[A4ET8a8uTh0]

I don't often respond to claims like these, but I think it might be necessary to in this case. I am not sure what sources you used to inform those claims, but I will simply say that in both cases both are misleading.

Noam Chomsky is a lot of things, but 'genocide denier' label is at best inaccurate and, more importantly, does not automatically make him wrong on any other issue. I get that character assassination works well, but this is HN, where stuff like that will be called out.

"That was only very recently codified and was very controversial inside and outside of Israel.

Very recently as in 'in the UN assembly resolution authorizing the creation of Israel' (1947) or the 1985 basic law etc."

I think parent is referring to this piece of legislation[1]. I might be wrong, but if not, that would strike me as recent.

[1]https://www.vox.com/world/2018/7/31/17623978/israel-jewish-n...

[yyyk]

The quote in question provides no sources beyond that Chomsky said it (no direct sources or anything). So the question of Chomsky's credibility is important, and well, Chomsky's own record in the Balkans and earlier in Cambodia speaks for itself.

>I think parent is referring to this piece of legislation

I believe you are right, but the particular issue parent's objecting to is not new at all [EDIT: Note that parent clarified his position in a later comment].

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

I will admit that I don't follow him closely enough to know his stance on either Balkans or Cambodia. If you can share any sources, I would not mind learning a little more.

That said, I accept your argument that credibility is relevant. Not to search very far, if we accept him as some sort of authority on geopolitical matters, is he wrong, say, about US-Iraq relationship? My point is that opinions should not be automatically dismissed or automatically accepted. It should be based on the merits of the argument. And Chomsky can present an interesting argument based on what I heard.

[yyyk]

That's fair enough. We can discuss arguments to a large extent divorced from who made them. This is often useful.

However, the quote in question goes a bit further, Chomsky says Eban started a specific strategy of using antisemitism to Eban's own ends, almost directly paraphrasing something Eban allegedly said. I think I'm entitled to ask what's Chomsky's source, and if there isn't any, than it rests on Chomsky's credibility which, well, isn't very much IMHO.

[EDIT: On the Balkans, you can see Kraut's video on YouTube. This text has similar arguments though:

https://srebrenicagenocide7111995.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/n... ]

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

I followed a chain of links to see if I can pinpoint the origin of the quote, but that only resulted in, as you indicated, in Chomsky's own words[1]. As such, you are right, for that reason his credibility is more relevant since I was not able to verify Eban's words.

Separately, I did some basic googling of Eban quotes and his positions[2] do not seem at odds with the gist of Chomsky's quote though:

"One of the chief tasks of any dialogue with the Gentile world is to prove that the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is not a distinction at all. Anti-Zionism is merely the new anti-Semitism….”

I only started reading the link you provided so it may take a while before I respond.

[1]https://www.democracynow.org/2014/11/27/noam_chomsky_at_unit... [2]https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/11/18/corb-n18.html

[yyyk]

>his positions[2] do not seem at odds with the gist of Chomsky's quote though

I would like to differ slightly. Chomsky has it that Eban wants to tar criticism of Israeli policy as antisemitic* - which leads to the 'oh well, they just accused Corbyn of antisemitism because of his Israel position' argument you see in the comments.

Eban wants to argue against a specific ideological position which at least is aimed at completely modifying the Israeli state (not 'policy criticism') and he has his argument for it - an argument we can safely say Israel has lost in the West. People may defend Israel, but they usually do not consider their opponent antisemitic per se.

* There's also the 'neurotic self-hatred' part, where Eban supposedly is naming Chomsky specifically, but I think we can safely discard that.