Israel Was Wrong to Take Palestine
Debate Rounds (3)
The fact that Pro is laying the history of the foundation of the state of Israel in two sentences reflects a lack of seriousness about the complex history. Additionally, just about all of the content mentioned was utterly false. To begin, there was never in the history of the world a legally recognized state of Palestine in the first place nor has there ever been a strong desire for such a state prior to the modern state of Israel emerging. Believe it or not, prior to 1948, "Palestinians" referred to Jews living in the land. http://www.jpost.com...
Pro gave only one basis and justification for "Palestine". Again, pro needs to define "Palestine" because when the British was governing the land, they were nowhere near as much of an open society as Israel is today. First of all, there were quotas and restrictions for immigration particularly on the Jews that are not so today in Israel. Additionally the Jews were barred from visiting their holiest site in Jerusalem. Even after the state was established the Jews had to wait until they governed the area themselves to be allowed to visit the Western Wall because Arab leadership prohibited it. If Pro is suggesting that the modern Palestinian government would allow a "peaceful state" that would support a "multi-ethnic population", this is nonsensical. There is not one Jew in the Gaza Strip and Christians regularly face persecution from the Palestinians in general. A Palestinian stabbed and killed a 13 year old Israeli girl in her sleep because she was living in Kiryat Arba. The leadership of Hamas additionally calls for the murder of all Jews worldwide. https://www.opendoorsusa.org...
Now let's examine the modern state of Israel. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. Understand that this means that the best place in the Middle East FOR ARABS in terms of human rights is Israel. It is a diverse country with 1.1 Million Muslims, 130,000 Christians, and 100,000 Druze and each have equal voting rights. 14 seats in the Knesset are held by Arabs. And of course all religions are welcome to pray at their holy sites in Jerusalem. http://www.americanthinker.com...
As for Pro's final claim regarding a "Zionist invasion and take over", this is an utter lie. There is no such Zionist invasion. This reflects a rather poor understanding of even the basic history of Israel. There actually was an ARAB invasion of Israel during Israel's independence in 1948. Arab countries attempted to destroy the state of Israel. As for the UN, they only came into the picture at a later period of time. It was the British who established the idea of the creation of the State of Israel. The Palestinians had a history of rejecting all territory starting from the Peel Commission where Palestinians got just about all of the land and the Jews got a tiny "Peel". This was apparent through the Partition Plan as well and those following it.
Nothing Pro has stated thus far is even factually correct so he has a lot of work to do next round if he wants to prove that Israel was wrong. At this point I basically have proven that even the title is incorrect because Israel did not really even "take" Palestine.
I look forward to your response Pro.
You are correct, there never was a "state of Palestine", that was a error on my part. However, Palestinians did control modern day Israel. During Palestinian control, Israel was peaceful and almost all people there were not in conflict. It was not until the radical Jewish group, Zionism, started acting that problems arrived. The Palestinians allowed Jewish immigrants to live in Palestine, but the Zionists wanted complete control. They forced the Palestinians out unjustly and started a war. The 1947-1949 War was completely unjust on the side of the Jewish. They invaded and forced the Palestinians out. Meanwhile, the Palestinians fought only defenselessly. The UN was wrong to support the Jewish during this fight. How could it be just?
This debate has nothing to do with the modern functioning of Israel, it is strictly the capture of Palestine by the Zionists.
Pro does concede to the mistake of there never being a state of Palestine. This is not a minor detail but rather the premise of the entire debate. If there was no state of Palestine, Israel couldn't have taken it. End of story. I will still address the rest of the points.
Pro's second point is that the Palestinians controlled "modern day Israel". But he later says "This debate has nothing to do with the modern functioning of Israel". I ask Pro to be clearer with his points. Assuming that he is just referring to the territories it is completely false that "Palestinians" controlled it. Again this is basic history of Israel. Even if they did is actually irrelevant because all that would matter is who governed the land when Israel LEGALLY BECAME A COUNTRY. The British governed the country and Israel legally became a state. This refutes the entire title of the debate. 1. Israel can't have taken Palestine from the Palestinians if there was no Palestinian state. 2. As I proved last round as well, there was no "taking". It was a legally established state. https://en.wikipedia.org...
If Pro was referring to Palestinian government today, I already covered that as well last round. This government is in no way peaceful and has shown hardly any history of it.
"It was not until the radical Jewish group, Zionism, started acting that problems arrived".
