Israel should no longer be given special treatment by the U.S.

.. However, as I shall attempt to illustrate, much of his response is historical and not concerned with the practical implications of presently cutting ties with Israel. Simply put, his argument could be considered: "Because of past circumstances and regardless of present circumstances, we should cut ties with Israel. " Furthermore, I'd like to briefly mention that both our opinions on the War on Terrorism are immaterial to the debate - the WoT is happening, and the fact of the matter is that we need intelligence information just as much as we need gasoline to fight. Before launching into argumentation, I'd also like to briefly address Islam - the "viewpoint" of most of the West on Islam is that it is a radical, terrorist organization with few redeeming qualities. This is simply not the case. Any danger in Islam comes from interpretations of the Quran that are inconsistent with other parts of the book. Many view Islam as an infidel-killing jihad-driven religion, even though the Quran clearly states, "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities" (2:190a). As far as this pertains to the resolution, Muslims in the area view the nation of Israel as an interloper and aggressor. Thus, one can easily consider Muslims in the area to have a religious duty towards the extermination of Israel as a function of their own texts - not any sort of Western opinion. 1. On the Past Relationship Between the US and Israel Arguably, US support of Israel began in 1948 when it became the first country to recognize the state of Israel. The reason that many ME nations had been in in favor of the United States post-WWII was that we were arming them against the Soviet Union. Much of US foreign policy in this region post-WWII was centered around keeping more countries from falling to the Soviet Union. For example, the US did begin selling military hardware to Israel in the 1960's, but at the same time, the US was supporting anti-soviet proxy wars throughout much of the Middle East - a great example of this would be the Afghan resistance financed by the US. Throughout this time period, US foreign policy was pointed towards remaining neutral in Arab/Israeli conflicts, supporting emerging oil-producing countries, and preventing the spread of Soviet Influence. This said, the United States had a legitimate interest in supporting Israeli interests for a couple reasons: * Future conflict in the region (even Israeli/Arab) would inevitably involve the Soviet Union, and by proxy, the US. * Israel at this point (1950-60's) was constantly under attack - essentially a proto-proxy war already under way. * Coming out of the isolationist period, the United States was interested in spreading democracy as a way to combat communism. A fledgling democracy on what was basically one of the front lines of conflict was a "victory" in this regard. One may ask: What caused the devolution of Arab-US relations? US support of Israel DID play a part in this. However, a much greater reason is centered around the Six-Day-War. Arab countries thought it was great when the US was selling them SAM antiair and ant-helicopter missiles. However, they were pretty ticked when all the region's Arab nations invaded Israel and Israel handed them their heads with military hardware they had obtained from the US. If Israel had lost the Six-Day-War, the Arabs would probably still be happy. As it was set up, the loser of the conflict was bound to hate the US for essentially playing both sides. And the US played the two hands so Israel won. A small point - if one delves into the history of US-Israeli relationships, one can see that the relationship (historically) is not so much a buddy-buddy one, but more a contract of necessity. There are definitely hiccups - take for example an incident in 1985 concerning the sale of intelligence documents to Israel - Israelis claimed it was a "rogue operation," but there is still suspicion in this matter. .. 2. On Military Concerns. My opponent begins his dissertation here asserting that I hold Israeli armed forces to be superior to the United States. This is simply not correct - I hold Israeli AIR FORCES to be superior to the US. Israel arguably has the best air force in the world. Much of my opponent's argument on this point centers around how the US has constructed Israel's military. This is all well and good, but, as they say, let bygones be bygones. If we cut ties with Israel tomorrow, we would still have built their military. As such, most of his argument on this point is a red herring. Furthermore, my opponent does not address the following - Extend my arguments on: * Israel is a valuable "beachhead" in the Middle East for staging military operations. * Israel provides valuable intelligence information. * Israel provides valuable training experience to our own military. 3. On Human Rights Considerations. I'm not sure where my opponent is going with the accusation that I am prejudiced towards Middle Easterners. It is a fact that the countries surrounding Israel want the territory back. Some still don't even recognize Israel as a state. However, he does attempt to address the issue - let's look at some contentions. >> "Egypt is so wrapped up in US-produced treaties created during and after the Cold War that it does not dare attack Israel. " Except Egypt routinely smuggles weapons and soldiers into Palestine. .. >> "Saudi Arabia is so focused on its oil, which is its primary source of income, that it even forcefully removed the Wahhabi's in order to insure continued tranquility in its production of oil. Saudi Arabia only has a moderate interest in Israel. Furthermore, the Saudi Army CANNOT invade Israel - Why? - Because the United States for all intents and purposes IS the Saudi Army. There are a multitude of protectionist treaties that the US has with SA to guard our supply of oil. If the Saudis were left to their own devices, they would probably send troops just like they did in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. >> "The country of Jordan has been relatively neutral in its position on Israel. " Except that they invaded Israel in 1948 to prevent it from becoming a state. .. >> "Syria, Lebanon, and Iran are all minor threats to both Israel and the US. Like I previously stated, both the US and Israel possess a large number of nuclear arms at their disposal. " Syria would like nothing more to reclaim the land Israel occupies. Lebanon routinely fails to curtail Hezbollah rocket attacks in Northern Israel. Iran. .. I don't recall mentioning Iran, but Iraq sent a bunch of troops to help out during the Six-Day-War. Furthermore, neither Israel or the United States would dare use nuclear weapons in the Middle East. It's simply a hammer they cannot swing. Iran has declared the intention to "wipe Israel off the map. " Iran has nuclear programs. The conclusion is somewhat obvious. The use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East would probably start a thermonuclear World War III - neither the US nor Israel is willing to start that. ************************************ In brief conclusion, much of my opponent's argument is centered around the unusual circumstances of Israel's creation, not around current benefits the US obtains from its relationship with Israel. Much of my argumentation from the first round is still valid, as he only really addressed my point about human rights concerns in a substantive way.