The Munk Debates Podcast - Be it resolved, it is in Israel’s interest to support a two-state solution

Episode Date: July 6, 2026

This special episode features the full Munk Debate on the Two-State Solution, held before a live audience of 3,000 at Toronto's Meridian Hall in December 2025.The debate resolution was: Be it resolved, it is in Israel’s interest to support a two-state solutionArguing in favour of the resolution was former Israeli prime minister, finance minister, and mayor of Jerusalem, Ehud Olmert. His debate partner was Tzipi Livni, who served as Israel's justice and foreign minister and the country's chief peace negotiator in 2008 and 2014. Arguing against the resolution was the celebrated historian, former Israeli ambassador to the United States and deputy minister in the Prime Minister's Office, Michael Oren. His debate partner was Ayelet Shaked, who most recently served as Israel's justice minister and minister of the interior.Become a Munk Donor ($50 annually) to get 72-hour advanced access to the full length editions of Friday Focus and Munk Dialogues. Go to www.munkdebates.com to sign up. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What we hope is that hope for something that has never happened before, that can change lives for everyone. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Because I support, I do support the two-state solution because I care deeply about one state, my state, the state of Israel. now the Palestinians do not want a two-state solution. They cannot sustain a state, and if they could, it would not be a peaceful state, but a launch pad for war. Do not opt for the surgery that kills the patient. On this episode, for the first time on our podcast feed, we're bringing you the full monk debate on a two-state solution. This took place this past December in front of a packed audience for 3,000 people at Toronto's Meridian Hall. Despite significant,

controversy surrounding the event, including protesters outside the venue and a few disruptions inside the hall, we successfully convened an important spirited debate featuring four compelling voices. The debate resolution, be it resolved. It's in Israel's interest to support a two-state solution. Arguing in favor of the resolution was the former Israeli prime minister, finance minister, and mayor of Jerusalem, Ehud Olmert. His debate partner was Sipid Livni, who served as Israel's justice and foreign affairs minister and as the country's chief peace negotiator in the 2008 and 2014 Palestine-Israel talks. Arguing against the motion was the celebrated historian, former Israeli ambassador to the United States, and deputy minister in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's

office, Michael Oren. His debate partner was Ayala Chakhet, who most recently served as Israel's Justice Minister and Minister of the Interior. As with all our live Monk debates, the audience voted on the resolution prior to the debate. Initially, 67% of attendees were in favor, 33% opposed. We did another poll at the end of the evening to find out if people had changed their minds. Before we give you those results, though, let's join the debate in progress with Ehudah Omar and his opening statement in favor of the motion. Be it resolved. It's in Israel's interest to support.

a two-state solution. The war in Gaza was unavoidable the result of a very barbaric, horrific, murderous attack against innocent Israeli civilians, not against army, not against army installations, against civilians in their homes, in the living rooms, in the bedrooms, in a most brutal manner in modern history.

Over a thousand Israelis were massacred. Israel had to react. There was no way that Israel would not reach out for the murderers, for the leaders of Hamas. At a time that it started, there was a universal solidarity and support, starting with President Biden, Prime Minister Sonak from Great Britain,

President Macron, Chancellor Schultz, everyone. They all understood that Israel had to reach out. And indeed, we eliminated most of the leaders of Hamas. We destroyed the tunnels. We destroyed the bunkers. We destroyed the launchers. We destroyed their rockets.

And we destroyed many of the important leaders. And we defeated Hamas. Now we are more than two years after those days. And there is no question. that Israel won that war. We achieved most of what can be achieved by a military operation. We destroyed the Hamas, we destroyed everything. This is the time when you have to ask ourselves,

okay, what do we take it from here? Where do we take it from here? Where do we go? Okay. Let's suppose that we would have killed every one of the Hamas leaders. Still, there are six million Palestinians, more than three in the West Bank, and more than two in Gaza. What is the vision for the future?

I believe that Israel was left with two basic options. One is to carry on the same status quo which existed for many years. War, terror, confrontation, suicidal attacks in the streets of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv and other parts of the country, Israeli reaction. And this is going on. Those who believe that we have to keep the status quo basically think that Israel has to have a complete military control over the territories everywhere, in Gaza and in the West Bank in every place. in every place. We ignore the fact that for the last 60 years this is precisely what we were doing. Did it stop terror? Did it provide more security for the people of Israel? Did it change something within the Palestinians to encourage some, some, few to change the attitude?

Or perhaps it did the opposite? Those who believe that we have to stick to the present status quo, basically what they offer us is more of the same. Keep on, going on, more. Blood, terror, killing. The alternative is to embark on a serious political dialogue. In order to achieve a comprehensive peace solution that will end once and for all the historic conflict

between Israel and the Palestinians. There is only one way to do it that at the end of such a process, the Palestinians will be allowed to establish their own independent sovereign state on the basis of 67s with some modifications in the Arab side of Jerusalem as the capital. This is what

I negotiated with them at the time that I was my minister with my right-hand person at that time the Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Miss Livney with my partner tonight also. Now, there are quite a few people that say to me, but look what happened.

You proposed to them, and they didn't sign. One must understand, they didn't sign, they made an historic error that is unforegotten, and unforgiven. But when I propose a Palestinian state, I propose it not because of them. Because I think that this is what's good for Israel, not for them necessarily. It has to be good for them if they will have to be part of it. But first and foremost, I propose it because this is what is good for Israel. And we have to remember, it's the beginning is a Palestinian

state. But the Palestinian state is the basis upon which a regional new setup is going to be built with agreements with Saudi Arabia, with Indonesia, with North Africa countries, a whole change, a dramatic change of setup that will make Israel friendly with the majority of the Muslims and the Arab countries in the world.

First time in the history of the state of Israel that not all of the Arab and Muslim world will be totally committed to destroy the state of Israel. of Israel, but rather dramatically change. Everything can happen. It will have to start with a political solution for the historic conflict between us and the Palestinians. And there can be no other solution.

There are all kinds of ideas that are floating in the air. But a solution that will establish a new process that will allow the Palestinians to exercise the rise of self-determination and for us to live in an entirely different way, this is the solution. The choice is very simple at the end of the day. One route, continue the fight, the occupation in every part of the West Bank and Gaza, terror, more terror, more Israeli reaction. What we hope is that hope for something that has never happened to the world. before that can change lives for everyone. This is a choice. I'm for a Palestinian state as the

basis for the future. And here you were, sir, worried about the clock and you nailed it to the second. Congratulations. Well done. Up next, arguing against the motion is our first speaker, Ayala Shakette. Good evening, everyone. I'm very happy to be here and I'm glad that I have the opportunity. to explain to you why I and the vast majority of the Israelis opposed the establishment of a Palestinian state, and I hope that I will change your mind. Since biblical times over 3,000 years ago, Israel has been the homeland of the Jewish people.

