Instigator / Pro
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
4
Sir.Lancelot
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Topic
#4174

The U.S. should intervene in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
0
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
0
1

After 1 vote and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!
Tags
Economics
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
Greyparrot's avatar
4
Greyparrot
1498
rating
4
debates
37.5%
won
Description

Pro will be arguing that the US should intervene, and Con will be arguing that the US shouldn't.

Rules:
1. 3 days' time to make a response.
2. One forfeit is the loss of a conduct point. Two are an auto-loss.
3. BOP is shared. At least, 2 sources required for both sides.

Round 1
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
Pro
#1
Preamble:
My goal will be to prove that the US should intervene in the feuding between Israel and Palestine. I will do this in two ways.
  • Proving that the US’s assistance is needed.
  • Demonstrating the possibility of a long-term solution through the US’s involvement.
My side shall be demonstrated within five contentions.
  1. Two-State Solution.
  2. Reduce terrorism.
  3. Protection of human rights.
  4. Preservation of American interests.
  5. Peace and Stability.

BOP
As I am arguing that the US should intervene, I believe if I win if I can prove that it is necessary for the US to get involved. Conversely, my opponent wins if he can prove there isn’t currently a need or however, they wish to counter the resolution.

l. Two-State Solution
  • “The two-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict envisions an independent State of Palestine alongside the State of Israel, west of the Jordan River.”
  • The idea of the Two-State solution is to finally resolve this feuding between Israel and Palestine through forming a mutual agreement over territory and co-existing in their own separate lands.
  • A lot of advocates of the Two-State solution believe that the US can help in building towards this goal.
  • Israel and Palestine are currently at each other’s throats. A lot of propaganda has painted Palestine as the instigator when the feuding is mutual.
  • Since a lot of the US taxes are currently funding the Palestinian terrorism, it is fundamentally clear that they should stop and seek to end this violence.
“Aid must also be conditioned on the Palestinian leadership ending its unconscionable “pay-for-slay” program—paying lifetime salaries to terrorists who kill innocent Jews. Currently the Palestinians spend some $300 million annually on this program. Ironically, rather than supporting peace initiatives, U.S. taxpayer dollars currently fund most of the pay-for slay program costs.”

ll. Fight Terrorism
  • The US is contributing to terrorism by funding the Palestinian government which they then use to carry out their crimes against humanity. 
  • “The Palestinian Authority Martyrs Fund is a fund operated by the Palestinian Authority (PA) which pays monthly cash stipends to the families of Palestinians killed, injured, or imprisoned while carrying out politically motivated violence against Israel.[“
  • When Putin started oppressing Ukraine, the US made sure to cut ties with Putin regarding the oil deal, contributing to the raised gas prices. So why can’t the US do the same with Palestine?
If the US stopped funding Palestine for its crimes and began condemning them for their actions, it could depower leaders like Arafat by pulling one of the plugs. The benefits of US’s involvement include,
  1. Less deaths.
  2. Lower rates of terrorism.
  3. Less resources for Palestine to weaponize against Israel.

  • “Since April 2021, the United States has provided over half a billion dollars in assistance for the Palestinians, including more than $417 million in humanitarian assistance for Palestinian refugees through UNRWA, $75 million in support through USAID, and $20.5 million in COVID and Gaza recovery assistance”
  • “The Palestinian Authority received financial assistance from the European Union and the United States (approximately US$1 billion combined in 2005).”

lll. Protect Human Rights
  • Palestinians find themselves victims of Israel’s brutality.
  • This conflict is endangering the lives of way too many innocent civilians including women, children, and the elderly.
  • “Armed conflict between Israel and Palestinian armed groups in the Gaza Strip in May entailed apparent war crimes and possible crimes against humanity. Disproportionate and reckless strikes by Israeli forces killed 242 Palestinians in Gaza. Unlawful attacks by Israel included targeted strikes on medical facilities and personnel.”
With great power comes great responsibility. The US is known for being one of the most powerful militaries in the world and has a reputation for its alliances and negotiating diplomacies. Abilities like these give America the assets they need to protect the innocent and also provide them with an obligation to do so.

  • “Around midnight on 14 May, Israeli air strikes hit the al-Atar family’s building in Beit Lahia city, killing Lamya al-Atar and her three children aged between eight months and seven years.”
The US’s alliance with Israel could be sufficient enough to talk them out of committing more attacks and to ease up on the brutality.


lV. Preservation of American Interests
  • Given the US’s alliance with Israel, if they were to put an end to this beef, Israel’s strong bond and commitment to the US would be permanent.
  • Palestine would also develop strong loyalty and devotion to the US because they put a stop to the evils.
  • The US gains the reputation as a hero.
  • Killing two birds with one stone means more alliances.
Alliances are helpful in not only deterring terrorism and discouraging war but also in advancing civilian life by progressing the economy. Resources would be traded regularly and this new friendship would also expand inter-cultural familiarity and the Education system in the US might also improve by means of learning new languages. 

Reducing the poverty in Palestine means the US would have more cooperation and both Israel as well as Palestine might share medical research, so the Healthcare system would have the opportunity to develop and grow. 

  • “Economic and humanitarian assistance programs improve the lives of millions of Palestinians by providing immediate relief and advancing development across sectors such as health, infrastructure, economic growth, private sector development, and civil society.  In administering assistance for the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the United States complies with applicable requirements under U.S. law, including the Taylor Force Act.”
  • “The United States is strongly committed to the development of a secure, free, democratic, and stable Palestinian society and governance.”
  • Obtaining peace will save a lot of lives.
  • The US’s involvement will lead to more safety for both sides. 
Since this violence has been going on since the 1940’s, at some point a higher power with the ability & influence needs to step in and prioritize working on solving things diplomatically. This is precisely the role and responsibility of the US.

Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
Con
#2
So my opponent wants me to argue that America should not intervene in the Palestine/Israel conflict.

By his own admission, 

"Since a lot of the US taxes are currently funding the Palestinian terrorism"
With cited source here.

I can only assume the actual resolution my opponent wants to debate is that the USA should CONTINUE intervening and I will ague that we should stop intervening.

I will now lay out a very easy argument for my opponent to counter.

The United States has caused more world problems intervening in  ALL wars that are not in defense of American soil than if they never participated at all. By proving this true, it will suggest the same will happen for the Israel conflict as well.

Most recently, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Iraq, Syria, Korea, and Vietnam stand out as stark examples of this maxim.

Let's look at some interventions that might be debatable.

KOREA: 
Had America not intervened, yes the communists would have taken over the whole peninsula, but the ultimate effect of America intervening was having China send billions of dollars to aid the NK regime.

What this means is that the NK regime had access to a steady and reliable supply of funds not only to fight America, but his own people and threats to his power. Had not America given China a reason to prop up the Kim Dynasty, it is entirely possible internal reform could have taken place instead of the monstrous situation today where 2 superpowers hold a small country as a bargaining chip. 

CUBA:
Specifically we are talking about the bay of pigs attack and the Cuban Missle Crisis.
America, gripped by an irrational fear that communism would spread across the world and that American Democracy could not survive it, spent billions of dollars waging war causing yet another superpower, Russia, to intervene in retaliation, to pour billions of dollars into Cuba, helping Fidel Castro remain dictator for life. Had Castro not had all those funds, this most certainly would not have been the case. So in both these examples, USA intervention ensured dictators for life making the lives miserable for everyone living there.

Which of course, leads us to the final debatable war America intervened in that was not a defense of American Soil...

WW II
Of course, the least educated historians will find thousands if not millions of articles supporting the intervention because Hitler was so "Evil"

But dear readers, let us step out of the war propaganda for just a moment to consider this one thing. Most historians agree that America didn't defeat Hitler on the Western front as much as Hitler lost the war on the Eastern front. Had not America intervened and supplied Stalin with BILLIONS of dollars of war aid, it would have been entirely possible that Stalin would have lost his seat of power. SOURCE Before we even begin to discuss the implications of that, make sure you understand that Stalin killed more people than any other world leader in all of human history. SOURCE Now let us go even beyond the sheer death statistic and look of the implications of a possible world where Communism was not nearly such an integral part of the world empire. You would have had no "Cuba"...no "Korea"... no "Vietnam"
But of course the unlearned detractor would say, "But had the USA not intervened we would have all been speaking German!" Most historians agree that had the USA not intervened, Germany would have still lost the war, although it would have taken a bit longer. In fact, America didn't send troops to Europe until Germany had lost nearly half of it's initial army power losing on the Eastern Front. And had already lost Operation Sealion. So that sentiment of having a Fascist Europe without USA intervention isn't very credible. SOURCE What American intervention DID do however was ensure decades of Communist rule and the domino effects of all the proxy wars America fights still today to rectify that mistake to intervene to no avail. I would submit this was America's WORST choice to intervene here considering the trillions of dollars and millions of lost American lives over the battle against Communism since WWII. 

So now we come around to Israel, in which we have been intervening on the side of Palestine for decades. Do you trust America's history to not create more problems than intervention solves?

I will leave the other juicier interventions for later rounds as well as a dive into historical American transgressions intervening in combat areas they culturally know nothing about if my opponent so chooses to continue this debate.

