current pf debate topic: Israel

[Cold]

Resolved: That the policy decisions of the current Israeli government toward the Palestinian state have improved prospects for peace in the Middle East

I'm debating this topic tomorrow, and I wanted to see if you guys had any thoughts on it.

[RedSkunk]

Current government as in Sharon's Likud government? I must admit that I'm not sure what's going on / who's in charge since he's been incapacitated.

It's against my position, but try finding statistical evidence suggesting that the separation barrier has cut down on the amount of violence. Less violence = more chance of peace, obviously.

Personally I think you're on the harder side of the debate here, bucko. GL

[lapis]

Well, the most recent action the present Israeli government under Olmert has taken regarding the problem would have been cutting all funding to the Palestinian Authority due to the recent victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections. I personally disagree with this decision, Hamas being a part of the authorities would encourage them to lay down their weapons. They have agreed to a long term truce with Israel and during the Danish cartoon riots they kept their calm while most of the violence was started by al-Aqsa and the Islamic Jihad. Haniya and his Hamas might suppress terrorism in a way Abbas and the Fatah never could.

Besides, Iran has now offered to compensate the loss of financial aid since the US and Israel have withdrawn all aid. The last thing we want is Hamas turning more to potential allies among radical islamists. The West needs to maintain it's ties with the PA; aid cuts, boycotts and perhaps even violence are only justified if the Hamas screws up and terrorism suddenly surges once again. But right now, Hamas needs to be given a chance, and the actions of the US and Israel are frustrating the peace process.

But you're arguing for the other side, so claim that Hamas is a terrorist organisation which doesn't recognise Israel's right of existence and which never could be trusted with Israeli money and support. An organisation which turns to Iran for financial aid, a nation which is possibly violating non-proliferation treaties and whose president is a Holocaust denier. Argue that a hard line against the Palestinians is the only reasonable alternative since they've chosen Hamas over the more moderate Fatah and that their behaviour during the cartoon riots shows that the PA is incapable of handling terrorism, and that Israeli military might is the only solution, combined with getting support among the moderate parties in Palestine. Or something.

But anyway, like skunk said, I'd personally rather have chosen the other side of the debate. But maybe what I wrote in my first two paragraphs could help you in preparing your defense. And it's friday night and I've had a few beers, so it might be utter bullshit. Bleh.

[Cold]

At 2/24/06 04:44 PM, lapis wrote: But anyway, like skunk said, I'd personally rather have chosen the other side of the debate.

I didn't have a choice.

I think I found enough loopholes in the wording of this topic to help me enough though.
Also, this resolution was written back in like January, which at that point would have been pretty much a balanced debate seeing as how it was before Hamas came to power and things were looking good for Israel...

[lapis]

At 2/24/06 04:59 PM, Cold_Logic wrote: Also, this resolution was written back in like January, which at that point would have been pretty much a balanced debate seeing as how it was before Hamas came to power and things were looking good for Israel...

Yeah, things have changed a lot since then. If you had posted this earlier Lidov might have responded to the thread: nothing better than the opinions of an actual Israeli. But anyway, good luck with your debate tommorow. Let 'em have it :)

[Cold]

At 2/24/06 05:22 PM, lapis wrote: But anyway, good luck with your debate tommorow. Let 'em have it :)

Thanks. I'm going to need it. This is the first time I'm doing this type of debate.