What evidence is Chomsky alluding to when he states the US is preventing a settlement between Israel & Palestine?

Question

Chomsky in his book Neccesary Illusions, published in 1989 says:

U.S. ... efforts to prevent a political settlement of the Arab–Israeli conflict over many years, readily documented, but unwelcome and therefore a non-fact.

What is this evidence, and where is it documented?

Has it also been the case between 1989 and the present day?

Chomsky is unfortunately not a reliable source of this kind of information, and frequently will simply claim things which are completely untrue. I suspect that in this case what he calls "efforts to prevent a settlement" is simply US support to Israel, a statement which probably can be called true for certain specific values of "true". — Lennart Regebro, Aug 10 '13 at 05:35
@Regebro: Can the 'support' of any country for another be so 'simple' as to be without geopolitical or economic calculation? — Mozibur Ullah, Aug 10 '13 at 05:49
No. But that's irrelevant. The point is that there certainly could have been many settlements over the years, but that in every effort one side has rejected them. I suspect that Chomsky means that US Support to Israel has made them reject settlements they would otherwise have agreed to. However, the statement sounds like he is saying that US is actively trying to have the conflict continue. This may indeed be Chomsky's opinion, but it is just opinion, not fact. — Lennart Regebro, Aug 10 '13 at 06:00
@Regebro: In what appears to be a quarrel solely between two states - Israel & Palestine is a third - the US. Why should the US be involved unless it has interests in the area? And in any situation where there is a third actor, one must, I think be allowed to suspect one side is being played against the other. This is, after all, only one side of politics, if not high-minded diplomacy. Yes, I agree, he IS saying that the US is actively keeping the conflict ongoing, but since the book is not about American foreign policy, — Mozibur Ullah, Aug 10 '13 at 06:06
@Regebro:he mentions it only in passing, and without a supporting bibliographical note, which is unusual for some-one as meticulous as he is. — Mozibur Ullah, Aug 10 '13 at 06:07
@regebro: This is a perfectly legitimate question. History is about discovering the covert ends & aims of governments and institutions amongst others - as pointed by Herodotus in his History of the Peloponessian War. No, they're not. Lets continue this in chat? — Mozibur Ullah, Aug 10 '13 at 06:11
Maybe this answer would be useful: http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/5747/recognition-of-palestine/5750#5750 — Anixx, Aug 10 '13 at 07:34
@MoziburUllah - "is a third - the US" - actually there are/were far more than three, the most prominent of them being the USSR, which was actively involved in the conflict for many years and supported the Arab states military and economically in their fight against Israel. (And that was one of the reasons the USA was also engaged there - it was one of the 'fronts' of the cold war) In their early wars with Israel, the Arabs were using Soviet planes and weapons. And of course the entire Arab league was also engaged. — , Aug 11 '13 at 06:26
@MoziburUllah - "In what appears to be a quarrel solely between two states - Israel & Palestine is a third - the US". You seem to have completely forgotten: (A) Entire League of Arab States - who by the way, started the conflict in 1948; (B) USSR; (C) Iran; (D) France; (E) All the other "non-aligned" states consistently exerting pressure against Israel in UN. Other than those minor exceptions, yes, US is the only party other than Israelis and Palestinians who is in some way involved. — DVK, Aug 11 '13 at 12:32
@Vector: I'm well aware that there are many other actors involved. But the primary third party actor is now the US, after all the Cold War ended two decades ago. This of course doesn't mean that there are after-effects. — Mozibur Ullah, Aug 11 '13 at 21:59
@DVK: How is this different to most sovereign nations? In any foreign policy situation there are going to be many actors. When I say 'quarrel solely between two states' - you can read that to mean the two primary actors - after all no-one calls it the USSR-Palestinian situation or any other combination of the actors you mention. When I say there is a third, doesn't mean that there is a fourth or fifth actor; I can see why it may be read as such. — Mozibur Ullah, Aug 11 '13 at 22:19
