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

The United States Federal Government Should Significantly Decrease Military Funding to Israel

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,059 times Debate No: 44298
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)





Round 1: Acceptance Interpretation

Round 2: Constructive phase

Round 3: Answering phase

Round 4: Summary, reason to vote


Round one is simply acceptance so this is me accepting. I need a debate to "validate" my account (so I can vote, etc.) and this seems like an interesting topic. The last one I started didn't go so well and I had to forfeit every round due to technical difficulties. I'll be debating in a simplistic Public Forum Contention 1/2/3/so on format to keep things nice and clear. The resolution seems fairly clear and as such I interpret myself, as the opposition, to be arguing that the United States should NOT significantly decrease military funding to Israel; I certainly hope we don't get into a definition war because this topic seems like the definitions are pretty superficial (as in there's not a whole bunch of wiggle room). Hope this will be a smooth and friendly debate. Looking forward to it.
All due respect,
Debate Round No. 1


I would hope we both remain topical, but if there is a violation, it is just as valid to argue definition as it is to argue case.

INTERPRETATION: The USFG should pass legislation or give executive orders to decrease the amount of transactions involving military equipment, monetary funding, property or personnel, to the state of Israel.

BACKGROUND: Israel is given 3.5 Billion of its 14.6 Billion dollar military budget by the USFG. Israel is hot zone of military conflict as it holds ground imperative to stability of region. Israel currently governs land shared by Palestinians and Israelis.
Israel is geographically close to Iran. The Iranian population is predominately Muslim. Palestinians, also predominately Muslim.

PLAN: The United States Federal Government will pass legislation that cuts funding to Israel's military by 1.3 billion dollars, or one third.

Contention. Dehumanized Israeli Civilian Population.

A. The U.S. is seen as main Israeli supporter by world
B. Israeli Gov. 4% of population abuses 96%-Unlawful imprisonment-Unlawful property confiscation-Torture-Abuse- discrimination by police
C. Iran sees this abuse-Ayatollah is livid
D. U.S. passive behavior seen as acceptance.
E. Iran, Syria, both allies with Russia
F. Palestinians feel Gov. does not represent them


Pass Plan
Decrease funding
World perception of U.S. condoning of Israeli dehumanization shifts.

A. Israeli's see cost of abusing citizens, are shamed by world community and look for humanitarian and diplomatic solutions to accommodate Palestinian population, historical inset conflict between ethno group takes a shift towards less hostility.
B. Prisoners released.
C. If gov. still continues, they've less funding from U.S.
D. Iranian perception of Israel and U.S. improves, brings Iran to talk at U.N. about issues and involved in international trade
E. Iranian and Syrian perception of U.S. change, diplomacy now becomes route
F. Regional instability decreases


So, as per the instigator's rules, this round shall just be my constructive case and then the next round shall be for refuting each other's arguments. Using my opponent's format, I shall make my case.

INTERPRETATION: The USFG should not pass legislation or give executive orders "significantly" decreasing military funding to Israel.

As the opposition, it is not my burden to propose a plan/counter-plan, rather just prove that my opponent's proposition should not be adopted.

Contention 1: UN and Int'l Law.
A. The League of Nations Mandate, the UN Partition Plan, and Israel's 1949 admission into the UN reaffirmed Israel the international right to exist as the Jewish homeland.
B. UN Security Council Resolution 242 reads that Israel should relinquish land only if it is in the context of a "peaceful and accepted settlement."
C. UN Resolution 242 requires that all states in the area recognize Israel's "right to live in peace with secure and recognized borders free from threats or acts of force."
Summary: We, as loyal and powerful members of the UN, should do all we can to promote its ideals especially if they reflect our own. As they do, cutting 1/3rd of our military aid to Israel would not be doing so.

Contention 2: Peace.
The average Israeli has made clear that he/she primarily wants peace. Israelis are more than willing to compromise on a two-state solution as opposed to Israel's enemies who solely want to see it wiped from the map. The US should support the Israelis in their fight for dominance, therefore their fight for peace and compromise.

