The Instigator
Drollf
Pro (for)
Losing
20 Points
The Contender
Cogito-ergo-sum
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

The "Humanitarians" brought not only food to Gaza, but violence and hatred against Israel.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 5/31/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,131 times Debate No: 12194
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (60)
Votes (9)

 

Drollf

Pro

The convoy with the supplies to Gaza had another target besides bringing the food to Gaza's people. They wanted to increase the world's hatred against Israel and make a political statement by refusing to co-operate with Israel's repeating requests. My debate will prove that once again, the world does not realize what's really going on in the middle east, and therefore jumps to conclusions which are extremely inaccurate and based on lies, hatred and even natizm.

First of all, as a background, i must remind you the situation in Israel during the past few years: terror organizations are ruling Gaza and constantly bombing Israeli towns, hurting and killing innocent citizens as their target.
Last year, during "Oferet Yezuka" the IDF invaded Gaza in order to put and end to it. Unfortunately, the terrorists chose to use the innocent population of Gaza as their shield, by bombing from civilians houses, carrying children while fighting, and building their largest and most important base under the hospital.
The IDF is one of the most humanitarian armies, if not the most, in the whole world. The IDF had chosen to not use air bombarding in order NOT TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE WITH THE TERRORISTS, so special ground operation took place at the price of risking and loosing the lives of Israeli soldiers.
One of the main problems during this war, was the amount of missiles and ammunition Hammas held, which was brought into Gaza by different ways. One of them, was by sea.
Therefore, Israel, in order to protect itself had taken the right to INSPECT every thing that goes inside Gaza. We supply food, water and everything needed constantly, but in order to keep the area quiet we do not allow a free passage.
This is why we requested the convoy to stop by Ashdod port, and let us INSPECT the cargo. We promised to have it delivered by land directly in Gaza and deliver it to those who needed it, under the inspection of those who came with the ships.
The convoy had refused to co-operate, and therefore left Israel no choice but to block it and make the inspection in the sea. It does not matter if the inspection was inside or outside Israel's sea boundaries for the convoy made it clear that it is heading towards Gaza no matter what. A few more kilometers wouldn't make a difference, and if the operation was done near the coast it could end with Gaza civilians trying to reach the ships with boats and trust me that would lead to some even more tragic events.
IDF then had to get on board the ships, equipped with paint-ball guns - to scare only, and a pistol if the worst happens and they will receive the order to use it. They hoped to meet peaceful humanitarians. It did not happen. the people on the ship "Marmara" were waiting with metal clubs, large knives, chairs and other cold weapons they used to attack all the navy soldiers who descended on the ship from the helicopter. You can watch the video of the operation and how "Humanitarian" were these people:

In the end, as you can clearly sea in the video, IDF soldiers were hurt and the order was given, our soldiers opened fire against those who were armed.
This is the part where the terrorists are best at - they took this incidence and made the world see only their side of the picture, comparing Israel to natzi Germany and so on. I bet every country would do the same or worse if such violation of it's independence and a realistic threat on it's people had taken place. (the threat as i said was that the cargo included ammunition for Hammas besides the food and education material.)

I am waiting for someone to explain where was Israel wrong in here, why was this an act of terror (make sure to notice who attacked first, either cold and hot weapons - the people on the Marmara.) and why is this case should be threatened any differently from the silent agreement the world has given Russia for example (when they bombed the theater with everyone inside it and all this, I assume you know what kind of things Im talking about).

Raz.
Cogito-ergo-sum

Con

Good day and thank you to Pro for setting up this debate. As Con I will be taking the stance that the "Humanitarians" brought aid to Gaza and not violence and hatred against Israel.

Some rebuttals to begin with - Then some other key points in subsequent rounds.

'They wanted to increase the world's hatred against Israel and make a political statement by refusing to co-operate with Israel's repeating requests.'

Based on what? This is not a statement with any evidence behind it. Opinions without proof do not make a debate.

'My debate will prove that once again, the world does not realize what's really going on in the middle east, and therefore jumps to conclusions which are extremely inaccurate and based on lies, hatred and even natizm.'

Isn't the debate focusing on Israel/Palestine, or the Middle East as a whole? I'll assume you are referring to Israel/Palestine. I have been following this story on the BBC website who may be inaccurate (not sure about lies) They don't show any hatred and 'Natizm'? What is 'Natizm'? I've googled it and it is either something I have never heard of, or you mean to say Nazism? And I think to say it is based on Nazism is extremely inaccurate - the Nazis opposed and oppressed Jews, not Israelis (Two very different things) Also - 'once again' - possibly semantics, but have you debated this before on this site? If so, I assume you're doing it again as you lost the previous encounter.

Your background sections seems to make sense, would have preferred to have seen some sources,websites, newspapers, news channels etc, but I'll take you at your word.

'In the end, as you can clearly sea in the video, IDF soldiers were hurt and the order was given, our soldiers opened fire against those who were armed.' - Nice choice of words, 'your' soldiers opened fire against those who were armed? So you soldiers were armed also? Paintball guns a maybe, but it is still a weapon. And you mention a pistol, why would you need a live weapon and only one, if for the majority of the task 'your' troops felt paintball guns were good enough?