The Jewish people have historical rights over the land of Israel. Having said that, one can ask, okay, you have historical rights over the land of Israel, but why can't you split it with the Palestinians? So the answer is very simple. We want to live, not to be blown up on a bus or in a restaurant, not to be slaughtered in our beds, not to be raped or butchered in a music festival. Insanity is doing the same thing.

same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Many attributes this quote to Albert Einstein. Well in the late 90s, Hewt Barak committed to establish a Palestinian state. He negotiated with Yasser Arafat. I think you are useful idiots. Useful idiots of a terrorist organization now I'll continue so thank you so our fat refused and launched a terror rave over 1100 people were murdered families children were blown up on buses and in restaurants in 2005 Ariel Sharon carried out the disengagement from Gaza and Ehud Olmer and Cipilivni who was sitting here next to me

they will keep out nose to it. In Gaza stripped, we destroyed all the Israeli settlements. Actually, we withdrew from all the area. Ariel Sharon, Olmerton-L. Livni did ethnic cleansing of Jews from Gaza. In essence, we gave them a state. A year later, Hamas won the election and carried out a military coup. Hamas murdered the Palestinian Authority official, it just threw them out of rooftops

and established a terror state. So they got a state, but what did they do with it? They didn't establish the Singapore of the Middle East, all the dreams of the people back then. They established a terror state, they invest all their money, not in education, not in health, they invest all their money in weapons and tunnels.

IDF soldiers were shocked to discover that in every house in Gaza, in every house, they find missiles and rockets under children rooms, tunnel shafts in living room. A friend of mine find the book Mine Kampf near the bed of one of the Hamas commanders with remarks. They establish a Nazi-like entity. and then they launched a genocidal barbaric attack on Israel. They carried out the great massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. It wasn't just Hamas terrorists who slaughtered and murdered. One of the investigator of October 7 told me that what shocked him the most

was the civilians, civilians, farmers, who just left their homes and fields on Saturday morning and ran to Israel to slaughter Jews. Acts of rape and mutilation were done by civilians. One of the most horrifying testimonies of that day described Hamas members and civilians abusing a young, beautiful girl from the Nova Festival. They cut her breast, torturing her and murdering her.

her. So you can say, okay, this is Gaza, but what's happened in Judean, Samaria, where the Palestinian Authority is the ruler. First, the Palestinian Authority educational system is full of incitement and anti-Semitism. They educate their children to hate Jews. Second, they pay two murderers in the Israeli jail, and if you murder more Jews, you get more money. Third, why haven't there been elections in the Palestinian Authority? Why? Because Abu Mazen knows that Hamas will win. So we must understand, most Palestinian, both in Gaza and in Judea and in Judea and

Samaria, support Hamas, and also the majority of them support October 7 Massacre. It's sad, but it's true. And here is another truth. The Palestinians already have two states, one they had in Gaza and one in Jordan. I don't know if you know, but over 70% of Jordanian population is Palestinians. Even the queen, the queen of Jordan, is a Palestinian. In Judea and Samaria, they manage their civil affairs completely independently. Israel is responsible only for security.

And thanks to the IDF, and thanks to the Israeli government, Abu Mazen is still in power, and the Palestinian Authority is still in power. Without the IDF, and everyone knows that, also them, Hamas would have long carried out a military coup also in Judea and Samaria. And then, the people of Jerusalem would be the victims of the next massacre. So please vote against this resolution. Thank you. Zippy Nible, you are our third speaker. Thank you, Ayelet. I listened to you about this really horrific terror attacks, and I completely

agree, but I do not understand why do you want to live with them forever between the river and the sea when we want to separate ourselves from them. because I support, I do support the two-state solution, because I care deeply about one state, my state, the state of Israel. And I truly, I'm truly worried that the Zionist dream is in danger. I was here for a second, well,

our friend here with such lovely language leaves us for the rest of the evening. evening we're going to credit Zipney with that time so rest be assured your right to free speech here will not be denied so I supported to state solution because I truly care about Israel my state and I believe and I'm worried that the Zionist dream is at risk and my parents fought in the Urugu for the creation of the state of Israel they met in a robbery of a British money train.

They are the first couple that got married in the independent state of Israel. And they truly believe not only in the creation of the state of Israel as a Jewish state, but they believe that it should be all over the land of Israel. But when the United Nations in 1947 decided to partition the land into an Arab and a Jewish state, the Jewish leadership made the tax. Tough decision, but they decided to establish a Jewish democratic state in part of the land, and it was not about the dream of Greater Israel. And we face the same choice today, and we need to make the same decision.

Because if we don't, we are on a slippery slope toward a one-state reality between Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea, with an ender state. conflict, violent, national religious conflict between our two peoples. Now we cannot have both. We cannot have the entire land and the Jewish democratic state because we've tried. Almost 60 years since six days' war, despite its unbelievable achievement, Israel doesn't have recognized borders. We are paying painful price for terrorism. and wars. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict infiltrates into the Israeli society, and it severely damages the relationship between Jews and Israeli Arabs within Israel. We have extremism

that is growing, brutal attacks on Palestinians in Judea and Samaria showing what Israel will look like without a solution. And on top of this, Israel's is losing its international legitimacy. I'm not saying that there is peace around the corner, but we are losing our way and we need to embrace our original national destination. So imagine Israel as a car and we are in a junction and let's put the destination in our GPS, national GPS. Well I prefer ways as an Israeli invention, but you can choose.

So let's put the destination. We don't need to invent it. It's the Declaration of Independence, a secure Jewish democratic state, nation state for the Jewish people with equal rights to all its citizens. And in order to keep these two pillars together, we need to have a Jewish majority. No Jewish state without a Jewish majority, no democracy, without one person, one vote. And therefore, we must stop at the peace station and separate from the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. So two states for two peoples is the right solution because it gives an answer to national

aspiration of different people in two different countries, in two different states, and this should end the conflict. Now trust me, this is not a romantic marriage. It is a realistic divorce splitting the property for the sake of the children, our children. Security is massed. Security is much. So the Palestinians already agreed to a demilitarized state. Israel will finally have recognized borders with the right and capability to defend itself,

including within the future Palestinian state. And you can ask Olmert what we did together when we had a threat from Syria with a nuclear reactor and we bombed it in Syria. And of course when it comes to the international isolation of Israel, this can change and as was said before just by accepting this, embracing this, speaking about this solution, we have normalization with Saudi Arabia, with other Muslim countries in the region and this can change completely and create regional security alliance that we don't have now against Iran and his proxies. Okay but you can ask but what if there is nobody waiting for us in this peace station? Yes I've heard about all the Palestinians leader so maybe you are also back to the car we are stuck in a traffic

gem but we are not changing our destination we are not changing our vision we do not not put obstacles on our ways and therefore we must stop expanding settlements that makes future separation impossible, more difficult and trust me they do not provide security sending civilians to live within and among these Palestinian villages this does not provide security and this is really what you are speaking about security. This is really another destination. And the destination of the Israeli government now, well, they are speaking about security, which is needed. But it is about greater Israel.

It's about separating Israel from its democratic nature. And this is the end of the Zionist dream for a Jewish democratic, secure state. Thank you. Great opening statements, everybody. Our last speaker in this first solver over the debate is Michael Orrin. Thank you. Good evening, everybody. Shalom.

I'm honored to be with you this evening on this crucial monk debate. I'm an Israeli Jew. I'm an Israeli Jew who believes that the land of Israel belongs to the people of Israel. The same right I have to live in Tel Aviv, the same right that Jews have to live in Jerusalem, or in Hebron.

