I must admit that in my article "Proof of Noam Chomsky's Anti-Semitism," I only used some of the proof. I did not use all of it. In this article, I may not use all of it either even it wasn't used in the last article. In my article Proof of Noam Chomsky's anti-Semitism, I have a quote from an interview with Shmate in which he called the American-Jewish community totalitarian and said that they don't want democracy or freedom. I showed some of the proof that Chomsky was excusing Holocaust deniers like Robert Faurisson. Like in the last article, in this article, I say that my claim that Chomsky is anti-Semitic and a self-hating Jew is not because of his criticism of Israel's occupation of the West Bank [Israel left Gaza in 2005] but because of other claims he made. In an article in Variant Randomstore.com, which was written by Noam Chomsky himself, he said in the article that American Jews are the most privileged people, that they have 98% of control and that privileged people want total control. "By now Jews in the US are the most privileged and influential part of the population. You find occasional instances of anti-Semitism but they are marginal. There's plenty of racism, but it's directed against Blacks, Latinos, Arabs are targets of enormous racism, and those problems are real. Anti-Semitism is no longer a problem, fortunately. It's raised, but it's raised because privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98% control. That's why anti-Semitism is becoming an issue."

Chomsky later denied what he said. When there were different people asking questions and him answering them in the Independent, he was asked, "In 2002 you said that anti-Semitism in the US was no longer a problem but was raised because a "privileged people" wanted to make sure they had total control, and not just 98 per cent control. Do you really believe Jews have 98 per cent control of America?"

Chomsky said, "You misunderstood. It was an ironic reference to people who would not be satisfied even if they had only 98 per cent control. Of course there is nothing even remotely like that."

But if you read the article, you'd see Chomsky saying that we Jews [I'm an American Jew] in America have 98% of control. So if privileged people want total control and Jews in the US are the most privileged people, that's saying that American Jews want total control. That claim is defiantly anti-Semitic. It's not just criticizing Israel. It's demonizing all Jews in America. Anti-Semitism right now is being dressed up as criticism of Israel or of its occupation.

Israel Shahak is another self-hating Jew. Unlike Chomsky, he's not an American Jew. He's an Israeli Jew. He wrote a book called Jewish history and Jewish religion, which is singling out and demonizing the Jewish religion and the Jews through their history. It was attacking Judaism and not just simply criticizing Israel. It was mainly about how the Jewish religion was evil. In the back cover, Chomsky called Shahak an outstanding scholar. Chomsky said, "Shahak is an outstanding scholar, with remarkable insight and depth of knowledge. His work is informed and penetrating, a contribution of great value.” I say Judaism like other religions deserve to be criticized. I'm a secular Jew myself. Being an Atheist or not believing in God is of course not anti-Semitic and I’m for that right [I will not say my positions on atheist or my position on weather God exists or doesn’t exist in this article]. Shahak demonized Jews. He wrote the book demonizing the Jewish religion with the purpose to demonize Jews. The "outstanding scholar" had the nerve to compare liberation movements with anti-Semitic movements that attacked Jews for being Jews. If you think I mean that he's comparing Palestinian terrorists to other liberation movements, you're wrong. He was not justifying the killing of IDF [Israel Defense Forces] soldiers [not all IDF soldiers are Jewish but most are. But I'll let those fact pass] or innocent Israeli civilians [the killing of innocent Israeli civilians as any innocent civilian is already a horrible thing to do but let that pass in this article] but justifying the killing of Jews prior to the establishment of Israel. The "outstanding scholar, with remarkable insight and depth of knowledge" said in his book, "All Jews who really want to extricate themselves from the tyranny of the totalitarian Jewish past must face the question of their attitude towards the popular anti-Jewish manifestations of the past, particularly those connected with the rebellions of enserfed peasants. On the other side, all the apologists of the Jewish religion and of Jewish segregationism and chauvinism also take their stand—both ultimately and in current debates—on the same question. The undoubted fact that the peasant revolutionaries committed shocking atrocities against Jews (as well as against their other oppressors) is used as an "argument" by those apologists, in exactly the same way that the Palestinian terror is used to justify the denial of justice to the Palestinians.

Our own answer must be a universal one, applicable in principle to all comparable cases. And, for a Jew who truly seeks liberation from Jewish particularism and racism and from the dead hand of the Jewish religion, such an answer is not very difficult.

After all, revolts of oppressed peasants against their masters and their masters' bailiffs are common in human history. A generation after the Chmielnicki uprising of the Ukrainian peasants, the Russian peasants rose under the leadership of Stenka Ryazin, and again, one hundred years later, in the Pugachev rebellion. In Germany there was the Peasant War of 1525, in France the Jacquerie of 1357-8 and many other popular revolts, not to mention the many slave uprisings in all parts of the world. All of them—and I have intentionally chosen to mention examples in which Jews were not targets—were attended by horrifying massacres, just as the Great French Revolution was accompanied by appalling acts of terror. What is the position of true progressives—and, by now, of most ordinary decent educated people be they Russian, German or French—on these rebellions? Do decent English historians, even when noting the massacres of Englishmen by rebellious Irish peasants rising against their enslavement, condemn the latter as "anti-English racists"? What is the attitude of progressive French historians towards the great slave revolution in Santo Domingo, where many French women and children were butchered? To ask the question is to answer it. But to ask a similar question of many "progressive" or even "socialist" Jewish circles is to receive a very different answer; here an enslaved peasant is transformed into a racist monster, if Jews profited from his state of slavery and exploitation."

He also wrote in the Radio Islam, an anti-Semitic bigoted site, about Jewish "hatred" toward Christianity. He said this false claim, "Dishonouring Christian religious symbols is an old religious duty in Judaism. Spitting on the cross, an especially on the Crucifix, and spitting when a Jew passes a church, have been obligatory from around AD 200 for pious Jews. In the past, when the danger of anti-Semitic hostility was a real one, the pious Jews were commanded by their rabbis either to spit so that the reason for doing so would be unknown, or to spit onto their chests, not actually on the cross or openly before the church."

You can get the idea about the bigoted hate filled nonsense this "outstanding scholar" Shahak said. Chomsky complements this anti-Semitic self-hating Jew. But as I said, both Chomsky and Shahak have one thing in common, they're both self-hating Jews. Chomsky who is an American one and Shahak who is an Israeli one.

Chomsky also justified attacks on synagogues. Chomsky was asked, "What about recent incidents in Europe and the Arab World? It would seem to involve rather acrobatic leaps of logic to say that these are not anti-Semitic.

Chomsky used Israeli policy to justify these attacks. Chomsky said, "What's talked about in Europe is something quite different. In Europe, there's a large Muslim population, and much of it has been driven to fundamentalist Islam. They display hatred towards Jews that is a reflection of Israeli practices. I mean, if you carry out a brutal and vicious occupation for thirty-five years, subject the people to humiliation and degradation, break their bones and steal their land and resources, it has consequences. Sometimes the consequences can be quite ugly and among them is the burning of synagogues in France. Yes, it's anti-Semitism. But Israel insists on it. Remember, Israel does not call itself the state of its citizens. The high court in Israel declared over forty years ago that Israel is the sovereign state of the Jewish people in Israel and the Diaspora. That means Israel is my sovereign state, but it's not the sovereign state of its Palestinian citizens. Well, if that's what you declare yourself to be, then you can hardly blame critics of Israeli policy for having negative attitudes towards Jews. After all, it's my sovereign state-why shouldn't they go after me? This is one of many respects in which insisting on a state that is fundamentally racist in its basic character and declares itself to be the state of Jews everywhere is harmful to Jews. So to call these manifestations, 'anti-Semitism' is misleading."

We should be thankful to people like Paul Bogdanor for exposing the lies and distortions by Noam Chomsky. In this article, I showed more proof that Chomsky is anti-Semitic. Chomsky is one of those guys who disguises his anti-Semitism and other anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel and when it comes to him defending Holocaust deniers like Robert Faurisson , he disguises that with "defending their freedom of speech. I have more about the Faurisson affair in my article I wrote before Proof of Noam Chomsky's anti-Semitism.