A diverse crowd made up of UCLA undergraduates, graduates,
professors and members of the Westwood community gathered together
Monday night for a debate regarding the future of Israel.
UCLA history Professor David Myers called for support of a
two-state system for Israelis and Palestinians in the debate with
radio host Dennis Prager, who emphasized what he believes is the
moral gulf between Israelis and Palestinians and the idealistic
view of the world held by university communities.
Myers and Prager both expressed support for peace negotiations
between Israelis and Palestinians in the debate which focused
largely on Myers and Prager’s different views of
Palestinians.
During the debate, Myers argued for a two-state solution which
he claimed is “not only ideal, but necessary for
peace.” Myers said economic support for a viable Palestinian
state is needed to encourage peace between Israelis and
Palestinians.
“Support for Israel is not exclusive of support for
Palestine,” Myers said.
Myers also advocated for the withdrawal of the Israel-occupied
Gaza strip and the West Bank.
“The economic, political and moral cost of occupation is
too high,” Myers said.
Prager, on the other hand, claimed that the majority of
Palestinians will not accept peace with a Jewish state and that
Palestinian culture tolerates and honors terrorists. In his
rebuttal, Myers warned against a demonized view of Palestinians,
saying it is “dangerous and should be avoided.”
Prager, calling himself a “naive, peace-loving Jew,”
said he believes “Israel aches for peace but its enemies do
not.”
“If you cannot see this moral gulf, then you are willfully
blind,” Prager said toward the end of the debate, drawing
loud cheers and applause from the crowd.
He argued that moral, not economic, change is needed and that
despite what the academic community might want to believe,
Americans and Israelis cannot facilitate that change.
“It’s bizarre to me. When I come into a university,
I believe I step into another world,” Prager said.
“Your culture teaches you that Americans and Israelis can
teach Palestinians basic morality. That is unrealistic.”
But Prager said despite what he views as a moral gulf between
Israelis and Palestinians, negotiations for peace must take
place.
Throughout the evening, the audience applauded both speakers,
sometimes laughing at Prager’s jokes.
UCLA alumna Jeannine Frank said she believed Myers was at a
disadvantage because he was more serious. Frank called
Prager’s statements regarding Palestinians
“inciteful.”
“I believe that the Islam faith does not support suicide
bombings. For him to state that this is a part of their culture
just can’t further peace. It’s unsettling to hear
someone with such charisma and with a national platform to make
statements that are so provocative,” Frank said.
While most in attendance appeared supportive of an Israeli
state, many believed that the two speakers had similar views and
ultimately desired a peaceful Israeli state.
Bryan Pauley, a third-year chemical engineering student, said
though he believes the debate was unequal because Prager knew more
of the situation, he believed Myers and Prager ultimately wanted
the same thing.
“It’s hard listening to people who basically want
the same things debating intensely. The differences seem greater
than they actually are,” Pauley said.