Panelists debate U.S. intervention in Israel

Mutuality, mistrust and moral stagnation.

These were several of the themes discussed last night during a debate about U.S.-Israeli relations at the Skirball Center for the Performing Arts.

The debate, moderated by ABC News' John Donvan, brought together New York Times columnist Roger Cohen, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, former Israeli ambassador Itamar Rabinovich and attorney Stuart Eizenstat.

Their discussion focused on the concern that the U.S. government's unconditional alliance with Israel could be harmful. Cohen and Khalidi argued in favor of the motion to weaken U.S. relations with Israel, while Rabinovich and Eizenstat argued against the motion.

Throughout the debate, Cohen and Khalidi spoke about the need for a change in the status quo. Cohen argued that the U.S. should step back from its "special relationship in favor of a normal relationship." Khalidi discussed suspicions over "how honest a broker the U.S. can be," noting the "incredible largesse" in financial support the U.S. has given to Israel.

Rabinovich and Eizenstat took the opposing stance, arguing that the U.S. was indeed an "honest broker." They also said if the U.S. were to sever ties with its Israeli companion, it would convey "signals of inconstancy" not only to Israel but to countless other foreign allies.

Students took different sides in the debate.

CAS senior Aparna Patankar said the pair arguing against the motion was exagerrating the effect of weakening U.S.-Israeli relations.

"The side arguing against the motion was acting like we were completely abandoning an ally, where that wasn't really the issue at hand," Patankar said.

But LSP freshman Alana Green said she thought the outcome of the debate was almost predetermined in favor of weakening relations between the two countries.

"The speakers on the 'for the motion' side were speakers that could've spoken gibberish and would have gotten the applause of the audience and changed the undecided vote," Green said.