Instigator / Pro

1468

rating

debates

0.0%

won

Topic

#1133

Israel is an illegal state

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 4 votes and with 17 points ahead, the winner is...

Barney

Tags

Politics

Parameters

Publication date: 07.06.2019 12:53PM
Last updated date: 07.15.2019 06:41AM
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

Contender / Con

Barney

1815

rating

debates

100.0%

won

Description

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.

Round 1

clawer

07.06.2019 06:36PM

Pro

To better explain the thesis of this debate; this debate will be about the legitimacy of Israel. Since i am pro i need to point out several point to illegitimace Israel, i will do this by bringing up the following point.

1) Israels claim to the land.

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.

1.1) religious reason." the promised land"

According to the Hebrew Bible (Genesis 15:18-21), God promised Abraham (Ibrahim, in Arabic) to give him and his descendants a land to inhibit, and thus Abraham moved along with his successors to the land of Canaan.

Genesis 15:18-21

“On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram and said, to your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates— the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.”

First of all Religious claims can't determine the "rightful rulers" of a land. But even if it did it wouldnt matter since Israel is not a theocracy, and does not goveren itself believing that God is the supreme civil ruler. therefore the claim to the land from religious reason is not a valid argument.

But pretending it did it still would not give Israel a legitimate claim to the land, since the text “to your descendants” attests that the land was given to ALL descendants of Abraham, not to Jacob’s successors restrictively. Since the above biblical text did not specify or exclude any of Abraham’s descendants, no matter of other supplementary text or supposition.

1.2) Historical claim

Many arguments have been used to refer to the Jews exclusively. Whereas, all historical manuscripts and divine books, including the Hebrew Bible, affirm that “Children of Israel” (Beni Israel, in Arabic) is a godly term to refer to all descendants of Jacob/Israel collectively and individually (ever since God changed Jacob’s name to Israel).

Here are few scriptural quotations from the Bible (Genesis 32:28, 29 & 33) that substantiate this fact.

“28 And he said unto him: ‘What is thy name?’ And he said: ‘Jacob.’

29 And he said: ‘Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel; for thou hast striven with God and with men, and hast prevailed.

33 Therefore the children of Israel eat not the sinew of the thigh-vein which is upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this day; because he touched the hollow of Jacob’s thigh, even in the sinew of the thigh-vein”

However, a review of this historical event will exhibit that “children of Israel” (descendants of the twelve sons of Jacob/Israel) is the name of Jacob’s lineage irrespective of their faith or any other variable. And hence, it is incorrect to echo that the “children of Israel” were restrictively Jewish. Since Judaism only emerged after five centuries or so from the time of Jacob. Add that, even after Judaism, many tribes upheld the monotheistic belief of their olden patriarchs; while, other tribes remained paganists and polytheists.

In logic

Given all the above clarifications, it is beyond the bounds of logic to condone that the ancient existence of one lineage or another in a specific geographical area is a timeless license of land-ownership to reoccupy that land after more than 1600 years from leaving it. Irrespective of one’s belief, it is unreasonable to accept that the readings of one holy book or another, which was written thousands of years back, are valid proofs of land rights at this modern era.

Imagine what would happen if some millions of Semitic Christians, who were Jewish and then converted to Christianity over the past 2000 years, now claim the land of Jerusalem because of their ancient presence in the birthplace of Christ and for being the successors of Jacob> Isaac> Judah.

Imagine what would happen if some millions of Semitic Muslims, who were Jews and then Christians before their conversion to Islam during the last 1400 years, now lay claims to land rights of Jerusalem because they inhabited the land for more than thousand years and/or for being the successors of Abraham> Jacob> Esau>, for instance.

Would it be acceptable if they recaptured their forefathers’ land again?

Would it be their rights then? If not? By the same token, all should revoke the Zionist and Israeli illegitimate claims to land rights over the holy land.

Barney

07.06.2019 11:22PM

Con

Plagiarism:

Rather than presenting his case, pro has chosen to plagiarize journalist Mohammad S. Moussalli as featured in the Arabian Gazette [1]. This dismisses his R1.

Legal Ownership:

The land was legally recognized as theirs by the former owners (and most civilized countries) in 1948 [2]. That’s more than seventy years ago. Plus they have a legal document known as a Declaration of Independence [3], legally affirming their right to exist as an organized nation.

Successful Defense:

Laws are about more than paper, they are about practice. So I shall show Israel proving itself capable of defense, which gives the written laws meaning in the face of aggression…

When their genocidal neighbors considered them being alive to be an offense against Allah, Israel defended itself in an event now known as the Six-Day War. The aggressors only managed to kill as many as 983 Israelis, for as many as 23,500 of their own soldiers [4]. This 23.9 to 1 ratio, combined with their enemies habits of targeting schools and other civilian targets, reveals for the enemies of Israel to succeed they would lose at minimum 208.2 million lives from their own side, which is about half the total population of the Middle East and Northern Africa combined.

Sources:

Round 2

clawer

07.07.2019 09:40AM

Pro

Plagiarism:

I apologize for lack of sources, but the argument and the facts still stand since the information still has significans in the debate.

Response to legal ownership claim:

Before WW1 the land belonged to the ottoman empire, after world war it came under british control ,[1] but it was never "owned" by britian It was to be "owned" by those residing in Palestine. So British could not legally recognize Israel since they did not own the land. Therefore any "Declaration of establishment" that Israel might have, does not stand as its true ground for establishment is still ilegall.

Response to defense claim:
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.

1.Human right violations:

The israeli settlements that began in 1967 are illegal under international law, these settlements are a violation of the 4th Geneva convention. Which outlines protection of civilian’s in a war zone, forbids states for transferring their citizens to occupied land. [2]

1.1 Apartheid

Israel is also an apartheid state, where Palestinans that live in Israeli residential areas ( Illegal occupied land ) are treated differently under the law. Israelis live under the Civil Law, while Palestinians live under Israeli Military rule meaning their subject to checkpoints, curfews, detention without charge and other restriction. And that is life under rmilitary occupation. [3]

Conclusion

Israel has neither legal, religious or moral claim to the land of Palestine. Furthermore Israels violations of the palestinians human rights should in it self Illegitimize Israel.

Sources:
1.https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-middle-east/history-of-jerusalem

2.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1682640.stm

3.https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/calling-israels-occupation-of-palestine-apartheid-isnt-lazy-or-inflammatory-its-based-on-fact-a6893706.html

Barney

07.07.2019 07:29PM

Con

Plagiarism (continued):
In case any voter believes plagiarized material (about 90% of his R1) must be addressed…

“Promised Land”
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.”

“Historical Claim”
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].

“In Logic”
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.

Plus even were something illogical, it would not dismiss the internationally recognized and defended legal claim.

Even while not maintaining sovereignty, Jews have maintained a steady presence in the area for a couple thousand years [3]; there was no “1,600 year” period of abandoning it. For a lengthy breakdown, I’ll quote my source:

“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].

Legal Ownership (continued):
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.

Successful Defense (continued):
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.

Replies to New Points:
“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).

Worse for pro, by talking about the crime of displacing people, affirms Israel’s legal right to exist where they are (it would be a crime to move them). And finally, had he read his own source he would know:

“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].

Technically there used to be under England and then Jordan, but both groups gave them up.

“Apartheid”
Israel is not South Africa, and the comparison to such is (to quote pro’s own source): “unhelpful, lazy, inflammatory, [and] antisemitic.”

In order to believe pro’s claims, you principally need to dismiss that Arabs can be citizens. Then dismiss the various Arabs serving high in the Israeli government, their voting rights, etc. Here’s how Arabs are treated in Israel:

“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].

I could go into how Jews are treated in countries neighboring Israel, proving a valid comparison to Apartheid in terms of human rights violations; but as informative as that would be, it would not be relevant to the resolution.

Conclusion:
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.

I have offered multiple standards, which went worse than unrefuted (he outright conceded the debate while trying to refute the legal claim).

Voting Suggestions:
A few things I humbly ask judges to consider while voting (this is largely quick review to make things easier)…

I. Arguments
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.

II. Sources
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.

Pro had a few sources, not all of them racist, but a couple were overtly racist (racist thus unreliable). The big problem was he did not bother reading his sources (as I caught multiple times), allowing me to easily flip or dismiss their value toward the resolution.

III. S&G
Neither of us had any excessive errors.

IV. Conduct
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.

Sources:

YitzGoldberg

07.15.2019 06:41AM

#16

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.

YitzGoldberg

07.15.2019 06:40AM

#15

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.

Barney

07.15.2019 06:12AM

#14

-->

@clawer

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.

Dr.Franklin

07.12.2019 06:45PM

#13

-->

@Club

Good boy

Club

07.12.2019 06:45PM

#12

-->

@Dr.Franklin

I changed it

Dr.Franklin

07.12.2019 06:42PM

#11

-->

@Club

no, its a conduct

Club

07.12.2019 06:41PM

#10

-->

@Dr.Franklin

It's also a source point.

Dr.Franklin

07.12.2019 06:37PM

-->

@Club

If you say Plagirism, thats a conduct point

Barney

07.12.2019 04:04AM

-->

@Ramshutu

Thanks for voting!

Patmos

07.11.2019 04:27PM

-->

@Barney

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.

Barney

07.08.2019 03:41PM

-->

@Patmos

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.

King_8

07.08.2019 01:18AM

-->

@Barney

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.

Barney

07.07.2019 11:58PM

-->

@King_8

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

King_8

07.07.2019 10:47PM

-->

@Barney

Pro's title says Isreal is an illegal state

Barney

07.07.2019 09:32PM

-->

@King_8

King_8

07.07.2019 07:30PM

Isreal isnt a state

RationalMadman

07.14.2019 07:19PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Plagiarism in a 12 hour per round debate. Only Con brought forth any original argumentation.

Club

07.12.2019 06:45PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

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.

Ramshutu

07.11.2019 07:51PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

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.

Patmos

07.08.2019 12:10AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

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.