NationStates Jolt Archive

So I got an assignment in school that says I need to prepare a debate to argue who is the rightful owner of the land that is currently Israel.

Link for official assignment.http://ecc.pisd.edu/upload//1231//Arab-Israeli%20Debate%20Assignment.doc

And if you are too lazy to click on the link
The Great Arab-Israeli Debate

Each of you will have the opportunity to debate another student on this issue. The debate question you will address is as follows:

Who is the rightful owner of the land now known as Israel?

1) You will research and prepare an argument for EACH SIDE of the conflict.
*You must be able to argue in favor of the Palestinians.
*You must be able argue in favor of the Jewish.
2) Each argument must be very persuasive.
3) Each argument MUST include historical information and important people related to the issue.
4) You will not know until the day of the debate which side you will actually debate.
5) The debate MUST be civil in tone and refrain from any name-calling or derogatory language.
6) You will be graded on your performance, based on the quality and strength of your argument.

Debate format:
●Class will be divided into 2 groups (Arab and Israeli)
●One person from each side will take the “hotseat” chair at the center of the room
●Only the two people in the hotseats may speak.
●No one speaker will give an entire argument. Speakers will “tag” another member of their team to replace them in the hotseat


I know some of you know a bunch about this so if you wouldnt mind posting some of your points..

I would recomend (if you have the time) reading the following books

- The Case For Israel - Alan Dershowitz
- The Case For Peace - Alan Dershowitz
- Myths and Facts - Mitchell G. Bard

For the Israel side

I would recomend (if you have the time) reading the following books

- The Case For Israel - Alan Dershowitz
- The Case For Peace - Alan Dershowitz
- Myths and Facts - Mitchell G. Bard

For the Israel side
I have two weeks I think.. How long are some of those books?

Alan Dershowitz
He said "convincing".

My advice: walk away and don't request info on NS. You're just asking for trouble! :cool:

I have two weeks I think.. How long are some of those books?

They are all broken down into individual points and issues so it is easy to find what you want. They arnt long slog out books. You may also want to read Right to Exist, which is about Israels wars

I have two weeks I think.. How long are some of those books?
Don't.
Dershowitz is the sort of guy that will get you taken apart if you have an opposition capable that is any good. His book is controversial, and at times just plain wrong, the guy himself is a neocon who advocates torturing suspects. You'll spend the rest of the debate trying to defend his positions.

The teacher did say refrain from using biased sources.

He said "convincing".

Well I'd like to hear the problems you have with the arguements in his books. They are all exceptionally well refernced and evidence is given all over the place. Can you perhaps elaborate on your specific problem? Or is it just his views you hate.

The teacher did say refrain from using biased sources.

If you consider anything that doenst villify the Isralies to be biased then you wont use these books. As amazing as it may seem, the perception of Israel is far worse than its reality. Israel is not perfect (no one is) but it is not nearly as bad as everyone makes it out

For the myths & facts book I have found an online version

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mftoc.html

Can you perhaps elaborate on your specific problem? Or is it just his views you hate.
Disregarding my personal opinions for the time being, the fact of the matter is that Dershowitz' aguments are controversial, that his evidence is being questioned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dershowitz-Finkelstein_affair) and that quoting those sources will not make for a particularly strong point in a debate.

I would identify more with the Israeilis, and I suppose I understand their cause... but I need stunning arguements for both sides, I want to sweep the floor on this one.







Note: Last post in triple digits:p

The teacher did say refrain from using biased sources.

Then don't use Dershowitz. Trust me- its going to be nearly impossible to find unbiased sources on this topic.

Unless you want to merely contrast the two sides arguments?

Well, it’s certainly is in the US’s interest for Israel to belong to the Arabs.

The teacher did say refrain from using biased sources.
Actually...thinking about it...I think you might be in trouble. :D

Use Wikipedia. An excellent, more or less objective source on the conflict.

Myths and Facts is a right-wing extremist propaganda rag, for what it's worth; Dershowitz is more sickening because he pretends to be a liberal, but his analysis is a little less slanted.

I would recomend (if you have the time) reading the following books

- The Case For Israel - Alan Dershowitz
- The Case For Peace - Alan Dershowitz
LOL Alan Dershowitz

Migth as well ask Pat Robertson.. or Ariel Sharon their take on the issue.. (If he makes it back.)

Use Wikipedia. An excellent, more or less objective source on the conflict.

Myths and Facts is a right-wing extremist propaganda rag, for what it's worth; Dershowitz is more sickening because he pretends to be a liberal, but his analysis is a little less slanted.exactamente

here is the wiki sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-Palestinian_conflict

Well, it’s certainly is in the US’s interest for Israel to belong to the Arabs.

And what exactly does that mean?

You might look at

O JERUSALEM
Larry Collins and Domique Lapierre

They made a decent effort to explain both sides. They also wrote Freedom at Midnight which is excellent.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671662414/qid=1138853085/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-9497616-6908962?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

And what exactly does that mean?
One of the most common complaints from the Muslim community is that the US props up Israel and that Israel controls our foreign policy. No more Israel, no more complaints, about that anyway, and therefore, less terrorists.

One of the most common complaints from the Muslim community is that the US props up Israel and that Israel controls our foreign policy. No more Israel, no more complaints, about that anyway, and therefore, less terrorists.I thing there should be an "Israel"..or two

There should be at least a couple of "Jewish states".. I just think they are currently in the Wrong Neighborhood.. Europe or/and North-America would be much more appropriate..for a Jewish State...

No one has exclusive rights to that land.

The teacher did say refrain from using biased sources.Obviously what one would see as unbiased, another could see as biased. Just ask your teacher to recomend some sources for both sides. If she asks why, tell her that you're not sure about the reliablity of the sources you have found. And, whatever you do, do not use Wikipedia. Anyone can edit those articles, and you don't know who edited it last (I think there is even a warning at the top of all contraversial articles on Wikipedia).
Edit-They must have taken out the warnings. Still, it's common sense not to use Wikipedia as a source for contraversial subjects (like something a debate class would debate).

I dunno if it might actually help you in the debate or not, but I found the book "O Jerusalem!" by two French journalists to be a good account of the events surrounding the birth of Israel.

Added later: Damn you Black Forest for beating me to it.:mad: (no I am not really mad..:fluffle: )

Anyone can edit those articles...Prove it..

Go and Edit the Palestine Conflict page.. show us Wikipedia is not a good source..

Prove it..

Go and Edit the Palestine Conflict page.. show us Wikipedia is not a good source..Fine. Copy the British mandate part from the Palestine article somewhere. I'll take out the part that says it was reffered to as Palestine and Transjordan. I'll give you five minutes after posting this.

Fine. Copy the British mandate part from the Palestine article somewhere. I'll take out the part that says it was reffered to as Palestine and Transjordan. I'll give you five minutes after posting this.no.. I want you to add something silly ...and it has to stay up for more than 5 min..

If you can only keep it there for only 5 minutes..You would actually prove Wikipedia is more reliable than most Web sources

When your teacher said "unbiased sources", he was kidding, right?

When it comes to Israel/Palestine, passions run high. You are best off finding several sources from both sides. I am not familiar with Palestinian sources, but the Israeli sources like the MYTH/FACT formula - great for debunking.

no.. I want you to add something silly ...and it has to stay up for more than 5 min..

If you can only keep it there for only 5 minutes..You would actually prove Wikipedia is more reliable than most Web sourcesYou shouldn't use any random web sources. The problem is that most people *cough* think that Wikipedia IS another random source that pretty much anybody can edit. And just by removing a few certain facts, the history of the world itself can be modified to fit any interpretation. Therefore, if I just remove a small fact (that the British mandate never included Transjordan), one can make the claim that what is today Jordan legaly belongs to Israel.

Fine. Copy the British mandate part from the Palestine article somewhere. I'll take out the part that says it was reffered to as Palestine and Transjordan. I'll give you five minutes after posting this.Done. Check it out now. I'll change it back in 10 minutes after posting (if someone doesn't do it before).

And just by removing a few certain facts, the history of the world itself can be modified to fit any interpretation.<you could prove that Wikipedia is not reliable.. If you can keep it like that.. If it only stays like that for a couple of minutes.. then Wikipedia has defeated you.

Done. Check it out now. I'll change it back in 10 minutes after posting (if someone doesn't do it before).Nope The page is still ok.. You have failed.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3d/PalestineAndTransjordan.png/300px-PalestineAndTransjordan.png

<you could prove that Wikipedia is not reliable.. If you can keep it like that.. If it only stays like that for a couple of minutes.. then Wikipedia has defeated you.Again, Wikipedia is just a random internet source.

Nope The page is still ok.. You have failed.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3d/PalestineAndTransjordan.png/300px-PalestineAndTransjordan.png

I challenge you to a duel.

Nope The page is still ok.. You have failed.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3d/PalestineAndTransjordan.png/300px-PalestineAndTransjordan.pngI removed (some of) the text. I could just as easily remove that picture if I was up to it. I just want to prove that anybody can edit it and it can pass for a real source with many people *cough*.

Again, Wikipedia is just a random internet source.I see you talking.. but I dont see you Proving it..

You said anyone can edit Wikipedia.. Yet you are having problems doing it

I removed (some of) the text. I could just as easily remove that picture if I was up to it. I just want to prove that anybody can edit it and it can pass for a real source with many people *cough*.I checked again its still all there...

I could just as easily remove that picture if I was up to it.I would love to see that.

Done. Check it out now. I'll change it back in 10 minutes after posting (if someone doesn't do it before).Changed it back. If you don't believe it's possible, try it yourself. Hell, add something rediculious if you want to test it.

I would love to see that.Try it yourself if you're so interested to find out.

I could just as easily remove that picture if I was up to it. I have an idea Replace that Jordan map... and this one

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/Palestine_stamp.jpg/110px-Palestine_stamp.jpg

...replace them with pics of the Israel Flag..or Osama niece.. and If you do succed doing that.. I will never trust Wikipedia again..

Just do it...after all... "anyone can edit Wikipedia"

Try it yourself if you're so interested to find out.I Trust Wikipedia to have a defense mechanism against People who think they can just fuck thing up... after all, Wikipedia credibility is on the line.

Changed it back. Why did you change it back? (whatever he supposedly removed:confused: )

You don't wanna prove your point?

Common... don't chicken-out on me now :D

I Trust Wikipedia to have a defense mechanism against People who think they can just fuck thing up... after all, Wikipedia credibility is on the line.Even if the do have a defense mechanism against rediculious things, but even one false fact added or one true fact omitted can have a large impact on the history shown. Even something that looks credible could be an out right lie. For example, how would the Arab-Israeli situation look if either side was vilified and the other glorified? Your world view might be completely different. And I will not edit any more Wikipedia pages, as I don't feel like it. If you have such faith in that Wikipedia defense mechanism, why don't you test your faith and try to edit it yourself. If you want to remain ignorant to the fact that Wikipedia is not a credible source for controversial topics, so be it. It doesn't bother me.

I challenge you to a duel.LOL ok..

Pick your weapons (they are on the Floor)

Why did you change it back? (whatever he supposedly removed:confused: )

You don't wanna prove your point?

Common... don't chicken-out on me now :DI did edit it. You might want to learn what that refresh button is for (I actually saw it change).

10..9..8..7..6..5..4..3..2..1.. .. ..

http://members.liwest.at/holzner/bang_youre_dead_01.jpg

Bang Novoga you are DEAD. :mp5: :D

I did edit it. You might want to learn what that refresh button is for (I actually saw it change).hmm.. Did someone else saw it... anyone?

And just Why did you change it back??

and why are you scared to replace the Pictures.. Cos that way is easier to spot the change.

hmm.. Did someone else saw it... anyone?

And just Why did you change it back??I don't know if someone else saw it change. I changed it back because it didn't make much sense, and I'm not that much of an asshole to deprive some people *cough* of what they should think. And for the last time (I won't say this again), if you have so much faith in that defense mechanism, why don't you try to prove that it exists.

and why are you scared to replace the Pictures.. Cos that way is easier to spot the change.I took out some 6 lines of text. And see my above post.

And I will not edit any more Wikipedia pages, as I don't feel like it. All of a sudden it is not so easy to add biased content Wikipedia pages..

What happened to all that "anyone can edit Wikipedia" talk ???

why don't you try to prove that it exists.I have six month ago.. I replaced Pictures.. and even if I saw it in my PC.. My friends were on-line but never saw it..

even in my PC.. it was gone faster than I can MSM them to try again..

All of a sudden it is not so easy to add biased content Wikipedia pages..

What happened to all that "anyone can edit Wikipedia" talk ???So wait, you can't edit it? Fine then, anyone except OceanDrive can edit Wikipedia.

So wait, you can't edit it? Fine then, anyone except OceanDrive can edit Wikipedia.You can edit.. The fact is it does not stay long enough.. Like you just proved it...

Thank you for making my point :D

I have six month ago.. I replaced Pictures.. and even if I saw it in my PC.. My friends were on-line but never saw it..

even in my PC.. it did not last long..Well, a while ago, a friend of mine edited some articles, and I sure as hell saw the changes. They stayed up until someone else edited them.

Well, a while ago, a friend of mine edited some articles, and I sure as hell saw the changes. They stayed up until someone else edited them.at least he did not change it back himself... anyways I am going AFK.

This issue is a complex one, and I don't think one side or the other is totally at fault. This isn't a multiple choice test - both sides have to take some of the blame.

