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:
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?
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
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?
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?
: 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
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
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?