It was right to create Israel in 1948

Seeing that my opponent has been unable to reply for this last segment I will not further develop my argument. Instead I will highlight some reasons as to why one should vote for my side. 1. Conduct I would like to point out my opponents harsh, almost racist words towards Jews and other Europeans who have worked towards a Jewish state. The style with which my opponent has conducted himself is not appropriate for this conversation. I would not like to claim that an ad homonym fallacy is present, I would merely like to propose that my opponent has been slightly disrespectful towards the opposing side. For this reason I would like to make the claim that the points for conduct should go to my side of the argument. Instead of ultimately condoning all of Israel's actions I attempted to give each side the benefit of the doubt, and propose two established states in the region to compensate for the loses on both sides. I believe that the creation of Israel was correct, due to the fact that the Israelis have some say in how the land should be dived up since they lived there as well. 2. Control of the Debate I would also like to make the claim that I controlled what elements of the debate where highlighted. My opponent continually played defense, and was unable to steer the debate towards his arguments. The lack of control of the debate on my opponents part should allow some consideration to be made for my side. Since the BOP was on both of us in this debate, my opponent was unable to mount an offensive for his position which ultimately left him only trying to refute my BOP without establishing a BOP of his own. For this reason I believe that the debate should go to the Affirmative side. 3. Organization My debate had organized points, that described the topics that were going to be hit in the proceeding paragraphs. Seeing that organization is not a major issue in this debate I will not hit on it very much. However, it still should be considered in an overall evaluation. 4. My side established a compromise The affirmative side of the argument (me) established a way for both nations to have parts of the region in order to appeal to both people groups. Simply declaring that Israel is wrong and is a Ethnic cleansing nation does not equate to actual fact. Both groups are not innocent in this conflict, and both should have established states of control within this region. My opponent merely is trying to establish that Israel has not right at all to establish a state in the region, even after the Israeli people lived for thousands of years in the region. My opponent has even agreed with part of my compromise by calling for reparation from both sides. However, years of war and strife between these two peoples has caused a rift that cannot be fixed. The United Nations is the only place to fully create two states that create peace in the region. 5. Emotional Appeal We must not forget the strife of the Israeli people after the Holocaust. A region for their protection was well deserved after the strife Germany caused them. Millions of Jews were displaced due to the Holocaust, and a nation was needed to harbor these souls. We must remember that Israel allowed Palestinians to live side by side with Israelis. This was not a nation of theocratic rules, but a nation bent on making freedom its aim for not only Israelis, but also for Arabs. Let us look past the conflict and peer at the nation-state that is Israel. It is a nation of democracy in the midst of nations that are hell-bent on wiping countries off the map simply because they have a different religion. Israel has been a stabilizing force, but it also needs to understand that the Palestinians deserve Gaza and the West Bank as their own homeland as well.