[Cowperson]

Typical strategy of Chomsky critics is to gloss over the issue at hand and then rely on unrelated controversy to discredit him. I'm not justifying what he said about Iran (because I didn't read it). All I'm saying is that in light of THIS debate, Chomsky's arguements were backed up by credible research.

Uh, Chomsky brought up Iran in the context of Israel, not Dershowitz.

Therefore its relevant, particularly since Iran is a heavy sponsor of Palestinian terror groups, probably an example of Chomsky's "remarkable restraint" . . . . or more probably, his remarkable ability to ignore facts that are disagreeable to his rear-view mirror view of the world.

Or is that unrelated as well?

One reviewer of the debate wrote this:

At the same time, Chomsky was incapable of ever directly answering a question and felt compelled to inundate the audience with facts and sources that may or not be at all relevent to the question. Then after ticking off a litany of history, he would stop, and assume that he answered the question when it was clear he didn't. At which point people would yell "answer the question!"

The title of the debate was "Israel and Palestine After Disengagement- Where Do We Go From Here." On that question, what did Chomsky tell you? The only thing he said is there would be no disengagement and offered a view of ancient history.

That fits the profile of Chomsky in other debates, clinging to a position long discredited, like his blind and bizarre support of Pol Pot long after the exposure of genocide in Cambodia. Bitter about the past but offering nothing for the future and unable to speak to changing conditions.

In that context, who was avoiding the debate? Why were people yelling "answer the question!!" at him?

I've always found it hilarious that people would be duped into simply accepting a blizzard of footnotes from Chomsky. In fact, he was actually called out on one of them during the debate as demonstratably wrong.

Its the equivalent of myself and my theories on scoring in the NHL which are occasionally disputed by our friend timbit. I clearly have an endless blizzard of footnotes and have veritably snowed him under . . . . but who says I'm more right than the guy with the "gut feeling" that players were better in the 1970's/1980's?

Secondly, under what circumstances would Chomsky lose ANY debate in your mind Haken?

If you can't take Dershowitz seriously, you certainly can't take Chomsky seriously. They're both one trick ponies.

The Israel/Palestinian situation has certainly been far more problematic in the past than it is today . . . . thanks to needed changes on the Palestinian side which have forced the Israeli's to react.

You'd have to be a real sourpuss to not see that concessions on both sides have been pointing to at least the hope for a better future . . . . and it all started with the de-radicalization of the Palestinian Authority which is what the world was waiting for. I've said many times the Isreali excesses and occupation would have received a far more sympathetic hearing globally if a Ghandi or Mandela had been in charge instead of blundering opportunists like Arafat.

This is yet another situation where Chomsky simply fails to accept that an intelligent man will recognize that the world is succeptible to change and that, as conflicts erupt, it is possible for old one's to be settled.

Like I've said before, for a political analyst, Chomsky is a pretty good linguist.

Cowperson