The Instigator
gavin.ogden
Pro (for)
Tied
17 Points
The Contender
TombLikeBomb
Con (against)
Tied
17 Points

In 1948, Israel was put back on the map, democratically.

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
Pro Tied Con
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: 12/20/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,404 times Debate No: 14098
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (6)

 

gavin.ogden

Pro

Thank you, Tomblikebomb, for accepting this debate. There are some common misconceptions, which I would like to bring to light in this debate. My only goal here is to show, using facts, that Israel was given to a Jewish/Democratic government legally and democratically. I hope my opponent and I are on the same page, and that definitions are unnecessary. I look forward to my opponents' introduction, and rounds 2 and 3 will be for arguments.
TombLikeBomb

Con

I thank my opponent for backing down from the more extreme implications (they were insults rather than assertions, but he evidently felt them explicit enough that I was expected to challenge him on their basis!) he made in the Politics Forum. For example, he doesn't here dispute that critical to the establishment of Israel was the expulsion of Arabs by new, Jewish landlords. Nor does he dispute that the original Zionists were religious socialists, nor that Judaism is historically an exclusive religion and that Zionism is no exception. Nor does he deny that Israel has conquered militarily as much land as it was given by the British Empire. Nor does he deny that Israel is in violation of international law. Nor does he dispute any of the claims made by the distinguished Jewish author Norman Finkelstein in the book whose name he can't even get right, The Holocaust Industry. Nor does he deny that Israel has discriminated against Arabs even within Israel proper. In fact, his resolution has so little to do with the impetus for his calling me an idiot that, depending on the definitions, I might agree with it! It's indisputable, for example, that some land was given to the Jews under British and international law; it's indisputable that Israel proper is a democracy. What's demonstrably false is that Israel has obeyed international law in its occupation of the Palestinian territories and that Israel is a democracy in the sense of giving voting rights to all adults within Greater Israel. If Gavin agrees, let me apologize for failing to defend his straw man; I'll defend only assertions I've actually made.
Debate Round No. 1
gavin.ogden

Pro

As I expected, my opponent's conduct leaves something to be desired. However, he does agree with the resolution, despite the many false assertions he included simply as a form of mockery. I will not follow him down that slippery slope, but I will make factual arguments to affirm the resolution.

To begin, I would like to share the quote that started this debate. " Germany is an indigenous, egalitarian, law-abiding nation; Israel is a state founded recently on the expulsion of Arabs from land European Jews wanted for a subsequently aborted experiment... Since then, Israel expanded through conquest." I then told my opponent he need to do a little more research before making statements like this. I NEVER called my opponent an idiot, as he claims. Furthermore, he simply implies what I do or do not dispute in his first round. Because these statements were well beyond the scope of this entire debate, I feel no need to address them as actual arguments. With this said, I will begin.

My opponent makes the assumption that Jews are not indigenous to the land. This is absolutely false. Jews inhabited the land when it was called Canaan, and were uprooted by the Babylonian empire. They them returned several hundred years later, but eventually were discarded by the Romans after helping them build their economy. In fact, that very same land has been conquered and changed hands no less than ten times since the initial Jewish ousting. One could argue that all lands have been fought over at one time or another, but the bottom line is that Israelis are indigenous to the land of Israel, despite the fact they had been removed for an extended period of time. In the first half of the 20th century there were major waves of immigration of Jews back to Israel from Arab countries and from Europe. During the British rule in Palestine, the Jewish people were subject to great violence and massacres directed by Arab civilians or forces of the neighboring Arab states. Finally, in 1947 the UN agreed to the Partition Plan for Palestine. Keep in mind this was a British territory until this point. The idea was for two states, one Jewish and one Arab, with Jerusalem as an international city. The Jews accepted the UN resolution, but Arabs did not. Instead, they immediately attacked the Jews with a very sizable army. Although they were outnumbered and outgunned, they drove their attackers out, and declared their independence on May 14, 1948. Keep in mind, Jews were on the defensive, and never had any intentions to take more than was given, but their attackers would not settle for the democratic, lawful, division of the land mandated by the United Nations. The day after Israel declared its independence, armies of five Arab countries, Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq, invaded Israel. Again, let me reiterate, Israel did NOT attack anyone. They were again on the defensive, and again were severely outnumbered, but again they defeated their UNLAWFUL attackers. Israel was then accepted as a member of the United Nations by majority vote on May 11, 1949. Since its inception in 1948, Arab nations have joined forces and launched 4 full scale wars (All unlawful, mind you) on Israel, and lost each one. Unfortunately, as is the case in almost any war, lands were annexed, but after each war the Israeli army withdrew from most of the areas it captured. This is unprecedented in World history and shows Israel's willingness to reach peace even at the risk of fighting for its very existence.