The link speaks of over 600 aid workers trying to bring in aid for the people in Gaza - Note there is no mention of weapons and ammunition on board (Also collate the number of sources they speak to to make these stories as accurate as possible) [1]

' (the threat as i said was that the cargo included ammunition for Hammas besides the food and education material.)' -
So this was a preemptive strike? It must have been since no ammunition was found, merely surmised to be there which has gone to the extreme that multiple deaths have occurred over a presumption.

Israel were perceived to be in the wrong because instead of allowing the aid through (partly as per the BBC link that - 'IHH is Turkish aid organisation with strong sympathy among Turkey's ruling party, but is banned in Israel, which accuses it of links to Hamas and al-Qaeda') They instead forcibly stopped people trying to get desperately needed aid into the Gaza strip. It may be clich� but one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, a deeply tragic but true statement.

'Israel says it allows about 15,000 tonnes of humanitarian aid into Gaza every week, but the UN says this is less than a quarter of what is needed.' [1]

The overall main point of contention would be that the land itself after the fall of the Kingdom of Judah 2,500 years ago, has exchanged hands many times and changed names: So now no-Jewish Arabs have also had 2,500 years of history in the area. So since the British Mandate of Palestine[2], and the 1947 in favour vote for the Partition of Palestine[3] you now have two groups demanding equal rights to the land -> In a nutshell that is.

I don't recall a silent agreement between the world and Russia, if anything I think the USA would be the more vocal opposers to Russia than any other country.

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Drollf

Pro

------------Opening------------>
Hello Con, readers. I will start by thanking the Con for taking his position and debating me, I am sure this is going to be an interesting discussion.

This round will be split into the following parts:
1) Making clear why was it necessary, and justified, to block the ships and send them to Ashdod.
2) Proving Israel had no intention to harm the passengers, and that the deaths were forced by the passengers who chose to use violence.
3) Explaining why I think this convoy intended this to happen and by that wanted to increase the hatred against Israel.

<-----------Section 1------------>

In this part I am basically going to show you examples of weapon smuggling into Gaza,
which are the reason for the strict blockade Israel holds around this area. (I assume I don't have to explain why it is important to stop heavy weapons from arriving to Hamas, because you have read round 1 and your logic tells you it doesn't make sense to let terrorists hold weapons.)
For instance, the weapon ship "Karine A" (on its way from Iran to Gaza.):
The boat's cargo included 50 TONS of advanced weaponry including Katyusha rockets, rifles, mortar shells, mines and a variety of anti-tank missiles.

http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...
In addition, weapons are constantly smuggled through the tunnels digged near Rafiah. The weapons that are being smuggled are not defensive weapons but mainly used for attacking. These are missiles, mortals, suicide suits and so on (http://tinyurl.com...) . All of these are non-accurate weapons, meant not to hit a specific military target but to cause fear, destruction and casualties among civilians. – It shows the urge of Hamas to hold weapons, and therefore justifies the inspection of what goes into Gaza.
* If I didn't make it clear – Israel constantly lets food, water, petrol, medical supplies and even electricity into the Gaza strip. (Again, under inspection)

Due to the above, readers and Con, Israel has requested the convoy to sail into Ashdod port, so the cargo can be INSPECTED, and then delivered through land passages to Gaza, under the observation of those who came with the ships, of course. Is this too much to ask? Was there a reason not to agree? I will supply my answer to this question later[*]. But one thing must be clear to all: when it comes to people's lives you don't take chances. This ship had to be inspected.
http://tinyurl.com...
Another thing about the justification. Here is a translation of what Maxime Verhagen, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, said in his parliament (non-official translation):

"By international law, due to the armed conflict with Hamas, Israel is allowed to place a maritime blockade on Gaza and is justified in searching ships for weapons. The responsibility for the results of the attempt to break the maritime blockade lies with those who attempted to break the blockade, assuming that the blockade was properly announced"

(this was said in the Dutch parliament, as a response to a request by some parliament members that the Netherlands will condemn Israel).
See http://tinyurl.com... second paragraph (in Dutch)

If the Cons wills, please refer to the ministers words.

<------------Section 2------------>

In this section I would first like to notify you, that out of 6 ships in the convoy, only one chose to fight, which lead to a loss of life. All of the other ships were also seized by the IDF, but there were no deaths or injuries in any of them.

Israel soldiers did not attack in an act of terror: the navy formally warned and requested the convoy several times to change their course. http://tinyurl.com...
One of the differences between terror and a military action is that terror is done without warning.

My debate partner (DP) said:
"So you soldiers were armed also? Paintball guns a maybe, but it is still a weapon. And you mention a pistol, why would you need a live weapon and only one, if for the majority of the task 'your' troops felt paintball guns were good enough?"

