query: Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

positive: A two-state solution is best for peace Palestinians and Israelis will not be able to live together in peace in the same state any time in the foreseeable future. The idea that Palestinians and Israelis can live in peace and harmony in one state, with tolerance for each other and in keeping with democratic principles of inclusion, is simply naive. This idea has been made impossible by nearly a century of direct conflict between these people. While this might change in coming centuries, it is unacceptable to adopt a one-state policy now based on these naive ideas. Israeli President Shimon Peres has argued: “Establishing a single multinational country is a tenuous path that does not bode well for peace but, rather, enforces the conflict's perpetuation. Lebanon, ravaged by bloodshed and instability, represents only one of many examples of an undesirable quagmire of this nature.”(1) This stance has been endorsed by leaders and officials from around the world: US special envoy George Mitchell has stated “In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we believe that the two-state solution, two states living side by side in peace, is the best and the only way to resolve this conflict.”(2) Pope Benedict XVI has similarly called on Israel’s leadership to embrace the two-state solution for peace with the Palestinians: “I plead with all those responsible to explore every possible avenue in the search for a just resolution of the outstanding difficulties, so that both peoples may live in peace in a homeland of their own, within secure and internationally recognized borders.”(3) Even Colonel Gaddafi, the late Libyan leader, argued that a two-state solution was essential for peace.(1) The reason the two-state solution has been recognised as the best for peace is because it respects the democratic will of both peoples for a state of their own. As Peres argues, “The Jewish people want and deserve to live in peace in their rightful, historical homeland. The Palestinian people want and deserve their own land, their own political institutions and their right to self-determination. It is vital that this cause be based on the prospect of coexistence between Jews and Arabs, which translates into cooperation in fields such as the economy, tourism, the environment and defence. Achieving all this will be possible only by granting each people its own state and borders, to enable their citizens to pray according to their faiths, cultivate their cultures, speak their own languages and safeguard their heritages.”(1) Because only a two-state solution allows for this peaceful co-existence and development, a two-state solution is best for peace and thus more justified than a one-state solution.

positive: Only a one-state solution can end the conflict It was no less a man than Albert Einstein who believed in 'sympathetic cooperation' between 'the two great Semitic peoples' and who insisted that 'no problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.' A relative handful of Israelis and Palestinians are beginning to survey the proverbial new ground, considering what Einstein's theories would mean in practice. They might take heart from Einstein's friend Martin Buber, the great philosopher who advocated a bi-national state of 'joint sovereignty,' with 'complete equality of rights between the two partners,' based on 'the love of their homeland that the two peoples share.'(10) This position has been adopted by some Palestinian leaders: In October 2005, Nusseibeh, then president of al-Quds University in Jerusalem, and several other liberal Palestinian political activists and intellectuals held a press conference in Jerusalem, stating: “We are pressing now for equal political and legal rights within a single, democratic Israel, and we are confident that our Israeli brothers and sisters will welcome us and that together we will build a free and democratic state in which Jews and Arabs will live together in peace.”(5) A two-state solution, however, would most likely foster continued conflict, for two reasons. Firstly, a Palestinian state would be base for terrorism. As seen when Israel withdrew from Gaza, the Palestinians there did not embrace the two-state solution, but the Muslim hardliners who controlled Gaza continued to want nothing less than Israel's destruction, and Gaza's newly-elected Hamas government spent much of its money not on the welfare of Palestinians but on attacking Israel.(11) Similarly, a two-state solution makes Israel too narrow and vulnerable. A two-state solution would make Israel only 6 miles wide at a number of points where the West Bank juts into Israeli territory.(1) This creates a number of vulnerabilities, particularly the risk that Israel may become divided during a war (a not unlikely prospect). For all these reasons, a two-state solution cannot offer true peace, but a one-state solution built on co-operation and equal rights can, and so a one-state solution is more just.

positive: Only a two-state solution can satisfy both sides A two-state solution can offer sufficient territory for both Israelis and Palestinians. For Israel this would mean keeping the vast majority of areas inhabited by Israeli citizens within the state of Israel. The two-state solution would also, however, offer sufficient land to the Palestinians. While cynics might question the size of the West Bank and Gaza, optimists should look no further than Singapore for reassurance. The area of the West Bank and Gaza is nine times as large as Singapore's, yet the combined population of Palestinians in both regions is smaller than that of Singapore. Singapore enjoys one of the highest standards of living in the world. The Palestinians are capable of achieving similar success, through instituting a modern economy based on science, technology and the benefits of peace.(1) Moreover, throughout the years polls have consistently showed respectable Israeli and Palestinian majorities in favour of a negotiated two-state settlement.(6) Even the Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad has stated that Iran would support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The success of a two-state solution, therefore, would, at a minimum, gain the support and possibly cooperation of the Iranians. This would be valuable diplomatically, particularly in resolving the larger conflict between Iran and the West.(7) Therefore, the best way to satisfy both sides and achieve peace is to adopt a two-state solution, which is therefore the most just solution.

positive: A one-state solution mean Israel would cease to be either democratic or Jewish As described in the above quote by Peres, the vast majority of Israelis desire to live in a Jewish homeland in which they can define their own institutions and culture in light of their Jewish heritage. A one-state solution, however, would undermine Israel's legitimacy and internationally recognized right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state in the land of the Jewish forefathers. From Israel's perspective, it is not possible for the Jewish people to accept an arrangement that signifies the end of the existence of a Jewish state, which would be the result of a one-state solution, as the state could not be considered a Jewish one if it housed a very large Palestinian population, possibly even a Palestinian majority.(1) For this reason it is unlikely that any one-state solution would be truly democratic, and rather would be a situation of an Israeli minority ruling over a Palestinian majority, who would be largely excluded from the running of the country and determining their own affairs.(4) A one-state solution would only produce an explosive situation in which Jews would dominate the economy and most other aspects of the new state, creating a reality of exploitation. At that point in time, the new state would be a new form of occupation that would only set the conflict on a more violent track.(5) Therefore, the new state created by a one-state solution would be unacceptable either to Israelis or to Palestinians, as it would cease to be either Jewish or democratic, and so would not be a just outcome. Only a two-state solution can keep Israel Jewish and democratic, and allow a Palestinian state similarly to be Arab and democratic, as it would most likely wish.

positive: Should people boycott Israel for inhumane acts against arabs? (BDS) This debate however is about human rights. I have stated studies that have proven that Israel has committed atrocities against the Palestinian people. I do not hold any prejudice against the Israeli people, but its government. I would like to gather all of the studies that prove that the Israeli Government has: 1. Committed acts of terror against the Palestinian people. 2. Oppresses the Palestinian people which lead to an apartheid where Palestinians have no say in the government. 3. Created an environment where Palestinians support Hamas. 4. Has blocked peace deals that could have ended this conflict. Con has rebutted this by saying that the researchers had bias. This is confirmed by the UN, and Con has done nothing to prove that the professionals that work with the UN have bias against Israel. Northern West Bank- 20 Palestinians attested during Israeli army forces raids on Palestinian homes. Since September 13, 2015, 30 people have been killed by the Israeli Army. "The organisations said "the Israeli army has committed gross and systematic violations of the rules of global humanitarian law in Rafah which amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity, through the organised targeting of Palestinian civilians, infrastructure and property and the killing of 255 Palestinians, including 212 civilians. Sources are in previous round. Of those 212 civilians are children. Of those 212 civilians are brothers and sisters that have been killed by the Israeli army. Con already has stated that casualties happen in war. This would be a perfectly okay argument if the Israelis were not seen as conquerors. The perspective of the Palestinians has always been that the Gaza Strip is there land. Palestinians live there, and support Hamas now, because they believe that organization can protect them. Torture- The Israeli government uses torture that violates UN Law, and the Geneva Convention. This particular example shows a young Palestinian getting electrical shots. . http://217.218.67.231/Detail/2016/02/15/450412/Israeli-soldier-electrocution You can watch the video to see what over 5,000 Palestinians face in these prisons. Israel's military offensive against Gaza- Israel launched Operation Protective Edge in 2014. 1400 Palestinians were murdered during Operation Protective Edge. 80% of those were civilians. About 300 children were also killed. "According to numerous news accounts, the International Red Cross, and human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, during Israel"s attack on Gaza in 2014, the IDF once again bombed hospitals at least 24 medical facilities, 203 mosques (73 of which were completely destroyed), 2 churches, rendered uninhabitable over 20,000 civilian homes, fired on ambulances, civilian infrastructure and UN shelters. " Operation Cast Lead-100 Palestinians were killed for every 1 Israeli. Sources in previous round. Con has not disproved any of this, and has only cited a study with bias in it. The study Con also cites says nothing about the bombings of 24 medical facilities, 203 mosques, 2 churches, UN shelters, and 20,000 civilian homes. Palestinian lives have been destroyed in these bombings. This is not only a logical plea for a 2 state solution, but a humanitarian solution. Israel will have to do this again, if they want to keep control of The Gaza Strip. 53% of Palestinians want a two-state solution. In the future, there will be more terrorist groups like Hamas that will want to promote instability in the two regions. The consequence of this is that people die, and livelihoods are ruined. Government defies international law: "Israel repeatedly violates the Geneva Conventions by: "Targeting, killing, and collectively punishing non-combatant men, women and children "Moving its own population into an occupied zone "Imposing unnecessary curfews and closures" Source found in previous round. The Israeli Government has to do this in order to keep control in the Gaza Strip. The government has decided that the only way to keep control is to promote fear in that region. This shown through the bombings of civilian homes, mosques, and torturing people. This should be unacceptable. Apartheid- Demographics of Israel 6,336,000 Jews live in Israel. 1,754,000 are Muslim. Con has said that Apartheid does not mean racism. Con agrees that racism is a significant factor. There are already policies that support racism against Palestinians. "There are more than 50 laws that discriminate against Palestinian citizens of Israel. directly or indirectly, based solely on their ethnicity, rendering them second or third class citizens in their own homeland. "93% of the land in Israel is owned either by the state or by quasi-governmental agencies, such as the Jewish National Fund, that discriminate against non-Jews. Palestinian citizens of Israel face significant legal obstacles in gaining access to this land for agriculture, residence, or commercial development. "More than seventy Palestinian villages and communities in Israel, some of which pre-date the establishment of the state, are unrecognized by the government, receive no services, and are not even listed on official maps. Many other towns with a majority Palestinian population lack basic services and receive significantly less government funding than do majority-Jewish towns. "Since Israel's founding in 1948, more than 600 Jewish municipalities have been established, while not a single new Arab town or community has been recognized by the state. "In September 2011 a survey found that a third of Israeli Jews don"t consider Arab citizens to be real Israelis. "According to a February 2011 survey, 52% of Israeli Jews would be willing to limit press freedoms to protect the state's image, while 55% would accept limits on the right to oppose the government's "defense policy. " "Also in September 2011, Dov Lior, the chief rabbi of settlements in Hebron and Kiryat Arba and head of the West Bank setter rabbis' council, told a conference that Arabs are "wolves," "savages," and "evil camel riders. " "A poll done by the Israel Democracy Institute and released in January 2011 found that nearly half of Israeli Jews don't want to live next door to an Arab. . http://imeu.org... Discrimination should be unacceptable in the 21st century. Declaring a two state solution will benefit both sides. Studies have already should that the two groups have a certain dislike of each other. This is unhealthy, and will only lead to more fatal circumstances for the Israeli government, and deadly consequences for the Palestinian people. I ask the voter like Con did to put aside certain biases that they have on this topic. This topic is very important, because it involves every value that the Western world values. There should be an outrage at the idea that there are policies that are purposefully used to discriminate against Palestinians. Should people boycott Israel for inhumane acts against arabs? In this hypothetical, a majority of people should boycott Israel. Con has failed to point out that there are more harms than benefits that would happen if this occurred. Benefits: -Discrimination will stop against the Palestinians. -The Israeli Government does not have to bomb the Gaza Strip anymore, because terrorist groups will have no motivation for there cause. -Torture will stop, and the Israeli Government will not have to defy international law. -No more atrocities that I have listed above will be committed. Harms: Israel will lose land. I think in this case the benefits do outweigh the harms. Vote Pro. I would like to also thank Con for starting this debate. I believe that so many valuable points were brought up for people to consider. Thank you.

positive: Israel is justified in attacking gaza Under the UN Partition Plan of 1947, which est. the modern jewish state, it called for palestine and israel. Forget about Jordan and Egypt.The Jews were given all but gaza, the w. bank, and jerusalem. These pieces of territories were granted to the palestinians. In the war of 1967, israel illegally expropriated gaza, the w.bank, and jerusalem. We can argue all day about who started the war, but in reality, this is not necessary. Under the international rules of war, no state can aquire territory as a result by war. To quote Ehud Barak's former foreign minister, Abba Aben, and also author of the book, "Scars of War, Wounds of Peace," he says the following: "It is inadmissible to acquire territory as a result by war; Israel acquired Gaza, the W.Bank and J-lem as a result by war; therefore, it is inadmissible to keep them." That is the fundamental principle of int'l law. Israel occupies them today, therefore, this is an occupation which is illegal as a result. http://daccessdds.un.org... http://www.wrmea.com... http://www.geocities.com... http://www.washington-report.org... There is something clearly wrong w/ your case. The Palestinians, including under hamas, have always recognized and respected the two state solution, further allowing israel to remain a state of the jewish people. I will now list many times in which the Palestinians, regardless of what leadership they were under, recognized the two state solution and everytime israel rejected it. 1. Since the mid-1970s, there's been an international consensus for resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict.It's called a two-state settlement. Israel has to fully withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza and Jerusalem, in accordance with the fundamental principle of international law, cited three times by Mr. Ben-Ami in the book, his book, that it's inadmissible to acquire territory by war. The West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem, having been acquired by war, it's inadmissible for Israel to keep them. They have to be returned. On the Palestinian side and also the side of the neighboring Arab states, they have to recognize Israel's right to live in peace and security with its neighbors. That was the quid pro quo: recognition of Israel, Palestinian right to self-determination in the West Bank and Gaza with its capital in Jerusalem. That's the international consensus. It was voted on every year in the UN. The votes typically something like 160 nations on one side, the United States, Israel and Naru, Palau, Tuvalu, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands on the other side. Now, the Israeli government was fully aware that this was the international consensus, but they were opposed to a full withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza and Jerusalem, of course, and they were opposed to creating a Palestinian state in the Occupied Territories. In 1981, as pressure builds on Israel to reach a diplomatic settlement in the Israel-Palestine conflict, they decide to invade Lebanon in order to crush the P.L.O., because the P.L.O. was on record supporting a two-state settlement. Avner Yaniv, in his book, Dilemmas of Security, he said, ï¿½€œThe main problem for Israel was "the P.L.O.'s peace offensive. They wanted a two-state settlement. Israel did not.ï¿½€ï¿½ And so Israel decides to crush the P.L.O. in Lebanon. It successfully did so. The P.L.O. goes into exile. 2. Clinton parameters (2000)-both the Israelis and the Palestinians have accepted the Clinton parameters with some reservations. Both sides entered reservations on the Clinton parameters. In Clayton Swisher's book, "The Truth at Camp David," he says the following: "Barak sent a ten-page letter of reservations to the Clinton parameters." (pg. 402) 3. Taba talks, Egypt and Camp David (2000-2001)- there were four key issues at Camp David and at Taba. Number one, settlements. Number two, borders. Number three, Jerusalem. Number four, refugees. Let's start with settlements. Under international law, there is no dispute, no controversy. Under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, it's illegal for any occupying country to transfer its population to Occupied Territories. All of the settlements, all of the settlements are illegal under international law. No dispute. The World Court in July 2004 ruled that all the settlements are illegal. everyone, including you, talks about the huge concessions that Barak was willing to make on Jerusalem. But under international law Israel has not one atom of sovereignty over any of Jerusalem. The World Court decision said Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory. Now, the Palestinians were willing, to divide Jerusalem roughly in half, the Jewish side to Israel, the Arab side to the Palestinians. The Palestinians were willing to concede 50% ï¿½€" 50% of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. That was a monumental concession, going well beyond anything that was demanded of them under international law. Israel has not abided by any of these rulings. And then you ask yourself, "why are the pals. killing?" Why did Taba end? According to former professor at dePaul unversity Norman Finkelstein, it officially ended when Barak w/drew his negotiators from the table. Annapolis (2008)- The Pals, under pres. abbas, recognized the two state solution. During this time, Israel's illegal construction of settlements increased at a much rapid pace than ever before (40 times faster). This was a major impediment to the process, therefore, no solution was made. Israel was supposed to evict the settlements in gaza. Gaza, as i have already est. w/o dispute, is occupied pal. territory, and i have proven that already. you cant counter intl law. The reason why the pals keep launching the rockets is because they are under occupation. Once again, i have proven that not only is there an occupation, but that it's illegal. The palestinians have the right to defend itself. "Hamas in particular to "kill Jews" Vey foolish. If this were true, hamas would have been est. many decades ago. Hamas, including in the charter, recognizes and is willing to go back to the 1967 borders. This is what intl law ruled, and hamas abided by that. Hamas has also signed the document that has now been sitting in the arab league for 6 yrs, recognizing the 2 state solution. We can argue about the charter, and i must say, that your evidence regarding its charter is not valid because it comes from israeli sources. It is biased. Come up with something better than that. Hamas has offered long term truces, but israel has rejected them. In the last truce, hamas showed its willingness to maintain peace by not launching a single rocket into israel. israel breaks it on nov. 4 when it goes in and kills 6 militants. Since hamas was dem. elected, it did not send out a single suicide bomber into israel. what does this tell us? "And Qassam rockets have been falling since 2000... well before any "blockade." yes, and there has been an occupation ever since 1948. this is just a simple response. Hamas manufactures its own rockets, regardless of where it gets the material. They arent deadly either. As i have stated, only 21 israelis died from such rockets. over 6000 pals have died: http://www.btselem.org... Israel has given no proof, during or after the war, that hamas used human shields. How would u kno this when no reporters were allowed in? proof on idf bombing civil areas: http://www.time.com... http://www.juancole.com... http://imeu.net... http://www.guardian.co.uk... israel said from the beginning that it gave up ALL of gaza. It never mentioned stages. it said it completely w/drawed. This is a lie.

