Noam Chomsky, one of the world’s most renowned intellectuals, linguists, and political commentators, has long been a vocal critic of U.S. foreign policy and Israeli state actions in the Middle East. Among his most persistent critiques is what he describes as Israel’s expansionist agenda—a policy orientation that, according to Chomsky, aims to extend control over Palestinian lands while undermining the prospects for a viable two-state solution.
Although Chomsky has repeatedly affirmed Israel's right to exist and condemns anti-Semitism in all forms, his criticisms focus squarely on state policy—particularly military occupation, settlement construction, and the systematic disenfranchisement of Palestinians. This article explores Chomsky’s perspective on Israel’s expansionist goals, U.S. complicity, and the broader implications for peace in the region.
Foundations of Chomsky’s Critique
Chomsky’s views on Israel stem from decades of critical scholarship, beginning in the 1960s and continuing into the present. A Jewish American with deep connections to the Hebrew language and early Zionist movements, Chomsky initially supported the idea of a binational state. However, his disillusionment grew as Israeli policies, particularly after the 1967 Six-Day War, shifted toward what he describes as territorial maximalism—the desire to extend sovereignty beyond internationally recognized borders.
In Chomsky’s analysis, the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights marked a turning point. What was initially presented as a temporary military measure evolved into a long-term strategy, evidenced by the systematic expansion of settlements and the infrastructure of control.
The Settlement Project: A Tool of Expansion
Central to Chomsky’s critique is the Israeli settlement project in the West Bank. Since 1967, Israel has established hundreds of settlements, outposts, and military zones in what is officially considered occupied territory under international law. These areas are now home to more than 700,000 Israeli settlers.
Chomsky argues that this is not merely a security measure or demographic necessity but part of a broader agenda to create “facts on the ground”—irreversible realities that preclude the formation of a contiguous Palestinian state.
He emphasizes how the settlements are strategically placed to fragment Palestinian communities, control water resources, and divide the West Bank into non-contiguous cantons. This strategy, according to Chomsky, effectively renders a viable two-state solution geographically and politically impossible.
The Role of the United States
One of the pillars of Chomsky’s argument is the enabling role played by the United States. For decades, he has argued that U.S. military aid, diplomatic cover, and political protection at international forums like the United Nations have emboldened Israeli expansionist policies.
Chomsky notes that while the U.S. often pays lip service to peace negotiations, it continues to provide Israel with over $3 billion annually in military assistance, without enforcing conditions that would restrict settlement growth or protect Palestinian human rights.
He frequently points to Washington’s use of the veto at the U.N. Security Council as a tool to shield Israel from accountability, whether in matters of illegal settlement activity or alleged war crimes in Gaza.
In Chomsky’s words, “Without U.S. support, much of Israel’s behavior would be untenable.” The asymmetry in the so-called “peace process,” he contends, is largely due to American diplomatic and economic power being leveraged disproportionately in favor of Israeli interests.
Gaza: From Occupation to Siege
Another focal point of Chomsky’s criticism is Israel’s approach to Gaza. Although Israel withdrew settlers and ground troops from the Gaza Strip in 2005, Chomsky rejects the narrative that the occupation ended. He argues that Israel, with Egypt’s cooperation, continues to control Gaza’s borders, airspace, and maritime access, effectively turning it into what has often been described as “the world’s largest open-air prison.”
Chomsky has condemned the repeated military operations in Gaza—such as those in 2008-09 (Operation Cast Lead), 2014 (Operation Protective Edge), and more recently in 2021—as collective punishment of a civilian population, in violation of international humanitarian law.
He also highlights the devastating humanitarian consequences of the blockade, which has crippled the region's economy, health care system, and basic infrastructure, contributing to what the United Nations has described as unlivable conditions.
Erosion of Democracy Within Israel
Chomsky has also raised alarm over what he sees as an erosion of democratic principles within Israel itself, particularly for its Arab citizens, who comprise about 20% of the population. He has criticized discriminatory laws—such as the 2018 Nation-State Law, which declared that only Jews have the right to self-determination in Israel—as codifying second-class citizenship.
He links these internal developments to the broader expansionist agenda, suggesting that as Israel entrenches its control over Palestinian territories, it also consolidates ethnocratic governance—a system that privileges one ethnic group over others.
Alternatives and Solutions
Chomsky has historically supported a two-state solution based on international consensus: a sovereign, independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza alongside Israel, with East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state. However, he has become increasingly skeptical about its feasibility, given the physical and political realities created by decades of settlement growth and military control.
In recent years, Chomsky has engaged with discussions around a one-state solution—not as a preferred alternative, but as an emerging reality. In his view, Israel may already be a de facto apartheid state, where two legal systems exist in the same territory based on ethnicity and citizenship.
He often draws parallels with South African apartheid and emphasizes the need for international civil society to play a role, including through movements like Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS)—though he does not uncritically endorse all of its tactics.
Chomsky’s Broader Ethical Frame
Underlying Chomsky’s critique is a broader ethical and political framework. He views the Israeli-Palestinian conflict not as an ancient, intractable dispute, but as a modern political problem rooted in colonialism, state violence, and geopolitical interests. His commitment to universal human rights leads him to oppose state violence whether committed by the U.S., Israel, or any other actor.
Chomsky's analysis is deeply grounded in structural critiques of power, particularly the ways in which dominant narratives are shaped by media, political elites, and state institutions. He warns that public discourse often obscures or sanitizes the realities of occupation, casting Israeli actions as purely defensive and Palestinian resistance as inherently illegitimate.
Conclusion: A Voice of Conscience
Noam Chomsky’s critique of Israel’s expansionist agenda remains one of the most detailed and morally grounded among Western intellectuals. While controversial, his positions are rooted in a rigorous examination of historical facts, international law, and ethical consistency. He does not speak from a place of hatred or hostility but from a commitment to justice, dignity, and peace for all people—Israeli and Palestinian alike.
His enduring message is that peace can only come through equality, and that expansionism, apartheid, and occupation are not sustainable paths forward. As long as the structures of domination persist, Chomsky argues, true reconciliation and coexistence will remain elusive.
No comments:
Post a Comment