Two noted academics offered vastly different views on the history and path forward in the Arab-Israeli conflict recently as Alan Dershowitz and Noam Chomsky debated each other at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government.
Whereas Chomsky claimed "Israeli rejectionism" was the source of Arab-Israeli tensions, Dershowitz derided the Palestinian rejection of the peace offer made to Yasser Arafat by Ehud Barak at Camp David.
Dershowitz also called on academics to stop demonizing Israel. "At the moment, I am sad to report that many academics around the world are contributing to an atmosphere that makes peace more difficult to achieve," Dershowitz said. "Thank G-d Israel has to make peace with the Palestinians, and not with the professors!" Dershowitz went on to say that peace "will require that both sides give up rights."
Chomsky and Dershowitz were each given ten minutes for opening remarks, followed by forty-five minutes for a question-and-answer session with the audience, and two minutes for closing statements.
To a skeptical audience however Dershowitz refuted Chomsky's line of attack.
Solomonia blogged the debate, and offers the following evaluation:
Final wrap-up: OK, I did a sort-of live blog which I've shuffled off into the extended entry. I found it very difficult to type and quip and still listen, so mostly I didn't.You can download a video of the debate here.
Dershowitz fans will enjoy this, so give it a listen/watch when the video is up on the archive. He's aggressive and ready, occasionally delving more into the ad hominem than Chomsky (one of the expressions he likes to repeat is "Planet Chomsky," which I enjoyed but have to admit was getting personal), but overall driving the debate and responding extremely well. Chomsky is getting old. He's quieter and more tentative. Not as impressive a presence or voice. Classic Chomsky, he speaks like he writes, referring constantly to sources, "serious scholars," and things which "everyone knows" while waiving his hand. You can almost see the little footnote marks floating over his head. Dershowitz, of course, challenges the audience to do as Professor Chomsky says and check his sources.
It would be an interesting excercise, if there is a transcript posted, or someone wants to slog through the video, actually doing just that. Chomsky is called by a member of the audience during the question and answer period on his characterization of the work of one of the audience member's friends, for instance.
The audience, what could be heard on the audio, was a bit louder on the Chomsky side, although both had their fans and there was some hissing but I'm not sure at who.
Unquestionably, Dershowitz came out looking like the forward thinker, the one desiring peace and willing to self-criticize. Chomsky is, to put it bluntly, stuck on stupid and has been for decades. The man is genetically incapable of doing anything other than villifying Israel and the United States. Everything is their fault -- from the war in '48 to the failure of Taba -- their actions always without context or justification. Trying to get a forward looking, "OK, so where do we go from here" statement out of him is like pulling teeth. He just won't do it. He can't concede a thing. (He seems to think the Geneva Accord was OK, though.)
Technorati Tags: Israel and Palestinians and Dershowitz and Chomsky.
As I understood it this was one of those debates in which the winner was the person who mirrored your own political perspective, not necessarily the real winner.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the reality is that measuring the winner of a debate can be challenging.
Stuck on stupid? Wow. Is that you back there, Dershowitz?
ReplyDeleteIt's obvious who you want to believe in this debate. However, the way Dershowitz conducted himself in the debate was a farce. He was loud-mouthed and aggressive, constantly attempting to discredit Chomsky through personal attacks. This is not the way a serious scholar handles a debate. While Chomsky cited UN and US judicial reports, available to anyone, Dershowitz referred to conversations he'd had with President Clinton, which is 1: unverifiable, and 2: irrelevant. Dershowitz made a fool of himself and Noam Chomsky once again handled himself calmly in the face of personal attacks and stuck to credible sources for his arguments as is to be expected by a serious scholar.
ReplyDelete