Chants of "Free Palestine" echoed around the chamber of the world's oldest debating society, the Cambridge Union. The brightest students in the country had just passed the motion - "This House Believes Israel is a Rogue State" - and few in the audience seemed surprised. And if you're not worried about that, you should be. For, unless we act now, we are in real danger of losing future policy-makers to the anti-Israel camp.
Speak to any number of pro-Israel students at university. They're concerned and rightly so. Across the country, pro-Israel students are being met with open hostility, academic boycotts and, occasionally, violent confrontation. Many feel helpless at times and look to their seniors in the community for guidance, especially in the comforting setting of a debate based (supposedly) on reason and fact. Yet, having attended numerous of these events, I can tell you with frustration that age is not bringing wisdom.
The result in Cambridge last week stands only as the latest example of a wider trend of debates being lost by senior members of our community, causing growing anti-Israel sentiment among those lacking an ingrained, emotional connection to the region.
These are the people the pro-Israel camp cannot afford to isolate. Students today, they are the policy-makers of tomorrow, entering public life believing Israel is a rogue state. And they are ultimately the figures who will dictate future British relations with Israel.
Curiously, only five years ago, the Cambridge Union held the same debate with exactly the same motion. It was comfortably rejected, with 77 per cent voting in opposition or abstaining. So what's changed?
Some might say the ''scene''. There's more anti-Zionism in the air - depressingly predictable after Israeli military action is relayed on prime-time TV screens around the world. It's a fair point, but we in Britain have little control over the actions of the IDF. Israel's portrayal in the media during military operations is of course important, but, however negative you may or may not feel the coverage was, this doesn't explain why 51 per cent of students agreed Israel was a rogue state. The opportunity to defend Israel in a formal setting ought to have been the perfect opportunity to dispel anti-Israel sentiment. If done effectively, of course.
To understand what went wrong we need to first break down the results of the debate. Students were asked to vote both before and after, giving us strong data on how the speakers performed as a collective.
The conclusions are bleak. By the end, 7 per cent more students agreed that Israel was a rogue state and, perhaps more significantly, 10 per cent fewer disagreed with the motion outright. Put bluntly, the pro-Israel speakers not only lost the debate, but further alienated those on Israel's side. Why?
I don't think we can blame the Union for inviting poor speakers. Two of the three, Vivian Wineman, president of the Board of Deputies and Davis Lewin, Head of Policy and Research at the Henry Jackson Society, were hardly minnows. Few pro-Israel supporters in the room thought these two would fail to get the room to reject such a leading, anti-Israel motion. And yet they did.
Both spent much of their time comparing Israel to its neighbours. It's an old classic: Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, while the Iranians hang homosexuals. But is this really enough any more? I think the results speak for themselves.
Here, we reach the crux of the problem. Ineffective arguments are being furthered by traditional speakers in the most crucial of settings. So what needs to be done?
Firstly, speakers need to recognise that "Free Palestine" can no longer be countered with free the Arab world. The recent poll by Chatham House, which placed Israel as the second most unfavourably viewed country by the UK public, beaten only by North Korea, dispels any such myths. Indeed, compared to 2012, 12 per cent fewer people viewed Iran with an "especially unfavourable" eye.
Second, we must recognise that Israel is increasingly being judged against ''Western'' countries, not its Middle Eastern neighbours. So why not compare Israel with the United States, a repeated violator of international law with drone strikes and the use of cluster bombs in so-called "surgical strikes"? Or, if that's too controversial for some audiences, at the very least make the point that, unlike the Israelis, the Egyptians opened the Rafah crossing with Gaza only last week, after a two-month closure. Remarks like these would go a long way to counter the bully/victim narrative often used to single out Israel in a comparative framework.
A long way, but not far enough. Figures on the anti-Israel side would still be correct in arguing two wrongs don't make a right. Just because others are "rogue" by breaking international law doesn't exonerate IsraeI of its own responsibilities.
I think the third speaker, Hannah Weisfeld, accepted this premise and it is why her argument was more effective. She accepted Israel didn't "always get it right" and that one should approach Israel with a critical eye, particularly over contentious issues like the occupation. But to call it rogue was "completely irrational" in the light of the checks and balances ingrained in Israeli society that enable parliamentary criticism and a free press. Most convincingly, she spoke of the Israeli court system's proclivity to charge corrupt politicians, including sitting political figures, and the manner in which an NGO like B'Tselem could openly criticise the policies of the government.
In a sentence, she argued Israel can, and should be, legitimately criticised but this doesn't make it a threat or indeed rogue.
Perhaps this argument is a sign of things to come. Yachad, the organisation she heads up, describes itself as "pro-Israel, pro-peace" and casts a self-critical eye over the Jewish state. It is a refreshing move away from the old conservatism displayed by figures like Lewin and Wineman.
Because however much you might feel Israel is unfairly singled out among its Middle Eastern neighbours, it continues to arouse a unique fascination among those in the West.
Why this is so remains a separate debate. What is clear, however, is that, unless we change tack, we risk a new generation of future policy-makers entering public life believing Israel is a force for evil, not good. And that would be rogue indeed.
