"Israel Will Defend Themselves And Guess What? They Have The Right To."
I would like to thank the management of Abovetopsecret.com for providing this forum and the moderators for their time and efforts in managing this
series of debates. I'd also like to thank my opponent for representing what I'm sure must be a difficult position on this subject.
I will be arguing the "Pro" position for the debate subject: "Israel Will Defend Themselves And Guess What? They Have The Right To."
I would like to begin by defining the framework of my position.
1. For the first part of the debate subject, "Israel will defend itself" I am arguing that Israel will perform "defensive" actions in the future.
Since predicting the future is outside the scope of the debate I will submit and hope my opponent will also concede that it is an assumption based on
prior actions and the statements made by every leader of the country since it's founding to that effect as well as deep, cultural beliefs held by the
Jewish people as a result of the Holocaust.
2. That for purposes of this debate I will assume the Nation of Israel's right to self defense is a logical extension of the individual right of self
defense. I will also assume the term "self defense" to be the strict definition of the scope of this debate as applicable to acts of aggression
performed by Israel.
3. That for purposes of this debate the definition of "self defense" will be limited to actions performed in reaction to the actions of individuals,
a group or government body which threaten the health and safety of Israeli citizens and/or the property of its citizens or Nation.
4. That the use of "preemptive" action by the Israeli government is considered to be "self defense" only when the absence of such action would
allow an individual, group or government to threaten the health and safety of Israeli citizens or the property of its citizens and/ or Nation.
5. Lastly, that aggression against individuals, groups or governments performed in the absence of a threat,(past or future) to Israeli citizens or
property is not considered to be "self defense" and as such is outside the scope of this debate.
I would like to ask my opponent the following questions:
1. Do individuals have a basic right of self defense?
2. Does the concept of an individual right of self defense transfer to a lawful group entity such as a nation and/ or government?
3. Do you believe people have the right to live without the fear of injury or death caused by the intentional actions or policies of others?
4. If someone asserts the desire or intent to harm or kill another, at what point is preemptive action considered lawful self defense?
5. Should the right of self defense be defined as specific remedies to be made use of by the person defending themselves?
Thank you.
Round 1: ecoparity vs Snarf - "Israel has a Justifiable Defense", page 1
privacy
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 15 times
ATS Members have flagged this thread 15 times
reply posted on 24-11-2009 @ 04:20 PM by Snarf
I'd like to start out by saying Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this contest. These sorts of events are a wonderful escape from the
day to day realities that we all call the real world 
That being said - i'll start my post by answering my opponent’s questions:
Yes. I believe everyone does.
Yes.
This is a touchy subject, as civil rights laws will usually come into play, because this is a sort of "Which came first, the criminal or the crime" type of situation. But personally – I feel you need to draw the line on a case by case basis. I do not believe this is a universal rule that one can follow when determining rather or not someone else’s intentions are truly malicious, or if that person is blowing off steam.
If you were out mowing your lawn, and someone walked by your house and handed you a note that said “One day, I will rob your home” – would it be appropriate for you to shoot this would-be intruder before the person has actually done anything intrusive? Well, in a court of law, a judge would say absolutely not, it is not appropriate. You committed a crime to stop a crime that you have really no proof would ever have taken place. You certainly should be on alert, but any preemptive action on your part would be unjustifiable.
On the other hand, if someone is caught breaking into your house, now you have justifiable means to defend yourself and your home at all costs.
No.
Now for my opening statements – I’d like to clarify something, if I may? The topic of this debate is "Israel Will Defend Themselves And Guess What? They Have The Right Too.". But I feel that this question is too biased in its appearance. What I mean is that I don’t believe anyone is arguing rather or not Israel has a right to defend its self if attacked. Certainly, nobody I’ve heard discussing this matter, has ever suggested that Israel should just take a beating and smile about it.
Instead – I’d like to refer to the name of this thread in order to bring about the spirit of this debate:
Does Israel have a Justifiable defense? And to that extent – No. They do not.
Before we can truly explore why the answer is “no” we need to define a few variables in this argument.
It has been said before that opinions are great because they can never be proven or disproven. Everyone who has an opinion can be right, and for the same opinion, they can be wrong. So it is within that thought that I must conclude that we seek only to find out rather or not Israel’s Defense is legally Justifiable. Is Israel truly defending its self…or is the whole thing one big façade for something much deeper?
Defense : resistance against attack; protection: Two more regiments are needed for the defense of the city. dictionary.reference.com...”" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Source
Or in other words – if someone is attacking you with a baseball bat, your defense could be stabbing the person with a sharp knife in order to get away.
But…What if you were the origin of the baseball bat assault? What if one, or many, of your action(s) resulted in the onslaught from this person that you perceive to be your attacker? Do you have a legal right to defense? Naturally – you will defend yourself if needed, its human nature. But would it hold up in court?
If your actions were of ill-intent to begin with, and your victim responded by attacking you, would your argument of defense be considered defense, or would it just be a second attack?
Well, I argue that it is the latter. A second attack. And it is upon arriving at that conclusion that we find that the Israeli government is not just merely defending its self, but is instead responsible for much of the violence that it’s citizens must endure.
So, what was Israel’s initial attack? To sum it up in one word: Occupation. Imagine if a complete stranger were to kick down your front door, hold a gun to your face, throw you, and your family, into the street, and make claim that your ex-house now belongs to them.
What would be your reaction? Most people may say “Call the Police”. But, what if the police agree with the man that took your home, and refuse to help you? Well, I think most reasonable people would agree that your only option at this point is forceful retrieval of your property. But if you use violent ways to regain what is rightfully yours – and the man gets your arrested for attacking him – are you truly in the wrong? And this is what we see in the Palestinian/Israeli Conflict.
How would you feel?
I believe Anger just doesn’t quite describe the emotion.
Now, in closing, I’d like to ask my opponent a few questions:
1.) Would you define the creation of the nation of Israel as a forceful occupation of Palestinian territory?
2.) If you would say no – could you please offer a brief explanation as to why?
3.) If you were to say yes – then could you please offer us any actions taken by the Israeli government to try and mend the wounds created to the Palestinian people by the forceful occupation of Israel (Were they granted any kinds of reparations? etc…)
4.) Would you define defensive measures as attacking someone on their turf, or merely defending your turf from an attack?
One of your questions asked If someone asserts the desire or intent to harm or kill another, at what point is preemptive action considered lawful self defense? In my answer I gave the example of the man walking up to you while you’re mowing your yard, and handing you a note. For the purposes of my question – let us assume that this man has Red Hair. So my question is:
5.) Would you say it is appropriate to seek out preemptive strike against all people with Red Hair, simply because the man who threatened your home had red hair?
That being said - i'll start my post by answering my opponent’s questions:
1. Do individuals have a basic right of self defense?
Yes. I believe everyone does.
2. Does the concept of an individual right of self defense transfer to a lawful group entity such as a nation and/ or government?Yes, A country is comprised of individuals. So to deny a Government body the right to self defense is to also deny its citizens that right.
3. Do you believe people have the right to live without the fear of injury or death caused by the intentional actions or policies of others?
Yes.
4. If someone asserts the desire or intent to harm or kill another, at what point is preemptive action considered lawful self defense?
This is a touchy subject, as civil rights laws will usually come into play, because this is a sort of "Which came first, the criminal or the crime" type of situation. But personally – I feel you need to draw the line on a case by case basis. I do not believe this is a universal rule that one can follow when determining rather or not someone else’s intentions are truly malicious, or if that person is blowing off steam.
If you were out mowing your lawn, and someone walked by your house and handed you a note that said “One day, I will rob your home” – would it be appropriate for you to shoot this would-be intruder before the person has actually done anything intrusive? Well, in a court of law, a judge would say absolutely not, it is not appropriate. You committed a crime to stop a crime that you have really no proof would ever have taken place. You certainly should be on alert, but any preemptive action on your part would be unjustifiable.
On the other hand, if someone is caught breaking into your house, now you have justifiable means to defend yourself and your home at all costs.
5. Should the right of self defense be defined as specific remedies to be made use of by the person defending themselves?
No.
