Israel Had a Right To Come Into Existence In 1948

On the contrary to myself not fully understanding the English language, rather it's Con that uses words without applying their proper meaning. "Indigenous" is used for people who truly are "indigenous" and native to a specific land; more importantly, it's required that they've been in that land for a long period of time. Con has also greatly misunderstood the term "ethnic cleansing". If the Jews upon return to Israel did commit ethnic cleansing, they would've specifically targeted Arabs on the basis of race. The first people to kill and launch attacks on communitiess were not Jews, but Arabs. The Hebron massare being an example. These were Sefardi Jews who had lived in the land for an extremely long time. Potential voters should also take note of the fact that Con has not provided any evidence of Jews committing "ethnic cleansing". In fact, this is what Arab reporter Abu Mazen had to say about Arab Palestinians leaving their homes in the 1940's : "Arab armies forced Palestinians to leave their homes." [Filastin A-Thawra, March 1976]As for the "Holy Land", the point here was that the term derives from Judaism as it was this religion that first considered it a "Holy Land". Nowhere did I state that the land was not important to other religions. Once again, this is a blatant misrepresentation by Con. Previous quote: "To say that Israel existed is a fantasy." The obvious reponse to this is that Israel did exist, and has a name that dates back much further than"Palestine". The point here is that unlike Palestine, Israel did have a statehood; which naturally contends Cons resolution that it "come into existance in 1948". I have merely highlighted the fact that technically, something cannot "come into existance" if it has already existed. Con attempts to change the wording of his resolution in stating "1948 establishment" of Israel, but once again: the resolution clearly states "existence", which is an entirely different term in itself. Con again demonstates another obvious example of word-twisting in his fourth point. As demographics show, the population figures for Palestine were noticaly miniscule. The fact remains that only a minority of Arabs and Jews actually lived in the land prior to increased migration in the 1920's-1940's. As pointed out in round one, a large number of Arabs migrated from neighboring countries, with many being employed as migrant workers by the British army. To the extent where Arab news outlets began to report on the vast number of Arabs locating to Palestine. On August 12, 1934, "La S yrie" published an interview with Tewfik Bey El-Hurani, Governor of the Hauran. In which he stated that "In the last few months from 30,000 to 36,000 Hauranese [Syrian] had entered Palestine and settled there."As Con has failed to provide a source, his claims about demographics and Arabs being a majority are thus unproved. Naturally, the descendants of these Syrian migrants would now be known as "Palestinians". People that Con claims are native to that land. A 1937 report by the British Peel Commission states this: “The increase in the Arab population is most marked in urban areas, affected by Jewish development. A comparison of the census returns in 1922 and 1931 shows that, six years ago, the increase percent in Haifa was 86, in Jaffa 62, in Jerusalem 37, while in purely Arab towns such as Nablus and Hebron it was only 7, and at Gaza there was a decrease of 2 percent.”Once again, Cons arguments about Palestinians being native to the land are easily contended. Con should also know that the Jews who had lived in Palestine prior to the 1920's-1940's, were not "Arab" as he claims. Sefardi Jews are those who originally migrated to Spain, and Eastern Jews are Jews that remained in the Middle East and continued to practice Judasm. Likewise, these statistics also heavily challenge Cons argument on the amount of Jews who lived in Palestine, and if they they were truly a minority. Con has essentially dropped the case of the amount of non-European Jews who migrated to Israel. The sources used in round two refer to the number of Yemenite and Eastern Jews who located to the land, that Con views as being stolen from "indigenous brown skinned natives". Con places emphasis on the U.N resolution, however, it was the British Mandate for Palestine that really led to the establishment of Israel in 1947. The U.N resolution was primarily made to resolve the conflict between the Jews and Arabs, which was first initiated by Arab groups in 1920. The aim was to assign lands and as pointed out in round one, the Arabs eventually ended up with a large potion of Palestine [including Jerusalem.] However, this did not prevent continuous terror attacks or the initiation of the six day war, in which Israel was attacked by several Arab states. Con continues to argue the demographic issue without actually pointing at the demographics themselves or including clear evidence that the Arabs significantly out populated the Jews. Without any proof, Cons case is entirely unsupported. As for Cons statement concerning territory, as the British had official ownership over Palestine, it did not technically belong to Palestinian Arabs. I'd remind Con that territory is determined by who controls it. Con uses the argument that I am somehow emotionally "cold" for stating this, which I'd note is not only irrelevant, but also completely fallacious. In stating that Palestine was under British ownership, I am outlining an actual fact. Unlike Con seems to believe, this is not something that should be related to emotion or lack of it. The only things that apply are facts, which is what Con has consistently misunderstood and rejected throughout this entire debate. Regarding democracy, once again this is applied through governance--which Palestine did not have. In round two Con preseneted himself with the large BoP in proving that democracy is an inborn right which he has ultimately failed to do. I'd point out that since 1948, Israel has not stopped Palestine from forming any democracy or providing that right to its people, therefore, no rights have been denied. Con claims in his last point that I stated that the Holocaust gave European Jews the right to build homes in the "Holy Land", which is incorrect. What I actually stated was that the Holocaust provided a reason for European Jews to escape to Israel, due to continuing anti-Semitism and the fact they had lost their homes during the Holocaust. A large number of the homes had already been built by Jews who had migrated to the land in the 1920's-30's, which negates Cons point. In addition, Con also makes the claim that an offer was available for Jews to establish a homeland in Europe without including any evidence in support. After Germany had just committed a wide-scale genocide of the Jewish people, in which 6 million were killed, it's evident why a nation for the Jews would not be created there. There's the fact that Eastern European, French, and Mediterranean Jews were not from Germany; as well as the question of Germany being large enough to hold all European Jews. Obviously, Con does not concern himself with the potential displacement of any German people, who actually were "native" to the land. The reason why Israel was chosen as a homeland is because of the historic and cultural roots that all Jews share to the land, and the fact that Eastern Jew [who similarly to many of the European, lived in ghettos] could also easily move to and be at home in it. In including definitions Con does not substantiate his points, and only uses characters on semantics. The "ethnic cleansing" definition also applies to the Jewish inhabitants, as they're the ones that have had monuments [like Jewish tombs] and synagogues "desecrated". The Palestinians Con refers to as "native brown skinned Semitic people": Just so "native". [4.] http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...[5.] http://www.theettingerreport.com...