The U.S. Should Maintain its Alliance with Israel

I request that my opponent include either source footnotes or the links in the text of his argument so that the readers and I can trace each claim back to its specific source. This is to prevent confusion and make sure that each claim made isn't made up. It also prevents extra work for the readers and I to do.Con has split his round into rebutting my case and making his own. I'll first defend mine, then address his. Pro's Case Similar Interests 1. Con completely missed the point of this argument. Israel may not have perfect racial laws, but they are significantly better than those of the surrounding Arab states, some of whom still practice slavery and are ruled by oppressive theocracies with restricted human rights. My argument was that Israel's relatively similar interests to America mean that an alliance between the two countries could be a political influence on the Arab states. Even if Con can argue that Israel still has a few issues, he has to admit that they are *far* better than those of Jordan, Syria, Yemen Saudi Arabia, etc. I proved this in the last round by showing the lack of rights in each of these countries in contrast with Israel. 2. The fact that Israel isn't perfect strengthens my point about using the alliance as an influence on the Middle East. If Israel were to cut its influential connection with the U.S., its hope of abandoning its racial laws would be reduced. This country needs Western influence if there is any future for its religious laws. 3. Con's mentioning of me "painting Palestine as an oppressive state" is a red herring. It has very little to do with the resolution, and I'm not sure sure what Con is trying to prove by trying to promote it. Palestine is a tiny area, so the fact that my opponent acknowledged it and not the other nations is odd. Even so, Israel is regarded as free with high ratings in political and civil rights areas[1], while the Gaza Strip is "not free" with very low ratings in both areas[2]. Peace 1. My opponent does not dispute that Israel has attempted peace several times in the past, thus conceding that it has. After the conflict over the Sinai territory in the 70's that Israel had taken, it offered Egypt the entire peninsula in exchange for peace. Egypt agreed, and peace was made. This is an astounding example of the measures that Israel will go to in order to keep peace between the nations[3]. 2. Con drops my point about the U.S. being a stabilizing force of peace through an alliance and instead tries to find two isolated actions of the IDF he finds "unjust". This is irrelevant as it ignores the bigger picture and has nothing to do with my actual argument. Con's Case Paramilitary groups 1. My adversary is supposed to be arguing that the status quo should be changed, as in the alliance should be cut, not that it should never have existed. Any points that he makes in support of the latter should be ignored as they are irrelevant to the resolution. Such points include militant groups that he suspects were formed because of America's support for Israel. 2. Con seems to be hinting that if the U.S. cut support with Israel then militant groups such as Al Qaeda would either die off or stop rising up against it. This is very far from the truth. If the U.S. cut its support, Israel would be rendered more vulnerable to terrorist groups such as Hamas and Al Qaeda, which is the exact opposite of what we want. Thus it is more logical for America to hold fast with Israel as it is set up for potential destruction. Cost This is actually quite minor of a point because it hinges on whether or not the alliance with Israel is worth keeping or not. If I can show that that the alliance is a net benefit, then a reader must agree that more lives saved is better than a few more dollars paid. This point doesn't really show how giving aid to another country is a bad thing unless we all assume that the alliance is pointless, which I have shown that it isn't. America's funding of Israeli military and the IDF is crucial for the protection and survival of its citizens. In the recent conflict, Hamas's organization has been shooting rockets into the area of Israel and has caused civilians to die. The situation for them is real and much more important than ours when it comes to a bit of money. If the U.S. denied aid to them simply because "it costs too much", why is the alternative of a weaker Israel the better option? Con needs to show that the money spent helping their military isn't worth it in order to make their point. This is like saying that donating to charity is a bad idea because it takes money out of people's pockets. [1] https://freedomhouse.org...[2] https://freedomhouse.org...[3] https://www.nytimes.com...