The Instigator
Isaac2428
Pro (for)
The Contender
brian.bors7
Con (against)

Should Jerusalem be a Jewish territory

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Isaac2428 has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/18/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 645 times Debate No: 102658
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Isaac2428

Pro

I believe that Israel belongs to the Jews to be governed and ruled as a religious nation. Jerusalem was built by Jewish hand and the only reason they left was because they were forced off by the Romans. I don't wan't to hear anti antisemitism or Islamophobia just tell me your opinions and I will share mine.
brian.bors7

Con

Hey Isaac2428, welcome to debate.org and thanks for making this debate.

I will be Con in this debate and will argue that "Jerusalem should be a Jewish territory" is not true.

My strongest initial arguments will resolve around the fact that I don't believe in any "shoulds" at all. There is no objective morality and therefor no objective way to determine what should and should not be. The term "should" has little to no meaning without a stated goal.

If for example the statement is "Jerusalem should be a Jewish territory if we want more Jewish territory." than yes, that statement is probably correct.

If for example the statement is "Jerusalem should be a Jewish territory if we want the Jewish religion to disappear" than no, that statement would probably be incorrect.

So, "Jerusalem should be a Jewish territory" is impossible to defend on it's own (unless my opponent wishes to establish the existence of objective morality first) and I now extend to my opponent the chance to make an addendum to the statement so we can properly start the debate. Some examples of statements I might accept to debate include:

"Jerusalem should be a Jewish territory if we want less war in the world"

"Jerusalem should be a Jewish territory if we want justice to prevail"
Debate Round No. 1
Isaac2428

Pro

Thank you Brian for giving me a lesson on the proper uses of the word "Should". I will restate my point if needed, I believe that Jerusalem should be a territory governed by Israel and more specifically the Jewish Zionists. I believe this because Jerusalem was first a small Jebusite town and in 1050 BCE a band of Jews escaping Philistine oppression and landed it Jerusalem. By 970 BCE Jerusalem was completely rebuilt and was a Jewish city. Jerusalem was not a Islamic city since about 632 CE. Long story short the only reason the Jews left was because of the Romans and the so called "Palestinians" can not claim it as a Islamic city.
brian.bors7

Con

Thank you Pro for further explaining your position.

Pro argues that because the only reason the ancestors of the current Jews left was the Romans, the current city should belong to the current Jews.

However this happened in a time where no person was alive that is still alive today. In fact, the people that experienced the initial windfall of the extra land inherited from those people are no longer alive.

If we would go back further we would have other people living on those lands, and we can certainly find people that are descendants from those people. This form of justification can be found for any group.

So I don't agree that that is a good reason to hand control over the land to anyone. We have statute of limitations laws for a reason and punishing people for the sins of their parents isn't going to give us a stable society.

The borders of nations are stabilizing across the globe. Wars are slowly stopping. I say it would be most practical to simply let that process run it's course and than slowly open (and eventually maybe even dissolve completely) the borders so people can live where they want (and can afford).

If Jewish people are certain that Jerusalem is their holy city than they can trust God to grant them access to it eventually. Peacefully. Maybe not to them specifically, but to their children or even further down the line.
Debate Round No. 2
Isaac2428

Pro

Thank you Con.
I would argue that just because the Jews of the era are no longer around does not mean that Jerusalem does not belong to there descendants. Before the Jews came Jerusalem was a unstable ruthless town which the Jews settled in claiming laws and authority and boosted the trade. They boosted the economy and the wealth of the area. The Jews managed to keep it as a massively successful city until the Romans. Shortly after the Romans left the Arabs settled in the area and claimed it as there city. After going in and out of control of the Ottomans and the British the "Palestinians" didn't claim they were oppressed until the Jews returned to the land. By your argument why is the Vatican in catholic control despite the shifts of power in the surrounding areas? The Jews made Jerusalem what it is today and they can not be penalized for returning to the promised land which they founded.
brian.bors7

Con

Thank you Pro for further explaining your position.

Pro counter argues that just because something happened long ago it doesn't mean the land no longer belongs to someone. I agree and have never disagreed. However just because something happened long ago doesn't mean the land belongs to a specific person either. All the involved people died. You would need other arguments to make your case. Pro provides further arguments in round 3 which I will address now.

Pro states that the Jews should own the land because they have added value to the land in the form of laws, trade a boosted economy, etc. However since they left others have added value to the land as well and before they where there in the first place others have also added value to the land. Even if "added value" was a measurement with which people tend to hand of control of a land (it isn't) you would still have a hard time proving that the Jews added the "most" value since such things are incredibly hard to quantify and modern global economy has grown far faster than the economy of that time.

Pro states that the Palestinians didn't claim to be oppressed until the Jews returned to the land. Even if this where true (it could or could not be, I am uncertain), how would another group of people complaining about oppression have anything to do with the initial group of people their right to control of a land?

==By your argument why is the Vatican in catholic control despite the shifts of power in the surrounding areas?==

The Vatican is in catholic control because the control of a piece of land has little to do with the control of the pieces of land surrounding it. Simply put: the Vatican is in control because nobody with enough political or military power claims otherwise.

==The Jews made Jerusalem what it is today and they can not be penalized for returning to the promised land which they founded.==

I agree that they should not be penalized for going to live in the place they want to live in if they can afford it (whether or not they made it what it is today or not). But to claim it as their territory is another question all together.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by brian.bors7 1 year ago
brian.bors7
Hey Emilrose,

Thanks for your interest in this debate.

Where you laughing about my name or about something I said?
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
Emilrose
Haha, 'brian bors'
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.