The Instigator
yhubin
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Vi_Veri
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

The denial of a Palestinian State

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/18/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,370 times Debate No: 8688
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

yhubin

Pro

My fellow delegates, the topic of the Israeli Gaza strip is a complicated one. the problem is that its based on history, if we were to allow a Palestinian state, then we would have to allow all the regions in the world stating to have historical countries, the countries.... this would split the world in to many different little countries.

Lets say that Palestine get their country back, what will they start off with, on one side, Israel, provides the world with High Tech Technology, Palestine, well they sell carpets.. what would this future state provide for us, other then carpets, which we already have plenty off

there fore this delegation is strongly with the fact that there is no such country and never should be as Palestine
Vi_Veri

Con

There can be no denial of a Palestinian state; it once existed and should still exist today.

In the late 1800s, a bunch of Jewish extremists (Zionists) decided that the Jews needed a homeland, and after much consideration decided to settle down in what was once Palestine. The notion that this Jewish state HAD to be in Palestine because of the "holy land" is not necessarily accurate, as parts of both Africa and the Americas were originally taken into consideration as a location for this endeavor. As more Jews continued to flock to Palestine (and threatened to take over the land to create a Jewish state), fighting inevitably ensued to the point where the UN felt that an intervention was necessary.

Rather than adhere to the concept of Self-Determination (i.e. the people of a given territory to determine their own political status or independence from their current state), the UN decided to divvy up Palestine and give over 50% of the land to the Jews (Israel), despite the fact that they made up only 30% of the Palestinian population. This was a mistake on the part of the UN. Self-Determination states that it is the right of the people of a certain nation to decide how they want to be governed without the influence of any other country or body of government. Given the fact that the majority of Palestinians were not Jewish, AND the fact that the Jews who immigrated there did so with the sole intention of usurping the land of others, the UN made a mistake in allowing themselves to be bullied under Zionist pressure.

Still, this ruling proved to be not enough for the Zionists, who then in turn invaded what was left of Palestine and committed over 30 massacres of the Palestinian people. After continuous attacks from terrorist extremists, the Jews eventually took over nearly 80% of Palestine and obliterated the Palestinian population and culture, as well as pillaged their homes, made them refugees, etc. Then in the 1960s, Israel eventually conquered what was left of Palestine.

The problem here is that international law prohibits acquiring territories by law, thus making said land NOT belong to Israel. In that case, the land still belongs to Palestine (technically) and yet it is merely OCCUPIED by the Jews. In other words, a Palestinian state still exists, making the denial of a Palestinian state (Pro's stance) FALSE.

Because the Gaza strip is unlawfully being occupied by Israel, and Palestinian people there are being tortured, abused and terrorized on a daily basis, the only way to rectify the conflict is to make the Israelis leave what is left of Palestine. Pro argues his position by saying that if we allow a Palestinian state, we would have to grant all the regions in the world claiming to have historical countries there the right to actually have a country there. But... isn't that exactly what the UN did for Israel? In other words, since the UN already made the mistake in usurping that land and giving it to the Jews in the first place (in violation of Self-Determinist principles), the very least they could do is demand that what remains of Palestine actually belongs to the Palestinians. In other words, there should still be a Palestinian state.

Pro argues that Israel > Palestine and as such a Palestinian state should not exist. The "high technology" put forth from Israel apparently makes it a more worthwhile nation to support. However Pro is wrong in claiming that only the most successful countries should be allowed to legitimately exist. Using that logic, shouldn't third world countries be obliterated and their land handed over to more prestigious nations? Additionally, what does that say about international morality and respect for various cultures? To introduce this type of governing would be a travesty and destroy any attempt at peaceful international relations.

Pro's concluding statement that there is no such country and should never be as Palestine is false. Palestine already exists and has always existed (as Israeli occupation didn't eliminate the state -- it merely introduced terrorism and unlawful occupation to the region). To restore peace to the Gaza strip and surrounding areas should be achieved by acknowledging what rightfully belongs to the Palestinians.
Debate Round No. 1
yhubin

Pro

What my opponent fails to recognize is that, if we were to give back land which belonged to everyone else back in history, the whole world would be split up into tiny countries and historical states

If i could take me opponent back in time. After world war 2, the English who occupied, the former Palestine, decided and recognized, the state of Israel. if i could explain to my opponent what Zionist is exactly, then maybe it will be easier to understand. a Zionist is someone, that believes in the state of Israel

My opponent states that it technically belongs to Palestine, well technically wont cut it, it does or it doesn't, because technically, the Basque region in Spain also Belngs to the Basques

I find that they way you defend Palestine and insult the way Israel tortures Palestinians is absolutely a joke, as Hamas, used all Hospitals, and ambulances and turned them into rocket firing positions, and into torture chambers to whom ever decided to refuse the Hamas political party. And might i add what relevance does the Turtore and the HUman rrights violations have with the Denial of the state of Israel?

My opponent states that THERE IS a state of Palestine, which officially there isn't.. as Palestine, have tried entering the United NAtions, but as the United NAtions if for nations only their application was denied. It should show that the only Arab country who recognizes Palestine is Iran and not even counting the number of terrorist groups in the muslim world

thank you for a very interesting debate
Vi_Veri

Con

Pro beings Round 2 by indicating that if we were to give back land which belonged to former inhabitants throughout history, the whole world would be split up into tiny countries and historical states. While there is (a tiny bit of) merit to this claim, what Pro has failed to recognize is that Palestine STILL EXISTS according to international law. You cannot acquire new territories by war, so the land that the English occupied during WWII and then "gave" to Israel still technically belongs to the Palestinians.