@MoziburUllah - you were complaining that USA is involved as if it was the ONLY third (or 4th etc...) involved party. The point is, USA was the among the least involved parties well into 1960s (USSR recognized Israel before US did, Arab states launched a war on Israel on the day of independence declaration - a wee bit more of an importance than US's actions) and continues to be among the least involved. — DVK, Aug 11 '13 at 22:23
@DVK; If you look at the original question I simply asked for the evidence that Chomsky is alluding to, and he says is well attested to. It may be that he is wrong and there is no such evidence or he has misconstrued it. I didn't say that the US is the sole third party that is involved, and I agreed that the way I phrased a comment may make it seem as though I did where it was simply to emphasise a third party. — Mozibur Ullah, Aug 11 '13 at 22:42
@DVK:But the point of that comment was to emphasise 'why should the US be involved unless it has interests in the area? And in any situation where there is a third actor, one must, I think be allowed to suspect one side is being played against the other. This is, after all, only one side of politics, if not high-minded diplomacy'. I was simply rebutting a casual dismissal of a prominent Scholar on this situation. I would have accepted a pointer to the evidence that Chomsky is alluding to and a critique to show that it doesn't stand up. — Mozibur Ullah, Aug 11 '13 at 22:44
@MoziburUllah - if that's the case, you answered your own question. US started to mess with the area because USSR was messing with it. Cold war and all. It wasn't "playing one side against another" - it was counteracting the side that was already against its own geopolitical interests (USSR's Arab client states) by getting its own client state (Israel). If USA could get BOTH Israel and Arabs together as client states, they would be extra happy. — DVK, Aug 11 '13 at 22:46
@MoziburUllah - as far as whether Chomsky was right or wrong - extraordinary claims require extraordinary references, as they say on Skeptics.SE. The onus is on Chomsky to provide proof, NOT on those doubting him to prove that he has no documents when he doesn't say what they are. — DVK, Aug 11 '13 at 22:49
@DVK: Well that goes someway to explaining the US interest in the area. It doesn't explain why the US would want to prevent a settlement, and Chomsky wrote 'Neccessary Illusions' in 1989. But perhaps a pointer to Chomskys Book Fateful Triangle - The United States, Palestine & Israel , a 937 page book might have the alleged evidence? You're right that the onus should be on Chomsky to provide evidence, but its another thing entirely to claim that he hasn't (which is what you appear to be saying), or that he has and it hasn't stood up to critical enquiry (which is what Regebro is saying). — Mozibur Ullah, Aug 11 '13 at 23:20
@DVK Exactly - the USA would prefer to have both sides as client states. And indeed, from 1977 (or even 1973 on one reading) up to very very recently this worked well with Israel and Egypt. — Felix Goldberg, Aug 12 '13 at 09:07
@MoziburUllah Most likely the other 973 pages book will not contain the evidence you're looking for... but if you find it there, please do let us know :) — Felix Goldberg, Aug 12 '13 at 09:07
@Goldberg: I agree that it would make more sense for the US to encourage a settlement and have both sides as client states, rather than continually prevent one as Chomsky states in the quote in the question. — Mozibur Ullah, Aug 12 '13 at 09:39
@DVK: You can create chatrooms or use the general chat from the "chat" link at the top of the page. — Lennart Regebro, Aug 12 '13 at 10:34
Chomsky's preferred outcome is the destruction of Israel, which the US support of Israel prevents as it deters foreign invasion of the Jewish state. — jwenting, Aug 12 '13 at 13:04
@MoziburUllah - "But the primary third party actor is now the US" You mean excluding the UN, The EU, Russian, Iran/Hebzolla, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, and Egypt..... — , Aug 12 '13 at 23:32

