Chomsky. Transcript. Dershowitz. KennedySchoolOfGovernment. Harvard. CSPAN. 29 Nov 2005.

1.       Good evening. My name is TimHuong and on behalf of theHarvardSpeechAndParliamentaryDebateSociety, I’d like to welcome you all tonight toIsraelAndPalestineAfterDisengagementWhereDoWeGoFromHere? While we as an undergraduategroup are usually involved with competitions around the world we are particularlyinterested in promoting public debate and dialogue on campus, and tonight marks the first of many such events planned for theHarvardcommunity. Now, the support throughout the entire of the university has been overwhelming, and I’d like to take a moment to thank all our cosponsors. These are theHarvardStudentsForIsrael, ThePalestinianSolidarityCommittee, theProgressiveJewishAlliance, theHarvard Society of Arab Students, TheJewishLawStudentsAssociation, JusticeForPalestine, AllianceForIsrael; and in theKennedySchoolOfGovernment, theArabJewishAndMuslimCaucuses, StudentsForIsrael, PalestineAwarenessCommittee, and theJewishMuslimDialogue. I’d also like to give special thanks toBillWhite and theIOPForumstaff for their really, frankly, invaluable help in putting this project together for us. And now, I’ll leave it toBrian to introduce the speakers tonight, but, suffice it to say, you’re about to witness a remarkable discussion between, really, truly two of themostprominent thinkers in the ongoing discussion for peace in theIsraeliPalestinianConflict. So without further adieu, I am proud, veryproud, to present this event tonight, and we hope you enjoy it. And now it is my pleasure to turn the program over to tonight’s moderator, ProfessorBrianMandell. ProfessorMandell is a lecturer at theJFKSchoolOfGovernment and he directs the school’s negotiationsproject. Brian?

2.       Mandell: Thank you. Thanks, Tim, and good evening everyone and welcome to theJFKJrForum. One of the missions of this school is to train public leaders to think hard about critical issues of the day. Certainly this evening we are going to be addressing, confronting and thinking hard about some of those issues as they relate toIsrael and Palestine. Tonight, our critical issue is, to bring it to point, is “Israel and Palestine after Disengagement: Where Do We Go From Here?” As we know, both parties, israelis and palestinians, are shortly headed toward elections. In January for the palestinians, probably in late march for the israelis. Since the disengagement in august, both sides are wrestlingmightily with their internal constituents, some on board for peace, some reluctant, some not so anxious at all to proceed with what is still an unknown and uncertain future. But there is a ray of hope if you’ve read the papers in the past couple days: an israeli-palestinian Peace soccer team, a joint team, has shown up in Spain. What’s interesting about this is that beneath the rhetoric, beneath the politics, there is a level of humanity in both suffering and hope, that these twopeoples will soon join hands and produce a better and a different path. And tonight I think we’re here to discuss what that path might look like. What I want to do before introducing our twospeakers is to make clear what our format is for this discussion. First, each speaker will make a tenminutes openingstatement on the topic. Then, for approximately fortyfiveminutes or so I will moderate a question and answer session from you, the audience. We will conclude with twominute closingstatements from each speaker. And while I encourage you to ask any question you deem appropriate to ProfessorsChomsky and Dershowitz, and I include in that tough questions, I alsoask for the sake of the audience that you be brief and respect the right of each speaker to respond as well. Please remember that civility is the cornerstoneof ourDemocracy, and certainly a hallmark here at theForum. Born inBrooklyn, ProfessorAlanDershowitz graduated fromBrooklynCollege and YaleLawSchool. AtYale he graduated first in his class and served as editorinchief of theYaleLawReview. After clerking forChiefJudgeDavidFreslin and JusticeArthurGoldberg, he was appointed to theHarvardLawfaculty at agetwentyfive, there wasn’t even time for you to join a midcareerprogram here at the school, and he became a fullprofessor at twentyeight, the youngest in the school’sHistory. When notteaching students, he found time to be one of the country’s mostaccomplished defenselawyers and authored over twentybooks. His latest, theCaseForPeace HowTheArabIsraeliConflictCanBeSolved, has received favourable reviews from formerPresidentBillClinton and MiddleEastnegotiatorDennisRoss. AtHarvardLawSchool, where he is theFelixFrankfurterProfessor ofLaw, ProfessorDershowitz teaches courses in criminalLaw; constitutionallitigation; civilliberties; and violence, legalEthics and HumanRights. ProfessorNoamChomsky: son of a hebrew scholar, ProfessorChomsky was born inPhiladelphia. While he acquired his PhD from theUniversityOfPennsylvania in1955, much of his research leading to his degree was done here atHarvard between1951and1955. In1955, he joinedMIT, and in[19]61 was appointed fullprofessor in theDepartmentOfModernLanguagesAndLinguistics. From his articulate opposition to theVietnamWar in themid[19]60s, to his book, ManufacturingConsent in1988, and to his even more challenging text, NineEleven, published after the terrorist attack that year, NoamChomsky has neverretreated from taking on themostpressing issues of our day. ProfessorChomsky is theInstituteProfessorOfLinguistics atMIT, and teaches classes inLinguistictheory, Syntax, Semantics, and thePhilo.OfLang. Before we begin, and to set the appropriate tone and context for this evening, I’d like us to have a brief look at a short clip from a forumevent lastyear.

3.       [Videofile] Hi, my name is LauraDaghi, I’m a Junior in the college, and I was wondering, as a leader who is internationally recognised in the struggle for peace, what advice do you have for the rising leaders of our generation?

4.       ShimonPeres: First of all, don’t be like us. Be different. You know, personally, I have verylittle patience forHistory. I believe that to imagine is more important than to remember.

5.       Mandell: Let me just repeat that so that we have that as the tone and the context for our discussion tonight. And I quote fromShimonPeres, “First of all, don’t be like us. Be different. Personally, I have verylittle patience forHistory. I believe that to imagine is moreimportant to remember”. So tonight let us imagine what should be thenextsteps in the process of achieving peace in theMiddleEast. For your knowledge, a cointoss conducted by theHarvardSpeechAndParliamentaryDebateSociety has determined that ProfessorDershowitz will speak first for tenminutes. After that, we will go to, directly toProfessorChomsky and then the floor will be open. ProfessorDershowitz.

6.       Dershowitz: Thank you verymuch. It’s a great honour for me to be participating in a debate with a man who has been called the world’s top public intellectual. My connexions toNoamChomsky go back a long time. In the1940s, I was a camper, and he a counselor in a hebrewspeaking zionist camp in thePoconoMountains calledCampMassad. Sound of laughter. In the1960s, we both worked against theVietnamWar. In the1970s, we had thefirst of our many debates about theArabIsraeliConflict. I advocated ending the israeli occupation in exchange for peace and recognition ofIsrael; he advocated a oneStatesolution, modeled on Lebanon and Yugoslavia. We debated again in the1980s and the1990s. Sound of laughter. I have the text. Sound of laughter. I hope that our once-a-decade encounter will continue for many decades to come, though I doubt we will agree with each other. The debate today occurs at a time of real potential for peace. ShimonPeres, Israel’s elder statesman in the peacecamp, today quit theLabourParty and announced his support forArielSharon in the upcoming election. Quote, “In my eyes, it is not a problem of parties, but a problem of peace, how to create a strong coalition for peace. The elements are now in place for a real peace.” As I wrote in theCaseForPeace, when the palestinian leadership wants a palestinianState more than it wants to see the destruction ofIsrael, there will finally be a twoStatesolution. The untimely death ofYasserArafat makes the twoStatesolution a real possibility. I call Arafat’sdeath untimely, because if it had occurred fiveyearsearlier, we might now be celebrating the anniversary of palestinianStatehood. Arafat’sdecision to turn down theClintonBarakplan for palestinianStatehood was characterised byPrinceBandar ofSaudiArabia as, quote, “a crime against the palestinians, in fact against the entire region.” The crime and the death that it needlesslycaused can never be undone, but this is a time to move forward and to assure that the crime is notrepeated. The time has come for compromise. My friend, AmosOz, the great novelist and leader of the israeliPeaceMovement, has said there are two possible resolutions to a conflict of this kind: theShakespearian and theChekhovian. In aShakespearedrama, every right is wronged, everyact is revenged, everyInjustice is made right, and perfectJustice prevails, but at the end of the play, everybody lies dead on the stage. In aChekhovplay, everybody is disillusioned, embittered, heartbroken, and disappointed, but they remain alive. We need a Chekhovian resolution for the Arab-Israeli tragedy. This will require the elevation of[“]Pragmatism[“] overIdeology. It will require that both sides give up rights. Rights. Giving up rights is a hard thing to do. It will require that each side recognises and acknowledges the pain and the suffering of the other. And it will require an end to the hateful attitudes and speech that some on each side direct against the other. Sometimes it’s better to start at the end. The ultimate solution is not as much in dispute these days as is the means for getting there. I believe that even ProfessorChomsky and I have thesame basic agreement about a number of veryimportant elements of what a pragmatic resolution might look like. ProfessorChomsky now acknowledges that the twoStatesolution may be, quote, “the best of the rotten ideas around.” I’ll settle for that. He alsoseems to acknowledge that those who advocate the socalled palestinian right of return are pandering to their people and misleading them into believing that there is yet another weapon, a demographic weapon, that can destroyIsrael. I think we both agree that Jerusalem should be divided essentiallyalong demographic lines with the palestinians controlling the palestinian population and Israel controlling the jewish population, that the borders between-Israel and -the palestinianState should be based roughlyon theUNResolution242, that Israel properly ended its occupation of theGaza, and that it should end its occupation of all palestinian cities and population centers on theWestBank, that Terrorism must stop, and that the palestinianState that results from this peace must be as contiguous as possible, and economically- and politically-viable. There remain considerable differences between us and, moreimportantly, between the israeliGovernment and the palestinian authority that must resolve these issues and actuallysit down and make peace. Some of these differences are attitudinal. I believe that peace is a realistic possibility, whereas ProfessorChomsky apparentlybelieves there is no chance for peace, at least as reflected by the german title of his new book, KeineChanceFürFrieden, which translates as NoChanceForPeace WhyAPalestinianStateIsNotPossibleToBeEstablished WithIsraelAndTheUnitedStates. I hope you’re wrong. Other differences are quite specific, relating to precise boundaries and considerations that are quite important, the devil alwaysbeing in the details. I stronglybelieve, however, that there is a genuine will for peace on both sides now and that the pragmatic differences can and will be resolved. And here, I think the academy can play a veryimportant and positive role in fostering peace. At the moment, I’m sad to report that many academics around the world are contributing to an atmosphere that makes peace moredifficult to achieve. They are encouraging those palestinians who see the end ofIsrael as their ultimate goal to persist in their ideological and terrorist campaign by demonising- and delegitimating-Israel in the international community and on universitycampuses throughout the world, they send a doublydestructive message to those who must make peace on the ground. To the palestinians, the message is don’t compromise. If you hold out long enough, thenextgeneration of leaders will buy into your efforts to delegitimateIsrael and will give you the total victory you seek. To the israelis, the message is, Whatever you do in the name of compromise, you will continue to be attacked, demonised, divested from, boycotted and delegitimated, so why make the compromiseefforts? As I travel around collegecampuses in theUnitedStates, I notice a stark difference. Many of those who support the palestinian cause tend to be virulentlyopposed toIsrael, comparing the jewishState to-Nazism and -apartheid, comparingShimonPeres to-Hitler and -IdiAmin, callingIsrael the world’s worst HumanRightsviolators, and suggesting that Israel should be flattered by a comparison with theGestapo. These are all quotes, theAminHitlerquote fromProfessorChomsky, the comparison withGestapo fromNormanFinkelstein. Whereas most of those on the israeli side tend to be supportive of a peaceful palestinianState. Put another way, propalestinians tend to be antiIsrael, whereas proisraelis are often propalestinian, as well. It was not the israelis who scuttled theUnitedNations twoStatesolution in1948 and themselves originally occupiedGaza and theWestBank with little or no objection from the international community. That was Egypt and Jordan. It was not the israelis who turned down Resolution242 in1967 with the famous three-no’s: no negotiation, no peace and no recognition. As AbbaEban put it, this is thefirsttime inHistory that the side who won the war sued for peace, and the side that lost the war demanded unconditional surrender. It was notIsrael that turned down the generous offer atCampDavid inTaba. The palestinian leadership has nevermissed an opportunity to miss an opportunity, but it is not toolate for peace now. I wish to end my opening remarks today by making a specific proposal directed to my distinguished opponent. I propose here today a peacetreaty among academics who purport to favour peace between(Israel and the palestinians.) I believe that by agreeing to this peacetreaty and by implementing it, academics can actuallycontribute to encouraging a pragmatic peace. I call today for those who have supported the palestinian cause to stop demonizingIsrael, to stop delegitimatingIsrael, to stop defamingIsrael, to stop applying a double standard toIsrael, to stop divestiture and boycotts ofIsrael, and mostimportantly, to stop being morepalestinian than the palestinians themselves. I call on academics who supportIsrael not to call for a greaterIsrael, nor to call for a continuation of the occupation of palestinian cities, to stop being moreisraeli than the israelis themselves, and to join the vast majority of israeli and american supporters ofIsrael who favour the twoStatesolution. If the two elder statesmen ofIsrael, Sharon and Peres, can place [“]Pragmatism[“] before ideology and peace before party and come together toward the center in the interest of a pragmatic peace, then surely two elder statesmen of the american academic debate overIsrael, who share this platform tonight, can also make our contribution to the peaceprocess by encouraging those who respect us and sometimes follow our guidance to move closer to the center and closer to accepting a pragmatic, nonideological resolution of this bitter conflict. Ecclesiastes many years ago said, “To everything there is a season, a time to throw stones, a time to gather stones, a time for war and a time for peace.” [Ecclesiastes is a meditation on the shortness of life.] This is the season of peace. Let us not let it pass us by. Thank you verymuch. Sound of applaud.

7.       Mandell: Thank you, ProfessorDershowitz. ProfessorChomsky.

8.       Chomsky: Mr.Mandell will confirm, there was an explicit condition for this debate, that is that neither participant try to evade the issue by deceitful allegations about the other. So I, therefore, congratulateMr.Dershowitz on having made a truestatement. I was a counselor atMassad. Sound of laughter. About the rest, there happens to be an ample record in print, or if you like, you can ask a question, but I’ll keep to the topic and the rules. The topic is, Where do we go from here? The answer to that is largely up to us. Evidently, it requires some understanding of how we got here. The question of where we’re going now has a clear answer. It’s givenaccurately by the leading academic specialist on the occupation, Harvard’sSaraRoy, as she writes that “under the terms of disengagement, gazans are virtuallysealed within theStrip, while WestBankers, their lands dismembered by relentless israeli settlement, will continue to be penned into fragmented geographic spaces, isolated behind and between walls and barriers.” Her judgment is affirmed by Israel’s leading specialist on theWestBank, MeronBenvenisti, who writes that “the separationwalls snaking through theWestBank will create threeBantustans,” his words, “north, central and south, all virtuallyseparated fromEastJerusalem, the center of palestinian commercial, cultural and political life.” And he adds that this, what he calls the soft transfer fromJerusalem, that is an “unavoidable result of the separation wall, might achieve its goal.” Quoting still, “the goal of disintegration of the palestinian community, after many earlier attempts, have failed.” “The humandisaster being planned,” he continues, “will turn hundreds of thousands of people into a sullen community, hostile, and nurturing a desire for revenge.” So, another example of the sacrifice of security through expansion that’s been going on for a long time. A EuropeanUnionreport concludes that USbacked israeli programs will virtuallyend the prospects for a viable palestinianState by the cantonisation and by breaking the organic links between eastJerusalem and theWestBank. HumanRightsWatch, in a recent statement, concurs. There was no effort to conceal the fact thatGazadisengagement was, inReality, WestBankexpansion. The official plan for disengagement stated that “Israel will permanentlytake over major populationcenters, cities, towns and villages, securityareas and other places of special interest toIsrael in theWestBank.” That was endorsed by theUSambassador, as it had been by thePresident, breakingsharply withUSpolicy. Along with the disengagementplan, Israel announced investment of tensofmillionsUSD inWestBanksettlements. PrimeMinisterSharon immediatelyapproved new housingunits in the town ofMaaleAdumim, that’s to the east ofJerusalem, the core of the salient that divides the southern from the centralBantustan, to useBenvenisti’sterm, and alsoannounced other expansionplans. There is near unanimity that all of this violatesInternationalLaw. The consensus was expressed byUSJudgeBuergenthal in his separate declaration attached to theWorldCourtjudgement, ruling that the separationwall is illegal. In Buergenthal’s words, “TheFourthGenevaConvention and InternationalHumanRightsLaw are applicable to the occupied palestinian territory and must therefore be fully complied with byIsrael. Accordingly, the segments of the wall being built byIsrael to protect the settlements are ipso facto in violation of international humanitarian Law,” which happens to mean about 80% of the wall. Twomonthslater, Israel’sHighCourt rejected that judgement, ruling that the separation wall, quoting, “must take into account the need to provide security for israelis living in theWestBank, including their propertyrights.” This is consistent with ChiefJusticeBarak’sdoctrine that israeliLaw supersedesInternationalLaw, particularly in eastJerusalem, annexed in violation ofSecurityCouncilorders. And practicallyspeaking, he is correct, as long as theUnitedStates continues to provide the required economic, military and diplomatic support, as it has been doing for thirtyyears, in violation of the international consensus on a twoStatesettlement. You can find detailed documentation about all of this in work of mine and others, who have supported the international consensus for thirtyyears in print, explicitly. In israeli literature, likeBennyMorris’sHistories, you can find ample evidence about the nature of the occupation. InMorris’swords, “founded on brute force, repression and fear, collaboration and treachery, beatings and torturechambers and daily-intimidation, -humiliation and -manipulation, along with stealing of valuable land and resources.” Like other israeli political and legal commentators, Morris reserves special criticism for theSupremeCourt, whose record, he writes, “will surely go down as a dark day in the annals of Israel’sjudicialsystem.” Keeping to the diplomatic record, the first. Both sides, of course, rejected242. Thefirst important step forward was in1971, when PresidentSadat ofEgypt offered a fullpeacetreaty toIsrael in return for israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. That would have ended the international conflict. Israel rejected the offer, choosing expansion over security. In this case, expansion into the egyptianSinai, where GeneralSharon’sforces had driven thousands of farmers into the desert to clear the land for the alljewish city ofYamit. TheUS backedIsrael’sstand. Those decisions led to the1973war, a near disaster forIsrael. TheUS and Israel then recognised that Egypt could not be dismissed and finallyacceptedSadat’s1971offer atCampDavid in1979. But by then, the agreement included the demand for a palestinianState, which had reached the international agenda. In1976, the major arabStates introduced a resolution to theUNSecurityCouncil calling for a peacesettlement on the international border, based onUN242, but now adding a palestinianState in the occupied territories. That’s Syria, Egypt, Jordan and everyother relevantState. TheUS vetoed the resolution again in1980. TheGeneralAssembly passed similar resolutions year after year with theUnitedStates and Israel opposed. The matter reached a head in1988, when thePLO moved from tacit approval to formal acceptance of the twoStateconsensus. Israel responded with a declaration that there can be no, as they put it, “additional palestinianState between Jordan and the sea,” Jordan already being a palestinianState, that’s ShimonPeres and YitzhakShamir, and also that the status of the territories must be settled according to israeli guidelines. TheUS endorsed Israel’sstand. I can only add what I wrote at the time: “It’s as if someonewere to argue the jews don’t need a secondhomeland inIsrael, because they already haveNewYork.” In mai1997, for thefirsttime, Peres’sLabourParty agreed not to rule out the establishment of a palestinianState with limited sovereignty in areas excluding major jewish settlementblocks, that is, the threecantons that were being constructed withUS-support. The highest rate of postOslosettlement was in2000, the final year of-Clinton’sterm and -PrimeMinisterBarak’s. Maps of theUSIsraelproposals atCampDavid show a salient, east ofJerusalem, bisecting theWestBank, and a northern salient virtuallydividing the northern from the central canton. I have the maps if you want them. The current map considerablyextends these salients and the isolation ofEastJerusalem. My maps are from the leading israeli scholars, RonPundak, theDirector oftheShimonPeresCenter. The crucial issue atCampDavid was territorial, not the refugee issue, for which Arafat agreed to a pragmatic solution, as Pundak, the leading scholar, reveals. No palestinian could accept the cantonisation, including theUSfavourite, MahmoudAbbas. Clinton, we don’t have to debate it, because Clinton recognised that palestinian objections had validity, and in december2000 proposed his parameters, which went some way toward satisfying palestinian rights. In Clinton’swords, “Barak and Arafat had both accepted these parameters as the basis for further efforts. Both have expressed some reservations.” The reservations were addressed at a highlevel meeting inTaba, which made considerable progress and might have led to a settlement, but Israel called them off. That oneweek atTaba is theonlybreak in thirtyyears ofUSIsraeliRejectionism. Highlevel informal negotiations continued, leading to theGenevaAccord of december2002, welcomed by virtually theentireworld, rejected byIsrael, dismissed byWashington. That could have been the basis for a Just peace. It still can. By then, however, BushSharonbulldozers were demolishing any basis for it. Every sane israeli hawk understood that it was absurd forIsrael to leave eightthousandsettlers inGaza, protected by a large part of theArmy, while taking over scarce waterresources and arable land. Thesameconclusion was to withdraw fromGaza while expanding through theWestBank, and that will continue as long as Washington insists on marching on the road to catastrophe by rejecting minimal palestinian rights. I’m quoting the warning of the four former heads ofIsrael’sShinBetSecurityService. “There are clear alternatives, and if that march to catastrophe continues, we will have only ourselves to blame.” Sound of applaud.

