The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

Hamas has no right to shoot rockets into Israel.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/2/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 970 times Debate No: 59627
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)




The first round of this debate will be accepting your agrument. Pro side is arguing that Hamas has no right to shoot rockets into Israel, and the Con side will be arguing that Hamas does indeed have a right to shoot rockets into Israel.

Express your interest in this debate in the comment section. I shall choose a opponent.

First Round! Start by Accepting your premise!


I accept the debate and am excited to begin.
Debate Round No. 1


Usef forfeited this round.


Hamas has every right to shoot rockets into Israel for two main reasons.


Palestine has every right to attack the land now called Israel because it was Arab land for 2000 years until the Balfour Declaration promised Jews a new home in Palestine. Followed by the British Mandate for Palestine which broke the area up, despite Arab outcry in 1948. You then get the Six-Day War resulting in occupation of the West Bank in 1967. Skip past conflict after conflict and you get to the modern Israel, which is backed by the biggest weapons manufacturer in the world. The only reason they continue to survive and not be label as a “problem” is because of the U.S. and its involvement.

Palestinians cannot become Israeli citizens, they are continually having their traditional lands annexed, are treated like dirt, and are literally fenced into their lands. They have to pass checkpoints, some roads are only allowed for use by public transport, and travel between cities is typically restricted. The area is economically distraught and poverty-riddled, and Israel has only made things worse. Indeed, it is difficult to have a good economy when your only airport has been closed down since 2001.

Meanwhile, Israel has nuclear power, a top notch education system (3rd in degrees per capita), a space program, and some of the most advanced weapons and military systems on earth. This leads to point number two.


Hamas and Palestine have few options left. It is estimated that Hamas’ total budget sits at $70 Million. Hamas has few allies; its main source of funding being from Saudi Arabia (50% of the funding). Israel’s military budget alone sits at $14 Billion, along with $3 Billion in “support” every year from the US. To say Israel has the upper hand is laughable. They have total superiority every way. Israel has drones and satellites and laser guided anti-missile systems and long range missiles and submarines and fighter jets, while Hamas relies on an underground tunnel system and artillery that most closely resembles a system of dinky fireworks with almost no real accuracy.

In the harsh situation that Hamas finds itself it has no other option than to rely on the extreme. They do not have the luxury of a large economy or having the upper hand. They can only try to snap back at Israel in any way they can.

Thank you, I await a reply.

Debate Round No. 2


Hamas DOES NOT HAVE every right to shoot rockets into Israel.


The rockets are doing absolutely nothing except provoke Israel.

The Hamas rockets are blindly shot into Israel without a target. They are susceptible to hurting civilians. Although the Israeli Defense Force intercepts most rockets, with the Iron Dome defense system, the threat to Israel is still there.

According to an article written on July 31st 2014, “The death toll in Gaza has topped 1,400, with more than 40 people dying after another day of intense Israeli bombardment from air, sea and land.

The toll is now greater than in both previous rounds of fighting between Israel and Hamas. Israeli military losses are also significantly higher.

Palestinian officials in Gaza said on Thursday that 8,200 people had been wounded in the four-week operation. Up to 80% of the Palestinian casualties were civilians, according to local non-government organizations and the UN.”

The article goes on to mention that, “Three civilians on the Israeli side and 56 soldiers have been killed so far.”

The Hamas rockets supposedly killed about three civilians.

As my opponent mentioned, Israel is military superior and, the rockets that are shot toward Israel are weak, inaccurate, ineffective. Rocket attacks are provoking and giving Israel an excuse to attack Gaza.


There is no justification for Hamas to fire weak and inaccurate rockets that threaten the Israeli civilian population.

If it was the case that the Hamas rockets were targeting Israeli military targets, then it would be somewhat justifiable to argue that the rockets are fired because of Israeli aggression. But, the fact is they are not targeting anything at all. They are just shot into Israel without a real target.

