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

Isreal is a greater threat to international peace then Iran

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/26/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 635 times Debate No: 80191
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




Round 1 is acceptance. Good luck.


Debate accepted.

As Pro has outlined that round one is specifically for acceptance, I will leave it to them to provide the first argument.

Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting. Today I would like to prove "Isreal is a greater threat to international peace then Iran".

Thankfully to understand who is a greater threat to wold peace we need to look at history. When we look at history we can see how many wars each country has instigated in the past century. First lets examine Israel.

Israel in the past century:
Israeli war of independence (November 1947 - July 1949)
Reprisal operations (1950s - 1960s)
Suez Crisis (October 1956)
Six-Day War (June 1967)
War of Attrition (1967"1970)
Yom Kippur War (October 1973)
Palestinian insurgency in South Lebanon (1971-1982)
1982 Lebanon War (1982)
South Lebanon conflict (1982"2000)
First Intifada (1987"1993)
Second Intifada (2000"2005)
2006 Lebanon War (summer 2006)
Gaza War (December 2008 - January 2009)
Operation Pillar of Defense (November 2012)
Operation Protective Edge (July-August 2014)

Iran in the past century:

I think this makes my case very clear. Thank you.


Opening Argument:

Firstly, I'd like to note that so far Pro has not yet provided *any* legitimate example of Israel being more of a threat to world peace than Iran. Moreover, these examples should be disregarded for the basic fact that the *context* of each one has not been considered or taken into account.

Additionally, these very were much domestic and/or regional affairs that in reality have little impact on the world as a whole--which is what is argued in Pros resolution. Not once has Israel had to attack or defend itself against any other nations in the world except Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and the Palestinian authority; which is still not fully recognized as a national state. Another significant fact is that the majority of these wars were *not* initiated by Israel but rather other countries and other entities.

Israel's War of Independence for example, was a war of self-defense when Israel was attacked by its Arab neighbours [1.]

All Intifada and Gaza conflicts have occurred as a result of Israeli citizens being attacked and directly under threat. Such as the 2014 conflict, which began after a barrage of rockets were fired into Israeli territory and armed terrorists were caught infiltrating Israel through underground tunnels. [2.]

The Six Day War occurred when Egypt made an *act* of war against Israel by closing the straits of Tiran. In this case, war was in fact the last resort for Israel.

As for Iran, a look at its wars in the past century can be found here [3.];

Its most-well known [modern] conflict is that with Iraq in the 1980's which lasted 8 years. It is also currently involved in the Syrian conflict and has military intervened against ISIS in Iraq.

Debate Round No. 2


My opponent claims that I did not provide evidence when i showed history in which Israel attacked another country. I have listed the wars in which were waged in list to which the rebuttal is "It's Justified" when history shows us who actually invades who.

Israel's war of independence was instigated by themselves when they colonized the area (Thank the British). The people who attacked were resisting foreign occupiers at the time. Showing up into someones home as a foreign occupier, and shooting up the place in the name of self defense, is absurd.

You say:
"The Six Day War occurred when Egypt made an *act* of war against Israel by closing the straits of Tiran. In this case, war was in fact the last resort for Israel. "

Just because a nation gets spooked by someone's "act" doesn't negate the fact that invasion was done by the one who "saw some activity" and got scared. Israel was the invader. Here is the record... "Israel launched a series of preemptive airstrikes against Egyptian airfields on June 5"

You do understand that the history off ALL those conflicts you posted Iran being involved in were all defending its sovereign borders and was not the invader starting those wars in the last 100 years. Not a track record that can be shared by Israel.

Also you say:
"Its most-well known [modern] conflict is that with Iraq in the 1980's which lasted 8 years."
You understand that Iraq invaded Iran. Not the other way around. They fought... but that was only after Iraq invaded Iran. "The Iran"Iraq War began when Iraq invaded Iran via air and land on 22 September 1980"

My opponent seems to not understand what historical facts are, about who, actually invaded who.


Indeed Pro has still not shown how 'Israel is a greater threat to international peace than Iran'.

Pro also strangley believes that it was Israel who initiated *all* of these wars--which I've shown to be incorrect. Its wars with neighboring states have all fought in retaliation and/or self-defense. It's rather strange that Pro refers to history when they entirely neglect the fact that history is all about context.

Evidently there is a strong bias in Pros stance as they have also wholly misrepresented the *facts* surrounding Israel's War of Independence.

[1.] IT was attacked.

[2.] Palestine was not a sovereign or recognized state prior to the establishment of Israel. Therefore it was technically nobodies 'home'. Jews had additionally been living in the land for centuries.

Now to the 6 Day War, because closing the Tiran Straits was an 'act' of War, Israel was lawfully justified in making *pre-emptive* strikes against Egypt. Israel had waited a number of days for Egypt to re-open the straits but after continual refusal and threats to attack Israel, the government at the time concluded there was no other option.

Pro *tries* to argue that all of Iran's modern conflicts have been in self-defense. however this position is also easily taken with Israel. The source was to demonstrate that Pro made a blatant error in stating that Iran had NO wars during this last century.

Obviously it is Pro that has no real understanding of history as they have failed to display any evidence in support of their argument and instead rely exclusively on bias. The fact they believed that Iran had not engaged in any conflict in the last 100 years is clear proof of that.

To deny historical fact [such as stating that Israel was *not* attacked by its neighbours in 1948] is quite simply astounding. Link 1 explicitly verifies that it was Israel who was first attacked and therefore fought a War that is categorized as one of self-defense.

So, it's still on Pro to fulfill their BoP.

Good luck again ;)

Debate Round No. 3


Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to wrap up this final round and conclude "Israel is a greater threat to international peace then Iran"

"Pro also strangley believes that it was Israel who initiated *all* of these wars--which I've shown to be incorrect."
I listed the wars, and my opponent tried to refute these claims, from which I proved that they were changing historical fact. How insane must it be to claim "Israel launching a preemptive strike" is not the attacker. Could you imagine what kind of world we would be living in if every time someone launched preemptive strikes it is justified on the basis of getting spooked. If this is the mentality my opponent endorsing it is very easy to question whether this is the "dogma" we want in obtaining "international peace"

"It's rather strange that Pro refers to history when they entirely neglect the fact that history is all about context."
I never once said it's not about context. In fact I have been putting the evidence in context this entire debate. The context of historical fact. Empiricism. The Scientific Method. Denial of historical facts is absurd. It's at the same same level of the denial of gravity.

In conclusion, I have made it very clear, providing evidence in my case but my opponent keeps saying I don't provide proof. The kind of world my opponent is defending is anyone has a right to kill someone if they get scared. If that's the case for Israel I would be worried.

Thank you very much and good night!


Pro has once more *failed* to provide any substantive evidence and instead keeps repeating their claims. Simply giving a list of wars that Israel has been involved with does NOTHING to show that Israel 'is a greater threat to world pace than Iran'.

In order to prove such a claim, Pro would actually have to demonstrate 'threats' that Israel has made to the world or highlight actions it's made that have directly put the world [I.E planet earth] in jeopardy. Once again, listing a few wars with certain groups--such as Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. and some neighbors hardly proves anything; as they do not constitute the whole world.

Iran, for example, actually has made threats against countries [without any legitimate reason to] and threatened to use nuclear. [4.]

Pro also again overlooks the fact that Egypt closing the Tiran Straits was an act of war. An act of war that many other countries would have responded to immediately. However, Israel waited a number of days for it to be re-opened [once more: a key shipping port for them] but the refusal continued--as well as the threats to invade Israel.

Therefore, Israel was technically justified in launching a pre-emptive strike against Egypt.

Pro states that they have been using 'evidence' for the whole debate, however, I have seen none. Aside from a rather useless list of wars and 2 wikipedia links, there has been absolutely nothing of anything value that has been provided by Pro. And and I have reiterated, wars that 'a' country 'has' been engaged does not affirm or even remotely support the resolution.

As I have shown that according to law and genuine threats made against a country, that country has the right to act in self-defense. This example can both apply to countries acting unlawfully or groups that are entering another territory and/or killing its civilians.

Vote CON.

Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by scyhoce 2 years ago
I agree, Unfortunately no one can see it.

No votes have been placed for this debate.