The Instigator
tower
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
MasturDeBator2009
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points

The State of Israel, as is, has a right to continue to exist.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,339 times Debate No: 11527
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (3)

 

tower

Pro

Please note that this is not whether the State of Israel should have been formulated. Rather, it should be approached as such; that once the State exists, as it does now, should it be discontinued because it has no right to continue, or should it be allowed to continue because it has a right, as is, to continue as such.

There are two ways to view the right to land. According to both, Israel, as a Jewish State, has a right to continue to exist.

1.Land belongs to the people who settled it or claimed it for settlement first. This is a popular view for Palestinian Arabs, followed by the claim they got there first. However, there is more than sufficient historical evidence that the area was originally settled by a group that are the direct forerunners of today's Jewish population. The "Palestinians" from whom they conquered the land have no traceable descendants. Additionally, the land has had a Jewish presence almost continuously for almost the last 3300 years. Thus, if anyone has a preexisting claim over it, Jews have.
2.Land belongs to whoever lives there. In a democracy (and many other forms of government), land belongs to whoever lives there, and the government follows the will of the majority of people. This applies even if the majority changes due to an excess of different people moving in (except for an invading army, because they are really just one entity, as they are obliged to follow the will of their commander.) The majority of Israel is Jews; therefore it should be a Jewish State.
MasturDeBator2009

Con

The state of Israel has no right to exist because states have no right to exist.

All states are repressive and exist to serve the ruling class and maintain its hold on power and its authority over the ruled class. Even the supposedly "free" United States of America has caused millions of deaths throughout its history.[1]

In our society and in Israel too the ruling class is the bourgeoisie and the ruled class is the proletariat. The bourgeoisie owns the means of production and the proletariat does all the work. Even though they do all the work all money earned from the work is given to the bosses who then decide how much to allow the workers to have, keeping them in wage slavery because their only choices are to work or starve. Its just like the relationship most pimps have with their prostitutes. The prostitute is required to surrender all money she earns from her "labor" to the pimp and the pimp decides how much she gets even though she does all the work. The same form of exploitation that you see in the black market happens in the legal market, which forces everyone to prostitute themselves to capitalism.

The role of the state is to protect the ruling class. The people running it truly believe that it is to protect everyone's rights, but that is not how it works out. Even supposedly equal application of the law is for the benefit of the rich because laws are rarely ever passed unless their effect is on the side of the rich and even when one is passed for the common people this is just to create a false illusion of fairness to keep the ruled supporting the ruling class.

"The law in all its majesty forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges and stealing bread."-Anatole France

The people making the most money in our society, in Israel's, and every society on Earth today are the ones who sit in their offices doing very little. Most of the time they don't do any real work. They don't even do the work that goes into decision-making. They just hire people to do that for them and ratify it. As long as they can keep making humungous profits they don't care. And then there are bankers, landlords, and stockholders some of whom do nothing but receive checks. Meanwhile the people at the bottom do all the work and toil and get little. In developed countries they are promised much but in the end still get little. For example, many workers in America were promised generous retirement benefits but that was taken away. In developing countries it is even worse. People work for less than a dime a day and sometimes even children have to work. Working conditions are terrible, sometimes even lethal but people still work because the only alternative is starvation.

Laws passed to try to "humanize" capitalism are only to deceive the masses. In reality companies treat most of these laws as operating costs. A lot of the time they don't get caught and when they do most of the time there is no jail time. They pay the fine and move on. A computer disposal company that promised consumers they were going to recycle their computers in a responsible way and in the United States sent them all to Hong Kong where workers dismantled them in conditions severely hazardous to their health. [2]

States can not be used to humanize or abolish capitalism. We can see that with the failures of the marxist states, especially China which is now one of the capitalist's favorite places to look for cheap labor. The only way to liberate people from capitalism is if we abolish the state along with the capitalist system. All relationships economic or not should be based on voluntary association and all people should be in control of their own lives and their own labor. No "boss", no stockholders, no board of directors, no bureaucrats, no politicians, no landlords should be allowed to claim rights over the labor of other human beings based on arbitrary property rights proped up by the state that often have their roots in conquest, slavery, and crime.

Anarchy is the solution. The workers would run their own workplace. When cooperating across workplaces workers would elect recallable delegates to meet together and make agreements. Through voluntary association highly complex social structures could be formed to deal with day-to-day problems, protect each other from violence, and to promote common prosperity. To do this we need to abolish all states. Israel is no exception.