I believe the resolution is affirmed, and my opponent already stated, "In fact, his resolution has so little to do with the impetus for his calling me an idiot that, depending on the definitions, I might agree with it!" Since I NEVER called him an idiot, and we agree on the resolution, I urge a pro vote, and do not expect too many points of contention regarding my first round of arguments. Thank you for debating this, tomblikebomb, and thanks to the readers for your time and feedback.

http://www.science.co.il...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.ifamericansknew.org...
TombLikeBomb

Con

I was told that Rounds 2 and 3 would be for arguments relating to the resolution. Pro has elected instead to extend introductions, and I'll graciously oblige. Given Pro's previously revealed obsession with win %, he's clearly making a shameful play at a win. His resolution of course has nothing to do with the impetus for statements like these: "Your words scream, 'I have no idea what I'm talking about!'" (if I'd known I was debating a lawyer, I'd never have tried to save time by equating that with calling me an idiot; it wouldn't be out of character for him, though, as he once called me an anti-Semite just for disagreeing with someone I didn't know was a Jew on an issue unrelated to Jews); "Where has Tomblikebomb gone? I am ready for my lesson on Israel! Oh wait, he is nowhere to be found, surprise!" (just in case I didn't mind being called an ignoramus, I might mind being called a coward), which came a few minutes after his vague challenge. In Round 1, I offered definitions of "legal" and "democratic" by which I'd be willing to argue the negative side. But that would mean he'd have a chance of losing, so he instead urges a Pro vote on an assertion even Israel's staunchest critics don't dispute.

Finding nothing in my Politics Forum posts even remotely resembling his straw man (the negative side of this debate, I find out in Round 2), he instead focuses on what he perceives as the weakest two of the many statements I actually made:

1)(a) Modern Israel was founded recently (relative to Germany).
(b) The Jewish immigration to Palestine that resulted in the establishment of Israel was an organized, Zionist socialist project.
(c) That project entailed buying land and expelling the Arab serfs from it.
(d) The socialist aspect of the project was subsequently aborted.
2) Israel expanded by conquest.

1a/b) Instead of disputing my actual assertions, Pro argues with an imaginary opponent, one that believes Jews never inhabited what's now Greater Israel prior to the modern Zionist movement. But that they did only makes them as indigenous to the region as I, having Anglo blood, am indigenous to Germany. Should I be able to go to Germany and expel the non-Anglos who now reside on the relevant land? Of course not, and nor should the long history of conquest by and against Jews have been reignited in the form of the modern Zionist movement.

1c/d) Pro doesn't dispute either of these facts, so one can only conclude that he either agrees with them or is waiting until the final round to quote another Zionist source.

2) Pro concedes that Israel expanded by conquest when he says "the Israeli army withdrew from most of the areas it captured". If it withdrew from 99% of the areas it captured, Israel expanded by conquest. But I question Pro's arithmetic. The partition was roughly 50/50. In addition to the Arab half, Greater Israel expanded to include Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula. Only the latter was liberated, but it wasn't done so out of the inherent kindness of Jewish hearts as Pro would have you believe. Israel of course withdrew as a result of the Yom Kippur War and the resulting compromise: that Egypt would re-open the Suez Canal in exchange for Israeli withdrawal. According to US President Jimmy Carter, who mediated the final agreement, he had to tearfully beg the Israeli side to agree. Israel proper, too, has expanded and continues to expand. It's now contiguous, whereas Palestine is even more sliced and diced. The West Bank is essentially three Bantustans, separated from Israel by an Israeli wall deep within Palestinian territory and from each other by guarded, exclusively "Jewish" highways. Within the individual Bantustans, there are further incursions by Jewish settlements, which continue to expand to this day. If one looks at a map of it, one notices something rather odd. The Jewish settlements have expanded not radially, as is natural, but linearly. It's as if the settlers are unconcerned with safety and convenience and are rather intentionally destroying Palestine as a potential state. Indeed, the peripheral Jewish settlements are where one finds the most right-wing elements of Israeli society: those who cite a biblical right to "The Promised Land" (all of Greater Israel and Lebanon and parts of Syria, Jordan and Egypt and often Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Turkey), a preposterous defensive purpose behind putting Jewish civilians near Jordan, or both.

There are some other errors in Pro's Round 2:

1) His history begins with the Jews simply "inhabiting" Canaan, as if they'd sprung from the empty Earth, after which the cycle of conquest befalls them. If ancient conquest is so important, why not mention the conquest responsible for their inhabiting Canaan? According to Pro's sacred text, the Jews freely emigrated from Canaan and didn't return until they'd grown enough to bloodily capture it from the nations who'd occupied it in their absence.

2) Pro's racist distinction between the monolith "Jews", who graciously supported the partition, and the monolith "Arabs", who intransigently opposed it, is unrealistic. In fact, opinion was divided within each group. Opponents on the Jewish side included terrorist organizations like future Prime Minister Menachem Begin's. Pro is conflating non-Palestinian Arabs with Palestinian Arabs, when their interests couldn't have been more different. An independent Arab Palestine was of no more use to the Arab states than an independent Jewish Palestine. Within the Arab Palestinian community, opposition was much scarcer and was a reaction rather to the unfairness of the partition: the Jews, legally owning 7% of the land and comprising 33% of the population, would be given 56% percent of the land, stranding over a third of the Arab population (including Arab majority areas) in a Zionist state. An earlier, more proportional plan had been rejected by even the more moderate elements of Zionism. The UN opposed the final plan until Haiti, Liberia and the Philippines, after threats of aid cuts, changed their votes. The Israeli patriarch, Ben-Gurion, had previously (when Jews accounted for an even smaller proportion of the population!) been a strong critic of partition; Arab and Jewish anti-Zionists weren't necessarily paranoid, then, when they suggested the plan's being too unfair to be acceptable to the Arab side was the very reason he (dishonestly) supported it.

3) Pro's concern for international law is highly selective. UNGAR181, passed by only 33 nations, he regards as sacred. As for UNGAR194, clarifying that displaced Palestinians are no exception to the right of return; UNGAR3236, clarifying that Palestinians are no exception to the right of self-determination; the annual determination by all but a handful of UN nations that Israel is violating those and innumerable other General Assembly and Security Council resolutions...where's his righteous outrage?

I'm confident that all of the facts above are verified by Pro's only non-Zionist source, Wikipedia; however, should he dispute any of said facts specifically, I'll be happy to be the first to cite a reliable source.
Debate Round No. 2
gavin.ogden

Pro

Again, as expected, My opponent leaves his manners at the door. No matter, I will simply finish with a few things, and then let my opponent finish.

He claims I am debating an imaginary opponent. He calls me racist, using that term very lightly, I might add. He called my arguments shameful. He claims to know what I 'don't dispute', although he has no idea, because I leave those topics for another debate, altogether. I will refrain from using this kind of rhetoric, and allow my opponent to argue HIS debate.

I will say this, though. If someone physically attacks me, I will defend myself and will take something for my troubles. This makes perfect sense, as far as the legal system goes. The bottom line is this. If that coalition had not decided to attack Israel, they would still have their land, yet you call me racist for saying it. That is as far as I am willing to go into another topic during this debate. The resolution stands.(my shameful bid for victory)

Thank you in advance for what I am sure will be an insightful, on-topic argument.
TombLikeBomb

Con

Pro claims I called him racist for saying that if "that coalition" hadn't attacked Israel they would still have their land, which is plainly false: as he didn't make that claim (that Israel wouldn't have stolen the land) until Round 3, I couldn't possibly have called him racist for it or responded to it in any way. Although I'll argue that (all else being equal) Israel would have expanded anyway, what I called racist was the implication that the peace-loving monolith "Jews" were for the partition, the blood-thirsty monolith "Arabs" opposed. He's neither defended that myth nor disputed my correction of it. He says he's saving his disputes for another debate, but he's not started one. Anyway, he evidently felt this irrelevant subject matter important enough to initiate discussion of it in Round 2. He evidently doesn't know enough about Israel to fill 3 arguments, but I do, so I'd have preferred to have known what exactly in my Forum Posts he took issue with (preferably by Round 1, but I'd have settled for Round 3).

In the end, Pro reduces his meanderings to one chilling statement: "if someone attacks me, I will defend myself and will take something for my troubles." That's not the language of security preposterously used by Israeli officials; that's the language of compensation! Shockingly, Pro thinks the law's on his side: "This makes perfect sense, as far as the legal system goes." And what legal system is that? Pro and I are both American, and a victim of assault in the US can't take so much as his attacker's stereo, much less his attacker's peaceful neighbors' land. A court of law can (award the victim something owned by the attacker specifically, not just anyone of the attacker's ethnicity), and Israel could certainly have taken its case to the appropriate ones, the World Court (in the case of Egypt and Syria) and the International Court of Justice (in the case of Jihad Al-Muqadas). Of course, Israel would have been ruled against, as international law is quite clear on the subject of annexation (its categorical illegitimacy). In fact, helping oneself to foreign territory makes so little sense, as far as the legal system goes, that a sizeable minority of Zionists opposed it: the proposal to make the borders of Israel consistent with the UN partition was voted down by the Provisional State Council by the slightest majority, 5-4. The majority made no appeals to law whatsoever; its Right faction appealed to biblical promises, and its Left faction under Israeli patriarch Ben-Gurion appealed to the childish notion that two wrongs make a right. Far from retroactively condoning the resulting conquest, the international community has consistently held that Israel is illegally occupying all its 1967 acquisitions. The only of its gains the international community accept are those necessary to make Israel an (unlike Palestine) contiguous state (that established by the 1949 Armistice Agreements that both Gaza's and the West Bank's respective governments accept and that includes the entire Jewish population (again, the international community doesn't, never has and couldn't possibly insist the reciprocal, that Palestine include the entire Arab Palestinian population; the Zionists had made clear in words and action that they were unwilling to live even partially in a binational state). The idea that the Israeli occupation and settlement of Palestine serves some kind of security function has been rejected by political and military experts alike; even if it were true, international law is quite clear that nothing, not that claim nor any other, can serve as a pretense for the permanent occupation Israel's right wing supports in words and left wing supports in action.

I don't have time to find sources, but all my facts can probably be found on Wikipedia. If not or if anyone doesn't trust Wikipedia, let me know in the comments section, and I'll find less anonymous sources. I forfeit the "sources" point, of course: two Zionist sources and one non-Zionist source is one better than nothing.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
That was pretty funny, actually.(still laughing)
Posted by mcc1789 6 years ago
mcc1789
My sack is just fine, thank you. It seems the voters (myself obviously included) disagreed. And what Tomb said.
Posted by TombLikeBomb 6 years ago
TombLikeBomb
Gavin's new muscle-bound avatar has given him the confidence he needs to be a complete a$$.
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
Not in the slightest. You can grow a sack, too, since the resolution was affirmed.
Posted by mcc1789 6 years ago
mcc1789
@gavin.ogden I did in fact realize where my vote was going. However I have since adjusted it slightly, so Con has slightly less. Happy?
Posted by cherokee15 6 years ago
cherokee15
No..............
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
Grow a sack, cherokee15.
Posted by cherokee15 6 years ago
cherokee15
Gavin, what was that about voting on ur own debate???????

HYPOCRITE!!!
Posted by TombLikeBomb 6 years ago
TombLikeBomb
Apologies, your honor, but I fail to see how you've even begun to defend your accusation (an accusation not against the troll, but against a voter you've presumably never heard from). You accused a voter of disingenuously erring on objective points, so that "better spelling and grammar is absolutely subjective" is a poor start. I can only conjecture:

a) you meant "objective" or, what's the same, sarcasm;

b) you meant to imply that the OTHER points are objective, i.e. that ONLY "better spelling and grammar is absolutely subjective".

If (a), even if an individual sentence (or word) can be said objectively to be grammatical (or correctly spelled) or ungrammatical (or incorrectly spelled), that doesn't imply that one collection of sentences can be said objectively to have "better spelling and grammar" than another (unless of course the latter is the only one with any mistakes; come to think of it, you've not identified even one of mine). For one thing, what common "unit" of "betterness" would allow us to sum "good spelling" and "good grammar"? Do 4 "-ant"/"-ent" mistakes equal 1 missing comma, or what? Secondly, to quantify even one of the two, spelling or grammar, for even one collection of sentences would require a measure of severity, which doesn't exist. A word is spelled either correctly or incorrectly; how badly the latter is spelled is in the eye of the beholder, unless you're aware of some changes in the field of linguistics I'm not. Same goes for grammar. I suppose you could consider "ambiguous" an intermediate level (although it could equally be considered worse than "incorrect"), but, again, it's impossible to say objectively which words and sentences are more ambiguous than others, much less which ambiguities are "better" or "worse".

If (b), your reason for electing not to defend your accusation is clear: it's indefensible. And isn't that the ultimate in trollishness: making an accusation you're not prepared to defend.
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
Better spelling and grammar is absolutely subjective. Actually, why am I defending myself to you? Nevermind, what ever you think is fine with me. Once a troll, always a troll, I guess.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by mcc1789 6 years ago
mcc1789
gavin.ogdenTombLikeBombTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to support his position with arguments, while consistently launching personal attacks on his opponent.
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
gavin.ogdenTombLikeBombTied
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: Simply countering a self described votebomb by m93samman. Good show of character, by the way.
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
gavin.ogdenTombLikeBombTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I would give 4 points to Con, but Pro gave himself 4. In an attempt to balance it, I gave 7 to Con.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
gavin.ogdenTombLikeBombTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Awed 6 years ago
Awed
gavin.ogdenTombLikeBombTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by RougeFox 6 years ago
RougeFox
gavin.ogdenTombLikeBombTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40