West Coast Publishing Israel Two State March 2017 Public Forum STARTER File Page 6
West Coast PublishingIsrael Two-State Starter File
Public Forum March 2017
Prepared by Jim Hanson
Research Assistance Kathryn Starkey
Thanks for using our Policy, LD, Public Forum, and Extemp Materials.
Please don’t share this material with anyone outside of your school
including via print, email, dropbox, google drive, the web, etc.
We’re a small non-profit; please help us continue to provide our products.
Contact us at
www.wcdebate.com
WEST COAST DEBATE
Public Forum March 2017
Israel Two State Starter File
Finding Arguments in this File
Use the table of contents on the next pages to find the evidence you need or the navigation bar on the left. We have tried to make the table of contents as easy to use as possible.
Using the arguments in this File
We encourage you to be familiar with the evidence you use. Highlight (underline) the key lines you will use in the evidence. Cut evidence from our files, incorporate your and others’ research and make new files. File the evidence so that you can easily retrieve it when you need it in debate rounds. Practice reading the evidence out-loud; Practice applying the arguments to your opponents’ positions; Practice defending your evidence in rebuttal speeches.
Use West Coast Evidence as a Beginning
We hope you enjoy our evidence files and find them useful. In saying this, we want to make a strong statement that we make when we coach and that we believe is vitally important to your success: DO NOT USE THIS EVIDENCE AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR YOUR OWN RESEARCH. Instead, let it serve as a beginning. Let it inform you of important arguments, of how to tag and organize your arguments, and to offer citations for further research. Don’t stagnate in these files--build upon them by doing your own research for updates, new strategies, and arguments that specifically apply to your opponents. In doing so, you’ll use our evidence to become a better debater.
Copying West Coast Evidence
Our policy gives you the freedom to use our evidence for educational purposes without violating our hard work.
· You may print and copy this evidence for those on your team.
· You may not electronically share nor distribute this evidence with anyone other than those on your team unless you very substantially change each page of material that you share.
For unusual situations, you can e-mail us at and seek our consent.
Ordering West Coast Materials
1. Visit the West Coast Web Page at www.wcdebate.com
2. E-mail us at
3. Fax us at 877-781-5058
Copyright 2017. West Coast Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Visit our web page!
www.wcdebate.com
WEST COAST DEBATE 2
Intelligence Module 6
GOOD US-ISRAELI RELATIONS ARE IMPORTANT 7
US-Israeli Relations Good – Military Intelligence 8
US-Israeli Relations Good – Mid East Stability 9
US-Israeli Relations Good – UN Cooperation 10
US-Israeli Relations Good – A2: Jews Cry Anti-Semitism 11
US-Israeli Relations Good – Walt and Mearsheimer Indict 12
Israeli Conflict Bad – Becomes Regional 13
Distance from Israel Bad 14
AT: Distance from Israel 15
AT: Distance from Israel 16
ISREAL CAN DETER ATTACKS 17
Yes – Israeli Deterrence 18
Yes – Israeli Deterrence 19
Yes – Israeli Deterrence 20
Yes – Israeli Deterrence 21
Yes – Israeli Deterrence 22
Yes – Israeli Deterrence 23
Yes – Israeli Deterrence – A2: July War 24
Yes – Israeli Detterence – Mini Nukes 25
ISREAL CANNOT DETER ATTACKS 26
No – Israeli Detterence 27
No – Israeli Detterence 28
No – Israeli Detterence 29
No – Israeli Detterence 30
No – Israeli Detterence 31
No – Israeli Detterence 32
No – Israeli Detterence 33
No – Israeli Detterence – Iron Dome 34
ISREALI DETERRENCE BAD 36
Israeli Deterrence Bad 37
Israeli Deterrence Bad 38
Israeli Deterrence Bad 40
ISREALI DETERRENCE GOOD 41
Deterrence Good 42
No Israel Iran Strike 43
ISREAL HAS DISCLOSED NUKES 44
Yes – Disclosure 45
Yes – Disclosure 46
Yes – Disclosure 47
ISREAL HAS NOT DISCLOSED NUKES 48
No – Disclosure – A2: Olmert 49
No – Disclosure – A2: Vanunu 50
DISCLOSURE OF ISRAELI NUKES BAD 51
Disclosure Bad – Proliferation 52
Disclosure Bad – US-Israeli Aid 53
Disclosure Good – Detterence 54
Disclosure Good – CBW Detterence 55
Disclosure Good – Miscalc 56
Disclosure Good – Communication 57
Disclosure Good – A2: Everyone Knows 58
Disclosure Good – A2: Samson Option 59
Disclosure Good – A2: US-Israeli Relations 60
ISRAELI NUCLEAR WEAPONS 61
Nuclear Weapons Good – War 62
Nuclear Weapons Good – War 63
Nuclear Weapons Good – War 64
Nuclear Weapons Good – A2: WMD Checks 65
Nuclear Weapons Good – A2: Israeli First Strikes 66
Nuclear Weapons Bad – Instability 67
Nuclear Weapons Bad – A2: Deterrence 68
ISREAL IS NOT APARTHIED 69
A2: Israeli Apartheid 70
A2: Israeli Apartheid 71
A2: Israeli Apartheid 72
A2: Israeli Apartheid 73
A2: Israeli Apartheid (West Bank Occupation) 74
A2: Israeli Apartheid (Wall) 75
A2: Israeli Genocide 76
ISRAEL IS APARTHIED 77
A2: One State – Apartheid 78
A2: One State – Palestinian Rights 79
A2: One State – Realism 80
A2: One State – Successionism DA Link 81
NO TWO STATE SOLUTION 82
No risk of two-state solution 83
No risk of two-state solution – Netanyahu Opposition 84
No risk of two-state solution – Israel Opposition 85
No risk of two-state solution – Palestinian Opposition 86
PRESSURE KEY TO TWO STATE SOLUTION 87
Pressure à Two State Solution 88
PRESSURE ON ISREAL IS BAD 89
Pressure Bad – Relations 90
Pressure Bad – Settler Rush 91
Intelligence Module
US-Israeli relations are key to intelligence
Dore Gold, the eleventh Rep of Israel to the United Nations, An Israeli response to the Walt-Mearsheimer claim, 9/2/2007. http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/middleeast/Understanding_the_U.S.-Israel_Alliance.asp
Much of the U.S.-Israel strategic relationship is classified, particularly in the area of intelligence sharing. There are two direct consequences from this situation. First, most aspects of U.S.-Israel defense ties are decided on the basis of the professional security considerations of those involved. Lobbying efforts in Congress cannot force a U.S. security agency to work with Israel. And the intelligence cooperation between the two countries has been considerable; much of it preceded the solidification of the U.S.-Israel defense relationship in the 1980s. It was Israeli intelligence which obtained the exact text of the secret February 1956 speech by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev to the Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party, in which he denounced the past policies of his predecessor, Joseph Stalin. The Israelis passed Khrushchev's address on to the CIA. 24 "The ability of the U.S. Air Force... to defend whatever position it has in NATO owes more to the Israeli intelligence input than it does to any single source of intelligence." -- General George F. Keegan In August 1966, the Mossad succeeded in recruiting an Iraqi pilot who defected and flew a Soviet MiG 21 to Israel, which shared its intelligence on the new Soviet aircraft, about which little was previously known, with the U.S. The information obtained about the MiG 21 not only helped the Israeli Air Force less than a year later in the 1967 Six-Day War, but would be extremely valuable to the U.S., as well, since the MiG 21 became the workhorse of the North Vietnamese Air Force in the years ahead. Indeed, it became common practice for Israel to furnish whole Soviet weapons systems - like 122 and 130-mm artillery and a T-72 tank - to the U.S. for evaluation and testing, influencing the development of U.S. weapons systems and battlefield tactics during the Cold War. 25 The value of this intelligence for the U.S has been enormous. General George F. Keegan, a retired U.S. Air Force intelligence chief, told Wolf Blitzer in 1986 that he could not have obtained the same intelligence "with five CIAs." 26 He went further: "The ability of the U.S. Air Force in particular, and the Army in general, to defend whatever position it has in NATO owes more to the Israeli intelligence input than it does to any single source of intelligence, be it satellite reconnaissance, be it technology intercept, or what have you." 27 Because many elements of the U.S.-Israel security relationship are normally kept secret, it is difficult for academics, commentators, and pundits to provide a thorough net assessment of the true value of U.S.-Israel ties. Thus, Israel is left working shoulder-to-shoulder with the U.S., even while finding itself caricatured by outside commentators as a worthless ally whose status is only sustained by a domestic lobby.
Effective intelligence is the critical lynch pin for hegemony and preventing terrorist attacks.
Lee H. Hamilton, vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission currently serves on the President's Homeland Security Advisory Council, Challenges for Intelligence in American Democracy, 2004 http://www.wilsoncenter.org/about/director/docs/Hamilton_intelamerdem.doc
Good intelligence is essential to our national security. A superpower like the United States simply cannot survive without it. As a heavy consumer of intelligence and an observer of the intelligence community for decades, I hold the men and women of our intelligence agencies in high regard. They are highly talented people. They are dedicated to their work and their country. They are called upon to do a difficult, and sometimes dangerous, job with the knowledge that good work rarely receives outside recognition. The work of the intelligence community played a key role in our victory in the Cold War. And on September 11, 2001, we all learned that the mission for the intelligence community is as vital and urgent as it has ever been. Intelligence is the most important tool that we have in preventing terrorist attacks – at home and abroad. Better intelligence is everybody’s favorite solution to preventing terrorism. And intelligence is also a crucial component of our work to curb weapons proliferation. The stakes could not be higher. Policymakers simply must be able to trust that they have the best possible intelligence as they deal with these new threats. Good intelligence does not guarantee good policy, but poor intelligence can ensure bad policy. If a policymaker has quality intelligence, issues are framed; decisions are clearer; and consequences can be anticipated.
GOOD US-ISRAELI RELATIONS ARE IMPORTANT
US-Israeli Relations Good – Military Intelligence
US-Israeli relations good – reliable, intelligence, takes politically risky actions, and is a victim
Marvin J. Cetron and Owen Davies, president of Forecasting International and a specialist in the future and technology, Worst-case scenario: the Middle East, The Futurist, 9/1/2007
* Israeli security. Israel is the only Western-style democracy in the Middle East and the one ally there that the United States can count on in a crisis. Israel provides the United States with useful intelligence about the region and some other areas of the world at least as often as the United States supplies it to Israel. Israel occasionally takes action that is in the American interest when the United States itself would find that difficult, as in the bombing of the OsirakNuclear Research Facility in Iraq in 1981. And Israel has long been a victim of aggression, for which the United States generally has sympathy. It is significant also that many Americans, and especially many politically influential Americans, feel a deep personal interest inthe fate of the Jewish homeland. In all, it is inevitable that the United States would consistently side with Israel in its efforts to survive the hostility of its neighbors.
US-Israeli Relations Good – Mid East Stability
US-Israeli relations are key to regional and global stability
Glenn Kessler, Washington Post Staff Writer, Bush Says U.S. Would Defend Israel Militarily The Washington Post, 2/2/2006
President Bush said yesterday the United States would defend Israel militarily if necessary against Iran, a statement that appeared to be his most explicit commitment to Israel's defense. In an interview with Reuters, Bush said he is concerned about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "menacing talk" about Israel, such as his comments denying the Holocaust and saying Israel should be wiped off the map. "Israel is a solid ally of the United States. We will rise to Israel's defense, if need be. So this kind of menacing talk is disturbing. It's not only disturbing to the United States, it's disturbing for other countries in the world, as well," Bush said. Asked whether he meant the United States would rise to Israel's defense militarily, Bush said: "You bet, we'll defend Israel." The Jewish state sought some sort of military alliance with the United States shortly after it was founded in 1948, but was rebuffed by several presidents, partly out of fear of offending Arabs. Since then, Israel has established the principle of securing its own defense, including a nuclear deterrent, backed by large weapons sales by the United States. Past presidents have spoken elliptically about helping Israel, a close ally, in a conflict. The United States has no military alliance with Israel, though President Bill Clinton dangled the prospect of a military alliance as part of a final peace deal, said Dennis Ross, a senior Clinton adviser on the region. Ross said he could not recall a president ever saying so clearly the United States would come to Israel's defense. But he said it is a "logical extension" of existing policy, because Israel has never before faced the threat of a foe with a possible nuclear weapon. "This proves once again the United States is the best friend and ally of Israel," said Israeli Ambassador Daniel Ayalon. "We are very proud of this special relationship, which is the cornerstone of stability in the Middle East, for the mutual benefit of Israel, the U.S. and all peace-loving countries in the region and beyond."
US-Israeli Relations Good – UN Cooperation
The Israel is America’s biggest supporter in the United Nations
Mitchell Bard- Mitchell Bard is the Executive Director of the nonprofit American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE) and a foreign policy analyst – 2007- - Online- http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/israel_un.html
In 2006, Mauritania was the Arab nation that voted with the United States most often, and that was on only 13.6 percent of the resolutions. The other Arab countries, including allies Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt, voted against the United States 80 percent of the time or more. Syria was at the bottom of the list, opposing the U.S. 92 percent of the time, with Jordan just slightly better. As a group, in 2006, the Arab states voted against the United States on more than 92 percent of the resolutions. This continues a downward trend in support for the United States at the UN by Arab nations. In 2000, for example, Arab members voted with the U.S. 26.2 percent of the time. Last year, the figure was 10.6 percent. By contrast, Israel has consistently been America's top UN ally. Israel voted with the U.S. 84.2 percent of the time in 2006, outpacing the support levels of major U.S. allies such as Great Britain, France and Canada, which voted with the United States on less than 55 percent of the resolutions.19