Chopin vs. Liszt

[semme]

i just came acroos this page and i was really astounded of this guys antipathy of chopins music.

what to do think?

https://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/chopin_liszt.html

[le_poete_mourant]

Interesting how he starts politely ("dear sirs..") and then degenerates from there. 

I don't think there's much substance to this argument.  Firstly because it is a matter of taste.  But secondly

because Liszt and Chopin, though contemporaries, are incomparable stylistically.  Liszt was a dashing showman; Chopin seems more thoughtful to me, and I believe his etudes show that he is more concerned with acquisition and sharpening of technical skills, whereas Liszt's etudes demand technique but do not each as much. 

By the way, weren't Liszt and Chopin friends?  (Liszt was not, as this man claims, Chopin's "mentor," was he?) 

I find this argument to be full of insubstantiated, unsupported points. I take issue with the following unfounded points:

1) That most of his nocturnes are

"byproducts of copy and paste."

However, the author does not bother to prove how they are byproducts of copy and paste.  There is a difference between adhering to form and recycling.  Adhering to form is a respect used by the great composers, all of them: Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, etc.   

2)

"Warmongering polonaises."

  What does that mean?  Differentiate between nationalism and war.  The addition of the adjective means that the author has inserted context into the polonaises that have formed his opinion (when they were written, etc.). 

3)

"A few warhorses here and there in the modern repetoire."

  I think you will find that there are many more of Chopin's pieces that are still popular as opposed to the number of Liszt's, which are generally played only for showmanship. 

4)

"Without impressionism, there'd be no Jazz nor atonal music."

In many, many places in Chopin's music, you will find jazz-like construction, as well as clashing sounds.  Off the top of my head, I have analyzed the E minor prelude for the jazz, and Op. 10 No. 2 etude for atonality, such as minor 2nds used. 

5)

"And, did you know that Liszt is the progenitor of the practice where frenzied young ladies flinging their personal items to their idol on stage?"

  Yes.  That's something to be proud of.   

6) 

Something Chopin lovers just don't have sufficient nerve endings or heart to ever discern or appreciate. Them vapid weepy heartburned half-asleep day-dreamers; tears of emotion gushes out their eyes like faucet, heaving and snorting to express their stupefaction and gratification.

Well... I thought we were discussing the composers, not their fans.  This does nothing to address the compositional matter.  And, it's never completely wise to personally attack those who you disagree with. 

7)  .

Look at his greenhorn-friendly nocturns, for which this wimp is most famous for. Out of the 20 or so, maybe 5 are good. The rest are soporific bore

Opinion.  Why bother arguing with it? 

I object strongly to name-calling in writing like this.  It devalues what could be an intellectual piece. 

8.)

Once in a while there's a gem like the Revolution or Raindrop

  Many will say, these are not his greatest works.  If that is what the author believes, he must then not have delved too deeply into Chopin's works. 

9) 

Bland finger exercises masquerade as musical etudes:

  Chopin's etudes are not pretentious enough to create fireworks; rather, they deal with the difficulties that face pianists in everyday repetoire.  Thirds, sixths, octaves, chormatics, arpeggios, rolled chords, etc. -- these are what are the foundation of a solid technique. 

10) 

The prelude set in Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier is sufficient to dwarf Chopin's ass.

  Again, apples to oranges.  Opinion.  Dissect is and show me why; analyze it for strength and weakness, and then you have an argument. 

11) 

greenhorn-friendly nocturns

  What exactly does this mean?  This person makes poor choices of adjectives.

12) 

and the mazurkas being the worst form of music in entire history

  Or, perhaps... 3-chord looping in rock and roll... 2-chord looping in pop... thumping in rap...   

13) 

Out of his petite collection of preludes,

  Yes, but... really, you could name any of his shorter pieces preludes as well.  Then he would have written more.  But he chose to move on to different material, never returning to preludes. 

14) 

Nary a one piece is worth listening to once.

  There is nothing that is not worth listening to once.  Anyone who thinks so should open his mind; how can you possibly appreciate something after only one listen? 

I have more complaints about this disgusting person's argument.  However, I will not waste my time here.  I'm going to go practice Chopin. 

The real testament is that, after more than 100 years, Chopin is still much more popular than Liszt, by volume and percentage. 

[dnephi]

I think you're all wrong.  As in, Chopin is incredible.  Liszt is incredible.  You can't say Chopin has a lack of depth.  And I defy anyone who says that Liszt isn't incredible.  He is programmed all the time.  It has great showmanship and at the same time it's incredible music.  A musicologist says that he absolutely adores Liszt's compositions.  He spent three weeks in one of his classes studying Mazeppa.  Not in any technical sense, but in the musical sense.  He would say: See, here, the relative major of the expected G minor.  Or he would say: Random leaps upward! Unpredictable.  All of the pages of the sheet music were filled with analysis, including a complete map of the chord structure. 

Both Chopin and Liszt are both absolutely incredible.  They differ in style and Liszt does have a lower percentage of good output, but that does not give occasion to call all of his music frivolous or without consequence or merely showcases.  Why toss one and adore the other when the are both inspired geniuses? 

And, by the way,

"There is nothing that is not worth listening to once.  Anyone who thinks so should open his mind; how can you possibly appreciate something after only one listen?  "

That's not true.  I was in a music class in which I listened to both Crumb's ancient Voices of Children and his Black Angels, and that Was not worth listening to, not even once.  Uggghh, it was insidiously hideous.

[le_poete_mourant]

And, by the way,

"There is nothing that is not worth listening to once. Anyone who thinks so should open his mind; how can you possibly appreciate something after only one listen? "

That's not true. I was in a music class in which I listened to both Crumb's ancient Voices of Children and his Black Angels, and that Was not worth listening to, not even once. Uggghh, it was insidiously hideous.

I"m sure Crumb thought it was worth listening to.

 

I think you're all wrong. As in, Chopin is incredible. Liszt is incredible. You can't say Chopin has a lack of depth. And I defy anyone who says that Liszt isn't incredible.

I never made an argument that they're not.  Who is the "all" you refer to? 

[dnephi]

You said Liszt would be more popular than Chopin.  The pianists I know who can play Liszt prefer Liszt or keep them on "equal" pedestals.  I don't quite understand your statement that Chopin is more popular "By volume" or "By percentage."  Can you explain?

"All" meant him , the author, and you, for saying that Chopin would be more popular. Not to be argumentative, just explaining.

[le_poete_mourant]

I mean that Chopin is more popular, not to the pianists necessarily, but to audiences.  I think for some people it is more accessible.  And, also, that Liszt is not performed as much by everybody because Liszt's works are all exceptionally difficult.  There is easier Chopin, which makes him more popular among amateurs. 

I think that if you take a poll of all the concerts and recitals given in certain areas, such as nation-wide, state/province-wide, etc., you would find that there are more different works of Chopin played than more different works of Liszt.  Everyone who can play Liszt will play things like the Hungarian Rhapsodies or the Etudes, or perhaps an opera transcription.  Yet with Chopin, there seems to be a much larger variety of what people like to play.  Yes, there are the Ballades, Scherzos, and other well-known ones.  But there are the mazurkas and nocturnes and polonaises and waltzes, and others, that are played a lot too. 

And since Chopin didn't write as much as Liszt, and most of Chopin's works are still performed today, by percentage, more of his music is played.  That's all I meant. 

I'm not going to argue which is better.  I don't think it's possible. 

[pianistimo]

he could not hear the lonely shepherd boy playing his flute.  perhaps he is deaf.

[jas]

Interesting how he starts politely ("dear sirs..") and then degenerates from there. 

I don't think there's much substance to this argument.

There really isn't. Not liking a particular composer is fair enough -- everyone has different tastes in music -- but to call an important composer (and most agree him to be pretty important in the evolution of piano music) a "mawkish freak" shows that this guy has absolutely no idea what he's on about, and his argument, if you could call it that, doesn't deserve to be paid attention to. That isn't about Chopin v. Liszt, it's about some bloke mindlessly mouthing off about a composer he's decided he doesn't like and doesn't even know why.

[ramseytheii]

It reminds me vaguely of a talk (I dare not say 'lecture') by the infamous charlatan, David Dubal.  Talking about Liszt's subjects of composition, he concluded with much charisma and overloaded polemics that Liszt wrote about the world outside, while Chopin "whined" about his own personal problems.  I don't think he really meant it, though it doesn't matter because nobody really listens to him, but Chopin seems to get the same treatment here.

Let it be said that probably those who claim Liszt makes Chopin look small, don't really understand, or just can't play Chopin.   After all Liszt adored him and his music, and although so many testimonies exist concerning the hugeness of Liszt's awe-inspiring personality, it was Chopin who rebuked Liszt, concerning the performance of Chopin's works, not the other way around.

