Debate Rounds (3)
Ever since it's foundation Israel has been building settlements over Palestine ( of which they had to right to), gradually stealing their land. It has resulted in millions of refugees, hundreds of thousands dead, and an international debate. This is not more of a perspective debate rather than pro or con, but the question is, Should Palestine have the right to exist as a recognised state?
You can already guess what i think :P
I've accepted this debate as Con, and will therefore present my arguments against the Palestinian Authorities rights to be recognized as a sovereign state.
From the day they were founded in 1948, Israel has been forced to fight for their very existence as a the only functioning democracy in a part of the world where dictators and despotic regimes flourish. Have the Israelis always been right in their decisions? Of course not, but the current situation in countries like Syria, Egypt and Libya illustrates my point perfectly that the other states in the Middle-East are doing far worse than Israel in the department of civil and human rights.
Israeli authorities have for many years been negotiating with the Palestinians about them becoming an independent state, and since there have been no guarantee for the safety of Israeli citizens (there is a reason for their security fence...), and the demands for the right of return not only for the refugees but also their descendants (which would mean the end of Israel), they haven't been able to reach an agreement where the Palestinians gets statehood.
Therefore, I see no reason why the Palestinian authorities should have a "right" to be recognized as a sovereign state.
For a start, if they did want to make amends with the Palestinians, perhaps they ought to stop occupying more and more land, building more and more settlements. It's like trying to make peace with someone whilst shoving the barrel of a pistol further and further down their throat.
Secondly, Palestinians have been looking for a two-state solution, whilst Benjamin Netanyahu and Shimon Peres have openly objected to it on state TV. Even whilst their major ally, the US has presented peace talk proposals, Israel denying the majority, and totally screwing up the others.
Palestinians now need special permits to enter their own fields, they have no rights to their own homes, they cannot cross border control on to what used to be their own land, and if they are caught trying to sneak back in to what was lawfully their land, they are arrested. Children even are arrested for protesting against the Israeli's maltreatment of their neighbors.
I could also talk about the numbers of innocent Palestinians in jail or who have been killed by Israeli police forces, totally unjustly, but we would be here forever. Israel had no right in the first place in Palestine, and now it has no right to continue expanding in to another countries land.
The issue about the settlement is not an easy one, since the Israelis feel a deep historical connection to many areas on the West Bank, and what Netanyahu has said, is that the only way for the two parties to find a lasting solution is through "trial and error". Source: http://www.haaretz.com...
Yes, there are restrictions in place to stop Palestinian terrorists from entering Israeli cities and blowing up buses and killing civilians, and I bet every nation that had similar security issues as Israel would be reacting in a similar way. Israel was once upon a time more willing to make concessions to their enemies, but when every attempt of peace has ended in more attacks on Israel, the hawks have been put in power to ensure the citizens are safe.
"Palestine" has not been a country before in history, and Israel was founded in 1948 by the UN, so it's a bit of an overstatement to say that they did not have any right to the country.
Jungelson forfeited this round.
Since the opposition has not written anything for this round, I see no reason to elaborate further on my arguments.
No votes have been placed for this 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.