The Instigator
darthebearnc
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
mudkip624
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Israel's Current Actions in Gaza are Justified

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
darthebearnc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/4/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,006 times Debate No: 59951
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

darthebearnc

Pro

Hi, everyone. We will be debating over whether Israel or Gaza has a more justifiable cause in the current situation. First round is for acceptance only. Please do not drag religion into this argument, as that would make it nearly impossible to debate over here.
mudkip624

Con

Accepted. Good luck to Aff.
Debate Round No. 1
darthebearnc

Pro

Dear Con,
Thanks for accepting the debate. Just to confirm, I will be arguing that Israel is 'right' in its current conflict against Gaza and that its current actions are justifiable.

First of all, let's lay down the facts. On June 12, three Israeli teens were kidnapped and later found dead in the West Bank, a fellow part of Palestine and ally to Gaza. The chief politician of Hamas (which governs Palestine), Khaled Mashal, congratulated the abductor of the teens, though he did not confirm or deny that members of his organization was responsible for the killings. However, the day after the burial of the teens, a Palestinian boy was found dead in a supposed revenge killing. Israel quickly tracked down and arrested the suspects in the revenge killing, obviously not supportive of their actions. Gaza, being angry at Israel because of the revenge killing, decided to start firing rockets and mortar shells across the Israel-Gaza border. These attacks were quickly put down using Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system. However, Gaza continued firing at Israel, forcing Israel to fire back in defense and begin regular bombings. This conflict quickly escalated into the violence happening today. Gaza and Israel both keep firing at each other, despite regular offers for cease-fires by the Israeli Defense Forces. Eventually, extremists from Hamas (which the US defines as a terrorist organization), began traveling through tunnels on the border in order to reach and attack Israeli citizens. the IDF decided to, in retaliation, begin a land invasion and block the tunnels used by the terrorists. As of today (August 5), the 32 tunnels have been closed, and Israel has retreated from its ground invasion. However, many accuse Israel, not Gaza, of using unnecessary force against Gaza's citizens. I will be explaining that this force is necessary in order to establish lasting peace between the two entities. Before I begin my argument, I would like to state that I in no way support the death of innocent civilians and do wish, in every way, that the casualties of this conflict were much fewer, if existent. If you have any disputes about whether any of the events mentioned above are true or not, please tell me. Otherwise, the above text will serve as a basis for fact on the events of the conflict. Thanks!

Now in opinion's realm, let us start out with who began this conflict. Obviously, Palestinians took the lives of three innocent Israelis, while Israel later took the live of one innocent Palestinian. While Israel shamed the Israeli who was responsible for the death of the Palestinian boy, Hamas encouraged the Palestinian abductor of the three Israelis. Hamas stated on July 8th that "all Israelis" had become "legitimate targets" for its missile strikes, hinting an already obvious desire that Hamas wants Israel and all of its Israeli occupants destroyed. This desire is further made obvious by a Hamas statement saying, word for word: "The Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realization 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 judgment will not come until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jews 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." This Hamas statement (acquired from theatlantic.com) shows Hamas's bloodthirst to kill all Jews. This is an obvious call for genocide, a call that can be further determined by the Hamas Charter, a 1998 document with a preamble stating, R43;Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before itR43;. Any disagreements about the content of the charter may be solved using http://avalon.law.yale.edu.... Obviously, as long as you do not agree with its terms yourself, Hamas is a terror organization aiming for genocide of the Jews and obliteration of all of Israel. Meanwhile, Israel's happily just goal is to restore peace among its citizens, with Prime Minister Netanyahu stating August 5th that Israel will be done with the conflict when "a prolonged period of quiet and security is returned to Israel's citizens". Obviously, Israel's goal is only for peace and coexistence with Palestine. Even the US Senate has backed Israel's goal, stating in a unanimous opinion (everyone in the senate agrees) that Israel has the right to defend itself against "Hamas" unrelenting and indiscriminate rocket assault into Israel and Israel"s right to destroy Hamas" elaborate tunnel system into Israel"s territory." This quote was taken from http://www.jta.org.... Please visit that website for more information! Back to the point - obviously, while Hamas' goal is to obliterate the nation of Israel and all of its citizens, Israel simply wants peace.

We have covered whose cause is more justifiable. Now, to if Israel's actions are justifiable. I hate to say so, but in the current situation, they are. Notice that Hamas has fired over 2,500 rockets indiscriminately into Israel. Hamas does not care who it hits, as long as it kills. Israel has fired far less rockets into Gaza, though these rockets have specific targets, meaning that Israel wants to hit terrorists, specifically, and not other civilians. Statistically, considering Gaza has fired many more rockets into Israel, a more populated nation, Israeli casualties would be much heavier. However, Israel, which cares about the lives of its inhabitants, has initiated the Iron Dome missile defense system to protect the lives of Israelis. Hamas, on the other hand, has done nothing whatsoever to protect its citizens. This is why so many Palestinians, and so few Israelis, are dying. Notice that Gaza gives no forewarning of its attacks. It does not want Israelis to know when to go to bomb shelters and protect themselves. However, Israel has delivered pamphlets to citizens in Gaza telling them when not to be in certain places because of missile fire, and where to go for safety. As stated above, Israel does not want the innocent citizens of Gaza to die. Gaza wants the innocent citizens of Israel to die. It is simple. Gaza also wants its own citizens to die. This is obvious, as Hamas makes no attempt whatsoever, unlike Israel and its Iron Dome, to save its citizens. Gaza wants the world to think that it is a victim and Israel is the perpetrator. It wants the nations of the world to love Gaza and hate Israel. It believes it can do so by showing statistics that say that more people of Gaza have died than people of Israel, meaning that Gaza is just and Israel is not. Hamas is letting its own citizens die so it can have sympathy from other nations. Israel does not want sympathy, rather, it wants alive people, so it protects its citizens. This is simple. Israel is right, Gaza is wrong. Are Israel's rocket attacks justifiable? Unfortunately, yes. If Israel did not destroy Hamas, Hamas would repeatedly try to destroy Israel, killing millions of Israeli citizens in its path. The situation is much similar to that of World War II, when Harry Truman dropped a bomb on Hiroshima. Sadly, this killed people. However, it sent a message to the enemy government to stop fighting and end the war. Harry Truman always said, correctly, that millions more lives would be lost in other ways if the bomb had not been dropped. Harry Truman saved millions of lives (indirectly) by doing this. Truman is Netanyahu. America is Israel. Bombing Hiroshima is bombing Gaza. It all lines up. By bombing Gaza, Israel indirectly saves many more of its own citizens from a similar fate. Furthermore, Israel does not mean to kill the citizens of Gaza, it merely does because Hamas has placed its rocket launch zones in highly populated areas, in order to get Israel to kill its citizens. As stated before, it wants these citizens to die for international sympathy.

All in all, I, along Israel, am heartbroken that so many had to die for others to live. I wish it never happened, just as I wish the bombing of Hiroshima never happened. However, these could be necessary to save millions more lives in the future. Please consider this. Thanks!

P.S. More about this conflict can be found on cnn.com, a source that I used while writing my argument. Thanks!
mudkip624

Con

Good argument on the side of the Aff, but now i will rebuke him and prove why Gaza is in the right in the current conflict.

In order to explain this, I need to take a trip back in time. The conflict really started back in 1967, when Israelis invaded Palestine, and stayed there all the way up until 2005! That's the same year that the Hamas organization took over in Gaza. Now, the Israelis finally left after this, but set up a blockade on Gaza which have had a number of negative effects on the people living there, because the Israelis believe that Hamas is a terrorist organization.

All entry into Israel from Gaza and from Israel to Gaza is severely limited. There isn't even a working airport. Because of this, it's nigh impossible to get good in and out of Gaza. Food is allowed in, but various aid agencies in Gaza say that families aren't getting as much meat, fruit, and vegetables as they once were. There are also often power cuts. There's also a lot of unemployment, because businesses can't get their products out of the country. Because of this, many people are poor and can't buy things. So already, we can see that Gaza is in bad shape due to actions taken by the Israelis.

Now let's travel back in time once again. In the 1948 and 1967 wars, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forced out of their homes due to the Israelis taking it from them. That is why Gaza fired/fires rockets at Israel. Gaza still feels sore for being occupied for so long and believes that Israel should be punished, which is a logical reaction for anybody if their home was taken from them for so long.

Now we'll go back to 2005. Israel withdrew their troops from Gaza in that year, however, this hasn't stopped them from making other offensives on Gaza in later years. In 2008, Israel sent soldiers into Gaza. An estimated 1,300 people, many of them civilians, were killed in Gaza before a ceasefire was declared; 13 Israeli soldiers also died. That's a lot of casualties on the Gaza side, and very few on the Israeli side. In 2012, at least 167 Palestinians and six Israelis were killed during an Israeli operation. Once again, very few losses on the Israeli side. This has a been a pattern with Israel. They kill a bunch of people in Gaza, both sides call for peace, which is courteous and generous on Gaza's side, and then Israel inevitably comes and and kills a bunch of Gaza members once again.

