The Instigator
m93samman
Pro (for)
Winning
61 Points
The Contender
juvanya
Con (against)
Losing
45 Points

Israel is on the short end of the stick

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 20 votes the winner is...
m93samman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/20/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 13,713 times Debate No: 13268
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (189)
Votes (20)

 

m93samman

Pro

The full resolution of the debate is "Israel has clearly violated human rights and is unjustified in its actions." Juvanya has been adamant in upholding zionist doctrines and beliefs on facebook, and, after several days, he has refused to change his beliefs. No one is really judging the debates, though. Maybe here, the voting will provide for some sort of metric by which we determine who wins.

_____
Rules:
_____

1) Round 1 will have no argumentation whatsoever; if my opponent has any alternative or additional definitions he would like to add, he may do so.

2) Rounds 2 - 4 will be for argumentation. In the rounds of argumentation, there will be no ad hominems; all provided points of contention must have sources, but rebuttals do not require them, although they would be preferred if they are not strictly logic-based arguments.

3) Arguments are not temporally restrained, but when they regard history they MUST have multiple sources to back up the facts, given that skewed history can easily be provided. 3 sources minimum for history arguments, otherwise the argument will be disregarded.

4) Round 5 will be a summary round; no refutation allowed. Basically, provide analysis of the debate and a few reasons on why to vote for your advocacy. Also no ad hominems.

5) Both parties will accept an equal share of the burden of proof from here on out.

6) If any of the above rules are broken, my opponent accepts the portion of the round in which the violation occurred as null.
_________
Definitions:
_________
Israel: Jewish republic in southwestern Asia at eastern end of Mediterranean; formerly part of Palestine [1]

Human Rights: The basic rights and freedoms that all humans should be guaranteed, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law [2]

Unjustified: shown to have no good or just reason or explanation [3]
_______
Sources:
_______
[1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

[2] http://en.wiktionary.org...

[3] http://encarta.msn.com...
_____________________________________________________________________

I wish my opponent luck.
juvanya

Con

After much unfortunate delay, for which I apologize profusely, I wish to thank my opponent for this debate.

I will be arguing that Israel has not significantly violated human rights as many, including my opponent, claim. States and collectives naturally violate human rights, this cannot be denied, but my argument will say that Israel has one of the, if not THE, cleanest records in the world. Further, I will be arguing that Israel is fully justified in its actions throughout its history. This is in general and I ask that the voters not exaggerate "minor" isolated incidents to paint a broad picture.

_____
Rules:
_____
I accept all six (6) rules proposed.

_________
Definitions:
_________

I think my opponent has arbitrarily selected a definition from a source in order to support his argument, so I propose these more neutral and non-partisan definitions for the voters to take into account:

Israel: a republic in SW Asia, on the Mediterranean: formed as a Jewish state May 1948 [1]
The State of Israel, a modern country in the Middle East, at the eastern shore of the Mediterranean. [2]

I accept the definitions for 'human rights' and 'unjustified' presented by my opponent.
_______
Sources:
_______
[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[2] http://en.wiktionary.org...

Good luck to my opponent. I would also like to dedicate this debate to the lovely INH. :)
Debate Round No. 1
m93samman

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response, and am glad to finally be able to get this debate rolling.

---Content---
o Definitions
o Observations
o Arguments
o Recap
o Sources
---------------

o Definitions

My opponent provides additional definitions for Israel to prevent arguments from definition, but that was not my intention at all. At the end of the day, we both recognize that we are referring to the same "Israel".

o Observations

1a. To simply throw around arguments about certain incidents that have occurred in the Middle East is insufficient for a debate; we need a mechanism with which to weigh arguments. I propose that we use a standard of utilitarianism; my opponent, being pro-Israel, has to defend Israel by proving that they are adhering to a utilitarian global standard in their actions; in other words, they are providing the most amount of possible good to the largest number of people possible.

b. We can not ever judge people's true intentions; only God and the actor know (if no God exists, only the actor knows his own true intentions). Thus, we can only use utilitarian standards to judge the OUTCOME of acts, e.g. if Boehner's proposed bill called No Child Left Behind harmed the entire US on an academic level but his INTENTION was to benefit us, he would still fail on utilitarian grounds by the framework being used to judge this debate.

2. Given the definition of "unjustified", the "good or just reason" for an act has to be accepted by the people affected by the OUTCOME of the acts, as following observations 1a and 1b.

o Arguments

1. Israeli treatment of women and children is inhumane [1]

Reading only a few paragraphs into this source, we bear witness to a harsh reality that is lived by hundreds of thousands of innocent Palestinians every single day. Pregnant women passing through Israeli checkpoints are not allowed through, and they end up being forced to give birth on the spot, on their own. This has resulted in 34 miscarriages and the deaths of four women. Moreover (also from the same source), from September 29, 2000 until September 1, 2010, 1452 Palestinian children have died. http://rememberthesechildren.org... In the just listed source, we can look at the children's obituary from September 2000 to New Year's; there is something unusual, besides the fact that each death is illustratively described. They're all on the Palestinian side of the T-chart.

Linking back to the utilitarian standard proposed, clearly, we can see that a loss of life is in no way beneficial, unless my opponent is an advocate of Malthusian nightmare. http://en.wikipedia.org...

2. Israel has been targeted by dozens of UN resolutions for its clear human rights violations [2] [3]

Looking only at source [2], we see the resolutions aimed at Israel from 1955 until 1992. We find the words "attack", "deport", and "Geneva" 18, 10, and 3 times respectively. "Attack", in all cases is at another Palestinian settlement or nearby Middle Eastern country; "deport" always in the case of illegally deported Palestinians <>; "Geneva" in reference to how many times they were asked to abide by the agreement of the 4th Geneva Convention, which they continually violated. For the sake of character space, I will leave the readers to judge the implications of this argument. Source [3] provides the list of hundreds of resolutions that have accumulated to date.

3. The Goldstone report [4]

For those who do not know, Judge Richard Goldstone is a Jewish participant in the UNHRC (UN Human Rights Council) and helped put together what was ultimately known as the Goldstone report, a 575 page report on a "fact-finding" mission in Israel/Palestine. I'll invite the readers to read only sections V and VI in source 3 or the entirety of the following article http://articles.latimes.com....

a. The Blockade(s) [5]

Numerous times, Israel has blockaded Gaza. 1.4 million Palestinians currently live in the Gaza strip, an area smaller than Rhode Island. These people are living without electricity, in over 40% unemployment with rocketing prices for basic amenities and necessities, and denied the basic goods which are necessary for survival. As a matter of fact, 4 in every 5 Palestinians currently relies on humanitarian aid, which Israel denies them. Look to the instance of the Gaza flotilla; human rights activists from across the world representing 19 countries in international waters carrying nothing but basic medicinal goods, food, cloth, and other needs were SHOT AT and violently expelled by the IDF. Here is a first person account http://www.guardian.co.uk... and a report on the event http://articles.latimes.com....

