MSNBC - Dershowitz Issues $10,000 challenge to Chomsky, Said or anyone

[eablair3]

I was channeling jumping tonight and happened upon Scarborough who was talking about the Israeli-Palestinian issue with somebody from the Institute of Public Accuracy. I generally like that Institute and decided to watch. Of course, Scarborough wouldn't give the guy anytime whatsoever, as he'd tell the guy to start talking and then immediately interrupt the guy.

In any case, it eventually went back to the other guest, Alan Dershowitz who got pretty steamed over what must have been alleged inaccuracies in his new book that he calls "The Case for Israel."

Dershowitz got so steamed that he issued a challenge to "Noam Chomsky, Edward Said, or anyone else." I don't know how Chomsky's name came up or Said's as neither was there. But, Dershowitz was hot, and he said essentially "I challenge you, Noam Chomsky, Edward Said, or anyone else, that if they can find even one inaccuracy in my book, then I will personally make a $10,000 contribution to the Palestinians."

I'd like to see the transcript.

anyone catch this?

[Must_B_Free]

1. Isn't he mocking Chomsky?

Doesn't Chomsky have a similar challenge to his writings?

[ixion]

4. I don't think so

Chomsky is an academic. He doesn't put forth this kind of bravado.

[Resistance]

16. I doubt Chomsky or Said would waste their time

reading through Dersh's garbage hoping to collect a check. The interesting thing to me is that if Dersh's challenge gets any airtime on the big networks, it might inadvertently give someone like Chomsky more publicity than the backers of US/Israeli terrorism would want. They might be wisest to tell Dersh to hush up.

[Character Assassin]

29. He puts forth a totally different kind of bravado

Chomsky is an academic.

Quite.

He doesn't put forth this kind of bravado.

Indeed. The bravado that he puts out is much more likely to inspire cult-like hero-worship.

Two totally dissimilar types of bravado, to be sure.

[eablair3]

5. no, .. I haven't seen or heard of Chomsky doing anything like that

and a search I did related to that turned up nothing. I doubt that is correct, and I'd be surprised if Chomsky would do anything like that.

But, I wouldn't mind seeing him QUICKLY read a few pages of Dershowitz's book to find an inaccuracy in it. Dershowitz needs to write that check out to check his own ego.

[rini]

48. Chomsky

is very mockable.

[Jacobin]

2. good luck collecting it

He'll claim the challenge is not a binding contract or he had his fingers crossed behind his back, or will dispute the wrong facts with more wrong facts.

[eablair3]

11. that's why I wanted to see the Transcript

It sounded like it would be a binding challenge the way he worded it. I went looking for the transcript, but it's not up yet:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/MSNBCTRANSCRIPTSMAIN_Front.asp?0ct=-33f

But, I did notice that the Scarborough show is to be repeated two hours from now on MSNBC at 10 PM PDT/1 AM EDT.

[ixion]

3. ouch.. Chomsky should call him on this.

Given that Israel is an illegitimate state, it shouldn't be too difficult to find inaccuracies in his book. I just lost a great deal of respect for Dershowitz.

Chomsky has one of the finest minds around. I just watched 'distorted morality' the other day. I was amazed at how effortlessly he slammed the US maladmin for acts of stat sponsored terrorism, using US gov't criteria. That is, on their playing field, using their rules. It was really beautiful.

[Terwilliger]

8. I always ask myself...

WWCD?

[Resistance]

18. one of my favorite speeches

that I have heard of his comes at the end of the 'Manufacturing Consent' video. hope it's ok to post here:

"Modern industrial civilization has developed within a certain system of convenient myths. The driving force of modern industrial civilization has been individual material gain, which is accepted as legitimate, even praiseworthy, on the grounds that private devices yield public benefits, in the classic formulation. Now, it has long been understood — very well — that a society that is based on this principle will destroy itself in time. It can only persist with whatever suffering and injustice it entails, as long as it is possible to pretend that the destructive forces that humans create are limited; that the world is an infinite resource, that the world is an infinite garbage-can. At this stage of history, either one of two things is possible: either the general population will take control of its own destiny, and will concern itself with community interests, guided by values of solidarity and sympathy and concern for others, or alternatively, there will be no destiny for anyone to control. As long as some specialized class is in a position of authority, it is going to set policy in the special interests that it serves. But the conditions for survival, let alone justice, require rational social planning, in the interests of the community as a whole, and by now that means the global community. The question is whether privileged elites should dominate mass communications, and should use this power as they tell us they must, namely to impose necessary illusions — to manipulate and deceive the stupid majority, and remove them from the public arena. The question in brief, is whether democracy and freedom are values to be preserved, or threats to be avoided. In this possibly terminal phase of human existence, democracy and freedom are more than values to be treasured, they may well be essential to survival."

[Terwilliger]

22. right on

[unblock]

9. illigitimate state?

c'mon, it's a legitimate state. you're welcome to criticize its policies and practices as illigitimate, but the state itself is legit.

if they treated the palestinians as well as you want them to be treated, would israel become a legitimate state? based on a policy decision? that may be how the people in charge of the state achieve legitimacy, but that's not how a state itself achieves legitimacy.

[Resistance]

17. actually

it was the massacres of hundreds of villages of innocent people, as part of an overall plan to steal as much land from the native Palestinian population as possible (which continues to this day, with full support from both Republicans and Democrats) that gives credibility to the argument that Israel is an illegitimate state -- not the matter of Israeli war crimes and atrocities committed on the current residents living in the illegally occupied territories.

Personally, I don't think trying to argue against Israel's legitimacy as a State is particularly worthwhile, but I see the point being made.

[Zuni]

32. no it was a war

And the Arabs began attacking Jewish settlements (made up of mostly war refugees) in 1947. When the mandate ended, as soon as Israel was declared a state, the Arabs were already moving in to destroy it.
If i were a Jew in 1948, I would have done whatever i could to secure a homeland. The Arabs got 90% of the mandate territory in the deal (that includes present day jordan), and they still decided to drive the jews out.
The Arabs lost when they gambled. Tough shit.

Hundreds of villages were not massacred. Many were driven out, but 600,000 Jews were also driven out of Arab countries.

[Cat Atomic]

6. I believe Chomsky mentions Dershowitz's book in passing in

Middle East Illusions. If I recall correctly, Dershowitz is only one name in a list of names that Chomsky uses to illustrate the way that some people use charges of anti-Semitism to defuse criticism of Israel- even against Jews.

And Dershowitz's own offer to "give $10,000 to the Palestinians" is a perfect illustration of the point Chomsky was making. It's a sort of subtle suggestion of anti-Semitism.

I'm going from memory here, so I could be ass backwards. :P

[MrPrax]

7. That's James Randi's schtick

Randi should sue Allan 'is this court approved torture' Dersohwitz or stealing his 'gag'

Isn't Uri Geller an Israeli citizen?

[Trajan]

19. As a Fan of Randi ...

I regret hearing it defined as 'schtick' ... which cheapens the still as yet unclaimed Randi challenge ...

Didnt Celsus also offer a wager to ANYONE who could show him a bona fide miracle of ANY sort ? ...

I understand HIS prize was never claimed either .....

[robsul82]

10. Dersh also made a challenge...

...it wasn't for money, but after he wrote Supreme Injustice: How the Supreme Court Highjacked the 2000 Election, he challeneged anyone to debate the issue with him on national TV. No one answered.

Later.

RJS

[bemildred]

12. Opinions are never "inaccurate".

I will be surprised if anything comes of this.

[Karmadillo]

13. Pay up, punk!

OK, OK, I haven't read the book, but here's a snippet from an Amazon.com review that sounds fairly credible.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/047146502X/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/103-0691610-4120633?v=glance&s=books&vi=customer-reviews

Methinks "Dersh" Doth Protest too Much, August 30, 2003
Reviewer: A reader from Alexandria, VA USA

<edit>

But Dershowitz sometimes argues something that is laughable, such as the notion that "only" Israel is criticized for human rights violations in this world. That simply is not true. A simple survey of the Internet will reveal a galaxy of organizations keeping book on the evils perpetrated by countries that have no connection to Israel and are nowhere near it.

more...

