CreateDebate


Debate Info

45
43
Yes No, it's Palestinians land
Debate Score:88
Arguments:59
Total Votes:118
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (24)
 
 No, it's Palestinians land (28)

Debate Creator

AryaOne(217) pic



Israel rightfully belongs to the Jews.

If it wasn't for the Arab attack on the jews in 1948, the british mandate of palestine would have been divided into an Arab state and a Jewish state as per the UN plan. Pity they lauched an attack on the Jews which resulted in the latter's victory, followed by the creation of Israel. Not their fault the Arabs attacked them ! 

 

Yes

Side Score: 45
VS.

No, it's Palestinians land

Side Score: 43
4 points

If I remember my 20th century history correctly, Britain "owned" the land which now makes up Israel. They, after WWII, either to give the Jews a place to be free or to keep the Jews from clogging up Britain, gave the land now known as Israel to the Jewish people. So long as Britain was in possession of the land, I see no reason why Britain ought not have been able to give the land away to anybody of their choosing; therefore, I believe that the Jews have a rightful claim to Israel.

Side: Yes
BenWalters(1513) Disputed
3 points

I don't understand how you, a solipsist and a libertarian, would accept that Britain occupying Israel by military force gives it the right to give it ownership, or to give it to Israel. That judgement goes completely against what I would have expected you to answer.

Also, it's worth noting that Britain didn't give the land directly to Israel. Under Security Council Resolution 242, the lands were divided, Palestine having the Gaza strip & a significant portion of the West Bank, and Israel having the rest - Jerusalem was considered international land (only 55% of land area went to Israel). The Palestinians rejected this (why should their land be given away?), and so the two began a conflict that ended up driving the Palestinians out, and Israel essentially kept ownership from then onwards.

But the whole idea does bring up an interesting point. Where do you, as a Libertarian, feel that property ownership originates? It's quite a vital point to the Libertarian ideal.

Side: No, it's Palestinians land
Liber(1728) Disputed
4 points

solipsist

I fail to see how my being a [latent] solipsist plays into this. If I were a hardcore solipsist I'd never leave that which I perceive as being my place of residence.

would accept that Britain occupying Israel by military force gives it the right to give it ownership, or to give it to Israel.

Strictly speaking, The United States of America was founded the same way.

Also, it's worth noting that Britain didn't give the land directly to Israel. Under Security Council Resolution 242, the lands were divided, Palestine having the Gaza strip & a significant portion of the West Bank, and Israel having the rest...

My Israeli history is not what it should be; but, the way that I see it, Palestine was under the control of Great Britain for some length of time before 1948. Britain gave that plot of land to the Jews and, the Palestinians being opposed, violence began some time later. The Six Days' War came in the late '60s and Israel defeated its enemies monumentally, reasserting their claim to ownership (in my uneducated mind, at least). Violence persisted and Israel has given up a great deal of land for peace, but the Islamists maintain that the whole region - having once been under Islamic occupation - must again be Muslim, and so they refuse to give up.

This brings me to an interesting point: the area has been under the dominion of many empires throughout history. There was once a Kingdom of Jerusalem; the Ottomans took over a while back; Britain came; Romans came, etc. Who has a valid claim after such a tumultuous history? How is the Ottomans' ownership any different than that of the British?

Where do you, as a Libertarian, feel that property ownership originates?

Couldn't say for sure. The question is too vague for me to feel comfortable answering with my opinion.

Side: Yes
4 points

Finders, keepers.

Side: Yes
2 points

And takers, keepers.

Side: Yes

Good to see you're still 100% present behind the racist aparthied zionist regime currently in government in Isreal.

I suppose you were crestfallen when racial segregation in South Africa ended, and you're probably still heart broken that those "dam'ned niggers" don't have to sit at the back of bus.

Side: Yes
2 points

Yes the Israel does belong to the Jews. Also it is God's people and God will protect Isreael if Iran tries to attack them

Side: Yes
SullenCynic(40) Disputed
2 points

Also it is God's people and God will protect Isreael if Iran tries to attack them.

