The State of Israel, as is, has a right to continue to exist.

"The state of Israel has no right to exist because states have no right to exist. All states are repressive and exist to serve the ruling class and maintain its hold on power and its authority over the ruled class." My opponent maintains that states as a whole have no right to exist, and Israel is no exception. However, he backs this up with mostly anecdotal or supposed evidence. While he is correct is saying that many (perhaps most) states are abusive, this does not preclude the possibility of a state being abusive. This would hold true even if all existing states are abusive. If it were true that a state being abusive denies it the right to exist, then he would have to prove that Israel is abusive. In addition, I challenge the contention that a state has no right to exist because it is repressive. I'm certainly not advocating repression, but perhaps that's not enough to eliminate the state. This is akin to not advocating that people be allowed to run red lights, but still believing doing so does not warrant the death penalty or imprisonment. "In our society and in Israel too [sic] the ruling class is the bourgeoisie and the ruled class is the proletariat. The bourgeoisie owns the means of production and the proletariat does all the work. Even though they do all the work all money earned from the work is given to the bosses who then decide how much to allow the workers to have, keeping them in wage slavery because their only choices are to work or starve. Its [sic] just like the relationship most pimps have with their prostitutes. The prostitute is required to surrender all money she earns from her "labor" to the pimp and the pimp decides how much she gets even though she does all the work. The same form of exploitation that you see in the black market happens in the legal market, which forces everyone to prostitute themselves to capitalism." Firstly, Israel is a socialist country. The major corporations are owned by the people and controlled by elected representatives or elected representatives' appointees. Anyone and everyone can achieve these positions. In order to keep them, they must follow the will of the people. Secondly, there is nothing wrong in owning something and hiring others to work with it for you. This is simply a rollover of work. If I work and earn enough money to buy an ice cream machine, I can hire you to work the machine and sell ice cream, on the condition we split the profits. I deserve my half of profits because even though you did all the work to produce the ice cream, I did the work that obtained the machine. Therefore, I did half the work to obtain the profits. In a pimp-prostitute relationship, the pimp is bullying the prostitute for money. The pimp did not work. In a corporation, the owner earned the means to produce something, and then hired others to produce it. Therefore, he deserves money. "The role of the state is to protect the ruling class. The people running it truly believe that it is to protect everyone's rights, but that is not how it works out. Even supposedly equal application of the law is for the benefit of the rich because laws are rarely ever passed unless their effect is on the side of the rich and even when one is passed for the common people this is just to create a false illusion of fairness to keep the ruled supporting the ruling class." Once again, you admit that a state's goal is equal protection of rights, albeit it doesn't turn out that way. You have not demonstrated why this is so, merely that is so. Assuming non-equal protection justifies dissolution of states, you must prove Israel is guilty of this. In addition, I challenge the contention that a state has no right to exist because it is does not provide equal rights. I'm certainly not advocating lack of equal rights, but perhaps that's not enough to eliminate the state. Again, this is akin to not advocating that people be allowed to run red lights, but still believing doing so does not warrant the death penalty or imprisonment. "The people making the most money in our society, in Israel's, and every society on Earth today are the ones who sit in their offices doing very little. Most of the time they don't do any real work. They don't even do the work that goes into decision-making. They just hire people to do that for them and ratify it. As long as they can keep making humungous profits they don't care. And then there are bankers, landlords, and stockholders some of whom do nothing but receive checks. Meanwhile the people at the bottom do all the work and toil and get little. In developed countries they are promised much but in the end still get little. For example... health." Again, mostly anecdotal evidence. Additionally, the idea that the people who make the most money do not work is immature. No one is offering them free money. Clearly, they worked to be in a position where they do not have to work anymore (e.g., working in the past, the earned the means to hire someone to do work for them) or they are providing a service for pay. I assure you, companies that are so concerned with the bottom line do not generally pay people for no reason. "States cannot be used to humanize or abolish capitalism. We can see that with the failures of the marxist states, especially China which is now one of the capitalist's favorite places to look for cheap labor. The only way to liberate people from capitalism is if we abolish the state along with the capitalist system. All relationships economic or not should be based on voluntary association and all people should be in control of their own lives and their own labor. No "boss", no stockholders, no board of directors, no bureaucrats, no politicians, no landlords should be allowed to claim rights over the labor of other human beings based on arbitrary property rights proped [sic] up by the state that often have their roots in conquest, slavery, and crime." While it may be true that a state cannot humanize [sic] capitalism (an aside; Israel is socialist) eliminating it is not the answer. A simple question: without a state, who would enforce the abolition of capitalism? It would be up to people, and each person would have to enforce their own private interpretation of morals with violence or oppression. That means if a capitalist had the biggest gun, the world would be capitalist again. At least with a state, we can have an organized way to enforce popular morals in a least semi-successful and much less violent and oppressive way. "Anarchy is the solution. The workers would run their own workplace. When cooperating across workplaces workers would elect recallable delegates to meet together and make agreements. Through voluntary association highly complex social structures could be formed to deal with day-to-day problems, protect each other from violence, and to promote common prosperity. To do this we need to abolish all states." A state is a politically organized body of people under a single government. What you described as a "voluntary association [of a] highly complex social structures [that] could be formed to deal with day-to-day problems, protect each other from violence, and to promote common prosperity" is essentially a state of some kind. It is certainly not anarchy. The State of Israel, as is, has a right to continue to exist.