Thanks, Noah, but I've read a fair amount of Susie Linfield and am not impressed. FYI, there was a review of that book in the Nation by someone who clearly knew more about Middle Eastern history and politics than Linfield. He demolished the book, with particular attention to the chapter on Chomsky.
Thanks, Noah, but I've read a fair amount of Susie Linfield and am not impressed. FYI, there was a review of that book in the Nation by someone who clearly knew more about Middle Eastern history and politics than Linfield. He demolished the book, with particular attention to the chapter on Chomsky.
Thank you for linking. I'm glad it's here so others can read and decide for themselves. As for me...well, I'll try to keep this a comment and not turn into a full blown essay.
Joshua Leifer (wrote the book critique) is nothing that you promised. He does not appear to clearly know "more about Middle Eastern history and politics than Linfield" and he did not "demolish" her book. In particular he failed to punch a hole in her charges against Chomsky. His small section on Chomsky is spent making excuses for the man and the mind without actually addressing what Linfield is arguing: that Chomsky's entire argument line hinges upon an un-passed UN resolution that - if you read it - says something quite other than what Chomsky purports it to...and that Chomsky's support for the accuracy of this analysis is always HIMSELF.
In fact, Leifer implicitly acknowledges that Linfield is perhaps correct while attempting to minimize how much it matters, waving away any errors Chomsky has made by saying, "as is to be expected of someone who has written for more than half a century, [Chomsky] has made mistakes, political as well as factual, some of them serious. Yet...". Indeed, yet. This kind of response is exactly what Linfield is criticizing, a willful near-sightedness on both the part of Chomsky and his ardent defenders that does not want to see the frailty of this argument because, well, the man's a genius.
(By the way, Leifer's sympathies are quite clear and nearly all his writing is spent advocating his position on this topic. That doesn't make him an expert on Levantine history and conflict, it makes him an expert at arguing HIS SIDE. Many of us - including in this forum - are attempting to argue 'in utramque partem', on both sides of the issue, which is the true humanist response. Ideological responses may be the least useful here).
The letter exchange with Chomsky reinforces these points. He continues to avoid answering Linfield's direct criticism and continues the circularity of his argument - which is the exact problem Linfield is pointing out - offering as 'evidence' in his response to her, "I referred to my discussions of these topics, all accurate." We're just supposed to take Chomsky's word that HIS interpretation is accurate because he said it and, well...the man's a genius. (Linfield's letter links to the actual UN documents, so readers can decide that for themselves as well).
It's unfortunate to get stuck on the Chomsky portion of the book in particular as Linfield's deep dives into some of the other thinkers are far more nuanced and interesting, frankly. But Chomsky casts such a large shadow on this subject among Western leftists (the reason he was deputized into this conversation) that his statements really must be addressed. I continue to recommend it, as well as Ben-Ami's very recent book about his experience attempting to negotiate one of those peace's that you claim, sweepingly, Israel has no interest in.
Hi, Noah. Thanks for your reply, but IтАЩm afraid weтАЩll have to differ. LeiferтАЩs review was not as harsh in tone as I remembered, but I donтАЩt see that anything in the review agrees in the least with the substance of her argument. He makes his overall distaste clear from the outset: тАЬLinfield wants to position herself among those brave realists who are willing to criticize both sides in equal measure and are equally committed to a two-state solution. Yet in doing so, she demonstrates precisely what she finds objectionable in her subjects: a тАЬreadiness to substitute ideology [and]wishful thinkingтАжfor reality.тАЭ ThereтАЩs not a kind word for the book until this rather lame compliment at the end: тАЬ[Readers] will find much to argue with in The LionsтАЩ Den. But they will also, if they read carefully, learn a lot from it.тАЭ Leifer and Linfield are colleagues at Dissent, so maybe he was just being polite.
Since Chomsky was one of half a dozen subjects profiled in the book, itтАЩs perhaps not surprising that Leifer doesnтАЩt take up her charges in detail. But he makes perfectly clear what he thinks of her case: тАЬChomsky is perhaps one of the best examples to refute LinfieldтАЩs repeated claim that the postwar left sacrificed its commitment to equality, anti-capitalism, and anti-fascism in favor of anti-imperialism. If anything, he has embodied the unwavering link between a socialist egalitarianism and an anti-imperialist internationalism when few self-described left intellectuals dared to fly the flag of either. Like Deutscher and Stone, he has consistently emphasized the connection between inequalities of wealth at home and abroad, and he has focused as much energy on exposing the United StatesтАЩ repressive measures against its own citizens as on the US militaryтАЩs violations of human rights and international law overseas.
