What do you think?
Rate this book
Estados peligrosos: Oriente Medio y la política exterior estadounidense (Estado y Sociedad)
En Estados peligrosos, Chomsky y Achcar abordan cuestiones clave tales como el terrorismo, el fundamentalismo, el petróleo, la democracia; sin olvidar la guerra de Afganistán, la invasión de Irak, el conflicto armado entre Israel, Hamás y Hezbolá.
676 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 1, 2006
44 people are currently reading
1305 people want to read
About the author
Noam Chomsky
977 books17.4k followersAvram Noam Chomsky is an American professor and public intellectual known for his work in linguistics, political activism, and social criticism. Sometimes called "the father of modern linguistics", Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy and one of the founders of the field of cognitive science. He is a laureate professor of linguistics at the University of Arizona and an institute professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Among the most cited living authors, Chomsky has written more than 150 books on topics such as linguistics, war, and politics. In addition to his work in linguistics, since the 1960s Chomsky has been an influential voice on the American left as a consistent critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, and corporate influence on political institutions and the media.
Born to Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants (his father was William Chomsky) in Philadelphia, Chomsky developed an early interest in anarchism from alternative bookstores in New York City. He studied at the University of Pennsylvania. During his postgraduate work in the Harvard Society of Fellows, Chomsky developed the theory of transformational grammar for which he earned his doctorate in 1955. That year he began teaching at MIT, and in 1957 emerged as a significant figure in linguistics with his landmark work Syntactic Structures, which played a major role in remodeling the study of language. From 1958 to 1959 Chomsky was a National Science Foundation fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study. He created or co-created the universal grammar theory, the generative grammar theory, the Chomsky hierarchy, and the minimalist program. Chomsky also played a pivotal role in the decline of linguistic behaviorism, and was particularly critical of the work of B.F. Skinner.
An outspoken opponent of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, which he saw as an act of American imperialism, in 1967 Chomsky rose to national attention for his anti-war essay "The Responsibility of Intellectuals". Becoming associated with the New Left, he was arrested multiple times for his activism and placed on President Richard M. Nixon's list of political opponents. While expanding his work in linguistics over subsequent decades, he also became involved in the linguistics wars. In collaboration with Edward S. Herman, Chomsky later articulated the propaganda model of media criticism in Manufacturing Consent, and worked to expose the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. His defense of unconditional freedom of speech, including that of Holocaust denial, generated significant controversy in the Faurisson affair of the 1980s. Chomsky's commentary on the Cambodian genocide and the Bosnian genocide also generated controversy. Since retiring from active teaching at MIT, he has continued his vocal political activism, including opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq and supporting the Occupy movement. An anti-Zionist, Chomsky considers Israel's treatment of Palestinians to be worse than South African–style apartheid, and criticizes U.S. support for Israel.
Chomsky is widely recognized as having helped to spark the cognitive revolution in the human sciences, contributing to the development of a new cognitivistic framework for the study of language and the mind. Chomsky remains a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, U.S. involvement and Israel's role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and mass media. Chomsky and his ideas are highly influential in the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movements. Since 2017, he has been Agnese Helms Haury Chair in the Agnese Nelms Haury Program in Environment and Social Justice at the University of Arizona.
Born to Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants (his father was William Chomsky) in Philadelphia, Chomsky developed an early interest in anarchism from alternative bookstores in New York City. He studied at the University of Pennsylvania. During his postgraduate work in the Harvard Society of Fellows, Chomsky developed the theory of transformational grammar for which he earned his doctorate in 1955. That year he began teaching at MIT, and in 1957 emerged as a significant figure in linguistics with his landmark work Syntactic Structures, which played a major role in remodeling the study of language. From 1958 to 1959 Chomsky was a National Science Foundation fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study. He created or co-created the universal grammar theory, the generative grammar theory, the Chomsky hierarchy, and the minimalist program. Chomsky also played a pivotal role in the decline of linguistic behaviorism, and was particularly critical of the work of B.F. Skinner.
An outspoken opponent of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, which he saw as an act of American imperialism, in 1967 Chomsky rose to national attention for his anti-war essay "The Responsibility of Intellectuals". Becoming associated with the New Left, he was arrested multiple times for his activism and placed on President Richard M. Nixon's list of political opponents. While expanding his work in linguistics over subsequent decades, he also became involved in the linguistics wars. In collaboration with Edward S. Herman, Chomsky later articulated the propaganda model of media criticism in Manufacturing Consent, and worked to expose the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. His defense of unconditional freedom of speech, including that of Holocaust denial, generated significant controversy in the Faurisson affair of the 1980s. Chomsky's commentary on the Cambodian genocide and the Bosnian genocide also generated controversy. Since retiring from active teaching at MIT, he has continued his vocal political activism, including opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq and supporting the Occupy movement. An anti-Zionist, Chomsky considers Israel's treatment of Palestinians to be worse than South African–style apartheid, and criticizes U.S. support for Israel.
