Challenge Match. Skyfloating v Bodrul: Israel v Palestine

page: 1
9

log in

join

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   
The topic for this debate is "All things considered, the creation of a Jewish state in the Mandate of Palestine was a positive thing".

Skyfloating will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
Bodrul will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

Character limits are nolonger in effect- you may use as many characters as a single post allows.

Editing is strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted. This prevents cheating. If you make an honest mistake which needs fixing, you must U2U me. I will do a limited amount of editing for good cause. Please use spell check before you post.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references. Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.
When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceeded by a direct answer.


Responses should be made within 24 hours.

This is a challenge match. The winner will recieve 2 ranking points, the loser will lose 2 ranking points, unless the loser already has zero ranking points. This debate will be judged by a secret pannel.




posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Israel vs. Palestine

I thank the moderator and my opponent for this opportunity. We deliberately chose this topic because its a topic that polarizes the world and requires healing. And although we will be polarizing in this debate it is my hope that, in gaining an in-depth understanding of both sides of the fence, we will contribute to more tolerance among the reader, as understanding breeds tolerance.

I will be arguing that the creation of a Jewish State, Israel, is all in all a positive thing and I will be using hard historical facts to back this up. While judging this debate I ask the reader to relax preconceptions and non-factual data about Jews and Israel and to look at the situation anew.

The creation of a Jewish state was a necessary and good thing because the jewish people have been persecuted since centuries. In the opening post of an ATS-thread of my own, I provided a list of persecution against jews throughout hundreds of years. Whoever thought that the Holocaust was the only reason for the creation of a jewish state is mistaken: Centuries of Persecution of Jews

After centuries of being cornered and killed as foreigners, the Holocaust was the culmination of events. The genocide of millions of Jews caused an uproar that shouted „Never again!“ and the approval of the United Nations (with exception of the Arab League, who did not approve of a Jewish State) for jews to return home to the land was theirs since biblical times.

But the persecution did not stop at that. Since then, Israel has been fighting for its right to exist while being cornered by several disapproving arab countries who still do not want to grant the right of these people to have their own home. Israel has been attacked by Palestinians, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan...a small country surrounded by enemies. Progress in peace is only being made slowly. With the return of the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt and a list of other admissions, peace with Jordan and Egypt have been restored (peace at least with the governments. Islamists still struggle to even acknowledge Israel as a legitimate country). Because of being attacked from all sides, Israel has put great effort into building protection for their own people. This is evidenced by their high military budget and the walls built to seperate themselves from Palestinians who wish to „free their land from the oppressors“. Yes, the consensus in Palestine is still that the Jews must be gotten rid of for good. This is again proven by recent events:

Hamas (of suicide-bomber fame) is the current government of Palestine. With its charter calling for the „destruction of Israel“ it is widely listed as a terrorist organization. Their charter also states: „There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad“. For more information on theHamas please check out the Encyclopedia.

Despite the consistent attack on jews by "religious" zealots and political extremists, they continue to build a land that is beautiful.

External Source:

Israel is a liberal democracy[9][10] and the most developed country in the Middle East.[11] It has also been ranked as the most progressive Middle Eastern country in terms of freedom of the press,[12] economic competition,[13] and human development.[14]


...which makes Israel a shining example of democracy and development under difficult circumstances.

A side-note: European and American „liberals“ and „leftists“ often side with Palestinians against the „oppressor“ Israel. I would like to state that this is pure folly as israels enemies are fiercly anti-liberalism, anti-democracy and anti-progressive. Given the choice of living in Israel or Palestine, most of these „left-wingers“ who side with Palestine, would quickly change their mind if they were to actually visit the place.

Of course I dont mean to say that Israel has never made mistakes, used undue violence or has never behaved badly. But in Israel being a beacon of light in the middle east in terms of freedom and democracy and in providing a home sweet home for Jews, we can easily see that „all things considered, the creation of a Jewish state was a positive thing“.

Socratic Questions to my opponent:

Question 1: Do you admit that the Land of Israel was a concept central to Judaism since over three thousand years with Jews inhabiting the area since that time?

Question 2: Do you acknowledge that Hamas, the current Palestinian governing body, is widely acknowledged as a terrorist organization while the Israeli government is not?

Question 3: Do you acknowledge anti-semitism and terrorism to be negative things which are detrimental to life and humanity?

Thank you.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   
For my opening statement I would like address the following Issues in detail first and the impact it has had.

1. Human Rights
2. Disregard of International Laws
3. War Crimes

Over the last few decades Israel has broken every part of the Human rights act by demolishing Homes on occupied territory which is against article 53 of the Geneva Convention which the state of Israel is a signatory of.

But this hasn’t stopped Israel as Palestine isn’t considered sovereign land so the basic Human rights do not count for the Palestinian people.


Article 53
www.unhchr.ch...
Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.


Israel Continues to use the excuses that all demolitions are done to protect Israeli settlements.

But yet they destroy homes in the thousands.
For instance since the year 2000 Israel has demolished 4000+ Homes, making thousands homeless.

Now this has gone on for decades and Israel continues to have disregard for the basic of Human rights.

Israel says it does this to protect its people so they need to destroy all places that are close or have been used by militants at all.
The interesting part for this is Israel also destroy Farm land and olive groves which completely destroy livelihoods let alone someone’s home.
But Israel still uses the same excuse to attack the innocent and not so innocent, It’s for the good of Israel.

Israel has also not only destroyed Homes because of Hamas attacks but also to build its security barrier which has also been condemned as it again breaches the Geneva convention which Israel signed.

So they impose group punishment which is also against the Geneva Convention as Israel punishes the masses for those that rise up against it.
Israel Controls the following

1. Food
2. Natural resources (Oil, Gas)
3. Trade

Each time Israel imposes its group punishment they know they have destroyed a few lives or killed someone directly or indirectly.

For this I can give many references.

1. From the Return of Hajj Palestinian were stranded on the Gaza Egypt crossing not allowed back because Israel told the Egyptians no, don’t let them in. During that time 4 people died because they were stuck there and their frail bodies couldn’t handle it.

2. Israel regularly blocks Natural resources so most Palestinians go without power for days and the one area that gets most effected is the Gaza hospital which has to go on to generators.

This is also affected by the Israeli blockades which mean many pregnant Palestinian women give birth on roads and in most worst scenarios lose their child.

3. Israel controls Trade in the occupied land which means farmers lose valuable produce due to the fact that they can’t get it to market or out the area to trade with others which not only loses income for the farmer but also wastes produce which can be consumed by people.

