The Commentary
Pirates and Emperors
Old and New
Noam Chomsky
Chapter 7
Introduction:
Throughout this commentary I will try to give a brief account of the author, and discuss the presumed readership. I will then briefly discuss the register, field and domain of the (SLT). Following this, I will attempt to show how the author gives an insight into the (U.S) / Israel / Palestine conflict beginning on September 29,2000, in relation to international conflict. I aim to do this by focusing on how this masterful use of language can provide us with a new and more critical understanding of the use of language for political ends. I will round off with a short conclusion.
Thee Author:
Chomsky has made his reputation in linguistics. He has always been interested in politics and has been a frequent and leading critic of U.S. foreign policy. According to Chomsky, “the universality of language and the similarities among languages indicate that language springs from something that all humans have in common. Our ability rooted in some way in our genetic makeup.” (Salkie, 1990: 24).
He shows range and inspiration in his writing.” Pirates and Emperors, Old and New” is full of ideas that have the power to Alter one’s understanding of world affairs and increase one’s insight into power politics.
The Presumed Readership:
The intended readership of this work is not only those wit specialist interest in the subject matter or the author but for all educated men and women who share an interest in, and have some understanding of this subject. The author includes brief explanations for those readers who may not be familiar with certain political terms. The (S.L.T) is written in English and therefore aimed at the English speaker.
On the other hand, the (T.L.T) will appeal to wide varieties of readership in the Arab world, whether general educated readers, politicians, researchers, intellectuals or professors of literature and the social sciences. Introducing this kind of text to Arab readers will raise their awareness of the realities of global and domestic politics and how to scrutinize and analyse the ideas that are daily discussed around them.
The Register:
The register of the (S.L.T) is classical and grammatically formal, containing many quotations, some of which are colloquial. The text reports and reflects upon particular events, and the narrative tends to focus on events in chronological order.
The Field:
(U.S.) / Israel- Palestine (May 2001), chapter 7, (“Pirates and Emperors, Old and New”) concentrates on the International and political scene in the Middle East, focusing politically on the recent developments in the Middle East conflict beginning on 29 September, 2000. Reference is made to related international conflict, and Middle East leading up to 29 September.2000.
Domain:
I believe that the main function of the (S.T.L) is informative and educational. It is a valuable document, which contains some surprising revelations providing the reader with a rare insight.
The author is concerned with the use of language by Washington and allied governments, politicians and the mass media as a tool to influence, shape and even brainwash the public as a means to an end, that end being the service of a political system.
The main function of the (S.T.L) is to provide readers with a better understanding of how government’s tactics have been successfully used during the past century (and continue to be used) to gain a grater foothold in certain countries:
“ When the vast majority suffered bitterly but in silence, while foreign investors and “the traditional structures of power with which the United States has long been allied” enriched themselves,” (S.T.L) P.5, L. 27, Introduction.
The Tenors:
Although Chomsky’s style is quite formal, at the same time the author uses an engaging language and personal tone of speech which maintains the readers` attention through the chapter. The author achieves these objectives by his constant conjuring of powerful visual images. His passionate style and by his use of the personal pronouns- “I “and “we “in appropriate places, (S.T.L) P. 161. Another method adopted by the author to maintain the reader’s attention is his continuous use of rhetoric, for example (S.T.L) P.175.L. 13.
A main feature in this work is the author use of irony and sarcasm. His sentences are complex in most paragraphs, though many are short and simple for effect, and they contain many intricately- woven digressions, which may initially seem inaccessible to a first time reader of his work. However, a more detailed study of this chapter with reference to the introduction will prove both informative and enlightening to the reader.
Paragraph format varies throughout, keeping with the author’s spontaneous flow of thought. First and final sentences in each paragraph are significant, also the author’s use of brackets.
His style is often argumentative in order to draw one’s attention to a specific point. He uses imperative direct address to reiterate important points and personal language to draw the reader along with him.
There is some use of the passive, occasionally appearing to express the author’s own personal opinion without actually offending the reader or directly criticizing the subjects featured in his work. However, his style throughout tends to be direct, imperative and emotive.
Linguistic and Stylistic Features:
Entering a more in-depth analysis of the text I have noticed that the author’s use of brackets is interesting; it is, for the most part, not intended to include an after-thought; brackets seem to reinforce important points he wishes to put across. For example “(along with two women standing nearby)” (S.T.L) P. 162, L. 40
Here the author is pointing out that on October 4th, 2000; only a few days into the conflict initiated by the so called Israeli Defence Forces and police, already people are being disregarded as “mere things”, (S.T.L P. 13, L. 9 Introduction), whose lives have “no value” to the rulers. This use of brackets follows a vital point stated earlier in the paragraph: “U.S. weapon sales do not carry a stipulation that weapons can’t be used against civilians”, (S.T.L.) P. 162, L. 33.
The U.s. have instigated this conflict, provided weapons, even taught superior fighting techniques to the so called I.D.F who have then proceeded to fire “ from and around a well protected rooftop position”(S.T.L.) P. 162. L. 3. They have fired “recklessly” (S.T.L) P. 162. L. “repeatedly” (S.T.L.) P. 162.L.6, and even “fired missiles” (S.T.L.) P. 162, L. 10, and yet the U.S. claim no responsibility and report only that which puts them in a good light.
Other examples of he author’s use of brackets to reinforce a similar point are” (unreported)” (S.T.L.) P.171, L.33, and “P.176, L.26/27: “(perhaps to be closed entirely if the Clinton-Barak formula, or something like it, is implemented).”
Following a paragraph, again filled with irony concerning U.S. “ Interest “ in the “oil”(S.T.L.) P.165, L.4, resources of Saudi Arabia in the 1970s (S.T.L.) P.164, L.40, in which we read: “ Saudi Arabia is he central component of the Façade “, the author creates an impact by his use of brackets as a sentence-closer, drawing the reader’s attention to the fact that this interest was for the U.S. gain:’(meaning primarily profit flow and a lever of world; the U.S. was not dependent on Middle East oil for it’s own use)”.
He also uses a variety of sentence- openers. Several pertinent examples of emphatic opening sentences are: (S.T.L.) P. 161, L.12 “The pattern of events underscores a fact of crucial importance”, (which is followed by his explanation of the reasons why he firmly believes that the phrase “Israel-Palestine conflict” is misleading, (S.T.L.) P. 163.L. 28. & P. 171, L.11: “There have been few surprises since “, (S.T.L.) P. 171, L. 11. Are the author’s words following the formal acceptance by Rabin and Arafat on 13 September, 1993 of the Declaration of Principles (DOP), concluding that, in the words of George Bush in 1990 (S.T.L.) P.170, L.40: “ What We Say Goes “. Unfortunately, the author explains, this is indeed the case concerning U.S. monopoly on oil in the Middle East, qualified by the sentence: “ The world understood and withdrew”, (S.T.L.) P.171, L.1.
Another Example of an emphatically short sentence opener appears on (S.T.L.) P.163, L.28: “None of this unusual “. Beginning a new paragraph with a short sentence like this attracts the readers’ attention to its meaning. This follows a powerful ending to the previous paragraph: “Washington’s actual attitudes are revealed by its actions; the coverage speaks for itself.” (S.T.L.) P.163, L. 26/27. Other example of short, powerful sentences are: “All this, too, has been exercised from sanitized history “(S.T.L.) P. 168, L.21/22, “In return for Arafat’s capitulation, the U.S. and Israel conceded nothing “(S.T.L.) P. 172, L.5/6, and P. 173, L. 12/13: “And, of course, continuing the dispossession and torture of the Palestinians”.
After the sentence loaded with sarcasm the author writes on (S.T.L) P.175, L.13: “The president has spoken. What more can there be to say?” This, in fact, shows yet another stylistic feature of the text: the Author’s use of rhetoric.
The author, again, uses this form of rhetorical questioning to demonstrate a point. Here, he shows incredulity at the “Great value” of Clinton’s “creative comparison”, explained with acid sarcasm by Thomas Friedman in this paragraph.
Chomsky uses rhetorical questions to stimulate the readers to focus on a particular idea, for example on P. 167, L. 23: “no negotiations, only force?” (On the U.S. / Kissinger dilemma.
Chomsky also sometimes uses figurative speech. There is a good example of this in the sentence “Veiled by constitutional fictions”, “absorption” and Fictions”, with a verb that would normally be applied to living beings, thus personifying “fictions”.
Another example appears on (S.T.L.) P.164, L.15: “a second tier of local cops on the beat”.
I have found one simile in the text, which occurs on (S.T.L.) P.164, L.32, “as a virus”. However, there are several metaphors, the first continuing the “virus” simile, referring to President Nasser as seen through the eyes of the U.S.: “infect- others”….” a rotten apple”, who might spoil the barrel.” Other examples include: “the two meaning pillars (S.T.L.) P.165, L.22. Referring with a sense of irony to Saudi Arabia and Israel, (as in the first example, through the eyes of Washington), “flows from the doctrine” (S.T.L.) P.169, L.20, “funnelled through various channels” (S.T.L.) P.179, L.39, and “erosion of its formerly well-functioning social systems” (S.T.L.) P.179, L, 26.
