The USFG should continue to fund Israel militarily during the Israel-Palestine conflict.

I. Intro I agree with Con that reducing US debt is good. However, Con's BoP is not to prove that US aid is unnecessary, as he claims, but that it's net harmful. All effects on the US and other countries factor into that assessment, and voters should decide the outcome based on their relative weight. $3 billion would reduce the debt by only a thousandth of a percent. That alone won't make much headway towards solving our debt problems, but the savings we generate, which go into the trillions, certainly do. II. Need for Aid A. Financial Con suggests that a 1% income tax could replace our aid. However, Israel hasn't actually had a tax policy since 2011, and tax hikes like this have become Band-Aid resolutions for budgetary problems. These can affect the economy's forward momentum, debilitating growth and increasing income disparities. With consumption taxes already at 18% and many receiving a negative income tax, a 1% tax rate cuts into necessary funds for those in poverty.[11] Israel is the poorest country in the developed world and has a massive income gap.[12] So these costs will either result in their losing a third of their military funding, or they will reduce their growth, increase poverty and increase the desperation of those in poverty. No amount of efficiency solves for this. We also cannot underestimate the value of US intelligence, research, technology and surplus equipment. It's only because the US gave them F-16s and Blackhawks that Israel was able to acquire those important military vehicles and upgrade their own weaponry.[3] The Iron Dome system, which has been essential to protecting Israel from rocket attacks launched by Hamas, required $300 million in excess funding.[13] All of these are part of our military aid to Israel, and the equipment is just a form of indirect funding. That would have to stop if Con wanted to send an unambiguous message. That means more short term tax hikes, which enhances the economic problems they face. Again, no amount of efficiency use of funds will solve for this. As for public opinion, Con"s [3] only establishes that 1 prominent individual is against it. There"s no impact to that individual"s dissent. B. Defense Recall from R2: conditional aid is no aid at all if the condition can never be met. Con provides no means by which the Israel-Palestine conflict is likely to end under any circumstances, yet this is exactly what he has to show if he wishes to claim that his case allows for Israel to be funded again at any point. Lacking that, we should assume that the conflict, which has persisted for almost 70 years, will persist. My case is the only one with any capacity to alter funding levels. Thus, mine alone can modify behaviors because it's the only one that is responsive to what will realistically happen. Enabling behaviors isn't inherently harmful, particularly if you're enabling good behaviors that would otherwise be viewed as net harmful. The peace process will be just that: a process. It will occurs in stages. Each stage is going to be difficult, and Israel is going to need incentive to take steps away from its militant right wing. Only my case provides that incentive at each stage in the process with the promise of more funds. Meanwhile, eliminating funds likely would negatively impact the peace process. Israelis and Arabs alike would see it as an erosion of the US-Israel bond, which "would undermine the Israelis' confidence in their American partner and reduce the Arab incentive to negotiate seriously with the Israelis. Most important, it would be virtually impossible to persuade the Israeli public to accept...territorial concessions at a time of cuts in US assistance to Israel."[14] So, whereas my case incentivizes progress on peace, Con's would further entrench both sides in conflict. Pro argues that Israel's military will continue to be powerful. Two problems. First, Israel won't be able to modernize their military without access to US surplus equipment. Second, the loss of their strongest bond to the US increases the likelihood that they will be tested. They are only a proxy strong horse because the US provides continuous support, and lacking that, other countries are likely to assert their dominance in the region to become the strong horse in the region. That doesn't require direct attacks against Israel. Many of these countries are volatile and have expressed their animosity towards Israel.[15-18] There's no reason to believe these feelings will diminish, nor to believe that these countries will steer clear of conflict when other distractions dissipate. By reducing Israel's strength, Con is thus decreasing the chief means of deterring conflict in the region: the perception that there is and will be only one strong horse III. American Interests Con has to show that, in the absence of military funding sent to Israel, other Arab nations would be more receptive to our attempts to establish good relations with them. Nations won't suddenly forget that we've funded Israel for their entire history and are still their allies. Many Arab nations have also expressed animosity towards the US specifically as a result of the Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan Wars, extensive and damaging sanctions, the alienation of Arab troops following Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the continued War on Terror.[19] Relations will not improve from this one action. Con also has to show how, if they perceive us better, that results in some tangible benefit. Even the aid we've given them has been a mixed bag.[20] The Iran nuclear deal shows that we can still establish good diplomatic relations while supporting Israel.[21] This argument has no impact. IV. Human Rights The 2014 Gaza conflict was initiated by repeated missile strikes in Israel.[22] Hamas launched a staggering 353 missiles in the few months prior, 80 on the previous day. Hamas also rejected an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire, so the attacks would have continued.[23] Invasion was the only means to stop it. Civilian casualties were also unavoidable. Gaza is so densely packed that collateral damage was a certainty.[24] Hamas increased the cost by using civilians as human shields, and much of the damage may have been inflicted by their own rockets.[25-27] So Israel's responsibility for these deaths is split with Hamas, it was absolutely not "military conquest." Responding to explosives launched at your major cities and refusing to occupy the territory in the aftermath is hardly conquest. Con presents a false dichotomy regarding Israel's response to his case, claiming that they will either reform or go on the war path. Yet Con"s own argument is that a 1% increase in taxation, something he views as insignificant. If it is so simple, why wouldn't they behave the same way they do now, or make other changes to their policy? Both Con and the author of his [7] assert without warrants or evidence that they would turn to extreme behaviors, and both oversimplify what those behaviors mean. If they tone down their aggression, this will further notions that Israel has become a weak horse, unable to act in the region, even against repeated attacks, without US say-so. An enraged Israel could be even worse. UN resolutions can lead to military intervention, but no nation will even contribute troops to fight ISIS and as UN interventions commonly contribute to violence in the region, this outcome can still result in devastating harms with no clear resolution.[28, 29] 11. http://bit.ly... 12. http://bit.ly... 13. http://bit.ly... 14. http://bit.ly... 15. http://bit.ly... 16. http://bit.ly... 17. http://bit.ly... 18. http://ind.pn... 19. http://bit.ly... 20. http://bit.ly... 21. http://wapo.st... 22. http://bit.ly... 23. http://bit.ly... 24. http://read.bi... 25. http://nyp.st... 26. http://dailym.ai... 27. http://bit.ly... 28. http://bit.ly... 29. http://bit.ly... Back to Con