The U.S. Should Maintain its Alliance with Israel

Well, that was an...interesting argument from Con. As for my earlier round, I never said that the debate had adopted "new terms", I simply requested that my opponent use footnotes or post his links in-text to make it easier to connect claims to sources. Israeli RightsCon has completely exaggerated the issue of human rights and discrimination in Israeli. He acts as if Israel is committing horrendous acts of injustice that don't deserve any support from countries like America, but these issues are much more minor then Con thinks. In fact, according to the "2010 U.S. State Department Country Reports On Human Rights Practices for Israel and the Occupied Territories, Israeli law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, and the government effectively enforced these prohibitions."[1][2] Now, while racial equality has been a priority for the government, that doesn't mean that Israel's people are necessarily perfect. No one can deny that racism still exists even in very free countries such as the U.S. The difference is that we can't blame some Israeli people for being prejudiced against the Palestinian state that has been in constant conflict with Israel for decades and is bound to stir up hostile feelings. It would be comparable to the American Union and Confederacy trying to exist together in harmonious peace when the beginning of the Confederacy brought instantaneous conflict. All of the instances of discrimination that Con brought up earlier were against Palestinians, not simply against a minority for the sake of being racist.Israel and the Middle EastCon challenges my claim that Israel is a freer, more democratic nation than the surrounding Arab states. I disagree; having proven earlier that the human rights of Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, and Palestine are much lower than Israel. Con concedes all of this. Instead of trying to actually prove that Israel's nature is worse than that of it's neighbor theocracies, he restates that because he believes that because two of the attacks Israel made on Palestine were unjust, than it is somehow overall worse than Palestine. Again, this is extremely miniscule of an argument. The real conflict is Israel vs Hamas, with the Palestinian government being opposed to the terrorists, and from Hamas's group, there have been thousands of missiles shot into Israel with the terrorists using civilian homes as shields [3].My argumentHaving started to go off track of what I've originally argued, I will restate why the U.S. ought to maintain its alliance with Israel: to be a Western influence in the Middle East. Having shown that Israel is far freer and more democratic than all the other countries in that area, renddrinf it unique, the U.S. has an interest in keeping hold of this alliance in order to be the influence of good in the Middle East. Con hasn't successfully refuted this argument, but has attempted to use distractions such as racial laws an isolated allegations of Israel in order to disprove this, which I have overturned. Thus, I hold this contention.PeaceMy other major contention in this debate is that the U.S. is good at helping maintain peace in the Middle East, thus it has an interest in doing so by keeping form this alliance with Israel as it seems to be the center of conflict and could use support in order to maintain peace, which is likely there number one interest considering all the attacks that have occurred in that area. Con never really refuted this, attempting to distort my argument by reasoning that Israel's "invasion" of Egypt was the negation of peace. I assume he is referring to the Six Day War of 1967, which was really an extended conflict from the 1948 Israel-Arab War which officially began after Egypt, Jordan, and Syria combined to invade Israel following it's independence[4]. If anything, Egypt was responsible for this conflict, not Israel.Military GroupsThe restatement that "Israel's alliance with the U.S. is responsible for 9/11" is quite a poor argument. For one, we can never know really and can only guess, and second this is irrelevant to the resolution (as I stated earlier) because it talks about the past, not the present, which is what the resolution is focused on. Con should be arguing that the alliance should be cut rather than that it never should have existed.Israel's FutureCon asserts that if the U.S. broke its relationship with Israel, other countries would swoop in and help it to its feet. The major problem with this is that it is simply a guess and there is no reason to believe that will happen. I find it interesting how Con has argued that the costs of the Israeli alliance are a major harm to America yet states that China could just lend money to Israel in order to ensure peace and prosperity. Here he concedes that the costs can be worth it if lives are in jeapordy, thus the costs argument is pretty much useless.Let's take this claim seriously. For one, backing out of an alliance simply upon the guess that China will help Israel is very risky and a decision that isn't worth taking. What if China doesn't help Israel, or what if it's lending of money doesn't keep lives from being taken? This is too theoretical for anyone to take seriously. To assume that Israel and other groups will "peacefully disband" is flat out wrong because the conflict between the Jews and Arabians is extremely deeply rooted. The terrorists and Arabians have vowed to wipe Israel of the face off the face of the Earth and will not rest until they destroy the Jewish state that they are so pitted against. Negotiations have been impossible and cannot be achieved without a proper means of defense and a strong nation to aid Israel in its defense so that its civilians can live in peace.ConclusionIf you compare both my arguments and my opponent's statements, you'll find that mine are indeed stronger. I have shown that an American alliance with Israel is in the best interest of both countries and is a net benefit it in that area. In a place of utter conflict, support from a strong Western nation is absolutely vital for the little country of Israel to defend itself against the 22 Arab states that are near it and could turn into another Holocaust if their people is not protected from the Arabian forces that have expressed their anger too many times. My arguments consist of an alliance bringing a positive influence to that area, a greater chance of peace, and a stronger chance that the people of Israel can live without being destroyed. My opponent's arguments are basically made up of theoretical scenarios in which minor effects, such as military groups and a little more money spent, pose little harm from a strong alliance. Vote Pro![1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org...[2] http://m.state.gov...[3] http://www.bbc.com...;[4] http://en.m.wikipedia.org...