Somewhat metaphorical is the author’s use in several places of phrases alluding to the idea of a procession:” All this precedes thanks to direct U.S. support, tolerance and evasion (S.T.L.) P.162, L.1. Note the importance of this sentence. It is placed in such a way within the text that it draws the readers’ attention. Again, marking the opening of the final paragraph of this book:” Step by step, the U.S. and Israel have been laboured for 30 years to construct a system of permanent neo- colonial dependency”. (S.T, L.)P.180, L.15. In fact, the way in which Chapter 7 is presented, moving in chronological order, and pointing out each “step” taken by Washington and the Israeli military from 29 September, 2000, is like a journey on which the reader is continuously moving.
Chomsky uses the maxim of end focus. As we read through the sequence of his sentences, we find that he progressively adds ideas to the store of information with which we started. Thus the sentences we encounter in the text contain a mixture of given and new information.
I noticed that there is a gradual change in the length of sentences, which guides the reader smoothly from one idea to another; they can vary from extreme simplicity (S.T.L.) P. 163, L.27, to considerable complexity as in (S.T.L.) P.164, L.36, and P. 165.L.1.
Another way in which Chomsky draws the reader along with him is by some use of personal pronouns in appropriate places in the text.
A good example of this is on (S.T.L.) P.161, L.4: “…the Al-Aqsa Intifada breaks new ground”…” as I write…” Here Chomsky is hopeful-note his use of the present tense-because at last there is a “voice for those with no voice” (refer to introduction). Again on the same page (S.T.L.) P.161, L.14,”…as I did at the outset” (in relation to the wording: (U.S.) Israel-Palestine conflict), and on P. 166, L.7: “that seems to me more realistic,” and again on P. 171, L.22: “One could choose to be deluded-many did so.”
Chomsky uses parallelism for compare-and-contrast sentences to support the exposition and explanation of his ideas. He also uses ample imagery.
The author also uses negative to put an idea a cross or to express an opinion:” no apparent threat to themselves (S.T.L.) P.162, L.5 “no news report”(P.163, L.5.), “ none of this.), (P.169, L.24),”no negotiations”(P.170, L.5),”conceded nothing” (P. 172,L.6), “Providing cheap labour with no need for concern about environment”(P.179, L.1), “It is not surprising.”(P.179, L.23) and again on p.179, L.38.
Here I must mention a particularly strong example of Chomsky’s use of negatives, taken from the Introduction (P.14):” endured not a single serious causality…” “…To be in no life threatening danger.” This describes the position of the Israeli military as they “subjected the population to harsh collective punishment and humiliation.
The author’s use of irony is prominent throughout, particularly on P.165, PARAGRAPH 1, followed in the next paragraph by “remaining pillars” (L.22), and on P.166, with such satirical phrases as “so the historical and documentary record reveal” (L.4),”ominous hot- line communications” (L.27), “straightening up a crooked border (l.35) and many more. The author’s sarcasm is again evident on (P. 175, L. 4-13) and on (P.176) concerning the “expansion of Jerusalem” (L.14).
Satirical phrases include: “Arafat was compelled to “renounce terror” once again” (P.171, L.25), Israel and Iran the “reliable friends of the United States of America” (P.165, L.5), “confrontation states” (P.168, L.25), “in standard neo-colonial fashion “(P.179, L.20). “France was removed” (P.164, L.1) and “junior partner” (P.164.L.1). Humorously, Chomsky quotes Thomas Friedman on (P.169, L.5):
“… The Israeli group Peace Now has “never been more distressed.”
Several colloquialisms appear in the text. Readers will notice that colloquial speech tends to belong to U.S. voices, so to speak! Here are some examples; “British muscle”(P.164, L.14), “forked up the cash”(P.173, L.2), “We damn near had war”, (Spoken by Then-Defence Secretary, Robert Mc’ Namara, (P.166, L.21), “matters came to head” (P.168, L.23), “George Bush triumphantly announced the New World Order in four simple words, (S.T.L.) P.170, L.40:” What We Say Goes.”
There are more colloquialisms in the Introduction which match the quote just mentioned: “bringing European Wimps” into line” (P.16, L.6) and on same page referring to Washington’s attitude: “In short, get lost” (L.29). 2and if you don’t you’ll be pulverized.” Boaz Evron described the occupation succinctly, Chomsky writes in the introduction: “To keep them on a short leash”, to make sure that they recognize “that the whip is held over their heads”. (S.T.L.) P.9, L.31. Chomsky elaborates on “Evron’s acid critique”: “That makes more sense than slaughter, because then civilized folk can accept it all peacefully “, asking “What is so terrible? Is anyone being killed? “(Reiterating the words of respected human rights activist and legal specialist, Raja Shehada who wrote about the state of the “Samadin” 20 years ago).
Chomsky writes with a deep sense of irony when quoting certain words that have become associated with the U.S.A.: We feel the author’s bitter indignance when mentioning “the peace process”(S.T.L.) P.169, L.33 and P.171, L.4,”renounce terror”(P.171, L.20),”natural growth (P.174, L.26, and P.175, L.16/17) – alluding to the taking over of the territory, “free elections. Under military rule” (!) (P.170, L.6), “riots” (P.170, L.24),”town planning, (a euphemism”, Chomsky writes,” for replacing Arabs by Jews, reminiscent of some uses of “urban planning” in the U.S.A. “new settlements” (P.174, L.27). Israel settlements are termed as “flagrant violations” (P.177, L.29), and concerning Clinton and Barak, “realistic plan” (P.178, L.17),”dual containment policy” aimed at Iran and Iraq (P.165, L.38), “freezing settlements”, (P.172, L.31), “transfer” (P.179, L.10),”and the demographic danger” (P.179, L.40).
Many more examples contained in this book include” United in joy”. At the victory of U.S.A. Fair Play “New York Times, (P.3, and L.22), and of course: “Washington’s” war on terror” (P.4, L.34).
An analysis of the text shows the author’s violent use of words. Right at the beginning of Chapter 7 he sets the scene of oppression: “a massive and intimidating police presence” (S.T.L.) P. 160, L. 3, “facing the thousands of people who streamed out of the Mosque” on the Muslim day of prayer, (September 29, 2000). We are told that this “set the stage for the shocking sequel” (S.T.L.) P.160, L.8, shortly followed by the words “collective punishment), (S.T.L.) P.160, L.20. “ Expelled with extreme brutality (S.T.L.) P.168, L.3, creates a powerful visual image.
On (S.T.L.) P.161, L.2 “doctrinally useful” is well chosen words by Chomsky. In this context the author is suggesting that the U.S.A is concerned with an abstract, not practical theory, using Human Rights Organizations purely for its own gain. In the second paragraph (S.T.L.) P.161, the author continues to “point the finger” at the U.S.A: “These conclusions are illustrated graphically “...mentioning the death of an innocent child, while “ambulances sought in vain “ ... “pitiful efforts” to help their wounded, commenting on the ruthlessness of the so-called Israeli Defence Forces who “apparently even targeted people helping to remove the wounded.”(S.T.L.) P. 160,L.4:”Predictably” tells us that Chomsky knows it was the intention of Prime Minister Ehud Barak to “intimidate” and “clash” with the “thousands” who had met in prayer. Note: the placing of the word “streamed” (S.T.L.) L. 5. Note also the author’s choice of words for the I.D.F on P. 162:”Well-protected rooftop position”, “recklessly”, “repeatedly”, “disrupting”...”Fired missiles”.
Throughout Chapter 7 Chomsky’s use of words demonstrates that the U.S.A, despite its deep involvement, reports only what it wishes and feels no guilt: “improper” (S.T.L.) P.161, L.16, “virtually ignored in the United States” (S.T.L.) P.160, L.40, and also P, 162&163. While P. 170 is filled with sarcastic words and phrases relating to U.S. initial rejection of President Anwar-Al-Sadat’s proposals in 1971 and the way they were later pushed into accepting these proposals in 1977.
Ironically, Chomsky writes:” The version for the U.S. public was quite different” (S.T.L.) P.170, L.35. More particularly well chosen words in Chapter 7 are:” the non-aligned countries (S.T.L.) P.168, L.33, which conjures a very visual image, repeated use of the “blocked”P.168, L.40 and P.171,L.20, mentioned earlier in my Introduction, “servile tones” showing irony (S.T.L.)P.171,L.29, “colonial domination” (S.T.L.)P.171,L.40, “effectively annexed” (S.T.T.)P.172,L.19, ”hemmed in” (S.T.L.) P.176,L.18, “collective punishment”(S.T.L.)P.178,L.3, also used in paragraph One. 10 of the Introduction 2.”collective bargaining agreements”(S.T.L.) P.179, L.16,”conceal” (S.T.L.) P.172, L.6, “stern internal measures”(S.T.L.) P.179, L.40, and “impose” (S.T.L.) P.180, L.10, to quote just some of the author’s well chosen words.
Conclusion:
Having examined Chapter7: U.S / Israel-Palestine (May 2001) and analysed the author’s use of language in the text, his strong sense of irony and satire, particular stylistic and linguistic and linguistic features such as his use of brackets, personal pronouns, visual imagery, rhetoric, metaphors, and passive voice, negatives, imperatives and colloquialism, it is apparent that he has successfully and profoundly portrayed to the reader the key issues of this, the final chapter of ”Pirates and Emperors, Old and New”.
He has shown the callous way Washington has moved towards its objective and the illusion of virtue presented by the mass media internationally. He has shown the ruthlessness of the so-called Israeli Defence Forces in its harsh dealings with the Palestinians, and has described the U.S. / Israeli objective:
“Step by step; the U.S. and Israel have laboured for 30 years to construct a system of permanent neo-colonial dependency.”(S.T.L.)P.180, L.15&16.
1
