A Matter for Debate

If authoritarian populists are Supermen—and evidently they and their supporters are convinced they are—then empathy and critical thinking are their kryptonite. In the battle for democracy and humanism, which each of us must wage every day in our own surroundings with humanity, solidarity and a critical attitude toward the world, the Maribor high school students at the recent debating competition came away with a draw. Bravo for the empathy they showed. As for critical thinking, however, the students and their mentors still have, in my opinion, some room for improvement.

I admit I hesitated to comment on this event, since the media reports contained few details about the circumstances in which the decision to walk out was made. And details matter in such sensitive matters, and I really would not want to do anyone an injustice.

Be that as it may, at the competition in Zagreb the Maribor students showed a great deal of empathy—certainly more compassion for and solidarity with the suffering of the Palestinians than many of those who immediately attacked them in the media and even called them “Satanists.” That is surely the first message of this event. Our attitude toward Palestinian suffering in Gaza is the most important test of our individual and collective humanity in today’s world. On this score the Maribor students cannot be reproached at all, unlike those who support and even justify the conduct of the Israeli army and government.

But—as I said—empathy is important, but so is critical thinking, which means not only being critical of the world and of others, but also, and above all, constantly checking one’s own positions and opinions critically, on the basis of facts and knowledge. And here the decision to walk out of the competition raises quite a few questions for me.

First, I have trouble understanding what the actual motion was that the Maribor students were supposed to debate. According to information I found online with some difficulty, the debate was about “regretting the establishment of the State of Israel as a consequence of the Second World War,” and the draw assigned the students the task of arguing against the regret.

If that was the case, then the first serious problem is the way the topic was later presented to the Slovenian public. The Maribor students’ mentor said that opposing “regret over the creation of the State of Israel” would have forced the students to “defend genocide against the Palestinians.”

Again—the media reports were sparse, and it is possible they conveyed the details of individual statements inaccurately. If I have misunderstood, I apologize, and above all I sincerely hope it was a reporting error, since equating the establishment of the State of Israel (as a consequence of the Second World War) with genocide against the Palestinians is a serious logical and ethical slip.

The justification and justice of the establishment of the State of Israel can of course be debated—after all, opinions on it were divided among Jews themselves, both before Israel was founded and today. But the fact that the motion referred to the establishment of Israel as a consequence of the Second World War should have led the students to the realization that its establishment (whether we agree with it or not) was not the result of a frivolous decision by annoying Jews who just decided to go back to the Middle East and start mistreating Palestinians, but a consequence of the Holocaust, in which six million people were murdered. That is not, and never can be, an excuse for Israeli violence against the Palestinians, but it is a key part of the mosaic for a critical understanding of this long, tragic and bloody story.

Second, the reference to the Second World War (that is, the Holocaust) allowed the Maribor students to place the defense of the establishment of the State of Israel 77 years ago in the context of the violence from which it arose, and to make their defense of Israel’s establishment conditional on opposing similar violence against the Palestinians. Even if they had lost because of this, they could have left the competition with their heads held high, since their pride would not have been clouded by the questionable automatic linking of Israel’s existence with genocide against the Palestinians. Because the only logical conclusion of that thesis is that violence against the Palestinians can be ended only if Israel ceases to exist. I strongly doubt the Maribor students and their mentors wanted to say that one genocide can be resolved only by another, the third in a row. Let me also recall that the solution to the Middle East tragedy, on which the reasonable and humane part of world opinion still insists, requires the existence of two states—a Palestinian one, which admittedly does not yet exist because of Netanyahu’s policies, and Israel, whose creation the students did not want to have to not regret. Here more critical thinking before the final decision on participating would certainly have come in handy.

Third, it is also questionable that they evidently decided on the boycott in advance—but only in case the draw gave them the role of the opposition. That’s not OK. If they thought the topic was ethically unacceptable, it would have been logical to withdraw from participating in advance, regardless of which position they would have had to defend.

Finally, we can ask whether the organizers made a mistake in choosing for a high school competition such a sensitive topic, one on which most of world politics is failing the test of humanity. After (critical) reflection, my view is that the decision was risky but not inappropriate. I believe that both the Maribor students and their peers are capable of debating even such complex and painful topics. Where else should they learn about and discuss them, if not at school and in activities like this competition? But for that they need appropriate and competent guidance and help.

Symptomatic is the statement of the head of the Maribor high school, who said the students had shown a great deal of humanity and common sense. On humanity we all agree; as for common sense, Einstein already said it is the collection of all the prejudices we acquire by the age of eighteen.

Heads up, Maribor students. Be proud and hold on to your humanity—in this you are setting an example for many of your elders. And in the new year, I wish you, and not only you, plenty of critical thinking and as little common sense as possible.

Happy New Year.