Sources

1.http://richa.dod.net...
2. http://www.cbsnews.com...
Debate Round No. 1
tower

Pro

"The state of Israel has no right to exist because states have no right to exist.
All states are repressive and exist to serve the ruling class and maintain its hold on power and its authority over the ruled class."
My opponent maintains that states as a whole have no right to exist, and Israel is no exception. However, he backs this up with mostly anecdotal or supposed evidence. While he is correct is saying that many (perhaps most) states are abusive, this does not preclude the possibility of a state being abusive. This would hold true even if all existing states are abusive. If it were true that a state being abusive denies it the right to exist, then he would have to prove that Israel is abusive.
In addition, I challenge the contention that a state has no right to exist because it is repressive. I'm certainly not advocating repression, but perhaps that's not enough to eliminate the state. This is akin to not advocating that people be allowed to run red lights, but still believing doing so does not warrant the death penalty or imprisonment.
"In our society and in Israel too [sic] the ruling class is the bourgeoisie and the ruled class is the proletariat. The bourgeoisie owns the means of production and the proletariat does all the work. Even though they do all the work all money earned from the work is given to the bosses who then decide how much to allow the workers to have, keeping them in wage slavery because their only choices are to work or starve. Its [sic] just like the relationship most pimps have with their prostitutes. The prostitute is required to surrender all money she earns from her "labor" to the pimp and the pimp decides how much she gets even though she does all the work. The same form of exploitation that you see in the black market happens in the legal market, which forces everyone to prostitute themselves to capitalism."
Firstly, Israel is a socialist country. The major corporations are owned by the people and controlled by elected representatives or elected representatives' appointees. Anyone and everyone can achieve these positions. In order to keep them, they must follow the will of the people.
Secondly, there is nothing wrong in owning something and hiring others to work with it for you. This is simply a rollover of work. If I work and earn enough money to buy an ice cream machine, I can hire you to work the machine and sell ice cream, on the condition we split the profits. I deserve my half of profits because even though you did all the work to produce the ice cream, I did the work that obtained the machine. Therefore, I did half the work to obtain the profits. In a pimp-prostitute relationship, the pimp is bullying the prostitute for money. The pimp did not work. In a corporation, the owner earned the means to produce something, and then hired others to produce it. Therefore, he deserves money.
"The role of the state is to protect the ruling class. The people running it truly believe that it is to protect everyone's rights, but that is not how it works out. Even supposedly equal application of the law is for the benefit of the rich because laws are rarely ever passed unless their effect is on the side of the rich and even when one is passed for the common people this is just to create a false illusion of fairness to keep the ruled supporting the ruling class."
Once again, you admit that a state's goal is equal protection of rights, albeit it doesn't turn out that way. You have not demonstrated why this is so, merely that is so. Assuming non-equal protection justifies dissolution of states, you must prove Israel is guilty of this.
In addition, I challenge the contention that a state has no right to exist because it is does not provide equal rights. I'm certainly not advocating lack of equal rights, but perhaps that's not enough to eliminate the state. Again, this is akin to not advocating that people be allowed to run red lights, but still believing doing so does not warrant the death penalty or imprisonment.
"The people making the most money in our society, in Israel's, and every society on Earth today are the ones who sit in their offices doing very little. Most of the time they don't do any real work. They don't even do the work that goes into decision-making. They just hire people to do that for them and ratify it. As long as they can keep making humungous profits they don't care. And then there are bankers, landlords, and stockholders some of whom do nothing but receive checks. Meanwhile the people at the bottom do all the work and toil and get little. In developed countries they are promised much but in the end still get little. For example... health."
Again, mostly anecdotal evidence. Additionally, the idea that the people who make the most money do not work is immature. No one is offering them free money. Clearly, they worked to be in a position where they do not have to work anymore (e.g., working in the past, the earned the means to hire someone to do work for them) or they are providing a service for pay. I assure you, companies that are so concerned with the bottom line do not generally pay people for no reason.
"States cannot be used to humanize or abolish capitalism. We can see that with the failures of the marxist states, especially China which is now one of the capitalist's favorite places to look for cheap labor. The only way to liberate people from capitalism is if we abolish the state along with the capitalist system. All relationships economic or not should be based on voluntary association and all people should be in control of their own lives and their own labor. No "boss", no stockholders, no board of directors, no bureaucrats, no politicians, no landlords should be allowed to claim rights over the labor of other human beings based on arbitrary property rights proped [sic] up by the state that often have their roots in conquest, slavery, and crime."
While it may be true that a state cannot humanize [sic] capitalism (an aside; Israel is socialist) eliminating it is not the answer. A simple question: without a state, who would enforce the abolition of capitalism? It would be up to people, and each person would have to enforce their own private interpretation of morals with violence or oppression. That means if a capitalist had the biggest gun, the world would be capitalist again. At least with a state, we can have an organized way to enforce popular morals in a least semi-successful and much less violent and oppressive way.
"Anarchy is the solution. The workers would run their own workplace. When cooperating across workplaces workers would elect recallable delegates to meet together and make agreements. Through voluntary association highly complex social structures could be formed to deal with day-to-day problems, protect each other from violence, and to promote common prosperity. To do this we need to abolish all states."
A state is a politically organized body of people under a single government. What you described as a "voluntary association [of a] highly complex social structures [that] could be formed to deal with day-to-day problems, protect each other from violence, and to promote common prosperity" is essentially a state of some kind. It is certainly not anarchy.
The State of Israel, as is, has a right to continue to exist.
MasturDeBator2009

Con

MasturDeBator2009 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
tower

Pro

I see my opponent has forfeited this round. I reaffirm my arguements.
MasturDeBator2009

Con

MasturDeBator2009 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
tower

Pro

My opponent could not be bothered to respond two rounds in a row. Arguements extended.
MasturDeBator2009

Con

MasturDeBator2009 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
tower

Pro

My opponent has apparently given up on this debate. You know who to vote for.
MasturDeBator2009

Con

MasturDeBator2009 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
Well happy Passover then. :)
Posted by tower 6 years ago
tower
I practice Judaism, but I still attribute a lot of importance to cultural Judaism. For a lot of Jews, thats their only connection to their heritage.
Posted by InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
So Tower, are you actually a practicing jew or are you just culturally jewish?
Posted by tower 6 years ago
tower
@grahamreiver:
I got jumpy because you attacked me, not Israel. You told me I don't belong in America, and I'm a proud American. If you didn't mean that as an attack, then I'm sorry, but it did come across that way.
Also, "Jewish State" can have more than one connotation. Judaism is a religion, but it's also a culture. I thought that it would be obvious that I meant Jewish in a cultural context, because it was in the same paragraph that I was discussing democracy.
Posted by grahamreiver 6 years ago
grahamreiver
@tower:

In the first round of your debate, you wrote: "The majority of Israel is Jews; therefore it should be a Jewish State"

What part of "Jewish State" did I miss, son?

That is why I asked if you supported a religious state. Do you understand now, young man? I was writing in reference to what you wrote. I was not writing in reference to Israel as it currently exists.

Don't jump the gun.

I understand that Jews want their own homeland. Don't get so jumpy. I'm not attacking Israel.
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 6 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
Yea I am always happy to bash Israel for it's many sins and mistakes, but you can't let get in the way of the fact that it is the best state in the middle east.
Posted by InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
Yea, I'm Pro-Palestine, but even I'll admit that Israel is probably the most stable and democratic state in the Middle East.
Posted by tower 6 years ago
tower
@grahamreiver:
Israel is not a religious state in the sense you're describing it. Firstly, it's a democracy. Not what you would call tyrannical. Secondly, they hold freedom of religion as dearly as Americans do (I've been there. I know.) Thirdly, when its described as a Jewish State, it means culturally, as a destination for Jews to flourish with out having to assimilate or bend to Gentile considerations. Any laws relating to religion are created democratically, by the will of the people. And to answer your question, no, I don't think lack of separation of church and state is necessarily evil, as long as its done by the will of the people and it doesn't violate basic human rights. If people want a reasonable religious law, they are entitled to elect officials to create those laws. But if you disagree, then by all means challenge me to a debate. I'll gladly accept.
Posted by grahamreiver 6 years ago
grahamreiver
@tower:

you support a religious state? you are american? don't you think it's a little bit tyrannical to support a religious state? you don't belong in america, son. you belong in a place where there is no separation of church and state.
Posted by tower 6 years ago
tower
InsertNameHere,
Actually, Israel has accepted a two- state solution numerous times, going as far back as the 1948 U.N. resolution. Palestinian Arab leaders have rejected all of them because they reuse any agreement in which Israel, in any form, exists. It is a common misconception that Israel is opposed to a Palestinian state. Besides, the Gaza Strip and several other areas of Israel were given self-government with the understanding that if they fought terrorism they would allowed statehood. Instead, they created one of the largest government-supported terrorist breeding-grounds in the world.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by rakovsky 3 years ago
rakovsky
towerMasturDeBator2009Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: My vote, which strongly favors Con, is surprising, because Con actually forfeited his later rounds! When you forfeit, it does not mean you automatically lose those. The FAQ says " Forfeiting a round destroys your credibility and makes it less likely that voters will vote for you." So at this point, CON loses a LOT of credibility. BUT: The burden is on PRO, the instigator, to prove his assertion, that the State has a "right" to exist. The problem is that CON says States do not have a "right" and linked to a source. pro acknowledged CON's claim, but failed to actually prove they have this "right." PRO did prove that states don't have to be repressive. But he didn't prove states actually HAVE a right. The other thing is that CON cited a few sources, but PRO hardly cited anything. Weirdly, my votes go to the guy who forfeited a few rounds, because PRO did not actually prove states have "rights". They are not people, after all.
Vote Placed by tower 6 years ago
tower
towerMasturDeBator2009Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
towerMasturDeBator2009Tied
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:40