Israel is an illegal state
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 17 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Twelve hours
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
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” [1].
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 [2]. 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” [3].
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” [4].
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” [5].
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.
- https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/06/tracing-roots-jewishness
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non_sequitur
- https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/mf2017.pdf#page=9
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1682640.stm
One of pro’s sources I have chosen to flip. - https://www.adl.org/resources/fact-sheets/response-to-common-inaccuracy-israel-is-an-apartheid-state
Plagiarism in a 12 hour per round debate. Only Con brought forth any original argumentation.
For sources and conduct, PRO PLAGIARIZED HALF OF HIS ARGUMENT. Whereas Ragnar, being himself wrote out a nice long rebuttal, and argument with many sources.
Arguments to con.
Pros R1 was completely plagiarized, and as such this will be ignored. Con accepted a debate against pro, not against the prepared statements of an Op Ed writer. This means con does not offer a positive case and as such must result in at best a tie.
Cons arguments are basically that the land belongs to Israel as it was recognized by the previous owner. Pro doesn’t really provide a cohesive argument and, effectively argues that residence determines ownership implies that Israel is legal.
For both these reasons - arguments to pro.
Conduct to con for then plagiarism. This is odious and dishonest behaviour violation of copyrighted material can cause legal issues: it warrants the conduct penalty on its own.
Convincing arguments goes to con because many of Pro's arguments ( the bible) are irrelevant to determining the legality of a state. Moreover, Pro's argument on human rights violations and Israel being an apartheid state was soundly refuted by con by pointing out that Palestinian citizens of Israel have every right that a Jewish Israeli has.
Reliable sources goes to con because pro mostly offered partisan news sources as evidence while con provided sources ranging from libraries of Jewish history to the federal government.
Conduct goes to con because of pro's blatant plagiarism in his first post.
And it isn't long before that hatred of Israel transcends into hatred of Jews. But I don't play the "Jew card." You're open to criticize me if you want. I won't hide. None of us are immune to honest inquiry and open dialogue, but before you do so, please recognize this: I, myself, criticize Israel often. But criticizing her policy (which Jew doesn't?), isn't the same as hoping for her demise. If Israel goes, the whole Middle East goes. Do you really think Israel is less democratic than the Arab states? Over in Gaza, they're throwing gays off their roofs. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound Liberal to me.
As you see, these old anti-Semitic tropes are as old as fire. They've been around with us for a long time, longer than you think.
But this here, is for Type1 and all the rest of your clan of haters: do you really think you're a revolutionary? That you're showcasing truth and pulling off the tarp from academia which makes the masses blind? Well, let me tell ya, you're not. Anyway, the BDS got there before you, and believe me, they dream of Israel's destruction, under the guise of asking for a state of Arabs - what do you think that means? That the Jewish state just moves to Mars? No, we know what they want, you know what they want. Don't make the mistake in thinking that you're not a specimen to the laws of nature, that you're not prejudiced, or intolerant. We're not above history, the human condition is still here, and it's not just an academic exercise in which this generation studies. Anti-Semitism, my friend, is a relic of the past. But that doesn't mean we can fight it, and fight it, we will.
This is not a debate. . . it's a message. Already, I have stumbled upon an anti-Semite. Type1, that's what he goes by. Now, I know the world isn't perfect, and anti-Semitism is a disease without a cure and it's able to survive any weapon we use against it, so don't be fooled, it never died with the Shoah. Still, criticism which is unjust, which topples the government, and causes mass genocide, is no mere first amendment right to me. You cannot claim a right to free speech when you call out for the death of Jews, Blacks, and other minorities. Yes, fight fire with fire, but how do you fight off death threats? Do you make one yourself? No, you can't. At least no reasonable person would. But I'm not here to make solutions, I'm here to point out the hypocrisy of those individuals who believe, with an undying heart, that Israel, and the Jewish people, are made with certain ingredients, that of disloyalty, money greed, and Fascism. Of course, they're all false, but that last one sticks in your mind. Israel. . . Fascist? Really? Let's see what the definition of Fascism is. To be brief, it's the suppression of knowledge, of alternative voices. We know this to be true because of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. But Israel is none of those. I always find it amusing when the super-Left claim Israel to be an apartheid state. South Africa was an apartheid state, what about speaking to one of them, one who lived through that before you rant on Israel? Sounds like a good idea to me, one of objectivity, too. But did you catch that? The Right isn't alone in its anti-Semitism. They may be more approachable about it, more visible. but the Left can be just as noise, if not worse. Well, what makes me say this? They've found a way to hide it under. . . anti-colonialism, White privilege, and the rhetoric of human rights.
Thanks for the debate.
If you want to get good at this topic, try arguing from the other side. Once you learn why the other side has valid conviction, it's easy to find the holes in their case.
Good boy
I changed it
no, its a conduct
It's also a source point.
If you say Plagirism, thats a conduct point
Thanks for voting!
I'm currently in a debate on the two-state solution and that's one of my arguments. that the two-state solution is impractical because Palestinians refuse to accept the deal. Even when it's weighted heavily in their favor.
Thanks for voting.
Something you might find interesting is that the Two-State Solution was tried way back in the 1940's, with the creation of Israel and Jordan. Prior to their attempted genocide in 1967, Jordan controlled the East Jerusalem.
Since Isreal is a country and not a state, for example not apart of the United States comprised of 50 states. That's what I meant, but your definition seems clear now. The title just confused me.
By what standard do you believe Israel is not a state?
Bare in mind, the usual definition for country is "a state or nation." https://www.dictionary.com/browse/country
Pro's title says Isreal is an illegal state
?
Isreal isnt a state