i've been periodically googling chomsky for his response to the gaza mess because i was curious. i would actually expect his response to be a little different from that on the current fake left, as chomsky was an unabashed zionist that was critical of the state of israel's behaviour because he thought it put the zionist project under threat of destruction and not somebody that hated himself or wanted israel to disappear. chomsky always was clear that he supported a zero state solution, preferred a single state as a pragmatic approach (years ago, he would bring up yugoslavia...) and thought two states was an absurdity and a non-starter. chomsky wanted to support palestinian self-determination in the context of zionism rather than in opposition to it, which made him an anachronism. but, i think his position was preferable to anything we've heard on the left or the right since camp david. the idea of two states has been an utter failure and the insistence on segregation has simply led to entrenched divisions and perpetual conflict. he saw that coming, and he was right.

i would certainly have expected noam to be critical of israel's response as being disproportionate. but, what i've been struggling with trying to define is what "proportionate" means in the context of such a vicious attack and concluded that a proportionate response is a ferocious one intended to produce a strong disincentive. i would have liked to hear him try to articulate his concept of proportionality, and i'm sure he would have brought up something i hadn't thought about, even if i disagreed with him. i don't think he would have aligned with the hamas sympathizers.

unfortunately, we're going to all need to figure that out on our own.

the left is going to be a very different place without noam chomsky, who has played the role of virtual yoda since before my father was born, and before there was even a yoda. but, this was predictable. eventually.

and so it goes.