Be It Resolved

Be It Resolved

Israel and Palestine is a radioactive topic, and I want to be sure I’m hitting it with grace and empathy. So I want to acknowledge before we get into it that I come at this topic with a heavy bias. I am heavily involved with the Jewish community in Toronto and seemingly becoming more and more every week or two. It’s a little comical because I don’t even feel that Jewish - call it imposter syndrome or something similar.

I wasn’t really connected to Israel at all until October 7th. But like so many other Jews, it was an inflection point. There’s a tonne of reasons for this that I won’t get into save one; the turning point for me was really the vigil that was held at Mel Lastman square on October 9th. It was thanksgiving in Canada, and the mood was eerie.

Everyone was still in shock. Israel hadn’t responded yet, and we were all holding our breath waiting for the other shoe to drop. This was the era of maybe Hezbollah will get in the war, or maybe domestic violence would pick up in the west.

That vigil was extremely eye opening. We took the subway from my place in Toronto up towards North York Centre (apologies if that geography is ancient Greek to you). The station was closed for public safety reasons, which is something that ought to be raising some alarm bells by the way. So we overshot and had to walk from Finch down to the square.

It was a 15 minute walk, somber, fear inducing, and surreal. While we were on our way to grieve with the community, we were met with hundreds of people walking and driving past - honking their horns, waving Palestinian flags, and taunting us.

Can you imagine walking to a funeral with your friends, partner, or children and being subjected to this? That moment sticks in my craw and was the inciting incident for me to really seek to make a difference. It woke me up to the scourge of Judaiophobia in our society. It took me 2 years to really think it through and distill the lessons and crystallize my position on the issue of Israel.

Personal experiences like this and the one I wrote about the end of my time in the choir, are what compelled me to feel the way I do.

All that being said, I want to clarify that my position, and practically every Jew I’ve ever met’s position has always been to want peace. We wanted the war to stop and we wanted hostages back when they were still in captivity. We want Hamas gone, and we all want there to eventually be some sort of Palestinian state living side by side in peace and harmony with Israel. .

So as for the resolution: “Be it Resolved, it is in Israel’s national interest to support a two-state solution” I was completely undecided going in. The optimist in me wants to say, “Yes”. The pessimist wants to say “how could it even be possible?”

Walking up to the venue was proof of exactly how difficult it would be. Across from Meridian Hall there were a couple hundred protestors being contained by a large cohort of police.

Saliently, the heightened security did delay the start time of the event. I don’t think the detractors realize though, that this was only in the interests of the Pro-Israel people. Giving 3000 Israel supporters a half hour to mingle and schmooze with nothing else to do. “Don’t threaten us with a good time.” I personally took advantage of the situation and said hello to many friends and important people that I’d like to count as friends.

What sticks out in hindsight is that I felt completely safe the entire time. My fear reaction sort of just dissipated. Partially because the protestors were pathetic, but mainly due to law-enforcement.

Moving on to the debate itself. I would consider myself moderately educated on Israel and Palestine. I have been standing witness to the conflict for my entire life so I’ve got some opinions. Unfortunately, the debate didn’t quite hit the threshold I expected from such vaunted professionals and political operators. They were for the most part making what I would call “level one arguments” - the basics. I expected more nuance and deep thought.

Despite that opinion, I’d still recommend watching the debate. If nothing else it was extremely entertaining and if you don’t know much about the conflict, it will certainly help you understand the basics of Israel’s dilemma.

What stood out most to me was seeing the humanity of such extraordinary people. These are great men and women. They literally have had their hands on the levers of war and policy throughout recent Israeli history. And they were still arguing about this conflict in the exact same way me and my friends, (and my not friends) would at the kitchen table.

They were passionate, and they got heated, and they did not stick to procedure. This was especially entertaining whilst observing poor Rudyard Griffiths. I’m not sure if he’s ever had to deal with so many Israelis at once. It’s a tall task wrangling even one Israeli that agrees with you. So moderating four that disagree with each other is a whole other matter.

To Rudyard’s credit there was a lot going on. Disruptions from protestors, interlocutors going over time, and eventually a full on shouting match that was completely incoherent. It truly reminded me of a family dinner, and that was comforting, even if it didn’t make for great debating.

The Con side emerged victorious, though I thought it was a tie. I suspect that the Munk debate audience is savvy enough to not show their true colours in the polls ahead of time. They also understand that if they flip, it will give off the impression that their side won. So I think Munk needs to redefine how they’re going to judge the winners of these debates. Perhaps a panel who are the official judges, with a separate audience vote.

To each of the debaters’ credit, I thought they all did a great job. All the more impressive given that it was in their second language.

Let’s break it down:

In favour of the two state solution was Ehud Olmert, former Prime Minister of Israel. He did a phenomenal job appealing to the moral side of this problem. He was constantly hammering home points about how it is impractical and immoral to try and have Israel retain control over 6 million Palestinians. He was probably the funniest of the debaters, and it was comical to see him take Rudyards’ seat at one point. His main point was that Israel has never truly tried the two state thing and that they need to try it because doing the same thing over and over is getting them nowhere.

His debate partner was Tzipi Livni - former justice minister of Israel, foreign affairs minister, etc her resume is incredible. Of all the debaters she was the most stately and the most effective. I believe the technical term is a “bad ass bitch”. I found her most impressive of the four and her arguments compelling. Her arguments were for the most part political in nature. When things got scrappy in the middle section especially, she excelled. Although I didn’t always agree with what she was saying, I actually just found myself wanting to support her. She’d have my vote for whatever it was she was running for. What I appreciated about her argument is that she was passionate about a two state solution being the best thing for Israel. She was unabashed in focusing on the Israeli perspective and paying less heed to the Palestinians, but she firmly believed that getting on with it, and having the divorce was the only path forward.

For me, this is fundamentally the most compelling argument in 2025 for a two state solution to happen soon. The inevitability of having a Palestinian state as the only path forward.

Arguing against the resolution was former minister of the interior of Israel, Ayelet Shaked (or as a flustered Rudyard kept saying, Aleyet). I actually found her to be the most human out of the bunch. I believe she captured the current state of mind and feelings of most Israeli citizens. In other words, she was arguing with the essence of the people who are actually there on the ground. For her, this issue is fundamentally about security. Given that, there is therefore no path to a Palestinian state at this time.

Beyond security, she focused on how historically speaking, every time Israel offers up anything to the Palestinians, it backfires for Israel. Her key narrative that withdrawing from Gaza created the conditions for Hamas to thrive was compelling. For a quick minor history lesson, Israel had military control of Gaza and withdrew in 2005. Ayelet argued that this withdrawal provided a vacuum and allowed Hamas to take control. She also pointed out the fact that the President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas is currently in year nineteen of his four year term. He refuses to have elections and it’s rather comical that our Prime Minister took Abbas’s word on having elections as an I owe you before Canada recognized the state of Palestine earlier this year. But I digress..

Finally, we had Michael Oren arguing against the motion. He is the former Israeli ambassador to the United States from Israel. He had the aura of an American politician in his manner of speech. Michael had two particularly stand out arguments. The first was the cyclical nature to Israel’s popularity in the world. He argued that Israel has never really been popular. He echoed the Golda Meir philosophy that Israelis would rather be hated and alive than the alternative.

He also raised a point that we may be looking at this problem the wrong way. He contended that we are pidgeonholed into a false dichotomy. I.e. it’s either two states or not. Israel and Palestine or the status quo; an eternity of conflict. He argued that there is nuance here and that there are opportunities for other options if we can think outside the box.

Take a listen or watch the debate and you can decide for yourself who won. In the end though, it was a great experience. It was a serious win for the Munk debates. The evening served as a beacon of hope for actual discourse in western society. It was also just nice to be in a room full of people that accepted Israel’s right to exist.

If I were to judge, I would call it a tie. There were certainly no expert strokes or masterful zingers. I think I expected a bit too much given that I know so much about the topic. But it was a win for democracy. It was a win for Toronto. It was a win for Canada. Perhaps it was even a win for Israel.

if only our populace could rediscover its sanity and contribute to discussion instead of screaming and being disruptive.

My personal opinion is that although I support a two state solution, now is not the time for it to be implemented. October 7th changed my mind.

We will get there eventually, but you cannot reward Hamas’s barbarity with positive political outcomes. In other words, if your two-year-old is throwing a temper tantrum - you don’t reward that behaviour with the iPad they’re asking for. It just makes them realize they can achieve their goals by doing it again. Incentive structures work after all. If October 7th directly or indirectly led to a state of Palestine being formed, it simply encourages future actors to follow Hamas’s example.

My solution if you’re interested in hearing it would be to start very very small. Find a small group of two thousand Palestinian partners in the region who are willing to work with Israel under a certain set of conditions. You make those conditions extremely clear, and you make the consequences of reneging on the deal extremely clear. You make the deal publicly, and you have everyone sign onto it.

The idea is to give those people a tiny segment of Gaza or the West Bank and allow them to ostensibly rule themselves. If they break one of the fundamental rules ie, they try to start a military - then you reprimand them and take their autonomy away.

My lived experience is that there is a practical way of solving complex problems: to start where you are, and iterate from there. Right now, we are at nothing - so let’s not be pollyannaish about the future. Let’s shrink the problem, find a tiny amount of willing partners and let them be the model citizens for what the area can look like. Apparently, they tried this with Gaza and it went very wrong. But my solution is on a much smaller scale and with a much more heavily involved Israel in the mix. You could even try it with a bunch of Israel Arabs who might be willing to run the experiment. You provide proof of concept, then you clone or expand the experiment when it is successful.

I know this isn’t a perfect solution. But it’s something and I think most importantly it’s something that Israelis might actually be on board with, albeit with a heavy amount of skepticism. It would be difficult to find willing Palestinians, but I won’t give up hope. Hamas and the PA would try and kibosh it - but you if you go back to the two year-old throwing the temper tantrum example. You give those bad actors a timeout, put them in the corner- and then they get to observe and be jealous of their friend who uses their words and manners. The friend who cooperated with the teacher and now gets to play with the toy truck.

Now I don’t mean to infantilize Palestinians, but I think it hits at the core of human nature to be looking at things this way. Incentive structures work, and when you reward people for behaving in a way you want them to behave - you move them towards your goals.

I operate under the assumption that there is a critical mass of Palestinians that want peace. If that doesn’t exist, then two states are impossible. So let’s operate under the assumption that:

A) Some significant amount of Palestinians want to live in peace and harmony with Israel .

And

B) Israelis currently have all the power, and they don’t trust the Palestinians (with good reason).

So how do you build trust? You start as small as possible. Give them only as much as you’re comfortable giving them. Maybe that’s one city block, a neighbourhood, or a little town.

But you have to give it to them, and you give them the opportunity to prove you wrong. And you have to do this again and again. You have to keep trying or we really will be doomed to continue to make those mistakes. I am an optimist at my core, and I think that humanity will win out eventually. It might not be for 50 years, but we’ll get there. So don’t lose hope.

At accordingto.ca, We Believe in Rebuilding the Missing Middle.

If you believe in what we’re doing:

Subscribe. It’s free, and it tells us you’re with us.

Share. If something moves you, pass it on. Help us grow.

Contribute. Know someone who should be writing for us? Tell them. Or tell us.

We’re building something here. And we can’t do it alone.