[dsc]

14. Do you always take

the opinions of strangers posting anonoymously at a web site as being dispositive of what a book says or doesn't say? I have no clue if Dersh, is right, wrong, or somewhere in between but the day I take the word of an anonymous review on Amazon.com will be a cold day in hell.

[Julien Sorel]

15. I haven't read Dershowitz' book,

but I have read some of his stuff about Israel and the Palestinians, and it's full of hysterics, gross hyperbole and outright lies, some of them lies Dershowitz had to be aware of. Chomsky and Dershowitz were involved in a famous debate in the 70s in which Chomsky apparently slapped him around rather harshly; Dershowitz has never forgiven him for that, and has issued challenges like this periodically for years. Dershowitz in my experience is a liar and a self-promoter; I'd be absolutely shocked if he has written much more than a page of text in his life that couldn't be challenged on the grounds of accuracy.

[Karmadillo]

28. Do you always make such efforts to distort meaning?

I didn't claim it was dispositive. I said it seemed reasonably credible. My opinion, obviously, but it seemed to me to be a reasonably well written, reliable review (as are many anonymous Amazon.com reviews despite your suggestion to the contrary). Just as obviously, to know for certain whether Dershowitz made such a statement, one would have to read the book itself or see a quote from a named, reliable source. Duh.

[tinnypriv]

20. Dershowitz is on a crazed jihad against Chomsky

I already pointed out one error the day Dershowitz started promoting this book (posted in FA/IP). That was just from the blurb. God knows what the book will contain.

[Doomsayer13]

21. Isn't Dershowitz a liberal?

I recall him standing up against corruption in the judicial system in the 80's and his blistering attack on the Supreme Court for their coup in 2000. His articles are almost a universal attack on John Ashcroft and the Bush administration's stripping away civil liberties in the name of national security. I guess in that sense, Dershowitz and Chomsky represent two sides of the left debate - the pro-Isreal internationalist side and the critical of Isreal side. Eitherway, I still like Dershowitz as a legal liberal, and I will look at his book.

[Forkboy]

24. Liberals dont advocate torture

Dershowitz has.

[Zuni]

34. Chomsky writes apologia

for many communist states that practiced it.

[StandWatie]

36. horseshit

You have never read Chomsky or you would know how ludicrous that statement is. His political views are aligned more with Bakunin than Marx and if you think there is some sort of love affair going between Communists and Anarchists you don't know much about far left politics.

[Forkboy]

50. Thanks for the comedic interlude

[Karmadillo]

39. Link to Dershowitz interview on CNN where he attempts to make the case

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/cnna.Dershowitz/

BLITZER: Alan Dershowitz, a lot of our viewers will be surprised to hear that you think there are right times for torture. Is this one of those moments?

DERSHOWITZ: I don't think so. This is not the ticking-bomb terrorist case, at least so far as we know. Of course, the difficult question is the chicken-egg question: We won't know if he is a ticking-bomb terrorist unless he provides us information, and he's not likely to provide information unless we use certain extreme measures.

My basic point, though, is we should never under any circumstances allow low-level people to administer torture. If torture is going to be administered as a last resort in the ticking-bomb case, to save enormous numbers of lives, it ought to be done openly, with accountability, with approval by the president of the United States or by a Supreme Court justice. I don't think we're in that situation in this case.

BLITZER: Well, how do you know ...

DERSHOWITZ: So we might be close.

BLITZER: Alan, how do you know he doesn't have that kind of ticking-bomb information right now, that there's some plot against New York or Washington that he was involved in and there's a time sensitivity? If you knew that, if you suspected that, you would say get the president to authorize torture.

DERSHOWITZ: Well, we don't know, and that's why a torture warrant, which puts a heavy burden on the government to demonstrate by factual evidence the necessity to administer this horrible, horrible technique of torture. I would talk about nonlethal torture, say, a sterilized needle underneath the nail, which would violate the Geneva Accords, but you know, countries all over the world violate the Geneva Accords. They do it secretly and hypothetically, the way the French did it in Algeria. If we ever came close to doing it, and we don't know whether this is such a case, I think we would want to do it with accountability and openly and not adopt the way of the hypocrite.

