Which side makes a better case?
avatar
38 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 4 months ago

    References:
    “7A. Prevention of participation of candidates' list (Amendments 9, 35, and 39) a. A candidates' list shall not participate in elections to the Knesset, and a person shall not be a candidate for election to the Knesset, if the objects or actions of the list or the actions of the person, expressly or by implication, include one of the following:
    negation of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state;
    incitement to racism;
    support of armed struggle, by a hostile state or a terrorist organization, against the State of Israel.“
    https://knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/basic2_eng.htm

    https://www.yourdictionary.com/apartheid

    https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/201703_UN_ESCWA-israeli-practices-palestinian-people-apartheid-occupation-english.pdf

    • 4 months ago

      @julian right, that doesn't mean it's illegal to have more non-Jews than Jews. We can have another debate about what it means to be a Jewish state and whether there's anything wrong with that. Note that there are many countries that are officially Muslim countries and several that are officially Christian -- do you have an issue with those? Also Jewish in that context is meant neither in the sense of observing a religion, nor of a race or ethnicity. Again, we can discuss that further, either offline or in a debate (but preferably not with time blocks), but for now the point is, I maintain that this does not support the proposition debated at all.

    • 4 months ago

      @gugs not a valid comparison. the states you're referring to are religious states. I have shared with you evidence that it is a jewish state by ethnic majority. Im happy to have an open discussion later. But please do some research to value my time. Im all for having an honest open discussion. But debate is about disagreement. And I know you wouldnt defend a suit in court by saying the court is wrong and simply disagree and want to talk about it right?

    • 4 months ago

      @julian as I said before, my objective was not to present the opposing view, but to disprove the proposition. Also, I am well-read on the subject, even though I didn't do actual debate prop -- I'm sorry if you feel that was disrespectful of me towards your time.

    • 4 months ago

      @gugs we can talk about it more openly right now if you want.

    • 4 months ago

      @julian wdym

    • 4 months ago

      @gugs I have time to talk you more right now, if you’re also free.

    • 4 months ago

      @julian sure, like privately or another debate?

    • 4 months ago

      @gugs the title will just be israel/Palestine discussion, no timer.

    • 4 months ago

      @julian ok

    • 4 months ago

      although I haven't done any new research ;)

    • 4 months ago

      @gugs you should see it now.

    • 3 months ago

      @gugs The law is presented so as to make it illegal to challenge the ethno-dominance of Jews. There are also around 50 laws within the State of Israel proper that discriminates against Arabs. In the occupied territories Israeli citizens are subject to civil law while Palestinians are subject to military law. The "official" Muslim/Christian country thing is a misnomer: As Julian points out this is a religious thing and there is little that is "official" about it. Those countries are not recognized as "Christian or Muslim" states. Israel demands international recognition as an ethnically Jewish state. Do you know of any other such states?

    • 3 months ago

      @gugs your being well-read did not come across at all. I look forward to "round two" where I hope to see more informed debating on your part.

    • 3 months ago

      @bookman there is actually one.. Saudi Arabia is an official Muslim state.. which is actually very representative of what a religious state means.

    • 3 months ago

      @gigi Hi gigi. That's propably right, although I'm not sure if it's recognized internationally as such. In any event that is religion and not ethnicity or race. Either way Saudi is not many people's cup of tea either...I do miss debating. I had to take a back seat as my video link just does not seem to work well even though i have high speed cable broadband via ethernet. It is also very difficult to arrange debates because of the time difference, the US being "behind" in time...lol.

    • 3 months ago

      @bookman round two came right away and is linked above.

      I don't claim to be an expert, but I have read a lot. That said, the timed debate format does not work well for me at all. I'm more interested in your comments on the follow-up discussion. Here is the link again: https://www.qallout.com/debate/6211-israelpalestine-discussion

    • 3 months ago

      @bookman can you link to those laws?

      I'm not sure what is unofficial about a state not allowing Jews to live there, and it even being dangerous for a Jew to walk there. Maybe it is unofficial but they just have terrible law enforcement?

      I'm not sure what you mean by "Israel demands international recognition ..." -- can you expand or source that? Also, I don't see how that affects the proposition.

    • 3 months ago

      @gugs thanks. I'll watch and comment.

    • 3 months ago

      @gugs I'm not sure what your first sentence mean, what are you referring to? The "Jewish" state thing is a constant mantra, although it's always "Jewish and democratic". Even John Kerry said "It can't be both". I sometimes feel sick about all this gugs; I got a report this morning that the IDF have summoned a 3 year old boy to answer interrogation having been "accused" of stone throwing. Israel truly is becoming the pit of depravity. The link to the laws you asked me for: https://www.adalah.org/en/content/view/7771

    • 3 months ago

      @bookman I was responding to

      > The "official" Muslim/Christian country thing is a misnomer: As Julian points out this is a religious thing and there is little that is "official" about it.

      Basically, official or not, many Muslim states are pretty serious about their Muslim character. I mean look how diverse Israel is, and look how un-diverse the rest of the region is.

      Not sure what "even John Kerry" means. He was no friend to Israel.

      The story about the 3 year old is Palestinian propaganda. Also, why are they trained from an early age to use whatever weapon they can against Jews?

      > The link to the laws you asked me for: https://www.adalah.org/en/content/view/7771

      I clicked on a bunch of the laws there, though not all of them, and did not find anything that says a Jew may do X but an Arab may not, or anything of the sort. What is your definition of discrimination?

      Maybe it would be more productive to discuss a single law at a time. Pick one that you consider discriminatory and let's discuss it.

      Also, does it bother you that Arab countries are Judenrein, and that it's not safe for a Jew to wander into East Jerusalem or Hebron? (As in, chances of survival are pretty slim.) I think that scores a bit higher on the discrimination scale, no?

    • 3 months ago

      @gugs seems to me gugs you evaluate facts on whether you like them or not.

  • 3 months ago

    A very one-sided debate. That is to say that con was almost entirely unprepared and consequently was outclassed by pro. This does not, for me, necessarily make for a "good" debate, however it serves to prove that much of the argument over the apartheid issue rests with the fact that most people (particularly in the US) simply do not know the facts. I felt that con thought this would be an easy ride but his argument turned into bluster and simplistic denial, devoid of any real substance. The tired-out comparison to South Africa on con's part is wearing thin when everyone knows that the Israel/Palestine situation does most certainly meet the internationally agreed definition of apartheid. Israel's attempts to deny this by saying the West Bank is not part of Israel is completely undone by its de-facto annexation. Well done to both for keeping calm and civilized. I'll look forward to a rematch where I hope con will have carried out some research in order to present a coherent argument at least.

    • 3 months ago

      @bookman indeed, I had interpreted the proposition to refer to within Israel itself. Also apartheid is usually used to evoke the evil situation that existed in South Africa. Whether a situation technically meets a legal definition, for non-evil reasons, is less interesting. I was indeed not prepared to discuss whether the situation spanning Israel, Gaza, and Judea and Samaria, which is the way it is for very different reasons, meets said legal definition, and had I interpreted the proposition that way I would have certainly done research into that first.

    • 3 months ago

      @gugs many definitions originate by being based on precedents, i.e. "genocide" . As Julian explained (and you can look it up yourself) apartheid does not simply apply to the geographic area of South Africa. It is interesting that in your last paragraph you have yourself just reinforced the reality by referring to the West Bank area as Judea and Samaria. Do you regard those areas as part of Israel? And if so can all the population living in that area vote in the national election? Please advise.

    • 3 months ago

      @bookman I'm not sure what calling the West Bank by its original name has to do with the discussion.

      How many definitions does genocide have? I'm not sure what your point was.

      I intended to say at the beginning of the debate (before I realized it was a timed debate and how that is implemented on QallOut) that we should first be clear about which definition of apartheid we are using. I don't have a problem with words having multiple meanings. I do have a problem with misunderstanding about which meaning was intended!

      Again, if the question is about a narrow, technical definition of apartheid, without implying that Israel is an evil, racist regime, it doesn't really grab my interest. I suspect even so it's a problematic claim but I haven't researched it enough to discuss.

      On the other hand if the insinuation is that Israel practices a philosophy of racial (or ethnic, or anything) superiority, and/or has different laws for people based on how they were born, or any other evil behavior, then the assertion is demonstrably false. And also the analogy to South Africa holds.

      Also,

      > apartheid does not simply apply to the geographic area of South Africa

      Obviously, I ever claimed otherwise. Again, the question is whether there's any *meaningful* _analogy_ to South Africa.

    • 3 months ago

      @gugs so do you regard 'judea and samaria' as Israel or not?

    • 3 months ago

      @gugs I do not insinuate that Israel practices a philosophy of racial superiority, I wholeheartedly assert that it does. Are you going to accept my debate challenge or not?

    • 3 months ago

      @bookman I don't think I saw it, can you repost the link?

    • 3 months ago

      @gugs Regarding the "original name", well if you believe the bible and all that nonsense it's up to you. Names of places change over time. My own country had loads of names: Albion, Mercia, Wessex, The Danelaw (that was when the Danish Vikings ruled here, gosh what if they came and re-claimed their "homeland"?). All quite ridiculous.

    • 3 months ago

      @bookman ok sorry, hadn't realized that was your challenge ("someone from the UK")


      I have a couple of reservations:
      1) I enjoy more discussing questions that come down to reasoning (analyzing logic) more than those that come down to knowledge of history
      2) IMO debates (especially here where they're free) should have as narrow a focus as possible -- better to attain greater clarity on fewer questions than to have a wide-ranging discussion that ends up jumping around and doesn't resolve anything. A broader subject can be broken down into several debates. It's possible that you meant the proposition in a narrow sense. If so please expand it to be more clear and precise, otherwise I'd prefer to break out a smaller subset of the question.
      3) If you specifically want this topic despite the above then I would need to find the time to do proper research. However if you just want to have a relaxed discussion I'm happy to have it anyway -- a bunch of points you raised in the comments would be easier to respond to verbally than in writing, I think. That said I'm not sure if it would make more sense to do that on QallOut or just have a private conversation on Google Hangouts or the like.

      Thoughts?

    • 3 months ago

      @gugs well, create a debate and I will see if I want to accept it.

    • 3 months ago

      @bookman what do you say to having a friendly private video chat first?

    • 3 months ago

      @gugs I guess we could, if you like. I'm finding it a bit hard to understand though. You're a member of qallout so I take it you enjoy debating. I'm a reasonable chap. I only ask that we use terms of reference that are recognized by academia. For instance I do not consider the Bible as history and will ignore any "facts" based on that. You debated Julian so why not me?

    • 3 months ago

      @bookman I don't mean instead of debating, but either (a) to figure out a good topic to do a debate on, and/or (b) to have a conversation that's too broad or wide-ranging for the debate format to be useful.

    • 3 months ago

      @gugs I think we can figure out the topic without "meeting" to discuss it. Why don't you think up a few titles for a debate you'd be happy to have with me. I'll accept almost anything regarding Israel/Palestine.