Should Land belong to Palestine or Israel? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate 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! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


Communities

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!

Should Land belong to Palestine or Israel?
in Global

By inc4tinc4t 184 Pts
How should Israel vs Palestine conflict be adressed?
joecavalrynatbaronsWhyTrump
  1. Live Poll

    Should Land belong to Palestine or Israel?

    16 votes
    1. Land Should Belong to Palestine
      31.25%
    2. Land should belong to Israel
      68.75%
    3. Split it
        0.00%
    4. Just give it away to the US
        0.00%
    5. Other
        0.00%



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • Isreal. It's like asking if the current US land should belong to them or Britain.
    natbaronsWhyTrumpApplesauceMasterofPunZombieguy1987
    DebateIslander and a DebateIsland.com lover. 
  • Isreal, they fought and won the land.
    melanielustApplesauce
  • Which land? The OPT or the whole of the former mandate of Palestine/Eretz Israel?

    OP is too vague.
    MasterofPun
  • That land has been Israeli for thousands of years. It has always been the Jewish homeland, and was formally recognized as such by the US and UN in the 1940s-50s thanks to President Truman. But the land they gained was never respected by any of the surrounding countries, including Palestine. Palestine will stop at nothing to completely get rid of a Jewish state, no matter how legal it is. Israel has been constantly battered by Egypt and other middle eastern nations, but the way they have defended themselves successfully every time shows their resilience and why they deserve that land.
    AlwaysCorrectMasterofPun
  • @melanielust ;

    Quite a lot of issues to pick here I'm afraid. My general advice to readers is to be wary of someone who is completely uncritical of either side in the debate. Here I'll mostly be picking holes in Melanielist's endorsement of Israel, but that's only because there is little to respond to in regards to bringing down Palestinian ideologues a peg or two.

    That land has been Israeli for thousands of years. It has always been the Jewish homeland

    The state of Israel formed only 70 years ago and before then the land was owned by a series of Arab nations for millennia. There was a biblical kingdom thousands of years before, but that isn't a recognised basis for taking a country.

    and was formally recognized as such by the US and UN in the 1940s-50s thanks to President Truman.

    The UN did try to establish a Jewish homeland in the 40s but this was only going to be on a portion of the Palestinian Mandate with the other half forming a Palestinian state. It is also quite contentious as it seems to go against the right to self determination and a bit of a last dying gasp over the old Colonial mindset.

    The territory that Israel now tries to claim includes land that not only goes beyond the borders raised in the partition plan of the 40's, but includes land the UN has specifically said does not belong to Israel and that Israel but withdraw from. The UN did not recognise that the land that constitutes Israel has always been the Jewish homeland and the plan was never implemented.

    But the land they gained was never respected by any of the surrounding countries, including Palestine.
    The Palestinian Authority has made offers which would recognise Israel and its borders in peace negotiations, as Israel has made offers to Palestine too. There is even the outstanding Arab Peace Initiative which Israel has not accepted, but which has been endorsed by the Arab league and states the "Arab states will do the following: (a) Consider the Arab–Israeli conflict over, sign a peace agreement with Israel, and achieve peace for all states in the region; (b) Establish normal relations with Israel within the framework of this comprehensive peace". Unfortunately so far the various sides have still not reconciled the difference in their positions.

    Palestine will stop at nothing to completely get rid of a Jewish state, no matter how legal it is
    This is a very dangerous and obviously incorrect statement. There is no single "Palestine". There are the Palestinian people, the Occupied Palestinian Territories as a geographic location and various bodies which in different ways claim to represent aspects of the Palestinian people (Such as the Palestinian Authority, Fatah and Hamas). There is however no singular ruling government in the same way you would have in a nation-state. Part of this whole struggle is Palestinian wanting to be able to do that.

    The Palestinian people represent a wide variety of people with a wide variety of views. Only a tiny minority engage in violence, there are many that are supportive of the peace process and other that engage in wholly non-violent protest. To speak of Palestine as a whole as being murderous is to paint an entire race as inherently murderous one dimensional caricatures.

