The Instigator
PatulousDescry
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Avenger
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

It was right to create Israel in 1948

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 1 vote the winner is...
Avenger
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 12/9/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 962 times Debate No: 66669
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (1)

 

PatulousDescry

Con

The United Nations had no right to create the state of Israel.
Avenger

Pro

I accept this debate and I wish good luck to my opponent. I will be defending the claim that it was right for the international community to establish Israel as a nation-state after the horrors of the Holocaust during World War 2. I will also make the claim that the United Nations had every right to create the State of Israel partially because that is one of the jobs that the United Nations was created for. I will be looking forward to what you have to say on this issue.
Debate Round No. 1
PatulousDescry

Con

To say that the international community established Israel is remiss and ignorant of the rampant racism that was the driving force behind the abomination we call Israel. The so called "International Community" was less than half the planet. The vote came from the white nations plus a token vote from Guatemala. These white nations were all too eager to rid themselves of their remaining Jews. The white European Jewish Zionists by all definitions were also extremely racist made clear by their claim of superior rights to deed of land over the native Semitic peoples who held deeds that were centuries old handed down by direct ancestry. The only way to create a Jewish theocracy in the Holy Land was to relocate the Semitic Arabs just as the Americans carried out "Gods Will" in the century of manifest destiny. Relocation by force of a specific race is by definition "Ethnic cleansing". If one can overcome their cognitive dissonance and come to terms with this fact of ethnic cleansing the argument is over. For those whose ego refuses to let them see where they are wrong I will have to continue to explain. Ethnic cleansing is wrong not right and no one for any reason has a right to commit the crime of ethnic cleansing. The terrible injustice of the holocaust committed by white "Christian" Europeans does not make it right to go dispossess Brown Semitic Muslims of their Farms, Pastures, Wells, Villages, Livelihoods, Homes and so much more. Neither does the 2000 year old Diaspora caused by Italian imperialists give Zionists the right to dispossess Semitic Muslims. The Holocaust might have given the Zionists a right to create their theocracy in the Rhineland or somewhere in Europe but that was idea was quickly crushed claiming mythological reasons but I will refer you to fact that the racist western world still wanted to be rid of their Jews. Furthermore if you want to hold a couple of UN resolutions to justify the crime of ethnic cleansing you should read them. I have read the resolutions and they have a clause that required the Zionists to pay for property they took over from native Semitic Muslims or to allow the Natives to return home. The Zionists have done neither so the resolutions are null and void.
Avenger

Pro

First: White nations were eager to rid themselves of their remaining Jews.
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.
Debate Round No. 2
PatulousDescry

Con

You view the creation of Israel as if it were a board game. You fail to realize that this story is about the suffering of millions. Millions of Human Beings. Millions of souls. One man, one woman, one child at a time. Millions of times over. I will repeat, in order to create a Jewish theocracy in the Holy Land it was necessary to move close to a million native Semitic Arabs from the villages of their birth because of their religion. That is by definition "Ethnic Cleansing" For every White European Jew that migrated thousands of miles from the land of their birth an indigenous Semitic Arab family was forced on to a reservation. With great bigotry you believe that other Semitic Arabs in places like Lebanon, Syria, Egypt... should take these now penniless refugees in just because they have the same skin color. You look at this story as one of princes kings and empires. The real story is one of Mothers fathers and their children. It is a story of families suffering the crime of ethnic cleansing. Families who were born on land that they were brutally dispossessed of. Land of their parents...Their Grandparents...Their Great Grandparents and on and on. That is what being a native is. These native families had title to their homes directly, clearly, indisputably. Just as the Israelis were Native Europeans falsely claiming to be Semitic. Being Semitic is about race not religion. Religion isn't race. I could convert to Buddhism but my descendants will never be Tibetan even though my great grandfather had a slim Asian heritage that might show up in my DNA. Bigots label these native people by laying a discriminatory nationalist name on them in effort to paint them as squatters but the truth is that each individual of the masses who you believe were rightfully cleansed from their homes were native and had birth rights.

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.
Avenger

Pro

Second: Creation of Israel: A board game?
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.

