The Instigator
Cattycat99
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Skepsikyma
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

The United States Should Cut Direct Budgetary Aid to the Palestinian Authority

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Skepsikyma
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 835 times Debate No: 67883
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

Cattycat99

Pro

There are four main reasons why we should cut aid going to Palestine.

Reason 1: Palestine Is In A Unity Government With Hamas

SOURCE: Clifford D. May, (president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Mr. May holds master"s degrees from both Columbia University"s School of International Affairs and its School of Journalism. His undergraduate degree is from Sarah Lawrence College, and he hold a certificate in Russian language and literature from Leningrad State University, USSR.), July 2014, The Washington Times, (a daily broadsheet published in Washington, D.C., United States), "MAY: Salaries for terrorists" http://www.washingtontimes.com...

"Two months later, Hamas, the U.S."government"designated terrorist entity that rules Gaza, publicly ended its often lethal, seven"year feud with the PA, which rules the West Bank. The two entities announced a "government of national unity.""

Impact: This means that when we give money to the Palestinian Authority- It is also going to Hamas.

Reason 2: The Palestinian Authority Rewards Terrorists For Committing Acts of Terror

SOURCE: Edwin Black, (the award"winning, New York Times bestselling international investigative author. Black began working as a professional journalist while still in high school, later attending university where he further developed the craft. In the late 1970s he was a founder of the investigative magazine, The Chicago Monthly.), November 2013, The Jewish Daily Forward, (a Jewish"American national newspaper published in New York City.), "American Tax Dollars Help Fund Hefty 'Salaries' for Jailed Palestinian Killers" http://forward.com...
A532;A532;A532;A532;A532;A532;A532;A532;
"Here"s how the system works. When a Palestinian is convicted of an act of terror against the Israeli government or innocent civilians, such as a bombing or a murder, that convicted terrorist automatically receives a generous salary from the Palestinian Authority. The salary is specified by the Palestinian Law of the Prisoner and administered by the PA"s Ministry of Prisoner Affairs. A Palestinian watchdog group, the Prisoners Club, ensures the PA"s compliance with the law and pushes for payments as a prioritized expenditure. This means that even during frequent budget shortfalls and financial crisis, the PA pays the terrorists" salaries first and foremost " often before other fiscal obligations.
The Law of the Prisoner narrowly delineates just who is entitled to receive an official salary. In a recent interview, Ministry of Prisoners spokesman Amr Nasser read aloud that definition: "A detainee is each and every person who is in an Occupation prison based on his or her participation in the resistance to Occupation." This means crimes against Israel or Israelis. Nasser was careful to explain, "It does not include common"law thieves and burglars. They are not included and are not part of the mandate of the Ministry."

Impact: American Money is incentivizing and rewarding terrorism.

Reason 3: Palestinian Authority Glorifies And Promotes Terrorism

SOURCE: Palestinian Media Watch, (nongovernmental organization and media watchdog group. Founded in 1996 by Itamar Marcus, Palestinian Media Watch documents cases of incitement in Palestinian media.), Copyright 2014, "Violence and Terror" http://palwatch.org...

PA terror promotion takes many forms. Nationalistically, the PA actively elevates violence as a valid and heroic means to achieve political goals, while religiously, fighting and killing Jews has been presented repeatedly by PA religious and academic leaders as Allah"s will. On the social level, Palestinian leaders and society honor even the most loathsome of murderers portraying them as heroes and role models: Dalal Mughrabi, who led a bus hijacking in which 37 were killed, has schools, summer camps, and many other events and places baring her name to immortalize and glorify her and her terror attack.

Reason 4: Palestinian Police Force Collaborates With Terrorists
SOURCE: Steven Stotsky said in (is a senior research analyst at the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. He has degrees from Yale University and the University of Massachusetts.), Summer 2008, Middle East Quarterly, "Does Foreign Aid Fuel Palestinian Violence?" http://www.meforum.org...

"Not only did the security forces fail to prevent terrorist attacks, in many cases they colluded with terrorist groups and sometimes perpetrated attacks themselves. For example, on January 30, 2004, a Palestinian policeman belonging to the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades boarded a crowded bus in Jerusalem and detonated a bomb strapped to his body, killing ten Israelis.

The same article goes on to say that,

Documents captured during Operation Defensive Shield in 2002 detail security forces involvement in terrorist operations.[29] An Israeli document describing the interrogation of Fatah leader Nasser Aweis in 2002 revealed the links between Tanzim operatives and the PA national security apparatus and showed not only how Palestinian security officers instructed Tanzim operatives in bomb-making, but also how they regularly updated Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat.[30] Other documents detailed Palestinian Authority salary payments to terrorists in the employ of security service officials."
Skepsikyma

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for the opportunity to discuss this topic. Seeing as she as presented her case in her first round, I will do the same thing, and assume that rebuttals begin in the next round.
My case can be organized as followed:

- Direct budgetary aid acts as a means for maximizing costs during conflict mediation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
- Maximizing costs allows the mediator to increase the range of options within which both parties will be able to reach a bargain.
- An increased range of options which are acceptable to both parties leads to more viable mediation results.
- This benefit outweighs any associated costs.

Let us begin with an authoritative definition of mediation, which is central to my argument:
Mediation: "A reactive process of conflict management whereby parties seek the assistance of, or accept an offer of help from, an individual, group, or organization to change their behavior, settle their conflict, or resolve their problem without resorting to physical force or invoking the authority of the law"

The source which I will be citing addresses mediation in this widely referenced definition. This source cites many other sources which I would like to cite directly (such as the original source of this definition), but which will likely be unavailable to judges and my opponent due to restricted access: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

An increased range of options which are acceptable to both parties leads to more viable mediation results.

Said increase is actually the main purpose of mediation, as it is how the mediator increases the common ground between two parties. This common ground usually consists of the disparity between the net expected value of fighting to both parties. In other words, the grey area of concessions in which neither side surrenders so much as would be lost in fighting. This common ground is modified by disparities in information (one side may conceal or magnify their actual strength, creating a distortion of perception), and by the passage of time, which alters the underlying factors which delineate the common ground. This is why mediation puts such emphasis on enlarging and more accurately delineating the common ground, both through attempting to determine where the actual "red lines" stand, despite disparities in information (and then sharing that knowledge as needed), and through inflating the cost of fighting to extend the actual range. As this range shifts over time, a smaller range is much more likely to pass beyond the previous point of agreement and allow conflict to resurface than a larger zone, which even if it shifts will be more likely to contain the point of compromise within its bounds. Thus an increased range of options which are acceptable to both parties leads to more viable mediation results.

Maximizing costs allows the mediator to increase the range of options within which both parties will be able to reach a bargain.

As was previously mentioned, the inflation of the cost of fighting increases the shared bargaining zone between the two parties which are being mediated, as that zone is defined as the difference between the net expected value of fighting to each side. For example, if a lucrative trade agreement is only available in times of peace to one of the parties, a decision to fight must include the potential earnings of this agreement as an opportunity cost. Doing so makes war more costly, and extends the range of options available to mediators. This form of extension is reliant upon the mediator's continued leverage over the costs, and evaporates quickly without that support, potentially leading to a resurfacing of conflict if the bargain reached was within the artificial extension of the natural bargaining zone. Thus, maximizing costs allows the mediator to increase the range of options within which both parties will be able to reach a bargain.

Direct budgetary aid acts as a means for maximizing costs during conflict mediation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

The conflict between Israel and Palestine is a labyrinthine one, entangled in many powers, both on the world stage and the regional one. The chief mediator on this stage is the US, an ally to Israel which maintains many trade and research agreements (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...), and intelligence agreements (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...) with Israel. The US also offers Israel yearly aid (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...). These measures of support all make a level of war which would force the US to withdraw them extremely costly to Israel.

But mediation is a two way street, and there is a vast disparity between the cost maximization on the Israeli side and that on the Palestinian side. On the Palestinian side, the US has averaged around $400 million per annum since 2008 (http://fas.org...). On the other hand, Israel has received $121 billion YTD in aid (http://fas.org...). If we stopped aid to Israel today and continued at our current rate with Palestine, it would take almost 300 years for them to catch up. This makes the cost of conflict which would force open war astronomically less on the Palestinian side, and contributes to the difficulty of coming to a compromise: the Palestinians have a much lower net cost to fighting, as support from the rest of the Arab and Muslim world is not contingent on their cooperation with US-led mediation. By these metrics, more aid and deeper diplomatic ties would increase the cost of conflict for their party, make reconciliation and compromise more attractive by comparison, and increase the success of mediation. Eliminating aid would shrink the already small range of options for the Palestinians, possibly negating the current standoff and inciting a regional war as diplomatic reconciliation with Israel becomes viewed as impossible. This becomes even more plausible as Russia and China emerge on the world stage as potential foils to US influence in the region. Thus, direct budgetary aid acts as a means for maximizing costs during conflict mediation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

This benefit outweighs any associated costs.

I have outlined the dire potential effects on Israeli-Palestinian mediation which cutting of aid to Palestine. I will wait until the next turn to begin my rebuttal of the cost-based arguments which my opponent has outlined.
Debate Round No. 1
Cattycat99

Pro

Cattycat99 forfeited this round.
Skepsikyma

Con

In light of my opponent's forfeiture, I will abstain from responding from her arguments and give her another chance to respond first.
Debate Round No. 2
Cattycat99

Pro

Cattycat99 forfeited this round.
Skepsikyma

Con

Alas, my opponent has deserted me yet again. I will give her a final chance to respond before I address her arguments in the final round.
Debate Round No. 3
Cattycat99

Pro

Cattycat99 forfeited this round.
Skepsikyma

Con

Reason 1: The source link is broken, so I cannot verify the premises of this argument. Furthermore, no direct quotes from the article back up the impact conclusion, that "This means that when we give money to the Palestinian Authority- It is also going to Hamas."

Reason 2: The source is obviously biased. This wouldn't be an issue if the article cited other sources which back up it's assertions, but it does not. So we're expected to take information from a biased reporter at face value. And even if this were true, by this argument US tax dollars paid for the Israeli offensive in Gaza (Operation Protective Edge), which cost north of 2,000 Palestinian lives in densely populated civilian areas (http://www.haaretz.com...). This fails to top the number of Israelis killed in terror attacks since the year 2000 (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...). Are Israeli lives worth so much more than Palestinians to the US? Why?

Reason 3: The source which my opponent supplies is entirely self-referential, and has been found to fabricate evidence in the past (http://www.counterpunch.org...). It can hardly be considered credible.

Reason 4: In light of Operation Protective Edge, the same argument can be made against Israeli military forces. If they are willing to wantonly slaughter civilians in vastly disproportionate numbers to their own casualties in order to achieve their aims, what gives them the moral high ground over insurgents who target civilians?

My opponent's entire argument rests on the unsupported and unspoken premise that violence against Palestinian civilians is justified, while violence against Israeli civilians is not. Otherwise, it falls apart in the face of death toll statistics. And, seeing as my opponent forfeited, she can neither defend her case, nor can she critique mine, which is based on the US's status as a conflict mediator which, if it is to be effective, precludes the favoritism which we already show Israel, let alone the complete abandonment of Palestine. Thus the resolution is negated. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
JIDF shill detected.
Posted by YassineB 2 years ago
YassineB
Such nonsense. LoL.
> I normally don't do this, but COME ON! At least @Emilerose tries to be sophisticated about her arguments.
> This Israel/Zionism business is a dogma, & that's why I don't chose to debate such positions; even though, I do actually know the facts (& the history, from ancient times), & not the 'facts'.

@Emilerose
> Keep it diplomatic, you're smarter that way.
Posted by Hooty 2 years ago
Hooty
Eh, was going to jump straight into this one as my first ever debate, but then some extremely simple research turned up pointing to the rather obvious fact that Hamas's main funding comes from other Arabic countries, and it's probably safe to assume that a large quantity of US Aid funds therefore do not fall inbetween their hands, etc...

And it became a lot less interesting.
Posted by nikn 2 years ago
nikn
i do agree..
Posted by Emilrose 2 years ago
Emilrose
Hmm, I kinda agree with this. The unfortunate fact is that most of the financial aid goes towards Hamas and other terrorists.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by PatulousDescry 2 years ago
PatulousDescry
Cattycat99SkepsikymaTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con revealed the true nature of the spending
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Cattycat99SkepsikymaTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture