The Instigator
Con (against)
7 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
7 Points

Israel is justified in attacking gaza

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/8/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,957 times Debate No: 7289
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)




I challenge you to this debate.


This topic has been debated a few times on this forum, so please tell me what you feel you can add to the debate.
In past debates, my argument has been that the death toll on Gaza was a justified response to indiscriminate attacks by Hamas on civilian population centers. My opponents have argued that since it was disproportional that it is unjustifiable. I would counter that the argument for proportional response is invalid when the goal is preventative. I.e. It is Israel's goal to stop Hamas from launching rockets at civilian population centers. To do so it must give Hamas a very good reason not to, which necessitates a disproportional response. Consider if Kurds were launching Qassams against Turkey from Iraq targetting Turkish civilian population centers. What do you think the Turkish response would be? I believe there response would aim to be harsh enough to discourage future attacks.
I would further argue that the civilian death toll from Israel's attack on Gaza, when compared to similar operations by major armies against embedded guerrilla groups in civilian population centers, was considerably low. See for example, the US in Somalia, or South America, or just about any time any Arab group has begun any unrest against Arab rulers in the middle east.

so to reiterate I believe 1) A military response is justified b/c of indiscriminate civilian attacks 2) A disproportionate response is justified when done for preventative purposes 3) the civilian death toll was small in comparison to similar operations
Debate Round No. 1


"I.e. It is Israel's goal to stop Hamas from launching rockets at civilian population centers. To do so it must give Hamas a very good reason not to, which necessitates a disproportional response."

No one said that Israel did not have the right to defend itself. However, you have to remember that the Palestinians are under illegal military occupation in Gaza and the West Bank. Israel imposed a blockade on the Gaza strip in 2006, and this is in itself an act of war, regardless of what Israel feels about Hamas. Hamas has launched these rockets as a response to not only the siege, which is again, an act of war, but the illegal military occupation that has sucked the lives of the Palestinians since 1967 and has been ruled illegal by not only the UN, but the ICJ in 2000, international law, and the articles of the 4th geneva convention. The rockets that Hamas launches are mostly homemade projectiles, rockets that do very little damage and MOST of the time, hit open areas, and are manuactured by hamas itself. Just because Israel has a right to defend itself, doesnt mean that Hamas and the Palestinians cannot. You are acting as if Hamas wants to launch these rockets just for fun, but in reality, this is not true. In every occupation, the oppressed always has the means and right to defend itself.
Proof that israeli occupation is illegal:

Now when you say Hamas needs to stop launching rockets at civilain population centers, you need to remember a few things. First, Hamas does not have launching mechanisms in these rockets that make them directly hit population centers. Hamas does not have the superior military caliber that israel has. These rockets are launched and can hit anywhere. Hamas is using all it can to resist the occupation. Rockets and guns are all it has to fight. It has no air force or anything of that sort. They are not directed AT civilian population centers. Second, only 21 civilians were killed during 2001-2009 as a result of these projectiles in comparison to 6,348 palestinian non-combatants (not including hamas-fatah fighting) killed by israeli forces so it is foolish to call this an "indiscriminate" attack on Israelis.
Now, lets talk about "disproportional" response. It indeed, was disproportional because on the one hand, hamas was fighting with rockets and hand guns and did very little damage in comparison to israel, on the other hand, who owns some of the most technological equipment on earth, has an airforce which destroyed close to everything in gaza, including hospitals, schools, mosques, UN buildings and civilian homes and killed hundreds of innocent civilains. Hamas may have damaged homes and schools, but Israel OBLITERATED these things in gaza, knowing that civilians were packed inside of them. Israel killed more civilians than hamas men; half of the fatalities were women and children. This doesnt even take into account the male noncombatants, foreign reporters, and ambulance drivers that were also killed. Hamas managed to kill more israeli soldiers than civilians. The total death toll was 1300 (half=women and children) to 13 (10 of who were soldiers). Therefore, this is disproportional and indiscriminate. In war, you are supposed to kill more of the enemy than innocents. Israel did the opposite. By the way, although it was dispropotional, the onslaught did not stop hamas from launcihng the rockets, and in fact, during the war, hamas' rockets were increasing by the number and hit even farther places. This shows that no matter how hard israel hits, it will not destroy hamas or find a solution to its problems. The only choice israel has is to recognize that hamas was democratically elected by the palestinians, making it the legitimate government and armed forces of the palestinians. It was hamas, not fatah that won. Israel did not like that, so as a result, it imposed the siege, which brought the rocket fire as a response and allied with fatah, who was not chosen. The only thing israel can do is talk to hamas, and recognize its existence. Hamas has recognized the state of israel not only in its charter (calls for going back to 1967 borders) but in the Arab League document that is sitting in the Arab Summit with Hamas' signature calling for a two state solution to the conflict.

"To do so it must give Hamas a very good reason not to, which necessitates a disproportional response."
You have really contradicted yourself. You just explained that israel's force was NOT disproportionate and said that your opponents were wrong for saying that it was, when later you said that the hamas rocket fire needed the disproportionate response that was achieved in gaza by israel and acknowledged that this was israel's only solution. You need to take a look at that. Like I said before, this has not destroyed Hamas' capability. Diplomacy is the only way.

"What do you think the Turkish response would be? I believe there response would aim to be harsh enough to discourage future attacks."

Yes, but I dont think the Turks would indiscriminately bomb a densely populated area, hospitals, mosques, schools, refugee camps, civilians waving white flags, ambulances, and UN buildings full of civilians. I beleive the Turks would have gone more after the enemy, not the civilians. You see, this was Israel's tactic. It wanted to kill as many civilians as it can, so that when the war was over, palestinian pulbic opinon would turn against hamas, and that in the next election, it would lose.

"I would further argue that the civilian death toll from Israel's attack on Gaza, when compared to similar operations by major armies against embedded guerrilla groups in civilian population centers, was considerably low."

Yes, but that doesnt give a reason to justify the number of civilans killed. I can say the same thing about hamas and the number of israelis killed as a result of the rocket fire, and how only 21 israelis died from that in the last 8 years. 21 is a very small number, especially for a time period of 8 years and in comparison tothe civilian death tolls of other wars and events. That doesnt mean we can justify that. Now, dont just think about the gaza war; think about how many palestinians died as a result of the occupation and the siege. It is a lot. It is foolish to say that just because the civilain death toll was "considerably low" in comparison to previous events, we should just let that go. America, who has been responsible for killing more civilians than any other country, does not bomb schools, hospitals, refugee camps, and cetainly not UN buildings which are specifically used for sheltering civilians in a time such as the gaza war like Israel. Im sure the Turks dont either.