9.       Mandell: Thank you, ProfessorChomsky. In the spirit of discussion of this forum, we are now going to open the floor to your questions. So there are fourmicrophones, one here, one, got it, here, one here in the intermediate stage, and one on the floor directly in front of me. We’re going to proceed as follows, and so I want you to listen carefully to respect the civility of the discourse that I intend to make sure that we follow here. I’m going to ask you to introduce yourself, and to ask just onequestion, as the dean of our school alwaysreminds people, “questions end with a question mark.” And out of respect for all of our colleagues and students here this evening waitingpatiently at the mics, I will insist on onlyone brief question. I would also ask that you, where appropriate, direct your question to one of the panelists. After that panelist responds I will invite his colleague for a brief comment and then we will return to the floor. So that you know what’s coming I will begin over here, go up, across, and then back down.

10.   Hi, my name is MichiHarmon, I’m fromJerusalem and this is a question forProfessorChomsky. I wanted to know if you think that it actually is relevant to dwell upon forming a shared narrative of both sides in going forth towards any solution of peace between us. Is it important for us to actually agree [on] what [19]48 represents for oneside and what [19]48 represents for the other in order to live together in peace in the future?

11.   Chomsky: Yes, I think it’s veryrelevant to understandHistory if you want to understand the present.

12.   Mandell: ProfessorDershowitz, a comment.

13.   Dershowitz: I agree and I think that theHistory has to be objectivelyverifiable, and it doesn’t become true because ProfessorChomsky says it’s true. There was a twoStatesolution proposed by theUnitedNations in1948, and if the palestinians had accepted what the israelis accepted, a small noncontiguousState with “Bantustans”, to quoteProfessorChomsky, and instead had not invaded, and if the egyptians had not occupied theGaza, something that nobody complained about, it was literally a prison for twentyyears, and if the jordanians hadn’t occupied theWestBank, literally a prison for twentyyears, and had the situation goneforward as it was supposed to goforward in [19]48, we would not be here. We’d have a twoStatesolution. But, what happened is, it’s clear that the palestinian and Arab leadership was more interested in destroying the nascent jewishState ofIsrael than in establishing a palestinianState. That is simply the truth, and there is no way to deny that. And no amount of rhetoric can undercut that reality.

14.   Chomsky: You’ll notice that he starts with1948, and I’d be glad to discuss that if you like, but it’s notrelevant.

15.   Mandell: Okay.

16.   Chomsky: I began with1967 for a good reason. Because it’s in1967 that UN242 was passed, and a framework was laid for peacesettlements, and since then it’s the way I described.

17.   Mandell: Thank you if we can just.

18.   Dershowitz: Well, let me briefly respond only because I was.

19.   Mandell: Whoa, whoa.

20.   Dershowitz: I participated in the drafting in a small way of242. I was ArthurGoldberg’sassistant at theSupremeCourt. He drafted242. He conferred with me and consulted with me. 242 clearlycontemplated Israel retaining some of the territories needed to create secure boundaries in1967. Sound of laughter. TheUN rejected a formulation of Israel returning all the territories, or “the” territories, and kept only “territories”, and as the result of that Israel accepted242, and atKhartoum, all the arabStates and the palestinians unanimouslyrejected242 and issued their three-no-s: no compromises, no recognition, no peace.

21.   Mandell: If we can just.

22.   Chomsky: The truth of the matter is.

23.   Mandell: If we can just, uh.

24.   Chomsky: Easily discovered.

25.   Mandell: If we can just hold there.

26.   Chomsky: From theForeignRelationsOfTheUnitedStates, which points out that ArthurGoldberg.

27.   Mandell: ProfessorChomsky.

28.   Chomsky: Approached the jordanians and the others and got them to agree to accept, a qualified acceptance of242 on the condition that there would be minor and mutual adjustments with no substantial change to the map. There were curved lines, and it was agreed that they should be straightened.

29.   Mandell: All right, what you can’t see behind the podium is that both of my colleagues are armed with several dozen maps and that could get. Sound of laughter. That could get dangerous in this part of the conversation, so I’m gonna ask for some restraint so we make sure that we go directly to our participants. Yes, sir.

30.   Thank you. KenSweder. I’d like to bring it to the present, and I’d like to askProfessorDershowitz since this was a major point made byProfessorChomsky, whether or not you believe Israel is ready to negotiate for a contiguousState, not one of threeseparateBantustans.

31.   Dershowitz: Yes. Now, contiguous depends, of course, on whether it means contiguous within theWestBank, or contiguous, including a connexion between theWestBank and theGaza. Now, it was theUN that created the lack of contiguity between theGazaStrip and theWestBank. In fact, the original proposals forIsrael required complete noncontiguity. The North was separated fromTelAviv, TelAviv fromJerusalem, yet Israel accepted a noncontiguousState. Under theClintonparameters there would be complete contiguity with a circumvential [sic] highway aroundJerusalem, muchlikeRoute128. It would take nine extra minutes to get from Ramallah to Bethlehem, than in the middle of the night throughJerusalem, because the shortest distance between twolines, taking into account traffic, is not a straightline. Now, there are all kinds of creative proposals for functional contiguity between theWestBank and Gaza, including a highTech.railline recentlydesigned by theRandFoundation. I have a picture of that in my book. It alsolooks muchlike the danish railroad, a highTech.waterway, all kinds of ways of connecting all the palestinian cities to each other. Under this proposal no point inPalestine would be more than nintyminutes away from any other point inPalestine, includingGaza. It would take thirtyfourminutes to get fromHebron toGazaCity on the railline. That is functional contiguity. And the fact that the leader of theLabourParty for years, has quit his party to join a new party, and the leader ofLikud has quit his party, both in the interest of making peace, persuades me, plus an hour I had alone inIsrael not so long ago withPrimeMinisterSharon, and much time that I’ve spent with formerPrimeMinisterPeres, that the will toward peace is absolute and genuine. Having said that, I alsobelieve the will to peace byAbbas, and many of the leaders of thePalestinianAuthority, is genuine, too. Thank god Israel has to make peace with the palestinians, and not with the professors.

