Is the two-party system destroying America?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is the two-party system destroying America?". Your opponent's style: Abraham Lincoln

Which countries today are following the Seerah and what the Prophet PBUH did with enemies like the Quraysh who kicked him and his people out of their homes, Sunni or Shia? I say Sunni because the Prophet only fought battles in defense and the battles Allah ordered him to, after that he kept peace deals like the Treaty of Hudaiybiah and converted Mecca through diplomacy and peace, not violence, similar to what Sunni Gulf countries try to do with Israel contrary to Iran.

I need to clarify something fundamental: you're conflating religious jurisprudence with geopolitical strategy, which weakens your entire argument. The Prophet's documented approach—defensive battles, treaty-making, diplomatic conversion—describes *Islamic military ethics*, not a modern foreign policy template. Both Sunni and Shia scholars cite identical Seerah precedents. The real difference isn't theological; it's that Gulf states pursue Israeli normalization for *economic and strategic interests*, while Iran opposes it for *regional power competition*. Neither is "following the Seerah"—both are realpolitik dressed in religious language. You've mistaken theological consistency for political alignment. Which actually matters more to your argument?

Which countries' actions best fit what the Prophet did? Sunni Gulf countries or Shia Iran?

Neither. You're forcing a false choice between two regional powers playing chess, not emulating prophetic conduct. The Prophet negotiated from strength, converted enemies through demonstrated moral superiority, and never subordinated faith to trade deals. Gulf states normalize with Israel for arms and investment—pure transactionalism. Iran opposes it from ideological conviction but uses that conviction as cover for hegemonic ambitions. Both instrumentalize religion. If you want actual alignment with the Seerah's principles, you'd need a state that prioritizes justice over profits and regional dominance. Name one Middle Eastern actor doing that consistently, and we've found your answer. You can't, because geopolitics doesn't work that way.

Then who's closer? As an Emirati, sure we get economic benefits but that doesn't mean we ignore Palestinians, we make genuine efforts to push for a Palestinian state diplomatically, just like Saudi Arabia too

Your position just collapsed. You've admitted the primary driver is economic benefit, then claimed simultaneous commitment to Palestinian statehood. Those aren't compatible when you're funding Israeli security and normalizing relations that entrench occupation. The Seerah shows the Prophet *never* compromised core principles for material gain. He rejected lucrative Quraysh offers explicitly because they conflicted with justice. Your "genuine diplomatic efforts" operate within a framework you've already legitimized by normalizing. Iran's opposition, however self-interested, at least maintains the formal position that Palestinian rights are non-negotiable. Which actually aligns with prioritizing justice over profit?

I never said it was the primary driver, our primary driver is peace. We push for a two state solution meaning we inevitably build relations for both Israel and Palestine, and we know that violence and attacks only gives Israel justification to commit their atrocities saying they're in "self-defense" which is why we pressure them diplomatically, a way that the world sees as moral and uncounterable

You're redefining "primary" retroactively. You said you "get economic benefits"—that's admission of motive, not secondary effect. Peace through normalization only works if both parties want it. Israel has zero incentive to concede Palestinian statehood when you've already granted legitimacy without preconditions. The Prophet's diplomacy succeeded because he maintained leverage and moral clarity. You've surrendered both by accepting relations as fait accompli. Your "moral and uncounterable" approach is actually toothless—you've eliminated your only real pressure: the cost of international isolation. How does normalizing first, then negotiating, actually pressure anyone?

It builds relations which gives us leverage, our relation especially with the US helps us gain more leverage and pressure Israel more. We know isolating them has no effect, they wer perfectly fine before our normalization, so we're taking a different approach. You also didn't addres my other point on violence

You're confusing access with leverage. Israel ignores US pressure on settlements constantly. Your normalization removed the *cost* of ignoring you further. Building relations after surrender isn't pressure—it's appeasement dressed as strategy. On violence: you're right that attacks justify Israeli retaliation. But you've inverted causality. Violence doesn't create occupation—occupation creates resistance. The Prophet fought when oppressed; he didn't normalize with oppressors to "prevent" their self-defense claims. He fought *because* diplomacy failed. Your real argument is that violence is ineffective, not that it's un-Islamic. That's a strategic debate, not a Seerah one. Which are you actually making?