Clearly, denying basic human goods is unjust and violates utilitarian standards.

b. Attacks on Gaza/Palestine

I invite those, whose stomachs are not very queasy, to look through a few dozen photos http://www.thewe.cc.... The endless crimes continue today. For those who request, I can forward an email that compares photos like these to photos from the holocaust, and you'll find that they are identical. My opponent, as a proponent of Israel, would surely denounce Nazis. I'm sure that, by aligning the two, he'll agree that they are similar (the Israeli and Nazi regimes). If my opponent can justify these photos, I'll be surprised.

4. Israel kicks Palestinians out of their homes [6]

A website, "Jews against the Occupation", explains their displeasure with the Israeli settlement and occupation. They cite UN resolutions and quote them; then make it easier by tagging the resolutions. Here are the first four tags, most prominent in their opinion.

1- Palestinian Refugees have the right to return to their homes in Israel.
2- Israel's occupation of Palestine is Illegal.
3- Israel's settlements in Palestine are Illegal.
4- Palestinian have the right to Self-Determination.

We see that they are illegally seizing Palestinian land and expelling the previous settlers. The problem is, it is not Israeli land for them to settle. I have a friend who is 100% Palestinian; it is traumatic to know that his family was an influential family, with their own farm/ranch and a butcher shop. My friend's grandfather, to this day has a key. This key is to a home that no longer exists; it was bulldozed by the IDF. It is my opponent's burden to justify the violent eviction of people who aren't Israeli tenants.

o Recap

Utilitarianism is of utmost importance in this debate. To summarize Pro's arguments,

1. Israel brutally abuses Palestinian citizens.
2. Israel is in clear violation of human rights and the Geneva Convention.
3. Israel has been found to deny basic necessities to Palestinians, including food and medicine.
4. Israel kicks out Palestinians from homes and land that doesn't belong to them.
5. Palestinian claims to land have been ignored and deleted by Israel.

In conclusion, we see clearly that Israel is not adhering to a utilitarian standard; they are unjust in their actions and violate the humanitarian ideology on a daily basis. An African proverb goes, "A man who is chased away with a club will return. A man who is chased away with words will not."

Words will expose the truth, and hopefully, I have enlightened several on the controversial Palestinian conflict.

The resolution is affirmed.

o Sources

[1] http://rememberthesechildren.org...

[2] http://www.ifamericansknew.org...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[4] http://www2.ohchr.org...

[5] http://www.amnesty.org...

[6] http://www.jatonyc.org....
juvanya

Con

I thank my opponent for his expected prompt response and for providing several examples of what he believes supports his argument. However, he casts light only into half of a dark room. I will now show on the other half—so we can see the full picture.

1. My opponent accuses Israel of denying medical aid to Arabs. This is completely unfounded. Not only does Israel actively provide medical aid to Arabs in need, it has always allowed medical needs from Gaza to go to Israel or other counties. However, Arabs try to exploit this by sending suicide bombers to checkpoints and hospitals. The checkpoints are clearly necessary due to the security conditions. I have posted 2 videos showing Israeli humanity to Gazan and other Arabs.

2. My opponent mentions the many UN resolutions against Israel and claims it proof that Israel is a gross violator of human rights. However, we must look at this in view of the greater picture. Let us look at Israels role in the UN. Since 1948, Israel has been the most discriminated against country. It is regularly restricted from committees and other groups. It is one of the few countries to not be seated on the Security Council, while gross human rights violators, such as Syria and Libya have earned seats in the last decade. Not to mention, Cuba, Russia, China, and all but a few African countries. Rwanda held a seat on the UNSC during their fun little genocide my opponent seems less interested in than the 45,000 Arab deaths in a dozen wars over the past 90 years. [1]

More important, though, is the UN General Assembly. There are 192 members in it. Of these, there are 57 Islamic nations who are all viciously opposed to Israel because it is a black scar in the midst of their empire/caliphate/waqf. They pretend to support human rights while ignoring the 10.4 million people butchered over the past 60 years in Muslim countries. The OIC provides a 30% automatic vote against Israel to start. Then there is the so-called non aligned movement of 118 countries that the OIC has a controlling stake in. This voting bloc has at least 61% of the UNGA automatically against Israel. And my opponent wants to know why Israel has so many resolutions against it. The answer is clear. The game is so rigged, it cannot be played. There is a parable of two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner...

3. My opponent cites the Goldstone Report as more proof of Israels inhumane and unjustified actions (during Cast Lead in Gaza). The report has been widely discredited as nothing more than shoddy research and trash. Goldstone spent less than 5 months in Gaza, allegedly investigating accusations of war crimes. Israel has offered a full response to the report. [2] I cant provide thorough response to it here, but I can provide an example where Goldstone claimed to have found no evidence that weapons were stored in mosques (If weapons are stored in mosques, they lose their Geneva protections and become legitimate targets). That is shown in the third video. CAMERA and Richard Landes also provide a debunking of Goldstone. [3][4]

a. After Hamas violently seized control of Gaza in 2007, Israel imposed trade restrictions to limit Hamas ability to procure and produce weapons. It did not, however, prevent any necessary humanitarian items (food and medicine) from entering. There have been accusations that Israel has arbitrarily restricted certain items that are considered at least non-military, such as chocolate and coriander. This is possible, but it should also be known that Israel has a vast and complex bureaucracy. One moron on the ground can restrict an item. Then, the anti Israel brigade will come out and scream oppression. Further, we must also consider the possibility of the "humanitarians" simply lying or deceiving. Concrete was generally banned, due to the potential use for building up rocket launching sites and such. Perhaps someone stuffed a chocolate bar under a bag of concrete. When a customs official looked at it and said "No", the "humanitarian" can now technically say that chocolate was banned. Regardless, Gaza was well-stocked with food and goodies (at least for its place in the economic ladder of the world). [5] My opponent also remarks about lack of electricity. This is due to Hamas and Fatah, not Israel. [6]

Next, the Gaza flotilla. An alleged humanitarian mission, marred by 9 deaths. Israel said from the start that it would allow the flotilla to land in Ashdod to have the goods offloaded, inspected, and transported to Gaza. However, the flotilla insisted on making port at Gaza. How they intended to land at a place with no port facilities and offload goods is beyond me. It reflects poor thinking or their intention not to actually get to Gaza, but to provoke an incident. As it happened, an incident did occur. When IDF commandos attempted to board the ship, they were brutally attacked by a lynch mob waiting for them. Two commandos were captured and thrown 30ft down to lower decks. A third was captured as well. The commandos were only authorized to use nonlethal weapons at first. They had paintball rifles strapped to their backs and pistols strapped to their sides. When it became clear their lives were in danger, they asked for and received permission to use live fire. Nine died-all Turks. The Turks were the only ones involved in violence. If Israel had opened fire on the ship arbitrarily, non-Turks would have died. There are many videos of the activities that Ive posted (death to jews song and prayer, wish for death, preparing weapons, attacking before boarding, lynch mob, Turk ship crew testimony). Responses to flotilla accusations. [7][8] Analysis by TNR [9] Death preparations [10]

Hamas official Khalil Hamada stated after the flotilla "There is no starvation in Gaza. No-one has died of hunger." Further, the Marmara had no aid on board. The ships with aid packed it poorly [11] and the medicines they carried were mostly long expired (some kind of sick joke?)[12] Finally, Hamas refused to allow the aid in [13] and later stole and resold it. [14] I think the real inhumane and unjust party here, who my opponent should be concerned with, is Hamas.

b. Ive looked through the photos. I cannot justify them, but I can explain them. Perhaps my opponent is not familiar with war. Children die not only in Gaza. Wherever there is war, innocents die. It is a horrible truth that could have been avoided if Hamas hadnt abducted Gilad Shalit and didnt fire thousands of rockets over the past years. After awhile, enough is enough. How long can I poke you before you give me a bloody nose? My opponent further compares to these photos to Holocaust victims. I ask my opponent to look at some of those photos and see how the Jews in camps are naked and emaciated (at best).[15][16] The children in Gaza shown are well-fed and clothed. Need we get into extensive Hamas use of human shields? See videos. And then there is the fact that many alleged civilians are proven terrorists. [17]

I will respond to 4 and recap in the next round hopefully.

1 http://is.gd... + recent deaths, pre-1948 deaths, and liberal rounding up
2 http://is.gd...
3 http://is.gd...
4 http://is.gd...
5 http://is.gd...
6 http://is.gd...
7 http://is.gd...
8 http://is.gd...
9 http://is.gd...
10 http://is.gd...
11 http://is.gd...
12 http://is.gd...
13 http://is.gd...
14 http://is.gd...
15 http://is.gd...
16 http://is.gd...
17 http://is.gd...
Debate Round No. 2
m93samman

Pro

Thanks, juvanya, for your response.

As I had anticipated, I really received ZERO substantial argumentation from the Con side of the debate, and I will demonstrate why.

---Content---
o Refutations/Defense of Pro Case
o Overview
o Sources
---------------
o Refutations/Defense of Pro Case

1. Any human being born with a capacity for logic will see the flaws in the argument. First, I will concede that, yes, there are in fact "kind" soldiers available in the IDF. Individual kind soldiers, to my opponent's dismay, do not represent the oppressive Israeli establishment. The two videos provided are just red herring, and distract you from the foul scent that is Israel (to engage in the metaphorical joust). Moreover, after claiming that Israel "actively provide medical aid to Arabs in need" (spelling/grammar?), my opponent provides no source but two potentially staged scenes to back up his clearly false assertions.

On a side note, the last time I checked on how debates work, videos don't count as refutations.

2. To begin with, the argument can be dropped, from rules 2 and 6- the entire refutation is an ad hominem against the UN; all of which I can avoid by providing an alternative source. Essentially, the claim is that the UN is biased against Israel. So, I'll provide someone who isn't so overly Muslim, to please my opponent (by the way, "57" Islamic nations seems absurd, seeing as there are only 48 who are Muslim-majority nations ON EARTH http://en.wikipedia.org...). Amnesty International anyone [1]? How about JATO [2]? Just click the Information/Resources link on the left sidebar.

At the end of the day, the point remains unrefuted. Extend it into round 3.

3. Simply put, my opponent tries to weasel his way out of the Goldstone by claiming that it was "shoddy research and trash". The problem is, Goldstone is a JEWISH JUDGE! You couldn't get any LESS biased than that. Again, even as an ad hominem in disguise, we can look to other reports that have internationally confirmed that Israel, as a nation, is one of the largest crimes ever committed against humanity. It is hard to understand how the Jewish people, who suffered something as horrendous as the holocaust, can turn around and do what they're doing. See [3 - 5]

a. I don't even know what to say, this is so ridiculous. To begin, this argument can be dropped by rules 3 and 6. It is unfortunate, but my opponent agreed to these rules, and then failed to provide historical references to verify Hamas' "violent seizure of Gaza" from Israel, which was already Palestinian land anyways. For the real history, see [6 - 8]. Regarding the bans; it seems my opponent views Israel as the Palestinian overlord. Who are they to deny Palestine chocolate, or concrete? Ha! And it's luck for me that I can read Arabic, ey? Source 5 that my opponent provided is a picture of a bustling market... IN JERUSALEM! Which is under Israeli control, am I wrong? Nonetheless, even as a Palestinian market, it is FAR removed from the poorly supplied Gaza.

Regarding the flotilla, my opponent seems to deny the Israeli violence. I gave a first hand account from the ship; here are a few more, since sources alone appear to embody refutation. See [10 - 12] Also, the source my opponent provides, his #11, only supports my case, reposted here http://tinyurl.com...

I like how, after reading through several of his sources, they only support my side of the argument. Proof of laziness? Or simply lack of evidence? It seems ample in support of pro...

b. It's really funny what happens here. My opponent provides pictures of Jews suffering in the Holocaust; then, he blames the death of Palestinians on Hamas rockets. Finally, he provides a blatantly zionist website to condemn all civilians as terrorists. He also provides a video which he obviously didn't watch; the human shield video. All it shows is a cohesive effort by an unidentified group of people (but clearly, Palestinian, as they speak in Arabic) firing at an Israeli helicopter, which is later shown to apparently be firing missiles. I'm not sure what to do here, it seems like my opponent was high when he responded to this segment.
At the end of the day, he does concede that he "cannot justify them"; extend.

4. If my opponent was a little smarter with his characters, he wouldn't have put up sources and videos that supported my side, and would have used those characters to refute this argument. He requested to recap on this in the comments section; I propose that he do a better job on the other points instead, which can all be extended.

o Overview

Really, I've come out with no legitimate refutation from my opponent. He does nothing to link back to the utilitarian standard which I clearly and explicitly emphasized multiple times in the last round; I guess I'll continue doing the work, in the form of a summary.

Organization~
A. All arguments, holistically
B. Individual arguments
C. Conclusion
--------------------------------> All in relation to utilitarian standard

A. All arguments, holistically

We see that Israel is denying aid, ending lives, and cornering a resource-less group of people; it is a victimization that is clear and easy to see. All my opponent does is deny the sources as biased, which I have solved for by providing alternate sources to the UN. Thus, we see that Israel's crimes against humanity are, in fact, verifiable, and obvious violations of human rights. A clear cut incompatibility with utilitarianism.

B. Individual arguments.

1. We end up having my opponent totally neglect the maltreatment of women and children, by providing ONE example of kindness. In each individual case, the IDF is literally committing double homicide, or more, in the case of twins or triplets.
2. The violations remain standing; UN resolutions, and other reports, illustrate the monstrosity that is Israel.
3. The Goldberg report is only further bulwarking of previous arguments; also largely unrefuted.
a. Addressed- blockades by Israel are denial of humanitarian aid to Gaza.
b. Concession by pro- they cannot be justified. See observation 2.
4. Dropped by pro, lack of characters.

C. Conclusion

My opponent has failed to justify Israel's violence and reckless regard for humanity (not surprisingly). As we move deeper into the debate, I request that he pay better attention to the rules provided at the start of the debate, and to the content of his sources; I also urge arguments to be made HERE, not THROUGH sources. To sum it up, a proverb goes "A man chased away with a club will return. A man chased away with words, will not." I hope to expose the truth verbally, so the evil will never return to us again.

The resolution is affirmed, I urge a Pro ballot.

o Sources

[1] http://www.amnesty.org...

[2] http://www.jewsagainsttheoccupation.org...

[3] http://www.globalissues.org...

[4] http://tinyurl.com...

[5] http://www.jewsagainsttheoccupation.org...

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...(2007)#US_and_Israeli_Involvement (the entire section)

[7] http://electronicintifada.net... (at least look through the pictures, if you don't read at the VERY LEAST the first 3 paragraphs)

[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[9] http://www.mideastweb.org... On Hamas; it is militant, yes, but a political organization nonetheless, caused by reactionaries to Israeli violence only.

[10] http://www.undispatch.com...

[11] http://www.nytimes.com...

[12] http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com...
(flotilla; proves IDF seizes ALL video and edits it in their favor)
juvanya

Con

I thank my opponent for his response. He thinks that I have not refuted his arguments, but I would like to remind him that he is neither judge nor jury.

1. The only flaw here is my opponent not looking at the reality on the ground. He talks of red herrings, but gives no evidence of SYSTEMIC discrimination against Arab women and children. Sadly, the security situation forces Israel to place some limits on freedom of movement. However, medical needs are permitted to get treatment where appropriate, often in Israel. Hundreds, if not thousands, of permits are granted yearly to Gazans for medical trips.[0] However, there have been dozens of abuses when terrorists trying to kill Israelis enter on medical permits. This leads to more restrictions and the basis for permits to begin with. Israel must inspect anyone that enters its territory, as any country in the world does.

Next, my opponent alleges that my videos could be staged. If they are staged, isnt it possible that alleged abuses are staged? Might the entire conflict be staged? Unless my opponent has some way to prove the two videos are staged, they should be taken as is. This site permits videos, which can add context and support, and our agreed rules didnt forbid them

2. I didnt make any ad hominem against the UN. I explained how the votes against Israel are made up. The UN is no more legitimate in this regard than two wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner. Would anyone accept the legitimacy of that vote? (There are 57 countries in the Organisation of the Islamic Conference.) If you still dont see the lack of the UNs legitimacy, during Cast Lead, Sri Lanka carried out a similar, but more extensive operation against the Tamil Tigers. Over 20,000 civilians were killed. Hardly a peep from the UN and no special inquiry.[1] Earlier this year, North Korea torpedoed a South Korean ship, killing 46. Again, not a peep from the UN (and the SecGen is Korean!).[2] The UN is clearly negligent for real crimes and blatantly anti-Israel.

Amnesty International has its own problems as well. The American Jewish Congress has found that AI has no idea how the laws of war work. The laws of war are to restrict behavior in war, not make it impossible.[3] Two officials from the group NGO Monitor have found that AI has an obsession with Israel, while ignoring the 2008 South Ossetia War.[4] Prominent attorney Alan Dershowitz has criticized AI for its comparison of Israel to Sudan, where over 300,000 were killed in the past few years and millions displaced.[5] Again, in the past 90 years, about 45,000 Arabs have died in the Arab-Israel conflict. There simply is no comparison here, considering most of these Arabs have died in wars or conflicts they instigated. The head of AI Finland called Israel a "scum state", but was unable to name another country in the world that way,[6] such as Congo, Sudan, China, Sri Lanka, etc.

As for JATO, what gives them any credibility or reliability here exactly? Anyone can just make a website.[7]

3. My opponent for some reason thinks that because Goldstone is Jewish somehow gives him all the credibility in the world. Perhaps he would be interested in reading about a Palestinian who supports Israel and thinks all the Arabs should move to Jordan.[8] He then goes on to claim that Israel is one of the largest crimes ever committed against humanity. Is my opponent here seriously arguing that 45,000 Arab deaths over 90 years in any way remotely compares to the Holocaust, the numerous genocides in Africa, Anfal against the Kurds (4x as many Kurds were killed in 1 year as in this entire conflict), the Khmer Rouge, and so on? How is it a crime for people to move to a land they have historical roots to and then defend themselves against xenophobic locals and imperialistic entities surrounding the land? They were simply moving to the land. Nothing more. Yet as early as 1920, the Arabs were attacking the Jews.[9] My opponent tries to compare this conflict to the Holocaust. The Holocaust was not self-defense. The Nazis didnt even claim that. I also ask him where the gas chambers, mass graves, and actual concentration camps (Gaza doesnt count--it has plenty of food, people can leave if they have a legit reason, as well as toys, shops, horses, surfing, resorts, etc) are.[10]

a. I had thought that commonly known facts need not be sourced, such as the Battle of Gaza. I understand sourcing to support an interpretation, but it clearly occurred and isnt disputed by anyone.[11] I didnt say that Hamas seized it from Israel; they seized it from the PA, which is documented in sources in [11].

As for the bans, my opponent apparently didnt read my argument. I didnt say banning chocolate was ok, but that chocolate appears to be banned for several reasons. Concrete is usable for military purposes. Hamas has committed acts of war against Israel by firing rockets and by abducting an Israeli soldier. Thus, the blockade is perfectly legal.

b. Again my opponent is misrepresenting what Ive said. I didnt blame the deaths on Hamas rockets. I said that the rockets provoked the war that lead to the deaths. Next, he condemns my source for being Zionist, while his sources are clearly anti-Zionist. The site looked at lists of civilian deaths and found the same people on the Hamas website. The helicopter video is meant to show how Hamas dresses as civilians. I said I cannot justify the deaths because war is war. All I can do is explain them. As it turns out, Hamas has admitted 600-700 fighters were killed.[12]

I wish to inform the voters that my opponent is lying in regard to my 5th source in Round 2:
Arabic cant be posted here, so I refer my opponent and the voters to Google Docs: http://is.gd...

