News
Chomsky calls for new U.S. relations with Iran
Renowned scholar offers altered plan to downtown crowd
KATE BRENNER/Herald photo
Chomsky speaks to a sold-out Orpheum Tuesday about American relations with the Middle East.
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Signe Brewster:
- Recession not bad for all (July 18, 2009)
- Doyle signs state budget by deadline (July 3, 2009)
- Legislature passes budget compromise (June 26, 2009)
- Two teens charged in homicide on Southwest side (June 11, 2009)
- Strange man enters dorm rooms of 8 females in Witte Hall (May 7, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Renowned scholar Noam Chomsky told a crowd at the Orpheum Theater Tuesday the United States must pay close attention to inconsistencies in its own practices and those of other countries when making policy decisions in the Middle East.
Chomsky lectured on the ongoing conflict between Palestine and Israel as the keynote address in a lecture series hosted by the University of Wisconsin Middle Eastern Studies Program. He spoke in front of a sold-out theater, where enthusiastic audience members greeted him with a standing ovation.
Several times, he emphasized the debate should not be if Israel was justified in using force toward Palestine, as it is “transparent” they did not first exhaust all means of peaceful reconciliation.
While Chomsky discussed past relations between the United States and Middle East extensively, noting instances that have built up to the current rocky relations the country has with nations in the region, he focused especially on President Barack Obama’s administration.
He said changes in policy will be critical, though Obama’s agenda is not yet clear due to a lack of discussion during his campaign and action since taking office.
Chomsky discussed an address made March 20 in which Obama offered a fresh start for relations with Iran.
Under Obama’s extension of diplomatic relations, Iran would have to meet terms such as giving up its arms and practices of terror before the U.S. would enter into negotiations, which according to Chomsky are terms the U.S. should reciprocate to be taken seriously.
UW history professor Jeremi Suri said this is not at all a hypocritical policy for the U.S. to follow.
“It could and will set off a major nuclear arms race in the Middle East. If Iran goes nuclear, it will illicit reactions … and that makes everyone’s situation quite worse,” Suri said.
Suri said Iran may be the United States’ best option to pursue better relations with the Middle East, although building a relationship will require hard work over an extended period of time.
“It requires consistency and it requires hard work from now on, not simply waiting for one moment of crisis,” Suri said. “The opportunity that has been missed (by working with Israel) is to act as an … honest broker and an alliance builder.”
Overall, Chomsky said he is encouraged by what he says is a standard acceptance that injustice is occurring in Palestine and emphasized a need for action.
“We don’t have to watch silently as our government implements … the systematic murder of a nation at our hands, and it is on our hands,” Chomsky said.
UW sophomores Keegan Elmer and Min Yoon attended Chomsky’s lecture, and both said it reframed their view of conflict in the Middle East.
While the Israeli-Palestinian debate has a heated following on the UW campus through various student organizations, Elmer and Yoon said the presence of the debate among students could be bigger and more accessible.
11 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Brother Ali makes an ‘Exclusive’ stop
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
Chomsky is a has-been who should be placed in a nursing home! He is senile and an anarchist. And who cares about Iran anymore?
Why does Noam Chomsky expect us to be so obsessed with the conflict in the Middle East when we have so many problems here at home? I think this Chomsky dude should move to Iran if he cares so much.
Chomsky is the voice of reason that zionist brainwashed audience have a hard time to accept. try altnewzDOTcom
Chomsky was speaking primarily about Israel and Palestine (NOT Iran). As to why Americans should care about conflict in the Middle East: as soon as we pull all of our troops, money, and military support out of the region, then we can stop caring.
This article completely downplays the issue of Palestine (discussed extensively by Chomsky) and is clearly written by someone who only has a passing familiarity with the Middle East.
This paper is a joke.
It’s worth noting that the event wasn’t sold out. I called ahead, fifteen minutes into the performance, to check if I’d still be able to get a ticket. I was told there were more than enough, and the second-floor balcony was half-full at best. The talk was very interesting, although I felt kind of bad that the presenters brought up the death of his wife several times, then referred to him as “the older generation.” I was a little disappointed in Madison’s somewhat weird reaction to Prof. Chomsky on stage…
Chomsky wants the U.S. to give up its arms and acts of terror? The U.S. is a stable country with arms used for defense against attacks form the middle east. With the removal of George Bush, our weapons are in much safer hands. And worrying about Isreal and Palestine, and Iran should be about the 2nd to last thing on Obama’s agenda. Lets look at some important issues like the economy, ending the war, and health care.
Is this author ever going to write an article anyone wants to read?
While the Israeli-Palestinian debate has a heated following on the UW campus through various student organizations, Elmer and Yoon said the presence of the debate among students could be bigger and more accessible.
No, it doesn’t. No one on this campus really cares.
Journalist Philip Weiss on the Neoconservative agenda:
“In terms of their politics, they were almost all Democrats and then as soon as the Democratic party suggested that it wasn’t going to have a strong military, Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol, the grandfathers of this movement, they went Republican. Why? Because they said, back in the 70’s, a strong American military is needed to protect Israel.”
Download an mp3 of Phil saying the above here (9:45 minutes in) http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/07/12/philip-weiss/
Watch the BBC documentary “The War Party”, part 1 of 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vWZTTrceV8
Read Phil’s blog on the Neocons, AIPAC, Israel/Palestine @ www.philipweiss.org
You think Chomsky is a has-been and senile? Would you wager one million dollars to debate him on a topic of your choice (something serious, not dungeons & dragons). I will supply the cash to the winner immediately, and the loser has to sew his mouth shut….