The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
13 Points

Israel's war of liberty? Or the Nakba day?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 764 times Debate No: 75657
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)




Hello! This is my first debate on this site about wether the war of Israel's Independance was "The War Of Liberty" or according to the Arabs which resided in the area
"The Nakba" - "Day Of Catashtrophy" also known by the arabs as the Palestinian Holocaust. I'm pro War of indipendce and pro Israel in general.

Round 1: Acceptance of the challenge and stating your basic opinion.
Round 2: Opening. and base argument.
Round 3: Introducing new arguments & Answering the 2nd contender argument.
Round 4: Closing and voting start.


Accepted. As Con I will be arguing for the Nakba [also known as the Palestinian exodus] and that the war of Israel's independence was not a "War of Liberty" on the basis that pre-existing Palestinian Arabs were killed and forcibly removed from their places of residence; with entire Arab communities being destroyed.

Good luck to my opponent!
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting! I will now begin my argument!

First of all, As it is known, Israel has infact accepted the the decision made by the UN to make 2 seperate countries,
An Jewish and an Palastinian country and instantly accepted their right to have a country. While the palastinians under then a few hours opened WAR on the new born country beating them over 4 to 1 in numbers and in arms attacking them on the day of their creation, Not a single attempt in diplomacy and shortly later 5 Arab nations started to attack Israel aswell.
Syria,Iraq,Jordan,Egypt (With Sudan's Aggresive assistance some may even say that they were a 5th country)
In Israel there were only 300,000 citizens while the opposing countries were over 22 Million armed with heavy artilary like Tanks and Aircrafts while Israel only had light artilary like Automatic rifles.
In the war the Palestinians did multiple terror attacks, Murdered innocent human at their homes and near 100% of arab population supported the war. Their bare symbol symbolized the destruction of the jews. One of the most memorable problems was that Arab snipers went on roofs and Mosque to snipe bypassers. Men, Women, Or children. None were spared and their horrible ways of executing civilians were truly terrifying.
True there was a small amount of Jews who also did horrific acts at that level but at a much much smaller scale and recived NO acceptance from the big majority.
And Israel was founded on the basic of Equality therefore all Palestinians were of EQUAL rights as the Jews.
And werent forcefully removed from their places of residence like most pepole were by the country, Only by a small small minority less. (Less then 1,000 extremists), And altough a large amount of the residents fled the country they werent forced asked or even hinted to do so, They did it willingly possibly due to the reason that they arent willing to live in a jewish country. Or from the fear of being treated the same way they treated us, With horrible torture, Pain. And hate.
And honestly. The only reason that the rest of the jews that existed at the time survived was for one reason only, The arabs didnt have a good cause, Nor a strong target. They wanted to DESTROY The jews. They wanted "Throw them to the sea!" while the jews Target was SURVIVAL which is a MUCH stronger motive. And unlike an army created by 5 different countries, Unorginized the jewish forces were under 1 strong leadership. And using smart tactics taking advantage of their weaknesses they managed to survive and created a country.


You're welcome!

Firstly, I'll outline my opening argument then proceed with rebuttals in round three.

The Origins of the Nakba:

Pro begins their argument by referencing the UN plan for two different states; a Jewish and a Palestinian one. However, the conflict between the Jews and Arabs within Palestine had started long before 1948 or Israel's War of Independence. It was in fact the early 1920's that tension between the two groups began to escalate into violence, largely instigated by the growing numbers of Jewish immigrants that were entering the country from Europe--naturally this was to the dismay of the Palestinians, many of whom had lived in the country for a long period of time. Prior to European Jewish migration into the country, the Palestinian Arabs and Jews [vast majority of whom had Middle Eastern/Sefardic descent] had lived peacefully amongst each other. It should be noted that the existing Jewish community of Palestine was a small one, and Jews largely only inhabited the more populated cities of Palestine such as Jerusalem. Both groups accepted each other and there were no disputes over land or territory.

As Jewish migration increased, the conflict grew and the Palestinian Arabs felt that their country [once again, one that they'd resided in for centuries in some cases] was gradually be taken away from them and that they were steadily being outnumbered by the Jews coming in. The Palestinian refugee problem began while Palestine was still under British control, as Jewish migrants began buying land and confiscating Palestinian property. From 1929-1947: 30% of Palestinian lands were confiscated due to registration regulations imposed by Britain and Zionist Organizations. And in 1947 55% of Palestinian lands happened to be lost to the U.N Partition plan, with another decrease significant decrease in land after Israel won the 1947-1948 War and became an official state.

The intention of the Zionist movement and early Israeli leaders to create a full Jewish state was made clear in 1948 when Ben Gurion [first Israeli Prime Minister] delivered a speech stating: “The Arabs of the land of Israel have only one function left to them-to run away”.

