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

Americans Should Support Israel in its Current Conflict

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/24/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 894 times Debate No: 59487
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)




Pro will argue that Americans should support Israel in the current conflict occurring there; Con will argue that Americans should not support Israel in the current conflict occurring there.

The burden of proof is shared.
First round is for acceptance only.
Please be respectful. No personal attacks. No crude language.
Debate Round No. 1


Shared morals, values and rights

The uniqueness of Israel is that it holds many of the same values as the U.S. It is a monument of democracy and stability where there is little of it around[1]. It is pro-Western, unlike the surrounding Arab states who hate America. Israel values the same freedoms as written of in the Bill of Rights. It is a country that supports freedom of speech and assembly, as well as freedom of religion. It is the only state in the Middle East that does. In Saudia Arabia and other Islamic theocratic monarchies, severe punishments are given just for being caught reading a Bible. Because Israel is the only state in the region to hold these same values, and since we as Americans want these values and rights to spread and be a part of other countries, we should support Israel and its defense force so that it may be an influence to the surrounding areas. By cutting our support, this free country is more likely to be overrun by its suppressed adversaries, and the continuation of freedom and democracy to these Arab countries will take much longer, if ever.

Racism and apartheid still exist in Saudi Arabia today. "The Saudis replaced the 450,000 slaves of the 1950s with 8.4 million guest workers. These workers are often treated like slaves, but they are not property and are therefore even more disposable than the slaves were. Exact numbers are hard to come by, but Nepal alone reported 265 worker deaths in Saudi Arabia in a single year."[2] This is why we need to support free, human rights states like Israel. It has the potential to influence, over time, the surrounding countries of oppression. Political pressure has happened before in history, and it can happen again.

Peace will be encouraged

Part of Israel's Declaration of Independence reads,

"We appeal in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months to the Arab inhabitants of the state of Israel, to preserve peace and participate in the up-building of the state on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.

We extend our hand to all neighboring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighborliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East."[3]

Ever since its independence in 1948, Israel has sought peace. The mission of its surrounding Arab states is just the opposite, to destroy Israel. They have refused to negotiate, making it difficult for Israel to hold out and protect itself. To be effective, it would not only have to defend itself, but launch counter-attacks on the hostile areas nearby. The media often frames the Palestinians as the victims, but to take the other side into consideration, Israel isn't the one full of ruthless pro-Hamas terrorists.

Israel has attempted to establish peace several times, including Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty in 1979[4] and the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty in 1994[5]. However, these treaties keep the peace only for a short amount of time, before conflict begins yet again as the surrounding countries wage war. This is why Israel needs the U.S.'s support in keeping the peace. In fact, the U.S. has encouraged these past treaties and made sure that both sides agree to the terms and that the conflict ends between the nations. If we undermine that support, the Jewish state will lose that extra level of stability and its ability to defend itself against the opposing nations. As a result, the Palestinians will be more able to work its way into Israel's borders and another Holocaust, unlike the world has ever seen, could take place. As Americans, we want peace in not just our country but around the world, and many will do anything to resolve the conflict. Breaking our alliance would just make it worse.









Mojique forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Conservative101 forfeited this round.


Mojique forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Conservative101 forfeited this round.


Mojique forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mojique 2 years ago
Once again, sorry for the forfeit, I couldn't cut my argument down in time. My argument is posted here, from comment 7 onwards (the bottom comment is the beginning of my speech. I concede conduct to my opponent, should he/she claim it.
R3: Guest workers in Saudi Arabia.
Apart from being irrelevant, this claim ignores the massive amount of profit that Israel makes from Palestine, by forcing them to work for Israeli companies after destroying Palestinian sources of commerce like olive trees [4.]
My opponent finishes with the bold claim that there could be another holocaust if we side with Palestine. Aside from the failure to provide any serious kind of link I think that my case disproves him. But, seeing that my opponent likes bold claims, I have one of my own: the apartheid state combined with the slaughter in the ground offensive constitute a Genocide. There is a holocaust going on, only it is smaller in scale, supported by America, and this time the roles are reversed. Israel"s treatment of Palestine is practically Jewish Neo-Nazism.

Posted by Mojique 2 years ago
R2: Religious freedom in Israel?
Israel is an extremely dangerous place for people who aren"t Christian or Jewish, especially Muslims. What my opponent really means is "we should support Israel because you have the freedom to be Christian and Jewish because we like those religions." This is a very narrow definition of religious freedom, especially given that the constantly bill Islamists (especially Palestinians) as terrorists instead of an oppressed group of people. Furthermore, their objective in expansion is to spread Judaism and Christianity [2.] I don"t see religious freedom there, do you?
Posted by Mojique 2 years ago
R1 Continued:
The Egypt peace treaty is irrelevant for two reasons. Firstly we support and give military aid to Egypt too and it isn"t a question of Egypt VS Israel. Secondly, Palestine were never brought to the table. They weren"t brought into the discussion of their own ceasefire, and therefore were not able to present their terms. Faulting them for not accepting the ceasefire is insane, because they weren"t involved in creating it. The only reason that Israel could even try something like this is that they have far more military power. Israel likes to portray the conflict as a war, but in reality it is murder. Don"t believe it? The death toll of Palestinians is in the thousands; the death toll in Israel is 3. If you include the oppression of Palestine then that death toll skyrockets because over 10 thousand homes have been destroyed by Israel since they breached the already oppressive 1967 boundaries [7,] and the death toll from this invasion is in the thousands [8.] If you add the kids killed at the beginning of the conflict (there was no evidence that Hamas killed them) in this conflict alone it is 6 to 1300, that is genocide not war.
Posted by Mojique 2 years ago
And on to my rebuttals
R1: Peace isn"t being encouraged and hasn"t been encouraged. Additionally there is no sign that it will be encouraged. Attacks on Israel from outside (discounting Palestine) are rare, but there have been some fairly significant attacks by Israel on the world around it. Furthermore this contention is irrelevant. Just as one might support Obama, but not his decision to stop going after the issue of income inequality, one doesn"t have to support Israel in their offensive in Palestine to support Israel in general. Whether America should continue support of Israel in general is a different debate entirely. Lastly, As far as the peace treaties mentioned; the Jordanian one is irrelevant to this specific debate as the only way it concerned Israel was that Jordan wanted to stay out of the affair. The war which Israel started ended with the treaty. Another little known fact about this peace is that there was an earlier peace treaty that was almost passed with the stipulation that the west bank would be controlled by Lebanon. If the west bank is such a troublesome charge for Israel, and they would like to have peace, why then not pass the responsibility to Jordan, which is a far more similar nation to Palestine, meaning that there would be less chance of violence.
Posted by Mojique 2 years ago
Secondly: America will be ostracized by the international community, with which it is already on shaky ground.
The international community has ceased to back Israel. Even the international court of human rights (famous for not picking up on gross human rights violations) has voted nearly unanimously that Israel has committed war crimes[6 ]. Add this to the news I talked about earlier, with the council on human rights deciding (unanimously with the exception of the US) and suddenly, deciding to support Israel becomes a risky decision for the US. Additionally, if the whole of the international community and the international human rights committees, courts etc. come down on the side of Palestine, famous for muslims and (due to media that has blown out of proportion) terrorists, it suggests serious human rights violations are in fact occurring.
Thirdly: Israel can defend itself, what we are doing is giving it the power to attack others.
Israel most likely has nuclear weapons, any significant attack on them from an outside country would be risky at best and downright stupid at worst. They have a strong military and it isn"t a question of Israel destroying others. If anything, it is a question of Israel destroying other nations like Palestine
Posted by Mojique 2 years ago
Firstly: Israel has created an apartheid state, which engenders numerous human rights violations.
Israel"s treatment of those in Palestine, should immediately disqualify support from any civilized nation that claims freedom as an Ideal. Supporting Israel in this conflict would be as big a mistake as supporting South Africa during apartheid was. My opponent states that one of the nations around Israel (which has no recent military history with Israel making it irrelevant,) has an apartheid state. What my opponent fails to recognize is that Israel-Palestine is an apartheid state. [4] Israel has split up Palestine into different enclaves and has massively restricted movement between them. They also have a segregated road system, in which Palestinians are forbidden access to most roads, and routes that are shared by Palestinians and Israelis have one road for Israelis and one for Palestinians. The road available for use by Palestinians is often not even paved, let alone well kept.
In addition to the roads situation, Israel also employs sever restrictions on Palestine. They regulate water: destroying pipelines and shutting off access to the underground aquifer that gives Palestine their water, as well as contaminating it [4.] They intentionally cause water shortages. Furthermore they have a policy of destroying Palestinian homes. They say that they are doing this to destroy Hamas targets, but they bomb things like schools [5]
Posted by Mojique 2 years ago
I couldn't chop my argument down to size in time so it is posted in the comments below, you may give conduct to my opponent accordingly
Firstly, I would just like to point out some history and current events that my opponent is either completely or willfully unaware of.
The first item is Israel"s military history. Starting with the 6 day war, Israel has a history of expansionist tendencies[1]. Leaving aside for the minute the Israeli Palestinian conflict, all wars that Israel has fought since their independence have been connected either to expansion (6 day war and Suez crisis,) protection of expansion (war of attrition, ___) or invasions of Palestine and Lebanon[2]. My opponents statement that Israel is some bastion of peace is quite simply untrue and misinformed.
Next on the table is the topic of human rights violations. My opponent states that Israel supports freedom and democracy and are the only nation in the Middle East to do so. My opponent ignores the fact that the United States was the only nation to vote against investigation of war crimes perpetrated by Israel in the Israeli Palestinian Conflict. The UN human rights council "criticized Israeli military operations for perpetuating "widespread, systematic and gross violations of international human rights and fundamental freedoms." [3] Even the extremely oppressive Russia and Kazakhstan voted to investigate.
Next on to my contentions.
Posted by Conservative101 2 years ago
I changed it. Are y'all happy?
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
Can you do Israel vs Palestine separatism? Orogami is right about over signifying Hamas.
Posted by Oromagi 2 years ago
There are a couple of curious elements that make this debate hard to accept-

Pro actually enforces bias into the argument by making it Israel (a nation of many political temperaments) vs. Palestine radicals and Hamas. Pro seems to assumes that the entire Gaza strip is only Hamas and radicals rather than essentially the same mix of radicals and moderates and majority of non-politicals as Israel. Since there are members of Hamas and Palestinian Radicals who are also citizens of Israel, isn't this clearly a false dichotomy. Besides which, most of Hamas' military wing is in Syria right now (which is the main reason Israel is attacking Gaza, right?), so it is pretty inaccurate to say that Israel is fighting Hamas at present.

Why are the only choices radical choices? If the instigator believes that the US should support Israel's assault on Gaza, he should create and defend that resolution against any and all contradictions. To go further and say that the only contradiction permissible is a defense of the Palestinian extreme is to limit the debate to two right-wing nationalist postilions without acknowledging or permitting that most folks prefer a more moderate approach.

Why is support for neither extreme not an option? Or support for the peace-loving majorities of both states against the war-mongering right-wing extremists of both states? Or medical support for both or either but not military support? The majority of Israeli and Gazan citizens support a de-escalation of hostilities, why should Americans assume a more extremist outlook than the people who are actually under attack?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Robert_Weiler 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Absolute forfeit.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: ff, con's stuff in the comments should be ignored, it is rude to include arguments in comments