args

Resolved: The US should recognize Palestine as a country

Pre-Case I am going to do something that is considered a nonstandard debate practice on this website: I am going to run a Kritik. A kritik is “generally a type ofargument that challenges a certain mindset, assumption, or discursive element that exists within the advocacy of the opposing team, often from the perspective ofcritical theory” [1] Link My opponent’s contentions present excellent points about the human rights abuses committed by the Israeli government, but they also raise an important question about ethics that must be resolved before we discuss this topic. My opponent presumes that the proper solution is to create a separate nation-state for the Palestinians. This solution is corrosive because it backs the outdated nation-state concept, which is not a solution that can have any measure of impact. Note that my opponent does not even prove solvency; all his case does is present problems that he claims will be solved if a separate nation-state is created. In fact, the problems arise from the type of thinking that he presents. Flaws in the Nation-State Model The idea of nation-states stems from the notion that individuals have moral obligations only to those who share common ancestry with them and share common characteristics and culture. Advocates of this type of communitarian thinking note that nation-states often arose as a means of defending people who lived in a given area from other groups who had already united in a similar fashion. Modern advocates of the nation-state conclude that people are intrinsically more likely to help those who are like them, conveniently ignoring the fact that they are educated to do so by previous generations. I reject this type of reasoning. First, it is morally arbitrary. The concept of nation-state claims that there is a morally significant difference between individuals born in Mexico and individuals born in the United States, and that this gives us an obligation to serve the people from our country but ignore the suffering of “outsiders”. However, all geographical boundaries are wholly arbitrary; there is no intrinsic reason that the U.S. territory ends at the Rio Grande River. It resulted from an accident of history; had the territory extended further South, people born on the other side would be considered citizens. Moreover, this reasoning ignores the fact that all people have natural rights because they are born human, and that these rights predate the concept of states (in fact, states were created to protect rights!). Karina Sangha of the University of Victoria explains, “ A human right is a right that an individual enjoys by virtue of being human. They are rights demanded by humanity on all of humanity.These rights are premised upon the morally relevant characteristics that are shared by all of humanity, of which the equal vulnerability to suffer is likely the most notable. Each person has an equal moral status as a human being, and justice requires that such a status be treated with respect.” [2] Second, the nation-state model is prone to conflict and violence, and is in fact responsible for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that my opponent is hoping to solve. If I claim that I only have moral obligations to aid the people who live in the same nation-state, then I have no obligation to respect the rights of foreigners and I can do as I please to them in order to maximize my wealth. This lead to the current conflict my opponent is discussing because it lead the division of the two peoples along ethnic lines and allowed leaders to employ “us versus them” contentions as a means of promoting violence. The Cosmopolitan Model Cosmopolitanism eliminates the problem by emphasizing commonalities and noting that all people have moral obligations to each other than transcend locality. Cosmpoliatnism is based on moral univeralism, the idea that morality is universal and applies equally to all people. According to Simon Caney of Oxford University, the tenets of moral universalism are: (1) there are valid moral principles; (2) moral principles that pertain to one person apply to all individuals who share morally relevant properties; (3) human beings share morally relevant properties; (4) therefore, there are some universal moral principles. [2] Thomas Pogge of Yale University extends Caney’s analysis while discussing cosmopolitanism when he explains that there are three basic tenets of cosmpolitaism: individualism, referring to the fact that the units of moral concerns are individual human beings; universality, meaning that every human being is of equal concern; and generality, referring to the fact that this status of human beings is global – that is, all human beings are units of ultimate concern for everyone.[2] By emphasizing the fact that people all moral obligations to all, cosmopolitanism deconstructs the ideas of state sovereignty and national allegiance [2]. It also eliminates the need for a nation-state because it emphasizes that we ought to treat all people, regardless of “origin”, equally. The Alternative While my opponent attempts to solve the problem of human rights abuses in Israel, I have demonstrated that his solution cannot fix the problem and will only exacerbate it because it is entrenched in the idea of nation-states and national allegiances. It would continue to foster divide between the two segments of Israeli society instead of promoting unity I thus would like to propose an alternative solution: Instead of recognizing Palestine as a state and thus perpetuate the nation-state model and continue the conflict, the United States should attempt to help the Palestinians seek recourse through the U.N. This counterplan demands that the United States ought to claim that the government of Israel is abusing its own citizens. According to cosmopolitan ethics and basic social contract theory, states have no intrinsic value; they only exist to protect rights. Sangha continues, “Cosmopolitanism charges that political institutions like the state are only valuable insofar as they serve particular ends, the most significant of which is respecting the human rights of their citizens. This is the primary duty of the state, the reason for its establishment. The state has no intrinsic value and is deserving of legitimate recognition in the international realm only if it lives up to its obligations in the proverbial social contract entered into by its citizens.” [2] This is more likely to promote peace in the long run because it classifies the Palestinians as an integral part of Israeli society that is being suppressed by a government that, as a result of its actions, is illegitimate. The Israeli government will then be forced to promote the rights of the Palestinians in order to restore its legitimacy on an international plane. It also reduces discord and emphasizes the fact that although the citizens are of different origins and have different religions, they are still people, they still have obligations to one another, and they can work to overcome their differences in order to create a more prosperous future. It also completely strips Israel of any legitimacy it gains by claiming that the Palestinians are a subversive terrorist group that is seeking to divide Israel. The Israeli government becomes the aggressor and the Palestinians become the victims; this tactic removes any and all arguments of genocide for the sake of “national defense”. You can extend all of my opponent’s evidence about the Israeli government’s atrocities here because they all serve to prove the point that Israel is the aggressor regime. Thus, my opponent’s plan is flawed because it provides no solvency, exacerbates the problem, and is based on a model that is both outdated and destructive. Thank you. Sources 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://web.uvic.ca...