The Instigator
doctorcsss
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
mek4life
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

The United States should support 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 6 votes the winner is...
doctorcsss
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/26/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 769 times Debate No: 74247
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (6)

 

doctorcsss

Pro

The US needs to stand with their long-time ally, Israel. It is a symbiotic relationship and is essential for the safety of the global community.
mek4life

Con

The United States should not support Israel and should instead put pressure on Israel to comply by international law and give Palestine a free and independent state which would also help with tension in the middle east.
Debate Round No. 1
doctorcsss

Pro

Yes, that's it! Give a free state to the people who desire to wipe the Jewish race from the face of the Earth! What a grand idea!
But instead, how about forcing the Palestinians to be like normal people and not shoot rockets into civilian centers?

And I am sorry, but tension will exist whether Israel is there or not. Take the Iraq-Iran war for example. Two Muslim, Shia sect nations killing hundreds of thousands of each other. And then the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The list goes on and on...
mek4life

Con

You're right in saying that the middle east will have tension regardless but as the United States we should act as a mediator and listen to both sides because they are both wrong in some ways (Palestine with the rockets and Israel with the killing of civilians and occupation). Israel has also bombed UN humanitarian centers so to consider that Palestine is the only aggressor is absurd. There should be a cooperation from both sides to form a one state solution where Israelis and Palestinians can live equally in peace. Even though this won't end tension in the middle east I would at least help.
Debate Round No. 2
doctorcsss

Pro

Ok, good points. However, I have not yet found an instance that Israel has been wrong. I guess technically, you could see their bombing of 'UN Humanitarian Center' (which is a very loose term in itself) as wrong, but you have to understand why.
In the recent invasion of Gaza, Hamas was well known to hide their artillery and rockets in public places like Mosques, schools and humanitarian centers. Israel actually went so far as to call the buildings 10 minutes before they bombed them so the occupants could have time to evacuate.
And in all conflicts so far, the Palestinians have been the aggressors, not the Israelis. Israel only defends itself from attack.

In the last election, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke on the one state solution. He pointed out the last time that they attempted it by returning land that Israel captured during the Six Day War. The result was Hamas moving their rockets into the returned land, and launching their rockets further into Israel.
So please answer why the media, the UN, and in this country demand Israel amend their actions?
mek4life

Con

Good response. I'm still finding it hard how Israel isn't the aggressor in a lot of the conflicts. It confuses me how you can call Palestine the 'aggressor' even though when conflicts arise Israel complains how less than 100 Israelis are killed (primarily soldiers) when around 1800 Palestinians (primarily civilians) die in he same process. It also reflects very badly how Israel can get affected by 5 dollar rockets while they possess multi-million dollar ballistic missiles. On the part where you mentioned Mr. Netanyahu's claim, stated prior to the election that Palestine would never have a state as long as he is in power. Netanyahu during the election called on his supporters to counter the votes of Israeli Arabs (who are Israeli citizens) whom he considered as the enemy. How can Netanyahu possibly be counted on to help progress negotiations for which he clearly showed his opinion.
Debate Round No. 3
doctorcsss

Pro

Well, if you actually do read about the conflicts you will see that Palestinian instigation was indeed the root of the conflicts. As to the fact of more Palestinian casualties, that does not mean anything. The Japanese casualties in WW@ were almost 3 million. The US casualties in the European and Pacific theaters combined totaled 420,000. Does this mean that the US was the aggressor? No, Japan started the conflict by bombing Pearl Harbor and reaped the consequences of attacking a nation far more powerful than they were, much similar to the Arab-Israeli conflicts.
As to the missiles, it is nearly impossible to track them and they are small enough to not show up on radar. The fact that Israel restrains from retaliating with their own far superior missiles is more proof that they just want to be left alone.
Israel actually embraces Arabs who live there peacefully, granting them citizenship and all the rights that a Jew would have. Yes, Netanyahu does disagree with their opinions, but rightfully so. That does not mean he wishes to oppress them, he just disagrees with them. You ask 'How can Netanyahu possibly be counted on to help progress negotiations?' Well this brings it right back full circle. He has perfectly good reason to be opinionated against the Palestinians right now. The fact that Palestinians don't even recognize Israel as a nation is a good indicator.
So in conclusion, all of your argument attempt to pain Israel as aggressive, oppressive and war-mongering, while in reality they are only acting in self defense (which they are good at since they have endured centuries of persecution), when they have to military ability to easily annihilate the Palestinians. Maybe you should look at the behaviors of the Palestinians and ask them to change instead.

