The Instigator
debate-a-doom
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
PurpleDrink
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Palestine should be pressured regarding a peace treaty and land division rather than Israel

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 3 votes the winner is...
PurpleDrink
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/20/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,541 times Debate No: 31487
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

debate-a-doom

Pro

Please pick up this debate if you know what Israel is, and if you are familiar with the situation.

I believe that the current situation in the middle east regarding Israel-Palestine, is that Israelis are misunderstood and attacked globally. Israel is a new state trying to protect itself, it has offered a few divisions several of times, but Palestine, controlled by terrorists, is not willing to take any offer other than them getting such a large amount of land, that Israel just can not give. In fact, it would have to evict a very large amount of it's current citizens in order to do such a thing.

Israel was not in the right to take what was given to Palestinians in the UN division of 48, but that was 65 years ago. We need to find a new solution and move on from our past. In the new situation Israel can't give everything back, it is willing to compromise some lands, but Palestine is not cooperating, therefore global pressure should be placed on the Palestinians and not on Israel.
PurpleDrink

Con

In using the word "should" in the resolution, I'm assuming you're referring to morality. I am not experienced at formally debating morality, (or formally debating at all for that matter), but I will attempt to appeal to the sense of justice and morality that I think most of the readers have within them.

"Palestine, controlled by terrorists, is not willing to take any offer other than them getting such a large amount of land, that Israel just can not give. In fact, it would have to evict a very large amount of it's current citizens in order to do such a thing.... Israel was not in the right to take what was given to Palestinians in the UN division of 48, but that was 65 years ago."

First I want to make it clear that the division "gave" land to Israel just it "gave" land to Palestine.

There is no proof that Israel "can not" give them the occupied land back and even you admit that it was immoral for them to encroach in the first place (which was done using military force). Their encroachments are considered illegal, even today by the UN. Furthermore, encroachments are still ongoing [http://www.npr.org...], which is not at all conducive to negotiations.

"Israel is willing to compromise some lands, but Palestine is not cooperating."

As you have admitted, the land already belongs to the Palestinians so any compromise would be entirely a loss for the Palestinians and entirely a gain for Israel. From that perspective, it is not a compromise where losses and gains are shared. All the while, Israel blaming the victim for being unreasonable with Israel behaving as if the encroached upon land is not occupied illegally by Israel, but rather in dispute and open to negotiation with Israeli allowing or giving Palestine something. This reasonably causes Palestine to be offended.

Furthermore, the "compromises" offered thus far by the Israel are crippling to Palestine. They deny access to fresh water (they already control the regions water supply allowing Palestine much less water than themselves http://www.amnesty.org...) and reasonable movement. I don't believe it would be prudent for the Palestinians to accept such terms and it is reasonable for one to even by offended by such terms as from their perspective Israel stole from them and then made a peace offer that makes gives Israel all they need and leaves Palestine crippled.

By analogy, this is like Cartman from South Park eating up all the KFC Chicken skin which was to be shared with his friends then offering a compromise by allowing his friends to have all the "chicken parts". As Kyle (who ironically is a Jew) pointed out, the skin is the best part [https://www.youtube.com...].
Debate Round No. 1
debate-a-doom

Pro

map of Israel today (there is a note where Gaza is)
http://www.google.co.il...
what Palestinians are asking for - the UN division of 47
http://upload.wikimedia.org...

it's important to know that the bottom part of the map is mostly a desert and not populated. the middle and top parts of the map are largely populated, 5,978,600 are Jews. http://en.wikipedia.org... the size of Israel is 8,019 / 8,522 sq miles http://en.wikipedia.org... which is note very very tiny.

"As you have admitted, the land already belongs to the Palestinians so any compromise would be entirely a loss for the Palestinians and entirely a gain for Israel." - I don't know what you mean.. the compromise would be on the Israeli side, the land is largely Israel's.
" Israel behaving as if the encroached upon land is not occupied illegally by Israel," if you are speaking of the settlements, they are not the major issue, and most small settlements are negotiable by Israel to give to the Palestinians. What makes that land "rightly the palestinian's" anyway?

Israel is controlling Palestine's water because currently it is not a country. Terrorist groups shoot missiles towards Israeli civilians, and to pressure them to stop Israel controls their water supplies, not to an inhumane level, and sometimes that's only what works. It's far better than throwing random bombs at them, don't you think? It is not relevant to the peace treaty in any way.

You have at no point shown me why this land belongs to the Palestinian. Not only have Israelis lived on this land for 65 years now, had about two or three generations there, developed the land technologically, and let it bloom, they have been given most of what is now Israel by the UN, and to some extent have a historical right over the land which was their thousands of years ago, and taken away from them by many different people. Also, this is their shelter from antisemitism, Israel was funded right after and from survivors of the terrible holocaust. It is the only way Jewish people feel completely safe. Even if they don't live there, Israel helps and supports Jews all around the world, it is the Jewish shelter and there is only one of those. There are a real lot of other Arabic-Muslim countries that could take in the Palestinians.
http://www.arabisraeliconflict.info...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
PurpleDrink

Con

Your current map of Israel is from Israel-Apartments.net. The 2nd map you posted, which is what Palestine is asking for is actually the current legal map of Israel/Palestine as defined by UN Resolutions. Because Israel refuses to acknowledge it and breaks international law to use military force to occupy Palestinian land does not make the legal map change.

"What makes that land "rightly the palestinian's" anyway?"

The UN Partition you mentioned in your opening argument. Under modern international law, military expansionism is considered immoral, and anyone partaking in it is (in theory) morally wrong.

"Israel is controlling Palestine's water because currently it is not a country."

I disagree. They are a country. One that's being occupied and harassed, but yes they are a country as recognized by the UN. Now, YOU might not recognize them as a country, but fortunately for them, your beliefs do not deprive them of their nationhood.

"And to some extent have a historical right over the land which was their thousands of years ago, and taken away from them by many different people."

There are differing viewpoints on this point, but I will stick to international law for determining legal right to possession in the modern world, and that is defined by UN Partition and resolutions, of which Israel has broken many. [http://www.ifamericansknew.org...]

"Terrorist groups shoot missiles towards Israeli civilians, and to pressure them to stop Israel controls their water supplies, not to an inhumane level, and sometimes that's only what works. It's far better than throwing random bombs at them, don't you think? It is not relevant to the peace treaty in any way."

Many more Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces than by Palestinians, who have a right to defend against in invading force. http://www.telegraph.co.uk.... There were evils and acts of "terrorism" committed by both sides.

Water control is relevant. Israel "should" be pressured to stop stealing water to create a better tone for negotiating peace. They are the aggressors at this point, and need to withdraw and return occupied territories and share resources that belong equally to both parties in order to begin negotiating for a cease to violence from both sides.

Debate Round No. 2
debate-a-doom

Pro

the map I posted is the practical map - where Israel really is, where Jews live, where you need to rip homes out if you want to give those lands away. Thousands of Israeli homes. Legal is a very loose term, the UN didn't acknowledge certain things (btw - the UN did acknowledge the 67 borders which look like this http://abporter.files.wordpress.com... so not all of the space from 47 is illegally Israel's, but only a small portion of it is.)

"Under modern international law, military expansionism is considered immoral..."
truly, it happened 65 years ago, very close to WWII, you might notice how countries conquered each other and took over huge amount of lands during that era, and some of these lands stayed property of those countries. Dare I mention that the US is built on native American land, and they should go back to England and return this land to the natives? (or is that not piratical because they mass-murdered most of them)

"they are a country as recognized by the UN. "
this year, they got the recognition of a country, because of technicalities and political interests. They do not run their own country in a lot of ways and therefore are not an independent country, if Israel was to stop supporting them they would have no electricity, food or water and would just die out as a country.

" I will stick to international law for determining legal right to possession in the modern world"
you are comfortably leaning on easy solutions, you need to explain why those lands are not recognized as legally Israel's, and why it should stay that way.

"Many more Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces than by Palestinians, who have a right to defend against in invading force." Israel, each and every time, aimed towards military areas, they usually hide under civilian homes, hospitals and kindergartens, which makes it very hard to aim and not hit civilians. Gaza on the other hand, bombs random -innocent civilians- http://www.hrw.org.... That is no way to defend. It is not about the numbers, it's about intent, Palestinians intent to hit civilians and are very happy when they do. Israelis only intend to hit terrorist activists and are sad when they hit innocent civilians.

Israel is not stealing water, it is providing Palestine with water, and when Palestine shows excess aggression by endless missiles, Israel uses this to stop them from doing such instead of sending airplanes to kill people. If Israel leaves some of it's territories right now, Palestinians will thrive to destroy Israel, and might strategically have a chance to, especially with the back of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon (all have borders with Israel and attacked Israel in 73) and Iran. Israel does not have to negotiate, it has a lot right now, a very strong army, it negotiates because it's humane.
PurpleDrink

Con

Here's another one sided video that doesn't really affect our argument:
https://www.youtube.com...

Legitimacy of Palestine as a Country

"it happened 65 years ago"

MAYBE if it happened just once, 65 years ago, you could make an argument for Israel now having a right to their seized territories, but guess what? It's been going on continuously since then and has been happenening recently as I've cited, unrefuted by you.

"Israel is not stealing water, it is providing Palestine with water."

Per my source, the water was to be a shared resource. You have failed to refute that. My point stands.

"Israel uses this to stop them from doing such instead of sending airplanes to kill people."

Actually, Israel does kill people including civilians, like I've already said and cited. That's on top of destroying homes, and imposing a police state dictatorship within another country.

"they got the recognition of a country, because of technicalities and political interests. They do not run their own country in a lot of ways and therefore are not an independent country, if Israel was to stop supporting them they would have no electricity, food or water and would just die out as a country."

The defining of country is actually a very deep an complex thing to do. Your definitions do not suffice. "because of technicalities and political interests" and "if Israel was to stop supporting them they would have no electricity, food or water and would just die out as a country" are really are just conjecture and prediction without explanation. The only pertinent and undisputable facts regarding their nationhood are that they have diplomatic recognition and are recognized by the UN.

"Israel does not have to negotiate, it has a lot right now, a very strong army, it negotiates because it's humane."
"Might is Right" doesn't fly in the modern world when it comes to modern morality. Palestinians have a right to defend themselves despite the strength of the opposition. And to call the aggressor "humane" for sparing them from complete annihilation and instead starving their water supply and stealing land is wrong. To demonize the victim for retaliating is wrong. We should take a more fair approach if the goal is truly for peace rather than the demise of Palestine.

Conclusion:

The goal of the peace treaty is Peace. What we have in Gaza/West Bank is an ongoing cycle of illegal military expansionism by Israel, bulldozing Palestinian homes on their own lands, killing civilians, all in order to set up Israeli settlements and then calling it disputed land and the following retaliation and acts of terrorism by Palestinians also killing civilians. This is all very tragic and should stop to preserve life and promote peace. The aggressor, Israel, should be the one pressured to stop their actions in order to provide an environment within which earnest discussion toward peace can truly begin.

Thanks for offering the interesting debate and for your passioned arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Citrakayah 4 years ago
Citrakayah
/All/ the Israelis? Don't be ridiculous. Israel could remove settlements if it wanted; there was a settlement /freeze/ by Israel which would indicate that Israel can control the settlements.
Posted by debate-a-doom 4 years ago
debate-a-doom
abracadabra, all of what you said is (in my eyes distorted) specific interpretation of reality.
Israel does not support the building of settlements, but extreme right wing people build there and Israel has a hard time controling them. It did have the hitnatkut where it actually did tear out people in illegal settlements, some of the settlements are so huge that it would be impossible to do so, others aren't, and Israel is willing to negotiate those that aren't.

all the Israelis want peace, and if Israel saw a way to give even a large amount of land, in order to get peace, it would, and there have been attempts in the past (rabin and barak for example).

Palestinians wish to destroy all of Israel and conquere the entire land.
Posted by Abrarcadabra 4 years ago
Abrarcadabra
And interesting point about the Israeli settlements: In stark contrast to the surrounding barren desert landscape, Israel builds those settlements to look like American suburbs, with tree lined blocks and lush green lawns even though the architecture and houses within Israel are very different. They do this because if Palestinians attack the settlements on Palestinian lands, camera crews will be there to film the damage in an American looking suburb to rile up the American public against Palestine.

Israel also likes to call anyone who is against Israeli policy anti-semitic and they call Jewish protestors "self-hating Jews", when in fact they love Judaism and their people. There is a very strong anti-semitic culture in America and even hinting that someone might be anti-semitic turns people off to what that person is saying.
Posted by debate-a-doom 4 years ago
debate-a-doom
not tomorrow.. Palestine needs to get a stronger army than Israel's which will take a couple hundreds of years.
Posted by Takwa 4 years ago
Takwa
palestine tomorrow will be free ..
.all of you are going to see that ..we are going to get our land back
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Citrakayah 4 years ago
Citrakayah
debate-a-doomPurpleDrinkTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: As Con pointed out, given that Israel has a bunch of troops in Palestine, and the land was taken illegally in the first place, it's rather irrational to say that Israel should not be pressured. Palestine should too, of course, but to say one should be and the other shouldn't? BOP not filled.
Vote Placed by DanT 4 years ago
DanT
debate-a-doomPurpleDrinkTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: While I'm not a fan of wiki citations, I am even more against biased citations. I have to give Pro sources; NPR has a liberal bias, and AI has defended Islamic Jihad. The argument that won it for me, was the time lapse; there is a statute of limitations on that kind of stuff. After all the Arabs originally gained the land through conquest. Like Pro pointed out, Israel does not aim at civilians, and the Palestinians like to use human shields. Con's arguments draw their strength from emotion while Pro's arguments are more objective.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
debate-a-doomPurpleDrinkTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro offered interesting claims, but didn't significantly defend them. Pro had the burden of proof.