So as we can see, Gaza is simply reacting to the injustice that was enacted on them by the Israelis. And the Israelis have have killed way more from Gaza than the Israelis have lost on their side. This is simply exacerbated by the fact that Israel performed the revenge killing. They may have shown their disapproval, but if Israel truly wished for peace, they would search for a diplomatic resolution rather than killing so many Palestinians. Clearly it is Gaza who is in the right here rather than the Israelis.

Thank you for following this debate all you voters out there, and vote neg.
Debate Round No. 2
darthebearnc

Pro

Dear Con,
I don't mean to be rude, but your argument strongly seems to imply that you didn't read mine whatsoever. In fact, my previous argument rebukes most points you have made, as I strongly expected what you would have to say. However, I will still attempt to create a strong rebuttal for each of your arguments in this round.

You state that in 1967, Israel invaded Palestine and occupied the territory until 2005. Though this may be true, I do not think you have understood the true reason behind Israel's invasion. The Six-Day War (Source 1), a brief military conflict taking place between June 5 and 10, 1967, was the third Arab-Israeli War with a decisive Israeli victory. The war was sparked by a range of unprovoked attacks by Palestinian guerrilla militias based in Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon against Israel, leading to Israeli counterattacks. Notice that much like the conflict today, Palestine was the first to strike offensively, followed by an Israeli defense operation. Israel, expecting more attacks from the Palestinian and Arabic enemies, decided to invade before they could be invaded themselves, and began a strike in the Jordanian West Bank, followed by an air battle with Syria. Egypt (another one of Israel's enemies) eventually allied itself with Syria, Jordan, and Iraq, planning to invade Israel. However, Israel foresaw the invasion, and wanting to attack before attacked itself, Israel staged a surprise air attack on Egypt, destroying its air force. Israel soon incapacitated most of Syria and Jordan's military as well, leading to a decisive Israeli victory. Israel gained Gaza, the Golan Heights, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, and full control of Jerusalem. Obviously, though Israel was the clear victor, the war was provoked by Palestine and its allies, all of whom were planning an invasion of Israel and provoked the defensively-driven nation with guerrilla attacks. Israel eventually closed settlements in Gaza in 2005. My opponent claims that this war provoked Gaza's airstrikes on Israel in 2014, however, Israel is not to blame. Obviously, Israel only engaged in the Six Day War to prevent itself from being attacked, and in no way would want to attack Palestine otherwise.

My opponent next claims, correctly, that Israel has a blockade on Gaza that has resulted in the lack of air transportation, food, electricity, and sufficient employment. How is this Israel's fault? Israel has no responsibility whatsoever to trade with Gaza, and should not be blamed for anything relating to the matter. Israel is simply blockading itself from Gaza for protection. Obviously, many people of Gaza want to destroy Israel and its citizens, so Israel has every right for a blockade. If Israel was to allow access to Gaza, terrorists would immediately spill in and start attacking the people of Israel. This can be proven by the tunnels uncovered on the Gaza-Israel border that were used, before their rightful destruction, to transport terrorists, bombs, and weapons into Israeli territory (Source 2). As mentioned in my above argument, Hamas's charter includes a preamble stating "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (Source 3). A Hamas statement also claims "The day of judgment will not come until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jews 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." This quotation was also mentioned in my previous argument, obviously you did not understand it was there, as you repeatedly state that Gaza is innocent in its warfare against Israel. As shown, if Israel were to lessen the blockade (Source 4) against Gaza, militants would swarm into Israel, intentionally trying to destroy the nation's citizens. Israel is at no fault for the lack of materials in Gaza. You say that 'Gaza is in bad shape due to actions taken by the Israelis', the correct statement would be 'Gaza is in bad shape due to the actions of itself against the Israelis'. If Gaza was not constantly trying to destroy Israel, then Israel would lift the blockade on Gaza.

You next state that the cause of the recent attacks on Israel is due to the occupation of Palestinian territory. As stated earlier, the occupation of this territory is due to the fact that if Palestine was not closely watched over, it would continue its bloodthirsty assaults on Israel. For its own protection, Israel needed to occupy Palestine in order to reassure the safety of its own citizens.

