Israel is an illegal state
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 4 votes and 17 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Twelve hours
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the world’s longest-running and most controversial conflicts. At its heart, it is a conflict between two self-determination movements — the Jewish Zionist project and the Palestinian nationalist project — that lay claim to the same territory. But it is so, so much more complicated than that, with seemingly every fact and historical detail small and large litigated by the two sides and their defenders.
Because Israel's claim to the land rests completly on religious and historical points affirming that the land belongs to them, i will arguments against these points.
To use the argument of "capability of defense" one must definy the true definition of defense. As you could argue that Israels immigration to Palestine was hostile and could be seen as an attack against the Palestinians land therefore the real agressors would be Israel while the Palestinians are onyl defending their land.
In case any voter believes plagiarized material (about 90% of his R1) must be addressed…
Here pro talks about the bible, as if religion is what defines legal statehood. But pro having not read his plagiarized material before copy/pasting it, missed that it outright concedes this point is irrelevant because...
“Religious claims can't determine the "rightful rulers" of a land.”
More talk of the bible, which as we can see above pro can conceded as irrelevant. Worse, it affirms that any “children of Israel” have full claim to the land so long as they keep track of their lineage, which Jews do, and has been scientifically verified by:
“a team led by geneticist Harry Ostrer of the New York University School of Medicine [whom] concludes today that all three Jewish groups—Middle Eastern, Sephardic, and Ashkenazi—share genomewide genetic markers that distinguish them from other worldwide populations” .
First of all, this copy/paste makes no sense without various other missing paragraphs from the plagiarized source. By itself it is very much a non-sequitur . My legal argument already refuted this anyway with better logic and something meaningful to the actual topic.
“Even after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, and the beginning of the exile, Jewish life in the land of Israel continued and often flourished. Large communities were reestablished in Jerusalem and Tiberias by the ninth century. In the eleventh century, Jewish communities grew in Rafah, Gaza, Ashkelon, Jaffa, and Caesarea. The Crusaders massacred many Jews during the twelfth century, but the community rebounded in the next two centuries as large numbers of rabbis and Jewish pilgrims immigrated to Jerusalem and the Galilee. Prominent rabbis established communities in Safed, Jerusalem, and elsewhere during the following three hundred years. By the early nineteenth century— years before the birth of the modern Zionist movement— more than ten thousand Jews lived through-out what is today Israel. The seventy-eight years of nation-building, beginning in 1870, culminated in the reestablishment of the Jewish State” .
Pro by insisting ownership is about residence, concedes the debate as the Israeli people reside there, affirming their claim by his own standard. Someone could question the millennia of residence, but the living memory of generations over seventy years of modern history is impossible to dismiss.
Pro argues that Israel attacked the land itself, which even taken seriously would in no way dismisses their successful defense of it from genociders intent on killing every man woman child and animal (to include local non-Jews). He claims “Palestinians are onyl defending their land” [sic], which has nothing to do with the foreign invasion from the Arab League during the Six-Day War. Worse, that league was intent on murdering everyone there, which means there would be no “Palestinians” for pro to cry about were it not for Israel saving them.
“Human right violations”
Pro argues that anything Israel added to itself during the Six-Day War is illegal, but this affirms that the majority of Israel is perfectly legal; along with most of what they added to themselves during that time as they did not force people to move (instead they saved them from genocidal monsters).
“the international conventions relating to occupied land do not apply to the Palestinian territories because they were not under the legitimate sovereignty of any state in the first place” .
Israel is not South Africa, and the comparison to such is (to quote pro’s own source): “unhelpful, lazy, inflammatory, [and] antisemitic.”
“Arab citizens of Israel enjoy the full range of civil and political rights, including the right to organize politically, the right to vote and the right to speak and publish freely. Israeli Arabs and other non-Jewish Israelis serve as members of Israel’s security forces, are elected to parliament and appointed to the country’s highest courts. They are afforded equal educational opportunities, and there are ongoing initiatives to further improve the economic standing of all of Israel’s minorities” .
Pro offered several standards for which Israel is a legal state, but complained that he doesn’t like it. He also offered a couple things (the bible) which by his or her own admission are not relevant to if something is a legal state. Overall he mostly made a strong case for educational reform wherever he is from.
A few things I humbly ask judges to consider while voting (this is largely quick review to make things easier)…
My key points were the law and successful defense of all living creatures there for the law to matter.
My opponent's key point was that he believes Israel commits human rights violations, which would not challenge their legal statehood.
Pro committed plagiarism, which I identified… I also offered historical details, and reliability that .gov sources are known for. I generally suggest only counting my R1 sources, as pro could not respond to R2.
Neither of us had any excessive errors.
Plagiarism from pro. The worst offense from me was implicitly questioning his education at one point for comedic effect. I believe the plagiarism easy tips the balance, but that is for judges to determine.
One of pro’s sources I have chosen to flip.