Students Debate: Solving the Israel-Palestine Conflict

Montgomery and Hornstein debate

Student protesters outside Austin City Hall on October 5, 2024. Photo by William Posey.

Few contemporary issues are more galvanizing than the conflict between Israel and Palestine. It came to the forefront of national attention last year in the wake of the October 7th attacks and the ensuing war, with the most visible point of tension in the United States being on university campuses. Despite the prominent position occupied by students on the domestic front, the bulk of intellectual conversation about the conflict has been relegated to pundits, academics, and policymakers.

We at The Austin Beacon have endeavored to rectify this by platforming two students, Max Montgomery and Jacob Hornstein, to make the case for their respective views on the issue, tackling the question, “How ought the Israel-Palestine conflict be resolved?” Over the course of the debate, each participant presents his argument, offers a rebuttal to his opponent, and provides a defense of his initial stance. The goal of this exercise was not to procure a universally acceptable solution to the problem, but instead to serve as a window into the real views of American students unfiltered by the lenses of institutional media outlets, a perspective that was sorely lacking.

---

Max Montgomery

Israel’s internationally agreed-upon breach of the law must be met with meaningful consequences. Violating international norms, especially with regard to the expansion of settlements, should not be tolerated, and action must be taken to prevent further infractions. Israeli settlements on land that the country does not have a legitimate claim to must be withdrawn. The occupied territories in the West Bank should be returned to the Palestinians, as their status is central to any just and lasting peace. Continued settlement expansion undermines the potential for a future Palestinian state, further fueling tensions in an already volatile region.

Equally, Hamas as an organization should be dissolved. Its history of violence and militant actions against Israeli civilians, as well as its governance of Gaza through repressive measures, makes it an obstacle to peace. While Hamas presents itself as a defender of Palestinian rights, its methods harm prospects for a negotiated solution. Palestinians deserve better representation, free from corruption and extremism, one that prioritizes peace and constructive dialogue over conflict. The dissolution of Hamas could open the door for more moderate and internationally acceptable leaders to rise, creating the possibility for genuine negotiations.

Moreover, the leadership of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has proven to be a significant barrier to a two-state solution. Netanyahu’s policies (and by extension Likud policies), including his staunch support for settlement expansion and his lack of meaningful engagement with Palestinian leadership, demonstrate that he is not committed to allowing a sovereign Palestinian state to emerge. His replacement is necessary if Israel is to truly consider the possibility of peace and coexistence. Any new Israeli leadership should prioritize diplomatic efforts toward establishing a sustainable and sovereign Palestinian state, rather than further entrenching the status quo of occupation and unequal treatment.

Humanitarian aid needs to be directed to Palestine immediately. The people of Gaza and the West Bank have suffered for too long under dire living conditions, compounded by the Israeli blockade and internal mismanagement. Basic necessities such as food, medical care, clean water, and education are severely lacking in many Palestinian communities. International organizations and donor countries need to provide swift and sustained support to alleviate the humanitarian crisis. While this aid alone cannot solve the political conflict, it can help mitigate some of the suffering and build a foundation for longer-term peace.

In addition to humanitarian aid, there needs to be a multinational temporary occupation of Palestine to oversee the establishment of a new government. Such an intervention would be necessary to ensure that elections are fair, free from interference, and produce a leadership that reflects the will of the Palestinian people. This new government should be committed to a peaceful two-state solution, representing the interests of all Palestinians, and prepared to engage in constructive negotiations with Israel.

Simultaneously, Israel’s allies, particularly the United States, must exert significant political pressure on the Israeli government to accept a two-state solution. Without external pressure, Israel is unlikely to make the necessary compromises. The international community, especially countries that have strong diplomatic and economic ties to Israel, must take a firm stance in favor of peace, encouraging Israel to engage seriously in negotiations.

Finally, foreign investment into Palestine is critical for ensuring the long-term success of the state. The economic disparity between Israel and Palestine is stark, and without substantial investment in infrastructure, education, and industry, the gap will only grow wider.

Jacob Hornstein

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict will end only in Israeli triumph. Compromise, if ever possible, has been precluded by October 7th and twenty years of post-Oslo Palestinian terrorism. Israelis are no longer willing to trade land for peace; Palestinians never were.

But that does not mean Palestinians will cease to exist. Instead, the most likely course is that Israel will demographically assimilate the West Bank, while continuing to isolate and marginalize Gaza. The settler population – already a fifth of the total population – will become a majority after Jewish birthrates exceed Arab ones. Palestinian nationalism may live on, but it will be dampened by Israeli demographic, political, and military power, like the nationalism of their Arab-Israeli brethren.

Concurrently, Israel will continue to normalize relations with Sunni Arab states. Their thawing has been driven by factors broader than any war or government. Most importantly, the combination of their military incompetence and the Iranian threat will continue to force the Sunni states to seek out non-Iranian powers active in the Middle East – drawing them closer to Israel either via America, if the United States remain active in the region, or on Israel’s own terms, if it does not.

Doubtlessly, many will try to interrupt these processes, as Hamas did on October 7th. The creeping growth of Israeli settlements around Palestinian cities and towns may lead to retributory violence. But in the long term, the limited presence of Palestinian human capital will continue to hamstring their strength, while the relatively unrequited decline of Palestinian birthrates will weaken their demographic power.

Moreover, this settlement is not merely probable, but normatively just. It is well-known, but tired, that Tel Aviv is more democratic and more inclusive and so on than Ramallah. It is likewise well-trod but unconvincing ground to point out that Israel has made many peace offers requited only by violence. But two points remain surprisingly underdiscussed in considering the righteousness of Israeli victory.

First, Israeli victory will strengthen pro-Western forces around the world. Israeli society is already marked, in a Western context, by a willingness to engage in retaliatory violence and define itself in nationalistic terms found elsewhere only in Eastern Europe and the United States. If these tendencies lead Israel to consolidate territorial control despite determined opposition, sympathetic Western populations will also be more likely to adopt said policies. Insofar as we consider the preservation of our own civilization valuable, this is an unalloyed good. An uncouth but honest example: if the French state ever seeks to reassert control in the banlieues, it will be helpful for Israel to have normalized the reality that urban warfare inevitably leads to civilian casualties.

Second, Israeli victory is righteous because the growth of Israel is a force for progress. Anti-Israel protestors have not been wrong to describe Israel as a force of European settler-colonialism. Where the Israeli people and government expand, American-style suburbs and cities grow, as does Western civilization.

Montgomery Response

Several of these claims warrant scrutiny. While Israel has made offers involving land concessions, this alone doesn't validate the reasonability of these proposed deals. This point is particularly relevant when considering historical context, such as Prime Minister Begin's explicit statement during the 1978 Camp David Accords that "in Judea, Samaria and Gaza there will never be a Palestinian state". This declaration reveals Likud's fundamental opposition to Palestinian self-determination.

The neighboring Sunni-Arab states have clearly shown their lack of intent to improve relations. Turkey is an example of a predominantly Sunni country that supports Palestine, with Erdoğan stating “Hamas is not a terrorist organization, it is a liberation group, 'mujahideen' waging a battle to protect its lands and people.” Syria has never recognized Israel as a legitimate country, and they are considered to be one of Iran’s closest allies, with Iran being one of Israel’s greatest enemies. Jordan has condemned recent Israeli activities, such as the blockade of the Gaza Strip. Egypt’s relationship with Israel also deteriorated significantly since October 7th.

The comparison between potential French actions in the banlieues and Israeli military operations is particularly problematic. Banlieues are simply suburban regions of France, not a distinct ethnic or national group. These areas already fall under French governmental jurisdiction, making any notion of "reasserting control" through military means nonsensical. While these suburbs have experienced protests and riots, such civil unrest is actually characteristic of French political expression rather than being unique to these specific communities. The suggestion that France would need to wage urban warfare to control its own suburbs fundamentally misunderstands both the nature of these areas and their relationship with the French state.

Hornstein Response

It is not universally accepted that Israel’s actions have violated international law. But even if they have, we should not care. Either Israel’s actions have been just, in which case they’d be good even if they broke international law, or they’ve been unjust, in which case they’d be bad even if they didn’t. Either way, appeals to international law only obfuscate the real issue of justice.

