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
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?
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 in61
was appointed fullprofessor in theDepartmentOfModernLanguagesAndLinguistics.
From his articulate opposition to theVietnamWar in themid60s, 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.
[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?
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.
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.
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
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.
Mandell: Thank you, ProfessorDershowitz.
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.
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 48 represents for oneside and what 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.
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 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.
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.
Mandell: Thank you if we can just.
Dershowitz: Well, let me briefly respond only
because I was.
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.
Mandell: If we can just.
Chomsky: The truth of the matter is.
Mandell: If we can just, uh.
Chomsky: Easily discovered.
Mandell: If we can just hold there.
26. Chomsky: From theForeignRelationsOfTheUnitedStates, which points out that ArthurGoldberg.
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.
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.
Mandell: Ok. A comment from.
33. Chomsky: Only a brief question. For those of you.
Mandell: Briefly from ProfessorChomsky. Sound
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.
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.
Chomsky: Sorry. Now. Now.
40. Dershowitz: And Israel accepted it.
41. Chomsky: Yeah, in1937. But in a relevant period.
Dershowitz: Look you know, when, when.
43. Chomsky: We’re talking about today.
44. Dershowitz: When thousands.
45. Chomsky: Today.
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.
Mandell: Ok, let’s go to our next questioner.
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.
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?
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 in38 and in47, and I think every reasonable person today would urge the palestinians not to repeat the disastrous mistakes they made in48, they made in67, 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.
Mandell: Thank you, ProfessorChomsky.
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.
Dershowitz: It is this.
60. Chomsky: Here it is. Here it is. This is RonPundak’smap.
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.
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.
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.
Mandell: Thank you.
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.
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.
79. Dershowitz: He was there when I.
I have to finish. I haven’t done my
twominutes. When he said, when I asked DennisRoss at lunch today.
Mandell: Okay. It’s a long twominutes.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Dershowitz: Let’s hear it.
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.
95. I would like to know, have you seen not just the wall, but the eightterminals that are being built?
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?
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.
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.
Dershowitz: That’s right.
106. Chomsky: And if you would like his comment about how  israeliLaw supersedesInternationalLaw in eastJerusalem because.
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.
Dershowitz: But that’s not what you said.
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.
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 theearly70’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.
Mandell: Hold, please. We have a verybrief
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”.
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.”
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.
Mandell: Thank you. Okay.
118. Dershowitz: Oh, that’s like saying that british roads are roads of the sovereign anglican people.
Chomsky: Fine, and that’s.
120. Dershowitz: I mean, Britain is an Anglican country as well.
Mandell: Okay. If we can have your question,
Chomsky: I agree to your qualification. They’re
Mandell: We can, gentlemen.
124. Chomsky: They’re israeli highways and palestinian paths. If you want to create a solution, I mentioned one.
Mandell: Let’s go to the questioner.
126. Chomsky: I mentioned it. TheGenevaAccords. TheTabaAgreements, which Israel canceled.
Dershowitz: I accept.
128. Chomsky: Those are creative solutions.
129. Dershowitz: I accept theTabaagreements.
131. Dershowitz: And I think that many israelis do as well.
Mandell: We’re gonna focus on this next
133. Chomsky: Then you should explain to Mr. [unintelligible] why they objected to them.
Mandell: Please. We’re gonna focus on this
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.
Mandell: Okay. Thank you.
I’m sorry. Yeah, how do you?
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
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.
Dershowitz: That is
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.
Mandell: Can we move on from there?
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,
mericanPresident has favoured the twoStatesolution, I say, welcome
Mandell: OK, if we can hold there.
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
156. Dershowitz: No, or. And check the diplomatic record.
Mandell: Okay. ProfessorDershowitz, hold.
Dershowitz: Check the maps.
Mandell: Sir, your question.
160. Dershowitz: And readDennisRoss’s book, which contains appendices which have the diplomatic record.
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.
Mandell: OK, let’s go to the next question.
Chomsky: How many of you are capable of
Dershowitz: They are simply false.
Chomsky: How many of you are capable of
Dershowitz: He makes it up as he goes along.
Mandell: Okay. Thank you.
Chomsky: How many of you are capable of
reading english? Including.
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.
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.
Dershowitz: You can say that.
Chomsky: Not only on this issue.
Dershowitz: You can say it. But you know, you
can cry wolf so many times.
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?
Mandell: Please give it.
Even though. I think, just before the
question, because it’s veryimportant.
Mandell: Please go directly to your question.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
205. And most palestinians.
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.
Dershowitz: Perfect selective.
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.
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.
Dershowitz: So you.
Chomsky: That’s notShimonPeres. Sound of
Dershowitz: But you stick to the argument
that ShimonPeres, the man who just joined in to make peace is an iconic massmurderer.
Chomsky: You want me to read.
Dershowitz: And not a man of peace. I think
that says it all.
Chomsky: You want me to run through his
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.
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.
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.
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 theearly70s 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.
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.
Dershowitz: So Cuba has a betterHumanRightsrecord
Chomsky: No, on the issue of.
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.
Dershowitz: No, I didn’t say that. Let me be veryclear.
Chomsky: In fact, now, I’ll give you.
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.
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.
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
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 theearly70s. Dayan was in charge of the occupation. He advised them that
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.
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.
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.