тАЬIn the light of history, ChomskyтАЩs recordтАФagainst the Vietnam War, IsraelтАЩs occupation, neoliberalism, and the surveillance stateтАФoutshines those of many of his New Left contemporaries, some of whom, by the 1990s and early 2000s, had embraced so-called humanitarian intervention and championed US war-making in the Middle East. Far from a nightmare, Chomsky has been among the American leftтАЩs most consistent moral beacons.тАЭ
In the letters exchange, LinfieldтАЩs main complaint is that Chomsky draws sweeping conclusions from an тАЬobscureтАЭ UN Resolution that in any case was not passed. The links Linfield provided did not work for me, but Chomsky quoted the essential provision from the resolution: it тАЬcalled for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict along the internationally recognized borders, with guarantees for тАШthe sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of all states in the area,тАЩ including Israel and the new Palestinian state.тАЭ If this was a misquote, Linfield doesnтАЩt say so. Equally disturbing is her attempt to minimize its significance with тАЬobscureтАЭ and тАЬunpassed.тАЭ It was not passed because the US vetoed it at IsraelтАЩs behest. If it is obscure in the US and Israel (probably not so obscure among Palestinians), it is because American and Israeli policymakers and liberal intellectuals would prefer not to remember it тАУ for obvious reasons, if Chomsky is right about its content.
And more: the notion that ChomskyтАЩs тАЬentire argumentтАЭ for Israeli rejectionism rests on this тАЬobscureтАЭ resolution is ridiculous. Fateful Triangle, his other books, and his website (chomsky.info) contain hundreds of pages of discussion of the whole panoply of peace talks.
I think your dig about Chomsky as тАЬself-supportingтАЭ is a little silly for three reasons: 1) if someone misrepresents you, the proper thing is to refer to your own writings to prove it; 2) if someone disputes an interpretation and you think youтАЩve made the case in your own writing, why on earth wouldnтАЩt you cite them? and 3) ChomskyтАЩs major political writings are exceptionally well-documented. LinfieldтАЩs suggestion that he tries to act as his own authority because he has so little evidence is just blowing smoke.
Finally, тАЬstubbornly fraudulent.тАЭ Alas, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict does make blusterers of us all. ItтАЩs nonsense, though. IтАЩve been reading Chomsky for fifty years, and perhaps more to the point, IтАЩve been reading his critics for fifty years. For my money, they havenтАЩt laid a glove on him. And consider that Chomsky is deeply hated by at least three categories of people: liberal intellectuals, the Israel lobby, and Israeli intelligence. I suspect that every page heтАЩs written is combed by one or all of these groups for anything that might discredit or embarrass him. They must be frustrated. But at least theyтАЩve succeeded in keeping him out of the mainstream media.
IтАЩll look at Shlomo Ben-AmiтАЩs book if and when I revisit this subject. Though really тАУ a foreign minister in a Likud government? I suppose you know that the founding document of the Likud Party decreed that there can only be a Jewish state тАЬfrom the river to the sea.тАЭ And before you throw any more roundhouse rhetorical punches, have a look at Fateful Triangle.
Thanks, Noah, but I've read a fair amount of Susie Linfield and am not impressed. FYI, there was a review of that book in the Nation by someone who clearly knew more about Middle Eastern history and politics than Linfield. He demolished the book, with particular attention to the chapter on Chomsky.
Please link, I've yet to read a takedown that held water but will happily look.
https://www.thenation.com/article/culture/zionism-and-the-left-lions-den-book-review/
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/letters-from-the-june-1-8-2020-issue/
Thank you for linking. I'm glad it's here so others can read and decide for themselves. As for me...well, I'll try to keep this a comment and not turn into a full blown essay.
Joshua Leifer (wrote the book critique) is nothing that you promised. He does not appear to clearly know "more about Middle Eastern history and politics than Linfield" and he did not "demolish" her book. In particular he failed to punch a hole in her charges against Chomsky. His small section on Chomsky is spent making excuses for the man and the mind without actually addressing what Linfield is arguing: that Chomsky's entire argument line hinges upon an un-passed UN resolution that - if you read it - says something quite other than what Chomsky purports it to...and that Chomsky's support for the accuracy of this analysis is always HIMSELF.
In fact, Leifer implicitly acknowledges that Linfield is perhaps correct while attempting to minimize how much it matters, waving away any errors Chomsky has made by saying, "as is to be expected of someone who has written for more than half a century, [Chomsky] has made mistakes, political as well as factual, some of them serious. Yet...". Indeed, yet. This kind of response is exactly what Linfield is criticizing, a willful near-sightedness on both the part of Chomsky and his ardent defenders that does not want to see the frailty of this argument because, well, the man's a genius.
(By the way, Leifer's sympathies are quite clear and nearly all his writing is spent advocating his position on this topic. That doesn't make him an expert on Levantine history and conflict, it makes him an expert at arguing HIS SIDE. Many of us - including in this forum - are attempting to argue 'in utramque partem', on both sides of the issue, which is the true humanist response. Ideological responses may be the least useful here).
The letter exchange with Chomsky reinforces these points. He continues to avoid answering Linfield's direct criticism and continues the circularity of his argument - which is the exact problem Linfield is pointing out - offering as 'evidence' in his response to her, "I referred to my discussions of these topics, all accurate." We're just supposed to take Chomsky's word that HIS interpretation is accurate because he said it and, well...the man's a genius. (Linfield's letter links to the actual UN documents, so readers can decide that for themselves as well).
It's unfortunate to get stuck on the Chomsky portion of the book in particular as Linfield's deep dives into some of the other thinkers are far more nuanced and interesting, frankly. But Chomsky casts such a large shadow on this subject among Western leftists (the reason he was deputized into this conversation) that his statements really must be addressed. I continue to recommend it, as well as Ben-Ami's very recent book about his experience attempting to negotiate one of those peace's that you claim, sweepingly, Israel has no interest in.
Hi, Noah. Thanks for your reply, but IтАЩm afraid weтАЩll have to differ. LeiferтАЩs review was not as harsh in tone as I remembered, but I donтАЩt see that anything in the review agrees in the least with the substance of her argument. He makes his overall distaste clear from the outset: тАЬLinfield wants to position herself among those brave realists who are willing to criticize both sides in equal measure and are equally committed to a two-state solution. Yet in doing so, she demonstrates precisely what she finds objectionable in her subjects: a тАЬreadiness to substitute ideology [and]wishful thinkingтАжfor reality.тАЭ ThereтАЩs not a kind word for the book until this rather lame compliment at the end: тАЬ[Readers] will find much to argue with in The LionsтАЩ Den. But they will also, if they read carefully, learn a lot from it.тАЭ Leifer and Linfield are colleagues at Dissent, so maybe he was just being polite.
Since Chomsky was one of half a dozen subjects profiled in the book, itтАЩs perhaps not surprising that Leifer doesnтАЩt take up her charges in detail. But he makes perfectly clear what he thinks of her case: тАЬChomsky is perhaps one of the best examples to refute LinfieldтАЩs repeated claim that the postwar left sacrificed its commitment to equality, anti-capitalism, and anti-fascism in favor of anti-imperialism. If anything, he has embodied the unwavering link between a socialist egalitarianism and an anti-imperialist internationalism when few self-described left intellectuals dared to fly the flag of either. Like Deutscher and Stone, he has consistently emphasized the connection between inequalities of wealth at home and abroad, and he has focused as much energy on exposing the United StatesтАЩ repressive measures against its own citizens as on the US militaryтАЩs violations of human rights and international law overseas.
тАЬIn the light of history, ChomskyтАЩs recordтАФagainst the Vietnam War, IsraelтАЩs occupation, neoliberalism, and the surveillance stateтАФoutshines those of many of his New Left contemporaries, some of whom, by the 1990s and early 2000s, had embraced so-called humanitarian intervention and championed US war-making in the Middle East. Far from a nightmare, Chomsky has been among the American leftтАЩs most consistent moral beacons.тАЭ
In the letters exchange, LinfieldтАЩs main complaint is that Chomsky draws sweeping conclusions from an тАЬobscureтАЭ UN Resolution that in any case was not passed. The links Linfield provided did not work for me, but Chomsky quoted the essential provision from the resolution: it тАЬcalled for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict along the internationally recognized borders, with guarantees for тАШthe sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of all states in the area,тАЩ including Israel and the new Palestinian state.тАЭ If this was a misquote, Linfield doesnтАЩt say so. Equally disturbing is her attempt to minimize its significance with тАЬobscureтАЭ and тАЬunpassed.тАЭ It was not passed because the US vetoed it at IsraelтАЩs behest. If it is obscure in the US and Israel (probably not so obscure among Palestinians), it is because American and Israeli policymakers and liberal intellectuals would prefer not to remember it тАУ for obvious reasons, if Chomsky is right about its content.
And more: the notion that ChomskyтАЩs тАЬentire argumentтАЭ for Israeli rejectionism rests on this тАЬobscureтАЭ resolution is ridiculous. Fateful Triangle, his other books, and his website (chomsky.info) contain hundreds of pages of discussion of the whole panoply of peace talks.
I think your dig about Chomsky as тАЬself-supportingтАЭ is a little silly for three reasons: 1) if someone misrepresents you, the proper thing is to refer to your own writings to prove it; 2) if someone disputes an interpretation and you think youтАЩve made the case in your own writing, why on earth wouldnтАЩt you cite them? and 3) ChomskyтАЩs major political writings are exceptionally well-documented. LinfieldтАЩs suggestion that he tries to act as his own authority because he has so little evidence is just blowing smoke.
Finally, тАЬstubbornly fraudulent.тАЭ Alas, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict does make blusterers of us all. ItтАЩs nonsense, though. IтАЩve been reading Chomsky for fifty years, and perhaps more to the point, IтАЩve been reading his critics for fifty years. For my money, they havenтАЩt laid a glove on him. And consider that Chomsky is deeply hated by at least three categories of people: liberal intellectuals, the Israel lobby, and Israeli intelligence. I suspect that every page heтАЩs written is combed by one or all of these groups for anything that might discredit or embarrass him. They must be frustrated. But at least theyтАЩve succeeded in keeping him out of the mainstream media.
IтАЩll look at Shlomo Ben-AmiтАЩs book if and when I revisit this subject. Though really тАУ a foreign minister in a Likud government? I suppose you know that the founding document of the Likud Party decreed that there can only be a Jewish state тАЬfrom the river to the sea.тАЭ And before you throw any more roundhouse rhetorical punches, have a look at Fateful Triangle.