Walter Ramsey

[faustsaccomplice]

It reminds me vaguely of a talk (I dare not say 'lecture') by the infamous charlatan, David Dubal.  Talking about Liszt's subjects of composition, he concluded with much charisma and overloaded polemics that Liszt wrote about the world outside, while Chopin "whined" about his own personal problems.  I don't think he really meant it, though it doesn't matter because nobody really listens to him, but Chopin seems to get the same treatment here.

Let it be said that probably those who claim Liszt makes Chopin look small, don't really understand, or just can't play Chopin.   After all Liszt adored him and his music, and although so many testimonies exist concerning the hugeness of Liszt's awe-inspiring personality, it was Chopin who rebuked Liszt, concerning the performance of Chopin's works, not the other way around.

Walter Ramsey

Watch your tongue when you speak of such a man.  You obviously don't know him well enough.  He is one of the most authentic and sincere people I know. 

I know many people who take what he says to heart.  There have been many things he has said that have stuck with me through the years.

Maybe Dubal treated you poorly.  He usually senses a dillatante and will blow people off who reek of it.

Furthermore, Dubal knows better than anyone the worth of the composers...certainly better than you ever will Walter.  I know for a fact that he holds Chopin in the highest regard. 

David Dubal is a fine person, and a good friend.  I won't stand to hear him insulted like that. 

[ramseytheii]

Watch your tongue when you speak of such a man.  You obviously don't know him well enough.  He is one of the most authentic and sincere people I know. 

I know many people who take what he says to heart.  There have been many things he has said that have stuck with me through the years.

Maybe Dubal treated you poorly.  He usually senses a dillatante and will blow people off who reek of it.

Furthermore, Dubal knows better than anyone the worth of the composers...certainly better than you ever will Walter.  I know for a fact that he holds Chopin in the highest regard. 

David Dubal is a fine person, and a good friend.  I won't stand to hear him insulted like that. 

Sorry to upset you, but being such a public personage, we are all entitled to our opinions.  He didn't treat me poorly; he didn't treat me any way at all as we never met.  I could not help but notice that in his so-called lecture on Liszt, more than half of the information he threw forward was simply not true.  I think he was making it up on the spot.  Furthermore, he claimed to be an advocate of one mode of Lisztian playing, while playing recordings that illustrated quite a different mode.  Can I be blamed for taking this all with a pound of salt?  Furthermore the incessant name-dropping of luminaries in the audience was amusing at best, but vapid at worst.  I don't mean to offend you, but I think one does a greater disservice to Liszt and music in such ways, and I fully intend to speak out against it!

Walter Ramsey

[le_poete_mourant]

Furthermore, Dubal knows better than anyone the worth of the composers...certainly better than you ever will Walter.   

 

When will this madness stop? 

seriously, no point in attacking each other.  That's just what I disliked about the tirade that was the original subject of this topic. 

Brings up an interesting question though -- who really can judge a man better: his friend, or an outside observer? 

[faustsaccomplice]

I'd like to know what kind of information he made up.  That doesn't sound like him.

[ramseytheii]

 

When will this madness stop? 

seriously, no point in attacking each other.  That's just what I disliked about the tirade that was the original subject of this topic. 

Brings up an interesting question though -- who really can judge a man better: his friend, or an outside observer? 

I haven't attacked faustaccomplice, I was only giving my side of the grass!  ( )
Your question reminds me a bit of a video debate I saw between lawyer Alan Dershowitz (of OJ fame) and political activist Noam Chomsky, on Israeli-Palestinian relations.  Arguing a point over projected borders between the two nations, Dershowitz said "Bill Clinton told me privately and personally that these were the borders decided upon," to which Chomsky replied (there was a live audience), "What are you going to believe, the published reports and maps or what Professor Dershowitz says someone told him?"  The genius of the retort being that Dershowitz's vapid name-dropping of none less than the President was dismissed as, "what someone told him." 

And I think much the case exists here, because Dubal undeniably has a big reputation, he has published a lot, he is leading classes at Juilliard, he is a media personality, et cetera.  I haven't seen anyhting in the few books I have of his to factually dispute, though I may venture to say that for most of his accounts of Horowitz's quotes he is the only source, so one does not actually know if they are true or not, but in his lecture on Liszt he was simply off on the dates and personalities surrounding Liszt and his compositions.  This, coupled with the strange and incoherent ramblings about people today living in a "monoculture of baseball caps," and the incessant name-dropping - he probably pointed out as many people in the audience as he discussed from the 19th century - made for an unpleasant and thoroughly unscholarly experience. 
At least it was funny.

