Chomsky and Dershowitz debate Israel and Palestine 6/14

Noam Chomsky & Alan Dershowitz debating Israel and Palestine

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Noam
• Chomsky
• Alan
• Dershowitz
• Israel
• Palestine

[LoudCitizen]

I love how both debaters just ignore the moderator.

[MrCrgl]

the moderator is dumbass



[geofreyr]

@sh0tglass Have you read Martin Gilbert's book?

[geofreyr]

@sh0tglass It's irrelevant to the argument that some information is based on a particular source, it's the content and its validity that's important.

You infer Mr Gilbert's material is biased based on things like it being taken from Israeli sources yet righteously proclaim how much more valid Llan Pappe's material is after noting that it is based on "Arab sources" - if anything's biased, it's that! lol.

[sh0tglass]

@James2010May Its strange that you say that because there was no Palestinian leadership. Palestinians were not a state, nor did they really have a government of any kind.

[sh0tglass]

@geofreyr they were condemned, but never stopped because they were quietly supported. Why do you think these paramilitaries were later integrated into the Hagana? Anyway, I think this is all past history. The key relevant question at hand in this debate is the 67 borders; Dershowitz presents a laughable plan "conceded" to the Palestinians while Chomsky consistently points out the Israeli injustice.

[sh0tglass]

@geofreyr the Stern gang and Irgun were both paramilitary offshoots of the Hagana, a force organized by Ben-Gurion and his pals. During the 1948 ethnic cleansing of Palestine, the Hagana along with the Stern gang and Irgun rounded up and executed Palestinian villagers based on prepared intelligence. This is all in Ilan Pappe's Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, where more Arab sources are used. The book by Martin Gilbert is authored by an openly pro-Israeli man who used only Israeli sources.

[gulbirk]

liers debate by referring the previous opinions of groups. Honest people look at how the situation is at the current time, and what the demand from both sides is at the current time.

So, Chomsky is the honest one.

[geofreyr]

@sh0tglass continued: The stern gang, as you've mentioned, and the Irgun, however, did use aggressive tactics against Arabs, though they were always condemned by those *official* Labour Zionist leaders. Furthermore, it states that aggression was on both sides and often-times initiated by the Arabs whom constantly opposed Jewish emigration and statehood, so in this regard, I think you're wrong.

[geofreyr]

@sh0tglass Yes I agree with you there about the present occupation of territories like the West bank, but I don't agree with you about your assertions of "ethnic cleansing". Martin Gilbert, in his History of Israel, writes a detailed account around this period and though the book does list some atrocities committed by the Hagana this was under strict control by the Labour Zionists at that time, such as Chaim Wiseman and Ben-Gurion, and they didn't tolerate such aggressive tactics.

[sh0tglass]

@geofreyr I consider myself to be pro-Israeli, hence that is why I oppose the occupation and I support a just resolution to the Occupation. Dershowitz openly admits that the Palestinians faced the offer of a "non-contiguous" state, without any real sovereignty. Dershowitz ignores these absurdities and claims that Chomsky's sources are inadmissible because they are in Hebrew, and that Chomsky is also a liar. This is a simple element of rhetoric; attack the person, not the argument.

[Crucifuck]

Dershowitz is a joke and the the audience laughing at him knows it.