Noam Chomsky Denied Entry By Israel

Israeli authorities barred leading American intellectual Noam Chomsky entry into Israeli-controlled territory. Chomsky is a critic of Israeli policies and recently Israel has been denying entry to such critics, including United Nations officials, here..

The American linguist and philosopher was held for hours of questioning Sunday by Israeli officials before being forced to return to the Jordanian capital, Amman. He recounted how an Israeli official at the border told him, “Israel does not like what you say.” He responded “Find one government in the world which does.”

After international outcry, Israel is now saying that it was a mistake.

For the full story, click here.

48 thoughts on “Noam Chomsky Denied Entry By Israel”

  1. I don’t remember anyone affiliate with the SPLC or the ADL slamming planes into buildings, or sending suicide bombers into a crowded marketplace.

    If memory serves me correctly, there are approximately one billion Muslims in the world. If they all subscribed to the more extremist version of Islam, life as we know it would have ceased to be long ago.

    Well, if we’re going to generalize, I’ll give it a shot. I guess all Christians can be classified as jihadists as well since it’s Christians who bomb abortion clinics, shoot doctors, nurses and innocent bystanders, and claim that God decreed that not only is the US a Christian nation, but is a country where the white race reigns supreme. Ooo, don’t get me started on the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland …

  2. Gyges,

    That’s the presupposition of all verbal and written communication.

    …until proven otherwise

  3. Woosty,

    That’s the presupposition of all verbal and written communication.

  4. Mike Appleton:

    You are right and wrong. Yes, you have to rely on my words, but moreover you have to rely on intelligent questions to clarify your interpretation of them.

    A simple question like: Tootie, do you hate blacks, or Hispanics. or Homosexuals is all that is necessary to clear things up. I’m sorry, but you’ll have to give me the benefit of the doubt on that because hate isn’t something you can be sure of unless it is admitted.

    Moreover, a person can hate and not murder; and a person doesn’t have to hate TO murder. So hate doesn’t even have to be toxic and isn’t necessarily bad. It is merely being used by the left to destroy people they (by their own definition) hate.

    Indeed, it is good to hate Nazism.

    So hate is not what leftists think it means.

    Hate is a slippery weapon and I’m not going to let others define it for me or accuse me of it without applying THEIR method of using it back on them.

    It is not fair to read into my words whatever you want unless I get the right to do the same to you and everyone else. And if you abuse that, I’m going to turn the tables back on you. But this is not the best method for the pursuit of truth.

    I am grateful that Mr Turley lets us expound at length here as it better eliminates these interpretive mistakes. At most sites, there is a word limit and that causes a good deal of misunderstanding.

    On another post (the Heather Has Two Mommies Post), had Buddha wanted to have a civil conversation about my opinions instead of lobbing ad homimens, I’d have told her I thought the Catholic school had the right, or ought to have the right, to reject children coming from families in which a parent was having an open sexual affair. But Buddha is blinded by her own “issues” and we never even got that far. It had to be that I was a homophobe.

    Buddha, and leftists in general, have total amnesia about how this homosexual issue developed in the conservative community. It started decades ago during the sexual revolution (in the 1950s and 1960s) when all the complaints about the sexual revolution were being lobbed at HETEROSEXUAL promiscuity.

    Homosexual issues weren’t really on the radar screen at that time. The anti-homosexual attitude was a logical outworking of the anti-heterosexual promiscuity issue. And that means it isn’t the “hate” and “phobic” issue left wingers make it out to be in order to injure those who are worried about such matters.

    So the complaint about homosexuality is a logical extension about decades long complaint about heterosexual promiscuity, AND NOT A HATE DRIVEN BIGOTED SCHEME TO DESTROY HOMOSEXUALS.

    Conservatives were proven right in the past about the problems of heterosexual misconduct. It leads to broken families, disease, crime, poverty, and expensive social programs. It destabilizes a civilization.

    Wouldn’t you say we are destablized enough so far?