In this debate, nobody is arguing that every bit of land be returned to "former inhabitants," but rather that Israel stops occupying the land that was taken from the Palestinians thereby also stopping the violent conflict and finally putting a somewhat peaceful end to the years-old issue that has cost the middle east thousands upon thousands of lives. This would dramatically increase international relations and perhaps even address the issue of technological warfare and terrorism somewhat in the region.

Next Pro argues, "My opponent states that it technically belongs to Palestine, well technically wont cut it, it does or it doesn't, because technically, the Basque region in Spain also Belngs to the Basques." Yes, it does. What's your point, Pro? All you have done is give an example of an autonomous community in Spain; this country is a historical region with its own laws, culture, etc. I think Pro-Palestine supporters would be just fine with Palestine (the area of/surrounding the Gaza Strip) having its own territory with its own government, societal structure, etc.

In regard to Hamas, my opponent was quick to point out all of the ways that the Palestinians have fought back against Israel and refers to my ignoring this as a joke. I think the real joke here is how my opponent fails to acknowledge that this type of counter-terrorism is a defensive one; Israel struck first. Nobody is arguing that the Palestinians are completely innocent. I think it's common knowledge that both peoples have perhaps immorally used massive amounts of violence against one another. The only argument here can be justification, and since Israel intentionally, unlawfully and unprovokedly attacked Palestine as the instigator (and continues to do so), it can be said that the Palestinian response is indeed justified.

Pro asks, "What relevance does the torture and the human rights violations have with the denial of the state of Israel?" Well first of all, advocating for the existence of a Palestinian state does NOT equate arguing against the state of Israel. In fact what I said was to leave the final 20 percent of original Palestinian land to the Palestinians, and allow Israel to occupy the other 80 percent. Second, the relevance here is acknowledging the long-term effects of the on-going conflict and how they have impacted the people of Israel/Palestine, the Middle East, and international relations in general. Additionally, it points to the undeniable fact that Israel "struck first" therefore justifying any acts of violence Palestinians may have implored in defense.

Finally my opponent acknowledges the fact that Palestine doesn't officially exist, because their application to join the UN was denied. This proves nothing other than the fact that the UN continues to make more mistakes. Of course the UN wouldn't allow them to join their ranks - they're the ones who obliterated Palestine (unlawfully) in the first place. The UN's acknowledgment here is irrelevant, as Pro has not explained why the UN should act as the be-all and end-all to every international decision, especially since the UN is a flawed entity who is responsible for this conflict to begin with.
Debate Round No. 2
yhubin

Pro

Before i continue with my argumentative response, i would like to ask where my opponent is from...

To continue, when, this delegate reads a lot of " technically, technically, technically" yes sure technically, but that doesn't support anything, it is just stating that technically Palestine should have there own land, sure technically

could my opponent please provide proof that Palestine still exists although it isn't recognized by 2 Arab countries and little terrorist organizations.

My opponent, states that Hamas, will be happy when Israel gives them the land back, in 2005 Israel removed 7,000 Israelis by force from the Gaza Strip so that Hamas could stop shooting the rockets. The day it was given back, and the ceasefire was signed, Hamas continued shooting rockets over the boarder.

sorry for my short response as i am in the process of a move and have very little time, thank you and i hope my opponent understands
Vi_Veri

Con

Vi_Veri forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
yhubin

Pro

I know that my opponent takes this debate very seriosly, so i this should not be seen badly from her part...

the only thing i will say, as my opponent has the right to a fair round and debate, is that the Palestinian conflict is based on history...

we are now in the present...
Vi_Veri

Con

Vi_Veri forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
yhubin

Pro

yhubin forfeited this round.
Vi_Veri

Con

Vi_Veri forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
Wow...I didn't realize how old this debate was when I posted :D
Posted by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
The lack of knowledge of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict on the Pro side informed my vote primarily. The only thing I didn't give to Con was sources. That tied.

Though rounds were forfeited (unfortunately), the stronger, more eloquent, more sound position was still made by Pro. Though I happen to align more closely with her position regarding Palestine, her arguments were also more developed and warranted. Pro's remarks about the nature of the Palestinian conflict, the land dispute and international law, and the nature of Hamas were pretty much categorically incorrect.

I hope this topic is debated more. I am very much a student of this particular conflict, and I think it's one that US citizens in particular should pay attention to, since our media tends to distort it and our government has played such a large role in its inflammation. Don't get me wrong, Eggelston & Feverish-- Balfour had a hand in it :) But I think the American gov't takes the cake in manipulation. A dubious honor :)
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
Hooray for Vi Veri. I can't vote for you but I would, and not just because I happen to agree with your position.

That said, well done to yhubin for addressing this very important issue.

Good show all round!
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
Still watching this one with great interest...
Posted by feverish 8 years ago
feverish
Excellent first round Vi, couldn't agree more.
Posted by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
*The problem here is that international law prohibits acquiring territories by WAR.
Posted by yhubin 8 years ago
yhubin
thank you very much, well this is a debate, if you would like to debate it be my guest

thank you again
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
Good topic even though I don't agree with your premise.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
yhubinVi_VeriTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
yhubinVi_VeriTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
yhubinVi_VeriTied
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 
Vote Placed by Volkov 8 years ago
Volkov
yhubinVi_VeriTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04