The Instigator
KADET_4N6
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
royalpaladin
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Resolved: The US should recognize Palestine as a country

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 3 votes the winner is...
royalpaladin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/2/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,933 times Debate No: 24031
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

KADET_4N6

Pro

I stand in affirmation of the Resolved: The US should recognize Palestine as a country.

Rules:
1. First Round acceptance only
2. No new arguments or contentions in the last round (Round 4)
3. No trolling or semantics

Definitions:

Should: "must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency)"

Recognize:"to acknowledge formally as entitled to treatment as a political unit"

By accepting you are negating the Resolved.
royalpaladin

Con

I accept. Note that I can argue against the resolution for any reason as long as my arguments do not constitute trolling.
Debate Round No. 1
KADET_4N6

Pro

Thanks for accepting.
Given your response I'd wager you have something tricky up your sleeve.

Nonetheless here are my contentions:

Contention 1: Negotiations are being abused by Israel.
The Israelis and Palestinians have been at each others throats since creation of Israel half a century ago. Much was thought to be achieved when the Oslo Accords were 1993. One of the terms of the Accords was that five years after the Accords were signed, that talks to create a permanent and recognized Palestinian state would occur, however, over a decade after those talks should have ended, Israel still has not allowed an internationally recognized state to form. Now onto to how these talks are actually being abused. Israel understands that these talks will inevitably create a Palestinian state, but is abusing them allow more settlers to take what was meant to become Palestine. In fact, there is over 500,000 Israeli settlers who have encroached upon Palestinian land. [1] According to the Los Angeles Times, at the current rate of expansion "practically nothing will remain" when a Palestinian state created. The US can help see that Palestine's rights are respected by officially recognizing Palestine as a country, thus making Israel's encroachments seen for what they truly are, a violation of international law.

Contentions 2: War crimes have been committed against the Palestinians.
Another major reason why Palestine should be recognized is because they are the victims of war crimes and international recognition will help them make their case for compensation to those affected. Israel committing war crimes is nothing unheard of, both Human Rights Watch [2] and Amnesty International [3] have found that Israel has committed War Crimes against Palestinian civilians by using the incendiary agent White Phosphorus, which is also clearly in violation of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons. This is why it was banned for use against civilians- "Phosphorus burns on the skin are deep and painful; a firm eschar is produced and is surrounded by vesiculation. The burns usually are multiple, deep, and variable in size. The solid in the eye produces severe injury. The particles continue to burn unless deprived of atmospheric oxygen. Contact with these particles can cause local burns. These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears. If service members are hit by pieces of white phosphorus, it could burn right down to the bone." [4] The US has a duty to recognize Palestine so it can join organizations like the United Nations which can punish Israel with sanctions if necessary for using these weapons against civilians and violating basic human rights.

[1] http://articles.latimes.com...
[2] http://www.haaretz.com...
[3] http://www.haaretz.com...
[4] http://www.globalsecurity.org...

I look forward to your arguments and rebuttals.
royalpaladin

Con

Pre-Case
I am going to do something that is considered a nonstandard debate practice on this website: I am going to run a Kritik. A kritik is “generally a type ofargument that challenges a certain mindset, assumption, or discursive element that exists within the advocacy of the opposing team, often from the perspective ofcritical theory” [1]

Link
My opponent’s contentions present excellent points about the human rights abuses committed by the Israeli government, but they also raise an important question about ethics that must be resolved before we discuss this topic. My opponent presumes that the proper solution is to create a separate nation-state for the Palestinians. This solution is corrosive because it backs the outdated nation-state concept, which is not a solution that can have any measure of impact. Note that my opponent does not even prove solvency; all his case does is present problems that he claims will be solved if a separate nation-state is created. In fact, the problems arise from the type of thinking that he presents.

Flaws in the Nation-State Model
The idea of nation-states stems from the notion that individuals have moral obligations only to those who share common ancestry with them and share common characteristics and culture. Advocates of this type of communitarian thinking note that nation-states often arose as a means of defending people who lived in a given area from other groups who had already united in a similar fashion. Modern advocates of the nation-state conclude that people are intrinsically more likely to help those who are like them, conveniently ignoring the fact that they are educated to do so by previous generations.

I reject this type of reasoning. First, it is morally arbitrary. The concept of nation-state claims that there is a morally significant difference between individuals born in Mexico and individuals born in the United States, and that this gives us an obligation to serve the people from our country but ignore the suffering of “outsiders”. However, all geographical boundaries are wholly arbitrary; there is no intrinsic reason that the U.S. territory ends at the Rio Grande River. It resulted from an accident of history; had the territory extended further South, people born on the other side would be considered citizens. Moreover, this reasoning ignores the fact that all people have natural rights because they are born human, and that these rights predate the concept of states (in fact, states were created to protect rights!). Karina Sangha of the University of Victoria explains, “ A human right is a right that an individual enjoys by virtue of being human. They are rights demanded by humanity on all of humanity.These rights are premised upon the morally relevant characteristics that are shared by all of humanity, of which the equal vulnerability to suffer is likely the most notable. Each person has an equal moral status as a human being, and justice requires that such a status be treated with respect.” [2]

Second, the nation-state model is prone to conflict and violence, and is in fact responsible for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that my opponent is hoping to solve. If I claim that I only have moral obligations to aid the people who live in the same nation-state, then I have no obligation to respect the rights of foreigners and I can do as I please to them in order to maximize my wealth. This lead to the current conflict my opponent is discussing because it lead the division of the two peoples along ethnic lines and allowed leaders to employ “us versus them” contentions as a means of promoting violence.

