Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel & the Palestinians

by Noam Chomsky

Contents Foreword by Edward W. Said
Preface to the Updated Edition
1. Fanning the Flames
2. The Origins of the "Special Relationship"
3. Rejectionism and Accommodation
4. Isreal and Historical Backgrounds
5. Peace for Galilee
6. Aftermath
7. The Road to Armageddon
8. The Palestinian Uprising
9. "Limited War" in Lebanon
10. Washington's "Peace Process"
Index An Excerpt from Fateful Triangle, Updated Edition For some time, I've been compelled to arrange speaking engagements long in advance. Sometimes a title is requested for a talk scheduled several years ahead. There is, I've found, one title that always "The current crisis in the Middle East." One can't predict exactly what the crisis will be far down the road, but that there will be one is a fairly safe prediction. That will continue to be the case as long as basic problems of the region are not addressed. Furthermore, the crises will be serious in what President Eisenhower called "the most strategically important area in the world." In the early post-War years, the United States in effect extended the Monroe Doctrine to the Middle East, barring any interference apart from Britain, assumed to be a loyal dependency and quickly punished when it occasionally got out of hand (as in 1956). The strategic importance of the region lies primarily in its immense petroleum reserves and the global power accorded by control over them; and, crucially, from the huge profits that flow to the Anglo-American rulers, which have been of critical importance for their economies. It has been necessary to ensure that this enormous wealth flows primarily to the West, not to the people of the region. That is one fundamental problem that will continue to cause unrest and disorder. Another is the Israel-Arab conflict with its many ramifications, which have been closely related to the major U.S. strategic goal of dominating the region's resources and wealth. For many years, it was claimed the core problem was Soviet subversion and expansionism, the reflexive justification for virtually all policies since the Bolshevik takeover in Russia in 1917. That pretext having

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, Middle East, Israel, War, United States

578 pages, Paperback

First published December 1, 1982

About the author

Avram Noam Chomsky is an American professor and public intellectual known for his work in linguistics, political activism, and social criticism. Sometimes called "the father of modern linguistics", Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy and one of the founders of the field of cognitive science. He is a laureate professor of linguistics at the University of Arizona and an institute professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Among the most cited living authors, Chomsky has written more than 150 books on topics such as linguistics, war, and politics. In addition to his work in linguistics, since the 1960s Chomsky has been an influential voice on the American left as a consistent critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, and corporate influence on political institutions and the media.
Born to Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants in Philadelphia, Chomsky developed an early interest in anarchism from alternative bookstores in New York City. He studied at the University of Pennsylvania. During his postgraduate work in the Harvard Society of Fellows, Chomsky developed the theory of transformational grammar for which he earned his doctorate in 1955. That year he began teaching at MIT, and in 1957 emerged as a significant figure in linguistics with his landmark work Syntactic Structures, which played a major role in remodeling the study of language. From 1958 to 1959 Chomsky was a National Science Foundation fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study. He created or co-created the universal grammar theory, the generative grammar theory, the Chomsky hierarchy, and the minimalist program. Chomsky also played a pivotal role in the decline of linguistic behaviorism, and was particularly critical of the work of B.F. Skinner.
An outspoken opponent of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, which he saw as an act of American imperialism, in 1967 Chomsky rose to national attention for his anti-war essay "The Responsibility of Intellectuals". Becoming associated with the New Left, he was arrested multiple times for his activism and placed on President Richard M. Nixon's list of political opponents. While expanding his work in linguistics over subsequent decades, he also became involved in the linguistics wars. In collaboration with Edward S. Herman, Chomsky later articulated the propaganda model of media criticism in Manufacturing Consent, and worked to expose the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. His defense of unconditional freedom of speech, including that of Holocaust denial, generated significant controversy in the Faurisson affair of the 1980s. Chomsky's commentary on the Cambodian genocide and the Bosnian genocide also generated controversy. Since retiring from active teaching at MIT, he has continued his vocal political activism, including opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq and supporting the Occupy movement. An anti-Zionist, Chomsky considers Israel's treatment of Palestinians to be worse than South African–style apartheid, and criticizes U.S. support for Israel.
Chomsky is widely recognized as having helped to spark the cognitive revolution in the human sciences, contributing to the development of a new cognitivistic framework for the study of language and the mind. Chomsky remains a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, U.S. involvement and Israel's role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and mass media. Chomsky and his ideas are highly influential in the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movements. Since 2017, he has been Agnese Helms Haury Chair in the Agnese Nelms Haury Program in Environment and Social Justice at the University of Arizona.

Reviews

[طارق (Tarek) · Rating 5 out of 5]

After reading several of Chomsky's books, I have more and more respect for this author and thinker. He is a meticulous historian and political analyst, and his critics should read his works before attacking him.

This book is a compendium of facts, figures, quotes, and analysis that comprise the truth behind the complicated politics of the Middle East. Chomsky is an honorable follower to the likes of Orwell, and cuts through all the media campaigns, falsehoods, lies, and general misinformation pertaining to the Middle East and its conflicts.

The book is a tough read, and is more like a disgorgement of information from a mind that has researched the topic at hand for years with meticulous effort. Around half of the book follows general Israeli policy and politics, as well as Palestinian politics and American foreign policy. The other half is about these policies as they pertain to the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, and Chomsky knows his stuff, there is no doubt about that. Every claim, every statement, every quote, and every fact is scrupulously cited. He is not in the business of convincing or converting, he is distinctly in the business of telling the truth the best he can.

As for the people who question why they should read this book, as much of it is about an old war, and old politics? My answer is because it is important. Without this knowledge how can you possibly have an opinion regarding the on goings in the Middle East? These facts and the figures in the political scene were the same as they are now. To understand the conflicts, you must give this book a read. I cannot recommend it highly enough. This book should be required reading in all of the West.

[Gary · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is clearly a work of the most extreme and obnoxious hatred against all Israel's men , women and children and is filled with prejudices and untruths.
It is in fact an extreme form of incitement against the Jewish nation akin to Meim Kampf and the Elders of the Protocols of Zion

[Kent · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reading this book will make you laugh -- or vomit -- any time you hear the words "U.S." and "peace process" in the same sentence. Actually, that would potentially make for a lot of vomit.

[Randall Wallace · Rating 5 out of 5]

Back in Woodrow Wilson’s day, the King-Crane Commission reported in 1919 that “the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine.” The Commission clearly wrote that to continue “would be a gross violation of the principle [of self-determination] and of the people’s rights.” Before the creation of Israel, Ben Gurion said, the truth is “we are the aggressors and they defend themselves …the country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to take away from them their country, while we are still outside.” Arabs rightly wondered why if the Germans had caused all these Jewish problems, why wasn’t the land given to the Jewish people be in Germany itself? Or since so much of the pressure for Zionism came from the US, why not carve some of the land away in the US? Defense Minister Ariel Sharon said “Palestinians should not forget 1948” he meant a warning that Israel could simply pull off another Nakba if forced, so watch out.

Noam says of Israel, “it would not be quite fair to speak of it as the 51st state as some do, since none of the 50 states receive comparable benefits from the federal government.” Israel’s most serious historical mistake was when it chose “expansion over security in 1971.” “Shortly after the 1967 war, Israel has [had] set itself on a course of endless oppression and military conflict.” “There’s no such thing as an enlightened occupation.” “As many Israeli doves had expected and feared, the 1967 war led to radical changes within Israel: a growing reliance on force and violence.” Noam calls Israel a “militarized dependency” of the US, which assisted the US in the “Guatemalan genocide.” Camp David failed when “Israel quickly sabotaged any meaningful interpretation of the agreement.” Human rights organizations have said that Israel is alone in having “effectively legalized the use of torture with Supreme Court approval.” Noam thinks a more accurate term for “supporters of Israel” is “supporters of the moral degeneration and ultimate destruction of Israel” due to its “repression and state terrorism over many years”. “At least one of the Gush Emunim rabbis has written that it is a mitzvah [religious duty] to destroy Amalek [the non-Jewish inhabitants], including women and children.” In Israel almost all of this is discussed in the press, but over here, US taxpayers are intentionally kept in the dark, so as to not jeopardize funding for the Zionist settler-colonial project.

A Holocaust survivor, Dr. Shlomo Shmelzman, said, “I hear ‘dirty Arabs’ and I remember ‘dirty Jews’. I hear about ‘closed areas’ and I remember ghettos and camps. I hear ‘two-legged beasts’ and I remember untermenschen.” Boaz Evron wrote “the true symbol of the state is no longer the Menorah with seven candlesticks; the true symbol is the fist.” Shamir wrote that Palestinians who resisted the occupation would be crushed “like grasshoppers” with their heads “smashed against the boulders and walls.”

A solid financial reason behind the 1953 CIA overthrow of the democratically elected leader of Iran, was that 40% of Iranian oil then effectively went from British to US hands. As a bonus, overthrowing Mossadegh also was a thoughtful message to other countries – we’ll overthrow your ass too, if you care too much for your own people (which the US called fanatical nationalism, if not communism). US paranoia led to the CIA throwing the election in Greece because of CIA fear that Greek sympathy to the Soviets, would lead to both countries somehow keeping the US from Middle East oil. [Perhaps through collective ESP or a Cyrillic Ouija Board]

“On one occasion Israel supplied American jets to Indonesia when its arms were depleted in the course of the massacre of the Timorese.” “It is since 1967 that questioning of Israel’s policies has largely been silenced, with effective use of the moral weapons of anti-Semitism and ‘Jewish self-hatred’.” Noam says the 1982 invasion of Lebanon “offered a serious challenge to the talent of propagandists.” Israeli belligerence traces back to its immunity after clearly attacking the US Liberty (killing 34 US crewmen), and Israel terrorist attacks on US facilities in Egypt (Lavon affair). Regarding the US Liberty attack, Admiral Thomas H. Moorer said the attack “could not possibly have been a case of mistaken identity” as officially claimed. Noam asks what other country could do this to the US without even getting a slap on the wrist?

“The idea that the solution to the problem is for Palestinians to leave – far away – has deep roots in liberal and socialist Zionism.” In 1929 journalist Vincent Sheean went from Zionist to non-Zionist when he saw in Palestine that the Jewish settlers had contempt for the Arabs and called them savages and Red Indians – the perfect setup for future settler-colonialism, as he heard them call the local Arabs, “mere squatters for thirteen centuries.”

Centrist David Shipler wrote that Israel’s invasion of Lebanon was new territory, because “never before did Israel go to war when its actual existence was not threatened.” But for Noam, that’s a fantasy which even Menachem Begin disproved when he said, “In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nassar was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.” Israel comically compared Nassar to Hitler, after which Israel [the faux victim] attacked Egypt. Moshe Dayan’s diaries confirmed than IDF soldiers looted which caused “much shame to ourselves.” Ben Gurion felt the indigenous population had no attachment to their traditional homes. Even dogs and cats have attachment to place, yet Ben Gurion [who looked like Ed Asner’s older alcoholic brother] ranked Palestinians below animals for basic intelligence. Ben Gurion also wrote this thoughtful bit in his Independence War Diary: “Blowing up a house is not enough, what is necessary is cruel and strong reactions. If we know the family – [we must] strike mercilessly, women and children included. Otherwise, the reaction is inefficient. At the place of action there is no need to distinguish between guilty and innocent.” Could any SS officer have said that any better?

Talmud & Maimonides Quotes: There is a lovely passage in the Talmud calling Gentiles “a people like a donkey” and also Maimonides said conquered people must serve their Jewish conquerors and “must not raise their heads.” “Only then may the conquerors treat them in a humane manner.” Maimonides said, “that in a divinely-commanded war [milhemet mitzvah] one must destroy, kill and eliminate men, women, and children.” If the average person was told Hitler, Goring, or Goebbels said that last sadistic sentence, we’d believe it.

Zionist Kardashian-style Ennui: “In the general Israeli Jewish public, the indifference [to the occupation] is shocking. Only some few hundreds of meters away from the besieged Druze village, young Israelis enjoy the sun, take photos in the snow, eat and gossip. On one side barbed wire and human beings in a cage, on the other, people skiing, going up and down in lifts. In the middle, the Israeli army.”

Workers: Palestinian workers aren’t allowed to spend the night in Israel and many employers don’t want to pay for the cost of shipping them back and forth. Several workers were found burned to death in Tel Aviv after being locked in their factory overnight to save costs. “Settlers caught an old man who had protested when his lands were taken and shaved off his beard – just what Polish anti-Semites did to Jews.” When Israel drops white phosphorus on civilians [a war crime], know that the scientific intention of white phosphorus bombs is “to set fires and cause untreatable burns.” “The [1,000 year-old] pine forest, the pride of Beirut, the whole forest was burned with [Israeli] phosphorus bombs.” Israeli policy has long been to remove any nationalist or cultural leadership among the occupied.

Zionist Justice: In the single month of July 1938, the Zionist “Irgun killed 76 Arabs with bombs in marketplaces and the like. The official history of the Irgun makes little pretense that these actions were retaliatory.” In 1956, Gabriel Dahan kills forty-three Arabs in one hour as a border guard.

The Lebanon War: A former IDF director said, “Why pick Lebanon? There was found to be the weakest enemy, it would seem, guaranteeing a clear-cut military victory.” He also said they knew US support would be coming after the invasion and it was. Rogue states gotta stick together. Israel invaded Lebanon to remove the PLO and ended up only turning Lebanese civilians against Israel. Who knew civilians don’t like subjected to war crimes? Zionists want us to believe the PLO “chose to hole up in Lebanon” like cowards when in fact it was “driven [there] by Israeli violence.” We were taught that Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda were supposed to be on the Left, yet they made Gal Gadot and Amy Schumer look like Gandhi during Israel’s Lebanon war. Their actions made Israeli dove Uri Avneri write, “I have learned to despise Jane Fonda, who gained a reputation as a fighter for peace and human rights, and who now sells this name to various fascists, among them Israelis, in order to advance her career and that of her husband.” Orthodox Jew Chaim Bermant said that Fonda’s hosts were orthodox Jews “for whom ‘Hate Thy Neighbor’ has become a creed and general philosophy.” Jane and Norman Podhoretz both contended that if you opposed the Lebanon war, you were anti-Semitic. Thus, by Jane’s standards, MLK, Gandhi and Jesus would be anti-Semitic if they were alive today. Even the NYT got on the Zionist bandwagon talking about the “liberation” of Lebanon. If Hitler talked of his “liberation” of Poland, we’d call him a sick bastard, and yet here’s the NYT calmly saying it about Israel’s clear war crime bombing and invasion.

Israel freely bombing Lebanese Hospitals: “In the first bombing in June, a children’s hospital in the Sabra refugee camp was hit, Lebanese television reported, and a cameraman said he saw ‘many children’ lying dead inside the Bourj al Barajheh.” “On June 12th, four bombs fell on a hospital in Aley, severely damaging it”. One operating assistant lost both hands in that attack. An Armenian sanitarium south of Beirut was then cluster bombed. Then Beirut’s Acre hospital get bombed on two separate days (including four phosphorus shells - all war crimes) by the “most moral army in the world” which then blocked medical aid to Acre to add insult to injury. And that hospital was clearly marked with Red Cross Flags and “no military target was found within a half-mile”. By August 4th, eight of the nine Homes for Orphans in Beirut had also been destroyed, attacked by [illegal] cluster and phosphorus bombs. Who knew non-Zionist orphans, doctors, patients, and children were all terrorists? While we are on the subject, Israel then shelled the Red Cross delegation twice. On one day, 17 hospitals were shelled. Hospital employees at Israeli barricades were told, “We shelled your hospital good enough, didn’t we? You treat terrorists there.” An American nurse working part the time in Beirut said that Israel “dropped bombs on everything, including hospitals, orphanages, and in one case, a school bus carrying 35 young schoolgirls who were traveling on an open road.” This nurse had to treat them. A US Navy Lieut. Commander there “found five bombs in an orphanage with about 45 cluster bombs in the front yard. We were called there after five children were injured and four killed” [unexploded bomblets look like a child’s toy – Google a pic – use on civilians is a war crime].

