The Instigator
Cerebral_Narcissist
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Narwal19
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Zionism is racist

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/11/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,328 times Debate No: 9202
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

Cerebral_Narcissist

Pro

It is my position that Zionism is a racist ideology.

Definitions
Zionism: The international movement that supported the establishment of a Jewish homeland/state in the land loosely defined as 'Palestine' and which continues to support the State of Israel as a Jewish state.

Racist: Shall be defined as discrimination or prejudice on the grounds of membership or lack thereof in a racial, ethnic or religious group.

The Argument
The settlement of Jews upon what was Arab land, the definition of Israel as a state for Jews, the refusal to allow Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return and the immigration policies of the Israeli state are all derived from the ideology of Zionism and when combined with the above definitions prove that Zionism is racist.
Narwal19

Con

I negate: Zionism is racist.

Observations: Zionism is a movement & a movement cannot be racist because it is not a person.

Definitions: Oxford Dictionary 2008
Zionism-a movement for (originally) the reestablishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.
Racist-the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

Argument:
1. Protecting one's own race against another is racist, it's defense.
2. If Israel was based upon Zionism and if the movement is racist and Israel was God's chosen people wouldn't this contradict Jesus' principle of equality for all? Basically: Israel based on Zionism and God's chosen people. My opponent suggests Zionism is racist, then if Israel is racist and considered God's chosen people wouldn't this contradict God's equality for all mankind, after all God wanted everyone to be free. Bottom line: Zionism isn't racism because God founded Israel and Israel is based on Zionism and God despises racism and created everyone to be equal.

Refutation on Pro:
Definitions: No source thus invalid. Thus we will use mine. It is also one sided rather than universal.

Argument: I took out one half ("when combined with the above definitions prove that Zionism is racist") thus Zionism isn't racist. And cross apply what he said about refusal to allow Palestinian people in to my Argument 1.

Question: Is protection racist?

In conclusion Zionism isn't racist. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 1
Cerebral_Narcissist

Pro

Thank you for taking on the debate.

Firstly I would like to refute your observation. The term racist is frequently applied to organisations, movements, political parties, speech and text. None of these things are people. The important distinction is that they are composed of or derived from people. The observation is therefore demonstrably false.

Secondly I have no problem with your stated definition, insomuch as it is consistent with mine, and is indeed the source from which is derived.

Now to address your argument.
1: I have not claimed that defending your race against another race is racist so this point not relevant to the debate.
2: I do believe this to be a logical or valid argument for the following reasons.
-Jesus is not generally regarded as a prophet or a source of legal, moral or spiritual guidance. Any mention of him is irrelevant.
-Though Jesus may have called for equality, my opponent has failed to make a case that Judaism does. So the argument is invalid.
-It presupposes that Zionism and/or Israel is founded upon religious principles and that these religious principles are followed accurately to my opponents personal interpretation.
-It denies the existence of secular Zionists and secular Zionism.
-It denies the fact that ultra orthodox Jews reject Zionism and regard Israel as a secular state or even a violation of Judaism.
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

The refutation of my definition is invalid. My opponent presupposes rules that do not exist, and by taking up the debate challenge they accepted the terms of the debate as stated.

I do not believe that my opponent has managed to establish a counter-argument.
Narwal19

Con

Thank you for the response. Onward!

Background: Zionism is basically the action/movement Jews take to found their homeland. Jews are scattered around the world from places such as the U.S to Germany. After WW2 and when the UN was involved, the countries of Israel and and another Arab nation was founded through a compromise. Jews yearned for a place to gather and preserve their ethic group. Zionism is the action in which they take to achieve this dream.

Observations: Different views on Zionism determine if it's racist. Palestine look to it as racist. Jews look to it as not racist. So to judge whether or not if it's racist it depends on the Zionism's future's benefits and harms. And we are specifically talking about Jews.