And if my opponent still thinks Gaza is poorly supplied, he can talk to a Danish journalist who actually went there.[13]

Yet again, my opponent misrepresents me. This argument is a parody of the conflict, with the pro-Arab side misrepresenting everything. I said twice that 9 people died on the flotilla and were killed by Israelis. But I said that they had attacked the Israelis first, which is why live fire was used. Opponent source 12 doesnt prove his argument at all; it documents both sides. The al Jazeera video claims that there was live fire and a white flag, but fails to show either. In fact, Ive heard about this white flag, but never seen any photo of it. My source 11 doesnt prove anything that my opponent said that I didnt agree with. For some reason, he thinks everything supports him.

4.1 UN Res 194 states "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date". This does not grant any right of return, nor does it specify Arabs (there were Jewish refugees too).

2. There is no occupation. In 1948, Israel was refounded in the Jewish area of the UN partition plan. No Arab state was founded in the Arab areas. Jordan, Egypt and others invaded. After the war, Israel, Egypt, and Jordan gained land. There was nothing about 'occupation' during Jordanian/Egyptian rule. Since Israel took the land in a defensive war, it definitely cant be considered an occupier, and has a more legal claim. Further, Israel has fully withdrawn from Gaza.

3. Jewish towns are not illegal. Jews have lived the region for centuries. Suddenly Jordan rules it for 19 years and they are illegal?

4. Yes they do, but that doesnt mean they can kill Israeli civilians on purpose.

0 http://is.gd...
1 http://is.gd... http://is.gd... http://is.gd...
2 http://is.gd... http://is.gd... http://is.gd...
3 http://is.gd...
4 http://is.gd... http://is.gd...
5 http://is.gd...
6 http://is.gd...
7 http://is.gd...
8 http://is.gd...
9 http://is.gd... (multi sources)
10 http://is.gd...
11 http://is.gd... (m/s)
12 http://is.gd... http://is.gd... http://is.gd...
13 http://is.gd...
Debate Round No. 3
m93samman

Pro

Thanks again.

I'll be taking a slightly different approach, beginning with observations.

---Content---
o Observations
o Refutations
o Conclusion
o Sources
---------------

o Observations

1. My opponent is being extremely unfair regarding the issue of sources. When I provide multiple sources (UN, Amnesty International, JATO) all he does is claim that their views are biased, and doesn't refute their claims. When he provides sources/videos, I don't drop it at "it could be staged" or "they are zionist"; I proceed to refute their claims. For example, after I claimed that his website is zionist, I said "All it shows is a cohesive effort by an unidentified group of people (but clearly, Palestinian, as they speak in Arabic) firing at an Israeli helicopter, which is later shown to apparently be firing missiles." I turned the argument, by showing that this video does nothing but prove Israel is violently oppressive.

As a result, he ends up evading my whole argument. He never addressed a single UN resolution, or the 4th Geneva Convention.

--> This costs a conduct point, as it is an abusive sort of debate; I can't do anything about that.

2. The Utilitarian standard continues to be ignored. I provided it as the only way to weigh arguments in the debate; thus, we end up with no mechanism with which to compare my arguments to my opponent's if he doesn't apply the standard.

o Refutations

1. Basically, my opponent objects that there is no "systemic" discrimination, i.e. Israel discriminates against everyone, not JUST Arabs. I would argue that,

First, it doesn't matter whether it is systemic or not, it is still discrimination, which clearly isn't satisfying utilitarian doctrines.
Second, my very first source/argument in round 2 explains the deaths as being STRICTLY Palestinian; also, the obituary provided illustrates that ZERO Israelis died in the final third of 2000 as compared to HUNDREDS of Palestinians. Is this not clearly systemic?
Finally, "Israeli actions are aimed at reducing the number of Palestinians entitled to live in Jerusalem" [1]. The article explains that Israel is covertly ethnically cleansing the region.

Regarding discrimination, we can look back to the Goldstone report. I realize my opponent claims that it has been debunked; but we can look to another source which upholds its integrity. When looking through the Goldstone report, it turns out that "Indictments and disciplinary actions stemming from Israel's Gaza offensive are raising a prospect many might find unsettling: the controversial Goldstone report may have been on the right track" [2]. The cases made against soldiers of the IDF literally "have Israel wondering". After acknowledging the same accusations my opponent made of Goldstone, the article goes on to explain ""The military is finding out that some of what Goldstone said is true, even though no one wants to admit it," said Gershon Baskin, a political consultant and former Labor Party advisor. "This should indicate that there needs to be deeper investigation."".
Also, in the article, it is explained how there was a sniper who deliberately fired into a crowd raising a white flag; there is no reason for my opponent to continue attacking Goldstone's credibility. He continues to detract from the veracity of the entire debate by his attack on sources. I request my opponent actually refute mine and Goldstone's CLAIMS now.

2. Again, not a single claim has been refuted. Just red herrings about the Tamil Tigers and South Ossetia. Extend again.

3. Cross apply #1, above.

a. My opponent is okay with Israel banning concrete, even though they don't own Gaza, to prevent homemade missiles from being built; meanwhile, Israel purchases F35s [3] with impunity; has military SURPLUS, to the point where they can sell with free shipping [4]; air force, ground army, navy... [5]. Frankly, the double standard my opponent is maintaining against Palestine is laughable. Literally. I laughed.

b. No argument here; death count is disproportionately against Palestine anyways, as is military funding [6].

Regarding the source not saying al-Quds in Arabic... I can't believe I'm going through the pain to do this. [7] Like I said, I can read Arabic. "I wish to inform the voters that my opponent is lying..." Ha! Yea, right. Conduct?

As for the flotilla, like I said, the video evidence has been edited to support Israel in 99% of cases, as proves the source provided in my last round.

4. Jewish refugees (who have been banned from Israel) are anti-zionists. [8] Read about Norman Finkelstein's ban from entering Israel; it was strictly political.

Meanwhile, who granted Israel the right to determine who can return, and when? "Do you understand that many Palestinian children will never be able to visit those cities that were once, not long ago, part of Palestine under the British rule? Do you realise that many of these youngsters will never be able to visit the cities of their grandfathers, grandmothers, and ancestors, not only becuase such free travel is denied them but due to the fact that many Palestinian cities were RAZED TO THE GROUND and no longer exist?" [9]

"There is no occupation" my opponent claims. Which is ridiculous, considering that there were people living there under international administration, as per the terms of the Sykes-Picot treaty, which my opponent and other pro-Israel advocates conveniently ignore. [10]

Jewish towns ARE illegal. "Jews have lived in the region for centuries"... okay? They never kicked out Palestinians until after they were sent there from Europe by European powers. Clearly, my opponent didn't read into the resolutions written or the Geneva Conventions, or the agreements about halting all settlements. [11]

"Yes they do [kick Palestinians out of their homes]". Point made. The instigator of the violence is the one who is at fault, not the one who is defending the livelihood of himself and his children. [12] What is an innocent woman and her children supposed to do, heart broken? I'll let my opponent attempt to reconcile that with utilitarianism.

o Conclusion

Very simply put, Israel and utilitarianism are incompatible, as are Israel and human rights. The resolution is affirmed.

[13, 14, 15]

o Sources

[1] http://www.washington-report.org...

[2] http://articles.latimes.com...

[3] http://www.israeli-occupation.org...

[4] http://www.israelmilitary.com...

[5] http://www.globalsecurity.org...

[6] http://www.ifamericansknew.org...

[7] http://i52.tinypic.com...

[8] http://madamepickwickartblog.com...

[9] http://www.usefulwork.com...

[10] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[11] http://www.globalsecurity.org...

[12] http://www.paltelegraph.com...

[13] http://www.blackcommentator.com...

[14] http://deskofbrian.com...

[15] http://3.bp.blogspot.com...

http://www.youtu...
juvanya

Con

I thank my opponent for starting the 4th round up for us.

1. The claims dont need to be refuted when those making them are in no position to make such claims. However, I did make refutations. I showed that Gaza is not a poverty-stricken hellhole and that Israel IS fair to the Arabs. Again, restrictions are put in place due to Arab violence. When the violence is reduced or Israel goes out on a limb to make a peace gesture, restrictions are eased.[1] The helicopter video doesnt show Israeli oppression. It was taken during Cast Lead and shows Hamas fighters in civilian clothes. This is why it seems like hundreds of civilians were killed. I HAVE refuted claims about the Gaza blockade.

I actually did address at least one UN resolution: 194. Most of the rest lose any validity because they are so biased thanks to the voting bloc I described above. None of them are legally binding anyway and are suggestions to promote peace.

The Geneva convention actually supports Israel:
Art. 28. The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.
That means human shields can be bombed. In actuality, Israel aborted hundreds of missions in Gaza due to human shield use (they wanted to keep casualties low, knowing what happens).[2]

2. Not really. I have demonstrated how the situation isnt really that bad to start with. Further, Israel provides medical aid to Arabs despite accusations to the contrary. Israel has clearly made the lives of Arabs better and most Arabs wish their leaders would shut up and make peace.[3] If not for the Arab boycott, collectively Israel and the Arab countries would have $12 trillion more in GDP since 1991.[4]

1. Israel doesnt discriminate against everyone. Israel has provided freedom and equality for Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bahai, and many others. It isnt perfect, but for a country surrounded by those wishing to annihilate it, it does the best it can. I have no idea where my opponent gets these outrageous claims from.

If one soldier decides to be an idiot, that doesnt mean Israel is discriminatory. Nor does it affect any utilitarian basis. On balance, Israel provides a net good for the Arabs and would be able to provide more if not for Arab violence. No, death tolls isnt systemic discrimination. It shows that Israel works to protect its civilians, while the Arabs will throw civilians out as human shields.

The other side likes to distort reality with incriminating camera angles and convenient statistics, such as "the final third of...". My opponents source 1 alleges ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem. This can be easily proven wrong by the great increase in Arab population since that source.[5] If Israel is ethnic cleansing, they are doing a bad job at it. Further, the source alleges Judaization of Jerusalem. How can Israel Judaize what is already Jewish? Jerusalem never was important to Arabs and Muslims until it was controlled by Christians are Jews.[6] Then it suddenly became the centre of Islam. Further, Jerusalem has had a Jewish plurality since 1840 and a majority since the 1890s.[5] There are catch 22s for Arabs involved in Jerusalem, but those are due to the unresolved conflict and not institutional discrimination.

Again, my opponent cites the Goldstone Report. Ive already provided sources that show how it is poorly researched and incorrect in many places. It contains very selective investigation designed to condemn Israel, not investigate what went on. Goldstone ignored Israeli evidence and testimony provided by British Col. Richard Kemp, among others.[7]

Some events certainly will be true, and Israel has begun (unlike Hamas) to prosecute soldiers that committed crimes. But that doesnt change the vast problems with the report. Nor does it demonstrate Israel has committed war crimes. And again with these alleged white flags which never have any proof. The Arabs can easily claim they are waving a white flag and never need to prove it. And why exactly is a crowd out in Gaza during a war anyway? I have provided sources to refute claims of Goldstone, including the official Israeli response. I simply cannot respond to the entire report due to space. That would be a debate itself. I also showed one example of Goldstone lying or failing to investigate: that of weapons stored in mosques.

2. If the UN is truly for human rights, why is it viciously attacking a country that has done little an completely ignoring countries that have committed grievous human rights violations? This is not red herrings, it demonstrates that the UN has no credibility.

3a. Israel has to place restrictions due to the threats and acts of war posed by Hamas. A country is allowed to blockade an area that is engaging in war against them. Israel imports such weapons to have the best forces to fight the multiple threats against it. Just because Israel is only fighting Hamas now, doesnt mean Syria and Iran are no longer threats. Many high techs are also useful against Hamas. Hamas would be allowed to import whatever it wanted if it releases Gilad Shalit, stops shooting rockets, and recognizes Israel.

b. The death toll is "against" because the Arabs make no effort to protect their civilians and even work to INCREASE civilian deaths through the use of human shields. And as I said, we now know that Hamas lost 600-700 fighters, which confirms the Israeli claim that 709 were killed and only 295 civilians were wounded.

I am glad my opponent took the time to draw circles on my source. I do not deny that al Quds is there, but the 2 times are neither part of the article nor refer to the city. It refers to the Islamic Jihads al Quds brigades. The source clearly states that it is documenting Gaza. I also provided a more recent Danish source that recounts a Gazan woman crying poverty in front of a display of fresh tomatoes. Recently, an Egyptian journalist has blamed Hamas and Gazas rich, not Israel for any problems there.[8]

The video evidence always supported Israel, and many Israel critics have said they have to support Israel on the incident.[9] The Marmara crew said the IHH was planning an attack. On another boat, Edward Peck said the commandos "behaved reasonably well".[10] Others on the ships cant agree on what happened.

Israel got that right when it became a sovereign nation in 1948. And more of these stories about villages "razed to the ground". Never with any proof and how do they even know this happened if they were "expelled"? Also, it is war. Villages get destroyed. Jewish villages in Hebron and eastern Jerusalem were destroyed.

Sykes-Picot was overridden by the mandates. Also, UK and France relinquished their claims.

Why are Jewish towns illegal? Because Arabs dont like icky Jews? Who is ethnic cleansing now? Israel didnt kick out any Arabs. This has been admitted by survivors of Deir Yassin and others (see video) Jews were not sent to Israel by Europe. There is nothing ever issued that said that. Jews moved there over their own will and if anything were restricted from moving by the British.

The Geneva conventions do not forbid Jews from moving to live in any area. And there were no agreements to halt settlements until 2009, which expired.

My opponent now fabricates a quote of mine. "Yes they do" refers to self-determination, not expulsions. And then my opponent supports Israel. Arabs instigated the violence; Israel defended its livelihood.

---

To conclude, Israel is compatible with utilitarianism. Israel provides a net good to Arabs and could provide more if not for the conflict and Arab violence.

1 http://is.gd...
2 http://is.gd... http://is.gd...
3 http://is.gd... http://is.gd...
4 http://is.gd...
5 http://is.gd...
6 http://is.gd...
7 http://is.gd...
8 http://is.gd...
9 http://is.gd... http://is.gd... http://is.gd...
10 http://is.gd...
Debate Round No. 4
m93samman

Pro

Thanks.

As we enter the final round of debate, I'd like to remind everyone that, per the rules assigned in round 1, this round will be purely for summary; no refutation of any claims made whatsoever can be made. For that reason, no sources can be mentioned for arguments (I do have a source, only for a picture), no new arguments presented, and no new ideas suggested.

===SUMMARY===
---Content---
o Of the arguments
o Of the debate
o Conclusion
---------------

o Of the arguments

Largely, many of the arguments made in the debate came to a standstill. We were not able to resolve certain conflicts such as the flotilla, but nonetheless, a common trend is easily discerned. Juvanya, like all zionists and pro-Israel advocates, tend to sway in manners such as to avoid the wind knocking them over. They deny claims made against them by questioning the integrity of the questioner. What we ended up with on condemnation of Israel looks something like this:

Me: The UN criticizes Israel of a, b, and c crimes.

Juvanya: The UN hates Israel.

Me: Amnesty International, among other organizations and people, agree that the UN hate Israel.

Juvanya: Amnesty International is stupid and any "other organization and people" can just say things.

Me: Why are any of your Israeli sources more credible?

Juvanya: The UN hates Israel too much, so we have to trust Israel.

Basically, I'm left with nowhere to go. If any claim I put forth is excreted upon by absolutely ridiculous claims, the debate has become an abusive battleground of rock throwing versus tanks, which is a largely accurate depiction of the conflict. http://3.bp.blogspot.com...

Seeing as that's the case, I'm left with no option but to let the voters decide because the ultimatum isn't in my hands.

o Of the debate

Just as I said above, the arguments holistically speaking were unfairly skewed.

As regarding the utilitarian standard, it took all 3 rounds of debate until it was finally addressed (with absolutely NO causal link). In round 1, my opponent said "States and collectives naturally violate human rights, this cannot be denied, but my argument will say that Israel has one of the, if not THE, cleanest records in the world. Further, I will be arguing that Israel is fully justified in its actions throughout its history." He failed to uphold the burden that he assigned himself, which leaves him in a poor situation going into the final round. I will reiterate, not once did Juvanya "justify" Israel's actions; all he did was throw libel and slander out in all 360 degrees of a circle at all the opponents of his zionist state.

Moreover, we're left with one crucial argument that was never addressed once; the very first argument presented, regarding Israeli treatment of soldiers at security checkpoints. Pregnant women were left to give birth on their own in the middle of a floor; the statistics we're already provided. The only refutation offered was an example of ONE IDF worker who happened to have a heart amidst the black hole that sucks all the life out of Palestinians; namely, Israel.

Continuing, don't be fooled: my opponent may have had the last word on addressing claims, but that doesn't mean his claims became any more valid just because he got the final word on them. I can't talk about them specifically, but don't believe that I couldn't have debunked every single sentence he put together.

Also, I refer the readers back to the rules to judge arguments; they may become crucial in one case or another.

The most important thing I want to refer everyone to is an obituary, that was provided in an earlier round. Despite all the claims made by my opponent, I have EXPLICIT DOCUMENTATION of the INDIVIDUAL DEATHS that occurred at the cold-blooded hands of Israeli forces. There is no denying evidence, regardless how much zionist propaganda is spewed around.

o Conclusion

Left with my final words, about 3,500 characters, and class in 20 minutes, I will leave the voters with a few points.

1. My claims went largely unrefuted, but the sources of my claims were attacked unfairly, leaving me allegedly baseless. I digress.
2. My opponent's claims were not only refuted, but his sources were clearly un-neutral, as was illustrated by the Star of David in every corner, followed by Hebrew writings.
3. Gestures made by the UN and other nations were urges to "stop" the violence in many cases, not direct condemnations of Jewish Israel-hood. They were ignored; this is crucial.
4. The overwhelming majority of evidence points against Israel, from the middle and the opposing side of the conflict, and even Jews themselves such as Judge Goldstone, intellectuals/professors Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein.
5. Utilitarianism- the weighing mechanism of this round- was never applied by my opponent to any argument; while I tailored it to nearly every claim and substantiated my reasoning in doing so, Juvanya yelled "UTILITARIANISM" extremely loudly in his final two sentences and hoped that that would cover for him. It doesn't.
6. (As a reminder to Juvanya) NO ARGUMENTS AGAINST CLAIMS CAN BE MADE. The round comes down to observational analysis, which I hope is followed as genuinely by my opponent as was by me.

I have no say in the result of this debate, but I do have some influence on the voters mind. All I want to leave is a question to ponder. Why is it that Israel's only true military partner is the US, which is dominated by a Jewish lobby known as APAC (the most powerful lobby in the country) while nearly EVERY other country on the face of the earth condemns Israel for its actions?
juvanya

Con

This conflict is enormously broad and impossible to cover adequately in 24000 characters, but we have both done the best we can. I thank my opponent for his summary of his arguments and view of the debate. However, I strongly disagree with his conclusion.

THEMES

Context:

The crucial takeaway here should be to view the conflict in context. I have argued this the entire time. Deaths happened in this conflict, but I have worked to explain why they happened. For Cast Lead, I stated that the deaths could have been prevented if Hamas did not shoot rockets at Israel. For the flotilla, I stated that the deaths could have been prevented if the activists did not violently take up arms against the IDF. I stated that this whole conflict could have been prevented if the Arabs had not taken up arms against Jews in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, and so on. So, the conflict must be viewed in the full context. Those against Israel selectively pick through history to provide only what supports them and will not accept any other explanation but Israeli brutality. My opponent is no exception.

To continue the importance of context, the organizations my opponent has cited have reasons why they came to the conclusions they did. This is not an ad hominem, this is a look at the root cause. My opponent wants you to simply accept whatever he provides, without looking at how it got from its origin to here. The vote on this debate can be decided very simply: If you think two wolves and a sheep can fairly decide upon dinner, vote pro. If not, vote con. The votes of the UN are decided on a broader version of that, which explains why the votes appear to oppose Israel.

Utilitarianism:

I have demonstrated that Israel provides a net benefit to the region and that without it, things would be worse off. If not for this conflict, there could be more benefit. Israels hands are tied by its need to protect itself and Arab intransigence.

Why are pregnant women supposedly forced to give birth at checkpoints? The question really should be WHY are women trying to enter Israel to give birth? What is in Israel that they want?

Justification:

As I have explained, the past 90 years have been an endless cycle of the same two events. Arabs provoke; Jews/Israel react. Thus, Israel is continuously justified in its actions. Think about how you would feel if rockets bombarded your houses regularly. Think about how you would feel if you were driving down the road and were pelted with rocks. Then, think about how you would feel if third parties tried to give material support to those committing such attacks on you. How would you react and ask your government to react?

Truth:
This conflict has taught me about the concept of truth. There can be two opposite things that are true. Of course, this is not quite true itself. Only one thing can happen, but in this conflict, so many people are certain that one side or the other is correct. Which is it?

My opponent is correct in asserting that this debate has come to epitomize the conflict. The anti-Israel side frequently obfuscates the truth as I have shown with the flotilla, the Cast Lead death tolls, living conditions in Gaza, and so on. My opponent makes a tactical error that should cost him the battle. He lied. I presented the proof above. I hope it is acceptable to repost it here for easier reference. I presented this source (http://is.gd...), which can be translated with Google Translate. Arabic characters can not be displayed here, so I had to create a Google Doc (http://is.gd...) to do so. You can explore this yourself. I claim the source describes Gaza. My opponent asserts that it is Jerusalem. He knows that few here can read Arabic and is hoping you trust him and do not look yourself. I have made it easy to determine who is speaking the truth. If my opponent can not even tell the truth on a very clear source, how can anything else he presented be certain? His entire argument has lost integrity.

Misrepresentation is another aspect of truth epitomized in this debate, again hearkening back to context. My opponent frequently has misrepresented the conflict, the reality, events, and my arguments. He made conclusions of my arguments that you can compare to your own view of what I said and use that to weigh your vote. The pro-Arab side is often misrepresenting facts. I have shown this several times. Take that into consideration.

CONCLUSION

The problem in this conflict is that the anti-Israel side can easily make accusations and create short sound bytes and video clips that are easy to accept. It is very easy to say FREE PALESTINE! It is much harder to say you support Israel. It takes Zionists pages and pages to show how these claims are false or heavily skewed. My opponent can make plethora of claims that each take several paragraphs to refute. I provided sources that can be used to answer most, if not all, questions about several of my opponents claims (re: Goldstone, flotilla ...). Use these to help you understand the conflict.

So where are we now? The most cynical response is to shrug in frustration and walk away. Many do so. My opponent asserts that his claims were not refuted. I wonder if anything I could have said would refute him. Space constraints prohibit full refutations, so I have provided sources that work to refute claims about Gaza, Goldstone, the flotillas, etc. I have provided some examples, context, and sources that work to refute his claims. My opponent attacks my sources without any reasoning behind it other than "Jewish" or "Zionist". If Zionists and Jews cannot be trusted, then why did my opponent start a debate with a Jewish Zionist? Some will now mention my atheism, but that does not matter; I identify as a Jew culturally and ethnically. On that note, why does this atheist support Israel? I clearly do not think this land was ordained by God to Jews or have religious reasons to ignore the truth. So what do I see outside religion that causes me to support Israel?

Broadly, why is such a seemingly small conflict with only 45,000 deaths over 90 years of sporadic wars gripping the world so fiercely? Why is everyone obsessed with Israel? What does that mean for this debate and your vote?

In summation, voters should examine and understand the context within this debate and the conflict itself lives. They should look at the utilitarian benefits of Israel. They should look at why Israel acts the way it does. Finally, they should understand what is truth and how it has been represented here and in the conflict.

This is a strongly partisan issue, but I hope the voters can crack away from their strongheld beliefs and look from a neutral perspective. Many people have switched sides in both directions on flimsy and strong evidence. Let us all hope for no vote-bombing and no sniping that prevents a fair andjust appraisal of this debate. And finally, I thank my opponent again for setting up this debate.
Debate Round No. 5
189 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by juvanya 6 years ago
juvanya
http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Would you look at that...
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
He doesn't have an American phone number, he literally cannot vote.
Posted by anitajasmine 6 years ago
anitajasmine
'sorry you could not vote' or 'sorry you could not vote for him',brian?
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
Much appreciated, Brian. And no worries.. I think the votes turned out in my favor anyways ;)
Posted by brian_eggleston 6 years ago
brian_eggleston
Congrats on the win m93...you did well (sorry I couldn't vote).
Posted by twsurber 6 years ago
twsurber
Utilitarianism only supports the PRO side, it cannot possibly serve the CON because a govt is obligated to protect it's own citizens and interests. Utility leans toward the greater good for the greatest number of people.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
This is an "actual" genocide. Besides, I haven't seen a single debate on this topic.
Posted by InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
Maybe because everybody is sick of this topic? I certainly am. People need to STFU about this and focus on actual genocides that are taking place daily in places such as Africa.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
this was #1 on the most popular debates, why did it drop so low? :/
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
Juvanya has more vote-bombs than me, hence I'm removing mine. That way it's 4-4
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
m93sammanjuvanyaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
m93sammanjuvanyaTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
m93sammanjuvanyaTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by dallastexas281 6 years ago
dallastexas281
m93sammanjuvanyaTied
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 
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
m93sammanjuvanyaTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
m93sammanjuvanyaTied
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 
Vote Placed by InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
m93sammanjuvanyaTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by rackman291 6 years ago
rackman291
m93sammanjuvanyaTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by idknotsure 6 years ago
idknotsure
m93sammanjuvanyaTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by vickynoh 6 years ago
vickynoh
m93sammanjuvanyaTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50