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

Israel should never have been founded.

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 3 votes the winner is...
donald.keller
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/20/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,342 times Debate No: 35810
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

henryajevans

Pro

Ever since its founding in 1948, Israel has inflicted horrific violations of the human rights of the people of Palestine and Lebanon, and continues to do so, all with the support of the western world.

I argue that it was a mistake to found Israel in the aftermath of the Second World War, and it is a mistake to send them military and economic aid now. Their egregious trespasses on its neighbours, combined with the abuse of those living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which are made all the more acute by the attitudes of Israel's 'friends', who are at best apathetic, at worst supportive of its expansionist, racist policies towards the Islamic population there.

I welcome someone who would change my mind on the subject, or at least try to.

Behatslacha, or perhaps bit-tawfiq!
donald.keller

Con

I accept. I do believe Israel should have been formed. Let's begin the debate.

Since I do not know if this is just an acceptance round or apart of the debate, I will only do a simple Cross Exam.

I argue that it was a mistake to found Israel in the aftermath of the Second World War,

I'd say WWII was a good point in history to realize the Jews needed a place of their own.

and it is a mistake to send them military and economic aid now.

We send aid to Syria, Libya, and numerous other nations in time of need. Why not Israel? Many of the places we send aid to have committed far worse sins.

Their egregious trespasses on its neighbours, combined with the abuse of those living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which are made all the more acute by the attitudes of Israel's 'friends', who are at best apathetic, at worst supportive of its expansionist, racist policies towards the Islamic population there.

Through out history (since WWII), Israel has been the target of numerous attacks. To claim Israel is the one performing trespasses is narrow-minded of the situation at best. While Gaza and the West Bank may not be in top condition, you must understand that Israeli power over those places are limited.

You seem to be targeting Israel as the racist population that needs to be gone, when they are barely on the charts. You understand if this were the case, then the Islamic population there would also have to go?

I welcome someone who would change my mind on the subject, or at least try to.

I hope I can do so. Lets begin.
Debate Round No. 1
henryajevans

Pro

I shall start the argument by evaluating the legitimacy of Israel"s claim to the lion"s share of Palestine. I am not arguing for a moment that the Holocaust did not occur, nor am I arguing that it was not to the same severity as most historians believe; I am merely arguing that it does not serve as a justification to claim a stretch of land that is among the most prosperous areas of the Middle East, at the expense of a people that were given no say in the matter. The Holocaust was terrible, perhaps one of the greatest historical crimes ever committed, but it was also the one thing that ended the wholesale persecution of the Jews in the West (note that I did not mention the Middle East, as the Islamic world was the only place Jews could reside safe from persecution until comparatively recently). Because the world has seen how prejudice and casual racism can lead to the unthinkable being perpetrated. No one, save a few knuckle-dragging white nationalists whose collective breath reeks of cheap lager and chewing tobacco, would subject the Jews to a pogrom or a genocide like those experienced by the Jews by the Christian population of Europe and, to a lesser extent, America. Now, the Jews can live in America and Europe, for the most part, without persecution and without alienation. Ironically, after the heinous crime of the Holocaust occurred, Britain, the USA and the Zionist lobbyists in those countries found that the best way for the Jews to avoid persecution was to have them run their very own apartheid state as first-class citizens, as opposed to the Palestinians, who had lived there for thousands of years. Zionism is a Bronze Age, or Iron Age at best, idea that has unfortunately survived, and I view it as on an equal ground to White or Black Nationalism in the USA. The majority of the Jewish people lived in what is now Israel from about 1500 BCE until the First Crusade in 1096 CE, when there was a major flight. After that, there was a small Jewish population, a minority in Palestine, as many had either fled to elsewhere in the Islamic world or converted to Islam and remained in Palestine. This population was bolstered by immigrants from Europe for the next few centuries, until the end of the First World War in 1919, when Britain gained control of Palestine; Jews represented 13% of the population of Palestine by 1947. It is true that Jerusalem was roughly two thirds Jewish, though the surrounding area was predominantly native Palestinian. Is 13% enough of a population to justify even considering creating a state to accommodate that 13%, along with any Jews from outside Palestine that wished to move there? It was a romantic notion of neoclassicism that inspired the 1926 Balfour Declaration, which occurred before the Holocaust, not a sense of concern for the Jewish people. Well, that combined with colonial disregard for the feelings of the locals and Islamophobic sentiment which ran nearly as deep in early twentieth century Britain as it does in post 9/11 USA. This romantic notion that because the Jews were in Palestine around the times of the Ancient Greeks and Romans, made the British and American governments in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries wish to restore that status quo. The Jews have no claim to Israel, as people have lived there since they had left, and still live there, albeit in horrible conditions and subject to persecution by Israeli forces armed with British, French and American weapons and financial backing.
donald.keller

Con

Thank you for a speedy reply. I will now begin Cross-Examination.

----------------------------------------------------

"I am not arguing for a moment that the Holocaust did not occur, nor am I arguing that it was not to the same severity as most historians believe; I am merely arguing that it does not serve as a justification to claim a stretch of land that is among the most prosperous areas of the Middle East, at the expense of a people that were given no say in the matter."

Well, to start, the inhabitants didn't have the say the begin with, Great Britain did. Being owned by the British Empire, The British could decide what place belonged to who.

http://www.debate.org...

"but it was also the one thing that ended the wholesale persecution of the Jews in the West (note that I did not mention the Middle East, as the Islamic world was the only place Jews could reside safe from persecution until comparatively recently). Because the world has seen how prejudice and casual racism can lead to the unthinkable being perpetrated."

Antisemitism is still a very real thing in the world. The Rootless Cosmopolitan in Russia lasted quite a while after WWII, reaching a peek in the 1950's(a). Poland held Antisemitic events all the way up until the far late 1960's.

a) http://russianspectrum.com...

It wasn't until the mid 1960's that the Pope finally disbanded the Antisemitic cult Simon of Trent, although many continue to preach it's message.

Antisemitic views in the US continued even until today.

Here is a Timeline of Antisemitism across the world. It shows that hate and prejudice towards Jews continue even till today.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Ironically, after the heinous crime of the Holocaust occurred, Britain, the USA and the Zionist lobbyists in those countries found that the best way for the Jews to avoid persecution was to have them run their very own apartheid state as first-class citizens, as opposed to the Palestinians, who had lived there for thousands of years."

The Jews lived there thousands of years before the Palestinians did. What's your point? The land belonged to Britain to do as they pleased, and they choose to give the historical homeland of the Jews to... guess who? Palestine. Yep.

One thing the PRO forgets is that Great Britain didn't give most of that land to the Jews. They gave the Jews a small slither of land, while the Palestinians owned the rest. What happened? The Israeli War of Independence, which was started by the Arabs. I'll explain later

http://www.debate.org...

"Is 13% enough of a population to justify even considering creating a state to accommodate that 13%, along with any Jews from outside Palestine that wished to move there?"

The percent of population didn't affect the decision. They chose the land because it was historically the Jewish Homeland and Holy Land for around 2,600 years.

If you view my map above, you will see that only the land needed to support the Jews was given. The Palestinians kept all their land.

"The Jews have no claim to Israel, as people have lived there since they had left, and still live there"

The Jews technically have more claim there than anywhere else on Earth. The Jewish Population of Jerusalem, a capital city of the land was a major claim of theirs. But Technically, only the UK had claim to the land. And again, only gave a little to the Jews, while the Palestinians kept the rest. Israel was specifically given the land they were predominant in.

Besides, after the Israeli War of Independence, the 1949 Armistice gave Israel claim to that land.

http://www.peaceau.org...

"albeit in horrible conditions and subject to persecution by Israeli forces armed with British, French and American weapons and financial backing."

This is flawed logic. The Israeli army has been listed among the most peaceful armies in the world. Despite Media portrayal, the Army takes extreme measures to prevent the harm of even Palestinian terrorists. The Israeli Defense Force goes as far as to drop warning notes a day before a bombing so no one is there to get harmed. They call off pursuits if a child ends up involved as to protect the children, regardless of if the child is Palestinian. They go to EXTREME lengths to keep Palestinian citizens safe.

http://www.idfblog.com...

----------------------------------------------------

Cross Exam's over. My turn.

Why does Israel have so much land, if they were only given a little province?

To start, the Israeli province (apart of the Mandate of Palestine) did NOT attack or trespass on other's land. Quite the opposite. Palestinians, Egypt, Syria, and others attacked Israel almost immediately after the British left.

http://www.debate.org...

The land was split for the Palestinians and Jews to preserve both's historical claim to the land. But in that SAME year, the Arab nations attacked Israel. The group that attacked was made up of Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. They had attacked from all fronts. After recovering from the initial shock, Israel managed to win the war.

http://www.onwar.com...

Israeli Army = 140,000
Combined Arab forces = 710,000

Israel literally won it's own War of Independence (1948 Arab"Israeli War) and earned its place in that land. The Israeli's had took a lot of land in their victory, but gave most back in the 1949 Armistice Agreements.

Israel separated Gaza and the West Bank so they would have the land, while the Palestinian's still had a place of their own, this way both sides could be happy. If the Palestinian's aren't happy, then that's all on them.

The 1949 Armistice Agreements was signed by Israel and her neighbors, so the Arab nations accepted Israel as a state of it's own, even if they didn't like the nation. By signing the Armistice, all claims to the land were handed over to Israel.

http://www.peaceau.org...

The Arabs provoked war and attacked, and lost. They have no claim to the land. If Israel had attacked, it'd be different, but they didn't. One can not whine that they lost a war when they started it.

The West Bank and Gaza in bad condition.

This isn't as related to Israel as one would think. Israel owns the land, but it's still somewhat autonomous. This is similar to East St. Louis, while apart of St. Louis, it is autonomous. As the IDF shown, Israel tries to be as peaceful as possible.

Remember that it was the Palestinians that started launching missiles into Israel. Even President Obama stated Israel has the right to self-defense when another group is raining missile down on the nation.

Would it be possible for Palestine to have it's own nation?

Theoretically, yes. But not the West Bank (or not all of it.) The West Bank's border cuts through the Israeli capital. Most of it would be considered dangerously close to Jerusalem.

Does Israel have the right to exist?

After winning it's War of Independence, yes. Israel was created as apart of Palestine, but when it was attacked, Israel successfully defended itself and the Armistice granting it independence was signed.

Remember, Israel wasn't a truly it's own nation until it won it's War of Independence, which it did not start.

You cannot start a war, heavily outnumber your opponent, and then whine that it's not fair you lost.

Should the US stop backing Israel?

Why should we? We put them there. The US and Britain put Israel there, and has a responsibility to protect them from any threat that comes from that decision. Besides, no one should abandon an ally.

----------------------------------------------------

With this, I conclude that after Israel won it's War of Independence (that the Arabs started) and the Arabs signed the Armistice, Israel won the right to exist, and now hold claims to the land it's on.

I hand it over to the Pro now.
Debate Round No. 2
henryajevans

Pro

Counter Argument
"Israel literally won it's own War of Independence (1948 Arab"Israeli War) and earned its place in that land. The Israeli's had took a lot of land in their victory, but gave most back in the 1949 Armistice Agreements."
So might is right is it? Israel had proven that it could win a war, therefore it could exist as a nation? I thought the enlightenment moved us past this stone age thinking that whomever has the largest club is in the right. Just because a country has started a war with another country and then lost, it does not mean that the casus belli was invalid. It was a legitimate concern among the Arab nations that a country founded and hugely supported by Britain and the USA was founded on the racial-religious principle that the area known as "Greater Israel", an area the size of which ranges from either the size of the British Mandate of Palestine to all lands between the Nile and the Euphrates (http://en.wikipedia.org...). This posed a serious risk to all powers, and they therefore attacked this rogue state. The western press may say that the Arab nations that attacked Israel were rogue states, but it was Israel that disturbed the status quo. It has been portrayed as a heroic victim state defending its borders, but that can only be true as long as they are not occupying other countries with their forces.

"Remember that it was the Palestinians that started launching missiles into Israel. Even President Obama stated Israel has the right to self-defense when another group is raining missile down on the nation."
Is firing white phosphorous at civilians in the Gaza Strip, killing nearly two thousand civilians (http://www.guardian.co.uk...); actively encouraging Jewish settlement in Palestinian land in the West Bank, kicking Palestinians out of their homes (http://query.nytimes.com...); and erecting a titanic wall around the West Bank that intrudes upon Palestinian territory at numerous points, and never intrudes upon Israeli territory (http://en.wikipedia.org...) is hardly self-defence. It is expansionism, and the Israeli, UK or US governments could not care less about any human rights violations, as they were perpetrated by a pro-west dictatorship, and not an anti-west democracy. Is occupying vast swathes of Lebanese, Jordanian, Syrian and Egyptian territory contrary to the UN ruling really self-defence, or is Obama merely a Zionist apologist?

Argument
As an internationalist, I believe that the Mandate of Palestine should have been created as one country, in a secular, egalitarian democracy. Israel is none of those things. It is certainly not secular, as Jewish law governs many key aspects of national legislation, such as the lack of non-Jewish legal domestic marriages, the existence of a Jewish state religion, and the state language of Hebrew, which has been in place since its foundation in 1948, when Hebrew speakers made up 13% of the population. It is not egalitarian, as there is a severe disparity between people in Israel, whose average GDP per capita is roughly $32,312 (Se CIA World Factbook), while that of Palestine is a measly $2,900. This shows a blatant racist agenda on the Israeli government, who seek to build key employment sites and services on the Israeli side of the wall, which Palestinians have to queue for hours to enter so they ccan either go to work or access basic services such as healthcare or shopping for food. It is not a democracy, as according to the Economist Intelligence Unit"s Democracy Index, Israel itself is a "Flawed Democracy", while the occupied territories are an "Authoritarian Regime". Though Israel"s neighbours are all classed as either "Hybrid Regimes" or "Authoritarian Regimes",; this does not justify Israel"s existence, or its obnoxious expansionist policies.
donald.keller

Con

"I thought the enlightenment moved us past this stone age thinking that whomever has the largest club is in the right."

Yes. That's the point of a War of Independence.

Seeing as Israel was the one attacked, I don't find anything barbaric about defending yourself from others, and actually winning. Many great Wars of Independence, or similar wars were fought during and after the Enlightenment. Many were a product of the Enlightenment itself.

Examples include the Communists war against the Czar, and the French's War of Independence. Other's include the American War of Independence and India's war against Britain.

You know what nation was formed through a proper election and the 'love of the people'? Nazi Germany. Your point that a nation is bad and shouldn't have existed because it was formed out of civil war, or in this case, self-defense, is invalid.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...

"It was a legitimate concern among the Arab nations that a country founded and hugely supported by Britain and the USA was founded on the racial-religious principle that the area known as "Greater Israel", an area the size of which ranges from either the size of the British Mandate of Palestine to all lands between the Nile and the Euphrates. This posed a serious risk to all powers, and they therefore attacked this rogue state."

To start, Greater Israel was only an idea held by Revisionist Zionists. The state was ran by Labor Zionists who opposed the idea for nearly 30 years AFTER the war took place. It wasn't until the far later half of the 1900's that the only Prime Minister to ever support the idea held power. Modern Israel has no ties to the idea.

The original Revisionist Zionists, the one's the Arabs went to war over, only viewed Greater Israel has being Palestine and Transjordan.

You basically believe the Arabs were justified in attacking a tiny nation over an idea held by small groups, and rejected by it's government. Remember this for later on.

I should mention, your own source gave your argument away.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"It has been portrayed as a heroic victim state defending its borders, but that can only be true as long as they are not occupying other countries with their forces."

Israel was only occupying the West Bank. It has a logical right to do so, since the West Bank literally runs through Jerusalem, covering almost 2/3rd of the city, and surrounding the entire city, even surrounding the only access route. In fact, take a look at the situation, if you put all bias aside, you will understand why the West Bank is dangerous if not occupied.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Israel left Gaza in 2005. After an election, Hamas took power. Israel, the US, and the EU refused to acknowledge Hamas, as is their right to do so. They did so because one could label Hamas a terrorist group before labeling them a Government group. You know the craziest thing? All Israel and the US wanted before they would recognize Hamas was for them to recognize Israel, renounce violence, and make good on past agreements.

Hamas proved the accusation that they were more of a terrorist group when they forcibly replaced Gaza's other elected officers (the Fatah) with their own.
http://www.guardian.co.uk...

Israel only stopped sending the Palestinians aid through the Hamas-ran Government. They continued sending the Palestinians aid, but through non-government groups. The Palestinians received Israeli aid regardless of Hamas, who would have likely used the money to attack Israel.

http://www.nytimes.com...;

Remember how you thought the earlier Arabs had the right to attack Israel because of an idea that held no power in Israel? Well the Hamas actually has power... Full power over Palestine, that they took by force. Israel actually has the right to feel concerned.

"Is firing white phosphorous at civilians in the Gaza Strip, killing nearly two thousand civilians; actively encouraging Jewish settlement in Palestinian land in the West Bank, kicking Palestinians out of their homes; and erecting a titanic wall around the West Bank that intrudes upon Palestinian territory at numerous points, and never intrudes upon Israeli territory is hardly self-defence."

The average Civilian to Militant death ration in a Middle East civil war is around 4:1. The Civilian to Militant death ration in Palestine is 1:30. That is astonishing. Why is it so low? Because Israel has so many rules in place JUST to protect Palestinian civilians.

Civilians will die in war, and Israel is among leading nations (if not the top) in preserving civilian life.
http://www.haaretz.com...

The wall around the West Bank is again for great reason. Again, review the map.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Is occupying vast swathes of Lebanese, Jordanian, Syrian and Egyptian territory contrary to the UN ruling really self-defence, or is Obama merely a Zionist apologist?"

Israel is only occupying Golan Heights, in Syria. The land is small, and hardly counts as "vast swathes of Lebanese, Jordanian, Syrian and Egyptian territory."

Obama might be Zionist, but you're no doubt anti-Zionist. What's your point? It's irrelevant to the Resolution.

Counter Argument.

"As an internationalist, I believe that the Mandate of Palestine should have been created as one country, in a secular, egalitarian democracy. Israel is none of those things."

Sweden is Socialist, China is Communist, and the US is a Constitutional Republic. What's your point? Just because a nation isn't exactly what you think a nation should be, doesn't mean it doesn't have the right to exist.

Iran is also not "a secular, egalitarian democracy." In fact, Israel matches your criteria more than most Arab nations. I don't understand why this matters?

"This shows a blatant racist agenda on the Israeli government, who seek to build key employment sites and services on the Israeli side of the wall, which Palestinians have to queue for hours to enter so they can either go to work or access basic services such as health care or shopping for food."

Israel withdrawn completely from Gaza, as Gaza wanted. Gaza's economy dropped when this happened. You can not kick someone out, and get mad at THEM when it cases economic drop.

Gaza and the West Bank was autonomous. Their economies are theirs to work on. Things might be better if Hamas spent more money on it's people, and less on firing missiles into Israel.

Israel is, however, still sending aid to the Palestinians. Again, only so much they can do. Like I said, Gaza is autonomous and self-governing.

"Israel itself is a "Flawed Democracy", while the occupied territories are an "Authoritarian Regime". Though Israel"s neighbors are all classed as either "Hybrid Regimes" or "Authoritarian Regimes",; this does not justify Israel"s existence, or its obnoxious expansionist policies."

The US also is not a true Democracy. What's your point? And whatever Gaza and the West Bank is is solely up to them. While Israel may not recognize Hamas, those places are self-governing. Whatever their government type is is completely their responsibly.

This in no way has anything to do with justifying Israel existence. Israel also does not have an Expansionist viewpoint. Their prime minister even mentioned such ideas were over long ago, and anyone who thinks that way is deluding themselves.
http://www.haaretz.com...

Israel has actually given up most occupations over the past few decades. Palestine started firing missiles on Israel after Israel withdrew from Gaza.

The 1949 Armistice, signed by Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Transjordan, and Palestine, grants and justifies Israel's Right to Exist.
http://www.peaceau.org...
Debate Round No. 3
henryajevans

Pro

henryajevans forfeited this round.
donald.keller

Con

All arguments extanded.
Debate Round No. 4
henryajevans

Pro

henryajevans forfeited this round.
donald.keller

Con

The Pro never successfully proved Israel should never of been founded.

I have successfully refuted his claims and defended mine.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by gordonjames 4 years ago
gordonjames
Pro - you lost me at "So might is right is it? Israel had proven that it could win a war, therefore it could exist as a nation? "

Wars of independence are part of life.
Would you like to still be a British colony without national sovereignty?
Posted by donald.keller 4 years ago
donald.keller
Huh... Hello?
Posted by donald.keller 4 years ago
donald.keller
Pro, you're doing good. I enjoy this discussion.
Posted by donald.keller 4 years ago
donald.keller
Before I post, I ask a question. Shall I post a counter argument in R1 or shall we wait until R2.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
henryajevansdonald.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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Too bad this debate was forfeited. It looked interesting.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
henryajevansdonald.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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made numerous unsupported & factually incorrect assertions (For example, calling Palestine "a stretch of land that is among the most prosperous areas of the Middle East", at that time it wasn't). Con was much more thorough, organized, & dropped less arguments The debate should have been more focused & better organized, as there were a lot of strawmen & red herring. Finally, Pro F.F. the last 2 rounds.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
henryajevansdonald.kellerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.