A Tale of two “dissidents”: Chomsky denied entry to West Bank; Wilders denied entry to Britain
Consider two examples of a western democracy refusing entry through its borders to a foreign dignitary on the grounds of a disagreement with his political beliefs.
In the first case, the man in question was denied entry for fear of offending a Muslim minority. He is in constant danger of assassination for his opinions, and he is being prosecuted for them by his home government. If that prosecution (which will start in October) is successful he could well become the first political prisoner on his continent since the end of the Cold War. To be sure, his views are controversial, and though he does not incite violence or racial prejudice he is sometimes abusive and insulting about the religion of Islam. However, he does not bear any grudge against the country that denied him entry, and has never defamed its reputation.
That man is Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician who was denied entry to Britain by the Labour government in 2009. Much of the liberal intelligentsia in Britain was broadly supportive of the decision to ban him, and demonstrations were launched against him after the government finally did allow him into Britain in 2010.
Now consider the second case, of a man who was briefly denied entry to the West Bank by Israeli officials at the border with Jordan this week.
The man in question is one of the most prominent apologists for Islamist extremism in the world. More precisely, he is the leading evangelist for western self-hatred in the American and European opinion forming classes. Absurdly enough, he considers himself a “dissident” but lives a comfortable life free from any form of intimidation. He refers to the colonisation of the Americas by Europeans as a “Hitlerite” enterprise. He has consorted with Holocaust deniers, including Hezbollah. As far as the country which denied him entry is concerned, he despises it, he has built a career out of demonising it across the world, and he is fundamentally opposed to its existence in its present form. He is, another words, a far-Left extremist who has made of himself an implacable enemy of the country which denied him entry.
That man is Noam Chomsky, and the decision to deny him entry to the West bank this week has been acknowledged by Israel to have been a mistake which was, in any case, quickly overturned. The British and European media has gone ballistic in Chomsky’s defence. A hero of the liberal establishment has had a brush with a (quite reasonably) disgruntled Israeli bureaucrat. The outrage is palpable.
Now, like the Israeli government, I believe it was a mistake to initially refuse Chomsky entry. Nonetheless, his consistent defamation of the State of Israel would certainly provide grounds for declaring him persona non grata. If ever there were a case for doing so in a western democracy, this was it. But, as I have said, I regard it as a mistake. By no conceivable yardstick of harm to the national interest, however, could Wilders have been banned from Britain. His case was about censorship and appeasement of militant Islam. Nothing more, nothing less. The national interest had nothing to do with it.
In the sharply contrasting reactions to what ostensibly looks like two similar cases, what we have here is a remarkably illustrative case study of how the dominant opinion formers in the western media view the world. Chomsky, an extremist who displays complete contempt for reasoned discourse and who provides succour to totalitarian movements and their apologists around the world, is hailed as a hunted hero: a dissident being oppressed in a manner which led the Times gleefully to report an Israeli writer as saying “we may be becoming fascists”.
The Times article in question opened by describing Chomsky as “a leading left-wing political thinker”. The BBC went further, admiringly describing him as “Renowned US scholar Noam Chomsky”. Wilders is always described as “far-Right” Dutch politician, Geert Wilders. The tone of articles about him is condemnatory; the subtext consistently portrays him as a racist with no place in polite society.
Such are the values and beliefs which guide the thinking of a liberal establishment in Europe which has a near monolithic dominance over the political mainstream. A storm in a tea cup involving one of their heroes on the Jordanian border is indignantly magnified into a grotesque example of the horrors visited upon a gentle and brilliant intellectual by an oppressive Jewish state. A flawed but brave Dutch politician, a genuine political dissident who faces the threat of death and jail for his views, is excoriated and branded a pariah even though he has no grudge against the state which denied him entry.
And so it goes…
May 20th, 2010 at 7:13 am
Fascinating comparison and contrast, Robin. Wilders’ 10-minute film on Islam, “Fitna,” is well worth seeing on Youtube. Its tone is mild and much of it is simply quotes from the Koran.
May 20th, 2010 at 7:17 am
“Righteous” denials of entry
Moshe Feiglin a far-right Israeli politician - entry to the UK denied
Geert Wilders - an anti-Islamist politician - entry to the UK denied
“Afrikaaner” denials of entry
Robert Falk - a 911 troofer and an Israel basher - entry to Israel denied
Norman Finkelstein - supporter of Hezb’allah - entry to Israel denied
George Galloway a Hamas supporter/terror financing British politician - entry to Canada denied
Tariq Ramadan - an Islamist professor - entry to the US denied
May 20th, 2010 at 9:47 am
Superb analysis. A calm, cool, collected recapitulation - one which is devastating via a lurid juxtaposition - as well as revelatory in terms of exposing a pathology pervading the orthodox liberal-left world view.
May 20th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
How the western media views anything that Israel does should come as no surprise anymore. Their hatred of those that protest and defy radical Islam is reprehensible.
May 20th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10128118.stm
The link is not strictly related to the content of this latest post, but I have attached it in order to make the rather obvious point that there have been no howls of outrage in the universities nor condemnatory articles in the broadsheets.
