- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Nor does he fall into the category of pop. lit. lions like Vonnegut that I was dissing. Anyway, back to the interesting Blankfort vs. Chomsky thing. First of all, Blankfort is Jewish, and a pillar of San Francisco activism. So we can forget about Electro Robot here. And hopefully we can forget about that person who just posted about Platonistic elite bankers running communism etc.
I think Blankfort is wrong in thinking that Chomsky's never-outgrown youthful zionism is the reason for the protectsia provided to him by the US liberal elite. As I said, I think it is precisely the fact that Chomsky's "solution" is no solution at all, but a wishy washy formless anarchist fantasy, that makes him valuable, since he drains off anti imperialist energy that would otherwise find more dangerous forms. I know Jeff, and I have tried to discuss this with him, because we exchanged a lot of emails during a period when we were both on a busy email list, but he isn't a great one for theory one way or the other.
The fact that Chomsky's zionist weaknesses offer themselves as an explanation for his ineffectuality is no accident, though. It is yet another example of how Jewish issues continually find their way into the scapegoat position for whatever real contradictions may exist in the larger world. This is a tragic and recurring phenomenon, and as I said Hannah Arendt provides a whole row of instances, ranging from the Jewish role in feudalism through to the Jewish role in communism. Zionism as scapegoat is just another in a long, tragic chain, and that explains why I can recommend reading Jeff Blankfort's essay on Chomsky and simultaneously go on being a zionist myself. It's a long dark corridor that I'm walking, and I don't really expect it to get any lighter.
