チョムスキーの目的は・・・
投稿者： desert_leomontree 投稿日時： 2011/12/10 19:35 投稿番号： [5022 / 5582]
なんとイスラエルのアパルトヘイト政策さえ認めていないのですね。
チョムスキーは学者として、イスラエルパレスチナ問題で
パレスチナ側に同情的ですが、
しかしその目的は、イスラエル、ユダヤ人が自らを批判する事で
民主的だと言う事をアピールする以外
学者とし、他のイスラエルシオニスト学者とは違う観点で
物事を見る事で、評価を上げると言う目的もあるようですね。
パレスチナ人であり、シオニスト侵略者に
領土を奪われたエドワード・ザイード氏とは違い
チョムスキーのパレスチナ擁護には、冷たさと言うか
アメリカ支援のイスラエルの軍事力に抵抗しても
無駄だと言うような冷酷さもありますね。
＞＞Anyone familiar with Chomsky’s work will recognize that he is no stranger to inflammatory terms and that comparing one historical situation with another has long been part of his modus operandi. His response in this instance was troubling. Many Israeli academics and journalists, such as Ilan Pappe, Tanya Reinhart and Amira Hass, have described the situation of the Palestinians as one of apartheid. Bishop Tutu has done the same and last year Ha’aretz reported that South African law professor John Dugard, the special rapporteur for the United Nations on the situation of human rights in Occupied Palestine and a former member of his country’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, had written in a report to the UN General Assembly that there is "an apartheid regime" in the territories "worse than the one that existed in South Africa."[6]
Chomsky explained his disagreement:
Apartheid was one particular system and a particularly ugly situation... It's just to wave a red flag, when it's perfectly well to simply describe the situation...
His reluctance to label Israel’s control of the Palestinians as "apartheid" out of concern that it be seen as a "red flag," like describing it as "inflammatory," was a red flag itself and raised questions that should have been asked by the interviewer, such as who would be inflamed by the reference to ‘apartheid’ as a "red flag" in Israel’s case and what objections would Chomsky have to that?
A more disturbing exchange occurred later in the interview when Chomsky was asked if sanctions should be applied against Israel as they were against South Africa. He responded:
In fact, I've been strongly against it in the case of Israel. For a number of reasons. For one thing, even in the case of South Africa, I think sanctions are a very questionable tactic. In the case of South Africa, I think they were [ultimately] legitimate because it was clear that the large majority of the population of South Africa was in favor of it.
http://www.leftcurve.org/LC29WebPages/Chomsky.html
チョムスキーは学者として、イスラエルパレスチナ問題で
パレスチナ側に同情的ですが、
しかしその目的は、イスラエル、ユダヤ人が自らを批判する事で
民主的だと言う事をアピールする以外
学者とし、他のイスラエルシオニスト学者とは違う観点で
物事を見る事で、評価を上げると言う目的もあるようですね。
パレスチナ人であり、シオニスト侵略者に
領土を奪われたエドワード・ザイード氏とは違い
チョムスキーのパレスチナ擁護には、冷たさと言うか
アメリカ支援のイスラエルの軍事力に抵抗しても
無駄だと言うような冷酷さもありますね。
＞＞Anyone familiar with Chomsky’s work will recognize that he is no stranger to inflammatory terms and that comparing one historical situation with another has long been part of his modus operandi. His response in this instance was troubling. Many Israeli academics and journalists, such as Ilan Pappe, Tanya Reinhart and Amira Hass, have described the situation of the Palestinians as one of apartheid. Bishop Tutu has done the same and last year Ha’aretz reported that South African law professor John Dugard, the special rapporteur for the United Nations on the situation of human rights in Occupied Palestine and a former member of his country’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, had written in a report to the UN General Assembly that there is "an apartheid regime" in the territories "worse than the one that existed in South Africa."[6]
Chomsky explained his disagreement:
Apartheid was one particular system and a particularly ugly situation... It's just to wave a red flag, when it's perfectly well to simply describe the situation...
His reluctance to label Israel’s control of the Palestinians as "apartheid" out of concern that it be seen as a "red flag," like describing it as "inflammatory," was a red flag itself and raised questions that should have been asked by the interviewer, such as who would be inflamed by the reference to ‘apartheid’ as a "red flag" in Israel’s case and what objections would Chomsky have to that?
A more disturbing exchange occurred later in the interview when Chomsky was asked if sanctions should be applied against Israel as they were against South Africa. He responded:
In fact, I've been strongly against it in the case of Israel. For a number of reasons. For one thing, even in the case of South Africa, I think sanctions are a very questionable tactic. In the case of South Africa, I think they were [ultimately] legitimate because it was clear that the large majority of the population of South Africa was in favor of it.
http://www.leftcurve.org/LC29WebPages/Chomsky.html