Instigator / Pro

ONB: Israeli annexation of the west bank would most likely benefit palestinians in the long run


Waiting for the instigator's third argument.

The round will be automatically forfeited in:

More details
Publication date
Last update date
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Characters per argument
Contender / Con
~ 576 / 5,000

No semantics or dirty trick, this is a serious issue. BoP is shared.

Definition from Cambridge:
-Annex: to take possession of an area of land or a country and add it to a larger area, usually by force:
---In our case, it means to make the west bank a part of Israel and grant its inhabitants Israeli citizenship.
-Beneficial: helpful, useful, or good

West Bank, area of the former British-mandated (1920–47) territory of Palestine west of the Jordan River, claimed from 1949 to 1988 as part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan but occupied from 1967 by Israel. [Britannica]

Round 1
Thank you, CON.

RESOLUTION: ONB: Israeli annexation of the west bank would most likely benefit palestinians in the long run

My argument is simple:
  • P1: Palestinians would in the long run benefit from freedom, human rights, safety, stability, a good democracy and a healthy economy based on innovation instead of oil
  • P2: Israeli citizens enjoy theese goods
  • C: Palestinians would in the long run benefit from being Israeli citizens
The first premise is a truism, a statement to which nobody would disagree. The second, as I am about to show, is a fact backed by extensive evidence.

Freedom and rights
According to Britannica, not only is the the Arabic Human RIghts System worse than that of all other parts of the world, but its charters contain both attempts at promoting political goals as well as confirming that human rights are to be interpreted/overwritten by Shariah, Islamic law. Furthermore, the charter fails to protect basic freedoms.
At the same time, the charter does not prohibit cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishments, fails to extend rights to noncitizens in many areas, and authorizes restrictions on freedom of thought, conscience, and religion that exceed what is deemed permissible under international human rights law. [ibid]
The Palestinians cannot expect to have their basic freedoms and rights upheld if they are going to live in a typical Arab nation. Meanwhile, Israel is the freest place in the Middle east. Contrary to other countries of the Middle east, in Israel, "The law provides for freedom of religion, and the Government respects this right. In fact, each religious community has legal authority over its members in matters of marriage and divorce. They also control their own holy places in Jerusalem and elsewhere in the country." [jewishvirtuallibrary]. Seing as religious freedom is the most important freedom in the still strongly religious Middle east, it is easy to see why Israel respecting this freedom is an essential and unique benefit for Israeli citizens. Moreover, Israel prohibits unlawfull arrest, allows for independent groups to inspect their prisons and ensures legal rights for everyone [ibid]. Most importantly though, Israel has one of the broadest anti-discrimination laws of any country [ibid]. 

Safety and stability
In the middle east there have been an increddible amount of wars and conflicts over the years, each of which is listed on wikipedia; and most of which being far more detrimental to normal citizens than any war Israel has been involved in. We even have an example of a land where Israel let go and let Arabs rule the land: the Gaza strip. The territory is now one of the worst places to live, and the conflict has not ended just because Israel let the Arabs rule themselves. The terrorist organization Hamas continues to shoot misiles towards Israel as you might know if you read the news; Israel fights back and thusly Hamas prevent Arab safety by continuing a conflict even after getting what they want.

Israel has won every war it has been involved in, and their military is one of the most formiddable forces in the world, having both a technological advantage and superior training compared to that of other nations in the middle east [nypost]. They are allies of the US and have nuklear capabilities, which are two factors ensuring the prolonged stability and safety of Israel from outer treaths. The Israeli Iron Dome system is among the best anti-misile system in the world and is able to intercept 90% of incomming short-range misiles [the-iron-dome]. Not only that, but Israeli bunkers and anti-terrorism agencies ensures that any threat to Israeli civilians posed by terrorists or other nations is mitigated. Stability wice, there has never been an armed coup in Israel, nor has there been attempts at forcefully keeping power. This stands in stark contrast to the constantly unstable arabic middle east. From arbitrary terrorist organizations like ISIS to Iran-funded groups to corrupt leaders to crazy dicators like Sadam Hussein, the middle east is unstable and few places if any at all can match the security and stability enjoyed by Israeli citizens. 


Well-functional democracy is not a descriptive word for any Arab state, and especially not the Palestinian authority that currently rules the west bank.
There have been no national elections in the West Bank and Gaza since 2006. President Mahmoud Abbas has remained in office despite the expiration of his four-year term in 2009. The Palestinian Legislative Council has not functioned since 2007, and in 2018 the Palestinian Authority dissolved the Constitutional Court. []
To the contrary, Israel is ranked as the 35th best democracy in the world, ranked above every single Arab/Muslim country in the world [democracymatrix]. The closest Arab countries in this regard are Tunisia (41th), Kuwait (101th) and Moroco (105th). Israel is far more democratic than any other country in the Middle east. 
The law provides citizens with the right to change peacefully their government, and citizens exercise this right in practice through periodic, free, and fair elections held on the basis of universal suffrage for adult citizens...Israel is a parliamentary democracy, with an active multiparty system representing a wide range of political views [ibid]
Arabs also have the right to vote, and there are several Arabs in their parlament and government. If the inhabitants of the west bank became Israeli citizens they would be able to affect the country and live in an open democracy just as anyone else. Thusly, living in a free and open democracy is a unique benefit of being an Israeli citizen in the middle east.

Economy and living conditions
First things first, the Arab world is very rich (though the average Arab lives a third-world life); however that is solely due to the immense amount of oil they can extract. Thus, the major pilar of Arab economy is neither sustainable nor green, and should be abolished as a part of the global struggle against climate change. The Israeli economy on the other hand is built on innovation in the digital, medical, green, scientific and aggricultural sectors. It is a world leading nation with regards to technology, and it is close to being the most economically free country in the world [statista]. There is even an enormous page on wikipedia that is simply a list of Israeli innovations [wikipedia]. They also heavily invest in green technology.
Israel has gained a worldwide reputation for its ability to turn barren desert into useful and arable land. []
Being a world leading economic power, with sustainable and free economy, Israel is surely the best place in the middle east to live long-term.

Israel's standard of living is significantly higher than all of the other countries in the region and equal to West European countries, and is comparable to that of other highly developed countries. Israel was ranked 19th on the 2016 UN Human Development Index, indicating "very high" development. It is considered a high-income country by the World Bank. Israel also has a very high life expectancy at birth." [wikipedia]
I usually don't quote wikipedia but this time I could not have said it better myself. Living in Israel would clearly be benefitial to everyone, and especially Palestinians.

Even if voters don't buy this, they still need to considder the current situation of palestinains. As they live today, ruled by un-democratic Arab leaders with political goals and controlled by Israeli military occupation; their land being stolen by illegal Israeli settlements; they certainly won't have a good time long-term. Logically speaking it would be absurd to claim that Israel treats inhabitants of occupied territories better than citizens. Palestinians will certainly be treated better by Israel after becomming citizens of the nation, rather than now when they are just living in occupied territories. Mind you, the problems Palestinians in the west bank face are not problems the Arabs in Israel face; thusly to assume that an annexation would not benefit Palestinians would be absurd.

  • P1: Palestinians would in the long run benefit from freedom, human rights, safety, stability, a good democracy and a healthy economy based on innovation instead of oil
  • P2: Israeli citizens enjoy theese goods
  • C: Palestinians would in the long run benefit from being Israeli citizens
The first premise is a truism, a statement to which nobody would disagree. The second is a fact backed by extensive evidence. The syllogism holds, and my BoP is fullfilled.

ONB: Israeli annexation of the west bank would most likely benefit palestinians in the long run

The resolution is evidently true, it is logically sound and nothing CON can say proves otherwise, unless he can disprove the evidence I provided; which I doubt he can do.

Good luck, CON!

Resolution: ONB: Israel annexation of the west bank would most likely benefit Palestinians in the long run. 
 Position: Con 

  Before I present my argument for Round  1, let me express my rebuttal for the argument by Pro in Round 1.  Pro argues that ``Palestinians will certainly be treated 
better by Israel after becoming citizens of the nation, rather than now when they are just living in occupied territories.``  Pro insists that the annexation will contribute to improving the life of Palestinians.  I strongly believe that the compromise between the leader of Israel and west bank which consists  mainly of Palestinians is urgently required to realize the annexation. However, this seems to be very difficult to materialize in the near future. 
I support the opinion raised by Thomas L. Eriedman.  He argues that ``what Bibi Netanyahu, Mahmoud Abbas and the various leaders of Hamas all have in common is that they have never, ever, ever been willing to risk their political careers or lives to forge the kind of hard compromise needed for a peace breakthrough 
in their war over the same piece of land.  So I am dubious, to say the least, about the prospects for peace. `` 1) 

My argument:  I believe many Palestinians are against the annexation of West Bank. They don`t expect benefits from it.  Rather they are afraid of being deprived      of their basic rights like freedom of expression, security, safety and religious tradition.  Therefore, I believe that they strongly hope that a Palestinian state will be 
established.   In particular, many Palestinians have hatred feelings toward the United States which has diplomatic relations with Israel. 

The first reason is that once military conflict happened, Israel have attacked Palestinians by using weapons made by American arms companies many times.
Second reason is that Palestinians expressed strong anger toward the decision by President Trump who decided  Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Jerusalem is the holy place for those believing in Christianity, Judaism and Islam.  Many Palestinians regard his decision as the manifestation of conquest, oppression and domination by Israel.  His decision has been contributing to fueling conflicts and feud between Israel and Palestinians. 

Therefore, taking those situations into consideration two- state solution is urgently expected and hoped for between Israel and Palestinian. 
Tzipi Livni who is a former minister of foreign affairs for Israel argues that ``the idea of two states for two peoples serves Israel`s interest because each state would separately answer the national aspirations of the Jewish people and the Palestinians. This solution should bring an end to the conflict, an outcome that justifies the compromises and risks involved.`` 2)    But ``unfortunately, negotiations to this end have stalled. Peace is not around the corner. Speaking frankly, 
I was the Israeli chief negotiator for the past two rounds of negotiations, and we were unable to reach an agreement.`` 3) 

Regarding the annexation, Israel is against it. Livni argues that ``annexation would eventually jeopardize the nature of Israel as a Jewish democratic state  as it was defined in the declaration of independence of the state of Israel, written in full consensus by the political leaders at the time.``4) 

 From above arguments we can say that two- state solution and annexation do not pave the way for bringing peace and benefits between Israel and Palestinian.
However, at least I believe that two-state solution is better than annexation. The reason is that national and Indigeous identity are preserved in the two-state solution. 

      Sources:  1)` How Biden can seriously bring peace`,  The New York Times International Edition, May 25,2021
                          2), 3), 4) ` Why Israel`s annexation of parts of the West Bank would be a historic Mistake`  

Round 2
Hey! Not so fast, hold on a second. CON has misinterpreted the resolution. We are not analysing the legality, morality, justification or plausibility of a Israeli annexation, CON is going completely off topic. We are discussing the benefits of annexation, which CON has yet to even touch on. A two state solution potentially being more beneficial don't disprove the resolution, and neither does CON's appeal to opinion. Sure, annexation is a controversial topic and many want it to never happen --- however, we are not discussing whether or not annexation will likely happen, but whether or not it will benefit Palestinians in the long run. Thusly, CON's argument (backed by a non-scholastic source, an unlinked news article), does not actually support his case. 

CON seems concerned about "peace", yet forgets the effects of not annexing an area. Take the Gaza strip, the piece of Palestinian land Israel retreated from and left alone. It now being ruled by Hamas ("Canada, the European Union, Israel, Japan and the United States have designated Hamas as a terrorist organization."[1]), the area is not "at peace" with Israel. Rather, Hamas and Israel still fight, sending rockets at each other and essentially continuing the conflict. The Gaza strip is one of the worst places to live in the middle east [britannica]. Furthermore, much of the problems its inhabitants face stem specifically from the fact that they don't live in Israel.
In politically stable times, as much as one-tenth of the Palestinian population travels daily to Israel (where they are not allowed to stay overnight) to work in menial jobs. Political tension and outbreaks of violence often led Israeli authorities to close the border for extended periods, putting many Palestinians out of work. [ibid]
These problems inhabitants of Gaza are facing would most likely also be faced by the palestinians living in the west bank, meaning in the abscence of Israeli annexation, palestinians live worse lives than other arabs. On the other hand, it is a fact CON has not denied, that in the long run an Israeli annexation will bring Palestinians more economic freedom and prosperity, political stability, human rights protection and safety; even better living standards in addition to political and religious freedom. Israeli annexation would mean palestinains will live better lives than most arabs, as opposed to the current situation of palestinains livign worse lives than most arabs. In the middle east, all of these economic, political and wellfare benefits are uniquely found in Israel.

My argument stands!

I must challenge the problems raised by Pro in Round 2. They are that ``whether or not annexation will likely happen, but whether or not it will benefit  Palestinians in the long run.``   I believe that the most important thing is that compromise and dialog between Israel and Palestinian concerning the annexation 
must be carried out. This is the pre-condition to make the annexation possible and successful.   If it succeeded, Israel annexation of the West Bank would bring  economic prosperity, political stability and human rights protection on the life of many Palestinians. 
However, unfortunately I believe that the annexation is difficult to materialize in the near future. We must pay attention to the fact that many Palestinians have the 
hatred feelings toward Jewish people. This is likely to disappear so soon from their heart. 

Diana Buttu, who is a lawyer and former adviser to the negotiating team of the Palestine Liberation Organization, argues that ``the truth is that the Palestinian citizens of Israel and the Jewish majority of the country have never coexisted. We Palestinians living in Israel `sub- exist`,  living under a system of discrimination and racism with laws that enshrine our second -class status and with policies that ensure we are never equals.  This is not by accident but by design. The violence 
against Palestinians in Israel , with the backing of the Israeli state, that we witnessed in the past few weeks was only to be expected .`` 1) 
And Buttu says that ``indeed, our mere existence nettles Israel`s ruling elites, who insist on preserving the Jewishness of the state.`` 2)  

Here, I look at the situation of West Bank.  ``Jericho is in the heart of the Jordan Valley, a large area of the occupied West Bank that runs along Jordon`s border
and was captured by Israelis in the Six-Day War in 1967.  The majority of the West Bank , around 60%, is made up of land under full Israeli security and 
administrative jurisdiction.  But Jericho itself, along with around 18% of the West Bank, is technically under Palestinian administration. 
Israel`s annexation plan could change all that.  The Jordon Valley could officially become part of Israeli sovereign territory.  Jericho itself is likely to remain  under 
Palestinian administrative control.  But residents are concerned that there might be more restrictions and that access to other parts of the West Bank will become 
even more difficult.`` 3)  

Many Palestinian people will be compelled to make an oppressed and stressful life every day by the annexation. Therefore, they will reject and protest the annexation presented by Israel very strongly. 
From above arguments I believe that Israel annexation of the West Bank would not most likely benefit Palestinians in the long run.  

        Sources:  1), 2) `Coexistence in Israel is just a myth`,    The New York Times International Edition, May 27,2021.
                            3) `Israel plans to annex West Bank territories ` 
Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet