Beinart & Ibish debate Stephens & Boteach

Columbia’s School of International Relations hosted a debate last week pitting liberals Peter Beinart and Hussein Ibish against conservatives Brett Stephens and Shmuley Boteach on whether Israel’s policies are justified. I felt that Beinart was effective in making the case for Israel needing to withdraw from many settlements, including the long intrusive salient that culminates in the small city of Ariel, in order to make a two-state solution viable; he was also correct in characterizing Stephens and Boteach as engaging in diversionary arguments, and that Boteach argued in an ad hominem fashion (and, I’d add, with a very minimal grasp of facts). I’ll comment on Ibish and Stephens below this video of the entire debate, which begins (unfortunately) with a virtually unintelligible intro by a student: Stephens, a former editor-in-chief of who currently works for , was a more polished debater than Boteach. He is correct in noting that the Palestinians’ failures in governance, including their not engaging in scheduled elections (among other things) damage their case for sovereignty; I support it anyway (mostly for Israel’s sake), but these problems — not to mention Palestinian attacks on Green Line Israel — make it more difficult to convince most Israelis of their readiness for peaceful coexistence. And, if I recall correctly, Beinart did respond that the unilateral nature of the Gaza withdrawal, purposely avoiding any negotiation with the Palestinian Authority, helped set up this situation. I don’t recall if he argued this point as effectively as Yossi Beilin has, that Sharon handed a victory by seeming to reward their advocacy of “armed struggle” rather than the Fatah/Palestine Authority strategy of negotiations.

Stephens was seemingly effective in using the peaceful borders of the U.S. and Canada as a model counterpoint to the violence between Israel and the Palestinian territories. But if Israel has to wait for the Palestinians to become like Canadians, it’s a perfect excuse for never making a deal; even the Canadians were not peaceful neighbors in the early years of United States history, with the U.S. coming to blows along that border during the War of 1812 and for a few years after until settling the boundary with Maine. Conservatives rarely forgive or forget historical conflicts; we should take them seriously, but also cultivate changing the circumstances which engendered those conflicts.

I have enormous respect for Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine, a longtime ally of the pro-Israel/pro-peace camp of which we are a part. (Click here for his “Surrounded by fanatics,” a marvelous essay on rhetorical extremism from both sides.) But I think he argued for an overly conventional application of international law regarding the Gaza Strip. Although it’s clear that Sharon messed up the Gaza withdrawal by not negotiating — or at least not coordinating — with the PA, the UN proves that international law is not always very meaningful in declaring Gaza to still be occupied (I believe, on the technical grounds that it is categorized as a single legal entity with the West Bank).