BLITZER: All right. Ken, under those kinds of rare, extreme circumstances, does Professor Dershowitz make a good point?

ROTH: He doesn't. The prohibition on torture is one of the basic, absolute prohibitions that exists in international law. It exists in time of peace as well as in time of war. It exists regardless of the severity of a security threat. And the only other comparable prohibition that I can think of is the prohibition on attacking innocent civilians in time of war or through terrorism. If you're going to have a torture warrant, why not create a terrorism warrant? Why not go in and allow terrorists to come forward and make their case for why terrorism should be allowed?

more...

[Julien Sorel]

23. LOL

I just read most of the introduction before giving up. The book is obviously going to be a piece of shit. What he does is, take each side's argument, or a version of it, acknowledge that both have merit (have to be fair!), and then explain why Israel is right. In some cases, he presents straw men for the Palestinians; for example, he'll take the most extremist Palestinian view and present it as mainstream. In others, he ignores flaws in the Israeli argument that he has to be aware exists. He also liberally plays the anti-semitism card. All this, mind you, in the introduction. I shudder to think what horrors await in the rest of the book.

Attempts to prove him absolutely wrong when he uses argumentation like this would likely be a waste of time (I'm not going to bother reading the rest of it); but the book itself is written in such a manifestly dishonest way that one is tempted to describe the whole thing as 'innacurate.'

[tinnypriv]

25. I'll answer the "challenge"

I'll use scare-quotes because it ain't much of challenge. This took an hour or two, would have taken longer with footnotes (anybody wants them, just ask):

Note:

* Italic blocs are from the book.
* Figures were double-checked.
* I've restricted analysis to the first 10 pages (i.e. about 8% of the book)

---------------------------------------------------------
"(Israel) is the only country in modern history to have returned disputed territory captured in a defensive war and crucial to its own self-defense in exchange for peace" ('The Case for Israel', Dershowitz, p2)
---------------------------------------------------------


Leaving aside the statements "defensive war" and "crucial to its own self-defense", the territory Dershowitz is referring to is the Sinai peninsular, captured from Egypt in 1967. It is Egyptian territory, and not "disputed". That is simply a fact. This point alone hands the 10k to the Pals.



---------------------------------------------------------
"Some academic opponents of Israel, such as Noam Chomsky and Edward Said, also reject the two-state solution. Chomsky has said, 'I don't think it's a good idea', although he has acknowledged that it may be 'the best of various rotten ideas around'". (ibid, p3)
---------------------------------------------------------


Charming consistency. Clearly it is not possible to acknowledge that some solution is "the best idea" out of several "rotten ideas", whilst simultaneously "rejecting" it. To "reject" it, one would say "these are all rotten ideas which I reject".

Moreover, Dershowitz could have cited from Chomsky literature when quoting him, yet he chose not to. Instead he cites a live interaction. The pitfalls of this approach are obvious, since here is another live interaction:

"For years there has been a very broad consensus in the world over the basic framework of a solution in the Middle East...it's going to have to be some variety of two-state settlement" (Chomsky, quoted from a 1990 talk)

and:

"The principle's quite clear: there has to be some settlement that recognizes the right of self-determination of Jews in something like the state of Israel, and the right of self-determination of Palestinians in something like a Palestinian state" (ibid)

A contradiction to what Dershowitz quotes? Perhaps.

Now, in light of this, if you were going to try and explain Chomsky's position, would you quote from a book (where his words are clearly and explicitly on record), or a live interaction?

If you were serious, you would do the former. If Dershowitz, you'd do the latter. Clearly his intention is distortion if not outright fabrication.



---------------------------------------------------------
"The strategy of the Arab leadership has been to eliminate the existence of any Jewish state, and indeed any substantial Jewish population, in what is now Israel....Various tactics have been employed towards this end....(one was) creating, then deliberately exacerbating and exploiting the refugee crisis" (ibid, p7)
---------------------------------------------------------


So, the Arab leadership "created" the refugee crisis? Then why two pages later does Dershowitz say: "one will never know" how the refugee crisis came about? (p9)

This point nicely shows the contempt Dershowitz has for the intelligence of his readers, assuming they won't notice internal contradiction even within the same chapter.



---------------------------------------------------------
"Barak (offered) a return of approximately 95 percent of the West Bank" (ibid, p9)
---------------------------------------------------------


Barak himself stated in May 2001 that he proposed maintaining control of "15 percent" of the West Bank for settlement blocs etc (in an Op-Ed in the NYTimes). Therefore, he could not have offered greater than 85 percent, by definition.



---------------------------------------------------------
"Arafat (rejected) Barak's offer, walking away from the peace negotiations without even making a counterproposal" (ibid, p9)
---------------------------------------------------------


According to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on 28 Jan 2001, "Prime Minister Ehud Barak...decided not to continue the diplomatic contacts with Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat and his people until after the elections in Israel"

Therefore Barak broke off the peace negotiations, not Arafat.



---------------------------------------------------------
"For many, the bare arithmetic was enough: more Palestinians than Israelis were dead, and that fact alone proved that Israel was the villain. Ignored was the fact that although 'only' 810 Israelis were killed (as of June 2003), Palestinian terrorists had attempted to kill thousands more had failed only because Israeli authorities had thwarted 'about 80 percent of the attempted' terrorist attacks. Ignored also was the fact that among the 2,000 or so Palestinians killed were hundreds of suicide bombers, bomb makers, bomb throwers, terrorism commanders, and even alleged collaborators who were killed by other Palestinians. When only innocent civilians are counted, significantly more Israelis than Palestinians have been killed." (ibid p10)
---------------------------------------------------------


Actual Palestinian deaths are 2,453 as of Sept 6, 2003. At the time of writing given by Dershowitz (June 2003), deaths were 2,407.

Dershowitz gives a figure of "2,000 or so" when referring to Palestinian deaths, but gives an exact figure (810) for Israelis killed. He is therefore off by about 20% (rounded down from 20.35 percent) with regards to Palestinian deaths (leaving aside for the moment whether they were terrorists, bomb throwers and the like, to which I'll return).

The equivalent would be to write that "650 or so" Israelis had been killed between Sept 2000-June 2003, when in fact 810 had been killed. Or, "2,200 or so" people were killed on Sept 11 2001, when the actual figure was 2,819, i.e. 560+ people simply do not count.

Given Dershowitz's outrage at the lack of numerical accuracy with regards to Israeli victims, vis a vis those of the Palestinians (his professed point), I assume further comment on Dershowitz's *actual* numerical and ethical standards is unnecessary, in light of the obvious conclusions which flow from the above arithmetical corrections.

Returning to the matter of "innocent civilians", is it true that when "only" they are counted, Israeli victims are greater than Palestinian victims?

Although the charge should be too ludicrous to discuss, let us do so in the name being thorough:

1. Dershowitz gives a figure of 810 "Israelis" killed, *not* civilians killed, despite the fact he uses these figures as the lead into to his "when only innocent civilians are counted, significantly more Israelis than Palestinians have been killed" statement. This is intentional deception. According to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, between Sept 29 2000-Sept 9 2003, 846 Israelis have been killed (810 is the figure for June), but of those 846, 248 are members of the Security Forces, i.e. 30% of the figure. The specific number of *civilians* killed (the word used by the MFA), is 598.

2. It therefore follows that to disprove Dershowitz's statement, it would be sufficient to demonstrate that 599 innocent Palestinian civilians have been killed during the period Sept 29 2000 - Sept 9 2003 (a figure of roughly 500 would also be enough to invalidate the 'significantly more' charge).

Let us then make that case, below:

* Assuming that any children killed aged 15 and under are "innocent civilians" (a reasonable premise), at least 250 Palestinian deaths fall into this category (total so far: 250)

* Assuming that Palestinians aged 15 and over, killed during March-April 2002 who were not identified as either militants or terrorists by Israel are "innocent civilians", at least 125 Palestinian deaths fall into this category (25 in Jenin, 50+ in Nablus, 50+ Tulkarem/elsewhere) (total so far: 375)

* Assuming that "bystanders" killed during Israeli "targeted killings" are "innocent civilians" (excluding children under 15), at least 90 Palestinian deaths fall into this category (total so far: 465)

* Assuming that Palestinians aged 15 and over, who were not bystanders, who were not killed during March-April 2002 and who "did not participate in fighting" (according to credible reports by BT'selem) are "innocent civilians", at least 120 Palestinian deaths fall into this category (total so far: 585)

Etc.

The inclusion of deaths at checkpoints, those killed by settlers (not in self-defence), Palestinian journalists killed etc. is sufficient to take the total easily past 599.

Moreover, this is only a rough outline, sketched in order to invalidate the statement of Dershowitz. A more detailed look at the figures would likely increase them substantially. Nevertheless, this should suffice.

[eablair3]

27. nice post

thanks, ... and all that in only the first 10 pages. I don't have Dershowitz' book, and I don't plan on buying it. If I got it for free, I might look at to see where it was false, but I don't want to give the guy any money of mine.

[TeeYiYi]

45. Excellent summation tinnypriv. Very telling. Thanks. .....n/t

TYY

[durutti]

47. Also...

First of all, I don't think the Six Day War was fought in self defense. Certainly, it wasn't "clearly" fought in self-defense.

Both Chomsky and Said have expressed support (albeit grudgingly) for the two-state solution on numerous occasions.

Barak's "generous offer" was an offer of a Bantustan. This myth has been debunked at length elsewhere.

Also, about Arafat walking out on the talks: Arafat concluded (rightly) that the talks were really just a charade, and that the U.S. and Barak weren't interested in taking Palestinian concerns seriously.

And as for the "arithmetic": according to the Shin Bet's own figures, almost 80 percent of Palestinians killed during the Al-Aqsa intifada have no connection (that they know of) with attacks on Israel. Clearly, substantially more Palestinian than Israeli civilians have been killed. Every human right organization has condemned Israel's conduct. A UN report even condemned it as "state terrorism".

[eablair3]

26. EXACT WORDS of Dershowitz' challenge

I recorded a later showing of Scarborough and went back over the wording used by Dershowitz.

The guy from the Institute For Public Accuracy was Sam Husseini, and he was introduced as its Communications Director.

Dershowitz got to go first and was not interrupted and went on about the Palestinian children being taught things and that violece would never end as they supposedly don't believe Israel has a right to exist according to Dershowitz. Before turning to Husseini, Scarborough puts up a very biased graphic of 4 talking points about how the Palestinians rejected and walked away from such a "good" offer that Israel made in the past. Husseini talks about how that was inaccurate, and then gets interrupted immediately, and starts complaining about how he isn't getting to talk.

Dershowitz interrupts and gets to talk again and again. In response to comments made by Husseini about the 36 years of occupation, Dershowitz jumps in and says that "it could have ended 6 months after the occupation began if the Palestinians hadn't gone to Khartoum and said three 'no's': no to negotitations, no to peace, and no to recognition." While Dershowitz was saying this, Husseini is saying in the background "that's utterly false, ... that's utterly false, ... you're a fraudulent historian, ... you're a fraudulent historian Alan, you're a fine lawyer, you're a fraudulent historian."

Dershowitz then says: "I'll tell you what, I will give $10,000 to the PLO in your name if you can find historical fact in my book that you can prove to be false. I issue that challenge. I issue it to you. I issue it to the Palestinian Authority. I issue it to Noam Chomsky. I issue it to Edward Said. Every word in my book is accurate, and you can't just simply say it's false without documenting it. Tell me one thing in the book now that is false. Let's hear it."

Scarborough then gets in and cuts them off, and goes on to other topics. Scarborough gives the last word to Dershowitz, and Dershowitz makes more statements, with Husseini stating in the background "that's utterly false". At the end Scarborough says he'll have Husseini back for a one on one, alone.

the words in quotes were exact and double checked. Sounds like an on-going binding challnge to me.

[CentristDemocrat]

30. He's a thought, maybe Dershowitz is RIGHT!!

Nah, couldn't be. Chomsky is always right about everything.

[Julien Sorel]

31. Arfter seeing part of his book,

I can assure you that Dershowitz isn't right, whatever Chomsky's status might be.

[CentristDemocrat]

33. Which "part" wasn't right?

I'd like to know.

[Forkboy]

35. Start with post 25

[CentristDemocrat]

37. Well, that post is incorrect right off the bat.

Sinai was not "Egyptian territory". They LOST THE 6 DAY WAR. Usually when a country loses land in a war, it still isn't considered their land. In fact, it was "disputed" and in fact it was central to Israeli security. And yes, it was given back for peaceful reasons.

[StandWatie]

38. are treaties non-binding?

Israel is a member of the UN and conquest is explicity forbidden.

[CentristDemocrat]

40. Don't know enough about the history of the 6 day war

To really continue this, but post 25 doesn't convince me that Dershowitz's book is wrong.

[eablair3]

43. yes, perhaps

no offense meant but perhaps you ought to study about 1967 War some more, and be sure to read all sides. There is A LOT of Israeli propaganda out there to sift through.

The facts are that Israel attacked and was the aggressor in the 1967 War. They started with a sneak air attack where Israeli fighter jets flew out to the west over the Med. Sea and then approached Cairo from the west dropping bombs to take out the Egyptian airforce capacity. That's how the '67 War started.

Israel claimed it had to attack before Egypt attacked, as it said that Egypt was positioning for an attack. Some Israeli propagandists try to go back and justify the attack citing Egpyt blocking the Staits of Tiran. But, later, in the early 1980s, Israeli leaders (including Menachem Begin and at least one Israeli general) acknowledged that they knew Egypt was not in any sort of attack position, but that they saw an opportunity to attack and gain even more land.

If you study the history of Israel at all, you will find plenty of statements and representations throughout its history that show that Israel's real goal is to take or gain all the land. Israel was not exactly pleased with what it got from the U.N. in 1947-48, and statements of its leaders such as Ben-Gurion (and others then and in the past) made it clear that they thought it was just a start and that they could get more of the land later. That's exactly what it's doing now.

The only war in which Arab states clearly attacked was in 1973 when they attacked to retake lands that Israel had taken in 1967.

you might take a look at the book "Fateful Triangle" by Noam Chomsky, as it doesn't necessarily follow the Israeli propaganda and revisionist history line (as so much material out there does, esp on the internet), and it has hundreds of footnotes detailing the sources for what is stated.

[tinnypriv]

41. Every word of my post was accurate

If you want an education on international law and the 6 day war, ask.

[CentristDemocrat]

42. Every word of my post was accurate.

See, I can spew bullshit too.

[tinnypriv]

44. LOL

I thought you were serious for a second. :D

Since you've got the time to waste following this thread into FA/IP, I suggest putting that time to better use by actually getting a clue about the 6 day war and international law, as I suggested.

As an irrelevent aside, you just declared yourself to the right of Chuck Morse:

"The Sinai was the only other region technically occupied by Israel in 1967. Jordan and Egypt had previously occupied the West Bank and Gaza, both part of British Mandatory Palestine, in 1948-1949. These regions were, and remain, legally under the status of disputed rather than occupied" (Chuck Morse, http://www.chuckmorse.com/occupied_territories.html)

So much for "Centrist" Democrat. :dunce:

Run along.

[durutti]

49. UNSC Resolution 242

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter*,

Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Affirms further the necessity

For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

*Article 2:

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to a of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and. justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.
--------------------------------
It was always Egyptian territory.

[durutti]

46. I can point one out right now (and I don't even own the book).

Dershowitz repeates the often-stated Israeli assertion that Palestinian officials said 500 died in Jenin. They didn't -- that's entirely media distortion.

Here's the original quotation, as told by Saed Erekat to CNN anchor John Clancy:

"What we're saying, we see an opportunity in the secretary's visit. We want to help in order to insure the success of the secretary's visit, because insuring the success of implementing 1402 means stopping the killing fields out there, and you know as the numbers I am receiving today is that the numbers of killed could reach 500 since the Israeli offensive began. Thousands of wounded. You know, the Jenin refuge camp is no longer in existence, and now we've heard of executions there."

He never claimed that 500 were killed in Jenin alone. He said that 500 had been killed throughout the West Bank as part of Operation Defensive Shield. Indeed, the actual death toll for that period, according to the Red Crescent, was 497.