What a good idea. Two people who can discuss their differences of opinion, not interrupt each other and not raise their voices. No matter which side you agree with, it's heartening to hear people disagree in a civilized manner.

Great idea, but I don't understand why we only are offered the "highlights" which as edited usually means we didn't see any real debate. Usually when the most provacative comments were made instead of the immediate response we got cuts to other comments not the responses. I would encourage the DB to offer the "uncut" feeds, at least as an opinion for those who want them...

I'm not a fan of the NYT's "bloggingheads" mostly because I don't like the side-by-side format of these debates. But I'm glad to see the Beast trying this in any case (you guys can't get a cameraman and two chairs together?)

In any case, I was disappointed to see how this was edited. The pleasure of watching a decent debate is seeing one side press the other for an answer on tough questions--of which there are many in this thorny issue. Case in point: Reza's assertion about the "larger question," that Israel is hitting civilian targets, is side-stepped. Thank you, Steve, for your sympathy for the Palestinians, but yes or no--is Israel targeting civilians, why or why not, and what are the larger implications of that? Similarly, Reza admits Hamas are instigators, but that they were voted in because Fatah wasn't delivering anything to their voters. That's true--but no matter who is in power, how is Israel supposed to react to missiles coming over its border? (with prudence, one would hope)

I'm not sure I took more away from this discussion than I did from reading both their eloquently written columns. Perhaps a scheduled online chat would be a better medium--one we could scroll through and read afterwards?

I have to say I'm not feeling much sympathy for either side at this point. Supporters of Israel and Palestine seem obsessed with pointing fingers rather than taking a step back and admitting their own mistakes. That said, it was time for Israel to stop bombing Gaza days ago.

Aslan is not very articulate for an on air commentator/pundit.

Bravo to both of you for the manner in which you discussed this fraught topic. Let's hear more, soon.

What is a terrorrist group? Mr. Emerson that was great. You just defined what a terrorist organization or group is and Israel fits that definition perfectly. They have been killing innocent civilians for sixty years. They are a lot older than Hamas I guess. If Hamas has been responsible for thousands of Israeli deaths and casualties since the 1987, then Israel must take the lead as the worst kind of terrorists! They have killed and injured thousands of innocent civilians just in the past 13 days.
Perhaps Hamas dreams of the destruction of the state of Israel. As for the Israelis, they have gone far beyond dreaming. They are making their dream come true. They are targeting children, women, basically any breathing Palestinian in sight.
You said it Mr. Emerson, "you can't negotiate with someone who wants your destruction." It goes both ways you see!

Stop the discussion! Tell Israel to STOP AND GET OUT

kchan212--I dont't think I've seen anyone look polished during a heated discussion, as opposed to delivering a quick hit on a moderated news show. But that's what I do like about the potential of a debate like this. So long as things don't devolve into yelling and badgering, a little lack of polish keeps the discussion lively and interesting.

And in any case, I think he was just as articulate as Emerson.

Dear Mr. Aslan,
As complex and thorny as is the dispute between Palestine and Israel, I still have an inclination to side with the Israelis on the whole. Here is an insight into why I feel that way. In a local coffee shop, I recently had a long conversation with a well-educated, Iranian-born urologist who practices medicine in a nearby state. During this talk, he actually tried to illustrate the difference between Muslim and non-Muslim behavior by offering the following example to me (completely straight-faced, and without any irony) as an argument for the inherent decency of the Muslims as compared to that of non- Muslims. He had taken his two (American-born) daughters, along with his wife and extended family, to the Middle East a couple of years ago to make the pilgrimage to Mecca. He pointed out that he could observe the peaceful procession of millions of the faithful outside of his expensive hotel window. No riots;no robbery.They all comported themselves with decency. He then contrasted this with the barbarous behavior of the people DURING HURRICANE KATRINA!! As if these were comparable gatherings of human beings. I was shocked that an otherwise well-educated person could draw the parallels he had between the two situations. It left me very disheartened. And it just illustrated to me how difficult it is to separate a man's religious dogma and his cultural beliefs from his willingness to question or to submit to Reason itself. Here he was, comfortably earning a living in this country of Infidels, with daughters who wore pants to school and whose freedom from whipping or stoning was guaranteed here--yet he still managed to tell me (and make no mistake, he was doing just that) that Muslims were superior beings, and that it is the duty of a Muslim never to criticize other Muslims. How on earth can we progress to peace and decency in the modern world if this free man couldn't find any fault with ANY manner of Islam as it is practiced today?--Suicide bomber or humble supplicant--they were all equally deserving of loyalty in his eyes, and above reproach or question, because what united them was their being Muslim? This sort of blind allegiance will surely be our poison in the end--no matter what we worship.
(And I must point out here that within minutes of the brokered cease fire to allow for aid delivery, it was Hamas who lobbed that first rocket. This makes it difficult to maintain sympathy for Hamas, despite my feeling that Israel is being heavy-handed here.)
If I can't reason with a well-to-do physician here in the States in a place as benign as a coffee shop, I can't find much hope for the fate of talks between the more heated parties involved in the Middle East.

I thought this article was going to be a debate between the spiritual theories of Ralph Waldo Emerson and Aslan the lion.

I'm disappointed.

I really enjoy hearing Reza Aslan's thoughts on these issues of peace, war and everything in between. I thought he was very articulate in this video. I want to see more of these discussions!

Any group of people who brainwashes their own children to "spread their blood" by blowing themselves up and killing others in the process are terrorists.

Hamas dont brainwash anyone.
the kids grew up seeing their friends, brothers, sisters, uncles, parents died because of the israelis aggression.
it's a no brainer that they grew up hating the jews and want to kill them all..
Saw this is one of the National Geoghrapic documentary where some kids were interviewed and they said that they want to be suicide bombers.
Don't blame Hamas.

Nice debate...but why edit? Let it play out

I see two sick societies trying to dominate the other. I resent my country taking sides with one over the other. It is none of our (USA) business.

Though our culture is more closely connected to the Jewish way of living, it isn't right to choose sides here.

From Sunday School, through main stream media, through political debate, we are told Israel is good. This is a learned bias from childhood. I do not think this country can possibly be an impartial observer. We definately should not be supplying the money and weapons to aid the continuation of this disaster.

Mr Emerson -- check your facts. Israel has not withdrawn from any settlements in the West Bank (though they do infrequently dismantle outposts). In fact, settlements are growing significantly in population and area. The E-1 area east of Jerusalem is one notably large geographic expansion of settlement activity. And Israel most definitely does not provide training or weapons to any PA security force.

Sorry, a correction: Israel did withdraw from a few insignificant settlements in the West Bank over the past several years. Yet the meantime the total population of settlers in the West Bank grew from about 140,000 in 1996 to 260,000 in 2006. Over the past year they built about 2,600 new housing units in settlements in the West Bank. That is hardly in keeping with their Road Map commitments to either the PA or the US. Combined with their policies to encourage Palestinian emigration, this has the hallmarks of an attempt at ethnic cleansing.

The largest issue we Americans can't grasp is the depth of ethnic hate between these two. We couldn't get it about Northern Ireland and we couldn't get it in the old Yugoslavia before the breakup. Unless you've been raised over there, it's impossible to understand. As several have said here, I believe we are somewhat propagandized here to the Israeli side, but just objectively looking at the what is going on there right now is enough to make anyone seriously consider our blanket support for one side over the other. Killing and murder are killing and murder no matter how well spun.

This user is no longer registered.

The people in Gaza voted for Hamas knowing it was dedicated to destroying Israel - i.e. killing civilians indiscriminately with thousands of rockets. In fact, they voted for war and Israel showed massive restraint in responding Of course the brave Hamas hid among the civilians =- in fact, they hold the civilians hostage to their radical agenda.

There is a difference between targeting civilians and civilian casualties. Israel's foes situate military operations near schools hospitals and mosques to ensure the latter for PR purposes. The symbol for Israel is the "Mogen David" literally the shield of David. What is Hamas' symbol, the human shield?

I do support Israel. However, I do not think that the MSM is giving us the whole story. We are only getting one side. Is it true that Israel is blocking 3 different areas for them to get supplies even before the lasted flash point? I don't like to see children killed no matter which side it is. This is not right and it should stop. The US should stop this if they have any power to do so. Hamas should stop sending bombs over also.

One could question if the best possible understanding of the diplomatic challenges involved in the conflict can be reached through a debate between two people who, however knowledgeable, are, so obviously, emotionally invested in the issues that they can not discuss them without becoming palpably aroused to thinly-veiled irritation and exasperation.

On the one hand, there isn't enough to be gained by labelling one side or the other "terrorist." A word in any case means whatever anybody says it means. On the other hand, for example, the thought that Hamas would stop violence if only there were no Israeli settlements in the West Bank, or if only this, or if only that, ignores that the Hamas charter states that Israel shall exist until Islam destroys it.

Taking sides in an inflamed way, as if you were going to persuade the debate opponent to be inflamed for the same reasons you are, is pointless.

I have no idea of what realistically could bring about peace between these warring parties. In my view, the historic, religion-based "us vs. them" mentality is absurd. I would have both sides drop all attachments to religion, and to the supposed religious, "holy" significance of this or that patch of land and/or this or that structure.

If the conflict is to be permanently resolved . . as the conflict between the Axis and the Allies was permanently resolved, or as the conflict between East Germany as a communist state and West Germany as a free market state was permanently resolved, there must be bold new proposals and people on both sides motivated to accept them. Picking up the same old arguments, beating the dead horse into the ground, will definitely be fruitless.

Steve, you need to let Mr. Aslan get a word in edgewise. You basically monologued this "debate" and invalidated the give-and-take aspect. I know you're passionate, but I felt that he was very polite and rather than interrupting, he waited for you to finish and you seized that opportunity to go on and on. In fact, it became sort of funny at the end where, after a one-sided speech, you just ended it without even giving him a chance to talk at all! In future debates, please tmie your responses to be mroe even-handed. He is being courteous to let you finish --- but you never finish! Just because you speak more words does not mean you've carried the debate.

That is the problem here BOTH sides are right and BOTH sides are wrong. So continually debating the morals of the issue is moot. Both sides need to see past the past and just look at implementing solutions.