Is a two-state solution the most viable option?
Yes, it is
Side Score: 7
|
 |
No, it is not
Side Score: 5
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
Yes, almost all of Palestine wishes for a two state solution, and in recent polls, something like 55% of Israel agree (as opposed to about 35% against). Even the US urges Palestine to go for a two state solution through negotiations through Israel, rather than just get it from the UN. Also, I don't see how, politically, Israel could take control over Palestine. Yet Palestine being 'freed' of Israel is perfectly possible. Side: Yes, it is
From purely a human rights point of view, a two-state solution is the only option. Starting with the first human rights conference of 1968 held in Tehran, Iran, the United States has been heavily involved in setting a precedent for human rights around the world. One example of a human right set fourth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is that every person has the right to a nation. If the United States pulls all funding and involvement in aiding Israel, we will be essentially promoting the free state of war and conflict resulting in a one state solution. If we accept a one-state solution, we have given up on our quest to ensure every person in the world maintains their right to a nation and to a home. I understand the notion of having our own problems domestically to take care of before we solve worldwide issues, but we made a commitment to the people around the world. Just because we face our own issues, does not mean we can lose sight of our global quest to ensure human rights to everybody. I also believe that, as a nation, the United States struggles to provide one balanced nation that every citizen feels at peace with. Clearly the two party system has driven apart people in our own borders, but again, this does not mean we can give up on our commitment to at least try. To at least try to ensure equal human rights to everybody globally. Side: Yes, it is
|
To me, the most viable option is to stop giving aid to Israel. Allow our businesses to freely trade with either the Israelis or the Palestinians. We are not at the moment to be making moral decisions for how other countries fight each other. Maybe one day, but the UN is garbage and the last thing we should do is make them feel like they got something done by telling Israel that it doesn't deserve that land. Side: No, it is not
1
point
Where is any reason to give aid to Israel that isn't politically motivated in the US? That's the only real reason I've heard. There is however, a need for a moderator in their debates. They need a third party messenger to an extent, for example how the UN's asked for potential border drawings, even Israel's taking that seriously, just trying to find excuses and buy time (they have 3 months, Israel claim it's 3 months from when Palestine start talks again, so when they do, they have no room to negotiate). The only reason the UN's garbage is because the US keeps vetoing, General Assembly's the right place for it. And at GA, they can't do anything but condemn and recommend, which I feel is appropriate. Side: Yes, it is
1
point
The Palestinian territories are heavily dependent on foreign aid and, as the confiscation of the PA's tax revenue by the Israeli government several years ago shows, their economic sovereignty is extremely limited. (In fact, the reach of the PA's institutions is weak in general, and simply giving them sovereignty might not actually improve conditions). I actually think that a one-state solution, in which the Palestinians are fully legally enfranchised and given freedom of travel is the best solution, but that too would raise fears of Israel ceasing to be a Jewish state. Still, the two-state solution plan isn't viable while the economy and institutions of the territories are weak. Side: No, it is not
1
point
But do you really think Israel, and Israeli's, are willing to a) accept that they are no longer a Jewish state b) continue their democracy in which everyone is treated equally with an equal vote? I think the only reasons why Palestine should not be a state have been created by Israel's actions, why they should get what they want for putting millions of people down, and killing thousands, does not make sense to me. And if Israel allowed Palestine to become its own leaders, sort out its own tax, it would not have economic problems. It is the uncertainty that the Israeli government will pay its bills (which it often does not do) that cause many of the problems in Palestine. Side: Yes, it is
1
point
Even if they're allowed to have their own borders, that doesn't necessarily mean that they'll develop a strong economy and institutions. The territories' lack of access to markets and capital is the greatest hindrance to economic growth. I agree with your argument that the viability of a Palestinian state really depends on the degree to which Israel will allow it to have sovereignty--so far they haven't been willing to. Whether they should or not is a normative question that's beyond the scope of the debate topic. src: CIA World Factbook, West Bank - Economy https://www.cia. Side: No, it is not
|