4. Israel attacks without due care for civilians regardless of how dense the crowd is when
they go on one of their assassination trips.



news.bbc.co.uk...
Israeli security forces killed 660 Palestinians in 2006 - three times more than in 2005, according to an Israeli human rights group.
B'Tselem, which monitors human rights in the occupied territories, said the figure included 141 children.
At least 322 had taken no part in hostile acts, the group said.
In the same period, the number of deadly Palestinian attacks on Israelis has fallen - 23 Israelis were killed in 2006 compared with 50 last year.


And that’s just one year! Israel has shown over and over that is has no desire to care about Palestinian lives and ensures that its people’s lives are worth more than any Palestinian, this was echoed by Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister on 23 June 2006.

Israel will do anything regardless of casualties on the Palestinian people.
It has also used Cluster bombs on civilians and civilian areas which are strictly banned by the UN but this was found just by Israeli courts.
In the last few weeks Israel has killed close to 100+ Palestinians with the greatest number being 30 in one attack directed at militants but having a majority being civilians.

Now I know I will have people saying to themselves but what about the Palestinians and all the attacks they have carried out,
If we get the Numbers from the Palestinians it will go into the few compared to the Palestinians unlike their counterpart Israel don’t use State of the art weapons that will hit their targets hence why most fall in open spaces with 1/10 or so actually causing an damage or death and the Palestinians even need a lucky day if one of their crude devices actually kills someone.

Now people will say its war and Israel is defending its self but you have to take into account that Israel is the most advanced country in the middle east with state of the art weapons which anyone in their right mind would think they would use wisely,

but instead they go guns first and attack heavily populated areas (fire and pray method) kill a few terrorists and those that die are just collateral.
For every Family they kill by accident, for every brother/sister they kill, for everyone son, daughter they kill, for every friend they create a Militiaman.

They have ensured that person will fight them out of rage.
Israel has had many chances to stop the bloodshed by keeping with Ceasefires and stopping their target killings.
But they have always said they will no matter what maintain the right to assassinate people even if it means breaking truces.
This has meant there has never been a lasting truce between the Palestinian fighters and Israel as Israel have targeted Palestinian fighters and then used the counter attack from Palestinians to further their conflict by claiming self defence, how the fudge can one claim self defence if they incite the fight,

It’s like me breaking into a home and throwing a right hook at them and not expecting to be fought back and if I am claim self defence as the person I just attacked is fighting back.

The second disregard for international laws is Israel and its stance illegal settlements as all settlements built on occupied land is illegal under International laws which Israel have said they aren’t breaking.

Israel has started building and almost completes a wall that sig zags across the west bank in circling illegal settlements that Israel have built and cutting off homes and villages of Palestinians.

This is complete disregard for international laws as it prevents countries from building on occupied land which belongs to others.
This is a Major road block to peace in the area as it’s a major drawback for a Palestinian state that is viable to the people of Palestine as their country is slowly turned into a gig saw puzzle where areas are scatter or cut off due to illegal settlements.
Israel had three Opportunities to make peace with Palestinians of which it turned down.

1. The Road Map to peace given to them by the Arab states where they withdraw back to their original territories and they shall get Peace and security where all Muslim nations would recognise the country of Israel and have diplomatic relations.

But Israel spurned this as it would mean giving back Land to the Palestinians and have the right of return of the millions of Palestinian refugees.



news.bbc.co.uk...

His speech was couched in flattering terms, our correspondent says, but it was also designed as a wake-up call to Washington, an implicit criticism of its lack of engagement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
He said there was now a "rare and historic moment of opportunity".
He called for support for a Saudi peace plan drawn up in 2002, which offered collective Arab recognition of Israel in return for a viable Palestinian state.


"Sixty years of Palestinian dispossession, 40 years of occupation... have left a bitter legacy of disappointment and despair," he said.


2. When Hamas was voted in by the people Israel has the opportunity to have an open dialogue with them and speak to them and work on a solution, but instead they shunned them and got the international community to move against the Palestinian people by threatening banks and traders at all costs not to work with Palestinians.

The Ball has been in Israelis court many times and all those times Israel has turned downed the opportunity for peace. Israel continues to oppress the Palestinians and the small majority of Israelis which are Arabs. This has been shown on many occasions where they are treated like second class citizens,

My questions to my opponent

1. Why is it Ok for Israel to Build a Fence in occupied land and not stay within the legal international boundaries?

2. What gives Israel the right to Ignore International Laws?

3. What Gives Israel the right to control almost all aspects of people’s lives in occupied land?

4. What gives Israel the right to control the boarders and air space of Palestine?

5. What gives Israel the right to threaten others that want to trade with Palestinians?

6. What gives Israel the right to punish a whole population to get to a few?

7. What Gives Israel the right to Build on Land that isn’t it’s?

8. Why Doesn’t Israel accept the peace Plan from the Arabs which would give it stability and security?

Mod note: 5 questions are allowed per post normally. If skyfloating will answer all 8, he will be entitled to 8 of his own in his next post.

[edit on 26-1-2008 by The Vagabond]



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Behind the Scenes of Media-Hype

For the sake of a fair and civilized debate I would like the debate-judges to note that my opponent has failed to answer my 3 socratic questions which are central to this debate. For if the governing Hamas would not be internationally recognized as terrorists then indeed the Israelis protecting themselves could be re-defined as Israelis "causing a crisis" as my opponent would have you believe in his last post.

My opponents post is representative of the palestinians voice in a typical way: Blaming every ill and problem on the israelis in an emotional tone, with utter disregard of the facts, without response to (or even awareness of) the other side of the debate and without ever taking responsibility for their problems...many which are self-made (as I will show right in this post).

The only thing that Israel and the West in general can be blamed for is using the wrong strategies to handle the militants and terrorists. History has shown that the moneys given to Palestine often do not end up in the hands of the general populace but in the hands of the corrupt and militant "government" of Palestine. It has also shown that "cutting fuel supplies" or bulldozing houses is not a way to counter terrorists.

Many of the problems palestinians have today are ultimately self-made.
They have elected a government that enjoys shooting rockets into israeli civilian areas. The recent events show that the Hamas first began shooting the rockets, before Israel began cutting supplies. While I do not agree with Israels defense tactics, it is a natural human reaction to being under constant bombardment by fanatics. The problems in the middle east arise from the Hamas near suicidal unwillingness to compromise.

In response to my opponents questions:

1.Why is it OK for Israel to build a fence in occupied land and not stay within the legal international boundaries?

A fence is a means of protection against people who see jews as „descendant from apes and pigs“ as the Koran states. The legal international boundaries are under dispute until it is decided (presumably by a third party) if Palestine gets their own sovereign nation or not. I for one hope Palestine gets is own nation so that they stop blaming Jews for their ills.



2.What gives Israel the right to ignore international laws?

Rocket and mortar attacks perhaps? As the Palestine government is much less abiding by international laws this question seems rather hypocritical.

3.What gives Israel the right to control almost all aspects of peoples lives in occupied land?

The West Bank and Gaza are called „autonomous regions“ because Palestinians have been granted the right to take care of their own issues. A good first step in gaining complete sovereignty.

4.What gives Israel the right to control the borders and airspace of Palestine?

Under proper security measures and checks, Palestinians are able to leave and enter the country. So much so that they sure are able to import a lot of weapons into their country!

5.What gives Israel the right to threaten others that want to trade with Palestine?

Palestine is free to trade with other countries except for the purpose of terrorist tools such as weapons with which to launch further attacks on Israel.


6.What gives Israel the right to punish a whole population to get to a few?

The government voted by the majority of palestinians (Hamas) is widely acknowledged as fiercly anti-semite and uncompromisingly violent.


7.What gives Israel the right to build on land that isnt its?

Under international pressure, Israel has given up plenty of land and settlements and retreated from several areas. Dont forget that the original settlements were built by Israelis without the approval of the Israeli government.

8.Why doesnt Israel accept the peace plan from the arabs which would give it stability and security?

Israel has acknowledged the arab peace plan as an important step in the right direction. Two problems remain, however: Its implementation will cut Israel off from its only water supply (Golan Heights) and the plan cannot be enforced as long as terrorists rule palestine.

I will now challenge my opponent to answer the three questions from my first post. In addition to those three questions I am posing eight further questions as granted by the debate Moderator. I trust that the questions in and of themselves will serve the reader to learn of some facts often covered up or conviniently „forgotten“ by arabs and the mainstream media. They will also serve to show that things are not as one-sided as my opponents post tries to imply.


1.Do you acknowledge that in the late 30s, when Palestine was given 80% of the land and Jews only 20% of the land, that the arabs wanted to deny them even those 20%?

2.Do you acknowledge that this land was gained after Israel had been attacked by arab nations?

3.Do you acknowledge that arab countries evictedaround 1 Million Jews after the creation of Isreal...jews which then suddenly became refugees?

4.Do you admit that the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) was founded before the war (1967), before there were any so-called „occupied lands“ and that their stated goal was to „drive Israelis into the Sea“ (a goal still not removed from their charter)?

5.Why do Palestinians have more social, legal and political freedoms than most arabs in many of the other arab countries?

6.Do you acknowledge that muslims control 99% of the land in the middle east?

7.Can you see that Palestine is being used as a pawnby arab countries to further their own agenda? (If not, I am prepared to offer documentation)

8.Do you admit that Palestine has been more than careless with the funds and donations received? (If not, there is plenty of documentation on this as well)


In closing I would like to state that the fact that Palestine voted a terrorist government only a few months after Israel turned over the Gaza Strip to them tells us everything we need to know about the uncompromising mindset of the Palestinian people.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 12:54 AM
link   
bodrul is late and will forfeit one post.
Skyfloating may continue his argument.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   
A wake up call

As neither the questions in my first post nor those in my last post were responded to (whereas I have responded to my opponent), its kind of difficult to hold a "debate".

I will therefore use this post space for a "post from the heart" on the subject matter.

Anti-Israeli and Anti-Jewish sentiment is very popular...especially in "conspiracy-literature" as followed on this website. Anti-muslim and anti-palestinian sentiment is also very popular. A large percentage of the problem headlines we have seen in the last decades are thanks to Israel and Palestine.

It is my sincere belief that this "right vs. wrong" and "my religion is better than yours" game is the root of the problem. Anyone taking definite sides for either Palestine and Israel therefore contributes to the problem to some extent.

It is my belief that the solution in this situation can only come about by the mediation-activities of a third neutral party...a truly neutral party.

Having made clear my actual and true position to the topic, let me now return to the debate topic at hand, which is "all in all the founding of a jewish state in the palestinian mandate is a positive thing".

Readers may ask: "Its only caused trouble up to now...in which way is it a positive thing?"

To which I answer: Most sentient beings will agree, that...

Putting Jews and Muslims together allows the whole world to witness and reflect on the problems posed to us as a humanity in the long run and therefore serves as a model of what does not work and what does work (by painfully witnessing what does not work, we, as a humanity, gradually learn what does work). We all witness what the clash of belief-systems causes and this pushes us to consider how we may overcome our differences while maintaining our belief. And this is a vitally important thing indeed: To learn how to remain a true muslim without the need to attack another religion. To learn how to remain true to Judaism without degrading other races. To learn how to share land, share the earth.

Without the creation of Israel we would not have these problems...but we would not have the opportunity to learn these things either. It is the ideal of a select few honourable arabs and honourable jews and honourable outsiders to create a place of diversity without pain...meaning people enjoying differences rather than taking them as a cause of constant attack and worry.

The opportunity to learn this is a very positive thing.

Every race of people deserves their own homeland. The solution cannot be to drive Jews out of the area they have inhabited since thousands of years. The solution can neither be to deny Palestine the place they have also inhabited since thousands of years. The solution is only found in mutual respect and compromise...with slow but firm steps forward towards this aim.

The only hinderance to the achievement of this aim are people who believe that other people do not have the right to be happy. These type of fanatics on both sides of the fence will hopefully die out as the means of global communication (such as the internet and discussion boards like these) are accessed by more and more. Knowing the "enemy" personally, having looked that enemy into the eye, makes it difficult to kill that enemy.

In my first two posts I have shown why the creation of Israel is something positive from the Jewish perspective. In this third post I have shown why the creation of Israel is something positive from an arab perspective and from a global perspective.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   
I apologise for missing my second post but Family comes first
To satisfy my appoint I shall answer those questions first.

Question 1: Do you admit that the Land of Israel was a concept central to Judaism since over three thousand years with Jews inhabiting the area since that time?


No as the Land was occupied by other tribes and people way before Israelites laid claim to the land
after taking the land Israelites lived on the land until what is now Palestine, for the last few thousand years. Concept for Land changes as the population changes,


Question 2: Do you acknowledge that Hamas, the current Palestinian governing body, is widely acknowledged as a terrorist organization while the Israeli government is not?

Hamas is seen as terrorists by a majority of countries but most are European (western)
one mans terrorist is another freedom fighter.


Question 3: Do you acknowledge anti-Semitism and terrorism to be negative things which are detrimental to life and humanity?


I believe they are a very bad thing but I also see people using anti-Semitism every time someone questions Israelis actions pathetic.

I should have expected my opponent to shout out that I am blaming the Israelis for everything,

when if anyone reads my post I am showing Israelis actions, unless my opponent denies the fact Israel have committed any act that I have posted?

My opponent claims Palestinians enjoy firing rockets into Israel, how many hit anything but empty fields and how many are after Israeli assassination attacks or the breakdown of a ceasefire Israel chose not to honour (not saying Palestinians don’t do the same)

My opponent states that Hamas attacked before Israel closed the boarders but leaves out Israel strike on the Palestinian territory that was aimed at Hamas which killed a couple and Civilians in the area, so my opponent is now claiming that before the Israeli blockade of Fuel and other vital goods Israel was just the innocent party in this?

My opponent blames Palestinians for voting in Hamas and for taking on the problems but fails to state how Hamas tried to talk with Israel but was told to take a Hike, or all those reports on Israel imposing sanctions and getting Europe to sanction Palestine just a rumor?




news.bbc.co.uk...
Preliminary results give Hamas 76 of the 132 seats in the chamber, with the ruling Fatah party trailing on 43.
The win poses problems for efforts to restart peace talks with Israel, say analysts. Israel insists it will not deal with an authority including Hamas.




news.bbc.co.uk...
The political leader of Palestinian militant group Hamas has said it is willing to take a serious step towards peace if Israel does the same.
Khaled Meshaal told the BBC that Hamas would not renounce violence, saying resisting an occupation was legal.
But he said a long-term truce would be possible if Israel accepted conditions including a return to its 1967 borders.
Israel's acting PM said if he won next month's poll, Israel would retain West Bank settlement blocs and Jerusalem.


My opponent has said Jews are Pigs and it says so in the Quran but hasn’t put any evidence. When Jews and Christians are also seen as the children of the book,



www.faithfreedom.com...
And there are, certainly, among the People of the Book (Jews and Christians), those who believe in God, in the revelation to you, and in the revelation to them, bowing in humility to God: They will not sell the Signs of God for a miserable gain! For them is a reward with their Lord, and God is swift in account. (Quran 3:199)



My opponent says my question why it is legit for Israel to break international laws is rather hypocritical is kind of funny as Israel are obliged by International laws as the so called terrorists its fighting (these days whom seem to do more damage to brickwork and roads then its Israeli counterparts who take hundreds of lives)

Is my opponent stating that Israel should lower its moral standards even more if it has any in the first place?

My opponent seems to take the stance that the Palestinians are at fault for everything, he seems to show that because they voted in Hamas which they were forced to do under so much pressure from the Israelis over the years they deserve more punishment?

If this truly was the case then all those people in other countries that voted in tyrants also deserve this kind of treatment.

Now I will answer my opponent’s new questions,


1.Do you acknowledge that in the late 30s, when Palestine was given 80% of the land and Jews only 20% of the land, that the Arabs wanted to deny them even those 20%?


Was this after or before Israel launched a pre-emptive attack on its neighbours?


2.Do you acknowledge that this land was gained after Israel had been attacked by arab nations?


I acknowledge Israel was attacked after a pre-emptive attack by the state of Israel which it won and in the process occupied Land for at the time would have given it a military advantage but should have been returned after the War like it did with Egypt.


3.Do you acknowledge that arab countries evictedaround 1 Million Jews after the creation of Isreal...jews which then suddenly became refugees?


Evicted? Jews started streaming out at their own free will due to the fact that they saw promise in Israel even given money which was a bonus, even so most Jews Live in Iran when it comes to the middle east apart from Israel.

Israel was shown to them as a Haven

4.Do you admit that the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) was founded before the war (1967), before there were any so-called „occupied lands
and that their stated goal was to „drive Israelis into the Sea

(a goal still not removed from their charter)?


Seeing as the PLO said they would recognise Israel to exist within the pre-1967 armistice lines under the 1949 Armistice Agreements
en.wikipedia.org...
I would pretty much say the PLO would have accepted the Israelis if they had stuck within their borders.



5.Why do Palestinians have more social, legal and political freedoms than most Arabs in many of the other Arab countries?


Depends which Area you are speaking of since the people are basically governed by two different entities right now,
unlike other Middle Eastern countries Mullahs don’t make Laws.

6.Do you acknowledge that Muslims control 99% of the land in the middle east?


And? During the time Jerusalem rule Jews were treated well,



www.deepfield.com...

The greatest figure of medieval Judaism, Musa ibn Maymun (Maimonides, 1135 -1204), was court physician to Salah al-Din and his son. He clearly found a freer environment in Cairo under the Ayyubids than in the Andalus from which he came. His Guide of the Perplexed, written in Arabic, philosophical interpretation of religion and other works in Arabic and Hebrew. His life a thought gives evidence of easy relations between Muslims and Jews of education and standing in the Egypt of his time.



7.Can you see that Palestine is being used as a pawnby arab countries to further their own agenda? (If not, I am prepared to offer documentation)


I personally see the Arab neighbours as stuck up people who care nothing about Palestinians in most cases and wouldn’t be surprised if they did use them to push some sort of agenda,


8.Do you admit that Palestine has been more than careless with the funds and donations received? (If not, there is plenty of documentation on this as well)



careless with funds? Can my opponent show me a government in the world that hasn’t been careless with funds?


My opponent seems to show allot of negligence on the Palestinian side, that all the problems are their fault,
Some of my resources

www.honestmediatoday.com...


www.ifamericansknew.org...


www.desertpeace.blogspot.com...


www.sweetliberty.org...

and
this one Jews as seen in the Quran
jews-for-allah.org...
In my closing statement I would like to ask the following questions.


1. You say Israel has every right to control boarders of Palestine and restrict whatever it wants for national security. Why does Israel Block the Most essential services for Days on end?
I am talking about Food, Medicine and Natural resources.
2. You Blame Palestinians for voting in Hamas but you fail to Ask why they voted in Hamas

my question do even grasp the concept of why they voted in this group?

3. You blame Israelis neighbours but those neighbours have given a hand of peace twice and Syria has also done this in exchange for the heights to be returned.

4. you say Israel needs most the land it occupied for natural resources and water, has the term Full diplomatic relations and good standings not mean anything,

Cant Israel purchase the recourse form its neighbours.?

5. You say the boundaries are still under dispute but are clearly labelled under international LAWS and MAPS. Or are those nothing?



