Students debate Israel issues

CYNTHIA RAMSAY

The topics were controversial and the nervousness palpable, but the mood was festive at the Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver High School Debates that took place at King David High School.

Organized by Federation’s Israel affairs department and presented in partnership with KDHS, there were several sponsors, volunteers, moderators, timekeepers and judges. The debaters came mainly from KDHS, but there were several teams from Pacific Torah Institute, one from Shalhevet girls yeshiva and one from York House, as well as a team comprised of Torah High students and one representing Camp Miriam. Add to this mix parents, grandparents and non-debating friends, and KDHS was packed on March 10.

From the debates the Jewish Independent visited, most of the contests were very close and could have gone either way. It was apparent that the students put in a lot of work, using various articles and online sources, and quoting from studies, world leaders and scholars to support their arguments. Most of them enjoyed the process, with one student remarking that she had learned so much while preparing that the outcome wasn’t that important.

Each level of debaters faced a different a resolution. For the junior teams, it was “Be it resolved that the security fences in parts of the West Bank should be removed.”

The Grade 8 groups for the resolution put forward arguments concerning the increased suffering of innocent people because of the wall; that the division creates an apartheid-like system; that the wall runs counter to parts of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights; and that the money spent to build and sustain the wall could be used for health, education, the water crisis and other issues. The main arguments to retain the wall focused on its temporary and flexible nature as a measure that Israel has only taken in order to protect its citizens, and which has successfully reduced terror attacks.

The Grade 9/10 teams debated: “Be it resolved that Israel should bomb or otherwise disable Iran’s nuclear facilities.”

On the pro side, it was argued that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad not only speaks bigotry, but follows through and, with his sponsorship of terrorism has shown that “the destruction of the Jewish state isn’t just an empty promise.” They noted TV shows teaching Iranian children that Israel and the West are evil, and that to sacrifice life and limb to destroy either is encouraged. They said that, if Iran wanted to use nuclear reactors for peaceful purposes, it wouldn’t be so secretive and that, to date, sanctions, diplomacy and the UN have not succeeded in restraining Iran’s nuclear program. The world hasn’t protected Jews in the past, and they won’t do so now either, so Israel must act, the debaters contended.

Among the arguments against the resolution were Israel’s imperfect intelligence about Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Debaters pointed to the American invasion of Iraq and the continuing war there, with hundreds of thousands of documented civilian deaths in addition to thousands of military personnel deaths: “This is a result of entering a war that you are not a hundred percent sure is necessary.” The con side questioned whether Israel even could disable Iran’s nuclear capabilities because of the secrecy of locations, many of which are deep underground, and that an Israeli attack could lead to all-out war in the region. They suggested non-military options, such as “Israel and other countries could also supply Iran with small pre-prepared uranium rods that do not contain enough power to develop a nuclear weapon but enough to supply electricity.”

The Grade 11/12 teams were given the resolution: “Be it resolved that Israeli military personnel should be compelled to follow orders to remove settlers when ordered to do so.”

Arguments for military discipline included that the army’s purpose is to protect the country as a whole and that the settlers are a subset of the larger issue of Israel’s security, “so if that were to be solved they could focus on the entirety of peace and go towards other problems that are also plaguing Israel.” Given the tensions in the Middle East, one team argued, “If Israel had no army, we would have no Israel.” The army needs to be a united force to operate effectively, teams argued, and the only instance in which soldiers should not do as they’re told is if the action would be a crime against humanity, and the removal of settlers doesn’t fall into this category.

As for why police weren’t doing the evacuations, one pro team noted that there aren’t enough police and that the police aren’t well suited to dealing with such issues. The con side remarked that an army should protect its citizens, not carry an offensive against them, and that the police should be properly trained to deal with internal conflicts. They noted that the removal of settlers from Gaza caused an irreparable rift in Israeli society and that their removal has not led to peace or a more secure situation. Forcing soldiers to act against their personal moral code is dangerous for morale, as well as the stability of the army, they argued.

Once the debates were over, all the participants and guests gathered together for the award ceremony. Friends who had just debated against each other cheered at each announcement, whether they had won or lost.

^TOP