The only way to prevent rocket attacks is to first lift the blockade in gaza. Now that I have established that the blockade is an act of war, hamas is justiified in launcihng the only weapons it has, which are homemade rockets. These rockets dont have built in mechanisms that go and directly target civilian areas. Hamas does not have the weapons it can use to hit army bases, military personell, etc. Israel did not leave gaza in 2006. It may have w/drawn its troops and the settlements, but it still controlled gaza's airspace, its coastal waterways, who could leave-enter gaza (borders), eletricity, and water usage. This is not leaving gaza.


There are numerous legal scholars who will argue, rather convincingly, that the occupation is not illegal. Just as it was not illegal when Palestine was "occupied" by Jordan and by Egypt. Their are numerous arguments I could use, such as the land was conquered from Jordan and Egypt who have since relinquished claims over it, to the fact that Israel clearly intends on allowing the Palestinians to have their own country as soon as they can clearly show that they do not want to destroy Israel. I give as proof that in 1999 a year of relative calm in the conflict (only 3 suicide bombings) the Israeli people overwhelmingly elected Ehud Barak on the platform that he would aggressively pursue a two state solution. Unfortunately that feel apart in violence, and while a majority still support a two state solution... enthusiasm has waned. Or the fact that Israel willingly dismantled settlements in Gaza evicting residents from their homes where they grew up and raised familes and even had grandchildren. Israel has been agressively pursuing a two state solution, and the Palestinians would have it if a majority of Israelis could simply be convinced that the Palestinians no longer want to kill them.
The idea of "resisting occupation" in this case is ridiculous since the whole purpose of the Oslo Accords were "We will give you your own country just please stop killing us." The absolute worst thing the Palestinians could do is fire rockets indiscriminately at civilian population centers clearly discouraging Israel from ever allowing the Palestinians to have their own state.
Now of course this goes to the root cause of the attacks by Hamas. Hamas in particular (and perhaps a large number of Palestinians in general) want , as their charter states, to "kill Jews" and does not want their to be an Israel. They do not want a peace process or a two state solution. And unfortunately by electing them, the Palestinian people have shown this to be their desire as well. This isn't "legitimate resistance." This is an effort to subvert peace and any hopes of a two state solution.
And Qassam rockets have been falling since 2000... well before any "blockade."
Now you have numerous factual errors in your argument. The Parts for Qassams are smuggled in to Gaza, generally from Iran and are not simply made from spare parts. These are deadly warheads and have collapsed buildings. The rockets are CLEARLY aimed at population centers. They arent just tossed randomly. This is even more evident by Rockets falling further into Israel hitting areas like Ashkelon and Ashdod.
Your number 6348 non combatants killed is incredibly erroneous. I have searched for any corroboration of this number and have found none. please show me your source.
The Hamas charter calls for a return to the 1967 borders?!?!?!?!? you seriously have to look things up before writing things. Here is a link to the charter
Here are some nice highlights of a document written just 20 years ago:

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."

"Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:
'The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).' "

I must have missed the recognition of Israel in there.

As for the Turks, they have killed many Kurdish civilians, for much less than what Hamas has done to Israel. Funny how the Arab population only gets upset when its Israel. Not about Arab Muslims killing Arab Christians in Darfur... or Arabs killing Kurds. only Israel gets singled out.

Now in terms of Israel's response, it was indeed disproportionate, but not indiscriminate. It was incredibly surgical considering the Gaza is one of the most densly populated areas in the world. The 1300 number has been challenged by other sources and the number does seem more like 800-900 the majority of which were Hamas fighters, and i would say this... nearly all civilians casualties were a result of Hamas firing from civilian population centers. They knew the only way to defeat the attack was through international pressure which would only come about with civilian casualties. Hamas wanted civilians to die and therefore fired from schools and hospitals and mosques forcing the Israeli forces to retaliate. And one more point. Israel never hit any hospital school or mosque during the entire conflict. They were accused of hitting a UN school, but the truth was revealed and the UN admitted that no school was attacked.

I never argued that the Israeli response was not disproportionate, just that it was justified. there is no contradiction.

In terms of Israel leaving Gaza. they would like to do things in stages. Israel withdrew its forces and put millions of dollars into gazan infrastructure with greenhouses and other technology hoping that Gaza could show that it could reciprocate this benevolent act with peace. Once It was shown that Gaza could be peaceful ,restrictions on airspace and commerce would be lifted. After Israel withdrew from Gaza (before the blockade!!!) Rockets were launched into Israeli civilian areas and violent acts increased. After Hamas won the election, a known terrorist organization responsible for the murder of thousands of Israeli civilians and whose charter declares the desire to destroy Israel, Israel was understandably less than happy as again the peace process is based on the idea of "we will give you a country if you can show us that you will stop killing us." Hamas does not fit the small Palestinian part of the deal "stop killing us."

I must say sometimes it is maddening how open and shut this is. Israel wants peace and security, Hamas wants neither.
Debate Round No. 2


Under the UN Partition Plan of 1947, which est. the modern jewish state, it called for palestine and israel. Forget about Jordan and Egypt.The Jews were given all but gaza, the w. bank, and jerusalem. These pieces of territories were granted to the palestinians. In the war of 1967, israel illegally expropriated gaza, the, and jerusalem. We can argue all day about who started the war, but in reality, this is not necessary. Under the international rules of war, no state can aquire territory as a result by war. To quote Ehud Barak's former foreign minister, Abba Aben, and also author of the book, "Scars of War, Wounds of Peace," he says the following: "It is inadmissible to acquire territory as a result by war; Israel acquired Gaza, the W.Bank and J-lem as a result by war; therefore, it is inadmissible to keep them." That is the fundamental principle of int'l law. Israel occupies them today, therefore, this is an occupation which is illegal as a result.

There is something clearly wrong w/ your case. The Palestinians, including under hamas, have always recognized and respected the two state solution, further allowing israel to remain a state of the jewish people. I will now list many times in which the Palestinians, regardless of what leadership they were under, recognized the two state solution and everytime israel rejected it.
1. Since the mid-1970s, there's been an international consensus for resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict.It's called a two-state settlement. Israel has to fully withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza and Jerusalem, in accordance with the fundamental principle of international law, cited three times by Mr. Ben-Ami in the book, his book, that it's inadmissible to acquire territory by war. The West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem, having been acquired by war, it's inadmissible for Israel to keep them. They have to be returned. On the Palestinian side and also the side of the neighboring Arab states, they have to recognize Israel's right to live in peace and security with its neighbors. That was the quid pro quo: recognition of Israel, Palestinian right to self-determination in the West Bank and Gaza with its capital in Jerusalem. That's the international consensus. It was voted on every year in the UN. The votes typically something like 160 nations on one side, the United States, Israel and Naru, Palau, Tuvalu, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands on the other side. Now, the Israeli government was fully aware that this was the international consensus, but they were opposed to a full withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza and Jerusalem, of course, and they were opposed to creating a Palestinian state in the Occupied Territories. In 1981, as pressure builds on Israel to reach a diplomatic settlement in the Israel-Palestine conflict, they decide to invade Lebanon in order to crush the P.L.O., because the P.L.O. was on record supporting a two-state settlement. Avner Yaniv, in his book, Dilemmas of Security, he said, �€œThe main problem for Israel was "the P.L.O.'s peace offensive. They wanted a two-state settlement. Israel did not.�€� And so Israel decides to crush the P.L.O. in Lebanon. It successfully did so. The P.L.O. goes into exile.
2. Clinton parameters (2000)-both the Israelis and the Palestinians have accepted the Clinton parameters with some reservations. Both sides entered reservations on the Clinton parameters. In Clayton Swisher's book, "The Truth at Camp David," he says the following: "Barak sent a ten-page letter of reservations to the Clinton parameters." (pg. 402)
3. Taba talks, Egypt and Camp David (2000-2001)- there were four key issues at Camp David and at Taba. Number one, settlements. Number two, borders. Number three, Jerusalem. Number four, refugees. Let's start with settlements. Under international law, there is no dispute, no controversy. Under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, it's illegal for any occupying country to transfer its population to Occupied Territories. All of the settlements, all of the settlements are illegal under international law. No dispute. The World Court in July 2004 ruled that all the settlements are illegal. everyone, including you, talks about the huge concessions that Barak was willing to make on Jerusalem. But under international law Israel has not one atom of sovereignty over any of Jerusalem. The World Court decision said Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory. Now, the Palestinians were willing, to divide Jerusalem roughly in half, the Jewish side to Israel, the Arab side to the Palestinians. The Palestinians were willing to concede 50% �€" 50% of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. That was a monumental concession, going well beyond anything that was demanded of them under international law. Israel has not abided by any of these rulings. And then you ask yourself, "why are the pals. killing?"
Why did Taba end? According to former professor at dePaul unversity Norman Finkelstein, it officially ended when Barak w/drew his negotiators from the table.
Annapolis (2008)- The Pals, under pres. abbas, recognized the two state solution. During this time, Israel's illegal construction of settlements increased at a much rapid pace than ever before (40 times faster). This was a major impediment to the process, therefore, no solution was made.

Israel was supposed to evict the settlements in gaza. Gaza, as i have already est. w/o dispute, is occupied pal. territory, and i have proven that already. you cant counter intl law. The reason why the pals keep launching the rockets is because they are under occupation. Once again, i have proven that not only is there an occupation, but that it's illegal. The palestinians have the right to defend itself.

"Hamas in particular to "kill Jews"
Vey foolish. If this were true, hamas would have been est. many decades ago. Hamas, including in the charter, recognizes and is willing to go back to the 1967 borders. This is what intl law ruled, and hamas abided by that. Hamas has also signed the document that has now been sitting in the arab league for 6 yrs, recognizing the 2 state solution. We can argue about the charter, and i must say, that your evidence regarding its charter is not valid because it comes from israeli sources. It is biased. Come up with something better than that. Hamas has offered long term truces, but israel has rejected them. In the last truce, hamas showed its willingness to maintain peace by not launching a single rocket into israel. israel breaks it on nov. 4 when it goes in and kills 6 militants. Since hamas was dem. elected, it did not send out a single suicide bomber into israel. what does this tell us?

"And Qassam rockets have been falling since 2000... well before any "blockade."
yes, and there has been an occupation ever since 1948. this is just a simple response.

Hamas manufactures its own rockets, regardless of where it gets the material. They arent deadly either. As i have stated, only 21 israelis died from such rockets.
over 6000 pals have died:

Israel has given no proof, during or after the war, that hamas used human shields. How would u kno this when no reporters were allowed in?

proof on idf bombing civil areas:

israel said from the beginning that it gave up ALL of gaza. It never mentioned stages. it said it completely w/drawed. This is a lie.


"Forget about Jordan and Egypt."
Yeah, it would be great to forget about facts... but they are stubborn things. The fact is that from 1948 until 1967 there was no call for Palestinian statehood. Only when it was the "Zionists" and "the Jews" who were in charge did suddenly Palestinian statehood become a major priority and "legitimate resistance." It is also rather odd that when Israel acquires territory it is the only time when suddenly territory cannot be acquired by war. This principle has never been applied anywhere else.
Your repeated statements that the Palestinians have always wanted a two state solution is as laughable as it is wrong. The PLO was founded in 1964 (before 1967) with the stated goal of acquiring ALL of British Mandate Palestine for the Palestinian people. It was not until 1988 that the PLO adopted the policy of a two state solution. They did this by recognizing the State of Israel and officially renouncing violence.
Now I am only going to say this once more. Israel is trying to give the Palestinians a country as it has been clearly showing it is trying to do for the past two decades. In the history of the world the Palestinians have never had their own country. Israel is trying to give it to them. The only thing required by the Palestinians is to show that they will not kill Israel or seek its destruction. This is not achieved by terrorist suicide bombings, rocket attacks on civilians populations, elections of groups who state clearly that they want to destroy Israel, or of leaders who hold by charters seeking to destroy Israel. The idea of legitimate resistance goes out the window when their is a peace process in place, since ONCE again the deal is " you will get a country, just stop killing us."

"I will now list many times in which the Palestinians, regardless of what leadership they were under, recognized the two state solution and everytime israel rejected it."
1. The PLO did not officially accept the idea of a two state solution (meaning a permanent state of Israel) until 1988 Everything you write in this paragraph is incorrect. In the 1970's the PLO did come ou with a 10 point place which did involve a period where they would get a Palestinian state next to an Israeli state, however the end of the ten point plan states that the ultimate goal was "completing the liberation of all Palestinian territory, and as a step along the road to comprehensive Arab unity." Not exactly something Israel wants to hear.
It also makes no sense since Israel DID enter in the Oslo Accords with the PLO and did grant them limited self rule in the West Bank and Gaza as part of first stage agreements, and Barak did offer them a State, and Israel did evacuate Gaza. Why would Israel do that if their main goal was to crush the PLO's peace offensive? I find it amazing how you completely ignore any legitimate reason Israel had for exiling the PLO. Perhaps their terrorist attacks had something to do with it?
2) I don't believe you even write anything here. Regardless, according to President Clinton WHO WAS THERE, he places the blame squarely on Arafat. Acc. to all present, a State was offered to the Palestinian people... perhaps there were reservations by Barak, but they never got a chance to be discussed as the deal was rejected.
3) Regarding settlements. There is no "transfer of population." In 1967, in a war that Israel did not want, land was acquired, roughly tripling Israels size. In the 42 years since then, out of a population of 6 million, 250,000 people, roghly 4% of the population has crossed this line into this enormouse area. So two points 1) As Gaza showed, settlers and settlements can be removed. 2) There is NO policy of transfer. Currently there is no more land to make new Israeli towns. The fact that only 5% of the population has crossed an invisible line when land is extremely scarce shows this is not the policy of Israel.
Further, as wonderful as the World Courts opinion is, it cannot escape the fact that Israel controls Jerusalem. Its a physical fact. I believe it was acquired legally in a defensive war from Jordan which has since relinquished its claim (and there are many international law scholars who agree with me), you disagree. But the bottom line is, Israel controls it, and for them to give up control of the Jewish peoples holiest city IS indeed a monumental concession.
Also, when were the Palestinians willing to concede 50% of Israeli settlements?? Do you just make things up??
And thats a great quote from Norman Finkelstein... its a shame it contradicts what President Clinton, Dennis Ross, and Nabil Amir (former PA minister) say. What NOBODY contradicts is that an offer of statehood was given... and it was rejected. This all could have been over. There could have been a Palestinian state... maybe not with the exact borders they wanted, but a state, the right of self determination, and an end to the occupation. It was all offered by Israel and rejected by the Palestinians.

You clearly know nothing about Hamas. PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE IN THEIR CHARTER IT RECOGNIZES A TWO STATE SOLUTION. You cannot b/c it does not. I mean have you every read anything put out by hamas?? My link is an english translation of their charter. If you know of a better one, let me know. You need to understand the murderous philosophy that the group you are defending espouses unapologetically.
And I always laugh when someone mentions that Hamas' offer of a temporary truce as a sign that they want peace. Once again people here is the deal "We will give you a country just please stop killing us" , not "We will give you a country just agree to maybe stop killing us for a few years, or rather guaranteeing us that you WILL kill us after those few years are up." This is a joke.

"They aren't deadly" Only 21 people have died b/c Israel has established early warning measures. This does not mean that they are not deadly or that they should just be accepted b/c they are really just like fireworks. these are weapons intending to kill as many civilians as possible. The more civilians that die, the happier Hamas is. If they could have larger more deadly weapons, they would use those. That is why it is difficult for Israel to give them a state b/c (and do I really need to say this again??) the deal is "We will give you a country, just please stop killing us."

Israel has give proof of Hamas firing from UN schools and other acts using civilians as human shields.

In terms of Israel "lying" about granting autonomy to Gaza in stages, they evacuated Gaza UNILATERALLY, i.e. on their own terms... there was no one to lie to.

Now is the time where you need to confess to errors on your part both big and small.
You stated in your 2nd argument that Israel attacked Schools, hospitals, and mosques. In fact not a single one of those building had been attacked at all. Every school, hospital or mosque that stood before the invasion, stands after the invasion. This was incorrect.
You stated "6,348 palestinian non-combatants" have died since 2001.
The link you gave me (which I would argue is biased anyway) states 4792 Palestinians have died and makes NO distinctions between combatants and non-combatants... i.e. that is the TOTAL. Again this was incorrect.
Hamas has NOT signed any Arab peace initiative and at most has agreed not to contradict it
Abba Eban was NOT Ehud Barak's foreign minister and never wrote Scars of War.
"The Palestinians were willing to concede 50% �€" 50% of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank." This has NEVER occurred.

Before you begin your next argument you need to address these false statements that you made.
Debate Round No. 3


This is a falsehood. Check the UN partition plan of 1947. It called for Israel as well as Palestine.simple. Jordan and Egypt have nothing to do with this since the plan did not include them.

Pal. statehood became a major priority back in 1948 by not only the palestinians, but the UN countries who voted PRO.
Just because some countries acquire territory illegally, doesnt give Israel the right to do the same. Countries like Israel who repeatedly violate international law are legitimately subject to condemnation. Im sure this has been applied to other countries. This is the fundamental principle, israel knew this, but it went ahead and did it, knowing it had the backing of the west. You cant refute intl law. Israel must respect.
The intl consensus was supported by arafat and the PLO, just like with camp david, taba talks, and others i mentioned. i have proven this already. You can laugh all you want, but one thing is for sure. You failed to refute this as I have provided several peace talks with the palestinians, regardless of any leadership, supporting it, and all ending when israel refused to accept such wont be able to prove this wrong. Chomsky puts this perfectly in his book, "Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians" on page 3 on the intl consensus with arafat.

Israel is trying to give..."
Falsehood. If it wanted to give them a country, it would have respected and abided by the partition plan of 1947, which called for a palestinian state. If it wanted to give them a country, it would not have used the 1967 war as an advantage to illegally acquire gaza, the west bank, and j-lem, which israel knew went toward a palestinian state and was part of the partition plan. This plan is not controversial and is not disputable. I plead that you go back and learn the plan. This is a very important plan. It seems like you probably never heard of it.

