Should Israel support a two-state solution? The Munk Debates prove open discussion is still possible

Inside, the atmosphere shifted. All four debaters were Israeli, and they spoke with the urgency of people who debate policy in the morning and live under its shadow by nightfall. Passion filled the hall, though even the most heated moments produced brief interludes of comic relief as moderator (and Hub co-founder) Rudyard Griffiths worked hard to keep time, hold the topic, and preserve the ancient custom of letting one person speak before the next. Time limits wobbled, topics strayed, and speaking turns dissolved into overlapping exchanges, a brief touch of levity within a discussion carried by earnest conviction. Ehud Olmert (mayor of Jerusalem from 1993 to 2003 and prime minister of Israel from 2006 to 2009) and Tzipi Livni (former foreign minister of Israel, vice prime minister, minister of justice, and leader of the Opposition) argued that Israel has no secure future without a negotiated political settlement. Their case rested on the idea that the alternative to a two-state agreement is the status quo, and the status quo cannot hold. Changing demographics, international pressure, and unending cycles of conflict would erode Israel’s position over time. To them, the two-state solution was not a romantic vision but a practical recognition that unmanaged reality is more dangerous than imperfect compromise. Israel cannot live indefinitely by the sword, and statecraft is the art of replacing drift with direction. Michael Oren (former Israeli ambassador to the U.S., member of the Knesset, and deputy minister of diplomacy in the Prime Minister’s Office) and Ayelet Shaked (Israeli politician and activist and former minister of the interior, minister of justice, and member of the security cabinet) took the opposite view and grounded their argument in security, sovereignty, and recent diplomatic history. They noted that the Abraham Accords, along with ongoing discussions with Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states, have already exposed a long-standing misconception: the idea that Palestinian statehood must precede regional normalization. The region has shown otherwise. In their view, Israel’s strategic landscape is improving without concessions that would place hostile forces closer to its population centres. For them, peace cannot be built on the hope of one side alone. No agreement can survive if it rests on promises that collapse the moment they are tested. The pre-debate poll showed a strong majority in favour of the motion. By the end of the evening, that majority had shrunk to a narrow lead. The anti-two-state side had clearly moved the room; 33 percent were in favour of this side to start, yet by the debate’s close, that number had jumped to 46 percent. Polling swings can reflect many things, but it was difficult to ignore the symmetry between the arguments inside and the atmosphere outside. Attendees had just walked past a crowd intent on denying them the simple act of gathering. When a debate in Toronto requires a significant police presence because agitators reject the idea that Israelis should speak at all, it becomes harder to believe that their counterparts in the region will accept Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. The implication lingered even when no one said it aloud. This was not the intended message of the protestors, but it was the message many heard. Sometimes the loudest voices strengthen the argument they seek to silence. The debate was thoughtful and substantive, and it succeeded because the organizers, security staff, and police insisted that it would happen in full. They protected the simple but precious space where ideas can contend without fear. Such spaces are disappearing in Canada. Our civic life no longer produces many rooms where strong arguments are met with stronger arguments instead of threats. The Munk Debates remain one of the few. They show that the fight worth having is not the one in the street, but the one on the stage, where conviction meets reason, and the best idea wins.