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Emotional Slogan vs. Fact

Opening quotes from the Koran and the Hadith:


"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends" (Sura 5:51)

„Soon we shall cast terror into the hearts of Unbelievers“ (Sura 3:151)

„Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost; for Allah is with you“ (Sura 47:35)


„Oh Muslim, there is a jew hiding behind me, so kill him!“ (Bukhari (52:177)



Im a bit shocked that someone voicing emotional slogans such as „Boycott Israeli Goods!“ and „One persons Terrorist is the other persons Freedom Fighter!“ is gaining more star-counts on this debate than one who is reciting facts and looking for balance.

Apart from emotional slogans my opponent voices several non-factual claims which can easily be refuted by reading the encyclopedia page I have referenced. The following historical and academic FACTS have now been denied by my opponent:

* That the land has been central to judaism since thousands of years

* He makes the implication that palestinians are not inherently anti-semitic. My opponent says that anyone who critises Israel is labeled anti-semitic and that he finds this pathetic. While there is some truth in this, it does not change the fact that there are a lot of true jew-haters out there that wish death and destruction upon the Jews.

* That the Koran refers to jews as apes and pigs saying I dont provide evidence. The evidence is a commonly known fact and can be found in Sura 5:60 and 2:65. Verses 46:29-35 refer to non-believers as being worse than demons. The Koran also states that non-muslims should be punished in this world, during this life.

* My opponent claims that I am suggesting Israel to be innocent although I have repeatedly stated that they are not.

* My opponent then claims that the Hamas has offered Israel peace. The conditions under which the Hamas has offered „peace“ are laughable to say the least. Already among the external sources my opponent provides as evidence the absurdity of the „offer“ becomes apparent:

„The Hamas told BBC it would not renounce violence....but a truce is possible if Israel accepts the Borders of 1967“ (gives up most of its land and water supply. This is like saying „If Israel commits suicide, then we can offer peace). Is this vile mockery of peace all my opponent has to offer on the subject?

* My opponent then goes on to claim that I take the stance that everything is the Palestinians fault...although I have already said that I see fault on both sides of the fence.

After this my opponent does not acknowledge one single factual piece (except one, shown later) from my questions-list. This is understandable. If he were to accept the facts, his pro-palestinian view would turn into a more balanced view...not necessarily a pro-jewish view, but at least more balanced. For example: I stated that muslims control 99% of the land in the middle east and that Palestinians enjoy more political, social and and legal freedoms than many other countries. To this, my opponent quotes a text in which it is shown how one Jew enjoyed more freedoms in Cairo in the years 1135-1204! With all due respect: Him having to go so far back in time to find an example of a jew who enjoyed more freedoms in arab countries is equivalent to admitting my point!!!

It is a historical fact that the PLO and their mission to drive out jews was founded before there was any so-called „occupied“ land and that this land was gained after Israel was cornered, pressured and attacked by Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan (see Encyclopedic sources already cited). No type of rhetorical distortion can change that. Sorry.

One question my opponent does finally admit to is that Palestinians are being used as pawns by other arab nations. Right there my opponent concedes that the Palestinian problem is not only the fault of Israel.

Concerning the misuse of funds by arafat and succesors my opponent lamely says that other countries also misuse funds...as if this justifies the waste and mis-channeling of money.

Its pretty surprising how easy these points are to refute by hard historical evidence. I will therefore no longer dwell on them and proceed with the questions my opponent has posed.

My opponents questions:


1.You say that Israel has every right to control borders of Palestine and restrict whatever it wants for national security. Why does Israel block the most essential services for Days on End?


My response: This is an impermissible question as it puts words into my mouth that I didnt say. Earlier I said that I believe Palestinian should have the right of having its own country. I strongly believe in the Palestinians right to move freely. The second part of the question also implies things that I never said. Earlier I said that I believe Israels current tactics of self-defense and countering terrorism are wrong.

But to answer the question anyway: I think Israel does this in the mistaken belief that it is necessary that revenge is necessary to protect themselves.


2.Do you even grasp the concept why they voted this group (the Hamas)?


My response: No, I do not know why they voted the Hamas. But I would guess that they were voted because Palestinians hoped for a change. While I am not sure why the Hamas voted a group that is known for promoting suicide-bombers for Allah (how barbaric and evil can you get?????), I am quite sure and I have already shown how these so-called „freedom fighters“ (my opponents words) consist mostly of uncompromising bigots.


3.You say isreal needs most of the land for resources and water...cant Isreal purchase the resources from its neighbours?


My response: Again, words put into my mouth. I didnt say that Israel needs „most of the land“. I said: Israel needs the Golan Heights as it is the countries only water supply. And yes, I guess Israel will be forced to give up its only water supply in the future and will have to buy it from syria. Thanks to decades of mass-media spin which portrays Israel as „the agressor“ and arabs as „victims“.


4.You say the boundaries are still under dispute but are clearly labelled under international law. Does that mean nothing?


My response: Yes, the israeli borders as defined by international law are valid. Thanks for confirming that. That refutes your previous claim that Israel should go back to 1949/1967 borders.

In earlier posts I believe I have done a fair job of outlining the point of the debate: All in All, the creation of Israel is a goood thing. I believe that in this post I did a fair job of refuting my opponents rather weak claims.

My opponents side would be „The creation of Israel is a bad thing“. I do not see in which way my opponent can prove that it would have been better to not give jews a home. Throughout history Jews have been denied a home many times. Everywhere they went, they were driven out. The last two times they were driven out in masses were in Russia and Nazi Germany. Then the arabs sought to drive them away. „Damned if you do, damned if you dont“ is all I can say here. First they werent welcome in those foreign countries, then they werent welcome to have their own country. I sincerely hope, for the sake of humankind and our future that Israel persists and will not be destroyed but continue to live and prosper. And the same wish goes out for the Palestinians.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 07:19 PM
link   
My opponent has decided to do what most people do best and that is bring in quotes and not reference the whole quote so others can’t see the whole quote in its self.

My opponents quotes but in depth and what they mean
I hopefully he will show more open mind then what my opponent had shown in his post on Islam where he promptly dismissed every source give.

Vile rants of the Quran

www.belowtopsecret.com...

Created by my opponent and filled with Websites that explains all the verses that are so evil

I would also like the Judges to take a look at the following two sites
www.geocities.com...

And

www.islamic-shield.com...

Now my opponent has decided to get personal and attack the fact that I show Boycott Israel in my signature but decides to leave out when I created it and what was happening at the time.


Israeli attacks on Lebanon come to mind, I won’t go into depth into the Israeli Lebanon war as this Debate is about Israel and Palestine even so Lebanon and other countries do come into the matter occasionally


He also Brings in my post one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter and looking at his reply he is very frustrated that people might agree with that. Or is it because it’s accurate?


During history those that opposed their oppressors or fought against any government or leader have been seen as terrorists by the governments they fought but supported and helped by other countries that saw them as freedom fighters.

I can bring in many during history.
American Revolution the people who fought the British were seen as scum and terrorists by the British rulers at the time and look at that now they are seen as the forefathers of America.


The Soviet war the Mujahedeen were seen as terrorists by the soviets by Freedom fighters by the US and other allies who supported them.
The List goes on. Unless my opponent is denying all this and all these actions that these groups have taken is just a myth.

My opponent now claims that my facts aren’t accurate and I am just
throwing things out of a hat.

I wouldn’t want to disappoint.

Let’s start with this, my opponent says I said that Jews didn’t control Israel for thousands of years is just pure rubbish as I quote my self

No as the Land was occupied by other tribes and people way before Israelites laid claim to the land

after taking the land Israelites lived on the land until what is now Palestine, for the last few thousand years. Concept for Land changes as the population changes,


As you can see I didn’t say Jews didn’t live there for thousands of years but Jews weren’t the first people to own this land but was taken from them by the Israelites how history repeats it’s self. The Canaanites ring a bell for anyone the people that lived in Israel before the Israelites came and drove them out to lay claim?


He makes the implication that Palestinians are not inherently anti-semitic


Can anyone point this out to me, where did I say that?

but for the good of this debate I will reply to this in Kind
What’s the difference between this Israel Image?

[im] www.whatreallyhappened.com...[/im]

And this Palestinian image

[im] www.freshnews.in...[/im]

I never denied there was hate on Palestinian side but then again I never said anything about it until now.

The Israeli teach their kids to Hate Palestinians and the Palestinians do the same (not saying all do the same)

Again my opponent brings in the Quran but no reference where he is showing Jews and so on as pigs but never the whole Surah or chapter?

www.muslimaccess.com...

I would recommend people read the whole verse and the chapter it is from and then refer to www.geocities.com... for Explanation as it explains all the verses in detail.


Now my opponent is saying that he wasn’t showing Israel in an innocent way, but then again if anyone reads his reply it’s just full of Praise for Israel and my opponent just justifying all attacks, please refer to my first questions and his reply and his org reply for that.

My opponent laughs at the Gesture of Good will and hand of peace because Israel would have to return the land it stole in the first place, he uses the same old routine Israel would have to give up natural resources and so on, but the most laughable part is that Israel would Gain the Friendship and diplomacy from its neighbours which would mean that they would have access to Natural resources but have to purchase it from the Palestinians.


But that’s laughable according to mu opponent as Israel would have to return what is not its.

My opponent finds it a joke that the Palestinians want their land back and that when they will stop fighting their fight.

My opponent still Brings in the PLO but leaves out gestures of Peace as It’s a Mockery to Israel because Israel would have to accept the Right of return to 3-4 million Palestinian refugees.
My opponent says Israel is a shining light to Middle eastern countries but leaves out the segregation that people suffer in Israel where None Jews are treated badly.

This was shown during the Lebanon conflict where Israeli soldiers based themselves closer to Arab Israeli settlements.

Also this is a good read 20% of the population of Israel who have married to anyone in the occupied land had to leave or leave their family.
news.bbc.co.uk...
my opponent says his reply’s are hard to refute by hard historical evidence but then again my opponent is someone that easily dismisses evidence that doesn’t best serve him as he has shown but saying they are non-factual even so I have backed more up with Sources then my opponent has.

Hats off to your First reply,


To the second questions, Hamas didn’t start off as a Religious group but for the people,
they adapted Islam as majority are Muslim and that was a better railing call for them to stick to gather.
Second Question (response)

The Palestinians were promised Change, which they would get to live a normal life, but that was made difficult when Hamas wasn’t even able to talk to Israel as they were shunned and then US/Europe and Israel forced Palestine factions even further apart by deciding not to conduct themselves with Hamas even so they were elected government and legit.
Now my opponent says Hamas are just out to destroy Israel but fails to mention that Israel doesn’t even want to speak to them even so some Israeli advisers have asked the Israeli government to sit down at a table and talk.

My opponent has gone into name calling by calling me a bigot for using the Phrase “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” now since I covered that already in the first half of this reply I will carry on. I would also like my opponent to quote me where I use Freedom fighter myself apart from the one man’s freedom fighter quote.
On my third question (response)

Syria has said they are willing for peace if they get their heights back and unlike the Palestinian Land which Israel occupies Syria is a recognised country.


My opponent now states how the media stirs Israel as evil and Arabs as angels.

I would like to present three sources which show Palestinians in a bad light and Israel in a bad light.

Israel Uses Cluster bombs on civilians
www.irinnews.org...

Israel Kills 18 Palestinians
www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2008/01/15/wisrael115.xml

Israeli Raid Kills Nine
news.bbc.co.uk...

3 dead in Israel Suicide bombing
news.bbc.co.uk...

Major terrorist attack in Israel
www.adl.org...

Hamas fire kills four civilians
www.guardian.co.uk...

wow I didn’t expect to find anything against Hamas and just Israel.
mass media spin? Granted there are Pro and Anti Israel papers but this goes for both sides, can anyone Imagine Fox showing Israel as bad eggs? And Hamas as angels?

My opponent here has tried to show that Israel is shown badly by all media.

And all those sites that show pro Israel and neutral stuff are just figments of our imaginations.

On the last question my opponent says my question is refutable as the current boundaries aren’t recognised by International laws as my opponent has decided to point out again.
To the point

First the loss of land on the Palestinian side to Israel from 46-00
www.hamdden.co.uk...

a large Map which was the Org Israel
www.mideastweb.org...
I would like my opponent to show us when the UN enacted the new MAP and when it was put in place.

The creation of Israel was a good thing for Jews who suffered prosecution under the rule of a tyrant but that gave them no right to do what they are doing to the Palestinians these days.
I would never support actions to wipe Israel out or actions to kill an innocent person.


I hope that Israel Takes the hand of peace with the Palestinians and its neighbours then make the GAP even wider that it can’t be fixed,
As a nation that lives in fear and distrust of its neighbours will never have peace goes for Palestinians as well.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 04:30 AM
link   
The debate heats up

I will be happy to proceed with our debate in a discussion format by quoting and responding to each of my opponents relevant statements.



Originally posted by bodrul
My opponents quotes but in depth and what they mean
I hopefully he will show more open mind then what my opponent had shown in his post on Islam where he promptly dismissed every source give.


