Instigator / Pro
Points: 0

Two-State Solution

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 1 vote the winner is ...
Patmos
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
25,000
Contender / Con
Points: 7
Description
First Round - Main Argument.
Second Round - Rebuttals
Third Round - Rebuttals
Fourth Round - Rebuttals
Fifth Round - Final Argument.
My Position:
The best result to the current conflict between Israel and Palestine is the Jewish people having their own nation-state (Israel) and the Palestinian people having their own nation-state (Palestine).
Round 1
Forfeited
Published:
I'm going to be honest. I forgot about this debate. Now I only have an hour left to post and I'll have to keep this short and sweet.

The Two-State solution has a rather critical flaw.

It's been tried for the past 70 years and no one has managed to make it work. If my opponent could find a way to make it work that would make him the greatest diplomat since WWII.

The reason it hasn't worked is that Palestinians won't accept the deal. Multiple times Israel has agreed to the two-state solution but Palestine always refuses even when the deal is weighted heavily in their favor. They will not rest until Israel is destroyed and Jews are all removed from the land. This is per the charter of the Palestinian Authority.

Consider the Khartoum resolution as well in which the Arab League announced its infamous "three nos" 

1. No peace with Israel
2. No recognition of Israel.
3. No negotiations with Israel.


Also note this statement in the stated intent of Hamas. "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."


Until Palestinians are ready to accept the existence of a Jewish State the Two-State solution is doomed to fail.

Round 2
Forfeited
Published:
Extend my arguments.
Round 3
Forfeited
Published:
extend my arguments.
Round 4
Published:
I've got too much work to do, and I don't have much time for debating now. I guess we'll have to end this debate. Vote for the Contender please.
Published:
Extend My arguments. I accept Pro's concession. Vote con.
Round 5
Forfeited
Published:
Extend my arguments. Please vote con.
Added:
--> @TheAtheist
If you've overtaxed yourself, you can concede debates politely (even if not changing your mind), instead of just forfeiting (which creates a bad reputation).
#32
Added:
I guess this debate isn't going to happen.
Contender
#31
Added:
--> @Patmos
Welcome to the site. I suggest familiarizing yourself with what styles can be done here (as opposed to what could be done at DDO): https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
#30
Added:
--> @zedvictor4
It's not one state, it's two states. Both groups get a state. Just like Alec said.
Also when are you going to post an argument on our debate about the Christian God?
Instigator
#29
Added:
--> @zedvictor4
It is reasonable because both groups get a state. The West Bank goes to Palestine.
Both the Jews and the Arabs are white according to the UN, which classifies middle Easterners as white.
#28
Added:
--> @Alec
So how is this a reasonable Two State Solution?
This is a One State solution that doesn't give a monkey's for the Palestinian people.
This is no more than U.S. Jewish led, racist policy.
#27
Added:
--> @Alec
Yes, I think I agree with that idea.
Instigator
#26
Added:
--> @TheAtheist
I agree with 1967 borders except Israel gets the Gaza strip and assiliminates or deports the locals, while paying them a mutually agreed price for their land. Gaza is a threat to the Jewish state. Israel can develop and sell the land to Israelis for a profit.
#25
Added:
--> @Ragnar
This is already defined. Israel and Palestine is what I said. The current territories of each country, with perhaps some slight changes.
Instigator
#24
Added:
--> @TheAtheist
It would seem you need to define the general land area to which the two-state solution is to take place... lol
#23
Added:
--> @zedvictor4
Just because the US is an ally of Israel doesn't mean the US should give its territory to Israel.
Instigator
#22
Added:
--> @TheAtheist
How do you think; has Israel been able to survive and grow so successfully since 1948?
Would you say that there was or was not a strong Jewish influence in U.S international affairs?
#21
Added:
--> @zedvictor4
Again, where is the inextricable link between Israel and US? You can't just say "You haven't been paying attention", you have to prove your claims.
Instigator
#20
Added:
--> @Ragnar
No I'm in total agreement. Separation, Two States.
And my comments are about as non anti-semitic as you can get. (Anti-semitism is a cheap and defamatory allegation)
As for the inextricable link between the U.S. and the Israel. If it's not obvious then someone hasn't been paying much attention. But that is a different argument.
Tongue in cheek perhaps, but I simply attempt to point out that creating adjacent states in the same region is not a practical option and would do little to decrease regional tension. Mutual resentment is unlikely to just disappear.
Let's be honest:
The problem was created in 1948 and has been with us ever since and is unlikely to ever go away.
#19
Added:
--> @zedvictor4
There comes a point where you should probably move into the argument section of the debate.
#18
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Concession.