The Instigator
SPF
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
gusgusthegreat
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

It is in America's best interest,to support Israel

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
Pro Tied Con
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: 12/7/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,547 times Debate No: 6171
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (5)
Votes (7)

 

SPF

Pro

1.DEMOCRACY- Israel is one of the only Democracies in the Middle East. It is naturally best for America to promote Democracy, and to have Democratic allies. By this, I do mean best in ways both pragmatic and moral. The very idea of President Woodrow Wilson's league of nations, was to " have allies who aren't autocratic, but democratic. The best way for America to promote Democracy, is to support Democratic countries, especially if they are the only ones in a particular region.

2. FIGHTING TERRORISM- Israel is also just as commuted as the United States if not more, in the fight against terrorism. Israel has more experience, as a nation dealing with radical Islamic terrorism. Not to mention that it is better for America's fight against terrorism to support Israel than, say, Hummus, the terrorist organization in control of Palestine.

3. TECHNOLOGY- Israel is a leading nation in technology. Israel invented several things, ranging from chat rooms, to solar panels.
-Many break through in Medicine have taken place in Israel.
-Many break through in alternative energy have taken place in Israel.
-Many break through in water conservation, have taken place in Israel.
-Many break through in Military technology have taken place in Israel.

We could use innovation in all of these areas.
When the U.S. needs help with a weapon, we ask scientists in Israel to fix it. If we stop supporting Israel, our Military wont have the advantage of fixing weapons.

We are currently in an energy crisis. We could use more help from Israel, on energy.

Many are worrying that water could become as scarce as oil. We could use more Israeli technology for conserving water.

And yes it never hurts to improve medicine and save lives. In fact, the Israelis medicine can help our military.

If we stop supporting Israel, monetarily and militarily,
1. We'll lose a vital ally in the Middle East.
2. Israel, a country surrounded by many countries that still don't even believe in it's right to exist, might cease to exist.
I stand by for the next round.
gusgusthegreat

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for his argument. I would also like to point out that debates should be voted upon for the sake of debate; do not vote all for one side or the other simply because that is the side you personally take. Only take into account your personal opinion when required by the voting system.

1. While Israel may be one to the only democratic nations in the Middle Easy, this does not justify our involvement in its protection and alliance. In fact, because it is the only so unique in that area of the world and nations like Iran have stated that they will blow it off the face of the planet, given the chance, it is in our best interests to withdraw from Israel. Not only does our involvement sap our resources which could be better put toward our own domestic interests, but it inevitably sets us up to be involved in the next global conflict. As soon as a hostile nation attacks Israel, the bombs will fly. If we are still involved in the affairs of this nation, we put ourselves smack in the middle of this conflict, which will result in no good whatsoever. While it may seem like the American dream to spread democracy to the nations that do not currently have it, supporting a nation as fragile as Israel is a mistake. We must first focus on our own affairs and bring together a more concentrated military force before we continue to associate ourselves with a ticking bomb.

2. Obviously, terrorism is a major concern to the United States, but the war against it should be undertaken by supporting nations that only give our country more weakness. The United States' alliance with Israel links it to a blood feud that has been going on for thousands of years. Israel may be a relatively sound ally, but they do not provide us with enough of an advantage to justify the risks that come with them. If the United States were to withdraw direct support of Israel, we would be rid of a potential hole in our defenses and could instead adopt a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" policy where we work toward a common goal, but do not end up linked to the violence and bombings that hover over Israel. In this way, we could more fully concentrate our military force while also staying in a friendly relationship with Israel (rather than an official alliance, which brings any attack against it down on our heads), given that they will also work toward counter-terrorism. America's fight against terrorism is better done without official alliances with countries that, in the end, are more hindrance than help.

3. In 2006-07, Israel was rated 18th in information technology. ( http://knowledge.insead.edu... ) However, if we take a look at the list of other nations in the top twenty, we'll notice that many of them, if not all of them, are strong allies of the United States. Could the United States do without Israel's tech? Of course. You'll notice that the 6 nations ahead of the United States itself are unlikely to ever be a major target for military action thus making strong bets for sources of technology.

As for the argument that "Israel had many breakthroughs in..." Whatever breakthroughs they have had are in the past now. We have the technology. Withdrawal of our military and financial support for Israel will not make these advancements suddenly disappear from our arsenal. We will still have access to them. Anything Israel comes up with after our withdrawn support will likely not be worth the resources and risks we take in order to protect them and remain allies.

