Instigator / Pro
28
1468
rating
3
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#1755
Israel has no "right to exist"
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 17 votes and with 91 points ahead, the winner is...
Barney
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
119
1815
rating
53
debates
100.0%
won
Description
We will be debating Israels "right to exist". Does israel have a valid claim to the land?
Pro will be debating that Israel has no "right to exist"
and Con vice versa
Round 1
I shall demonstrate in two argument
1) The term “right to exist”
2) Israels foundationTo clarify this debate will be about Israel’s legitimacy and if the country should be able to have been formed in the first place.
The term “right to exist”
First of all the frequently used statement “Israel has a right to exist” is a misguided claim, as it holds no real value, unlike self-determination, the term “Right to exist” has not been recognized under international law[1], and is in itself an absurd concept. Now self-determination refers to the “right of a people to determine its own destiny, in particular, the principle allow a people to choose its own political status and to determine its own form of economic, cultural and social development”[2]. Although, this right cannot disrupt or affect the existence of individual rights, so it is the people who are choosing how they want to be governed[3]. And with that in mind, it is obvious that Israel is obstructing the rights of the Palestinians by merely existing.
Israel’s foundation
Israel has no legitimate/valid claim to the land they occupy. I would not put it past my opponent Ragnar to use resolution 181 in this debate to ridiculously legitimize Israel. Therefore, I have chosen to address this in my first argument.
First, the General Assembly had no authority to split Palestine against the will of its inhabitants[4]. Because both people did not agree upon this plan it did not have any legal effect. Therefore, the matter died in the Security Council after it was forwarded there, because the UN had no authority to implement such separation.
So, the Zionist leadership had no legitimate claim to sovereignty over the land, they ultimately acquired through war. Which is prohibited under international law[6]
So, the foundation of Israel is built not through a legitimate process that some Zionist may claim but through violence. The Zionist acquired most of the territory for their state through the ethnic cleansing of most of the Arab population, more than 700,000 people, from their homes Palestine. Hundred of Arab villages literally wiped off the map.[7]
1) The term “right to exist”
2) Israels foundationTo clarify this debate will be about Israel’s legitimacy and if the country should be able to have been formed in the first place.
The term “right to exist”
First of all the frequently used statement “Israel has a right to exist” is a misguided claim, as it holds no real value, unlike self-determination, the term “Right to exist” has not been recognized under international law[1], and is in itself an absurd concept. Now self-determination refers to the “right of a people to determine its own destiny, in particular, the principle allow a people to choose its own political status and to determine its own form of economic, cultural and social development”[2]. Although, this right cannot disrupt or affect the existence of individual rights, so it is the people who are choosing how they want to be governed[3]. And with that in mind, it is obvious that Israel is obstructing the rights of the Palestinians by merely existing.
Israel’s foundation
Israel has no legitimate/valid claim to the land they occupy. I would not put it past my opponent Ragnar to use resolution 181 in this debate to ridiculously legitimize Israel. Therefore, I have chosen to address this in my first argument.
First, the General Assembly had no authority to split Palestine against the will of its inhabitants[4]. Because both people did not agree upon this plan it did not have any legal effect. Therefore, the matter died in the Security Council after it was forwarded there, because the UN had no authority to implement such separation.
The Zionists call this the “Declaration
of Independence” although a declaration of independence needs the people
declaring their independence to be sovereign over the territory in which they
wish to exercise their right to self-determination. Which the Zionist weren’t.
When Zionist declared Israel’s existence, Jews owned less than 7% of the land
in Palestine
[5]
.
So, the Zionist leadership had no legitimate claim to sovereignty over the land, they ultimately acquired through war. Which is prohibited under international law[6]
So, the foundation of Israel is built not through a legitimate process that some Zionist may claim but through violence. The Zionist acquired most of the territory for their state through the ethnic cleansing of most of the Arab population, more than 700,000 people, from their homes Palestine. Hundred of Arab villages literally wiped off the map.[7]
Preamble:
Burden of Proof
Applying literacy to the debate title and description, pro is making the positive claims:
- The people of Israel (be they Jewish, Arab, or other) have no human rights, and
- The people of Israel have no claim to their land.
That or he is claiming the land itself is evil and has no right to exist, and implicitly must be destroyed in violation of the Law of Conservation of Mass [1].
Definitions
Pro, for clarity, please define precisely what you mean by Israel. Do you mean the human beings, the earth beneath them, or something else entirely?
Tense
The resolution is worded presence tense, so that will be my primary focus. Pro attempting to move the goalposts [2] to generations ago is noted but meaningless; as he has not upheld his BoP until he proves Israel has no right to exist in modern times. Had he wished to debate Israel had no right to exist when originally founded, he should have started a debate specifically on that.
My case:
Going to keep this brief…
Human Rights
I take for grated that the assumption of human rights are the status quo, and do not need to be defended until such a time as pro offers some reason they do not exist (or evidence that the people of Israel are all space lizards, thus outside the bounds of human rights).
Defense of Human Life
The only reason we are having this debate about people living in that region (assuming pro means people instead of land), is the people of Israel (Jews, Arabs, and others) defended the area from an attempted mass genocide of every man woman child within the region back in 1967 [3].
Defending Human Rights
Not that this matters to the resolution; but in case anyone fell for his off-topic appeal to pity [4].
Pro claims there’s ethnic cleansings against Arabs, but to believe that you principally need to dismiss that Arabs can be citizens. Then dismiss the various Arabs serving high in the Israeli government, their voting rights, etc. Instead of being killed or exiled as pro claims, here’s how Arabs are really treated in Israel:
“Arab citizens of Israel enjoy the full range of civil and political rights, including the right to organize politically, the right to vote and the right to speak and publish freely. Israeli Arabs and other non-Jewish Israelis serve as members of Israel’s security forces, are elected to parliament and appointed to the country’s highest courts. They are afforded equal educational opportunities, and there are ongoing initiatives to further improve the economic standing of all of Israel’s minorities” [5].
Rebuttals:
The term “right to exist”
As per pro’s own words, he has all but conceded this debate. With his support for the right of self-determination, he affirms that the people of Israel (Jewish, Arabs, and others) have the right to be Israel if they so choose, which as evidenced by us talking about them, they do so choose:
Self Determination: “right of a people to determine its own destiny, in particular, the principle allow a people to choose its own political status and to determine its own form of economic, cultural and social development.”
Further if by Israel he means the land... It does not force people to live there, they may come and go without it offering any direct interference. It’s mindless dirt they chose to put under their feet.
Israel’s foundation
If Israel means people: The people of Israel and Palestine choose to remain split, as pro affirms is their right. Not to mention, the land was legally recognized as theirs by the former owners (and most civilized countries) in 1948 [6], rather than through war as pro claims.
If Israel means land: The lands are not actually split in any meaningful way to the land. There’s no gaping crevice in the earth which leads straight to the void of space, instead there’s continuous earth.
Plagiarism
Pro has chosen to plagiarize his case. “Zionist leadership had no legitimate claim to sovereignty over the” and “they ultimately acquired through war” from the start of his final segment were copy pasted from the Foreign Policy Journal [7], he merely changed one word in between, even stealing stole the italicization. It is safe to assume the rest of his case is likewise a hodgepodge of plagiarism, with a word changed out here or there.
Why pro wants supporters of Palestinian independence to look so bad, I can only guess; but it speaks volumes about his level depravity.
Sources:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
- http://sixdaywar1967.blogspot.com/2010/09/six-6-day-war-1967.html
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_pity
- https://www.adl.org/resources/fact-sheets/response-to-common-inaccuracy-israel-is-an-apartheid-state
- https://www.science.co.il/israel-history/
- https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2019/03/15/why-israel-has-no-right-to-exist/
Round 2
Forfeited
Key things:
- Pro has plagiarized his case, and
- Forfeited every round after the first (technically a FF).
He has posted his R2 in the comments but offers no denial of having plagiarized his whole case. There is further no denial of having done this debate in a depraved attempt to demean actual supporters of Palestinian independence.
I won't waste the valuable time of voters with a further response, when the outcome is a foregone conclusion.
Especially if its an FF
Six months is way too long of a voting window.
and that's it
With this being a full forfeit, no one is going to care. But I still suggest in future avoiding that level of piggy back voting. A literal copy/paste would be better, and take less time to type.
Israel Is Not A Legitimate State
thanks and yeah I kinda missed doing it too man
Thanks!
Thanks for voting. And got to say it, I missed you saying that's poor conduct.
Thanks for voting!
Thanks for voting, and doubly so for actually analyzing arguments even when it was destined to end in such a manner.
me either. I usually only set it for 1-2 weeks.
I really don't understand the need for a voting period that long.
only 179 days left until this debate will be finished.
Ragnar does not need to do this, as it is on me and my bad time planning if voters want to read my argument it is below.
I ask my opponent to forfeit round two as i had trouble with my internet connection and could not get my argument out in time. If by opponent does not do it, i ask him to put my argument up in his as i will paste it in this comment below
Preamble
Definition
To give clarity to my opponent and the voters, what I mean by Israel is the government/state (“country”), that goes by Israel. I am not mentioning the “human beings” unless they are leaders and represent the state of Israel, by governing it. And because you need land and sovereignty of the land to be able to have a government, I am also debating Israel’s claim to the land. And to not make it any more confusing for my dear opponent Ragnar, by land I mean the region in the southern Levant between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River .
Burden of proof
I see that Ragnar is using the same tactics of the Israeli government to misguide and create falsehood about a topic to be able to make a point. I will apply the REAL literacy to the debate, as my opponent is trying to confuse you by making up statement/claims that I have not made.
I never mentioned that the people of Israel have no human rights, and nor do I agree with that statement. Rather I said that “Israel is obstructing the rights of the Palestinians by merely existing” And I made that claim to make the argument that Israel (The government), existence is disrupting and affecting the individual right of the Palestinians.
Tense
My opponent is trying to dirty little trick and to find “loopholes” in this debate and that’s why he is resulting to use this foolish argument. To rebuttal to this argument I say; To be able to prove that Israel has no right to exist in modern times, one must also analyze the foundation that it was built on. But to go along with this argument; the same arguments that are used to delegitimize Israel’s foundation can also be applied to discredit them in modern times, as the laws are still the same.
Rebuttals to Ragnar’s case
Human rights
As my opponent has misunderstood the debate topic and my arguments, “that the people of Israel are outside the bounds of human rights” Con still has not explained the made any valid arguments to defend Israel’s mistreatment of Palestinians
And to reply to cons false statements that Arabs are treated like any the Israeli citizens with no systematical oppression in their way by using discredited sources. I rebuttal this by using a more credited source the Human Rights Watch where they say “The Israeli government continued to enforce severe and discriminatory restrictions on Palestinians’ human rights; restrict the movement of people and goods into and out of the Gaza Strip; and facilitate the unlawful transfer of Israeli citizens to settlements in the occupied West Bank.”
The term “right to exist”
Cons ridiculous argument here can clearly be put in the words “ if you don’t like it u can leave” which is still not a argument to the legitimize to the Israel state so con still needs to give an argument to this. And to the claim that “Further if by Israel he means the land... It does not force people to live there, they may come and go without it offering any direct interference. It’s mindless dirt they chose to put under their feet.” I redirected con to the last source I put up there
source
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine
2. https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2019/03/15/why-israel-has-no-right-to-exist/
3. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/israel/palestine
I also wanted to add that a clear distinction should be made between Israel the People and Israel the Land. This will help me as a future voter.
It seems to me that the description counteracts the resolution. The resolution states, "Israel has 'No Right to Exist.'" And yet in the description is the statement, "Does Israel have a valid claim to the land?" The two statements, "Israel has 'No Right to Exist." and "Does Israel have a valid claim to the land?" are two different statements. Also, the description begs the questions, "Define Israel?," and "Define the Land?" The burden of proof is heavily on Pro to define these terms in order for Con to accurately defend their side of the debate.
You’re running very low on time to publish an argument.
Sad to see Clawer has yet to overcome his or her overt racism. In light of that lack of personal growth, I will most likely be recycling some points from our previous debate on this subject: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1133/israel-is-an-illegal-state
I think you need to define what you mean by "right to exist" in this context or change the wording. If it's about having a valid claim to the land, as you say in your description, then that seems distinct from the "right to exist" as a country now. Are you debating whether they should currently be allowed to reside in those lands and form a government? Are you debating whether the country should have been formed in the first place? You should really nail down what this debate is about before someone accepts.
lol