Israel IS a rogue state...by 19yr old Cambridge Student

[HOZ]

IS Israel a ROGUE state?

I'm going to try and convince the die-hard Zionists and Israel supporters here tonight, to vote for the proposition. By the end of my speech I will have presented five pro-Israel arguments that show Israel is, if not a “rogue state,” than at least “roguish.”


The first argument is statistical. The fact that Israel is a Jewish state alone makes it anomalous enough to be dubbed a rogue state: There are 195 countries in the world. Some are Christian, some Muslim, some are secular. Israel is the only country in the world that is Jewish. Or, to speak mathmo for a moment, the chance of any randomly chosen state being Jewish is 0.0051%.* In comparison the chance of a UK lotto ticket winning at least £10 is 0.017% -- more than twice as likely. Israel’s Jewishness is a statistical aberration.

READ why our best has yet to pass away....and there is still hope for our civilization.

[SportsJunky]

I liked the last two paragraphs.

That's five arguments that have been directed at the supporters of Israel. But I have a minute or two left. And here's an argument for all of you – Israel wilfully and forcefully disregards international law. In 1981 Israel destroyed Osirak -- Sadam Hussein’s nuclear bomb lab. Every government in the world knew that Hussein was building a bomb. And they did nothing. Except for Israel. Yes, in doing so they broke international law and custom. But they also saved us all from a nuclear Iraq.

That rogue action should earn Israel a place of respect in the eyes of all freedom-loving peoples. But it hasn't. But tonight, while you listen to us prattle on, I want you to remember something: while you're here, Khomeini's Iran is working towards the Bomb. And if you're honest with yourself, you know that Israel is the only country that can, and will, do something about it. Israel will, out of necessity, act in a way that is the not the norm, and you'd better hope that they do it in a destructive manner. Any sane person would rather a rogue Israel than a Nuclear Iran.

[Bigtime]

A very good read, would like to read the counterpoint speech. Although I have a sneaking suspicion that this kid mopped the floor with her.

[Thor]

Oh no another Israel bashing thread

[mac_82]

I agree, it was a great read.

I found argument #2 a bit of a stretch though. Comparing Israel taking in Darfurian refugees and the US turning away Mexicans at the border. The Darfurians are escaping war, genocide, disease and starvation. What are Mexicans trying to escape from? Poverty, drugs and burritos?

[Bigtime]

I guess you could apply argument #2 to the situation we had here with the boatload of Sri-Lankans. Look at the debate we had on this very website about it, ultimately they were welcomed with the "open arms and compassion" that the speaker talks about Israel extending, but there was lots of talk about that not being the reception they should receive.

[North East Goon]

Israel has to be rogue due to the surroundings in which they currently reside and to the nature that they were established.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Clearly this guy is an anti-semite, ...isn't that right Nage Waza???

[CaptainCrunch]

Wow, thats an impressive speech, I would like to see the counterpoints, and if he had the opportunity to respond.

[Hanni]

Originally Posted by mac_82

Poverty, drugs and burritos?

Only a crazy person would try and escape burritos. Unless they were giant man eating burritos, wouldn't that be ironic.

[CaptainCrunch]

If yo take enough drugs aren't all burritos giant man eating burritos, and don't get me started on Taco's, I dated this girl one time . . .

[octothorp]

Count me unimpressed: he defines 'rogue' very selectively, and avoids defining 'rogue state', a term that has a meaning completely different from what he would like it to mean. Despite what he says, the term 'rogue state' will never, ever have a positive connotation.
By his own admission, he attempts to change the nature of the debate from one about politics to one about semantics, and then attempts to out-pander his opponent. Sure, he probably deserves to win the debate, but it's hardly a revolutionary debate strategy to take what is essentially an unwinnable position and attempt to twist the question to argue for, rather than against, the crux of your opponent's argument.

[CaptainCrunch]

Except we don't know what the other side debated.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Count me unimpressed: he defines 'rogue' very selectively, and avoids defining 'rogue state', a term that has a meaning completely different from what he would like it to mean. Despite what he says, the term 'rogue state' will never, ever have a positive connotation.
By his own admission, he attempts to change the nature of the debate from one about politics to one about semantics, and then attempts to out-pander his opponent. Sure, he probably deserves to win the debate, but it's hardly a revolutionary debate strategy to take what is essentially an unwinnable position and attempt to twist the question to argue for, rather than against, the crux of your opponent's argument.

