CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
It seems like you never offer anything to the debate anyway.
For instance....
self defense - cool
god gave me your land; pack your shit and get out so I can bulldoze your house down and build mine - not so cool
May I remind you that Hamas started this war, not the Israelis. There is a reason why Palestine doesn't exist and that's because they attacked the Israelis as soon as they got there.
Pretty sure even that was a far better contribution than a logical contradiction like: "Most Jews are not Jewish..."
May I remind you that Hamas started this war
Believing that "this war" started in June of 2014 is a bit facile don't you think?
Before the Israeli teenagers were kidnapped, two Palestinian boys were killed in the Beitunia killings, and before that, and before that, and before that all the way back to the Roman Empire...
There is a reason why Palestine doesn't exist and that's because they attacked the Israelis as soon as they got there.
Maybe you want to rephrase this - It sounds like you are saying that if someone comes to take your house and you attack them, you attacking them is a reason to give it to them...
The Jews did not take land from the Palestinians. In fact, it was purchased from the Palestinians. Furthermore, the only reason the Palestinians were expelled is because the PLO continued to sanction suicide attacks on the Jewish citizenry. The attacks began after they accepted the monies for said land and started to experience seller's remorse, but had spent money.
Zionism is a secular movement, maintained by the fact that it's visionary and founder Theodor Herzl was an atheist. It is also worth noting that the Israeli constitution makes no mention of god.
The bible does not state that it was "given", either. It was a conditional tenancy. The claim agreed upon by zionists is that the land is theirs is due (in part) to Palestinian rejection of Jewish immigration, attacking their own Jewish citizens, and archaeological findings of jewish settlements.
Zionism is a secular movement, maintained by the fact that it's visionary and founder Theodor Herzl was an atheist.
A few notes:
- Herzel wasn't the "founder" of Zionism, he played a big part in expanding the idea in the late 19th early 20th century. Nathan Birnbaum coined the terms Zionism and Zionist in 1890 and there were already scores of Hovevei Zion groups even then.
- Before the term Zionism existed, the practise still existed - it was just called Aliyah.
- The leader of a movement is not emblematic of all its contemporaneous or future supporters.
- Herzl and others who supported a Jewish homeland offered places other than Israel (Uganda, Argentine, etc.) as options for settlement.
- Herzl and others emphasized acquiring the land legitimately which is not how it was acquired. ref
It is also worth noting that the Israeli constitution makes no mention of god.
There is no Israeli Constitution.
The bible does not state that it was "given"
Um, except that it does exactly that scores of times... ref
The claim agreed upon by zionists is that the land is theirs is due (in part) to Palestinian rejection of Jewish immigration, attacking their own Jewish citizens,
and archaeological findings of jewish settlements.
How does rejection of their immigration mean it should belong to them?
Based on those, should't the southwest U.S. belong to Mexico?
- Herzel wasn't the "founder" of Zionism, he played a big part in expanding the idea in the late 19th early 20th century. Nathan Birnbaum coined the terms Zionism and Zionist in 1890 and there were already scores of Hovevei Zion groups even then.
- Before the term Zionism existed, the practise still existed - it was just called Aliyah.
So, "expanding the idea" (which is putting it rather lightly) doesn't count as forming "zionism" in place of well... Aliyah? After all:
- Herzl and others who supported a Jewish homeland offered places other than Israel (Uganda, Argentine, etc.) as options for settlement.
- The leader of a movement is not emblematic of all its contemporaneous or future supporters.
Perhaps not all supporters of zionism on the whole are secularists, but that doesn't detract zionism itself from secularism.
- Herzl and others emphasized acquiring the land legitimately which is not how it was acquired. ref
(or, how it is still being acquired ref ref)
There is no Israeli Constitution.
LOL
I'm sorry, I meant "declaration of independence". It may have been late when I wrote that.
Um, except that it does exactly that scores of times...
No, I'm saying that it wasn't "given" in the sense that it was still conditional.
How does rejection of their immigration mean it should belong to them?
Based on those, should't the southwest U.S. belong to Mexico?
Personally, I feel that it does belong to Mexico (idk if it's worth it to make the change), but not for that reason.
I'm not claiming that one necessarily owns the land because they were denied entry, just that the already existing (jewish) population was rightly be separated, and it's proper to allow them immigrate more people into their portion of the land.
So, "expanding the idea" (which is putting it rather lightly) doesn't count as forming "zionism"
It doesn't count as "founding" it, no. After all: he didn't invent the term, nor the practice.
I meant "declaration of independence".
The Declaration does include the phrase "Rock of Israel" which was deliberately included as a compromise double-entendre which could mean God for believers (a reference to 2 Samuel 23:3) and land of Israel for the secular.
The official English Translation was initially 'Almighty God' ref
Herzl, the Declaration, and others often refer to the Jewish historic connection to the land - couldn't the same connection be evoked by the American Indians, and by the people that were in the land when the Jews got there, by ISIL about the Levant, or anyone whose ancestors lived anywhere basically?
Ask a Palestinian if these parts of the Declaration are being adhered to:
"it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion"
"full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions"
it was still conditional
What part of
"To your offspring I will give this land."
"All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring forever."
"The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God."
and the more than 100 other verses I linked to sounds conditional?
Personally, I feel that it does belong to Mexico
Ha. Ok, topic for another debate I guess.
but not for that reason
Then thank you for concurring that the reason(s) you initially gave do not support the land belonging to them.
their portion of the land
What do you think constitutes "their portion of the land"? The 1947 UN partition plan, the 67 plan, Oslo, Peel, all of what Jews consider Eretz Israel (including Jordan), etc.
You included my argument about how the land was acquired, but not a response, did it perhaps get forgotten in the mix?
It doesn't count as "founding" it, no. After all: he didn't invent the term, nor the practice.
Fair enough.
The Declaration does include the phrase "Rock of Israel" which was deliberately included as a compromise double-entendre which could mean God for believers (a reference to 2 Samuel 23:3) and land of Israel for the secular.
The official English Translation was initially 'Almighty God' ref
Herzl, the Declaration, and others often refer to the Jewish historic connection to the land - couldn't the same connection be evoked by the American Indians, and by the people that were in the land when the Jews got there, by ISIL about the Levant, or anyone whose ancestors lived anywhere basically?
Yes, it could, but that doesn't justify devoting resources to a switch-over of land, they're already there.
Most of the american indians did not improve the land, and would not have otherwise. This doesn't warrant killing them, but having massive tracts of land only to used for what was very close to the bare minimum to stay alive leaves a hole in economic development. I'm pretty sure that the land was also contested among native groups at the time.
Ask a Palestinian if these parts of the Declaration are being adhered to:
"it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion"
"full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions"
Obviously they're going to say no.
What part of
"To your offspring I will give this land."
"All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring forever."
"The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God."
and the more than 100 other verses I linked to sounds conditional?
I was referring to how they might lose ownership of this land.
Then thank you for concurring that the reason(s) you initially gave do not support the land belonging to them.
Ahem:
"The claim agreed upon by zionists is that the land is theirs is due (in part) to"
The land may not have been acquired correctly, and there may be other severe problems, but that doesn't justify uprooting the modern state of Israel and expanding Palestinian's territory. Zionists have other reasons.
What do you think constitutes "their portion of the land"? The 1947 UN partition plan, the 67 plan, Oslo, Peel, all of what Jews consider Eretz Israel (including Jordan), etc.
I don't think that expanding past what they have now would be anything more than bad idea, but leaving land to Palestine would also cause instability. My personal focus on the land that they should have isn't based on say, owning or not, or even right or wrong, but what will produce the best results for everyone involved. I'd have to say that we cut aid to Isreal, and force it to scale down its military power, but that's my best guess on what to do with them. Or, we should just send aid to any particularly war torn areas, maybe even build a huge wall like the other debater suggested. The reasons that many Zionists suggest may vary.
You included my argument about how the land was acquired, but not a response, did it perhaps get forgotten in the mix?
The reclamation was done incorrectly, however my reasons for wanting Israel to remain in place aren't focused on consistency with scripture.
Sorry about not responding, I lost my password, and I gave up after about two weeks, but I'm still logged in on the computer, so finding out the password wasn't too hard after that.
I was referring to how they might lose ownership of this land.
In what way does the Bible say they might lose ownership?
Ahem "The claim agreed upon by zionists is that the land is theirs is due (in part) to"
Ahem, you then proceeded to disagree with your own reasoning: "not for that reason"
I don't think that expanding past what they have now would be anything more than bad idea
Do you not believe that they keep occupying more territory so that whenever a deal is reached (if ever) they will have maximized "what they have now". Doesn't the idea that 'whoever is occupying land owns it' encourage that behavior?
You seem to be agreeing that the Bible does say the land was given to the Jews, that Jewish settlement there is the basis for the "historical connection to the land" used by the religious and the secular for going there, and that the land was taken improperly - how are you disagreeing with me in any way? Your only push back "a switch-over of land" + "that doesn't justify uprooting the modern state of Israel" is against a strawman that I haven't actually offered. I have said they took the land surreptitiously, I have not said what my resolution would be.
In that regard, if someone steals your house, should you not get it back because "they're already there"?
In what way does the Bible say they might lose ownership?
Ahem, you then proceeded to disagree with your own reasoning: "not for that reason"
It has more to do with the fact that the Mexican gov't
Do you not believe that they keep occupying more territory so that whenever a deal is reached (if ever) they will have maximized "what they have now"? Doesn't the idea that 'whoever is occupying land owns it' encourage that behavior?
Yes, it does, but that wouldn't matter if something were done to outright stop expansion.
You seem to be agreeing that the Bible does say the land was given to the Jews, that Jewish settlement there is the basis for the "historical connection to the land" used by the religious and the secular for going there, and that the land was taken improperly - how are you disagreeing with me in any way? Your only push back "a switch-over of land" + "that doesn't justify uprooting the modern state of Israel" is against a strawman that I haven't actually offered. I have said they took the land surreptitiously, I have not said what my resolution would be.
Posing a dispute rather than a clarification led me to assume that you were also going to pose a solution that would include returning the land back, not just referring to hard facts. Using the analogy, you're referring to it as stealing.