Chomsky is widely recognized as having helped to spark the cognitive revolution in the human sciences, contributing to the development of a new cognitivistic framework for the study of language and the mind. Chomsky remains a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, U.S. involvement and Israel's role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and mass media. Chomsky and his ideas are highly influential in the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movements. Since 2017, he has been Agnese Helms Haury Chair in the Agnese Nelms Haury Program in Environment and Social Justice at the University of Arizona.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 40 reviews
July 28, 2014
Noam Chomsky and Gilbert Achcar, Perilous Power: The Middle East and U.S. Foreign Policy; Dialogues on Terror, Democracy, War, and Justice, Expanded Edition (Boulder: Paradigm Publishers, 2009). Pp. 319. $29.95.
This book is a fantastic source of information for those who want to understand the current political makeup of the Middle East. The book derives from a three-day conversation in January of 2006 between Chomsky and Achcar, which was moderated by Stephen Shalom. The final text was edited, and footnotes were profusely added after the conversations. The edition I read has an epilogue, which was written six months later (July of 200); and a postscript, which was written two years (2008) later. Needless to say, it's now 2014, and another updated could be written.
Topics covered include: 1) terrorism; 2) fundamentalism and democracy; 3) U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East; 4) the War in Iraq and its aftermath; 5) the War in Afghanistan and its aftermath; 6) the situations of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the Kurds (of Iraq and Turkey), and Lebanon; and 7) the Israel-Palestine conflict.
The conversation between these two brilliant scholars is eye-opening. Their major premise is that the U.S.'s goal is to control the world's economy (i.e., power). To do that they need to control the oil supply, which would give them power over other countries (including European countries) because the U.S. could threaten to 'turnoff the oil.’ They explain how this motivation leads the U.S. to: undermine democracy (all over the world - including in the U.S. itself); go to war with and invade with certain countries (Iraq), but not others; topple particular leaders, but not others; and install some leaders who are actually worse for their countries than the leaders who were removed.
In fact, they show how the current policy of the U.S. is actually anti-democracy. For example, the U.S. worked against free elections in Venezuela and Nicaragua (pg. 49-50). They also ask if America can truly be called a democracy when polls often reveal that Americans are at odds with congress on certain policies (e.g., going to war, universal healthcare).
My favorite section of the book was the section on fundamentalism (pp. 27 ff.) - perhaps because I'm in the religion 'business.' Their argument is that from the turn of the 20th century onward, there was a strong tendency towards secular nationalism rising in the Middle East. In fact, it sounds as if this nationalism was very progressive in many respects. However, U.S. government backed Islamic fundamentalists in order to bring instability to the region - or, at the very least, opposed secular nationalists, which lead to a vacuum that was filled by fundamentalists. The U.S. feared that secular nationalism would lead to strong and powerful Middle Eastern countries that would use the oil for their own economic development. In order to keep control over the oil (and also from keeping the U.S.S.R. and Europe from getting control of the oil), the U.S. consistently backed the fundamentalists, who created instability and prevented powerful Middle Eastern countries from developing.
The discussion goes from Middle Eastern fundamentalism to U.S. fundamentalism, which has only recently become a political force. Their argument is that C.E.O.s and other powerful businessmen foster Christian fundamentalism in order "to shift the focus of many voters from the issues that really affect their interests (such as health, education, economic issues, wages) over to religious crusades to block the teaching of evolution, gay rights, and abortion rights" (pg. 31).
Chomsky continues by saying, "These [the religious/social issues] are all issues, for example, about which CEOs just don't care very much. They care a lot about the other issues [health, education, economic, wages]. And if you can shift the focus of debate and attention and presidential politics and so on to questions that are quite marginal for the wealthy - questions of, say, gay rights - that's wonderful for people who want to destroy the labor unions, construct a social/political system for the benefit of the ultrarich, while everyone else barely survives" (pg. 31). In other words, they are arguing that Christian fundamentalism is actually hurting the majority of the population (main street), all while making a very small percentage very rich (wall street).
In general the book is very readable. The reason I didn't give it the full number of stars available is that it can get very deep very quickly - to the point of name-dropping. It would have been helpful to have glossary of terms and people, a map, a timeline of events, and perhaps an appendix that quickly summarized the history and movements within each of the countries discussed. In all, however, with the current situation, I would highly recommend everyone reading this book.
This book is a fantastic source of information for those who want to understand the current political makeup of the Middle East. The book derives from a three-day conversation in January of 2006 between Chomsky and Achcar, which was moderated by Stephen Shalom. The final text was edited, and footnotes were profusely added after the conversations. The edition I read has an epilogue, which was written six months later (July of 200); and a postscript, which was written two years (2008) later. Needless to say, it's now 2014, and another updated could be written.
Topics covered include: 1) terrorism; 2) fundamentalism and democracy; 3) U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East; 4) the War in Iraq and its aftermath; 5) the War in Afghanistan and its aftermath; 6) the situations of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the Kurds (of Iraq and Turkey), and Lebanon; and 7) the Israel-Palestine conflict.
The conversation between these two brilliant scholars is eye-opening. Their major premise is that the U.S.'s goal is to control the world's economy (i.e., power). To do that they need to control the oil supply, which would give them power over other countries (including European countries) because the U.S. could threaten to 'turnoff the oil.’ They explain how this motivation leads the U.S. to: undermine democracy (all over the world - including in the U.S. itself); go to war with and invade with certain countries (Iraq), but not others; topple particular leaders, but not others; and install some leaders who are actually worse for their countries than the leaders who were removed.
In fact, they show how the current policy of the U.S. is actually anti-democracy. For example, the U.S. worked against free elections in Venezuela and Nicaragua (pg. 49-50). They also ask if America can truly be called a democracy when polls often reveal that Americans are at odds with congress on certain policies (e.g., going to war, universal healthcare).
My favorite section of the book was the section on fundamentalism (pp. 27 ff.) - perhaps because I'm in the religion 'business.' Their argument is that from the turn of the 20th century onward, there was a strong tendency towards secular nationalism rising in the Middle East. In fact, it sounds as if this nationalism was very progressive in many respects. However, U.S. government backed Islamic fundamentalists in order to bring instability to the region - or, at the very least, opposed secular nationalists, which lead to a vacuum that was filled by fundamentalists. The U.S. feared that secular nationalism would lead to strong and powerful Middle Eastern countries that would use the oil for their own economic development. In order to keep control over the oil (and also from keeping the U.S.S.R. and Europe from getting control of the oil), the U.S. consistently backed the fundamentalists, who created instability and prevented powerful Middle Eastern countries from developing.
The discussion goes from Middle Eastern fundamentalism to U.S. fundamentalism, which has only recently become a political force. Their argument is that C.E.O.s and other powerful businessmen foster Christian fundamentalism in order "to shift the focus of many voters from the issues that really affect their interests (such as health, education, economic issues, wages) over to religious crusades to block the teaching of evolution, gay rights, and abortion rights" (pg. 31).
Chomsky continues by saying, "These [the religious/social issues] are all issues, for example, about which CEOs just don't care very much. They care a lot about the other issues [health, education, economic, wages]. And if you can shift the focus of debate and attention and presidential politics and so on to questions that are quite marginal for the wealthy - questions of, say, gay rights - that's wonderful for people who want to destroy the labor unions, construct a social/political system for the benefit of the ultrarich, while everyone else barely survives" (pg. 31). In other words, they are arguing that Christian fundamentalism is actually hurting the majority of the population (main street), all while making a very small percentage very rich (wall street).
In general the book is very readable. The reason I didn't give it the full number of stars available is that it can get very deep very quickly - to the point of name-dropping. It would have been helpful to have glossary of terms and people, a map, a timeline of events, and perhaps an appendix that quickly summarized the history and movements within each of the countries discussed. In all, however, with the current situation, I would highly recommend everyone reading this book.
May 5, 2015
كتاب شيق جدا وعملي ويعطي اجابات واضحه غير مفبركه ولا تستخدم السرد بهدف الاضافه الانشائيه وكونه مصمم كمقابله ايضا ونقاش بين جلبير ونعوم فهو كتاب جيد ومهضوم للاستفاده اما فيما يتعلق بالفحوى فقضية حق العوده للاجئين الفلسطينين لم يعطي النقاش موقف ويشعر القارئ بالتراجع من قبل نعوم لتقديم او لدعم قرارات دون سواها اما باقي المواضيع فالحقائق المقدمه مقنعه وعمليه للقارئ وجلبير ونعوم في كتاب واحد انجاز لكي يتم قرائتهما معا
September 12, 2021
3.5 stars
I enjoyed the analysis—which was very thorough—and appreciated that the interviewees were not afraid to disagree and therefore show multiple perspectives. That’s an affordance of this style of book that is lost in the more traditional single author format. My only criticism is that there was not much basic explanation of the events they were analyzing; I had to supplement a lot of the book with quick internet searches. That being said, this book was probably meant for someone who did have that basic knowledge, so it’s more of a me problem. Overall I liked what this book had to say, and I hope that Chomsky’s and Achcar’s reasoning can help inform me as I learn more about this subject over time!
(Warning for potential readers: This book is 15 years out of date, so don’t expect a contemporary analysis of ongoing issues.)
I enjoyed the analysis—which was very thorough—and appreciated that the interviewees were not afraid to disagree and therefore show multiple perspectives. That’s an affordance of this style of book that is lost in the more traditional single author format. My only criticism is that there was not much basic explanation of the events they were analyzing; I had to supplement a lot of the book with quick internet searches. That being said, this book was probably meant for someone who did have that basic knowledge, so it’s more of a me problem. Overall I liked what this book had to say, and I hope that Chomsky’s and Achcar’s reasoning can help inform me as I learn more about this subject over time!
(Warning for potential readers: This book is 15 years out of date, so don’t expect a contemporary analysis of ongoing issues.)
February 27, 2020
(gerçek) ABD dış politikasını anlamak için bu kitabı politikaya ilgi duyan herkesin okuması gerek. Dünyaya bakışımızın ana akım medyanın bize telkin ettiği şekilde oluşması, aslında dünyanı ne kadar az ve ne kadar farklı, aslında hiç te doğru şekilde anlamadığımızı gösteriyor. ABD politikasının aslında ABD stratejik amaçları çerçevesinde yürütüldüyünü anlamak için bu kitabı okumak lazım. ABD stratejik amaçlarına ulaşmak için de gerekirse demokratik yolla seçilmiş rejimleri devirmek, gerekirse terörizmi desteklemek, gerekirse de nükleer silahları kullanmak makul görülüyor. Radikal dış politikaya sahip ABD-nin "amaçlar araçları meşrulaştırır" sloganını uygulayan en pragmatik ve en çirkin global aktör olduğunu göreceksiniz.
January 21, 2013
A superb revelation of many truths hidden behind masked demoracy! Both Chomsky & Achcar provides an insightful exposition of the main dynamics of the Arab Worlds and the Middle East in particular. I found this dialogue of a profound significance. Highly recommend to read whenever you have the feel to listen to two gurus in the world of politics exchanging thoughts in flowing spontenous manner.
April 9, 2013
A great collection of Chomsky's and Achkar's talks about issues related to world politics. The book is a great introduction for anyone interested in the Middle East. Chomsky and Achkar present genuine opinions and viewpoints that are not popular in mainstream media, but that have great value to the neutral or truth-seeking reader. An enjoyable book.
August 31, 2019
Must Read. As is everything else by Chomsky. Gives quite some perspective into extremely complicated issues of the middle east and American foreign policy which also extends generally to a lot more of the issues facing us today.
February 11, 2023
Released now 17 years ago, a lot of the analysis in this book is outdated, in that it doesn't apply to current times. Iraq, Israel, Iran and Afghanistan have all gone through some heartbreaking and some remarkable changes. Yet though now the events vary, the same problems persist. And there is one major problem that seems like it will forever exist - and that is US Foreign Policy.
Chomsky is a figurehead of international leftism and his analyses are acute, insightful and well connected. Achcar, I've never come across before, but he makes some startlingly intelligent points, informed by his vast knowledge of the scenario. Together, along with Shalom, they have produced a staggeringly readable book, sticking to plain, simple language.
My one nag is that a lot if it remains undefined. They often quickly descend into a level of depth which only seasoned spectators can understand - namedrops, situations, ideologies etc - which of course, in a conversation between two formidable academics, is a given, but the editor could have made a glossary of some sort, or explained in his own terms what was going on.
Still, this is an excellent book, which serves both as 1) intermediary introduction and 2) deeper reading into issues such as Iraq, Israel-Palestine, terrorism and US foreign policy. Great read.
Chomsky is a figurehead of international leftism and his analyses are acute, insightful and well connected. Achcar, I've never come across before, but he makes some startlingly intelligent points, informed by his vast knowledge of the scenario. Together, along with Shalom, they have produced a staggeringly readable book, sticking to plain, simple language.
My one nag is that a lot if it remains undefined. They often quickly descend into a level of depth which only seasoned spectators can understand - namedrops, situations, ideologies etc - which of course, in a conversation between two formidable academics, is a given, but the editor could have made a glossary of some sort, or explained in his own terms what was going on.
Still, this is an excellent book, which serves both as 1) intermediary introduction and 2) deeper reading into issues such as Iraq, Israel-Palestine, terrorism and US foreign policy. Great read.
September 4, 2025
A really good overview of the complexities of the Middle East and the evil influence of Washington.
May 19, 2021
Medyo outdated na ang mga pangyayaring tinalakay sa librong ito nina Noam Chomsky at Gilbert Achcar, pero matututuhan mo rito ang pamamalakad ng US bilang isang superpower at kung paano nito ginagamit ang kapangyarihan upang impluwensiyahan ang mga nangyayari sa mundo, partikular na sa Middle East.
Mahirap itong basahin dahil makapal at dahil maraming pangalan ang hindi pamilyar sa akin, pero may mangilan-ngilan namang nakikilala ko dahil sa mga nababasang world news. Pero kung susumahin, ipinakita ng librong ito kung gaano kasama talaga ang US at kung paanong sila talaga ang tunay na terorista at hindi ang mga tinatawag nilang terrorist na Arabo.
Isa sa tumatak sa akin ay itong sinabi ni Chomsky: The United States supports democracy if and only if it conforms to US strategic and economic objectives.
Laging bukambibig ng US ang pagtatanggol sa demokrasya, pero sa totoo lang, isa sila sa pinakaundemocratic na bansa sa mundo. Hindi natin masyadong ramdam ito sa Pinas dahil kaalyado tayo ng US, pero kung susuway tayo sa kagustuhan nila at kung may matagpuang oil dito sa atin, tiyak na magbabago ang pakikitungo ng US sa atin.
Basically, ang pakikialam ng US sa Middle East, ang pakikipag-alyado nito sa Saudi at sa Israel, ay maiuugat sa isang bagay lamang: langis.
Langis ang main driver ng industriya sa US o kahit saan man, at kung malakas kang bansa, siyempre, kailangan mo ng consistent na pagkukunan ng oil, at iyon ay ang mga bansa sa Middle East.
Kaya 'pag may giniyera sila o kinampihang bansa, laging may kinalaman iyon sa langis, pero ang sasabihin nila sa media ay a) para itaguyod ang demokasya o b) para sugpuin ang terorismo, pero echos lang nila 'yon. Langis lang talaga ang puno't dulo ng lahat.