You could equally argue there is a false equivalency when relating the actions of Israel to those of Iran, Syria, and North Korea.

Maybe the problem was with the question and not the answer provided by the debater.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Count me unimpressed: he defines 'rogue' very selectively, and avoids defining 'rogue state', a term that has a meaning completely different from what he would like it to mean. Despite what he says, the term 'rogue state' will never, ever have a positive connotation.
By his own admission, he attempts to change the nature of the debate from one about politics to one about semantics, and then attempts to out-pander his opponent. Sure, he probably deserves to win the debate, but it's hardly a revolutionary debate strategy to take what is essentially an unwinnable position and attempt to twist the question to argue for, rather than against, the crux of your opponent's argument.

That's exactly what I thought. The context of a word is always going to be different from the word's actual definition. To argue a point based on that doesn't really do much to get at the core of an issue and is a complete waste of time.

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Count me unimpressed: he defines 'rogue' very selectively, and avoids defining 'rogue state', a term that has a meaning completely different from what he would like it to mean. Despite what he says, the term 'rogue state' will never, ever have a positive connotation.
By his own admission, he attempts to change the nature of the debate from one about politics to one about semantics, and then attempts to out-pander his opponent. Sure, he probably deserves to win the debate, but it's hardly a revolutionary debate strategy to take what is essentially an unwinnable position and attempt to twist the question to argue for, rather than against, the crux of your opponent's argument.

I think he was a taking a brave position. He comes in and says he'll debate the pro side in what is likely to be a very charged atmosphere and is clearly challenging what is likely the 'received wisdom' of those who considered themselves to be on the pro side. I think he was also quite honest in his last argument, the most substantive one of them, that Israel may actually be a rogue state in that they'll do what is in their own best interests even if it means violating international law. The fact is that he's right, and for the pro side it's actually a strong argument. He's prefaced it with a whole bunch of arguments that make the audience sympathetic to Israel's 'need' to act unilaterally, but ultimately he is advocating the position that Israel is a rogue state (intentinally or not), but in my mind he is simply minimizing the negative aspects of that designation.

I did think his argument about the definition of rogue being value-neutral in the dictionary was fairly specious. In common useage, there is a very-limited set of circumstances where rogue would be considered somewhat value-neutral, and even then it usually has sort of a cautionary or subtly negative connotation. A 'rogue comet' for example doesn't denote a morally bad comet, but does describe a comet that doesn't follow the normal orbital pattern expected. The use of the term rogue does have some implication though as it is considered that a comet coming from an unexpected direction at an unexpected speed is less likely to be detected and could theoretically pose a greater risk to us. Most time when rogue is used in this more scientific capacity it carries some similar undertone.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Clearly this guy is an anti-semite, ...isn't that right Nage Waza???

I often wondered if you knew how to read; I guess this settles it.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by Hanni

Only a crazy person would try and escape burritos. Unless they were giant man eating burritos, wouldn't that be ironic.

Only ironic if eating a man gave the burrito the sh*ts...

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

That's exactly what I thought. The context of a word is always going to be different from the word's actual definition. To argue a point based on that doesn't really do much to get at the core of an issue and is a complete waste of time.

Dude, what he did was a much better way to get to the point of the issue than I'm sure the "Israel isn't a rouge state" side did.

Some people just don't get satire I suppose.

Do you honestly think this guy was just trying to win the debate? I'm sure if he wanted to he could have come up with any number of examples that would support the accepted definition of Rouge State.

What he did was use a different definition of Rouge State to show that Israel does not in fact fit the standard definition, and he made a very good point while he was at it.

This debate was initiated by a pro Iranian journalist, and what this guy did was use the "Pro" side to completely discredit what the rest of the pro (read anti-Israel) side were most likely spewing.

You and Octorthorp are the ones who are too tied up in semantics. You're focusing on the literal message of his speach, and completely ignoring the undertones and spirit with which it is being delivered, which in this case, is the much more important part of his speach.

And he probably won the debate too.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by blankall

You could equally argue there is a false equivalency when relating the actions of Israel to those of Iran, Syria, and North Korea.

Maybe the problem was with the question and not the answer provided by the debater.

I agree with that 100%. I'd say the one thing he really accomplishes is pointing out what a stupid question it is. Labels like 'rogue state' really have nothing to do with the activities of the said state and everything to do with the agenda of the government or individual doing the labelling; it was true when the US was using the term for all the governments they didn't like, and it's true when some pundit is putting forward an anti-Israeli agenda.