In that regard, if someone steals your house, should you not get it back because "they're already there"?
Evicting that person would be much more simple than dealing with the Israeli/Palestine conflict.
In what way does the Bible say they might lose ownership?
You included my quote, but failed to respond to it - if you look back you will see you have done this a few times now.
It has more to do with the fact that the Mexican gov't
It looks like you didn't finish your thought here.
Yes, it does, but that wouldn't matter if something were done to outright stop expansion.
It hasn't happened until now and doesn't appear to be immanent - therefore it does matter. Instead of believing that current tenancy effects a claim, maybe people should be more adamant that increased occupation should increase any punishment (fines, loss of aid, land, etc), or at the very least that occupation is 100% irrelevant to the eventual arrangement.
Posing a dispute rather than a clarification led me to assume that you were also going to pose a solution that would include returning the land back
Disputing your post doesn't require that I submit my own solution to peace in the middle east.
you're referring to it as stealing.
What do you refer to it as?
Evicting that person would be much more simple than dealing with the Israeli/Palestine conflict.
Again, ideology which favors increasing occupation - make it more complex to take away and we win at the end.
You included my quote, but failed to respond to it - if you look back you will see you have done this a few times now.
This is embarrassing, I think that was hitting shift+v instead of ctrl+v
The bible does not say how they may lose ownership of it, however, in many cases inside of the bible, man has been exiled from land (to somewhere subpar) for sinning.
It looks like you didn't finish your thought here.
I was going to say that sometimes with the all of the news of the American gov't swelling further in reach, and with the disparity of income between the US and Mexico, that perhaps some it's states should be ceded to Mexico, of course, that's just how I feel about belonging, and I realize that it wouldn't work out logistically, so other factors spell out why it shouldn't be done.
It hasn't happened until now and doesn't appear to be immanent - therefore it does matter. Instead of believing that current tenancy effects a claim, maybe people should be more adamant that increased occupation should increase any punishment (fines, loss of aid, land, etc), or at the very least that occupation is 100% irrelevant to the eventual arrangement.
Whatever current occupation actually exists now affects how easily land can be swapped in the future. No, they're not the same, I'm not arguing that, but the current state is one of the many stages for the future. The US easily possesses the military power to stop Israel from expanding, and, whether or not cutting aid, pushing them back, or charging fines are warranted, we really don't need them to stop expansion. If the US were willing to do these things, the military muscle might have even arrived before these measures, even the lack of US support could discourage Israel from expansion.
Disputing your post doesn't require that I submit my own solution to peace in the middle east.
Did I say that it was required of you? I anticipated it.
What do you refer to it as?
In a legal sense: Initially it's strictly resettling, since much of land was set aside for a group that wasn't exactly well received in the country. After a declaration of war from Palestine, I find it very hard to take any ownership claims from the Palestinian gov't seriously, so them (Israel) taking doesn't seem like stealing.
Again, ideology which favors increasing occupation - make it more complex to take away and we win at the end.
a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
Can you name which ideology my argument is actually referring to?
man has been exiled from land (to somewhere subpar) for sinning.
Unless occupying the land God supposedly gave them is perceived as a sin, this would be irrelevant.
American gov't swelling further in reach, and with the disparity of income between the US and Mexico, that perhaps some it's states should be ceded to Mexico
and it wouldn't work out logistically, so other factors spell out why it shouldn't be done
Why would wealth disparity (which would inure to the benefit of the Palestinians in this case), or logistics be preferred suasions over treaties, UN resolutions, historical records, etc.?
If the US were willing to do these things, the military muscle might have even arrived before these measures, even the lack of US support could discourage Israel from expansion.
I didn't say anything to the contrary, though this is not the case.
Whatever current occupation actually exists now affects how easily land can be swapped in the future.
Again - determining ownership based on the ease of facilitating a swap encourages increased occupation.
Initially it's strictly resettling, since much of land was set aside for a group that wasn't exactly well received in the country.
Again 1) that's not how it happened; 2) If you don't receive me as a guest, can I resettle your house? What if I make it complex to evict me - I resettle your house using a trust established in a foreign country and have enough money to drag it out in court for years, etc. - at what point should it become my house due to simplicity?
After a declaration of war from Palestine, I find it very hard to take any ownership claims from the Palestinian gov't seriously, so them (Israel) taking doesn't seem like stealing.
To what declaration are you referring? Also, Japan and Germany declared war on the US in WWII, should they now be part of the US?
Can you name which ideology my argument is actually referring to?
Yes - the ideology that the simpler solution is the better one.
What a totally brain dead argument. UN 181 Jews agreed to the partition and the Arabs opposed the Partition Plan. A plan proposed by the UN General Assembly!! Hello that body has no authority or power to impose its "suggestions".
Ben Gurion declares Jewish independence and that same day 5 Arab Arabs supported by the British invaded the newly declared Jewish State.
Who won the war? Hello wake up and smell the coffee. Faggot, you dumb ass declarations reminds me of the conversation held by sperm cells after to fags had sex. "How do we find that ovary in all this shit"?