CounterPunchTells the Facts and Names the Names $2.50 October 16-31, 2005 Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair VOL. 12, NO. 18

DID LIBBY’S LIES COST The Core of Zionism KERRY THE WHITE BY MICHAEL NEUMANN HOUSE? ANSWER: NO! This month CounterPunch Books publishes Michael Neumann’s The Case Against BY ALEXANDER COCKBURN Israel, a bracing and tightly argued counterblast to the nonsense peddled by Alan Dershowitz in The Case For Israel. What follows is Neumann’s core thesis. We strongly AND JEFFREY ST. CLAIR encourage CounterPunchers to order this book. Call Becky Grant or Deva Wheeler at ow many times can the Democrats 800-840-3683 or email us. See the order form in the CounterPunch appeal, in this Hget away with saying, “Faked intel- newsletter. Incidentally, those CounterPunchers who thought that Dershowitz could ligence! We’re shocked, shocked! If we’d sink no lower after he proposed torture warrants may care know that Yes, the Prof. has only known that, why, we might have sunk deeper into slime. Only his nose now shows. For months he tried to suppress come out against the war in… in… well, Norman Finkelstein’s onslaught on his rotten book. Rewarded with failure, he claims maybe by November, 2004.” that Norman Finkelstein’s late mother, a concentration camp survivor, was a kapo [that The Democrats are now howling in is, a Nazi collaborator]! AC/JSC. Congress for yet another investigation into hat matters for an understand exhibited a form of racism that, though rep- the fictions the Bush administration engi- ing of the Israel/Palestine con rehensible, was not particularly virulent. It, neered to justify the attack on Iraq in 2003. Wflict is what the expression ‘a therefore, does not seem particularly fruit- This follows on their forcing of a “closed Jewish state’ would mean to any reason- ful to examine whether Zionism was racism. debate” in the Senate on the failure of able person. What, in particular, could the When a state is described in relation to Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas to deliver Palestinians reasonably expect when they the territory it controls, its ethnic character the second part of his report on intelligence heard that such a state was to be estab- is open. The French state is not necessarily failures before the invasion. lished in Palestine? a state for some ethnic group called French- We can understand why the Democrats The state itself – the human community men, just as the Belgian or Yugoslav or Ja- are spinning their wheels in what must by – is, everywhere in the world, an absolute maican state weren’t states for ethnic groups now be the most exhaustively documented dictator bound neither by morality nor by of that name. But a Catholic state would be chronicle of government deception in the law. Even in the most impeccable democ- a state run by Catholics; a black state would history of the Republic. These endless in- racy, there are ways to institute anything be a state run by blacks; a heterosexual state vestigations help them avoid the more humans can do to one another. Frequently, would be run by heterosexuals. This could challenging question of where they now as in the case of the democratic Weimar hardly be clearer: what would be Catholic stand on a war to which over 60 per cent Republic of Germany, just invoking emer- or black or heterosexual about a state not of the American people are now opposed. gency legislation is quite enough to open the run by at least some members of those As a matter of record, as readers of gates of hell. groups? CounterPunch well know, by the fall of For the Zionists to demand a state, any When, as in the post-World-War-I era, 2002 the fakery about Saddam’s supposed state, was therefore no small thing for any- the ideology of self-determination added to drive from the late 1990s to acquire nu- one – like the Palestinians – falling within the picture, the expectation develops further. clear weapons and the alleged alliance with its proposed boundaries. But what the Zion- Now it is that ethnic states would be run not Al Qaeda had been exposed as fictions. ists demanded was a Jewish state. Whether just by members of their ethnic groups, but By early 2003 the CIA/UNSCOM this was racism is not of any immediate con- in some sense by those ethnic groups them- debriefings of Saddam’s son-in-law, cern. For one thing, to say that something is selves. At the very least, such states would Hussein Kamel had surfaced in Newsweek. racist is not, for many people, immediately be governed in the name of those group In the 1995 debriefing in Amman, Kamel, to say that it is unjustified: there are those, members in the area. This would amount to the man who ran Saddam’s WMD pro- for instance, who accept affirmative action something more than a formality. Thus, an gram, detailed his compliance with as ’reverse’ racism yet still defend it. For Armenian state would be not simply have Saddam’s orders in the early 1990s to de- another, the project might have begun as Armenian rulers. These rulers would truly stroy everything in Iraq’s WMD arsenal. racist yet outgrown its racism by instituting govern in the name of Armenians. They The Clinton administration knew of these sufficient protections for non-Jews. Or it would not just claim to act for their Ar- (Libby continued on page 2) might not have outgrown it altogether, but (Zionism continued on page 3) 2/COUNTERPUNCH debriefs too, but simply tightened sanctions If Libby had simply told the truth, people like Rove, conceivably David and persisted in spreading the myth about Fitzgerald would have indicted Libby and Addington, who is known to be ferociously Saddam’s efforts to build up Iraq’s WMD Rove in a deluge of publicity that would have savage to those who oppose his view, or con- program. cost Bush the election. ceivably John Hannah.) All of this remains The Democrats plainly feel they can run The problem with this theory is that in the bosom of the future, of course. But if their current game of Gotcha! right through there’s no evidence that Fitzgerald would Fitzgerald was telling the truth about the to the midterm elections and maybe even have brought any indictments in late 2004 need to learn underlying purposes during an the trial of Scooter Libby, with Vice Presi- on the leaking of Plame’s name. He could investigation — and so far he has given the dent Cheney on the witness stand being have, and most likely would have, closed up impression of being one of the few involved grilled by Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. shop without even issuing a report. After all, in high level Washington matters who does Nixon’s White House lawyer, John a year later, there were no counts in Libby’s not prevaricate or lie — then there is bound Dean, is arguing somewhat persuasively indictment addressing the substantive mat- to be more to come. As the reporters say, from a close reading of the indictment and ter of breaches in the law, part of U.S. Title stay tuned. ensuing press conference that Fitzgerald 18, criminalizing the naming CIA employ- The indictment says that Libby’s law- has Cheney in his sights and his likely in- ees. Even though his indictment of Libby yer was present at two meetings in which tent to throw the Espionage Act at Cheney sketches out a conspiracy, Fitzgerald did not Libby was questioned by and lied to the FBI. for divulging to Libby, his chief of staff, avail himself of this legal lasso relished by Did Libby’s lawyer know the truth, sit there Valerie Plame’s employment by the CIA. all prosecutors. quietly while listening to Libby lie, and never Barely had Fitzgerald stepped away Fitzgerald may well have concluded that subsequently insure that Libby recanted his from the microphone after his press confer- the outing of Plame by Libby and Rove sim- lies? This is hard to believe because, if it ence the day his grand jury handed down ply wasn’t a crime, which means there would were true, the lawyer could be severely pun- the indictment of Libby before liberal col- have been no history changing indictments ished, conceivably even disbarred. umnists like Tom Oliphant of the Boston in late 2004. It was only by the fall of 2005 Or did the lawyer not know the truth? Globe and Robert Scheer of the Los Ange- that Fitzgerald got Cooper of Time maga- Had Libby lied to him too, or was the law- les Times were seizing on one of Fitzgerald’s zine and Judith Miller of the New York Times yer ignorant of the truth because he had not remarks that if Libby had not lied, his in- to testify to the grand jury. Indeed it was only even prepared Libby for the meeting with vestigation would have been over in Octo- when the New York Times turned over Mill- the FBI, had not demanded that Libby show ber of 2004, on the eve of the presidential er’s notebook the Libby’s indictment for per- him relevant documents, and did not know election. jury, lying and obstruction of justice became before the interview