Israel is morally justified in its attacks on Hamas
Debate Rounds (4)
To start, I'd like to look at what qualifies as justified. Any action that has a net benefit (includes preventing a greater harm) is a justifiable action. A net benefit means that at the end of the effects of the action, more good was done than bad.
With that in mind, I will move on to my arguments.
My first is that Israel's attacks are warranted by the threat of Hamas. As already seen, Hamas is willing and has been willing to carry out attacks on Israeli civilians for no purpose other than killing. Without continued military pressure on Hamas, this could only intensify, leaving more innocents dead. Israel's attacks may have killed civilians, but they have all been against Hamas targets. It is not Israel's fault that Hamas hides behind civilians. Israel's attacks are morally justified because the net benefit (preventing Hamas from rampant killing) is far greater than the harms (the number of deaths from attacking Hamas).
My second reason is that any move that is defensive is morally justified. Israel's attacks have often been targeted specifically at Hamas military installments that pose potential harms for Israel. Attacking these as a safety measure is morally justified, as again, the lives saved outnumber the lives lost. If Israel were attacking Hamas as an offensive operation, things might be different, but as a defensive measure, moral justification exists.
A large part of this case is built around the fact that Israel actually threatened. This is true. First look in the news. Hamas has already killed many civilians whether it be from hidden tunnels or the few rockets that beat the iron dome. Second, a story. I have been told first person accounts of being in Israel and hiding from rockets pouring from Hamas. Needing to hide in shelter on a vacation. No person, no country should have to live in constant fear of being killed. As an operation to liberate civilians from the shackles of fear, Israel's actions are justified.
Let's understand the reality!
Israel is attacking on the world's most precious creatures which is human being! are the human beings worth killing for no reason? of course NO!
Israel does not have any rights to kill innocent people!
if there are political conflicts, they should use other peaceful ways to reduce the conflicts! WAR is not the tool for solving the problems!
if you wash blood with the blood it wont be cleaned!
lets make another way of making peace!
Israel is not attacking Philistine! but they attack on ISLAM! they want to show that how cruel they are, and how they had forgotten their humanity!
Israel is seeing political and economical benefits on attacking Hamas! they want to occupy Bait-ul-Muqadas (بیت المقدس) at the cost of killing Muslims!
I strongly oppose that Israel Attacks are not morally justified!!!
Why Israel should attack to save the human lives in long term? are they the only nation in the world? are they only caring about human being lives? OFCOURSE No!
because continuing attacks on Hamas will only results to killing innocent Muslim people, and Muslims are not terrorist!!
It does not seems logical to kill someone today for saving the future lives! how can you judge on peoples lives?
It is not a racist war? but it is more than racist war! because it is more killing Muslim People than killing Hamas and his group!
If Israel needs to attack to ensure its safety, as it does, and the civilian casualties are the fault of Hamas, as they are, the attacks on Hamas are nothing if not justified.
1. Hamas just simply protects their nation, and they are not using civilians as shield, but they are protecting them and protecting their rights!.
2. Who knows those hidden rockets were owned by Hamas? maybe its kept there for showing a bad image of Hamas to the world.
3. Israel is forgetting the humanity, and they simple kill innocent people by blaming they are terrorists and they are part of Hamas.
Your point of WW2 is totally different from this scenario, because of the following reasons;
a. Hitler who is known the most dangerous terrorist in the 1940s, he was doing it for reason which was personal or maybe for power, while Hamas is doing so to protect their nation and they do not want power!
b. They were powerful in terms of military, economic, and other resources though they wanted to occupy more countries and role on them, while Hamas is not doing so!
c. Can you analyze how Philistine is destroyed by Israel brutal attacks?
If you are agree that people is dying for wrong, then why should Israel continue their attacks on Philistine? Everyone knows that by attacking, only innocent people is killed, they can not kill Hamas! if they think they have the power, why don't they kill Hamas personally, rather than continuing brutal attacks?