The usual suspects are silent on the lynching of an Egyptian and the preceding murder of a family in Lebanon.
Chomsky will now make political capital ad nauseam in his mad campaign against Israel.
He might take comfort from a recent gathering of Iranian academics of varying opinions, during which Israel was described by one as an ‘illegitimate state’.
May 20th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
There is, of course, nothing gentle about Noam Chomsky the public intellectual. He is a master of violent hate speech that is heard and heeded around the world. In this instance, he came to West Bank to incite Arab irredentists who bear unappeasable grievances. How much of this sort of violence must a liberal society like Israel bear?
May 20th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
Not only is Chomsky’s public support for Hezbollah and the Syrian dictatorship reasonable grounds for Israel wishing to keep him out, why would Mahmoud Abbas or Salaam Fayyad would want him lecturing university students in the West Bank or East Jerusalem.
May 20th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
The refered-to Israeli writer cited in the Times just easily could be the siami-twin of Chompsky. Aprt from that the hypocrisy is so untenable that it is ridiculous. Any wonder these opinion-molder traitors in the West nearly everywhere have no credibility left - zero rather?
May 20th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
There is a total disconnect between the political establishment and the people about extremist Islam.
That is why Wilders is referred to as a ‘populist’ politician and that is why we are seeing the growth of grass-roots movements like the English Defence League.
The failure of the British establishment to control immigration, and its pandering to Islamic extremists contributed to the collapse in the Labour vote. Now at last have a government committed to capping non-EU immigration - unthinkably ‘racist’ even a couple of years ago, so perhaps the politicians are beginning to catch up.
It will take the media much longer I am afraid.
May 21st, 2010 at 4:12 am
Peter, Hungary
Just so that you know a little update 4 U: Tariq Ramadan was only banned during the Bush years. *NOW* there is no such ban any longer put in place by Obama & Co.
Back to the ChomPsky matter: Not only did he consult with his Hezbollah friends in Beirut, just like the demented discredited idiot (ohhh the “scholar”!) Finkelstein, but his real smoking gun of personal reputational self-killing is/was his defence of Faurisson Holocaust-denier “historian” in the early 1980s. ChomPsky wrote a foreword to the Frenchman’s book if I understand well. Still, you may recall Peter that in “Népszabadság” (the leading left-liberal quality daily, Seres László the famous-infamous icon of Hongarian neo-con journalism actually interviewed Noam some 5 years ago (when he was invited to the Soros-founded CEU (Central-European University) for a lecture which I suffered to attend then…). In the interview Seres specifically asked about the Faurisson issue he stuttered in his answer that I cite here — I remember by heart –: “You people here in Europe do not understand the real strength of dissent.” As compared to what, the US, I might add? That’s it. Word by word! A freaking cripto-fascist imbecile.
May 21st, 2010 at 6:09 am
Brilliant post. Orwell would have been appreciative for sure.
It takes such a piece to highlight the slow advance of subtle coercion and subversion of ‘elite opinion ‘ in western society.
Salman Rushdie’ springs to mind. what protection would he have been given today?
We need a new version of Animal Farm to expose it all today but then which publisher would dare print it. for the original only just made it to the bookshelves because of Britain’s love of Stalinism at the time.
May 21st, 2010 at 8:55 am
Another incident to add to your list Robin - Elton John denied entry to Egypt on the grounds that he is gay, but he has no such problem in gaining entry to Israel. Another very under-reported incident.
May 21st, 2010 at 2:01 pm
The difference between Wilders and Chomsky is far different and more stark than that painted by Robin Shepherd. Mr. Wilders wishes to retain a current status quo and Dr. Chomsky wishes to radically alter the status quo. Mr. Wilders wishes to minimize future pain and disruption, while Dr. Chomsky seems to approve of great dislocation and pain being applied to humans with whom he disagrees.
The principle that Mr. Wilders supports and Dr. Chomsky opposes is “If one party wants to remove something from another party, then he has to prove his case incontrovertibly.” If there is a compelling argument to the contrary, then the status quo should remain no matter the partial validity of the argument for change. This used to be a basis for civilized interaction between people, but it looks as though creating chaos without sufficient cause has become politically correct. The support of chaos for those who do not suffer its consequences is evil. Dr. Chomsky is quite detached both ideologically and practically and will not suffer from that which he is wishing for others. Mr. Wilders is indeed suffering for the principles for which he is standing.
May 24th, 2010 at 6:51 am
Osama Bin Laden is a fan of Chomsky, he has recommended his writings in one of his speeches. Neo-Nazis and fascists of all stripes just love Chomsky and just check out the Robert Faurisson affair. This kind of thing is just why Melanie Phillips’s latest book is entitled ‘The World turned Upside Down’, it is all beyond parody. Surreal, you can’t make this stuff up.
June 4th, 2010 at 4:28 am
is there any one out there…is there intelligent life on this planet, certainly not amongst our leaders who are marching us into some weird hybrid of socialism, fascism and islam, as for the people that follow them, well all i can say is baa! brainwashed mindless zombies are incapable of a single original thought.