Pro, I remind you that you have the burden of proof and you have provided no proof whatsoever to this vague statement. Regardless, this is an inaccurate statement on many levels. There is no such group called "Zionism". Zionism is simply a belief. Zionism officially was formed by Theodore Herzl in 1897 and the Ottomans were governing the land then, Palestinians never have. Keep these facts in mind as I move on to Pro's next point. https://en.wikipedia.org...
"They forced the Palestinians out unjustly and started a war".
We now know that Zionism was established in 1897 but even Pro knows that Israel was formed much later. This "force" took 50 years? The obvious answer is that Pro is unaware of Israeli history. It is one thing to be ignorant that is fine. But it is another to spread lies. There was no war in 1897 when Zionism emerged. The war that you are referring to is the War of Independence which brings us to Pro's next point.
"The 1947-1949 War was completely unjust on the side of the Jewish. They invaded and forced the Palestinians out. Meanwhile, the Palestinians fought only defenselessly. The UN was wrong to support the Jewish during this fight. How could it be just?"
The only thing that comes close to truth in these statements is that the war was from 47-49. The rest are utter lies. 1. Pro please explain to me how Israel can invade its own country? Quick history lesson of the War of Independence. It is called that for a reason because Israel was declaring independence and five ARAB countries INVADED with the one goal of wiping Israel off the face of the map. This is in no way defensive. It is Israel who is clearly on the defensive. 2. The UN did not support Israel I am not sure what you mean.
I'd like to address a point Pro said before: "The Palestinians allowed Jewish immigrants to live in Palestine, but the Zionists wanted complete control".
And another false statement. Once again the Palestinians did not govern the land to allow the Jews in. And now with the land they do govern, as I've state before, they don't allow any and have slaughtered any Jews who have. Pro has ignored the proof I gave last round about basic History of Israel. Israel did not want complete control. It was actually the PALESTINIANS who wanted complete control. I brought up Peel Commission. Israel received a tiny bit of the land and they were fine with it the Palestinians were not because they wanted COMPLETE CONTROL. The Partition Plan as well, the Jews were fine with their portion the Palestinians were not and this is actually how the war was started in the first place by the PALESTINIANS! They wanted "COMPLETE CONTROL"!
Conclusion: To determine if something is right or wrong one must know the basic facts of the situation. This is clearly not the case with Pro.
I look forward to your response.
I am well aware of the war Pro. You clearly are not. Being ignorant is one thing. Spreading lies when you are ignorant is another thing. But continuing to spread the same lies after someone refutes it for two rounds with sources is probably the highest level of dishonesty. At this point it is clear that you have a very strong prejudice against Israel that facts can't cure.
The rest of these facts that I am reiterating are just for the readers because it is clear I can't get through to Pro. The War of Independence is when 5 Arab countries conspired to literally wipe Israel off the face of the map. 160,000 Arabs who lived within Israel"s borders accepted Israel"s invitation to choose peace and become Israeli citizens. Between 472,000 and 750,000 Palestinian Arabs (the number is disputed by scholars) left for various reasons 1. To escape the war.
2. Wealthy Arab leaders left, and without leadership the Arab communities fell apart.
3. Arab leaders encouraged the masses to get out of the way of the advancing Arab armies, promising that victory would be quick and they could soon return.
4. In some cases, Israeli troops forced Arab residents from their homes in sensitive, strategic zones vital to the survival of the Jewish state.
So you see it is the Arab countries fault. Israel was simply taking necessary actions for war. The Arab countries really is responsible for the refugee problem and everyone except Jordan refused to accept them in their countries.
I will thank Pro only for instigating this debate. It is very disappointing. He refused to take this issue seriously by not doing any research on the issue and then once I actually provide facts and research, he continues to spread the lies. I definitely would like to thank the voters for reading.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by spencercrat123 7 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: S&G decent on both sides. I give conduct to Con because he clearly put in more time and effort into this debate. Citing factual sources is crucial in a historical debate and Pro repeatedly failed to do this when he made claims regarding the population makeup and "Zionist invasion". Con strongly refuted the claims of Pro and often showed the opposite to be true (i.e. Israel was the actual party fighting in defense). Con's line of reasoning was clear and supported: Jews immigrated to Israel legally and fought in defense when Arab forces tried to remove them. Pro's line of reasoning was that "Zionists" invaded and took over Israel but he failed to factually defend this claim from rebuttals and did not even attempt to disprove Con's line of reasoning. Thus, arguments goes to Con as well.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.