Yesterday, students from the Tufts Debate Society and England's Cambridge University debate team participated in a joint debate held in Pearson 104. The resolution that was debated stated that the United States should recognize Hamas as the legitimate political leader of Palestine.
Freshman Rob Silverblatt and junior Corey Miller joined Cambridge debaters David Tite and Stuart Smith in affirming the resolution, while sophomores Josh Wolf and Nate Grubman joined Cambridge debaters Daniel Warents and Adam Bott in opposing the resolution. (Silverblatt is a News editor for the Daily; Grubman is a writer in the Daily's Sports department.)
The debate was moderated by Sherman Teichman, Director of the Institute of Global Leadership. In his introductory speech, Teichman attempted to put the debate in an appropriate historical context by pointing out that Hamas originated as an Islamist counterbalance to Palestinian nationalism, and was founded as such largely through Israeli support.
Each debater was given six minutes to make his case. Speeches alternated between affirmative and negative, and questions were accepted from the audience after the first debaters had spoken. Following the debate, the audience was polled: 34 people were in favor of the resolution, and 22 were opposed.
The affirmative side asserted that the United State's stated goal is to foster democracy in the Middle East. "[It is] unfair to say that democracy is not our only aim," said Tite, who argued that not recognizing Hamas will discourage the pursuit of democratic avenues and encourage further violent opposition.
"[We] want to force [Hamas] to demonstrate their own competency," Miller said. "It's much more difficult to be extremist when you're inside government."
The negative side refuted this claim. "Democracy may be a useful long-term goal," Bott said, but not if it fosters violence or terrorism in the short-term.
"Democracy is not our single and only priority," Wolf said, asserting that recognition of Hamas amounts to "legitimizing terrorism" which would be unsafe for the United States to do, and not in line with its war on terror.
The negative side also questioned the legitimacy of the Palestinian democracy. "Just because you win a popular vote ... doesn't mean there's a proper democracy," Warents said.
Warents said that a democratic government cannot be allowed to be complicit with terrorist groups: "It's entirely illegitimate to suggest you can have it both ways," he said.
"Hamas has since its inception considered itself to be at war with one of America's closest allies," Bott said.
"If we can't negotiate in the first place, why do we need to recognize them?" Wolf added, referring to the fact that Hamas' platform explicitly does not recognize the legitimacy of Israel.
After Hamas' victory over the Fatah party in the January election, the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations announced three conditions for providing any future financial aid to the group.
The conditions were renunciation of violence, recognition of Israel's right to exist and a recognition of the 1993 Oslo Accords - the first major step in a process designed to create a workable relationship between Israel and Palestine, through which the state of Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization mutually recognized each others right to exist.
The negative side argued that no recognition or aid can be given to Hamas until they comply with these conditions by severing their ties with any and all terrorist groups and recognizing the state of Israel. (Israel's government has stated that it will not negotiate with Hamas or any other organization that does not recognize their country's legitimacy.)
The affirmative side argued that Hamas must be recognized unconditionally, and that financial assistance can then be used as an incentive to gradually moderate the Hamas platform.
Denying recognition will "make [Hamas] look very weak, and very puppet-like," Smith said, thereby nullifying the progress that Palestine has made by holding an election in the first place. "Everyone wants to see peace in the Middle East," he added, "[and] democracy does lead to legitimacy."
According to Smith, denying Hamas recognition "looks ridiculous" and makes its seems that the United States will only recognize those democratically elected group with which it agrees.
The negative side refuted this logic on the grounds that the conditions set for recognizing Hamas are completely reasonable, and that the more extreme elements of the Hamas platform - particularly its anti-Israeli stance and support for the institution of Sharia law - are not genuinely supported by the Palestinian people.
Bott said that the Palestinians deserve a government that will be able to determine its future on Palestinian terms, "rather than having a government no one is willing to deal with."
Following the audience poll, Teichman said that the night had "reaffirmed his delight in the concept of debate," but that the answer to the questions raised would be seen in the next 100 days as the world watches to see if Hamas is able to assert its own power in Palestine, stabilizing the country and reducing violence.
"Transitional politics hinges on demobilization of vanguard groups," Teichman said, stating that the true test of Hamas' viability is whether it will be are able to quell terrorist activity and the extreme anti-Semitic beliefs held by many Palestinians.