Eye-opener din sa akin ang discussion nina Chomsky at Achcar tungkol sa Israel-Palestine conflict. Tangina rin ng US dito na suportado ang Israel. Kung paanong pinagpapatay ang mga Hudyo ni Hitler noong WWII, ganoon din bale ang ginagawa ng mga Israeli na Hudyo ngayon sa mga Palestinian sa Lebanon, Gaza, etc. Minamassacre nila ang mga hindi Hudyo at ninanakawan nila ng lupa at kabuhayan. Napakahayop din ng mga Hudyo sa Israel, in fairness. Ginagamit nila ang anti-Semitism to their advantage at para ijustify ang pagpatay nila sa mga Palestinian.
At siyempre suportado sila ng US. Mahalaga kasi ang role at lokasyon ng Israel para mapanatili ang hegemony at kontrol ng Estados Unidos sa Middle East, lalo na upang malabanan ang puwersa ng mga itinuturing nilang kaaway roon, like Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt, etc. E kung tutuusin, kaya lang naman dumami ang "terorista" e dahil pinagtatanggol lang nila ang sarili nila sa mga dayuhang Amerikano, na, ayon kay Chomsky, ang siyang tunay na terorista.
Take note, American si Chomsky.
Pagdating sa usaping Middle East, napakahusay magpaliwanag ni Achcar. Talagang pinag-aralan niya at kabisado niya ang lahat ng pangyayari. Pagdating naman sa US policies at kahayupan, si Chomsky ang expert. Ang husay nila pareho. Ang dami kong natutuhan kahit hindi naman ako affected ng mga nangyayari sa Middle East.
Mahirap itong basahin dahil makapal at dahil maraming pangalan ang hindi pamilyar sa akin, pero may mangilan-ngilan namang nakikilala ko dahil sa mga nababasang world news. Pero kung susumahin, ipinakita ng librong ito kung gaano kasama talaga ang US at kung paanong sila talaga ang tunay na terorista at hindi ang mga tinatawag nilang terrorist na Arabo.
Isa sa tumatak sa akin ay itong sinabi ni Chomsky: The United States supports democracy if and only if it conforms to US strategic and economic objectives.
Laging bukambibig ng US ang pagtatanggol sa demokrasya, pero sa totoo lang, isa sila sa pinakaundemocratic na bansa sa mundo. Hindi natin masyadong ramdam ito sa Pinas dahil kaalyado tayo ng US, pero kung susuway tayo sa kagustuhan nila at kung may matagpuang oil dito sa atin, tiyak na magbabago ang pakikitungo ng US sa atin.
Basically, ang pakikialam ng US sa Middle East, ang pakikipag-alyado nito sa Saudi at sa Israel, ay maiuugat sa isang bagay lamang: langis.
Langis ang main driver ng industriya sa US o kahit saan man, at kung malakas kang bansa, siyempre, kailangan mo ng consistent na pagkukunan ng oil, at iyon ay ang mga bansa sa Middle East.
Kaya 'pag may giniyera sila o kinampihang bansa, laging may kinalaman iyon sa langis, pero ang sasabihin nila sa media ay a) para itaguyod ang demokasya o b) para sugpuin ang terorismo, pero echos lang nila 'yon. Langis lang talaga ang puno't dulo ng lahat.
Eye-opener din sa akin ang discussion nina Chomsky at Achcar tungkol sa Israel-Palestine conflict. Tangina rin ng US dito na suportado ang Israel. Kung paanong pinagpapatay ang mga Hudyo ni Hitler noong WWII, ganoon din bale ang ginagawa ng mga Israeli na Hudyo ngayon sa mga Palestinian sa Lebanon, Gaza, etc. Minamassacre nila ang mga hindi Hudyo at ninanakawan nila ng lupa at kabuhayan. Napakahayop din ng mga Hudyo sa Israel, in fairness. Ginagamit nila ang anti-Semitism to their advantage at para ijustify ang pagpatay nila sa mga Palestinian.
At siyempre suportado sila ng US. Mahalaga kasi ang role at lokasyon ng Israel para mapanatili ang hegemony at kontrol ng Estados Unidos sa Middle East, lalo na upang malabanan ang puwersa ng mga itinuturing nilang kaaway roon, like Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt, etc. E kung tutuusin, kaya lang naman dumami ang "terorista" e dahil pinagtatanggol lang nila ang sarili nila sa mga dayuhang Amerikano, na, ayon kay Chomsky, ang siyang tunay na terorista.
Take note, American si Chomsky.
Pagdating sa usaping Middle East, napakahusay magpaliwanag ni Achcar. Talagang pinag-aralan niya at kabisado niya ang lahat ng pangyayari. Pagdating naman sa US policies at kahayupan, si Chomsky ang expert. Ang husay nila pareho. Ang dami kong natutuhan kahit hindi naman ako affected ng mga nangyayari sa Middle East.
March 6, 2024
Un libro que narra una conversación que la verdad está interesante, no es un gran libro sobre la política de Oriente Medio si alguien busca un super ensayo, pero si da un esbozo de por qué pasan las cosas uqe pasan, y unas valientes críticas a la política exterior de los países imperialistas occidentales
July 15, 2022
A good discussion between Noam Chomsky and Gilbert Archar on the major issues of the Middle East Region. Especially, the last part on the Israel-Palestine conflict is quite thought provoking... Recommended.
March 11, 2024
A pesar de tener sus años (18 a la fecha) la lectura se siente sumamente actual, y es más, diría que es un texto obligatorio para entender la historía de medio oriente y la actuación de Estados Unidos y Europa para desestabilizar la región y verla como es hoy.
Un texto clave.
Un texto clave.
February 3, 2019
Eye opening book. Highly recommend
May 22, 2022
كتاب يعري و يوضح وجهه امريكا الحقيقي ،من خلال سرد الاحداث وتحليلها تاركا لك ان تستنتج الحقيقة المؤلمة
March 2, 2013
This book offers a nice look at the moral clarity and intellectual honesty that Noam Chomsky has spent his life espousing. Though Chomsky tends to focus on international politics, I always like it when he speaks of domestic issues, as in this passage that I highlighted about the rise of religious fervor in America:
"The fundamentalist mobilization has occurred during a unique period of American economic history -- there's never been anything like it -- where, for about twenty-five years, real wages have either stagnated or declined for the majority. Real median family incomes for the majority are steady or maybe declining. That's never happened before. There were things like the Great Depression, but never twenty-five years of stagnation for the majority through a period with no serious economic disruption. Working hours have been going way up, social benefits way down, indebtedness growing enormously. These are real social and economic crises. And the way it's been dealt with, to a large extent, is by mobilizing what's always been there, the Christian fundamentalist sectors, and turning them into an active political force. And in the same period, shifting the discourse, and the focus and so on, to those issues that are concern to the fundamentalists, but of only marginal concern to the people who own and run the society. In fact, you could take a look at the attitudes of CEOs: They're what are called liberal. They're not very different from college professors. And if the population can be obsessed with 'evolution theory' and gay rights and so on, fine with them, as long as they're running the social and economic policies. So, for example, after the last election [2004], the business press was describing the 'euphoria' as they called it, in boardrooms; and it wasn't because they were against gay marriage. Some were, some weren't; many of them or their children are gay anyway -- no, what they knew is that it was a free run for business. And if you can manage that, that's an achievement; it's one of the ways the population can be kept under control. Plus inducing fear, which is not realized.
"It's kind of striking, but my impression is that there was a real shift with the administration of Jimmy Carter. Pre-Carter, nobody really cared very much whether the president was religious -- did anyone care whether Lyndon Johnson went to church every Sunday? But Carter, who was probably sincere, somehow taught party managers that if you put on a pious face -- and you talk about how you're lusting in your heart and feel guilty and saw Jesus and so on -- that's a way of appealing to a big voting bloc. Now, since Carter, I think every presidential candidate has pretended to religious experience. Even Bill Clinton, who's probably about as religious as I am, made sure to be seen every week singing in the Baptist church."
"The fundamentalist mobilization has occurred during a unique period of American economic history -- there's never been anything like it -- where, for about twenty-five years, real wages have either stagnated or declined for the majority. Real median family incomes for the majority are steady or maybe declining. That's never happened before. There were things like the Great Depression, but never twenty-five years of stagnation for the majority through a period with no serious economic disruption. Working hours have been going way up, social benefits way down, indebtedness growing enormously. These are real social and economic crises. And the way it's been dealt with, to a large extent, is by mobilizing what's always been there, the Christian fundamentalist sectors, and turning them into an active political force. And in the same period, shifting the discourse, and the focus and so on, to those issues that are concern to the fundamentalists, but of only marginal concern to the people who own and run the society. In fact, you could take a look at the attitudes of CEOs: They're what are called liberal. They're not very different from college professors. And if the population can be obsessed with 'evolution theory' and gay rights and so on, fine with them, as long as they're running the social and economic policies. So, for example, after the last election [2004], the business press was describing the 'euphoria' as they called it, in boardrooms; and it wasn't because they were against gay marriage. Some were, some weren't; many of them or their children are gay anyway -- no, what they knew is that it was a free run for business. And if you can manage that, that's an achievement; it's one of the ways the population can be kept under control. Plus inducing fear, which is not realized.
"It's kind of striking, but my impression is that there was a real shift with the administration of Jimmy Carter. Pre-Carter, nobody really cared very much whether the president was religious -- did anyone care whether Lyndon Johnson went to church every Sunday? But Carter, who was probably sincere, somehow taught party managers that if you put on a pious face -- and you talk about how you're lusting in your heart and feel guilty and saw Jesus and so on -- that's a way of appealing to a big voting bloc. Now, since Carter, I think every presidential candidate has pretended to religious experience. Even Bill Clinton, who's probably about as religious as I am, made sure to be seen every week singing in the Baptist church."
December 13, 2015
To anyone following international politics and U.S. foreign policy, Noam Chomsky will be a familiar name. Chomsky over the years has been quite a vocal critic of American foreign policy; lambasting it for its double standards, its imperialist ambitions, and “fitting any standard description of terrorism.” Achcar is a specialist on the Middle East (someone I must admit I was not familiar with).
