Israel or Palestine? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate News And Just About Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Israel or Palestine?
in Politics

By FascismFascism 314 Pts edited November 2017
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_testifybillpassedjamesrothsAliQPolio121Tharini1321GORIE121PogueGiorgioBruxand 1 other.
  1. Israel or Palestine?

    32 votes
    1. Israel
      25.00%
    2. Palestine
      46.88%
    3. Both(if so, then what should be the borders?)
      21.88%
    4. Neither(if so, then what should exist there?)
        6.25%
«13



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



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.
    EmeryPearson
  • 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.
    Erfisflat
  • 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/
    EmeryPearson
  • @Fascism

    Who say Israel is occupying lands illegally and why should I care what they say?
    EmeryPearson
  • 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. 
    EmeryPearson
  • FascismFascism 314 Pts
    edited November 2017
    @billpassed
    Yes, but my argument is that they shouldn't own the land. Israel also used violence and atrocities against Palestine. 
    jamesroths
  • @comey_testify
    Even UN, the organization which created Israel, thinks this isn't the case. Both sides caused atrocities. 
    jamesroths
  • @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

    Why did you run from my Q?
  • @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. 
    jamesroths
  • 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. 
  • The existence of Jews in Palestine predates the existence of Palestine as a country and Islam as a religion. That in itself is more than enough to justify that Jews must be allowed to stay and live there in peace. What is unjustifiable is the expansionist ideologies of the Israeli government and their constant attempt to kick out the Palestinians from their land. The Israeli special forces destroyed, killed and forced Palestinians out of their own homes. Furthermore, they attempted to invade Lebanon and successfully invaded parts of Egypt under the excuse of "National Security". This violates the following international laws:

    Article 6 of the Charter Provisions of the Nuremburg Trials

    (a) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;

    (3) Crimes against Humanity: namely murder…deportation, and any other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war…in execution of or in connection with any crime…whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

    2. 1907 Hague Regulation Convention (XI) Relative to Certain Restrictions with Regard to the Exercise of the Right of Capture in Naval War

    Chapter II – The Exemption from Capture of Certain Vessels

    Article 4. Vessels charged with religious, scientific, or philanthropic missions are likewise exempt from capture.

    What they did was engage in acts of war using weapons of war in international waters against vessels that are protected not only in peacetime but also in times of war. Israel has therefore committed both crimes against peace and crimes against humanity.
    That being said, the Israeli Zionist perspective is ironically similar to the success of the Nazi party in which they both believe that they are the chosen people by God. History repeats itself but this time through Israel and no one is saying a thing.
  • Since this seems to be an issue of Religion vs Religion instead of country vs country, then if I had to take a side...I'd take the side that ISN'T responsible for the majority of religious persecution in the World today.  

    So I'm with the Israelis on this one.  My advice to them is as follows: 


    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • @Vaulk

    That's pretty textbook racism/bigotry. You're denouncing and judging an entire nationality based on nothing but their religion and with little to no understanding of the actual situation
  • VaulkVaulk 504 Pts
    @Ampersand

    My comment being exclusively about Religion, I'm not sure how Racism can play a part here.  So let me give you an example of what you just did there.

    Fair and accurate statement: You disagree with me and your basis of titling my statement as Racism/Bigotry is based on faulty reasoning.  

    Overblown and exaggerated statement: Your statement is the equivalent of a vicious attack on my character and is hate speech.  Do you hate white people?  You're denouncing my ideology purely based upon your hate and unnecessary, unjustified hateful ideology.

    Now can you see the difference between fair/accurate and overblown/exaggerated?  

    Stating that I have a preference of one religion over the other, PURELY based upon one singular religion being the ideology behind religious persecution CURRENTLY today...has absolutely nothing to do with Race.  Religion is an ideology...not a type of person.  It's not a race, ethnicity or nationality.

    But since you seem to think that it's Racist to take a preference of one religion over another...tell me then, what races belong to which religions?  You seem to think that a Religious preference can indicate what Race you belong to...so which ones are which?

