The Instigator
A341
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
AlternativeDavid
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Palestine Should be Recognised by the United Nations as an Independent Nation

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 2 votes the winner is...
A341
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/26/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 674 times Debate No: 60944
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

A341

Pro

Definition:

Palestine: The land inside the 1967 borders.

First round is for acceptance only.
AlternativeDavid

Con

I accept this debate. Pro has the burden of proof to show that the United Nations should recognize Palestine using the 1967 borders as seen here: http://psc.handsupstaging.com...
Debate Round No. 1
A341

Pro

Ending the Rule of Hamas

When a nation is cut off from the outside world they tend to develop a (partially accurate) sense of isolation. This leads the people to become much more extreme in ideology [1] which in the case of Palestine has lead to the popularisation of Hamas. If Palestine was to become less diplomatically isolated through membership of the UN there is a good chance that Hamas would be out of power in Gaza, the rocket attacks on Israel would decrease and stop. This would mean that Israel would have no excuse for an invasion of Gaza every couple of years.

Giving the Palestinian People a Voice

Currently Palestinian is a sort of political football especially for some of the more radical Islamic nations. Giving Palestine the right to speak for itself during UN proceedings that directly effect it could change how things are done and help put an end to the violence.



[1] http://www.brynmawr.edu...
AlternativeDavid

Con

"When a nation is cut off from the outside world they tend to develop a (partially accurate) sense of isolation. This leads the people to become much more extreme in ideology."

Can I get examples of this beyond the current situation? One example does not prove anything. If anything Palestine is an outlier. The Native Americans did not have an extreme ideology, and nobody beats them when it comes to isolation [1].

"If Palestine was to become less diplomatically isolated through membership of the UN there is a good chance that Hamas would be out of power in Gaza, the rocket attacks on Israel would decrease and stop. "

This is pure speculation. The people in the area have been fighting over that piece of land for many thousands of years [2]. There's no reason to think it would stop just because somebody got more representation at the UN.

"Giving Palestine the right to speak for itself during UN proceedings that directly effect it could change how things are done and help put an end to the violence."

It could also cause the end of the universe. Stop making speculations without backing them up.

[1] http://www.cabrillo.edu...
[2] http://www.accessv.com...
Debate Round No. 2
A341

Pro

"Can I get examples of this beyond the current situation? One example does not prove anything. If anything Palestine is an outlier. The Native Americans did not have an extreme ideology, and nobody beats them when it comes to isolation"

Now I did link you to an academic paper on the subject [1] which I though would be enough but sure I can provide some examples if you want.

After 1919 Germany was cut off from much of the rest of Europe. The treaty of Versailles humiliated Germany and made its people feel like they were being isolated. During this period an extreme form of national socialism flourished in Germany and in 1933 Adolf Hitler came to power [2]. Is that a good enough example?

What about the Sunni population in Iraq who were cut off from political power after the US lead invasion [3]? Many of them are now welcoming the jihadist forces of the Islamic State as they swallow up more territory [4] .

Are either of these examples plus the academic paper good enough for you?

"This is pure speculation."

Not it's not pure speculation if (and I hope you do now) you accept that diplomatic isolationism leads to extreme ideology then you can see there is some sense in reducing the diplomatic isolation of a country that is rapidly sliding towards extremism [5].

"The people in the area have been fighting over that piece of land for many thousands of years."

The source you used to back this up was a questionable link to questionable fundamentalist Christian webpage about a war that experts seem to agree never happened [6]. In reality outremer has had a relatively peaceful history, at least from between its conquest by the Ottoman empire 1516 and the first world war.

"There's no reason to think it would stop just because somebody got more representation at the UN."

Well again we come back to the point that diplomatic isolation begets extremism.

"It could also cause the end of the universe. Stop making speculations without backing them up."

My point was that "Giving Palestine the right to speak for itself during UN proceedings that directly effect it could change how things are done and help put an end to the violence." Now lets see, if there is anything to back up my point. In 1971 the PRC was given UN representation. Five years later the cultural revolution was over [8] and the PRC started taking the first tentative steps towards modernisation.

Regardless you have not provided and arguments as to why Palestine should not be given UN representation. I know that you do not need to as I have burden of proof but I would like to see what you have supporting you.

[1]http://www.brynmawr.edu...

[2] http://hsc.csu.edu.au...]

[3] http://www.vox.com...

[4] http://www.thedailybeast.com... (While this article is about how the Islamic State may have its population turn against it in the future the most important sentence for my purposes is "The support of local Sunni Muslims has paved the way for the ISIS conquests in Syria and Iraq."

[5] http://foreignpolicyblogs.com...

[6] http://ehrmanblog.org...

[7] http://oaks.nvg.org...

[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...
AlternativeDavid

Con

AlternativeDavid forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
A341

Pro

I'll wait.
AlternativeDavid

Con

AlternativeDavid forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
A341

Pro

Could any voters please vote based on the first 3 rounds and ignore the forfeiture.
AlternativeDavid

Con

AlternativeDavid forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by BennyW 2 years ago
BennyW
It actually already is and has been since 1988. However no time before that was it a nation.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
I agree, Then when palistine lobs missles into Israel, Israel can then declare war on them and wipe them out.
Posted by ruthpumarejo 2 years ago
ruthpumarejo
Well this should be interesting. A war going on for 60 years hasn't ended yet. Sigh.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
A341AlternativeDavidTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Much as I agree with Con that there is some speculation occurring in Pro's case, he gives me no reason to believe that recognition would be harmful, nor does he argue for any separate outcome beyond a net 0. Even if I buy that there's some likelihood of recognition doing nothing, I'm also buying that there's some likelihood that they are made more moderate as a result. If I'm buying that to any extent at all, Pro wins the debate due to the lack of offense from Con. I do buy it, and therefore I vote Pro. Conduct to Pro as well for the forfeits. I've also afforded Pro sources because both of Con's sources do nothing to benefit his case and seem off topic, while Pro presents a number of relevant sources.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
A341AlternativeDavidTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture