Israel Had a Right To Come Into Existence In 1948

=Rebuttals=Firstly, I have not used any "Zionist talking points", but have rather simply referred to the facts. As Palestine was not a nation, it was therefore not an established country. I'd note to Con that he has used a fallacy in stating that "indigenous native people" were removed from the land of their birth; particularly as he has presented absolutely no evidence in support of this allegation. Even the small numbers of Arabs [such as Druze] that had lived in Palestine long-term, were technically not "indigenous". Con is also discounting the number of Jews that had lived in Palestine before the State of Israel was established.Pointing out that Palestine was not an official country is in no way "callously disregarding" the people who Con claims are "natives" [without including any evidence], as again it is an established fact. Con has adopted the use f innapprioately strong words, as well as false assumptions. The land was indeed "sparcely populated", as is evidenced in my opening argument. Prior to the 1920's when both Arab and Jewish immigration began to increase, Palestine was significantly de-populated. The U.N partician plan applies as that's led to the assignment of lands in 1948. I also pointed out the British Mandate, demonstrating that international parties were also heavily involved--and legally--in the formation of the State of Israel. It was in fact Britain that wanted the Jewish people to have a homeland in Palestine in the first place. As for Israel being in existence before 1948; once again this is a fact. The term "Israel" dates back almost 4000 years, and it what the Jews originally chose to call the land. None of these are "invalid", Con has for the third time made a false assertion so I'd suggest any potential voters take note. Regarding further claims: Con asserts that I claimed that on the basis of the allged "natives" [I'll point out again that Con has a large BoP to fulfill here] having no government, they were devoid of human rights. Note that this is not my claim. Rather I highlighted the simple fact that Palestine had no sovereignty or statehood, and was therefore not classified as an official country. Con has failed to demonstrated how these "human rights" come into play and if they were even violated. Con also makes the false assertion that I am using "rhetoric", when he himself comes up with the accusation of the Jews migrating to Israel somehow not being "Semitic", which thus gives him another BoP that he will be required to address in round three. Just because these Jews had lived in Europe, it does not mean that they are ethnically European or with no Semitic origin. Con also disregards to the fact, which I did explicitly pointed out, that a large number of Sefardic and Eastern Jews also migrated to Israel. With the latter particularly being Yemenite and Iraqi Jews. Sefardic Jews in fact make up 51% of the Israeli population. I'd also remind Con that the "rights" he's mentioned are not inherent and also present an entirely one-sided perspective as to who is deserving of getting "democratic voice" or the "right to self-defense"; not forgetting the events that had took place prior to the establishment of Israel. Once again, Con uses the term "White Jewish European immigrants" negatively and places inappropriate emphasis on ethnicity. I'll highlight again that a significant number of Eastern Jews have migrated as to Israel, as well at being home to large portion of Sefhardi Jews; so Cons claim is both inaccurate and irrelevant. I would go as far to state that Con excessive use of the term "White Jewish European immigrants" has racist connotations and strongly implies a discriminatory attitude. Concerning the land, it's because it was sparsely populated that there was indeed plenty of room for both Arabs and Jews to settle in it. Many of the Palestinians that Con views as "indigenous" to the land of Palestine, are descended from those who migrated from Syria, Egypt and Jordan; many in the 20th century. Con also rather outrageously claims that my round one contention is "familiar" to the so-called "God given Manifest rational", which is off-topic and entirely without support. No where have I stated anything that is on par with or resembles any such rationale, and I'd advise readers to take note of this. Cons accusation here well and truly fits the definition of a "fallacy". Con also labels the author Mark Twain a "racist" without providing any evidence in support; this particular accusation is largely irrelevant to his comments on Palestine which were included in his book "Innocents Abroad". This is a credible author who had virtually no reason to fabricate his observations. The purpose of showing quotes dating from the late 1800's to the late 1900's was to show that if large numbers of Palestinians did indeed live in the land and were "native", naturally this would've been referenced. However, the fact completely remains that Palestine was sparsely populated and had only few inhabitants. Con is correct in stating that the number of Arabs living in the land at the time of 1948 is disputed, with some sources suggesting as low as 300,000. The 800,000 number is NOT definitive and is cited only by Con in a Wikipedia source. As for Cons third rebuttals, once again is placing words in my mouth. I did not claim that the decision U.N [a party that became involved after Britain] had the power to override any democracy, which at that point did not exist in Palestine as the was no form of official governance, overrides the right for the people Con claims as "Semitic indigenous people" of the Holy Land [which I'll point out, is only considered Holy because of Judaism.] Con inappropriately brings ethnicity into the debate which entirely undermines his stance. It was not "their" territory, rather it was British territory as they formally had control over it. Con claims that Jews were "severely outnumbered" in this land, as there were not high numbers of Arabs living in Palestine prior to 1920's-1940's immigration. In fact, all demographics show that both the Jews and Arabs were a minority and that the population levels were significantly small. The below graph shows the rate of Arab immigration: As according to my own statements, the 1920's-1940's in particular show a rapid increase in Arab immigration to Palestine. Con also entirely fails in stating: "Imagine if the U.N. demanded that your nation gave citizenship to all the illegal that resided in your country. I doubt you would stand for that", due the fact that my nation IS a nation with its own political sovereignty. Con again uses race and religion in his argument, as well using the rhetoric if "Zionist theocracy", without showing how it relates to his point. As Arabs gained a large portion of the land in 1948, Cons point that they were "removed" is also negated. In addition, who attacked first is also not as irrelevant as Con may think; as that determines the origins of the conflict. Con mistakenly places all emphasis on Jews, whom he refers as "White people". As previously noted, Con ignores the number of Eastern Jews who also migrated to the land and currently live in the State of Israel now. The European Jews [who have been found to share genetics] were escaping events such as the Holocaust and the persistent case of anti-Semitism, who were not "aggressors" but people trying to ensure security and a build a home. Con has outlined no evidence to support his contention, and even strikingly claims that "ethnic cleansing" was committed; which he provides literally no proof in support. For this BoP to be met, Con would have to show that extremely large numbers of Palestinians were killed and that it was because of their ethnicity, which in itself is mixed. As for Israel existing being a "fantasy", this is negated by the fact that did exist and with an official Jewish sovereignty. All sources can be found here: [3.] http://tny.cz...