The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

A believer in liberty should be against a Palestinian state

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/27/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 773 times Debate No: 53449
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)




"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" so begins the second paragraph of the declaration of independence thereby explaining what the basis of the new entity is, in their words "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation".
My understanding of this is that the foundation of a society of liberty and democracy is the belief that all men are created equal and therefore the individual should never be stomp't on (persecuted) never quieted (freedom of expression).And only with such a foundation can liberty last.
I am sure that most people when asked whether a country that has in its laws that someone who sells a house to a black should be executed and that one who kills blacks will not be punished by a court of law can be considered a democratic country would say absolutely not. Such a country does not even accept the premise of all men being equal before g-d. (Don"t ask if so how did America have slavery i do indeed think it was an inherent contradiction from day one, the salient point here is what you think the basis of liberty is i.e. what belief system ensures that the individual is respected even when the majority holds different.)
Applying it to our scenario the Palestinian Arabs clearly state their intentions of not allowing a single Jew to live in their state. In fact there's an interesting point people seem to totally skim over as if it"s nothing why is Israeli settlements such a big deal to the palistinians,why not just make your state with a quarter to a half a million Jews in it, Israel proper has over a million Israeli Arabs why is it so obvious to both sides that the Jews have to be expelled from their homes (many of them living there from the 1970s).The answer is clear, and of this there is no dispute any Jews left under the mercy of Palestinians will be summarily executed or expelled (the former being just as likely as the latter).The palistinian authority today has a law with the death penalty for selling property to a Jew.
So all you have to do is substitute the word black for Jew and you have your answer such a society would not be one of liberty and justice and therefore it is not in the interest of the free world the establishment of this state. How much more so if in the scenario i gave above the ones who are expected to be the ones to create this state are blacks how absurd is that notion, how outrageous, similarly honestly how excited do you expect Israelis to be at the thought of a Palestinian state.
There"s much more to discuss about how the Palestinian state would not be one of liberty but for now i await a response.


From the opening of your debate, in the very title, you started off by inferring ( but not directly engaging) in a No true Scotsman fallacy. That said, liberty by its virtue and its definition extend beyond a couple of paragraphs in the United States constitution. By definition :

lib·er·ty noun\G2;li-bər-tē\

: the state or condition of people who are able to act and speak freely

: the power to do or choose what you want to

: a political right

Thus we run into the second problem with your arguments premise... they " Don't tell me what to do with my liberty." So to be a believer in liberty, means there are no preconditions. As a believer in liberty, the right to self determination is key and while we shouldn't support states that have such outrageous policies, neither do we have grounds to be-or act against a people who have chosen a path of self determination and that means the most liberty-loving thing you can so is none-intervention.

None-intervention for the sake of our liberty as much as anything or anyone Else's because nothing but loss of life and and liberty comes from the use of force. On what basis is force justified? if Palestine prosecutes the Jews is it right to sacrifice liberty on the pretext of liberty? Which brings us to the third flaw in your opening debate. It's all conjecture. You'll have to show me the institutionalized prosecution by Palestine before we can go much further down this line. How ever even if palestine does these things, I believe you will have a tough time selling the motion that we should be actively against palestine.

Debate Round No. 1


Thank you Ms. whatever your name is for taking up the debate, and i really enjoyed your style of presentation.

With that being said let us discuss the issue. I was indeed cryptic in my argument why i think that the basis of liberty is the belief that all men are created equal, but in no way did i engage in a No true Scotsman fallacy i take the liberty to quote myself "the salient point here is what you think the basis of liberty is i.e. what belief system ensures that the individual is respected even when the majority holds different."

Now the name of the debate is whether a believer in liberty should be against a Palestinian state, i intentionally didn't write a believer in democracy because there's a major difference. Democracy as opposed to a monarchy or an oligarchy means that the people rule, the government is merely their representation. However democracy does not by definition equal liberty, the key word in democracy is majority rules (rules, not that everyone does as they please that's anarchy).You've probably heard about the arguments here in America in the era of communism what if the majority of America votes in favor of communism what then do we value more democracy or liberty.

When we discuss being a believer in liberty yes the literal definition of liberty is permission and power to do or say something (as in the sentence i take the liberty to point out...) and therefore the word liberty could be used to support a country with a few million people having self-determination, however the belief in liberty is the idea that the individual should have the right to act and speak freely or better said "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".(A quote from the declaration of independence btw not the constitution although Abraham Lincoln argued (the quite obvious point) that the constitution should be interpreted through the lens of the declaration of independence.)
In my humble opinion the basis and foundation of this idea is that all men were created equal and therefore the individual is to respected and allowed liberty even if the majority feels different. The reason why this belief is so essential is because without it when the majority thinks a certain way and very strongly at that what"s to stop them from imposing their opinions on the minority.

So yes i disagree with you completely, you said quote "So to be a believer in liberty, means there are no preconditions. As a believer in liberty, the right to self-determination is key and while we shouldn't support states that have such outrageous policies, neither do we have grounds to be-or act against a people who have chosen a path of self-determination and that means the most liberty-loving thing you can so is none-intervention." Of course there's a precondition that is that the people have to respect the individual, your faced by a dilemma what value do you value more democracy or liberty are you willing to sacrifice the rights of individuals (which are now protected wherever Israelis have jurisdiction) for the sake of the majority. Another key point, you yourself said "we shouldn't support states that have such outrageous policies", should we create it and then not support, isn't creating it supporting it.And you make it sound like we don't have to do any act of support for the state rather some "not-intervention" aren't you aware that for the establishment of the Palestinian state Israel needs to expel tens of thousands of Jews from their homes (the reason why i don't say hundreds of thousands is because Israel is never considering such a drastic step all those land swaps in the news you hear about is Israel drawing the border in a way to i incorporate the large amounts of Jews who mainly live close to the green line).

Which of course leads me into the final point you mentioned that "is't all conjecture". My point of them not letting a single Jew into their country is not conjecture it's a fact they say it openly. The point about the death penalty is fact not conjecture I"ll give you a link to the Palestinian land laws. And all this is besides for the most basic point that all you have to do is look at their education system about Jews and Israel and the future of the conflict, the Palestinian authority runs about 2,500 schools and studies have been made of their text books etc. not exactly big believers in liberty.

You said quote "How ever even if Palestine does these things, I believe you will have a tough time selling the motion that we should be actively against Palestine." I will not even respond to that but i find it incredibly disturbing again like i said just substitute the word Jew with the word black and i think you should be against the creation of Palestine.


This is a debate topic much older than either of us. What your getting at is a deep and fundamental contradiction in terms. I don't want to get personal but intuition tells me that you are asking a question in the that debate. There seemed to be conflicting thoughts about the rights of person v. the rights of people. This is a very very old contradiction in modern terms there are views that stretch the gambit from the Extreme Collectivist that believes the individual has no rights to the extreme individualist who believes collective responsibility as a concept is fascist.

The question of rights is an Axiom, a question that is indivisible, it can become bigger but cannot become smaller, indivisible. Ground floor argument. Unfortunately its not the original debate we intended to have, though I would love to have a specific debate with you about collective v. individual rights and responsibilities. To give you a better understanding of why Palestine forbids the sale of land to Israeli citizens ( but not explicitly to Jewish faith) I refer you to the following map :
-Source : Center for nationalist studies.

Currently, the right wing party in power in Israel supports annexation of the remaining Palestinian territory. ( by the way, that little "strip" of land in the south-west is Gaza) And I refer you to:

So,lets pretend for a moment that the fox-news narrative in the U.S. is on par and that Israeli is not expansionist ( look, there is a unicorn, they are real here.) With this map in mind, there is a Israeli acquisition of land that is undeniable- Palestine is in a sticky position, its territorial claims are in a kind of legal limbo...Israel which has as many lobbyists in the United states as oil companies Faces a tough spot where its very existence is only-semi recognized. Palestine in short, faces existential crisis and it faces such at the hands of Israel.

So mind you, your own source ( ) Defines the criteria for exclusion not as being a "Jew" but as being citizen-and-or-agent of the Israeli state from purchasing Palestinian land. I would hope that seeing the graphic evidence of Israeli territorial claims will shine some light on the necessity of such policies.

As for the 2nd source, this is a site I have never heard of before, which is fine by itself but when I investigated I found several cardinal sins for a source site... As follows:

(1) Alot of self referencing ( sourcing other articles on the same site as source material for another article)
(2) Dead links ( more than is acceptable)
(3) Obscure external links ( links to equally unknown sources linked in articles)

But for arguments sake, lets say Palestinian Authorities ( not an actual government) did teach their kids to hate Israel. Knowing the History of Israel, how it was created by what we call today, radical separatists ( ) With a declaration of Independence ( that caused a war ( Supported by the U.N ( ) on land that was carved up under British Rule ( and fought by an army backed by British powers, but was previously recognized as a terrorist organization (

Can you Blame Palestine is there is some bad blood? Should a "Believer in liberty" really be touching this conflict with a 10ft pole, attached to a crane arm,operated by remote control-from the moon?


Debate Round No. 2


"This is a debate topic much older than either of us... I don't want to get personal but intuition tells me that you are asking a question in the that debate...This is a very very old contradiction in modern terms there are views that stretch the gambit from the Extreme Collectivist that believes the individual has no rights to the extreme individualist who believes collective responsibility as a concept is fascist...Unfortunately its not the original debate we intended to have, though I would love to have a specific debate with you about collective v. individual rights and responsibilities."

The thing is that, that discussion is extremely relevant to our debate, no not the extremities of that debate of course, i was definitely not arguing that collective responsibility as a concept is fascist. I"m taking the middle road believers in freedom and liberty in my opinion should hold that the purpose of government of a country should be to protect the lives and freedom of the individuals residing therein. I"ll give you a radical example (it parallels our discussion) if Hitler would be elected in a country do you think that lovers of freedom and liberty should be supportive of that country or should they say that a country that elects for minorities to be persecuted against and even killed has no right to vote until they renounce their belief system (superior Aryan race, inferior worm like races etc.).

The relevance is obvious to create a country which in its outset clearly says that they can only be established by having all the Jews thrown out (judenrein), a country which constantly calls for the blood of Jews. If this is all true with the Palestinian authority how much more so with Hamas as the government i hope my crowd is educated enough to know that Hamas is a typical terrorist organization who dances in the streets at the sight of the twin towers falling and obviously they refuse to recognize israels right to exist in any borders religiously i quote to you from the Hamas charter "Nothing is loftier or deeper in Nationalism than waging Jihad against the enemy and confronting him when he sets foot on the land of the Muslims... the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion." For the whole charter i refer

As i said in my initial argument the attitude of the Palestinians to the Jews is one so well know and documented that to dispute it is ridiculous. The greatest proof of all being the fact that it's obvious to everyone that it wouldn't be safe to leave Jews in the state of Palestine. (I thought it such basic knowledge that i didn't check the web site from my random search on Google whether it was made by an amateur I"m sorry about that).

I don't want to get personal (g-d forbid) but let us be clear you said in your initial argument that even if all the things i said are true a lover of liberty should not be opposed to the Palestinian state. Then you spend your whole second argument trying to disprove my claim that the Palestinians are terribly anti-Semitic and explaining how these laws are just in place for the survival of the Palestinian nationalist movement and not in any way indicative of how a future Palestine would look,(and please, only Israelis i am only an American but me being a Jew 3 years ago was not allowed past the point outside of Ramallah where there's a big sign no Israelis past this point).But to be fair you conclude your argument my reverting to your original claim that even if it's all true the state should be created because Israel deserves it and you list their grievances . "Knowing the History of Israel, how it was created by what we call today, radical separatists... With a declaration of Independence ( that caused a war..on land that was carved up under British Rule ( and fought by an army backed by British powers, but was previously recognized as a terrorist organization". In any event they shouldn't get a state till they can overlook their grievances but it"s not even true I don't have enough typing space left to deal with the propaganda you've been led to believe but I"ll give you one site which i love especially the myth and fact section and it's very accurate.

"Should a "Believer in liberty" really be touching this conflict with a 10ft pole, attached to a crane arm,operated by remote control-from the moon?" i say absolutely I just hope that if your on the moon you have a good pair of binoculars to see the reality for what it is.


Unfortunately, Bias sourcing makes a solid refuting of your claims some what hard. You have chosen not to refute the historical evidence I have presented at the end the the last round but still labeled it as "propaganda" even though it is sourced to openly known and reasonably reliable sources. Palestine and Israel have internal conflicts that really only concern Israel and Palestine. It isn't practical nor legitimate to tie Palestine to larger issues with religious extremism. Israel has its own justifications for doing what its doing... as does Palestine. The nature of who is right and who is wrong is not really relevant to the initial contention which is that believe in liberty constitutes an obligation to be actively-against the state of Palestine.

Neutrality is most liberty loving stance to take, liberty is a selfish thing. It is selfish to believe in liberty and it is Selfish to possess it. To hold so dear your own liberties that you will protect liberty-by not getting involved in the age old struggles of others. Israel and Palestine,have bad blood that goes back a very long time. It is not anyone's place to get involved. If anything I have proven to you that the history shows Foreign involvement has ended for the worst, each time.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Dilara 2 years ago
Arab Israelis and jewish settlers are very very different. Settlers goals are to ethnically cleanse the Arabs from that land, and push then to the sea while Arabs who live in Israel speak Hebrew, come into contact with Jews every day with out beating or attacking them or vandilizing their homes or burning their crops which is something that most settlers do in a daily basis.
Mislims don't believe in the promised land. That land is special for all of the 3 Abrahamic faiths. For Jews it may be the promised land but for Christians (20% of Palestinians are Christian) it is where Jesus (who Jews believe in a false messiah) did many wonderful things and for Muslims it is where Mohammad ascended to heaven. It selfish and arogant to claim all of that land for one religious group and ethnic group. There should be a Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as it's capital and an Israel with west Jerusalem as it's capital. That way the Jews have their holy land, the Christians have their holy land and the Muslims have their holy land instead of one side taking it all for them selves.
Posted by mendel 2 years ago
I am officially ending this conversation because apparently it was over before it started.

Yes i am very familiar with the settlers, i have spent months of my life in this area of the world. You on the other hand no nothing of settlers. The don't build on privately owned land of Arabs so it's not stealing, if the Arabs can's appreciate that Jews want to live in the holy land of eretz yisroel, then in my opinion they don't deserve a state. Close to 2 million Arabs live in Israel proper, if 3 hundred thousand Jews is a problem for the Arabs then they are simply not good people and don't deserve a state.That is why Israel says that the settlements has nothing to do with the issue.
The issue is the pervasive Palestinian hate to the Jews, which i sadly noted that you will not check out, just bury your head in the sand and enjoy, ignorance is bliss.

B'Telem i would have you know is the most radically left group existent in Israel and they have been proven many times to misrepresent the facts.

You are yet young, i hope that one day you will be able to look at the reality for what it is, and you will see that every word i tell you is the truth.

with blessings for the immediate redemption aman
Posted by Dilara 2 years ago
I'm assuming you know what a settlers goal is. Their goal is to grab all that land in the West Bank and Gaza and make it part of Israel. If they are illegally living on stolen land in the occupied West Bank and their goal is to ethnically cleanse the Arabs from that area and if they harass people, burn their crops and animals and vandilize the homes of innocent Arabs (though some may want to see Israel "pushed to the sea" many would like a Palestinian state beside Israel. Not all are extremist terrorists) than sad day for them they shouldn't have been living in stolen land and they shouldn't have done all those terrible things to the Arabs living there and attempting to ethnically cleanse them (unless this person has been brainwashed and moved into a settlement as a child and didn't really make the choice for them selves).
There's no wonder Arabs don't like the settlers. Not all of them hate all Jews. B'Tselem is an Israeli human rights group and the people who work for are Jews and yes the Jews who work in B'Tselem help teach the West Bank Arabs how to use cameras to doccumentary settler attacks and come into contact with many Arabs to help them. I'm not denying that some Arabs hate Jews but some are happy to work with Israeli human rights activists, have their kids to to school and attend day camps with Jews and some even live in Israel and speak Hebrew. Of course they don't like being evicted from their homes so settlers can steal them and having dirty water dumped on them (in the doccumentary) and having their homes demolished. When people have to go through that it makes them angry and it makes them more likely to commit acts of terror.
What do you want to happen with the Palestinians?. If Israel is the promised land and only Jews can live there where will they go? Will they be forced to leave and go to Jordan or Lebanon?. What should happen to them?.
Posted by mendel 2 years ago
When did i say it's morally right to vandalize property. All i said that there is no comparison both in number and in the actions themselves whatsoever between what the arabs do to the settlers and what a very small amount of settlers have done to the arabs.
When did i say that the arabs should be expelled that you're asking me where should they go. I'm saying that no one should be expelled not jew not arab, if the arabs don't like that then to bad on them then they don't deserve a state.
Did you or did you not check the site palwatch that i gave a link before to. If you tell me that you checked it up (you'll see that Arab incitement against Jews is on every possible way and in every level of society, making israels fears of it being an enemy state valid) i'll make the time to see your documentary.
Posted by Dilara 2 years ago
It's not just physical assault. Watch the "sharmuta" video by Btselem and what's going on in that is sadly not uncommon for Arabs in the West Bank specifically Hebron. I really encourage you to watch the "9 days in Palestine" documentary by Frank Barat (only 36 minutes long) It's not just violence and assaults it's harassment and vandalism. Even though hurting a sheep is not as bad as hurting a person burning alive a pregnant sheep, killing the whole entire group of sheep and burning down or uprooting thousands of olive trees is horrible for the farmers. Now they have no olives to make olive oil or sheep for meat which they could sell and use to feed them selves. It's morally wrong to do that.
I understand that many Israelis have been killed or hurt by Arab terror attacks but that spent mean all Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza should be punished.. What about the Arabs who have their kids attend the peace preschool or live in that village oasis of peace (where Arabs and Jews live together). Should they suffer?.
If all the Palestinians were expelled from their homes in the West Bank and Gaza where would they go?. I know that Jordan is 60% Palestinian but still that's because of all the refugees that were forced to flee in 1948. Arab is kind of like a race but within that group there are different ethnicity's- Syrian, Jordanian, Egyptian, Palestinian ect. The Jews deserve a country but why don't the Palestinians? They may not have their own religion but they're their own ethnicity. Jordan is for Jordanians (though anyone can live there if they want) Iraq is for Iraqis ect and what I mean by that is every Arab ethnicity has their own country except Palestinians. The Egyptian have a country, the Lebanese have country and the Palestinians should have a country.
Posted by mendel 2 years ago
mendel check the link it gives exact numbers in each settlement and the total is excluding east Jerusalem 344,391 and with east Jerusalem it's another 150,000 around. Perhaps you're getting mixed up with the settlements in the Gaza strip which the jews were expelled from their homes, over there, there were 8,500 settlers. (i had the great merit of seeing their beautiful settlements before they were destroyed in the year 2005).

So i checked up the wiki settler violence thing and it's obviously not a complete picture at all i'll explain why i say that in a moment. But in any event even according to the article almost all the violence is against property. all that's recorded there regarding physical violence is 3 riots in the last ten years and even those only in one did they assault anyone physically (and no body was killed or wounded) and one of them was after a group of Palestinians threw rocks at them as they were praying on a hill. I checked the hatzelem site and it's terribly biased against israel but in any case, they record three 6 cases where an israeli killed a arab 3 of the cases the arab was throwing stones at the israeli 1 of them he came at the israeli with a knife and had already stabbed his freind, the other two cases i'm searching online and can't seem to find out what happened.
compare this with the jewish settlers killed by arabs (even in hatzelem they record that), and also keep in mind this is out of hundreds of thousands of settlers.
The reason why i say that, that article is missing stuff is because i know one of the guys in one of the riots and he sat in jail for a full year because of it (even they no one was hurt) he became religious in prison. He rioted because that morning they had tried killing his 11 year old next door neighbor.
Posted by Dilara 2 years ago
Btw the scientists name Tsvi Misini or something like that.
Posted by Dilara 2 years ago
I didn't mean that belief is nasty but it does bring out the bad of people (settlers who attack Arabs and burn their olive trees, kill their live stock and beat them) as well as many writings in the bible and Koran bring out the bad in people.
There are 5000 West Bank settlers.
Read the article called "Israeli settler violence" on wiki and watch videos by Israeli human rights group B'tselem. This is wrong. There's a middle ground and no is has to suffer. I understand that's your guys belief about the promised land but think of it this way. Even ifGod wanted Jews to have the promised land would god really want an entire people ethnically cleansed in order for that to happen?, would he want innocent people (Jews and Gentiles) to die when they could live (as I explained about how the occupation fuels terrorism against Israelis as well as settler attacks). Would he really want that to happen to people Jews, Muslims or Christians?. What happened to the whole "God loves everyone thing" where he cares about everyone and loves everyone the same. He wouldn't sacrifice someone's well being or even life just so that a nother person could be happy? Does god favor Jews over Palestinians? Does he love them more?. BTW I thought you might be interested to know that according to an Israeli scientist about 90% of Palestinians have jewish ancestry. His theory is when Jews were exiled many many years ago some who were in rural areas didn't leave and today those people are the Palestinians (mixed with Arab blood as well).
Posted by mendel 2 years ago
While it's true that most Israelis are pro a Palestinian state. That's not the state the Palestinians want, so that's very misleading. The Arabs don't want Jews to live in their country, that's unacceptable, Jews can live wherever they want in the world, Berlin, Paris, new York the only place they cant live in is the holy land of israel!! when Israelis are pro they are not pro demolishing the homes of 300,000 people, many of whom have lived there since the 1970s, when Israelis are pro they are not pro allowing the Palestinians continue the war just with the added benefit of a country to fight it.

What's "nasty" about thinking that g-d designated this land as the Jewish homeland. As long as people are nice to each other and live in peace there's nothing nasty about such a belief, and like i said every Jew who believes in Judaism believes it.

You said the terrorism is because of the occupation but surely you're aware that dozens of terrorist attacks happened before 1967, in fact the PLO Palestinian liberation organization was established in 1964.

I don't know if you had a chance to read my post to you're other post but the story of Israel destroying homes bla bla bla is simply a fictional tale. Please name a place.

Finally if you find a few individual Jews who did violent things (and have no support from the masses) it doesn't mean that it's an equal game. The Palestinians have massive terrorist organizations. they indoctrinate all of their children to hate Jews, in absolutely no Israeli school in the entire Israel is there such a thing.

Here's a website for you to get familiar with Palestinian hatred and here's another good site for you to see the difference between the Jews and the Palestinians
Posted by Dilara 2 years ago
Ok Mendel. On the "Israel is not an apartheid state" debate I gave you a list of articles to read and YouTube videos to watch. Some of these include: "9 days in Palestine" a documentary by Frank Barat and a video called "sharmuta-settler harasses Palestinian women" by Btselem. Most Israelis would disagree with you. From what I know most want a Palestinian state (my uncle is agnostic but raised jewish and from a jewish family and I've done a lot of research and my mom teaches modern Middle East history) In the three abrahamic religions there are many good teachings but sadly there are also nasty sounding things that can be interpreted the wrong way like in the Talmud, Old Testament, new Tesetmant and Quaran. It's easy for extremist (Jewish settlers, Muslim terrorists, Christian extremists in the U.S like the WBC) to use religion to do bad things. No matter what you believe you can't deny that what Israel's government is doing to the Palestinian's is wrong. I would also argue that a independent Palestine would be better for everyone. It would be better for the Arabs so they're not occupied and can control who they trade with and their own borders ect and for Israel because it would mean less terror attacks. Anger fuels terrorism. When the West Bank Arabs have their homes destroyed, family member killed and are illegally occupied by Israel it makes them angry and more likely to take that anger out on Israeli people by setting off bombs ect. There's a neighborhood in Israel called oasis of peace where Jews and Arabs live together I'm a community together-it's safe there-what if most Arabs and Jews felt that way and were willing to learn about each others culture and view points?. Think about some of the Israelis who hate Arabs because of all the attacks by them? It's the same thing. The occupation is fueling terrorism. Also there's a peace preschool in Jerusalem you should check out. Teaching kids at a young age to accept each other wouldn't be a bad thing
No votes have been placed for this debate.