    Also the Israeli occupation is widely accepted as illegal and guilty of war crimes under international law by the UN, the International court of Justice and a host of humanitarian organisations ranging from Amnesty International to Israeli based organisations like B'Tselem. These same organisations will point out when Palestinian militant groups like Hamas and PIJ commit war crimes, so they are unbiased. It's isn't a case of any one 'side' being the white-hatted good guys.

    Israel has been constantly battered by Egypt and other middle eastern nations,

    As for being constantly battered by Middle Eastern nations like Egypt, that's a bizarre claim. Egypt and Israel have been on friendly terms for years. They signed a peace deal decades ago and especially in the last few years they have worked together to stymie Hamas.

    In terms of battering each other, that's well in the past but even then it was moreso Israel attacking Egypt than vice-versa.

    Putting aside tit-for-tat border skirmishes and focusing only on wars:

    - In '48 there's enough blame for everyone as Egypt attacked Israel but only after Israel started ethnically cleansing the Palestinian which itself happened after decades of mutual fighting and suspicion between Jews and Muslims in the Mandate.

    - Suez War was Israel attacking Egypt to try and take their land.

    - Six Day War was Israel attacking Egypt and others neighbours to try and take their land and actually succeeding this time.

    - The Yom Kippor actually was Egypt attacking Israel, but only to reclaim it's own land that Israel was occupying since the 6 Day War. Even then they didn't actually defeat Israel because for decades Israel has been the regional superpower, but they put on a good enough show that Israel agreed to peace on the same terms that Egypt had been offering before the war started.

    the way they have defended themselves successfully every time shows their resilience and why they deserve that land.

    Lastly being powerful enough to take and hold land is not a good reason for having land. That would legitimise the actions of the worst dictators in the world and the entire reason following WW2 that we instituted international laws to stop such actions is because we realised how horrifying the results could be. We've specifically instituted international laws, military and otherwise, that define the nature of how nations and organisations must conduct themselves specifically because we know the idea of the strong ruling over the weak and what results from that is abominable to our basic conceptions of morality.
    melanielustErfisflatMasterofPunWordsMatterZombieguy1987
  • @AlwaysCorrect
    I like your approach to debates! I don't have time to form rebuttals at the moment but I'll clarify soon.
    agsrMasterofPun
  • In the end Israel will own it.  Revelation prophesied it.  
    MasterofPun
  • I have a highly utilitarian approach with regards to state borders: whichever state creates better living conditions for its inhabitants has a higher claim on the land. Democratic, prosperous states always trump authocratic states with failed economies in terms of performance, hence in territorial disputes I will always be on their side.

    Based on that, the answer should be obvious: Palestine vs Israel is like North Korea vs South Korea - they are simply incomparable, and Israel definitely has demonstrated a much higher skill at transforming the land, than Palestine. I think a two-state solution is a way nowhere and it simply redefines the problem; Israel should annex Palestine and invest heavily into its uplifting.

    Palestinians had 70 years to try to create something on their land. All they created is an ultra-nationalistic theocratic state whose policies are built around blaming Israel for everything. I think it is time to acknowledge that they have not used their land properly and - just like with the homesteading policies - forfeited their claim on it.
    DrCerealAmpersandMasterofPun
  • AmpersandAmpersand 785 Pts
    edited August 2018
    MayCaesar said:
    I have a highly utilitarian approach with regards to state borders: whichever state creates better living conditions for its inhabitants has a higher claim on the land. Democratic, prosperous states always trump authocratic states with failed economies in terms of performance, hence in territorial disputes I will always be on their side.

    Based on that, the answer should be obvious: Palestine vs Israel is like North Korea vs South Korea - they are simply incomparable, and Israel definitely has demonstrated a much higher skill at transforming the land, than Palestine. I think a two-state solution is a way nowhere and it simply redefines the problem; Israel should annex Palestine and invest heavily into its uplifting.

    Palestinians had 70 years to try to create something on their land. All they created is an ultra-nationalistic theocratic state whose policies are built around blaming Israel for everything. I think it is time to acknowledge that they have not used their land properly and - just like with the homesteading policies - forfeited their claim on it.
    This is a really horrible argument on pretty much every level. You are literally advocating for war crimes.

    Annexation is a war crime, prohibited in numerous documents including literally the first chapter of the UN Charter where they spell out the fundamental basis of how countries interact.

    Not only that but Palestine is poverty stricken because it has been occupied by Israel. Israel has been occupying, destroying and ethnically cleansing Palestine for several decades. Charities and NGOs consistently highlight this abuse with Amnesty InternationalHuman Rights WatchB'Tselem and countless others all state that Israel is committing war crimes and violating human rights by doing such things as:

    - Targeting and killing civilians
    - Occupying Palestine
    - Using Palestinian men, women and children as human shields
    - Torturing Prisoners
    - Destroying Palestinian villages
    - Having a legal system which makes it almost impossible for Palestinians to challenge abuses and crimes by Israel
    - Beating and abusing Palestinian civilians
    - Banning peaceful protest
    - Denying healthcare and other basic necessities to Palestinians

    The Gaza Strip has been blockaded for over a decade at this point with any notable industry they try to build destroyed and the ability to build stopped by a ban on building materials imposed by Israel.

    Ergo the reason Palestine is worse not because "Democratic, prosperous states always trump authocratic states" which is patently false when the world's richest country by GDP PPP is Qatar, an absolute monarchy and the best consistent performer in terms of GDP growth year on year is authoritarian China. It's because if any country is occupied by a military force who specifically attempts to impoverish that country and make it fail, that country will fail.

    So in effects you are giving a green light to mindless warfare and all kinds of war crimes and crimes against humanity. After-all by your metric if you can attack, occupy and then ravage a country to the point of poverty - you should be rewarded by being able to take that other countries lands because they're now definitely poorer than you. You are advocating a system that literally rewards war crimes. 

    That's frankly hideous but is also given an even unhealthier tinge of bigotry by the fact that you hardly seem consistent in your advocacy. Just yesterday I responded to you in a thread where you were utterly adamant that consent is the building block of modern society and how important that was - all in the context of not upsetting employers because they have the consent of their employees and thus you thought taxation was comparable to rape. Now, when it comes to a population of Arabic Muslims - suddenly you don't care about consent at all and it is fine to literally commit war crimes against them and take their country and you think that's all fine and dandy.

    I've honestly tried to think of a rationale other than blatant racism for this massive disparity of how you apply your ethics and are willing to have war crimes committed against Muslims versus how you blanche at rich largely white people having to pay taxes. I can't think of a single other reason.

    MasterofPun
  • @Ampersand
    I don't understand why you guys - specifically Ampersand - have to be so hostile towards each other. I understand that these topics get passionate, but why must you be disrespectful? Isn't your goal to convince the other of your position? How are you to do that when you purposely make them angry?
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • DrCereal said:
    @Ampersand
    I don't understand why you guys - specifically Ampersand - have to be so hostile towards each other. I understand that these topics get passionate, but why must you be disrespectful? Isn't your goal to convince the other of your position? How are you to do that when you purposely make them angry?
    I really dislike people who support crimes against humanity.
    MasterofPun
  • Ampersand said:
    DrCereal said:
    @Ampersand
    I don't understand why you guys - specifically Ampersand - have to be so hostile towards each other. I understand that these topics get passionate, but why must you be disrespectful? Isn't your goal to convince the other of your position? How are you to do that when you purposely make them angry?
    I really dislike people who support crimes against humanity.
    Don't get me wrong - it's perfectly ok to dislike someone, but I'm sure you would rather convince him than not to, right?
    I understand getting mad - believe me because I get really mad, but this conversation isn't going to go anywhere like this. Write a response and wait a few hours, or some shorter time if you can't wait, to review it to catch any anger. There's no doubt that doing this would increase your odds for coming to an understanding.
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • AmpersandAmpersand 785 Pts
    edited August 2018
    DrCereal said:
    Ampersand said:
    DrCereal said:
    @Ampersand
    I don't understand why you guys - specifically Ampersand - have to be so hostile towards each other. I understand that these topics get passionate, but why must you be disrespectful? Isn't your goal to convince the other of your position? How are you to do that when you purposely make them angry?
    I really dislike people who support crimes against humanity.
    Don't get me wrong - it's perfectly ok to dislike someone, but I'm sure you would rather convince him than not to, right?
    I understand getting mad - believe me because I get really mad, but this conversation isn't going to go anywhere like this. Write a response and wait a few hours, or some shorter time if you can't wait, to review it to catch any anger. There's no doubt that doing this would increase your odds for coming to an understanding.
    I doubt the ability of an online discussion forum to change people's mind. It happens on occasion and I'm going to put forward logical evidence based arguments to support my case to try and achieve that but I view it as unlikely.

    However one thing I do completely control and am absolutely sure of is, that I can choose not going to tolerate or normalise abhorrent behaviour like it's a simple bad opinion that I disagree with. It needs to be called out and people who advocate for such behaviour should be ashamed.

    Edit: Also it's all relative. This has been relatively restrained compared to what I could say.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3245 Pts
    edited August 2018
    @DrCereal

    I am not hostile towards them, and I barely ever read their comments. They seem to attack me in every thread they see me, but I have better things to do with my time and prefer to move on. I responded to them, I think, once in the last 2 months, because the point they made was very relevant to the fallacious thinking I wanted to illustrate - but it had nothing to do with them personally, and I have neither positive nor negative feelings towards them. ;)
    I tried discussing various topics with them in the past, but it never led anywhere, so I decided to not waste both my and their time any more. Nothing personal.

    I have lived in some of the least free states in the world in the past, so I am providing a perspective of someone who has been in the same shoes as a regular free-loving Palestinian who has had enough of their regime. The point I made was supporting what, in my opinion, is good for Palestinians, coincidentally good for Israeli, and good for pretty much any other well-meaning person in the world. Some people are more interested in emotional arguments, than rational ones, but I would like to think that my position is interesting to, at least, someone on this website.
    Ampersand
  • MayCaesar said:
    @DrCereal

    I am not hostile towards them, and I barely ever read their comments. They seem to attack me in every thread they see me, but I have better things to do with my time and prefer to move on. I responded to them, I think, once in the last 2 months, because the point they made was very relevant to the fallacious thinking I wanted to illustrate - but it had nothing to do with them personally, and I have neither positive nor negative feelings towards them. ;)
    I tried discussing various topics with them in the past, but it never led anywhere, so I decided to not waste both my and their time any more. Nothing personal.

    I have lived in some of the least free states in the world in the past, so I am providing a perspective of someone who has been in the same shoes as a regular free-loving Palestinian who has had enough of their regime. The point I made was supporting what, in my opinion, is good for Palestinians, coincidentally good for Israeli, and good for pretty much any other well-meaning person in the world. Some people are more interested in emotional arguments, than rational ones, but I would like to think that my position is interesting to, at least, someone on this website.
    I ignore you in most threads because you don't put together intelligent debates. I've certainly noted posts by you many times and ignored them because almost everything you post can be rebutted by the single sentence of "Thank you for posting your opinion, but you are merely making baseless claims and need to actually provide evidence for your claims to be of any worth in a debate".

    I mean you highlight your own flaw here here, the only reason you can give for your suggestion being "good for Palestinians, coincidentally good for Israeli, and good for pretty much any other well-meaning person in the world" is that it's 'in my opinion". something being your opinion is irrelevant - why would anyone care what your opinion is if you can't back it up.

    Word of advice, stick to evidence based arguments in the future - the kind I make where I reference expert sources as I did in my prior post to show that your argument is backed up by fact rather than opinion.
  • This is an illogical question. It is just like England occupied many countries including India etc so you would say the land belongs to England? No. This land was the property of Palestine's people. Jews genocide Palestine and occupied their land on the bases of military strength. So, I think the way a new generation of Palestine is dying to get their land back. Then, one day Isreal would have to hand them over the land to Palestine. 
    someone234
  • @BonitaVanhooser Do you know it's the PLO and Hamas stopping negotiations, not Israel?
    BonitaVanhooser
  • @BonitaVanhooser Do you know it's the PLO and Hamas stopping negotiations, not Israel?
    Okay, let me occupied your home and kill your family members and then to settle it down, I will offer you negotiations. Would you accept it? I am not saying they shouldn't make negotiations but do Isreal has any right to kill innocent unarmed protestors? 
  • @BonitaVanhooser

    Land is not home. Land by default does not belong to anyone, it is just an area on the surface of the planet. Land is claimed by people who make it their home. Those people often engage in conflicts with each other, and whoever wins stakes their claim on the land. This is how it has always worked, and this is how it works nowadays. Mainland China can consider Taiwan their legal territory, but Taiwanese people have built their life there and factually own that land. If China conquers it, then it will become the Chinese land. But any historical appeal arguments are irrelevant as far as the people's life there today goes.

    As such, your description is not an accurate representation of what happened. The accurate representation is this. Two people, Israeli and Palestinians, as a result of harsh historical events found themselves in a conflict over a chunk of desert. Throughout that conflict, Israel reached a near-First World quality of life, while Palestine ended up a regular third world dictatorship. What happened 70 years ago is irrelevant in the current situation; the status-quo is that Israel has done a much better job staking its claim to the land, than Palestine has, hence the Israeli territory is its home and not that of Palestine/Hamas.

    Literally every piece of land on Earth ended up in the hands of a given nation nowadays as a result of conquest. We could open a history book and argue over how a certain chunk of land must belong to Egypt, since it did before it was conquered by Assyrians in 1000 BC - or we could look at the current situation and ask, "Which nation would take a better care of this land and make the life of its people the happiest?" Islamic fanatics from PNA and Hamas are hardly the answer here.

    As far as killing "innocent unarmed protesters" goes, this is just not true. People armed with handmade grenades and Molotov's can hardly be considered unarmed, even if their firepower is significantly lower than that of a small Israeli military squad. A Molotov is a Molotov, it can kill a person just as fine as a modern sniper rifle can.
    I do think that the Israeli military has gone quite a bit past the basic self-defense protocol in the latest several decades - but when your land is battered by rocket launches daily, then you are very likely to break at some point. It does not excuse it, of course, but it is what happens in real life.
    And just as well I understand why many Palestinians see Israel as the enemy: after decades of unstoppable conflict, marginalization is bound to occur. I do not blame them for feeling that way. I do blame them for not being practical, however, and letting their emotions cloud their judgment.

    Palestine can become a prosperous nation in one step:
    1. Create favorable economical incentives for foreign business investments.

    This way Palestine obtains a huge money influx and also becomes too valuable to everyone, including Israel, to pressure it. In a few decades, we look at the quality of life similar to that in Qatar and UAE, and the conflict will end on its own because it will become more profitable for Israel to trade with Palestine, than to subdue it.

    But this is a very practical mindset. It is easier to look for someone to blame and justify not doing anything to improve one's situation by, "But they are not letting us!" This is why this kind of conflict can go on for centuries with no resolution: both sides are too stuck in the past to plan for the future.
    BonitaVanhooser
  • MayCaesar said:
    @BonitaVanhooser

    Land is not home. Land by default does not belong to anyone, it is just an area on the surface of the planet. Land is claimed by people who make it their home. Those people often engage in conflicts with each other, and whoever wins stakes their claim on the land. This is how it has always worked, and this is how it works nowadays. Mainland China can consider Taiwan their legal territory, but Taiwanese people have built their life there and factually own that land. If China conquers it, then it will become the Chinese land. But any historical appeal arguments are irrelevant as far as the people's life there today goes.

    As such, your description is not an accurate representation of what happened. The accurate representation is this. Two people, Israeli and Palestinians, as a result of harsh historical events found themselves in a conflict over a chunk of desert. Throughout that conflict, Israel reached a near-First World quality of life, while Palestine ended up a regular third world dictatorship. What happened 70 years ago is irrelevant in the current situation; the status-quo is that Israel has done a much better job staking its claim to the land, than Palestine has, hence the Israeli territory is its home and not that of Palestine/Hamas.

    Literally every piece of land on Earth ended up in the hands of a given nation nowadays as a result of conquest. We could open a history book and argue over how a certain chunk of land must belong to Egypt, since it did before it was conquered by Assyrians in 1000 BC - or we could look at the current situation and ask, "Which nation would take a better care of this land and make the life of its people the happiest?" Islamic fanatics from PNA and Hamas are hardly the answer here.

    As far as killing "innocent unarmed protesters" goes, this is just not true. People armed with handmade grenades and Molotov's can hardly be considered unarmed, even if their firepower is significantly lower than that of a small Israeli military squad. A Molotov is a Molotov, it can kill a person just as fine as a modern sniper rifle can.
    I do think that the Israeli military has gone quite a bit past the basic self-defense protocol in the latest several decades - but when your land is battered by rocket launches daily, then you are very likely to break at some point. It does not excuse it, of course, but it is what happens in real life.
    And just as well I understand why many Palestinians see Israel as the enemy: after decades of unstoppable conflict, marginalization is bound to occur. I do not blame them for feeling that way. I do blame them for not being practical, however, and letting their emotions cloud their judgment.

    Palestine can become a prosperous nation in one step:
    1. Create favorable economical incentives for foreign business investments.

    This way Palestine obtains a huge money influx and also becomes too valuable to everyone, including Israel, to pressure it. In a few decades, we look at the quality of life similar to that in Qatar and UAE, and the conflict will end on its own because it will become more profitable for Israel to trade with Palestine, than to subdue it.

    But this is a very practical mindset. It is easier to look for someone to blame and justify not doing anything to improve one's situation by, "But they are not letting us!" This is why this kind of conflict can go on for centuries with no resolution: both sides are too stuck in the past to plan for the future.
    Your argument is valid but you should also include the recommendation of a strong military for Palestine too. 
  • MayCaesar said:
    @BonitaVanhooser

    Land is not home. Land by default does not belong to anyone, it is just an area on the surface of the planet. Land is claimed by people who make it their home. Those people often engage in conflicts with each other, and whoever wins stakes their claim on the land. This is how it has always worked, and this is how it works nowadays. Mainland China can consider Taiwan their legal territory, but Taiwanese people have built their life there and factually own that land. If China conquers it, then it will become the Chinese land. But any historical appeal arguments are irrelevant as far as the people's life there today goes.

    As such, your description is not an accurate representation of what happened. The accurate representation is this. Two people, Israeli and Palestinians, as a result of harsh historical events found themselves in a conflict over a chunk of desert. Throughout that conflict, Israel reached a near-First World quality of life, while Palestine ended up a regular third world dictatorship. What happened 70 years ago is irrelevant in the current situation; the status-quo is that Israel has done a much better job staking its claim to the land, than Palestine has, hence the Israeli territory is its home and not that of Palestine/Hamas.

    Literally every piece of land on Earth ended up in the hands of a given nation nowadays as a result of conquest. We could open a history book and argue over how a certain chunk of land must belong to Egypt, since it did before it was conquered by Assyrians in 1000 BC - or we could look at the current situation and ask, "Which nation would take a better care of this land and make the life of its people the happiest?" Islamic fanatics from PNA and Hamas are hardly the answer here.

    As far as killing "innocent unarmed protesters" goes, this is just not true. People armed with handmade grenades and Molotov's can hardly be considered unarmed, even if their firepower is significantly lower than that of a small Israeli military squad. A Molotov is a Molotov, it can kill a person just as fine as a modern sniper rifle can.
    I do think that the Israeli military has gone quite a bit past the basic self-defense protocol in the latest several decades - but when your land is battered by rocket launches daily, then you are very likely to break at some point. It does not excuse it, of course, but it is what happens in real life.
    And just as well I understand why many Palestinians see Israel as the enemy: after decades of unstoppable conflict, marginalization is bound to occur. I do not blame them for feeling that way. I do blame them for not being practical, however, and letting their emotions cloud their judgment.

    Palestine can become a prosperous nation in one step:
    1. Create favorable economical incentives for foreign business investments.

    This way Palestine obtains a huge money influx and also becomes too valuable to everyone, including Israel, to pressure it. In a few decades, we look at the quality of life similar to that in Qatar and UAE, and the conflict will end on its own because it will become more profitable for Israel to trade with Palestine, than to subdue it.

    But this is a very practical mindset. It is easier to look for someone to blame and justify not doing anything to improve one's situation by, "But they are not letting us!" This is why this kind of conflict can go on for centuries with no resolution: both sides are too stuck in the past to plan for the future.
    Your argument is valid but you should also include the recommendation of a strong military for Palestine too. 
    Palestine, or the Gaza strip has been under land, sea, and air blockade for over a decade. This makes his argument invalid.


    WordsMatter
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • MayCaesar said:
    @BonitaVanhooser

    Land is not home. Land by default does not belong to anyone, it is just an area on the surface of the planet. Land is claimed by people who make it their home. Those people often engage in conflicts with each other, and whoever wins stakes their claim on the land. This is how it has always worked, and this is how it works nowadays. Mainland China can consider Taiwan their legal territory, but Taiwanese people have built their life there and factually own that land. If China conquers it, then it will become the Chinese land. But any historical appeal arguments are irrelevant as far as the people's life there today goes.
    Wrong, this isn't the 14th century.

    Since WW2 countries have recognised that people and the nations they form have important rights and protections and that the annexation of land by force is illegal. This is recognised and laid in law in a host of charters and documents of international law, including Chapter 1 of the UN Charter. Hence why the invalidity of Israel's annexation of East jerusalem and continuing occupation is one of the most agreed things in international politics - reaffirmed every year by massive majorities by the UN general assembly.

    Any point of view that is based around allowing people to commit war crimes is abhorrent and can be disregarded as morally bankrupt.
    As such, your description is not an accurate representation of what happened. The accurate representation is this. Two people, Israeli and Palestinians, as a result of harsh historical events found themselves in a conflict over a chunk of desert. Throughout that conflict, Israel reached a near-First World quality of life, while Palestine ended up a regular third world dictatorship. What happened 70 years ago is irrelevant in the current situation; the status-quo is that Israel has done a much better job staking its claim to the land, than Palestine has, hence the Israeli territory is its home and not that of Palestine/Hamas.
    Wrong.

    Not only does nothing you say contradict any of his claims - more just try to ignore it - but what you are stating constitutes war crimes. You do not stake claim to land by occupying and destroying the natives for decades.

    Palestine did not just happen to do poorly by some accident, it has been occupied for decades with coutnless crimes against humanity and war crimes being comitted against them. it is also economically blockaded and controlled by israel so they cannot control their own economy.

    If you think committing war crimes against and impoverishing the people you occupy validates your claim to the land,., your argument literally supports Nazu Germany being rightful rulers of Czeckoslovakia, Poland, France, etc. After all their economy was doing far better than all the others and you don't care about morality or legality - just strength.
    Literally every piece of land on Earth ended up in the hands of a given nation nowadays as a result of conquest. We could open a history book and argue over how a certain chunk of land must belong to Egypt, since it did before it was conquered by Assyrians in 1000 BC - or we could look at the current situation and ask, "Which nation would take a better care of this land and make the life of its people the happiest?" Islamic fanatics from PNA and Hamas are hardly the answer here.
    Wrong.

    Many countries and pieces of land were formed without conquest - such as all the countries founded in the decolonisation period of the mid to late 20th century when the Western powers retreated from their protectorates and occupied countries in Africa and Asia.

    If you mean that they were all conquered at some point in their history - so what? I'm sure at some points in our genealogical trees we're all descendent of rapists - that does not make rape right. Similarly there is a massive consensus that people cannot be conquered and victimised just because the other nation is stronger. That consensus only came about about in the 1940s but we don't reject laws and morality jsut because we can't prove that they date back to the dawn of time.

    I'm not sure which argument you were trying to make because really they are equally ridiculous.
    As far as killing "innocent unarmed protesters" goes, this is just not true. People armed with handmade grenades and Molotov's can hardly be considered unarmed, even if their firepower is significantly lower than that of a small Israeli military squad. A Molotov is a Molotov, it can kill a person just as fine as a modern sniper rifle can.
    Wrong. Dead wrong. So incredibly wrong.

    There are literally videos of unarmed Palestinians being shot by snipers. I would link to them if I wasn't worried about it being gratutious content that would get me banned.

    I'll post the below instead:



    I'll also quote Amnesty International who have said:

    “For four weeks the world has watched in horror as Israeli snipers and other soldiers, in full-protective gear and behind the fence, have attacked Palestinian protesters with live ammunition and tear gas. Despite wide international condemnation, the Israeli army has not reversed its illegal orders to shoot unarmed protesters,” 

    Human Rights Watch who have said:

    "Israel has a right to defend its borders, but shooting unarmed protesters who haven’t breached its frontier is disproportionate and illegal."

    And B'Tselem (an Israeli Human Rights body which frequently criticises its own government for their illegal actions and war crimes) who have said:

    B’Tselem is issuing a position paper providing its findings regarding the first day of protest (30 March). The paper provides legal analysis explaining why the orders given the soldiers, permitting live fire at unarmed civilians who do not pose a danger, are unlawful.

    At this point you are literally a war crime denier.


    I do think that the Israeli military has gone quite a bit past the basic self-defense protocol in the latest several decades - but when your land is battered by rocket launches daily, then you are very likely to break at some point. It does not excuse it, of course, but it is what happens in real life.

    And just as well I understand why many Palestinians see Israel as the enemy: after decades of unstoppable conflict, marginalization is bound to occur. I do not blame them for feeling that way. I do blame them for not being practical, however, and letting their emotions cloud their judgment.

    Wrong.

    You are presenting this as "Rockets; Therefore Israeli war crimes in retaliation". In fact the war crimes came first - being involved in the creation of Israel while rockets into israel didn't really start until 2001 which is decades later.. Also the Israeli actions come from an organised state - they don't just happen to break- they are conscious actions of a state actor.

    "Gone quite a bit past the basic self-defense protocol in the latest several decades" is also quite a euphemism for committing a host of war crimes.
    Palestine can become a prosperous nation in one step:
    1. Create favorable economical incentives for foreign business investments.

    This way Palestine obtains a huge money influx and also becomes too valuable to everyone, including Israel, to pressure it. In a few decades, we look at the quality of life similar to that in Qatar and UAE, and the conflict will end on its own because it will become more profitable for Israel to trade with Palestine, than to subdue it.
    Wrong.

    The Occupied Palestinian Territories are under military occupation and don't control their own economy - in some parts literally being blockaded from international trade. Getting the freedom to do things like this is just one small aspect of what the entire conflict is about.

    It has already been explained to you previously how ridiculous this claim is in other threads - I don't get why you would mindlessly repeat it.
    But this is a very practical mindset. It is easier to look for someone to blame and justify not doing anything to improve one's situation by, "But they are not letting us!" This is why this kind of conflict can go on for centuries with no resolution: both sides are too stuck in the past to plan for the future.
    It is a delusional mindset.

    You don't know basic facts, support war crimes, take positions that pretty much the entire world is against and your solution is "maybe if people tried hard it would get better by magic".
  • @BonitaVanhooser

    I see a strong military as the outcome of proper economical policies and not vice-versa. A poor country cannot afford a strong modern military able to oppose potential threats such as Israel or Saudi Arabia, and a wealthy country has money to spare, so to speak.

    That said, such countries as Switzerland or Singapore survive just fine without a sizable military force, simply because everybody needs them so much that attacking them would economically hurt the attacker much more, than any potential economical gains could benefit them. Palestine that is maintaining a strong partnership with Israel and makes Israeli citizens dependent on its well-being could easily rely on Israel to defend it in case of danger. As well as on every other investor that would be hurt in case of someone's invasion in Palestine - Kuwait survived just on this model, with Saudi Arabia needing it and with the US needing Saudi Arabia, when in 1990 Hussein's army occupied this tiny defenseless state.
  • @MayCaesar

    Hmm that's right. Strong economy set a good stage for a strong military. But what you will say about Pakistan? Poor economy but a resilient military and intelligence agency. 
  • Palestine needs nukes if they ever want Israel to negotiate in good faith
    BonitaVanhooser
  • @BonitaVanhooser You have very little idea about which side started the abuse. Israel is the defender, Hamas is the offensive side. Research please, thanks.
    BonitaVanhooser
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 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