Removing Israeli settlements from Judea and Samaria would require the ethnic cleansing of more than five hundred thousand Israeli citizens. That would be unjust. Their cleansing would also facilitate Palestinian terrorism and encourage anti-Western forces around the world.

It is quite right to say that continued settlement of Judea and Samaria prohibits the possibility of a future Palestinian state. That’s the point: no Palestinian state should ever exist, because a Palestinian state would serve as a nexus for terrorism.

The voluntary dissolution of Hamas is fantastical: terrorist groups do not randomly disband. Nor would it lead to Palestinian moderation, because Hamas’ goals reflect the desires of Palestinians. Only the destruction of Hamas by armed force, combined with the repression of successor movements and eventual Israeli victory, will eliminate Palestinian terrorism.

Netanyahu is flawed, but he should be commended for his opposition to Palestinian statehood. His courageous opposition to the Oslo Accords has been proven right many times by continued Palestinian terrorist attacks, especially the Second Intifada and October 7th.

Palestinian poverty is not the responsibility of the American people. Aid would be an ineffective and plausibly harmful way to alleviate poverty if it were.

It is contradictory to advocate both free, fair elections for Palestinians and a Palestinian leadership committed to peace. Most Palestinians oppose a two-state solution and peace with Israel, and a freely and fairly elected leadership would too.

Montgomery Second Response

Israeli settlements are in themselves a form of ethnic cleansing. Returning the Jews back to where they were before they moved to settlements would just be reversing the ethnic cleansing that has already taken place. The Israeli government is forcefully evicting Palestinian families from their homes, under a law “allowing Jews to reclaim properties that were Jewish before Israel was established in 1948.” In practice, this allows for situations like the eviction of the Al-Kurd family in 2009. The Palestinian family was proven by records from the Ottoman Empire to be the rightful owners of the property, and yet they were still evicted because the courts chose to accept the forged document stating that the Jews purchased the property over the Palestinians’ documents.

Nowhere did I say that the dissolution of Hamas needed to be voluntary. Nor do Hamas’ goals reflect the desires of Palestinians. According to the most recent polling, “only 27% of Palestinians believe that Hamas is the most deserving of representing and leading the Palestinian people.”

When I said foreign investment, I never said anything about the United States sending foreign aid packages to Palestine. I meant foreign investment as in companies investing in the growth of the region, which would provide mutual benefit in being profitable for investors and in that the nation would become richer. Singapore is a good example of this, as they went from a country plagued by political and racial conflicts to having the 30th highest GDP in the world (according to the World Bank), only being beaten by Indonesia and Thailand in the South East Asia region.

Hornstein Second Response

Israel’s offers have been more than “reasonable,” insofar as they constituted strategic gifts to the Palestinian cause at Israel’s expense. While Begin did oppose Palestinian statehood, Likud leaders have at times compromised on that stance, as Netanyahu did in 2009. More importantly, the debate misses the forest for the trees. Palestinian statehood should not occur, and if Israeli offers had been unreasonable and insincere, that would reflect a greater wisdom than Israel’s leaders have actually had.

The claim that Sunni Arab states have not moved towards normalization with Israel is undeniably false. Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Morocco have both established formal relations; Saudi Arabia and Oman have taken steps towards that goal. Turkey both does not neighbor Israel and maintains formal relations, despite Erdoğan's public statements. Syria is not Sunni (Assad is an Alawite) and Jordan and Egypt’s governments are both aligned against Hamas.

---

Conclusion

The arguments put forth by Mr. Montgomery and Mr. Hornstein touch on many facets of the Israel-Palestine conflict, from ones that are inextricable from the issue at hand, such as Jewish West Bank settlements, to those that are more tangential yet still worth considering, like how Israel’s conduct in Gaza and elsewhere in Palestine may serve as an example for how Western countries prosecute future wars. While their two positions represent just two of the many perspectives regarding the topic, they did ample work to show a glimpse of the sheer breadth of the opinions that are to be found amongst the nation’s youth. Some may find it disheartening that disagreement is so widespread, but perhaps a more optimistic outlook is appropriate. Such a degree of ideological pluralism is a testament to the strongest aspects of our country: freedom of inquiry and the capacity for civil discourse, virtues which we strive to embody in our work at The Austin Beacon.