what Libby was going From this jumping-off point the column- a likelihood. to say? ists concoct the following scenario : Libby So you could argue that maybe the jour- If the lawyer had not prepared Libby, had lied and thus obstructed the investigation in nalists’ refusal to testify saved Bush-Cheney not determined what he was going to say order to drag Fitzgerald’s probe past Elec- in 2004. We don’t agree with that, because and questioned him about it, had not de- tion Day. we don’t think that an indictment of Libby manded to see relevant documents, then he would have prompted enough voters in Ohio was derelict in his performance, I would say. to vote for John Kerry. Editors (Claims that executive privilege make some In fact the Democrats didn’t use or all of this impossible for the lawyer are ALEXANDER COCKBURN JEFFREY ST. CLAIR Plamegate at all in late 2004, any more than just so much cant in my opinion, especially they made an issue of faked intelligence. since the lawyer could be made to agree not Business They simply said they could fight the war to disclose classified information.) BECKY GRANT better. And if the lawyer, for whatever reason, did not know that Libby had lied, what did Design SHOULD LIBBY’S LAWYER BE he do when he found this out, as he must DEBORAH THOMAS have because the prosecutor almost certainly DISBARRED? told him what the charges would be before Counselor BY LAWRENCE VELVEL the indictment was brought, and doubtlessly BEN SONNENBERG Unless there were some such universal gave Libby one or more last chances to clear cover-up, Fitzgerald must know a good deal, the record. When he found it out, did the Published twice monthly except in his role as a prosecutor, about what the August, 22 issues a year: lawyer advise Libby to come clean? Did he, $40 individuals, underlying purpose of the outing was, what rather, in effect say, “Okay Scooter, what- $100 institutions/supporters its basic motivation was. And now that Libby ever you want, we’ll defend it one way or $30 student/low-income has been indicted, the pressure will be on another, regardless of whether it’s true or CounterPunch. him to cut a deal to shorten his sentence, and false”? All rights reserved. possibly to avoid a second indictment on the Several of these possible scenarios in- CounterPunch underlying substantive charge, by revealing volve malpractice and dereliction of duty, PO Box 228 more. There will also be pressure on other especially since a lawyer who investigated Petrolia, CA 95558 Administration figures who are involved to and demanded the truth from the client could 1-800-840-3683 (phone) cut a deal in order to avoid the possibility have headed off a lot of trouble. [email protected] that they may be indicted or listed as Lawrence R. Velvel is the Dean of Mas- www.counterpunch.org unindicted co-conspirators. (One thinks of sachusetts School of Law. 3/COUNTERPUNCH (Zionism continued from page 1) their auspices, came to found a sovereign its notions of cooperation with the Palestin- menian subjects or citizens, but would Jewish state. ians had already become unworkable. Too genuinely rule on their behalf, that is, for In this state, however tolerant, how- much blood had been shed: the 1921 Jaffa their benefit. The Armenian inhabitants ever easygoing, however joyful, however riots had taken 200 Jewish and 120 Pales- might – and from Wilson’s standpoint, liberal, Jews would always have the final tinian lives, followed in 1929 by the killing would – be governed democratically, by say, on everything. Affairs would be run of 207 Jews and 181 Palestinians in Hebron. themselves. If not, one would hope and in the interests of whatever its rulers or A contemporary Jewish comment on the first expect that they would be governed for inhabitants considered the interests of the serious anti-Jewish riots, in 1920, already themselves, or for, in the interests of, Ar- Jewish people. Within that state, the final asserts that in Palestine there was a general menians as a whole. decision on how much force was to be understanding that Zionism would mean a A Jewish state would, therefore, be a used to advance those interests was en- Jewish state, and that this understanding ush- state run by and for Jews. In such a state, tirely in the hands of its Jewish occupants. ered in bloodshed: Jews would be sovereign. The state would This does not have to mean that non-Jews “...we all know how the [Balfour] Dec- be run in their interests. had no representation, no say at all. It does laration was interpreted at the time of its For non-Jews to expect as much was not mean that non-Jews had no civil rights, publication, and how much exaggeration and is, therefore, entirely reasonable. Only or that their human rights would neces- many of our workers and writers have tried a consistent, ongoing, highly public cam- sarily be violated. But it does mean that – to introduce into it from that day to this. The paign to explain that this was certainly not since it is the essence of a Zionist state to Jewish people listened, and believed that the going to happen would be sufficient to be Jewish, run by and for Jews – things end of the galush [exile] had indeed come, dispel this expectation. Nothing remotely would always be arranged so that sover- and that in a short time there would be a like that occurred. So, it is worth review- eignty remained in Jewish hands. This ‘Jewish state.’ The Arab people too... lis- ing what living under Jewish sovereignty might be by law or it might be by political tened, and believed that the Jews were com- must mean. manipulation; it might be de jure or de facto. ing to expropriate its land and do with it what It means that Jews have a monopoly So it would be for Jews alone to decide they liked. All this inevitably led to friction on violence in the areas they control. The whether non-Jews had civil rights, whether and bitterness on both sides, and contributed perceived legitimacy of this monopoly their human rights would be honored, in- to the state of things which was revealed in need go no further than a settled expecta- tion familiar to Star Trek fans: resistance Within its borders, Jews hold the power is futile. A Jewish state is simply a state where Jews are firmly in control and where of life and death over Jews and non- that much is recognized. Within its bor- ders, Jews hold the power of life and death Jews alike. That is the true meaning of over Jews and non-Jews alike. That is the the Zionist project. true meaning of the Zionist project. If that’s what the project is and was, deed whether they would live or die. The all its ugliness in the events at Jerusalem last there are a lot of things it wasn’t. The Jews purpose of establishing a sovereign Jewish April [1920]. “ (Ahad Ja’Am [Asher who came to Palestine as individuals and state may or may not have been domination; Ginzberg], “After the Balfour Declaration”, in small groups had various motives. But that doesn’t matter. That would certainly be 1920, reprinted in Gary Smith, ed., Zionism: the overall direction of the Zionist move- the effect of its establishment. The Dream and the Reality, London 1974.) ment, the ultimate goal to which all these What then of the claims that Zionism The British showed as little capacity or individuals and groups would be directed wasn’t necessarily the demand for a sover- indeed inclination to curb the ethnic violence and the one which it would in fact achieve, eign Jewish state? Certainly, there were peo- as they were to show in India and many other is something else again. Most accounts of ple who called themselves Zionists and who possessions. I know of no case in which co- the settlement do not focus on this ulti- demanded something else, though what it operation between ethnic communities fol- mate purpose, and are therefore mislead- was always remained obscure. There was lowed anytime soon on massacres of this ing. The Zionists and their camp follow- talk of a state; its mechanisms never clearly scale. Third, even most ‘nonexclusive’ Zi- ers did not come simply to settle. They did defined. There was talk of a homeland guar- onists were not distinguished by an explicit not come simply to ‘find a homeland’, anteed by international powers, or simply a renunciation of a Jewish state, but rather by certainly not in the sense that Flanders is homeland. It would be correct to say that a commitment to partition Palestine rather the homeland of the Flemish, or Lappland not all Jewish settlers demanded a Jewish than go for the whole thing. By then, the of the Lapps. They did not come simply state, and that some of these settlers consid- Palestinians correctly saw that the main ten- to ‘make a life in Palestine’. They did not ered themselves Zionists. It would be incor- dency of Zionism was to create a Jewish state come simply to find a refuge from perse- rect to say that the Zionist project or enter- in Palestine, the intentions of a tiny nonex- cution. They did not come to ‘redeem a prise was anything less than an attempt to clusive minority with nebulous plans for people’. All this could have been done establish a Jewish State. some implausibly cooperative two-people elsewhere, as was pointed out at the time, In the first place, we have seen that a government had no point of contact with and much of it was being done elsewhere Jewish state was the objective of the Zionist the political realities. This is probably why by individual Jewish immigrants to leadership and the mainstream Zionist move- the ‘nonexclusives’ remained, in the words America and other countries. The Zion- ment. Second, by the time ’nonexclusive’ of Norman Finkelstein, “numerically weak ists, and therefore all who settled under Zionism had become visible, in the 1920s, and politically marginal.” CP 4/COUNTERPUNCH “Massacre” or Massacre? Smearing 101, in The Guardian

BY ALEXANDER COCKBURN

fter Foreign Policy and Prospect piece, Brockes asked Zephaniah what he was in 1953, the invasion of Lebanon in 1982, magazines issued their readers’ poll reading: the massacres at the refugee camps. The Alast month of the top intellectuals “‘Chomsky,’ he says. ‘I am always read- moment of confrontation has arrived. As in the world, I broached to Noam Chomsky ing Chomsky.’ I tell him I find Chomsky rapidly, it departs. the notion that CounterPunch might com- hard work. ‘Really?’ he says. ‘Really? That’s “Sharon tutts dismissively. ‘They can pile an alternative list. The plan was to dis- cos you ain’t got a Birmingham accent.’ And accuse us as much as they want to.” The car miss FP/Prospect (readers’ pick of mostly he throws back his head and brays like a stops. ‘You want to see some sheep?’” lumpen non-thinkers in favor of real intel- donkey.” And off they go, very cozily, to count lectuals like Levi-Strauss, or Tom Szasz, or This is a nice illustration of a character- sheep. (Or maybe they weren’t very cozy, Laura Nader, or Barbara Fields, or Pierre istic of many of these showcase interviews, just cozy, or maybe the relationship was only Sprey, or… where the interviewer sneaks in a kidney superficially cozy, but fundamentally brit- Chomsky featured in the poll as top in- punch after the interview is over, when she’s tle. I insert the “very” and “cozy” just to tellectual (with twice as many votes as the safely back in the office. So the readers are show how easy it is to load the dice in this runner-up, Umberto Eco, to the evident con- left to warm their hands over the rancid and sort of game.) sternation of much of the north-eastern U.S. somehow racist snap of “brays like a don- Another way to load the dice, much press that has mostly kept silent on the mat- key”. favored by Brockes, is to lure the reader on ter). (Some of the lumpen non-thinkers like Christopher Hitchens were shameless enough to solicit votes on their own For Guardian readers, a man who denies websites.) that a massacre took place at Srebrenica Chomsky wrote me back in good humor, ridiculing the idea of such lists and putting is not one who deserves to be voted the forward as candidates his granddaughter in Nicaragua, or his granddaughter’s cat. The top intellectual on the planet. notion of listing intellectuals soon grew wearisome, and I moved on to other mat- Of course Brockes knows when to mind with an assumption touted as part of some ters. her manners. She did an interview with Ariel general consensus instead of being a spite- But the pre-eminence of a genuinely Sharon in 2001, replete with such challeng- ful and unargued assumption of the writer. radical thinker like Chomsky plainly irked ing interrogatories as: Brockes handed this treatment out to another Blairite types at the British daily newspa- “I wonder how Sharon would go about fierce critic of imperial America, Gore Vidal. per, The Guardian. The editor of the relevant capturing Bin Laden if he was commanding Her interview with Vidal in Italy was pub- section, Ian Katz, is not known for his left- Britain’s special forces? (As a 25-year-old lished in The Guardian in September, 2005. wing sympathies and rumored to be the next he commanded Special Unit 101, which “Vidal’s own insights, however wise, are editor of The Guardian. Katz has regularly undertook just this sort of operation.)” widely perceived these days to be the fruits filled his pages with columns from war en- Brockes doesn’t explain to the readers of a relentless superiority complex. I won- thusiasts. He duly sent off an interviewer to at this point what Special Unit 101 – one of der how aware of this he is. He snorts.‘What do a razor job on the professor of linguistics the most notorious death squads of the twen- form does that take?’ Never admitting to at MIT. tieth century – actually got up to. She opts being wrong. ‘Yes, I do. I think it’s because In recent years, the “interview” as a instead for tremulous insights such as: I speak in complete sentences. That’s con- showcase for the interviewer’s inquisitorial “It is tempting to speculate that the per- sidered un-American.’ When was the last chutzpa has been more a feature of English sonal risk that Sharon has lived under for time he admitted he was wrong? ‘All the than of American daily journalism. The practically all of his life has influenced his time. All the time. … I think any reflective Guardian’s current showcase performer in political decision-making.” person is going to realize that he makes a lot what is essentially a game of self-promo- Her ignorance is pervasive. Barak, she of mistakes.’” tion (displaying the interviewer as more than dutifully writes, “offered Arafat withdrawal But is it “widely perceived” that Vidal’s a match for the interviewee) is a woman from Gaza, most of the West Bank and a insights are derived “from a relentless supe- named Emma Brockes, fairly new to the share of Jerusalem, greater concessions than riority complex”? Of course not. game but already feted as a high-flier. had ever been offered”. As with Chomsky, Brockes’ game is set Last year Brockes interviewed the black Finally, in the twentieth paragraph she up and edit her interviews so that the reader British poet, Benjamin Zephaniah, after he addresses, or claims she addresses, the darker never has a chance to say, “Yes, these are refused a medal offered him in the annual side of General Sharon. She mentions, or two radical critics of the American Empire Queen’s honor list. Towards the end of the says she mentioned, the massacre at Qibya whom current events have proved to be ab- 5/COUNTERPUNCH solutely correct in their analysis and their is engaged in here. For Guardian readers, a showing for Chomsky’s detractors. moral and political stance.” If Brockes had man who denies that a massacre took place She spends much of the final portion interviewed Bertrand Russell in 1917, she at Srebrenica is not one who deserves to be displaying herself as the advocate of jour- would have dwelt nastily on his class ori- voted the top intellectual on the planet. The nalistic truth against Chomsky, whom she gins, his personal relationship, and skipped opening headlines set Chomsky up, and the takes care to depict as peevish and irritable. entirely over the matter of Russell going to quote marks round the word massacre knock Her pay-off is of a cheapness and insolent prison for opposing the horrors of the First him down. vulgarity that brings to mind her line about World War. But there’s no sentence in which Zephaniah braying like a donkey. The contrast between the decorous treat- Chomsky has ever suggested with the use “Does he [Chomsky] have a share port- ment of a genuine, full-bore war criminal like of those quotation marks that a massacre in folio? He looks cross. ‘You’d have to ask Sharon and Brockes’ tetchy malevolence and Srebrenica did not take place. There are pas- my wife about that. I’m sure she does. I don’t dishonesties in her piece about Chomsky is sages, easy to find, in which Chomsky most see any reason why she shouldn’t. Would it very marked. definitely says it was a massacre. Brockes help people if I went to Montana and lived You can get the drift from the deck of is faking it. on a mountain? It’s only rich, privileged headlines and sub-heads with which the Brockes backs away from the set-up for westerners – who are well educated and Guardian’s editors introduced Brockes’ a few paragraphs and retails the standard therefore deeply irrational – in whose minds piece: Chomsky bio. Then she swerves back, on this idea could ever arise. When I visit peas- The greatest intellectual? the theme of Chomsky being asked “to lend ants in southern Colombia, they don’t ask Q: Do you regret supporting those who his name to all sorts of crackpot causes”: me these questions.’ I suggest that people say the Srebrenica massacre was exagger- “As some see it, one ill-judged choice don’t like being told off about their lives by ated? of cause was the accusation made by Living someone they consider a hypocrite.” A: My only regret is that I didn’t do it Marxism magazine that during the Bosnian That’s what a simple-living and – by strongly enough. war shots used by ITN [Independent Tel- common agreement, selfless – 76-year pro- As we’ll see, this is a carefully consid- evision News] of a Serb-run detention camp fessor gets for letting an ambitious “inter- ered overture to the set-up. were faked. The magazine folded after ITN viewer” into his office for an hour. After some very childish bric-a-brac sued, but the controversy flared up again in Brockes’ interview ran on October 31. about an open packet of fig rolls on 2003 when a journalist called Diane The next day The Guardian ran a couple of Chomsky’s desk (“is it wrong to mention the Johnstone made similar allegations in a letters of complaint about Brockes’ mani- fig rolls when there is undocumented suf- Swedish magazine, Ordfront , taking issue fest bias and spite. Chomsky wrote imme- fering going on in El Salvador?”), it isn’t long with the official number of victims of the diately, outlining in detail Brockes’ “fabri- before Brockes swerves into her predeter- Srebrenica massacre. (She said they were cations”, a word The Guardian’s ombuds- mined trajectory, to the effect that : exaggerated.) In the ensuing outcry, man, Ian Mayes, adamantly refused to al- “…his [Chomsky’s] conclusions remain Chomsky lent his name to a letter praising low into print, under the preposterous claim controversial: that practically every U.S. Johnstone’s ‘outstanding work’. Does he by The Guardian’s lawyers that this would president since the Second World War has regret signing it? been guilty of war crimes; that in the overall ‘No,’ he says indignantly. ‘It is outstand- SUBSCRIPTION INFO context of Cambodian history, the Khmer ing. My only regret is that I didn’t do it Rouge weren’t as bad as everyone makes out; strongly enough. It may be wrong; but it is Enter/Renew Subscription here: that during the Bosnian war the ‘massa- very careful and outstanding work.’” One year $40 Two yrs $70 cre’ at Srebrenica was probably over- Now we can see where those opening ($35 email only / $45 email/print) One year institution/supporters $100 stated. (Chomsky uses quotations marks headlines were drawn from, and the context One year student/low income, $30 to undermine things he disagrees with comes into focus. Chomsky’s point concerns T-shirts, $17 and, in print at least, it can come across his expressed support for Diana (not, as Please send back issue(s) less as academic than as witheringly teen- Brockes has it, Diane) Johnstone’s work. ($5/issue) age; like, Srebrenica was so not a massa- And as readers of our CounterPunch site will cre.)” know from Johnstone’s two excellent recent Name Read those sentences in bold type care- pieces on Srebrenica, Johnstone never for fully. Brockes is claiming that Chomsky had, one moment says there wasn’t a massacre Address in reference to Srebrenica, put the word there. She simply provides a factual histori- massacre in quotation marks, thus deprecat- cal sequence and context that many find dis- City/State/Zip ing the idea that it was, in fact, a massacre. turbing, and politically inconvenient. There’s no other way to construe the sen- From what Brockes presents as her en- tences. Here’s “massacre” in its quote marks, suing argument with Chomsky, it’s clear that Payment must accompany order, or and then in the next sentence “Chomsky uses she doesn’t know much about the Living dial 1-800-840-3683 and renew by quotation marks to undermine things he disa- Marxism/ITN affair, which in fact was an credit card. Add $12.50 for Canadian and $17.50 for foreign subscriptions. grees with…” Next comes Brockes’ sum- entirely separate case, which occurred well If you want Counter-Punch emailed to mary of Chomsky’s position, identified by before Srebrenica. you please supply your email address. use of the “witheringly teenage” quote Throughout the interview, incidentally, Make checks payable to: CounterPunch marks: “Srebrenica was so not a massacre.” Brockes spectacularly fails to mention Iraq Business Office Now, this is no little parlor game Brockes – perhaps because it would reveal a poor PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558 6/COUNTERPUNCH invite litigation. From whom? Brockes Rather, it was whether or not the ITN re- unauthorized military intervention, con- would sue her own paper? porters had ‘deliberately’ sought to de- vert NATO to a new mission of ‘humani- Finally, in what Chomsky himself re- ceive the public. The issue becomes one tarian intervention’, and thereby reaffirm gards as a piece of journalistic chicanery of intentions and emotions. The judge, in U.S. supremacy in Europe after the end of even more outrageous than Brockes’ his summing up, acknowledged that the the Cold War. When no ‘weapons of mass smear, The Guardian printed his edited ITN team reporters were mistaken as to destruction’ are found, ‘humanitarian in- letter of complaint “paired,” as Chomsky who was enclosed by the old barbed-wire tervention’ to overthrow the ‘genocidal’ put it later, “with a letter from a survivor fence, adding, ‘but does it matter?’ The Saddam Hussein becomes the retroactive from Bosnia, which, as the editors cer- jury decided it did not. excuse for the invasion of Iraq. And what tainly know, is based entirely on lies in “I never said anything about the inten- next...? the faked ‘interview’ they published. The tions of the ITN journalists. In my book, Diana Johnstone” title: “Falling out over Srebrenica.” As Fools’ Crusade (Pluto Press, 2002), I re- How much does The Guardian’s hit- Chomsky says, “There was no Srebrenica fer to the famous ‘thin man behind barbed and-run job on Chomsky matter? Enough, debate, and they know it perfectly well. I wire’ photo, to point out the way the photo in my view, to warrant detailed inspection. never mentioned it, except to repeatedly was interpreted by world media to create Chomsky’s enemies have often opted for try to explain to Brockes that I opposed the impression that what was happening these artful onslaughts in which he’s set the withdrawal of Johnstone’s book under in Bosnia was a repetition of the Nazi up as somehow an apologist for monstros- dishonest press attacks that were all lies, Holocaust… Ms. Brockes neglects to ity, instead of being properly identified as as I showed in the open letter I mentioned. mention my book, or the fact that publi- one of the most methodical and tireless dis- And it had nothing to do with the scale of cation of my book, and not some hypo- sectors and denouncers of monstrosity of the Srebrenica massacre, as again they all thetical statement about some particular our era. Their contemptible tactics should know.” fact, was what Chomsky – among others be seen for what they are. Rusbridger and The Guardian’s editor, Alan – defended. his editors are far, far beyond reform in Rusbridger, is now trying to brush aside “Neither I nor Professor Chomsky their low practices. Maybe young Brockes complaints about his newspaper’s scandal- have ever denied that Muslims were the will clean up her act, though I doubt it. ous misrepresentations as left-wing cav- main victims of atrocities and massacres Chomsky’s mistake, when he realized that ils of no consequence. As I write this, the committed in Bosnia. But I insist that the Brockes had arrived with a malign agenda newspaper has not published Diana tragedy of Yugoslav disintegration cannot was not to have suggested they go look at Johnstone’s eloquent letter of complaint, be reduced to such massacres, and that the sheep, of which there are thousands portions of which I quote here: there are other aspects of the story, his- grazing placidly around Harvard and MIT. “Paris, November 5, 2005 torical and political, that deserve to be Sharon knew how to handle her better. “To the editors of The Guardian considered…. The hasty application of the We ran an earlier version of this on “Ms. Brockes writes that the LM re- term ‘genocide’ is exploited to justify mili- the CounterPunch website, but I want our port was ‘proven’ to be false in a court of tary intervention, which occurs only when non-site reading newsletter readers to law. In fact, ITN put LM out of business it suits United States geopolitical purposes know about this bit of skullduggery in a by winning a libel suit against the maga- and which on balance makes bad situations newspaper which still has a few decent zine. But due to the quaint nature of Brit- worse. Prevention of an imaginary ‘geno- reporters working for it, like Jonathan ish libel law, the decisive issue in court cide’ in Kosovo was the pretext for the Steele, though in the main it has slid a long was NOT the truth about the wire fence. United States to establish the precedent of way down hill. AC.

CounterPunch PO Box 228 Petrolia, CA 95558

Phone 1-800-840-3683 for our new t-shirts and for advance orders of CounterPunch’s new book The Case Against Israel by Michael Neumann.