The motion “This house supports a two-state solution for Israel-Palestine” was defeated at a College Historical Society (Hist) debate earlier this month, with the majority of attendees voting in favour of the opposing argument.
Guests invited to the debate included Beirut-based journalist Hannah McCarthy, who spoke for the proposition, as well as Trinity assistant professor David Landy and Lebanese researcher Dr Elia Ayoub speaking for the opposition.
Opening the debate for the proposition, Rehan Haneef argued that building a unified state would not end the war and would instead result in endless war and more involvement from Western powers. He added that a two-state solution would preserve both Israeli and Palestinian identities, allowing both groups to build their own idea of a nation without external influence.
Speaking for the proposition, Hannah McCarthy highlighted the importance of recognising the Israeli demographic when considering a one-state solution and said that although there is support for a two-state model, it is still not known what such a model would look like.
Kay Williams, the third proposition speaker said “a lasting end to the genocide can only come from a two-state solution”.
She argued that a two-state solution is the more achievable outcome and is more likely to be implemented by the United Nations.
Concluding the proposition’s argument, Ziyad Anwer echoed this sentiment, saying that the opposition “defend the utopian world while we have to defend the realistic one”.
He also highlighted the need for more international pressure on Israel.
Hamza Assaf, the first opposition speaker argued that a one-state solution is the only option and questioned the rationale behind zionism: “Even though your God has given you this land, my God hasn’t.”
The second opposition speaker, Dr. Elia Ayoub began his speech by saying that “the side that supports the motion has a morality problem”.
Dr. Ayoub argued that we already live with a one-state solution and that the focus should be on how the international community can transform the state into one where everyone is equal under the law regardless of religion. Concluding his speach, he said that “only peace will set us free”.
The debate concluded with David Landy speaking for the opposition. He said that he was not advocating for a one-state solution because there already is one and argued that we need to do what “is being asked for by Palestinians” and that there is no future for Palestinians in the two-state solution.
He urged attendees to see that the debate surrounding various solutions is “an alibi for not only inaction [but also] for supporting whitewashing the genocide”.
The debate concluded with a winning opposition.
The Hist provided a QR code at the back of their voting sheets to encourage students to donate to Palestinian.