    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • @Vaulk

    So your argument is that you're a religious bigot, not a racist? That's hardly better and most of the reason that I put the /bigot in there, to avoid the argument over what type of bigotry it was.

    You clearly state you will discriminate against based on people's religion so you are by definition a religious bigot. If I was being generous and only looking at this topic then I might leave it at religious bigotry - as although someone who happens to be bigoted against a religious largely held by a certain race seems likely to also be racist against that race - it's not incontrovertible proof.

    Of course in previous topics you have outright stated that you support people discriminating against African Americans and not employing them based on their skin-colour. hence you are a racist and a bigot.
  • I hate Sharia law but I hate fascism more. Israel is being fascist to Palestinian ethnic people.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • VaulkVaulk 504 Pts
    @Ampersand

    Firstly, there's a huge lack of acknowledgement of my argument in your response.  Secondly...how exactly does my right to religious preference equate bigotry?  There's no indication of any intolerance in my statement either.  I never said anything about being intolerant of any religion, only that I would side with one over the other...how is that intolerant?  If I said Christianity was responsible for incredibly high death tolls in the past...would that be an indication of intolerance or just the truth?

    Secondly, in order to discriminate, your actions must either be unjust or prejudice...and I'm neither.  When two groups are in conflict with one another, you cannot side with both.  If you support one then you inevitably oppose the other whether it's intentional or not.  A statement of preference cannot be unjust as we are all entitled to hold our own opinions...but mine was not made with prejudice.  My preference would have to be devoid of legitimate reason or actual experience...and since I can site actual logic behind my decision and have first hand experience with the groups involved...my preference is not prejudicial.

    Thirdly: What Religion are you referencing that is "Largely held by a certain race" and what exact Race are you talking about?

    Lastly, I've never stated that I support discriminating against African Americans and I challenge you personally to cite this alleged "Outright" statement.  I've shot down discrimination, called out people for saying that something is discrimination when it's clearly not...but I've never said that I support discrimination against African Americans or not employing them based on skin color.  

    If you can show me this statement "Outright" as you clearly put it...then I will happily apologize to you personally and publicly on this forum.  If you can't produce your claim though, I'd expect nothing but the exact same respect and display of honorable intentions.

    Good day.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • @Vaulk

    What arguments have I not acknowledged? You didn't really make any in your prior post. The only argument you make is that it isn't racist - which I responded to in my post.

    It's most certainly bigoted as you are discriminating against people based on their religion - something you have now doubled down on and admitted twice. You specifically said you support the Israelis because you dislike Islam.

    Discrimination is when rather than looking at people as individuals - such as judging the Palestinian people by their actions, by the human rights that should apply to any human being, etc - you automatically show prejudice against them because they are of the wrong religion. it is textbook prejudice and discrimination and you are therefore a bigot. It is internationally recognised that this is not acceptable, that people should be judged by the content of their character rather than what religion they worship - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_from_discrimination.

    The issue is not that you picked a side, but that you picked a side solely because you didn't like their religion. It is wrong in the same way that not giving an African American a job isn't wrong - but not giving an African Amerocan a job because of their skin colour is. 

    For your final question you can infer that from the full quote: "If I was being generous and only looking at this topic then I might leave it at religious bigotry - as although someone who happens to be bigoted against a religious largely held by a certain race seems likely to also be racist against that race - it's not incontrovertible proof."

    What religion are you being bigoted against? Islam. What Palestinian racial group is most numerous and almost entirely Muslim: Arabic. Although of course you were also making this out as some religious vs religious thing which is ridiculous and shows how easily you make bigoted accusations that aren't backed up by anything.for instance Egypt (a largely muslim country) is working with Israel to enforce a blockade against the Palestinians.

