The Instigator
Con (against)
3 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
2 Points

Was the creation of Israel really unfair to the Palestinians?

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: 8/15/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 476 times Debate No: 78701
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




Ever since the creation of the independent Jewish state of Israel there has been much controversy over the actions taken by the global community. Surrounding the idea that the Palestinians received the raw end of the deal or if the Israelis actions were justified. I would argue like to argue against the idea that the creation of Israel was unfair and inhumane to the Palestinians.


I'm assuming that the first round is just preamble.

I will argue that the formation of a Jewish state in Palestine by the Balfour declaration was unfair to the inhabitants of the region.
Debate Round No. 1


Alright here goes nothing.

The first point I would like to bring up was most of the land that made up early Israel was already legally purchased by the Jewish immigrants. When Jews first began to migrate in mass to Palestinian territory mostly from Russia to avoid antisemitism in their country. Relations between these people and the Palestinians were fairly good. Many early settlers did purchase land from the Palestinians legally and had already been living there in excess of a century before the tensions between the groups grew very heated never mind the mention of an independent state.

The second reason is there was an opportunity for compromise presented by the U.N in 1947 known as the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. This resolution did recommend creating two separate states, one Palestinian and the other one an independent Jewish state. While keeping Jerusalem international territory. When this proposal was created however, the Palestinians rejected and the other side accepted the agreement. Then immediately after the adoption of the resolution war broke out over night when Israel was declared an independent state which left this resolution unimplemented. This conflict became known as The Arab Israeli War of 1948. . One more thing that is important to know is at the time when Israel was recognized it already had its own government and army in place.

The Third reason reason would be that Palestine was part of the aggressor in the war of 1948 . The PLO along side with Arab armies from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt all attacked the new state. At the end of it all a ceasefire was signed were Israel did gain some of the Palestinian territory while the Palestinians still held onto West bank and the Gaza Strip. After this there were more conflicts such as the Six day War, War of Attrition, and the Yom Kippur War. Were Israel gained more territory but left these areas to the Palestinians. They chose to participate in the conflict where they did lose and in turn lost territory that was theirs within the U.N.'s agreement.

The final reason would be that Palestinians were never forced out of Israel. Through these conflicts West Bank and Gaza remained in control of the Palestinians as a refugee area. Now there never was an official ousting of the Palestinian population from Israel. Many did choose to leave during the Arab Israel war, most tried to move into the neighboring countries such as Jordan or Egypt. Yet, these countries did not allow Palestinians across the border so the Palestinians were forced to remain within West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Now in modern times most refugees in these areas want to return to Israel to go back to their homes but can not due to the new relations between the countries. Many Palestinians say they feared for their lives and feared they would be killed at the time. Which with some of the extremist movements within Israel were true. However, they were never forcibly or officially forced to leave the country by the Israeli government and these extremist did not represent the majority of the Israel.


Disclaimer: I don't actually oppose the existence of the state of Israel today, this is merely about it's founding.

Economic Impact

My main point for the first argument is that the creation of Israel has significantly disadvantaged the Palestinians relative to the what they could have been. What Palestine would have likely turned into can be roughly seen in the neighboring nations of Jordan and Lebanon.

The GDP per capita of Palestine* is roughly $1,400 [1] whereas the the GDP per capita of Jordan is $6,000 [2] and Lebanon has a GDP per capita of $15,077 [3]. So as we can see the economy of Palestine has been negatively and unfairly established by the creation of the state of Israel.

Removal From Land

In any of the plans used including the one that was used to draw the boarders in the eventual 1947 partition plan involved the removal of Palestinians from their land. In the 1947 plan which was eventually adopted over 200,000 Palestinians (and 1,200 Israelis whose lives were equally disrupted) were psudo-forcefully displaced [4].

*Both the West Bank and the Gaza strip.

Debate Round No. 2


WalterSobchak forfeited this round.


Arguments extended.

(if my opponent forfeits the next round I'll rebut his points in my next argument)
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by roguetech 1 year ago
Just to rebut the Cons arguments:

1) [most of the land that made up early Israel was already legally purchased by the Jewish immigrants]

I doubt this is factually true, at all. Israel is a lot of area for private ownership!, but not going to fact check for a comment. It also does not address fairness of Israel, because creating a state is not private ownership, and private ownership does not address residency.

2) [there was an opportunity for compromise presented by the U.N in 1947]

The statement does not address any "opportunity for compromise", and in fact contradicts that. Palestine refused, yet was not offered any option for bilateral talks. The agreement was unilaterally forced on Palestine. More to the point, relevance wasn't stated.

3) [Palestine was part of the aggressor in the war of 1948]

First, this is begging the question. BY claiming that Israel wasn't an invading force, that literally only allows for Palestine to be the "aggressor". Further, as with #2, even as it is stated, this is actually contrary to the stated position of unfairness. Palestine, by definition, felt that there were no available diplomatic solutions as effective as violence. More to the point, relevance wasn't stated.

4) [Palestinians were never forced out of Israel.]

Honestly, I have no clue how this addresses "fairness". African Americans weren't "forced out of the South" but that doesn't make slavery "fair". Not all Jews were "forced out of Germany", yet that doesn't make the Holocaust "fair". Point of fact, Palestinians are all but completely forbidden citizenship. More to the point, relevance wasn't stated.
Posted by roguetech 1 year ago
To correct my vote comment:

Unfortunately, *Con* did not rebut any of the claims by Pro, which is unfortunate given that they would be easily rebutted.
Posted by A341 1 year ago
Ah didn't realize that was the last round...
Posted by Yassine 1 year ago
- JIDF much?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by roguetech 1 year ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources go to Pro. Con simply stated "facts", without backing them up. Argument goes to Con for establishing numerous reasons why it was not unfair. Pro established a single reason why it may have been unfair, but wasn't able to directly link the GDP to being an impact of the creation of Israeli state. Unfortunately, Pro did not rebut any of the claims by Pro, which is unfortunate given that they would be easily rebutted.