Thanks for the debate.
mek4life

Con

If you saw the history on how Israel was created you'd see how even though the middle eastern Jews and Arabs in peace before ww2 when the European Jews arrived they forced many Palestinians out of their land. You're trying to tell me that fighting for your freedom from unlawful occupation is wrong. They have also used barbaric tactics such as slaughtering Palestinian villages (not military targets) to get others to move away so they can claim the land. Also when you used the example of USA and Japan the reason that there are alot more deaths on the Japanese side is that alot of then are civilian compared to none on the Americans. The US and Israel have a history of doing terror bombing and occupation to get what they want (USA when they bombed German civilian cities and Israel for trying to occupy Lebanon). When you said that Israel restrains for using violence in retaliation they have and use the fact that Palestine cant support itself to control food imports and other life necessities. If Palestine have to recognize Israel should Israel also recognize them as an independent nation. Finally I'll leave you with one more point my friend, if Netanyahu realm wants peace negotiations then why does he still allow settlements in the west bank.
Thanks for the debate.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by doctorcsss 2 years ago
doctorcsss
Thanks for voting. I will use links next time.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Both sides spend so much time asserting their arguments that neither thinks to support them with any links that could back up their views.

Personally, I have a number of qualms with Con's arguments, but if all I get is assertions in response from Pro, then I'm left having to consider them. Was it self-defense, or an attack against helpless people? I don't really consider it to be either, and within the context of this debate, I just see it as attacks, committed for a multitude of reasons, that resulted in the deaths of non-combatants. That's bad. So that's... kind of a win for Con.

But I don't really get a link from that back to the resolution. Is collateral damage a reason not to support Israel? Con argues that the U.S. should put pressure on Israel to give Palestinians a state, but later says that he supports a one state solution where they can coexist. I'm not sure how these two work together, or how support for Israel necessarily goes against any solution for the Palestinians. It would have been nice if Con could have explained why support for Israel necessarily precludes any sort of action on behalf of the Palestinians, or any efforts towards a two-state or one-state solution. Unless the one-state solution Con is proposing is Palestine returns and Israel leaves, I don't see that coming out clearly.

Only Pro really addressed the basic issue of why the U.S. should support Israel, though most of that is just assertion. He states that it's a symbiotic relationship, but not why or how. He says it's essential for the safety of the global community, but doesn't dig down into how that's true. Of course, I don't get responses to either of these, but they're not really arguments, and I can't vote on assertions.

So I look for who got closest to giving any analysis that supported the resolution, and that's Pro. Even if self-defense is only sometimes the reason for their actions, Pro says we should support them then. That isn't addressed by Con, so I vote Pro.
Posted by doctorcsss 2 years ago
doctorcsss
Thank you for your your detailed analysis and vote! Friend me!
Posted by m4j0rkus4n4g1 2 years ago
m4j0rkus4n4g1
RFD continued:

oppressive nation. Pro brings up many situations in which Palestine and Hamas seem to be the instigators, shows why Israel is worried about cheap rockets (they are not easy to detect), and explains that the prime minister is entitled to his opinion and is protecting his people by arguing against the Arab minority in Israel. It seems perfectly logical that a prime minister would be in support of his own government over the state where terror attacks are coming from, and so this part of the argument again favors Pro.

All in all, both sides made good points, but Pro refuted many arguments brought up by Con and relied less heavily on unsourced claims. Con also argues for an interventionist foreign policy on the side of the US, but does not explain why US intervention on the issue is necessary or beneficial. Con instead seems to argue that Israel and Palestine should work together without intervention, which is a good point in the case of two peaceful nations, but Pro brings up many scenarios that show that the Palestinians do not seem to favor peace. One key piece of information I see missing is an unbiased survey of Palestinian support for groups like Hamas. It is difficult to tell whether groups like this are supported or condemned by Palestine, and this would have a bearing on the debate. However, as this information was not presented, Pro's arguments seem stronger.

Both sides seemed to adhere to a loose structure, there were spelling and grammar mistakes on both sides, and neither had any sources. Therefore, I see Pro as the winner of 3 points for having more convincing arguments, although I am still not convinced 100 percent of Pro's side. Thanks to both of you for a great debate! If possible, bring on the sources next time!
Posted by m4j0rkus4n4g1 2 years ago
m4j0rkus4n4g1
RFD:

I would like to award 3 points to Pro for making more convincing arguments. Here is why:

I am not sure where I stand on this issue, and I do not feel that either side has completely convinced me. However, the debate seemed to center on two key issues: the behavior of Palestinians and the rest of the middle east, and behavior of the Israelis. Obviously, Pro argued that the Israelis had demonstrated better behavior, were largely the victims, and showed important restraint with regards to conflict. Con, on the other hand, made it a point to show the Palestinians as fighting for their rights and freedom, even against the stronger nation of Israel.

So first, Con makes the claim that Israel is breaking the law by not granting Palestine statehood, which is not backed up by any source (this marks a trend in both sides of the debate; no claims are backed up by sources so there is a lot to be assumed). Furthermore, this claim is more or less addressed by Pro's later statement about the results of Israels' returning of land to Palestine. He states that "The result was Hamas moving their rockets into the returned land, and launching their rockets further into Israel". So it would seem that Con is off to a bad start here.

Con accuses Israel of bombing a UN center, whereas Pro explains that not only did Israel warn civilians to exit the center, but that the center was a potential hiding spot for Hamas weaponry. Con brings up the death count of a recent battle, showing that fewer Israelis were killed. Pro counters by saying that the Japanese instigated the US with Pearl Harbor, yet had more casualties at the end of the war. While Con was right to mention that these casualties were largely civilian on the side of the Japanese, the death count of a battle still does not, by itself, say anything about who started it. Con brings up many claims of Israeli violence and the statements of the Israeli prime minister, all in an attempt to show Israel as a violent and oppr
Posted by doctorcsss 2 years ago
doctorcsss
Was that a compliment?? I'll take it as one. Thanks.
Posted by mek4life 2 years ago
mek4life
Agreed because its hard to debate a topic especially when its with someone who can make a good argument for anything.
Posted by doctorcsss 2 years ago
doctorcsss
Why have the voters been hating on us so much?? I would like to debate them in something. Anything. Because they just spew how bad our debate was.
Posted by mek4life 2 years ago
mek4life
Sure that would be great
Posted by doctorcsss 2 years ago
doctorcsss
Ahh OK, well I could try and persuade your views on some other stuff too if you want some more good old fashioned debating.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by mwesigwa1 2 years ago
mwesigwa1
doctorcsssmek4lifeTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con seemed as if he was babbling the whole time. I could actually make sense of Pro's arguments.
Vote Placed by Varrack 2 years ago
Varrack
doctorcsssmek4lifeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argues that Hamas has been the aggressor in the Israel-Palestine conflict, and that Israel is defending itself by launching attacks against them. Con counters by talking about the destruction of the UN Humanitarian Center and about more deaths on the side of Palestine. Pro, however, points out that the bombing of the center was necessary because Hamas was storing rockets there. They also called them beforehand, he argues. Pro also shows that more casualties on the Palestine doesn't show which side is the aggressor, as in the WW2 example. Overall, it seems Pro had the grip in this debate, despite having no sources and all assertions.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
doctorcsssmek4lifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by 4God 2 years ago
4God
doctorcsssmek4lifeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with @64bithuman that both of them needed more research, however,I believe that doctorcsss's last argument was best. Neither gave sources to support their argument and spelling was okay, I guess.
Vote Placed by 64bithuman 2 years ago
64bithuman
doctorcsssmek4lifeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: An embarrassing debate really. No reliable sources from either side, spelling and grammar are low quality ('casualties in WW@'?), and most importantly, points are scattered and incomplete. Pro's baffling attempt to compare Israeli/Palestinian causalities with casualties sustained in the Pacific front in WWII in the last round was so egregious that he deserves to lose a point. Con's rebuttal of this point was almost as bad. Jews and Arabs were not at peace 'before WW2'. There has been fighting since the disastrous Balfour Declaration in 1917, and long before that. Con's spelling is difficult, but he mounts a better defense in the last paragraph, with more related examples. Both sides need to spend some time researching their positions.
Vote Placed by PotBelliedGeek 2 years ago
PotBelliedGeek
doctorcsssmek4lifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I'll not be awarding points to either side of this debate. Both Pro and con presented exceedingly poor arguments riddled with fallacy and assumption. Neither side cited sources, neither side had any major conduct infractions, and both sides had poor structure and grammar.