The Instigator
Andrew27
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
vivalayeo
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

Israeli foreign policy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/14/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 848 times Debate No: 12337
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

Andrew27

Con

Israel's foreign policy is not just wrong there occupation of Palestine is illegal, it amounts to an occupation of another land, and they use religious argument for there right to that land. As the state is invalid there fore all the policies of that stat are made invalid. They are holding another people to ransom on racist and bigoted ideas. The fact that they are investigating their own military actions and not allowing a neutral 3rd party to investigate is sure sign that they believe they can do as they wish and float international law! The use of fake British passports in the assignation of a hamas leader, and the lack of respect for there own supposed allies. Also the political lobying groups in countries such as the UK such as the Israeli friends of the labour party for instance which tries to bribe governments into taking a pro Israeli stance. The way that the state was set up and the way that Israeli has behaved since shows the total lack or respect for international law, and f anyone else not Israeli.
vivalayeo

Pro

Thankyou for posting a challenge, however, I disagree with quite a lot of what you have stated. I believe the Israeli state is justified in it's actions because it is at war, and war call's for undesireable measure's to be taken in order to protect one's own national security and your foreign interest's. In this debate, I will outline why the Israeli state has legitimate claim's to current day Israel and that it is justified not on religious or ethnic but historical terms. I also hope to explain that the Israeli action's in Gaza are justified and that it is Hamas that have brought this suffering upon it's own people not Israel.

The main point I will try to make hit home is that the Israeli action's regarding the Gaza flotilla were within International law and were completely justified. As for your other minor point's such as bribery and assassination I will adhere to them however, I feel that the challenge is a bit ambiguous. Could you infact detail in point form what exactly are the main point's of your arguement. If we debate over more precise premise's then this debate will be easier to follow, and we can truely judge if we have been addressing the point.

1/Historical Context:

You've have stated quite strongly that the Israeli occupation of Palestine is illegal. You have also argued that they legitimize their claim to the land on religious ground's. However, this is incorrect. Israel was formed in May 1948 when it declared independance, 7 month's after the Unitied Nation's declared a partition of Palestine. One side was administered by the Israeli's and the other, the Arab's. Jerusalem was under UN governance and protection. Now, can you explain to me, where in this narrative does this make Israel an illegitmate state? It was sanctioned by the UN, and is globally recognised as an autonomous state. You claim this is an occupation of a foreign land, but you seem to forget that the Palestinian's never really controlled it (or even part of it as they do now) before you had the Ottoman Empire, and then the British empire controlling it. Britain along with the UN then decided to partition it, therefore Israel has as much claim to the land as the Palestinian's do. I am not trying to argue that Israel has right's to land outside those original border's, but is certainly does within them.

So we have established that the occupation of the land is not Illegal, however you stated that it was justified on relgious term's however, that too would then apply to the Palestinian's after the end of the British palestine Mandate. However, I don't agree with this point due to the fact Israel is the historical land of the Jewish people, whether their religion was founded there or not, a Jewish connection with this area is as strong as the arab one.

2/'They are holding another people to ransom on racist and bigoted ideas'

Please explain in more detail what these bigoted and racist idea's are. This point, it plainly a 'get-out' clause. If you are referring to Gaza please state that in the next round. If you are referring to Israel, then if you would kindly look at the demographic's you will see that there is a massive majority of Jewish people living with Israeli. 5.7 million out of a country of 7.5 million clearly show's that the Israeli can hardly be holding it's people at ransom, and are occupying a land where they are not welcomed by the majority of it's populace. As for the concern of Race, we have already established that the introduction of an Israeli state was on historical and legal term's not based on racist or bigoted idea's. I am not denying that some Jewish people in Israel may fall under these two titles, however, that is apparant in any country, there will always be prejudice, and I'm sorry but it is a bit much to expect Israel to be any different.

If you were referring to the Israeli attack on Gaza and the current land and sea blockade's, then that is a different story, but it still does not fall under your statement. If you did mean Gaza I am sorry, and I will provide my arguement from that perspective in the next round.

3/'The fact that they are investigating their own military actions and not allowing a neutral 3rd party to investigate is sure sign that they believe they can do as they wish and float international law'

As i stated in the introduction, please be a bit more specific on which law's were broken. I will also reiterate that firstly the IDF did not break international law boarding the Mavi Mara or the other ship's in the flotilla and that Israel has the right to investigate it's own military in a situation like this. I would also like to point out that Foreign observer's such as David Trimble from Northern Ireland are supervising the operation, although I will concede that the choice may have been biased.

"It's okay for Israeli ships to operate in international waters to enforce [the blockade], then yes, a ship could have been intercepted on the high seas, if there was a suspicion it was attempting to breach the blockade."
- Professor Weiner.Douglas Guilfoyle, a lecturer at University College of London

I think I will trust in the judgement of an expert in Maritime law to explain why internationally, this act was legal and was within Israel's full right as a state enforcing a blockade, to board a vessel that was clearly attempting to run the blockade, an action which IS illegal. The acitivist's that participated in this were disobeying a direct command from a legal armed force and therefore they had to live up to the consequence's. If you don't believe me here are two scenario's:

1/Attempt to force your way into the closest UK army barrack's and see what exactly happen's when you refuse to co-operate with the guard's.
2/Imagine what would have happened to a ship that tried to run the US blockade of Cuba in 1962 or the UN blockade of Yugoslavia.

Why should Israel be any different?

The claim that Israel acted heavy handedly is false. Yes, deadly force was employed however, if you look at the situation those soldier's were in, you would realise that their action's might not have been light handed, but they were effective and justified. I do believe that the Israeli commando's made a mess of the operation and if they had taken more precaution's and had properly dealt with the situation before boarding they could have avoided the death's of 8 turkish national's and one US-Turkish national. Explain to me, why there were no hostilities or shooting's on the other ship's? If the Israeli's used heavy handed tactic's, why did the other 5 ship's that did comply, not have injured or killed activist's? We can clearly see from both activist and Israeli released footage that the occupant's on the Mavi Mara were far from hospitable when the commando's boarded.

We can go into this in more depth if you really wish, once you have identified your clear aim's. I know this is mean't to be the opening arguements so I will leave it at that. Now I will conclude my round by asking you a few question's:

1/What international law's has Israel broken?
2/Why do you regard the Israeli's as occupier's?
3/Your arguement that Israel is acting on racist and bigotted ground's, can you give me some examples?
4/Since you live in the UK, what would be your opinion if a terrorist funded organisation like Hamas (which cannot be denied) took power in France and it along with it's neighbour's wanted the UK to be blown out of the water? Would you be so liberal then?
5/What establishes that a certain group of people own a land? By the reasoning you have put forth so far, the British Isle's have no right to be called British etc.

Thankyou and I look forward to your unambiguous rebuttal
Debate Round No. 1
Andrew27

Con

Andrew27 forfeited this round.
vivalayeo

Pro

The instigator has forfeited the previous round. There is no point on me writing a rebuttal until he has posted.
Debate Round No. 2
Andrew27

Con

Andrew27 forfeited this round.
vivalayeo

Pro

vivalayeo forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Andrew27

Con

Andrew27 forfeited this round.
vivalayeo

Pro

I concur your argument's are a bit bland
Debate Round No. 4
Andrew27

Con

Andrew27 forfeited this round.
vivalayeo

Pro

Blargh vote. Finally it's over, that was challenging. Convincing argument
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by mcc1789 7 years ago
mcc1789
It's very unfortunate that Con didn't continue the debate. Since he forfeited, Con deserves a win, but there were many arguments to be made against his points. Oh well, I guess Pro wasn't the one to make those. I'd be interested to debate it again myself, since it's such an important topic.
Posted by vivalayeo 7 years ago
vivalayeo
Because I'm in the UK I cannot vote for myself :( I hope that the Con, if he ever appear's does not vote for himself, to make the result's fair
Posted by vivalayeo 7 years ago
vivalayeo
lol, hope this end's soon :( waste of time
Posted by InsertNameHere 7 years ago
InsertNameHere
Sh*t, I don't think it's Surah 17. Anyway, Children of Israel. Look for it in the Qur'an if anybody cares.
Posted by InsertNameHere 7 years ago
InsertNameHere
Israel is for the Jews. There's a chapter in the Qur'an that addresses that, Surah 17, The Children of Israel.
Posted by vivalayeo 7 years ago
vivalayeo
It seems the opponent has not been on for 6 days, having created his account a week ago. Which makes me believe he no longer wishes to continue. Please vote Pro
Posted by vivalayeo 7 years ago
vivalayeo
Sorry I need a favour from you Andrew, is there perhap's a chance you can post your reply as late as possible? Thing is, I am going hiking for 2 1/2 days on sunday and back on tuesday afternoon. If you could post your arguement early sunday morning or late saturday night , it means I can write my round 2 before I leave and therefore won't forfeit the debate by not replying. Could you do me this favour mate?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Andrew27vivalayeoTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Atheism 7 years ago
Atheism
Andrew27vivalayeoTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03