Mr D is not actually in favor of the 2 State. He needs to be politically correct on the issue to get talk show invitations. . But he appends his "approval" of 2 State to a geological time frame, like when dinosaurs re-evolve from birds.
But Ms Oz I presume there is some pc with your opinions too, dependent upon who you are with. But sitting alone right now, since you exclude 2 State, what do you do then? Continue the present 75 year oppression of the indigenous? Drive them out of Greater Israel, but to where? Pay them to leave , go to Mexico and cross the Rio Grande and get free Border Patrol sponsored flights to NYC where they can be neighbors to Mr D? Maybe forcibly convert all the Palestinians to Judaism? Maybe have just 1 state which drops all pretense of democracy and formalizes Jews as the master race? How about having the IDF murder 500 000 Palestinians so that they cannot outvote Jews in a 1 state democracy. Of course you would not be so lacking in PC a to prescribe death camps, liker Auschwitz for the Palestinians. But I presume that would just be PC. You personally might be the kind of Israeli who would really not mind if the Holocaust were re-committed, this time by Jews on Palestinian Christiaans and Muslims. After all, all Greater Israel was given to Jews by God himself, according to IDF Chief Rabbi Eyaz Krim, famous for specificaly in 2002 authorizing jewish soldiers in wartime to rape gentiles. . Ot maybe the Jews could all magnanimously move to TannaTuva, the land Stalin gave to the Jews as the Jewish Autonomous Republic.
There is no oppression of the indigenous. The indigenous are the Jews. The Arabs are, in part, the descendents of the invading occupying forces during the Arab Conquest of the Middle East and North Africa (and Spain but Spain got them out before they were converted to Islam). Actually, some of these Arabs are actually Jews who were converted to Islam during the Conquest. And many of them even know that. But nobody is suggesting they convert back to Judaism. Free choice, you have heard of that, right?
So, given that you go on and on based upon misunderstanding of history and barely hidden Jew-hate, let me tell you the solution I think most likely to succeed because it is closest to respecting the ethnic make-up of the descendents of the Arab conquerors and the Arab migrants that came to the land before 1948 (you do know, do you not, that one only had to be resident on the land from 1946 to be eligible for refugee status? What is the proportion of Arabs who were here since the Conquest, came between the conquest and the beginning of the last century, and those that came in the years or even a few decades before 1946? If you do not know the answer to this, then calling the Arabs living in the British Mandate of Palestine, indigenous, is kind of, you know, kind of totally unbased.
In any case, the solution I see most likely to fit is a kind of emirates type of political organization. It will not be the first time a country is set up like that -- you do know about the United Arab Emirates, right? So there is a model that can be followed.
Now, do some homework and study the issues rather than regurgitating propaganda point. OK?
You start off seemingly unaware of objective reality, claiming there is no oppression. The West Bank is a classic case of continual oppression since 1967 as has Gaza been from that date and even after the Israelis packed up because of the Israeli's total economic and travel embargo and constant attacks and assassinations.
You do have chutzpah, simply baselessly accusing me of what I accuse you of.. 1400 years ago there were very few Jews in Palestine. But there was a large scale immigration from France. Most Jews had been exiled by the Romans but some remained. There were however many Muslims, many of the remaining Jews had, converted to Islam. The Kingdom of Jerusalem , aka Kingdom of Heaven was was protected by a long front line of crusader castles in the north of Palestine and in Syria and Lebanon protected the settlers. But unlike Israeli Jews, the Crusaders followed the model of the Romans, integrate local peoples, let them keep their religions and gods, focus on integrating them into one economy with equal citizenship rights with the settlers. This actually was the -ORIGINAL ideal of Hertzl's zionism, in the form many Gentile Britons were attracted to it.
When Richard the Lionhearted attacked Acre, he behaved like the IDF in Gaza and as Gallant and Netanyahu urged soldiers of the IDF. Richard slaughtered everyone in the city, and he was heavily criticized by Churchmen, Statesmen, and even his own family Acre was a one-off atrocity until a renegade Raymond started robbing muslim traders and killing them. His example too was one-off. When Netanyahu urges repeating the -Israelite annihilation of the Amaleks and Gallant reinforces him, saying Palestinians are nothing but "human animals", and when hardly a murmur of protest appears among Israeli Jews to condemn the resulting genocide,when no Israelis provide Israeli donations of food to the starving non-combatants, something very different is going on..
That something different is the generic tribal dehumanizaation of other tribes like what the Aryans did in the 1930s, saying that Jews were a foreign, unintegratable element that exploited and economically oppressed the Aryan population. The Nazis said no security could be found for the reunited Germany until the Jews , a Fifth Column, they alleged, were deprived of economic and political rights and re-located. This is currently exactly the discourse in Israel, only in Hebrew, since such talk in English would endanger AIPAC's mission. You would think that the experience of tribal victimhood would makje Jews more sympathetic to the tribe of Palestinians who were dispossessed of their land by Jews.l
I can only hope that you never get a rude awakening, never have to look evil in the eyes like we did throughout our time here, before 1948 and after 1948, and most massively on Oct 7th. Maybe if you do see that evil, you will review what you have written here and see the lies about us that you have swallowed.
The pro Hamas people who want to tear down Alan Dershowitz because he represented Epstein? That’s an emotional crutch, not a rational argument. If you can't separate a lawyer from his client, congratulations—you’ve just obliterated centuries of legal precedent. Ever heard of due process?
Behavioral economics teaches us that people lean on cognitive shortcuts, like ad hominem attacks, when they can’t confront the real issue. You're buying into propaganda techniques designed to sway with emotion rather than facts.
If they’re going to criticize Dershowitz for defending Epstein, where’s the outrage when lawyers defend Hamas members, knowing full well Hamas uses civilians as human shields and has a track record of indiscriminate violence? The hypocrisy is astounding.
The legal system exists to protect everyone—yes, even the morally repugnant. Dershowitz's defense wasn't an endorsement of Epstein's actions, but a defense of the system that protects you from mob rule. The people who think a lawyer defending an unpopular figure makes them evil, let’s burn the whole system down. Oh, and while we’re at it, let's make sure no lawyer ever defends the accused again.
Their logic would have us living in a kangaroo court where accusations equal guilt. Welcome to the tyranny they will unknowingly cheering for. We know where your logic leads, right? To the doorstep of fascism. Once we start punishing lawyers for defending people you don’t like, you’re opening the floodgates for a society where accusations alone are enough to condemn someone—no defense, no trial, no justice. That’s not justice; that’s tyranny with a smile on its face
Professor, thank you for exposing the sickness of the Democrat Party. You are saying, huh? This thing of a man uses emotions, lies and twisting of law to make its point, voila the Democrat Party.
Wow!! I seriously think Mr Hijab is schizophrenic. That wasn't a debate. Mr Hijab did massive damage to his reputation and his cause whatever that is.
Unfortunately, I honestly believe that the Muslim Culture and Western Culture are incompatible.
Both are good.
However, the Muslim Culture is not tolerant of LGBTQ, woman's rights,other religions. They are incompatible. Understand DAWA . Read Ayaan Hirsi Ali academic writing.
Like a bunch of ill tempered kids talking over each other....what a farce. Cut to mike on one or the other. Dersh, you should either get up and walk out or refrain from talking. When confronted with people like Mohammed, I ignore them and do not engage. You are just giving him a platform....let him act the ignorant buffoon. It's like arguing with an insane person, you can't win and it makes you look foolish. Dersh I hope you pursue the lawsuit for defamation.
Alan, post the link to what you want us to see, not a Google search.
This was not a debate and it was not even a "debate". It was a horrendous waste of time and I will never watch anything with Mr Hijab ever again.
And I must say, Mr Dershowitz, that I am surprised you still think the two state "solution" is a possibility. Especially after Oct 7th.
Thanks Sheri for saving me some time. Two states? Not a chance.
Always happy to oblige. :)
Mr D is not actually in favor of the 2 State. He needs to be politically correct on the issue to get talk show invitations. . But he appends his "approval" of 2 State to a geological time frame, like when dinosaurs re-evolve from birds.
But Ms Oz I presume there is some pc with your opinions too, dependent upon who you are with. But sitting alone right now, since you exclude 2 State, what do you do then? Continue the present 75 year oppression of the indigenous? Drive them out of Greater Israel, but to where? Pay them to leave , go to Mexico and cross the Rio Grande and get free Border Patrol sponsored flights to NYC where they can be neighbors to Mr D? Maybe forcibly convert all the Palestinians to Judaism? Maybe have just 1 state which drops all pretense of democracy and formalizes Jews as the master race? How about having the IDF murder 500 000 Palestinians so that they cannot outvote Jews in a 1 state democracy. Of course you would not be so lacking in PC a to prescribe death camps, liker Auschwitz for the Palestinians. But I presume that would just be PC. You personally might be the kind of Israeli who would really not mind if the Holocaust were re-committed, this time by Jews on Palestinian Christiaans and Muslims. After all, all Greater Israel was given to Jews by God himself, according to IDF Chief Rabbi Eyaz Krim, famous for specificaly in 2002 authorizing jewish soldiers in wartime to rape gentiles. . Ot maybe the Jews could all magnanimously move to TannaTuva, the land Stalin gave to the Jews as the Jewish Autonomous Republic.
There is no oppression of the indigenous. The indigenous are the Jews. The Arabs are, in part, the descendents of the invading occupying forces during the Arab Conquest of the Middle East and North Africa (and Spain but Spain got them out before they were converted to Islam). Actually, some of these Arabs are actually Jews who were converted to Islam during the Conquest. And many of them even know that. But nobody is suggesting they convert back to Judaism. Free choice, you have heard of that, right?
So, given that you go on and on based upon misunderstanding of history and barely hidden Jew-hate, let me tell you the solution I think most likely to succeed because it is closest to respecting the ethnic make-up of the descendents of the Arab conquerors and the Arab migrants that came to the land before 1948 (you do know, do you not, that one only had to be resident on the land from 1946 to be eligible for refugee status? What is the proportion of Arabs who were here since the Conquest, came between the conquest and the beginning of the last century, and those that came in the years or even a few decades before 1946? If you do not know the answer to this, then calling the Arabs living in the British Mandate of Palestine, indigenous, is kind of, you know, kind of totally unbased.
In any case, the solution I see most likely to fit is a kind of emirates type of political organization. It will not be the first time a country is set up like that -- you do know about the United Arab Emirates, right? So there is a model that can be followed.
Now, do some homework and study the issues rather than regurgitating propaganda point. OK?
You start off seemingly unaware of objective reality, claiming there is no oppression. The West Bank is a classic case of continual oppression since 1967 as has Gaza been from that date and even after the Israelis packed up because of the Israeli's total economic and travel embargo and constant attacks and assassinations.
You do have chutzpah, simply baselessly accusing me of what I accuse you of.. 1400 years ago there were very few Jews in Palestine. But there was a large scale immigration from France. Most Jews had been exiled by the Romans but some remained. There were however many Muslims, many of the remaining Jews had, converted to Islam. The Kingdom of Jerusalem , aka Kingdom of Heaven was was protected by a long front line of crusader castles in the north of Palestine and in Syria and Lebanon protected the settlers. But unlike Israeli Jews, the Crusaders followed the model of the Romans, integrate local peoples, let them keep their religions and gods, focus on integrating them into one economy with equal citizenship rights with the settlers. This actually was the -ORIGINAL ideal of Hertzl's zionism, in the form many Gentile Britons were attracted to it.
When Richard the Lionhearted attacked Acre, he behaved like the IDF in Gaza and as Gallant and Netanyahu urged soldiers of the IDF. Richard slaughtered everyone in the city, and he was heavily criticized by Churchmen, Statesmen, and even his own family Acre was a one-off atrocity until a renegade Raymond started robbing muslim traders and killing them. His example too was one-off. When Netanyahu urges repeating the -Israelite annihilation of the Amaleks and Gallant reinforces him, saying Palestinians are nothing but "human animals", and when hardly a murmur of protest appears among Israeli Jews to condemn the resulting genocide,when no Israelis provide Israeli donations of food to the starving non-combatants, something very different is going on..
That something different is the generic tribal dehumanizaation of other tribes like what the Aryans did in the 1930s, saying that Jews were a foreign, unintegratable element that exploited and economically oppressed the Aryan population. The Nazis said no security could be found for the reunited Germany until the Jews , a Fifth Column, they alleged, were deprived of economic and political rights and re-located. This is currently exactly the discourse in Israel, only in Hebrew, since such talk in English would endanger AIPAC's mission. You would think that the experience of tribal victimhood would makje Jews more sympathetic to the tribe of Palestinians who were dispossessed of their land by Jews.l
I can only hope that you never get a rude awakening, never have to look evil in the eyes like we did throughout our time here, before 1948 and after 1948, and most massively on Oct 7th. Maybe if you do see that evil, you will review what you have written here and see the lies about us that you have swallowed.
The pro Hamas people who want to tear down Alan Dershowitz because he represented Epstein? That’s an emotional crutch, not a rational argument. If you can't separate a lawyer from his client, congratulations—you’ve just obliterated centuries of legal precedent. Ever heard of due process?
Behavioral economics teaches us that people lean on cognitive shortcuts, like ad hominem attacks, when they can’t confront the real issue. You're buying into propaganda techniques designed to sway with emotion rather than facts.
If they’re going to criticize Dershowitz for defending Epstein, where’s the outrage when lawyers defend Hamas members, knowing full well Hamas uses civilians as human shields and has a track record of indiscriminate violence? The hypocrisy is astounding.
The legal system exists to protect everyone—yes, even the morally repugnant. Dershowitz's defense wasn't an endorsement of Epstein's actions, but a defense of the system that protects you from mob rule. The people who think a lawyer defending an unpopular figure makes them evil, let’s burn the whole system down. Oh, and while we’re at it, let's make sure no lawyer ever defends the accused again.
Their logic would have us living in a kangaroo court where accusations equal guilt. Welcome to the tyranny they will unknowingly cheering for. We know where your logic leads, right? To the doorstep of fascism. Once we start punishing lawyers for defending people you don’t like, you’re opening the floodgates for a society where accusations alone are enough to condemn someone—no defense, no trial, no justice. That’s not justice; that’s tyranny with a smile on its face
Hear hear.
The link is incorrect
https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/piers-morgan/why-are-you-stuttering-mohammed-hijab-clashes-with-piers-morgan-over-israelihamas-war/video/04f264c46e66d0a74a9f55f5f853b38c
Professor, thank you for exposing the sickness of the Democrat Party. You are saying, huh? This thing of a man uses emotions, lies and twisting of law to make its point, voila the Democrat Party.
Horrified
Wow!! I seriously think Mr Hijab is schizophrenic. That wasn't a debate. Mr Hijab did massive damage to his reputation and his cause whatever that is.
Unfortunately, I honestly believe that the Muslim Culture and Western Culture are incompatible.
Both are good.
However, the Muslim Culture is not tolerant of LGBTQ, woman's rights,other religions. They are incompatible. Understand DAWA . Read Ayaan Hirsi Ali academic writing.
Where is Klatu and GORT when we really need them?
TRY THIS URL TO GO DIRECTLY TO THE DEBATE. GOOGLE DID NOT DO SO. HAD TO USE DUCK DUCK GO,
https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/piers-morgan/why-are-you-stuttering-mohammed-hijab-clashes-with-piers-morgan-over-israelihamas-war/video/04f264c46e66d0a74a9f55f5f853b38c
Like a bunch of ill tempered kids talking over each other....what a farce. Cut to mike on one or the other. Dersh, you should either get up and walk out or refrain from talking. When confronted with people like Mohammed, I ignore them and do not engage. You are just giving him a platform....let him act the ignorant buffoon. It's like arguing with an insane person, you can't win and it makes you look foolish. Dersh I hope you pursue the lawsuit for defamation.