentration camps to put the Americans in if they resist war with Iran and that is the truth. They are using our military that belongs to America to fight all these battles in the mideast for Isreal.Furthermore when the NEOCONS talk about welfare states Israel is Americas welfare state. American taxpayers give Israel 80 million dollars a year to support them. That is more than any African American organization has ever gotten so all people in America really should stop blaming the blacks. Israel has drained us. I love and support all the American Jews but you have to understand this unfair and wrong!

  • Frank T says:

    Our American tax dollars are going to holocaust the people of palestine and this must stop! The American people do not want a war with Iran! They are not our enemy no matter how much the Neocons and Israel tell you they are.Iran and Israel are enemies but Iran does not even plan to attack them.Treaties have been signed. The United Nations needs to step in if the neocons overide Obama and send the United States to war with Iran. THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY DO NOT WANT THAT ONLY THE NEOCONS DO AND THEY CONTROL OUR MEDIA AND LIE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC EVERYDAY LIKE THEY DID AFTER 911 AND MAKE THEM BELIEVE THAT ARAB NATIONS ARE A THREAT WHEN THEY ARE NOT! THE AMERICANS NEED THE WORLD TO HELP US GET THROUGH TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! I AM BEGGING THE UNITED NATIONS FOR HELP TO STOP THE NEOCON WAR MACHINE!

  • TROY says:


Leave a Reply