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

The United Nations partitioned the region in 1948 and the British left - 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. " With the benefit of hindsight we can now see that the international community, specifically Britain and the UN, failed in their duty to create an environment that would be conducive to peaceful co-existence of Arabs and Jews in Palestine, but that should have been clear at the outset - to see why let us remind ourselves of the Balfour Declaration which read: "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. " Clearly the UN Partition Plan did "prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". Indeed, "the Palestinians and Arabs felt that it was a deep injustice to ignore the rights of the majority of the population of Palestine (and) the Arab League and Palestinian institutions rejected the partition plan". (1) Meanwhile, David Ben Gurion, the first Israeli prime minister, opposed the plan because his and other Jewish leaders' "ambition was a Jewish state on the entire territory of Mandate Palestine. " Obviously, the positions of the Jews and the Arabs were as mutually incompatible then as they are now and the creation of a Jewish state inside the boundaries was a massive blunder on the parts of Britain and the UN, and that's why the international community should step in and rectify the mistakes made in back 1948, to leave the Palestinians at the mercy of their Israeli oppressors would represent a dereliction of duty - we stepped in to help the people of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya to throw off their yokes of tyranny in recent years and the people of Palestine deserve similar support. Rebuttal II ------------ My opponent wrote "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 and. .. has been owned by Israel three separate times for a total of 1198 years. " He cites, as evidence, a pro-Zionist website entitled "Christian Action for Israel" as his source. As you can imagine, this source is both biased and is inaccurate; here is the real history of the settlement and control of of Palestine: NEOLITHIC AND BRONZE-AGE FARMERS 10,000 - 3000 BC EGYPTIANS 3000 - 1850 BC AMORITES & HYKSOS 1850 - 1500 BC EGYPTIANS, APIRU & SHASU 1500 - 1200 BC PHILISTINES (PALESTINIANS) & ISRAELITES 1200 - 1020 BC ISRAEL / JUDAH 1020 - 745 BC ASSYRIANS 745 - 597 BC EGYPTIANS III 609 - 605 BC BABYLONIANS 604 - 538 BC PERSIANS 538 - 332 BC GREEKS 332 - 140 BC HASMONAEANS 140 - 63 BC ROMANS 63 BC - 300 BYZANTINES 313 - 611 PERSIANS II 611 - 628 BYZANTINES II 628 - 636 CALIPHATES 636 - 1099 UMAYYADS 661 - 749 ABBASIDS 749 - 877 TULUNIDS 877 - 906 ABBASIDS II 906 - 935 IKHSHIDIDS 935 - 969 FATIMIDS 970 - 1079 SELJUKS 1079 - 1098 CRUSADERS 1098 - 1187 AYYUBIDS 1187 - 1260 MAMLUKS 1260 - 1517 OTTOMANS 1517 - 1917 BRITISH MANDATE 1920 - 1948 ISRAEL 1948 - TO DATE (2) So we can see that throughout the history of the region, the Hebrew control of Palestine has been sporadic, short-lived and fractured and they never formed the majority of the population, while the Palestinian Arabs have always dwelled in that land, mostly under the control of one empire or another, but with Jerusalem their capital city - the home to the Dome of the Rock, Islam's second most holy site and the city that was designated in the UN Partition Plan to be internationalized with control of the eastern quarters given to the Palestinians. So what is the real homeland of the Hebrews? Jews are taught that the father of their religion, Abraham, came from Ur in Babylon which would mean the Jews would have a greater claim to southern Iraq than Palestine as a homeland but we only have the Old Testament to verify this, which is not a historically-reliable document. Historians cannot be certain of the origins of the Jewish tribes: "No one can prove (or disprove, for that matter) that the tribal federation 'Israel' originated on Palestinian soil. No one can prove that the major components of that federation had always existed on Palestinian soil. All that is known for certain is that, some time during the fourth quarter of the thirteenth century B. C. , Egypt knew of a group, or political entity, called 'Israel' and occupying part of the land of the land of Canaan; but whether the group had recently arrived or taken shape is not stated. " (2) Even if my opponent's source was accurate and Hebrews had "original land ownership and occupation" of Palestine it still wouldn"t entitle them to persecute, oppress and drive out the Arab population - if that were the case then control of the United States of America would have to be ceded to the Native Americans and citizens European, African and Asian ethnic origin could have no complaint if the homes and land were seized and they were driven out of their country of birth. Furthermore, the fact that Palestine has never been autonomous under that name is merely a case of Semitic semantics - the Palestinian people have lived in that land under various rulers for as long as history can record and they should not be exiled or oppressed in modern times any more than the Jews were in ancient times. Rebuttal III ------------- My opponent wrote: "Citizen rights in a sovereign state are no business of the international community. .. " If that were the case there would have been no need for the Allies to intervene to help liberate those oppressed by the Nazis or, more recently, the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Bosnia and numerous other troubled nations. In conclusion, the rights of Palestinians to self-determination and equality in their homeland are hereinabove maintained and I would draw the voters' attention to the fact that my assertions have been backed up by either neutral, anti-Arab or pro-Israeli rather than pro-Palestinian sources, whereas my opponent has chosen to cite sources only sources that are pro-Israeli or, in one case, a neutral site. I hope he will be able to up his game and cite some Palestinian or Arab websites in the next round. Finally, you will have noted that my opponent declined to accept my invitation to condemn attacks on civilians, but I suppose if you are arguing on the side of Israel when the Central Regional Command of the Israeli Army states that "In war, when our forces storm the enemy, they are allowed and even enjoined by the Halakhah to kill even good civilians, that is, civilians who are ostensibly good" (3) then condemning attacks on civilians would be extremely hypocritical. Thank you. (1) . http://news.bbc.co.uk... (2) . http://israelipalestinian.procon.org... (3) . http://www.myjewishlearning.com...