Contention 1:
The goal of Zionism is for the Jews to make their own homeland. Is this Jewish desire to form their own country, with a majority Jews of course, racist? If so then the U.S, China, and other democratic countries are racist. History has shown the need to ensure Jewish security in the form of a national homeland, this movement unites Jews' ideals through shared through origin, religion, culture and history. Civil rights lawyer, Alan Dershowitz expalins, ""A world that closed its doors to Jews who sought escape from Hitler's ovens lacks the moral standing to complain about Israel's giving preference to Jews." The only country with a majority of Jews is Israel. Thus Zionism isn't racist because Jews are attempting to found their own country where they can unite and rebuild what they lost throughout history without fear of prosecution.

Contention 2: The movement of Zionism is also attempting to found a Jewish country in the Promise Land. The best ideal land is Israel. I hope my opponent realizes Israel is a democratic country. If Israel was a Nazi-like country then I would agree, yet it's not. As a democratic country they strive for equal rights for Jews, Arabs, etc. "Liberal Zionist ideology, advocating among other things the need for Palestinian statehood in order to form a more democratic society in Israel, affirming the free market, and calling for equal rights for Arab citizens of Israel." "The multi-national, worldwide Zionist movement is structured as a representative democracy"-Wikipedia.

Contention 3: Zionism's movements attempts to assimilate non-Jews too. "Initially one of several Jewish political movements offering alternative responses to assimilation of Non-Jews"-Wikipedia
If Zionism was racist then only Jews would be allowed, but no this ideal tries to assimilate. For example the country of Israel consist of Jews, Arabs, Christians, and Africans.

Pro:
1. I agree this is irrelevant.
2. I'll drop this point, yet Jesus advocated equality and disliked racism and the Jewish religion was based on this.
His point:
If you conquered/claimed something do you want to share it, much less give it back to the enemy? Similarly the Israeli were promised land by God, they finally got it after centuries of persecution and now you say "hand it over to the Palestine's or else we'll file you as a racist religion."

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.faqs.org...
http://abraham-sons.blogspot.com...
http://www.beth-elsa.org...
http://www.internationalwallofprayer.org...
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

For the reasons above Zionism is not racist. Vote Con. I can't post next round because I'll be on a camping trip. Sorry. So I can't really refute your rebuttals. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Cerebral_Narcissist

Pro

I believe that my opponent has chosen to concede the former points of dispute and has chosen to base his argument around three new contentions. I will address them one by one,

Contention 1:

"The goal of Zionism is for the Jews to make their own homeland. Is this Jewish desire to form their own country, with a majority Jews of course, racist?"

I feel that under the stated terms and definitions of the debate, that are reasonable terms and definitions, that yes, this desire can be construed as being racist. This is because the desire, and subsequent policy of creating a Jewish state inevitable must create a state that discriminates on race or creed and denies the right of national self-identity to non-Jewish groups already established on the land that was earmarked for Israel.

"If so then the U.S, China, and other democratic countries are racist."

I do not regard this argument as valid for the following reasons.
1: The USA and China were not founded as nation states on the premise of being a nation state for a specific race. You could argue that the thirteen colonies were established with a racial bias in favour of ‘Anglo-Saxons', you could argue that certain policies during the colonial and post colonial periods were/are racist, but it does not appear to be the case the USA ever announced itself as a homeland for a specific race. With regards China, the term ‘Chinese' actually comprises a vast melting pot of differing races, China has never announced itself as a state for any particular ethnic group.
2: China is not a democracy.
3: Democracy does not preclude racism.
4: Even if we accept this line of thinking and accept that other countries are racist, then it surely does not detract from any arguments with regards the racism of Zionism and/or Israel.
5: In the UK, (which incidentally has officially announced itself as a multi-cultural, multi-racial entity), the British National Party seeks to remove all non-whites from the country. It does so because it seeks to protect the White race, in much the same way that Zionism attempts to protect the Jewish race. Most would regard the former to be racist, so why not the latter?

