The participants' coach, Najwan Berekdar, opened the proceedings with a speech emphasizing civil discourse in the debate.

 

 

The “for” team, arguing in favor of performing artists from the Arab world performing in Israel, consisted of the debate’s participants Haitham Khatib and Najib Darawshe, and the journalist Maqbula Nassar. The team's position was that they respected the standards of the Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) campaign and the strategy of the cultural boycott, but that those standards, approved after several discussions attended by dozens of intellectuals and academics from within Israel, should be amendable to developments and the accumulation of experience, and through a process of community-wide, as opposed to elitist, dialogue – as stated by the organizers of the campaign itself. The supporting team argued that having foreign artists performing in local communities would help create a cultural environment that would support local PCI artists. They cited the enormous impact of “Arab Idol”, explaining that the PCI needs such an “Idol” and other cultural symbols to identify with, especially cultural symbols. These local artists, in the case of a supporting cultural environment, will not be forced to leave the country at a time when the PCI are fighting for the return of refugees and not the creation of new refugees.

 

 

The “against” team, consisting of Zamzam Faour, Minem Maarof and Majd Kayal, opened their argument against the claims of the “for” team by defining normalization: taking unacceptable practices and turning them into acceptable behavior, endangering the Palestinian community. The team affirmed that their opposition to such participation doesn't come from their position in Israel, but is based on the attitude of the Arab world, which fully approved the boycott of any contact with the occupying entity which would legitimize its repressive practices and the continued violation of the rights of the Palestinians; cultural normalization would absolve Israel of its crimes before the world.

 

The “against” team compared the civil service scheme, based on the value of volunteerism, with normalization, based on the value of communication. They explained that everyone supports those values, but in this case they both begin a slide into two unacceptable schemes, one legitimizing service and the second breaking the barrier of normalization.

 

 

After the statements from the two teams, the floor was opened for questions from the audience to the debate teams. Then artist Jowan Safadi and activist Ghadir Shafei gave a special assessment of the debate, evaluating all of the team's points along with other presentations on the subject of the debate.

 

The debate ended with an evaluation of the debaters by a special panel of judges composed of Dr. Suhad Daher-Nashef, activist Uday Mahamid, engineer Muhammad Barham, and activist Ranin Zreiq.