I'd pay to watch, from afar. I'm sure you'd recant and then tell me that God will take all his Israelis to heaven with him when theyre killed by missiles and gunfire. But I'm not saying they'd lose, no, they would win. They have a very adept army, with plenty of nuclear warheads -- all of which are undeclared.

Side: No, it's Palestinians land
garry77777(1794) Disputed
1 point

"lso it is God's people and God will protect Isreael if Iran tries to attack them"

Firstly, Isreal are the ones threatening Iran with attack, not the other way round, also, you actually think God will send a few lighting bolts (ala Zeus) Tehrans way in the event of war. Hmmm? I guess the Americans won't need to intervene.

Side: No, it's Palestinians land
Srom(12197) Disputed
1 point

Actually I have followed this story for awhile now and it really is Iran that is threatening Israel to wipe them off the map. That is why they have nuclear capassabilities because they are going to make nuclear weapons and once they are done they are going to attack Israel

Side: Yes
ChuckHades(3198) Disputed
1 point

For that argument to hold ground, you must prove that God exists. Until you can do so, the argument is irrelevant.

Side: No, it's Palestinians land
Srom(12197) Disputed
0 points

Even if I did prove to you God exists and gave you all the evidence I have you probably would say that all the evidence that I had was not true and you won't accecpt the fact that God exists. Also you probably even if I did tell you about how God exists it will have no value to you. So there is no point of telling you God exists when you won't accept the evidence that I would give you, it the same old atheist way that all of the atheists do if I give evidence they claim that isn't evidence that is why I don't proove God exists because it is a waste of words to me and all that work I did went down the drain

Side: Yes
2 points

Jews Rule!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Side: Yes
2 points

It says on your profile you're from India, you sound like an American neo-con. Let's examine what you said.

Now, you seem to be quite ignorant of history, firstly the land belonged to Palestine, therefore, Britain had no right to give it away. The original Balfour Declaration (1917) promised a homeland for the Jews without encroaching on the territory of non-Jewish people, Britain liked the idea of creating a nice little Jewish colony or Jewish "Northern Ireland" (if you will) in the areas within which they still ruled, but they had no right to give that land away. It would have been equivalent to the British giving Ireland to the Jews, and forcing out all the Irish Catholics.

Now, this policy eventually backfired when the British tried to put a limit on the number of Jews that could successfully emigrate (the white paper), this resulted in the formation of Jewish terrorist groups that routinely attacked the British empire, when this became too much, the British turned the problem over to the UN (1947), it decided to partition Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish state (see video), the Jews accepted this, the Arabs did not. The reason they did not should be immediately apparent to anyone with a functioning brain, i.e. IT WAS THEIR LAND

There was simply no way to create a Jewish state without carrying out ethnic cleansing of the local population. This simple slice of history seems to have somehow been forgotten (or intentionally obfuscated) in the wake of the infinite superfluity of pro-Zionist propaganda (that nearly always has virtually zero truth value) that has been unleashed on the world since. This resulted in the 1948 war.

BTW don't give me the: "It was their land originally" defence, I highly doubt your ancestors from 3,000 years ago lived where you currently do, and I doubt if the ancestors of the people that did live where you currently do came back to claim what they believed was their land you'd be amenable to the idea of giving it up.

Also, please don't give that me that overzealous BS that the land belongs to the Jews cause it says so in the bible, God (if he exists, and that's a big fucking if) is not a real estate agent, and the bible is not his fiduciary relationship with his clients.

Something worth noting, in 1917 when the Balford declaration was announced, the global Zionist movement was miniscule relative to all other Jewish movements, and it most certainly wasn't religious. Most Jews were leftists, and didn't actually want to move to Palestine (it's true). Most didn't want to have to be pushed out of the homes they had made for themselves around the world.

I would love if Israel could abandon their racist apartheid regime, and actually extend an olive branch to their neighbours. Ideally, I would love to see a one state settlement with Israelis and Arabs living together as equals, the idea of having a solely Jewish state is repulsive to me, it has led to a racist apartheid regime, and a rogue extremist state (Israel), the ongoing slow genocide against the Palestinians, and the discrimination and restriction of equal right for non-Jewish (i.e. Arabs) Israelis. However, you have to be pragmatic, and realise that this is a long way from becoming attainable (if at all).

There will not be peace in Palestine until the Jews give the Palestians their dignity back. I am in favour of two state settlement based on pre-1967 borders, and UN 242. No justice, no peace, no justice, no peace!!!!!!!!!

The 1948 Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine
Side: No, it's Palestinians land
2 points

I wish it was possible to give 2 up votes, but one shall suffice. Very well said.

Side: No, it's Palestinians land

Thanks :)

Side: No, it's Palestinians land
BenWalters(1513) Clarified
2 points

Out of interest, how do you support both the 67 & 242 borders? 67 only goes further into Palestine, and 242 should have been the original basis for borders, anything less is simply accepting Israel's misdemeanour's. There might only be slight changes on a map, but those are thousands of square kilometres more of illegally taken land we're talking about.

Side: Yes
garry77777(1794) Clarified
2 points

"Out of interest, how do you support both the 67 & 242 borders? 67 only goes further into Palestine, and 242 should have been the original basis for borders"

You seem to think there is some conflict between UN resolution 242 and 67 borders, I'm not aware of any, UN242 is the formula that makes the land acquired in the June 1967 war illegal, and thus makes the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and (to a lesser extent since the withdrawl) Gaza occupied Palestian territory. And also includes within it's framework a just settlement to the refugee question in order to compensate those who forced out of their native land.

"anything less is simply accepting Israel's misdemeanour's. There might only be slight changes on a map, but those are thousands of square kilometres more of illegally taken land we're talking about."

Now I understand your confusion. You see, a return to the June 1967 borders is exactly what is called for in UN 242, but the interpretation of what constitutes a return to pre-June 67' borders has been a controversial topic ever since Moshe Dayan claimed it allowed for "territorial revision." This was, in effect, a devious way of trying to secure much of the land they had acquired in the war by annexing large segments of the West Bank (in particular), and thus preventing the creation of Palestian state, at least anything that could be called a state.

UN 242: "the consensus interpretation of Resolution 242, making allowance for only "minor" and "mutual" adjustments on the irregular border between Israel and the Jordanian-controlled West Bank."

The key word there is mutual, as in, Isreal cannot keep any land without full Palestian agreement, but the Palestians have been extraordinarily flexible on this issue, they are willing to grant Isreal the right to keep the majority of their settlements which constitute approximately 2-3% of the occupied territory, but as long as they get land of equal size, and crucially, of equal quality, in return.

Source: Norman G. Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (New York: 1995)

Now, this Isreali view point was largely dismissed and deplored internationally until the US shifted their position on Isreal, i.e. "In a crucial shift beginning under the Nixon-Kissinger administration, however, American policy was realigned with Israel's.Except for Israel and the United States (and occasionally a US client state), the international community has consistently supported, for the past quarter-century, the "two-state" settlement: that is, the full Israeli withdrawal/full Arab recognition formula as well as the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel."

Source: Noam Chomsky, The Fateful Triangle (Boston: 1983), pp. 65-6.

Since then the issue has become clounded in myth and propaganda, and when people in the West refer to 67' borders it is highly unliklely they are taking about faithfully adopting the framework set out in UN 242, that's why you here statements in the Western media referring to "a two state settlement that is today's consensus", i.e. the consensus of Isreal and the US

Side: Yes

I agree with the No Peace part. Let them duke it out. I put my money on Israel ;)

Side: No, it's Palestinians land
garry77777(1794) Disputed
2 points

Ya, I probably would to given that they're being unequivocailly backed by the worlds only hyperpower. How do you think they won the 6 day the war, I'll give you a hint, it has something to do with the US sending one of the largest consignement's of military aid in history, oh wait, that wasn't a hint.

Side: Yes
ChadOnSunday(1863) Clarified
0 points

Islamic regimes don't know the first thing about justice or peace. If the Israelis conceded or compromised it would assure neither of these things.

I can agree with about 90% of your post, but you seem to have fallen for the lie of the Religion of Peace. Pro-Palestinian propaganda would love to paint the Palestinians as passive victims and have us believe this is purely about territory, and, like all good lies, this has an element of truth. But they've omitted the fact that this is as much about Islamic Jew-hatred as it is anything else. For that reason a two-state solution will forever be impractical. At least for as long as the Palestinian cause is led by hate-mongers and terrorists.

But, like i said, you're quite right about the territorial issues, and it's all valid and well-crafted. Up-vote for you.

Side: Yes
BenWalters(1513) Disputed
0 points

The Islamic-Jewish hatred is entirely caused by Israel (as in the occupation of land). There would be lingering tension between the two cultures, but it would quickly dissipate, especially if part of the deal was a peace treaty (which there most definitely would be). Muslims have no real problem with Judaism as a religion, they are simply against anyone taking land from their 'brothers', and this is what they perceive Israel to have done.

Side: Yes
AryaOne(217) Disputed
-1 points

firstly the land belonged to Palestine, therefore, Britain had no right to give it away.

The British RULED Palestine and of course they can give it to anyone they feel like. You know about how colonization and occupation has worked for centuries? If not, then it's you who is ignorant of history. The British divided the land into two - one for Jews and one for Arabs. They didn't give the entire land to the Jews.

The reason they did not should be immediately apparent to anyone with a functioning brain, i.e. IT WAS THEIR LAND

By the way, didn't your United states of America belong to the native Americans (Indians) and Australia to the 'stolen generations' ? It was THEIR land. Did they have any choice?

BTW don't give me the: "It was their land originally" defense,

No I won't give that defense. I am against that defense myself.

Also, please don't give that me that overzealous BS that the land belongs to the Jews cause it says so in the bible, God

I don't believe in the bible and I don't believe in any of your Abraham religions.

I would love if Israel could abandon their racist apartheid regime, and actually extend an olive branch to their neighbors.

The neighbors who collectively attacked them thrice ?

There will not be peace in Palestine until the Jews give the Palestians their dignity back. I am in favour of two state settlement based on pre-1967 borders

There won't be any peace until Palestines and the rest of the world recognize the state of Israel. It is a land won by the Jews in a war, the same kind of war that has led to the formation of every country in this world. Tell me, which country today is NOT formed by occupation or capture succeeding a war? If the state of Israel is recognized, then only Israel will give back the illegally occupied lands and that would bring peace. I don't think there's any other way out.

Side: Yes
garry77777(1794) Disputed
1 point

"The British RULED Palestine and of course they can give it to anyone they feel like. "

The British also RULED India, does the same logic apply in that example?

"You know about how colonization and occupation has worked for centuries? If not, then it's you who is ignorant of history."

No, I'm not ignorant of history or international law.

"By the way, didn't your United states of America belong to the native Americans (Indians)"

I'm Irish.

"It was THEIR land. Did they have any choice?"

No.

"No I won't give that defense. I am against that defense myself."

Well I'm glad you are, because even if someone actually thought that was a viable defence, the fact is, if the lineage of most Isreal Jews was traced back 3,000 yrs, not many of their roots would correspond to Palestine.

"I don't believe in the bible and I don't believe in any of your Abraham religions."

Again, just trying to pre-empt the usual neo-con responses.

"The neighbors who collectively attacked them thrice ?"

Actually, I can guarantee you that the overwhelming majority of wars and conflicts that have transpired since the establishment of the state of Isreal were intentionally initiated by it.

"There won't be any peace until Palestines and the rest of the world recognize the state of Israel."

The world has already recognised the state of Isreal, and even Hamas, the most extreme representative of the Palestians has acknowledged the reality of the state, and please don't give me the: "they must recognise the right of the state of Isreal to exist."

No state in mankinds history has ever had to recognise the right of another to exist, even Gandhi said: "I will acknowledge the existence of a Pakistani state, I will never recognise it's right to exist."

The zionist created the "Palestinians need to acknowledge our right to exist" defence in order to counter the increasingly moderate peace offensive of the PLO, they did so knowing full well nobody would submit to such a declaration, what they were effectively asking was, you need to acknowlegde our right to rob you of your lives, homeland, and dignity. It infuriates me when I here idiotic Americans use that defence as if it has merit.

"It is a land won by the Jews in a war, "

UN 242 states clearly that any territory acquired by war is inadmissable by law.

"Tell me, which country today is NOT formed by occupation or capture succeeding a war?"

Why do you think the UN was orginally formed?

"If the state of Israel is recognized, then only Israel will give back the illegally occupied lands and that would bring peace."

It's quite apparent to me that you have no idea what you're talking about, the entire world has recognised the state, and ones that haven't have made assurances to do so in the event that Isreal ceases its expansionist policy, and abides by international law.

Side: No, it's Palestinians land
2 points

"If it wasn't for the Arab attack on the jews in 1948, the british mandate of palestine would have been divided into an Arab state and a Jewish state as per the UN plan. Pity they lauched an attack on the Jews which resulted in the latter's victory, followed by the creation of Israel. Not their fault the Arabs attacked them!"

Under that thought then doesn't Tibet rightfully belong to China???

Also why did the UN (which was then mostly controlled by US, Britain, and France) have the right to control who get which land?

Side: No, it's Palestinians land
1 point

'Israel rightfully belongs to the Jews.'

How many ppl have to die before we admit that it doesn't?

Side: No, it's Palestinians land
canteenkenny(62) Disputed
2 points

That depends. How many more times will Israel be forced to defend themselves from Arab attack?

Side: Yes

The reason Jews keep trying to claim Palestine is because of their constant discrimination. the US government kind of didn't want the Jews. And this isn't only Jewish occupation, it is Zionist occupation. And do you have any idea what is happening to the Palestinian children?

Side: No, it's Palestinians land
AryaOne(217) Disputed
1 point

And what exactly is 'zionist occupation' according to you?

Side: Yes
1 point

well Zionism is basically Jewish nationalism or extremism and lots of Jews are anti-Zionists. This extremism can lead to many immoral acts. So because they are such nationalists they would want to take over other territories and change the ways of life which would explain the crimes being committed against the Palestinian people.

Side: No, it's Palestinians land

I dont see how Israel rightfully belongs to the Jews. It's one of the most contested territories in history, and it was held by Arabs for a long span of time before the Western world carved it up out of sympathy for the Jews. And the Jews hold it for a stupid reason: religion.

However, it's a little late for any attempt to give Israel back, and even the two-state solution is, at this point, and impractical ideal. A solution could've been worked out several times if the Palestinian cause wasn't led by corrupt religious fascists and allied with brutal terrorists. Given their predicament, it's obviously in the Jews best interests to seek peace; they are surrounded by countries that hate them. But because their opponents are driven by hate-filled religious zeal in addition to a desire to see the land returned, peace is not in their interest. If the Palestinians and Hamas stopped fighting there would be peace. If the Israelis stopped fighting there would be a genocide.

So while i don't agree with everything Israel does and i don't think the Jews have any inherit claim to the region, I support Israels right to exist, both because in an ever-growing pro-Islamic anti-Semitic world the Jews need their own state, and because any admission or concession to the hate-filled, Islamic terrorist cause brings us one step closer to the next Holocaust.

I used to support Palestine quite rigorously, until is became apparent that the Western liberal pro-Palestinian groups and the victims of displacement outside Israel are a peaceful front for the homicidal leadership of Palestine, validating the cause and garnering sympathy so that the maniacs are free to pursue their real goal: driving the Jews into the sea.

Side: No, it's Palestinians land
1 point

t was totally unfair for the Jewish people to take the land which belonged to the Palestinians for centuries upon centuries based upon a book. it doesn't matter if thousands of years ago their ancestors inhabited the land, that doesn't give them divine right to barge in on whoever lived their now. they gave the land up, the least they could do is accept the consequences of permanently leaving your homeland for such a long time. it would have been reasonable for them to simply move there, just as long as the Palestinians can support immigration of the Jewish people in that small area, but no, they literally barged in under the banner of the UN. now 67 years later, the Israeli government have committed quite the rack of human rights abuses, while at the same time illegally moving into whats left of the Palestinians land creating more neighborhoods, and leaving the Palestinians more crammed in their land mass everyday.

Side: No, it's Palestinians land