The U.S. Should Maintain its Alliance with Israel
Resolved: The U.S. should maintain its alliance with Israel
U.S. - United States of America.
Should - ought to.
Maintain - continue existence.
Alliance - for specific purposes.
Israel - the Middle Eastern country on the Mediterranean Sea.
1. BOP is shared.
2. Con has the option to begin in the next round or allow me to begin first in Round 2 if he wishes.
3. No trolling/semantics/kritiks.
4. Maintain a civil atmosphere.
5. My opponent agrees to all definitions.
Let's do it ;)
Thank you for this debate and let's begin.
Alrighty then. Allow me to lay out my case for the affirmative.
C1) Similar Interests
The U.S. and Israel have morals, rights, and values that reflect each other. What is unique about Israel is that it holds values that are humane when compared with its neighboring countries. Israel has many of the same freedoms that are given in the U.S. Constitution, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly. It can be described as a "monument of democracy and stability in a region where’s there’s been little of either". Since the U.S. holds these values, rights, and morals as important, it has a reason to strengthen other countries such as Israel in order to promote them and keep them existent and alive in a world where rights are often abused. If we were to cut our support, Israel would be weakened and thus more likely to be overrun by surrounding Arab states that do not share these basic human rights.
Saudi Arabia is regarded as one of the countries with the lowest political rights and civil liberties. It along with Israel's neighbors, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Palestine are all regarded as "not free" with limited rights in each. Saudi Arabia has serious problems with human trafficking, discrimination against women, lack of freedom of religion or speech, and executions of homosexuals. Many of these things can be said for surrounding Arab theocratic states with severe problems. That being said, the strengthening and promotion of these interests are critical in the Middle East, and ought to be acknowledged by the U.S. through an alliance. Political influence has worked before, and can work with Israel and its neighboring countries too.
One of the major goals of surrounding Arab countries is to destroy Israel. They have refused to negotiate on treaties and have allowed groups such as Hamas's organization to repeatedly launch rockets into Israel. The IDF has reacted with counter attacks as a means of self-defense, in order to keep Hamas's group away from their country.
Israel has had a history of attempts to establish peace with help from the U.S. Their Declaration of Independence reads:
"We appeal in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months to the Arab inhabitants of the state of Israel, to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the state on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.
We extend our hand to all neighboring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighborliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East."
In the past, there have been many attempts to establish peace from Israel, including Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty in 1979 and the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty in 1994. The U.S. has historically encouraged these treaties and has made sure that both sides agree to them. However, these instances of peace often exist for short periods of time before violence erupts again. Since peace in the area is something that would be beneficial to everyone, Israel needs America's help through alliance to further work towards establishing peace with the help of Israel. They need the U.S.'s support to be that layer of stability in which a violent society is discouraged and peace is the top priority, as the U.S. has made in the past.
My opponent would like to claim that Israel and the United States are similar in morals, rights and values. HOwever given the reality of Israel's racial laws and unfair discrimination this hardly seems to be the case. While the US Constitution treats all races and ethnicities equal, Israel has implemented laws that are 'jew-centered' and discriminatory towards those of gentile origin especially those of palestinian origin.
Ex1) Israel creates Jewish only roads and Jewish only settlements.
Explanation- This would have been analogous to America making White only roads and white only settlements. However America does not do that because it has better morales than israel.
Ex 2) Israel has created apartheid walls and military checkpoints where Jews can travel freely but Palestinians are often detained for long periods of time, sometimes dying because they are unable to reach hospitals in emergency situations. Pregnant women and their unborn children have died in the shadows of those killing, dividing apartheid barriers.
Explanation-This would have been analogous to America setting checkpoints along its border where whites can travel freely but mexicans are held back for long periods of time, sometimes dying because they cannot reach hospitals.
Ex 3) Anyone with a Jewish mother can "return" to Palestine and become a citizen of Israel, even though they and their ancestors have not lived in the region for more than a thousand years. But Palestinians whose families lived in Palestine as recently as 1948 are not allowed to return, even if they have clear deeds to land that was stolen from them during the Nakba (Arabic for "Catastrophe").
Explanation- This would have been analogous to America allowing those with white mothers to return to mexico and become a citizen of theUnited States even though they haven't lived in the region for very long while Mexicans who may have lived in America the whole time are not allowed to return to America, even if they had rights to the land that was stolen from them.
Modern day America does not endorse racial laws and racism but Israel does. This indicates dissimilar interests about equality. American funding no doubt goes into the salaries of these racist lawmaakers thus promoting racism and discrimination!