" The only thing required by the Palestinians is to show that they will not kill Israel or seek its destruction. This is not achieved by terrorist suicide bombings, rocket attacks on civilians populations, elections of groups who state clearly that they want to destroy Israel, or of leaders who hold by charters seeking to destroy Israel. "

I have already proven that the Palestinians, on many occasions, recognized not only the two-state solution, but the Jewish state of Israel. You have failed to refute this, and instead have chosen to laugh about it, failing to provide counter evidence. I have also given you plenty of evidence. Whether you like it or not, the Palestinians have always supported the two- state solution. Now, it's israel's turn to do its part. One more time: the suicide bombings, rocket attacks, etc are a DIRECT response to the ongoing illegal military occupation and oppression, as well as the indiscriminate killing of palestinians in the occupied territories and the rejection of the palestinian right to self determination and statehood. They will not just sit there and offer their oppressors a plate of gold and this is certainly not what the americans did under british occupation. The only contact the palestinians have with the jews are the soldiers and the settlers (excluding j-lem), with the settlers being some of the most radical people, and the soldiers who get orders to provoke the palestinians and continue to harass them at checkpoints and in their homes. They are completely separated from israeli civilians. If Israel wanted peace and a palestinian state, it would have:
1. given back gaza, w. bank, and j-lem as specifically stated by 1947 plan, UN res. 242, ICJ ruling, articles of 4th geneva convention
2. halted the construction of settlements, which is not only illegal under intl law, but in the process, steals land that is supposed to go towards a palestinian state
3. taken down the separation wall which is in breach of intl law
4. taken out the checkpoints which limits the freedom of movement for the pals, and anything that limits anyone's freedom of movement, is a direct violation of intl law.
5. released the thousands upon thousands of prisoners who have been arrested w/o trial before a judge and jury. this is not justified under a TRUE DEMOCRACY
6. stopped its killing of innocent civilians
7. abided by international law and the major intl orgs.

Please do not use wikipedia. Wikipedia is known in the U.S. as an unreliable source and anyone can go in and manipulate the information. This is obvious here in this country. There is so much info out there and the best you can do is provide wikipedia? Not smart.

"according to President Clinton WHO WAS THERE, he places the blame squarely on Arafat."

HAHA. What are you talking about? Arafat shook yitzhak rabin's hand right in front of clinton, which marked the acceptance of the peace solution. I would like to see some RELIABLE evidence on clinton actually saying such a thing.

"perhaps there were reservations by Barak, but they never got a chance to be discussed as the deal was rejected."
Yes, a TEN PAGE LETTER FULL OF RESERVATIONS. Perhaps, this is why the Pals rejected it in the end. What could you possibly right in ten pages that doesnt go against the peace process??

" In 1967, in a war that Israel did not want...."

Wow, that doesnt make sense. Israel didnt want the war, but wanted to take more land. I dont know whether to laugh or cry at that. Taking more land, which is illegal in war, is going to cause more problems in the future. Use a little common sense, please.

"As Gaza showed, settlers and settlements can be removed"
The gaza settlements were removed in 2006 when israel w/drew its troops. this was because it would be too much of a burden for israel to keep protecting them w/o troops. Israel not only, as ive stated before, is obligated to w/draw settlements from gaza as it did, but also in the west bank.

" Currently there is no more land to make new Israeli towns."
Exactly, that is why israel is now using up even more palestinian land to build more settlements. Recently, Olmert has approved construction of even more.

"Israel controls Jerusalem. Its a physical fact."
Yes, that is why israel has to give it back. And please, dont bring up and say it is the jews' holiest city. you can go debate religon somewhere else. Isr. captured j-lem after the '67 war, a war in which jordan was not a part of.

The Palestinians will not accept a state on israel's terms but on INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED terms.

I would actually like to see you refute finkelstein's claim, but as you have proven w/o evidence, you cannot. For israel to give up j-lem, this is an obligation by law.

Hamas recognizes '67 borders. The most recent proof is 6 yrs ago when it signed the arab league document supporting two states. In the charter, it says that israel must leave the territory captured in '67. That is what they mean by not recognizing israel.

hamas never offered temp. truces like you said. I said that hamas has offered israel LONG TERM Truces.

Israel never left gaza. It still occupies it by land and sea. Isr repeatedly said, "we gave land (gaza) for peace"the Isr. govt mentioned nothing about its "own terms" but repeatedly said it left and got rockets in return. Proof was already given on isr bombing civil infras. you didnt provide any counter-evid.

6,348 pals killed

I apologize. Shlomo ben-ami not Aben.


Of course I know of the 1947 partition plan. I also know it was a plan rejected by the Palestinians then. (This your source... I assume it is ok.) The basic reason The arabs rejected The Plan was that they did not want their to be an Israeli state... the same reason they stated their desire to "push Israel into the Sea" (Is NPR ok??? Maybe instead of simply attacking my sources ad hominem, try attacking their substance i.e. SHOW COUNTER PROOFS!!!)
So here's what we have.
We have acceptance by Israel of the plan and rejection by the Palestinians. Following Israel's War of Independence, We have Egypt, and Jordan taking over the land that was designated for the Palestinians. Throughout this entire time, the Palestinians NEVER resisted this "occupation." More to the point, the world never considered this occupation since there NEVER was a country of Palestine to occupy. The point I am making is not "If they did it, so can Israel." The point shows the motives of the "resistors." They are not expressing "legitimate resistance" (If they were they would have fought against Egypt and Jordan) but rather fighting against the very creation of a "Zionist Entity."
During this period in 1964 (BEFORE 1967) The PLO stated that they intended to remove Israel (all parts of Israel) through force (see Article 2 and others).
Following the six day war the Israeli government voted to return all theland they had acquired in exchange for full peace relations with their neighboring countries (Chaim Herzog Heroes of Israel p.253). the Khartoum Resolution rejected this offer (i know its wikipedia... please find a contrary source if you feel it is incorrect.)
We also have statements by Both Syria and Egypt stating their intentions to destroy all of Israel.. We have similar statements made in 1973 and of course the war waged by the Arab countries against Israel in 1973 with the stated goal of eliminating the Jewish State. Then we have a 10 point plan in 1974 which you hail as "the Palestinians agreeing to a two state plan" when in fact the plan states the two state plan is a mere stage in which "the Palestinian national authority will strive to achieve a union of the confrontation countries, with the aim of completing the liberation of all Palestinian territory" i.e. the destruction of Israel.
This is followed by the previously quoted Hamas charter from 1988 (of which I am STILL awaiting your source... I have given several of mine) which calls for the complete destruction of the Jewish State.

So what we have here, is Israel accepts a two state solution in 1948, Palestinians reject it. We have CONSISTENT declarations by all Arab entities (Egypt, Syria, the PLO, Hamas) stating their clear desire to destroy the Israeli State. We Have Israel offering back all land conquered in 1967. The PLO, to their credit, did state in 1988 that they rejected violence and accepted the idea of the two state solution. Obviously many Israelis were still nervous about this given the PLO's phased plan stating that this would be merely a "launching point" for a future when they take back ALL of their claimed territory. Nevertheless Israel enters into negotiations and agrees to give the Palestinians limited self rule. Israel then offers a full state to the Palestinians in 2000. ACCORDING TO BILL CLINTON ARAFAT REJECTED THIS DEAL
(I think all these eyewitness testimonies from the former President who was there should be enough to both 1) quell your "HAHA" 2) clearly refute anything Finklestien had to say about this.)
And then the Palestinian people elect a group who a) has not renounced violence like the PLO did b) has not recognized Israel's right to exist c) call for the destruction of Israel.
This is proof after proof showing Israel's desire to live in peace and security with it's neighbors, and their counterparts continually showing their desire for their to be No Israel.
You have not shown a SINGLE proof that indicated that Hamas desires a two state solution. In fact your link which you give as proof shows exactly the opposite. That Hamas refuses to recognize Israel like the PLO did, and refuses to renounce violence, like the PLO did. They offer merely a "long term" hudna, i.e. a NON-permanent truce, i.e. a temporary truce, which basically says "give us everything we ask for and we promise not to kill you for a few years, but after those years we will go back on our quest to destroy Israel." Hamas NEVER signed the Arab league charter, and the link I gave you in the last argument clearly states that they did not. If you are not going to respond to clear proofs refuting your claims, then this debate is not going to go anywhere.

You keep making references to "International Law" and "International Recognition."
The facts on the ground are the facts. period. The same way The US does not intend on giving Native Americans back their land, or the way the UK does not intend on giving the Irish back their land, or the way Turkey does not intend on giving the Kurds back their land. Facts on the ground show that Israel acquired land in a defensive war as a result of continuous threats by Syria and Egypt. They retained the land for two purposes a) a buffer against future attacks b) as a means of negotiating future peace deals. I refer you my argument above against the idea that there is any "transfer policy" since the movement of 4% of your population is clearly natural growth and not part of any directed policy and IS legal under international law. I invite you to read a book by one of the foremost experts on International Law, Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz "The Case for Israel" where he systematically rejects all legal attempts claiming that Israel is violating International Law.

Concluding thoughts:
"They will not just sit there and offer their oppressors a plate of gold." No one is asking the Palestinians for anything. Well, one thing, "Please stop killing us."
"The only contact the palestinians have with the jews are the soldiers and the settlers" Except for the 1.5 million Palestinians citizens who enjoy more civil rights in Israel than any Arabs in any country in the middle east.
Regarding your points 1-7. Here is the deal once again "We will withdraw from territory, we will halt construction of settlements, just show us you will stop killing us." the deal is not "First let us have a country and then we'll see if we really want to stop killing you." Israel is giving EVERYTHING to the Palestinians and getting nothing but words from the Palestinians in return. The Palestinians are giving NOTHING, and will be given by Israel, not the UN declaration which they initially rejected then changed their mind 40 years later, not international organizations... but the country will be given to them BY Israel.
"Wikipedia is known in the U.S. as an unreliable source and anyone can go in and manipulate the information. This is obvious here in this country." First of all... I'm an American... born and raised. second
"Isr. captured j-lem after the '67 war, a war in which jordan was not a part of" liar
Debate Round No. 4


"I also know it was a plan rejected by the Palestinians then. "
You have just concealed something important from yourself. Originally, the Palestinians, indeed, supported the Plan. It wasnt until former PM Ben-Gurion est. the policy of ethnic cleansing (b/c jews were the minority) and said the following that the pals, AFTER the plan was put in place, rejected it, and I am quoting Israeli writer Benny Morris, in his book, "Expulsion of the Palestinians" on pages 170-180:
Feb 7, 1948
"The war (1948 war) will give us the land. The concept of 'ours' and 'not ours' are only concepts for peacetime, and during war they lose all their meaning."
"We will not be able to win the war if we do not, during the war, populate upper and lower, eastern and western Galilee, the Negev and Jerusalem area, even if only in an artificial way, in a military way. . . . I believe that war will also bring in its wake a great change in the distribution of [Palestinian] Arab population." HE IS TALKING ABOUT ETHNIC CLEANSING, WHICH BROUGHT ABOUT THE JEWS OUTNUMBERING THE ARABS FOR THE FIRST TIME IN PALESTINE.
""Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. "

That is why, IN THE END, did the Palestinians refuse to acknowledge it, but they overwhelmingly approved of it in 1947. still were gaza, the west bank and j-lem given to the pals under the plan. Ben-gurion and his policies of mass ethnic cleansing were what brought arab rejection in the end.

The "push isr. into the sea" is the most popular prop. used by the zionists and has nothing to do w/ the pals. I have noticed that you really have nothing to prove that the pals were the ones who said this. You keep bringing up syria, egypt, etc. (npr) and these countries are completely irrelevant to this conflict. They had nothing to do w/ any peace agreements b/w isr and pal. or anything of that matter. The fact is that you have nothing negative to say about the pals, except that they "reject" the isr. state which i have already proven wrong in R3. You talk about pushing the jews but you ignore the fact that over a million pals. were forcebly removed from their native villages as a result of ben-gurion's policy of ethnic cleansing and now have to live as refugees in foreign countries just so that the jews of brooklyn, moscow, etc can live there and so that they could be a majority.

I am attacking your sources b/c they are NOT reliable. Wikipedia is terrible and is easily altered by people. Its really not that difficult. There are many other sources you can use. Ad hominem would mean im attacking u personally, but im not.

Once again, egypt and jordan are irrelevant to this subject. They have nothing to do with this. Keep it simple.

The problem with your case is that you think there is only an occupation. There is more than that. There is also oppression. The pals may have been "occupied" by jordan but they certainly were not oppressed and were not kicked out of their land b/c of ethnic cleansing like what isr. did. Jordan did not kill thousands of innocent pals. This is the diff. b/w jordan and israel. Pals are occupied b/c land was finally given to them to est. their own state under the 1947 plan which was internationally recog., and it was illegally taken away from them. Simple.

Go back to R3. I have already proven w/ several sources that the PLO and Arafat accepted the two state solution. (keep in mind that I quoted mostly israeli-affiliated politicians and writers)

"We also have statements by Both Syria and Egypt stating their intentions to destroy all of Israel."

Yes, but you have NOT A SINGLE SOURCE, that the palestinians, intended to do the same. The fact of the matter is, the palestinians always welcomed and supported peace plans for the benefit of their people, and israel rejected them. In reality, the only country we see on the map is israel, not palestine. is what you gave as proof:
"it is impossible for a permanent and just peace to be established in the area unless our Palestinian people recover all their national rights and, first and foremost, their rights to return and to self-determination on the whole of the soil of their homeland; "

Has Israel abided by this? All of this was stated in UN res. 242 and is acknowledged by intl law. Israel refused to accept this given the fact that just a few yrs after the '67 did isr. illegally acquire the land that was to go to the pal. state. This was demanded by isr. BEFORE the '67 and '73 war.

I already explained to you the interpretation of the hamas charter. Go back to R4.

"We Have Israel offering back all land conquered in 1967."

You still dont understand. Israel MUST and has been DEMANDED by intl law to give it back. Has it given it back yet? NO. And then you sit around and wonder why the pals. are fighting.

"agrees to give the Palestinians limited self rule"
WHEN??! Do the pals have this? NO.

"Israel then offers a full state to the Palestinians in 2000."

Where's the state??

Arafat in 2000 DID ACCEPT the 2000 peace plan. This was proven even as he shook hands w/ rabin in front clinton in thw white house lawn. It wasnt until ISRAEL, after the 2 shook hands, that it refused to give the 9% of the west bank that it wished to keep, that isr. was running an annexation running east from j-lem, and that the pal. state would be crippled by a lack of water and energy, which it was obligated to do as part of the plan. This was all rejected by israel. Clinton wanted Arafat to accept it, b/c clinton himself was worrying about his credibility and popularity and wanted to be the 1st U.S. Pres. to achieve peace b/w the 2 parties. As israel refuses to adhere to the WHOLE plan, arafat begins to step away from it, right after he saw that israel did not abide by it any longer.

Hamas accepts two states

I dont think you understand something. The main reason why the pals, have resorted to cucide attacks and such IS B/C OF THE ISRAELI OCCUPATION AND THE FACT THAT IT HAS NOT ABIDED BY ANY PART OF INTL LAW. its not the other way around. Perfect ex. is annapolis. isrl 's construction of settlements during the peace talks was at a much more rapid rate than ever and abbas himself said this was a major impediment to the peace process.

Israel has given NOTHING to the palestinians. If it did, PROVE IT. The pals dont have to give anthing to anyone. they are not the ones who grabbed all the land. they are legally entitled to what intl law says.

By the way, Dershowitz's book is a proven fraud. He playgarized from several different sources. He has no credibility.

Meir asks jordan not to fight'Jordan's%20King

Whose going with the adhominems now?


Since this is the final round and we haven't even really touched the main topic of this debate, I really just need to spend this argument showing how everything you said in the previous argument is either a willful lie on your part, or absolute ignorance.
First you quote "Israeli writer Benny Morris in his book 'Expulsion of the Palestinians'".
Benny Morris never wrote a book "Expulsion of the Palestinians." Nur Masalha did write such a book, although it basically contradicts all first hand accounts from newspapers around the world at that time.
Now why would you write this as from "The Israeli Writer Benny Morris" to give off the impression that this is a widely held view? Error on your part??? Deceit?? This has been your motif throughout this debate. Consistent lies. And of course this quote from Ben Gurion is a lie as well. There never was a policy of ethnic cleansing and, after the war 300,000 Palestinians became Israel citizens, of which there descendants number around 1.5 million. Pretty bad ethnic cleansing Job if you ask me.
"Ben-gurion and his policies of mass ethnic cleansing were what brought arab rejection in the end."
There is no indication of this from ANY SOURCE ANYWHERE. Again, willful deceit, or just ignorance.
Here is an actual quote from Arab League Secretary General Hazam Pasha in 1947 in response to the partition plan:
"The Arab world is not in a compromising mood. It's likely... that your plan is rational and logical, but the fate of nations is not decided by rational logic. Nations never concede; they fight. You won't get anything by peaceful means or compromise. You can, perhaps, get something, but only by the force of your arms. We shall try to defeat you. I am not sure we'll succeed, but we'll try. We were able to drive out the Crusaders, but on the other hand we lost Spain and Persia. It may be that we shall lose Palestine. But it's too late to talk of peaceful solutions."
It is clear from every first hand account and second hand account that the partition plan was rejected b/c of a refusal to allow a Jewish State to even exist.
"Once again, egypt and jordan are irrelevant to this subject. They have nothing to do with this. Keep it simple."
I love this line. Of course they are irrelevant to you, because you have NO answer for why the Palestinians did not try to establish a state during those 19 years, and that would mean that when they suddenly do want their own state when the land is controlled by Israel, would have to mean they have ulterior motives i.e. the destruction of the Jewish State.

"Jordan did not kill thousands of innocent pals."
Should you really even be debating?? Do you know anything about the middle east at all?
I know I am not being civil... but your willful distortion is just aggravating.

"I have already proven w/ several sources that the PLO and Arafat accepted the two state solution."
Do you even read anything I say? I said the PLO accepted the two state solution (although there were reservations on the part of Israel that this was merely a stage that would allow them to destroy all of Israel as per their 10 point plan in 1974 as quoted in previous arguments) What you HAVE NOT SHOWN obviously is that HAMAS, the currently elected government of the Palestinian people, accepted the two state solution. And that is because they have not. You have LIED about them signing the Arab charter calling for two states, WHEN They did not, and you have LIED about them wanting a two state permanent solution when there has been NO SUCH THING.

"'We also have statements by Both Syria and Egypt stating their intentions to destroy all of Israel.'
Yes, but you have NOT A SINGLE SOURCE, that the palestinians, intended to do the same."
Except of course the Hamas charter... oh and every speech by any member of Hamas... oh and tons of speeches by Arafat in arabic... yeah... except for those.

"All of this was stated in UN res. 242 and is acknowledged by intl law."
NO. the quote was "on the whole of the soil of their homeland" i.e. NO ISRAEL. This is not was 242 says.

"I already explained to you the interpretation of the hamas charter. "
Your only "explanation" was quote from the Washington Post where Hamas spokesmen refused to recognize Israel, and refused to give up any claim to the entire area of Palestine. This explains a charter calling for the "Death of Jews" and the destruction of Israel??

"Israel MUST and has been DEMANDED by intl law to give it back."
International law DOES allow for the negotiations of territory acquired in war to be negotiated back for a peaceful resolution. That is what Israel did. War does not work that way. Your enemies cannot try and destroy you and then when you acquire territory, just give it back with your enemy still wanting your destruction. It doesnt work that way. International law allows for ceasefire lines as a pre-condition for peaceful negotiations.
Israel has every legal right to hold on to that land until their are assured peace.

"'agrees to give the Palestinians limited self rule'
WHEN??! Do the pals have this? NO."
Yes they do
This has been confirmed by independent agencies. they operate their own police force and their own courts. Limited self rule.

"Arafat in 2000 DID ACCEPT the 2000 peace plan. This was proven even as he shook hands w/ rabin in front clinton in thw white house lawn."
This has to be the most aggravating of all paragraphs in how much it shows a lack of knowledge. Rabin and Arafat did not shake hands in 2000 after the 2000 peace deal. This would be hard b/c Rabin was dead. There never was any handshaking at 2000 b/c Arafat never accepted the Israeli peace proposals. As your source from Kristof clearly says he NEVER made a counter offer, and never gave any commitment to any peace deal. This entire paragraph, is a lie.

"Hamas accepts two states"
None of your sources state this. Not one. At most they have agreed to a long term truce, but REFUSE to give up on their goal to establish Palestine on the entire territory!! Not just pre-1967 borders!! Is this willful deceit? Ignorance?? Ability to confuse yourself?

"By the way, Dershowitz's book is a proven fraud. He playgarized (sic) from several different sources. He has no credibility."
Yeah... except that he's a tenured professor at Harvard University arguably the best University in the world. He has been described by Newsweek as America's "most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer and one of its most distinguished defenders of individual rights" and by Corriere della Sera as "America's most famous progressive lawyer." But that won't stop people who disagree with him on Israel from trying to smear him.

"Israel has given NOTHING to the palestinians. If it did, PROVE IT. The pals dont have to give anthing (sic) to anyone. they are not the ones who grabbed all the land. they are legally entitled to what intl law says."
As previously proven, Israel HAS given the Palestinians limited self rule (their have their own police, their own elections, and their own court system). And the Pals DO have to do something. Under international law you DO NOT have to return land if it will harm your security. Aside from the fact that Israel conquered the land from Jordan and Egypt and not the Palestinians... who have since relinquished their claim, so it is hard to argue why this land should be returned under international law to the palestinians if there never was a land to begin with.

"Meir asks Jordan not to fight"
Your source:
That same morning, Israel sent a message to Jordan's leader King Hussein via the US State Department, the UN and the British Foreign Office, saying that, despite the outbreak of war, it would not attack the West Bank if Jordan maintained quiet on that front.
Jordan ignored Israel's appeal to avoid conflict.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by zoundmind 9 years ago
there are many murderers who can who feel upset or opressed and always try to justify there murders! the ones with guts strap bombs to there owbn backs ....we call it terrorism!
justify attacking? hahahahahahahahah its sad really.
Posted by Noor 9 years ago
The fact that you judge your opponent based on age is clearly embarassing and tell me to look at both sides when you have rejected every thing I argued with flawed and unreliable sources like wikipedia and alan dershowitz's playgarized book...judge yourself and your beliefs b4 you go and judge someone you never even met...the fact that you deny history already says that you only inform yourself about one side. Saying that pals weren't expelled from their land is like saying the holocaust nvr least I know ab out the other side
Posted by snamd 9 years ago
I see from your profile that you are just 18, and you do have a good amount to learn. I urge you to thoroughly research all sides of this conflict. I am not sure if you just hear your professors wrong, or if they just say wrong things, but taking anybody's one sided view of this conflict is wrong. Read all the historical references (including as many first hand newspaper accounts that were written at the time) go over UN transcripts of the events in 1947-1949 and around 1967, and really learn about this issue. You see to be passionate about it, but unfortunately you are not very knowledgeable in it.
Benny Morris never wrote that book and clearly argues in his book "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949" that there was NO policy of expulsion. here is a link arguing with Morris's conclusion clearly showing Benny Morris believes there was no policy of expulsion and did not write the book "Expulsion of the Palestinians."
Now, why would I give you a link that so clearly argues with my own beliefs? B/c I believe it's important to read all sides... and come to your own conclusions.
I have... and you should to.
Posted by Noor 9 years ago
and the fact that you use wikipedia to justify your arguments is just really sad.
Posted by Noor 9 years ago
snamd, you really are in said that everything i said was a "consistent lie" w/o providing counter evdience... and yes, benny morris did write that book, im sorry that bothers you. i suggest you go from the beginning and research this conflict. and sayign that there was no ethnic cleansing is just beyond ignorance. may jewish professors books that i cited explained that ethnic cleansing happened. you really dont know much. make sure you prvide counter evidence before you call someone a liar. FREE PALESTINE
Posted by zoundmind 9 years ago
attacking is wrong,killing is bad !We teach children this.
anyone attacking is terrorizing and there is no justifying it.
defending is much diff, has nothing to do with leaving your neighborhood to premeditate and hurt others ,children and mothers.
Posted by wjmelements 9 years ago
Israel was attacked by domestic terrorists; therefore, it is Israel's responsibility to suppress the terrorists as they feel necessary.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 4 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: The only other vote on this debate seems a pretty obvious votebomb.
Vote Placed by Erick 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70