positive: Israel is justified in attacking gaza "Forget about Jordan and Egypt." Yeah, it would be great to forget about facts... but they are stubborn things. The fact is that from 1948 until 1967 there was no call for Palestinian statehood. Only when it was the "Zionists" and "the Jews" who were in charge did suddenly Palestinian statehood become a major priority and "legitimate resistance." It is also rather odd that when Israel acquires territory it is the only time when suddenly territory cannot be acquired by war. This principle has never been applied anywhere else. Your repeated statements that the Palestinians have always wanted a two state solution is as laughable as it is wrong. The PLO was founded in 1964 (before 1967) with the stated goal of acquiring ALL of British Mandate Palestine for the Palestinian people. It was not until 1988 that the PLO adopted the policy of a two state solution. They did this by recognizing the State of Israel and officially renouncing violence. Now I am only going to say this once more. Israel is trying to give the Palestinians a country as it has been clearly showing it is trying to do for the past two decades. In the history of the world the Palestinians have never had their own country. Israel is trying to give it to them. The only thing required by the Palestinians is to show that they will not kill Israel or seek its destruction. This is not achieved by terrorist suicide bombings, rocket attacks on civilians populations, elections of groups who state clearly that they want to destroy Israel, or of leaders who hold by charters seeking to destroy Israel. The idea of legitimate resistance goes out the window when their is a peace process in place, since ONCE again the deal is " you will get a country, just stop killing us." "I will now list many times in which the Palestinians, regardless of what leadership they were under, recognized the two state solution and everytime israel rejected it." 1. The PLO did not officially accept the idea of a two state solution (meaning a permanent state of Israel) until 1988 http://en.wikipedia.org.... Everything you write in this paragraph is incorrect. In the 1970's the PLO did come ou with a 10 point place which did involve a period where they would get a Palestinian state next to an Israeli state, however the end of the ten point plan states that the ultimate goal was "completing the liberation of all Palestinian territory, and as a step along the road to comprehensive Arab unity." Not exactly something Israel wants to hear. It also makes no sense since Israel DID enter in the Oslo Accords with the PLO and did grant them limited self rule in the West Bank and Gaza as part of first stage agreements, and Barak did offer them a State, and Israel did evacuate Gaza. Why would Israel do that if their main goal was to crush the PLO's peace offensive? I find it amazing how you completely ignore any legitimate reason Israel had for exiling the PLO. Perhaps their terrorist attacks had something to do with it? 2) I don't believe you even write anything here. Regardless, according to President Clinton WHO WAS THERE, he places the blame squarely on Arafat. Acc. to all present, a State was offered to the Palestinian people... perhaps there were reservations by Barak, but they never got a chance to be discussed as the deal was rejected. 3) Regarding settlements. There is no "transfer of population." In 1967, in a war that Israel did not want, land was acquired, roughly tripling Israels size. In the 42 years since then, out of a population of 6 million, 250,000 people, roghly 4% of the population has crossed this line into this enormouse area. So two points 1) As Gaza showed, settlers and settlements can be removed. 2) There is NO policy of transfer. Currently there is no more land to make new Israeli towns. http://www.jpost.com... The fact that only 5% of the population has crossed an invisible line when land is extremely scarce shows this is not the policy of Israel. Further, as wonderful as the World Courts opinion is, it cannot escape the fact that Israel controls Jerusalem. Its a physical fact. I believe it was acquired legally in a defensive war from Jordan which has since relinquished its claim (and there are many international law scholars who agree with me), you disagree. But the bottom line is, Israel controls it, and for them to give up control of the Jewish peoples holiest city IS indeed a monumental concession. Also, when were the Palestinians willing to concede 50% of Israeli settlements?? Do you just make things up?? And thats a great quote from Norman Finkelstein... its a shame it contradicts what President Clinton, Dennis Ross, and Nabil Amir (former PA minister) say. What NOBODY contradicts is that an offer of statehood was given... and it was rejected. This all could have been over. There could have been a Palestinian state... maybe not with the exact borders they wanted, but a state, the right of self determination, and an end to the occupation. It was all offered by Israel and rejected by the Palestinians. You clearly know nothing about Hamas. PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE IN THEIR CHARTER IT RECOGNIZES A TWO STATE SOLUTION. You cannot b/c it does not. I mean have you every read anything put out by hamas?? My link is an english translation of their charter. If you know of a better one, let me know. You need to understand the murderous philosophy that the group you are defending espouses unapologetically. And I always laugh when someone mentions that Hamas' offer of a temporary truce as a sign that they want peace. Once again people here is the deal "We will give you a country just please stop killing us" , not "We will give you a country just agree to maybe stop killing us for a few years, or rather guaranteeing us that you WILL kill us after those few years are up." This is a joke. "They aren't deadly" Only 21 people have died b/c Israel has established early warning measures. This does not mean that they are not deadly or that they should just be accepted b/c they are really just like fireworks. these are weapons intending to kill as many civilians as possible. The more civilians that die, the happier Hamas is. If they could have larger more deadly weapons, they would use those. That is why it is difficult for Israel to give them a state b/c (and do I really need to say this again??) the deal is "We will give you a country, just please stop killing us." Israel has give proof of Hamas firing from UN schools and other acts using civilians as human shields. http://www.youtube.com... In terms of Israel "lying" about granting autonomy to Gaza in stages, they evacuated Gaza UNILATERALLY, i.e. on their own terms... there was no one to lie to. Now is the time where you need to confess to errors on your part both big and small. You stated in your 2nd argument that Israel attacked Schools, hospitals, and mosques. In fact not a single one of those building had been attacked at all. Every school, hospital or mosque that stood before the invasion, stands after the invasion. This was incorrect. You stated "6,348 palestinian non-combatants" have died since 2001. The link you gave me (which I would argue is biased anyway) states 4792 Palestinians have died and makes NO distinctions between combatants and non-combatants... i.e. that is the TOTAL. Again this was incorrect. Hamas has NOT signed any Arab peace initiative and at most has agreed not to contradict it http://www.reuters.com... Abba Eban was NOT Ehud Barak's foreign minister and never wrote Scars of War. "The Palestinians were willing to concede 50% ï¿½€" 50% of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank." This has NEVER occurred. Before you begin your next argument you need to address these false statements that you made.

positive: Israel is justified in attacking gaza Of course I know of the 1947 partition plan. I also know it was a plan rejected by the Palestinians then. http://www.mfa.gov.il... (This your source... I assume it is ok.) The basic reason The arabs rejected The Plan was that they did not want their to be an Israeli state... the same reason they stated their desire to "push Israel into the Sea" http://www.npr.org... (Is NPR ok??? Maybe instead of simply attacking my sources ad hominem, try attacking their substance i.e. SHOW COUNTER PROOFS!!!) So here's what we have. We have acceptance by Israel of the plan and rejection by the Palestinians. Following Israel's War of Independence, We have Egypt, and Jordan taking over the land that was designated for the Palestinians. Throughout this entire time, the Palestinians NEVER resisted this "occupation." More to the point, the world never considered this occupation since there NEVER was a country of Palestine to occupy. The point I am making is not "If they did it, so can Israel." The point shows the motives of the "resistors." They are not expressing "legitimate resistance" (If they were they would have fought against Egypt and Jordan) but rather fighting against the very creation of a "Zionist Entity." During this period in 1964 (BEFORE 1967) The PLO stated that they intended to remove Israel (all parts of Israel) through force http://www.mefacts.com... (see Article 2 and others). Following the six day war the Israeli government voted to return all theland they had acquired in exchange for full peace relations with their neighboring countries (Chaim Herzog Heroes of Israel p.253). the Khartoum Resolution rejected this offer http://en.wikipedia.org... (i know its wikipedia... please find a contrary source if you feel it is incorrect.) We also have statements by Both Syria and Egypt stating their intentions to destroy all of Israel.. We have similar statements made in 1973 and of course the war waged by the Arab countries against Israel in 1973 with the stated goal of eliminating the Jewish State. Then we have a 10 point plan in 1974 which you hail as "the Palestinians agreeing to a two state plan" when in fact the plan states the two state plan is a mere stage in which "the Palestinian national authority will strive to achieve a union of the confrontation countries, with the aim of completing the liberation of all Palestinian territory" http://middleeastfacts.com... i.e. the destruction of Israel. This is followed by the previously quoted Hamas charter from 1988 (of which I am STILL awaiting your source... I have given several of mine) which calls for the complete destruction of the Jewish State. So what we have here, is Israel accepts a two state solution in 1948, Palestinians reject it. We have CONSISTENT declarations by all Arab entities (Egypt, Syria, the PLO, Hamas) stating their clear desire to destroy the Israeli State. We Have Israel offering back all land conquered in 1967. The PLO, to their credit, did state in 1988 that they rejected violence and accepted the idea of the two state solution. Obviously many Israelis were still nervous about this given the PLO's phased plan stating that this would be merely a "launching point" for a future when they take back ALL of their claimed territory. Nevertheless Israel enters into negotiations and agrees to give the Palestinians limited self rule. Israel then offers a full state to the Palestinians in 2000. ACCORDING TO BILL CLINTON ARAFAT REJECTED THIS DEAL http://www.mafhoum.com... http://news.bbc.co.uk... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://news.bbc.co.uk... http://www.israelinsider.com... (I think all these eyewitness testimonies from the former President who was there should be enough to both 1) quell your "HAHA" 2) clearly refute anything Finklestien had to say about this.) And then the Palestinian people elect a group who a) has not renounced violence like the PLO did b) has not recognized Israel's right to exist c) call for the destruction of Israel. This is proof after proof showing Israel's desire to live in peace and security with it's neighbors, and their counterparts continually showing their desire for their to be No Israel. You have not shown a SINGLE proof that indicated that Hamas desires a two state solution. In fact your link which you give as proof http://www.washingtonpost.com... shows exactly the opposite. That Hamas refuses to recognize Israel like the PLO did, and refuses to renounce violence, like the PLO did. They offer merely a "long term" hudna, i.e. a NON-permanent truce, i.e. a temporary truce, which basically says "give us everything we ask for and we promise not to kill you for a few years, but after those years we will go back on our quest to destroy Israel." Hamas NEVER signed the Arab league charter, and the link I gave you in the last argument http://www.reuters.com... clearly states that they did not. If you are not going to respond to clear proofs refuting your claims, then this debate is not going to go anywhere. You keep making references to "International Law" and "International Recognition." The facts on the ground are the facts. period. The same way The US does not intend on giving Native Americans back their land, or the way the UK does not intend on giving the Irish back their land, or the way Turkey does not intend on giving the Kurds back their land. Facts on the ground show that Israel acquired land in a defensive war as a result of continuous threats by Syria and Egypt. They retained the land for two purposes a) a buffer against future attacks b) as a means of negotiating future peace deals. I refer you my argument above against the idea that there is any "transfer policy" since the movement of 4% of your population is clearly natural growth and not part of any directed policy and IS legal under international law. I invite you to read a book by one of the foremost experts on International Law, Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz "The Case for Israel" where he systematically rejects all legal attempts claiming that Israel is violating International Law. Concluding thoughts: "They will not just sit there and offer their oppressors a plate of gold." No one is asking the Palestinians for anything. Well, one thing, "Please stop killing us." "The only contact the palestinians have with the jews are the soldiers and the settlers" Except for the 1.5 million Palestinians citizens who enjoy more civil rights in Israel than any Arabs in any country in the middle east. http://www.imra.org.il... Regarding your points 1-7. Here is the deal once again "We will withdraw from territory, we will halt construction of settlements, just show us you will stop killing us." the deal is not "First let us have a country and then we'll see if we really want to stop killing you." Israel is giving EVERYTHING to the Palestinians and getting nothing but words from the Palestinians in return. The Palestinians are giving NOTHING, and will be given by Israel, not the UN declaration which they initially rejected then changed their mind 40 years later, not international organizations... but the country will be given to them BY Israel. "Wikipedia is known in the U.S. as an unreliable source and anyone can go in and manipulate the information. This is obvious here in this country." First of all... I'm an American... born and raised. second http://bpastudio.csudh.edu... "Isr. captured j-lem after the '67 war, a war in which jordan was not a part of" http://encarta.msn.com... liar

positive: Communism is a logical solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (No really you totally killed it) “Forcing two groups of people who are deeply hostile to one another to live together is very unlikely to produce good results. ” Must remind you that in the Communist Manifesto, Marx describes history as a class struggle, and that class ultimately divided us more than race and ethnicity, so according to the resolution “communism is a logical solution to the conflict” this is since confirmed because, we must face the facts all the Palestinians want is really equality, and the absorption and formation of a proletariat class is key to a happy society. “Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians want equal land redistribution. The vast majority of Palestinians want an independent state” Okay so here’s where I get to attack a two state solution, with a question. What happened in 1948, when the British removed troops from Palestine and the Israelis declared independence? What happened was the Palestinians immediately started uprising and six other Arab countries attacks. In my statements I addressed this by saying that the two countries would be at a constant struggle with each other, and therefore, the statement about equal distribution of land is met and affirmed. This would also eliminate the large gap between wealthy and poor that plagues the Palestinian populace and allows the Israelis to keep power. " Under ideal communism perhaps, but in practice in every "communist" country classes still existed, it would be very, very unlikely. I’ll dispute your statement by saying there has never been a true communist country ever, and according to the definition agreed upon, this would work in alleviating tensions, therefore this is also a logical answer. Once again, the entire goal of the Palestinian people is to have INDEPENDENCE. What evidence is there that shows that the only alternative to a "strong central government" is a weak umbrella one? Once more, forcing them into becoming ONE people would be one of the worst things for both sides because the Palestinians want independence more than anything else. It seems my opponent was not smart enough to catch this but, it has been my goal to attack every one of the proposed resolution to institute there flaws and irrationality’s, so that I could prove communism is a rational option. And you need to understand that no matter how much the Palestinians want independence, the resolution has to be equal and fair for both sides, and that is why REAL communism is a rational solution as it is for most other world problems. You argue that a single state solution would not unify the two groups without the constant use of force, when under your proposal of communism Israel and Palestine would be magically united without the use of force? First of all sir don’t talk lightly about magic around me I am a level 69 goblin virgin mage. :P And yes once again like Marx said “history can be viewed as a constant class struggle” so under this statement yes, the formation of the Israelis and Palestinians into a single proletariat would solve all problems of unity. This is a debate about ISRAEL and PALESTINE, not CHINA. Geez did your caps lock button have a seizure or something? This was simply to state that the rise of Maoism has worked very well for China and Maoism is a distort form of communism. It is also highly unrealistic and illogical since it would not be supported by either of the people seeing as Israel is a very capitalist country Okay, um ill just pretend you thought that one out and did not just say that… And so it is clear that TRUE communism would be a logical solution to the problem and that is all I had to prove, I never had to prove whether it would work (even though I did), and I have proven why it is logical and refuted all my opponents points, the victory is mine. Vote Pro! !! Sources: 1: . http://www.marxists.org... 2: . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3: . http://en.wikipedia.org...

