The Work of Debating the Future of Israel

So many takes, so little time for serious thought

Bombs away

Over the next few weeks, I will be adapting material from the debate and moot court courses I've taught, aiming to add some rigor often missing from online discussions on complex issues. In our current extremely online media landscape, the norm is quick-reaction takes, instantly propelling everyone into a cyclone of opinions. There's a social obligation to serve up a "hot take" on whatever issue is dominating the news cycle — be it racial tensions, gender trouble, political unrest, or international conflicts, such as the current conflagrations engulfing Ukraine and Palestine. This compulsion extends to keeping tabs on who is "silent" on a given issue, a marker that is interpreted variously depending on the discursive community one finds oneself in.

While the immediacy of social media provides a dynamic platform for public discourse, it also fosters an environment where the complexity and nuance of issues are often lost or oversimplified. The Israel-Palestine conflict, for instance, has roots and ramifications that stretch far beyond the simplistic narratives often shared online. This dearth of substantive analysis isn't just an academic concern; it affects real-world policy, public opinion, and ultimately, the lives of those embroiled in these conflicts.

In this series, I aim to take a step back from the instantaneousness that characterizes online debates today. In doing so, I hope to elevate the discourse, encouraging readers to engage with these issues with the same level of scrutiny and intellectual commitment that one would expect in a debate or courtroom setting.¹

With this approach in mind, let's explore how the tenets of case construction can be applied to one of the world's most enduring and contentious issues: the Israel-Palestine conflict.