Lennart Regebro · Answer 1 · 2013-08-12T08:11:59.733

In 1974 the PLO adopted what is called "The Ten Point Program". It is a program that outlines a phased plan for liberating all of Palestine. Liberating here means liberating it from Israeli rule. Obviously once all of Palestine has been liberated that means there is no Israel at all.

If we take this at face value, that means that any compromise you make with PLO, and therefore any settlement you make with them, will just mean you gave concessions for no reason, because they will later break the deal and continue the war to try to liberate the rest of Palestine.

Although the Ten Point Program is still in official effect within PLO, in 1993, Arafat seemed to contradict it in a press-release saying that "the PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security". ref

But up to 1989, the publication of the book mention in the question, no such statement had been done, and the official policy of PLO was still that the state of Israel had to cease existing.

In light of this, blaming the United States for the lack of settlements is complete and utter Chomsky-style nonsense. It may be that the United States did not want a settlement, but Chomsky provides no evidence of that, and the main reason there was no settlement up to 1993 was that PLO's official policy prevented settlements.

This does of course not mean the US wanted peace in 1989, but Chomsky claims that it is the United States that prevents peace as a part of his general anti-Israel and anti-US agenda, not based on any actual evidence.

Chomsky didn't write "for years been trying to accommodate themselves to the reality of Israel" - Said did, if you read my answer a little more carefully... — Mozibur Ullah, Aug 12 '13 at 07:45
@MoziburUllah OK, I removed that bit then, it's more of a comment on your answer than an answer anyway. — Lennart Regebro, Aug 12 '13 at 08:14
well said, there can be no compromise with an entity whose sole raison d'etre is your destruction. — jwenting, Aug 12 '13 at 13:05

Mozibur Ullah · Answer 2 · 2013-08-12T08:10:34.080

-2

Chomsky book Fateful Triangle - The United Staes, Israel & Palestine was published in 1983, and republished in 1999 incorporating then new material on developments such as the Palestinian uprising, Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the ongoing peace process, and with a new foreword by the American-Palestinian Scholar & activist Edward Said, he writes:

Fateful Triangle may be the most ambitious book ever attempted on the conflict between Zionism and the Palestinians viewed as centrally involving the United States. It is a dogged exposé of human corruption, greed, and intellectual dishonesty. It is also a great and important book, which must be read by anyone concerned with public affairs. The facts are there to be recognized for Chomsky, although no one else has ever recognized them so systematically. His mainly Israeli and U.S. sources are staggeringly complete, and he is capable of registering contradictions, distinctions, and lapses which occur between them.

This would appear to be the book by Chomsky that details the allegations & accusations that he makes. Said goes on to say:

Chomsky commands what he calls “reality”—facts—over a breathtaking range. Fateful Triangle can be read as a protracted war between fact and a series of myths—Israeli democracy, Israeli purity of arms, the benign occupation, no racism against Arabs in Israel, Palestinian terrorism, peace for Galilee. Having rehearsed the “official” narrative, he then blows it away with vast amounts of counter-evidence

This is a matter of dismantling official propanganda and spin - functions of any state - but it doesn't allude to the central claim in the OPs question about the US opposition to a settlement. However he adds:

Chomsky’s major claim is that Israel and the United States—especially the latter—are rejectionists opposed to peace, whereas the Arabs, including the PLO, have for years been trying to accommodate themselves to the reality of Israel.

Said also adds:

Nor is Chomsky especially gentle to the PLO, whose “self-destructiveness” and “suicidal character” he criticizes. The Arab regimes, he says, are not “decent,” and, he might have added, not popular either.

edited Aug 12 '13 at 08:10

answered Aug 11 '13 at 23:27

Mozibur Ullah

2,710
19
33

3

The book says they have been accommodating Israel "for years" in 1998. However, the book you refer to above was written in 1989. How many years? Is that claim even relevant? No, and I'll expand on why in an answer. – Lennart Regebro Aug 12 '13 at 05:52
@Regebro: I really think you should read my question and my answer a little more carefully. – Mozibur Ullah Aug 12 '13 at 07:31
@Regebro: The book was actually published in 1983, the one I looked at was the second edition published in 1998. – Mozibur Ullah Aug 12 '13 at 07:56
7

Yes, but do we know if the "for years" claim was there in 1983? If Chomsky claims things like that, this is complete and utter baloney. PLO and most of the Arab regimes was in 1983 still completely bent on getting rid of Israel. Egypt was the exception, but only since 1978 withe Camp David accords (also helped along by the US, also showing that the claim that the US wanted war in the region is complete BS). – Lennart Regebro Aug 12 '13 at 08:19
From the Triangle - 'The following year, Egypt, Syria and Jordan “informed the United States that they would sign peace treaties with Israel as part of an overall Middle East settlement" [New York Times '77] & 'In January 1976, the U.S. was compelled to veto a UN Security Council Resolution calling for a settlement in terms of the international consensus, which now included a Palestinian state...The resolution was backed by Egypt, Syria, Jordan) the PLO, and the USSR. Presumably this settlement was not calling for the destruction of Israel. – Mozibur Ullah Aug 12 '13 at 08:57
1

@MoziburUllah The 1976 vetoed resolution is interesting stuff - can you post more about it? Thanks – Felix Goldberg Aug 12 '13 at 09:13
5

That resolution s/11940 was backed by Benin, Guyana, Pakistan, Panama, Romania and United Republic of Tanzania. USSR also voted for. It included the right to return, which unfortunately is a practical impossibility. It was therefore dead in the water, and as most such resolutions are, just a international relations game. – Lennart Regebro Aug 12 '13 at 09:48
Please keep all irrelevant chatting in the chat – Lennart Regebro Aug 12 '13 at 13:09
4

Ok, I've read it - http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/696D540FD7821BCE0525651C00736250 - nothing special there, just a one-sided text, as @LennartRegebro explains. – Felix Goldberg Aug 13 '13 at 07:25

What evidence is Chomsky alluding to when he states the US is preventing a settlement between Israel & Palestine?

2 Answers2