But I also believe that peace is a sacred obligation and that Palestinians also have rights. It was those beliefs that led me to work with the government of Yitzhak Rabin at the beginning of the Oslo peace process, those beliefs that led me to serve as Israel's ambassador to Washington at a time when our government's policy was the two-state solution. And it even helped me shape the Trump peace plan,

which if you know it or not, was a two-state plan. Throughout, I believed that my views were shared by the vast majority of Israelis. But today I joined with that same mass majority of Israelis in opposing the two-state solution, and I'm here to tell you why. Our reasons are three. The Palestinians do not want a two-state solution. The Palestinians cannot run a state, and even if they could, a Palestinian. A Palestinian state will not bring peace to the Middle East,

but more war. Palestinians don't want a two-state solution. In fact, they hold the world record for a people who have turned down offers of a two-state solution. They turned down the offer the British gave them in 1937, that the UN gave them in 1947, that Israel and the United States gave them in 2000, 2001, and in 2002.

And they not just, they only just rejected these offers, They rejected most often with mass violence that killed thousands of people. And the reason for that rejection was never borders, it was never settlements, it was never Jerusalem, that reason was always the same. It was the Palestinian refusal to accept a Jewish state in any borders. According to a recent Palestinian survey, two-thirds of the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza oppose the two-state solution. No, they want a single state from the river to the sea. Listen to what their report. Their supporters are chanting outside.

They don't want no two-state. They want all of 48. To date, there has never been a single Palestinian leader, not a single one, who has recognized the existence of a Jewish people, certainly not recognized. Our right to self-determination are not. Never a single Palestinian leader who has ever said there will be an end of claims, end of conflict, a true peace.

The Palestinians cannot run a state. There's not a shred of evidence to prove that they can. The Palestinian National Movement, from its very beginning, has constantly splintered between Hamas, between Fatah, between innumerable factions that often fought each other more viciously than they fought Israel. And the one time the Palestinians received this state in 2005 from us, in Gaza, it immediately plummeted into civil war.

The Palestinian Authority, meanwhile, is thoroughly corrupt and hated by its own people. President Mahmoud Abbas, as you heard a yell at said, is in the 19th year of his four-year term. He refuses to stand for re-election because he knows he'll lose. And you create a Palestinian state today, and chances are it's quickly going to become a failed state.

We won't have Switzerland on our borders, we'll have Sudan, we won't have Canada on our borders. We'll have Libya. That's at best. At best. At worst, we're going to have Gaza, we're going to have Hamas, and we're going to have another October 7th. A Palestinian poll, I stress, a Palestinian poll,

show that the majority of Palestinians today still applaud October 7th. An even larger majority of Palestinians are against disarming Hamas, even at the price of prolonging the war. Extraordinary. And if Palestinian elections were held today, Hamas would still win. First election, that Palestinian state becomes a jihadist state that prepares the next October 7th. Now, that state would sit on the high ground. The high ground overlooking Tel Aviv and our only international airport, it would loom over

in Israel, which before 1967 was all of nine miles wide. from Toronto, that's a distance from your CN Tower here to Toronto's airport. That's it, that's the state of Israel. The Palestinian state today isn't a peace plan. It's a blueprint for the next war. We were told take risks for peace. We did, and we paid for it with blood. We were told everybody knows what the Palestinian state looks like.

In fact, nobody knows. Nobody knows if it's going to be a totalitarian state or a jihadist state or both. We were told, don't worry, the Palestinian state will be demilitarized. Yes, just like Hamas is disarmed in Gaza today. And now the world wants us to try again. Yes, what the world calls the occupation is a tremendous burden on Israel, and to the greatest degree possible, we should liken it. And yes, what the world calls settler violence is abhorrent and must be stopped.

And yes, the Palestinians have suffered. and we hope that there's suffering will someday end. But jihadists do not distinguish between right-wing and left-wing Israelis. Jihadists are not distinguish between settlers and peace activists. A Palestinian state won't end the occupation, it will create a new one. An occupation of Israel flooded with millions of Palestinian refugees claiming the right of return and overwhelming us. That's not two states.

That is one state. Palestine. Someday, someday, the Palestinians may accept the existence of a Jewish people and our right to independent state. Someday they may stop teaching their children how to kill Jews and stop paying salaries to the terrorists who do. Someday they choose leaders like King Hussein and Saddam, who recognize the Jewish state and make peace with us. Someday peace may be possible, but that day is not today. For now, the Palestinians do not want a two-state solution. They cannot sustain a state, and if they could, It would not be a peaceful state, but a launch pad for war.

Do not opt for the surgery that kills the patient. Stand with the vast majority of Israelis are telling you we want peace, but we want to live. Vote against this resolution. Okay, strong opening statements from everybody. This debate is certainly in play. Ehud Olmert, you are now up for a three-minute rebuttal. You can address anything you've heard on the stage tonight. I listened very carefully to those two statements.

I had some doubts before, but they convinced me that they are precisely as the Palestinians. They don't want two states, and the Palestinians don't want two states. They are the same with one difference, that they believe that we can control six million Palestinians forever and give them not. nothing and that Israel will be able to hold its position and its status in the world

instead of eroding and losing as we are now because the world for good reasons is intolerant to occupation and to the suppression of human rights and civil rights and the freedom of movement and the freedom of speech for other people. And this is what we are doing under the present circumstances that they are want to prolong forever until the Palestinians will become more like human beings that can make their own country if I heard correctly what they say. Now I want to say one thing. What do you know about terror? I know about terror. I was in Jerusalem and the mayor of Jerusalem 10 years during the second intifada. I know what it is. You know when did it happen? When we did what they want us to continue to do forever.

When did it happen? All this terror, all this killing in the bus, in the coffee shop. I know it. I had to escort every one of the funerals as a mayor of Jerusalem. When did it happen? When we were in complete control with our armies, with our secret service, without all our superior power in every part of the territories.

So what do they propose to us? What is the change that they proposed that will take place in order to prevent this which happens when we control all these territories, all our military? Nothing. More of the same. Carry it forever. And what we talk about is a non-militarized Palestinian state, which, by the way, in our negotiations, they agreed with me.

And there are Palestinians that are not prepared to stand up. I recently issued a joint statement with the person who was the former Palestinian foreign minister and the former ambassador to the UN. And during the war, which was a very painful process for them as well, he published with me, Dr. Nasal Kidwa, a joint statement talking about a non-militarized Palestinian state. Now, it's very simple. You want to continue terror forever and killing in buses and in coffee shops. Carry on the present status quo.

You want to change it. You want to change it. You have to think about the creation of another political entity that will provide an opportunity for a new peace in the Middle East. Thank you. Great rebuttal. Our next one. You're up. Yeah.

I heard the phrase occupation and occupied territories, and I just want you to know, according to the international law, Judea and Samaria are not occupied territories. They are disputed territories. It's pretty simple. In 1967, Israel captured the area from Jordan. And in 1980, Jordan announced it was giving up all its claims to the territory. territory and cut the administrative illegal ties to it. Therefore, according to the international law, the legal definition is disputed territories. Now I've heard from

Eur Dolmert and from Zipi Livni that they are worried that if we're not established a Palestinian state, then we will have one state from the river to the sea. So life is not binary. You know, it's not that either we should either establish a Palestinian state that will destroy us physically or establish a one state that will destroy us demographically. No, I think that definitely we can have a strong autonomy, autonomy on steroids. They will have and they have everything, their own educational system, their own health system, their own judicial system, tax system. vote for the government for the parliament for the municipalities everything they just don't have two things no military and I can't hear this crap on the

middle demilitarized it is that doesn't happen we now see it in Gaza it's just science fiction so no military and no control on the borders because we don't want that Judean Samaria will become a hub for all the terrorists from the Middle East. And also I heard the argument about the legitimacy, the legitimacy of the state of Israel. So we should have legitimacy from a position of strength, not from a position of weakness and concessions. Israel gain legitimacy by stability, by deterrence, by strong technology. With the UAE, with Bahrain, with Morocco, we have One peace without Palestinian state,

I was the first minister who visited the UAE after the Abraham Accords, and I was amazed by the home hospitality. Currently, we have negotiation with Lebanon, with Syria, with Indonesia, with Saudi Arabia, and I'm sure it will have normalization with at least two countries out of those four. Without a Palestinian state, I strongly believe

that Israel is a superpower and a strong country without having a Palestinian state. I'm sick and tired about listening and hearing that supporting peace is a matter of weakness and right-wing can bring security to Israel. This is, excuse me, bullshit. We are two years after a war in Gaza, using all the military power that we can.

Hamas is still in power. You know why Hamas is still in power? Because this government prefers Hamas on the PA, on the Palestinian Authority. And on the Palestinian side, there is Hamas that you represent jihadists, Islamist, ideology. They would never accept the right of Israel to exist. There is no hope for peace.

We need to act severely with military force against them. But on the other side, there are some pragmatic forces. You know what? They are cooperating with us on security in the West Bank. But for the current Israeli government, including what I hear today, the Palestinian Authority is a threat because they support two states. But Hamas, they embrace them. They keep them in power.

For two years, the current Israeli government was not willing to replace Hamas by the Palestinian Authority with the support of other regional stakeholders. That's why right-wing cannot give security, because just speaking about military power, it's important sometimes, but it's not good enough. And without the capability to reach agreements and to take in account Israel's security needs, you cannot change or cannot give security in the long term. Now we hear everything about security, but rightly, I was talking about my GPS, national GPS. Their GPS, the government GPS, while they are talking about security, is greater Israel.

They want to separate Israel from its democratic nature. They know that these values of being a Jewish democratic state cannot live together. Therefore, we have all the judicial. reforms. We have the nation built without equality. This is the way they are changing Israel. And this is something that will harm, affect, and change the nature of Israel as a Jewish democratic state. And yes, when you're looking at the streets outside, when you see somebody with a chain and the map of from the river to the sea, you should ask him, whether he or she is a Palestinian

only in Israeli. Because on both sides, there are those that are speaking in terms of all or nothing. And I'm afraid that at the end of the day, we will get nothing while they are speaking about security and being strong and being right-wing.

Right-wing, there is no monopoly on security to rank-win, not to general. We can offer better security for the state of Israel. And therefore, Trust me, two states not as a favor to the Palestinians, but for the sake of Zionism. Wow, that.

Woo! Eud Olmert and Sipi Livni have given us an entire list of dichotomies. Every single one of them is false. If we don't agree to two states, they say, we'll become a binational state. Now, wait a minute, how exactly is about to happen to the millions of Israelis who love our country and the 400,000 Israelis who fought and fought in the world,

bled for that country during this last war, are we just going to turn around and give it up? Will the Hamas terrorists, who the Palestinians still support, enable Jews to live peacefully in that state, or live at all? A yell at nigh have made the case tonight that a two-state solution means death for Israel tomorrow, but a one-state solution means death for Israel today. Ehud and Sipi say that if we don't separate from the Palestinians, Israel will lose its Jewish majority. False. Before this war, 170,000 Palestinians came into work in Israel every day and went back to their families in Judea and Samaria every single night. There was no separation and

no assimilation. Unfortunately, since October 7th, those same Palestinians have not been able to come back and work in Israel, but perhaps that's the separation that Ehud and Sipi want. Instead of coexistence, it seems, they prefer impenetrable walls. SIPI and Ehud warn that without a two-state solution Israel will be isolated in the world but hey, with a solution we're going to be adored. False. The Israel I moved to in the 1970s

had no relations with China or India with Africa or Eastern Europe, certainly no peace with Egypt and Jordan or the countries that sign the Abraham Accords, the UAE, Morocco, Bahrain, Sudan. We had a friendship with the United States but no strategic alliance. We subsequently achieved all of that,

recognition, peace, alliances, without creating a Palestinian state. And now, because of the strength we have shown in this war, we can have even more. Peace with Syria, peace with Lebanon, peace with Saudi Arabia, and the entire Sunni world. Diplomacy, it is said, is the art of the possible, not the impossible, not the proven dangerous.

In the real world, there are no perfect solutions, only practical ones. Tonight, I have been, giving you practical solutions for a Palestinian autonomy expanded in Jewish, Judea, for creating federated cantons, the Palestinians can hold elections if they want to. They can reject terror. Israel will do what it needs to survive and to thrive. And we will stand up to those outside who want to destroy us, who, for whom the question is

no longer what we do, two states or not, but who we are. What we are is the free Democratic Jewish state of Israel. I ask you stand with that state tonight and vote against this resolution. Well done. Debaters, you've certainly

set the stage. We're going to remove these podiums. I'm going to join the conversation for our usual moderated portion and try to kind of dig into some of the key issues and ideas that all of you have raised for us. And let me begin with the pro side first. And SIPI, maybe to start with you, you're a former

foreign minister of Israel. Paint us a picture because I want to bring our debate back to our motion. This is about, it's an Israel's national interest to support a two-state solution. Paint us a picture of what you feel is Israel's international isolation today and why that isolation is a real threat to what you believe are Israel's bigger, broader interests in the world and at home. I would like to start by saying that as a foreign minister, I think that it's completely legitimate sometimes to argue or to defend your own position and interest, including with the United States, and we had some arguments. But today Israel is not only losing its legitimate,

it's not only against a policy of the government. Israel is losing its legitimacy, its right to defend itself. And yes, some of those that are calling in the streets are completely ignorant. We have of course also anti-Semitism. And my position, defending, supporting two states for two people,

it's not because I want the world to love me, but because I do believe, firstly, that this is my interest, that it's about how can I live in my own country, but most of all, I do believe that the idea of Israel as a Jewish democratic state means also being part of the international community, being part of the free world, sharing the same,

set of values that I believe are or should be the values of the state of Israel. And now it disappears. And unfortunately, yes, we can turn a blind eye to those demonstrating in the streets, calling from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. But their voices are being heard by leaders. And maybe they will be, hopefully not, but future leaders. Maybe they know nothing about the conflict. are influential enough and I'm worried because the existence of the state of

Israel is not dependent on the love that we will get but the relations with the United States are existential for Israel security and it was bipartisan support and now it's not getting some balance on the other side of it appreciate that perspective let me come to you Michael Earn your former ambassador to Israel to the United States Talk to us about this question of isolation and the degree to which this runs counter to your country's interests. Here in Canada, we have recognized a Palestinian state.

Government of France and the United Kingdom have done this also. It would suggest that the world and its public opinion is moving beyond away from your side of the debate, your view on the issues tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Roger. I want to say, first of all, that Canada's recognition. of the Palestinian state, France, Britain, it did nothing to advance the Palestinian cause.

All it did was harden Hamas' negotiation at the negotiating table, and the decision by the Canadian government caused Palestinian deaths. It prolonged the war. That's the only thing it did. And as for, I would be remiss, and Pollyannish, if I didn't realize

that we had lose support, particularly among young people in North America and parts of Europe, but governments come and go. We've seen it in Canada, we've seen it in France, in Great Britain, right now the most recent polls in Britain have the current government in single-digit supports. Okay, they come and go. And we've seen what's happening across Europe.

And the wave across Europe is much more, at the end of the day, much more support for Israel than against Israel. And we also know that the people, the countries that sign the Abraham Accords, you know, the leaders of those countries don't get up and sing Hatikva in the morning. They sign those courts because we're strong. Because we were standing up to their twin existential threats, which was Sunni extremism and Shiite extremism. We're the only country doing that,

and we've just done it successfully. Successfully. By the way, one of the greatest military victories in history, they'll be studying it at West Point for the next 50 to 100 years. We haven't been able to translate that. That's military. And so, yes, there is isolation now.

It's not the first time we've been isolated. We were isolated after the 1982 war in Lebanon. We're isolated after the 1956 war, all right? And things go up and down. The waves of the future now is Israel showing strength and the West waking up for the fact that Israel is in the forefront of facing an enemy which seeks to destroy all of your values, everything you hold sacred. We're out there, and people will wake up to them.

Let me come to Ehud. Again, on this question of the recognition of a Palestinian state, it seems to have built momentum internationally for this goal. How important do you think it is to the conversation right now in Israel, internationally in terms of a movement or energy that you're seeing towards this outcome. First of all, I must say, you know, we, some of us do not live in the same world. The world that I live in, for instance, just heard a while ago that 145 countries voted in the General Assembly of the United Nations in support of recognizing the Palestinians

say that even doesn't exist yet. And they're talking about world support. Israelis can't go now to many parts of the world because they are afraid of the legal measures that can be taken against them. In European countries, in other countries as well. All of Europe is against Israel. All of Europe is against... That's not true. That's simply untrue. Excuse me, I said, You don't live in the same world that I live.

Okay. You live in the world of Benkvier, except that you live in the world of Bangvier, you speak the language of Bangvier, but in somewhat nicer words. It doesn't change the substance of what you say. Listen to what, you know, I hear you. and I hear it, and it reminds me of how some Southlanders spoke in America about the black people

in before the civil war in the 19th century. Michael Orange says, how nice we are. We allow 170,000 Palestinians to come to work in our places, and then they go home and they are very happy. And you think that for other people, that to be your workers is a destiny. Is this something that they want? Because they are not capable of running their own affairs.

Listen, Israel has to decide. Either we are so weak and so incapable of defending ourselves that we have to have army in every single corner of the West Bank to protect ourselves from the Palestinians that can destroy us. And at the same time I hear from Ayelet that we are a military superpower. And indeed we are a superpower. We have to decide if we are such a superpower

that we can control the skies of Iran, and we can. What threatens the life of the state of Israel is a non-militarized palatiris. militarized Palestinian state that we couldn't cope with it, we have to make up our mind, not what is good for them, but what is good for the state of Israel. We can't be occupies for other people forever and believe that we can get away with it. Okay. We can't, we can't, we can't allow The atrocities committed against Palestinians in the territories as they are today

and think that the world will tolerate. Can we answer on that? I can see it. Alleyat wants to come in. You want to come in? It's your turn now. The floor is yours. Yeah.

First of all, I think that the former Prime Minister Erdogmelt distort the past and the present. When you were a mayor of Jerusalem, you told about the suicide bombers. Why there were suicide bombers? It was after Oslo Agreement. They started only after Oslo Agreement. And then after the fair negotiation between Barack and Arafat. Only then we go... Hold on.

Hold on. No, no, no, no, no, no. I'm going to have to cut microphones. I haven't done that years, but I might do it again. Sir, sir, let's have a seat here. We want to give a lot of her say, and then I'm going to come to you. Then I'm going to come to you, Sipi.

In Jerusalem. Well, I'd finish your point. And then I will come to you. So, the suicide bombers, let's let her finish your point. I just refresh the memory of Erdolmer. The suicide bombers started after Oslo Agreement and then after the negotiation between Barak and Arafat failed. Then there was the massive, massive, massive, horrible terror attacks on civilians in Israel.

And another thing about isolation. Israel is not isolated. Yes, there are problems. We are, you know, we are not huggable by something like that. That's good. By all the world, the Western world. I remember that after October 7, the world hugged us. But we buried our children.

We went from one funeral to another one and to another one. So I don't need the hug of the world. I want to be strong. I want to be independent. And I want that my children and my grandchildren will be able to live in Israel safely. Okay. Zippy, it's your opportunity, please. Yeah.

No, Jerusalem is a great example because in Jerusalem, within Jerusalem, you've I have more than 300,000 Palestinians, real Palestinians living there. So what are you going to do with them? Give them voting rights to them being a mayor of Jerusalem, a Palestinian or not? I mean, I mean, you don't offer any solution to the situation. I know what our status is. Now answering your question. There are 40% of Jerusalem.

Let's not even, the CIPI's time just yet. Please, please. You're handing your time over to you? I'm on their side. Okay, she's giving her time to you because then I'm coming back to this side. 40% today, okay? 40% of the residents of Jerusalem are Palestinian. In the next elections, they may choose the Palestinian mayor of the city of Jerusalem.

It happened in another Jewish city lately. that someone was elected. Don't take it lightly. This is a critical point. I want to address this critical point. He wants to redid Jerusalem. That's a great idea. It's about demographics.

And Michael, I'm going to come to you on that. There is a... We don't have millions of Palestinians and hope for good. You don't offer any solution to this. And here I thought I could moderate four Israelis on stage. One Canadian, four Israelis.

I fear this is not ending well. But you ask about Palestinian state recognition by the world. So I've got to come back over to this side. I'm going to develop a crack in my neck if we keep this up. Very polite. Okay. Michael, let me come to you because they're bringing up this argument, which many people are familiar with, is about demographics

and the future population and composition of Israel. All right. Without a two-state solution, how do you address? How do you address that? How do you maintain a Jewish state that is democratic, that is hopefully recognized and celebrated around the world with the demographics in your country and where they're headed now? That's the whole economy. Here, we're sold again and again that there's no alternative to the two-state solution.

Nothing could be further from the truth. There are actually many alternatives. There are many alternatives, as Ayala talked about, expanding autonomy for a Palestinian entity that already exists in Israel. You go up our Highway 6 going north. It divides what is today. World calls the West Bank from 367 Israel. You're going to look and see big Palestinian cities over there that have Palestinian flags

flying over there. There's an entity there that has a government, it has a police force, it has a judicial circuit, has all those things. You can expand that a lot. You can create a Swiss model Canton with a Canton of Hebron and a canton of Nablus. You could do many things. But if you keep beating your head over and over again on the two-state solution which has zero chance of success for the reasons

I met because the Palestinians don't want it to be so if the Palestinians agree but we don't want it for different reasons but we don't want it for different reasons would you agree because my understanding from you is that the only problem that the Palestinians would never agree I'm asking you is it the Israeli interest that the Palestinians will agree yes I think there's great so all of you all of you supported So Paul were against it, the question is whether this is in the Israeli interest. And Michael just gave an answer. If you're talking over each other, the audience can't understand what you're saying.

So let's let Michael finish and then I'll come back. It's a position. It's our interest, but they don't want to. Let's let Michael finish. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Then Gurion didn't listen to your .

Please. Please. Okay, Michael, you best get going. We've heard again and again that supporting the two-state solution is good for Israel. It's good for Israel. It's about us. Everything's about us. It's very solipsistic, isn't it?

But the worst thing you can do for the Palestinians is keep on harping on a solution that has no solution, that has no chance of actually coming about. And if we think creatively, if we think out of the box, we can move this needle. And the greatest victims of the two-state solution fantasy are the people. Palestinians. You have to understand that. I want to say just one sentence about the demography. We should all understand that between the river to the sea, there are millions of Jews and millions of Palestinians,

but the birth rate of Jews have surged and the birth rate of Arabs have declined. So like the equal numbers will more or less stay the same, the same like like there is today okay hey hood you're back up I see yeah okay you know I listen to some of the things they say it here and they don't believe my ears I really don't believe 70% of these things like us they don't believe that you're telling you something listen to them okay two minutes I'm gonna tell you're pretty two minutes I'm gonna tell you readily arrogant two minutes say your piece

and then we're going to move on. I can't believe my ears. Yeah. We are talking. We are talking like we patronize them. They will not have a higher birth rate, so we'll be able to vote. To control not six million Palestinians,

but 5.8 million Palestinians. Is this the destiny of the state of Israel? To give them some rights near Hebron, some rights near Amala? Don't you understand? the gravity, the moral gravity of what we are talking about? Because what do they say? Okay, they are against Palestinian state.

What are they for when you have six million people that you want to continue to control forever with your military? And that's what you want to do. Now, we did it for the last 60 years. Everything that you broke your heart in Jerusalem, broke my heart in Jerusalem. in Jerusalem. But at the time that it happened, we were in total military control over Jerusalem and every part of the territories. But you did this engagement from Gaza, what we got in return.

It didn't stop terror. So basically what you say to us is we will continue and that will be part of it. We will continue to control the military and they will continue to have terror and this is what you proposed to us. more of the same. This is the language of the past. We are looking about changing you and a future. Your seat is waiting for you because we're going to come back to this side of the debate. Sir, well said. I'm going to let you answer right now by asking you a question, which is you raised Einstein's definition of insanity at one point tonight,

doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. And I think this audience, I would be curious to hear from you about how why what you're proposing isn't Einstein's definition of insanity. An endless cycle of conflict, no substantial resolution of this crisis. You've just gone through a horrible war in Gaza. You've lost far too many of your sons and daughters in that conflict. How does the Einstein's definition of insanity not apply to the argument that you're making this evening? Where is the hope in the argument that you're making?

First of all, I need to answer to what it just says. I know it was a tough question. No, just a second. You can answer it or? You try to do something else. You, both of you, did a disengagement from Gaza. You gave them a state. You didn't control the, you didn't control the army.

You know that the IDF didn't enter to Gaza and wasn't active in Gaza like it was in Judea and Samaria. Why? By the way, why? Because of you. No, Netanyahu is in power. You were in power. Why didn't you enter Gaza and fought Hamas? No, it was your decision.

Oh, he's back up. He's back up. This is a very... This is the state you gave them and we got this massacre. This is a very good question. Sir, maybe you can moderate the debate. Why don't we switch seats? You can be here and I'll go sit over here.

Okay, there we go. I won't answer it. How's that? You know, I was looking at him for now almost half an hour and I thought, why didn't you think about moving me here on the first place? How come? Now listen, two things that you have to know. Two things.

One, one. In the time between 1993 until 2005, when Israel was, When Israel was in full control of Gaza, with the Israeli military inside everywhere, we had more people killed civilian and soldiers than between the 2005 and 2023 when we disengaged. Opposite, and this is a fact. I'm not arguing here. This is a fact. Hang on.

Hang on. This is number one. Number two, which is worse. Now I answer you a question. You ignore the world. I can't, I'm afraid that when I answer your question, I'm going to say the opposite of what you think. And you'll have to tolerate it.

What can you do? The other thing, the other thing, which is even worse, I fought the Hamas in Gaza, very forcefully. They, in the government that they were part, these two, by coincidence, they were not responsible. They didn't even know about it. But the Prime Minister, he financed Hamas in Gaza, and now they complained that Hamas became the power in Gaza.

They brought to Gaza hundreds of millions of dollars because they didn't want to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority for the possible some kind of rapprochement between us and the Palestinians, and they preferred the Hamas, and they financed Hamas with hundreds of millions of dollars. And a government that, by the way, These two were members of, and now they complain that Hamas is so strong in Gaza. I agree on that.

Okay, your seat is warm, sir. I didn't turn there. One last second. No, no, this is... No, guys, you have to give us... I'm sorry. Zipi, Zippee, we will come to your disengagement, but a serious allegation has just been made here, so let's let the other side respond. Remember that other side?

Yeah. I'm glad that... I think this is the moment of entertainment. I really do. And I'm glad people can laugh. But for us, this is not a laughing matter. My own family, I would say center, mostly left of center. And you ask that family today,

do you think we should create a Palestinian state of two-state solution? And they look at me and they say, are you crazy? Are you nuts? Because this is not rhetorical for us. This is not a joke for us. This is a matter of life and death. And if you're addressing this question of whether Israel should support a two-state solution, support of two-state solutions, I want you to look at your kids, I want you to look at your

grandkids, and ask yourself each and every one of you, would you want your kids to live next to that state? Would you trust a demilitarization, which Ed Hood said, there's going to be demilitarization, but Israel won't have military control over it. So exactly who is going to enforce a demilitarization, Edhood? Just like in Gaza, where no one wants to go in there and take a gun away from Hamas? How exactly they happen? We inhabit different universes. You, Zippy, me, and Ayel. We are in this different universe, but the fact of the matter is,

we're in a universe in which the vast majority of Israelis find themselves today. And they're not right-wingers, or not Ben-Vir people. There are Israelis who want to live, and have watched our cities, our schools, our neighborhoods, being pummeled with rockets. From the north, from Hezbollah, by the way, we withdrew from there, too, in 2000. That was a good idea. And from every place we have withdrawn from,

there has been terror. because geopolitics like nature hates a vacuum and in the Middle East that vacuum gets filled up with terror and Iran and every bad possible actor. But I ask you, considering this, look at your family. Would you send your kids, your loved ones, to live next to that so-called demilitarized Palestinian state which is proven again and again and again

that it's one desire is to have one state? Not two. Key point. And that's the Palestinian. This is a key point. And Zippy wants to come in on this because Zippy, before you, do you let me just frame it for the audience? What we're debating here is the degree of which the Israeli public, after October 7th, everything has changed. There is no putting Humpty Dunty back together again.

We are a new territory, and that new territory unfortunately means there is no future for a Palestinian state in terms of Israel's interests and Israel opinion. So let's speak about the disengagement in October 7. And these are our children as well. It's not like their children, and we are not speaking about our life. I supported the disengagement for Gaza. I tried to convince the Americans not to permit Hamas to participate in election. Now there is an opportunity to prevent them to be in power. there is an opportunity here, but I would like to speak about October 7th.

October 7th was a huge failure, unfortunately, of the Israeli army. The day after succeeded in really doing great things in the region. They couldn't and they failed in protecting the border. And the real question is assuming that I live in an apartment and my neighbors are really vicious, terrorists. They entered into my apartment. They killed part of my family. They tortured the other, really horrific things.

And this happened because the alarm didn't work. It failed. So what's my decision? Not to build the alarm, a better alarm, to invite those to live in my home, or more problematic than that, to send my children in new settlements to live inside. You're speaking about children living near the border,

you're sending them to live within Gaza and the West Bank. Now destroying the settlements, and speaking about security. October 7 wouldn't have happened. You supported every settlement. Now right wing in the government is speaking about, rebuilding this settlement. The all idea of Greater Israel is back again under the cover of security. So something terrible happened to the state of Israel. But you know

what? In 2014 when we had a military operation in Gaza, I worked with the United States and the entire Arab world to have a Security Council decision saying that Gaza will be the military right. And now Hamas will not agree. That's why He doesn't need to fight for them, but we need to have a dual strategy to strengthen the moderate, but you know what happened the day after, not the day after. But when Netanyahu is in power for so many years, as I said before, his decision, his agenda, his conception was to keep Hamas in power and weakening. The moderates, and they are weak today, of course.

I'm not speaking about turning the key to the other side. good? We are not that naive. We are not naive at all. You are naive. You believe that if we will live between Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea altogether, then they will what? Stop killing us, stop deciding to do so, starting to love us. You are the naive. When speaking about security, let's, this is Jordan River, this is the sea, okay? And these are settlements. And we don't have borders and this is the center of Israel and they can infiltrate and do what they want including in the West Bank when we control we need a fist to attack and we need a border to stop them and this is something that you are not willing

to do I'm going to give powerful statements are going to give I give you Alayette the last word in this moderated section and then we're going to move to closing statements. Okay. Take your time. We can't count on the alarm. It is not always working. You cannot trust the Israeli IDF.

Let's let Alliance have your time. We can't count on the alarm. You know that the settlements in Judean Samaria, CP and I, we are living in the same neighborhood, by the way. In Tel Aviv. In Tel Aviv, we are neighbors. The settlements in Judean, Samaria, they defend on your house, on my house, on Michael House, and on Eudhaus. The settlements in Gaza, they defend on the Gaza envelope.

And once you withdrew from Gaza and destroy the settlements... This is the role of the army. No. Not sending civilian and families and children to live there. It's immoral. Not just the army. By the way, I think you did like... Civilians? You said that the reason that October 7 happened...

You said that the reason that October 7 happened is only just because of the army, no. No, no, no. And the wrong conception of the Israeli government... We don't let... ...referencing the Palestinian Authority. Let's give her... It's both. She has the microphone right now.

Okay, I'm saying you can't count only on the alarm. I think that villages and settlements... and life and life of Israeli citizens are important also to defense, yeah, to defense other lives. This is how, this is what our fathers that established Israel did with Khomew McDoward. This is always, this is, this is what Ben Gurion and our, really, they believe in a strong army. They always believe in settlements. Let the army defense civilians don't send children to live. amongst the Palestinians.

And then, Jesus will be bound in their own homes. This is what happened. And one of the reason was the disengagement. You can ignore it. This has been, hold on,

Oregon, because I'm going to give you the first of the closing statements. But this has been a fantastic moderated section. I'm going to get out of here kind of barely alive. But I'm not sitting stage left in Oregon, Europe with your closing statement.

We'll get the podium brought back on for all of our debaters. Thank you guys for a great moderated middle of this debate. I think he's a trauma. I go first, yeah. Those are our neighbors. That's what they want. Welcome home. Ladies and gentlemen, whether or not there should be a Palestinian state is not an academic question for us Israelis.

It is intensely brutally personal. 1995, my sister-in-law, Joan Devaney, a Jewish school teacher from Connecticut bordered a bus for Hebrew University in Jerusalem. This was two years after Oslo, folks, and she didn't arrive. She was killed by a suicide bomber. In 1997, another suicide bomber killed two. Two of my son's seventh grade classmates in Jerusalem, he came home to me and said, I've been to more funerals than I've been to bar mitzvahs.

A father should never hear such words. In 2003, on the 10th anniversary of Oslo, a Palestinian terrorist blew up the cafe hillo, which is located right beneath my office in Jerusalem. Part of that cafe blew into my office. Seven Israelis were killed, including the world-famous trauma doctor, David Applebaum and his daughter, Nava,

who was to be married the very next day. A year later in 2004, my daughter's friend, 17-year-old Banaya Zuckerman, a talented filmmaker, was murdered by Hamas. My son, then a IDF soldier, was shot while rescuing Palestinian children

whose own father was using them as human shields. Now, these are not talking points. They are deep scars. They are graves. Then came October 7th. Every Israeli, everyone, knows at least one Israeli killed on that day. For me, it was Noam and Yishai Slatki. Two brothers killed defending Kibbutz Al-Umim.

Their father, Rabbi Shmuel Slatki, married my daughter. And Tamar Siman Tov, slaughtered with her husband and their three small children on Kibbutz near O's. Tamar, who I remembered as a spirited girl with this wild woman. braid while studying karate with my kids. Now, I recount these tragedies not to shock you, but to convince you that policies have consequences, that the question of a Palestinian state is not theoretical for us.

It is existential. And chronology matters. The suicide bombers came after Oslo. October 7 came after we withdrew from the Gaza Strip. And the response was never peace. The response was mass murder. We heard tonight. that without a two-state solution,

Israel will be delegitimized and alone. And sure, the world loved us after we signed Oslo. The world loved us after we withdrew from Gaza. And the world loved us for all the few weeks after October 7th. But we Israelis have learned a brutal truth. It is better for us to be loved less but alive. It is better to be delegitimized It is better for us to be geo-legitimized than dead.

Yet there's no reason to despair. We can expand the autonomy of the Palestinian entity in Judean Samaria. The model can be Monaco, Andorra, Likinstein, signs, states that are not only fully sovereign, but to militarize, such as Dominica, Grenada, and Costa Rica. We can explore federated solutions on the Swiss model, that Hebron Canton, the Nablus Hantan, but to keep insisting on a two-state solution

that cuts off all alternatives for the Palestinians is a tragedy for the Palestinians. And for Israelis, it is another bombed-out bus, another massacre, is another Joan, another Banayaa, another David and Nava, another Noam in Ishaai. It is another Simon Tov family. Their voices speak to us still. Do not forget us, they say.

Do not make the same mistake. Do not gamble Israel's life on an illusion. you must listen to the people of Israel and vote against this resolution. So what do you offer to save the life of other Israelis, of babies that are being born now in Israel? What kind of future? I mean, I joined politics,

or I decided to join politics in 1995. Israel was divided between two camps. One camp was the camp of the land of Israel speaking about not giving an inch to the Palestinians because we have the rights. On the other side were the camp of peace waiting for the new Middle East to fall on our shoulders and I felt that my voice is not being heard

saying yes, I do believe that we have rights on the entire land. But yes, I understood at the time that there's a need to end this conflict and to find a solution also by giving up part of what I believe is mine and my peoples. But then I thought that

the agreement was a mistake not because of the concert because they postponed the core issues for the future. And yes, I looked at my two children and decided to join politics and I was focused on this. This is the same division

amongst these valleys. It's like we are speaking about those that were killed, yes, and I participated in funerals of children, of soldiers. And the real question is, what are we doing about it? And the idea of annexation of having all these millions of Palestinians amongst us without giving them real rights, I mean, yes, autonomy. Begkin was talking about it in 1978, Peace Treaty with Egypt. I hear those saying when we give an inch or when we give a land,

it turns against that in terror. So we gave, Begain gave Egypt. I think it's 170 times more than Gaza Street. And at the time, they were demonstrations against it. It dismantled villages that were built there. And people were talking and demonstrating against it, including within liquid, could. And 40 years later, Benjamin Netanyar was speaking in the parliament saying this was the best,

or this is the best agreement for Israel's security. So the choice sometimes is between, I don't want to say, but the difficult options, the idea of just keeping territory to bring security when you have in this territory millions of Palestinians, yes, they hate us. And I don't want to be loved by the world. But yes, I want Israel to keep its democratic values. I believe that equality is part of what is written in the Declaration of Independence, what I believe in, as a Jewish Israeli. And when this government and those that are speaking about security are going to Greater Israel, they are separating ourselves from our democratic nature. This is what is happening to Israel.

And speaking about the world, you know what? You are speaking now about autonomy that begging pride years ago. You will regret one day that you didn't support a two-state solution. You know what? Because until now, the world is still speaking about national rights, not more, no more or less about the Jewish rights,

the Jewish right for a state, but about Palestinian right for a state. But yes, we are still speaking about two states for two people. But you know what? People are now speaking about individual rights, about from the river to the sea, about giving equal rights to the Palestinians between the river and the sea. And this will be the moment in which your children

will need to decide whether Israel is an apartheid state or not, And Israel will not be this kind of state, because this is not Zionism. And therefore, this is the real choice, not between one state agreement, but between one state reality and two states. Two state, please. Thank you. After I heard what you said, I think that you are not talking about a two-state solution, you're talking about a two-state illusion.

And I'll explain again and again why. The majority of the Palestinians, it's appalled done recently, believed that the decision to carry out the October 7 massacre and to stout the war was the right decision. This is the reality. You know that during the Holocaust, there were good people who saved Jews, We call them righteous Gentiles. We honor them in Yad Vashem.

In Gaza, there wasn't even one person, not even one, who tried to help the hostages, the children, the women, out of two million, not even one. The hostages who came back from captivity told us that they were beat almost to death by the population. by the population, by youth, by adults, by everyone. You know that we, the Jewish people, have known suffering and pain more than any other people.

So it goes without saying that we feel the pain of any people, including the Palestinians, men, women and children alike, form the war in Gaza. But we didn't start this war, we didn't want it, It is radical Islam based on Muslim Brotherhood ideology who led this people to a catastrophe. It's not that we have Canadians on our border. It's radical Islam, really, based on Muslim Brotherhood ideology.

And it's a mockery of justice and a mockery of truth to try to impose on Israel after After all, it went through a suicidal creation of a barbaric and anti-Semitic enemy state right next to its very thin and fragile borders. And you know, you know something else? Sometimes it's better to keep the status quo than to have a bad solution. As long as the Palestinians are educated to hate Jews and to kill Jews, there will be no solution. As long as they are not willing, they are not willing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, there will be no solution. As long as they are not giving up the idea of their

right of return, there will be no solution. And you know, the right of return is the end of Israel as a Jewish state. And I want to finish by reading you a few sentences. from a school notebook found in a house in Rafa. You know, Rafa is in the south of Gaza Strip. It's an English notebook of a kid. The picture of the notebook is in my Twitter account. And you know how we learn English? Like we have sentences and we need to fill in the correct verb.

So here are some things that the children in Gaza are practicing on in their English class. The sentences. All Jews are shit. The kid need to fill in the verb. I want to be Shahid next week. Shahid is a suicide bomber. This is their ideal to be a Shahid.

To be a suicide bomber. Hitler is the best leader in history. Thank you very much. And please, please vote against this resolution. I think there is one thing which is in common between the two sides on this stage tonight. That for the last 60 years there was continuous terror, hatred, bloodshed, perpetrated mostly by Palestinians against Jews and Israelis inside the territories. and also inside every part of the State of Israel, in Tel Aviv, in Jerusalem.

They are talking about terror in Jerusalem. I was, as a mayor, participating in every single funeral of everyone that was killed in the terrorist actions in Jerusalem, and the second in the Fadah, more than a hundred, and visited every family. But my friends, all this happened in the situation. in the situation that they want to keep forever.

That's what they propose. You listen to them, not to me. They say, this is what they did. Terrible. I almost started to cry when I heard Ayelet talking about the pains of killing. But this is what happens in the situation that they want to keep forever. Continue the military control. Don't try to change.

And what I say, I say, look, this is more of the same. More of the same. One thing is Guarthe. If you accept this point of view, you know what will happen. Because we have an experience of 60 years, that this is what we were doing. Mr. Orange says that much, which is stunning. Would someone want to live next to this country of Palestinians? They want to live inside them.

That's what they are doing now. They want to live inside them not only in the West Bank. They want now to build the settlements back in Gaza, to live inside Gaza. Is this going to stop terror? Is this going to provide more security for the state of Israel? On the contrary, it is going to remove from us the last support that we're entertaining the world. Do you think that the world is going to be as tolerant indefinitely for occupation? We will give them some here, some there. What do

you mean we will give them? We will patronize the six million Palestinians. Really when she says, just you have to understand what lies behind the words, when she says that really Jordan is a Palestinian, state, what she suggests is that they will kick out all the Palestinians living in the West Bank to Jordan. It is inevitably understood. There is no other way to understand it. If the Palestinians want to live in their state, they should move out.

And some are already trying to perpetrate it today. And what I say is this is not simple, but we have to think whether we are. We are preoccupied with the fears of the past, or we are powerful and strong enough and superior to all our enemies to be able to separate from them in order to try a new avenue which we have never tried before in all our history. And this is, I didn't disturb you when you summed up. Thank you. No, I didn't disturb you.

I can understand your pains. we suggest hope and they suggest the same that was up until now. We are against terror. We are for a future of peace and hope. And that's why we believe that we have to have a two-state solution. Well, that wraps up today's debate. I want to thank our participants, Ehud, Zipni, Ayelet, and Michael for a civil and substantive debate on a controversial topic, and one that does not always lend itself to respectful discourse.

After the debate, we pulled the audience again. This time, the results were 45% in favor, the motion, and 55% opposed. The con team of Michael Oren and Ayala Chiquette won by a not unimpressive margin of 13%. If you have feedback or reflections on what you've just heard on this or any of our podcast, please send us an email to info at monkdebates.com. That's MUNK DebateswithanS.com. Thank you for helping us bring back the art of public debate one podcast at a time. I'm your host and moderator, Rudyard Griffith. The Monk Debates are a project of the Aurea and Peter and Melanie Monk Charitable Foundations.

Rudyard Griffiths and Ricky Gerwitz are the producers. Be sure to download and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. And if you like us, feel free to give us a five-star rating. Thank you again for listening.