Introduction: A Heated Night Outside Meridian Hall

A highly charged political and humanitarian debate unfolded in downtown Toronto on Wednesday night as the renowned Munk Debates hosted a panel of former Israeli officials to discuss whether a two-state solution is in Israel’s national interest. While the discussion took place inside Meridian Hall, hundreds of protesters gathered outside, voicing strong opposition to the absence of Palestinian representation and raising serious allegations against two of the speakers over their roles in past military conflicts.

The event, which drew widespread attention both for its prominent participants and the sensitive geopolitical issue at hand, quickly became a flashpoint for wider conversations about accountability, international law, and whose voices deserve to be heard in public discourse on the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Heavy Police Presence as Protesters Rally in Solidarity with Palestinians

Demonstrators Gather in Downtown Toronto

An estimated 200 protesters assembled outside Meridian Hall as the Munk Debate got underway. Many held Palestinian flags and signs condemning Israeli government actions, while chanting slogans calling for justice and recognition of Palestinian suffering. Mounted police and a significant law enforcement presence were deployed around the venue, creating a tense atmosphere as demonstrators made their voices heard.

Trevor Miller, one of the protesters, described the event as “unacceptable,” arguing it represented a one-sided narrative on an issue that continues to impact millions.

“We are here to speak out for the people of Palestine, and for everyone who is suffering under imperialism,” Miller said during the demonstration.

Police eventually dispersed the crowd as the evening continued, though the protest remained largely peaceful.

Inside the Hall: A Debate on Israel’s National Interest

The Motion and the Panel

According to the official Munk Debates website, the central question posed to the panel was:
“Be it resolved, it is in Israel’s national interest to support a two-state solution.”

Former Israeli leaders were positioned on both sides of the argument:

Speaking in favour of the motion:

• Ehud Olmert – Former Prime Minister of Israel, as well as former Finance Minister and Mayor of Jerusalem

• Tzipi Livni – Former Israeli Justice Minister and Foreign Minister

Speaking against the motion:

• Michael Oren – Former Israeli ambassador to the United States and a former deputy minister during Benjamin Netanyahu’s second term

• Ayelet Shaked – Former Israeli Justice Minister and Minister of the Interior

The all-Israeli panel quickly became a central point of criticism, particularly from protesters and human rights advocates who said the absence of Palestinian representation undermined the legitimacy of the conversation.

No Palestinian Voices on the Stage

Outside the venue, critics questioned how a discussion of a two-state solution — directly affecting Palestinian people — could take place without including a Palestinian perspective.

“It’s indefensible to have all of these voices and no one representing the people who are genuinely suffering,” said Miller. His comments echoed the broader frustration among demonstrators who felt that an essential viewpoint had been deliberately excluded.

Munk Debates Organizer Responds to Criticism

“Hard-Won Insights” from the Panelists

Rudyard Griffiths, chair and moderator of the Munk Debates, defended the decision to include only Israeli participants during an interview with CBC Radio’s Metro Morning. He stated that the organization typically selects panelists with first-hand experience and deep knowledge of the subject matter.

“As we do with every Munk Debate, we try to assemble people who have hard-won insights and in-depth experience that they can bring to the topic,” Griffiths explained. “I think these four panelists will do this.”

Griffiths added that Wednesday’s event represented only one facet of an ongoing, global conversation, emphasizing that the purpose of the Munk Debates is to present specific viewpoints, not to encompass every voice in a single evening.

Invitation for Other Voices in Future Discussions

When asked if a future debate including Palestinian speakers could take place under the Munk Debates banner, Griffiths said he would support others in organizing such an event, while also noting the organization’s private status.

“If you don’t like the debate, the panelists, or the topic, rest assured your tax dollars are not going towards it,” he said. “We welcome others to organize other debates on other topics, including this one.”

Allegations of War Crimes Prompt Legal Action

Lawyers Call for Arrests of Former Israeli Officials

In a significant development on the same day as the event, the Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights (CLAIHR) submitted a 24-page document to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and the war crimes division of Canada’s Department of Justice. The document called for the arrest and investigation of Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni over alleged war crimes committed during the 2008–2009 conflict in Gaza.

Henry Off, an international human rights lawyer associated with CLAIHR, described the panelists’ presence in Canada as deeply troubling.

“Canada needs to uphold the rule of law, and that means playing its part in investigating and prosecuting international crimes,” Off stated.

Reference to United Nations Findings

The document submitted by CLAIHR refers to the 2009 United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, which alleged that Israeli armed forces committed grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention. These alleged violations included:

• Wilful killing

• Torture or inhuman treatment

• Unlawful and extensive destruction of property not justified by military necessity

Because both Olmert and Livni held senior positions in government at the time, CLAIHR argues that they could reasonably have been aware of the military actions and should be investigated accordingly.

The organization also cited Canada’s obligations under international law. According to the Fourth Geneva Convention, countries have a duty to “seek out and prosecute” individuals suspected of grave breaches, regardless of their nationality, if they are present on Canadian soil.

“It would be unreasonable to allow them to enter and leave Canada without even being questioned,” Off said.

RCMP’s Ongoing Assessment

The RCMP has previously confirmed that in early 2024 it launched a structural assessment related to the Israel-Hamas conflict. While this is not considered a criminal investigation, the agency has indicated that it could open one if sufficient links to Canada emerge under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.

At the time of writing, both the RCMP and the Department of Justice have been contacted for comment but have not yet issued a public response.

A Conflict That Draws Global Scrutiny

Allegations on Both Sides

While the focus of Wednesday’s legal submission was on Israeli officials, the same UN report referenced by the lawyers also stated that certain actions by Palestinian armed groups — including firing rockets and mortars into civilian areas — could constitute war crimes and may even amount to crimes against humanity.

This broader context highlights the deep complexity of the conflict and the widespread calls for accountability on all sides.

Humanitarian Conditions in Gaza Remain Dire

At the same time, humanitarian groups continue to warn that residents of Gaza are facing severe shortages of food, water, medical supplies, and adequate shelter. Even following a ceasefire agreement, aid entering the region is not meeting the scale of what was pledged, leaving many families exposed to deteriorating weather and living conditions.

As winter approaches, shelters damaged by airstrikes and flooding provide little protection, further intensifying the crisis for civilians caught in the ongoing conflict.

Conclusion: A Debate That Reached Far Beyond the Stage

What was intended as an intellectual exchange over Israel’s national interests and the viability of a two-state solution quickly evolved into a broader reckoning over justice, representation, and international responsibility. The absence of Palestinian voices, the allegations of war crimes, and the visible public unrest outside Meridian Hall all underscored the deeply emotional and political nature of the topic.

While the debate itself centered on Israel’s internal considerations, the protests and legal actions surrounding the event served as a powerful reminder that the consequences of the conflict extend far beyond national borders — and that global audiences continue to demand transparency, inclusion, and accountability in discussions that shape the future of an entire region.

As Canada weighs its role under international law and organizers defend their platform choices, this controversial evening in Toronto is likely to remain part of ongoing discussions about freedom of speech, humanitarian justice, and the responsibilities of public forums in addressing global crises.