The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

isreal vs gaza

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/19/2016 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,360 times Debate No: 92910
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)




Hamas which is a terrorist organization shoot Rockets into Israel not at the military at the civilians even if you will say these Rockets are carppy doesn't make a difference if I will shoot shoot crappy Rockets that explode into your backyard at your kids you will retaliate no matter what even if it means that some other people that are innocent will die because your kids go first no matter what you protect your kids first. Now if you're going to tell me that Israel is killed 100 times more the amount that a hamas has killed I will tell you to tell Hamas to stop throwing Rockets. Say some garbage from you that Israel doesn't even belong to exist or let me explain to you that the world did let them in 1947 the world made a vote and they said the Jews have a right to have their Homeland now you want to go back on that 1967 borders my answer to you will be at they didn't start the war with all five countries that started with them and it's not Israel's problem but they won the war now throughout history whoever wins the Wars keep the land especially if now that's only way to be safe and if you disagree with that logic then I'll tell you that the English have the right to take America from The Americans


The Pro states that Hamas launches rockets at "isreali" civilians. Let's begin by acknowledging the fact that, ironically, "isreal" is not real. IsRAEL, however, is a real place and we can only assume that is what the Pro meant.
That aside, the Pro contends that these rockets are being launched at Israel are "aimed at Israeli civilians", however, these rockets are not exactly aimed at Israeli civilians or the Israeli military for that matter. These rockets, the majority of which are homemade Qassam Rockets, which are unguided rockets propelled by a mixture of sugar and fertilizer. They are notoriously inaccurate and clumsy. Often they fail to detonate on impact, or even land inside the Gaza strip or explode on the launch pad. Rockets which land and detonate in Israel usually land in the desert, far from populated areas. This is not to defend the rocket attacks, but to simply state the facts.
The Pro then claims that these rocket attacks are killing Israeli children. However in a ten year period from June 2004 to July 2014, the number of civilians in Israel killed by Rockets fired from Gaza totaled 26, with only 4 of them being minors. Given that in the time period over 7,000 rockets were fired by Palestinian militants, plus more than 3,000 mortars, to say that Palestinian rocket fire posed a great risk to Israeli children would be a gross distortion of the facts.
The Pro then tells me to tell Hamas to stop "throwing rockets", however, there are several problems with this. For starters, the rockets are not being launched by Hamas itself, but rather by its armed wing, the Al-Qassam Brigades, which has a considerable amount of independence from its parent organization, making it very hard to control. The second issue is that the Al-Qassam Brigades are not the only group which fires rockets. The Al-Aqsa Martyrs, the PFLP, Majlis Shura Al-Mujahideen, Tawhid al-Jihad, the Popular Resistance Committees and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad all take part in rocket attacks as well. The PIJ is the most prolific attacker, responsible for the bulk of Rocket Attacks since Operation Pillar of Defense in 2012 (not including Rockets fired during the 50 Day War in 2014). Furthermore, I do not know anyone in the leadership of Hamas or anyone in Hamas at all, and thus, I cannot tell them what to do.
The Pro then presents a strawman argument, claiming I do not believe Israel should exist. This is false. I am a supporter of a two-state solution, specifically the plan proposed in the Arab Peace initiative. The argument presented by the Pro cites the adoption of Resolution 181(II) by the UN in 1947. This resolution, however, did not give Israel the whole of the British Mandate of Palestine and partitioned the area between Jews and Arabs. The 1967 Borders were the border established in 1948 after the first Arab Israeli War, and under UN Resolution 242, are the sole borders of the state of Israel. As to the argument about annexation, under the 4th Geneva Convention and Resolution 242, the occupation and attempted annexation of the territories taken in 1947 is illegal.
The argument presented by the pro does not align with the facts nor does it add up to any justification for the continued occupation of and war against the people of Palestine.
Debate Round No. 1


First the con saying that he does believe Israel does have a right to exist but yet your first statement is Israel is not even a real place the second argument the contender has these Rockets are no good rockets that don't do harm well let me tell you I know a lot of people that live in the West Bank and when Hamas is throwing Rockets are currently running in shelters for fear of their lives I've seen with my own eyes damage that was done from these no-good rockets that you say let me tell you that I saw a 5 year olds bedroom blown up no longer does a 5 year old have a bedroom for one of these no-good Rockets so let's not use the arguing by saying that these Rockets are not good Rockets then you say look at the damage Israel has done compared to the damage that Hamas has done well I will agree with you that Israel has done more damage but not for no reason cuz her Hamas keeps on throwing these rockets at their civilians now like I stated my first argument if I would be throwing rockets at your kids retaliation would be at the highest possible capability that you have then the con says it's not Hamas throwing the Rockets it's other groups in the Gaza Strip but when Israel agree to a ceasefire with Hamas all the sudden the rocket stop going into Israel and then the con says regarding the 1967 borders Israel to give them back well if they give them back the Palestinians power will go into Israel and kill every single Israeli citizen possible and if you want proof behind that broad statement I just said when isreal gave back gaza hamas started throwing rocket's into isreal even tho they said if you give us gaza we will agree to peace


The pro accuses me of saying Israel has no right to exist. This is simply false and a wild accusation that has no basis in reality. What I did say is there is no place called isreal, but there is a place called Israel. If you look at the title of this debate, you will see it says there is a place called "isreal".
The second statement by the con is that I claimed that the rockets don't do any harm. This is false as well. If one of these homemade Qassam Rockets were to land near you and explode, it would most certainly harm you, and possibly kill you, as I acknowledged when I stated the death toll from rocket attacks. What I did argue is that the threat from these rockets is overstated, as demonstrated by their lack of efficacy, and their notorious inaccuracy.
The pro then goes into how he "knows people in the west bank who run to shelters when Hamas fires rockets." This is blatantly false, as the West Bank is well out of range of even the most advanced rockets used by Palestinian militants, and there have been no successful rocket attacks which were launched from the West Bank. He then says he has seen the damage to a 5-year old's bedroom, and uses this as justification as to why we cannot say that these rockets are ineffective and inaccurate. Yet again this does not contradict the facts, which are the rockets used by Palestinian militant groups are ineffective and inaccurate, and when given the probability of being killed in a rocket attack are one in 575 (rough calculations), it is clear that the pro is overstating the danger they pose.
The pro then says the Israeli attacks on Gaza are retaliation for rocket attacks, however in the most recent operation, Operation Protective Edge aka the 50 Day War, the operation was launched as a response to the Reconciliation Agreement between Fatah and Hamas, which had resulted in the creation of a new government, and as retaliation for the murder of three Israeli settlers in the West Bank. It also played into a larger strategy used by Israel called mowing the grass. This is the strategy of launching attacks on Gaza sporadically with the intention of making it impossible for Palestinians to build up their infrastructure or economy and keep the administration in Gaza unable to operate with the Palestinian National Authority in the West Bank.
The con then critiques the fact that Hamas is not the only faction in Gaza, saying "when Israel agree to a ceasefire with Hamas all the sudden the rocket stop going into Israel." This argument glosses over the fact that the ceasefire was not only reached with Hamas leaders, but with leaders of the other factions in Gaza as well.
As for the argument against the 1967 borders, the pro claims that if Israel were to end its illegal occupation and attempts at annexation, of the West Bank, the Palestinians would kill all Israelis. He backs this up by stating Hamas said they would trade Gaza for peace, however this is simply untrue. The withdrawal from Gaza was a unilateral decision made by the Israeli government, it was not the result of negotiations with the Palestinians. Hamas, which at the time was still committed to a one state solution, a stance they have since changed, never made any promise. Furthermore the Pro is completely ignoring the fact that while the Troops and settlements may have left Gaza, Israel did not relinquish total control, as they then chose to implement a total blockade of Gaza turning it into what the UN has called an "open air prison", and the continued occupation of the West Bank, which people in Gaza oppose as well. By adopting the 1967 borders the basis of a peaceful settlement will be created. Nearly every proposed peace plan involves the 1967 Borders and UN Resolution 242.
Debate Round No. 2