    For you supporting African Americans not being given jobs due to their race: http://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/7251/#Comment_7251

    "If you can EASILY adopt the idea that a high school dropout most likely won't be a good fit for your business then how much harder would it be in Chicago, where the murder rate is ludicrous, to adopt the idea that hiring a Black Person might be dangerous? "

    You make the case that if judging someone on being a high-school drop-out (e.g. their actual performance and education) is okay then judging someone on their skin-colour is okay (e.g. something outside their control, not related to their actual character or ability). Textbook racism.
    PogueVaulk
  • VaulkVaulk 504 Pts
    edited January 22
    @Ampersand

    1. Religious preference is not Bigotry...if it were then everyone would be a Bigot...everyone.
    2. I've not judged Palestine on their Religion, I've judged based on what the people of that Country have done.  This is an example of judging people based on their actions...not their religious beliefs.Vaulk said:
    I'd take the side that ISN'T responsible for the majority of religious persecution in the World today.  
    This has nothing to do with what religious Palestinians practice...it's central to what the people are guilty of doing.
    3. I didn't pick a side based on what religion they practice...I picked based on their actions...again.
    4. Arabic is not a Race.  Arabia is a geographical location on the Earth.  There are White Arabs and there are Black Arabs, it's also not a distinct ethnic group.  So then I have to ask you for further specificity:
    http://www.africa.upenn.edu/K-12/Who_16629.html

    What race do you believe all Arabs are?  And if you do believe that all Arabs are of one race...what does that say about your racial ideology?

    5. The comment you linked, includes my argument that the actions of the people in that city were Not prejudice and no where in that argument did I ever state "I support discriminating against African Americans".  You said, and I quote:

    Ampersand said:
    @Vaulk

    Of course in previous topics you have outright stated that you support people discriminating against African Americans and not employing them based on their skin-colour. hence you are a racist and a bigot.
    So again, I'm waiting to see this "Outright" statement that I support discriminating against African Americans.

    Ampersand said:
    @Vaulk

    You make the case that if judging someone on being a high-school drop-out (e.g. their actual performance and education) is okay then judging someone on their skin-colour is okay (e.g. something outside their control, not related to their actual character or ability). Textbook racism.
     
    You've misquoted me here and inserted the word "Judging".  As in "Judging someone on their skin color is ok" and I NEVER said that.  In the debate you referenced, I stated that there are statistics in those particular cities that show statistically that you're much more likely to be killed by a person with Black skin than a person with White skin...and numbers aren't racist.  Statistics provided by the FBI and State Crime Analysis Tools aren't racist. This is textbook deception because not only have you misrepresented what I said in my argument...you actually CHANGED the context of my statement to make it LOOK like I'm admitting to a racist ideology.  This is underhanded and while I don't much appreciate it...I'm not really surprised.

    So why, if you can't make a logical argument, would you resort to lying about a previous statement?

    Why do you believe that misrepresenting people's ideologies is acceptable behavior?

    How can you justify arguing against a debate point by using deceit?

    Pogue
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • 1. That's a lot like a murderer saying "It's not a crime to hold a knife in your hand and make forward and backwards motions, how else would you chop food?". Technically true, but useless as an argument if it ignores the key fact that he stabbed someone to death.

    What IS bigotry is having preferences about religion, race, ethnicity, gender, etc and wanting to discriminate against people based on this characteristics. That's exactly what you did, openly proclaiming you were choosing sides based on religion.

    2. That's an outright lie and can be proven by looking at your statements. You admittedly advocate against the Palestinians based on their religion. Your explanation for WHY this is that that religion is responsible for most modern terrorism - so you are willing to punish all people of that religion whether they have any involvement or support for terrorism or not.

    You have not actually pointed out a single instance of Palestinians supporting religious persecution. Some surely do - just like some Christians, Jews, Hindus, atheists, etc do. But you are not talking about persecuting people for their actions; you have not said that you want to stop terrorists and war criminals on both sides - Israel committing by far the most war crimes. You have talked about taking sides against the entire population. You are talking about persecuting every single Palestinian, including those who believe in peace and religious tolerance.

    Hence you are not judging people based on their actions, but rather allowing your prejudice against muslims to cause you to advocate for discrimination.

    3. Lie as explained above.

    4. Don't waste my time with semantics. Racial discrimination is "...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."

    Take your pick, by whichever one you want to go with your racist. Also Arab is recognised as an ethnic group (and a race since in normal conversation the two are nearly synonymous") and your sourceless link which does not offer any evidence doesn't change that. Please see for isntance https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yoav_Peled2/publication/259427515_Ethnic_Democracy_and_the_Legal_Construction_of_Citizenship_Arab_Citizens_of_the_Jewish_State/links/57658acf08aedbc345f381c3.pdf which specifically refers to arabic as an ethnicity or the CIA handbook which lists Arab as an ethnicity (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/is.html)

    5. Do you really think that anything you said there makes the argument that you are not prejudiced? There is nothing there that qualifies. You try and explain WHY you think it is okay to treat people worse because of their skin colour - why black people shouldn't be judged based on their own actions and the content of their character but rather on what a small minority of other black people do. Absolutely nothing that you posted at the times argues against you being racist and you outright put forward a strong racist opinion. Theres not much wriggle room.

    You certainly try and justify your prejudice and racial discrimination, but nothing you wrote could even be considered an argument that you are not racist.

    As for misquoting you, I suggest you try and learn how quotes work. Go to the bit where I supposedly misquoted you. Did I say it was a quote from you? No. Is it in quote marks? No. Does anything imply that it is in any way a quote from you? No. Is it specifically worded as me condemning your position so anyone should be able to read it and understand it is my argument, not me quoting you? Yes.

    There was no misquote, so why are you inventing one? Histronics so you can have an excuse to quit the argument and not have to admit you have openly admitted to racist beliefs?

    Also are you happy with supporting the over-the-top feminazi stereotype? By your logic it is okay to treat men worse and distrust them because they commit most rapes - right?

    Vaulk
  • If we teach our kids nonsense, they will grow up believing in nonsense.

    Here we are. Trapped, alone for all we know, on this speck of cosmic dust  we call Earth, spinning helplessly, somewhere in a vast universe.

    Israel and Palestine are just utterances, with no real meaning or universal significance.


    One World One People. 
    Nothing will change, until we get this notion into our thick heads and stop bombastically promoting the same old archaic, rhetorical crap.

  • I support a one-state solution. Palley's have to go. They have accomplished nothing since their inception and are standing in the way of humanity's progress. They must abandon the land and let Israel make it productive. For the children.
  • @SuzyCreamcheese ;

    You're literally advocating ethnic cleansing. Due to the war crimes committed by Israel against the Palestinians they have some of the lowest living standards in the world.

    Rather than treating people as sub-humans who need to be removed, how about we end the war crimes and see what Palestinians can do when they're not occupied and abused for decades?

    @Fredsnephew

    This is very low content. It's basically "wouldn't it be nice if everyone got along" writ long. Yes it would, but they don't and there needs to be a solution to the problem rather than hand-wringing.
  • Ampersand said:
    @SuzyCreamcheese ;

    You're literally advocating ethnic cleansing. Due to the war crimes committed by Israel against the Palestinians they have some of the lowest living standards in the world.

    Rather than treating people as sub-humans who need to be removed, how about we end the war crimes and see what Palestinians can do when they're not occupied and abused for decades?

    @Fredsnephew

    This is very low content. It's basically "wouldn't it be nice if everyone got along" writ long. Yes it would, but they don't and there needs to be a solution to the problem rather than hand-wringing.
    Wouldn't it be sensible if everyone got along. Far too logical and sensible.

    As I said.
    If we teach our kids nonsense, they will grow up believing in nonsense.

    The solution is simple, but unfortunately we do not and probably will never have the will to change.
    People would rather promote socio-conceptual nonsense, rather than employ some logical realism.

    As for "Low Content". 
    Well I don't think rehashing the same old arguments is particularly high content. Everything you say has been said before a thousand times and has achieved nothing.

    As for me. 
    I'm to much of a nihilist/realist to bother about "hand-wringing".
  • @Ampersand Not ethnic cleansing, ethnic emigration. The Israelis could make good, productive use of that land. The Palestinians can't even build a workable sewer system.


  • @Ampersand Not ethnic cleansing, ethnic emigration. The Israelis could make good, productive use of that land. The Palestinians can't even build a workable sewer system.


  • AmpersandAmpersand 385 Pts
    edited January 27
    @Fredsnephew

    There's nothing wrong with the sentiment of wanting people to get along in and of itself. However there are two big issues with your post and how you've applied this sentiment.

    1) That's all you're offered - this vague blandishment which could apply equally to any type of conflict from a minor domestic squabble to genocide anywhere in the globe. You have offered no analysis of how this should be achieved, the nature of the problem, etc, etc. It's just a very wooly sentiment with no connection to the topic under discussion. In general terms I would object to this in any topic where someone brought it up because it's just so low-effort.

    2) Specific to this situation, I think your point of view if harmful:

    a) It puts the onus squarely on the Israelis and Palestinians when this is a conflict that other nations - particularly the USA are heavily involved. The USA is a massive benefactor of Israel militarily and diplomatically and is also very at odds with the rest of the international consensus as to how the situation should be resolved.

    b) The utopian ideal you're hoping for will presumably have at a bare minimum a basic respect for human rights. Both sides have had their human rights violated by the other and war crimes committed against each other. Hence something will need to be done to protect those rights. Now you can moan about how people should try and work together - but there will be at least some valid viewpoints in the perspectives you blithely ignore.

  • @SuzyCreamCheese

    Care to try and humanize any other war crimes and atrocities? Maybe you could call genocide 'population restructuring' instead?

    You are suggesting the forcible deportation of a population from the territory in which they reside. One of the definitions of ethnic cleansing is the forcible deportation of a population from the territory in which they reside.

    Ergo you support ethnic cleansing and are literally pro-crimes against humanity.

    Also Palestine is occupied by Israel. As per the Geneva Convention the occupying force (israel) is responsible for seeing to the basic livelihood of the occupied populace (The Palestinians) but they don't do this - in fact the Israeli army will literally destroy attempts at water infrastructure that don't get Israeli approval (and a LOT of infrastructure projects won't get approval for no reason other than it's Palestinians doing it). That Israel have failed to meet their basic obligations under the Geneva Convention is a war crime on Israel's part.

    You are saying that because Israel has caused mass suffering through the use of war crimes, they should be allowed to commit more war crimes and - that is literally your argument with no exaggeration on
  • @Ampersand I'm saying that since Palestine was formed they haven't accomplished a thing. Name one great Palestinian achievement. You can't, because there aren't any.

    As sad as it is, they must go. Call it what you will, it's for the betterment of all mankind. Think of the children.
  • @SuzyCreamcheese

    You're trying to rationalise ethnic cleansing. Don't bother because it just makes you even more disgusting.

    Every human being on earth has basic inalienable human rights - all people being created equal. Even If you're too stupid to know about famous Palestinians (I'm partial to Edward Said myself) it doesn't matter because the point you are trying to make is moot.

    Trying to get rid of an entire nation of people because you find them sub-human and want a different ethnic group in charge is some real nazi .
  • @Ampersand ;

    Israel or Palestine? 

    A woolly question, with no specific reference point. Therefore I feel that my response to this question was fully justified.
    I simply offered a completely different but very logical viewpoint on the issue.

    I reiterate.
    If we teach our children nonsense, they will grow up believing in nonsense.
    This is not a problem specific to one region of Planet Earth. This is a global problem and a problem that could only be addressed globally.

    But do 7.6 billion people have the collective will or ability to change?
    I fear not. 
    a) Because it is extremely difficult re-programme a corrupted adult human brain. A brain corrupted with nonsensical   
        information. (I am an Israeli and you are a Palestinian. We are completely different)
    b) Once the adult brain is corrupted, nonsensical information is inevitably used to programme the brains of children.
        (They are Israeli's and they are Palestinians. They are completely different).
    It's a self perpetuating cycle of misinformation. 

    Human society will never be Utopian. But it could be different. But it will probably never be different.

    Since leaving the cave our technological advancements have been immense. But sadly social advancement faltered within the first footstep.

    Vaulk
  • @Fredsnephew

    Thanks again for your amazingly detailed and relevant response. I'm sure knowing that you don't like "nonsense" will be the fundamental breakthrough that finally brings peace to this incredibly troubled conflict.
    Vaulk
  • @Ampersand I'm not rationalizing anything, I'm stating reality.

    The thread asks, Israel or Palestine. The Israelis are an extremely accomplished people. They took a bunch of desert rocks and turned them into a thriving metropolis and successful world power.

    Meanwhile, the Palley's live with open sewers and haven't planted so much as a tree. 

    So the answer to the thread topic is unequivocally, Israel.
    Vaulk
  • @SuzyCreamcheese ;

    Are you stating reality. Or are you just stating the obvious?

    Do you think that, how we dispose of bodily waste is the key to finding a solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict?

    Or is it simply a case of, they who plant the most trees are the winners. 
  • @Ampersand ;

    Do you think that rehashing the same old typical sound bites, is ever going to make a difference?
  • @SuzyCreamcheese

    No, it's pretty clear you're trying to rationalise ethnic cleansing.

    You are advocating ethnic cleansing as shown previously. You are also offering some idiotic explanations of why ethnic cleansing is okay. To rationalise is to "attempt to explain or justify (behaviour or an attitude) with logical reasons, even if these are not appropriate."

    Ergo you are attempting to rationalise ethnic cleansing.

    Out of interest do you support the Holocaust too?
  • @Fredsnephew

    What do you even think the sound bites in relation to the I/P conflict are?
  • @Ampersand I already said you can call it what you like. The thread question is, Israel or Palestine. Not and, but or. I have given plenty of reasons for Israel, while you have given none for Palestine.

    The obvious answer is, Israel.
  • @SuzyCreamcheese

    And I am calling it ethnic cleansing and calling you abhorrent for supporting ethnic cleansing.

    The poll attached to the OP also clearly gives options for both or neither and nowhere does it state that supporting a side means carrying out war crimes against the other side - that's all you. Even if it didn't give the options that doesn't mean you have to accept the premise or start advocating for crimes against humanity.


  • @Ampersand Well, when it comes to either/or, Israel wins hands down. They have built themselves into a world power in half a century. Palestine has open sewers to show for it's 75 years of progress.

    Tell us, in your own words, of the great Palestinian accomplishments.
  • @Ampersand Well, when it comes to either/or, Israel wins hands down. They have built themselves into a world power in half a century. Palestine has open sewers to show for it's 75 years of progress.

    Tell us, in your own words, of the great Palestinian accomplishments.
    Believing in human rights and all people begin equal, I don't advocate committing atrocities against people if they don't measure up to arbitrary standards because I am neither a racist nor a sociopath. It's the same way I am not a fanatical Communist Party of China supporter just because they have been responsible for sustained growth and development in China that leaves western countries in the dust.

    I do respect the Palestinians for holding themselves together as a people despite the ongoing attempts at ethnic cleansing that Israel is putting in place.
  • @Ampersand Not one Palestinian achievement. Not one Palestinian accomplishment.
  • AmpersandAmpersand 385 Pts
    edited March 1
    @SuzyCreamcheese ;

    Do you think Hitler was justified in killing the Jews? By your logic, they weren't accomplishing anything once they were in the concentration camps so it was perfectly justified to commit genocide against them (genocide being a form of ethnic cleansing).

    I presume the answer is no, although we do have some Hitler supporters on this forum including a moderator so I wouldn't be surprised if the answer was a yes. However if the answer is no - why is it no? By the same logic you apply to supporting ethnic cleansing against Palestinians, you should apply to Jews who were in the concentration camp; unless this is actually just an arbitrary excuse you are using to support ethnic cleansing against a race/religion./ethnic group you don't like.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 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