In a move that delighted some and infuriated others, U of T granted a room booking for the Palestian Solidarity Conference, paving the way for the controversial event which had been cancelled the week before by Student Affairs.

The conference, organized by student groups Al-Awda and the Arab Students’ Collective, raised eyebrows amongst pro-Israel advocates, who balked at the event’s basis of unity, a prerequisite for registering. Included in the basis were tenets claiming that the Palestinian right of return is non-negotiable, and that a two-state solution in the region is not viable or acceptable for the Palestinian people.

In a statement to the press, Jewish advocacy group B’Nai Brith Canada condemned the decision, claiming the conference is “predicated on the endorsement of violence and terrorism.”

Hazem Jamjoum, one of the conference organizers, denied these charges, saying “Even in the beginning, we were clearly in line with university policy,” and blaming B’Nai Brith for singling out his group.

For the administration, the basis of unity was the sticking point. “That was the reason we cancelled it last weekend,” noted Vice-Provost, Students David Farrar. According to Jamjoum, an agreement was reached in which the basis of unity was moved below the signature line in the conference’s registration form, meaning participants would acknowledge that the conference organizers abided by the tenets, but they themselves need only respect the tenets, not agree with them.

Thanks to the controversy over the conference now stretching into its second week, the actual launch of the event drew a media frenzy. Both the National Post and the Globe and Mail ran stories on the controversy last week, and they were joined at the launch by many others. “I’m actually glad it got a lot of coverage,” said Jamjoum. “I hope the effect will be that other anti-apartheid activists will feel empowered by our victory.”

The big question, of course, was what would happen when the conference actually began. According to Jamjoum, there were detractors in the audience, but “we nipped that in the bud.” Opponents limited their protests to philibuster-style questioning, which of course garnered responses from other audience members. “Because they brought up [issues about suicide bombers for example], people felt they had to respond,” said Jamjoum.

In the end however, Jamjoum was happy. “By its very existence it was a success,” he noted. For conference attendee and Hillel member Simon Lightstone, the event offered something missing from previous confrontations between the pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli factions; dialogue with the other side. “Rather than the conflict, we discussed perceptions of the other side,” said Lightstone, after an enlightening chat with a pro-Palestine supporter at the conference. “We realized, ‘wait a second, we can talk about this,'” he continued. Lightstone was not as enthusiastic about the content of the conference itself. “I don’t believe a group that has a basis of unity like that can bring peace to this campus,” he noted, adding that he disagreed with the tenet which stated that Palestinians should be able to resist Israel by any means of their choosing. “They should have just said ‘they should have the right to resist,” he believed.

If anything, Lightstone felt he at least came away from the conference with a new friend, and a better understanding of the other side of the conflict. “Hopefully we can ease the tensions on campus.”