The Instigator
haab2178
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
TheLibertarian
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

America's continued support of Israel.

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,411 times Debate No: 545
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (16)
Votes (5)

 

haab2178

Con

American should also support Palestine and take more initiative to create a Palestinian state. Support to Israel should not end, but support for the new Palestinian nation should begin, bringing to the area greater economic activity and peace.
TheLibertarian

Pro

As a libertarian and a strong supporter of rights for all, I believe that all people on God's Green Earth deserve liberty and justice. However, when one party consistently and without fail violates another nation's rights and liberties, they derve none of there own. This is exactly what Palestine is, and has been doing since the creation of the Israeli state in 1948. America and Israel have given Palestine chance after chance at peace, with the Oslo Accords, the Road Map to Peace, and a great deal of other talks, yet the Palestinian government has thrown it back in our faces and just started up another bout of violence and terrorism. For America to support Palestine by not only funding them more, but to recognize them would be a violation of everything we stand for, and in my opinion, would be disgusting and obscene. Israel has had many chances to just invade Palestine and end the conflicts once and for all, as they have had a consistently stronger army and a vast amount of just causes. However, they desire peace so much that they have appeased Palestine time and time again and offered them a number of chances at peace with Palestinian benefits. So to support this arrogant and corrupt territory would not only be against the American Way, but also be a very illogical and poorly planned move that would be detrimental to peace in the Middle East and would only cause more conflict.
Debate Round No. 1
haab2178

Con

haab2178 forfeited this round.
TheLibertarian

Pro

TheLibertarian forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mjg283 9 years ago
mjg283
On the 1967 War (much of this is gleaned from Michael Oren's excellent book, Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East):

Under international law, a blockade is an act of war. Egypt's blockade wasn't "intended" -- it was put in place. The "military maneuvers" you speak of involved moving tens of thousands of troops in the Sinai and ejecting the United Nations Emergency Force which had been in place for ten years to keep the peace. In addition, Israel's only "pre-emptive" attack was against Egypt, not Jordan or Syria. Both of those countries attacked Israel without provocation -- indeed, the IDF was initially ordered to ignore Jordanian shelling of Israeli positions in an effort to keep Jordan out of the war.

The reason for Israel's "lie" (which the US never really believed anyway) was two-fold -- to thwart ceasefire efforts until the Arabs could be defeated and, more importantly, to stave off the possibility of Soviet military intervention on the Arabs' behalf. (Oren at p. 210). Ironically, Egypt itself helped in this regard, initially opposing even a ceasefire resolution (proposed after the first day of fighting) that would have labeled Israel the aggressor.

Of course Israel planned its pre-emptive strike for a long time, primarily because it knew that: (a) Egypt was its enemy; (b) Egypt was building up its army and air force big-time; and (c) war was likely inevitable. To not plan a pre-emptive strike for the appropriate circumstances would have been foolish.

Yes, the purported justification for the Yom Kippur War was to get back the territory lost in 1967, but if you believe the Arabs would have simply stopped after regaining that, I have some land in Antarctica you might be interested in buying.

Israel did not hold South Lebanon for 22 years after 1978. They withdrew their forces that same year and reinvaded in 1982 to throw out the PLO (which itself was occupying South Lebanon and using it as a base for terrorism).
Posted by mjg283 9 years ago
mjg283
". . . allowing Israel to grab over 40 percent more land than they were given in the UN mandate."

This is a blatant mischaracterization. Israel was never given any land by any binding UN mandate. General Assembly Resolution 181 was a non-binding recommendation to the Security Council of how to partition the Holy Land. That recommendation was never implemented because the Arabs rejected it (only the Arabs have the chutzpah to reject a proposal and then criticize the Israelis for not adhering to it).

"In 1956, Israel attacked Egypt, capturing the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip and was forced to withdraw by President Eisenhower."

Yes, after Egypt had been sending Fedayeen raids into Israel for years, killing hundreds, and blockading the Straits of Tiran, which is a blatant act of war.

Fun fact: When Israel withdrew from the Sinai in 1957, it had an understanding with Eisenhower that if Egypt blockaded the Straits of Tiran again, this would be considered an act of war, and Israel would be entitled to invoke its right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter and respond militarily. Which of course leads us to the 1967 War, which I'll deal with in my next post.
Posted by mjg283 9 years ago
mjg283
"In Menachem Begin's writings, he tells how successful the newly founded Israeli state was in driving out the Palestinians by terrorizing them with barrel bombs (which he claims to have invented), slaughtering a whole village (Deir Yassin was publicized to encourage flight)"

Much of the truth about what actually occurred at Deir Yassin can be found here:
http://www.peacefaq.com...

and here:
http://www.hirhome.com...

and here:
http://www.freerepublic.com...

