The Instigator
JimmyRP
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
donald.keller
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Israel is an illegitimate state, and should therefore be dismantled and reformed.

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...
donald.keller
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/20/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,001 times Debate No: 49538
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

JimmyRP

Pro

We have seen numerous human rights abuses originate is Israel since 1948, and this has reached a point wherein we must accept that the status quo of the Israeli state is dysfunctional and must be radically reformed. I am deliberately leaving "illegitimate" as undefined because I feel that what constitutes legitimacy within sovereign states will be a point of contention.

By radically reformed what I mean is, via international intervention, which may include military intervention, the Israeli government would dismantled, and would be replaced by a regime that would ultimately be an elected by all residents of the territory that is currently considered to be of Israel.

To win this debate I feel I must prove things

1. The Jewish people, who currently form the electorate of Israel, do not have a sovereign claim to the land.
2. The international community has, based on the actions of Israel, a right to invade and intervene.
3. The current state fails to adequately uphold human rights.

This is my first time posting, so apologies if I failed in some aspect of formatting, or committed some faux pas.
donald.keller

Con

Put forth your contention.
Debate Round No. 1
JimmyRP

Pro

JimmyRP forfeited this round.
donald.keller

Con

Premise I: History of the Israeli State.

Not long after World War II ended, the UN, and Britain, divided up the empire's land in the Middle East. The borders around Israel weren't so well defined then as they are today. In fact, they were more a province in an Arab state than anything else.



The two groups, Muslims and Jews, were to have equal land in the area, but the Arab states didn't approve. Not long afterwards, most of the nations in the area declared war on the Jewish State. There were over 710,000 Arab soldiers against 140,000 Israeli solders (1). After just under 10 months, the war ended. The Arabs, who invaded, was badly defeated and had to sign an Armistice.

The Armistice granted Israel independence as a separate, unique state (2). Each of the invading forces signed off, recognizing Israel's right to exist.

1) http://www.onwar.com...
2) http://www.peaceau.org...

Argument I: Definition of a Illegitimate State.

Historically, Palestine and Israel both had a claim to the land they are on. As such, both were given it, but by declaring war, and losing, Palestine lost the right to the land to Israel.

However, their claims were thousands of years old. Prior to their modern creation, the land belonged to Britain. It was their's to do with as they pleased. The claim was theirs, and they chose to split it between the two states. The Arabs, however, lost their right to the land when they signed the Armistice. That declaration is legally binding, granting Israel proper claim to that land. Even the Palestinians had to sign, granting Israel solo claim to the land. There is no question of whether or not Israel has a right to be there.

They have a historical right to the land. They were granted a right to the land by it's owner. And now they are legally bound to the land by declaration signed by the only other group they shared it with.

Argument II: Upholding Human Rights.

The idea that Israel hasn't upheld Human Rights is rather unimportant to rather or not they are a legitimate state. There is no nation in the world who can claim to have a perfect history. By Pro's logic, the US, Britain, Russia, China, India, all of Africa, Germany, France, and all of the Middle East, and so on has no right to exist.

What defines Human Rights? Every nation has a different definition. Israel has actually done very well with Human Rights. The Freedom House lists Israel has "Free". It has high amounts of freedom in each category, except for Freedom of the Press (3). Their army is also one of the most efficient at protecting innocent civilians. The average Civilian to Militant death ratio in a Middle East civil war is around 4:1. The Israeli Army's Civilian to Militant death ratio is 1:30 because of the lengths they go to protect civilians, regardless of race or religion (4).

3) http://freedomhouse.org...
4) http://www.haaretz.com...

Conclusion: Britain had right to that land, and they gave it equally to Israel and Palestine. Palestine forfeited their rights to the lands when they signed the Armistice after they and other Arab nations declared war on the small state.

Israel's right to exist as a legitimate state was granted by both Britain (original owner of the land) and the Arab states. There is no question to their right to be there.
Debate Round No. 2
JimmyRP

Pro

JimmyRP forfeited this round.
donald.keller

Con

This turned out a lot less fun than I hoped :/

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
Lol ya. I doubt it'll be my last Israel debate XD
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
Yeah. Oh well, maybe next time :)
Posted by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
Sorry this couldn't be a lot more interesting. :p
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
Thanks, I'll give it a read.
Posted by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
I have a few of these debates you can read... http://www.debate.org...
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
...so did I... sad.
Posted by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
He hasn't been on since his round started (hence the ff...) I wanted to real debate u.u
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
I'll be tracking this one...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
JimmyRPdonald.kellerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Relativist 3 years ago
Relativist
JimmyRPdonald.kellerTied
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: Forfeit Pro......
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
JimmyRPdonald.kellerTied
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 "prove things." Con provided a far better case, didn't forfeit, and had decent sources.