Tuesday, November 29, 2005
[Update 11/30/05: The video is now up.]
I didn't get a ticket to the debate, but here is the page where you can watch the live video feed. It starts at 19:00 Eastern. BYOB.
Update: I'm bumping this up to the top. The feed is live now. Very nice quality.
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.
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.)
As I said earlier, you might check out the video yourself when it appears. In the meantime, check out Natan Sharansky's video on the same page (scroll down to February 10).
My only slightly cleaned up live notes are in the extended entry. You might take a look to get a taste of whether you want to watch or not.
7:04: Let's get it on!
(This is going to be pretty cursory. It's hard to listen and type, but here it is. I'll clean up later.)
Moderator says 10 minute opening statements, 45 minutes Q&A, 2 minute closing. Short and to the point.
Dershowitz speaks first according to coin toss.
D describes how he was a camper at a Hebrew-only Zionist summer camp where Chomsky was one of his councilors back in the 40's.
D says we need a Chekovian solution -- where everyone is still alive at the end. We need a pragmatic solution. Everyone must give up some "rights."
Efforts to delegitimize Israel prolong the conflict and discourage peace, making Palestinians feel they just need to wait until the next generation and they can have it all.
D calls for an academic peace treaty (a peace treaty among the academics) -- that professors stop demonizing and delegitimizing Israel, and being more Palestinian than the Palestinians -- good luck on that.
Chomsky names Sarah Roy as leading academic on the occupation at Harvard, also and Israeli, Benvenisti (Chomsky refers to him repeatedly throughout the evening) who talks about Bantustans...
C is giving the run-down of the awfulness of the occupation, for which Israel and the USA are responsible and are the only rejectionists. He loves the words bantustan and canton, can't get enough of them, repeats them all night. He hasn't gotten to the "where do we go from here" portion yet. There isn't much peace in his speech, in contrast to D.
Questioner: Is it important to share a narrative about the past? To agree on all the history?
Chomsky is very brief "understanding history is understanding present" or somesuch (note: all of my quotes are approximations)...D takes the lead and opportunity to grab the floor...
Q about contiguity, Chomsky asks if the Israelis would be willing to go back to 78% of what they have? (A silly question Chomsky asks repeatedly.)
D: "Thank God Israel has to make peace with the Palestinians and not with the Professors" (gestures toward Chomsky)
C: "Dennis Ross was the American negotiator. His word is worthless."
Q: To Chomsky a question about the effect of violence on Israelis (an attempt, it seems to me to get Chomsky to address something he won't), he doesn't disappoint and turns the question into a laundry list of Israeli violence against Palestinians. (This is also classic Chomsky, and one of the more disturbing moments of the evening. Chomsky's coldness, his lack of any willingness to acknowledge another viewpoint but to instead engage his instinct to immediately attack is very revealing.)
D (exasperated): "Why are all your academic sources so 'eminent?' How do we know that?"
Q: Trying to get C to name his forward vision, his solutions. "If these things are OK, let's impose them on the Israelis" says Chomsky.
C continues on with his list of outrages. Talks about "Jewish highway." D jumps on this in response -- 'even synagogues aren't Jewish only.' 'I am waiting along with the student for some creative solutions from Prof. Chomsky.'
C has to concede the point on the Jewish roads but weasles it.
C continuously blames Israel for the Taba failure. Likes to refer to sources which D becomes angry over saying that he knows no one will check.
C is challenged by D to name a country that faces a similar threat but has as good a record of human rights. Names Nicaragua and Cuba's responses to America's far worse "terrorism." ...now talking about Iran's restrained response to America's threats.
Yes, they shook hands with a smile at the end.
Fascinating the way the indignant can be so intolerant.
Don't see it in the archive?
Check this out as well.
http://onearabworld.blog.com/422981/#cmts
They'll probably have the video up within a couple days. I forget how long it took them to get the Sharansky video up but I don't think it took long. Just keep checking.
re the other thing: They should ask Chomsky how he lives with himself.
I am sloggin g through sources and threw in a bittorrent to the debate (rather poor quality, I'm afraid, but it'll do), but should pre-emptively note my utterly opposite reaction nevermind opinion/bias on the matter, but you're welcome to help slog mud at the attendants.
I randomly bumped into your site, and I must say, I agree with your assessment of the event 100%. I was one of the few people who actually won the lottery and let me say, being their was INTENSE. If you thought it seemed heated online, it was atleast twice as much in person. The audience was very involved and often yelled comments and laughed or hissed at the responses. Definitely one of the most interesting and well spent hours of my recent life.
I think that in terms of debate skills, Dershowitz really stole the show, almost too much so sometimes, he came of as a little too personal and overbearing at times compared to the soft spoken Chomsky. At the same time, Chomsky was incapable of ever directly answering a question and felt compelled to inundate the audience with facts and sources that may or not be at all relevent to the question. Then after ticking off a litany of history, he would stop, and assume that he answered the question when it was clear he didn't. At which point people would yell "answer the question!"
However, in terms of a war of ideas, there was no clear winner, since Chomsky didn't really present a clear idea or opinion aside from his view of the history. The theme of the night was to be forward thinking and talk about the future, but Chomsky's only comment about that is that if we continue on the present course, it will be disaster. Ok great, so what's your plan?
I spoke with a number of attendees after the event and the unanimous conclusion was that personal opinion's aside, by the end of the night, we all had a very clear understanding of Dershowitz's position and his ideas for the future. On the otherhand, we had very little understanding of what Chomsky stood for. We clearly understood his views on the history behind the matter, but really had no clue about his ideas for the future, if he even has any?
Either way, thanks for the recap of the event.
Thanks for your comment! (and for agreeing with me, of course)
It's too bad that the temper of the audience didn't come across at all in the web-cast, other than it seemed a wee bit louder when Chomsky scored a "point" than when Dershowitz did. But you really couldn't pick up on any of the stuff you describe on the web, and the people who the camera kept focusing on in the first two rows were mostly quiet, and the quesitoners were mostly respectful.
Truth be told, I´m not sure that he was so impressive when he was younger, either. I saw him speak at Columbia in 1978 or 1979. And I was profoundly disappointed. I was uncomfortable with him ideologically even then, but I had enormous respect for him intellectually. If only because everyone else had enormous respect for him intellectually.
Instead of brilliant comments, piercing arguments, airtight logic, and encylopedic knowledge, I was treated to a human version of a placard. He spoke in slogans. I´m not exagerating. He spoke in discrete bits that he practically spewed out, never developing any theme beyond a few sentences. He got easy applause from the mostly pro Arab audience, but he didn´t have to work too hard for that.
At one point he said something...I forgot what...that was so crazy that almost all of the audience sat in amazement. Only one rather eccentric young girl applauded.
It was a wooden performance, with no intellectual depth, just venom. I didn´t know what to make of it. I figured he must´ve been having a bad day.
By the way, by ¨he¨ I meant Chomsky, of course. I responded after reading the post, not the comments.
" I figured he must´ve been having a bad day"
Which turned into a bad few decades. heh.
I think that since Dershowitz was the aggressive one, that when Chomsky scored a point, people clapped louder. People will root for who is perceived to be the underdog, and in the debate, Chomsky was the one on the defensive more often than not. Interestingly, a lot of Chomsky's ideology is based on supporting the underdogs (in his view, the Palestians) and thus perhaps those people cheering for him were exposing there own proclivity to root for the underdogs, no matter what the sitution.
However, from where I was sitting, the clapping and heckling seemed was pretty even towards both speakers.
That said, I friend of mine brought up an interesting theory. He was so incredulous at some of the things Chomsky said, that he concluded "Either this man is crazy, or so brilliant that he can use facts and history to convince himself and others of absolutely anything." I think that the truth may lie somewhere in the middle. He also pointed out that it is possible that Chomsky is filling a role rather than following his own views. Meaning, that he sees a need for an intelligent and respected academic to provide a voice to the views he presents, and so has aligned himself with those views. In essence, at the core, perhaps he doesn't actually fundamentally believe all that he says, but has convinced himself of it due to his perception that saying those things will contribute to the overall greater good, in his complicated view of the world. Thus he has adopted these extreme views as his own, as a means to an end. Kind of like that friend that we all have that has the annoying tendancy to always play devil's advocate with you. Even when you know for a fact you are right, they will disagree with you just to give the other side a voice?
This kind of makes me think in general about a lot of extremists? Are they really that extreme, or are they just playing a very complicated game?
A note about the speakers being respectful. Yes they indeed were. I was surprised that none of them got seriously dragged into the heated debate, though of few of them did not relent until their question was actually answered/addressed - though it never ended up happening in a few cases.
One example that comes to mind was when the men who claimed to have been at Camp David as a personal advisor to one of the Israeli diplomats, was in the middle of asking a question when the moderator tried to cut him off and make him get to the question without the backstory. The man claimed that the short backstory was very necessary but the moderator wouldn't let him. Suddenly people from the audience started yelling things such as: "Let him speak!" or "He's got something important to say" or "He was there!". Finally he said what he intended, and the following exchange between him and Chomsky was quite memorable when each claimed the other was wrong about who was either at the meeting or an influential voice regarding that meeting in Camp David.
You may not have gotten a sense of the crowd dynamic because it was a 3 story hall. The ground floor audience (some on camera) were mostly quiet. It was the students "up in the nosebleeds" who were the loud ones - especially because they knew that no one would know where the comment came from.
You could spend a very long time examining the personal psychology of one Avram Noam Chomsky. Yes, he is often knowingly dishonest for manipulative purposes, such as when he signed on to Israel divestment and then said he didn't really believe in it because such efforts are immoral.
He also certainly plays the role of contrarian, but to say his voluminous writings and pronouncements are all a part of some extended conceit, a sort of metaphorical show...no, that's certainly not right. He believes it.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with Chomsky's record and rhetorical techniques, but there are many, many very intelligent responses out there. Oliver Kamm has written many posts on the subject, and you can also start with Brad DeLong here and here. Neither of these two individuals are what one could call "Right Wing."
Note that when Dershowitz was warning everyone to check Chomsky's sources, he wasn't just telling them to make sure they exist, he wanted people to check and ensure they actually said the things that Chomsky claimed they said -- that he was using them honestly -- a frequent Chomsky failing.
Sorry if you're familiar with all of this already.
One example that comes to mind was when the men who claimed to have been at Camp David as a personal advisor to one of the Israeli diplomats, was in the middle of asking a question when the moderator tried to cut him off and make him get to the question without the backstory. The man claimed that the short backstory was very necessary but the moderator wouldn't let him. Suddenly people from the audience started yelling things such as: "Let him speak!" or "He's got something important to say" or "He was there!". Finally he said what he intended, and the following exchange between him and Chomsky was quite memorable when each claimed the other was wrong about who was either at the meeting or an influential voice regarding that meeting in Camp David.
Will this be on the video?
A favorite of Finkelstein and company is to IGNORE everything that Ross describes about further Taba negotiations and the White House offer in December of 2000 as if it didn't happen. In fact Finkelstein just sticks to Robert Malley's account of it in his book as an "unbiased" observer who was there and then jumps to the Saudi "offer" the next spring which Israel rejected (rightly so as a joke) outright as "PROOF" they really didn't want to make a deal.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14529
You could spend a very long time examining the personal psychology of one Avram Noam Chomsky. Yes, he is often knowingly dishonest for manipulative purposes, such as when he signed on to Israel divestment and then said he didn't really believe in it because such efforts are immoral.
Norm Finkelstein.
Stanley Cohen the hyper obnoxious nutjob lawyer who represents Hamas the way Bruce Cutler repped John Gotti and who hangs out with the chick who defends and fawns over the Blind Sheikh - 93 Trade Center bombing.
The video is now up at the Harvard site. Go check it out. In fact, Chomsky does make one assertion about the Ross book -- that it ends before the final Taba meeting, IIRC -- that Dershowitz doesn't respond to. I wonder what the response is.
WHERE? Don't see it?
And when I click on the Watch the current forum video stream live! I get a "can't found technical error" blah... blah.
If it's there pretend I'm an idiot (lol) and tell me exactly where to find it from your link in the post?
Under the November 29, 2005 heading, look for the little "Forum Video" link. It is not obvious -- the text is black.
Uh, OK, it's black after you click it once. It starts red. (I have updated the new post with directions.)
I swear - November 29 - WAS NOT there earlier tonight. Thanks though.
And the comments above were great and interesting to read I can't wait to watch it and see what my reaction is.
I am hoping (I ASKED ABOVE) that the question of Chomsky Alex describes and then the back and forth regarding Camp David is in there? Jus because I would want to hear it, I am assuming that it won't be included.
I just watched the video and indeed that exchange that I was referring to IS included in the video.
Though, unfortunately, most of the audience interaction just sounds like mumbling. But when I was there, it was clearly people yelling or saying something that everyone could understand. Too bad that part didn't translate well in the video.
The man who "claimed to have been at Camp David" is Tal Silberstein, a former advisor to PM Ehud Barak.
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9901/13/israel.barak/
He was, in fact, at Camp David. And as he correctly noted, Ron Pundak, Chomsky's one source for his silly "Bantustan" accusation, was not.
Chomsky claims in the back and forth with Silberstein that Pundak was "in the background" of Camp David. His bio includes
Presumably one of those might be considered "background" to Camp David.
His account published in a IISS article Chomsky refers to (Silberstein apparently agreed that it was reliable? My laptop crashed at that point) is presumably From Oslo to Taba: What Went Wrong?
It says, on the matter of silly bantustan accusations:
"For the average Palestinian during Barak’s administration, the so-called 'fruits of peace' were hardly encouraging: [...long list...] the establishment of Bantustan-like areas, controlled according to the whim of Israeli military rule and on occasion dictated by its symbiotic relationship with the settlers’ movement".
In case you missed it. If you watch the whole video notice the poor young man who asked the first question. At the end of the debate as Professor D. is summing up the camera pans him as he sits in the audience. He takes that moment to pick his nose, right there on camera. Just thought a little levity at this guys expense was called for.
Pepster -
Missed that was he picking a winner or really digging for gold?
Watched the video twice last night while doing other things.
1) I didn't think Chomsky looked so bad, as was described here.
2) I thought Dershowitz did well but comes off sometimes as a little overbearing.
3) From the crowd noise it seemed that Dershowitz got a little more of the worst of it. Apparently from the comments here that appears not to be rep of the entire audience?
4) Would have loved to have heard the audience screaming at the moderator when he TWICE interrupted Tal Silberstein's question. I thought this guy came off very well and polite and knowledgeable. However, he seemed really young to be a high advisor at Camp David? He can't be more than 38 tops? And he did make Chomksy look a little foolish since the "Professor" quotes his "foremost authority" or "eminent" sources over and over again. A typical trait of the Marxist speakers btw. Like Fisk is an "eminent" source and "scholar" on Lebanon.
5) Chomsky while his views are often just slogans is not as offensive and detestable as Finkelstein.
6) I can't take Dershowitz when he over plays and dramatizes the "peace possibilities" etc...
Listen, "peace" is bullshit. There will never be real peace and everyone there (not in the US fairyland) knows this. But at least Dershowitz is battling the onslaught of anti-Israeli invective dialogue that has taken over some/many college campuses.
7) I thought at 1 point someone should stand up and ask Chomsky if he would stake his reputation that the guy Pundak was at Camp David.
8) I would have asked him if he thought that Palis might have to travel an extra 10 or 15 minutes to get around Jerusalem if that was valid cause for continuing war and terrorism.
9) He said that Ross's view is worthless bcs he was representative of the Americans. Yet Malley was on Ross's team (an American) and the leftists and Norm luvv to cite this guy. The problem with Malley was he was only at Camp David and not at the follow up meetings which Norm ignores but (in his old "speeches") but Noam Chomsky did acknowledge Taba - but instead ignores both of them and finds a different "authorative" source to quote.
10) Oh, and it was telling to me that Chomsky hit on SEVERAL TIMES that the remaining issues between the sides was 'territorial' and not the status of the Mount and Refugees. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO HIM TO POSE. Because if it was actually really about the Mount and Refugees than their whole theory that the Israelis didn't offer a good deal and that the Palis didn't negotitate in bad faith becomes the lie THAT IT IS.
You'd have to believe that Ross completely lied about the December 2000 meeting.
READ THIS INTERVIEW WITH BRIT HUME -
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50830,00.html
Of all the sources brought into this debate I'd have to say that the statements of the four former heads of Shin Bet, published in Yediot Ahronot, that Chomsky refers to have to be the most interesting.
I think I remember that statement. Solomon probably remembers better than I do. But if I remember all 4 of those were to the left Laborites and after their statement 1 or 2 revised how it was being played in the media and 2 other former heads refuted much or what they said or at least their reasoning.
Nobody's gonna give me something via the previous comment to at least go on? I can't really look up vague comments.
"were to the left Laborites" doesn't mean anything to me: they denied such a label during the joint appearance. Surely there's some record of their renunciations/revisions/clarifications that's easy to find for somebody familiar with them.
Wow. Which debate did you watch?
What a hilarious conversation boys - if you can't figure out what Chomksy's 'creative' solution is then I can only suggest you try to ease up those sphincters to pull your head of your ass. LOL
If you need me to explain it to you, seriously, I'm only to happy to do it.
Sincerely, Steve
Difficult to understand how onw could be in support of a professor(Dershowitz) who openly discounts facts, and in his support of Zionist policies in the middle east, is an open support of human right violations and an apologist for ongoing atrocities. I was highly skeptical and ouright in disgust of Chomsky until 4 years ago when I spent about 3 months checking researching all his claims, and to my surprize, they all all true, and weel supported, usually by official declassified state dept. records. These are the documents that Dershowitz and the whole media system know most will not research. Until that turning point for me 4 years ago, I would never have been so amazed at how a media/educational system could talk of Israelis who in fighting terrorism have struggled against the crazed arabs looking to eradicate them. The reverse is true, and one must stand in awe of such a propoganda system. No wonder billions of dollars are spent on keeping us in the dark. Don't take my word for it. Find out for yourself. 2 good places to start are Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch.
nilesmonkey, please post some major examples of chomskys charges and supporting evidence that convinced you of his claims.
BTW, have you seen the Geert Wilders film Fitna?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103
The above link to LiveLeak in the UK, is a statement by LiveLeak that they were forced to drop the film due to serious threats.
"Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, Liveleak.com has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers."
Any guess as to who threatened them?
Fitna is here.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3369102968312745410
sigh...sounds like there're a buncha ideologues in here. look, what some in this room have to understand is that criticism of israel the government is not the same as anti-semitism. that's like saying that criticizing imperial japan's actions in WWII means one is racist against japanese or asians. that is what chomsky is doing. he is not an anti-semite or a holocaust denier and he has stated that many times.
is the israeli govt really treating the palestinians poorly? yes! do some palestinians deserve blame for this? yes! but the facts of the matter are, that as hard as the situation is, the israeli govt has been very heavy-handed in the way it deals with the palestinians. no doubt about that. and the fact that palestinians die at rates order-of-magnitudes greater than israeli deaths is undisputable.
i know this issue is complex and there's all this history that underlies all this and makes things even more complex, for the past informs present actions. but i think that as a fairly neutral observer, i think the israeli govt gives the israeli people a bad name - just as the US govt brings undeserved shame onto the heads of the people it purportedly represents.
now, on the debate. regardless of which view was right or wrong - as in, not addressing whether israel is to blame or palestine is to blame (which is a stupid question, is reality that simple?), dershowitz did a poor job of debating and acted beneath his deserved title of harvard law professor. he was all rhetoric and soundbites. i'm not saying he's wrong, but this is an academic debate, not a tv or coffeehouse screamfest. when it got to the issues of borders and fences and whatnot, i lost track of what both were contesting.
but on the whole, the mistreatment of palestinians is real, and i know that there are many israelis in israel who are ashamed that many innocent palestinians are being punished for the crimes of a few extremists, just as americans are widely ashamed by their 'elected' officials.