Instigator / Pro



The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Contender / Con

Israel should not base the decision to attack gaza or not based off civilian casualties once those civilians were put there purposefully by the enemy. If I was shooting a missile at you from behind a child, you have every right to defend yourself and kill the child, as a matter of responding to aggression. there is no such thing as a proportionate response once babies are beheaded and 9 year olds are raped to death.

Round 1
To start off, I would like to say that no civilian death is desired, and of course I care for and regret the innocent Palestinian deaths. The topic here though is whether or not Israel is to blame for them, and whether or not they can defend themselves to whatever degree they desire. I obviously think they can, and invite the con to introduce his points first
Howdy y'all! 

Thank ya kindly to this new debate. Very interesting moral dilemma presented by pro., EMJ. 

In all due respect, I reject starting this debate. As con, I argue the given argument - which is yet to be given. 

I will add that pro is giving a positive claim within the description. This gives impression that they have burden of proof. By which I would, as stated above, would argue against. 

Therefore, in good standing, I request, you, EMJ - to provide opening statements and your position/claim.  

As an early start to things, I will also ask to include (or define) morality.  Identify whether morality is subjective or objective. Are we to look at morality or ignore morality? 

I look forward to your post. I tip my hat to you. Enjoy your day. 

Round 2
Hey there, I really appreciate the fact that you (not debating yet, so I'll write you) are being so kind and not aggressive. This topic (as is well known ) raises tensions and quickly becomes personal, which automatically ruins any possibility of civil debate. now i will present my opening statements.

The question becomes, what prompted the actions of both parties? I will discuss the less obvious party, the Palestinians first.
               Before even discussing the reasons said by others (which are pretty severe to begin with), the Hamas charter itself speaks volumes about why Hamas does the horrors we have seen (raping babies, shooting kids in front of their mother, etc.), along with countless other acts of terror.
               To Quote the Hamas charter (Full text :

'Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.' (Preamble)

'The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.' (Article 7)
'The day the enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In the face of the Jews' usurpation, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.' (Article 15)

'Ranks will close, fighters joining other fighters, and masses everywhere in the Islamic world will come forward in response to thecall of duty, loudly proclaiming: 'Hail to Jihad!'.

'Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement... are no more thana means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of  Islam... There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad.' (Articl 13)

'The enemies have been scheming for a long time ... and have accumulated huge and influential material wealth. With their money, they took control of the world media...  They stood behind the French Revolution, the Communist Revolution and most of the revolutions we hear about... They stood behind World War I ...and formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains... There is no war going on anywhere without them having their finger in it.' (Article 22)

'Zionism scheming has no end, and after Palestine, they will covet expansion from the Nile to the Euphrates River. When they have finished digesting the area on which they have laid their hand, they will look forward to more expansion. (Article 32) (This is the source of the saying 'From the River to the Sea'. As we shall see later, the people protesting think that it means resistance to Israeli terror, but it means religious death.)

'The HAMA"S regards itself the spearhead and the vanguard of the circle of struggle against World Zionism... Islamic groups all over the Arab world should also do the same, since they are best equipped for their future role in the fight against the warmongering Jews.'(Article 32)

Already we see that the actions of Hamas have nothing to do with being free from the Jewish STATE, rather they wish t be free of JEWS. This is apparent from the several calls they make from the Hamas manifesto to all arabs around the world to murder jews. This makes a separation from the people defending the Gazans right to freedom, and Hamas. People constantly equate the Gazan civilians and Hamas (as well as the people in charge of the PLO, which we will get to shortly), which is mistaken. Hamas does not represent freedom-seeking arabs.
Point 1: We can see from the get-go that the actions of Hamas here were not to get peace and prosperity in Gaza, not to build infrastructure, and not to receive an Arab state (in the conventional sense), rather it was to see a LACK OF A JEWISH STATE. (Please refer below for a response for those claims.)

          Now to address the claims of people BESIDES Hamas, like the western Media who claim that Hamas is doing this as a RESULT of decades of oppression from the Israeli Government, we must go into the history of this land for the Past couple thousand years.

          I really don't understand how people say that the arabs were on the land of Palestine first. Disregarding the fact that "Palestine" as a people is a mixture of immigrants from Mongolia, Russia, Turkey, Armenia, Arab Countries surrounding it etc., and also they only immigrated a couple of decades before 1948, where is the claim that the Palestinians were there first substantiated?

Point 2: History acknowledges that Jews historically had the land of israel from either Joshua (1400 BC) or at least the kingdom of David (c. 1000 BC). There were 2 temples on Jewish land. Roman exile (around 70 CE) gave the name Palestine from the Philistines, and Islam was started over 600 years later.
The Al-aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem is nowhere near the one Mentioned in the Qur'an, and even if it was Muhammed certainly didn't visit it since it was built in 682 (he died around 632).

   This is simply preposterous. In 1917 the Balfour Declaration promised the Jews present-day Israel and Jordan, Called the Mandate of Palestine. in 1920, Arabs began the  Nebi Mussah pogroms out of anger, which prompted the British to say in 1922 that Trans-Jordan would be made an Arab state. In 1937 the Peel Commission (headed by Lord William Peel) suggested that Jews give up everything besides the coast of israel, and some territory up north. This was rejected. in may of 1964 the PLO was founded by arabs (who still had control of the Gaza strip and the west bank), which was made solely to call for the destruction of Israel as a state. in 1967 the Khartoum Resolution was published by the Fourth Arab Summit, which included the Three No's: No peace, No recognition of Israel, and No negotiations with Israel. This prompted the 6-day war, where it beat 7 countries in a week. They got back lots of land back from that war. In 1973 there were more unprompted wars. in 1979, the Sinai was given back to egypt. in 1993 the Oslo accords promised steps to a Palestinian State, with several concessions given. In 2000, Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat over 90% control over the west bank, among other concessions. Without a counter-offer, Arafat walked away and started the Second intifada The list keeps going on and on.

Point 3: Arabs have walked away from every single attempt to make an independent Arab State, so There cannot be any blame on the Jews for not giving up/stealing land from the Arabs.

Again, ridiculous, based off the fact that Gaza was abandoned by Israel. THERE WERE NO BLOCKADES UNTIL HAMAS GOT POWER IN 2007. The only reason why it is blockaded now is because Israel was trying to prevent something like the previous week from happening, which apparently did not work. 
Point 4. Do not blame israel for the oppressive conditions in Gaza. Israel left the Gaza Strip in 2007, and most of the aid that Hamas has received from other countries was used for military equipment (, and there are videos right now that show Hamas ripping up water pipes from underground to make rockets. Also, Israel is not the only one blockading Gaza, Egypt also put up a concrete wall to stop Gazan Migrants/Hamas Operatives from entering.


We Appeal - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.

-Israeli Declaration of Independence
 Arab military radio stations 'ordered' arabs to have a mass exodus from israel, and over 200,000 arabs left even before there was a war (
Notice that no other arab countries took any of the refugees displaced by the war, something which oddly no one seems to care about.
Point 4: Israel did not expel all arabs from Palestine as a result of making the state. At most, arabs were displaced from the war waged by up to 7 other arab countries at a time. if not for these unprovoked wars, much less arabs would have been displaced. Furthermore, Arabs since the beginning have enjoyed full citizenry in israel, even having representatives in gov't. This disproves the Apartheid theory (look up the definition of Apartheid.)

Bearing all this in mind, hopefully we now realize that claims which are made that Gaza was "Building up from years of resentment, decolonizing, etc.," or maybe even that Hamas was "Only a resistance movement" are now completely untrue. This makes the idea of Israeli retaliation much more feasible.

To discuss the concept of a  human shield and proportionate response, I really don't understand the current Opposition's stance. Throughout world history, and indeed in common sense, once an act of aggression is done towards a country, that country will respond in the way it deems fit. I have heard people say that the US should not have started the Afghan war after 9/11, because there were civilian casualties.
This means that Germany shouldn't have been attacked because of the civilians, Japan shouldn't have gotten 2 nuclear bombs after Pearl Harbor, and many other examples of retaliation that NO ONE IS PROTESTING ABOUT. To put it precisely, If you aim a missile at me from you kitchen behind your baby, i will kill your baby to defend myself. Furthermore, do not blame me for putting the baby in harm's way. If Hamas did not have their military operations near hospitals and schools and civilians, the IDF would not be shooting at them. 

Also, even if there were to be an argument for unnecessary civilian death, why is no one blaming hamas for putting their operations there? why is all the blame on israel? this shows something.


Please let me know how you feel about this, along with any responses you have. Good luck!!!

Hey y'all. 
A few questions for EMJ, to better understand your position. 

I accept and acknowledge all points made about Hamas. 
I accept and acknowledge aspects/details about Israel.  
I accept  and acknowledge the historical context provided by pro. 

To confirm. We are debating on whether or not Israel should use violence in or against areas where both Hamas militants (or any armed individual) and innocent/unarmed person(s) exist at the same time. 

Ex 1: a building is targeted for missile attack by (state of) Israel,  while both Hamas and innocent person reside within.  

Ex 2: I have a pistol pointed at you. An innocent woman stands between you and me. You point a gun at me to shoot. 

In this example the question becomes: is it okay to shoot at me if the woman is in the way or at least in the area and may be hurt in some way. 

The question becomes, what prompted the actions of both parties? 

Why should we concern ourselves for what prompted any actions? 

Using ex 2: Does it really matter how or why we all got to standin' in the same area with pistols drawn?  Im asking for relevancy. 

Point 2)
Why are we considering land rights when looking at an act of violence? 

Are we trying to justify a war or individual action? 

Point 4) 
Why are we concerned about "Israel did not expel all arabs from Palestine as a result of making the state [of Israel]?" 

This seems nice and all. But lets say this is Israel acting nice. 
If we translate this to ex 2: lets say you have been a swell dude to me. Giving free food, a place to board, and maybe some other nice things. Does that give warrant to shoot at the woman and me? If yes, why? 

Contradictions in war protests
Why are we concerned about how we respond to wars from different eras? 
We can't protest past wars, there is no point. Who would we complain to? 

However, there are individuals who claim many aspects about past wars are morally wrong. there is nothing we can do to change those outcomes but these persons want to make a point so we do not repeat the past. 

Protesting against an existing war or a war that may occur is in efforts to change a country's direction. There were protests in going to war for every war you listed. These protests have had a greater presence since Korean and Vietnam war.   

For now we are looking at actions undertaken during today's war. Today's war between Hamas and Israel. 

However this section does not apply to whether or not the action described in this debate is warranted or not. If it is moral or not. 

Being specific, we need to know why  it is ok for an attack be launched at an area where there is known mixture of participants. Because if there were Israeli's in that area, that got killed with innocent (non participants) persons among Hamas, we both would be questioning moral/just/logical reasonings behind that attack. 

My position
I promote the idea that the right and wrong in this debate is a question of morals. By which we should come to an objective conclusion in order to agree on a conclusion. 

We inherently view the death of innocence as wrong. Those of us who do not aim to gain a conclusion they seek for themselves. A conclusion to a moral delimma that seeks an absolute one sided benefit. Ignorant to the innocent. 

Why objective? 
Because contradictions demonstrates falsehoods. The debate topic, like many concepts about what we ought to do or ought not to do, possess a correct or incorrect answer. 

Either pro is correct or incorrect. Any subjectivity or contradictions demonstrates that pro is incorrect. 

Therefore I present this question, relating to ex2. Is it ok for me to to shoot with in an area where you and an innocent woman exist?  

Remember. In ex 2, I am the bad guy. I am taking place of hamas. Is it then okay for me to shoot into the area where you and the woman are? 

Yes or no, why or why not? 

I say no. Therefor to have no contradictions; it is not ok to have you shoot into the area where I and the woman exist. 

Ergo. Pro is incorrect. 
Round 3

Hey emj. I presented your arguments on another site. No one has been able to rebuttle your points there. The debate topic was "why be pro israel." 

Interesting info. Thanks for adding them. 
Round 4
Round 5