Walter Ramsey

[faustsaccomplice]

There are many people who would disagree with you, Walter.

Dubal puts on a show, and doesn't aim to give a "scholarly experience."  I appreciate him for the depth of his thoughts and the eloquence of his words.  That is aside from, of course, his encyclopedic knowledge.

I'm still curious what he said that was off, specifically. 

[joeplaysthepiano]

Didn't Liszt say that he would give up five years of his life if he could have written the op.10 no.3 etude?  Something to that extent at least.

[dnephi]

Didn't Liszt say that he would give up five years of his life if he could have written the op.10 no.3 etude?  Something to that extent at least.

I don't know.  But I heard a recording of it and it seemed thoroughly boring.. :$

[panic]

In terms of being good at dramatic effect within his music Liszt was IMO one of the best composers ever for the piano. He probably beats Chopin (especially late Chopin) by a little bit in that category. However, Chopin has him by a mile in regards to texture. Chopin's textures often look as if they couldn't have been written by anyone but a pure genius who envisioned them as an entirety, whereas Liszt's are often very simple (repeated chords, double octaves, simple harmonic and rhythmic support, etc.) and sound composed out at the piano. There is no denying that because of dramatic effect Liszt's pieces are some powerful stuff - I'll be the last person to dispute that - but mostly while sidestepping the best possible texture. So if you're more of a drama guy, you'll probably like Liszt better. If you're more of a musical structure guy, you'll probably prefer Chopin.
That's my theory.

[dnephi]

"Bach is the foundation of piano playing. Liszt the summit." -Busoni

And to the statement about the atmosphere:
"Bach is the Alpha of pianoforte composition and Liszt the Omega. If with Liszt the atmosphere and content are less intensive, the sound and magic are all the more impressive and effective."  -Busoni. 

[bella musica]

Hahaha!  This person is one of those who should keep their mouth shut and let everyone think they are a fool, rather than opening it and removing all doubt. I bet if someone played a Ballade or the Winter Wind etude for this guy, he'd think it was a great piece as long as you didn't tell him it was composed by Chopin.

Warmongering polonaises... give me a break!  I've never heard of anyone going on the rampage after listening to a Chopin polonaise, although I have heard of frenzied fans getting trampled at rock concerts.  And if he thinks the polonaises should be dumped because they are 'warmongering' why the heck does he think the Revolutionary Etude is any better?!?!?

[panic]

^^IMO Busoni was wrong on the first quote (I've heard that quote a couple times before) at least in terms of composition. I'd consider Chopin MUCH more a summit of pianism than Liszt.

And I would bet this person has never heard Ballade 4.

[pianistimo]

liszt maybe had more social graces.  i think chopin liked to hole up.   thirty concerts is what i heard - that made his 'career.'  but, if liszt was respectful - then we should be.  after all arch enemies were arch friends.  you can't have a friend that doesn't challenge you.  i think chopin challenged liszt to consider himself a national of some nation - but liszt was one of the first 'international' pianists, imo.  he did not eliminate any element of pianism - no matter where it came from.  chopin was a little more closed minded - but yet he did not seem to be hurt by it.

chopin seems to me to be one of those 'extra' sensitive people that can 'feel' something deeply without effort.  like he senses things as an extrasensory would. 

liszt went much more to poetry and literature, i think.  maybe i'm wrong.  chopin did have some favorite writers, and i think liszt opened him up tot he possibilities of a 'world' view - but chopin kinda preferred thinking and dwelling on the poetry of polish writers.  i don't think he necessarily wanted an 'international' career.

also, liszt established himself teaching with 'royal' ladies and such - but chopin didn't seem to have much interest in teaching did he?  can't remember on that one.  chopin seems to have closer family ties - but lost his family amidst the war.  liszt seemed to break away at a young age, if i remember right?  what do you all know about liszt's young years?

[faustsaccomplice]

Hahaha!  This person is one of those who should keep their mouth shut and let everyone think they are a fool, rather than opening it and removing all doubt. I bet if someone played a Ballade or the Winter Wind etude for this guy, he'd think it was a great piece as long as you didn't tell him it was composed by Chopin.

Warmongering polonaises... give me a break!  I've never heard of anyone going on the rampage after listening to a Chopin polonaise, although I have heard of frenzied fans getting trampled at rock concerts.  And if he thinks the polonaises should be dumped because they are 'warmongering' why the heck does he think the Revolutionary Etude is any better?!?!?

are you talking about busoni?

[pianistimo]

my thoughts exactly.  busoni was a cad in term of composition for the piano.  i think he did better on transcriptions.

[ted]

Xah Lee's mathematical art is more sensible than are his comments about music. I sent him some of my algorithmic art code. It'll be interesting to see if he answers.

[le_poete_mourant]

are you talking about busoni?

Nope.  He was talking about Xah Lee. 

I haven't attacked faustaccomplice, I was only giving my side of the grass! ( )

I know.  I wasn't quoting you there. 

[prometheus]

I think we discussed that text before.

[dnephi]

^^IMO Busoni was wrong on the first quote (I've heard that quote a couple times before) at least in terms of composition. I'd consider Chopin MUCH more a summit of pianism than Liszt.

And I would bet this person has never heard Ballade 4.

I'll be you haven't heard the complete hungarian Rhapsodies (only 19 of them), and Transcendental Etudes #s 4 and 10, and the other of his incredible masterpieces.  Ballade 4 is good, but I didn't feel so moved upon first hearing (Cziffra) as I did when I heard the Etude of Transcendent Technique en fa mineur.  Incredible!  Or hear the original Erlking and then compare it with Liszt's hardcore version.  Unbelievable!

As far as pianoforte technique, Liszt was the pinnacle.  It is debatable as to the content between Chopin and Liszt, and personally, they are among my absolute favorites.  We already discussed that. 
Busoni's transcription is great.  The Bach Chaconne is excellently handled, as well as the many organ works and the choral works which Horowitz would so often program.

To explain Busoni's quote, he was a disciple of Liszt.  Hence he followed things Liszt's way.  He listed Chopin, Liszt, Schumann, and Alkan (and one other, I forgot) as the greatest Post-Beethoven Composers. I would chisel Alkan off leaving only those three, personally, but the point is that I say flatly that Chopin was not greater than Liszt.  Historically, they both revolutionized performance and composition, but it was Liszt who took the piano out of the salon and into the concert hall.  I don't dare say either to be greater than the other.  But do not insult Liszt upon pain of flaming. 

[prometheus]

Your question reminds me a bit of a video debate I saw between lawyer Alan Dershowitz (of OJ fame) and political activist Noam Chomsky, on Israeli-Palestinian relations.  [...]  The genius of the retort being that Dershowitz's vapid name-dropping of none less than the President was dismissed as, "what someone told him."

Actually it was about the reason Taba failed.

Israel has a huge problem that according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights refugees always have the right to return to their homes after the conflict ceases. In 1948 about 700,000 Palestinians fleed. The number is now between 4 and 6 million. They all have the right to return. Israel has only 7 million people with about 1,4 of them already being non-jewish. So if all of them return then Israel would have 5,4 to 7,4 arabs and only 5,6 jewish people. This means the arab and the jewish people would have to share their power about 50/50. And with the democrafic development it would only take a short wile for Israel to become a non-jewish state. Then zionism would fail.

This means Israel needs to violate international law or baiscally give up its existance.

Now Chomsky claims that the Arafat agreed to give up the right of return. Actually only about 10% of the 4 to 6 million want to return but still Israel can't really agree with this. Chomsky claims that Taba failed because Israel wanted to turn Palestine into South-Africa-apartheid like bantustans.

Barak and Clinton claim that Taba failed because of the right of return.

Now the point of the argument is that Clinton assured Dershowitz in a private conversation they had that it was the right of return that Arafat wasn't willing to give up. But Chomsky's source is the published works of Ron Pundak. He was the architect of the Olso accords for the Israeli side. And at the moment he is head of the Peres Center for Peace. He has been involved with negotiations on the Israeli side and research into an accord for almost his whole life. So he is both an expert scolar and unbiased. Actually, if he is biased he should be biased towards his own side. And he published a work with a reconstructed map about the offer.
Biography of Ron Pundak:
https://www.peres-center.org/pages/persons.asp?iGlobalVarTypeId=1&iGlobalVarId=18
His article and Map
https://www.peres-center.org/media/Upload/61.pdf
It has two bantustans. Furtermore, it claims Arafat gave up the right of return.

Le Monde diplomantic uses this map
https://mondediplo.com/maps/IMG/artoff3263.jpg
It has three bantustans

The PLO claim three bantustans as well.

The US generally use the maps of Dennis Ross, who negociated for Clinton.
https://www.umcp.org/fileupload/uploads/map_7_camp_david.jpg

Clinton Proposal according to Ross:
https://umcp.org/index.php/DennisRossMap8


But its not just the name dropping. It is that Clinton would be the last person you would believe on this topic. Together with Barak and Arafat. You don't except them to answer truthfully. Actually, their job is to do the opposite. Clinton is not allowed to tell the truth. He is a politician and he was a party in the negotiations.


So then we have Dershowitz's anekdote, paraphrase: "Clinton may have lied to the public, that is his job. But surely Clinton wouldn't lie to me; he assured me it is true." He used the words, actual quote: "directly and personally".

It is totally totally meaningless, of course.

So it isnt really the name dropping itself.

https://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/23/1450216

[prometheus]

Ooh, since we already discussed the weak and trolling piece about Chopin and Liszt years ago on this board I think I was justified in hijacking this topic.

[ramseytheii]

Ooh, since we already discussed the weak and trolling piece about Chopin and Liszt years ago on this board I think I was justified in hijacking this topic.

Thanks for the great information!

Walter Ramsey

[prometheus]

It's very hard to follow a debate between two intellectuals who are throwing names, sources and research papers at each other. You remembered the main point accurately enough.

[ramseytheii]

It's very hard to follow a debate between two intellectuals who are throwing names, sources and research papers at each other. You remembered the main point accurately enough.

Since you seem to have a lot of information about this particular debate, can you recall when the microphone was opened for questioning, and a young man came up who said Ron Pundak was "nowhere near" the Oslo accords?  The fellow claimed he was an "advisor" to the Israeli side, and attacked Chomsky's arguments and sources.  Perhaps you can provide some resolution to that argument?

Walter Ramsey

[prometheus]

It wasn't about Olso but about Camp David. He was at Oslo. He wasn't at Camp David.


Well, according to the Peres peace center site, and thus according to Ron Pundak himself, we can assume:


"Dr. Pundak played a decisive role in creating the secret track of unofficial negotiations in Oslo in 1993, alongside Dr. Yair Hirschfeld and their Palestinian counterparts. He served as a member of the official Israeli negotiating team - guided by Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin, and later by Yitzhak Rabin - until the historic signing of the Declaration of Principles in Washington on September 13, 1993. Dr. Pundak has continued to be involved in various policy planning frameworks of ongoing and future negotiations on bi and multilateral levels.

During 1994-1995, Dr. Pundak and Dr. Hirschfeld prepared with a Palestinian team the so-called 'Beilin-Abu Mazen Understanding', which provided a blue-print for negotiations and a detailed framework agreement on all Israeli-Palestinian Final Status issues. This document became the main point of reference during the Permanent Status negotiations in Camp David Two and in the Taba negotiations."


The point the guy in the audience makes is that Ron Pundak wasn't part of the official Israeli negociation party in Camp David and thus that he can't know what happened. Chomsky claims he was an unofficual advisor because of his experience. And that he, because of his connections, could reconstruct what happened. And this is what he does. Ron Pundak analysed what went wrong in Camp David called "From Oslo to Taba, what went wrong?", the link of which I already provided.

So, yes. Ron Pundak was not in Camp David. That makes that he has information from the second hand. But it also means that he is less biased. It wasn't his negociation that failed. He doesn't have to blame the other party for the failure. I mean, almost everyone agreed that Dennes Ross'es maps aren't accurate. He was the Chief negociator for Clinton. But he is also very pro-Israel.

So Ron Pundak was in Israel at that time. And the Israeli deligation in Camp David surely made a lot of phone calls with Israel. At that time Rondak was no longer officially working for the Israeli government. So if he was an advisor of the Israeli government or not is not known to me. I don't remember Chomsky ever telling if he made this up or if he has a source for this.

Pundak was and is involved with several NGO's and projects researching peace accords. So he is one of the leading persons when it comes to creating accords with the Palestinians. So in the sense he is an unofficial advisor to anyone who wants to hear it. If he got information about what happened in Camp David from the Israeli party is unknown to me.

But Pundak does think he is able to make the claims he makes.

In the end what happened in Camp David and in Taba is probably one of the most debated and controversial issues ever. We have about 6 or so different maps. We have Prine Bandar, Saudi ambassador in the US at the time of Camp David II who said: "If Arafat does not accept what is available now, it won't be a tragedy, it will be a crime" Then he later added "“a crime against the Palestinians – in fact, against the entire region.”

This was about the Camp David offer. Then we also have Shlomo Ben-Ami, foreign minister during Camp David and Taba but he denies the bantustan, saying that he wouldn't have accepted the Camp David offer either. It was the Taba offer that Arafat should have accepted. But in the end Barak left because of the elections and because of Sharon.

I don't think I included the Taba map reconstruction offered by Le Monde
https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/cartes/taba2001

If you look at what is happening now. Maybe Arafat should have accepted the Israeli annexation of their land. It may not have been fair and just. But it is the reflection of the military power. It is pragmatism because now they will never get anything better than the map on the left. Believe me. They won't get anything better than Camp David. So I think the Palestinian state may be continued to be occupied for very very long. And at the end there will be bantustans. Probably two rather than tree.

But you never know.


The problems with these maps is that there were no actual maps used at Camp David. There were destriptions of what would happen. I think the problem lies in the fact that the maps reconstructed based on the words describing what would be happening differ. It is the interpretation of the offers given.


At Taba there were maps. Both sides presented maps of their plans. They didn't agree yet but they were close. So both sides rejected both offers. But they never got this close to peace. But then Barak left because of the election. Arafat urged him to come back. Barak didn't and lost the election to Sharon.

Of course Sharon also started the second intifade with his temple mount visit provocation.


It is also often said that Israel made 'consessions'. They didn't. When you decide to annex only 5% of the west bank instead of 10% or all of it then that isn't an Israeli consession. We have to observe the UN Green Line. Israel didn't give the Palestinians anything. They decided to take less. That's not a real consession.

[ramseytheii]

Fantastic information!  Is this your area of expertise?
I recently became interested in the political works of Chomsky, just as a hobby, but not an influence.  Why do so many, for instance Dershowitz, treat him as if he comes from "Planet Chomsky?"  He seems well-informed, (to say the least!), but why are so many of his ideas outright ridiculous to so many?

Walter Ramsey

[prometheus]

Nah. I also saw the video and I looked up the things I didn't remember.


Why people think Chomsky is from another planet? Its rather simple, actually. Most americans like their government. Actually, most people like their country. And in democratic countries people choose their own government. So the government is ought to be representative.

Now when Chomsky claims that all post-war US presidents would have to be hanged if Nuremberg prinicples were applied then people find this outrageous.


Nuremberg is where 'we' hanged the evil Nazi's for causing WWII and the holocaust. So that was a good thing.

Our presidents didn't cause the holocaust, ours didn't start WWIII. Actually, we like our presidents a lot. Hanging them is evil.

So how does this compute? It must be that this guy is from 'planet Chomsky'.



I think the 'problem' is that Chomsky ignores political reality. He ignores propaganda and bias. Most people don't do this at all and that turns into all kinds of trouble for them. Chomsky is well aware of this. I am sure that he would be able to explain it a lot better than I can. Maybe he actually has some points I don't make here. Actually, Chomsky always suprises with utter pure logic. Often people argue about details way on top. But then Chomsky comes and finds the error or fallacy, way at the basis of it all, that was there all along but no one was able to see it.


He had an debate with Richard Perle was well. Perle was part of the government for a long time. I am sure he did his best. But the nature of the power structure automatically cause violence and destruction.
And then Chomsky comes along and critizises it. Perle cannot understand because he was working day in day out trying to do the right thing. He cannot understand or accept  some of his hard work turned out very badly.


Another example. Let's postulate that someone supported the US invasion of Iraq because it was a pre-emptive strike and those are justified.


Now, we have Iran. The US declared they have all the possible scenarios on the table, even the use of tactical nukes, which they may have developed in secret, as least that is what they wanted. US sold new bombers to Israel, going into the media claiming that they can reach Terhan and that they can carry 'special cargo'. Iran is part of the 'axis of evil', according to the US.

If you take all this then it is clear that the US and Israel have the abilities and the plans to attack Iran and do some very serious damage. So if you really believe in pre-emptive war then you believe Iran has the right to attack Israel and the US pre-emptively.

But that would be 'outrageous'. But let's imagine that Iraq had nuclear weapons. That they declared in the media that they had planes that could reach Tel Aviv or New York carrying 'special cargo'. And that Israel was one of the heads of the evil snake, the US. The whole world would have been shocked and very little people would have doubted that an attack on Iraq was not justified. Maybe that would even include me.


I think that the thinking of all people, not so smart to the smartest of them all, is limited to some kind of frame of thinking. People are very irrational. And one cannot comprehend this limitation her or himself. It is invisible. Most people believe that they are rational and that they are right.


I guess it is a bit like religion. Everyone knows that god doesn't really exist, even the most devout christians. But this is only deep inside, very deed. They know, but at the same time they cannot comprehend it either. They cannot accept it.

Let's take Israel, because there it is very striking. For many jewish people it is very hard to be critical about Israel. Both because of their own framework and also because of their fellow jews. Most jewish people that critisize Israel are called 'self-hating jews', an absurd concept, even by some in their family.

Now jewish people are like any other people. But there once was a dream, an utopia; the Israeli state. I think the problem is that many people just can't accept that it was a failure. That it was a great idea but that it turned out terrible.


Religion and ideology are very very persisting and hard to get rid off.

One more example. Can you comprehend that all those people in South America just accepted the idea of christ and christianity when people from Europe came to convert them?
And now South America is very very christian. Even more than anywhere else in the world. How is that possible? I am baffled by the things humans think and do.


But the problem is that I am just as much human as anybody else. There are many well informed and smart people, much more so than I, that do seem to be caught inside their frame of thinking and totally oblivious to it.

The same must be the case with me. The problem is, I am aware that all other people have it. But I can't become aware of my own frame of thinking, eventhough I am aware that it must exist.
I mean, I am looking around and I see how silly people are. And at the same time I know it would be a miracle if I wasn't just as silly. But I find myself perfectly logical and unbiased, etc. What can I do about it? Maybe I am really unbiased. There would be arguments to support this because I don't feel myself related to nationalism or religion etc. This is something I would so much like to know.


Actually, I am writing a novel about this. It is about a journalist, based roughly on me, and he meets a woman from another planet, another civilisation. She comes to earth to try to understand earthly humans. And she has picked this journalist to help her.

Society is something very complex and intricate that no one really can understand. When someone totally unbiased, a human from another planet, would observe human society then this person will likely be totally unable to understand what the hell we are doing.

There are many many silly things about humans that everyone accepts as common sense.
For example. Humans historically seemed to believe that one could teach through punishment and reward. We taught animals to do tricks and we raised our children based on the same idea. Society was also governed using this principle. But when science was able to enter psychology, actually Chomsky helped spearhead this movement, it was discovered that this doesn't work at all. Still, about everyone things yo need to punish and reward your children. I think I saw listforkids or someone claim he was glad his father hit him when he was a child.

A more dramatic effect. Jails. If people commit crimes we send them to jail. Why? There are little good reasons to do so. But everyone accepts this as the right thing to do. Even I tend to do it. It doesn't help through prevention, it doesn't teach criminals right or wrong, it doesn't influence recidivism. What it does do is take some sort of revenge. It does give people a sense of justice, which is actually an utter social construction. And it has some protection, people in jail can't commit crimes (well they can, actually), but one should be careful about this because most people are released at some time anyway. So this is only temporary.

The problem is that there is no real solution. So people continue to imprison people eventhough it is a silly idea.


Another example is the rise of Nazi Germany. Today people thing Hitler rose to power in obscurity and darkness. But the reality was totally different. Most of the people in germany were elated. The nazi's had parades and festivals all the time and many people would come and participate.
Same thing with the holocaust later on. There is still debate about wheneter the people in Germany, Europe and the rest of the world, knew what was going on. I think this is because people cannot comprehend that people knew. Or the people at that time, in the middle of the war, could not comprehed what was going on eventhough the facts were kind of obvious.
And this goes even for the leaders of the allies. They had all the facts. They seemed not able to comprehend. Nothing was done.

And, to make a round circle, this is also why the jewish people wanted an own state. They knew they could trust no one and that the only way to prevent another holocaust was Israel. It seems I have to agree with this.

But even today one cannot comprehend the holocaust. It happened only 61 years ago, in the middle of Europe. I mean, it is so close. So close when you actually look at history.  I live about 20 miles away from the germany border. And it happened after the enlightenment. It happened right at the moment most intellectuals thought that humans ought to know better now. And german people are just normal people. If you have ever been there you will know it is a very nice place to visit as a tourist.