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

The international community should actively support the creation of a Palestinian state

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/14/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,359 times Debate No: 27201
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




I will be arguing that the international community as a whole, and democratized nations where human rights are respected in particular, should actively pursue the fulfillment of international law by acting to:

A. End the Israeli occupation and colonization of all Arab lands to enable the creation of a free and independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital;

B. Ensure Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel enjoy fundamental rights equal to those of other Israeli citizens;

C. Implement, protect and promote the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties in Israel as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.

Round 1 is for acceptance, clarifications and definitions; Rounds 2 and 3 for arguments and rebuttals.

Thank you.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank ConservativePolitico for accepting this debate which happens to coincide with the latest Israeli military offensive on Palestinian-Arabs which the Israeli government has disingenuously titled "Operation Pillar of Defense".

At the time of writing, Israeli news agency Haaretz is reporting "Since the begging {sic} of Operation Pillar of Defense, 35 Palestinians were killed, some of them civilians. On the Israeli side three civilians were killed on Friday in a rocket attack." Meanwhile the BBC reported a Hamas source which stated "Militants and civilians, including at least seven children, have been among the Palestinians killed during Israeli strikes in recent days." (1,2)

In the light of this obscene bloodshed, I invite my opponent to join me in unreservedly condemning all acts of violence
which are deliberately targeted at civilian populations in Israel and Palestine, whether they be rockets launched by Palestinian militants into Israel or air strikes launched by the Israeli armed forces on Gaza.

Now I would like to expand this debate by firstly looking at the recent history of Israel / Palestine. The following is reproduced from the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs website (3):

"Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

'His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.'

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur James Balfour"

This declaration eventually led to the creation of the state of Israel within Palestine's borders in 1948, which prior to that time, was a British Mandate

However, the Zionists were given an inch but took a mile. "Before the end of the mandate and, therefore before any possible intervention by Arab states, the Jews, taking advantage of their superior military preparation and organization, had occupied...most of the Arab cities in Palestine before May 15, 1948....In contrast, the Palestine Arabs did not seize any of the territories reserved for the Jewish state under the partition resolution." (4)

Thus the Israelis embarked on a programme of ethnic cleansing. Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Guiron, said "With compulsory transfer we (would) have a vast area (for settlement)...I support compulsory transfer. I don"t see anything immoral in it" (5)

The Israelis forced Palestinians out of their homes and off their land on a wholesale basis and, in the process, created six million refugees. (6).

But even this wasn't enough for the Israelis. Even Zionism on the Web admits: "the Israeli Cabinet decided on June 4th to proceed with a preemptive strike. Israel attached on June 5th 1967 by destroying Egypts {sic} airforce as it sat on the tarmac." (7)

This offensive was the beginning of the Six Day War, by the end of which Israel had grabbed land not just from Egypt but also Jordan and Syria.

The United Nations position on this issue is clear. Referring specifically to Jerusalem it states: "The 1967 war, which resulted in the occupation by Israel of East Jerusalem (and Israel has) invested vast resources into changing the physical and demographic characteristics of the City. The Israeli claim has not been recognized by the international community which rejects the acquisition of territory by war and considers any changes on the ground illegal and invalid." (8)

Regarding the plight of refugees, the UN states that: "The refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible." (8)

With reference to the continued Israeli land-grabs the UN states: "The building of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory began soon after the 1967 War. That policy has accelerated since the beginning of 1990. The Israeli Government encourages settlers to make their homes in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. The establishment of Israeli settlements has been the subject of various resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly." (8)

Palestine does not control its own borders, air space or ports and the movement of civilians within the West Bank and Gaza is controlled by the Israelis, who also collect tax on behalf of the Palestinian Authority. The UN has this to say about the situation regarding customs and borders; "The General Assembly, for its part, has reaffirmed its commitment, in accordance with international law, to the two-State solution of Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security within recognized borders, based on the pre-1967 borders."

And life for those Palestinians still remaining in Israel is not much better. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel states: "The Arab citizens of Israel are discriminated in almost every aspect of their lives " employment, allocation of educational resources, housing, land distribution and planning rights " and they do not have equal representation in most state bodies and institutions. In recent years, there has also been an upsurge of racism in Israel against Arab citizens. ACRI struggles against the discrimination of Arab citizens, through legal, educational, and public advocacy efforts."

Despite all this, the Israelis are determined to strengthen their stranglehold on the the illegally-occupied Palestinian Territories. "MK Yariv Levin (Likud), chairman of the Knesset"s House Committee, told Arutz Sheva on Wednesday that he has a bill that calls to apply Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) that is ready to be submitted for Knesset approval." (10).

But the Israeli government have the support of the Jewish public. A recent poll published in the Israeli newspaper Haeretz showed: "Most of the Jewish public in Israel supports the establishment of an apartheid regime in Israel if it formally annexes the West Bank. The majority of the Jewish public, 59 percent, wants preference for Jews over Arabs in admission to jobs in government ministries." (11)

In conclusion, the international community has a moral and legal duty to act to protect persecuted Arabs in Israel / Palestine and the time to act is now.

Thank you.

(4) Henry Cattan, "Palestine, The Arabs and Israel."
(5) Israel historian, Benny Morris, "Righteous Victims."


Note: In order to fulfill the BOP my opponent must affirm and defend all three points he laid out in Round 1 (A, B & C).


My opponent's argument focuses around what he sees as injustice by the Israel against Palestine and affirms that the international community has an obligation to step in and prevent this. I see it differently.

When Israel was created in 1948, Palestine was not owned by the Palestinians but rather was controlled by the British. The United Nations partitioned the region in 1948 and the British left. This left Israel, a new nation, and Palestine, another new nation. [1] To undo any misinterpretations, Palestine was not taken away from the Palestinians but rather freed from the British.

At this point, the international community had done its job. They split the region up and left it alone. After that, it became a local issue. The issue is in no way an international issue. Palestine refused to recognize Israel after its creation and therefore relinquished its claim on the new Palestine.

"Almost immediately, Israel was attacked by Arab nations that surrounded in a war that lasted from May 1948 to January 1949. Palestinian Arabs refused to recognise Israel and it became the turn of the Israeli government itself to suffer from terrorist attacks when fedayeen (fanatics) from the Palestinian Arabs community attacked Israel. Such attacks later became more organised with the creation of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO)." [1]

Israel was attacked and was forced to have itself recognized by its neighbors.

At this point:

A. The international community did its part.
B. Palestine refused to take part in the mandate set up by the UN by refusing to recognize Israel.
C. Israel was forced to militarize due to war and terrorist tactics.

The international community did its part. After that, it became a local issue. Palestine likes to play victim but in reality they refused to partake in the agreement. They could have had Palestine but in refusing to recognize Israel they never cemented their own nation as the UN partition allowed but instead let Israel expand.

I feel the international communities obligation has been filled. At this point it is up to the Israeli and Palestinian people to sort it out.


My opponent makes a lot of talk about "land grabs" "occupation" and affirms in point A of Round 1 that Palestine should be "free" "independent" and have "Jerusalem as its capital". As I said in my previous point, Palestine was given the chance to be free and independent but refused to do so. In fact, Palestine continues to reject statehood on multiple levels. Israel has tried to offer Palestine it's statehood in the borders the UN set up in 1948 but Palestine refuses. [2] [3]

My opponent also affirms that Palestine must have Jerusalem as the capital. But why?

Palestine has never owned Jerusalem, in fact, they've never been an Arab state and have never been autonomous. To offer them Jerusalem is a ridiculous claim to make. If we want to talk about original land ownership and occupation, historically, this land has been Israel's since 1350BC [4] and has been occupied by various conquerors since then. The land in question (including Jerusalem) has been owned by Israel three separate times for a total of 1198 years. [4] Palestine has never been a legitimate nation and has never laid claim to Jerusalem. The Jews see the land as theirs and when Palestine gave up their shot at statehood they took the chance to take it.

There are no legitimate reasons to give Palestine the city of Jerusalem and Palestine has been offered statehood on multiple occasions. The "occupied" land in question take in the 6 Days War is was taken through warfare, a lasting way to take land in human history. Should the international community force Britain to return the Falkland Islands to Argentina? Should The United States be forced to return Texas to Mexico? No. And neither should Israel be forced to return their land back to the original owners either. Again, these are not broad international affairs but rather regional ones.


