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

Thanks to warren42 for the debate. Great to debate this topic with you. I'm going to rearrange the debate. 1. Burdens This debate regards net benefits for the US, Israel and the Middle East. Con has given no reason beyond his own assertion for why he only has to show that the US doesn't need to provide this aid, and his arguments betray him by focusing on net benefits. Voters should default to a basic net benefits framework because both sides have argued along those lines and because it is the only way to uphold a shared BoP, which Con himself established in R1. 2. Effects on Israel-Palestine Conflict Con's case lacks any means by which Israel and Palestine can resolve their differences and reach an end to the conflict. He drops my argument that it is impossible to force a rapid peace, ignoring that ardent conservatives in the Israeli government and Hamas will settle for nothing less than a one-state solution. He has argued that Israel will either kowtow or go ballistic in response to the revocation of aid, but both of these are awful. If they kowtow, they will be perceived as a weak horse, incapable of taking action without US say-so and thus weak despite their arsenal. This will disrupt any stability in the Middle East. If they become aggressive, I've explained how no country will intervene, and how any intervention will lead to more violence. This will disrupt any stability in the Middle East. Regardless of which of Con's scenarios you accept, he's causing conflict. My case retains an essential means for inducing peace. This aid has been and would be used to influence how Israel behaves on a case-by-case basis. Con talks a lot about conditional funding, but as his case relies upon achieving peace without any ability to incentivize milestones, his is doomed to fail. My case can provide incentive at every step of the peace process, increasing the resources they receive to motivate each step forward. 3. Effects on Israel Con's case engenders substantial economic harms for Israel. I explained how a 1% tax increase causes these. Con ignores the fact that Israel doesn't have a tax policy, and that as a result, tax hikes cause instability that damages their economic growth. Everyone, including those in poverty, will be harmed by the country becoming still poorer and the income gap widening further. Access to surplus equipment is also very important. Con concedes that his case stops these, and in doing so, he ensures that the means by which Israel modernizes its military and defense disappear. This means that Israel will have to engage in yet more fluctuations in its taxation, which supercharges these negative economic harms. My case can only positively benefit Israel. Con has not cited a single harm that Israel endures from receiving US aid, just that they don't need it. I've shown that the US provides Israel with the ability to modernize its military to address new and growing threats in the region, to avoid severe economic harms, tp ensure better protection for Israeli citizens through projects like Iron Dome, to provide the means to motivate steps towards peace between Israel and Palestine, and to ensure that Israel continues to be the stabilizing force in the region. 4. Effects on US Con's case will result in Israel rescinding the support they provide to the US in retaliation for the loss of aid. This is entirely unique to Con's case. The assumption that we could remove that support and expect no retaliation whatsoever is predicated on the notion that this support doesn't matter, but I've already explained how the loss affects them and that it is the most tangible manifestation of US support for Israel. Yes, we would remain allies with Israel, but that relationship would be strained. Israel is likely to respond negatively to things that harm them, and to instances where we view them as a liability that we need to back away from, especially when the condition for receiving it again is so clearly out of reach. Even if they continue to provide support, they will scale back on those that do not benefit Israel, like sharing their technology and intel. They are certainly not going to risk their troops and the safety of their ports, which means that unsinkable aircraft carrier vanishes from our arsenal. The value of all of this measures in the trillions, so even if they only limit our access by 1%, we would still be talking about billions lost in value and potentially having to put American troops in harm"s way. Meanwhile, the financial harm to the U.S. is $450 million a year (15% of $3 billion). What we gain from that money is the certainty that Israel will continue to support us without wavering, as it has done for almost 70 years. Con argues that my case risks perceptual harms, yet he concedes that there are numerous reasons why they would continue to perceive a close connection between the two nations and find fault with the US regardless of its affiliations. He provides no reason to believe that this "step in the right direction" would ever yield results, drops that previous, stronger efforts to improve our relations have yielded no results, and drops that relations are improving with these nations (e.g. the Iran nuclear deal) despite the aid Israel receives. On the human rights point, Con drops all of my analysis that shows that too much of the blame is placed on Israel for civilian casualties, and fails to explain how this 2014 conflict warrants damaging our relationship with Israel. If we want to prevent future conflicts, we need to maintain leverage in some solid form. I retain that leverage, Con abandons it. 5. Effects on Region Con's case has two possible effects on the region by his own admission. It will either push them to be more aggressive, which is directly destabilizing, or it will push them to seek peace more ardently. If it's the former, the UN cannot solve and is only likely to make things worse. If it's the latter, then Israel becomes a weak horse. Con argues that the strength of Israel"s military creates regional stability. I've explained why the US tying Israel's hands makes that military useless because they can never use it without US say-so, and that the inability to modernize weakens that military over time. Even nuclear power, which countries know will never be used, engenders conflict.[30] Con fails to understand the strong horse dynamic. Israel has been made a proxy strong horse by the US, which means its strength is dependent on what the US provides. When the US stops that support, Israel is viewed as weaker because it doesn't have US backing, and the US is viewed as a weak ally. Perception is everything when it comes to the strong horse dynamic: unless the strength of that horse is unassailable, other countries will challenge it. Con dropped that any other nation that tries to become a strong horse will destabilize the region, regardless of their direct success against Israel. Regardless of the unknown crises Con says they are facing, they will seek to increase their influence in the region if they see an opportunity. Con is creating that opportunity. 6. Conclusion This debate isn't about whether Israel is morally good or bad. It isn't about any single country. It is about the dynamic between two nations, and the meaning of this specific form of aid. Voters, as you consider the arguments in this debate, you must consider that meaning. I've examined the repercussions of removing that aid, including the direct implications for Israel and the US, as well as the indirect perceptual harms to both countries and the Middle East. We spend $3 billion a year on aid, and what we get in return is magnitudes greater in value. Much of what we, Israel and the region garner from this is beyond value, protecting countless lives from raging conflicts that dominated the region before Israel was made a proxy strong horse. There is no doubt that US aid to Israel is net beneficial. Vote Pro. 30. http://bit.ly...