I'm really confused first he says Israel does have a right then he says there's no place called Israel so I don't know what wants Israel does have a right to exist or so you saying that there is no Israel so it does not have a right to exist. Then the con says agrees that these Rockets to do harm just not so much harm I deer anybody to go online and see what these Rockets do will see that they blow holes in people's houses so if I throw a million rockets at your house and only one hits that not enough for retaliation especially when your kids live in your house that's why Israel retaliates the way they do. Now the con says that these Rockets don't hit the West Bank well any of these viewers can go online and see that these Rockets to hit the West Bank Chevron as part of the West Bank so we see the con has lied about this. Then the con says one out 575 can kill a person because he agrees they can do damage well shine if I throw rocket's at your kids and only one out of 575 will hit sure your response will be very harsh to your highest capability.except if you don't mind having a one out of 575 chance of dieing which most normal people would have especially if wete talking about your family. Then the con says it wasn't the rocket's that caused the 50 day war it was that hamas kidnapped and slaughtered innocent civilians well gee I'm sure that's not a good reason to retaliate all I did was kidnapped three teenagers and kill them when they didn't do anything. Oh amd he forgot to mention hamas build terror tunnels that lead into isreal to kill innocent civilians and how do I know they created one of these tunnels because one terrorist was captured and he said on the holy day for the Jews when there not ready we will kill then now this is online if any viewers will Google this. Then the con says there more the one power in gaza because isreal agreed to a ceasefire with more then one terrorist group well let's see if there a bunch of groups in gaza over 10000 people with is supposed to be there own country maby that's a problem and that's why there acnomy isn't growing you cant have many groups running ten thousand people. Because everybody wants full power so there always fighting not in combat but buy destroying there rivals in ways that the civilians would think that's the right government we should have. So it comes out that no stable government now any place that doesn't have a stable government can't have A normal economy so let's maby out aome blame on the people living there and yes there a blockade on the gaza strip well any viewers can go online and see how many times the isrealis found weapons from Iran or anywhere else trying to come into gaza the see many stories so in a normal person that should be a reason to have a blockade because there not using these weapons for piece. And let me say isreal when left gaza for the first time did not have a blockade on the gaza border any viewers can check that on Google and know what happened gaza started throwing rocket's at isreali civilians because they wanted More land that's non excusable to throw rocket's at civilians now you except the isrealis to give more land then trust the Palestinian I don't think so because you see there just not trust worthy. Not for all judges I know the con will say I'm not saying the truth all I am is to confirm on Google every thing you hear and have a opens kind because then you be will get nowhere because if your buyis to one side you just see what you want like our con. Amd sorry for all the spelling mistakes i do this out of my phone and I don't prepare for this just state my opinion I hope you don't judge that. Thank you amd O's this argument is a bit people seeing the truth of life and putting out feet into other people shoes even if they seem like the bad guy


I will begin my final argument by clarifying what I mean. I do believe that Israel has a right to exist as a state of all its citizens within the 1967 borders. However, there is no such nation as Isreal, as in Is and Real. This is what the title of this debate refers to and the Pro refers to this nonexistent nation throughout the debate as well as the State of Israel.
As to the rocket issue, I have never contended that the rockets are not dangerous, all I have contended is that only 1 in 575 rockets launched over a ten year period caused a fatality. And it is clear that such a minor threat does not warrant such a massive retaliation causing more casualties than these rockets could ever cause. During the 50 Day war, roughly 1,939 Palestinians were killed by the Israeli military, 1,700 of them are believed to be civilians. Meanwhile the number of deaths from rocket and mortar attacks for the entire year of 2014 was six. There is simply no justification for this at all, especially given that the actions taken by the State of Israel as “retaliation” amount to massive war crimes. While the rocket fire is itself also a war crime, it is a comparatively less serious war crime than the mass murder and targeting of civilian areas, the use of chemical weapons like white phosphorous and the collective punishment on citizens of Gaza. As to the issue of rocket attacks on the West Bank, while there are 3 known instances where rockets fired from Gaza landed in the West Bank, the number of rockets fired FROM the West Bank is zero, and this is what I referred to in my last argument.
The pro does acknowledge that the specific reasoning for the 50 Day War was the retaliation for the killing of three Israeli settlers in the West Bank, however he says that this is perfectly legitimate, when in fact it is not, as the kidnapping and murder took place in the WEST BANK, not in Gaza, which Israel attacked. There is simply no link which justifies this argument.
While it is true that there are, or rather were, tunnels from Gaza going into Egypt and a smaller number going into Israel, the characterization of these tunnels as “terror tunnels” is rather disingenuous. While it is true that the tunnels were used in the capture of Gilad Shalit in 2006, the only other time the tunnels were used to facilitate paramilitary operations was during the 50 Day War in 2014, and the attacks were all on Israeli military outposts, which, under the Geneva convention, are considered legitimate military targets. Therefore the Characterization of these tunnels as “Terror tunnels” does not align with the reality. The reality is that the main purpose of these tunnels is smuggling. Due to the Israeli blockade of Gaza, and the strict restrictions on anything going into Gaza, the tunnels have served as a way to bypass the blockade, allowing everything from toys to weapons to illegal drugs to enter Gaza. Prior to the 50 Day War, the tunnels were the only thing which allowed for the economy of Gaza to operate. Since then, the economy has been unable to recover as Israel has made it nearly impossible for building materials to enter Gaza, which in turn makes rebuilding efforts inside Gaza impossible.
The Pro mischaracterizes the situation in Gaza, stating that there are multiple groups who run gaza, this is false. While roughly a dozen armed paramilitary groups do operate inside the Gaza strip, there is still a political administration, run by members of Hamas who were elected during the 2007 election. There is a police force, and civil court system and other basic forms of civil authority. The issue is that due to the blockade, communication and coordination with the National government in the West Bank is impossible and thus no elections have been held since 2006. It is not the lack of political control that causes the poor state of the economy in Gaza, but the blockade which has made it impossible to conduct trade or business and thus it is difficult for many in Gaza to find work.
And while the blockade may have been formally implemented in 2006, prior to then Gaza was declared a “closed area” by the Israeli authorities, which meant that entry into Gaza was banned unless you were an Israeli soldier or settler. The firing of rockets had begun prior to the withdrawal from Gaza in 2006, but continued afterwards to fight back against the blockade, and as a part of a broader armed strategy to force Israel to leave the West Bank and East Jerusalem and allow for the creation of a Palestinian State.
In conclusion, in this debate I have demonstrated that the State of Israel is not justified in its actions against Gaza. The pro has contended that the rocket fire from Gaza justifies retaliation against Gaza, however these rockets seem to mostly harm strawmen, as the fact is that these rockets are not actually as dangerous as the Pro would like to have you think, especially when compared to the capabilities of the Israeli military. The Pro a case which lacks coherence, evidence and grammar, and is riddled with fallacies, inaccuracies, and statements which are plainly untrue. The pro tells you to google what he says, however you cannot go an entire debate without providing any evidence and then tell people to google your claims in order to give them legitimacy. I have provided sources throughout this debate, which support my claims and have relayed the facts provided by them to you along with analysis of these facts, as one is supposed to do in a debate. The fact is that the Pro’s case does not align with the facts and if he cannot provide evidence to support his claims they cannot meet the burden of proof.
Thank you and Vote Con.

Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by paugom 2 weeks ago
Thanks for sharing

http://www. Productosbancarios. Net/creditos-rapidos/
Posted by thutrangctp 7 months ago
I know there will be many difficulties and challenges but I am determined to do it. If it does not succeed then it will be a lesson for me as well
Posted by redball4 1 year ago
Thanks for sharing the information. It is very useful for my future. keep sharing. Can you play more games at :
Posted by mortalkombatx 2 years ago
I needed to send you the tiny remark so as to say thank you over again over the amazing things you"ve shared at this time. , , ,
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Advice for pro: Learn to use commas, period breaks, evidence, definitions, etc.
Advice for con: Please add an extra space between your paragraphs when debating here, it would not work on an academic paper, but online it improves readability.

S&G: The errors piled up enough that con had to correct them in order for the debate to make any sense, the absence of even a single comma, the single paragraph wall of text, etc. This spilled over into arguments even more when pro tried to strawman con's whole case for correcting his spelling of Israel.

ARGUMENTS: Con did very well in trying to make sense of this debate resolution, and provided a lot of good knowledge, but he was against the stiff competition of how hard to read and follow pro was, I cannot actually make sense of what pro was trying to say even with the resolution itself to grade success or failure in arguments (this is how awful S&G were).

SOURCES: I'd consider leaving this tied, if not for pro's repeated "Google" his case for him request, which against the comparison of con's various sources is a strong negative. Con's sources on the other hand were incredibly informative on the general topic, such as NYTimes report on the awful awful-rocket attacks, and's review on the ten year death rate from those same attacks, of which they murdered about half as many of their own people with them to include twice as many children (side note: a decent comparison could be made between those attacks and drunk driving).
Posted by BrendanD19 2 years ago
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: ThinkBig// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Con (S&G, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: This debate was painful to read. RFD in comments.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter explains why Pro's responses to Con's arguments aren't effective, but not why Con's arguments were effective and netted him the debate. The voter is required to assess specific arguments made by both sides. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to do more than generalize on this, as they must explain what the sources supported and why it was relevant to the debate. Even if only one side used sources, that's still necessary.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: 42lifeuniverseverything// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Con (S&G, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: There were no rules, and no forfeits so conduct is tied. Con wins S&G because Pro couldn't even spell Israel right. Much less other words. Sources go to Con because Con was the only one to cite sources. Arguments go to Con because of a couple reasons. A) Pro had an unthoughtful position on the rockets, also no good facts. B) Pro made a strawman fallacy, lowering Pro's credibility. C) Finally Pro ends up confused by the end of the debate, Pro's thinking and organization are messy, and Pro's grasp of what constitutes a good rebuttal is non-existent. D) The argument on borders is won by Con because the borders Con supports are a split state solution. Pro wants the current borders apparently, but never offers a reason that is good. Instead Pro attempts to suggest Con wants the 1967 borders, which is not true. I VOTE CON.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter explains why Pro's responses to Con's arguments aren't effective, but not why Con's arguments were effective and netted him the debate. The voter is required to assess specific arguments made by both sides, and merely stating that one side supported their case isn't enough. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to do more than generalize on this, as they must explain what the sources supported and why it was relevant to the debate. Even if only one side used sources, that's still necessary.

Note: S&G is close on this one. It's unclear how misspellings impeded the voter's ability to read the debate, but upon looking at the arguments I can see where that might be a problem. In the future, be specific.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.