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

Exodus the Palestinians to the West Bank from Gaza. Kill Hamas Leader.

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: 8/2/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 587 times Debate No: 59861
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




noun: Zionism

a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.

God's promised land at one time in the Bible says to Abraham from the great sea in the west to far northern hills (Lebanon), to the descent west of Jordan. No the deserts to any south.
When God told Ezekiel From the great Nile to the desserts of the far far west along to the mountains of Lebanon. Til the Ocean if reachable to the south-west (Modern day Saudi Arabia). To the great sea to the west witch is the Mediterranean.
God's promise was large and David was like kind of close to reaching it. They need what they got. If the transported Gaza - Palestinians go to West Bank or why can't a fellow Muslim sister take them in. Lebanon, Syria, or ISIS. I say specifically West Bank with there own people. Solves problems, give Israel more land, rebuild have them rebuild it. Use C.I.A. or something secret intelligence agency to kill the Hamas Leader a filthy rich terrorist running around hotels and festivities in the gulf states mostly Qatar.
See you Con.


Hello Pro. I would like to thank Pro for this interesting topic. I will be arguing against evacuating all of the Palestinians from the West Bank.

My arguments in this round will mostly be in refutation; I will quote my opponent, and then respond.

"God promised..."

My opponent needs to demonstrate why the Old Testament should be a legitimate document for settling territorial disputes. The Old Testament is unreliable, historically inaccurate, and, frankly, old. Just because the Old Testament says something does not mean that Israel has a legitimate claim to Gaza.

Also, taking this argument to its logical conclusion, would you not have to evacuate the West Bank as well? This is against other religious claims [4], and would cause an even greater humanitarian crisis, as millions of poor refugees are forced in other countries, disrupting regional stability.

"They need what they got."

Why? Why does Israel deserve territorial expansion, when Palestinians live in much poorer and population-dense conditions [1]? If anybody deserves more territory, from a humanitarian standpoint, it is clearly the Palestinians.

"Why can't a fellow Muslim sister take them in?"

Around 2.5 million Palestinians live in the West Bank [2], in highly dense and poor conditions [3]. There are around 1.9 million Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip [2]. Note that a vast, vast minority of these are children under 18%.

This means that forced relocation of the Gaza Strip would create a humanitarian crisis, as an already-impoverished West Bank could not absorb a near-doubling of its population. This would only reinforce the cycle of poverty taking place in Palestine, in addition to galvanizing and radicalizing the Palestinian population against Israel.

I. Security Risk

Beyond rebuttal, I would like to point out something obvious. A forced relocation of Gazans has two key security risks to Israel:

1) The idea that Israel could somehow evacuate 1.9 million Palestinians peacefully from Gaza, when they are already facing very stiff opposition from militants within, is comical. Israel would be facing an all-out war, as everyday Palestinians are forced to side with Hamas in Gaza, just to protect their homes.

2) Israel would, then, assuming this evacuation could actually occur, be moving Hamas, its militants, and its arms from a distant Gaza to a far more dangerous West Bank. This means that Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and Haifa are at a significantly higher risk of missile attacks from Hamas or other militants. This seems like a very poor security position.


My opponent claims, without argument, that Israel deserves Gaza because the Old Testament says so. While he first needs to prove this is relevant, he also needs to demonstrate how this could possibly be done in a peaceful and ethical fashion.

I have demonstrated that the Old Testament is not a relevant guide to settling territorial disputes, that relocation would spur a humanitarian crisis, and that relocation poses severe security risks to Israel.

Thank you, and I look forward to future arguments.


Debate Round No. 1


My early rebuttal to why the Palestinians should be exodus to the West Bank and possible another Muslim Sister. Kill the leader of HAMAS.
1) The Old Testament is actual Israelite history, it is the only one they have and it supplies genealogies. People believe the Egyptian Pyramid writings were history of the Egyptians. Roman novels of historic events were copied by Romans why do we believe them? The argument anymakes can be used on almost all things, like Shakespeare.
2) You must of forgot many exoduses have happened through history. Now with todays technologies no one would die.
The IDS can make a huge air base that could take all of them over to the West Bank. The Jews gave them that.
3) I understand the Palestinians need much more room but the reason is HAMAS. We must first take out it's leaders, let the Jews take the weapons and men. Its war please think about that it's war.
4) How many Jews died in the Holocaust give me a break, how many died in Egypt working with clay and brick. Or Babylonian. enslavement.
5 A) This will occur in about one year of harsh occupations and destruction of HAMAS and all weapons are take.
5 B) Read "5 )"

The Jews need to live in peace, in the Old Testament gives them land anyways. HAMAS is evil and permits nothing but death for Allah. The poor citizens are dying and it is horrible, yes. But in order to stop it you must take action. The Holocaust gave the Jews their homeland, why can't have it? In peace?
A Muslim sister could take them like turkey did with Syrian refugees. Egypt is so friendly come on take 'em. Qatar they support HAMAS rebel army wing. Take 'em.
Assassination of the high-elite of HAMAS would dismantle the military wing of HAMAS. You make sure everything is done correctly and the Jews will make the right choices at the right times.

*I'm not Jewish.


Thank you, Pro. I will move to rebuttals, noting two things first:

1) Again, Pro has the BOP to demonstrate why evacuating the Gaza Strip would be a good idea, and

2) Pro's entire arguments are completely unsourced and unsubstantiated. This means that these arguments are assertions, and can be shot down with assertions.

"The Old Testament is actual Israelite history...Roman novels..."

Four responses:

1) Firstly, a book does not give a group legitimate land claims over an area. Pro needs to demonstrate why, even if we accept the validity of the Old Testament as a historical and spiritual document, why we should accept that it should reign supreme over any land conflicts and border disputes.

2) The Old Testament is incredibly inaccurate as a historical document. There are numerous historical flaws and contradictions, which severely compromise the legitimacy of the book [1]. As an example that fundamentally undermines the legitimacy of the land claims in particular, there has been absolutely no archaeological evidence for the Exodus from Egypt, nor has there been evidence of any Israelites EVER in Egypt [2]. This means that the fundamental premise of the document is flawed.

3) The principle Pro is advocating, taken to its logical conclusion, necessitates forced evacuations of the West Bank and Lebanon, in addition to the Gaza Strip. This would create even further humanitarian and military crises.

4) Roman documents, for instance, demonstrate a historical claim to Gaul, now France [3]. Does that mean we must give France to Italy, and deport all French people from their homes?

"No one would die..."

This is pure assertion, and should be immediately discounted. Two responses:

1) Refugee crises, by their nature, cause massive suffering and death, often due to disease. We see this in Africa, where the displacement of millions of people has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths due to disease or malnutrition [4]. The evacuation of almost 2 million would surely result in this.

2) Forced evacuation would likely spark massive resistance from Hamas and, likely, normal Palestinians who have no choice but to join Hamas to protect their homes. This would cause massive casualties for both sides.

"I understand the Palestinians need more room...but Hamas..."

Two responses:

1) You are not advocating giving the Palestinians more room. You are advocating halving their territory and forcing some of the most population-dense places on Earth to absorb a 100% rise in population. This would only exaggerate the humanitarian problems for the Palestinians.

2) Hamas has a well-hidden and organized network of leaders and militants. The idea that Israel could somehow smoke out all of them, without allowing some to escape to the West Bank (which is, incidentally, much closer to Israeli population centers) absurd. Moreover, this type of humanitarian crisis would rally normal Palestinians around radicalism, to fight Israel, thus strengthening Hamas.

"How many Jews died in the many died in Egypt..."

Two responses:

1) Past atrocity is not grounds for future atrocity. Simply because something horrible happened to the Jews does not mean that they have the right to inflict suffering and death on other groups.

2) The Jews were never in Egypt [see earlier source], so this does not matter.


Pro's case essentially boils down to

1) The Old Testament/Holocaust allows Israel to take this land,

2) Hamas is bad,

3) The evacuation could easily be handled.

While I will not argue the second premise, Pro has not substantiated the first and third premises, and I have demonstrated that Pro's proposal will actually increase Hamas' strength. This is simply not a justified or practical course of action to stop a marginal evil that has resulted in the death of one Israeli citizen this year.

If Israel has shown anything in this brief conflict, they have demonstrated that they cannot do things correctly. The deaths of 1,000+ Gazan citizens substantiates this [5].

I. Security Risk

Pro completely drops my argument about the security risk such an evacuation would pose. Thus, you must flow these to Con for the time being.

Thank you, and I look forward to Pro's future arguments.


Debate Round No. 2


Look the Old Testament is theoretically true, speaking that is writings from popular ancestors in Jewish history. Very important events happened that needed to be recorded. So it was and these great prophets talked with God and Covenants were made. God told the Jews if the stayed true to him the earlier stated words of choice. The Jews for some time did not have a homeland really. Diaspora when the Romans conquered and ruled it became a slave nationality. The Jews had been slaves before. You cry humanitarian crisis but we let stuff go everyday. Russia can shoot plane down a soldier can take selfies showing he is 35 miles in the country of Ukraine. The Jews should be able to transfer the Palestinians to the West Bank on all sides of the tables. If you ask a Gazan if they would like to move they mostly likely say yes.
The West Bank claims peace and stop the suffering, it does stop the suffering. These are facts that cannot be fought against because they're true. A Muslim Sister can also volunteer just like Turkey.
Why did NATO give the Jews a homeland? Zionism, the western world counts the Old Testament and that's matters. There would not be another reason for it. The Jews one the 6 days war and has rights. If you let the IDF do their work they can dismantle the HAMAS and perform an Exodus.


Thank you. I will rebut in the same fashion I have previously. A few notes first:

1) Pro literally just restated his case. He did not rebut my points, make new arguments, or bring new analysis to the table. He just restated his case, which I have rebutted sufficiently to this point.

2) Pro, again, brings no sources to the table (other than a wikipedia source with unclear significance). This means, again, that the entire argument is assertion.

"The Old Testament is theoretically true..."

Again, Pro demonstrates that he just did not read my argument. I demonstrated, through argument and evidence, that the Old Testament is not true. It is not a historically accurate document. Thus, can immediately discredit its authority.

Moreover, even if we accept the validity of the Old Testament, Pro needs to show why this matters in terms of international relations, which he has not yet done.

"You cry humanitarian crisis but we let stuff go everyday. Russia can shoot plane down..."

Two responses:

1) Firstly, the debate is about whether this SHOULD happen. Obviously, no humanitarian crises SHOULD ever happen. Thus, this is irrelevant.

2) We do not just let things go, generally. For instance, we have put massive new sanctions on the Russian government, demonstrating the global community's disapproval of such actions [1].

If you ask a Gazan if they would like to move they most likely say yes..."

Two responses:

1) This is a pure assertion without argument or evidence, and should be discredited.

2) The West Bank is just as poor and marginalized as the Gaza Strip; however, under Pro's proposal, the conditions within would worsen significantly as the population doubles. This means they would not accept such an offer. The Palestinians really just want to be treated equally [2].

"The West Bank claims peace and stop the suffering, it does stop the suffering. These are facts that cannot be fought against because they're true."

Two responses:

1) If they are so true, why have you not provided any source material that testifies to this supposed truth?

2) On the contrary, I have given evidence that conditions in the West Bank are bad, and would worsen significantly with an influx of 2 million refugees. This is pretty simply logic.

"Why did NATO give the Jews a homeland? Zionism, the western world counts the Old Testament..."

No, that's not why.

1) The UN's original proposal gave Israel far less territory, meaning they did not accept such an argument [3].

2) The Holocaust was central to the creation of a Jewish state, since it gave the Jews both a reason and the means to create a new state [4].

Zionism certainly played a role. but it was not sufficient and was not accepted wholesale [4] by the Western powers.


Pro has dropped too many arguments to name, especially:

1) The security risk such an exodus would cause,

2) The massive humanitarian crisis that would created by such an evacuation,

3) The inability of Israel to conduct effective pinpoint operations,

4) The absurdity of using the Old Testament as a historically-accurate guide to land disputes.

With this in mind, these arguments, along with all of my rebuttals, must flow to Con, and will do so until responded to sufficiently (with argument and/or evidence) by Pro.

Remember, Pro has the BOP in this round, as he is the instigator making a positive proposal. He has not come close to meeting it thus far. Thank you.


Debate Round No. 3


If you assume that there is no way to have an exodus or dismantle the Hamas leadership. Please supply me the answer to this:
How do you completely stop the carnage and violence coming from HAMAS and the IDS, to stop constant civilian deaths and to ensue permanent peace in the region?


Firstly, flow all of my arguments and rebuttals through. These are critical arguments that Pro is not responding to, and obliterates any chance of Pro meeting his BOP.

To the question at hand:

"How do you completely stop the carnage and violence coming from HAMAS and the IDS, to stop constant civilian deaths and to ensure permanent peace in the region."

1) Firstly, there has been little recent damage to Israel. Before the invasion of Gaza, there was one (read: ONE!!) civilian death from Hamas rockets [see earlier sources]. Hardly an existential threat to Israel.

2) Hamas was weakening before Israel invaded, losing political capital among the Palestinian masses and losing key allies in Syria and Egypt. This invasion has only galvanized support for Hamas, increasing any risk they pose [1].

3) The only way to prevent future conflict is a two-state solution that gives Palestinians a legitimate government and equal rights as Israelis, with a lifted embargo and economic growth [2]. Any attempts without these key steps will be doomed to fail, as the oppressed Palestinians will be forced to join the extremists.

Either way, this is mostly irrelevant, as I simply had to show that Pro's proposal should not be done, which I have sufficiently demonstrated. I do not have to give a panacea to the conflict; that is not my BOP.

Thank you.


Debate Round No. 4


I would like to thank you for the debate.
My message is very clear and my message is an option for peace, and if you believe that diplomacy is out then my option is the only option unless you still want the constant fighting between terrorists and Jewish civilians and poor innocent Palestinians dying by airstrikes. No other way can work for extreme long term peace, it may be ugly but desperate times call for desperate measures.


Thank you Pro, for this interesting debate, and thank you floor, for reading. This is a clear ballot for Con, and I'll guide you through it here.

1) Pro has completely dropped the vast majority of my rebuttals and arguments, meaning that they must flow to Con.

2) I have demonstrated that a forced evacuation is a security risk to all parties involved.

3) I have shown that the Old Testament is a historically inaccurate document, which should not be used to settle territorial disputes.

4) I have argued that a forced evacuation would be a massive humanitarian crisis, compounding the problems facing Palestinians today.

5) I have substantiated the claim that Israel is unable to conduct pinpoint operations effectively.

6) I have answered, without rebuttal, the question of how to forge a peaceful path forward; this must be done in a consensual way that respects both parties through a two-state solution.

Due to this, there is no possible way Pro could have met his BOP. Pro claims his way is the way of peace. Unfortunately, Pro has given neither argument nor evidence to support this action.

Thus, this is a Con ballot. Thank you very much.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.