Since we're talking about integrity of newspapers,I thought that was a gem from few months ago:

Haaretz:Israeli settler shoots at Palestinians while IDF soldiers stand by
Ynet:Settlers fire rubber bullets at Palestinians while soldiers stand by

The obvious two-state solution that every sensible person wants. Despite the extensive and seemingly endless arguments on this topic, the solution is really not in dispute. It's only that the U.S. and Israel don't want it that keeps it, and peace, out of our hands. A solution has been close, seemingly, materially. If you want to hear a good debate about the posturing and negotiations on it click the link below. You have Alan Dershowitz defending Israel tooth and nail and Noam Chomsky on the other side. You can't ask for two smarter people going at it although its obvious that Dershowitz, who graduated first in his class a Yale law school and was the youngest ever professor at Harvard and clearly super smart and informed, is more or less a lightweight when compared to Chomsky. Alan gets totally rattled and completely trounced. From a debate standpoint it's like watching a small animal being tortured- you want to look away sometimes. But if you want to see what happens when the apartheid state of Israel is given its best possible defense here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ux4JU_sbB0

The vid is 1.5 hrs. I'll watch it in pieces but since you've already told me how it turns out I don't think it's that important.

However, just to tide us over until I complete the chore, can the master also demand of the Palestinians that they accept a 2 state solution?

I watched the vid and can only say that imo you have to be willing to only see what you want to see if you can claim that Dershowitz's performance should characterized as lightweight or that he became totally rattled.

I also find it amusing that you provide a debate about what should be the future of Palestine between 2 American Jewish intellectuals.

However, you have whetted my appetite and now I'd like you to provide a debate between 2 Arab intellectuals on what should be the future of Palestine. Hopefully in English or w/ subtitles.

It is easy to say yeah these 2 are smart mother****ers and they can sum things up beter than us not so smart. I've seen it more than once and it answers little.

so noam is a btter debater or Alan comes across like a little bitch. did u learn anything? srsly?

Alan is obv. an extremely bright guy and I was a big fan of his until he started advocating torture of terrorism suspects (still can't believe he went there). But you see the tactics he had to resort to just to try to save face?

There was almost so much content in what these two were saying that it is hard to digest. One of the things I took away was that the two sides were seemingly very much closer than I knew to a two state solution. Chomsky's view is that the U.S. and Israel like the situation the way it is and some of the facts that he stated that went unchallenged by Alan do support that theory.

There is that and then there is just the feebleness of Alan's side of the debate even when you know this is the penultimate test of all of his experience, training, education and natural abilities. His problem is he is on the wrong side.

All in all you get more out of something like that as oppose to an internet forum or something because you know that the reputations of the debaters are on the line so they will only say what they think is solid, for the most part.

That's a good point. There should be more arabs involved in the public discourse. I think the last time I saw an arab and a jew in a televised debate was Jamie Gold begging Sammy Farha not to put him all in on High Stakes Poker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erNjXtuKawU

Really though there could be many things to consider about the situation that Americans might not even think to bring up.

yeah they both accept a 2 state solution and both oppose settlement expansion. The context of the whole debate was focused on what the obstacles actually are though. Chomsky thinks that Israel/US are secretly opposed to it and want to create the conditions where arabs live in bantustans until they die or gtfo. Dershowitz was more concerned with attacking Chomsky himself than disputing that.

whats Alans side of the debate? I thought they were basically on the same page as far as the end goal?

Basically the main differences between them is who they blame for status quo. Noam blames Israel/US for the statue quo by not honoring the international consensus. Alan accepts that the conditions on the ground are to blame and accepts that the US/Israel are doing their best based on security concerns.

Fair enough. Have enjoyed reading your posts fwiw.

No, you're quite right. I was definitely expecting an Israel-centric answer. His bias is pretty extreme but I have to admit that he is certainly knowledgeable and it was interesting to hear what he had to say.

It really is very sad though that someone would spend so much time and energy dismissing the rampant suffering of so many of their fellow human beings as something conjured up in the imagination of "Jew haters" and "idiots".

Not so easy though, when there are so many reports from organisations such as the Red Cross and the U.N. to go on:

There's only one side which is building and expanding illegal settlements and refuses to stop even during peace talks.

The reports are from all sides

"Former Israeli soldiers disclose routine mistreatment of Palestinian children
Booklet of testimonies of former Israeli soldiers describes beatings, intimidation and humiliation of children"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...inian-children

Israel Not Responsible For Rachael Corrie's Death

Not that anything different would have been done here in the States if the situation was reversed, but still what a bunch of ****ing horse****. I'd gain a lot of respect for Obama if he spoke out about this but I know he won't for obvious reasons.

Wow, that's abysmal.

You know things are bad when the U.N. condemns your government for not observing human rights laws with the children you've imprisoned:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.as...=palestin&Cr1=

Arguing over Israel and Palestine is like banging your head against a brick wall.

Did I say banging your head against a brick wall? I meant kicking your foot against a Palestinian child.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...oy?INTCMP=SRCH

oh, right, this old game. nevermind the fact that soldiers are pelted with oppressed freedom rocks thrown by peace-loving children every time they're on a simple security patrol, but now the actions of some justifies the condemnation of all.

Israel derangement syndrome is strong with this one.

lol. how many times have i shown you plainly and factually that they're not illegal?

have you ever presented a single argument that they are illegal?

arguing they are an obstacle to peace is reasonable (though wrong). simply stating outright that they're illegal is nothing more than propaganda.

israel derangement syndrome: where conclusions come before evidence.

this is a ridiculous response.

i'll bet everything I have that you didn't actually read the judge's decision, you have no idea what facts were presented at trial, you were not present at the time of the incident, you have no ****ing clue what evidence was brought before the judge, and your entire awareness of the incident is formed entirely by third hand media reports based entirely on Palestinian and ISM "eyewitnesses", as well as comments from other people in the same position as you.

but you presumed guilt and no other outcome would have satisfied you.

israel derangement syndrome: where legitimate observation takes a backseat to witchhunts.

lol.

List of Countries by Life Expectancy

As of 2011, Gaza is ranked 107 out of 223 in life expectancy. 7 years longer than the world average and 118 countries with greater humanitarian concerns.

"unlivable". lol red cross.

israel derangement syndrome: where no rhetoric is too much.

I come off as abrasive, i get that. And I don't mean to disrespect you as much as I mean to disrespect the "facts" and lies your "sources" are filling your head with. I don't doubt that you believe these things, i wouldn't suggest you're being dishonest (as others in this thread have been). I do, however, think your choice of sources is questionable.

Not when those nations are bloc voters and rely on each other for resources and political power. Arab states, African states, former communist states. its not like they're independent voters. and the vast majority of them are not functioning liberal democracies with accurate representation.


You definitely did good with that one. and haifa isn't exactly major but its certainly reputable enough.

You're not a liar, i have no doubt you believe what you write. but you do provide information that is clearly false.

This one, not so much. I literally showed you that it is physically impossible for that statistic to be true. The number comes from Adameer, a Palestinian NGO cited in the article (and in other publications, including UN publications).

The PCHR link I provided (and PCHR is hardly pro-Israel) shows that Israel arrests less than a couple dozen a week on average, and there is a standing prison population of under 5000 according to B'Tselem, another hardly pro-Israel organization. Now consider that 60% of arrestees are repeat offenders. Think about that. We're talking maybe a dozen new offenders per week. Times 50 weeks is maybe 600 per year. 45 years since 1967. Then think about whether 700,000 different people could possibly have been in prison. That's like 15,000 new, unique people per year, nowhere close to the actual numbers above.

Its absurd. its impossible. And it is a whopping lie, courtesy of Adameer.

And Adameer's fake numbers are cited all over the internet.

Israel derangement syndrome: where a lie travels around the world before the truth has a chance to get out of bed.

I read the UN gaza report earlier, btw, and should note that the biggest risk to making it "unliveable" and not just where it lists on a comparison of life expectancy or other things like this, but specifically the problems of depletion to the costal aquifer, the main source or fresh water which is depleting quickly and experiencing considerable salination against the backdrop of a young and quickly growing population. Things like needing more schools and hospital beds and the power and the like may well all be legitimate, but not irreversibly damaging the dominant source of fresh water is much closer to genuinely challenging the ability to support a large population.

you should stop doing this, it's just a thinly-veiled personal attack, which is what a lot of your posts are becoming these days and it makes discussion basically pointless

I am a bit confused how he comes up with which specific insult to repeatedly say to an individual. For some reason I have gotten the "hater" label, but never this "israel derangement syndrome" which gets applied to others. Maybe it is just an insult flavour of the day. Eitherway, it is ridiculous and reduces what might otherwise be reasonable criticisms to the drooling flames of a hyperpartisan.

Gamblor you are the one with Israel derangement syndrome. Jewish people are the only group I pre judge but in a good way- I like them more than other groups. Who wouldn't? Among them are some of the funniest comedians, the greatest scientists, the greatest philosophers. When you think about what they have done in physics alone it is astounding. If I believed in God I might think they are in fact the chosen people. I get along with most Jewish people almost automatically. Most Americans who weigh in on this issue against are not anti-Semites. As you may know many of Israels harshest critics are American Jews.

When it comes to Israel, anyone with at least one brain cell can see what is going on. The religious fervor, and perhaps a little greed mixed in, is compelling Israel to oppress the Palestinians. The goal is clear and has been stated. Israel wants to make the Palestinians so miserable that they leave or die. This will always be viewed as a morally wrong collective action and no amount of semantic twists will be able to portray it otherwise. Israel is condemned by human rights groups across the board for a reason and that reason has nothing to do with the some conspiratorial mass derangement and everything to do with Israel's gross violations of human rights and international law.

sigh. wtf is wrong with you people.

The religious fervor came late to the game, well after 1967. Israel was created primarily by secularists. A better way to frame it is as another chapter of European settler conquest.

He's always been that way, you are just now on the receiving end. He's defending things that have no defense, so invective and brain-clotting sophistry are all he has.