Feb 2006 PF - Middle East Peace Affirmative
The bloodshed within the Middle East is one that has been continuing for ages. Each perspective has been fueled with a stern religious faith and unwillingness to compromise with the other. However, this age-long battle has evolved with modern times. Both sides are weary of fighting and have moved towards diplomacy. But more importantly, both sides now realize and work for what matters: a pragmatic solution. For this reason, we on the affirmative team stand firmly resolved: That the policy decisions of the current Israeli government toward the Palestinian State have improved prospects for peace in the Middle East.
First, the current Israeli government has dramatically impacted the political landscape for its people. Ever since its conception, Israel has had two approaches towards Palestine. The left said, “We have to negotiate peace with the Palestinians,” and the right said, “There’s no one to talk to because they don’t want to make peace; they want to destroy us, so we stay in the occupied territories and try to integrate them into Israel.” Both parties had their chance to prove their policies, yet both failed miserably. One can hardly speak of the policy decisions of modern Israel and its successes without mentioning Ariel Sharon. As Sharon came to power, he envisioned that neither approach would ever bring any resolution to any generation. He realized the “Greater Israel” would never be attainable and saw that it was necessary to make concessions to the Palestinians. Thus, he melded the two radically opposite views in the form of Kadima and presented Israelis with a new hope for a secure nation. Furthermore, by forming Kadima, Sharon was able to insure that his legacies and policies would outlast his lifetime and continue into the future.
Second, the actions taken by Israel have improved conditions for the proliferation of peace and will continue to do so. This conflict of ages has been fueled by one thing: territory. As Israel saw that the Palestinian Authority was in no position to negotiate an end to this conflict, they fell through with a plan of unilateral disengagement. Not only did Israel withdraw from and concede the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians, but there have also been recent indications that the complete withdrawal from the West Bank is not far off. In addition, the barrier created as a boundary for the West Bank has also been able to reduce terrorist attacks. According to an article published in the Washington Post on January 6, 2006 entitled “A Calamity for Israel,” suicide bombings are down by 90 percent, dramatically decreasing the tensions and hostilities between the people. In such policy decisions, Israel has been able to meet several requirements of President Bush’s Roadmap to Peace including the ending of terrorist attacks and realizing a two-state vision for Israel and Palestine.
Finally, the policy decisions of Israel and the potential of the new Palestinian government will continue to improve prospects for peace in the Middle East. The status of Palestinian society can be summed up into one word: chaos. The government is lined with corrupt politicians who were unable to do anything to better the living conditions of its people or to enforce any type of law and order. Moreover, the government is vastly dependent upon international aid just to keep things going. Hamas did not receive a victory in the recent elections because of its radical views but because of their promise to end corruption, bring about necessary reforms and improve the lives of its people. In a letter written by Muhammad Abu Tir, the second highest ranking member of Hamas, he states that “Hamas wants peace. We hate bloodshed and killing. We don’t want to fight,” and that they are “for education, for social work, for establishing infrastructure, for health institutions.” Hamas was elected democratically and will therefore act democratically for its people. Peace for the future is possible. Israeli policies will work when there’s a situation of peace. Hamas will bring that.
In the January 16, 2006 edition of Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria wrote, “The great obstacle to progress is no longer Israeli intentions but rather Palestinian capabilities.” As many changes have yet to come, the future of this region seems uncertain. However, two things can be guaranteed: the people are ready for peace and Israel will be ready when Palestine is ready. For the reasons we have outlined, we urge an affirmative ballot on today’s resolution. Thank you.
Looking at a common example of Israel’s history, Egypt and Israel were both constantly at odds. But by their peace talks and continued cooperation with each other, they eventually ceased fire and made an agreement. This leads us to the very heart of the situation in the Middle East. A lot of the conflicts are between the Arabs and Jews. If Egypt and Israeli could work out peace, than so can the Palestinians and the Israelis. This can also be inferred looking at all of the Middle East. Progress starts with one event, and that one event pushes movement towards a new agenda. This agenda is of peace and continued prosperity between the nations of the Middle East.
First, the current Israeli government has dramatically impacted the political landscape for its people. Ever since its conception, Israel has had two approaches towards Palestine. The left said, “We have to negotiate peace with the Palestinians,” and the right said, “There’s no one to talk to because they don’t want to make peace; they want to destroy us, so we stay in the occupied territories and try to integrate them into Israel.” Both parties had their chance to prove their policies, yet both failed miserably. One can hardly speak of the policy decisions of modern Israel and its successes without mentioning Ariel Sharon. As Sharon came to power, he envisioned that neither approach would ever bring any resolution to any generation. He realized the “Greater Israel” would never be attainable and saw that it was necessary to make concessions to the Palestinians. Thus, he melded the two radically opposite views in the form of Kadima and presented Israelis with a new hope for a secure nation. Furthermore, by forming Kadima, Sharon was able to insure that his legacies and policies would outlast his lifetime and continue into the future.
Second, the actions taken by Israel have improved conditions for the proliferation of peace and will continue to do so. This conflict of ages has been fueled by one thing: territory. As Israel saw that the Palestinian Authority was in no position to negotiate an end to this conflict, they fell through with a plan of unilateral disengagement. Not only did Israel withdraw from and concede the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians, but there have also been recent indications that the complete withdrawal from the West Bank is not far off. In addition, the barrier created as a boundary for the West Bank has also been able to reduce terrorist attacks. According to an article published in the Washington Post on January 6, 2006 entitled “A Calamity for Israel,” suicide bombings are down by 90 percent, dramatically decreasing the tensions and hostilities between the people. In such policy decisions, Israel has been able to meet several requirements of President Bush’s Roadmap to Peace including the ending of terrorist attacks and realizing a two-state vision for Israel and Palestine.
Finally, the policy decisions of Israel and the potential of the new Palestinian government will continue to improve prospects for peace in the Middle East. The status of Palestinian society can be summed up into one word: chaos. The government is lined with corrupt politicians who were unable to do anything to better the living conditions of its people or to enforce any type of law and order. Moreover, the government is vastly dependent upon international aid just to keep things going. Hamas did not receive a victory in the recent elections because of its radical views but because of their promise to end corruption, bring about necessary reforms and improve the lives of its people. In a letter written by Muhammad Abu Tir, the second highest ranking member of Hamas, he states that “Hamas wants peace. We hate bloodshed and killing. We don’t want to fight,” and that they are “for education, for social work, for establishing infrastructure, for health institutions.” Hamas was elected democratically and will therefore act democratically for its people. Peace for the future is possible. Israeli policies will work when there’s a situation of peace. Hamas will bring that.
In the January 16, 2006 edition of Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria wrote, “The great obstacle to progress is no longer Israeli intentions but rather Palestinian capabilities.” As many changes have yet to come, the future of this region seems uncertain. However, two things can be guaranteed: the people are ready for peace and Israel will be ready when Palestine is ready. For the reasons we have outlined, we urge an affirmative ballot on today’s resolution. Thank you.
Looking at a common example of Israel’s history, Egypt and Israel were both constantly at odds. But by their peace talks and continued cooperation with each other, they eventually ceased fire and made an agreement. This leads us to the very heart of the situation in the Middle East. A lot of the conflicts are between the Arabs and Jews. If Egypt and Israeli could work out peace, than so can the Palestinians and the Israelis. This can also be inferred looking at all of the Middle East. Progress starts with one event, and that one event pushes movement towards a new agenda. This agenda is of peace and continued prosperity between the nations of the Middle East.
posted by Unknown @ 9:42 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home