Resolved: The Arab-Israeli conflict will only end when one side is defeated.
ce...@yale.edu
parties, Daniel Pipes addressed the Yale Political Union. The minutes
are as follows
Mr. Pipes begins by saying that he has been accused of being
provocative and denying it. But, tonight, he wants to be provocative.
Therefore, he wore a crimson tie. Claims that changes in warfare have
left us incapable of discussing it correctly. Explains that there are
many differences between pre-1945 warfare and the present. The ideas
of victory and defeat have disappeared. We hear that nothing is
achieved through military means. Negotiations have taken over. But,
wars can only end with defeat. Defeat takes place when one side gives
up on its goals. Victory entails convincing the enemy that his cause
is hopeless. Diplomacy does not resolve conflicts. Wars do not end
due to peace processes.
The goals of the participants in the Arab-Israeli conflict are simple.
Israel wants to win the acceptance of its neighbors so that it can live
in tranquility. The Palestinian goal is to destroy Israel. No
compromise. Each side has had the advantage at some point during this
conflict. Sharon has recently decided to turn over some land. Also
recently, Palestinians have said that terrorism has not been an
effective tool. That is not true. That is what led to Israel's
evacuation of the land in the Gaza. If the Palestinians win the war,
Israel will cease to exist. If Israel wins, they will live in peace
with their neighbors. Pipes wishes that war could end through
negotiations, but claims that it is best to be realistic and understand
war.
Mr. Kulkarni reminds Mr. Pipes that the conflict between the British
and Indians was resolved in a non-violent manner.
Mr. Pipes claims that that conflict was not a war in the same way WWII
was one.
Mr. Low asks why the Palestinian goal has to be the destruction of
Israel. Why can't it also be security?
Mr. Pipes admits that he was making a generalization, but that 85% of
Palestinians do what Israel's destruction.
The President moves that we thank Mr. Pipes for a fine speech on the
floor of the Yale Political Union.
For a speech in the negative, Mr. Matthew Lee takes the floor. Mr. Lee
states that it is more impractical to believe in a military resolution
than to believe that peaceful negotiations can end a conflict.
Believes that wars are lost to various degrees. Israel is entitled to
security and Palestine is entitled to a state, but it is difficult to
have both, especially if implemented by force. It is also quite
possible to defeat the extremists without destroying the population.
In the affirmative, Mr. Jamie Kirchick says that if Washington is
occupied by the Israelis, then Yale can be compared to Damascus.
Israel only seeks to be secure and not be persecuted. The Palestinians
have been defeated many times, such as in the 6 Day War. Israel had to
pull out of Gaza for security reasons. Israel is really the side that
wants to compromise, but Palestinians have not done the same. Arabs
have more rights in Israel than anywhere else in the Middle East. That
shows who really is serious about coexistence. But, no one else has
tried to compromise.
In the negative, Mr. Jared Malsin asserts that Palestinians have never
tried to destroy Israel because they are outnumbered. The destruction
of Israel has not been a possibility. We are already witnessing the
outcome of a military solution. Arabs are second class citizens. Is
worried about what would happen to the Palestinians if Israel won.
Pipes views are offensive because they make sweeping generalizations.
Pipes' major problem is that he reduces the problem to a very binary
issue. It is either, "you are with Israel or you are for the
terrorists".
Speaking in the affirmative, Mr. David Kasten accuses Mr. Malsin of
making sweeping generalizations about Mr. Pipes' speech. Says that
there is a difference between empirically seeing that negotiations
don't work and being a racist. It's impossible to negotiate with
terrorism. Sometimes negotiations are used to gain time so that the
advantage can be recovered. Palestinians portray Jews as evil and
praise their martyrs. Children are taught to seek a military victory.
The opinions of each side are so radically different that you cannot
have negotiations.
In the negative, Ms. Alexandra Charrow reminds the body that this
particular conflict has far more players than most others do. She
specifically mentions the diaspora. Says that she once met a woman
that said that Putin was once KGB and will always be KGB. Even though
the USSR was defeated, the ideology is still there. She is not
optimistic that the Arab-Israeli conflict can be resolved because even
if one side wins, the ideology will still be there.
For another speech in the negative, Mr. Silas Kulkarni says that Mr.
Pipes dodged his question about India and Britain. The Arab-Israeli
conflict is also not a war in the same way WWII was. Claims that the
only things that has stopped violence are negotiations. Things like
the Marshall Plan are what brought people together. Compares wars to
bar fights. Must see what the short and long term solutions are. By
continuing to fight, conflicts will continue to come. Negotiations are
the long term solution.
For the final speech in the affirmative and a rebuttal, Ms. Lia Oksman
reminds Mr. Kulkarni that the Marshall Plan was in place after the war
ended. The war had to be won first. The same strategy would have been
bad if it were implemented during the war. She also says that Israel
is not fighting because it hasn't forgiven its enemies, but because
that has not worked.
The Chair of the Liberal Party moves the previous question.
With a vote of:
Affirmative: 24
Negative: 33
The resolution fails.
The Chairman of the Conservative Party moves that we adjourn.