What happened to the site of the famed Deir Yassin Massacre of Palestinians? – any memorial or even a plaque placed there? Actually, “In 1980, the remaining ruins were bulldozed to prepare the ground for a settlement of Orthodox Jews. “After the Deir Yassin massacre, survivors were paraded through the streets of Jerusalem by Irgun soldiers proud of their achievement. Colonel Meir Pail, who was a witness, describes how Begin’s heroes loaded 25 survivors into a truck …taking them to a quarry where they were murdered.” “More recently, most of the Deir Yassin cemetery was bulldozed to prepare the ground for a highway to a new Jewish settlement.” “Nahum Barnea writes “at first Deir Yassin was forgotten. Now it is celebrated.” “Streets were named after units of the Irgun which perpetuated the massacre.” Wow. Sorry I asked.

Zionist Rule #1: Never end the Occupation or allow Right of return. Zionist Rule #2: Continue to take their land by any settler-colonial means. Zionist Rule #3: “Anyone who won’t be persuaded by the hasbara is anti-Semitic [if he is a Gentile] or self-hating [if he happens to be Jewish].” Zionist Rule #4: If anything bad is ever said to you, indigently say it is a lie.

John Kifner wrote that “The Israelis have bulldozed refugee camps to make them uninhabitable.” “Repeatedly Israel blocked international relief efforts and prevented food and medical supplies from reaching victims.” Israel is in violation of the Geneva Convention and Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

IDF Torture Centers: Haddad forces were using an IDF base when “they beat prisoners brutally again, again, with the knowledge of IDF officers. In one case a young woman ‘completely bound and crying from pain whenever we touched her,’ was repeatedly raped by Haddad soldiers who also attempted to force her to copulate with a dog.” “When prisoners begged for water, they were given urine. Many were beaten with iron bars, on the genitals, on the hands, on the soles of the feet. One had four fingers broken.” There was no investigation into any of these crimes at that IDF military base.

Noam asks what would happen if an Arab army conquered half of Israel and then committed the identical crimes on the occupied half that we know Israel has done to the Palestinians? Isn’t immunity fun?

Stories AIPAC Won’t Tell: “On the bus to an Israeli prison, one fifty-year old man, a diabetic with heart disease, felt ill and asked for air; he was thrown out of the bus by a soldier, fell and died.” An IDF officer explained to Yirmiah [p.276] “new loads of clubs had to be brought into the camps to replace those broken during interrogation. The torturers knew how to make blows more painful, including blows to the genitals, until the prisoners confessed they were ‘terrorists’.” The guards would shout at them “you are a nation of monkeys, you are terrorists, and we will break your heads: you want a state? Build it on the moon.” Yirmiah said, “we have become a nation of vicious thugs, whose second nature is fire, destruction, death and ruin.” Yirmiah had assisted the Allies in treatment of German POW’s and said the IDF was much worse and “the IDF officers simply observe the atrocities and do not intervene.”

Here’s a lovely Noam faux-Haiku:
“Supplies gathered in Israel were not permitted entry.
Christians were permitted to sit in the shade;
Palestinians and Muslims were forced to sit in the sun.”

Here’s a thoughtful speech by an IDF officer to his troops [from the Israeli Mirror]: “There are two alternatives, to live with them or to destroy them. Personally I hate them. They stink. They do not share our culture. They sleep with goats. It is necessary to vaporize them, to turn them into a gas.” `

Here’s Warm Inspirational Message to the Occupied from Moshe Dayan from 1967: “We have no solution, and you shall continue to live like dogs, and who ever prefers …may leave.” Dayan also said that Ben Gurion had said that “anyone who approaches the Zionist problem in a moral aspect is not a Zionist.” That’s conveniently delusional and what Steven Seagal would call “Above the Law”. A common Zionist appellation for Palestinians is “squatters for thirteen centuries”.

“The Gaza region was ‘pacified’ with extraordinary brutality by Ariel Sharon under the Labor government in the early 1970’s. Since then, Israel has ruled with an iron hand.” Noam says Israel has been defying UN resolutions since 1948. Rabbi David Hartman wrote that Palestinians had no land claims because he didn’t feel “morally responsible to someone who denies my existence.” What a perfect explanation how the occupied Palestinians feel. In a classic case of projection, Harvard’s Ruth Wisse wants you to think of Palestinians as the aggressors, trying to “drive Israel into the sea” via a strategy of settler-colonialism/lebensraum. In a second projection, Ruth said Palestinian Arabs are “people who breed and bleed and advertise their misery.”

The Sabra and Shatila massacres: “Throughout Thursday night, Israeli flares lighted the camps while the militias went about their work, methodically slaughtering the inhabitants.” A Phalangist “offered them a bulldozer with IDF markings removed.” “The IDF [less than 100 yards away] was well aware what was happening in the camps to which it had dispatched the gangs of murderers it had organized.” A Newsweek columnist wrote that the camps were “plainly visible” down to the “smallest detail”. ABC News reported that “at least 45 Israeli officers knew by Friday afternoon that a massacre was in progress.” In the UN, the vote to condemn the massacre was 147 to 2 – the entire world against the US and its boy toy Israel. Rabbi Arnold Wolf wrote, “I think we all have bloody hands.” Professor Yeshayahu Leibovitz of the Hebrew University wrote: “The massacre was done by us. The Phalangists were our mercenaries, exactly as the Ukrainians and the Croatians and the Slovakians were the mercenaries of Hitler.” Yoel Marcus wrote “a large part of the community perhaps the majority was not troubled by the massacre itself.’ Killing of Arabs in general, and Palestinians in particular is quite popular, or at least doesn’t bother anyone in the words of youth these days” and common was “the view that the massacre itself, [w]as a step towards removing the remaining Palestinians from Lebanon.” In a statement of protest, 35 members from the elite Entebbe rescue unit signed a statement that the war in Lebanon was a moral “disaster”. The Kahan “Commission presents sufficient evidence that the top leadership fully expected a massacre when they sent the Phalange into the camps.” The Commission wrote the only skills of those sent into the camps were “in murdering defenseless people.” “The forces sent into the camps were under Israeli, not Phalangist orders, if we can believe the testimony of Chief of Staff Eitan and others.”

rest of review in comment section - cheers...

[Mutia]

reviewed by L.A. Rollins
The Fateful Triangle is a fact-filled, insightful look at the "special relationship" between the United States and Israel. Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at M.I.T., examines the origins of this "special relationship," its disastrous consequences for the Palestinian (and other) Arabs, and its danger for everyone.

Concentrating mainly on Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon, Chomsky provides a wealth of ideas and information in conflict with the Zionist mythology which pretty much predominates in the mass media and academia. The result is a devastating debunking of one-sided Zionist propaganda.

The pro-Zionist bias of most American journalists and scholars is one particularly obvious aspect of the aforementioned "special relationship." As Chomsky puts it, "The truth of the matter is that Israel has been granted a unique immunity from criticism in mainstream journalism and scholarship, consistent with its unique role as a beneficiary of other forms of American support" (p. 31). He cites numerous examples of this immunity from criticism, including the silence and/or misrepresentation about Israel's terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities in Egypt (the Lavon affair) and the "clearly premeditated" attack on the "unmistakably identified" U.S.S. Liberty, an attack which, according to Chomsky's count, left 34 American crewmen dead and another 75 wounded. Chomsky asks, "Can one imagine that any other country could carry out terrorist bombings of U.S. installations or attack a U.S. ship killing or wounding 100 men with complete impunity, without even critical comment for many years?" (p. 32)

Of course, as Chomsky acknowledges, Israel did come in for an unprecedented amount of criticism because of "Operation Peace for Galilee," the 1982 invasion of Lebanon. But he debunks the attempt by some die-hard Zionist apologists to blame such criticism on-get this-media bias against Israel! As Chomsky shows, there was (and is) no widespread anti-Israel bias in the American mass media, although there was, temporarily at least, a reduction in the usual degree of pro-Israel bias. As Chomsky writes:

The charge that the Americtan media were "pro-PLO" or "anti-Israel" during the Lebanon war-or before-is easily unmasked, and is in fact absurd. It suffices to compare their coverage of the oc cupied territories, the war, the treatment of prisoners, and other topics, with what we find in the Hebrew press in Israel, a com parison always avoided by those who produce these ridiculous charges. Again, the annals of Stalinism come to mind, with the outrage over Trotskyite "critical support" for the "workers' state." Any deviation from total obedience is intolerable to the totalitarian mentality, and is interpreted as reflecting a "double standard," or worse. (p. 289)

Among those accusing the media of anti-Israel bias was the self- styled Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, which, as Chomsky points out, " ... specializes in trying to prevent critical discussion of policies of Israel by such techniques as maligning critics, including Israelis who do not pass its test of loyalty ...." (p. 14). Chomsky has himself been a victim of defamation by the Anti- Defamation League and knows whereof he speaks.

It is somewhat unusual for an American author, especially a Jewish ones to blow the whistle on the ADL's propaganda antics.

But it is even more unusual to see public criticism of bigfime "Holocaust" survivor and pseudo-saint Elie Wiesel and his Wiesel words regarding Israel's less lovely activities.

Regarding Israeli policies in the occupied territories, for example, Wiesel has said:

What to do and how to do it, I really don't know because I lack the elements of information and knowledge ... You must be in a posi tion of power to possess all the information ... I don't have that in formation, so I don't know ... [D. 161:]

Similarly, after the Sabra and Shatila massacres, Wiesel said, "I don't think we should even comment [on the massacre in the refugee camps:] since the [Israeli judicial:] investigation is still on .... We should not pass judgment until the investigation takes place." (p. 386)

Wiesel, of course, is well known for passing judgment on the actions of other governments, but when it comes to the State of Israel he whistles a different tune. In fact, Wiesel has said, "I support Israel-period. I identify with Israel-period. I never attack, I never criticize Israel when I am not in Israel." (p. 16)

Chomsky points up Wiesel's hypocrisy in the following passage:

Recall Wiesel's unwillingness to criticize Israel beyond its borders, or to comment on what happens in the occupied ter ritories, because "You must be in a position of power to possess all the information." Generalizing the principle beyond the single state to which it applies for this saintly figure, as we should if it is valid, we reach some interesting conclusions: it follows, for example, that critics of the Holocaust while it was in progress were engaged in an illegitimate act, since not being in a position of power in Nazi Ger many, they "did not possess all the information." (D. 3871

Of course, one of Wiesel's repeated accusations against "the world" is that it did not say (or do) enough about "the Holocaust" while it was in progress. One wonders how Wiesel will weasel out of this contradiction in his position.

In any case, as you may have noticed, Chomsky does not dispute the historical reality of "the Holocaust." But even so, I think that anyone who will publicly criticize the hypocrisy of such a sacred cow (or should I say, sacred weasel?) as Elie Wiesel, merits the attention of revisionists.

It should be noted that while Chomsky is highly critical of Israeli policies and actions, he is not fundamentally anti-Israel. He supports "a two-state political settlement that would include recognized borders, security guarantees, and reasonable prospects for a peaceful resolution of the conflict." (p. 3) From this position, he criticizes Israel's consistent "rejectionism"-the rejection of any political settlement accomodating the "national rights" of the Palestinian Arabs.

Chomsky also criticizes the American policies which make Israeli rejectionism possible. And he points out the hypocrisy involved in criticizing Israeli policies while supporting their subsidization with billions of dollars of American aid each year. As Chomsky puts it:

Clearly, as long as the United States provides the wherewithal, Israel will use it for its purposes. These purposes are clear enough today, and have been clear to those who chose to understand for many years: to integrate the bulk of the occupied territories within Israel in some fashion while finding a way to reduce the Arab population; to disperse the scattered refugees and crush any manifestation of Palestinian nationalism or Palestinian culture; to gain control over Southern Lebanon. Since these goals have long been obvious and have been shared in fundamental respects by the two major political groupings in Israel, there is little basis for condemning Israel when it exploits the position of regional power afforded it by the phenomenal quantities of U.S. aid in exactly the ways that would be anticipated by any person whose head is not buried in the sand. Complaints and accusations are indeed hypocritical as long as material assistance is provided in an unending and ever-expanding flow, along with diplomatic and ideological support, the latter, by shaping the facts of history in a convenient form. Even if the occasional tempered criticisms from Washington or in editorial commentary are seriously intended, there is little reason for any Israeli government to pay any attention to them. The historical practice over many years has trained Israeli leaders to assume that U.S. "opinion makers" and political elites will stand behind them whatever they ado, and that even if direct reporting is accurate, as it generally is, its import will gradually be lost as the custodians of history carry out their tasks. (p. 2)

Chomsky's got a point here, and it's an important one. What better way would there be to moderate Israeli policies than to cut off (or at least drastically reduce) American aid to Israel? But even if so, how is such an aid cut-off for reduction) to be accomplished? That is the question. Unfortunately, I don't know the answer. And, as far as I can see, neither does Chomsky.

Of course, there is much more to The Fateful Triangle than I have been able to indicate in this review. To mention just one more subject, those who are interested in some of the more extreme examples of Zionist thinking will find them here, especially in the section on "The Rise of Religious-Chauvinist Fanaticism." In this section, Chomsky quotes the following notable statement:

We will certainly establish order in the Middle East and in the world. And if we do not take this responsibility upon ourselves, we are sinners, not just towards ourselves but towards the entire world.

For who can establish order in the world? All of those western leaders of weak character? (p. 155)

No, this is not a passage from the plagiaristic Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The statement was made by Rabbi Elazar Valdmann of Gush Emunim in the pages of Nekudah, the journal of the religious-chauvinist West Bank settlers. There is a pop song on the radio these days which says, "Everybody wants to rule the world." I don't know if everybody wants to rule the world, but obviously the good rabbi wants to do so. I wish him the worst luck possible in getting what he wants.

Despite some shortcomings, The Fateful Triangle is one of the best exposes of Zionist mythology now available. Even those who have read Alfred Lilienthal's The Zionist Connection will probably find Chomsky's book an excellent supplement. It is, in any case, a worthy example of what James J. Martin has dubbed "inconvenient history."

[Yonis Gure · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sadly, this book remains as relevant now as it did during Begin's disastrous invasion of Lebanon. His invasion in 1978 was more or less precipitated, as Walid Khalidi points out, by the desire to disrupt the Shtaura Accord, that would've seen a Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon, and an imposed freeze on Palestinian cross-border operations, which would've offered a possibility of a settlement between the Lebanese government and the PLO. But of course Israel wants its enemies in conflict. Nothing motivated the attack on Gaza last summer more than the unity deal struck by Fatah and Hamas. The same tactics are even used - provoke the enemies; ramp-up the fear-mongering among the citizenry with references to the Shoah; and anthropomorphize the place you're bombing so as to make it seem no civilians are being killed, and insofar as they are, they're subhumans or defenders of the "Terrorists". The Future looks bleak, to put it mildly. Now I'm skeptical at the possibility of a peaceful one-state solution, but if Israel carries on in this vein and isn't pressured by any outside force to withdraw and cease its criminal occupation, there will indeed be one-state between the river and the sea - it'll be called Israel!

[Larry Bassett · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a 30 hour audible book which will make it clear if you ever had any doubt that the conflict between Israel and Palestine is nothing new. The book focuses on events since Israel was created out of land previously controlled by the Palestinians in 1948. But it also reflects occasionally, well back further into history. It shows clearly and in great detail, the there is nothing happening today that has not happened before. Israel is almost always the bad guy with the United States not far behind. This book was published in 1999. It probably really does deserve five stars for being thorough, but I only gave it four stars because it truly simply wore me out. It made its point fairly quickly and then simply continued to hammer at home and to batter me with the details. Over and over. When you experience this book, you will finally understand that the Hamas events of October 7, 2023 were not really the initiation of anything, but simply a expected response to a history of subjugation finally boiling over one more time. This is something that I had heard repeatedly, but did not fully comprehend until experiencing this recitation of events.

[Beatrix · Rating 4 out of 5]

This man is a genius!

[Andrew · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was very optimistic opening this book and was not very pleased. I find Chomsky's tone frustrating throughout the entire book. He writes not to convince, but simply to ridicule you if you have any shred of doubt in his argument. That being said, his citations are very disorganized, requiring that one spend a great deal of time in the library just to check their legitimacy. It is not that I don't agree with his final analysis, which I do with only minor reservations. I just find him to be a bad writer.

[emily · Rating 5 out of 5]

new favorite book and new favorite author, 700 pages of facts written in 1999 still painfully relevant today. it mainly focuses on the israeli invasion of lebanon of 1981-82 while also touching upon overarching themes of the occupation and US/israeli hegemony. i won't even begin to touch upon all of my favorite points, but here goes:

first, a long passage i simply must quote in totality: "there is no relevant concept of a 'legitimacy' or 'right to exist' in diplomatic interactions or international law. states are recognized because they exist and function, not because they are 'legitimate' or have a 'right to exist.' the US would certainly not declare that the USSR is legitimate or has a 'right to exist' in its present form, or that the governments of its satellites are 'legitimate.' in fact, the US officially rejects the forcible incorporation of the baltic states into the USSR, to this day. nevertheless, the US recognizes the USSR and its satellites. there are others who regard no state as legitimate, but they do not thereby oppose the mutual recognition of existing states with whatever rights are accorded them within the existing international system, though no abstract 'right to exist.' Note that the demand that palestinians recognize the 'legitimacy' of israel goes well beyond the demand that israel recognize the PLO as the 'sole legitimate representative of the palestinians,' as palestinians have insisted with remarkable near-unanimity and as israel has of course always refused to do. one can recognize that some group regards a particular institutional structure (state or organization) as its legitimate representative without thereby according it 'legitimacy' as an institution. there is no more reason to expect palestinians to accept the 'legitimacy' of israel-> that is the 'legitimacy' of their disposession from their homes-> than there is for israel to accept the 'legitimacy' of syria under alawite tyranny, or for mexico to accept the 'legitimacy' of the united states, which stole much of its land, etc. to impose this unprecedented demand is simply to place still another barrier in the path of eventual negotiations and political settlement. israelis may regard their state as presently constituted as 'legitimate,' and palestinians may regard the PLO as their 'sole legitimate' representative,' but these commitments need not be adopted by others who, nevertheless, recognize the fact of these commitments and accept the right to self-determination, whatever their attitude towards the institutional structure that result from the fulfillment (partial and distorted as always) of this right" (Chomsky, 441).

a common theme throughout the entire book was noam's assertion that the palestinian condition must be described in terms of people we (the US/western societies) consider as human in order to empathize with. he attests that this is the case because palestinians are considered as "less than zero, even negative" due to the fact that "they breed and bleed and advertise their misery" (ruth wisse, harvard professor and respected canadian academic) to the detriment of western interests.

One example: Roger Morris, US Security Council alleged that ABC "'had an obligation to remind its viewers pointedly that the PLO had retreated into the heart of West Beirut, bringing the war with them like a plague'-> just as british troops had retreated to dunkirk, 'bringing the war with them like a plague,' as any fair-minded reporter had an obligation to emphasize in depicting scenes of Nazi bombing" (Chomsky, 339).
context to the above quote is illuminated in that the chomsky lays out israel's greatest fear as a reasonable PLO, one that enters the negotiating table peacefully and respects ceasefires (as the PLO has done since its conception, and as Israel has never in its history), as that would mean that they would have to recognize palestinians as a body of people. in pursuit of this goal, israel has historically and currently poked and prodded the PLO through massacres and bombing of schools and hospitals in the hopes that the PLO will do the same, most times to no avail.

this manufacture of consent, of course, relies solely on the US's support, as numerous UN security resolutions are rejected by two votes, the usual two votes as Noam puts so eloquently. this does not, however, stop israel from accusing american media of being anti-israel, a claim they actually embrace, as "criticism of the press as 'anti-establishment' and too critical of the government or of standard ideology (e.g. 'anti-israel,' 'pro-PLO') provides an occasion for orations on the duty of the Free Press courageously to examine and confront established power and doctrine, and if it sometimes goes too far, we must understand that this is a problem inherent in our system, which encourages the media to undertake this crucial challenge, etc. On the other hand, a more accurate critique of the media as tending to be subservient to external power and established doctrine is most unwelcome, and is certain to gain no hearing." (Chomsky, 337).

as for arguments that all conquering armies are brutal, "few such armies, however, are provided with a corps of admirers in the country that finances their operations who marvel at their unique moral standards, purity of arms, and incredibly polite behavior" (Chomsky, 352).

as for arguments that the invasion of lebanon was welcomed by the lebanese, finally being freed from their PLO oppressors, "knesset member yosef rom told a television audience 'that israeli soldiers were greeted in lebanon with flowers and rice.' the interviewer interrupted him with the following words: 'do not tell us in denmark about flowers and rice. nazi germany also had pictures of how the danish people greeted the april 1940 conquest with flowers...'" (Chomsky, 358).

as for israeli accusations about islamist extremism "this intriguing notion illustrates a familiar technique of the manufacture of consent, employed in a rather clumsy way by Goebbels and Stalin... when you have absolutely no case at all, accuse your enemies of the crimes you carry out or support...thus when the US attacks the peasant society of south vietnam, debate rages over the profound question of whether it is wise and proper to defend south vietnam from north vietnamese aggression" (Chomsky, 364). the US has clearly taught these tactics to israel, as obvious from recent events.

as for israeli claims that they are stimulating the palestinian economy, "since the only means of survival are service in israel's cheap labor force, and since regular commuting is virtually impossible (due to 16 hour work days), workers find ways to sleep illegally in tel aviv and elsewhere. in tel aviv, each worker is picked up by the police several times per year on average. workers sleep in fruit stalls in the open markets or in rotting rooms or cellars in slums where they are lined up wall-to-wall, sleeping in their work clothes with no sanitary facilities or showers, waiting for the knock of police" (Chomsky, 403). this type of humiliation of palestinians as the chief tactic sets up many, many Chomsky references to Orwell.

almost all of chapter two of FT centered on reframing the narrative of rejectionism based on current realities, which changed something in my brain chemistry.
"unless we adopt the racist assumption that jews have certain intrinsic rights that arabs lack, the term 'rejectionism' should be extended beyond its standard usage, to include also the position of those who deny the right of national self-determination to palestinian arabs, the community that constituted 9/10 of the population at the time of the first world war, when great britain committed itself to the establishment of a 'national home for the jewish people' in palestine... i will use the term 'rejectionism' in this non-racist sense" (Chomsky, 42).

i cannot begin to express how much i enjoyed reading this book and how much i recommend this book to anyone who has hidden behind "not knowing much about what is going on over there" to avoid speaking about the palestine/israel state of affairs.