To address my opponent's two points, yes, Israel may have violated human rights laws, but that does not justify rocket attacks from Hamas on an Israeli civilian population.

My opponent mentioned, “In the harsh situation that Hamas finds itself it has no other option than to rely on the extreme.” It seems that you are trying to defend Hamas or its actions.

Hamas’s constitution reads “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”

If one is against Israel that does not mean one must side with Hamas. Condemning the actions of both sides is acceptable.

All in all,

Hamas DOES NOT HAVE every right to shoot rockets into Israel.

The rockets are doing absolutely nothing except provoke Israel.

There is no justification for Hamas to fire weak and inaccurate rockets that threaten the Israeli civilian population.




My opponent has trivialized Hamas’ attacks by assuming they have no cause to attack. They have plenty of reason. An attack isn’t randomly decided. They are being oppressed by Israel, and have tried more than once to speak to Israel, but so far it has only been done through a mediator, and direct talks have yet to happen. Hamas needs to be diplomatically diffused, not bombed and beaten into submission. They will simply rise again in a time, when they reunite and rise in numbers.

If we didn’t support Israel they would be just another Middle Eastern terror group. They are committing atrocities on Palestine and yet are expecting to have complete civil obedience. They are beating a feral dog. It won’t make Palestine any less vicious.

I never supported what Hamas is doing, but to paint one side as good and the other as bad is just plain stupid. Hamas is a reactionary force. They get pelted with missiles and they want to strike back. We did this little thing after 9/11 called the Iraq War that basically followed the same logic. It’s a basic human emotion, or pattern, that derives from a reaction to fear.

Hamas has pea shooters compared to Israel, and they have every right to want to strike back. They have lost their lands, their freedoms, their economy, and they get bombed and attacked frequently. How can you say they have no right? They absolutely have a right. Does that make it okay? No, but they still have a right.

Can you imagine if a state like Texas got annexed by Mexico (in some fantasy theoretical world)? Imagine a state like Texas under military occupation. The fighting would never stop. There would be fighting for independence until the end of time. Palestine is in that position. The U.S. should be condemning both sides and working to make peace. They should be working out trade and land agreements, not supplying Israel with billions of dollars in aid and military training/weapons.

Of course, if you track Israel’s relations with the U.S. you’ll see a direct relation to the weapons manufacturers in the States. They are on a short list of Major non-NATO allies, and they support them whole-heartedly, despite the fact they are terrible allies.

They essentially do whatever they want, bombing and attacking, like, say Operation Opera in the 80’s when Israel went off and bombed a Nuclear Reactor in Baghdad, or the 1982 Lebanon War, where the States considered sanctions, but of course, never implanted them. Then of course we ask them not to use cluster bombs on civvies and they do it anyway in Lebanon in 2006. Lebanon then begs for a ceasefire, but Israel and the U.S. don’t allow it.

Obama rolls in and makes Palestine-Israel conflict resolution a priority, but naturally, Israel directly crosses Obama and builds 1,600 Jewish homes in East Jerusalem. They ask Israel to look for peace and release hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, but Israel just blows off Obama again. Obama calls for pre-1967 borders, Israel blows him off again. No change. They disobey left and right. It’s rampant. They do whatever they want.

Despite these relational strains, the U.S. sells Israel weapons like nuclear capable F-35 stealth bombers.

In summing that all up, it’s quite obvious we only support Israel because we need a foot in the Middle East and, of course, we make hand over fist in weapons sales. Morality always takes a back seat to cold hard cash. Palestine doesn’t get a drop of any of this support.

Debate Round No. 3


With all do respect, my opponent is dodging my points and accusing me of trivializing “Hamas’ attacks by assuming they have no cause to attack.”

My points are:

Hamas DOES NOT HAVE a right to shoot inaccurate rockets into Israel, threatening the civilian population.

The rockets are doing absolutely nothing except provoke Israel.

Even if Israel is unjust toward Gaza, there is still no justification for Hamas to fire weak and inaccurate rockets that do absolutely nothing except provoke Israel to attack Gaza’s civilian population. This is not a debate about Israel’s human rights violations or unjust treatment of Palestinians. This is a debate on whether Hamas is justified in shooting rockets at Israel’s civilian population. Just for the sake of argument, lets say all your points are true, Israel is indeed committing human rights violations against the Palestinians, pelting them with missiles, and the Gaza offensive is unjust. That still does not give a right for Hamas to shoot inaccurate rockets into Israel and threaten civilians. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Again, I am not arguing that the Israeli offensive is wrong or right, and am not taking sides. I am arguing that Hamas’s rocket attacks are unjust.

Indeed Hamas are “pea shooters compared to Israel.” Yes, “they have every right to want to strike back” at Israel after it bombs them, but it does not do any good for Gaza because it provokes Israel to kill civilians.

My opponent uses a scenario of Texas getting annexed by Mexico. If “Texas got annexed by Mexico”, and Mexico was absolutely military superior to Texas, it would not be smart of Texas to attack Mexico, even if Mexico is the aggressor. There must be another way to deal with the situation.



I am not dodging your points. The debate calls for this “Hamas has no right to shoot rockets into Israel”. I am pointing out that they quite clearly do have a right. I won’t repeat the same facts and the same history to prove that.

Again, my opponent is missing the point. The point is not, “Are Hamas’ rockets an effective way to fight Israel’s occupation”? No. Obviously they are not effective. The purpose of the rockets is to try and do something. As one of my favorite Political Commentators Dan Carlin once said, (paraphrase), a Democracy that has no safety valves, like Democratic vote, or freedom of speech, or right to belief, freedom of press and information, freedom of assembly and protest, freedom of travel, and so on, will build pressure and eventually explode. In this case, as I said before, Hamas is simply an ugly mutation of the ideas and feelings that in a functioning Democracy would have been discussed.

Instead of this, Israel has continued to bomb and attack Palestine. It has continued to occupy and militarily regiment the lives of every Palestinian with the principles of racism and intolerance. Palestine is without an ally. They have a bad habit of rousing up Nationalism, a U.S. pet peeve. Yes, history has proven that Uncle Sam will support Radical and Violent Religious intolerance 9/10 times to protect their assets, cough, cough Operation Cyclone, etc. etc., cough cough.

Indeed, a basic rule of International Politics will state that your rights as a country are solely dependent on your services to the powerful. Israel does a lot of service to the powerful, and thus, they continue on their warpath, unfettered by the big guys. Palestine is not so lucky. They have very little to offer, especially when they are constantly squashed by Israel.

“it does not do any good for Gaza because it provokes Israel to kill civilians”

What? You aren’t getting it. They aren’t seeing this as a chess game. This is freedom and thousands of years of religion and land rights. They aren’t going to pack up and go home. They have no homes to return to, literally, thanks to the bombing.

“…it would not be smart of Texas to attack Mexico”

Intelligence has almost nothing to do with it. Texas would fight to the last man for freedom. If not Texas, imagine a country like France under Nazi rule. Do they just roll over and die? “We lost! Oh Well!” That would never happen. The country, even if it gave up officially, would be unstable and dangerous and violent until the end of time.

Israel continues the war and the occupation and it is almost solely their fault that it continues.

Stats from the last Israeli attack in Gaza:

64 Israeli soldiers dead, 3 civilians dead

Almost 2000 Palestinians dead, 75% civilians.

800 Palestinian rocket attacks,

1,300 high-tech air strikes from Israel

In 2014, Palestine killed 6 and injured 34 Israelis in 3055 rocket attacks

During Israeli retaliation Israel killed 1,123 Palestinians and injured 7,800 more.

Obama maintains his position that “Israel has the right to defend itself. Meanwhile, the UN has been condemning Israel for years. As of 2010, there have been 79 resolutions in direct criticism against Israel. Israel has killed almost 8000 Palestinians. Palestine has killed 1503. Israel has killed almost 70% Civilian, while Palestine has killed 59%.

