It is in America's best interest,to support Israel

IRAN "While Israel may be one of the only democratic nations in the Middle East, this does not justify our involvelment in it's protection and alliance. " Justify? Let me remind my opponet that his burden is to prove it isn't in our best interests to support Israel. Not to justify or not to justify our support. "In fact, because it is the only so unique country in that area where nations like Iran have stated that they will blow it off the face of the Planet, given the chance, it is in our best interests to withdraw from Israel. " There are a few problems with that statement: Appeasment: With this statement, and many others in gusgusthegreat's arguements, he suggests appeasing the Iranian Government by stopping to support the Israeli Government is best in America's interests. Here is some history of appeasment: In the 1939, Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of England, tried to appease Hitler by letting Hitler invade the Czechlosovok Republic, which was what it was called back in those days. In fact, appeasement didn't work because Hitler tried invading England anyway, and partly thanks to Chamberlain, with a lot more momentum. France, a nation that also agreed to give up their old ally, was invaded, and conquered by the Nazis. So to appease the Iranian Government by stopping to support target numero uno won't work with us either. It won't take us off their hit list: The Iranian Government, hate us just as much as they hate Israel. Allthough my opponent argues that we can take us off their hit list by suddenly stop supporting our allies, the fact is that it isn't just Iran vs Israel. It is Iran vs the West. Part of why Iran hates Israel, and why America supports Israel, is because Israel has western ideals. WHAT ABOUT OUR OTHER ALLIES: In this debate, my opponent argues that since Israel is a target, it is in our best interests to stop supporting Israel. "An enemy of my enemy is my friend policy. " That means that we shouldn't have any REAL friends, in order to keep the peace. Have you ever heard the proverb: " You never can really be friends with everyone. " It isn't in our best interests to stop supporting our allies, who support us in exchange. Eventually, there could be another conflict, and it wouldn't be good to be alone. "The United States' alliance with Israel links to a blood feud that's been going on for thousands of years. " There is also a regional feud between the U. S. and Iran. It's called East versus West. The fact is that, as I argued earlier, the Iranian Government will hate us no matter what we do, so we might as well avoid appeasement. FRIENDSHIP "We CAN still have a FRIENDLY relationship with them. " Perhaphs. But there are more benefits for both sides in the current co supportive policy. TECHNOLOGY "Without Israel we'll simply have to repair things ourselves. " True. How ever, what I meant to say was that when the United States need some help with a weapon, the fact is that we do often ask Israeli engineers what went wrong and how to make it better. My opponent can't deny this. While we could fix it ourselves, The Israeli's have to fight wars on their home turf with many less men than we have, so they have to use better technology for their millitary. Two brains are beter than one. "18th place. " Perhaphs one list says Israel is in 18th place technichly. But the reality is that since Israel hasn't any resources, technology is precisley Israel's depenedence on survival. Albert Einstein predicted it. Here is a list of technological acheivements by Israel: -The cell phone -The solar panell - Sea weed farming -fish coloring -Technology that makes salt water fresh water. In fact, on http:http//www. foxnews. com there is even a story that the Israelis are working on a flying car. "As for the 'Israeli breakthroughs in. .. ' whatever break throughs they have had are all the past now. " As I said the Israelis are currently working on a flying car. There is a lot of potential for more break throughs. WATER My opponent denies any possibility of water to become scarce. In fact, only 2% of the water in the world is fresh, and most of that is frozen in the icecaps. Gusgusthegreat might try to rebut alot of these arguements with: Israel could exist without our help. Let me remind the judges that it was gusgusthegreat, not I, who said that "Israel is a fragile nation. " He even allowed for the possibilty of Israel ceasing to exist. Now to rebut my opponents official arguements. "1. We eliminate risks, and could consolidate resources, finances, and millitary in order to more effectively wage war on terrorism. " Good point. .. However there are 3 problems with that statement: #1: We also take the risk of appeasment. #2: We also lose recources. #3: Effectively wage war on terrorism? May I remind my opponent that Israel helps us wage war on terrorism. In fact terrorist attacks on Israel, have started before they have on the U. S. The Israelis have more experience dealing with terrorism. "2. We CAN be friendly with them. " Barely. We certainly won't be as friendly with the Israeli's as we have been for the past 60 years ever since President Truman supported it's creation. As I said earlier, you can't be friends with everyone. "3. The technology they have developed won't cease to exist. " Perhaps, but the technology they are developing, and will be developing will never exist. "4. If it does 'cease to exist, it may be the loss of a good friendly country but we won't be involved in following affairs. " Who knows what it would be like without REAL allies. "Action should be taken for OUR nation first and foremost. " Absolotely. That is how both I, SPF and yes gusgusthegreat thinks. That is also how Churchill, and yes, even how Chamberlain thought. I would once again like to thank gusgusthegreat for accepting my challenge for debate. I will be interested in who the judges chose.