The Cosmopolitan Model
Cosmopolitanism eliminates the problem by emphasizing commonalities and noting that all people have moral obligations to each other than transcend locality. Cosmpoliatnism is based on moral univeralism, the idea that morality is universal and applies equally to all people. According to Simon Caney of Oxford University, the tenets of moral universalism are: (1) there are valid moral principles; (2) moral principles that pertain to one person apply to all individuals who share morally relevant properties; (3) human beings share morally relevant properties; (4) therefore, there are some universal moral principles. [2] Thomas Pogge of Yale University extends Caney’s analysis while discussing cosmopolitanism when he explains that there are three basic tenets of cosmpolitaism: individualism, referring to the fact that the units of moral concerns are individual human beings; universality, meaning that every human being is of equal concern; and generality, referring to the fact that this status of human beings is global – that is, all human beings are units of ultimate concern for everyone.[2] By emphasizing the fact that people all moral obligations to all, cosmopolitanism deconstructs the ideas of state sovereignty and national allegiance [2]. It also eliminates the need for a nation-state because it emphasizes that we ought to treat all people, regardless of “origin”, equally.

The Alternative
While my opponent attempts to solve the problem of human rights abuses in Israel, I have demonstrated that his solution cannot fix the problem and will only exacerbate it because it is entrenched in the idea of nation-states and national allegiances. It would continue to foster divide between the two segments of Israeli society instead of promoting unity I thus would like to propose an alternative solution: Instead of recognizing Palestine as a state and thus perpetuate the nation-state model and continue the conflict, the United States should attempt to help the Palestinians seek recourse through the U.N. This counterplan demands that the United States ought to claim that the government of Israel is abusing its own citizens. According to cosmopolitan ethics and basic social contract theory, states have no intrinsic value; they only exist to protect rights. Sangha continues, “Cosmopolitanism charges that political institutions like the state are only valuable insofar as they serve particular ends, the most significant of which is respecting the human rights of their citizens. This is the primary duty of the state, the reason for its establishment. The state has no intrinsic value and is deserving of legitimate recognition in the international realm only if it lives up to its obligations in the proverbial social contract entered into by its citizens.” [2] This is more likely to promote peace in the long run because it classifies the Palestinians as an integral part of Israeli society that is being suppressed by a government that, as a result of its actions, is illegitimate. The Israeli government will then be forced to promote the rights of the Palestinians in order to restore its legitimacy on an international plane. It also reduces discord and emphasizes the fact that although the citizens are of different origins and have different religions, they are still people, they still have obligations to one another, and they can work to overcome their differences in order to create a more prosperous future. It also completely strips Israel of any legitimacy it gains by claiming that the Palestinians are a subversive terrorist group that is seeking to divide Israel. The Israeli government becomes the aggressor and the Palestinians become the victims; this tactic removes any and all arguments of genocide for the sake of “national defense”. You can extend all of my opponent’s evidence about the Israeli government’s atrocities here because they all serve to prove the point that Israel is the aggressor regime.

Thus, my opponent’s plan is flawed because it provides no solvency, exacerbates the problem, and is based on a model that is both outdated and destructive.

Thank you.

Sources
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://web.uvic.ca...

Debate Round No. 2
KADET_4N6

Pro

I looked forward to facing my opponent's argument, but unfortunately I came down with the flu and don't much feel like doing anything. I concede all 7 points to con.
royalpaladin

Con

Extend all arguments and vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
KADET_4N6

Pro

KADET_4N6 forfeited this round.
royalpaladin

Con

Extend all arguments and vote Con. Thank you :)
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
Cool beans debate.
Posted by KADET_4N6 5 years ago
KADET_4N6
Sure thing
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
Hey, I have a lot of trouble posting on weekends. Can you do me a favor and post your argument as late into the weekend as possible? That way, I'll definitely be able to post my response on Monday. Thanks :)
Posted by KADET_4N6 5 years ago
KADET_4N6
Sorry about being late with my posting, I will hopefully post sometime tommorow
Posted by MouthWash 5 years ago
MouthWash
If I didn't have other debates I would accept this right now. Be glad I didn't.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
If this was next week...or last week...I'd be up for this, lol.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
KADET_4N6royalpaladinTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: gotta luv dem ff's
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
KADET_4N6royalpaladinTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession by Pro gives arguments to Con. Conduct for forfeit. Great argument by Royal here.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
KADET_4N6royalpaladinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro left