The Instigator
Pro (for)
6 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
19 Points

Hamas are justified in their actions

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/1/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,379 times Debate No: 67706
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (152)
Votes (6)




While some mainstream media may have a pro Palestinian bias, I have found it is rare to find any that actually voice support for Hamas. In fact they are considered terrorists almost universally, even by 'so called' neutral media.

I'm taking this position on what is Hamas' current position as I do realize that documents such as the Hamas Charter of 1988 are deeply antisemitic and were made back in a time when Hamas were bitter following a succession of failed battles. I'm excited to take a debate against someone as I do truly believe that this is a neglected view point which does have some justification for it.




1. To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid: justified each budgetary expense asnecessary; anger that is justified by the circumstances.
2. To free (a human) of the guilt and penalty attached to grievous sin. Used of God.
3. Law
a. To demonstrate sufficient legal reason for (an action taken).
b. To prove to be qualified as a bondsman.

Actions of Hamas

-Kidnapping and killing Israeli citizens, that are not in the IDF or associated with Israeli politics. One example of this is the organized kidnap and murder off three unarmed Israeli teens who were walking home from school earlier last year. These teens were neither military or politics targets, but civilians.

-The unprovoked firing of rockets, missiles and shells at civilian targets in Israel. One the main reasons for the Gaza 2014 conflict was because Hamas was firing a barrage of rockets into Israeli territory at civilian buildings and in civilian towns. Over 4500 rockets were sent in total, and last week, despite the fact that there is currently a ceasefire, another two were sent over into Israel.

-The building of an underground tunnel network established with the intent to infiltrate Israeli borders and kidnap Israeli civilians. Hamas is not justified in this action because (a.) these are civilians and (b.) they are built under civilian homes and in civilian neighborhoods, which thus means residents of Gaza are purposefully endangered.

-All money that belongs to Hamas (note: they were recently reported to be the second richest terror group in the world) is spent on weaponry, military training, the materials (such as concrete) to build tunnels. The leader of Hamas alone is in fact estimated to be worth $2.6 billion. Instead of contributing funds to improving the overall infrastructure of Gaza, or assisting its residents, the money again goes towards military and political purposes.

-Execution of civilians. Since its governance Hamas is reported to have killed a number of civilians for refusal. Last summer alone it was established that Hamas had killed over fifty Gaza residents for holding anti-war protests and allegedly conspiring with Israel, without any evidence. It later came out that these people were not guilty of the offence that they had been accused of.

-Use of human shields and encouragement of religious martyrdom remains a significantly prevalent policy in Gaza and there is a large amount of recorded, testimonial and photographic evidence to support this.

Statement from Hamas MP Fathi Hammad:

"[The enemies of Allah] do not know that the Palestinian people has developed its [methods] of death and death-seeking. For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel, and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children. This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: "We desire death like you desire life."

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri, also stated in an interview during the last Gaza conflict that the human shield method was "effective" and that this "attests to ou noble Jihad-fighting people."

The Hamas Charter has this to say about Israel and the endorsement of martyrdom:

"Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors." (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna)

"The Islamic world is on fire. It is incumbent upon each one of us to pour some water, no matter how little, to extinguish whatever one can without waiting for the others." (Sheikh Amjad al-Zahawi)."

-Propaganda. As the official government of Gaza, Hamas has full power of the education system in Gaza and dictates to exactly what gets taught within Gaza schools. Children are in fact explicitly told that Israel is "the enemy" and that the practice of Jihad must be applied. Males from a young age are militarily trained and encouraged to pursue a future in fighting against the state of Israel. Unfavorable depictions of Jews are displayed both in Gaza television and Hamas literature, which extends to a large part of what Gaza is in possession of.

Con implies that anti-Semitic attitudes are mostly attributed to the past of Hamas, however, they recently released a video which was entitled "Run them over, destroy, annihilate, blow them up" in which they publicly call for the killing of Jews within Israel and feature an animated character in the music video he is displayed wearing a kippa. It would seem clear that Hamas were thus identifying the man as Jewish. The video shows a car chasing the man and attempting to run him over.

In fact, the lyrics state: "Abd Al-Rahman Al-Shaloudi ran over a Jewish settler".





[4.] [



Debate Round No. 1


I will use your definition, I do not have to applaud Hamas' actions merely I have to show that they are 'valid' under the circumstances.
I will now begin with some rebuttal, which hopefully addresses every point you have made.
1. I will address the example you have given me, at no point did the Hamas leadership take responsibility apart from the leader of the military wing of Hamas; who unsurprisingly was in exile and who's evidence is doubted by experts including Hugh Lovatt of the European Council on Foreign Relations. One of the suspects were tortured to say that they were going under orders of Hamas. In fact even Mickey Rosenfeld who is an Israeli police spokesperson conceded that the kidnappings were not undertaken under orders from the Hamas leadership.
2.The firing of rockets was not in anyway unprovoked. Israel arrested around 350 Palestinians, and killed 5 following the abduction of the 3 teenagers.
3. That is not the purpose of the construction of tunnels. These tunnels were constructed to smuggle resources into the Gaza strip because of the incredibly strict barricade of Gaza by Israel. The materials which are required to build bomb shelters are not even allowed in. This means it is justifiable as they are using it to receive resources which the Israeli blockade doesn't allow; fuel prices have risen rapidly in Gaza and fuel is very necessary in Gaza for desalination of the water. You are imposing a purpose onto these tunnels which isn't true.
4. Hamas are gripped in a conflict, they are utilising their funds in a way which they see fit. I would say that their spending is justifiable on military as Israel has probably the single biggest negative influence on their residents. They cannot improve their infrastructure owing to the blockade which Israel has imposed on Gaza which prevents building materials entering Gaza. You must also bear in mind that the residents of Gaza elected Hamas, and thus their spending and what they do is what the people of Gaza want and voted for.
5. Killing civilians without enough evidence and in fact without a trial rings rings true with how Israel treated the suspects who apparently abducted the three Israeli teens. If you could post a source which showed that I would rebuttal it however not one of them does and your third source doesn't even exist.
6. There is no evidence that human shields are being utilized. 2 BBC reporters Orla Guerin and Jeremy Bowen have both claimed that they have seen no evidence of them in the Gaza strip. The 'evidence' shown by IDF footage is quite easily explained by the fact the Gaza strip is 360 km" and contains 1,816,379 people, this is a ridiculous amount of overpopulation and means that of course there is going to be some overlap between missile sites and some public sector buildings. Evidence from IDF is unreliable as they will only highlight areas where this overlap is the case
7. The use of testimony of one MP is not respective of all of Hamas' viewpoint and Hamas' policy on human shields. It would be as if I used Israeli lawmaker Ayelet Shaked to be representative of Israelis foreign policy (who called for the extermination of all Palestinians and called Palestinian children 'little snakes')
8. I stated in my introduction that I did not count the Hamas charter and am only referring to Hamas in recent events.
9. Israel have also utilized propaganda like for example paying students to defend them online. Hamas and Israel are in a war and it is fair if Israel decide to use propaganda to further their cause, for Hamas to do the same is justifiable.
Justification for Hamas' actions
Hamas are dealing with a country which were recently deemed the 4th least acceptable by the UN. Israel have frequently broken rules laid down by the Geneva convention like for example torturing suspects, they have used weapons such as DIME bombs- bombs which serve no other purpose but to cause harm to civilians owing to the fact that they cause little collateral damage but the tungsten based shrapnel that they leave is irremovable from bodies. They also have been reported to have used white phosphorus which burns flesh. Israel is not playing fair so it is justifiable for Hamas to commit a few minor crimes to level the playing field. Some of the more outrageous statements made by Hamas in response to, for example the synagogue killings, are understandable and valid when you take into account how greatly Israel has crippled Gaza. These responses are born out of anger and hatred of Israel because of what they have done.

Israel have also provoked Hamas and the people of Palestine with their measures, such as the closure of the Al-Aqsa mosque and the arrest of around 350 Palestinians following the kidnapping of the three Israelis teens. You could even say Hamas have been lenient in their demands, their 10 conditions for a 10 year truce are very reasonable:
'Withdrawal of Israeli tanks from the Gaza border.
Freeing all the prisoners that were arrested after the killing of the three youths.
Lifting the siege and opening the border crossings to commerce and people.
Establishing an international seaport and airport which would be under U.N. supervision.
Increasing the permitted fishing zone to 10 kilometers.
Internationalizing the Rafah Crossing and placing it under the supervision of the U.N. and some Arab nations.
International forces on the borders.
Easing conditions for permits to pray at the Al Aqsa Mosque.
Prohibition on Israeli interference in the reconciliation agreement.
Reestablishing an industrial zone and improvements in further economic development in the Gaza Strip.' These demands would not be hard for Israel to meet and their continued provocation of Hamas shows they are clearly not interested in a two state solution and thus peace.
Finally I would like to shed some light as to why Hamas responds with attacks anyway when they seem fruitless thanks to Israel's iron dome and might seem unjustifiable as it leads to the death of their own civilians. This is a scenario where Hamas are doomed if they do and doomed if they don't, Israel's illegal settling has been incessant and has now consumed almost all of Palestine. If Hamas did not respond with rocket fire, Israel would have continued to provoke them till they attacked them and they had the justification to steal more of Gaza's land. It is no coincidence that this conflict has occurred just when oil was discovered off Gaza.



Pro states that:
"I do not have to applaud Hamas' actions merely I have to show they are valid under the circumstances." Naturally it was not implied that Pro had to applaud Hamas, rather the BoP is on him to show that Hamas' actions are indeed "justified" and "valid".

Pro further states that there is insufficient evidence to show that Hamas was responsible for the murder of three Israeli teens, this is negated by the fact that Saleh Al-Arouri is a Hamas leadership member and therefore holds a credible position.

I'd also note to Pro that statements released by Mickey Rosenfeld were made before it was formally established that a Hamas military wing was behind it. The individual responsible for executing the attack Hussam al-Qawasme has been convicted of manslaughter and of providing services to Hamas, therefore evidence has been presented. No proof has also been outlined that he was tortured into falsely admitting that Hamas was a culprit, on the contrary, this is own al-Qawasme's own admission.

Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal in an interview reiterated such statements, though asserting that was he was not aware of actions by Hamas members in advance, he admitted that that they were behind the kidnappings and subsequent murders:

“We were not aware of this action taken by this group of Hamas members in advance,” he said. “But we understand people are frustrated under the occupation and the oppression, and they take all kinds of action.”

Note that he explicitly states "Hamas members".

Hamas had began firing rockets before Israel made any arrests in relation to the abduction of the three teens. In fact, an increased number of rockets began being fired into Israel as early as March. However, even if the rockets had began after such arrests, is it justified to aim at civilian targets? I'll highlight that over 4500 were sent last year alone and two last week, which is a violation of ceasefire agreement.

Firstly, Gaza is also blockaded by Egypt because of terrorist activity. The blockade of Israel's (or rather, "control") is in place to prevent terror attacks and maintain the protection of Israeli civilians. Supplies to Gaza, many of which come from Israel, are still able to get through and during the 2014 conflict over 2,500 Palestinian from Gaza crossed the Erez border to receive treatment in Israel. When the tunnels of Hamas were discovered, a large number of drugs, handcuffs, and weaponry were found. Resources such as food supplies and materials that are required to build bomb shelters can (and do) easily come over through the Erez crossing. Hamas has in fact built no sufficient bomb shelters in Gaza, which is why civilians have to use places such as U.N schools. If bomb shelters were established, the casualty number in any time of conflict would decrease significantly.

More evidence that Hamas uses the tunnels for kidnapping and military purposes is the three attempted attacks they made on Israeli towns prior to Operation Protective Edge. Hamas militants armed with weaponry were seen (and then stopped) making infiltration into Israel's borders with the very obvious intent of attacking nearby inhabitants. These attempts and the vast network of tunnels built by Hamas is why Israel decided to proceed with action in Gaza. I'll further state that the tunnels are built under civilian homes and in civilian neighbourhoods, which also largely added to casualty statistics and thus proves that Hamas does indeed endanger its civilian population.

This is a conflict that Hamas, an extension of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, choose to involve itself in. When Hamas was elected in Gaza, they had full knowledge of the ongoing political circumstances between Israeli and Palestinian fractions and have displayed no indication of wanting peace or contributing to peace efforts. Conflicts with Israel have consistently been initiated by Hamas, usually by the firing of rockets/missiles but more recently by the building of an underground tunnel network. Not one conflict has in fact been caused by Israel. Priority of military weapons rather than investment in civilian infrastructure and improvement of Gaza is also clearing lacking in valid justification. All materials come from Israel's Erez crossing, this unfortunately one reason why Hamas was able to build the tunnels in the first place.

This still doesn't necessarily make it "justified". I also would point out that these were Hamas' own civilians. A source was presented referring to the executions, however I will post another.

Arab activist Abu Toameh has this to say about Hamas treatment of anyone suspected of collaboration or political (namely anti-war) activism:

"Taha was already in Hamas's jail before Israeli operations started. Hamas imprisoned him and tortured him because he was critical of its radical policies. He had warned Hamas not to cooperate with Qatar and Iran. Eye-witnesses said they saw Hamas militants bring him alive into the yard of Shifa hospital in Gaza and shoot him."

Pro claims that there is no evidence for use of human shields, a report was made by both French and Indian news outlets while in Gaza in which children are directly seen playing by a rocket launching site, and another militants are filmed preparing to fire rockets outside a hotel. Over three U.N schools were discovered with rockets placed inside, weapons were found in Mosques, and Hamas were also using the al-Shifa hospital as their military headquarters, The IDF also found booby traps within the homes of Gaza residents. When warnings were distributed by Israel advising residents to take shelter or vacate from dangerous areas, Hamas also explicitly told civilians to "ignore" the warnings and stay in their homes, where the possibility of them being injured (or worse) was very obviously increased.

As for the Hamas admission on human shields, note to Pro that it was two I that referenced and that Fathi Hammad has remained a prominent politician for Hamas. In addition, other evidences have been provided for the use and endorsement of human shields.

Pro states that the Hamas charter is irrelevant in this debate, but the fact it is still used and applied by Hamas thus disproves this point. Pro then points out Geneva Convention laws allegedly broken by Israel, however, Hamas has itself violated at least over seven significant rules of armed conflict and has therefore committed war crimes. To assert that statements (which Pro admits are outrageous) made by Hamas in relation the killing of Jews in a synagogue are "understandable" and "valid" is most questionable given the fact that these people were innocent civilians, simply attending synagogue and worshiping G-d.

The temporary closing of al-Aqsa Mosque is attributed exclusively to the fact that violent riots had been held at the Temple Mount and Jewish visitors had been attacked. As well as labelled "cattle herd" by Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas.








Debate Round No. 2


Experts like the afore mentioned Hugh Lovatt of the European Council on Foreign Relations have claimed that he has ulterior motive to remain relevant and thus he his evidence cannot be taken at face value. Hamas as a whole has continued to deny any responsibility which supports this. If what he said was true and he was still a relevant leader, why would he go out and say this on a limb?
"The intelligence source, however, said that of the nine cross-border tunnels detected, none actually stretches into the grounds of a civilian community. "They could have gone 500 meters more, into the kibbutz," he said. "Why didn"t they do that?" this is a quote from the times of Israel, even they admit that not one of the tunnels goes into an area of civilian occupation. A senior military official outspokenly said that all of the tunnels were aimed at military targets and posed no danger to civilians. In fact Since 2007 there have been no incidents of civilian kidnappings through the tunnels

Operation Brother Keeper ended on July 2nd ,in this operation the 350 were arrested and 5 were killed with some sources suggesting even more were killed. So thus it is completely inaccurate to say that "Hamas had began firing rockets before Israel made any arrests in relation to the abduction of the three teens" check the dates of my sources and you will see why.
While they may shoot at civilian areas it is as if Hamas shot at someone with a bullet proof jacket on, it has almost no effect, in fact only 5 Israelis actually died-. Hamas of course realise this and thus have a justification for shooting at civilian areas as there is little risk of them killing innocent Israelis and serves more of a statement of intent.
You attack Hamas for breaching the ceasefire yet Israel 3 days ago killed a teenager- and with the ratio of missiles fired to Israelis killed that would equate to roughly 1000 rockets being fired into Israel.
No one is denying that the abductors were Hamas members, what I have said is that they are not representative of Hamas as a whole. That is why he said "Hamas members"
It is misinformed to say that the majority of Israeli citizens are in danger through that diagram when 4,500 missiles are sent into Israel yet only 5 Israelis die
Several organisations like Christian aid and Amnesty have raised awareness of the contrary, building materials are heavily regulated or completely banned from Gaza through the blockade- that is why they have built no bomb shelters this can be attributed to Israel not Hamas
I have found no evidence of any source which claims that the tunnels could have contributed to civilian casualties- even if this was the case surely it is for the greater good of the civilians to smuggle in fuel as I mentioned earlier which is necessary for the desalination of water and building materials which could be used to build bomb shelters.
They have made 10 very reasonable claims which when met by Israel would induce a ten year truce. It is Israel who have refused to agree to these terms and thus are the ones who perpetuate this conflict
As I said Gaza is a very overpopulated area of course there will be overlap between where there are public sector buildings and missile sites
Israel have committed war crimes and thus it is valid for Hamas to respond in the same way in fact as the UN deemed Israel the 4th most unacceptable country and Hamas have recently been removed from the terrorist blacklist by the EU also Ban Ki-Moon has been outspoken in his condemnation of Israel and to a lesser degree Hamas they are thus clearly deemed to be more just than Israel by world organisations.
I maintain that the statements were justifiable given the circumstances as given Israel"s attack on Gaza Hamas are almost venting anger.
If Con could have provided the source for these Indian and French outlets I could inspect this evidence however I cannot as con has not. IDF accounts are generally used for these types of news stories which I can only guess would be used and they are, of course, unreliable in their evidence. Of course there may be some isolated incidents of this however no Gazans have claimed that they have been made unwilling human shields- . There may be some explanation in the fact that many houses belong to the Abu Jamaa clan meaning they feel safety in numbers and thus stick together however the afore mentioned fact that no Gazans have claimed they have been made human shields means that there clearly is no universal Hamas policy of using human shields. This renders the argument that there are two politicians who say the contrary invalid as they are clearly isolated in their view point.
Ayman Taha- the spokesperson who was killed by Hamas, and who your quote mentions, was not killed for affiliating with Israel or for being outspokenly anti-war, he was killed for being an Egyptian spy. The corruption investigation into him at no point accuses him of extending his tongue which is the charge often levied to those who are activists. He is accused of corruption.. There are no recorded deaths for anti-war activism.
That still which you used to show Hamas firing rockets from civilian areas was taken by the IDF who as I have said multiple times are not a reliable source
There are 1 year sentences which have been doled out to those who criticise Palestinian authorities. Which while may seem indefensible, it is important to note that Hamas are trying to replicate the approval levels which Israel enjoy for the war. The 95% approval rates for the continuation of conflict- are impossible to reproduce. When Yitzhak Rabin signs an accord between Israel and Palestine he is assassinated by Ultra-nationalists. I would argue it is valid for Hamas to censor some people in order to maintain a high morale and high approval ratings. This has only happened on 2 occasions however. So it is not that hard to justify it if it is not being done on a large scale and they are only being made examples of. Israel to some degree have done the same as shown by the fact they arrested 14 anti- war demonstrators
I mention that the Hamas charter is irrelevant as for example Hamas have been willing to accept a two state solution and peace if Israel accept their 10 demands. This goes against the Hamas charter and thus is not Hamas" current position as I said in my introduction.
I think I have argued well that Hamas can be justified for their actions considering the disproportionate response by Israel. I must thank my opponent for this rare opportunity to argue about Palestine and Israel in a civil fashion and I urge you to support the proposition.
Sources: - slide 22


Further Rebuttals

Pro continues to state that "experts" such as those of the European Council on Foreign Relations have claimed that there is evidence lacking, however, I have already clearly outlined that Hamas leader Khaled Masaal (who is the billionaire referenced in round one) has also admitted responsibility for the killings. Though he disputed that not all of Hamas was aware, he clearly stated that Hamas members were the culprits.

He went on to say:

"Our view is that soldiers and settlers on the West Bank are aggressors, and they are illegally living in this occupied and stolen land. And the right to resist is the right of Palestinians."

So again, Saleh al-Arouri is not only the only Hamas affiliate to admit to the killings. Mashaal is in fact the leader of the entire Hamas organization, not just one particular fraction.

As for the tunnels, it was Pros original point that they were not used for weaponry, kidnapping or attacking of civilian areas. Which the three attempted attacks leading up to Operation Protective Edge obviously negate. They are directly within proximity of civilian communities as the attempts and photographic evidence shows. If Hamas did not intend to access civilian areas, why were such attempts made? I'll point out once more that these militants were fully armed with weaponry.

A tunnel opening just 2 kilometres away from Sufa and other Israeli Kibbutzim:

Concerning Hamas' firing of rockets before Israel made any arrests, indeed it is not "inaccurate". Hamas has in fact been firing rockets intermittently into Israel ever since it came to power and became the official government of Gaza. A number of rockets were fired into Israeli territory before any arrests. On March 5 2014 Israel had actually intercepted an entire ship containing dozens of long-range rockets that been smuggled from Iran. Again, this is prior to any arrests.

The point is that purposely shooting at civilian areas is not "justified" and is legally considered a war crime. The only reason that Hamas does not cause higher casualties is because of the investment that Israel makes in protection of its civilian population, which includes numerous shelters, sirens, and the massively expensive Iron Dome System. Each rocket that gets intercepted costs literally thousands, particularly those of long range.


I'd first note to Pro that IDF sources used all displayed clear and supported evidence that is also referenced in other sources. The third link that Pro displays only shows the identities of Israeli soldiers unfortunately killed during Operation Protective Edge, with no additional statements or inclusion of evidence that supports Pros argument. As Pro uses an Arab source that is very evidently in strong support of Palestine, I could also use the same argument. However I'll further clarify that all IDF sources cited evidence is displayed.

The fourth link by Pro does not provide any definitive proof that the IDF, or as Pro states: "Israel" did indeed shoot and kill a teenager. Moreover it does not inquire into the reasons why he potentially would've been shot. As many other examples show, the IDF generally only resorts to shooting when the individual is exhibiting violent behaviour, has weaponry, or is posing an actual threat themselves.

The fifth link directly goes to Christian Aid and doesn't provide any conclusive fact or indication as to why Hamas is justified in their actions, which include all of those that I've stated in round one. I'd highlight that certain circumstances Christian Aid illustrates (such as the need to rebuild) are directly attributed to Hamas and its decision to fire rockets/missiles into Israeli territory and thus initiate conflict, as well as making three attempted armed infiltrations into Israeli villages. Things such as the requirement for Industry and Jobs, Farming, Power, Water and Sanitation, Health and Education are also exclusively under Hamas' control. As the official government of Gaza and the second richest terrorist organization in the world, the responsibility lies with Hamas in ensuring Industry, Education, etc. receives priority in Gaza and that the interests of all citizens are served, Again the link fails to support Pros argument in why Hamas is justified. It also deviates away from the fact that Israel delivers numerous aid into Gaza, even when conflict is occurring.

During the Operation Protective Edge Israel in fact sent this into Gaza:

-4.58 million liters of diesel for the power station in Gaza Strip, 1.73 million liters for UNRWA
-9.8 million liters of fuel
-4.26 million liters of gasoline for transportation
-4,843 tons of gas for domestic needs

It was also Israel that repaired the electricity system in Gaza which had been damaged by Hamas rocket fire. These Israeli repairs extend to 18 water supply repairs and and 7 communication repairs.

Back to statements made by Hamas in relation to the killing of Israelis attending a synagogue in Jerusalem, Pro again does not explain exactly why they are "justified". I'll reiterate that these were merely civilians attending religious a service, not soldiers or anyone involved in Israeli politics. It would seem that the condemnation of any civilian killing is applied to the Palestinian side, but clearly not the Israeli one.

As outlined in round two, there still remains the fact that over fifty Gaza citizens were killed by Hamas for holding anti-war protests and allegedly collaborating with Israel, which was of course later found to be untrue. As a government there is no valid reason for Hamas to kill civilians on the basis of exercising the right to protest and if conspirators are identified, clear evidence should be established and presented before any proceeding action is taken.

As Hamas still continue to use their Charter and apply into their politics, Pros point is heavily contradicted. Additionally, the reason why Israel is currently not in favor of a two-state solution is because Hamas have explicitly made it clear that they do not, or would not, recognize it as a State. If Israel was to be recognized and tolerated as an official Jewish State, the possibility of two states would naturally be received with more openness. It would entirely negligent of Israel to agree to a two state solution when a number of political fractions within neighboring state have made it clear that they do not recognise it.

Pro uses the example of the European Parliament removing Hamas off the terror blacklist, however Pro misses the point that this is temporary and has been cited only as procedural and technical problem by the Court.

Due to character limit I cannot expound much further but I'd also like to thank Pro in allowing me the opportunity to debate this topic (which we both obviously have interest in) and also for providing full arguments.













[26.] French citation:

[27.] Indian citation:
Debate Round No. 3
152 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
And? Lol!
Posted by Magikarpediem 1 year ago
one of the Israeli civilian casualites wasn't even israeli
Posted by maydaykiller 1 year ago
Operation Protective Edge = 6 israeli civilians killed; compare that to 2 310 gaza civilians killed. I mean come on! Israel poses a serious threat to the lives of Palestinians...
Posted by Magikarpediem 1 year ago
no i mean we can restart and have a judge(s)
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
Why forfeit?

I'm sure you can come up with something. In terms of propaganda you actually have the easier job.
Posted by Magikarpediem 1 year ago
cant we both just forfit and then you just copy and paste your arguments
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
I noticed.

Mine is actually Tirza, "emily" in English.
Posted by Theguywholosthistrumpet 1 year ago
My real name is emil
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
Feel free to share.
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
What's so funny? hmm?
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Impact94 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The BoP was "Hamas are justified in their actions", but Magikarpediem only explained why the actions of Hamas were 'justifiable'. Justifiable is a weaker word than justified; I could say Adolf Hitler's actions were justifiable because he wanted to create a humanistic, nationalist-socialist utopia, but that doesn't mean that his goals or his methods were - definitively - justified. Magikarpediem only explained why the actions of Hamas are justifiable rather than definitively justified as he/she made clear in the BoP, therefore Magikarpediem failed to defend the original resolution that the actions of Hamas are justified. On the other hand, Emilrose was not as convincing with his/her arguments as Magikarpediem, but because Magikarpediem could not show that the actions of Hamas were definitively justified, I voted for Emilrose as the default winner of the debate.
Vote Placed by Beagle_hugs 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I felt that neither advocate used sources effectively. References should be clearer in the text; I don't review a list of sources to see what they might support. Both advocates also used sources that I believe would be biased or not reliable. I felt that neither advocate made strong arguments or rebuttals. The Pro doesn't even seem to understand where the best arguments are, and the con brings in topics such as domestic acts that aren't truly part of the debate. Because both are immersed in their own factual universes and source referencing is weak, their arguments and rebuttals come of as simply assertions that I would need to do alot of source-investigation to confirm or deny. Furthermore, neither of the advocates develop any strong legal or moral arguments founded on authoritative sources. Some discussion of justification under the laws of armed conflict, and a better discussion of morality, would have been preferable to presuming that factual assertions had legal or moral we
Vote Placed by Hanspete 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used more reliable sources from my perspective, Pro didn't rebut a few arguments so Sources and Arguments to Con, other than that good debate.
Vote Placed by warren42 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G goes Pro because of some miscellaneous grammatical errors I found for example "... neither military or politics targets..." I found a couple with Pro, but Con had more. Arguments go Con because of the sources. Both made very compelling arguments, but Con had more recent evidence, so although the evidence was good for both, Con's recency gives them the win in that and arguments. Great debate!
Vote Placed by donald.keller 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in Comments.
Vote Placed by PatulousDescry 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Emilrose lost credibility by citing the IDF as source. Magikarpediem made me aware that no government in the history of man would be legitimate if criminal actions of their members negated legitimacy. If I were to say that Emilrose won the debate I would be saying that both the Knesset and my Congress were illegitimate. So this Legitimate elected government, Hamas, is justified in defending its Semitic people from the White European Immigrants just as the indigenous Sioux had a right to defend their land from the White immigrants.