Feb 2006 PF - Neg Case
PF | Con | Feb. 2006 Topic | Israel v. Palestine
“A warless world will come as men develop warless hearts,” (Charles Wesley Burns). Ariel Sharon truly paved the way toward the development of peace between the Israeli and Palestinian people. However, with his recent medical circumstances, it is obvious that he will not be able to continue his plans, plans that have never been completely revealed. A clear successor with the ability to fill Sharon’s shoes is also far from available. It is for these reasons that my partner and I stand in opposition of the resolution before us today. Resolved: That the political decisions of current Israeli government toward the Palestinian state have improved prospects for peace in the Middle East.
To begin with, my partner and I believe that Ariel Sharon has been the best thing that has happened to the progression towards peace between the Israeli and Palestinian people. Sharon looked at common trends among the Israeli people and followed them (Newsweek, “The Things That Have Not Changed,” Fareed Zakaria, Jan. 16, 2006). He has even gone to sacrificing Israeli property in the West Bank so that peace between the two peoples could be made more possible. However, now that Sharon is out of the picture, peace may be far from near. What happened in the past is all fine and well, but in order to look at current politics, we need to look into the future of the Israeli state and assess the possible positions the new administration will put forth. To do this we must look ahead at the possible candidates to take his spot as Prime Minister.
There are five leading candidates for the position: Amir Peretz, Shimon peres, Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni, and Benjamin Netanyahu. Amir Peretz is a member of the Labor Party. He promises to produce a peace agreement in the next four years with the Palestinians. Shimon Peres is a former Labor leader who greatly supports Kadima and Sharon’s policies (Newsweek, “Lining Up at the Starting Gate,” Kevin Peraino et al, Jan. 16, 2006). Ehud Olmert is the Kadima party heir. He has made several public proposals of concessions to Palestinians that Sharon never dared give. Tzipi Livni is the justice minister of Israel. She supports the idea of territorial handovers as the only way to forestall the day when Arabs outnumber Jews in Israel. However, she draws the line at dismantling West Bank settlements and believes that Jerusalem should not be partitioned. Benjamin Netanyahu is the Likud Bloc leader. He protested the Gaza withdrawal and is against any concessions to the Palestinian state that take away from the Israeli people directly. So far, Olmert is the best candidate for the position because he is Sharon’s right-hand man. He knows a lot about Sharon’s goals and ideas for peace with the Palestinians. Looking at the parties that the candidates are associated with we can see who can create a more pragmatic approach towards peace. The Labor Party opposes unilateralism while the “Likud position remains a flat refusal to give up land, which the Israeli public thinks is implausible” (Newsweek, as previously cited). All of the candidates lack several of Sharon’s political characteristics. They lack his willingness to sacrifice some Israeli land to the Palestinians (versus all or none), his military history, and knowledge of the Israeli trends towards swift and logical plans for peace. It is because none of the candidates have all of these characteristics that my partner and I believe peace is not going to come any time soon for the two peoples.
Another thing to consider is the fact that HAMAS has made its ways into the government. With HAMAS’s history for violence so great and extensive, people wonder what their motive is. They have made it quite clear, several times, that they will not stop the violence until their needs are met. This was followed up with a cry for no negations and swift justice to the Israeli nation. This troubles many people. What’s worse is that Benjamin Netanyahu, Likud Bloc leader, recently stated to CNN that releasing Israeli land to the Palestinians is not the way to go about bringing peace between the two peoples. This only causes more harm in the eyes of the Israeli and Palestinian people. This is not the pragmatic approach that the Israeli people think is so necessary to the future of their country and relations to Palestine.
Because no clear or appropriate candidate can be assessed to replace Sharon as prime minister of Israel and that HAMAS is not prepared for further negotiations, my partner and I must stand in firm negation of today’s resolution. We believe that past legislation under Ariel Sharon has greatly improved prospects of peace in the Middle East. However, we do not believe that the new administration will be able to fill his shoes adequately enough to further this process as well as Sharon has. For these reasons, my partner and I can see nothing but a negative vote on today’s resolution. Thank you.
“A warless world will come as men develop warless hearts,” (Charles Wesley Burns). Ariel Sharon truly paved the way toward the development of peace between the Israeli and Palestinian people. However, with his recent medical circumstances, it is obvious that he will not be able to continue his plans, plans that have never been completely revealed. A clear successor with the ability to fill Sharon’s shoes is also far from available. It is for these reasons that my partner and I stand in opposition of the resolution before us today. Resolved: That the political decisions of current Israeli government toward the Palestinian state have improved prospects for peace in the Middle East.
To begin with, my partner and I believe that Ariel Sharon has been the best thing that has happened to the progression towards peace between the Israeli and Palestinian people. Sharon looked at common trends among the Israeli people and followed them (Newsweek, “The Things That Have Not Changed,” Fareed Zakaria, Jan. 16, 2006). He has even gone to sacrificing Israeli property in the West Bank so that peace between the two peoples could be made more possible. However, now that Sharon is out of the picture, peace may be far from near. What happened in the past is all fine and well, but in order to look at current politics, we need to look into the future of the Israeli state and assess the possible positions the new administration will put forth. To do this we must look ahead at the possible candidates to take his spot as Prime Minister.
There are five leading candidates for the position: Amir Peretz, Shimon peres, Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni, and Benjamin Netanyahu. Amir Peretz is a member of the Labor Party. He promises to produce a peace agreement in the next four years with the Palestinians. Shimon Peres is a former Labor leader who greatly supports Kadima and Sharon’s policies (Newsweek, “Lining Up at the Starting Gate,” Kevin Peraino et al, Jan. 16, 2006). Ehud Olmert is the Kadima party heir. He has made several public proposals of concessions to Palestinians that Sharon never dared give. Tzipi Livni is the justice minister of Israel. She supports the idea of territorial handovers as the only way to forestall the day when Arabs outnumber Jews in Israel. However, she draws the line at dismantling West Bank settlements and believes that Jerusalem should not be partitioned. Benjamin Netanyahu is the Likud Bloc leader. He protested the Gaza withdrawal and is against any concessions to the Palestinian state that take away from the Israeli people directly. So far, Olmert is the best candidate for the position because he is Sharon’s right-hand man. He knows a lot about Sharon’s goals and ideas for peace with the Palestinians. Looking at the parties that the candidates are associated with we can see who can create a more pragmatic approach towards peace. The Labor Party opposes unilateralism while the “Likud position remains a flat refusal to give up land, which the Israeli public thinks is implausible” (Newsweek, as previously cited). All of the candidates lack several of Sharon’s political characteristics. They lack his willingness to sacrifice some Israeli land to the Palestinians (versus all or none), his military history, and knowledge of the Israeli trends towards swift and logical plans for peace. It is because none of the candidates have all of these characteristics that my partner and I believe peace is not going to come any time soon for the two peoples.
Another thing to consider is the fact that HAMAS has made its ways into the government. With HAMAS’s history for violence so great and extensive, people wonder what their motive is. They have made it quite clear, several times, that they will not stop the violence until their needs are met. This was followed up with a cry for no negations and swift justice to the Israeli nation. This troubles many people. What’s worse is that Benjamin Netanyahu, Likud Bloc leader, recently stated to CNN that releasing Israeli land to the Palestinians is not the way to go about bringing peace between the two peoples. This only causes more harm in the eyes of the Israeli and Palestinian people. This is not the pragmatic approach that the Israeli people think is so necessary to the future of their country and relations to Palestine.
Because no clear or appropriate candidate can be assessed to replace Sharon as prime minister of Israel and that HAMAS is not prepared for further negotiations, my partner and I must stand in firm negation of today’s resolution. We believe that past legislation under Ariel Sharon has greatly improved prospects of peace in the Middle East. However, we do not believe that the new administration will be able to fill his shoes adequately enough to further this process as well as Sharon has. For these reasons, my partner and I can see nothing but a negative vote on today’s resolution. Thank you.
posted by Unknown @ 9:41 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home