Question: Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Two-state solution offers adequate territory to Palestinians

Title: in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better justified than a one-state solution Content: A two-state solution is best for peace

Title: Israelis and Palestinians are too intermingled for a two-state solution Content: A two-state solution could succeed in partitioning the land and the two peoples by including the largest Israeli settlements within Israel, possibly by allowing for non-contiguous “islands” of Israeli territory around the larger settlements surrounded by the new Palestinian state.(13) In any case, a two-state solution can find practical solutions to these problems, while having the advantage of solving the inherent and insolvable problems of having two opposed nations and identities in perpetual conflict within a single state.

Title: A two-state solution is the least bad option Content: Shimon Peres. "One Region, Two States". Washington Post. February 10, 2009: "The difficulties of a two-state solution are numerous, but it remains the only realistic and moral formula to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

Title: Do you think that a two state solution for Middle East is a must Content: I will argue that (1) a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli territorial dispute is a must if we are interested in arbitrating according to a common standard of justice. (1): it is hopeless to assign an exact magnitude of blame in which one side or the other receives a predominant burden of fault. (2): in absence of exact calibrations, a 50-50 model to dispute resolution is both most practical and fairest. (3): natalist combat (meaning the struggle to demographically erode away the other party is practical but immoral)

Title: Two-state solution would alienate Palestinians in Israel. Content: A two-state solution, particularly one that enables a Jewish state, will alienate Palestinians living in Israeli territory. At best, they would be second class citizens. At worst, they would be pushed out, directly or indirectly.

Title: in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better justified than a one-state solution Content: Israelis and Palestinians are too intermingled for a two-state solution

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Israelis/Palestinians are too intermingled for two state-solution

Title: Only a two-state solution can satisfy both sides Content: A two-state solution can offer sufficient territory for both Israelis and Palestinians. For Israel this would mean keeping the vast majority of areas inhabited by Israeli citizens within the state of Israel. The two-state solution would also, however, offer sufficient land to the Palestinians. While cynics might question the size of the West Bank and Gaza, optimists should look no further than Singapore for reassurance. The area of the West Bank and Gaza is nine times as large as Singapore's, yet the combined population of Palestinians in both regions is smaller than that of Singapore. Singapore enjoys one of the highest standards of living in the world. The Palestinians are capable of achieving similar success, through instituting a modern economy based on science, technology and the benefits of peace.(1) Moreover, throughout the years polls have consistently showed respectable Israeli and Palestinian majorities in favour of a negotiated two-state settlement.(6) Even the Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad has stated that Iran would support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The success of a two-state solution, therefore, would, at a minimum, gain the support and possibly cooperation of the Iranians. This would be valuable diplomatically, particularly in resolving the larger conflict between Iran and the West.(7) Therefore, the best way to satisfy both sides and achieve peace is to adopt a two-state solution, which is therefore the most just solution.

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Many/most Israelis and Palestinians support two-state solution

Title: Two-state solution and peace is critical to regional stability. Content: For years, the middle east has been up in arms regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is a source of tension between the Muslim world and the west, and a source of tension between populations and their governments. And, as a source of tension between Muslims and the West, it has been considered a source of terrorism. Solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is critical to relieving these various tensions. In so far as a two-state solution helps end the conflict and establish peace, it helps relieve tensions and restore stability in the broader middle east and in the global fight against terrorism.

Title: Does Palestine Deserve autonomy Content: Israel finally accepting the two state solution would be a good thing since the apartheid would end, military oppression would be stopped and peaceful stability could be achieved. The Palestinians will be free of the Knesset, be aloud to properly partake in political elections and not be culturally violated. This solution would entail the removal of the wall, granting most of the West Bank and Gaza independence, signing a peace treaty, Establishing stronger diplomatic relations with each other, halting all building of illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land and call for the complete retraction of the Israeli military in the occupied territory (Won't go into any more hypothetical detail). Both are victims of each other (con-temporarily Palestine more so though)

Title: Israelis/Palestinians are too intermingled for two state-solution Content: Mohammed Khaku. "The Case for One-State Solution for the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict". Cross-Cultural Understanding. May 2008: "The only solution for the Palestinians is the creation of a single state in Palestine-Israel. Since the Palestinian and Israeli populations are so intermingled and a million Palestinians live throughout Israel the feasibility of a bi-national state, with the two peoples living in a kind of federation, seems workable. Given this 'reality' on the ground, the most practical solution seems to be a united democratic state offering equal citizenship for all: One Person, One Vote."

Title: Israel will simply not accept a two-state solution Content: There are many indications that, despite the rhetoric, Israel will not accept a two-state solution. The most important factor is the growth of settlements, which would have to be removed under a two-state solution, which many believe would be met by violent resistance by Jewish settlers. Territorial vulnerabilities from a two-state solution, and the inability to control the borders of the Palestinian state are also problems that make Israel unlikely to accept a two-state solution.

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: A two-state solution is the least bad option

Title: in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better justified than a one-state solution Content: Only a two-state solution can satisfy both sides

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: General statements in support of a two-state solution

Title: Palestinians do not want peace and a two-state solution Content: Jeff Jacoby. "Peace isn't Arab goal". Boston Globe. May 20, 2009: "International consensus or no, the two-state solution is a chimera. Peace will not be achieved by granting sovereignty to the Palestinians, because Palestinian sovereignty has never been the Arabs' goal. Time and time again, a two-state solution has been proposed. Time and time again, the Arabs have turned it down."

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Idea of Jewish state, in two-state solution, is undemocratic

Title: A two-state solution is best for peace Content: Simply because past conflict has existed is no reason to believe that peace and understanding cannot be established through co-operation, shared institutions and interaction. This is exactly what a one-state solution would foster in the long term, but which a two-state solution prevents by separating the two communities. Even if they each have a state of their own, unless the Israelis and Palestinians learn to live in proximity to each other in co-operation, there will be no peace.

Title: The will make that a two-state solution will be the final settlement even if its contours are unclear Content: In the long-run UN action may freeze the negotiations into a discussion of a two-state solution, but UN action is not required to reach this eventuality. Even Avigdor Lieberman on the Far Right accepts that there will be two states, and that has been the basic premise of the Peace Process since 1994. On the issues which have actually prevented a two state solution from coming to fruition- disputes about borders, armaments, security, and settlements, the UN would accomplish nothing. Furthermore, it might well make both sides intransigent, the Israelis due to perceiving themselves as being backed into a corner internationally, the Palestinians due to the belief they no longer need to make concessions.

Title: Two-state solution does not offer Palestinians enough space. Content: A two-state solution offers the Palestinians a very small amount of territory in the West Bank and Gaza strip. This small amount of space is not going to work for such a large and rapidly growing population of Palestinians.

Title: Israel and Palestine issue: Palestines future in the world map Content: Although the two-state solution is increasingly losing support among Israelis and Palestinians, it still remains the basic approach to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The struggle over the historical British Mandate of Palestine/Eretz Yisrael, now divided between Israel, Jordan, and the territories in between, can possibly be resolved by confederative arrangements. It can be politically transformed into a trilateral confederation"a system that combines self-rule with shared rule. It will be comprised of three distinct, independent, sovereign states: the Jewish State of Israel, the Arab State of Palestine, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and run by a Jerusalem-based confederal authority. Such a political arrangement may be the best form of government for the resolution of the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the key for a full normalization of the relations between Israel and all Arab states. This concept was first presented in 1937 by Britain"s Peel Commission and subsequently proposed by the United Nations in the 1947 Partition Plan. Since 1993, this solution has been accepted not only by the international community, but also by Israel and the Palestinians themselves. In 2002, it was proffered by President George W. Bush as a new vision for the Middle East, and supported by the Arab League. Since President Barack Obama"s first inauguration in January 2009, he too has been promoting this vision. Even Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in his famous speech at Israel"s Bar-Ilan University in June 2009, spoke of a Palestinian state, albeit one with very strict limits and certain conditions. At the basis of this confederation solution is the recognition that despite the moral and historical rights of the Jews to the Land of Israel, or Eretz Yisrael, we cannot ignore the realty on the ground: Palestinians will fight tooth and nail for national self-determination. The Israelis and Palestinians have had their destiny interconnected by virtue of the common land they live in, so they must accept that the constraints of Middle Eastern geography and demography engage in cooperation and compromise. Their historical aspirations and dreams of maximizing their territory must be compromised so that the two peoples can share the disputed land of historical Palestine/Eretz Yisrael.

Title: Israel will not relinquish Judea, Samaria in two-state solution Content: The two-state solution would have Israel relinquish Judea and Samarra. Yet, these are historic regions to the Jews. Israel will not undermine its identity by relinquishing these territories, so it will not and should not accept a two-state solution.

Title: UN support would breath new light into the two-state solution Content: Jonathan Freedland. "Britain should say yes to Palestinian statehood – and so should Israel." guardian.co.uk. September 13th, 2011: "UN recognition of a Palestinian state in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 will breathe fresh life into the ailing idea which, despite everything, remains the last best hope of Israeli-Palestinian peace – a two-state solution. By recognising a state of Palestine alongside Israel, the UN will entrench the notion that the only way to resolve this most stubborn of conflicts is for these two nations to divide the land between them into two states. In so doing it will halt the steady drift, born of despair more than enthusiasm, towards the so-called one-state solution – so-called because while it would bring one state, it offers no solution, just a single entity that would frustrate the yearning for self-determination of both sides."

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Two-state solution gives Palestinians unequal rights

Title: Israel has no choice Content: The full text of the resolution is "Although Israel's position in the West Bank is mutually undesirable for Israel and Palestinians, Israel has no choice in the matter, because there are no reasonable alternatives." Cons job will be to suggest an alternative solution that does not increase the risk of harm to Israel, Israeli citizens, or the Jewish People. This debates definition of unreasonable includes, but is not limited to, anything that results in that. My opening points assume three options for Israel: 1) Assimilate the West Bank. This would mean annexation, and full Israeli citizenship for all occupants. It seems highly unlikely that the Palestinians would agree to this, and the average Palestinian would probably reject citizenship. Even if this were not so, it would be highly unsafe to assimilate an openly aggressive population into the country. Even if this were not so, Israel would likely risk losing its Jewish majority, and be subject to an the whims of a historically unfriendly regional Arab majority. 2) Two state solution. This proposes an Palestinian state in the West Bank. The trouble with this is that Israel could not safely defend itself from its 1967 borders, and no one who could make a lasting commitment to Israeli security from a potential state will make one. Israel could withdraw to newly drawn, defensible borders, but such a move would mean annexing certain parts of the West Bank, an illegal move that would likely provoke war with neighboring Arab states without impossible-to-get Palestinian approval. 3) Population shifts. This remains illegal and immoral. Most other suggestions are subject to some of the above objections; Con will have find one that isn't refuted by them, not just unlisted. I look forward to your response.

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Two-state solution would alienate Palestinians in Israel.

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Two-state solution offers peace, the most important factor

Title: Palestine becoming a Nation Content: I suggest that for future debates, the topic could be phrased as a question, such as "Should Palestine be granted statehood? " It would make the crux of the debate much clearer. From Pro's case, I can infer that we are discussing whether or not Palestine should be an independent nation from Israel. Therefore, Pro supports the two-state solution, which is essentially the idea that we should partition the entire area for Israel and Palestine, thereby creating two sovereign states. In my case, I have three substantives. Firstly, circumstances make it exceedingly difficult to partition the countries. Secondly, partitioning never solves the conflict. Thirdly, decisions about statehood are rarely dependent on what is "fair" in a legal sense. 1) Circumstances make it exceedingly difficult to partition the countries The establishment of an independent Palestine state requires Israel to give land to Palestine, so that they can exercise sovereign power over these lands. The power of any government comes from their absolute sovereign control of their own lands - look at Afghanistan where the Afghan government has barely any control outside of Kabul. However, giving land isn't as easy at it seems. In many of the contested areas, there are Jewish settlements which are difficult to move. In other areas, there are farmlands tilled by Arab farmers. Dividing portions of land along any single line (such as the 1947 UN agreement) would unfortunately result in Israelites in Palestinian land, and Palestinians in Israeli land. Furthermore, Israel's main objection to the two-state solution is the fact that the 1947 borders causes Israel to have a small patch of land 6 kilometres wide, which is militarily indefensible. On top of that, the Gaza strip is separated from the main Palestine area, which creates problems for administration and unity for the new Palestine government. Why is this such a huge problem then? When we cannot partition lands according a neat and clear-cut line, what happens is chaos. Israelis on the wrong side will be forced to give up their possessions, and flee to the new Israel. The same will also happen for the Palestinians. Border controls would be out of the question when hundreds of thousands of people are trying to flee to another country. In fact, given the long-standing hatred between the two, it would be unsurprising to see armed soldiers firing at fleeing civilians. This would be a horrendous repeat of the Indo-Pakistan partition, where millions of Hindus and Muslims died as they tried to cross an arbitrary border which left them at the wrong side of their country. 2) Partitioning never solves the conflict The Israeli-Palestine conflict is fundamentally so complex that there is no way to say that there is a definite "issue" at the root of the matter. Reasons for why it is so intractable include historical baggage, religion, and geopolitics. After all, it is evident that Israel's belligerence comes from America's unconditional support for its country and independence. Given that the conflict is so deep-rooted and complex, it would be naive to think that making Palestine into a state would help to resolve, or even lower tensions between Israel and Palestine. The conflict between them runs far deeper than a mere geographical clash. For one, they fundamentally disagree on the status of Jerusalem - their claims for the city are mutually exclusive. For another, there is so much mutual distrust due to the assassinations, wars, and killings that have happened between both groups. Granting Palestine statehood would have not reduce tensions at all. In fact, I will argue that it is inflammatory, and reverses any progress made on resolving their conflict. - Giving Palestine a state without any form of negotiation with Israel would result in utter outrage from the Knesset, who see themselves as betrayed by the world in refusing to consider their opinions on the issue. Since any form of peace resolution requires both parties to compromise and agree on divergent issues together, such a unilateral move will only anger Israel and make it less likely that an agreement can be reached. - Palestine as a state would be fundamentally weak because the government would be too poor to carry out any schemes. Rich Middle Eastern nations like Qatar and Saudi Arabia are likely to pour funds into Palestine to help them. As foreign aid from the Middle East goes into Palestine, Israel would feel threatened by the rapid rise of Palestine, especially since they are just neighbours. We all know that a threatened Israel will do what it thinks will eliminate the threat (bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, Gaza war in 2007), so they may resume military action against Palestine even if it was an independent state. Therefore, giving Palestine statehood does not solve the underlying conflict between the two countries, and in fact is counterproductive towards the long-term peace process. 3) Statehood is not about legality This might be a difficult issue to swallow, but in the domain of international relations, the decision to grant a particular group of people statehood is not about rectifying injustices of the past, but about the present-day realities. The legality of statehood is dependent on the idea of sovereignty, which invests power over the land into the government. Yet, sovereignty is a man-made concept. After all, governments wield no 'physical' power over the land. This power is created when other governments respect your country's right to make decisions on your own land, and when you provide that respect to all other governments. Therefore, the notion that there is an objective legal basis for statehood is mistaken. Statehood is created through the mutual respect that governments give each other over the land that they are controlling. Many people argue that we should return to the borders drawn up by the UN resolution in 1947, because this is 'legally right'. Firstly, as I've already established, legality in international relations is based on customary law, rather than strict doctrinal law. Hence, UN resolutions are not the firmest basis for legality. Secondly, even if I did accept that UN resolutions are legally powerful because of the UN charter, the UN has also simultaneously recognised the intricacies of the situation and have not really pressured Israel into going back to the 1947 borders. There is an implicit understanding that those borders are now unsustainable and will only serve as a basis for negotiations. Therefore, it is not truly legally valid, and even if it was, it is not such a flagrant violation of international law for people to act. If statehood isn't about legality, then what is it about? As we saw with the self-declared independence of Kosovo, statehood is simply about global recognition of your power over a circumscribed geographical area. The US, UK, France, and other major countries recognised Kosovo as an independent state, and it has remained as such ever since. Similarly for Sudan and South Sudan, they have persisted because people do recognise their autonomy. In contrast, the Chechnyan region in Russia had always pushed for partition, but given that nobody has stepped up to recognise them, as of today they remain part of Russia. In conclusion, giving Palestine statehood is messy, bloody, doesn't solve the conflict, and not legal anyway. Side with Con.

Title: A one-state solution mean Israel would cease to be either democratic or Jewish Content: The two-state solution would have Israel relinquish the West Bank, known to the Israelis as “Judea and Samaria”. Yet, these are historic regions to the Jews. Israel would similarly have to undermine its identity to give up these two regions, and so any two-state solution acceptable to Israel would have to mean the retention of Judea and Samaria. Because of the large Palestinian population in the West Bank, even a two-state solution would mean Israel could not be both Jewish and democratic.(3)

Title: The will make that a two-state solution will be the final settlement even if its contours are unclear Content: The recognition of a Palestinian state by the UN would have de facto effect of freezing out alternative plans for a settlement – i.e. a one state solution, or some sort of autonomy – and making clear that the end result, if not necessarily two states on boundaries approximating those of 1967, will none the less be two states in some form. This is because the Palestinians, once they have gained recognition as a state, are unlikely to ever bargain it away. This in turn removes a number of the fantasies about “autonomy” floating around in Israel, as well as fears about Jews being swamped in a bi-national state. The issues of dispute will therefore be reduced to those of settling boundaries, setting up trade and customs policies, and deciding on sovereignty over holy places.[1] [1] Rosenberg, M.J., ‘Obama Should Support Palestinian Statehood at the United Nations’, HuffPost World, 22 July 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/obama-should-support-pale_b_9...

Title: Is a Two-State Solution (Israel and Palestine) an Acceptable Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Con Content: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has reached a critical stage. For more than two decades, the two-state solution has been the basis of international efforts to make peace in the region... A failure of the two-state solution will generate further instability in the region, strengthen rejectionist elements on both sides and likely mean that the conflict will drag on for generations... The Palestinian leadership remains committed to a peaceful, negotiated settlement to our conflict with Israel based on the two-state solution.

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Palestinians want two-state solution, assuming settlements stop.

Title: Only a one-state solution can guarantee equal rights for all Content: A one-state solution is the most just because a two-state solution would inherently result in a worse situation for the Palestinians than the Israelis, whereas a one-state solution would guarantee equal rights for all. The July 2007 Madrid meeting in favour of a one-state solution put firth that: “A two-state solution is predicated on the unjust premise that peace can be achieved by granting limited national rights to Palestinians living in the areas occupied in 1967, while denying the rights of Palestinians inside the 1948 borders and in the Diaspora.” Thus, the two-state solution condemns Palestinian citizens of Israel to permanent second-class status within their homeland, in a racist state that denies their rights by enacting laws that privilege Jews constitutionally, legally, politically, socially and culturally. Moreover, the two-state solution denies Palestinian refugees their internationally recognized right of return.”(14) A two-state solution, particularly one that enables a Jewish state, would also most likely alienate the Palestinian population remaining within Israel. At best, they would be second class citizens. At worst, they would be pushed out, directly or indirectly.(13) A two-state solution, and the establishment of a Jewish state, would also kill the idea of the return of Palestinian refugees that were expelled from Israel during various wars and conflicts. The Palestinian state created would also- if past experience is any judge- be highly divided (between factions such as Hamas and Fatah) and dysfunctional. This situation would have a material impact on the quality of life of citizens of the new Palestinian.(15)(16) Therefore, a one-state solution is more just than a two-state solution.

Title: Israeli settlements make a two-state solution impossible Content: Sandy Tolan. "George Mitchell and the end of the two-state solution". Christian Science Monitor. February 4, 2009: "The two-state solution is on its deathbed. [...] Since the Six-Day War of June 1967, the two-state solution, based on the concept of 'land for peace,' has been the central focus of almost all diplomatic efforts to resolve this tragedy. But because of Israel's unrelenting occupation and settlement project in the West Bank, the long-fought-for two-state solution has finally, tragically, become unworkable. Consider: In 1993, when Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat famously shook hands on the White House lawn, there were 109,000 Israelis living in settlements across the West Bank (not including Jerusalem). Today there are 275,000, in more than 230 settlements and strategically placed 'outposts' designed to cement a permanent Jewish presence on Palestinian land." [Forcibly removing these settlers would be too difficult, could foment a kind of Jewish civil war, and would create a level of resentment among fundamentalist Jews that would likely inflame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Title: Two-state solution gives Palestinians unequal rights Content: "The One State Declaration". Issued by participants in the July 2007 Madrid meeting. November 29, 2007: "A two-state solution is] predicated on the unjust premise that peace can be achieved by granting limited national rights to Palestinians living in the areas occupied in 1967, while denying the rights of Palestinians inside the 1948 borders and in the Diaspora. Thus, the two-state solution condemns Palestinian citizens of Israel to permanent second-class status within their homeland, in a racist state that denies their rights by enacting laws that privilege Jews constitutionally, legally, politically, socially and culturally. Moreover, the two-state solution denies Palestinian refugees their internationally recognized right of return."

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Israeli settlements make a two-state solution impossible

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Israel will simply not accept a two-state solution

Title: Israel is the major roadblock to peace, in the Israel/Palestine conflict. Content: I agree that my wording is off. I will change my statement to "Israel and the Palestinians/Arab countries have equal parts to have been played in the conflict so far." I disagree that the creation of Israel is irrelevant to today's peace making process. Understanding the history of Israel helps understand why each party is so against the other and why Israel is so afraid of the two state solution. To begin, I would like to start with a brief history of Israel, starting just before WW1. I do this because it is the major problem of conflict now. Just before World War One, Great Britain set out something called the Balfour Declaration. This Declaration pronounced England's support for a Jewish State in Israel, as the Zionist Congress had been begging for all these years. However, in the midst of WW1, England made another strange promise: It promised the Palestinians that if they helped in the war against the Ottoman Empire, they would receive their own country! This never happened and it angered the Palestinians. By the time World war two came around, nobody had bothered with the Palestinian problem. England had gotten away with making its false promise because the League of Nations was not strong enough nor its members financially able to do anything about it. The Zionist Congress lamented that they did not have their own country but were not as sore about it as the Palestinians. They had paid in blood for that country but they had not received it. After World War Two and the discovery of the Holocaust, the world knew that Israel needed to be created. They needed to be set apart due to the antisemitism that rocked Europe, despite the sympathy gained by the Holocaust. However, the Palestinians too wanted their own country, So England turned the problem over to the newly created U.N. The U.N., seeing the problem of both promises by England, and the need for a Jewish state. So they came up with the Two-State-Solution. This took the land that was to become Israel and split it in half, including the sacred city of Jerusalem. But what did they do to enforce this? The British Military forcibly removed Palestinians from their homes and sent them to the Palestinian half of the country, despite the fact that they had lived their for far longer than the British had controlled the land. While this step may have seemed to be a necessary component to the Two-State-Solution, it had disastrous effects. Not only were the Palestinians enraged, but so were many Arab countries. So, the day after the first Israeli flag shown upon the land, 6 Arab nations attacked the infant nation. Fortunately, the Israelis were able to fend off the attack and secure their country, but they lost vast pieces of land to the enemy- the Two-State-Solution had just been shattered. As time went on, truck bombs, skirmishes, and harsh words were passed. In the late 1960's, the six day war occurs. Here the Egyptians began preparing to attack Israel and had blockaded the straight of Tiran. Israel preemptively attacks Egypt, overwhelming the Egyptian forces and taking large quantities of land. The war becomes regional and Israel defeats the combined forces of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq. After this more and more battles are fought, another war in the 1970's proves Israel lives in fear of attack at all times. Palestinians continue attacking the Israelis with futile terrorists attacks. http://en.wikipedia.org... Just to skip into the future now, it has been known that every time Israel makes a peace deal, it is taken advantage of. When the Gaza Strip was given to the Hamas, they used it as a place to shoot rockets into Israel! While Israel is also at fault for many things that have gone wrong in the past as well as inhumane treatment of the Palestinians, they have a reason for their actions. They live in fear of attack by their enemies and it seems that with every foot they give, they lose more lives.

Title: Iranian support for a two-state solution is diplomatically valuable Content: Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad has stated that Iran would support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The success of a two-state solution, therefore, would, at a minimum, gain the support and possibly cooperation of the Iranians. This would be valuable diplomatically, particularly in resolving the larger conflict between Iran and the West.

Title: The United States should support Israel Content: You're right in saying that the middle east will have tension regardless but as the United States we should act as a mediator and listen to both sides because they are both wrong in some ways (Palestine with the rockets and Israel with the killing of civilians and occupation). Israel has also bombed UN humanitarian centers so to consider that Palestine is the only aggressor is absurd. There should be a cooperation from both sides to form a one state solution where Israelis and Palestinians can live equally in peace. Even though this won't end tension in the middle east I would at least help.

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Palestinians do not want peace and a two-state solution

Title: A two-state conflict will not end conflict Content: Prof. Hassan Nafaa. "No Room for Two States". Global Research. February 12, 2008: "The conflict between the Palestinians and the Zionist movement is not over disputed borders or material interests and, therefore, resolvable by merely coming to an agreement over permanent borders and a give-and-take over material interests. Rather, it is a conflict between two identities, each of which claims sole propriety right over a given territory. Such a conflict cannot be solved by the same means that are brought to bear on conventional international conflicts."

Title: Palestinians/Israelis cannot live in peace in one state Content: While it is nice to believe that Palestinians and Israelis can live in peace and harmony in one state, with tolerance for each other and in keeping with democratic principals of inclusion, while nice, is simply naive. This idea has been made impossible by nearly a century of direct conflict between these people. While this might change in coming centuries, it is unacceptable to adopt a one-state policy now based on these naive ideas.

Title: A two-state solution is best for peace Content: Palestinians and Israelis will not be able to live together in peace in the same state any time in the foreseeable future. The idea that Palestinians and Israelis can live in peace and harmony in one state, with tolerance for each other and in keeping with democratic principles of inclusion, is simply naive. This idea has been made impossible by nearly a century of direct conflict between these people. While this might change in coming centuries, it is unacceptable to adopt a one-state policy now based on these naive ideas. Israeli President Shimon Peres has argued: “Establishing a single multinational country is a tenuous path that does not bode well for peace but, rather, enforces the conflict's perpetuation. Lebanon, ravaged by bloodshed and instability, represents only one of many examples of an undesirable quagmire of this nature.”(1) This stance has been endorsed by leaders and officials from around the world: US special envoy George Mitchell has stated “In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we believe that the two-state solution, two states living side by side in peace, is the best and the only way to resolve this conflict.”(2) Pope Benedict XVI has similarly called on Israel’s leadership to embrace the two-state solution for peace with the Palestinians: “I plead with all those responsible to explore every possible avenue in the search for a just resolution of the outstanding difficulties, so that both peoples may live in peace in a homeland of their own, within secure and internationally recognized borders.”(3) Even Colonel Gaddafi, the late Libyan leader, argued that a two-state solution was essential for peace.(1) The reason the two-state solution has been recognised as the best for peace is because it respects the democratic will of both peoples for a state of their own. As Peres argues, “The Jewish people want and deserve to live in peace in their rightful, historical homeland. The Palestinian people want and deserve their own land, their own political institutions and their right to self-determination. It is vital that this cause be based on the prospect of coexistence between Jews and Arabs, which translates into cooperation in fields such as the economy, tourism, the environment and defence. Achieving all this will be possible only by granting each people its own state and borders, to enable their citizens to pray according to their faiths, cultivate their cultures, speak their own languages and safeguard their heritages.”(1) Because only a two-state solution allows for this peaceful co-existence and development, a two-state solution is best for peace and thus more justified than a one-state solution.

Title: A two-state solution makes Israel too narrow, vulnerable. Content: A two-state solution would make Israel only 6 miles wide at a number of points where the West Bank juts into Israeli territory. This creates a number of vulnerabilities, particularly the risk that Israel become divided during a war (a not unlikely prospect).

Title: A UN move would internationalize the problem, and pave the way for broader for international solutions Content: One of the major problems with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict up to now is that it has been localized between the Israelis and Palestinians, with outside involvement limited to putting pressure on one side or the other at various times. The result is that negotiations have become a zero-sum game where concessions from one side have to be extracted from the other. Allowing the Israelis to keep settlements means that the Palestinians must give up land. Allowing a “Right of return” to Palestinians is seen is something Israel alone must carry the burden of, when the vast majority live in other Arab states that perhaps should play a part in any sort of compensation scheme. Consequently, negotiations have been far more brutal than they otherwise might have been. UN Recognition or at least a debate about it would move the forum of the discussion away from bilateral talks, and into the international sphere. The UN, by acknowledging responsibility for mishandling things on the Palestinian side in 1948, would in effect pave the way to help solve issues like the right of return and the issue of Jewish refugees from Arab states that cannot be resolved satisfactorily on a bilateral basis.

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Two-state solution does not offer Palestinians enough space.

Title: Inclusive one-state solution adopts democratic principles Content: Prof. Hassan Nafaa. "No Room for Two States". Global Research. February 12, 2008: "The single, bi-national democratic state solution has the advantage of conforming to modern liberal democratic principles officially espoused in the West and in Israel itself."

Title: A one-state solution mean Israel would cease to be either democratic or Jewish Content: As described in the above quote by Peres, the vast majority of Israelis desire to live in a Jewish homeland in which they can define their own institutions and culture in light of their Jewish heritage. A one-state solution, however, would undermine Israel's legitimacy and internationally recognized right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state in the land of the Jewish forefathers. From Israel's perspective, it is not possible for the Jewish people to accept an arrangement that signifies the end of the existence of a Jewish state, which would be the result of a one-state solution, as the state could not be considered a Jewish one if it housed a very large Palestinian population, possibly even a Palestinian majority.(1) For this reason it is unlikely that any one-state solution would be truly democratic, and rather would be a situation of an Israeli minority ruling over a Palestinian majority, who would be largely excluded from the running of the country and determining their own affairs.(4) A one-state solution would only produce an explosive situation in which Jews would dominate the economy and most other aspects of the new state, creating a reality of exploitation. At that point in time, the new state would be a new form of occupation that would only set the conflict on a more violent track.(5) Therefore, the new state created by a one-state solution would be unacceptable either to Israelis or to Palestinians, as it would cease to be either Jewish or democratic, and so would not be a just outcome. Only a two-state solution can keep Israel Jewish and democratic, and allow a Palestinian state similarly to be Arab and democratic, as it would most likely wish.

Title: Resolved: People Should Support the Boycott, Divestment and Sactions Movement (BDS) Content: The con notes that his sources are in the comments, however, the rules state that sources must be posted IN THE DEBATE. As the sources were not posted in the debate, the sources should be disregarded as such. Contention 1: International Law The Con claims that this convention doesn't support the resolution, however, this intention is meant to serve as inherency and provide the reason as to Why BDS is necessary.The con then argues that since the Sinai was returned to Egypt in the Camp David Accords in 1973, that, therefore, the West Bank should be returned to Jordan as it was under Jordanian Control in 1967. This concept, however, is simply illogical, given that in the Jordan-Israel Peace Agreement, signed in 1994, Jordan recognized the West Bank as Palestinian Territory under Israeli occupation [1].The 3 No's of the Khartoum Resolution of 1967, which the con cites, were effectively the policy of the Arab League, until 2002. At the 2002 Beirut Summit, Saudi Arabia proposed the Arab Peace Initiative which proposed a two-state solution and a path to normalized relations with Israel. This proposal is a clear break with the Khartoum Resolution, as it not only endorses peace but endorses eventual recognition and fully endorses negotiation [2]. Additionally, this proposal would meet the demands of BDS.The Con notes that Israel has offered some land for Peace on three occasions. He claims that BDS is, therefore, irrelevant because Israel has offered land for peace, however, BDS is not demanding this, BDS demands a complete end to the illegal occupation of Palestinian land by Israel, ie the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This has never been offered by Israel, and therefore BDS is necessary.The Con cites the disengagement from Gaza, however, fails to link this to the demands of BDS.As to the first question posed by the Con, BDS expects Israel to act under the pressure placed on it and understand that it can relieve the pressure by submitting to the demands. Security assurance would come in the form of ending the cause of terrorist attacks, ie the occupation. As to the Second question, the Palestinian government was right to reject the proposals as they did not provide a just peace settlement which would include the right of return, the end of the occupation and the complete withdrawal from the West Bank. If a deal does not meet your requirements it should, therefore, be rejected.Additionally, the Con has not responded to the violations of the 4th Geneva convention or the findings of the International Court of Justice. Contention 2: South AfricaThe Con concedes that a similar BDS campaign succeeded in South Africa but then argues that US sanctions on North Korea have been a failure and therefore BDS will not necessarily be successful. However, this example fails as while the US and Europe conduct a great deal of business with Israel, just as they did with South Africa, the US and Europe have never conducted any significant amount of business with the DPRK and thus any sanctions placed in it would be unsuccessful as a result. It also fails as while the goals of the on Sanctions on the DPRK are meant to isolate and punish an enemy nation, and weaken and destabilize a nation. Meanwhile, the Boycott of South Africa and BDS are intended to change specific policies of the nation in question. Contention 3: BDS’s successThe Con responds to arguments about Soda Stream, however, I never argued that BDS caused Soda Stream to withdraw from the West Bank. The Argument I made was about the British security firm G4S. Given this, the Con has still failed to respond to this argument. Anti-SemitismThe con claims I conceded Israel is the best country for human rights in the middle east, however, I made no such statement. Rather I contended that Israel is in violation of multiple international agreements and UN resolutions and that these issues must be addressed and BDS is a way to address them. The con alleges I am applying a double standard however the standards being applied are UN resolutions and International law, and because of Israel’s failure to abide by these resolutions and other international agreements despite having 49 years to do so. Because of this BDS is necessary.The issue of Hamas comes up again in this round. The con makes several claims about Hamas, the Hamas Charter, the Palestinian leadership, Fatah, Khaled Mashal and myself in this argument, however, this argument, as I have previously pointed out, is in no way relevant to this debate. By continuing this line of debate the con has demonstrated a lack of respect for the rules of this debate which explicitly prohibit trolling. As the Con’s goal is clearly to force me to waste characters responding to this irrelevant argument. Because of this, the Con is ineligible to get any points for conduct.The Con acknowledges that he cannot give any evidence showing that BDS promotes hatred of, or discrimination against Jews, and then claims that it would be wrong to expect this, however, this statement is simply illogical as it contradicts the entire concept of the burden of proof, which is shared in this debate. Due to the lack of any evidence, the Con instead relies on association fallacies to support his claim, however, association fallacies by definition do not justify allegations such as those made by the Con.The Con mentions Omar Barghouti, claiming he is the founder BDS, however, while Omar Barghouti is not the founder of BDS. Omar Barghouti was a founding member of the Boycott national committee, BDS itself had no single founder and was founded by 170 Palestinian political parties, trade unions, NGOs and other organizations representing Palestinian civil society [3]. Moreover, the Con fails to show how this supports his claim that BDS is anti-Semitic. Palestinian EconomyThe Con’s argument in round 4 relies on an ad hominem and does not actually respond to the World Bank’s findings. He claims to provide a source, however as it was not posted in the debate, as the rule require, the source provided is not considered part of the debate. ConclusionIn this debate, I have shown that the Israeli occupation of the West Bank is illegal under international law and that boycotts have been successful in the past, as in South Africa. I have also shown that BDS is itself has demonstrated success. I have thus met the burden of proof. The con meanwhile has relied on red herrings, ad hominems, and strawmen to support his claims. He has not met the burden of proof and has shown a complete disregard for the rules. The arguments he has made themselves have lacked overall consistency.At the end of this debate, I can only see a full 7 point vote for the Pro.The Resolution is Affirmed.Vote Pro Sources1. http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo...2. http://www.jcpa.org...3. https://bdsmovement.net...

Title: Israelis and Palestinians are too intermingled for a two-state solution Content: A million Palestinians live throughout Israel even without the West Bank and Gaza strip, and when the Israeli settlements in the West Bank are considered also, it becomes clear that dividing these two populations is simply unfeasible. By comparison, the feasibility of a bi-national state, with the two peoples living in a kind of federation, seems workable. Given this 'reality' on the ground, the most practical solution seems to be a united democratic state offering equal citizenship for all: One Person, One Vote.(12) The ever-expanding Israeli settlements in the West Bank particularly represent a barrier to the separation of the two peoples into two states. In 1993, when Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat famously shook hands on the White House lawn, there were 109,000 Israelis living in settlements across the West Bank (not including Jerusalem). Today there are 275,000, in more than 230 settlements and strategically placed 'outposts' designed to cement a permanent Jewish presence on Palestinian land.(10) Forcibly removing settlers would be too difficult, could foment civil strife among Jewish Israeli citizens, and would create a level of resentment among fundamentalist Jews that would likely inflame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Two-state solution would prevent return of Palestinian refugees.

Title: Communism is a logical solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: My opponent will be arguing communism is a logical solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I will be arguing that it is not. Since my opponent did not provide definitions, I will: Communism: 1. ) A theory advocating elimination of private property 2. ) A system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed. (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Logical: 1. ) Of or according to the rules of logic or formal argument: "a logical impossibility". 2. ) Characterized by clear, sound reasoning. Israeli-Palestinian conflict: The ongoing dispute between the Jewish and Arab populations in the former Ottoman Empire region of Palestine, consisting of the state of Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip (. http://www.chegg.com...) I look forward to my opponent's opening argument.

Title: in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better justified than a one-state solution Content: Only a one-state solution can end the conflict

Title: Isreal has a Right to Exist. Content: The DDO tutorial states; "Your opening argument should give enough context to define what the words in the resolution mean. That context might include a whole opening argument, a description of the general area of debate, or specific definitions. " No where there does it say i have to accept anything. Indeed you are confusing my responsibilities with your own. You may "give context", but this doesnt make me honour bound to accept your deliberately manufactured context. I claimed, "It could be, and in this case was bent by not recognising Palestine, its independence until a separate state had been set up within its boarders. " My opponent said "But a separate state was not set up in it's borders, a Militant organization known as PLO declared ownership of the established sate of Israel and the claims of PLO was never recognized. " That is actually incorrect. Your own timeline shows this. "the British government proposed the Transjordan memorandum, which split the Mandate for Palestine between the Jewish Palestine, and the Arab Palestine. Transjordan was to be semi independent, with the goal of eventually obtaining complete independence. " So they granted independence to a country by forcibly splitting it up into two peaces. This strongly implies that Palestine was not allowed to self govern previously, perhaps it was a British vassal. "On May 25, 1946, the British Granted independent to Trans-Jordan, making Jewish Palestine the only Palestine in the Mandate for Palestine. " "On November 29, 1947, the United Nations passed resolution 181, which the Arab community rejected and was never implemented. Resolution 181 was intended to split Palestine in 2 trust territories, 1 with an Arab state, and 1 with a Jewish state. The Arab community was outraged, and the plan was never implemented. " Outrage is such a weak word for mandatory secession enforced by an external country or group of countries. No wonder it didn't work. In response my opponent states: "But a separate state was not set up in it's borders, a Militant organization known as PLO declared ownership of the established sate of Israel and the claims of PLO was never recognized. " And I remind my opponent, that delaying recognition of a country in the UN does not change the fact that this country exists. He then says "The PNA was not created until the Oslo Accords which was when Israel affirmed a Palestinian right of self-government, in Gaza and the West Bank; Israel still holds all authority not delegated to the PNA, in Gaza and the West bank. " But I remind him that as Israel was made from Palestinian territory but never formally recognised by Palestine it doesn't have the legitimacy to do any of those things. Believing this is an appeal to the authority of Israel. If you did not make this appeal to authority, then you could not believe Israel exists and most likely renders the whole affair as a civil war or partied given ascension by the UN, US, Britain or any other country that was involved in this attempt to defraud Palestine. Also, previously i left a video implying you were judge dread. Irrespective of the credibility of such a statement, it was an Ad hominem fallacy. But the fact that were unable to recognise that demonstrates that you have not learnt critical thinking. Which implies you are disputing something without actually understanding it.

Title: Two-state solution offers adequate territory to Palestinians Content: Shimon Peres. "One Region, Two States". Washington Post. February 10, 2009: "Dissenters from the two-state solution contend -- not without some reason -- that Gaza and the West Bank are too small to absorb the Palestinian refugees. Yet this would also be the case under the one-state formula; it would result in a state that is merely 24,000 square kilometers and that already overflows with a population exceeding 10 million (5.5 million Jews and 4.5 million Arabs). While cynics might question the size of the West Bank and Gaza, optimists should look no further than Singapore for reassurance."

Title: Palestine becoming a Nation Content: These are my main rebuttals: 1) Many people voted for the UN resolution to upgrade Palestine to the observer state status - Pro has conceded his substantive argument that we should give them statehood due to historical grievances. Pro agrees now that it should be based on consent with countries. - Factually speaking, your example is incorrect. The vote was whether to upgrade Palestine from observer entity to observer state. While this may seem like a huge jump, the other observer state is the Holy See (Vatican City), which frankly isn't an independent state. - Pushing for full membership was stopped by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, who said that Palestine needed UN Security Council approval to clarify its statehood. Given that US holds a veto in the UNSC, giving Palestine statehood is unlikely to materialise. - It also matters who recognises your cause. Given that Israel (her neighbour) and the US (the dominant world power) do not recognise Palestine's claims to statehood, this means that even with substantial international support, statehood might not be 'legally' given anyway. 2) Israel doesn't want to negotiate on statehood - Fair enough, so it's Israel's fault. Today's debate isn't about Israel's responsibility in the conflict though. - Furthermore, if Israel has been unwilling to negotiate about it at all, it surely shows they are fundamentally opposed to it. Therefore, unilaterally giving Palestine statehood would simply anger Israel, flare up tensions, and destabilise the region. Hence, Israel's unwillingness to negotiate statehood proves my point about how pushing through statehood is counter-productive. 3) Jewish settlements aren't a big issue - This isn't factually true. Look at this picture: http://cdn.static-economist.com... - When these settlements are right in the middle of the West Bank, which is the land "given" to Palestine under the 1947 resolution, how can Palestine form an effective governance that excludes these Jewish settlers? - In any case, there are no Arab settlers in Israel. Therefore there isn't a way to 'swap' land either. Now, I'll go on to detailing my alternative in this debate. There is no alternative to diplomacy and negotiation. Statehood for Palestine can only follow from mutual agreements between Israel and Palestine. When we talk about statehood, we are not merely concerned with the legality or possibility of establishing today's statehood. In fact, the Palestinian Authority can simply step up and say they declare themselves as a sovereign state today, and people might agree with that. But the real question today is: can this statehood last? There are two reasons why it won't. Firstly, Israel will simply invade Palestine (again). It did so against Gaza in 2007 when tensions with Hamas ran high. It has done so for the past few decades. Simply put, Israel's top priority is the protection of her national security. Declaring statehood would pose a threat, since anti-Israel plots may be hatched without the Palestinian government attempting to stop them. Hence, Israel would simply invade and crush a rather defenceless Palestine. Hundreds of lives lost, thousands more disrupted; is this really what we want to do to Palestine? Secondly, even if Israel doesn't invade Palestine, there is no way that the Palestinian Authority can exert influence over a crucial area: the Gaza strip. Currently, Gaza is being governed by Hamas, which is a militant group bent on eradicating Israel off the face of the map. In contrast, the Palestinian Authority is more peaceful and has sought a diplomatic solution to the conflict. There is no way the PLA will be able to convince Hamas to lay down its arms and act as a peaceful government for the region. Therefore, once Hamas attacks Israel, this will constitute an act of war, and so Israel will now have legitimate reason to invade Palestine. Therefore, since statehood won't last in the long term from a forced attempt to give Palestine statehood, how will a negotiated solution allow it to survive? This is because the crucial factor determining Palestine's long-term survival is support from Israel. Palestine is defensively in shambles, and economically weak, making it a simple target for Israel to eliminate. Unless Palestine convinces Israel to support her rather than repeatedly undermine her, Palestine will never have any stability in her region. Even if Pro argued that foreign countries can send military aid or help to Palestine, this will merely exacerbate the conflict as more soldiers enter the West Bank and threaten Israel's national security. Ultimately, Palestine will become a chessboard for other governments to engage in a proxy war over the Middle East. The only losers in this conflict will be Palestinians, who are again trapped with nowhere to go. Since Israel's support and agreement is fundamental to Palestine's long term stability, and negotiation is the only way to achieve it, therefore it follows that negotiation is the best and only solution that Palestine should adopt if she wishes to gains statehood and keep it in the long run.

Title: One-state solution would end Israel as a Jewish state Content: Shimon Peres. "One Region, Two States". Washington Post. February 10, 2009: "A minority of Middle East pundits have recently emerged as advocates for a one-state solution, which would undermine Israel's legitimacy and internationally recognized right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state in the land of my forefathers. [...] From Israel's perspective, it is not possible for the Jewish people to accept an arrangement that signifies the end of the existence of a Jewish state." [The reason for this is that it could not be considered a Jewish state if it housed a very large Palestinian population].

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Palestinians/Israelis cannot live in peace in one state

Title: Why do so many say Israel doesn"t need to be a Jewish State Content: Hello sorry was bit busy over last 24 hours. You posted a good argument though I just want to point a few things out. I totally support a two State solution and even don"t care let the Arabs have Jerusalem if that brings peace. But Jews need a homeland and while I agree errors were made in 2948 the seed is done and 6 million Jews aren"t going to leave now. As a Jew myself I feel that with huge waves of anti semitism across the globe Jews can"t just exist as minorities in Christian or other countries and also Palestinians are playing a game where by they are trying to claim Israelite heritage and take our history away. All in all so many issues here:( Also a one State solution would just make the Jews a minority again and could cause intermarriage to happen something we Jews don"t approve of.

Title: Palestine Should be Free, the Israeli Foundation and Occupation are Unjust Content: Opponent's case: 1. My opponent has defined the boundaries of "Palestine" as the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and all of the remaining land of Israel commonly recognized as the nation of Israel and "occupied territories". He omits the Sinai Peninsula which was returned to Egypt, as well as current day Jordan (formerly Trans-Jordan moreover Land across the Jordan River) as they are already predominately occupied by Arabs. He states that he does not advocate taking from the Jews. He does advocate for two separate entities; Israel & Palestine. Many people have shared this view and have given it the moniker "TSS" short for two state solution. There have been many such proposals since Israel's declared statehood in 1948. It seems quite simple to the outsider to say something to the effect of: "Okay, Palestine, you may form your own government and you may have the following properties. Israel, you may also have a government and the rest of the property. Please live peaceably together forever and ever". Unfortunately it is not that simple. David ben Gurion said that he would settle for Israel the size of a bed sheet if the Arabs would recognize their right to exist. The Arabs have never recognized the Jews right to exist. It seems a small price to pay to get what they say they really want. "Okay Israel, we the Arab "Palestinians" do hereby recognize you as an official Jewish state". No dice! Well then, Israel, you must surrender the Gaza strip, the Golan Heights, all of the West Bank including the Temple Mount and your capitol, as well as everything else you claim was given to you by God or the League of Nations. Pack up all your stuff and move to Brooklyn". If both sides would agree to a two state solution, how does my opponent propose that the land be divided? Would he say that the "Palestinians" should have all of the West Bank? We don't need a crystal ball to tell us that out of spite, the "Palestinians" would disallow the Jews to visit places such as Bethlehem and Jerusalem. They would not allow Jews to visit the Temple Mount which is their holiest site. The intent of the League of Nations was to make Israel a home for the Jews and Jordan a home for the "Palestinians". That gives us a two state solution. Jews would be welcomed in Israel, Arab "Palestinians" would be welcomed in Jordan. Ideally there would be no friction, don't start none, there won't be none. C-2: My opponent feels like Israel stole some land, kicked the Arabs out, and set up an unfair government. Why did the League of Nations choose this particular spot to send the Jews to set up and restore their own nation? Since history tells us that Abraham was originally from Ur, which is in present day Iraq, why didn't they say, Israel, go set up in Iraq? That's where Abraham was from, go set up over there. Or, since the United States is your buddy, maybe they will give you all of Brooklyn, or maybe even New Jersey. That didn't happen either. Theodore Herzl suggested that the Jews go to what they considered home, the Promised Land, the land of Caanan. It's really hazy to even refer to the land as "Palestine". The Romans called it "Palestine" as an insult to the Jews. I will address Biblical matters further in C-3. Suffice it to say that religious faith does in fact play a role in this. As my opponent has conceded, Israel has endured a number of oppressions throughout their history. If they were given the opportunity to establish a government for themselves, how much sense would it make to allow for more oppression? Get real! C-3: While it is convenient for my opponent to reject both the Bible and the Qur'an, they do in fact play a huge role. The Bible, particularly the books of the Jewish Talmud, explain why the Jews felt they were entitled to all of this land. The Qur'an plays an equally important role for the Arabs. To say they have no basis in history is absurd. At my opponent's request, I will address his argument of Zionist takeover. I visited the source he provided for us to read. It is clearly a propaganda site dedicated to pulling at the heartstrings of those sympathetic to the "Palestinian" cause. I too could easily conduct a "copy-paste exercise" from web sites of equally opposing views. What my opponent presented for our reading pleasure was simply the opinion of an extreme Zionist. Many other Zionists advocated the intent of aliyah in a peaceful manner. Much of the land in question was actually bought with money as a real estate transaction. The Golan Heights, Gaza Strip, and West Bank were won in a war. Israel gave up the Gaza Strip and now it is full of Hamas terrorists who like to attack Israel. The Golan Heights was taken from Syria. Another terrorist group, Hezbollah, would love to be there. That would enable them to launch rockets at Israel from a closer range. While it isn't prudent to label all "Palestinians" as terrorists, it is equally prudent to keep them at a distance based upon their past unreliability in regard to living peacefully next door. Thanks

Title: Only a one-state solution can end the conflict Content: It was no less a man than Albert Einstein who believed in 'sympathetic cooperation' between 'the two great Semitic peoples' and who insisted that 'no problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.' A relative handful of Israelis and Palestinians are beginning to survey the proverbial new ground, considering what Einstein's theories would mean in practice. They might take heart from Einstein's friend Martin Buber, the great philosopher who advocated a bi-national state of 'joint sovereignty,' with 'complete equality of rights between the two partners,' based on 'the love of their homeland that the two peoples share.'(10) This position has been adopted by some Palestinian leaders: In October 2005, Nusseibeh, then president of al-Quds University in Jerusalem, and several other liberal Palestinian political activists and intellectuals held a press conference in Jerusalem, stating: “We are pressing now for equal political and legal rights within a single, democratic Israel, and we are confident that our Israeli brothers and sisters will welcome us and that together we will build a free and democratic state in which Jews and Arabs will live together in peace.”(5) A two-state solution, however, would most likely foster continued conflict, for two reasons. Firstly, a Palestinian state would be base for terrorism. As seen when Israel withdrew from Gaza, the Palestinians there did not embrace the two-state solution, but the Muslim hardliners who controlled Gaza continued to want nothing less than Israel's destruction, and Gaza's newly-elected Hamas government spent much of its money not on the welfare of Palestinians but on attacking Israel.(11) Similarly, a two-state solution makes Israel too narrow and vulnerable. A two-state solution would make Israel only 6 miles wide at a number of points where the West Bank juts into Israeli territory.(1) This creates a number of vulnerabilities, particularly the risk that Israel may become divided during a war (a not unlikely prospect). For all these reasons, a two-state solution cannot offer true peace, but a one-state solution built on co-operation and equal rights can, and so a one-state solution is more just.

Title: Palestinians are too divided to constitute a state. Content: MJ Rosenberg. "Loving The Two-State Solution to Death". Huffington Post. December 22, 2008: "we are further from implementing the two-state solution today than we were in 2001. In fact, it can't be implemented because the Palestinians themselves constitute two states. Without Palestinian unity -- unity that ended with the Hamas election and then full seizure of power in Gaza--the two-state solution is simply not achievable."

Title: Israel is justified in their invasion of Gaza Content: Thank you for your response. "My answer to your first point is that diplomacy is completely useless in this situation because the Palestinians have 0% interest living with the Israelis, and the Israelis have 0% interest in living with the Palestinians." Although there are huge problems on both sides of the conflict, I don't believe that mass genocide is the only option to solve the middle east conflict. Diplomacy is the only acceptable long term solution, which both parties will have to undertake. "proportion is no longer relevant because Israel is fighting an enemy that has no qualms about killing civilians to win, so Israel can't either." Proportion is absolutely relevant, and key to the justification of the invasion action of Gaza. The fact that terrorists are attacking civilians in Israel does not give the justification to take reprisals against an entire Palestinian population in return. Just as (I'm not going to go to much into this) if an Iraqi terrorist attack an American citizen it does not give America the right to wipe out the entire Iraqi population. You have to concede that the vast majority are innocent of any crimes. "They hide in homes loyal to them, making the people they hide with just as culpable as them." Can you please provide any evidence to back up this statement? The Palestinian population often suffer when Hamas militants break in and commandeer their building to fight. This does not make them culpable for the actions of the militants. There are plenty of examples of people loosing children and family while these people also denounce Hamas. [1] "This is a misleading example, because that's not what is happening" Again can you please provide evidence for this statement. I have provided evidence that shows your statement to be false. Many of the people who have died are in no way allied to Hamas, simply bystanders caught in the conflict. "You quoted AL JAZEERA as evidence" Are you disputing the casualties involved in the conflict? I also provided links to two other sources. Your denouncing of Al Jazeera seems fairly irrelevant in this light. "And then you said that Israel is to blame for the humanitarian crisis in the aftermath. This is yet another fallacy. All Palestine has to do is throw the people who keep trying to start wars with Israel out, and this will all be over." This is similar to saying in a war, if one side simply surrendered then then atrocities would never have happened, therefore the atrocities are the fault of the victim. This does not justify the actions of Israel and the humanitarian crisis they created. "Don't act like this is a one-sided conflict." I'm absolutely not acting like this is a one sided conflict, and I agree that it's a very difficult situation, with no clear answers on both sides. However we aren't debating the entire conflict, rather the actions of Israel in the specific invasion of Gaza. My opponent has in no way demonstrated how the response from Israel was proportionate or reasonable, and as defined in the opening argument justifiable. He has tried to say that the Palestinian population is responsible for their own mess, and the blame should be attributed to them. I reject this statement because the Palestinian population on the whole is largely innocent, and shouldn't be subject to the humanitarian crisis and deaths as a result. [1]-http://news.bbc.co.uk...

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Israelis/Palestinians can coexist peacefully in one state

Title: Only a two-state solution can satisfy both sides Content: Palestinian support for two-state solution declined around 2008, and is waning even among the 'moderate' Palestinian camp, as well as among additional Arab elements.(8) It is also naïve to think that a two-state solution would gain the favour or even support of Iran. Iran wants to be the dominant power in the Middle East, and it wants nuclear weapons so that it can threaten not only Israel but other states in the region.(9) To this end, Iran has an incentive to keep the Israeli-Palestinian conflict big and bloody so as to distract the West from its own regional agenda. Furthermore, an independent Palestinian state would probably be perceived as a security threat to some of its neighbours, particularly Jordan, and thus might actually prompt further tensions.(9)

Title: Please find the bugs in my unofficial Israel-Palestin pease plan Content: This is more of a debate on an idea I have and would like someone to find any flaws in, in which case I can come up with solutions to these problems. If I can then I win, If I can"t find solutions, or a reason why It wouldn"t necessarily make my plan not work, then Con wins. I believe that the solution to the problem with Israel and Palestine is a one state solution. This one state of ________ (I don"t have a name) would be a region of unity for all who reside within its borders. First off I would suggest that the government of Israel and the organizations that fight them, be disbanded. There would be no all Jewish, Muslim, or Christian government in the country. Secondly, there is to be no walls, gates, or any other restrictions of where people can"t go based on their religion, all are to be able to work, live and settle down where they wish.(with the exception of 3 small cultural areas that will belong to the religious communities for special rituals that my offend those who don"t practice the religion)Thirdly there would be mandatory multiple cultural awareness classes in the public school systems, to learn how all of the cultures can live in peace without offending the each other. The government would have a 4 party system; each party would be run by the 3 main religious groups of the area, and one for those who aren"t in those groups. (Muslim, Jewish, Christian, other) Each of these parties would have an equal number of delegates (50) so no religion has more power in there parliament then the others. Each Member of Parliament will be at least 35 years old and elected by the members of their religions populations, with laws protecting the individual voters. Each person who runs for election should have at least a public education provided by the nation to all, as well as 4 years of college in politics, and or law. Anyone who gets elected can be reelected as many times as the voters want them, but elections happen every 2 years in case there is a bad politician. To satisfy those who feel the majority of the population should have the most say in the government, they will have that chance every 3 years when the top leader is elected, anyone can vote for this person. You may ask how to tell which religion the people are? The civilian population will have to fill out a mandatory census that will be turned in with the yearly taxes. Any law that comes to the parliament would have to have a 65% vote to pass into law. The high leader will have no power over the laws for civilians that Parliament passes, but will be able to halt and put new plans onto the table for potential laws that involve national resources, military/defense, and foreign affairs. The high leader is the only one who can declare war. She/he can decide which members of the Parliament can be sent for peace talks with other nations. The 3 cultural zones I mentioned earlier will be the only place that the churches officially own; these places will be the places were all must follow the customs and "dress code" that the religions require. This plan will keep the people such as the Muslims from feeling that the Jewish had invaded the land and made it to where they are no longer welcome, the Jewish can have a nation where they are not discriminated against, and the Christians and other religious believers aren"t just being brushed under the rug, the Muslims will have a big say in the government, and the State of Israel would no longer be in existence, that would get rid of a huge problem with many pro Muslim terror groups that have sworn that they wouldn"t stop fighting as long as they exist, and do to the fact that the religions are now working together, as equals, there would be no need for the people to fight,(besides antiracial tendencies that are every were in every nation, and those who hate each other because of history, in which to help them get over it and calm down the leaders that are now in power for all terror groups, and the Israeli government must go on trial for the crimes against humanity that they have committed. And with time, after the people who lived through and seen what these people did to each other have died and the new generations that have been near each other their whole lives are controlling the nation, then may be able to put their history behind them. I must remind those who read this that this plan is not meant to change the cultures of the people in the region, and there would be problems along the way, just as there is and always has been, for creating a new government, this is to say that I would like my opponent to prove that this solution wouldn"t work and the entire system would fail if it was attempted. Thank you to whoever helps me out with finding the bugs in this plan. Even though I know this won"t happen in real life, (just because I think it should happen) I still think it would be fun to have a realistic peace plan when the heads of the world leadership can"t figure one out.

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: A two-state solution makes Israel too narrow, vulnerable.

Title: The US Should Have Vetoed UN RES 2334 Content: PositionMy position on the issue should be quite obvious.I agree with the choice made by America to abstain on Resolution 2334 (I would even argue that they should have voted in support of the resolution).ReasoningMy reasoning should also be quite apparent: Israel is currently violating multiple U.N. resolutions as well as an article within the Geneva Conventions by settling (and occupying) Palestinian land. No country should be allowed to violate international law. Continuing to occupy Palestine will further increase tensions between the two states, further weakening a future hope for peace. This further hurts Israel (as well as Palestine) because a state of war will exist for a longer period of time, and clearly a prolonged war would cause even more suffering and misery for the citizens of both states. With as little research as I have put into this topic, this is my current position and reasoning. Please try to persuade me out of it; I'm willing to listen to anything you have to say in opposition.

Title: General statements in support of a two-state solution Content: US special envoy George Mitchell: "In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we believe that the two-state solution, two states living side by side in peace, is the best and the only way to resolve this conflict."

Title: Why do so many say Israel doesn"t need to be a Jewish State Content: Fiest thank you for welcoming me very kind of you. Ok as to my views I"ve seen many say things like Israel needs to get over itself and doesn"t need a Jewish majority etc. Well the history of hate towards Jews in Europe and elsewhere plus the fact Arabs and Islam would become the dominant religion and people of say a one State sure solution was brought to the conflict means a Two State Solution needs to be found. Sadly Netanyahu and Abbas aren"t the men to achieve that. So my argument is essentially Israel needs to remain a Jewish State.

Title: Palestine Should be Free, the Israeli Foundation and Occupation are Unjust Content: We're almost at a stalemate, not dissimilar to Israel & Palestine. The Palestinians think that the Jews have no right to the land making their presence unjust. The Jews think they do have a right to the making their presence just. In both their eyes, they both believe that they are valid and just. While my opponent feels I haven't disproved the resolution, he hasn't proven it. Our personal opinions and preferences are irrelevant.

Title: 1967 Arab aggression doesn't justify Israeli annexation. Content: The fact that Arab states initiated the 1967 war does not justify Israel responding by annexing Palestinian territory. A just settlement would have been a return to the previous borders in exchange for security guarantees, etc. Instead, Israel unjustly used the opportunity to take land from an innocent people. And yet supporters of the status quo seem to think that one bad act justifies another bad act in return.

Title: Palestinians should give up their quest for the land of Israel Content: First of all, the question is inappropriate. Most Palestinians want not to reclaim Israel, but to have a Two State System. The only regional opposition they have in the desire to create a Two State System is Israel. Israel encourages illegal settlements and outposts in the West Bank for the sole purpose of cantonising the region so as to negate the possibility of an independent Palestinian state. These settlements are in direct violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and are continuing to this day. President Benjamin Netanyahu said 'I have no intention of building new settlements in the West Bank... But like all the governments there have been until now, I will have to meet the needs of natural growth in the population. I will not be able to choke the settlements'. This seems eerily similar to this argument used by one who could hardly be described as a friend of Israel... http://en.wikipedia.org... The Palestinians ARE the righteous owners of the land anyway. They had inhabited it as a minority before the expusion of the Jews, and after as a majority. It is ludicrous to suggest that the Jews were merely vacationing, and the land that was owned by their ancestors who had lived two millennia ago is theirs. The Palestinians managed to coexist with the Jewish population in Palestine peacefully, as they did across the Islamic world. Persecution of the Jews was a European construct, so as a solution to it, the Europeans decided to dedicate a portion of their illegally obtained Empire (this particular portion had been owned for less than thirty years by Britain), and sell the people that lived there down the river in favour of people whose only justification was that their ancestors lived there in antiquity. By that logic, the Native Americans should control the full region of the Americas, Aboriginal Australians should control Australia, and the Parsi should control Iran. Its existence is illogical, and based on a mixture of colonial racism and neoclassical and biblical sympathies, rather than concern for the future of the Jewish people. In fact, I would venture to say that the number of wars Israel has been involved in since its founding, Jews in Israel are statistically more at risk there than they would have been should they have remained in Europe. Also, with regards to your comment that the Palestinian people kill innocent civilians to achieve their quest for Israel, you appear to be in complete ignorance of the statistics. Breakdown of Deaths on either side since 2000. Chilren Israeli - 129 Palestinian - 1,519 Other Civilians Israeli - 1,104 Palestinian - 4,226 (bodies located and recorded as deaths, though many more are missing) People Killed in the Course of Targeted Killings Israeli - 1 Palestinian - 408 (Minimum estimate) People Killed as Object of Targeted Killings Israel - 1 Palestinian - 238 People Injured by the Other Side's Actions Israel - 9,104 Palestinian - 50,742 Political Prisoners and Detainees Israeli Prisoners - 0 Palestinian Prisoners - 4,900 Homes Demolished by the Other Side Without Consent Israeli Homes - 0 Palestinian Homes - 27,000 Number of Illegal Settlements on the Other Side's Land Israel - 269 Palestine - 0 Number of Illegal Settlers on the Other Side's Land Israeli Settlers - 350,150 Palestinian Settlers - 0 Source - http://www.ifamericansknew.org... The website has information about the individual sources, the Israeli statistics come from the Israeli government, and the Palestinian statistics are based on estimates by several reputable charities and groups operating in the region. In light of these statistics, it is a far more reasonable argument that Israelis should give up their quest for the land of Palestine, since Palestine hardly seems to be expansionist. The door is open to you.

Title: Palestine Should be Free, the Israeli Foundation and Occupation are Unjust Content: Yes, that does seem to be the case, much like the real situation as you say. Both sides do indeed view themselves as being in the right. We both think that the other has not proved their case, much like the Israelis and Palestinians. I do not know how else to prove the resolution. Let me note again the facts. The Jews, having been expelled by Emperor Hadrian for the last of many failed revolts, were forced to settle in the Roman Empire, where many already lived. They would go on to endure centuries of persecution, from discrimination to outright pogroms. Understandably, they desired a homeland. Following a wave of attacks in Germany and Russia in 1881, many moved to Palestine, as had others before over the centuries. Even then, some desired to reclaim the whole territory and expel its residents as they were in centuries past, though at this point they were not able to. 1897 saw the formation of Zionism, which became an international movement. Decades passed and more Jews moved into the region, incurring resentment and occasional violence in response. WW2 erupted and the British promised the Palestinians independence for their help defeating the Ottomans. Conversely at the same time a secret promise was made to the Jews for establishment of a Jewish homeland after in Palestine. This was clearly at odds, and in the end the British gave neither side what they promised. With the Mandate they received from the League of Nations, the UK took over in place of the Ottomans. More Jews came in the 1920s, fleeing further persecutions. The Palestinians reacted violently, and the Jews began to revolt against the UK while fighting back. This continued into the 1940s, when the Holocaust occurred, far more Jews moving in. The United Nations decided in 1947 to establish a Jewish homeland at last, the state of Israel. The outrage was predictable, with the Palestinians and nearby Arab states immediately attacking when it was formed in 1948. They were defeated, and 80% of the Palestinians were driven or fled into the West Bank, then part of Jordan. This was conquered in the Six-Day War of 1967, with the Golan Heights and Sinai Peninsula also taken (the last given back). The strife and terrorism is still going on, with no end in sight. Various peace plans have been proposed, none giving actual Palestinian power. The facts do not tell us everything. Our opinions do matter and they are the prism all people see things by. I believe that, while understandable, the Jewish desire to retake their ancient homeland was wrong, as there were people living there. It was one matter to settle in Palestine, although causing strife. To come and say "this is ours" to people living there for nearly a thousand years was simply wrong, just as it was for them to be expelled. The Palestinians did not do that, though, and were not responsible. To demand back the land people were born in would be rejected by anyone in the world, no matter whether their ancestors had lived there long ago. What can be done now, I do not know. The Palestinians have the right to self-determination, though, or no people does. The Israeli foundation and occupation were unjust. If they were not, then nothing is. I rest my case on this premise: being oppressed gives no license to oppress those who did not oppress you. Being stolen from gives no license to reclaim it nearly a millennium later from people who did not steal it from you, no matter how much you have suffered between then and now. There are many people in the world that have suffered, and it would still be wrong to do this. If this is not wrong, then nothing is. A vote for Pro is not a vote against Israel-the people there have the right to exist. It is a vote say this must not happen again, that it was unjust, done in the name of undoing an injustice and giving scattered people a home. The worst kind of injustice is that done in the name of justice. Our opinions are not irrelevant-they are what matters most.

Title: Jerusalem should become an independant city state Content: While your solution sounds viable in theory, it is just impractical. First of all, it wouldn't change the fact that Jerusalem is split in two. Who would lead this new nation? If a Jew was elected, the Palestinians living there would be angry. If a Palestinian was elected, the Jews would be angry. The split in the city is so major that making the city independent wouldn't solve much. Not to mention the fact that Israel is already at a disadvantage n the Middle East (Source: https://i2.wp.com... https://i1.wp.com...) Taking away Jerusalem would only make the weak nation even weaker and increase the chance of another invasion. You've also forgotten that city states just aren't viable long term. Studies have shown that after 200 years, city states tend to suffer economic stagnation due to the development of oligarchies (Source: https://press.princeton.edu... https://ideas.repec.org... ) This is of course ignoring the fact that ethnic conflict tends to have an impact on the economy, a very negative impact. There's a reason why places like Somalia and South Sudan aren't economic superpowers. This also wouldn't change the fact that both sides still claim the entire land, and releasing Jerusalem wouldn't really solve the entire problem. If anything it would only hurt negotiations because there'd ow be a THIRD sovereign nation in the area. And finally, the Jews were there first. I'd go on, but I want to give you a chance to have a say.

Title: Such a move will make Palestinian expectations much higher and their position more intransigent Content: The problem of expectations exists on both sides. The Israelis also have an expectation that they can continue the status quo indefinitely, that the Palestinian “problem” is a containable security issue, especially after the success of the “wall”, and that the international community is all bark. UN action, especially if the US were to allow it through an abstention rather than a positive vote would indicate that both international and American patience are not infinite and probably have as great an impact on Israel as the recognition would have on the Palestinians.

Title: in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better justified than a one-state solution Content: A one-state solution mean Israel would cease to be either democratic or Jewish

Title: Many/most Israelis and Palestinians support two-state solution Content: The New York Review of Books reported in a 2008 review of the middle east situation that "[t]hroughout the years, polls consistently showed respectable Israeli and Palestinian majorities in favor of a negotiated two-state settlement."[2]

Title: It's history has not died Content: This is a reply to the "It's (sic) history has not died" argument. This argument relies on a belief that the Arab Israeli conflict can be solved. To state that it is necessary is for "the UN rehomes them properly this time" is simplistic and something that is unforeseeable. There is a fundamental clash between Israelis and Palestinians who both desire the same land. For Palestinians, the desire is the return of property seized during 1948. This would never be politically acceptable in Israel - no leader would secure the votes to implement such a policy. For Israelis, that land is now seen as their possession. Beyond the biblical claims, there is also the fact that many Israelis are now no longer immigrants from Europe or the former USSR but instead born in Israel. It is their birthplace. Overall, the idea that the UN can 'rehome' the Palestinian people in a settlement satisfactory both to extremist Muslim fundamentalists and to Israelis is farcical.

Title: A Palestinian state would be dysfunctional Content: "Why plans for a two-state solution in the Middle East have failed.". International Journal on World Peace. March 1, 2008: "The plan for a Palestinian state failed to comprehend that the Palestinians, unlike the Jews, had not created an apparatus for self-government."

Title: One-state would see Israeli minority ruling over Palestinian majority Content: "Is the two-state solution in danger?". Haaretz. May 21, 2009: "The left in Israel has long warned that if settlement construction continues and Israel does not separate from the Palestinians, the country will eventually slide into an apartheid-like reality in which a Jewish minority rules over an Arab majority. The result, they contend: the end of a democratic, Jewish state."

Title: Palestine Content: The issue about the settlement is not an easy one, since the Israelis feel a deep historical connection to many areas on the West Bank, and what Netanyahu has said, is that the only way for the two parties to find a lasting solution is through "trial and error". Source: http://www.haaretz.com...Yes, there are restrictions in place to stop Palestinian terrorists from entering Israeli cities and blowing up buses and killing civilians, and I bet every nation that had similar security issues as Israel would be reacting in a similar way. Israel was once upon a time more willing to make concessions to their enemies, but when every attempt of peace has ended in more attacks on Israel, the hawks have been put in power to ensure the citizens are safe."Palestine" has not been a country before in history, and Israel was founded in 1948 by the UN, so it's a bit of an overstatement to say that they did not have any right to the country.

Title: A Palestinian State Content: The Israeli's may have control, but they are willing to compromise. In fact they have already tried. The Israeli government is not gunna straight up reject any propsotion that could result in peace. They will be more than willing to compromise. They dont really have another choice. You also said: "Now, giving the Palestineans an independent state would actually cause more problems in the Middle East than it would solve. It is the stated policy of several terrorist groups to use any land that the Israelis give to the PLO to launch further attacks on Israel. The Palestineans cannot manage themselves (as seen in the latest Hamas-Fatah civil war in which Hamas now holds the Gaza Strip and Fatah holds the West Bank). The Israelis, however, are able to keep their own house in order." Now lets talk through this. The Palestinians are mad. Why? Because we kicked them of of their land and gave it to the Jews. Gee, that explains all of the killing and hatred. Now how do we solve this problem. Well the way I see it, we have two options. 1. We can kill them all and essentially declare war on the entire islamic world. or 2. We can try to quech their anger by giving them comfort. Give them some of their land back. Give them some infrastructure; some healthcare, grocery stores, electric and water utilities. Give them less to complain about. Comfortable people dont shoot missles at their neighbors. Also, even if the Palestinians didn't quit attacking Israel, we can police the border. We can take military action. Its not like we dont do that already. Israel definatly will take military action. Palestine would hardly be a threat if they caused problems. Lastly, we HAVE to do something. Thousands have died from this comflict and more die every week. If we dont take action, this will continue. Its not just gunna work itself out. Now, I dont see any possible action that we can take except to give them a homeland. Whether or not it works is another debate entirely. The fact of the matter is, what we are doing (or rather not doing) right now isnt gunna solve the problem. At least if we try to quench their anger, we have a shot. Here is an equation to represent my point. Stolen Homeland = Unhappy people Unhappy people = War and Violence War and Violence = Death and more unhappy people Returned Homeland = Happy People Happy people = No war and violence. No War and Violence = Life and More Happy People Which equation do you choose. The answer seems completely obvious to me.

Title: Israel is justified in their invasion of Gaza Content: "Diplomacy is not the solution here, victory is. Nowhere in my argument did I even hint at the word "genocide", and the activity in Gaza is nowhere near that level. Let's just get that out of the way, shall we? " Let's look at the picture you're portraying. You are trying to suggest that all the Palestinian people are as guilty as each other (which I'll come to in a moment). You're also suggesting that diplomacy is useless, and conflict and "victory" is the only solution. You've also said that because the Palestinian people are allied with Hamas, it's fine by you that they get killed. I ask you then, if this is the case, where does your solution end apart from the entire destruction of the Palestinian people? That's when you are talking genocide. "Now you asked me for evidence that Hamas was hiding within the civilian population, and evidence that those people are not acting against it. " No, I asked you for evidence that the people are allied with Hamas, and actively supporting it. Proximity to the militants isn't being allied with them. If a man runs into your house with a gun, it doesn't mean you support him because you didn't run away out of fear of being shot, and let's face it, it's ridiculous to say you do. "The Israeli military can't control or know instantly when Hamas operatives are leaving their hideouts, and therefore have no choice but to go after the terrorists WHERE THEY ARE. " I said in my opening statement Israel absolutely do have the right to defend themselves, I am not, and never have argued this fact. What I do argue is that Israel in responding have the onus of defending with reasonable response, which if it was reasonable, would justify the invasion of Gaza. In no way has Israel responded with a balanced measure, and you are yet to provide any evidence that they have. "Israel is in the business of protecting Israelis, and Palestinians' lives are NO MORE VALUABLE than the lives of the Israeli civilians that have died in hundreds of rocket attacks and suicide attacks. " I agree completely, and this is actually one of the centre points of my argument. Palestinian lives are worth no more than Israelis by any stretch, but on the opposite side they aren't worth any less either. One of the main criticism's is the massive loss of life within the Palestinian population in retaliation for the amount of Israelis killed. It's very hard to balance and trade lives with lives, however I can't see how 14 vs 1200 in response is justifiable in any way. "ELECTED A CRIMINAL TERRORIST ORGANIZATION to power in their country. That makes them ALL allied to Hamas. That's not up for discussion. " Firstly, unfortunately it is up for discussion, this is a debate after all. That's very similar to me saying that a republican is guilty of supporting Barrack Obama in the recent election, and he should die because of what Obama believes. Silly isn't it? Because some of the population supports Hamas doesn't mean that they are all guilty and should be tarred with the same brush. This also doesn't mean that even if they did vote for Hamas in an election that it excuses their death in any way. A civilian population should not be slaughtered because of their political voting, and it's quite horrible to see someone say otherwise. Every Palestinian is not a militant, and you cannot justify their death simply because of where they were born. Are you really going to suggest children that perished in the conflict were actively supporting militants? "You also mis-state my idea that the civilians of Gaza are in no way responsible for the things that have happened to them. Sorry, that's an out and out lie. " Please, let's keep accusation of lying to a minimum. You seem to believe that a civilian population not supporting the "enemy" or opposing force makes them responsible for whatever happens to them. In other words, if a village got bombed in Vietnam for not supporting American troops, that would be ok? It would in reality be called a war crime. The civilian population in a conflict is, and should be treated as a neutral force. By all means if you catch someone actively aiding the enemy then deal with them, however that's not what has happened in Gaza. There have been women and children killed, and you have yet to provide any evidence they were aiding Hamas at the time. "Yes I am disputing the casualties in this conflict because Hamas has a historical tradition of inflating some numbers and deflating others. " Yet you don't provide any figures of your own? What's your alternative figure then? Even the Israeli defence force claims between 1100-1200 people were killed. "You want to hold this debate to JUST THIS conflict. " Yes, because that was the premise of the debate, and I'm challenging you to justify this action of Israel, which at the moment my opponent has been unable to do. There have been several key issues that my opponent has failed to adequately address. - He has failed to explain how the deaths of 1200 (figure disputed, with what I'm not sure) people is a reasonable response to the 14 Israelis killed in the conflict. - He has failed to explain why hundreds of thousands of people in a civilian population (not militants) should be put in a humanitarian crisis for the actions of militants within the population. - He has tried to blame the Palestinian population for their own suffering, claiming that as a civilian population it's their own fault for not driving out a militant base in their population. Unfortunately as in any war, he doesn't realise that the mass killing of civilians for this reason is not justifiable, and often constitutes a war crime. - He has failed to show that the onus isn't on Israel to ensure that civilians are not killed in the conflict, simply saying it's their own fault if they do. - He has in no way "justified" the invasion into Gaza as defined in the opening argument of the debate, relying on claims such as the majority were actively supporting Hamas at the time (including women and children) and as such deserved to die, without providing any proof of this fact.

Title: Resolved: People Should Support the Boycott, Divestment and Sactions Movement (BDS) Content: Wow Pro is quick to respond. Sources are in the comments. Contention 1: International Law and Human Rights What Pro points out is that I didn't make a bold and underlined title of this contention. I did however partially address it. Also keep in my mind that I had to respond to two rounds worth of arguments because of the structure whereas Pro had to respond to one. I do apologize but I did address some major aspects. My whole point was that this is not an issue of borders or about the specifics of resolution 242. If this was the case, perhaps I would agree with Pro. First of all Pro you did not really make a case for BDS with this contention so I wasn't sure how to respond. You were just making a case against Israel. I pointed out from round 2 that in order to support an organization, it is not only about whether it is a just cause or not but rather if it helps that particular cause. Nevertheless, let's examine the history. As I just mentioned, Pro does not really make an argument here but just points a few things out. I am going to assume he is concluding that BDS's issue with Israel is borders and if Israel gave up those borders that Pro mentioned, this would solve the Problem and satisfy BDS. Let's take this head on and examine the history: Pro referred to the 1967 war and pointed out that Israel gave the Sinai, larger than the entire state of Israel to Egypt for peace. This is rather silly for Pro to mention because if we apply this logic, Israel really should give the West Bank to Jordan and not the Palestinians as they were the ones who attacked from there. We should also glean that Israel is clearly in favor of the idea of land for peace given the fact that they gave up huge and beneficial territory to them for the sake of peace. As for the West Bank, in 1967 Israel accepted Resolution 242 which is essentially land for peace. Palestinian leadership and the Arab countries met in Khartoum and issued what is famously known as the 3 no's of Khartoum: "No negotiation, No recognition, No peace”. They have additionally offered the land for peace since that time on at least 3 occasions they refused even after Israel withdrew from Gaza. They even refused Israel withdrawing from 93% of the West Bank [1]. One would think that generous peace offers should at least quell issues with the BDS but instead they continue and even increase in their ferocity. This is a crucial point that Pro fails to comprehend: You cannot distinguish the principle of something based on those that practice it. In short, it is ridiculous to put the emphasis that Pro puts on the occupation and frames it as the root of the problem as BDS does as well. To pretend that this is an issue of borders is delusional. Israel pulled out of Gaza and got nothing but rockets, terror attacks, and tunnels used with Israeli concrete that was given by the government to be used for building houses for the Palestinians and actually killed 160 Palestinian children in the process [3]. Pro now has a few challenges he must address to defend BDS. With this evidence, Pro now has a few challenges he must address. The first one is how can BDS expect Israel to just simply withdraw from these areas without any security assurances? Secondly, Pro I believe has an obligation to demonstrate that Palestinians were right to reject many of these peace and state offers. If not, we (Pro included) should recognize and conclude that BDS is not the way to go for the future of peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. South Africa I concede that the boycotts worked in South Africa. I did address this Pro. I was showing that this bares no significance. They are two different cases that need to be analyzed individually which was the point I was trying to make. Sanctions can work sometimes but others they don't. Like for example it didn't work on North Korea. I will make clear for Pro's sake that he did not directly compare Israel's policies to South Africa. But I will say that there are implications for unnecessarily bringing them to the table. Fair? Contention 3: BDS has already shown success Pro is demonstrating pretty limited thinking here. He once again fails to grasp points I made that addressed this point simply because I didn't bold and underline a title saying it. Ask and you shall receive. The point I made previously about this numerous times is simple. To quote myself from before: "In order for someone to support a boycott, it is not a question of whether it is successful, but rather if that success actually assists the cause." I think Pro should agree that this is at least an attempt to address this point even if he doesn't agree with it and it's simply false to assume I conceded it. To pursue it even further, after further investigating Pro's evidence he neglects to mention something from his own source that is rather significant. The company that Pro mentioned actually says their decision had "had nothing to do with the BDS campaign". The article continues: " A spokesman for the company told Newsweek: “We have now got 65 businesses that since 2013 that have been identified for sale or closure, so Israel is actually just one of those”. “It is an entirely commercial decision.” So really it is not even completely clear that BDS is responsible for this. If you want to believe, as I'm sure Pro does, that BDS is responsible for than the previous challenges still stand. Anti-Semitism Pro's analogy: This is a false comparison because Pro kind puts me in the lense of the actual bank robber which is false. Pro needs to keep in mind that we are a third party so we are neither bank robbers nor the muggers. It is still ilegitimate for the police not to go after the 15 muggers. This also a flawed analogy because I believe Pro actually has conceded my point that it is not "other problems" in the countries but exponentially worse problems. I believe he also conceded that Israel is the greatest country in the Middle East for Arabs in terms of human rights. Instead of applauding this country Pro is criticizing it. I don't see how he doesn't find it problematic in it of itself. A more proper analogy would be that there are 15 murderers in a city and the police go after the one person who violates parking laws and framing him as the problem in the city. Even this I wouldn't say is spot on because it would be wrong to see Israel as foundationally a criminal country. Pro brings up an organization that I truthfully have never heard of called Code Pink. But he is really proving my points by doing this. Code Pink is very clear that they don't single out Saudi Arabia, they have a global goal, and they don't hold a double standard on a country which is the point that I was trying to make. They stand for principle. BDS is an organization directed at this one country with all the qualifications that Pro and I seem to have agreed on. This is problematic to single out this particular country and have a double standard. This is why it shouldn't be so hard to believe that I conclude that they are Anti-Semitic. With regards to my statements about Hamas, in case I was not clear I was referring to them as a Palestinian leadership. It is true that they are not recognized as the Palestinian leadership to be negotiated with as they are a terrorist organization. I do think it should be pointed out the more Palestinians do support Hamas over the Palestinian Authority [3]. I don't think Pro properly characterizes Fatah. They are still responsible for terror attacks and have threatened for more [4]. Pro also ignored my evidence by claiming Hamas doesn't call for the destruction of Jews worldwide. I don't know why he is choosing defend a claim against a terrorist organization but I gave evidence of one example where they call for the murder of Jews worldwide. To quote it: “This is the Charter of the Islamic Resistance (Hamas) which will reveal its face, unveil its identity, state its position, clarify its purpose, discuss its hopes, call for support to its cause and reinforcement, and for joining its ranks. For our struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave, so much so that it will need all the loyal efforts we can wield, to be followed by further steps and reinforced by successive battalions from the multifarious Arab and Islamic world, until the enemies are defeated and Allah’s victory prevails.” And this is just their charter to be clear they have called for it on numerous other occasions. I didn't think Pro could sink any lower but he is citing the terrorist Khaled of Hamas as a source and even more repulsive is that he is believing him! It would be laughable if it wasn't so serious to actually believe a terrorist like him. It is clear Pro doesn't understand how two faced this man is so I must address this. In English to the American press he says this but at the same time he is praising the killing of Jews! [5] I will admit to Pro that I cannot give evidence of a source that explicitly says BDS is Anti-Semitic. And it would be wrong for someone to expect that. The way these conclusions are made is you analyze all the other facts that I mentioned. I have proven that BDS comprises of numerous Anti-Semites and that by supporting BDS, especially on college campuses, they are most probably going to at least be associating with Anti-Semites. The BDS founder Omar Barghouti actually doesn't even recognize the Jewish State. He says "Definitely most definitely we oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine". He additionally says "Good riddance" to the two state solution [6]. Palestinian Economy Con is quite hypocritical here. He is criticizing me for citing only one example of how the BDS harms the Palestinian economy when his premise of BDS's success was also based on only one example. I, however, gave a logical reason as to why it harms the economy and used SodaStream as one example. If you would like data, ask and you shall receive [7]. Out of space. Rest next round.

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Israel will not relinquish Judea, Samaria in two-state solution

Title: A UN move would internationalize the problem, and pave the way for broader for international solutions Content: While issues like the “Right of Return” might benefit from an international approach, it’s hard to see why international recognition would make neighbouring states more likely to pay for or allow the settlement of, Palestinian refugees. Furthermore, a “sovereign” state may feel less inclined to compromise on its rights, especially if the International Community seems to have just conceded the legitimacy of those claims.

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: General statements in favor of a one-state solution

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: A two-state conflict will not end conflict

Title: Communism is a logical solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: (No really you totally killed it) “Forcing two groups of people who are deeply hostile to one another to live together is very unlikely to produce good results. ” Must remind you that in the Communist Manifesto, Marx describes history as a class struggle, and that class ultimately divided us more than race and ethnicity, so according to the resolution “communism is a logical solution to the conflict” this is since confirmed because, we must face the facts all the Palestinians want is really equality, and the absorption and formation of a proletariat class is key to a happy society. “Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians want equal land redistribution. The vast majority of Palestinians want an independent state” Okay so here’s where I get to attack a two state solution, with a question. What happened in 1948, when the British removed troops from Palestine and the Israelis declared independence? What happened was the Palestinians immediately started uprising and six other Arab countries attacks. In my statements I addressed this by saying that the two countries would be at a constant struggle with each other, and therefore, the statement about equal distribution of land is met and affirmed. This would also eliminate the large gap between wealthy and poor that plagues the Palestinian populace and allows the Israelis to keep power. " Under ideal communism perhaps, but in practice in every "communist" country classes still existed, it would be very, very unlikely. I’ll dispute your statement by saying there has never been a true communist country ever, and according to the definition agreed upon, this would work in alleviating tensions, therefore this is also a logical answer. Once again, the entire goal of the Palestinian people is to have INDEPENDENCE. What evidence is there that shows that the only alternative to a "strong central government" is a weak umbrella one? Once more, forcing them into becoming ONE people would be one of the worst things for both sides because the Palestinians want independence more than anything else. It seems my opponent was not smart enough to catch this but, it has been my goal to attack every one of the proposed resolution to institute there flaws and irrationality’s, so that I could prove communism is a rational option. And you need to understand that no matter how much the Palestinians want independence, the resolution has to be equal and fair for both sides, and that is why REAL communism is a rational solution as it is for most other world problems. You argue that a single state solution would not unify the two groups without the constant use of force, when under your proposal of communism Israel and Palestine would be magically united without the use of force? First of all sir don’t talk lightly about magic around me I am a level 69 goblin virgin mage. :P And yes once again like Marx said “history can be viewed as a constant class struggle” so under this statement yes, the formation of the Israelis and Palestinians into a single proletariat would solve all problems of unity. This is a debate about ISRAEL and PALESTINE, not CHINA. Geez did your caps lock button have a seizure or something? This was simply to state that the rise of Maoism has worked very well for China and Maoism is a distort form of communism. It is also highly unrealistic and illogical since it would not be supported by either of the people seeing as Israel is a very capitalist country Okay, um ill just pretend you thought that one out and did not just say that… And so it is clear that TRUE communism would be a logical solution to the problem and that is all I had to prove, I never had to prove whether it would work (even though I did), and I have proven why it is logical and refuted all my opponents points, the victory is mine. Vote Pro! !! Sources: 1: . http://www.marxists.org... 2: . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3: . http://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: Christians should support the State of Israel Content: Warmest regards to my opponent. No human being is perfect, and therefore no Nation State is perfect. While Israel's tumultuous history cannot be ignored, the fact remains that they are not always in the right about everything. It is not the responsibility of a good friend to support someone all the time; indeed, a good friend's primary obligation is often to be the one that tells they're friend, "Hey, what you're doing is wrong."A lot of what Israel is doing lately is exactly that: wrong. On a wide variety of issues, ranging from their creation of new settlements in the West Bank to their undiplomatic postures towards other middle eastern states, Israel is too often a part of the problem, rather than part of the solution. It behaves like the national equivalent of a second grader running around taunting its peers on the playground, confident that it's big brother United States will beat up anyone who responds too severely. At some point, that older brother is more than justified in saying, "You need to stop provoking this."In conclusion, any state - Israel or anyone else - should be supported when right, and rebuked when wrong. Principle is more important than person.

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: One-state solution would end Israel as a Jewish state

Title: Palestine Should be Free, the Israeli Foundation and Occupation are Unjust Content: 1. I omitted the Sinai Peninsula and Jordan because they are not in dispute for one, while culturally, nationally being separate. Defining what constitutes Palestine is a hard thing as I recognize. They were not omitted solely due to being predominatly occupied by Arabs. Because of the Jews presently living in the state of Israel, however unjust acquisition of the land was, it would be wrong to kill or disposses them. On the other hand, in the West Bank settlement is expanding aggressively, which must be stopped, as for one it causes more conflict, and is wrong anyway. The Palestinians will likely have to recognize Israel in the future if there will be peace. However this sticks in their throats, with the past conquest, all of which makes it that much harder. I do not claim to know exactly how separate entities should be composed, achieved and exist. To claim that I did is foolish. I am an outsider, yes, as we all are. I fully understand it's not that simple. My argument has been that Israel is not the victim, but took land from a resident majority unjustly, with the help of the United Nations and United States. That's it's foundation and hence occupations are unjust. That as the majority and original residents, the Palestinians have the right to self-determination, resistance and to stop further expansion of Israel. Obviously it is not a simple issue, no one least of all me denies that. I do not say all the Jews should go. I have never said that. Exact division is vexing and will remain so. I am merely claiming that from the beginning Jewish people had no right to reclaim Israel, with or without outside help, and hence occupy Palestinian land. The details of the solution are beyond me. Even claiming the first is controversial as we know, however. My efforts are focused there. Neither God nor the United Nations can be said to dictate who gets what. I might note it was the United Nations, not League of Nations, which formed Israel. The League of Nations gave the UK the Mandate of Palestine after WW1. The idea of the Palestinians just going to Jordan is an offensive one, implying they can leave ancestral homes. This is comparable to saying "Jews have no nation" and so could be expelled to anywhere, a sentiment which led to all this at least in part. Arab Palestinians have persecuted by Arab states, Jordan included, such as the infamous Black September of 1970, in which thousands were killed by the Jordanian Army. I have no love of the Arab states or any particular group. I speak about the broader issues of right. "Ideally there would be no friction, don't start none, there won't be none." Well, reclaiming land you lost over a millennium ago from the people who live there started friction. All the rest has come after it. C-2 Israel did in fact steal some land, kick the Arabs out, and set up an unfair government. The League of Nations did not choose anything but to give Britain the Mandate. The United Nations, on the other hand, chose to establish a nation for Jews in Palestine, because of their historical claims and suffering during WW2. I have never denied it, and since this was their home for thousands of years in the past, that made sense. That does not make it any more right though. I understandy why the Zionists desired a homeland, and to reclaim Israel. The problem is there were people living there already. It would be one thing to settle peacefully beside them, assuming that were possible, but not to claim you were owed all that back, no matter what your suffering, which I fully sympathize with. Two wrongs do not make a right. That land had been referred to as "Palestine" for nearly a thousand years. The Romans may have begun it as an insult against Jews, but the Palestinians did not even exist then. I have never denied religious faith plays a role in this. In fact religious faith is key and makes the crisis all the more intractable. I do not wish for the Jews to be oppressed. However the chain of events had brought us to this place, and what happened was wrong. They oppressed themselves in order to escape oppression in the countries they fled. There is much tragedy in all of this. I do not know the way out now, but again wish merely to prove what happened cannot be justified, even with the suffering the Jews over many centuries, up to and including the Holocaust, which established Israel for good. C-3 I do not deny or reject the fact that the Bible and Qu'ran play a key role, as I've said. I do reject the idea they are factual historical documents, at least in large part, and give valid claims to land. I understand this is why they both feel entitled to it. That has never been denied or rejected. They are part of history, but do not record it well. I took Zionist quotes off a pro-Palestinian website my opponent takes issue with. Apparently to copy and paste them for quotation is somehow wrong. My opponent has not refuted the quotes, or addressed the fact that they show the intent of Zionist leaders, from the Labor Left to Religious Right, for the forcible removal of all Palestians, hardly a peaceful aliyah, though I do not that many did want that. Of course the website is biased, I do not deny that either. Is there any website not considered biased about this subject? Quotes cannot be biased simply by being cited. Those who said them were biased, indeed. My intent with the quote of early settlers was to show that it was part of Zionism from the beginning, not a later development. Even then oppressed Jews were contemplating oppression themselves. It may be understandable, but unacceptable nonetheless. I note my opponent is not addressing the quote of Ben-Gurion, or the other Israeli leaders. His quote on settling for Israel the size of a bed sheet if the Arabs would recognize their right to exist in this concept is suspect, possible a salami tactic for taking it all later, as his other quote shows he desired. I no more recognize that the Ottoman Empire had a legitimate right to Palestine and thus could sell or allow land to be sold. However, it was long in the past and those living there now were not to blame. I realize the rest were won in wars. To take someone's land and then accuse them of being violent in attempting to retrive it (particularly when you yourself were violent in "reclaiming" it before) is purely hyporcisy. If the landlord divides sells land you have lived on for generations that he claimed by force, you struggle against this, and then a higher authority steps in to award half to the settler as compensation of sufferings, this is a blow that makes you seethe in agony, hoping for it back. Living peacefully beside the neighbor who took it becomes very hard then. Nonetheless, I desire peace but merely wish to show you this was unjust, and the opposite view. Imagine what every peace deal is to Palestinians-a thief deigning to give half of their land back, if that. Rabbis for Human Rights (http://www.rhr.org.il...), Gush Shalom (http://gush-shalom.org...), Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (http://www.icahd.org...), Yesh Gvul (http://www.yeshgvul.org...), etc., are Israeli groups which oppose their country's policies. I would cite Amnesty Internation and Human Rights Watch, but those are probably also without credit in your eyes. Perhaps none is credible to you if they oppose an Israeli policy or any part of it. These are only a few of the Israeli or Jewish groups-more by far exist.

Title: Terrorism in general will be best defeated by military means (war). Content: I will quote my opponent in this round. Let me apologize for summarizing, I hope I accurately do so. I would encourage all readers to read his entire argument/statement in the previous round so we all avoid confusion. 1. Negotiating I don't think there's any need for hypothetical situations, considering there's a completely valid occurrence in our world. Now when I suggest negotiations, I am suggesting that Israel and the Palestinian government should work out an agreement. I don't think that the Pal aggression is any different than the Israeli aggression in Lebanese territory, and the terrible living conditions that Israel allows in the West Bank and Gaza strip. Israel has violated many UN Resolutions, and expanded past its territorial borders. Both parties are at fault here, and Israel is arguably an equal to the Palestinians when it comes to sponsoring terrorism. 2. "Firstly, he contends that between 2000-2003 AQ carried out more than 100 operations and killed thousands. I would like him to present some evidence of this, as my research returned something in the vicinity of 10-15 attacks." On this point, I would refer you to Scott Atran's paper entitled "The Strategic Threat From Suicide Terror." You'll find it in the second paragraph of the paper. http://jeannicod.ccsd.cnrs.fr... 3. "we must remember that G.W. Bush and his allies attacked Iraq on the pretense of a presence there of weapons of mass destruction." "Bush's attack on Afghanistan and his removal of the Taliban regime... Arguably it WAS claimed to be part of the War on Terror... it involved an attack on a sovereign country and an attempt to change its regime." Yes, that may have been the main reason for attack, but I don't think anyone would deny that they also said that Saddam had links to AQ, and was a sponsor of terrorism himself. Secondly, the reason we are still there is because of AQ in Iraq. They may not have been there when we went, but they showed up and we continue to fight them now. On Afghanistan, the main reason we went there was the Taliban and AQ. This was the poster child for the War on Terrorism, and if this is not an example of using military force to defeat terrorism then I don't know what is. Please forgive me if I have misrepresented your position, or not understood your point. As far as Iraq and Afghanistan go though, it is a terrible policy. 4.Terrorism as a means, not an end The problem here is you fail to address why the terrorists do what they do. When the US and Israel and the West sit on their throne and say we will not deal with you so long as you act this way, it does nothing. This has been the Israeli policy, and it is the policy that the US has adopted. Now while I admit that negotiating with people, and governments who sponsor terror is not ideal, there is no other option. Israel wants to live in peace, and the Palestinians want there land back. Now obviously Israel should be allowed to live in peace, but they also should not be expanding out past their territorial borders. Again, both sides are at fault, and this needs to be addressed. Each side can say stop what you are doing or we won't negotiate, but this is completely circular and nothing will ever get done. The problem with your argument is that you have conceded that these people aren't crazy, they want something and that is why they do this. So I think it is logical that if both sides could come to an agreement, and Israel gave the Palestinians their land back, and allowed them to have a state that most of these problems would be resolved. Give the Palestinians a state, and a legitimate government. Give them a way to voice their opinions, and live in peace. You have been given the opportunity to vote, and be a part of choosing who represents you. There are people in your government who have fought to give all Americans an opportunity to receive a decent wage. Most of these people don't have that going for them. I believe that if they perceived the Americans to be fighting with them, and for them, instead of against them that we'd be much better off. The United States has killed more non-combatants than all terrorist organizations put together. We attacked a regime in Iraq that posed absolutely no threat to us, and it is questionable whether we knew that or not before we ever invaded. We have threatened to attack Iran if they continue with the nuclear program while providing Israel with billions of dollars in aid, and watching quietly as they have built their nuclear arsenal up. We supported Saddam in the 1980's in his war against Iran, and provided him with the technology to build his original chemical program. We overthrew a democratic government in Iran to install a terrible dictator, and have repeatedly put sanctions on them since they overthrew him. Now why might they hate us? Let me clarify. Saddam was a terrible dictator, but he was no threat to the US, and war was not our best option. The Iranian theocracy is a terrible government, but threatening them only scares the people closer to their dictators which is counter productive. Again, the people of the middle east much see that we are for them, and not against them. 5. Solution We must negotiate with governments when and where we can to resolve our disputes with them, and without preconditions. We must support democratic movements, not try to create them ourselves. I know this doesn't deal directly with the threat of terrorism, but that's the problem. It isn't a quick fix. We must work to improve the conditions that these people live in and work to integrate them into their government. War is not an option when it comes to winning hearts and minds. 6. My opponents arguments While he has tried to show fault in my arguments, he has not provided statistics, information, or a strategy for his side. He says military action is the best way, but what does that include? Why is that better than what I suggest? Since he is PRO he will have to do more, in my opinion, to win this debate.

Title: The military operations were necessary for long term peace: Content: As Michael Oren and Yossi Klein Haleviargue explain, “the Israeli public will not make territorial concessions on the West Bank or the Golan Heights if Gaza is allowed to become a neighboring terrorist state that can launch attacks with impunity. Israel had already had a bad enough experience letting that happen with Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon.”(1) Without the assurance that they will be allowed to protect their homes and families following withdrawal, Israelis will rightly perceive a two-state solution as an existential threat. They will continue to share the left-wing vision of coexistence with a peaceful Palestinian neighbor in theory, but in reality will heed the right's warnings of Jewish powerlessness.(4) Meanwhile, the stronger Hamas becomes, the more resistance moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will face to making any concessions to Israel.(1) Therefore damaging Hamas, via Operation Cast Lead, actually aided the peace process in the long run, and was necessary in order to make an eventual two-state peace solution possible. The Israeli attacks may also eventually help force Hamas to accept a more durable ceasefire. Unlike the botched invasion of Lebanon in 2006, when Israel set itself the unattainable goal of eliminating the military capability of Hezbollah, during Operation Cast Lead it was made clear that the objective was not to wipe out Hamas, but instead to force the radical group to accept a durable cease-fire on Israel's terms.(8) This was necessary as prior to Operation Cast Lead Hamas showed no interest in peace, opting instead to pursue its political objectives through the use of terrorism. When Hamas came to power in Gaza in January 2006, it failed to control the rocket fire from the variety of miltary brigades, including its own al-Qassam brigade, into Israel and failed to establish internal stability. The widespread violence between Fatah and Hamas, which ended in June 2007, when Hamas took control of Gaza and ousted leaders of President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement, made Israel more wary of the security threat an unstable Gaza could pose.(9) In Israel's view, Hamas' behavior and its reliance on terror tactics will never change if it thinks it can attack with impunity, and so the Israeli military operations were necessary and justified in the name of restoring Israel's deterrent and weakening Hamas, both of which make long term peace more likely.

Title: Sharing Jerusalem is necessary for peace Content: The only sustainable solution is to divide and then share Jerusalem, and the Haram-Temple Mount. No final deal will be possible if one side or the other is not willing to embrace this. Sharing Jerusalem would involve acknowledging and respecting each other’s claims which would extend to the other problems preventing agreement. (1) Sharing is the only solution that leads to peace, as the Palestinians in East Jerusalem will not tolerate permanent Israeli governance. Peace will always be a trade-off; Israel needs security while the Palestinians need territory and a viable capital city which they have dreamed of having in East Jerusalem for decades. (9)(5) In any peace deal Israel will have to accept that their security forces cannot be in control of Muslim areas. The Palestinians won’t trust them as a result of decades where they have not been fair to Palestinians and have been abusive rather than protective.(2) All this means that Israeli rule in East Jerusalem can never be legitimate in the eyes of the Palestinians, and so long term peace can never emerge as long as this rule continues. French President Nicholas Sarkozy said in 2008: "There cannot be peace without recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of two states and the guarantee of free access to the holy places for all religions."(3) There has actually been recent recognition of this fact on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides. Hady Amr, Director of Brookings Doha Center, wrote in 2007: "At a recent closed-door gathering of former Israeli and Palestinian negotiators hosted at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution...had come to realize just how painful the issue of Jerusalem was for both sides, that neither side could feel whole without Jerusalem, and that separation arrangements were unworkable when emotions flared over a few feet of Jerusalem stone. Although it took a decade, the Israelis realized that they could not be secure from Palestinian rancor if they deprived Muslim and Christian Palestinians of sovereignty over the Muslim Noble Sanctuary and the holy Christian churches. The Palestinian negotiators also acknowledged the corollary Israeli need for sovereignty over not only the Wailing Wall, but also the Jewish Temple Mount."(4) A poll in 2000 showed some 40 percent of Israelis were ready to give up Arab East Jerusalem without even knowing what they would get in return.(1) While it is an unlikely solution most of the more likely methods have already been tried so new more unconventional solutions need to be tried. The division of Jerusalem could be such a solution that would kick start the rest of the peace process. The benefits of ending the conflict would be immense.(4)

Title: Palestinian state would be base for terrorism Content: "Gaza and the two-state solution". The Recliner Commentaries. May 16, 2009: "Gaza was the perfect test case for Palestinians to prove they were ready for "the two state solution" which everyone seems to think is the best solution to peace in the mid-east--everyone but Muslim hardliners who want nothing less than Israel's destruction, that is. [...] And yet the Gaza experiment has failed miserably. The people elected a terrorist government which has spent so much of its money, not on the welfare of the Palestinian people, but on attacking Israel! [...] How can Israel be expected to support a two-state solution when Gaza has only turned out to be a base for attacking Israel?"