Is Israel justified in it's attack against Hamas?
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Hanspete
Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
Started: | 7/17/2014 | Category: | Politics | ||
Updated: | 7 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
Viewed: | 1,357 times | Debate No: | 59113 |
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)
I argue that Israel is well justified in attacking Hamas as it has attacked Israel endlessly for almost 10 years.
1st round:Position 2nd round: Arguments 3rd round: Rebuttle 4th round: Closing arguments Please no vulgarity or personal attacks, I don't expect sources so we can debate opinions not facts, facts we'll debate in another debate. Good Luck!
Okay I see your point, but take into account how it all started in the first place. A few years ago I had this idea that if the Jews were to have year long negotiations with the Palestinians like responsible human beings and came to a fair agreement about the distribution of land, they may be justified to respond to acts of violence. But as i remember it, Israel invaded the land, claiming that it was theirs in the first place. I believe the Jews that were doing well in Germany fled and wanted to take control of somewhere else. Because from what I understand, the Jews were doing quite well in Germany and that's why Hitler hated them so much because the Germans themselves suffered from poverty. I cant say that I have been following the complete history between Israel and Palestine, but it has never been fair for the citizens of Palestine to suffer because the Jews think that the entire country belongs to them. In my opinion it is quite barbaric for today's standards, there should be national talks that take place throughout many years of negotiations. Like for example, Iran's nuclear program, it has been years of negotiations and humane actions being taken to make sure everything is in order. I think Israel always takes it way too far, when Palestinians are seeing their fellow innocent civilians being murdered, I think they have the right to show that they can provide themselves with some defense, even though the comparison of terrorizing is far from how Israel has treated the civilians of Palestine, which in my opinion is inhumane and barbaric to today's standards |
![]() |
Alright your history is correct, mostly. Palestinians have suffered of their own accord attacking Israel and then running away squealing to the U.N. For peace talks. Quick comment on Iran, it's a disaster. And in terms of the people of Palestine they are way better off now than they were. I want to ask as question, why are civilian casualties so high? I will give you my answer, but I want to know why you think so. They are high because of three reasons, one Hamas is lunching rockets at Palestinians and blaming Israel, two they are using Palestinians as human shields, and three they are throwing people at the rockets, I am not making that up. Israel's treatment of the Palestinian people is far from barbaric and inhumane, the Israelits gave the Palestinians the entire West Bank to live in and that really has quelled problems between the two group, too an extent of course. Many of the minorities suffer at the hands of their own religious leaders and local leaders, they are gar united unalienable right by the Israeli constitution so long as they follow the law. So let me ask you is that inhumane or barbaric?
I agree that Palestine should have worked with other countries in the U.N. to prove that they are being terrorized and forced to give their land away instead of just getting angry about it and trying to retaliate by whatever they've tried doing from the beginning that obviously hasn't worked. The way the world see's it, its a battle between the two and both are responsible for being too violent, I wont say that either has been more violent than the other because I don't know all the facts. This is not how things should be working these days, killing people is just wrong and both have done their fair share of killing, whether it was innocent civilians or the actual criminals. Also Israel should have worked with the U.N. too, they were wrong for taking matters into their own hands and using military force to take what they claim is theirs, this is the kind of crap people did in medieval times, it is different today and things like this should never have gone this far. But I have to say I cant agree with any of your three reasons because it sounds completely biased, Israel is launching attacks, and so is Palestine...there is no conspiracy to blame anyone and using people as human shields is just an excuse because how can that even be possible unless its close combat? I mean it just sounds like your using the term figuratively which you could relate to that in any case similar to this anywhere in the world. Although I have heard on media sources about those claims but it just doesn't sound right to me. As far as Israel treatment of Palestinians, all I gotta say is they could have done better, at least before this all started back up, and even then it was just let them live with whatever they got. Inhumane? yes I believe so because a caring human being would help others to live a comfortable life, not just throw them out to the West Bank like garbage, leaving them with limited resources and treating them like prisoners and remove them from their own society because they simply think of them as garbage. Israelis have everything America has to offer, but the Gaza Strip had only resources to JUST be able to survive, basic resources, nothing advance, no military, no trade system, nothing. Everyone in the world contributes to other nations for economic growth, the people of Palestine had all that taken away from them. So again yes, it is barbaric and inhumane for today's standards. |
![]() |
In terms of the Gaza Strip, The Palestinians asked just for that so what's there is what they got. The U.N. did not believe (back in 1946) that Palestinians were being terrorized, they still don't or they would've forced Israel to back off, or disarm them. The reason Israel is launching attacks is because Hamas is attacking them. Tell me, if someone is attacking you (Hamas) are you going to sit around and not defend yourself (Israel)? To say Hamas did not say people need to run at the missiles (I.e. Human Shields) is ludicrous, I saw the tweet myself. If it doesn't sound right does it resonate with you logically that a lesser power would do everything possible to maximize casualties to make it look poorly on the greater power, triggering international pressure for the greater power to let up it's attack? Tell me if this doesn't resonate logically and why or if it does and why.
Okay well i was not aware of what the U.N. thought back then. But I am trying to not bring up the fact that it is possible that the UN is being pressured because of financial, political, and regional interests of certain countries because it is based on just a possible conspiracy and may not be the truth. But I guess this debate isn't about the whole idea of Israel invading Palestine, and i see your going back to the point where does Israel have the right to defend itself, or in my opinion retaliate against Palestine? And i still say no because again, it just shouldn't be an acceptable way of dealing with things these days, weapons of mass destruction being used constantly is like complete insanity, from both sides. Hypothetically lets say Hamas or the Palestinians never tried to defend themselves and were just slaughtered for control of their land, maybe then it would be possible for other countries to immediately step in and defend Palestine and like you say disarm Israel. Even now if they would cease fire, Israel would then truly be committing a war crime. Oh and this goes with what you say about them trying to maximize casualties by stepping in front of the missiles, but that's not how you do it, they have a wrong idea but it might actually work if Israel wont stop and actually try to figure something out peacefully. I read a counter cease fire plan by the people of Gaza Strip like 2 days ago in response to Israel's cease fire plan, but it does not seem like anyone is going for any peaceful agreement anytime soon. The plan basically states that they want more freedom which I believe is reasonable, if they are willing to cease fire, and since Israel has plenty resources, they should respond in a peaceful manner, Israel just wants to completely obliterate them from the land. |
![]() |
Israel is not using WMD's clarify that point please. Why doesn't Israel have the right to defend itself?
Just so you know Israel did attempt at peace talks: http://rt.com... Since the rest of your article focuses on Palestine and not Hamas that's all I have to say, I rest my case.
oh man i see what's going on here, you have politics too far up your butt you don't even care about anything else. You are materialistic so your opinion is based on man made crap that will eventually cloud your mind so terribly that I promise you, you will end up in hell. Humanity is being disintegrated, and you are lost and too far gone. I am sorry for you and I hope you find your way as to what is truly important. As a closing argument I'll just say that you can't just be closed minded and the "justification" shouldn't be based on just one thing as you put it. Open your mind fool your brain is a brick. |
![]() |
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Conservative101 7 years ago
Hanspete | HadiHemmat | Tied | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
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: | 6 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments, while shorter, were also better and easier to follow. Con's personal attack on pro at the end makes Pro the person with the better conduct (especially since this was in the rules of the debate).
Vote Placed by Romanii 7 years ago
Hanspete | HadiHemmat | Tied | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
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 showed that Israel's attacks on Hamas were mainly out of self-defense; meanwhile, Con mostly misunderstood Pro's arguments, defending Palestine rather than Hamas, so Arguments to Pro. Con's entire last round was an abhorrent mess of personal attacks, so Conduct to Pro as well. Con's complete lack of of capitalization lost him S&G points as well.
What is Israel suppose to do about an enemy who blatantly breaks cease-fire agreements. We are not talking about past events we are talking about something happening now which is resulting in deaths due to Hamas' complete disregard for human life, Israeli and Palestinian. The only on Israel has is to invade Gaza and hopefully get it in Hamas' head that if you keep attacking Israel there will be consequences.