frame

Israel or Palestine?

Opening Argument

FascismFascism 230 Pts
edited November 14 in Politics
I support Palestine on this issue. 

Both sides committed war atrocities, not only Palestine. 

People argue that Palestine was never a state, therefore Israel did not take any land. But the Native Americans also never had a state, does that justify Europeans taking their land? 

The British ruled over Palestine and the Arabs. Jewish immigration into Palestine was met with tolerance by the Arabs, although there were some tensions. The Jews still lived peacefully with the Arabs however. The Arabs then tried to break free from British rule. The Jewish people supported Great Britain causing the Arabs to lose. Then Great Britain gave over the Palestine issue to UN. UN agreed that Palestine should be split between Palestine and Israel. 

This is flawed because Palestine includes Jewish communities as well as Islamic. In Jerusalem, 50% of the population was Jewish, while 50% of the population was Islamic. They were peaceful with each other. The Arabs were also tolerant with each other. But when the split occurred, the tensions between Arabs and Jews increased, causing less tolerance. 

This is also what happened to India. The Hindus and the Muslims both occupied India, and were both fighting for independence, but the British split the communities. This didn't stop the revolution from happening, but it caused less tolerance, and eventually the splitting of the lands into Muslim and Hindu countries. 

An Israel state was not needed. Palestine was already tolerant of the Jews. Jerusalem was shared with both religions. They lived as neighbors peacefully. Splitting the land caused less tolerance, more war, and the decrease of Palestinian occupied land. 

The Arabs wanted freedom and the Jewish people went against them, supporting the British. The British split up the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic people into separate institutions so that they are less unified. Then they take the Arab's land while the Arabs were being tolerant, and cause more war and less tolerance, and give it to the Jews. 
joecavalrycomey_testifybillpassed
  1. Israel or Palestine?

    6 votes
    1. Israel
      33.33%
    2. Palestine
      33.33%
    3. Both(if so, then what should be the borders?)
      33.33%
    4. Neither(if so, then what should exist there?)
        0.00%

Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • Israel believes in Peace while Palestine does not. Palestine uses violence against Israel, other countries, others, etc. possibly.
    DebateIslander and a DebateIsland.com lover. 
  • @joecavalry
    Israel has used violence against Palestine. They are also inhabiting Palestine lands illegally. If the Soviet Union started just sending over troops to the US and sending settlers, then the US will definitely react with violence. Israel justifies this by saying that Palestine isn't really a country, so they can claim the land if they want to. 
  • @Fascism

    What does "I support Palestine on this issue" entail? That could mean anything from ethnically cleansing the state of Israel to a peacefully negotiated two-state solution. This isn't a football team where you just support a side.

    Also the issue with the creation of the Israeli state is that many people were not tolerant of Jews and so they felt they needed their own nation state to protect themselves as well as for other reasons like an attempt to reach what they felt was their religious destiny. I disagree with it because I feel that the modern multi-ethnic western state his disproven the need for a nation state for each nationality and no amount of rationale would excuse Israeli war crimes, but the argument still existed and the Palestinians (as part of the ottoman Empire and then the mandate) were only tolerant of a small degree of Jewish settlement - they would not have accepted hundreds of thousands of Jewish settlers if they had a choice. The argument about Jews living peacefully with Arabs therefore misses the point as it was meant to provide a home for the Jews who weren't already in Palestine.

    @joecavalry

    Both sides want peace to certain degrees and both sides commit war crimes to certain degrees. it is not black or white. Also I don't believe Israel uses violence against other countries far more recently than the Palestinians do.
  • Israel did not use violence against Palestine unless they were forced to. Israel is forced to defend itself against Palestine due to Palestine’s use of violence against Israel, etc.
  • Israel did not use violence against Palestine unless they were forced to. Israel is forced to defend itself against Palestine due to Palestine’s use of violence against Israel, etc.
    The UN, nearly every country on earth with the exception of Israel itself and multiple human rights organisations would all disagree with you. Have any proof to back up your claim?

    http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48.pdf
    https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/
  • @Fascism

    Who say Israel is occupying lands illegally and why should I care what they say?
  • Israel has their land. Israel owns that land, not Palestine. They should be allowed to built on it and use it. They should also be allowed to not deal with violence from Palestine.
  • Israel has their land. Israel owns that land, not Palestine. They should be allowed to built on it and use it. They should also be allowed to not deal with violence from Palestine.
    Which land are you talking about? Israel? Jerusalem? The West Bank? Gaza? Plenty of the potential land you are talking about is land that no-one, not even Israel, claims belongs to Israel.

    Also should they be allowed to "not deal with violence from Palestine" however they like regardless of how abhorrent, illegal and disproportionate it is? And should Palestine be allowed to "not deal with violence" from Israel in return? If not, why not?
  • @Ampersand

    Who determines what is "abhorrent, illegal and disproportionate" and why should I care what they say?
  • @Ampersand
    What I meant by Ampersand said:
    @Fascism

    What does "I support Palestine on this issue" entail? That could mean anything from ethnically cleansing the state of Israel to a peacefully negotiated two-state solution. This isn't a football team where you just support a side.

    Also the issue with the creation of the Israeli state is that many people were not tolerant of Jews and so they felt they needed their own nation state to protect themselves as well as for other reasons like an attempt to reach what they felt was their religious destiny. I disagree with it because I feel that the modern multi-ethnic western state his disproven the need for a nation state for each nationality and no amount of rationale would excuse Israeli war crimes, but the argument still existed and the Palestinians (as part of the ottoman Empire and then the mandate) were only tolerant of a small degree of Jewish settlement - they would not have accepted hundreds of thousands of Jewish settlers if they had a choice. The argument about Jews living peacefully with Arabs therefore misses the point as it was meant to provide a home for the Jews who weren't already in Palestine.

    @joecavalry

    Both sides want peace to certain degrees and both sides commit war crimes to certain degrees. it is not black or white. Also I don't believe Israel uses violence against other countries far more recently than the Palestinians do.
    "I support Palestine on this issue" entails that I think Palestine deserved the land. I don't what the solution should be, but I believe that Palestine was unfairly treated. 

    The Jewish might have been oppressed, but that doesn't justify them creating a nation taking the land. There are other solutions. Creating another country will just cause war. If black people fought for civil rights by creating a new country in the middle of the US, they will get attacked. 

    When there is extensive oppression, I agree that creating a rebellion is good, but the Jews weren't even as oppressed as the Black people. They were given the same opportunities. The only oppression there was, was the tensions between the two communities, and that was caused by the British dividing the religions into different institutions, and communities. 

    "The argument about Jews living peacefully with Arabs therefore misses the point as it was meant to provide a home for the Jews who weren't already in Palestine."
    The home could have been Palestine. My point is that the Jews could live peacefully with Palestine, so why not just go to Palestine, instead of creating borders and creating years of war. 

    Dividing people doesn't do anything good. All it does is cause war. Sometimes the division is necessary, but in this case it wasn't needed and all it did was cause more suffering than needed. 
  • FascismFascism 230 Pts
    edited November 15
    @billpassed
    Yes, but my argument is that they shouldn't own the land. Israel also used violence and atrocities against Palestine. 
  • @comey_testify
    Even UN, the organization which created Israel, thinks this isn't the case. Both sides caused atrocities. 
  • @Fascism

    "I support Palestine on this issue" entails that I think Palestine deserved the land. I don't what the solution should be, but I believe that Palestine was unfairly treated. 

    What is "The land" in question that you feel they have a right to? Israel? Eretz Israel? The Mandate of Palestine? The Occupied Palestinian territories? The West Bank? The Gaza Strip? Some combination of areas A, B and/or C of the west bank?Jerusalem? East Jerusalem in particular?

    There's a variety of land which is contested on differing grounds. Again, you are very vague.

    The Jewish might have been oppressed, but that doesn't justify them creating a nation taking the land. There are other solutions. Creating another country will just cause war. If black people fought for civil rights by creating a new country in the middle of the US, they will get attacked. 

    No war crimes are ever justified (or else they wouldn't be war crimes, just ordinary acts of war). The issue isn't to justify israel's crimes, it's at least understanding them correctly when we talk about them.

    When there is extensive oppression, I agree that creating a rebellion is good, but the Jews weren't even as oppressed as the Black people. They were given the same opportunities. The only oppression there was, was the tensions between the two communities, and that was caused by the British dividing the religions into different institutions, and communities. 

    The home could have been Palestine. My point is that the Jews could live peacefully with Palestine, so why not just go to Palestine, instead of creating borders and creating years of war. 

    No, while Jews had always had a presence in the holy land that was tolerated to a certain extent, that fell away fast once European jews started to emigrate their en masse. For decades before the creation of israel there was a lot of mutual ethnic strife with both sides having armed militias. Palestinian leaders specifically tried to call a halt to the immigration and there was frequent and mutual ethnic violence.

    "Jews move to Palestine and live within it in peace" was not a feasible solution at the time. Again, it doesn't justify Israel's actions but to claim they simply could have moved there and lived in peace is absurd and flies in the face of recorded history. 
  • @Ampersand
    Ampersand said:
    @Fascism

    "I support Palestine on this issue" entails that I think Palestine deserved the land. I don't what the solution should be, but I believe that Palestine was unfairly treated. 

    What is "The land" in question that you feel they have a right to? Israel? Eretz Israel? The Mandate of Palestine? The Occupied Palestinian territories? The West Bank? The Gaza Strip? Some combination of areas A, B and/or C of the west bank?Jerusalem? East Jerusalem in particular?

    There's a variety of land which is contested on differing grounds. Again, you are very vague.

    The Jewish might have been oppressed, but that doesn't justify them creating a nation taking the land. There are other solutions. Creating another country will just cause war. If black people fought for civil rights by creating a new country in the middle of the US, they will get attacked. 

    No war crimes are ever justified (or else they wouldn't be war crimes, just ordinary acts of war). The issue isn't to justify israel's crimes, it's at least understanding them correctly when we talk about them.

    When there is extensive oppression, I agree that creating a rebellion is good, but the Jews weren't even as oppressed as the Black people. They were given the same opportunities. The only oppression there was, was the tensions between the two communities, and that was caused by the British dividing the religions into different institutions, and communities. 

    The home could have been Palestine. My point is that the Jews could live peacefully with Palestine, so why not just go to Palestine, instead of creating borders and creating years of war. 

    No, while Jews had always had a presence in the holy land that was tolerated to a certain extent, that fell away fast once European jews started to emigrate their en masse. For decades before the creation of israel there was a lot of mutual ethnic strife with both sides having armed militias. Palestinian leaders specifically tried to call a halt to the immigration and there was frequent and mutual ethnic violence.

    "Jews move to Palestine and live within it in peace" was not a feasible solution at the time. Again, it doesn't justify Israel's actions but to claim they simply could have moved there and lived in peace is absurd and flies in the face of recorded history. 

    "What is "The land" in question that you feel they have a right to? Israel? Eretz Israel? The Mandate of Palestine? The Occupied Palestinian territories? The West Bank? The Gaza Strip? Some combination of areas A, B and/or C of the west bank?Jerusalem? East Jerusalem in particular?
    There's a variety of land which is contested on differing grounds. Again, you are very vague."
    The land I refer to is the land that Israel occupies now. 

    "No war crimes are ever justified (or else they wouldn't be war crimes, just ordinary acts of war). The issue isn't to justify israel's crimes, it's at least understanding them correctly when we talk about them."
    That's fair. 

    "No, while Jews had always had a presence in the holy land that was tolerated to a certain extent, that fell away fast once European jews started to emigrate their en masse. For decades before the creation of israel there was a lot of mutual ethnic strife with both sides having armed militias. Palestinian leaders specifically tried to call a halt to the immigration and there was frequent and mutual ethnic violence.
    "Jews move to Palestine and live within it in peace" was not a feasible solution at the time. Again, it doesn't justify Israel's actions but to claim they simply could have moved there and lived in peace is absurd and flies in the face of recorded history. "
    The reason the militias fought was because the Jews and the Muslims were separated by institutions by the British. The British had many Zionist leaders and the Arabs knew this. This is what caused the tensions. There were further tensions when the Jews supported Britain in the revolt against them. 
    If these Zionist ideas weren't there in the first place then "Jews move to Palestine and live within it in peace" might have been possible. Instead, the British decided to separate them into institutions so that it would be "easier to appeal" to each and every one of them. Instead, they only appealed to the Jews. 
  • The land I refer to is the land that Israel occupies now. 

    So - just to confirm - you want them to return the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem but keep the rest of the former Palestinian Mandate - e.g. basically maintaining what is normally thought of as Israel minus East Jerusalem?

    The reason the militias fought was because the Jews and the Muslims were separated by institutions by the British. The British had many Zionist leaders and the Arabs knew this. This is what caused the tensions. There were further tensions when the Jews supported Britain in the revolt against them. 
    If these Zionist ideas weren't there in the first place then "Jews move to Palestine and live within it in peace" might have been possible. Instead, the British decided to separate them into institutions so that it would be "easier to appeal" to each and every one of them. Instead, they only appealed to the Jews. 

    Patently false as there were militias and violence under Ottoman Syria. See Bar-giora and Hashomer as examples.

    British support for Jews did not help, but to pretend that was the core of the issue rather than the underlying problem being two mutually exclusive nationalist movements is counter-historical. The Arabs of ottoman Syria did not want Jewish immigration as it conflicted with their own desires for independence as an Arab state.
  • @Ampersand
    Your argument made me do more research, and what you said is valid. I accept defeat on this particular argument. However, I still do believe there would have been a more diplomatic option than to just smack a new country into that region. 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Website!

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch