frame

Howdy, Stranger!

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

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Is the UN antisemitic?

Debate Information

The UN seems to always take an antisemitic stance. What say you?
joecavalrysomeone234aarongMax_Air29yolostide
  1. Live Poll

    Is UN antisemitic?

    14 votes
    1. yes
      50.00%
    2. no
      50.00%



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • inc4tinc4t 186 Pts   -  
    @brontoraptor, yes! They clearly discriminate against Israel's rights.
    DrCereal
  • joecavalryjoecavalry 430 Pts   -  
    I really like Debra! Also, really like Formal Debating! 

    Isreal is being discriminated against in the UN, because some of the Muslim countries have a large amount of power there possibly. The US funds a very large portion of the UN and that vote shows who is lies with the US and Israel. 
    DebateIslander and a DebateIsland.com lover. 
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    The UN has always allowed Israel to use and abuse Palestinian land as its own. It’s not anti-semitic at all.
    DrCereal
  • Max_Air29Max_Air29 84 Pts   -  
    The UN is not anti Semitic. They are also not against Israel or the US. They have some Muslim countries which belive that the US embassy should not be located in Jerusalem although it is the US’s choice. Those countries voted for their view/s on the issues.
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    I think it's important to differentiate between targeting specific policies and actions, targeting the state of Israel, and targeting the Jewish people as a whole. I'm not saying that there can be no overlap between these, but they are distinct.

    For example, let's look at the recent decision against relocating the US embassy to Jerusalem. Rather than targeting Jews or even Israel, I think this decision stands as a clear rejection of Israel appearing to take full ownership of Jerusalem. It's an important religious capital, a place that many religions deem sacred. As such, the decision to have Israel take ownership, and therefore have it essentially become the Jewish capital, is one that outraged many other religions. At best, moving the embassy is a symbolic gesture that shows support for Israel, while engendering distrust and strained relations with others in the region. At worst, it's an opportunity for Israel to exclude people from other countries and religions. I don't think that will happen, but even the possibility of it happening should outrage many.

    I view this as an example of the first of the 3 I listed above: it's a specific action taken on the part of the US that fundamentally alters the dynamic in the region and does substantially more harm than good.

    As for examples of the second, there have certainly been a large number of UN resolutions passed against Israel. I'd actually agree that the UN has gone overboard in their condemnation of Israel's actions, mainly because a lot of those resolutions seem to ignore similar problems in other nations, particularly those surrounding Israel. Israel's held to a higher standard because it's a democratic state that endeavors to uphold a variety of freedoms that other nations in the vicinity simply don't adhere to. Israel should probably be held to a higher standard, but the UN tends to go a bit overboard with its resolutions, particularly as it offers few options for Israel to deal with the variety of problems it faces. Again, though, I'd say this is targeted at Israel and the what it represents. Perhaps part of that is that it represents Judaism as a whole, but I doubt that that's part of the motive behind this, especially as the UN has made no efforts to condemn other nations for actions brought on by Jewish citizens.

    I'm Jewish myself, and while I support Israel on the whole, I also recognize that that support cannot be a blank check. I have a lot of problems with the policies of Israel's current government, and I think they could and should do better, particularly in their treatment of the Palestinians. Much as Jews are and have been subject to a variety of antisemitic actions around the world, I don't think the UN's highly targeted condemnations of Israel and the US are antisemitic. They're very specific to either their actions or the nations themselves. The UN may be incorrect in their assessments of the situation, but that doesn't make them antisemitic, and I think that term needs to be reserved for actual cases where Jews as a religion are targeted.
    yolostide
  • yolostideyolostide 95 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame , great argument!

    The UN May be targeting the US and Israel, not the Jewish people. This could be due to a large amount of Muslim countries and Muslim influence in the UN and there huge control of oil.
    whiteflame
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5965 Pts   -  
    The UN is not by its design anti-semitic. However, the UN is dominated by autocracies that always benefit from destabilization of the world politics: the more conflicts happen around the world, the more resources the First World has to funnel to deal with the consequences of those problems, and the more the power of the developed democracies decreases compared to the power of such countries as Russia, China, Iran, Zimbabwe...

    Constantly criticizing Israel, while not offering any solutions to the regional conflict and refusing to take a stance against the behavior of the Palestinian political and military groups - is one of the ways to keep the conflict going. Conflicts in such strategic locations, among other things, raise natural resource prices, on which autocracies often rely to maintain their economies and armies.

    Another factor is that the combined influence of the Middle Eastern nations not recognizing Israel over ideological and historical differences is significantly superior to the Israeli influence. Israel does still have the US as a close ally, but, for example, the European nations are slowly giving up on maintaining positive relations with Israel and, instead, start building relations with such groups as Iran's Ayatollahs or PNA. Due to the significance of the UN's role in the world, Israel will likely be gradually losing support, and its future perspectives are dire.

    There have been many calls over the decades to reform the UN, or to even construct an alternative organization, managed by democratic states and truly promoting human rights and freedoms, instead of using the convenient narrative involving them as a cover to advance personal economical interests. Unfortunately, nothing significant has been done in this regard so far, although there is still chance to see it happen in the future.
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    No.

    There will be anti-semetic voices in it, but the same is true of any sizeable organisation. Chances are pretty much every single government and medium-to-large company, society or group on earth would be anti-semetic by that margin.
    inc4t said:
    @brontoraptor, yes! They clearly discriminate against Israel's rights.
    Can you name these rights that are being infringed?

    For example, let's look at the recent decision against relocating the US embassy to Jerusalem. Rather than targeting Jews or even Israel, I think this decision stands as a clear rejection of Israel appearing to take full ownership of Jerusalem. It's an important religious capital, a place that many religions deem sacred. As such, the decision to have Israel take ownership, and therefore have it essentially become the Jewish capital, is one that outraged many other religions. At best, moving the embassy is a symbolic gesture that shows support for Israel, while engendering distrust and strained relations with others in the region. At worst, it's an opportunity for Israel to exclude people from other countries and religions. I don't think that will happen, but even the possibility of it happening should outrage many.


    The decision against the relocation isn't actually new. UN Security Council Resolution 478 was put in place in 1980 and rejected the illegal annexation of East Jerusalem and recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, specifically branding it illegal in international law. The Un stance against this was merely a reiteration of principals put down decades ago.



    As for examples of the second, there have certainly been a large number of UN resolutions passed against Israel. I'd actually agree that the UN has gone overboard in their condemnation of Israel's actions, mainly because a lot of those resolutions seem to ignore similar problems in other nations, particularly those surrounding Israel. Israel's held to a higher standard because it's a democratic state that endeavors to uphold a variety of freedoms that other nations in the vicinity simply don't adhere to. Israel should probably be held to a higher standard, but the UN tends to go a bit overboard with its resolutions, particularly as it offers few options for Israel to deal with the variety of problems it faces. Again, though, I'd say this is targeted at Israel and the what it represents. Perhaps part of that is that it represents Judaism as a whole, but I doubt that that's part of the motive behind this, especially as the UN has made no efforts to condemn other nations for actions brought on by Jewish citizens.


    I always find the logic behind this poor - as the idea that Israel is mistreated is rooted in the idea that hurt feelings are worse than any actual real action.

    When most countries act like Israel - attacking their neighbours, annexing their territory, committing human rights abuses, stockpiling nuclear weapons they face massive sanctions. Even Russia - a member of the US security council and a notable world power that has fair economic leverage over other countries due to its oil supplies faced sanctions and economic embargoes from similar actions in the past (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during_the_Ukrainian_crisis#Consequences_and_assessment). Israel on the other hand faces none of these international sanctions and is actually a massive donor of US aid. 

    I can only think of a handful of countries who get treated like Israel and in those cases - like Saudi Arabia - it's because they're so strategically important in terms of oil wealth and religious power (control Mecca and Medina) that there are massive issues in handling their human rights abuses in places like Yemen (which even then don't extend to level of the I/P conflict). My question is if Israel is receiving preferential treatment in comparison to other nations which are in the process of committing human rights abuses - isn't the UN general assembly making these non binding resolutions which do absolutely nothing to Israel directly but do serve to draw international attention to the situation a good thing?

    yolostide said:
    @whiteflame , great argument!

    The UN May be targeting the US and Israel, not the Jewish people. This could be due to a large amount of Muslim countries and Muslim influence in the UN and there huge control of oil.
    Or because we have international military and human laws which apply to all nations and Israel is breaching them?

    MayCaesar said:

    The UN is not by its design anti-semitic. However, the UN is dominated by autocracies that always benefit from destabilization of the world politics: the more conflicts happen around the world, the more resources the First World has to funnel to deal with the consequences of those problems, and the more the power of the developed democracies decreases compared to the power of such countries as Russia, China, Iran, Zimbabwe.
    This sounds a lot like a conspiracy theory.

    MayCaesar said:
    Constantly criticizing Israel, while not offering any solutions to the regional conflict and refusing to take a stance against the behavior of the Palestinian political and military groups - is one of the ways to keep the conflict going. Conflicts in such strategic locations, among other things, raise natural resource prices, on which autocracies often rely to maintain their economies and armies.

    The UN has made the law on Israel very clear and Israel refuses to follow it. I referenced UNSC 478 earlier for instance. It has also looked into issues in depth with everything from its fact finding missions to the ICJ (which is a body of the UN)  offering advisories. If you actually look at what they do for instance you'll see they have detailed, nuanced evidence based opinions which for the moment is more than can be said for your argument.

    MayCaesar said:

    Another factor is that the combined influence of the Middle Eastern nations not recognizing Israel over ideological and historical differences is significantly superior to the Israeli influence. Israel does still have the US as a close ally, but, for example, the European nations are slowly giving up on maintaining positive relations with Israel and, instead, start building relations with such groups as Iran's Ayatollahs or PNA. Due to the significance of the UN's role in the world, Israel will likely be gradually losing support, and its future perspectives are dire.


    The surrounding Arab nations have actually proposed the Arab peace Initiative numerous times,. The Arab peace Initiative is based on no more than is expected of Israel under international law and basically just requires them to stop committing egregious human rights violations and war crimes against the Palestinians. In return the Arab nations would institute full normalisation of relations with Israel.

    Also European nations have generally been Pro-Palestinian, the USA is a very odd country internationally speaking with its view of Israel being far more positive than pretty much any other country on earth.
  • Polaris95Polaris95 147 Pts   -  
    Oh no! Brontoraptor is on here as well! He is the biggest troll on (well, tied with Outlaw). 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 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
Terms of Service

Get In Touch