Take a photo of a barcode or cover
books_ergo_sum 's review for:
On Palestine
by Ilan Pappé, Noam Chomsky
reflective
Ngl, this was unbearably moderate and limited by its liberal framework.
The essays and interviews were clear and readable. Pappé had consistently good contributions (those three stars are for him). But man, Chomsky was not it.
There were two Chomskys in here. Part 1 Chomsky, written before the 2014 bombings of Gaza, where he had a ‘not all men’-style defense of Zionism, hesitated to call it apartheid, and used utilitarianism to assess ‘good’ activism. Plus some nonsense about how a two-state solution leads to a single state because economic cooperation erodes borders? Sure, Jan 👀
And then there was Part 2 Chomsky, with an essay thoroughly critiquing Israel’s treatment of Gaza, even calling it genocide (though offering no solution beyond a moral obligation to apply human rights in a religion-blind way).
The two Chomskys had me questioning the book’s ontology. Is it cynical to say he changed because post-2014, these arguments were more publicly palatable? He did stress that pro-Palestine activism should be proportional to public knowledge and sentiment…
Idk… maybe Chomsky’s strategy read as pragmatism in 2015. But it reads as complicity in 2024. I kept wondering: was this an activism stepping stone, or a false start? And the cranky part of me thinks it’s the latter.
Call me crazy, but if you’re going to situate yourself at the forefront of a pro-Palestinian movement Chomsky, you gotta have compassion for Palestinians. Not dispassionately and uncritically say the way forward is either a “rotten solution” (an unfair two-state arrangement) or the current plan, that Palestinians “can mostly rot, or maybe flee” which Has. Aged. Like. Milk.
Human rights are great and all. But pushing for moderation in activism to avoid backlashes? That’s no longer the vibe. I wanted to be charitable, say this moderate discourse has its place in the UN perhaps. But the last chapter was literally Chomsky’s speech to the UN—so toothless I’d argue it was less of a scolding and more of an endorsement of the status quo. And that ain’t activism.
The essays and interviews were clear and readable. Pappé had consistently good contributions (those three stars are for him). But man, Chomsky was not it.
There were two Chomskys in here. Part 1 Chomsky, written before the 2014 bombings of Gaza, where he had a ‘not all men’-style defense of Zionism, hesitated to call it apartheid, and used utilitarianism to assess ‘good’ activism. Plus some nonsense about how a two-state solution leads to a single state because economic cooperation erodes borders? Sure, Jan 👀
And then there was Part 2 Chomsky, with an essay thoroughly critiquing Israel’s treatment of Gaza, even calling it genocide (though offering no solution beyond a moral obligation to apply human rights in a religion-blind way).
The two Chomskys had me questioning the book’s ontology. Is it cynical to say he changed because post-2014, these arguments were more publicly palatable? He did stress that pro-Palestine activism should be proportional to public knowledge and sentiment…
Idk… maybe Chomsky’s strategy read as pragmatism in 2015. But it reads as complicity in 2024. I kept wondering: was this an activism stepping stone, or a false start? And the cranky part of me thinks it’s the latter.
Call me crazy, but if you’re going to situate yourself at the forefront of a pro-Palestinian movement Chomsky, you gotta have compassion for Palestinians. Not dispassionately and uncritically say the way forward is either a “rotten solution” (an unfair two-state arrangement) or the current plan, that Palestinians “can mostly rot, or maybe flee” which Has. Aged. Like. Milk.
Human rights are great and all. But pushing for moderation in activism to avoid backlashes? That’s no longer the vibe. I wanted to be charitable, say this moderate discourse has its place in the UN perhaps. But the last chapter was literally Chomsky’s speech to the UN—so toothless I’d argue it was less of a scolding and more of an endorsement of the status quo. And that ain’t activism.