32.   Mandell: Ok. A comment from.

33.   Chomsky: Only a brief question. For those of you.

34.   Mandell: Briefly from ProfessorChomsky. Sound of applaud.

35.   Chomsky: For those of you who want to see the maps that lie behind MeronBenvenisti’s and SaraRoy’s and HumanRightsWatch and theEuropeanUnion and other comments I have them here. But there’s a verysimple test that we can try. If that’s a valid approach to contiguity for the palestinianState in 22% of the formerPalestine, let’s propose it for the israeliState.

36.   Dershowitz: It was.

37.   Chomsky: In 78% of the formerPalestine. Let’s ask who would dream of proposing that.

38.   Dershowitz: It was proposed. ThePeelCommission proposed exactlythat.

39.   Chomsky: Sorry. Now. Now.

40.   Dershowitz: And Israel accepted it.

41.   Chomsky: Yeah, in1937. But in a relevant period.

42.   Dershowitz: Look you know, when, when.

43.   Chomsky: We’re talking about today.

44.   Dershowitz: When thousands.

45.   Chomsky: Today.

46.   Mandell: Gentlemen, gentlemen.

47.   Chomsky: Who would propose that forIsrael?

48.   Dershowitz: When thousands of people have been killed byTerrorism, you don’t expect a country to go back to a proposal that was offered and rejected manymanyyears earlier. Options change when Rejectionism sets in.

49.   Mandell: Ok, let’s go to our next questioner.

50.   [Unclear]

51.   Coming back to 2005, you mention the connection between. I’m sorry, ProfessorDershowitz, my name is TherosArmon [?], by the way. You mention the connection between-Gaza and -WestBank.

52.   Dershowitz: Right.

53.   But I think to follow up on my colleague, I’m not sure if this is what he meant, what about the pieces ofWestBank we’re gonna end up with?

54.   Dershowitz: Okay.

55.   Settlements are continuing to be built inside theWestBank, the wall is being built inside theBordersOf1967. So now please talk to me about peace, about proPalestine when it comes to building walls and actuallyseparating theWestBank fromEastJerusalem.

56.   Dershowitz: Okay, here is what a palestinianState would have looked like had CampDavid and Taba been accepted. It would be a completely contiguousWestBank with an area that--including Ma’aleAdumim and some of the other areas right side ofJerusalem, which would become part ofIsrael and would remain within the wall. The ultimate goal is to have a separationfence that is on the border, the accepted border. And I’ll tell you what I think the real options are today. The real options are: if this new peaceparty wins, if theSharonPerespeaceparty wins, it will offer the palestinians a verygood deal, a deal muchlike that was rejected atCampDavid andTaba, and by the way, if you think it was the israelis who rejected it, just askBillClinton. He has told me, DennisRosshas told me, it was completely in the fault, completely in the hands ofArafat, and that’s true ofPrinceBandar as well. But if it gets accepted this time, and if the peaceparty prevails again, they will be offered something veryveryclose to that. It will be a viable palestinianState, muchmoreviable than anything Israel was offered and accepted in[19]38 and in[19]47, and I think every reasonable person today would urge the palestinians not to repeat the disastrous mistakes they made in[19]48, they made in[19]67, they made in2000, they made in2001. This time say, Yes, accept the palestinianState, build it, create anEconomy, create a politicalsystem, and finally peace can be achieved.

57.   Mandell: Thank you, ProfessorChomsky.

58.   Chomsky: For those who you would like to see the map, I have it. It’s as I said, fromRonPundak, the leading israeli scholar, the head of theShimonPeresPeaceCenter. It shows. This is theCampDavidmap, which Clinton recognised was impossible, which is why they went on toTaba. And it cuts through theWestBank completely. [Referring to Alan Dershowitz’s map) It’s not that. It’s.

59.   Dershowitz: It is this.

60.   Chomsky: Here it is. Here it is. This is RonPundak’smap.

61.   Mandell: Ok. Ok.

62.   Dershowitz: That’s, that’s the one the palestinians.

63.   Mandell: We know that [no one] can see [jackshit].

64.   Chomsky: RonPundak is not a palestinian. He’s the head of theShimonPeresPeaceCenter.

65.   Dershowitz: This is DennisRoss’smap.

66.   Chomsky: Yes, DennisRoss was theUSnegotiator whose word is meaningless. Sound of laughter. Sound of applaud. RonPundak is. RonPundak is the leading israeli scholar, and if we want to go into why Ross’sbook is worthless, I’ll be happy to say it. It’s obvious to any reader, it stops right be.

67.   Dershowitz: You know, it’s obvious to you, it’s not obvious to other people.

68.   Chomsky: Well, I’ll tell you why. It stops, notice that his book stops immediatelybeforeTaba. Why? Because Clinton’sparameters, and what Clinton said about the acceptance of them by both sides, and theTabanegotiations, completelyunderminesDennisRoss’sbook. [] He therefore terminates it right before that, and can therefore make these absurd claims. But if you want to learn something about it, look at israeli scholarship. It’s muchmoreserious.

69.   Mandell: Thank you.

70.   Good evening. I’d like to thank both professors for speaking so eloquently tonight. My name is JoshSusquis, I’m a recent alum ofHarvardCollege, and I’m really glad to be back. I have [unintelligible] question for ProfessorChomsky. It seems to me that you left out in your analysis the element of violence, psychological and physical, againstIsrael, against jews, and it seems to me also that theHistory that ProfessorDershowitz described, a lot of that is dictated by what happened, theTerrorism, the wars against jews, especiallyconsidering the immediateHistory right before the establishment of theState ofIsrael, theHolocaust and everything that has happened since. So I would like you to address the effect of, the psychological effect and the physical effect of war and Terrorism onIsrael.

71.   Chomsky: Yeah. That’s half of a veryimportant question. The other half of it is, What’s the effect of war and Terrorism on the palestinians? Sound of applaud. Now, if you take a look at. We’re notsupposed to talk about that question here, but if you look at them both, you will find that what BennyMorris described is, in fact, correct. [Omitted] The balance of terror and violence is overwhelmingly against the palestinians, not surprisingly, given the balance of forces, and that’s even true. That’s true right to the present. I mean, for. You know, for decades, Israel was able to run theWestBank virtuallywith no forces, as Morris and others point out, because the population was so passive, while they were being humiliated, beaten, tortured, land stolen and so on, just as I quoted. Finally, there was a reaction, and it’s interesting to see theUS reaction to it. In the first month of theIntifada, this one, october2000, in the first month of theIntifada, seventyfourpalestinians were killed, fourisraelis were killed. It’s all in theOccupiedTerritories. The israeliArmy, according to its own records, fired onemillionbullets in thefirstday, which disgusted the generals when they learned about it. Israel, in thefirst few days of the Intifada, was using UShelicopters - they don’t make them - UShelicopters to attack civilian complexes, apartmenthouses and so on, killing and wounding dozens of people. And theUS did respond to that. Clinton responded by sending thebiggest shipment of military helicopters in a decade toIsrael. The press responded, too, by not publishing it, I should add, refusing to publish it, because it was repeatedlybrought to their attention. Well, while the ratio was twenty-to-one, which is prettymuch what it’s been for a long time, there was no concern here. Then, over thenexttwothreeyears, the ratio reduced to closer to three-to-one, and then came enormous concern. About the one, not the three. And this goes back for a long time. What I quoted fromMorris is accurate.

72.   Mandell: No follow-ups; a verybrief response.

73.   Dershowitz: Well, you know, the idea that there is this vast conspiracy between the americanMedia and both Democrats likeclinton and republicans likeBush, to hide the truth from the american public just does not bearReality. Israel is an open society. Any newspaper can come and cover it. Why would not the newspapers cover these stories? For onereason, they are figments ofChomsky’simagination and they just neverhappened. Sound of applaud. [What the fuck?]

74.   Chomsky: For those of you.

75.   Dershowitz: Now, I want to talk about another figment of his imagination. Chomsky constantly quotes.

76.   Chomsky: Those that want to verify them.

77.   Dershowitz: Constantlyquotes BennyMorris, as if BennyMorris supports his position. What happened is: BennyMorris was asked whether or not I accuratelyquote him in my book, theCaseForPeace, and BennyMorris responded as follows, he still holds the views that I attributed to him, that I am right about his views, and that someone could readMorris’sbooks, this is a quote from Morris. “and arrive at exactly thesameconclusions.” And yet, ProfessorChomsky, by selectivelyquoting and by picking tidbits out of context, knowing that you’re notgoing to check up on him, tells you essentially that what you believe in the americanMedia, whether it be theWashingtonPost, theBostonGlobe, or theNewYorkTimes, is nottrue. In order to get the true meaning of the world, you have to move toPlanetChomsky, where the news reflects his perspective onReality. Well, I urge you to move to the real world. Read the real news. Don’t read the selective israeli journalists that he talks about. Listen toDennisRoss. DennisRoss actuallyhelped to draw the maps.

78.   Mandell: ProfessorDershowitz.

79.   Dershowitz: He was there when I.

80.   Mandell: Okay.

81.   Dershowitz: I have to finish. I haven’t done my twominutes. When he said, when I asked DennisRoss at lunch today.

82.   Mandell: Okay. It’s a long twominutes.

83.   Dershowitz: About these maps and what apparently Chomsky would say in response, Ross said, “Ask ProfessorChomsky onething, Were you there?” DennisRosswas there. He knows what maps were presented to the palestinians and what they rejected. Sound of applaud.

84.   Mandell: Thank you. If we could just go.

85.   Chomsky: The head of theShimonPeresPeaceCenter, RonPundak, who is the leading scholar on this, and doesn’t cut it off right before.

86.   Dershowitz: Whoever you quote is the leading scholar. How do we know that?

87.   Chomsky: Right before he is refuted, the way DennisRoss did, presents, he was involved in negotiations since beforeOslo, right throughCampDavid up to the present, got a long historical account of it. You can read it if you can read hebrew; some of it’s in english. The one. All this smoke that was blown had to do with onefact that I mentioned, one, and you can check it, and please do. In thefirstmonth of theIntifada, I’m now using israeli sources, seventyfourpalestinians were killed, fourjews in theOccupiedTerritories. Thefirst few days, this is reported in the press here, BostonGlobe, Israel was usingUShelicopters to attack apartmentcomplexes. Clinton reacted with thebiggestdeal in a decade. Check it out. It’s in the public record, not questioned by anyone, to send military helicopters toIsrael. There has been a databasesearch of theUS. It was reported inEurope. It was reported byAmnestyInternational. It’s reported inJane’sDefenceWeekly, the main military magazine in the world. There was a databasesearch of theUSpress, and they found nothing. I know of explicit cases, and I will be glad to tell them to you, where the press was approached and asked just to report the facts.

88.   Dershowitz: Why didn’t they? Chomsky, why didn’t they report it? Are they bad reporters? What’s their motive? Explain why theTimes or thePost wouldn’t report this great story fromPlanetChomsky?

89.   Mandell: Gentlemen, if I could, as.

90.   Chomsky: It’s fromJane’sDefenceWeekly, from the international press, and so on. Yeah. They wouldn’t. You have to ask them why they didn’t report it. I’ll give you my opinion. In fact, I’ve written about it.

91.   Dershowitz: Let’s hear it.

92.   Mandell: Given that theJFKForum is here for the purpose of creating educated citizens and participants in a veryimportant debate, I would ask each of you to exercise a bit of restraint so that we can have more of our questions from the audience. Please, and identify yourself.

93.   NancyMurray, and if you want the answer why didn’t they report it, see PeacePropagandaAndThePromisedLand. Now, my question, getting back to today, and your functional continuity, contiguity.

94.   Dershowitz: Yeah.

95.   I would like to know, have you seen not just the wall, but the eightterminals that are being built?

96.   Dershowitz: Yes.

97.   Under your vision, under your compromise, will the terminals be dismantled, will the wall be dismantled, will Jerusalem, EastJerusalem be under the sovereignty of palestinians, not just under their control, and will the palestinians have their waterresources back, will they have freedom of movement? I mean, is this the kind of vision you have?

98.   Dershowitz: Yes.

99.   Is it a genuine one, or are you talking aboutSharon’splan for a socalled palestinianState?

100.            Dershowitz: Well, I can only tell you what my proposal is, and I think it’s a proposal that is today widelysupported withinIsrael, that is, that the ultimate securityfence. I have been through not only the terminals, but themostrecent highTech.terminal that was just built. I proposed, actually, that the securityfence be placed on wheels, and constantly be able to be moved consistent with israeli securityneeds. The israeliSupremeCourt ruled lastyear, and Chomsky misstated it, no israeliJustice has ever said, and I challenge you to find the statement that Barak has ever said that israeliLaw trumps InternationalLaw. That is simplynottrue. What he said is that israeliLaw enforcesInternationalLaw, but InternationalLaw is notdetermined by a body, theInternationalCourtOfJustice, which excludes israelis from serving on it, and which will notallow an israeli ever to be a member of that court. It would be as if a southernblack in the1930s accepted, as the correct statement of americanConstitutionalLaw, a decision by an allwhitecourt in a case involving a black and a white man. No, Israel acceptsInternationalLaw, enforcesInternationalLaw, and the goal, of course, of my peace proposal is that the securityfence will eventually be dismantled when Terrorism ends, but before that, it would be on the border, the way theGazafence is now on the border, and that waterrights would be respected. There would be complete and total freedom of movement within the contiguous WestBank and between theWestBank andGaza. Even today, Israel has given up control over theRafahcrossing. It now has a video, which it can watch to see, as palestinians monitor exit and entry through theRafahgateway. That’s going to be the future. And if there is a will to peace, if there is a desire to make sure that there are twoStates, not simply oneState, a palestinianState, then all of these issues can be resolved and will be resolved. Israel has shown the will to resolve these issues. Certainly, I support a resolution that gives dignity, gives economic viability, gives politicalfreedom and freedom of movement to the palestinian people. Yes.

101.            And sovereignty over EastJerusalem?

102.            Dershowitz: And sovereignty over EastJerusalem.

103.            Mandell: ProfessorChomsky.

104.            Chomsky: Let me quote, once again. I purposely quoted JusticeBuergenthal, because I know ofMr.Dershowitz’sopposition to theWorldCourt. I therefore quoted theUSJustice, not theWorldCourt, who stated that “the segments of the wall being built to protect the settlements are ipso facto in violation of international humanitarian Law.” That’s 80% of the wall. Twomonthslater, Israel’sHighCourt stated, in contrast, that the separationwall must take into account the need to provide security for israelis living in theWestBank, including their propertyrights. That’s in direct contradiction to JusticeBuergenthal’s separate declaration, unanimously by theWorldCourt.

105.            Dershowitz: That’s right.

106.            Chomsky: And if you would like his comment about how [] israeliLaw supersedesInternationalLaw in eastJerusalem because.

107.            Dershowitz: That’s not what you said.

108.            Chomsky: It was annexed toIsrael illegally, I’ll be happy to provide it to you. Just send me an email.

109.            Dershowitz: But that’s not what you said.

110.            Mandell: Please hold, let’s go to the next.

111.            MichaelSeviem, I’m a secondyearstudent at theLawSchool. ProfessorChomsky, it seems like you’ve done a lot of remembering and verylittle imagining, and AlanDershowitz’sideas, if they seem funny to have a train or some type of other highTech.connexion, at least they’re creative and at least they’re moving us forward. How do you deal with the issues of refugees? How would you connect-Gaza and -theWestBank? Or is theonlysolution, in your mind, a oneStatesolution? What would you do aboutJerusalem? Sound of applaud.

112.            Chomsky: Well, as you would know if you looked at anything I’ve written, instead of. If you would know, if you look at anything that’s written, I’ve been supporting a twoStatesettlement since theearly1970’s, in print, and perhaps you can show me some of Mr.Dershowitz’smaterial in print supporting it. I haven’t found it. But yes, that’s my position since theearly[19]70’s, all in print. As for connections, the issue, recall, atCampDavid and atTaba and today, is territorial in theWestBank, okay? And the current proposals are exactlyas I described. Go through the sources I mentioned or find any other ones that you think are serious. Those are the major israeli and western academic sources, and HumanRightsorganisations and so on. Yes, they break up theWestBank into threeBantustans as Benvenisti said, with virtually no organic connexion toEastJerusalem, which is the center of palestinian life. That’s why theEU, theEuropeanUnion and HumanRightsWatch and others flatlyreject them. Now, it is possible, what Israel is in fact doing now is developing a huge infrastructure system in theWestBank, with highways for israelis, and paths for palestinians, so that they don’t have to interact with one another, which means that this network around theWestBank, which will be annexed toIsrael roughly 40-50%. People can travel in it in great comfort from the suburbs aroundTelAviv including all the water resources, including most arable land. They can get to TelAviv and Jerusalem. The palestinians will be following paths. Actually I can read to you if you like how israeli journalists are describing that, and if you’d like to check it out for yourself, I’d suggest sometime that you take what’s officially called the palestinian road fromBethlehem toRamallah, which takes like tenminutes on the jewish highway. I’ve taken it. It’s a little winding road, a dirt road that goes right next to a wadi. If it’s not raining you’re lucky if you don’t fall into it. And off in the hill you can see the paths where people are sort of moving. On the days when the settlers are nottraveling, the roads are empty, because there’s noway to get anywhere. I mean, you go in a broken down taxicab up to a barrier and then you transport someone who needs dialysis, say, or a pregnant woman, carry them over a ditch, and then as you go to another cab and so on. Yeah, that’s a kind of contiguity. And again I say thesamething: if that’s reasonable, then fine. Let’s impose that kind of contiguity onIsrael.

