It's probable that Palestine should it be created, will not be an enemy of israel
Debate Rounds (3)
The burden of proof is on my opponent.
Actually, I do believe all I have to do is prove that Palestine and Israel can be friends. Which, mind you, they have been many times in the past. I shall try my best.
You still have given no evidence of your claims, either. You still have to submit absolute proof that all Palestinians would be the enemy of Israel.
Because the Palestinians have always been enemies of the state of Israel.
The words Palestinians and enemies are misnomers to a certain extent, at least in this perspective. Palestine did not exist at the time you are mentioning. Around the 1830s ARABS from the area, under British Rule were called Palestinian Arabs. To give you an example of how unofficial this really was in terms of an Arabic label, many Jews were called Palestinian Jews as well. The Israel Philharmonic Orchestra was founded as the Palestine Orchestra, and The Jerusalem Post newspaper was founded as the Palestine Post.
That in and of itself is partial evidence for my stance. Albeit weak, it still brings up the point, who Palestinians really are. They could be anyone from that region, doesn't matter the creed or religion.
Already 30 years before it's establishment they made pogroms where Jews were killed and wounded, and in the 1930s (as the time was getting closer) they killed hundreds of Jews and rioted all the time.
While I can not argue the fact there were pogroms on Jewish settlers during this time. Specifically the Arab Riots - 1920-1921 and The Hebron Massacre-August 1929. We really should take a look at what was going on at that time in the area. There was the whole British rule thing (Jordan - Modern day Palestine). The start of Zionism, which pushed hard to work with Britain to take away the rights of the Arabs and ultimately was successful in many ways. All in all, around 1600 people died between both those pogroms.
As for why these events had occurred? Well, I would have to think it had something to do with the deliberate and systematic occupation and deconstruction of their culture, by the zionist movements. Mind you, I don't agree with the zionist movement, nor wahhabism.
To give you an example of "tit for tat" in the most obscure sense. Maybe The Palestinians are holding a grudge against the Israelis for massacring their own people countless times in ancient times.
The military conquest of the land of Canaan by the Hebrews in about 1200 B.C.E. is often characterized as "genocide" and has all but become emblematic of biblical violence and intolerance.
As you can see, Hebrews can be just as violent as Palestinians. And, those were all Palestinian region civilizations that they brought genocide upon. Yes, whole civilizations apparently.
When the state of Israel was created, the Palestinians began a bloody war which took 6 months for the Jews to gain the upper hand. (After that, they had to win the war against all the invading armies).
Britain was moving out at this time, and there was great uncertainty for both parties. There were skirmishes between both sides but the fact remains the war didn't really start till Egypt, Iraq and Syria attacked. They weren't there to help Palestine but rather there for their own accord and gain.
Until this day they're society is full of hate towards Israel, based on all of this (and more) I say that the Palestinians have always been enemies to the state of Israel. Therefore I say that the BOD is on you to prove that if Israel would leave the west bank and let the Palestinian make a state, the status quo would change and it would not be an enemy of Israelis.
That would honestly be speculation on my part. I can say this, though it is not the whole of Palestine that is enemies with the Whole of Israel and it's people. It is the zionist government and their "YAHOO" ways that they have a problem with. I am sure same goes for the good people of Israel and their thoughts not of the regular neighbors, cousins, but rather groups such as The Muslim Brotherhood and HEZBOLLAH. Maybe if state hood was granted, Palestine can start reliquinshing their ties to those groups because they, at that point, would have official protection from the U.N. Also, hopefully Israel wouldn't preemptively launch missiles at Palestine anymore. If they were granted statehood, Israel would be committing war crimes, if that were to occur. It also makes for better friends if one of you doesn't shoot ballistics into the other.
The argument here is not whether the Jews had the right to create their state, whether the Arab hate is justified etc.
I can't help but smile at this sentence, because if it was relevant to the debate you know they have justification.
the point here is it probable that it will stop, if the Jews create Palestine (much better had to fix that)
This is rather hard to prove but as for your case you haven't proven much either, just a pontification about Israel's human rights and Palestine's apparent lack of them. In the end, what we have is two factions trading blows over religious and ethnic issues. The only difference is, is that Israel has a really big BROTHER.
The obvious point of the debate, although it's not the subject of the debate is, That if my argument is true, than any normal country cannot be expected to be the ones to create a state which will, in all likelihood be at war her.
It is Israel that barged in and created another state where there already was one. Then they systematically subverted culture, commerce and overall basic human rights over the years.
As for peace between the two countries? I think they will be OK. I looked to see if there were any peace seeking organizations on either side and was happy to see dozens of collaborative orgs trying to figure out some semblance of peace.
On an ending note, I just want to bring up the fact of your choice of the words "enemy" and "Palestine" I will try to tackle that aspect in round two after rebutt.
The resolution of this debate is that it is probable that Palestine should it be created would not be an enemy of Israel.
Now, definition of probable.
likely to occur or prove true: He foresaw a probable business loss. He is the probable writer of the article.
having more evidence for than against, or evidence that inclines the mind to belief but leaves some room for doubt.
Now, for my opponent to prove the probability of Palestine not being an enemy of Israel"s, he would have to make one of the following two arguments. A. Demonstrate that the Arabs have not from day one been enemies of the state of Israel B. Make a case, showing what is the core of the conflict, and explain to us why the establishment of Palestine will make it go away. Simple enough.
My opponent has practically ceded the entire debate as I shall demonstrate, but first I would like to point out that it looks like my opponent made a fundamental mistake. He said quote "you still have to submit absolute proof that all Palestinians would be the enemy of Israel". I have to do no such thing, first of all I don"t have to prove that all Palestinians would do anything, the discussion here is about Palestine as a state not a few individuals (and even a few hundred thousand would be individuals for our debate, because a few hundred thousand would be overrun by the millions). Secondly if it is true that they have always been enemies to the state of Israel, then you have to prove that the status quo would change. You went on to say that you believe they can be friends, there"s a big difference between "can be friends" and will probably be friends.
Approach number one the Palestinians are not against Israel. Granted this was not my opponent"s main argument, but he did mention it so I"ll discuss it. He argued that the Jews were called Palestinians before the state of Israel was established so we can"t say the Palestinians are against Israel. While that is indeed a historical fact, the discussion of this debate is about people who presently call themselves Palestinians and regardless of the fact that anyone was called Palestinians regardless of their "creed or religion" now a day the only ones who call themselves that are Arabs not the Jews.
Now I want everyone to take special notice this was the extent of my opponent arguing that they have always been enemies of Israel, the rest of his argument (as we shall discuss in a moment) was just saying over and over again how the Arab hate is and was justified.
Approach number two things would probably change if they got a state because what was at the core of the issue has gone away. My opponent has clearly not tried arguing with the fact that the Arabs were killing the Jews from day one, from the moment they saw that the Jews actually are planning to make a state in Palestine. My opponent himself said that 1,600 Jews were murdered in these pre Israel pogroms, what did he argue, I quote "As for why these events had occurred? Well, I would have to think it had something to do with the deliberate and systematic occupation and deconstruction of their culture, by the Zionist movements. Mind you, I don't agree with the Zionist movement"" Then he went on to say that perhaps it was revenge for the wiping out of the biblical Canaanites 3,200 years ago and as he concluded "Hebrews can be just as violent as Palestinians. And, those were all Palestinian region civilizations that they brought genocide upon. Yes, whole civilizations apparently". (seriously are we to be taking this argument with a straight face).
So let me summarize, my opponent has said that the reason the Arabs kill and hate the Jews is because of the occupation and deconstruction of their culture. In other words, just like me and you don"t like when our neighborhood gets overrun by a foreign culture, so to the Arabs didn't like the fact that a totally different culture and language and religion and everything was moving in, therefore they were opposed. In other words the Arabs are opposed to the state of Israel. Now let me ask you the question, have the Arabs been able to get over this, now that 80% of Israel proper is non-Arab, have the Arabs stopped considering it an occupation. You have done nothing to show that the status quo would change, and you definitely haven"t proven that"s it will probably change.
You say that there were skirmishes, but the real war against the Jews only began with invasion from all the surrounding Arab countries. My friend that is a falsification of history, in these "skirmishes" well over a thousand people was killed. In the first 3 days from November 1947 when the UN adopted resolution 181, the Arabs had killed 60 Jews. Now it"s a historical fact that the Palestinians started the fighting, in fact the head of the Palestinians Jamal Hussein told the UN Security Council April 16 1948 quote "The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight."
My opponent went on to say that the Palestinians align themselves with the Muslim brotherhood and Hezbollah but quote "Maybe if state hood was granted, Palestine can start relinquishing their ties to those groups because they, at that point, would have official protection from the U.N". Um maybe not" he has brought nothing which would suggest that it"s probable that the status quo would change.
Then my opponent goes on to admit that it"s "very hard to prove" that things would change if they were to have a state, but that I haven"t proven much either, I ask you audience what do I have to prove other than the fact that the Palestinians have always been enemies of the state of Israel, it"s up to him to prove that, that would change after they get a state.
Now my opponent mentioned a bunch of stuff that is not relevant, but I can"t just let it go. He said quote "Also, hopefully Israel wouldn't preemptively launch missiles at Palestine anymore. If they were granted statehood, Israel would be committing war crimes, if that were to occur. It also makes for better friends if one of you doesn't shoot ballistics into the other". That"s an outrageous lie that Israel randomly launches missiles at Palestine, I presume your aware that the Palestinians of Gaza have launched well over 10,000 rockets into Israel, the idea you have that Israel has no right to respond by eliminating Hamas is ridiculous, there is not a country on earth that would show such restraint as Israel has. And indeed you mentioned a very important point indeed; Israel can"t create a country if it thinks that this country will shoot ballistics at her. The only difference from present day Gaza, being the fact that every square inch of Israel would be in range.
You went on to say quote "It is Israel that barged in and created another state where there already was one. Then they systematically subverted culture,commerce and overall basic human rights over the years". While you"re entitled to feel that the Jews had no right to come and take over the culture by becoming the majority over there. Many would strongly disagree with you and say that the Jewish and western culture is superior to Arab culture so that"s not subversion. And in regards to commerce I"m sure you"re aware that the country is the most comfortable country in the Middle East in all aspects. And in respect to human rights all citizens of Israel including the Arabs have more rights than any Arab country in the Middle East.
Finally I would like to give a link for all those reading this debate. The website will show you how the PA, the official government of the Palestinians, systematically teaches hate and destruction of Israel, openly in their schools and in their media, they don"t believe in the right of Israel to exist even in the pre-67 borders. http://www.palwatch.org...
Now I could have spent this whole round demonstrating how the Arabs were violently opposed to the state of Israel from day one, and have been continuously so, since its creation. But I didn"t find it necessary at all, because my opponent wasn"t arguing that point, on the contrary he himself discussed it openly. Now let us see if he can make a argument, not speculation and conjecture, why we should believe that Palestine will not be an enemy of Israel should it be created.
Let's all keep in mind, the debate here is not whether the Arabs are justified, the discussion is whether they will or will not be enemies of Israel.
nicraM forfeited this round.
Just to clarify my position, i say that if Israel were to create a state of Palestine it would be an enemy state to Israel. The reason for that is, because the root of the conflict has nothing to do with the "occupied territory", as can be proven in numerous ways. But the method of proof that I've been going with in this debate is a few simple facts A. the Arabs made dozens of pogroms throughout the 1920s and 30s and killed hundreds upon hundreds of Jews because they were against a state being established in that area. B.after the partition plan was made (in which parenthetically most of the territory given to Israel was the desert in the south which until today is basically not settled) the Arabs rejected the plan and fought a bloody war in which 6,000 Jews were killed. C.There was terrorism throughout the 1950s and 60s before the "occupied territories" and the greatest terrorist organization of all the PLO "Palestinian liberation organization" was established in the year 1964 three years before the 6 day war.
So the way i see it, there is no good reason for Israel to assume that it wont be a enemy, pro terrorism state. The point of course being that i believe that Israel has a moral obligation to it's children to never g-d forbid create a Palestinian state, because the first obligation and mission of a government is to keep it's citizens safe.
nicraM forfeited this round.
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.