A believer in liberty should be against a Palestinian state
Debate Rounds (3)
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 :
: the state or condition of people who are able to act and speak freely
: the power to do or choose what you want to
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: http://www.washingtonpost.com...
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 http://en.wikipedia.org.... 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 ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) 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 ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) With a declaration of Independence ( http://en.wikipedia.org...) that caused a war (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Supported by the U.N ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) on land that was carved up under British Rule ( http://www.princeton.edu...) and fought by an army backed by British powers, but was previously recognized as a terrorist organization ( http://en.wikipedia.org...)
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?
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.). http://youtu.be...
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. http://www.palwatch.org.... 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 http://www.thejerusalemfund.org...
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 ( http://en.wikipedia.org......) that caused a war..on land that was carved up under British Rule ( http://www.princeton.edu......) 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. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...
"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.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.