Israel and Palestine After Disengagement

Chomsky just made the point that there are far more Palestinian deaths in the conflict than Israeli ones. Alan Dershowitz just said that he had made the suggestion that the Wall be placed on wheels, so you could move it, depending on circumstances..." That got quite a laugh.

http://www.booktv.org/feature/index.asp?segID=6499&schedID=388

Honestly, I've focused more on Iraq, voting fraud, laws being passed in our country for the benefit of the rich and corporations, and I haven't studied too much on this Israeli-Palestine conflict. But I had to watch this debate as I'm very impressed with Chomsky. Dershowitz is a brillant clown. I was a little lost not knowing the details myself, but it seemed like Chomsky stood firm on facts and Dershowitz continually attacked his character "Planet Chomsky". It seems like they always attack the messenger when they don't have good facts themselves.

One thing I did catch was Dershowitz asking how our media could possibly be silenced. That was a dead give-away that he's a total shill. His first hand account of facts from known liars was another give-away. Other than that, I'm not sure. Chomsky seems absolutely brillant and the applause against him was odd, like it seemed planted.

A Review of the Harvard Debate
Dershowitz versus Chomsky
By JOHN RYAN

A few interesting factual bits mixed in with all the opinion, too.

I have just watched the Chomsky-Dershowitz debate. I'm not entirely sure how debates are judged or graded, but unless one is blinded by Zionist/pro-Israel bias, there's no question that Chomsky scored a decisive victory--on a number of counts.

The topic was Israel and Palestine After Disengagement: Where Do We Go From Here? Chomsky consistently stayed on topic, whereas Dershowitz hardly referred to it, except at the end when directed to it by a question. What's the debate penalty for ignoring the topic?

In his opening address, Dershowitz only dealt with the issue obliquely, and devoted most of his time to berating the Palestinians, Chomsky, and professors who criticize Israel, and challenged Chomsky to form an alliance with him to work for peace in the area-- a seemingly worthy proposal but totally off topic. Chomsky began by saying that the only thing Dershowitz said that he couldn't take issue with was that the two of them had once been in some summer camp together. Chomsky then proceeded to provide background to the crisis and pointed out that the current Israel-USA policy and any proposal emanating from it would lead to only further disaster. The Palestinians are not prepared to accept a non-contiguous Bantustan "state" which is what is being offered. Instead he clearly stated that it was the Geneva Accord that provided a basis for meaningful future negotiations. Dershowitz, on the other hand, only at the end, when pressed on this matter, said that the new Sharon-Peres party would "offer" the Palestinians a "proposal"--which the Palestinians should not refuse! This was his answer to "where do we go from here." So much for substance by Dershowitz. Debate score?

Looking back at the "debate," Dershowitz's approach was characterized by a consistent tirade of comments aimed at character assassination, rather than salient arguments relevant to the topic. At almost every instance when he spoke, Dershowitz peppered his address with ad hominem attacks on Chomsky--from the very beginning to the very end. Chomsky conducted himself with the dignity and decorum that such an occasion demanded. He kept to the topic, never raised his voice, never interrupted Dershowitz, and only at one time did he speak over the moderator's voice who tried to cut off a much needed response to Dershowitz. What's the debating penalty to Dershowitz for his abysmal ad hominem performance?

CounterPunch

"Chomsky just made the point that there are far more Palestinian deaths in the conflict than Israeli"

we figured after WWII and previous times, that it really wasnt such a good idea to "pray they dont kill you"....it made more sense to learn the art of killing inorder to stay alive. Proved itself in 48, 67, 73......no excuses or apolgies are necessary