The IDF soldiers were armed with paint-ball guns. Here is an explanation to make this point clear:
Paintball guns are considered as an effective non-lethal weapon (http://tinyurl.com...) . They cause momentary pain, discomfort, but no permanent damage. Law enforcement units around the world use them in cases of large scale civil disorder. They select them because they want to stop the riots, discourage most people from confronting them, and to be able to later identify those who led the riot, those who performed violent actions (such as throwing explosives).
Israel expected the confrontation to be at the level of police vs rioters in a violent demonstration. Israel did not want any of the passengers to be killed. That is why the commando soldiers arrived with paint guns. They also carried pistols (note - pistols, not combat guns), in their pockets. Only when it became obvious that the level of violence expressed against the soldiers is life threatening (and at some moment, when a soldier was thrown overboard by the mob, it seemed as if he was actually killed), and that the passengers (at least those that were on the upper deck) are well armed (with knives, clubs, sharpened metal rods), an order was given to the soldiers to use their pistols to protect their lives and accomplish the mission of stopping the ship. As some of the passengers/rioters captured pistols from the soldiers they lynched, and started shooting at other soldiers, it became a real two sides shooting event.
Israel could act differently, by throwing tear gas over the ship before landing. However, such an act, while not lethal, would have caused pain to all 600 passengers, most of them not involved in any violent act. This would have eliminated the need to actually shoot live ammunition.

<------------Section 3------------->

Here I am returning to my question [*] (from section 2) – (given the facts about the blockade and the offer by Israel to deliver the supplies under their observation) - Why did the convoy not agree to disembark in Ashdod port? If they had nothing to hide, which turns out they didn't, what reason can they possibly had not to co-operate, and by this to force Israel to carry out such an operation, which would obviously lead to such a result? I'll tell you why. And be sure they have planned it.
Dear readers, Con, the target of the flotilla convoy was not to deliver supplies to Gaza, It was to get sympathy from the world and to use it against Israel in a most sophisticated way, arising countless demonstrations, comments, curses and hate against Israel. What seemed at first like a convoy of good will, succeeded to fool you for two days, but no more. The cargo of this ship included nothing in shortage in Gaza http://tinyurl.com..., and basically had the same things Israel sends into Gaza on a regular basis. This story of pure humanitarism is nothing more than a well written play, but the show is over.
The people on the upper deck who fought against the IDF soldiers were not peace activists, but well trained (and well paid) Islamic Jihad activists.
http://tinyurl.com...

<------------Conclusion------------->

Israel had to stop the convoy for inspection, due to the weapon smuggling history of the area.
The repeating refusal of the convoy to go through inspection left no choice to Israel but to get on board the ships. One ship – Marmara, had a team set up for violently resisting the Israeli navy, and it's brutal lynch against the soldiers lead to a fight, which ended up in the death of ten rioters. After taking the ships to Ashdod and inspecting the cargo, it turned out it did not include weapons, but no supplies in shortage either.
To sum, this was, as I said, a script of a play the Hamas successfully got the whole world into. Time to clap hands? I dont think so.
Cogito-ergo-sum

Con

Good day to Pro, good day readers and fellow debaters.

Initial Actions – Rebuttals to Pro's 4 points.

Secondary Actions – Sourced background info on how the situation arose.

INITIAL ACTIONS

1.)
Weapon smuggling is known to go on when a large military force occupies an area and subjects people to be segregated and lowered as a citizen in what is also (in this case) their own country (Most history cases point this out when resistance forces arise due to a country under occupation)

‘If I didn't make it clear – Israel constantly lets food, water, petrol, medical supplies and even electricity into the Gaza strip. (Again, under inspection)' – Please see my round one post – The UN state Israel allow at most one quarter of the aid that is needed. If Israel followed UN regulations, maybe daring humanitarian expeditions would not be needed.

‘(I assume I don't have to explain why it is important to stop heavy weapons from arriving to Hamas,' – Please don't assume, please elaborate this point. Why can Hamas not have weapons yet Israel is allowed to equip the IDF?

‘Assuming that the blockade was properly announced' – Dancing on the head of a pin is the term, I think. This makes of breaks this quote.

2.)
‘One of the differences between terror and a military action is that terror is done without warning.'
Military tactics -

Flanking – Attacking the enemy without warning from the rear/side.

Military assassinations – Covert operatives attacking from an undisclosed location to disrupt the enemy by eliminating key members of the opposing force.

I think both are done without warning.

‘They also carried pistols (note - pistols, not combat guns), in their pockets.'
Since when is a pistol not a combat gun? Combat is engaging with an enemy/prey etc and trying to defeat them, simplest way in this era is to have superior weaponry.

‘Israel could act differently, by throwing tear gas over the ship before landing. However, such an act, while not lethal, would have caused pain to all 600 passengers, most of them not involved in any violent act. This would have eliminated the need to actually shoot live ammunition.'
The Israeli army and navy could have simply barred the ships – as in, put one of their ships in the way – also known as…a blockade. Also tear gas is to cause discomfort and to subdue the opponent(s), pain would only follow due to health issues (reactions etc)

3.)
‘Why did the convoy not agree to disembark in Ashdod port? If they had nothing to hide, which turns out they didn't, what reason can they possibly had not to co-operate, and by this to force Israel to carry out such an operation, which would obviously lead to such a result? I'll tell you why. And be sure they have planned it.'

They tried to get directly to the coast because, as mentioned above – Israel are only allowing at best, one quarter on the required aid. So if they did disembark at Ashdod, given the evidence of Israel's behavior in the past of allowing aid into Gaza, they would have held a lot of it back.

Plus it is ludicrous to not allow cement and steel in because it could be used to house rockets for targeting locations. The consumption of these raw materials into weapons is in a minority. As mentioned in the comments, people's houses are being knocked down.

4.)
‘To sum, this was, as I said, a script of a play the Hamas successfully got the whole world into. Time to clap hands? I don't think so.'

I know it is to be expected for an Israeli to state that it must be Hamas behind everything. But this is based on what? That they happen to be the enemy of Israel and so, anyone doing anything in league with the Palestinian people is an associate of Hamas or is a part of Hamas? Turkey staunchly claims that their representatives in the flotilla were a charity group and not terrorists.

It is a conspiracy theory as of yet obviously unproven that over 600 people are in league with Hamas or have any terrorist inclinations.

This is yet to be proved and is serious form of slander.

SECONDAY ACTIONS

Dear Pro,

As per what you wrote in the comments section, please see the below links just to peruse what the rest of the world is saying and thinking.
It is not wrong of you to be on the side you are on but please, bare in mind you can think against the majority opinion.

‘Judge of a man by his questions rather than by his answers' - Voltaire

‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' - Voltaire

Additional information section.

‘The Carter Center in the United States, founded by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter to advance human rights and alleviate suffering, condemned the attack as "unprovoked and illegal."
"These tragic deaths are a terrible reminder that the failed policy of besieging Gaza mainly hurts civilians," Carter said Wednesday in a statement. He called on the International Quartet comprising the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia to "urgently agree on a mechanism to end the closure of Gaza, reunite the Palestinian factions, and permit unification of Palestinian people in their social and political life."' - http://edition.cnn.com...

‘Israel's Explanation for Deadly Gaza Aid Attack "Full of Holes as a Window Screen"–Former US Ambassador Edward Peck'
http://www.democracynow.org...

Q&A: Israeli raid on aid flotilla
http://news.bbc.co.uk...

Witnesses cast doubt on Israel's convoy raid account
http://news.bbc.co.uk...

Gaza flotilla - Eyewitness accounts of Israeli raid
http://news.bbc.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
Drollf

Pro

I am thankful for my opponent's consideration (view comment section), therefore I wish to cancel this round.
Cogito-ergo-sum

Con

Round cancelled. Debate is now 4 rounds total.
Debate Round No. 3
Drollf

Pro

Hello Con, Readers.
3rd round:

I would like to make the following point clear: Not only that I think, I'm sure, that most of the 600 people onboard the ship were good people, with good intentions, and only wanted to help the people in Gaza. Unfortunately, the group which led to the violence was a group of terrorists, who had different goals,
Main points:

1)
I quote from Con's 2nd round: "Why can Hamas not have weapons yet Israel is allowed to equip the IDF?"
The reason is simple. Hamas is a TERRORIST ORGANIZATION. ("The governments of the European Union, Israel, Japan, Canada, and the United States classify Hamas as a terrorist organization" - http://en.wikipedia.org... ). It uses its weapons not only to defend its self, but also (and mainly) to attack civilians. I have given enough explanations and examples during the previous rounds, but if you hadn't had enough please see
http://en.wikipedia.org... .
Unlike Hamas, Israel (a sovereign state, not a terrorist organization) does NOT act for killing or harming innocent citizens. As I already explained, citizens being killed are those who unfortunately had Co-operated with Hamas, or were forced by Hamas to co-operate. (Co-operation means hosting missile launchers in their houses, hosting Hama's activists in their homes, etc)
You see, this whole thing works like this: Hamas acts for harming Israeli citizens and army forces. Therefore Israel defends its self by killing Hamas's activists. These activists know they can use this for gaining sympathy by making Israel harm innocent population, ‘on the way'. They use babies and children as ‘human shields', shooting from homes, building their bases under the hospital, etc. Israel does its best not to harm population while attacking Hamas's activists, but some cases are unavoidable.
Once Israel has no threats such as Hamas, there will be no need of an army and weapons.
Israel uses weapon for defense, Hamas uses it mostly to harm civilians, as its targets. That's why Israel should equip weapons, and Hamas must not.

"As mentioned in the comments, people's houses are being knocked down."
That's not accurate. TERORRISTS houses are being knocked down.
Get this out of your head, IDF is not a maniac, It does not ruin people's homes for fun, or to make them suffer. This is done as a warning for terrorists, just like I explained in the comment section. The goal is to make the terrorists understand this: You commit suicide and kill civilians -> your house will be destroyed -> you may be in heaven, but your family is more close hell. You care about your family, don't you? -> DON'T DO IT.
you ask why harming his family?
a) they let him suicide in order to kill civilians, they could prevent it.
b) he's dead, you can't kill him.
c) His family is important to him. The house destruction is done to warn the terrorists, not to punish their families. If the terrorist knows his family will suffer for his actions, (we hope) he'll think twice and wont kill innocents.

Relating to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands words (see my Round 2, Section 1 - near the end)
Dear Con. You claim the blockade was not declared properly, or was not known to the people in the convoy, am I right? - " ‘assuming that the blockade was properly announced' – Dancing on the head of a pin is the term, I think. This makes of breaks this quote."
Dancing on the head of a pin: In modern usage, this question serves as a metaphor for wasting time debating topics of no practical value. (http://en.wikipedia.org... )
Well, this has a practical value. It shows that blocking the ships was legal.
I understand you are "breaking this quote" by saying the blockade was not properly announced.
Please watch the following video a few times, (though I've linked it to my previous round) and let me know if you still stand for "Dancing on the head of a pin".
I quote from the video:
Israeli navy: "Mavi Marmara, you are approaching an area of hostility which is under a naval blockade. The Gaza area, coastal region and Gaza harbor are all closed to maritime traffic. The Israeli government supports delivery of humanitarian supplies to the civilian population in the Gaza strip, and invites you to enter the Ashdod port. Delivery of the supplies in accordance with the authority's regulations will be through the formal land crossings and under your observation after which, you can return to your home ports aboard the vessels on which you arrived."
Mavi Marmara: "Negative, negative. Our destination is Gaza."
It was properly announced. They knew what they were doing, and what the sequences are.

2)

as a respond to me saying the following: "One of the differences between terror and a military action is that terror is done without warning."
the Con said: " Flanking – Attacking the enemy without warning from the rear/side. Military assassinations – Covert operatives attacking from an undisclosed location to disrupt the enemy by eliminating key members of the opposing force. I think both are done without warning."

You could also say that shooting your enemy from behind without calling his mobile to tell him is "done without warning." – because, well, it is…
but that's not what I meant. The convoy was warned that it's entering to Gaza strip is not allowed. I don't think Hamas warns every restaurant or coffee house before he sends his suiciders to bomb inside them.

Con: "Since when is a pistol not a combat gun? Combat is engaging with an enemy/prey etc and trying to defeat them, simplest way in this era is to have superior weaponry."
Pistol is a small and less effective kind of a ‘combat gun'. (M-16, Uzi, Ak-47 – these are ‘Combat guns'.)
The pistols were carried, again, as a self defense device for a case things get so violent there is a threat of life. The soldier's lives were threatened, so they were forced to use their pistols.

3)

"given the evidence of Israel's behavior in the past of allowing aid into Gaza, they would have held a lot of it back."
Israel holds back only what could be used as a weapon, such as large knives, slingshots, a few electric generators or things that are not nessecery for the gaza population to survive and have a good chance to serve Hamas as a weapon tool.
" The consumption of these raw materials into weapons is in a minority"
- This is correct, I hope. and therefore Israel does not hold back every metal piece or electrical device. Only things with a high chance to be dangerous are held back.

I would like to end my round here, and I'll refer to the last point in my final round.
Cogito-ergo-sum

Con

Good day to Pro, good day other Debate.org members. Round 3. This round will be reasonably short from my side of the discussion as I intend to make a more lengthy reply in the final round.

1.)
Because of this continual back and fourth of your stating Hamas are terrorists and my position that I actually view Israel to be the Terror State [1] [2], once again I shall simply say – One man's terrorist is another man's Freedom Fighter.
(Video Clip of G. Galloway is to show how exactly Israel act as a terror state)

‘That's not accurate. TERORRISTS houses are being knocked down.' – So by way of proximity, the terrorist's wife, child, brother, sister, mother and father should now be made homeless? Again, you make that assumption of being guilty by association. It is a ludicrous point to make.
So when Israel suspects someone of terrorism, how well do you think they act? See [3] And Palestinian homes are being knocked down because of things like this -> [4] Israelis wanting more and more land to build upon.

‘Well, this has a practical value. It shows that blocking the ships was legal.' – It would have been if it was in the waters that come under Israel's territory, however they did not wait until they were in their territory, they went into international waters and launched an offensive against the flotilla of civilian ships. This is the making of an illegal attack in Open Waters and your only proof of provocation is a short video showing two Israeli naval representatives, trying to command people (again, in open water) to do something they do not want and do not have to do. Israel had no jurisdiction in doing this to 600 civilians at sea.

2.)
‘You could also say that shooting your enemy from behind without calling his mobile to tell him is "done without warning." – because, well, it is…
but that's not what I meant. The convoy was warned that it's entering to Gaza strip is not allowed. I don't think Hamas warns every restaurant or coffee house before he sends his suiciders to bomb inside them.' –
Though I think you have made some possibly sarcastic remarks and puerile ones in this paragraph, what interests me is you saying ‘I don't think Hamas…before he sends his….' What do you mean by He? This comes across in the same fashion as those Rabbis in the IDF and civilian life also coming out with this sort of nonsense that the Palestinian people are Amalekites. [5] [6] Your putting anthropomorphic qualities to Hamas, how and why?

Your Pistol rebuttal did nothing, your trying to justify the gun by showing it is not as bad as other guns - this is a straw-man tactic.

