Palestine Should be Free, the Israeli Foundation and Occupation are Unjust

Opponent's case: 1. My opponent has defined the boundaries of "Palestine" as the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and all of the remaining land of Israel commonly recognized as the nation of Israel and "occupied territories". He omits the Sinai Peninsula which was returned to Egypt, as well as current day Jordan (formerly Trans-Jordan moreover Land across the Jordan River) as they are already predominately occupied by Arabs. He states that he does not advocate taking from the Jews. He does advocate for two separate entities; Israel & Palestine. Many people have shared this view and have given it the moniker "TSS" short for two state solution. There have been many such proposals since Israel's declared statehood in 1948. It seems quite simple to the outsider to say something to the effect of: "Okay, Palestine, you may form your own government and you may have the following properties. Israel, you may also have a government and the rest of the property. Please live peaceably together forever and ever". Unfortunately it is not that simple. David ben Gurion said that he would settle for Israel the size of a bed sheet if the Arabs would recognize their right to exist. The Arabs have never recognized the Jews right to exist. It seems a small price to pay to get what they say they really want. "Okay Israel, we the Arab "Palestinians" do hereby recognize you as an official Jewish state". No dice! Well then, Israel, you must surrender the Gaza strip, the Golan Heights, all of the West Bank including the Temple Mount and your capitol, as well as everything else you claim was given to you by God or the League of Nations. Pack up all your stuff and move to Brooklyn". If both sides would agree to a two state solution, how does my opponent propose that the land be divided? Would he say that the "Palestinians" should have all of the West Bank? We don't need a crystal ball to tell us that out of spite, the "Palestinians" would disallow the Jews to visit places such as Bethlehem and Jerusalem. They would not allow Jews to visit the Temple Mount which is their holiest site. The intent of the League of Nations was to make Israel a home for the Jews and Jordan a home for the "Palestinians". That gives us a two state solution. Jews would be welcomed in Israel, Arab "Palestinians" would be welcomed in Jordan. Ideally there would be no friction, don't start none, there won't be none. C-2: My opponent feels like Israel stole some land, kicked the Arabs out, and set up an unfair government. Why did the League of Nations choose this particular spot to send the Jews to set up and restore their own nation? Since history tells us that Abraham was originally from Ur, which is in present day Iraq, why didn't they say, Israel, go set up in Iraq? That's where Abraham was from, go set up over there. Or, since the United States is your buddy, maybe they will give you all of Brooklyn, or maybe even New Jersey. That didn't happen either. Theodore Herzl suggested that the Jews go to what they considered home, the Promised Land, the land of Caanan. It's really hazy to even refer to the land as "Palestine". The Romans called it "Palestine" as an insult to the Jews. I will address Biblical matters further in C-3. Suffice it to say that religious faith does in fact play a role in this. As my opponent has conceded, Israel has endured a number of oppressions throughout their history. If they were given the opportunity to establish a government for themselves, how much sense would it make to allow for more oppression? Get real! C-3: While it is convenient for my opponent to reject both the Bible and the Qur'an, they do in fact play a huge role. The Bible, particularly the books of the Jewish Talmud, explain why the Jews felt they were entitled to all of this land. The Qur'an plays an equally important role for the Arabs. To say they have no basis in history is absurd. At my opponent's request, I will address his argument of Zionist takeover. I visited the source he provided for us to read. It is clearly a propaganda site dedicated to pulling at the heartstrings of those sympathetic to the "Palestinian" cause. I too could easily conduct a "copy-paste exercise" from web sites of equally opposing views. What my opponent presented for our reading pleasure was simply the opinion of an extreme Zionist. Many other Zionists advocated the intent of aliyah in a peaceful manner. Much of the land in question was actually bought with money as a real estate transaction. The Golan Heights, Gaza Strip, and West Bank were won in a war. Israel gave up the Gaza Strip and now it is full of Hamas terrorists who like to attack Israel. The Golan Heights was taken from Syria. Another terrorist group, Hezbollah, would love to be there. That would enable them to launch rockets at Israel from a closer range. While it isn't prudent to label all "Palestinians" as terrorists, it is equally prudent to keep them at a distance based upon their past unreliability in regard to living peacefully next door. Thanks