positive: Resolved: Palestine Should Become Independent From Israel Thank you for acceptingC1: Rightfully Palestinian landhttp://www.itisapartheid.org..."The 1948 Arab-Israeli War, known by the Israelis predominantly as the War of Independence and War of Liberation and by Palestinians as the Catastrophe (Arabic: al Nakba), resulted in a land grab by Israel, which expropriated considerably more land than had been apportioned to it under the partition. While in 1945, 85% of arable land in Palestine had belonged to Arabs, by 1949, only 6% of the land was occupied by Arabs. Israelis used to claim that the Palestinians left their properties on their own accord, but historians now generally agree that the Palestinians were expelled.""Current estimates put the Palestinian refugee count at 6 million people. Some of these reside in Gaza, the West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. Since 1948, the World Community has recognized the Right of Return to Palestine under the U.N. Resolution 194.However, Israel has created its own laws concerning the Right of Return with convoluted residency laws, making it impossible to return to lands owned for hundreds of generations by indigenous Palestinians. One example is the prevention of Eastern Jerusalem residents to return to Jerusalem if out of the country for more than seven years-even if as a refugee due to deportation or land confiscation. "The Palestinians have been living on the land for thousands of years, and all of the sudden the Israelis kick them out. Now there are 6 million Palestinian refugees without a home.C2: Israel apartheidAccording to the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid by the UN in 1973, apartheid is acts "committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them." By this definition, it is clear that apartheid and segregation are happening against Palestinians in Israel. http://www.itisapartheid.org..."Palestinians are under Military Law and face the constant threat of arrest and detention without charge and can be held indefinitely. They have no right to representation or trial. Israelis living in illegal settlements on Palestinian land have all the privileges of Israeli Civil Law. As citizens of Israel, they can vote, seek redress in court, and have freedom of speech and assembly. 2 Palestinian villages and towns face collective punishment in the form of bulldozing of family houses, extended 24 hour curfews, closures, military raids, violence and harassment. Israeli settlers face no such collective punishment. 3 Palestinian land ownership (agricultural and residential) is subject to military and economic confiscation. The purpose is to establish Jewish only settlements, take water resources and confine the Palestinian population into smaller and smaller cantons.Israelis face no land confiscation. 4 Over 17,000 Palestinian houses have been demolished, creating 100,000 of thousands homeless. Over a million Palestinian olive and fruit trees have been uprooted. A few Israeli outposts have been dismantled, but there has been no widespread destruction ofIsraeli homes and trees. 5 Palestinians are prohibited from using the extensive network of settler only highways that connect the settlements to Israel. 8 The Israeli military authority controls virtually all the water in the West Bank. 73% of West Bank water is piped back to Israel. Illegal Jewish settlers use 10% of West Bank water.Palestinians have access to only 17% of their own water and must buy it from Isrrael at 4 times the price Israelis pay. 9 The wall fragments Palestinian communities; it separates families from their land, their livelihood, health care and schools. The wall also divides communities and families from each other. The wall does not fragment Israeli settlements; it is built in such a way to as to annex them to Israel proper." This source CLEARLY states Israel oppression against the Palestinian people. Israel has demolished all their homes and takes away their basic needs, not being able to have access to their water or being held under military law.https://www.popularresistance.org...Some great pictures on this: http://www.seamac.org... "Four million Palestinians in the Occupied Territories lack the right to vote for the government that controls their lives through a military occupation. In addition to controlling the borders, air space, water, tax revenues, and other vital matters pertaining to the Occupied Territories, Israel alone issues the identity cards that determine the ability of Palestinians to work and their freedom of movement." "In 2008, the South African government commissioned a study by leading legal scholars and human rights experts to determine if Israel was practicing apartheid in the Occupied Palestinian Territories according to the parameters of international law. After a 15-month investigation, the study concluded that “Israel, since 1967, is the belligerent Occupying Power in occupied Palestinian territory, and that its occupation of these territories has become a colonial enterprise which implements a system of apartheid.” "Contention 3: Benefits to Israelhttp://www.foreignaffairs.com..."But the potential benefits of supporting the resolution far outweigh the perils. If Israel manages to garner solid international support by backing the Palestinian UN resolution, it may induce the Palestinians to return to negotiations. This would improve Israel’s international status, give it more diplomatic space to maneuver through the chaos in the Middle East, and allow it to shore up its security needs. Most important, the above proposal may be the only way to preserve the idea of achieving peace through bilateral negotiations. By reaching a compromise with the Palestinian leadership over the UN resolution, Israel can halt the dangerous precedent of unilateral action for conflict resolution and instead preserve the principle of achieving a two-state solution through direct talks, a notion critical to Israel’s future. Such a concerted move would prevent a violent confrontation, give the Palestinians the dignity they seek, allow the parties to relaunch negotiations, and win Israel international favor while preserving its security needs. Now is the time not for prudence but for audacity."If Israel allowed Palestine to become COMPLETELY independent (they are not now as Israel still controls everything unfairly), there would be less violence overall in the Middle East as less terrorists would target Israel.Overall, Palestine deserves independence. Thank you.

positive: The international community should actively support the creation of a Palestinian state I would like to thank ConservativePolitico for accepting this debate which happens to coincide with the latest Israeli military offensive on Palestinian-Arabs which the Israeli government has disingenuously titled "Operation Pillar of Defense". At the time of writing, Israeli news agency Haaretz is reporting "Since the begging {sic} of Operation Pillar of Defense, 35 Palestinians were killed, some of them civilians. On the Israeli side three civilians were killed on Friday in a rocket attack." Meanwhile the BBC reported a Hamas source which stated "Militants and civilians, including at least seven children, have been among the Palestinians killed during Israeli strikes in recent days." (1,2) In the light of this obscene bloodshed, I invite my opponent to join me in unreservedly condemning all acts of violence which are deliberately targeted at civilian populations in Israel and Palestine, whether they be rockets launched by Palestinian militants into Israel or air strikes launched by the Israeli armed forces on Gaza. Now I would like to expand this debate by firstly looking at the recent history of Israel / Palestine. The following is reproduced from the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs website (3): "Foreign Office November 2nd, 1917 Dear Lord Rothschild, I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet. 'His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.' I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation. Yours sincerely, Arthur James Balfour" This declaration eventually led to the creation of the state of Israel within Palestine's borders in 1948, which prior to that time, was a British Mandate However, the Zionists were given an inch but took a mile. "Before the end of the mandate and, therefore before any possible intervention by Arab states, the Jews, taking advantage of their superior military preparation and organization, had occupied...most of the Arab cities in Palestine before May 15, 1948....In contrast, the Palestine Arabs did not seize any of the territories reserved for the Jewish state under the partition resolution." (4) Thus the Israelis embarked on a programme of ethnic cleansing. Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Guiron, said "With compulsory transfer we (would) have a vast area (for settlement)...I support compulsory transfer. I don"t see anything immoral in it" (5) The Israelis forced Palestinians out of their homes and off their land on a wholesale basis and, in the process, created six million refugees. (6). But even this wasn't enough for the Israelis. Even Zionism on the Web admits: "the Israeli Cabinet decided on June 4th to proceed with a preemptive strike. Israel attached on June 5th 1967 by destroying Egypts {sic} airforce as it sat on the tarmac." (7) This offensive was the beginning of the Six Day War, by the end of which Israel had grabbed land not just from Egypt but also Jordan and Syria. The United Nations position on this issue is clear. Referring specifically to Jerusalem it states: "The 1967 war, which resulted in the occupation by Israel of East Jerusalem (and Israel has) invested vast resources into changing the physical and demographic characteristics of the City. The Israeli claim has not been recognized by the international community which rejects the acquisition of territory by war and considers any changes on the ground illegal and invalid." (8) Regarding the plight of refugees, the UN states that: "The refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible." (8) With reference to the continued Israeli land-grabs the UN states: "The building of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory began soon after the 1967 War. That policy has accelerated since the beginning of 1990. The Israeli Government encourages settlers to make their homes in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. The establishment of Israeli settlements has been the subject of various resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly." (8) Palestine does not control its own borders, air space or ports and the movement of civilians within the West Bank and Gaza is controlled by the Israelis, who also collect tax on behalf of the Palestinian Authority. The UN has this to say about the situation regarding customs and borders; "The General Assembly, for its part, has reaffirmed its commitment, in accordance with international law, to the two-State solution of Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security within recognized borders, based on the pre-1967 borders." And life for those Palestinians still remaining in Israel is not much better. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel states: "The Arab citizens of Israel are discriminated in almost every aspect of their lives " employment, allocation of educational resources, housing, land distribution and planning rights " and they do not have equal representation in most state bodies and institutions. In recent years, there has also been an upsurge of racism in Israel against Arab citizens. ACRI struggles against the discrimination of Arab citizens, through legal, educational, and public advocacy efforts." Despite all this, the Israelis are determined to strengthen their stranglehold on the the illegally-occupied Palestinian Territories. "MK Yariv Levin (Likud), chairman of the Knesset"s House Committee, told Arutz Sheva on Wednesday that he has a bill that calls to apply Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) that is ready to be submitted for Knesset approval." (10). But the Israeli government have the support of the Jewish public. A recent poll published in the Israeli newspaper Haeretz showed: "Most of the Jewish public in Israel supports the establishment of an apartheid regime in Israel if it formally annexes the West Bank. The majority of the Jewish public, 59 percent, wants preference for Jews over Arabs in admission to jobs in government ministries." (11) In conclusion, the international community has a moral and legal duty to act to protect persecuted Arabs in Israel / Palestine and the time to act is now. Thank you. (1) http://www.haaretz.com... (2) http://www.bbc.co.uk... (3) http://www.mfa.gov.il... (4) Henry Cattan, "Palestine, The Arabs and Israel." (5) Israel historian, Benny Morris, "Righteous Victims." (6) http://www.globalexchange.org... (7) http://www.zionismontheweb.org... (8) http://unispal.un.org... (9) http://www.acri.org.il... (10) http://www.israelnationalnews.com... (11) http://www.haaretz.com...

positive: Two-state solution and peace is critical to regional stability. For years, the middle east has been up in arms regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is a source of tension between the Muslim world and the west, and a source of tension between populations and their governments. And, as a source of tension between Muslims and the West, it has been considered a source of terrorism. Solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is critical to relieving these various tensions. In so far as a two-state solution helps end the conflict and establish peace, it helps relieve tensions and restore stability in the broader middle east and in the global fight against terrorism.

positive: Palestine becoming a Nation I suggest that for future debates, the topic could be phrased as a question, such as "Should Palestine be granted statehood? " It would make the crux of the debate much clearer. From Pro's case, I can infer that we are discussing whether or not Palestine should be an independent nation from Israel. Therefore, Pro supports the two-state solution, which is essentially the idea that we should partition the entire area for Israel and Palestine, thereby creating two sovereign states. In my case, I have three substantives. Firstly, circumstances make it exceedingly difficult to partition the countries. Secondly, partitioning never solves the conflict. Thirdly, decisions about statehood are rarely dependent on what is "fair" in a legal sense. 1) Circumstances make it exceedingly difficult to partition the countries The establishment of an independent Palestine state requires Israel to give land to Palestine, so that they can exercise sovereign power over these lands. The power of any government comes from their absolute sovereign control of their own lands - look at Afghanistan where the Afghan government has barely any control outside of Kabul. However, giving land isn't as easy at it seems. In many of the contested areas, there are Jewish settlements which are difficult to move. In other areas, there are farmlands tilled by Arab farmers. Dividing portions of land along any single line (such as the 1947 UN agreement) would unfortunately result in Israelites in Palestinian land, and Palestinians in Israeli land. Furthermore, Israel's main objection to the two-state solution is the fact that the 1947 borders causes Israel to have a small patch of land 6 kilometres wide, which is militarily indefensible. On top of that, the Gaza strip is separated from the main Palestine area, which creates problems for administration and unity for the new Palestine government. Why is this such a huge problem then? When we cannot partition lands according a neat and clear-cut line, what happens is chaos. Israelis on the wrong side will be forced to give up their possessions, and flee to the new Israel. The same will also happen for the Palestinians. Border controls would be out of the question when hundreds of thousands of people are trying to flee to another country. In fact, given the long-standing hatred between the two, it would be unsurprising to see armed soldiers firing at fleeing civilians. This would be a horrendous repeat of the Indo-Pakistan partition, where millions of Hindus and Muslims died as they tried to cross an arbitrary border which left them at the wrong side of their country. 2) Partitioning never solves the conflict The Israeli-Palestine conflict is fundamentally so complex that there is no way to say that there is a definite "issue" at the root of the matter. Reasons for why it is so intractable include historical baggage, religion, and geopolitics. After all, it is evident that Israel's belligerence comes from America's unconditional support for its country and independence. Given that the conflict is so deep-rooted and complex, it would be naive to think that making Palestine into a state would help to resolve, or even lower tensions between Israel and Palestine. The conflict between them runs far deeper than a mere geographical clash. For one, they fundamentally disagree on the status of Jerusalem - their claims for the city are mutually exclusive. For another, there is so much mutual distrust due to the assassinations, wars, and killings that have happened between both groups. Granting Palestine statehood would have not reduce tensions at all. In fact, I will argue that it is inflammatory, and reverses any progress made on resolving their conflict. - Giving Palestine a state without any form of negotiation with Israel would result in utter outrage from the Knesset, who see themselves as betrayed by the world in refusing to consider their opinions on the issue. Since any form of peace resolution requires both parties to compromise and agree on divergent issues together, such a unilateral move will only anger Israel and make it less likely that an agreement can be reached. - Palestine as a state would be fundamentally weak because the government would be too poor to carry out any schemes. Rich Middle Eastern nations like Qatar and Saudi Arabia are likely to pour funds into Palestine to help them. As foreign aid from the Middle East goes into Palestine, Israel would feel threatened by the rapid rise of Palestine, especially since they are just neighbours. We all know that a threatened Israel will do what it thinks will eliminate the threat (bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, Gaza war in 2007), so they may resume military action against Palestine even if it was an independent state. Therefore, giving Palestine statehood does not solve the underlying conflict between the two countries, and in fact is counterproductive towards the long-term peace process. 3) Statehood is not about legality This might be a difficult issue to swallow, but in the domain of international relations, the decision to grant a particular group of people statehood is not about rectifying injustices of the past, but about the present-day realities. The legality of statehood is dependent on the idea of sovereignty, which invests power over the land into the government. Yet, sovereignty is a man-made concept. After all, governments wield no 'physical' power over the land. This power is created when other governments respect your country's right to make decisions on your own land, and when you provide that respect to all other governments. Therefore, the notion that there is an objective legal basis for statehood is mistaken. Statehood is created through the mutual respect that governments give each other over the land that they are controlling. Many people argue that we should return to the borders drawn up by the UN resolution in 1947, because this is 'legally right'. Firstly, as I've already established, legality in international relations is based on customary law, rather than strict doctrinal law. Hence, UN resolutions are not the firmest basis for legality. Secondly, even if I did accept that UN resolutions are legally powerful because of the UN charter, the UN has also simultaneously recognised the intricacies of the situation and have not really pressured Israel into going back to the 1947 borders. There is an implicit understanding that those borders are now unsustainable and will only serve as a basis for negotiations. Therefore, it is not truly legally valid, and even if it was, it is not such a flagrant violation of international law for people to act. If statehood isn't about legality, then what is it about? As we saw with the self-declared independence of Kosovo, statehood is simply about global recognition of your power over a circumscribed geographical area. The US, UK, France, and other major countries recognised Kosovo as an independent state, and it has remained as such ever since. Similarly for Sudan and South Sudan, they have persisted because people do recognise their autonomy. In contrast, the Chechnyan region in Russia had always pushed for partition, but given that nobody has stepped up to recognise them, as of today they remain part of Russia. In conclusion, giving Palestine statehood is messy, bloody, doesn't solve the conflict, and not legal anyway. Side with Con.

positive: Two-state solution offers peace, the most important factor Shimon Peres. "One Region, Two States". Washington Post. February 10, 2009: "Those not committed to this solution argue that, after the creation of a Palestinian state, Israel's waist would be too narrow -- some six miles -- to ensure security for its citizens. [...] Indeed, six miles will be too narrow to guarantee full security, which only reinforces our belief that Israel's safety is not embedded only in territorial defense but in peace. Peace provides breadth of wings, even when the waist is narrow."

positive: One-state would see Israeli minority ruling over Palestinian majority "Is the two-state solution in danger?". Haaretz. May 21, 2009: "The left in Israel has long warned that if settlement construction continues and Israel does not separate from the Palestinians, the country will eventually slide into an apartheid-like reality in which a Jewish minority rules over an Arab majority. The result, they contend: the end of a democratic, Jewish state."

negative: Best solution to a conflict is a punch in the head Pushing is not as effective, It might knock the person down but they will just get up and want to fight. Best solution is a punch to the head hard, Or a punch to the throat, That way they get stunned, Lose oxygen and also won't be able to mouth back or talk as they will be more stunned. Pushing just leads to more pushing and eventually to punches anyway. Therefore a hard punch to the head resolves the conflict right away and people see things your way after that. Unless it's Tyson who can take a lot of punches to the head or some tweeker who is strung out on speed, Than more punches might be require to complete the conflict resolution

negative: Resolved: The Unwind solution is a better solution to abortion than a Modest Purposial. This debate shall be about these two pieces of satire. The Unwind series by Neal Shusterman and A Modest Purposial by Johnathan Swift. Rules Round 1 is for definitions by Pro while Con will make his opening arguments. Round 2 Pro will make contentions and rebuttles, while Con Refutes. Round 3 is rebuttles by Pro and Con makes rebuttles and Conclusion. Round 4 Pro makes rebuttles and conclusion, Con will states, "No round as argeed upon." If Con says anything else in the finial round then it's a forfeit of all 7 points. No swearing No trolling

negative: Israeli raid on Gaza flotilla Israel allows humanitarian goods into Gaza

negative: in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better justified than a one-state solution A two-state solution is best for peace

negative: Best solution to a conflict is a punch in the head You don't haft to hit his head you want to go for the ribs. So he'll feel that for a few days. That will make him rember it just break his rib bones and boom their you go a man in agony who shut up

negative: Return of Israel to pre-1967 borders Territory taken during 1967 war was taken from palestinians.

negative: Legalizing Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Not all pain can be alleviated with palliative care, so both assisted suicide and palliative care should be options for the patient."If the person would like to end their life right away" I support waiting a long time before proceeding with euthanasia in case the patient changes their mind.

negative: is war the solution to all the problems i agree with the con but thats the fact i was telling the fact with which everyone satisfies and now i going to tell which everyone do not get - 1) the development of the japan as a developed country after world war 2 http://en.wikipedia.org... - proves my statement

negative: is war the solution to all the problems I accept. Resolved: Is war the solution to all the problems? Under this resolution, PRO will affirm this statement, arguing that war is the solution to all society's problems, whereas CON will negate. But PRO states in his first round that war is *not* a solution because it leads to a loss of lives and economic prospects--but he needs to b affirming the resolution, not negating it. You can consider PRO's remarks as a concession--arguments which directly support my case.

negative: Unrealiable therefore not the whole solution Wind patterns are beyond human control. Thus the farms cannot be relied upon to produce a constant supply of energy. There would therefore be the need for more energy sources as backup and these would probably be produced by more traditional means.

negative: Israeli settlements Israel uses violence to unlawfully back settlements

negative: Settlements provide economic investment in the Occupied Territories The fundamental fact is that the West Bank, whatever its status, is not an economically viable entity on its own. It produces few goods, while Gaza produces next to none, and independence without a major influx of capital will not change this situation. The best source for a supply of capitol in the region lies in Israel, which has an enormous demand for a low-wage work-force. Millions of Palestinians worked in Israel until after 2000, and with travel into Israel proper restricted, settlement construction and cultivation provide economic development opportunities for the region and create jobs for Palestinians.[1] This is an important prospect when the unemployment figures for the Palestinians are at nearly 30%.[2] Furthermore the very need for such labor is likely to further incentivise Israel to loosen restrictions on Palestinian workers in the West Bank and Gaza. [1] Hass, Amira, ‘Israel to lift restrictions on Palestinian Jordan Valley travel’, Haaretz.com, 26 April 2007, http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-to-lift-restrictions-on-palestinian-j... [2] ‘Palestinian unemployment shows gradual decline’, Jmcc, 21 February 2010, http://www.jmcc.org/news.aspx?id=370

negative: Current U.S. foreign policy undermines our national security. The November Public Forum topic has been announced and it is: Resolved: Current U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East undermines our national security. Today, we"ll be discussing the "pro" side of this complex issue in depth. Initially note that "current" U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East policy is highly varied " unlike during the Bush era, Obama has eschewed a one-size-fits-all policy in favor of a mixture of traditionally "hardline" and "softline" measures. For this reason, the pro has a litany of options for criticizing these policies from a variety of angles. We"ll begin with the "too hardline" arguments, move to the "too softline" arguments, and finally discuss specific criticisms at the end. In the most general sense, Glenn Greenwald explains the ways in which Obama"s "hawkish" policies are damaging to national security: Glenn Greenwald, "Grading Obama"s Foreign Policy," Foreign Policy, January 23, 2012. President Obama's achievements and setbacks can be roughly understood as ones of means and ends, respectively. When it comes to pursuit of his foreign-policy aims, he has proven himself a far shrewder and more efficient technocratic manager than his predecessor. He has used diplomacy and covert sabotage to effectively isolate Iran, managed alliances to overthrow Libya's Muammar al-Qaddafi, executed ruthless attacks to weaken al Qaeda, consolidated the power to wage wars and to detain and kill without congressional (or judicial) interference, strengthened ties with key allies in the Middle East (including Israel), and has generally been much smarter and more subtle than George W. Bush about using American power against the nation's perceived enemies and on behalf of its allies. But the goals to which that shrewdness has been applied have been extremely ill-advised. A core promise of the Obama presidency -- to improve America's standing in the world -- has been thwarted, as the nation is now viewed as unfavorably in the Muslim world, if not more so, as it was during the Bush years. Obama's steadfast support for Arab dictators, his ongoing subservience to the Israeli government, and his penchant for violence, aggression, and civilian slaughter in that region are the culprits. The war in Afghanistan, which he escalated, remains a disaster. Serious tensions with Pakistan -- which even Bush was smart enough to avoid -- are more dangerous than ever; along with the collapse of any prospects for an Israeli/Palestinian peace agreement, that is probably his worst foreign-policy failure. One achievement commonly credited to Obama -- the ending of the Iraq War -- was actually negotiated by Bush and forced on Obama by his failure to convince the Iraqis to let U.S. forces remain, and thus does not belong in the success category. In sum, Obama has deftly and intelligently pursued ignominious and ignoble foreign-policy goals. Here, Greenwald is criticizing several Obama policies: 1. Support for dictators in the Middle East (including those deposed during the Arab Spring, even though he pivoted toward supporting the protesters as it became clearer that they were going to emerge victorious). 2. Close ties to Israel and insistence on concessions that doomed the peace process. 3. Surges in Afghanistan. 4. Drone strikes and other military activity in Pakistan. The warrant for all these arguments is just that Obama is doing things that breed resentment in the Arab world. That resentment can become a catalyst for extremist hatred of the United States and thus is not in the best national security interest. Civilian casualties resulting from US counter-terrorism in the region are arguably rallying points for terrorist recruitment and lack of cooperation between Middle Eastern governments and the United States. One of the clearest examples (mentioned above but discussed here in more detail) is Obama"s embrace of drone strikes as a primary counter-terrorism strategy: Allison Good, "Middle East experts urge changes to Obama"s Yemen policies," Foreign Policy, June 27, 2012. A group of 27 foreign policy, security, and Middle East experts sent a letter to " Obama on this week criticizing the administration's counterterrorism-focused approach to Yemen and urging " "achieving a successful democratic transition" " Although the United States has "drastically increased the number of drone strikes" against al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) " this strategy "jeopardizes our long-term national security goals." A comprehensive focus on Yemen's economic and political problems, it continues, "will better serve the stability of Yemen and, accordingly, our national security interests, rather than ... direct military involvement." The letter, spearheaded by the Yemen Policy Initiative, a dialogue organized by the Atlantic Council and the Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED), outlines several diplomatic, political, economic, humanitarian, and security policy recommendations that include increasing assistance to democracy-building institutions, working with the international community to immediately address Yemen's "food security needs," sending Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to the Yemeni capital Sanaa, and rethinking the strategy of drone strikes, which the signatories argue "could strengthen the appeal of extremist groups." The recruitment argument appears again here. The drones debate is, obviously, widely varied and very in-depth but much of it boils down to the possibility of civilian casualties resulting from drone strikes and the culture of fear drone patrols create. Seeing the U.S. as uncaring and as responsible for the deaths of innocents, people adopt radical revenge ideologies, perpetuating terrorism. There are also some sticky due process issues associated with drones that could create bad precedents for international law and domestically. Anne-Marie Slaughter explains: Anne-Marie Slaughter, "Grading Obama"s Foreign Policy," January 23, 2012. Finally, for all of Obama's success using drones, the ultimate light, nimble and adaptable weapon, many of the precedents the United States setting with drone attacks will come back to haunt us. Now is the time to begin to develop an international consensus around rules governing drones and other means of individualized 21st-century warfare. Exulting in victory over the killing of individual terrorist suspects may feel good, but this is precisely the issue on which we need less celebration and more of the cool, cerebral analysis that the president is known for. Aside from just radicalizing the Middle East, the murky legal doctrines governing drone use (and the seeming lack of caring on the part of the American public about the impacts of this legal gray area) open the U.S. to significant international criticism, undermining soft power. Soft power is arguably indispensable for maintaining U.S. influence abroad and for fostering international consensus on issues that affect our national security. Much more could be said, of course, about Obama"s drone strikes policies. If you"d like to delve more deeply into this aspect of the resolution, check out the targeted killings analysis we did for the March/April topic last year. You can find it here: http://debate-central.ncpa.org... As I previously mentioned, however, there are as many, if not more, criticisms of the Obama administration as "too softline." Obama"s foreign policy approach, despite how definitive it is on terror, is often criticized for failing to take a clear stance on other Middle East issues. Mike Brownfield explains: Mike Brownfield, "Morning Bell: Middle East Crumbles Around Obama Foreign Policy," Heritage Foundation, The Foundry, February 8, 2012 The international rogue that is Iran continues to rise, along with its threat to the world. Thousands are dead in Syria under a brutal dictator while the international community is serving up effete condemnations. America"s ally Israel appears ready to take matters into its own hands in order to ensure its survival, while prospects for peace with Palestine remain dim. U.S. citizens are trapped in Egypt as anti-Western Islamists seek to consolidate their power. And Iraq"s once-peaceful prospects have been marred by one terrorist attack after another after America"s military forces departed. Obama has failed at every turn to safeguard U.S. interests in the region or take effective proactive initiatives to deal with threat of rising extremism and spiraling violence that could lead to regional conflict. In other words, current U.S. foreign policy can be characterized as reactive versus proactive. The wait-and-see approach Obama has taken on Syria, Israel-Iran conflict, and Iraq arguably run the risk that, if the United States is forced by circumstance to clarify its policy on either, it will be too late to truly shape the outcome. This can be potentially dangerous, especially as conflicts, once they go from cold to hot, are difficult to de-escalate or deter. Michael Singh elaborates: Michael Singh, "It"s not just the sparks that caused this fire in the Middle East," Foreign Policy, September 18, 2012. At such a pivotal moment, it is important that we correctly understand what is happening and why, and mount the appropriate policy response. We must in particular avoid the temptation " to disengage with the Middle East in frustration over the persistence of anti-Americanism and chaos there. The Middle East remains a region which is vital to U.S. interests " Since the beginning of the Arab uprisings, the Obama administration has adopted a passive, hesitant approach to events, conveying the sense that America is increasingly disengaged, indifferent, or both when it comes to the Middle East. This can be seen in the disconnect between rhetoric and action on Syria, diffidence in dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, "leading from behind" in Libya, and even in the talk of a "pivot" to Asia in our foreign policy. The result has been a diminution rather than an enhancement in both U.S. influence and -- despite strenuous efforts to avoid disputes with new governments in the region -- our popularity. Going forward, the United States should not lose our hope for a positive future in the Middle East or confidence in our own ability to shape outcomes there. However, we should be clear-eyed about the challenges that we face and the long timetable which lies before us to accomplish what we set out to achieve. Foreign policy has three fundamental objectives -- to promote American security, prosperity, and to advance U.S. values. This should be the starting point for successful policy in the region -- firmly and unapologetically advocate our interests, help governments to reform politically and economically, and support and work with parties within and without the region who share our interests and values. This is a common criticism of Obama"s response to the Arab Spring. Many analysts believe that his refusal to advocate for American interests throughout the transitional period and reluctance to shape the outcomes has caused a serious dip in the U.S."s influence and popularity with burgeoning governments that perceive abandonment and indifference. Jeffrey Goldberg, quoting Shadi Hamid from Brookings, clarifies the impact of perceived indifference: Jeffrey Goldberg, "Hunt for Obama"s Middle East Policy Comes Up Empty,"Bloomberg, October 1, 2012. Yet all we have from Obama is passivity, which is a recurring theme in the administration"s approach to the Middle East. So is "aggressive hedging," a term used by the Brookings Institution"s Shadi Hamid to describe Obama"s strange reluctance to clearly choose sides in the uprisings of the Arab Spring. "There"s a widespread perception in the region that Obama is a weak, somewhat feckless president," Hamid, who runs the Brookings Doha Center, told me. "Bush may have been hated, but he was also feared, and what we"ve learned in the Middle East is that fear, sometimes at least, can be a good thing. Obama"s aggressive hedging has alienated both sides of the Arab divide. Autocrats, particularly in the Gulf, think Obama naively supports Arab revolutionaries, while Arab protesters and revolutionaries seem to think the opposite." Leaders across the Middle East don"t take Obama"s threats seriously. Neither Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nor the Arab leaders of the Gulf countries believe he"ll act militarily against Iran"s nuclear program in his second term. This is perhaps the clearest explanation of the case against Obama"s hedging: that he"s essentially produced the worst of all worlds. By failing to take a side or many any particular demands, he alienates both sides of the conflict and guts the credibility of any threats because they aren"t backed up with action. In short, Obama"s policy potentially short-circuits U.S. influence in the Middle East at a time when we potentially need it the most. Jamie M. Fly discusses some concrete impacts to this claim: Jamie M. Fly, "Obama is Unwilling to Lead the U.S. Response to the Arab Spring," U.S. News and World Report, September 27, 2012 This was even more apparent in the revolutions that evolved into civil wars. In Libya, after some initial reluctance to get involved, the president pivoted and authorized a military effort to protect civilians that eventually led to the demise of Muammar Qadhafi. The administration's desire to overlearn the lessons of Iraq led to a hands off approach to postconflict Libya. The nascent Libyan government was essentially left on its own, with little assistance to rein in the militias and weapons proliferation that came as a result of NATO's air operation and the president's refusal to put boots on the ground. In Syria, the United States has stood by as tens of thousands have been killed, not willing to back up President Obama's demands that Bashar al-Assad step down with American action. The common thread that weaves together the U.S. response to the Arab Spring has thus been unwillingness by the Obama administration to assertively lead. The people of the region, from the streets to the halls of power, have far too often been left to question America's commitment to their cause and to wonder what U.S. policy is toward their countries. This has created a vacuum in which other actors have attempted to fill the void, often in ways that do not comport with U.S. interests. It also has weakened America's standing in the region and in the broader world and created costs that the United States will likely have to deal with for years to come. As one Syrian near the besieged city of Aleppo told The Washington Post in August, "America will pay a price for this. America is going to lose the friendship of Syrians, and no one will trust them anymore. Already we don't trust them at all." Thus, the "hands-off" approach created an uncomfortable middle ground where the U.S. did enough to involve itself but not quite enough to ensure that involvement promoted American security interests in the region. Worse, other actors have taken advantage of this lukewarm stance and attempted to shape the conflict (Turkey and Russia in Syria, for example) in such ways as may damage U.S. interests. For a more in-depth discussion of a similar argument, see: Michael Rubin, "Obama Speaks Often But Does Little on Mideast Foreign Policy," US News and World Report, September 27, 2012. For a more robust analysis of this argument applied to Iraq and Afghanistan, see: Jamie Fly, "Grading Obama"s Foreign Policy," Foreign Policy, January 23, 2012. Although we"ve touched on these already, this "soft" Middle East policy"s detractors discuss some specific scenarios that might be worth considering as contentions. One of the timeliest is Syria, where Bashar al-Assad, the besieged president, is using large-scale violence to maintain a tenuous hold on power in the face of rebel opposition. Jeffrey Goldberg explains: Jeffrey Goldberg, "Hunt for Obama"s Middle East Policy Comes Up Empty," Bloomberg, October 1, 2012. Which brings me to the baffling subject of Syria. Like many observers of the Obama administration, I"ve been confused by its unwillingness to take even the relatively modest steps required to bring about a decisive end to the regime of Bashar al-Assad. More than 30,000 people have been killed since the beginning of the uprising " and untold numbers have been wounded, tortured or raped. The Syrians who are rebelling are in dire need of the sort of support that the U.S. can best provide. The U.S. has the capability to efficiently neutralize Syria"s air defenses and impose a no-fly zone to ground Assad"s attack helicopters. And as Michael Doran and Max Boot pointed out " only the U.S. can lead a multinational effort to establish safe corridors between the Turkish border and the besieged city of Aleppo. If Aleppo was under the stable and permanent control of Syria"s rebels, it would spell the end of Assad"s regime and its appalling brutality. " In Syria, the national-security interests are profound. ... Assad is a prime supporter of terrorism " and his regime represents Iran"s only meaningful Arab ally. The overriding concern of the Obama administration in the Middle East is the defanging of Iran. Nothing would isolate Iran -- and its Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah -- more than the removal of the Assad regime and its replacement by a government drawn from Syria"s Sunni majority. Ensuring that Muslim extremists don"t dominate the next Syrian government is another compelling reason to increase U.S. involvement. Thus, the disengaged stance on Syria allows: 1. Human rights abuses on a massive scale. 2. Terrorist safe havens supported by Assad. 3. Isolation of Iran. 4. The new government to be indifferent or hostile to the United States. The second is Egypt. Egypt, recently in political transition after Arab Spring protests led to the ouster of dictator Hosni Mubarak, is beginning a shaky transition under the new president, Mohamed Morsi. Recent protests (ostensibly in response to an American-made fringe film insulting the Muslim prophet) initially received only a lukewarm condemnation from Morsi despite potentially endangering U.S. embassy personnel. Mike Brownfield elaborates on the importance of handling this situation decisively: Mike Brownfield, "Morning Bell: Middle East Crumbles Around Obama Foreign Policy," Heritage Foundation, The Foundry, February 8, 2012 Finally, in Egypt, officials there published a list of 43 people, including 19 Americans, accused of interfering in Egypt"s internal politics. They are not allowed to leave the country and could soon be brought to trial on claims that they illegally funded political groups in Egypt"s parliamentary elections. Heritage"s James Phillips explains that "they have become hostages in a much larger struggle: the struggle for freedom in Egypt against an unholy alliance between Egypt"s transitional military government and the Islamist political parties who will soon assume power." President Obama and members of his Cabinet tried to reach Egyptian leaders on the matter, but in the words of Lorne Craner, head of the pro-democracy organization IRI, "things are getting worse . . . We are all scratching our heads over here. I did two tours at State and one at the [National Security Council]. If the president called someone, something gets worked out." But as was the case under President Jimmy Carter, the White House appears helpless while Americans are held captive. None of these crises occurs in a vacuum " except for the vacuum of a cogent U.S. strategy for dealing with these ever-worsening conditions. Since President Obama took office, he has pursued a diplomatic strategy of charm and restraint: attempting to broker peace between Israel and Palestine, engaging with Syria and Iran, and withdrawing from Iraq. Now we are seeing the results. Egypt is important strategically as well " it"s one of the largest Middle Eastern countries and has historically been situated in a geographically and politically important position for brokering Israeli-Palestinian peace and tamping down North African radicals. A loss of Egypt could be devastating for U.S. influence, particularly because they"ve always been an ally in the region and may cease to be without quick, decisive action. The third is Libya. In Libya, dictator Moammar Qaddafi was recently ousted (and killed) by pro-democracy militias. The U.S. took part in a NATO air campaign (led by France) to secure Libya so that Qaddafi"s violent attempts to stay in power wouldn"t escalate out of control. Recently, Libyan militias (potentially taking part in a wider protest about the aforementioned American film and potentially participating in a coordinated Al Qaeda attack) attacked a U.S. embassy resulting in the deaths of American personnel. Notably, this attack resulted in the death of U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens, one of the first U.S. ambassadors killed abroad in a very long time. Richard Cohen explains how current U.S. policy is creating a dangerous spiral in Libya: Richard Cohen, "The Price of Obama"s Leading From Behind," The Washington Post, September 17, 2012. What lessons can be learned from events in Libya? That nothing good will come out of the Arab Spring? " In other words, is this what happens when the United States is "leading from behind"? This phrase, you might remember, was coined in reference to Barack Obama"s reluctance to take the lead in the NATO air campaign that toppled the dictatorship of Moammar Gaddafi. And that operation, in which the French seized the initiative, was mounted to save Benghazi, the city where the insurrection started and the one where U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed last week. Benghazi was saved from Gaddafi"s bloody reprisals, but not from mayhem. The notion that the United States can lead from behind is pitiful, the sorry concoction of an Obama administration that mistakes dulcet passivity for a foreign policy. The view from behind now has to be awfully depressing. Where once Obama could see the gallant tails of the French, the British, the Italians and some others, there is now no one. ... NATO"s warplanes have returned to base and Libya, a tribal society, was left to fend for itself. It has not fended all that well. Until recent events offered a rebuke, the Obama administration treated its toe-in-the-water response to the threats uttered by Gaddafi as an unalloyed success. The dictator had been ousted (and subsequently killed), no Americans had died in the effort and the wisdom of doing as little as possible was proclaimed a sterling triumph. Had the United States taken the lead, however, someone might have been paying more attention to events there and trying to forge a government out of heavily armed militias. After all, it"s not as if all of Libya was sacking the U.S. legation; it was a well-armed few. Much of the rest of the country was appalled by what happened and the president of the national congress, Mohamed Yusuf al-Magariaf, offered an apology and vowed to find the terrorists and, as always, bring them to justice. That is, the strategy of leading behind has a major flaw: it"s impossible to then take over after the fact. Moreover, abdicating responsibility to shape and rebuild post-conflict Libya allows radicalized minority factions (and potentially terrorist groups) to take advantage of weak rule of law in Libya. This could be potentially disastrous " allowing Libya to become a safe haven for groups wishing to inflict serious harm on the U.S. and its allies would be a difficult problem to contain and, more importantly, one that could have potentially been avoided. There are other criticisms, of course " U.S. policy has been criticized as either too supportive or not supportive enough of Israel versus Iran and the peace process. These criticisms are largely addressed above but are not currently quite as timely as those of the Arab Spring. Finally, as a midpoint between "softline" and "hardline" criticisms, there"s a decidedly more moixed view. Danielle Pletka explains: Danielle Pletka, "Grading Obama"s Foreign Policy," Foreign Policy, January 23, 2012. Any short analysis of Barack Obama's successes and failures in foreign policy must necessarily be incomplete. Is it enough to weigh his undeniable good judgment in ordering Navy SEALS to take out Osama bin Laden against his vacillation when faced with the Arab Spring? His willingness to face reality vis-"-vis Iran versus his paralyzing missteps in promoting Israeli-Palestinian dialogue? Surely not. But at the heart of what must, by the standards the president set for himself, be judged a failure, is what seems to be Obama's worst sin: The president's foreign policy lacks a guiding set of principles. Why surge troops into Afghanistan only to draw them down before the mission is complete? Why condemn Muammar al-Qaddafi in Libya for his crimes against his own people and remain almost indifferent to the same crimes when committed by Bashar al-Assad in Syria? Why knock off a dozen al Qaeda terrorists from the air, and release another group from Guant"namo? The answer, of course, is politics. Politics matters to any sane politician; but when politics suffers no competition from principle, the nation's foreign policy is rudderless. It is why our allies mistrust us, our adversaries underestimate us, and why we no longer seek to shape a better world, but instead to retreat from it. The bifurcated, dual nature of current U.S. policy is in and of itself a criticism. The idea that Obama has been too passive in some areas and too aggressive in others indicates that there is no guiding set of principles over current U.S. foreign policy. This approach leaves the U.S. open to international criticism and fails to provide a robust deterrent to those who would threaten our interests. Why, then, does any of this matter? We"ll end with a Jeffrey Goldberg quote that summarizes the strategic importance of the Middle East to national security in the United States: Jeffrey Goldberg, "The Middle East: Goodbye to All That," Bloomberg Businessweek, September 5, 2012. It"s inarguable that Asia is crucial to America"s economic future. "China already represents the most important national security issue we face," says R. Nicholas Burns, a former under secretary of state for political affairs. Yet Burns, like others, regrets the Obama team"s use of the term "pivot," which "implies a turn away, that we were going to leave NATO and Europe and our Middle East allies behind." The U.S., however, has turned away. The Obama administration has put no emphasis on Mideast peacemaking; America"s allies in the region see its position on Iran"s nuclear ambitions as ambiguous; and in Afghanistan, the administration is looking for the exit at a hurried pace. Obama "led from behind" in Libya and has resisted calls to push more actively for the ouster of Syria"s Bashar al-Assad. This effort to de-emphasize the region represents a significant departure in U.S. strategy, according to Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution. "After the entire collapse of international order and security 70 years ago, the way we established order and security was to take responsibility for three regions"Asia, Europe, and the Middle East," Kagan says. "That is what the definition of a superpower is. We consciously adopted a global role." And that"s why the U.S."s current retreat from the Mideast will only be temporary"which is a good thing. America has at least four core interests across the greater Middle East, and each one requires constant monitoring and a readiness to intervene. The first is energy. The notion that America will ever be truly energy-independent is chimerical. Even if the U.S. soon manages to produce all the fossil fuel energy it needs for itself, the world economy would be devastated if South Korea, Japan, and China were suddenly cut off from Mideast oil. So the U.S. will need to continue safeguarding the security of the Persian Gulf, barring one unlikely development: "The only thing that could change this would be burden-sharing with China with respect to keeping open the Strait of Hormuz," says Andrew Exum, a Middle East expert at the Center for a New American Security. "When you see Chinese ships protecting trade routes through the Strait, maybe we can stop worrying as much." The second interest is the security of Israel. "There are broad domestic constituencies for support for Israel, and no politician can ignore that," Exum says. Nothing on the horizon suggests that America will be radically scaling back its relationship with Israel. Quite the opposite: Next year could be the year the crisis over Iran"s nuclear program reaches a boiling point (if it doesn"t before November). Which brings us to the third concern: nuclear proliferation. Israel is a nuclear power; Iran is seeking to become a nuclear power; and Pakistan, at the edge of the greater Middle East, is a particularly unstable nuclear power (and one that could easily transfer nuclear technology to other states in the region that are fearful of Iran"s nuclear ambitions, or could simply lose control of its nuclear arsenal). The primary foreign policy task of an American president in the post-Sept. 11 era is to prevent jihadist organizations from obtaining weapons of mass destruction. It"s therefore impossible to ignore a region in which this acquisition would most likely take place. As for terrorism, the threat to the U.S. posed by the central al-Qaeda organization (currently headquartered in territory controlled by our ostensible ally, Pakistan) is dramatically lower than it was 11 years ago. Yet contrary to what Ron Paul might claim, no counterterrorism expert believes that a comprehensive American withdrawal from the Mideast would bring about an end to anti-American jihadist terrorism. There will be no ground invasions of Muslim countries in the near future; Iraq and Afghanistan have immunized the U.S."its people and its government"against that level of interventionism. Yet it"s na"ve to think that abandoning American responsibilities in the region would lead to anything but the further empowerment of radical ideologues. The Middle East is a continual source of woe. There is something seductive about the notion of pivoting away from it toward " well, anything, really. Yet it will be a terrible mistake for the U.S. to avert its eyes simply because what it sees constitutes nothing but trouble.

negative: That Israel’s West Bank Settlements are an Obstacle to Peace Settlements remove Palestinians from their own land, and they produce a self-perpetuating cycle in their sear

negative: Building Israeli Settlements on Recognized Palestinian Territory Forfeiture does not demonstrate good conduct. I look forward to your arguments, if any, in this round.

negative: Israel is on the short end of the stick This conflict is enormously broad and impossible to cover adequately in 24000 characters, but we have both done the best we can. I thank my opponent for his summary of his arguments and view of the debate. However, I strongly disagree with his conclusion. THEMES Context: The crucial takeaway here should be to view the conflict in context. I have argued this the entire time. Deaths happened in this conflict, but I have worked to explain why they happened. For Cast Lead, I stated that the deaths could have been prevented if Hamas did not shoot rockets at Israel. For the flotilla, I stated that the deaths could have been prevented if the activists did not violently take up arms against the IDF. I stated that this whole conflict could have been prevented if the Arabs had not taken up arms against Jews in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, and so on. So, the conflict must be viewed in the full context. Those against Israel selectively pick through history to provide only what supports them and will not accept any other explanation but Israeli brutality. My opponent is no exception. To continue the importance of context, the organizations my opponent has cited have reasons why they came to the conclusions they did. This is not an ad hominem, this is a look at the root cause. My opponent wants you to simply accept whatever he provides, without looking at how it got from its origin to here. The vote on this debate can be decided very simply: If you think two wolves and a sheep can fairly decide upon dinner, vote pro. If not, vote con. The votes of the UN are decided on a broader version of that, which explains why the votes appear to oppose Israel. Utilitarianism: I have demonstrated that Israel provides a net benefit to the region and that without it, things would be worse off. If not for this conflict, there could be more benefit. Israels hands are tied by its need to protect itself and Arab intransigence. Why are pregnant women supposedly forced to give birth at checkpoints? The question really should be WHY are women trying to enter Israel to give birth? What is in Israel that they want? Justification: As I have explained, the past 90 years have been an endless cycle of the same two events. Arabs provoke; Jews/Israel react. Thus, Israel is continuously justified in its actions. Think about how you would feel if rockets bombarded your houses regularly. Think about how you would feel if you were driving down the road and were pelted with rocks. Then, think about how you would feel if third parties tried to give material support to those committing such attacks on you. How would you react and ask your government to react? Truth: This conflict has taught me about the concept of truth. There can be two opposite things that are true. Of course, this is not quite true itself. Only one thing can happen, but in this conflict, so many people are certain that one side or the other is correct. Which is it? My opponent is correct in asserting that this debate has come to epitomize the conflict. The anti-Israel side frequently obfuscates the truth as I have shown with the flotilla, the Cast Lead death tolls, living conditions in Gaza, and so on. My opponent makes a tactical error that should cost him the battle. He lied. I presented the proof above. I hope it is acceptable to repost it here for easier reference. I presented this source (. http://is.gd...), which can be translated with Google Translate. Arabic characters can not be displayed here, so I had to create a Google Doc (. http://is.gd...) to do so. You can explore this yourself. I claim the source describes Gaza. My opponent asserts that it is Jerusalem. He knows that few here can read Arabic and is hoping you trust him and do not look yourself. I have made it easy to determine who is speaking the truth. If my opponent can not even tell the truth on a very clear source, how can anything else he presented be certain? His entire argument has lost integrity. Misrepresentation is another aspect of truth epitomized in this debate, again hearkening back to context. My opponent frequently has misrepresented the conflict, the reality, events, and my arguments. He made conclusions of my arguments that you can compare to your own view of what I said and use that to weigh your vote. The pro-Arab side is often misrepresenting facts. I have shown this several times. Take that into consideration. CONCLUSION The problem in this conflict is that the anti-Israel side can easily make accusations and create short sound bytes and video clips that are easy to accept. It is very easy to say FREE PALESTINE! It is much harder to say you support Israel. It takes Zionists pages and pages to show how these claims are false or heavily skewed. My opponent can make plethora of claims that each take several paragraphs to refute. I provided sources that can be used to answer most, if not all, questions about several of my opponents claims (re: Goldstone, flotilla . .. ). Use these to help you understand the conflict. So where are we now? The most cynical response is to shrug in frustration and walk away. Many do so. My opponent asserts that his claims were not refuted. I wonder if anything I could have said would refute him. Space constraints prohibit full refutations, so I have provided sources that work to refute claims about Gaza, Goldstone, the flotillas, etc. I have provided some examples, context, and sources that work to refute his claims. My opponent attacks my sources without any reasoning behind it other than "Jewish" or "Zionist". If Zionists and Jews cannot be trusted, then why did my opponent start a debate with a Jewish Zionist? Some will now mention my atheism, but that does not matter; I identify as a Jew culturally and ethnically. On that note, why does this atheist support Israel? I clearly do not think this land was ordained by God to Jews or have religious reasons to ignore the truth. So what do I see outside religion that causes me to support Israel? Broadly, why is such a seemingly small conflict with only 45,000 deaths over 90 years of sporadic wars gripping the world so fiercely? Why is everyone obsessed with Israel? What does that mean for this debate and your vote? In summation, voters should examine and understand the context within this debate and the conflict itself lives. They should look at the utilitarian benefits of Israel. They should look at why Israel acts the way it does. Finally, they should understand what is truth and how it has been represented here and in the conflict. This is a strongly partisan issue, but I hope the voters can crack away from their strongheld beliefs and look from a neutral perspective. Many people have switched sides in both directions on flimsy and strong evidence. Let us all hope for no vote-bombing and no sniping that prevents a fair andjust appraisal of this debate.

negative: every problem does not have a solution there isnt a solution to every problem.. i dont know how this can be a hard question for anyone aging is a problem if youth is a problem, death is a problem if life is a problem, the existence of pain is a problem if joy is a problem

negative: every problem does not have a solution you cant reverse the irreversible i was thinking heat absorbing wire for the wire, but there is so little heat coming from it, its not really relevant with heat absorption.. you can not reverse death, you cant uncut an apple, you can half something without doubling, you cant give something without taking something they are not problems, but answers.. you dont want to jump from of a cliff high above

negative: every problem does not have a solution oh right, sure in that case obviusly if its irreversible you cant reverse it, if you reversed it it wasnt irreversible you could have cables that absorb the heat.. but the heat is so little that its irrelveant

negative: No solution to the conflict Extra-judicial killing is illegal, immoral, contributes in no way to a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and can only serve to further delegitimize Israel in the eyes of the world. There will be no shortage of volunteers to replace any that they kill - the longer the conflict continues the more Palestinians will see no way out but to attack Israel. The only solution is to negotiate and compromise - as the UK appears to have managed with Northern Ireland. The alternative is to repeat the Nazi 'final solution' which would be an horrendous irony. Unfortunately blood tends to lead to more blood as it is vengence people want when someone is killed.

negative: Is a Two-State Solution (Israel and Palestine) an Acceptable Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Con http://articles.latimes.com... I ask the voters on this debate to consider this when voting on conduct.

negative: Dividing Jerusalem Palestinians in East Jerusalem will not tolerate Israeli governance

negative: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Israeli settlements make a two-state solution impossible

negative: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Two-state solution would alienate Palestinians in Israel.

negative: General statements in support of a two-state solution US special envoy George Mitchell: "In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we believe that the two-state solution, two states living side by side in peace, is the best and the only way to resolve this conflict."

negative: It is right that illegal acts by the state be exposed Anat Kamm was correct when she said “I kept thinking that history tends to forgive people who expose war crimes.”[1] Maj.-Gen. Yair Naveh was documented as saying “This is an arrest operation… But in case [the soldiers] identify one of the senior leaders of the Islamic Jihad, Walid Obeid, Ziad Malaisha, Adham Yunis, they have permission to open fire in accordance with their appraisal of the situation during the operation.”[2]  As attorney Michael Sfard states "In other words, the use of words referring to arrest when in fact there is no real intention of carrying out an arrest, but the reference is to assassination."[3] This was despite a supreme court ruling in 2006 that militants must be detained.[4] Kamm may be incorrect when considering this action a war crime as Israel was not at war at the time however assassination is clearly illegal under international law.[5] The press has four roles in a democracy; holding power to account, highlighting issues that need attention, educating citizens, and connecting people to create civil society.[6] In this particular case all of the first three roles were clearly being performed. [1] Lutvitch, Vered, ‘Kam: History forgives those who expose war crimes’, Ynet News.com, 12 April 2010. [2] Izenberg, Dan, ‘Stamp of approval from attorney-general’, Jerusalem Post, 13 April 2010. [3] Blau, Uri, ‘License to kill’, Haaretz, 27 November 2008. [4] Guarnieri, Mya, ‘The killing of Zuhair al-Qaissi exposes Israel’s attitude to its supreme court’, guardian.co.uk, 14 March 2012. [5] Wachtel, Howard A., ‘Targeting Osama Bin Ladin: Examining the Legality of Assassination as a tool of U.S. Foreign Policy’, Duke Law Journal, Vol.55, No.677, 2005, p.677. [6] Hume, Ellen, ‘Freedom of the Press’, Issues of Democracy, December 2005.

negative: Philosopher Kings are the solution. you just got FLIIPIn INTEMITEAD by me. Flee my presence you son of a dang magnito Chrstino, cuz ur the one that clearly got rekt.

negative: Israel should no longer be given special treatment by the U.S. My opponent makes only one contention: "The United States should formally end its "special" ties with the nation of Israel and begin to treat it as it would any other nation in the Middle East and World." However, he also sets up several of the valid arguments for the opposition without addressing them in any substantive way. These, among others, are the US' need for an ally in the middle east, ease of military access, intelligence information, military cooperation, and even human rights concerns. I'll address each of these in turn. 1) Need for a ME Ally The United States is greatly served by having a close ally in the Middle East. This comes in the form of a stepping stone for any sort of military action in the region. The majority of the US' remaining enemy states or states that are likely to foster animosity towards the US are in this region, and an ally in this region serves as a first line of defense. 2) Ease of Military Access This follows closely with the first point in that it gives the US a place to base operations in the middle east. Places like Israel and Kuwait provide a ground base for operations that may be necessary where a sea-based operations center won't do. Furthermore, one can store more airplanes on an Israeli air force base than on an aircraft carrier. 3) Intelligence Information The Mossad (Israeli Intelligence) is one of the best services in the world. They are much closer to the actual locations of terrorist activities than the United States and have intelligence agents that can more easily pass as Arab. Thus, they are arguably more situated to procure better intelligence than the CIA. Our intelligence sharing agreements with the Mossad give us better information to guard the US more efficiently. 4) Military Cooperation The Israeli army, but especially air force is one of the best trained in the world. Israeli pilots are trained to much higher standards than US pilots, and frequently, joint training exercises are used to enhance the combat effectiveness of both air forces. Another area that Israeli forces excel is helicopter mission execution - again, joint exercises in this area would obviously benefit US forces. 5) Human Rights Considerations Israel is surrounded by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon (and Palestine). All are majority Muslim countries, and all would like to reclaim the land that Israel occupies. Without backing from the US, there could easily be another Holocaust in the Middle East.

negative: Policy Space Topic Contention 1 is Inherency: There is Currently No Brilliant Pebbles Program Cooper 02 (Henry F Cooper, Director, Strategic Defense Initiative Organization July 10, 1990 - January 20, 1993) (http://www.missilethreat.com...) In 1993, however, the Clinton Administration delivered a severe blow to U.S. missile defense by systematically eliminating Brilliant Pebbles through a series of budget cuts. Secretary of Defense Les Aspin stated his objective as "taking the star out of Star Wars." The Administration did more than just that: it slashed missile defense funding across the board and replaced SDI with the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO). Yet the technology itself would continue to be tested, for a short time: one year later, NASA launched a deep-space probe known as "Clementine," which had been built using first-generation Brilliant Pebbles technology. Clementine successfully mapped the entire surface of the Moon. The mission, which cost $80 million, effectively "space qualified" Brilliant Pebbles' hardware. All the same, no steps were taken by the Clinton Administration to resurrect the program. Thus the plan: The United States Federal Government Should Develop a Substantial Space Based Missile Defense System beyond Earth's Mesosphere We'll fiat and clarify upon request. Contention 2 is Harms and Significance The Status Quo Risks Nuclear War We'll Isolate 3 Scenarios First is Syria and Israel Syria and Israel Relations are on Brink Kershner 2010 [By Isabel Kershner, Reporter for the New York Times, Published: February 4, 2010 "Israeli Foreign Minister Adds Heat to Exchanges With Syria", http://www.nytimes.com...] JERUSALEM — Israel's blunt-talking foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, warned Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, on Thursday that the Assad family would lose power in any war with Israel, ratcheting up bellicose exchanges between the countries in recent days. In a speech at Bar-Ilan University, near Tel Aviv, Mr. Lieberman said: "I think that our message must be clear to Assad. In the next war, not only will you lose, you and your family will lose the regime. Neither you will remain in power, nor the Assad family." That had to be the message, Mr. Lieberman added, because "the only value truly important to them is power." In an effort to calm the atmosphere, an aide to Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said that Mr. Netanyahu was "ready to go anywhere in the world, at any time, to open peace talks with Syria without preconditions." The aide, Nir Hefetz, added that Israel did not rule out assistance from any "fair third party" that could advance a peace process with Syria. Mr. Lieberman was responding to strident comments from Syria on Wednesday. Mr. Assad told the visiting Spanish foreign minister, Miguel ï¿½ngel Moratinos, that Israel was "not serious about achieving peace" and that the facts indicated that "Israel is pushing the region toward war, not peace," according to the Syrian news agency SANA. Furthermore, the Syrian foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem, said Wednesday that "Israel should not test Syria's determination," adding, "Israel knows that war will move to the Israeli cities." He implied that a conflict beginning in South Lebanon could also lead to an all-out war. Mr. Moallem made his comments in response to a strong statement made by Israel's defense minister, Ehud Barak, to senior Israeli Army officers on Monday, warning that "in the absence of an arrangement with Syria, we are liable to enter a belligerent clash with it that could reach the point of an all-out, regional war." Israelis understood Mr. Barak's remark as a plea for the Israeli government to start new peace negotiations with Syria, but the Syrians apparently interpreted it as warmongering. Israel's northern borders with Lebanon and Syria are quiet, but tense. The last Israel-Syria war was in 1973; Israel last fought Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite militia that receives support from Syria, in Lebanon in 2006. Israeli military officials have warned repeatedly that Hezbollah has been rearming, and they assert that Syria has been preparing its military to move from the conventional battlefield into missiles that can be aimed at Israeli cities. Mr. Lieberman said the Syrians had issued a "direct threat" to Israel that "crossed a line." "We cannot continue with business as usual," he said. Shaul Mofaz, a former Israeli Army chief and defense minister, and now a senior member of the opposition centrist Kadima Party, described Mr. Lieberman's statements as "irresponsible." "They are liable to lead to verbal escalation or other types of escalation," Mr. Mofaz told Israel Radio. Mr. Netanyahu has repeatedly said that he is ready to talk to the Syrians without preconditions on either side. But Syria expects a guarantee from Israel up front that it is willing to withdraw from the Golan Heights, the strategic plateau that Syria lost in the 1967 war. There are sharp differences within Mr. Netanyahu's governing coalition, not least over whether a deal with Syria would succeed in removing Syria from the Iranian sphere. "Those who think that territorial concessions will cause a severance of the ties between Syria and the axis of evil are deluding themselves and avoiding reality," Mr. Lieberman said Thursday, referring to Iran with a term used by former President George W. Bush. Syria, he added, "will have to give up on its ultimate demand for the Golan Heights." Yet with the Palestinian peace process at an impasse, there have been increasing voices in Israel for a refocus on negotiations with Syria. "Because of the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the only chance for generating change lies in the north," wrote the commentator Ari Shavit in Thursday's issue of the newspaper Haaretz. "There is no certainty at all that peace is in the offing," he continued. "But if it is, it is to be found not in Ramallah but in Damascus." The previous Israeli government, under the lead of Ehud Olmert of Kadima, held indirect talks with Syria through Turkish mediators, but they ended when Israel started its military campaign against Hamas in Gaza. The Palestinians have refused to engage in direct talks with Mr. Netanyahu's government unless it carries out a total freeze of settlement construction, at least for a few months, including in East Jerusalem. Mr. Netanyahu hinted on Wednesday that he was ready to engage instead in "proximity" talks with the Palestinians, via American mediation. "In the Middle East it sometimes takes three to tango, or at least to start to tango," Mr. Netanyahu told an audience at the annual Herzliya Conference. "Afterwards," he said, "I assume we can go on to dance as a couple." The Palestinians have not yet stated whether they are ready for indirect talks. Israel-Syria war causes extinction Joshi 2000 [Sharad. Post-Doctoral Fellow @ the Center for Non-Proliferation. "Israel's Nuclear Policy: A Cost-Benefit Analysis" Strategic Analysis: A Monthly Journal of the IDSA, Vol XXII, No 12. 2000, EBSCO//MGW-JV] Arab WMD Development A common argument is that the Israeli nuclear capability has led to the pursuit of WMD and ballistic missiles by some of the Arab states and Iran. This is only partially correct. The fact is that the Arab states have pursued such capabilities to counter each other also. The region's extraordinary complexity, the numerous actors, and the sources of conflict also have to be considered. 15 The resulting divisions in the Arab world have ensured that the chances of a combined Arab attack are low. The Syrian chemical arsenal should be considered, to a certain extent, as being a direct response to Israeli nuclear power, though it has other WMD arsenals to fear, such as Iraq's. In Syrian strategic thinking, chemical weapons are designed to offset Israel's conventional superiority in the event of war. A major Israeli concern is—a massive Syrian surprise attack with conventional forces on the Golan Heights. Syria possesses missiles such as the Scud-C (range 500 km) and the Scud-B (range 280 km) and also chemical arsenals for them like the powerful nerve agent VX. 16 These missiles armed with chemical warheads could strike airfields and mobilisation points, incapacitating these areas. With Israel denied air superiority, Syria could retake the Golan Heights. A simultaneous Palestinian uprising in the West Bank and the Gaza strip along with other Arab states attacking would make the situation particularly grave. Such a scenario would be ripe for a nuclear Armageddon. Further, both Iraq and Iran are known to possess vast quantities of WMD. In case of Iraq, UNSCOM has already shown how elaborate the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons programme was, till the Gulf war. The deadliness of the arsenal had already been established, when Iraq used chemical weapons against its Kurdish population in the late 80s. The activities of UNSCOM in the past eight years notwithstanding, the technical knowhow is still present, and Iraq is capable of recreating its lethal arsenal. The important thing to understand here is that, till the time Israel maintains its nuclear arsenal, and the opacity surrounding it, the Arab states and Iran would claim justification for their own WMD stock. Further, Israel's nuclear arsenal might deter an Arab chemical attack but the danger of creating a linkage between the two categories of weapons is that the nuclear threshold is lowered to scenarios that may not be ‘last resort' situations. Danger of Irrational Use A fear expressed regarding the proliferation of nuclear weapons is that they could fall into the hands of irrational decision-makers in the Middle East, especially in a scenario where an Arab state might acquire nuclear weapons. There is belief that in case an Arab state achieves such a status, then in a confrontational situation, theories of deterrence, MAD may not work. One side assuming the inevitability of war may decide to launch a pre-emptive strike at the other's nuclear forces. On the other hand, an equally convincing argument would be that the high price as a consequence of mistakes in a nuclear weapons scenario, can also force parties to reconsider their course of action, and can also lead to pull backs, in spite of a loss of face. The US had withdrawn from the Bay of Pigs, likewise the Soviet Union withdrew their missiles from Cuba. 17 Risk of Actual Use The introduction of nuclear weapons in an already hostile region could increase the possibility of actual use of nuclear weapons in a tense situation. The continuous hostility of varying levels over the past five decades, might lead to the inclusion of nuclear and other WMD in existing "war-fighting" doctrines. 18 If the states in the region see WMD simply as weapons to be used in a conflict, the probability of these weapons being used increases drastically. The Arabs have tried to counter Israel's nuclear superiority, by developing a sizeable chemical and biological weapons arsenal. The greater the number of powers in a region possessing WMD, the greater the risk of escalation. Wars in history have more often than not been limited; but the main reason for this has been constraints due to resources and technological know-how. Instances are very rare of a war being limited due to considerations of the consequences of existing capabilities. 19 The indiscriminate effect of Weapons of Mass Destruction makes it very difficult to keep a war involving such weapons, limited. Future leaders may have less respect for the nuclear taboo, and may refuse to see the nuclear bomb as only a last resort, thereby increasing the risk. On the other hand, it could also be argued that development of battlefield weapons would not have the cataclysmic effects of bombing population centers. Nuclear Deterrence Against Terrorists Many of the threats that Israel has faced have not been influenced by the fact that it is a nuclear power. Atomic weapons cannot deter guerrilla attacks and they also cannot help in civil wars like the one Israel was involved in Lebanon. It could thus be argued that in the last 25 years, though there have been no conventional wars, Israel has still been forced into various other conflicts, which have threatened its security, and its atomic arsenal has been ineffectual. The Israeli nuclear doctrine is still based on the last resort option, though there have been moves towards battlefield nuclear capability also. But in situations that are less than last resort, deterrence has not really worked, even after taking into account any battlefield strategies that Israel might have developed. Further weakening of the deterrent has taken place as Israel is in control of Arab lands. This weakening has occurred as Israel's occupation is not just military but also national, ideological and territorial. The goal of conflict resolution is not helped by Israel's nuclear arsenal. The Pre-Emptive Strike Option In 1981, Israel successfully bombed Iraq's Osirak reactor. But in its goal of denying nuclear capability to anyone else in the Middle East, it can no longer attempt such pre-emptive air strikes. The most likely candidates to threaten Israel are Iran (which recently tested its Shahab-3 long range missile), Syria, and to a lesser degree, Iraq. At least the first two have undertaken measures like concealment, dispersion, hardening and installation of air defence equipment to prevent any Israeli air strikes. Since pre-emption is ruled out, therefore Israel may be forced to adopt a ‘launch on warning' posture as it does not have the luxury of waiting to assess the damage from a first strike before responding. In turn Iran, Iraq or Syria, lacking secure second strike forces of their own would be under great pressure to launch their missiles first—another first strike posture. There could thus be a hair trigger alert scenario. The possibility of nuclear war breaking out by accident or design would be great and would place intolerable strain on Israel's freedom of military movement and civilian morale. Second is Iran and North Korea Iran Has Nuclear Weapons Dareni 6-2-11 – Ali Akbar Dareini, Associate Press writer, "Iran: Missile progress shows sanctions futile," http://news.yahoo.com... Iran's defense minister claimed Saturday that the country's missile progress shows that U.N. sanctions are ineffective and won't stop Tehran's defense programs. The statement by Gen. Ahmad Vahidi comes during 10 days of war games in Iran's latest show of military might and displays what Tehran claims is growing self-sufficiency in military and other technologies. Vahidi said Iran's missile program is "indigenous" and has no reliance on foreign countries to meet its defense requirements. Iran is under four sets of U.N. sanctions over its refusal to halt uranium enrichment, a technology that can be used to produce nuclear fuel or atomic weapons. Last week, Iran unveiled underground missile silos for the first time, making Iran's arsenal less vulnerable to any possible attack. Iran's Revolutionary Guard, the country's most powerful military force, said the Islamic Republic has the ability to produce missiles with a greater range than those currently in its arsenal, but doesn't need to do so. The upgraded version of Iran's Shahab-3 and Sajjil-2 missiles already can travel up to 1,240 miles (2,000 kilometers) — putting Israel, U.S. bases in the Gulf region and parts Europe within reach. "The war games ... show Iran's great capability in designing, producing and using various kinds of missiles based on domestic knowledge. This showed that the sanctions imposed had no effect on Iran's missile program," Vahidi said in comments posted on sepahnews.com, the Guard's official website. Iran has periodically boasted of what it calls homegrown advances in technological sectors such as its satellite program and other scientific work. And Iran has all intention to attack the US Timmerman 08 (Kenneth R. Timmerman, Staff Writer, "U.S. Intel: Iran Plans Nuclear Strike on U.S.", July 29th 2008, http://www.newsmax.com...) Iran has carried out missile tests for what could be a plan for a nuclear strike on the United States, the head of a national security panel has warned. In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee and in remarks to a private conference on missile defense over the weekend hosted by the Claremont Institute, Dr. William Graham warned that the U.S. intelligence community "doesn't have a story" to explain the recent Iranian tests. And Iran is Proliferating Bard '11 (Dr. Mitchell Bard, Executive Director of the nonprofit American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, Policy Analyst, "Potential Threats to Israel: Iran", June 27th, 2011, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...) If Iran has nuclear weapons it can also pose an indirect threat by sharing the technology or an actual weapon with other Muslim countries or terrorists. Iran is a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allows the peaceful pursuit of nuclear technology, including uranium mining and enrichment, under oversight by the IAEA, but Ahmadinejad raised worldwide concern about nuclear proliferation when he told the UN General Assembly in September 2005, " Iran is ready to transfer nuclear know-how to the Islamic countries due to their need." Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, repeated the proliferation threat several months later when he told the president of Sudan, "Iran's nuclear capability is one example of various scientific capabilities in the country....The Islamic Republic of Iran is prepared to transfer the experience, knowledge and technology of its scientists." If Iran succeeds in getting a bomb, it will also create a potential arms race as Arab states see the need to obtain weapons to deter the Iranians. In fact, since 2006, 12 Middle East countries (Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Libya, and the Gulf Cooperation Council) have either announced plans to explore atomic energy or signed nuclear cooperation agreements. All say they are only interested in peaceful uses of nuclear technology, but the fear is that some or all may follow the Iranian example and work toward building a bomb. North Korea Has Nuclear Weapons Bolton 7-14-2011 – John R. Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, "North Korea edges toward next nuke test," http://www.washingtontimes.com... You wouldn't know it from the Obama administration, but North Korea's global threat continues to metastasize. South Korea recently concluded that extensive cyber-attacks against civilian and military targets in the South emanated from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). Following China's lead in information warfare, the North is creating yet another asymmetric military capability it can deploy against its adversaries and also peddle for hard currency to other rogue states and terrorists. Although Pyongyang limited its targeting of this particular sortie to South Korea, the potential cyberwarfare battlefield is global and includes the United States, which already is the subject of extensive cyberprobing, exploitation and espionage by China. For a country perennially on the brink of starvation, North Korea's military foray into cyberspace demonstrates its continuing malevolence. The DPRK's nuclear-weapons program has not rested on its laurels, either, with widely observed surface-level preparations for a possible third underground test well under way. The North's development of ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear payloads is also advancing apace, as Russian missile designer Yuri Solomonov highlighted last month in a Kommersant interview. This is hardly surprisingly given Iran's increasing long-range capabilities, the extensive Tehran-Pyongyang collaboration, and their programs' common base in Soviet-era Scud missile technology. Meanwhile, Pakistan's A.Q. Khan has released documents purportedly showing prior North Korean bribery of senior Islamabad officials to grease the transfer of nuclear or ballistic-missile technology. While their authenticity is disputed, the documents are part of Mr. Khan's continuing campaign to prove he did not act solo in the world's illicit nuclear-weapons bazaar. He long ago admitted supplying North Korea and Iran with critical nuclear technology. Pyongyang's unveiling in November of impressive new uranium-enrichment facilities at Yongbyon and recent construction there show the continuing fruits of Mr. Khan's entrepreneurship. His documents - and the many others he undoubtedly has in a shoebox somewhere - are worth verifying and actually might help Islamabad and Washington work together to repair their fractured relationship and prevent China from exploiting their current differences. Clearly, North Korea's weapons programs are not decelerating even amid intensive preparations for a possible transition of power, following Kim Jong-il's death, to a third member of the communist Kim dynasty. But faced with these challenges, the Obama administration has been not only publicly silent but essentially passive both diplomatically and intellectually. Only the Pentagon and the intelligence community, fortunately still implementing the Proliferation Security Initiative, have done much beyond noting pro forma that the troublemaking DPRK is still at it. And North Korea Is Proliferating Taylor 06 Jessica, correspondent, United Press International; "Expert Debate Space-Based Missile Defense Assets" United Press International; http://www.spacewar.com... |Cramer The Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, a Washington think tank, has issued a study saying the implementation of plans for space missile defense is critical for U.S. national security and an effective system against at least some intercontinental ballistic missiles from so-called rogue states should be in place no later than 2010. "The absence of a space strategy is a gap in national security," said Robert Pfaltzgraff, president of the IFPA, during a roundtable on the new report hosted by the American Foreign Policy Council, a small conservative Washington think tank, last Friday on Capitol Hill. "Only space can give us a global missile defense." The threat is even more immediate, many fear, following several missile tests on July 4 by North Korea. While their long range Taepodong-2 ICBM was unsuccessful, several short range No Dong missiles appeared to work effectively in the tests. One of North Korea's main exports is weapons, and Pfaltzgraff said the United States should be increasingly concerned that these short range missiles could end up in the hands of terrorists aiming to launch them from domestic shores. The IFPA analysts claimed that U.S. ballistic missile defense must be revaluated in light of these developments. However, other analysts said the Bush administration has failed so far in adequately developing its BMD programs. And proliferation threatens regional stability Levinger 6 – Josh Levinger, Research Assistant with the Center for Future Civic Media at MIT, Fall 2006, "Ballistic Missile Proliferation Among the "Axis of Evil": Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Pakistan," http://www.levinger.net... The real threat posed by ballistic missile proliferation is to regional stability. Introducing long range missiles and nuclear warheads into inflamed regions such as the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent, and East Asia, opens the possibility for accidental launch and rapid escalation. While the United States and the Soviet Union stared each other down at the nuclear threshold for decades, other adversaries may not have as advanced a military decision process, or the experience of living with the threat of total annihilation. The future of missile proliferation looks bleak, with the impending disintegra- tion of the NPT and the circumvention of the MTCR. On the other hand, the foreign market for budding missile designers appears to be booming. Perhaps there are job of- fers waiting for this graduating senior in Pyongyang, Tehran or Islamabad. This causes nuclear war Roberto L. Delgado 5, Colonel - United States Army, "WHAT SHOULD BE THE UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARDS BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE FOR NORTHEAST ASIA?", U.S. Army War College, 3-18, http://www.dtic.mil... The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by rogue nations is an issue that jeopardizes the security of our nation, people, deployed military forces, friends, and allies. Since the collapse of the former Soviet Union, the world has become more unpredictable and volatile rather than predictable and peaceful. The instability in some countries and regions of the world has increased the interest of insurgents and extremists in obtaining WMD and the means to deliver them, including ballistic missiles, in order to coerce or topple the governments within their countries. To many nations and countries, ballistic missiles are an inexpensive and effective means to overcome an adversary's air defense system without having to use manned aircraft, lose trained personnel, and damage costly aircrafts. Missiles also require less maintenance, training, and logistics than manned aircraft. Ballistic and cruise missiles can also be armed with conventional or non-conventional warheads; even the limited use of these weapons could be devastating to any country or nation and their people. The United States, as the only global power, is a prime target for these players as they seek to destabilize the United States and its interests abroad through either the employment or threat of employment of WMD. Ballistic missiles, with the capability to deliver nuclear, biological, and chemical war heads cause significant anxiety in the United States and abroad. This causes extinction. Utgoff 02 — Victor A. Utgoff, Deputy Director of the Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of the Institute for Defense Analyses and senior member of the National Security Council Staff, 2002 ("Proliferation, missile defence and American ambitions," Survival, Volume 44, Number 2, June, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via EBSCOhost Electronic Journals Service, p. 90) In sum, widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear 'six-shooters' on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations. Third is an Indo-Pak War India and Pakistan Relations are on brink now Ignatius 2011 (David, Staff writer for Washington Times, India and Pakistan on the Brink,http://www.washingtonpost.com..., 1/14/2011,AS) Everything is going right these days for India, except for one big problem: It is living next to a Pakistan that is coming apart politically, and Indian leaders insist with a tone of resignation that there's nothing they can do about it. Starting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, top Indian officials know that their booming democracy is endangered by the growing chaos across the border. They say that they're willing to revive back-channel negotiations with Islamabad to resolve the long-festering problem of Kashmir. They favor confidence-building measures to reduce the risk of war between these two nuclear-armed nations. And then, in the next breath, Indian officials insist that such positive steps won't make any difference. The Pakistani military doesn't want any reduction in tensions, they argue. The civilian government is crumbling and incapable of making a deal. Even Singh, long an advocate of better relations with Pakistan, is said to have concluded that hopes for better relations are "wishful thinking." A few hundred miles away in Islamabad, you'd hear the same bleak message from Pakistani military and political leaders. Yes, they know that the immediate threat to Pakistan is from Islamic militants, not India. Yes, they know that restoring a back-channel dialogue with New Delhi might ease tensions. But no, they don't see any way to step back from the brink. The Indians, in their view, are conspiring to undermine Pakistan. Welcome to the world's most dangerous zero-sum game. The sad fact is that India and Pakistan, separated at birth in 1947, are locked in what seems like a blood feud. You hear the same language of suspicion in prosperous New Delhi that you do in embattled Islamabad. I spent three days here talking with Indian leaders as part of a dialogue sponsored by the Aspen Strategy Group and the Confederation of Indian Industry. Discussing the India-Pakistan dispute with these officials reminded me of the fable of Tantalus, whose punishment by the gods was that food and drink were always just out of reach. A rapprochement between India and Pakistan is that elusive: You can imagine what the reduction of tensions would look like but you can't grasp it. This is a problem that might seem ripe for U.S. mediation. Washington has close ties with both countries, after all, and it could act as an honest broker on issues such as Kashmir, which is ruled by India but claimed by both countries. But Indians say that American intervention could just make matters worse - poisoning public opinion against any deal that emerged. U.S. diplomats are walking on eggshells: The Kashmir problem is so sensitive that American officials sometimes refer to it as "the K word," as if the very subject were unmentionable. Washington has gently encouraged dialogue between the two countries, but two meetings last year between their foreign ministers collapsed amid mutual recriminations. They will have another chance next month at a regional gathering in Bhutan, but nobody seems very hopeful. The Indians watch Pakistan's political instability with grim resignation. The root problem, they argue, is that the Pakistani military is unwilling to sever its links with Islamic terrorists. Until the Pakistanis break this insurgency, they will be at its mercy. Dialogue with India won't make any difference, they insist. "The last thing we want to see is Pakistan slide into instability," says one top Indian official, but he cautions that there is little that India or America can do. "It's Pakistan's internal problem. And that, we can't fix." As India celebrates its own economic success, there is a slight tone of South Asian schadenfreude about Pakistan's troubles. "There is one school of thought that says, 'If they [the Pakistanis] are committing suicide, then you don't have to murder them,'" the top official concedes. "But the consequences of that are horrible." I came away from these discussions feeling that Indian leaders are being shortsighted: If Pakistan descends further into violence and chaos, India will suffer from the fallout. And with these two bitter rivals, there is always the risk of nuclear war. If I were a newly prosperous Indian, I'd want to help my ailing neighbor as a matter of self-protection. But try making that argument to Indian officials. "You have to recognize that some problems can't be solved," counsels one prominent Indian. Officials here don't want American mediation, and they think outreach to Pakistan won't do any good. Meanwhile, the South Asian tinderbox keeps on getting hotter. That nuclear war would escalate rapidly Sethi 09 (Manpreet, PHD in International Studies, December 2009, NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IN SECOND TIER NUCLEAR WEAPON STATES: A CASE STUDY OF INDIA, Dr. Manpreet Sethi is Fellow, International Relations at the Centre de Sciences Humaines, New Delhi. She is also Senior Fellow, Centre for Air Power Studies, where she heads the Nuclear Security project. She completed her Ph. D from School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi in 1997 and was on the research faculty of the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi from 1997-2001. http://www.csh-delhi.com..., AM) The first factor that is deemed to heighten nuclear dangers in the case of the two dyads under study is geographical proximity and a history of conflict. Located next to one another and sharing disputed boundaries, it is feared that any major breakout of conventional hostilities between India-Pakistan or India-China could increase the pressures for a pre-emptive strike or a nuclear attack being launched without proper confirmation. Moreover, since the missile flight times would only be between 8-13 minutes for missile ranges of 600-2000 kms, it would not allow either side to even use the hotline (assuming these were functional) to confirm the veracity (deliberate or accidental) or nature (conventional or nuclear) of launch. Haunted by the thought that the country that waited to use its nuclear assets might end up losing them to a disarming first strike would cause near immediate nuclear retaliation engulfing the nations in a mindless nuclear exchange. Indo-Pak war causes nuclear Armageddon Bidwai 08 [Praful Jouranlist and political analyst International The News, 12-26-08, http://www.thenews.com.pk...] Any India-Pakistan conflict is liable to escalate into nuclear war. In Nuclear Armageddon, there are no winners—only mega-deaths. Even a limited nuclear exchange will kill millions of civilians in both countries. The economic and environmental damage will set us back by decades. A single Hiroshima/Nagasaki-type bomb will kill 8 to 20 lakh people in a big city. India and Pakistan both have scores of such bombs, indeed even more powerful ones. In every conceivable war-gaming scenario—and many credible ones exist —, an India-Pakistan conflict has one inevitable outcome: full-scale war, in which Pakistan won't hesitate to use nuclear weapons if it fears loss of territory. This will invite nuclear retaliation from India, with consequences too horrifying even to contemplate. And Note that even small threats pose great risk IFPA 06 – Independent Working Group on Missile Defense, the Space Relationship and the Twenty-First Century, 2007 report, Washington D.C., August 28, 2006 Twenty-first century threats to the United States, its de- ployed forces, and its friends and allies differ fundamental- ly from those of the Cold War. An unprecedented number of international actors have now acquired – or are seeking to acquire – missiles. These include not only states, but also non-state groups interested in obtaining missiles with nucle- ar or other payloads. The spectrum encompasses the missile arsenals already in the hands of Russia and China, as well as the emerging arsenals of a number of hostile states. The character of this threat has also changed. Unlike the Soviet Union, these newer missile possessors do not attempt to match U.S. systems, either in quality or in quantity. In- stead, their missiles are designed to inflict major devastation without necessarily possessing the accuracy associated with the U.S. and Soviet nuclear arsenals of the Cold War. The warning time that the United States might have before the deployment of such capabilities by a hostile state, or even a terrorist actor, is eroding as a result of several factors, including the continued proliferation and widespread availability of technologies to build missiles and the resulting possibility that an entire system might be purchased out- right. Would-be possessors do not have to engage in the pro- tracted process of designing and building a missile. They could purchase and assemble components, reverse-engineer a missile after having purchased a prototype, or immediately acquire a number of assembled missiles. Even missiles that are primitive by U.S. standards might suffice for a rogue state or terrorist organization seeking to inflict extensive damage upon the United States. As the Rumsfeld Commission point- ed out in its 1998 report: Under some plausible scenarios – including re-bas- ing or transfer of operational missiles, sea- and air- launch options, and shortened development pro- grams that might include testing in a third country – or some combination of these – the United States might well have little or no warning before operational deployment. Contention 3 is Solvency: Brilliant Pebbles is ready now Pfaltzgraf and Van Cleave, 07 (Dr. Robert L. Pfaltzgraf, Shelby Cullom Davis Professor of International Security Studies The Fletcher School, Tufts University and President Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis and Dr. William R. Van Cleave, Professor Emeritus Department of Defense and Strategic Studies Missouri State University. Independent Working Group, "Missile Defense, The Space Relationship, and the 21st Century", 2007, http://www.ifpa.org..., Manchester) A space-based KEI is designed to hit a ballistic missile in its boost phase, when the warhead(s) has not yet separated from the missile and is most vulnerable, as well as in the midcourse and high-terminal phases. Kinetic kill vehicles would be placed in low-earth orbit, where they would remain until a hostile missile launch was detected. For intercepts in the boost or terminal phases, a kinetic kill vehicle would accelerate out of orbit toward the missile which would be destroyed by direct impact. Midcourse intercepts would occur in space. Over a decade ago, the United States had developed technology for light-weight propulsion units, sensors, computers, and other components of an advanced kill vehicle. This concept, Brilliant Pebbles, consisted of a constellation of about 1000 satellites that combined its own early-warning and tracking capability with high maneuverability to engage attacking ballistic missiles in all phases of their flight trajectory. Each pebble was designed to identify the nature of the attack, which might include up to 200 ballistic missiles; and since it knew its own location and that of all other pebbles, each could calculate an optimum attack strategy from its own perspective and execute an intercept maneuver, while simultaneously informing the other pebbles of its action. This operational concept enabled a robustly viable, testable, operational capability that survived numerous scientific and engineering peer reviews in the 1989-90 time period, including by some groups that were hostile to the idea of missile defense in general, and space-based defenses But the technology was clearly established, supporting the Pentagon's approved acquisition plan that each of the pebbles would operate autonomously because each carried the equivalent of a Cray-1 computer and could do its own calculations for trajectory and targeting analysis. Each also had its own navigation sensors, allowing it to determine its location and the location of its neighbors – as well as to detect and track the target ballistic missiles and calculate a good approximation of what its neighbors saw.12 These pebbles would act as sensor platforms until all or part of the constellation was authorized to intercept hostile missiles. In fact, their infrared sensors provided the warning and tracking capability needed to alert the Brilliant Pebbles constellation enabling it to intercept ballistic missiles in the boost and subsequent phases of flight. The constellation would provide a redundant, and for some applications, superior capability than the geosynchronous Defense Support Program satellites used since the early 1970s as a key element of the U.S. Early Warning and Tactical Assessment system. Their small size, meanwhile, made them difficult to target, while their relatively low cost made them easy to replace. The autonomy of Brilliant Pebbles in detecting launch and undertaking interception complicated the use of countermeasures against their command and control. And because of the number of Brilliant Pebbles deployed in space, these defenses would have multiple opportunities for interception, thus increasing their chances of a successful intercept in either the boost or midcourse phases, or even high in the earth's atmosphere during reentry in the terminal phase. These characteristics stand in contrast to the current GMD interceptors which, in the limited numbers presently planned, may not provide more than one independent intercept opportunity. Although there has been no formal program to develop the key technologies further, advances in the commercial, civil and other defense sectors over the past decade will now permit even lighter mass, lower cost, and higher performance than would have been achieved by the 1990-era Brilliant Pebbles technology base. Thus, lighter weight and smarter components can now empower a Brilliant Pebbles interceptor with greater acceleration/velocity making possible boost-phase intercept of even short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. If the necessary investments are made to upgrade Brilliant Pebbles- type technology for the twenty-first century, boost-phase intercept from space will also be feasible against high acceleration ICBMs that would have exceeded the capabilities of the 1990 Brilliant Pebbles.13 And as noted above, the same sensor and kill-vehicle technology can be used for ground- and sea-based interceptors – notably on the VLS-compatible, high-velocity Navy SM-3 interceptor. Reviving and building on the Brilliant Pebbles concept and related technologies is essential for the deployment of effective SBIs, as well as improved interceptors for use in other basing modes, especially at sea. To move forward the United States must identify and exploit programs that were under development more than a decade ago. In other words, we should "go back to the future" as the point of departure for the increasingly robust missile defense that will be needed beyond what was initially planned for deployment in 2004-2005. Our engineers did it before, and can do it again to defeat the growing ballistic missile threat. One feasible option for testing and initial deployment of a revived space-based interceptor system based on Brilliant Pebbles would be to deploy, say, 40 to 120 interceptors for a space-system test bed analogous to the ground- and sea-based test beds. After demonstrating feasibility by testing against missiles of all ranges in all possible phases of their flight, this test bed would have a limited capability and could be expanded to become a fully capable defensive constellation. Based on the fully approved Defense Acquisition Board plan from 1991, an SBI system with as many as 1000 Brilliant Pebbles could be developed, tested, deployed and operated for twenty years with a low-to-moderate risk, event-driven acquisition program for $11 billion in 1990 dollars, or $16 billion when inflated to 2005 dollars. Brilliant Pebbles solves for all missile war – even scuds Cooper '02 Henry F Cooper, Director, Strategic Defense Initiative Organization July 10, 1990 - January 20, 1993 (http://www.missilethreat.com...) Smart Rocks was upgraded in 1988 and renamed "Brilliant Pebbles." In addition to eliminating incoming nuclear warheads, each component of the 4,000-satellite constellation was designed to protect U.S. space-based assets, attack its Soviet counterparts, or sacrifice itself in a one-time spy mission. The interceptor satellites would be controlled from the ground, but would also have the ability to communicate among themselves and attack their targets autonomously. At a projected cost of $11 billion for the first 1,000 interceptors, Brilliant Pebbles presented a cost-efficient means of countering the Soviet menace. In 1991, following several years of inner turmoil, the Soviet Union imploded. Despite the end of the Cold War, Brilliant Pebbles remained an essential part of the U.S. missile defense architecture. That same year, computer simulations demonstrated that, if it had been deployed during the Persian Gulf War, Brilliant Pebbles would have shot down every Scud missile launched by Saddam Hussein, including the salvo attack on Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Following the Middle East crisis, Brilliant Pebbles was enhanced to give its interceptors the ability to swoop down into the atmosphere, thus improving its overall effectiveness against Scuds and cruise missiles.

negative: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict One state is more peaceful then a two state solution.

negative: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Two-state solution offers adequate territory to Palestinians

negative: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Many/most Israelis and Palestinians support two-state solution