Yes, I'm sure you thoroughly read all of "Menachem Begin's writings" on the matter. You claim Begin wrote that the Jews encouraged flight by publicizing the battle. In reality Begin wrote that it was the ARABS who publicized what happened, not the Jews. To the extent Jews did publicize what occurred, it was not done to encourage Arab flight, but to SMEAR THE IRGUN:

Menachem Begin, The Revolt, Dell Publishing, NY, 1977, pp. 225–227. Cf. The footnote to pp.226-7 reads, To counteract the loss of Dir Yassin, a village of strategic importance, Arab headquarters at Ramallah broadcast a crude atrocity story, alleging a massacre by Irgun troops of women and children in the village. Certain Jewish officials, fearing the Irgun men as political rivals, seized upon this Arab gruel propaganda to smear the Irgun. An eminent Rabbi was induced to reprimand the Irgun before he had time to sift the truth. Out of evil, however, good came. This Arab propaganda spread a legend of terror amongst Arabs and Arab troops, who were seized with panic at the mention of Irgun soldiers. The legend was worth half a dozen battalions to the forces of Israel. The `Dir Yassin Massacre' lie is still propagated by Jew-haters all over the world.
Posted by mjg283 9 years ago
mjg283
-If the homes bulldozed are owned by innocent people, of course they should be fully compensated.

-The PLO's "recognitions" of Israel in all of the instances you mention were hollow at best, for the reasons I mentioned in my prior post. Even the New York Times described the 1988 "recognition" (which was very humorous given that Arafat needed something like five tries before he got language the US could even arguably accept) as "implicit" (meaning, of course, that they never actually did it):
http://query.nytimes.com...

PLO leaders are on record numerous times describing the whole concept of a Palestinian State as nothing more than a Trojan Horse with which to implement the long-term destruction of Israel. The most famous instance of this was Faisal Husseini, a so-called "moderate" that the Israelis thought they could negotiate with:
http://www.aish.com...

I don't know where you get your statement that Israel would not accept a peace based on resolutions 242 and 338. Israel accepted both of those resolutions from the day they were passed by the Security Council and has stated numerous times that it desires peace based on the framework outlined in them -- indeed, both the Camp David Accords in 1978 and Oslo explicitly stated this, and Israel signed them. It was the PLO who explicitly rejected 242 until 1988, when they decided that a better strategy was to simply misrepresent what it says and was intended to mean albeit while purporting to accept it. It really was a rather brilliant strategic move -- I have to tip my hat to them.
Posted by haab2178 9 years ago
haab2178
also i would like to comment on how u (mjg) mention palestine attacks on israel. on the contrary, most of the time the might of the israeli army is responsible.Certainly they claim provocation for these attacks but they have lied and spread disinformation in many cases. In 1956, Israel attacked Egypt, capturing the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip and was forced to withdraw by President Eisenhower.
In 1967 Israel launched its six-day war against Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, announcing it had been attacked. It used Egypt's military maneuvers in the Sinai and the intent to blockade the Strait of Tiran as its cover for the incursion and only after the war was over did it admit it had launched a preemptive strike. If it was in the right, why did it feel it had to lie? If Egypt was indeed attacking Israel, no one bothered to ask why Egypt's entire air force was destroyed on the ground. It has been documented (see former NSA operative James Bamford's Body of Secrets, pp 139-239), that Israel had planned this war for a long time.
When Egypt went to war in the Sinai in 1973, attempting to regain the territory taken from it in 1967, it was in essence attacking its own land, not Israel's.
In 1978 Israel invaded and occupied South Lebanon, which they held for 22 years. In 1982, they drove all the way to Beirut creating some 30,000 casualties in the process.