Thank you for your time.
Round 2
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
Pro
#3
I could spend an inordinate amount of time responding to the cherry-picking of historical examples, but I presume that’s what Con wants me to do so that I can be blindsided with the buildup in the following rounds. While Con’s Round 1 case doesn’t refute my major points regarding the BOP, it does raise a lot of questions that cast a strong enough amount of doubt to sway voters. 

Each of my five contentions remain uncontested, extend.

For references demonstrating that the US’s intervention did more harm than good, I will list counter-examples. 

WW2: To emphasize just how strongly the US intervention was necessary, historians don’t believe Nazi, Germany could have been defeated without them. 
“Without American production, the United Nations could never have won the war.”

Now between Stalin and Hitler, you have to consider who the lesser of the two evils is. Now Stalin had a higher body-count, but this doesn’t mean he was worse. It simply means he had more power and opportunity. While the US may have inadvertently contributed to this, consider that it could have led to a more unfavorable outcome if the US did not intervene.

For starters, the total kill-count of Stalin and Hitler could have easily been reversed if the latter succeeded. There are articles that believe the number of deaths by Stalin have been exaggerated and are lower than previously thought.

“The total number of noncombatants killed by the Germans—about 11 million—is roughly what we had thought. The total number of civilians killed by the Soviets, however, is considerably less than we had believed. We know now that the Germans killed more people than the Soviets did.”

Korean War: America is who stopped the invasion of South Korea at the hands of North Korea. The odds of internal reform taking place in NK are infinitesimal. Because of the US’s intervention, South Korea has prospered into a glorious nation that exists separately from NK’s authority. U.S. Enters Korean War (nationalgeographic.org)

Bosnian War: It was the US’s involvement and working with NATO that directly eliminated the seemingly limitless concentration camps and genocide of innocent civilians. I quote,
“What role did the US and NATO play in Bosnia?
As part of the accords, NATO agreed to provide 60,000 troops to deploy to the region, as part of the Implementation Force (IFOR), U.S. designation Operation Joint Endeavor. These forces remained deployed until December 1996, when those remaining in the region were transferred to the Stabilization Force (SFOR).”
Common Denominator
While the US’s intervention has sometimes created problems, I would argue that history has proven that the US tends to solve more problems than it creates and that were it not for the US’s involvement, situations would have irreparably gotten worse. 
The times where the US involvement has led to unintended consequences, this is moreso the fault of poor execution than the involvement itself.

Longstanding Progress
The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is currently a work in progress for the United States. While far from finished, the current approach is the ideal one.: Slow and steady.
Through navigating peace talks, the United States has directly assumed the role of the conciliator in this operation and it is the perfect fit. America is too deeply invested to back out now. Here are ways in which the United States can work to help out.
  1. Advocating for mutual communication between Israel and Palestine. Sometimes, explicitly stating your expectations and working on a solution through simple conversation is the best approach. As Sun Tzu says, “The supreme art of warfare is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” This suggests diplomacy is the ultimate solution.
  2. The Two-State Solution. Since the United Nations believes this is the only way to currently end this conflict, then it stands to reason that working towards this goal would be the option America should assume for working towards in this case.
  3. Giving economic and security assistance to Israel and Palestine. Doing this will establish trust between both sides and would be an effective tactic in working to build trust between these two enemies and diminish hostility.
  4. Empathy and caution. Approaching this with a certain level of sensitivity and treading carefully can help to cultivate a deep understanding of the problems and then formulating a solution.
The US’s intervention can’t make things worse than they already are even if it fails, so even the worst possible strategy can only keep the stakes as they are currently, not make them worse.

In conclusion, there is nothing on the line or for anyone to lose for the US to get involved. This has been going on since the 1940’s, so things can only steadily improve and get better, not get worse than they already are.

Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
Con
#4
Extend my argument that the removal of Stalin's powerbase that the USA directly funded would have eliminated every proxy war USA has fought against Communism thus far, which has claimed far more lives than WW2 itself did since then. Since my opponent has conceded this, I believe this alone will be enough to win the debate.

If my opponent cannot argue that USA historically on balance is unreliable with interventions, then there is no assurance it will aid USA or the world with it's continued current intervention with the Israel conflict. So far, there has been no argument pushed forward by my opponent that proves USA is on balance, reliable, with positive outcomes outweighing negative ones through intervention in military conflicts.

USA therefore should stop funding the conflict as it is far more likely there will be more harm than good.

Round 3
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
Pro
#5
Extend my argument that the removal of Stalin's powerbase that the USA directly funded would have eliminated every proxy war USA has fought against Communism thus far, which has claimed far more lives than WW2 itself did since then. Since my opponent has conceded this, I believe this alone will be enough to win the debate.
Extend response and source from above.
“The total number of noncombatants killed by the Germans—about 11 million—is roughly what we had thought. The total number of civilians killed by the Soviets, however, is considerably less than we had believed. We know now that the Germans killed more people than the Soviets did.”


Assuming Stalin DID kill more people, extend my previous response about how the total body-count might have been reversed if the enemy won. 

If my opponent cannot argue that USA historically on balance is unreliable with interventions, then there is no assurance it will aid USA or the world with it's continued current intervention with the Israel conflict. So far, there has been no argument pushed forward by my opponent that proves USA is on balance, reliable, with positive outcomes outweighing negative ones through intervention in military conflicts.
This was contested by my examples proving where US intervention has had more positive outcomes than the total network of overall bad.
My other rebuttal also challenged this point by addressing that the times where things did go wrong, it was because of poor execution rather than the involvement itself. Alternate situations would have been worse, if not for the US's involvement. Extend.

USA therefore should stop funding the conflict as it is far more likely there will be more harm than good.
As stated in Round 1, The US should intervene by cutting off funding where necessary. But current situations call for more involvement, not less.
Extend my final statements from the last round, 
The US’s intervention can’t make things worse than they already are even if it fails, so even the worst possible strategy can only keep the stakes as they are currently, not make them worse.

In conclusion, there is nothing on the line or for anyone to lose for the US to get involved. This has been going on since the 1940’s, so things can only steadily improve and get better, not get worse than they already are.
As nothing is on the line, there is nothing to lose for either side for the US to intervene. Extend earlier comment about the US's progress within the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

And finally, extend all of my Five Major Contentions.
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
Con
#6
Extend argument again as opponent only cites the death count under Stalin but does not include the death count from all the wars since them fighting the communism America made happen through intervention and aid to the communist regime that lasted all the way up to now. Since my opponent won't address the millions of American lives lost fighting communism after WW2, i will simply extend.

If this is the track record my opponent thinks is worthy of of a nation's choice to intervene in foreign military wars not defending American soil, including Israel's, then there really isn't much to argue. My opponent fails to prove that on balance, American intervention throughout history was more beneficial than harmful. A world without communism would have been a far more preferable world to live in. People say what if we went back in time and assassinated Hitler how much better the world would be, but nobody stops to think about stopping this from ever taking place. This is why America can never be trusted to intervene again in any foreign war.

Rolling the dice in Israel could have equally dire consequences.
Round 4
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
Pro
#7
BOP
My job solely from the start of the debate was to demonstrate that the US should intervene by proving their assistance is needed and showing the possibility of a long-term solution through the US’s involvement. 

I will outline my case and voters can determine if I was successful. 

This debate is on-balance, as BOP is shared.

Overview
  • Five major contentions never get addressed.: Two-State Solution, Peace & Stability, Fighting Terrorism, American Interests, and Defense of Human Rights. Extend.
  • Extend Round 2 Rebuttals detailing the success and benefits of US interference: WW2, Korean War, and the Bosnian War.
  • Extend my point from Round 2 about how the US can assist Israel and Palestine labeled Longstanding Progress.
  • Extend Common Denominator as well as all my arguments, sources, and rebuttals. 
Conclusion
Con cherry-picked a few examples to conclude that the US’s involvement is unreliable and is prone to back-firing. If I hadn’t specified “shared bop,” in the description, I very well may have lost this. 

Since this is on-balance, Con was required to build their own case and I don’t think a few cherry-picked historical examples that aren’t current even suffice, as I do refute them whereas Con never addresses any of my arguments.

As it is too late for me to bring new arguments, I shall simply conclude all of mine remain. 
Vote Pro.
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
Con
#8
Again, as my opponent correctly states, I did not challenge any of his 5 premises. The PLAN outlaid for a successful intervention in the Israel conflict is likely a sound PLAN.

Yet again, my opponent drops my main argument that the USA should not be the country to implement that plan because of it's horrible historic track record when the USA attempts to implement "sound plans" to intervene in military conflicts.

My opponent shows no proof that, on balance, the USA is more likely to be successful than not in implementing his plan for peace in Israel because he has no answer for the numerous horrible historical intervention failures I laid out when the USA has intervened to great detriment to not only the USA but the entire world. My opponent cannot provide any argument that would lead the readers of this debate to conclude that there is a better chance than not that USA will be able to pull it off successfully.

Sound as the intervention plan may be, this plan would have a MUCH better chance for success if any nation other than the USA with it's horrible historic track record
at the wheel. Because we cannot trust the USA to intervene successfully and implement this peace plan, we can only conclude the USA should STOP intervening in the Israel conflict and let another more reliable and responsible nation tag in.

Thanks for reading!