The strength of the discussion, which is the format of the book, lies in the depth of knowledge that both men possess. This knowledge is not just limited to the Middle East, but also the workings of the U.S. government, its various agencies, the policies followed by several administrations, minutes, memoranda, U.N. resolutions and various news sources. The mastery and synthesis of all this information allows Achcar and Chomsky to dissect the actions of the American government and to paint a far more realistic picture than that presented by news sources and official statements. And it’s not a particularly pretty picture. The one assertion both men make throughout out the book is the growing disparity between public opinion and public policy in the United States.
Readers will require a basic knowledge of the region’s politics and history in order to keep up with the discussion. This may seem like a redundant remark but nonetheless worth stating. Secondly this book was published 9 years ago and many changes and developments have occurred since. Both Chomsky and Achcar have gone on to author several books, none to my knowledge covering the same topics but similar; especially Chomsky.
With their dialogue ranging from terrorism, fundamentalism, sources of U.S. foreign policy, to conflicts (in particular the Israeli-Palestinian conflict); and the inclusion of an interview conducted 6 months later, allowing both intellectuals to analyze and update their earlier opinions, readers can not only expect to have their knowledge of the Middle East and its conflicts broadened; but Perilous Power will allow for a keener visualization of the details and nuances of the area. An ultimately vital aspect when trying to understand the Middle East.
The strength of the discussion, which is the format of the book, lies in the depth of knowledge that both men possess. This knowledge is not just limited to the Middle East, but also the workings of the U.S. government, its various agencies, the policies followed by several administrations, minutes, memoranda, U.N. resolutions and various news sources. The mastery and synthesis of all this information allows Achcar and Chomsky to dissect the actions of the American government and to paint a far more realistic picture than that presented by news sources and official statements. And it’s not a particularly pretty picture. The one assertion both men make throughout out the book is the growing disparity between public opinion and public policy in the United States.
Readers will require a basic knowledge of the region’s politics and history in order to keep up with the discussion. This may seem like a redundant remark but nonetheless worth stating. Secondly this book was published 9 years ago and many changes and developments have occurred since. Both Chomsky and Achcar have gone on to author several books, none to my knowledge covering the same topics but similar; especially Chomsky.
With their dialogue ranging from terrorism, fundamentalism, sources of U.S. foreign policy, to conflicts (in particular the Israeli-Palestinian conflict); and the inclusion of an interview conducted 6 months later, allowing both intellectuals to analyze and update their earlier opinions, readers can not only expect to have their knowledge of the Middle East and its conflicts broadened; but Perilous Power will allow for a keener visualization of the details and nuances of the area. An ultimately vital aspect when trying to understand the Middle East.
December 26, 2015
This is an interesting, sometimes challenging, analysis of contemporary events in the Middle East and US policy, published in in 2007. That makes it old enough to be read in retrospective, but recent enough to give its analysis of the situation in Iraq and Syria a particular poignancy. It is depressing to the observe that in the 8 years since then, things mostly got worse.
Much of the analysis is not, to an attentive watcher of the news with some historical awareness, very surprising. The form of the book, a transcribed dialogue, probably does not lend itself to very deep insights. But it is a debate between two well-informed, if somewhat biased, observers. They sometimes fail, in their analysis of US policy, to apply Hanlon's Razor -- "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." Chomsky also has a tendency to burst out in colourful rants.
But on the whole it is an engaging dissection of years of rather unsuccessful foreign policy and military intervention. The big lesson seems to be that you cannot have a successful foreign policy if you do not understand the people for whom it is their domestic policy; that local motives and pressures will always assert their power over decision made (and illusions fostered in) foreign capitals, no matter how powerful the people there think themselves to be.
Much of the analysis is not, to an attentive watcher of the news with some historical awareness, very surprising. The form of the book, a transcribed dialogue, probably does not lend itself to very deep insights. But it is a debate between two well-informed, if somewhat biased, observers. They sometimes fail, in their analysis of US policy, to apply Hanlon's Razor -- "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." Chomsky also has a tendency to burst out in colourful rants.
But on the whole it is an engaging dissection of years of rather unsuccessful foreign policy and military intervention. The big lesson seems to be that you cannot have a successful foreign policy if you do not understand the people for whom it is their domestic policy; that local motives and pressures will always assert their power over decision made (and illusions fostered in) foreign capitals, no matter how powerful the people there think themselves to be.
January 24, 2009
Another solid and well-informed offering from Chomsky, and my first exposure to Gilbert Achcar.
The drawback with this book as with most of Chomsky's political output is that it could really use a historical/chronological overview. The authors are meticulous about documenting their sources, and being of liberal-progressive bent myself I have little problem with their moral analysis, which is diametrically opposed to the Kissingerian/neocon "you can't make windfall profits without breaking a few thousand infant skulls" ethic, but I don't actually follow the Iraq War obsessively closely. I read the news (nearly) every day but I don't yet have the nose to sniff through the media filters Chomsky describes in Manufacturing Consent.
Highly readable and valuable--if actual policy is nearly inevitably a compromise, we need books like this to remind us what the "negotiating position" of the antiwar left really should be, rather than going to the table pre-compromised. Even conservatives are smarter than that.