Contention 3: Self-defense.
Why do anti-Israel individuals promote Muslims' right to self-defense but not Jews? Not only should Israelis have the right to defend themselves but, as our closest and most stable ally in the region, we should be supporting and aiding them any way we can.

1. Distance US from Israel; turn our backs on UN.
2. """; promote discord.
3. Prejudice in promotion of rights.

Citations in comments.
Debate Round No. 2



Contention 1
A. They should have allowed Palestinians that same right, this point supports the unequal representation of the Israeli citizens by the Israeli government.
B. UNSC cannot enforce resolutions without breaking the laws of their own charter, also, if this resolution had solved, the oppression of Palestinians, Israeli citizens, would have ceased 47 years ago.
C. As previously stated, the resolution failed, dehumanization continues, as does U.S. support.

Summary: We are not loyal members of the UN we haven't ratified the roman statute of the ICC and continue to break resolutions, and meddling with foreign affairs. Cutting 1/3 of military aid is diplomatic intervention, not to mention it doesn't break resolution 242, we still fund them, and they still have billions in defense. Also, international community sees U.S. as supporters of dehumanization, russia points to israel like dirty laundry. Plan upholds unity of nations, and ideals of U.N.

Contention 2. The Israeli military has made it clear they want land, and that they do not mind neglecting a large percentage of Israeli's rights to get it. Two state is not solution, the problem still exists, but now with borders to justify military oppression. Dominance and compromise, fight for peace? These things negate one another. The U.S. supports Israel fully, but shouldn't.

Contention 3
Because we support "Jews" (israeli gov.) with billions of dollars in high tech weaponry, and with that weaponry they oppress "Muslims" (Israeli citizens) who might have AK-47's, or sticks. As I said, we are aiding them, but we are aiding a small portion of them, in their quest to NOT aid the majority of them, this is foolish, is seen as a clear discrimination of Palestinian Israelis, and U.S. acceptance of dehumanization by the international community. We are not passively condoning these acts, we are funding them. Israel relies on our support, we could make them think twice about using our guns to shoot themselves.


Contention: As of 2013, Israel is 16th highest on list of countries as sorted by the Human Development Index--ahead of nations such as Spain, Finland and France; meaning that Israeli population is not just very humanized, but among the most so in the world.
A. Yes it is & as such, we should keep our relationship as such with Israel to keep as strong a grasp as possible on the Middle East.
B. The Israeli people (gov't) are not doing anything unethical or unjustified. They are in the middle of trying to keep the country functioning and secure with tyrants & terrorists doing everything they can to halt its progress.
C. Going by opponent's argument, not only should we start cutting ties with Israel, but we should also start pandering to Iran and its radical theocratic government!
D. The U.S. is passive about what the Israeli government in large part is doing because we have no reason to reprimand them for any of their actions. When we do feel a wrongdoing has occurred, we do say something.
E. The affirmation is proposing in this point that we choose and pander to the beliefs of Iran and Syria because they are allies with RUSSIA over supporting our interests & that of our closest ally Israel!
F. Luckily for Palestinians, Israel has very stable & fair electoral system where they are more than able to express their views on gov't. They suspend their right to complain about misrepresentation if they take no part in the democratic voting process--same as here in US.
A. With Israel in charge of its boarders and with our support, peace would occur as evidenced in my case.
B. How? Not specified in case or logistics.
C. Which would make gov. unstable and even worse off for all parties involved.
D. Iran is an unstable country; we should focus on protecting the more stable Israel for stability in the Middle East.
E. Diplomacy will occur through Israeli help and support.
F. Not without Israel--the stablest country in the region.

Cita. in comnts.
Debate Round No. 3


NPDAgeek forfeited this round.


Seeing that my opponent has forfeited this round, my answers to his case therefore defeat his case in its entirety and my counter-arguments flow through. I will now go over my case one last time to refute his answers.
Contention 1
A. Palestinians are represented equally under the Israeli government seeing as how 75.3% of Israel's population is Jewish.
B. Palestinians are invited to live side-by-side with the Israeli Jews and be represented fairly in the government, but rather than accept that they would rather declare war on the Jews; it is not the fault of the Israeli Jews that this conflict is occurring, rather the greediness of Palestinians (and I use both those terms as generalizations).
C. The resolution may have, up to this point, failed but that is not due to an over-abundance of funding rather, if we are to blame any of the issue on funding, it is the lack of it.
Summary: Rather than have a debate about word usage and definitions, I propose that we do the best we can to uphold international law and treaties and support our closest ally.

Contention 2: The Israeli people merely want to keep their country united; to compare to something more familiar, was the Civil War the fault of the Union or the South? In Israel, we see something similar where the "Israeli Jew" is the Union and the "Palestinian" is the South. We need to stand with the Israelis.

Contention 3: My opponent calls Israeli Jews a "small portion of them [Israeli citizens]" and, as stated previously, the fact of the matter is that Israeli Jews are a grand majority of the population and the portion, in general, that merely wishes to cohabitate in peace and keep their country together. If we have learned anything through our own civil war, it is that the unionists are the most reasonable.

Due to my opponent's forfeiture and my refutations of his case (which flow through due to his lack of a response) and my counter-claims to his answers, my case now flows through as well. Vote con. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
I didn't find either side's arguments very convincing. On the one hand, from Pro, I get this weak link story that tells me that, after we provide less funding to Israel, Iran, Syria and the Palestinians will be really happy with us, and the conflict in the Middle East will eventually cease. On the other hand, from Con, I get a strange explanation of how the UN supports our actions, more money = peace, they're entitled to self-defense, and how they're a more noble and ethical country. I don't find much merit in either of these link stories, and the impacts are often completely disjointed from the explanations.

That being said, a choice must be made. Con's argument is often contradictory. The UN supports our funding of Israel, and yet has dozens of resolutions against Israel. As Pro points out, more money hasn't led to peace, and could in fact be prolonging conflict (a point I don't much agree with, but I don't see a significant response to). The entitlement to self-defense has no bearing on how much money we give them. And Israel's ethics, again, don't support current levels of funding, just ensuring that support remains. Pro isn't removing all support, therefore we're still showing favoritism to Israel. Strange that Con didn't attack this, but it works against him.

And the end of the day, despite Pro's forfeit (which is the reason for the conduct vote), Con's argument is a mess. I think Pro's argument is a mess too, but I'm not seeing the specific response I need to vote him down. There are numerous links that are spurious or missing that could have been targeted, and yet I see nothing here. That costs Con the debate.

I'll give citations to Con too, since he's the only one to have them, but side note here, don't put your citations in comments. I should have to only look at the debate when formulating my vote.
Posted by NatetheGreat365 3 years ago
Oh, and my citation for my final round:

Posted by NatetheGreat365 3 years ago
Of course! As opposed to taking up hundreds of characters in the debate I figured the most efficient way would to be just post in the comments. :P Good debate so far! Looking forward to more!
Posted by NPDAgeek 3 years ago
Very helpful! Thank you Nate.
Posted by NatetheGreat365 3 years ago
1.A: History of Israel. League of Nations: Creating a Mandate State (
1.B: United Nations official website. Security Council Resolution 242 official text (
1.C: United Nations official website. Security Council Resolution 242 official text (
2: Alan Krinsky for Huffington Post. (
3: Alan Krinsky for Huffington Post. (
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Explained in comments, but guys, I debated in NPDA for 5 years, and I know that in NPDA and PoFo, there's a tendency to engage in minimalist debate, where you put forth your arguments in small snippets so that you can get out more arguments faster. That's not what you should be doing on this website. You have to take the time to explain your points. Neither debater warranted their arguments, their evidence was minimal at best, and their link structure was strained to say the least. In both cases, you need to take the time to tell a story, not just argue that you are right by virtue of the fact that you provide more impacts.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF