The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

The United States should no longer pressure Israel to work toward a two-state solutions.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
ImaWin has forfeited round #1.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/20/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 383 times Debate No: 102703
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




Debate rules:
1. Not a value debate, only debate on information.
2. Be nice, be responsible, and be serious in this debate.
3. Make sure to display evidence for arguments.

“They (nation of Israel) have a right to exist. The international community has recognized for over half a century that Israel has a right to exist and we need to acknowledge right here on the floor of this House of Representative that our friends, the Israelis, are under attack at this very moment, have been since a year and a half ago, and their very existence is being challenged by those who would like to wipe them off the face of the earth. Mr. Speaker, we need to make a strong statement on a bipartisan basis that this country is going to resist those terrorists who would not even acknowledge the right of Israel to exist as a nation.” -Roger Wicker, U.S. Representative, Mississippi.

The United States should no longer pressure Israel to work toward a two-state solutions.

(as said by the Merriam-Webster dictionary):

Pressure: The use of persuasion, influence, or intimidation to make someone do something.

Two-State solution: Forcing two territories to live as one nation; Two states for two groups of people. Definition will vary.

Contention 1: Palestinians/Hamas reject Israel’s right to exist as a nation.

(Criteria 1) Palestinian leaders in the west bank refuse to accept Israel’s right to exist.

(Subpoint A) Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip proves that Palestinians will not become peaceful if Israeli occupation ends.
Yaakov Lappin, (Staff), Jerusalem Post June 17, 2016

Since withdrawing from the Gaza Strip unilaterally in 2005, Israel has come forth under frequent attack by Hamas, and has been forced to fight three wars to defend the South from rocket barrages and tunnel attacks. In none of those conflicts did Israel aim to destroy or topple the Islamic regime and its hybrid terrorist army. The goal of each conflict was to inflict sufficient levels of damage on Hamas to deter it from seeking conflict with Israel again soon. Yet since the conclusion of the 50-day war with Hamas in the summer of 2014, a change has occurred in the thinking of the defense establishment and the government. The concept of fighting a war to achieve deterrence has been tossed aside, in favor of an old-new war goal: achieving the military destruction of the enemy.

(Subpoint B) The Palestinian authority no longer supports it.

Joshua Mitnick, (Staff), Los Angeles Times, Dec. 30, 2016

A December public opinion poll found that two-thirds of Palestinians believe a two-state solution is no longer feasible.

(Criteria 2) Hamas leaders in the Gaza Strip refuse to accept Israel’s right to exist.

(Subpoint A) Hamas is a terrorist organization.

Ben Gladstone, (CEO, Liberals for Israel), Israel’s right to exist and defend itself, 2012

Now here’s why Hamas act the way it does, as stated in its charter: “So-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.” And furthermore: “There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.” So how exactly does Hamas act? For one, they use human shields to draw international criticism of Israel, despite Article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states that, “the presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.” Not only does Hamas explicitly target Israeli civilians, they also use their own population centers as launching pads for their indiscriminate missiles. In fact, since Operation Pillar of Defense began, 99 of Hamas’ own rockets have fallen back into Gazan population centers. That just goes to show how little they value human life, even that of their own people.

(Subpoint B) Hamas declares that it is committed to killing as many Jews as it can.

Samantha Power, (Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN), Jerusalem Post, Dec. 25, 2016

The most recent wave of Palestinian violence has seen terrorists commit hundreds of attacks-including driving cars into crowds of innocent civilians and stabbing mothers in front of their children. Yet rather than condemn these attacks, Hamas, other radical factions, and even certain members of Fatah have held up the terrorists as heroes, and used social media to incite others to follow in their murderous footsteps.

Contention 2: The United States should be open to alternatives to the Two-State solution.

(Criteria 1) Focus on the Two-State option has caused the United States to ignore alternatives.

(Subpoint A) It is unjust for the United States to pressure Israel to adopt an unworkable solution.

Ilan Evyatar, (Staff), Jerusalem Post, Jan. 1, 2016

US Secretary of State John Kerry has taken every opportunity to warn that the only alternative to a two-state solution is a binational state and that the violence of recent months is only a prelude to what would happen in that event. But is pressure on Israel through veiled threats and half-hearted pressure from factions within the European Union really the answer? Will this lead the sides closer to peace? Will it lead Israel to withdraw from the West Bank or create a better future for Palestinians. With no two-state solution viable for the foreseeable future, why does the international community insist on paying lip service to the idea and flogging a dead horse?

(Criteria 2) The Confederation proposal is superior to the Two-State solution.

(Subpoint A) The Confederation proposal offers a solution to the status of Jerusalem.

Dov Waxman, (Prof., Political Science, Northeastern U.), THE OBSERVER, May 10, 2016.

It is unjust for the United States to pressure Israel to adopt an unworkable solution. The future of Jerusalem is another problem that has always torpedoed peace talks. A division of Jerusalem has theoretically been on the table since the Camp David negotiations in July 2000, but it is very uncertain whether this is feasible in practice. There are now nearly a quarter of a mission Jews living in East Jerusalem who would have to move. Many Palestinians stand to lose their jobs and their livelihoods. Instead, a confederal approach envisions a united Jerusalem as the shared capital of two states. Municipal affairs would be run by a joint authority representing and serving Israeli and Palestinian communities in way that it has never done since 1967, with holy sites managed by religious authorities and international bodies to ensure access for all.

(Subpoint B) The Confederation proposal offers a solution to the Jewish settler problem.

Dov Waxman, (Prof., Political Science, Northeastern U.), THE OBSERVER, May 10, 2016. Retriev
ed Feb. 2, 2017 from Nexis.

De-linking citizenship and residency also helps address the thorny problem of Jewish settlers, who number more than half a mission in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Under a traditional two-state solution, even if Israel were allowed to annex some large settlement blocs, it would still have to remove tens of thousands of settlers, possibly up to 100,000, many of them messianic religious Zionists. Some would fiercely resist evacuation and might even employ violence. In a confederate model, by contrast, residents; and the Palestinians would not have to give up large chunks of territory since they would have sovereignty over the settlements.

This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by DavidMGold 1 year ago
It should be called the Third State Solution to more accurately reflect what Rep. Emanual Celler, in his 1946 speech to the U.S. House of Representatives, called a "unilateral infraction" and "illegal violation" of the original Mandate for a Jewish National Home. The British Government severed nearly 80 percent of the Jewish Mandate in order to gift Emir Abdullah of Hejaz (for his support against the Ottomans despite Lawrence calling it a sideshow of a sideshow) and a bribe to dissuade him from continuing on to Syria to attack the French on behalf of Faisal. Remarkably, the legitimacy of Israel is assailed but no one bothers questioning the legitimacy of Britain's illegal creation of a Hashemite Monarchy and the Jewish people have retreated entirely from Two Banks to the Jordan. The Third State Solution arose from Britain's other major violation of the Mandate under Article 6 requiring the Trustee to facilitate Jewish immigration and close settlement on the land. The British immediately restricted Jewish immigration culminating in a quota of only 75,000 over the next 5 years (at the onset of WWII and the Holocaust) and then cease completely. Meanwhile, Arabs were completely unrestricted and half a million Arab immigrants flooded into Palestine ironically drawn by the economic activity of Zionists from Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Transjordan and even Bosnia. When combined with other egregious policies such as the pardon and appointment of Amin al-Husseini to the position of Mufti, creation of the Supreme Muslim Council, al-Husseini's restoration of the dilapidated Haram ash-Sharif as a rally point for Pan-Arabism, the British refusal to protect or permit Jewish self-defense, the British distribution of land to Arabs vs. Jews at a ratio of 187 to 4, the failure to prevent or punish Arabs following their massacres of Jews, and finally repudiation of the Mandate entirely to win Arab support, the conflict was inevitable.
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
*too many

Oh idk
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
5 rounds is too much...
This debate has 8 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.