It was right to create Israel in 1948
Debate Rounds (5)
Most white nations did not even have any programs that were racist towards Jews in the first place. In fact the desire for a Jewish state IN palestine came from a Zionist organization Before the war even started, this was the Bitmore program of 1942. The final United Nations partition plan also called for an Arab and Jewish state to be created, since Britain controlled most of the area. Israel also got the short end of the stick in this region, and actually got less land than the Arabs around them. So in fact the Jews came to the "white" nations first not the other way around. The Jews were also not forced out of America or Britain but chose whether or not to leave their respective countries. The argument you are making appears to be more hate- filled than fact-filled.
Second: Territory controlled by a country can be dwelt with however that country sees fit.
Since Britain controlled the land that included this new Israeli state they could divvy up the territory however they wanted. This is a common practice that countries have followed for centuries. This is not ethnic relocation but the division of territory into distinct provinces, just like the United States split up their lands into States at the governments discretion. This is not right or wrong it is merely a right given to a nation state. If the Arabs had their own country in the region and had it taken away than that would be wrong but this is clearly not the case.
Third: Your 2000 year old Diaspora proves the point that Jews lived in this area once and are merely returning for their share of the land
The division of this new Jewish state actually gave the Jews the worst arable land and resources of the region. It was only when all the Arab nations decided to kick them out through war that the Jews were able to expand their lands. The hatred that the Arabs had for the Jews is prevalent throughout history and has caused the Jews many causes of pain. I am also insulted that you believe me to have no knowledge of this subject and tend to think that I have not read these UN resolutions. Sadly you are mistaken. The fact is the Jews had no chance to repay the Arabs for their land and possessions because they were too busy fighting to stay alive. After the war it is only logical that a nation that just averted disaster would not want to pay their attackers for their lost possessions.
Fourth: You claim Arabs were Natives to this Land
Palestine has traded hands multiple times and who is native to which region is rather fuzzy. However, both these people groups lived in this area and both have a right to some part of this land. The term Palestinian actually originated in Rome, and the romans called the Jews Palestinians! Arabs may have been Native to some of this land but the Jews also have land rights as well because they too were native to this land.
Fifth: Your apparent rage against the Jewish and white races
Throughout this debate you have acted in a racist and arrogant manner towards the Jewish and Caucasian people groups by calling them racist and Ethnic cleansers. This ad homonym attack against these people groups should be a clear representation of your reason for not wanting a Jewish State. I am not trying to be mean-spirited but your tone does come off as a little angry and malicious.
Sixth: lack of evidence
The BOP is on you to explain why the Jewish state does not have a right to be in the Middle East. You have not made a convincing case so far as to why the status quo should be upset. You claim that the Jews were moved for racist intentions yet you do not give facts to back up your claims. You also claim that Americans wanted to displace Arabs but have no evidence for this. On the contrary, America was not as involved in the proceedings as say Britain or other European nations. One must look at the Balfour Declaration and Israeli ties to the land before we rule them out.
My burden of proof that the creation of Israel in 1948 was wrong has been met. It is undeniable that removing native families from the villages of their birth was necessary in that densely populated land to make room for emigrating European Jews. Dispossessing masses of innocent families is wrong and wrong is never right.
Avenger says "Your 2000 year old Diaspora proves the point that Jews lived in this area once and are merely returning for their share of the land" If so much blood was not shed over this pathetic rationalization for theft it would be laughable. Zionists have a twisted view of time and occupancy. When a family has lived continuously in a village for centuries Zionists see that as meaningless. When a Family has not lived in a village for 2000 years they claim that gives them title to the homes of the residing families. What terrible suffering has ensued as a result of such erroneous logic wrought of ignorance, selfishness and immoral minds. How can you justify a man traveling thousands of miles from the land of his birth, walk onto a farm and tell the occupants of that land "I might possibly have had an ancestor who by some slim chance, one in a trillion, might possibly have owned your farm and was dispossessed of it by Italian imperialists." Pathetic.
To hold up the Balfour declaration as a document that makes the violent insert of a nonexistent state into an already populated land is laughable. Just because some bloodthirsty spoiled British brat, Lord Balfour, and his creepy banker friend, Lord Rothschild, declare something doesn't make it right.
All the nations that directly took part in the Holocaust and the ones that sent boatloads of Jewish refugees back to Europe knowing that their fate was abysmal voted in favor of creating the 1948 state of Israel. A theocracy where the white Jews could emigrate to thus leaving their homeland. Andrew Jackson declared that North Carolina was for White people, Indians excluded, Trail of Tears. That didn't make it right.
The chance to pay the refugees for their land is now. They are still alive and should be compensated.
First I would like to establish that the Jewish peoples did not desire to displace any Palestinians or create a theocracy under the Balfor Declaration. In fact Israel merely wanted some land in the area for Jewish peoples to migrate to. Therefore a Jewish theocracy was not thought of and actually the current Jewish state is not a theocracy. Iran is a theocracy, Israel is not. ISIS is a theocracy, Israel is not. I would also like to make the claim that Millions of people were hurt on both sides of this conflict. The blood of the Jews and the Arabs have been spilled for this land, and it is only right for both parties to have a piece of it. Also, the Palestinians were not forced out of their homes at all when this Jewish state was created. It was only after the 1948 war that Palestinians were forced to move, in order to a.)prevent another war White Jews were also not the only people to move to Israel. In fact there were already native Israelis in the region before this nation was created. So to claim that the Israelis are responsible for ethnic cleansing is unjust. In fact many Arabs today that live in Israel say that the Jewish state should remain its own country, and that is one of the best countries in the world.
2. Emotional Appeal
You claim that this is not a story of Empires and Kings; and you would be correct. When one looks at the Arab-Israeli conflict, one sees immense emotional pain on both sides of the spectrum. However, one must look at the numbers before we let our emotions of one event cloud our judgment. I will agree that arabs were displaced by Israelis after the war ended, however, this number is not in the millions, and is actually 700,000. Now when we must compare these numbers to the deaths of the Israelis that were killed by Arabs during the time period where Arab empires ruled. The fact is, during these periods of time Israelis were not displaced but killed. The brutality of the Arab world against the Jews is a horror to behold. I see Israelites being killed not displaced. Yes the tragedy of this time is hard to bear, but we must look at the circumstances of the times. You claim that Arabs stayed out of the holocaust, but during that time Hitler received letters from multiple Arab nations congratulating his actions! I have already addressed why the Jews did not over compensation for the homes of those that were displaced. The reason is is that a war occurred that severed any ties of peace between these two groups. Arabs have their own forms of disregard for Jewish life. This is why Jews and Arabs have a right to the land in this area. It is because the families of these peoples are connected to the land. Just because they were forced out of the land by Arabs and Romans does not mean they don't' deserve any of it.
The Jews did not displace the Arabs until AFTER THE WAR. That was because the Palestinians were trying to kill the Jews! This new Jewish state did not call for displacement, it just confirmed that a piece of land should be set aside for the Jewish people to settle. What you claim about this Italian Imperialist analogy is false. People did not just move into and take land away from the Palestinians. You make the Palestinian peoples out to be angels who have done no wrong in this conflict. Well the fact is, they killed and abused the Jews living in the region as well. However, I would like to stress that this was not a forced occupation until the Arabs forced the hands of the Jews. This family also does not have a 1 in a trillion chance of being a blood ancestor. All Jews originated from this region! They are all connected in some form or another.
We must not let bigotry or anger cloud our judgment. Reparation should be due, but let us remember that both parties are at fault for differing acts of anger against the other, and both deserve a right to this section of the globe.
You wrote "In fact Israel merely wanted some land in the area for Jewish peoples to migrate to" LOL.... "Merely" wanted some land for White European Jewish immigrants in heavily populated place. Lol...what did they plan to do with the natives? You cant pour a pint of whiskey into an 8 ounce cup already full of soda and not have a mess. There was not enough resources for the natives and the Jewish immigrants to live comfortably side by side. I am sure you are also clueless to Israel's need for a Jewish majority so that they can fake a democratic theocracy. To call Israel a "Jewish State" is to say "Israel is a theocracy". When a state denies millions of people their right to vote in the land of their birth it takes a severe lack of intellect to think of that state as a democracy. Millions of Semitic Arabs should be voting inside Israel. Israel's wish to remain a "Jewish State" is why those poor souls are concentrated into ghettos disallowed to return to the villages of their birth. Israeli quote "Demographics necessary to have a Jewish state". Israel freely admits this as a primary reason for keeping the land cleansed of a strategic number of Semitic Arabs. Israel leaves a token number, a calculated minority, of Semitic Muslims as part of their democratic facade.
You claim that no one was dispossessed and displaced before the war of 1948. It doesn't take knowledge to see the Zionist farce here. First of all the natives of any land have a democratic existential right to limit immigration and the natives said no. Just as we do to immigrants in the United States. The natives told the Europeans "NO!" and the Zionists responded with terrorism. European Zionists used terror to cleanse villages of Semitic Arabs long before 1948 then settled the land with any paupered Jew they could find. The settlers were mostly White European Jews. The British tried to stop the Zionist terror at a great cost to themselves. These truths are easily confirmed. The surrounding Arab nations stayed back as long as the British worked to stop the Jewish terrorists. As a result of the UN declaring that the terrorists will have a clearly defined sector of the Holy Land. The British protection of the human rights of the Semitic Arabs instantly became nonexistent and the neighboring states stepped in. I do not dispute that the neighboring states had ulterior motives other than protection of the native peoples.
Even after I have enlightened you on the slim chance, one in a trillion, that a Jewish Immigrant actually had an ancestor who might have had title (probability not) to the land violently seized and settled on by the immigrant. Whereas the Semitic Palestinian born on said land and is suffering in the Warsaw Ghetto...oops I mean Gaza Ghetto. This dispossessed Semitic Palestinian has without doubt title to specific property. What don't you get about the difference between "2000 years ago" and "Currently". Or the difference between assumption and actuality. The Palestinians actually had ancestors live on, hold title and deed to, and in 1948 currently lived on specific tracts of land that was violently taken from them. You argue this?
You say "All Jews originated from this region!" Once again religion is not race. After 2000 years of mixing with European blood you become a white guy not a Semite.
You say Reparations are due from both sides. Agreed. So lets stop selling arms or giving any fiscal support to either until every displaced person is fairly compensated for their property. Agreed?
This claim is flawed in several respects. First, it was not the Jews who attacked the Arabs, but the other way around. The land that Israel received was rather small in respect to what was given to the Arabs and Palestinians. The U.N. Resolution called for land to be given to all the people groups in the region. However, due to the anger that the Arabs have for the Jewish people war was declared in order to wipe this new nation off the map. The Jews won (fighting a defensive battle) and then (rightly) extended their territory to promote better security. You can see from the map I posted in the comments section that the land given to the Jews was rather small, and it did not include as many heavily populated areas as you may think. In fact the Arabs initially received better land than the Israelis did.
You continually harp on the fact that the Jews that migrated were white and European. Many of them were, but others came from America, South America, Asia, and North Africa. This is a vast people group that was spread across the entire globe, not just Europe. You also make the claim that the land was already filled to the brim with populated areas. This is simple false. Palestinians were initially allowed to become citizens of the new Jewish state. However, instead of staying many Palestinians simply fled or did not desire to be a part of the new country. In fact many scholars and newspapers of the time state that Arab leaders were responsible for some of the evacuation of the Palestinans from their homes; in fact, A 3 May 1948 Time magazine article attributed the exodus from the city of Haifa to fear, Arab orders to leave and a Jewish assault.The Economist attributed the exodus from Haifa to orders to leave from the Higher Arab Executive as well as expulsion by Jewish troops. Other historians also make claims that the Palestinian exodus was not as black and white as you make it out to be. So before we completely pass all blame to the Jews let us look at this situation in a more un-biased light.
I don't know where you are getting your information that Jews were committing acts of terror before 1948, but I would like to point out that Jews were actually getting displaced and abused in this region more than the Arabs were! The Arabs actually acted in prejudice against their Jewish neighbors. One cannot put all blame on one people group in the region. We must look to the fact that both groups have committed atrocity on a similar scale throughout history, and both should receive nation-states. This would have occurred much sooner if the Palestinians did not declare war on the Jews. There were many other options available to come to terms with this new nation-state besides war and terror. However, the Arabs immediately went to the most peaceful option.
Gaza was actually created decades after the war of 1948, before this time the Arabs had control of a much larger area under the U.N. resolution. However, with a declaration of war comes loss of land if one loses, and therefore the Gaza strip was eventually created after years of land lost from wars that the Palestinians instigated.
Israelis also held property in the region as well during this time. It was not purely Palestinian. I would also like to point out that if someone is ripped away from their homeland, and forced to assimilate it is very difficult to not have a common country or culture to move to. The Holocaust created an example for the world that the Jews needed a safe haven from atrocity and racial attack. This was not a desire to "kick Palestinians out" but to establish a safe haven for which to protect themselves from the dangers of a world that simply despises Jews.
This is not a black and white issue. Reparation was required, but stained by war. One side is not in the right anymore than the other. What is right is to establish a place for both races to call home.
PatulousDescry forfeited this round.
I would like to point out my opponents harsh, almost racist words towards Jews and other Europeans who have worked towards a Jewish state. The style with which my opponent has conducted himself is not appropriate for this conversation. I would not like to claim that an ad homonym fallacy is present, I would merely like to propose that my opponent has been slightly disrespectful towards the opposing side. For this reason I would like to make the claim that the points for conduct should go to my side of the argument. Instead of ultimately condoning all of Israel's actions I attempted to give each side the benefit of the doubt, and propose two established states in the region to compensate for the loses on both sides. I believe that the creation of Israel was correct, due to the fact that the Israelis have some say in how the land should be dived up since they lived there as well.
2. Control of the Debate
I would also like to make the claim that I controlled what elements of the debate where highlighted. My opponent continually played defense, and was unable to steer the debate towards his arguments. The lack of control of the debate on my opponents part should allow some consideration to be made for my side. Since the BOP was on both of us in this debate, my opponent was unable to mount an offensive for his position which ultimately left him only trying to refute my BOP without establishing a BOP of his own. For this reason I believe that the debate should go to the Affirmative side.
My debate had organized points, that described the topics that were going to be hit in the proceeding paragraphs. Seeing that organization is not a major issue in this debate I will not hit on it very much. However, it still should be considered in an overall evaluation.
4. My side established a compromise
The affirmative side of the argument (me) established a way for both nations to have parts of the region in order to appeal to both people groups. Simply declaring that Israel is wrong and is a Ethnic cleansing nation does not equate to actual fact. Both groups are not innocent in this conflict, and both should have established states of control within this region. My opponent merely is trying to establish that Israel has not right at all to establish a state in the region, even after the Israeli people lived for thousands of years in the region. My opponent has even agreed with part of my compromise by calling for reparation from both sides. However, years of war and strife between these two peoples has caused a rift that cannot be fixed. The United Nations is the only place to fully create two states that create peace in the region.
5. Emotional Appeal
We must not forget the strife of the Israeli people after the Holocaust. A region for their protection was well deserved after the strife Germany caused them. Millions of Jews were displaced due to the Holocaust, and a nation was needed to harbor these souls. We must remember that Israel allowed Palestinians to live side by side with Israelis. This was not a nation of theocratic rules, but a nation bent on making freedom its aim for not only Israelis, but also for Arabs. Let us look past the conflict and peer at the nation-state that is Israel. It is a nation of democracy in the midst of nations that are hell-bent on wiping countries off the map simply because they have a different religion. Israel has been a stabilizing force, but it also needs to understand that the Palestinians deserve Gaza and the West Bank as their own homeland as well.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by salam.morcos 1 year ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Con's conduct was not acceptable and borders on racism. He also forfeited the last round. Pro's arguments are more concrete and concise. Con could have done a better job by stating more facts, and less emotions. He could have used other examples where the UN acted differently, but he failed to do so. Pro wins the debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.