i would like to thank raff ellis.
Posted by haab2178 9 years ago
haab2178
first of all unless u know for sure that the homes being bulldozed are homes of terrorists then i do not think u can make that statement. and then saying that palestine does not recognize israel's right to exist. Palestinians recognized Israel's right to exist in 1988 and re- iterated this recognition on several occasions including Madrid in 1991 and Oslo in 1993. Israel has yet to recognize Palestine's right to exist. also the palestinians are willing to have peace. they are on record as willing to accept a settlement based on UN Resolutions 242 and 338. Israel will not. also israel has exhibited countless acts of terrorism, which in the eyes of the media are acts of heroism. In Menachem Begin's writings, he tells how successful the newly founded Israeli state was in driving out the Palestinians by terrorizing them with barrel bombs (which he claims to have invented), slaughtering a whole village (Deir Yassin was publicized to encourage flight), allowing Israel to grab over 40 percent more land than they were given in the UN mandate. and the palestinians who resist this or having their homes bulldozed are of course terrorists...bite me. finally i would like to kill the notion that israel is a democracy. if anything its a theocracy, which has the ability to become a great democracy if it shared the land and set up a unified government with the palestinians. Israeli apologists love to trumpet the notion that Israel is awash in a sea of repressive regimes while it is a pristine example of democracy in action. The true test of a democracy rests on the treatment of all its citizens equally. In fact, a million Israeli- Palestinian citizens constitute a vast underclass of second-class citizenry in this supposed democracy. They are not treated equally with their Jewish counterparts in many ways; denial of construction permits; special identification papers and license plates; discrimination in employment and travel, etc. Free elections do not make a democracy.
Posted by mjg283 9 years ago
mjg283
First, Israel hasn't built a single new settlement since before Oslo. What you're objecting to is the building of new HOMES, not new settlements. Second, the very concept of "East Jerusalem" is phony. What you're really referring to is the eastern (small "e") portion of Jerusalem. Until it was artificially divided by the ceasefire lines of 1949, Jerusalem was a single city. There was no "East Jerusalem." Even after 1949, the area occupied by the Arabs was most commonly referred to as the "Jordanian Sector" of the city The concept of "East" (capital "E") Jerusalem didn't take shape until well after 1967. The reason for this phoniness becomes clear in light of your next flawed claim: that "East" Jerusalem is "clearly Palestinian territory." If one looks at Jerusalem as a single city (the way everybody viewed it until at least 1949), JEWS have been a plurality of the population since approximately 1840 and have been a majority of the population there since at least the end of the 19th century. But Jordan takes the eastern part of the city in 1948-49, creating an artificial division, kicks out the entire Jewish population (destroying almost 60 synagogues to boot) there, and suddenly we now have the separate "East Jerusalem" which is "clearly Palestinian territory." Simply genius.

Of course, why this is "clearly Palestinian territory" is anybody's guess. The group of Arabs referring to themselves as "Palestinians" were never the sovereign owners of Jerusalem (which again, has been mostly populated by Jews since the turn of the 20th century). The Ottomans controlled the city until 1917 when Allenby invaded, and Jerusalem (along with all of the land west of the Jordan) was set aside for Jewish settlement by the League of Nations Mandate in 1921. Even the relevant UN Resolutions (181, 194, etc . . .) contemplate Jerusalem as open, international city, NOT as exclusively Arab territory. But, yeah, "clearly Palestinian territory." That's the ticket.
Posted by mjg283 9 years ago
mjg283
You claim Libertarian is wrong and "doesn't understand history at all," yet you didn't contradict a single thing he wrote. The PLO's "recognition" of Israel at Oslo was comically hollow (and indeed was contradicted in Arabic by Arafat numerous times) -- a point that has been driven home very recently since Saeb Erekat (one of these "moderates" Israel is supposed to be able to negotiate with) reiterated several times over the past couple of weeks that the Arabs would NEVER recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Yes, Israel bulldozes homes of terrorists, and Israel has every right to do so just as the US government has every right to seize the homes of members of the Mafia. Of course, not all Isrseli soldiers are good apples (and those who commit crimes should be prosecuted), but I highly doubt the practice of bulldozing terrorist homes WITH FAMILIES IN THEM is anywhere near as widespread as you imply. There was no agreement to make any treaty at Annapolis. That "conference" merely consisted of pre-written speeches, which only confirmed that there are numerous "core issues" that will never effectively be negotiated. Your statement that Israel "is building new settlements in East Jerusalem, which is clearly Palestinian territory," is wrong in numerous respects, which I'll cover in another post since I don't think I can fit under the character limit.
Posted by haab2178 9 years ago
haab2178
i would just like to say the libertarian is completely wrong and does not understand history at all. The Oslo Accords was where Palestine declared the existence of Israel. As for acts of terrorism, does bulldozing people's homes while they are still in them count because there are countless videos of that online where you can hear Israeli soldiers laughing. Also what is so beautiful about America and the American way of life is that it goes out of its way to help its enemies, which Palestine is not first of all. Israel said in Annapolis they were ready to make a treaty and then they went ahead and began building more settlements in East Jerusalem, which is clearly Palestinian territory. Finally, if you are talking about taking away human rights, then Israel is the number one offender of this. they shut down water and electricity in entire areas, which is a crime against humanity. and aipec is too strong. basically libertarian you have no clue what happened in history and clearly your argument is wrong.
Posted by mjg283 9 years ago
mjg283
"It would be hard, but to be simple arming ones enemy is an example of the radical act that allows us to break free of idology."

I can definitely see the logic behind this. If you arm your enemy, and he kills you, you are definitely free from any arcane bounds of ideology.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Fimbulvintr 9 years ago
Fimbulvintr
haab2178TheLibertarianTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
haab2178TheLibertarianTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by james94 9 years ago
james94
haab2178TheLibertarianTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by NSG 9 years ago
NSG
haab2178TheLibertarianTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by sethgecko13 9 years ago
sethgecko13
haab2178TheLibertarianTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30