Zionism.
Israel.
Side Score: 19
|
 |
Palestine (or whoever).
Side Score: 18
|
|
|
|
|
I don't really know what the debate is about, but Zionism was the movement that created Israel. It originated in Austria-Hungary by Nathan Birnbaum who helped found the World Zionist Congress. They believed in creating a Jewish state within Palestine, that time owned by the Ottoman Empire. This helped spur on the Balfour Declaration. Side: Israel.
|
2
points
2
points
2
points
1
point
it 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: Palestine (or whoever).
it was totally unfair for the Jewish people to take the land which belonged to the Palestinians for centuries upon centuries In what sense did it belong to the Palestinians? They hadn't set up borders. There was no Palestinian state. They were simply the nomadic tribes that occupied the territory, with little sense of property--much in the way the native Americans had. they gave the land up, the least they could do is accept the consequences of permanently leaving your homeland for such a long time. You talk as if their exile was voluntary. 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 They did. Wealthy Jews had been buying up land in the area since the 1800s. By 1948, there were more "foreign" Jews living legitimately in the area than natives. but no, they literally barged in under the banner of the UN. What would you rather have been done with the Jews following the Holocaust? There were certainly some Jews lobbying for the territory to be declared a Jewish state as according to scripture, but their options were kind of scarce to begin with. Much of Judaism had been subject to reform voiding the old prophesies of a return to the holy land already. The Allied armies didn't have the kind of supplies necessary to feed and clothe and house all of those refugees. Many of them hadn't any family or shelter in their home countries to return to. Pretty much anywhere we could have put them they would've intruded upon somebody. now 67 years later, the Israeli government have committed quite the rack of human rights abuses Israel is among the best states to live in for human rights in the Middle East. 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. There's a long history of generous partition proposals that have been accepted by the Israelis but rejected by the Palestinians. Palestine has kind of an all-or-nothing mentality. They'd rather see Israel and Judaism wiped off the face of the earth than for their people to have the basic necessities of living. Side: Israel.
2
points
They were simply the nomadic tribes that occupied the territory, with little sense of property--much in the way the native Americans had. It was totally fair the way we took Native American land. On that note, I support neither side as they are both blood-thirsty, religious zealots. Side: Palestine (or whoever).
RECENT: in what way do your arguments trump my stated arguments? MINE: it was totally unfair for the Jewish people to take the land which belonged to the Palestinians for centuries upon centuries YOURS: In what sense did it belong to the Palestinians? They hadn't set up borders. There was no Palestinian state. They were simply the nomadic tribes that occupied the territory, with little sense of property--much in the way the native Americans had. RESPONSE: whether or not they made official borders or not doesn't matter, they were the people that lived there. national borders is in fact a western idea that became popular in the west because there were so many people in a relatively small area in western Europe. it was also wrong for the early north american settlers to take the land of the native Americans, even if they did not show much early on response in the beginning, its taking advantage of them. and you know after a while the native Americans showed some very strong opposition once they realized that the white men were surrounding their territories and taking their hunting grounds. the Palestinians also showed very strong opposition to being moved off their land and being partitioned off. the fact that they lived their makes it their home, their land per se, whether they realize it at first or not. MINE: they gave the land up, the least they could do is accept the consequences of permanently leaving your homeland for such a long time. YOURS: You talk as if their exile was voluntary. RESPONSE:the key words i use, time and permanently. whether they were forced off their land or not the fact that its been 1291 years since they last had control of the land, if they had control of the land for the past 1291 years and someone tried to move in on them i would defend the Jews, but after 1291 years of not owning the land they felt that they had divine right and ownership to the land, which is unfair to the people who ended up settling in the area later on. MINE: 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. YOURS: They did. Wealthy Jews had been buying up land in the area since the 1800's. By 1948, there were more "foreign" Jews living legitimately in the area than natives. RESPONSE: well sure i know that there were a lot of Jews living their, but whether legitimate or not, there was opposition from the natives who lived their, and the land that was bought by the Jews could never be sold or leased back to the Arabs. that doesn't sound like an innocent immigration, but a economic take over. besides that the Palestinian government simply wasn't ready for a large movement of Jewish people nor did they support it. and even though by 1948 there were more Jews in the area that natives, that doesn't mean it should suddenly change governments and start segregating the Jews and the Palestinians. MINE: but no, they literally barged in under the banner of the UN. YOURS: What would you rather have been done with the Jews following the Holocaust? There were certainly some Jews lobbying for the territory to be declared a Jewish state as according to scripture, but their options were kind of scarce to begin with. Much of Judaism had been subject to reform voiding the old prophesies of a return to the holy land already. The Allied armies didn't have the kind of supplies necessary to feed and clothe and house all of those refugees. Many of them hadn't any family or shelter in their home countries to return to. Pretty much anywhere we could have put them they would've intruded upon somebody. RESPONSE: they didn't have to be put anywhere. you try to do what you can for them, but by no means do you give them special favors that hinder another group of people. if by the time they recover do they chose to move to Palestine, and Palestine accepts them into their society then its ok, if they decide to move to a recovering France, or anywhere else in the world then they could integrate into the french society, besides that anyone during that time could have claimed they were Jewish whether by religion or heredity, and try to get on the boat to Palestine. MINE: now 67 years later, the Israeli government have committed quite the rack of human rights abuses YOURS: Israel is among the best states to live in for human rights in the Middle East. RESPONSE: If you believed i was referring to Jewish citizens, think again, because i have found many many bad and verified true stories about the Jewish border patrol/military attacking people for just being Palestinian, even if the Palestinian happens to be an Israeli citizen. look it up you will find many articles about it, they cant all be lying, can they? plus when you hear about Israel bombing the Gaza strip and getting many children and normal civilians killed, that doesn't support the Israeli's case at all. MINE: 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. YOURS: There's a long history of generous partition proposals that have been accepted by the Israelis but rejected by the Palestinians. Palestine has kind of an all-or-nothing mentality. They'd rather see Israel and Judaism wiped off the face of the earth than for their people to have the basic necessities of living. RESPONSE: well, it shouldn't be partitioned off at all, what should happen is since the situation is what it is in modern times, is that they should have a joint government, combine their borders, have all be considered citizens of the same nation, of course there is no telling what the name of that nation would become, maybe...the... Palestinian-Israeli common wealth? where both Palestinians and Israeli's are treated the same, etc, something kind of like that i suppose, but nothing like that will come about any time soon, just kind of wishful thinking on my part. but still, no partitions that wouldn't be fair compensation considering what the Palestinians have had to go through. Side: Palestine (or whoever).
I don't support a Jewish state for the same reason I don't support a Christian state, a Muslim state, a Hindu state, a Sikh state, or an atheist state. The principles of secular democracy demand that no religious or irreligious view should be granted special privileges by a state. Side: Palestine (or whoever).
|