113.            Mandell: Hold, please. We have a verybrief response.

114.            Dershowitz: Let me respond. First of all, listen to the words. There’s an element ofRacism in oneof the phrases we’ve heard today in describing this as a “jewish highway”. Onepointtwomillion israelis are arabs. Many of them are christians. There is no such thing as a jewish highway inIsrael. There are Muslimhighways inSaudiArabia. There are muslimonly roads in other parts of the world, but there is no road, there is nothing inIsrael that is opened onlyto jews, even synagogues. Everything is open to israeli arabs, everyroad is opened to an israeli arab. When the peacesolution is finallyproposed, had theCampDavid and Taba accords been accepted, the palestinians would be free to build any superhighways they choose. And indeed, Israel has offered now a superhighway and a superroadway [] betweenGaza and Hebron. And the idea of, it’s verydifficult, I acknowledge, how to connectEastJerusalem toBethlehem toRamallah and toJericho will require a challenge, but people are working on it. There are creative solutions being proposed. I am waiting, along with the student who asked the question, for some creative, positive, imaginary, imaginative solutions fromProfessorChomsky. Sound of applaud. All we’re hearing is a recitation of the past and a pessimistic notion of “as long as the american evilEmpire andIsrael are involved, there will be no peace.”

115.            Mandell: Thanks. Let’s go to the next.

116.            Chomsky: Well, I congratulateMr.Dershowitz again for one true statement. They are not jewish roads. They are israeli roads. That is, they are roads of the sovereign, well, I’m quoting theHighCourt, “the sovereignState of the jewish people inIsrael and the diaspora.” And that’s correct.

117.            Mandell: Thank you. Okay.

118.            Dershowitz: Oh, that’s like saying that british roads are roads of the sovereign anglican people.

119.            Chomsky: Fine, and that’s.

120.            Dershowitz: I mean, Britain is an Anglican country as well.

121.            Mandell: Okay. If we can have your question, please.

122.            Chomsky: I agree to your qualification. They’re israeli roads.

123.            Mandell: We can, gentlemen.

124.            Chomsky: They’re israeli highways and palestinian paths. If you want to create a solution, I mentioned one.

125.            Mandell: Let’s go to the questioner.

126.            Chomsky: I mentioned it. TheGenevaAccords. TheTabaAgreements, which Israel canceled.

127.            Dershowitz: I accept.

128.            Chomsky: Those are creative solutions.

129.            Dershowitz: I accept theTabaagreements.

130.            Mandell: ProfessorDershowitz.

131.            Dershowitz: And I think that many israelis do as well.

132.            Mandell: We’re gonna focus on this next question.

133.            Chomsky: Then you should explain to Mr. [unintelligible] why they objected to them.

134.            Mandell: Please. We’re gonna focus on this next question.

135.            Hello?

136.            Mandell: You are?

137.            Yes. Hi. My name is AbrahamReeseman. I’m a sophomore at the college. This is really a question for both of you, but I guess I’ll askProfessorChomsky just because ProfessorDershowitz just spoke. It’s sort of funny that we’re all here given that a lot of us have never been toIsrael, never been toPalestine, and it’s long been one of the sort of strange paradoxes in worldPolitics that americans and people the world over can get so enraged about either side when it’s a conflict that many of us will never firsthand experience. Specifically, how would both of you like to see young people like me and a lot of us here, envisioning the conflict in the future, because a lot of us have a tendency to internalise it to a degree where it’s not about people anymore, on both sides. There are people I know who are ardent zionists, who never go toIsrael, who believe in it because they are veryreligiously jewish, and all of a sudden it becomes detached from theRealities on the ground and there are people who are verypropalestinian who are strongly in favor of socialJustice and economicJustice.

138.            Mandell: Okay. Thank you.

139.            I’m sorry. Yeah, how do you?

140.            Mandell: ProfessorChomsky.

141.            Chomsky: Well, my feeling is you should approach it as an american. And as for an american, it is one of the lead issues in the world. Israel is able to do these things, to dismantle and destroy theWestBank, to disintegrate the community, because theUnitedStates gives it massive aid, unparalleled in international affairs, not only military and economic, but also diplomatic by, as I mentioned, for the lastthirtyyears, unilaterallyblocking the twoStatesettlement, which Israel alsototallyrejected, alone, the two of them, and as long as you, the americantaxpayer, goes on supporting this, yes, it will continue, and it’ll lead to exactly what theBantustanstyle solution that Benvenisti and others describe, right on the ground and, yes, so therefore, it’s of enormous importance to americans. As for solutions, pretty straightforward. They were coming close to a solution atTaba until Israel called it off. Negotiations continued, leading to several proposals of which themostdetailed were theGenevaAccords. You can find out what I thought about all of those in print. You can askMr.Dershowitz where he supported them in print. TheGenevaAccords in december2002 were accepted by essentially the whole world. Israel rejected them. TheUS refused even to send a message to theGenevameetings. But they’re still potentiallyalive, and american citizens can compel our own Government to reverse its program, to accept the international consensus for thefirsttime, and then we’ll be on the way to a solution.

142.            Mandell: Thank you. Briefly, ProfessorDershowitz. Sound of applaud.

143.            Dershowitz: I, too, have written about theGenevaAccords in chaptersix of my book, and I generallysupport many elements of theGenevaAccords. I do not support the right of return, that is, the idea that 700,000 or now fourmillions palestinians can demographicallydestroyIsrael.

144.            Chomsky: Which is rejected in theGenevaAccords.

145.            Dershowitz: It is not rejected in theGenevaAccords. It is not accepted or rejected. It is left for future negotiations.

146.            Chomsky: Exactly. It is left open, because the palestinians already.

147.            Dershowitz: Now, see how you change your view. First it’s accepted, then it’s left open. What is your next position?

148.            Chomsky: Fine. Let’s be precise. They did not say anything about that, because the palestinians had already atCampDavid and atTaba accepted the socalled pragmatic settlement, which would not affect the demographic character ofIsrael.

149.            Dershowitz: That is simply false.

150.            Chomsky: If you want to learn about that, read the serious scholarship, like RonPundak, head of theShimonPerezPeace.

151.            Dershowitz: That is simplyfalse. I can tell you that PresidentClinton told me directly and personally that what caused the failure of theCampDavid-Tabaaccords was the refusal of the palestinians and Arafat to give up the right of return. That was the sticking point. It wasn’t Jerusalem. It wasn’t borders. It was the right of return. Now if you believe.

152.            Mandell: Can we move on from there?

153.            Dershowitz: If you believe that theUnitedStates has unilaterally rejected the twoStatesolution, that’s what we heard from ProfessorChomsky. That it’s theUnitedStates that has rejected the twoStatesolution, when everymodern mericanPresident has favoured the twoStatesolution, I say, welcome toPlanetChomsky.

154.            Mandell: OK, if we can hold there.

155.            Chomsky: Now, here’s a simple exercise. You can believe one of twothings: the extensive published diplomatic record, which I gave you a sample of and you can find in detail in books of mine and others, or what Mr.Dershowitz says he heard from somebody, which you can’t check. Sound of applaud.

156.            Dershowitz: No, or. And check the diplomatic record.

157.            Mandell: Okay. ProfessorDershowitz, hold.

158.            Dershowitz: Check the maps.

159.            Mandell: Sir, your question.

160.            Dershowitz: And readDennisRoss’s book, which contains appendices which have the diplomatic record.

161.            Mandell: Okay.

162.            Dershowitz: What Chomsky is telling you to do, is read the available record in[Esperanto]. He constantly tells you to read sources he knows you can’t read, because he knows if you check his sources, they are false.

163.            Mandell: OK, let’s go to the next question.

164.            Chomsky: How many of you are capable of reading english?

165.            Dershowitz: They are simply false.

166.            Chomsky: How many of you are capable of reading english?

167.            Dershowitz: He makes it up as he goes along. That’s theReality.

168.            Mandell: Okay. Thank you.

169.            Chomsky: How many of you are capable of reading english? Including.

170.            Dershowitz: And if he says you. You don’t find it in the press, his answer is, “It’s not in the press, it’s part of a conspiracy to keep it out of the press”. He can’t lose.

171.            Mandell: Thanks verymuch. Hey can you guys hold for a sec?

172.            Chomsky: It’s in the documentary record. It’s in the documentary record, which happens to be quite different from the press.

173.            Dershowitz: You can say that.

174.            Chomsky: Not only on this issue.

175.            Dershowitz: You can say it. But you know, you can cry wolf so many times.

176.            Mandell: Okay. It’s important, gentlemen. I think it’s important that we take advantage of your expertise, your many years of wisdom by hearing a couple more questions. Please. You are?

177.            Hi. My name is ToddSilverstein, and I was campaignmanager onNATO and special advisor toPrimeMinisterBarak inCampDavid. So I think I know, at least knowless thanRonPundak, my friend, about what happened inCampDavid and inTaba. I am saying it onlybecause I think that what ProfessorChomsky said here, a lot of things are inaccurate, even though.

178.            Mandell: Do you have a question?

179.            Yes.

180.            Mandell: Please give it.

181.            Even though. I think, just before the question, because it’s veryimportant.

182.            Mandell: Please go directly to your question.

183.            The, the.

184.            Dershowitz: You know there was a question before that had about a sevenminuteprerequisite. This is an expert who was there, who was an eyewitness. I think he should be permitted to [proceed to] his question with a oneminutepoint. Sound of applaud.