3.)
‘Israel holds back only what could be used as a weapon' – So, on this note, you are stating the UN are wrong when they say that only � of the required aid is getting through? And in fact what they should be saying is that Israel are preventing the other 3 quarters from getting through because they are either weapons, or things that can be made into weapons? May I point out again – ‘required aid' i.e. Medicine, Clothing, Building materials - the list goes on. And the irony is that due to Israel's mismanagement of knowing when to do something, and when not to, please see page 10 of the following [7]

I will end the three points there. In this last section, I would like to once again just show some links to express the varied views of the situation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel 'to reject international ship raid inquiry' –
http://news.bbc.co.uk...

Activist describes ‘horrific' Israeli interception -
http://news.bbc.co.uk...

Israel navy kills four Palestinian ‘militants' off Gaza -
http://news.bbc.co.uk...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Avram Noam Chomsky - Israel is a terrorist state by definition: Chomsky
http://www.tehrantimes.com...

[2]George Galloway: Israel is a Terrorist State

[3]Video Israel Doesn't Want You to See
http://www.youtube.com...

[4] Israel stands firm on controversial building plans
http://news.bbc.co.uk...

[5] Genocide announced
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg...

[6] An Army of Extremists
http://www.slate.com...

[7] U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel – Page 10
http://www.fas.org...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate Round No. 4
Drollf

Pro

Con, Readers.
My final round:

I have read the whole debate a few times, and I noticed it went a bit off its main topic during round 4.

Therefore I will not discuss in this finale:
Whether terrorists houses are destroyed rightly or not (maybe we can debate this as a topic sometime),
Whether the Hezbollah attacked Israel rightly or not (relating to your round 4 post),
Whether Rabbis who compare Palestinians to Amalekites are insane (I had difficulties understanding how is this related to anything, but my opinion is that they are).

What I am going to refer to is the following:

1) Final rebuttals: Again, why was it legitimise to get on the ships and carry pistols
2) Main point and conclusion.
1)
a) For the legitimacy of seizing the ships, I hereby remind you that by the international law, a country may declare and enforce a naval blockade over an entity it is in a war state with. The enforcement may happen in international waters. (Pro Round 2 Section 1)
The Con failed to contradict this statement and attempted to diminish its importance.
Not that only, he also repeated using an argument which is based on the wrong assumption as if seizing the ships was illegal. ("they went into international waters […] This is the making of an illegal attack in Open Waters…")
An example could be United States declaring and enforcing a naval blockade over Cuba, as a part of its embargo over it: http://en.wikipedia.org... .

b) Relating to your pistol argument. You repeatedly insist not to understand that the pistols were not carried for attacking.
You said: "you're trying to justify the gun by showing it is not as bad as other guns".
The unit that carried out the seizing of the ships is trained for combat and usually is armed with combat guns such as M-16, Galil, Ak-47, etc. The fact that they came with paintballs and pistols clearly shows that they came for a police-like mission and not a combat mission. (Police patrolmen use a club for their job, but carry a hidden pistol for self protection as well. They obviously don't mean to shoot people on the street, but if someone risks their lives they may refer to the pistol.) Therefore the distinction between a pistol and a combat gun is very relevant here.

As an alternative for IDF's operation Con suggested the following (Round 2):
"The Israeli army and navy could have simply barred the ships – as in, put one of their ships in the way"
- Naval experts explain that this is not doable, if this is attempted the ships would probably collide causing damage and significantly risking the lives of the 600, mostly civilians. All Israel operations were targeted at not doing this, not harming innocents.

2) Back to the main argument: "The Humanitarians brought not only food to Gaza, but violence and hatred against Israel. "

Con said: "Israel are preventing the other 3 quarters from getting through because they are either weapons, or things that can be made into weapons? May I point out again – ‘required aid'"
- and may I point out – ‘what required aid!?'
Dear readers, Hamas will not let the content of the ship get into Gaza strip! For several times Israel has tried delivering the goods but HAMAS DID NOT ACCEPT IT. http://www.guardian.co.uk... (6/3/2010)
(Hamas claimed it did not accept the supplies because Israel did not release the activists. Israel released the activists and paid for their flight tickets back home the day before this article was published: http://www.dw-world.de... )

This proves that the aid itself is NOT important to the people in Gaza and that the aim of the flotilla was publicity and not humanitarian aid.

Hamas did a much better public relations job then Israel. In fact, it was so much better that for the first 8 hours the Internet was full with dozens of videos and information by Hamas's side of the story (numbers such as 20, 30 and even 40 deaths were published in the media. It was also claimed that the sheikh Ra'id Salah was Injured or killed. That is, off course a lie, that was aimed to steer the Arab world's public opinion.)

I said the flotilla convoy brought also violence. We all agree violence was involved, let me prove it was brought by the passengers: Watch the following video which was taped by the security camera and shows the preparations of the Flotilla rioters.

It is now known that the group of men on the upper deck who confronted the IDF soldiers (and suffered most causalities) were well trained and paid for this ‘mission': http://www.israelnationalnews.com... – the paragraph starting with "Global jihadists were deeply involved…")
Hatred against Israel was the result of this convoy, broadcasted in all online videos and websites. It published a clear message against Israel, putting it in a very dark light, and increasing the world hatred against it.

Now for the summarize and conclusion:

The flotilla convoy gathered supplies (and a group of jihadists) for the Gaza people, and sailed on its way to an area under a naval blockade. When they approached the Gaza shore territory, Israel navy contacted them and requested them to respect the legal blockade and to have their cargo inspected in Ashdod. They refused to do so, and by that forced IDF to stop them by getting on the ships. This was planned as you could see them preparing for the confrontation, in which violence was used against the soldiers on the Mavi Marmara and after serious life threating actions taken by the passenger's side, the soldiers used their pistol to defend themselves and killed 9 armed activists. The ships were then taken to Ashdod port, they were inspected and their cargo was delivered to Gaza. Well, actually it was'nt, because Hamas didn't want it. Wait, what?! HAMAS REFUSED TO TAKE IT. Yes, that's right. This cargo included nothing in shortage in Gaza, and Hamas turned it back. Meanwhile the media team on the ship published countless videos and pictures (some edited and hide the weapons the activists held - http://news.walla.co.il... ) all over the world. Wait, again – what?! A media team..? Exactly what for..? well I guess filming a movie in Gaza or taking pictures of whales was not the plan, this media team was set to capture the events on the ship, and show the world how the IDF stops them. When you try to feed the poor, it's important to buy advanced cameras and set a media team. After the pictures and videos arrived everywhere, presenting Israel as some pirate group, people started asking questions and getting mad at what they saw, and why wouldn't they? This information was aimed for this. Israel had a big mistake letting this information be published for so long without any explanation. That's why I'm doing this debate, to explain to you that the information you received or the things you heard, not only represent only one side of this story, but are also likely to be false or exaggerated.

This is why, I claim that convoy was mostly a provocation, its target was getting sympathy and using it against Israel, and some might even say the plan was to cancel the blockade and then smuggle more weapons into Gaza and attack Israel.

The "Humanitarians" Brought not only food to Gaza, but also violence and hatred against Israel.
I call you to free Gaza, from Hamas, and urge you to vote Pro.

Thank you Con for taking this up and conducting a most interesting debate,
and thank you readers, I hope I affected you.

Raz.
Cogito-ergo-sum

Con

Round 5. Good day to Pro, readers and fellow debaters.

In accordance with Pro's layout of round 5 I surmise on the following -

I will not restrict my point to Terrorists houses only, I will maintain it at houses in general (Backed with link, round 4.) as this a contributing factor to the current situation.

The video was not to relay Hezbollah attacking Israel (I posted that to illustrate the points being made by George Galloway M.P.) That Hezbollah are retaliating against Israel since Israel occupies southern Lebanon.

I never mentioned the mental state of Rabbi's who state that Palestinians are Amalekites. This was to illustrate how Israel are enjoining a battle over land with their own religiosity. It's an attempt to justify what the Israeli army are doing in religious terms.

1.)
a.)
For the illegitimacy of seizing the ships, I hereby remind you that a blockade clearly defines a boundary in occupied waters. Anything beyond that boundary is out of your jurisdiction; you have no authority as to what goes on beyond your border. Your round 2 point 1 does not display a direct link, or quote directly to an official document of law, or pertaining to a specific law explaining the boarding of a ship in international waters. The 'el bloqueo' is poor choice of example as it only displays that such things once started, last. Also note readers, as per the information on the link, this blockade had laws behind it, backed by the U.S. Senate and I have no reasons to suspect (legally) that it breaks any laws regarding international waters.

b.) I will agree that the pistols were not used directly for the purpose of attacking (Though I never made this claim.) Any weapon no matter what its purpose is either going to be used to attack, or secondarily to counter attack. I may sound erratic now, but am I missing something?! I have posted links relating to eyewitness accounts stating that the ships were fired upon first. I don't see it to be too great a leap that if you are fired upon from one ship to another, so aggression has emanated from the Israeli navy, what would you do? Cower? Remember the Humanitarians showed defiance already, it makes sense they would defend themselves.

'Naval experts explain that this is not doable' - All I ask is, why do ships collide then? Because one is in front of the other. Seems plausibly doable to me. I accept it is a risk and there would be injuries, it is in essence though a bargaining move (equivalent to a game of Chicken at sea) these people are humanitarians, not martyrs.

2.)
I can't believe my luck. Am I misreading your links to the Guardian website or Deutsche Welle website? Both sites contain condemning stories of Israel. Again, it is about bargaining. The Aid was refused in order to speed up the release of the 600+ humanitarians held captive. Also note, this aid would have been a bonus to the people of Gaza, not receiving it means/meant nothing changed, they had the same amount of aid (1/4 of what is needed) before the daring attempt by the humanitarians as they did afterwards.

'Therefore I will not discuss in this finale:
Whether terrorists houses are destroyed rightly or not' - You say this yet your link contains the following information -
'Thousands of homes and businesses were destroyed during the three-week Gaza war in 2008-9. The embargo on building materials has left families living in tents, crowded in with relatives or forced to move in to expensive rented accommodation.' - You continually repeat it is only terrorists who are without a home when clearly it is not (Confirmed by a source of your choice)

' (numbers such as 20, 30 and even 40 deaths were published in the media. It was also claimed that the sheikh Ra'id Salah was Injured or killed. That is, off course a lie, that was aimed to steer the Arab world's public opinion.)' - I agree, lying is a horrible thing - which is exactly why no such atrocious stories/links appeared in my debate.

You have no proof that the men engaged with the IDF were terrorists and paid by Hamas. You have articles stating that is so, but none of those articles offer up any proof either - i.e. signed confession, video confessions, evidence of money transfers etc etc it is all alluded to, but never proved.

Summary and conclusion.

The flotilla was a group of humanitarian aid workers on a special convoy to deliver aid directly to the people of Gaza. They did not approach the Gaza shore territory, they were apprehended by the IDF in international waters off shore and beyond the blockade. This was not planned and all the Israeli released footage shows is one man talking into a radio (prior to the IDF boarding the ship), some Humanitarians preparing to defend themselves with whatever was to hand, a night vision video of a skirmish and that's it. Where is the footage of the moment of the radio conversation up to the Humanitarians preparing to defend themselves? Shots were fired as some of the Israeli held captives state.
A media team was on board the ship. To do what? To film the Humanitarian efforts, to show how the people of Gaza are living, to show how little they have.

Why is Israel refusing an inquiry into the event? If you have nothing to hide why be evasive?

Have I only offered an unbalanced worldview? I have offered up information from the BBC, CNN, Democracy Now, Sky News, Noam Chomsky - Tehran Times, Ahram.org and FAS.org all explaining current events. Take it with a pinch of salt if you will, the pages from Wikipedia, but these at least helped explain the back-story to how we got to where we are now.

Pro's choice of words show fire and damnation against the Humanitarians but then followed by 'This is why, I claim that convoy was mostly a provocation' - You either believe it to be totally the case (Pro's role) or not at all (Con's case)

The Humanitarians (I won't cheapen the word with quotation marks) didn't bring only food to Gaza, they brought building materials and medicine also. Violence ensued as a matter of self-defence, not provocation. The Humanitarians brought a glimmer of truth regarding these situations. If there is nothing to hide, why deny an inquiry, or should we all be ostrich's and bury our heads in the Arabian sands and allow War Crimes of Occupation, Disenfranchisement of a native peoples, and the Dissemination of people from their loved ones to continue?

P.S. - If you're sticking to your initial resolution, why have you abandoned your view that anyone not in agreement with Israel are displaying Nazism? You felt this was a fair point to begin with, where has it dissipated to?

Thank you to Pro for being such a noble opponent and for offering a fresh debate with some really good back & forths thrown into the mix.

Please vote how you feel you should.
Debate Round No. 5
60 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Drollf 5 years ago
Drollf
I smell a part II debate coming up straight from turkey... Let's hope it will end differently this time.
Posted by InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
Apparently it doesn't end. It should say.
Posted by Drollf 6 years ago
Drollf
How long is the voting period?
Posted by InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
Only way you could do that is if you somehow got a North American cellphone number.
Posted by Drollf 6 years ago
Drollf
of course I was not trying to vote for myself, though my vote would grand you more points. I wanted to vote in other debats and discovered it's impossible to vote from Israel, since the identity confirmation can not be done from Israel.

If anyone can tell me how to confirm my identity from Israel I would thank him.

And cogito, I would'nt vote for my self, that's just pathetic...
Posted by InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
Yea, it's mostly just North Americans who can vote. This site needs to be updated so everybody can vote. :D
Posted by Cogito-ergo-sum 6 years ago
Cogito-ergo-sum
I never vote in one of my own debates Drollf. I suppose we at least would cancel each other out.
Posted by Drollf 6 years ago
Drollf
It's impossible to vote from Israel. That's quite annoying..
Posted by InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
I support Germany in the World Cup. :P
Posted by Cogito-ergo-sum 6 years ago
Cogito-ergo-sum
@ Insert - why the German flag? I thought you were from the U.A.E? or am I suffering a confabulation?
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by LaL36 4 years ago
LaL36
DrollfCogito-ergo-sumTied
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: If the "humanitarian aid ship" did not have any agenda to resist the blockade and go against Israel, they would have just let it be checked and shipped by other means.
Vote Placed by Shtookah 6 years ago
Shtookah
DrollfCogito-ergo-sumTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Mlorg 6 years ago
Mlorg
DrollfCogito-ergo-sumTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by magpie 6 years ago
magpie
DrollfCogito-ergo-sumTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by gayaznpanda94 6 years ago
gayaznpanda94
DrollfCogito-ergo-sumTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by twsurber 6 years ago
twsurber
DrollfCogito-ergo-sumTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
DrollfCogito-ergo-sumTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by innomen 6 years ago
innomen
DrollfCogito-ergo-sumTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Anacharsis 6 years ago
Anacharsis
DrollfCogito-ergo-sumTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06