[CrashList] CHOMSKY REPLIES TO CRITICISMS

[Borba100 at aol.com]

On Wednesday I wrote an open letter to Noam Chomsky concerning his statements 
that the Serbian government has committed war crimes,  and the effect of 
these attacks, which,  I think, merely parrot media lies, on the potential 
antiwar movement.  This criticism has generated debate on various email 
lists. The debate has been posted widely outside those lists.

Yesterday Noam Chomsky responded.  I answered. He replied to my answer last 
night and I wrote back today.  I believe these issues are most important for 
the antiwar movement.  

FIRST REPLY FROM NOAM CHOMSKY

Subj:    Re: Fwd: Is it not slander because it is said by Chomsky?
Date:   09/05/2000 3:22:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From:   chomsky at MIT.EDU (Noam Chomsky)
To: JaredI at aol.com (by way of Noam Chomsky <JaredI at aol.com>)

Dear Jared,

I think you are aware of the fact that in the past 10 years the Milosevic
regime has committed many crimes.

The statement you quote is from a forum, where I rejected the charges made
by a questioner against the Milosevic regime.  In that context there is no
need whatsoever to add an essay documenting every factual statement that is
made.

Noam

FIRST ANSWER BY JARED ISRAEL
Subj:   Re: Is it not slander because it is said by Chomsky?
Date:   09/06/2000 3:15:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From:   <A HREF="mailto:JaredI">JaredI</A>
To: <A HREF="mailto:chomsky at MIT.EDU">chomsky at MIT.EDU</A>

Dear Noam,

In a message dated 09/05/2000 3:22:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, you wrote:

<< 
 I think you are aware of the fact that in the past 10 years the Milosevic
 regime has committed many crimes.
  >>

"The fact that"?  Who said it was a fact?  You construct a sentence that 
asserts as given the truth of the very thing which in my note I said was a 
lie.  Clever.

Noam, I have been reading your stuff for a long time and I am not a dope.  I 
am "aware of the fact" that you have repeatedly charged Milosevich AND "The 
Serbs" with criminal actions, e.g., atrocities against civilians. Your 
sentences are routinely constructed so as to assert the truth of your 
charges, despite no proof. Your writing has "in fact" had a negative effect 
on the left, such as it is, cooling antiwar passions and hindering the 
creation of a serious antiwar movement.

The burden of proof cannot be escaped by tricky wording or sloppiness. 

I repeat, what crimes has Milosevich committed in Kosovo, Bosnia, Croatia?  
Date or dates, place or places.  Details.  Prove the credibility of your 
sources.  I think you just parrot what's written in the mass media.

Jared 

SECOND REPLY FROM NOAM CHOMSKY

Subj:    Re: Is it not slander because it is said by Chomsky?
Date:   09/06/2000 9:28:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From:   chomsky at MIT.EDU (Noam Chomsky)
To: JaredI at aol.com (by way of Noam Chomsky <JaredI at aol.com>)

Dear Jared,

Apologies.  I didn't realize you thought that Milosevic's regime was alone
in the world in not having committed many crimes.

If you think I'm going to take time to discuss this topic with you, think
again.  There are serious things to do.

Noam

SECOND REPLY FROM JARED ISRAEL

Subj:   Regarding your unserious note, Noam
Date:   09/07/2000 6:18:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From:   <A HREF="mailto:JaredI">JaredI</A>
To: <A HREF="mailto:chomsky at MIT.EDU">chomsky at MIT.EDU</A>

Dear Noam,

Yesterday you wrote me:

<<  Apologies.  I didn't realize you thought that Milosevic's regime was alone
 in the world in not having committed many crimes.  >>

What's the point of the sarcasm, Noam? You cannot avoid the serious questions 
I and others have raised about your writing on Yugoslavia by resorting to 
mockery. 

Your writing is full of explicit accusations such as: ""By  summer [1998], 
the KLA had taken over about 40 per cent of the province, eliciting  a 
vicious reaction by Serb security forces and paramilitaries, TARGETING THE 
CIVILIAN POPULATION." (el Ahram, June 2000, my emphasis) 

Obviously you are not talking about every government in the world. You are 
claiming that the Yugoslav government made certain choices.  That is, faced 
with an isolated terrorist group (which the KLA was until after the onset of 
NATO bombing convinced key Albanian clan leaders that the KLA had the full 
support of NATO)  - given that the Yugoslavs were faced with an isolated 
terrorist gang the Yugoslavs could a) do everything possible to avoid 
civilian casualties or b) take it out on civilians, thus guaranteeing support 
for the KLA.

The Yugoslav Army has an unusual history.  It's doctrine is based on the 
expectation of conducting a mass-based resistance to a new attack from the 
West, an attack which they anticipated for 50 years. This army studied the 
tactics of conducting a war of resistance. 

Now whether one likes or dislikes armies per se, this particular army grasps 
the key role played by popular support (and antagonism!)  in warfare.  Why 
would they make such a stupid mistake as to target the civilian population 
when they were fighting a (then)  isolated gang of dope smuggling fascists?

Moreover, as you have known for a year, the antiwar movement possesses a 
number of documents from the German Courts and Foreign Ministry, documents 
produced in response to the requests by Kosovo Albanians to receive the 
status of political refugees.  The German courts studied the situation in 
Kosovo and ruled in every case that there was no evidence - none - that the 
Yugoslav Army targeted civilians.  The Humanitarian Crisis was manufactured 
by Western officials and the mass media to justify Western demands that the 
Yugoslav special troops leave Kosovo - Yugoslav territory.

All this was known to you a year ago.  Every website that opposed the bombing 
of Yugoslavia featured those documents.  I believe that even the Z website, 
stronghold of Serb bashing within the antiwar movement, posted those 
documents.  Why then, a year after the end of the war, after Carla Del Ponte 
admitted in mid November that they had found a grand total of 2108 bodies 
whose identities were unknown - that is, that these bodies, which they 
allegedly found, could be anyone - why did you write in June, 2000 that the 
Yugoslav Army targeted Albanian civilians?  This is not a trivial matter, 
Noam.

And this is only one of the times you made statements which uncritically 
parroted what we have been told by the Western media.  This particular 
statement was written in an Arab publication - particularly harmful since the 
Western media tries to convince Arabs of the lie that "the Serbs" are 
anti-Muslim bigots. 

You say: <<If you think I'm going to take time to discuss this topic with 
you, think
again.  There are serious things to do.>>. 

What could be more serious than whether Yugoslavia has  committed serious 
crimes of war?  What could be more serious then whether you have, in fact, 
publicly lied with the effect of discouraging action by antiwar activists?

A year ago you sent me the following email post:

Date:   5/12/99 10:40:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From:   chomsky at MIT.EDU
To: JaredI at AOL.COM
CC: chomsky at MIT.EDU
Dear Jared,
I guess I feel I've known you for many years, even if we haven't
actually met (so you tell me; I would have guessed otherwise).

Thanks for the text of the speech [I had sent you Milosevic's speech, made in 
1989 at Kosovo Field], which I'd never seen. 
Interesting.  On the "demonization," it's actually been conceded. 
An article in the Times a few weeks ago, which I'm sure I kept,
observed that "demonization" of Milosevic was necessary in order
to maintain public support for the bombing.
Noam

[End of last year's email from Noam to Jared]

Now Noam, if you knew way back then that demonizing Milosevich is critical in 
order to maintain public support for the attack on Yugoslavia, why have you 
persistently demonized him and the Serbian people and Yugoslav army?

For example, during the bombing you wrote:

"The bombing was then undertaken under the rational expectation that KILLING 
and refugee generation would ESCALATE as a result, as indeed happened, even 
if the scale may have come as a surprise to some, though apparently not the 
commanding general. " (This is from a piece you wrote and posted in May, 1999 
on the Z website, my emphasis)

I have done text analysis of several of your articles about Yugoslavia and 
the above excerpt demonstrates a technique you employ over and over. In 
brief, you attack the Yugoslavs in the guise of either defending them or 
attacking NATO.  

Thus, here you say that the NATO commanding general obviously knew how 
terribly the Serbs would react.  Posing your point in this form seems to be a 
criticism of NATO; this lends it credibility on the left.  But what you are 
really doing is taking the "commanding general's" statement - that the 
bombing DID precipitate escalated Serbian atrocities - as axiomatic: true 
without requirement of proof.  Indeed, you assert the truth of NATO's charge 
in passing, using it as the basis of your false 
criticism of NATO.

Now, your claim to fame is media criticism.  You opposed the Vietnam War.  
Why does an antiwar activist, who studies the media, and who knows - who has 
told me he knows - that demonization "is critical in order to maintain public 
support for" the attack on Yugoslavia - why does such a person fail to even 
question - even question! - the anti-Yugoslav news reports?  Why?  Why, 
during the bombing and since, have your statements even at times lagged 
behind what we are reading in some of the mass publication newspapers? (This 
is the case with the El Ahram article which was contradicted by the German 
Court and Foreign Ministry documents over a year ago!)

If these are trivial questions then what is serious?

Jared