If we really think about it, both sides have reasonable positions. For the Jews, this is their ancient religious homeland. But for the Palestinians, it's also their homeland - Arabs have been living in the place we know as Isreal since the time of the Diaspora. So both sides have a very strong emotional attachment to it and don't want to give it up.

Now, I think if anyone's to blame, it's the Europeans who decided that it would be a good idea to recreate the nation of Isreal as a homeland for the Jews. But their purpose wasn't to screw over the Palestinians, it was to do good to a people that had just been horribly persecuted. I suppose that they were probably just so eager to do good and appease their own guilt that they didn't even think about the people already living in that land.

Now, of course, none of this excuses the actions of groups like Hamas, nor some of the actions of the Isreali military. But I think to some extent we need to look at both and try to understand where they're coming from. Terrorists like Hamas are trying to be freedom fighters to get back their land, and they also want to get revenge for various real or percieved abuses of the Isreali military. On the other hand, the Isreali military is trying to stop terrorism, and is willing to perhaps get a little heavy-handed in doing so. Both, I think, are somewhat understandable, but at the same time produce a terrible cycle of abuse and death.

That's my opinion, anyway.

Well, it’s certainly is in the US’s interest for Israel to belong to the Arabs.

Not really... we get along much better with (Jewish) Isreal than with any Arab nation. Though on the other hand, having Isreal go to Palestinians would probably reduce some of the tension in the Middle East. So who knows?

Use Wikipedia. An excellent, more or less objective source on the conflict.

While Wikipedia is great for a lot of things, it's not necessarily an objective source because any Joe Shmoe with an agenda can change it. I've seen some pretty wacky stuff up there (for example, that astrology is scientific).

This issue is a complex one, and I don't think one side or the other is totally at fault. This isn't a multiple choice test - both sides have to take some of the blame.

If we really think about it, both sides have reasonable positions. For the Jews, this is their ancient religious homeland. But for the Palestinians, it's also their homeland - Arabs have been living in the place we know as Isreal since the time of the Diaspora. So both sides have a very strong emotional attachment to it and don't want to give it up.

Now, I think if anyone's to blame, it's the Europeans who decided that it would be a good idea to recreate the nation of Isreal as a homeland for the Jews. But their purpose wasn't to screw over the Palestinians, it was to do good to a people that had just been horribly persecuted. I suppose that they were probably just so eager to do good and appease their own guilt that they didn't even think about the people already living in that land.

Now, of course, none of this excuses the actions of groups like Hamas, nor some of the actions of the Isreali military. But I think to some extent we need to look at both and try to understand where they're coming from. Terrorists like Hamas are trying to be freedom fighters to get back their land, and they also want to get revenge for various real or percieved abuses of the Isreali military. On the other hand, the Isreali military is trying to stop terrorism, and is willing to perhaps get a little heavy-handed in doing so. Both, I think, are somewhat understandable, but at the same time produce a terrible cycle of abuse and death.

That's my opinion, anyway.



Not really... we get along much better with (Jewish) Isreal than with any Arab nation. Though on the other hand, having Isreal go to Palestinians would probably reduce some of the tension in the Middle East. So who knows?



While Wikipedia is great for a lot of things, it's not necessarily an objective source because any Joe Shmoe with an agenda can change it. I've seen some pretty wacky stuff up there (for example, that astrology is scientific).
*applauds*
Thanks man, hopefully this will end the hijack

Obviously what one would see as unbiased, another could see as biased. Just ask your teacher to recomend some sources for both sides. If she asks why, tell her that you're not sure about the reliablity of the sources you have found. And, whatever you do, do not use Wikipedia. Anyone can edit those articles, and you don't know who edited it last (I think there is even a warning at the top of all contraversial articles on Wikipedia).
Edit-They must have taken out the warnings. Still, it's common sense not to use Wikipedia as a source for contraversial subjects (like something a debate class would debate).

The vast majority of editors act in good faith - they follow the basic rule on controversial matters, which is trying to reach objectivity by representing many points of view. Facts, especially on controversial matters, tend to be sourced.

Those who don't are generally rather clumsy, and it is easy to tell where they have intervened.

Like with any other source, having a brain, and using it, can be quite helpful, but it is really an invaluable resource regarding pretty much anything - I read Wikipedia on a very regular basis, and I have never believed something there that was not somewhat substantiated.

There is no profit motive to posting there, no material incentive whatsoever, and very little regulation. Everyone can participate in its operation, and on a more or less equal basis. And yet it works very well. An interesting thing to consider.