Last Thursday, Noam Chomsky, professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, gave a lecture titled, "Israel's Escalating Policies of Apartheid," in which he discussed his beliefs about Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and United States policies that he believes enable Israel's behavior.Chomsky's presentation was the featured event of Israeli Occupation Week, a week co-sponsored by Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace to promote peaceful resolutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Other people who spoke on campus this week included Alice Rothchild, a physician and activist who lectured about the prospect of boycott, divestment and sanctions in Israel and Palestine, and Daoud Nassar, a Palestinian farmer who has had much of his land claimed by settlement construction.

Prof. David Gil (Heller) introduced Chomsky, saying, "We are lucky to have Noam speak to us tonight ... because of the ideas [he supports] of findings ways of justice for all the people who are living together in the shared homeland."

Chomsky began his presentation by saying that the Israel-Palestine conflict is one of the easiest problems to solve in international politics because there is a short-term solution in which Israel ceases expansion into Palestinian territories, and the nations are divided at the internationally recognized Green Line, the border demarcation line established in 1948. Chomsky said that although this resolution is supported by international law, it has not been implemented because the United States and Israel, who he claimed are "rejectionist" states, oppose it.

Chomsky stated that Israel's rejection of such a resolution is "understandable," but that it is legitimized with U.S. support.

Chomsky also claimed that Israeli control of the territories is in violation of international law, citing the laws passed at the Geneva Conventions in 1949, which prohibited physical demographics of any area changing under military occupation. According to Chomsky, even after being told by its chief legal adviser that settlement policies in Palestine would directly violate these international laws, Israel openly and knowingly ignored the law, saying, according to Chomsky, "Other countries violate international law, so we can do it, too." This can continue, said Chomsky, because the U.S. supports such actions.

Chomsky also asserted that Israel emphasizes continued expansion rather than peace. He said that in February 1971, then-president of Egypt Anwar Sadat said that if Israel withdrew from the occupied territories and the Egyptian portion of the Sinai Peninsula, Egyptian forces would not attack, and Jordan offered a similar deal. Chomsky said that Israel was provided with the decision to choose peace at the cost of ceased expansion or continued expansion and continued reliance on U.S. support, and it chose the latter. Chomsky called this decision the "most fateful decision in Israel's history," as he linked it with the war in 1973. According to Chomsky, this point in time marked Israel's definitive reliance on U.S. support.

Chomsky said that he believes there are currently several options to ensure peace between Israel and Palestine. The first option, he explained, is that Israel could comply with the global consensus and international law and cease their expansion into Palestine, staying behind the aforementioned Green Line. He said that the second option would be an Israel takeover of the entire West Bank, an idea developed by Palestinians in which Israel absorbs citizens in the West Bank into Israeli society and Palestinians initiate a civil rights struggle, a situation similar to the one in South Africa in the second half of the 20th century, when the rights of nonwhites were curtailed so that domination by the white minority could be maintained. Chomsky called this a "purely academic proposal [that] Israel would never accept."

Chomsky linked this second idea with the comparisons made between the situation of the Palestinians and black South Africans. He called these comparisons "inaccurate," arguing that the situation within Israeli-occupied territories is much worse because the black population in South Africa was needed for labor, whereas Israel has made it clear that it would be happy to see the Palestinians go.

Chomsky then discussed the third option to promote peace, in which Israel takes all of the territory and leaves Palestine "essentially imprisoned." He said this route is the one the U.S. and Israel are currently taking and emphasized that the only way to avoid this outcome is for the U.S. to use its authority in the international arena to join the opinions of the rest of the world.

As Chomsky was in the midst of talking about this third option, approximately 50 students stood up and left the auditorium, an action that elicited no visible response from Chomsky (see article: "Students stage responses").

In a question-and-answer session after the presentation, one student, referencing a comment Chomsky had made about Israel not needing to use violence as a defense mechanism, asked how Israel should defend itself. In response, Chomsky said that Israel implements cease fires which it does not comply with rather than confiscating weapons. Chomsky said that during the 5 years leading up to a renewed cease fire in 2008, an overwhelming majority of the rockets fired were from Israel, and that after 2008, Hamas did not fire a single rocket.

When asked about Chomsky's presentation, Liza Behrendt '12, co-founder of Jewish Voice for Peace and one of the planners of Israeli Occupation Week, said, "I'm very proud of everyone in the Brandeis community who came here to hear a perspective that's not often represented on this campus ... and asked respectful, thoughtful questions."

"I think Professor Chomsky is a brave man. I don't know that I agree with him, ... but the purpose this week serves ... is to create conversation," said Hyder Kazmi '12.

Tamari Levkovich '12 said she thought that Noam Chomsky was "oversimplifying [the Israel-Palestine conflict] and skipping the nuances of the situation."

Sarah Geller '13, president of the Brandeis Israel Public Affairs Committee, wrote in an e-mail to the Justice, "While Chomsky presented some valid facts, it was clear to me and many in the audience that he cherry-picked evidence to prove a point. I found his evident bias disappointing and counter-productive for any future dialogue on campus. His use of loaded terms such as 'ethnic-cleansing' and 'apartheid' frame the conflict in a false manner. I hope students recognize that his opinion shares one narrative and that it is not the absolute truth regarding the conflict.