The drawback with this book as with most of Chomsky's political output is that it could really use a historical/chronological overview. The authors are meticulous about documenting their sources, and being of liberal-progressive bent myself I have little problem with their moral analysis, which is diametrically opposed to the Kissingerian/neocon "you can't make windfall profits without breaking a few thousand infant skulls" ethic, but I don't actually follow the Iraq War obsessively closely. I read the news (nearly) every day but I don't yet have the nose to sniff through the media filters Chomsky describes in Manufacturing Consent.
Highly readable and valuable--if actual policy is nearly inevitably a compromise, we need books like this to remind us what the "negotiating position" of the antiwar left really should be, rather than going to the table pre-compromised. Even conservatives are smarter than that.
January 11, 2013
This book is a collaborative effort between Gilbert Achcar and Noam Chomsky; it was "written" as a series of moderated discussions between the two leftist intellectuals as they cover a variety of topics related to American foreign policy in the Middle East.
The book required at least a few trips to Google, as they talk about relatively esoteric organizations and leaders with hardly a passing thought of an introduction. Which is to be expected when two experts talk about their shared field.
Overall, this was a decent book. Take care to pay attention while you read, though, because there are a few logical fallacies that lurk within their discussions: I noticed that Chomsky in particular would use straw man arguments to prop up his opinions.
The book required at least a few trips to Google, as they talk about relatively esoteric organizations and leaders with hardly a passing thought of an introduction. Which is to be expected when two experts talk about their shared field.
Overall, this was a decent book. Take care to pay attention while you read, though, because there are a few logical fallacies that lurk within their discussions: I noticed that Chomsky in particular would use straw man arguments to prop up his opinions.
April 14, 2008
A fantastic debate/dialogue book between Noam Chomsky and Gilbert Achcar that is "moderated" (or at least kept on track to a certain extent) by Steven Shalom (who is no intellectual slouch himself). Chomsky and Achcar are both outstanding thinkers and it is a pleasure to get an inside view of their thought processes as there are some truly spectacular moments in which both Chomsky and Achcar are working out theories together all while modifying the others views.
May 27, 2008
Absolutely excellent stuff. This book is made up of transcripts of discussions between Gilbert Achcar and Noam Chomsky and goes into all the big issues around the middle east. It is very readable and full of passion. Everybody should read this, as it really puts events into context and tackles the myths bandied about in the press and mainstream politics. The issues are debated with real passion and great intelligence and a real concern for justice and truth.
June 21, 2011
Chomsky is undeniably brilliant and his opinions are usually fairly solid. However, he shows his political biases even in the first few pages of this book. It is an excellent read, but MUST be taken with a grain of salt. This is not an objective or entirely factual account of US policy in the Middle East, and omits pertinent and sometimes crucial pieces of information. Some readers seem to have missed this. I would balance reading this book with also reading one from a different angle.
January 8, 2009
noam chomsky must be the most prolific writer in the history of the written word. he could be speaking gibberish and somebody would transcribe it and bind it and put it in the library of congress. i read this thing, understood it, agreed with it, now haven't the foggiest idea what it was about.
October 1, 2009
This book has taught me what the middle east crisis is really about. what role america has in the middle east. it describes accurately what the Iraq war is about and why america has a foreign policy which ignites violence and hatred towards it. its an eye opening experience because you really cant grasp that a government would lie so much for power.
June 16, 2012
Reading this book really showed me the complexity of the Middle East, and how to critically examine U.S (or for that matter, any country's) foreign policy. At times I had to gloss over parts of the content, as my limited knowledge of the topic at hand made it difficult to follow at times. Nevertheless it was a valuable read.
August 27, 2012
Unfortunate that Noam Chomsky died while I was reading this, but the book is a brilliant discourse on war and the situation in the Middle east. Loved the way it was presented, as a discussion amongst eminent persons, taking apart and examining every facet of the situation, all the while presenting a way out for America and the people in the Middle East.
November 24, 2010
Dialogue between Noam Chomsky and Gilbert Achcar in 2006, transcribed and published. The discussion on fundamentalism and America's responsibility in creating it was interesting. The rest of it I've read more coherently argued in Chomsky's other books
July 2, 2011
اذا اردت التاريخ وراء كثير من السياسة الخارجية الامريكية في الشرق الأوسط،وعلاقتها مع السعودية،موقفها من سوريا وايران وحزب الله واسرائيل، فلابد من اقتناء هذا الكتاب
الكتاب عبارة عن لقاءات بين الكاتبين نعوم تشومسكي وجليبر الأشقر لمدة ٣ ايام متواصلة، كتاب يجب ان يقتنيه كل مهتم بالشأن السياسي للمنطقة
الكتاب عبارة عن لقاءات بين الكاتبين نعوم تشومسكي وجليبر الأشقر لمدة ٣ ايام متواصلة، كتاب يجب ان يقتنيه كل مهتم بالشأن السياسي للمنطقة
August 5, 2011
This conversational writing between Achcar and Chomsky is one of the best and most comprehensive books I have read on current issues in the Middle East as deposited in historical, economic, cultural and social contexts.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 40 reviews