    Toynbee confirms this. JD Unwin does. And Peter Sorokin. Conservatives weren’t just making this stuff up to be hateful.If leftists had any integrity, they would admit that conservatives were right about heterosexual promiscuity. But please don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

    And if I interpreted lawyers words the way they might want to interpret mine, I could easily say they wanted heterosexual promiscuity and every other social ill because it lines their pockets with wealth.

    But I won’t say that. And I don’t believe it is true. Not, many, anyhow.

    Truly well-educated people know that even at their best, words NEVER achieve the precision we hope to impart. So this isn’t just about me saying things (badly or “goodly”) which others might misinterpret, it is about the unavoidable flaws in human communication through language, our ability or inability to understand others, and our willingness to better get at the bottom of what another is saying.

    In other words, your interpretation of my words are as fragile as my sentence structures. That is why ACTIONS are more important than words. To say that from my words you can assume I’m a hater, a racist, or a homophobe when I disclaim such accusations and disapprove of them AND you have no evidence to prove these charges by actions taken in my personal life makes you or anyone else more a raving lunatic that I’m being judged to be.

    Bill Clinton and leftists in general want to take right-winger words and make them equivalent to actions. This is a very dangerous thing. It leads to despotism and murder and the left won’t escape what the monster they have created. Everyone needs to calm down.

    The left feels it owns the language. That is why the left possesses all manner of stupid organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti Defamation League, and so forth. These are folks who specialize in destroying people with words. Their good purpose has long ago ceased (but they still need to make oodles of money!).

    I tell you this, they are as Islamic in nature as any jihadist is because they render the words of their opponent as being akin to blasphemy. Instead of beheading, they ruin careers and incomes through their own self-appointed “interpretations” of others’ words. They are as intolerant as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and they don’t see it.

    The left’s attack on speech is the same as Islams.

  5. wee bit of an aside,

    Mike Appleton says;
    “A person of ordinary intelligence has the ability to discern an attitude of hatred in another by virtue of the tone, structure and choice of language used by the other in expressing his or her thoughts.”

    presupposing that the speaker is both emotionally honest and not manipulating in either their discourse or goal, don’t you think?

  6. On a blog such as this, we do not have the advantage of seeing each other and “reading” the emotions conveyed by our bodies. We must rely solely on words. Words used in ordinary discourse are properly given their ordinary meanings. Otherwise, the concept of a common language would itself have no meaning. In other words, we don’t get to define the words we use; my subjective intent in using words such as “hate” and “detest” is immaterial. Neither liberals nor conservatives define words. We have dictionaries for that. My dictionary, Webster’s Collegiate, is considered to be a standard and reputable source for authoritative definitions. The entry in my dictionary under the noun “hate” includes the phrases “intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger or sense of injury,” “extreme dislike or antipathy” and “emotional aversion often coupled with enmity or malice.” The verb “hate” means, among other things, “to express or feel extreme enmity or active hostility.”

    A person of ordinary intelligence has the ability to discern an attitude of hatred in another by virtue of the tone, structure and choice of language used by the other in expressing his or her thoughts. The overwhelming force of the opinions posted by Tootie on this site, regardless of subject matter, describes a deeply angry person who genuinely fears that the collapse of western civilization as she understands it is imminent, that that collapse is the desired outcome of a movement populated largely by liberals to destroy her particular brand of Christianity and the Christian values which she believes form the foundation of this country. She expresses her fear through hostile attacks on anything representing the “other,” including Muslims, Democrats, non-whites dedicated to mongrelization of the races (miscegenation as genocide), promoters of “social justice” and other adherents to policies favoring the common welfare over narrower interests.

    Sorry, Tootie, you can insist that only you get to determine what you mean by the words that you use, but that’s not how human communication works. Your insistence that you don’t “hate” anyone is a form of self-deception borne of your belief that to feel hatred toward another (as opposed to a belief or an action) is wrong. But the intensity and bitterness in your posts betray you. Hatred virtually oozes from your words.

  7. LMAO – too precious! Yup, I touched a nerve … thanks for confirming, Toots!!

Comments are closed.