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

Should Israel return the lands gained during the Six Day War (1967) and to whom?

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: 9/8/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 569 times Debate No: 61441
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




During the Six Day War, Israel fought a defensive war against three Arab countries. They won the war in six days and were able to push out enemy forces out of the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza strip (from Egypt), the West Bank (from Jordan), and the Golan Heights (from Syria). Israel kept these lands for security reasons and were right to do so. Now people are saying that Israel should return the West Bank to the Palestinians, when it never belonged to them. It belonged to Jordan before 1967.


I believe that Israel has abused the rights given to the state by the UN and that it should return the land it took from the countries that it sprung from, in order to preserve the safety of the Israeli people
Debate Round No. 1


Since Israel's founding, its Arab neighbor's have continuously tried to destroy it. Before 1967, the Syrians constantly shot down on Israeli civilians from the Golan Heights in the north, which is why they decided to keep control of the area after the war. If Israel's neighbors were even slightly peaceful, then I would agree that we should give the lands back. But when they constantly say that they want to destroy you, then I'm sorry but there's no other option then to keep the land and hopefully trade it for peace like they did with Egypt. Israel returned the entire Sinai Peninsula in 1979 for peace with Egypt, which still holds today. The Sinai was 3 times the size of Israel and had oil, which Israel gravely needs.


Value: Justice.

The nation of Israel was founded in 1948, when the International community decided to create a nation for the Jewish people. It was given a certain area and a limit to where the nation stopped. Misfortunately, Jerusalem was not included which became an objective for the new nation. Then it violated the treaty( although they might have just reasons to do so) and took Jerusalem. This hands of people were forced out of their homes as Israel invaded and were trapped in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. Now Israel claims that area as their own and these people are becoming or already are a stateless people. Although Israel did win the war, they did not have a right to take those lands and the just thing to do is give it back. So if my opponent was to prove his point he must prove that 1) Israel has a right to these lands. 2) Israel is not to blame for terrorist up comings 3) Israel did not violate the treaty which it was founded in.
Debate Round No. 2


dylanischillin forfeited this round.


Yoyetofriend forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
I know it is not about religion, it is about the bible declaring that God would keep the covenant he made with Abraham.God created man. Man created religion.God is the least religious being in existence.
Posted by dylanischillin 2 years ago
My friend, its not even about religion. Yes, the fact that Israel won every war it fought is purely a miracle, but its not even about that. To respond to what Yoyetofriend said, a Palestinian country or nation never existed in history. The land called Palestine was always a region that was part of various empires, whether it was the Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman, or the British. It was never a "country" or a Palestinian people. The people living in the land might have been called Palestinians, just like people in California are Californians, but they never had their own country. And btw the Jews of Palestine were also Palestinians since they lived there too. The Romans are the ones who changed the name of the land from the Kingdom of Israel and Judea to Syria Palaestina (Palestinian region of the Syrian state in the empire). They named it after the Philistines (who didn't even exist anymore), because they were enemies with the Israelites for centuries, and they renamed the land after them just to crush the hopes and dream of the remaining Jews in the Empire. They even changed the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina for that same reason. Therefore, there were no "Palestinian" people, nation, or language before Israel.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
vajra: My ,my, you seem upset. Truth hurts .Those Arabs surrounded a small neighbor and attacked them.They should have read the old testament. God said that when he would bring Israel back to their land from the sword ( holocaust) they would be there till Messiah comes.Even Russia and its Arab allies will lose.Ezekiel 38,39. That is in the near future.
Arabs found out what it is to be blessed by God. In that 6 day war , the arabs lost 100 planes to every one Israel lost.How do you beat an enemy like that. All Israel wants is to be left alone. It would be very beneficial for the palistinians to stop there hatred and just do commerce with Israel. There blessings would rub off on them.
But I understand that hatred runs deep.4000 years deep. The hate of Hagar for the offspring of Abraham.
Posted by Yoyetofriend 2 years ago
In fact, Palestine was their before Israel. Yet theUnited nations after the holocaust sought to create a state for the Jewish nation. Thus, the treaty would give the area of Tel-Aviv up to a certain point not up to Jerusalem and the are near the conflict area. Yet, in the Six day War, Israel took the territories from the Arab nations. Thus, Israel caused anger among the Arab nations which caused Hamas and other terrorists groups to rise because of this. I am not defending terrorism yet I believe that Israel and other nations should avoid upbringing these extremists. I encourage you to continue the debate by submitting your first argument.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
I believe that the War you're referring to is the one called
The War of Armageddon in the Bible.

If you get in a fight with somebody,
& your opponent drops a box filled with cash,
should you pick up the box & keep it ?

Give the land to the people living there.

And it will come to pass at that time,
each man will sit under his fig tree,
& nation will not go to war against nation.

They shall beat their swords into plowshares,
& their spears into pruning hooks.

Yea, I say unto you:
the lion will lay down with the lamb,
& a little child shall lead them.

I have spoken.

Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
Yoyet. So you want Israel to give lands back so hamas can be even closer to the heart of Israel.If the palistinians would lay down their arms, there would be peace. If Israel would lay down their arms there would be no Israel.And if palistine actually wanted peace with Israel, they would kick the bums out, namely hamas.They got what they brought on themselves. They are lucky they did not attack America. Look what happened to Japan.
I am all for paistine being their own nation. Then when they lob missles into Israel, Israel can then wipe them out.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
To the victor goes the spoils. Should David give Goliath his head back.These weazles attacked a neighbor and are now crying because they got their butts stomped.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 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: A far too short debate, with forfeits from both sides. Pro conceded that Israel won a war--a war that Con noted was started by the surrounding areas. Pro argued that the just thing would be to give the lands back, but gives no justification as to why. This whole debate was far too short, but I think Con made at least a prima facie case, and Pro simply did not have an adequate rebuttal. Perhaps had the thing actually continued into the last round, it might have been a better debate, but overall, I'm rather disappointed. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.