This quote was delivered while the Palestinian exodus, or “War of Independence” according to Israel, was directly taking place. Large numbers of Arabs were expelled or coerced into fleeing by Israeli propaganda, one example of this is when Israel broadcast radio messages around Palestine in Arabic stating that Israeli forces would attack Arab villages and force out their inhabitants; which invariably did happen. During the Arab-Israeli War, an estimated 700,000 Palestinians were displaced after having their villages and towns taken over and destroyed. Over 530 Arab villages and towns were in fact de-populated. In 1945, a full 85% of land belonged to Palestinians, while in 1949 after the War had finished only 6% of it was inhabited by Arabs.

The most significant example of Palestinian populaces being attacked by Israeli forces is perhaps the Deir Yassin massacre –April the 9th-11th 1948—in which over 100 Arabs were killed by Jewish paramilitaries in Deir Yassin, a town near Jerusalem.

This attack alone contributed significantly to the Palestinian refugee crisis, due to the number of Deir Yassin residents who were expelled and fellow Arabs from surrounding areas who feared subsequent attacks. Once again, the aim here was to remove all Palestinian inhabitants. These were not terrorists who were posing any real threat to Jews or Israel, rather they were merely civilians; many of whom were women and children.

As previously noted, Deir Yassin was not the only case and over 530 Palestinian towns were attacked during the war. Forty four new settlements were constructed on abandoned Arab land in 1949, and at least 25,000 Jewish migrants located to them. The number of settlements increased considerably—as did the amount of Jewish migrants arriving into Palestine from Europe, something that throughout Israel’s existence as a state has continued to expand.

The Palestinian refugee problem now estimates at 6.1 million worldwide, making them the largest refugee group today. While Pro argues that early Zionists within Israel were protecting themselves against Arab attacks, the fact remains that Palestinians had a land and a country overtaken and that the conflict was not initiated by them. Rather, it was Zionists who upon migrating to a new country attacked and internally displaced its native inhabitants in their aim to assume control of territory and create their own state; with large areas of land for a pre-dominantly Jewish population.






Debate Round No. 2


Well actually, The Jews have lived pretty well until the 19 century in Arab countries, Of course they paid LARGE sums of money to the government and had to live in shame admitting that their religion is infect Inferior to the Islam but they weren't physically punished usually. And already at the beggining of 1920's Arabs began to publicly and physically injure jewish men.
Your Migration to Israel wasnt a Migration, It was ESCAPISM from Europe due to the large hatred and murders of jews all acrros Europ and in Russia. They were fleeing for their life to the only place they know and love, Israel. And I would liek to know your definition for "Peacefully" because the arabs are known for siding with Hitler against the jews and assisting him later on. And honestly it was never truly peacefull in the middle east was it? Since the biblical till today atleast I belive it was ravaged by wars. And death. And the "existing" jewish community can barely called a community for being so small!
And they had no choice to accept the Muslim reign because if they DIDNT they'd be publicly executed for being Enemies of the Islam and had no actual power to even THINK of making a goverment and actually living as an regular human being, Equal to all others. Wether they be muslim or christian.
And I think that the Palestinian were the true problem under the British controll. They'd massacare Britih commanders.
And even reach terroristic acts against them on daily basis. And at the time they already began to hate the jews. And to PHYSICALLY harras them.
And that speech was AFTER the war was already over. After they'd already MASSACARED MANY MANY JEWS. And got themself HATED by every jewish house. Yes. EVERY JEWISH HOUSE was somehow hit by the palestinians!
Would you be able to still love Palestinians after they kill your brother? Your sister? Your father or mother? Or perhaps even your close cousin?
And guess what? They couldnt even bear the thought of the poor jews having a country and INSTANTLY attacked them altough Israel has publicly stated that they'd peacefully live with them. And even assist them.
And in the Israely decleration of independence they specifically request the Israely Arabs help to build the country and shape it. As equals.
And as for your force expelsions? Ofcourse they had to clear villages it was a war to SURVIVE and those pepole had GUNS
they had to search villages for weapons and confiscate or that gun the next day might have been used to kill a jewish solider. We actually WARNED them about which villages are going to be attacked so all the innocents can get clear of the village while the sweep was taking place. Let me remind you that at this phase of the war we only remainded with a few cities due to the arab strong push.
And 6%? Where did you get that number exacly? There were still a large amount of arabs in Israel, Remember there were approx 1.3 MILLION arabs in Israel and only 300,000 jews. 1,300,000 - 700,000 = 600,000. Still damn alot considering the jews aint it? Guess what? Only approx 20% of the country acutally had cities at the time due to how underdeveloped it was. (Dont have an exact number it is an estimation considering it wasnt an actual country untill now and looking at maps)
So 6% is actually ALOT.
And the arabs didnt leave because they were forced. They leaved due to
A: Call from all the nearby countries to accept them
B: The british told them aswell to leave the country