185.            I don’t want to go intoHistory and I’m a little excited, because you have to understand onething. I believe we have only one last opportunity to reach peace and this is this coming party and this coming election. Now, my question to you, ProfessorChomsky, and I agree with you, Israel has done a lot of crazy and terrible things to palestinians, the palestinians have done a lot of crazy and terrible things to israelis, but let’s say that this new party, after the election, guided bySharon, is to offer the palestinians a deal, doesn’t matter which deal, a deal that will be accepted by most palestinians, would you support this deal even if it doesn’t reflect your views or your ideological views?

186.            Chomsky: Well, I’m glad to see that you. I assume that you endorse RonPundak’s expert knowledge, correct? I therefore recommend to all of you who read english that you read the summary of his review of all of this in theJournalOfTheInstituteOfStrategicAndSecurityStudies [?] inEngland, and for those of you who read hebrew, like you, I presume, you read the much longer study that RonPundak and ShaulArieli wrote, it’s on theHa’aretzCenterwebsite, which describes in detail, if you like I can quote it [for] you. As to what I would accept.

187.            RonPundak was not inCampDavid, by the way.

188.            Chomsky: Pardon?

189.            RonPundak was not inCampDavid.

190.            Chomsky: He was one of the negotiators in the background.

191.            He was not.

192.            Chomsky: He was one of the negotiators in the background, and he was from.

193.            He was not.

194.            Chomsky: He was fromOslo, and his study.

195.            He’s fromOslo. He was never. He was not even close toCampDavid, just for the record.

196.            Chomsky: He was one of the advisors, as you know.

197.            Dershowitz: Chomsky says so, it must be true. Sound of applaud.

198.            Chomsky: Read it. You’re the one who told me you agree with him. If you thinknot, tell theShimonPeresCenter to fire his director. Those are the basic israeli documents. Furthermore, they’re supported by plenty of others. If you want to know more aboutTaba, you can read theEuropeanUnionreport, accepted by both sides, which saysexactly what I said. As to your question, yes, I alreadytold you the answer. There is a verygood solution on the table. It’s the solution that they came close to inTaba before Israel canceled it, and that was then carried forward by highlevel israeli and palestinian negotiators informally, leading to theGeneva, that’s what I’m telling you.

199.            Mandell: Quiet, please.

200.            Chomsky: Leading to the december2002 GenevaAccords, which are right there. You can read them in english, you can read them in hebrew, they’re on the web, no problem, look up the [some hebrew] shalom website. That’s a prettygood solution. It’s notperfect.

201.            I didn’t get an answer, sorry.

202.            Chomsky: That’s the answer to your question. Yes.

203.            No, the answer was, even if it wasn’t your plan.

204.            Chomsky: Pardon?

205.            And most palestinians.

206.            Chomsky: Pardon?

207.            Even if it wasn’t the plan that you think is optimal, or I.

208.            Chomsky: What are you asking?

209.            And most palestinians, because I know most israelis probably would vote for it, if most palestinians would vote for it, even if it’s notoptimal, and it’s notgonna be optimal, let me tell you, if most palestinians would vote for it, would you accept it as [unclear]?

210.            Chomsky: It’s not up to me to accept. You asked what I thought. What I thought is, what I think is, there’s a verysimple, creative solution, which happens to be veryclose to the international consensus, that I’ve been supporting for over thirtyyears, and that theUnitedStates and Israel have been unilaterallyblocking. It was reached by highlevel israeli and palestinian negotiators, and though there hasn’t been a vote about it, my guess is that if there was a poll on both sides, the majority on both sides would probablyaccept it. But that’s totallydifferent from the proposals of theSharonPeresparty, theKadimah, or incidentally ofHa’artez’sLabourParty so far. So far he simply endorsed the expansionist program that breaks up theWestBank into cantons.

211.            Dershowitz: Perfect selective.

212.            Mandell: Thirtysecondresponse.

213.            Dershowitz: Perfect selective use ofShimonPeres. You know, theShimonPeresPeaceCenter. I want to read you a quote fromNoamChomsky. He describedShimonPeres, he describedRonaldReagan at onepoint, as the semidivineReagan, as one of the iconic group of mass murderers from Hitler toIdiAmin toPeres. So, on oneday of the week you findNoamChomsky describingPeres, this great man of peace, as an iconic mass murderer, and on another day he’s quoting the authority ofShimonPeres to make peace. I mean.

214.            Chomsky: Excuse me.

215.            Dershowitz: Where do you stand onShimonPeres? Is he a man of peace or is he an iconic massmurderer?

216.            Chomsky: He is an iconic massmurderer, and I’ve given plenty of evidence for it, and he is not a man of peace. I did notrefer toShimonPeres. I referred to the director of theShimonPeresPeaceCenter.

217.            Dershowitz: So you.

218.            Chomsky: That’s notShimonPeres. Sound of applaud.

219.            Dershowitz: But you stick to the argument that ShimonPeres, the man who just joined in to make peace is an iconic massmurderer.

220.            Chomsky: You want me to read.

221.            Dershowitz: And not a man of peace. I think that says it all.

222.            Mandell: Okay.

223.            Chomsky: You want me to run through his record?

224.            Mandell: No, I think we.

225.            Chomsky: Including the fact that as late as 1996, he informed the press that a palestinianState will neverhappen? And in1997 he said, “Maybe we can ultimatelytolerate it somewhere, but we’re not saying where”? That’s not a man of peace. Sound of applaud.

226.            Mandell: Thank you. You are?

227.            My name is AmyLevine, I’m a firstyear at theKennedySchool. My question is forProfessorDershowitz. You had said that one of the steps in your plan for peace in the future was for the palestinians to stop theirTerrorismactivities.

228.            Dershowitz: That’s right.

229.            So my question would be, if you were advising the israeliGovernment, is there anything about their current strategy and how they respond to these Terrorismtactics that you would advise them to change to move forward?

230.            Dershowitz: Yes. I would. I do notfavour, for example, housedestructions. On the other hand, I do think that targeted killings of “ticking bomb” terroristleaders and terrorists has been quite effective. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of terrorist acts have been prevented, including an attempt to blow up a gastank outside ofTelAviv, including an attempt to blow up a port inAshdod. Tens of thousands of israelis probably would have been killed but for the intelligenceactivities and the preventive activities of the israeliGovernment. I have a book coming out in january calledPreemption, where I set out all the parameters of where I think preemptive acts are justified, where I think they’re notjustified. I think Israel gets a C+ or a B- in its compliance withHumanRights in fightingTerrorism, which is higher than any country ever has gotten, comparably facing any external threats, and I challenge, in fact, anybody in this room or ProfessorChomsky to name me any other country which has faced comparable threats ofTerrorism, comparable external threats, which has ever had a SupremeCourt and an academy which has been moresensitive to the HumanRights and civil rights of those who would destroy it. I say, C+/B-. If I were an israeli, I would demandmuchmore. I would demand that it get up to the B+ range, but surely, a muchbetter standard than theUnitedStates has followed inIraq, surely a muchhigher standard than Egypt or Jordan, surely a muchhigher standard thanFrance, followed when faced with terroristthreats, and at least comparable and probablybetter thanEngland when it was facing terrorist threats fromNorthernIreland. So, when you make comparisons and you argue that Israel is the worst HumanRightsviolator in the world, which is the mantra onPlanetChomsky, one always has to look at comparable factors and comparable countries. It’s notenough to single outIsrael and say Israel isn’t perfect. If in fact, you wanted to have [divestment], which Chomsky before he opposed it, favoured it, if you wanted to have [divestment], I’d favour it if you listed all the countries in the world in terms of their compliance with HumanRights and did divestiture in order of their compliance, you would never even get toIsrael on that list. Sound of applaud.

231.            Mandell: ProfessorChomsky.

232.            Chomsky: Well, if you would like to, here’s an exercise for the reader. I won’t waste your time on it. Write a letter to Alan Dershowitz, ask him to cite the source where I describedIsrael as the worstHumanRightsviolator in the world, or even anything remotely like it. If he had ever, if he would ever look at a word that’s written, so he would know, for example, that I was supporting the twoStatesettlement in theearly[19]70s when he was saying nothing about it and hasn’t until recently, he would also know that I described in detail how the USIsraeli-record was considerably better than theUSrecord. But to answer his challenge, there are certainly cases that are much better thanIsrael’srecord. Countries that have suffered far worseTerrorism and have not done anything like.

233.            Dershowitz: For example?

234.            Chomsky: Well, take an obvious case: Nicaragua. Uncontroversial case. Uncontroversial, because much as you hate theWorldCourt, theWorldCourt ruled that theUnitedStates was carrying out what it called “unlawful use of force” against Nicaragua. That’s internationalTerrorism in lay language. The case was run by one of your distinguished colleagues, and ordered theUS to stop the terroristattacks and to pay massive reparations. TheUS rejected the courtjudgement, vetoed twoSecurityCouncilResolutions supporting the courtjudgements, went on to practicallydestroy the country. The number of people killed in that terroristattack, translating to per capita equivalents here, would be about 2.25million. That’s more than the total in all USwars ever. There were no targeted assassinations, and unlikeIsrael, Nicaragua didn’t even close the newspapers. I mean, Israel has repeatedly closed newspapers, even inIsrael, but mostly in theOccupiedTerritories, because it claims that they have some connexion with terrorists. The leading newspaper inNicaragua right to the end was owned by a supporter of theUS terroristArmy and was openly on its frontpages calling for the overthrow of theGovernment. Occasionally they reduced some of its newsprint. They neverclosed it. That’s onecase, an obvious one. Take and evenmoreobvious case: Cuba. TheUnitedStates launched, since we’re at theKennedyCenter, I can point out that [JFK] launched a major terroristattack againstCuba in1961, right after the failure at theBayOfPigs. It was a veryserious terrorist war, plenty of documentation about it from thebestsources you like, ArthurSchlesinger, RaymondGarthoff, all of you can read that. Major terrorist war, it’s going on right to the present, based inFlorida. Cuba has not carried out terrorist actions in theUnitedStates. So.

235.            Dershowitz: So Cuba has a betterHumanRightsrecord thanIsrael onPlanetChomsky.

236.            Chomsky: No, on the issue of.

237.            Dershowitz: But no where else in the world.

238.            Chomsky: Sorry, on the issue of preemption, which is the one you raised. Yes, you raised a challenge about preemption, and I told you that there are many muchbetter cases.

239.            Dershowitz: No, I didn’t say that. Let me be veryclear.

240.            Chomsky: In fact, now, I’ll give you.

241.            Dershowitz: Let me be veryclear what I said.

242.            Chomsky: [Unclear] Right now. Israel and theUnitedStates are both threateningIran with destruction. Well, you know, preemption, according toDershowitz, would require that Iran be carrying out targeted assassinations inIsrael and theUnitedStates. That’s outrageous.

243.            Mandell: I think we need to hold there. We’re gonna go, this is gonna be our last question of the evening here.

244.            My name is LoriChrisbuelik, I’m a secondyear MPPstudent. Thank you for this lively debate. I have a question kind of directed at both of you, but ProfessorDershowitz, in your book, you said you hoped to have a winwinsituation, where everyone had to give something up. And what’s clear to me after this debate and just looking atHistory, that no one is able to come to a resolution where they’re willing to give up enough to the other person. So, it seems to me that theonlyway to win is to have everybody lose. So I’d like you to comment on a proposal where maybe, if you all lost, we’d actually come out winning?

245.            Dershowitz: Well, I think there is a winwin possible situation. Israel has been giving up much. It gave up theGaza. It, by the way, offered to give up theGaza toEgypt way back in theearly1980s. Egypt wouldn’t take it back. There was no international outcry over the occupation of theGaza byEgypt for twentyyears, nor was there any international, and I’m sure there must be a long record, check Chomsky’s writing. He must have in print large opposition to the occupation ofGaza byEgypt and strong opposition to the occupation of theWestBank by Jordan. Funny, I never came across it in my research, but I’m sure it must be there, if you check at least the czechoslovakian version of one of his writings. So, I do think there’s a winwinsolution. The winwinsolution is the one I proposed, starting in1967, and that is, Israel make territorial adjustments necessary to secure its boundary and securities, consistent with palestinian rights, no occupation of palestinian cities, a twoStatesolution. That is a winwinsituation. And let me tell you why I consider myself propalestinian. I am proIsrael and propalestinian, because I favour a viable, healthy, economicallystrong, politicallydemocratic palestinianState. That will be good forPalestine, It will be good forIsrael, It will be good for the world. Israel has a major stake in the success ofPalestine, whereas the palestinians have never had a major stake in the success ofIsrael. And so, I see a successful palestinianState, a viable, largely contiguous palestinianState as a winwinsituation, not only forIsrael and the palestinians, but for theUnitedStates and the rest of the world. I onlyhope that ProfessorChomsky can join me in agreeing that we’re not going to get a perfect solution. And let’s just advocate a solution that’s acceptable. The question that was asked before was to me the key question. If the palestinians accept the solution that ProfessorChomsky finds unacceptable, will he use his enormous resources as themostinfluential intellectual in the world today to turn the palestinians against this peaceproposal, or will he lend his great prestige to urging the palestinians and his academic supporters all over the world to accept a pragmatic compromisesolution. [Chomsky laughs.] ProfessorChomsky, a lot turns on you. You are a veryimportant and influential person. And therefore, you would understand your power and use it in the interests of peace. Sound of applaud.

246.            Mandell: Okay. Just before I ask one of themostinfluential intellectuals today to respond toLori’squestion, just to tell you where we’re headed, ProfessorChomsky will respond. Then, in accordance with our rule of the procedure and decorum for this evening, I will askProfessorChomsky to offer a twominutesummary for the evening, to be followed byProfessorDershowitz. ProfessorChomsky.

247.            Chomsky: Yes. Well, with regard to my opposition to the jordanian-egyptian-occupation, there is ample material in print, and there has been for thirtyfiveyears, ever since I publicly and openly and veryprominently supported the twoStatesettlement, which Mr.Dershowitz says he now supports. I’m glad to hear that. I don’t have the background evidence. Let’s return, and that means, of course, opposing jordanian-egyptian-occupation. Let’s turn to the question we were asked to address: Where do we go from here? Well, we actually have twofundamental choices. Onechoice is to support Washington’s continued dedication to the road to catastrophe that’s outlined by Israel’s four former securitychiefs, namely, watching in silence as Washington funds the cantonisation of theWestBank, the breaking of its organic links toJerusalem, and the disintegration of the remnants of palestinian society. That choice adopts the advice of MosheDayan to his cabinetcolleagues in theearly[19]70s. Dayan was in charge of the occupation. He advised them that “we must tell the palestinians, that we have no solution, you shall continue to live like dogs, and whoever wishes, may leave.” That’s the solution that is now being implemented. Don’t take my word for it. Go check the sources I cited, veryeasy, all english. There’s an alternative. The alternative is to return to the spirit of the onebreak in U.S.-IsraeliRejectionism. That is, the week inTaba in january2001, beforeIsrael called it off, and to takeseriously the follow-up proposals from highlevel negotiators on both sides, of which theGenevaAccords are themostdetailed. There is overwhelming international support for taking them as the basis for a politicalsettlement. It does come close to the longstanding international consensus that theUnitedStates and Israel have barred, and that I have personally been supporting for the last over thirtyyears. That’s the road away from catastrophe, towards an end to violence and towards eventual reconciliation. Either choice is within our reach. From that point on, it’s up to us. Sound of applaud.

248.            Mandell: ProfessorDershowitz.

249.            Dershowitz: We do seem to have a remarkable point of agreement. I think we both do agree that the proposals made atTaba do provide a useful basis for a peace process. Now, Taba didn’t end because Israel left. Taba ended because Arafat rejectedCampDavid, thereby causing the election ofSharon overBarak. There was no Government, essentially, that could carry out theTabaproposals, which were favoured by a veryverylarge number of israelis. That’s why PrinceBandar said toArafat atCampDavid and atTaba, “If you reject the proposals atCampDavid, you are going to getSharon instead ofBarak. You’re never, ever going to get a better deal.” Thankfully, he was wrong. Sharon emerged as a man of courage and a man of vision. And I, myself, although I neverdid supportSharon in the past, stronglysupport the efforts made by-Sharon and -Peres, a great, great man of peace, a man who has vision, a man who imagines the future, a man who can bring about peace in the world and peace in theMiddleEast. And I think the prospects for peace based on theTabaproposals are quite realistic. I think that if this party wins the election and invites the palestinians to the table, and the palestinians don’t again miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, there will be a real prospect for negotiation, a real prospect for peace based on pragmatism. Onefinal word about the sources. Please, the other area where ProfessorChomsky and I agree, check his sources. Take him at his word. Go back tonight and Google and read the sources. Read them in english. Read them in whatever language you can, and then email us both as to what the sources show. And finally, in a constructive and positive way, I urge you: Imagine peace. Imagine the peace dividend that will come to the world if finally a pragmatic solution based on peace comes to the palestinian people and the israeli people. I’m hoping for shalom, for salaam, and for peace. Thank you.

250.            Mandell: Thank you. Just before we conclude, and I thank our speakers. I want to share with you in a veryfew seconds, what I have heard tonight, standing between these twoscholars. The first is that in looking around this room, it is clear to me that being members of the international community to which we all belong, whether we have been to-Israel or -Palestine or to other conflict arenas or not, that people can caredeeply about people in conflict, and understand that there needs to be a way through. Secondly, as we heard from some of our questioners, the parties themselves, israelis and palestinians, seem to be postdisengagement and in their twoelectionprocesses quicklyapproaching a crossroads, perhaps a tipping point where some form of acceptable solution that will involve some part of loss of a dream to both sides will make [“]pragmatism[“] reign. Thethirdthing, in which I’ve been honoured to be a part of this discussion tonight, is that acadeeme and the scholarly community matter in this discussion. I have read a great deal of the works of both ProfessorsChomsky and Dershowitz, and in both of these readings, whether you agree with points of view, challenge their sources is beside the point. What you have been treated to tonight is twoindividuals who have spent a lifetime thinking veryveryhard about some of themostdifficult problems in international public policy, and on behalf of this group here tonight, to my scholarly colleagues I am eternallygrateful. Thank you for coming. Sound of applaud.