3. Dispossession?
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.
Debate Round No. 3
PatulousDescry

Con

You look at this tragedy like it is a board game. You say the mass illegal immigration of Europeans to the Holy Land against the democratic will of the native peoples is OK because the foul pigs Lord Balfour and Lord Rothschild declared it so. You say "They won the war, they control the land, they can divvy it up anyway they want to" You see it as a those with the most fire power must be right. I see it as a atrocity against human beings.

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?
Avenger

Pro

1. "Those with the most fire power must be right"
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.

2. Migration
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.

3. Terror
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.

4. Gaza
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.

5. Ancestors
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.
Debate Round No. 4
PatulousDescry

Con

PatulousDescry forfeited this round.
Avenger

Pro

Seeing that my opponent has been unable to reply for this last segment I will not further develop my argument. Instead I will highlight some reasons as to why one should vote for my side.

1. Conduct
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.

3. Organization
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.
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
One of you may want to post this debate here: http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Avenger 2 years ago
Avenger
First, it is against the rules to continue a debate when I had the last word on the debate round. You may have had a long week-end but that is too bad for you. I was trying to be nice by allowing the final part of your debate to be ruled out. By adding on to your debate and responding to my last argument, that is agains the rules. Now I don't care if Belfour was bloody or pigish to you. You have no right in a respectful debate sight to go off on a tangent on how much you hate him. I don't care if you think Israel is an abomination but it gives you no right to go off on a tangent about that as well. Use language that respects both sides, because both sides have a case. If you want to blow off steam go do it somewhere else. Now please stop filling the comment section with your arguments on my final position, which your not allowed to respond to anyway.
Posted by PatulousDescry 2 years ago
PatulousDescry
It is things like this that gives an entity an appropriate description of abomination http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by PatulousDescry 2 years ago
PatulousDescry
Bloody Balfour was a person who consumed a great deal at the expense of the masses. He earned the nickname Bloody Balfour. There was not a war that he want not for sending other peoples children off to. I don't think adding pig to his name was over the top. Yes derogatory you got me there. However the others were merely pertinent facts. The immigrants were "White European Jewish Zionists" who claim to be Semitic and yes that claim is laughable and if you choose to ignore such facts well that is by definition Ignorant. The brutal implementation caused much hate the very definition of abomination. If you don't like the definition of the words in your mother tongue that is indeed a problem that only you can overcome. You are right the debate should not be carried on here so I presume you will leave it at that.
Posted by Avenger 2 years ago
Avenger
First, the debate should not be carried on in the comment section. You called Lord Belfour a pig. You called Israel an abomination. You continually use words like White Jewish European Zionists in a derogatory manner. You also called him a bloodthirsty, British brat. You have also called me ignorant and my facts as laughable. Now let us stop continuing this debate in the chat. That is not what it is meant for.
Posted by Avenger 2 years ago
Avenger
First, the debate should not be carried on in the comment section. You called Lord Belfour a pig. You called Israel an abomination. You continually use words like White Jewish European Zionists in a derogatory manner. You also called him a bloodthirsty, British brat. You have also called me ignorant and my facts as laughable. Now let us stop continuing this debate in the chat. That is not what it is meant for.
Posted by PatulousDescry 2 years ago
PatulousDescry
Yes Europe committed the crime of the holocaust. That does not justify ethnic cleansing on the other side of the sea. To think than you expedite the mass immigration of millions of European Jews into that small plot of land, create a Jewish State and not displace natives is ludicrous. If the holocaust gives reason to create a Jewish State then Israel should have bee carved out somewhere in Europe at the expense of European natives.
Posted by PatulousDescry 2 years ago
PatulousDescry
We agreed that all parties who were dispossessed of their homes should be compensated for that property by the current residents. Avenger failed to respond to my wise suggestion that our nation should cease assistance to all nations who owe reparations.
Posted by PatulousDescry 2 years ago
PatulousDescry
What statements were "Slightly Disrespectful" or "Almost Racist"? You really should have provided at least one example. I have debated Zionists before and when I point out their actions and make them feel uncomfortable they retreat to their cocoon of "Its Racism"
Posted by Avenger 2 years ago
Avenger
That's fine, I propose that a forfeiture of the final round should not be a reason to vote against Patulous Descry.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by salam.morcos 2 years ago
salam.morcos
PatulousDescryAvenger
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
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.