Dr. Hussein Ibish (screen) and Dr. Ian Lustick (left) answer questions from moderators Mohamed Manaa (middle) and Tyler Monk (right) regarding the viability of a two-state solution. Credit: Antonia Campbell | Lantern Reporter
The Civil Discourse Fellows program — run by Ohio State’s Center for Ethics and Human Values — held a forum titled “Is a Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Still Viable?” Friday at Thompson Library.
The 90-minute event was moderated by two student civil discourse fellows who invited two notable scholars to discuss the issue. Ian Lustick, a political science professor emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania, came to speak in person, and Hussein Ibish, a senior resident scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute, joined the event via Zoom.
“We want to see people disagree,” Tyler Monk, one of the event’s two student moderators, said. “That’s one of our goals, and Dr. Lustick and Dr. Ibish understood that perfectly. They showed how it can be done civilly, and they talked at the end about how we should be disagreeing and how we can do that right.”
Monk, a fourth-year in philosophy, politics and economics, moderated the event alongside Mohamed Manaa, a fourth-year in political science.
Piers Turner, director of the CEHV and associate professor in the Department of Philosophy, said the center runs a series of programs that attempt to “promote reflection and discussion on contentious ethical and social issues,” and the Civil Discourse Fellows program is one part of that goal.
Turner said eight undergraduates are selected from an applicant pool each year to be trained in civil discourse under the program. They are then paired up to plan, host and moderate civil discourse forums on a topical divisive issue, inviting scholars from different sides to speak. The program has hosted these forums since spring 2022.
“We allow students to pick whatever topic they want, and sometimes, honestly, we are nervous about how divisive certain topics are, but when the students see an opportunity to try to host a constructive discussion on something, we want to support them,” Turner said. “In this case, Mohamed [Manaa] and Tyler [Monk] felt like there was a need to host an event that allowed people to engage in a serious, but open and constructive dialogue on this issue.”
At the event, each speaker gave a 15-minute argument on their stance. Then, moderators asked follow-up questions that brought attention to the speakers’ disagreements.
Kathryn Joyce, director of the Civil Discourse Program, said the forum’s goal was to produce difficult and meaningful discussions.
“It’s meant to be discussion-based, and it’s aimed for an undergraduate audience,” Joyce said. “The speakers each speak for 15 minutes, answering the main question of the forum, and then the moderators facilitate a discussion by asking questions and putting them in conversation with one another, really highlighting areas of disagreement and trying to understand what underlies their different view on the topic.”
Inish, who believed in fighting for a two-state solution, gave his argument first, during which he said he does not believe the conflict will end unless there is an agreement in which both Israelis and Palestinians can exercise their autonomy.
“If there is only one way to resolve it, which is through a negotiated agreement which allows both peoples to exercise their self-determination, I don’t believe they can do that successfully in a single state,” Inish said. “I believe some form of separation, that is to say, some form of two states, is essential to allow self-determination. I don’t believe you can create a shared narrative.”
Lustick shared his argument next, during which he said he used to be a “fervent two-stater” until he realized the conflict might not call for a two-state solution anymore.
“To talk about which blueprint for dividing the land, that’s a distraction from the actual questions that are in front of us,” Lustick said. “I call what is going on now silent apartheid. This is the preferred solution. This is the preferred situation for most Israeli politicians, for the right wing in Israel. It doesn’t want to declare an annexation, because that would open the door to citizenship. [Right-wing politicians want] to pretend that someday there might be two states, so therefore they can keep ramping up settlements to prevent it”
The two scholars continued to argue their sides as moderators and audience members asked them questions, with both speakers maintaining their original stances. Additionally, both wrapped up their arguments by discussing the key importance of civil discourse.
Lustick said challenging how strong someone’s beliefs are might shift a potentially nonproductive discussion toward more meaningful dialogue.
“What’s my trick for when you talk to somebody, and they say something that is outrageous from your point of view and probably untrue?” Lustick said. “There’s a very interesting thing you can say to them. Say, ‘Would it matter to you if that weren’t true?’ The person you’re talking to has two choices. If they say, ‘No, it wouldn’t matter to me,’ then you say, ‘Well, let’s talk about something that matters,’ so you don’t have to argue about stupid polemics; you should talk about something that matters. If they say, ‘Yes, it would matter to me,’ now we have a research question. Now we have an opportunity to learn.”
When discussing the war in Gaza specifically, Inish said having a strong baseline of what is fact before beginning a discussion could create better discourse.
“Historians pretty much agree about who did and said what and when,” Inish said. “What they disagree about is, why? What were they trying to do? What were they trying to achieve? There, you have your debate. If you can get people to stick to the established facts, debate motivations and things like that, respect the quality of lives and respect the validity of narratives, then you can have a very good dialogue.”
Manaa said he always wanted to center his forum around the war in Gaza, as his Egyptian background — along with a class he took at Ohio State in which he studied the conflict — shaped his perspective on the issue.
“I was the first one to present the idea, and we initially got a little pushback because this was around when Oct. 7 happened,” Manaa said. “It’s always been a contentious issue in my life. My family’s Egyptian, and they always had a certain stuck opinion about the issue. When I got to college, I took the course History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict with Dr. [Ori] Yehudai, and he really opened my eyes. Becoming a civil discourse fellow, I really wanted to focus on this issue.”
When it came to creating a specific question on the topic, Monk said debating whether a two-state solution to the conflict was still feasible made the most sense for creating constructive conversation.
“We spent hours coming up with a question,” Monk said. “We talked to people at the Middle Eastern Studies Center and CEHV. We went from nitty-gritty questions like, ‘Who should be drawing the lines in a two-state solution?’ to huge questions like, ‘What is the moral thing to do in this?’ We thought this was the most productive question we could have in an hour and a half.”
Joyce said the point of civil discourse is not to replace activism — nor is civil discourse always necessary for every situation — but it is ultimately essential for creating progress in the long run.
“You don’t always have to engage in civil discourse, but there are some issues that concern all of us,” Joyce said. “The only way to make progress on those issues is to work together and talk to people who disagree. Sometimes, we’re not emotionally or mentally prepared to engage in civil discourse, and that’s okay. But I think that it’s something that is necessary for us as citizens and also as members of this community who want to live together in a way that’s fair and inclusive for everybody.”
