Noam Chomsky on Israel

Very informative.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathleen-wells/noam-chomsky-on-israel_b_683558.html?ref=fb&src=sp#sb=76965,b=facebook

Interesting, indeed, Abe. I would not have expected someone whose opinions generally seem so postmodern to be referencing Chomsky. While I get where you are coming from, since you lived in Lebanon, I have to respond here to the view of Chomsky's linguistic rival, George Lakoff, specifically to his writings on the metaphors of war:

http://amyscott.com/metaphor_and_war.htm

This section seems especially relevant:

Quote :

The Fairy Tale of the Just War


Cast of characters: A villain, a victim, and a hero. The victim and the hero may be the same person.
The scenario: A crime is committed by the villain against an
innocent victim (typically an assault, theft, or kidnapping). The
offense occurs due to an imbalance of power and creates a moral
imbalance. The hero either gathers helpers or decides to go it alone.
The hero makes sacrifices; he undergoes difficulties, typically making
an arduous heroic journey, sometimes across the sea to a treacherous
terrain. The villain is inherently evil, perhaps even a monster, and
thus reasoning with him is out of the question. The hero is left with no
choice but to engage the villain in battle. The hero defeats the
villain and rescues the victim. The moral balance is restored. Victory
is achieved. The hero, who always acts honorably, has proved his manhood
and achieved glory. The sacrifice was worthwhile. The hero receives
acclaim, along with the gratitude of the victim and the community.
The fairy tale has an asymmetry built into it. The hero is moral
and courageous, while the villain is amoral and vicious. The hero is
rational, but though the villain may be cunning and calculating, he
cannot be reasoned with. Heroes thus cannot negotiate with villains;
they must defeat them. The enemy-as-demon metaphor arises as a
consequence of the fact that we understand what a just war is in terms
of this fairy tale.

As long as we see the Middle East situation as having villains and victims, we are stuck with choosing sides. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict, as I see it, doesn't have a right and wrong side. The land was promised to both sides by England during the First World War as an expedient way of getting their support. The conflict itself goes all the way back to Isaac and Ishmael. We won't get to a just answer by trying to figure out who is right and who is wrong.
We need to change the metaphors.

Ann

It's what I call the theory of original blame. It generally goes back so far as to make the original blame irrelevant.

dkchristi wrote:

It's what I call the theory of original blame. It generally goes back so far as to make the original blame irrelevant.

I agree that the original claims of ownership are irrelevant. What is relevant is the rule of law in our modern world. Unless or until it is enforced, we'll have more of the same.

In the past, information about the conflict was lobsided. There is more information being published that brings balance to the problem. Unfortunately, those who would want to take action to resolve the problem, are powerless. Those in power lack the courage to enforce the law since it is political suicide. Politics rules.

"Politics rules." Isn't that another metaphor?

Ann

alj wrote:

"Politics rules." Isn't that another metaphor?

Ann

Yes and no.