The denial of a Palestinian State

Pro beings Round 2 by indicating that if we were to give back land which belonged to former inhabitants throughout history, the whole world would be split up into tiny countries and historical states. While there is (a tiny bit of) merit to this claim, what Pro has failed to recognize is that Palestine STILL EXISTS according to international law. You cannot acquire new territories by war, so the land that the English occupied during WWII and then "gave" to Israel still technically belongs to the Palestinians. In this debate, nobody is arguing that every bit of land be returned to "former inhabitants," but rather that Israel stops occupying the land that was taken from the Palestinians thereby also stopping the violent conflict and finally putting a somewhat peaceful end to the years-old issue that has cost the middle east thousands upon thousands of lives. This would dramatically increase international relations and perhaps even address the issue of technological warfare and terrorism somewhat in the region. Next Pro argues, "My opponent states that it technically belongs to Palestine, well technically wont cut it, it does or it doesn't, because technically, the Basque region in Spain also Belngs to the Basques." Yes, it does. What's your point, Pro? All you have done is give an example of an autonomous community in Spain; this country is a historical region with its own laws, culture, etc. I think Pro-Palestine supporters would be just fine with Palestine (the area of/surrounding the Gaza Strip) having its own territory with its own government, societal structure, etc. In regard to Hamas, my opponent was quick to point out all of the ways that the Palestinians have fought back against Israel and refers to my ignoring this as a joke. I think the real joke here is how my opponent fails to acknowledge that this type of counter-terrorism is a defensive one; Israel struck first. Nobody is arguing that the Palestinians are completely innocent. I think it's common knowledge that both peoples have perhaps immorally used massive amounts of violence against one another. The only argument here can be justification, and since Israel intentionally, unlawfully and unprovokedly attacked Palestine as the instigator (and continues to do so), it can be said that the Palestinian response is indeed justified. Pro asks, "What relevance does the torture and the human rights violations have with the denial of the state of Israel?" Well first of all, advocating for the existence of a Palestinian state does NOT equate arguing against the state of Israel. In fact what I said was to leave the final 20 percent of original Palestinian land to the Palestinians, and allow Israel to occupy the other 80 percent. Second, the relevance here is acknowledging the long-term effects of the on-going conflict and how they have impacted the people of Israel/Palestine, the Middle East, and international relations in general. Additionally, it points to the undeniable fact that Israel "struck first" therefore justifying any acts of violence Palestinians may have implored in defense. Finally my opponent acknowledges the fact that Palestine doesn't officially exist, because their application to join the UN was denied. This proves nothing other than the fact that the UN continues to make more mistakes. Of course the UN wouldn't allow them to join their ranks - they're the ones who obliterated Palestine (unlawfully) in the first place. The UN's acknowledgment here is irrelevant, as Pro has not explained why the UN should act as the be-all and end-all to every international decision, especially since the UN is a flawed entity who is responsible for this conflict to begin with.