Noam Chomsky proves it isn't about pro-"Palestine" but anti-Israel

Noam Chomsky wrote an article, being distributed by the New York Times syndicate although I do not know where it was originally published, called "In Israel, a tsunami warning." The article is mostly about how Israel is concerned over the planned statehood bid by the PLO.

Chomsky, whom the Guardian calls a "respected American academic" and who embraces Hezbollah, subconsciously proves in this article that he doesn't give a damn about "Palestine" - by making a really stupid mistake:

The U.N. would presumably recognize Palestine in the internationally accepted borders, including the Golan Heights, West Bank and Gaza. The heights were annexed by Israel in December 1981, in violation of U.N. Security Council orders.

Chomsky thinks that the Golan Heights are occupied Palestinian Arab territory? I am not so sure that Syria would appreciate that opinion!

And this is from a supposed expert, a man who gets regularly invited to give speeches on the topic because of his gravitas and knowledge!

But this proves that, for Chomsky and most of the other people who couch their vitriol in humanitarian and democratic pro-Palestinian Arab terms, it is really all about Israel and not at all about "Palestine." Chomsky cannot even be bothered to understand the difference between the WB, Gaza and the Golan, because to him they symbolize Israeli Jewish crimes, and have nothing to do with PalArab self-determination.

How ironic that a linguist is so careless with his words.

(h/t Kramerica)