[Mack · Rating 4 out of 5]

Chomsky's in top form here. Throughout, I was in awe at the depth of his research and analysis into the Israel-Palestine situation and the US's hand in it all. It should come as no surprise that Chomsky spends most of his time critiquing Israel and the US, although he gets a few jabs in at the PLO. This may lead some to consider him biased, but as he repeats again and again, the pro-Israeli narrative is embedded in the cultural zeitgeist so firmly that it would feel like overkill to just rehash it again here. He cites a gargantuan amount of sources (government heads, newspapers of all political biases and nations, those on the ground in the region, etc.) to ground his arguments in favor of Palestinian liberation and against Israel's 1980s invasion of Lebanon in particular. The atrocities chronicled here will make your stomach churn, but it's to Chomsky's credit that he doesn't flinch from evil perpetrated by anyone, especially the ostensible "good guys." While this book is pretty focused on the invasion of Lebanon and a lot's changed in the region since then between all parties, the depressing thing is how much things have stayed the same. This is a great primer both on a specific time in Middle Eastern history as well as the reasons so much injustice and oppression seems to exist over there in perpetuity.

[Rifat Mana · Rating 4 out of 5]

كتاب المثلث المحتوم - لناعوم شومسكي

هو كتاب قيم, يعتمد على تقارير الدبلوماسيين ومراقبي الامم المتحدة, يرصد تاريخ العلاقة بين الولايات المتحدة واسرائيل في سنوات ما قبل وبعد النكبة واحتلال فلسطين, وكيف ان هذه العلاقة لم تكن حميمية كما يظن البعض, حيث كانت تعتمد على مصالح امريكا في الشرق الاوسط, فكانت تقوى وتتوطد كلما ايقنت امريكا بان اسرائيل هي المصلحة الوحيدة لها في الشرق الاوسط, وان لا أحد من الدول العظمى يشاركها هذه المصلحة. بالمقابل كانت علاقة امريكا بالعرب علاقة لا تكترث لها امريكا كثيرا, فالعرب كانوا ضعفاء حتى لو اجتمعوا وليسوا قادرين على تحقيق مصالح امريكا في المنطقة.
في الكتاب يظهر الاتحاد السو��ييتي الداعم الاول لاسرائيل بحيث كان اول المعترفين باسرائيل كدولة وكحكومة حتى قبل اقامتها رسميا بشهور, كذلك صفقات السلاح التي ابرمت بين تشيكوسلوفاكيا واسرائيل والتدريبات التي تلقاها جنود الهاغاناه ومرتزقة العصابات المسلحة الصهيونية على يد الخبراء التشيك. هذه الحقيقة يجب ان يقرئها الشيوعيون العرب جيدا وان يعيدوا التفكير في انتمائاتهم ورموزهم التي تشكل فكرهم السياسي.

[sonny singh suchdev · Rating 4 out of 5]

super comprehensive, in depth history and analysis. it's dense and it takes work to make it all the way through (it's long!), but it's well worth the effort.

[Jamal Yearwood · Rating 4 out of 5]

Writing for anyone who may curious about picking this one up after me (with the assumption you’re anti-war / anti-zionist). My overall take, solid af but long af, this book doesn’t feel dated (at all) but it is very very detailed about an era 40 years ago. Probably wouldn’t recommend if it’s your first time reading an author like Chomsky or if you’re looking to get a broader overview on Palestine/Israel.

What you will get out of the book: super critical and in depth knowledge of the 1982 war with Lebanon;
contextualization of “manufacturing consent” as it relates to US-Israel media production; decent understanding of historical (and still relevant) Likud and Labor philosophies on a Palestinian state; meta overview of the logic/application of “justified conflict” theory; a working list of pros/cons that the US and congress used to create an increasingly hazardous client-state relation with Israel; Incredibly rich and diverse set of sources many of which were from Israeli and Hebrew sources (this helped a lot to understand how some critical issues are framed to Israeli audiences).

What you won’t get out of this book: Much on the history/creation of Palestine/Israel; Much critique of the PLO (which is only notable because in total there are ~300 pages of critique of Israel, ~50 pages of critique on the US and maybe a page on PLO); Much context on other Arab-Israeli wars (which was fine for me but I also had to do lots of side research)

[Jessica · Rating 5 out of 5]

It’s been a really difficult reading.
The book reports along with huge accounts and references, as usually for Chomsky, history of that Fateful Triangle. It’s a harsh condemnation of western blindness and double standard thinking, a strong efford to hold real events, with strong mental clarity, non to let them into the Orwell memory hole.

[Jon Otegi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Palestinaren auziaren kronologiaren ideia gutxi daukanarentzat (ni neu) pixka bat zaila, haria jarraitzeko. Baina eske Chomsky da tú, pasada bat nola idazten duen eta paragrafo gutxitan zeinen argi uzten dituen edozein konfliktoren ikuspegi geopolitikoa (aka Estatu Batuen interesak non izkutatzen diren). Hori bai, denbora osoan euki maparen bat gertu!

[Claire · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is essential reading if you want to understand the Palestine/Israel conflict. I wouldn’t recommend it as an introductory text, because it’s extremely long and dense (it took me a year to get through it). But if you’ve read some more general history books on the topic (eg The One Hundred Year War on Palestine), this is the next step to gaining a more detailed understanding. Chomsky lived in Israel for a while and speaks Hebrew so this books provides an insider view of Israeli society through sources that are otherwise unknown in the west.

The subject of this book is the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories from 1967 to 1999 and Israel’s role in the Lebanese civil war. In meticulous and horrific detail, Chomsky lays out decades of war crimes and human rights abuses committed by Israel against the Palestinian and Lebanese people. These crimes have largely been ignored by the west, or grossly misrepresented in order to convince the western public that Arabs deserve to be stripped of their dignity and basic human rights.

Reading this book in 2025 is surreal, because there are many pages where it sounds like Chomsky is talking about the present war in Gaza, but in fact he’s talking about the war in Lebanon in the 1980s. All the crimes we’re witnessing now have already been committed by Israel on a smaller scale. For example, Israel shelled every hospital in Beirut that treated Palestinian patients. They also trapped Palestinians in west Beirut, carpet bombed them, and then claimed the PLO was holding them hostage and was thus responsible for their deaths. They’ve been using the same playbook for decades and they will keep using it as long as no one does anything to stop them or hold them accountable for their crimes.

It would take too long to summarise this book, so here are some of the main takeaways I can remember:

- The international community and Palestinian political groups all support the two state solution, while Israel and the US reject it. No government of Israel has ever supported the creation of a Palestinian state.

- Israel is more afraid of a peaceful settlement than of war. They prefer Palestinians to be terrorists, because then they can claim that they have no partner for peace. Whenever Palestinian resistance groups get too close to a political settlement, Israel starts a war to prevent it.

- Both sides of Israeli politics support the eventual annexation of the West Bank and differ only in their strategies for how to achieve it. Likud is more open about it while Labor favours doing it quietly so nobody notices.

- Any peace process Israel has been involved in has been a smokescreen to distract from the fact that the occupation is intended to be permanent.

- Any “state” Israel has offered the Palestinians has consisted of a collection of disconnected semi-autonomous cantons or bantustans that exist under Israeli rule. This is not a “state” by anyone’s definition and should not be taken seriously. The Oslo accords effectively achieved this scenario in the West Bank and that’s what they were intended to do.

- Israel has perfected the art of the “preemptive strike”. This occurs when Israel claims a neighbour is planning to attack them so they attack first. However, these strikes are typically justified using false flag operations (Israel makes it appear as though they have been attacked), deliberate provocations of their neighbours (such as driving tanks towards their territory), or completely made up intel (the other country was never planning to attack them in the first place). These attacks conveniently lead to Israel claiming more territory for itself (a recent example is the Israeli invasion of Syria in late 2024).

- Israel committed serious war crimes in Lebanon in the 1980s, including carpet bombing Beirut, targeting civilian infrastructure (schools, mosques, hospitals), detaining and torturing civilian men in concentration camps, and facilitating the massacre of 3000 Palestinian and Lebanese civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. This massacre occurred after Israel made a deal with the PLO that guaranteed protection of Palestinian civilians in Beirut. Obviously they broke this deal. There were no consequences for Israel, and they are now committing all the same war crimes in Gaza on a much greater scale.

- The US has been actively supporting, enabling and helping to cover up Israel’s crimes for decades, to the point where even some Israelis have criticised the US for encouraging the most extreme elements of their society. Both democrats and republicans are equally guilty of this. The US has no interest in true peace or a just resolution of the conflict. They are only interested in maintaining Israeli hegemony in the region.

[D. · Rating 5 out of 5]

FREE Palestine!

This ugliness did not begin on October 07, 2023. This book shows if you pay attention that Zionism is arbitrary, contradictory, has constant moving goal post and is sinister. Making this judgement is not anti-Semitism!

I thought I had a pretty good handle on the conflict.

Over thirty-two years I have read and reread twenty-seven books regarding this travesty.

Some of the best being: Peace Not Apartheid by Jimmy Carter, The Hundred Years' War on Palestine by Rashid Khalidi, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe, Except for Palestine by Marc Lamont Hill, Freedom is a Constant Struggle by Angela Davis, Goliath by Max Blumenthal and Justice For Some by Noura Erakat to name a few.

Then there are current bloggers like Katie Halper, Brianna Joy Gray, RBN (Revolutionary Blackout crew) and The Grayzone. Of course the endless speakers of power like: Norman Finkelstein, Miko Peled, Dr. Cornel West, Mouin Rabbani, Abby Martin and Rabbi Shapiro.

All of that setup up to say that this book and Max's book really helped me to increase my previous depth of knowledge!

Of course Zionist and their minions will consider this book propaganda and a sign of a Jew showing self hate. Do not let those distractions influence you! This is far from a rambling screed. This work does far more than show the obvious...that Zionism is a continuation of colonialism. This work is thoroughly supported with documented evidence. It will clearly make it plain why humanitarian concern goes out the window and why regretfully the USA continues to be complicit in this filthy undertaking.

You can be Israeli and not Jewish. You can be a Zionist and not Jewish. If you are born a Jew and you are a Christian or believe Jesus is the Messiah you are then deemed not a Jew and not entitled to the law of return. However you can be an atheist and be a Jew. This book shows various complexities like the ones I showed above but on a political scale. Also he connects the dots and with historical accuracy in a manner that is far more insightful. This book also demonstrates that with patience to detail to the many lies and moving parts this situation is not difficult to comprehend. The Palestinian common folk are the long term victims.

[Casey Wagner · Rating 4 out of 5]

Noam Chomsky's 1983 seminal work on the "special relationship" between Israel and the United States specifically in regard to the occupied Palestinians. Chomsky once again demonstrates his astounding ability to distill massive amounts of information into a powerfully cited argument against the established narrative of the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Nothing seems to slip past Chomsky, his comparisons of minor details within official Israeli records points out the hypocrisy and go to show the extent of "pro-Zionist" bias within US media.

I found this read to be remarkably frustrating due to this. Every chapter covered more war crimes, cruelty, and torture only to then hear of the complicated excuses weaved to somehow paint the aggressors as the victims. One of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century is the Israeli Defense Force utilizing the same genocidal tactics inflicted on the Jewish population by the Nazi's onto the Arab people of the Occupied Territories. All of this is wrapped up via a vile record of anti-Palestinian organizations painting all critics of the Israeli state as anti-semetic. I hope we can see a peaceful conclusion to the Apartheid state in Israel, however the end is still not in sight almost 40 years after this book was published.

[Tim · Rating 5 out of 5]

Chomsky here is more relevant now than he was in 1982 when it was first written. For an analysis of the current Israeli genocidal violence start with this most respected classic, Chomsky's greatest work and insight on Israel/Palestine. Nothing here is irrelevant or outdated, the tactics, strategy, propaganda, racism, justifications for aggression and plans for Greater Israel laid out in detail here have not only not changed a bit but have become more apparent with time. This should frighten all of us for a variety of reasons, including Chomsky's fears for the nuclear threat (if he thought Israel was the greatest threat to world nuclear security in 1982, what does that say about 2024?)

[Angela · Rating 5 out of 5]

Chonky Chomsky strikes again with a vividly detailed accounting of (mainly earlier 1980s) relations between the US, Israel and Palestine.

I learned a lot about Lebanon’s treatment at the hands of the Israeli government that I did not know before and the old adage “history repeats itself”? Well, Israel hit the copy-paste button when it came to mirroring the treatment of Lebanon and the treatment of the Palestinians.

If you have the time, I highly suggest this tome of a deep dive, realizing that it is extremely academic at times but as a reader, you will be the better for it.

[The Moon · Rating 2 out of 5]

I am on the side of Palestine if one has to choose, be labeled, but still, this is too much. He didn't really negate what Palestine did, he just went around it, if someone reading this didn't know much about the situation, Palestine would seem like a complete virgin. Biased. The way of writing didn't appeal to me, the order he chose for telling of events either

[Ryan Mishap · Rating 2 out of 5]

1983 book about u.s., israel, and the palestinians. Bit outdated maybe now.

[Mike Thomas · Rating 2 out of 5]

Invaluable information. Sluggish reading.

[Steven H · Rating 4 out of 5]

THE CONTROVERSIAL ‘PUBLIC INTELLECTUAL’ WEIGHS IN ON THESE ISSUES

Avram Noam Chomsky (b. 1928) is an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, logician, political commentator, and outspoken social activist. He is Professor Emeritus of Linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

He wrote in the first chapter of this 1983 book, “In the war of words that has been waged since Israel invaded Lebanon on June 6, 1982, critics of Israeli actions have frequently been accused of hypocrisy. While the reasons advanced are spurious, the charge itself has some merit. It is surely hypocritical to condemn Israel for establishing settlements in the occupied territories while we pay for establishing and expanding them. Or to condemn Israel for attacking civilian targets with cluster and phosphorus bombs… when we provide them gratis or at bargain rates, knowing that they will be used for just this purpose. Or to criticize Israel’s ‘indiscriminate’ bombardment of heavily-settled civilian areas or its other military adventures, while we not only provide the means in abundance but welcome Israel’s assistance in testing the latest weapons under live battlefield conditions---to be sure, against a vastly outmatched enemy, including completely undefended targets, always the safest way to carry out experiments of this sort.

“In general, it is pure hypocrisy to criticize the exercise of Israeli power while welcoming Israel’s contributions towards realizing the U.S. aim of eliminating possible threats, largely indigenous, to American domination of the Middle East threats. Clearly, as long as the United States provides the wherewithal, Israel will use it for its purposes. These purposes are…to integrate the bulk of the occupied territories within Israel in some fashion while finding a way in reduce the Arab population; to disperse the scattered refugees and crush any manifestation of Palestinian nationalism or Palestinian culture; to gain control over southern Lebanon… The historical practice over many years has trained Israeli leaders to assume that U.S. ‘opinion makers’ and political elites will stand behind them whatever they do and that even if direct reporting is accurate, as it generally is, its import will gradually be lost as the custodians of history carry out their tasks.” (Pg. 1-2)

He continues, “What follows is not intended as a comprehensive review or analysis of the network of relations among the United States, Israel and the Palestinians. Rather, its more modest aims are to bring out certain elements of the ‘special relationship’ between the United States and Israel, and of their relationships to the original inhabitants of the land, which I think have been insufficiently appreciated … and often seriously misrepresented, with the consequence that we have pursued policies that are both disgraceful and extremely dangerous, increasingly so. These remarks will be critical of Israel’s policies: its consistent rejection of any political settlement that accommodates the national rights of the indigenous population; its repression and state terrorism over many years; its propaganda efforts, which have been remarkably successful---much to Israel’s detriment in my view---in the United States… my reason [for] concern is the policies that have been pursued by the U.S. government and our responsibility in shaping or tolerating these policies.” (Pg. 3-4)

He goes on, “It would be salutary, then, to abandon hypocrisy. Either we provide the support for the establishment of a Greater Israel with all that it entails and refrain from condemning the grim consequences of this decision, or we withdraw the means and the license for the pursuit of these programs and act to ensure that the valid demands of Israelis and Palestinians be satisfied. This can, perhaps, still be accomplished… A point of no return may soon be reached, with consequences that may be appalling for Israel and the Palestinians, for the region, and perhaps for the entire world.” (Pg. 6)

He observes, “The rise in Israel’s stock among liberal intellectuals with this demonstration of its military prowess is a fact of some interest. It is reasonable to attribute it in large part to domestic American concerns, in particular, to the inability of the U.S. to crush indigenous resistance in Indochina. That Israel’s lightning victory should have been an inspiration to open advocates of the use of violence to attain national goals is not surprising, but there are many illusions about the stance of the liberal intelligentsia on this matter.” (Pg. 28)

He states, “The consistent rejectionism of both major political groupings in Israel is disguised in the United States by two main devices: First… the concept of ‘rejectionism’ is restricted to the denial of Jewish national rights, on the implicit racist assumption that the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine do not have the human rights that we naturally accord to Jews. Second, it is observed---quite accurately---that Israel has always been more than willing to negotiate with the Arab STATES, while they have not reciprocated this willingness… Israel’s willingness in this regard is strictly rejectionist, since the Palestinians are excluded.” (Pg. 52)

He notes, “According to official Israeli army statistics, 106 people died in the course of all terrorist actions in the north since 1967, considerably fewer than the number of victims of a single Israeli bombing raid... Or to take another comparison, the total number of Israeli victims is approximately the same as the number killed when Israel shot down a civilian Libyan airplane over the occupied Sinai in February 1973…” (Pg. 74)

He suggests, “it is useful to ask ourselves what the reaction would be in the United States if an Arab army had conquered half of Israel, leaving a trail [where they] were beaten, murdered, humiliated, while their families were left to starve or be harassed or killed by terrorists' bands armed by the conqueror.” (Pg. 234)

He acknowledges, “while the charges that have circulated in the U.S. concerning the behavior of the PLO in Lebanon appear to be greatly exaggerated, at least to judge by investigations carried out by Israeli journalists, Jewish and Christian Arab, and while there seems to be little doubt that the behavior of the Israeli-backed Phalange was more brutal than anything attributable to the PLO, it nevertheless remains true that the PLO behaved in a disgraceful and stupid fashion in southern Lebanon, alienating much of the population.” (Pg. 251)

He concludes, “at least this much seems clear. As long as the United States remains committed to an Israeli Sparta as a strategic asset, blocking the international consensus on a political settlement, the prospects are for further tragedy: repression, terrorism, war, and possibly even a conflict that will engage the superpowers, eventuating in a final solution from which few will escape.” (Pg. 469)

Chomsky puzzles many people, since he is himself Jewish, yet is strongly opposed to most of Israel’s action. Nevertheless, his voice is an important one to consider, in this conflict.

[Spicy T AKA Mr. Tea · Rating 4 out of 5]

Chomsky is a one man wrecking crew when it comes to identifying, decoding, and delegitimizing the master narratives around Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine. He's an astute critical historian and political analyst in this book (as he is with all of his work!). This is a fascinating and deeply researched critical political history of the ongoing repression of the Palestinian people arching through the 1980s into the 1990s. It's a marathon read and his propensity to provide evidence, while amazing, can dilute the narrative he is sharing. If you want facts, an understanding of the past leading to the situation today, and a way to identify the players and their roles in the occupation, by all means read this book.

[Rania · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read this shit

[Shannaya · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent!

[Marc · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is almost as relevant today as when it was first published, in the immediate aftermath of the 1982 Lebanon War. Chomsky's account of the war itself is as vivid as it is horrifying - his research and uncovering of important local and dissenting voices greatly adds to the scholarship on the war. The fact that the war was largely supported even by liberal Zionists at the time, and is now regularly denigrated by those selfsame liberal Zionists illustrates the way history changes, and is worth reflecting on in the modern context.

The American media's contortions to avoid criticizing Israel are fascinating, especially when the Israeli media was honest and upfront about what was occurring (in some cases). This certainly still occurs today, although perhaps to a lesser extent. Chomsky's other descriptions of the US-Israel relationship are illuminating as well.

Likewise, the demonization - and dehumanization - of the Palestinians continues today in both the American and Israeli media. Chomsky stresses repeatedly that the PLO had at the time offered to negotiate with Israel, desiring mutual recognition and a two-state solution. It was, he argues, this very trend of moderation that Israel saw as most threatening. In Chomsky's view, the Lebanon war was carried out to smash the Palestinian state-within-a-state in Lebanon for two reasons: first, to try and break the PLO's popular support from the Palestinian people; and second, to push the PLO back to resorting to terrorism.

As a small note, the entire discussion about whether or not the PLO must recognize Israel as a state is fascinating, in that now that the Palestinians have done so the goalposts are moved - now Israel must be recognized as a Jewish state. Nowhere in Chomsky's book is this latter demand enunciated, indicating to me that it was not a concern at all of the Israelis and American Zionists of the time.

This book is wide-ranging and, like much of Chomsky's work, it can be difficult to find the thread at times, but it's still a solid read even today.

[Asher · Rating 4 out of 5]

Like many Jewish people I knew growing up, I was raised in a liberal household with Zionist relatives and family in Israel. I’d heard the discussions of terrorism against Israelis, the need for Jews to have a homeland, and my own family’s story of the holocaust. Palestinians’ rights were not much discussed.

This book is excellent for anyone who wants to learn more about the history of the relationship between Palestinians, Israelis and Americans. Chomsky’s highly detailed account, informed by personal visits, official documents, internal records, private diaries, and published articles shows that the history of the deep double standard according to which Israelis are assumed to have the same rights as the U.S. to self-determination and regional aggression/terrorism, while Palestinians, accorded to “rejectionist doctrine” are denied the right to self-determination.

Chomsky’s detailed account of Israel’s collective punishments of Palestinians in the territories and the Peace for Galilee mission in Lebanon are expertly compared to the Nazi conquests in Eastern Europe and the Russian pogroms that precipitated a mass exodus of Jews from Europe. The detailed report of Israeli atrocities is systematically compared to U.S. reporting and commentary to reveal what could only be described as a highly sophisticated and elaborate propaganda system that dismisses outright any critique of U.S./Israeli rejectionist doctrine.

The book is heavily focused on the invasion of Lebanon and is brief in its treatment of the history of Zionism and the Palestinians before 1948. It is however an excellent primer in understanding U.S. involvement in the conflict and the modern military and diplomatic history of the region from 1948 until 1999. I recommend it to anyone interested in this topic. I don’t find myself agreeing with the whole thing, but few thinkers write with the sharpness and encyclopedic knowledge of Chomsky. You will definitely learn a lot.