Now for my opening statements – I’d like to clarify something, if I may? The topic of this debate is "Israel Will Defend Themselves And Guess What? They Have The Right Too.". But I feel that this question is too biased in its appearance. What I mean is that I don’t believe anyone is arguing rather or not Israel has a right to defend its self if attacked. Certainly, nobody I’ve heard discussing this matter, has ever suggested that Israel should just take a beating and smile about it.
Instead – I’d like to refer to the name of this thread in order to bring about the spirit of this debate:
Does Israel have a Justifiable defense? And to that extent – No. They do not.
Before we can truly explore why the answer is “no” we need to define a few variables in this argument.
It has been said before that opinions are great because they can never be proven or disproven. Everyone who has an opinion can be right, and for the same opinion, they can be wrong. So it is within that thought that I must conclude that we seek only to find out rather or not Israel’s Defense is legally Justifiable. Is Israel truly defending its self…or is the whole thing one big façade for something much deeper?
Defense : resistance against attack; protection: Two more regiments are needed for the defense of the city. dictionary.reference.com...”" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Source
Or in other words – if someone is attacking you with a baseball bat, your defense could be stabbing the person with a sharp knife in order to get away.
But…What if you were the origin of the baseball bat assault? What if one, or many, of your action(s) resulted in the onslaught from this person that you perceive to be your attacker? Do you have a legal right to defense? Naturally – you will defend yourself if needed, its human nature. But would it hold up in court?
If your actions were of ill-intent to begin with, and your victim responded by attacking you, would your argument of defense be considered defense, or would it just be a second attack?
Well, I argue that it is the latter. A second attack. And it is upon arriving at that conclusion that we find that the Israeli government is not just merely defending its self, but is instead responsible for much of the violence that it’s citizens must endure.
So, what was Israel’s initial attack? To sum it up in one word: Occupation. Imagine if a complete stranger were to kick down your front door, hold a gun to your face, throw you, and your family, into the street, and make claim that your ex-house now belongs to them.
What would be your reaction? Most people may say “Call the Police”. But, what if the police agree with the man that took your home, and refuse to help you? Well, I think most reasonable people would agree that your only option at this point is forceful retrieval of your property. But if you use violent ways to regain what is rightfully yours – and the man gets your arrested for attacking him – are you truly in the wrong? And this is what we see in the Palestinian/Israeli Conflict.
How would you feel?
I believe Anger just doesn’t quite describe the emotion.
Now, in closing, I’d like to ask my opponent a few questions:
1.) Would you define the creation of the nation of Israel as a forceful occupation of Palestinian territory?
2.) If you would say no – could you please offer a brief explanation as to why?
3.) If you were to say yes – then could you please offer us any actions taken by the Israeli government to try and mend the wounds created to the Palestinian people by the forceful occupation of Israel (Were they granted any kinds of reparations? etc…)
4.) Would you define defensive measures as attacking someone on their turf, or merely defending your turf from an attack?
One of your questions asked If someone asserts the desire or intent to harm or kill another, at what point is preemptive action considered lawful self defense? In my answer I gave the example of the man walking up to you while you’re mowing your yard, and handing you a note. For the purposes of my question – let us assume that this man has Red Hair. So my question is:
5.) Would you say it is appropriate to seek out preemptive strike against all people with Red Hair, simply because the man who threatened your home had red hair?
reply posted on 25-11-2009 @ 07:58 PM by Snarf
I'll start by answering my opponents questions:
My opinion is yes, they do. I'm not sure how law see's it, but i would assume that a court would agree with me?
If, by some unforeseeable set of events, we were to partake in something like this - i would say we would have to release all ownership of all land and say nobody can truly own land. Because someone owned the land before Native Americans, and someone else before them, etc.
Yes. You do. That home owner signed an agreement when he or she became a home owner with the understand that failure to pay taxes will result of forfeiture of property. In this case - there is no violent take over and expulsion of residence. Nobody is kicking him out of his home simply because of his skin color or religion.
My opponent would have us believe that the Jewish people have a right to Israel because:
source
But it is in this line of thinking that we truly see the other side of the coin in the Israel debate, and there is no "light way" of putting it, so to say it bluntly, Israel believes they have a "right to the throne" so to speak, simply because they believe that they as superior to anyone with a non-Jewish heritage.
But who owns Israel is for another debate. This is about rather or not Israel is justifiable in their defense.
Again - no they are not.
Rather or not Jews own the country - is it still right to force someone out of their homes simply because they are not Jewish?
How about in 1948 - shortly after suffering a very unique plot of extermination of their own at the hands of Nazi Germany - the Jewish powers of Israel forced out 750,000 Arabs from Israel, never to return home again. (source)
And these families that were forever changed because of this religious bigotry are supposed to just set and take it?
See, the difference between these folks being forced out of their home, and your example of someone not paying their taxes, is that the Arab inhabitants of Israel never agreed to a Jewish only law. They never agreed that Jews have a right to the "promised land". The guy, in your example however, did. He agreed that if he doesn't pay - he loses.
So retaliation is imminent. And since further progressive occupation of Israel into modern day Palestinian terrorist is still happening - i would expect that retaliation from Arab people will continue to happen as well.
Does Israel have a right to defend its self? Yes. Absolutely. Are the currently justified in doing so?
Absolutely not- you cannot justify aggression when you, yourself, are the one provoking the attack.
Now i'd like to sum up with a few questions for my worthy opponent
1.) Can you reference a law that gives the Jewish people the right to force 750,000 Arab inhabitants out of their land?
2.) If you cannot - would you be able to explain what makes them justified in doing so?
3.) If Israel was innocent in it's actions, then would you know of any reason they may wish to cover up their tracks by banning literature stating that The Jewish people themselves took place in Ethnic Cleansing against the Arab people ?
1. Does a guest in a home have the right to defend themselves against an intruder?
My opinion is yes, they do. I'm not sure how law see's it, but i would assume that a court would agree with me?
If we are to reorganize the World's nations according to prior claim such as giving control of America back to the Native Americans, for example - at what point in history / how far back to we go to determine ownership rights?
If, by some unforeseeable set of events, we were to partake in something like this - i would say we would have to release all ownership of all land and say nobody can truly own land. Because someone owned the land before Native Americans, and someone else before them, etc.
3. Let's imagine the previous owner of my home was evicted by the state for tax problems. This previous owner does not agree with the state's decision. If he decides to come back and forcibly remove me from the home do I not have the right to defend myself?
Yes. You do. That home owner signed an agreement when he or she became a home owner with the understand that failure to pay taxes will result of forfeiture of property. In this case - there is no violent take over and expulsion of residence. Nobody is kicking him out of his home simply because of his skin color or religion.
My opponent would have us believe that the Jewish people have a right to Israel because:
The Jewish people on the other hand have a distinct culture and genetic heritage tracing back over three thousand years to the biblical Israel which was located in that region.
source
But it is in this line of thinking that we truly see the other side of the coin in the Israel debate, and there is no "light way" of putting it, so to say it bluntly, Israel believes they have a "right to the throne" so to speak, simply because they believe that they as superior to anyone with a non-Jewish heritage.
But who owns Israel is for another debate. This is about rather or not Israel is justifiable in their defense.
Again - no they are not.
Rather or not Jews own the country - is it still right to force someone out of their homes simply because they are not Jewish?
How about in 1948 - shortly after suffering a very unique plot of extermination of their own at the hands of Nazi Germany - the Jewish powers of Israel forced out 750,000 Arabs from Israel, never to return home again. (source)
And these families that were forever changed because of this religious bigotry are supposed to just set and take it?
See, the difference between these folks being forced out of their home, and your example of someone not paying their taxes, is that the Arab inhabitants of Israel never agreed to a Jewish only law. They never agreed that Jews have a right to the "promised land". The guy, in your example however, did. He agreed that if he doesn't pay - he loses.
So retaliation is imminent. And since further progressive occupation of Israel into modern day Palestinian terrorist is still happening - i would expect that retaliation from Arab people will continue to happen as well.
Does Israel have a right to defend its self? Yes. Absolutely. Are the currently justified in doing so?
Absolutely not- you cannot justify aggression when you, yourself, are the one provoking the attack.
Now i'd like to sum up with a few questions for my worthy opponent
1.) Can you reference a law that gives the Jewish people the right to force 750,000 Arab inhabitants out of their land?
2.) If you cannot - would you be able to explain what makes them justified in doing so?
3.) If Israel was innocent in it's actions, then would you know of any reason they may wish to cover up their tracks by banning literature stating that The Jewish people themselves took place in Ethnic Cleansing against the Arab people ?
reply posted on 27-11-2009 @ 09:00 PM by ecoparity
1.) Can you reference a law that gives the Jewish people the right to force 750,000 Arab inhabitants out of their land?
No, I don't believe there is one but I disagree that the Jewish people forced the Arabs to leave. There are several Arab sources which corroborate the historical fact that the refugees left mainly because Arab leaders instructed them to in preparation for the coming 1948 war. Some left on their own in order to avoid the shooting and a very low number were expelled by Israel for being being combatants.
Source
2.) If you cannot - would you be able to explain what makes them justified in doing so?
Even if they had, which I disagree as being factual - the ownership and control of the land in a time of War would have given them the right even as reprehensible as we might feel it would be after the fact. The US imprisoned people of Japanese origin during WW2. After World War II, Czechoslovakia expelled ethnic Germans who had been Czech citizens living in the Sudetenland, because they proved to be a threat to the national existence of Czechoslovakia. We may not agree with those actions and history may proven them to be wrong but we cannot argue that these nations did not have the "right" to do so.
3.) If Israel was innocent in it's actions, then would you know of any reason they may wish to cover up their tracks by banning literature stating that The Jewish people themselves took place in Ethnic Cleansing against the Arab people ?
The issue you raise is one over terminology. A history book in Israel schools was to present both sides of the Israel / Palestinian debate and the author used the term "ethnic cleansing" to describe the Arab myth of the expulsion of the Palestinians. Though the UN recently agreed that this term means "expelling people of a certain race from a territory" the popular conception is that this means to murder people of a certain race based largely on the events in the Bosnian / Serb conflict. By choosing to use that phrase the author is attempting to create an emotional reaction by exaggeration. The local authority approving the textbooks use in schools wants the phrase changed to something less intellectually "dishonest".
I believe my opponent has made a few errors in logic which I will try to clarify:
The Jews feel they have a "right" to a national home in that region because of the previous existence of a Jewish kingdom, not because they feel they are "superior".
The territory in question was divided by the British, not Israel. The League of nations agreed to the "British Mandate" which separated the territory into a Jewish area and a much larger Arab area. The central issue in all this is that the Arabs want to live in the Jewish area where they would instantly make the Jews a minority in their own nation. Clearly, the combination of these two cultures into a single state would never result in peace - the Arabs want to live under Muslim law and tradition, something which could and would be enacted by force of majority on the Jews.
Israel has given back territory which was taken during the Arab declared wars and the result has been for rocket attacks to have been launched on Israel from those areas. The use of terrorism by those on the "Palestinian" side of the issue is long and well documented as well.
Questions:
1. If the British were to decide to re-take the US as a British territory, do the Americans have a justifiable right of self defense?
No, I don't believe there is one but I disagree that the Jewish people forced the Arabs to leave. There are several Arab sources which corroborate the historical fact that the refugees left mainly because Arab leaders instructed them to in preparation for the coming 1948 war. Some left on their own in order to avoid the shooting and a very low number were expelled by Israel for being being combatants.
Source
2.) If you cannot - would you be able to explain what makes them justified in doing so?
Even if they had, which I disagree as being factual - the ownership and control of the land in a time of War would have given them the right even as reprehensible as we might feel it would be after the fact. The US imprisoned people of Japanese origin during WW2. After World War II, Czechoslovakia expelled ethnic Germans who had been Czech citizens living in the Sudetenland, because they proved to be a threat to the national existence of Czechoslovakia. We may not agree with those actions and history may proven them to be wrong but we cannot argue that these nations did not have the "right" to do so.
3.) If Israel was innocent in it's actions, then would you know of any reason they may wish to cover up their tracks by banning literature stating that The Jewish people themselves took place in Ethnic Cleansing against the Arab people ?
The issue you raise is one over terminology. A history book in Israel schools was to present both sides of the Israel / Palestinian debate and the author used the term "ethnic cleansing" to describe the Arab myth of the expulsion of the Palestinians. Though the UN recently agreed that this term means "expelling people of a certain race from a territory" the popular conception is that this means to murder people of a certain race based largely on the events in the Bosnian / Serb conflict. By choosing to use that phrase the author is attempting to create an emotional reaction by exaggeration. The local authority approving the textbooks use in schools wants the phrase changed to something less intellectually "dishonest".
I believe my opponent has made a few errors in logic which I will try to clarify:
The Jews feel they have a "right" to a national home in that region because of the previous existence of a Jewish kingdom, not because they feel they are "superior".
The territory in question was divided by the British, not Israel. The League of nations agreed to the "British Mandate" which separated the territory into a Jewish area and a much larger Arab area. The central issue in all this is that the Arabs want to live in the Jewish area where they would instantly make the Jews a minority in their own nation. Clearly, the combination of these two cultures into a single state would never result in peace - the Arabs want to live under Muslim law and tradition, something which could and would be enacted by force of majority on the Jews.
Israel has given back territory which was taken during the Arab declared wars and the result has been for rocket attacks to have been launched on Israel from those areas. The use of terrorism by those on the "Palestinian" side of the issue is long and well documented as well.
Questions:
1. If the British were to decide to re-take the US as a British territory, do the Americans have a justifiable right of self defense?
reply posted on 28-11-2009 @ 10:14 AM by Snarf
Well, i hope everyone had a great holiday! I sure feel 10 pounds of turkey fatter
I'll start with my opponents question:
The short answer: Yes. Americans would.
You see - the argument i'm making is that Israel is provoking the Palestinians into attacking them by aggressively moving further and further into Palestinian territory. If Mexico were to start expanding its military into Texas, don't you think the USA would start bombing Mexico?
But again- i don't believe this argument is about who killed who to keep what land. I believe it's about oppression and retaliation. For every action - there's a reaction.
Think of two stereotypical brothers in any-where USA. The older brother is typically the protagonist, who will instigate a reaction from the younger sibling so to justify bullying the younger sibling.
This is no different. This is a religious war. And if history can teach anything - it can teach that Religious wars know no Morals. They know no boundaries.
Just in recent days we are provided with a striking example of this aggressive expansion by the Israeli's - once and all proving and solidifying the fact that Israel is instigating a reaction from the Palestinians.
source
So here we see proof of illegal occupation...aggressive expansion, and child-like antagonizing behavior.
Israel claims they want Peace with the Palestinians - multiple times, publicly even...but how can forceful takeover of Palestinian homes be evidence of good intentions?
How can one not feel blood thirsty rage when in the face of death and persecution? Who can blame someone for retaliation when they were kicked out of their homes, or forced to watch a loved one day at the hands of the Israeli government? All in the name of whose God is better.
Peace talks is a nothing more than a facade for the nation of Israel. They will not stop until they have purged all non-Jewish people from their sight, and yet, they have a civil defense for all of this because, after all, who can argue with a Jewish person when talking about oppression? The Jews suffered tremendous oppression in World War 2 at the hands of Hitler. So, that being said, this is why i find it shockingly surprising that just a few years later, they could find it justifiable to turn around and, for no reason what so ever, physically and aggressively force hundreds of thousands of Arabs from "their land".
I remember a commercial on TV a long, long time ago. It was one of those "TOTALLY FOR KIDS" commercials that talked about bullies in school. I see this video as being very representative of the argument i'm making in this debate. (You can see the video here. I do not use this video as a source, just as a way to tell a point of view. I hope that this is an acceptable action? There were no Debate Forum mods online for me to ask.)
You see, "Brad", is much like Israel, and those around him are the Palestinians. Brad (Israel) likes to throw his ego around and see who he can knock over. He likes to show off to the girls in school (other foreign leaders) to see who he can attract...but in the end, he's just making a fool of himself...and why? Because he's not making an attempt to get along with anyone, but making every attempt to make everyone fear him, because Brad (Israel) feels that fear equals respect.
But as we can see from Palestinian backlash (Or in this case of this video, the comments from Brads classmates) - it doesn't equal respect. It equals resentment. And resentment turns into anger, and if pushed for long enough, in the right places, anger turns into violence.
I'll start with my opponents question:
1. If the British were to decide to re-take the US as a British territory, do the Americans have a justifiable right of self defense?
The short answer: Yes. Americans would.
You see - the argument i'm making is that Israel is provoking the Palestinians into attacking them by aggressively moving further and further into Palestinian territory. If Mexico were to start expanding its military into Texas, don't you think the USA would start bombing Mexico?
But again- i don't believe this argument is about who killed who to keep what land. I believe it's about oppression and retaliation. For every action - there's a reaction.
Think of two stereotypical brothers in any-where USA. The older brother is typically the protagonist, who will instigate a reaction from the younger sibling so to justify bullying the younger sibling.
This is no different. This is a religious war. And if history can teach anything - it can teach that Religious wars know no Morals. They know no boundaries.
Just in recent days we are provided with a striking example of this aggressive expansion by the Israeli's - once and all proving and solidifying the fact that Israel is instigating a reaction from the Palestinians.
Israel's decision to erect hundreds of new housing units in the West Bank have dismayed in the United States and the United Nations. On Tuesday, Tel Aviv announced plans to build 900 new homes in Gilo, one of a dozen Israeli settlements in the illegally annexed East Jerusalem (Al-Quds), seized by the Israeli army along with the rest of the occupied West Bank during the six-day war in 1967.
source
So here we see proof of illegal occupation...aggressive expansion, and child-like antagonizing behavior.
Israel claims they want Peace with the Palestinians - multiple times, publicly even...but how can forceful takeover of Palestinian homes be evidence of good intentions?
How can one not feel blood thirsty rage when in the face of death and persecution? Who can blame someone for retaliation when they were kicked out of their homes, or forced to watch a loved one day at the hands of the Israeli government? All in the name of whose God is better.
Peace talks is a nothing more than a facade for the nation of Israel. They will not stop until they have purged all non-Jewish people from their sight, and yet, they have a civil defense for all of this because, after all, who can argue with a Jewish person when talking about oppression? The Jews suffered tremendous oppression in World War 2 at the hands of Hitler. So, that being said, this is why i find it shockingly surprising that just a few years later, they could find it justifiable to turn around and, for no reason what so ever, physically and aggressively force hundreds of thousands of Arabs from "their land".
I remember a commercial on TV a long, long time ago. It was one of those "TOTALLY FOR KIDS" commercials that talked about bullies in school. I see this video as being very representative of the argument i'm making in this debate. (You can see the video here. I do not use this video as a source, just as a way to tell a point of view. I hope that this is an acceptable action? There were no Debate Forum mods online for me to ask.)
You see, "Brad", is much like Israel, and those around him are the Palestinians. Brad (Israel) likes to throw his ego around and see who he can knock over. He likes to show off to the girls in school (other foreign leaders) to see who he can attract...but in the end, he's just making a fool of himself...and why? Because he's not making an attempt to get along with anyone, but making every attempt to make everyone fear him, because Brad (Israel) feels that fear equals respect.
But as we can see from Palestinian backlash (Or in this case of this video, the comments from Brads classmates) - it doesn't equal respect. It equals resentment. And resentment turns into anger, and if pushed for long enough, in the right places, anger turns into violence.
reply posted on 3-12-2009 @ 03:46 PM by Snarf
reply to post by chissler
Congrats to Eco!
Wow - that was an extremely difficult topic to argue against
Thank you to the judges for the inspiring comments. I look forward to a future debate tournament and wish Eco the best of luck in Round 2!!!
Congrats to Eco!
Wow - that was an extremely difficult topic to argue against
Thank you to the judges for the inspiring comments. I look forward to a future debate tournament and wish Eco the best of luck in Round 2!!!
Pages: ^^TOP^^
