The international community should actively support the creation of a Palestinian state

Note: In order to fulfill the BOP my opponent must affirm and defend all three points he laid out in Round 1 (A, B & C).I.My opponent's argument focuses around what he sees as injustice by the Israel against Palestine and affirms that the international community has an obligation to step in and prevent this. I see it differently. When Israel was created in 1948, Palestine was not owned by the Palestinians but rather was controlled by the British. The United Nations partitioned the region in 1948 and the British left. This left Israel, a new nation, and Palestine, another new nation. [1] To undo any misinterpretations, Palestine was not taken away from the Palestinians but rather freed from the British.At this point, the international community had done its job. They split the region up and left it alone. After that, it became a local issue. The issue is in no way an international issue. Palestine refused to recognize Israel after its creation and therefore relinquished its claim on the new Palestine. "Almost immediately, Israel was attacked by Arab nations that surrounded in a war that lasted from May 1948 to January 1949. Palestinian Arabs refused to recognise Israel and it became the turn of the Israeli government itself to suffer from terrorist attacks when fedayeen (fanatics) from the Palestinian Arabs community attacked Israel. Such attacks later became more organised with the creation of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO)." [1] Israel was attacked and was forced to have itself recognized by its neighbors. At this point:A. The international community did its part.B. Palestine refused to take part in the mandate set up by the UN by refusing to recognize Israel.C. Israel was forced to militarize due to war and terrorist tactics.The international community did its part. After that, it became a local issue. Palestine likes to play victim but in reality they refused to partake in the agreement. They could have had Palestine but in refusing to recognize Israel they never cemented their own nation as the UN partition allowed but instead let Israel expand. I feel the international communities obligation has been filled. At this point it is up to the Israeli and Palestinian people to sort it out. II. My opponent makes a lot of talk about "land grabs" "occupation" and affirms in point A of Round 1 that Palestine should be "free" "independent" and have "Jerusalem as its capital". As I said in my previous point, Palestine was given the chance to be free and independent but refused to do so. In fact, Palestine continues to reject statehood on multiple levels. Israel has tried to offer Palestine it's statehood in the borders the UN set up in 1948 but Palestine refuses. [2] [3]My opponent also affirms that Palestine must have Jerusalem as the capital. But why?Palestine has never owned Jerusalem, in fact, they've never been an Arab state and have never been autonomous. To offer them Jerusalem is a ridiculous claim to make. If we want to talk about original land ownership and occupation, historically, this land has been Israel's since 1350BC [4] and has been occupied by various conquerors since then. The land in question (including Jerusalem) has been owned by Israel three separate times for a total of 1198 years. [4] Palestine has never been a legitimate nation and has never laid claim to Jerusalem. The Jews see the land as theirs and when Palestine gave up their shot at statehood they took the chance to take it.There are no legitimate reasons to give Palestine the city of Jerusalem and Palestine has been offered statehood on multiple occasions. The "occupied" land in question take in the 6 Days War is was taken through warfare, a lasting way to take land in human history. Should the international community force Britain to return the Falkland Islands to Argentina? Should The United States be forced to return Texas to Mexico? No. And neither should Israel be forced to return their land back to the original owners either. Again, these are not broad international affairs but rather regional ones.III.My last section will be addressing issue of equal rights for Arabs in Israel. Like it or not, Israel is a sovereign state. Citizen rights in a sovereign state are no business of the international community. State sovereignty allows a state to run itself without outside intervention. Does the UN go in and make sure the United States treats gays the same as other people? No. Citizen rights are not an issue of international community but rather a state issue. You cannot force a sovereign state to open up and allow the world to run it according to a broad set of overreaching assumptions. If we do that then we might as well have a world government.Again, these are not global issues but regional, state and local issues that need to be handled at the regional, state and local levels. Many states have things that may seem in poor taste or unjust concerning citizenship, human rights and equal treatment but that doesn't mean a Western run coalition can come in and violate state sovereignty in the name of such action.ConclusionIsrael was given its right to exist as was Palestine. Israel took it's right, Palestine rejected theirs. Jerusalem has no legitimate grounds to be Palestinian. There is however historical evidence backing the Israeli ownership of Jerusalem. Jews have been what is now Israel since 1350BC and have been independent there three separate times for a total of 1198 years. Issues such as land ownership, war, territory, citizen rights, religion etc are all local issues and should not be interfered with by the international community in the name of state sovereignty. The international community did its part in 1948 and it then became a local issue.My opponent's 3 points (A, B & C) are negated. Thank you. [1] http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...[2] http://www.camera.org...[3] http://www.haaretz.com...[4] http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca...