Should the United States continue to support Israel?
Debate Rounds (3)
For so many years the U.S. has been allies with Israel. Why now is there a question if we should support or defend them when the enemy comes up against them? According to the Washington Institute Israel continues to help the United States deal with traditional security threats. The two countries share intelligence on terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and Middle Eastern politics. Israel's military experiences have shaped the United States' approach to counter terrorism and homeland security. The two governments work together to develop sophisticated military technology, such as the David's Sling counter-rocket and Arrow missile defense systems, which may soon be ready for export to other U.S. allies. We need each other to survive. The land of Israel is very secrete. We are considered friends with so many benefits for each other. We are considered the richest and most powerful country in the world. I do know we did not become this way just on our own. Israel has always been there why should we turn our backs on them now? What has changed? Has the U.S. become so full of themselves that they have forgot about the people who has helped them?
Why is it a issue?
According to an article by Noah Rothman some people get the impression that America"s broad support for Israel"s mission in Gaza over that of Hamas militants, support reflected in policy in Washington, is evolving into an obsession for members of the press. In fact, it seems that the more stubbornly Americans cling to their support for their country"s democratic ally in the Middle East, the more frenetic and scolding the media"s tone has become while covering the conflict. In spite of being lectured endlessly by the American government to expend even more energy in order to limit civilian casualties in Gaza, Israel"s rules of engagement are far more self-limiting and crippling than any to which the U.S. would agree to abide by. With that being said, if the American government has accepted the rules and regulations of the partnership and engagement with Israel then it is only proper to continue to stand by them. This is not to say that Israel is infallible, or that there have been no errors in judgment or unpleasantness in this conflict. Not every piece of ordnance Israel uses is precision, and Hamas is often successful in its efforts to put civilians in the line of Israeli fire. War is horrible, and it is a Utopian dream to suggest that all atrocities resulting from combat can be prevented. While America"s support for the Israeli cause is solid, the opposite appears to be true in Europe where anti-Semitic riots have become a regular feature of life in Western European nations like Germany, France, and England. In the American media, too, one gets the sense that America"s close intergovernmental relationship with Israel is a source of endless consternation.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by salam.morcos 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||2|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct was ok from both sides. Spelling and grammar was ok from both. Con provided the only sources, so I give him 2 points there. I wasn't able to award a winner of who had more convincing arguments. Pro should have shown how the US without Israel would be worse off. He could have mentioned the stability of the middle ease. Con stated the amnesty report, but didn't explain why the US should end its relationship because of it. He could have showed some examples of how the US treated other countries. Con did argue that the focus should be on the US, but he could have been more convincing had he shown numbers spent for Israel. Con wins for citing the only source.
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.