I actually wanted to reference that thread on the uncompromising violence of the Koran (which is the real root of the Palestinian attitude) in this post but my opponent has already done that for me. In my thread two things become glaringly obvious: That the religious texts of islam indeed promote much, much, much more violence and agression than I have even shown here (out of courtesy for my opponent) and that there are plenty of apologists (such as my opponent) who are embarassed by those verses. Rather than explaining in his own words how we are supposed to "interpret" words of violence against disbelievers he refers to apologist websites. What then follows is an apologist stance on the slogan "Boycott Israeli goods!".



He also Brings in my post one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter and looking at his reply he is very frustrated that people might agree with that. Or is it because it’s accurate?


An organization that officially calls for the destruction of Israel, acts out suicide bombings and targets civilians are now re-defined to "freedom fighters"? I rest my case.
This wouldnt pass at any modern international court of law as our perception of what is right and wrong have progressed a little bit in recent decades.





As you can see I didn’t say Jews didn’t live there for thousands of years but Jews weren’t the first people to own this land but was taken from them by the Israelites how history repeats it’s self. The Canaanites ring a bell for anyone the people that lived in Israel before the Israelites came and drove them out to lay claim?



This is (at last) historically accurate information. Unfortunately it does nothing to prove that Palestinians/Arabs "owned" the land before Israel did.




My opponent finds it a joke that the Palestinians want their land back and that when they will stop fighting their fight.



As already proven, their fight to get rid of jews started before land was "taken". From that we cant automatically assume they will stop their fight if "their" land is given back. A people who believe....deep in their heart...that jews are inherently evil, will never stop fighting them. The solution to our worlds problems lies not in the jews doing this or doing that, but in a change of belief-system towards the positive.



My opponent says Israel is a shining light to Middle eastern countries but leaves out the segregation that people suffer in Israel where None Jews are treated badly.


I was visiting Israel AND Palestine (West Bank) just a few weeks ago, and nobody is starving. Far from it. Compared to my visits to other muslim countries, Palestine indeed does enjoy a higher standard of living. Almost everyone has a car. Streams of tourists constantly brush through Palestine, leaving behind their currency. Palestine tourist Hotels were booked out. Plenty of western-standard shops and gas-stations around. Palestinians well dressed and well-fed. I honestly and truly did not see all the suffering and hardship my opponent talks about. Instead I saw the results of a whole world offering a helping hand toward these people who like to paint themselves as victims. Make no mistake: Israel has set up borders for their own protection from people who seek to plant bombs, blow up buildings and cars, import weapons. But if the borders were really that strict, why did I see palestinians all over Jerusalem (which is not within the borders of the Palestinian Autonomous Region)? What my opponent is saying neither matches academic fact, nor my personal experience.




My opponent now states how the media stirs Israel as evil and Arabs as angels.

I would like to present three sources which show Palestinians in a bad light and Israel in a bad light.


Ah...interesting, isnt it? This proves my asssertion that its either "Israel put in a bad light" or "Israel AND Palestine put in a bad light"...but almost never only Palestine put in a bad light.




First the loss of land on the Palestinian side to Israel


It has already been adressed that arab nations were the first to attack and desired to drive ALL jews out of the ENTIRE region. I will not adress it again.



The creation of Israel was a good thing for Jews who suffered prosecution under the rule of a tyrant


The aim of my debate was to prove this and I am glad that my opponent has finally conceded that the creation of Israel was a good and necessary thing



but that gave them no right to do what they are doing to the Palestinians these days.


I believe that both peoples should stay in the area, that both should have their own sovereign land, and that this should be implemented by international and neutral mediators. Long-term, over decades maybe, this will be a road to lasting peace.



As a nation that lives in fear and distrust of its neighbours will never have peace goes for Palestinians as well.


I had a lot of talks with Taxi-drivers while there. Palestinian taxi-drivers are very scared of jews and jewish taxi drivers are very scared of palestinians. In a broader context, one would have to ask which hidden hands are served by this division. But thats for another debate.

Lets continue this post with a few more facts. Did you know that...

...Palestinians rejected much smaller Israeli borders defined by the UN after world war two?

...the wars waged by arab nations against Jews between 1947 and 1949 were not for the purpose of freeing Palestinians but gaining their own land?

...that Palestinian terrorist efforts have cost them billions of dollars and created zero results? (And they continue nevertheless).

...Israel having granted Autonomy to Palestinian regions is a huge step in a positive direction?

...Israel powers, funds and helps more than 75% of Palestinians economy?

...in 1999 Israel agreed to more than 90% of Arafats demands, including a Palestinian Capital in Jerusalem, but Arafat rejected?

Lets wrap up with some current news that coincide with points made during this debate:

UN slams Arab Charter

Jew supporters must be killed

Hamas fools the media


Mod Edit: A socratic question has been removed because they are not allowed in closing statements. Thanks to skyfloating for noticing his own mistake and bringing it to the attention of the forum staff.

[edit on 3-2-2008 by The Vagabond]



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   
For my final reply I would firstly like to thank The Vagabond for this opportunity to defend the Palestinian people in this debate and sky floating for accepting this Debate.

To end my Side I would like to show the Judges what things are like from the Palestinian side and Jews who are against Israel its self for what it does.


But before I do this I will make some replies to mu opponent.

My opponent brings in the Quran and as he mentions he made his topic to show how it promotes violence on others, which he says justifies Palestinian actions against Israelis, (I won’t say Jews as Israel has a population of roughly 20% Muslim) my opponent seems to have forgotten that every quote he got from his source which is probably the largest Islam phobic site out there religionofpeace.com were quickly debunked by other members, including myself indirectly as he was given a link to my topic which shows all the Verses he posted to show were vile and their true meanings, my opponent quickly dismissed them and shouted Islam apologist and said they were nothing as they were run by apologist websites?

How can one dismiss a site that is created by Muslims explain Islamic beliefs? This person would rather throw out websites created by none Muslims or people with an agenda against Muslims and CALL it facts.

I would like to ask you the judges, who would you, trust more when it comes to a subject. Someone that follows/learns it or someone that doesn’t know anything or just knows rough interoperations and makes assumptions on their own?

My opponent brings in my quote one man’s Freedom fighter is another’s terrorist,

He says this would never pass in an international Court of Law and I would say that’s true but my opponent seems to think that everyone sees everything the same way. The Palestinians see Hamas as freedom fighters and the Israelis and others as terrorists.

The Palestinians see the Israeli forces who kill in greater numbers and destroy more as Terrorists but the rest as soldiers.

There is one thing in common between these two groups they are beyond the international courts,

Israel because the US and UK Veto anything against the state.

And Palestine because it’s not seen as a sovereign country and because Hamas have already been labelled terrorist.

My Opponent says the Arabs didn’t Own the Land before Israel was created in 1949ish
Lets draw a little history Map
First inhabitants
Canaanites
Then Israelites who stole the Land from the Canaanites
This Land was then Taken over again
Until the first crusades and second crusades where it kept exchanging hands between Arabs and Crusaders from the west.
It finally fell into Muslim Hands which was known as Palestine until 1949 where Israel was created by the British who had taken control of the land and then cut it up to give Jews from Europe a Home.

My opponent says Arabs never had the land before Jews but who were the Palestinians that lives there Before 1947?
Since my opponent is so into historical evidence I am surprised he has missed this out.


My opponent still uses the fight started before hand and was to get rid of Jews and Muslims believe they are evil.
Thousands of Jews were saved by Muslims during the holocaust with Jews also Taking Refuge in Muslim countries.
thehollytree.blogspot.com...
mpacuk.org...
Muslim country giving Refuge to German Jews
www.keene.edu...

Jewish prosecution at the hands of None Muslims and I am not talking about the Nazi times.

www.ikim.gov.my...

My opponent says there is no apartheid and Israel is the shining light, for this I would like to give the following
en.wikipedia.org...
www.blackcommentator.com...
www.zmag.org...
news.bbc.co.uk...
and loads more
www.google.co.uk...
but they must all be Wrong?


My opponent still thinks Israel is always shown in a Bad light by the Media.

Has anyone seen Fox show Israel is a Bad light? CNN? The Sun and other news sources.

My opponent has failed to show evidence that Israel is always shown in a Bad light, like anything Bad said against the country is blasphemy and shouldn’t be said.

My opponent says he has won the argument that the Creation of a Israeli state was a good thing but fails to show my full reply. I will say it again the a country for Jews was a Good thing but not at the cost of others. During the creation of Israel more then 10,000+ people have died which are mostly civilians with a large majority being on Palestine and Lebanon with just a few hundred being on Israel side.

Now I ask the Judges was the Cost to thousands of lives worth it in the end to a never ending conflict as Israel keep on building on occupied land so in turn will find it harder to return?


Now I shall end this with some Facts.

Israel Has 429+ UN resolutions against it with almost all of them Vetoed by The US and a small amount by the UK
en.wikipedia.org...

Israeli boarders as they see them (the Israelis) but still build homes outside those boarders.
www.mideastweb.org...
Israeli war crimes
news.bbc.co.uk...

and last of all a Video that shows the Creation of Israel from the prospective of Historians, Jewish rabbis and US state department officials
quicksilverscreen.com...



posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Bodrul has won.


This was a bit of a heartbreaker to judge.

Objectively speaking, I think it was a near-draw, perhaps with Skyfloating ahead, in respect to the whole "who started it" argument. Bodrul was evasive of questions even when he did answer, and even some of those answers seemed to indicate a less than complete knowledge of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and he didn't do a great job of defending against charges of terrorism. On the other hand, Skyfloating's reasoning was suspect in a few areas, particularly on the issue of the Golan Heights as a water supply (Israel took the Golan Heights under the pretense that it is a vital military position that keeps them out of a war with Syria, so there is really no basis to argue that they have a right to the area's resources).

So the whole "who's worse/who started it" argument was almost a draw, but maybe slightly favoring skyfloating because of some of bodrul's technical errors (more references than allowed, non answers and evaisive answers to questions, missing a post). Frankly I didn't want to find for either side after that.

But alas the question is whether or not Israel's creation has been a net positive. That question has very little to do with whether or not Hamas or the Arabs are a bad thing too. Skyfloating didn't do much to show me their region would be a worse place if they weren't there.

As much as I would like to call it a draw, that last fact just can't be ignored- Bodrul is the winner.



posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Congratulations Bodrul. You did an excellent job considering it was your first debate.

Ive lost a few debates but I must admit this is the first time Im actually surprised and angry about losing.

Good job.



...



posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


your a worthy appononet and i must say

this is prob the topic that i have ever put time and effort into apart from the presidentional thing on ATS.

thanks again for this opertunity



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   
I have to say that I think Skyfloating should have won this debate. He did in fact provide valuable reasons for Israel's existence, that the Jewish people should have a homeland, and that they have vastly improved the land they have made as their homeland, especially the point that even Muslims living in Israel have a higher standard of living than Muslims living in Muslim controlled nations. This last point should be the determining factor in which government controls any territory. Jewish people have chosen to migrate to Israel because they consider it to be their homeland, and they have built an exceptional nation there, why shouldn't it be allowed to continue to exist?

Bodrul's reasoning that the Jewish people started the hostilities is a justification for eliminating Israel is not a reasonable answer, nor does he succeed in proving this. The Muslim policy that has been expressed that the Jews should be pushed into the sea pretty much destroys their credibility. His statement "It finally fell into Muslim Hands" in his conclusion pretty much admits that Muslims do not have a legitimate reason to claim this territory.

I don't see how the judges came to their conclusion. I felt skyfloating dominated from the beginning, and that the many links proved by Bodrul mostly led nowhere, and did not support his position.



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Thanks for the late comment poet. Im not alone in my estimation of the debate afterall



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Skyfloating ... I wouldn't have wanted that position ... and a hard one to defend considering.

I have a link to a Rabbi speaking out against the human creation of the new Israel, that it is against the wishes of G-d, and therefore the Jewish people there are directly defying their own religion; only G-d can create the new promised land and bring them back together when G-d chooses, doing otherwise is a big sin ... would have loved to use it against you in bodrul's position!



I am surprised to see you didn't win, since rarely do we see anything that doesn't support Israel gaining ground.

Your arguments may have been great, but sometimes how the topic is stated makes it quite a challenge to win.

It would be quite hard to show an overall positive light of the creation of Jewish state ...

in a Holy land they were exiled from thousands of years ago by their own G-d, and the creation of which was promised to be made again only by their own G-d when G-d felt the time was right.

That the people who live there share the same G-d so the land is just as Holy to the Palestinians as it is to the Jewish people (Judaism, Muslim, Christians are all the religions based on the same Abrahamic line), but because of war atrocities they did not commit, their land was stolen from them, their citizens displaced from their homes.


That is a hard one to sell to anyone paying attention to the reality of what happened. It is no different than Manifest Destiny against the Native Americans, or Imminent Domain against current Americans (NAFTA Superhighway).

I don't think I could have even attempted it after the things I have studied. Maybe at one time in the past.


Kudos to both of you.





new topics
top topics
 
9

log in

join