Allow me to preface this by saying that this review concerns the original 1983 publication and not the updated version which includes three additional chapters addressing some of the qualms that follow. At this time I have not had the opportunity to examine the revised book or ruminate on its findings, though I plan to and future comment will take this into account.

The 1982 Lebanon-Israel War, and the massacre of up to 3,000 Palestinian refugees that followed, elicited widespread outrage in the international community, and brought key aspects of the United States' strategy towards the Arab-Israeli conflict to light. While Israel had violated an agreement not to occupy the territory, they continued to receive official corroboration from the U.S. government and American opinion makers, who cast Israel in a positive light and offered limited criticism. In stark contrast, Palestinians and their Arab brethren have long been portrayed as uncompromising radicals bent on violence and terrorism. It was within this historical context that renowned linguist and political activist Noam Chomsky composed the Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians. Chomsky held that it would be hypocritical to condemn the actions of the Israeli government so long as the U.S. provides the state with material assistance and ideological support. The goals of Israel had been public knowledge for some time: the incorporation of occupied territories, the reduction of the Arab population, the crushing of Palestinian nationalism and culture, and gaining control of southern Lebanon. As had the policies of rejecting peace settlements, repression, state terrorism and "pro-Zionist" propaganda in America to achieve these ends. Since its inception in 1948, there has been a continued development of a "special relationship" between the U.S. and Israel, and their efforts have been combined against the Palestinians. Israel refuses to join the international consensus in support of a two-state settlement, with recognized borders, security guarantees and peaceful resolution because the United States does as well. Economically, Israeli dominates the region as a proxy for American interests. Chomsky stated outright that this book would not be a general history of the conflict or of the motivations and undertakings of Israel. Rather, the text served as an examination of U.S. foreign policy, how this program legitimizes Israeli activities and what can be done to alter these mistakes. The U.S. must either support the conduct of Israel and follow the destructive course or drastically revise these methods and work to satisfy the demands of the two nations. The book explores the origins of this tripartite relationship, its consequences for all involved and the danger it poses on a global scale.

A word needs to be said about the methodology Chomsky employed. At its core, the Fateful Triangle is a polemic, espousing the contrarian views of a man demonized by the political right and, with this book, several of those sympathetic to Israel on left as well. Here Chomsky has taken the "received doctrine" of U.S. foreign policy as well as the myths, distortions and misinformation that pass as informed comment within mass media and academia to task. A fellow reviewer described it as an indispensable handbook for waging an ideological war. In this, one can agree, as he has supplied the reader with an arsenal of information, dialogue and argument to conduct an assault against the commanding heights. The work is rife with direct quotations and footnotes drawing from sources in state agencies, academia and the mainstream American and Israeli press, which present drastically differing accounts. The "supporters of Israel," here referred to as "supporters of the moral degeneration and ultimate destruction of Israel," within American society are subjects of criticism for their naivety and susceptibility to this received doctrine, ranging from prominent liberals like Jane Fonda to Nobel Laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel. Chomsky's parenthetical remarks, asides, devastating analogies and biting sarcasm make for an informing and pleasant read.

Through a careful analysis of legislation and other primary sources, Chomsky demonstrated that the U.S. has issued Israel what amounts to a blank check in the form of unprecedented material, diplomatic and ideological support. He speculates on the origin of this alliance and lists primary causal factors for this emerging relationship. These include domestic pressure and special interest groups placed under the heading of the "Israeli lobby," which range from liberal academics to the mainstream press to fundamentalist Christians. Israel also represents a key strategic interests for conducting procedures in the Middle East, specifically in protection of and access to petroleum supplies. In extension, Israel serves as a proxy for the U.S. in conducting subsidiary services to the Middle East, Africa, Asia and Latin America. As a result, Israel occupies, in a somewhat unjustified manner, an elevated position in U.S. public opinion where it is relatively immune from criticism.

Chomsky holds that both the Jews and Palestinians possess equal human rights, and in this case the right to national self-determination is paramount. Yet, since the 1967 Six-Day War, all attempts at a possible solution have been rejected. State agencies and the media attribute this stalemate to the prevailing misconception that the Israelis occupy the accomodationist position which is frustrated by the Arab rejectionists, while the United States plays the role of peace broker. Chomsky presents ample evidence that, in actuality, Palestinians find themselves on the side of the international consensus, which calls for a two state resolution. It is the U.S. and its commitment to a "Greater Israel" serving as a strategic asset, as a result of the powerful Israeli lobby and the early strategy enacted by Henry Kissinger and continued by the Reagan administration, that places both nations staunchly in the rejectionist camp. In the end, a peaceful outcome does not bode well for U.S. and Israeli interests, but Chomsky argues that it is likely the only way to prevent a future global conflict of immense proportions.

The historical analysis of Israeli-Palestinian relations encompasses both viewpoints, the native Palestinian population reacting to "the Zionist invasion," while the oft-persecuted Jewish peoples regard it as a homecoming to the Promised Land. However, outsiders have always determined the course of the region, from British colonial rule to the United Nations in 1948 and the backing of the U.S. seen today. The willingness of the West to attribute Israeli aggression, military occupation and policies of eradication to national defense and preservation of heritage exists as a self-evident fallacy. The 1981-1982 operations carried out under the codename "Peace for Galilee" were a logical extension of this desire to remove Palestinian refugees from occupied lands, destroy emerging socio-political and military organizations, and occupy southern Lebanon. Both the Israeli and American press portrayed this as a response to PLO agitation in its commitment to the destruction of the state of Israel. Only in the aftermath of the Sabra and Shatila massacre did an open dialogue develop concerning Israeli practices and U.S. complicity. While the public demands of the United States call for a quick and peaceful solution, the private discussions still yield to the "strategic consensus." However, this cycle of misrepresentation, occupation, repression and moral degeneration is met with the last available recourse for the Palestinian and Arab populations: defiant and militant resistance.

The prospects for a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, by Chomsky's account, are grim and the consequences for each state involved as well as those in the periphery are dire. Given current trends, the situation of Palestinians as a nation without a country remains problematic. Israeli occupation and expulsion combined with the inability of refugees to assimilate into neighboring Arab lands means the people are on the brink of extermination. When examining the long line of Israeli apartheid-esque conduct, it is easy to see that the state has set itself on a course of endless oppression and perpetual military conflict. Zionist arguments and fundamentalist claims to right of existence prevail within the government, making the security of a "pure" nation-state its ultimate goal. Such a perspective transforms all opportunities for coexistence into the realities of hegemony. This standpoint eerily reflects the Jewish nation's own past, but in this case the eliminated have become the eliminators. With continued dependence on U.S. funding, Israeli militarization possess a threat to nuclear disarmament and prospect of global peace. Chomsky predicts two outcome possible outcomes. The first being a sound defeat for Israel in the near future, it came close to such an occurrence a decade prior in 1973, either by resistance groups hoping to restore Palestinian rule or Arab nations in the region rising as one against them. At the very least, the state will continue towards social, political and moral degeneration. The second being further tragedies, including widespread nuclear war, a global final solution that few would escape from. The latter of which could be avoided by the United States adopting the principle of accommodation and ending the unprecedented support of the state of Israel.

There are several inconsistencies that cast their shadow on some of the analysis; particularly in the fact that, in his attempt to debunk, Chomsky forwards several myths and misconceptions himself. First, in his assessment of 'the fateful triangle" the U.S. is regarded as a the world's preeminent power, their ally in Israel is close behind, while the Palestinians are reduced to a negligible role. Chomsky goes so far as to state that the population will have no say or impact in future proceedings due to inherent weakness. Yet this is a misrepresentation and underestimation of the strength and the resolve of Palestinian resistance and the emergence of fundamentalist Islamic movements. While the PLO under Arafat did decline as Chomksy predicted, the 1987 and 2000 intifadas combined with the 2006 election of the militant Hamas exhibited the Palestinian resilience and seem to nullify this assessment.

Second, despite Chomsky's assertion, Israel was, at the time of publication, still a state on frail foundations. Its survival depended entirely upon the support and largess of a foreign power. The struggle to maintain control of occupied areas in the face of resistance from a national liberation movement was stalled by reactions in the international community. Dissent heightened within the nation due to government actions, as many Israelis had joined the cause of the Palestinians citing that their historical oppression is similar. Geopolitically, the nation state is not recognized diplomatically by key governments in the region, while there is an international consensus in favor of a Palestinian state. Overall, Israel did not occupy the position of strength Chomsky ascribed it.

Lastly, even if the U.S. was to end its rejectionist stance and its unprecedented support of Israel, the shift may come too late. While Chomsky mentions this in passing, he does not delve into the core of the issue. As the Israeli military capacity increases and its actions become more self-preserving in the name of national defense, the chance of its government developing an independent foreign strategy and executing unilateral military efforts heightens. Ostensibly, Israel would be an unpredictable rogue state, threatened by its Arab and Islamic neighbors and willing to escalate a regional incident into a global conflict. While Chomsky is correct in stating that drastic changes in foreign policy are necessary, even if enacted, the United States may no longer be able to prevent the outbreak of the next world war.

In the end, the Faithful Triangle succeeded as an exposé on the origins and consequences of this "special relationship" for all involved, as well as the threat its continuation poses to the prospect of world peace. The book is a terse account of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, uncovering the ulterior motives just below the surface that others have willfully ignored. Chomsky analysis shone through when highlighting the discrepancies between the portrayal of the Arab-Israeli conflict in the American press, scholarship and arena of public opinion versus the reality of the situation. Chomsky's overarching goal of documenting unnecessary suffering, human rights violations and hidden history puts the Arab-Israeli conflict into perspective. The book falls short in one area, given the benefit of hindsight, as in the 25 years since its initial publication several of Chomsky's projections for the future of the situation have proved false. The collapse of the Soviet Union assured that the Middle East would not be the battleground for a showdown between the two superpowers, despite his blunders Ariel Sharon maintained power until 2005 and, due to continued cooperation, Israel has yet to be defeated militarily. Only the future will show if the last holds true.

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.

A+

It was very interesting to read such a different perspective on the middle east. I would read another book by Norm Chomsky

This is an updated and expanded version of Chomsky's `Fateful Triangle,' originally published in 1983 after Israel's invasion into Lebanon. The updated section (Washington's `Peace Process') is perhaps the most concise, yet revealing attempt to explicate the inner-workings of the negotiations between the PLO, Israel, and the U.S. during the nineties and leading up to the collapse of the process the birth of the second intifada in 2000. In it, Chomsky demonstrates quite conclusively, that there is an international solution to the conflict between the PLO and Israel, and that it resides quite straightforwardly in the domain of international law, namely U.N. resolution 242. Contrary to popular interpretation, Israel has been steadfast in its rejection of the principles of resolution 242, and that the PLO has wavered over the years between rejecting and accepting the policy. There was a window of time in which Arafat and the PLO were willing to begin implementing 242 in the 70's, but unfortunately Israel rejected it at the time. The basic tenets of 242 were reintroduced in the Taba accords, which were offered by Israel and then accepted by the PLO, but Israel subsequently called off the settlement prior to the election. What remains is Israel's continued effort to impose a military Bantustan on the Palestinian people in an almost explicit attempt to drive the population out of the West bank and the Gaza strip and into the neighboring Arab states. The U.S. continues to provide blanket support for the occupation and illegal settlements.

Fateful Triangle is an elaborately researched work of political observation, particularly on Israel's invasion of Lebanon, which was really a proxy attempt to crush the PLO which was residing in the southern region of the state. Chomsky demonstrates (as close to conclusively as possible in political science) that not only did the Israelis (under the military leadership of Sharon) deliberately turn the other cheek during the Sabra and Shatila massacre, but that Sharon and others were actually involved in preparing the atrocities (see chpt. 6 `Aftermath' pgs. 329-440). Additionally, he manages to demonstrate that the Israeli invasion of Lebanon was an act of military aggression, similar now to the US's invasion of Iraq in 03. The war in Lebanon cost roughly 30,000 lives and left the region devastated ( I suspect that Israel's recent incursion into the region may do even more damage). Aside from Robert Fisk's great book `Pity the Nation,' `Fateful Triangle' may prove to be the most elaborate and well documented works of political literature in the region.

Chomsky's research is truly impressive. This book contains roughly 1,550 footnotes, with a huge range of sources, including mainstream right newspapers (i.e. Wall Street Journal) and papers on the left (i.e. New York Times). He also refers to a number of Israeli historians (i.e. Morris and Shlaim), and both liberal and conservative Jewish magazines (commentary and Dissent), also left-wing and mainstream liberal magazines (i.e. New Republic and Z mag). You can disagree with the ideology and the point of view, but you cannot deny the sheer volume of sources. It's difficult to explain the almost unanimous refusal to review this book among the mainstream press upon the time of publication, but it passed almost unnoticed. Those who have commented on the book have usually criticized Chomsky's `tone' and his apparent use of `selective quotation.' On the latter charge I can only say that all political scientists must ultimately decide which quotes and sources they are going to include, and which they are going to exclude, it's simply the nature of the field. On the former charge, I must admit that on a few occasions, Chomsky's tone is needlessly hostile. For example, while discussing the IDF's indolence with regard to monitoring Sabra and Shatila, Chomsky quotes Thomas Friedman to the fact that "whether the Israelis actually looked down and saw what was happening was unkown," adding that "it is also not clear whether this is intended as irony" (366). This is a needless and polemical reference to the Holocaust. Chomsky is Jewish and is not an anti-semite, but he applies harsh and rigorous (perhaps occasionally unfair) standards to the state of Israel, which is the product of the policy of genocide implemented against European Jewry during WWII. There is no need to compare the Israeli atrocities to the atrocities of the Nazis; it gets historians and scholars alike nowhere in penetrating into the truth of the current conflict.

Noam Chomsky has thrived greatly in this great country of his, yours, and mine - the United States of America. He has made millions of dollars teaching, lecturing, selling his books, and investing. His world-wide fame in psycholinguistics is well-deserved. His infamy is merited for his lack of loyalty to his own Jewish ethnicity and the U.S., in spite of the fruits he has received by being a citizen of the United States. He has repaid this country in bile with his incredibly biased analysis of American foreign policy. He goes way beyond a balanced multiculturism, when he always ranks the U.S. and Israel as foremost among the terrorist forces in the world now, and even in history. His distrust of any authority, benign or otherwise, is reflected in his dogmatic and unexamined support of the "underdog," even if that underdog is a suicide bomber or a major terrorist organization such as Al Queda or Hezbollah.

Yet since 1955, hypocrite Chomsky has worked for the "overdog" Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which has actively and enthusiastically participated in the development of weapons of War and mass destruction, and continues to this very day.

Chomsky trumps his own potential for gifted analytic objectivity with his simple hatred of the United States and the Jewish State.

If he were not so attached to the freedom of making money, earning the adulation of the American Left, and freedom to express himself, he might be able to give more direct and personal support for our enemies and his friends by taking up residence in North Korea, Iran, or Syria. Let us hope he retires outside of our homeland that he hates so much, the United States of America.

God Bless America, which will continue to give Chomsky the right to speak, teach, and make lots of money.

Rayboy

I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone, it's all anti-semitic rhetoric with an "I Hate America" overtone. I gave it one more star since he did such a good job at sugar coating hateful accusations, he's obviously a very talented writer, it's just too bad he's a nut case.

Shoher correctly wrote about Chomsky,

"Regardless of how misguided and idealistic are Chomsky's views, I deeply respect him as a voice of conscience, reminding us of morality where we prefer efficiency and of compassion where we pursue self-interest."

But for the balanced view, I suggest Samson Blinded: A Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict.

This book is certainly the best Chomsky has written about the Middle East and is one of the best books on the Israel-Palestine conflict. This book certainly makes the case and is well documented.

This was one of the first books I had read on the Middle East. After looking fairly at both sides of the debate, I quickly discovered which side I would come down on, but read this book for yourself and make up your own mind. I would also recommend Finkelstein's Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, which is a great follow-up and more recent.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict: the quintessence of the inherently imbalanced nature of international politics. Noam Chomsky certainly seems to think so. And...well, one may disagree with his leftist tendencies, or deride his idealism as naýve, or conclude that because what he professes and proposes may seem unfeasible in a present-day world it's automatically inconsequential and irrelevant, but hey...frankly, when it comes to Israelis, Palestinians and the Americans in between the two, well...there's not much room for choice now, is there?

It doesn't take a nuclear scientist to figure out the mechanics of this special relationship: it's like in school. There's this beefed-up, obnoxious, arrogant, self-righteous kid who'll only befriend an equally obnoxious, arrogant, self-righteous albeit less beefed-up kid, and together they'll bully the flimsiest, most sorry-looking and vulnerable poor creature that'll accidentally find itself in their way. Now, throw in a misfortune suffered by the less beefed-up bully, hundreds of billions of dollars, a few lobbies here and there and...you get the picture.

Chomsky engages in a very critical discussion of American and Israeli policies and by thoroughly documenting his research, he adds legitimacy to his claims. Nothing and no one escapes his wrath and he deserves all the more respect for not succumbing to small-time politics and vested interests. His writing style is relaxed and easy flowing and the sarcastic comments he never fails to make with regard to quoted statements or opinions that defy logic are to die for.

You want to know the most disturbing and alarming truths yet enjoy every minute you spend learning them? Read Chomsky.

chomsky always offers detail. if people are looking for answers from political writers, youre insane. take the book for what its worth - information... and then keep up with the subject on your own. it doesnt take a genius to develop a perspeptive to understand the motives of the people/events he writes about.

as for, "James H. Boschma III "Political Pragmatist"... you might try sounding a little more intellectual without using the word "badness" mixed in with the rest of your dictionary words. haha... jesus christ.

Chomsky's anti-America, anti-Israel screed is purely for those who live in a fantasy world where every problem in the world can be safely contained and blamed on America, and shades of gray are firmly verboten. For those who have to live and work in the real world, where bad people do bad things based on personal motives and desires that cannot be, somehow and inevitably, traced back to American government of business, it's utterly worthless.

There are much better books out there about understanding the Israeli-Palestinian issue, and/or the role of the US in that dispute or in the Middle East in general that take hard looks at the issue. Israel is certainly not without culpability in the ongoing problems with Palestinians, but Chomsky lacks the objectivity, apparently, to exmanine the issue in a productive, reasoned manner.

For those who are safely ensconced on a college campus somewhere, this may be a decent book that will support illusions about human nature and the badness of American government. For those who have matriculated out into reality, spend your money elsewhere on a better book.

This is not a book about what is right and wrong in the Middle East, it is a memoir about a self-hating Jew.

He feels that Israel has human rights violations and military aggression. Far from it. There are militant Palestinian's whose mantra is to eliminate Israel. What are they to do? Sit and wait for the bombers to kill innocent citizens.

Israel is the greatest ally has in the Middle East.
But Chomsky would rather ignore that and focus on the secondary issues.

If Chomsky could get over his hatred of Judaism, he may be able to open his mind to the truth.

_Fateful Triangle_ by Noam Chomsky with a foreward by Edward Said is a long rambling screed detailing the Mideast conflict from a point of view that is 100% pro Palestinian and anti American. Upon reading this book, several things become immediately clear to the reader - Chomsky is a socialist with sympathy for the Soviet Union and Chomsky unequivocally supports the United Nations. As an ideologue of the "New Left", Chomsky allows himself to indulge in abstruse argumentation and moral equivalences attempting to equate the United States with the Soviet Union, the terrorist PLO with Israel. Chomsky is morally opposed to all war, the spread of communism does not particularly bother him, despite his occassional barb at "Stalinism" (seemingly provoked more out of jealousy than any genuine repulsion towards it). In the past, Chomsky has made several outlandish statements, including announcing his support for the murderous Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia (a black mark that has proven particularly difficult for his "New Left" followers to eradicate). As a supporter of the United Nations, Chomsky hopes for a day when the United States will completely abandon its national sovereignity to the collective wills of Third World dictators and communist nations. Chomsky believes that Zionism is a continuation of "colonialism" (something that has become very trendy to decry, among the "New Left" "intellectual" elite) and therefore unequivocally supports the Palestinian identity. This is particularly ironic given the fact that Chomsky himself is a Jew with specific links to the Jewish elite within the United States who himself lived for a time in a kibbutz within Israel. The book itself seems at times more an exercise in intellectual onanism than anything else. Newspaper clippings are cited out of order, historical events are decontextualized, obscure arguments and apparent moral equivalences are made. At times Chomsky seems more disturbed by the failure of his own anti-war cronies on the far Left (such as Jane Fonda or Alan Dershowitz) to adopt his particular point of view with regard to the Mideast conflict. Certainly nothing even approximating a genuine look at the political situation is attempted here. Since this book was written, the United States remains just as entangled in the Mideast situation as ever. Certainly such a situation is disturbing for those who recall the warnings of the American Founding Fathers to avoid foreign entanglements. In the meantime, both Israelis and Palestinians continue to murder each other. Whether or not someday this situation may heat up so as to start the Third World War remains to be seen. We can only pray that such a course of events do not come about.

noam chomsky's "the fateful triangle" is justifiably one of the standard references on the israel/palestinian conflict. it is not an extensive survey of the israel-palestine conflict, but a look at the relations between the important political players in the US, israel and palestine, and their relationships with each other. the author has been a zionist since before the establishment of the state of israel, but is a staunch supporter of palestinian rights and sovereignty. in addition, he an exemplary writer on world events, bringing depth of knowledge and analysis to clear expositions of american foreign policy. he may therefore have been the most appropriate person to write a book on the US's relation to israel and the palestinians. the book succeeds admirably.

the book starts from the "accommodationist" position that both jews and palestinians are entitled to states in historic palestine, and analyses in detail israel's rejectionism - its opposition to a palestinian state - and US support for it.

the book was originally written during israel's war on lebanon. it explores israel-US relations mostly as they pertain to the israeli occupation of palestine following its conquest in 1967. chomsky makes a persuasive case that as israel intensified its occupation, palestinians moved closer to accommodation, creating a "political threat" to israel that resulted in israel's successive invasions of lebanon, for the purpose of eliminating the PLO as a political threat.

one of the strengths of the book is that it goes beyond the standard analysis of US-israel relations through state policy, and examines in great detail the attitudes of american media and intellectuals towards israel, the palestinians and arabs more generally. chomsky finds that the american intellectual establishment - liberal and conservative alike - adopts an almost worshipful attitude towards the jewish state, dismissing or ignoring the viewpoints and concerns of palestinians, arabs, pro-peace israelis and humanitarian opinion more generally. in this respect, chomsky argues, the attitudes of the american intellectual establishment at the time of his writing mirrors the attitudes of the american intelligentsia towards soviet russia in the 1930's. the media's reporting is found to be similarly biased. the great detail in which this is documented makes the book a good reference on this subject, though an update would be welcome. (another good book on the subject is "blaming the victims", edited by edward said and christopher hitchens.)

similarly, chomsky doesn't just analyze US-israel relations in terms of the israeli state, but also discusses israeli intellectuals, the peace camp and other social sectors.

the discussion of the US state's backing of israel is the part of the analysis most up for challenge, in my opinion. chomsky attributes the backing mostly to america's geopolitical interest in middle eastern oil. this point of view has been challenged by others who have written about the power of the pro-israel lobby. given that the focus of the book is on U.S.-israel relations, chomsky might have spent some more time addressing this point of view.

an important feature of "the fateful triangle" is its incredibly density. this means that it's rich in material, but also that it's a tough slog. i wouldn't necessarily recommend a thorough reading of this book, unless you are interested in all the details. instead, read the parts that interest you most, and familiarize yourself with its contents by skimming the rest of the books. its main value is as a reference.

chomsky's books all share the same defining characterisic: rant. his arguments are irrational, his logic arcane, and his conclusions so far afield of history and sociology that one must conclude that he is quite literally trapped inside of his own ideology.

He effectively ignores facts that undermine or countervail his pre-conceived notions, he cherry-picks those facts that fit his ideology, no matter how few and far between they may be, and he de-contextualizes those facts so that he can interpret them any way he wants.

even the most cursory and superficial review of his book leads the reader to conclude that either he is psychotic, or a truly evil person.

david Meir-Levi

In my earlier review, I didn't know as much about Chomsky's other historical views as I do now. One that I find particularly disturbing is his position on Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge. Chomsky goes to great lengths to whitewash the Khmer Rouge's genocide against the Cambodian people--undoubtedly one of the worst genocides of the century--claiming that the death toll may have only been in the thousands. This raises an obvious question: Why?

Is it that he thinks that Cambodians inherently matter less than Palestinians, or that left wing atrocities should be viewed with greater tolerance than other atrocities? Either way, this should create misgivings in the mind of anyone who approaches the Palestine/Israel conflict from a huminitarian perspective, not least because Chomsky uses the same manipulative tactics in both cases. (E.g. To support his low-ball death toll in Cambodia, he cites a reputable magazine, only it turns out that he is really just citing a letter from a reader, not the magazine itself. Somewhat comparably, in Triangle, he treats reports from state-run Arab presses like gospel--when they support his position (as they often seem to).)

One of the most interesting features of the history of the Palestine/Israel conflict has received little attention. It is the fact--or seeming fact--that neither side has any reason to believe it wouldn't have done (more or less) what the other side did, if the situation had been reversed. There is nothing in the history of the Middle East that suggests that Arab populations would have morally repudiated the idea of aggressively colonizing an already-inhabited region and taking over, as the Zionists took over Palestine. And there is nothing to suggest that the Zionists wouldn't have strenuously and violently resisted such aggressive settlement, if they were in the Palestinians' position. The fascinating thing is that both sides appear implicitly to have recognized as much. This seems to me to be the right place to begin discussion of this topic.