Facing opposition from Hillel and its member groups, the Brandeis Debate and Speech Society, along with the Concord Bridge and Students for a Just Society (SJS) hosted a public forum on the topic of divestment from Israel last Tuesday drawing nearly 40 students. "Debating the idea of divestment from Israel is anti-Semitic in the same way that debating the idea of segregated classrooms is racist," Hillel president Rachel Silverman '04 wrote in her letter to the editor in last week's Justice on behalf of Hillel and its Israel-focused member groups. "No respectable academic institution would present a debate on segregation as a legitimate one. So too, we believe the debate on divestment is invalid."

The Debate and Speech Society initially asked Hillel if they wanted to co-sponsor the event, but Hillel board members concluded immediately that this was not an event they wanted to co-sponsor, according to Silverman. Shortly after, Silverman submitted her response to the invitation in the Justice.

"At first we were a little offended by their reaction," Schon said. "We thought it may have been more appropriate after the event [occurred]. But we cooled down and understood where they were coming from."

Silverman disagrees that the debate should have taken place.

"I think the purpose of a debate is to present two valid sides," Silverman said. "Because one side of the divestment debate is not valid, I think it should not have been a debate."

Although Silverman further argued that the debate allowed for "untruths and prejudice ideas to be presented as facts," the Debate and Speech Society still thought that it was an important and valid topic.

"Our team knew and still knows that there is an amazing student body on this campus, capable of handling the toughest of situations," Debate and Speech Society vice president Bryan Schon '06 said, "and we felt that this topic was something that could be controversial, and interesting, and if pulled off well, could really show everyone what discourse is capable of-a civilized, balanced and intellectual discussion."

The debate consisted of the Debate and Speech Society members making arguments for and against Israeli divestment, students asking questions of the panel and listening to faculty members, Daniel Breen (PHIL), Jerry Cohen (AMST) and Reuven Kimelman (NEJS) speak on the topic.

"We considered the topic [of divestment from Israel] because we thought it was something that was deserving of an intellectual forum and was something that pushed the boundaries of what the campus normally shied from," Schon said.

Schon and Brandeis Debate and Speech Society president Andy Bragin '05 argued the pro-divestment side of the debate.

Key points made in favor of divestment included justifying a need for an American reaction, the fact that there is not much recourse to take against the Palestinians, that divestment has been used before and that boycotts have been used effectively by the U.S. in the past.

"We hold Israel to a different standard because it's a Western nation with Western principles...it's supposed to be a beacon for the world on how to act," Bragin said, in another argument that Israel as a democracy should be hold to a higher standard than other Middle Eastern countries.

Eric Sirota '04 and Adam Nir '06 argued against divestment on behalf of the Debate and Speech Society club.

Key points made against divestment included that it holds Israel to a double standard, that it is anti-Semitic, that it hurts the wrong people, that there are so many other ways to go about instigating change and that a better solution is to reward countries that have good treatment of its citizens rather than hurt countries like Israel that cannot help it.

"Israel has a greater burden than other nations that it doesn't deserve," Nir said.

Following the debate led by the club, Breen, Cohen and Kimelman gave their take on divestment from Israel, focusing on the double standard to which Israel is held and how other instances of divestment in history cannot be applied to Israel.

Breen spoke about how much of the world stood against apartheid in South Africa because of the clear mass violence and disparity in that country.

In that case, divestment is an acceptable solution, but in less clear situations like the Middle East, action can be dangerous and can hurt the wrong people.

Kimelman remarked on how the double standard against Israel is anti-Semitic.

"Any standard you apply to Israel that you apply to others you can't call anti-Semitic," Kimelman said, "but when you apply it to just Israel it is subject to anti-Semitism."

Regardless of the debate's controversial nature, some students in attendance were impressed with how the Debate and Speech Society covered a wide scope of views.

"I thought that the debate team did a great job in showing both sides to the argument," Becky Hanus '06 said.

Schon added that the topic was created, and voted upon in a democratic fashion by the entire club.

"[Divestment from Israel] was a very unfairly discussed topic and we'd like to bring balance to that topic," Schon said.

Editor's Note: Andy Bragin '05 contacted the Justice in March 2006 to clarify that although he argued the pro-divestment side of the debate in the above story, such action, which is consistent with the activities of any debate club, is, and never was, not representative of his personal views.