Hamas is defending their nation and country, though they need to sacrifice their civilians, just to protect their rights!
If Israel stops their attacks on Hamas im sure Hamas will also find a way to solve these issues.
Keeping in view all the above reasons and descriptions, Israel must stop their attacks because their attacks are not morally justified!
Saving lives. The main point my opponent has yet to refute is that Hamas is constantly attacking nonmilitary targets in Israel. If Israel doesn't destroy Hamas, Hamas will destroy Israel. Killing a few to save many more is by all means justified.
Potential negative effects:
First I'd like to point out that I agree that people being killed is sad. I value human life as much as my opponent.
Innocent deaths in Gaza. What is key to understanding how Israel is justified is realizing that Hamas is in no way defending its people. If you require proof, look at the links I provided in one of my rebuttals. Hamas is simply using the civilians as it wages war on Jews. Jews are not waging war on Islam, it is but a few terrorists waging war on the Jews. These deaths, although unfortunate, are not the fault of the Jews, they are the fault of Hamas making the only reason the attacks wouldn't be justified invalid.
Now to talk about the WW2 argument.
To respond to your response A: Hamas is in no way defending its people, Hamas is a terrorist organization that is waging war on Judaism.
B: Hitler wasn't powerful militarily or economically until he was given time to grow without being attacked, this is precisely what we're trying to avoid with Hamas.
C: Hamas is not trying to solve any issues because Hamas is the issue, they are raiding innocent Israelis that aren't military targets. Israel's attacks are against military targets while Hamas is just killing Jews.
In the end, this debate has been won by the affirmative because all 3 voting issues have been won by the affirmative. Israel's attacks are justified because without them, more people would be killed. Any casualties inflicted are simply the fault of Hamas. Finally, we cannot repeat the mistake that lead to WW2, we cannot stand by as Hamas grows in power.
have you ever asked yourself why Hamas does the attacks? because they have to protect their self &they are defending from their nation, if they don't respond, Israel will occupy their country! If you kill innocent people it wont save the future lives, plus Israel is not the only country who thinks of saving future lives! because other powerful countries are in the world who can sort it out, bu Israel constantly attacking on Hamas?? are they the owner of this world? are they the owner of philistine?? are the human lives are in the hand of Israel? Of course not!
The Rafah shelling in particular was widely criticized, with Ban-Ki Moon calling it a "moral outrage and a criminal act" and US State Department calling it "appalling" and "disgraceful". UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said that both Hamas militants and Israel might have committed war crimes. A Human Rights Watch investigation into three of the incidents concluded that Israel committed war crimes.
Just check out, how many people are killed, how the infrastructure of philistine is destroyed! how people are suffering! if you think you are human being and you think you have empathy, checkout cruelties of Israel how are they killing people.
a.Israel is perhaps anti Muslim nation though they kill people!
c.Hamas is not the issue because they are not in conflict with any other country, perhaps they are defending from their nation against a country who think they are the owner of world!
Overall in conclusion; Both the countries are count guilty, but mostly Israel! because all the attacks are on civilians, and non of their attacks are justified! i request them to stop their attacks to prevent future defends from Hamas!
Israel is never justified on their attacks, just by saying we are saving the future lives, they can't continue killing innocent people!
Attacks are not justified!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Emilrose 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||5||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro supported his arguments with relevant sources, while Con made a number of baseless claims [see debate for information] without any direct citations to back them up. Instead of identifying with "why" Israel is not justified in its attacks on Hamas and expounding on this particular argument, Con proceeded to make unsupported claims such as Israel deliberately targeting Muslims and the religion of Islam [something particularly lacking in evidence] and Hamas protecting their nation, and that the conflict between Israel and Hamas is "racist". Such assertions naturally provide Con with a large burden of proof, which he ultimately did not fulfill. In order to prove any argument, evidence and sources are the absolute requirement.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.