Your next accusation against Israel is its 2008 attack on Gaza (Source 5). Once more, you do not provide the cause of any of Israel's military actions. This one, like the current conflict, was merely a response to rocket and mortar firings from Gaza. As I cannot stress enough, all of the situations you have mentioned are conflicts started by Gaza with an Israeli response. Obviously, Gaza is intent on destroying Israel, while Israel only wants to protect itself.

You next stress that more people from Gaza are killed during these historical conflicts than those of Israel. This in no way means that Gaza is good and Israel is bad. It simply means, as stressed in my previous argument, that Israel has a better defense system than Gaza. Israel also wants to protect its citizens, while Gaza wants its people to die in order to gain international sympathy. Gaza is intentionally hiding its rockets and weapons in schoolhouses and U.N. facilities so Israeli militias are forced to attack these locations. Gaza wants its people to die so it can have sympathy from other nations. Just because Israel has less casualties does not mean it is worse. You also stress that Gaza makes recurrent calls for peace. This could not be further from the truth. As mentioned above, Gaza intends to destroy Israel. Israel is the one initiating the cease-fires, while Hamas is the one refusing them (Source 6). Hamas has also broken nearly every U.N. or Israeli cease-fire offered to them.

Finally, you state that Gaza is 'reacting to the injustice that was enacted on them by the Israelis'. This is a lie. Gaza wants to destroy Israel; any military actions taken by the Israeli militias have only been in the names of defense and protection. Just because casualties in Gaza are higher, Gaza is not innocent - Israel merely has a better defense. If Israel's defense was of the same caliber than that of Gaza, then Israeli casualties would be in the thousands. You state that Israel would search for a diplomatic resolution if it wanted peace - every day, Israel tries to do just this. War is a last case scenario for Israel, which would much rather prefer peace. You constantly make assumptions and lies about Israel's intentions that are meant to belittle the constantly-attacked nations, rather Gaza is the one who is responsible for the fault of the war.

Once more, I do not believe that you read my last argument, as it rebuked every statement that you made. This argument is simply to reinforce my beliefs. Before you again make accusations against Israel, please thoroughly read my last argument - it is the basis of my opinion, which you obviously do not wish to understand.

I again wish to say that I do not wish to be rude or offensive whatsoever, I am merely defending my beliefs. Have a nice day, and I wish to read your next argument soon!

1. http://www.britannica.com...
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com...
3. http://avalon.law.yale.edu...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
5. http://en.wikipedia.org...(2008%E2%80%9309)
6. http://www.bbc.com...

Note: Hamas is labeled a terrorist organization by nations such as the United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, Egypt, the European Union, and Israel.
mudkip624

Con

Ok, so to summarize, my opponent's whole argument boils down to, "Israel has the high ground because they're just defending themselves from Gaza's aggression." Fair enough. Gaza is always the initiator between the two sides, and Israel is just defending themselves. I did indeed read your argument, but clearly my rebuttal won't suffice, so I'm going to switch gears here.
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it, the day of judgment will not come until Muslims fight the Jews , when the Jews 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." My opponent is very fond of this quote, as he has used it twice. The key thing you need to notice here, is that their whole mission statement is religiously based. The reason Gaza wants all the Israelis dead, is because they are Jewish. If Israeli was Islam, there wouldn't even be an issue. The core of this issue is a religous one. What I'm getting at is that it's difficult, if not impossible to argue which side is in the right, because you would first need to decide which religion is in the right, and as anyone knows, that's a Sisyphean task.
So ultimately, my opponent can't win, because he can't prove that Israel is in the right. Israel fights in the name of Judaism, and Gaza fights in the name of Islam. Sure you can sprinkle some sugar on the situation by saying that Israel is just defending themselves, but ultimately they're both in the wrong for fighting to begin with. I'm not religious, but I'm sure their respective gods would frown on them for killing each so much, and for so long. However that's not what we're here to discuss. By proving that neither side is in the right, I've proven that Israels current actions aren't justified, and thus fulfilled my burden of proof. Because my opponent can't possibly win, and I'm the only one that's fulfilled their BOP, voting Neg is the only option remaining.
Thank you Aff, thank you voters, and vote Neg.
Debate Round No. 3
darthebearnc

Pro

Dear Con,
Hello. As we near the end of our debate, I wish to provide some final rebuttals to your arguments, and deny that your Burden of Proof has been fulfilled (as it hasn't). Please notice that my main ideas and opinions are located in my previous arguments.

You notice that I have used the Hamas statement about the extermination of Jews twice. I only used the quote the second time because it appeared that you completely missed it in your previous argument. You failed to recognize the desire of the Hamas organization for the genocide of the Jewish people. Yes, the mission statement of Hamas is religiously biased, though no, the core of this argument is not a religious one. We are not debating whether the Islamic or Jewish religion is more accurate. I am not angered with the Hamas statement because they want to specifically murder Jews, rather, I am angered because they want to commit genocide whatsoever. Whether Hamas wanted to kill Jews, Christians, atheists, blacks, whites, Americans, or any other specific group of people, genocide is uncalled for in any situation, and that is why I am angered with the Hamas organization. This is not a religiously based conflict. Though it may be for Hamas because Israel is a nation of Jewish people, Israel is not participating in the war for religious reasons. Israel, though majority Jewish, is not using its religion as an excuse for its actions in Gaza. Rather, Israel's actions in Gaza are taking place solely to defend its people. Israel is not targeting Hamas because it is Muslim, rather Israel is targeting Hamas because Hamas wants to destroy Israel. Therefore, as this is not a religiously based conflict (Israel is acting in defense and for non-religious reasons), my opponent's burden of proof is not fulfilled. The core of the issue is not religious, and Israel, acting ONLY for its defense and not (as my opponent accuses) for religious reasons, is the more righteous cause in the conflict. Furthermore, my opponent himself admits that 'Gaza has always been the initiator between the two sides, and Israel is just defending (itself).' My opponent, in this sense, is admitting his side's own wrongdoing, and as his religiously-charged argument is invalid (see above), he has basically given me the debate. His burden of proof is unfulfilled, as the conflict, which is purely defense on Israel's side, is nonreligious. My opponent argues that 'it's difficult, if not impossible to argue which side is in the right, because you would first need to decide which religion is in the right'. However, as Israel is pursuing the conflict for nonreligious reasons (I can't stress this enough), we do not need to first decide which religion is'right' before ending the debate. Hamas terrorists, who are willing to commit an act of genocide against an opposing group (no matter which type), are obviously wrong in the current situation, and Israel has every right to defend itself and fight Gaza. I do not need to defend Judaism in my argument, rather, I need to defend Israel's want for protection against an enemy. However, as Hamas is holding a religiously-based fight, my opponent does need to prove the righteousness of Islam in order to win.

Overall, my opponent's burden of proof has NOT been fulfilled, and therefore, I am still in the running for the winning of this debate. My opponent himself admitted that my defense argument is valid, and I have just proven him wrong in the argument of religion. Israel does not fight in the name of Judaism (rather, in the name of justice/defense) and can therefore have justified actions in other aspects. I look forward to what he can muster up in his next argument.

Thank you, and good luck!
mudkip624

Con

mudkip624 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
darthebearnc

Pro

My opponent has forfeited the round. This is a breach of conduct. I encourage him to create an argument for the next round.

Thanks!
mudkip624

Con

mudkip624 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Dilara 3 years ago
Dilara
The un warned Israel 17 times that the in jabelia school had no militants but they bombed it anyway than they bombed a market place with again no militants and than they killed 4 boys on a beach who were playing soccer and did not have any weapons. They are genociding Palestinians. You can't compare the three teenage boys death to the one palestinian boys death and say "Palestinians killed 3 Israelis and Israelis killed one Palestinian because in the Gaza war of 2014 1400 Palestinian civilians were killed by Israel while only three Israeli civilians died. Over 400 Palestinian kids died while 0 Israeli kids died.
Posted by darthebearnc 3 years ago
darthebearnc
Dear 'SocialAtheistNutjob',
The debate is basically about which side has a better, or more justifiable, cause. Thanks for asking such an insightful question.
Posted by SocialistAtheistNutjob 3 years ago
SocialistAtheistNutjob
Is the debate about whether or not Israel's actions are justifiable, or is the debate an argument over who is in the wrong?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Kreakin 3 years ago
Kreakin
darthebearncmudkip624Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff
Vote Placed by JasperFrancisShickadance 3 years ago
JasperFrancisShickadance
darthebearncmudkip624Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided sources whereas Con did not. I feel that Con did not refute Pro's arguments well enough in the first few rounds. The rest of the points are given because of FF.