The Israel-Palestine debate sponsored by Peace Project went smoothly Thursday night, after days of misunderstandings about which groups would be representing each side.
Before an audience of about 120 people in the Louis Room, two pro-Israel and two pro-Palestinian panelists laid out arguments regarding the U.S. policy toward Israel. The participants replied to four prepared questions, then responded to the audience during a 25-minute open session.
Though pro-Palestinian speaker Hisham Zaid has served on the executive board of the Arab Cultural Society, the three other panelists said they have no involvement with student groups who could be biased toward one side.
Debating the nature of U.S. involvement in Israel, Zaid, a McCormick senior, said the support was “biased and unconditional.”
Joshua Elder, a Daily columnist representing the Israeli side, disagreed and said the United States gives Israel only moral support.
“We have a duty and obligation to support the only democracy in that region,” said Elder, a Speech senior. “If we don’t, we’re going to see suicide bombers in Times Square.”
When the pro-Israeli debators attempted to justify Israel’s right to invade Jenin, Asher Haig, Zaid’s pro-Palestinian partner, said their arguments were “eerily reminiscent” of how Israel justifies its actions.
“A specific rhetoric of terrorism has been constructed in both Israel and the U.S. to justify any military action they take,” Haig said. “This double standard of terrorism is what allows violence to continue.”
Haig and Zaid said Yasser Arafat does not control the “terrorist groups” and is doing everything in his power to communicate with them.
Elder strongly disagreed, claiming that Arafat has been projecting himself as a martyr.
“Arafat is a terrorist,” Elder said. “There cannot be any negotiations with Arafat or anyone like him.”
But in decrying U.S. foreign policy, Haig said Palestinians have no political voice, making terrorism inevitable as a political outcome.
“Israel is functionally an anti-Semitic state,”said Haig, creating a buzz in the audience.
Despite heated exchanges, the event went off without a hitch considering the confusion that hampered its scheduling.
The debate, scheduled to occur last week, was pushed back to accommodate Students for Israel representatives. But Jonathan Powell, the group’s president, said they decided not to participate because they felt the odds would be against them and that past events yielded “disrespectful behavior.”
“Dialogue needs to happen privately (between groups) before we can publicly debate,” said Powell, a Weinberg freshman.
Further confusion arose when a Students for Israel member, Education freshman Josh Kirschenbaum, decided he wanted to represent the pro-Israeli side individually, not as a group representative.
Debate organizer Naureen Shah tried to accommodate him, but the pro-Palestine team did not agree to the last-minute change.
“I had my heart invested in supporting Israel,” an emotionally charged Kirschenbaum said.
Shah said she was glad that there were no similar outbursts during the event.
“Events like this have the potential to be dangerous,” she said. “This event is a testament that people at NU are interested in hearing ideas and not shouting each other down.”
