Israel Had a Right To Come Into Existence In 1948

Accepted. As Con has not specified whether round one is for acceptance or not, I'll begin my outlining my opening argument. Palestine as a non-State: Firstly, it must be established that before Israel became an official state in 1948, the land of "Palestine" had no form of sovereign government and thus was not a "state". The general fact is that Jewish people did not suddenly arrive in 1948 and overthrow any Palestinian statehood or steal the any Palestinian country, largely because it was not a country. Specifically one with a national sovereignty and clearly defined borders. The only entity who in fact did have any control over the land was Britain, who gained Palestine after defeating the Turkish forces in 1920 during World War One. Once again, the land was not controlled or owned by any Arab or Palestinian government; but the British military. Palestinian Population: Another large contention in why Israel had a "right" to come into existence as a state [note that Con did not clarify "state" in the resolution] is the fact that the Palestinian population was extremely small. As previously highlighted, it was not the case that Palestine was an official country with a nation sovereignty, and a large amount of people living it, but rather that Palestine was a small piece of land inhabited by a significantly small population. Prior to increased Jewish and Arab immigration, the population would have stood at no more than 800,000 . Aside from cities such as Jerusalem and certain areas in the North, Palestine was sparsely populated. Before the Jews began re-cultivating the land, it was 80% desolate. This is important to note because it yet another example of Palestine not being an actual country, inhabited by large numbers of Arab. Naturally the land would not have been so desolate or isolated if a significant number of Arabs [or Jews] lived in it. This was something notably observed by those who briefly visited the land. One British visitor in Palestine in 1590 stated this: "Nothing there is to be seen but a little of the old walls, which is yet Remaining and all the rest is grass, mosse and Weeds much like to a piece of Rank or moist Ground." "While Tiberius was being resettled by Jews from Papal states, whose migration was approved by a papal Bull, Nazareth was continuing its decline." A Franciscan pilgrim translated a Latin Manuscript that reported that " 'A house of robbers, murderers, the inhabitants are Saracens.... It is a lamentable thing to see thus such a town. We saw nothing more stony, full of thorns and desert.'" A hundred years afterward, Nazareth was, in 1697, "an inconsiderable village.... Acre a few poor cottages ... nothing here but a vast and spacious ruin." Nablus consisted of two streets with many people, and Jericho was a "poor nasty village."If Palestine had belonged to Arabs that are no known as "Palestinians" for the amount of time as claimed, naturally this would not have been the case. This visitor noted that Jews were resettling as early as 1590 [Some Sefard returned even earlier] and that other places such as Nazareth and Nablus were barely populated, with one only harbouring a "few small cottages" and the other being a "poor nasty village". Another British visitor in the mid 1700s, archaeologist Thomas Shaw also observed that the land in Palestine was "lacking in people to till its fertile soil."Famous American author Mark Twain was another visitor to highlight just how desolate Palestine was, describing the land as: "A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds-a silent mournful expanse....A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace with the pomp of life and action....We never saw a human being on the whole route....There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of the worthless soil, had almost deserted the country.”"Nazareth is forlorn .... Jericho the accursed lies a mouldering ruin today, even as Joshua's miracle left it more than three thousand years ago". Note that Mark Twain was visiting the land in 1867, a time when Palestinian Arabs were supposedly said to be populating the land; and in considerable numbers. So once again, further proof of how little Palestine was inhabited. The French writer Pierre Loti also had this to say upon visiting the land in 1895: "I traveled through sad Galilee in the spring, and I found it silent. . . ." In the vicinity of the Biblical Mount Gilboa, "As elsewhere, as everywhere in Palestine, city and palaces have returned to the dust; This melancholy of abandonment, weighs on all the Holy Land."While David Landes noted this: "As a result of centuries of Turkish neglect and misrule, following on the earlier ravages of successive conquerors, the land had been given over to sand, marsh, the anopheles mosquito, clan feuds, and Bedouin marauders. A population of several millions had shrunk to less than one tenth that number-perhaps a quarter of a million around 1800, and 300,000 at mid-century."This is where the question arises of why Con believes that Israel did not have a right to come into existence as a state in 1948, in a land was which was barely populated and significantly uncultivated. Con has the burden of proof to fulfill in showing exactly why the state of Israel did not have a "right" to be established in 1948. I'll also further highlight here the contradiction in Cons resolution, instead of including the term "state", Con chose to phrase the resolution as: "Israel Had a Right To Come Into Existence In 1948", neglecting the fact that hitorically Israel was already in existence long before 1948. Not Israel as an official state, but Israel as a historical homeland and a place that has always had [even in small numbers] a Jewish presence. Before Roman occupation, the land was named as "Israel" [hence where terms like "Israelites' come from]. It was only during Roman control that it was renamed as "Palestine", or rather: "Palestina". So the resolution of Con is already negated. Not only does Con have to show that Israel should not have been formed as a state, but Con also has to show that Israel in one form or another was not in existence before 1948. Thus providing him/her with a large BoP indeed. Context of Israel's 1948 establishment as a State: The fact that Israel had legally become a state in receiving recognition from international parties such as the U.N is also enough to challenge the resolution of Con. It was internationally formed plans such as the "Mandate for Palestine" that led to Israel becoming a state in the first place, as the international community actively wanted to establish a Jewish homeland [particularly given events such as the Holocaust and other forms of European persecution.] After British forces withdrew from Palestine due to the Arabs refusing to accept assigned lands, the U.N later came up with the the "Partition Plan" which was again fully legal. The aim was to assign areas to the Jews and the Arabs, and to introduce a mutual agreement. Prior to the 1967 Six Day War, Arabs had in fact Arabs controlled approximately 80 percent of the territory of the British Mandate, while the Palestinian Jewish State held a small 17.5 percent, with Gaza being occupied by Egypt. Therefore, the Jews, actually had notably smaller lands. Significantly less than they were originally supposed to be given. Sources: [1.] Gunner Edward Webbe, Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement, p. 86, cited in de Haas, History, p. 338.[2.] Mark Twain, The Innocents Abroad, pp. 349, 366, 367. [3.] . De Haas, History, p. 337, citing Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement, 1925, p. 197, translation of Latin manuscript by a Franciscan pilgrim.[3.] Pierre Loti, La Galilee (Paris, 1895), pp. 37-41, 69, 85-86, 69, cited by David Landes, "Palestine Before the Zionists," Commentary, February 1976, pp. 48-49. [4.] http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...