Talks at Google: Noam Chomsky [video]

The section on Hezbollah in this comment contains a ton of factual errors.

>Hezbollah has 12 MPs in the Lebanese parliament. It represents the interests of a section of Shia in Lebanon,

So far so good

>many of whom were driven from their homes in Palestine in 1948 by Jewish settlers, and are now barred from returning home (whereas a Jew from anywhere in the world is allowed to settle in the West Bank).

Nope, you're confusing Palestinians and Shia Lebanese. Not a single Shia was driven from their home by the creation of Israel in 1948. Hezbollah does not represent Palestinians in Lebanon (who were driven out in 1948) because they are not citizens of Lebanon, despite being born there at this point.

>The PFLP is "terrorist", Hamas is "terrorist", Hezbollah is "terrorist", the PLO is "terrorist", the DFLP is "terrorist" - anyone who fights back against Zionist (or sometimes American) aggression is labeled a "terrorist".

Is blowing up a Jewish center in Beunos Aires (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMIA_bombing) or killing 22 school children (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%27alot_massacre) "fighting back against Zionist aggression"?

>Hezbollah was formed because Israel invaded Lebanon and began killing Shia there (or letting their helpers do so in Sabra and Shatila).

Again, you are confusing Palestinians with Shias. Sabra and Shatila was a Palestinian refugee camp. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre

And the other final part so great I gave it it's own thread ;-) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14701008

Usually I find needless jabs like these in bad taste, but looking at how pompously the question was worded, I think it was well deserved here.

If he'd just said—is there something you want to ask this room full of Googlers?, it would be okay.

Check the dates.

If you were trying to assess claims of an extraordinary and unprecedented mechanised genocide by Nazi Germany in 1943 or early 1944, when it wasn't obvious what was actually going on, and when all people had to go on were reports from a handful of escapees and refugees, then yes, being careful with the evidence would be the appropriate response to the Holocaust claims available at the time, just as being careful with Cambodian refugee reports would have been appropriate in 1977 or 1978.

> Chomsky explains his decision to focus on criticizing the U.S. over other countries as being because, during his lifetime, the country has militarily and economically dominated the world, and because its liberal democratic electoral system allows for the citizenry to exert an influence on government policy.

chomsky is incredibly smart and i love listening to what he has to say and agree with most of it, but this focus on criticizing US is definitely not one of them. i get the argument, but he's either blind to or doesn't care that his well intended criticism is more effective as a political tool in hands of enemies of the liberal democratic system which he supposedly wants to succeed.

not saying that US must not be criticized, it just feels very disproportionate compared to the amount of injustice and atrocities in other parts of the world. hell, on a majority of this planet's surface chomsky would have been disappeared long time ago for the kind of criticizm he directs at US - is that not a reason to begin your every speech with "keep in mind, matters are very much worse pretty much everywhere else but...".