Israel fixes weapons, huh? Do we really believe that the United States military ships their weapons to Israel every time something goes wrong and says, "Here, fix it!" Seriously. We are more competent than that. Without Israel, we'll simply have to repair things ourselves, anyway. As with advances in technology, we won't suddenly have no idea how to repair our weapons. Our military will still have the ability to fix weapons. Our military is due for more credit than we give it.

...Water will not become as scarce as oil. Yes, fresh water is nice to have around. But do we absolutely need it? No. In the very, very unlikely scenario that fresh water does become that scarce, there are oceans. Salt water is not something we just have to deal with. It can be purified for drinking. The only reason this is not employed currently is because of inconvenience in cost and mass application. But, given a dire need, I'm confident that financial greed would be put aside and plans would be devised to implement a system that would provide water to the population.

Again, the medicine we currently have that Israel has devised will not suddenly disappear after withdrawal of support. We will still have medicines and other assorted technology to support the general population and military. Israel is not so integrated into our affairs that we cannot live without them.

If we continue to support Israel monetarily and militarily:
1. We open ourselves up to an unneeded hindrance in operations and potentially
involve ourselves in mass warfare that could easily be avoided.

If we WITHDRAW support of Israel:
1. We eliminate potential risks and could consolidate resources, finances, and military
in order to more effectively wage war on terrorism.
2. We CAN still have a FRIENDLY relationship with them.
3. The technology they have developed will not cease to exist.
4. If it does "cease to exist" it may be an unfortunate loss of a good, friendly country,
but our nation will not be involved in following affairs. Actions should be taken for the
benefit of OUR nation first and foremost. We do not have the economy or beneficial
situation it would take to effectively support and protect both ourselves and Israel.

Again, let me remind you to judge the debate, not choose a side and vote according to that which you most agree with.

I am looking forward to my opponent's rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1
SPF

Pro

First of all, I would like to thank gusgusthegreat for accepting my challenge for this debate. I would also like to thank my opponent for pointing out that this debate should be judged by the merit of the argument, not any particular stand on the issue of supporting or not supporting Israel.

IRAN

"While Israel may be one of the only democratic nations in the Middle East, this does not justify our involvelment in it's protection and alliance."
Justify? Let me remind my opponet that his burden is to prove it isn't in our best interests to support Israel. Not to justify or not to justify our support.
"In fact, because it is the only so unique country in that area where nations like Iran have stated that they will blow it off the face of the Planet, given the chance, it is in our best interests to withdraw from Israel."

There are a few problems with that statement:
Appeasment: With this statement, and many others in gusgusthegreat's arguements, he suggests appeasing the Iranian Government by stopping to support the Israeli Government is best in America's interests. Here is some history of appeasment:
In the 1939, Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of England, tried to appease Hitler by letting Hitler invade the Czechlosovok Republic, which was what it was called back in those days. In fact, appeasement didn't work because Hitler tried invading England anyway, and partly thanks to Chamberlain, with a lot more momentum. France, a nation that also agreed to give up their old ally, was invaded, and conquered by the Nazis.
So to appease the Iranian Government by stopping to support target numero uno won't work with us either.

It won't take us off their hit list: The Iranian Government, hate us just as much as they hate Israel. Allthough my opponent argues that we can take us off their hit list by suddenly stop supporting our allies, the fact is that it isn't just Iran vs Israel. It is Iran vs the West. Part of why Iran hates Israel, and why America supports Israel, is because Israel has western ideals.

WHAT ABOUT OUR OTHER ALLIES: In this debate, my opponent argues that since Israel is a target, it is in our best interests to stop supporting Israel.
"An enemy of my enemy is my friend policy."

That means that we shouldn't have any REAL friends, in order to keep the peace. Have you ever heard the proverb:
" You never can really be friends with everyone."

It isn't in our best interests to stop supporting our allies, who support us in exchange. Eventually, there could be another conflict, and it wouldn't be good to be alone.

"The United States' alliance with Israel links to a blood feud that's been going on for thousands of years."

There is also a regional feud between the U.S. and Iran. It's called East versus West. The fact is that, as I argued earlier, the Iranian Government will hate us no matter what we do, so we might as well avoid appeasement.

FRIENDSHIP
"We CAN still have a FRIENDLY relationship with them."
Perhaphs. But there are more benefits for both sides in the current co supportive policy.

TECHNOLOGY
"Without Israel we'll simply have to repair things ourselves."

True. How ever, what I meant to say was that when the United States need some help with a weapon, the fact is that we do often ask Israeli engineers what went wrong and how to make it better. My opponent can't deny this. While we could fix it ourselves, The Israeli's have to fight wars on their home turf with many less men than we have, so they have to use better technology for their millitary. Two brains are beter than one.

"18th place."

Perhaphs one list says Israel is in 18th place technichly. But the reality is that since Israel hasn't any resources, technology is precisley Israel's depenedence on survival. Albert Einstein predicted it.

Here is a list of technological acheivements by Israel:
-The cell phone
-The solar panell
- Sea weed farming
-fish coloring
-Technology that makes salt water fresh water. In fact, on http:http//www.foxnews.com there is even a story that the Israelis are working on a flying car.

"As for the 'Israeli breakthroughs in...' whatever break throughs they have had are all the past now."

As I said the Israelis are currently working on a flying car. There is a lot of potential for more break throughs.

WATER
My opponent denies any possibility of water to become scarce. In fact, only 2% of the water in the world is fresh, and most of that is frozen in the icecaps.

Gusgusthegreat might try to rebut alot of these arguements with: Israel could exist without our help.

Let me remind the judges that it was gusgusthegreat, not I, who said that "Israel is a fragile nation."
He even allowed for the possibilty of Israel ceasing to exist.

Now to rebut my opponents official arguements.

"1. We eliminate risks, and could consolidate resources, finances, and millitary in order to more effectively wage war on terrorism."

Good point... However there are 3 problems with that statement:
#1: We also take the risk of appeasment.
#2: We also lose recources.
#3: Effectively wage war on terrorism? May I remind my opponent that Israel helps us wage war on terrorism. In fact terrorist attacks on Israel, have started before they have on the U.S. The Israelis have more experience dealing with terrorism.

"2. We CAN be friendly with them."
Barely. We certainly won't be as friendly with the Israeli's as we have been for the past 60 years ever since President Truman supported it's creation. As I said earlier, you can't be friends with everyone.

"3. The technology they have developed won't cease to exist."
Perhaps, but the technology they are developing, and will be developing will never exist.

"4. If it does 'cease to exist, it may be the loss of a good friendly country but we won't be involved in following affairs."

Who knows what it would be like without REAL allies.

"Action should be taken for OUR nation first and foremost."
Absolotely. That is how both I, SPF and yes gusgusthegreat thinks. That is also how Churchill, and yes, even how Chamberlain thought.
I would once again like to thank gusgusthegreat for accepting my challenge for debate.
I will be interested in who the judges chose.
gusgusthegreat

Con

gusgusthegreat forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by InfraRedEd 8 years ago
InfraRedEd
But the real barnburner is "Occupation 101." http://www.occupation101.com...

Did that link work?

http://www.jewsnotzionists.org...
Posted by InfraRedEd 8 years ago
InfraRedEd
Oh hi Brian. It was a terrible topic and a terrible debate. Zionism is morally indefensible. Check with your rabbi. It would be a waste of my time to repeat what the world is saying.

http://www.JewsNotZionists.org...

http://www.miftah.org...

"Inside Outside" by Herman Wouk is a good book.

Please stop reading Zionist propaganda.

You don't even want to read "The Holocaust Industry."

Gaza is the world's largest prison and human rights there isn't even a word for it. Genocide is too generous.

Ironic, isn't it? Adapting the religion of the Semitic people and killing them in the name of that religion. It's racist all the way, by and for white people. Oh pardon me mizrahim.

No I mean Ashkenazi.

Wake up.
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
Good debate both sides.

I wish I could have taken Con's place, although he diod an excellent job. Another time perhaps?
Posted by SPF 8 years ago
SPF
Allthough you did forfeit this round, I am still grateful that gusgusthegreat accepted my challenge for this debate, and I will be grateful to any one who judges this debate.
Posted by gusgusthegreat 8 years ago
gusgusthegreat
My apologies for forfeiting the last round. I missed the deadline; I didn't forfeit because I had no argument. Should have paid better attention to when exactly it ended. :P

Again, my apologies.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Dingo7 6 years ago
Dingo7
SPFgusgusthegreatTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by gusgusthegreat 7 years ago
gusgusthegreat
SPFgusgusthegreatTied
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 Danononian 8 years ago
Danononian
SPFgusgusthegreatTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Vote Placed by SPF 8 years ago
SPF
SPFgusgusthegreatTied
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 new-world-order 8 years ago
new-world-order
SPFgusgusthegreatTied
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 RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
SPFgusgusthegreatTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Vote Placed by paramore102 8 years ago
paramore102
SPFgusgusthegreatTied
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