My opponent would like to present Palestine as an oppressive state. While it is not a democracy, it does have basic human rights laws. "The PA has guaranteed freedom of assembly to the Palestinian population, and its Legislation states this." "Many Jewish and Christian holy sites remain in areas controlled by the Palestinian National Authority. Under the Oslo Accords, Palestinians agreed to respect and protect religious rights of Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Samaritans by a) protecting the Holy Sites, 2) providing free access to the Holy Sites, and assuring freedom of worship and practice. a. Protection of the Holy Sites; b. Free access to the Holy Sites; and c. Freedom of worship and practice. "
The very creation of israel has caused non
Paramilitant groups on the rise due to America supporting israel's existence.
In the Middle East
Hamas is one of the many paramilitant groups created in response to Israel and Western support for it. " Hamas Charter affirmed in 1988, that Hamas was founded to liberate Palestine, including modern-day Israel, from Israeli Occupation " Thus Israel and the US funding it continues to provide the reason and justification for the existence of Hamas.
In the USA
As we all know America has suffered a horrendous terrorist attack on 9/11 at the hands of Al Qaeda. The reason AL Qaeda attacks America or even exists has been made very very clear. It is due America's continued support for Israel and terrorist groups will continue to terrorize Americans as long as America supports Israel.
American unemployment, inflation, and tax $$
"The Senate ended its session today before scampering home by (in effect) transferring a quarter billion dollars from unemployed Americans to Israel instead, so the nuclear-armed Superpower of the Middle East could improve its air defense system." Thus we can see many Americans that could have been hired by the government to increase productivity in society instead are being unemployed and themoney gone to israel. "
On this basis the $84.8 billion in grants, loans and commodities Israel has received from the U.S. since 1949 cost the U.S. an additional $49,936,880,000 in interest.
There are many other costs of Israel to U.S. taxpayers, such as most or all of the $45.6 billion in U.S. foreign aid to Egypt since Egypt made peace with Israel in 1979 (compared to $4.2 billion in U.S. aid to Egypt for the preceding 26 years). U.S. foreign aid to Egypt, which is pegged at two-thirds of U.S. foreign aid to Israel, averages $2.2 billion per year.
There also have been immense political and military costs to the U.S. for its consistent support of Israel during Israel’s half-century of disputes with the Palestinians and all of its Arab neighbors. In addition, there have been the approximately $10 billion in U.S. loan guarantees and perhaps $20 billion in tax-exempt contributions made to Israel by American Jews in the nearly half-century since Israel was created.
Even excluding all of these extra costs, America’s $84.8 billion in aid to Israel from fiscal years 1949 through 1998, and the interest the U.S. paid to borrow this money, has cost U.S. taxpayers $134.8 billion, not adjusted for inflation. Or, put another way, the nearly $14,630 every one of 5.8 million Israelis received from the U.S. government by Oct. 31, 1997 has cost American taxpayers $23,240 per Israeli." As we can see Israel has costed America tremendous amounts of taxpayer money and increased debt.
I request that my opponent include either source footnotes or the links in the text of his argument so that the readers and I can trace each claim back to its specific source. This is to prevent confusion and make sure that each claim made isn't made up. It also prevents extra work for the readers and I to do.
1. Con completely missed the point of this argument. Israel may not have perfect racial laws, but they are significantly better than those of the surrounding Arab states, some of whom still practice slavery and are ruled by oppressive theocracies with restricted human rights. My argument was that Israel's relatively similar interests to America mean that an alliance between the two countries could be a political influence on the Arab states. Even if Con can argue that Israel still has a few issues, he has to admit that they are *far* better than those of Jordan, Syria, Yemen Saudi Arabia, etc. I proved this in the last round by showing the lack of rights in each of these countries in contrast with Israel.
2. The fact that Israel isn't perfect strengthens my point about using the alliance as an influence on the Middle East. If Israel were to cut its influential connection with the U.S., its hope of abandoning its racial laws would be reduced. This country needs Western influence if there is any future for its religious laws.
3. Con's mentioning of me "painting Palestine as an oppressive state" is a red herring. It has very little to do with the resolution, and I'm not sure sure what Con is trying to prove by trying to promote it. Palestine is a tiny area, so the fact that my opponent acknowledged it and not the other nations is odd. Even so, Israel is regarded as free with high ratings in political and civil rights areas, while the Gaza Strip is "not free" with very low ratings in both areas.
1. My opponent does not dispute that Israel has attempted peace several times in the past, thus conceding that it has. After the conflict over the Sinai territory in the 70's that Israel had taken, it offered Egypt the entire peninsula in exchange for peace. Egypt agreed, and peace was made. This is an astounding example of the measures that Israel will go to in order to keep peace between the nations.
2. Con drops my point about the U.S. being a stabilizing force of peace through an alliance and instead tries to find two isolated actions of the IDF he finds "unjust". This is irrelevant as it ignores the bigger picture and has nothing to do with my actual argument.
1. My adversary is supposed to be arguing that the status quo should be changed, as in the alliance should be cut, not that it should never have existed. Any points that he makes in support of the latter should be ignored as they are irrelevant to the resolution. Such points include militant groups that he suspects were formed because of America's support for Israel.
2. Con seems to be hinting that if the U.S. cut support with Israel then militant groups such as Al Qaeda would either die off or stop rising up against it. This is very far from the truth. If the U.S. cut its support, Israel would be rendered more vulnerable to terrorist groups such as Hamas and Al Qaeda, which is the exact opposite of what we want. Thus it is more logical for America to hold fast with Israel as it is set up for potential destruction.
This is actually quite minor of a point because it hinges on whether or not the alliance with Israel is worth keeping or not. If I can show that that the alliance is a net benefit, then a reader must agree that more lives saved is better than a few more dollars paid. This point doesn't really show how giving aid to another country is a bad thing unless we all assume that the alliance is pointless, which I have shown that it isn't.
America's funding of Israeli military and the IDF is crucial for the protection and survival of its citizens. In the recent conflict, Hamas's organization has been shooting rockets into the area of Israel and has caused civilians to die. The situation for them is real and much more important than ours when it comes to a bit of money. If the U.S. denied aid to them simply because "it costs too much", why is the alternative of a weaker Israel the better option? Con needs to show that the money spent helping their military isn't worth it in order to make their point. This is like saying that donating to charity is a bad idea because it takes money out of people's pockets.
Even though I will comply with new terms my opponent has presented and will use pictures to clear, it is important to realize my opponent has made terms for the debate which I accepted and is now requesting new terms of me even after I have accepted. This would be like making terms for a contract and once signed requesting new terms of the person who agree to the contract before the terms were given. When I say Middle Eastern countries I will be reffering to Middle Eastern countries EXCEPT israel.
Well, that was an...interesting argument from Con. As for my earlier round, I never said that the debate had adopted "new terms", I simply requested that my opponent use footnotes or post his links in-text to make it easier to connect claims to sources.
Con has completely exaggerated the issue of human rights and discrimination in Israeli. He acts as if Israel is committing horrendous acts of injustice that don't deserve any support from countries like America, but these issues are much more minor then Con thinks. In fact, according to the "2010 U.S. State Department Country Reports On Human Rights Practices for Israel and the Occupied Territories, Israeli law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, and the government effectively enforced these prohibitions." Now, while racial equality has been a priority for the government, that doesn't mean that Israel's people are necessarily perfect. No one can deny that racism still exists even in very free countries such as the U.S. The difference is that we can't blame some Israeli people for being prejudiced against the Palestinian state that has been in constant conflict with Israel for decades and is bound to stir up hostile feelings. It would be comparable to the American Union and Confederacy trying to exist together in harmonious peace when the beginning of the Confederacy brought instantaneous conflict. All of the instances of discrimination that Con brought up earlier were against Palestinians, not simply against a minority for the sake of being racist.
Israel and the Middle East
Con challenges my claim that Israel is a freer, more democratic nation than the surrounding Arab states. I disagree; having proven earlier that the human rights of Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, and Palestine are much lower than Israel. Con concedes all of this. Instead of trying to actually prove that Israel's nature is worse than that of it's neighbor theocracies, he restates that because he believes that because two of the attacks Israel made on Palestine were unjust, than it is somehow overall worse than Palestine. Again, this is extremely miniscule of an argument. The real conflict is Israel vs Hamas, with the Palestinian government being opposed to the terrorists, and from Hamas's group, there have been thousands of missiles shot into Israel with the terrorists using civilian homes as shields .
Having started to go off track of what I've originally argued, I will restate why the U.S. ought to maintain its alliance with Israel: to be a Western influence in the Middle East. Having shown that Israel is far freer and more democratic than all the other countries in that area, renddrinf it unique, the U.S. has an interest in keeping hold of this alliance in order to be the influence of good in the Middle East. Con hasn't successfully refuted this argument, but has attempted to use distractions such as racial laws an isolated allegations of Israel in order to disprove this, which I have overturned. Thus, I hold this contention.
My other major contention in this debate is that the U.S. is good at helping maintain peace in the Middle East, thus it has an interest in doing so by keeping form this alliance with Israel as it seems to be the center of conflict and could use support in order to maintain peace, which is likely there number one interest considering all the attacks that have occurred in that area. Con never really refuted this, attempting to distort my argument by reasoning that Israel's "invasion" of Egypt was the negation of peace. I assume he is referring to the Six Day War of 1967, which was really an extended conflict from the 1948 Israel-Arab War which officially began after Egypt, Jordan, and Syria combined to invade Israel following it's independence. If anything, Egypt was responsible for this conflict, not Israel.
The restatement that "Israel's alliance with the U.S. is responsible for 9/11" is quite a poor argument. For one, we can never know really and can only guess, and second this is irrelevant to the resolution (as I stated earlier) because it talks about the past, not the present, which is what the resolution is focused on. Con should be arguing that the alliance should be cut rather than that it never should have existed.
Con asserts that if the U.S. broke its relationship with Israel, other countries would swoop in and help it to its feet. The major problem with this is that it is simply a guess and there is no reason to believe that will happen. I find it interesting how Con has argued that the costs of the Israeli alliance are a major harm to America yet states that China could just lend money to Israel in order to ensure peace and prosperity. Here he concedes that the costs can be worth it if lives are in jeapordy, thus the costs argument is pretty much useless.
Let's take this claim seriously. For one, backing out of an alliance simply upon the guess that China will help Israel is very risky and a decision that isn't worth taking. What if China doesn't help Israel, or what if it's lending of money doesn't keep lives from being taken? This is too theoretical for anyone to take seriously. To assume that Israel and other groups will "peacefully disband" is flat out wrong because the conflict between the Jews and Arabians is extremely deeply rooted. The terrorists and Arabians have vowed to wipe Israel of the face off the face of the Earth and will not rest until they destroy the Jewish state that they are so pitted against. Negotiations have been impossible and cannot be achieved without a proper means of defense and a strong nation to aid Israel in its defense so that its civilians can live in peace.
If you compare both my arguments and my opponent's statements, you'll find that mine are indeed stronger. I have shown that an American alliance with Israel is in the best interest of both countries and is a net benefit it in that area. In a place of utter conflict, support from a strong Western nation is absolutely vital for the little country of Israel to defend itself against the 22 Arab states that are near it and could turn into another Holocaust if their people is not protected from the Arabian forces that have expressed their anger too many times. My arguments consist of an alliance bringing a positive influence to that area, a greater chance of peace, and a stronger chance that the people of Israel can live without being destroyed. My opponent's arguments are basically made up of theoretical scenarios in which minor effects, such as military groups and a little more money spent, pose little harm from a strong alliance. Vote Pro!
Even though my opponent never outright wrote that new terms were being adopted my opponent indeed did adopt new terms. Similary a signatory can create a mutual agreement with another party and after signed request new terms without directly saying these are new terms, in fact if a signatory did want new terms, it'd be more likely the signatory would not expressively state new terms are being requested to hid the fact he is requesting new terms.
I had been hoping Pro would at least on one round avoid basing his arguments on an israel-centric viewpoint. However majority of his arguments if not pretty much all are centered around israelite people and very little if no regard for other people. He has simply brushed off American homeless who are without jobs or Americans who are struggling to pay their daily expenses as minor. He has also brushed off American suffering under terrorist attacks due to continued American support for israel with 9/11 being the prime example. He also says the countries around israel will benefit from israel's continued alliance with USA simply because they are inferior to israel in western terms even though this is hardly the truth. Since my opponent has a general Israelite-centric view I will try to give voters an insight on multiple views of the issue.
My opponent likes to disregard american unemployment, starvation, lack of basic needs, econmic crashes, and everyday struggles as something that should be put down for Israel's good.
It is also noteworthy my opponent ignores US economic struggles with an ever increasing debt and unemployment etc in his final round. This is understandable as it's hard to argue tax money and unemployment for the sake of weapon funding for 'peace' is the same as charity. It is easy to argue charity is worth military buildup but it's hard to argue taxpayer money and unemployment is worth military buildup so it seems once 'charity' is American pain and suffering then it gets dropped out.
My opponent also tries to downplay 9/11 as a thing of the past while ignoring a continuous stream of terrorist attacks in the USA. As one can clearly see 9/11 is proof that the alliance is a current threat to the USA as 9/11 was not the last terrorist attack and more will continue so long as US maintains its alliance.
As can be seen by the bottom highlight it is indicated it's not a thing of the past and of course my opponent is yet to prove terrorism in the US is a thing of the past US alliance with Israel will not generate more terrorist attacks in the USA.
As can be seen this has never actually been refuted by my opponent as my opponent never proved that terrorist groups won't continue to terrorize the USA. He only says today isn't 9/11 therefore it's in the past and he deliberately ignores the fact it's just an example of how America's continued support for Israel will cause innocent USA citizens to be continually terrorized. He therefore turned an example supporting an arguement(continued support causes terrorist attack in USA) into the argument itself and has dropped out the real argument which the example was used to support. This is understandable as it is in his best interest to drop out the fact that USA support for israel will continue to terrorize USA citizens by swithcing example with argument itself. Again this shows Israelite-centric view and completely disregards future USA suffering for terrorist attackers due to the continuation of the alliance.
I will readdress my earliest argument that USA supportin Israel today does not supports today's American policies. As seens it's in direct violation of laws to be supportin Israel the way it is. My opponet never addresses the severe violation of USA interests be supporting israel because he simply disregards it as minor racism.
I will now address how USA supporting Israel infact hurts israelites!! It turns out US funding actually increases the burden of israelite civilians and makes them more prone to suffering rather than benefitting. It also has turned Israel into a spoiled child. As can be seen increased military funding makes more children schooless less elders taken care of and more funding to forcefully draft children into combat.
Middle Eastern Point of View
My opponent's only claim about how Middle East benefits is Israel somehow being around Middle East makes Middle East more democratic and better rather than more violent and more unrest. In fact Israel seems more like the tyrant and Middle Eastern nations are lesser so the tyrant because so we see that Israel is clearly the most abusive country in the Middle East region because it's the only one that legalizes torture. Israel legalizing torture and torturing its neighbors as many would imagine would clearly make those countries undoubtly want to adopt torture policies and in turn become themselves even less democratic. My opponet tries to mention my example of Hamas as the argument itself rather than an example of the bigger picture. My point was either misunderstodd or deliberately misinterpretted in which he took a specific example supporting a point( Israel is worse than Middle Eastern nations) and made that the point itself and disregarded the point it was supporting. He is argueing a nonexistant opponent and is failing to actually address my main arguments.
My opponent would like to claim supporting the alliance is 'promoting peace' but this is hardly the case. as one can imagine how can providing weapons-tools of warfare and destruction- be promoting peace? This just causes everywhere to start building up more and more weapons with more weapons to spare.
My opponent once again uses an example ONLY meant to support a point as the actual argument itself with the China example being warped into an actual argument itself. In fact I clearly state which shows china is merely an example and not the acutal argument itself as other nations might sympathsize as well. My opponent's suggestion that somehow a large scale war will occur would show lack of common sense of the part of all nations. As I already addressed common logic of nations in another round I will have no need to readdress it here. If my opponent can argue that USA continuing aid can continue to support peace then surely USA would be able to peacefully disband Israel. If it couldn't peacefully disband Israel which my opponent seems to suggest then logically it would be incapable of providing any 'peace' whatsoever through funding Israel.
My opponent addresses a very one sided Israelite Centric argument and downplays all other nations and peoples involved. As anyone can see my arguments clearly consider more than one party in this political debate while his seem to only address Israel and other nation concerns are neligble in his arguments. It also seems he is debating an imaginary opponent by warping my arguments into something completely different and making those warped versions of the argument part of his imaginary opponent's argument while tryig to avoid his real opponent's arguments. So far there has been no attempt to refute the asseration that my arguments are being warped into something they completely aren't which implies my opponent is fully aware of it and is trying to avoid bringing this up. It's also noteworthy his arguments seem to follow an earlier thinking I would imagine most non white supremacist readers would have regarded as flawed. He is following a 'White mans burden' argument in which white man must tame the world because white man is superior and only white man matters. In fact his argument that of Israel spreading human rights was like the British justification for colonizing Africa because britain was at the age of enlightment and banned slavery while africa didn't. When Britain colonized africa they exploited africans through blackmailing and other abuses just like israel does to palestinians today. He also contends that zionist imperialism is maintaining peace which was similar to British justification for sending in more money from colonizing states to increase military action against African partisans. He also maintains that Israel maintains peace much like the British declared their colonization of India maintained peace between muslims and Hindu. In fact when the British left peace was made by creating independent Pakistan and India. So as voters can see what type of 'philosophoical' roots my opponent addresses was analogus to the philosophical roots that justified British imperialism with the reality in both the Middle East situation and African situation being very different from the imperialist philosophy. Vote Con !
|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:||4||0|