The U.S. Should Maintain its Alliance with Israel

Even though I will comply with new terms my opponent has presented and will use pictures to clear, it is important to realize my opponent has made terms for the debate which I accepted and is now requesting new terms of me even after I have accepted. This would be like making terms for a contract and once signed requesting new terms of the person who agree to the contract before the terms were given. When I say Middle Eastern countries I will be reffering to Middle Eastern countries EXCEPT israel. It also seems that my opponent has warped my arguments into something completely different and based his argument on his warped version of my argument rather than my original argument so I will deal with that issue accordingly in my arguments and counterarguments below. It seems that my opponent has overlooked my final statement of when pro says con has completely missed the point of this argument, and yet the final statement indicates that America is not promoting human rights in the Middle East but rather promoting the opposite of discrimination but funding israel, it completely deals with the initial point of America 'promoting human rights' by countering my opponent's point and showing it's instead promoting the opposite. Next my opponent tries to claim "Con has to admit that they are *far* better than those of Jordan, Syria, Yemen ..." which I find quite horrifically offensive. Nowhere have I admit anything of such nature in fact I clearly posted an argument disproving that using Palestine as an example. This argument, in addition to showing that I think the Middle East countries around Israel are better than Israel, also goes back to Pro's first point about 'America spreading democratic values' by showing funding a racist israel destroys freedom values in the Middle East. In conclusion my main points about Israel being racist and Palestine(which is an exmaple of Middle East country)having human rights goes to show America funding israel is destroying human rights values in the Middle East such as shown by Palestine while promoting racism in Israel which completely addresses the point pro tries to state I am missing and it also refutes pro's offensive assumption that I think Middle Eastern countries are worse off than israel. Next my opponent tries to claim USA funding israel will make imperfections disappear when in fact I clearly showed Us funding is promoting racism and discrimination. Since my opponent is yet to counter my argument that funding israel is condoning racism, it would be premature to make claims that US funding would cause racial laws to be abondoned because those claims would have to be based on the assumption US funding isn't condoning racism. My opponent next claims Palestine is irrelavent. My opponent had earlier tried to claim that israel had better rights than Middle Eastern nations so in addition to needing to show israel is bad I must show other Middle Eastern countries as good to support my argument that Midle Eastern nations are better than israel. Instead of listing out all the rights of ALL the other I choose to use Palestine as an example because the Middle East conflict is often seen as Israel vs Palestine. The only time Gaza was mentioned in my argument wasabout the genocides israel is commting. And the only time my opponent mentions gaza is here So essentially his counterargument to my explaining of the gaza strip genocide is simply that gaza has less rights than israel. I would imagine most readers would be shocked to find gaza supposedly having fewer rights justifies israels' attack. The reason I do not believe this is a reason to support israel is because this would be quite like an invader seizing a native's land and before the native fight a revolutionary war to reclaim his land, a supporter of the invader decides to force peace to allow a zionist imperialist ensure conquered land remains conquered from the aboriginals. I would imagine most readers would support the native over the conquerer in this case. Again the only true peace and possibly permanet end to the conflict would be a peacful disbandment of israel which would require US to withdraw aid because peace would truly be achieved if the invader gave back everything that was taken from the native.My opponent then warps and then claims my argument about paramilitant groups is entirely based off of the fact that the alliance should have never been created in the first place. and yet only the beggining of my argument which was acting as a prelude/background was giving information about how the alliance has caused problems since its creation and that prelude/background introduced why the alliance would CONTINUOUSLY cause problems. Also it's noteworthy that my opponent only addresses terrorist/militant groups in Middle East around Israel and ignores how these groups have hurt American civilians especially during 9/11 And as shown America's continued support hurts Americans and of course it is understandable that my opponent would try to evade mentioning the amount of suffering America hs recieved as it is difficult to refute.My Opponent seems to believe that if America cut off support for israel then Israel would be certainly doomed. However given common sense and logic it is unlikely israel would simply allow its civilians to be slaughtered . America continuously borrows money from China and other foreign governments and a lot of this money goes to israel. Israel being the first country to recognize People's republic of China can obviously borrow money from China and would obviously rather do that than simplay allow itself to be slaughtered by Palestinians as dictated common sense. This would solve the problem of terrorist attacks in the USA and the continuous US debt problem and unemployment problem without causing israelites to suffer. Although Israel's continued existence would still cause paramilitary groups in the Middle East. If given the extraordinarily unlikely situation Israel could not garner sympathy from other nations or enter an economic relationship with the Chinese and loan money it could alternatively resort to a peaceful disbandment. Israel would simply in this case come in terms with Middle Eastern nations and paramiltary groups that if they do not attack Israel then it will peacefully disband itself. This would be acceptable to Middle Eastern nations and paramilitant groups because if they were to attack Israel as it disbanded then it might garner sympathy for other nations to fund israel and allow it to exist. This would prevent Israelites from being slaughtered because they are peacfully disbanding. This would be the most prefferable outcome because Military conflict in the MIddle East between Israel and other nations will no longer exist once israel is peacefully disbanded. So whether Israel relies on other nations like China or disbands itself peacefully if USA withdraws support it is most likely going to follow a peaceful outcome as peace as indicated above would be best possible for all nations in the Middle East. Thus it's critically unlikely nations would follow an unbeneficial path to war should USA withdraw. I have already explained in the upper paragraph why USA withdrawing it's support would be unlikely to lead to conflict but rather a disolution of militant activity such as 9/11 type militant activities. However I'm shocked that my opponent is comparing funding through forced taxing a militant nation to donating to charity. A key difference between charity and tax. https://philanthropy.com...Tax is forced and everyone must pay regardless of whether he/she like where it goes or not. Charity is only given by those who really support a cause. Also taxes are mandatory for everyone regardless of wether or not taxes hurt people. However charity is generally given by those rich enough to afford to give it and are not hurt by giving it. When my opponent compares taxes to charity it completely ignores the negatitivy of taxes and unemployment. My opponent seems to believe funding israel is supporting humans rights when it in fact destroying rights that already existed in the Middle East through Israelite racism. It's important to compare this to a dark period of history when a similar dark thinking like this was used. During the colonization of Africa in the 1800s Europeans who at that time on paper made slavery illegal claimed to be going to africa to 'abolish' slavery in Africa and 'promoting' enlightment values in Africa. They invaded and conquered Africa from the African people and kidnapped, raped, and blackmailed Africans into blackmail labor which was techinically not slavery under European paper laws. . https://e.edim.co... people to pay taxes to support such an imperialism as in the 1800s would as I imagine be atrocicous for non-white supremacist readers. In the same way forcing people to pay taxes for zionist imperialism under the claim of spreading human rights on paper but in reality supporting oppression and destroying already existing rights is not something many nonjewish sumpremacists would support.Again with root cause anaylsis which I addressed in my previous argument the solution to problems in the Middle East is solved by solving the root of the problem and not suppressing symptoms of suffering. My opponent overlooking root cause analysis is overlooking a major concept of problem solving.