The main reason the left was because the nearby countries told them to join them in power.
And they gladly accepted because the mere thought of living in a jewish country back then was truly horrendus for most arabs. And it might still be true today.
And the Deir Yassin massacare wasnt done by IDF troops but by the small extremist and while there were only a few massacares done by jews there were HUNDRES over HUNDRES of massacres , Terrorist acts, Happening all across the country against jews.
What the jews did was EXTREMLY mild in that village in comparision to what the arabs did.
One of the ways they'd actually kill fleeing jews was to setup roadblock acting as IDF soliders ordering them to get out of the vehicle to brutally murder them and violating their corpses in order to scare the jews into submission.
Is there any official proof on that Deir Yassin incident I can watch? Something from the UN possibly?
Made by an NEUTRAL party and not by Pro palestines?
And honestly did they not deserve getting a quarther the brutality they gave the jews? The prime reasons they left Israel was because of the calls outside of Israel and freaing that the jews will do to them what they did to the jews? Imagine how horrible what they did if it caused to run away so quickly? And guess what? Nothing. The jews didnt do anything.
They created a country with the reamining arabs, Making them equal of rights.
A land and a country? It was ALREADY taken by the british and was NEVER theirs, It was JORDANS, There never WAS a plestinian country in Israels, theritory. EVER. And I doubt there was a plestinian country AT ALL. They were ALWAYS ruled by other countries.
And buying teritory? Whats wrong with that? The jews wanted to live in Israel so they came to live here. NO ONE forced them out. Whats wrong with wanting to have a country? To not live under enemy rule and be oppresed?
Israel till this day accept Palestine right to make a country of their own and suppports it.
And there is migartion EVERYWHERE
According to you can you also say that Mexicans attempted to take over the US during its big migartion days.
The fact remains. While we were peacefull, Palestinians asked for WAR.
They got war. And they lost it. Even though saying they had the advantage will be and mind exploding underestimation.
Israel survived. They LIVED, And even after all the hate they got from the Palestinains Israel is willing to live till this day with them, As Equals.

btw how do I add sources? Is there an actuall way or do I just insert a link?
Also try to use an Neutral source next time because from what I care I can just dismiss everything there for not being made by an objective point of view.



Pro again attempts to disregard the *Zionist* role in the creation of Israel and the fact that they [Zionists] contributed significantly to terrorism and to the expulsion of native Palestinians.

Pro first states that the "Jews lived pretty well" in the Middle East--which I'll point out actually disfavours their argument. The reason Jews lived reasonably well in Middle East, is largely because there were no internal political fractions to contribute to conflict and poor relations between countries; such as those that are evident between Israel and the vast number of its Arab neighbours. The State of Israel--from the very time it was created--has contributed massively to conflict in the Arab world and assisted heavily to the instability that exists today. Up until Israel's existence, the Middle East was a *far* more liveable place; in which both Jews and Arabs accepted and largely tolerated each other. I'll reiterate that Israel [because of its close connection to the U.S and early interference in Arab politics] drastically impacted that.

The point by Pro that the Middle East has always been "ravaged by wars" and "death" is a weak one die to the fact they have provided no historical examples to support both statements; and the basic reality that war and political conflict within the region has been a far more recurrent thing that it has ever been--since Israel was created. Examples can be found with Iraq, a country upon invasion by the U.S was a relatively stable one; now it happens to have absolutely no political stability or real form of governance, and instead is consumed by extremist fractions of terrorism. Naturally, it was Israel that was so keen for the U.S to invade--using the false presumption that Saddam was a danger to the west.

Along with the U.S, Israel has built a reputation for being anti-government [unless they somehow benefit or *that* said government adheres to them in some way] in the Middle East and pro terrorist groups. Another interest of Israel's is overthrowing the current leader if Syria, Assad, and in doing so they've substantially supported anti-government groups such as the Al-Nusra front and in turn helped fund a four year conflict that has led to numerous lives being lost.

Onto Palestine once more, Pro places all emphasis on what the Palestinians allegedly did to the Jews, and again includes no sources to validate their claims. As pointed out in my round two argument, on the contrary to initiating the conflict--which now spans over 90 years--the Palestinians merely lived in a land that they had done for a long time, that was selected by leading Zionists [in fact as early as the 1800's] to officially become the Jewish homeland; the first issue in this is that European Jews have a *very* debatable historical and ethnic connection to Palestine, and that there were already considerable numbers of people living in the land--the Palestinians. If the rights of these people had been protected upon European Jewish migration to the country, and if they had been properly assimilated into the country, naturally the issue of conflict would be much less. However, their rights were not protected, and they were certainly not assimilated or welcomed into the State of Israel.

This is directly why the Palestinian refugee crisis began and why it has grew to be the largest in the world.

Pro states that during the Arab-Israeli war Palestinians attacked "all Jewish homes", but again provides no evidence for this rather striking assertion. As I've also highlighted in round one, it was Zionists and Jewish fighters who first attacked Arab towns and forcibly removed them from their homes, not the other way round. This leads again to the number of 700,000 Palestinians that became refugees during the Nakba, a significant number to even attempt to justify. Unlike Pro has argued, the vast majority of these people did not become homeless off their own accord--they *were* expelled.

Moreover, the conflict had [and has] very little to do with the Palestinians not being able to bare what Pro labels as "the poor Jews" having a country. The issue lies in the fact that it was their country that these European Jews not only decided to come and reside in, but to exclusively make it their own Jewish state.

I'd again note that Pros claim that the Arabs left because they were specifically told to by other Arab states, and because the British advised them to, is unsupported and not confirmed by any sources. It is in fact estimated that 50% of the Palestinian populated left under direct military assault from Zionist forces.

Alluding further to Pros previous argument about the UN Partition Plan, I'll reiterate that the primary reason this was rejected by the Palestinians was because the Jews, then still a minority within the country, were to receive the majority of land; thus leaving the Palestinians with an unfair deal.

As well as their earlier claim of Palestinians attacking Jewish homes, Pro further argues that it was almost exclusively the Palestinians that attacked British forced during the British mandate. However, basic historical fact renders this simply incorrect. It was European Zionists that repeatedly attacked British forces from the 1920's-1940's, methods for doing so included bombing and throwing grenades at British military bases--as well as Arab civilians, and shooting British soldiers.

The overall aim was of course to remove British military presence within Palestine [which subsequently happened] and proceed with creating a full Jewish State. Prominent Zionist groups included the Irgun [Etzel] gang and the Lehi Stern gang. Both groups orchestrated a number of violent attacks including the "Al-Quds" massacre of 1937, the two Haifa massacres of 1938, the King David Hotel bombing of 1946, the British officers' clubhouse attack of 1947, and the bombing of Jerusalem railway station of 1947.

Another significant example is the Baled Al-Sheik village attack, perpetrated by the main Jewish defence, Hagnah.

Now onto attacks that were exclusively orchestrated by the Lehi, these include: the assassination of British government representative Lord Moyne of 1944, the Cairo-Haifa train bombings of 1948, and even more importantly; the Deir Yassin massacre. I'll point out that these groups did not discriminate and willingly killed Palestinian women and children.

Concerning the predominant Arab attacks that Pro alleges, it's additionally worth noting that the Arabs had actually lost the majority of their weaponry during the Arab revolt. Zionist fighters were significantly more well-armed and well-trained.








Debate Round No. 3


Inspector forfeited this round.


Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Emilrose 3 years ago
Too bad..

My computer is actually broke too [keyoards not working] so I type on my phone.
Posted by Inspector 3 years ago
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO I had my computer fixedf :(
Posted by Emilrose 3 years ago
As for sources, you just copy and paste the link that they come with to your argument.
Posted by Emilrose 3 years ago
So why is it that "brutality" must be returned with more "brutality"? The fact is that responsibility has never been accepted for the Palestinians; and that's why a conflict that began in the 1920's has continued [and grew] to this day.

And as for Palestinians attacking British forces, it was Zionist groups that used that as their primary tactic-the Stern gang being a fine example.
Posted by Emilrose 3 years ago
Hehe ;)

I'll look forward to your vote.
Posted by Yassine 3 years ago
- This is seriously f**d up, pardon my French. Definitely gonna read & vote on this.
Posted by Emilrose 3 years ago
Hm, I may accept this as Con.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Yassine 3 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: == Conduct == Pro forfeited. => Con's win. == S&G == Pro's grammar was just horrible & hard to read. => Con's win. == Arguments == Pro's arguments are not supported by any sources whatsoever, his case was rightfully dismissed by Con as bare assertion. Plus, Con systematically negated Pro's claim by establishing, using actual sources, that Israel was founded as an occupying force using oppression & arms to coercively remove Palestinians from their lands, making them refugees, & leaving a long trace of massacres & terror, against both the Arabs & the British, in their wake. => Con's win. == Sources == Pro provided none, whereas Con did. => Con's win.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: ff and only con had sources