The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Please find the bugs in my unofficial Israel-Palestin pease plan

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/3/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 662 times Debate No: 61224
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




This is more of a debate on an idea I have and would like someone to find any flaws in, in which case I can come up with solutions to these problems. If I can then I win, If I can"t find solutions, or a reason why It wouldn"t necessarily make my plan not work, then Con wins.
I believe that the solution to the problem with Israel and Palestine is a one state solution. This one state of ________ (I don"t have a name) would be a region of unity for all who reside within its borders. First off I would suggest that the government of Israel and the organizations that fight them, be disbanded. There would be no all Jewish, Muslim, or Christian government in the country. Secondly, there is to be no walls, gates, or any other restrictions of where people can"t go based on their religion, all are to be able to work, live and settle down where they wish.(with the exception of 3 small cultural areas that will belong to the religious communities for special rituals that my offend those who don"t practice the religion)Thirdly there would be mandatory multiple cultural awareness classes in the public school systems, to learn how all of the cultures can live in peace without offending the each other.
The government would have a 4 party system; each party would be run by the 3 main religious groups of the area, and one for those who aren"t in those groups. (Muslim, Jewish, Christian, other) Each of these parties would have an equal number of delegates (50) so no religion has more power in there parliament then the others. Each Member of Parliament will be at least 35 years old and elected by the members of their religions populations, with laws protecting the individual voters. Each person who runs for election should have at least a public education provided by the nation to all, as well as 4 years of college in politics, and or law. Anyone who gets elected can be reelected as many times as the voters want them, but elections happen every 2 years in case there is a bad politician. To satisfy those who feel the majority of the population should have the most say in the government, they will have that chance every 3 years when the top leader is elected, anyone can vote for this person. You may ask how to tell which religion the people are? The civilian population will have to fill out a mandatory census that will be turned in with the yearly taxes.
Any law that comes to the parliament would have to have a 65% vote to pass into law. The high leader will have no power over the laws for civilians that Parliament passes, but will be able to halt and put new plans onto the table for potential laws that involve national resources, military/defense, and foreign affairs. The high leader is the only one who can declare war. She/he can decide which members of the Parliament can be sent for peace talks with other nations.
The 3 cultural zones I mentioned earlier will be the only place that the churches officially own; these places will be the places were all must follow the customs and "dress code" that the religions require.
This plan will keep the people such as the Muslims from feeling that the Jewish had invaded the land and made it to where they are no longer welcome, the Jewish can have a nation where they are not discriminated against, and the Christians and other religious believers aren"t just being brushed under the rug, the Muslims will have a big say in the government, and the State of Israel would no longer be in existence, that would get rid of a huge problem with many pro Muslim terror groups that have sworn that they wouldn"t stop fighting as long as they exist, and do to the fact that the religions are now working together, as equals, there would be no need for the people to fight,(besides antiracial tendencies that are every were in every nation, and those who hate each other because of history, in which to help them get over it and calm down the leaders that are now in power for all terror groups, and the Israeli government must go on trial for the crimes against humanity that they have committed. And with time, after the people who lived through and seen what these people did to each other have died and the new generations that have been near each other their whole lives are controlling the nation, then may be able to put their history behind them.
I must remind those who read this that this plan is not meant to change the cultures of the people in the region, and there would be problems along the way, just as there is and always has been, for creating a new government, this is to say that I would like my opponent to prove that this solution wouldn"t work and the entire system would fail if it was attempted. Thank you to whoever helps me out with finding the bugs in this plan. Even though I know this won"t happen in real life, (just because I think it should happen) I still think it would be fun to have a realistic peace plan when the heads of the world leadership can"t figure one out.


The population of Israel is 75% Jewish, 21% Muslim and only 4% other.

When you add the Palestinian territories, that will boost up the Muslims and the other groups will be even smaller.

So you're giving less than 4% of the population 50% of the vote. This is enormously unfair. I don't think it is sustainable because both the Jewish and Muslim factions will fight hard against it. In fact it will be outright war against the current Israeli goverment so it would be impossible to implement in the first place.
Debate Round No. 1


All right I can agree that it isn"t fair for a population of less than 4% to have a 50% say in the government.(you spelt government as goverment), But they had 25% of the votes for their party not 50%, and They have a lot of potential to grow (Many young Arabs are being turned off from religion altogether.) The Golden Era of Arab Atheism? | Al Akhbar Englishnyour sight also said (In the 2011 census, non-Arab Christians, estimated to number 25,000, were counted as "Jews and others". . it was the Druze who had only 4% of the population, so I would say it is still safe to have a 25% with those growing numbers.
Also I would like to point out that the leaders of the area won"t actually be listening to me, after all I"m just a student, but this debate is if we set up this system and they did as I recommended, would it work. So the argument of (In fact it will be outright war against the current Israeli government) argument wouldn"t work because if you remember in round one, I had said that the Israeli government would be disbanded, as well as the groups such as Hamas, would be disbanded, to make way for the new united religious government to take their place. That way there would be no reason to take it over because it would be a Muslim nation, the Jewish wouldn"t have a reason to fight any more because it is also a government ran with a large Jewish representation. And the ever growing population of the other population will get there say. There for no one needs to be kicked out, discriminated against, or live in fear that their religion would be any treat against their families, business, or selves.
Another reason to have the 25% of the ever growing, other group is because they wouldn"t always 100% agree with the others so they are kind of like a tie breaker, as well as making sure that all of the other religions are equal in number of delegates, 3 doesn"t go into 100 evenly so there would be more representatives for one main religion then another. So I think that looking at that reasoning the people may agree to give the "other" group there fair say. (As a role as peace keeper)


My opponent's idea was that the government should be split into four groups: Jewish, Muslim, Christian and other. If less than 4% of Israel/Palestine is Christian or other, then it means that less than 4% of the population would have 50% of the vote, and not 25% as my opponent claims. That is because the Christian vote would be 25% and the "other" vote would be 25% and together that makes 50%.

By far the easiest response for Jewish Israelis would be for large numbers of them to "convert" to Christianity and atheism to control those voting blocs. Then, they could vote in a constitutional change to one person one vote (and who could reasonably object?) and regain control of the government. If there's about 12 million people in the country, then 2% in each voting bloc is only 240,000. It would be easy to take over each group.

Finally, if the Israeli (entirely Jewish) military wanted to overthrow the government, they could easily do so and they would be justified on the grounds that it is not fair and democratic. They could impose a one adult one vote system, which is fairer.

My opponent has not yet explained why his system would be better than a fair voting system.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent again doesn't seem to be entirely reading my arguments. I say this because of the 3rd paragraph of Con's argument. Con said that the Israeli military would want to overthrow the new government. As I continuously have said in my arguments, the Israeli government is no longer around, so there for, there would be no Israeli military to overthrow the new government.
102,000 Druze
6,400 Buddhists
712 Samaritans
the amount of people in Israel that are in the non Jewish, Muslim population would skyrocket do to the fact that it is the holly land for more then just them, (because they already have so many people their, it would be much less likely for people of their religions to move in because they already have the majority of there populations already there.
Jerusalem plays an important role in three monotheistic religions " Judaism, Christianity, and Islam
when the land of Israel, or whatever it is now called the other religions will be trying to move in (like all those Christians who were trapped on that mountain in Iraq) there would be thousands who would try to move in. So therefore the Christianity percentile would be much higher. (really the biggest problem that the new government would have would be immigration.

To Con's argument that people would just portended to be "converted", I would like to point out that people take their religions very personally. As I studied people and there religions, I have noted that most (all) religions Seriously frown on lying, and believe that lying about their religion is the biggest crime against God one can commit, death would be better. For the government catching any people who would try to lie for the voting box would have a million tip offs from their actual religion as well as their "converted" to religion., also why would they vote for another's religious representatives, when every one who is running has the same kind of ideas as the next. (with some small variations on the past, but there main goal would be to have their religion kept equal or ahead of every one ells.

As I said in my first argument was the way to keep the majority happy, there would be the election of the high leader. (in which all may vote for giving the majority the most power.

My opponent has challenged me to explain why my system would be better fair voting system, I believe that there is no fair voting system that would make every one happy, If you can think of a truly fair system for how you can satisfy every one, including the minorities (that isn't an American system, in which case, most people over there would resist and their for the plan would not work (so no house of representatives, and senate) So therefore I believe that by keeping the voting system the way I have put down where you have every one being able to vote by there religions.


My opponent has presented a model for a new government system in Israel. In his proposed system, over twenty Muslim or Jewish votes would be equal to one Christian or atheist vote.

It's hard to understand why this unfair system would be superior to the current system, unless you think that Christians and atheists are twenty times better at making decisions than Jews and Muslims. Even if that were true (and of course it isn't), you can't expect the majority of Israelis to accept their own inferiority and be happy with this injustice. This lopsided arrangement isn't sustainable.

It's good to try to come up with solutions to problems, and I like my opponent for trying, but the bugs in this particular plan are obvious.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 3 years ago
You sure like to post LONG, Stupid, Crazy, Lying, statements, don't you?

It's PEACE, not Pease.

It takes 2 sides to make a war.
If either side stopped fighting, there'd be peace.

Are ALL Indians REALLY, REALLY Stupid?
For Cheyennebodie:
There is no such thing as "Israel" .
The House of Judea isn't, never has been, & never will be, the House of Israel (Israel) .
As long as the Jews keep attacking the Palestinians, Arabs, Moslems, etc. , while screaming
"Peace! Peace! Peace! Why won't they just leave us in Peace? " ,

As I pointed out thousands of years ago-
I bring you life & life everlasting.
I bring you peace- not as the world knows peace but MY peace.
Unless you're willing to lay down your life for My sake,
you'll die.

This very day you are given the Choice- CHOOSE !
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
If the palistinians would lay down their arms, there would be peace. If Israel would lay down their arms, there would be no Israel. That is the problem.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
If I had more time on my hands, I would definitely do this, but I'll be solidly busy for the next two weeks. If you don't get the debate out of this that you want, feel free to message me and we can set up the debate for sometime after I'm freed up.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: pro found solutions to most problems, so I think he wins