My last section will be addressing issue of equal rights for Arabs in Israel. Like it or not, Israel is a sovereign state. Citizen rights in a sovereign state are no business of the international community. State sovereignty allows a state to run itself without outside intervention. Does the UN go in and make sure the United States treats gays the same as other people? No. Citizen rights are not an issue of international community but rather a state issue. You cannot force a sovereign state to open up and allow the world to run it according to a broad set of overreaching assumptions. If we do that then we might as well have a world government.

Again, these are not global issues but regional, state and local issues that need to be handled at the regional, state and local levels. Many states have things that may seem in poor taste or unjust concerning citizenship, human rights and equal treatment but that doesn't mean a Western run coalition can come in and violate state sovereignty in the name of such action.


Israel was given its right to exist as was Palestine. Israel took it's right, Palestine rejected theirs. Jerusalem has no legitimate grounds to be Palestinian. There is however historical evidence backing the Israeli ownership of Jerusalem. Jews have been what is now Israel since 1350BC and have been independent there three separate times for a total of 1198 years. Issues such as land ownership, war, territory, citizen rights, religion etc are all local issues and should not be interfered with by the international community in the name of state sovereignty. The international community did its part in 1948 and it then became a local issue.

My opponent's 3 points (A, B & C) are negated.

Thank you.

Debate Round No. 2


I would like to thank ConservativePolitico for taking the time to post a comprehensive response to my opening argument and I should like to respond as follows:

Rebuttal I
In his first rebuttal my opponent wrote: "When Israel was created in 1948, Palestine was not owned by the Palestinians but rather was controlled by the British. The United Nations partitioned the region in 1948 and the British left - I feel the international communities obligation has been filled. At this point it is up to the Israeli and Palestinian people to sort it out."

With the benefit of hindsight we can now see that the international community, specifically Britain and the UN, failed in their duty to create an environment that would be conducive to peaceful co-existence of Arabs and Jews in Palestine, but that should have been clear at the outset - to see why let us remind ourselves of the Balfour Declaration which read: "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."

Clearly the UN Partition Plan did "prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". Indeed, "the Palestinians and Arabs felt that it was a deep injustice to ignore the rights of the majority of the population of Palestine (and) the Arab League and Palestinian institutions rejected the partition plan". (1)

Meanwhile, David Ben Gurion, the first Israeli prime minister, opposed the plan because his and other Jewish leaders' "ambition was a Jewish state on the entire territory of Mandate Palestine."

Obviously, the positions of the Jews and the Arabs were as mutually incompatible then as they are now and the creation of a Jewish state inside the boundaries was a massive blunder on the parts of Britain and the UN, and that's why the international community should step in and rectify the mistakes made in back 1948, to leave the Palestinians at the mercy of their Israeli oppressors would represent a dereliction of duty - we stepped in to help the people of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya to throw off their yokes of tyranny in recent years and the people of Palestine deserve similar support.

Rebuttal II
My opponent wrote "Palestine has never owned Jerusalem, in fact, they've never been an Arab state and have never been autonomous. To offer them Jerusalem is a ridiculous claim to make. If we want to talk about original land ownership and occupation, historically, this land has been Israel's since 1350BC and...has been owned by Israel three separate times for a total of 1198 years."

He cites, as evidence, a pro-Zionist website entitled "Christian Action for Israel" as his source. As you can imagine, this source is both biased and is inaccurate; here is the real history of the settlement and control of of Palestine:

EGYPTIANS 3000 - 1850 BC
AMORITES & HYKSOS 1850 - 1500 BC
ISRAEL / JUDAH 1020 - 745 BC
ASSYRIANS 745 - 597 BC
PERSIANS 538 - 332 BC
GREEKS 332 - 140 BC
ROMANS 63 BC - 300
BYZANTINES 313 - 611
PERSIANS II 611 - 628
CALIPHATES 636 - 1099
UMAYYADS 661 - 749
ABBASIDS 749 - 877
TULUNIDS 877 - 906
ABBASIDS II 906 - 935
IKHSHIDIDS 935 - 969
FATIMIDS 970 - 1079
SELJUKS 1079 - 1098
CRUSADERS 1098 - 1187
AYYUBIDS 1187 - 1260
MAMLUKS 1260 - 1517
OTTOMANS 1517 - 1917
ISRAEL 1948 - TO DATE (2)

So we can see that throughout the history of the region, the Hebrew control of Palestine has been sporadic, short-lived and fractured and they never formed the majority of the population, while the Palestinian Arabs have always dwelled in that land, mostly under the control of one empire or another, but with Jerusalem their capital city - the home to the Dome of the Rock, Islam's second most holy site and the city that was designated in the UN Partition Plan to be internationalized with control of the eastern quarters given to the Palestinians.

So what is the real homeland of the Hebrews? Jews are taught that the father of their religion, Abraham, came from Ur in Babylon which would mean the Jews would have a greater claim to southern Iraq than Palestine as a homeland but we only have the Old Testament to verify this, which is not a historically-reliable document.

Historians cannot be certain of the origins of the Jewish tribes: "No one can prove (or disprove, for that matter) that the tribal federation 'Israel' originated on Palestinian soil. No one can prove that the major components of that federation had always existed on Palestinian soil. All that is known for certain is that, some time during the fourth quarter of the thirteenth century B.C., Egypt knew of a group, or political entity, called 'Israel' and occupying part of the land of the land of Canaan; but whether the group had recently arrived or taken shape is not stated." (2)

Even if my opponent's source was accurate and Hebrews had "original land ownership and occupation" of Palestine it still wouldn"t entitle them to persecute, oppress and drive out the Arab population - if that were the case then control of the United States of America would have to be ceded to the Native Americans and citizens European, African and Asian ethnic origin could have no complaint if the homes and land were seized and they were driven out of their country of birth.

Furthermore, the fact that Palestine has never been autonomous under that name is merely a case of Semitic semantics - the Palestinian people have lived in that land under various rulers for as long as history can record and they should not be exiled or oppressed in modern times any more than the Jews were in ancient times.

Rebuttal III
My opponent wrote: "Citizen rights in a sovereign state are no business of the international community..." If that were the case there would have been no need for the Allies to intervene to help liberate those oppressed by the Nazis or, more recently, the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Bosnia and numerous other troubled nations.

In conclusion, the rights of Palestinians to self-determination and equality in their homeland are hereinabove maintained and I would draw the voters' attention to the fact that my assertions have been backed up by either neutral, anti-Arab or pro-Israeli rather than pro-Palestinian sources, whereas my opponent has chosen to cite sources only sources that are pro-Israeli or, in one case, a neutral site. I hope he will be able to up his game and cite some Palestinian or Arab websites in the next round.

Finally, you will have noted that my opponent declined to accept my invitation to condemn attacks on civilians, but I suppose if you are arguing on the side of Israel when the Central Regional Command of the Israeli Army states that "In war, when our forces storm the enemy, they are allowed and even enjoined by the Halakhah to kill even good civilians, that is, civilians who are ostensibly good" (3) then condemning attacks on civilians would be extremely hypocritical.

Thank you.



ConservativePolitico forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by ConservativePolitico 3 years ago
You get three days for a reason. As long as its within your debate period I don't mind when you post.
Posted by brian_eggleston 3 years ago
Thanks for accepting CP. I won't be able to post my argument until tomorrow sometime, or maybe Saturday. Sorry.
Posted by MouthWash 3 years ago
Lol. The idea of 'Palestine' is a complete joke. It has historically been considered part of Syria...

And I do take offense at the suggestion that Israel does not give Israeli Arabs right.
Posted by LaL36 3 years ago
The Israeli government supports a Palestinian state and so do I. But your arguments don't really involve that I am willing to argue on your points but Israel supports a Palestinian state.
Posted by TheElderScroll 3 years ago
Would it be all right if I attach some conditions such as "renouncement of terrorist attacks on the State of Israel" ?
Posted by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
In addition to Jordan?
Posted by ConservativePolitico 3 years ago
I might take this...
Posted by socialpinko 3 years ago
I was hoping this would be a joke debate so I could just post Bible verses and call you an anti-semite over and over again.
Posted by brian_eggleston 3 years ago
A serious subject so a serious debate, just for a change for me!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Muted 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF and arguments