You tell me who “has the right”.

Debate Round No. 4


Usef forfeited this round.


My opponent has forfeited, rather dissapointingly, so my earlier points carry on unchallenged. I'll end the debate here.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago

Both sides seem to automatically accept some definitions that don't match the words in the resolution. A "right" is not a "justification," and yet that seems to be exactly how you both are interpreting it. Rights are most often afforded by some external body, and yet discussion of what that external body is never appears in this debate. Perhaps you both meant something along the lines of a natural right, but the origin of that right is never discussed either. Nor is it necessarily accurate to say that both sides have agreed to a topic where there is no justification, since both sides agree that there is a justification, and this debate is more about whether that justification is sufficient.

So, before I get started evaluating the debate, I'd just like to point out what resolutions each of you are actually arguing. Pro is arguing:

"Hamas is justified in its efforts to shoot rockets into Israel."

Con is arguing:

"Hamas has no moral justification for retaliating against Israel."

Both of these are faulty resolutions. However, I will take the most accurate portions of each and combine them for the purposes of this debate into the following resolution:

"Hamas has no justification for shooting rockets into Israel."

Again, it's imperfect, but this way I'm being the most fair.

In any case, all of this discussion about who is in the right and who in the wrong overall are not conducive to this discussion. It doesn't matter if both sides should be condemned. It doesn't matter whether or not Israel should receive funding from the U.S. It matters whether the Palestinians are justified in their military efforts, that's all.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
Given that, much of this debate goes off the rails, and so the arguments come down to one basic point from each side.

Pro argues that there can be no moral justification for sending weak, inaccurate missiles into Israel. More broadly, the argument seems to apply to any given nation in any given situation, since the argument seems to be much more about the practical effects of such launches.

Con argues that retaliation is its own justification, that the Palestinians are being left with no other options and that therefore they are justified in their missile-based retaliation. He says that, independent of their actual effects, the purpose of retaliation alone is sufficient justification for their launch.

So you're arguing past each other, with neither of you trying to explain why you better meet the definition. Since I assume you both split the BoP, we now have the question of whether Pro has sufficiently proven that the missile launches are never justified, and whether Con has sufficiently proven that missile launches are a justifiable response to difficult situations like this. I don't think either of you is especially effective in this regard, and this debate could all have hinged on what "justified" means, something for which you both appear to have very different definitions.

Much as I could go either way (despite the forfeits), Con's arguments do a better job regarding the resolution I've stated above. I think Pro would win with his topic of choice, but that's not matching the resolution as it stands, no matter how rational his arguments may be. I see some, if only a very weak, link between being upset at a difficult situation and launching rockets, so at least there is SOME justification. It doesn't need to be good, so I vote Con.
Posted by Usef 2 years ago
Damn... I missed my round. Sorry. Hit me up with an argument against my stance 64bithuman.
Posted by Wocambs 2 years ago
How about debating whether Israel has the right to occupy the land of the Palestinians, blockade them, and kill them? Lol
Posted by NathanDuclos 2 years ago
Im in. . . . I'll take your debate. . .
Posted by MidnightE 2 years ago
I'm willing to debate this topic, but if so, would like to know the outline of the debate rounds. Thank you!
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Ah, war. That thing that only exists because people don't fight their internal wars from within, then it ends up being projected unto this beautiful world where the innocent and the living suffer for negligence and incompetence abound.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Rockets at all, or the ones they've been firing? Were they to bother aiming at military targets, and not launch them from schools and such... Well you know the rest.
Posted by Victoria85176 2 years ago
I would be happy to debate this with you..... :)
Posted by LogicalLunatic 2 years ago
Holy Holy Holy Hamas shoots rockits into Satan Israeel!!!!!!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Basic definition of "right" missing, making the resolution nearly impossible to affirm or deny. However pro forfeited.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.