The Instigator
Con (against)
3 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
9 Points

Israel Had a Right To Come Into Existence In 1948

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,073 times Debate No: 68623
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (54)
Votes (3)




I can prove by the definition of "Right" that the creation of Israel was "Wrong"

"Right"; noun
1. That which is morally correct, just, or honorable.
"she doesn't understand the difference between right and wrong"

"Honor"; noun
1. Honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions:



As Con has not specified whether round one is for acceptance or not, I'll begin my outlining my opening argument.

Palestine as a non-State:

Firstly, it must be established that before Israel became an official state in 1948, the land of "Palestine" had no form of sovereign government and thus was not a "state". The general fact is that Jewish people did not suddenly arrive in 1948 and overthrow any Palestinian statehood or steal the any Palestinian country, largely because it was not a country. Specifically one with a national sovereignty and clearly defined borders. The only entity who in fact did have any control over the land was Britain, who gained Palestine after defeating the Turkish forces in 1920 during World War One. Once again, the land was not controlled or owned by any Arab or Palestinian government; but the British military.

Palestinian Population:

Another large contention in why Israel had a "right" to come into existence as a state [note that Con did not clarify "state" in the resolution] is the fact that the Palestinian population was extremely small. As previously highlighted, it was not the case that Palestine was an official country with a nation sovereignty, and a large amount of people living it, but rather that Palestine was a small piece of land inhabited by a significantly small population. Prior to increased Jewish and Arab immigration, the population would have stood at no more than 800,000 . Aside from cities such as Jerusalem and certain areas in the North, Palestine was sparsely populated. Before the Jews began re-cultivating the land, it was 80% desolate. This is important to note because it yet another example of Palestine not being an actual country, inhabited by large numbers of Arab. Naturally the land would not have been so desolate or isolated if a significant number of Arabs [or Jews] lived in it.

This was something notably observed by those who briefly visited the land. One British visitor in Palestine in 1590 stated this:

"Nothing there is to be seen but a little of the old walls, which is yet Remaining and all the rest is grass, mosse and Weeds much like to a piece of Rank or moist Ground."

"While Tiberius was being resettled by Jews from Papal states, whose migration was approved by a papal Bull, Nazareth was continuing its decline." A Franciscan pilgrim translated a Latin Manuscript that reported that " 'A house of robbers, murderers, the inhabitants are Saracens.... It is a lamentable thing to see thus such a town. We saw nothing more stony, full of thorns and desert.'" A hundred years afterward, Nazareth was, in 1697, "an inconsiderable village.... Acre a few poor cottages ... nothing here but a vast and spacious ruin." Nablus consisted of two streets with many people, and Jericho was a "poor nasty village."

If Palestine had belonged to Arabs that are no known as "Palestinians" for the amount of time as claimed, naturally this would not have been the case. This visitor noted that Jews were resettling as early as 1590 [Some Sefard returned even earlier] and that other places such as Nazareth and Nablus were barely populated, with one only harbouring a "few small cottages" and the other being a "poor nasty village".

Another British visitor in the mid 1700s, archaeologist Thomas Shaw also observed that the land in Palestine was "lacking in people to till its fertile soil."

Famous American author Mark Twain was another visitor to highlight just how desolate Palestine was, describing the land as:

"A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds-a silent mournful expanse....A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace with the pomp of life and action....We never saw a human being on the whole route....There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of the worthless soil, had almost deserted the country.”

"Nazareth is forlorn .... Jericho the accursed lies a mouldering ruin today, even as Joshua's miracle left it more than three thousand years ago".

Note that Mark Twain was visiting the land in 1867, a time when Palestinian Arabs were supposedly said to be populating the land; and in considerable numbers.

So once again, further proof of how little Palestine was inhabited.

The French writer Pierre Loti also had this to say upon visiting the land in 1895:

"I traveled through sad Galilee in the spring, and I found it silent. . . ." In the vicinity of the Biblical Mount Gilboa, "As elsewhere, as everywhere in Palestine, city and palaces have returned to the dust; This melancholy of abandonment, weighs on all the Holy Land."

While David Landes noted this:

"As a result of centuries of Turkish neglect and misrule, following on the earlier ravages of successive conquerors, the land had been given over to sand, marsh, the anopheles mosquito, clan feuds, and Bedouin marauders. A population of several millions had shrunk to less than one tenth that number-perhaps a quarter of a million around 1800, and 300,000 at mid-century."

This is where the question arises of why Con believes that Israel did not have a right to come into existence as a state in 1948, in a land was which was barely populated and significantly uncultivated. Con has the burden of proof to fulfill in showing exactly why the state of Israel did not have a "right" to be established in 1948.

I'll also further highlight here the contradiction in Cons resolution, instead of including the term "state", Con chose to phrase the resolution as: "Israel Had a Right To Come Into Existence In 1948", neglecting the fact that hitorically Israel was already in existence long before 1948. Not Israel as an official state, but Israel as a historical homeland and a place that has always had [even in small numbers] a Jewish presence. Before Roman occupation, the land was named as "Israel" [hence where terms like "Israelites' come from]. It was only during Roman control that it was renamed as "Palestine", or rather: "Palestina". So the resolution of Con is already negated.

Not only does Con have to show that Israel should not have been formed as a state, but Con also has to show that Israel in one form or another was not in existence before 1948. Thus providing him/her with a large BoP indeed.

Context of Israel's 1948 establishment as a State:

The fact that Israel had legally become a state in receiving recognition from international parties such as the U.N is also enough to challenge the resolution of Con. It was internationally formed plans such as the "Mandate for Palestine" that led to Israel becoming a state in the first place, as the international community actively wanted to establish a Jewish homeland [particularly given events such as the Holocaust and other forms of European persecution.] After British forces withdrew from Palestine due to the Arabs refusing to accept assigned lands, the U.N later came up with the the "Partition Plan" which was again fully legal. The aim was to assign areas to the Jews and the Arabs, and to introduce a mutual agreement. Prior to the 1967 Six Day War, Arabs had in fact Arabs controlled approximately 80 percent of the territory of the British Mandate, while the Palestinian Jewish State held a small 17.5 percent, with Gaza being occupied by Egypt. Therefore, the Jews, actually had notably smaller lands. Significantly less than they were originally supposed to be given.


[1.] Gunner Edward Webbe, Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement, p. 86, cited in de Haas, History, p. 338.

[2.] Mark Twain, The Innocents Abroad, pp. 349, 366, 367. [3.] . De Haas, History, p. 337, citing Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement, 1925, p. 197, translation of Latin manuscript by a Franciscan pilgrim.

[3.] Pierre Loti, La Galilee (Paris, 1895), pp. 37-41, 69, 85-86, 69, cited by David Landes, "Palestine Before the Zionists," Commentary, February 1976, pp. 48-49.

Debate Round No. 1


Emil has used the tired old flimsy Zionist talking points to make excuses for the removal of indigenous native people from the land of their birth.
1. She callously disregards the natives humanity by claiming that they have not a government so they don't really exist.
2. She claims that the land was sparsely populated
3. She relies on UN resolution
4. She claims that Israel had been in existence in the years leading up to 1948.

All are invalid

Point # 1. Emil claims the natives had no government so they had not any human rights. Sadly this is the brainwashing rhetoric that has been effectively fed to so many for so long. Using vernacular labeling or lack there of as a reason to discount the humans that were the Semitic natives of the land. I don't care if the Native population wanted to call themselves "Smurfs" it does not diminish the fact that each one of the natives are human with human rights. The right to property. The right to a democratic voice in government. The right to defense. The natives had to be dispossessed of their property, their resources and their democratic voice to make room for the multitudes of White European Jewish immigrants.

Point # 2 Emil claims that the land was so sparsely populated that there was plenty of room for the White Jewish European immigrants. This claim is eerily familiar as related to the God given Manifest Destiny rational. The Manifest Destiny ideology is what allowed white Americans to morally excuse themselves for the crime of ethnic cleansing upon the American Indians. She attempts to back up her claims with quotes from renowned racists like Mark Twain. Who visited the land while it was still under the Heavy hand of the Ottoman Empire. She even uses quotes from centuries ago that are so old they have no bearing on the debate at Hand "Israel Had a Right To Come Into Existence In 1948". She claims a native population of 800,000 souls a number disputed, a number that will never be accurately known. She claims these indigenous people had no right to control immigration. That is like saying the USA should open its borders and allow 300 million immigrants to move on to our territory. How ever sad the plight of the Zionists was it in no way gave Zionists or the white nations of the U.N. the right to deny the 800 thousand natives their human rights.

Point # 3 Emil claims that a United Nations non-unanimous decision had the power to override the right of democracy for the Semitic indigenous people of the Holy Land. The natives had every right to curtail immigration onto their territory. The U.N. resolution is moot regarding "Right" because no one, not even the U.N. has a right deny democracy to anyone. The U.N. resolution set up a system of democracy that was dependent on flawed census data. The truth is that the Jews were severely outnumbered in this volatile land. A truth that would be comically surprising to see Emil dispute. The demographics and population data vary wildly but it always shows that the Jews were a minority. After 1943 the numbers show a large increase in the number of Jews but remember they were illegal immigrants and even so still a significant minority. Imagine if the U.N. demanded that your nation gave citizenship to all the illegals that resided in your country. I doubt you would stand for that. So without the removal of native Semitic Muslims from the territory carved out for Jews the vote would have put an end to the Zionist theocracy. It is argued who attacked who first but that is clearly irrelevant in such a clear case of illegal immigration. We are talking about white people from thousands of miles away fighting with natives in their homeland. The aggressor is obvious. The aggressor is the one who traveled across the planet forcing their way into the land. The aggressor here was the Zionists. Aggression is wrong. You have not a right when you are wrong. The Zionists removed a quantity of Semitic Natives sufficient to feign a democracy. I say feign because you are not truly a democracy after you cleanse your territory denying the natives their god given right to a voice in the villages of their birth. Ethnic cleansing is wrong...period.

Point # 4 To say that Israel existed is a fantasy. The nation may of existed in the hearts of people but so does the Kingdom of Hawaii. To consider the Kingdom of Hawaii a state in existence because people wish it so is really a stretch. A stretch beyond reality. So in this world Israel did not exist from the years around 100 ad to 1948 and at that time it was born without righteousness.



Firstly, I have not used any "Zionist talking points", but have rather simply referred to the facts. As Palestine was not a nation, it was therefore not an established country.

I'd note to Con that he has used a fallacy in stating that "indigenous native people" were removed from the land of their birth; particularly as he has presented absolutely no evidence in support of this allegation. Even the small numbers of Arabs [such as Druze] that had lived in Palestine long-term, were technically not "indigenous". Con is also discounting the number of Jews that had lived in Palestine before the State of Israel was established.

Pointing out that Palestine was not an official country is in no way "callously disregarding" the people who Con claims are "natives" [without including any evidence], as again it is an established fact. Con has adopted the use f innapprioately strong words, as well as false assumptions.

The land was indeed "sparcely populated", as is evidenced in my opening argument. Prior to the 1920's when both Arab and Jewish immigration began to increase, Palestine was significantly de-populated.

The U.N partician plan applies as that's led to the assignment of lands in 1948. I also pointed out the British Mandate, demonstrating that international parties were also heavily involved--and legally--in the formation of the State of Israel. It was in fact Britain that wanted the Jewish people to have a homeland in Palestine in the first place.

As for Israel being in existence before 1948; once again this is a fact. The term "Israel" dates back almost 4000 years, and it what the Jews originally chose to call the land.

None of these are "invalid", Con has for the third time made a false assertion so I'd suggest any potential voters take note.

Regarding further claims:

Con asserts that I claimed that on the basis of the allged "natives" [I'll point out again that Con has a large BoP to fulfill here] having no government, they were devoid of human rights. Note that this is not my claim. Rather I highlighted the simple fact that Palestine had no sovereignty or statehood, and was therefore not classified as an official country. Con has failed to demonstrated how these "human rights" come into play and if they were even violated. Con also makes the false assertion that I am using "rhetoric", when he himself comes up with the accusation of the Jews migrating to Israel somehow not being "Semitic", which thus gives him another BoP that he will be required to address in round three. Just because these Jews had lived in Europe, it does not mean that they are ethnically European or with no Semitic origin. Con also disregards to the fact, which I did explicitly pointed out, that a large number of Sefardic and Eastern Jews also migrated to Israel. With the latter particularly being Yemenite and Iraqi Jews. Sefardic Jews in fact make up 51% of the Israeli population.

I'd also remind Con that the "rights" he's mentioned are not inherent and also present an entirely one-sided perspective as to who is deserving of getting "democratic voice" or the "right to self-defense"; not forgetting the events that had took place prior to the establishment of Israel.

Once again, Con uses the term "White Jewish European immigrants" negatively and places inappropriate emphasis on ethnicity. I'll highlight again that a significant number of Eastern Jews have migrated as to Israel, as well at being home to large portion of Sefhardi Jews; so Cons claim is both inaccurate and irrelevant. I would go as far to state that Con excessive use of the term "White Jewish European immigrants" has racist connotations and strongly implies a discriminatory attitude. Concerning the land, it's because it was sparsely populated that there was indeed plenty of room for both Arabs and Jews to settle in it. Many of the Palestinians that Con views as "indigenous" to the land of Palestine, are descended from those who migrated from Syria, Egypt and Jordan; many in the 20th century.

Con also rather outrageously claims that my round one contention is "familiar" to the so-called "God given Manifest rational", which is off-topic and entirely without support. No where have I stated anything that is on par with or resembles any such rationale, and I'd advise readers to take note of this. Cons accusation here well and truly fits the definition of a "fallacy". Con also labels the author Mark Twain a "racist" without providing any evidence in support; this particular accusation is largely irrelevant to his comments on Palestine which were included in his book "Innocents Abroad". This is a credible author who had virtually no reason to fabricate his observations. The purpose of showing quotes dating from the late 1800's to the late 1900's was to show that if large numbers of Palestinians did indeed live in the land and were "native", naturally this would've been referenced. However, the fact completely remains that Palestine was sparsely populated and had only few inhabitants.

Con is correct in stating that the number of Arabs living in the land at the time of 1948 is disputed, with some sources suggesting as low as 300,000. The 800,000 number is NOT definitive and is cited only by Con in a Wikipedia source.

As for Cons third rebuttals, once again is placing words in my mouth. I did not claim that the decision U.N [a party that became involved after Britain] had the power to override any democracy, which at that point did not exist in Palestine as the was no form of official governance, overrides the right for the people Con claims as "Semitic indigenous people" of the Holy Land [which I'll point out, is only considered Holy because of Judaism.] Con inappropriately brings ethnicity into the debate which entirely undermines his stance. It was not "their" territory, rather it was British territory as they formally had control over it. Con claims that Jews were "severely outnumbered" in this land, as there were not high numbers of Arabs living in Palestine prior to 1920's-1940's immigration. In fact, all demographics show that both the Jews and Arabs were a minority and that the population levels were significantly small. The below graph shows the rate of Arab immigration:

As according to my own statements, the 1920's-1940's in particular show a rapid increase in Arab immigration to Palestine.
Con also entirely fails in stating: "Imagine if the U.N. demanded that your nation gave citizenship to all the illegal that resided in your country. I doubt you would stand for that", due the fact that my nation IS a nation with its own political sovereignty. Con again uses race and religion in his argument, as well using the rhetoric if "Zionist theocracy", without showing how it relates to his point. As Arabs gained a large portion of the land in 1948, Cons point that they were "removed" is also negated.

In addition, who attacked first is also not as irrelevant as Con may think; as that determines the origins of the conflict. Con mistakenly places all emphasis on Jews, whom he refers as "White people". As previously noted, Con ignores the number of Eastern Jews who also migrated to the land and currently live in the State of Israel now. The European Jews [who have been found to share genetics] were escaping events such as the Holocaust and the persistent case of anti-Semitism, who were not "aggressors" but people trying to ensure security and a build a home. Con has outlined no evidence to support his contention, and even strikingly claims that "ethnic cleansing" was committed; which he provides literally no proof in support. For this BoP to be met, Con would have to show that extremely large numbers of Palestinians were killed and that it was because of their ethnicity, which in itself is mixed.

As for Israel existing being a "fantasy", this is negated by the fact that did exist and with an official Jewish sovereignty.

All sources can be found here:

Debate Round No. 2


Emil seems to be lacking in the understanding the English language so at the bottom I have provided definitions from the Merriam-Webster for some of the deficiencies in her lexicon. I have words and terms like "Native", "Indigenous" and "Ethnic Cleansing". For example Emil thinks that ethnic cleansing means genocide. Ethnic Cleansing can be accomplished by population removal actions such as the "Trail of Tears" or "Nakba" (

Emil claims that the Holy Land has such a name based only on Judaism, Lol, as if the land is not wrought by the collision of different religions. As if other religions do place extremely high value on the importance of this land.

Emil would like for you to believe that this debate "Israel Had a Right To Come Into Existence In 1948" means figuratively. We all know that the Romans obliterated the physical state of Israel Milena ago. She plays semantic games on the lack of the word "state". If you believe this debate has anything to do with the existence of Israel in the hearts of Jews then your vote should go to the argument that "Israel has always existed". In honesty we all know that this debate has everything to do with 1948, the U.N. partition plan and the Zionist declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel.

Emil would have you believe that the population was so sparse of native Semitic Arab Muslims that the white Zionist illegal Immigrants from Europe combined with the minuscule fraction of native Arab Jews were a majority of the population. Leading to the fallacy that the establishment of Israel was democratic. I will not copy and paste a source for these wildly varying demographic studies. What all honest scholars do agree on is that The Muslims out populated the Jews in both the U.N.'s Jewish partition and the territory loosely claimed by the Zionist declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel. If you do not believe that a strong majority was Muslim I implore you to research it on your own. I am sure you can find a few dishonest "scholars" that would make claims to the contrary but they are few. Few because most people have feelings of honor that they painfully and shamefully have to part from to act with such selfish deception. If you still believe that demographics in 1948 were of a Jewish majority there is nothing I can do to relieve you of your cognitive dissonance.

For all of us who can get honest with ourselves and possess the knowledge that the Jews were a minority in the Holy Land in 1948 I will continue. I have read the U.N. resolutions ( (
and am familiar with the vague territorial claims in the "Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel". The U.N. wrote the resolution that framed separation of Palestine with a process that relied on democratic principals to determine the structures of the newly formed states. The U.N. elites knew of the demographic problem even though they were given a terribly flawed census. The elites openly discussed the forced change of demography as a necessity for the formation of a Jewish state. They called it "transfer". Regardless we know that there was an imbalance of Jews to Muslims in these carved out territories to be given to the Jews of the World. So the new Jewish state either cleansed the land of natives or denied the native people democracy. Either way is wrong. Not "Right". They had not a "Right" to create Israel. So when Emil says "Con has failed to demonstrated how these "human rights" come into play and if they were even violated" That is only because her comprehension is poor but I just demonstrated again. It is a violation of Human rights to deny representation in governance and it was clearly a violation of the natives rights when White Jewish Europeans violently forced native brown skinned Semitic people from the villages of their birth. This did happen on a massive scale. Look up "Nakba" ( Emil will have you believe that because the people born in this land had not a government of their own and were subjugated by ottomans the Britts that they had no right to democratically control immigration into the land of their birth. Emil even goes so far as to say "It was not "their" territory, rather it was British territory as they formally had control over it" that is cold as ice. Such a statement comes from a heart so cold you could chill a warm beer by holding it to her chest. As if the territory of a populated land is not the territory the native inhabitants of said land....Wow...thats cold. Emil says that Palestinians under Brittish control did not have democracy so that makes it ok for the Zionist army to deny the natives democracy. She is wrong. No one has a right to deny anyone democracy. That reason alone is enough to prove Israel did not a Right To Come Into Existence In 1948. Emil even comically gives effort to gain a vote from the mathematically impaired by saying that both Muslims and Jews were the minority.

Emil claims the Holocaust gave the European Jews a right to build homes in the Holy Land. Wrong it was the Europeans who committed the crime of the holocaust so it should have been the Europeans that had land taken from them by the Jews. The offer of a Jewish state in Europe was on the table but between religious freaks and the fact that Europeans were all to glad to have the rest of the Jews emigrate they all dismissed the only righteous idea of carving out a piece of germany for a Jewish homeland. The holocaust did not give its victims the right to immigrate to a foreign land against the wishes of that foreign lands native inhabitants.

P.S. Mark Twain was a racist (
P.S. Lord Balfor (Bloody Balfor) and his banker crony Lord Rothschild may have published the Balfore Declaration but so what? These wretched souls of silver spoons with a history of blood thirsty arrogance have opinions of little weight to bear on the hearts of moral men. (

Definitions from the merriam-webster

"adjective"\G2;nā-tiv: born in a particular place
"used to refer to the place where a person was born and raised
: belonging to a person since birth or childhood
:" belonging to a particular place by birth
archaic":" closely related
:" belonging to or associated with one by birth
a":" grown, produced, or originating in a particular place or in the vicinity:""local
b":" living or growing naturally in a particular region":""indigenous

"adjective"\in-G2;di-jə-nəs: produced, living, or existing naturally in a particular region or environment
:" produced, growing, living, or occurring naturally in a particular region or"environment""

ethnic cleansing
Noun (Concise Encyclopedia)
The creation of an ethnically homogenous geographic area through the elimination of unwanted ethnic groups by deportation, forcible displacement, or genocide. Ethnic cleansing also has involved attempts to remove physical vestiges of the targeted group in the territory through the destruction and desecration of monuments, cemeteries, and houses of worship.



On the contrary to myself not fully understanding the English language, rather it's Con that uses words without applying their proper meaning. "Indigenous" is used for people who truly are "indigenous" and native to a specific land; more importantly, it's required that they've been in that land for a long period of time. Con has also greatly misunderstood the term "ethnic cleansing". If the Jews upon return to Israel did commit ethnic cleansing, they would've specifically targeted Arabs on the basis of race. The first people to kill and launch attacks on communitiess were not Jews, but Arabs. The Hebron massare being an example. These were Sefardi Jews who had lived in the land for an extremely long time.

Potential voters should also take note of the fact that Con has not provided any evidence of Jews committing "ethnic cleansing".

In fact, this is what Arab reporter Abu Mazen had to say about Arab Palestinians leaving their homes in the 1940's : "Arab armies forced Palestinians to leave their homes." [Filastin A-Thawra, March 1976]

As for the "Holy Land", the point here was that the term derives from Judaism as it was this religion that first considered it a "Holy Land". Nowhere did I state that the land was not important to other religions. Once again, this is a blatant misrepresentation by Con.

Previous quote: "To say that Israel existed is a fantasy." The obvious reponse to this is that Israel did exist, and has a name that dates back much further than"Palestine". The point here is that unlike Palestine, Israel did have a statehood; which naturally contends Cons resolution that it "come into existance in 1948". I have merely highlighted the fact that technically, something cannot "come into existance" if it has already existed. Con attempts to change the wording of his resolution in stating "1948 establishment" of Israel, but once again: the resolution clearly states "existence", which is an entirely different term in itself.

Con again demonstates another obvious example of word-twisting in his fourth point. As demographics show, the population figures for Palestine were noticaly miniscule. The fact remains that only a minority of Arabs and Jews actually lived in the land prior to increased migration in the 1920's-1940's. As pointed out in round one, a large number of Arabs migrated from neighboring countries, with many being employed as migrant workers by the British army. To the extent where Arab news outlets began to report on the vast number of Arabs locating to Palestine. On August 12, 1934, "La S yrie" published an interview with Tewfik Bey El-Hurani, Governor of the Hauran. In which he stated that "In the last few months from 30,000 to 36,000 Hauranese [Syrian] had entered Palestine and settled there."

As Con has failed to provide a source, his claims about demographics and Arabs being a majority are thus unproved.

Naturally, the descendants of these Syrian migrants would now be known as "Palestinians". People that Con claims are native to that land.

A 1937 report by the British Peel Commission states this: “The increase in the Arab population is most marked in urban areas, affected by Jewish development. A comparison of the census returns in 1922 and 1931 shows that, six years ago, the increase percent in Haifa was 86, in Jaffa 62, in Jerusalem 37, while in purely Arab towns such as Nablus and Hebron it was only 7, and at Gaza there was a decrease of 2 percent.”

Once again, Cons arguments about Palestinians being native to the land are easily contended.

Con should also know that the Jews who had lived in Palestine prior to the 1920's-1940's, were not "Arab" as he claims. Sefardi Jews are those who originally migrated to Spain, and Eastern Jews are Jews that remained in the Middle East and continued to practice Judasm.

Likewise, these statistics also heavily challenge Cons argument on the amount of Jews who lived in Palestine, and if they they were truly a minority.

Con has essentially dropped the case of the amount of non-European Jews who migrated to Israel. The sources used in round two refer to the number of Yemenite and Eastern Jews who located to the land, that Con views as being stolen from "indigenous brown skinned natives".

Con places emphasis on the U.N resolution, however, it was the British Mandate for Palestine that really led to the establishment of Israel in 1947. The U.N resolution was primarily made to resolve the conflict between the Jews and Arabs, which was first initiated by Arab groups in 1920. The aim was to assign lands and as pointed out in round one, the Arabs eventually ended up with a large potion of Palestine [including Jerusalem.] However, this did not prevent continuous terror attacks or the initiation of the six day war, in which Israel was attacked by several Arab states. Con continues to argue the demographic issue without actually pointing at the demographics themselves or including clear evidence that the Arabs significantly out populated the Jews. Without any proof, Cons case is entirely unsupported.

As for Cons statement concerning territory, as the British had official ownership over Palestine, it did not technically belong to Palestinian Arabs. I'd remind Con that territory is determined by who controls it. Con uses the argument that I am somehow emotionally "cold" for stating this, which I'd note is not only irrelevant, but also completely fallacious. In stating that Palestine was under British ownership, I am outlining an actual fact. Unlike Con seems to believe, this is not something that should be related to emotion or lack of it. The only things that apply are facts, which is what Con has consistently misunderstood and rejected throughout this entire debate.

Regarding democracy, once again this is applied through governance--which Palestine did not have. In round two Con preseneted himself with the large BoP in proving that democracy is an inborn right which he has ultimately failed to do. I'd point out that since 1948, Israel has not stopped Palestine from forming any democracy or providing that right to its people, therefore, no rights have been denied.

Con claims in his last point that I stated that the Holocaust gave European Jews the right to build homes in the "Holy Land", which is incorrect. What I actually stated was that the Holocaust provided a reason for European Jews to escape to Israel, due to continuing anti-Semitism and the fact they had lost their homes during the Holocaust. A large number of the homes had already been built by Jews who had migrated to the land in the 1920's-30's, which negates Cons point.

In addition, Con also makes the claim that an offer was available for Jews to establish a homeland in Europe without including any evidence in support. After Germany had just committed a wide-scale genocide of the Jewish people, in which 6 million were killed, it's evident why a nation for the Jews would not be created there. There's the fact that Eastern European, French, and Mediterranean Jews were not from Germany; as well as the question of Germany being large enough to hold all European Jews. Obviously, Con does not concern himself with the potential displacement of any German people, who actually were "native" to the land. The reason why Israel was chosen as a homeland is because of the historic and cultural roots that all Jews share to the land, and the fact that Eastern Jew [who similarly to many of the European, lived in ghettos] could also easily move to and be at home in it.

In including definitions Con does not substantiate his points, and only uses characters on semantics. The "ethnic cleansing" definition also applies to the Jewish inhabitants, as they're the ones that have had monuments [like Jewish tombs] and synagogues "desecrated".

The Palestinians Con refers to as "native brown skinned Semitic people":

Just so "native".


Debate Round No. 3
54 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Yusuf94 2 years ago
It's a site filled with & run by hypocrites mate!
Posted by PatulousDescry 2 years ago
Wow Airmax when you say "poor vote" you believe that Emil won. Any observer knows that she lost on the demographics argument. Jews were a minority. This means the creation of Israel went against the principals of democracy. Unless you are a fascist you would agree that to deny a population the right to democracy is wrong. For you to say Emil won is to say Democracy is not a right. I doubt you guys are wretched people but something has made your hearts cold. I would guess it is the hardening effect the ill-logic of religion may have.
Posted by Emilrose 2 years ago
Yes, on the basis that he's displayed the same statements and not denied being the user in question; I can only conclude that it is a case of multi-accounting.
Posted by airmax1227 2 years ago
So_Much's votes was removed because it did not comply with voting standards. This wasn't a borderline case, it was a clearly poor vote. Each of the point categories needs to be explained, So_much failed to do so, and the vote was removed. 7 point votes especially need to be thorough, and the vote in question didn't come close to being compliant.

As for the other issues here relating to possible multi accounting and multi-voting, I will investigate the accounts in question to determine if any such thing has occurred. The members in question are encouraged to contact me so that they can clarify any possible misunderstandings.
Posted by Emilrose 2 years ago
Ooh yeah right, like I'd believe that.

You ARE "so_much" and made that account purposely to vote on this debate, which means you've violated site rules.
Posted by Emilrose 2 years ago
Nope it's not, Patulous. The first reason as to why is because of the historical and cultural connection that Jews have to Israel and the fact that remnants of them already lived there before Israel was established. The same is NOT said for the European's migrating to America.

Another large difference is that the establishment of Israel was done internationally [It was Britain who initiated it] and that the Palestinians were offered their own state with more land.

Try reading a history book sometime, you might learn something.
Posted by So_Much 2 years ago
Yeah its me I am on my roommates phone he is SoMuch
Posted by So_Much 2 years ago
Bluesteel good question on the right of the USA. What white Europeans did to the American Indians is exactly the same as what is going on today in Palestine by white Europeans. It was peacemeal we had no right to take the Cherokee land in North Carolina or the Navajo land in New Mexico. So sad that you guys support the same actions occouring in your lifetime. Emil makes these ridiculous statements about population with such beastly inhumanity about the cleansing of the population by Arabs. As if those families then have no right to return to the villages of their birth because Arabs drove them out. Yet with the flare of a bipolar mind she will dismiss her recognition of the refugees. She on one hand claims they barely exist and that they were a population lesser than that of the Jews but still subscribes to the rational for refusing the refugees their right to return home because they number more than the Jews
Posted by Emilrose 2 years ago
Hmm, you are.
Posted by Emilrose 2 years ago
And why are you talking in third person? O.o

You sound exactly like Con.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by mcc1789 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 Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: While both sides lacked sources on many points and made some poor arguments, I must side with Con. The argument that because the Palestinians had no statehood or had only a small population Jewish settlers were therefore justified in colonizing are non sequiturs. First, of course, because the Ottomans and British denied statehood to the inhabitants. Second, if low habitation of the area made immigration (even illegally) acceptable, this argument is equally valid for Arabs. If we are to accept that conquest gives one legitimate ownership of territory, then the Jews had no right to complain when Romans and others conquered the land, nor would they if Arabs managed to. This is another argument that undermines itself. It is also clear that there was no state of Israel from about AD 150-1948, as was Con's argument. The status of being born in and inhabiting an area for centuries indeed makes one "native", and thus most Palestinians and not Jews qualified at the time under debate.
Vote Placed by KonstanBen 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Aff had better argumentation and more reliable sources. In addition, Aff debated in a more polite manner.
Vote Placed by ColeTrain 2 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: See above.