Re: Here's a Dershowitz-Chimsky debate on Israel
> First of all, you haven't apologized for your misogynistic and factually
> confused attack on Condie Rice the other day, where you accused her of
> somehow helping to cause Saddam's invasion of Kuwait even though she was
> actually a professor at Standford at the time.
Why should I apologise for an act of war mongering that led Saddam on to invade Kuwait?
Her words went something along the line "We won't intervene", or "The war is Yours", or "We don't meddle in other peoples mess, unless there is something in it for us" "whatever" This is a known fact.
US gave Saddam the go ahead to invade Kuwait, I thought even you had realised this is factual.
>Your extreme confusion on
> matters and people you speak so strongly about is noted, however.
Well if you ever quote me, don't forget the royalties.
> Secondly, Alan Dershowitz often refers to those in Europe who are
> "more Palestinian than the Palestians," and I think that applies
> to you.
You know why your right wing friend feels that way? Because it suits him.
It suits his futile argument against those who defend the indefensible acts of zionists and americans.
No one is more Palestinian than the Palestinians, I wouldn't have the guts to wear a bomb on my back and venture into my invaders "take on my land" and dare claim it back. Would you?
Who can be more Freedom Fighting than the Palestinians.
He talks shit.
> If you're interested, I recently watched Dershowitz debating Noam Chomsky
> over Israel on C-SPAN. It can be viewed here:
> http://www.booktv.org/feature/index.asp?segID=6499&schedID=388 I thought
> Dershowitz won the debate.
I will tomorrow when I have time, although knowing Noam Chomsky from old, I know which side of the debate I'll come out on.
> And after one of Dershowitz's students and research assistants, Mitch
> Webber, sent some fact-checks of Chomsky to the Harvard Crimson newspaper,
> Chomsky looks even worse. (This fact-checking was done without the
> knowledge or consent of Dershowitz.)
> Here's some of the fact-checking of Chomsky, if you intend to view the
> debate.
> ========
> Considering The Crimson's current anti-Dershowitz slant and general
> disregard for facts in stories concerning Dershowitz, I thought I should
> offer my assistance.
> I'm working on compiling a list of verifiably false remarks that Chomsky
> made at the debate on Tuesday. Please note, I'm distinguishing objective
> factual errors from Chomsky's run-of-the-mill ludicrous theories about
> US-Israeli "rejectionism," media conspiracies of silence, and
> nefarious plots to destroy Iran. For example, I'm not including Chomsky's
> support for this comment including Ronald Reagan among "an iconic
> group of mass murderers -- from Hitler to Idi Amin to [Shimon]
> Peres." That's a matter of opinion, no matter how outrageous. I'll
> stick to the facts.
> 1. Contrary to the writings of former President Clinton, Dennis Ross, and
> former PM Barak, Chomsky, on at least five occasions, made the
> "Bantustan" accusation. In doing so, he (1) falsely claims that
> Israel never offered Arafat contiguous territory in the West Bank, while
> at the same time (2) comparing Israel to Apartheid South Africa.
> (As published maps from Camp David show, Israel agreed at Camp David to
> establishing a Palestinian state on 100% of Gaza and a contiguous 92% of
> the West Bank. A few months later, Israel agreed to cede a full 97% of the
> occupied territories to a Palestinian state.)
> 2. Chomsky cited as his primary source for the Bantustan accusation an
> article written by Ron Pundak. From what I can find, Pundak never made any
> such "Bantustan" or "non-contiguous" accusation
> against Israel. (He used the word "Bantustan" in the article to
> refer to the temporary autonomous Area A and B regions under Oslo. It had
> nothing to do with American and Israeli offers at Camp David and the
> December 2000 Clinton Parameters.)
> 3. Chomsky claimed that Egypt offered Israel a genuine "full
> peace" in 1971, which Israel rejected and to which it responded with
> belligerencies, ultimately causing the 1973 war. (It didn't.)
> 4. Chomsky claimed that Arafat agreed to the Clinton Parameters. (Israel
> accepted; Arafat refused.)
> 5. Chomsky said that "oth sides, of course, rejected Resolution
> 242." (Do I even have to say that Israel accepted, while Arab nations
> and Palestinian organizations unanimously rejected 242?)
> 6. Chomsky claimed that he had not, only a moment earlier, claimed that
> Cuba has a better human rights record that Israel. (Dershowitz challenged
> Chomsky to name a single country, facing similar external or terrorist
> threats, that maintained greater devotion to the rule of law and human
> rights. Chomsky named Nicaragua and Cuba.)
> 7. On at least three occasions Chomsky made the especially bizarre claim
> that he has supported a two-state solution since the early '70s, while
> Dershowitz has only recently and grudgingly accepted Palestinians' right
> to self-determination. (Dershowitz and Chomsky debated in 1973 on this
> very issue. Dershowitz advocated a two-state solution. Chomsky railed
> against there being a Jewish state, arguing in favor of a single-state
> modeled after Lebanon and Yugoslavia. In his writings, Chomsky has made
> the exact same argument.)
> I haven't finished checking Chomsky's "sources" yet, but you're
> welcome to what I have on these points. I'd also be happy to provide you
> with pages of Chomsky quotations on Israeli "concentration
> camps," Holocaust-deniers, and Jews. My personal favorite [
> http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/198805--.htm ]: "The Jewish
> community here is deeply totalitarian. They do not want democracy, they do
> not want freedom." Dershowitz refused to bring these points up during
> the debate, deciding to constructively focus on the issue of peace instead
> of attacking Chomsky personally for his apparent hostility toward Jews. If
> you find it relevant, though, this Dershowitz article [
> http://www-tech.mit.edu/V122/N25/col25dersh.25c.html ] might also help
> with your editorial.
> Also, I think it's important to stress the tone of the debate. Dershowitz
> offered a Peace Treaty for Academics (which The Crimson news story
> missed), according to which he and Chomsky would promise to help temper
> the community discussion by outsiders who vilify and demonize either
> Israelis or Palestinians. He proposed creative solutions to the conflict,
> recognized the crimes that both sides have committed, and asked that men
> and women of goodwill press for a practical peace. Chomsky, in turn, spent
> every moment of his speaking time doing precisely the opposite --
> vilifying and demonizing the US and Israel, refusing to recognize any
> violence against Israelis or one iota of blame on the part of Palestinians
> or Arabs for the conflict. This was not a debate between a pro-Israel
> speaker and an anti-Israel speaker. It was a debate between a man who is
> both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine, against a man who will mischaracterize
> or invent any fact, no matter how silly, in order to undermine the Jewish
> state's very right to exist. Please don't be lulled into a
> journalistically comfortable but false "balance." Chomsky's
> blatant lies, hate, and destructiveness should not be afforded equal
> standing alongside Dershowitz's fastidious honesty, tolerance, moderation,
> and optimism.
> I'm exasperated. Against the dozens of professors who regularly lecture at
> their own schools and elsewhere that Israel is no better than Nazi Germany
> and should be abolished, it's a shame that The Crimson has decided to join
> the defamatory campaign against the single professor in the entire country
> (that's no exaggeration) who gives talks on the modest proposition that
> Israel ought to exist, even though it, like all other nations, could do a
> lot better. I hope you'll at least make an effort to give Dershowitz a
> fairer shake than your editorial and news staff have recently done.
> =========