"History has shown the need to ensure Jewish security in the form of a national homeland, this movement unites Jews' ideals through shared through origin, religion, culture and history. Civil rights lawyer, Alan Dershowitz explains, ""A world that closed its doors to Jews who sought escape from Hitler's ovens lacks the moral standing to complain about Israel's giving preference to Jews." The only country with a majority of Jews is Israel. Thus Zionism isn't racist because Jews are attempting to found their own country where they can unite and rebuild what they lost throughout history without fear of prosecution."

Here my opponent has posted an interesting and possibly persuasive justification for Zionism. However he has not actually posted an argument to dispute the charge that Zionism is racist. The debate is not regarding the rights and wrongs of Zionism in the context of the greater good, but instead specifically whether or not Zionism is racist. This contention is therefore negated.

"Contention 2: The movement of Zionism is also attempting to found a Jewish country in the Promise Land. The best ideal land is Israel. I hope my opponent realizes Israel is a democratic country. If Israel was a Nazi-like country then I would agree, yet it's not. As a democratic country they strive for equal rights for Jews, Arabs, etc. "Liberal Zionist ideology, advocating among other things the need for Palestinian statehood in order to form a more democratic society in Israel, affirming the free market, and calling for equal rights for Arab citizens of Israel." "The multi-national, worldwide Zionist movement is structured as a representative democracy"-Wikipedia."

I do accept that Israel is a democratic country (though that could inspire a whole tangent of petty semantics I do not feel that is right) and in fact does extend this democracy to its Arab Israeli citizens.

However, Israel does not accord any such rights to the Arabs living under occupation. Though I admit that this would not be normal to do so, it must be observed that the occupation having lasted decades is not a normal state of affairs. The occupied territories, into which I include the Gaza strip (because it does not control it's own borders and in which the IDF frequently act) are a de facto part of Israel. It's citizens are however denied equal rights with Israelis. This discrepancy, of permanent occupation without equal rights, is racially based and constitutes a form of apartheid.

With regards the formation of a Palestinian nation state, some of the Zionist proponents of this are not motivated by desires of equality, but merely see the creation of a Palestinian state as a vital step to allow the segregation of Jews and Arabs in order to safeguard a Jewish state. This is therefore by definition racist.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Contention 3: Zionism's movements attempts to assimilate non-Jews too. "Initially one of several Jewish political movements offering alternative responses to assimilation of Non-Jews"-Wikipedia
If Zionism was racist then only Jews would be allowed, but no this ideal tries to assimilate. For example the country of Israel consist of Jews, Arabs, Christians, and Africans."

Though I observe that it is certainly more racist to kill or exclude someone on the basis of race, it must be pointed out that assimilating one racial group, on the terms of the latter racial group is in itself racist. Why must the native Arab community, accept assimilation into a society dominated by recently immigrated Jews?

This assimilation denies the rights of the Arab population to their own national self identity, due to race, which is clearly racist. I believe that I have made a solid case for my position, I thank my opponent for letting me know that he will be unable to reply in round three. If voters wish to ignore the third round out of fairness then I have no problem with that.

I believe that I have successfully argued my case, and proven that Zionism is racist so I urge for a pro vote. I would like to thank my opponent and those who have taken the time to watch this debate.
Narwal19

Con

Narwal19 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 7 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
It seems as though we were the only people following the debate! And I am a non-voter!
Posted by Narwal19 7 years ago
Narwal19
I'm back...Oh.
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 7 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
No one wants to vote on this?
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 7 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
Well it's up for a vote now!
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 7 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
As my opponent won't be able to reply, I was not sure if I should have posted in the last round.
Posted by feverish 7 years ago
feverish
Co-sign Brian's comment.
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
brian_eggleston
Excellent debate topic - Con, whoever that transpires to be, will have to work extremely hard to win this one.
No votes have been placed for this debate.